We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Any attempt to grapple with the issue of divine behaviour towards men in Aischylos or any other Greek thinker must begin with the question of expectations: what do the gods expect from men, and what, if anything, may men expect in return from the gods? A. W. H. Adkins has I think demonstrated clearly that in Homer at least the defining barrier between mortal and immortal is one of degree, not kind; the gods are gods not because of moral excellences or all-encompassing wisdom, but simply by virtue of their greater power. This power, and the capacity to defend it, is the essence of their τιμή, which they guard as jealously as any mortal ⋯γαθός. What is expected of men, therefore, is a healthy respect for divine τιμή, and an avoidance of any action, however innocent, which might seem to lessen divine status. Thus when Hermes in the first book of the Odyssey tells Aigisthos not to kill Agamemnon or to take his wife, he does so qua god, not moral adviser, and Aigisthos' transgression lies foremost in his rejection of that command. In the same way Hesiod's Prometheus offends (several times) against the prerogatives and τιμή of Zeus, and is appropriately punished; that he meant well is irrelevant to Hesiod, nor is there any interest in his rehabilitation. Examples in the lyric poets are by the nature of the genre less abundant, but we may certainly note Stesichoros 223 PMG, where Tyndareos' accidental slight of Aphrodite draws down the anger of the goddess on his daughters. Similar too is the fate of the daughters of Proitos, whose boast in Bakchylides 11 that their father is wealthier than Hera brings about their subsequent madness.
1 Merit and Responsibility (Oxford, 1960), pp. 62–4Google Scholar, From the Many to the One (Ithaca, 1970), pp. 32–6Google Scholar, and especially JHS 92 (1972), 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. also Lloyd-Jones, H., The Justice of Zeus (Berkeley, 1971)Google Scholar. That in time the gods come to enforce some moral systems among men (discussed for example by Adkins, , M&R, pp. 65–70Google Scholar) is of course true, but not in question here; what I am concerned with is the nature (and morality, if that proves to be a usable term) of the gods' direct interpersonal dealings with men.
2 Naturally this is not to say that Hermes' injunction is not (in this case) based on moral principles, but only that here as elsewhere the gods expect obedience because they are gods, not because they are (by our standards) right. Thus Poseidon becomes angry with the Phaiakians, at Od. 13. 125–83Google Scholar simply because they sail too freely upon his sea, and retribution follows accordingly.
3 It should be remembered that, contrary to some earlier thinking, Prometheus is not actually released in Hesiod's version; cf. West, M. L.'s comments in his edition of the Theogony (Oxford, 1966), pp. 313–15Google Scholar. Aischylos himself might be responsible for the innovation (there is no preserved indication of it before the Lyomenos), but in the present state of our knowledge that is no more than a possibility.
4 Or more precisely, on Tyndareos through his daughters, since making them διγάμονς and τριγάμονς presumably hurts the father more than the children. Likewise Oineus, who failed to sacrifice to Artemis (Il. 9. 533 ff., Bakch. 5. 97 ff.), and whose fields and kingdom in consequence suffered the depradations of the boar.
5 The story seems also to have appeared in the Hesiodic Ehoiai (fr. 131 MW), in Pherekydes (FGrH 3 F 114), and in Akousilaos (FGrH 2 F 28). Though the offence sometimes varies, the core of it is always a direct insult to one of the gods, and the punishment always insanity.
6 This would appear to be Laios' primary transgression, if the evidence of Sept. 742–57 is to be trusted, but cf. also Lloyd-Jones, , JZ, pp. 119–22Google Scholar. With regard to the Danaids, Aphrodite's appearance and speech in the third play (125M; 44N) surely indicate that their original position is contrary to her laws, whether their abhorrence is of their cousins or, as seems more likely, of men in general.
7 The story of Lykourgos is given at Il. 6. 130–40; for Aischylos' tetralogy (attested by Σ Thesm. 134) cf. Deichgräber, K., Nachr. Göttingen (1938–1939), 231–309Google Scholar. Lykourgos' exact vicissitudes in Aischylos are not clear, but certainly he maltreats the god, and undergoes chastisement. With Pentheus we are less sure of the group, but there seem to have been at least two plays (Pentheus, Xantriai) on the subject, and the remark of Aristophanes grammaticus (that the action of Euripides' Bakchai derives from the Pentheus) indicates a story similar to that of Euripides.
8 The plays were Perrhaibides and Ixion; for details of the story cf. Pindar, , Pyth. 2. 21–41Google Scholar and scholia, Σ A.R. 3.62, Diod. Sic. 4.69, and Hyg. Fab. 33, 62. From the fragments we know that at least the murder of Eioneus was contained in the Perrhaibides.
9 The two titles preserved (Sisyphos Drapetes and Sisyphos Petrokylistes) may perhaps refer to a single play (probably satyric). In any case the descriptive epicleses clearly indicate the action.
10 For these and other examples of language stressing Xerxes' error, cf. Pers. 654, 719, 739–42, 750, 808–10, 820–2, 825–6 (all citations of Aischylos are from Page's 1972 OCT edition).
11 References to the gods as a group or unified whole in this play are numerous: cf. for example Pers. 347, 454, 495, 514, 911, 921. By contrast, though Zeus, Athena, Ares, Apollo, Poseidon, Hermes, and Gaia are all mentioned by name, they appear rarely, and save for Zeus almost never in the sense of individually causing events. For Zeus' role and the nature of Xerxes' transgression, cf. Winnington-Ingram, R. P., JHS 93 (1973), 210–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Certainly Kassandra, Laios, and Pentheus all die, and die, it seems, without grasping the error of their ways. Ixion and Sisyphos find a more concrete existence in the Underworld, but nothing in our tradition suggests that they (unlike Prometheus) were ever released, as they surely would have been had they benefited from their chastisement. Of Lykourgos' fate we remain uncertain; the satyr play bearing his name (a contest between beer and wine?) may indicate that he was allowed to come to terms with the god. In any case one might well recall Sokrates' portrait of the incurable sinner at Gorgias 525c ff.
13 JHS 76 (1956), 66Google Scholar.
14 M & R, p. 64, JHS 92 (1972), 13–14Google Scholar; cf. also Long, A. A., JHS 90 (1970), 127–8Google Scholar.
15 JHS 92 (1972), 9–11Google Scholar; cf. also Lloyd-Jones, , JZ, pp. 5–7Google Scholar, and Long, op. cit. p. 138.
16 Thus when Agememnon is deceived by an οὗλος ὃνειρος at Il. 2. 5 ff. he has only himself to blame, for he knew that such dreams (this one in the form of Nestor, not a god) are not always to be trusted. Similarly when Pandaros yields to the persuasion of Athena (disguised as Laodokos) at Il. 4. 86 ff., he does so on the strength of the words, not because he supposes a god to speak them; nor is it then Athena's fault if he does not live to collect the promised reward. Cf. also Apollo's impersonation of Agenor at 21. 595 f?. and Athena's of Deiphobos at 22. 226 ff. From 14. 197 ff. and 300 ff., incidentally, it appears that gods can lie to other gods, though this is rare.
17 With strong emphasis, of course, on ‘unprovoked’. Hera's hatred of the Trojans at the beginning of Il. 4 is bitter and intense (and extends far beyond the original transgressor), but it does have a cause; so too the anger of Poseidon in the Odyssey. Elsewhere, provided there is no offence against the gods, the common attitude seems that of Zeus at Il. 17. 445–7, where man's wretchedness evokes pity, not enjoyment. And if the gods themselves are partly cause of that general wretchedness, we must remember that it is basic to the human moira, and a necessary part of the separation between man and god. Thus Zeus may hand out ills universally from the jar by his threshold (24. 527–33; cf. Mim. 2.15–16) without incurring any special opprobrium, for how else are the gods alone to remain ⋯κήδεες? But they do not as a rule inflict individual suffering unless they themselves are threatened; they do not need to.
18 Adkins, , M&R, pp. 24–5Google Scholar, reads the Aigisthos passage somewhat differently, emphasizing the denial of divine causality in Zeus' words. I would argue that Zeus does concede that some of men's evils come from the gods (see previous note). His point, I think, is rather that for what men suffer ὑπ⋯ρ μόρον, beyond the nature of their human status, they must blame themselves. And here at least the dividing line is quite clear, for Hermes has told Aigisthos that his immediate ⋯γαθόν will inevitably become a κακόν.
19 Thus the cautionary aphorisms at Ol. 1. 109–10, Ol. 7. 94–5, the reversal of fortune for Peleus, and Kadmos, at Pyth. 3. 86–103Google Scholar (followed by a similar aphorism at 104–5) and of course the ultimate fate of Bellerophontes (Ol. 13. 91–2, Isth. 7. 44–7).
20 In what follows we must, of course, remember that the sentiments expressed by Aischylos' characters in situations of extreme duress are not necessarily the views the same characters would hold in calmer moments (cf. the remarks of Sir Kenneth Dover [to whom I am indebted for this observation] on emotive language in JHS 93 [1973], 66–7Google Scholar). Nevertheless I think the accusations studied here do offer some points of complaint which are not unreasonable, at least from the perspective of the plaintiff.
21 284M, 350N. Some question exists as to where the fragment actually commences, and hence how the first line should be read, but ⋯νδατεῖσθαι does apparently take Apollo as subject, and the εὐπαιδία is in some way that of Thetis (mss. ⋯⋯ς, emended by Grote to ⋯μ⋯ς)
22 For the first view cf. Welcker, F. G., Die Aeschyleische Trilogie Prometheus (Darmstadt, 1824), pp. 436–7Google Scholar, and Wecklein, N., Aischylou Dramata Sozomata ii (Athens, 1896), pp. 655–6Google Scholar; for the second, Hermann, G., Opusc. vii, 362 ff.Google Scholar, and Mette, H. J., Der Verlorene Aischylos (Berlin, 1963), pp. 122–3Google Scholar.
23 The play in question, as Welcker and Wecklein argued, would be the third in a Memnon-Psychostasia——— sequence (though Welcker wrongly supposed the Toxotides also included here). As a title the Phrygioi seems to me promising; cf. also my article on the Medicean Catalogue forthcoming in RhM.
24 Such, at least, is the conclusion of Plato, who locates the scene of the crime ⋯ν τοῖς αὑτ⋯ς γάμοις whether he also judges from these lines, or has other evidence from the context, we cannot say.
25 There is little if any evidence for more than one offspring from the marriage; that Achilleus was an only child is certainly the implication of Thetis at Il. 18. 436–8 and the statement of Achilleus himself (though he may mean only sons) at 24. 540. To be sure, 16. 173–6 seems to suggest a daughter of Peleus, Polydora, and Hesiod (213 MW) concurs. But Pherekydes (FGrH 3 F 61) makes her a daughter of Peleus by one Antigone, and Homer may well have supposed something similar. For the earliest version of the story that Thetis dipped her previous children in water (or fire), cf. Hesiod fr. 300 MW (Aigimios). However this tale runs, only Achilleus survives.
26 62–3. We learn further that he brought his lyre (as we might expect), but there is no mention of prophecies, nor any sense of his impending role in the death of Achilleus; Hera's word ἄπιστε refers simply to his taking the part of Hektor. The wedding was certainly described at much greater length in the Kypria; unfortunately neither Proklos nor the preserved fragments give us the kind of information we are looking for.
27 The horse Xanthos implies (Il. 19. 416–17; θεῷ τε κα⋯ ⋯ν⋯ρι ἶɸι) and our summary of the Aithiopis states that Paris and Apollo together slew Achilleus; Proklos in the latter adds that Achilleus had broken into Troy when he was killed. A different tradition seems to be represented by Pindar's Sixth Paian (78–86 SM), where despite the gaps in the papyrus Apollo apparently commits the deed in the guise of Paris.
28 Apollo to Athena and the Erinyes at Eum. 616–18. One might, I suppose, object that Apollo was not in this instance μαντικοῖσι ⋯ν θρόνοις, but it seems quibbling to deny that Thetis certainly understood his words as prophecy (μαντικᾖ βρύον τ⋯χνῃ, 284.6M).
29 145M, 99N; cf. also Lloyd-Jones' discussion in his appendix to Loeb, Smyth'sAeschylus ii 2 (London, 1957), pp. 599–603Google Scholar, and Blass, F., RhM 35 (1880), 83–8Google Scholar.
30 Frr. 140, 141 MW; Bakchylides (fr. 10 SM) may also have used this version. Homer, of course, has Sarpedon descend from Zeus and Laodameia daughter of Bellerophontes (Il. 6. 198–9), while at 14. 321–2 he assigns to Europa only Minos and Rhadamanthys. Stesichoros also treated the adventures of Europa and Kadmos in his Europeia, but virtually nothing remains; the same is true for Simonides (562 PMG).
31 Naturally the gods have numerous mortal children in Homer, but the mothers are rarely mentioned in detail; exceptions, such as the stories of Polydore and Polymele at Il. 16. 173–92, usually show the seduced finding husbands and fathers for their children without difficulty. To the acceptance of divine lovers by mortal women there is, however, one counter-example: Marpessa, who chooses Idas over Apollo (Il. 9. 555–64); no reasons for her reluctance are given.
32 Cf. West, 's edition of the Theogony, 48–9, 397 ffGoogle Scholar. With regard to this author we might note Scutum 27–9 (fr. 195 MW), where Zeus is said to plan the begetting of an ⋯ρ⋯ς ⋯λκτ⋯ρα for men (though this does not prevent him from also desiring Alkmene).
33 Cf. also the references to Alkmene and Danae at Nem. 10. 10–1, and to Alkmene and Semele at Pyth. 11. 1–5. Less impressive perhaps are the roles played by Pitane, and Evadne, in Ol. 6Google Scholar, but clearly they too are honoured by their involvement at the birth of a hero (Iamos); that they may have been inconvenienced in the matter is not a question addressed by Pindar.
34 As H. W. Smyth points out (Aeschylus ii [London, 1926], p. 417Google Scholar), the words αὐτο⋯ μ⋯νων would seem to indicate that Zeus remained on Crete while sending the bull to fetch Europa, and confirmation that such a version existed comes from Akousilaos (FGrH 2 F 29), where the bull is made the same one later captured by Herakles. Lloyd-Jones (above n. 29: 602) and Mett (n. 22: 109) both take the lines of the fragment rather differently, but Smyth's rendering seems the most natural way to read the Greek. We should remember, in any case, that Aischylos did not hesitate to turn Zeus into a bull at Suppl. 301 for his mating with Io. That Zeus himself was the bull in Europa's case is the version credited to Hesiod and Bakchylides (cf. previous note).
35 The truncated opening of line 11 is run together with the following one, leaving it uncertain how much has been omitted. Blass supplied just the remainder of the line, but Buecheler, (RhM 35 [1880], 94)Google Scholar argued for a larger lacuna; the context seems to support the latter view, since some setting-forth of Minos' absence is surely expected. The standard account has him die in Sicily at the court of Kokalos: so Herodotos 7. 170. 1 (without mention of Kokalos); Diod. Sic. 4. 79; Apollod. Epit. 1. 15. For other traditions cf. below n. 71.
36 Surprisingly, though Homer, Hesiod, Alkman, Sappho, Mimnermos, and Bakchylides (among others) all refer to the story, only in the Iliad (24. 602–17) is any detail preserved. Achilleus there tells us that Niobe dared compare herself to Leto, and to remark on her larger family; presumably a dramatic poet could have changed this if he wished.
37 Such too is the almost inescapable inference from Aristoph. Frogs 911–15, where we learn that Niobe opened the drama veiled and silent; Vit. Aesch. reiterates this and adds the detail of the tomb for her children. For reconstructions cf. Hermann, G., Opusc. iii 37–58Google Scholar, and especially Fitton-Brown, A. D., CQ N.S. 4 (1954), 175–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
38 Lloyd-Jones, (JZ, p. 87)Google Scholar justifies the thought through the supposition that those mortals so treated are in fact guilty of some serious crime (‘[Aeschylus’] Zeus does not punish the innocent'). But of what is Niobe guilty, that Zeus would cause her to boast? Lloyd-Jones' answer to this question seems to be his theory of ancestral guilt (JZ, p. 44), as in Solon and Theognis, whereby men may be forced to transgress so that they may atone for the transgressions of previous generations; thus Agamemnon is required to slay his daughter, and pay the penalty for it, in requital of his father's slaughter of the children of Thyestes. But by such a definition it is hard to see how anyone (at least in Greek mythology) will be very innocent. On the recognized weaknesses of this type of reasoning cf. M&R, pp. 68–70, and for preserved traces of it in the fifth and fourth centuries Dover, Greek Popular Morality in the time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford, 1974), pp. 260–1Google Scholar.
39 καταιθαλώσω is probably adapted from an original καταιθαλώσει (referring to Zeus in the third person). Lines 12–13 of 273M —
— are surely also relevant here; though the crucial name at the beginning (Фοῖβος Mass; πατ⋯ρ Lesky) is lost, there is clearly a feeling of indignation and bewilderment over the scope of the punishment.
40 So 358M, where she is not only pregnant, but ⋯νθεαζομ⋯νη, and capable of making those who touch her γασήρ likewise.
41 So Apollod. Bibl. 3. 4. 3; Ovid, , Met. 3. 256–315Google Scholar; Hyg. Fab. 167. In the latter two Hera plays Semele's nurse Beroe.
42 Among those supporting the attribution to the Xantriai cf. Cantarella, R., I Nuovi Frammenti Eschilei di Ossirinco (Naples, 1948), pp. 108–28Google Scholar; Lasserre, F., MH 6 (1949), 140–56Google Scholar; Dodds, E. R., Euripides: Baccha 2 (Oxford, 1960), pp. xxx–xxxiGoogle Scholar; for the Semele, Latte, K., Philologus 97 (1948), 47–56Google Scholar; Lloyd-Jones, , App. Smyth, pp. 566–71Google Scholar; Mette, , Ver. Aisch., pp. 141–3Google Scholar. Neither Cantarella nor Lasserre seems to see that the problems with Semele in a Pentheus play are largely eliminated by shifting the ascription; their further insistence that the chorus is descended from Semele (who would be the father?) depends entirely on Lasserre's supplement λα[χο⋯σαι, which is far from the only possibility. Dodds contents himself with noting that there is no proof of Asklepiades' error, and he is of course right. But Latte's article offers substantial grounds for supposing that such an error probably did take place, and that the fragment belongs where we should otherwise not have hesitated to place it, in the Semele.
43 Assuming, with Lloyd-Jones, Mette, and others, Latte's supplement λά[χος (Lloyd-Jones adds ⋯λβον) at 355. 11M.
44 Homer's Zeus, of course, is quite easily deceived by Hera (though not to any permanent advantage, as would be the case with Semele), and likewise Hesiod's Zeus by Prometheus (as a necessary part of the aetiology), but it still seems hard to imagine such a situation in Aischylos. One wonders how Ixion's attempt to seduce Hera (and its concomitant betrayal of Zeus' trust) was handled in the play of that name.
45 Cf. Kallimachos, H. 5. 107–16Google Scholar; Apollod. Bibl. 3. 4. 4 (where the bathing motif is credited to ο⋯ πλείονες); Ovid, , Met. 3. 138–252Google Scholar; Hyg. Fab. 180, 181. Euripides at Bakchai 337–40 makes Aktaion rather boast to be greater than Artemis in the hunt, and Diod. Sic. 4. 81. 4–5 adds to that version the report that he proposed to marry the goddess. In any case it is clear that the process of assigning some misdeed to Aktaion begins early. From these later accounts only the hounds and the manner of Aktaion's death (422M) can be established for certain as Aischylean.
46 Cf. for Stesichoros 236 PMG (quoted from Paus. 9. 2. 3), and for Akousilaos FGrH 2 F 33 (quoted from Apollod. Bibl. 3. 4. 4). The recently published P. Mich. 1447 (Renner, T., HSCPh 82 [1978], 282–7Google Scholar) contains an account of Aktaion purporting to derive from the Catalogue and mentioning a desire for marriage with someone who is almost certainly Semele (the ends of some lines are broken off). Unfortunately the passage goes on to detail the metamorphosis into a stag (by Artemis) without allowing us to see the exact cause, and whether the gap at this point is sufficient to allow for Zeus' role is hard to say.
47 Above n. 45. It may or may not be significant that in the hymn in question the viewing of the goddess naked serves as a convenient parallel to Teiresias' similar offence against Athena.
48 Such was already the judgement of Droysen, J. G., Phrynichos, Aischylos und die Trilogie (Kiel, 1841), pp. 77–8Google Scholar; so also Latte (above n. 42) 52–3 (where ‘Acteonis’ is presumably meant for ‘ Alcmeonis’). Droysen further suggests, contrary to general assumption, that the Toxotides and Semele were parts of the same tetralogy, a theory with which I concur.
49 We have seen that Idas managed to recover Marpessa from his divine competitor Apollo without suffering harm (above n. 31), and in general this is not a situation which seems to cause the gods distress; Zeus, for example, is quite willing to share Alkmene and Leda with their husbands. The case of Koronis and Apollo (Ehoiai 59, 60 MW; Pindar, , Pyth. 3. 8–46Google Scholar) offers more of a parallel, but here Koronis is clearly expected to know that her marriage with Ischys will anger the god, and his wrath falls primarily upon her.
50 Of the Kallisto we have virtually nothing except the title; likewise for the Alkmene (which is missing from the Medicean Catalogue). The story of the former (if Apollod. Bibl. 3. 8. 2. can be trusted) would seem to show Kallisto impregnated by Zeus and then left to Artemis' anger, much as Semele is left to that of Hera. But Aischylos' version may have varied considerably from this. For the Thressai, 292M indicates that a female deity (identity not clear) showed Aias where he was mortal (the armpit); her reasons for doing so are unspecified. One might consider as well Danae, whose tactful prayer in Simonides 543 PMG could easily become something more reproachful, but we cannot be sure that her story was treated at any length in the Perseus tetralogy (for the possibilities cf. Cantarella, above n. 42: 66–70, and Howe, T. P., AJA 57 [1953], 269–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar).
51 Cf. most recently Griffith, M., The Authenticity of Prometheus Bound (Cambridge, 1977)Google Scholar, and West, in JHS 99 (1979), 130–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52 It is the omission of Io from his discussion of the Desmotes that seems to me to seriously weaken Lloyd-Jones' analysis of the trilogy (JZ, pp. 95–103). Io is brought into this play where there was no compulsion to do so, and her condition is surely illustrative of and linked to that of Prometheus, since both suffer from the actions of Zeus.
53 Desm. 645–72. Both dream and Delphic response simply command, with no reasons given other than the ‘arrow of desire’ which has afflicted Zeus. The sequence of events which follows is compressed and unclear; if εὐθύς at 673 is to be taken literally, Io is changed into a cow immediately, without in fact seeing or being embraced by Zeus.
54 That the chorus did follow Prometheus seems clearly indicated by the text: cf. Taplin, O., The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford, 1978), pp. 270–2Google Scholar, and West, , JHS 99 (1979), 139–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
55 Above n. 13.
56 Desm. 846–52. Here again there is an oddity in the narrative; Zeus impregnates Io ⋯παɸ⋯ν…κα⋯ θιγὼν μόνον, thus seemingly confirming the impression of 673 that no intercourse took place before, and also establishing that the πόθος of Zeus is not relieved now, either.
57 Cf. Desm. 258, 375–6Google Scholar. Prometheus does of course also make predictions involving his release after Zeus is overthrown, but the audience will know that this cannot actually happen, and presumably any liberation during his reign must ultimately have his approval.
58 The question is a most vexed one. If Athenaios (Deipn. 15. 674d) is correct in assigning the custom of the expiatory crown to the Lyomenos, and if Σ Desm. 167's account of Zeus being warned as he chases Thetis through the Caucasians is Aischylean (cf. Apollod. Bibl. 3. 42. 5), then it would certainly appear that the secret is divulged, Prometheus freed, and a reconciliation arrived at, in that order. Also supporting this view might be the fragment of Philodemos π. εὐσεβείας at p. 41 Gomperz, where it may be said that the release is caused by the divulging of the secret (this depends on the reading and interpretation of ὃ[τι). On the other hand, Prometheus' failure to correct Io at Desm. 771 suggests (unless following Pauw we emend ἄκοντος to ἄρχονος that the release will be accomplished without Zeus' permission (at least initially), and fr. 333M, with its cry of ⋯χθρο⋯ πατρός μοι indicates that feelings are still rather strained at the time of that release. Perhaps, though it crowds a lot into the Lyomenos, Herakles released Prometheus on his own, and the latter then disclosed Thetis' name to Zeus in the emergency of the immediate pursuit. Such a resolution would of course require some change of heart by Prometheus (contra West, , JHS 99 [1979], 142–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who argues that no change is necessary because Prometheus is simply fulfilling a promise to Herakles; I do not myself quite see why Prometheus needs to promise Herakles anything if he still despises Zeus). For a good summary of all these matters cf. Fitton-Brown, , JHS 79 (1959), 52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
59 Above n. 13: 67, and JZ, pp. 97, 102–3.
60 Philodemos (p. 39 Gomperz) seems to suggest that Kronos also was freed; cf. Eum. 641–6, where Apollo implies something of the sort. Pindar for his part places Kronos on the Isles of the Blessed, in Ol. 2. 76–7Google Scholar, and refers to the release of all the Titans at Pyth. 4. 291 (perhaps also in fr. 35 SM). Earlier sources (Iliad, Theogony, Delphic Hymn to Apollo) uniformly retain them under the earth.
61 On the general similarities in Aischylos' use of these two figures cf. Thomson, G., Prometheus Bound (Cambridge, 1932), pp. 24–8, 36–7Google Scholar. Herakles' entry into Olympos is at least as old as Theog. 950–5 and Nekyia 602–4 (even if this last is no older than Onomakritos), and of course frequently represented in sixth-century Attic Black-Figure.
62 Theog. 942; Pindar, , Ol. 2. 25–7Google Scholar, Pyth. 11. 1; Paus. 2. 31. 2; Apollo. Bibl. 3. 5. 3.
63 If Droysen (above n. 48) is right in assigning the Toxotides and Semele to a single production, we might logically expect a third play (Athamas?) to follow, in which news of Semele's apotheosis might be announced (or even dramatized). If on the other hand the more conventional Semele–Pentheus–Xantriai (or Bakchai) grouping is retained, Dionysos could easily report on his mother's situation in the course of his dealings with Pentheus.
64 421M:
Cf. also 420M, where marriage and the wishes of women seem to be an issue, and 419M, where there may be a hint of boastfulness in the hunt.
65 Il 24. 614–17; cf. Willcock, M. M., CQ N.S. 14 (1964), 141–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the uncertainties over the details of the story as Homer tells it.
66 Bakch. fr. 20 D SM; Pherekydes FGrH 3 F 38.
67 Cf. above n. 12.
68 Aside from the lack of other appropriate titles or fragments, there are the remarks of Aristotle, at Poet, xviii. 1456a 15–19Google Scholar. The text here presents some difficulties, but it seems likely that Aischylos as well as Euripides is being commended (as opposed to Agathon) for treating only a limited part of a story, in this case that of Niobe.
69 None of our information on the fate of Amphion is very early. Telesilla (721 PMG) suggests that he also was shot by Apollo and Artemis; Hyginus (Fab. 9) adds to this that he tried in his anger to attack the temple of Apollo, and was slain for that reason. In Ovid, (Met. 6. 271–2)Google Scholar he apparently commits suicide, while Paus. 9. 5. 8 pictures him as punished in Hades.
70 The relevent text, a scholion to Il. 12. 292, credits this and other details to both authors: cf. Hesiod fr. 140 MW, and Bakch. fr. 10 SM.
71 Cf. Od. 4. 563–4; Pindar, , Ol. 2. 74–7Google Scholar, Pyth, 2. 73–4. The Nekyia, on the other hand, makes him a judge of the dead of the Underworld; so also Diod. Sic. 5. 79. 2 (with Minos). In Plato, , Gorgias 523–4Google Scholar, both Rhadamanthys and Minos appear as judges in the meadow leading to Elysion and Tartaros.
72 I suppose one could place Minos and Sarpedon there as well, though this seems to take matters rather far into the realm of hypothesis. In Minos' case there is some evidence to link him with Rhadamanthys (see previous note), but nothing to locate him firmly in Elysion. Certainly at the time of Europa's speech (where Rhadamanthys is called ἄɸθιτος παίδων ⋯μ⋯ν) he is regarded as mortal.
73 Cf. above n. 6 and my article on the Suppliants in Phoenix 32 (1978), 279–87Google Scholar.
74 Od. 11. 471–91. It is perhaps worth noting that neither here, nor in the case of Rhadamanthys, nor that of Herakles, does the author of the original Nekyia seem aware of any allowable destination for souls other than some part of Hades; hence his location of these figures would appear a matter of policy rather than selective exclusion.
75 Ibykos 291 PMG, Simonides 558 PMG, Pindar, , Ol. 2. 79–80Google Scholar (where Thetis is mentioned), Nem. 4. 49–50. Cf. also Eur. Andr. 1259–62.
76 Owing to the difficulties of the first line we cannot be certain whether the εὐπαιδία is that of Thetis or the children, but the sense (that the children will be fortunate) would seem the same in either case. In line 2 the manuscript reading βίους is often emended to βίου (so Nauck and Mette); neither construction is entirely satisfactory, nor does the change of μακραίωνας to μακραίωνος (with βίον) solve all problems.
77 For the Moirai cf. Ant. 987; for the nymphs, O.T. 1099.
78 Though the absence of context makes any conclusions hazardous, one is still tempted to recall two unplaced Aischylean lines: ⋯πάης δικαίας οὐκ ⋯ποστατεῖ θεός (601M) — ‘God does not stand apart from just deceit’ (cf. Pers. 93–4, where the elders' judgement is perhaps questionable), and ψευδ⋯ν δ⋯ καιρòν ἔσθ' ὅπου τιμᾷ θεός (602M) — ‘there is a time for even God to honour the lightness of a lie’. Presumably the second remark could not apply to Apollo, but the first one might be relevant here.
79 It could admittedly be argued against this whole reconstruction that Plato says nothing about any vindication of Apollo in Aischylos' play. But we should keep in mind that what distressed Plato was the suggestion of divine immorality, not the eventual facts of the case; in his view, the damage to impressionable minds had already been done. Cf. too the words of Eduard Fraenkel in his 1942 paper on recently discovered fragments: ‘Had Plato been fair — but he never wanted to be fair to Aeschylus…’ (Proc. Brit. Acad. [1942], 239Google Scholar).
80 As counter-examples one might note that Atlas (lamented by Prometheus at Desm. 347–50; cf. 619M, where the Pleiades weep for their father) is a figure not likely to be relieved of his task, while Kassandra's unhappiness with her treatment by Apollo in Agamemnon finds little consolation in the following plays.
81 Agam. 176–8. Against Lloyd-Jones' contention (above n. 13: 62) that Agamemnon, Klytaimestra, and Aigisthos are in no way improved, I would argue that it is the innocent (or only slightly misguided) who are meant to learn from their own suffering.
82 Agam. 182–3.
