The Reception of Aeschylus in Sicily

Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aeschylus Edited by Rebecca Futo Kennedy LEIDEN | BOSTON For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV Contents Acknowledgements ix List of Figures x List of Abbreviations xii Author Biographies xiii Introduction: The Reception of Aeschylus 1 Rebecca Futo Kennedy Part 1 Pre-Modern Receptions 1 The Reception of Aeschylus in Sicily David G. Smith 2 The Comedians’ Aeschylus David Rosenbloom 9 54 3 Aristotle’s Reception of Aeschylus: Reserved Without Malice Dana LaCourse Munteanu 88 4 Aeschylus in the Hellenistic Period 109 Sebastiana Nervegna 5 Aeschylus in the Roman Empire George W. M. Harrison 129 6 Aeschylus in Byzantium 179 Christos Simelidis Part 2 Modern Receptions 7 Aeschylus and Opera Michael Ewans 205 8 Aeschylus in Germany 225 Theodore Ziolkowski For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV vi contents 9 Inglorious Barbarians: Court Intrigue and Military Disaster Strike Xerxes, “The Sick Man of Europe” 243 Gonda Van Steen 10 Transtextual Transformations of Prometheus Bound in Percy Bysshe Shelley’s Prometheus Unbound: Prometheus’ Gifts to Humankind 270 Fabien Desset 11 Aeschylus and Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus, by Mary Shelley 292 Ana González-Rivas Fernández 12 An Aeschylean Waterloo: Responding to War from the Oresteia to Vanity Fair 323 Barbara Witucki 13 Form and Money in Wagner’s Ring and Aeschylean Tragedy 348 Richard Seaford 14 Eumenides and Newmenides: Academic Furies in Edwardian Cambridge 362 Patrick J. Murphy and Fredrick Porcheddu 15 The Broadhead Hypothesis: Did Aeschylus Perform Word Repetition in Persians? 381 Stratos E. Constantinidis 16 Persians On French Television: An Opera-Oratorio Echoing the Algerian War 408 Gabriel Sevilla 17 Aeschylus’ Oresteia on British Television 430 Amanda Wrigley 18 Orestes On Trial in Africa: Pasolini’s Appunti per un’ Orestiade Africana and Sissako’s Bamako 455 Tom Hawkins 19 Reception of the Plays of Aeschylus in South Africa 474 Kevin J. Wetmore, Jr. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV vii contents 20 In Search of Prometheus: Aeschylean Wanderings in Latin America 488 Jacques A. Bromberg 21 Avatars of Aeschylus: O’Neill to Herzog/Golder Marianne McDonald 22 The Overlooked οἰκονομία of Aeschylus’ Agamemnon and Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining 528 Geoffrey Bakewell 23 “Now Harkonnen Shall Kill Harkonnen”: Aeschylus, Dynastic Violence, and Twofold Tragedies in Frank Herbert’s Dune 553 Brett M. Rogers 24 “Save Our City”: The Curious Absence of Aeschylus in Modern Political Thought 582 Arlene W. Saxonhouse 25 Political Theory in Aeschylean Drama: Ancient Themes and their Contemporary Reception 603 Larissa Atkison and Ryan K. Balot Index 509 625 For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV CHAPTER 1 The Reception of Aeschylus in Sicily David G. Smith Aeschylus Utique Siculus Is any Athenian more Athenian than Aeschylus? Yet already in antiquity, some would go so far as to ascribe to the greatest Athenian playwright an at least partially Sicilian identity. Macrobius, for example, cites Aeschylus’ play Aitnaiai as his first authority during a discussion of native Sicel cult practices, calling its author vir utique Siculus (“practically Sicilian,” Sat. 5.19.17).1 Similarly, when the scholia to Aristophanes discuss the size of the Aetnaean beetles, they cite fragments by authors local to the region (ἐπιχώριοι): Epicharmus of Sicily (Herakles Ho Epi Zostera “Bra-Snatcher” fr. 65 KA) and Aeschylus of Athens (Sisyphus Petrokylistes “Rock-Roller” fr. 233 R), who is τρόπον δέ τινα καὶ Αἰσχύλος ἐπιχώριος (“in a certain way a local, too,” Σ Ar. Pax 73b).2 For both sources, the question is not whether Aeschylus was Sicilian, but how much he was (τρόπον τινα) or was not (utique) Sicilian. Furthermore, we must admit that, since the beetle appears not only also in Sophocles’ Daidalos (fr. 162 R) and Ikhneutai (fr. 307 R), Plato Comicus’ Heortai (fr. 36 KA), and Aristophanes’ Wealth, it cannot be merely the beetle per se that makes Aeschylus—of all these—the only one τρόπον τινα ἐπιχώριος “somehow a local” of Sicily. It seems that Aeschylus is so honored because he was chronologically first; and these sources have presumed that as the first, Aeschylus learned Sicilianisms “for real,” while all later authors are, perhaps, considered to have learned them from him, not—like he did—from Sicily. In other words, what matters is not who mentions this beetle and who doesn’t, but what later people thought was variously significant about the many authors who mentioned it.3 Aeschylus in Sicily, therefore, is more about reception than, at first, it might appear. 1 Herington 1967, 79 n. 28 thinks utique “assuredly, undoubtedly, particularly Sicilian” must be wrong and suggests we read something like quasi “almost, nearly, as it were, Sicilian” instead. 2 See Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén 1994. This beetle also appears on a unique tetradrachm of Aetna dated to the late 470s or 460s, now in Brussels (de Callataÿ 2010). 3 See Bosher 2013 on the question of how much western Greek and other regional theater traditions would have been recognized as such in antiquity. Easterling 1994 suggests that local language could have been placed by playwrights in anticipation of foreign performance. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/97890043488�0_003 For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 10 Smith Adding to this suspicion, Athenaeus (9.402bc), referring to Aeschylus’ use of the Sicilian word ἀσχέδωρος (wild boar) in Phorkides (fr. 261 R), says, “Since Aeschylus spent some time in Sicily, it is not surprising that he has used many Sicilian words.”4 Again, the focus is on language as a bearer of cultural identity.5 Here, however, what appears to be a transparent ancient statement about how we should receive Aeschylus (i.e. because he lived there, it’s obvious he’s using Sicilian language) disguises a set of problematic questions about the relationship between Aeschylus’ “Sicilianisms” and his “Sicilianicity”: how did Athenaeus and his sources know Aeschylus spent time in Sicily, if not from the hints left in the language of the Aeschylean texts available to them?6 Was there ever an independent, external tradition?7 The evidence allows a spectrum of responses. Optimistic answers to these questions are connected to a maximalist reading of his Sicilianicity, which will require us to review unskeptically the evidence of various types of alleged Sicilianisms across the corpus of his plays, fragments, and testimonia. Thus, we consider first, what people say about his life in Sicily; second, what his plays and fragments tell us about his life in Sicily; and finally, what his influence and legacy in Sicily might have been. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a skeptical response 4 5 6 7 Naturally, foreign references should not lead us to presuppose the foreign identity of their authors: see Griffith 1978, 107. Eustathius (Comm. ad Od. Vol. 2.211 Stallbaum) probably repeats the passage from Athenaeus, but because he here introduces the etymology with “as it lies in a rhetorical work,” and because the word for pig appears elsewhere in Eustathius (Comm. ad Il. Vol. 2.801) and in the lexicographers (e.g. Hesychius s.v.), there may have been another source such as Aelius Dionysius or Aristophanes of Byzantium. For language as a bearer of cultural identity in ancient Greece generally, see Hall 1997, and for Sicily in particular, see Willi 2008 and 2012. With respect to Aeschylus’ allegedly Sicilian patois, Aly 1906 considered 13 words with supposed Sicilian influence and accepted nine of them as probable—not enough, however, he thought, to justify Athenaeus’ claim of Sicilian Aeschylus as anything more than imprudenter dictum. Stanford took up the cause again in 1938, not only reconsidering Aly’s list of words and adding others, but also considering a wider array of possibly western influences including Pythagoreanism, and concluded the opposite about Athenaeus, i.e. that Aeschylus was Sicilian “enough,” even though four of Stanford’s (1938, 231) Sicilisms are from the Suppliants, which confounded interpreters when the play was thought to antedate any of Aeschylus’ visits to Sicily (see below). A few years later, when Lobel edited new fragments of Aeschylus’ Diktyoulkoi (POxy 2161), a satyr play on a Perseus myth, he was willing to tentatively suggest that five Doric words among the fragments were also Sicilian in origin. Herington 1967 too was positive, but in 1977 and 1978, Griffith decimated the lexical case for Aeschylus in Sicily by taking Prometheus Bound out of the equation (cf. West 1979). See Herington 1967 and Lefkowitz 1981, 70–7. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 11 to these questions is based on a minimalizing reading of Aeschylus in Sicily, which might argue that even the strongest pieces of our evidence—evidence linking peformance of Aitnaiai and Persians to Sicily—is so little and late that connection to Hieron’s patronage would have been the obvious biographical invention. A history of attempts to place him on this spectrum going all the way back to antiquity proves the point that Aeschylus in Sicily is properly a matter of and for reception. Aeschylus in Sicily By the 2nd c. CE, it seems that men like Pausanias, when discussing the commonplace of men of letters who travel to the courts of tyrants, could assume without further explanation that Aeschylus and other famous poets of his era would have frequented the court of Hieron of Syracuse: καὶ ἐς Συρακούσας πρὸς Ἱέρωνα Αἰσχύλος καὶ Σιμωνίδης ἐστάλησαν (“Aeschylus and Simonides went to Syracuse, to the home of Hieron,” 1.2.3).8 The existence of this commonplace was not new, as the priamel of Pindar’s Olympian 1 reminds not only us, but also reminded Pausanias that for poets of that era to be at Hieron’s court was better than water, the sun, gold and the Olympics all rolled up in one.9 If Aeschylus is to be present at the court of Hieron in Syracuse (i.e. between 478 and 467 BCE), then, the bare chronological parameters of his visits to Sicily should be represented by the following testimonia. 1.) Vita Aeschyli 9, an undatable compendium of mostly biographical information appended to some manuscript traditions before the 11th c. CE:10 ἐλθῶν τοίνυν εἰς Σικελίαν Ἱέρωνος τότε τὴν Αἴτνην κτίζοντος ἐπεδείξατο τὰς Αἰτναίας οἰωνιζόμενος βίον ἀγαθὸν τοῖς συνοικίζουσι τὴν πόλιν (“Having gone to Sicily just when Hieron was founding Aetna, Aeschylus produced the Aitnaiai as a way of wishing the inhabitants of that city a good life”). 8 9 10 Paus. 1.2.3. Aeschylus’ presence in Sicily may have been attested already in the Hellenistic period in a fragment of Eratosthenes of Cyrene (3rd–2nd c. BC), who reports a performance of Persians in Sicily that probably presumes the presence of its author as well; see below and Bosher 2012, 103 for references to debate on this point. See Gentili 1988, 115–54 and Woodbury 1968. The numeration of the Vita Aeschyli in this essay follows the 1914 Teubner edition of Wilamowitz, the 1952 Oxford text of Murray, and the Appendix to Herington 1967. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 12 Smith Diodorus 11.49.1–2 places the foundation of Aetna by Hieron in 476/5, presumably a terminus post quem for performance of the Aitnaiai and seemingly for Aeschylus’ first attested visit to Sicily.11 2a.) Eratosthenes of Cyrene (fr. 109 Strecker, preserved in Σ Ar. Ran. 1028), a 3rd– 2nd c. BCE author of On Comedy: δοκοῦσι δὲ οὗτοι οἱ Πέρσαι ὑπὸ τοῦ Αἰσχύλου δεδιδάχθαι ἐν Συρακούσαις, σπουδάσαντος Ἱέρωνος, ὥς φῆσιν Ἐρατοσθένης ἐν γ᾽ περὶ κωμῳδιῶν (“This Persians seems to have been performed by Aeschylus in Syracuse at Heron’s invitation”). 2b.) Vita Aeschyli 18: φασὶν ὑπὸ Ἱέρωνος ἀξιωθέντα ἀναδιδάξαι τοὺς Πέρσας ἐν Σικελίαι καὶ λίαν εὐδοκιμεῖν (“They say that, esteemed by Hieron, Aeschylus reperformed Persians in Sicily”). Persians was performed in Athens in 472 (TrGF 1.4–5). However, if we follow Eratosthenes’ δεδιδάχθαι (2a)—which is the word for performance, not reperformance—Persians in Sicily should be before that. If, on the other hand, we follow the Vita’s ἀναδιδάξαι (2b)—the proper word for reperformance—this would have been after 472. Aeschylus’ next known production is the Theban tetralogy in Athens in 467 (TrGF 1.4–5). Plutarch’s anecdote about him stomping off to Sicily in a huff after Cimon and his fellow generals awarded the dramatic victory to Sophocles’ first performance probably accounts for his whereabouts in 468.12 If he was busy producing in Athens in 467 and 468, and Hieron was dead by 467, then a reperformed Persians in Deinomenid Sicily should have taken place between 472 and 469. Does this evidence allow Persians and Aitnaiai to have been produced on the same visit (reducing the overall number of visits from three to two)?13 If Persians was not first performed in Sicily, then the first year it could have been produced after both Aetna’s foundation and Persians’ Athenian production is 471/0. This year ought to be the jackpot, for it seems to yield us also none other than Pindar’s Pythian 1, celebrated in the 29th Pythiad for Hieron of Aetna. This celebration seems to have commemorated a successful foundation in several media, as part of a panhellenic and anti-barbarian Aetna “Fest” (on which, see more below). However, the otherwise attractive scenario that includes Aitnaiai with 11 12 13 Neither Bacch. 5 nor Pind. Ol. 1, both written for Hieron’s victory in 476, mention Aetna yet. Plut. Cim. 8: Αἰσχύλον περιπαθῆ γενόμενον καὶ βαρέως ἐνεγκόντα … εἶτ᾽ οἴχεσθαι δι᾽ ὀργὴν εἰς Σικελίαν; but cf. Vita 8: ἀπῆρεν δὲ ὡς Ἱέρωνα, κατά τινας μὲν ὑπὸ Ἀθηναίων κατασπουδασθεὶς καὶ ἡσσηθεὶς νέωι ὄντι Σοφοκλεῖ, κατὰ δὲ ἐνίους ἐν τῶι εἰς τοὺς ἐν Μαραθῶνι τεθνηκότας ἐλεγείωι ἡσσηθεὶς Σιμωνίδηι. For chronologies and their supporters, see TrGF 3.61–2 testimonia s.v. ‘Itinera in Siciliam.’ For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 13 a reperformed Persians in Sicily along with Pythian 1 in 471/0 must explain why a city said to have been founded in 476/5 would be celebrated so many years later by a drama said to have been commissioned at the time of (τότε) the city’s founding. Some assume a lengthy period for the foundation for Aetna, allowing for the monumental amount of social engineering described by Diodorus (two cities depopulated and replaced with 10,000 new immigrants), the maturation of Hieron’s son (the young King of Aetna, Deinomenes II: Αἴτνας βασιλεῖ, Pind. Pyth. 1.60), and/or the reconstruction of Catania following an eruption of Aetna in 476.14 A notorious problem with Pythian dating further frustrates any unequivocal interpretation: Pythiad dates begin either from when the first prize was awarded, in 586, putting Pythian 1 in 474, or from when the first crown was awarded, in 582, which puts Pythian 1 in 470.15 This, unfortunately, becomes a distinction of utmost importance for reception, as it constrains our ability to decipher the relationship between the Siceliote-panhellenic rhetoric of Pindar’s Pythian 1 and the otherwise presumably watershed development in Greek/Athenian cultural identity represented by Aeschylus’ Persians in 472. A minimalist interpretation could emphasize, on the other hand, that, in fact, we have no certain date at all for any of the three performances, and efforts to make Aitnaiai, Pythian 1, and Persians all line up are merely speculative. 3a.) The Parian Marble (BNJ 239 F A59), a Ptolemaic-era inscription from Paros containing chronographic information about major events and figures in Greek history: ἀφ᾽ οὗ Αἰσχύλος ὁ ποιητής, βιώσας ἔτη Δ ΙΙΙΙ, ἐτελεύτησεν ἐγ [Γέ||λ]αι τῆς Σικελίας, ἔτη Η ΔΔΔΔΙΙΙ, ἄρχοντος ᾽Αθήνησι Καλέ[ ]ου τοῦ προτέρου “[From that time to the time when] Aeschylus the poet, having lived for 69 years, died in Sicilian Gela was 193 years, in the archonship of Callias the Younger [i.e. 456/5 (cf. Σ Ar. Ach. 10)].” 3b.) Vita Aeschyli 10: καὶ σφόδρα τῶι τε τυράννωι Ἱέρωνι καὶ τοῖς Γελώιοις τιμηθεὶς ἐπιζήσας τρίτον ἔτος γηραιὸς ἐτελεύτα (“Especially honored by the tyrant Hieron and by the Geloans, he died an old man after three years [in Gela]”). Aeschylus’ production of the Oresteia in 458 is his last dateable appearance in Athens, so a terminus ante quem of 456/5 for the end of the last visit (i.e. his death) suits all available data. These chronological parameters—Aitnaiai during or after the foundation of Aetna in 476/5, Persians before or after 472, and death in 456/5 after three years in Gela—have remained largely unchallenged since Herington’s defense of them in 1967. 14 15 Cf. Luraghi 1994, 336–46. The dispute arises mostly over Paus. 10.7.2–7; Miller 1978 defends 586/5 while Mosshammer 1982 defends 582/1. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 14 Smith We have seen that Hieron’s patronage plays a role in the accounts of all three visits, although our explicit source for this remains solely the Vita: the production of the Aitnaiai was because he οἰωνιζόμενος βίον ἀγαθὸν τοῖς συνοικίζουσι τὴν πόλιν [Aetna] (Vita 9), the production of Persians was because he ὑπὸ Ἱέρωνος ἀξιωθέντα … καὶ λίαν εὐδοκιμεῖν (Vita 18), and his retirement to Gela took place because he καὶ σφόδρα τῶι τε τυράννωι Ἱέρωνι καὶ τοῖς Γελώιοις τιμηθεὶς (Vita 10). When Pausanias 1.2.3 says that Aeschylus and Simonides set off to Hieron in Syracuse, it is in the context of a trope of his time (and probably earlier) about poets who depart for the court of tyrants. Indeed, attested at Hieron’s court are no less than Aeschylus, Pindar, Bacchylides, Simonides, Epicharmus, and Xenophanes. But were these poets actually at the court of this patron at the time, or have they been placed there by the tradition because— especially in later periods—poets ought to have contemporary famous patrons and Hieron was the most renowned Greek autocrat of his era? Was the relationship between Hieron and Pindar in the latter’s own poetry so famous that it inspired a host of analogies? Perhaps by this route, Hieron provided to the biographizing tradition an easy answer to an implied question about Aeschylus: Why would he ever have left Athens? Something must have happened to loosen his connection with the polis he so famously risked his life for. In addition to reasons he was pulled or lured to Sicily, the tradition also provides reasons Aeschylus was pushed out of Athens. As we saw above, Vita 8 describes his reasons for departure to Hieron as, “according to some,” either defeat by the young Sophocles (in 468), or “according to others,” by the poet Simonides in a contest to compose the elegy for the dead at Marathon (shortly after 490). The part about the loss to Sophocles is probably from Plutarch Cim. 8, who says “Beaten by Sophocles, Aeschylus took it poorly, did not remain long in Athens, and departed in anger for Sicily, where he finished his life and was buried at Gela.” Elsewhere, though, Plutarch (De Exil. 604f) says simply “Aeschylus left for Sicily” without further specification, although the context involves the idea that death away from home is the mark of a wise (i.e. welltravelled) man. If the event that drove him to Sicily did not come from mere curiosity or defeat in one of these two competitions, other variations supplied a reason from his audience’s reaction: Vita 9 states that “some say” the chorus of the Eumenides caused women in the audience to miscarry. Indeed, it could even come from the theater itself: the Suda (s.v. Aiskhylos), a tenth c. Byzantine encyclopedia, says Aeschylus fled to Hieron because the stands collapsed during one of his performances.16 16 Crowd disasters such as bleacher collapses tend to be horrific; Shaw 2014, 65, however, finds this anecdote humorous. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 15 The traditions of these push-pull causes for Aeschylus in Sicily cannot easily be squared with the evidence for the chronology of his visits described above. However, what can be established is that all four push-pull accounts imply Athens’ greatest playwright left Athens for Sicily under a dark cloud, either in poetic defeat or for actually causing harm with his poetry. For, otherwise, why leave? At least one epitaph from the literary tradition invokes this touchy emotional situation surrounding the departure of Athens’ favorite playwright: Diodorus of Sardis, after noting that the playwright’s tomb in Gela was far from his home in Athens, laments: τίς φθόνος, αἰαῖ, Θησείδας ἀγαθῶν ἔγκοτος αἰὲν ἔχει; (“Alas, what spiteful envy of good men always grips the sons of Theseus!” AP 7.40.3–4). Thus, with respect to Aeschylus’ reasons for finally departing his homeland, we notice, but cannot explain, the irony that the basis for Aeschylus’ status as Siculus results largely from an ancient anecdotal tradition about the greatest Athenian playwright’s poor reception in Athens itself. Having survived the Persian onslaught at Marathon (T11–5 R) and perhaps Salamis, too (Ion of Chios BNJ 392 F7), antiquity nonetheless agreed that he was brought low by an eagle that dropped a turtle on his head, as if on a rock, to get to the meat (T96–9 R). Aeschylus’ ancient portrait, although poorly attested, usually displays a beard and a full head of hair.17 A prominently bald bust labelled “Aeschylus” in the Capitoline museum, however, simultaneously displays the playwright bald both in old age and sporting a rupestral facies suitable for turtle-bombing—a combination, perhaps evoking the playwright in Sicily (whether a genuine identification or not). In terms of monuments and memory of Aeschylus in Sicily, a number of different epigrams claimed to adorn his Geloan grave—likely none of them genuine.18 It is worth noting, however, that the several exemplar epigrams are remarkably restricted in their range of themes: different versions usually display one or both of two basic couplets, one about Gela and the other about Marathon.19 After his death, the Vita then goes on to say of Aeschylus’ Sicilian grave-site: εἰς τὸ μνῆμα δὲ φοιτῶντες ὅσοις ἐν τραγωιδίαις ἦν ὁ βίος ἐνήγιζόν τε καὶ τὰ δράματα ὑπεκρίνοντο (“Those who made their livelihood in tragedy made frequent trips 17 18 19 Richter 1984, 74–8. Against Page’s (1981, 131) doubts about their authenticity, see now Poli Palladini 2013, 296– 302 and, with positive arguments for contemporary authorship, Sommertsein 2010. Cf. the literary versions by Antipater of Thessalonike (AP 7.39) and Diodorus of Sardis (AP 7.40). Bosher 2013 highlights the tension between Athenaios and Gelas in the couplet quoted in Plut. De Exil. 604f. For the Marathon couplet, cf. Athen. 14.627cd and Paus. 1.14.5. Vita 11 (but cf. 17) seems to be an exercise combining the two (so Poli Palladini 2013, 298). Dioscorides (AP 7.411) is unique in mentioning neither Gela nor Marathon. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 16 Smith to the memorial, where they made offerings and staged dramas,” 11). Because, however, τὰ δράματα can refer either to the plays of the tragedians visiting Aeschylus’ tomb or to Aeschylus’ plays themselves, the meaning can be either that visiting tragedians performed their own plays in honor of Aeschylus, or that they staged his dramas in his honor. The other word of interest here is ἐνήγιζον, a word used commonly of hero-cult, which might suggest these honors are not metaphorical but are testimony of actual quasi-heroic cult practice.20 Interestingly enough, no classical Athenian source mentions Aeschylus’ Geloan cult, prompting Poli Palladini to suggest that Athens’ granting of reperformance choruses to Aeschylean dramas was, in fact, an envious reaction to the heroic glory he was getting in Gela.21 Until recently, we knew almost nothing about what a cult to Aeschylus in Gela might have involved. In fact, we only knew of dramatic competitions in classical Sicily at all from one reference in Plato Laws 2.659b on the judgment of theatrical performances in Sicily and Italy by acclamation of the audience22 and from one fragment of Epicharmus (237 KA), which, when combined with a lemma of Hesychius (π1408), reads to the effect that comic competitions “lie on the knees of the five judges” in Sicily as they do in Athens.23 While the details of the judgment method remain in dispute, the fact of dramatic competition behind them seems nevertheless to be secure, however shadowy. New details have come to light from the recent republication of a lead tablet from the mid 5th c. BCE, said to be from Gela or nearby Camarina, which seems to curse a series of khoragoi who are rivals of the inscribers’ beloved.24 Although no exact performance context is specified in the text itself, the performance competition among Sicilian khoragoi implied by the lead tablet’s curse text 20 21 22 23 24 Vita 11 uses the phrase ἐν τοῖς δημοσίοις μνήμασι, which Demosthenes (De Cor. 208) used to refer to the public cemetaries commemorating the dead from Marathon, Plataea, Salamis, and Artemisium; cf. Basta-Donzelli 2003, 98. Poli Palladini 2013, 308. On reperformances of Aeschylus in Athens, see Biles 2006/7, Nervegna 2014, and Hanink and Uhlig 2016. ὁ Σικελικός τε καὶ Ἰταλικὸς νόμος νῦν, τῷ πλήθει τῶν θεατῶν ἐπιτρέπων καὶ τὸν νικῶντα διακρίνων χειροτονίαις (“the Sicilian and Italian custom turns [judgment] over to the mass of spectators and decides the winner by a show of hands”). For judging dramatic contests in Athens, see Csapo and Slater 1995, 157–65. See now the text in Jordan 2007 and commentary in Wilson 2007. Because Pollux (Onom. 9.41–2) states that khorag-is the stem used by Dorians for didaskal-, Wilson 2007, 354– 66 suggests these Geloan khoragoi are most likely participant-trainers, rather than leitourgical producers, although a leitourgical khoragia may lie behind it all: cf. Sophron (fr. 147 KA) αἴ τις τὸν ξύοντα ἀντιξύει, ὁ χοραγὸς ξύεται. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 17 could, in a maximal reading, be related to an agonistic dramatic performance in the hero-cult for the playwright.25 Unlike Sophocles and Euripides, literary evidence for Aeschylus in general becomes harder to find in the fourth century and afterwards. For example, orators and Aristotle’s Poetics generally ignore him, and philosophers in general rarely cite him.26 Nevertheless, one striking nonliterary testament to the overall, long-term dominance of Aeschylus in the Sicilian reception of the Athenian tragedians during the Classical period is that of vase-painting.27 While from a minimalist view, only a small handful of vases from Attica or Italy/Sicily can be attributed to a specific drama (of any form), maximalist approaches identify myths in vase paintings and suggest possible relationships to a known literary title.28 That relationship may involve Greek and nonGreek producers and consumers of stories known though texts, performances, retellings, or other images.29 Of the potentially dramatic representations, three-fourths are of possible subjects by Aeschylus, Sophocles, or Euripides, suggesting an early canonization of the three overall.30 Yet, within the western visual tradition, at least, a preference for Aeschylus with respect to the other two seems to have developed already by the fifth and fourth centuries (even though the vase-painting tradition is largely fourth-century and thus farthest away from Aeschylean memory). Taking statistics from a data-set assembled by Luigi Todisco that explicitly maximalizes identifications of tragic vasescenes with tragic authors, what can we see in terms of Aeschylus’ popularity 25 26 27 28 29 30 The other fifth-century cults at Gela are the Rhodian Athena Lindia, the Geloan foundercult, the Geloan river-cult, and the pan-Sicilian Demeter and Persephone—none of them necessarily more likely as a place for agonistic choral-dramatic performance. Perhaps because he has a lower percentage of quotable trimeters; see Nervegna 2014, 166–72 and this volume. On Aristotle and Aeschylus, see Munteanu, this volume. The earliest proto-dramatic images are associated with imported Corinthian aryballoi and alabastra showing padded dancers, which appear in Gela by ca. 600 (Todisco 2002, 47). On the development of vase paintings from Italy and Sicily with dramatic subjects, see Kossatz-Deissmann 1978, Csapo 2001, Todisco 2002, Todisco 2003, and Taplin 2007, 2–46. On the role of actors and vase-paintings in the spread of drama in the west, see Csapo 2010, 38–82, Dearden 1999, and Taplin 2012. Minimalist: see Taplin 2007 and Nervegna 2014; Maximalist: see Todisco 2002 and 2003. On the reception of Greek tragic vase scenes in non-Greek Italy, see Carpenter 2009. Todisco 2012 argues that the plays depicted on Apulian pots must have been translated for them; Giuliani 1995 that the transmission of tragic mythology happens through professional funerary orators. On the clues that make western Greek tragic iconography more recognizable, see Taplin 2007, 35–43; for skepticism about recognizing tragic iconography at all, see Small 2003, 37–78. Csapo 2010, 39. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 18 Smith vis-à-vis Sophocles and Euripides? Of vases with tragic subjects produced in Italy or Sicily, 371 are from Italy, and 20 from Sicily.31 Of all vases with tragic subjects found in Italy or Sicily, 177 are of Aeschylus, 41 of Sophocles, and 175 of Euripides. Of vases with satyric subjects produced in Attica, 33 wound up in Italy and 6 in Sicily, yet Aeschylean scenes outnumber Sophocles and Euripides overall 26 to 13 to 0—more than twice the other two combined. Of vases with tragic scenes produced in Attica, 94 wound up in Italy and 18 in Sicily, but again, Aeschylus outnumbers the competition overall 57 to 25 to 30—again, more than twice the other two combined. If Athens uniquely granted choruses to posthumous Aeschylean productions at least partially as a response to his heroization at Gela, then such continued reperformance at Athens could, in turn, account for the prominence of Athenian ceramics depicting Aeschylean productions exported to Sicily and Magna Graeca in the same period. However, if we require a higher level of certainty and follow instead the minimalist attributions of Taplin, then Aeschylus is the least well-represented, Euripides the best.32 In any event, regardless of how much popularity Aeschylean myths may have enjoyed in his afterlife among his western Greek paesani, there remains little direct, unequivocal evidence that they were necessarily familiar with his repertoire or able to see his dramas in performance.33 Sicily in Aeschylus The skeptical interpretation of the value of Aeschylus’ plays themselves for the question of Aeschylus in Sicily was once axiomatic: other than Aitnaiai and perhaps Persians, no other Greek dramas—including even other plays and fragments of Aeschylus and even Epicharmus—were much worth interpreting in a local Sicilian context.34 More fairly, we may put the dramatic evidence for Aeschylus in Sicily into two categories: plays for which a performance in Sicily is attested (with whatever degree of skepticism) by ancient evidence, and plays for which performance in Sicily has been proposed by modern scholars. The only two Aeschylean dramas in the former category are those mentioned above, about which Duncan observes, “The Persians and the Aitnaiai make an interesting pair for performance in Sicily: one describes a king overreaching, 31 32 33 34 So Todisco 2003, 745 Fig. 11. Taplin 2007. A pattern which explains better Euripides’ greater popularity among the Romans? Cf. Nervegna 2014, 177–85. Nervegna 2014, 176. Cf. Pickard-Cambridge 1927, 363. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 19 the other legitimated a tyrant’s regime; both are concerned with the proper exercise of power.”35 Furthermore, these happen to be the first two plays for which performance outside Athens is attested at all. Such idiosyncracies have opened the door to maximalizing hypotheses about Aeschylus Siculus and the rest of his corpus.36 For example, Capizzi (1982) has used the importance of Dike and the Daughters of the Sun in Parmenides to argue for a link between Eleatic philosophy and a Syracusan production of Heliades (possibly accompanying Aitnaiai, or at least the Dike-play). Aeschylus’ possible interests in Gela’s Rhodio-Cretan heritage (cf. Thuc. 6.4.3) leads Poli Palladini to suspect that the Perseus trilogy (including Phorkides, with its reference to the askhedoros pig), Glaukos Pontios as satyr play, Kretai, Kariai or Europa, Heliades, Glaukos Potnieus, and the Odyssia tetralogy which is “so full of western elements that it could hardly be composed and performed anywhere but in the West, i.e. in Gela” were all composed with an eye to Sicilian performance.37 In terms of directions still left to explore, the redating of Suppliants from the beginning to the end of Aeschylus’ career invites us to reconsider its Danaid mythology and alleged Sicilianisms in the context of Sicily’s contemporary cultural and political relationship to North Africa. Further connections are surely to be advanced. The Women of Aetna and Prometheus The catalogs of titles attached to the manuscript traditions (T78 R) of Aeschylus preserve in their lists both an Αἰτναῖαι νόθοι and an Αἰτναῖαι γνήσιοι—one “spurious” and one “genuine”—but none of our fragments are preserved with either epithet. Furthermore, our fragments are few, fairly late, most of them are a single word, and the title under which they are cited varies between Aetna/ Aitne, Aitnai, and Aitnaiai, each title coming with different assumptions about who the chorus might or might not be.38 Reconstruction of this play, however, is inescapably influenced by external evidence. As Diodorus 11.49.1–2 describes in detail, the purpose of Aetna’s foundation was Hieron’s own security and glory, but the method of its foundation involved a huge effort of social 35 36 37 38 Duncan 2011, 74. Play-by-play analyses can be found in Cataudella 1964/5, Culasso Gastaldi 1979, and now Poli Palladini 2013, 93–266. Poli Palladini 2013, 9. Aetna in Macrobius (Sat. 5.19.24 = fr. 6 R) and Αἴτνη in John Lydus (De Mens. 4.154 Wünsch = fr. 11 R); Αἶτναι in Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Palike = fr. 7 R) and the scholia to Homer (Il. 16.183b = fr. 8 R); Αἰτναῖαι in Hesychius (α1955 and κ4041 Latte = frs. 9 and 10 R). Manuscripts of the Vita Aeschyli 9 vary between the two plurals; cf. Poli Palladini 2001, 211–2. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 20 Smith engineering that displaced literally tens of thousands of people from their homes.39 According to the Vita 9, then (τότε), during the foundation of Aetna and presumably in celebration of what must have been, at the least, a laborious affair, Hieron commissioned Aeschylus to compose Aitnaiai: “Coming then to Sicily, when Hieron was founding Aetna, he produced the Aitnaiai in prediction of a good life for the inhabitants of the city.” Furthermore, Hieron not only commissioned an Aeschylean drama, he also won panhellenic equestrian victories, made dedications, and commissioned coins and epinician poetry which promoted his role as King Regent of Aetna and benificent father of Greek order in various—but presumably ideologically consistent—guises.40 Because the nexus of narrative and artistic choices behind this event is so particularly well fleshed-out, we should attempt for the Aitnaiai (as we would for any play in Athens) an interpretation that allows it a socio-politically contextualized performance and reception(s). However, contextualization is problematized by the fact that what little we know of the play itself defies easy dramatic categorization. Macrobius is the only person who calls it anything: namely, a tragoedia, but unlike tragedy, it is not attested to have been performed with any other plays. Some think this fact could make it a satyr play, while others reconstruct hypothetical dilogies or trilogies to fill in the gap. Furthermore, it is hard to understand what exactly the core tragedy of the play even was, let alone why Hieron would have wanted a tragedy for a celebration. Eduard Fraenkel, however, put forward an interpretation in 1954 based upon the idiosyncrasy itself of the play’s role in the founding of the city: it was, he suggested, a Festspiel—that is, a one-off drama performed as part of the celebrations for Aetna.41 39 40 41 Demand 1990, 45–58. On Hieron in general: Freeman 1891: 2.256–89. On Hieron and Aeschylus: Fraenkel 1954, Cataudella 1964/5, Dougherty 1993, 83–102, Luraghi 1994, 336–62, Corbato 1996, and Basta-Donzelli 1996, with bibliography in Patrito 2001: 92 n. 78 and Poli Palladini 2001, 290 n. 7. On Hieron and Pindar (cf. fr 105a ζαθέων πάτερ, κτίστωρ Αἴτνας): Kirsten 1941, Trumpf 1958, Köhnken 1970, and Gantz 1974; the scholia to Pyth. 1.152 report couplets Hieron and his brothers supposedly inscribed on Delphic tripods: βάρβαρα νικήσαντας ἔθνη, πολὴν δὲ παρασχεῖν σύμμαχον Ἕλησιν χεῖρ᾽ἐς έλευθερίην (see Page 1981, 247–50); Nem. 1 and 9, written for Hieron’s henchman Chromius, celebrate him too as an Aetnaean and compare him to Heracles, son of Zeus, god of Aetna. On Hieron and coins: Boehringer 1968, Caccamo Caltabiano 2009, and de Callataÿ 2010. By contrast, in panhellenic dedications, Hieron remained conspicuously down to earth as merely “the son of Deinomenes” and just one of “the Syracusans” (Harrell 2002 and 2006). For Aristophanes’ mockery of Alcibiades’ pretensions to be Hieron redivivus in Sicily, see Smith 2009. Although perhaps different versions of the Aitnaiai existed which corresponded to revisions of the text for other audiences: see Poli Palladini 2001, 309–10. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 21 The longest securely attested surviving fragment of the play comes from Macrobius’ Saturnalia (5.19.15–31), and concerns the Sicilian cult of the Palici.42 Discussing Vergil’s mention (Aen. 9.581–5) of their cult, Macrobius’ narrator says that the first person to mention these local gods was Aeschylus, and quotes from his Aetna [sic] (fr. 6 R): We notice Macrobius’ emphasis on the fact that, of the many sources he goes on to quote, Aeschylus was the first to describe these gods and, moreover, he did so in a line that explains the meaning of their name, quam Graeci ἐτυμολογίαν vocant (“which the Greeks call an ‘etymology,’ ” Sat. 5.19.17). The number of subsequent authors who discuss the Palici, indeed, seems out of proportion to the relative importance of this small, local non-Greek cult unless, I propose, later interest in the Palici was driven by Aeschylus’ presentation of them in the Aitnaiai. Although Macrobius and Servius and Stephanus in Late Antiquity were the first to cite Aeschylus on the Palici, they do so in the same breath as they cite a host of intervening recondite Hellenistic authors who may also have had access to Aeschylus’ information. Because these Palici seem to have had quite a big influence for a single scene, could a minimalist interpretation claim its impact was big enough to generate a legend about Aeschylus writing it for the nearest famous person in Sicily? As Macrobius notes, the fragment as we have it presents us with an etymology of the Palici: they are said to πάλιν ἵκουσι (“come back”)—thus the name Palici—ἐκ σκότου τόδ’ εἰς φάος (“from the shadows into this light”).43 The cult of the twin Palici, on the slopes of Aetna at the mouth of the Smythaeus River, was connected to worship of the Delloi, two nearby craters filled with 42 43 Fraenkel (1954, 61–2) suggests Macrobius’ source could have been Serenus Sammonicus (d. CE 212), and from there, an Alexandrian such as Didymus. Cf. Ag. 310–1 and other mythological etymologies in Aeschylus: Epaphus (Suppl. 312–6), Helen (Ag. 687–90), Prometheus (PV 85–7), and especially Dike (Cho. 948–51) as if from Διὸς κόρα. Dougherty 1991 argues that the etymology in this fragment, however, is an act of “linguistic colonialism” that makes native gods Greek. For the actual etymology of “Palici,” see Bello 1960, 89–97. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 22 Smith bottomless lakes, thought to be their brothers (Callias of Syracuse BNJ 564 F1).44 Excavation has shown that the place was monumentalized in the archaic period, and Diodorus preserves for us an account of its use as a rallying point for the Sicel nationalist Ducetius in the 5th c. BCE.45 As part of that account, Diodorus (11.89) tells us that the place was an asylum for escaped slaves, where solemn oaths were sworn, and under grievous penalty. The oath was written on a tablet and thrown into the water, where it would float if sworn on truly, but sink if sworn on falsely. Meanwhile, the false swearer would burst into flames (so [Arist.] De Mir. Ausc. 57) or simply keel over and die on the spot (so Polemon of Ilium fr. 83 Müller).46 The shrine also functioned at least once as an oracle: when struck by a famine, the Palici instructed the Sicilians to sacrifice to the hero Pediocrates (Xenagoras of Rhodes BNJ 240 F19, preserved in the same passage of Macrobius’ Saturnalia). Having done so, they recovered their fertility and had a harvest-festival in the sanctuary, probably behind Vergil’s description of the place pinguis ubi et placabilis ara Palici (Aen. 9.585). If this is the same as the Pediacrates that Diodorus 4.23.5 says Heracles killed while passing through Sicily with the Cattle of Geryon, this myth may be connected to the Dike fragment as well (see more below). Presumably the Palici played some important, epichoric function within the larger context of Aeschylus’ production for Hieron, but little can be said for certain about their exact role in the drama.47 In any event, both Macrobius and Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Palike) make it clear that Aeschylus’ play conceived of the Palici as sons of Thalia (a daughter of Hephaestus) after her abduction (whether reported or dramatized) by Zeus.48 Kossatz-Deissmann catalogs seven possible vases and other objects from Greek or non-Greek Italy depicting what could be this abduction scene 44 45 46 47 48 On the cult of the Palici, see Ziegler 1949, Croon 1952, Bello 1960, 81–9, Cusumano 1990, and Meurant 1998; on the Delloi, add Bello 1960, 71–81 and Manni 1981, 119–20. On the site, see Theophilos BNJ 573 F1 and McConnell and Maniscalco 2003; for Ducetius, see Rizzo 1970. Compare the recording of sins ε�ν̣ δέλτῳ Διο�̣[ς. in the Dike fragment, below. A myth of divine retribution might have arisen because the hydraulic phenomena of the Delloi were associated with a carbon-dioxide layer in the surrounding atmosphere noxious enough to kill people nearby or birds passing over; cf. Hippys of Rhegium BNJ 554 F3 and Lykos of Rhegium BNJ 570 F11a/b. On the political role of the Palici in a Hieronian Aitnaiai, see: Luraghi 1994, 336–45, Poli Palladini 2001, 319–25, Dougherty 1991, and Smith 2012. The only alternative parentage was, apparently, Silenus BNJ 175 F3 and the tradition of Serv. ad Virg. Aen. 9.581. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 23 from the Aitnaiai.49 One in particular, a Paestan amphora of 330–310 BCE preserved now only in a drawing, shows Thalia (labelled) dropping her ball and basket as she is lifted by a giant raptor in a halo who is, no doubt, Zeus.50 “Aetna,” on the other hand, is harder to pin down: it may refer to a nymph, woman, city, and/or a volcano, and it is unclear whether any or all of them made an appearance in the play. Alcimus of Sicily (BNJ 560 F5) made Aetna the daughter of Ouranos and Gaia. Silenus of Cale Acte (BNJ 175 F3) made her the daughter of Ocean (and the mother of the Palici by Hephaestus). Demetrius of Callatis (BNJ 85 F4) made her the daughter of Briareus (and sister of Sicanus). Simonides (PMG fr. 552)—whom several sources place also in Hieron’s court and in anecdotes with Hieron’s poets—said that Aetna supervised a contest between Hephaestus and Demeter (presumably the winner) for primacy in Sicily (presumably on the model of Athena and Poseidon in Athens).51 Given the Deinomenid hierophancy of the Infernal Goddesses, presumably such a topic would not have been at odds with their ideals of representation.52 Did the play, perhaps, dramatize, narrate, or culminate in the establishment of a cult of Zeus Aetnaeus?53 There was even an early tradition linking the Deinomenid namesake Gelon with the Sicilian landmark Aetna. Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Gela) cites both Proxenus of Epiros (BNJ 703 F4) from the 3rd c. BCE and Hellanicus of Lesbos (BNJ 4 F199) already from the 5th c. BCE for the idea that Gela was named after an early Gelon (i.e. not the famous one) who was himself the son of Aetna. For a long time, precious little else was known about this play. Edward Freeman, the 19th century English historian of Greek Sicily, lamented, “Written and acted in Sicily on a subject purely Sicilian, it would be gladness indeed to the historian of Sicily to have the tragedy in its fulness instead of a few small fragments.”54 Fortunately, in 1952 Edgar Lobel published POxy 2257 fr. 1 (fr. 451t R), which, he suggested, contains this play’s remarkable hypothesis: it says that the action moved from Aetna to Xuthia to Aetna to Leontini and finally to (following Pfeiffer’s suggestion) Temenite, the district in ancient Syracuse where the Greek theater itself is located. Naturally, 49 50 51 52 53 54 Kossatz-Deissmann 1978, 33–44. Either as eagle or vulture: see Poli Palladini 2001, 307. On Simonides in Sicily, see Molyneux 1992, 220–36 and Podlecki 1979. On the Deinomenid hierophancy, see Hdt. 7.153 and cf. Hinz 1998, Polacco 1986, White 1964.; cf. Pind. Nem. 1.13–18, for Hieron’s son-in-law and generalissimo Chromius, in which Zeus grants Sicily to Persephone. Mentioned in Deinomenid contexts by Pind. Pyth. 1.29–32, Ol. 6.96, and Nem. 1.6. Freeman 1891, 2.280. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 24 Smith various ways to distribute fragments and scenes across the acts have since been proposed.55 These efforts are partially hampered by the fact that such movement is unparalleled elsewhere in tragedy (except, to some extent, Eumenides and Ajax), and this additional exceptionalism has, again, been used to shore up the case for either satyr play or Festspiel. However, Aeschylus was no stranger to plots with extremely unusual staging and plot structure.56 Rather than considering such scene-changes in Aitnaiai and Eumenides to be problematic, Revermann notes that both of these plays were changing scenes while engaging in a “sustained aitiological mode.”57 Thus perhaps we ought to be looking instead for a career-long relationship between aitiology and dramaturgy that apparently featured last in Eumenides, in Athens, but was possibly seen first in Aitnaiai, in Sicily. Fraenkel nominated two other fragments from Lobel’s POxy volume as potentially belonging to Aitnaiai; if genuine, they would more than double our knowledge of the play.58 The first candidate is POxy 2256 fr. 9 (fr. 281a R), which contains a long conversation between Dike and an unnamed group of people (ὑμεῖς) to whom she has been sent. These people are either a chorus of satyrs and the fragment belongs to some satyr play, or the chorus are women or nymphs; if the latter, following Fraenkel’s Festspiel hypothesis, perhaps they are of Aetna and the fragment belongs to an Aitnaiai celebrating Hieron’s foundation of the city.59 In either case, Dike is having a discussion with a chorus 55 56 57 58 59 See La Rosa 1973/4, Garzya 1977, and now Poli Palladini 2001, 296–311; the reconstruction by Görschen 1956 is palaeographically difficult and so rarely followed. Taplin 1977, 416–8 discusses the dramaturgical considerations. Consider the paired speeches in Sept. or the immobile protagonist of PV or the central kommos of Cho. (Poli Palladini 2001, 290). Revermann 2008, 252–3. The fragments of POxy 2256 and 2257 are printed here as they appear in Radt TrGF vol. 3; on the text of the Dike fragment, see now Patrito 2001 and Cipolla 2010. For maximal reconstructions and a full English translation, see Lloyd-Jones’ 1956 appendix to the Loeb volume of Aeschylus fragments. Because the word ὁτιή is attested in line 9 of this fragment and Eur. Cyc. 643, but nowhere else in tragedy, it could be that the Dike fragment is from a satyr play (so already Lobel 1952, 39, Lloyd-Jones 1956, 59; Sutton 1983 proposed Kerykes, Görschen 1955 proposed Theoroi). If this is true, and if the Dike fragment is from the Aitnaiai, the latter would itself have been a satyr play, unless an idiosyncratic Sicilian Festspiel (Fraenkel 1954) or some other “condizioni siciliane e alle esigenze del momento” (Stark 1956) allows For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 25 about the aitiology of her cult and the institution of her honors in society— remarkable all the more because Dike speaks nowhere else in extant drama: If the Dike fragment belongs to Aitnaiai, then it must date quite early, and its influence on later Aeschylean drama ought to be reassessed. This is particularly true with respect to the importance of aetiologies in tragedy: the Palici’s epiphany provokes a question about their future status among men: τί δῆτ’ ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς ὄνομα θήσονται βροτοί “What name will mortals give to them?” The Dike fragment may feature forms of δέχομαι at least twice in this cultic regard: she insists she(?) ought to be ]εκτέα στρατῷ “welcomed by the people” and says ]έχοιτό μ’ εὐφρ[όν]ως “they should welcome me kindly.”60 In terms of the reception of Dike, it should be noticed that the chorus calls the “people” who will welcome her a stratos, which is exactly the word Pindar calls the people of Aetna when writing for Hieron (Pyth. 1.86).61 Eumenides, too, displays similar aetiological futures (esp. 415: πεύσῃ τὰ πάντα and 419: τιμάς γε μὲν δὴ τὰς 60 61 for idiosyncratic use of ὁτιή. Cataudella 1964/5 is the strongest rejection of the satyr play hypothesis; see Poli Palladini 2001, 313–5 for a recent argument in support. There may be a third at the beginning of the passage, if Fraenkel is right to read δέξ]εσθε δ’ ὑμεῖς “You all will receive (me) …” in line 13. Compare τ̣εκ̣� μαρ δὲ λέξω ̣ , below. The word is aptly chosen: most of the new citizens of Aetna, who displaced the earlier citizens of Catana, were mercenary settlers from Hieron’s armies (Patrito 2001, 94). For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 26 Smith ἐμὰς πεύσῃ), and when the conversation in the Dike fragment turns on the role of Justice in the society where she has arrived, her announcements proceed not unlike the series of proclamations made by Aeschylus’ Erinyes (e.g. Eum. 937–47; 976–86) about their holy prerogatives in Athens. These similarities persist down to the level of similar stichomuthic patterns in the places where the Palici, Dike, and the Erinyes (cf. especially Eum. 208–31 and 415–27) reveal their powers. Again, we cannot be certain that the Dike fragment is from Aitnaiai, but a maximal interpretation of Aeschylus in Sicily would note that, if it were, it should be interpreted in light of Hieronian ideology. One of the centerpieces of Hieronian propaganda while founding the city of Aetna seems to have been to map recent family victories over the Etruscans and Carthaginians onto the Hesiodic tradition which told of Zeus’ defeat of Typhon under Aetna, then to present himself, Zeus-like, as founder and lawgiver for the eponymous city.62 Thus, while Dike is the daughter of Zeus in both Hesiod (Th. 901–3) and Aeschylus (e.g. Sept. 662 and Cho. 948–50), it may not be an accident that in this fragment Dike also identifies herself as sitting at the throne of Zeus (ἵζω Δι ̣ὸς θρόνοισιν […]ϊσμέν̣η̣), which is precisely Hesiod’s conception of her in the Works and Days (259–60).63 Here, too, she is also acting as his emissary: does Zeus send Dike to these people like Hieron does to the new citizens of Aetna? Furthermore, the Dike fragment refers to Justice as recording the transgressions of mortals ε�ν̣ δέλτῳ Διο�̣[ς. “on the note-pads of Zeus.” Even though the idea of a list of transgressions being kept for Zeus by Justice on a tablet is rare, it is shared elsewhere, as we saw above, by none other than the Palici (according to Diodorus, Polemon, and [Arist.]).64 Thus Aeschylus makes both Dike and the Palici (in Aitnaiai, if we follow the evidence for their cult elsewhere) offspring of Zeus to whom are entrusted the oversight of mortal injustices by means of a tablet. The Dike fragment continues with a tale about a child of Hera and Zeus who was once an ill-tempered bandito hurling missiles at travelers: 62 63 64 Particularly in Pindar Pyth. 1.13–28; cf. Ol. 4.6–7; cf. Kirsten 1941, Trumpf 1958, and Gantz 1974. Dike here fulfills two functions (both paredros and emissary of Zeus) she elsewhere plays separately; cf. Kantorowicz 1955. We find the deltoi of Zeus, accompanied by Dike, also in Eur. Melanippe (fr. 506 N2), but cf. too Hades in Aesch. Eum. 275, who δελτογράφῳ δὲ πάντ᾽ ἐπωπᾷ φρενί, and Prometheus’ instruction to Io in PV 789 to ἐγράφου σὺ μνήμοσιν δέλτοις φρενῶν; cf. Solmsen 1944 and Patrito 2001, 94–5. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 27 The identity of this unruly pais has been variously debated.65 First of all, much depends on whether the speaker of ἔθρε[ψ.] is construed to be saying of him “I [Dike?] raised” or “She [Hera?] raised.” Second, one must find a character who suits the circumstances. Robertson (1953) proposed a young Ares on trial by the Areopagus for the murder of Hallirothius, although the god is not otherwise known for using missiles other than javelins. Sutton (1983) thinks this fragment is not from Aitnaiai at all, and that the pais margos is a young Heracles mutilating the heralds of Erginus in the satyr play Kerykes. Görschen (1955) agrees but restores the name Sinis, making the satyr play Aeschylus’ Theoroi e Isthmiastai. A maximalist interpretation of Aeschylus in Sicily, however, would seek to place the pais margos of the Dike fragment into a context that makes sense for a Hieronian Aitnaiai. To this purpose, Kakridis (1962) proposed the pais was Heracles, who during his search for the Cattle of Geryon, passed through what was probably the Leontinian plain and killed six local Sican heroes who tried to stop him (Diod. 4.23.5). The notion of Heracles as a young bandito in Sicily may be supported by the Sicilian precedent of Stesichorus’ reference to him ἐν λῃστοῦ σχήματι (PMGF fr. 229 Davies), and Heracles may also make sense given his importance as son of Zeus to Hieron’s Aetna project.66 One of the Sican heroes Heracles killed was named Pediacrates, probably the same Pediocrates whom Xenagoras (BNJ 240 F19) said the Sicels venerated at the shrine of the Palici.67 In this way, Heracles the unruly pais could be connected to the Aitnaiai via the Palici. 65 66 67 See Cipolla 2010, 139–41 for recent bibliography. Particularly via Chromius in Pindar’s Nemean 1 and 9; cf. Slater 1984 and see below. See Croon 1952, 127. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 28 Smith Corbato (1996), however, has revived the case for a young Ares by adducing the opening of Pindar’s Pythian 1, with its emphasis on war being supplanted by the appreciation of music in a period of peace initiated by the victories of the Deinomenids and celebrated in various media afterwards. Later, then, once educated either by Dike or Hera, Ares’ transformation would be a symbol of a “just” Greek war, one that has led to a period of peace and prosperity (cf. Stark 1956). This interpretation involves a final fragment from Lobel’s 1952 POxy volume, which seems to praise Eirene “Peace” for honoring a tranquil city (POxy 2256 fr. 8 = fr. 451n Radt): This fragment resonates with the earlier ones in a variety of ways: its announcement of praise, inquiry into divine prerogatives, and future tense description of she who honors the city and its homes echoes that of Dike and the Palici.68 Its hand is not incompatible with that of fragment 9; Cataudella even notes that, in a sense, fragment 8’s ἐπ]α̣ι ̣νω τήνδε could follow immediately on it.69 Furthermore, the description of tranquillity this Peace will bring (τι[μ]ᾷ γὰρ πόλιν ε�ν̣ η�̣ σ̣ υ̣�[χοισ]ι ̣ πράγμασιν καθ̣ημε�ν̣ ην, “She honors a city whose affairs have become peaceful”) uses language paralleled in Pindar’s wish in Pythian 1 for the tranquil circumstances he hopes Zeus will help Hieron and his son, as leaders of Aetna, usher in: δᾶμον γεραίρων τράποι σύμφωνον ἐς ἡσυχίαν (“May he lead the people, by honoring them, into harmonious peace,” 69–71; cf. Dickie 1984). 68 69 Corbato 1996 rightly compares even Aesch. Eum. 937–47 and 976–86; cf. Görschen 1959. Cataudella 1964/5, 395. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 29 From a Hesiodic perspective, Zeus’ defeat of Typhon (Th. 901–3) was followed shortly thereafter by his fathering of Eirene, Dike, and Eunomia. Having just found the first two, if we could find reference to Eunomia in Hieron’s Pindaric-Aeschylean project, we would be more certain that the patron was encouraging a Hesiodic model for his defense of the Greek cosmos against the Etrusco-Carthaginian Typhoeus. In fact, Lloyd-Jones does read these two fragments containing Dike and Eirene as two of the three Hesiodic Horae and connects them to Hieron’s explicit desire to be represented as someone concerned precisely, as king of Aetna, with good (Dorian) laws again in Pindar’s Pythian 1: πόλιν κείναν θεοδˈμάτῳ σὺν ἐλευθερίᾳ Ὑλίδος στάθμας Ἱέρων ἐν νόμοις ἔκτισσε … αἰεὶ μένειν τεθμοῖσιν ἐν Αἰγιμιοῦ Δωριεῖς (“Hieron established that city with god-fashioned freedom under the laws of Hyllus’ rule … always to remain, under the statutes of Aegimius, Dorians, 60–5).”70 In Nemean 9, for Hieron’s friend Chromius of Aetna, Pindar is concerned explicitly with the eunomia of Aetna, begging Zeus μοῖραν δ᾽ εὔνομον αἰτέω σε παισὶν δαρὸν Αἰτναίων ὀπάζειν (“to grant a well-lawed fate for a long time to the children of the Aetnaeans,” 29–30). Lloyd-Jones even went so far as to propose that, if the Aitnaiai were part of a Sicilian trilogy concerned (as the Oresteia in Athens) with the establishment of justice in human society, then the other plays of the trilogy preceding this one may have been the Prometheus Bound and Prometheus Unbound, thought since the early 19th century by some to owe their peculiarities to Sicilian authorship or production.71 Such a trilogy would then tell the following story: Prometheus steals fire and is punished (Desmotes); a kindlier Zeus lets Heracles free the titan on his way to acquire the cattle of Geryon—an indisputably Sicilian myth in and of itself (Lyomenos); having been resolved on the divine realm, Dike descends to the new city of peace and justice on earth and institutes her powers there (Aitnaiai). Whether or not we accept Lloyd-Jones’ proposal, there exist recurring connections between Aetna (and so perhaps the Aitnaiai) and the Prometheus legend that invite interest. First are the well-known similarities between the description of the eruption of Aetna in Pindar’s Pythian 1.13–28 (a poem which was composed, like the Aitnaiai, in celebration of the foundation of Aetna)72 and in the Prometheus Bound (361–7). Thalia, the mother of the Palici in the Aitnaiai, is herself the daughter of Hephaestus, who in Silenos (BNJ 175 F3) is himself the father, with Aetna, of the Palici, and who in Aelian 70 71 72 Lloyd-Jones 1971, 100–2. Cf. also Lloyd-Jones 1969. Griffith 1978, 125 n. 1 provides early bibliography. The date wavers between 480 (Parian Marble BNJ 239 F52) and 476 (Thuc. 3.116). For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 30 Smith (HA 11.3) had his forge beneath Aetna. On a minor note, Pausanias 9.25.6 tells us that one of the Cabiri named Prometheus had a son named Aetnaeus. Finally, the titular characters of Epicharmus’ Prometheus or Pyrrha might be rightly presumed to deal with a flood narrative rather than with Sicily; however, the Augustan-era Fabulae of Hyginus (153) say that, after the flood, Deucalion and Pyrrha landed on Mt. Aetna.73 Of course, not the smallest problem with Lloyd-Jones’ theory is that Aeschylus’ authorship of Prometheus Bound is disputed.74 What cannot be denied, however, is that where Homer and Hesiod had said Typhoeus lived among the Arimi in Asia Minor (cf. Strabo 13.4.6 and Solmsen 1949, 124–77), Prometheus Bound 365–7 and Pythian 1 both connect Zeus’ victory over Typhon to Aetna in Sicily. This location later became part of the Hesiodic tradition when Hesiod’s description of Typhon’s place of punishment as ἀιδνῇς (Th. 860) was read by the scholia to Lycophron’s Alexandra 688 as Αἴτνης— although the initial dipthong must be metrically disyllabic, which is difficult—probably because the tradition apparent by the time of Pindar and the Prometheus Bound (whether or not Aeschylean) persisted. Such is basically the maximal “Festspiel” interpretation in which all discussed fragments and comparanda texts belong to a Hieronian production of Aitnaiai. It makes Aeschylus read very Hesiodically, a reputation hard to question and one which, in circular fashion, seems eminently suited to Hieronian politics. However, a play or plays with these fragments about local cults, the institution of justice and peace after war, and with scenes bouncing around between locations in eastern Sicily, could equally be contextualized and interpreted in other important moments of Sicilian history, such as the island’s period of democracy beginning in 466 (thus overlapping with Aeschylus’ final visit by over a decade) or in relation to Ducetius’ involvement in Greek affairs around 460, which attempted a Sicel re-nationalization of the Palici. These latter, and other, possible contexts have not been explored—not because they would not be fruitful, but rather on the sole basis of the chronological data provided by the Vita that connects this play to Hieron. If that one, late text had been lost, would we not now be seriously considering how Aitnaiai was performed and received in Athens? 73 74 Hyginus’ version may look back to Epich. fr. 120 KA, which references Deucalion and Pyrrha’s famous creation of laoi “people” from laes “rocks.” Sicily plays an important role in the dispute over the Aeschylean authorship of Prometheus Bound: see the influential skeptical arguments in Griffith 1977 and 1978 (cf. West 1979). Flintoff 1986 makes a new argument for authenticity from an Epicharmean perspective. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 31 The Persians and Glaukos Aeschylus’ Persians is remarkable for its historical subject matter, its obvious favor towards those who won the battle of Salamis, and yet its apparent sympathies for several groups—perhaps Athenians, Greeks, and Persians alike. At the same time, it is exceptional for having apparently been performed outside of Athens. Thus, how sympathy and dramaturgy intersected with local politics and performance is of the highest interest with Aeschylus’ Persians. Unfortunately, neither of our attestations for performance of Persians in Sicily are particularly dateable. Moreover, as we saw earler, they differ on the specific word used to describe the event. The late Aeschylean Vita 18 uses the word ἀναδιδάξαι, which properly refers to a reperformance. The scholia to Aristophanes Frogs (1028), however, citing the much earlier and presumably rather reliable Hellenistic literary scholar Eratosthenes of Cyrene’s 2nd c. to 3rd c. BCE treatise On Comedy, use the word δεδιδάχθαι, a word normally used to refer to a (first) performance. Taking the sources merely at face value, then, one should say that the Persians was performed first at Syracuse, and only later, in 472 (IG ii22318), at Athens; but this is not easily accepted.75 To make matters even more complex, testimony that at least two separate texts of Persians existed in antiquity starts fairly early.76 In Aristophanes’ Frogs (1028–9), produced in 405 BCE, Dionysus recalls being delighted at the announcement of the death of Darius [sic] and at the chorus’ clapping lamentations of “Iauoi!” in the play.77 In the imperial period, Athenaeus (3.86b) says Aeschylus’ Persians contained the word νηριτοτρόφοι “sea-snail-breeding” (fr. 285 R) and the late scholia on Hermogenes (Rhet. Gr. 5.486 Walz) perhaps attest for it the word ὑπόξυλος (see fr. 286 R). None of these four things feature in the text of the Persians extant to us, and assuming they are not misled there are two explanations: either 1. these are attestations from another Persiansrelated title by a different author (e.g., Epicharmus, Timotheus, Empedocles, or even Phrynichus?) or from another Aeschylean title (e.g., Perrhaibidai, cf. TrGF 75 76 77 Kiehl 1852 first noticed the distinction between δεδιδάχθαι and ἀναδιδάξαι; Wilamowitz agreed in 1897 but changed his mind shortly thereafter in 1901; see now Bosher 2012. Broadhead 1960, xlviii–liv, Garvie 2009, liii–lvii. See Dover 1993, 320–1 and TrGF T56a/b for the Persians in the Frogs scholia, including the fragments of Eratosthenes, Herodicus, and Didymus. Schönemann 1887 discusses the editorial history behind this passage, suggesting Herodicus and Eratosthenes had read Mardonius where we read Darius. Dionysus’ misrememberings (if not merely comic dramaturgy) prompted Constantinidis 2012 to suggest yet another, third, possible version of the text—one produced after 467 that depicts Xerxes’ assassination—seen by Aristophanes during the Peloponnesian war. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 32 Smith 3.385–6) confused by the quoting author or by the manuscript tradition; or 2. these words really did come from a non-extant edition of Aeschylus’ Persians. Furthermore, there is explicit testimony about a second edition of the Persians. The scholia to the same Frogs passage above quote the second-century BCE scholar Herodicus of Babylon from the Pergamene school,78 who says again explicitly not only that there were two texts of the play, but also that the second text pertained to Plataea (i.e not to Salamis!). Eratosthenes is then quoted to the effect that one of these two Persians—unfortunately, the Greek is not unequivocal (i.e. depending on the strength of οὗτοι)—was performed in Syracuse at Hieron’s invitation. Finally, Didymus is quoted to the effect that there were two Persians, but that one of them did not survive. Of course, once a different text for the Syracuse performance is an admitted possibility, the doors to hypothesized interpolations open. These include not just Herodicus’ switch of Plataea for Salamis, but also the removal of the Darius necromancy altogether, or, conversely, the addition of the same scene from the Syracusan text to a lost first-edition of the now-extant, rewritten Athenian text.79 Bosher, however, argues not from the scholia but from performance considerations that “the première of the Persians fits more neatly into the Syracusan context than it does the Athenian.”80 Essentially, she argues, our play is at least as receivable in Syracuse as at Athens because Syracuse, like Athens, polarized the Greek and barbarian worlds and was concerned, mutatis mutandis, with the true nature of tyranny in the early fifth century. Assuming for the sake of argument that it was the extant text that was performed in Syracuse, these similarities bring up two major issues of reception. First, as has been often remarked, there are no Athenian individuals named in the play; in fact, the Athenians themselves are often simply called “Hellenes.” In Athens, this presumably “democratizes” the glory of the victory, but it also—intentionally or accidentally—makes the drama’s reception by non-Athenian audiences less confusing in general, and could encourage Syracusans, in particular, to make the same sorts of parallels between Salamis and their own naval victory over the Etruscans at Cumae in 474 (Diod. 11.51) that Pindar was making in his contemporary Pythian 1 (71–80). Second, the perceived dichotomy between democratic Greeks and tyrannical barbarians in the first half of the play’s account of the Battle at Salamis is balanced by the opposition between the wise tyrant Darius and the foolish tyrant Xerxes in the second half. When considering 78 79 80 Düring 1941, 126–7. See now Garvie 2009, liv for references. Bosher 2012, 108–11. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 33 performance of the play both in autocratic Sicily and democratic Athens, then, it becomes important that the failure of the autocratic Persians winds up in the end portrayed not as a failure of tyrannical government per se, but of the individual tyrant.81 This aspect of a Syracusan Persians commissioned by the despot Hieron may also be apparent in Pindar’s admonition juxtaposing good and bad tyrants at the end of his first Pythian—also commissioned by Hieron at Syracuse—that οὐ φθίνει Κροίσου φιλόφρων ἀρετά: τὸν δὲ ταύρῳ χαλκέῳ καυτῆρα νηλέα νόον ἐχθρὰ Φάλαριν κατέχει παντᾷ φάτις (“the kindly virtue of Croesus does not fade away: but a nasty reputation entirely overwhelms Phalaris, that cook with the bronze bull and pitiless intent,” 95–8). Even Bacchylides’ Ode 3 for Hieron’s Olympic chariot victory in 468 not only takes Croesus’ salvation by Apollo as its central and presumably paradigmatic myth but also swipes the loaded word ἁβροβάταν to describe the Persian slave who lights Croesus’ pyre from Aeschylus’ Persians 1073, where it described the wailing Persian chorus in its grief.82 The hypothesis of Persians states that it was performed as the second play in a tetralogy: Phineus, Persians, Glaukos [Potneius], Prometheus (satyr play).83 Our sources do not mention if the other plays in the tetralogy other than Persians were performed in Sicily, nor can we be certain that there was the same thematic or narrative connection between them that we see elsewhere in Aeschylus’ Laios or Oresteia trilogies. What little we know from their few fragments, however, could have important ramifications for the Syracusan production of Persians. Phineus dealt with Zetes’ and Calaïs’ rescue of the titular seer from torment by the Harpies, in return for which Phineus provided the Argonauts some insight into their future.84 His prophecies, which helped the Greek Argonauts invade Asia, may be a thematic bridge across the trilogy to the oracles which foretold the ill fate of the Persian invasion of Greece (cf. Hdt. 9.42–3) that Darius mentions later in the Persians (739–40 and 801). The trilogy would then begin by foreshadowing the Persian invasion of Greece with the 81 82 83 84 For continuities between autocratic and other forms of government in Sicilian theatrical traditions, Monoson 2012. Later tradition (Athen. 6.231e-232c, drawing on Phaenias and Theopompus in the late 4th c. BCE) asserted that the Deinomenid tyrant brothers Gelon and Hieron were the first Greeks since Croesus to dedicate gold tripods at Delphi; cf. Gentili 1953, Krumeich 1991, Luraghi 1994, 358–61, and Kurke 1999, 130–42. See now Sommerstein 2012. Zetes and Calaïs were sons of Boreas and Oreithyia, who had rendered noteworthy aid to the Athenians during the Persian Wars and were celebrated in Athenian poetry and cult; cf. Hdt. 7.189 and Sim. PMG fr. 534 with Agard 1966. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 34 Smith Argonauts’ invasion of Asia in Phineus; the Persian invasion of Greece in the second play then comes as retaliation (compare Herodotus 1.1–5) and culminates, at least in our version, in Salamis. On this arc, and assuming a connected trilogy, whither do our expectations about the third play point: Plataea, or perhaps Himera? First, however, the identity and interpretation of the third play are complicated by the manuscript tradition. Not only are there two Aeschylean plays with the title Glaukos—Glaukos Potnieus “of Potnia” and Glaukos Pontios “the Seaman”—but many of our fragments and references to the title are quoted in antiquity simply as from “Glaukos” without further specification.85 Moreover, the plots of the two Glaukoi seem to have shared several elements (TrGF 3.141–57).86 Glaukos Pontios, “Seaman,” a title attested in the catalog of Aeschylean manuscripts, seems to be the story of a fisherman from Anthedon in Boeotia who eats magic grass, leaps into the sea, peregrinates, and emerges as a sea-god who later pines after a pre-monstrous Scylla. Pausanias 9.22.7 says both Pindar and Aeschylus received the story from locals in Anthedon. Glaukos’ prophetic abilities as sea-god are mentioned in Aristotle in his Delian Constitution (fr. 490 Rose = Athen. 7.296c) and in Euripides’ Orestes 362–5, where he prophesies Agamemnon’s death to Menelaus. Presumably his love for Scylla is in some way the story preserved in Ovid Met. 13.917–65, but also in a fine tetrameter poem written by the young Cicero and admired by Plutarch Cic. 2. However, Pontios seems to be a satyr play and thus not part of the Persians tetralogy. Glaukos Potnieus, “of Potniae” in Boeotia, although not attested with this epithet in the catalog, is listed in certain codices of the hypothesis as the third play in the Persians trilogy. Glaukos of Potniae was famous for being eaten by his own horses while competing in the funeral games of Pelias. The mares were ravenous because Glaukos had sought to increase their competitiveness either by keeping them from mating or by feasting them on flesh instead of grass (interestingly, the inverse of Glaukos Pontios’ transformation by eating 85 86 Even the Medicean manuscript tradition of the Persians hypothesis leaves off the specifier “Potnieus,” leading some to suppose the third play may have been the Glaukos Pontios; however, this play seems to have been a satyr play itself. Prometheus here should probably be the Prometheus Purphoros. See Broadhead 1960, lv–lx, Culasso-Gastaldi 1979, 77–82, and Garvie 2009, xl–xlvi. Some have thought to conflate them, but even Ovid Ib. 555–8 knew the difference: Glaucus ut alter … modo nomen; see Sommerstein 2012, 96–7. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 35 grass instead of flesh).87 The obvious connection of a Glaukos of Potniae to the Persians is that, as in Glaukos Pontios, Potnia neighbors Plataea, where the land-battle which bookended Persians’ naval-battle of Salamis in the defeat of Xerxes’ forces took place. Pushing the Persian Wars interpretation of the third play in the trilogy further, Hesychius (ξ74 s.v. Ξιφίρου λιμήν) mentions that Aeschylus in Glaukos Potnieus (fr. 40a R) discussed a harbor. Strabo 6.258c cites an unnamed play of Aeschylus (fr. 402 R) for the idea that Rhegium is so-called from the time when Sicily was broken off from the mainland of Italy by an earthquake.88 Sommerstein thus proposes that the trilogy should be read as a continuous narrative, with prophecies given and fulfilled across the plays, starting with Xerxes’ yoking Europe and Asia and ending with Poseidon’s separation of Sicily from Italy. Our surviving fragments of this play, however, seem to focus on the titular protagonist’s competition in the funeral-games of Pelias and his sparagmos by his own horses.89 One fragment is particularly unable to be placed between the two Glaukoi: the scholia to Pindar quote καλοῖσι λουτροῖς ἐκλελουμένος δέμας εἰς ὑψίκρημνον Ἱμέραν ἀφικόμην (“I washed my body in the beautiful baths and have arrived at craggy Himera,” Pyth. 1.79 = fr. 25a R) from an unspecified Glaukos. If from Pontios, this epichoric reference could be little more than a recollection of peregrinations by Glaukos after he fell into the ocean, later to return as a sea-god.90 Indeed, in Ovid’s account (Met. 14.1–10), Euboean Glaukos would have passed near Himera during a journey which takes him from Aetna and through the Straits of Messina on the way up the western coast of Italy to Circe. These two poles, moreover—Aetna and Cumae—define the limits of Deinomenid geopolitical influence.91 Geopoetically speaking, then, it becomes tempting to try to place this Himeraean fragment in relation to a Syracusan performance of both Persians and, somehow, Glaukos (Potnieus) in at least two ways. First of all, regardless of which Glaukos this scene belonged to, this vignette on the cliffs must have been treated in the Scylla of the Himeraean poet Stesichorus, 87 88 89 90 91 Asclepiades in his Tragoidoumena (BNJ 12 F1) identifies Glaukos of Potniae as the son of Sisyphus and relates the flesh version, likely to be from Aeschylus’ play, whereas the mating version is preserved in Vir. Georg. 3.266–8 and Servius ad loc. Pausanias 6.20.19 identifies him as the Taraxippus at Isthmia. Rhegium is given an etymology from the word ἀπορραγῆναι “break off,” an idea followed by many other authors; cf. De Angelis 2007: 316–20. Sommerstein 2012. Perhaps a reference to Masistios’ death at Plataea? Cf. Hdt. 9.22 and Broadhead 1960, lviii. Fr. 402 R on Rhegium could fall among the Pontios’ peregrinations as well. Cf. Pind Pyth. 1.18 and Gantz 1974, 145. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 36 Smith whose poem on the return of Heracles with the cattle of Geryon told the story of the hero’s rest-stop at Himera, which by the time of Diodorus (4.23, cf. 5.3) had become the aition for the very hot springs mentioned in the fragment. The return of the cattle of Geryon took Heracles not only through Himera but also to the Deinomenid-controlled Leontinian plain, as we saw above with the Palici. Secondly, Himera, of course, was the site of the decisive Deinomenid victory over the Carthaginians, which took place according to ancient tradition on the same day as the battle of Salamis and constituted the western half of a panhellenic victory over barbarian invaders.92 Like Salamis and Cumae, it is mentioned in the same breath by Pindar with Plataea in Pythian 1 for Hieron, an ode celebrating the foundation of Aetna itself, the occasion of the Aitnaiai. This Glaukos fragment, perhaps, would have reminded anyone with a sense of history that standing on the bluffs of the upper town (ὑψίκρημνον) of Himera literally filled one’s vision with the battlefield where the Deinomenids defeated the Carthaginians and raised a great temple in commemoration of their victory. Of this possibility Edward Freeman, writing his four-volume Oxford History of Sicily in the 1890’s, interrupted himself dreamily with: “Let us for a moment fancy to ourselves the sacrifice of Hamilkar told in the verse of Aeschylus.”93 Given the ancient tradition of Salamis and Himera, it is clear why Aeschylus’ Persians drives people to want for it a Sicilian counterpart. Aeschylus and Sicily Greek culture was not the same in Italy and Sicily as it was in the Aegean or Ionia. Instead, local cults and mythology, religious and philosophical beliefs and practices, and the processes of politics, patronage, and transmission differed from region to region. Thus, just to the extent that we feel we are in the presence of Aeschylus the Athenian when we see reflections of democratic principles like Marathonomachia and Athenian festivals like the Dionysia in his works, can Aeschylus the Sicilian be seen when his works reveal the influence of poetic traditions, socio-religious frameworks, and political and intellectual contexts more associated with western Greeks? Maybe.94 The tradition of reading Aeschylus with regard to western epichoric influences started in antiquity. Cicero (Tusc. 2.23 Pohlenz), introducing a discussion of Prometheus fragments, said famously, Veniat Aeschylus, non poëta 92 93 94 Hdt. 7.166 and Arist. Po. 1459a24–7 (but cf. Diod. 11.23); see Gauthier 1966. Freeman 1891, 2.280. See, for example, the hyperskeptical account of Griffith 1978. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 37 solum, sed etiam Pythagoreus; sic enim accepimus. Even though Prometheus’ claim (PV 459–60) that καὶ μὴν ἀριθμόν, ἔξοχον σοφισμάτων, ἐξηῦρον αὐτοῖς sounds Pythagorean enough, Griffith argues that Cicero could not have told a Pythagorean from a Platonist, anyway.95 Should the debate on maternal parentage in Eumenides 658–73 be read, as it often is, only in the context of Athenian parental ideology, when the debate on parentage is familiar from no less than six sixth-century philosophers, four of whom are from the Greek west, while none of them are Athenian? Could the claims about maternal parentage and education of the pais margos in the Dike fragment be related, too? Likewise, is the importance of eschatology in western Greek religion and philosophy responsible for the presence of “returns” of the Palici and/or the necromancy of Darius in both of the two plays for which Sicilian performance is attested? The cult of Demeter and Persephone is now increasingly held to be particularly close to the origins of theatrical performance in Sicily and Hieron, who held a hereditary priesthood of the eschatologically significant infernal goddesses Demeter and Persephone, sponsored both Aitnaiai and Persians in a theater which may have had an underground passageway specifically suitable for dramatizing eschatologically significant events like ghosts and divinities rising from the earth.96 In addition to local intellectual and spiritual traditions, Aeschylus was also in contact with a long-standing Sicilian poetic tradition with its own internal and external dynamics.97 The sixth-century poetry of Stesichorus of Himera, for example, has been thought to lie behind elements of several Aeschylean plays. Certain elements of Aeschylus’ Seven Against Thebes—particularly language about the division of lots—matches narrative elements in the Lille Papyrus’ account of Labdacid affairs.98 Stesichorus’ account of the travels of Heracles in the cup of the sun (PMGF fr. S17 Davies) and his account of Geryon’s triple body (PMGF fr. S87 Davies) recur again in Aeschylus’ Heliades (fr. 69 R, a play that dealt with Italy) and Heraclidae (fr. 74 R). But most significant is Stesichrorus’ apparent influence on the Oresteia: the role of Electra and Apollo in Orestes’ revenge (PMGF fr. 217 Davies), the importance of the Nurse (PMGF 95 96 97 98 Griffith 1978, 110; For western Greek Orthopythagoreanism in Aeschylus, see Cataudella 1963, 11–7; for Pythagoreanism in the Oresteia, see Seaford 2012, 293–315. See Bosher 2012, 104–5. On the infernal goddesses and performance traditions in Sicily, see Zuntz 1971, Bosher 2006, Kowalzig 2008, and MacLachlan 2012. Smith 2012. See Peron 1979, Thalmann 1982, and Wick 2003. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 38 Smith fr. 218 Davies), as well as Clytemnestra’s dream of the snake (PMGF fr. 219 Davies ~ Cho. 523–50), and possibly her use of the axe in the murder.99 In addition to being influenced by earlier traditions, Aeschylus was interwoven into the intellectual and poetic fabric of his contemporary Sicily, with whose authors reciprocal influence is possible. Should we doubt that they and other poets met at the court of Hieron in Syracuse, or elsewhere in Sicily like Gela or Acragas, and shared a poetic culture of local themes with contemporary importance?100 Pride of place next to Aeschylus among this group goes to Epicharmus and Pindar. In Sicilian poetic culture, what Aeschylus is to tragedy, Epicharmus is to comedy, and it is perhaps no surprise that, whether or not the two ever crossed paths in Sicily, a tradition developed about their works catching up with each other.101 But because Aeschylus and and Epicharmus overlapped on eight titles (Atalantae, Bacchae, Philoctetes, Theoroi/Thearoi, Persians, Prometheus, Diktyoulkoi/Diktyes, Sphynx), opportunities for comparison and/or confusion between the texts as they were received could have arisen early.102 For example, the assumption is usually that, generically, comedy imitates or parodies tragedy.103 Epicharmus is obviously responding to Aeschylus in the report of the scholia on Aeschylus’ use of the word τιμαλφούμενον in Eumenides 626, that συνεχὲς τὸ ὄνομα παρ’ Αἰσχύλωι· διὸ σκώπτει αὐτὸν Ἐπίχαρμος (“This word is everywhere in Aeschylus. Accordingly, Epicharmus ridicules him”).104 However, in at least one case, the reverse may be true: Epicharmus wrote a Diktyes, perhaps copied by Aeschylus in his satyric Diktyoulkoi, which Lobel already upon its discovery in 1941 thought was full of 99 100 101 102 103 104 The debate on whether Clytemnestra’s weapon was sword or axe has continued, from Fraenkel 1950 (3.806–9) to, so far, Prag 1991. On the poetic culture of Deinomenid Sicily, see Taplin 2006, Bosher 2006, and Smith 2012. On Epicharmus and Aeschylus, see Kerkhof 2001, 136–41, Willi 2008, 166–7, RodríguezNoriega Guillén 2012, 85–6, and now Poehlmann 2015. Flintoff 1986 has now restated the case for a (very) early PV on the basis of Epicharmus’ apparent knowledge of it. See now Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén 2012. Epicharmus’ Prometheus or Pyrrha may have dramatized the landing of Deucalion and Pyrra on the slopes of Mt. Aetna; cf. Hyg. Fab. 153, Kerkhof 2001, 136–40 and Shaw 2014, 66–7. Cf. e.g. Shaw 2014, 66. Although classified among the “Pseudepicharmeia” by Kassel and Austin, the line τὸ δὲ γαμεῖν ὁμοῖόν ἐστι τῷ τρὶς ἓξ ἢ τρεὶς μόνους ἀπὸ τύχης βαλεῖν (fr. 269.1–2 KA) would not make as fine of a joke if the audience does not know, e.g., that Aeschylus’ Oresteia (Ag. 32–3) had started with the same dice roll. The word is found only here in Epicharmus, and in Aeschylus (Eum. 115, 626, 807; Ag. 922) and Pindar, in an ode for Chromius (Nem. 9.54), which uses it to say ὑπὲρ πολῶν τε τιμαλφεῖν λόγοις νίκαν “honoring your victory with words beyond any others”—an in-joke of the victory poet between the poets of Hieron’s court? For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 39 Sicilianisms, possibly in parody of Epicharmus.105 In other examples of apparent influence between the two, it can simply be hard to tell which came first: Aeschylus’ οἳ πρῶτα μὲν βλέποντες ἔβλεπον μάτην, κλύοντες οὐκ ἤκουον (PV 447–8) or Epicharmus’ νοῦς ὁρῆι καὶ νοῦς ἀκούει· τἄλα κωφὰ καὶ τυφλά (fr. 214 KA)? And, what about οὖλος ὁρᾶι, οὖλος δὲ νοεῖ, οὖλος δέ τ’ ἀκούει, by another Syracusan visitor, Xenophanes (21B 24 DK)? Or the word δυσπάλαιστος, which only appears in the “Pseudepicharmeia” (fr. 280. 5 KA) and no other author before Aeschylus (Suppl. 468 and Cho. 692)? Or Cassandra’s yell ἴτ’ ἐς φθόρον in Aeschylus (Ag. 1267) compared with Epicharmus’ exclamation ἄπαγ’ εἰς φθόρον (fr. 154 KA)?106 Furthermore, other people besides Aeschylus and Epicharmus themselves appear to have had plays by both authors at hand or in memory.107 As we’ve seen above, when Aeschylus wasn’t being cited on his own as an authority for native Sicilian cults, he was adduced by the scholia to Aristophanes’ famous beetle-steed as practically as much of a authority on epichoric matters in eastern Sicily as Epicharmus himself. Eratosthenes of Cyrene is reported to have mentioned a performance of Aeschylus’ Persians in Sicily in his work On Comedy; such mention of the tragedy in a work devoted to comedy could hypothetically have featured in a passage comparing Epicharmus’ Persians with Aeschylus’. Another fruitful example of the interaction between Epicharmus and Aeschylus is that both wrote plays entitled some variation of “Sacred Delegates,” and these provoked so many similarly titled works among Syracusan authors that one wonders what made them so receptive to reinventions on this theme, even though there is no reason to think Aeschylus’ play was performed in or for Sicily. Thucydides 6.3.1 tells us that Sicilian theoroi shared a special tradition departing from a common altar to Delphic Apollo Archegetes, suggesting how important these delegations were to Sicilian identity.108 Although we don’t know whether this place of origin was only for Naxian or for all Sicilian delegates, it is nevertheless noteworthy that it is a long chain of 105 106 107 108 See Lobel in POxy 18.2161; cf. TrGF 3.161–74. See Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén 2012, 86 n. 41. Cf. also Shaw 2014, 74–5 on intertextuality of sexual vocabulary between Epicharmus and Aeschylus’ satyr plays. Possibly seen in the papyrus commentaries on Epich. fr. 97 KA, which twice adduce (or at least mention) τοὺς τραγικοὺς? Ἀπόλωνος Ἀρχηγέτου βωμὸν ὅστις νῦν ἔξω τῆς πόλεώς ἐστιν ἱδρύσαντο, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, ὅταν ἐκ Σικελίας θεωροὶ πλέωσι, πρῶτον θύουσιν. For Apollo Archegetes as Delphic (the god of colonization and therefore of all Greek Sicilians) and not Delian (i.e. Ionian and therefore only of the Naxians and their relatives), see Malkin 1986; for varieties of sacred theoroi, see Elsner and Rutherford 2005. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 40 Smith authors based in Syracuse who hand down mimetic performances dealing with the subject of similar delegations and their various destinations. So, Epicharmus wrote a comedy called Θεαροί, which seems to be about a visit to Apollo at Delphi (so Athen. 8.362b).109 Aeschylus wrote a satyr play called Θεωροὶ ἢ Ἰσθμιαστάι (frs. 78–82 R), whose antefix-gawking chorus of satyrs may have been inspired by the incorporation of Silenus antefixes made at Gela and Naxos into the early religious architecture of Selinus and other sites by the early fifth century.110 Aeschylus’ satyr play probably contained the line εἶα δὴ σκοπεῖτε δῶμα ποντίου σεισίχθο[ος (“Hey, check out the house of the Μarine Εarth-shaker!” fr. 78a.18 R), however, which makes it fairly clear that the destination was probably the temple of Poseidon at the Isthmus of Corinth rather than Apollo at Delphi.111 Instead, then, of suggesting the Delphic god of colonization or panhellenic prophecy and dedication (which Sicilians were well in contact with), Aeschylus evokes Poseidon, the sea god of Corinth, suggesting either, again, panhellenic visitors to the shrine of Isthmian Poseidon, or the epichoric, inter-polis connections between Corinth and delegations to and from its greatest colony, Syracuse. Indeed, the two cities were even said (Σ Pind. Ol. 13.158ac) to share the same version of the Isthmian ritual. Also by the end of the 5th c. BCE, Sophron of Syracuse wrote a mime called Θάμεναι τὰ Ἴσθμια “Women delegated to view the Isthmian Festival” (PCG 1.200) which not only seems to have drawn on Aeschylean over Epicharmean tradition in its choice of destinations, but also, and in turn by the end of the 3rd c. BCE, to have been picked up by another Syracusan, Theocritus, for his Idyll 15 (a visit to the festival of the Adonia at Alexandria).112 It is perhaps the power of Aeschylus’ poetic tradition at Syracuse that accounts for the anecdote in which Dionysius I, tyrant of Syracuse in the early 4th c., attempts to springboard his own failing career as a dramatic playwright by going to great pains to acquire Aeschylus’ writing-desk (Lucian Ιnd. 15). To Lucian, the trope of the tyrant-poet is such that Dionysius’ attempt to “buy in” to the physical basis for Aeschylus’ success naturally just makes things go from bad to worse, and his writings instead became, apparently, 109 110 111 112 In Athens, Eur. Ion describes another “theoric” encounter with Delphi, one in which the identity of Xuthus is reinvented; Smith 2012 argues this play directly contests the Sicilian manipulations of Xuthus in Aeschylus and Stesichorus. Marconi 2005. See Görschen 1954, Di Marco, 1969/70, and Sutton 1981. In addition to Eur. Ion, the pilgrim motif also makes its way into Herodas of Alexandria’s Mime 4 (a visit to Asclepius at Cos), by the 3rd c. BCe and, possibly, into Euphron of Athens’ Θεωροί by the 1st; cf. MacLachlan 2012, 356–7 and Shaw 2014, 56–77. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 41 γελοιότερα “even more laughable.” Conversely, the tradition of the purchase could have coalesced around a different fact—namely, that after a lifetime of humiliating failures, Dionysius’ efforts with the tragic pen finally won him a victory at the Athenian Lenaia of, probably, 367.113 What could have caused such a sudden and “dramatic” change for a Sicilian tyrant and tragic poet with Athenian interests, other than physical contact with Aeschylus’ own relics? Otherwise, the 4th c. saw a fairly strong showing by the Syracusan dramatic tradition in Attic contests—not only did Dionysius himself win at the Lenaia, but so did Akhaios of Syracuse (TrGF 1.87), and Mamerkos of Katana (TrGF 1.79) is said to have considered himself, at least, a successful tragic poet as well (Plut. Tim. 31.1: ἐπὶ τῷ ποιήματα γράφειν καὶ τραγῳδίας μέγα φρονῶν). Aeschylus’ death at Gela, and the hero-cult which may have involved competitive performances of choral or tragic poetry there, presumably arose somehow from the close historical connections between Gela and Syracuse. The third city with close ethnic, political, and dynastic ties to both Gela and Syracuse is Acragas. Did Aeschylus spark off an Acragantine school of tragedians there (PV 803 Ζηνὸς ἀκραγεῖς κύνας notwithstanding)? Perhaps Carcinus I (TrGF 1.21, although probably an Athenian who won first at the Dionysia in 446), and certainly Carcinus II (TrGF 1.70, according to the Suda at least) were from Acragas, and the latter like Aeschylus probably wrote an Oresteia (70 fr. 1g R).114 There are also parallels between the Aeschylean Prometheus plays and Empedocles’ philosophy, particularly in their cosmologies and element theories: compare, for example, Empedocles πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γαῖα καὶ ἠέρος ἄπλετον ὕψος (“Fire and Water and Earth and the boundless height of Air,” 31B 17.27 DK) to Aeschylus’ Heliades (fr. 70 R), “Zeus is αἰθηρ, Zeus is γῆ, Zeus is οὐρανος, and everything that comes after, too …”.115 According to Diogenes Laertius 8.57–8, Empedocles the philosopher also wrote a work called either the Διάβασις τοὺ Χέρξου or just Persika, and his collected works included tragedies known in Aristotle’s On Poets (fr. 70 Rose) as being “political,” although these may have belonged to his grandson, also apparently an Acragantine tragedian (TrGF 1.50; cf. Suda ε1001).116 Aeschylus’ gravity could have pulled other western preSocratics into his orbit of reception as well. So, for example, Capizzi argues that Parmenides may have seen Aitnaiai and Heliades produced in the west, and picked up from them ideas about coming to meet Dike in the Chariot of the Sun, and Focke proposed that Gorgias’ Palamedes (82B 11a.12–4 DK) could have 113 114 115 116 Cf. Diod. 15.74 and Duncan 2012. See Wilson 2007, 362 and Bock 1958, 412. Herington 1963. Sider 1982, who points to Persika as a lectio difficilior for Physika. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 42 Smith borrowed its panhellenic tone from Aeschylus’ Persians (e.g. 402–5).117 Griffith admits a litany of sophistic influences in Prometheus, although it is worth remembering that, to advance his influential argument for a late and therefore non-Aeschylean play, he could hardly do otherwise.118 It is rarely recalled that Aitnaiai (and Persians to a lesser extent) remains one of the earliest dated Greek dramatic performances. Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that much of Greek drama unfolded in its shadow to some extent. How powerful was the aitiology of the Palici (and that of Dike?) on later dramaturgy—particularly, as above, on the Eumenides? Where else might such dramatic techniques first tested in Sicily have later manifested themselves? It is not inappropriate that all future finds of Aeschylus be weighed against the possibility, at least, of Sicilian influence. Conclusion: The Reception of Aeschylus in Sicily This essay has tried to show who knew what when and how, rather than to offer a unified interpretation about what Aeschylus in Sicily might have meant at every given time and place. However, there are some points of interest and puzzlement that arise by looking at the pattern of testimonies and silences across various eras. In the Late Antique period, it seems that authors like Macrobius and Stephanus are citing from a group of Hellenistic authors on the Palici whose sources we presume included Aeschylus. Yet our only bookfragments and references to the Aitnaiai come from this same period or later: Macrobius, John Lydus, Stephanus of Byzantium, Hesychius, the scholia to Homer, and the Vita Aeschyli. In the Byzantine period, Eustathius’ enthusiasm for Aeschylus in Sicily is mostly due to his enthusiasm for Athenaeus;119 however, there are certainly numerous other examples in Athenaeus besides Aeschylus’ use of Sicilian pig-words that the bishop did not bring up on multiple occassions. What can we say? There is no direct, explicit evidence for Aeschylus in Sicily before the end of the Classical Period. Was his Sicilianicity, then, a product of the Hellenistic Age? Our earliest attestation of his presence in Sicily is indeed the Parian Marble, which gives away its own agenda because it does so not just once but twice: not only does it place Aeschylus in Sicily, it also 117 118 119 Capizzi 1982; Focke 1930, 302. Griffith 1977, 217–24. Van der Walk 1971, lxxix–lxxxv. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 43 says Sappho went to Sicily. In its accounts, both poets line up with a famous historical regime at Syracuse: Sappho with the Gamoroi, Aeschylus with the Deinomenids.120 Despite raising our eyebrows, the Parian Marble was surely an influential disseminator of traditions in antiquity. The reception of Sicilian Aeschylus in literary epigram during the Roman Imperial and Second Sophistic periods, on the other hand, may be partially based on the identity of the reporting author, if it is not accidental that the Atticizing non-Greeks Athenaeus and Pausanias enforce Aeschylus Marathonomachos, while Plutarch—himself a non-Attic Greek—happily allows Aeschylus Siculus. Imperial Rome, moreover, obsessed with the role of language in its discourses about Romanitas versus ethnic and local identities, not surprisingly sees the explicit emergence of Aeschylus’ Sicilian patois as evidence for his Sicilianicity.121 It also sees the explicit emergence of the “tyrant’s patronage” motif, probably with origins in the Hellenistic period. It can be no surprise that local elites in autocratic periods of Hellenistic Greece and Imperial Rome (Athenaeus was from Egypt, Pausanias from Lydia, Plutarch from Greece) promoted a Sicilian Aeschylus who was— like themselves—patronized in a world of autocracy, and whose identity—like theirs—was based on a mastery of second-language vocabulary. So, too, the modern era has continued to supply different agendas which seek to establish the extent to which Aeschylus could have been, in some way, Sicilian. While western Europeans in the 17th to 19th centuries embraced a Sicilian Aeschylus, perhaps as part of their interest in the Sicily and Magna Graeca of the Grand Tour, western Europeans in the 20th and 21st centuries have largely dismissed the Sicilian Aeschylus, perhaps because he detracts from Athenian literature’s role in the ideological makeup of liberal western democracies. Italianophone scholarship has, naturally, embraced a Sicilian Aeschylus. Even at the local level, the Geloan erudites who in 1848 and again in 1948 thought they had found evidence of a theater in Gela near Torre Insinga al Caricatore are said to have been “affected by the local fixation with finding traces of Aeschylus and the alleged theatre where his plays were supposedly performed,”122 “un’idea fissa per i moderni Gelesi.”123 However, despite numerous claims that Gela actually had or simply “must have had” a theater, proof remains elusive.124 Not having found one, though, the Gelesi were not 120 121 122 123 124 On Sappho in Sicily, see BNJ 239 F A36 and Smith forthcoming. See Swain 1998, 17–100. Poli Palladini 2013, 88. Griffo 1951, 14. Battaglia 1957. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 44 Smith content to be without one, and constructed their Teatro communale Eschilo performance venue in 1832, one of the first for a small city in Sicily. Since the early twentieth century, Aeschylus has been reperformed as part of the cycle of ancient dramatic productions at the ancient Greek theater in Siracusa by the Istituto Nazionale del Dramma Antico. After 100 years of performances of the Greek dramatists (1914–2014), Aeschylus is least popular in reperformance, but trails only by a bit. While plays from the Oresteia dominate INDA’s reperformances of Aeschylus, Prometheus and Persians have been slightly more popular than Seven and Suppliants. How Sicilian do we want Aeschylus to be? The quantity of ancient material and modern scholarship says a lot for the maximal hypothesis; we do not have similar quantities for a Sicilian Sophocles or a Sicilian Euripides.125 On the one hand, Phrynichus’ alleged death in Sicily (T6 S) and Euripides’ supposed proxenia of Syracuse are from sources so late (an anonymous treatise on comedy and the scholia to Aristotle’s Rhetoric), and line up before and after Aeschylus in a doxographic chain so perfect, that it seems unwise to accept all sources as equally accurate.126 On the other, with the evidence we do have, we would probably be on solid enough ground to hold on to and speculate about Sicilian influence and reception if we were dealing with any less important—or any less importantly Athenian—author than Aeschylus. But, in the end, must our interest in Aeschylus Siculus be all or nothing? What if the project were to start “thinking away” some of the latest or weakest links in the Sicilian chain of evidence, in order to discover whether there is a minimum “keystone” piece of evidence on which the Sicilian Aeschylus entirely hangs—the Vita, maybe? The Frogs scholia? The Parian Marble? Or maybe the golden ideal of Hieron’s patronage that started with Pindar? What would it take to minimize the case for a Sicilian Aeschylus to the point where our account became: Aeschylus merely made mention of the Palici and a few other Sicilian things in an Athenian production and a false biographical interpretation snowballed out from there? Decoupling Hieron would indeed allow for Aeschylus in Sicily’s most minimal reading: that Persians in Syracuse was merely a later reperformance at best, and that Aitnaiai need only have been performed in Athens.127 125 126 127 Sophocles: Vanotti 1979, Zacharia 2003; Euripides: Burelli 1979. See Cagnazzi 1993. For Kate Bosher, whose version would have been better. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 45 Bibliography Agard, Walter. 1966. “Boreas at Athens.” Classical Journal 61: 241–6. Aly, Wolfgang. 1906. De Aeschyli Copia Verborum Capita Selecta. Berlin: Weidmann. Basta-Donzelli, Giuseppina. 1996. “Katane-Aitna tra Pindaro ed Eschilo.” In Catania Antica. Atti Del Convegno Della S.I.S.A.C. (Catania 23–4 Maggio 1992), edited by Bruno Gentili, 73–95. Pisa-Rome: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali. Basta-Donzelli, Giuseppina. 2003. “Eschilo a Gela.” In Tà Attiká. Veder greco a Gela: Ceramiche attiche figurate dall’antica colonia, edited by Rosalba Panvini and Filippo Giudice, 95–8. Rome: Bretschneider. Bastianini, Guido, Michael Haslam, Herwig Maehler, Franco Montanari, and Cornelia E. Römer, eds. 2004. Commentaria et Lexica Graeca in Papyris reperta (CLGP), adiuvante Marco Stroppa, Pars I: Commentaria et lexica in auctores; Vol. 1, fasc. 1: Aeschines-Alcaeus. Leipzig: K. G. Saur. Battaglia, Rosario. 1957. “Eschilo e il teatro greco di Gela.” Archivo Storico per la Sicilia Orientale 53: 168–73. Bello, Leda. 1960. “Ricerche sui Palici.” Kokalos 6: 71–97. Biles, Zachary P. 2006/7. “Aeschylus’ Afterlife: Reperformance by Decree in 5th c. Athens?” Illinois Classical Studies 31/32: 206–42. Bock, Martin. 1958. “Aischylos und Akragas.” Gymnasium 65: 402–50. Boehringer, Christof. 1968. “Hieron’s Aitna und das Hieroneion.” Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 18: 67–98. Bosher, Kathryn. 2006. Theater on the Periphery: A Social and Political History of Theater in Early Sicily. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan: Department of Classics. Bosher, Kathryn. 2012. “Hieron’s Aeschylus.” In Theater Outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy, edited by Kathryn Bosher, 97–111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bosher, Kathryn. 2013. “Problems in non-Athenian Drama: Some Questions about South Italy and Sicily.” Ramus 42: 89–103. Broadhead, Henry D. 1960. The Persae of Aeschylus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burelli, Laura. 1979. “Euripide e l’Occidente.” In I Tragici Greci e l’Occidente, 129–67. Bologna: Pàtron Editore. Caccamo Caltabiano, Maria. 2009. “Why is There the Head of a Silenus on the Aitna Tetradrachm?” In ΚΕΡΜΑΤΙΑ ΦΙΛΙΑΣ: τιμητικός τόμος για τον Ιόαννη Τουράτσογλου, edited by Stella Drougou, Despoina Eugenidou, and Chaŕlampos Kritźs, 97–104. Athens: Ministry of Culture, Numismatic Museum, 2009. Cagnazzi, Silvana. 1993. “Notìzie sulla partecipazione di Euripide alla vita pubblica ateniese.” Athenaeum 81: 165–75. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 46 Smith de Callataÿ, Francois. 2010. “The Brussels Tetradrachm of Aitna: Possibly the Most Precious Ancient Coin in the World.” In All that Glitters … : The Belgian Contribution to Greek Numismatics (Catalogue of the exhibition organized at the Numismatic Museum in Athens, Sept. 29, 2010 to Jan. 15, 2011), edited by Panagiotis P. Iossif, 82– 91. Athens: Belgian School at Athens. Capizzi, Antonio. 1975. La Porta di Parmenide: due saggi per una nuova lettura del poema. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Capizzi, Antonio. 1982. “Eschilo e Parmenide. Del circolo poetico siracusano e anche dei compartimenti stagni tra generi letterari.” Quaterni Urbinati di Cultura Classica n.s. 12: 117–33. Carpenter, Thomas H. 2009. “Prolegomenon to the Study of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery.” American Journal of Archaeology 113: 27–38. Cataudella, Quintino. 1963. “Eschilo in Sicilia.” Dioniso 37: 5–24. Cataudella, Quintino. 1964/5. “Tragedie di Eschilo nella Siracusa di Gerone.” Kokalos 10/11: 371–98. Cipolla, Paol0. 2010. “Il ‘Frammento di Dike’ (Aesch. F 281a R.): uno status quaestionis sui problemi testuali ed esegetici.” Lexis 28: 131–52. Constantinidis, Stratos E. 2012. “The Aristophanes Chairis-Hypothesis: Did Aristophanes See an Adaptation of Aeschylus’ Persians during the Peloponnesian War?” In Text & Presentation 2011, edited by Kiki Gounaridou, 5–15. London: McFarland. Corbato, Carlo. 1996. “Le Etnee di Eschilo.” In Catania Antica. Atti Del Convegno Della S.I.S.A.C. (Catania 23–4 Maggio 1992), edited by Bruno Gentili, 61–72. Pisa-Rome: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali. Croon, Johan H. 1952. “The Palici: An Autochthonous Cult in Ancient Sicily.” Mnemosyne n.s. 4 5: 116–29. Csapo, Eric. 2001. “The First Artistic Representations of Theatre: Dramatic Illusion and Dramatic Performance in Attic and South Italian Art.” In Theatre and the Visual Arts, edited by Giuliana Katz, Vera Golini, and Domenico Pietropaolo, 17–38. Ottawa: Legas. Csapo, Eric. 2010. Actors & Icons of the Ancient Theater. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Csapo, Eric and William J. Slater. 1995. The Context of Ancient Drama. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Culasso Gastaldi, Enrica. 1979. “Eschilo e l’Occidente.” In I Tragici Greci e l’Occidente, 17–90. Bologna: Pàtron Editore. Cusumano, Nicola. 1990. “Ordalia e Soteria Nella Sicilia Antica: I Palici.” Mythos 2: 9–186. Davies, Mark I. 1969. “Thoughts on the Oresteia before Aischylos.” Bulletin de Correspondence Hellenique 93: 214–60. De Angelis, Alessandro. 2007. “Un’etimologia di Boccaccio e il toponimo Faro ‘Stretto di Messina’.” Cultura Neolatina 71: 313–31. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 47 Demand, Nancy. 1990. Urban Relocation in Archaic and Classical Greece: Flight and Consolidation. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Di Marco, Massimo. 1969/70. “Studi sul dramma satiresco di Eschilo. 1: Theoroi e Isthmiastai.” Helikon 9/10: 373–422. Dickie, Matthew W. 1984. “Hesychia and Hybris in Pindar.” In Greek Poetry and Philosophy: Studies in Honour of Leonard Woodbury, edited by Douglas E. Gerber, 83–110. Chico: Scholars Press. Dougherty, Carol. 1991. “Linguistic Colonialism in Aeschylus’ Aitnaiai.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 32: 119–32. Dougherty, Carol. 1993. The Poetics of Colonization: From City to Text in Archaic Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dover, Kenneth J. 1993. Aristophanes Frogs. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Duncan, Anne. 2011. “Tragedians at the Courts of Tyrants.” In Why Athens? A Reappraisal of Tragic Politics, edited by David M. Carter, 69–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Easterling, Patricia E. 1994. “Euripides Outside Athens: A Speculative Note.” Illinois Classical Studies 19: 73–80. Elsner, Jas and Ian Rutherford, eds. 2005. Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Antiquity: Seeing the Gods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flintoff, Everard. 1986. “The Date of the Prometheus Bound.” Mnemosyne 39: 82–91. Focke, Friedrich. 1930. “Aischylos’ Prometheus.” Hermes 65: 259–304. Fraenkel, Eduard. 1950. Agamemnon. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fraenkel, Eduard. 1954. “Vermutungen zum Aetna-Festspiel des Aeschylus.” Eranos 52: 61–75. Freeman, Edward A. 1891. The History of Sicily from the Earliest Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gantz, Timothy. 1974. “Pindar’s First Pythian: The Fire Within.” Ramus 3: 143–51. Garvie, Alexander. 2009. Aeschylus: Persae. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gauthier, P. 1966. “Le parallèlle Himère-Salamine au Ve siècle et au IVe siècle av. J.C.” Revue des Études Anciennes 68: 5–32. Gentili, Bruno. 1953. “I tripodi di Delphi e il carme III di Bacchilide.” Parola del Passato 30: 199–208. Gentili, Bruno. 1988. Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece: From Homer to the Fifth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Görschen, Fritz C. 1954. “Zu Aischylos’ Satyrdrama der Theoroi e Isthmiastai (POxy 2162).” Dioniso 17: 3–21. Görschen, Fritz C. 1955. “Zum sogenannten Dike-Fragment des Aischylos.” Dioniso 18: 139–51. Görschen, Fritz C. 1956. “Die Hypothesis zu Aischylos’ Aitnaiai: (Pap. Ox. XX, nr. 2257, fr. 1).” Dioniso 19: 217–26. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 48 Smith Görschen, Fritz C. 1959. “Die Eirene in Aischylos’ Aitnaiai: Vorstellung und Wirklichkeit.” Dioniso 22: 147–88. Griffo, Pietro. 1951. Gela preistorica ed ellenica. Gela: Tip. Scrodato. Second edn. Griffith, Mark. 1977. The Authenticity of the Prometheus Bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Griffith, Mark. 1978. “Aeschylus, Sicily, and Prometheus.” In Dionysiaca: Nine Studies in Greek Poetry by Former Students Presented to Sir Denys Page, edited by Roger D. Dawe, James Diggle, and Patricia E. Easterling, 105–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Library. Guardi, Tommaso. 1980. “L’Attività Teatrale nella Siracusa di Gerone I.” Dioniso 51: 25–47. Hanink, Johanna and Anna Uhlig. 2016. “Aeschylus and his Afterlife in the Classical Period: ‘My poetry did not die with me.’ ” In The Tragedies of Aeschylus: The Cultural Divide and the Trauma of Adaptation, edited by Stratos Constantinidis, 51–79. Leiden: Brill. Harrell, Sarah. 2002. “King or Private Citizen: Fifth-Century Sicilian Tyrants at Olympia and Delphi.” Mnemosyne 55: 439–64. Harrell, Sarah. 2006. “Sychronicity: The Local and the Panhellenic within Sicilian Tyranny.” In Ancient Tyranny, edited by Sian Lewis, 119–34. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Herington, C. John. 1963. “A Study in the Prometheia, Part I. The Elements in the Trilogy.” Phoenix 17: 180–97. Herington, C. John. 1967. “Aeschylus in Sicily.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 87: 74–85. Herington, C. John. 1970. The Author of the Prometheus Bound. Austin: University of Texas Press. Hermann, Gottfried. 1827. “De choro Eumenidum Aeschyli Dissertatio Secunda.” In Opuscula Vol. II, 139–66. Leipzig: Gerhard Fleischer. Kantorowicz, Ernst H. 1953. “ΣΥΝΘΡΟΝΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΙ.” American Journal of Archaeology 57.2: 65–70. Kiehl, Ernst J. 1852. “Aeschyli Vita.” Mnemosyne 1: 361–74. Kirsten, Ernst. 1941. “Ein politisches Programm in Pindars erstem Pythischen Gedicht.” Rheinisches Museum 90: 58–71. Köhnken, Adolf. 1970. “Hieron und Deinomenes in Pindars erstem Pythischen Gedicht.” Hermes 98: 1–13. Körte, Alfred. 1920. “Das Prometheusproblem.” Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum 45: 201–13. Kossatz-Deissmann, Anneliese. 1978. Dramen des Aischylos auf westgriechischen Vasen. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. Kowalzig, Barbara. 2005. “Mapping the Communitas: Performances of Theoria in their Sacred and Political Context.” In Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 49 Antiquity, edited by Jas Elsner and Ian Rutherford, 41–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kowalzig, Barbara. 2008. “Nothing to do with Demeter? Something to do with Sicily! Theatre and Society in the Early Fifth-Century West.” In Performance, Iconography, Reception: Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin, edited by Martin Revermann and Peter Wilson, 128–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krumeich, Ralf. 1991. “Zu den goldenen Dreifüssen der Deinomeniden in Delphi.” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 106: 37–62. Krumeich, Ralf. 2000. “Die Weihgeschenke der Satyrn in Aischylos’ Theoroi oder Isthmiastai.” Philologus 144: 176–92. Kurke, Leslie. 1999. Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press. La Rosa, Vincenzo. 1973/4. “Le Etnee Di Eschilo e L’identificazione Di Xouthia.” Archivo Storico per la Sicilia Orientale 70: 151–63. Lavagnini, Bruno. 1930. “I Persiani d’Eschilo al Teatro di Siracusa.” Bollettino dell’Istituto Nazionale del Dramma Antico 2: 36–44. Lefkowitz, Mary R. 1981. The Lives of the Greek Poets. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Leeuwen, Jan van. 1890. “De Aeschyli Itineribus Siculis.” Mnemosyne n.s. 18: 68–75. Lloyd-Jones, Hugh. 1956. “Zeus in Aeschylus.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 76: 55–67. Lloyd-Jones, Hugh. 1969. “Il Prometeo Incatenato di Eschilo.” Dioniso 43: 211–8. Lloyd-Jones, Hugh. 1971. The Justice of Zeus. Sather Classical Lectures Vol. 41. Berkeley: University of California Press. MacLachlan, Bonnie. 2012. “The Grave’s a Fine and Funny Place: Chthonic Rituals and Comic Theater in the Greek West.” In Theater Outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy, edited by Kathryn Bosher, 343–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malkin, Irad. 1986. “Apollo Archegetes and Sicily.” Annali della Scuola Normale di Pisa n.s. 3 16.4: 959–72. Manni, Eugenio. 1981. Geografia fisica e politica della Sicilia antica. Rome: G. Bretschneider. McConnell, Brian E. and Laura Maniscalco. 2003. “The Sanctuary of the Divine Palikoi (Rocchicella di Mineo, Sicily): Fieldwork from 1995 to 2001.” American Journal of Archaeology 107: 145–80. Marconi, Clemente. 2005. “I Theoroi di Eschilo e le Antefisse Sileniche Siceliote.” Sicilia Antiqua 2: 75–93. Meurant, Alain. 1998. Les Paliques, Dieux Jumeaux Siciliens. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters. Miller, Stephen. 1978. “The Date of the First Pythiad.” Classical Antiquity 11: 127–58. Molyneux, John H. 1992. Simonides: A Historical Study. Wauconda: Bolchazy-Carducci. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 50 Smith Monoson, S. Sara. 2012. “Sicilian Theatrical Traditions in Plato’s Republic.” In Theater Outide Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy, edited by Kathryn Bosher, 156–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mosshammer, Alden A. 1982. “The Date of the First Pythiad Again.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 23: 15–30. Nervegna, Sebastiana. 2014. “Performing Classics: The Tragic Canon in the Fourth Century and Beyond.” In Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century BC, edited by Eric Csapo, Hans Goette, J. Richard Green, and Peter Wilson, 157–87. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Page, Denys L. 1981. Further Greek Epigrams. Epigrams before A.D. 50 from the Greek Anthology and Other Sources, Not Included in “Hellenistic Epigrams” or “The Garland of Philip.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Patrito, Paolo. 2001. “Sul ‘Frammento di Dike’ (= Aesch. Frr. 281ab Radt).” Quaderni del Dipartimento di Filologia A. Rostagni: 77–95. Peron, Jacques. 1979. “Une Version ‘Sicilienne’ du Mythe des Labdacides dans les Sept Contre Thebes d’Eschyle.” Grazer Beiträge 8: 75–99. Pickard-Cambridge, Arthur W. 1927. Dithyramb, Tragedy, and Comedy. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Podlecki, Anthony J. 1979. “Simonides in Sicily.” La Parola del Passato 18: 5–16. Poehlmann, Egert. 2015. “Epicharmus and Aeschylus on Stage in Syracuse in the 5th Century.” Greek and Roman Musical Studies 3: 137–66. Polacco, Luigi and Carlo Anti. 1976. Il Teatro Antico Di Siracusa. Padua: Maggioli. Poli Palladini, Letizia. 2001. “Some Reflections on Aeschylus’ Aetnae(ae).” Rheinisches Museum 144: 287–325. Poli Palladini, Letizia. 2013. Aeschylus at Gela: An Integrated Approach. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Prag, Jonathan. 1991. “Clytemnestra’s Weapon Yet Once More.” Classical Quarterly 41: 242–6. Radt, Stefan. 1985. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Vol. 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Revermann, Martin. 2008. “Aeschylus’ Eumenides, Chronotopes, and the ‘Aetiological Mode.’ ” In Performance, Iconography, Reception. Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin, edited by Martin Revermann and Peter Wilson, 237–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rizzo, Francesco P. 1970. La repubblica di Siracusa nel momento di Ducezio. Palermo: U. Manfredi. Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén, Lucía. 1994. “Heracles, Los Pigmeos y Los Escarabajos del Etna: en torno a Epicarmo 76 Kai./41 Ol.” Habis 25: 71–6. Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén, Lucía. 2012. “Epicharmus’ Literary and Philosophical Background.” In Theater Outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy, edited by Kathryn Bosher, 76–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 51 Saïd, Suzanne. 1981. “Darius et Xerxès dans les Perses d’Eschyle.” Ktema 6: 17–38. Schoenemann, Julius. 1887. “Herodicea.” Rheinisches Museum 42: 467–71. Seaford, Richard. 2012. Cosmology and the Polis. The Social Construction of Space and Time in the Tragedies of Aeschylus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shaw, Carl. 2014. Satyric Play: The Evolution of Greek Comedy and Satyr Drama. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sider, David. 1982. “Empedocles’ Persika.” Ancient Philosophy 2: 76–8. Slater, William J. 1984. “Nemean One. The Victor’s Return in Poetry and Politics.” In Greek Poetry and Philosophy: Studies in Honour of Leonard Woodbury, edited by Douglas E. Gerber, 241–64. Chicago: Scholars Press. Small, Jocelyn P. 2003. The Parallel Worlds of Classical Art and Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, David G. 2004. “Thucydides’ Ignorant Athenians and the Tragedy of the Sicilian Expedition.” Syllecta Classica 16: 33–70. Smith, David G. 2009. “Alcibiades, Athens, and the Tyranny of Sicily (Thuc. 6.16)”. Greece, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 49: 363–89. Smith, David G. 2012. “Sicily and the Identities of Xuthus.” In Theater Outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy, edited by Kathryn Bosher, 112–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, David G. 2013. “A Regional Performance Culture? The Case of Syracuse.” In Regionalism and Globalism in Antiquity: Exploring their Limits (Colloquia Antiqua 7), edited by Franco De Angelis, 127–42. Leiden: Brill. Smith, David G. forthcoming. “Sappho in Sicily.” In Sappho in the 21st Century, edited by Benjamin Acosta-Hughes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Solmsen, Friedrich. 1944. “The Tablets of Zeus.” Classical Quarterly 38: 27–30. Solmsen, Friedrich. 1949. Hesiod and Aeschylus. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Sommerstein, Alan H. 2010. “Aeschylus’ Epitaph.” In The Tangled Ways of Zeus, 195–201. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sommerstein, Alan H. 2012. “The Persian War Tetralogy of Aeschylus.” In Greek Drama IV: Texts, Contexts, Performance, edited by John Davidson and David Rosenbloom, 95–107. London: Aris & Phillips. Stanford, William B. 1938. “Traces of Sicilian Influence in Aeschylus.” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 44, Section C: 229–40. Stark, Rudolph. 1956. “Osservazioni su due drammi di Eschilo perduti.” Maia n.s. 8 2: 83–91. Sutton, Dana. 1980. The Greek Satyr Play. Meisenheim am Glan: Verlag Anton Hain. Sutton, Dana. 1981. “Aeschylus’ Theoroi or Isthmiastae: A Reconsideration.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 22: 335–8. Sutton, Dana. 1983. “A Possible Subject for Aeschylus’ ‘Dike Play’. ” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 51: 19–24 For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 52 Smith Swain, Simon. 1998. Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World AD 50–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taplin, Oliver. 1977. The Stagecraft of Aeschylus: the Dramatic Use of Exits and Entrances in Greek Tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Taplin, Oliver. 1993. Comic Angels, and Other Approaches to Greek Drama through VasePainting. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Taplin, Oliver. 2006. “Aeschylus’ Persae—The Entry of Tragedy into the Celebration Culture of the 470’s?” In Dionysalexandros: Essays on Aeschylus and His Fellow Tragedians in Honour of Alexander F. Garvie, edited by Douglas Cairns and Vayos Liapis, 1–10. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Taplin, Oliver. 2007. Pots and Plays: Interactions between Tragedy and Greek Vase Painting of the Fourth Century BC Los Angeles: Getty Publications Thalmann, William G. 1982. “The Lille Stesichorus and the Seven Against Thebes.” Hermes 110.4: 385–91. Todisco, Luigi. 2002. Teatro e Spettacolo in Magna Grecia e in Sicilia: Testi Imagini Archittetura. Milan: Longanesi & Co. Todisco, Luigi, ed. 2003. La Ceramica Figurata a Soggetto Tragico in Magna Grecia e in Sicilia. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore. Todisco, Luigi. 2012. “Myth and Tragedy: Red-figure Pottery and Verbal Communication in Central and Northern Apulia in the Later 4th-century BCE.” In Theater Outide Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy, edited by Kathryn Bosher, 251–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trumpf, Jürgen. 1958. “Stadtgründung und Drachenkampf (Excurse zu Pindar, Pythien I).” Hermes 86: 129–57. Van der Walk, Marchinus. 1971. Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill. Vanotti, Gabriella. 1979. “Sofocle e l’Occidente.” In I Tragici Greci e l’Occidente, 93–125. Bologna: Pàtron Editore. Von Mess, Adolf. 1901. “Der Typhonmythos bei Aischylos.” Rheinisches Museum 56: 167–74. Voza, Giuseppe. 2003. I Mosaici del Tellaro: Lusso e cultura nel sud-est della Sicilia. Siracusa: Erre Produzioni. West, Martin L. 1979. “The Prometheus Trilogy.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 99: 130–48. Wick, Claudia. 2003. “Le tirage au sort: un leitmotiv dans la Thébaïde de Lille et les Sept contre Thébes.” Museum Helveticum 60.3: 167–74. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Ulrich von. 1897. “Die Perser des Aischylos.” Hermes 32: 382–98. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Ulrich von. 1901. “Hieron und Pindaros.” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 53: 1273–318. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Reception Of Aeschylus In Sicily 53 Willi, Andreas. 2008. Sikelismos. Sprache, Literatur und Gesellschaft im griechischen Sizilien (8.-5. Jh. v. Chr.). Basel: Schwabe Verlag. Willi, Andreas. 2012. “ ‘We Speak Peloponnesian’: Tradition and Linguistic Identity in Post-Classical Sicilian Literature.” In Language and Linguistic Contact in Ancient Sicily, edited by Olga Tribulato, 265–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, Peter. 2007. “Sicilian Choruses.” In The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies, edited by Peter Wilson, 351–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Woodbury, Leonard. 1968. “Pindar and the Mercenary Muse: Isthm. 2.1–13.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 99: 527–42. Zacharia, Katerina. 2003. “Sophocles and the West: The Evidence of the Fragments.” In Shards from Kolonos: Studies in Sophoclean Fragments, edited by Alan Sommerstein, 57–76. Bari: Levante Editori. Ziegler, Konrad. 1949. “Palikoi.” In Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Vol. 18.3, cols. 100–23. J. B. Metzler: Stuttgart. Zuntz, Günther. 1971. Persephone: Three Essays on Religion and Thought in Magna Grecia. Oxford: Clarendon Press. For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV