Abstract
Part Three has to do with three plays of the first half of Aeschylus’ career. We can expect them to be less polished than the later plays, but we will find that their construction fits the same mold as was used for the Prometheia or Oresteia. All I mean by this is that the rhythm is the same. A great moral transgression highlights the first tragedy. Archaic Greek morality dictated that such transgression invites nemesis, the hatred of the gods. Atê almost always succeeds nemesis. Inevitably the second play is about the punishment of the transgressor. When the trilogy ended the gloom has lifted, but before it is overcome by the sunlight there is a judgment, then a persuasion to reconcile, reconciliation, and, finally, homonoia and harmonia.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
For the Suppliants, Seven Against Thebes, and Persians I will follow Aeschylus: Prometheus Bound and Other Plays. Philip Vellacott (trans.). Penguin Classics 1961. Copyright© Philip Vellacott, 1961. Reprinted here by permission of Penguin Books Ltd.
H. D. Broadhead. The Persae of Aeschylus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960, p. 1v.
Ibid., p. 1x.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 1vi.
The specific dating Herington assigned production was between 466–463 B.C. for the Suppliants, the Spring of 458 B.C. for the Oresteia, and the Prometheia between 458 and Aeschylus’ death in 456/5 B.C. I will be more specifically guided by Garvie’s dating of the Suppliants.
Hereafter the Seven Against Thebes will be referred to as the Seven.
Herington. “Last,” p. 386.
With proper caution Garvie is unwilling to go further than saying that naming the second play of the trilogy Aegyptii cannot be “banished altogether.” But, as Garvie proceeds to show, objections have not held water. (Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 188 ff.)
To quote Garvie: “… its place in the Danaid trilogy has now been confirmed by Ox. Pap. 2256 No. 3.” (Ibid., p. 186.).
Ibid.
“The details of the story are given by ps.-Apollodorus ii. I. 4ff.; Hyginus, Fab. 168 and 170; Pausanias ii. 15. 5; 16.1; 19.3 ff.; 20.7; 21.1; 24.2; 25.4; 37.1; and 2; 38.2 and 4; iii. 12.2; vii. 21.13; x. 10.5: by the scholiast at Homer, Iliad A 42 (quoting genuine Apollodorus) and Δ171: by Euripides, Orestes 871-3, and frs. 228 and 846 N2; and the scholiast at Aeschylus, P.V. 853, Euripides, Hecuba 886, Orestes 857, 871, and 932: by Pindar and the scholia at Nemeans x. 6 (10) and Pythians ix. 112 (195) ff.: by Ovid., Heroides xiv and Horace, Odes iii. 11: by the scholiast at Statius, Theb. ii. 222 and vi. 269: and by Servius on Aeneid x. 497. In addition there are scattered references to other authors.” (Ibid., p. 163 ff.)
There were a number of references to this quarrel in the literature. For some the reader is referred to: Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 164 ff.; Emily A. Wolff. “The Date of Aeschylus’ Danaid Tetralogy.” Eranos, 56 (1958), Nos. 3-4, pp. 119–139; 57 (1959), Nos. 1-2, pp. 6-34.
Ibid., p. 145 ff.
A. Diamantopoulos. “The Danaid Tetralogy of Aeschylus.” JHS, 77 (Part 2) (1957), pp. 220–229.
There are excellent bibliographical entries on the subject in Garvie, Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 147, fn. 2.
Diamantopoulos. “The Danaid,” p. 226; Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 147.
Reference to bibliography bearing on Sepeia and the possibility of Athenian and Spartan rapprochement before Marathon is available in Garvie, Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 148, fns. 1 and 2.
Ibid., p. 148 ff.
The appearance of Athena in the Danaides need not have entailed an alliance of Argos with Athens, as explicitly called for in the Eumenides. As Garvie says (Ibid., p. 144), no one who has read the Seven Against Thebes thought that the play was any proof of special friendship between Athens and Thebes, in 467 B.C.
Ibid., p. 147, fn. 1.
F. R. Earp. The Style of Aeschylus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948.
Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 29.
Ibid., p. 30. 25 Ibid.
Ibid., p. 32 ff.
A Dactyl in the third foot is a favorite form of resolution for Aeschylus. If a decrease in the use of iambic trimeter and resolved feet is an index to a later play, the Prometheus Bound is a later play with the figures of 773, 37 and 4.8%.
Garvie’s research shows “A steadily increasing restraint in the use of resolved feet” (Ibid., p. 33.) with the Suppliants more restrained than either the Persians or the Seven. Garvie did not find that the Suppliants lacked a variety of versification, which might have been true of an early play by an unpracticed dramatist. (34 ff.) Garvie has counted the resolutions and finds that “the next highest percentage is displayed by the Septem not the Persae, while the difference between Supplices and Septem is not much greater than that between Choephori and Agamemnon, and much less than that between Septem and Persae” (35)
Ibid., p. 35 ff.
All seven plays with their percentages of trimeters used for enjambement are Prometheus Bound 9.7% ;Suppliants, 8.52%; Persians, 7.69%; Agamemnon, 7.31 %; Libation Bearers, 6.58%; Eumenides, 4.89%; Seven Against Thebes, 4.60%. (Ibid., p. 37.)
In Garvie’s words: “The long, reflective odes of the Agamemnon serve a very different purpose from those of the Supplices in which the Chorus is itself the Protagonist, and it is only natural that they should differ also in compass.” (Ibid., p. 45.)
Ibid., p. 44 ff.
Garvie treats the subject well and extensively. (Ibid., p. 57 ff.)
Ibid., p. 90.
Diamantopoulos. “The Danaid,” p. 222. The centrality of women accepting the idea of marriage is also acknowledged by that most able commentator on the Suppliants, Winnington-Ingram. (R. P. Winnington-Ingram. “The Danaid Trilogy of Aeschylus.” JHS, 81 (1961), p. 134 and fn. 14.)
Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 221.
I think that Winnington-Ingram is quite right for attending to persuasion in the Danaides. (Winnington-Ingram. “The Danaid Trilogy,” p. 151 ff.)
The author is indebted to Winnington-Ingram for calling attention to courtship as a form of persuasion. (Ibid., p. 151.)
A. Diamantopoulos. “The Danaid,” p. 222.
Aeschylus. Prometheus Bound. Philip Vellacott (trans.), p. 54.
The lining is uncertain.
Golden. In Praise of Prometheus, p. 43.
Aeschylus. Agamemnon. Eduard Fraenkel (ed.). Vol. II, pp. 112-4.
Lattimore. The Poetry of Greek Tragedy, p. 19.
Ibid., p. 23.
Ibid., p. 22.
Ibid., p. 17.
Ibid.
Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 188 ff. One of the best known summary statements is that of Apollodorus. By the middle of the second century B.C. the judgment of Hyper-mestra had been resolved by not discussing motives. Apollodorus in The Library told how King Danaus reluctantly consented to the marriage of his daughters with the sons of Aegyptus but gave the girls daggers with instructions to slay their husbands while the latter slept. “All obeyed but Hypermestra for she saved Lynceus because he had respected her virginity, whereas Danaus shut her up and kept her under ward. But the rest of the daughters of Danaus buried the heads of their bridegrooms in Lerna and paid funeral honours to their bodies in front of the city; and Athena and Hermes purified them at the command of Zeus. Danaus afterwards united Hypermestra to Lynceus; and bestowed his other daughters on the victors in an athletic contest.” (Apollodorus. The Library. Translated by Sir James G. Frazer. New York: G. P. Putman, 1921. Vol. II, 1, 5.)
Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 197.
The issues raised by supplementary Choruses have been discussed by Garvie. (Ibid., pp. 190 ff., 207 ff.)
Ibid., p. 196.
The author is indebted to Winnington-Ingram for the idea that the play opens with defeated Argos under siege, Pelasgus dead and Danaus king. (Winnington-Ingram. “The Danaid Trilogy,” p. 145 ff.) The reader is also referred to Garvie for his dismissal of the wolf and bull scene as reported at the beginning of the play. (Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 203.) The death of Pelasgus has been read out of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2251, as interpreted by Miss Cunningham. (M. L. Cunningham. “A Fragment of Aeschylus’ Aigyptioi?” Rh. Mus., 96 (1953), p. 223 ff. and her “Second Thoughts on Oxyrhynchus Papyri, XX, 2251.” Rh. Mus., 105 (1962), p. 189 ff.) Miss Cunningham attributes the fragment (which calls on Zeus, god of hospitality, to look upon a man of hospitality) to the Aegyptii. I think the attribution stands but Garvie doubts that, writing “the evidence is just not strong enough, and we are not entitled to draw conclusions from it.” Garvie does admit that there are experts who favor Miss Cunningham’s attribution as well as there are those who doubt that the fragment belongs to the Aegyptii of Oxyrhynchus. (Garvie, p. 200 ff. and fn. 2, p. 202.)
“There was one way at least in which Lynceus could have been introduced with plausibility. The entry of the Egyptians must have been prepared by negotiations. It is not inconceivable, therefore, that Lynceus, as negotiator, was a character in the play. If he had a speaking part, it would have given him an opportunity to show a degree of sophrosyne which merited salvation and a persuasiveness in his protestations of desire which awoke himeros in his destined bride.” (Winnington-Ingram. “The Danaid Trilogy,” p. 147.)
Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 165.
The sources for the story of Hypermestra’s decision are given by Garvie. “In Σ Hec. 886, ΣP.V. 853 and Σ Pind, Pyth. ix 112 (195) she falls in love with Lynceus; ps.-Apollodorus, ΣIliad Δ111, and Σ Pind. Nem. x. 6 (10) give as motive that he has spared her virginity.” (Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 165.) Other faults than disobedience were charged to Hypermestra, such as unchastity and perjury (Ibid., p. 206) but I do not think that they need be taken seriously. As Garvie has it: “Only Hypermestra sins we are told, the others rightly obey their father.” (p. 212 and fn. 3.)
Winnington-Ingram. “The Danaid Trilogy,” p. 147.
Ibid., p. 148.
Ibid., p. 145.
Ibid.
Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 197.
Frg. 124 M, 43 N2 discussed by Garvie. (Ibid., p. 228 ff.)
Whether it was the evening epithalamium or the morning waking-song has not been agreed upon nor has there been consensus that the fragment belongs to the third play. (Ibid.) As explained by Smyth “the fragment refers to the custom that, on the morning after the marriage, newly-wed couples were wakened by song (cp. Theocritus, Idyll xviii, 56).” (Aeschylus. Agamemnon, Libation-Bearers, Eumenides, Fragments. Translated by Herbert W. Smyth, Vol. 2, 1929, II, p. 394.)
Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 228 ff.
Garvie has an excellent discussion of alternative conventions for reconstructing the Danaides. (Ibid., p. 204 ff.) In essential ways our reconstruction differs from these conventions.
Ibid., p. 206.
Emily A. Wolff. “Date of Aeschylus’ Danaid Trilogy.” Eranos, 56 (1958) Nos. 3-4, p. 167, fn. 1 where Wolff wrote: “The suggestion was originally made by Tittler, “De Danaidum fabulae compositione.” Z. für die Altertumswissenschaft, V (1838), col. 875.” Although we have but a fragment of the Isthmiastai (Pox 2162 as reported in R. Cantarella. I nuovi frammenti eschilei di Ossirinco. Naples: Libreria Scientifica Editrice, n.d., p. 91ff.; commented on by Eduard Fraenkel. “Aeschylus: New Texts and Old Problems.” Proceedings of the British Academy. London: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 244 ff.) it is safe to assume that the inauguration of the Isthmia or Isthmian games was the event being used to provide a focus of attention.
For references to this and a summary of their conclusions see Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 166 ff.
Ibid., p. 178.
Frg. 125 M (44 N2) quoted by Athenaeus xiii, 600b, and discussed by Garvie (Ibid., p. 204 ff.)
Ibid., p. 205.
Winnington-Ingram. “The Danaid Trilogy,” p. 151.
Apollodorus. The Library, 2.1.4; Winnington-Ingram. “The Danaid Trilogy,” p. 150.
Ibid., p. 145 ff.
Garvie, Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 225.
Ibid., p. 227.
Ibid., p. 227 ff. and fn. 6, p. 227.
Ibid.
H. Wolff. “Marriage Law,” pp. 43-95; Charles Seltman. “Status of Women,” pp. 119-124.
Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 180 ff.
Ibid., p. 227.
Winnington-Ingram. “The Danaid Trilogy,” p. 147.
Ibid.
Garvie. Aeschylus’ Supplices, p. 233.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1975 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Beck, R.H. (1975). The Danaid Trilogy. In: Aeschylus: Playwright Educator. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8818-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8818-0_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8175-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-8818-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive