Prometheus Boundand Sophocles’Inachos: New Perspectives
| Autor: | Kyriakos Tsantsanoglou |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | Trends in Classics. 12:267-296 |
| ISSN: | 1866-7481 1866-7473 |
| DOI: | 10.1515/tc-2020-0017 |
| Popis: | The paper consists of three chapters. In the first, Soph.Inachosfr. 269c.16–24 is presented as the earliest testimony to the authenticity ofPrometheus Bound(PV). The verses declare that the one of the elders who named here Hermestrókhiswas wise. The word describing mockingly Hermes was employed only inPV941. 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,PVis dated in 472 BC, contemporary with thePersae, 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 withPV, 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 restagedPVin Syracuse at the same time asPersae. A relationship with Pindar’sPyth. 1 and with Epicharmus reinforces the dating in 472. The third chapter deals with the problem of the third speaking actor in the prologue ofPV. The problem is approached through the technical contrivance of ὀκρίβας, which also answers the question of frontality in the staging of the prologue. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|