The reading of Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, one of the pinnacles of Greek tragic production, represents an essential undertaking for each new generation of students interested in ancient theatre. Consequently, the production of reliable critical tools to accompany them in their encounter with such a complex and engaging work of art merits positive acknowledgment. The first quarter of the 21st century has been a fertile period in this respect, marked by the publication of both large-scale scholarly commentaries and more accessible resources aimed at undergraduates[1]. This flourishing of scholarship is now worthily enriched by the new edition by Edith Hall in the Aris & Phillips Classical Texts series. Professor Hall is a distinguished authority on ancient theater, who has already made substantial contributions to the study of Aeschylean drama and its reception[2]. As might be expected, her new volume abounds with stimulating insights and effectively enables the modern reader to fully appreciate the theatrical power of this astonishingly intense drama.
The book starts with an extensive introduction (pp. 1-102), followed by the critical edition of the text with facing English translation (pp. 105-231) and a two-hundred-and-fifty-page commentary (pp. 223-475). A clear and useful metrical appendix and a rich and up-to-date bibliography complete the volume, whose production quality is very high[3].
The introduction, divided into fifteen sections, offers a well-informed and thought-provoking discussion of numerous aspects of the play: structure and themes, treatment of time, characters, religious and ritual issues, production, imagery, style and language, and influence on later authors. In addition to providing the essential contextual information necessary to situate the drama within its historical and cultural framework, Hall successfully introduces her readers to Aeschylus’ “sensory theatre”, which fully expresses its power through the complex interaction of verbal elements with a plurality of auditory and visual stimuli. Particularly insightful observations are devoted to references to taste and smell which “heighten the physical experience of the audience” (p. 59), to the significance of the actors’ corporeality (hands, feet, trampling, kneeling), and to the aural experience of the spectators, in the form of scenic and extra-scenic cries and of the evocation of “a secondary soundscape of quoted voices” (p. 70).
The section on characters is particularly effective, especially in the analysis of Clytemnestra. Hall acknowledges Aeschylus’ genius in having created—albeit within a trilogy that ultimately reaffirms the dominant role of males within Athenian society—a female character of such complexity and exceptional nature that she can be regarded as “a phenomenal challenge to sexism, ancient or modern” (p. 28). In dealing with extensively debated issues such as Agamemnon’s culpability, Artemis’ wrath, and Zeus’ role in the story, Hall emphasizes Aeschylus’ multifaceted, ambivalent, and incomplete presentation of Agamemnon’s motivations and the deities’ interventions. Consequently, she argues, spectators, both ancient and modern, are left with the necessity of forming an opinion on their own. This represents a productive critical approach, although I would not go so far as to deny that the Trojan expedition is presented as conforming to Zeus’ will. Should this interpretation be incorrect, Aeschylus’ distinctive tragic perspective—based on the inextricable connection whereby a just action performed under divine influence simultaneously becomes the source of new culpability—would be seriously compromised. (It may be noted that the idea that the Trojans have been justly punished is affirmed again by the chorus of the second tragedy of the trilogy, see Ch. 935-6.)
Particularly valuable are the two sections dedicated to the reception of Agamemnon in ancient and modern contexts, which enable readers to fully appreciate the immense cultural impact of the play. Hall demonstrates how, following a long history of retellings that tended to downplay what authors seemed to see as the excessively dominant character of Clytemnestra, only from the late nineteenth century onward did “the authentic Aeschylean Clytemnestra begins to speak in a voice once again immediate and relevant” (p. 93), coinciding with the progressive recognition of gender equality and the feminist revolution of the latter half of the twentieth century.
A little more attention could have been devoted to the literary sources of the myth: the short section on this topic (pp. 75-77) concludes with the somewhat perplexing assertion that we do not need to know how much of the story line Aeschylus shared with other poets in order to appreciate his theatrical treatment. Given that a consideration of the existing tradition must have constituted a fundamental preliminary step for any tragic author in developing a new dramatic project, I maintain that, despite the challenges posed by the fragmentary nature of available information, readers should be made fully aware of its significance.
The comprehensive commentary provides both essential background information on fundamental concepts (see for example the notes to lines 218-21 on Ananke and 250-1 on Dike) and broader observations that illuminate meaningful pathways within the complex poetic universe of the author. Concise and effective introductions precede each section of the drama. In alignment with the attention devoted to verbal imagery in the introduction, numerous notes illustrate particular metaphors and figures of speech by compiling passages in which they recur throughout the play and trilogy: notable examples include the annotations on lines 3 (the dog), 12-14 (the personification of fear), 49-50 (animal offspring), and 357 (the net), among others. The efficacy of these notes is enhanced by a precise system of internal cross-references. Linguistic issues receive succinct yet authoritative treatment, particularly when Hall is elucidating the lexical implications of high-impact words. The abundance of information regarding religious aspects and ritual practices (particularly sacrifice and wedding ceremonies) is highly commendable, as are the frequent references to iconographic documentation, which enrich the scholarly discussion. Hall appropriately dedicates substantial attention to the movements and gestures of the actors; see, for example, the excellent analyses of Clytemnestra’s proskynesis in the note to lines 918-20 and Agamemnon’s entrance on a chariot on pages 351-2.
Hall has intentionally chosen not to burden the notes with extensive philological discussions, and to be sparing with quotations of alternative interpretations, even in very difficult passages. This approach offers the undeniable advantage of creating a more streamlined commentary, but simultaneously raises significant questions related to the delicate balance between the need to make the ancient work accessible to modern readers and the need to remind them that the ‘text’ of Aeschylus is often an elusive object, necessitating meticulous discussions that does not invariably yield definitive conclusions. As a consequence, certain exceptionally challenging passages receive more cursory treatment than their complexity warrants. To cite a single example, at lines 1025-29, Hall suggests that “here the rival fates could be identified with Clytemnestra/Iphigenia and Agamemnon respectively”, but no contextual elements are provided to help readers comprehend the intricate problem posed by the mention of two opposed μοῖραι, nor to appreciate the arguments that would render this interpretation preferable to the alternative readings proposed by scholars, none of which is mentioned.
In accordance with the nature of the series, textual criticism is not a primary concern in the book. Nevertheless, Hall presents her own critical text. The manuscript tradition and editorial history of the play are concisely presented in section 14 of the introduction, albeit with occasional inaccuracies[4]. Even accepting the premise that a reader interested in the tragedy as a poetic playscript does not require comprehensive familiarity with the history of the manuscripts and their editing, the assertion that in Agamemnon “there are hardly any occasions where a textual problem really matters to the meaning or dramatic effect” (p. 98) will appear to many scholars to be too optimistic. One need only recall the theological implications of the choice between που or ποῦ at line 182 (mentioned only cursorily at p. 50 note 92). The legitimate desire to focus on the theatrical dimension of the play should not extend so far as to obscure the fact that textual criticism constitutes an arduous but unavoidable pathway to approach the challenging poetic diction of Aeschylus.
The critical apparatus is simple and clearly organized; but the desire for simplification occasionally results in the omission of relevant data. In particular, it repeatedly occurs that a conjecture printed in the text is not registered as such in the apparatus, where the reader does not even find the reading of the manuscripts (see 103 φρενὶ Pauw and λύπην Blaydes; 144 αἴτει Blomfield; 176 τὸν Schütz; 430 ἀτλησικάρδιος Headlam; 470 κάρανα Tucker; 806 <ἐγώ> Wilamowitz). At line 342, V’s reading τὰ (an interesting variant, in my assessment) is not reported; the same goes for the attribution of lines 489-501 to Clytemnestra in all the manuscripts (afact mentioned but briefly dismissed in the commentary).
Where textual choices are concerned, I sympathize with Hall’s defense of the paradosis in several passages, like l. 430 πένθεια, l. 690 ἁβροτίμων (with an excellent note on the “series of significant fabrics in the play”), l. 1224 λέοντ’ ἄναλκιν, and l. 1387 Ἄιδου (which provides a powerful blasphemous expression that must not be emended away). The preference given at line 1328 to Boissonade’s πρέψειεν over Porson’s τρέψειεν is also commendable.
Not being a native speaker, I shall refrain from offering an aesthetic evaluation of the translation. I will simply observe that it appears to render the Greek text with precision while demonstrating considerable elegance and expressive power.
I conclude with a few points of detail:
3. The scholium to this line suggests that ἄγκαθεν is a syncopated form of ἀνέκαθεν, not of ἀνάκαθεν. 144. The imperative αἴτει is printed in the text, but the translation “she demands the fulfillment etc.” is based on the transmitted reading αἰτεῖ: an unwelcome discrepancy, given the importance of the line for understanding Artemis’ role in demanding the sacrifice. 539. Enger’s integration of γε is far from satisfactory: a scholium to the passage probably preserves the correct reading τὸ τεθνάναι (see Eikasmos 2014, 79-84). 689-91 In the discussion of the pun on Helen’s name I miss a mention of Eur. 891-2 αἱρεῖ γὰρ ἀνδρῶν ὄμματ’, ἐξαιρεῖ πολεις / πίμπρησιν οἴκους. 825. Hall prints Blomfield’s ἀσπιδηφόρος: she could have profited here from a splendid article by Sebastiano Timpanaro affording strong arguments in defence of F’s ἀσπιδηστρόφος[5]. 1219. The translation “children killed by their kinsfolk” omits the problematic ὡσπερεί, whose function in the sentence should have been elucidated in the commentary.
Overall, Hall has produced a first-rate work, in which both students and more experienced scholars will find many stimuli to deepen their knowledge of this inexhaustible theatrical masterpiece.
Notes
[1] P. Judet de La Combe, L’Agamemnon d’Eschyle. Commentaire des dialogues, I-II,Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presse Universitaire du Septentrion 2001; D. Raeburn; O. Thomas, Aeschylus. Agamemnon. A Commentary for Students, Oxford: OUP 2011; E. Medda, Eschilo. Agamennone, Edizione critica traduzione e commento, Roma: Bardi 2017 (second revised edition 2024); Μ. Θωμά, Α. Παπαθωμάς, Ἀνδρὸς τελείου δῶμ’ ἐπιστροφωμένου. Η τραγωδία Αγαμέμνων του Αισχύλου, Αθήνα: Scriptio Continua 2021; L.R. Himmelhoch, Aeschylus. Agamemnon, London-New York: Bloomsbury 2023.
[2] See, among many other works, Inventing the Barbarian. Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy, Oxford: OUP 1989; Aeschylus’ Persians, Warminster: Aris & Phillips 1996; E. Hall, F. Macintosh, Greek Tragedy and the British Theatre 1660-1914, Oxford: OUP 2005.
[3] I have noticed only a few typographical errors, none particularly significant: p. 20 note 35 Agamemnon not Agememnon; p. 232 l. 5 astragaloi not astralagoi; p. 296 l. 8 arktouros not arktuoros; p. 364, note to ll. 871-2 “Many editors delete line 872 altogether”: read “line 871”. In the Greek text: l. 403 ἀσπίστορας not ἀσπίστοράς; l. 404 λοχισμούς not λοχίσμους; l. 1057, apparatus: the ms. F has πυρός not πύρος.
[4] The codex V does not contain “the full trilogy and an additional version of lines 1-348” (p. 97), but the Byzantine triad (Prometheus Vinctus, Septem and Persae) followed by the first 348 lines of Agamemnon. The ms. G (Marc. Gr. Z. 616 = 663) is not mentioned at all. Nothing is said about Triclinius’ work on the text and the complex relationship between the manuscripts Tr and F, which are are the only basis for our knowledge of a large part of the play.
[5] S. Timpanaro, “Eschilo, Agamennone 821-838 (con alcune osservazioni sulla Ἰλιὰς μικρά)”, Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 125 (1997), 5-47 (= S.T., Contributi di filologia greca e latina, a cura di Emanuele Narducci, Firenze 2005, pp. 1-38).