Typhoeus and Etna in Hesiod, Pindar, and (Pseudo-)Aeschylus

This paper discusses the suspected reading †ἀïδνῆς in Hes. Theog. 860 and proposes the emendation οὔρεος ἐν βήσσῃς, <ε>ἰν Αἴτνῃ παιπαλοέσσῃ. The interpretative consequences of thus introducing into the text a reference to Mount Etna are then explored. The immediately following passage, ll. 861-867, is reinterpreted in the light of a preceding reference to the Sicilian volcano. Not only Hesiod, but also Homer is argued to have knowledge of volcanism. Hesiod’s simple, unelaborated reference to Typhoeus’ defeat at Mount Etna implies that the association of Typhoeus with Mount Etna was made by Greeks before Hesiod; it can plausibly be connected to Greek colonising or proto-colonising activity in the eighth century BCE. The Typhonomachy would be only one of several mythological episodes in early Greek hexameter poetry to be localised in the West. Finally, the arguable presence of the Typhoeus-Etna link in Hesiod’s Theogony significantly increases the likelihood that the closely related descriptions of Typhoeus in passages of Pindar (from Pyth. 1, Pyth. 8, Ol. 4, and frr. 92-3 Maehler) and the (Pseudo-)Aeschylean Prometheus Bound do not depend on each other, but on a lost early hexameter account of the Typhonomachy (perhaps, but not necessarily, the Cyclical Titanomachy) that had attained canonical status by the fifth century BCE. Thus also one popular argument for a late dating of the Prometheus Bound, and for its non-Aeschylean authorship, would need to be discarded.

The Book Epigrams on Prometheus, ascribed to John Tzetzes

This article presents the Byzantine book of epigrams on Prometheus, found at the end of Prometheus Bound in a considerable part of Aeschylean manuscripts. It offers a critical edition, translation, analysis, commentary, and demonstrates John Tzetzes’ authorship. The detailed reading of the text aims at showing the presence of theatrical effects which characterise these poems, as well as illustrating the author’s poetic technique and interpreting his reproach to Aeschylus. By doing so we will touch upon broader issues, such as the interpretation of Prometheus from a Byzantine perspective and the authorship of the A-commentary on Aeschylus, the most popular among mediaeval students.

Prometheus Bound and Sophocles’Inachos: New Perspectives

The paper consists of three chapters. In the first, Soph. Inachos fr. 269c.16–24 is presented as the earliest testimony to the authenticity of Prometheus Bound (PV). The verses declare that the one of the elders who named here Hermes trókhis was wise. The word describing mockingly Hermes was employed only in PV 941. And it is very unlikely that Sophocles would name ‘wise predecessor here’, i. e. in the theater, any other tragedian than Aeschylus. In the second chapter, the numerous divergences from Aeschylean practice are explained by reference to the fourth-place drama, which was usually covered by the satyr-play, but frequently with other plays aimed at the uneducated and unrefined spectators. Thus, PV is dated in 472 BC, contemporary with the Persae, in whose didascalia Προμηθεύς is named as the fourth drama of the production. It is unanimously identified with the satyr-play Προμηθεὺς Πυρκαεύς, but the author identifies it with PV, which as a fourth-place drama presents many stylistic peculiarities. Προμηθεὺς Πυρκαεύς is then the satyr-play of the Prometheus tetralogy that was staged not long after 472. It is possible that Aeschylus restaged PV in Syracuse at the same time as Persae. A relationship with Pindar’s Pyth. 1 and with Epicharmus reinforces the dating in 472. The third chapter deals with the problem of the third speaking actor in the prologue of PV. The problem is approached through the technical contrivance of ὀκρίβας, which also answers the question of frontality in the staging of the prologue.

Las representaciones contemporáneas de tragedias griegas y su relación con problemas de actualidad: tres ejemplos en Andalucía

Teniendo siempre en mente la intemporalidad de los textos clásicos, en este trabajo se ha analizado, a partir de la lectura de traducciones de los textos griegos y del estudio de grabaciones de tres montajes andaluces, la relación con problemas de actualidad que tendríantres tragedias griegas: Prometeo encadenado , Antígona y Medea . De este modo, atendiendo a la escenografía, el vestuario y la música, se observa que en Prometeo (2014), Antígona o la felicidad (2006) y Medea, la extranjera (2004) se reflejan temas intemporales como lacorrupción, el poder, la felicidad, la hipocresía, la xenofobia o la condición de la mujer, a través de recursos escénicos, dramáticos y artísticos que remiten a la significación contemporánea de esos temas, acercándolos, por tanto, al público y demostrando su plena relación con la actualidad. Always considering the timelessness of classical texts, the connection between three Greek tragedies, Prometheus Bound , Antigone and Medea , and current issues has been analysed in this work basing on the reading of Greek texts translations and the study of three videorecorded Andalusian performances. This way, focusing on scenography, costumes and music, it is observed that in Prometeo (Prometheus , 2014), Antígona o la felicidad (Antigone or Happiness , 2006) and Medea, la extranjera (Medea the Foreigner, 2004), timeless topics such as corruption, power, happiness, hypocrisy, xenophobia or the status of women are reflected through scenic, dramatic and artistic resources that refer to the contemporary significance of those topics, bringing them closer to the audience and proving their full relationship to contemporary issues.