Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Taplin Esquilo
Taplin Esquilo
Taplin Esquilo
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 06 Jan 2020 at 08:54:21, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00223561
THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 165
neglected. Lesley's 'Decision and Responsibility' is a good choice, though Rivier
(REG 1968) might have found a place. As for style, Haldane on musical imagery
is good, but the editor himself spends too long on napfkiv-,1 would prefer, for
instance, something from De Romilly's La Crainte et I'angoisse on the language
of fear. The Nachleben section is well done: Cantarella on Aristophanes and the
reproduction of A., Opelt on A. in early Christian writings, and Melchinger on
modern performances. Melchinger, whose essay is an Originalbeitrag adds good
material to Schadewaldt's well-known article (H.u.H.2 ii.664 ff.).
To turn to volume ii: on Persae we have Schadewaldt's brief production-
notes; but I should not have chosen Adams's Salamis-Symphony rather than
Reimschneider, Hermes 1938, or Lattimore, The Poetry of Gr. Trag. pp. 29 ff.
There is a shortage of good things on Pers., but it is the opposite with Septem.
The short pieces by Engelmann on the Curse and Fraenkel on the end are fine,
but the terrific dispute over the central scene is not properly represented by
Lesky on 'Eteocles'. What about Solmsen's seminal note (TAPA 1937) or E.
Wolff (HSCP 1958) or von Fritz (Antike u. Moderne Trag. pp. 193 ff.) or
Kirkwood (Phoenix 1969)? Burnett, GRBS 1973, was presumably too late.
Too little on Septem--but possibly too much on Supplices. Lesky on the date
and Lloyd-Jones on 'New Date and Old Problems' are both obviously right, and
Wehrli on Io is an inspired choice; but Booth on lines 86-95 and Winnington-
Ingram's speculations about the trilogy are not beyond exception. Burnett's
neat review of Garvie's book (CPh 1971) would have been better value.
To have to choose even 200 pages on the Oresteia must have been an agony.
Dodds on 'Morals and Politics' is the only choice on the whole trilogy. Winning-
ton-Ingram's article on Clytemnestra and Athena in JHS 1948, which is at last
finding the recognition it deserves, should surely be in. Also Goheen (AJP
1955) and Vidal-Naquet (P del P 1969) must be serious candidates; and their
omission is perhaps an index of the comparative neglect of American and French
scholars in this collection. None the less we do have de Romilly on 'L'Evocation
du passe' in Agam. and Knox on 'The Lion in the House', one of the first and
best studies of Aeschylus' complexes of imagery. Gundert's scrutiny of the
stichomythia at 931 ff. is at last made as easily available as it should be. But I
do not feel so grateful for Stark on lines 12 ff., Bergson's reply to Dawe's fan-
tasy about the Zeus-hymn, or the editor's thirty-two pages on the final scene,
when we might have had, to accompany Gundert, Fraenkel on Cassandra (see
above), Neustadt (Hermes 1929), Jones On Aristotle and Gr. Trag. 72 ff. To
represent Cho. we have Kenner on the influence of Aeschylus' Electra on art
and Solmsen's monograph on Three Recognition Scenes, worth making more
accessible but rather long uncut. But I sorely miss Schadewaldt here (see above),
and, assuming we are not allowed any of Lebeck's book, we really should have
her brilliant note on the central song (CPh 1967). As for Eum. we have only nine
pages on the trial by Schneider. I would rather have Winnington-Ingram (CR
1933) or Dover (JHS 1957) or Peradotto (AJP 1964) or several others. And a
new chapter on the study of this play, too late for inclusion, has now been
contributed by Macleod inMaia 1973.
Prometheus obviously presents a problem. Here we have Zawadzka on the
authenticity problem, and Unterberger for the defence. Korte (NJbA 1920) and
Focke (Hermes 1930) might have filled these slots better. I would have been
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 06 Jan 2020 at 08:54:21, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00223561
166 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
tempted to include some of Herington's Author for the defence, and some of
Schmid's Untersuchungen, or at least Walter Nestle (in the Droysen translation,
Stuttgart, 1962), for the attack. Dodds's Concept of Progress pp. 26 ff. came out
too late. Finally the fragments are represented by Ph. Kakridis on the Dike-
fragment: I would have preferred Frankel (see above), Siegmann (Philol. 1945),
or Reinhardt (Hermes 1957).
I have taken this opportunity for a dogmatic survey of the pick of modern
Aeschylean scholarship. I should not like this format to obscure my over-all
judgement that Professor Hommel has made a valuable and enterprising
collection: would that English or American publishers could do the same sort
of thing.
Magdalen College, Oxford OLIVER TAPLIN
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 06 Jan 2020 at 08:54:21, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00223561