Aeschylean Tragedy opposition. Soon, however, his popularity waned, especially when Cimon began to gain spectacular military successes from 476 onwards; some time late in the 470s Themistocles was ostracized, and in the 460s we begin to find other figures in antagonism with Cimon-Pericles, the son of Xanthip- pus(born about 495), and a somewhat older man of unknown family named Ephialtes. All this time Athens was steadily consolidating both the power of her alliance in and beyond the Aegean and her own power within the alliance itself, which became more and more an instrument for advanc. yo it was during this period that Aeschylus firmly established himself as specifically Athenian interests the outstanding tragic dramatist in Athens. according to his ancient life he was well enough known as early as 476/5 to be invited to Sicily by Hieron, tyrannos of Syracuse, who was then founding the new city of Aetna and commissioned Aeschylus to produce The Women of Aetna for the occasion. At that time, however, Phrynichus was probably still the leading figure in the field -indeed he had just won first prize with a production financed by no less a person than Themistocles(Plutarch, Themistocle 5.5)-and it is on the whole more likely that the Sicilian premiere of The Women of aetna took place some years later (see below) and that an ancient scholar wrongly associated it with the known date of Aetna foundation It was almost certainly in 473 that Phrynichus died, after a career of some forty years; at any rate Aeschylus, feeling himself Phrynichus' successor began his Persians(see Chapter 4), produced in the spring of 472, with a salute to Phrynichus' memory in the form of a near-quotation of the opening line of his play of four years earlier on the same theme This production by Aeschylus was financed by the young Pericles, and won first prize There is ancient evidence, going back to Eratosthenes(third century BC), that The Persians was produced again at Syracuse under the aus pices of Hieron; there is reason to believe that this visit took place in 470 and that it also featured the production of The Women of Aetna. This was the year when Hieron, on winning the chariot-race at the Pythian games, caused his name to be proclaimed not as 'Hieron of Syracuse but as the First Pythian, recalled the victories achieved over the Persian 6, o Hieron of Aetna. Pindar, celebrating the victory in the ode now known Athens at Salamis and by Sparta at Plataea and linked them with the almost simultaneous victory of Hieron and his brother Gelon over the Carthaginians at Himera as having pulled greece back from grievous servitude,. It would chime very well with this publicity campaign on Hierons part if he also sponsored productions, by the greatest dramatist of the day, of a play or plays celebrating recent victories over the " barbari- ans"a and another which, to quote the life of aeschylus, 'gave an augury of a good life to those who joined the newly-founded city' of Aetna. Perhaps one production was staged at Syracuse and the other at Aetna itself. About the same time a new tragic dramatist, Sophocles, nearly thirty 6
opposition. Soon, however, his popularity waned, especially when Cimon began to gain spectacular military successes from 476 onwards; some time late in the 470s Themistocles was ostracized, and in the 460s we begin to find other figures in antagonism with Cimon – Pericles, the son of Xanthippus (born about 495), and a somewhat older man of unknown family named Ephialtes. All this time Athens was steadily consolidating both the power of her alliance in and beyond the Aegean and her own power within the alliance itself, which became more and more an instrument for advancing specifically Athenian interests. It was during this period that Aeschylus firmly established himself as the outstanding tragic dramatist in Athens. According to his ancient Life he was well enough known as early as 476/5 to be invited to Sicily by Hieron, tyrannos of Syracuse, who was then founding the new city of Aetna and commissioned Aeschylus to produce The Women of Aetna for the occasion. At that time, however, Phrynichus was probably still the leading figure in the field – indeed he had just won first prize with a production financed by no less a person than Themistocles (Plutarch, Themistocles 5.5) – and it is on the whole more likely that the Sicilian première of The Women of Aetna took place some years later (see below) and that an ancient scholar wrongly associated it with the known date of Aetna’s foundation. It was almost certainly in 473 that Phrynichus died, after a career of some forty years; at any rate Aeschylus, feeling himself Phrynichus’ successor, began his Persians (see Chapter 4), produced in the spring of 472, with a salute to Phrynichus’ memory in the form of a near-quotation of the opening line of his play of four years earlier on the same theme. This production by Aeschylus was financed by the young Pericles, and won first prize. There is ancient evidence, going back to Eratosthenes (third century BC),11 that The Persians was produced again at Syracuse under the auspices of Hieron; there is reason to believe that this visit took place in 470 and that it also featured the production of The Women of Aetna. This was the year when Hieron, on winning the chariot-race at the Pythian Games, caused his name to be proclaimed not as ‘Hieron of Syracuse’ but as ‘Hieron of Aetna’. Pindar, celebrating the victory in the ode now known as the First Pythian, recalled the victories achieved over the Persians by Athens at Salamis and by Sparta at Plataea and linked them with the almost simultaneous victory of Hieron and his brother Gelon over the Carthaginians at Himera as having ‘pulled Greece back from grievous servitude’. It would chime very well with this publicity campaign on Hieron’s part if he also sponsored productions, by the greatest dramatist of the day, of a play or plays12 celebrating recent victories over the ‘barbarians’13 and another which, to quote the Life of Aeschylus, ‘gave an augury of a good life to those who joined the newly-founded city’ of Aetna. Perhaps one production was staged at Syracuse and the other at Aetna itself. About the same time a new tragic dramatist, Sophocles, nearly thirty Aeschylean Tragedy 6
1. The Life and Times of aeschylus rears younger than Aeschylus, was making his debut. Plutarch, in his life of Cimon(8.8-9), tells a story set at the city dionysia of 468. Sophocles, he says, was putting on his first production; there were quarrels and taking of sides among the spectators the presiding magistrate, instead of select ing judges for the contest by lot as was usual, invited the ten generals(one of whom was Cimon) to act as judges, and they awarded the first prize to Sophocles. Plutarch implies, and the ancient Life of aeschylus explicitly states, that Aeschylus was one of the defeated competitors. There is independent evidence that Sophocles won his first victory in 468(Parian Marble a 56), but the participation of Aeschylus in that contest may be a later improvement of the story: certainly Plutarch does not inspire our confidence here when he ascribes Aeschylus final departure from Athens which did not occur till a decade later) to pique at this defeat Two surviving plays of Aeschylus formed part of productions with which he won first prize in the 460s. In 467 he won with Laius, Oedipus, Seven against Thebes and The Sphinx(see Chapter 5), defeating two sons of famous fathers, Aristias son of Pratinas(who competed with his fathers plays, Pratinas having presumably died not long before)and Polyphras mon son of Phrynichus; and in an uncertain year, possibly 463, he won with The Egyptians, The Suppliant Maidens, The Danaids and Amymor (see Chapter 6 and $12.2), defeating Sophocles and Mesatus In the late 460s substantial alterations seem to have been made both in the rules of the dramatic competition and in the physical environment in which they took place(see Chapter 2), including the introduction of a scene-building(skene) at the back of the acting area, of two special-effects devices(the ekkyklema and mechane), and of a third speaking actor Ancient scholars, from Aristotle onwards, disputed endlessly whether Aeschylus or Sophocles was responsible for these innovations. In one sense at least, neither was. The innovations, which may have been associated with some remodelling of the theatre as a whole, called for public expen- diture, and must therefore have been authorized by a decree of the Assembly, made on the recommendation of the Council and on the motion probably, of some active politician though no doubt advice was taken from the leading dramatists on how the money available for the purpose could best be spent. In the absence of any surviving plays by Sophocles from this period, we cannot tell whether he or Aeschylus was more enthusiastic about these new theatrical resources. All we can say is that by 458 Aeschylus was employing them with as much expertise as if he had been handling them for the whole of his working life. He may have used them, or some of them, in up to three earlier productions: fragments of three lost plays- The Edonians, The Priestesses and the satyr- play The Sacred Delegation (see Chapter 9) 4- suggest the existence of a scene building, and in The Weighing of souls(whose authenticity, however, is doubtful) there is evidence both for a three-actor scene (involving Zeus Eos and Thetis)and for the use of the mechane (by Eos when she came to
years younger than Aeschylus, was making his début. Plutarch, in his life of Cimon (8.8-9), tells a story set at the City Dionysia of 468. Sophocles, he says, was putting on his first production; there were quarrels and taking of sides among the spectators; the presiding magistrate, instead of selecting judges for the contest by lot as was usual, invited the ten generals (one of whom was Cimon) to act as judges, and they awarded the first prize to Sophocles. Plutarch implies, and the ancient Life of Aeschylus explicitly states, that Aeschylus was one of the defeated competitors. There is independent evidence that Sophocles won his first victory in 468 (Parian Marble A 56), but the participation of Aeschylus in that contest may be a later ‘improvement’ of the story: certainly Plutarch does not inspire our confidence here when he ascribes Aeschylus’ final departure from Athens (which did not occur till a decade later) to pique at this defeat! Two surviving plays of Aeschylus formed part of productions with which he won first prize in the 460s. In 467 he won with Laius, Oedipus, Seven against Thebes and The Sphinx (see Chapter 5), defeating two sons of famous fathers, Aristias son of Pratinas (who competed with his father’s plays, Pratinas having presumably died not long before) and Polyphrasmon son of Phrynichus; and in an uncertain year, possibly 463, he won with The Egyptians, The Suppliant Maidens, The Danaids and Amymone (see Chapter 6 and §12.2), defeating Sophocles and Mesatus. In the late 460s substantial alterations seem to have been made both in the rules of the dramatic competition and in the physical environment in which they took place (see Chapter 2), including the introduction of a scene-building (skênê) at the back of the acting area, of two special-effects devices (the ekkyklêma and mêchanê), and of a third speaking actor. Ancient scholars, from Aristotle onwards, disputed endlessly whether Aeschylus or Sophocles was responsible for these innovations. In one sense at least, neither was. The innovations, which may have been associated with some remodelling of the theatre as a whole, called for public expenditure, and must therefore have been authorized by a decree of the Assembly, made on the recommendation of the Council and on the motion, probably, of some active politician – though no doubt advice was taken from the leading dramatists on how the money available for the purpose could best be spent. In the absence of any surviving plays by Sophocles from this period, we cannot tell whether he or Aeschylus was more enthusiastic about these new theatrical resources. All we can say is that by 458 Aeschylus was employing them with as much expertise as if he had been handling them for the whole of his working life. He may have used them, or some of them, in up to three earlier productions: fragments of three lost plays – The Edonians, The Priestesses and the satyr-play The Sacred Delegation (see Chapter 9)14 – suggest the existence of a scenebuilding, and in The Weighing of Souls (whose authenticity, however, is doubtful) there is evidence both for a three-actor scene (involving Zeus, Eos and Thetis) and for the use of the mêchanê (by Eos when she came to 1. The Life and Times of Aeschylus 7
Aeschylean Tragedy take away the body of her son Memnon). aeschylus thus appears to have embraced the theatrical innovations of the late 460s with enthusiasm and exploited them with some audacity. The year 462/1 brought fundamental changes in the external and internal politics of Athens, which will be considered more fully later(see $12.1): the abandonment of the alliance with Sparta in favour of one with Spartas traditional enemy Argos, the ostracism of Cimon, and the re- moval of the last remaining constraints on popular sovereignty. In the next few years-despite the assassination of ephialtes, the main promoter of the new policies- the peoples state was further consolidated and a daring foreign policy pursued which by 459 had led Athens into war with Aegina, with Sparta and her allies, and with Persia all at the same time as a single year saw Athenians fighting and dying in Europe, in Asia and in Africa. Many echoes of these developments, some of them extraordi narily explicit by the standards of tragedy, were incorporated by Aeschylus in his Oresteia(comprising Agamemnon, Choephoroi Eumenides and the satyr-play proteus; see Chapter 7)which won first prize at the City Dionysia in the spring of 458 Not long afterwards aeschylus again travelled to Sicily. As he was never to return, legends later grew up about his having become estranged from his Athenian public, but no credence need be given to these. We do not know who invited him to Sicily(hieron was now dead), nor how many cities he visited, nor what plays he produced, nor what plays he had prepared for production at Athens after his anticipated return; only that he died and was buried at gela in 456/5. An epitaph is preserved which the ancient biographer of Aeschylus ascribes to the geloans, though another tradition held it to be by Aeschylus himself. It may be translated thus At gela rich in wheat. he died. and lies beneath this stone aeschylus the Athenian, son of Euphorion His valour, tried and proved, the mead of Marathon can tell, The long-haired Persian also, who knows it all too well. One is entitled to be sceptical about the authenticity of ancient poets epitaphs (all the more so when they are said to have written them personally), but in this case there is cause to be sceptical about scepticism It is hard to believe that anyone at a later date would have concocted an epitaph for Aeschylus that made no reference whatever to his art. Aeschylus, to be sure, can hardly have himself composed an epitaph that specified the place of his death; but it will probably have been commis sioned by the geloans from a member of his family, and its wording will have been in accordance with what his family knew had meant most to him, commemorating him not as a poet, but as a loyal and courageous Athenian who had fought that Athens might still be free Scepticism is rather more in order about a number of other anecdotes
take away the body of her son Memnon). Aeschylus thus appears to have embraced the theatrical innovations of the late 460s with enthusiasm and exploited them with some audacity. The year 462/1 brought fundamental changes in the external and internal politics of Athens, which will be considered more fully later (see §12.1): the abandonment of the alliance with Sparta in favour of one with Sparta’s traditional enemy Argos, the ostracism of Cimon, and the removal of the last remaining constraints on popular sovereignty. In the next few years – despite the assassination of Ephialtes, the main promoter of the new policies – the people’s state was further consolidated and a daring foreign policy pursued which by 459 had led Athens into war with Aegina, with Sparta and her allies, and with Persia all at the same time, as a single year saw Athenians fighting and dying in Europe, in Asia and in Africa.15 Many echoes of these developments, some of them extraordinarily explicit by the standards of tragedy, were incorporated by Aeschylus in his Oresteia (comprising Agamemnon, Choephoroi, Eumenides and the satyr-play Proteus; see Chapter 7) which won first prize at the City Dionysia in the spring of 458. Not long afterwards Aeschylus again travelled to Sicily. As he was never to return, legends later grew up about his having become estranged from his Athenian public, but no credence need be given to these. We do not know who invited him to Sicily (Hieron was now dead), nor how many cities he visited, nor what plays he produced, nor what plays he had prepared for production at Athens after his anticipated return; only that he died and was buried at Gela in 456/5. An epitaph is preserved which the ancient biographer of Aeschylus ascribes to the Geloans, though another tradition16 held it to be by Aeschylus himself. It may be translated thus: At Gela, rich in wheat, he died, and lies beneath this stone: Aeschylus the Athenian, son of Euphorion. His valour, tried and proved, the mead of Marathon can tell, The long-haired Persian also, who knows it all too well. One is entitled to be sceptical about the authenticity of ancient poets’ epitaphs (all the more so when they are said to have written them personally), but in this case there is cause to be sceptical about scepticism. It is hard to believe that anyone at a later date would have concocted an epitaph for Aeschylus that made no reference whatever to his art.17 Aeschylus, to be sure, can hardly have himself composed an epitaph that specified the place of his death; but it will probably have been commissioned by the Geloans from a member of his family, and its wording will have been in accordance with what his family knew had meant most to him, commemorating him not as a poet, but as a loyal and courageous Athenian who had fought that Athens might still be free.18 Scepticism is rather more in order about a number of other anecdotes, Aeschylean Tragedy 8
1. The Life and Times of aeschylus mostly undated, that figure in Aeschylus' ancient biography. Only one of these is worth recording, mainly because of its early attestation; it is referred to casually by aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics as if already well known TThe doer of an act] may not realize what he is doing; as people say they were carried away while speaking,, or 'did not know it was a secret'(as in the case of Aeschylus and the Mysteries)(Eth. Nic. 111la8-10 tr. Thomson) This implies that Aeschylus was at some time accused formally or infor mally, of having divulged secrets, connected with the Mysteries of Deme ter and Kore at Eleusis, that were supposed to be concealed from all except initiates of the cult. An ancient commentator on the aristotelian passage specifies five plays (none of which has survived) in which Aeschylus seemsto have done this, and quotes from aristotle's contemporary Her acleides Ponticus a sensational story of how Aeschylus narrowly escaped being put to death on stage for revealing such secrets, took refuge at the altar of Dionysus, and was eventually put on trial and acquitted, ' mainly because of what he had done in the battle of marathon Eleusis was both Aeschylus home town and the home of the mysteries and Aristophanes in The Frogs exploits this connection to good effect: the chorus of the play is composed of initiates enjoying a blissful afterlife in a privileged region of Hades, and Aeschylus'prayer before his contest with Euripides is Demeter who nurtured my mind, may i be worthy of thy Mysteries(Frogs 886-7). Some of the imagery in the Oresteia has been thought, probably rightly, to derive from this cult, though none of it is signalled as such(neither the Mysteries nor Eleusis nor even Demeter is mentioned anywhere in the trilogy) and none of it could reasonably be regarded as illicit divulgation, since no non-initiate could even be aware of its connotations To judge by what Aristotle's commentator says about the five other plays, their sole connection with the Mysteries, so far as later scholars could discover, consisted in some more than passing reference to Demeter There is thus no reason to believe that aeschylus was guilty of what he is said to have been accused of. It does not follow, however, that the story of the accusation is pure legend. As the late Sir Kenneth Dover has put it in another connection, 'the adage that there is no smoke without fire is not applicable to the Athenian law-courts. Aeschylus, as we shall see more fully in Chapter 12, was a politically committed dramatist and a supporter successively of Themistocles, Ephialtes and Pericles. In the tense atmos- phere of, say, the middle and late 460s, when Ephialtes and pericles were seeking to undermine the ascendancy of Cimon through prosecutions, it is not inconceivable that cimon or one of his associates tried to attack hi rivals indirectly through a prosecution of a man in the public eye who was well known to be an associate of theirs, as twenty-five or thirty years later
mostly undated, that figure in Aeschylus’ ancient biography. Only one of these is worth recording, mainly because of its early attestation; it is referred to casually by Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics as if already well known: [The doer of an act] may not realize what he is doing; as people say they were ‘carried away while speaking’, or ‘did not know it was a secret’ (as in the case of Aeschylus and the Mysteries) (Eth. Nic. 1111a8-10 tr. Thomson). This implies that Aeschylus was at some time accused, formally or informally, of having divulged secrets, connected with the Mysteries of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis, that were supposed to be concealed from all except initiates of the cult. An ancient commentator on the Aristotelian passage19 specifies five plays (none of which has survived) in which Aeschylus ‘seems’ to have done this, and quotes from Aristotle’s contemporary Heracleides Ponticus a sensational story of how Aeschylus narrowly escaped being put to death on stage for revealing such secrets, took refuge at the altar of Dionysus, and was eventually put on trial and acquitted, ‘mainly because of what he had done in the battle of Marathon’. Eleusis was both Aeschylus’ home town and the home of the Mysteries, and Aristophanes in The Frogs exploits this connection to good effect: the chorus of the play is composed of initiates enjoying a blissful afterlife in a privileged region of Hades, and Aeschylus’ prayer before his contest with Euripides is ‘Demeter who nurtured my mind, may I be worthy of thy Mysteries’ (Frogs 886-7). Some of the imagery in the Oresteia has been thought, probably rightly, to derive from this cult,20 though none of it is signalled as such (neither the Mysteries nor Eleusis nor even Demeter is mentioned anywhere in the trilogy) and none of it could reasonably be regarded as illicit divulgation, since no non-initiate could even be aware of its connotations. To judge by what Aristotle’s commentator says about the five other plays, their sole connection with the Mysteries, so far as later scholars could discover, consisted in some more than passing reference to Demeter. There is thus no reason to believe that Aeschylus was guilty of what he is said to have been accused of. It does not follow, however, that the story of the accusation is pure legend. As the late Sir Kenneth Dover has put it in another connection, ‘the adage that there is no smoke without fire is not applicable to the Athenian law-courts’.21 Aeschylus, as we shall see more fully in Chapter 12, was a politically committed dramatist and a supporter successively of Themistocles, Ephialtes and Pericles. In the tense atmosphere of, say, the middle and late 460s, when Ephialtes and Pericles were seeking to undermine the ascendancy of Cimon through prosecutions,22 it is not inconceivable that Cimon or one of his associates tried to attack his rivals indirectly through a prosecution of a man in the public eye who was well known to be an associate of theirs, as twenty-five or thirty years later 1. The Life and Times of Aeschylus 9
Aeschylean Tragedy Pericles was attacked through prosecutions of friends of his who were well known to the public but were not active in politics (Pheidias, anaxagoras, Aspasia).23 If so, Aeschylus was acquitted; had he been convicted, the penalty would certainly have been death, as it was in later cases where similar charges were brought. It will not have taken long for the story to acquire the legendary embroidery found in later accounts. Various ancient sources preserve sayings ascribed to Aeschylus, of varying degrees of credibility. The best attested is one that has no connec- When Aeschylus was watching a boxing contest at the Isthmian Games, and the spectators shouted out when one of the boxers was hit, he nudged lon of silent, and the spectators cry out!(Plutarch, Moralia 19 ho was struck Chios and said Do you see what training does? The man Ion was a versatile writer of the fifth century who published a collection of reminiscences of famous people he had met; he was probably born in the late 480s and first visited Athens in the 460s. Our story implies that he and aeschylus were visiting the isthmian games together, perhaps in 464 or 462, which suggests that they had become close friends The other sayings attributed to aeschylus all relate to his art. Some of them are commonplaces that might fit any poet, but two have a degree of individuality. One tells of a polite refusal by aeschylus to compose a paean for the people of Delphi: He said that there already existed an excellent one composed by Tynnichus and that to put one of his own beside it would be like comparing a modern cult-statue with an ancient one. The old images, crudely made as they were were reckoned divine; the new ones, made with great artistry, were admired but did not give the same impression of divinity(Porphyry, On Abstinence 2.18) The other is the only substantive comment he is recorded as having made on his tragedies: that they were 'slices of fish taken from the great banquets of Homer'(Athenaeus 8.347d; see Chapter 10). Both these may perhaps likewise come from lon of Chios. A small point in favour of their authenticity is that they share a tone of good-humoured self-depreciation We do not know whether Aeschylus ever actually wrote paeans or other free-standing lyric poems, but in the Hellenistic period there circulated honour of those who died at Marathon, phsa and also a longer elegy in under his name at least two elegiac epita The number of plays he composed is uncertain: our sources give figures ranging from 70 to 90. We know of 80 titles of plays attributed to Aeschy lus, and one or two more have been plausibly inferred from other evidence some of these titles may in fact be alternative names for the same play some of the plays may be wrongly attributed (one was actually labelled in antiquity as spurious)and some genuine plays, especially early ones, may 10
Pericles was attacked through prosecutions of friends of his who were well known to the public but were not active in politics (Pheidias, Anaxagoras, Aspasia).23 If so, Aeschylus was acquitted; had he been convicted, the penalty would certainly have been death, as it was in later cases where similar charges were brought. It will not have taken long for the story to acquire the legendary embroidery found in later accounts. Various ancient sources preserve sayings ascribed to Aeschylus, of varying degrees of credibility. The best attested is one that has no connection with his art: When Aeschylus was watching a boxing contest at the Isthmian Games, and the spectators shouted out when one of the boxers was hit, he nudged Ion of Chios and said ‘Do you see what training does? The man who was struck is silent, and the spectators cry out!’ (Plutarch, Moralia 79e). Ion was a versatile writer of the fifth century who published a collection of reminiscences of famous people he had met; he was probably born in the late 480s and first visited Athens in the 460s. Our story implies that he and Aeschylus were visiting the Isthmian Games together, perhaps in 464 or 462,24 which suggests that they had become close friends. The other sayings attributed to Aeschylus all relate to his art. Some of them are commonplaces that might fit any poet, but two have a degree of individuality. One tells of a polite refusal by Aeschylus to compose a paean for the people of Delphi: He said that there already existed an excellent one composed by Tynnichus, and that to put one of his own beside it would be like comparing a modern cult-statue with an ancient one. The old images, crudely made as they were, were reckoned divine; the new ones, made with great artistry, were admired but did not give the same impression of divinity (Porphyry, On Abstinence 2.18). The other is the only substantive comment he is recorded as having made on his tragedies: that they were ‘slices of fish taken from the great banquets of Homer’ (Athenaeus 8.347d; see Chapter 10). Both these may perhaps likewise come from Ion of Chios.25 A small point in favour of their authenticity is that they share a tone of good-humoured self-depreciation. We do not know whether Aeschylus ever actually wrote paeans or other free-standing lyric poems, but in the Hellenistic period there circulated under his name at least two elegiac epitaphs26 and also a longer elegy in honour of those who died at Marathon.27 The number of plays he composed is uncertain: our sources give figures ranging from 70 to 90. We know of 80 titles of plays attributed to Aeschylus, and one or two more have been plausibly inferred from other evidence: some of these titles may in fact be alternative names for the same play, some of the plays may be wrongly attributed (one was actually labelled in antiquity as ‘spurious’) and some genuine plays, especially early ones, may Aeschylean Tragedy 10