The myth of the rivalry between Atreus and Thyestes is probably one of best known and most dramatised stories across Greek and Roman drama. Despite its popularity, only a few fragments in both the Greek and Roman tradition survive, with Seneca’s Thyestes being the only complete tragedy we have on the topic. Tommaso Suaria collects and discusses the extant tragic fragments on the myth of Atreus and Thyestes by the fifth-century tragedians Sophocles, Euripides and Agathon. While following the recent scholarly interest in fragmentary drama,[1] this book is a needed and novel contribution to scholarship in providing both a critical edition of the fragments and a thematic collection. A further merit is its attempt to map the development of the rivalry between the two sons of Pelops, Atreus and Thyestes, in three main episodes that are treated by the three tragedians examined here: Thyestes seducing Atreus’ wife Aerope with the intention of securing the throne of Mycenae/Argos, Atreus’ revenge through the cannibalistic feast, and Thyestes’ incest with his own daughter Pelopia, which sees the birth of Aegisthus.[2]
The book consists of a general introduction (‘Introduzione: il mito di Atreo e Tieste’), and of three sections, each addressing a fifth-century author and extant fragments: ‘Parte Prima: Sofocle’, ‘Parte Seconda: Euripide’, ‘Parte Terza: Agatone’. Under the first section, there are two chapters (Chapter 1: ‘Σοφοκλέους Ἀτρεὺς ἢ Μυκηναῖαι’; Chapter 2: ‘Σοφοκλέους Θυέστης’), with an additional introductory piece (‘La quaestio dei drammi sofoclei su Tieste e i vasi del pittore di Dario’) and an appendix to Chapter 1 (‘Appendice: il fr. 738 R2 e l’epigramma per Sofocle: l’inversione dell’orbita solare’). The second section covers Euripides’ extant fragments with a brief introductory piece, untitled and unmarked in the table of contents (pp. 91-92) and three chapters (Chapter 3: ‘Εὐριπιδου Θυέστης’; Chapter 4: ‘Εὐριπιδου Κρῆσσαι; Chapter 5: ‘Εὐριπιδου Πλεισθένης’). The third section is made of another untitled introduction, again not featuring in the table of contents (pp.191-192), and one short chapter, combining the fragments from two attested tragedies by Agathon (Chapter 6: ‘Ἀγάθωνος Ἀερόπη καὶ Θυέστης’). Final conclusions are presented under ‘Conclusioni’, and the last pages contain a list of abbreviations and the bibliography.
The general introduction thoroughly examines the mentions of the mythical story of Atreus and Thyestes, from archaic Greek epic until Late antiquity, in order to provide an account of all the extant variants of the story and delimit the thematic scope of this selection of fragments. The author discusses each of the cited texts precisely and providing an appropriate contextualisation. While there is a commendable interest in mapping the existence and importance of this myth even in archaic (pre-Homeric) epic, with the analysis of the scholion TAB Eur. Or. 995b (p. 9-10), the fortune that this saga enjoyed in Roman archaic, Republican and Augustan theatre is omitted, with only a final and brief mention of Seneca’s Thyestes (pp. 17-18).[3] Given that the book’s novelty strongly depends on its thematic focus, a wider engagement with Roman drama would have been desirable, especially in light of one of the final conclusions, that this story had an enduring reputation in tragedy, despite the fragmentary evidence that we possess (pp. 202-3).
Before I delve into each section, it should be noted that the analysis of each fragment aims for clarity and accessibility. A translation is always offered, and each fragment is discussed under four headings: ‘Metro’ (Metre, which gives a breakdown of the metrical pattern of the fragment); ‘Contesto della citazione’ (Context of the citation, which explains the history of the fragment.); ‘Testo’ (Text, which discusses the constitutio textus with the different traditions, readings and emendations); ‘Interpretazione’ (‘Interpretation’, which offers a running commentary of the fragment along with an interpretational analysis). This is a very thoughtful structure that enables clear and thorough analyses, based on the wise use of scholia, testimonia, textual parallels, grammatical and syntactical rules. While there is a tendency towards describing existing arguments (and this is in part due to the fragmentary nature of these texts and the limited evidence that we possess), the choices are usually well-argued. Similarly, the author reproduces the order of the fragments as established by the latest editions of the Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (TrGF), as clearly stated in the ‘Preface’ (p.2). While, as I will discuss below, the author does offer some new textual conjectures and interpretations, there is little attempt to change the order and/or discuss fragments of uncertain attribution. A notable exception is the ‘Appendix’ to Chapter 1, in which the author compellingly suggests that F 4 738 could belong to Sophocles’ Atreus/Mycenaean women.
The section on Sophocles opens with an introduction that discusses the preserved titles of Sophoclean dramas on the topic. The author offers a clear and detailed survey of previous scholarly treatments, and presents additional arguments in support of the thesis that, out of the multiple titles preserved, Sophocles may have composed three tragedies on the topic, all part of the same tetralogy: Atreus/Mycenaean Women and two Thyestes (p. 30). The discussion makes a good use of multiple types of evidence, not just textual, but also (1) contextual, by considering the dramatic representations of these stories, as well as their circulation in book format, and (2) material, through the analysis of vase paintings.[4] The discussion is always aware of the speculative nature of some its conclusions, here and elsewhere, which is largely due to the fragmentary state of the evidence.[5] The author engages with the work of previous scholars and follows closely the TrGF edition. However, he discusses a new interpretation of F 4 255,[6] and offers new conjectures on F 4 260a.[7]
The section on Euripides is similarly well-argued throughout, with thorough analyses of the fragments. In particular, the author advances a new conjecture on F 5 394, and a new interpretation of F 5 396. This section also opens with an introduction (pp. 91-92), which is left untitled and which discusses the existence of two distinct Euripidean tragedies, Thyestes and The Cretan Women that may have treated the infamous feast offered by Atreus to his brother. The mention of the history behind Euripides’ third title (Pleisthenes) is left to the introduction of the chapter dedicated to it (Ch. 5, with its own introduction at pp. 153-164). Perhaps a longer, and more structured introduction, discussing each title, at the beginning of the section would have contributed to a smoother and clearer section, in line with how the author structured the rest of the book. Despite this, the discussion on Euripides’ Pleisthenes is rich, thorough and extremely clear, while advancing compelling hypotheses about the possible storylines of the drama.[8]
A short and final section treats the fragments by Agathon. The author provides an introduction on Agathon himself, with appropriate further bibliography cited, and discusses the fragments attributed to the author’s Aerope and Thyestes, here conflated in one chapter due to the small number of preserved fragments, with the same structure and methodology as in previous chapters.
The final chapter (‘Conclusioni’) focuses on summarising the storylines proposed for each tragedy throughout the analyses of the fragments. It emerges that the tragic renditions of this myth, based on the extant fragments, would have centred around three main episodes: (1) Thyestes’ adultery with Atreus’ wife Aerope (Sophocles’ Atreus/Mycenaean women and Euripides’ Cretan Women), (2) the cannibalistic feast (Sophocles’ Atreus/Mycenaean women and Euripides’ Thyestes), (3) Thyestes’ incest with his own daughter Pelopia and the birth of Aegisthus with a possible encounter and recognition between an older Aegisthus and his father (Sophocles’ Thyestes I/Thyestes in Sicyon). Euripides’ Pleisthenes represents an additional storyline in which Atreus’ son, Pleisthenes, is adopted by Thyestes and sent to kill Atreus, who, failing to recognise his own offspring, will kill him. This conclusive chapter offers a needed clarification and unifies an argument that, until now, had been fragmented in the textual analyses.
Before concluding, I will highlight here some minor issues. Given the essentially thematic focus at the heart of this project, the interpretation of the fragments could have benefited from more intertextual connections between the three authors presented. For instance, the author signposts, but dismisses due to lack of evidence, the presence of a Bacchic theme in F 4 255 (p. 66), and, yet, a Bacchic element resurfaces in the discussion of Agathon’s Thyestes (F 1 3, pp. 196-8). As mentioned above, there is a limited engagement with the Roman dramatic tradition (p. 29 and 93), while a dialogue with Roman fragments may have helped strengthen the discussion.[9] There are, occasionally, some strong and unpursued conclusions. For instance, when commenting on Sophocles’ F 4 248, the last line of the ‘Interpretation’ section reads: ‘La glossa di Esichio, dunque, introduce nel dramma il tema della follia.’ (‘The glossa by Hesychius introduces in the tragedy the theme of folly’).[10] In addition to the anachronistic suggestion that ‘folly’ is a theme introduced in the tragedy by a later reader, this conclusion needs a longer interpretive discussion, given that ‘folly’ has not been examined before in the book.
Despite some of the structural inconsistencies and minor issues highlighted above, this is a timely, well-executed and useful contribution to scholarly studies in textual criticism and Greek tragedy. The textual discussions are extremely accessible, and the book offers a rich bibliography at the end, which will be useful to all, from experienced scholars to students working within the remits of the gory stories of the Pelopids.
Notes
[1] Wright, M. 2019. The Lost Plays of Greek Tragedy. Volume 2, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. London: Bloomsbury Academic. cf. also Wright, M. 2016. The Lost Plays of Greek Tragedy. Volume 1, Neglected Authors. London. See also Cropp, M.J. 2019. Minor Greek Tragedians. Fragments from the Tragedies with Selected Testimonia. The Fifth Century, Vol. 1. Liverpool, and Cropp, M.J. 2021. Minor Greek Tragedians. Fragments from the Tragedies with Selected Testimonia. The Fourth Century, Vol. 2. Liverpool.
[2] Some of these moments are outlined in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon (lines 1191-3, 1219-22 and 1583-1611). For the general sources on the story Suaria relies on the discussion by Gantz, T. 1993. Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources. Baltimore, esp. pp. 545ff.
[3] Suaria here follows Gantz 1993 (cf. n. 2). A version of this introduction is available also as Suaria, T. 2022. ‘Sophocles’ Thyestes Plays: How Many Is Too Many?’, in N. Bruno, G. Dovico, O. Montepaone, M. Pelucchi (eds.). The Limits of Exactitude in Greek, Roman and Byzantine Literature and Textual Transmission. Berlin.
[4] Contrast this with Wright 2019, 82-83, who dismissed Sophocles’ titles on the topic as a ‘mess’ that could not be disentangled.
[5] Suaria 2025, 36: ‘Le tragedie di Sofocle, le pitture vascolari apule, i drammi latini e la mitografia … sono gli sparsi resti di una complessa storia di attestazioni letterarie e iconografiche di una saga che è stata manipolata e adattata allo scopo di ciascun autore o artista’
[6] Cf. Suaria, T. 2022. ‘Τῇδε βακχεῖος βότρυς ἐπ’ ἦμαρ ἕρπει: un θαῦμα dionisiaco nel ‘Tieste’ di Sofocle (F 255 R2)’, Frammenti Sulla Scena, 2: 31-41.
[7] The discussion on the constitutio textus, as signposted by the author, also appears in Suaria, T. 2023. ‘Sophocles, Thyestes fr. 260a Radt’, Classical Quarterly, 73: 460-462.
[8] Compare the extremely brief discussion on it by Wright 2019, 195.
[9] For instance, between Sophocles F 4 262 and Varius’ Thyestes TrRG F1, in Schauer, M. 2012. Tragicorum Romanorum fragmenta (TrRF). Vol. 1, Livius Andronicus, Naevius, tragici minores, fragmenta adespota. Göttingen.
[10] Suaria 2025, 56.