Search Results

This paper discusses the name Δημοκράτης‎ as an interesting case of a name whose connotation was fluid according to context and to changes over time in language and political culture. The earliest occurrence of the name at Athens, for the father of Lysis of the eponymous Platonic dialogue, is conventionally taken as very early evidence for the emergence of the language of ‘democracy’. Pointing out that, in ancient Greek, there is no word δημοκρατής‎, cognate with ‘democrat’ and its equivalents in English and other modern European languages, the paper argues that that the primary connotation of Δημοκράτης‎, a name which existed before the word ‘δημοκρατία‎’, was someone who ‘possessed power over or among the People’. It also argues, however, that, once the abstract term δημοκρατία‎ and its cognate verb δημοκρατέομαι‎ existed, ‘Δημοκράτης‎’ could not, to be sure, mean ‘democrat’, but, according to context, could connote democracy in a much looser way.

This chapter analyses Oxyrhynchus Papyri 2256 fr. 3, a subject of controversy among scholars. It compares the fragment with fr. 2, noting a number of resemblances. Probably written in the late second or early third century ad, the work could be the didascalia of a play of Aeschylus. The last few lines were corrupted, yet the information contained in the second to fourth lines is very clear and straightforward and implies that Aeschylus defeated Sophocles. The chapter also considers attempts to determine whether another interpretation of the papyrus is plausible, or even possible. It cites the argument that the Supplices does not belong to the same tetralogy as the Danaids and Amymone.

This chapter examines the stylistic evidence concerning the Supplices by challenging the validity of the scholars' interpretation that it was the earliest extant play of Aeschylus. Drawing attention to a number of peculiarities in Prometheus, it argues that the Supplices was not an authentic play of Aeschylus based on the weakness of stylistic arguments for dating it. The chapter considers Aeschylus's stylistic development to determine whether the Supplices is indeed removed in style from his other plays. It also raises the possibility that Aeschylus's treatment of the iambic trimeter is largely stichic, not only in the Supplices but also in his other works such as Prometheus, Persae, and Agamemnon. Finally, it rejects the notion that Prometheus is an authentic late play of Aeschylus and that the Supplices, on stylistic grounds, marked the beginning of Aeschylus's career.

This chapter examines the structure of the Supplices, more than half of which consists of lyrics. It considers the claim that the chorus' role of ‘protagonist’ in the play does not really explain the extent of its lyric and that Eumenides has the lowest proportion of lyric to dialogue of any Aeschylean play, arguing that the cases are not quite the same. It underscores the central dramatic role of the chorus from the beginning of the Supplices, in contrast to Eumenides where Orestes is for the most part the central character. It also cites the chorus as a principal character in Eumenides and the principal character in the Supplices. In addition, the chapter discusses Aeschylus's adoption of the third actor, between Supplices and Eumenides, and its implications for the mailer. Finally, it suggests that Aeschylus was experimenting when he decided to make the chorus his ‘protagonist’ in both plays.

This chapter examines various attempts to establish the date of the Supplices based on its supposed allusions to contemporary events, as well as the argument from the similar praises of Argos in the Supplices and the Eumenides that both plays must have been written in the same period. It begins by considering Aeschylus's treatment of Argos as a constitutional monarchy and whether to grant asylum to the Danaids, along with the relationship between tragedy and democratic civic ideology at Athens. It rejects the notion that Aeschylus was using the Supplices as a means to express his own political views, claiming that the reason for Argos's strange (and anachronistic) constitution is purely dramatic. It also suggests that Aeschylus is writing for an audience that regarded democracy as the ideal form of constitution. The chapter concludes by highlighting a double tragedy in the Supplices: granting asylum to the Danaids may be disastrous for both Pelasgus and his people.

This chapter re-examines the evidence cited by many scholars for the lost plays of the Aeschylean trilogy Supplices. It first considers the evidence for the correct reading at line 8 and the existence of a subsidiary chorus at the end of the play. It also analyses four elements that are common to all the scholarly interpretations, or at least not contradicted by one or more of them, as well as the disagreement over the consequences of the murder committed by the fifty daughters against their respective husbands on the orders of Danaus. Furthermore, the chapter claims that Ovid cannot be used for the reconstruction of Aeschylus's trilogy; that Aeschylus must have used more than one source that he probably adapted to suit his own dramatic purpose; and that the Supplices itself contains hints of coming events that can be used for the reconstruction of the lost plays.