After inaugurating a new series devoted to Greek fragmentary drama with Sophocles’ Laocoön, ‘L’Erma di Bretschneider’ has recently issued a volume about Aeschylus’ satyric Prometheus. This includes an overview of mythological sources; text, translation and commentary of the relevant fragments; and a discussion of the main iconographic evidence. The author, Paolo Biagio Cipolla, who has been working on tragic and satyric fragments for at least two decades, labels this volume as a “proekdosis” of the new edition of Aeschylus’ fragments, due to appear in the future. Such an enterprise, by Cipolla as well as other scholars, has been promoted by the ‘Accademia dei Lincei’ within the well-known project of a new edition of Aeschylus. It is reasonable to believe that the narrow focus of the present book has given Cipolla a chance to treat in great depth all the countless issues involved in this topic. On the other hand, it can be expected that the section about satyric Prometheus in the editio maior will not be a mere reproduction of the present volume.
A new treatment of satyric Prometheus is a welcome acquisition in academic circles to improve on the basic tools, i.e. Radt’s critical edition and Sommerstein’s one (less critical, but more exegetical, thanks to generous introduction, translation and notes)[1], beside a special chapter in the collective book Das griechische Satyrspiel[2]. In fact, the recent edition and commentary on this play by Tsantsanoglou[3] have stimulated a fresh interest in the readings of papyrus fragments and in new supplements and interpretations. Cipolla’s work can help us appreciate and assess Tsantsanoglou’s sometimes daring proposals.
In part I Cipolla reviews the evidence on the myth of Prometheus, centred on his stealing fire for the sake of mankind. He stresses that, after Hes. Theog. 562-9, no other poet any earlier than Aeschylus dealt with that myth. It was Aeschylus who made the Titan a kind of cultural god rather than a trickster, the one who made possible and introduced crafts to humankind. In referring to Prometheus Bound, Cipolla stands by the view that it was by Aeschylus. The latter does not seem to have drawn on the other set of stories about Prometheus, Epimetheus and Pandora, attested by Hesiod (Theog. 570-93, Op. 59-89) and, with further elaborations, later poets, fable and myth writers. In this section four sources stand out as less widely quoted in relation to Aeschylus’ treatment of Prometheus: Hyginus the Astronomist (2.15); Lucian’s Zeus and Prometheus, Prometheus siue Caucasus and Prometheus es in uerbis.
In part II.1, devoted to the text itself of satyric Prometheus, Cipolla musters up all the evidence for the existence of such a work (mainly the hypothesis to Persae, staged in 472 B.C.) and its title. The latter involves, as known, pondering over the epithets Pyrphoros (‘the Fire-Bearer’) attested by the Catalogue of Aeschylus’ plays together with two more titles: Prometheus Bound and Prometheus Unbound) and Pyrkaeus (‘the Fire-Kindler’, transmitted by Pollux), and reflecting on the great number of possible reconstructions. Cipolla sympathizes with the idea long ago set forth by Welcker that a tragic trilogy was made up by the three titles given by the Catalogue and that Prometheus Pyrkaeus was the satyr play of 472. Cipolla takes the view that those tragedies were performed in the sequence Prometheus Pyrphoros–Prometheus Vinctus-Prometheus Solutus, although he admits that no satyr play can be easily indicated for such a set. He also accepts that the epithet Pyrkaeus may originate in Pollux by mistake with Sophocles’ Nauplius Pyrkaeus or have simply been an alternative designation of Prometheus Pyrphoros. In conclusion, he leaves the question open on the nature of the latter play and on the independent existence of Prometheus Pyrkaeus, contenting himself with the definition ‘satyric Prometheus’. As to subject matter, he concludes that Aeschylus’ satyr play dealt with Prometheus’ stealing fire and bringing it to earth; the chorus of satyrs was to experience fire for the first time, then celebrate Prometheus for such a gift. Without committing either way, he mentions the hypothesis that satyric Prometheus included the aetiology of Athenian torch-races.
Part II.2 neatly sets out the relevant fragments: (a) those handed down by ancient authors as from either Pyrphoros or Pyrkaeus; (b) fragments unanimously attributed to Aeschylus’ satyric Prometheus (mainly fragments from Oxyrhynchus); (c) a selection from fragments less unanimously accepted as from the same play; and (d) a list, without full discussion, of fragments questionably attributed to satyric or tragic Prometheus.
Part III illustrates the great surge of Promethean satyric iconography in vase painting over the period 440-400 B.C. through discussion of six of the main artifacts (with photographs). Cipolla on the one hand follows Beazley’s argument[4] that such vase paintings were somehow influenced by Aeschylus’ satyr play (after either the première or a restaging by Aeschylus’ son Euphorion, subsequent to the poet’s death in 456/455 B.C.); on the other, he accepts recent trends in vase painting studies about independent, and generic, developments of theatrical elements[5].
Part V draws on the foregoing discussion to set out a plausible frame for most fragments. As a conclusion the author provides a reconstruction of plot, setting, characters. A rich bibliography, updated to 2023, follows, but no index.
The strength of this book lies in Cipolla’s command of primary and secondary sources, grammar, vocabulary, and metre. The reader will learn a great deal from all this. Many of his discussions are utterly persuasive (e.g. FF 1 = 205 Radt; 4 = ** 207 R.; 5b = ** 204b + 204d 5 R.); other are interesting (e.g. F 5d = ** 204d 4 R.). He always sets his opinion out with caution. In discussing the views of others, he is constantly balanced, never biassed. One feels that his edition of satyric Prometheus will become a standard reference tool for scholars and students.
As to weaknesses, they are of a general nature. First, one would expect of such an accomplished scholar as Cipolla to inspect P.Oxy. 2245 personally rather than rely on the autopsy by colleagues, although there is no doubt that L. Del Corso and C. Meccariello are outstanding papyrologists. This would have made any textual decision, and hence the apparatus as well, more straightforward. Secondly, it is good to show the pros and cons of a given argument and leave the learned readers decide for themselves. However, it sometimes happens that fairness conceals contradiction. For example,. in the discussion of iconography, we may follow either Beazley or contemporary anti-theatrical trends. Similarly, if we subscribe to the authenticity of Prometheus Bound and then refer it to either the whole or a part of the play (p. 5 n. 5), we omit to explain that the second qualification implies very different reconstructions, which surmise an active role for a posthumous playwright, who may be identical with Euphorion[6]. Finally, I shall leave it to speakers of English as a mother-tongue to assess whether Cipolla’s prose is acceptable international English or not, although I am afraid that they will find it less than idiomatic. [7]
Despite these minor flaws, we should be grateful to Cipolla for providing us with such a learned and useful book.
Notes
[1] S. Radt, ed., Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta: Vol. 3: Aeschylus, Göttingen 1985 (pp. 321-30 on Prometheus Pyrkaeus and Pyrphoros); A.H. Sommerstein, ed., Aeschylus: Fragments, Cambridge (MA) / London 2008 (pp. 210-20).
[2] R. Germar, N. Pechstein, R. Krumeich ‘Prometheus Pyrkaeus’ in R. Krumeich, N. Pechstein, B. Seidensticker, eds., Das griechische Satyrspiel, Darmstadt 1999, 169-78.
[3] K. Tsantsanoglou, Tragic Papyri. Aeschylus’ Theoroi, Hypsipyle, Laïos, Prometheus Pyrkaeus and Sophocles’ Inachos, Berlin / Boston 2022, 179-227.
[4] J.D. Beazley, ‘Prometheus Fire-Lighter’ AJA 43/4 (1939) 618-39.
[5] In this case Cipolla quotes J.R. Green, ‘Theatrical Motifs in Non-theatrical Contexts on Vases of the Later Fifth and Fourth Centuries’, in E.W. Handley, A. Griffiths, eds., Stage Directions. Essays in Ancient Drama in Honour of E.W. Handley, Oxford 1995, 93-121; L. Rebaudo, ‘Il sileno e Dioniso. Un cratere campano con attore comico in costume’, La rivista di Engramma 183 (2021) 123-46; however, see the wider opposition between interpretations of vase paintings as relating to literature and as independent from it (cf. L. Poli Palladini, ‘Ancora sulla datazione dei Mirmidoni di Eschilo’ in “Quanta storia nella scuola! Memoria e archivi scolastici come bene comune.” Atti delle Giornate in Aula Odeion: Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, 14 aprile-5 maggio 2023, [Rome 2023], pp. 57-73: 60).
[6] For an overview of reconstructions centred on the idea of re-elaboration of a genuine Aeschylean play or nucleus, see W. Schmid, Untersuchungen zum Gefesselten Prometheus, Stuttgart 1929, 1-3; M.P. Pattoni, L’autenticità del Prometeo incatenato di Eschilo, Pisa 1987, 25-6; hypotheses about Euphorion’s role in producing Prometheus Bound range from complete (M.L. West, Studies in Aeschylus, Stuttgart 1990, 67-72; ‘Iliad and Aethiopis on the stage: Aeschylus and son’ CQ 50/2 [2000] 338-52: 339) to partial cheating (L. Poli Palladini, Aeschylus at Gela: An Integrated Approach, Alessandria 2013: 23-8).
[7] Misprints that caught my eye: p. 9, l. 1 read ‘go’ instead of ‘goes’; p. 19, l. 11 ‘so’ instead of ‘as’; p. 32, l. 16 ‘received’ instead of ‘receives’; p. 33, l. 26 ‘according to’ instead of ‘per’; p. 79, l. 4 ‘ink dot’ instead of ‘dot ink’; p. 86, l. 16 ‘two-row’ instead of ‘two rows’; p. 95, n. 124, l. 3 ‘new’ instead of ‘hew’; p. 108, n. 17, l. 1 ‘staffs held’ instead of ‘staves hold’; p. 109, n. 20, l. 1 ‘a’ instead of ‘an’.