›Dionysiac‹ Dialogues: Euripides' ›Bacchae‹, Aeschylus and ›Christus Patiens‹ 9783110764413, 9783110764345

Citation preview

Georgia Xanthaki-Karamanou ‘Dionysiac’ Dialogues

Trends in Classics – Supplementary Volumes

Edited by Franco Montanari and Antonios Rengakos Associate Editors Stavros Frangoulidis · Fausto Montana · Lara Pagani Serena Perrone · Evina Sistakou · Christos Tsagalis Scientific Committee Alberto Bernabé · Margarethe Billerbeck Claude Calame · Kathleen Coleman · Jonas Grethlein Philip R. Hardie · Stephen J. Harrison · Stephen Hinds Richard Hunter · Giuseppe Mastromarco Gregory Nagy · Theodore D. Papanghelis Giusto Picone · Alessandro Schiesaro Tim Whitmarsh · Bernhard Zimmermann

Volume 128

Georgia Xanthaki-Karamanou

‘Dionysiac’ Dialogues

Euripides’ Bacchae, Aeschylus and Christus Patiens

ISBN 978-3-11-076434-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-076441-3 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-076449-9 ISSN 1868-4785 Library of Congress Control Number: 2021950097 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Editorial Office: Alessia Ferreccio and Katerina Zianna Logo: Christopher Schneider, Laufen Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com



To Andreas

Κι όμως το ξέρω πως σε τούτη τη βαθιά σιγή, στην απλωσιά του κόσμου, ειν' ακόμα σκόρπια από αιώνες τα γαλήνια μέλη του Θεού μου, τα γαλήνια μέλη του μεγάλου Διονύσου, τα γαλήνια μέλη της μεγάλης Ποίησης, τα γαλήνια μέλη της βαθύτερης Ενότητας του κόσμου! Yet I know that in this deep silence, in the breadth of the world, there are still spread for centuries the serene limbs of my God, the serene limbs of great Dionysus, the serene limbs of great Poetry, the serene limbs of the deepest Unity of the world! Angelos Sikelianos, ‘Towards Poetry-Praxis’

Preface Beyond any doubt, Bacchae is one of the most exciting and complex plays of Euripides. It symbolically merges aspects of radical changes in stage and state in late fifth century Athens foreboding developments in culture and thought. This play on Dionysus and his cult provokes a reinvention of plot-patterns and fundamental concepts of earlier drama and it calls for exploring the transformation of its varying aspects in later cultural contexts. Human fight against the absolute power of the god, the notion of theomachia, and the ensuing divine retribution, on the one hand, and the establishment of a new religious experience of decisive impact, on the other, emerge as the pivotal concepts of this last Euripidean play. This key idea originates in Aeschylean drama and is refigured in later literary engagements with Bacchae in culturally different environments. Such thoughts provided the stimulus for an exploration focusing on Bacchae both as a receiving text that draws on Aeschylus’ Dionysiac plays and as an exemplum for plot-patterns and concepts adapted with substantial alterations in the Byzantine drama Christus Patiens, which expresses considerably different views from pagan thought. The idea of this book to shed light on the dialogic process of narrative, style, and thought in varying ideological and cultural contexts was shaped within the framework of presentations of mine on Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia and on the reception of Euripidean drama in Christus Patiens. The former theme was treated from different viewpoints in the XIth Spanish Congress of Classical Studies in Santiago de Compostela and the 3rd Trends in Classics Conference in Thessaloniki; the latter was presented in the International Conference of the Research Institute of Byzantine Culture on the Reception of Antiquity in Byzantium in Sparta and the 15th FIEC Congress in London. I am sincerely grateful to the General Editors of Trends in Classics Supplementary Volumes, Professor Franco Montanari and Professor Antonios Rengakos for cordially including this book in their renowned series. I am deeply indebted to Professor Ioannis Polemis for reading through my manuscript on Christus Patiens and for his thoughtful comments. This book has greatly profited from useful suggestions and significant feedback by the anonymous readers who reviewed it for publication in this series and by international conference audiences in London, Thessaloniki, and Sparta, where I presented particular aspects of this study. I have also benefited from the expertise of Professor Richard Seaford with whom I discussed some points of this study. Special thanks are also due to Professor Stavros Tsitsiridis and Dr Dimitra Moniou for https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110764413-204

X  Preface kindly facilitating my access to bibliographical sources in times when libraries are closed due to the pandemic. My debt to my family cannot be adequately expressed in words. My wholehearted thanks go to my daughter Ioanna, with whom I share the interest and love for tragic texts. Ioanna, Associate Professor of Classics, discussed with me and provided feedback on a great part of this book. I fondly thank her and my son Yiannis for their ongoing motivation and encouragement. Last, but not least, I owe a huge debt to my husband, Professor Andreas Karamanos. With his critical mind, scientific vigour and ample generosity he helped me in many ways from the first to the last stage in the preparation of this work. For his kind understanding, patience, and enormous affection this book is wholeheartedly dedicated to him. G. X.-K. Filothei – Athens, June 2021

Contents Preface  IX Abbreviations  XV List of Figures  XVII Introduction: Aims and Scope  XIX  . .. ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... .. ... . .. .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .. ... .

The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae  1 Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  4 Edonoi  12 Dionysiac cult and ritual: Edonoi fr. 57 R.  13 Interrogating the effeminate Stranger: Edonoi frr. 59, 61–61a, 62 R.  21 Fragments 60, 63–67 R.  30 Dionysus’ epiphany: Edonoi fr.* 58 R. and the date of Lycurgeia  35 Aeschylus’ Edonoi and Naevius’ Lucurgus  40 Bassarae or Bassarides  43 Dionysus’ bestial incarnation: fr. 23 R.  47 The Bassarids on the Pangaeum  51 Fragments 24–25 R.  53 Neaniskoi  54 Fragments 146–148 R.  57 Lycurgus Satyricus  61 Fragments 124–126 R.  63 The “Theban” Tetralogy  66 Bacchae  66 Xantriae  66 Sparagmos – Lyssa: fr. 169 R.  68 Fragments 170–172a R.  71 Pentheus  74 Semele or Hydrophoroi  76 POxy 2164 = fr. 168 R., 220a Sommerstein  78 Fragments 221–224 R.  81 Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi  84 Fragments 246b–246d R.  86 The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and E. Bacchae: Correspondences  87

XII  Contents .. .. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... .  . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. ..

Aspects of Dionysus’ persona in Aeschylus and Euripides  87 Core correspondences  91 Particular correspondences  93 The god’s captivity  93 Dionysiac thiasos: Aspects of his ritual (Edonoi fr. 57 R.)  93 Light and thunder in Dionysiac ritual (Bassarae fr. 23a R.)  94 Dionysus as a μουσόμαντις: his mantic abilities  95 The madness-motif  96 Murders of close relatives in Dionysiac frenzy  96 Dionysus and the Maenads  97 The tripartite nature of Dionysus  99 Dionysus’ transformation into a mortal. His effeminacy in the interrogation-scene (Edonoi frr. 59–62 R.)  100 Dionysus’ epiphanies  101 Language and style of the Dionysiac tetralogies  102 Hapax legomena in the Dionysiac tetralogies  103 Rare words  104 Refiguration and variation  107

Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens  114 Christus Patiens  114 A cento of Euripides? The style of the drama  116 Structure, content, and characters  119 Bacchae and Christus Patiens  120 Reception of the dramatic conventions of Bacchae in Christus Patiens  121 The narrative, expository prologue  122 The central heroine’s address to the chorus  123 Invocation to natural elements and abstractions  124 Embedded direct speeches  126 Concluding gnomai  129 The anapaestic closing formula  130 Deviations from Euripidean conventions  130 Reception of dramatic situations and themes  132 Excellence and glorification  132 The Route to the end: to Cithaeron and Calvary  133 Hymn of triumph (καλλίνικος ὕμνος)  134 Compassion for misfortunes  135 Pentheus’ sparagmos and Christ’s crucification  136

Contents  XIII

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

The significance of mission  139 Realizing the murder  140 The punishment of impiety and treason: the end of Pentheus and Judas  140 From divine to human form  142 Inventions to cast doubt on God’s divine origin  143 The trophy  144 The thiasos: the chorus of female devotees  146 Mourning mothers holding their sons’ bodies  147 Carrying the bodies  150 Bitterness for leaving home and country  150 The liberation motif  151 Supernatural light and the voice of the invisible God  153 Earthquake as a symbol of divine presence  155 The feeling of awe in god’s epiphany  156 The miracle-motif  157 The verification of divinity  158 Supplication to the god  162 Establishment of mysteries and cult  163 Reception of concepts and ideas  166 Sōphrosynē  166 Sōphrosynē and piety  168 Quietism and phronēsis  170 The qualities of faith: Makarismos. Respect and glorification of god  172 The reward of faith: the establishment in the land of the blessed  176 Impiety: lack of reverence for the god and the ancestry  176 Sophia and sophos  178 Sophia and philia  180 Punishment of impiety and injustice. Divine retribution  180 Hubris and punishment  182 The defeat of the theomachoi  184 Rejection of mercy – Repentance and forgiveness  186 The transplantation of Bacchae into the Christian world  188

Appendix I: Evidence for Aeschylus’ Dionysiac Plays  193

XIV  Contents Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus  195 A. Lycurgus’ madness and the murder of his son and wife, probably from Edonoi  195 B. A scene, attributed to Aeschylus’ Neaniskoi  199 C. Vase-paintings probably related to Aeschylus’ Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi  200 Appendix III: Christus Patiens as a Source for the Missing Part in the Exodos of Bacchae  209 Agave’s lament and the compositio membrorum (1300ff.)  210 Dionysus’ epiphany (1329ff.)  214 Αppendix IV  217 IV.1. Readings of the Text of Christus Patiens Adopted in the Text of Euripides’ Bacchae  217 IV.2 Readinds of the Text of Christus Patiens Cited in the Apparatus Criticus of the Editions of Bacchae  219 Bibliography   Index Rerum   Index Locorum   Index of Hapax and Rare Words in Aeschylus’ Dionysiac Tetralogies  

Abbreviations Abbreviations of Greek and Latin authors and their works follow LSJ9 and Lewis & Short respectively. Abbreviations of journals are cited after L’Année Philologique. Et. Gen./Et. Sym.

Et. M. FGrHist Hsch.

Kn. Lampe LIMC LSJ9 M.–W. N2 PAnt PCG PEG Phot. Lex. Phot. Galean. PMG POxy R.

Schauer

F. Lasserre/N. Livadaras (1976ff.). Etymologicum Magnum Genuinum: Symeonis Etymologicum una cum Magna Grammatica: Etymologicum Magnum Auctum, vol. I Roma 1976, vol. II Athens 1992. Th. Gaisford, Etymologicum Magnum, Oxford 1848 (repr. Amsterdam 1965). F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, vols. I–III (in 15 parts), Berlin/Leiden, 1923–1958. P.A. Hansen/I.C. Cunningham, Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon (4 vols.), Berlin/New York (vols. 3–4), Berlin/Boston (vols. 1–2), 2005–2020. R. Kannicht Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. V 1–2: Euripides (TrGF V), Göttingen 2004. G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Cambridge 1961. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vols. I–VIII, Zürich/München/Düsseldorf 1981–1997. H.G. Liddell/R. Scott/H. Stuart Jones, A Greek English Lexicon (9th edition), Oxford 1940 (rev. suppl. by P.G.W. Glare et al. 1996). R. Merkelbach/M.L. West, Fragmenta Hesiodea, Oxford 1967. A. Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (TGF2), Leipzig 18892 (suppl. by B. Snell, Hildesheim 1964). C.H. Roberts, The Antinoopolis Papyri: Part I, ed. with Translations and Notes, London: Egypt Exploration Society 1950. R. Kassel/C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci, vols. I–VIII, Berlin/New York 1983ff. A. Bernabé, Poetae Epici Graeci, vols. I–II 1–3, Berlin/New York, 1987/2007. Photii patriarchae Lexicon ed. Chr. Theodoridis, vols 1–2 α–μ, Berlin 1982–1998, vol. 3 ν–φ, Berlin 2013. Φωτίου τοῦ Πατριάρχου Λέξεων συναγωγή. E codice Galeano descripsit R. Porson, Londini 1822. D.L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford 1962. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 18, edited with translations and notes by E. Lobel, C.H. Roberts and E.P. Wegener, London 1941. S. Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. III: Aeschylus (TrGF III), Göttingen 2009 (with addenda to the first edition of 1985). S. Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. IV: Sophocles (TrGF IV), Göttingen 1999 (with addenda and corrections to the first edition of 1977). Ehlers, W.W./Kruschwitz, P./Manuwald, G./Schauer, M. (eds.), Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, 2 Vols. Vol. I. Livius

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110764413-206

XVI  Abbreviations

Stob. Sud. Warm. W.–P.

Andronicus. Naevius. Tragici Minores. Fragmenta Adespota (TrRF 1). Bilingual Edition by M. Schauer, Göttingen 2012. Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium ed. C. Wachsmuth vol. 1–2, Berlin 1884, ed. O. Hense, vol. 3–4, Berlin 1894–1912. Suidae Lexicon ed. A. Adler, vol. 1–5, Lipsiae 1928–1938. E.H. Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, newly edited and translated, vols I–III, London/Cambridge Mass. 1936. E. Wenkebach/E. Pfaff, Corpus Medicorum Graecorum (CMG) V 10, Berlin 1934.

List of Figures Fig. 1: Fig. 2:

Fig. 3:

Fig. 4:

Fig. 5:

Fig. 6:

Fig. 7:

Fig. 8:

Apulian red-figured calyx-krater, c. 350s B.C. (London, British Museum no. 1849, 0623.48). Reproduced by permission of the British Museum.  200 Apulian column-krater c. 350s (Ruvo, Museo Jatta 36955). Reproduced by the kind permission of the Direzione Regionale Musei Puglia – Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo.  201 Attic red-figured hydria, third quarter fifth century B.C. (Laboratory Stock National Museum in Crakow, MNK, no. XI-1225). Reproduced by the kind permission of the National Museum in Crakow/ the Princess Czartoryski Museum.  202 Lucanian volute-krater, c. 360–350 B.C. (Ufficio e Archivio Fotografico, Museo Archeologico Nationale di Napoli, inv. 82123). Reproduced by the permission of the Museo Archeologico Nationale di Napoli.  203 Ruvo amphora, middle fourth century (Ufficio e Archivio Fotografico, Museo Archeologico Nationale di Napoli, inv. 81953). The described scene is depicted on the upper register of the amphora. Reproduced by the permission of the Museo Archeologico Nationale di Napoli.  204 Column-krater, approx. early 5th century B.C. (Basel Antikenmuseum, BS 415). Reproduced with the kind permission of the Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig.  205 Red-figured bell-krater, approx. 460 B.C. (Ancona, Museo Archeologico Nazionale delle Marche, no. 3138). (a) Front side. (b) Rear side. Reproduced by kind permission of the Sopritendenza Archeologia, Belle Arti e Paesaggio delle Marche, Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo.  206 Red-figured attic oinochoe by the Altamura painter, approx. 460 B.C. (Staatliche Museen Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Antikenableitung 1962.33). Reproduced by permission of the bpk-Bildagentur, Berlin.  207

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110764413-207

Introduction: Aims and Scope This book consists of two main, interrelated thematic units: the reception of Aeschylus’ Dionysiac plays in Bacchae and the refiguration of the latter in the Byzantine drama Christus Patiens. In both sections the common denominator is Euripides’ Bacchae, which is approached as a receiving text in the first unit and as a source text in the second. Each section addresses dramatic, ideological and cultural facets of the reception process, bringing forward pivotal Dionysiac motifs that both the ancient and Byzantine treatment share. The first section delves into Euripides’ reception of two Aeschylean tetralogies, Lycurgeia and the so-called “Theban” tetralogy, both of which dealt with the plot pattern of theomachia, the powerful opposition to Dionysus of Lycurgus, King of Edonians in Thrace, and of Pentheus, King of Thebes, respectively. Notwithstanding the flourishing field of classical reception, the refiguration of fragmentary tragic texts has not been widely explored so far.1 This unit will seek to suggest the ways in which Aeschylus’ Dionysiac plays were reworked, transformed and represented in Bacchae within the socio-cultural framework of fifthcentury Athens. The direct evidence for Aeschylus’ two tetralogies comprises 40 book fragments and a group of papyrus fragmentary texts (P.Oxy. 2164), now attributed to Semele or Hydrophoroi frr. 220a–c Sommerstein (= Xantriae frr. 168, 168a–b R.). The book fragments derive from quotations in later authors and Gnomic Anthologies, ancient Scholia, Aristophanic paratragedy (Ar. Th. 136 = Edonoi fr. 61 R.), and lexicographers (Appendix I). Ancient Scholia and the Aristophanic paratragic quotations offer good sources of evidence, since they showcase correspondences of style and dramatic technique between plays.2 The indirect evidence comprises all the ancillary information, such as mythographic narratives on the stories of Dionysus and Lycurgus, references in earlier and later texts (Homer and other epic poets, historians, Roman authors) and artistic representations. Iconographic evidence depicts aspects of the plot and staging mainly of Lycurgeia and partly of plays of the “Theban” tetralogy. The pieces of indirect evidence contribute to the recovery, to some extent, of the dramatic action of Aeschylus’ Dionysiac lost plays. Regarding especially Edonoi, the first

 1 Cf. Karamanou 2019, 1. On the range of classical reception studies, see e.g. Hardwick 2003, 2– 11, Martindale/Thomas 2006, Hardwick/Stray 2008, 1–5, and recently Butler, 2016. 2 See Tosi 1988, 59–86 and for the informative value of scholia and Aristophanic paratragedy, in particular, Dickey 2007, 28–34, Farmer 2017, 67–113. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110764413-208

XX  Introduction: Aims and Scope play of Lycurgeia, the pieces of evidence complement to some extent each other, thus contributing to shaping the general outline of Aeschylus’ lost play. However, despite the variety of their transmission these book fragments have been preserved only in few verses (1 to 12), thus providing very limited information in quantitative and, in certain cases, also in qualitative terms.3 Consequently, any attempted reconstruction of these lost plays would be based on few and, in some cases, uninformative texts which may lead to false inferences. Speculation towards dramatic reconstruction — no matter how erudite it might be — needs to be avoided, for it entails the risk of producing unsafe results. By all means, there is no perfectly rational way of getting from a fragmented to a complete text.4 As Mastronarde has aptly pointed out in his case-study on Phoenissae as a ‘lost’ play (on the basis of the evidence beyond the manuscript tradition),5 skepticism arises “about how much we can accurately deduce about lost plays from the fragments and testimonia we have”. Even with the many testimonia we possess for Phoenissae, due to the vast popularity of this tragedy in antiquity, if the whole play had not survived, it would have been impossible to appreciate the various stylistic features, the development of the thematic and verbal motifs and all the qualities of the extant play as we know it. Consequently, the task of achieving a good appreciation of lost plays would certainly be more difficult and risky with the scanty fragments and the limited testimonia on Lycurgeia and the “Theban” tetralogy of Aeschylus, as compared to the rich evidence for the ‘lost’ Phoenissae. Therefore, caution and controlled, text-based inferences seem to be a wise way of dealing with fragments and testimonia which do not provide adequate information about the plot-structure and dramaturgy of lost plays. Taking these remarks into consideration, this book comprises mainly commentaries on the fragmentarily preserved Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus along with accounts of their

 3 On the evaluation of fragmentary material, see e.g. Most 1997, vi–viii and 2009, 10–19 and for tragic fragments, in particular, see esp. Kannicht 1997, 67–77; Sommerstein 2003, 15–17; Collard 2005, 49–51; Wright 2016, xi–xxvi. 4 Grumbrecht 1997, 327. 5 Thus Mastronarde 2009, 76, following his experiment which proved that the image resulting from the reconstruction of the ‘lost’ Phoenissae on the basis of the preserved fragments was quite elusive. Similar results were produced by Dover 2000 and Handley 1990, 126–128 with regard to Aristophanes Frogs and Menander’s Dyscolus, respectively. Many years before, Linforth 1931 had expressed similar views concerning the account related to Euripides’ Alcestis in Catasterisms 29, which would have led to misleading conclusions about the action of the play, if it had not survived in its extant form: see below on Bassarae. For the methodology of exploring fragmentary plays, see also Kannicht 1997, 67–77; Collard 2005, 49–51; Cropp 2005, 271–272.

Introduction: Aims and Scope  XXI

plot outline (though not full reconstructions of their plots, due to the insufficiency of evidence). The commentary on the fragments is hoped to contribute to a close examination of the information provided by each text.6 The different pieces of evidence, mythographic, literary and iconographic, are interrogated, so as to shed light on aspects of the story of Dionysus and Lycurgus, of the lost plots, the concepts, the imagery, and the vocabulary of Aeschylus’ two tetralogies. The preserved scanty evidence needs to be investigated on firm grounds, as far as possible. Since, as indicated above, Euripides’ Bacchae is explored as a receiving text, that is, as a work refiguring aspects of Aeschylus’ Dionysiac plays, special attention is drawn on core and particular correspondences between these texts, such as themes, plot patterns, concepts motivating the action and features of the character-drawing of the main dramatis personae. The investigation of these equivalences gives rise to a series of questions, which need to be tackled in the course of this book: What were Euripides’ motives in revisiting Aeschylus’ Dionysiac plays? What is the role of the ritual element and its implications in the Aeschylean and Euripidean treatments of these legends? Why does Euripides turn to Dionysiac cult at the end of the fifth century, that is, in an era pervaded by the concept of οὐδὲν πρὸς τὸν Διόνυσον (‘nothing to do with Dionysus’)? To explore effectively the reception of these Aeschylean fragmentary plays in E. Bacchae, the context of their reception needs to be primarily taken into consideration.7 Therefore, it is worth exploring in what ways Euripides’ correspondences with and divergences from the Aeschylean treatment can be associated with the context of the development of dramaturgy within the course of the fifth century. How can the socio-political and cultural framework of classical Athens have affected Euripides’ creative transformation of the Aeschylean material? Considering also that reception is perceived as a ‘dialogic’ process,8 an ongoing interaction between the source text and the receiving work, it is worth investigating how this reciprocal relation between Bacchae and the Aeschylean Dionysiac tetralogies is shaped. In what ways can the reception of Aeschylus’ plays in Bacchae elucidate facets of both the source and the receiving text?

 6 On commentary writing, see, in particular, Kraus 2002, 1–2, 23–24; Stephens 2002, 67–88; Kraus/Stray 2016, 8–10. 7 Context exploration as a key principle of classical reception was primarily propounded by Martindale 1993, 11–18. 8 Jauss 1982 stressed the interaction between the source text and the receiving work in relation to the receiver’s socio-cultural environment. See also Hardwick 2003, 6–9 and Martindale 2006, 3–6. For further references on this topic, see Karamanou 2019, 5 and n. 21.

XXII  Introduction: Aims and Scope The investigation of Bacchae and Christus Patiens may yield more insight into the reception process than when dealing with fragmentary plays, for both the source and the receiving plays have survived in their entirety. Christus Patiens, a poem of 2531 verses, provides a specimen of Byzantine drama. Nonetheless, the criteria for approaching this dramatic form cannot be the same with those of ancient Greek plays, in view of the remarkable divergences from Greek tragic stagecraft. The poet is not interested in producing a unified dramatic plot and reproducing consistently ancient dramatic conventions. Concerning its form and plot, the poem comprises very long speeches with repetitions of theme, and often without clear signs of the change of scenes and of dramatis personae. The poet seems not to be concerned with the scenic difficulties of his text for onstage production.9 The successive Laments (Θρῆνοι) of Theotokos colour the text with pathetic overtones and powerful expressions of emotion, often imbued with moralizing reflections. This Byzantine poem is a cento10 involving quotations from Greek dramatic poetry, Old and New Testament and Apocrypha.11 This fusion of ancient and Christian citations was depreciated by earlier scholars.12 Subsequently, emphasis was posed on a simple identification of quotations, in particular, of Greek drama and especially Euripides.13 However, apart from this approach, the reception of Euripidean plays in this Byzantine drama has not attracted much scholarly attention so far. There has been a recent revival of interest in Christus Patiens from the viewpoint of the transformation of the tragic material into religious drama beyond the investigation of merely stylistic correspondences.14 Accordingly, the scope of this book, as far as Christus Patiens is concerned, is not to repeat the many stylistic resemblances with tragedy or to deal with the much-discussed question of its authorship. Rather, it is to further enhance this current trend in the interpretation of the play, by offering a treatment that explores from a fresh perspective the multifaceted reconfiguration of themes, plot patterns, dramatic technique, situations and concepts of Euripides’ Bacchae in this so-called “tragédie chrétienne par excellence”.15  9 Cf. Puchner 2017, 79, and earlier id. 1995, 51–113. 10 On the character, transmission, structure, and style of Christus Patiens, see below 2.1, 2.1.1– 2.1.2. 11 Hunger 1977/1978, 102ff., Pollmann 1997. 12 E.g. Krumbacher 1897, 746–748; Dieterich 1902, 45–49; Creizenach 1911, 259. 13 E.g. Tuilier 1969 cites them in an Apparatus. 14 See, e.g., Pollman 1997, 2017, Friesen 2015. 15 Tuilier 1969, 17.

Introduction: Aims and Scope  XXIII

In this case too, it is of particular importance to address some crucial questions: In what ways have elements of Dionysiac cult, ritual, and thought been transplanted into a Byzantine religious drama? As regards dramatic technique, how do ancient dramatic conventions and situations function in the plot of Christus Patiens? In stylistic terms, how is the appropriation of poetic diction from a pagan tragedy refigured and perceived from a Christian perspective in Byzantine contexts? More specifically, did the author of Christus Patiens resort to ‘plagiarism’, as has been thought of in earlier scholarship, or did he manage to offer a creative adaptation of tragic lines? And if so, does the receiving text acquire new meaning in its own culturally different milieu? From this viewpoint, I aim at investigating the ways in which Bacchae, the last and probably the most complex tragedy of Euripides, has been reconfigured in the socio-cultural framework of the Byzantine era. By showcasing the persistence of keystones of thought from the classical age to Byzantium, on the basis of the interaction between source and receiving text in this case, I hope to bring forward the continuing cultural power of Bacchae in a diverging socio-cultural context. On the whole, as it will be argued in the course of this book, Bacchae on the one hand amply appropriates concepts, thematic and structural patterns of Aeschylus’ Dionysiac tetralogies; on the other hand, this play provides a valuable exemplum for pivotal aspects of dramatic technique, situations and values represented in Christus Patiens.

 The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae Dionysiac cult signposts the origin of tragedy and Aeschylus, the first of the three great tragedians, as an Eleusinian, depicts in his Dionysiac plays the intrinsic relation of tragic poetry to mysteries and ritual elements.1 Euripides, after a long period of absence of Dionysiac treatments in Greek theatre, which confirms the maxim “nothing to do with Dionysus” regarding the development of the tragic genre, chose to handle the religious material of Dionysus’ myth in his Bacchae, thus underscoring the ritual character of drama. In Bacchae Dionysus is seen from a theatrical, religious, and sociopolitical viewpoint.2 Some of these attributes are tracked back in the Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus, the ‘Bacchic lord, a poet inspired by Bacchus’ (Βακχεῖον ἄνακτα, Ar. Ra. 1259);3 or, as Plutarch says (Mor. 715 E), ‘all Aeschylus’ plays are pervaded with Dionysiac elements’.4 In the first part of this monograph I seek to locate the intertextual similarities between the Aeschylean treatments and Bacchae in terms of language, imagery, concept, and dramatic action. Interesting differentiations revealing the emotional and intellectual developments in dramatic art will be also discussed. Nevertheless, Euripides’ appropriation of key motifs of the Aeschylean plays seems to reveal his will to reaffirm to some extent traditional cult at a time of crisis and doubt in late fifth century B.C. Attention is drawn to the treatment of Dionysiac cult in Aeschylus and Euripides as well as to the multifaceted personality of Dionysus5 and the characterdrawing of his opponents, Lycurgus and Pentheus, respectively. Dionysus was conceived as a prominent god of nature and his cult represents people’s struggle

 1 For an extensive analysis of this pivotal issue, see Adrados 1975, chs. II, VII, VIII, XI. On the limited range of Dionysiac themes in tragedy with rich relevant bibliography, Zimmermann 2011, 486–490. 2 Theatrical aspect: reversal of plot, involving polariries and ambiguities in Dionysus’ persona; religious: Dionysus’ ritual and psychological features, such as the opposition of reality and illusion; sociopolitical: disruption with the oikos and establishment of a polis cult in the end; cf. Zeitlin 1993, 151–152; Sourvinou-Inwood 1994. On these issues, see, more extensively, below 1.3.1. 3 Cf. Lada-Richards 1999, 243. For Dionysus inspiring Aeschylus, cf. also Paus. 1.21.2. An exhaustive account of the mentions of Dionysus in tragic poetry offers Bierl 1991. 4 Plutarch paraphrases Gorgias’ dictum with reference to Aeschylus’ Septem δρᾶμα Ἄρεως μεστόν. 5 For Dionysus’ uniqueness and the relation between the content of the Dionysiac plays and cultic manifestations at the Dionysia and elsewhere, see Easterling 1997, 44–53. Nevertheless, the object of the ritual is not mimesis but ecstasis: Hedreen 1994, 54. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110764413-001

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae to win the favour of the powers of nature.6 Superhuman, destructive power is a distinctive quality of Dionysus, which promotes the action in A. Lycurgeia and E. Bacchae, and is depicted as the punishment of the impiety of rejecting Dionysus’ cult. Culminating acts of Dionysiac religion and cult, such as sparagmos, the ‘tearing apart’7 of Dionysus’ persecutors, the mystic union with the god, and the final restoration of social and religious order by the establishment of god’s cult,8 can be clearly traced in the so-called Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and in the last play of the “most tragic of the poets”,9 the Bacchae. Self-revelation is another major quality of the Greek conception of Dionysus’ divinity,10 dramatized by both Aeschylus and Euripides. Aeschylus treated the myth of Dionysus, his persecution in Thrace and Thebes, and the ultimate establishment of his cult at the end in two tetralogies: a) In Lycurgeia which consisted of Edonoi, Bassarae or Bassarides, Neaniskoi and the satyr-play Lycurgus, according to the Scholia on Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae 135.11 The title Lycurgeia occurs for the first time in Mnesilochus’ ironical address to Agathon in this Aristophanic play (vv. 134–135). b) In the so-called “Theban” tetralogy,12 which on the basis of the Medicean catalogue13 included Bacchae, Xantriae, Pentheus, Semele or Hydrophoroi and Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi, according to the Hypothesis to Euripides’ Medea. Sophocles’ Hydrophoroi may have dealt with the story of Dionysus’ birth14 like the Aeschylean play of

 6 For Dionysus and his association with nature, see, e.g., Winnington-Ingram 1969, 85–86, 92– 93 and passim; Seaford 2006, 15–25. 7 For the concept of sparagmos in Dionysiac cult, see Rosenmeyer’s acute remarks in Segal 1983, 382. 8 For the divinely inspired destruction of θεομάχος, the salvation of the polis and the foundation of the Dionysiac cult, see also Seaford 1994, 354. 9 Arist. Poet. 13, 1453a 30. 10 See indicatively Henrichs 1993, 18 and below 1.1.1.4 and 1.3.3.10 on Dionysus’ epiphanies. 11 τὴν τετραλογίαν λέγει Λυκούργειαν· Ἠδωνούς, Βασσαρίδας, Νεανίσκους, Λυκοῦργον τὸν σατυρικόν. The name Lycurgeia, added by the scholiast, assures a general adherence to the story of Lycurgus: Gantz 2007, 47. Aélion 1983, vol. 1, 254–258, mentions (but not extensively) some parallel motifs in A. Lycurgeia and E. Bacchae. 12 Dodds 1960, xxix. Bacchae was suggested to be an alternative title for Pentheus by Valckenaer (Diatr. 16 B), for Bassarae by Elmsley 1821, 15, and Dodds 1960, xxix, for Xantriae by Wagner 1852: Radt 2009, 137. 13 Seventy-three titles of Aeschylus’ plays appear in the list found in the Medicean manuscript (cod. M). 14 TrGF 4 F 674 Radt Βακχᾶς supports an association with Dionysus.

The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae  

the same title. Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi concern the nurses of Dionysus and seems to be the satyr-play of this tetralogy.15 Aeschylus had a high reputation as a writer of satyr drama in Antiquity.16 The difficulty involved in a tetralogy consisting of five plays can be tackled, if Pentheus is an alternative title for Bacchae.17 Pentheus was probably included in the tetralogy:18 the unique verse attributed to Pentheus by Galen is revisited in Euripides’ Bacchae, and Aristophanes of Byzantium explicitly notes the coincidence of theme between this Aeschylean play and E. Bacchae. On the other hand, the title Bacchae is preserved only in one fragment deriving from the much later gnomic anthology of Stobaeus,19 whose knowledge of this play is indirect. Thus, unless Bacchae was an alternative title for Pentheus, which is also feasible,20 it could be erroneously attested, perhaps originating in a gloss through reminiscence of Euripides’ Bacchae, which treated the same storyline as Aeschylus’ Pentheus.21 These facts support that Pentheus was included in Aeschylus’ tetralogy. An earlier treatment of Dionysus-myth is provided by the tetralogy of Polyphrasmon, Phrynichus’ son, entitled Lycurgeia (only its title is preserved), presented and placed third in 467 B.C.22 This date would be earlier than Aeschylus’

 15 Radt 2009, 349–351 with references, Gantz 2007, 61. 16 Menedemus, the philosopher of Eretria, ranked Aeschylus first, with Achaeus second (D.L. 2.133). 17 For various suggestions on this issue, see Dodds 1960, xxix and n. 3; Radt 2009, 137 (note on A. Bacchae); Gantz 1980, 154–156, 2007, 61–64; Seaford 2006, 91. Xantriae and Pentheus were alternative names according, among others, to Sommerstein 2016, 30. 18 See below 1.2.3. 19 See below 1.2.1. 20 Notably, Iophon’s Bacchae seems to have the alternative title Pentheus: TrGF I 22 F2. Moreover, codex Laurentianus (L) and Stobaeus (see Diggle 1994, 291) offer the title Πενθεύς for E. Bacchae. In cod. Laur. plut. 32.9 the disjunctive particle ἤ may have been omitted whilst writing the sequence of titles Pentheus Bacchae. This possibility cannot be excluded by the fact that these two titles are not placed one after the other, given that cod. Laurentianus does not follow the mythical sequence of the plays, as Semele, which must have been the first tragedy of the trilogy in temporal order, is placed last. 21 Mette 1964, 146–147 also rejected Bacchae on the basis that it is not certain that the title figures in question were Theban Bacchae. That Bacchae was an alternative title for Pentheus was more recently suggested by Seaford 2006, 91. 22 Argument to Seven Against Thebes, POxy 2256 fr. 2. Di. 467= DID C 4, TrGF 1, Snell/Kannicht 1986, 5; Hutchinson 2001, xvii–xviii; earlier Séchan 1926, 63 and n. 10; Sutton 1971, 388.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae Lycurgeia, which is likely to be dated later, approximately at the time of his Oresteia (458 B.C.).23 Other treatments, after Aeschylus: the son of Sophocles Iophon produced plays entitled Bacchae and Pentheus.24 The story of Dionysus was neglected for many decades. Xenocles in 415 B.C., the date of E. Troades, also wrote Bacchae, included in the tetralogy Oedipus, Lycaon, Bacchae and the satyr-play Athamas. He won the first prize defeating Euripides’-trilogy which included Troades. It is conceivable that Xenocles’ success might have induced to some extent Euripides to deal with Dionysus in the last period of his life in Macedonia. A Semele Keraunomene was a play by Spantharus.25 In the fourth century, and after the successful performance and the influence of E. Bacchae, Dionysiac plays seem to win a remarkable popularity. We know of Diogenes’ Semele (TrGF 1, 45 F 1), Astydamas inc. fr. 6 (TrGF 1, 60 F 6),26 Carcinus’ Semele (TrGF 1, 70 F 2–3), Chaeremon’s Dionysus (TrGF 1, 71 F 4–7),27 and Cleophon’s Bacchae (TrGF 1, 77 T 1 ap. Sud. κ 1730). Albeit the earlier and the later Dionysiac plays are mainly known either from uninformative fragmentary evidence or merely by title, it is worth noting a revival of interest from the late fifth century onwards after the success of Bacchae.

. Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia The tetralogies of Aeschylus dealt with the parallel fate of Dionysus’ two traditional persecutors: Lycurgus, king of the Edonians in Thrace and the Theban king Pentheus. The thematic association of these two tetralogies and their strong connection with the action of E. Bacchae is also indicated by the fact that [Apollod.] 3.5.1–2 mentions the myth of Pentheus directly after that of Lycurgus. The text of [Apollodorus] provides a basic source for the action of Lycurgeia:

 23 Jouan 1992, 73 dates it between 466 (just after Polyphrasmon’s play) and 459 B.C., obviously following earlier suggestions: see Séchan 1926, 64 and n. 1 referring to Croiset, Haupt, and Wilamowitz. Radt 2009, 234 also refers to Wilamowitz (Kl. Sch. 1, 162), Pohlenz, and Croiset. On a dating close to Oresteia, see below 1.1.1.4. 24 Suda v. Βάκχαι ἢ Πενθεύς: TrGF 1 22 T 1a and F 2. 25 40 T 1 (= Sud. σ 945), TrGF 1 Snell/Kannicht 1986, 168. 26 Xanhakis-Karamanos 1980, 95–96. 27 Xanhakis-Karamanos 1980, 91–92.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

‘Dionysus discovered the vine, and being driven mad by Hera he roamed about Egypt and Syria. At first he was received by Proteus, king of Egypt, but afterwards he arrived at Cybela in Phrygia. And there, after he had been purified by Rhea and learned the rites of initiation, he received from her the costume and hastened through Thrace against the Indians. But Lycurgus, son of Dryas, was king of the Edonians, who dwell beside the river Strymon, and he was the first who insulted and expelled him. Dionysus took refuge in the sea with Thetis, daughter of Nereus, and the Bacchanals were taken prisoners together with the multitude of Satyrs that attended him. But afterwards the Bacchanals were suddenly released, and Dionysus drove Lycurgus mad. And in his madness he struck his son Dryas dead with an axe, imagining that he was lopping a branch of a vine, and when he had cut off his son’s extremeties, he recovered his senses. But the land remaining barren, the god declared oracularly that it would bear fruit, if Lycurgus were put to death. On hearing that, the Edonians led him to Mount Pangaeum and bound him, and there by the will of Dionysus he died, destroyed by horses’.28 [Apollodorus]’ text can be summed up as follows: Dionysus driven mad by jealous Hera, after many wanderings and his purification by Rhea, arrived in Thrace. Lycurgus, king of the Edonians, resisted his cult, imprisoned his Bacchants and Satyrs and threatened the god, who was finally saved by Thetis. The Bacchants were released in a miraculous way (the imprisonment and the liberation of the Theban maenads in E. Ba. 226–27, 443–448 seem to be modelled on A. Lycurgeia; cf. Naevius Lucurgus frr. TrRF 1 34, 19 Schauer = frr. 27–29, 46–47 Warm.);29 madness descended on Lycurgus, who slaughtered his son Dryas with an axe, imagining that he was lopping a branch of vine. And after having cut his son’s extremities, he recovered his senses. Since, however, the land of the Edonians suffered sterility for a long time, people, following oracular advice, imprisoned Lycurgus in the heights of Mt. Pangaeum, where by the will of Dionysus he was dismembered by horses. Lycurgus’ slaughter of his son at a state of madness is a tragic theme par excellence which anticipates Euripides’ HF 990–1015. Dryas’ murder by his father could conceivably be described in a messenger-speech. After Lycurgus came to his senses he might have appeared holding his dead son, as Agave appeared car-

 28 The translation follows Frazer 1976, vol. 1, 325ff. 29 Dodds 1960, p. xxxii, Seaford 1997, 186 (the reprinted edition of 1997 with corrections is cited throughout this book). On Naevius’ Lucurgus, see below 1.1.1.5. The liberation-motif was also handled in Christian texts (see below 2.3.16).

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae rying Pentheus’ head. It is likely that Dionysus announced that the future fruitfulness of the land depended on Lycurgus’ isolation in the mountains,30 according to [Apollodorus’] account. The chorus of the Edonians may have ended the play with their lamentations as in other Aeschylean plays (Supplices, Seven, Choephoroi). By all means, [Apollodorus]’ text provides a ground for the approach, to some extent, to the complex plot31 of Lycurgeia.32 The rest of [Apollodorus]’ narrative refers to the myth dealt by Euripides in his Bacchae and probably by Aeschylus in his “Theban” tetralogy. The motifs of captivity, miraculous release, and madness seem to be shared in the treatments of Aeschylus, Euripides, and [Apollodorus].33 Therefore, Aeschylus’ “Theban” tetralogy seems to cover the myth of Dionysus from his birth from Semele to Pentheus’ sparagmos, thus providing a model for the action of Euripides’ Bacchae. The action of Lycurgeia, as narrated by [Apollodorus], is likely to be echoed in the fourth stasimon of Sophocles’ Antigone (vv. 955–965) involving Lycurgus’ insolence towards Dionysus, his madness and his imprisonment. Antigone in her rocky prison receives the consolation of the chorus recalling other people’s condemnation to imprisonment, such as Danae and Lycurgus: ‘And confined was the wrathful son of Dryas,34 the king of the Edonians, for his mocking anger, enclosed by Dionysus in a rocky prison. Thus, the dreadful fervid strength of madness drained from him. He came to know the god whom he had assailed in his madness with words of mockery. For he had tried to restrain the god-inspired women and the Bacchanalian fire, and had challenged the tuneful Muses’.35 This passage in Antigone strikingly recalls resemblances with the action of Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia,

 30 Thus West 1983, 64. 31 According to Arist. Poet. 10, 1452a 16–17, 13, 1452b 31–33 with peripeteia and anagnorisis; Else 1963, 340ff., 364ff. 32 A reconstruction of Lycurgeia has been attempted by many scholars: Hermann 19702; Haupt 1897; Deichgräber 1938/1939; Mette 1963, 136–141; Sutton 1971; West 1983, 63–82; 1990, 26–50; Sommerstein 2008, 2016. 33 For [Apollodorus]’ account, depending on both Aeschylus and Eumelus, see Carpenter 1997, 37. 34 Winnington-Ingram 1980, 102 n. 37 notes that Lycurgus is referred to as “the son of Dryas” rather than by his own name to denote the murder of Dryas’ grandson. Similarly, in Naev. Luc. fr. 23 Schauer = 55–56 Warm. Lycurgus is ‘the son of his father Dryas’ (Dryante regem prognatum patre Lycurgum). 35 The translation follows Brown 1993, ad loc. The tuneful Muses (φιλαύλους Μούσας) refer to the story of Thamyras or Thamyris (Il. 2.594–600, S. Thamyras frr. 236a–246 R.), punished by the Muses for his boasting that he was the best singer. Three Thracians, Lycurgus, Orpheus (see on Bassarae below) and Thamyras were punished for their hubris towards gods. Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 149 suggested that Lycurgus roused to anger not the Muses but the Maenads, for the aulos (φιλαύλους) was the instrument of Bacchic orgia, not associated with the Muses.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

especially of Edonoi:36 Lycurgus’ words of mockery (κερτομίαις γλώσσαις) and his insolence towards the god in the interrogation-scene, the madness-motif, the powerful opposition to Dionysiac ritual (εὔιον πῦρ), the persecution of both Dionysus and the Bacchants and Lycurgus’ punishment and imprisonment. As it was aptly pointed out,37 “the Aeschylean version … is the principal intertextual frame that came into play in the process by which the 5th century audience made sense of the mythological articulation of the first antistrophe of the fourth stasimon of the Antigone, and which therefore provided much of the material out of which the Antigone version of the myth was woven”. Apart from [Apollodorus], the Lycurgus-story is attested in several other versions which involve correspondences with, as well as divergences from Lycurgeia on the basis of the meagre available evidence. The correspondences concern mainly Edonoi, whose fragmentary material provides more sufficient information. A version with remarkable differences from [Apollodorus] is given by Hyginus fab. 132, which runs thus: ‘Lycurgus, the son of Dryas, expelled Liber from his kingdom. When he denied that he was a god, had drunk the wine, and when drunk had tried to violate his mother; he then tried to cut down the vines, because he said that they were a bad drug which bewitched men’s minds. Sent mad by Liber, he slew his wife and son and Liber threw him to his panthers on Mount Rhodope, a mountain of Thrace, which he ruled. Lycurgus is said to have chopped off one of his own feet thinking it was a vine’.38 The Hyginian elements presenting the most remarkable similarities with [Apollodorus] and the vase-paintings,39 which seem to correspond to the action of Lycurgeia, are Lycurgus’madness sent by Dionysus, the murder of his wife and son, and his expulsion and sparagmos. Interestingly, only in Hyginus, as in the vase-paintings modelled on Lycurgeia, does Lycurgus murder his wife as well. A strikingly new element in Hyginus is Lycurgus’ attempt to violate his own mother. His cutting down of vines as bewitching men’s minds and his chopping off one of his own feet are also new additions to the main story, which are reiterated by Servius on Aen. 3.14.  36 A good discussion of Lycurgus’ story as a mythological exemplum in the fourth stasimon of S. Antigone is that by Sourvinou-Inwood 1989. On Lycurgus’ myth in S. Antigone, see also Vicaire 1968. 37 Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 148. 38 The translation mainly follows Leigh 2010, 214. Hyg. fab. 242 (“qui se ipsi interfecerunt”) includes Lycurgus in a list of men who killed themselves because of madness: “Lycurgus Dryantis filius objecta insania a Libero ipse se interfecit”. 39 See App. II.1–5.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae A different version deviating from [Apollodorus] and from what can be concluded from the fragmentary evidence is attested by Diodorus Siculus 3.64–66. Remarkable new elements are provided in this account: Dionysus, wishing to bring his army from Asia to Europe, made a pact of friendship with Lycurgus (συνθέσθαι φιλίαν πρὸς Λυκοῦργον 3.65.4). However, the latter ordered his soldiers to seize and kill Dionysus and his followers, the Bacchanals. A local man, named Charops, revealed Lycurgus’ plot to Dionysus, but the Maenads were all killed. Lycurgus was captured by Dionysus, was blinded and impaled. As an expression of his gratitude and favour to Charops (τῷ… Χάροπι χάριν ἀποδιδόντα τῆς εὐεργεσίας), Dionysus made him king of the Thracians and initiated him into his mystical rites.40 A new mythological element included in Diodorus’ text is Dionysus’ pact of friendship with Lycurgus, which may have been involved also in Lycurgeia,41 in view of the reconciliation theme, which is typical of the action of Aeschylean trilogies. In addition, Charops is a person unknown from any other source, whose friendly attitude to Dionysus corresponds, in my view, mutatis mutandis to the character-drawing of Cadmus and Teiresias in E. Bacchae,42 who both stress the importance of a wide participation in Dionysiac cult (vv. 272–327, 330–342). Both are taking to some extent god’s side each one with different motivations. Teiresias, in particular, justifies the new cult and the new god ridiculed by Pentheus (272). Moreover, Dionysus rewards Cadmus, as he also did with Charops, promising him that after many adventures Ares will rescue him and his wife Harmonia, sending them to the land of the blessed (Ba. 1338–1340). The fragments of Naevius’ Lucurgus point to some significant affinities, mainly with Edonoi. Attempts were made to reconstruct this first play of the Aeschylean trilogy on the basis of Naevius’ tragedy.43 The outline of Naevius’ play includes: a prologue with a messenger informing Lycurgus of Dionysus’ arrival with his followers; their arrest reported by a guard to Lycurgus, the description of the effeminate god, his confrontation with the king, the imprisonment of the god and his thiasos, the theophany, and the destruction of Lycurgus’ palace.44

 40 Cf. Sutton 1971, 395–396. 41 Cf. on Neaniskoi below. 42 On Cadmus and Teiresias in Bacchae, see e.g. Dodds 1960, 90–91; Seaford 1997, 167; Sutton 1971, 405, 407, focusing on their motivations. 43 Schauer 2012, v. 1. Reconstructions: Deichgräber 1936/1939, 256–265; Séchan 1926, 66 and n. 3; Mette 1964, 51–54; Sutton 1971, 390–395. Translation of the fragments by Warmington 1936, 123–135. Cf. Dodds 1960, xxx–xxxiii; Seaford 1997, 26–27. Another reconstruction of Naevius’ play is that by Marmorale (in Sutton 1971). See also below 1.1.1.5. 44 See e.g. Sutton 1971, 390–395.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

The resemblances with certain themes of Edonoi (interrogation-scene, the effeminate Dionysus, and god’s epiphany) are obvious.45 The seventh Homeric Hymn to Dionysus, dated to the second half of the sixth century B.C., involves some themes common with A. Edonoi and E. Bacchae: Etruscan pirates kidnapped Dionysus, appearing as a young man (νεανίῃ ἀνδρὶ ἐοικώς). They attempted to bind him, but they failed. One of them, the captain, advised the others to abandon their plan, since he realized that their prisoner was a god, but this prudent person was ridiculed and ignored. Then, a theophany occurred. Dionysus appeared as a god, punished the pirates transforming them into dolphins and offered prosperity to the wise captain (… κυβερνήτην δ’ ἐλεήσας / ἔσχεθε καὶ μιν ἔθηκε πανόλβιον …, vv. 53–54). Epic tradition is also echoed in [Apollodorus’] text. Dionysus’ flight into the sea, mentioned by [Apollodorus], did not belong to Lycurgeia, but occurs in Hom. Il. 6.129–140, where Diomedes advises Glaucus not to oppose the mighty gods, particularly if one of the immortals comes down from heaven (6.128–129). The case of Dionysus and Lycurgus provides a good instance of theomachia, ‘fighting against the gods’, in Homer and runs thus: ‘I will not fight with the heavenly gods. No, for not even the son of Dryas, mighty Lycurgus, lived long, he who strove with heavenly gods; he drove down over the sacred mount of Nysa the nurses of raging Dionysus, and they all together let their wands fall to the ground, struck with an ox-goad by man-slaying Lycurgus; but Dionysus fled, and plunged beneath the wave of the sea, and Thetis received him in her bosom, filled with fear, for mighty terror got hold of him at the man’s shouts. Then at Lycurgus did the gods who live at their ease grow angry, and the son of Cronos made him blind; and he lived not for long, since he was hated by all the immortal gods’.46 The Homeric narrative is related to Eumelus fr. 11 Bernabé47 (= 10 Kinkel). As in Homer, in Eumelus Lycurgus is not punished by Dionysus but by Zeus; Dionysus, a young boy accompanied by nurses, dove into the sea in the bosom of Thetis and Eurynome, out of fear (ὑπὸ δέους) to avoid the punishment of frenzied Lycurgus (θεηλάτῳ δὲ ἐλαυνόμενος μάστιγι τὸν θεὸν ἔσπευδε τιμωρήσασθαι). Interestingly, Lycurgus’ story, constituting a mythological exemplum to the episode of Diomedes and Glaucus, offers a rare instance of a Dionysiac myth cited

 45 See below ad loc. with citations of the relevant passages from Naevius. 46 The translation follows Murray 1924, ad loc. revised by W.F. Wyatt. 47 The Scholia at Il. 6.131 attest: τῆς ἱστορίας πολλοὶ ἐμνήσθησαν, προηγουμένως δὲ ὁ τὴν Εὐρωπίαν πεποιηκὼς Εὔμηλος. See also West 1983, 63; 1990, 26–27. On Eumelus, Huxley 1969; on this fragment 11, see recently Tsagalis 2017 and on Eumelus’ Dionysiac allusions, Tsagalis 2007, 28.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae by Homer (Il. 6.130–140)48 and Homeric texts (Homeric Hymn to Dionysus), for Dionysus was not a central figure of Homeric religion. In Homer Lycurgus is not punished by Dionysus but with blindness by Zeus for his impiety towards Dionysus and the Maenads, while Dionysus’ fury is explicit (μαινομένοιο Διωνύσοιο). This is the earliest surviving narrative of a story about Dionysus. More specifically, the similarities and divergences of Aeschylus and Euripides from the Homeric account are noteworthy. The theomachos Lycurgus, like Pentheus in E. Bacchae, insults Dionysus and his followers and is punished; in Homer and in tragic treatments Lycurgus is said to have pursued the nurses of frenzied Dionysus (τιθήνας μαινομένοιο Διωνύσοιο); the Homeric story focuses on Dionysus’ fear (Διώνυσος … φοβηθείς, δειδιότα), a motif absent from E. Bacchae and the Aeschylean treatment of the Lycurgus story; Dionysus is not described as a god in the Iliad and his fear seems to be contrasted with the gods “who live at their ease” (θεοὶ ρεῖα ζώοντες); he was frightened by Lycurgus’ shout (ἀνδρὸς ὁμοκλῇ), probably because he was still a young child, travelling with his nurses, and took refuge in Thetis’ bosom;49 Dionysus is a child in Homer, but a young effeminate Stranger in Aeschylus and Euripides, transformed into a powerful god in his epiphanies; Lycurgus in Homer and in Aeschylus ([Apollod.] 3.5.1–2), like Pentheus in E. Bacchae, pursued Dionysus’ followers, his nurses and the Bacchants respectively; both Lycurgus and Pentheus experienced different punishments: Lycurgus was punished with blindness in Homer50 and dismemberment in Aeschylus,51 like Pentheus in Euripides. Lycurgeia, therefore, does not seem to follow the epic tradition, while [Apollodorus’] narrative combines both the Homeric and the Aeschylean treatment. Deviating from Homer, Aeschylus explicitly names Lycurgus as king of the Edonians and Lycurgus is punished by the will of Dionysus, and not by Zeus.

 48 In Il. 14.325 the reference is to Semele, the god’s mother, while in Od. 11.321–325 and 24.73– 74 Dionysus is mentioned in relation to Artemis, Ariadne and Thetis; but all these references are not significant for the epic narrative on Lycurgus. For Lycurgus’ story in Homer, see Jeanmaire 1951, 60–67; Privitera 1970, 53–60; Kerényi 1976, 131–133 (on Dionysus mainomenos), 176–177; Seaford 1994, 330–332 and id. 2006, 27 explained the reasons of Dionysus’ marginality in Homer: the ideas of heroism and glory of the aristocratic Homeric society were incompatible with work on the land and Dionysus as a god of mystery-cult, of viticulture, of the communal festival, and of the polis. More recently, see Faraone 2013, 122–127. For the myth of Lycurgus in Homer, cf. also Carpenter 1993, 198; 1997, 34–37; Tsagalis 2007, 2–4. 49 See Faraone 2013, 124; cf. the infant Astyanax’s fear in Il. 6.467–469. 50 The scholiasts explain that Zeus blinded Lycurgus because he had seen the secret rites performed by Dionysus and his followers: Faraone 2013, 125. 51 [Apollod.] 3.5.2 ὑπὸ ἴππων διαφθαρεὶς ἀπέθανεν, ‘he was torn into pieces by horses’.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

Moreover, an unattributed papyrus text of the third century A.D.52 reiterates main motifs of Aeschylus’ Dionysiac plays and E. Bacchae. The text presents Lycurgus as terrified (τάρβει βεβολημένος) after Dionysus’ epiphany. Dionysus assailed him with lightning and thunders and sent madness to him. Lycurgus, at a state of hallucination, thought that his sons were serpents and killed both of them. His wife Cytis tried, though in vain, to persuade him not to fight Dionysus. The god rewarded her by saving her life from Lycurgus’ anger (v. 43: ἥρπαξεν Διόνυσος, ἔθηκε δὲ νόσφιν ὀλέθρου). Lycurgus was severely punished: bound with vines he was sent to the underworld where he was obliged to perpetually fill with water a leaking vessel.53 The names of Lycurgus’ two sons, Astacius and Ardys, and that of his wife Cytis, as well as his perpetual punishment in the underworld are additions to a version of the story which drew to a great extent on earlier literary treatments. Lycurgus’ punishment in the underworld and the names of his wife and children seem thus to be additions to the known story. The current versions of Lycurgus’ end vary in later literature. He was torn in pieces by horses ([Apollod.] 3.5.1), by panthers (Hyg. fab. 132) or cut to pieces by himself in madness (Hyg. fab. 242). He was bound and imprisoned, like Orpheus and Rhesus in the depths of Mount Pangaeum: closed in a rocky prison (S. Ant. 955–965); bound with vines and obliged to fill with water a leaking vessel (as mentioned in the unattributed papyrus-text). He was finally reconciled with Dionysus (D.S. 3.65.4, Str. 10.3.16 p. 471 C) and worshipped as his prophet (possibly at Rh. 972).54 In all versions of the Lycurgus’ story mentioned so far (in [Apollodorus], Hyginus, Diodorus Siculus, Naevius, and the anonymous papyrus text) Dionysus’ opponent, Lycurgus, is punished. The god captured reveals himself and imposes the punishment of his adversary. The persons who conceived Dionysus’ divinity and opposed the fight against him received god’s reward (esp. in Diodorus, the Homeric Hymn, and the anonymous papyrus fragmentary text). Edonoi is the first play of Lycurgeia and the only one in which the central figure of the trilogy, Lycurgus, king of the Edonians in Thrace, was with certainty present on stage. The action, following [Apollodorus] 3.5.1, refers to Lycurgus’ attempt to remove Dionysiac cult from his country, arresting Dionysus and his female followers, who had arrived in Thrace with the male thiasos of the god (fr. 57 R.). Both the god and the maenads were miraculously released. Dionysus drove Lycurgus mad leading him to kill his own son Dryas.  52 GLP no 129, Page 1950, 520–525. 53 Cf. Page 1950, 520–521. 54 See below on Neaniskoi 1.1.3.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae Lycurgus, as attested by [Apollodorus] and S. Ant. 955–965, may have been imprisoned in a rocky prison on Mount Pangaeum.

.. Edonoi On the basis of the preserved fragmentary evidence, Edonoi, the first play of Lycurgeia, included the captivity of the god, his “interrogation” by Lycurgus, his miraculous release and his epiphany in the quaking palace. These dramatic events may safely be included in the action of Edonoi. In view of middle fourthcentury vase-paintings,55 the play may have also dealt with Lycurgus’ madness and the slaughter of his son Dryas, most probably reported in a messengerspeech. This reconstruction might be strengthened by the abovementioned section of [Apollod.] 3.5.1 Λυκούργῳ δὲ μανίαν ἐνεποίησε Διόνυσος. Ὁ δὲ μεμηνὼς Δρύαντα τὸν παῖδα … πελέκει πλήξας ἀπέκτεινε, καὶ ἀκρωτηριάσας αὐτὸν ἐσωφρόνησε. The infanticide in E. Heracles and particularly the action of E. Bacchae, involving Agave slaughtering her son Pentheus in Bacchic frenzy, provide effective dramatic parallels with Lycurgus’ madness and the murder of his son. The pictorial evidence of Lycurgus’ story suggests that the murder of Lycurgus’ wife, also attested by Hyginus fab. 132, might also have been included in the action of Aeschylus’ play.56 In S. Ant. 955–965 the description of Lycurgus as ‘hot-tempered’ seems to point to his powerful resistance to Dionysus and possibly to the killing of his son and wife. The first part of Bacchae, especially the ending of the parodos, and the first of the three scenes in the second episode between man and god, Pentheus and the effeminate Stranger (vv. 453–508), closely follow the beginning of Edonoi (frr. 57, 59, 61 Radt), which refers to the arrival of Dionysus’ worshippers in Thrace, their violent rejection by Lycurgus,57 the god’s captivity and his confrontation  55 See App. II.1–5. 56 Vase-paintings mainly of the middle fourth century, seem to be modelled on Aeschylus’ play as the most remarkable dramatization of Lycurgus’ story; cf. App. II.1–5, figs. 1–5. For Lycurgus’ myth in vase-paintings, see also Carpenter 1993, 198 and n. 26, LIMC Lykourgos I. For earlier discussions, see Séchan 1926, 70–74, Brommer 1960, 355. Iconographic evidence on Edonoi: Trendall/Webster 1971, III.1,13–16, Sutton 1975, Taplin 2007, 69–71. A different opinion is expressed by Séchan 1926, 66–79, who attributes the main vase-paintings to Bassarae, assuming that Lycurgus’ madness and Dryas’ murder were included in the action of Bassarae. Earlier discussions on this issue, are cited by Séchan 1926, 66 n. 5. 57 This is implied by the action based on [Apollod.] 3.5.1–2, as above.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

with the King jeering at his effeminacy. Dionysus’ followers were of both sexes: male devotees, as is known from fr. 57 R., and females on the basis of [Apollod.] 3.5.1.58 ... Dionysiac cult and ritual: Edonoi fr. 57 R. The longest fr. 57 R., written in anapaests and aptly allocated to the parodos, comprises remarkable aspects of Dionysiac ritual and is typical of Aeschylus’ inventiveness in language and imagery.59 It has been considered to introduce the play,60 as in earlier tragedies, such as Persae and Supplices, which started with the parodos. Nonetheless, there are clues to its late date,61 which could make the former assumption doubtful. The play, as suggested from the description of the whole scene (ὁ μέν … ὁ δέ), included a male chorus which consisted of the Edonian worshippers of Cotys.62 The male chorus of Edonoi, as the female of the Maenads in E. Bacchae, seems to signify that Dionysus’ worship concerns the whole community.63 This text of fr. 57 R. has been preserved by Strabo (10.3.16 p. 470 C),64 who noted similarities in the worship of the Thracian goddess Cotys and in that of Dionysus: σεμνὰ Κοτυτοῦς δ’ ὄργι’ ἔχοντες *** ὁ μὲν ἐν χερσὶν 1 σεμνὰ Κοτυτοῦς Nauck, prob. Diggle et Sommerstein: σεμνὰ κόπτους C: σεμνὰ κόπτουσ’ Dh: σεμνὰ Κότυς cett.: σεμνᾶς Κοτυτοῦς Aly, prob. Radt: σεμνᾶς Κότυος Hartung | ὄργι’ Nauck: δ’ ὄργι’ Mette, prob. Sommerstein: ὄρια/εια δ’ ὄργαν’ codd., alii alia | ἔχοντες cett., Strab.: ἔχοντας DhinopBpckpc: ἔχοντα kacx: ἄγοντες Blaydes || 2 χερσίν Pauw: –σὶ codd. ||

 58 See also Bassarae or Bassarides below. 59 On this issue, see also Xanthakis-Karamanos 2005, 556–557; 2012, 328–329 and below 1.3.4. 60 Wecklein/Zomarides 1896, 613 were, as far it is known, the first to suggest that the play started with the parodos. They were followed by Deichgräber 1938/1939, 249. 61 Below on fr. 58 R. 62 Thus, aptly, Deichtgräber 1938/1939, 247 who proposed a good reconstruction of Edonoi based on the preserved fragments and the evidence provided from Naevius’ Lucurgus. His reconstruction was followed by later scholars: Mette 1963, 136–141; Sutton 1971; West 1983, 1990, 26– 50; Sommerstein 2008, 2016. 63 Cf. Seaford 2006, 32, but without a special reference to Edonoi. 64 For a global commentary on this testimonium, see Radt 2008, 192 passim.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae βόμβυκας ἔχων, τόρνου κάματον, δακτυλόδικτον65 πίμπλησι μέλος, μανίας ἐπαγωγὸν ὁμοκλάν, ὁ δὲ χαλκοδέτοις κοτύλαις ὀτοβεῖ *** ψαλμὸς δ’ ἀλαλάζει· ταυρόφθογγοι δ’ ὑπομυκῶνταί ποθεν ἐξ ἀφανοῦς φοβεροὶ μῖμοι, ἠχὼ τυπάνου δ’,66 ὥσθ’ ὑπογαίου βροντῆς, φέρεται βαρυταρβής

5

10

4 δακτυλόδικτον Pauw, prob. Hermann (Opusc. 5,7): δακτυλόδεικτον codd.: δακτυλόθικτον Jacobs, prob. Sommerstein: δακτυλότευκτον Lobeck (Phryn. 623) || 5 ὁμοκλάν codd.: ὁμοκλήν Dindorf4 || 6 χαλκοδέτοις Ath. Σ Hom. Eust.: χαλκοθέ(τ)οις Strab. | ὀτοβεῖ Sch. Hom. T.: ὀττόβει Strab. D, ὀτόβει Strab. Ch, alii alia || 7 finem versus catalectici esse censuerunt Scaliger, Pauw; vid. Radt || 9 φοβεροὶ Ε: φομέριοι BpcCk: φοβέριοι cett. || 10 τυπάνου Scaliger, Pauw: τυμπανοῦ codd. | ἠχὼ τυπάνου δ’ F.W. Schimdt: τυμπάνου ἠχὼ δ’ Bothe1: τυμπανοῦ δ’ ἠχώ kno ed. pr.: εἰχών Βpclx: εἰκών cett., prob. Radt et Diggle: τυπάνων ἠχώ δ’ Herwerden || 11 βαρυταρβής codd.: βρέμεται F.W. Schmidt: βαρυαχής Blaydes67 ‘And, practising the holy ecstatic rites of Cotyto *** One man holds in his hands a pair of pipes, fashioned on the lathe, and plays out a fingered melody, a loud cry that brings on frenzy, while another crashes the bronze cymbals *** and the twang of strings resounds; and terrifying imitators of the voice of bulls bellow in response from somewhere out of sight, and the fearful deep sound of the drum carries to the ear like thunder beneath the earth’68

 65 Δακτυλόθικτον corrected Jacobs followed by Sommerstein 2008, 62. δακτυλόδεικτον: codd., meaning ‘pointing at with the finger’ (A. Ag. 1332); δακτυλόδικτον μέλος, ‘thrown from the fingers’ (LSJ9), regarding A. fr. 57 R. 66 Radt 2009, 180 prints τυπάνου δ’ εἰκών which does not give a clear meaning. 67 The apparatus criticus of the discussed fragmentary texts mainly follows Radt 2009. For the apparatus criticus of this fragmentary text, see also Diggle 1998, 10 and Sommerstein 2008, 62. For the bibliographical references cited in the apparatus of the fragmentary texts discussed, see Radt’s Compendia. 68 The English translation of the discussed fragments of Aeschylus’ Dionysiac tetralogies mainly follows Sommerstein 2008, unless otherwise stated.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

The chorus of Edonians refers to the cult of the Thracian goddess Cotys or Cotyto, pointing to its affinities in Thrace with that of Dionysus, and describes the newcomers’ wild music and strange ritual. Σεμνᾶς (σεμνός), here referring to Cotys’ mystic rites, qualifies generally mystic cult as in E. Hipp. 25 σεμνῶν μυστηρίων and Rh. 973. The first verse refers to the cult of Cotys, resembling significantly that of Rhea, while what follows clearly describes a Dionysiac thiasos: some of them hold flutes bringing on frenzy, some others clang the bronze-bound cymbals, triumphant shouts raise aloud and unseen bull-voiced mimes in answer bellow fearfully, while the terrifying sound of drums is likened to the deep rumble of thunder.69 The chorus describes its appearance, rites, and cult instruments with their sound effects. The language with the rich vocabulary and the concept of the Aeschylean text most probably provided the model for the parodos of E. Bacchae (vv. 64–167), which both in form and content are very close to “an actual cult hymn”.70 In particular, vv. 120–129 are similar in imagery to that of Edonoi with the bacchic dance mixed with music of pipes (αὐλοί) and the Bacchants’ cries of joy.71 The orgies, ‘rites’, of the Bacchants provide the kernel of Dionysiac cult.72 Orgies point to mystic initiation, since they are revealed only to the initiate. Derived from ἔργον the word ὄργια denotes acts in the framework of a religious ritual. Elsewhere in Aeschylus the word conveys a wider religious meaning: Th. 179 φιλοθύτων… πόλεως ὀργίων, cf. Ar. Ra. 356 ὄργια μουσῶν. This Aeschylean passage refers to the cult of Cotys, akin to that of Cybele/Rhea and Dionysus. In E. Bacchae Dionysiac orgies are similarly associated with those of the Asiatic Cybele in a distinctly syncretistic manner (vv. 78–82). The latter’s cult was introduced to Greece in the fifth century,73 and shares mountain cult, pipes, drums, and mystic initiation with Dionysiac cult.  69 “terrifying imitators with the voices of bulls give a subdued roar from some invisible place, and the terrifying image of a drum is carried as of underground thunder” translates Seaford 1997, 195, citing parallel images of Dionysiac rite. The bull-noise may be produced by the ρόμβος or ρύμβος, an instrument whirled round on the end of a string (LSJ9 s.v.). Ρόμβος was used in the mysteries; cf. E. Hel. 1362 with Kannicht’s note 1969 and Seaford 1984, 42 n. 125, 1981, 266, remarking that ρόμβος was associated with initiation ritual. 70 Thus Dodds 1960 71, referring to Deichgräber 1935, 323ff. Some correspondences of fr. 57 R. with the parodos of Bacchae have also been noticed by Guidorizzi 2020, 150–151. 71 Sutton 1971 also compares fr. 472 N.2 from Euripides’ Cretans. 72 Cf. Et.M. ὄργια: τὰ μυστήρια· κυρίως δὲ τὰ Διονυσιακά. For orgies in Dionysiac mystic initiation, see Seaford 1981, 254. 73 For the syncretism of the cult of the Phrygian Dionysus (Sabazius), the Theban Dionysus, the Asiatic Cybele and the Cretan Rhea in the fifth-century B.C., see, e.g., Dodds 1960, 76ff., 84; Seaford 1997, 158f.; 2006, 35–36. On the association of Cybele with Dionysus in Euripides see Hel.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae After the reference to Cotys’ rites the narrative focuses on the appearance of the thiasos, god’s worshippers.74 The account obviously points to a group of initiates to Dionysiac mystic ritual, who seem to have followed Dionysus in Thrace. It comprises Dionysiac vocabulary, while the imagery seems to have infiltrated Euripides’ descriptions of Bacchic cult: βόμβυξ, a kind of flute used in orgiastic ceremonies,75 and the ‘bronze-bound cymbals’ (χαλκοδέτοις κοτύλαις, unique in Aeschylus), are the musical instruments producing melody ‘thrown from the fingers’ (δακτυλόδικτον μέλος) that ‘brings on shouts of madness and ecstasy’ (μανίας ἐπαγωγὸν ὁμοκλὰν). In χαλκοδέτοις,76 ‘bronze-bound’, the first component (χαλκο-) enhances the effect of the loud rhythm bringing on ecstasy. The image of ecstasy, achieved through the music of the Phrygian flutes in Dionysiac rituals, is masterfully described in the parodos of Bacchae (vv. 126–129). Cultic syncretism is obvious here: the τύμπανον of the Coryvantes is mingled with the melody of Rhea’s Phrygian flute and with the Bacchants’ worship of Dionysus.77 Such an association is distinctly depicted on the famous Pronomos vase: the flute-player is presented in the centre with Dionysus and Ariadne above.78 Though βόμβυξ is replaced by the much commoner αὐλός in Ba. 128, their effect on the thiasos remain equally powerful. This Aeschylean fragment provides a unique occurrence of βόμβυξ in Greek poetry. The madness that is infused by Dionysus himself and occupies his worshippers is both the purpose and the result of the orgiastic rites in the Aeschylean (μανίας ἐπαγωγὸν ὁμοκλὰν) and the Euripidean texts (Ba. 32–33, 36, 117–119, 305, 999, 1093–1094). Μανία is both a part of Dionysiac cult and a way of god’s vindictive punishment of the unbelievers. In the latter case, it is identified with Lyssa.79 Such an association with ritual differentiates Dionysiac μανία from the vindictive μανία of Aphrodite (in E. Hippolytus) and of that of Hera (in E. Heracles).  1355–1365; and on the fury inspired by Cybele: Hipp. 141–144 with the notes of Barrett 1964 and Halleran 1995 ad loc. 74 Strabo loc. cit. τοὺς περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον εὐθέως ἐπιφέρει. The initiated attains prosperity by participating in the thiasos; cf. the makarismos in E. Ba. 72–75 and Seaford 1997, 157. 75 Arist. Metaph. 13.6.8; in Arist. Pol. 5, 1341a21 the flute is called ὀργιαστικόν, an instrument suitable for employment in orgiastic rites and not in education, because it is not ἠθικόν, ‘of ethical character’; Pollux 4.82: τῶν δὲ βομβύκων ἔνθεον καὶ μανικὸν τὸ αὔλημα, πρέπον ὀργίοις, cf. ibid. 470. The Edonians may have been familiar, to some extent, with the Dionysiac music in view of their worship of Cotys: West 1990, 27. 76 In a different context χαλκοδέτοις αὐλαῖς: S. Ant. 945. 77 Cf. Winnington-Ingram 1969, 32–39, for an interpretation of the parodos; for an extensive commentary, Dodds 1960, 71–89, Seaford 1997, 155–166 and recently Guidorizzi 2020, 150–163. 78 See, for instance, Green/Handley 1995 fig. 5, 23–24, 111–112. 79 On the personified Madness in Aeschylus, see below Xantriae fr. 169 R.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

Similarly, μέλος, ψαλμός (‘hymn’), and ἀλαλαγμός (‘the ritual cry of triumph’, an onomatopoeia of the ‘loud shouts’),80 are functional elements of orgiastic cults (Ba. 593,81 113382), necessary for the thiasos’ delusion and its communion with Dionysus. Ψαλμὸς ἀλαλάζει refers here to music. Such shouts of revel, joy or ecstasis, explicitly coming from Dionysus’ male thiasos in this fragment of Edonoi, are conceivably frequent in Bacchae (1133, 593, 1034, 1057). These are acts of devotion to Dionysus and ways of transforming human beings into Bacchanals, sometimes also leading to their identification with god (ἔνθεοι). Such a union with the god provides the culmination of Dionysiac religion83 and enables the initiates to be the viewers of sights unaccessible to the uninitiated. Ταυρόφθογγοι δ’ ὑπομυκῶνται, ‘bullroarers, bellow in answer’. The phrase points to the man-bull identification of Dionysus’ thiasos as an immediate terrifying imitation of god’s transformation to a bull (thus, ταυρόφθογγοι μῖμοι). The disruption of the personality of the members of the thiasos is thus achieved. In general, Dionysus’ followers trespass the limits of everyday experience through illusion, intoxication or madness. The powerful sound effects coming from the god’s devotees (ψαλμὸς ἀλαλάζει, ταυρόφθογγοι … ὑπομυκῶνται) are associated with those coming from cult instruments (δακτυλόδικτον … μέλος, χαλκοδέτοις κοτύλαις, ἠχὼ τυπάνου … βαρυταρβής) and add to the atmosphere of the described Dionysiac ritual. Flute, drums, and cymbals create ecstatic music, loud maniacal sounds and effects, typical of Dionysus’ procession. Apart from the Dionysiac, they were used in all the great orgiastic cults, such as those of the Asiatic Cybele84 and the Cretan

 80 Occurring also in non-Dionysiac contexts: as a loud shout of joy and victory in S. Ant. 133; in E. HF 981 Heracles shouted out and boasted in triumph; in Hel. 1344 a syncretism with Dionysiac ritual may be echoed. Cf. Burian’s 2007 note ad loc. 81 In the palace miracle Dionysus himself as Bρόμιος ἀλαλάζεται (592–593), foreshadowing his victory over his opponent. Βρόμιος strengthens the triumphant loud shouts. 82 αἱ δ’ ἠλάλαζον, ἀλαλάζειν, said of women. Ἀλαλάζειν, ἀλαλαγή are also employed of men’s war cry, thus connoting here the male features of the maenads: cf. Ba. 764. The ambiguities and the polarities of Dionysiac ritual seem also to be alluded. For parallels of women as hunters and even warriors in Bacchae, see Seaford 1997, 239, id. 1994, 290 and below on A. Pentheus and Dionysus and the Maenads. 83 See, Dodds 1960, 82f.; Winnington-Ingram 1969, 174–175 stressed that Dionysus demands the absolute worship and ecstasy. For this kind of mystic communion, cf. also Henrichs 1993, 17– 22, 26, and Easterling 1997, 51. 84 Instances, esp. from Cybele’s cult, are cited by Sandys 1892, 100, while Dodds 1940, 159–160 and 1960, 70–71 quotes textual and bibliographical references. On the connection of the orgiastic worship of Dionysus and the Great Mother, cf. also E. Hel. 1362–1363 with Kannicht’s note 1969 ad loc.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae Rhea. The terrifying sound of drums (τυπάνου εἰκὼν βαρυταρβής) provides further key words of Dionysiac ritual and enhances the effect produced by the two other musical instruments (flute and cymbals). It is likened to the deep rumble of an earthquake in a magnificent metaphor: ὥσθ’ ὑπογαίου / βροντῆς φέρεται βαρυταρβής. Music with flute and percussion instruments, such as the tambourine and the cymbals, were inseparable parts of Dionysus’ cult. After the sound effects created by the voices of Dionysus’ followers, the phrase ἠχὼ τυπάνου … βαρυταρβής, which closes the lyrical account in a ring-composition refers again to the instruments causing wild excitement. Though τύπανον (τύπτω), chiefly in poetry, is an instrument of primary importance in orgiastic cults of especially oriental origin, which appears to have had no place in Dionysus’ official worship in fifth-century Athens,85 Euripides refers to it in some pivotal Dionysiac scenes of his play, particularly in the prologue and the parodos: Ba. 58–59 (syncretism), 120–134 (extensively the origin of τύπανον86 in the context of a syncretism of Corybantes – Rhea – Satyrs – Dionysiac rites of the τριετηρίς, ‘the triennial festival’).87 As at the end of the prologue (57–58), where Dionysus calls the Bacchants to enter the orchestra raising up the Phrygian drums, at the end of the parodos (v. 156) the chorus leaving the orchestra induce to celebrate Dionysus «βαρυβρόμων ὑπὸ τυμπάνων», ‘with deep-toned drums’.88 Both βαρυταρβὴς and βαρύβρομος point to Βρόμιος as a feature of Dionysus and a title denoting ‘roaring’. Notably, Dionysus is called Βρόμιος, from the thunder at his birth (D.S. 4.5.1), an epithet common in E. Bacchae, most frequently in choral odes (66, 141, 375, 412, 536, 546, 584, 592, 790, 1031, 1250). The god himself roars,89 ἐπιβρέμει (Ba. 151), and so does the music of his ritual coming from the instruments of his cult.90

 85 Dodds 1960, 71. Nevertheless, τύμπανον was widely used in Dionysus’ dramatic manifestations, such as dithyramb and satyric drama; cf. Seaford 1977/1978, 88–90; 1984, 42. 86 For τύμπανον in orgiastic cults at Athens, see Ar. Lys. 1–3, 388. Τύπανον, as here in Aeschylus, occurs also in h. Hom. 14.3 and Nonn. D. 20.4. 87 Ba. 133. The rite, involving mountain dancing (ὀρειβασία) “took place in mid-winter … and was practiced by women’s societies at Delphi down to Plutarch’s time and for which we have inscriptional evidence from a number of other places in the Greek world”: Dodds 1960, xiii and n. 4 for further references. For a good discussion on trieteric cult, Kerényi 1976, 189–261. 88 Βαρύβρομος also occurs in E. Hel. 1305 with imagery recalling this fragment of Edonoi, and in E. Ph. 182 with regard to thunder. 89 For examples on Βρόμιος from Homer, lyric poetry, and Aristophanes, see Seaford 1997, 157. Cf. also Guidorizzi 2020, 150. 90 As in Ba. 156; also in Ar. Nub. 313 μοῦσα βαρύβρομος αὐλῶν.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

The hapax legomenon βαρυταρβής, ‘terrifying’, in Aeschylus, is much more effective than the commoner βαρύβρομος in Euripides, since it also conveys the terror (-ταρβής) caused to Dionysus’ worshippers by their mystic union with the god. A sense of terror is created both by the sound effects of cult instruments and the dull voice of the initiated (βαρυταρβὴς ἠχὼ τυπάνου, ταυρόφθογγοι φοβεροὶ μῖμοι). Notably, in the first unity of our text the predominant use of liquid consonants, particularly that of λ (δακτυλόδικτον, πίμπλησι, μέλος, ὁμοκλάν, χαλκοδέτοις, κοτύλαις), supports acoustically the visual effect of the orgiastic music as described so far. On the other hand, in the second unity emphasis is laid on the assonance of β, ρ, and φ (ταυρόφθογγοι, φοβεροί, βροντή, φέρεται, βαρυταρβής) to stress the effect of the imposing and terrifying ritual.91 It is worth noting Aeschylus’ inventiveness in that he uses five unique words and very rare lexical formations in fr. 57. The number of five hapax legomena is remarkable if compared to the few verses of this fragment and support effectively the theatrical effects of Dionysiac ritual: (1) Δακτυλόδικτον (from δικεῖν, ἔδικον past) μέλος, ‘melody thrown from the fingers’, indicates the low, deep῎toned and imposing sound of this kind of flute, the βόμβυξ. (2) Ὀτοβεῖ, from the exclamation ὀτοτοῖ, ‘sound loudly’, provides a verbal onomatopoeia and a typically Aeschylean formation also occurring in Pr. 574, while the noun ὄταβος is used in A. Th. 151, S. Aj. 1201 and elsewhere in poetry (Hes. Th. 709 etc.). (3–4) In the phrase ταυρόφθογγοι ὑπομυκῶνται the originality and the descriptive richness of Aeschylean imagery is shown by the use of two hapax legomena in a sole verse: ταυρόφθογγοι, ‘bellowing like a bull’, ‘bull roarers’, associated with μῖμοι, ‘sounds that imitate the bellowing of bulls’,92 points to the identification of Dionysus’ followers with natural surroundings and especially to their bestial manifestations. Nevertheless, the god himself was believed to take bestial shapes at the climax of his identification with nature and his receiving the unrestrained potency of the beasts. His bestial incarnations, such as a bull, lion, snake or leopard, are widely attested.93 The fact that the god’s devotee followers, the ταυρόφθογγοι μῖμοι, are heard but not visible (ἐξ ἀφανοῦς) adds to the emotive character of the account. The terrifying voice from invisible origin echoes Dionysiac initiation; cf. Ba. 578–579: τίς πόθεν ὁ κέλαδος / ἀνά μ’ ἐκάλεσεν Εὐίου,94

 91 Thus Xanthakis-Karamanos 2005, 558. 92 Hsch. τ 255 Hansen/Cunningham ταυρόφθογγοι. παραπλήσια βουσί φθεγγόμενοι. 93 See below on Bassarae fr. 23R. 94 Seaford 1997, 196 assumes that the initiated frightened the initiands by the rhombos, used in the Dionysiac mysteries.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae ‘what is this cry, what and from where did the cry of Dionysus summon me?’, asks the chorus recognizing the voice of the god. Ὑπομυκῶνται, this unique compound, ‘bellow in answer’, seems to be aptly invented to describe the deep-toned answers to the triumphant shouting, the ἀλαλαγμός. These two unique Aeschylean compounds (ταυρόφθογγοι ὑπομυκῶνται) significantly add to the sound effects which the text has created so far and are well coupled with the βαρυταρβὴς ἠχώ (εἰκών) of the drum in the last two verses. (5) The fifth hapax legomenon in the eleven verses of this fragment is provided by the compound adjective βαρυταρβής, ‘terrifying’. The terrifying sound of drums obviously recalls, as noted above, βαρύβρομον in E. Ba. 156.95 Βροντῆς … βαρυταρβής: the image of thunder reverberating beneath the earth recalls Pr. 993–994 … καὶ βροντήμασι / χθονίης κυκάτω πάντα καὶ ταρασσέτω, S. OC 1606 κτύπησε … Ζεὺς χθόνιος, Ar. Av. 1745 … τὰς χθονίας κλῄσατε βροντάς. This text of fr. 57 R. comprises, as far as our evidence goes, the earliest description of Dionysiac thiasos with some basic elements of god’s followers: their mystic initiation with the cohesion of the ecstatic group with nature and environment and hence their union with the god. The group of Maenads on the mountainside, as described in the first messenger-speech of E. Bacchae (677–774), provide a later vivid account of a female thiasos revealing the psychic cohesion of the participants in Dionysiac cult. As Dionysus proclaims in Aeschylus’ satyrplay Theoroi or Isthmiastae F 78c, col. II. 37–38 R. ‘neither old nor young is willingly absent from my choruses’. This mystic cohesion among the members of Dionysiac thiasos with their souls possessed by the god is contrasted with the individualism and the isolation of both Lycurgus and Pentheus, who powerfully rejected Dionysiac cult. Their suppression of Dionysiac powers involves a conflict with their own nature.96 An untitled fragment 339a R. ἀκμὴν δ’ ὅσα / τὰ κύμβαλα ἠχεῖ, ‘and all the cymbals that are now resounding’, ascribed to Aeschylus in Lex. Vatic. 3 (ed. Reitzenstein), in view of its remarkable stylistic affinity (in the image of the cymbals’ sound) with fr. 57.6 ὁ δὲ χαλκοδέτοις κοτύλαις ὀτοβεῖ, may be ascribed to Edonoi.97

 95 For these hapax legomena, see also Xanthakis-Karamanos 2005, 556–557; add ἄδασμος and ἄσσιστα in Edonoi fr. 63 and 66 R., ψόλος in Bassarae fr. 24 R., σεμνοκομπέω in Lycurgus Satyricus fr. 124 R., and ἀναγκόδακρυς in Xantriae fr. 172a R. 96 Cf. Xanthakis-Karamanos 1980, 78; on thiasos and its association with the communality in E. Bacchae, see Seaford 2006, 32–34. 97 Sommerstein’s 2008, 309 alternative attribution to Xantriae or Pentheus is not based on textual correspondence.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

... Interrogating the effeminate Stranger: Edonoi frr. 59, 61–61a, 62 R. Dionysus is present on stage in his fully anthropomorphic appearance as a young Stranger, thus concealing his divinity. The womanish intruder in Lycurgus’ country is a counterbalance of the joyful effeminate Stranger of Euripides’ Bacchae. In Edonoi his appearance as a young, effeminate Stranger and his “interrogation” by adamant Lycurgus most likely follow the parodos.98 The King surveys the Stranger and scornfully comments on his effeminacy. The chorus seems to be present in the scene, for Lycurgus’ questions aim at humiliating the Foreigner in the eyes of the Edonians. Frr. 59–62 R. obviously belong to this dramatic incident, which clearly corresponds to Pentheus’ exhaustive questioning of Dionysus, masterfully expressed in stichomythia in the second episode of Bacchae (esp. vv. 453–508). This interrogation–scene between Lycurgus and the Stranger in Aeschylus’ play is echoed in Naevius’ Lucurgus frr. 33, 21, 26 Schauer = 48–49, 50–51 Warm.99 Fr. 59 (ap. Phot. Lex. Β 85 Theodoridis = Et. Gen. AB β 54 Lasserre/Livadaras s.v. βασσάραι) ὅστις χιτῶνας βασσάρας τε Λυδίας ἔχει ποδήρεις 1 Λυδίας Et. Gen.: Λυδείας Phot. One who wears Lydian tunics and fox skin mantles down to his feet

Βασσάρα, ‘fox’, Sch. Lyc. 772, Et. Gen. Lasserre/Livadaras s.v., is the Thracian bacchanal (Artem. 2.37.73, Callix. FGrHist 2.149); also the impudent woman, the courtesan: Lyc. 771, 1393. Βασσάραι (Et. Gen. Lasserre/Livadaras s.v.), as in fr. 59 R., were the dresses (χιτῶνες) of bacchanals made of fox-skins. The names come from Dionysus Bassareus. Bassarides were the Thracian bacchanals forming the chorus of Aeschylus’ homonymous play.

 98 This sequence of dramatic events was suggested by the majority of scholars: e.g. Deichgräber 1938/1939, 259–260 citing parallels from Naevius; West 1983, 63 and 1990, 28 assumes that after the parodos Lycurgus first discusses with the chorus-leader and receives information about the Stranger and the Bacchants; cf. Naevius Lucurgus frr. 22, 40, 27 Schauer = 41–42, 39, 45 Warm. 99 On Naevius’ Lucurgus and Aeschylus’ Edonoi, below 1.1.1.5.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae The image of the effeminate Stranger’s dress seems to be reiterated in Naevius inc. fr. 43 Shauer = 43 Warm. “diabathra in pedibus habebat; erat amictus epicroco”.100 Fr. 61 (ap. Ar. Th. 136) ποδαπὸς ὁ γύννις; τίς πάτρα; τίς ἡ στολή; whence comes this womanish man? What is his country, what his garb?

In Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae 134–145 Mnesilochus in his long address to the womanish tragedian Agathon poses the following questions: 134–136 καὶ σ’ ὦ νεανίσχ’ ἥτις101 εἶ, κατ’ Αἰσχύλον / ἐκ τῆς Λυκουργείας ἐρέσθαι βούλομαι / ποδαπός … στολή; Radt 2009, 182–183 notes and Sommerstein 2008, 67 translates italicizing the words that probably come unaltered from Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia.102 Their texts run as follows: τίς ἡ τάραξις τοῦ βίου; τί βάρβιτος / λαλεῖ κροκωτῷ; τί δὲ λύρα κεκρυφάλῳ; / τί λήκυθος καὶ στρόφιον; ὡς οὐ ξύμφορον. / τίς δαὶ κατόπτρου καὶ ξίφους κοινωνία; / σύ τ’ αὐτός, ὦ παῖ, πότερον ὡς ἀνὴρ τρέφῃ;/ καὶ ποῦ πέος; ποῦ χλαῖνα; ποῦ Λακωνικαί;/ άλλ’ ὡς γυνὴ δῆτ’; εἶτα ποῦ τὰ τιτθία;/ τί φῄς; τί σιγᾷς; ἀλλὰ δῆτ’ ἐκ τοῦ μέλους / ζητῶ σ’, ἐπειδὴ γ’ αὐτὸς οὐ βούλει φράσαι; (Radt). ‘What confusion of lifestyles is this? What has a bass to say to a saffron gown, or a lyre, to a hair-net? What’s an oil-flask doing with a breast-hand? How incongruous? And what partnership can there be between a mirror and a sword? And as for yourself, boy, are you being brought up as a man? Then where’s your prick? Where’s your cloak? Where are your Lakonian shoes? Or as a woman, then? Then where are your tits? What do you say? Why are you silent? Or shall I find you out by your song, seeing that you don’t want to tell me yourself?’ (transl. Sommerstein). τί φῄς; τί σιγᾷς; (v. 144) implies that Dionysus did not respond to Lycurgus’ questions and remained silent to conceal his vindictive plans. This may be one more instance of the silence of dramatis personae, which is a prominent feature

 100 Cf. Dodds 1960, xxxii and n. 2, Sutton 1971, 392. 101 Gelenius’ correction ἥτις (printed by Radt 2009, 182 in the pre-apparatus of fr. 61 and by Wilson 2007, 77) would better fit the dramatic context of the Aristophanic scene involving Mnesilochus’ ironic remark on Agathon’s effeminacy. Ὅστις may have been modelled on E. Ba. 460. I owe this comment to the anonymus reader of my text. 102 For a recent attempt to extract what might be Aeschylus from Aristophanes’ parody, see Berardi’s forthcoming article (2021).

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

of the Aeschylean technique103 and is parodied in Ar. Ra. 909–923. On the contrary, in E. Ba. 461–508 Dionysus gives some answers to Pentheus’ interrogation.104 Fr. 61a (Proverb. L2 V b16 Cohn105) τί δ’ ἀσπίδι ξύνθημα καὶ καρχησίῳ; καρχησίῳ Cohn: –ων cod. what the connection between a shield and a drinking cup?106

Fr. 62 (Σ *B Hom. I 539)107 μακροσκελὴς μέν· ἆρα μὴ χλούνης τις ἦν; He’s certainly got long legs; he wasn’t once a castrated one, was he?

In both plays at this first encounter of the King with the Foreigner “the strong plays at being the weak, while the weak mistakes himself for the strong”.108 The meeting ends with an apparent victory of the King and his superiority over the god. However, the reversal of their roles will be achieved in a masterfully constructed plot in the Euripidean play. Two main Dionysiac concepts, the unity of opposites and the dissolution of boundaries,109 are clearly seen in this intrusion of otherness, of the female, the effeminate Stranger, as against the concept of the masculine god. The interrogation-scene in both Edonoi and Bacchae provides a clear expression of these primary Dionysiac notions.

 103 On this issue, Taplin’s study 1972 remains fundamental. For an interesting discussion of this fragment, see Berardi 2021. 104 Though there are some confusing answers, especially regarding mystic initiation, as in Ba. 480: ‘to an ignorant man one will seem when speaking wise things to have no sense’ (transl. Seaford 1997). 105 Zu den Paroemiographen … (Breslauer philol. Abhandl. II 2), Breslau 1887 (= CPG Suppl. I), 41: Radt 2009, 183. 106 The translation here and in fr. 62 is mine. 107 2,515 app. Erbse: Radt 2009, 183. 108 Thus aptly Dodds 1960, 130. 109 E.g., Segal 1982, 14; Zeitlin 1990, 83–84; 1996, 183; Seaford 2006, 10–11. See also below 1.3.1 and on ἀμφίδρομος fr. 65 R.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae King Lycurgus, like Pentheus, jeers at the Stranger’s effeminacy (frr. 59, 61, 61a R.) and asks for his origin and garment (fr. 61). Κερτομίαις γλώσσαις, Lycurgus’ ‘words of mockery’ that, on the basis of S. Ant. 962, were scornfully addressed to Dionysus, form a distinctive feature of this fragment of the interrogation-scene in Edonoi. Similarly, Cadmus says of Pentheus (Ba. 1293): ἐκερτόμει θεὸν σάς τε βακχείας μολών, ‘in going there he meant to mock the god and your bacchic revels’. The “interrogation” with a sequence of questions, comprising almost the same imagery by both poets, suggests that Euripides receives the scene of the Stranger’s captivity from Aeschylus, whose treatment is scornfully alluded to by Aristophanes in Thesmophoriazusae in 411 B.C.110 The audience of Bacchae most probably had in mind the Aristophanic parody of Aeschylus’ Edonoi and was thus familiar, to some extent, with the plot and the characters of Aeschylus’ play. In fr. 59 R. the pronoun ὄστις (ἥτις) seems to suggest that Dionysus was not present on stage yet and Lycurgus orders the arrest of anyone wearing long garment and βασσάρα:111 the Foreigner’s effeminacy is shown by his long garment reaching to the feet (ποδήρεις χιτῶνας)112 and by βασσάραι, the ‘fox-skin cloaks of Thracian bacchanals’,113 said here to be of Lydian origin.114 This Lydian origin may be one of the reasons for Lycurgus’ denial of Dionysus’ cult. Notably, after Dionysus’ persuasion of Pentheus (Ba. 787–861) the theomachos is determined to wear a garment reaching to the feet (Ba. 833, πέπλους ποδήρεις). Aeschylus’ text is likely to serve as a model also to this scene of Bacchae. The long garment as a typical sign of effeminacy often stresses in E. Bacchae Pentheus’ female disguise (833, 935–938, in the reversal of roles and Pentheus’ dressing up as a maenad by god’s possession of him). The identification of the female appearance of the god in Edonoi and Pentheus in Bacchae is clear. Euripides here used the Aeschylean model of Dionysus Bassareus. It is noteworthy that, Naevius (inc. fr. 43 Schauer =

 110 Th. 134–145 (Mnesilochus to Agathon): καὶ σ’ ὦ νεανίσχ’ ὅστις (ἥτις) εἶ, κατ’ Αἰσχύλον / ἐκ τῆς Λυκουργείας ἐρέσθαι βούλομαι … 111 Thus Deichgräber 1938/1939, 253. Cf. E. Ba. 237–238 «ὄς …» also referring to the absent Dionysus from the stage. 112 Dionysus wears a long garment (ποδήρη χιτῶνα) in Paus. 5.19.6. Such an address was regarded as incompatible with a man’s appearance: Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. 3.204. 113 E.M. 191.5 Gaisford, Phot. Lex. Β 85 Theodorides ἐφόρουν αἱ Θράκιαι βάκχαι … ἀπὸ τοῦ Βασσαρέως Διονύσου, ἦσαν δὲ ποικίλοι καὶ ποδήρεις, cf. Sch. Clem. Al. Protr. 304.4 (17.7) βασσάρα λέγεται ἔνδυμα βακχικόν. Hsch. β 305 Cunningham βασσάραι· χιτῶνες, οὓς ἐφόρουν αἱ Θρᾴκιαι Βάκχαι (Aesch. fr. 59 R.). For Dionysus’ Thracian appearance, cf. Carpenter 1997, 37–38. 114 Poll. 7,59 (2, 68, 19 Bette) Λυδῶν δὲ χιτών τις βασσάρα, Aristaen. Epist. 1,15 p. 38, 29 Mazal Λύδιός τε καὶ ποδήρης χιτών, cf. Prop. 3,17,30 and Radt’s note 2009, 181.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

43 Warm.) refers to an effeminate person dressed like Dionysus in Edonoi “diabathra in pedibus habebat, erat amictus epicroco”. Despite his image of effeminacy, Dionysus’ love for women and theirs for him is attested.115 Fr. 61 is quoted in Ar. Th. 136 in a famous paratragic scene in which Mnesilochus parodically compares in loose Aristophanic phraseology the womanish Agathon to Dionysus in Edonoi. The first verse of the fragment is attributed to Aeschylus, though discerning the boundaries of Aeschylus’ quotations within the Aristophanic text is a highly debated matter.116 By all means, the typically obscene Aristophanic words of the following verses exclude the authorship of Aeschylus. Nevertheless, some echoes of Edonoi are likely to have been transformed into Aristophanic vocabulary and phrasing.117 Lycurgus’ questions are put in a scornful way: “This woman-man! Where is he from? What’s his country? What’s his attire?” Pentheus’ “interrogation” of Dionysus in E. Bacchae is modelled on this scene of Edonoi. This intertextual approach of language and concept emerges from two eloquent parallels also involving the same sequence of short questions: v. 460 (Pentheus) πρῶτον μὲν οὖν μοι λέξον ὅστις εἶ γένος, exploring the Stranger’s identity, and v. 828 (Pentheus) τίνα στολήν; ἦ θῆλυν; ἀλλ’ αἰδώς μ’ ἔχει, regarding his female dress. The second instance occurs in the most crucial scene of the play. Despite Pentheus’ initial objections (836, 840, 842), during this dialogue in the third episode, he ultimately gives in to Dionysus’ plan, leading to the reversal of roles and action: the god gradually enchants the unsuspicious man (cf. 850–852), who is losing his selfcontrol.118 The scene culminates with his disguise to a woman and his complete possession by Dionysus. The word στολή, explicitly indicating the Foreigner’s effeminacy in Edonoi and Pentheus’ female disguise in Bacchae, signals the reversal of roles and Euripides’ novelty in treating this Aeschylean motif.119 In Bacchae στολή is used with

 115 Ε.g. Philostratus Im. 1.15.2; Otto 1965, 171–180. 116 The verse 136 of the Aristophanic parody was attributed to Aeschylus by Böttiger 1850, 53, followed by Hermann 19702, V 15; cf. Radt 2009, 182. On the debate concerning the Aeschylean quotations in Aristophanes’ parody, see Rau 1967, 109–111, Di Benedetto 2004, 40–41, Berardi 2021. 117 Cf. Deichgräber 1938/1939, 261, Radt 2009, 183, followed by West 1990, 29; see above fr. 61 R. 118 Cf. Dodds 1960, 172f. Nevertheless, the light-headed frenzy that Dionysus sends into Pentheus (v. 851 ἐνεὶς ἐλαφρὰν λύσσαν), different from that of the Maenads, ‘the rushing hounds of Frenzy’ (Ba. 977), fully possessed by Dionysiac madness, justifies Pentheus’ plea to his mother to show pity for him (vv. 1115–1121) in the scene of the sparagmos. 119 The parallel function of the disguise-motif in Aeschylus and Euripides has not also been noted so far. Dodds 1960, 181 remarked that a reason for Pentheus’ disguise may be that “the victim of the womanish god must wear the god’s livery”.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae adjectives denoting effeminacy, such as θῆλυν, θηλυγενῆ in vv. 836, 852, 1156. Στολή, ‘dress, garment’, is refigured in Pentheus’ change in dress from male to female following Dionysus’ instructions during his persuasion of his opponent mainly in the third episode (576–861), especially its third part (787–861).120 The disguise seems to have been a traditional element of the myth and it would be interesting to know how Aeschylus had treated it in the development of the action of the play. Such a transformation seems to be a common element of Dionysiac ritual. It may have been related to the depiction of the god or of his retinue, such as the river god Acheloos (a nature deity of Dionysus’ circle) with a mask.121 Dionysus could also be worshipped in the form of a bearded mask, and such a cult image is to be seen on the outer surface of an attic amphora.122 The mask may well personify Dionysus’ double appearance, his duality and paradox. It portrays the transmission of his inner power to his worshippers and the disastrous punishment of his opponents through his psychic invasion and entry into his victims.123 Nevertheless, as E. Bacchae figuratively show, the vindictive god is hidden behind the effeminate mask of the young beardless Stranger, whose appearance is vividly and extensively described by Pentheus in Ba. 234–236 as a sorcerer, an enchanter from Lydia, ‘with fragrant hair and light-coloured locks, wine-coloured in face, having the graces of Aphrodite in his eyes’.124 Regarding both Lycurgus and Pentheus, Dionysus’ divinity was concealed in his effeminate human form. The womanish appearance and the girlishness of the Stranger are explicitly conveyed by ὁ γύννις in fr. 61 R.,125 which also occurs in Aeschylus’ satyr-play Theoroi or Isthmiastae, ‘The Sacred Delegations’ or ‘At the Isthmian Games’ fr.

 120 For an interpretation of Pentheus’ transgression into female territory, which predicts his heinous fate, see Zeitlin 1990, 64–65; 1996, 161. 121 Antikensammlung SMB Sk.100; for discussion and references see Schlesier/Schwarzmaier 2008, 157. 122 Antikensammlung SMB F 3997 (Kat. 4); for discussion and references see Schlesier/ Schwarzmaier 2008, 156. 123 As Green 1994, 79 remarked, “the beings represented by the masks were potentially dangerous and disruptive things”. For the symbol of the mask in Dionysiac cult, see Otto 1965, 86– 91; more recently, Schlesier 1993, 94–97; Faraone 1993, 2; Easterling 1997, 51. 124 As translated by Seaford 1997, 81. 125 Hesychius γ 1015 Cunningham explains γύννις· δειλός, ἄνανδρος, γυναικώδης. Ἀριστοφάνης (Th. 136). To judge from the maenads, disguise to a woman involves mystic initiation, for female dress is of ritual significance: cf. Seaford 1997, 214, 216, esp. 222 with references.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

78a.67–68 R.: Dionysus opposes the Satyrs’ allegation that he is a cowardly effeminate being (γύννις δ’ ἄναλκις). Ὁ γύννις, ‘womanish man’, juxtaposing the male article ὁ with the feminizing suffix -ις, points to Dionysus’ ambiguities, the τάραξις βίου, the “confusion of life-style” in Ar. Th. 137. Γύννις conveys a similar meaning with ψευδάνωρ, ‘sham man, counterfeit man’, a mixture of masculine and feminine features and another epithet of Dionysus.126 Dionysus’ effeminate presence on stage is underlined by Euripides using a) characteristic adjectives (v. 353 θηλύμορφον ξένον, v. 855 γυναικόμορφον, v. 980 τὸν ἐν γυναικομίμῳ στολᾷ, describing Pentheus in the reversal of roles), and b) impressive imagery to describe vividly the details of Dionysus’ girlish beauty (vv. 150, 235–236, 453–459, 493). Dionysus’ stage appearance in Euripides points to a coexistence of elements of both genders that may cancel each other out.127 The womanish appearance of Dionysus provides a common theme in art and literature from the late fifth-century onwards. His effeminate features are particularly ridiculed in comedy (Ar. Ra. 46, Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros fr. 40 PCG). Nevertheless, in fifth-century art, both painting and sculpture, the bearded god of the archaic and early classical period is replaced by a handsome beardless youth, not necessarily effeminate,128 as shown in his depiction in the Pronomos vase and the east pediment of Parthenon.129 His feminine features are clearly depicted in Hellenistic representations.130 Dionysus’ visual feminization first appears to occur in literature and especially in dramatic poetry in A. Edonoi. It seems to indicate masculanized women’s hidden power which promotes dramatic action. Clytemnestra in the Agamemnon provides a typical case of such an Aeschylean novelty followed by Euripides in

 126 Polyaen. 4.1, with reference to Dionysus. For the bisexual appearance of Dionysus and his polarities, see Segal 1982, 10–19. Zeitlin 1990, 66–67; 1996, 343–344 sees in Dionysus the coincidentia oppositorum, introducing confusions and ambiguities into the masculine world. Guidorizzi 2020, 185 suggested that the cowardice attributed to Dionysus in Ar. Ra. 486 is also an indication of his effeminacy. See also below on Aspects of Dionysus’ persona in Aeschylus and Euripides, 1.3.1. 127 Thus Jameson 1993, 44–45. 128 On the beardless Dionysus in art from 580 B.C. to the end of the fifth century, see Carpenter 1993. 129 British Museum, London. Carpenter 1993, 194, 201, 204–206 attributed Dionysus as a beardless young figure to theatrical influences, esp. “from a production of a play or plays about Lycurgus”. 130 Marble statue from Priene, late second century B.C. Antikensammlung SMB Sk. 1532; see Schlesier/Schwarzmaier 2008, 106. For a survey of Dionysus’ ambivalence as depicted in literature, myth, cult and iconography, see Jameson 1993.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae his Medea. Moreover, decisive and uncompromising women rejecting their typically female role, such as Hecuba, Electra and Antigone, or women carrying out god’s will, such as Phaedra and Agave, guide dramatic action and determine the male characters’ fate.131 Agave, in particular, boasts of her warrior prowess over Pentheus’ body in a state of Dionysiac frenzy (vv. 1202–1215, 1233–1243). Such a masculinization of women in Greek theatre is contrasted with their absence from the social and political life of democratic Athens. When men suffer or die in Greek tragedy, the cause is usually provided by the female. In the framework of such a dramatic action, the punishment of Lycurgus and Pentheus is caused by the effeminate Dionysus. Γύννις,132 denoting the androgyny in Edonoi provides the model for Euripides’ treatment of this motif. Such a mixture of male and female features as well as the “otherness”, the Dionysiac dimension of the gender, are suggestive of Dionysus’ disruption of the established norms of morality and society133 and provide one of the main reasons for the resistance of his opponents, Lycurgus and Pentheus, to his cult. Moreover, in fr.** 61a R. Aeschylus brings forward the opposition between virility and softness in the terms ἀσπίς, ‘shield’, and καρχήσιον, ‘drinking cup’,134 respectively. The effeminacy-motif seems also to be implied. Καρχήσιον occurs also in Cratinus’ Dionysalexandros fr. 40 PCG στολὴν δὲ τίν᾽ εἶχεν; τοῦτό μοι φράσον. θύρσον, κροκωτόν, ποικίλον, καρχήσιον (= Ath. 475a). In such cases the similarities in imagery and thought seem to showcase Edonoi. The verse of fr. 61a was included in L. Cohn’s Paroemiographi135 and, as Cratinus’ text shows, καρχήσιον seems to ridicule Dionysus’ love for wine. In Ath. 5,

 131 Zeitlin 1990 (on Dionysus and Pentheus, esp. 64–65). On women’s motivating force in tragedies, Easterling 1987, 15; on Clytemnetsra’s powerful figure in Homer and Aeschylus, see Montanari 2017. 132 Cf. A. Theoroi fr. 78a. 68 R. Dionysus himself may complain about been called womanish, “not to be counted as male” (transl. Lloyd-Jones): see Radt 2009, 199. Cf. also Jaccottet 2003, I, 65–100 with the eloquent title “Dionysisme au feminin, dionysisme au masculin”. Γύννις also points to Dionysus’ beardlessness and his youth: Carpenter 1993; 1997, 36. 133 Cf. Zeitlin 1990, 66 (= Zeitlin 1996, 343). Agave and the maenads, in particular, break out of the normal sphere. Seaford 1993, esp. 137–138 remarked that Dionysus threatens the polis by drawing women out of the household and destroying their families. See below on Dionysus and the Maenads, 1.3.3.7. 134 Καρχήσιον ap. Ath. 474d ποτήριον … ἐπίμηκες, συνηγμένον εἰς μέσον ἐπιεικῶς, ὦτα ἔχον μέχρι τοῦ πυθμένος καθήκοντα, ‘a drinking-cup narrower in the middle than at the top and bottom’ (LSJ9); cf., among others, Sapph. 51.3, S. Tyro fr. 660 R. …ἀμφὶ σίτα καὶ καρχήσια. A similar antithesis between softness and virility in a Dionysiac context occurs in Ael. Aristid. Dionysos 7. 332 Keil … καὶ κύλιξ ἀντὶ ἀσπίδος κοίλης. 135 Zu den Paroemiographen (Breslauer philol. Abhandl. II.2), Breslau 1887 (= CPG Suppl. I).

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

215e the verse τί γὰρ ἀσπίδι ξύνθημα καὶ βακτηρία;, said of Socrates (probably βακτηρία is a substitute of καρχήσιον), was suggested to be a parody of Edonoi.136 The contrast of ἀσπίς and καρχήσιον points to Dionysus’ effeminate manners as opposed to men’s bravery.137 It suggests the opposition of softness and virility in the confrontation between the humanized god and the arrogant king. The phraseology with the question in fr. 61a, resembling that in fr. 61, is likely to suggest that this verse also belongs to the Aristophanic parody of this scene of Edonoi in which Lycurgus jeers at Dionysus. Moreover, in view of the Aristophanic reference to the notorious silence of some major Aeschylean characters (Ra. 915–917), it could be suggested that Ar. Thesmophoriazusae 144–145 may allude to Lycurgus’ interrogation of the Stranger in Edonoi, where the latter must have refused to answer to the repeated questions of the King.138 In fr. 62 the exact meaning of the word χλούνης is problematic. It was variously interpreted, in epic poetry being the epithet attached to the wild boar (Il. 9 539, Hes. Sc. 177, cf. ib. 168), In my view, the closest meaning to the discussed fragment is that of τομίας, ‘castrated’ (Arist. H.A. 578b 1). In Suda (χ 349 Adler) χλούνης … καὶ ὁ ἀπόκοπος. Χλούνης καὶ γύνανδρος ἀνήρ. Ἀπόκοπος denotes the castrated. Similarly, in Eustathius Iliad 772.53 (= 2.794.7 van der Valk) referring to Aeschylus, Aristotle, and Aelian, χλούνης is associated with εὐνοῦχος, ‘one who has been castrated’.139 Notably, in Suda, v. γύννις (γ 504 Adler), the two Aeschylean lexical formations γύννις (fr. 61) and χλούνης are combined, and in Aelian fr. 10 we also read ὁ χλούνης τε καὶ γύννις. Nevertheless, the noun χλοῦνις, hapax legomenon in feminine, is used of virility, of manhood in A. Eu. 188. Χλούνης clearly confirms Lycurgus’ words of mockery (κερτομίαις γλώσσαις),140 attested in S. Ant. 956.141

 136 Cf. Kassel 1966, 11–12. See also Radt 2009, 183. 137 For a similar contrast of male and female elements, cf. Ar. Ra. 46 ὁρῶν λεοντῆν ἐπὶ κροκωτῷ κειμένην, ‘a lion skin on top of a yellow tunic’; κροκωτός was worn by women and effeminate men, and also by participants in Dionysiac ritual. 138 For the silence of Aeschylean tragic heroes, see Taplin 1972. 139 Ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἐντομίαν ὁ χλούνης δηλοῖ, οὐ μόνον Αἰσχύλος δίδωσι χρῆσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ Αἰλιανὸς μάλιστα έν τοῖς Περὶ προνοίας (fr. 10 Hercher), χλούνην λέγων τὸν ἀπόκοπον· καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ (H.A.578a 32ff.) … χλούνην σῦν τὸν τομίαν νοεῖ; cf. Séchan 1926, 65 n. 3: “le sens d’eunuque ou homme effeminé est, de beaucoup, le plus probable”; Sommerstein 1989, 115. 140 κερτομίαις γλώσσαις mss.: κερτομίοις ὀργαῖς Pearson. 141 Above 1.1.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae An explanation of μακροσκελής, ‘long-legged’, with χλούνης is given by G. Devereux:142 castration in youth causes long legs. Another interpretation diverging from Devereux’s prospect is provided by Mureddu,143 noting the explanation of χλούνης in Hesychius χ 541 Hansen/Cunningham χλοῦναι· λωποδύται (‘clothes-stealers’) = Sud. χ 349 Adler.144 Lycurgus may have asked this question to the guard who announced the arrival of the Stranger.145 ... Fragments 60, 63–67 R. Fr. 60 R. (Sch. VΓ Ald. Ar. Av. 276146 = Sud. μ 1301 Adler) τίς ποτ’ ἔσθ’, ὁ μουσόμαντις †ἄλλος147 ἀβρατοῦς148 ὃν σθένει;†149 1 τίς ποτ’ ἔσθ’ Pauw: τίς ποτ’ ἔσται Σ V: τίς ποτε ἐστὶν Σ Γ: τί ποτ’ ἔσται Σ Ald: τίς ποτ’ ἔσται Suda | ἄλλος ἀβρατοῦς ὃν σθένει Σ V: ἄλαλος cett., Suda: ἀμαλός Hermann, alii alia | ἀβρατοῦς Σ V: ἁβροβάτης Hermann, Friebel: ἀβρατεύς cett., Suda | ἄλαλος;, ἁβρός, ὅσον σθένει Ahrens, †ἄλαλος ἀβρατεὺς ὅν σθένει† Σ Ald. alii alia. who on earth is this musical prophet † … †

In this fragment, which is incurably corrupted, the compound noun μουσόμαντις (ὄρνις), ‘bird of prophetic song’, first in Aeschylus and occurring also in Ar. Av. 276, raised remarkable discussion: the reference, however, to Orpheus,150 as suggested by the palaeographically uncertain word ἄλλος,151 namely ‘another (than Dionysus)’, is uncertain, since there is no firm ground on his participation in Edonoi.152 Orpheus seems to be a mythical person in Bassarae (see below 1.1.2).

 142 Devereux 1973, 277–284. 143 Mureddu 1992, esp. 1994. 144 Based on Mureddu’s interpretation, Sommerstein 2008, 66 remarked that “the point of the joke is that street robbers have to be fast runners to get away from their enraged victims”. 145 Hermann 19702, V 13, followed by Devereux 1973, 277 and Nikolaidou-Arabatzi 2010, 50–51. 146 White 1914, 66ff. 147 Γύννις might fill the lacuna before †ἄλλος, as suggested by Sommerstein 2008, 64. 148 ἁβρατοῦς, related to ἁβρός, ‘graceful, delicate’, points again to effeminacy. 149 The apparatus also in this case follows Radt 2009, 181. 150 Hermann 19702, V 16–17; Haupt 1896, 145; West 1983, 69; 1990, 29. On the other hand, Mette 1963, 137 remarks that μουσόμαντις leads to Dionysus. 151 However, ἄλλος was corrected to ἄλαλος and accepted by editors: West 1983, 69; 1990, 29. 152 West 1990, 29 suggested that Orpheus was one of Dionysus’ followers, a member of his entourage described in fr. 57 R. However, such an assumption cannot be confirmed.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

Moreover, the part of the verse from ἄλλος to σθένει is corrupt.153 Sommerstein154 prints thus … ὁ μουσόμαντις, < – ⏑ > ἄλλος / ἁβροβάτης, / ὃν σθένει < >;, and translates ‘ … another who walks with delicate tread, whom < > by force?’ and suggests a reference to Orpheus. West155 suggested that μουσόμαντις does not refer to Dionysus but to Orpheus bursting out in song, and Lycurgus’ contemptuous question “who is this songful seer?” would come after this. To avoid a fourth actor, West assumed that Dionysus remained silent. Nevertheless, it is Dionysus who could be the musical prophet, the μουσόμαντις. His relation with the Muses is confirmed by textual evidence.156 Wild music involving μέλος, ψαλμός, and ἀλαλαγμός, as described in the appearance of his thiasos in fr. 57 R., is part of his orgiastic cult. The phrasing τίς ποτ’ ἔσθ’ ὁ μουσόμαντις (;) stylistically corresponds to that in fr. 61 R. ποδαπὸς ὁ γύννις; τίς πάτρα; τίς ἡ στολή; Ἀβρατοῦς corrected to ἀβροβάτης could be suggestive of Dionysus’ effeminacy. Furthermore, the reading ἄλαλος suits the quotation in Ar. Th. 144 τί φῄς; τί σιγᾷς; attributed to Dionysus in the interrogation-scene of Edonoi. In addition, Dionysus is also attested to have mantic abilities in Thrace, as reported by Teiresias in Ba. 298–299157 μάντις δ’ ὁ δαίμων ὅδε· τὸ γὰρ βακχεύσιμον / καὶ τὸ μανιῶδες μαντικὴν πολλὴν ἔχει, ‘this god is also a prophet: for the bacchic and the manic have much mantic power’, a fact that justifies the word μουσόμαντις. The explanation follows immediately (vv. 300–301): ‘for when the god enters abundantly into the body he makes the maddened speak the future’.158 This conjunction of bacchic and mantic accounts for the reference of the word μουσόμαντις to Dionysus. In E. Hec. 1267 he is called the Thracians’ prophet; cf. Hdt. 7.111, describing his oracle in the country of the Thracian Satrae, and Rh.

 153 For various conjectures, see Radt 2009, ad loc. 181. 154 Sommerstein 2008, 60–61, 64–65. 155 West 1983, 69; 1990, 29–30. West’s view was followed by Di Marco 1993, 119, 131–134, Mureddu 2000 and Berardi 2021a. Such a view was earlier suggested by Hermann 19702, V 16– 17, 20 and Zielinski 1925, 103. 156 Dodds 1960, 126 refers to S. Ant. 965, Plut. Q. Conv. 8 prooem, 717 A, and to the tradition preserved by Eustathius on Od. 17.205 that the nurses of Dionysus are the Muses. 157 See Dodds 1960, 108–109 and recently Guidorizzi 2020, 180 with textual references. Plato in Phaedrus 244c confirms the association between μανία and μαντική and in Symposium 218b he refers to τῆς φιλοσόφου μανίας τε καὶ βακχείας, namely to the Dionysiac dimension of philosophy. 158 In Seaford’s translation 1997, 85. The translation of the passages discussed from Bacchae in this book follows Seaford, unless otherwise stated.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae 972.159 A formation similar to μουσόμαντις is βακχειόμαντις in inc. fab. fr. 341 R.: ὁ κισσεὺς Ἀπόλλων, ὁ βακχειόμαντις, which is not textus receptus, but a good emendation by Ellis (JPh 1, 1868, 71) for Nauck’s ὁ βακχεύς, ὁ μάντις. This verse indicates a conjunction of Apolline and Bacchic features,160 as in E. Licymnius fr. 477 Kn.: δέσποτα φιλόδαφνε Βάκχε παιὰν Ἄπολλον εὔλυρε. Furthermore, the prophecy at the end of Bacchae belongs to Dionysus as a deus ex machina (1329ff.). The presence of Orpheus in Edonoi seems unlikely, for it would also contradict the dramatic convention of the three actors on stage (Lycurgus, Dionysus, and the guard). Μουσόμαντις161 could thus refer to Dionysus himself as a leader of the thiasos described in fr. 57 R. The most probable interpretation of this verse is that Lycurgus refers to Dionysus himself before the interrogation-scene, inspecting the Stranger contemptuously and asking the guard about his identity after the parodos with its music effects. The mood is the same as that of Lycurgus’ question in fr. 61 R. ποδαπὸς … στολή; Notably, in inc. fab. fr. 341 R., ascribed to Bassarae by Nauck2,162 we read the similar compound βακχειόμαντις, unlisted in LSJ9 and Suppl. Nauck2 printed ὁ κισσεὺς Ἀπόλλων, ὁ βακχεύς, ὁ μάντις, which, as said, associates bacchic with prophetic qualities. Μουσόμαντις provides one of the many Aeschylean compounds ending with -μάντις,163 such as θυμόμαντις (Pers. 224), κακόμαντις (Pers. 10, Th. 722), ψευδόμαντις (Αg. 1195), ἀληθόμαντις (Ag. 1241), ὀνειρόμαντις (Ch. 33), ἰατρόμαντις (Eu. 62). The following fragments of Edonoi give scope for lexical comments. Fr. 63 ἄδασμος ap. Hsch. α 1016 Cunningham ἄδασμος· οὐδένα δασμὸν ἐκτελοῦσα οὐδὲ τελοῦσα ἐνοίκιον. Αἰσχύλος Ἠδωνοῖς. Pht. 326 Theodoridis οὐδένα δασμὸν ἐκτίνουσα οὐδὲ

 159 The Scholia ad loc. (Schwartz) refer: … περὶ τὸ Πάγγαιον εἶναι τὸ μαντεῖόν φασι τοῦ Διονύσου. 160 See also the reconciliation theme in Neaniskoi below 1.1.3. On the association of Apollon and Dionysus, see e.g. Burkert 1985, 223–225 and Käppel 1992, 222–284. 161 Μουσόμαντις ὄρνις, ‘bird of prophetic song’: Ar. Av. 276. The reference in Aeschylus is to a person; cf. μουσομανία, ‘devotion to the Muses’, Plut. Mor. 706 C (pl.), μουσομανής, -ές, ‘devoted to melody’, AP 10.16 (LSJ9). 162 Nauck 1964, 103. West 1983, 70 suggested an antiphonal division of the verse. 163 On this issue, see Rau 1967, 96; Citti 1994, 24; Totaro 1996, 416; Berardi 2021a, n. 43.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

μερίζουσα δασμὸν τῆς οἰκήσεως· οὕτως Αἰσχύλος (fr. 63 N2 = 77 M.). This is another hapax legomenon in Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia.164 The poet’s lexical inventiveness, especially in the few fragments preserved from this tetralogy, is remarkable. The word might refer to Dionysus’ imprisonment, ironically addressed to the Stranger by Lycurgus after the interrogation-scene: ‘I offer you a free of charge residence’.165 Fr. 64 αἰγίδες (i.e. νεβρίδες) ap. Hsch. α 1709 Cunningham αἰγίζειν· διασπᾶν. ἐκ μεταφορᾶς, παρ’ ὃ καὶ τὸ αἰγίζεσθαι, ἀπὸ τῶν καταιγίδων. Αίσχύλος (fr. 481 R.) = Sud. αι 44 Adler. Aἰγίς (αἶξ, a synonym of νεβρίς), goatskin worn as a dress; cf. E. Cyc. 360, said of Polyphemus’ peculiar dress. Αἰγίδες seems thus to denote, like νεβρίς, the fawnskin as the dress of Dionysus and the Bacchae: Ba. 24, 111, 249.166 It served both as a protection against the cold and as the “sacred garment” (Ba. 137–138 νεβρίδος ἔχων / ἱερὸν ἐνδυτόν) that communicated Dionysiac qualities to the wearer167 and also altering his mental state, as happened to Pentheus dressed as a maenad at Ba. 835. Maenads with fawnskins are depicted in vase paintings.168 In later sources (Pht. v. νεβρίζειν, Harpocr. v. νεβρίζων, Aelian. V.H. 3.42) the verb points to maenads tearing apart fawns. Interestingly, in A. dub. fr. 481 R. ap. Hsch. α 1709 = αἰγίζειν vel αἰγίζεσθαι· διασπᾶν ἐκ μεταφορᾶς ἀπὸ τῶν καταιγίδων. Αἰσχύλος. ὁ δ’ αὐτὸς ἐν Ἠδωνοῖς καὶ τὰς νεβρίδας οὕτως λέγει (cf. Suda αι 44 Adler), an association with the sparagmos, the dismemberment of fawns, is probable. The metaphorical meaning of the word as καταιγίδες, ‘hurricanes’, occurs also in A. Ch. 592. Both meanings of the word are used only by Aeschylus in poetry. Νεβρίς is commoner than αἰγίς. Aeschylus uses here, as in the text of the parodos (fr. 57 R.), the rarer synonym; cf. βαρυταρβὴς for βαρύβρομος, βόμβυξ for αὐλός.169

 164 See below 1.3.4.1. 165 Thus Hermann 19702, V 18. 166 In v. 249 Teiresias wears fawnskins. 167 Cf. Dodds 1960, 81. 168 See Seaford 1997, 151–152 for textual and iconographic evidence. 169 See below on language, 1.3.4.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae Fr. 65 ἀμφίδρομος ap. Hsch. α 3996 Cunningham Ἀμφίδρομος· Αἰσχύλος Σεμέλῃ (fr. 222 R.) ἔπλασε δαίμονα καινὸν καὶ περὶ τὰ ἀμφιδρόμια, ὡσεὶ ἔλεγες τὸν Γενέθλιον. δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ ἐξ ἑκατέρου μέρους θεόμενον (Musurus: θεώ- cod.) ἢ προηγούμενον, ἢ ὁρμᾶν δυνάμενον, ὡς Αἰσχύλος Ἠδωνοῖς. Phot. α 1321 Theodoridis ἀμφίδρομος δαίμων: οἷον ὁ γενέθλιος. oὕτως Αἰσχύλος; cf. 1322 ἀμφίδρομος· ὁ δολιχὸς δρόμος. Ἀμφίδρομος, ‘running both ways’: Plb. 34.2.5, Pl. Com. 24.1 PCG; cf. also κῦμα … ἀμφ. S. Aj. 352, ‘enclosing, encompassing’ and Non. D. 36.391; ἀμφίδρομος divinity is connected with Ἀμφιδρόμια, an attic festival at the naming of a child, so-called because his parents’ friends carried it round the hearth (Ar. Lys. 757) on the fifth day after birth: Sch. Pl. Tht. 160; tenth according to Sch. Ar. loc. cit. This compound adjective seems to characterize Dionysus as an ambiguous, ἀμφίσημος, deity, a nature full of antitheses combining in a unity of opposites both human and divine qualities.170 In art and many literary sources Dionysus combines a divine identity with physical manifestations, such as wine, theatre, and maenadism. His personality presents entirely opposite features, and his ambiguities and changes are based on disguise and transformations, as it happens in A. Edonoi (from the effeminate Stranger in the interrogation-scene to his powerful epiphany) and in E. Bacchae. As it has widely been defined, Dionysus is the god who is made up of polarities.171 Fr. 66 ἄσσιστα ap. Hsch. α 7799 Cunningham. ἄσσιστα· ἔγγιστα. Αἰσχύλος Ἠδωνοῖς· cf. Phot. α 2957 Theodoridis. From ἆσσον, adv. comp. of ἄγχι, ‘nearer’, esp. of hostile approach (Hes. Th. 748, Hom. Il. 22.4, Ar. Eq. 1306); or simply of approach (S. OC 312, El. 900); ἄσσιστα (superl.) provides another hapax legomenon in A. Lycurgeia.

 170 On these features of Dionysus, see Henrichs 1993, 13–22 and below 1.3.1. 171 Primarily by Otto 1965, 78, 91 and passim; Henrichs 1993, 25–26 and n. 30–31 with further references. Notably, γόης, ‘sorcerer’, in Ba. 234 reveals Dionysus’ capacity to change his shape. Pl. Rep. 380d was the first to uphold the opposite view on the divinity. Γόης also reveals a current charge against propagators of mystery cults: see Dodds 1960, 98–99 referring to Pl. Rep. 364b–c (with Adam’s 19632, 80–81 n. 12).

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

Fr. 67 ἴκταρ ap. Erot. ι 20 Nachmanson ἴκταρ: ἐγγὺς παρὰ τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς, ὡς καὶ Αίσχύλος έν Εὐμενίσι φησί (998). … μέμνηται ὁ αὐτὸς τῆς λέξεως καὶ ἐν Ἠδωνοῖς. Ἴκταρ, ‘close together’, occurs first in Hes. Th. 690–691 οἱ δὲ κεραυνοὶ ἴκταρ ἅμα βροντῇ τε καὶ ἀστεροπῇ ποτέοντο; later in Aeschylus’ Oresteia: Eu. loc. cit. ἴκταρ ἥμενοι Διός, ‘the Athenian people are seated close to the virgin daughter of Zeus’, Ag. 116 ἴκταρ μελάθρων, ‘near the palace’. ... Dionysus’ epiphany: Edonoi fr.* 58 R. and the date of Lycurgeia At the end of this “interrogation” -scene, dramatic economy demands that Dionysus should be taken indoors, imprisoned in Lycurgus’ palace. After a stasimon an imposing scene may occur: Dionysus reappears on stage,172 free and in his divine form. His triumphant epiphany is attested by [Long.] On the Sublime 15.6,173 without ascription to a particular play, (15.6) = fr.*58 R. παρὰ μὲν Αἰσχύλῳ παραδόξως τὰ τοῦ Λυκούργου βασίλεια κατὰ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ Διονύσου θεοφορεῖται, ‘in Aeschylus, contrary to all expectation, the palace of Lycurgus during the epiphany of Dionysus is possessed by the god’. ἐνθουσιᾷ δὴ δῶμα, βακχεύει στέγη, truly the house is frenzied (with the god), the roof revels Bacchant-like174

The two personifications ἐνθουσιᾷ δῶμα, βακχεύει στέγη, referring to orgiastic ritual,175 and delivered by the chorus leader or, in view of the metrical form of the verse, by a messenger,176 vividly indicate that Lycurgus’ palace was entirely possessed by the god (θεοφορεῖται). Βάκχος, βάκχη, βακχεύειν: Dionysus, his wor-

 172 See also West 1983, 63, following Deichgräber’s reconstruction 1938/1939, 254–255. 173 παρὰ μὲν Αἰσχύλῳ παραδόξως τὰ τοῦ Λυκούργου βασίλεια κατὰ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ Διονύσου θεοφορεῖται «ἐνθουσιᾷ – στέγη», ὁ δ’ Εὐριπίδης τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦθ’ ἑτέρως ἐφηδύνας ἐξεφώνησε (Ba. 726) πᾶν δὲ συνεβάκχευεν ὅρος. For the attribution of this Aeschylean verse to Edonoi, see Radt 2009, 180. 174 The translation is mine. 175 For the association of ἐνθουσιᾶν and βακχεύειν cf. Plut. Tib. et G. Gracch. 22.3 τοῦ δήμου συνενθουσιῶντος ὑφ’ ἡδονῆς καὶ βακχεύοντος ... 176 A chorus leader was suggested by Haupt 1897, 142; Deichgräber 1938/1939, 254; West 1990, 30. A messenger was suggested by Di Marco 1993, 147.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae shippers and his ritual bear the same name, which clearly indicates the ritual affinity and the close relation of the god with his thiasos, the active participants in Dionysiac ritual.177 The “palace miracles” in E. Ba. 576–641178 seem to be modelled on that typically Aeschylean scene of ὄψις,179 ‘spectacle’, and Aeschylus is regarded as the exploiter of ἔκπληξις180 through ὄψις. In Ba. 576–577 the god’s voice is heard from indoors. In 585 Dionysus calls the destructive power in nature181 for earthquake and in 594–595 for fire. Shortly afterwards he appears in person (604–641) addressing the chorus. More specifically, the image of the shaking of the palace, depicted in this Aeschylean fragment is similar to Ba. 585–593, a scene described in terms of Dionysiac ecstasy. The chorus invokes Dionysus’ presence: 587–589 τάχα τὰ Πενθέως μέλαθρα διατι-/νάξεται πεσήμασιν./ ὁ Διόνυσος ἀνὰ μέλαθρα·, ‘Soon the halls of Pentheus will be shaken apart and fall. Dionysus is throughout the halls’; 591– 593 ‘did you see on the columns these stone lintels running apart? It is Bromios raising the cry within the house’. Dionysus emerging from the house in his mortal form addresses the chorus: 605–606 … Βακχίου / διατινάξαντος †δῶμα Πενθέως·, ‘Bacchus shaking apart †the house of Pentheus’; 623 … ἀνετίναξ’ ἐλθὼν ὁ Βάκχος δῶμα …, ‘… Bacchus came and shook up the house …’; and 633 δώματ’ ἔρρηξεν χαμᾶζε·, ‘he broke the house to the ground’. Τινάσσειν counterbalances βακχεύει in Aeschylus, both conveying Dionysiac connotations. Τινάσσειν refers to Dionysus and his thiasos shaking their thyrsos up and down (Ba. 80, 553–554). Similarly, in Aeschylus the building is possessed by the god and the house is in bacchic frenzy (βακχεύει στέγη), an image clearly revisited in the scenes of the earthquake182 and the Stranger’s narrative in Bacchae. The whole Aeschylean image may have been reproduced by Naevius in his Lucurgus fr. TrRF 1 24 Schauer = 52–53 Warm. (“ut videam Volcani opera haec flammis flora fieri”) and fr. 39 Schauer = 54 Warm. (“Late longeque transtros nos-

 177 Cf. Henrichs 1993, 20. 178 Aptly divided by Dodds 1960, 147 into: a) the earthquake scene (576–603, a lyric dialogue) and b) the Stranger’s narrative (604–641). Extensive discussion in Seaford 1997, 195–198. 179 Arist. Poet. 6, 1449b 33, 14, 1453b 1–10 with Lucas’ note 1968, 149 and Else 1963, 410. 180 On Aeschylean ἔκπληξις, cf., e.g., Lada-Richards 1999, 234–237. 181 Cf. Dodds 1960, 147. 182 Earthquakes in Euripides: HF 905–908; in 1006–1008 (cf. 1029–1030) the roof of the house collapses with Heracles; Erechtheus fr. 370 col. v. 47–54 Kn. Just afterwards Athena asks Poseidon to remove his trident from the earth and not ruin Athens, her city (fr. 370. 55–57 Kn.); cf. also Pr. 1080–1093 ‘the earth is shaking …’ and Plautus Amphitr. 1094–1096.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

tros fervere”): Lycurgus’ palace is covered with fire. The verse provides an interesting instance of Bacchic ecstasy possessing not only Dionysus’ retinue but also inanimate objects. The image has startling tragic parallels of inanimate nature possessed by Dionysus: the stars, the aether, and the moon are Dionysiac dancers, taking part in Bacchic ritual (E. Ion 1078–1080, S. Ant. 1146). Βακχεύειν, ‘celebrate in the mysteries of Bacchus’, occurs twice in Euripides in similar contexts and points to inanimate nature, esp. mountains, sharing in Dionysiac ecstasy and in Bacchic revels: IT 1243–1244 βακχεύουσαν183 Διονύ- / σῳ Παρνάσιον κορυφάν and esp. Ba. 726–727 πᾶν δὲ συνεβάκχευ’184 ὅρος / καὶ θῆρες, οὐδὲν δ’ ἦν ἀκίνητον δρόμῳ ‘and the whole mountain and the wild animals joined the bacchanal and nothing remained unmoved in running’, in the first messengerspeech. The author of the On the Sublime citing Ba. 726 remarks that the same verse was presented by Euripides less harshly: ὁ δ’ Εὐριπίδης τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦθ’ ἑτέρως ἐφηδύνας ἐξεφώνησε, ‘Euripides expressed the same thought less harshly: the whole mountain went bacchanal with them’.185 Euripides’ verse was less harsh than that of Aeschylus, probably because of the addition of συν-εβάκχευε, ‘joined in Dionysiac rivalry’,186 which clearly points to the participation of the nature in the Bacchic revel. The preposition συν either in compound verbs, as here in E. Bacchae, or in compound epithets (σύγκωμον), as in Aeschylus inc. fab. fr. 355.3 R.,187 underlines the god’s direct communion with his followers and his environment. In Plato (Lg. 653d) Dionysus is called συνεορταστής, ‘a sharer in a festival’. In Greek and Roman thought, Dionysus was regarded as an epiphanic god par excellence. “Bacchum vidi”, says Horace (Od. 2.19.1–4), inducing his audience to share his faith, and there is no god “praesentior”, ‘more present’, than him, says Ovid (Met. 3.658–659). However, Dionysus may be invisible to those who do not accept his divinity (Ba. 500–501). His divine revelation provides a

 183 βακχεύουσαν Diggle based on Ba. 726. 184 συνεβάκχευ’, corrected by Porson, on the basis of [Longin.] loc. cit., for συνεβάκχευσε in codd. L, P, expresses clearly the nature’s continuing participation in Bacchic ritual. 185 Transl. by Russell/Winterbottom 1972. 186 Cf. Philostr. Im. 1.14.3 ἡ γῆ … καὶ συμβακχεύσει αὐτῷ (τῷ Διονύσῳ), E. Tr. 500 ὦ σύμβακχε Κασσάνδρα θεοῖς. On σύμβακχε and parallels in Troades, see Barlow 1986, 182. 187 μειξοβόαν πρέπει / διθύραμβον ὁμαρτεῖν / σύγκωμον Διονύσῳ. For συν in Euripides’ Bacchae, see Segal 1982, 57.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae prominent aspect of his cult188 and his capacity for self-revelation is related with his anthropomorphism. Accordingly, Dionysus and his followers, the maenads Bassarids, should thus be miraculously released causing a tremendous earthquake in Lycurgus’ palace. Earthquakes follow a god’s epiphany elsewhere in tragedy.189 Nevertheless, it seems to be a typical case of reception of Aeschylean imagery, showcasing the ongoing persistence of Dionysiac beliefs. The earthquake that shook the palace of Lycurgus and Pentheus confirming Dionysus’ tremendous power190 seems to be a real as well as a symbolic dramatic event for the audience: it masterly prefigures, in my view, the violent fall of the impious opponents of the god and acts as a warning for their end; in vain, nonetheless, since infatuation (ἄτη), guided by the god, blinded their mind. The chorus of Dionysus’ followers must have left the stage, pleased with their god’s triumph. After the god’s epiphany the tragedy would be expected to reach its peak with Lycurgus’ madness and the murder of his son, as attested by [Apollodorus] and depicted on the vase-paintings.191 The tragic scene may have been signaled by cries indoors,192 as in A. Ag. 1343, 1345, and E. HF 886–908.The account of the infanticide would be plausibly included in an ensuing messenger-speech.193 Nevertheless, the end of Euripides’ Bacchae, modelled to a remarkable extent on Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia, provides a tragic end with hamartia (Ar. Poet. 13, 1453a 10), a deed committed in ignorance,194 followed by recognition. Lycurgus and Agave may thus have been similarly portrayed. The rest of [Apollodorus’] account

 188 On Dionysus’ epiphanic quality, Henrichs 1993, 17 and n. 6 with bibliographical references. More extensively, Seaford 2006, 39–43 on Dionysus’ epiphanies and in particular those in E. Bacchae. 189 In E. HF 905–908, 1006–1008 an earthquake, which Lyssa foretold at 864, is associated with Athena at moments of dramatic tension and causes the palace roof to collapse. 190 Dionysus is called Θήβας δ’ ἐλελίχθων (ἐλίσσω + χθών), ‘earth-shaker of Thebes’, in S. Ant. 153–154. Cf. E. Ba. 585. For the palace miracle, see extensively Winnington-Ingram 1969, 82–87, characterizing it as a “prelude of … the ultimate catastrophy” (p.84). Fischer 1992 discusses the various interpretations of the “palace miracles” in the Bacchae and concludes that the audience recognized them as reality and not as illusion. 191 Discussed in Appendix II.1–5. 192 For off-stage cries, Arnott 1982. 193 West 1990, 31 based on the morphology of Aeschylean tragedy assumed that after the report of Dryas’ murder and a short choral song Lycurgus must have come out with his son’s body. The chorus could probably underline the god’s punishment for Lycurgus’ impiety. 194 On this interpretation of hamartia, see especially Bremer 1969 and cf. Else 1963, 378–385; Lucas 1968, 143–144.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

with Lycurgus confined on Mount Pangaeum seems improbable to have been performed in Edonoi.195 There is another possibility as well. In view of its thematic unity, the trilogy seems likelier to have involved references to Lycurgus’ story in all three tragedies,196 which would, at the same time, account for the title Lycurgeia. In the Oresteia and the Oedipodeia trilogy, both Orestes and Oedipus, though not active in the first tragedy, belong to the family of Atreidae and Labdacidae, bringing forward the continuity of these legends and the concept of the lex talionis conditioning the fate of their oikoi. Lycurgus’ punishment might have thus have formed a significant part of the action of the second play of the trilogy, the Bassarides.197 The reference to the palace (δῶμα)198 in the epiphany scene in fr. 58 R. could suggest that it was visible, forming part of the dramatic space. In such a case, it would be represented on the façade of the stage building. The iconographic evidence with a “portico” (App. II.2) supports this suggestion. This element could thus give a clue to the date of Lycurgeia, which may be approximate to Oresteia (458 B.C.) also featuring a palace on the façade of the skene building in Agamemnon and Choephoroi.199 However, a kind of a skene-building was also remarked in fragmentary texts earlier than Oresteia, thought to represent a palace, a temple or a cave, but such an assumption has not been adequately confirmed so far.200 A good argument for a late date of Lycurgeia in Aeschylus’ career seems to be provided by the participation of the third actor in the interrogation-scene of Edonoi (Lycurgus, Dionysus, and the guard). Such a three-actor scene confirms the date of Aeschylus’ trilogy between 468 (i.e. Sophocles’ first production, with

 195 As suggested by West 1983, 64 and 1990, 31–32. In his attempt to associate the second play of the trilogy Bassarae or Bassarides mainly with the story and the sparagmos of Orpheus, West includes all the events narrated by [Apollodorus] in the first tragedy of Lycurgeia, the Edonoi. Hermann 19702, V 19–20 had earlier regarded Orpheus’ story as the subject of the Bassarae. 196 This was first suggested by Welcker 1826, 103–122, who, following [Apollodorus], distributed the information provided by the mythographer in the three tragedies of Lycurgeia. 197 Séchan 1926, 66–67, 69 suggested that Bassarides include also Lycurgus’ madness and the murder of his son and wife and, thus, relates the vase-paintings to the Bassarides. This last assumption, though possible, cannot be confirmed. 198 For δῶμα, possibly also referring to a palace, cf. A. Kaveiroi frr. 97, 96 R. 199 Taplin 1977, 452–459, 2007, 38, 69; West 1983, 70–71; Di Marco 1993, 146–148 also dates Lycurgeia some few years before Aeschylus’ death (456 B.C.). 200 Librán Moreno 2002, based on textual and iconographic evidence, suggests a skene in fragmentary texts earlier than Oresteia. She refers to various texts: e.g. Phrynichus TrGF 1 3 F 6, 8 Sn.–Kn., TrGF 3 F 4a Sn.–Kn.; an anonymous Oresteia TrGF 2 8bb Kn.–Sn.; Phorcides fr. 261 R.; A. Theoroi or Isthmiastae, Kares or Europa, Kaveiroi fr. 97 R. etc. Poehlmann 2020 reaches similar conclusions also based on archaeological evidence.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae which he won the first prize against Aeschylus)201 and 458 B.C. (the date of Oresteia). Sophocles’ introduction of the third actor is attested in Arist. Poet. 4, 1449a 18–19 “three actors and scene-painting Sophocles”.202 ... Aeschylus’ Edonoi and Naevius’ Lucurgus Naevius in his Lucurgus seems, as mentioned above,203 to have followed the Aeschylean model rather than E. Bacchae.204 The outline of Naevius’ play, comprised the arrival of the Bacchants and Lycurgus’ decision to punish them, followed by their imprisonment, the interrogation-scene between Lycurgus and Dionysus and the miraculous destruction of the palace by fire. The interrogation-scene and the emphatic reference to Dionysus’ effeminate appearance are clearly modelled on A. Edonoi. The burning of Lycurgus’ palace seems also to echo the scene of Dionysus’ epiphany and the palace-miracle in Aeschylus’ play, which was similarly refigured in E. Bacchae. More specifically: Naevius’ play, of which 24 fragments have been preserved, involves themes and scenes distinctively corresponding to those of Aeschylus’ Edonoi.205 Naevius’ tragedy seems to take place in front of Lycurgus’ palace. The chorus consists of Bacchants, Dionysus’ devotees. Notably, Accius’ Stasiastae, ‘The Rebels’, also dealt with the hostility of Lycurgus towards Dionysus and the Maenads. The title Stasiastae shows that, contrary to Aeschylus’ Edonoi and Naevius’ Lucurgus, in Accius the chorus was composed of Lycurgus’, not Dionysus’ followers.206 In Naevius, after the arrival of the Bacchants (fr. TrRF 1 36 Schauer = 24 Warm.) and their description by the guard (frr. 28, 30 Schauer = 25, 26 Warm.), Lycurgus sends his guard to arrest the Bacchants and Dionysus in his mortal form (fr. 34 Schauer = 27–29 Warm.): ‘You whose duties are to be my royal bodyguard, go you straightaway into the leafy places,where greenwoods have grown in nature’s way and not from a man’s sowing’207 and also fr. 19 Schauer = 46–47 Warm.;

 201 See Knox 1972, 107. 202 See Else 1963, 167–168; Lucas 1968, 83. On the introduction of the third actor, see, more extensively, Knox 1972. 203 Above 1.1. 204 See, in particular, Edonoi. 205 The comparison attempted here has greatly been indebted to the works of Ribbeck 1875, 1897, Deichgräber 1938/1939, Warmington 1936, and Sutton 1971. 206 Warmington 1936, 123, 534ff. 207 The translation of the fragments from Naevius’ Lucurgus follows Warmington 1936.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

cf. [Apollod.] 3.5.1 on this arrest-motif in Aeschylus’ Edonoi.208 The order for the Bacchants’ arrest seems also to be described in fr. 18 Schauer = 30–32 Warm.: ‘Go, others of you, lure them up on high to lofty glades, … wherein these hopping birds209 in flaxen toils may leave the light of day’. There follows probably the entrance and the description of the chorus of Bacchants (fr. 32 Schauer = 33–34 Warm.): ‘You Bacchants, bearing sacred wands, with Bacchic posturing’. The scene is similar to Edonoi fr. 57 R., allocated to the parodos of the play, and probably to fr. 64 R. with reference to the fawnskin worn by the Bacchants; cf. fr. 59 R. βασσάρας ποδήρεις. The Bacchants invoke Dionysus (fr. 25 Schauer = 36 Warm.): ‘We do not know the road; it is you who know it’. The Bacchants’ appearance, attitude, and activities, as described probably by the guard who arrested them, are portrayed in fr. 40 Schauer = 39 Warm. and fr. 22 Schauer = 41–42 Warm.: ‘With gowns … and golden edgings, with soft saffron dresses and clothes of death,’210 ‘for as we saw them playing joyfully one with another by the riverside and drawing water from the stream in buckets’. The setting and the image depicted in fr. 22 Schauer = 41–42 Warm. echo the peaceful maenads enjoying nature as narrated in the first messenger-speech of Bacchae (680ff.). The image of their drawing water from the stream recalls especially vv. 704–705: ‘one of them took a thyrsus and struck it against a rock, from which a dewy stream of water leaped out’. It may be suggested that, as in E. Bacchae and Naevius’ Lucurgus, also in Aeschylus’ Edonoi the maenads, when attacked, were drawing water from a river.211 The guards express their fear at the appearance of Dionysus (fr. 38 Schauer = 40 Warm.): ‘… then and there the fear and dread of Liber at his coming did bend and double us’. On the contrary, in Edonoi fr. 60 R. it is most likely Dionysus who is described as a peaceful and delicate person. Similarly, in Ba. 436–440 the servant who arrested Dionysus characterizes him as a ‘gentle’ (πρᾶος) and obedient person making his task easy. Lycurgus asks the guard how the Stranger was captured (frr. 37, 27 Schauer = 44–45 Warm.): ‘Lycurgus: Say, how you got him – fight or trickery? Guard: ... as

 208 Above 1.1. 209 The Bacchants seem to be metaphorically compared with birds, as in E. Ba. 748 ‘raised like birds’. 210 “Of death” is symbolically said of their likely death, planned by Lycurgus. 211 Cf. Seaford 1997, 207.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae cattle walk to death, hang-guided, not by goad’. The resemblance to Ba. 436–440 is impressive.212 Dionysus’ attire in the guard’s description to Lycurgus (inc. fr. 43 Schauer = 43 Warm.): ‘Slippers he had upon his feet, was clad in saffron-tinted frock’. Similarly, in Edonoi fr. 59 R. ‘One who wears Lydian tunics and fox-skin mantles down to his feet’. Lycurgus inspects the Stranger disdainfully asking the guard about him (Edonoi frr. 60, 61, 61a, and 62 R.) and uses insulting language in the confrontationscene (fr. 33 Schauer = 48 Warm.: ‘Dionysus: Beware, I pray you, setting up your wrath with Liber’s wrath, in opposition’, fr. 21 Schauer = 49 Warm.: ‘Lycurgus: Let him not rouse my savage temper’s wrath, and my soul’s hearty hate’, and fr. 26 Schauer = 50–51 Warm.: ‘Dionysus: The gods do hate unrighteous mortals. Lycurgus: Do he or I unrighteously?’). Lycurgus orders the guard to bind and imprison all the captives (fr. 19 Schauer = 46–47 Warm.): ‘Lead you them mumbling thither, rattling tones and all, dumb creatures crawling on all fours’. Regarding Edonoi, this scene of Bacchants’ imprisonment is deduced from [Apollod.] 3.5.1. Dionysus wishes to do harm to Lycurgus (fr. 24 Schauer = 52–53 Warm.): ‘… that I may see by Vulcan’s work these buildings flaring in a flower of flame’. Dionysus’ epiphany, the palace-miracle, Lycurgus’ palace is set on fire (fr. 39 Schauer = 54 Warm.): ‘Our transoms glowing far and wide’.213 Cf. similarly the palace-miracle in Edonoi fr. 58 R.: ‘Truly the house is frenzied, the roof revels Bacchant-like’. After his victory, Dionysus calls for Lycurgus (fr. 23 Schauer = 55–56 Warm.): ‘Then bring me hither the King Lycurgus, son of his father Dryas’. The thematic and structural correspondences between Edonoi and the Latin play pointed out so far suggest that the reception of Aeschylus’ trilogy was not limited in Bacchae. The fragmentary text of Naevius’ Lucurgus seems thus to provide additional evidence for the plot and Nachleben of Aeschylean Edonoi; in turn, the material recovered from the Aeschylean play makes it a plausible intertext of Bacchae with regard to pivotal motifs.

 212 Seaford 1997, 186 compares the description in the Bacchae and Naevius with the arrest of Jesus at Matthaeus 26.50 and Iohannes 18.4–8. 213 Guidorizzi 2020, 211 compares Hor. Carm. II 19.14–15 “tectaque Penthei / disiecta non leni ruina”.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

.. Bassarae or Bassarides This play followed Edonoi and preceded Neaniskoi. The title Bassarae or Bassarides is most likely to suggest the chorus of the Thracian Maenads, who may appear as Dionysus’ followers after the god’s triumphant epiphany in Edonoi. Information for this second play of Lycurgeia may be provided in the Catasterisms, a work wrongly attributed to Eratosthenes (Catast. 24). This mythographical description was suggested to function as a kind of tragic hypothesis to the play. A latin version of the story occurs in the Scholia to the Roman poet Julius Caesar Germanicus, the translator of Aratus’ Phaenomena (German. p. 84.11 Breysig).214 On the basis of this evidence the play might refer to Orpheus’ sparagmos by the Bassarids, the Thracian female thiasos of Dionysus: ‘Orpheus, after going down to Hades in quest of his wife [Eurydice] and seeing what things were like there, ceased to honour Dionysus, by whom he had been glorified, and regarded the Sun (whom he also called Apollo) as the greatest of the gods: he would rise before daybreak and await the sunrise on the mountain called Pangaeum, so as to be the first to see the Sun. Dionysus was angry at this and sent against him the Bassarids (as the tragic poet Aeschylus says), who tore him in pieces and scattered his limbs far and wide; but the Muses collected them together and buried them at the place called Leibethra (in Macedonia).’215 The Scholium on Clem. Protr. 1.2.2 Ὀρφεὺς διασπαραχθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν Ὀδρυσῶν ἄλλη ὑπόθεσις τραγῳδίας γεγένηται216 accords with this evidence in Catasterisms on Orpheus’ sparagmos. It has also been suggested that the action of the play with Orpheus’ descent to the underworld, as derived from Catasterisms, echoes an influence of Pythagoreanism.217 It seems to point to a rivalry between Pythagoreans and their venerated deity Apollo, and Dionysiac mystery-cults. A reconciliation of both gods and the establishment of their cults in Thrace may be the theme of Neaniskoi, ‘The Young Men’, the third play of Lycurgeia.218

 214 The text of Catasterisms was edited by Olivieri 1897 and by Maas 1898 with rich pertinent material. Catasterisms as a source of Bassarae and Orpheus’ relation to these Maenads was first suggested by Hermann 19702, V 19–20, followed by Haupt 1896, 143–147; West 1983, 64–65; 1990, 32–43; Jouan 1992, 74–75; Di Marco 1993, 117–119, 121–123; Sommerstein 2008, 18; 2016, 34. 215 The translation follows Sommerstein 2008, 18–19 and 2016, 34. For the various sources regarding Orpheus’ sparagmos, see Kern 1972, 33–41; West 1983, 66. 216 On Odrysai as a Thracian tribe, see references in West 1990, 36 and n. 24. 217 West 1990, 40; Seaford 2005, 605–606; Sommerstein 2008, 18–19. 218 Seaford 2005, 606; Sommerstein 2008, 153. See also on Neaniskoi below.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae Orpheus seems thus to be alluded to this play,219 as in Catasterisms he is reported to be dismembered by Thracian women, the Bassarids, because of his impiety not to honour Dionysus and regarded the Sun as the greatest of the gods. The concept of revering Helios as πρέσβιστον σέβας, as ‘primeval god’, is related to the Thracians also in S. Tereus fr. 582 R. Notably, Orpheus, as Eratosthenes Catast. 24 and the Latin versions attest, turned to Apollo–Helios after his return from Hades. The pieces of Orpheus’ body were reassembled and buried by the Muses,220 an issue recalling the end of Bacchae, when Cadmus carried Pentheus’ limbs (1216–1300, esp. 1216–1231, 1299–1300). However, Orpheus’ sparagmos by the Bassarids sent by Dionysus is the only certain element regarding Orpheus’ relation to that play,221 as far as our textual evidence goes. The identification of the women with Bassarids is mainly based on Orpheus’ disregard for the worship of Dionysus as recorded by Eratosthenes and other sources.222 M. West223 noted in Eratosthenes Catast. 24, as constructed from cod. Vat. Gr. 1087 (T),224 a reference to the story of Orpheus’ lyre and concluded that the compiler conflated Aratus’ account with a different one “according to which the constellation was the lyre of Orpheus, removed to heaven after his death”. Nevertheless, West aptly remarked225 that Aeschylus is not the source for the whole story, it is unlikely that he included the constellation of Orpheus’ lyre in his play, and he might not even have known any myth about such a constellation. Moreover, West, loc. cit., based on Clem. Protr. 1.2.2, suggested that a tragic hypothesis “is in fact just what the central part of Catast. 24 resembles”. However, such a tragic hypothesis cannot be attributed to Aeschylus with certainty. As has

 219 On Orpheus, see, e.g.: Kern 1920; Nilsson 1935, 186ff.; Guthrie 1952, 25ff. Orpheus became a popular subject in vase-painting: Brommer 1960, 355–358. For Orpheus as a central character of the play, see West 1983, 66–67; 1990, 33–46 followed by, among others, Sommerstein 2016, 34– 35 and Jouan 1992, 74 and n. 14 for earlier bibliographical references on this issue. 220 Murray 1940, 155 suggests that this incident is likely to be the final scene of Bassarae and compares the mourning of the Muse over her son in Rhesus. 221 Aeschylus as an Eleusinian seems to have been familiar with mystic cults. For his familiarity with Orphism: Di Marco 1993, 145–146 and n. 113 with references. 222 Different reasons for Orpheus’ assassination in literature are cited by West 1983, 66; 1990, 37. 223 West 1983, 65–66, 1990, 33–35, followed, among others, by Di Marco 1993, 117–122, and Jouan 1992, 74–75. 224 Published by Rehm 1899. 225 West 1983, 66; 1990, 35.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

already been mentioned, only Orpheus’ sparagmos by the Bassarids sent by Dionysus is certainly ascribed to Aeschylus’ play, on the basis of the textual evidence provided by Catasterisms. The name of the Bassarids comes from the bassara, the dress of Thracian bacchanals, made of fox-skins and Βασσαρεύς is an epithet of Bacchus.226 Bassarae or Bassarides are attested in the mss. of Catasterisms. Since, however, βασσάραι are the long garments of Thracian bacchanals also in fr. 59 R., it is likely that the title of the play is Bassarides.227 Since it is not attested elsewhere that the Bassarids, i.e. the Thracian women, were Dionysus’ devotees, the Bassarid motif seems to be an Aeschylean invention, introduced in the literary tradition of Orpheus’ death.228 This element may have been included in the dramatic action of Bassarae by Aeschylus as a counterpart of Lycurgus’ death, serving also as a model for Pentheus’ sparagmos in E. Bacchae. Aeschylus is explicitly named as the source of the Bassarid version in Eratosthenes Catasterisms 24 and the latin versions.229 According to Eratosthenes, the setting of Bassarae was near the mount Pangaeum, where Dionysus was established as a god and sent his devotees to tear Orpheus, who despised him. The Bassarids seem to form the chorus as female Bacchants. Orpheus’ sparagmos, most likely by the maenads on the Pangaeum, like the Theban Bacchants in Euripides’ play, was suggested to be included in the play.230 This may be certified by the explicit reference to Aeschylus and the Bassarids in the relevant passage of Catasterisms: ‘Dionysus … sent against him the Bassarids (as the tragic poet Aeschylus says)’. Orpheus’ death might be narrated either in a messenger-speech, as the account of Pentheus’ dismemberment in E. Bacchae (since it would have been an offstage event) or it could be included in a choral song. The bacchiac metre of frr. 23 and 23a R. could be suggestive of a choral ode on Orpheus. The naming of the tetralogy after Lycurgus does not entail that he was the main character in all four plays; instead, it is quite likely that his story covers a part of their action. The Aeschylean practice in trilogies and often in tetralogies,  226 Et. Gen. s.v.; LSJ9 s.v. βασσάρα; see also Edonoi fr. 59 R. 227 Cf. Séchan 1926, 69 and n. 1; Di Marco 1993, 111 and n. 27; Sommerstein 2008, 19. 228 This was widely suggested: Hermann 19702, V 16–17, 20; Haupt 1896; Zielinski 1925, 103; West 1983, 67; 1990, 36, 38; Sommerstein 2008, 18; 2016, 35; Linforth 1931, 11–17 warns that the data “might be limited to the death of Orpheus on Mount Pangaeum at the hands of the Bassarids”; cf. also his remarks below n. 232. 229 Cf. Arat. Lat. p. 232.6, Sch. Germ. 84.11, and West 1990, 38 n. 29. 230 West 1983, 69; 1990, 36; Di Marco 1993, 113 n. 32; Sommerstein 2016, 35; Séchan 1926, 67 and notes; Jouan 1992, 74. Orpheus’ end may be narrated in Bassarae fr. 23 R.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae as far as our evidence goes, combined different episodes and persons from the same mythological material: e.g. a) Laius, Oedipus, Seven against Thebes, Sphinx; b) Supplices, Aegyptii, Danaides, Amymone; c) Agamemnon, Choephoroi, Eumenides, Proteus. All these plays within a tetralogy were characterized by a remarkable unity of theme. The similarities between the stories of Lycurgus and Orpheus justify their connection in the same tetralogy, focusing on the punishment for their hubris and impiety. However, despite the reconstruction of Aeschylus’ Bassarae attempted so far,231 and in view of the meagre evidence for this play, one has to be cautious in the interpretation of the evidence in Catasterisms. The reference to Orpheus’ story, as narrated in this work, may have not formed the plot of the whole play, as often suggested, but it might have been merely included in a choral song or in a narrative, such as those of frr. 23 and 23a R. respectively.232 As these fragmentary texts suggest, and in view of the lack of any other safe information about Orpheus’ participation in the action, Orpheus’ sparagmos, implied in fr. 23 R., might have been a mythological exemplum serving as a dramatically effective warning for the punishment of Lycurgus’ contempt and impiety towards Dionysus.233 Such allusions by the chorus to the development of dramatic action are typical of Aeschylus’ dramatic technique. The famous parodos of Agamemnon, with the chorus foretelling the danger which impends over the king on his return, provides a good example (v. 182, χάρις δαιμόνων βίαιος, ‘gods’ favour is done by force’), as the end of the play will show. Similarly, the terrified chorus at A. Th. 78–147 refers to the ‘fearful sufferings’ (μεγάλα ἄχη) which are to come. Notably, the mention of Orpheus in the second choral ode of Bacchae (561–563), relates him with Dionysus and Pentheus, as it seems to have happened in Aeschylus’ Bassarae involving Orpheus’ likely relation with Lycurgus. In Euripides Pentheus’ violent end, similar to that of Orpheus, erupts explicitly later, only when the Theban theomachos is trapped in Dionysus’ plan. Despite the idyllic description of Dionysus’ cult in this stasimon (519–575), the reference to Orpheus also by the chorus conceivably associates his fate with that of Pentheus. On the basis of such choral references to Orpheus, his tearing may have been merely predicted in Bassarae by the chorus. Moreover, it is not known how much  231 See, indicatively, Haupt 1896; West 1983, 64–70; 1990, 32–46, followed, among others, by Jouan 1992, 74–75. 232 The narrative in fr. 23 R. may provide a dramatic scene (see below). Linforth 1931, 14–17 cautiously observed that the citation of E. Alcestis in Catasterisms 29 would provide a misleading idea of the action of the Euripidean play if this was not extant. 233 Cf. Séchan 1926, 68–69, remarking that such warnings frequently occur in the lyric parts of Aeschylean plays; cf. also Gantz 1980, 141.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

of the mythological material provided by later sources234 Aeschylus used in his Dionysiac plays. By all means, the evidence in Catasterisms is not sufficient for a convincing reconstruction of the play. Nevertheless, it sheds light on the similar stories of Orpheus and Lycurgus and the opposition between Apolline worship in Central Greece and the new cult of Dionysus.235 Texts connect the Orphic myth with Bacchic ritual, especially regarding eschatological beliefs.236 Euripides may have had in mind also Aeschylus’ Bassarae when writing Hippolytus, who, like Orpheus, honoured one divinity (Artemis and Apollo, respectively) and despised another (Aphrodite and Dionysus). ... Dionysus’ bestial incarnation: fr. 23 R. The bacchiac, a rare metre according to Hephaestion Enchir. 13,8 (p. 43.1 Consbruch), based on the unit ⏑ – –, suggests that the verses belong to the chorus of Bassarids. Verses in bacchiac metre are not rare in Aeschylus.237 ὁ ταῦρος δ’ἔοικεν κυρίξειν τίν’ ἀρχάν (?)238 *** φθάσαντος δ’ ἐπ’ ἔργοις προπηδήσεταί νιν (?)

The fragment seems to consist of two separate verses. Yet, both seem to belong to the same lyric sequence.239 R. Kannicht240 combined this fragment with Trag. Adesp. 144 N.2 and restored as follows: ὁ ταῦρος δ’ ἔοικεν κυρίξειν·241 τίν’ ἀκτάν, τίν’ ὕλαν δράμω; ποῖ πορευθῶ;

 234 [Apollod.] 3.5.1, D. S. 3.65.4–5, Hyg. fab. 132. 235 Cf. Kern 1920, 6. 236 Dionysus is also revered in Orphic mysteries as the son of Persephone: Kouremenos/Parássoglou/Tsantsanoglou 2006, 4. For Dionysiac and Orphic eschatology, see Graf 1993, 239–258. 237 Kannicht 1957, 288 cites e.g.: Th. 104f., Eu. 788ff., and passim in Ag. 1072ff. 238 As printed by Radt 2009, 139. ἀρχάν in codd. The apparatus of the fragments of Bassarae follows Radt 2009 and Sommerstein 2008. 239 On these two verses, Radt 2009, 139 cites Wilamowitz’s remark: “zwei unzusammenhängende vermutlich respondierende Verse”, which is approved by Kannicht 1957, 285. 240 Kannicht 1957, 286–287; cf. Radt 2009, 139; West 1990, 43–44 assuming that Orpheus on stage is in danger from Dionysus as a bull and runs away. Palumbo 1966a, 409–413 was against Kannicth’s suggestion. 241 Hsch. κ 4679 Latte κυρίξειν: κέρασι μάχεσθαι. Κηρύσσω -ττω of bulls, ‘butt with the horns’ (LSJ9); cf. Pl. Gorg. 516a, Rep. 586b.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae 1 κυρίξειν Turnebus: κηρύξειν Hephaest. A: κυρίζειν Hephaest. I: κυρίζει Choerob.U: κερίζειν Choerob. K | τίν’ Ι: τιν’ Α || 1–2 ἄκραν Kannicht: ἀρχάν codd.: τίν’ ἀκτάν Kannicht coniungens adesp. fr. 144 N.2 cum hoc fr. the bull seems about to attack me! What shore, what wood can I flee to? Where can I go?

Sommerstein242 restores the metrical form of the corrupted verses, adding in the first verse Kannicht’s τίν’ ἄκραν and printing in the second verse τίν’ άκτάν,… ποῖ πορευθῶ. He thus translates ‘the bull seems about to charge me! What peak / what shore, what wood can I flee to? Where can I go?’ This seems to be the most acceptable restoration of the fragment. …… φθάσαντος δ’ ἐπ’ ἔργοις προπηδήσεταί νιν.243 φθάσαντος codd.: ἄσαντος Wecklein | νιν codd.: νῦν West: τις Blaydes. Though (Orpheus) took the lead in action, he (Dionysus) will leap forth on him

Sommerstein, following West (1990, 46), associates the second verse of fr. 23 R., printing it as fr. 23a and inc. fab. fr. 341 R. (ὁ κισσεὺς ἀπόλλων, ὁ Βακχεὺς, ὁ μάντις) and translates:244 ‘though he has got a start, the ivy-crowned destroyer, / the Bacchic god, the seer, will leap forth upon him for his crimes’. However, such an association is interesting but debatable. Nevertheless, both of these separate verses (ὁ ταῦρος … προπηδήσεταί νιν) could provide a reference to a dramatic event, embedded in a lyric narrative. It could thus be feasible that Orpheus is on stage and under the delusion sent by Dionysus thinks that an angry bull is to attack him; he tries to flee from such a hallucination245 and runs away towards the place where the maenads await to kill

 242 Sommerstein 2008, 20. 243 Προπηδάω -ῶ, ‘spring forward’; also in D.S. 17.100, Arr. Tact. 12.4, and Ach. Tat. Leuc. et Clit. 3.21.5. West 1990, 43 n. 41 aptly observed that νιν requires a participle in the next line. West 1990, n. 40 also suggested ἄκραν (= the transmitted ἀρχάν), τίν’ ἀκτάν. 244 Sommerstein 2008, 20; 2016, 35. In inc. fr. 341 R. ὁ Βακχεὺς, ὁ μάντις is emended to βακχειόμαντις by Ellis 1868. 245 Sommerstein 2016, 35 compares the way Orestes flees from the Furies at the end of A. Choephoroi. Nikolaidou-Arabatzi 2010, 67 and before her hesitantingly Di Marco 1993, 125 assumed that fr. 23 R. could refer to Lycurgus in bacchic madness and hallucination inspired by Dionysus, underestimating the evidence of Catasterisms on Orpheus.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

him.246 The chorus seems to remain on stage and expresses his anxiety (φθάσαντος δ’ ἐπ’ ἔργοις προπηδήσεταί νιν), wondering whether Dionysus will leap forth on Orpheus. This line may have been antistrophic to the first line.247 Parallel cases in Aeschylus involving characters singing in lyric metre in a state of mantic ecstasy and madness include Cassandra’s lyric exchanges with the chorus (Ag. 1072–1330), of which 1072–1073 and 1076–1077 are similarly written in bacchiac metre,248 and Io, “the cow-horned virgin”, in Pr. 877–886.249 As in Euripides’ Bacchae, the chorus of Bassarids in this fragment is distinct from those who killed the main hero, Orpheus. Προπηδήσεταί νιν, ‘he will leap forth on him’, may be a prediction of what is to happen, as expressed by the chorus: the heinous punishment of the theomachos by the maenads on the mountain. This dramatic incident of Bassarae resembles the situation of the lyric ode in E. Bacchae 977–1023, especially 1017– 1022, involving the prediction of Pentheus’ horrible end. In both cases the chorus foretells that Dionysus in his bestial form will lead his opponents to their gruesome end. Cf. Ba. 1159: ‘the bull is the leader of the disaster’. On the basis of Catasterisms, the reference to Orpheus is more likely in this case than in Edonoi: there is no certain ground to assume that Orpheus appeared in Dionysus’ entourage in Edonoi and that μουσόμαντις in fr. 60 R. refers to Orpheus.250 These scenes of illusion from Bassarae were probably refigured by Euripides in Bacchae. In the third episode of Bacchae (vv. 576–861 and especially 616–622) Pentheus, thinking that he was tying up Dionysus, roped up a bull’s legs. Thus, the god punished Pentheus’ hubris, his insult (καθύβρισ’ αὐτόν, v. 616). Similarly, Pentheus (Ba. 918–922) in a state of hallucination sees the objects double251 and thinks that Dionysus stands in front of him as a bull (καὶ ταῦρος ἡμῖν πρόσθεν ἡγεῖσθαι δοκεῖς). Illusion and hallucination are basic features of Dionysus’ impact on his opponents, Pentheus, Lycurgus, and possibly Orpheus here. The god is associated and often identified with beasts, that are uncontrollable by humans.

 246 Cf. West 1990, 44. 247 West 1990, 45 and n. 44, referring to Wilamowitz 1921, 335 n. 1 and to Kannicht 1957, 286, 291. Cf. also Palumbo 1966a; Di Marco 1993, 125. 248 Fraenkel 1962, III 488. 249 Griffith 1983, ad loc. 250 See above fr. 60 R. 251 Cf. Dodds ad loc. 1960, 193. Seaford 1997, 223 notes that mirrors, providing a double vision of objects, were used in Orphic and Dionysiac mysteries to stimulate the initiand and associates this image in Bacchae with Aristophanes’ parody at Th. 140.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae As Winnington-Ingram remarked,252 the god “symbolizes the power of blind, instinctive emotions and when Pentheus tries to attack the imaginary bull sent by Dionysus he is performing the futile task of constraining the animal Dionysus within himself”. The text provides one of the first literary representations of the god’s bullnature253 as a prominent element of Dionysiac ritual. As the theatre god and a divinity of illusion and transformation, Dionysus reveals himself in disguise, seen or imagined as an animal, and in many cases as a bull. This Aeschylean motif of the dangerous bull-shaped god was widely adopted in Bacchae: vv. 100 ταυρόκερων θεόν ‘bull-horned god’, 920–922, 1017–1018 (the god’s various bestial incarnations: a bull, a many-headed snake, or a fire-blazing lion); in 1159 the chorus sings that a bull (i.e. Dionysus) is the leader of Pentheus’ disaster; in 618 Dionysus humiliated Pentheus by making him bind a bull, thinking that he was binding the god.254 Similarly, the metaphor ταυρόφθογγοι μῖμοι in Edonoi fr. 57 R. refers to Dionysus’ devotee followers ‘bellowing like a bull’. The bull functions as a vehicle of the god’s power communicating his natural strength to his thiasos.255 Dionysus’ identification with a bull represents his power, which is uncontrollable by mortals. The double nature of Dionysus as god and animal in Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia and Euripides’ Bacchae shows that Dionysiac religion was centred on this peculiar god, at once superman and subman, a beast acting with violence and cruelty and a strange-citizen,256 a symbol of the unity of opposites and polarities.

 252 Winnington-Ingram 1969, 84. 253 For the various instances of the bull-shaped Dionysus in literary texts (Ion of Chios, Sophocles, Nonnus, AP, Plutarch, Atheneus), see Sandys 1892, 106f.; Dodds 1960, 79; Seaford 1997, 160; cf. Winnington-Ingram 1969, 29–30; Henrichs 1993, 21; for Dionysus as a bull in myth and ritual, see Jeanmaire 1951, 66, 74, 325; Fraenkel 1978, esp. 94, 99–102; Seaford 2006, 15–25, for Dionysus’ association with animals and nature. 254 Dionysus as a bull in texts: S. inc. fab. fr. 959.2–3 R. ὁ βούκερως Ἴακχος, Plut. Mor. 299 A– B: the women of the Eleans singing hymns to Dionysus, call upon him to come to their help with the foot of a bull (βοέῳ ποδί); Ath. 2,35e and 38e: Dionysus is like a bull or a leopard whose common feature is violence. On this theme, see LIMC III.1 440–441 and Fraenkel 1978, 93–105, for a discussion of texts and iconographic representations. 255 Cf. Dodds 1960, xx, pointing out that Dionysus is “the principle of animal life … the unrestrained potency which man envies in the beasts and seeks to assimilate”. 256 Cf. Rosenmeyer 1983, 376.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

... The Bassarids on the Pangaeum Fr. 23a R. (= 23b Sommerstein) The text as printed by Radt (2009) 140: Παγγαίου γὰρ ἀργυρήλατον πρῶν’†ες τὸ τῆς ἀστραπῆς† πευκᾶεν σέλας

According to Sommerstein (2008, 22): Παγγαίου γὰρ ἀργυρήλατοι πρῶνες τότ’ ἀστράψουσι πευκᾶεν σέλας 1–2 ἀργυρήλατοι πρῶνες Rabe: ἀργυρήλατον πρῶν’ες cod.: ἀργυρήλατον πρῶν’ ἀστραπῆς Smyth: ἀργυρηλάτου πρωνός τότ’ ἐξήστραπτε Croenert || 2 τότ’ ἀστράψουσι vel ἀστράπτουσι West: τότ’ ἤστραπτον Palumbo: τὸ τῆς ἀστραπῆς cod. For the silvered peaks of Pangaeum will flash like lightning with the gleam of pine-torches

ap. Sch. V Rh. 922 ed. Rabe, RhM 63 (1908) 421, 4 … Αἰσχύλος δὲ ἐν Βασσάραις ἀργύρου φησὶν ἐκεῖ (i.e. in Pangaeum) μέταλλα. The scene may refer to Dionysus’ female devotees, the Bassarids, in nocturnal revels on Mount Pangaeum.257 The description of worshippers of Dionysus dancing on the mountains, holding torches, provides a literary commonplace: E. Ion 714–720, IT 1243–1244, Ph. 226–228, S. Ant. 1126–1130, Ar. Nu. 603–606. Such a revel that took place on Mount Parnassus in honour of Dionysus was called τριετηρίς, a triennial nocturnal festival.258 In the framework of Dionysiac cult Dionysus is present whenever his devotees gather,259 and especially on the mountain; Dionysus is called ὄρειος, ὀρειμανής, ὀρέσκιος, οὐρεσιφοίτης.260 The Bassarids hold their blazing pine torches, as suggested by πευκᾶεν σέλας pointing to the light coming from their torches.261

 257 For Pangaeum as site of gold and silver mines, see, indicatively, Hdt. 7.112, Rh. 921, 970. 258 E.g. Parke/Wormell 1956, I 11ff.; on Dionysos Trietericos, see extensively Kerényi above n. 87. 259 For ‘no god is more near than he’ (Ov. Met. 3.658–659); on Dionysus’ self-revelation, cf. Henrichs 1993, 19–21. 260 For sources, see Dodds 1940, 156 and generally on the ὀρειβασία as an essential part of Dionysiac cult on Parnassus, Cithaeron etc. 261 Cf. Deichgräber 1938/1939, 268; Vysoký 1960, 52; West 1983, 70; 1990, 45. On this Aeschylean fragment 23a R., see also Ferrari 1982, 57–59. For torches in mystic cults, see Lada-Richards 1999, 106–108.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae Dionysus’ nocturnal rituals contributed to the impressiveness of torches: in Ar. Ra. 341–342 the god is called the ‘light-bearing star of nocturnal rite’. Light, such as thunderbolt, and lightning, a sign of divine power, are associated with mystic initiation262 and have significant impact on the initiands: Hdt. 4.79.1–2, E. Ph. 226–228, Pl. Rep. 621b. Ἀστραπῆς, if sound, or ἀστράψουσι could symbolize Dionysus’ as master of the Lightning.263 A similar image occurs in Ba. 146–147 (ὁ Βακχεύς) … πυρσώδη φλόγα πεύκας / ἐκ νάρθηκος ἀίσσει, ‘(the Bacchic god), holding up the blazing flame of the pine torch … rushes with the fennel rod …’,264 and A. Ag. 287–289 of the pine wood conveying light to a mountain.265 The Doric type πευκᾶεν forms a dochmiac (– – – ⏑ –),266 which suggests a lyric verse, and suits the lyric narrative of the Bassarids possibly about Orpheus’ sparagmos. For ἀργυρήλατος, ‘of wrought silver’, cf. Α. Perraivides (Perrhaebian Women) fr. 185 R. ἀργυρηλάτοις κέρασι, ‘silver drinking horns’, E. Ion 1181–1182 ἀργυρηλάτους φιάλας. Πρῶνες: πρών, -ος, ‘foreland, headland’; cf. Pi. N. 4.52, S. Tr. 788, S. Laokoōn fr. 371.2 R., E. Cyc. 116 ἔρημοι πρῶνες ἀνθρώπων. Ἀργυρήλατον πρῶνα is the bearing silver foreland. Of the corrections suggested for the corrupted part of the second verse the most plausible emendation seems to be ἀργυρήλατοι πρῶνες τότ’ ἤστραπτον or ἀστράπτουσι, ἀστράψουσι. This fragmentary text, though corrupt, points to some remarkable features of Dionysus’ mystic initiation. In Bacchae (v. 608), when god’s epiphany was accomplished, Dionysus is identified by his initiates with the greatest light;267 in Ar. Ra. 341–342, as said, he is called ‘light-bearing star of our nocturnal rite’ and in S. Ant. 1146–1153 the chorus in their hymn addressed him as ‘the dance-leader of the fire-breathing stars for whom his attendants Thyiads dance in night-long frenzy’.268 However, this quality was attacked by Pentheus (vv. 630–631): ‘(Bromius) made a light in the courtyard. And he (Pentheus) charging against it rushed  262 On mystic light cf. Seaford 1997a, 141–143. 263 Thus, Dodds 1960, xxxii. Similarly, in the papyrus text (GLP no 129, Page 1950) mentioned above Ι 1: Dionysus assails Lycurgus amid lightnings (v. 16: μετ’ ἀ[στε]ροπ[αῖ]ς). 264 Thus, Seaford 1997, 75–76. 265 … πορευτοῦ λαμπάδος … / πεύκη, τὸ χρυσοφεγγὲς ὥς τις ἥλιος / σέλας παραγγείλασα Μακίστου σκοπαῖς, ‘a pinewood conveyed the message in light of golden brilliance to the watchheights of Makistus’ (the translation follows Sommerstein 2008b, 35). Makistus is a mountain in Euboea. For the image, cf. S. Tr. 1198 πευκίνης λαβόντα λαμπάδος σέλας. 266 Thus, Palumbo 1966b, 209 and n. 22, noting that adjectives in -ηεις with a doric ᾱ are rare and occur in lyric parts. 267 ὦ φάος μέγιστον ἡμῖν εὐίου βακχεύματος, ‘O light supreme for us in the joyful worship’ (of Bacchus); cf. Dodds 1960, 152, for light applied metaphorically to a person. Seaford 2005, 604– 605 on light identified with deity and associated with mystic ritual. 268 Cf. Brown 1993, 115, 216.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

and stabbed at the shining as it slaughtering me!’.269 Interestingly, Lycurgus in S. Ant. 963–964 also tried to restrain the god-inspired maenads and the Dionysiac fire (εὔιον πῦρ), the torches brandished by maenads. This Aeschylean image seems thus to have been remarkably refigured. The image ἀστραπῆς πευκᾶεν σέλας comprises a simile of torchlight with lightning and seems to be the model in Dionysus’ epiphany and the palace-miracles in Bacchae with thunder and lightning involved: 594–595 (Dion.:) ἅπτε κεραύνιον αἴθοπα λαμπάδα,270 / σύμφλεγε σύμφλεγε δώματα Πενθέoς, ‘ignite the gleaming lightning torch, burn up, burn up the house of Pentheus’, 596–599 πῦρ … / … Σεμέλας ἱερὸν ἀμφὶ τάφον / ἅν ποτε κεραυνόβολος ἔλιπε φλόγα / Δῖος βροντά;, ‘around sacred tomb of Semele, the flame which once Zeus’ thunderbolt-hurled thunder left?’271 and 1082–1083 (Messenger:) καὶ ταῦθ’ ἅμ’ ἠγόρευε καὶ πρὸς οὐρανὸν / καὶ γαῖαν ἐστήριζε φῶς σεμνοῦ πυρός, ‘and as he was proclaiming these things, a light of holy fire towered between heaven and earth’. It is a literary commonplace that holy light accompanies gods’ epiphany and is associated with mystic and, in particular, Dionysiac initiation; cf. E. Ph. 1175 (πῦρ … Διός).272 Aeschylus, as an Eleusinian, was both associated with Dionysiacism273 and mystic cults as a whole. ... Fragments 24–25 R. Fr. 24 R. σκάρφει παλαιῷ κἀπιβωμίῳ ψόλῳ σκάρφει Radt (cf. Schwyzer 1,334): κάρφει btCVMu with old wood-chips and soot from the altar

ap. Sch. Nic. Ther. 288c (p. 132, 3 Crugnola) ἔστι … ψολόεν τὸ μέλαν, τὸ σποδοειδές, τὸ λαμπρόν. Εὐφορίων (fr. 51, 11.139 Powell) … καὶ Αἰσχύλος ἐν Βασσαρίσιν.

 269 Thus, Seaford 1997, 101 and 202 citing parallels on the light from the Acts. 270 Cf. Xantriae fr. 171 R., below. 271 Zeus’ flame is still living in Semele’s tomb: Ba. 8. 272 See Dodds 1960, 213 for further parallels, and below on Christus Patiens (Supernatural light) 2.3.17. 273 Cf., indicatively, Ar. Ra. 1259 τὸν Βακχεῖον ἄνακτα, Paus. 1.21.2 (see above 1 n. 3); LadaRichards 1999, 234–242, esp. 242, emphasizes Dionysus’ artistic distance from Euripides and his ‘closeness’ to Aeschylus which justifies the result of the agon in Aristophanes’ Frogs.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae Σκάρφος (ὁ) = κάρφος (κάρφει as given by the mss.), φρύγανον, ‘fire wood-chips’. Σκάρφος παλαιός denotes dry fire woods. Σκάρφος, σκάρφη, σκάρφι, κάρπη or κάρπι is the common name of Ἐλλέβορος (Helleborus),274 a plant used against madness (Hipp. Aph. 14.15.16). Ἐπιβώμιος, -ιον, ‘on or at the altar’; cf. πῦρ ἐπιβώμιον in E. Andr. 1024 (lyr.). Ψόλος, ‘soot, smoke’, unique in Aeschylus in this sense, is often cited by lexicographers and scholiasts; cf. Hsch. ψ 243 Hansen/ Cunningham: καπνός, αίθάλη, φλόξ, ἀσβόλη. The verse, in view of the reference to σκάρφος and ψόλος, seems to refer to a religious ceremony, probably in honour of Dionysus; cf. μαντικῶς τὸ φρύγανον τίθεσθαι Ar. Pax 1026. Fr. 25 R. εἰλλόμενον ap. Hsch. ε 907 Latte εἰλλόμενον: εἰργόμενον. Αἰσχύλος Βασσάραις. Simplicius in Arist. De Caelo 2,13, 293b 30 ed. Heiberg CAG 7, 517,13 also discusses the word: τὸ δὲ ἰλλομένην (Pl. Ti. 40b), εἴτε διὰ τοῦ ἰῶτα γράφοιτο, τὸ δεδεσμημένην δηλοῖ … εἴτε διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γράφοιτο, καὶ οὕτως εἰργομένην δηλοῖ, ὡς καὶ Αἰσχύλος έν Βασσάραις. The lemma points to a kind of impediment, also imprisonment, similar to that of Lycurgus, as attested by the rocky prison in S. Ant. 957 (πετρώδη κατάφαρκτος ἐν δεσμῷ) and the verb ἔδησαν, ‘bound’, in [Apollod.] 3.5.1. TrGF adesp. fr. 291 (= Dubia iii Diggle), assigned to the lost part of Bacchae and attested in Lucian Pisc. 2.18 ἄριστον ἦν καθάπερ τινὰ Πενθέα ἢ Ὀρφέα «λακιστὸν ἐν πέτραισιν εὑρέσθαι μόρον»,275 seems to be related to the myth of Aeschylus’ Bassarae.

.. Neaniskoi Very little is known of the third play of Lycurgeia, entitled Neaniskoi, ‘the Young Men’. As G. Murray observed,276 “the word is specially used of the initiates who have passed through the ordeals that transform a human being from Boy to Men”, and he suspects that the Neaniskoi were the Edonians converted. The question arises to whom they were converted. The answer would plausibly be: to Dionysus and Apollo. Since Dionysus was an established deity in  274 See Gennadios 1959, Α 279. 275 λακιστὸς μόρος, ‘death by rending’; λακίζω, ‘tear, rend’. 276 1940, 155.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

Thrace and Orpheus was equally honoured in Aeschylus’ era, a reconciliation between Dionysus and Apollo and their followers has been suggested277 and their cults were established in Thrace. Furthermore, Apollo suits to be honoured by the Young Men of the play.278 Moreover, a reconciliation is probable for it is worth noticing that both Apollo and Dionysus were honoured at Delphi.279 The Apolline prophet Teiresias addressing Bacchants predicts Dionysus’ acceptance in Delphi (Ba. 306–309) where the foreign god was Hellenized. The chorus commends the convergence of Dionysiac and Apolline worship (Ba. 328–329) and in S. Ant. 1126–1130 the Bacchanal Corycian nymphs are said to move in the area of the Castalian stream.280 The Dionysiac cult was by the agency of Delphi incorporated into the state cult without its old savagery.281 Furthermore, reconciliation seems to be a favourite motif of Aeschylus in the last tragedy of his trilogies, as suggested by Eumenides. Interestingly, the word ἀφοίβατον in Neaniskoi fr. 148 R., explained as ἀκάθαρτον in Hsch. α 8713 Cunningham, occurs also in A. Eu. 237282 with reference to Apollo. In addition, an interesting reconciliation between Dionysus and Lycurgus and coincidence in their ritual (ὁμοιοτροπίαν τῶν ἱερῶν) is attested by Strabo (10.3.16 p. 471C, after the main quotation from Edonoi fr. 57 R.): καὶ τὸν Διόνυσον δὲ καὶ τὸν Ἠδωνὸν Λυκοῦργον συναγαγόντες εἰς ἓν τὴν ὁμοιοτροπίαν τῶν ἱερῶν αἰνίττονται, ‘when they identify Dionysus and the Edonian Lycurgus, they hint at the homogeneity of their sacred rites’.283 Similarly, Diodorus Siculus 3.65.4 refers to a pact of friendship of Dionysus with Lycurgus (συνθέσθαι φιλίαν πρὸς Λυκοῦργον).284 In Rh. 972  277 Cf. Vysoký 1960, 45–57, 199–221; West 1983, 70; 1990, 46–47; Di Marco 1993, 151; Seaford 2005, 605–606; Sommerstein 2008, 153; 2016, 35 and n. 22. 278 Cf. West 1990, 47. 279 Dionysus’ status in Delphi: Plut. Mor. 388 E τὸν Διόνυσον, ᾧ τῶν Δελφῶν οὐδὲν ἧττον ἢ τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι μέτεστιν. For Apollo and Dionysus in Delphi, Dodds 1960, 91, 108, 110; Guidorizzi 2020, 181. For Dionysus in Delphi, see extensively Kerényi 1976, 204–261. 280 The theme of the osmosis of Apolline and Dionysiac cults with Bacchic revels taking place at Delphi, on Mount Parnassus, recurs in fifth-century dramatic poetry, and particularly in Euripides: Ion 714–718, Ph. 226, IT 1243; also in Ar. Nub. 603–606 with Dover’s note 1970, 176. On Dionysus residing at Delphi during the winter months, A. Eu. 24–26. For Dionysus’ Hellenization and the propagation of his cult at Thebes and Delphi, see extensively Farnell 20102 v.v. 281 Thus, Nilsson 1935, 203. 282 οὐ προστρόπαιον οὐδ’ ἀφοίβαντον χέρα, ‘not a suppliant for purification nor one with unclean hands’, translates Sommerstein 2008b, 387. Orestes’ hands were not unclean, for he was no longer under pollution (A. Eu. 280–283). 283 On the identification of Lycurgus with Dionysus, more extensively Burkert 1983, 176–178. 284 See above 1.1.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae Βάκχου προφήτην285 points either to Orpheus286 or, more likely, to Lycurgus, in view of Strabo’s direct reference to Edonoi and S. Ant. 960–961:287 ‘he (Lycurgus) came to know the god whom he had assailed in his madness …’ Moreover, it is also attested that Dionysus had an oracle in the mountains of Thrace controlled by the Satrai, the neighbours of Edonians (Hdt. 7.111.2).288 Thus, Lycurgus’ confinement in a rocky prison (S. Ant. 957) probably signified that he became Dionysus’ servant serving the oracle, which Dionysus is said to have possessed in the Thracian mountains.289 In addition, Nonnus D. 21.155–160290 mentions Lycurgus’ divine status. After a long enslavement and his imprisonment in a rocky prison291 the insolent and impious king may have become Bacchus’ prophet. Neaniskoi thus contribute to the thematic cohesion of the tragic trilogy. The presence or, at least, references to Lycurgus emerge from the three plays of the trilogy bearing his name: in Edonoi Lycurgus is Dionysus’ powerful opponent; in Bassarae he faces the vindictive reaction of the god and Orpheus’ sparagmos, as attested in Catasterisms, seems to have functioned as a parallel dramatic situation, most likely a warning for Lycurgus’ punishment; finally, in Neaniskoi Lycurgus is Dionysus’ friend and possibly his prophet. Such a focus on the central hero of the trilogy is based on the preserved evidence and corresponds to Aeschylus’ dramatic technique in Oresteia. Therefore, the Lycurgeia trilogy seems to coincide with Oresteia in dramatizing a sequence of events from revenge to reconciliation. If, as it has been probably

 285 κρυπτὸς δ’ ἐν ἄντροις τῆς ὑπαργύρου χθονὸς / ἀνθρωποδαίμων κείσεται βλέπων φάος, / Βάκχου προφήτης ὥστε Παγγαίου πέτραν ᾤκησε, / σεμνὸς τοῖσιν είδόσιν θεός, ‘But he shall lie hidden in the caves of the silver-rich land as a man-god, looking on the light, a prophet of Bacchus, who came to dwell in the cliff of Pangaeum …’ (the translation basically follows Kovacs 2002). In Rhesus and in the Aeschylean version as narrated by [Apollod.] 3.5.1 Lycurgus was bound on the Mount Pangaeum. Similarly, in S. Ant. 956 he was enclosed by Dionysus in a rocky prison. 286 Murray 1913 in app. crit. ad loc. 287 Thus, first Musgrave followed by Hermann 19702, V 23–24 and later by West 1990, 32 and Di Marco 1993, 115–116. On the other hand, Diggle 1987, 167–172 suggested Rhesus himself, advocating a reading ὅς γε in Rh. loc. cit. Diggle’s suggestion is followed by Liapis 2012 and Fries 2014. 288 Cf. West 1983, 64. 289 Cf. also Sourvinou-Inwood 1989, 148. The evidence in S. Antigone and Strabo, loc. cit., seem important for Lycurgus’ purification and his reconciliation with Dionysus; cf. Di Marco 1993, 115– 116. 290 Hera saved Lycurgus and placed him among the immortals, ὅπως ἐναρίθμιος εἴη ἀθανάτοις. 291 As in S. Ant. 957 and [Apollod.] 3.5.1. It is not certain that Lycurgus’ death, attested by [Apollod.] loc. cit. was included in Lycurgeia.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

suggested, a late date of Lycurgeia is likely,292 Aeschylus’ last trilogies seem to have represented a mild and morally accepted end. What seems to be probable is that Neaniskoi composed the chorus of the play.293 The Edonians, Dionysus’ initiates forming the chorus of Edonoi and vividly described in fr. 57 R.,294 seem to give the title of the first play of Lycurgeia. Similarly, the chorus of young men in Neaniskoi,295 giving the name to the third play of the trilogy, would point to an interesting deviation from other male choruses, usually consisting of old men, as in Persae and Agamemnon, as well as in Sophocles’ Antigone and Oedipus Tyrannus. Nevertheless, similar titles are not wholly absent from tragedies and comedies, such as Thespis’ Eitheoi296 and Antiphanes’ Neaniskoi PCG II frr. 164–165. A vase-painting has been suggested to refer to Neaniskoi:297 six youths are dancing in pairs stretching their arms towards an altar (a thymele) in the orchestra where an actor is seated as a suppliant, as Orestes in Eumenides. Six small fragments are attributed to this play. ... Fragments 146–148 R. Fr. 146 R. αὔρας ὑποσκίοισιν ἐν ψυκτηρίοις αὔρας Valckenaer: σαύρας codd. | ὑποσκίοισιν C E: ὑπηκόοισιν Α: ὑπηνέμοισιν Nauck2 | ψυκτηρίοις C E: -οισι Α breezes in cool shaded spots

ap. Ath. 11, 503 C (3, 112, 4 Kaibel). Νίκανδρος … καλεῖσθαί φησι ψυκτήρια καὶ τοὺς ἀλσώδεις καὶ συσκίους τόπους τοὺς τοῖς θεοῖς ἀνειμένους, ἐν οἷς ἔστιν ἀναψῦξαι. Αἰσχύλος Νεανίσκοις; cf. also Hsch. ψ 265 Hansen/Cunningham ψυκτήρια[ι]· οἱ ἀλσώδεις καὶ σύ[ν]σκιοι τόποι. Ψυκτήρια is thus ‘cool, shady places’ for recreation (LSJ9): Hes. Fr. 301 M./W. ἔνθα ποτ’ ἔσται ἐμὸν ψυκτήριον. Αὔρα means  292 See above 1.1.1.4. 293 The chorus is also suggested by the plural form of the title: Xanthakis-Karamanos 1980, 11, 12–13, esp. 123. 294 Also referring to a male chorus. 295 This was first suggested by Hermann 19702, V 22. 296 For ἠίθεοι, ‘unmarried youths’, cf. Hdt. 3.48 χοροὺς παρθένων τε καὶ ἠιθέων, Pl. Lg. 840d ἠίθεοι καὶ ἀκήρατοι γάμων (cf. 877e). 297 Column-krater Basel BS 415, Hammond/Moon 1978, 379–380, fig. 10; but see App. II.6, fig. 6.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae ‘breeze, fresh air’; cf. E. Cyc. 44. It is more gentle than an ἄνεμος. A gentle breeze is a τόπος of the locus amoenus.298 The fresh air prevailing (αὔρας ὑποσκίοισιν) in cool, shady places suggests a picturesque place, a grove probably on Mount Pangaeum dedicated to Dionysus, or to Lycurgus as a prophet of Dionysus. The whole image recalls E. Phaethon 782.1 Kn. ap. Ath. 11, 503C ψυκτήρια / δένδρη φίλαισιν ὠλέναισι δέξεται, ‘cooling trees will receive (Phaethon) with loving arms’, probably referring to the hero’s burial place.299 Ὑπόσκιος -ον, ‘overshadowed, shaded’, occurs in tragedy only in Aeschylus: Supp. 656 (lyr.) ὑποσκίων ἐκ στομάτων, said of suppliants shaded by their olive-branches, and in Prometheus Lyomenos fr. 199.8 R. νιφάδι … ὑπόσκιον θήσει χθόνα. Cf. Men. Pk. 797 Sand. τόπον ὑπόσκιον, Plut. Alex. 7 ὑποσκίους περιπάτους and mainly in prose-writers. Ὑποσκίοισιν rather than ὑπηκόοισιν and ὑπηνέμοισιν corresponds to the context (σύσκιοι τόποι) of the two main sources (Athenaeus and Hesychius) of this fragment. Fr. 146a R. πρὸς δ’ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀμφιλαφῆ πήματ’ ἔχων ἀθανάτων and having, in addition to that, abundant suffering from the immortals

ap. Phot. Lex. α 1346 Theodoridis. Ἀμφιλαφής, probably connected with εἴ-ληφα, means ‘taking in on all sides, wide spreading, enormous’ (LSJ9), of large trees (Hdt. 4.172.1, Pl. Phdr. 230b). Also connected with divine intervention it occurs in A. Ag. 1015–1016 πολλά τοι δόσις ἐκ θεῶν ἀμφιλα-/φής, ‘the gifts of Zeus are surely great, coming abundantly …’ and Ch. 330–331 γόος ἔνδικος ματεύει / ποινὰν ἀμφιλαφῶς ταραχθείς, ‘and lamentation … when it is stirred up in full abundance, tracks down vengeance’ translates Sommerstein ad loc. Ἀμφιλαφῆ πήματ’ ἀθανάτων seems thus to denote the severe punishment sent by the gods, probably to Lycurgus, as ἔχων is likely to refer to Lycurgus’ punishment for persecuting Dionysus. The term ἀμφιλαφής (cf. ἀμφίσημος) may denote the punishment, which leads to ‘learning through suffering’ (πάθει -μάθος), the typical Aeschylean concept: Ag. 176–178 ‘Zeus who set mortals on the road to understanding, who

 298 Seaford 1984, 110 with textual parallels. 299 Diggle 1970, 179; Collard/Cropp 2008, 365. On this issue and its eschatological dimension, see Zuntz 1971, 370ff.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

made “learning by suffering” into an effective law.’300 Such a notion seems to correspond to Lycurgus’ acceptance of Dionysus’ cult and his reconciliation with the god in Neaniskoi. The metrical form (choriambic) of the verse most likely comes from a choral lyric. Fr. 146b R. καὶ καρτερὸς γὰρ καὶ υ – ἀρείφατος καρτερὸς γὰρ Α: καρτερικὸς Β | καὶ υ – ἀρ. Radt praeeunte Kassel: καὶ πολεμικὸς ἀρ. codd.: – ⏑ – κἀρείφατος Theodoridis 1975, 181 ἐν μάχῃ (-αις) supplendum esse coniciens; καὶ τὸ λῆμ’ ἀρείφατος Kassel (cf. fr. 147 et Hsch. α 7117 Cunningham) for he was both strong and warlike

ap.Et. Gen. A, ed. Theodoridis 1975, 181. Ἀρείφατος is etymologically associated with Ἄρης and ἀρειμάνιος. In Et. Gen. α 1151 Lasserre/Livadaras we read:301 ἀρειμάνιος· σημαίνει δὲ τὸν πολεμικόν. ὥσπερ γὰρ παρὰ τὴν Ἄρει δοτικὴν γίνεται ἀρείφατος· … ἔχομεν δὲ τὴν χρῆσιν παρ’ Αἰσχύλῳ, οἷον ἐν Νεανίσκοις· καὶ καρτερικὸς (καὶ καρτερὸς γὰρ) καὶ πολεμικὸς (fr. 146b) ἀρείφατος. Τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ παρὰ τὴν Ἄρει δοτικὴν γέγονε ἀρεμάνιος διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου. Οὕτως ὁ Χοιροβοσκός. Ἀρείφατος is an epic epithet; on the other hand, ἀρειμάνιος is a later compound (Plut. Mor. 268 B πολεμικὸς καὶ ἀρειμάνιος, 321 F ἀρειμάνιος δυνάστης). Καρτερὸς emphasizes the meaning of ἀρείφατος, ‘the Martial power’. Fr. 147 R. ἀρείφατον λῆμα ap. Hsch. α 7117 Cunningham. It is explained ἀρείφατον λῆμα· ἰσχυρόν, ἀντὶ Ἄρει ἐοικός. Αἰσχύλος Νεανίσκοις. Ἀρείφατος, as said, is connected with Ares, ‘Martial, slain by Ares, in war’. Ἀρείφατος, a Homeric epithet (Il. 19.31, φῶτας ἀρηϊφάτους, Od. 11.41, ἄνδρες ἀρηΐφατοι), when used in tragedy, it gives an epic tone: A. Eu. 913–914, ἀρειφάτων … / πρεπτῶν ἀγώνων, ‘battle’s glorious

 300 The translation of the verses of A. Agamemnon follows Sommerstein 2008b, 21, 118 ad loc. 301 Cf. also Theodoridis 1975, 180; Radt 2009, 260–261.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae contests’ (Lloyd-Jones 1970 ad loc.) and E. Supp. 603,302 ἀρείφατοι φόνοι, ‘death in war’; cf. also Rh. 124 κόπων ἀρειφάτων. Λῆμα in bad sense means insolence, arrogance (LSJ9). Thus, ἀρείφατον λῆμα may imply Dionysus’ powerful will to impose his worship in Thrace, punishing Lycurgus. Fr. 148 R. ἀφοίβατον ap. Hsch. α 8713 Cunningham: ἀκάθαρτον (ἀνακάθαρτον cod.) Αίσχύλος Νεανίσκοις. Ἀφοίβατος -ον or ἀφοίβαντος -ον, ‘uncleansed, unclean’, is an Aeschylean epithet occurring also in A. Eu. 237: Orestes addressing Athena «… οὐδ’ ἀφοίβαντον χέρα», in reference to his purification from blood-guilt and pollution. Ἀφοίβατον and ψυκτήρια in fr. 146 R. involve religious connotations.303 It is worth noting that a fragment (inc. fab. fr. 355 R.) in aeolic metre from an unknown play, attributed to Aeschylus by Plutarch (Mor. 389 A–B) and belonging to a choral song, was ascribed to Neaniskoi:304 μειξοβόαν πρέπει διθύραμβον ὁμαρτεῖν σύγκωμον Διονύσῳ it is proper that the dithyramb, song mingled with shout, should attend upon Dionysus as his fellow-reveller305

The epithet σύγκωμος conveys the tight communion of Dionysus with his thiasos.306

 302 See Collard 1975, 267. 303 Cf. Di Marco 1993, 151 with textual references to Orphism. 304 By Hermann 19702, V 25, who supported the reading σύγκοινον, given by some manuscripts, for Tyrwhitt’s correction σύγκωμον. On the other hand, an ascription to Edonoi was suggested by Hartung 1855, 48: see Radt 2009, 421. In view of the content of this fragment referring to Dionysiac ritual, both suggestions seem to be plausible. 305 The translation follows Sommerstein 2008, 313. 306 See above on συνεβάκχευε in Edonoi fr. 58 R.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

.. Lycurgus Satyricus Lycurgus is reported to be the satyr-play of Lycurgeia in the Scholia to Aristophanes’ Th. 135. The confrontation between Lycurgus and Dionysus thus received satyric colouring involving Lycurgus and the satyrs.307 Regarding the action of the play [Apollodorus] 3.5.1 attests that the Bacchanals were taken prisoners together with the multitude of satyrs who followed Dionysus; but afterwards the Bacchanals were suddenly released. The satyrs seem thus to have joined the Bacchants in their captivity by Lycurgus, in an early stage of the action of Lycurgeia,308 but were not released with the Bacchants. It is also known that the subject of satyr-plays is connected with that of the trilogy and often focuses on an early stage of its plot. The Sphinx in the “Theban” tetralogy of 467 (comprising Laius, Oedipus, and The Seven), dealing with the defeat of the Sphinx by Oedipus, as well as Proteus309 in Oresteia provide eloquent parallels.310 The captivity of Dionysus’ followers most probably forms the kernel of the play. A chorus of satyrs in captivity is a common and pivotal theme in satyr drama: E. Cyclops provides a most typical instance of the enslavement of satyrs (Cyc. 24, 31, 34, 78–79). The theme of satyrs’ captivity and liberation is distinctive in many plays in which the villain character is defeated at the end. In the lost satyr-plays of Euripides, Busiris, Eurystheus, Theristae, Skiron, and Syleus, the enslaved Satyrs hold a remarkable position in the action: the word slave/servant (δοῦλος, διάκονος) occurring in fragments of these plays (Busiris fr. 313, Eurystheus fr. 375 Kn.), as in E. Cyclops, confirms that captivity and servitude form pivotal themes.311 Likewise, in the fragmentary satyr-plays of Aeschylus and

 307 This is indicated in fr. 125 R. below. 308 On this issue, Séchan 1926, 78 with reference to earlier suggestions and more recently West 1983, 70; 1990, 47; Di Marco 1993, 114–115. 309 Proteus that concluded Oresteia may have presented Menelaus’ adventures in Egypt narrated in Hom. Od. 4.351–586. See e.g. Fraenkel 1962 at Ag. 843; Hourmouziades 1984, 30–32; Sommerstein 2008, 220–221; Radt 2009, 331. 310 On this issue, cf., indicatively, Hourmouziades 1984, 36, 166. This element probably escaped the attention of Sommerstein 2008, 127, who argued that the plot of this satyr-play is inconsistent with the tragic part of the production. 311 On the captivity, servitude, and liberation of the satyrs, see Seaford 1984, 33–36 and Lämmle 2013, 436 with rich relevant bibliography. On these lost satyr-plays of Euripides, see Pechstein 1998, 123–140, 145–176, 284–286, 218–242, 243–283; van Looy 2000, 37–45, 133–141, 143–144; 2002, 39–46, 75–90; Collard/Cropp 2008, 403–411, 413, 148–157, 169–183; Hourmouziades 1984, 78–84 (especially on the enslavement of satyrs), 130–131, 147.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae Sophocles312 the captivity and servitude motif seems also to motivate the action. For instance, in A. Theoroi or Isthmiastae the satyrs are attempting to escape from Dionysus’ service to follow the art (τέχνη) of athletics (fr. 78c.92 R.);313 in Circe Odysseus’ companions were Circe’s servants. In Sophocles’ Heracles the satyrs are called ‘Helots’314 and are collecting woods (fr. 225 R.); in his Inachus they are herdsmen and in Pandora are hammerers (fr. 482, 483 R.).315 Fr. 329 R. of S. Cedalion seems also to imply a servitude theme.316 The setting of Lycurgus Satyricus was most probably in Thrace and the dramatis personae are Lycurgus, Silenus, and Satyrs, who are likely to be Lycurgus’ servants.317 However, the mythical background of the plot cannot be safely restored. In Nonnus’ Dionysiaca 20.149–181 the ferocity of Lycurgus towards his innocent victims is vividly narrated. On the basis of 20.226–227 and 248–250 it has been suggested318 that in Aeschylus’ satyr-play Lycurgus, presented as an inhuman tyrant, tried to “domesticate” the satyrs, cut their equine tails and make them sing at the feasts in honour of himself and Ares. Typical satyric motifs, which recur in later satyr-plays, seem to be handled in Aeschylus’ Lycurgus Satyricus: the bondage and liberation motif, the type of a notorious villain, such as Lycurgus, oppressing the satyrs, and the final defeat of the villain character.319 A Lucurgus-play was written by the Middle Comedy poet Anaxandrides (PCG F 28). The few preserved fragments of Aeschylus’ satyr-play (frr. 124–126 R.) are suggestive of typical satyric themes, such as the captivity and the drunkness of satyrs.

 312 A more extensive discussion of fifth-century satyr-plays in Krumeich/Pechstein/Seidensticker 1999. Especially on Lycurgus, ibid. 164–168. 313 See further Lämmle 2013, 307–312; Krumeich/Pechstein/Seidensticker 1999, 131. 314 Seaford 1984, 34 and n. 88, 35; Hourmouziades 1984, 80 and n. 24. 315 Krumeich/Pechstein/Seidensticker 1999, 337, 342, 378. Cf. also Seaford 1984, 35. 316 Krumeich/Pechstein/Seidensticker 1999, 348. 317 Cf. Krumeich/Pechstein/Seidensticker 1999, 168. 318 Germar/Krumeich 1999, 166; Sommerstein 2008, 127. The relation to Nonnus was earlier suggested by Hermann 19702, V 28. 319 For such common generic stereotypes of satyric drama, see Xanthakis-Karamanos 2004, 321–322 and the bibliographical references in the relevant notes.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

... Fragments 124–126 R. Fr. 124 R. κἀκ τῶνδ’ ἔπινε βρῦτον ἰσχναίνων χρόνῳ κἀσεμνοκόμπει τοῦτ’ ἐν ἀνδρείᾳ στέγῃ 1 τῶνδ’ ἔπινε codd.: τῶνδε πῖνε Mette: τῶνδε πίνεις Hartung: τῶνδ’ ἔπινες ed. pr. Bothe2 (48) | ἰσχναίνων codd.: ἰσχναῖνον Hartung: ἰσχνανθὲν Blaydes, prob. Smyth, alii alia | ‘χρόνῳ vitiosum’ Nauck2: χρόα Herwerden || 2 κἀσεμνοκόμπει Dindorf 1832, 991, duce Lobeck, prob. Hermann 19702,V 28: καὶ σεμνοκόπτει Α et ed. pr. κἀσεμνοκόπτει Deichgräber 1938/1939, 273: κἀσεμνόκοπτεν Butler: καὶ σεμνοκομπεῖς Bothe2, Hartung, alii alia | ἐν ἀνδρείᾳ στέγῃ Α: ἐν άνδρείᾳ τιθείς Herwerden, prob. Radt; ἐν ἀντραίᾳ στέγῃ Steffen 1975, 7, alii alia. And he would allow time for these to dry, and then drink beer out of them, and make a proud boast of this in his room

ap. Ath. 10, 447 B (2, 472, 9 Kaibel) τὸν δὲ κρίθινον οἶνον καὶ βρῦτόν τινες καλοῦσιν, ὡς Σοφοκλῆς ἐν Τριπτολέμῳ (fr. 610 R.) βρῦτον δὲ τὸν χερσαῖον … καὶ Ἀρχίλοχος (fr. 42 West) … μνημονεύει τοῦ πώματος Αἰσχύλος ἐν Λυκούργῳ ‘κἀκ – στέγῃ’. This explicitly contemptuous reference with its scornful style probably suggests Lycurgus, the hero of this satyr-play. Lycurgus’ everyday activities seem to be scornfully described in particular by means of the direct address to him πίνε or πίνεις and σεμνοκόμπει. On the other hand, the reading ἔπινε points to a later ironic comment on Lycurgus’ preference for βρῦτος, probably delivered by the satyrs after their liberation. Βρῦτος, ‘fermented liquor made from barley, beer’, already occurs in Archil. Fr. 42 W., Hecat. 154 J. and Hellanic. 66 J. Ἐν ἀνδρείᾳ, probably a metaphorical usage of ἀνδρών, ‘men’s apartment in a house’. Ἐν ἀνδρείᾳ στέγῃ is unique in such a use. Ἰσχναίνω, ‘make dry, wither / reduce’ (LSJ9). Herwerden’s χρόα for χρόνῳ seems to suggest the pale colour in Lycurgus’ face because of his drinking beer instead of wine.320 Σεμνοκομπέω, ‘to vaunt, to boast highly’, provides another hapax legomenon in A. Lycurgeia. A possibly contemptuous sense arises from these verses: “drink your beer with your pale face and boast for it.”321 Deichgräber322 assumed Lycurgus’ conversion from beer to wine, the purely Dionysiac drink. As Lycurgus, Polyphemus in E. Cyclops, in contrast to Homer, is introduced to wine for the first time and is also subjected to a mock initiation into  320 Cf. Hourmouziades 1984, 184 n. 70. 321 Hourmouziades loc. cit. 322 1938/1939, 274–275.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae the Dionysiac mysteries (Cyc. 213ff., esp. 520ff.), like Pentheus in Bacchae.323 Beerdrinking was thought to be less manly than wine; cf. A. Supp. 952–953 ἀλλ’ ἄρσενάς τοι τῆσδε γῆς οἰκήτορας / εὑρήσετ’, οὐ πίνοντας ἐκ κριθῶν μέθυ, ‘I tell you, you’ll find that the inhabitants of this land are masculine – they don’t drink barleycorn brew’.324 The opposition between beer and wine, the symbol of Dionysiac irresistible power, which is ultimately preferred over beer by the dramatic characters, suits the ambience of a Dionysiac satyr-play. Moreover, a possible comic competition between beer and wine could counterbalance the fight between Lycurgus and Dionysus respectively. Lycurgus’ conversion to wine complies with his reconciliation with the god and his followers in Neaniskoi. The core action of the satyr-play in Lycurgeia may thus correspond to that of Neaniskoi. The supremacy of wine, Dionysus’ symbol, thus seems to offer an appropriate “Dionysiac” end to this satyr-play. Notably, this Aeschylean motif may have been reiterated by Sophocles in Dionysiscus Satyricus fr. 172 R.: the satyrs are delighted to have wine, the invention of infant Dionysus.325 Fr. 125 R. Καὶ τούσδε κημοὺς στόματος ‹ – × – ⏑ – ?› and these muzzles of the mouth

ap. Sch. VΘ Ar. Eq. 1150a (II) (I 2, 245, 6 Mervyn Jones-Wilson): Αἰσχύλος ἐν Λυκούργῳ ἀλληγορικῶς τοὺς δεσμοὺς κημούς εἴρηκε διὰ τούτων. The verse seems to point to the satyrs’ captivity. Κημὸς means ‘muzzle’, put on a led horse to prevent it from biting:326 X. Eq. 5.3, AP 6.246. Aeschylus uses the word in its metaphorical meaning for δεσμός, as attested in the Scholia above. In this strain of thought the reference to κημούς στόματος seems to suggest Lycurgus’ attempt to

 323 Cf. Seaford 1984, 54, 58, 152. 324 Cf. Deichgräber 1938/1939, 274; Sommerstein 2008, 129. The translation follows Sommerstein 2008a, 413. On A. Sup. 952–953, see also the commentaries by Sommerstein 2019 and Miralles/Citti/Lomiento 2019. 325 For this satyr-play on the infant Dionysus, extensively Scheurer/Bielfeldt 1999, 250–258. 326 On the meaning of κημός based on lexicographers, see Hourmouziades 1984, 184.

Lycurgeia. Lycurgus’ myth and the dramatic action of Lycurgeia  

intimidate the satyrs forcing them to remain silent, unable to speak after Dionysus’ arrest.327 Lycurgus’ intimidation of the satyrs is fully attested in Nonnus’ Dionysiaca (20.226–227, 248–250): he proclaims that he will cut off the long stretching tail (δολιχόσκιον οὐρήν) of the satyrs and make a hairy whip to beat horses; he will force the satyrs to sing their κῶμος for him and Ares and not for Dionysus. Lycurgus used to drag innocent strangers to death and cut off with steel their hands, which he hung over his gateway (150–153) to decorate his inhospitable gates (167–170, 311). He laughed scornfully and threatened Dionysus and his satyrs with this horrible kind of death (311–324). All these “activities” of the cruel king of the Edonians are extensively described in Dionysiaca Book 20.328 Fr. 126 R. ἄκουε δ’ ἄν’ οὗς ἔχων ἄκουε codd.: -εν de Marco, per errorem, ut vid. (Radt) : ἄκου’ ἄν’ Bothe1, Butler: Ἄκουε δὲ Dindorf1–3 listen carefully

ap. Sch. LRM S. OC 674 (35, 23 de Marco)329: ἄκουε – ἔχων, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἄνω τὸ οὗς ἔχων; cf. Sud. α 2574 Adler. The reference may also be to Lycurgus threatening Silenus330 (thus the singular ἄκουε). The scene seems thus to be related to that in fr. 125 involving Lycurgus’ intimidation of the satyrs. For ἄνω τὸ οὗς ἔχω, used of horses (here of satyrs), cf. S. El. 27 ὀρθὸν οὗς ἵστησιν. For the concept, cf. also Theognidea 887 (West) μηδὲ λίην κήρυκος ἄν οὗς ἔχε μακρὰ βοῶντος.

 327 Notably in E. Cyc. 25–26, 63–81, the satyrs complain that their captivity prevents them from glorifying Dionysus with Bacchic revels and songs of joy. 328 The summary of this book informs that it “deals with the pole-axe of blood-thirsty Lycurgus, when Dionysus is chased into the fishy deep”: Rouse 1962, ix. Hermann 19702, V 28–29 saw in this fragment an echo of Lycurgus’ cruelties as described in Nonnus’ work. See also Sommerstein 2008, 129. On Aeschylus and Nonnus, see earlier Levi 1908, 230ff.; 1909, 241–242. 329 Thus, Radt 2009, 236. It should be noted that significant improvements in the textual assessment of Sophoclean scholia have been recently proposed in Xenis 2018. 330 Thus, Deichgräber 1938/1939, 273.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae

. The “Theban” Tetralogy .. Bacchae The play is included in the medieval list of plays. It may be an alternative title for Pentheus.331 The unique fragment 22 R. is of gnomic character and runs as follows (in my translation): το τοι κακὸν ποδῶκες ἔρχεται βροτοῖς καὶ τἀμπλάκημα τῷ περῶντι τὴν θέμιν 1 το τοι Stob. (τῷ cod. F): τοι om. Theophil. || 2 καὶ τἀμπλάκημα τῷ Stob.: καὶ τὰ ἀμβλακήματα Theophil.: κεῖτ’ ἀμπλάκημα τῷ Grotius: κατ’ ἀμπλάκημα τῷ Hermann, alii alia evil, certainly, comes quickly upon mortals and the offence comes to him who breaks the limits of justice

ap. Stob. 1.3.26–27 and Theophilus ad Autolycum 2,37 (p. 178 Otto = p. 94 Grant), without naming the play. The reference is to the punishment of any impious and unjust mortal and, more likely here, any persecutor of Dionysus. For θέμις in the sense of justice, cf. S. Tr. 810 and Pl. Symp. 188 d.

.. Xantriae The action of Xantriae, ‘the Wool-Carders’,332 seems to have ended at the time of the beginning of Euripides’ Bacchae with Theban women climbing on the mount Cithaeron.333 The title Wool Carders appears to suggest the chorus of the play,

 331 On a possibly erroneous inclusion of Bacchae in the “Theban” tetralogy or as an alternative title for A. Pentheus, see above 1 and n. 20. For an explanation of this complicated matter, see also Sommerstein 2010a, 15–16. 332 Cf. ξάσμα, ‘carded wool’, in S. inc. fab. fr. 1073 R., ap. Pol. 7, 30 (2, 60, 5 Bethe). 333 Sch. Eu. 26 νῦν φησιν ἐν Παρνασσῷ εἶναι τὰ κατὰ Πενθέα, ἐν δὲ ταῖς Ξαντρίαις ἐν Κιθαιρῶνι (= Xantriae fr. 172b R.). The reference to Parnassus is clearly wrong, not based on the text: Sommerstein 1989, 84. Scholars, mentioned by Gantz 2007, 61 n. 78 and Radt 2009, 280, thought that the chorus figuratively carded Pentheus in tearing him apart. Pentheus’ story in E. Bacchae seems to be modelled on both Xantriae and Pentheus of Aeschylus (Ar. Byz. Hypothesis to E. Ba.). Yet, a safe conclusion as to the exact action of Xantriae and Pentheus has not been reached so far; cf. Gantz 2007, 62.

The “Theban” Tetralogy  

which consisted of Theban women working wool before their conversion to Dionysus and their ascent on Cithaeron to tear Pentheus to pieces, a theme treated in Aeschylus’ Pentheus on the basis of Aristophanes of Byzantium.334 Notably, the scene of maenads working wool is refigured in the parodos of Bacchae (117–119): the god leads his female thiasos, stung to frenzy, to the mountain far from their looms and shuttles. In v. 514, in the interrogation-scene, Pentheus threatens the Stranger that his followers will become household slaves at the looms (ἐφ’ ἱστοῖς).335 In the exodos (1236) Agave, possessed by the god and in her address to Cadmus, is proud to have left behind the shuttles by the looms and to have hunt wild animals. It has been suggested that Pentheus’ death formed the tragic climax of the play.336 Pentheus’ sparagmos, however, appears to be dramatized in Pentheus, and not in Xantriae, on the basis of Aristophanes’ of Byzantium Hypothesis to Bacchae.337 Therefore, if Xantriae means ‘wool-carders’, the chorus seem to have carded wool,338 engaged in this common womanly activity, presumably at the opening of the play.339 The sparagmos of Pentheus may have been predicted in Xantriae, and its location may have been Mount Cithaeron, in view of its relation with E. Bacchae. It has also been suggested340 that Xantriae dealt with another Dionysiac story, that of the daughters of Minyas, namely of Leucippe, Arsippe, and Alcithoe. Dionysus sent Lyssa to punish them, since they resisted his cult for their womanly activity. They were thus driven mad and tore apart the son of Leucippe. Ultimately, they were transformed into birds. Ovid cites a version of this story (Met. 4 1–42, 389–415). However, the identification of the sparagmos in Xantriae 169 R.

 334 See on A. Pentheus below. 335 Working wool at the looms was opposed to Maenadism. 336 Sommerstein 2008, 171, 2016, 30 suggesting that Pentheus and Xantriae were alternative names for one and the same play, which treated Pentheus’ terrible death. However, both plays are cited by Galen (see frr. 170, 183 R.) with distinct titles. 337 ‘Dionysus, having been made a god, with Pentheus not wanting to adopt his mystic rites, having led the sisters of his mother into madness forced them to tear Pentheus apart. The myth is to be found in Aeschylus, in his Pentheus’. 338 Butler 1815, vol. 3 in his edition of Aeschylus suggested that the women were carding Pentheus’ flesh! Similarly, Elmsley on the basis of the verb ξαίνειν used in such a context by Philostratus (Im. 1.18) καταξαίνουσι τὸ θήραμα, ‘they rend in pieces their prey’. 339 Gantz 1980, 155. Dodds 1960, xxxi aptly noticed that “the Ξάντριαι may have ended where Euripides’ Bacchae begins, with the retreat of the Theban women to Cithaeron … and Pentheus’ threat to pursue them”. There is no adequate evidence in favour of the assumption of Sommerstein 2008, 170 that Pentheus’ death was included in Xantriae and that in Pentheus the titlecharacter appeared as a corpse. 340 Mette 1963, 146–147; Hourmouziades 1984, 190 and n. 104.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae with the story of Minyas’ daughters is not sufficiently evidenced. Their myth is not related to Dionysus’ arrival in Thebes and the Pentheus-story. In a group of papyrus texts (POxy 2164, frr. 168, 168a, 168b R. = 220 a, b, c Sommerstein)341 two verses are attributed to Xantriae (fr. 168 vv. 16–17) by the Hellenistic scholar Asclepiades.342 They belong to a speech of Hera. An ascription to A. Semele has been suggested on the basis of the earlier references to Semele and Zeus (vv. 13–15) and also in view of Hera’s praise of the modesty that a bride should display (v. 23).343 ... Sparagmos – Lyssa: fr. 169 R. Fr. 169 R. (ap. Phot. Galean. 326,19 = Suda o 130 Adler) ΛΥΣΣΑ (ἐπιθειάζουσα344 ταῖς Βάκχαις), ‘Lyssa inspiring the Bacchants’· ἐκ ποδῶν δ’ ἄνω ὑπέρχεται σπαραγμὸς εἰς ἄκρον κάρα κέντημα λύσσης, σκορπίου βέλος λέγω 1 δ’ om. Sud. V || 2 ὑπέρχεται codd.: ὑπερχέτω Bergk: ὑπελθέτω conj. Sommerstein || 3 λύσσης Lobeck, prob. Sommerstein: γλώσσης codd. Et Radt. And the rending goes up from the feet to the top of the head: I mean the prick of madness, the sting of the scorpion.

 341 2008, 228–232. 342 Cited in the Scholia to Ar. Ra. 1344 ἐκ τῶν Ξαντριῶν Αἰσχύλου. The papyrus texts are attributed to Xantriae by: Lobel 1941, 27–29; Cantarella 1948, 108–128; Lasserre 1949; Radt 2009, fr. 168, 281–286 and Dodds 1960, xxx with references. 343 Latte 1948, 47–56 assigned the fragmentary texts to A. Semele based on two assumptions: a) that Xantriae dealt with the death of Pentheus and b) that Semele is still alive. However, Aristophanes’ Hypothesis to E. Bacchae leaves no doubt that Pentheus’ death took place in Aeschylus’ Pentheus (see below on this play). For the attribution of these papyrus-texts to A. Semele, see also Nilsson 1955, 340; Lloyd-Jones 1957, 566–571; Mette 1959, F 355 132–134, 1963, 141–143; Galiano 1961, 106; Taplin 1977, 427–428; Cavalone 1980, 93–101; Gantz 1980, 157 and n. 89; 2007, 63–64 and n. 89; 1981, 25–26; Jouan 1992, 77; Hadjicosti 2006, 293–295; Sommerstein 2008, 172, 225–231; Totaro 2017, 23–29. The reference to Semele as being alive most probably supports the attribution to the play named after her. Papyrus evidence for Semele being alive is cited below on Semele. 344 ἐπιθειάζω, ‘call upon in the name of the gods, appeal’. In LSJ9 this instance is not cited.

The “Theban” Tetralogy  

Lyssa, the personification of madness, seems to address these words on stage.345 The quoting author attests that Lyssa was inspiring the Bacchants and she speaks of someone been torn in pieces from foot to head. Dionysus, most probably not appearing in person in this play, sent Lyssa to drive the unbelievers mad and thus initiate Theban women into his mystic cult. Aeschylus has a penchant for furylike figures, such as Erinyes, the ‘Furies’.346 Lyssa participated also in Aeschylus’ Ixion (fr. *89 R. ap. Sch. P. P. 2, 40b = 2, 38, 22 Drachmann) and possibly, as suggested by monumental evidence,347 in A. Toxotides, a play of a similar myth with that of Semele, dealing with the story of Actaeon. Scenes in E. Bacchae seem to be modelled on that incident dramatized in Xantriae. Dionysus maddens the Theban women: Ba. 32–36 ἐκ δόμων ὤστρησ’ ἐγώ …. ἐξέμηνα δωμάτων. Euripides merely refers to Lyssa, ‘Frenzy’ in Ba. 977– 982, but in HF 843–873 Lyssa personified on stage functions as Hera’s agent and induces Heracles to murder his own children (922–1015). Her invasion had been previously foretold by Iris, because of Hera’s pernicious jealousy (822–42). Euripides’ fondness for mad-scenes is attested in [Longinus] de Sublime 15.3.348 Euripides in his Heracles is likely to have appropriated the motifs of madness, the personification of Lyssa, and the infanticide from Aeschylus’ Dionysiac plays. Notably, these themes were also represented in iconography possibly related to Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia.349 The detailed account of the sparagmos in Xantriae may refer to the dismemberment of an animal.350 The tearing of an animal is a symbol of the ultimate stage

 345 This is also suggested by the phrase ἐπιθειάζουσα ταῖς Βάκχαις. Another alternative could be that the account of sparagmos was included in a messenger-speech. Nevertheless, Aeschylus’ propensity to personified supernatural beings, such as Erinyes, seems to support Lyssa’s presence on stage. Aélion 1983, v. 2, 203 suggested that Lyssa also participated in the action of A. Toxotides and Bassarae. Lyssa is described among the ἔκσκευα πρόσωπα in Poll. 4.142 and differs from madness: Guidorizzi 2020, 243. 346 For the relation of Lyssa to Erinyes, see references in Dodds 1960, 199 (note at Ba. 977–978). 347 An Attic red-figured bell-krater: Boston 00.346; see Trendall/Webster 1971, ΙΙΙ.1.28, 62. For Lyssa in middle fourth-century vase-paintings on Lycurgeia, see App. II.1, fig. 1, II.4, fig. 4. 348 … φιλοπονώτατος ὁ Εὐριπίδης δύο ταυτὶ πάθη, μανίας τε καὶ ἔρωτας, ἐκτραγωδῆσαι with Russell’s note 19702, 122–123; ‘… now Euripides devotes most pains to producing a tragic effect with two emotions, madness and love’, according to the translation by Russell/Winterbottom 1972 ad loc. 349 App. II. 1–5. 350 For Dionysus holding dismembered animals in association with ritual sparagmos in vase paintings of the classical period, see Carpenter 1993, 190–195. For sparagmos and eating raw flesh as well as their symbolism in maenadism, see Dodds 1960, xvi–xx; Carpenter 1997, 38 and n. 16; Seaford 1997, 37.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae of Dionysiac madness. In Ba. 734–747 there are similar accounts about holding apart and dividing into pieces heifers and previously aggressive bulls. The detailed description of Aeschylus (‘rending from the feet to the top of the head’) with its proverbial tone has given its place to a general and dramatically powerful narrative of the tearing apart of animals in Euripides. Nevertheless, Pentheus is similarly regarded as a wild animal (v. 1107–1108 άμβάτην / θῆρα, ‘mounted wild animal’; v. 1141–1142 ὀρεστέρου /… λέοντος, ‘mountain lion’; v. 542 ἀγριωπόν τέρας, ‘wild-faced monster’), who is to be hunted and killed. The wording of fragment 169 R. may predict the sparagmos of Pentheus in Aeschylus’ homonymous play351 and provide a model to Euripides’ similar scenes in Bacchae. Pentheus’ dismemberment in Ba. 1095–1136, esp. 1125–1136, provides a most impressive account of the actual practice and the savagery of the ritual dominated by Dionysus himself:352 ‘Taking (Agave) with her forearms his left hand, and setting her foot against the ribs of the miserable man, she tore off his shoulder, not by her strength, but the god gave extra ease to her hands’. Ἀπεσπάραξεν (v. 1127) clearly suggests the act of sparagmos and the symbolic savagery of the ritual. The transition from the sparagmos of animals to the killing of Pentheus provides a progressive revelation of Dionysus as a powerful god. Notably, human sparagmos reproduces the stages of the normal animal sacrifice. Lycurgus’ end is similarly described by later sources: he suffered sparagmos by horses.353 The tearing of both Lycurgus and Pentheus belongs to a dramatic pattern of mystic ritual and both could be regarded as sacrificial victims.354 Despite the different treatment of the frenzy and sparagmos-motif, both plays, A. Xantriae and E. Bacchae, reveal the steady persistence of Dionysiac ritual.

 351 Pentheus’ death seems thus to have been mentioned in Xantriae and its location was on Mount Cithaeron on the basis of Ar. Byz. Hypothesis to E. Ba.: see above n. 333 and below on A. Pentheus. 352 The description of Pentheus’ dismemberment provided a model for Theocritus (26.22–24). 353 [Apollod.] 3.5.1; Hyg. fab. 132 (cf. Serv. in Verg. Aen. 3, 14). Only in this text of Hyginus does Lycurgus murder his son and wife. On the contrary, according to Hyg. fab. 242 “objecta insania a Libero ipse se interfecit”, Lycurgus, driven mad by Dionysus, committed suicide. 354 Cf. Seaford 1997, 231; cf. id. 1994, 284, citing Ba. 1246. Pausanias (1.20.3) informs that in the oldest sanctuary of Dionysus near the theatre in Athens there were paintings of the punishment of the god’s opponents, Lycurgus and Pentheus. On the sacrificial victims in Dionysiac ritual, see Seidensticker (1979).

The “Theban” Tetralogy  

As regards Lyssa’s personification in Xantriae, it reveals Aeschylus’ own inventiveness in his treatment of the madness-motif. In a scene of Dionysiac inspiration he presented Lyssa in person on stage,355 following his practice on ὄψις, ‘spectacle’ (Ar. Poet. 14, 1453bff.), and traditionally exploiting ἔκπληξις through ὄψις. These dramatic effects were successfully dramatized in Eumenides.356 Euripides, also in a scene of Dionysiac imagery, merely referred to Lyssa in the fourth stasimon of Bacchae (vv. 977–982). In late fifth-century, there was no room for a personified Frenzy. ... Fragments 170–172a R. Fr. 170 R. ἃς οὔτε πέμφιξ ἡλίου προσδέρκεται οὔτ’ ἀστερωπὸν ὄμμα Λητῴας κόρης 1 ἃς Bentley, Koraes: ἐξαντιαίας cod. || 2 ἀστερωπὸν ὄμμα Bentley, Koraes (confirmat translatio Arabica): ἀστέρων πὄμα cod. Those whom neither sunrays look upon nor the starlike eye of Leto’s daughter357

ap. Gal. in Hp. Epid. Libr. VI comm. 1, 29. Προσδέρκομαι is a Homeric compound, ‘look at, behold c. acc.’. Πέμφιξ is explained in Phot. Galean. 409, 10 as πνοή. Αἰσχύλος Ξαντρίαις ἐπὶ τῶν ἀκτίνων. Cf. Hsch. π 1388 Hansen πέμφιξ· πνοή (Soph. fr. 337 R. Aesch. fr. 195.4 R.). Ψυχή (Lycophron 1106). Καὶ αἱ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀκτῖνες (Aesch. fr. 170.1 R.). Πέμφιξ, a distinctly poetic word, means ‘breath, blast’ in A. Pr. Lyom. fr. 195.4 δυσχειμέρῳ πέμφιγι, S. Colchides fr. 337 R., Lyc. 1106; here in Aeschylus it means ‘ray’ (LSJ9), as in S. Colchides fr. 338 R.; in S. Salmoneus frr. 538, 539 R. it denotes ‘cloud’. In A. Pentheus fr. 183 R. πέμφιξ means ‘drop’ (see ad loc.). All these varying meanings of πέμφιξ, mainly occurring in the fragmentary texts of Aeschylus and Sophocles, are recorded by Galen loc. cit.

 355 Lyssa is represented on vase-illustrations depicting Lycurgus’ madness and the murder of Dryas: see App. II.1, 4. 356 Lucas 1968, 151, pointed out that “the observation in Vit. Aesch. 7, ταῖς τε ὄψεσι καὶ τοῖς μύθοις πρὸς ἔκπληξιν τερατώδη … κέχρηται may go back to a Peripatetic source”; see also below on “Style”, the relation of ὄψις and ἔκπληξις. 357 The translation of this fragment is mine.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae Ἀστερωπός, ‘star-faced, star-like, bright-shining’. Ἀστερωπὸν ὄμμα Λητῴας κόρης is an Aeschylean metaphor refigured in E. Hipp. 850–851 νυκτὸς ἀστερωπὸν σέλας, ‘the starry gleam of night’,358 and in Ph. 129 ἀστερωπὸς ἐν γραφαῖσιν, ‘dazzling in outline’.359 The whole image recalls Pr. 796–797 … ἃς (Phorcides) οὔθ’ ἥλιος προσδέρκεται / ἀκτῖσιν οὔθ’ ἡ νύκτερος μήνη ποτέ. It occurs also in epic: Hom. Od. 11.15–19 … οὐδὲ ποτ’ αὐτοὺς (i.e., the Cimmerians) / Ἠέλιος φαέθων καταδέρκεται ἀκτίνεσσιν, / … ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ νὺξ ὀλοὴ τέταται … and Hes. Th. 759–760 … οὐδὲ ποτ’ αὐτοὺς / Ἠέλιος φαέθων ἐπιδέρκεται ἀκτίνεσσιν. Maenads are described in tragedy as νυκτίπολοι, ‘night stolkers, roaming by night’:360 E. Ion361 717 (lyr.) νυκτιπόλοις … σὺν Βάκχαις and 1049 (said of Persephone). Νυκτιπόλων also occurs, though in a different context, in A. Psychagogoi fr. 273a.9 R., a play dramatizing Homer’s Νέκυια (Od. 11). Notably, in E. Cretans fr. 472.11 Kn. νυκτιπόλου Ζαγρέως the word occurs in a Dionysiac context. Dionysus, also called Νυκτέλιος (Plut. Mor. 389 A, Paus. 1.40.6), confesses in Ba. 486 that he performs his rites at night, for darkness involves solemnity (σεμνότητ’ ἔχει σκότος).362 Similarly, νυκτίφαντον πρόπολον in E. Hel. 570 is said of Hecate. The chorus of Theban Bacchants refers to ‘dear nights’ (νύκτας φίλας) and to ‘allnight dances’ (παννυχίοις χοροῖς) (Ba. 425, 862 respectively). Λητῴος-Λητῴα, ‘born from Leto’; Λητῴα κόρη in S. El. 570 is also said of Ἄρτεμις. Aeschylus provides here the first instance of the identification of the moon with Artemis. Fr. 171 R. Κάμακες πεύκης οἱ πυρίφλεκτοι spears of pine blazing with fire

ap. Poll. 10, 117 (2, 225, 15 Bethe) τὰς μέντοι λαμπάδας καὶ κάμακας εἴρηκεν ἐν Ξαντρίαις Αἰσχύλος. Kάμακες (κάμαξ), ‘vine-pole, vine-prop / any pole or shaft’ (LSJ9), as here κάμακες πεύκης, ‘pine-pole, spears of pine’. Πυρίφλεκτοι (φλέγω), ‘burnt or blazing with fire’ (LSJ9), first in Aeschylus; cf. also E. Ion 195 (lyr.), Lyc. 218, AP 12.151. The fragment refers to the light coming from the spears of pine, obviously the  358 Thus Kovacs 2005, 207. 359 In Craik’s translation 1988, 69. An alternative meaning is ‘in pictures’: Craik 1988, 178. 360 Henrichs 1993, 14 and n. 1 for references. 361 For relations between Dionysus and Ion’s myth, see Zeitlin 1993, 169. 362 For Dionysus’ nocturnal ritual, see Plut. Mor. 364 F, 672 A.

The “Theban” Tetralogy  

torches of the maenads. The image resembles Bassarae fr. 23a R. πευκᾶεν σέλας, the light coming from the Bassarids’ torches, and E. Ba. 146 πυρσώδη φλόγα πεύκας, and seems also to allude to mystic initiation. Fr. 172 R. Τῶνδε βούλευτις πόνων τῶν δὲ Et. Gen. B | βουλευτίς Blaydes, Fraenkel she who deliberates these sufferings

ap. Et. Gen. AB = Et. Sym. V μύστις: παρὰ τὸ μύστης ὥσπερ καὶ παρὰ τὸ ὑβριστὴς ὕβριστις καὶ βουλευτὴς βούλευτις, οἷον ‘τῶνδε – πόνων’ ἐν ταῖς Ξαντρίαις (… ἐν ταῖς Ξαντρίαις om. V363). The verse was assigned to Aeschylus on stylistic grounds.364 Βούλευτις, ‘able to advise or deliberate’, occurs only here in Aeschylus. The reference may be to Hera plotting calamities for Semele and Dionysus, thus relating Xantriae to Semele’s myth on this tetralogy. Hera’s hostile feelings and her jealousy for Semele and Dionysus are related to Dionysus’ myth in E. Ba. 95–98: Zeus covered Dionysus in his thigh to conceal him from Hera; in 291–294 Teiresias narrates how Zeus removed his son to avoid quarrels with Hera in Olympus.365 Fr. 172a ἀναγκόδακρυς shedding forced tears

ap. Phryn. Praep. Soph. 33,5 de Borries = Phot. Lex. α 1429 Theodoridis ὁ πρὸς ἀνάγκην δακρύων καὶ μὴ ἐκ πάθους τινὸς ἢ συμφορᾶς. It is a hapax legomenon in Aeschylus366 and one of his masterly poetic compound adjectives; cf., e.g., from the parodos of Agamemnon: μνησιπήμων πόνος (Ag. 180), παυσανέμου θυσίας

 363 V: cod. Venetus gr. 468. 364 See Radt 2009, 287. 365 For this aspect of the myth referring to Dionysus’ birth, see Dodds 1960, 107–108; Seaford 1997, 176–177. 366 On the meaning and the function of ἀνάγκη, ‘constraint, external pressure’, in Aeschylus, Rosenmeyer 1982, 302 remarks that it compounds with other words producing an amalgam of connotations contrary to free choice.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae (Ag. 214), παντότολμον (Ag. 221), αἰσχρόμητις … παρακοπά πρωτοπήμων (Ag. 222– 223), γυναικοποίνων πολέμων (Ag. 225).367

.. Pentheus Fr. 183 R. (ap. Gal. in Hp. Epid. libr. VI comm. 1,29 W.- P.) μηδ’ αἵματος πέμφιγα πρὸς πέδῳ βάλῃς μηδ’ Grotius: μὴ δὲ cod. | πέμφιγα Gemusaeus: πέμφιγγα cod. teste Wenkebach | πρὸς πέδῳ βάλῃς cod.: πρὸς πέδον βάλῃ Grotius and do not spill a drop of blood on the ground368

Aristophanes’ of Byzantium Hypothesis to Euripides’ Bacchae informs us that the play of Euripides draws from A. Pentheus: ἡ μυθοποιία κεῖται παρ’ Αἰσχύλῳ ἐν Πενθεῖ. This unique verse preserved from this play may point to Dionysus’ peaceful dominance both of the Maenads and Pentheus, explicitly expressed by the god in Ba. 804: (Dion.) ἐγὼ γυναῖκας δεῦρ’ ὅπλων ἄξω δίχα, ‘I will bring the women here without using weapons’ and Ba. 837: (Dion.) ἀλλ’ αἷμα θήσεις συμβαλὼν βάκχαις μάχην, ‘but you will create bloodshed if you join battle with the bacchants’. Βάλῃς and θήσεις displays Pentheus’ responsibility for the bloodshed. An allusion to A. Pentheus may be provided in Eu. 25–26: ἐξ οὗτε Βάκχαις ἐστρατήγησεν θεός, / λαγὼ δίκην Πενθεῖ καταρράψας μόρον, ‘the god led out the army of Bacchanals contriving for Pentheus a fate like that of a hare’. This confrontation explains Pentheus’ ascent on Cithaeron with his army to fight Dionysus’ female devotees, which led to his dismemberment probably occurring in this play, in view of the Hypothesis by Aristophanes of Byzantium. The thematic interrelation of Xantriae and Pentheus is thus confirmed bringing forward Dionysus’ revenge on his theomachos. The Pentheus-story seems thus to have covered both these plays. The theme of theomachia has been refigured in E. Ba. 50–52 (where Dionysus himself declares in his extensive prologue): ἢν δὲ Θηβαίων πόλις / ὀργῇ σὺν ὅπλοις ἐξ ὄρους βάκχας ἄγειν / ζητῇ, ξυνάψω μαινάσι στρατηλατῶν, ‘if the city of

 367 On Aeschylus’ imagery in general, see e.g. Dumortier 1935 and Rosenmeyer 1982. 368 The translation is mine.

The “Theban” Tetralogy  

the Thebans seeks in anger and with arms to take the bacchants from the mountain, I will join battle at the head of the bacchants’. However, the god did not display his vindictive power in a warlike way in the development of the action, but he persuaded Pentheus to spy on the maenads on the mountain in female disguise. Contrary to Dionysus’ warning in Ba. 837, the shedding of blood is not that of the Bacchants, but the blood of Pentheus himself, since the king will be torn apart by his own mother (1125–1127). The conflict of Pentheus and the Bacchants is echoed in the third episode (787–861) involving Pentheus’ reactions to the messenger’s account of the maenads on the mountain and his decision to declare war on them: Ba. 780–785, especially 784–785 (… ὡς ἐπιστρατεύσομεν / βάκχαισιν· … , ‘… as we shall make war on the maenads …’), 796–797 (‘I will sacrifice … stirring up much female slaughter, as they are worthy of it …’). In 809–812, which marks the turning point of the action with the persuasion of the king accomplished, Pentheus asks for his weapon and decides to see the maenads on the mountain, following Dionysus’ admonition. An armed combat between the defending Pentheus and the maenads attacking him, some of those holding thyrsoi, is depicted on three vasepaintings.369 In Euripides Pentheus alone is attacked by maenads in the manner of the Aeschylean λαγὼ δίκην, ‘the fate of a hare’ (Eu. 26). The Bacchants are often described as warriors using their thyrsoi as weapons in Bacchae 731–733, 762– 764, 1099, 1157–1158. The similarities of concept and imagery are suggestive of Aeschylean echoes in Euripides’ Bacchae in this case as well.370 Dionysus himself seems to advice Pentheus to avoid bloodshed against the Bacchants. Similarly, Pentheus begs Agave not to shed his blood in Ba. 1120–1121. The general concept of this scene involving the urging ‘don’t throw blood’ may have also derived from Aeschylus’ Pentheus. Aristophanes of Byzantium telling that E. Bacchae draws on A. Pentheus seems thus to be adequately confirmed. All the same, the transplantation of elements of Xantriae into the plot of Bacchae is also remarkable, as has been indicated. The correspondences of both Xantriae and Pentheus with Euripides’ Bacchae suggest that some remarkable plot-patterns motivating the action in the Euripidean play were modelled to some extent on Aeschylus’ “Theban” tetralogy.371

 369 Séchan 1926, 103 n. 2–4; Marsh 1989, 36 Plates 1a–1d, 2a–2c and n. 16–20 for details. Further instances of Pentheus armed in combat with the maenads are described by Philippart 1930, nos 134, 140. 370 Cf. Sandys 1892, xxvi; Dodds 1960, xxxi; Radt 2009, 299. 371 For Pentheus’ probable inclusion in the tetralogy, see also above 1 and n. 20.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae .. Semele or Hydrophoroi The information in the Sch. L. A.R. Argonautica 1, 636 a (55, 21 Wendel) most probably refers to Aeschylus’ Semele or Hydrophoroi, ‘the Water-Carriers’: ‘Semele is called Thyone, for Aeschylus presented Semele on stage pregnant and divinely possessed (ἐνθεαζομένην), and the women who touched her belly also became possessed’; cf. Sch. P (Schaefer, Ap. Rhod. Argonautica … 2, 1813, 51). On the basis of the Semele and Dionysus-myth, this must have been the first play of this tetralogy. Its subject seems to refer to Semele’s pregnancy, the imminent birth of Dionysus, the revenge of Hera, the death of Semele, Dionysus’ supposed death and his salvation by Zeus.372 The women, the ‘Water-Carriers’, most probably composed the chorus of the play. Semele bearing Dionysus in her belly was “entheos”, ‘she had a god within her’. The women probably brought hot water to warm their hands to touch her belly and ease her pains. This seems to have been a common practice, as attested by Soranus, Gynaecology 2.4.1 Ilberg.373 The play seems thus to refer to the procedure of the birth of Dionysus and the death of his mother Semele. The second title ‘The Water-Carriers’ is most likely to point to Semele’s female entourage intending to bring water for Semele’s labour.374 The chorus’ descriptive title referring to the beginning of the play has tragic parallels, among others, in Aeschylus’ Choephoroi and Euripides’ Hippolytus Stephanias or Stephanephorus. The role of Hera in Semele’s story should be important for the action of the play, as suggested by the group of papyrus-texts (P.Oxy. 2164, frr. 168–168a–b R. = 220a–c Sommerstein), published by Edgar Lobel in 1941 and attributed to A. Xantriae on the basis of the evidence provided by Asclepiades. However, despite Asclepiades’ attribution, the papyrus-fragments seem to come from Semele and not from Xantriae.375

 372 Welcker 1824, 327–335 put Semele first in the trilogy: cf. Dodds 1960, xxix; Hadjicosti 2006a, 121. 373 Τοὺς δὲ πόνους τὸ μὲν πρῶτον τῇ διὰ θερμῶν τῶν χειρῶν προσαφῇ πραΰνειν; 2.6.4: χερσὶ δὲ τὸν ὄγκον ἐκ πλαγίων ὑπηρέτιδες ἐστῶσαι πρὸς τοὺς κάτω τόπους πρᾴως ἐρειδέτωσαν; cf. Radt 2009, 335; Sommerstein 2008, 224; 2016, 31. 374 Cf. Nilsson 1955, 340; Dodds 1960, xxix–xxx; Gantz 1981, 25–26; Radt 2009, 35 “… aquam ad Bacchum recens natum lavandum apportantibus”, comparing Plaut. Amphitr. 1102ff.; Jouan 1992, 77; Hadjicosti 2006, 294; 2006a, 121. 375 See on Xantriae above, esp. n. 343.

The “Theban” Tetralogy  

As is known, Zeus’ relation with Semele or Thyone (fr. 168.13–15 R.) aroused, as in many other cases, Hera’s jealousy who disguised herself (vv. 16ff.)376 and advised Semele to test her lover’s divinity by asking him to visit her in his true shape. The fire of Zeus’ thunderbolts killed her, but not her son, being immortal.377 Zeus put the inborn Dionysus in his thigh, whence he was born at full time. As attested,378 Dionysus descended into Hades and rendered Semele immortal as an Olympian goddess. Hesiod says that Semele bore Dionysus ἀθάνατον θνητή· νῦν δ’ ἀμφότεροι θεοί εἰσιν (Th. 942). Her relation with his son’s cult is echoed in Ba. 997–1001.379 Hera’s visiting Semele in the disguise of a priestess is attested in Pl. Rep. 381d …Ἥραν ἠλλοιωμένην ὡς ἱέρειαν … In Diogenes Epist. 34.2380 Hera is also said to be similarly disguised as a priestess in some tragedies but without specific references. The second verse of her speech in hexameter (v. 17), included in our papyrus-fragment, is cited by Plato (loc. cit.) Ἰνάχου Ἀργείου ποταμοῦ παισὶν βιοδώροις,381 attributed to A. Xantriae by Asclepiades382 (Sch. Ar. Ra. 1344: νύμφαι ὀρεσσίγονοι· ἐκ τῶν Ξαντριῶν Αίσχύλου … φησὶν Ἀσκληπιάδης, citing vv. 16–17 νύμφαι … βιοδώροις of our papyrus text). The incident in Plato may be related to Inachus’ daughter Io, also persecuted by Hera disguised as a priestess, because of the former’s relation with Zeus, as treated by Sophocles in his satyric drama Inachus.383

 376 See [Apollod.] 3.4.3, Ov. Met. 3.256–315, Hyg. fab. 167, 179, E. Ba. 6–12, esp. v. 9 ἀθάνατον Ἥρας μητέρ’ εἰς ἐμὴν ὕβριν, ‘Hera’s immortal outrage against my mother’. Hera was transformed to an old servant of Semele, named Beroe, in order to lead to her destruction. Aeschylus’ Semele seems thus to be our earliest information of this scene: Totaro 2017, 24. 377 Cf. Ov. Fasti 3.715–718 and Met. 3.249–315, a source which might have derived several elements from Aeschylus’ play; on Ovid, loc. cit., cf. Dimundo 2015. The function of a mother was completed in Zeus’ body and Dionysus was born as a boy in due time. 378 [Apollod.] 3.5.3, Pi. O. 2.25–28, Paus. 2.37.5; cf. Sch. on Lyc. 211ff. On this myth, Kerényi 1976, 180–181. For Semele in cult as an earth goddess, see Dodds 1960, 63–64. 379 Seaford 1997, 229 notes that at Erchia in Attica the sacrifices for both, mother and son, had to be performed on the same altar. For Semele’s cult in Thebes, see also E. Ph. 1754–1757. 380 τῶν τραγῳδοποιῶν οἵτινες Ἥραν τὴν Διὸς παράκοιτιν ἔφασαν εἰς ἱέρειαν μεταμορφωθεῖσαν τοιοῦτον βίου σχῆμα ἀναλαβεῖν … For a good discussion of Hera’s disguise in Plato and Diogenes, see Totaro 2017, 17–18. 381 The v. 17 of fr. 168 R., apart from Plato, is also cited by Diogenes Epist. 34.2, without any reference to the tragedy from which the verse comes. 382 On Asclepiades as a non-reliable source, see Latte 1948, 47–56 giving examples of mistakenly assigned quotations to a play; cf. also Sommerstein 2008, 226 and n. 1 and, more extensively, Totaro 2017, 25–27. 383 Cf. Adam 19632, I 120.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae ... POxy 2164 = fr. 168 R., 220a Sommerstein

7

10

15

20

25

30

... ]. .[.]. .[ ]ραιν’ ἀλοιφᾷ ]δ’ οὐ πλέον ῞Ηραc ]υπεροπλότεροι . . .]. .[. .]θ̣ε̣κ̣ . . . . .γνύμεναι .π̣ω̣θ̣ό̣νειρα[ ca. 6 litt.]θ̣η̣.[ — -μενοι̣ θ̣εω̣ν . [. . . . .]ό̣c̣ιμοc βιοτά· φίλοι̣cιν ἐν μά̣κεcι π̣ί̣cτιc φθονερ[ὰ δόξα τ’ ἀεικήc. Σεμ̣έλαc δ’ ε[υχόμεθ̣’ εἶναι διὰ πᾶν εὐθύπορον λά[χοc τὰ γὰρ ἄλλα τάδ’ [ Κάδμῳ Σεμέ̣[λα τ̣ῶ̣[ι] παντoκρα[τ Ζηνί γάμων δ[ ΗΡΑ νύμφαι ναμερτεῖc, κυδραὶ θεαί, αἷcιν ἀγείρω ᾿Ινάχου ᾿Αργείου ποταμοῦ παιcὶν βιοδώροιc, αἵ τε π̣αρίcτανται πᾶcιν βροτέοιcιν̣ ἐπ’ ἔργ[οιc ε ̣[ (ca. 14 litt.) ]τ̣ε̣ κα̣ὶ̣ εὐμόλποιc ὑμ[εναίοιc καὶ τ[ (ca. 13 litt.) ν]εολέκτρουc ἀρτιγάμ̣̣[ λευκο. [ (ca. 13 litt.) ]μ̣μαcιν ε[ὔ]φρονεc[ φῶc δεκ[ (ca. 14 litt.) ]περ ὄμματoc εcτ̣̣[ αἰδὼc γὰρ καθαρὰ καὶ ν[υ]μφο̣κ̣όμ̣οc μέ[γ]’ αρ̣ί̣[cτα, παίδων δ’ εὔκαρπον τε[λ]έ̣θει γένοc, οἷc̣[ ἵλαοι ἀντιάcουcι μελίφ[ρον]α̣ θ̣υ̣μ̣ὸ̣ν ἔ̣χ̣[ουcαι, ἀ̣μφότερον cύμεναι μ[ τ̣ραχεῖαι cτυγεραί τε καὶ̣ [ ἀ]γ̣χίμολοι· πολλὰc μεν[ . . . . (.)]γον εὐναίου φωτὸ̣[c . . . . .]ε̣λ̣α̣cιν τε μίτραιc[

2 ἔχ]ραιν’ Lobel ‖ 4 ὑπεροπλότεροι vel ὕπερ ὁπλότεροι Lobel ‖ 8 φίλοιcιν vel φιλοῦcιν Lobel | μάκεcι (sc. χρόνου) Cantarella | π̣[ί]cτιc φθονερ[ὰ Mette: ὅ]στις φθονερ[ὸς Lobel ‖ 9 suppl. Lobel ‖ 11 λά[χοc Latte, Cantarella: ὄλβου Lloyd-Jones: χρόνου Cavallone ‖ 14 παντοκρα[τ Lloyd-Jones: παντοκρά[τορι μιγεῖcα Cantarella: παντοκρα[τεῖ Lasserre: παντοκρατ[εῖ ἐμίγη Mette: παντοκρα[τοῦντι Radt ‖ 15 δ[ιὰ τῶνδε Cantarella ‖ 16 κ[υδραὶ θεα]ὶ αἷcιν Lobel, Latte, prob. Totaro ‖ 19 ει̣ [λαπίναιc θαλίαιc] Lobel, Cantarella ‖ 20 καὶ τ̣ [ελέουcι κόραc Lasserre | ἀρτιγάμ̣[ουc τε Lobel ‖ 21 ε[ὔ]φρονεc Lobel ‖ 22 [ὑ]πὲρ Cantarella: ὅ]περ Lloyd-Jones ‖ 24 οἷc[ιν ἐκεῖναι Cantarella,

The “Theban” Tetralogy  

Lloyd-Jones ‖ 25 μελίφ[ρον]α Lobel | ἔχ[ουcαι Cantarella, Lloyd-Jones ‖ 26 ἀμφότερον Lobel: ἀμφότεραι Π ‖ 27 [ἀμφ’ ὠδῖcι βαρεῖαι Latte ‖ 29 cύζυ]γον Cantarella

In fr. 168 R., Hera is presented transformed into a mortal woman collecting offerings to the Muses (vv. 16–17),384 and, after an explicit reference to the sexual intercourse of Zeus and Semele (vv. 13–15), she praises the Muses for protecting wedding and childbirth (vv. 18–20, 24).385 Notably, vv. 9–11 seem to involve a wish by the chorus for Semele’s good fate (εὐθύπορον λά[χος] ),386 which also supports that she was alive and that the papyrus-text is appropriately ascribed to Semele. As said, the text might have included Semele’s pregnancy, Dionysus’ birth and the revenge of jealous Hera. Textual evidence attests that Hera was transformed into an old servant of Semele to lead to her destruction.387 Nevertheless, Semele is explicitly named in fr. 168.9 and 13: Hera, in gnomic phraseology, ironically advises that ‘modesty … is by far the best adorner of a bride and good children come into being from such a mother’ (vv. 23–24). It is suggested that such words may have persuaded Semele to ask Zeus to visit her in his full divine glory388 and thus to lead to the destruction of both mother and son. Moreover, Semele could eagerly follow Hera’s suggestion, because her sisters were reluctant to believe that Zeus was actually the father of her unborn child.389 Considering that (i) the ascription to Xantriae is not based on firm grounds,390 (ii) the reference to Lyssa in Xantriae fr. 169 R. does not provide a decisive indication, and (iii) there are explicit references to Semele as living, an attribution of the papyrus text to Aeschylus’ Semele is probable. Moreover, it seems unlikely that both Lyssa and Hera had the same role in the same play and the action in

 384 The text of the first six verses of POxy 2164 (= The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 18) mainly follows Radt 2009, 281, and that of vv. 7–30 follows Sommerstein 2008, 228–231. 385 Hadjicosti 2006, 291–293 described satisfactorily the dramatic situation. Totaro 2017, 23–29 carefully discusses POxy 2164 focusing on textual remarks and the dramatic action of Semele. 386 λά[χος] according to Latte’s supplement 1948, 50. On the interpretation of the vv. 9–11 Σεμέλας … εὐθύπορον λάχος, see Totaro 2017, 25 and n.37 with many references. After vv. 6 and 15 the papyrus-text has a horizontal line which seems to break the structure in the lyric song: cf. Sommerstein 2008, 228. In vv. 16ff. Hera is named as a speaker and the metre is in hexameters. 387 Above n. 376. 388 Cf. Sommerstein 2008, 227; 2016, 31–32. 389 In E. Ba. 26–31 Dionysus refers to Cadmus’ inventions (σοφίσματα): Semele’s sisters believed that the story of her relation with Zeus was invented by Cadmus to conceal her seduction by a mortal. 390 An ascription of the papyrus texts to Semele was suggested by Latte 1948, 47–56; Nilsson 1955, 340; Galiano 1961, 106; Lloyd-Jones 1963, 566–571; Jouan 1992, 77; Hadjicosti 2006; 2006a; Sommerstein 2008, 224–227; 2016, 31–32. See also on Xantriae n. 343.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae Xantriae and Semele seems to be differentiated: Semele covers earlier stages of Dionysus’ story. Xantriae, as Aeschylus’ Pentheus, dealt with the story of Pentheus like Euripides’ Bacchae,391 and it would be dramatically improbable to include in one play chronologically distant events of the story, such as Semele’s death, the birth of Dionysus and, later, his opposition to Pentheus. Therefore, the papyrus texts on Semele’s story, her union with Zeus, her death and Dionysus’ birth cannot be accommodated to a later period of the myth on Pentheus and his opposition to Dionysus when grown to maturity. Hera, disguised into a mortal to deceive Semele, refers to a time before Dionysus’ birth. In addition, the god’s actual or prospective birth should be mentioned in this play, in view of the reference to Amphidromia (fr. 222 R. below), a household ritual for a new-born child.392 All these elements cast doubt on Asclepiades’ attribution of the papyrus text to A. Xantriae. Moreover, since Aeschylus wrote a number of plays on Dionysus, the Hellenistic scholiast’s error could be explained.393 Semele or Hydrophoroi seem thus to focus on Hera’s jealousy because of Semele’s union with Zeus and on her transformation into a mortal to destroy both Semele and Dionysus. The novelty of such an action is the goddess’s presence on stage, which is unparalleled in Greek tragedy, as far as our evidence goes.394 Nevertheless, it is worth noting that such a divine transformation is not unique in Aeschylus: apart from Hera in this play, Aeschylus also presents Dionysus as an effeminate mortal, as we saw in the interrogation-scene after the parodos of Edonoi. Both Hera and Dionysus, the only deities, as far as we know, transformed into mortals on stage in Aeschylus’ plays, without being recognized by the other dramatis personae, plot against Semele and Lycurgus, respectively, so as to lead to their destruction. Euripides revisited this important dramatic incident in Bacchae. Semele’s story is cited by Dionysus on stage in his expository opening (Ba. 6–12) with reference to Hera’s immortal outrage, Zeus’ thunderbolts and Semele’s tomb ‘covered around with grape-clustering verdure of vine’.395 Moreover, in vv.  391 According to Aristophanes of Byzantium Hypothesis to E. Bacchae: see above on Pentheus. 392 Thus aptly Sommerstein 2008, 225; see also my note on Edonoi fr. 65. 393 Cf. Hadjicosti 2006, 294. Further indications that suggest Asclepiades’ erroneous statements are mentioned by Wartelle 1971, 172, Sommerstein 2008, 226; 2010, 203, Totaro 2017, 25– 27. 394 Hadjicosti 2006, 295–301 discusses extensively the uniqueness of Hera’s transformation as a mortal on stage and regards it as a precedent of the Euripidean Dionysus in Bacchae; however, she omits to mention the case of Dionysus in Edonoi, which provides another divine transformation into a mortal in Aeschylus and a certain model to Dionysus in E. Bacchae. 395 Thus Seaford 1997, 69.

The “Theban” Tetralogy  

88–102 the chorus refers to Dionysus’ premature birth, Semele’s death by Zeus’ thunder, Dionysus’ enclosure in the thigh of Zeus to conceal him from Hera and, finally, his birth (for the second time)396 from Zeus. The evidence for this play is scanty, and only one fragment gives scope for some discussion: ... Fragments 221–224 R. Fr. 221 R. Ζεὺς, ὃς κατέκτα τοῦτον τοῦτον codd.: ταύτην (sc. Semelen) Hartung praeeunte Droysen Zeus, who killed him

The Scholia A Hom. Δ 319 (1, 505, 57 Erbse) on ἔκταν as the doric form of the past ἔκτην cite Aeschylus Palamedes fr. 181 R. and Semele fr. 221 R.397 In both fragments the phrasing and the style are markedly similar: Palamedes fr. 181 R. τίνος κατέκτας ἕνεκα παῖδ’ ἐμὸν βλάβης; Who is τοῦτον? The reference may be to Dionysus on the basis of E. Ba. 244– 245398 [Pentheus] ὃς ἐκπυροῦται λαμπάσιν κεραυνίαις / σὺν μητρί, Δίους ὅτι γάμους ἐψεύσατο, ‘Dionysus, who was with his mother burnt up by the flame of the thunderbolt, because she lied that she was loved by Zeus’.399 Pentheus says here that Dionysus was destroyed by fire together with his mother Semele. Nevertheless, in this part of Bacchae Pentheus echoes his aunts’ view of the blasting of both, mother and son, as narrated by Dionysus himself in the prologue of the play (Ba. 26–31): Agave’s sisters supposed, as said, that the story of Semele’s relation with Zeus was invented by Cadmus (Κάδμου σοφίσματα, v. 30) to cover her seduction by a mortal. One of the reasons for Pentheus’ punishment will be his belief in this rumour. Tοῦτον might point to Dionysus on stage, which would not be improbable in a Semele play, but it would be incompatible with Semele being alive. A reference

 396 For Dionysus’ double birth, see e.g. Seaford 1997, 150, 159f. 397 For lexicographical and other evidence on these two fragments (221 and 181 R.), see Radt 2009, 336, 295 respectively. 398 Thus Dodds 1960, xxix and n. 4. 399 Thus Dodds 1960, 100 (n. on v. 245), who notes the echo in Ba. 31: ‘they would proclaim (i.e. Cadmus’ daughters) that Zeus killed Semele, because she lied about their union’. A reference to Dionysus was also suggested by Grégoire 1961, 221 n. 2.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae of τοῦτον to Acteon, who was punished by Zeus for loving Semele, has also been suggested.400 However, τοῦτον, and not κεῖνον, implies Actaeon present on stage, which is problematic. Consequently, the reference of τοῦτον remains a problem. A possible interpretation may be that Actaeon’s body appeared on stage at the beginning of the play as early as the prologue401 or, more plausibly, his tomb may have been part of the stage setting as Darius’ tomb in Persae and that of Agamemnon in Choephoroi.402 The reference to Actaeon would serve as a proof of Zeus’ desire for Semele and cause Hera’s intervention to punish her and prevent Dionysus’ birth. The episode of Actaeon’s love for Semele could thus activate Hera’s jealousy and promote the development of the dramatic plot in Aeschylus’ play. If such an assumption is correct, it could be deduced that in Aeschylus’ two “Dionysiac” tetralogies all four mortals, Lycurgus and Orpheus in Lycurgeia, as well as Pentheus and Actaeon in the “Theban” tetralogy, who opposed Dionysus and Zeus, are referred to be horribly punished. Once again, the Aeschylean divine retribution would have been accomplished. Moreover, regarding the “Theban” tetralogy itself, the death of Semele through Hera’s plan and that of Actaeon could be related to the theme of Pentheus’ dismemberment through Dionysus’ dolos most likely predicted in Xantriae and performed in Pentheus. Such a plot-pattern would support the dramatic unity of the trilogy (Semele, Xantriae and Pentheus). Actaeon, son of Autonoe, daughter of Cadmus, often mentioned in Bacchae (337–340, 1227, 1291), was the central figure in A. Toxotides. His death resembles that of his cousin Pentheus: he was torn apart by his own hounds, like Pentheus by his own relatives, and is described in Ba. 337–338 as a warning example to Pentheus’ sparagmos. Actaeon’s story is attested in [Apollod.] 3.4.4, Ovid Met. 3.138–250 and Hyg. Fab. 180.403 The myths of Toxotides and Semele involve thematic correspondences, since both Semele and Actaeon perish through divine machinations. Yet, it is debatable whether they form part of the same tetralogy (Toxotides, Semele, Pentheus/Xantriae, Dionysou Trophoi).404  400 First by Droysen 1841, 77–78 who connects Semele with Aeschylus’ Toxotides. See Hadjicosti 2006, 294 and n. 6; Gantz 2007, 63; Sommerstein 2016, 32. 401 See Hadjicosti 2006a, 124–127. 402 Sommerstein 2016, 32. 403 According to these sources, the cause of Actaeon’s dismemberment was the anger of Artemis, because he has seen her bathing. However, Stesichorus (236 PMG) and Akousilaos (FGrHist 2 F 33) attest as the cause of Zeus’ wrath that Actaeon was in love with Semele. 404 As suggested first by Droysen loc. cit., followed by Sommerstein 2017, 30–32 and earlier 2013, 81–94. Gantz 2007, 63–64 tentatively suggests a Toxotides, Semele, Athamas, and Trophoi group.

The “Theban” Tetralogy  

Fr. 222 R. Ἀμφίδρομος ap. Hsch. α 3996 Cunningham. It is said of a divinity connected with Ἀμφιδρόμια (see Edonoi fr. 65 R., above), a situation that suits Semele and Dionysus’ birth. Moreover, in this Semele-play a reference to Hera’s transformation and disguise to deceive Semele may be likely. Fr. 223 R. ἀνταία ap. Hsch. α 5307 Cunningham. ἀνταία: ἐναντία. ἱκέσιος. Αἰσχύλος Σεμέλῃ. Σημαίνει δὲ καὶ δαίμονα (Soph. fr. 334 R.) καὶ τὴν Ἑκάτην δὲ Ἀνταίαν λέγουσιν, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐπιπέμπειν αὐτά. Ἀνταῖος -α,-ον (ἄντα), ‘set over against, right opposite // opposed to, hostile, hateful’ (LSJ9). A reference to Hera’s hostile intentions against Semele is most likely. Ἀνταῖος is a tragic adjective par excellence and such incidents of gods’ hostility against mortals are found in both Aeschylus and Sophocles: A. Pers. 604 τ’ἀνταῖα φαίνεται θεῶν, ‘hostile visions from the gods’; Ch. 588 (lyr.), κνωδάλων ἀνταίων, ‘hostile beasts’; S. Clytaemestra fr. 334 R. ap. Erotian α 46 Nachmanson ἀνταῖον θεόν; also S. Manteis or Polyidus fr. 400 R. δεῖμα … ἀνταίας θεοῦ and Acrisius 72 R. ap. Hsch. α 5306 Cunningham ἀνταίαν (fem.): ἔκτοπον, χαλεπήν. In a similar sense, E. IA 1323–1324 ἀνταίαν Εὐρίπῳ / πνεῦσαι πομπὰν Ζεύς. For ἀνταῖος cf. also S. El. 195, Ant. 1308, E. Andr. 843. Fr. 224 R. ἄστεκτα ἄστεκτα Synag.: ἄστερκτα Hsch.

Ap. Hsch. α 7841 Cunningham ἄστεκτα· τὰ οὐ δυνάμενα κατασχεθῆναι. Αἰσχύλος Σεμέλῃ. It comes from α + στέγω. Cf. Phot. Lex. α 3003 Theodoridis ἄστεκτα: ἀβάστακτα. Ανυπομόνητα, οὐ δυνάμενα κατασχεθῆναι, ‘insufferable, unbearable’. Ἄστεκτον is supposed to refer to Zeus’ thunder in a Semele play. First in Aeschylus, it occurs also in Paul. Aeg. 5.16, Dsc. Ther. 13.2.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae .. Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi, ‘The Nurses of Dionysus’, is the satyr-play of the “Theban” tetralogy which included Xantriae, Pentheus, Semele or Hydrophoroi and Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi. The first Hypothesis to E. Medea mentions that Medea in Aeschylus’ Dionysou Trophoi ‘rejuvenated the nurses of Dionysus together with their husbands by boiling them’. Pherecydes (FGrHist 3 F 113) and Simonides (PMG 548) tell us that Medea rejuvenated also Jason. The author of Nostoi (PEG fr. 7) informs that Jason’s father Aeson was also rejuvenated (fr. 246a R.).405 This satyr-play of Aeschylus seems thus to associate the Medea-story with Dionysus’ youth. Transformation and supernatural abilities of women, which, as our evidence suggests, seem to determine the plot of Trophoi also occur in Aeschylean satyrplays, such as Kirke and Sphinx. Ovid (Met. 7.294–296) refers to this myth suggesting that Medea rejuvenated Dionysus’ nurses at the request of Dionysus.406 Rejuvenation is an appropriate motif to a satyr-play.407 Notably, devotion to Dionysiac cult may produce rejuvenation, as prescribed in the words of Cadmus addressing Teiresias (Ba. 186–190). The two old men holding their thyrsoi forgot their age, ‘we have joyfully forgotten that we are old’ (188–189). Rejuvenation is related to Dionysiac cult and also refers to aged people: Ar. Ra. 341–345 (Ἴακχ’, ὦ Ἴακχε, / … φλογὶ φέγγεται δὲ λειμών· γόνυ πάλλεται γερόντων), Pl. Lg. 666b, and Ael. Aristid. Dionysos 7. 332 Keil (… καὶ ὁ γέρων ἀνηβήσει). Between the date of Aeschylus’ Trophoi and Ovid’s Metamorphoses there is no evidence for the rejuvenation of Dionysus’ Trophoi. After Ovid the story occurs in Sch. on Ar. Eq. 1321 and Hyg. Fab. 182, 2, referring to Medea rejuvenating Dionysus’ nurses. It has thus been suggested that Aeschylus invented the myth of this satyr-

 405 Φερεκύδης δὲ καὶ Σιμωνίδης φασὶν ὡς ἡ Μήδεια ἀνεψήσασα τὸν Ἰάσονα νέον ποιήσειε. περὶ δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ Αἴσονος ὁ τοὺς Νόστους ποιήσας φησὶν οὕτως (fr. 7 Bernabé): αὐτίκα δ’ Αἴσονα θῆκε φίλον κόρον ἡβόωντα, / γῆρας ἀποξύσασ’ εἰδυίῃσι πραπίδεσσι, / φάρμακα πόλλ’ ἕψουσ’ ἐπὶ χρυσείοισι λέβησιν. Αἰσχύλος δὲ ἐν (ταῖς Διονύσου) Τροφοῖς ἱστορεῖ ὅτι καὶ τὰς Διονύσου τροφοὺς μετὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν αὐτῶν ἀνεψήσασα ἐνεοποίησε. Cf. also Sch. Ar. Eq. 1321 p. 267 Jones-Wilson … ἡ Μήδεια λέγεται τὰς τροφοὺς τοῦ Διονύσου άφεψήσασα ἀνανεάσαι ποιῆσαι; see Di Marco 1982, 84 and notes for further references. 406 On Ovid’s relation to A. Trophoi, cf. Di Marco 1982, 91–94 and n. 21. 407 See Sommerstein 2008, 248. On this satyr-play, see also Ηourmouziades 1974, 41–42 and more recently Germar/Krumeich 1999, 197–202; Podlecki 2005, 14–15.

The “Theban” Tetralogy  

play based on Nostoi.408 Since Dionysus’ nurses, the nymphs of Mount Nysa in Thrace, did not need rejuvenation for they were immortal, a playful treatment seems, in my view, to be implicated. The reference to Dionysus’ nurses suggests that Dionysus was an infant. Thus, this satyr-play treated an earlier phase of the legend than that of the preceding trilogy. An earlier treatment of Dionysus’ Nurses is that in the XXVIth Homeric Hymn 3–5. Dionysus’ Nurses are the Homeric τιθῆναι driven down over the Mount Nysa by Lycurgus (Hom. Il. 6.130–133).409 The title Trophoi is attested by lexicographers, Hesychius and Photius,410 while Dionysou Trophoi occurs in the Hypothesis to E. Medea and in the Sch. on Ar. Eq. 1321. On the basis of their earlier date, the information provided by the scholiasts seems to be safer. In view of the reference to the nymphs, Dionysus’ nurses, as well as their husbands, the play seems to include a secondary chorus. Apart from the conventional chorus of satyrs, that of the nymphs should participate in the action of this satyr-play, on the basis of fr. 246a R.411 Vase-paintings were related to this Aeschylean satyr-play. The scene in a redfigured bell-krater in Ancona (approx. 460 B.C.)412 was suggested to present an ivy-crowned woman, possibly Medea, leading an elderly, doddering satyr towards a tripod cauldron, and was suggested to depict Aeschylus’ Trophoi (fig. 7a).413 The depiction of a cauldron suggests a preparation of a magic philtre and seems to correspond to the above-mentioned evidence (n. 405) in fr. 7 Bernabé, Allen, Bethe “φάρμακα πόλλ’ ἕψουσ’ ἐπὶ χρυσείοισι λέβησιν”. The old satyr is thus supposed to be rejuvenated. Such a rejuvenation seems to correspond to the other side of this krater, which illustrates a family of satyrs, a mother, a father, and a young son (fig. 7b). A better depiction is that on a red-figured chous by the Altamura painter (approx.  408 Germar/Krumeich 1999, 198 and n. 2 refer to Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Hellenistische Dichtung, Berlin 1924, vol. 2, 242, n. 409 See above 1.1. 410 See frr. 246b–d below. 411 Germar/Krumeich 1999, 201 suggest a double chorus, one of the Trophoi and the second of their husbands, the satyrs, and cite Lammers 1931, 54–55. Cf. also Sommerstein 2008, 249. Ηοurmouziades 1974, 71 cites two other instances of double choruses in satyr-plays: Ion’s Omphale and Euripides’ Skiron. 412 Ancona, Museo Nazionale 3198. See App. II.7a–b, figs 7a, 7b. 413 On this illustration, see Webster 1950, 85–86, Sutton 1974, 127–128 and, in particular, Simon 1982, 140 pl. 35b who characterizes the painter of this krater “a weak artist”. For further references, see Germar/Krumeich 1999, 199 n. 6. Brommer’s opposition to the attribution of this vasepainting to A. Trophoi was rejected: Webster loc. cit.

  The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae 460 B.C.), now in Berlin (fig. 8).414 In Simon’s description415 the painting illustrates “a chorus of satyr boys running with torches” and suggests that they might be satyrs rejuvenated by Medea, so that they are now able to compete in the boys’ torch-race at Athenian festivals. Three scanty fragments, uninformative of the plot of the satyr-play, yet with some rare Aeschylean words, are attested in lexicographers. ... Fragments 246b–246d R. Fr. 246b R. Βιοτὴν αὔξιμον ἐμψίουσα (?)416 ἐμψίουσα Hsch. ε 2573 Latte: ἐψιοῦσα Phot. Galean. 47,10: ἐμψιοῦσα Dindorf: ἐψοῦσα Bergk growing our living with pap as the only food

ap. Phot. Galean. 47,10 ἐψιοῦσα: τροφὰς διδοῦσα χόνδρου … καὶ τὰ ἑψητά. Αἰσχύλος Τροφοῖς, Hsch. ε 2573 Latte ἐμψίουσα: ἐρέγματα διδοῦσα. Ἔρεγμα -ατος, τό (= ἐρεγμός, ὁ), made of bruised beans, Dsc. 3.80.3, Orib. 4.8.7. Ἐμψίω, ‘feed with pap’, occurs only here in Aeschylus and seems to be appropriate to the baby Dionysus.417 Αὔξιμος, ‘promoting growth’; here in Aeschylus, intransitive, ‘growing’; βιοτἠ = βίοτος, βίος is found esp. in poetry: A. Pers. 853, S. Ph. 690, E. Andr. 785; also in the meaning of living, sustenance: S. Ph. 164, 1159, Ar. V. 1452. Fr. 246c R. δίκρα ὄψις δίκρα Musurus (cf. Phot Lex. δ 588 Theodoridis δίκρα: διπλή): δικρὰ cod.: δικρᾶ Küster, alii alia double face

 414 Staatliche Museen Berlin Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Antikenabteilung inv. 1962.33 (App. II.8, fig. 8); Simon 1982, 140 pl. 35a, 1997, 1111 no. 2. For further references, see Germar/Krumeich 1999, 200 n. 13. 415 Simon 1982, 140. Cf. also Di Marco 1982, 85–89; Podlecki 2005, 14–15. 416 For the uncertain reading ἐμψίουσα, see Radt 2009, 351. The tentative translation of these three fragments is mine. 417 Hourmouziades 1984, 41 notes that Dionysus’ presence as an infant is likely in this satyrplay on the basis of parallels, such as the Dionysiscus Satyricus and the Ichneutai of Sophocles. On Dionysiscus, Radt 1999, 175.

The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and E. Bacchae: Correspondences  

ap. Hsch. δ 1831 Cunningham δίκρα ὄψις· ἡ διπλῆ. Αἰσχύλος Τροφοῖς; cf. Phot. Lex. δ 588 Theodoridis For δίκρα, cf. Thphr. HP 9.11.3 δίκρα ρίζα. Cf. also X. Cyn. 2.7. Δίκρα ὄψις, ‘double face, appearance, countenance’, probably indicates ambiguities and polarities; cf. ἀμφίδρομος Edonoi fr. 65 R. Moreover, an allusion to the rejuvenation of Dionysus’ nurses might be possible.

Fr. 246d R. πεδοίκου χελιδόνος migrating swallow

ap. Hsch. π 1202 Hansen πεδοίκου χελιδόν[ι]ος. συνοίκου. Αἰσχύλος Τροφοῖς. Πέδοικος, aeol. and dor. for μέτοικος, ‘settler from abroad, alien resident in a foreign city’, also occurs in Pindar fr. 25 and inc. fr. 252 Bowra. A similar concept is implied in Ant. Lib. 11.11 χελιδονὶς δ’ ἐγένετο σύνοικος ἀνθρώποις, Favorin. Π. φυγῆς col. XV 14 = 16,4 p. 392,22 Barigazzi ἔνθα ἂν ὁ ἄνθρωπος οἰκῇ ἐκεῖ καὶ χελιδόνα εὑρήσεις. Πέδοικος χελιδὼν σύνοικος (ἀνθρώποις) is the migrating swallow living together with people. In the “Theban” tetralogy Dionysus’ life seems to have been sketched from his birth to the punishment of his theomachos confirming the principle of dramatic unity that Aeschylus pursued in his trilogies. The satyr-play Dionysou Trophoi further supports such a unity, which is distinctive in later Aeschylean tetralogies.

. The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and E. Bacchae: Correspondences .. Aspects of Dionysus’ persona in Aeschylus and Euripides In the Dionysiac tetralogies of Aeschylus and in Euripides’ Bacchae, Dionysus steers the dramatic action and directs their plot. In Bacchae, in particular, the god dominates the three central scenes418 involving his confrontation with his major opponent, Pentheus: a) Dionysus in his  418 As Dodds 1960, 130 aptly pointed out, these three scenes form a sort of triptych, finely constructed upon the balanced antithetical symmetry of classical art.

  The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae human form deceives the king into jeering at him for his effeminate appearance; b) after his epiphany Dionysus starts to dominate the mind of the theomachos persuading him to spy on the Maenads; and c) in the complete reversal of dramatic action Pentheus enchanted by the god is sent to meet his horrible death. The evidence on Lycurgeia, though meagre, may give scope for some remarks on Dionysus’ role in the action. Following the exploration of the fragmentary texts and the testimonia some conclusions can be safely drawn: Dionysus is present during the interrogation-scene, being jeered at his effeminacy by Lycurgus; after the palace-miracle and his epiphany, he drives Lycurgus mad to slaughter his son Dryas and ultimately contrives the hineous end of his opponent. The fragmentary evidence and the testimonia on the tetralogies of Aeschylus reveal facets of Dionysus’ nature, which are closely related to those clearly depicted in Bacchae. Dionysus is the most multifaceted Greek divinity. As it has been appropriately pointed out,419 the maxim that represents the nature of Dionysus is that “god lies in the particulars.” As his presence in mystery-cult, myth, dramatic poetry and the visual arts suggests, he is an epiphanic god and a god of nature, revealing himself in physical manifestations, in his sacred plants and animals, in the wine, in his mythical entourage, and, in particular, in his female worshippers, the Maenads. He is the master of uncontrollable madness, intoxication and illusion, paradox420 and ambiguity. But he is also the god of disguise, often represented in iconography by means of a mask. He combines creativity and destruction by dominating physical phenomena; he is a blessing for his followers and a terrible enemy for his fighters. His divinity emerges from mystery cult, ecstatic possession and ritual; his thiasos, his initiates, recognize him both in his human and divine form, because he is visible in the particulars.421 Nevertheless, instead of merely representing the irrational, Dionysus is explicitly said to possess sōphrosynē,422 ‘self-control’, and calls himself sōphrōn and

 419 E.g., Henrichs 1993, 40–41 and n. 71 for references. Among the most recent studies exploring Dionysus’ identity, see e.g. Seaford 2006; Burkert 2011; Bernabé et al. 2013; Friesen 2015. 420 Garvie 2016, 108, 113 pointed out the paradoxes of Dionysus’ mystic cult requiring both ecstatic religion and rational wisdom (sophia). 421 Henrichs 1993, 16 is right to remark that Dionysus’ fully anthropomorphic appearance, which conceals his divinity, becomes the touchstone that separates his devotees from the uninitiated. 422 On Dionysus’ sōphrosynē, see North 1966, 82; Rademaker 2005, 177–178.

The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and E. Bacchae: Correspondences  

sophos.423 His unexpected calmness (hēsychia)424 contrasts with Pentheus’ thymos.425 Both sōphrosynē and hēsychia may be of mystic significance.426 The task of pinpointing and understanding the features and the conceptions pertaining to this particular divinity, as portrayed in tragic poetry, is indispensable when dealing with the treatments of the Dionysus-myth by Aeschylus and Euripides. Polarities, contradictions, paradoxes427 and ambiguities, the opposition of reality and illusions, of ecstatic cult and rational wisdom, of male and female, gentleness and violence, all these attributes emerge from the god’s appearance in their plays. Yet, all these diverging aspects form a unity of opposites and the entity of Dionysus’ persona. Dionysus is an “elusive” god in Segal’s428 successful characterization, a god eluding all generalization,429 and, at the same time, the most visible god, a god present in myth, tragedy, and art. The mask, signifying his polarities, is a distinctive feature of Dionysiac nature and of the actors’ presence in the theatre, highlighting the close relation of the god of theatre with theatre performance.430 Dionysus’ varying and elusive character greatly contributed to the development of sophisticated performances reflecting the various aspects of his personality.431 Although the preserved titles of tragedies suggest, to a great extent, that they had “nothing to do with Dionysus”, there are Dionysiac features inspiring the tragic poets in the making of their plays. It is worth noting that Dionysus’ combination of opposites could be paralleled to Euripides’ conjunction of the antinomies of human life in his dramatic art: the controversies of reason and passion, of realism and emotion, of the exploitation of rhetoric and of the psychological tension leading to the outburst of uncontrollable passions, of patriotism and bitterness for the decline of contemporary politics, and of the doubts about the morality and justice of gods. It is also  423 Ba. 504: Dionysus is σωφρονῶν, ‘having sense’; in 641 he is σοφός, ‘wise’. 424 Ba. 636: Dionysus is explicitly referred as ἥσυχος; 860–861: though Dionysus is most terrible in initiation ritual, he is most gentle (ἠπιώτατος) to humankind. 425 Ba. 389, 636, 647. 426 Cf. Seaford 1997, 203. On these concepts, cf. Ba. 389–392 and Christus Patiens 2.4.3 below. 427 Paradoxes, such as rational wisdom and irrational madness, characterize Dionysus’ persona, his ritual, and the change in mood between the lyrics and the episodes in Bacchae: Garvie 2016. 428 1982, 8–26. 429 Thus Friesen 2015, 6. 430 Regarding the function of mask in performance, cf., e.g., Segal 1982, 13 who remarks that both the actor wearing the mask and the spectator watching the performance are identified with the represented personage on stage. 431 Cf. Easterling 1997, 53.

  The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae for this reason that it is not a mere coincidence that Euripides chose to deal with Dionysus at the end of his life, after a long period of decline of tragedies with Dionysiac themes in Greek theatre. The well-established view that the origin of tragedy was rooted in Dionysiac ritual seems to account sufficiently for the fact that Dionysiac tragedies were more frequently attested in the earlier dramatic production than in the second half of the fifth century. Such a remark is confirmed by the Aeschylean treatment of the Dionysus-myth. Bacchae, the last play of Euripides, provides a unique instance of a purely Dionysiac treatment at the end of “classical” dramatic production. The “most tragic of the poets” handled a play on Dionysus presenting a kind of tragedy that seems to have disappeared for decades. A spur towards the Euripidean revival of this theme was probably given by Aeschylus’ Dionysiac tetralogies. Significant similarities, both general and particular, in themes, plot-patterns, style, and concepts, emerge from a cross-exploration of the Dionysiac tetralogies of Aeschylus and Bacchae. In particular, Lycurgeia dealt with a myth similar to Euripides’ play and focused on a central theme: a theomachos, ‘god-fighter’, Lycurgus and Pentheus, in each case, fights and insults the god and his followers and is finally punished for his impiety. The opposition to Dionysus and his cult, the theomachy, entails thus the powerful destruction of the god’s persecutor and of his own oikos, his household:432 Dryas, Lycurgus’ son, and his mother, as well as Agave and Cadmus, respectively.433 Theomachein occurs for the first time in the later plays of Euripides, and in particular in Bacchae (45, 325, 1255; cf. also IA 1408), though its conception is as old as Greek literature itself.434 Pentheus’ vain and hopeless struggle against the overwhelming power of Dionysus and his cult is impressively illustrated.

 432 For Dionysus as destroyer of the household, see extensively Seaford 1993, 133–138. 433 At the end of Bacchae, which is reconstructed to a remarkable extent from Christus Patiens: see Appendix III. 434 Thus aptly Kamerbeek 1948, 274–275, who cites Sophoclean parallels including similar connotations, whilst focusing on Ajax as a typical theomachos. For an early occurrence of the concept, cf. Hom. Il. 6.128–129 with reference to Lycurgus’ myth, above 1.1.

The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and E. Bacchae: Correspondences  

.. Core correspondences On the basis of the available evidemce, in Bacchae Euripides reiterated pivotal plot-patterns of the Dionysiac tetralogies of Aeschylus.435 In Edonoi (fr. 57 R.) Dionysus and his devotees arrive in Thrace probably from Phrygia (Strabo 10.3.16 p. 470). Similarly, in Bacchae the god reaches Thebes from ‘the gold-rich lands of the Lydians and Phrygians … the plains of the Persians … and the harsh land of the Medes, and wealthy Arabia …’ (vv. 12–17). In both Aeschylus and Euripides the chorus consists of Dionysus’ worshippers: the male chorus436 of the Edonoi, the female chorus of the Bassarids in Bassarae or Bassarides, and the Bacchants in Euripides. Dionysus drives the women mad transforming them into maenads and leads them on the mountain disrupting their oikos in Euripides’ Bacchae and probably in Aeschylus’ Xantriae. The god, disguised as an effeminate Stranger, is arrested, taunted, and mocked by Lycurgus and Pentheus in the interrogation-scene of each play. Deviating from Aeschylus, in the Euripidean play Dionysus’ female Asiatic worshippers are not arrested, for in that case they could not function as the chorus of Bacchae. The earthquake and the shaking of the palace in Edonoi (fr. 58 R.) is refigured in a most impressive scene of Bacchae (585–609) involving Dionysus’ epiphany manifested in the voice of the god, which, again, refigures the equivalent scene in Edonoi, as attested by [Long.] De Subl. 15.6. Lycurgus killed his son Dryas in Edonoi thinking he was a vine branch ([Apollod.] 3.5.1–2) and Agave delacerated Pentheus imagining him to be a lion (Ba. 1215, 1278). In Xantriae (fr. 169 R.) the personified Lyssa inspired the maenads and led them to a sparagmos from feet to head. Similarly, as suggested by vase-paintings,437 Lyssa inspires Lycurgus to kill Dryas, his own son. These Aeschylean scenes were refigured in Bacchae: Lyssa is invoked by the chorus to drive the women of Thebes mad against Pentheus, ‘the frenzied spy on the maenads, dressed up as woman’ (977–981). Both Dionysus in Edonoi and Hera in Semele, on the basis of the papyrus-text discussed above, are presented on stage, transformed into mortals to punish Lycurgus and Semele respectively. Euripides in Bacchae seems to have revisited this

 435 On general and specific resemblances of A. Lycurgeia and E. Bacchae, Xanthaki-Karamanou 2020a. 436 Fr. 57 R. A female chorus might also exist in this play on the basis of [Apollod.] 3.5.1. 437 App. II.1, 4.

  The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae important dramatic incident and presents Dionysus in his anthropomorphic appearance as plotting against Pentheus, his theomachos. The Lycurgeia seems to have ended with the reconciliation in the last play of this trilogy, Neaniskoi. Dionysus’ cult was established in Thrace and Thebes and the convergence of Apolline and Dionysiac worship was achieved. Such a reconciliation-motif is consistent with the osmosis of both Apolline and Dionysiac cults attested in several Euripidean plays (Ion 714–720, IT 1243, Ph. 226–228; cf. also S. Ant. 1126–1130, Ar. Nub. 603–605). Ba. 186–190 may involve a reworking of the rejuvenation-motif in the satyrplay Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi. In this scene of Bacchae Cadmus and Teiresias holding their thyrsoi have forgot that they are old. Dionysiac cult offers rejuvenation to aged people. Therefore, the action and the plot-structure of Bacchae comprises motifs refigured mainly from Edonoi and, less so, from the other plays of the Dionysiac tetralogies. Pivotal elements of the Aeschylean material were reworked, recontextualized and sometimes modified to correspond to Euripides’ dramatic propensities and his own poetics. The climax of these Euripidean inventions is certainly Dionysus’ persuasion of Pentheus (Ba. 787–846) and Agave’s frenzied delusion identifying her victim with a lion, a bull, and a plant (1170, 1171, 1185– 1187, 1215, 1278). The hostility of Lycurgus and Pentheus against Dionysiac cult probably resulted from its supposedly foreign origin,438 from their moral objections to some elements of his ritual, such as drunkenness and facile pleasures,439 and from their fear that the new cult would threaten the social cohesion of the city and, in particular, their autocratic rule.440 For this reason, Teiresias and Cadmus tried to appease Pentheus and persuade him to accept the new cult (Ba. 272–327, 330–342). A similar intervention lacks from what is known from Edonoi, though it occurs in other versions of the Lycurgus-story.441 Dionysus’ power is expressed forcefully upon the mortals who deny him. In his anthropomorphic appearances, in particular in Edonoi and Bacchae, he hides his destructive power and pretends to be in a position of weakness and inferiority  438 In E. Ba. 13–17 Dionysus himself in his opening monologue refers to the establishment of his cult throughout Asia. 439 See e.g. Winnington-Ingram 1969, 99. 440 In E. Ba. 35–40 Dionysus characteristically proclaims that he will bring his cult to the polis, even if it does not want to. For Dionysus as subversive of autocracy and a symbolic reversal of the structure of the polis in favour of communality, see Seaford 2006, 26–38. 441 In the seventh Homeric Hymn, Diodorus Siculus 3.64–66, and the anonymous papyrus-text of the third century A.D.: above 1.1.

The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and E. Bacchae: Correspondences  

comparable to that of his opponents, Lycurgus and Pentheus. Thus, his vindictive punishment on them is not direct but deceptive, so that his divine nature is concealed. Notably, Dionysus’ vengeance on the opponents of his cult is implemented through self-destructive incentives that arouse the madness or transformation of his enemies,442 as in the cases of Lycurgus and Pentheus, respectively. On the other hand, Dionysiac initiation changes the nature of the recipient and creates a strong bond between Dionysus and his followers,443 as it emerges from the main fragment (57 R.) of Edonoi and extensively from Bacchae.

.. Particular correspondences Aspects of the reception of the Aeschylean treatment in Bacchae also emerge from the handling of themes from the mythological and literary tradition concerning Dionysus. ... The god’s captivity In both plays, Edonoi and Bacchae, Dionysus, transformed into a mortal, is captured along with the Bacchants, bound by his opponents, Lycurgus and Pentheus respectively, and miraculously freed. The motif of the god’s captivity, echoed in [Apollod.] 3.5.1, occurs, slightly modified,444 for the first time in Homer’s Il. 6.130– 140 and then in the Seventh Homeric Hymn to Dionysus. ... Dionysiac thiasos: Aspects of his ritual (Edonoi fr. 57 R.) Key elements of the god’s male and female thiasos (sacred band or retinue) are brought forward in the main fragment of Edonoi (fr. 57 R.) and Bacchae: the thiasos’ attachment to the natural environment, the strong communication of the participants, all possessed by Dionysus, and their psychic union with this god. It is a process of an identification of one participant with another and a powerful mystic communion with the god. The mystic cohesion of the initiated is contrasted with the individualism and the isolation of both Lycurgus and Pentheus expressed in their rejection of Dionysiac cult. Instruments such as βόμβυξ, a kind of flute like the Phrygian flutes

 442 Cf. Henrichs 1993, 18–19. 443 For references to the aspects of Dionysiac “possession”, Henrichs 1993, 19 and n. 11. 444 See above 1.1. In Homer Dionysus plunged beneath the wave and Thetis received him in her bosom.

  The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae in the parodos of Bacchae, the bronze-cymbals and the drum with its fearful sound as in the prologue and the parodos of Bacchae, the ritual cry of triumph (ἀλαλαγμός), a functional element of orgiastic cults, showcasing the thiasos’ communion with Dionysus, the assimilation of the initiated with animals, especially bulls (ταυρόφθογγοι μῖμοι), which represent a terrifying imitation of the god’s transformation into a bull are elements of Dionysiac mystic cult, common in both Edonoi and Bacchae. The whole description of fr. 57 R. gives a picture of the wild tumult, of the pandemonium, created from the orgiastic Dionysiac cult.445 Mystic initiation brings the individual soul into the Dionysiac group, as it is effectively shown in this passage of Edonoi and in the first messenger account of the maenads’ activities on the mountain in Bacchae: Dionysus’ female worshippers offer “a miracle of good order” (v. 693) and all natural elements joined their Dionysiac ecstasy (726–727). The attachment of the initiates to one another and to the whole nature is a pivotal feature of the Dionysiac thiasos. ... Light and thunder in Dionysiac ritual (Bassarae fr. 23a R.) In fr. 23a R. the phrase ἀργυρήλατοι πρῶν’†ες τὸ τῆς ἀστραπῆς† πευκᾶεν σέλας, plausibly emended to πρῶνες τότ’ ἀστράψουσι πευκᾶεν σέλας, seems to refer to Dionysus’ female devotees, the Bassarids, in their Dionysiac revel on Mount Pangaeum. They are holding their blazing pine torches, as suggested by πευκᾶεν σέλας. Flaming torches on the mountain constitute one of the prominent features of Dionysiac worship.446 The scene recalls a similar description of light, such as thunderbolt and lightning, associated with mystic initiation in various literary texts (Hdt. 4.79.1–2, E. Ph. 226–228, Pl. Rep. 621b). This Aeschylean imagery may have served as the model of pivotal scenes of Bacchae: it seems to be echoed in the masterful reference to Dionysus ‘holding up the blazing flame of the pine torch’ (…πυρσώδη φλόγα πεύκας / ἐκ νάρθηκος ἀίσσει) in the parodos of Bacchae (145–147);447 in Dionysus’ epiphany (594–595); and in the last messenger-speech referring to the god’s command to the daughters of Cadmus, the Bacchants, to kill Pentheus, whilst a light of holy fire is towering between heaven and earth (1082–1083). The god’s identification with the greatest light is confirmed by his initiates after Bacchus’ epiphany and the palace-miracle (v. 608) ‘o light supreme for us

 445 On this central theme, cf. Otto 1965, 92–94. 446 For this issue, cf., e.g., Segal 1982, 10. 447 A similar image is depicted in E. Ion 716: … Βάκχιος ἀμφιπύρους ἀνέχων πεύκας.

The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and E. Bacchae: Correspondences  

in the joyful Bacchic worship’, and it refers to mystic cult; in Ar. Ra. 341–342 Bacchus is νυκτέρου τελετῆς φωσφόρος ἀστήρ, ‘the light-bearing star of nocturnal rites’. This symbolism is represented in Chistianity in the words of Jesus Christ “ἐγὼ εἰμὶ … ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρός ὁ πρωινός” (Apocalypsis 22.16). Notably, Lycurgus in S. Ant. 964 tried to restrain, like Pentheus in Ba. 630–631, the god-inspired Bacchants and the Bacchic fire (εὔιον πῦρ) which symbolizes the god’s cult and his divine power. ... Dionysus as a μουσόμαντις: his mantic abilities The compound epithet μουσόμαντις in Edonoi fr. 60 R. is likelier to refer to Dionysus himself than to Orpheus,448 as confirmed by the evidence provided in Bacchae. It conveys both the meaning of Dionysus’ link with the Muses and his mantic capacities. In Ba. 410 Pieria, “the seat of the Muses”, their traditional place of origin (Hes. Op. 1, Th. 53), is said to welcome Dionysus’ worship and ritual, while the god’s association with the Muses is also attested in S. Ant. 965.449 In Ar. Ra. 873– 874 Dionysus wishes to judge the contest μουσικώτατα and induces the chorus to sing a melos to the Muses. The association of mania with the Muses and poetry finds the analogy that Plato traces in a poet’s ἔνθεος μανία: “a poet becomes possessed by god (ἔνθεος) and out of his senses (ἔκφρων)450 and his mind does no longer dwell in him” (Pl. Ion 534b; cf. Apol. 22b, Phdr. 245a). Similarly, in Aristotle’s view (Poet. 17, 1455a32–33) poetic art is created by a poet who is εὐφυής or μανικός, ‘possessed’.451 Aeschylus in Frogs is depicted as a tragic poet possessed by a powerful Dionysiac mania (μανίας ὑπὸ δεινῆς, v. 816). He is a Βακχεῖος ἄναξ (1259), much closer to Dionysus than Euripides.452 Dionysus’ mantic abilities, associated with his cult in Thrace (E. Hec. 1267; Rh. 972–973), are adequately attested in Bacchae. Dionysus is a prophet (μάντης), since the feature of mania is related to his mantic power (298–299). The frenzied initiands (τοὺς μεμηνότας) have prophetic abilities (300–301), as Teiresias as-

 448 Orpheus was suggested by earlier scholars; see above on Edonoi fr. 60 R. 449 See above 1.1 n. 35 on the φιλαύλους Μούσας, ‘the tuneful Muses’. Cf. also Plut. Mor. 717 A and Eustathius on Od. 17.205: the Muses are Dionysus’ nurses. 450 On the frenzied poet and Dionysus as well as this god’s relation to the Muses, see, e.g., LadaRichards 1999, 244–247. 451 On this issue, Else 1963, 500–502; Lucas 1968, 178–179. 452 Thus aptly Lada-Richards 1999, 244.

  The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae serts, confirming the association of mantic power with the psychology of Dionysus’ thiasos during his ritual.453 Nevertheless, the relation of mania with μαντική (Ba. 299: καὶ τὸ μανιῶδες μαντικὴν πολλὴν ἔχει), is explained by Plato (Phdr. 244c), explicitly associating mania with mantic power. In Symp. 218b Plato refers to “τῆς φιλοσόφου μανίας καὶ βακχείας”.454 ... The madness-motif Madness is a prominent feature of Dionysus’ myth. A clear expression that underlines Dionysus’ polarities and opposites is that he is Baccheios, ‘brings madness, bacchic ecstasy’, and, at the same time, he is Lysios: Ba. 498 λύσει μ’ ὁ δαίμων αὐτός, … (cf. Lysimerimnos, AP 9.524), Dionysus ‘delivers from madness and cares’, and from everything455. Madness is the result of orgiastic cult (μανίας ἐπαγωγὸν ὁμοκλὰν, Edonoi fr. 57.5 R.; …ἐκ δόμων ᾤστρησ’ ἐγὼ / μανίαις …, E. Ba. 32– 33)456 and a way of the god’s vindictive punishment of the unbelievers. The frenzied spirit is thus both a part of Dionysiac ritual (‘I stung them with frenzy’, Dionysus says of the Theban Bacchants in Ba. 32) and a way of expressing the god’s revenge on the theomachoi. Madness sent by Dionysus led Lycurgus to murder his son; the ἐλαφρὰν λύσσαν, ‘the light-headed frenzy’, inspired on Pentheus (Ba. 850–851) put him out of his mind (ἔκστησον φρενῶν), led him to disguise as a maenad and made him a victim of sparagmos by his own mother. Plato (Phdr. 265b) distinguishes the kinds of madness and assigns the initiatory (τελεστική) madness to Dionysus.457 This kind of madness, associated with Dionysus’ cult, distinctly differs from the μανία, the frenzy imposed by jealous Hera on Heracles and that of the vindictive Aphrodite on Phaedra, which led to their impious (μιαρόν) acts. ... Murders of close relatives in Dionysiac frenzy Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia and Euripides’ Bacchae share a key-theme in the development of the dramatic action: Lycurgus killed his son Dryas and Agave her son Pentheus, both in a state of Dionysiac frenzy. E. Heracles also provides a similar  453 Cf. Plut. Mor. 432 E τὸ γὰρ βακχεύσιμον καὶ τὸ μανιῶδες μαντευτικὴν πολλὴν ἔχει κατ’ Εὐριπίδην. 454 On Plato’s association of Dionysiac madness to philosophy, see Bordoy 2013, 392–398. Plato’s concept of “right madness” (τῷ ὀρθῶς μανέντι, Phdr. 244e) illustrates this association. 455 Καὶ οὐδὲν … ὃ μὴ οἷόν τ’ ἔσται λῦσαι τῷ Διονύσῳ (Ael. Aristid. 2.331 Keil). For Dionysus as Lysios with many textual references, Seaford 1997, 190. 456 For further instances of madness infused by Dionysus himself, see above p. 16. 457 See Bordoy 2013, 392–398.

The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and E. Bacchae: Correspondences  

act of infanticide in madness. Myths of killing one’s offspring also include those of the Minyads, Ino458 and Procne.459 Murders of close relatives (πάθη ἐν ταῖς φιλίαις) are considered in Aristotle’s Poetics to be a destructive or painful tragic act of particular dramatic impact, often committed due to hamartia, namely in ignorance of the victim’s identity (13, 1453a 10–12).460 The action of Bacchae and, as far as our evidence goes, of Lycurgeia comprises in Aristotelian terms the concept of hamartia intermingled with the madness motif, a tragic deed (pathos) occurring between close kin (philia),461 and, in the particular case of Bacchae, Agave’s recognition of the philia at the end of the play. Some of the elements of a good plot structure, according to Aristotle’s criteria in the Poetics, are thus included in Bacchae and less so in the fragmentary Lycurgeia in which it is not certain whether the recognition of the philia took place at the end, after the tragic act. Since hamartia associated with Dionysiac frenzy was the cause for the murder of close relatives, Dryas in Lycurgeia and Pentheus in Bacchae, Aeschylus seems to have introduced, in this case too, a pivotal element of the plot structure, which formed the model for the Euripidean treatment. ... Dionysus and the Maenads Some remarkable aspects of the relation of the Maenads to Dionysus are brought forward in the fragmentary texts of the Dionysiac tetralogies and Bacchae. Maenads, the traditional female thiasos of Dionysus, form groups of the god’s initiates (βακχεύειν), carrying the thyrsos in a state of divinely inspired ecstasis.462 Their

 458 In E. Ino Athamas, King of Thessaly, thought that his wife Ino, by whom he had two sons, had died. So, he married Themisto who bore him twin sons. Themisto, in her attempt to murder Ino’s sons, killed her own twins unwittingly, and, then, committed suicide. 459 Seaford 1993, 124 and n. 39 for many textual references. On the Minyads, see also Burkert 1983, 174–178; 1985, 164–167. 460 The elements comprising the best kind of tragedy, such as complex plot, hamartia as a mistake of identity concerning close relatives (philia), tragic act and recognition of the philia, are described in chapters 13 and 14 of the Poetics. On a thorough analysis of Aristotle’s best kind of tragedy, see e.g. Adkins 1966 and Else’s (1963, 399–406) comments on Poet. 13. 461 Ar. Poet. 14, 1453b 19–22, 30–31 ὅταν δ’ ἐν ταῖς φιλίαις ἐγγένηται τὰ πάθη, οἷον … μήτηρ υἱὸν ... ταῦτα ζητητέον … ἔστιν δὲ πρᾶξαι μέν, ἀγνοοῦντας δὲ πρᾶξαι τὸ δεινόν, εἶθ’ ὕστερον ἀναγνωρίσαι τὴν φιλίαν, … 462 For the practices traditionally carried-out by the Maenads, see, extensively, Dodds 1940; 1960, xiii–xx.

  The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae presence in mystic ritual was pivotal, as the parodos of Bacchae (64–166) indicates, providing a typical cult song.463 A scene of Bacchic ritual is echoed in A. Bassarae fr. 23a R. referring to Maenads holding blazing pine torches. The worshippers wore fawnskins (A. Edonoi fr. 64 R. and E. Ba. 24, 249, 835) and held an ivy-tipped wand or thyrsos (Ba. 24–26), reflecting mystic initiation. Aeschylus in his Xantriae, as suggested by the title, presents the Theban women as Wool-Carders, working wool before their ascent to the Mount Cithaeron. The parodos of E. Ba. 117–119 clearly depicts the sequence of these women’s activities: Bromios has led them, in a state of frenzy, to the mountain, far from their weaving and their household, thus disrupting the unity and the cohesion of their oikos.464 In Aeschylus the Bacchants together with the Satyrs attended Dionysus and were taken prisoners by Lycurgus ([Apollod.] 3.5.1: Βάκχαι δὲ ἐγένοντο αἰχμάλωτοι καὶ τὸ συνεπόμενον Σατύρων πλῆθος αὐτῷ). Maenads left the yoke of marriage465 and were submitted to the god’s yoke. Aeschylus calls Dionysus ‘a yoker of Maenads’ in a characteristic address to the god: inc. fab. fr. 382 R. ap. Sch. Lyc. 1247 (2, 357, 19, Scheer): πάτερ θέοινε, μαινάδων ζευκτήριε. Θέοινος466 refers to Dionysus as the θεὸς οἴνου εὑρετής. Ζευκτήριος, ‘fit for joining or yoking’, is used only by Aeschylus, occurring also in Persae 736. Euripides’ Bacchae and possibly Xantriae of Aeschylus show that Pentheus and Lycurgus ([Apollod.] 3.5.1) tried to imprison the women to maintain the integrity of the house and their city, but in vain. They were released by Dionysus ([Apollod.] 3.5.1, E. Ba. 443–448) who has the power to loose (Ba. 498), hence Λύσιος, ‘Liberator’. Disruption of their oikos and initiation into Dionysus’ female thiasos transforms the women’s traditional position in the household into a condition of complete devotion to Dionysiac ritual. The first parallel of a frenzied woman leaving her house in Greek literature is that of Andromache in Iliad 6.389, when, in fear for Hector, she rushes to the Trojan Wall μαινομένῃ ἐϊκυῖα. Similarly, in Il. 22.460 Hector’s noble wife, again full of anxiety for her husband’s fate, rushes like a Maenad,467 μαινάδι ἴση. Andromache provides the only female figure in Iliad with maenadic features and the last case of a reference to maenadism in Homer.  463 Cf. Edonoi fr. 57 R.; Seaford 1997, 155–157; Winnington-Ingram 1969, 32–39. 464 For Dionysus as destroyer of the household in Homer and tragedy, see extensively Seaford 1993, 115–146. 465 Maenadism is in general opposite to marriage: Dodds 1940 passim; Seaford 1993, 121–122. 466 For sources, in particular lexicographers, attesting this epithet of Dionysus, see Radt 2009, 432. 467 See e.g. Privitera 1970, 60–61; Seaford 1993, 115–117, id. 1994, 330–332. For Andromache’s description as a maenad in Homer, see also Tsagalis 2007.

The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and E. Bacchae: Correspondences  

The attribution of μαίνεσθαι to Dionysus (μαινομένοιο Διονύσοιο, Il. 6.132) and in particular to Andromache inaugurates a Dionysiac use of the term coinciding with the warriors’ frenzy during the battle.468 In their Dionysiac frenzy, Maenads tear apart animals, as probably in Aeschylus’ Xantriae fr. 169 R. where they are inspired by Lyssa. The scene is refigured in the first messenger’s account to Pentheus (Ba. 734–747) involving the sparagmos of the Theban cattle. Pentheus thus becomes a recipient of the description of his own imminent fate. The tragic irony reaches its height at the messenger’s words ‘you might have seen’ (737, 740).469 The animals’ sparagmos thus foreshadows Pentheus’ dismemberment in the last messenger-speech (1114–1136). In performing their ritual, the Maenads substitute their animal victim for a human victim, even a close kin: Agave killed Pentheus mistaking him for a young animal. In both cases the victim is torn by hand, not killed with a sacred cult implement. This indicates orgiastic passion and powerful emotional tension.470 The Maenads on the Mountain in both messengers’ accounts function as a homogeneous group of Dionysiac devotees, based on a community of feeling, scope, and indifference for social cohesion and the commitments for family and civilized life. In the framework of such a community and devotion to Dionysus Maenads are also described as warriors often using their thyrsoi as weapons in both Bacchae (113–114, 762–764, 1099) and in the visual arts.471 ... The tripartite nature of Dionysus The nature of Dionysus has three forms: the divine, the human and the subhuman, the bestial, all three of which unite divinity, humanity, and nature. The tripartite nature of Dionysus as a god, a mortal in his anthropomorphic appearances and an animal shows that Dionysiac religion was constructed upon the concept of this polymorphous god, at once superhuman, human, and subman symbolizing a unity of polarities and the dissolution of boundaries.472 As a god, Dionysus conceals his divinity and deceives the theomachoi, Lycurgus and Pentheus, with his apparent weakness and inferiority, thus creating the

 468 Tsagalis 2007, 4–5 with references from Homer. 469 Cf. Winnington-Ingram 1969, 96. 470 Cf. Segal 1982, 24. Dodds 1940, 164–165 remarked that “in both cases sparagmos is described with a gusto which the modern reader has difficulty in sharing”. 471 On this issue, see above on A. Pentheus 1.2.3. 472 On the dissolution of boundaries and the unity of opposites, cf. Henrichs 1993; Seaford 2006, 11 and passim.

  The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae anthropomorphic illusion of familiarity.473 His mortal quality is distinct from the other Greek gods, since in both art and literature is surrounded by his mortal devotees, maenads and satyrs. The subhuman feature is seen or imagined474 in the form of an animal, most often a bull. Dionysus’ bestial form as a bull, first displayed in Bassarae fr. 23 R., is widely received in Ba. 100, 920–922, 1017, 1159, and provides a prominent feature of god’s ritual and of Dionysus as a divinity of transformation and hallucination, a god of tremendous power beyond human control. The bull functions as the vehicle of god’s dominance communicating his natural power to his thiasos. The subhuman feature of Dionysus’ existence symbolizes the power of blind, instinctive emotion that cannot be constrained by the recipient.475 The sparagmos (Xantriae fr. 169 R.) is an indisputable result of the possession by the god. Dionysus’ uncontrollable powers were considered to characterize, apart from bulls, also snakes, lions, and leopards. In Ba. 1017–1019 the chorus calls the god to appear as a bull or a many-headed snake or a fire-blazing lion. Similarly, the daughters of Minyas see him as a bull, a lion, and a leopard (Ant. Lib. 10.1).476 In addition, members of his thiasos are associated with animals and bellow imitating the voice of bulls (Edonoi fr. 57.8 R.). The god is thus identified with animals, uncontrollable, like himself, by humans. ... Dionysus’ transformation into a mortal. His effeminacy in the interrogation-scene (Edonoi frr. 59–62 R.) In both plays, Edonoi and Bacchae, Dionysus is present on stage in his anthropomorphic appearance as a young person, a Stranger, concealing his divinity. The Edonoi involved thus the first transformation in Greek tragedy of a god into a mortal without been recognized. Fr. 168 R., variously attributed to A. Xantriae or, more likely, to his Semele,477 with Hera transformed into a mortal, provides a second instance of a god on stage in Aeschylus. Edonoi thus offers a model for the anthropomorphic presence of Dionysus in Euripides’ last play. Frr. 59–62 R. of Edonoi anticipate Pentheus’ exhaustive “interrogation” of the anthropomorphic Dionysus in the second episode of Bacchae, performed in stich-

 473 Cf. Henrichs 1993, 21. 474 Cf. Ba. 616–622, 918–922, above on Bassarae fr. 23 R. 475 Cf. Winnington-Ingram 1969, 84. 476 On Dionysus as a bull, see above Bassarae fr. 23 R. and n. 253, 254. 477 See above 1.2.4.1.

The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and E. Bacchae: Correspondences  

omythia (460–508). In fr. 61 R., included in Ar. Th. 134–145 and imbued with cynicism, Lycurgus puts his question in a short and sarcastic way: ‘This woman-man! Where is he from? What’s his country? What’s his attire? Euripides also adopts short questions, but without the strong Aristophanic cynicism: Ba. 460 ‘Now, first tell me who you are, from what family?’478 The Stranger’s womanish appearance provides the prominent target of both Lycurgus and Pentheus. Specific features suggest the resemblances in the treatment of the effeminacy-motif in Edonoi and Bacchae: the garb, characteristic adjectives, such as, γύννις, θηλύμορφος, γυναικόμορφος, χλούνης, and the drinking cup (καρχήσιον) as contrasted with the shield. The reversal of the main roles and the intrusion of otherness are prominent features of the interrogation-scene: the strong plays the weak and the weak regards himself as the strong. This is an aspect of the crossing of boundaries and the fusion of opposites, which characterize Dionysus. He is a male god with the vitality of a young person, as shown from his appearance in his human existence in the first epiphany in Edonoi and Bacchae. At the same time, he combines effeminate features with a reversal of gender roles, bringing forward his otherness. Using the typically female strategy of contrivance and dolos479 he deceives his opponents leading them to their horrible end and the disruption of their households. The polarities of this god find a vivid expression in his appearance in both Edonoi and Bacchae. In a gender reversal, the female, the effeminate Stranger, replaces the masculine god. However, in the masterful development of the action, especially in the epiphany-scene, and at the impressive end the supremacy of the powerful god over his weak opponent is predominant. In Bacchae the interplay between theatrical illusion and reality underscores these ambiguities between identity and disguise and between divine, human, and bestial.480 ... Dionysus’ epiphanies Edonoi, like Bacchae, seem to involve two appearances of Dionysus: in his mortal form in the interrogation-scene (frr. 59–62 R.) and in his divine epiphany (fr. 58 R.). The latter is introduced by a miracle in Edonoi: ‘the palace of Lycurgus during the epiphany of Dionysus is possessed by the god’ (On the Sublime 15.6). The god in both plays was offstage when the palace-miracle occurred. In Bacchae, when

 478 Cf., however, the sarcastic tone in v. 467. 479 Zeitlin 1996, 343. 480 Friesen 2015, 255.

  The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae his female devotees invoked his presence (583–584), Dionysus evoked an earthquake (585) and a fire (594–595) to devastate the palace of Pentheus. The impressive scenes in Ba. 576–641481 may refigure the relevant description in Edonoi: ‘the house is frenzied, the roof revels Bacchant-like’.482 In both cases, Dionysiac epiphany may have involved theatrical effects, such as miracles, illusion, and visions, which provide distinct features of Aeschylus’ ‘spectacle’ (ὄψις).483 Ovid asserts (Met. 3.658–659) that “there is no god more present” (praesentior) than Dionysus, but only for those who accept him. Yet, he may be invisible to his theomachoi, such as Pentheus (Ba. 501). Dionysus’ divinity portrays in his epiphanies his self-revelation and his contact with mortals accepting his cult, which is a distinctive feature of the anthropomorphic appearance of many gods of the Greek pantheon. However, the epiphany of Dionysus is different from that of the other gods because of “its stunning assault on men’s senses and its urgency”.484 Dionysus as a most “visible” god convincingly provides the aetiology of the foundation of his cult in the exodos of Bacchae. As in the case of other aetia concerning cult-establishment in Greek tragedy (IT 1446–1457, Hipp. 1423–1430), Bacchae displays clearly the development of the foundation and the propagation of Dionysiac ritual. Both the core and the particular correspondences between Aeschylus’ Dionysiac tetralogies and Bacchae clearly suggest that Euripides refigured key Aeschylean themes and plot-patterns in his own Dionysiac tragedy, according to his dramatic predilections.485

.. Language and style of the Dionysiac tetralogies Aeschylus draws material from his epic486 and lyric predecessors with a remarkable coincidence of lexical formations. As known, his vocabulary is wide and rich, characterized by conceptual precision and density.487 These features emerge, in

 481 For more detail, see above on Edonoi fr. 58 R. 482 See more extensively on Edonoi fr. 58 R. 483 Arist. Poet. 14, 1453b, 1–10. 484 As Otto 1965, 21 remarked. 485 Sutton 1971, 407 rightly observed that Euripides reproduced crucial elements of A. Edonoi giving them his own dramatic twist. 486 Cf. e.g. Murray 1940, 62. 487 Cf. Winnington-Ingram 1981, 290.

The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and E. Bacchae: Correspondences  

particular from his compound epithets and verbs, also attested in his afore-discussed Dionysiac plays. Ηis tragic inspiration and dramatic technique, as well as his language and style may well account for Plato’s judgment that early poetry was endowed with ‘the divine inspiration of gifted poets possessed by the Muses’ (Phdr. 245a). The lexical innovations that Aeschylus introduced with the many rare words and especially the great number of hapax legomena, some of which are used in his Dionysiac tetralogies, provide a typical feature of his lavish vocabulary. It is worth noting the remarkable number of hapax (14) in the relatively few lines from the fragmentary texts discussed. Aristophanes in Ra. 924–928 parodied Aeschylus’ rare and striking lexical formations, which were unknown, unintelligible, not clear to the public, and lacking in precision: ρήματ’ ἂν βόεια δώδεκ’ εἶπεν, / ὀφρῦς ἔχοντα καὶ λόφους, δείν’ ἄττα μαρμαρωπὰ, ἄγνωτα τοῖς θεωμένοις … σαφὲς δ’ ἂν εἶπεν οὐδ’ ἕν. ... Hapax legomena in the Dionysiac tetralogies In Edonoi some typical and interesting specimens of Aeschylus’ stylistic inventiveness are traced. Five hapax legomena occur in the eleven verses of fr. 57 R.: δακτυλόδικτον (δακτυλόδικτος) (from δικεῖν, ἔδικον in past tense) μέλος, ‘melody thrown from the fingers’; ταυρόφθογγοι (ταυρόφθογγος), ‘bellowing like bulls’; βαρυταρβής, ‘terrifying’, while Euripides uses the commoner βαρύβρομος; ὀτοβεῖ (ὀτοβέω) (from ὀτοτοῖ), a verbal onomatopoeia, also in Pr. 574; ὑπομυκῶνται (ὑπομυκάομαι), ‘bellow in answer’. Hapax in other fragments of Edonoi: fr. 63 R. ἄδασμος, (α + δασμός), ‘tribute free, free of charge’; fr. 66 R. ἄσσιστα, a unique formation meaning ἔγγιστα, from ἆσσον (ἄγχι), ‘nearer’. In Bassarae: fr. 24 R. σκάρφει (σκάρφος, ὁ = κάρφος), ‘fire wood chips’; κάρφος, collectively in singular, also in Ar. V. 249, Lys. 474, Arist. H.A. 560b 8, Ath. 5.187c; ψόλῳ (ψόλος), ‘soot, smoke’, unique in Aeschylus in this sense. In Neaniskoi: fr. 148 R. ἀφοίβατος (ἀφοίβατον), ‘uncleansed, unclean’, an epithet unique in Aeschylus, also occurring in A. Eu. 237 (ἀφοίβαντον). In Lycurgus Satyricus: fr. 24.2 R. κἀσεμνοκόμπει (σεμνοκομπέω), ‘to vaunt, to boast highly’, an unparalleled compound verb. In Xantriae: fr. 172 R. βούλευτις, ‘able to advise or deliberate’; fr. 172a R. ἀναγκόδακρυς, ‘shedding forced tears’, a typically Aeschylean compound adjective. In Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi: fr. 246b R. ἐμψίουσα (εμψίω), ‘feed with pap’, occurs only here in Aeschylus.

  The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae ... Rare words Rare words occurring in Aeschylus’ Dionysiac plays are mainly recorded in scholiasts and lexicographers. In Edonoi: fr. 57.3 R. βόμβυκας (βόμβυξ), a kind of flute used in orgiastic ceremonies, in poetry is unique in Aeschylus; cf. Plut. Mor. 713 A in a similar sense; fr. 57.6 R. χαλκοδέτοις (χαλκόδετος), ‘bronze-bound’, cymbals; also S. Ant. 945 in a different context; fr. 57.10 R. τυπάνου (τύπανον), chiefly in poetry (h. Hom. 14.3, E. HF 889, Nonn. D. 20.4), for τύμπανον, ‘drum’; fr. 59.1 R. βασσάρας (βασσάρα), the dress of Thracian bacchanals, made of fox-skins, said also of the Thracian bacchanals (Artem. 2.37.73, Callix. FGrHist 2.149); fr. 60 R. μουσόμαντις, as in Ar. Av. 276; fr. 61.1 R. γύννις, also in A. Theoroi or Isthmiastae (fr. 78a. 67–68); fr. 62 R. χλούνης, χλούνις fem. in A. Eu. 188; fr. 64 R. αἰγίδες (αἰγίς, from αἶξ), a rare synonym of νεβρίς, ‘goatskin’, αἰγίς also in E. Cyc. 360; fr. 65 R. ἀμφίδρομος, also in Semele or Hydrophoroi (fr. 222 R.), ‘running both ways’, a tragic occurrence as in S. Aj. 352; fr. 67 R. ἴκταρ, ‘near, close’, also in A. Eu. 998, Ag. 116. In Bassarae: fr. 23.2 R. προπηδήσεται (προπηδάω -ῶ), ‘spring forward’, as in D.S. 17.100, Arr. Tact. 12.4, and Ach. Tat. Leuc. et Clit. 3.21.5; fr. 23a.1 ἀργυρήλατον, ἀργυρήλατοι (ἀργυρήλατος), ‘of wrought silver’, cf. Α. Perraivides fr. 185 R. ἀργυρηλάτοις κέρασι, ‘silver drinking horns’, E. Ion 1181–1182 ἀργυρηλάτους φιάλας; fr. 25 R. εἰλλόμενον for εἰργόμενον, ‘impeded’, also in Simplicius in Arist. De Cael. 2,13,293b 30. In Neaniskoi: fr. 146 R. ὑποσκίοισιν (ὑπόσκιος -ον), ‘overshadowed, shaded’, in tragedy only in Aeschylus, also in Supp. 656 (lyr.) and Pr. Lyom. fr. 199.8 R., cf. Men. Pk. 797 Sand.; ψυκτηρίοις (ψυκτήριος -ον), ‘cool, shady places’, occurring in Hes. fr. 301 M.–W. and E. Phaethon fr. 782.1 Kn.; fr. 146a R. ἀμφιλαφῆ (ἀμφιλαφής -ες), ‘taking in on all sides’, also in A. Ag. 1015–1016, Ch. 331; fr. 146b R., 147 R. ἀρείφατος, ἀρείφατον, Martial, ‘slain by Ares, in war’, a Homeric epithet used in A. Eu. 913, E. Supp. 603, Rh. 124. In Lycurgus Satyricus: fr. 125 R. κημούς (κημός, ὁ), ‘muzzle put to a led horse to prevent it from biting’, X. Eq. 5.3, AP 6.246; in Aeschylus used metaphorically for δεσμός. In Xantriae fr. 170 R. and Pentheus fr. 183 R.: πέμφιξ, a distinctly poetic word with varying meanings, such as breath, blast, ray, cloud and drop, mainly recorded in fragmentary plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles (A. Pr. Lyom. fr. 195.4, S. Colchides frr. 337, 338 R., S. Salmoneus frr. 538, 539 R.). In Semele or Hydrophoroi: fr. 223 R. ἀνταία (ἀνταῖος), ‘opposed to, hostile, hateful’, a tragic adjective often said of gods’ hostility against mortals (A. Pers. 604, Ch. 588, S. frr. 334, 400 R.); fr. 224 R. ἄστεκτα (ἄστεκτος -ον), ‘insufferable,

The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and E. Bacchae: Correspondences  

unbearable’, unique poetic occurence in Aeschylus; also in Paul. Aeg. 5.16, Dsc. Ther. 13.2. In Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi: fr. 246c R. δίκρα (ὄψις), ‘double face, appearance, countenance’, unique in poetry, cf. Thphr. H.P. 9.11.3 δίκρα ῥίζα, X. Cyn. 2.7; fr. 246d R. πεδοίκου (πέδοικος) for μέτοικος, ‘settler from abroad, alien resident in a foreign city’, occurring also in Pindar fr. 25 and inc. fr. 252 Bowra. In Aeschylus’ style and imagery the use of visual effects is striking. The Aristotelian ὄψις (Poet. 6, 1449b 32–33, 14,1453b 1–10), ‘spectacle’, is predominant and overwhelming. Despite the meagre textual evidence on Lycurgeia and the “Theban” tetralogy, the epiphany-scene with the palace-miracle and the earthquake in Edonoi, Dionysus’ bestial form in the hallucination-scene of Bassarae as well as the personified Lyssa and the description of sparagmos in Xantriae provide typical cases of the poet’s stylistic power to create visual and emotional effects. The ὄψις, referring both to Aeschylus’ theatrical devices and to the effects of his diction, is related to the notion of ἔκπληξις.488 In Vit. Aesch. 7 we read: ταῖς τε γὰρ ὄψεσι καὶ τοῖς μύθοις πρὸς ἔκπληξιν τερατώδη μᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς ἀπάτην κἐχρηται;489 ibid. 9 … τοσοῦτον ἐκπλῆξαι τὸν δῆμον …; ibid. 14 πρῶτος Αἰσχύλος … τὴν ὄψιν τῶν θεωμένων κατέπληξε … In Lycurgeia (Bassarae fr. 23 R.), despite the few verses preserved, the Αeschylean ὄψις in the narrative is brought forward in the motif of reality as opposed to illusion: someone, possibly Orpheus, under the delusion sent by Dionysus, tries to flee from the hallucination that a bull is to attack him. The scene resembles Orestes’ attempted escape from the Erinyes after his mother’s murder (Ch. 1048–1058). Similarly, in E. Ba. 618 Dionysus makes Pentheus bind a bull, thinking that he was binding the god, and at 920–922 Pentheus sees Dionysus as a bull. The most extensive fragmentary passage of Edonoi (fr. 57 R.) also offers a clear approach of ὄψις through diction and narrative. It confirms that the power of the Aeschylean style lies first and foremost in the use of descriptive images and in the choice of rich vocabulary with a density of meanings, compound epithets and verbs: e.g., ψαλμὸς δ’ ἀλαλάζει· / ταυρόφθογγοι δ’ ὑπομυκῶνται … / ἠχὼ τυπάνου δ’, ὥσθ’ ὑπογαίου / βροντῆς, φέρεται βαρυταρβής. Powerful visual effects, impressive metaphors, and elaborate images are attested in the few fragmentary passages preserved from the Dionysiac tetralogies.

 488 On this issue, cf. e.g. Lada-Richards 1999, 235–237. 489 Lucas 1968, 150–151 noted that this observation in the Vita may go back to a Peripatetic source, in view of Aristotle’s censure (Poet. 14, 1453b 9 … διὰ τῆς ὄψεως … τὸ τερατῶδες μόνον παρασκευάζοντες). In Aristotle’s criteria, it is dramatically inferior to produce fear by means of spectacle rather than plot.

  The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae In particular, Dionysus’ triumphal epiphany is alluded to by means of two personifications underscoring the effect of the palace-miracle: ἐνθουσιᾷ δὴ δῶμα, βακχεύει στέγη (Edonoi fr. 58 R.). The Aeschylean ὄψις is refigured in Euripides’ image of nature that joins the Bacchic ritual: Ba. 726–727 ‘the whole mountain and the wild animals joined the bacchanal and nothing remained unmoved in running’. Dionysus’ bestial incarnation involving his representation in the shape of a bull (Bassarae fr. 23 R.) and Lyssa inspiring the Bacchants (Xantriae fr. 169 R.) provide effective images. Lyssa and the Bacchants, like the Erinyes, form an aspect of Aeschylus’ “spectacle”. They are depicted as κύνες, ‘hounds’ (A. Ch. 1054, E. Ba. 977, 731). Lyssa’s personification in Xantriae seems to be appropriated in Ba. 977, where the Maenads are described as the ‘swift hounds of Lyssa’ before Pentheus’ dismemberment. In this part of Bacchae (977–981) Lyssa’s reactions are depicted in a typically orgiastic context: the chorus induces the Maenads, the hounds of Frenzy, to madden Pentheus (ἀνοιστρήσατέ νιν), the λυσσώδη κατάσκοπον μαινάδων, ‘the frenzied spy on the Maenads’. Pentheus is λυσσώδης, since Lyssa has entered into him, as Dionysus sent a light frenzy to his opponent (850–851: ἔκστησον φρενῶν, / ἐνεὶς ἐλαφρὰν λύσσαν, ‘put him outside his mind, sending into him a light-headed frenzy’). In the same passage of Xantriae a short, albeit vivid, account of what seems to be an animal’s sparagmos involves effective metaphors conveying the invasion of madness: κέντημα490 λύσσης, σκορπίου βέλος, ‘prick of madness, the sting of the scorpion’ (fr. 169.2 R.). In his wide use of spectacular metaphors, Aeschylus employs effective compound words, epithets and verbs, to create images in figurative language, such as μουσόμαντις (Edonoi fr. 60 R.), ταυρόφθογγοι, βαρυταρβής, δακτυλόδικτον (Edonoi fr. 57 R.), ἀναγκόδακρυς (Xantriae fr. 172a R.). Moreover, vivid onomatopoeias of Dionysiac orgiastic ritual, such as ὀτοβεῖ and ἀλαλάζει (fr. 57.6,7 R.), add to Aeschylus’ stylistic inventiveness. Metaphors are also shaped in periphrases: ἀστερωπὸν ὄμμα Λητῴας κόρης, ‘the starlike eye of Leto’s daughter’ (Xantriae fr. 170.2 R.), a distinctly Aeschylean metaphor refigured in E. Hipp. 850–851 νυκτὸς ἀστερωπὸν σέλας; Παγγαίου … ἀργυρήλατοι πρῶνες, ‘the silver peaks of Pangaeum’ (Bassarae fr. 23a R.); ἠχὼ τυπάνου δ’, ὥσθ’ ὑπογαίου βροντῆς, φέρεται βαρυταρβής, ‘the sound of the drum carries to the ear like thunder beneath the earth’ (Edonoi fr. 57.10–11 R.); κέντημα λύσσης, σκορπίου βέλος, ‘the prick of madness, the sting of the scorpion’ (used  490 κεντῶ, ‘prick, spur on, something imposed with impetuous haste’; here in Aeschylus it denotes ‘wound inflicted, sting’ (LSJ9).

The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and E. Bacchae: Correspondences  

of sparagmos) (Xantriae fr. 169.2 R.); ἐν ἀνδρείᾳ στέγῃ (τιθείς), in the meaning of ‘ἀνδρών’ bears a unique connotation (Lycurgus Satyricus fr. 124.2 R.). All these means of diction give ὄγκον, ‘weight’, to Aeschylus’ logos, as Vit. Aesch. 5 informs: κατὰ δὲ τὴν σύνθεσιν τῆς ποιήσεως ζηλοῖ τὸ ἀδρὸν ἀεὶ πλάσμα, ὀνοματοποιίαις καὶ ἐπιθέτοις, ἔτι δὲ μεταφοραῖς καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς δυναμένοις ὄγκον τῇ φράσει περιθεῖναι χρώμενος. Though Homer’s much discussed “ring composition”, which is also observed in Pindar, is all-pervasive in Aeschylus,491 the latter also displays short but impressive metaphors and skillfully elaborated images in new stylistic dimensions. Contrary to the Attic λιτότης, ‘simplicity’, describing the plainness of expression, and the vocabulary of ordinary talk, used especially by Euripides492 and his successors493 under the influence of rhetoric, Aeschylus’ style was unaffected by Attic severity. This significant difference in diction, especially between Aeschylus and Euripides, is also indicated in language and style, particularly in Edonoi: Aeschylus uses the hapax βαρυταρβής for Euripides’ commoner βαρύβρομος, βόμβυξ for αὐλός, and αἰγίς for νεβρίς (frr. 57, 64 R.).

. Refiguration and variation The parallel treatment of the Aeschylean tetralogies of Dionysiac subject-matter and Euripides’ last play, Bacchae, has revealed palpable intertextual similarities in theme, plot, style, dramatic technique, and scope. Key scenes of Bacchae were modelled on Aeschylus’ Dionysiac plays: elements of Dionysiac ritual involving the reactions of the thiasos, the motifs of gender and identity, madness, sparagmos, and vengeance. Moreover, features in the character drawing of the effeminate but vindictive god and his complete triumph over his adversary, presented first as a persecutor and finally as the victim of the god, seem to be refigurations of the Aeschylean treatments. Notably, in Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia Aristotle’s concept of the reversal of fortunes is clearly represented (Poet. 11, 1452a 22–24): the persecutor, Lycurgus, changes into the persecuted person, a model Euripides follows with Pentheus who chased Dionysus and finally became the chased prey torn into pieces by Agave and her sisters.  491 Thus, Winnington-Ingram 1985, 292. 492 Ar. Rh. 3.1,1404a 30ff., ‘tragedy has given up all those words not used in ordinary talk, which decorated the early drama …’. For colloquial language in Euripides, see Stevens 1977 and Collard 2018. 493 See Xanthakis-Karamanos 1980, 61 and notes.

  The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae Pentheus, like Lycurgus, though a representative of political order, is not a rationalistic character; both are “men of thymos”, “of temper”,494 as shown by their behaviour towards the Stranger during their scornful “interrogation”. Pentheus presents typical features of the tyrant, displaying a distinctly anti-democratic ideology. He alone fights against Dionysus at Thebes; he is extremely suspicious (Ba. 221–225), violent and brutal (231–241, 511–514, 781–785, 796–797); lawless (331; cf. 891–892). He displays lack of self-control (268–269, 331–332, 359), sharp temper (214, 343–346, 620–621, 670–671), anger, autocratic behaviour (214–216), and insolence (hubris) against Dionysus (375) – an idea pervading the play (516, 555, 1297, 1347). Some of these features, which are both of political and psychological dimension,495 may have modelled on Lycurgus’ character-drawing in Aeschylus’ treatment, who seems to have been portrayed as a typically tragic tyrant. It may be suggested that these two Aeschylean tetralogies – especially Lycurgeia – were to some extent familiar to the Athenian audience of Euripides’ era, thanks to Aristophanes’ parody in Thesmophoriazusae. Therefore, according to their “horizon of expectations”,496 the spectators could be able to perceive the extent of Euripides’ debt to the Aeschylean treatment in his Bacchae. However, a revival of Aeschylus’497 Dionysiac tetralogies, which could account for such a familiarity, is not attested. Bacchae is a really complex play reflecting both the trends of its age and a challenge to the beliefs held at the end of Euripides’ era. At the end of the fifth century a crucial period of political transition and a time of socio-political crisis was reflected on stage.498 In 405 B.C., when Bacchae was first performed, Athens was going through a crisis which coincided with the end of classical tragedy and the flourishing period for the production of tragic drama. Euripides in his last

 494 Diller in Segal 1983, 360, follows Deichgräber 1935, 331, on Pentheus. 495 For these features of Pentheus’ character, see e.g. Dodds 1960, xliii, 97; Seaford (1997) 47 notes resemblances to other Euripidean dramatic heroes. For Pentheus’ lack of self-control and his tyrranical features, cf. also North 1966, 82; Rademaker 2005, 178–179. 496 For this term, see Jauss 1982, 141–148. 497 According to the decree, which permitted the post-mortem reproduction of his plays alongside the new productions of living dramatists: V. Aesch. 12, Sch. Ar. Ra. 868. See e.g. XanthakisKaramanos 1980, 8 and n. 9, 21 and n. 5 with textual references. 498 The crisis at the end of the fifth century (on which see Markantonatos/Zimmermann (eds.) 2012) and the gradual disengagement of theatre from the polis paved the way for a new era of dramatic production in the fourth century, which involved developments in dramatic technique, performance, and new treatments of known myths: see extensively Xanthakis-Karamanos 1980, 1–2, 18–24, 35–46 and passim.

Refiguration and variation  

tragedy revisits the earlier dramatic production and re-handles with variations the action of Aeschylus’ Dionysiac plays, redeploying many typical features of the traditional cult in innovative ways, in particular, frenzy and sparagmos. In this climax of Dionysiac ritual reality and appearance are intermingled. The obvious question that arises on the basis of Euripides’ refiguration of the Aeschylean material is why the former wrote the Bacchae at the end of the fifth century. Many interpretations have been suggested so far to explain the poet’s choice.499 By all means, it is not wise to see Bacchae as a “palinode” reacting to Aristophanes’ accusation of “atheism” (Th. 450–451).500 Nevertheless, like his friend Socrates, Euripides always kept a critical attitude towards traditional religion and especially the Homeric anthropomorphic perception of gods. His radical scepticism about divine behaviour reflects his age’s questioning of moral and religious issues.501 Dionysus’ vengeance on Pentheus recalls that of Aphrodite on Hippolytus (in 428 B.C.) and it is equally cruel. Both Dionysus and Aphrodite are portrayed as passionately jealous, resentful, vindictive, and destructive deities. It is, therefore, fair to say that Euripides did not recant his beliefs and did not compose a palinode. Deviating from Aeschylus, he kept on his line of criticizing gods. ‘It is not right for gods to resemble mortals in their anger’, says Cadmus addressing Dionysus in the exodos of Bacchae (1348); this concept is consistent with the old servant’s appeal to Aphrodite: ‘gods ought to be wiser than mortals’ (Hipp. 120). Yet, Dionysus’ reference to Zeus in his spontaneous reply to Cadmus ‘long ago my father Zeus approved it’ (Ba. 1349) brings forward the necessity of the divine order as ordained by Zeus, explicitly indicating that “the appeal to Zeus is an appeal to ultimate mystery, to a world–structure in which the forces Dionysus represents are an inescapable element”.502 Euripides clearly expresses his recurrent meditation on divine justice and the limits of human freedom.503 Moreover, Cadmus, in

 499 Mentioned by Dodds 1960, xlff. Cf. Winnington-Ingram 1969, 172–179, 180–185; D. Iakov in Nikolaidou-Arabatzi 2006, 17–18. 500 On this issue, see Dodds 1960, xl–xlii and n. 3. 501 On Eurpides’ scepticism about gods, see e.g. Decharme 1966, 59ff.; Knox 1985, 324–325; Seaford 1997, 9–10. 502 Thus Winnington-Ingram 1969, 146. Cf. North 1966, 83; Pollmann 2017, 156. Many parallels showcase Zeus’ presence in everything that happens: A. Ag. 1485–1488 Zeus is παναίτιος, ‘the cause of all things’, everything is divinely ordained; cf. S. Tr. 1278 and Davies’ note ad. loc. with textual references (1991, 266–267). 503 Cf. Segal 1999/2000, 274–275.

  The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae the exodos of the play as well, attempts to understand and justify Dionysus’ powerful punishment (1297, 1377–1378).504 Sōphrosynē enables man to face reality.505 Thus, in Bacchae Euripides accepts traditional norms for the sake of a peaceful world order and social cohesion. In his play he recognizes the power of Dionysus, thereby urging people to respect Dionysiac mystic cult. Notably, by the end of the fifth century, Asiatic cults were accepted in Athens, such as the Phrygian Cybele, her Thracian counterpart Bendis, and Sabazius, an equivalent of Dionysus.506 In Lycurgeia and Bacchae the god takes control of the theomachos, Lycurgus and Pentheus respectively; the former is turned mad and slaughters his son and the latter, deluted, gives himself over to the god who leads him to destruction. In both these dramatizations the Aeschylean concept of the punishment of hubris towards a god of tremendous natural and inner powers seems to have been equally prominent. «Θεομαχεῖν» denotes a vain fight against the inevitable,507 and provides a concept that persisted in Greek morality from Homer508 onwards. Therefore, the repression of Pentheus’ feelings led to a tragic explosion.509 Dionysus possessed both Lycurgus and Pentheus and by fighting the god they fought against themselves. In both Lycurgeia and Bacchae theomachia is a prominent element of the action.  504 v. 1297 (Cadmus to Agave): ‘Dionysus was insulted, for you didn’t recognize him as a god’. 1301–1302 (Agave replying to Cadmus): ‘What part of my folly belonged to Pentheus?’, which suggests that she is trying to realize the cause of Dionysus’ anger. Cadmus’ reply (1302) is straightforward: ‘Pentheus turned out similar to you, not revering the god’. When Agave stresses the divine destruction of their oikos (1373–1376), Cadmus justifies it (1377–1378): ‘for Dionysus suffered terrible things from us, having a name without a honour-gift in Thebes’ (ἀγέραστον ἔχων ὄνομα). In 1377 Hermann’s ἔπασχεν, which attributes the verse to Cadmus, for P’s ἔπασχον (attributed to Dionysus) is better, for it relates Cadmus’ words with Agave’s farewell to him (in 1379) and corresponds to the division of speakers (Cadmus and Agave) in 1368–1373, 1374–1380. The lines 1377–1378 are attributed to Cadmus and not to Dionysus by the majority of recent editors; see also Segal 1999/2000, 290–291 and n. 40. 505 North 1966, 83. 506 Cf. e.g. Dodds 1940, 172–175 with many references. On the contrary, in the classical period new, foreign cults, such as those of Cybele, Bendis, Cotys, and Sabazius, were faced with hostility in Athens; cf. Seaford 1997, 46; Versnel 1990, 100–189; 2011. 507 Diller in Segal 1983, 361, 366 on Bacchae and Hippolytus. On a careful survey of the concept of theomachia, see Kamerbeek 1948. Similarly, Winnington-Ingram 1969, 166 remarked that Pentheus is ἀμαθής, with lack of insight regarding the power of Dionysiac religion. 508 Il. 6.129 οὐκ ἂν ἔγωγε θεοῖσιν ἐπουρανίοισι μαχοίμην, ‘I couldn’t fight against the immortal gods’ (cf. 6.141). Diomedes expresses his intention to avoid the opposition to gods so as not to share Lycurgus’ fate, who lost his sight. 509 Cf. Winnington-Ingram 1969, 55, 58 and passim.

Refiguration and variation  

To resist and fight a god is not sophia. Pentheus and Lycurgus lack sophia: τό σοφόν δ’ οὐ σοφία / τό τε μὴ θνητὰ φρονεῖν / βραχύς αἰών, ‘cleverness is not wisdom and to think non–mortal thoughts means a short life’, says the chorus (Ba. 395–397). The answer to the question at Ba. 877–878 (repeated by the chorus at 897–898) τί τὸ σοφόν; ἢ τί τὸ κάλλιον / παρὰ θεῶν γέρας ἐν βροτοῖς; ‘what is the wise (gift), or what is the finer gift from the gods among mortals?’ is given at 1150–1152, concluding the account of Pentheus’ sparagmos and comprising the praise of moderation: ‘the best thing is to be moderate and to revere the gods’, for ‘this is the wisest possession for mortals’ (σοφώτατον θνητοῖσιν κτῆμα). Wisdom, sōphrosynē, expresses the old Hellenic doctrines of ‘think moral thoughts’ and ‘nothing in excess’. Similarly, in Homer Lycurgus’ life was short ἐπεὶ ἀθανάτοισιν ἀπήχθετο πᾶσι θεοῖσιν (Il. 6.140). Βoth Lycurgus and Pentheus overstepped the boundaries of human power and committed hubris which entailed the implacable punishment of their wrongdoing. Wisdom is the good sense to revere and respect the gods. This Aeschylean concept, pervading his tragedies from Persae to Oresteia,510 ‘is the wisest possession for mortals to use’, as the messenger proclaims in Ba. 1150–1152.511 In Bacchae human hubris punished through disaster ends with the establishment of Dionysiac cult (1344–1346).512 Cult-foundation contributes to the order and cohesion of the polis. Sōphrosynē (self-control), phronēsis, hēsychia (calm life), and respect for gods are pivotal concepts of Dionysiac cult, associated with mysteries,513 and moral features of the god’s devotees. Punishment is imposed only on authoritarian figures, such as Lycurgus and Pentheus,514 who reject the god and his cult. Therefore, the mystic pattern of Bacchae acquires a political dimension,515 in that Dionysiac cult contributes to affirming the coherence of the polis.

 510 Indicatively, Pers. 820–830, Ag. 167–183, 218–223. 511 τὸ σωφρονεῖν δὲ καὶ σέβειν τὰ τῶν θεῶν / κάλλιστον· οἶμαι δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ σοφώτατον / θνητοῖσιν εἶναι κτῆμα τοῖσι χρωμένοις. Cf. also Christus Patiens, below II 4.2. 512 Like that of Artemis at Brauron in Attica (E. IT 1446–1457). Cult-foundations of lesser importance also in E. Hipp. 1423–1430 and Hel. 1666–1667. For the aetia concerning fifth-century cults in Euripides, see e.g. Barrett 1964, 412. 513 Concepts associated with Dionysiac cult: sōphrosynē (Ba. 1150–1152; cf. 314–316), hēsychia (quietism) (389–392, 622–641, 647, 790), sophia (877–881). See also below on Christus Patiens (2.4, Reception of Concepts and Ideas). 514 Pentheus is depicted with the features of a tragic tyrant, lacking sōphrosynē (Ba. 214, 343– 346, 620–621, 670–671): Dodds 1960, xliii. 515 Thus aptly Seaford 1997, 48.

  The Dionysiac plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae Consequently, the Bacchae reaffirms in late fifth century traditional Aeschylean beliefs about the reverence of the gods that contribute to the cohesion of the polis.516 Dionysiac cult was powerfully associated with polis and community. As early as in Aeschylus’ Theoroi517 Dionysus proclaims that ‘neither young nor old is willingly absent from my choruses’.518 Following this strain of thought, Teiresias (Ba. 208–209) assures that Dionysus wishes to receive honours from all without any distinction.519 The promotion of peace that gives prosperity (ὀλβοδότειρα εἰρήνη, Ba. 419–420) is an aspect of Dionysus’ power contributing to freedom and the cohesion of community. In an age preoccupied with the idea of sophia Euripides follows Aeschylus and brings forward what he himself considers to be sophon. Aeschylus’ Dionysiac tetralogies and Euripides’ Bacchae thus portray the osmosis of two worlds: the coherence and the unity of the polis and life in nature, both of which are safeguarded by Dionysiac cult. Regarding the nature pattern, the “moral” of Bacchae in the late fifth century expresses the human spirit’s demand for Dionysiac experience, involving joy, gaiety,520 divine enthusiasm together with ecstatic frenzy, which cannot be ignored or repressed. Such an experience may enhance mental power and lead to prosperity, as with all mystic cults. Dionysus, a god demanding a consistent worship, is the embodiment of universal vitality. On the contrary, those refusing to share these “human” experiences are faced with the destruction ordered by Dionysus’ supernatural power. Euripides in his last play injected new life into the myths treated in Aeschylus’ two Dionysiac tetralogies. The Bacchae reveal both the horror of pure maenadism, as expressed in the violent revenge against the theomachos, and the peace, tranquility and vitality offered to those respecting the god. As Dodds aptly

 516 Green 1994, 47 remarked that, since the last years of the fifth century formed a period of looking back to earlier days, E. Bacchae remodels an early theme. 517 Fr. 78c col. II Radt 2009, 201. 518 Thus, in Seaford’s free translation 2006, 28. 519 This seems to be a prefiguration of the wide establishment of Dionysiac cult and of Dionysus’ festivals; cf. Ba. 1295 ‘the whole polis was made bacchic’, and Seaford 2006, 33. 520 Similar features are attributed to Aphrodite’s gift of love (E. Hipp. 447ff., with commentators’ notes).

Refiguration and variation  

remarked,521 Euripides’ “renewed contact with nature in the wild country of Macedonia”522 helped him to re-establish “a contact with hidden sources of power which he had lost in the over-intellectualized environment of late-fifth-century Athens” and led him to express feelings “which for years had been pressing on his consciousness without attaining to complete expression”. Euripides recovered in an old age the power and the value of Dionysiac experience, which Aeschylus, his great predecessor, possessed. I would add, as the investigation of the evidence suggests, that Aeschylus’ treatment of Dionysiac cult in his two tetralogies seems to have urged Euripides to deal with traditional religious and moral norms in the late fifth century B.C., in a time of crisis for the state mirrored on stage. In Bacchae Euripides received and reworked pivotal dramatic themes from the Aescylean treatment of “Dionysiac” plays and refigured them to meet his own dramatic and ideological goals. He thus engaged in an impressive intertextual dialogue with Aeschylus. Some of the concepts expressed in Bacchae are to be reconfigured in the entirely different contexts of Christus Patiens shedding light on the multifaceted Nachleben of this last Euripidean play.

 521 Dodds 1960, xlvii, referring to Adam 1908, 316–317. Cf. also Kranz 1933, 235. Yet, as Dodds 1960, xlii also observed, Euripides’ interest in orgiastic cult appeared many years earlier in the chant of the initiates in the Cretans (fr. 472 Kn.), dated between 442–432 B.C.: Cozzoli 2001, 9–11. 522 The references to Pieria as seat of the Muses (Ba. 410) and to the “swift-flowing” Axios (v. 569) are suggestive of this contact.

 Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens . Christus Patiens Byzantine literature and thought abounds in cases of reception of the ancient Greek cultural heritage. The Byzantines often employ themes and concepts from Greek Antiquity and quote phrases from classical authors sometimes from memory in an eclectic way, following Quintilian’s formula (Inst. Or. 10.2.26) “aliud ex alio haereat”. This phrase brings forward, as Hunger pointed out,1 the effective recipe for the retentive memories of Byzantine “authors who wrote those much abused “patchwork” poems, the centos”. Euripides’ reception in Christus Patiens provides a typical instance of such a reworking of the Greek model in the cultural context of the Byzantine tragedy’s era. Needless to refer to the much-discussed topic about the existence of theatre in Byzantium. Though not destined for staging, this work of Christ’s Passion is a notable testimony to the ongoing influence of ancient Greek tragedy in Byzantine times. For various reasons, cultural and religious, dramatic poetry in its classical form, as known from Greek and Roman Antiquity, does not seem to have been cultivated in the Byzantine era.2 Nevertheless, though performances of Greek tragic plays did not go on beyond antiquity, the interest in Greek tragedy was strong in literary circles in Byzantium. The sole preserved specimen of Byzantine tragedy is Christus Patiens, which provides an argument in favour of theatre in Byzantium, albeit its lesser performativity. The authorship of this drama has given rise to a long discussion and controversies among scholars.3 It was attributed either to Gregorius of Nazianzus4

 1 1969/1970, 17. 2 Krumbacher 1897, 644, 647 was the first to argue that Byzantine literature did not produce any drama. Krumbacher argued against Satha’s view (1878) on the theatre of Byzantium as a link between ancient Greek drama and the Rennaisance theatre of Crete. A number of scholars were reluctant to accept the existence of Byzanine theatre: e.g. Dölger 1948, 16ff.; Mango 1981; Mitsakis 1986, and others. For the different meanings of the terms theatron, drama, tragedy, hypocrites etc. in Byzantine literature and the controversy regarding the existence of theatre in Byzantium, see e.g. Puchner 2002, 305–308. More recently, Symes 2010, 335–342. 3 On this issue, see Trisoglio 1974 and, later, Puchner 1992, 94 and n. 4; 1995, 51 and n. 4. 4 Gregorius of Nazianzus was suggested by Tuilier 1969, the last editor of the drama. In favour of such an authorship, see also Sakkalis 1977; Trisoglio 1996; 1996a. An early date was proposed by Garzya 1984 and Schwart 1990, who argued that Romanos was aware of the Christus Patiens, and Detorakis 1995, 320. Detorakis suggested as authors either Apollinarius of Laodicea or Amphilochios of Iconium (4th century A.D.). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110764413-002

Christus Patiens  

or to an unknown author of 11th–12th century, such as Theodoros Prodromos, I. Tzetzes, and K. Manasses.5 The attribution to Gregorius of Nazianzus is attested by all the manuscripts of the drama.6 The eleventh or the twelfth century seem to be a likely date for the authorship of Christus Patiens, in view of the flourishing of classical studies in Constantinople in that era,7 providing, in turn, an educated audience able to understand the Euripidean reception in this drama. Nonetheless, if there had been clear evidence for the date of this work, we would have been in a position to draw safer conclusions about the ideological and cultural contexts determining its author’s refiguration of Euripidean drama. The title ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΠΑΣΧΩΝ or Christus Patiens in Latin has not been transmitted in the manuscripts of the text, but was suggested by its first editor Antonius Bladus (editio princeps, Rome, 1542). Since Bladus the text has been published in various editions. The manuscript tradition comprises twenty-five codices, of which the four early major ones are dated to the 13th and 14th centuries: Cod. Parisinus 2875, the earliest manuscript (13th century) with the title “Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου, τραγῳδία εἰς τὸ σωτήριον πάθος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ”; Parisinus gr. 1220 (probably early 14th century) which bears a fuller title, distinctly indicating Euripides’ reception “Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου ὑπόθεσις δραματικὴ κατ’ Εὐριπίδην περιέχουσα τὴν δι’ ἡμᾶς γενομένην σάρκωσιν τοῦ

 5 For a later date, see e.g.: Follieri 1991/1992, 343–346, who dated the drama at the end of the 8th or the beginning of the 9th century. Dübner 1846, iv–v and Doering 1864, 1–25 ascribed it to I. Tzetzes and Horna 1929, 430 to K. Manasses; Brambs, an editor of the work, 1885, 17–23, Cataudella 1969, 405–412, and Hunger 1978, 104, 2007, 503 suggested Theodoros Prodromos. The period of 11th and 12th centuries was proposed by the majority of scholars and corresponds to the prolific literary production of this age: e.g., Momigliano 1932, 47–51; Cantarella 1953, 188; Dodds 1960, 234; Del Grande 1962, 253–262, 385–386 and Trypanis 1981, 411, 419, 490 remarking (p. 419) that “any attribution before the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus on 431 A.D., when Mary was recognized as Mother of God (Theotokos) … can be precluded”; Dostélová 1982 suggested a poet from the circle of Eustathius of Thessaloniki; Hörandner 1988 remarks that certain words appearing in Christus Patiens are not traced earlier than the 11th and 12th centuries. Cf. also Seaford 1997, 53 and n. 116; Segal 1999/2000, 275; Baynes/Moss 2004, 345; Rosenquist 2008, 193; Friesen 2015, 251; Pollmann 2017, 146; Guidorizzi 2020, LI: they all suggested a date in the 11th or the 12th century. Puchner 2002, 318; 2017, 78–79 observed that Theotokos’ curses against Judas and the iconographic types of the scenes of Christ’s Passion suggest the period after Iconoclasm. 6 Index of these manuscripts: Tuilier 1969, 76. 7 See in particular Wilson 1996, 180–217; cf. also Hunger 1969/1970, 27–30; Hörandner 1988.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ κοσμοσωτήριον πάθος”, ‘… a dramatic plot modelled on Euripides, referring to the Incarnation of our Saviour Jesus Christ for our salvation and to His world-saving Passion’; Parisinus gr. 2707 (early 14th century), and Neapolitanus Borbonicus (contemporary to Parisinus gr. 1220).8 Seven codices belong to the 15th and fourteen to the 16th century.

.. A cento of Euripides? The style of the drama Christus Patiens was characterized as a cento of Euripides. Derived from the word κέντρων, it is a poetic form well attested from antiquity in Christian and nonChristian societies.9 It comprises a collection of reorganized quotations from earlier literary sources, which produce a new narrative.10 The composition of Christus Patiens is based on a pastiche of verses from Euripidean tragedies of the earliest selection, deriving from a school edition, probably of the second century A.D.,11 to which ancient commentaries (Scholia) are attached. This dramatic work draws mainly on Medea, Hippolytus, and Bacchae, and, less so, on Troades, Hecuba, Orestes, and Rhesus. Apart from Euripidean tragedies, lines from Aeschylus’ Agamemnon and Prometheus12 and some from Lycophron’s Alexandra have been appropriated in this Byzantine drama. Numerous borrowings from the Old and New Testament and Apocrypha are inserted between the hundreds of tragic quotations, proving the Byzantine poet’s familiarity with both classical tragedy and Holy Scriptures.13 The various parts received from the tragedies of Euripides are composed in such a way as to form an entirely new work corresponding to the historical and cultural evidence of the Passion and the Resurrection of Christ. Christus Patiens on the whole represents the attempt of creating a drama in the Byzantine, Christian world. As it was aptly remarked, the composition of this work should not be judged in the light of modern views about plagiarism. It is “a typical, ‘praisewor-

 8 On the manuscript tradition of the text, see extensively Tuilier 1969, 75–116. 9 On centos in general, see e.g. Verweyen/Witting 1991, 165–178; Di Berardino 1992, v. 1 158; Pollmann 1997, 87–91; Sandnes 2011, 107–140. 10 Cf. Friesen 2015, 251. 11 On the transmission of the plays of Euripides, see, in particular, Turyn 1957; Zuntz 1965. 12 On the reception of these Aeschylean plays in Christus Patiens, see Comsa 1997; Privitera 2002; Somers 2010; more recently, Totaro 2017a. 13 Hunger 1969/1970, 35.

Christus Patiens  

thy’ Byzantine imitation of the classics, which dominates much highbrow Byzantine writing”.14 However, in view of this mosaic of pagan and Christian quotations Christus Patiens was underestimated by earlier scholars.15 The dramatis personae seem to deliver independent parallel monologues without clear signs of a dialogue between them which could promote the dramatic action. The unity of time and place does not seem to be kept, and the transition from one scene to another is often abrupt. The poet is not concerned to produce a unified dramatic plot, fails to mark the points in the action at which the dramatic characters enter and leave the stage, and is not clearly aware of the scenic consequences of his text onstage.16 Stage production of such a dramatic text thus involves many problems. Consequently, apart from staging, significant deviations can be observed from classical drama in terms of narrative and dramatic technique. This tragedy of Christ’s Passion, involving very long speeches and a rhetorical style with frequent repetitions of theme, seems to be a drama for reading,17 like Lycophron’s Alexandra, and not for performance, characterized by the stylistic reception of classical plays, and particularly of Euripides. The vast number of manuscripts transmitting this drama suggest that it was widely read.18 Verses from Euripidean tragedies of a distinctly pathetic character have been implanted in the composition of this Byzantine drama. Euripides’ plays that involve a powerful exploitation of passions, particularly focusing on tragic women and tragic mothers par excellence, such as Medea, Agave in Bacchae, Phaedra in Hippolytus, Andromache and Hecuba in Troades and in Hecuba, provided a

 14 Thus Trypanis 1981, 490, 765 referring to Hunger 1969/1970, 15–16. 15 E.g. Krumbacher 1897, 746; Dieterich 1902, 45–49. 16 On this issue, see extensively Puchner 1995, 52–90; cf. also 2017, 79. 17 Many scholars regarded the Christus Patiens as a work intended to be read. Indicatively: Hunger 1969/1970, 34; Stavrou 1973, 7; Trypanis 1981, 490; Mitsakis 1983, 555; Detorakis 1995, 319; White 2010, 384–385. Earlier Cottas 1931, 238 had proposed Gregorius as the author and, mainly in view of the many embedded speeches of this play (see on dramatic conventions below, esp. vv. 2194–2388), had suggested that the drama was also performed on stage, later than the 4th century. Mantziou 1974, 368, in her attempt to give an early date to the work, thought that its structure does not exclude the possibility of a performance not far from antiquity. Some later attempts of theatrical productions in the 17th and 20th centuries are mentioned by Puchner 2017, 78 and n. 176. 18 Cf. Trypanis 1981, 490.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens model, mutatis mutandis, for intertextuality, especially regarding the predominant presence of Virgin Mary (Theotokos) in the drama.19 The reception of Bacchae predominates in the most recent analyses of this Christian drama’s classical sources.20 Rhetorism, passion, and the powerful expression of feelings, dramatic contrivance and also a distinct partiality for moralizing reflection (gnomai) are some dominant features of Euripides’ narrative technique echoed in Christus Patiens. The main purpose of this approach is not to address the many stylistic similarities21 and the issue of the much-discussed authorship of Christus Patiens, the only Byzantine attempt to put together in dramatic form the narrative of Christ’s Passion and Resurrection. Rather, it focuses on this drama’s multifaceted reception particularly of Euripides’ Bacchae and on the Christian appropriation of some aspects of pagan thought. The refiguration of Bacchae distinctly portrays the Byzantine author’s ability to enrich the narratives of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles with innovative intertextuality expressed in variations from scenes and motifs received from this Euripidean play. Notably, in the last decades scholarship has remarked the Byzantine author’s careful and sophisticated adaptation of his tragic intertexts, including Bacchae.22 Following this trend of current research, it may be worth demonstrating thematic and conceptual correspondences between Christus Patiens and Bacchae, as well as between the former and the Acts, that have not been sufficiently evaluated so far.23 Thus, theomachia, the fight against gods, a pivotal concept of Bacchae, is employed to emphatically refer to opponents of Christian cult both in Acts and Christus Patiens.24 Scenes mainly from St Paul’s conversion as well as his own and St Peter’s miraculous release from prison coincide in terms of style and thought

 19 Theotokos will be called hereafter according to the text of Christus Patiens. For an interpretation of the figure of Theotokos through key passages borrowing from the figures of tragic mothers in Rhesus, Medea, and Bacchae, see Bryant Davies 2017. 20 Alexopoulou 2013; Friesen 2015, 251–260; Bryant Davies 2017, passim. 21 Mainly noticed by Tuilier 1969. 22 Sticca 1974, 26–41; Pollmann 1997; 2017; Pontani 2006; Friesen 2015, 251–265; Bryant Davies 2017. 23 On the other hand, the similarities in themes between Bacchae and the Acts have been extensively discussed: Seaford 1997a; 2006, 124–126; Dormeyer 2005; Moles 2006; Ziegler 2008; Schäfer 2010; Friesen 2015, 208–212. 24 On this concept in Christus Patiens, see below 2.4.11.

Christus Patiens  

both with Bacchae and this Christian narrative of Christ’s Passion and Resurrection.25 As suggested, such similarities may have derived from knowledge of Bacchae in the 1st century A.D.26 It has aptly been remarked that the text of Bacchae shapes “the popular conceptions of Dionysus in the religious milieu where Acts forges its Christian vision”.27 The comparative, close reading of texts that follows aims at showing that Christus Patiens could shed further light on this vision.

.. Structure, content, and characters The Christus Patiens, one of the longest surviving examples of cento, is an extended drama of 2632 verses,28 all in iambic trimeters, adapted to the dodecasyllabic metre of the Byzantines, except for some anapaests in vv. 1461ff. This Byzantine work explicitly expresses his author’s intention to compose a Christian narrative poetically, using classical poetic forms.29 In the introductory part extending to 30 lines the author informs the reader of his intention and the main theme of the play: ‘I shall narrate the world-saving Passion, modelled on Euripides’ (vv. 3–4). He refers to the main characters of the play (Theotokos, Theologos, and Theotokos’ female companions) and focuses on Christ’s Incarnation and, in particular, on Theotokos’ sensitive presence in Her Son’s Passion. The drama can be divided into three parts, though in the manuscript tradition there is not any such division: the Passion (vv. 1–1133), mainly involving Theotokos’ long speeches, the Burial comprising speeches of Theotokos, Iohannes Theologos, and Joseph of Arimathea (1134–1905), and the Resurrection (1906– 2531) involving the Presence of Christ at the end. The tripartite division of this play recalls to some extent the trilogic structure of Greek tragedies, but without

 25 Below 2.3.16, 17. 26 Seaford 2006, 126. 27 Friesen 2015, 212. 28 According to Tuilier’s edition 1969: the first 30 verses belong to the author’s introduction; vv. 1–2531 form the main part of the work, and vv. 2532–2602 comprise the author’s two prayers at the end. The text from Tuilier’s edition is cited throughout this part. The content of the narrative was discussed by Tuilier 1969, 19–26; Sticca 1974, 26–41; Mantziou 1974, 359–364, dividing it into episodes and scenes. 29 By contrast, George Steiner expressed his theory (1961, 2004) that tragedy was incompatible to Christianity.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens the unity of time of classical drama. The work concludes with the author’s two prayers to Christ and Theotokos (2532–2602). The text begins with the long prologue of Theotokos and Christ’s ascent to Calvary (Golgotha). It ends with the Resurrection and Lord’s appearance at the house of Mark’s mother. The central figure is Theotokos and not Christ, Who has a brief presence in the first part of the drama, especially in dialogue with His Mother; Christ also appears after His Resurrection. After Theotokos’ expository opening, the characters, according to the order of their appearance, involve the chorus of Theotokos’ female devotees, messengers, Christ, Iohannes Theologos, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Mary Magdalene. Of the seven messengers two are angels30 and one of them conveys the words of the Priests, the guards, and the Pilate in embedded speech, transformed into living scenes. The author of the drama, in his introduction, mentions only Theotokos, Theologos, and the women of the chorus. Messengers’ speeches and long rheseis of Theotokos constitute the largest part of the drama. Its dramatic tension arises from these long speeches and narratives and not from the dramatic action, as in classical Greek tragedy. Since Theotokos’ speeches involving laments extend to the greatest part of the drama, it has been suggested that Christus Patiens should be regarded as a dialogic planctus Mariae (lament of Theotokos),31 closely associated with Theotokos’ dialogue with the chorus32 and the narrative of the messengers.

.. Bacchae and Christus Patiens It is beyond any doubt that Christus Patiens appropriates the poetry of Euripides’ Bacchae in dramatizing Jesus Christ’s Incarnation and suffering. Τhe reception of Bacchae in Christus Patiens is multifaceted and will be explored from three main aspects: a) in terms of the exploitation of the dramatic conventions pervading Bacchae in the plot-structure of the Byzantine tragedy; b) as regards dramatic situations described in similar language and imagery; and c) in the field of concepts and ideas: values and beliefs of ancient Greek morality, as echoed in the tragedies

 30 The second one is called by Theotokos “λαμπροπυρσόμορφος”, ‘of purple splendour’ (Lampe) (v. 2055), a hapax legomenon. 31 See Alexiou 1974, 64–65 and 1975, 111–146, followed by Puchner 1995, 55–59; 2017, 78. 32 Theotokos and the chorus are interrelated characters in Christus Patiens.

Reception of the dramatic conventions of Bacchae in Christus Patiens  

of Euripides, are reconfigured within Christian contexts, that is, in a different ideological environment.33 Nevertheless, the limits between dramatic situations and concepts cannot be strict, since dramatic situations naturally comprise concepts and values. As it will be shown in the sections that follow, this exploration sometimes results to some extent in the convergence of the ideological backgrounds of Ancient Greek and Byzantine literature. Towards an interpretation of such a reconfiguration it has been suggested that Christus Patiens explores the limits of tragedy in the Christian world. Yet, as the following discussion is hoped to show, it cannot represent a culminating “Christianization” of Bacchae;34 it is rather the Byzantine author’s attempt to reconcile to some extent classical heritage with Christianity. Nonnus’ Dionysiaca and Christus Patiens showcase the ongoing prominence of Bacchae from Late Antiquity to Byzantium.35 The Byzantine drama in particular demonstrates a kind of merging of this last Euripidean drama with Christianity involving juxtapositions of Dionysiac and Christian themes.36 Yet, it is hoped that this exploration could yield insight into notable divergences in the treatment of pagan and Christian concepts and beliefs that clearly differentiate the scopes and the cultural trends of the pagan and the Byzantine work. The author of Christus Patiens treats the Euripidean verses as his basic exemplum, modifying them to suit his different context, metre, and stylistic predilections. The main divergences are noted below in the juxtaposed comparison of passages from Βacchae and the Byzantine tragedy.

. Reception of the dramatic conventions of Bacchae in Christus Patiens Regarding dramatic conventions, we should bear in mind that tragedy as a literary genre is conditioned by the formal conventions of language and structure. Some of these typical elements are received in Christus Patiens.37 However, the  33 The Euripidean themes of the Bacchae are widely received, but they are filtered through the lens of Christianity: Alexopoulou 2013, 128. 34 Friesen 2015, 3; yet in 251 she aptly noted that Christus Patiens represents the possibility of tragedy in the Christian world. 35 For Dionysus between paganism and Christianity in Nonnus, see e.g. Shorrock 2013; Hernandez de la Fuente 2013, 472–487; Friesen 2015, 238–250. 36 Cf. Friesen 2015, 251, 259–260; Bryant Davies 2017; Pollmann 2017, 149; see below 2.5. 37 On the dramatic conventions of Euripidean plays received in Christus Patiens, see recently Xanthaki-Karamanou 2021, 291–298.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens implications of these dramatic conventions for stage production are not clear in the Byzantine work. The poet seems unaware of the principles of staging a play and of producing a unified dramatic plot.38

.. The narrative, expository prologue This characteristic dramatic novelty of Euripides,39 involving interesting informative elements about the myth, the dramatis personae, and the action of each tragedy, has been refigured in Theotokos’ initial long narrative (vv. 1–90), which bears impressive echoes of the nurse’s prologue in Medea in particular.40 In Bacchae the narrative prologue (vv. 1–63) is delivered by Dionysus, providing a unique case in Greek tragedy: a god, after his soliloquy, participates (mainly transformed into a mortal) as a dramatic character throughout the action of the play, turning out to be the real protagonist directing the development of the plot. Dionysus provides the key elements of the dramatic action, namely its time and place:41 He has arrived in Thebes, the city of his origin, in human form (vv. 1–5),42 having established his cult in Asia (13–19). Since his mother’s sisters denied his divinity, he inspired bacchic frenzy and clothed them with fawnskin (26– 36). And now he is ready to overcome the resistance of the god-fighter Pentheus, the tyrant of Thebes and Cadmus' grandson (43–54). At the end of his soliloquy Dionysus informs the audience that he will join his maenads performing his ritual on Mount Cithaeron,43 and leaves the stage (62–63). In Christus Patiens Theotokos in her long prologue (1–90) refers to the mystery of the Incarnation (19–25) and the Salvation from the original sin after Christ’s sacrifice and His bearing men’s misdeeds. She also describes the fire that consumes Her heart as she recalls Symeon's prophecy of Her Son’s Passion (25– 31). Special reference is given to Her supernatural (ὑπέρ λόγον, 62) ἄμωμον τόκον, Her Immaculate Conception (60–67). Her delight was great (71: ἀνηλάλαξα

 38 Cf. Puchner 2002, 318; 2017, 79. 39 On Euripides’ expository openings: Schmidt 1971, 34–38; Erbse 1984; Goward 1999, 125–126. 40 See Xanthaki-Karamanou 2014, 202–203. 41 Cf. Dodds 1960, 61–62. 42 In vv. 2, 6–9 he refers to his mother Semele, her tomb, the ruins of her house, and Hera’s “immortal outrage” against her. 43 Dionysus is thought to be present among his worshippers, and his capacity for self-revelation is one of his prominent features: see above 1.3.3.10 on Dionysus’ epiphanies.

Reception of the dramatic conventions of Bacchae in Christus Patiens  

πῶς πάλαι χαρᾶς ὕπο) with the Annunciation,44 but Her heart was broken when she gazed at Christ’s Passion (68–89).

.. The central heroine’s address to the chorus This is a typical motif of Euripides, particularly in his plays involving powerful pathetic elements, such as Hippolytus,45 Medea and Bacchae. In the latter, as in other Euripidean plays, such an address is used to express encouragement and delight as well as intense grief for a previous dramatic event. More specifically: after the earthquake which Dionysus caused in Pentheus’ palace, the god addresses the terrified chorus of Maenads to encourage them (604–607): ‘Women of Asia, thus astounded by fear have you fallen to the ground? You felt, it seems, Bacchus shaking apart †the house of Pentheus. But raise up† your bodies and take courage, putting trebling from your flesh’.46 In the exodos of the play (1165–1392) after Pentheus' sparagmos, Agave addresses the chorus47 (v. 1168 Ἀσιάδες βάκχαι..., ‘Asian bacchants …’) in a triumphal tone, thinking in her frenzied delusion that instead of her son’s head she is carrying a newly-cut tendril. Similarly, Lycurgus in Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia in a state of Dionysiac frenzy cut down his own son Dryas believing that he was a vine ([Apollod.] 3.5.1). In the same scene of the exodos Agave addresses the people of Thebes (1202– 1215) urging them to admire the “prey” of a beast she hunted down with the daughters of Cadmus, her sisters, and torn with their own hands. At the end of the play (1381–1382) this tragic heroine asks the women of the chorus to lead her to meet her sisters, fellow – exiles, according to Dionysus’ order. This address-pattern which offers descriptive clarity and visuality to tragic logos is frequently used in the Byzantine drama of Christ’s Passion and Resurrection.  44 The description of the Annunciation in Theotokos’ prologue follows Lucas 1.30–35. 45 Phaedra from her sick’bed in Hipp. 373–374 addresses the chorus of Trozenian women confessing them her principles that lead her to end her life. ‘Women of Trozen, you who’ (αἳ τόδ’...). A similar address was that of Theotokos to the chorus (Chr. Pat. 369 Γυναῖκες, αἳ τῆσδ’...). 46 The translation of the passages from the Bacchae also in this section of the book follows Seaford 1997. I prefer here Dodd’s ‘Women of Asia’ (1960, 152) to Seaford’s ‘Barbarian women’ (1977, 99). Dodds, loc. cit., remarked that prostration is an oriental posture and this explains the use of βάρβαροι in v. 604. 47 In her dialogue with the chorus (1165–1201).

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens Theotokos often addresses the chorus of Her sincere friends at Her Son’s Passion (467–469, 472–473: Ὦ δεῦτε, φίλαι ... Γυναῖκες, ὄψιν στυγνὰν ὡς εἶδον τέκνου ποθῶ τεθνάναι ..., ‘Women, as I saw my Son’s gloomy face, I wish to die’; when She faces Him Crucified (686, 688, 695, 697) and cannot recognize His Face, for the Passion has vanished His splendour (695–696, 869–870: Γυναῖκες ὄψιν οὐχ ὁρῶ φαιδρὰν Τέκνου / χροιὰν γὰρ ἠλλάξατο καὶ κάλλος ξένον). And, when She realizes that death is approaching Him, she exclaims in despair (848: Σιγήσατ’, ὦ γυναῖκες, ἐξειργάσμεθα, ‘keep silent, women, I am finished’).48

.. Invocation to natural elements and abstractions Such invocations often occur in scenes of emotional tension coming, in particular, from Euripides’ plays of the selection49 and in Christus Patiens. In the third episode of Bacchae after the palace-miracle and Dionysus’ epiphany, the chorus invokes the light coming from Dionysus’ mystic cult, and identifies it with the god himself (vv. 608–609) ‘O greatest light for us of the joyful – crying bacchanal, how gladly I looked on you in my lonely desolation’.50 In the Conversion of Saul in the Acts51 his companions saw a formless glare and Saul saw in it the figure of Christ. Supernatural light is a common concept in Greek and Christian thought, in particular associated with mystic initiation. Earlier in the first episode after Pentheus’ insulting interrogation of Dionysus (215–262), the chorus of the Bacchants reproaches the king’s offensive and irreverent attitude (v. 263): τῆς δυσσεβείας, ‘What impiety!’. Likewise, reference to abstract ideas, though quite rare in tragedy, occur in a number of passages of Christus Patiens. In the first messenger’s speech (152–266), involving the extended reference to Juda’s treason, the similar exclamation τῆς ἀσεβείας (191) is uttered in an embedded speech.52 Then, after the account of the Disciple’s treason, Theotokos in Her second long speech (267–857), invokes the Earth and the Sun (267–268): Ὦ γαῖα μῆτερ ἡλίου τ’ ἀναπτυχαί, / οἵων λόγων ἄρρητον εἰσήκουσ’ ὄπα, ‘O mother earth and open sunlight, what unspeakable voice of words I have heard’; this recalls Ε.  48 The translation of Christus Patiens is mine, unless otherwise stated. 49 For parallel instances from Medea, Hippolytus, Alcestis, Phoenissae, and Hecuba, see Xanthaki-Karamanou 2014, 188; 2021, 293. 50 For light as a symbol of Dionysiac mysticism, see above on Bassarae fr. 23a R. and Seaford 2005. 51 Acts 9.3–7, 22.6.11. Seaford 1997a, 140 discussed this scene followed by Friesen 2015, 211. 52 Cf. below 2.4.6.

Reception of the dramatic conventions of Bacchae in Christus Patiens  

Ηipp. 601–602.53 In both cases, the speaking characters appeal to the Earth and the sunlight and share their powerful emotion and feelings. In the part of the Burial (1481–1484) Theotokos refers to Her mourning and to people’s grief and wishes to share their joy for the coming Resurrection.54 In addition, at moments of delight and joy the dramatic characters in both Euripides and the Byzantine drama invoke natural elements and the Sunlight par excellence, to share their exultation and relief. Thus, Theotokos exclaims in delight for Her Son’s Resurrection (2076–2077) ‘How bright your splendour is on this day, Sun! Now my cares and anxiety, as I hoped, have come to an end’, Ὦ καλλιφεγγὲς ἡλίου σέλας τόδε. / πέφθακεν ὡς ἤλπιστο, τέρμα φροντίδων. She appropriates Menelaus’ appeal to the sun in E. Tr. 860.55 Likewise, when Jesus appears asking His Mother to call His brothers to see Him after His Resurrection (2105–2107), Theotokos calls on the bright Sunlight to express rejoicing (2108– 2114). Her appeal in this case involves a variation of abstractions for joy, such as χάρμα παγκόσμιον, ‘ecumenical delight’, θυμηδία, ‘gladness of heart’, τέρψις εὐφρόσυνος, ‘cheerful delight’, γῆθος μέγα, ‘great joy’. The tragic Mother has earlier also called on abstractions regarding Her Crucified Son (920–922): ὦ φθέγμα γλυκὺ ... / ὦ φιλτάτη πρόσοψις, ὦ ποθουμένη / ὠραιότης, ‘O sweet voice ..., o most beloved face, o desirable beauty’; and in 1048 she refers to Her laments ὦ μέγεθος οὐ μετρητὸν οὐδ’ οἷόν τ’ ἰδεῖν, ‘oh immesurable, unseeable power of my grief’,56 which are reminiscent of Cadmus in Ba. 1244, as he gazes at Agave’s heinous prey. This verse of Bacchae is refigured with trivial changes, in Theotokos’ address to the Crucified Christ.57 Notably enough, the instance from Bacchae (1244–1245) is one of the cases where such invocations to abstractions are employed by Euripides58 to convey either despair and indignation or relief.

 53 Barrett 1964, 272 cited instances of dramatic characters calling on the elements under emotional stress. 54 Ὦ πένθος, ἄχος and χάρμα are the key-words. 55 Menelaus is happy to see Helen again. The verses of Christus Patiens (2076–2077) also recall Theodectes TrGF I 72 F 10 ὦ καλλιφεγγῆ λαμπάδ’ εἱλίσσων φλογὸς / Ἥλιε ποθεινόν ... σέλας …: see Xanthakis-Karamanos 1980, 67–68. 56 The translation here partly follows Fishbone 2002, 155. 57 ὦ πένθος Ba. 1244 – ὦ μέγεθος Chr. Pat. 1048, ἐξειργασμένων Ba. 1244 – ἐξειργασμένοι Chr. Pat. 1049. 58 Hec. 425 ὦ τῆς ἀώρου, θύγατερ, ἀθλίας τύχης; Andr. 319–320 ὦ δόξα δόξα, μυρίοι σὴ δὴ βροτῶν / οὐδὲν γεγῶσι βίοτον ὤγκωσας μέγαν with Stevens’ note 1971, 135–136; Hipp. 176 ὦ κακὰ θνητῶν στυγεραί τε νόσοι, 668–669 τάλαινες ὦ κακοτυχεῖς / γυναικῶν πότμοι, 936–937 φεῦ τῆς βροτείας … φρενός, 1391–1392 ὦ θεῖον ὀσμῆς πνεῦμα· καὶ γὰρ ἐν κακοῖς / ὢν ... κἀνεκουφίσθην

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens The Byzantine poet thus appropriates and further develops the narrative technique of invocations as used in Greek tragedy, citing abstractions in continuity and in interrelated meanings as those employed to express joy and delight in 2108–2114 or maternal love and pain in 920–922 (above). This practice displays poetic novelty and enhances emotion in crucial parts of the drama.

.. Embedded direct speeches Embedded direct speeches provide a Euripidean technique of enlivening a report and stressing a theme significant for the dramatic development, especially in expository prologues (IT 17–20),59 Ion 29–36,60 Ph. 4061) and in messengers’ accounts. This stylistic feature is appropriated by the author of Christus Patiens in the messenger-speeches addressed to Theotokos regarding dramatic events of primary significance. In more specific terms, in the second episode of Bacchae (434–518) the servant presenting the prisoner Dionysus to Pentheus and describing his easy arrest (440: τοὐμὸν εὐπρεπὲς ποιούμενος) tries to justify himself for the stranger’s arrest ‘O stranger, not willingly do I lead you, but by the orders of Pentheus who sent me’ (441–442). In the first messenger’s report, taking place in the third episode (576–861) and involving the vivid description of the Maenands on Mount Cithaeron (677– 774), which provides ‘a miracle to behold of good order’, θαῦμ’ ἰδεῖν εὐκοσμίας (693), one of the cowherds and shepherds, who wandered in the town and was a slick speaker,62 said to all (717–721): ‘O, you who live on the revere plateaus of the mountains, do you wish that we hunt Agave, the mother of Pentheus, from the bacchanals and so gain our king’s favour?’. In the same account, Agave prompts the Bacchants to attack Pentheus’ soldiers who spied on them (731–733): ‘Oh my

 δέμας. Hippolytus’ indignant denunciation of the whole female sex (616–650 with Barrett’s discussion) is a distinctive example of such invocations in general terms. 59 Calchas’ prophecy within the narrative prologue ‘Lord and general of Hellas, Agamemnon, you will not set free your ships from land until Artemis has your daughter Iphigeneia as a victim’ (transl. by Kovacs 1999 ad loc.). 60 Hermes conveys in direct speech Apollo’s order to bring the baby Ion to the Oracle of Delphi. 61 Laius’ charioteer commanding Oedipus: ‘foreigner, make way for the royal entourage’ (transl. by Craik 1988, 65). 62 τρίβων (λόγων) is a colloquialism: see Stevens 1976, 50 and 1977 and Collard 2018 for colloquial expressions in Euripides generally.

Reception of the dramatic conventions of Bacchae in Christus Patiens  

running hounds, we are hunted by these men. But follow me, follow armed with thyrsoi in your hands’.63 In the last messenger-speech (1043–1152), in the fifth episode (1024–1152) involving the account of Pentheus’ ascent on the Cithaeron and his sparagmos by his mother, embedded direct speeches are employed to signpost important scenes of the dramatic action. Pentheus, on his way to viewing the ‘delightful labours’ (1053: τερπνοῖς πόνοις) of the Maenads, was not able to watch them from where he was standing. So, he addressed Dionysus in his mortal form (1059– 1062): ‘Oh stranger, where we are standing I do not reach with my eyes the diseased raving women;64 … having climbed up a high-necked fir-tree, I would see properly the disgraceful activity of the maenads’. In this manner, Dionysus put into effect the plan for the end of his opponent; against Pentheus’ expectations (1050), ‘rather than seeing the maenads, he was seen by them’ (1075).65 At this point of the narrative Dionysus cried out to his female followers (1079– 1081): ‘Oh young women, I bring the one who makes you and me and my mystic rites a mockery; but take revenge on him’. Following the god’s order, Agave prompted her sisters (1106–1109): ‘Come, standing round in a circle take hold of the stem, maenads, so that we may capture the mounted wild animal and prevent him from disclosing the god’s secret dances’. At the hands of the frenzied Maenads Pentheus is begging his mother to show pity for him with agonizing words (1118–1121): ‘Look, it is I, mother, your child Pentheus ... Pity me, o mother, and do not through my errors (ταῖς ἐμαῖς ἁμαρτίαισι) kill your child’. Pentheus’ murder is a tragic deed committed by a blood relative in ignorance, δι’ ἁμαρτίαν.66 This kind of dramatic act characterizes the plot-structure of many plays and is a main element of Aristotle’s “best kind of tragedy” in the Poetics (13, 1453a 8–10). Hamartia in the Bacchae is caused by ignorance because of Agave’s state of madness and her incapacity to recognize her son’s identity. In Christus Patiens the technique of embedded direct speeches serves to bring forward pivotal dramatic elements. In the narrative of the Last Supper in particular, the Son of God quests for the confirmation of His Excellence and Glorification67 (161–169). In the same messenger’s account an anonymous, called “angel

 63 For Maenads armed with thyrsoi as warriors: Ba. 113–114, 762–764, 1099. 64 Μανιάδων νόσων (1060) is contrasted with τερπνοῖς πόνοις (1053). 65 (1050) ὡς ὁρῶμεν οὐχ ὁρώμενοι – 1075 ὤφθη δὲ μᾶλλον ἢ κατεῖδε μαινάδας. 66 Hamartia means both moral error, as in Ba. 1120–1121, and a mistake of act committed in ignorance. The latter frequently occurs in tragic poetry. For interpretations of hamartia, see e.g. Lucas 1968, 299–307; Bremer 1969; Stinton 1975, 221–254; Xanthakis-Karamanos 1980, 39. 67 See below 2.3.1.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens or human being” (265),68 in a long address in embedded speech strongly reproaches Juda (191–264), predicting his just punishment, Christ’s Resurrection and the Day of the Last Judgement. In Christ’s Trial, as described by the second messenger (376–418), when the messenger asks in direct speech (383–384) what is happening in the city, a member of the public answers that Jesus approaches His death (385–386). In the same messenger-speech Pilate is asking the Jews whether or not Jesus should be condemned to death (399–400). Later in the part of the Burial, as Theologos describes to Joseph, the soldier who speared Christ’s rib is said69 to have exclaimed (1221–1222) “Truly this Dead Man is the Son of God”. Subsequently, according to Theologos’ account, Theotokos standing by the Cross and addressing Her Crucified Son (1227–1230) complains in a sentimental outburst that no one takes care of His Sepulture, though He saved human race by His sacrifice.70 Undoubtedly, the longest and most important passage comprising an embedded direct speech in this drama concerns the triumphal account of Christ’s Resurrection in the last messenger-speech (2194–2388). A direct dialogue between the guards of the Tomb, the Priests and the Pilate is transformed into a series of living scenes, shaped in a dramatically coherent sequence: (i) the guards announce vividly and with a distinctly emotional tone the Resurrection to the Priests (2210–2223); (ii) the Priests oblige the guards to inform Pilate that Christ’s Disciples stole His Body (2230–2240); (iii) in their reply (2241–2269) the guards express their conformity and their conviction of Christ’s divinity (2245, ‘this man is not inferior to a God...’);71 (iv) in the final dialogue involving Pilate, the Priests and the guards (2270–2377), the former strictly accuses the Priests of bearing exclusively the responsibility for the action (2375).72 In this part of the drama, the Byzantine poet’s narrative technique remarkably expands this Euripidean convention: by means of inserting embedded direct speeches in this important narrative for the dramatic action, the whole messenger’s account is transformed into a series of successive scenes in the form of an

 68 Ἄγγελός τις ἢ βροτός. 69 By Theologos in his address to Joseph (1189–1239). 70 ... Ὧ θεῖον κάρα, / βροτῶν μὲν αὐτός καὶ θανὼν κήδῃ σαφῶς, / κενοῖς τε καθάρσιον ἀνθρώπων γένους·/ σὲ δ’ ούδὲ φροντίζει τις ἐνθεῖναι τάφῳ. 71 ἀνὴρ ὅδ’ ἥσσων οὐδενὸς θεοῦ δοκεῖ. 72 The incident with the guards, the Priests and Pilate, not attested in the Gospels, seems to have been added to lend vividness and descriptive power.

Reception of the dramatic conventions of Bacchae in Christus Patiens  

extensive dramatic dialogue. The messenger-speech changes into staged episodes in direct speech and the content of the narration is acted.73 This is a clear case of theatricality in a play mainly destined for reading.

.. Concluding gnomai As known, this is a very frequent formula in tragedy and in Euripides in particular, which stresses significant themes of his plays and promotes the development of action and dramatic economy. Bacchae, a play of violent passion and poetic power, brings forward central concepts of ancient Greek thought in the form of concluding gnomai; these notions include wisdom, sophia, and sōphrosynē, prevailing in the opposition between the rational and the irrational elements of human soul, which are distinctly portrayed in this last Euripidean tragedy. Dionysus in the third episode (576–861) after his epiphany ends his dialogue with the chorus: (641): ‘For what a wise man does is to exercise self-controlled gentleness of temper’, πρὸς σοφοῦ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς ἀσκεῖν σώφρον’ εὐεργησίαν. Then, at the end of the first messenger’s speech, after the narrative of the Maenads on Mount Cithaeron, the messenger advises (770–774) Pentheus to accept the Dionysiac cult: ‘for he (Dionysus) has given to mortals the vine that stops suffering. And if wine were no more, then there is no Aphrodite, nor anything else delightful for mankind’. Subsequently, the second messenger’s account concludes (1150– 1152) that ‘the best thing is to moderate and to revere the things of the gods; and I think that this is also the wisest possession for mortals to use’. In Christus Patiens this dramatic formula is appropriated to mark the end of Theologos’ speeches, bringing forward their main lines of thought and enhancing the significance of their narrative:74 e.g. Chr. Pat. 1145–1147, 1801–1805.

 73 Cf. Puchner 2002, 318; 2017, 78. 74 These concepts in Christus Patiens will be compared with the corresponding ones in Bacchae below: Ba. 314–316 / Chr. Pat. 262–264: sōphrosynē lies in men’s free choice and their nature (physis); Ba. 1150–1152 / Chr. Pat. 1145–1147: sōphrosynē is identified with the reverence for the God and commended as the wisest possession; Ba. 389–392 / Chr. Pat. 1801–1804: calm life and prudence hold together societies.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens .. The anapaestic closing formula The formulaic closing passage of Bacchae (1388–1392) and also of some other plays of Euripides75 is refigured at the end of the first part of Christus Patiens (1130–1134). Βa. 1388–1391 Πολλαὶ μορφαὶ τῶν δαιμονίων, / πολλὰ δ’ ἀέλπτως κραίνουσι θεοί. / καὶ τὰ δοκηθέντ’ οὐκ ἐτελέσθη, / τῶν δ’ ἀδοκήτων πόρον ηὗρε θεός.

Chr. Pat. 1130–1134 Πολλῶν ταμίας ἐστὶν ἀέλπτων Θεός, / πολλά τ’ ἀέλπτως πολλάκις κραίνει Θεός, / τὰ δ’ αὖ δοκηθέντ’ οὐκ ἐφεῦρε καὶ τέλος. / Σὺ δ’ ἀδοκήτων αὐτὸς εὕροις μοι πόρον.

Ba.: Many are the forms of divine things, and the gods bring many things to pass unexpectedly; and what seemed probable was not brought to completion, and god found a way for the unexpected. Chr. Pat.: God is the source of many unexpected things and brings many unexpected outcomes; and what seemed probable was not accomplished; but You can find for me a way for the unexpected.

The substitution θεός (Chr. Pat. 1130) for θεοί (Βa. 1389), which is a common practice in the narrative of this religious drama,76 and the direct address to Jesus Christ (Σύ) for θεός (sc. Dionysus in Ba. 1391) underscore the transformation of this tragic formula to the ideological contexts of Christus Patiens.

.. Deviations from Euripidean conventions Two remarkable deviations from typical conventions of Euripidean drama characterize the narrative and the plot-structure of Christus Patiens: a) The role and the purpose of the Hypotheses prefixed to the tragic texts in the manuscript tradition, informing of the setting, the date of performance, the dramatic characters etc., are reconfigured in the Byzantine poet’s prologue,

 75 Alcestis 1159–1163 (see Parker 2007, 283–285), Medea 1415–1419 (1415: πολλῶν ταμίας Ζεὺς ἐν Ὀλύμπῳ is reconfigured in Chr. Pat. 1130), Andromache 1284–1288. Several of these formulaic passages are likely to be interpolations, as Barrett 1964, 417 argued. See also Seaford 1997, 257– 258 for this matter. 76 Cf. Hunger 1969/1970, 35 and below for such a replacement of θεοί with Θεός, Διός with Θεός or Dionysus with Θεός, Agave with Θεοτόκος (or Ἄνασσα): Ba. 27 and Chr. Pat. 1550, Ba. 74 and Chr. Pat. 1139, Ba. 263 and Chr. Pat. 191, Ba. 291 and Chr. Pat. 580, Ba. 314–316 and Chr. Pat. 262–264, Ba. 973 and Chr. Pat. 1306, Ba. 1079 and Chr. Pat. 2257, Ba. 1150–1152 and Chr. Pat. 1145–1147. For such substitutions, see also Pollmann 2017, 152.

Reception of the dramatic conventions of Bacchae in Christus Patiens  

which anticipates the text of Christus Patiens and includes information on its subject, main themes and characters,77 imbued with a distinctive tone of selfreference.78 b) The deus ex machina, this characteristic Euripidean convention for the divine epiphany at the exodos of the play, often serves to predict future events79 and gives advice to the dramatic characters. In Christus Patiens, after the Resurrection, Jesus Christ Himself addresses Theotokos and Mary Magdalene.80 Christ appears again, encouraging Theotokos and Magdalene not to be frightened and asking them to prompt His brothers to go to Galilee to see Him, as He foretold them.81 The purpose of the divine epiphany is accomplished by the Presence of Jesus Christ Himself, κεκλεισμένων τῶν θυρῶν,82 ‘with the doors closed’ (Iohan. 20.19). In this last and most important of Christ’s epiphanies, the author of the Byzantine drama develops the typical Euripidean practice of the deus ex machina,83 following the evidence of the Gospels. Jesus Christ (2504–2531) predicts future events in front of His Disciples: the mission of the latter is to propagate Christianity through the Descent of the Holy Ghost and Their capacity to grant people remission of their sins also by the Grace of the Holy Spirit. The man who accepts Baptism will save himself, but the one who rejects Christ’s words will fall to damnation. It is worth noting that this last epiphany of Jesus does not involve lexical

 77 Apart from the presence of Theotokos, emphasis is posed on Iohannes Theologos, Christ’s beloved Disciple (vv. 6–7 ὡς ἐκ στόματος μητροπαρθένου κόρης, / μύστου πεφιλμένου τε Διδασκάλῳ. Cf. also 28–30 Πρόσωπα γοῦν δράματος εἰσί μοι τάδε. / μήτηρ Πάναγνος, παρθένος μύστης, κόραι / αἱ συμπαροῦσαι μητρὶ τῇ τοῦ Δεσπότου): Theotokos, Theologos and the women of the chorus, Theotokos’ faithful companionship, are the main characters of the play, according to the author’s introductory part. 78 E.g. vv. 4–5 κατ’ Εὐριπίδην τὸ κοσμοσωτήριον ἐξερῶ πάθος, / ὅθεν μαθήσῃ πλεῖστα μυστικῶν λόγων ..., ‘on the model of Euripides, I shall narrate the world's beneficial Passion, whence you learn many mystic ideas....’. 79 Hipp. 1415 ff. (Artemis), IT 1435 ff. (Athena), El. 1238 ff. (Castor), Or. 1625 ff. (Apollon), Hel. 1642 ff. (Dioscouroi), Supp. 1183 ff. (Athena), Ion 1571 ff. (Athena). The deus ex machina also predicts the establishment of future cults in an aetiological manner: Hipp. 1423–1430, IT 1453–1457. 80 Chr. Pat. 2097 χαίρετε, as in Matth. 28.9. 81 2104–2107, as in Matth. 28.10. 82 Chr. Pat. 2504–2531; 2498 ἕστηκεν ἰδοὺ Δεσπότης θυρῶν ἔσω, 2500 πῶς πῶς πάρεστι, τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων; Cf. Iohan. 20.19 ...τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων, ὅπου ἦσαν οἱ Μαθηταὶ συνηγμένοι διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν. 83 On this issue, see e.g. Spira 1960; Dunn 1996; Hamilton 2017.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens similarities with Euripidean drama; it follows consistently the evidence of the Gospels (Iohan. 20.21–23, Marc. 16.15–16, Matth. 28.19–20, Luc. 24.47–49).

. Reception of dramatic situations and themes Dramatic situations of pivotal importance for the development of the narrative in Christus Patiens are modelled on key-scenes of Euripides’ Bacchae. Motifs from scenes of Bacchae are reconfigured in narratives of Christus Patiens, involving variations corresponding to its author’s cultural environment and stylistic predilections. Certain distinctive divergences result from the practice of the adaptation of the Euripidean model to the ideological milieu of Christus Patiens.84 Such an influence of Dionysus and his mystic cult can often be traced on texts of early Christianity. The New Testament and in particular the Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s Epistles85 offer interesting parallels. The passages are cited below following, as far as possible, their order in the three parts of Christus Patiens, the Passion (vv. 1–1133), the Burial (1134–1905), and the Resurrection (1906–2531).

.. Excellence and glorification Jesus’ appeal to His Father for the confirmation of His Excellence (ἀριστεῖον) and His Glorification for defeating men’s enemy (the Devil) and saving humanity is modelled on a vocabulary similar to that used by Agave asking her father Cadmus to reward her for her ἀριστεῖα, namely the lion cub’s head she thinks, in her Dionysiac frenzy, that she is carrying instead of her son’s head (ἀριστεῖα in Ba. – ἀριστεῖον Chr. Pat., ἀγκρεμασθῇ Ba. – ὑπερκρεμασθείς Chr. Pat., δέξαι χεροῖν Ba. – σαῖν χεροῖν νέμω Chr. Pat.). The tragic irony in this Euripidean scene is powerful and the transplantation of the situation of Bacchae in the entirely different ideological context of Christ’s invocation is remarkable.

 84 Instances of such adaptations are discussed by Xanthaki-Karamanou 2014, 201–224; 2021, 295–298. 85 Seaford 1984a, 117–120; 1997a, 139–151.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

Ba. 1239–1240 (Agave) λαβοῦσα τἀριστεῖα, σοῖσι πρὸς δόμοις / ὡς ἀγκρεμασθῇ· σὺ δέ, πάτερ, δέξαι χεροῖν·

Chr. Pat. 165–166 (Jesus Christ) λαβὼν δὲ πάντας, χὠς ἀριστεῖον σφέων / ὑπερκρεμασθείς, αὖγε σαῖν χεροῖν νέμω.

Ba.: … I carry in my arms this prize that I took for valour, so that it may be hung up on your house; you, father, take it in your hands. Chr. Pat.: And taking them all,86 (Father), and having been crucified, I put in Your hands the prize I received.

Ἀριστεῖα (τά) refer to the highest prizes of valour, particularly in war: e.g. S. Aj. 464, Hdt. 8.124, Pl. Lg. 829c, 919e, Xen. HG 1.2.10. Used metaphorically in Ba. 1239 the word implies the prize in hunt as in [Apollod.] 1.71.2 and D.S. 4.34.5 with reference to Atalante. Ἀριστεῖον (τό), ‘belonging to the bravest, bestowed as the prize of valour’, is frequent in Demosthenes: 22.72, 24.180, 19.272; also in the same meaning: Hdt. 8.11, D.H. 6.94, 9.13 and in other texts. Notably, the words of Agave are used by Christ, whose presence as a dramatic character in Christus Patiens is relatively limited, but portrayed with greater weight than any other figure in the drama.87 Nevertheless, the theme of mutual glorification of Father and Son, expressed by Christ Himself, occurs in Gospels: Iohan. 13.31 ‘Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him’; Iohan. 17.1 ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you’; Iohan. 17.4 ‘(Father) I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work which you gave me to do’.

.. The Route to the end: to Cithaeron and Calvary The description of this core event of the deaths of Pentheus and Christ involves some remarkable thematic correspondences. In the fifth episode of Bacchae (1024–1152) and in the introductory dialogue between the messenger and the chorus, the chorus asks the former (1041–1042): ‘tell me, describe: with what doom did he die, the unjust man and perpetrator of injustice?’ And the messenger in his last narrative (1043–1152) describes the awful dismemberment of Pentheus by his mother and the other bacchants. Similarly, in Christus Patiens Theotokos asks the second messenger (376– 418) to describe the way the Jews decided to kill Jesus (373–374): ‘tell me, in what  86 ‘All’ sc. the nations in view of v. 164 ἔθνη τε διδοῖς. 87 Lacore 2002, 99; Pollmann 2017, 147 and n. 26. Bryant Davies 2017, 205.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens doom did they decide to kill my son?’ And the messenger informs Her of their decision to crucify Him (esp. 403–413). The author of Christus Patiens thus exploits the tragic technique of the interrogation of the messenger, which brings forward the equivalence of dramatic situations. In the last messenger-speech of Bacchae (1043–1152) and in the third one of Christus Patiens (657–681) the two messengers describe how they follow Pentheus in his ascent to Mount Cithaeron (Ba. 1048–1050) and Christ on His way to the place of His Passion (Chr. Pat. 676–678) respectively. The notable correspondences in imagery, in the description of the scene, and the feelings of the narrators (care for not making noise, so as to see without being seen) identify in narrative terms the two different dramatic situations. Ba. 1048–1050 πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ποιηρὸν ἵζομεν νάπος, / τά τ’ ἐκ ποδῶν σιγηλὰ καὶ γλώσσης ἄπο / σῴζοντες, ὡς ὁρῷμεν οὐχ ὁρώμενοι.

Chr. Pat. 676–678 πρῶτον μὲν εἰς χλοηρὸν ἷζόν που νάπος / τά τ’ ἐκ ποδῶν σιγηλὰ καὶ γλώσσης ἄπο / ἔσωζον, ὡς ὁρῶν νιν, οὐχ ὁρώμενος / …

Ba.: Well, first we take up positions in a grassy valley, being careful to make no noise with our feet or by speaking, so as to see without being seen.88 Chr. Pat.: First, I sat somewhere in a grassy grove, being careful to make no noise with my feet or by speaking, so as to see Him without being seen.

The variations of style are trivial: the rare adjective ποιηρόν (ποιηρός = ποιήεις), occurring only here and in E. Cyc. 45 ποιηρὰ βότανα and 61 ποιηροὺς νομούς, was replaced in the later text by the commoner χλοηρόν (χλοήρης, –ες = χλοερός, χλωρός; cf. Ba. 107–108 χλοήρει μίλακι, ‘verdant bryony’). Χλοερός is usual in later Greek texts. The plural (ἵζομεν, σῴζοντες, ὁρῷμεν, οὐχ ὁρώμενοι), referring to Pentheus, his servant – the messenger, and the Stranger,89 was replaced with the singular forms in the corresponding verbs of Christus Patiens.

.. Hymn of triumph (καλλίνικος ὕμνος) In the fifth stasimon of Bacchae (1153–1164) and at the climax of the dramatic action after Pentheus’ sparagmos, the chorus express the final victory of Dionysus.

 88 Seaford 1997, 233 (note at v. 1047) remarks in this description an echo of mystic viewing (θεωρία) and of the sacrificial procession that escorts the victim. 89 Ba. 1046–1047: ‘Pentheus and I (for I was following my master) and the Stranger who was our escort on the way to viewing’.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

The Cadmean Bacchants are commended (1160–1162): ‘You have made your hymn of triumph famous into lamentation, into tears’.90 Such an hymn of triumph, was associated with a refrain τήνελλα καλλίνικε (Archil. fr. 119, 324.1 West, Pi. O. 9.1–3 and Sch., Ar. Av. 1764, Ach. 1227, 1228, 1230, 1231, 1233 and Sch.) at the Olympic games. Tήνελλα was formed by Archilochus to imitate the twang of a guitar-string (Sch. Pi. loc. cit.). The words τήνελλα καλλίνικε became a common mode of saluting victors in the Greek games. In the part of the Passion this hymn of triumph is refigured to express Theotokos’ despair and anger for Christ’s assasins: ‘You transformed a καλλίνικον κλεινόν, ‘a glorious victor’, to lament, to tears, a contest for blood’ (Chr. Pat. 1049–1052): the καλλίνικος ὕμνος, the triumphal hymn, is changed to a παγκαλὴς ἀγὼν ἐν αἵμασι …, ‘a magnificent contest of blood’. She hopes that their crime will be punished and expects their destruction (1053–1057).91 Καλλίνικος as an attribute adjective to a person is used of Dionysus in Ba. 1147 τὸν καλλίνικον, ᾧ92 δάκρυα νικηφορεῖ, ‘(Bacchus) the triumphant, through whom (Agave) wins tears as a victory-prize’, after her son’s dismemberment. In an entirely different context in the part of the Burial, Theotokos calls Joseph a καλλίνικος (1300), a ‘triumphant winner’, after his moving rhesis prompting Her to receive the Body of Christ.

.. Compassion for misfortunes In both dramas the messengers express their distress, obedience, faith, and loyalty to their masters after Pentheus’ death and Christ’s Crucification. In Ba. 1027–1028 (the messenger addressing Pentheus’ house): ‘how I groan for you, though I am a slave – but still! [for good slaves are strongly affected by their masters’ misfortunes].93

 90 This dramatically effective contrast between joyful songs and laments has tragic parallels: A. Ag. 700–716, E. Alc. 922–923. 91 Nevertheless, the chorus suggests to Theotokos to grant forgiveness (1042–1045). Similarly, in Chr. Pat. 815–819 and 821–823 Theotokos intervenes to Jesus Christ to forgive Peter. 92 ᾧ Reiske; for the reading ᾗ in Chr. Pat. 1300, see App. IV.2. 93 v. 1028 seems to be an interpolation from Medea 54: Dodds 1960, 206–207; Seaford 1997, 232.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens In Chr. Pat. 647–648 (the messenger to Theotokos): ‘how I groan for You, though I am a mournful disciple, but faithful to my Master, even now when I see Him suffering’.94

.. Pentheus’ sparagmos and Christ’s crucification Pentheus’ ascent to Mount Cithaeron to spy on the Bacchants – thus accomplishing Dionysus’ dolos – and the Maenads’ attack on Pentheus leading to his sparagmos by his own mother, described in the second messenger-speech of Bacchae (1024–1152), are reconfigured in the narrative of Christ’s death on the Cross in the second messenger’s account of Christus Patiens (657–681). Both Pentheus and Jesus Christ are portrayed as victims in these passages. Nevertheless, Jesus, like Dionysus at the end of Bacchae, will become a victor demonstrating his divinity with His redemptive Resurrection.95 Ba. 1043–1097 1043–1044: ἐπεὶ θεράπνας τῆσδε … χθονὸς / λιπόντες ἐξέβημεν … / 1064–1065: λαβὼν γὰρ ἐλάτης. οὐράνιον ἄκρον κλάδον / κατῆγεν, ἦγεν, ἦγεν ἐς μέλαν πέδον· / … 1095–1097: ὡς δ’ εἶδον ἐλάτῃ δεσπότην ἐφήμενον, / πρῶτον μὲν αὐτοῦ χερμάδας κραταιβόλους / ἔρριπτον, ἀντίπυργον ἐπιβᾶσαι πέτραν … /

Chr. Pat. 657–668 657–658: Ἐπεὶ πόλιν … τῆσδε … χθονὸς / λιπόντες ἀφίκανον … / 660–661: αὐτίχ’ ὅμιλος οὐρανοδρόμῳ ξύλῳ / ἀνῆγον, ἦγον, ἦγον εἰς ἄκρον τέλος· 666–668: Ὡς δ’ ἔσχον οὕτως Δεσπότην ἠρτημένον, / ἄλλοι μὲν αὐτὸν καλάμῳ κραταιβόλῳ / ἔβαλλον, ἀντίπυργον εἰσβάντες πέτραν, / …

Ba. 1043–1044: When we had left the settlements of this … land. 1064–1065: for taking the top of a sky-high branch of a fir–tree, he brought it down, down, down to the dark ground’. 1095–1097: And when they saw my master seated on the fir-tree, first they threw stones hurled with force at him, climbing the rock towering opposite. Chr. Pat. 657–658: When they had left this city, they arrived …. 660–661: At once (the vengeful mob)96 led (my Master) up, up, up to the top of the hill to a beam pointing skyward.97  94 ὡς σὲ στενάζω λυγρὸς ὢν μύστης, ὅμως / τῷ Μυσταγωγῷ πιστός, … (647). The Byzantine poet with ὅμως avoided the difficulty of ἀλλ’ ὅμως, ‘but still’, in colloquial English: Dodds loc. cit. explains this difficulty in Bacchae. 95 On the common and the different features of Dionysus and Jesus Christ, see e.g. Henrichs 1984. 96 In v. 659: ἀλάστωρ; frequent in tragic diction: A. Pers. 354, Ag. 1501–1508, ‘avenging spirit’; here people ‘full of wrath, frantic’. Ἀλάστωρ ὄχλος, ’vengeful mob’, as aptly translated by Fishbone 2002, 147. 97 Thus, Fishbone 2002, 147.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

666–668: And as they had my Master Crucified, some of them violently struck Him with a hard-swung reed, climbing up the towering rock.

These passages of Bacchae and those of the Byzantine drama display remarkable correspondences of style, imagery, and narrative. Reception of vocabulary: repetition of ἦγεν – ἦγον, slightly modified formations: κατῆγεν – ἀνῆγον, δεσπότην ἐφημένον – Δεσπότην ἠρτημένον, οὐράνιον κλάδον – οὐρανοδρόμῳ ξύλῳ. The asyndeton: κατῆγεν, ἦγεν, ἦγεν and ἀνῆγον, ἦγον, ἦγον in threefold repetition adds power and emotion in the narrative. The threefold repetition in v. 1065 is unique in tragic dialogue. It suggests the slow descent of the tree-top98 in the Bacchae and the hard ascent to the peak of the mountain in Christus Patiens. The hapax compound epithets of Bacchae are used unchanged in the narrative of the Crucification: κραταιβόλος (Βα. κραταιβόλους χερμάδας ἔρριπτον, ‘stones hurled with force and violence’ – Chr. Pat. κραταιβόλῳ καλάμῳ ἔβαλλον, ‘they powerfully and violently beat Him with a reed’). Κραταιβόλος, ‘throw stones’; the pelting of Pentheus resembles the scapegoat (pharmakos) who was pelted with stones.99 Άντίπυργον (πέτραν), a rock ‘like a tower or fort’. Oὐρανοδρόμος, ‘running along the sky’, metaphorically employed here, is not used in attic Greek, but only in Byzantine authors, such as Joannes Damascenus, Photius, Michael Psellus, Eustathius and others. The choice of such a rare vocabulary confirms the widely accepted view that in the reception process of pagan texts the Byzantines consistently followed the attic model, avoiding the colloquial formations of the koine.100 Notably, Dionysus’ plan for Pentheus’ dismemberment by his own mother in Bacchae shares themes and stylistic resemblances with the speeches of Theologos and Theotokos in the part of the Burial of Christus Patiens. Ba. 971–976 (Dionysus to Pentheus) δεινὸς σὺ δεινὸς κἀπὶ δείν’ ἔρχῃ πάθη, / ὥστ’ οὐρανῷ στηρίζον εὑρήσεις κλέος. / ἔκτειν’, Ἀγαύη, χεῖρας αἵ θ’ ὁμόσποροι / Κάδμου θυγατέρες· τὸν νεανίαν ἄγω / τόνδ’ εἰς ἀγῶνα μέγαν, ὁ νικήσων δ’ ἐγὼ / καὶ Βρόμιος ἔσται. …  98 Thus Dodds 1960, 210. 99 Seaford 1997, 236. 100 Cf. Hunger 1969/1970, 31.

Chr. Pat. 1306–1307 (Theologos to Theotokos) Ἔκτειν’, ἄνασσα, χεῖρας, αἵ τ’ ἄλλαι κόραι, / δέχνυσθε νεκρόν, ὃς νεκροῖς ζωὴν διδοῖ, …

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens Chr. Pat. 1531–1532 (Theotokos referring to Christ’s Sacrifice) κἀν τῇ χθονὶ στηρίζον ἐνθήσεις κλέος, / γῆς ἐξανίσχων καὶ φέρων σωτηρίαν, … Ba.: Amazing you are, amazing, and you are going to amazing sufferings, with the result that you will find glory towering to heaven. Stretch out, Agave, your arms, and you her sisters, daughters of Cadmus; I bring this young man to a great contest, and the winner will be myself and Bromios. Chr. Pat. 1306–1307: Stretch out your hands, Queen and other maidens, receive this Dead Who gives life to the dead. 1531–1532: … and you will establish glory on earth, rising from the ground and bringing salvation.

In the fourth episode of Bacchae (912–976), in a reversal of Pentheus’ rude treatment of Dionysus for his effeminacy (451–460, 493), Pentheus is now dressed as a Maenad carrying a thyrsos. The Stranger starts to reveal his divine existence, since he has possessed Pentheus and commands his victim. At the end of this episode Dionysus asks Agave and her sisters to receive Pentheus in their arms, so that they lead him to his heinous end, and Dionysus’ dolos will thus be accomplished. The scene in Bacchae is enhanced with tragic irony101 and culminates at Dionysus’ confirmation that Pentheus will obtain glory after his amazing sufferings. In an entirely different context in the part of the Burial Theologos asks Theotokos and the women of the chorus to stretch their arms and receive the Dead Christ, Who by His Death offers life to the dead. Later, in this part of the drama Theotokos asserts that Christ’s Death will change men’s common fate; His Resurrection will bring salvation and His glory will be great on earth. Two thematic patterns coincide in both texts. The arms-stretching mothers to receive their sons and the glory towering to heaven. Stylistically and thematically equivalent passages are located in situations of different dramatic scope and thinking. Words used in the source-text are recontextualized from an ironic and sinister to a positive statement,102 expressing the soteriological dimension based on the anticipation of Christ’s Rise. The substitution of names in Christus Patiens, as here ἄνασσα for Agave, is necessary for contextual reasons. As remarked,103 such substitutions are plausibly frequent in the refiguration of Bacchae in the Byzantine drama.

 101 Dodds 1960, 192 notes “a bizarre and terrible humour” and refers to Hermann’s view that “for the sensitive spectator amusement is transmuted into pity and terror”. 102 Cf. Pollmann 2017, 152–153 and n. 54. 103 Above n. 76.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

.. The significance of mission In the most crucial part of Bacchae, in the fourth episode, Dionysus enchants Pentheus, as mentioned above, and persuades his victim to spy on the Maenads on Mount Cithaeron (956, δόλιον μαινάδων κατάσκοπον). Pentheus believes himself to be the only person capable to catch the Maenads, and such an idea is strengthened by the Stranger (963). In a stichomythic antilabe (966–970) Dionysus addresses Pentheus ironically alluding to his gruesome demise:104 his mother will bring him back from the mountain, and he will be the cause of something of “significance” (967, ἐπίσημον). The tragic irony relates Dionysus’ words to those delivered by him later in this scene, when urging Agave to stretch her hands and receive her son (973). In Christus Patiens Theotokos, in Her second long speech (1489–1619) in the part of the Burial, confirms the significance of Christ’s Sacrifice and the redemption of human race after His Resurrection. Ba. 960, 962–964 (Dionysus and Pentheus in stichomythia) ΔΙ. λήψῃ δ’ ἴσως σφᾶς, ἢν σὺ μὴ ληφθῇς πάρος. … / ΠΕ. μόνος γὰρ αὐτῶν εἰμ’ ἀνὴρ τολμῶν τόδε. / ΔΙ. μόνος σὺ πόλεως τῆσδ’ ὑπερκάμνεις, μόνος·/ τοιγάρ σ’ ἀγῶνες άναμένουσιν οὓς ἐχρῆν.

Chr. Pat. 1521–1526 (Theotokos) Καὶ γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ τῷδε κατέρχῃ μόνος, / λήψῃ δὲ νεκρούς, οὐ σὺ ληφθήσῃ νεκροῖς, / ῥύσῃ τε πάντας, ὢν ἐλεύθερος μόνος. / Μόνος γὰρ ἀνὴρ ταῦτα θαρρῶν ἱκάνεις, / μόνος σὺ φύσεως ὑπερκάμνεις βροτῶν. / Ἔσχον δ’ ἀγῶνες, οἵ σ’ ἔμιμνον, νῦν τέλος,

Ba.: DI. You will probably catch them, if you are not caught beforehand … PE. For I am the only man of them to dare this deed. DI. Alone you are toiling for this city-state, alone. Therefore, the appropriate contest are awaiting you. Chr. Pat.: For this reason You descend alone down to Hades. You will conquer the dead, but you will not be conquered by them. You will save them all, being free Yourself alone. For You are the only Man courageous for these, and You alone labour on behalf of mortals. The contests awaiting you came now to an end.

Some key-concepts are evident in both texts. The emphasis to μόνος, ‘alone’; to courage: τολμῶν (Ba. 962) is altered to θαρρῶν (Chr. Pat. 1524); contests and labour to accomplish the mission: the ironic statement of Dionysus is contrasted with the positive one of Theotokos on Christ as the only guarantor of victory over Hades and the Saviour of humanity (ῥύσῃ τε πάντας).  104 Cf. Pollmann 2017, 155.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens The comparison of the texts above brings forward, in this case as well, aspects of the refiguration of the pagan play in the Christian drama: straightforward borrowings of style and concepts and, at the same time, the transformation of negative statements and situations into positive ones105 leading to the transplantation of Euripidean dramatic situations into a new Christian context: the victorious end of Christ’s struggles for the salvation of humanity.

.. Realizing the murder In the exodos of Bacchae, in the scene of Cadmus’ appearance on stage with Pentheus’ dismembered body, the former, addressing Agave and the other maenads, exclaims (1259–1262): ‘Alas, alas! Realizing what you have done you will suffer a terrible suffering; but if through to the end you remain permanently in this state that you are in, you will not be fortunate but will think yourselves not unfortunate’. Agave will recognize her hamartia at the end and will suffer terribly. Refiguring Cadmus’ syllogism based on the concepts of ignorance and recognition of the sin, Theotokos, in the part of Christ’s Passion, expresses Her belief that Christ’s murderers will suffer and will be punished, unless they realize their crime. But if they remain in their present situation, they will not be happy, albeit they would seem to be (1053–1057).106

.. The punishment of impiety and treason: the end of Pentheus and Judas A distinctive instance of intertextuality occurs in the scene of Pentheus’ fall from the tree and his sparagmos in the second messenger’s account of Bacchae and Joseph’s reference to the miserable death of Judas, his Master’s traitor, in the part of the Burial in Christus Patiens. Both Judas and Pentheus are punished for their actions against a true son of god and face divine justice.

 105 Cf. also Pollmann 2017, 157. 106 Judging from Theotokos’ condemning words against her Son’s killers in the lines that follow (1059–1062, in particular 1059: Ὄλοισθ’ ὄλοισθε, στυγεροὶ μιαιφόνοι, ‘die, die hateful murderers’), the concept of repentance suggested by Bryant Davies 2017, 203 is debatable.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

Ba. 1111– 1113 ὑψοῦ δὲ θάσσων ὑψόθεν χαμαιριφὴς / πίπτει πρὸς οὖδας μυρίοις οἰμώγμασιν / Πενθεύς· κακοῦ γὰρ ἐγγὺς ὢν ἐμάνθανεν.

Chr. Pat. 1427–1433 Ἤδη κέκριται παντάδικος ἐνδίκως / μύστης ὁ παγκάκιστος ἐκδοὺς Δεσπότην· / ὦπτο κρεμαστοῖς ἐν βρόχοις ἠρτημένος· / βρόχων δὲ θᾶσσον ὑψόθεν χαμαιριφὴς / πίπτει πρὸς οὖδας μυρίοις οἰμώγμασι· / κακοῦ γὰρ ἐγγὺς ὢν ὁ τάλας οὐκ ἔγνω.

Ba.: Sitting high up, from on high he falls, hurled to the ground, with innumerable groans, Pentheus: for he understood that he was close to disaster. Chr. Pat.: The unjust and most hateful Disciple who betrayed his Master has already been justly condemned. He was seen suspended in a hanging noose; from the knots on high he falls abruptly to the ground with innumerable groans; for the wretched did not realize that he was close to evil.

The language of Pentheus’ heinous death deployed here in a different direction from that in the dramatic situation described in 2.3.5, which connects his sparagmos with Christ’s crucification (Ba. 1043–1097 and Chr. Pat. 657–668), showcases the shifts in the Byzantine poet’s adaptation of his tragic model. Πενθεύς κακοῦ … ἐγγὺς ὢν may refer to the etymon of Pentheus’ name. The reference to Pentheus’ proximity to his disaster could be a punning allusion to the paretymology of Pentheus’ name. Notably, earlier in Ba. (507–508) Dionysus addressing Pentheus confirms that he bears a name apt for calamity (Πενθεὺς ἐνδυστυχῆσαι τοὔνομ’ ἐπιτήδειος εἶ). An explicit instance of the punning derivation of Pentheus’ name is also provided in Chaeremon TrGF I 71 F4: Πενθεὺς ἐσομένης συμφορᾶς ἐπώνυμος.107 Interestingly, the epithet χαμαιριφής is adopted in the editions of Bacchae on the basis of Chr. Pat. 1430 instead of P’s χαμαιπετής, since χαμαιπετής πίπτει does not suit tragic diction.108 Judas’ fall to the ground is described in Acts 1.18: πρηνής, ‘with the face downwards, falling forwards’, corresponds to χαμαιριφής. In both passages, the name of Pentheus and the implicit reference to Judas as «ὁ τάλας» are mentioned at the end to add rhetorical power. In the last sentence emphasis is given on the antithesis of knowledge (ἐμάνθανεν) and ignorance (οὐκ ἔγνω), implied in the action that led to the disaster (κακόν): κακόν for Pentheus was his own death; on the other hand, κακόν for Judas was not only his own death, but primarily the death of Christ, which he could not realize (οὐκ ἔγνω) that would result from his betrayal.

 107 For further references to significant names in tragedy, see Xanthakis-Karamanos 1980, 91; Kovacs 1991, 345; Guidorizzi 2020, 186–187. 108 See App. IV.1 and Dodds 1960, 216.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens Moreover, the account of Judas’ death does not coincide in its details with the brief description in Matthaeus’ Gospel (27.5): Καὶ ἀπελθὼν ἀπήγξατο.

.. From divine to human form Dionysus in his long expository prologue (1–63) describes that in his human form he will establish his cult in Thebes, defeating any opposition on the part of the “theomachos” Pentheus and the Thebans. He thus explains that for these reasons he has acquired a mortal shape (43–54). In an entirely different context Theotokos explains in the part of the Burial how Christ’s Incarnation and His Death will beat Hades (1508: ᾅδῃ δὲ πικρότατον κέντρον ἐμβάλῃς) and will lead to Adam’s resurrection and the salvation of humanity (1511, 1516). It was for all these reasons that Jesus was incarnated. Ba. 4, 53–54 (Dionysus) 4: μορφὴν δ’ ἀμείψας ἐκ θεοῦ βροτησίαν 53–54: ὧν οὕνεκ’ εἶδος θνητὸν ἀλλάξας ἔχω / μορφήν τ’ ἐμὴν μετέβαλον εἰς ἀνδρὸς φύσιν.

Chr. Pat. 1512, 1536, 1543, 1546 (Theotokos addressing Jesus Christ) 1512: ὧν οὕνεκ’ εἶδος προσλαβὼν θνητὸν φέρεις 1536: μορφῇ τε σῇ συνῆψας ἀνέρος φύσιν· 1543: μορφῇ συνάψας τοῦ Θεοῦ βροτῶν φύσιν. 1546: μορφὴν λαβόντα πρὸς Θεοῦ βροτησίαν.109

Ba. 4: And having changed my form from god to mortal. 53–54: For these reasons I have acquired mortal shape and changed my form to the nature of a man. Chr. Pat. 1512: ‘For these reasons You have obtained mortal shape’. 1536: ‘In form you took on the nature of a man’ 1543: ‘Taking in the form of God the nature of mortals’. 1546: ‘When you assumed your mortal form from God.110

In Bacchae Dionysus is present in his mortal form as a young person, concealing his divinity. Jesus Christ’s incarnation and His double nature as God and mortal is steadily emphasized in Theotokos’ monologue (1489–1619), also focusing on Her Immaculate Conception (1547ff., 1572ff.).

 109 Using the same vocabulary βροτησία μορφή Iohannes Damascenus refers to the conjunction of Christ’s two natures (In Navitate v. 8) μιγέντα μορφῇ τῇ βροτησίᾳ Θεόν: Christ/Paranikas 1871, 205. 110 Thus Fishbone 2002, 166.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

Notable divergences: ἀμείψας and μετέβαλον, which described Dionysus’ human form in Bacchae, were replaced by συνῆψας and συνάψας in Christus Patiens to express the conjunction of the two natures in Christ’s incarnation. Similarly, v. 1546 brings forward that Christ’s human nature comes from God.111 In both dramas the metaphysical transformation from divine existence into mortal form for the establishment and the propagation of a new cult provides a pivotal theme. Yet, the Christian dimension with reference to Christ’s incarnation clearly differentiates the Byzantine from the pagan text.

.. Inventions to cast doubt on God’s divine origin Ba. 26–31 (Dionysus in his prologue) ἐπεὶ μ’ ἀδελφαὶ μητρός, ἃς ἥκιστα χρῆν, / Διόνυσον οὐκ ἔφασκον ἐκφῦναι Διός, / Σεμέλην δὲ νυμφευθεῖσαν ἐκ θνητοῦ τινος / ἐς Ζῆν’ ἀναφέρειν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν λέχους, / Κάδμου σοφίσμαθ’, ὧν νιν οὕνεκα κτανεῖν / Ζῆν’ έξεκαυχῶνθ’, ὅτι γάμους ἐψεύσατο.

Chr. Pat. 1547–1553 (Theotokos addressing Jesus Christ) Ἀλλ’ ἐγγενεῖς σῆς μητρός, οὓς ἥκιστ’ ἐχρῆν, / θαυμαστὰ πολλὰ σφίσιν ἐξειργασμένον / ἄρρητ’ ἀμυήτοισιν εἰδέναι βροτοῖς, /σωτῆρά σ’ οὐκ ἔφασκον εκφῦναι Θεοῦ, / ἀλλά με νυμφευθεῖσαν ἐκ θνητοῦ τινὸς /τεκεῖν σ’ ἐλήρουν καὶ γάμους ψευσαμένην / λέχους ἁμάρτημ’ ἐς Θεὸν μ’ ἀναφέρειν·

Ba.: For the sisters of my mother, who least should have done so, denied that I, Dionysus, am the son of Zeus, claiming that Semele was brided by some mortal and then, the clever invention of Cadmus, ascribed to Zeus the fault of her bed. And because of this, they would loudly proclaim, Zeus killed her, because she lied about the union. Chr. Pat.: But your mother’s kinsmen, who should least have done so, though You had achieved many miracles for them, mysteries unspeakable for uninitiated mortals, argued that You were not born the Saviour from God. On the contrary, they talked frivolously that I, though married, conceived You from another man, and, deceiving about my marriage, attributed the sin of my bed to God.

In Bacchae, as Dionysus narrates, Semele’s sisters believed that Cadmus invented (Κάδμου σοφίσματα) the story of her union with Zeus to conceal her seduction by a mortal, which entails that Dionysus was not a God, the son of Zeus. Cadmus

 111 Friesen 2015, 257 remarks that the author of Christus Patiens “carefully nuances his language in the interest of orthodoxy”.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens repeats this idea in vv. 333–336 when addressing Pentheus, not necessarily regarding it as a lie, obviously in order to persuade him to accept the Dionysiac cult.112 Likewise, in the part of the Burial Theotokos refers to Her Immaculate Conception (1545) (ἐγὼ δ’ ἔτικτόν σ’ αὖθις ἁγνεύουσ’ ἔτι, ‘I gave birth to You remaining virgin’). However, the Jews, despite Christ’s miracles, denied His divinity and His being the Son of God. To support this false allegation, they diffused that Theotokos was seduced by a mortal and attributed to God the responsibility of her sin.113 Apart from the main theme of the “invention” and the false allegations, the correspondences in language and narrative are many. The common substitution in the hypotext of Θεοῦ,114 ‘God’, for Διός, ‘Zeus’, recurs here, as well, conveying the necessary meaning: Διόνυσον οὐκ ἔφασκον ἐκφῦναι Διός – σ’ οὐκ ἔφασκον ἐκφῦναι Θεοῦ, νυμφευθεῖσαν ἐκ θνητοῦ τινος, ἐς Ζῆν’ ἀναφέρειν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν λέχους – με νυμφευθεῖσαν ἐκ θνητοῦ τινὸς … λέχους ἁμάρτημ’ ἐς Θεὸν μ’ ἀναφέρειν. The word σόφισμα, ‘invention, clever device, contrivance’ (in A. Pr. 459, ἀριθμός is said to be ἔξοχον σοφισμάτων), in a negative sense, as here, is ‘the slight trick, the artifice’: cf. E. Ba. 489 δίκην σὲ δοῦναι δεῖ σοφισμάτων κακῶν. Σοφίσματα is repeated in Chr. Pat. 1555 ἐχθροῦ (sc. of the Devil) σοφίσματα, 1556 παγκάκων σοφισμάτων, and 1557 στροβοῦντα κόσμον έν σοφίσμασι, to emphasize the lies invented to cast doubt on Theotokos’ chastity and Her Immaculate Conception.

.. The trophy Ba. 1212–1215 (Agave to the chorus) Πενθεὺς τ’ ἐμὸς παῖς ποῦ’ στιν; αἱρέσθω λαβὼν / πηκτῶν πρὸς οἴκους κλιμάκων προσαμβάσεις, / ὡς πασσαλεύσῃ κρᾶτα τριγλύφοις τόδε / λέοντος ὃν πάρειμι θηράσασ’ ἐγώ.

Chr. Pat. 1262–1265 (Joseph to Nicodemus) Ναί, φίλε Νικόδημε, σὺ πρῶτος τάχει / ἔμβαινε πηκτὰς κλίμακος πρὸς ἐμβάσεις, / ἐκπασσαλεύσων διγλύφου δοκοῦ δέμας / λέοντος, ὃν γέγηθε θηράσας λαός.

 112 Cf. Doods 1960, 67; Guidorizzi 2020, 144. 113 Matthaeus’ Gospel (1.18–21) refers to the Angel’s appearance to Joseph to confirm Theotokos’ virginity and Her Immaculate Conception. For this false allegation, cf. also Chr. Pat. 563– 564 and Tuilier’s note 1969, 173 n. 1, 67–68. 114 For such a substitution in Chr. Pat. of Θεός for Διός in Bacchae, cf. above n. 76.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

Ba.: And Pentheus, my child, where is he? Let him get the steps of strong-built ladders and raise them to the house, so that he may nail to the triglyphs this head of a lion which I am here having hunted. Chr. Pat.: Yes, my dear Nicodemus, you first climb up quickly on the well-fastened steps of the ladder and detach from the diglyphic beam the lion’s body, which the people rejoiced to have hunted down.

In the exodos of Bacchae, after the dismemberment of Pentheus, Agave arrives at Thebes in a state of frenzy and engages in a dialogue with the chorus. She is looking for Pentheus to nail the lion’s head, her supposed prey, on the triglyph of her house. The tragic irony reaches its climax at this point of the dramatic plot. The whole scene is refigured in the preparation of Christ’s Tomb; Joseph is asking Nicodemus to detach a lion’s body from the diglyphic beam. The lion’s body may refer to the Lion of Juda, i.e. Jesus Christ115 dead on the Cross. The same custom of showing one’s quarry as a trophy116 is, mutatis mutandis, echoed in both passages. Remarkably enough, this detail in the part of the Burial in Christus Patiens is distinctly symbolical, absent from the relevant evidence of the Gospels. The Byzantine author introduced and transplanted the lion’s motif in his treatment of the Burial, juxtaposing the Lion of Juda, i.e. Jesus Christ, with the imagery of Bacchae, his tragic exemplum.117 There are numerous stylistic correspondences: πηκτῶν κλιμάκων προσαμβάσεις – πηκτὰς κλίμακος πρὸς ἐμβάσεις, ὡς πασσαλεύσῃ – ἐκπασσαλεύσων, κρᾶτα … λέοντος ὃν … θηράσασ’ ἐγώ – δέμας λέοντος, ὃν … θηράσας λαός. Κρᾶτα and δέμας λέοντος as well as θηράσασα and θηράσας distinctly bring forward the hunting and the trophy motif.

 115 Revel. 5.5: ἰδοὺ ἐνίκησεν ὁ λέων ὁ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα, ἡ ῥίζα Δαυΐδ … 116 The hunter’s practice was to nail the head of his quarry to the housefront as a trophy: Dodds 1960, 227. 117 Pollmann 2017, 154 discusses the delusion concerning the identity of the lion. For Agave, the consequences of her error, namely the killing of Pentheus and the ruin of her family, cannot be reversed. On the other hand, the Jews’ deed was not successful for the captured lion, Jesus Christ will rise again.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens .. The thiasos: the chorus of female devotees Ba. 55–57 (Dionysus in the prologue) ἀλλ’, ὦ λιποῦσαι Τμῶλον ἔρυμα Λυδίας, / θίασος ἐμός, γυναῖκες, ἃς ἐκ βαρβάρων / ἐκόμισα παρέδρους καὶ ξυνεμπόρους ἐμοί, / αἴρεσθε τἀπιχώρι’ ἐν Φρυγῶν πόλει / τύπανα, …

Chr. Pat. 1602–1606 (Theotokos addressing the chorus in the part of the Burial) Ἀλλ’ ὦ λιποῦσαι Γαλιλαίας χωρίον, / ἐμὸς θίασος, ἃς συνεμπόρους ἐμοὶ / ἐκεῖθεν ἕλκει μυστίδας μυστηρίων / ὁ νῦν νέκυς, φεῦ, τῷ λάκῳ τεθειμένος, / ἐᾶτε τἀπιχώρι’ ἐν νεκρῷ μέλει …

Ba.: But you who have left Mt. Tmolos, the rampart of Lydia, my thiasos, women whom from among the barbarians I brought to be my companions in rest and in travel, raise up the drums that are at home in the city of the Phrygians. Chr. Pat.: But you women who left the region of Galilee, my thiasos, whom, this Dead, alas, now placed in the Tomb, leads from there as my companions, initiated into the mysteries, leave aside the traditional songs of death.

The thiasos, the initiated worshippers are traditionally related to god’s ritual and his cult. In both Bacchae and the religious drama the thiasos of the initiated women composes the chorus, thus associating the ritual with the theatrical conventions. The primary participation of Agave in the thiasos of the Theban maenads and the interrelation of Theotokos with the chorus in Christus Patiens are pivotal constituents of the plot-structure in the pagan and the Christian drama. The common elements in the narrative are the references to the origin of each of the two thiasoi, Lydia and Galilee respectively; the women of the thiasos are συνέμποροι, ‘companions in route’, along with the god. The main variation in context is that the triumphant song with drums, prompted by Dionysus and delivered by the maenads in the parodos of Bacchae, has been replaced in Christus Patiens with the laments for the dead Christ. Such a variation sheds light on the different emotions aroused in the religious drama. Similarly, as the chorus sings in the parodos, Dionysus leads118 his thiasoi to the mountain where there waits the female throng (θηλυγενὴς ὄχλος) stung to frenzy from their looms;119 the whole land dances in Ba. 114–117. In Chr. Pat. 1614– 1616 the women of the thiasos (θηλυγενὲς γένος), Theotokos’ companions – and

 118 Dionysus is conceived as present among his worshippers and as having a leading position in his thiasos: Ba. 141, 145, 413 (Dionysus is πρόβακχος, ‘a bacchant leading god’), 570. 119 Ba. 63, 115–119; cf. Seaford 1997, 75, 162.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

among them Marcus’ mother – support Her in the difficult hours of Christ’s Burial. The replacement of ὄχλος with γένος demonstrates the difference in the ideological milieu.

.. Mourning mothers holding their sons’ bodies Ba. 1280 (Agave) ἔα, τί λεύσσω· τί φέρομαι τόδ’ ἐν χεροῖν;

Chr. Pat. 1310–1311 (Theotokos) Φεῦ φεῦ τί λεύσσω; ταῖν χεροῖν τί νῦν φέρω; / τίς ἔστιν οὗτος, ὃν νέκυν χεροῖν ἔχω;

Ba.: Ah! Ah! What do I see? What is this I am carrying in my hands? Chr. Pat.: Alas! Alas! What do I see? What do I bear in my hands? Who is this whose corpse I hold in my hands?

In the exodos of Bacchae, Agave, before her restoration to sanity and in the scene of Cadmus’ arrival with Pentheus’ body (1216–1300), wonders about the head that she is carrying as her prize (1280). Immediately afterwards, at the climax of the dramatic action, when Cadmus urges her to look closely at it, she recognizes her prey (1281–1300). In the part of the Burial in Christus Patiens Agave’s exclamation is refigured in two pivotal moments of the plot: Joseph at the end of his inspired rhesis (1295– 1297) and after him Theologos exhort Theotokos and the chorus to receive Christ’s body, that gives life to the dead (1306–1308). Then, the tragic Mother embraces with an extensive and exciting lament the lifeless Body. Her long lamentation (1309–1426) ends with a poignant disparagement of Judas and Her conviction for his punishment. The image is described in similar terms in both passages. Agave’s exclamation ἔα, τί λεύσσω is a topos in this planctus Mariae: it is repeated with slight variations, at two pivotal momets of the plot: when Theotokos watches Her Son’s route to His Passion (Chr. Pat. 444: Οἴμοι, τί λεύσσω; χερσὶ τῶν ἀλαστόρων, … ‘Alas, what do I see? In impious hands, …’) and as She watches Ηer Son’s death (853: Ἔα, τί λεύσσω; Σὸν δέμας νεκρόν, τέκνον …, ‘Ah, what do I see? I see your body is a corpse, Child…’). This short exclamatory phrase ἔα (φεῦ φεῦ) τί λεύσσω; conveys the climax of the tragic Mother’s sentimental outburst. Nevertheless, φέρομαι, the middle form of the verb in Bacchae, conveys more clearly than φέρω

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens in Christus Patiens the powerful emotion of the speaking person: the agent (Agave) is affected by her action.120 Notably, as suggested,121 Theotokos does not often assimilate Agave and She speaks through Agave’s words for only four lines. The majority of Theotokos’ borrowings from Bacchae are Dionysus’ words. The gruesome description of the scene of Pentheus’ sparagmos and his dismemberment (1088–1139) in the fifth episode of Bacchae (1024–1152) as a result of the maenads’ violent reaction to male intrusion into their Dionysiac activities, and, in particular, the preserved part of PAnt. I 24 fr. 2a display remarkable correspondences in terms of imagery to Joseph’s reference to Jesus during His Burial in the Tomb. Ba. 1135–1136 (The last messenger) … πᾶσα δ’ ᾑματωμένη / χεῖρας διεσφαίριζε σάρκα Πενθέως Bacchae (PAnt I 24 fr. 2a verso) Πενθέως κατ]ηλοκ̣[ι]σ̣μ̣έ̣ν̣[’ αἱμόφυρτά τε / μέλη κομί]ζων, ἴσθι, κῃ[δείοις πόνοις. /

Chr. Pat. 1471–1473 (Joseph) τὰ δ’ αἱμόφυρτα καὶ κατηλοκισμένα / μέλη σὰ καὶ μέρη πέπλοις καινοῖς σκέπω, / πλευρὰν νυγεῖσαν πᾶσαν ᾑματωμένην. /

Ba. 1135–1136: And each one with hands bloodied was playing ball with the flesh of Pentheus. PAnt I 24 fr. 2a: Be aware that I am bringing Pentheus’ torn and blood-spattered limbs to care for them. Chr. Pat.: I cover with new veils Your blood-spattered and lacerated limbs and all Your pierced and blood-soaked side.122

As regards the scene of Bacchae, the orator Apsines (Ars Rhetorica 399), probably possessing the text of Bacchae in its entirety, describes the horrible scene in which Agave, restored to a state of sanity after her Bacchic frenzy, is holding the members of her son. The feeling of pity (ἔλεος) that Euripides arouses for Pentheus, as Apsines wrote (ibid. 401–402), is caused by Agave’s lament as she holds her son’s dismembered body.123

 120 As observed by Seaford 1997, 248. 121 Bryant Davies 2017, 202–206. 122 ‘Blood-soaked side’ was aptly translated by Fishbone 2002, 165. 123 For a more extensive discussion, see also below App. III on the missing part of the exodos of Bacchae.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

The lines of PAnt I 24 fr. 2a verso should be attributed to Cadmus on the basis of Ba. 1225–1226 ‘turning back to the mountain I recover the child who died at the hands of the maenads’.124 This scrap of the papyrus codex from Antinoë125 was assigned by the majority of scholars to Bacchae at the point of the lacuna after 1300.126 Some small scraps of this papyrus codex from Antinoë in Egypt of the 5th century provide evidence for the missing verses of the end of Bacchae.127 There are impressive correspondences in terms of vocabulary and imagery: ᾑματωμένη (Βα. 1135, Chr. Pat. 1473), ‘bloodied’; αἱμόφυρτα μέλη (PAnt, Chr. Pat. 1471), ‘blood-spattered limbs’, αἱμόφυρτος = αἱματόφυρτος (cf. αἱμόρρυτος) from φύρω, ‘mix’, cf. Od. 9.397, 18.21, E. El. 1173 (μητρὸς … ἐν αἵμασι πεφυρμένοι); κατηλοκισμένα (μέλη), a rare compound verb, also attested in E. Supp. 826 with tmesis (κατὰ μὲν ὄνυξιν ἠλοκίσμεθ’), S. Lacainai fr. 369a R. (ἀνηλόκισμαι, explained ἀνέσχισμαι by Hsch. α 5054 Cunningham), A. Ch. 25 (ἄλοκι νεοτόμῳ), ἀλοκίζω (ἄλοξ – οκος, ἡ = αὖλαξ), prop. ‘trace furrows’, pass. pf. part. ἠλοκισμένος, ‘scratched, torn’, cf. Lyc. 119, 381. Kηδείοις πόνοις refers to the preparation of a special care for the body, like that described by Joseph in Christus Patiens loc. cit. Κήδειος is related to κηδεία, ‘the funeral procession’. In this passage of Christus Patiens the image of Joseph’s covering Christ’s Body with veils corresponds precisely to the description given by the Gospels.128 However, the reference to Christ’s Body as lacerated, torn, is not congruent with the relevant historical evidence and seems to have been taken exactly from the PAnt text of Bacchae.

 124 Cf. κομίζομαι in Ba. 1225 and probably κομί]ζων in the papyrus-fragment. For κομί]ζων, see Dodds 1960, 243. 125 Fr. ii b verso in Diggle’s Oxford text seems to convincingly confirm that Chr. Pat. 1471–1472 echoes Bacchae. See App. III. 126 See App. III. On the contrary, Dodds 1960, lviii and earlier scholars assigned it at the point of the lacuna after 1329. 127 See App. III. 128 Matth. 27.59, Marc. 15.46, Luc. 23.53, Iohan. 19.38–40.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens .. Carrying the bodies Ba. 1216–1219 (Cadmus) ἔπεσθέ μοι φέροντες ἄθλιον βάρος / Πενθέως, … / οὗ σῶμα μοχθῶν μυρίοις ζητήμασιν / φέρω τόδ’, …

Chr. Pat. 1486–1487 (Joseph) ἔπεσθέ μοι, φέρωμεν ὄλβιον βάρος, / ὃ πόλλ’ ἀνατλὰς μυρίοις αἰτήμασιν / ἔσχον …

Ba.: Follow me carrying the miserable weight of Pentheus … whose body toiling with infinite search I am bringing here …. Chr. Pat.: Follow me, let us carry this blessed weight, which I obtained with many efforts and infinite entreaties.

Cadmus in the exodos carries Pentheus’ torn body with much toil. There are notable echoes of this situation in Joseph’s reference to his many efforts to persuade Pilate to grant him permission for taking Christ’s Body.129 The language and the imagery of Bacchae are refigured in the description of the scene in the Byzantine drama. At the same time, the Byzantine author opts for plausible variations aiming at fitting the ideological contexts of his work, as for instance, the substitution of ὄλβιον, ‘blessed’ (βάρος) for ἄθλιον, ‘miserable’, in Bacchae, and the replacement of μυρίοις ζητήμασιν, ‘infinite search’, with μυρίοις αἰτήμασιν, ‘infinite entreaties’.

.. Bitterness for leaving home and country Ba. 1352–1355 (Cadmus to Agave in the exodos) ὦ τέκνον, ὡς ἐς δεινὸν ἤλθομεν κακὸν / , σύ θ’ ἡ τάλαινα σύγγονοί τε σαὶ / ἐγώ θ’ ὁ τλήμων· βαρβάρους ἀφίξομαι / γέρων μέτοικος· …

Chr. Pat. 1700–1702 (Joseph to Theologos) Ὦ φίλος, ὡς εἰς δεινὰ φῂς ἐλθεῖν κακὰ / πάντας, κἄμ’ αὐτὸν συγγόνους τ’ ἄρδην ἐμούς· / κἀγὼ δ’ ὁ τλήμων βαρβάρους ἀφίξομαι;

Ba.: O child, how we have come to terrible suffering, , you the wretched and your kin, and I the miserable one. I will arrive among foreigners, an old man, an alien settler; Chr. Pat.: O dear, how you say that all will come on terrible evils, both myself and utterly all of my relatives; and will I, wretched, arrive among barbarians?

Cadmus is expressing his despair for his exile according to Dionysus’ prediction. Likewise, Joseph fears that he will leave his country. The reason for this is not

 129 Matth. 27.58, Marc. 15.43–45, Luc. 23.52, and Iohan. 19.38.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

clear. St John Chrysostom, the Archbishop of Constantinople, was the first to write that Joseph was one of the 70 Apostles appointed by Christ130 to promote the Christian faith (Luc. 10.1,3). This could explain the reference to Joseph’s arrival among foreigners.

.. The liberation motif Ba. 443–448 (The servant to Pentheus) ἃς δ’ αὖ σὺ βάκχας εἶρξας, ἃς συνήρπασας / κἄδησας ἐν δεσμοῖσι πανδήμου στέγης, / φροῦδαί γ’ ἐκεῖναι λελυμέναι … / σκιρτῶσι Βρόμιον ἀνακαλούμεναι θεόν· / αὐτόματα δ’ αὐταῖς δεσμὰ διελύθη ποδῶν / κλῇδές τ’ ἀνῆκαν θύρετρ’ ἄνευ θνητῆς χερός.

Chr. Pat. 1383–1386 (Theotokos) Τὰ δ’ ἐν νεκροῖσι φροντιεῖ Πατὴρ σέθεν,/ οὓς πάντας αὐτός, ὡς σκυλεύματ’ ἐξάγοις / ἅϊδος οὓς κάθεῖρξεν, οὓς συνήρπασε, / κἄδδησεν ἐν δεσμοῖσι πανζόφου στέγης. 2070–2075 (The angel) … ὡς φροῦδος ᾅδης, Χριστὸς ἀνέστη τάφου,/ … / φρουροὶ τ’ ἅϊδος θύρετρ’ ἀνεῖσαν φόβῳ / λελυμένοι, νεκροὶ δὲ πρὸς φάους χθόνα / σκιρτῶσι, σῶκον ἐκκαλούμενοι Θεόν· / τῷ γ’ αὐτόματα δεσμὰ πάντ’ ἀπερράγη.

Ba.: But as for the Bacchants whom you imprisoned, whom you took off and bound in the chains of the public prison, they are gone, released, are bounding … calling on Bromios as a god. All by themselves the chains were released from their feet, and the bolts undid the doors without mortal hand. Chr. Pat. 1383–1386: But Your Father will look after the things of the dead, whom You Yourself could liberate like spoils from Hades, whom He imprisoned, seized violently and tied in the chains of the darkest house. 2070–2075: Hades was defeated, Christ arose from the Tomb, … and the guards terrified opened the gates of Hades; the dead are bounding towards the land of light, calling upon God as their Saviour. Through Him all bonds have shattered by themselves.

The binding, the imprisonment, and the final liberation of the Bacchants by Dionysus, as reported by the servant to Pentheus (434–450) in the second episode of Bacchae131 (434–518), are impressively refigured in terms of language and imagery in two passages of Christus Patiens concerning Christ’s liberation of the  130 Iohannes Chrysostomus In Iohannem Hom. 85, PG 59, 463, 61–63. 131 In Aeschylus’ Edonoi the Bacchants were similarly imprisoned by Lycurgus and liberated by Dionysus ([Apollod.] 3.5.1); Naevius Lucurgus fr. 19 Shauer = frr. 46–47 Warmington also describes the imprisonment of the Bacchants: see above 1.1.1.5.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens dead from Hades: in Theotokos’ reference to the liberation of the dead thanks to the coming Resurrection of Christ (1383–1386) and in the Angel’s announcement of Christ’s Resurrection (2060–2075, esp. 2070–2075). An association of Dionysiac mystic cult and Christian beliefs may be involved here. Dionysus as Lysios, ‘deliberator’, was thought to achieve the deliverance of the soul after death through mystery initiations. The concern for afterlife secured through initiation was a prominent element of Dionysiac mysteries throughout the ancient world.132 Plato Phdr. 244e refers to these two ways of deliverance associated with mystic ritual: one was related to the present and the other to the afterlife. There are numerous stylistic correspondences: λελυμέναι – λελυμένοι, ‘released’; σκιρτῶσι, ‘are bounding’, used especially of Bacchic revel: Ar. Pl. 761 ὀρχεῖσθε καὶ σκιρτᾶτε καὶ χορεύετε; αὐτόματα δεσμὰ διελύθη – αὐτόματα δεσμὰ ἀπερράγη. Variations in phrasing which indicate the different cultural contexts: Βρόμιον ἀνακαλούμεναι θεόν – σῶκον ἐκκαλούμενοι133 Θεόν; πανδήμου στέγης, Pentheus’ ‘public prison’ is replaced by πανζόφου στέγης, ‘the dark retreat’ of Hades, in the drama of Christ’s Passion. ὡς σκυλεύματ’ ἐξάγoις. The phrase offers an impressive simile: σκύλευμα, ‘spoils stripped off a slain enemy’, in Christus Patiens refers to Christ liberating the dead from Hades with His death and Resurrection.134 Dionysus has the power to loosen the bonds as already as Hom. Hymn 7.13– 14 τὸν δ’ οὐχ ἴσχανε δεσμά, λύγοι δ’ ἀπὸ τηλόσ’ ἔπιπτον / χειρῶν ἠδὲ ποδῶν· in a strikingly similar narrative. As said above, one of his cult-titles was Λύσιος, ‘Liberator’;135 cf. Ba. 498: λύσει μ’ ὁ δαίμων αὐτός, … ‘the god will free me himself …’. The soteriological dimension through Christ’s Rise differentiates the concept in the Christian work.

 132 On the importance of the afterlife in Dionysiac mysteries, see more extensively Friesen 2015, 10–12 and n. 25 for bibliographical references. A careful investigation of Dionysus’ mystery cult in antiquity is that of Seaford 2006, 49–75. 133 ἐκκαλῶ (ἐκκλησία), ‘call out or forth, summon forth’; here ‘invoke the God’; ἀνακαλῶ, ‘call upon or back’, esp. of magical invocations, suited to bacchic ritual. 134 Cf. Matth. 27.52–53: ‘the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many’. Cf. also Iohan. 5.25, 28–29. 135 Dodds 1960, 139 with some textual references; cf. also 1.3.3.5, 2.3.21.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

It is worth recalling that echoes of this scene of Bacchae are found in the miraculous release of St Paul and Silas from prison at Philippi136 and also in St Peter’s liberation in the Acts of the Apostles 16.25–30 and 12.6–10 respectively. The notably similar imagery of the description between Chr. Pat. 2070–2075 and Ba. 445–447 with the passage of the Acts is indicative of the osmosis in thought: Acts 16.26 Ἄφνω δὲ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας, ὥστε σαλευθῆναι τὰ θεμέλια τοῦ δεσμωτηρίου, ἀνεῴχθησάν τε παραχρῆμα αἱ θύραι πᾶσαι καὶ πάντων τὰ δεσμὰ ἀνέθη, ‘Suddenly there was an earthquake, so violent that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were unfastened’;137 cf. Acts 12.7 ἐξέπεσoν αὐτοῦ αἱ ἁλύσεις ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν, and 12.10 (ἡ πύλη ἡ σιδηρᾶ) … αὐτόματη ἠνοίχθη αὐτοῖς.138 Notably, the liberation motif as presented in the passages of Bacchae, Acts, and Christus Patiens exhibits thematic and conceptual convergences of the pagan and Christian texts in three different cultural contexts. At the same time, the Christian texts bring forward the soteriological dimension of this motif, which is underscored in the Byzantine drama.

.. Supernatural light and the voice of the invisible God Ba. 1078–1079, 1082–1083 1078–1079: ἐκ δ’ αἰθέρος φωνή τις, ὡς μὲν εἰκάσαι / Διόνυσος, ἀνεβόησεν· … / 1082–1083: καὶ ταῦθ’ ἅμ’ ἠγόρευε καὶ πρὸς οὐρανὸν / καὶ γαῖαν ἐστήριζε φῶς σεμνοῦ πυρός. /

Chr. Pat. 2256–2259 Ἐκ δ’ αἰθέρος φωνή τις, ὡς μὲν εἰκάσαι, / Θεὸς πατὴρ ἤχησεν ἐν βοῇ ξένῃ· / ταύτῃ θ’ ἅμ’ ἐβρόντησε καὶ πρὸς τὸν πόλον / καὶ γαῖαν ἐστήριξε139 φῶς σεμνοῦ πυρός·/

Ba. 1078–1079: … some voice from the air of heaven, Dionysus’, one may guess, cried out ….1082–1083: and, as it was proclaiming these things, a light of holy fire towered between heaven and earth.

 136 The similarities between the earthquake-scene followed by Dionysus’ epiphany after his liberation from imprisonment and the freeing of Peter in Acts are discussed by Seaford 1997a, 142. 137 The translation of the passages from Acts follows Seaford 1997a. 138 Dodds 1960, 132 refers to O. Weinreich, “Gebet und Wunder” in Genethliakon W. Schmid (Tübinger Beitr. Z. Alt. v), 284ff., 326ff. 139 For the reading ἐστήριξε accepted by some editors of Bacchae instead of P’s ἐστήριζε, see App. IV.2.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens Chr. Pat.: And from the aether the voice of God the Father, one may guess, echoed a strange cry; and at the same time He thundered and a light of Holy fire towered between the sky and earth.

The second messenger’s description of Dionysus’ epiphany (1078–1088), in which the god’s voice is heard and a light of holy fire towered between heaven and earth, is reworked in the equally powerful imagery of the messenger’s account in the part of the Resurrection (esp. 2256–2261), involving the reference to the Father’s voice and His invisible presence to glorify His Son’s Rise. Holy fire shone when Christ’s voice was heard in Saul’s conversion (Acts 9.3–4, 26.13–14). The voice of the invisible God is not attested in the Gospels in the account of Christ’s Resurrection, albeit in Peter’s Apocryphon a voice from heaven is heard.140 Nevertheless, there is ample evidence of the voice of God in the case of the Baptism and the Transfiguration of Christ.141 The images of these two passages of Bacchae, brought together in this section of the religious drama of Christ’s Passion and Resurrection, vividly portrayed the voice of the invisible God and the supernatural light,142 probably a flash of lightning. Similarly, at Acts 9.3–4 the light from heaven περιήστραψεν: ‘suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him’ (Saul).143 In this case as well, those texts – albeit belonging to different cultural periods – display distinctively corresponding themes and concepts. The substitution of Θεός for Dionysus points to the core meaning of the divine intervention. When verses from tragedies are reworked by the author of Christus Patiens, it usually suffices to change one word, in order to convey the required Christian meaning.144 Such substitutions of proper names contribute to the interpretation of the relation between the source and the receiving text, bringing forward the transplantation of facets of pagan poetry within a Christian milieu.

 140 See e.g. Funk 1998, 462–464, also for further references on the light in the Resurrection. 141 Matth. 3.17, 17.5, Marc. 1.11, 9.7, Luc. 3.22, 9.35. 142 Cf. E. Ph. 1175 σεμνὸν πῦρ Διός. Instances of miraculous light accompanying the epiphany of gods are cited by Dodds 1960, 213, and Seaford 1997, 236. 143 Cf. Seaford 1997a, 142. 144 Thus aptly Hunger 1969/1970, 35; see above n. 76.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

.. Earthquake as a symbol of divine presence The epiphany of Dionysus (576–641) in the third episode of Bacchae is also manifest in the collapse of the palace during a strong earthquake, which was predicted by the Bacchants of the chorus (602–603) and powerfully described by the Stranger at 622–623 and 633. In Christus Patiens the scene of the earthquake after Christ’s death on the Cross follows exactly the account of the Gospels145 and to a less extent the style of Bacchae. Ba. 602–603 (The chorus) ὁ γὰρ ἄναξ ἄνω κάτω τιθεὶς ἔπεισι / μέλαθρα τάδε Διὸς γόνος 622–623 …ἐν δὲ τῷδε τῷ χρόνῳ / ἀνετίναξ’ ἐλθὼν ὁ Βάκχος δῶμα ... 632–633 Βάκχιος … / δώματ’ ἔρρηξεν χαμᾶζε· συντεθράνωται δ’ ἅπαν …

Chr. Pat. 872–873 (Theotokos to Theologos) Διδάσκαλον φέρω γὰρ ἀστέρων πάθος, / γῆς γεῖσσα σαλευθέντα, ῥαγείσας πέτρας. 1106–1108 (The chorus to Theotokos) Διδάσκαλον φέρω γὰρ αὐτὴν τὴν κτίσιν, / γῆς γεῖσσα σαλευθέντα, ῥαγείσας πέτρας / τάφους τε νεκρῶν ἄφαρ ἠνεῳγμένους·

Ba. 602–603: For the lord will come upon these halls, turning them upside down, the offspring of Zeus. 622–623: During this time Bacchus came and shook up the house …. 632– 633: He broke the house to the ground, and the whole thing has been smashed up … Chr. Pat. 872–873: I have learnt from the trembling stars, the shaken surface of the earth, the shattered rocks. 1106–1108: I have learnt from the creation itself, the shaken surface of the earth, the shattered rocks, and the suddenly opened tombs of the dead.

Συντεθράνωται in Ba. 633 is a hapax. Συνθρανόω (θραύω), συνθρανόομαι, pass., means ‘to be broken in pieces, shivered’ (LSJ9). In Acts 16.26 a powerful earthquake is attested in St Paul’s liberation from prison: ἄφνω δὲ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας, ὥστε σαλευθῆναι τὰ θεμέλια τοῦ δεσμωτηρίου. ‘Suddenly there was an earthquake, so violent that the foundations of the prison were shaken’. The imagery of the description recalls that of Ba. 622–623 and 633; cf. Chr. Pat. 873 γεῖσσα σαλευθέντα. Both in Bacchae and the Christian texts the earthquake and the collapse of the royal palace at Thebes as well as the tearing in two of the Temple’s curtain in

 145 Matth. 27.51–52 (… τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ Ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη εἰς δύο ἀπὸ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω· καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη καὶ αἱ πέτραι ἐσχίσθησαν καὶ τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν … Cf. Chr. Pat. 873, 1107 above γῆς γεῖσσα σαλευθέντα, ῥαγείσας πέτρας), Marc. 15.38, Luc. 23.44–45.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens Jerusalem symbolize the divine wrath on the theomachoi, Pentheus and the Jews, who denied the Dionysiac and the Christian cult, respectively.

.. The feeling of awe in god’s epiphany Dionysus in his mortal form addresses the Bacchants of the chorus after his epiphany and the palace-miracle. Similar passages occur in the Part of the Resurrection in Christus Patiens. Ba. 604–607 (Dionysus) βάρβαροι γυναῖκες, οὕτως ἐκπεπληγμέναι φόβῳ / πρὸς πέδῳ πεπτώκατ’; ᾔσθεσθ’, ὡς ἔοικε, Βακχίου / διατινάξαντος †δῶμα Πενθέως· ἀλλ’ἐξανίστατε† / σῶμα καὶ θαρσεῖτε σαρκὸς ἐξαμείψασαι τρόμον.

Chr. Pat. 2051–2052 (Theotokos addressing Magdalene) ἐγὼ δὲ λίθον ἠρμένον βλέπουσ’ ἔτι / θαμβουμένη πέφρικα, … 2060 (The Angel near the tomb, in words recalling Dionysus in Ba. 607, tries to appease the two women): Ὕμμες δὲ μὴ θροεῖσθε, μήδ’ ἔστω φόβος 2102–2103 (Theotokos and Magdalene, full of joy and awe, wish to adore Christ on His Rise): … ἐπ’ οὖδας νῦν … πίτνομεν, / καταπλαγεῖσαι τῇ χαρᾷ καὶ τῷ φόβῳ. 2104 (Christ induces the two women to remove fear from their heart): Μὴ δὴ φοβεῖσθε, μηδ’ ὑμῖν ἔστω φόβος.

Ba. 604–607: Women of Asia, thus astounded by fear have you fallen to the ground? You felt, it seems, Bacchus shaking apart †the house of Pentheus. But raise up† your bodies and take courage, putting trembling from your flesh. Chr. Pat. 2051–2052: As myself, I shudder with astonishment still looking at the removed stone (of the Tomb). 2060: Don’t be scared, remove fear from your heart. 2102–2103: We fall to the ground, astounded with joy and fear. 2104: Don’t be frightened, remove fear from your heart.

The Euripidean account of Dionysus’ presence after his epiphany is clearly refigured in a similar style in Christus Patiens: Ba. ἐκπεπληγμέναι φόβῳ – Chr. Pat. καταπλαγεῖσαι τῇ χαρᾷ καὶ τῷ φόβῳ, Ba. πρὸς πέδῳ πεπτώκατ’ – Chr. Pat. ἐπ’ οὖδας … πίτνομεν, Ba. θαρσεῖτε σαρκὸς ἐξαμείψασαι τρόμον – Chr. Pat. Μὴ δὴ φοβεῖσθε,146 μηδ’ ὑμῖν ἔστω φόβος.

 146 The description of the whole scene of Christ’s presence to the Myrrh-bearing women follows Matth. 28.10 (… τότε λέγει αὐταῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· μὴ φοβεῖσθε …).

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

Notably, once again, passages from Bacchae and Christus Patiens clearly correspond to the description of Saul’s conversion (Acts 9.4–6, 26.14): Saul falls to the ground as he heard Lord’s voice saying to him: ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ In conclusion, scenes in the Acts share the liberation pattern and the themes of the earthquake, the divine voice followed by holy light and of people astounded falling to the ground with Dionysus’ epiphany in Bacchae. At the same time, these scenes in the Acts are reiterated in the episodes of Crucification and Resurrection in Christus Patiens. It has aptly been remarked that the elements of the earthquake and the lightning are features of mystic initiation.147 Such common motifs are again indicative of the cross–cultural transplantation of Dionysiac themes into different Christian contexts, as those of Acts and Christus Patiens.

.. The miracle-motif The servant in the second episode of Bacchae, addressing Pentheus, refers to Dionysus’ miracles on his arrival at Thebes. Theologos, in his address to Joseph, glorifying Christ’s Sacrifice for world’s redemption, interprets His magnificent wonders during His presence on earth. Ba. 449–450 πολλῶν δ’ ὅδ’ ἀνὴρ θαυμάτων ἥκει πλέως / ἐς τάσδε Θήβας.

Chr. Pat. 1653–1655 … καὶ βροτὸς πέφηνέ πως, / φρικτῶν θ’ ὅδ’ ἀνὴρ θαυμάτων ὦπτο πλέως / ἐς τόνδε κόσμον, ὧν σὺ πόλλ’ οὐκ ἀγνοεῖς

Ba.: This man has come full of many wonders here to Thebes. Chr. Pat.: And He appeared as a mortal, and was seen as a man, full of fearful wonders in this world, many of which are familiar to you. Ba. 666–667 (The messenger describing the Maenads on the mountain in his first speech to Pentheus) ἥκω φράσαι σοὶ καὶ πόλει χρῄζων, ἄναξ, / ὡς δεινὰ δρῶσι θαυμάτων τε κρείσσονα.

Chr. Pat. 2212–2214 (The Guards addressing the Priests, in embedded direct speeches in the last messenger-account) ἥκω φράσαι σοι καὶ πόλει πολλὰ ξένα, / ὡς καινὰ πάντα θαυμάτων τ’ ἐπάξια, / ἅπερ νέκυς δέδειχεν, …

Ba.: I have come wanting to tell you and the polis, King, that they (the Maenads) are doing things strange and greater than wonders!  147 Seaford 1997a, 144.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens Chr. Pat.: I have come to tell you and the polis many strange things, things new and worthy of amazement, which the Dead Man has shown forth …

Stylistic variations were introduced by the Byzantine author; the substitution of καινὰ for δεινὰ and ἐπάξια for κρείσσονα sheds light on a different conception of miracles between the pagan and the Christian ideology. In Ba. 716 we read {ὡς δεινὰ δρῶσι θαυμάτων τ’ ἐπάξια} (‘that they are doing things strange and worthy of wonder’), which was plausibly considered to be suspiciously similar to 667.148 Notably, Bacchae is pervaded by a sense of the miraculous mainly in the palace-miracles (576–641). The Gospels also refer to the miracles of Jesus Christ. In Chr. Pat. 2245–2246 the guards addressing the priests courageously express their belief: this Man seems inferior to no god from the miracles he did before and from His Resurrection.149

.. The verification of divinity After the end of the messenger’s account of Dionysus’ gifts to mortals, the chorus courageously confirm god’s divinity, defying their fear for the tyrant. Similarly, in Christus Patiens the guards are expressing their conviction that Christ is the Son of God, pushing aside their fear for Pilate’s power. Ba. 775–777 ταρβῶ μὲν εἰπεῖν τοὺς λόγους ἐλευθέρους / πρὸς τὸν τύραννον, ἀλλ’ ὅμως εἰρήσεται· / Διόνυσος ἥσσων οὐδενὸς θεῶν ἔφυ.

Chr. Pat. 2242–2245 «’Εγὼ μὲν οὐκ ἐρῶ τι τῶν ἐγνωσμένων, / ἐπεὶ δοκεῖ σοι καί με ῥύεσθαι λέγεις, / πρὸς τὸν τύραννον· σοὶ δ’ ὅμως εἰρήσεται. / Ἀνὴρ ὅδ’ ἥσσων οὐδενὸς θεοῦ δοκεῖ …

Ba.: I am frightened to speak free words to the tyrant, but nevertheless it will be said: Dionysus is (by nature) inferior to none of the gods. Chr. Pat.: As myself, I will say nothing of what I know to the governor, for this is your opinion and you say that you will protect me; however, it will be said to you: this Man seems inferior to no god.

 148 v. 716 was deleted by Dobree followed by Seaford 1997, 104, 207 and Diggle 1994, 321. The verse at 667 fits better to the context of the passage than at 716. Dodds 1960, 164–165 tried to explain the difficulty. 149 Alexopoulou 2013, 130 and n. 37 noted Chr. Pat. 1779–1782: Theotokos and Joseph anticipate the miracle of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ‘the light of the third day is not far off, and everything will be revealed’ (transl. by Fishbone 2003, 171).

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

The common people, represented by the chorus and the guards in the ancient Greek and the Byzantine drama respectively, though afraid of their tyrants’ anger,150 express freely their opinion: in Bacchae Dionysus is associated with the freedom of his initiated followers, he is lysios, he delivers from cares and oppression.151 On the contrary, the political situation in Christ’s Age was different, since the freedom of speech of the people of Judaea was limited because of the Roman occupation. This fact adds value to their confirmation of Christ’s divinity.152 In the first episode of Bacchae Teiresias, predicting the propagation of Dionysiac cult at Delphi, refers to Dionysus’ divine presence to humans (306–309). In the first part of Christus Patiens Theotokos addressing the chorus describes Christ’s Revelation to mortals at His Resurrection and His Ascension, as predicted by Himself and the Prophets (587–589). Ba. 306–309 ἔτ’ αὐτὸν ὄψῃ κἀπὶ Δελφίσιν πέτραις / πηδῶντα σὺν πεύκαισι δικόρυφον πλάκα, / πάλλοντα καὶ σείοντα βακχεῖον κλάδον, / μέγαν τ’ ἀν’ Ἑλλάδα …

Chr. Pat. 587–589 Αὖ γάρ νιν ὄψει πρὸς χθόν’ ὡς ἐκ παστάδος / θρῴσκοντα τύμβου, κᾆτ’ ἀνιόντ’ εἰς πόλον, / ὡς αὐτὸς εἶπε, καὶ πρὸ τοῦ θεοπρόποι.

Βα.: Besides, you will see him even on the Delphic rocks leaping with pine-torches over the twin-peaked plateau, brandishing and shaking the bacchic branch, and great throughout Greece. Chr. Pat.: For you will see Him on the earth coming out of the Tomb, like from a bridal chamber, and then going up into Heaven, as He Himself said and the Prophets before Him.

In both cases ὄψῃ and ὄψει clearly point to the verification of the God’s divinity by mortals. Dionysus was regarded as an epiphanic god par excellence.153 He participated in his thiasos’ ecstatic ritual on Mount Parnassus, as the chorus said earlier in Ba. 115–118. Apart from the expansion of Dionysiac worship at Delphi, Teiresias foretells of the widely attested Hellenization of Dionysiac cult (μέγαν τ’ ἀν’ Ἑλλάδα).154

 150 Pentheus in particular combined all the features of a tyrant; cf. above 1.4. 151 Lysios or Lyaios is connected with historical deliverances from tyrants: Jaccottet 1990 with instances; cf. Friesen 2015, 10. 152 Cf. ἀληθῶς Θεοῦ Υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος, ‘truly, this Man was the Son of God’ (Matth. 27.54). 153 On this feature of Dionysus’ divinity, see above on Edonoi fr. 58 R. Dionysus’ leading role in his thiasos and in Bacchic ritual is emphasized in Bacchae (63, 141, 413, 570). 154 On the issue of the wide propagation and the Hellenization of Dionysiac cult, see Dodds 1960, 108–109, 110–111; Seaford 1997, 178, and, in particular, Farnell 1896–1909, v, 112f. and passim. Cf. also above on Neaniskoi 1.1.3.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens Christ’s Presence after His Resurrection in front of His Disciples and His female followers is the sign of His Divine Hypostasis before His Ascension.155 The god demonstrates his presence and divinity, by performing non-mortal deeds (Ba. 1069 and Chr. Pat. 566) and offering fundamental benefits to mortals (Ba. 285 and Chr. Pat. 569).156 Ba. 1069 (The second messenger) ὁ ξένος … ἔργματ’ οὐχὶ θνητὰ δρῶν.

Chr. Pat. 566 (The chorus to Theotokos) ἔργα θ’ ἅπερ δέδρακεν, οὐ θνητοῦ γένους·

Ba.: The Stranger … performing deeds non-mortal. Chr. Pat.: His deeds are not of mortal race.157

The Stranger is recognized by the messenger and the Bacchants as the god Dionysus in view of his supernatural deeds which led to Pentheus’ sparagmos. Similarly, in a different context, the chorus expresses to Theotokos their admiration for Christ’s miracles which prove His Divinity. In the first episode of Bacchae Teiresias, in his long praise of Dionysus (266– 327), narrates the god’s gifts to mortals, which released them from suffering. Theotokos strengthens the chorus’ earlier statement (566) about Christ’s supernatural deeds, remarking that the Father consented to save human race through His Son’s Incarnation. Ba. 285 … ὥστε διὰ τοῦτον τἀγάθ’ ἀνθρώποις ἔχειν.

Chr. Pat. 569 … ὡς διὰ τούτου τοὺς βροτοὺς ἀγάθ’ ἔχειν.

Ba.: … so that it is because of him that humans have their good things. Chr. Pat.: It is through Him that mortals have good things.

Διὰ τοῦτον and διὰ τούτου explains God’s consent to offer prosperity in Bacchae and redemption from evil in Christus Patiens. Διὰ τοῦτον is a formula of praise of deity, ‘thanks to him’.158 As an expression of the verification of divinity, the greatness of god is repeatedly confirmed in pivotal scenes of Bacchae and Christus Patiens.

 155 Matth. 28.9–10, 17–20, Marc. 16.9, 14–18, Luc. 24.15–31, 36–50, Iohan. 20.14–17, 19–29, 21.1– 22. 156 Cf. the miracle-motif above. 157 Thus Fishbone 2002, 144. 158 Cf. Seaford 1997, 176.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

Ba. 272–274 (Teiresias to Pentheus) οὗτος δ’ ὁ δαίμων ὁ νέος, ὃν σὺ διαγελᾷς / οὐκ ἂν δυναίμην μέγεθος ἐξειπεῖν ὅσος / καθ’ Ἑλλάδ’ ἔσται. 309 μέγαν τ’ ἀν’ Ἑλλάδα.159

Chr. Pat. 1535 (Theotokos in Her second long speech in the part of the Burial) ὦναξ, Ἄναξ ἄφθιτε, … 2100 (Theotokos to Christ in the Resurrection) Ἄναξ, Ἄναξ ἄφθιτε, σὺ Θεὸς μέγας, 2542 (the poet’s prayer to Christ) Ἄναξ, Ἄναξ ἄφθιτε, σὺ Θεὸς μέγας,

769–772 (the first messenger to Pentheus) τὸν δαίμον’ οὖν τόνδ’ ὅστις ἔστ’, ὦ δέσποτα, / δέχου πόλει τῇδ’·160 ὡς τά τ’ ἄλλ’ ἐστὶν μέγας· / κἀκεῖνό φασιν αὐτόν, ὡς ἐγὼ κλύω, / τὴν παυσίλυπον ἄμπελον δοῦναι βροτοῖς. 1031 (the chorus to the last messenger in the exodos) †ὦναξ Βρόμιε, θεὸς φαίνῃ μέγας†161

2262–2265 (the Angel announcing the Resurrection of Christ) Τὸν ἄνδρα γοῦν τόνδ’, ὅστις ἐστίν, ὦ φίλοι / δέχεσθε κἂν νῦν· πάντα γὰρ δοκεῖ μέγας. / Κἀκεῖνό φασιν αὐτόν, ὡς ἐγὼ κλύω, / τὴν παυσίκακον δωτίνην δοῦναι βροτοῖς, / …

Ba. 272–274: This new god, whom you ridicule, I would not be able to explain the greatness which he will obtain throughout Greece. 309: Great throughout Greece. 769–772: And so receive this god, whoever he is, into this city, O master; because he is great and in other things and especially in this, they say, that, as I hear, he has given to mortals the vine that stops suffering. 1031: O lord Bromios, you are revealed a great god. Chr. Pat. 1535: O Lord, immortal Lord, … 2100: O Lord, immortal Lord, You, great God. 2542: O Lord, immortal Lord, You, great God. 2262–2265: This man, whoever he is, my friends, accept him even now, since he is great in every aspect. They say, as I have heard, that he gives to mortals the gift that stops evil.

The gift of Dionysus, the vine that stops suffering (τὴν παυσίλυπον ἄμπελον), has been replaced by the gift that stops evil (τὴν παυσίκακον δωτίνην), the gift of redemption and salvation offered by the Resurrection of Christ to mankind. The

 159 Cf. above on Ba. 306–309 1.1.3, on Dionysus’ acceptance in Delphi. 160 The servant’s admonition here recalls that of Teiresias (312) ‘receive the god into the land’. 161 For the restoration of this verse as a dochmiac, σὺ was suggested by Kirchoff and ὡς by O. Hense: see Dodds 1960, 207. The verse is deleted in recent editions, as those by Diggle 1994 and Seaford 1997. For φαίνεσθαι δαίμονα, cf. Ba. 42.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens Christian meaning is established by the substitution of just one word of the source text. In both dramas the greatness of god is proclaimed and glorified by the dramatis personae in different ideological contexts.

.. Supplication to the god As has been pointed out,162 for supplication to occur the suppliant must place himself in a position of inferiority towards the supplicated abandoning any claim to parity. In the first episode of Bacchae Teiresias and Cadmus counterbalance Joseph and Nicodemus in their wise attitude involving devotion and faith to God in the part of the Burial in Christus Patiens. Teiresias prompts Cadmus and Joseph Nicodemus to entreat god to do nothing against their city and their country because of the wild character of Pentheus and the cruelty of the Jews respectively. Ba. 360–363 στείχωμεν ἡμεῖς, Κάδμε, κἀξαιτώμεθα / ὑπέρ τε τούτου καίπερ ὄντος ἀγρίου / ὑπέρ τε πόλεως τὸν θεὸν μηδὲν νέον / δρᾶν.

Chr. Pat. 1787–1791 Νῦν δ’ ἀπίωμεν, Νικόδημ’ εὐεργάτα· / στείχωμεν ἡμεῖς, φίλε, κἀξαιτώμεθα / ὑπέρ τε λαοῦ, καίπερ ὄντος ἀγρίου, / ὑπἐρ τε πάτρης, τὸν Θεὸν μηδὲν νέον / δρᾶν, …

Ba.: Let us proceed, Cadmus, and let us entreat the god on behalf of this man, wild though he is, and on behalf of the city, to do nothing strange.163 Chr. Pat.: But now, let us go, benefactor Nicodemus; let us go, friend, and pray on behalf of the people, cruel though they are, and on behalf of the country, so that God does nothing unexpected.

Correspondences of style and meaning, which are indicative of the different cultural and religious milieu in each case, emerge in these passages as well: the prayer to the god not to send to Thebes and the Jews any evil. The adjective ἀγρίου, ‘cruel’, refers both to Pentheus (τούτου) and the Jews (λαοῦ). Ἀγρίου showcases the tyrannical violent and autocratic character of Pentheus.164 Cruelty

 162 For a careful discussion of supplication in Euripides, see Cairns 1993, 276–287. 163 Dodds’ translation of νέον as ‘strange’ (1960, 116), providing a common euphemism, seems better than Seaford’s ‘abnormal’. 164 See above 1.4.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

and violence are also attributed to the Jews165 as λαοῦ ἀγρίου in this drama of Christ’s Passion. Similarly, divine wrath threatens both Thebes and the Jewish nation. Thus, at Ba. 1202 and Chr. Pat. 1598 a similar analogy can be seen in the “καλλίπυργον ἄστυ Θηβαίας χθονός” and in the “καλλίπυργον ἄστυ Δαυΐδου χθονός”. The situation in Bacchae resembles the old servant’s prayer to Aphrodite on behalf of Hippolytus (Hipp. 116–120). In both cases, however, the gods, Dionysus and Aphrodite, in their prologue confirm that their devotees’ prayer will not be answered.166 Joseph and Nicodemus, like Joseph and Theologos (Chr. Pat. 1148–1149), are two corresponding pairs of characters with Cadmus and Teiresias in Bacchae. Nicodemus seems to be a mute character in Christus Patiens. He is addressed by Joseph as benefactor (1787) and is mentioned by Theotokos (1797–1799) as a secret Disciple of Jesus Christ and now a conspicuous (παμφανέστατος) devotee.

.. Establishment of mysteries and cult Passages in Bacchae and Christus Patiens involve in main dramatic scenes notable correspondences of theme and concept regarding the announcement of the wide establishment of both Dionysiac and Christian mysteries and cults. Ba. 13–22 (Dionysus in his prologue) λιπὼν δὲ Λυδῶν τοὺς πολυχρύσους γύας / Φρυγῶν τε, Περσῶν θ’ ἡλιοβλήτους πλάκας / Βάκτριά τε τείχη … ἐς τήνδε πρώτην ἦλθον Ἑλλήνων πόλιν / τἀκεῖ χορεύσας καὶ καταστήσας ἐμὰς / τελετὰς, ἵν’ εἴην ἐμφανὴς δαίμων βροτοῖς.

Chr. Pat. 1587–1596 (Theotokos referring to Jesus Christ in the part of the Burial) ὃς τὰς Λυδῶν πανευκλεεῖς λιπὼν πόλεις / Φρυγῶν τε, Περσῶν ἡλιοβλήτους πλάκας, / Βάκτρια τείχη, … ἐς τήνδε πρῶτον ἦλθες Ἑβραίων χθόνα, / ἥ σ’ ἐς τάφον τίθησιν έκ σφαγῆς νέκυν.

Ba. 13–22: Leaving the gold-rich lands of the Lydians and Phrygians, going on to the sunbeaten upland plains of the Persians, and the Baktrian walls, … I come to this city first of the Greeks, after having there (in Asia) set them dancing and established my initiations so as to be a visible god for mankind.

 165 Strong anti-Jewish sentiments plausibly occur in Christus Patiens: 423–425, 509, 1595–1596, 1665–1689; cf. Friesen 2015, 258–260; Bryant Davies 2017, 204. 166 Ba. 39–48, Hipp. 41–50.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens Chr. Pat. 1587–1596: The text of Bacchae is repeated nearly without alterations. The guilt of the Jews for Christ’s death is emphasized in the last lines (1595–1596: You first came into this land of the Hebrews, which slaughtered and entombed You).

The notable divergence concerns the replacement of Ἑλλήνων πόλιν with Ἑβραίων χθόνα. Ἑλλήνων πόλιν refers to Thebes. As has been remarked,167 the author’s anti-Jewish sentiment is illustrated in this adaptation of Bacchae in Christus Patiens. The city of Thebes is again juxtaposed with the race of Jews in Ba. 50–52 and Chr. Pat. 1575–1577. The pattern of the establishment of cults is more emphatically expressed in the same parts of Bacchae and Christus Patiens. Ba. 39–40 (Dionysus in his prologue) δεῖ γὰρ πόλιν τήνδ’ ἐκμαθεῖν, κεἰ μὴ θέλει, / ἀτέλεστον οὖσαν τῶν ἐμῶν βακχευμάτων,

Chr. Pat. 1563–1565 (Theotokos referring to Christ in the part of the Burial) ἐν οἷς χορεύσεις καὶ καταστήσεις τὰ σὰ / μυστήρι’ ἵν’ ᾗς ἐμφανῶς Θεὸς βροτοῖς, / ὡς ἐν πόλῳ ξύμπασιν· …

Ba. 43–48 Κάδμος μὲν οὖν γέρας τε καὶ τυραννίδα / Πενθεῖ δίδωσι θυγατρὸς ἐκπεφυκότι, / ὃς θεομαχεῖ τὰ κατ’ ἐμὲ καὶ σπονδῶν ἄπο / ὠθεῖ μ’, ἐν εὐχαῖς τ’ ούδαμοῦ μνείαν ἔχει. / ὧν οὕνεκ’ αὐτῷ θεὸς γεγὼς ἐνδείξομαι / πᾶσιν τε Θηβαίοισιν.

Chr. Pat. 1567–1571 Δεῖ γὰρ πόλιν τήνδ’ ἐκμαθεῖν, κεἰ μὴ θέλει, / νῦν οὖσ’ ἀμαθὴς τῶν γε σῶν μυστηρίων, / ἄλλην τε πᾶσαν γηγενῶν παροικίαν, / ἣ θεομαχεῖ τὰ κατὰ σέ, σπονδῶν τ’ ἄπο / ὠθεῖ σ’, ἐν εὐχαῖς δ’ ούδαμοῦ μνείαν ἔχει· Chr. Pat. 1574 Ὧν οὕνεκ’ αὐτοῖς δεῖξον, ὡς εἶ σὺ Θεός·

Ba. 39–40: For this city must learn to the full, even if it does not want to, what it is to be uninitiated in my bacchanals, …. 43–48: Cadmus has given the prerogatives of tyranny to his daughter’s offspring Pentheus, who fights against deity in his treatment of my cult and rejects me from libations and has concern for me nowhere in his prayers. That is why I will show myself to be born a god, to him and to all the Thebans. Chr. Pat. 1563–1565: Among them You will be the leader of the chorus and establish Your mysteries, so as to manifest your Divinity to mortals as to all in Heaven. 1567–1571: For this city must learn to the full, even if it does not want to, being ignorant now of your mysteries; and every other nation who fights against your Divinity and rejects you from their rites and has no concern for you in prayers. 1574: Because of these, show them that You are God.

The corresponding thematic patterns involve: the certainty that Dionysiac mystic rites and Christian mysteries will be etsablished (ἐκμαθεῖν, κεἰ μὴ θέλει) to the  167 Friesen 2015, 258–259.

Reception of dramatic situations and themes  

detriment of theomachoi, the fighters against deity (θεομαχεῖ).168 The polis which, as Theotokos asserts, it is necessary to learn Christ’s rites, even if it is unwilling, is Jerusalem. The juxtaposition of Thebes in the passage from Bacchae with Jerusalem in Christus Patiens clearly showcases the refiguration of the main theme of the establishment of cults in different contexts, pagan and Christian. Moreover, Dionysus foreshadows the development of dramatic action: his power and his divinity will be demonstrated (ἐνδείξομαι) to Pentheus and the Thebans through the former’s punishment at the end and the establishment of Dionysiac cult. Theotokos confirms the establishment of Christianity all over the world (ἄλλην τε πᾶσαν γηγενῶν παροικίαν). The shift from Cadmus and Thebes to Jerusalem, Israel169 and the rest of the world is vividly highlighted in the religious drama focusing on the expansion of Christianity. Τhe proof of divinity is clearly expressed in both cases (θεὸς γεγώς ἐνδείξομαι – δεῖξον ὡς εἶ σὺ Θεός). Notable divergences result from the different cultural contexts: the phrases ἀτέλεστον … τῶν ἐμῶν βακχευμάτων and ἀμαθὴς τῶν σῶν μυστηρίων point to mystic significance and the knowledge as the prerequisite for initiation. However, βακχεύματα (always in the plural), are the Bacchic revelries as in Ba. 317. Ἀτέλεστος βακχευμάτων is the uninitiated as in Pl. Phd. 69c ἀμύητος καὶ ἀτέλεστος and in Arist. Rh. 3.18, 1419a 4 οὐχ οἷόν τε ἀτέλεστον ἀκούειν. On the other hand, ἀμαθής τῶν σῶν μυστηρίων is the ignorant, the unlearned in Christian mysteries.170 In addition, Θεὸς γεγώς in Bacchae refers to Dionysus’ birth from a mortal, Semele, a theme brought forward at the beginning of the god’s monologue (v. 3– 4). In Bacchae Semele participates in Dionysus’ mystic rites (998–999) and is said to be buried where she was struck (6–9). On the contrary, εἶ σὺ Θεός in Christus Patiens clearly demonstrates that Christ always existed beside the Father. He is the Incarnated God, the Son of God.171

 168 On this concept, see below 2.4.11. 169 Cf. λαός in Chr. Pat. 1789, above 2.3.22. 170 On the substantial difference between Dionysiac and Christian mysteries, see below 2.4.4. 171 Iohan. 1.14 καὶ ο Λόγος Σὰρξ ἐγένετο … καὶ θεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ Πατρός; cf. Iohan. 3.31 ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς … ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος, ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστὶν, 11.27 … σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός, ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐρχόμενος.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens

. Reception of concepts and ideas The refiguration of concepts, values and beliefs is an important aspect of intertextuality between Euripidean tragedies and the Byzantine drama.172 The author of Christus Patiens selects thoughts and ideas of Euripides’ plays of passion and, in particular, of Bacchae and transplants them into the historical and ideological conditions regarding the Passion and the Resurrection of Christ. The themes and the concepts of the Euripidean drama are effectively interwoven in the entirely different context of the religious tragedy, thus showcasing the widely recognized osmosis of Ancient Greek and Byzantine culture. Nevertheless, substantial alterations achieved with textual adaptations shed some light on pivotal Christian beliefs.

.. Sōphrosynē The concept of sōphrosynē, ‘wisdom, prudence, moderation, self-control, temperance’,173 which tends to be opposed to hubris and to the lack of respect and honour to gods, pervades key passages of Bacchae and Christus Patiens. In the Hellenic world sōphrosynē is a feature of educated Greeks par excellence, as opposed to barbarians, and also of Hellenized persons in the early Christian world.174 Hippolytus and in particular Bacchae illustrate what Euripides thought to be the relation of the concept of sōphrosynē to tragedy. Though mainly intellectual and cognitive in its origin, sōphrosynē is primarily a value-term, moral in its effect,175 since it contrasts passions and desires with human intellect. The conjunction of the intellectual and moral implications of this concept in Bacchae is brought forward in Dionysus’address to Cadmus’ family in the exodos of the play (1341–1343): ‘if you had known how to be sensible (σωφρονεῖν), when you did not want to, you would now be happy, having obtained the son of Zeus as ally’.  172 For a discussion of Euripidean concepts and ideas received in Christus Patiens, see also Xanthaki-Karamanou 2021, 299–304. 173 E.g. from Plato: ὁμολογεῖται εἶναι σωφροσύνη τὸ κρατεῖν ἡδονῶν καὶ ἐπιθυμιῶν, ‘… to control various desires and lust’, Symp. 196c; σωφροσύνη εἶναι τὸ κοσμίως πάντα πράττειν καὶ ἡσυχῇ, Chrm. 159b. 174 It is also a significant feature of educated people outside Greece, such as St Paul in Acts 26.25 affirming that he proclaims words of truth and moderation. 175 Cf. North 1966, 69. On sōphrosynē in Hippolytus, see e.g. Cairns 1993, 314–315.

Reception of concepts and ideas  

Sōphrosynē provides a pivotal concept for the development of the dramatic action in Bacchae and the acceptance of the Dionysiac cult:176 τιμῶν τε Βρόμιον σωφρονεῖς, μέγαν θεόν, ‘in honouring Bromios, a great god, you show prudence’, proclaims the chorus (v. 329). The first messenger-speech of the Byzantine drama concludes that sōphrosynē is not imposed by god, but lies in man’s free choice (προαίρεσις) and his intellect (γνώμη). The reception of Bacchae 314–316, involving Teiresias’ admonitory words addressed to Pentheus in the first episode of the play, and that of Hippolytus 79–80 is evident, albeit with some plausible differentiations of thought. Hipp. 79–80 … ὅσοις διδακτὸν μηδὲν, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῇ φύσει / τὸ σωφρονεῖν εἴληχεν εἰς τὰ πάντ’ ἀεί, / … Ba. 314–317 οὐχ ὁ Διόνυσος σωφρονεῖν ἀναγκάσει / … ἀλλ’ ἐν ἐν τῇ φύσει / [τὸ σωφρονεῖν ἔνεστιν εἰς τὰ πάντ’ ἀεί]177/ τοῦτο·178 σκοπεῖν χρή·

Chr. Pat. 262–264 οὐ γὰρ Θεός σε σωφρονεῖν άναγκάσει· / ἐν τῇ προαιρέσει δὲ καὶ γνώμῃ βροτῶν / τὸ σωφρονεῖν ἔνεστιν εἰς τὰ πάντ’ ἀεί

Ba.: It is not Dionysus who will compel (women) to be self-controlled, but in their nature [is self-control with respect to everything always] this resides. Chr. Pat.: For God will not force you to be prudent; prudence resides in the choice and the judgement of mortals in all things always.

Variation of themes and concepts: Dionysus in Ba. 314 has been changed, as would be expected, to Θεός in Chr. Pat. 262.179 Physis (ἐν τῇ φύσει) in the Euripidean passages echoes a term made popular by the Sophists in the late fifth century, which is replaced by προαίρεσις, ‘free choice’, and γνώμη, ‘intellect, thought, judgement’, in the Byzantine tragedy.

 176 For sōphrosynē and sophia, ‘wisdom’, as key concept in Bacchae, see Dodds 1960, 186–188, 203–205; North 1966, 77, 81–84; Rademaker 2005, 173–182. 177 The majority of editors, Murray, Diggle, Dodds, and Seaford, follow Kirchoff and delete v. 316 on the grounds of its resemblance to Hipp. 80 and its omission in Stob. 4.23.8. On this question, see Dodds 1960, 111–112. For earlier and different suggestions, Sandys 1892, 150. 178 For the meaning of ἐν τῇ φύσει τοῦτο, cf. E. El. 390 ἐν τῇ φύσει δὲ τοῦτο κἀν εὐψυχίᾳ. 179 For alterations to the hypotext by substitutions of names, cf. Hunger 1969/1970, 35, Pollmann 2017, 152, and the cases cited in this study, n. 76.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens Innate temperance (φύσει σωφροσύνη), ‘moral purity’, conveys the concept of the Sophistic differentiation of φύσει and θέσει180 and of the relation of φύσις, ‘nature’, with aretē, the ‘inborne excellence’. This idea of the innate temperance is commended in both Euripidean plays, the Hippolytus and the Bacchae. Inborn sōphrosynē is identified with moral purity and chastity, a requirement in Orphic beliefs and in mystery cults.181 Contrary to Euripides, his contemporary Socrates discussed in the Platonic Meno that aretē, as related to knowledge, is not innate but teachable.182 The belief in physis as source of aretē originates in traditional aristocratic thought,183 which seems to have been accepted here by Euripides. Φύσις is replaced by προαίρεσις in Christus Patiens. The concept of προαίρεσις, ‘free choice’, seems to echo ancient Greek philosophy and in particular Aristotle’s definition of morality (EN 6, 1139a 23–24): moral virtue is a disposition of the mind with regard to free choice (ἡ ἠθικὴ ἀρετὴ ἕξις προαιρετική). In such cases, as here, reception becomes a genuine refiguration of concepts in a later dramatic context and cultural environment.

.. Sōphrosynē and piety Sōphrosynē is associated with reverence for God and is commended as man’s wisest possession (σοφώτατον κτῆμα) in Ba. 1150–1152, at the end of the messenger’s account involving Pentheus’ sparagmos and in Chr. Pat. 1145–1147, at the closure of Theologos’ first speech in the part of the Burial. Ba. 1150–1152 τὸ σωφρονεῖν δὲ καὶ σέβειν τὰ τῶν θεῶν / κάλλιστον οἶμαι δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ σοφώτατον / θνητοῖσιν εἶναι κτῆμα τοῖσι χρωμένοις.

Chr. Pat. 1145–1147 Τὸ σωφρονεῖν γὰρ καὶ σέβειν τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, / κάλλιστον οἶμαι δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ σοφώτατον / θνητοῖσιν εἶναι χρῆμα τοῖσι χρωμένοις.

 180 For Φύσις and Νόμος, see e.g. Dodds 1960, 111; for the relation of Φύσις and Νόμος with Ἀρετή, ‘inborn’ or ‘acquired’ qualities, see Kerferd 1981, 111–138. For the nomos – physis antithesis in ethical discussions in the time of the Sophists, see Guthrie 1969, 55–134. 181 Barrett 1964, 172–173. 182 Cf. Snell 1964, 47–69. 183 Cf. Pi. O. 9.100 τὸ δὲ φυᾷ κράτιστον ἅπαν. On this pivotal issue of ancient Greek morality, see in particular Adkins 1960, 1970, 1972. On competitive values, see, more recently, Cairns 1993, 13–26; 2005, 309–314.

Reception of concepts and ideas  

Ba.: The best thing is to be moderate and to revere the things of the gods; and I think that this is also the wisest possession for mortals to use.

The only variation in Christus Patiens is again the plausible replacement of τὰ τῶν θεῶν with τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ and the substitution of κτῆμα with χρῆμα.184 Σοφώτατον … χρῆμα τοῖσι χρωμένοις, in exact translation ‘the wisest usage for those who use it’,185 gives a figura etymologica, which is common in tragic texts, as e.g. γόνον γηγενῆ in Ba. 1016. Χρῆμα is transmitted in cod. P and Chr. Pat. loc. cit., while Orion (Anth. 4.3) quotes κτῆμα (see App. IV.2). The praise of moderation, τὸ σωφρονεῖν, is closely related to Dionysiac worship. An answer is given here to the question at Ba. 877–878 (repeated at 897– 901): ‘what is the wise (gift), or what is the finer gift from the gods among mortals?:186 to be σώφρων, ‘moderate’, and to respect the gods is the positive and clear answer of the messenger (1150–1152) to the chorus’ question as above in the third stasimon (862–912). After Pentheus’ sparagmos Dionysus and his female followers, his thiasos, are said to possess sōphrosynē in a paradoxical sense of the concept. As has been suggested, the Bacchae is unique among Euripidean plays in postulating the existence of another kind of sōphrosynē which may embrace mania.187 Mania and sōphrosynē coexist in Dionysiac ritual. This is a clear divergence from the treatment of the concept in Christian literature,188 including Christus Patiens. Notably, in Acts 26.24–25 Paul rejects mania and recommends sōphrosynē asserting ‘I am not mad, but I am proclaiming words of truth and moderation’ (ἀληθείας καὶ σωφροσύνης). Nevertheless, the concept of sōphrosynē, as it emerges from the juxtaposed passages, is related to piety in both Bacchae and Christus Patiens. Teiresias is credited with sōphrosynē for honouring Bromios (Ba. 328–329), unlike Pentheus who is not sōphrōn, for he does not recognize Dionysus’ divinity (504). In contrast with Pentheus, Dionysus is sōphrōn, because he preserves a quiet temper, σώφρον’ εὐοργησίαν (641).

 184 For χρῆμα referring to abstractions, cf. e.g. Mimnermus fr. 8 West ἀληθείη … πάντων χρῆμα δικαιότατον. 185 Dodds 1960, 219. 186 Σοφόν at v. 877 counterbalances σοφώτατον at 1151 and κάλλιον at 877 corresponds to κάλλιστον at 1151. 187 Thus, North 1966, 83; cf. Friesen 2015, 219–221. 188 For the concept of sōphrosynē in early Christianity, see extensively Kittel/Friedrich 1971, VII 1100–1104.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens The fundamental virtue of sōphrosynē, associated with respect for god(s), is similarly praised in a formulaic gnomē both at the end of the account of the messenger and the speech of Theologos, effectively promoting the development of the action to the exodos of Bacchae and to Christ’s Burial and Resurrection respectively.

.. Quietism and phronēsis In Theologos’ last speech in the part of Christ’s Burial the cardinal virtue of temperance and moderation is commended alongside further fundamental principles of Christianism: quietism (ὁ βίοτος τῆς καλῆς ἡσυχίας), prudence (τὸ φρονεῖν), and the sincere love and friendship (τῆς ἀκραιφνοῦς ἀγάπης καὶ φιλίας) (Chr. Pat. 1801–1804). Quiet life and prudence are similarly prerequisites for the Dionysiac cult and for the coherence of the household, as the chorus proclaims in Bacchae 389–392. Such values are praised in the Euripidean play, because they hold together households (ξυνέχει δώματα). Dionysiac cult contributes to the cohesion of oikos and polis.189 On the other hand, Pentheus’ opposition to Dionysus because of his lack of wisdom will destroy the oikos and disperse its members, as it emerges from the end of the tragedy (1330ff.). Ba. 389–392 (the chorus in the first stasimon) ὁ δὲ τᾶς ἡσυχίας / βίοτος καὶ τὸ φρονεῖν / ἀσάλευτόν τε μένει καὶ / ξυνέχει δώματα· … /

Chr. Pat. 1801–1805 (Theologos in his address to Theotokos and Joseph) ὁ βίοτος γὰρ τῆς καλῆς ἡσυχίας / καὶ τῆς ἀκραιφνοῦς ἀγάπης καὶ φιλίας, / τό τε φρονεῖν εὖ σωφρονεῖν τ’ ἐν τῷ βίῳ / τηρεῖ τὰ πάνθ’, ὡς ἀσάλευτα προσμένειν· / Θεὸς γὰρ οἶδε πάντα καὶ σοφῶς κρίνει.

Ba.: the calm life and good sense remain untossed and hold together households. Chr. Pat.: For the life of perfect serenity and of sincere love and friendship and to be sensible and prudent in life protects everything, so it remains untossed; for God knows everything and jugdes wisely.

The lyric metres of Bacchae were modified here and elsewhere to suit the metrical form of the Byzantine drama, which is usually strictly dodecasyllabic.

 189 On the political dimension of Dionysus’ mystic cult, see more extensively Seaford 1997, 44– 52, 2017.

Reception of concepts and ideas  

Hēsychia, ‘calm life’, characterizes Dionysus in his opposition to Pentheus, a man of emotional tension tending towards immoderation. Calm life and phronēsis, ‘good sense’, are the qualities attributed to some of the deities of the Greek Pantheon. Nevertheless, Dionysus embodies polarities, contradictions and ambiguities:190 a smiling calm appearance and gaiety together with the utmost cruelty. In his mortal form Dionysus (as the Stranger) is called πρᾶος, ‘gentle’ (Ba. 436) and ἥσυχος, ‘calm’ (622, 636), and urges the uninitiated Pentheus also to remain calm (647, 790). Τhe chorus in the first stasimon commends quietism as contrasted to the ecstatic tone of the parodos displaying the opposing aspects of Dionysiac cult. Hēsychia, phronēsis, and sōphrosynē are of mystic significance, repeatedly related to Dionysiac mystic cult. Quiet life, calm feelings follow the final stage of Dionysiac initiation after the ecstasy.191 Ἡσυχία, ‘quietness’, is the typical feature of a mystic cult, as opposed to Dionysiac ecstasy and madness.192 Hesychasm, the Hesychastic Movement, characterizes the thought in the late Byzantine period.193 Hesychasm is the type of monastic life seeking divine quietness through the contemplation of God in uninterrupted prayer. St John Climacus (6th to 7th century), one of the greatest representatives of Hesychasm, wrote: “Let the remembrance of Jesus be present with each breath, and then you will know the value of the hēsychia”. St Gregorius Palamas defended the Hesychast monks against the attacks of Varlaam the Calabrian. Passages such as those in Ba. 389–392 and Chr. Pat. 1801–1805 display a convergence of values of ancient Greek and Christian ethics. Nevertheless, in the religious drama the idea of true and sincere love and friendship highlights these features of moral life as pivotal principles of Christianity.

 190 See above on Dionysus’ presence and his conceptions in Aeschylus and Euripides, 1.3.1. 191 For hēsychia in the mysteries, see Libanius Or. 10.6 (cf. 12.38), Iohan. Chrys. In Matt. Hom. 1, PG 57, 24, 14–15 … μετὰ σιγῆς ἁπάσης καὶ μυστικῆς ἡσυχίας ἀκούειν τῶν λεγομένων ἁπάντων. 192 For this opposition, see Dodds’ extensive discussion 1960, xliv, 120–121; cf. Seaford 1997, 48, 183 quoting [Pl.] Axioch. 370d 4 on ἀσάλευτον ἡσυχίαν. 193 On the Hesychastic Movement and the main persons involved (Maximus Confessor, Nikephoros Gregoras, Varlaam, Cantakouzinos, Gregorius Palamas and others), see Lossky 1973; Meyendorff 1959, 1976; Kazhdan 1991, 923–924; Ware 2001; Hunger 2007, 300ff. The best modern, succinct account on Hesychasm and its development in orthodox church is that of Spidlik 2002, 387–429.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens The coincidence, mutatis mutandis, of some fundamental ideas between Dionysiac worship, as attested in Bacchae, and Christianity, as echoed in the Byzantine drama, may form a yardstick for the ideological syncretism194 of paganism and Christian faith as well as for the continuity and enrichment of values from Greek Antiquity to Byzantium.

.. The qualities of faith: Makarismos. Respect and glorification of god The reverence for god, associated with the purity of life and the sincere participation in ritual with purifications, leads to real prosperity. The language of mystical beatitude is echoed in both the parodos of Bacchae and in Theologos’ inspired words in his dialogue with Joseph at the beginning of the part of the Burial. Ba. 73–76 ὦ μάκαρ, ὅστις εὐδαί–/ μων τελετὰς θεῶν εἰ–/ δὼς βιοτὰν ἁγιστεύει / καὶ θιασεύεται ψυ–/ χὰν … /… ὁσίοις καθαρμοῖσιν, / …

Chr. Pat. 1139–1141 Ὦ μάκαρ, ὃς τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ μυστήρια / εἰδὼς ἁγιστεύει θ’ ἑαυτοῦ βιοτὰν / καὶ θιασεύεται καθαρμοῖσι ψυχάν, / ...

Ba.: O blessed is he who, truly happy, knowing the initiations of the gods is pure in life and joins his soul to the thiasos … with holy purifications, … Chr. Pat.: O blessed is he who knowing the mysteries of God leads a pure life and initiates his own soul with purifications.

The lyric metre of the parodos was, again, adapted to the dodecasyllabic metrical form of Christus Patiens. Mystic makarismos presupposes and includes purity in daily life, true knowledge of the mystery cults acquired in mystic initiation,195 and the initiated’s

 194 Instances of such an osmosis of ideas and motifs are cited by Seaford 1997a; see, extensively, Friesen 2015. 195 Cf. Ba. 471–474 (in a stichomythia between Dionysus and Pentheus): ‘Pe.: The mystic rites, what form do they have for you? Di.: They may not be spoken for non-bacchants to know. Pe.: What benefit do they have for the sacrificers? Di.: It is not lawful for you to hear, but it is worth knowing’. For the principle ‘only the initiated know’, cf. e.g. Rh. 973: ‘Dionysus is a revered god for those who know’, namely the initiated, D.S. 5.48.4: ὧν οὐ θέμις ἀκοῦσαι πλὴν τῶν μεμυημένων. See Dodds 1960, 76; Seaford 1997, 40–44 and in particular Seaford 1981 and 2006, 49–75 for a discussion of mystery-cult and textual references; on makarismos in Ba. 73, cf. also Guidorizzi 2020, 153 with parallels from poetry.

Reception of concepts and ideas  

soul profoundly united with the thiasos and through it with god196 involving the performance of ritual purifications.197 The initiate attains εὐδαιμονία by becoming part of the thiasos (θιασεύεται ψυχάν).198 Mystic makarismos (‘Blessed is he who …’) secures permanent happiness and prosperity and, as a formula of beatitude, is very frequent in poetry199 and, in particular, in mystery-cults: e.g. Hymn to Demeter200 480–482 ὄλβιος ὃς τάδ’ ὄπωπεν ἐπιχθονίων ἀνθρώπων· / ὃς δ’ ἀτελὴς ἱερῶν, ὅς τ’ ἄμμορος, οὔ ποθ’ ὁμοίων / αἶσαν ἔχει φθίμενός περ ὑπὸ ζόφῳ εὐρώεντι, ‘blessed is he of men on the earth who has seen these things; but he who is uninitiated and portionless will never have a share of such things when dead below in the dank darkness’,201 Pi. fr. 121 (Bowra), said of the Eleusinian mysteries (Clem. Al. Strom. 3.518), ὄλβιος ὅστις ἰδὼν κεῖν’ εἶσ’ ὑπὸ χθόν’ / οἶδε μὲν βίου τελετάν, / οἶδεν δὲ διόσδοτον ἀρχάν, S. inc. fab. fr. 837 R. ὡς τρισόλβιοι / κεῖνοι βροτῶν, οἳ ταῦτα δερχθέντες τέλη / μόλωσ’ ἐς Ἅιδου· τοῖσδε γὰρ μόνοις ἐκεῖ / ζῆν ἔστι, τοῖς δ’ ἄλλοισι πάντ’ ἔχειν κακά. All these passages connect mystic initiation with afterlife. A mystic makarismos is also that in Ba. 902–912, sung by the chorus and forming a priamel,202 which concludes that ‘the person whose life is happy from day to day, him I call blessed’. Mystic initiation secures permanent happiness. Plato in Rep. 354a with the statement ὅ γε εὖ ζῶν μακάριός τε καὶ εὐδαίμων exemplifies that only the virtuous life is the happy one.203 Key concepts in both passages conveying mystic connotations: εἰδώς employed in a mystic sense is the knowledge acquired in mystic initiation. Ἁγιστεύει βιοτάν, ‘lead a pure life’, provides a moral constituent for a true Christian; on the contrary, a rigorous purity seems impossible for maenads, Dionysus’ devotees.204 Θιασεύεται ψυχὰν καθαρμοῖσιν involves the notion of purification (καθαρμός),

 196 Dodds 1960, 76 and n. 1 explains “merging of individual consciousness in group consciousness” and refers to Festugière’s study 1956, 72ff. 197 Purifications, καθαρμοί, were associated with τελεταί, ‘initiations’: cf. Pl. Lg. 815c, where Dionysiac dances are connected with καθαρμούς τε καὶ τελετάς τινας. 198 On this lyric of Bacchae bearing evidence on the Dionysiac mysteries, see e.g. Seaford 1981, 253. 199 Snell 1931, 75. 200 See Richardson’s note 1974 ad loc. 201 As translated by Seaford 2016, 84. 202 Dodds 1960, 190. 203 Adam 19632, v. 1 ad loc. compares Chrm. 172a, 173d. 204 Yet, the relevant concept of hēsychia, ‘calm life’, is not incompatible with the presence of Dionysus himself (Ba. 621–622). Moreover, Dem. 59.78 refers to the concept of purity (ἁγιστεύω) included in an oath attributed to Dionysus’ devotees at the festival of Anthesteria.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens which seems to be the result of mystic initiation.205 Νotably, θιασεύεται indicates the collective participation in ritual in both pagan and Christian mysteries. In these passages the knowledge is the prerequisite for initiation, while the participation in purifications refers to those already initiated in mysteries. Τελετάς of the gods in Bacchae refers to Dionysiac mystery-cults. Initiates in mystic cults were promised the hope of life after death and joy in the afterlife. As Seaford pointed out,206 “mystery-cults of various kinds controlled the passage to the afterlife and could not fail to be serious rivals to Christianity”. He refers to Clement of Alexandria, a Church Father, who, obviously aware of the text of Bacchae, emphasizes in the last chapter of his Protrepticus (12.119–120) that conversion to Christianity is initiation into the “truly sacred mysteries” (τῶν ἁγἰων ὡς ἀληθῶς μυστηρίων) that is superior to the mystic initiation as expressed in Bacchae. For Clement Christianity is the true mystery. Notably, the poet of Christus Patiens by replacing τελετὰς θεῶν with τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ μυστήρια conveys the essential meaning: he transplants the conception of Dionysiac cult-mysteries in a Christian context, bringing forward the true mystic initiation. The moral values that lead to true human happiness seem to bring pagan and Christian concepts closer: a life of holy service and sincere participation in God’s ritual. Similarly, the respect and the glorification of god are in Bacchae and Christus Patiens, albeit from a different viewpoint, explicitly commended as the real qualities of faith. Ba. 312–313 (Teiresias to Pentheus) … τὸν θεόν δ’ ἐς γῆν δέχου / καὶ σπένδε καὶ βάκχευε καὶ στέφου κάρα / …

Chr. Pat. 584–586 (Theotokos to the chorus) … καὶ Θεὸν πρὸς γῆν δέχου / … καὶ σπένδε καὶ κλέϊζε καὶ τόνδ’ εὐλόγει. /

In the first episode of Bacchae (170–369) Teiresias advises Pentheus ‘… Receive the god into the land and pour libations and be a bacchant and crown your head’. In the first part of Christus Patiens Theotokos exhorts the chorus ‘… Accept God on earth … and pour Him offerings and celebrate and bless Him’.207 The key themes in both passages involve the necessity of receiving and honouring the god and his cult. The imperatives (δέχου καὶ σπένδε) form a model of religious behaviour. Interesting variation of thought are worth noting: βάκχευε,  205 In E. Cretans fr. 472.9–15 Kn. pure life is secured by the initiation to the cult of Zeus Idaios. The initiated is purified and called a bacchant (βάκχος ἐκλήθην ὀσιωθείς). 206 Seaford 1997, 53; 2017, 84–85. 207 εὐλόγει, ‘bless, praise’, is a recurrent term in Christian ritual. Cf. Fishbone 2002, 144.

Reception of concepts and ideas  

‘participate in bacchic ritual’, is replaced by κλέϊζε, ‘honour, celebrate’, and στέφου κάρα, ‘crown your head’, obviously with ivy, Dionysus’ plant, is replaced by εὐλόγει, ‘bless, praise the God’ with prayers. For the development of thought it is interesting to remark that specific aspects of Dionysiac worship and ritual, such as ‘be a bacchant’ and ‘crown your head’, are substituted in Christus Patiens by the inner communication with God (‘honour and praise Him’). Σπένδε, ‘pour libations’, involves interesting implications of the associations of Dionysiac and Christian cult. Σπένδομαι (σπονδή) is a key term of both Dionysiac and Christian ritual. In Ba. 274–285 Demeter is said to be the goddess that nourishes mortals with dry food, and, likewise, Dionysus introduces the ‘liquid drink of the grape cluster’ (βότρυος ὑγρὸν πῶμα) which stops suffering. Dionysus is ‘poured out (σπένδεται) as wine to the gods, himself a god, to offer prosperity to humans’: 284–285 οὗτος θεοῖσι σπένδεται θεὸς γεγώς, ὥστε διὰ τοῦτον τἀγάθ’ ἀνθρώπους ἔχειν. Dionysus was identified with wine. In Christianity Jesus Christ is the true vine,208 ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθής (Iohan. 15.1); He is ‘the great grape-cluster’ in Clement’s characterization209 and Theotokos’ ‘grape-cluster’ (βότρυς) in Romanos’ Hymn on the Nativity.210 The association of Demeter with Dionysus, of dry food211 (wheat corn) with wine, is frequent in mystic cults,212 and mutatis mutandis may have prefigured the Christian Eucharist. Bread and wine provide the elements for the Holy Communion in Christian religion, symbolizing Jesus Christ’s Sacrifice for human salvation.213 Notably, St. Paul (Tim. II 4.6) attests ἐγὼ ἤδη σπένδομαι,214 ‘I am already poured out as an offering’, showcasing the permanence of the symbolism. Σπένδε in both texts points to a further correspondence between pagan and Christian ritual, albeit with different doctrinal implications.

 208 On vine and wine in Dionysiac cult and Christianity, see also Seaford 2006, 127; Friesen 2015, 21–22. 209 Paedagogus 2.19.3. 210 Cantica 3.10.7. 211 Ba. 277 ἐν ξηροῖσι. 212 Seaford 1997, 174–176, with references. See especially Obbink 1993, esp. 78–79 on the mystic dimension of the wine. 213 Marc. 14.22–24, Matth. 26.26–28, Luc. 22.19–20. The unity of man and Christ and the promise for eternal afterlife are symbolized through the ritual of the Holy Communion: Iohan. 6,56 ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα και πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ, id. 6,54 ὁ τρώγων μοι τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 214 Cf. Grégoire 1961, 229–230.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens .. The reward of faith: the establishment in the land of the blessed Ba. 1338–1339 (Dionysus to Cadmus) … σὲ δ’ Ἄρης Ἁρμονίαν τε ῥύσεται / μακάρων τ’ ἐς αἷαν σὸν καθιδρύσει βίον.

Chr. Pat. 1752–1754 (Theologos to Joseph) Σὲ δ’ ἐξαναστὰς εὐχερῶς ἐκρύσεται, / ὃν εὐπρεπῶς τέθεικας ἐν καινῷ τάφῳ, / καὶ μακάρων ἐς αἷαν ἐγκαθιδρύσει, …

Βa.: But Ares will rescue you and Harmonia and establish your life in the land of the blessed. Chr. Pat.: On His Resurrection He, Whom you have placed in a new tomb215 with care, will easily protect and settle you in the land of the blessed.

Cadmus and Teiresias believed in Dionysus’ divinity. In the first episode of Bacchae Cadmus praises and adopts his cult (181–183), ‘For as he is the child of my daughter, [Dionysus, who has appeared to humankind as a god]216 we must make him great as much as we can’. Thus, in the exodos of the play the god rewards Cadmus by offering to him, after many adventures, a permanent happiness. Pindar (O. 2.71–80) refers to Cadmus and Peleus in the Island of the Blessed, where ὠκεανίδες / αὖραι περιπνέοισιν· ἄνθεμα δὲ χρυσοῦ φλέγει ... In a corresponding manner, albeit in a different ideological environment, Theologos assures Joseph that Christ will offer him a blessed afterlife in eternal serenity.

.. Impiety: lack of reverence for the god and the ancestry In the first episode of Bacchae the chorus express their powerful reaction against Pentheus’ lack of respect for gods, Cadmus, his father Echion, and his whole generation (γένος). In a similar manner, in his first account to Theotokos in Christus Patiens the messenger mentions in an embedded direct speech someone who furiously condemns Judas’ impiety towards his Master expressed by his lack of fear and respect for God, his ancestors, and the human law protecting men’s life. Ba. 263–265 τῆς δυσσεβείας. ὦ ξέν’, οὐκ αἰδῇ θεοὺς / Κάδμον τε τὸν σπείραντα γηγενῆ στάχυν, / Ἐχίονος δ’ ὢν παῖς καταισχύνεις γένος;

Chr. Pat. 191–194 «Τῆς ἀσεβείας· ὦ τάλ’ οὐ φοβῇ Θεόν; / οὐ θεσμὸν αἰδῇ τῶν βροτῶν τῆς οὐσίας, / Ἀδάμ τε τὸν σπείραντα γηγενῆ στάχυν, / καὶ πατριάρχας ἐκλελεγμένου γένους;

 215 Matth. 27.60, Luc. 23.53–54, Iohan. 19.41 (cf. Marc. 15.46). 216 v. 182 is omitted in Chr. Pat. 1152: see App. IV.2. It is deleted as an interpolation based on its resemblance to v. 860; see Dodds 1960, 92; Seaford 1997, 168.

Reception of concepts and ideas  

Ba.: What impiety! O Stranger, do you not revere the gods, and Cadmus who sowed the earth-born crop? Will you as Echion’s child bring shame on the clan? Chr. Pat.: What impiety! O you wretched! Do you not fear God? Do you not have respect for the law of mortals’ being, and Adam who sowed the earth-born crop, and the Patriarchs of the chosen race?

In both cases τῆς δυσσεβείας and τῆς ἀσεβείας are used as genitives of exclamation, which, unlike here, are usually preceded in tragedy by an introductory expression, an interjection or invocation (e.g. S. El. 920 φεῦ, τῆς ἀνοίας, E. IA 327… ὦ θεοί, σῆς ἀναισχύντου φρενός). Without these expressions, δυσσεβείας and ἀσεβείας are colloquialisms,217 which may be congruent with the style employed by the female thiasos in Bacchae in their sentimental outburst of indignation and by a simple, indignant man against Judas in the embedded rhesis in the messenger’s account on Christ’s arrest. Again, we notice the plausible replacement of θεούς by Θεόν.218 Cadmus, who had earlier defended Dionysus (178–188), is named as Pentheus’ close kin and the leader of his oikos; in Christus Patiens the reference is to the traditional ancestry from Adam to the Patriarchs. The respect for the laws and the traditions inherited from the ancestors (πατρίους παραδοχάς) is also emphasized earlier by Teiresias in Ba. 201–202 (‘ancestral traditions, and those which we have obtained as old as time, no argument will throw them down’). A locus classicus is certainly that of Antigone’s appeal to eternal and unwritten laws contrasted with human laws (S. Ant. 454–457). The reverence for gods and ancestors were traditionally rooted in Greek thought: Pl. Lg. 920e ‘the ancestors should be revered as gods’. The respect for unwritten laws is widely attested: Th. 2.37.3, X. Mem. 4.4.19, Arist. Rh. 1, 1374a 20–25, Lys. 6.10–11.219

 217 It is not clear why, as Dodds 1960, 102 suggests, the chorus of Lydian women in Bacchae would be expected to speak in a ‘highly stylized’ form. 218 Above n. 76. 219 The concept of unwritten laws has been much discussed by scholars. For an excellent discussion, see De Romilly 1971, 25–49.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens .. Sophia and sophos Ba. 655 (Pentheus in his dialogue with the Stranger) σοφὸς σοφὸς σύ, πλὴν ἃ δεῖ σ’ εἶναι σοφόν.

Chr. Pat. 1529 (Theotokos referring to Christ’s Sacrifice and His death in the part of the Burial) Σοφὸς σοφὸς σύ, καὶ σοφῶς ἔτλης πότμον,

Ba.: Clever, clever you are, except in that in which you ought to be clever. Chr. Pat.: Wise, wise you are and wisely you endured your destiny.

Sophos and true and false sophia, ‘wisdom’, are recurrent concepts in Bacchae and, in particular, in the first episode (vv. 170–369), involving Teiresias and Cadmus attempting to persuade Pentheus to accept the Dionysiac cult: Teiresias is a really wise man (179, 186); in Teiresias’ words (200) ‘we (Teiresias and Cadmus) do not argue (σοφιζόμεσθα) against the gods’220 or, in similar translations, ‘†we do not exercise cleverness in the eyes of the gods’,221 ‘we do not invent clever reasonings against the gods’;222 ‘no argument will throw ancestral traditions down†, not even if wisdom is found through utmost thought’ (οὐδ’ εἰ δι’ ἄκρων τὸ σοφὸν ηὕρηται φρενῶν) (201–203); ‘when an intelligent man chooses a good basis for his speech, it is no great task to speak well’ (266–267); ‘nor if you have a belief, and your believing is sick, believe that you are being wise’ (311–312). True wisdom is related to sōphrosynē (641): ‘For what a wise man does is to exercise selfcontrolled gentleness of temper’, Dionysus says to the chorus, referring to his own self-control. The dialogue between Dionysus and Pentheus in their second meeting here (642–659) focuses on Pentheus’ obstinacy, his uncontrollable anger and thus his lack of prudence, in contrast to Dionysus’ calm and wise attitude, which expresses his complete mastery of his opponent. As discussed, in vv. 312–317 Teiresias addressing Pentheus determines the criteria for true wisdom: ‘receive the god into the land and pour libations and be a bacchant and crown your head. It is not Dionysus who will compel women to be self-controlled in matters of Aphrodite,223 but in their nature’. The chorus in  220 Thus Dodds 1960, 94. 221 Seaford 1997, 79. 222 Rademaker 2005, 181. 223 The Bacchants are self-controlled, φύσει σώφρονες, as Teiresias admits here (315); similarly, they act σωφρόνως, entirely free of any sensuous sentiment on the mountain in the first messenger’s account (686): cf. Winnington-Ingram 1969, 91; Grube 1973, 412; Gold 1977, 6, 11.

Reception of concepts and ideas  

the stasimon that follows the first episode explicitly admits the paradox of the contrast between apparent and real sophia, τὸ σοφὸν οὐ σοφία (395), ‘what is called wisdom is not true wisdom’224 or ‘cleverness is not wisdom’.225 Pentheus obviously regarded the cleverness propagated by the Sophists as wisdom.226 Nῦν γὰρ πέτῃ τε και φρονῶν οὐδὲν φρονεῖς, says Cadmus of him, ‘for now you are all in the air, and your wit is without wisdom’227 (332). Thus, Pentheus’ conception of wisdom is opposed to the true wisdom of Teiresias, which conveys respect for god and the acceptance of his ritual, as Cadmus asserts (179– 186). To fight a god, “θεομαχεῖν”, is not sophia.228 Sophos and sophia bring forward the contrast between mere “cleverness” and “real” insights in religious matters.229 Notably, shifts in the meaning of traditional values are attested in late fifth century.230 Yet, sophos and sōphrōn and their cognates express the moral dimension of Bacchae: respect for the gods, calm life (hēsychia), self-control, and prudence. In Christus Patiens the concept of true wisdom is attributed to Jesus Christ, Who wisely endured the Passion for men’s salvation and human glory through His Resurrection (1529–1532). Only God is sophos in the Christian conception of the notion.231 Θεὸς γὰρ οἶδε πάντα καὶ σοφῶς κρίνει, ‘for God knows everything and judges wisely’, concludes Theologos (Chr. Pat. 1805) commending pivotal principles of Christianity.

 224 Thus Sandys 1892, 157. The contrast in Bacchae between apparent and real sophia was discussed, among others, by Rademaker 2005, 181–182. 225 For such paradoxes in Euripides, cf. Or. 819 τὸ καλὸν οὐ καλόν, ‘that “good” is not good’ (with West’s note 1987, 239–240), IA 1139 ὁ νοῦς ὅδ’ αὐτὸς νοῦν ἔχων οὐ τυγχάνει, ‘the cleverness of yours is not clever’ (Kovacs 2002, 291). 226 For Sophists and the relativity of knowledge, see e.g. Guthrie 1969, 50–51 and passim. 227 Winnington-Ingram in Dodds 1960, 113. 228 Pentheus and Lycurgus lack sophia, presenting typical features of a tragedy-tyrant: cf. above 1.4. 229 Thus aptly Rademaker 2005, 182. For the conflicting views of sophia in Bacchae, cf. Oranje 1984, 159–164 and Versnel 1990, 176–177. 230 Cf. Thucydides’ description 3.82: ‘the ordinary acceptation of words in their relation to things was changed as men thought fit …’ 231 Cf. Chr. Pat. 1805 (above 2.4.3) Θεὸς γὰρ οἶδε πάντα καὶ σοφῶς κρίνει, ‘for God knows everything and jugdes wisely’, concludes Theologos commending pivotal principles of Christianity; Paul Cor. I 1.24: … Χριστὸν Θεοῦ δύναμιν καὶ Θεοῦ σοφίαν, ‘Christ is the power and the wisdom of God’. On the employment of the term sophia in early Christianity, see Kittel/Friedrich 1971, VII 496–526.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens .. Sophia and philia Sophia, ‘wisdom’ is related to philia, ‘friendship’. The latter associates wise men in both texts. In more specific terms, Cadmus in the first episode of Bacchae (170–369) addresses Teiresias, employing the concepts of sophia and philia. Teiresias and Cadmus are the only men in Thebes to join in the worship of Dionysus and both support the acceptance of his cult. Teiresias reassures Cadmus that they are the only ones to be wise, to have good sense, compared to the other citizens of Thebes (196): μόνοι γὰρ εὖ φρονοῦμεν, οἱ δ’ ἄλλοι κακῶς. Cadmus, in particular, has sanctified Semele’s precinct (θυγατρὸς σηκόν, 10–11) and, in turn, Dionysus recognizing his grandfather’s wise attitude towards the establishment of his cult rewards him at the exodos of the play (1338–1339: ‘Ares will rescue Cadmus and Harmonia and establish them in the land of the blessed’). The pivotal notions of philia and sophia in Cadmus’ address to Teiresias (178– 179) are refigured with the same phrasing in Joseph’s very sensitive apostrophe to Theologos in the first scene of the part of the Burial: Ὦ φίλταθ’, ὡς σὴν γῆρυν ᾐσθόμην κλύων, / σοφὴν σοφοῦ παρ’ ἀνδρός, ‘O dearest friend, for I recognized your voice when I heard it, the wise voice of a wise man …’ (Chr. Pat. 1148–1149). Ὦ φίλτατε conveys the sense of an intense exclamation. The address recalls S. OC 891, E. Hec. 1114–1115.232 Similarly, Joseph addresses Nicodemus as φίλος later in the part of the Burial (1788).233 Remarkably enough, in both the pagan and the Christian drama CadmusTeiresias and Joseph-Theologos provide an articulate case of two corresponding pairs of characters with notably similar features.

.. Punishment of impiety and injustice. Divine retribution Ba. 992–996 (The chorus on Pentheus) ἴτω δίκα φανερός, ἴτω / ξιφηφόρος φονεύου– /σα λαιμῶν διαμπὰξ / τὸν ἄθεον ἄνομον ἄδικον Ἐχίονος / γόνον γηγενῆ·

Chr. Pat. 1436–1437 (Theotokos referring to Judas) Ἔπαισεν αὐτὸν ῥόπτρον, ὡς προδόντα σε, / ἄπιστον, ἄθεον, παράνομον, ἄδικον·

 232 For the various uses of this formula, Collard 1991, 157 (at Hec. 505). On philia in Euripides, Cairns 1993, 273–276. 233 See above, Supplication to the god 2.3.22.

Reception of concepts and ideas  

Ba.: Let Justice go manifest, let her go carrying a sword, slaughtering right through the throat the ungodly, unlawful, unjust earth-born offspring of Echion. Chr. Pat.: He swung the beam on your betrayer, faithless, godless, lawless, unjust as he was.234

The lyric metres of the chorus in Bacchae were again modified in dodecasyllabic metrical form to suit the Byzantine drama’s stylistic requirements. Δίκα, ‘Justice’, is here in Bacchae, as often in tragic texts, personified, being presented as bearing a sword (A. Ch. 639–642) and emerging silently to punish the wicked (E. inc. fab. fr. 979 Kn.).235 Stylistic correspondences: ἄθεον and ἄδικον, whilst ἄνομον is slightly changed to παράνομον. The asyndeton of semantically similar epithets (ἄθεον, ἄνομον, ἄδικον as against for negative adjectives ἄπιστον, ἄθεον, παράνομον, ἄδικον) creates powerful rhetorical and dramatic effects adding to the pathetic tone of the description. This tricolon increasing pathos by means of alliteration and occurring as early as Hom. Il. 9.63 ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιος, is common in tragic texts (A. Ch. 55 σέβας δ’ ἄμαχον ἀδάματον ἀπόλεμον, S. Ant. 876 ἄκλαυτος, ἄφιλος, ἀνυμέναιος) and particularly in Euripides: Hec. 669 ἄπαις ἄνανδρος ἄπολις, ΙΤ 220 ἄγαμος ἄτεκνος ἄπολις ἄφιλος (the only fourfold example), and Or. 310 ἀνάδελφος ἀπάτωρ ἄφιλος. Euripides’ style is parodied in Ar. Ra. 838–839. The same or a slightly differentiated rhetorical accumulation of the three adjectives ἄθεον, ἄνομον (or παράνομον), ἄδικον occurs in E. Andr. 491 ἄθεος ἄνομος ἄχαρις ὁ φόνος236 and in Gorgias Pal. 36 ἄθεον ἄδικον ἄνομον ἔργον. In Bacchae and Christus Patiens this asyndeton consisting of epithets that convey negative meanings adds to the tone of powerful indignation at the acts of Pentheus and Judas respectively. In Christus Patiens the term ῥόπτρον, ‘cudgel’, replaced the sword (ξιφηφόρος) in Bacchae; both terms are used in metaphorical sense. The chorus in this part of the fourth stasimon of Bacchae (977–1023) imagines, predicts, and describes the imminent reaction of the maenads on the Cithaeron to Pentheus, the intruder, a scene portrayed in the second messengerspeech which follows and involves the dismemberment of the theomachos primarily by Agave, his own mother. In the part of the Burial Theotokos disparagingly attributes these negative epithets to Judas for his unfaithfulness to his Master. This accords with Her series

 234 Thus Fishbone 2002, 164. 235 For further textual references, see e.g. Denniston 1973, 146. 236 Cf. Stevens 1971, 156.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens of curses against the unfaithful Disciple earlier in the text (272–346), which provides an argument for ascribing Christus Patiens to a relatively late date (11th– 12th century).237 The Aeschylean notion of the divine retribution of impiety and injustice was reconfigured in the last tragedy of Euripides. As in Bacchae (δίκα ξιφηφόρος), the personification of Justice is depicted with a sword in A. Ch. 639–642, when Zeus’ authority is most wrongfully offended. Sword-bearing Justice represents the divine punishment of wrongdoers, as implemented particularly by Zeus. The concept that divine retribution is accomplished became widespread from the archaic age onwards: Hes. Op. 282–285, Solon fr. 13 esp. vv. 17–32 West, Theognis 199– 208: wrongdoers are always punished. According to the Aeschylean ideology, gods strictly avenge unrighteous acts (Eu. 538–544, Supp. 732–733); the “doer shall suffer” motif represents a steady Aeschylean conviction (Ag. 1564, Ch. 313).238 Zeus always punishes the unjust and rewards the righteous characters (Supp. 402–406). Euripides in this passage of Bacchae refigures the Aeschylean belief and follows his conviction about the divine punishment of unjust and impious mortals (cf. Ion 1619–1622). The case of Lycus (HF 727–732), Aegisthus (El. 771–773), as well as instances from fragmentary plays (Antiope frr. 222–223, Archelaus fr. 255, Oenomaus fr. 577, and Phrixus fr. 835 Kn.) offer clear assertions of the belief in retribution which pervades both the Euripidean and the Christian lines.

.. Hubris and punishment Ba. 6–9 (Dionysus in his prologue) ὁρῶ δὲ μητρὸς μνῆμα τῆς κεραυνίας / τόδ’ ἐγγὺς οἴκων καὶ δόμων ἐρείπια / τυφόμενα Δίου πυρὸς ἔτι ζῶσαν φλόγα, / ἀθάνατον Ἥρας μητέρ’ εἰς ἐμὴν ὕβριν.

Chr. Pat. 1581–1584 (Theotokos on the punishment for Jesus’ Crucification) Ποινὴν γὰρ ἀθρῶ σοῦ πότμου ζωηφόρου, / πῦρ ἐγγὺς οἴκων καὶ δόμων ἐρείπια / τεφρούμεν’ ἤδη, πυρὸς ἄσβεστον φλόγα, / ἀθάνατον Θεοῦ πόλιν πρὸς τήνδ’ ὕβριν·

 237 Puchner 2017, 80. 238 For parallels, see Guthrie 1969, 113 and n. 1, 125–126. Xanthakis-Karamanos 1980, 123–126 discussed instances of divine retribution from fourth-century tragedy and other texts.

Reception of concepts and ideas  

Ba.: I see here by the house the tomb239 of my thunderbolt-struck mother and the ruins of the house smouldering with the still-living flame of Zeus, Hera’s immortal outrage against my mother. Chr. Pat.: For I see the punishment of Your life-bearing death. Fire approaches houses and the ruins of palaces are already burning, the unquenchable flame of fire, the immortal wrath of God at this city.

Hubris, ‘outrage, wanton violence, insolence’, is contrary to sōphrosynē.240 Hubris is opposed to the cardinal values of measure, temperance, and wisdom. In Greek thought it traditionally denotes the immoderate transgression of human limits that results in man’s ruin. Through suffering man may understand god’s power and the validity of divine law.241 In both texts hubris is related to fire and complete destruction. Being struck by lightning was regarded as a supernatural act, and places touched by lightning were thought to be sacred.242 Hubris bears here the connotation of gods’ wrath and divine retribution (ποινή), thus indicating a convergence of thought in different cultural environments. The flame recalling Hera’s hubris was immortal, enduring, as indicated by ἔτι ζῶσαν, ‘still-living’. Even after the destruction of Pentheus’ palace during Dionysus’ epiphany, the flame around Semele’s tomb is still-living (596–599). Ἄσβεστον in Chistus Patiens counterbalances ἔτι ζῶσαν φλόγα in Bacchae. Hera’s hubris, her outrage for Semele and Dionysus, the burning of Semele’s tomb and the ruins of her house are reworked in the narrative of the punishment for the impious act, the hubris, of Christ’s Crucification. Theotokos, in her long monologue in the part of the Burial, predicts in this powerful language that the punishment, the divine retribution, is to strike the City of Jerusalem for Christ’s death. In Christus Patiens the reference to the fire of the City seems to allude to a historical event: the complete destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D. As Josephus wrote (B.J. 7.1.3–7.4.1) “the city was so thoroughly razed to the ground …

 239 For the place of Semele’s tomb and further references, see Dodds 1960, 63. 240 E.g. North 1966, 16–18, 46 and passim; Rademaker 2005, 17, 77, 83–86, 128–129 and passim. On hubris, see also Cairns 1996. 241 Such a conception of hubris is particularly represented in tragic texts. See e.g. Lesky 1965, 62–63, Xanthaki-Karamanou 2020, 333–335. 242 Dodds 1960, 62 refers to such holy places or persons struck by lightning: “Capaneus became a ἱερὸς νεκρός when the lightning slew him …” (E. Supp. 934–935); cf. Supp. 981 and 1010–1011. For further bibliographical references to sacred persons killed by lightning, see Diggle 1970, 179; Collard 1975, 341.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens that nothing was left that could persuade visitors that it had once been a place of habitation”. Notably, the derivative ὕβρισμα, ‘outrage, act of insolence, wanton acts (ὑβρίσματα)’, is disapproved in stylistically similar terms in both texts: Ba. 779: ὕβρισμα Βακχῶν, ψόγος ἐς Ἕλληνας μέγας, ‘the insolent violence of the Bacchants is a great reproach for the Greeks’. Pentheus regards the Maenads’ attitude on the mountain, which is described by the messenger, as a discredit in the eyes of the Greeks, and orders military action against them. Chr. Pat. 2227–2228: … ὥστε πῦρ ὑφάπτεται / ὕβρισμ’ Ἰησοῦ, νῦν φόβος θ’ ἡμῖν μέγας, ‘like fire set from underneath, the insolent act against Jesus is now terrifying us’. In the embedded speech of the last messenger’s account, the Priests express their fear after the guards’ announcement of Christ’s Resurrection. The power of wanton violence (ὕβρισμα) is also here compared to flame, to describe figuratively an uncontrollable power.243

.. The defeat of the theomachoi Dionysus in his narrative prologue (esp. Ba. 45–48) and Theotokos in Her long monologue in the part of the Burial (Chr. Pat. 1489–1619, esp. 1567–1574) both predict divine supremacy over the theomachoi, ‘gods’ fighters’. Ba. 45–48 … ὃς (Pentheus) θεομαχεῖ τὰ κατ’ ἐμὲ244 καὶ σπονδῶν ἄπο / ὠθεῖ μ’, ἐν εὐχαῖς τ’ οὐδαμοῦ μνείαν ἔχει. / ὧν οὕνεκ’ αὐτῷ θεὸς γεγὼς ἐνδείξομαι / πᾶσίν τε Θηβαίοισιν.

Chr. Pat. 1567–1574 Δεῖ γὰρ πόλιν τήνδ’ ἐκμαθεῖν, κεἰ μὴ θέλει, / νῦν οὖσ’ ἀμαθὴς τῶν γε σῶν μυστηρίων, / ἄλλην τε πᾶσαν γηγενῶν παροικίαν, ἣ θεομαχεῖ τὰ κατὰ σέ, σπονδῶν τ’ ἄπο / ὠθεῖ σ’, ἐν εὐχαῖς δ’ οὐδαμοῦ μνείαν ἔχει· / οὔπω γὰρ οἱ τάλανες ἔγνωσαν γόνον / ἥκοντα Πατρὸς ἐκ πόλου πρὸς γῆν κάτω. / Ὧν οὕνεκ’ αὐτοῖς δεῖξον, ὡς εἶ σὺ Θεός·

Ba.: (Pentheus) who fights against deity in his treatment of my cult and rejects me from libations and has concern for me nowhere in his prayers. That is why I will show myself to be born a god, to him (Pentheus) and to all the Thebans. Chr. Pat.: For this city must learn, even if it does not want to, being ignorant now of your mysteries, and every other nation as well, which fights against Your divinity, rejects You from rites245 and omits You in prayers; for these wretched people have not yet recognized  243 On this metaphor, Guidorizzi 2020, 225 compares S. OT 27 πυρφόρος θεός. 244 Θεομαχεῖ τὰ κατ’ ἐμὲ, ‘opens war on deity in my person’: Dodds 1960, 68. 245 σπονδῶν conveys here the general meaning of cult, not only pagan libations.

Reception of concepts and ideas  

Your birth which came down to earth from Father’s Heaven. So, you must show them that You are God.

Theomachos, ‘a fighter against deity’, is a typical adjective describing the fatal struggle of Pentheus against Dionysus in Bacchae and of Lycurgus in Aeschylus’ trilogy.246 It is the hopeless fight of man against a superior and overwhelming power and an emblematic idea of Greek morality. The key verb θεομαχεῖν is twice used later in Bacchae: vv. 325 and 1255. At 325 κοὐ θεομαχήσω σῶν λόγων πεισθεὶς ὕπο, ‘I will not be persuaded by your words to fight against the god’, Teiresias says in his attempt to bring Pentheus to reason in the first episode of the play; 1255 ἀλλὰ θεομαχεῖν μόνον / οἷός τ’ ἐκεῖνος, ‘but fighting against deity is the only thing Pentheus can do’, Agave says of Pentheus addressing Cadmus before her restoration to sanity and the recognition of her appalling act. At Ba. 537–544 the chorus describes Pentheus as a wild-faced monster who, like a slaughterous giant fights against the gods; his theomachia is again condemned at 635–636 for ‘though a man, he dared to join battle against a god’. Θεομαχεῖν in E. IA 1408 also conveys the meaning of the futile opposition to the overwhelming will and decision of the gods. The meaning of theomachia is expressively conveyed in the famous phrase of Jesus Christ, in the incident of Paul’s conversion (Acts 26.14; cf. 9.4–5): ‘it is hard for you to kick against the goads’. This metaphorical expression, which is not employed in Christus Patiens, does occur in poetic texts247 including the scene of Dionysus’ persuasion of Pentheus in Bacchae: ‘I would sacrifice to him (Dionysus) rather than get angry and kick against the goads, a mortal against a god’ (794– 795). Both in Bacchae and in Acts the phrase sounds as a clear warning to the theomachos.248 The adjective θεομάχος in Acts (5.39: μήποτε καὶ θεομάχοι εὑρεθῆτε) may be a reworking of this concept of Bacchae,249 since theomachoi refers to the opponents of Christian cult. An analogy between Paul and Pentheus as theomachoi occurs in Acts 9.1: Paul was “breathing out threat and murder against the Disciples of the Lord” (ἐμπνέων ἀπειλῆς καὶ φόνου εἰς τοὺς μαθητὰς τοῦ Κυρίου), as Pentheus was “breathing out anger” (θυμὸν ἐκπνέων) against Dionysus (Ba. 620).250  246 For this concept, see also the first part of this book and above 2.1.1. 247 A. Ag. 1624, Pr. 323, Pi. P. 2.94–96, E. Peliades fr. 604 Kn. 248 Cf. Dodds 1960, 173. 249 On this concept in Greek tragedy and literature from Homer to Hellenistic era, see extensively Kamerbeek 1948. 250 Friesen 2015, 209–210. For Pentheus as theomachos, see also Yunis 1988, 77–81.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens As regards Bacchae, the concept of theomachia-theomachos draws its origin from Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia, which, as shown in the first part of this study, has provided to a significant extent the model of Euripides’ last play. The refiguration of this concept in Christian texts, such as the Acts and Christus Patiens, sheds light on the ongoing persistence of concepts of Greek tragedy as early as Aeschylus in later thought and in different cultural environments.

.. Rejection of mercy – Repentance and forgiveness Ba. 1344–1348 (Cadmus in stichomythia with Dionysus) ΚΑ. Διόνυσε, λισσόμεσθά σ’, ἠδικήκαμεν. / ΔΙ. ὄψ’ ἐμάθεθ’ ἡμᾶς, ὅτε δὲ χρῆν, οὐκ ᾔδετε. / ΚΑ. ἐγνώκαμεν ταῦτ’· ἀλλ’ ἐπεξέρχῃ λίαν. / ΔΙ. καὶ γὰρ πρὸς ὑμῶν θεὸς γεγὼς ὑβριζόμην. / ΚΑ. ὀργὰς πρέπει θεοὺς οὐχ ὁμοιοῦσθαι βροτοῖς.

Chr. Pat. 2557–2563 (The poet in his prayer to Christ at the end) Ῥύσιε, λισσόμεσθά σ’, ἠδικήκαμεν / καὶ σῶμα καὶ ψυχή τε και νοῦς ἀθλίως· / ἡμάρτομέν σοι πολλά τ’ ἠνομήσαμεν. / Ὄψ’ ἐμάθομεν, ὅτ’ ἐχρῆν οὐκ είδότες, / … / Γιγνώσκομεν σφάλματα, σὺ δὲ παρόρα·/ ἴδμεν δέ σ’ ὀργὰν οὐχ ὁμοιοῦσθαι βροτοῖς.

Ba.: CA. Dionysus, we beseech you, we have done you wrong. DI. You were late in understanding us. When you should have, you did not know us. CA. We have realized these things; but you proceed against us excessively. DI. Yes, because I, a god, was insulted by you. CA. It is not right for gods to resemble mortals in their anger. Chr. Pat.: O Saviour, we beseech you, we have done injustice wretchedly with our body and soul and mind. We have sinned against You and transgressed Your laws many times. We learned late, when it was needed, not knowing… We know our errors, but You look aside; we know that You are not like mortals in Your anger.251

In the exodos of Bacchae Cadmus begs Dionysus for mercy, but in vain. Dionysus refuses to grant forgiveness, which is suggestive of the anthropomorphism of gods, in that they resemble mortals in their anger. The Euripidean statement that gods should not have human passions252 is juxtaposed with the Christian conception of God as indicated at the end of Christus Patiens in the poet’s prayer to Christ: repentance leads to forgiveness and redemption. Despite the stylistic resemblances, the poet’s closing prayer substantially deviates from this stichomythia between Dionysus and Cadmus.  251 Thus Fishbone 2002, 191. 252 This maxim recalls the servant’s prayer to Aphrodite (Hipp. 120): ‘gods ought to be wiser than mortals’.

Reception of concepts and ideas  

A series of motifs brings forward the different aspects of the crucial issue of the relation of Dionysus and Jesus Christ with mortals: The supplication for mercy and the acknowledgement of the committed injustice253 (Διόνυσε, λισσόμεσθά σ’, ἠδικήκαμεν – Ῥύσιε, λισσόμεσθά σ’, ήδικήκαμεν) is a corresponding notion in both plays. Notably, Ῥύσιε (ῥύσιος, ‘the saviour,254 delivering, saving’)255 replaces Διόνυσε, indicating the soteriological dimension of Christian faith. At the same time, the late understanding and the acknowledgement of impiety are clearly expressed in both passages (ὄψ’ ἐμάθεθ’ ἡμᾶς256 – Ὄψ’ ἐμἀθομεν, ἐγνώκαμεν ταῦτ’ – γιγνώσκομεν σφάλματα). This late acknowledgement of error257 may be associated with Aristotle’s anagnorisis, ‘recognition’, as the transition from ignorance to knowledge (ἐξ ἀγνοίας εἰς γνῶσιν μεταβολή, Poet. 11, 1452a 29–31).258 Yet, the essential contrast between the pagan and the Christian conception of deity is echoed in the words which follow: ἀλλ’ ἐπεξέρχῃ λίαν – σὺ δὲ παρὀρα. Cadmus denounces the excess and the implacability of divine revenge against his

 253 Notably, also Pentheus before his sparagmos acknowledges his own errors (ταῖς ἐμαῖς ἁμαρτίαισι, Βα. 1120–1121), but it was too late. 254 The soteriological dimension of Christian faith is pivotal in Christus Patiens, often juxtaposed with the meaning conveyed in passages of Bacchae: Ba. 971–976 – Chr. Pat. 1307, 1531– 1532 and Ba. 960, 962–964 – Chr. Pat. 1521–1526 (above 2.3.5, 2.3.6) and, in particular, the programmatic statement in the introductory part (v. 4) ‘I shall proclaim the world-saving Passion’ and the title in the manuscript tradition (above 2.1 and 2.1.2). 255 Cf. AP 7.605. 256 Ba. 1344, 1346, and 1348 should be attributed to Cadmus and not to Agave, as suggested by Elmsley. The impiety against Dionysus concerns the whole family, which is represented by Cadmus: cf. 1301–1302: by not revering the gods, Pentheus joined all of them into destruction. 257 The theme is characteristic of many Greek plays; cf. e.g. E. El. 1198–1205, HF 1146ff., Ba. 1280ff. 258 Similarly, Segal 1999/2000, 290 aptly remarks that here, as in Agave’s statements of 1296 and 1329, the religious language of epiphany is imbedded in and superseded by the tragic language of anagnorisis (ὄψ’ ἐμάθεθ’ … ἐγνώκαμεν ταῦτ’). Waller 2019, referring to Williams 2016, traces an echo of Aristotle’s anagnorisis in Hugo Grotius’ Christus Patiens (1608) in the concept of metanoia, of redemptive recognition.

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens family (‘but your vengeance passes bounds’);259 his plea with the god is contrasted with the Christian poet’s humble supplication for forgiveness (σὺ δὲ παρόρα). Forgiveness260 is the recompense for a real repentance. The concept of the last phrase is inverted in the Christian passage: “we know that you do not resemble to mortals”. The key difference lies in the replacement of πρέπει, ‘it is appropriate’, in Bacchae with ἴδμεν, ‘we know’, in Christus Patiens, which underlines the suppliant’s conviction that God’s anger does not resemble that of mortals. God does not have human passions. This is clearly a case of rejection of the divine anthropomorphism which pervades Greek poetry until Euripides. The latter’s implied criticism of anthropomorphic gods is transformed into an explicit disparagement of the perception of gods as possessed by human passions in the Byzantine drama. In turn, the divine retribution for the theomachoi does not exist in the Christian approach of life, whenever sincere repentance is involved. Christus Patiens transforms the religious concept of Bacchae and offers perspectives and ways for redemption and salvation.

. The transplantation of Bacchae into the Christian world As the previous analysis has shown, dramatic situations, concepts and ideas of Euripides’ Bacchae are reworked, refigured, and transformed in Christus Patiens, adapted in the intellectual and ideological milieu of this Byzantine drama. This work, despite its staging shortfalls, addresses remarkable aspects of Euripides’ dramatic technique and thought in his Bacchae as received in the Christian world. In particular, plot-patterns and values of this Euripidean play are juxtaposed with those of the Christian drama, forming a mosaic of literary citations, which showcase the familiarity of the Byzantine poet and his audience with ancient Greek tragedy. Τhe reception of Bacchae seems to be of primary importance among the plays on which Christus Patiens draws. The subject matter of this exciting play displays typological thematic correspondences in central themes with Christ’s story as attested in Holy Texts, in particular the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Parallelisms of Jesus Christ and Dionysus were brought forward in notable passages of Christus Patiens. Both Jesus and Dionysus are the offspring of a divine  259 Pollmann 2017, 156. She also remarks the transformation of negative statements into positive ones (2017, 157). 260 The concept of forgiveness, pivotal in Cristian thought, occurs in Christus Patiens: Christ forgives Peter for his refusal (815–819, 821–823) and advises Theotokos not to feel hatred even for those who crucified Him (827–828).

The transplantation of Bacchae into the Christian world  

father, the ruler of the world, and of a human mother. They appeared on mortal form, they established their cult in Greece within the broader framework of a universal expansion; both were associated with female devotees, offered wine to their followers, performed miraculous, non-mortal deeds, faced a violent death, came back to life and both exhibited divine epiphanies. However, contrary to the avenging god of Bacchae, Jesus Christ offers redemption and salvation of mankind with His Passion and Resurrection. To establish his ritual Dionysus in Bacchae punishes Pentheus for denying his divinity. Christ suffers Himself as a mortal to achieve the wide recognition of His Divinity and worship. Plot-patterns clearly showcase an indisputable convergence in pivotal themes of the narrative. The Crucification of Christ is juxtaposed with Pentheus’ dismemberment; or, in a different direction, Pentheus’ death is recontextualized in the miserable end of Judas. Cadmus’ looking after Pentheus’ dismembered body is refigured in Joseph’s affection when burying Christ. Agave’s lament for her son’s bloodied body is adapted to Theotokos’ embracing the lifeless body of Jesus Christ. The lies invented to cast doubt on Dionysus’ origin from Zeus are appropriated with regard to Theotokos’ Immaculate Conception. Pentheus is punished for opposing Dionysus, as the guilt for the rejection and the Crucification of Christ is imputed on the Jews. Dionysus predicts the establishment of his cult in Thebes, as Theotokos and Jesus Christ after His Resurrection confirm the expansion of Christian faith all over the world. Notably, theomachia, which draws its origin from Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia and spurs the action in Bacchae, is refigured in Christian texts, such as the Acts and Christus Patiens shedding light on the osmosis of pagan and Christian thought. The imprisonment and the final liberation of the Bacchants by Dionysus are impressively reconfigured in the description of the liberation of the dead from Hades after the Resurrection of Christ. The dogmatic issue of Christ’s divine and human nature is explored by the author of Christus Patiens reworking Dionysus’ disguise in Bacchae: Dionysus exchanged the form of a god for that of a mortal, whereas Jesus in his Incarnation conjoined the two natures taking His mortal form from God. Notably, in such cases the Christian drama opens new perspectives, offering radically different ways of thought and a different world-view within Christian ideology. Therefore, despite these thematic correspondences, the refiguration of Bacchae in Christus Patiens displays substantial alterations, primarily for cultural and ideological reasons. Passages bringing forward pivotal concepts and themes, such as moderation, prudence, wisdom and calm life, the reverence for god, the sincere participation in ritual and the reward of faith bearing the assurance of a

  Euripides’ Bacchae and Christus Patiens blessed afterlife express, with appropriate textual adaptations, fundamental doctrinal and moral principles of Christianity: sincere love and friendship, repentance and forgiveness, and the recognition of the truth of salvation. The Byzantine author’s approach to Bacchae is justifiable, for a profound difference exists in the ethics of Christianity and of Dionysiac mystic cult as expressed in Euripides’ play. The Byzantine poet’s reception of Bacchae thus moves beyond its source determining the limits of tragedy within the Christian world. Christus Patiens brings forward the ways in which Bacchae was transformed, thus deepening crucial readings of its source-text and establishing clear boundaries where Christianity expresses radically different views from pagan thought. Hence, in many cases sinister or even appalling elements of Bacchae are recontextualized in the Byzantine drama, being imbued with a purely soteriological dimension based on the anticipation of Christ’s Rise and His final proclamation of salvation. Certainly, these adaptations showcase the Byzantine poet’s technique and his ability both to reconcile classical heritage, especially tragedy, with Christianity and to shed light on the latter’s superiority to Dionysiac ritual. This exploration may contribute to a reconsideration of the reception process of Euripides’ Bacchae in Christus Patiens and, in turn, of its cultural value. In view of the recent revival of scholarly interest in the relation of Christus Patiens to its intertexts, it is to be hoped that this survey will offer a further stimulus towards a substantial evaluation of this reception. The fruitful dialogic process between a major, most exciting play of Euripides and dramatic specimens of different cultural periods could shed light on the development of pivotal pillars of thought, dramatic technique and narrative in varying ideological contexts. Such cases of extended and often prolific refigurations, observed regularly in Medieval literature, may yield insight into Byzantine culture as a historical descendant that retains, assimilates, transforms, and promotes pivotal intellectual and cultural achievements of Greek Antiquity. The cross-fertilization of paganistic and Christian themes and ideas, resulting from a welcome dialogue between Ancient Greek and Byzantine thought, characterizes, as other works of Byzantine literature, also this religious drama as a specimen of the sophisticated treatment of Ancient Greek literature in Byzantium. Recapitulating the two parts of this study, it can be deduced that the close investigation of thematic keystones in Aeschylus’ Dionysiac tetralogies, Bacchae, and Christus Patiens could demonstrate issues of ongoing significance. The opposition between the vain fight against divine power and moderation, wisdom, and faith, which is conveyed in the fragmentary Aeschylean Dionysiac plays and

The transplantation of Bacchae into the Christian world  

permeates the plot-structure of Bacchae and Christus Patiens, is proved to be of enduring persistence in different social and cultural environments. The conflicts between political, often tyrannical, power and religious faith and cult, and between varying cultural traditions bearing implications on social coherence continue to exist from antiquity onwards.

Appendix I: Evidence for Aeschylus’ Dionysiac Plays Book fragments (in the order in which they are cited) Authors’ citations

Ancient Scholia

Sch. Ar. Av.  = Edonoi fr.  R. Sch. Ar. Th.  (III , Regtuit) = Edonoi fr.  R. Sch.* B Hom. I  = Edonoi fr.  R. Sch. V [E.] Rh.  = Bassarae fr. a R. Sch. Nic. Ther. c = Bassarae fr.  R. Sch. VΘ Ar. Eq. a = Lycurgus Satyricus fr.  R. Sch. LRM S. OC  = Lycurgus Satyricus fr.  R. Sch. Gal. in Hp. Epid. VI ,  = Pentheus fr.  R. Gnomic anthologies Sch. Gal. in Hp. Epid. VI ,  = Xantriae fr.  R. Stob. , , . = BacSch. A Hom. Δ  = Semele chae fr.  R. or Hydrophoroi fr.  R. Sch. L A.R. Argon. , a =Semele or Hydrophoroi Str. . .  p. C = Edonoi fr.  R. [Long.] de Subl. . = Edonoi fr.  R. Ar. Th.  = Edonoi fr.  R. Heph. Enchir. ,  = Bassarae fr.  R. Ath. ,  C = Neaniskoi fr.  R. Ath. ,  B = Lycurgus Satyricus fr.  R. Pherecyd. FGrHist  F  and Simon. PMG  = Trophoi fr. a R.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110764413-003

Lexicographers / Grammarians Phot. Lex. β  Theodoridis, Et. Gen. β  Lasserre/Livadaras = Edonoi fr.  R. Sud. μ  Adler = Edonoi fr.  R. Proverb. L V b  = Edonoi fr. a R. Hsch. α  Cunningham = Edonoi fr.  R. Hsch. α  Cunningham (= Sud. αι  Adler) = Edonoi fr.  R. Hsch. α  Cunningham = Edonoi fr.  R. Hsch. α  Cunningham = Edonoi fr.  R. Erot. ι  Nachmanson = Edonoi fr.  R. Hsch. ε  Latte = Bassarae fr.  R. Phot. Lex. α  Theodoridis = Neaniskoi fr. a R. Et. Gen. AB Theodoridis, α  Lasserre/Livadaras = Neaniskoi fr. b R. Hsch. α  Cunningham = Neaniskoi fr.  R. Hsch. α  Cunningham = Neaniskoi fr.  R. Phot. Galean. ,  (= Sud. ο  Adler) = Xantriae fr.  R. Poll. ,  = Xantriae fr.  R. Et. Gen. AB (= Et. Sym. V μύστις) = Xantriae fr.  R. Phryn. Praep. Soph. ,  de Borries (= Phot. Lex. α  Theodoridis) = Xantriae fr. a R. Hsch. α  Cunningham = Semele or Hydrophoroi fr.  R. Hsch. α  Cunningham = Semele or Hydrophoroi fr.  R.

  Appendix I: Evidence for Aeschylus’ Dionysiac Plays

Hsch. α  Cunningham = Semele or Hydrophoroi fr.  R. Phot. Galean. ,  = Trophoi fr. b R. Hsch. ε  Latte = Trophoi fr. b R. Hsch. δ  Cunningham = Trophoi fr. c R. Hsch. π  Hansen = Trophoi fr. d R. Hsch. ψ  Hansen/Cunningham = Neaniskoi fr.  R.

Papyrus fragments GLP no.129, Page 1950. POxy 2164 = fr. 168 R. = 220a Sommerstein 2008. PAnt 24 fr. 2a Roberts = Dodds 1960, 243; Diggle 1994, 352–353.

Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus A. Lycurgus’ madness and the murder of his son and wife, probably from Edonoi The scenes of Lycurgus’ madness and the murder of his son Dryas mistaking him for a vine in Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia are rare in Attic vase-paintings, though they often occur in middle fourth-century South Italian vases.1 They showcase various aspects of these pivotal scenes of the dramatic action, most probable of Edonoi, the first play of the tetralogy. The vase-paintings cited here are those most related with the textual evidence and the testimonia of Dionysiac tetralogies.

Apulian red-figured calyx-krater, c. 350s B.C. (London, British Museum no. 1849, 0623.48, fig. 1) This is one of the most remarkable vase-paintings related to Aeschylus’ Lycurgeia.2 As commonly on Apulian kraters of this period, the illustration is divided into two registers: an upper register of divinities and a lower one depicting a pivotal scene, most likely of Edonoi. In the middle of the lower register Lycurgus, bearded, wearing a Thracian cap and a short cloak, grabs his fallen bare-breasted wife by the hair. She has already been smitten, since blood flows from a wound above her breast. Her anguish is evident, for she tries in vain to escape from his grip of her hair. Lycurgus pauses his fatal attack on her to look upwards to the winged personification, most probably of madness, ‘Lyssa’, who is swooping down upon him with a goad in her right hand. On the right, two attendants, in a state of desolation, carry off the body of Dryas. On the left, a young person tugs his hair, trying to remonstrate with Lycurgus, while the white-haired and bearded paidagogos,3

 1 For an extensive discussion of Lycurgus in art, see Griffith 1983, 217–232; LIMC Lykourgos I; cf. also Green 1982, 242–244. 2 Séchan 1926, 71–72 fig. 21; Trendall/Webster 1971, III.1.15; Sutton 1975, 357; Taplin 2007, no.13 70–71 and n. 66 with references; bibliography in Green/Handley 1995, fig. 19, 133. 3 Green 1999, 57, n. 18. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110764413-004

  Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus unable to intervene, watches the tragic events in despair. His presence is suggestive of a stage representation. In the upper register, there is a group of divinities: Apollo holding his lyre and Hermes on the right, as well as Lyssa and Dionysus seated, holding a thyrsos on the left. The presence of Apollo is prominent. The altar below him and the thrown amphora indicate an interrupted sacrifice, which may have been included in the action of Edonoi.4

Apulian column-krater c. 350s (Ruvo, Museo Jatta 36955, fig. 2) In the centre of this vase-panting,5 Lycurgus, holding, as almost always, a double axe in his right hand, is standing in a “portico”,6 a representation of the central part of a palace, which is a common feature of tragedy-related iconography. He is about to strike Dryas, who supplicates him for mercy. On the right, a woman runs away terrified, dropping her sacrificial platter, which indicates an interrupted sacrifice. On the left, a young man accompanied by a dog, possibly Dryas’ hunting companion, buries his face in his hand, horror-stricken by the sight. He might be the messenger narrating the murder scene of the play. The interrupted sacrifice provides a common element in both Apulian vases.

Attic red-figured hydria, third quarter fifth century B.C. (Cracow National Museum MNK, no. XI–1225, fig. 3) This is a certain depiction7 of Lycurgus’ madness on a fifth-century Attic vase, not long before 450 B.C.8

 4 Scattered items, possibly indicating an interrupted sacrifice, are also depicted on the Apulian volute-krater of the same period in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, 1900.03.804, related to Chaeremon’s Achilles Thersitoctonus: Xanthaki-Karamanou 2017, 215–216. 5 On this vase-painting cf. Séchan 1926, 70 fig. 19; Sutton 1975, 356; Taplin 2007, no.12 69–70, LIMC s.v. Lykourgos I.14, p. 312. 6 On “portico”, see Taplin 2007, 38–39. A “portico”, probably representing Lycurgus’ palace, is also visible on a fragmentary Campanian amphora at Paestum: Séchan 1926, 71 fig. 20; Taplin 2007, no.107 264. 7 See Beazley 1928, 44–46, ARV2 1121.17; LIMC Lykourgos I.26; Trendall/Webster 1971, III.1.13 with further references; Sutton 1975, 356; Carpenter 1993, 198; Taplin 2007, 276 n. 62. 8 Taplin 2007, 69 and 276 n. 62 dates the painting on an Attic hydria in Rome, Villa Giulia 55707 (= LIMC Lykourgos I.12) also in the later fifth century.

Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus  

Lycurgus in Thracian costume, cloak and boots (embades), attacks a naked boy from the left with an axe held in both hands. This youth, most likely Dryas, seated on an altar, raises his hands in supplication. In front of Lycurgus a lamenting woman, probably his wife,9 is tearing her hair. On the right, Dionysus, stately and bearded, in long chiton and himation, holds a thyrsos in his left hand and a grapevine in his right. Behind him, a maenad, looking at the god, dances following the music of a satyr’s flute. The satyr is seated on a rock. The illustration involving Dionysus holding a vine,10 a dancing maenad, and a flute-player provides a typical Dionysiac scene, associated with the action of Edonoi.

Lucanian volute-krater, c. 360–350 B.C. (Museo Archaeologico Nationale di Napoli, inv. 82123, fig. 4) In the centre, Lycurgus raises his double axe to strike his wife who sits before him with bare breast. Lycurgus grasps her hair and put his knee on her thigh to facilitate the blow. To the left, Dryas’ dead body is supported by a woman. Above to the right, Lyssa brandishing a goad is swooping down on Lycurgus, as in the Apulian calyx-krater (London, British Museum F271, above no. 1). To the left above, a maenad (in bust) holds a tambourine in her left hand. In the lower right-hand corner a boy, possibly a satyr, kneeling behind a tree, gazes at the scene of the murder.11 As in the Attic hydria (above no. 3), typically Dionysiac elements are depicted (a maenad and, possibly, a satyr), while the personification of madness, ‘Lyssa’, and the treatment of Lycurgus and his wife have much in common with the British Museum Apulian calyx-krater (above no. 1).12

 9 Thus Webster 1971, 49. 10 Lycurgus killed Dryas imagining that he was lopping the branch of a grapevine: [Apollod.] 3.5.1 11 Séchan 1926, 72 fig.22; LIMC Lykourgos I.27; Trendall/Webster 1971, III.1.16 with further references; Sutton 1975, 357. 12 Cf. Trendall/Webster 1971, 52.

  Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus Ruvo amphora, middle fourth century (Museo Archaeologico Nationale di Napoli, inv. 81953, fig. 5) In the upper register of the amphora,13 on the left, Lycurgus brandishing a double axe is being restrained by a young man in Thracian costume holding him tightly by the waist. In the middle, Lycurgus’ wife, wearing her royal costume, is trying to find refuge at a statue of a goddess, identified with the Thracian Cotys.14 On the left of this central scene, two bacchants – one of them holding a drum (tympanon) – are dancing. On the right, after a figure, possibly identified with a fury,15 another bacchant holding a drum is also dancing in front of a seated divinity with a thyrsos, probably Dionysus.16 It is worth noting that in all these vase-representations the infanticide is related to the murder of Lycurgus’ wife. Remarkably, only in Hyginus’ account (fab. 132) Lycurgus murders his wife as well. This variation, depicted in the majority of middle fourth-century vase-paintings,17 could suggest that Aeschylus might have included also the murder of Lycurgus’ wife in the action of his play. This is supported by the fact that in the period between Aeschylus’ age and midfourth century vase-paintings there is no evidence of another dramatization of Lycurgus’ story, except the tetralogy of the less known tragedian Polyphrasmon. There are several common motifs in the iconographic and textual evidence for Lycurgeia and the “Theban” tetralogy: The madness of Lycurgus and Dryas’ murder, depicted in all the vasepaintings discussed here, are attested by [Apollod.] 3.5.1: Lycurgus murders his son imagining that he was lopping the branch of a vine. Notably, Dionysus holds a vine in the Cracow Museum hydria (above no.3). The Thracian goddess Cotys and a Dionysiac thiasos comprising the god’s devotees playing flutes and holding tambourines are described in Edonoi fr. 57 R. ap. Str. 10.3.16 p. 470 C and represented in the Cracow Museum hydria (above no. 3) and in the Naples  13 Séchan 1926, 73–74 fig. 23; Sutton 1975, 357. 14 Thus Séchan 1926, 73. For Cotys, see also Edonoi fr. 57 R. ap. Str. 10.3.16 p. 470 C. 15 Thus Séchan 1926, 73, followed by Sutton 1975, 357. 16 Cf. Séchan 1926, 73. 17 Sutton 1975, 356–357 describes four additional vase-paintings: on a fragmentary Apulian krater at Taranto, a Munich amphora, a Lucanian calyx-krater, and a fragmentary Apulian amphora. The last one is Campanian and not Apulian: see extensively Taplin 2007 no.107 264. However, all these paintings do not depict clearly the pivotal scene of murders. Nine certain instances are listed in LIMC and some eight others are characterized as possible or doubtful; cf. also Taplin 2007, 68–69, 276 (n. 62).

Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus  

Museum Ruvo amphora (above no. 5). Lycurgus’ palace was shaking, possessed by the god, and its roof reveled Bacchant-like in Dionysus’ triumphal epiphany, as attested by the author of the On the Sublime 15.6. The reference has conceivably been related to Edonoi fr. 58 R. It is also noteworthy that the central part of Lycurgus’ palace is represented in the rudimentary “portico”18 in the Ruvo Apulian column-krater (above no. 2). The personification of madness, ‘Lyssa’, provides a theme plausibly related to the iconographic evidence for Lycurgus’ story. Lyssa is depicted brandishing a goad against Lycurgus in the British Museum Apulian calyx-krater and in the Naples Museum Lucanian volutekrater (above nos 1 and 4). Similarly, the personified Lyssa is reported to induce the Bacchants to tear apart their victim in Xantriae fr. 169 R., included in Aeschylus’ “Theban” tetralogy.

B. A scene, attributed to Aeschylus’ Neaniskoi Column-krater, approx. early 5th century B.C. (Basel Antikenmuseum, BS 415, fig. 6) A hemi-chorus of six dancing youths in pairs, possibly worshippers of Dionysus, comprising the chorus of young men in Neaniskoi.19 Their arms are outstretched in the orchestra towards an altar in its centre (thymele). On the thymele an actor is seated as a suppliant; branches around the altar suggest supplication. The youths dance barefoot wearing lightly constructed masks and dresses embroidered with similar designs. The suppliant on the altar recalls Orestes in Eumenides 40–45 sitting at the navel-stone and holding an olive branch in supplication. All these elements suggest that the painting most likely shows a dramatic scene in performance.20 However, there is a discrepancy between the dating of the column-krater in early fifth century and that of Lycurgeia (and thus of Neaniskoi), probably approximate to Oresteia (458 B.C.). The attribution to Neaniskoi is thus debatable.

 18 Thus Taplin 2007, 69. 19 For this attribution, Hammond/Moon 1978, 379–380, fig. 10 and n. 28 with rich bibliography. They date the krater ca. 500–480 B.C. and Taplin 2007, 29 fig. 8 “right back to the 480s”. 20 Taplin 2007, 29.

  Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus

C. Vase-paintings probably related to Aeschylus’ Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi Red-figured bell-krater, approx. 460 B.C. (Ancona, Museo Archaeologico Nazionale delle Marche, no. 3138, fig. 7) (a) Ιn this krater21 an ivy-crowned woman, possibly Medea, is leading an elderly, doddering satyr towards a tripod cauldron. The old satyr is thus supposed to be rejuvenated. (b) On the other side a family of satyrs, a mother holding a thyrsos, a father, and a young son are illustrated. The father is holding his young son’s hands making him standing on his left foot. A standing thyrsos is depicted on the lefthand side also suggesting the Dionysiac character of the painting.

Red-figured attic oinochoe by the Altamura painter, approx. 460 B.C. (Staatliche Museen Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Antikenableitung 1962.33, fig. 8) A chorus of four satyr boys are running with torches.22 In the middle, Dionysus is standing holding a thyrsos. On the right, an older satyr is playing a salpinx. In Simon’s suggestion, Medea rejuvenated the satyrs, so that they were able to compete in a boys’ torch-race. Yet, the vase-illustration itself cannot safely suggest its association with a dramatic performance of this satyr-play.

 21 Webster 1950, 85–86, Sutton 1974, 127–128 and, in particular, Simon 1982, 140 pl. 35b who characterizes the painter of this krater “a weak artist”. For further references, see Germar/ Krumeich 1999, 199 n. 6. Brommer’s opposition to the attribution of this vase-painting to A. Trophoi was rejected: Webster loc. cit. 22 Beazley (ARV2) 1660.71; Simon 1982, 140 pl.35a, 1997, 1111 no.2. For further references, see Germar/Krumeich 1999, 200 n. 13; cf. also Podlecki 2005, 14–15.

Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus  

Fig. 1: Apulian red-figured calyx-krater, c. 350s B.C. (London, British Museum no. 1849, 0623.48). Reproduced by permission of the British Museum.

  Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus

Fig. 2: Apulian column-krater c. 350s (Ruvo, Museo Jatta 36955). Reproduced by the kind permission of the Direzione Regionale Musei Puglia – Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo.

Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus  

Fig. 3: Attic red-figured hydria, third quarter fifth century B.C. (Laboratory Stock National Museum in Crakow, MNK, no. XI-1225). Reproduced by the kind permission of the National Museum in Crakow/ the Princess Czartoryski Museum.

  Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus

Fig. 4: Lucanian volute-krater, c. 360-350 B.C. (Ufficio e Archivio Fotografico, Museo Archeologico Nationale di Napoli, inv. 82123). Reproduced by the permission of the Museo Archeologico Nationale di Napoli.

Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus  

Fig. 5: Ruvo amphora, middle fourth century (Ufficio e Archivio Fotografico, Museo Archeologico Nationale di Napoli, inv. 81953). The described scene is depicted on the upper register of the amphora. Reproduced by the permission of the Museo Archeologico Nationale di Napoli.

  Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus

Fig. 6: Column-krater, approx. early 5th century B.C. (Basel Antikenmuseum, BS 415). Reproduced with the kind permission of the Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig.

Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus  

Fig. 7: Red-figured bell-krater, approx. 460 B.C. (Ancona, Museo Archeologico Nazionale delle Marche, no. 3138). (a) Front side. (b). Rear side. Reproduced by kind permission of the Sopritendenza Archeologia, Belle Arti e Paesaggio delle Marche, Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo.

  Appendix II: Main Vases Related to the Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus

Fig. 8: Red-figured attic oinochoe by the Altamura painter, approx. 460 B.C. (Staatliche Museen Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Antikenableitung 1962.33). Reproduced by permission of the bpk-Bildagentur, Berlin.

Appendix III: Christus Patiens as a Source for the Missing Part in the Exodos of Bacchae After the second messenger-speech and Pentheus’ sparagmos Agave returns to Cadmus’ palace. Full of pride, in her frenzied delusion, she is holding her son’s head thinking that it is an animal’s, and in her dialogue with the chorus (1165‒ 1215) she describes triumphantly her “hunting”. When Cadmus returns from Cithaeron with Pentheus’ dismembered body, after a tragic dialogue with his daughter, he restores her to sanity (1216‒1300). As it is known, in the manuscript tradition of Bacchae the ending of the play is missing. The codex Laurentianus (L) 32.2 (early fourteenth century) contains ll. 1‒755 and the codex Palatinus (P) gr. 287 (fourteenth century) transmits the text of the play with a lacuna (gap) of approximately 50 lines after l. 1329 and a smaller gap at l. 1300.1 These gaps have been supplemented with lines mainly from the part of the Burial in Christus Patiens, for it is probable that these lines in the Byzantine drama come from the lost portions of Euripides’ play. Since, as it has been accepted, several readings in the text of Christus Patiens give a better and more accurate meaning than those in codex P,2 it has been appropriately suggested that the author of the Byzantine drama used a better manuscript which provided him with a fuller and more accurate ending of the Bacchae than that of P.3 Thus, the serious gaps after 1300ff. and 1329ff. have been supplemented to some extent with lines from Christus Patiens.4 Additional evidence for the missing ending emerged several decades ago thanks to some small papyrus-fragments from Antinoë (Antinoopolis) in Egypt. In particular, PAnt 24 fr. 2a verso, ‘I am bringing Pentheus’ torn and bloodspattered limbs to care for them’, corresponds to Chr. Pat. 1471‒1472,5 ‘I cover with new veils your blood-spattered and lacerated limbs’.

 1 On the manuscript tradition of Bacchae, see Turyn 1957, 304ff.; Dodds 1960, li‒lix; Zuntz 1965, 110‒125; Roux 1970‒1972, I 78‒93; Diggle 1994a, 483‒489. 2 On the readings of Christus Patiens adopted in editions of Bacchae, see App. IV.I. 3 Cf. Dodds 1960, lv‒lvi. 4 Kirchoff 1853 was the first to reconstruct the ending of the Bacchae using passages from Christus Patiens. He was followed by Murray 1913, Dodds 1960, Diggle 1994, and Seaford 1997. 5 Dodds 1960, 243; Segal 1999/2000, 275‒276. See also above 2.3.13: “Mourning mothers holding their sons’ bodies”. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110764413-005

  Appendix III: Christus Patiens as a source for Bacchae This papyrus-fragment fits to the part of Agave’s lament and especially to that of the compositio membrorum,6 most likely on stage. Unfortunately, the corrupt text of the Antinoopolis codex cannot confirm that all the scraps pertain to Bacchae. The three dramatic scenes convincingly considered to fill the gaps were: Agave’s lament over the torn limbs of her son; the compositio membrorum, most probably implemented by both Cadmus and Agave;7 and the missing first part of Dionysus’ epiphany, referring to the prophecy for the future of the Thebans and of the royal family: Cadmus and Harmonia, and particularly Agave and her sisters Ino and Autonoe.

Agave’s lament and the compositio membrorum (1300ff.) Agave’s question at 1300 ἦ πᾶν ἐν ἄρθροις συγκεκλῃμένον καλῶς;, ‘has it all been fitted together decently in its joints?’, does not make any sense with her question in 1301 Πενθεῖ δὲ τί μέρος ἀφροσύνης προσῆκ’ ἐμῆς;, ‘what part of my folly belonged to Pentheus?’.8 If Agave’s question addressed to Cadmus in 1300 had been answered, it should have been answered negatively,9 for Agave still held Pentheus’ head in her hands. She should thus have put in place the head, which she was carrying, before her lament. The first scene of Agave’s lament, plausibly assumed to fill the lacuna in 1301ff., is attested by Apsines, a 3rd century A.D. orator, who wrote (Ars Rhetorica 399): in Euripides ‘… Agave having been freed from madness and having recognized her own child torn apart, blames herself, and evokes pity …’.10 The feeling of pity (ἔλεος) that Euripides arouses for Pentheus, as Apsines wrote, is caused by Agave’s lament holding her son’s dismembered body in her hands: καὶ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ δέ τις τοῦ τεθνεῶτος ἔλεον κινεῖν δύναται … τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον  6 A lament could appropriately end Bacchae, since Pentheus’ mutilated body was on stage. Segal 1999/2000, 274 compared the final scenes of Hippolytus and Troades. 7 Agave may have addressed Cadmus with the apostrophe of Nikodemos to Joseph, l. 1466‒ 1467 of Christus Patiens Φέρ’, ὦ γεραιέ, κρᾶτα … προσαρμόσωμεν. On the basis of the Hypothesis to Bacchae, ‘Cadmus having perceived what had happened and having gathered together the limbs that had been torn apart, lastly discerned the face in the hands of the mother’. Thus, Agave could have asked Cadmus to place her son’s head properly. 8 Agave shifts from blaming Dionysus (1296) to blaming her “folly”, ἀφροσύνη, in 1301; cf. Segal 1999/2000, 277. 9 On this issue, see Dodds 1960, 232; Seaford 1997, 249; Segal 1999/2000, 276. 10 The translation follows Seaford 1997, 249. The translation of the passages of Bacchae follows Seaford 1997 in this chapter as well.

Appendix III: Christus Patiens as a source for Bacchae  

κεκίνηκεν Εὐριπίδης οἶκτον ἐπὶ τῷ Πενθεῖ κινῆσαι βουλόμενος. ἕκαστον γὰρ αὐτοῦ τῶν μελῶν ἡ μήτηρ ἐν ταῖς χερσὶ κρατοῦσα καθ’ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν οἰκτίζεται, ‘… Euripides wished to evoke pity for Pentheus; for his mother taking each of his limbs in her hands laments over each one of them’ (ibid. 401‒402). Apsines also refers to Hecuba’s rhesis over the dead body of Astyanax (Tr. 1156‒ 1206). As Apsines attests, Euripides clearly portrayed the lament of the tragic Agave and the compositio membrorum in the exodos of Bacchae11 most probably on stage. She may have handled and put the torn pieces of her son’s body together including his head, covering them with veils.12 Apart from Apsines, the lament of Agave and also the compositio membrorum seem to be alluded in the papyrus codex from Antinoopolis 24 fr. 2a, 2b,13 especially the phrase Πενθέως κατ]ηλοκ̣[ι]σ̣μ̣έ̣ν̣[’ αἱμόφυρτά τε / μέλη κομί]ζων, ἴσθι, κῃ[δείοις πόνοις. /. These lines should be attributed to Cadmus on the basis of Ba. 1225‒1226: πάλιν δὲ κάμψας εἰς ὄρος κομίζομαι / τὸν κατθανόντα παῖδα μαινάδων ὕπο, ‘turning back to the mountain I recover the child who died at the hands of the maenads’. Evidence for Agave’s lament may also be provided in the Sch. on Ar. Pl. 907 (Εὐριπίδης ἐν Βάκχαις) = inc. fab. fr. 847 Kn. / Murray, Dodds fr. i εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἴδιον ἔλαβον ἐς χέρας μύσος, ‘for if I had not taken private pollution into my hands’.14 Two lemmata in Antiatticist’s Anonymous Lexicon (probably of the 2nd century A.D.) were considered15 to come from the missing part of Bacchae, since these verbs do not occur in this form in the text of the play as transmitted to us: a) γαυριᾶν16 in Bekker Anecd. 87. 29‒30: γαυριᾶν· καὶ τοῦτο μέμφονται. Δημοσθένης Περὶ τοῦ στεφάνου (18.244), Εὐριπίδης Βάκχαις (fr. 847 Kn.). b) λελάβημαι in Bekker Anecd. 105. 30‒31: ἀντὶ τοῦ εἴλημμαι. Ἡρόδοτος ἕκτῳ καὶ τετάρτῳ, Εὐριπίδης Βάκχαις (fr. 848 Kn.). Nevertheless, in Ba. 1144 and 1241 we read γαυρουμένη, ‘exulting’, (said of Agave) and γαυρούμενος (of Cadmus) respectively, and in 1102 we read λελημμένος (ἀπορίᾳ λελημμένος), ‘caught in helplessness’ (said of Pentheus). This evidence strengthens the attribution of the two lemmata to the lost portion of the play. However, Christus Patiens remains the safest piece of evidence for the missing part of the exodos of Bacchae.  11 Hose 2011, 352 suggested that Agave’s lament was modelled on that for Hector in Il. 24.719ff. 12 PAnt I 24 fr. 2a verso Dodds = ii fr. b verso Diggle and Chr. Pat. 1310‒1311, 1471‒1473: see above, 2.3.13. 13 Dodds 1960, 243. 14 Dodds 1960, 57; Diggle 1994, 352. Transl. by Seaford 1997, 250. 15 Diggle 1994, 356 (III Dubia i‒ii); cf. Dodds 1960, 57. 16 γαυριᾶν or γαυράομαι, ‘exult’: E. Or. 1532, Ps-Phoc. 53 μὴ γαυροῦ σοφίῃ; cf. γαῦρος, γαυρίαμα, ‘arrogance, exultation’.

  Appendix III: Christus Patiens as a source for Bacchae The lines from Christus Patiens that could describe Agave’s lament and the compositio membrorum are arranged here in an attempt to offer cohesion of meaning and plausibility. The laments of Theotokos (Chr. Pat. 1110ff., 1254ff.) and the touching dialogue between Nikodemos and Joseph in the part of the Burial (1466ff.) offer the most appropriate texts for the reconstruction17 of the lacuna in 1300ff. The majority of scholars have suggested that both Agave’s lament and the compositio membrorum should cover the lacuna after 1300, arguing, among others, that it would have been improbable to have Agave standing with Pentheus’ head long after 1300 and through the following scene. It should be dramatically appropriate to have Agave’s lament precede Cadmus’ speech. Agave’s lament is sentimental, but Cadmus’ speech is more reflective involving the values of respect, honour, and justice.18 In addition, it would be unconceivable for Euripides to have included Cadmus’ funerary praise for Pentheus (in particular 1308‒1324) over the scattered pieces of his body.19

Agave’s lament on the basis of the text of Christus Patiens [(the text follows Tuilier (1969)] Chr. Pat. 1011 καὶ δυστάλαιναν τὴν πάλαι (μακαρίαν)20 Chr. Pat. 1311 τίς ἐστὶν οὗτος, ὃν νέκυν χεροῖν ἔχω;

 17 The main reconstructions attempted so far: Kirchoff 1853; Murray 1975; Diggle 1994; Segal 2001; Dimaras 2011, 62‒64. In pp. 65‒67 Dimaras has tabulated the first three reconstructions regarding the two gaps in the exodos (1300ff. and 1329ff.). 18 Cf. Segal 1999/2000, 274. 19 See, for instance, Robert 1899, 647; Willink 1966, 45; Roux 1970–1972; Seaford 1997, 249‒ 250; Segal 1999/2000, 274, 277; Mills 2006, 48; Nikolaidou-Arabatzi 2006, 624‒626. On the contrary, Wilamowitz (in Dodds 1960, 232) argued that the disturbance in 1300ff. was due to a displacement and supposed that 1301 originally followed 1297 and that 1298–1300 stood somewhere in the lacuna after 1329. Dodds 1960, 234‒235 observed a gap of “at least 50 lines” in 1329; even earlier, Sandys 1892, 231‒233 had suggested that Agave’s lament and the compositio membrorum stood at 1329. 20 Chr. Pat. l. 1011 is not cited by Kirchoff. The words in parentheses in this approach could have hardly been Euripidean in terms of context and grammatical form (cf. Murray 1913; Diggle 1994, 354‒355).

Appendix III: Christus Patiens as a source for Bacchae  

Chr. Pat. 1312‒1313 πῶς και νιν ἡ δύστηνος εὐλαβουμένη πρὸς στέρνα θῶμαι; τίνα θρηνήσω τρόπον; Chr. Pat. 131521 καὶ πᾶν (κατασπάσαι με) σὸν μέλος, τέκνον Chr. Pat. 921 ὦ φιλτάτη πρόσοψις, ὦ ποθουμένη22 Chr. Pat. 1256‒1257 ὅπως (κατασπάσαιμι) καὶ σύμπαν μέλος, κυνοῦσα σάρκας, ἅσπερ ἐξεθρεψάμην23 Chr. Pat. 1122‒1123 ποίῳ δὲ τύμβῳ (καταθείμην) σὸν δέμας; οἵοις τε πέπλοις (κατακαλύψω) νέκυν;24 Chr. Pat. 1124 πῶς καὶ τἀπιχώρια μέλψω σοι μέλη;25 Chr. Pat. 1125 τίνος σε κηδεύσουσιν, ὦ τέκνον, χέρες;26 Chr. Pat. 1829‒1831 νῦν δ’ ἄλγος (ἀφέρτατον), οἴμοι, πῶς φέρω; τί γοῦν τί δράσω νῦν παθοῦσ’ ἀμήχανα; Θέλξει δ’ ἕδραν ὄμματος ὕπνος πῶς ἄρα;27

 21 This line is not cited by Kirchoff and Diggle. 22 This line is noted by Kirchoff, but is not included in the reconstructions of Murray and Diggle. 23 Agave probably caresses and kisses Pentheus’ body referring to having given birth and nursed him; cf. Segal 1999/2000, 278. 24 Line 1121 Πῶς οὖν ἐγὼ ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου καταγάγω;, cited in the reconstructions of Kirchoff and Diggle, cannot correspond to the scene of Bacchae, but strictly to that of Christ’s Passion. Line 1123 is also cited by Segal 1999/2000, 278, comparing this line and lines 1470‒1472 of Christus Patiens with Tecmessa covering the body of Ajax (S. Aj. 915‒916) and with Hecuba covering that of Astyanax (E. Tr. 1218‒1220). 25 This line is noted by Kirchoff but not included in the reconstruction of Murray and Diggle, though appropriate to Agave’s lament. 26 I follow here Murray’s suggestion (1913), since the line suits to Agave’s lament and is closely related to Chr. Pat. 1124. 27 My suggestion, since these lines are related to Chr. Pat. 1312‒1313, both in terms of meaning and style.

  Appendix III: Christus Patiens as a source for Bacchae The compositio membrorum Chr. Pat. 1466‒1468 (Agave addressing Cadmus, as Nicodemus addressed Joseph) Φέρ’ ὦ γεραιέ, κρᾶτα (τοῦ τρισολβίου)28 ὀρθῶς προσαρμόσωμεν, εὔτονον δὲ πᾶν σῶμ’ ἐξακριβώσωμεν εἰς ὅσον πάρα. Chr. Pat. 1469‒1472 (Agave continues her lament, covering his son’s limbs) Ὦ φίλτατον πρόσωπον, ὦ νέα γένυς, ἰδοὺ καλύπτρᾳ τῇδε σὴν κρύπτω (κάραν). τὰ δ’ αἱμόφυρτα καὶ κατηλοκισμένα μέλη σὰ καὶ μέρη πέπλοις καινοῖς σκέπω,29

As it was suggested,30 Ba. 1301 may have been the last line of Agave’s lament. This is probable, for her tone has plausibly changed as she is trying to find out the cause of her son’s destruction.

Dionysus’ epiphany (1329ff.) To assist the reconstruction of Dionysus’ epiphany as a deus ex machina in its initial part which has been lost,31 we have the evidence of the Hypothesis to Bacchae (ll. 16‒18): Διόνυσος δὲ ἐπιφανεὶς < …> τὰ μὲν πᾶσι παρήγγειλεν, ἑκάστῳ δὲ ἃ συμβήσεται διεσάφησεν … , ‘And Dionysus having appeared announced on the one hand to all, and on the other hand made clear to each one what will happen …’.

 28 Τρισαθλίου would suit in the scene of the compositio membrorum better than τρισολβίου. The latter is printed by Murray and Diggle on the basis of Chr. Pat. 1466. However, τρισολβίου is deeply ironic and thus inappropriate to be used by Agave in this particular scene. Moreover, ἄθλιον used of Pentheus’ body in Βα. 1216, was appropriately replaced by ὄλβιον βάρος said of Christ’s body in Chr. Pat. 1485. 29 A lamenting woman covers a beloved dead’s body with a veil in Greek tragedy: Tecmessa covers the body of Aias (S. Aj. 915‒916), Hecuba covers that of Astyanax (E. Tr. 1218‒1220), and Orestes induces Electra to cover Clytemestra’s corpse (E. El. 1227‒1228). 30 Robert 1899, 645ff. 31 Reconstructions as above by: Kirchoff 1853, 89‒90; Murray 1975; Dodds 1960, 58‒59; Diggle 1994, 355; Seaford 1997, 53 and n. 117, 252‒253; Dimaras 2011, 62‒64.

Appendix III: Christus Patiens as a source for Bacchae  

In view of his intentions as stated in the prologue of the play,32 Dionysus most probably announced the establishment of his cult at Thebes, as similarly in Hipp. 1423ff., IT 1449ff., and Hel. 1666ff. On the basis of the evidence in the Hypothesis ‘announced … to all and … to each one what will happen’, in the missing first part of his speech Dionysus should plausibly refer to Pentheus’ punishment for denying his divinity and rejecting his cult (Chr. Pat. 1663‒1664, 1667), to the future expulsion of the Thebans (1665‒1666, 1668‒1672) for having denied his cult and in particular of that of Agave and her sisters (1674‒1677). Cadmus’ daughters will be exiled, for it is impious for murderers to remain by the tombs of their victims: … οὐ γὰρ εὐσεβὲς / μένειν φονευτὰς ἐν τάφοις νεκρουμένων (1676‒1677). Cadmus will also be punished and leave Thebes, as described in the surviving part of Dionysus’ speech (Ba. 1330ff.). Chr. Pat. 1690 and 1756 probably suit to this context. The majority of these lines adopted from Christus Patiens belong to Theologos’ long rhesis (1637‒1699) in the part of the Burial. Lines 1360‒1361 belong to Theotokos’ rhesis in the same part of the play. Regarding the expulsion of the Thebans, the adopted part of Christus Patiens was supposed to refer to the guilt and the diaspora of the Jews as well as to the Roman occupation of Judaea (1681‒1684). Herodotus attests (5.61.2) that ‘the Cadmeians were forced out of Thebes by the Argives and took refuge to Encheleis in Illyria.33

The missing part of Dionysus’ epiphany possibly based on the text of Christus Patiens: Chr. Pat. 1360‒136134 (denial of Dionysus’ divinity by the Thebans, including Pentheus) οὐκ εὐπρεπεῖς ἔθεντο πολλοί μοι λόγους, ψευδῶς τεκεῖν βάζοντες ἔκ τινος βροτῶν. Chr. Pat. 1663‒1664 (Pentheus’ murder by his own mother for denying Dionysus’ divinity) Τοίγαρ τέθνηκεν ὧν ἐχρῆν ἥκισθ’ ὕπο εἰς δεσμὰ τ’ ἦλθε (καὶ λόγους ἐμπαιγμάτων.)35  32 vv. 39‒40 ‘for this city must learn to the full, even if it does not want to, what it is to be uninitiated in my bacchanals’; 46‒48 ‘I will show myself to be born a god, to him (sc. Pentheus) and to all the Thebans’. 33 For more detail, see Dodds 1960, 235‒236; cf. also Seaford 1997, 253. 34 Cf. Ba. 26‒30, 1297. These verses from Theotokos’ rhesis that followed those of Theologos and Joseph in the part of the Burial could have been included in the missing part.

  Appendix III: Christus Patiens as a source for Bacchae

Chr. Pat. 1667 καὶ ταῦτα μὲν πέπονθεν οὗτος οὐκ ἄκων Chr. Pat. 1665‒1666 (The impiety of the people towards the god) τοιαῦτα λαὸς (ὁ πρὶν ἠγαπημένος) εὐεργέτην ἔδρασε, θυμωθεὶς φθόνῳ· Chr. Pat. 1668‒1672 (The expulsion of the people as a form of punishment) ἃ δ’ αὖ παθεῖν δεῖ λαόν, οὐ κρύψω κακά. Λίπῃ πόλισμα, βαρβάροις εἴκων, ἄκων, δοῦλος, μέτοικος. Ἔστι γὰρ τὸ θέσφατον, εἰς πᾶσαν αἶαν βαρβάρων (ἀποτρέχειν), αἰχμαῖς ἁλωτοὺς,36 πόλλ’ ἀνατλάντας κακά. Chr. Pat. 1678‒1679 Πόλεις δὲ πολλὰς εἰσαφίκωνται, ζυγὸν δούλειον (ἀνέλκοντες) οἱ δυσδαίμονες, Chr. Pat. 1674‒1677 (The expulsion of Agave and her sisters) λιπεῖν πόλιν τήνδ’ ἀνοσίου μιάσματος δίκας τίνοντας τῷδ’ ὃν ἔκτειναν φθόνῳ, καὶ (μηκέτ’ ἰδεῖν) πατρίδ’· οὐ γὰρ εὐσεβὲς μένειν (φονευτὰς ἐν τάφοις νεκρουμένων) Chr. Pat. 1690 (Dionysus probably addressing Cadmus)37 Οὗτος δ’ ἃ μέλλει πήματ’ ἐκπλήσσειν, φράσω, Chr. Pat. 1756 Δεῖ γὰρ σε τὴν φονῶσαν ἐκλιπεῖν πόλιν,

 35 Ἔμπαιγμα does not occur in classical literature. Ὑβρισμάτων would be more appropriate to Euripides; cf. Ba. 779 and Chr. Pat. 2228, above 2.4.10. 36 Cf. Chr. Pat. 1680 αἰχμαῖς ἁλωτοί. 37 I suggest that, after his reference to the other members of the royal family, Dionysus could plausibly address Cadmus, whom the preserved part of his speech concerns. «Οὗτος» may suggest Cadmus’ presence on stage.

Αppendix IV IV.1. Readings of the Text of Christus Patiens Adopted in the Text of Euripides’ Bacchae (asterisks denote the readings transmitted in Christus Patiens and often offering a better meaning of the text of Bacchae1)

*Ba. 20 πρώτην2 Chr. Pat. 1595 cod. A, coni. Cobet: πρῶτον LP et Chr. Pat. cod C: πρῶτος Chr. Pat. codd. plerique. Ba. 46 oὐδαμοῦ P et Chr. Pat. 1571: οὐδαμῶς L. *Ba. 55 λιποῦσαι Chr. Pat. 1602, Tr. et Str. 10.3.13: λιποῦσα LP. Ba. 184 δεῖ Aldina et Chr. Pat. 1154 codd. pauci: δὴ LP: χρὴ fere Chr. Pat. codd. Ba. 248 ἄλλο L et Chr. Pat. 1136: ἄλλον P. Ba. 314 σωφρονεῖν LP cum Chr. Pat. 262: μὴ σωφρονεῖν P2 et Stob. 3.5.1, 4.23.8. Ba. 3163 (= Hipp. 80), om. Stob. 4.23.8, habet Stob. 3.5.1 et Chr. Pat. 264: del. Kirchoff. *Ba. 6554 σὺ Porson e Chr. Pat. 1529: εἶ P et Tr.: γ’ εἶ L. Ba. 684 νῶτ’ Ρ et Tr. et Chr. Pat. 1835: νῶτον L. *Ba. 694 τ’ ἔτ’ ἄζυγες5 Musgrave e Chr. Pat. 1834: τε κἄζυγες LP. *Ba. 776 πρὸς Wecklein e Chr. Pat. 2222, 2244: ἐς Ρ. *Ba. 778 ὑφάπτεται6 Nauck e parte codd. Chr. Pat. 2227: ἐφάπτεται P et Chr. Pat. pars codd. Ba. 1029 τί Ρc et Chr. Pat. 649: τὸ P. *Ba. 1041 τίνι Aldina e Chr. Pat. 653: τίνει Ρ.

 1 The readings are mainly based on the editions by Murray (1913), Dodds (1960), Grégoire (1961), and Diggle (1994). 2 Πρώτην is printed by Diggle (1994) ad loc. 3 This line is probably interpolated from Hipp. 80 and usually cut out by editors following Kirchoff. 4 ‘Clever, clever you are, except in that in which you ought to be clever’, as translated by Seaford (1997) 103; cf. E. Andr. 245. 5 τ’ ἔτι gives emphasis to the participation of all kinds of women: young, old, and maidens still unmarried. 6 Ὑφάπτεται, ‘set on fire from underneath’ and metaph. ‘inflame unperceived’, gives a better sense than ἐφάπτεται: it refers to the concealed insolent violence of the Bacchants. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110764413-006

  Appendix IV *Ba. 1084 ὕλιμος7 Hartung e Chr. Pat. 2260: εὔλειμος P: υλ]ιπος Π7 .8 *Ba. 1091 τρέχουσαι9 Hartung e Chr. Pat. 2015 ποδῶν δράμωσι. συντόνοις δρομήμασι (v.l. ὁρμήμασιν): ἔχουσαι Ρ: δρομήμασι P: δραμήμασι Cobet. 1091‒ 1092 om. Π7, del. Diggle. *Ba. 1096 κραταιβόλους10 Chr. Pat. 667, coni. Heath: κραταβόλους Ρ: κρατιβόλους Π7. *Ba. 1111 χαμαιριφής Murray e parte codd. Chr. Pat. 1430: χαμαὶ ριφεὶς pars codd. Chr. Pat. 1430: χαμαιπετὴς11 Ρ: χαμα[ Π7. Ba. 1112 οἰμώγμασιν P et Chr. Pat. 1431: ωμω[ Π7. Ba. 1113 γὰρ P et Chr. Pat. 1432: δ αρ Π7. Ba. 1118 σέθεν P et Chr. Pat. 2566: o[cos Π7. Ba. 1135 ᾑματωμένη Pc et Chr. Pat. 1473: ἡμαρτ- Puv7. Ba. 1151 δ’ Chr. Pat. 1146 et Orio flor. Eur. 4. : γ’ P. *Ba. 1161 ἐξεπράξατε Chr. Pat. 1050, coni. Scaliger: ἐξεπράξατο Ρ. *Ba. 1213 πηκτῶν Barnes e Chr. Pat. 1263 «... πηκτὰς κλίμακος πρὸς ἐμβάσεις»: πλεκτῶν Ρ. *Ba. 1344 λισσόμεσθα12 Chr. Pat. 2557 codd. pauci, coni. Aldina: λισσόμεθα P et Chr. Pat. codd. plerique. *Ba. 1344 ἠδικήκαμεν Chr. Pat. 2557 cod. unus:13 ἠδικήσαμεν cett. *Ba. 1353 Kirchoff e Chr. Pat. 1700‒1 (ὦ φίλος, ὡς εἰς δεινὰ φῂς ἐλθεῖν κακὰ / πάντας, κἄμ’ αὐτὸν συγγόνους τ’ ἄρδην ἐμούς).

 7 Ὕλιμος, ‘of the forest’, occurs in Euripides Melanippe Desmotis fr. 495.34 Kn. ὑλίμῳ φόβῃ. For ὕλιμος νάπη, ‘woodland vale’, in Ba. 1084, cf. E. Hel. 1303 ὑλάεντα νάπη and Andr. 284 ὑλοκόπον νάπος. 8 Π7 = POxy 2223 (Pack2 386): see Diggle (1994) 288. 9 Ποδῶν τρέχουσαι συντόνοις δραμήμασι printed Dodds (1960) 45, with reference to the supernatural swiftness of the Maenads. Ἔχουσαι cannot be related to ὠκύτητα: cf. Dodds (1960) 214, Seaford (1997) 236. 10 Κραταιβόλος, ‘hurled with violence’, is a hapax: see Chr. Pat. above 2.3.5. Κραταβόλος does not exist and gives no sense 11 Χαμαιπετὴς πίπτει in Ba. 1111‒1112 seems to be an awkward verbal combination, though it also occurs in E. Tr. 507‒508. Cf. Eust. 1279.45 τὸ δὲ χαμαὶ ἐκπεσὸν χαμαιριφὲς λέγεται. 12 The reading -σθα (plural) is usual in Euripides and fits the metre. 13 Tuilier 1969, 334.

Appendix IV  

IV.2 Readings of the Text of Christus Patiens Cited in the Apparatus Criticus of the Editions of Bacchae Ba. 14 θ’ om. L et Chr. Pat. 1588. Ba. 16 ἐπελθὼν LP: ἐπῆλθον Str. 15.1.7: παρελθὼν Chr. Pat. 1590. Ba. 20 πόλιν ] χθόνα Chr. Pat. 1595, coni. Schenkl. Ba. 57 ξυνεμπόρους Ρ: συνεμπόρους L et Chr. Pat. 1603. Ba. 178 κλυὼν West:14 κλύων LP et Chr. Pat. 1148. Ba. 182 del. Dobree,15 cf. 860, om. Chr. Pat. 1152 cuius 1148–1150 ad Ba. 178‒180 respiciunt. Ba. 263 δυσσεβείας Reiske: εὐσεβείας LP: ἀσεβείας Chr. Pat. 191. Ba. 285 διὰ τοῦτον ὥστε Porson: ὡς διὰ τούτου pars codd. Chr. Pat. 569: ὡς διὰ τοῦτο plurimi codd. Chr. Pat. 569. Ba. 390 φρονεῖν LP et Stob 4.16.11: φρονεῖν εὖ gB16 et Chr. Pat. 1803. Ba. 667 θαυμάτων τε κρείσσονα fere LP: τ’ ἐπάξια Chr. Pat. 2213: cf. Ba. [716].17 716 del. Dobree et Diggle. Ba. 712 τὸν νῦν P et Tr.: τόνδε θεὸν ὃν Pierson, τὸν θεὸν τόνδ’ ὃν Diggle (cf. Chr. Pat. 2216 τοῦτον ὃν). Ba. 787 λόγων κλύων: κλύειν λόγων Chr. Pat. 2277. Ba. 1048 ποιηρὸν Aldina: ]ηρον Π5:18 πικρὸν P: χλοηρὸν Chr. Pat. 676. Ba. 1083 ἐστήριζε19 Ρ: εστηρι Π7: ἐστήριξε Chr. Pat. 2259. Ba. 1085 βοὴν Ρ: βρόμον Π7: ψόφον Chr. Pat. 2261. Ba. 1087 κόρας Ρ: κάρα Π7: κάρας Chr. Pat. 673 codd. plurimi: κάραν Chr. Pat. 673 codex unus.20 Ba. 1090 πελείας P: πελείαις Π7: πελειᾶσιν, πελιᾶσιν, πελίσιν codd. Chr. Pat. 2014: πελειῶν Stumpo. Ba. 1147 ᾧ Reiske: ᾗ P et pars codd. Chr. Pat. 1300: εἶ Chr. Pat. pars codd. 1300: εἰς Chr. Pat. 1300 cod. unus.21 Ba. 1152 κτῆμα Orio: χρῆμα P et Chr. Pat. 1147.  14 Thus in Diggle 1994, 299. 15 The verse is deleted by all the main editors (Murray, Dodds, Diggle, Seaford, and Kovacs). 16 Gnomologium: Vaticanus Barberini gr.4: Diggle 1994, 288. 17 v. 716 is deleted by Diggle. In Ba. 667 ἐπάξια conveys a better meaning than in v. 716. It may thus have been originally in v. 667 and at a later date ἐπάξια was altered to κρείσσονα to avoid repetition in a single speech: Dodds 1960, 164‒165. 18 See Diggle 1994, 288. 19 Thus Diggle 1994 in view of the earlier imperfect ἠγόρευε. 20 See Tuilier 1969 ad loc. 21 Tuilier 1969 ad loc.

  Appendix IV Ba. 1162 γόον Canter: γόνον Ρ: στόνον Murray et Dodds: θρῆνον Chr. Pat. 1051. Ba. 1237 ἐς μείζον’ P: εἰς μεῖζον Chr. Pat. 163. Ba. 1355 ἔτι δὲ μοὐστὶ Haupt et Diggle: ἔτι δέ μοι τὸ P: ἔστι γὰρ τὸ Chr. Pat. 1670. Ba. 1368 πατρία Elmsley: πατρῴα P; cf. Chr. Pat. 1706 πατρῴα.

Bibliography Adam, J. (1908), The Religious Teachers of Greece, Edinburgh (repr. 1965, Clifton New Jersey). Adam, J. (19632), The Republic of Plato edited with critical notes, commentary, and appendices, vols. I–II, Cambridge. Adkins, A.W.H. (1960), Merit and Responsibility. A Study in Greek Values, Oxford. Adkins, A.W.H. (1966), “Aristotle and the Best Kind of Tragedy”, CQ 16, 78–102. Adkins, A.W.H. (1970), From the Many to the One. A Study of Personality and Views of Human Nature in the Context of Ancient Greek Society, Values and Beliefs, London. Adkins, A.W.H. (1972), Moral Values and Political Behaviour in Ancient Greece from Homer to the End of the Fifth Century, London. Adrados, F.R. (1975), Festival, Comedy and Tragedy, Leiden. Aélion, R. (1983), Euripide: Héritier d’Eschyle, 2 vols., Paris. Alexiou, M. (1974), The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition, Cambridge. Alexiou, M. (1975), “The Lament of the Virgin in Byzantine and Modern Greek Volk-Song”, BMGS 1, 111–140. Alexopoulou, M. (2013), “Christus Patiens and the Reception of Euripides’ Bacchae in Byzantium”, in: A. Bakogianni (ed.), Dialogues with the Past 1: Classical Reception Theory and Practice (BICS Supplement 126), London, 123–137. Arnott, W.G. (1982), “Off-stage Cries and the Choral Presence. Some Challenges to Theatrical Conventions in Euripides”, Antichton 16, 35–43. Barrett, W.S. (1964), Euripides Hippolytos, edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Baynes, N.H./Moss, H.St.L.B. (2004), Βυζάντιο. Εισαγωγή στον Βυζαντινό Πολιτισμό (μετάφρ. Δ.Ν. Σακκά) (8η έκδ.), Αθήναι. Beazley, J.D. (1928), Greek Vases in Poland, Oxford. Beazley, J.D. (1963), Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, 2nd ed., Oxford (ARV2). Berardi, P. (2021), “Αἰσχυλαριστοφανίζειν: on the Boundaries of an Aescylean Quotation (Aesch. fr. 61 R.)”, in: N. Runo et al. (eds.), The Limits of Exactitude, Berlin/Boston, in press. Berardi, P. (2021a), “Il Muto Profeta delle Muse: Testo e Scena in Aesch. fr. 60 R.”, Lexis 39.1, in press. Bernabé, A./Herrero de Jáuregui, M./Jiménez San Christobal, A.I./Martin Hernandez, R. (2013) (eds.), Redefining Dionysus, Mythos Eikon Poiesis Band 5, Berlin/Boston. Bierl, A.F.H. (1991), Dionysos und die griechische Tragödie: Politische und “metatheatralische” Aspekte im Text, Tübingen. Bordoy, F.C. (2013), “Dionysian Enthusiasm in Plato”, in: A. Bernabé et al. (eds.), Redifining Dionysus, Berlin/Boston, 386–400. Böttiger, K.A. (1850), Kleine Schriften archäologischen und antiquarischen Inhalts, 12, Leipzig. Brambs, J.G. (1885), Christus Patiens. Tragoedia Christiana quae inscribi solet ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΠΑΣΧΩΝ Gregorio Nazianzeno falso attributa, Lipsiae. Bremer, J.M. (1969), Hamartia. Tragic Error in the Poetics of Aristole and in Greek Tragedy, Amsterdam. Breysig, A. (1867), Germanici Caesaris Aratea cum Scholiis, Berlin. Brommer, F. (1944), Satyrspiel, Berlin. Brommer, F. (1960), Zur griechischen Heldensage, 2. verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage, Malburg/Lahn.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110764413-007

  Bibliography Brown, A. (1993), Sophocles Antigone, edited with Translation and Notes, (1987 repr. 1993), Warminster. Bryant Davies, R. (2017), “The Figure of Mary Mother of God in Christus Patiens: Fragmenting Tragic Myth and Passion Narrative in a Byzantine Appropriation of Euripidean Tragedy”, JHS 137, 188–212. Burian, P. (2007), Euripides Helen, with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Oxford. Burkert, W. (1983), Homo Necans. The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Burkert, W. (1985), Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical (transl. by J. Raffan), Oxford. Burkert, W. (2011), “Dionysos – ‘Different’ im Wandel der eiten: Eine Skizze”, in: R. Schlesier (ed.), A Different God? Dionysos and Ancient Polytheism, Berlin, 15–22. Butler, S. (ed.) (2016), Deep Classics: Rethinking Classical Reception, London/New York. Cairns, D.L. (1993), Aidos. The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature, Oxford. Cairns, D.L. (1996), “Hubris, Dishonour and Thinking Big”, JHS 116, 1–32. Cairns, D.L. (2005), “Values”, in: J. Gregory (ed.), A Companion to Greek Tragedy, Oxford, 305– 320. Cantarella, R. (1948), Nuovi Frammenti Escilei di Ossirinco, Napoli. Cantarella, R. (1953), “Anonimo bizantino del sec. XII La Passione di Cristo (traduzione e adattamento scenico)”, Dioniso 16, 188–207. Carpenter, Th.H. (1993), “On the Beardless Dionysus”, in: Carpenter, Th.H./Faraone, Chr. (eds.), Masks of Dionysus, Ithaca/London, 185–206. Carpenter, Th.H. (1997), Dionysiac Imagery in Fifth-Century Athens, Oxford. Cataudella, Q. (1969), “Cronologia e Attribuzione del Christus Patiens”, Dioniso 43, 405–412. Cavalone, M. (1980), “Il travestimento come espediente in Eschilo e in Euripide”, Bolletino dei Classici 3, 93–107. Cazzaniga, I. (1938/1939), “Varia Graeco-Latina II. De Epigrammate quodam Cyrenis Reperto”, Rendiconti Reale Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere 72, 93–106. Christ, W./Paranikas, M. (1871), Anthologia Graeca Carminum Christianorum, Lipsiae. Citti, V. (1994), Eschilo e la Lexis Tragica, Amsterdam. Collard, C. (1975), Euripides Supplices, edited with Introduction and Commentary, 2 vols., Groningen. Collard, C. (1991), Euripides Hecuba with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Warminster. Collard, C. (2005), “Euripidean Fragmentary Plays: the Nature of Sources and their Effect on Reconstruction”, in: F.M. McHardy/J. Robson/D. Harvey (eds.), Lost Dramas of Classical Athens, Exeter, 49–62. Collard, C. (2018), Colloquial Expressions in Greek Tragedy: Revised and Enlarged Edition of P.T. Stevens’s Colloquial Expressions in Euripides. Hermes. Einzelschriften 113, Stuttgart. Collard, C./Cropp, M. (2008), Euripides Fragments. The Loeb Classical Library (Euripides VII LCL 504 and Euripides VIII LCL 506), Cambridge Mass. Comsa, A.-M. (1997), “Le Prométhée Enchaîné et le Christus Patiens”, Kentron 13, 133–138. Cottas, V. (1931), “Le Drame de Grégoire de Nazianze ‘Christos Paschon’”, in: Le Théâtre à Byzance, Paris, 197–249. Cozzoli, A.-T. (2001), Euripide: Cretesi, Pisa/Roma. Craik, E. (1988), Euripides Phoenician Women edited with Translation and Commentary, Warminster.

Bibliography  

Creizenach, W. (1911), Geschichte des neueren Dramas, vol. I, Halle/Saale. Cropp, M.J. (2005), “Lost Tragedies: a Survey”, in: J. Gregory (ed.), A Companion to Greek Tragedy, Malden/Oxford/Victoria, 271–292. Davies, M. (1991), Sophocles Trachiniae, with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. De Romilly, J. (1971), La Loi dans la Pensée Grecque, Paris. Decharme, P. (1966), Euripide et l’Esprit de son Théâtre, (repr. from 1st edition, Paris, 1893), Brussels. Deichgräber, K. (1935), “Die Kadmos-Teiresiasszene in Euripides Bakchen”, Hermes 70, 322– 349. Deichgräber, K. (1938/1939), “Die Lykurgie des Aeschylos. Versuch einer Wiederherstellung der dionystischen Tetralogie”, NGG kl. 1–3, 231–309. Del Grande, C. (1962), ΤΡΑΓῼΔΙΑ, Essenza e Genesi della Tragedia, 2nd ed., Milano/Napoli. Denniston, J.D. (1973), Euripides Electra, edited with Introduction and Commentary repr. (1st ed. 1939), Oxford. Detorakis, Th. (Δετοράκης, Θ.) (1995), Βυζαντινή Φιλολογία. Τα πρόσωπα και τα κείμενα, τόμ. Α΄, Ηράκλειο. Devereux, G. (1973), “Le Fragment d’Eschyle 52 Nauck2. Ce qu’y signifie χλούνης”, REG 86, 271– 284. Di Benedetto, V. (2004), “Eschilo e Dioniso: postille”, Lexis 22, 37–42. Di Berardino, A. (1992), “Cento”, in: A. Di Berardino (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Early Church, 2 vols., New York/Oxford, 158. Di Marco, M. (1982), “Sulle Trophoi di Eschilo”, GIF 13 (34), 83–97. Di Marco, M. (1993), “Dioniso e Orfeo nelle Bassaridi di Eschilo”, in: A. Masaracchia (ed.), Orfeo e l’Orfismo: atti del seminario nazionale (Roma/Perugia 1985–1991), 101–153. Dickey, E. (2007), Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica and Grammatical Treatises from their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period, Oxford. Dieterich, K. (1902), Geschichte der Byzantinischen und Neugriechischen Literatur, Leipzig. Diggle, J. (1970), Euripides Phaethon, edited with Prolegomena and Commentary, Cambridge. Diggle, J. (1987), “The Prophet of Bacchus: Rhesus 970–973”, SIFC 5, 167–172. Diggle, J. (1994), Euripides Fabulae tom. III, Oxford. Diggle, J. (1994a), Euripidea: Collected Essays, Oxford. Diggle, J. (1998), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Selecta, Oxford. Diller, H. (1983), “Euripides Final Phase: the Bacchae”, in: E. Segal (ed.), Oxford Readings in Greek Tragedy, Oxford, 357–369. Dimaras (Δημαράς), A. (2011), Σύγκριση των Βακχῶν τοῦ Εὐριπίδη μὲ τὸν Χριστὸν Πάσχοντα, Μεταπτυχιακή Εργασία, Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης (http://invenio.lib.auth.gr/record/129036). Dimundo, R. (2015), “L’ episodio di Semele nelle ‘Metamorfosi’ di Ovidio: una proposta di lettura”, Lexis 33, 320–341. Dinforf, W. (1832), Aeschyli tragoediae superstites et deperditarum fragmenta, Oxonii. Dodds, E.R. (1940), “Maenadism in the Bacchae”, HTR 33, 155–176. Dodds, E.R. (1960), The Plays of Euripides, Bacchae, edited with Introduction and Commentary, 2nd ed., Oxford. Doering, A. (1864), “De tragoedia Christiana quae inscribitur ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΠΑΣΧΩΝ. Particula I”, Jahresberichte über die Realschule I.O. und das Progymnasium zu Barmen, 1–25. Dölger, F.J. (1948), Die byzantinische Dichtung in der Reinsprache, Berlin.

  Bibliography Dormeyer, D. (2005), “Bakchos in der Apostelgeschichte”, in: R. von Haehling (ed.), Griechische Mythologie und frühes Christentum, Darmstadt, 153–172. Dostálová, R. (1982), “Die byzantinische Theorie des Dramas und die Tragödie Christos Paschon”, JŐB 32/33, 73–82. Dover, K.J. (2000), “Forward Frogments”, in: D. Harvey/J. Wilkins (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes, London, xvii–xix. Droysen, J.G. (1841), Phrynichos, Aischylos und die Trilogie, Kiel. Dübner, F. (1846), Christus Patiens, Ezechieli et Christianorum poetarum reliquiae dramaticae, Paris. Dumortier, J. (1935), Les Images dans la Poésie d’Eschyle, Paris. Dunn, F. (1996), Tragedy’s End: Closure and Innovation in Euripidean Drama, New York/Oxford. Easterling, P.E. (1987), “Women in Tragic Space”, BICS 34, 15–25. Easterling, P.E. (1997), “A Show for Dionysus”, in: P.E. Easterling (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy, Cambridge, 36–53. Elmsley, P. (1821), Euripidis Bacchae, Oxonii, Else, G.F. (1963), Aristotle’s Poetics: The Argument, (2nd printing, 1st edition Leiden 1957), Cambridge Mass. Erbse, H. (1984), Studien zum Prolog der Euripideischen Tragödie, Berlin. Faraone, Chr. (1993), “Introduction”, in: Th.H. Carpenter/Chr. Faraone (eds.), Masks of Dionysus, Ithaca/London, 1–10. Faraone, Chr. (2013), “Gender Differentiation and Role Models in the Worship of Dionysos”, in: A. Bernabé et al. (eds.), Redefining Dionysos, Berlin/Boston, 120–143. Farmer, M.C. (2017), Tragedy on the Comic Stage, Oxford. Farnell, L.R. (20102), The Cults of the Greek States, vols. i–v, Cambridge (1st ed. 1896/1909, Oxford). Ferrari, L. (1982), Il Drammi Perdutti di Eschilo, Palermo. Festugière, A.J. (1956), “La Signification Religieuse de la Parodos des Bacchantes”, Eranos 54, 72–87. Fischer, R.K. (1992), “The Palace-miracles in Euripides’ Bacchae. A Reconsideration”, AJP 113, 179–188. Fishbone, A. (2002), “Christ Suffering: a New Translation”, Milton Quarterly 36.3, 129–192. Follieri, E. (1991/1992), “Ancora una Nota sul Christus Patiens”, BZ 84/85, 343–346. Fraenkel, E. (1962), Aeschylus Agamemnon, edited with a Commentary, 3 vols, (repr., 1st ed. 1950), Oxford. Fraenkel, V. (1978), “ΦΑΝΗΘΙ ΤΑΥΡΟC. Un Elemento Archaico nel Dioniso delle Baccanti”, Acme 31, 93–105. Frazer, J.G. (1976), Apollodorus. The Library with an English Translation, 2 vols., Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge Mass. Fries, A. (2014), Pseudo-Euripides “Rhesus”, Berlin. Friesen, C. (2015), Reading Dionysus: Euripides’ Bacchae and the Cultural Contestations of Greeks, Jews, Romans, and Christians, Tübingen. Funk, R.W. (1998), The Acts of Jesus. The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus, New York. Galiano, M.F. (1961), “Les Papyrus d’Eschyle”, in: L. Amudsen/V. Skanland (eds.), Proceedings of the IXth International Congress of Papyrology, 1958, Oslo, 81–133. Gantz, T. (1980), “The Aeschylean Tetralogy: Attested and Conjectured Groups”, AJP 101, 133– 164. Gantz, T. (1981), “Divine Guilt in Aeschylus”, CQ 31, 18–33.

Bibliography  

Gantz, T. (2007), “The Aeschylean Tetralogy: Attested and Conjectured Groups”, in: M. Lloyd (ed.), Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Aeschylus, Oxford, 40–70. Garvie, A. (2016), “Paradoxes and Themes in Bacchae”, in: D. Studdart (ed.), Looking at Bacchae, London/Oxford/New York, 109–120. Garzya, A. (1984), “Per la Cronologia del Christus Patiens”, Sileno 10, 353–370. Gennadios, P.G. (Γεννάδιος, Π.Γ.) (1959), Phytological Lexicon, vol. A, Athens (in Greek). Germar, R./Krumeich, R. (1999), Lycurgos, Trophoi, in: R. Krumeich/N. Pechstein/B. Seidensticker (eds.), Das griechische Satyrspiel, Texte zur Forschung 72, Darmstadt, 164–168, 197– 202. Gold, B.K. (1977), “Εὐκοσμία in Euripides’ Bacchae”, AJP 98, 3–15. Goward, B. (1999), Telling Tragedy: Narrative Technique in Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, London. Graf, F. (1993), “Dionysiac and Orphic Eschatology: New Texts and Old Questions”, in: Th.H. Carpenter/Chr. Faraone (eds.), Masks of Dionysus, Ithaca/London, 239–258. Green, J.R. (1982), “Dedications of Masks”, Rev. Arch. 2, 237–248. Green, J.R. (1994), Theatre in Ancient Greek Society, London. Green, J.R. (1999), “Tragedy and the Spectacle of the Mind: Messenger Speeches, Actors, Narrative and Audience Imagination in Fourth-Century BCE Vase Paintings”, in: B. Bergmann/C. Kondoleon (eds.), The Art of Ancient Spectacle, Washington, 37–63. Green, J.R./Handley, E.W.H. (1995), Images of the Greek Theatre, London. Grégoire, H. (1961), Euripide. Les Bacchants, Les Belles Lettres, vol. VI, Paris. Griffith, J. (1983), “Myth of Lykourgos, King of the Edonian Thracians in Literature and Art”, in: A.G. Poulter (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria: Papers Presented to the International Symposium of the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, Nottingham, 217–232. Griffith, M. (1983), Aeschylus: Prometheus Bound, Cambridge. Grube, G.M.A. (1973), The Drama of Euripides, (repr., 1st ed. 1941), London. Grumbrecht, H.U. (1997), “Eat your Fragment. About Imagination and the Restitution of Texts”, in: G.W. Most (ed.), Collecting Fragments –Fragmente sammeln, Göttingen, 315–327. Guidorizzi, G. (2020), Euripide. Baccanti, Milano. Guthrie, W.K.C. (1952), Orpheus and Greek Religion, London. Guthrie, W.K.C. (1969), A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. III, Cambridge. Hadjicosti, I.L. (2006), “Hera Transformed on Stage”, Kernos 19, 291–301. Hadjicosti, I.L. (2006a), “Semele and the Death of Actaeon: Aeschylus, fr. 221 (Radt)”, Acta Classica 49, 121–127. Halleran, M.R. (1995), Euripides Hippolytos with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Warminster. Hamilton, C.R.E. (2017), The Function of the Deus ex Machina in Euripidean Drama, Ph.D. Thesis, Ohio State University. Hammond, N.G.L./Moon, W.G. (1978), “Illustrations of Early Tragedy at Athens”, AJA 82.1, 371– 383. Handley, E.W. (1990), “The Bodmer Menander and the Comic Fragments”, in: E.W. Handley/ A. Hurst (eds.), Relire Ménandre, Geneva, 123–148. Hardwick, L. (2003), Reception Studies, Greece and Rome, New Surveys in the Classics No. 33, Oxford. Hardwick, L./Stray, C. (2008), A Companion to Classical Receptions, Oxford. Hartung, J.A. (1855), Aeschylos’ Fragmente. Griechisch mit metrischer Übersetzung und prüfenden und erklärenden Anmerkungen, Leipzig.

  Bibliography Haupt, G. (1896), “Commentationes archaeologicae in Aeschylum” Dissertationes Philologicae Halenses 13, Halis Saxonum. Hedreen, G. (1994), “Silens, Nymphs, and Maenads”, JHS 114, 47–69. Henrichs, A. (1984), “Loss of Self, Suffering, and Violence”, HSCP 88, 205–240. Henrichs, A. (1993), “He has a God in him: Human and Divine in Modern Perception of Dionysus”, in: Th.H. Carpenter/Chr. Faraone (eds.), Masks of Dionysus, Ithaca/London, 13–43. Hermann, G. (19702), “De Aeschyli Lycurgia dissertatio”, Opuscula vol. V, 3–30, Hildesheim/ New York (= Lipsiae 1827–18771). Hernández de la Fuente, D. (2013), “Nonnus’ Dionysiaca and the Parallels between Dionysos and Christ”, in: A. Bernabé et al. (eds.), Redefining Dionysos, Berlin/Boston, 472–487. Hörandner, W. (1988), “Lexikalische Beobachtungen zum Christos Paschon”, in: E. Trapp/ H. Hunger (eds.), Studien zur byzantinischen Lexikographie, Vienna, 183–202. Horna, K. (1929), “Der Verfasser des Christus Patiens”, Hermes 64, 429–431. Hose, M. (2011), Euripides. Der Dichter der Leidenschaften (Greek translation), Athens. Hourmouziades, N.C. (Χουρμουζιάδης, Ν.) (1984), Satyrica, Athens (2nd ed.) (in Greek). Hunger, H. (1969/1970), “On the Imitation (Μίμησις) of Antiquity in Byzantine Literature”, DOP 23/24, 17–38. Hunger, H. (2007), Die hohchsprachlicle profane Literatur der Byzantiner, vol. B (Greek translation, repr., 1st ed. 1992), Athens. Hutchinson, G.O. (2001), Aeschylus Seven Against Thebes, edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford, (repr., 1st ed. 1985). Huxley, G.L. (1969), Greek Epic Poetry: from Eumelus to Panyassis, Cambridge. Jaccottet, A.F. (1990), “La terre de la liberté”, ZPE 80, 150–156. Jaccottet, A.F. (2003), Choisir Dionysos. Les Associations Dionysiaques ou la Face Cachée du Dionysisme, vol. I–II, Zürich. Jameson, M. (1993), “The Asexuality of Dionysus”, in: Th.H. Carpenter/Chr. Faraone (eds.), Masks of Dionysus, Ithaca/London, 44–64. Jauss, H.R. (1982), Towards an Aesthetic of Reception, transl. by T. Behti, Minneapolis. Jeanmaire, H. (1951), Dionysos: Histoire du culte de Bacchus, Paris. Jouan, F. (1992), “Dionysos chez Eschyle”, Kernos 5, 71–86. Kamerbeek, J.C. (1948), “On the Conception of θεομάχος in Relation to Greek Tragedy”, Mnemosyne Fourth Series 1, 271–283. Kannicht, R. (1957), “Zu Aesch. Fr. 23 und Trag. Adesp. Fr. 144 N2”, Hermes 85, 285–291. Kannicht, R. (1969), Euripides Helena, 2 vols., Heidelberg. Kannicht, R. (1997), “TrGF V: Euripides”, in: G.W. Most (ed.), Collecting Fragments, Göttingen, 67–77. Käppel, L. (1992), Paian, Studien zur Geschichte einer Gattung, Berlin. Karamanou, I. (2019), Refiguring Tragedy. Studies in Plays Preserved in Fragments and their Reception, Berlin/Boston. Kassel, R. (1966), “Kritische und exegetische Kleinigkeiten II”, RhM 109, 1–12. Kazhdan, A.P. (ed.) (1991), The Oxford Dictionnary of Byzantium, New York/Oxford. Kerényi, C. (1976), Dionysos. Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life (transl. from the German by R. Manheim), London. Kerferd, G. (1981), The Sophistic Movement, Cambridge. Kern, O. (1920), Orpheus, eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Berlin. Kern, O. (1972), Orphicorum Fragmenta, Zürich (1st ed. 1922, Berlin). Kirchoff, A. (1853), “Ein Supplement zu Euripides’ Bacchen”, Philologus 8, 78–93.

Bibliography  

Kittel, G./Friedrich, G. (1971), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VII, Michigan. Knox, B.M.W. (1972), “Aeschylus and the Third Actor”, AJP 93, 104–124. Knox, B.M.W. (1985), “Euripides”, in: P.E. Easterling/B.M.W. Knox (eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, Cambridge, 316–339. Kouremenos, T./Parássoglou, G.M./Tsantsanoglou, K. (2006), The Derveni Papyrus, Florence. Kovacs, D. (1991), “Notes on the Bacchae”, CQ 41, 340–345. Kovacs, D. (1999), Euripides IV, Trojan Women, Iphigenia among the Taurians, Ion, Loeb Classical Library 10, Cambridge Mass./London. Kovacs, D. (2002), Euripides VI, Bacchae, Iphigeneia at Aulis, Rhesus, Loeb Classical Library 495, Cambridge Mass./London. Kovacs, D. (2005), Euripides II, Children of Heracles, Hippolytus, Andromache, Hecuba, Loeb Classical Library 484, (repr. 1st ed. 1995), Cambridge Mass./London. Kranz, W. (1933), Stasimon. Untersuchungen zu Form und Gehalt der griechischen Tragödie, Berlin. Kraus, C.S. (2002), “Introduction: Reading Commentaries/Commentaries as Reading”, in: R.K. Gibson/C.S. Kraus (eds.), The Classical Commentary: Histories, Practices, Theory, Leiden/ Boston/Cologne, 1–27. Kraus, C.S./Stray, C.A. (2016), “Form and Content”, in: C.S. Kraus/C.A. Stray (eds.), Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre, Oxford, 1–18. Krumbacher, K. (1897), Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 2nd ed., Munich. Krumeich, R./Pechstein, N./Seidensticker, B. (1999), Das griechische Satyrspiel, Darmstadt. Lacore, M. (2002), “Le corps du Christ dans le Christos Paschôn: imaginaire tragique et imaginaire chrétien”, Kentron 18, 93–115. Lada-Richards, I. (1999), Initiating Dionysus, Oxford. Lammers, J. (1931), Die Doppel– und Halbchöre in der antiken Tragödie, Paderborn. Lämmle, R. (2013), Poetic des Satyrspiels, Heidelberg. Lasserre, F. (1949), “Les Xantriai d’Eschyle (P. Oxy. 2164)”, MH 6, 140–156. Latte, K. (1948), “De nonnullis papyris Oxyrrhynchiis. II. De tragoedia quadam Aeschylea (P. Ox. 2164)”, Philologus 97, 47–56. Leigh, M. (2010), “Lucan’s Caesar and the Sacred Gove”, in: C. Tesoniero (ed.), Oxford Readings in Lucan, Oxford, 201–233. Lesky, A. (1965), Greek Tragedy, transl. by H.A. Frankfort, London. Lesky, A. (19723), Die tragische Dichtung der Hellenen, Göttingen. Levi, L. (1908), “Intorno al drama satirico”, RSA 12, 230–243. Levi, L. (1909), “Il Licurgo di Eschilo”, A&R 12, 241–247. Liapis, V. (2012), A Commentary on the Rhesus Attributed to Euripides, Oxford. Librán Moreno, M. (2002), “La σκηνή en los Fragmentos Trágicos Anteriores a la Orestia”, Myrtia 17, 57–85. Linforth, I.M. (1931), “Two Notes of the Legend of Orpheus”, TAPA 62, 5–17. Lloyd-Jones, H. (1957), “Aeschylus. The Appendix”, in: H. Weir-Smyth (ed.), Aeschylus, London/ Cambridge Mass., 525–603. Lloyd-Jones, H. (1970), The Eumenides of Aeschylus, a Translation with Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Lobel, E. (1941), “The Xantriae of Aeschylus”, P. Oxy. XVIII, 27–29. Lossky, V. (1973), The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Cambridge/London. Lucas, D.H. (1968), Aristotle’s Poetics. Introduction, Commentary and Appendices, Oxford. Maas, E. (1898), Commentatiorum in Aratum Reliquiae, Berlin.

  Bibliography Mango, C. (1981), “Daily Life in Byzantium”, JŐB 31, 337–354. Mantziou, M.G. (Μάντζιου, Μ.Γ.) (1974), “Συμβολή στη μελέτη της χριστιανικής τραγωδίας Χριστός Πάσχων”, Δωδώνη 3, 351–370. Markantonatos, A./Zimmermann, B. (eds.) (2012), Crisis on Stage. Tragedy and Comedy in Late Fifth-Century Athens, Berlin/Boston. Marsh, J. (1989), “Euripides Bacchae. A Reconsideration in the Light of the Vase-paintings”, BICS 36, 33–65. Martindale, C. (1993), Redeeming the Text: The Latin Poetry and the Hermeneutics of Reception, Cambridge. Martindale, C. (2006), “Introduction: Thinking through Reception”, in: C. Martindale/R.F. Thomas (eds.), Classics and the Uses of Reception, Oxford/Malden/Victoria, 1–13. Martindale, C./Thomas, R.F. (eds.) (2006), Classics and the Uses of Reception, Oxford/ Malden/Victoria, Mastronarde, D.J. (2009), “The Lost Phoenissae: An Experiment in Reconstruction from Fragments”, in: J.R.C. Cousland/J.R. Hume (eds.), The Play of Texts and Fragments. Essays in Honour of Martin Cropp, Leiden/Boston, 63–76. Mette, H.J. (1959), Die Fragmente der Tragödien des Aischylos, Berlin. Mette, H.J. (1963), Der verlorene Aischylos, Berlin. Mette, H.J. (1964), “Die römische Tragödie und die Neufunde zur griechishen Tragödie”, Lustrum 9, 5–211. Meurs, I. (1619), Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides. Sive de tragoediis eorum libri III, Lugduni Batavorum. Meyendorff, J. (1959), Introduction à l’étude de Grégoire Palamas, Patristica Sorbonensia No. 3, Paris. Meyendorff, J. (1976), Saint Grégoire Palamas et la Mystique Orthodoxe, Paris. Mills, S. (2006), Euripides: Bacchae, London. Miralles, C./Citti, V./Lomiento, L. (2019), Eschilo. Supplici (edizione critica, traduzione e commento), Roma. Mitsakis, K. (Μητσάκης, Κ.) (1983), Το εμψυχούν ύδωρ. Μελέτες μεσαιωνικής και νεοελληνικής φιλολογίας, Αθήνα. Mitsakis, K. (Μητσάκης, Κ.) (1986), “Κοντάκιο και θρησκευτικό θέατρο”, in: Κ. Μητσάκης (ed.), Βυζαντινή Υμνογραφία, Αθήνα (1st ed. Αθήνα 1971), 330–353. Moles, J. (2006), “Jesus and Dionysus in the Acts of the Apostles and Early Christianity”, Hermathena 180, 65–104. Momigliano, A. (1932), “Un Termine postquem per il Christus Patiens”, SIFC N.S. 10, 47–51. Montanari, F. (2017), “Klytaimnestra in the Odyssey and Aeschylus’ Agamemnon”, in: A. Fountoulakis/A. Markantonatos/G. Vasilaros (eds.), Theatre World. Critical Perspectives on Greek Tragedy and Comedy (Trends in Classics Suppl. Volumes, Vol. 45), Berlin/Boston, 121–136. Most, G.W. (1997), “Preface”, in: G.W. Most (ed.), Collecting Fragments, Göttingen, v–viii. Most, G.W. (2009), “On Fragments”, in: W. Tronzo (ed.), The Fragment: An Incomplete History, Los Angeles, 9–20. Mureddu, P. (1992), “Senofonte di Lampsaco e gli Edoni di Eschilo”, Eikasmos 3, 105–108. Mureddu, P. (1994), “Le lunghe gambe di Dioniso (Aesch. fr. 62 R)”, Eikasmos 5, 81–88. Mureddu, P. (2000), “Note Dionisiache: Osservazioni sulle Baccanti di Euripide e sugli Edonoi di Eschilo”, Lexis 18, 117–125.

Bibliography  

Murray, A.T. (1924), Homer Iliad. Books 1–12, revised by W.F. Wyatt, Loeb Classical Library 170, Cambridge Mass. Murray, G. (1913), Euripides Fabulae, Tomus III, 2nd ed. (repr. 1975), Oxford. Murray, G. (1940), Aeschylus. The Creator of Tragedy, Oxford. Nauck, A. (1964), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Supplementum Adiecit Bruno Snell, 2nd ed., Hildesheim. Nikolaidou-Arabatzi, S. (2006), Euripides’ Bacchae. Introduction, Translation, Commentary (in Greek), Thessaloniki. Nikolaidou-Arabatzi, S. (2010), The Lycurgeia Tetralogy of Aeschylus. An Attempt of Reconstruction (in Greek), Athens. Nilsson, M.P. (1935), “Early Orphism and Kindred Religious Movements”, HTR 28, 181–230. Nilsson, M.P. (1955), “Sur un Drame d’Eschyle et la Quête dans le Culte Grecque”, ACl 24, 336– 340. North, H. (1966), Sophrosyne. Self-Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Literature, Ithaca/ New York. Obbink, D. (1993), “Dionysus Poured out: Ancient and Modern Theories of Sacrifice and Cultural Formation”, in: Th.H. Carpenter/Chr. Faraone (eds.), Masks of Dionysus, Ithaca/London, 65–86. Olivieri, A. (1897), Mythographi Graeci, vol. III fasc. I: Pseudo–Eratosthenis Catasterismi (Bibl. Teubn.), Leipzig. Oranje, H. (1984), Euripides’ Bacchae: the Play and its Audience, Mnemosyne Suppl. 78, Leiden. Otto, W.F. (1965), Dionysus: Myth and Cult. Transl. of Otto’s 1933 edition by R.B. Palmer, Bloomington, Ind./London. Page, D.L. (1950), Select Papyri. III. Literary Papyri Poetry, Cambridge Mass./London. Palumbo, B.M. (1966a), “Eschilo, fr. 23 N.2”, RIFC 94, 407–413. Palumbo, B.M. (1966b), “Un Frammento delle Bassaridi di Eschilo”, RCCM 8, 205–209. Parke, H.W./Wormell, D.E.W. (1956), The Delphic Oracle, vol. I, Oxford. Parker L.P.E. (2007), Euripides Alcestis, Oxford. Pechstein, N. (1998), Euripides Satyrographos. Ein Kommentar zu den euripideischen Satyrspielfragmenten, Stuttgart/Leipzig. Philippart, H. (1930), “Iconographie des Bacchants d’Euripide”, RBPH 9, 4–72. Podlecki, A.J. (2005), “Aiskhylos Satyrikos”, in: G.W.M. Harrison (ed.), Satyr Drama: Tragedy at Play, Swansea, 1–19. Poehlmann, E. (2020), “New Arguments for a Skene Building in Early Greek Tragedy: Second Thoughts”, Logeion 10, 125–159. Pollmann, K. (1997), “Jesus Christus und Dionysos. Űberlegungen zu dem Euripides-Cento Christus Patiens”, JŐB 47, 87–106. Pollmann, K. (2017), “Jesus Christ and Dionysus. Rewriting Euripides in the Byzantine Cento Christus Patiens”, in: K. Pollmann, The Baptized Muse: Early Christian Poetry as Cultural Authority, Oxford, 140–160. Pontani, F. (2006), “Homer, the Bible and Beyond: a Note on Chr. Pat. 83–87”, CQ 56, 661–664. Privitera, G.A. (1970), Dioniso in Omero e nella Poesia Greca Archaica, Roma. Privitera, I. (2002), “L’ Agamennone di Eschilo in Christus Patiens”, SCO 48, 415–416. Puchner, W. (1992), “Theaterwissenschaftliche und andere Anmerkungen zum “Christus Patiens””, Anzeiger der phil.–hist. Klasse der Ősterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 129, 93–143. Puchner, W. (1995), Ανιχνεύοντας τη θεατρική παράδοση, Aθήνα.

  Bibliography Puchner, W. (2002), “Acting in the Byzantine Theatre: Evidence and Problems”, in: P. Easterling/E. Hall (eds.), Greek and Roman Actors. Aspects of an Ancient Profession, Cambridge, 304–324. Puchner, W. (2017), Greek Theatre between Antiquity and Independence. A History of Reinvention from the Third Century B.C. to 1830, Cambridge. Rademaker, A. (2005), Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self-Restraint. Polysemy and Persuasive Use of an Ancient Greek Value Term, Leiden/Boston. Radt, S. (1999), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. ΙV Sophocles, Editio Correctior et Addendis Aucta, Göttingen. Radt, S. (2008), Strabons Geographika. Band 7: Buch IX–XIII: Kommentar, Göttingen. Radt, S. (2009), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. III Aeschylus, (2nd ed. revised and with addenda in vol. IV: Sophocles), Göttingen. Rau, P. (1967), Paratragodia. Untersuchung einer komischen Form des Aristophanes, München. Rehm, A. (1899), Ps.-Eratosthenes Catasterismorum Fragmenta Vaticana, Ansbach. Ribbeck, O. (1875), Die römische Tragödie im Zeitalter der Republik, Leipzig. Ribbeck, O. (1897), Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, tertiis curis, Lipsiae. Richardson, N.J. (1974), The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Oxford. Robert, C. (1899), “Die Schlusscene der euripideischen Bakchen”, Hermes 34, 645–649. Rosenmeyer, T.G. (1982), The Art of Aeschylus, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. Rosenmeyer, T.G. (1983), “Tragedy and Religion: the Bacchae”, in: E. Segal (ed.), Oxford Readings in Greek Tragedy, Oxford, 370–389. Rosenquist, J.O. (2008), Die byzantinische Literatur von 6. Jahrhundert bis zum Foll Konstantinopels 1453, Berlin/New York 2007 (Greek translation). Rouse, W.H.D. (1962), Nonnos Dionysiaca II, with an English Translation, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge Mass. Roux, J. (1970–1972), Euripide: Les Bacchants, vol. I–II, Paris. Russell, D.A. (19702), ‘Longinus’ On the Sublime, edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford (1st ed. 1964). Russell, D.A./Winterbottom, M. (1972), Classical Literary Criticism, Oxford. Sakkalis, I. (1977), Γρηγορίου Θεολόγου, Άπαντα τα έργα, vol. 8,1. Ο Χριστός Πάσχων (Έλληνες Πατέρες της Εκκλησίας 24), Θεσσαλονίκη. Sandnes, K.O. (2011), The Gospel ‘According to Homer and Virgil’: Cento and Canon, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 138, Leiden. Sandys, J.E. (1892), The Bacchae of Euripides with Critical Explanatory Notes, Cambridge. Sathas, K. (Σάθας, Κ.) (1878), Ιστορικόν δοκίμιον περί του θεάτρου και της μουσικής των Βυζαντινών, ήτοι Εισαγωγή εις το Κρητικόν Θέατρον, Βενετία (repr. Αθήνα 1979). Schäfer, J. (2010), “Zur Funktion der Dionysosmysterien in der Apostelgeschichte: Eine intertextuelle Betrachtung der Berufungs– und Befreiungserzählungen in der Apostelgeschichte und der Bakchen des Euripides”, ThZ 66, 199–222. Scheurer, S./Bielfeldt, R. (1999), “Dionysiskos”, in: R. Krumeich/N. Pechstein/B. Seidensticker (eds.), Das griechische Satyrspiel, Texte zur Forschung 72, Darmstadt, 250–258. Schlesier, R. (1993), “Mixtures of Masks: Maenads as Tragic Models”, in: Th.H. Carpenter/Chr. Faraone (eds.), Masks of Dionysus, Ithaca/London, 89–114. Schlesier, R./Schwarzmeier, A. (eds.) (2008), Dionysos. Verhandlung und Ekstase, Antikensammlung, Stattliche Museen, Berlin. Schmidt, H.W. (1971), “Die Struktur des Eingangs”, in: W. Jens (ed.), Die Bauformen der Tragödie, München, 1–46.

Bibliography  

Schwart, G. (1990), “The Christus Patiens and Romanos the Melodist: some Considerations on Dependence and Dating”, Acta Classica 33, 53–64. Seaford, R. (1977/1978), “The Hyporhema of Pratinas”, Maia 29, 81–94. Seaford, R. (1981), “Dionysiac Drama and the Dionysiac Mysteries”, CQ 31, 252–275. Seaford, R. (1984), Euripides’ Cyclops, Oxford. Seaford, R. (1984a), “I Corinthians 13.12”, JTS 35, 117–120. Seaford, R. (1993), “Dionysos as Destroyer of the Household: Homer, Tragedy and the Polis”, in: Th.H. Carpenter/Chr. Faraone (eds.), Masks of Dionysus, Ithaca/London, 115–146. Seaford, R. (1994), Reciprocity and Ritual. Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State, Oxford. Seaford, R. (1997), Euripides’ Bacchae with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, (repr. with corrections), Warminster. Seaford, R. (1997a), “Thunder, Lightning and Earthquake in the Bacchae and the Acts of the Apostles”, in: A.B. Lloyd (ed.), What is a God?, London, 139–151. Seaford, R. (2005), “Mystic Light in Aeschylus’ Bassarae”, CQ 55, 602–606. Seaford, R. (2006), Dionysos, Oxford. Seaford, R. (2016), “Mysteries and Politics in Bacchae”, in: D. Stuttard (ed.), Looking at Bacchae, London/New York, 83–90. Séchan, L. (1926), Études sur la Tragédie Grecque dans ses Rapports avec la Céramique, Paris. Segal, Ch. (1982), Dionysiac Poetics and Euripides’ Bacchae, Princeton. Segal, Ch. (1999 /2000), “Lament and Recognition: a Reconsideration of the Ending of the Bacchae”, in: M. Cropp/K.H. Lee/D. Sansone (eds.), Euripides and Tragic Theatre in the Late Fifth Century, Illinois Classical Studies 24/25, 273–291. Segal, Ch. (2001), Euripides Bakkhai, translated by R. Gibbons with Introduction and Notes by Ch. Segal, Oxford. Seidensticker, B. (1979), “Sacrificial Ritual in the Bacchae”, in: G.W. Bowersock/W. Burkert/ M. Putnam (eds.), Arktouros, Hellenic Studies Represented to B.M.W. Knox, Berlin/New York, 181–190. Shorrock, R. (2013), The Myth of Paganism: Nonnus, Dionysus and the World of Late Antiquity, London/New Delhi/New York/Sydney. Simon, E. (1982), “Satyr-plays on Vases in the Time of Aeschylus”, in: D. Kurz/D. Sparkes (eds.), The Eye of Greece. Studies in the Art of Athens, Cambridge, 123–148. Simon, E. (1997), “Silenoi”, LIMC 8,1, 1107–1133. Snell, B. (1931), “Sapphos Gedicht Φαίνεταί μοι κῆνος”, Hermes 66, 71–90. Snell, B. (1964), Scenes from Greek Drama, Berkeley/Los Angeles. Snell, B./Kannicht, R. (1986), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (TrGF) vol. I, Göttingen. Somers, V. (2010), “Eschyle dans le Christus Patiens”, Lexis 28, 171–184. Sommerstein, A.H. (1989), Aeschylus’ Eumenides, Cambridge. Sommerstein, A.H. (2003), “Introduction”, in: A.H. Sommerstein (ed.), Shards from Kolonos: Studies in Sophoclean Fragments, Bari, 15–20. Sommerstein, A.H. (2008), Aeschylus Fragments, edited and translated, Loeb Classical Library 505, Cambridge Mass./London. Sommerstein, A.H. (2008a), Aeschylus. Persians, Seven against Thebes, Suppliants, Prometheus Bound, Loeb Classical Library 145, Cambridge Mass./London. Sommerstein, A.H. (2008b), Aeschylus Oresteia, Loeb Classical Library 146, Cambridge Mass./London. Sommerstein, A.H. (2010), “Notes on Aeschylean Fragments”, Prometheus 36, 193–202.

  Bibliography Sommerstein, A.H. (2010a), “The Titles of Greek Dramas”, in: A.H. Sommerstein (ed.), The Tangled Ways of Zeus and other Studies in and around Greek Tragedy, Oxford, 11–29. Sommerstein, A.H. (2013), “Aeschylus’ Semele and its Companion Plays”, in: G. Bestanini/ A. Casanova (eds.), I Papyri di Eschilo e di Sofocle, Florence, 81–94. Sommerstein, A.H. (2016), “Bacchae and Earlier Tragedy”, in: D. Stuttard (ed.), Looking at Bacchae, London, 29–41. Sommerstein, A.H. (2019), Aeschylus. Suppliants, Cambridge. Sourvinou-Inwood, Ch. (1989), “The Fourth Stasimon of Sophocles’ Antigone”, BICS 36, 141– 163. Sourvinou-Inwood, Ch. (1994), “Something to do with Athens: Tragedy and Ritual”, in: R. Osborne/S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, Finance, Politics, Festschr. D.M. Lewis, Oxford, 269– 289. Spidlik, T. (2002), La Preghiera Secondo la Tradizione dell’ Orient Cristiano, Roma. Spira, A. (1960), Untersuchungen zum Deus ex Machina bei Sophokles und Euripides, Frankfurt. Stanley, T.H. (1663), Aeschyli tragoediae septem: cum scholiis Graecis omnibus; deperditorum dramatum fragmentis, Londini. Stavrou, Th. (Σταύρου, Θ.) (1973), Αγνώστου ποιητή. Τα Πάθη του Χριστού (Χριστός Πάσχων): Βυζαντινή χριστιανική τραγωδία. Έμμετρη μετάφραση, Αθήναι. Steffen, W. (1975), “Quaestiunculae satyricae”, Eos 63, 5–13. Steiner, G. (1961), The Death of Tragedy, London. Steiner, G. (2004), “’Tragedy’ Reconsidered”, New Literary History 35, 1–15. Stephens, S. (2002), “Commenting on Fragments”, in: R.K. Gibson/C.S. Kraus (eds.), The Classical Commentary: Histories, Practices, Theory, Leiden/Boston/Cologne, 67–88. Stevens, P.T. (1971), Euripides Andromache, edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Stevens, P.T. (1976), “Colloquial Expressions in Euripides”, Hermes Einzelschrift 38. Stevens, P.T. (1977), Colloquial Expressions in Euripides, Wiesbaden. Sticca, S. (1974), “The Christos Paschon and the Byzantine Theater”, Comparative Drama 8, 13–44. Stinton, T.C.W. (1975), “Hamartia in Aristotle and Greek Tragedy”, CQ 25, 221–254. Sutton, D.F. (1971), “Aeschylos Edonians”, in: Fons Perennis (Mél. V. D’ Agostino), Torino, 387– 407. Sutton, D.F. (1974), “A Handlist of Satyr Plays”, HSCP 78, 107–143. Sutton, D.F. (1975), “A Series of Vases Illustrating the Madness of Lycurgus”, RSC 23, 356–360. Symes, C. (2010), “The Tragedy of the Middle Ages”, in: I. Gildenhard/M. Revermann (eds.), Beyond the Fifth Century: Interactions with Greek Tragedy from the Fourth Century BCE to the Middle Ages, Berlin, 335–369. Taplin, O. (1972), “Aeschylean Silences and Silences in Aeschylus”, HSCP 76, 57–97. Taplin, O. (1977), The Stagecraft of Aeschylus, Oxford. Taplin, O. (2007), Pots and Plays. Interaction between Tragedy and Greek Vase-painting of the Fourth Century B.C., Los Angeles. Theodoridis, Ch. (1975), “Ein neues Fragment des Aischylos”, ZPE 19, 180–182. Tosi, R. (1988), Studi sulla Tradizione Indiretta dei Classici Greci, Bologna. Totaro, P. (1996), Rev. of Citti 1994, Sileno 22, 414–418. Totaro, P. (2017), “Eschilo, P.Oxy. 2164, fr.1, 16–17”, in: F. Conti Bizzaro/G. Massimila/G. Matino (eds.), Philoi logoi. Giornate di studio su Antico, Tardoantico e Bizantino dedicate a Ugo Criscuolo, Napoli, 17–33.

Bibliography  

Totaro, P. (2017a), “Riprese eschilee nel Christus Patiens”, Vetera Christianorum 54, 243–255. Trisoglio, F. (1974), “Il Christus Patiens: Rassegna delle Attribuzioni”, RSC 22, 351–423. Trisoglio, F. (1996), Il Gregorio di Nazianzo e il Christus Patiens. Il problema dell’ autenticità gregoriana del drama, Turin. Trisoglio, F. (1996a), San Gregorio di Nazianzo e il Christus Patiens, Florence. Trypanis, K. (1981), Greek Poetry from Homer to Seferis, London/Boston. Tsagalis, C. (2017), Early Epic Fragments, vol. 1: Antiquarian and Geneological Epic, Berlin/ Boston. Tsagalis, Ch.C. (2007), “Ἀνδρομάχη μαινομένη: The Dionysiac Element in the Iliad”, in: Ch.C. Tsagalis, The Oral Palimpsest. Exploring Intertextuality in the Homeric Epics, Cambridge Mass./London, 1–29. Tuilier, A. (1969), Grégoire de Nazianze, La Passion du Christ, Tragédie, Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction, Notes et Index, Paris. Turyn, A. (1957), The Byzantine Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Euripides, Urbana IL. Valckenaer, L.C. (1767), Diatribe in Euripidis perditorum dramatum reliquias, Lugduni Bat. Valente, S. (2015), The Antiattici, Introduction and Critical Edition, Berlin/Boston. van Looy, H. (2000), Euripide, Les Belles Lettres (Euripide Tome VIII 2e partie), Paris. van Looy, H. (2002), Euripide, Les Belles Lettres (Euripide Tome VIII 3e partie), Paris. Versnel, H.S. (1990), Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion. I: Ter Unus: Isis, Dionysos, Hermes: Three Studies in Heotheism, Leiden. Versnel, H.S. (2011), “Heis Dionysos! – One Dionysos? A Polytheistic Perspective”, in: R. Schlesier (ed.), Different God? Dionysos and Ancient Polytheism, Berlin, 23–46. Verweyen, Th./Witting, G. (1991), “The Cento: a Form of Intertextuality from Montage to Parody”, in: H.F. Plett (ed.), Intertextuality, Berlin, 165–178. Vicaire, P. (1968), “Place et Figure de Dionysos dans la Tragédie de Sophocle”, REG 81, 356– 358. Vysoký, Z. (1960), “Aischylova Lykourgeia”, Listy Filologické NS 8, 45–57, 199–216. Wagner, F.G. (1852), Aeschyli et Sophoclis perditorum fabularum fragmenta, Vratislava. Waller, G. (2019), “Complicity, Recognition and Conversion in the Christus Patiens Drama”, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 49, 33–55. Ware, K. (2001), “Silence in Prayer: the Meaning of Hesychia”, in: K. Ware (ed.), The Inner Kingdom vol. 1, New York. Warmington, E.H. (1936), Remains of Old Latin, newly edited and translated, vol. II, Loeb Classical Library, London/Cambridge Mass. Wartelle, A. (1971), Histoire du texte d’Eschyle dans l’Antiquité, Paris. Webster, T.B.L. (1950), “Review of Satyrspiel by Brommer”, JHS 70, 85–86. Wecklein, N./Ζωμαρίδης, Ε. (1896), Αἰσχύλου δράματα σωζόμενα καὶ ἀπολωλότων ἀποσπάσματα, Ἀθῆναι. Welcker, F.G. (1824), Die Aeschylische Trilogie Prometheus und die Kabirenweihe zu Lemnos nebst Winken über die Trilogie des Aeschylus überhaupt, Darmstadt. Welcker, F.G. (1826), Nachtrag zu der Schrift über die Aeschylische Trilogie nebst einer Abhandlung über das Satyrspiel, Frankfurt a.M. West, M.L. (1983), “Tragica VI”, BICS 30, 63–82. West, M.L. (1990), Studies in Aeschylus, Stuttgart. White, A. (2010), “Adventures in Recording Technology: Drama-as-performance in the Greek East”, in: I. Gildenhard/M. Revermann (eds.), Beyond the Fifth Century: Interactions with Greek Tragedy from the Fourth Century BCE to the Middle Ages, Berlin, 371–396.

  Bibliography White, J.W. (1914), The Scholia on the Aves of Aristophanes, with an Introduction on the Origin, Development, Transmission, and Extant Sources of the Old Greek Commentary on his Comedies, Boston. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff von, U. (1921), Griechische Verskunst, Berlin. Williams, R. (2016), The Tragic Imagination, Oxford. Willink, C.W. (1966), “Some Problems of Text and Interpretation in the Bacchae”, CQ 16, 27–50. Wilson, N.G. (1996), Scholars in Byzantium, (rev. edition), London. Wilson, N.G. (2007), Aristophanis Fabulae, tom. II, Oxford. Winnington-Ingram, R.P. (1969), Euripides and Dionysus. An Interpretation of the Bacchae (repr. of the 1948 edition), Amsterdam. Winnington-Ingram, R.P. (1980), Sophocles. An Interpretation, Cambridge. Winnington-Ingram, R.P. (1985), “Aeschylus”, in: P.E. Easterling/B.M.W. Knox (eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. I. Greek Literature, Cambridge, 281–295. Wright, M. (2016), The Lost Plays of Greek Tragedy, Vol. I: Neglected Authors, London/New York. Xanthakis-Karamanos, G. (1980), Studies in Fourth-Century Tragedy, Athens. Xanthakis-Karamanos, G. (2004), Dramatica. Studies in Classical and Post-Classical Dramatic Poetry (2nd ed.), Athens, 313–328 (= “The Daphnis or Lityerses of Sositheus”, ACl 63 (1994) 237–250). Xanthakis-Karamanos, G. (2005), “Aeshylus’ Edonoi: Remarks on Style and Theme”, in: Actas del XI Congreso Espaňol de studios Clásicos, Madrid, 553–563. Xanthaki-Karamanou, G. (2012), “The Dionysiac Plays of Aeschylus and Euripides’ Bacchae: Reaffirming Traditional Cult in Late Fifth Century”, in: A. Markantonatos/B. Zimmermann (eds.), Crisis on Stage, Berlin/Boston, 323–342. Xanthaki-Karamanou, G. (Ξανθάκη-Καραμάνου, Γ.) (2014), “Χριστός Πάσχων: Πρόσληψη από «Παθητικές» τραγωδίες του Ευριπίδη”, in: Γ. Ξανθάκη-Καραμάνου (ed.), Η Πρόσληψη της Αρχαιότητας στο Βυζάντιο, κυρίως κατά τους Παλαιολόγειους χρόνους, Αθήνα, 175–245. Xanthaki-Karamanou, G. (2017), “Dramatic Debates in Post-classical Tragedy: Additional Remarks”, in: M.Q. Sagredo/M.C.E. Reguero (eds.), Connecting Rhetoric and Attic Drama, Bari, 213–240. Xanthaki-Karamanou, G. (2020), Style, Performance and Beyond. Collected Papers in Classical Scholarship, Athens. Xanthaki-Karamanou, G. (2020a), “Euripides’ Reception of the Aeschylean Lycurgeia in the Bacchae: Themes and Concepts”, in: A. Rengakos/P. Finglass/B. Zimmermann (eds.), More than Homer Knew – Studies on Homer and his Ancient Commentators, Berlin/Boston, 463–484. Xanthaki-Karamanou, G. (2021), “Reception of Euripidean Concepts and Conventions in the Narrative and Dramatic Techniques of the Byzantine Drama Christus Patiens”, in: M. Carmen Encinas Reguero/J. Bilbao Ruiz (eds.), Θέατρον και Ζωἠ. Estudios de Teatro Griego en Honor de la Profesora Milagros Quijada Sagredo, Madrid, 287–307. Xenis, G.A. (2018), Scholia Vetera in Sophoclis Oedipum Coloneum, Berlin/Boston. Yunis, H. (1988), A New Creed: Fundamental Religious Beliefs in the Athenian Polis and Euripidean Drama, Hypomnemata 91, Göttingen. Zeitlin, F.I. (1990), “Playing the Other: Theater, Theatricality and the Feminine in Greek Drama”, in: J.J. Winkler/F.I. Zeitlin (eds.), Nothing to Do with Dionysus? Athenian Drama in its Social Context, New Jersey, 63–96.

Bibliography  

Zeitlin, F.I. (1993), “Staging Dionysus between Thebes and Athens”, in: Th.H. Carpenter/Chr. Faraone (eds.), Masks of Dionysus, Ithaca/London, 147–182. Zeitlin, F.I. (1996), Playing the Other. Gender and Society in Classical Greek Literature, Chicago. Ziegler, D. (2008), Dionysos in der Apostelgeschichte: Eine intertextuelle Lektüre, Religion und Biographie 18, Münster. Zielinski, Th. (1925), Tragodumenon libri tres, Cracoviae. Zimmermann, B. (2011). Handbuch der griechischen Literatur der Antike, vol. I, München. Zuntz, G. (1965), An Inquiry into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides, Cambridge. Zuntz, G. (1971), Persephone, Oxford.

Index Rerum Actaeon 69, 82 Acts of Apostles 118, 132, 188 adaptation XXIII, 118, 132, 141, 164, 166, 188–190 Aeschylus XXI, 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27–30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44–47, 49, 53, 55, 56, 64, 69–73, 89, 91, 95, 103, 106, 107, 109, 112, 113, 116, 171, 186, 198 –Aeschylean (Dionysiac) tetralogies/plays XIX, XXI, XXIII, 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 47, 69, 82, 87–92, 97, 102–105, 107–109, 112, 113, 190, 195 –and E. Bacchae –convergences/correspondences/ resemblances XXI, 15, 75, 87–102 –divergences/variations XXI, 107–113 –and Naevius’ Lucurgus –correspondences/resemblances 9, 42 –and S. Antigone –resemblances 6 –Aegyptii 46 –Agamemnon 27, 39, 46, 57, 116 –Amymone 46 –Danaides 46 –Choephoroi 6, 39, 46, 76, 82 –Eumenides 46, 55, 57, 71 –Kirke 84 –Laius 46, 61 –Lycurgeia XIX, XX, 2, 4, 22, 38, 50, 54, 56, 57, 64, 69, 82, 88, 90, 92, 96, 97, 105, 107, 108, 110, 123, 186, 189, 195, 198, 199 –date 4, 39–40, 57 –myth and dramatic action 4–12 –Bassarae/Bassarides 2, 12, 30, 39, 43–54, 56, 69, 91, 105 –Edonoi 2, 7–9, 11, 12–42, 49, 56, 57, 80, 91–94, 100–103, 105, 107, 151, 195–197

 Bold figures indicate a main discussion https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110764413-008

–Lycurgus Satyricus 2, 61–65 –Neaniskoi 2, 43, 54–60, 64, 92, 199 –Oedipus 46, 61 –Oresteia 4, 39, 40, 56, 61, 199 –Persae 13, 57, 82 –Prometheus 116 –Proteus 46, 61 –Seven 6, 46, 61 –Sphinx 46, 61, 84 –Supplices 6, 13, 46 –Toxotides 69, 82,404 –“Theban” tetralogy XIX, XX, 2, 4, 6, 61, 66–87, 198, 199 –Bacchae 3, 21, 66 –Pentheus 2, 3,20, 66, 67, 70, 74– 75, 80, 82 –Semele/Hydrophoroi 1–3, 68, 76– 83, 91, 100 –Trophoi/Dionysou Trophoi 2, 3, 82, 84–87, 200 –Xantriae 2, 3, 20, 66–74, 75–77, 79, 80, 82, 91, 98, 105, 106 –and satyr drama 3 –language and style 102–107 aetiological myths/aetia 102, 111, 131 Agathon 2, 22, 24, 25 Agave 5, 12, 28, 38, 67, 70, 75, 91, 96, 99, 107, 110, 117, 123, 126, 127, 130, 132, 133, 135, 138–140, 145–148, 181, 185, 187, 210–215 Andromache 98, 99, 117 anthropomorphism 102, 109, 186, 188 Antigone 6, 28 Aphrodite 16, 47, 96, 109, 112, 163, 178, 186 Apocrypha XXII, 116 Apollo 43, 44, 47, 54, 55, 131, 196 Apollodorus 4–12, 38, 39,196 appropriation XXIII, 1, 118, 189 Apsines 210, 211

  Index Rerum aretē (virtue) 168, 170 Ariadne 10, 16 Aristophanes –Frogs XX, 53, 95 –Thesmophoriazusae (parody of Edonoi) 24, 108 Artemis 10, 47, 72, 82, 111, 131 Asclepiades 68, 76, 77, 80 asyndeton 137, 181 Athena 36, 38, 60, 131 Cadmus 8, 24, 44, 67, 82, 84, 90, 92, 94, 109, 110, 122, 123, 125, 132, 140, 143, 147, 149, 150, 162, 163, 165, 177–180, 185–187, 189, 209–212, 215, 216 –Cadmus’ inventions (σοφίσματα) 79, 81, 143 Calvary 120, 133 captivity/imprisonment/enslavement 5– 8, 12, 24, 33, 40, 42, 54, 56, 61, 62, 64, 65, 93, 151, 153, 189 cento XXII, 114, 116–117 Charops 8 chorus (male, female) –address, to the 123–124 –in Aeschylus 46 –of A. Bassarae or Bassarides 43, 45–47, 49, 91 –of A. Edonoi 13, 15, 21, 35, 38, 57, 91 –of A. Neaniskoi 57, 199 –of A. Lycurgus Satyricus 61 –of A. Semele or Hydrophoroi 76, 79 –of A. Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi 85, 86, 200 –of A. Xantriae 66, 67, 91 –of Christus Patiens 120, 123–124, 138, 146–147 –of E. Bacchae 18, 20, 36, 50, 55, 72, 81, 91, 100, 106, 124, 145, 156, 158, 160, 171, 176, 177, 181 –of Naevious Lucurgus 40, 41 Christus Patiens –a drama for reading 117, 129 –and E. Bacchae –alterations/deviations/divergences/ variations XXII, 117, 118, 121, 130– 132, 134, 143, 146, 147, 150, 152, 158, 164–167, 169, 174, 179, 186–190

–convergences/correspondences/ resemblances XXII, 118, 121, 133, 134, 137, 144, 145, 148, 149, 152, 153, 162, 163, 171, 175, 176, 180, 181, 183, 186, 188, 189 –reception 114, 115, 117, 118, 120–188 –and Ancient Greek literature in Byzantium XXII, XXIII, 114–115, 190 –and the theatre in Byzantium 114 –authorship and date of 114, 115, 117, 182 –dramatis personae (characters) XXII, 117, 119, 120, 131, 162, 180 –manuscript tradition of 115–116, 117, 119, 187 –lack of dramatic unity/staging problems XXII, 117, 122, 188 –style of XXII, 117–119 –structure of 119–120 Cithaeron 51, 66, 67, 70, 74, 98, 122, 126, 127, 129, 133, 134, 136, 139, 181, 209 colloquialisms 107, 126, 137, 177 commentary XXI concepts/values/beliefs XXI–XXIII, 23, 38, 47, 89, 90, 108, 109, 111–114, 120, 121, 129, 139, 140, 152, 154, 166–168, 170–174, 178–180, 183, 186, 188, 189, 212 context/environment/milieu XXI, 16–18, 22, 28, 58, 72, 104, 106, 158, 168, 212, 215 –socio-cultural, ideological XXIII, 114, 119, 121, 132, 135, 138, 140, 142, 146, 147, 150, 152–154, 157, 160, 162, 165, 166, 168, 174, 183, 186, 188, 190, 191 Cotys 13, 15, 16, 110, 198 cross-exploration 90 cult/ritual/worship XXI, XXIII, 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13–20, 24, 26–29, 31, 35–38, 43, 44, 46, 47, 51–53, 55, 59, 60, 69, 70, 72, 77, 80, 84, 88–90, 92, 93–95, 96, 98–100, 102, 106, 107, 109–113, 118, 122, 124, 129, 131, 132, 142–144, 146, 152, 156, 159, 163–165, 167, 169–176, 178–180, 184, 185, 189–191, 215

Index Rerum  

cult-establishment/foundation XIX, 102, 111, 112, 131, 142, 163–165, 180, 189, 215 Cybele 15, 17, 110 Delphi 18, 55, 126, 159, 161 deus ex machina 32, 131, 214 “dialogic” process XXI, 190 Diodorus Siculus 8, 11 Dionysiac tetralogies see Aeschylus Dionysus –and light (lightning) and thunder 11, 18, 52, 53, 94–95 –and the Maenads 97–99 –ambiguities/polarities of 1, 17, 27, 34, 50, 87, 89, 96, 99, 101, 171 –anthropomorphism of 21, 38, 88, 92, 99, 100, 102, 186 –as a bull/his bestial incarnation 17, 19, 47–50, 94, 100, 105, 106 –as an elusive god 89 –as an epiphanic/visible god 37, 38, 88, 89, 102, 159 –Bromios (Βρόμιος) 17, 18, 52, 98 –effeminate/effeminacy of 8–10, 12, 13, 21–30, 31, 34, 40, 80, 88, 91, 100–101, 107, 138 –epiphanies/theophany of 8–12, 34, 35– 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 52, 53, 88, 91, 94, 101–102, 105, 106, 124, 129, 153–155, 156–157, 183, 199, 210, 214–216 –god of nature 1, 2, 19, 20, 37, 50, 88 –hellenization of 55, 159 –and hēsychia 89, 111, 171, 173 –illusion 1, 17, 49, 50, 88, 89, 102, 105 –Lysios 96, 98, 152, 159 –mantic abilities of 31, 95–96 –opposites of 23, 34, 50, 89, 96, 101 –paradoxes/contradictions 26, 88, 89, 171 –persona (aspects of) 1, 87–90 –relation with the Muses 6, 31, 95 –sōphrōn/sophos 88–89, 169 –tripartite nature of 99–100 –union with 2, 17, 19, 93 dochmiac 52, 161 dramatic technique XIX, XXII, XXIII, 46, 56, 103, 107, 108, 117, 188, 190

Dryas 5–7, 9, 11, 12, 38, 42, 71, 88, 89, 91, 96, 97, 123, 195–198 earthquake 18, 36, 38, 91, 102, 105, 123, 153, 155–156, 157 ecstasy/ecstasis 1, 16, 17, 36, 37, 49, 94, 96, 97, 171 Eumelus 6, 9 Euripides XIX, XXI, XXII, 1, 2, 4, 16, 18, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, 36, 37, 47, 53, 61, 67, 71, 89–92, 95, 96, 101–103, 106–109, 112– 119, 121–126, 129, 130, 148, 162, 166, 168, 179–182, 186, 188, 190, 209–211, 216, 218 –Alcestis XX, 124 –Bacchae XIX, XXI–XXIII, 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 21, 24, 25, 36–38, 45, 46, 49, 50, 66, 67, 69, 70, 74, 75, 80, 87, 90, 91, 95, 98, 100, 101, 107–110, 112, 113, 116– 118, 120–122, 124, 125, 129, 132, 136– 140, 142, 143, 145, 148, 150, 153–155, 157–160, 162–170, 172, 174, 176–179, 181, 182, 185, 186, 188–191, 210, 213 –exodos (missing part/lacuna) of 102, 109, 110, 123, 131, 136, 140, 145, 147– 150, 166, 170, 176, 180, 186, 209–216 –manuscript tradition of 209 –Busiris 61 –Cyclops 61, 63 –Eurystheus 61 –Hecuba 116, 117, 124 –Heracles 12, 16, 69, 96 –Hippolytus 16, 47, 76, 110, 116, 117, 123, 124, 166, 168, 210 –Medea 28, 116, 118, 122–124 –Orestes 116 –Phoenissae (lost) XX, 124 – Skiron 61, 85 – Syleus 61 –Theristae 61 –Troades 4, 37, 116, 117, 210 evidence (of Aeschylus’ Dionysiac tetralogies) –book and papyrus (literary) fragments XIX–XXI, 193–194 –iconographic XIX, XXI, 12, 39, 195–208 –mythographic XIX, XXI, 4–12, 43, 46, 54, 73, 74, 76, 77, 82, 84, 90

  Index Rerum figura etymologica 169 forgiveness 135, 186–188, 190 fusion XXII, 101 Galen 3, 67, 71 genitives of exclamations 177 gnomic anthologies XIX, 3, 193 Gorgias 1 Gospels 118, 128, 131–133, 145, 149, 154, 158, 188 hallucination/delusion 11, 17, 48, 49, 92, 100, 105, 123, 145, 209 hamartia 38, 97, 127, 140 hapax legomena 19, 20, 29, 33, 34, 63, 73, 103, 107, 120, 137, 155, 218, 263 Hecuba 28, 117, 211 Hera 5, 16, 56, 68, 69, 73, 76, 77, 79, 80– 83, 91, 96, 100, 183 Hesychasm 171 hēsychia/calm life/quietism 89, 111, 129, 170–172, 173, 179, 189 historians XIX Homer XIX, 9–10, 18, 28, 63, 93, 98, 99, 111, 185 Homeric Hymns –to Dionysus, 7th 9, 10, 11, 92, 93 horizon of expectations 108 hubris 6, 46, 49, 108, 110, 111, 166, 182– 184 Hyginus 7, 11, 12, 70, 198 hypotext 144, 167 initiands/initiates/initiation 5, 15–17, 19, 20, 23, 26, 52–54, 57, 63, 73, 88, 89, 93–95, 97, 98, 113, 124, 152, 157, 165, 171–174 interaction XXI, XXIII interrogation (-scene) 7, 9, 12, 21–30, 31–35, 39, 40, 67, 80, 88, 91, 100, 101, 108, 124, 134 intertext/intertextual/intertextuality XIX, 7, 25, 42, 107, 113, 118, 140, 166, 190 inventions (σοφίσματα) 143–144 Ion –Omphale 85 Iophon 3, 4 Jerusalem 156, 165, 183 Jesus Christ 95, 116, 119, 120, 124, 125, 130, 131, 133–136, 138, 139, 141, 145,

146, 152, 154, 158, 161, 163, 165, 166, 170, 175, 176, 179, 185–188 –and Dionysus 136, 139, 152, 158, 161, 165, 175, 176, 179, 186, 187, 188–189 –as Ῥύσιος (Saviour) 116, 187 –as Sophos (Wise) 179 –epiphany of 131 Joseph of Arimathea 119, 120, 128, 135, 140, 145, 147–151, 157, 158, 162, 163, 172, 176, 179, 183, 189, 210, 212, 215 Judas 115, 147, 176, 177, 181 –and Pentheus 140–142, 181, 189 justice (δίκη)/retribution (divine) 66, 82, 89, 109, 140, 180–182, 183, 188, 212 lexicographers 54, 64, 85, 86, 98, 104, 193 liberation 5, 61–63, 151–153, 155, 157, 189 light/lightning 11, 51–53, 73, 152–154, 157, 183 Lycophron –Alexandra 116, 117 Lycurgus XIX, XXI, 1, 2, 21, 22, 25, 29–33, 35, 37–39, 45–49, 52–56, 58–65, 71, 80, 82, 85, 88, 96, 107, 123, 151, 195, 196–199 –and Pentheus 1, 10, 20, 24, 26, 28, 38, 70, 90–93, 95, 98, 99, 101, 108, 110, 111, 185 –in Naevius 40–42 –in Nonnus 62, 56, 65 –myth of 4–12 Lyssa 16, 38, 67, 68–71, 79, 91, 99, 105, 106, 195–197, 199 madness (mania)/frenzy 6, 10, 12, 15–17, 25, 28, 36, 42, 49, 52, 54, 67, 69–71, 88, 89, 91–93, 95, 96, 97–99, 102, 106, 107, 109, 112, 122, 123, 127, 132, 145, 146, 148, 171, 209, 210 –and Lycurgus 5–7, 9, 11, 12, 38, 39, 48, 56, 195–199 maenads/maenadism 11, 13, 17, 20, 25, 26, 28, 33, 34, 38, 40, 41, 43, 45, 48, 49, 53, 67, 72–75, 88, 91, 94, 97–99, 100, 106, 112, 122, 123, 127, 129, 136, 139, 140, 146, 148, 149, 173, 181, 184, 211, 218 makarismos 16, 172–175

Index Rerum  

Mary Magdalene 120, 131 Medea 84–86, 117, 200 Medicean catalogue/manuscript of Aeschylus’ plays 2 Menander –Dyskolos XX Menedemus 3 messengers/messenger-speech 5, 8, 12, 20, 35, 38, 41, 45, 53, 69, 94, 99, 111, 120, 126– 129, 133–136, 160, 167, 169, 170, 176, 184, 196, 209 metaphors 105–107 Minyades (daughters of Minyas) 67, 68, 97, 100 Mnesilochus 2, 22, 24, 25 Muses 6, 31, 32, 43, 44, 79, 95, 103, 113 mystery (-ies) XIX, 15, 19, 37, 47, 49, 64, 111, 122, 152, 163–165, 171, 173, 174 mystic cult/ritual see cult/ritual/worship mystic initiation 15, 20, 23, 26, 52, 73, 94, 98, 124, 152, 157, 172–174 Naevius’ Lucurgus 8, 11, 13, 40–42 Nicodemus 120, 145, 162, 163, 180 nurses (of Dionysus; see also Dionysou Trophoi) 9, 10, 31, 84–86, 95 oikos –cohesion of 170 –disruption of XIX, 90, 91, 98, 110, 170 Old and New Testament XXII, 116, 132 on stage 11, 21, 24, 27, 32, 35, 47–49, 69, 71, 76, 80–82, 89, 91, 100, 108, 113, 117, 140, 210, 211, 216 Orpheus 6, 11, 30–32, 39, 43–49, 52, 55, 56, 82, 95, 105 Palace-miracles 17, 36, 38, 40, 42, 53, 88, 94, 101, 105, 106, 124, 156, 158 Pangaeum 5, 11, 12, 39, 43, 45, 51–53, 56, 58, 94, 106 Papyrus-text (-s) 11, 68, 76, 79, 80, 91, 92 parodos 13, 46, 73 –of Bacchae 12, 15, 16, 18, 67, 94, 98, 146, 171–173 –of Edonoi 13, 15, 21, 32, 33, 41, 80 parody 22–25, 29, 49, 103, 108, 181 paratragedy XIX, 25 Parnassus 51, 55, 66, 159

pattern (-s) (plot/thematic) XIX, XXI– XXIII, 70, 75, 82, 90, 91, 102, 111, 112, 123, 138, 157, 164, 188, 189 Paul St. 118, 132, 153, 155, 166, 175, 185 Pentheus XIX, 4, 6, 12, 21, 23–28, 33, 44–46, 49, 50, 66–68, 70, 74, 75, 80– 82, 87–90, 92, 94, 96, 97, 99, 100, 102, 105–107, 109–111, 122–124, 126, 127, 129, 133–135, 136–138, 139, 140–142, 144, 145, 147, 148, 150–152, 156, 157, 160, 162, 165, 167–172, 174, 176–179, 181, 183–185, 187, 189, 209–215 –and Lycurgus see Lycurgus and Pentheus personification (-s) 35, 69, 71, 106, 182, 195, 197, 199 Peter St. 118, 135, 153, 154, 188 Phaedra 28, 96, 117 philia (friendship) 8, 55, 97, 170, 171, 180, 190 phronēsis 111, 170–172 physis 129, 167, 168 pity (ἔλεος) 25, 127, 138, 148, 210, 211 plagiarism XXIII, 116 polis XIX, 10, 28, 108, 165 –cohesion/coherence of 92, 111, 112, 170 Polyphrasmon 3, 4, 198 priamel 173 prologue/expository opening 122–123, 126, 163 –of Bacchae 18, 74, 81, 94, 142, 163, 184, 215 –of Christus Patiens 119, 120, 130–131 Pronomos vase 16, 27 punning derivation (of names) 141 receiving text/work XIX, XXI–XXIII, 154 reception XIX, XXI, XXII, 38, 42, 92, 93, 114–118, 120 –of concepts and ideas 166–188 –of dramatic conventions 121–130 –of dramatic situations and themes 132– 165 –of rare vocabulary 137 –process XIX, XXII, 190 –studies XIX reconciliation/convergence –in Eumenides 55 –of Apollo and Dionysus 32, 43, 54, 55, 92

  Index Rerum –of Dionysus and Lycurgus 8, 55, 56, 59, 64, 92 reconfiguration XXII, XXIII, 113, 121, 130, 132, 136, 182, 189 reconstruction XX, XXI –of Lycurgeia 6 –of Edonoi 12, 13 –of Bassarae 46, 47 –of the ending of Bacchae 209–216 –of Naevius’ Lucurgus 8, 40–42 recontextualization 92, 138, 189, 190 refiguration XIX, XXIII, 26, 40, 49, 53, 67, 72, 74, 91, 92, 99, 102, 106, 107–113, 115, 118, 122, 125, 130, 135, 138, 145, 147, 150, 151, 156, 165, 166, 168, 180, 182, 186, 188, 189, 190 rejuvenation 84–87, 92, 200 repentance 140, 186–188, 190 replacement/substitution of names 130, 134, 138, 144, 147, 150, 154, 158, 162, 164, 169, 174, 175, 177, 181, 187, 188 reversal of roles/plot XIX, 23–25, 27, 88, 101, 107, 138 reworking XIX, 92, 113, 114, 154, 183, 185, 188, 189 Rhea 5, 15, 18 Rhesus 11, 56 Rhesus 44, 56, 116, 118 ring-composition 18, 107 Roman authors XIX salvation/soteriological dimension/ redemption 116, 122, 132, 136, 138– 140, 142, 152, 153, 157, 160, 161, 175, 179, 186, 187, 188–190 satyr-plays/satyric drama/motifs/satyrs 2–4, 18, 26, 61–65, 84–87, 197, 200 Scholia XIX, 2, 43, 65, 116, 193 Semele 6, 10, 53, 68, 69, 73, 76, 77, 79– 83, 91, 122, 143, 165, 180, 183 skene-building (portico) 39, 196, 199 Socrates 29, 109, 168 sophia/sophos (wisdom) 88, 89, 111, 112, 129, 167, 170, 178–180, 183, 189, 190 sophia and philia 180 Sophocles 2, 4, 39, 40, 57, 62, 71, 77, 86 –Antigone 6–7, 56, 57 –Hydrophoroi 2

–Inachus 62, 77 –Oedipus Tyrannus 57 sōphrosynē/sōphrōn 88, 89, 110, 111, 129, 166–170, 171, 178, 179, 183 source text XIX, XXI–XXIII, 138, 154, 162, 190 Spantharus 4 sparagmos/dismemberment 2, 6, 7, 10, 25, 33, 39, 43–46, 52, 56, 67, 68–71, 74, 82, 91, 96, 99, 100, 105–107, 109, 111, 123, 127, 133–135, 136–138, 140, 141, 148, 160, 168, 169, 181, 187, 189, 209 spectacle (ὄψις) 36, 71, 102, 105, 106 style 81, 90, 105, 107, 137, 140, 156, 162, 177 –of Christus Patiens 116–119 –of the Dionysiac Tetralogies 102–103 syncretism 16, 18, 172 Teiresias 8, 31, 33, 55, 73, 84, 92, 95, 112, 159–163, 167, 169, 174, 176–180, 185 testimonia XX, 88, 195 Thamyras 6 Thebes XIX, 2, 3, 38, 55, 68, 77, 91, 108, 110, 122, 123, 142, 145, 155, 157, 162– 165, 180, 189, 215 Theologos (Iohannes) 119, 120, 128, 129, 131, 137, 138, 147, 157, 163, 168, 170, 172, 176, 179, 180, 215 theomachos (–oi)/theomachia/theomachein XIX, 9, 10, 24, 46, 49, 74, 87, 88, 90, 92, 96, 99, 102, 110, 112, 118, 142, 156, 165, 181, 184–186, 188, 189 Theotokos (Mother of God) 115, 118, 120, 122–126, 128, 131, 133, 135–140, 142, 144, 147, 148, 152, 158, 163, 165, 175, 176, 181, 183, 184, 188, 189 –a central figure of the drama 119, 120 –and the chorus 120, 124, 135, 146, 159, 160, 174 –and tragic mothers of Greek drama 117, 118 –laments of XXII, 120, 146, 147, 212 –planctus Mariae 120 Thetis 5, 9, 10, 93 thiasos/followers/devotees 8, 10, 11, 13, 15–20, 30–32, 36–38, 40, 43, 45, 49–

Index Rerum  

51, 55, 60, 61, 64, 67, 74, 88, 90, 91, 93–94, 96–100, 102, 107, 111, 120, 127, 146–147, 159, 160, 163, 169, 173, 177, 189, 198 Thrace XIX, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 31, 43, 55, 56, 60, 62, 85, 91, 92, 95 thunder/thunderbolt 20, 52, 77, 80, 81, 83 thyrsos (–oi) 36, 75, 84, 92, 97–99, 127, 138, 196–198, 200 tragic irony 99, 132, 139, 145 transmission XX, XXII, 26, 116

transformation 17, 25, 26, 50, 80, 83, 84, 93, 94, 100–101, 143 –of tragic material XXI, XXII, 130, 140, 188, 190 transplantation 75, 132, 140, 145, 154, 157, 188–191 triennial festival (τριετηρίς) 18, 51 vase-paintings 7, 12, 39, 44, 57, 69, 71, 85, 91, 195–208 Xenocles 4 Zeus 9, 10, 53, 68, 73, 76, 77, 79–83, 109, 143, 144, 174, 182, 189

Index Locorum Aelianus –Fragmenta 10 –Varia Historia 3.42

33

Aelius Aristides –Dionysos 2.331 Keil 7.332 Keil

96 n.455 28 n.134, 84

Aeschylus –Agamemnon 116 167–183 176–178 180 214 218–223 221 222–223 225 287–289 700–716 1015–1016 1332 1343 1345 1485–1488 1501–1508 1564 1624 –Bacchae fr. 22 R. –Bassarae /Bassarides fr. 23 R.

fr. 23a R.

fr. 24 R. 29

35, 104 111 n.510 58 73 74 111 n.510 74 74 74 52 and n.265 135 n.90 58, 104 14 n.65 38 38 109 n.502 136 n.96 182 185 n.247 66 45 and n.230, 46 and n.232, 47– 50, 100, 105, 106 51–53, 73, 94, 98, 106, 124 n.50

 Bold figures indicate a main discussion https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110764413-009

fr. 25 R. –Choephoroi 25 55 313 330–331 588 592 639–642 1048–1058 –Dub. fr. 481 R. –Edonoi fr. 57 R.

fr. 58 R.

fr. 59 R.

fr. 60 R.

fr. 61 R.

fr. 61a R. fr. 62 R.

fr. 63 R.

20 n.95, 53–54, 103 54, 104 149 181 182 58 83, 104 33 181, 182 105, 106 33 11, 13–20, 30 n.152, 31, 32, 33, 41, 50, 55, 57, 91 n.436, 93–94, 98 n.463, 103, 105, 106, 198 and n.14 13 n.61, 35–40, 42, 60 n.306, 91, 101, 102 n.481, 482, 106, 159 n.153, 199 21–22, 24 and n.113, 41, 42, 45 and n.226 30–32, 41, 49 and n.250, 95 and n.448, 104, 106 XIX, 21–22, 25 n.117, 26, 31, 32, 101 23, 24, 28–29 21, 23, 29–30 and n.144, 42, 100, 101, 104 32–33, 103

  Index Locorum fr. 64 R. fr. 65 R.

33, 41, 98, 104, 107 23 n.109, 34, 83, 87, 104 20 n.95, 34, 103 35, 104

fr. 66 R. fr. 67 R. –Eumenides 24–26 55 n.280, 74 40–45 199 188 29, 104 237 55, 60, 103 280–283 55 n.282 538–544 182 913–914 59 998 35, 104 –Incertarum fabularum fragmenta 339a R. 20 341 R. 32, 48 and n.244 355 R. 37, 60 –Ixion fr. *89 R. 69 –Lycurgus Satyricus fr. 124 R. 20 n.95, 63–64, 107 fr. 125 R. 61 n.307, 64–65, 104 fr. 126 R. 62, 65 –Neaniskoi fr. 146 R. 57–58, 60, 104 fr. 146a R. 58–59, 104 fr. 146b R. 59, 104 fr. 147 R. 59–60, 104 fr. 148 R. 55, 60, 103 –Palamedes fr. 181 R. 81 –Pentheus fr. 183 R. 71, 74–75, 104 –Persae 354 136 n.96 604 83, 104 820–830 111 n.510 853 86 –Perraivides fr. 185 R. 52, 104 –Prometheus (Pr.) 323 185 n.247 459 144

574 19, 103 796–797 72 993–994 20 –Prometheus Lyomenos fr. 195 R. 71 fr. 199 R. 58 –Psychagogoi fr. 273a R. 72 –Semele/Hydrophoroi fr. 168 R., fr. 220a Sommerstein 68 and n.343, 76, 77 n.381, 78–81, 100, 194 fr. 221 R. 81–82 fr. 222 R. 34, 80, 83, 104 fr. 223 R. 83, 104 fr. 224 R. 83, 104 –Septem contra Thebas (Th.) 78–147 46 151 19 179 15 –Supplices 402–406 182 656 58, 104 732–733 182 952–953 64 –Theoroi /Isthmiastae fr. 78a,c R. 20, 26–27, 28 n.132, 62, 104, 112 and n.517 –Trophoi/Dionysou Trophoi fr. 246a R. 84 and n.405, 85 fr. 246b R. 86, 103 fr. 246c R. 86–87, 105 fr. 246d R. 87, 105 –Xantriae fr. 169 R. 16 n.79, 67, 68– 71, 79, 91, 99, 100, 106, 199 fr. 170 R. 71–72, 104 fr. 171 R. 53 n.270, 72–73 fr. 172 R. 73, 103 fr. 172a R. 20 n.95, 73–74, 103, 106

Index Locorum  

Anaxandrides –Lycurgus PCG II fr. 28

62

Anthologia Palatina (AP) 6.246 64, 104 7.605 187 n.255 9.524 96 12.151 72 Antiphanes –Neaniskoi PCG II frr. 164–165

57

Antoninus Liberalis 10.1 11.11

100 87

[Apollodorus] –Bibliotheca 1.71.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.5.1

3.5.1–2 3.5.3

133 77 n.376 82 11, 12, 13, 41, 42, 47 n.234, 54, 56 n.285,291, 61, 70 n.353, 91 n.436, 93, 98, 123, 151 n.131 4–5, 10, 12 n.57, 91 77 n.378

Apsines –Ars Rhetorica 399 401–402

148, 210–211 148, 210–211

Archilochus fr. 42 W. frr. 119, 324

63 135

Aristophanes –Acharnenses 1227, 1228, 1230, 1231, 1233 –Aves 1745 20

135

1764 –Equites 1306 –Lysistrata 1–3, 388 757 –Nubes 313 603–606 –Pax 1026 –Plutus 761 907 –Ranae 341–342 341–345 356 816 838–839 873–874 909–923 915–917 924–928 1259 –Thesmophoriazusae 134–136 134–145 144–145 450–451 –Vespae 1452

135 34 18 n.86 34 18 n.90 55 n.280, 92 54 152 211 52 84 15 95 181 95 23 29 103 1, 53 n.273 IX, 1, 22, 25 22, 24 n.110, 101 29 109 86

Aristophanes of Byzantium –Hypothesis to Bacchae 66 n.333, 67 and n.337, 68 n.343, 70 n.351, 74, 80 n.391, 210 n.7, 214, 215 Aristoteles –Ars Poetica 6, 1449b 32–33 36 n.179, 105 11, 1452a 22–24, 29–31 107, 187 13, 1453a 10, 30 2 n.9, 38

  Index Locorum 14, 1453b ff. 17, 1455a 32–33 –Ars Rhetorica 1.13, 1374a 20–25 3.1, 1404a 30ff. 3.18, 1419a 4 –Ethica Nicomachea 6, 1139a 23–24 –Historia Animalium 578 b1 –Metaphysica 13.6.8 –Politica 5, 1341a 21

71, 97 n.461, 102 n.483, 105 n.489 95

Cratinus –Dionysalexandros PCG IV fr. 40

27, 28

177 107 n.492 165

Demosthenes 19.272, 22.72, 24.180 59.78

133 173 n.204

168

Diodorus Siculus 3.64–66

29 16 n.75 16 n.75

Astydamas –Inc. fab. fr. 6

4

Athenaeus 2, 35 E, 38 E 10, 447 B 11, 503 C

50 n.254 63 n.193 57, 58, 193

Carcinus –Semele frr. 2–3

4

Chaeremon –Dionysus fr. 4 frr. 4–7

141 4

Clemens Alexandrinus –Paedagogus 2.19.3 175 n.209 –Protrepticus 12.119–120 174 –Stromateis 3.518 173 Cleophon –Bacchae TrGF I, 77 T 1

4

4.5.1 4.34.5 5.48.4 17.100 Diogenes –Epist. 34.2 –Semele fr. 1

8, 11, 47 n.234, 55, 92 n.441 18 133 172 n.195 48 n.243, 104

77 and n.380, 381 4

Dionysius Halicarnassensis 6.94, 9.13 133 Eratosthenes –Catasterismoi 24 29

43–47, 49, 56 XX n.5

Erotianus ι 20

35

Euripides –Alcestis 922–923 1159–1163 –Andromache 319–320 491 785 843 1024 1284–1288 –Antiope frr. 222–223 Kn.

135 n.90 130 n.75 125 n.58 181 86 83 54 130 n.75 182

Index Locorum  

–Archelaus fr. 255 Kn. –Bacchae 1–5 1–63 4 6–9 6–12 8 10–11 12–17 13–19 13–22 24 26–31 26–36 32–33 32–36 36 39–40 39–48 43–48 43–54 45 45–48 50–52 53–54 55–57 57–59 62–63 63 64–167 66 73–76 74 78–82 80 88–102 95–98 100 107–108 111 113–114 114–117 115–118

182 122 and n.42, 165 122, 142 142 122 and n.42, 165, 182 77 n.376, 80 53 n.271 180 91 122 163 33, 98 79 n.389, 81, 130 n.76, 143 122 16, 96 69 16 164 163 n.166 164 122, 142 90 184 74, 164 142 146 18 122 159 n.153 15 18 172 130 n.76 15 36 81 73 50, 100 134 33 99, 127 n.63 146 159

117–119 120–129 120–134 126–129 133 137–138 141 145–147 150 156 170–369 178–188 179–186 181–183 186–190 196 200–203 208–209 214–216 215–262 221–225 231–241 234–236 237–238 244–245 249 263 263–265 266–267 268–269 272–274 272–327 274–285 285 291 291–294 298–301 305 306–309 309 312–317

325

16, 67, 98 15 18 16 18 n.87 33 18, 146 n.118, 159 n.153 52, 73, 94, 146 n.118 27 18 and n.90, 20 174–175, 178, 180 177 179 176 84, 92 180 177, 178 112 108, 111 n.514 124 108 108 26, 27, 34 n.171 24 n.111 81 33, 98 130 n.76 176 178 108 161 8, 92 175 160 130 n.76 73 31 16 55, 159, 161 n.159 161 111 n.513, 129 n.74, 130 n.76, 165, 167, 174, 178 and n.223 90, 185

  Index Locorum 328–329 330–342 331–332 333–336 337–340 343–346 352–353 359 360–363 375 389 389–392

395–397 410 412 413 419–420 425 434–450 434–518 436–440 441–442 443–448 449–450 451–460 453–508 460 461–508 471–474 486 489 493 498 500–501 504 507–508 511–514 516 519–575 536 537–544 542 546

55, 167, 169 8, 92 108, 179 144 82 108, 111 n. 514 27 108 162 18, 108 89 n.425 89 n.426, 111 n.513, 129 n.74, 170, 171 111, 179 95, 113 n.522 18 146 n.118, 159 n.153 112 72 151 126, 151 41, 42, 171 126 5, 98, 151 157 27, 138 12, 21 22 n.101, 25, 101, 138 23 172 n.195 72 144 27, 138 96, 98, 152 37, 102 89 n.423 141 67, 108 108 46 18 185 70 18

553–554 555 561–563 569 570 576–641 576–861 578–579 585–593 585–609 591–593 594–595 596–599 602–603 604–607 604–641 605–606 608–609 616–622 620–622 622–623 622–641 623 630–631 632–633 635–636 641 642–659 647 655 666–667 670–671 677–774 693 704–705 716 717–721

36 108 46 113 n.522 146 n.118, 159 n.153 36 and n.178, 102, 155 26, 49, 126, 129 19 36 91 17, 18, 36 36, 53, 94,102 53, 183 155 123, 156 36 and n.178 36 52 and n.267, 94, 124 49, 50, 100 n.474, 105 108, 111 n.514, 171, 173 n.204 155 111 n.513 36 52, 95 36, 155 89 n.424,425, 171, 185 89 n.423, 129, 169, 178 178 89 n.425, 111 n.513, 171 178 157 108, 111 n.514 20, 126 94, 126 41 158 and n.148, 219 and n.17 126

Index Locorum  

726–727 731–733 734–747 748 762–764 769–772 775–777 779 780–785 787–846 787–861 790 794–795 796–797 804 809–812 828 833–836 837 840–842 850–852 855 860–861 862 862–912 877–881 891–892 897–898 897–901 902–912 912–976 918–922 935–938 956 960–964 966–970 971–976 977–982 977–1023 980 992–996

37 and n.183, 94, 106 75, 126 70, 99 41 n.209 17 n.82, 75, 99, 127 n.63 161 158 184, 216 n.35 75, 108 92 24, 26, 75 18, 111 n.513, 171 185 75, 108 75 75 25 24, 25, 26, 33, 98 74, 75 25 25 and n.118, 96, 106 27 89 n.424 72 169 111 and n.513, 169 and n.186 108 111 169 173 138 49, 50, 100 and n.474 24 139 139, 187 n.254 139 130 n.76, 137, 139, 187 n.254 69, 71, 91, 106 49, 181 27 180

997–1001 998–999 1016 1017–1019 1017–1022 1024–1152 1027–1028 1031 1034 1043–1044 1043–1097 1043–1152 1046–1047 1048–1050 1050 1053–1057 1059–1062 1064–1065 1069 1075 1078–1079 1078–1088 1079 1079–1081 1082–1083 1088–1139 1093–1094 1095–1097 1095–1136 1099 1106–1109 1111–1113 1114–1136 1115–1121 1118–1121 1127 1133 1135–1136 1141–1142 1144 1147 1150–1152

77 16, 165 169 50, 100 49 127, 133, 136, 148 135 and n.93 18, 161 17 136 136, 141 127 134 n.89 134 127 and n.65 17, 127 and n.64, 140 127 and n.64 136 160 127 and n.65 153 154 130 n.76 127 53, 94, 153 148 16 136 70 75, 99, 127 n.63 70, 127 141 99 25 n.118 75, 127 and n.66, 187 n.253 70 17 148, 149, 218 70 211 135, 219 111 and n.511,513, 129 and n.74, 168, 169 and n.186

  Index Locorum 1153–1164 1156 1157–1158 1159 1160–1162 1165–1392 1168 1170–1171 1185–1187 1202 1202–1215 1212–1215 1216 1216–1219 1216–1300 1225–1226 1227 1233–1243 1236 1239–1240 1241 1244–1245 1250 1255 1259–1262 1278 1280 1281–1300 1291 1293 1295 1297

1300 1301–1302 1338–1339 1341–1343 1344–1348 1348–1349 1352–1355 1373–1379 1381–1382 1388–1391

134 26 75 49, 50, 100 135 123 123 92 92 163 28, 123 92, 144 214 n.28 150 44, 147 149 and n.124, 211 82 28 67 133 211 125 and n.58 18 90, 185 140 91, 92 147, 187 n.257 147 82 24 112 n.519 108, 110 and n.504, 212 n.19, 215 n.34 209, 210, 212 110 n.504, 187 n.256 176, 180 137 108, 111, 186, 187 n.256 109, 187 n.256 150 110 and n.504 123 130

–Busiris fr. 313 Kn. –Cretenses fr. 472 Kn. –Cyclops 24 25–26 31 34 44 45, 61 63–81 78–79 116 213ff. 360 520ff. –Electra 390 771–773 1173 1198–1205 1227–1228 1238ff. –Erechtheus fr. 370 Kn. –Eurystheus fr. 375 Kn. –Hecuba 425 669 1114–1115 1267 –Helena 570 1303 1305 1344 1355–1365 1362–1363 1642ff. 1666–1667 1666ff. –Hercules Furens 727–732 822–842

61 15 n.71, 72, 113 n.521, 174 n.205 61 65 n.327 61 61 58 134 65 n.327 61 52 64 33, 104 64 167 n.178 182 149 187 n.257 214 n.29 131 n.79 36 n.182 61 125 n.58 181 180 31, 95 72 218 n.7 18 n.88 17 n.80 15 n.73 15 n.69, 17 n.84 131 n.79 111 n.512 215 182 69

Index Locorum  

843–873 886–908 905–908 922–1015 981 990–1015 1006–1008 1146 ff. –Hippolytus 25 41–50 79–80

69 38, 104 36 n.182, 38 n.189 69 17 n.80 5 36 n.182, 38 n.189 187 n.257

15 163 n.166 167 and n.177, 217 and n.3 116–120 163 120 109, 186 n.252 141–144 15 n.73 176 125 n.58 447ff. 112 n.520 668–669 125 n.58 850–851 72 936–937 125 n.58 1415ff. 131 n.79 1423–1430 102, 111 n.512, 131 n.79, 215 –Incertarum fabularum fragmenta 847, 848 Kn. 211 979 Kn. 181 –Ion 29–36 126 and n.60 195 72 714–720 51, 55 n.280, 92 716 94 n.447 717 72 1078–1080 37 1049 72 1181–1182 52 1571ff. 104, 131 n.79 1619–1622 182 –Iphigeneia in Aulis 327 177 1139 179 n.225 1323–1324 83 1408 90, 185

–Iphigeneia in Tauris 17–20 220 1243–1244 1435ff. 1446–1457 –Medea 1415–1419 –Melanippe Desmotis fr. 495 Kn. –Oenomaus fr. 577 Kn. –Orestes 310 819 1532 1625ff. –Peliades fr. 604 Kn. –Phaethon fr. 782 Kn. –Phoenissae 40 129 182 226–228 1175 1754–1757 –Phrixus fr. 835 Kn. –Supplices 603 826 934–935 981 1010–1011 1183ff. –Troades 500 507–508 860 1156–1206 1218–1220

126 and n.59 181 37, 51, 55 n.280, 92 131 n.79 102, 111 n.512, 131 n.79 130 n.75 218 n.7 182 181 179 n.225 211 n.16 131 n.79 185 n.247 58, 104 126 and n.61 72 18 n.88 51, 52, 55 n.280, 92, 94 53, 154 n.142 77 n.379 182 60, 104 149 183 n.242 183 n.242 183 n.242 131 n.79 37 n.186 218 n.11 125 211 213 n.24, 214 n.29

  Index Locorum Rhesus 124 921 970 972–973

Eustathius –On Od. 17.205

60, 104 51 n.257 51 n.257 11, 15, 31–32 and n.159, 55–56 and n.285, 95, 172 n.195

31 n.156, 95 n.449

Favorinus –Περί φυγῆς

87

Galenus In Hp. Epid. VI.1.29

71

Gorgias –Palamedes 36

181

Hecataeus fr. 154 J.

63

Hellanicus fr. 66 J.

63

Hephaestio –Enchiridion 13,8

47

Herodotus 3.48 4.79 4.172 5.61 7.111 7.112 8.11, 124

57 n.296 52, 94 58 215 31, 56 51 n.257 133

Hesiodus –Fragmenta 301 M.–W. –Opera et Dies 1

57, 104 95

282–285 –Scutum 168, 177 –Theogonia 53 690–691 709 748 759–760 942

182 29 95 35 19 34 72 77

Hesychius α 1016 Cunningham α 1709 Cunningham α 3996 Cunningham α 5054 Cunningham α 5306, 5307 Cunningham α 7117 Cunningham α 7841 Cunningham α 8713 Cunningham γ 1015 Cunningham δ 1831 Cunningham ε 907 Latte ε 2573 Latte π 1202 Hansen π 1388 Hansen τ 255 Hansen/Cunningham ψ 243 Hansen/Cunningham ψ 265 Hansen/Cunningham Hippocrates –Aphorismoi 14.15.16 Homerus –Ilias 2.594–600 6.129–140

6.141 6.389 9.63 19.31 22.4 22.460 –Odyssea

32 33 34, 83 149 83 59 83 55, 60 26 n.125 87 54 86 87 71 19 n.92 54 57

44

6 n.35 9–10, 85, 90 n.434, 93, 99, 110 n.508, 111 110 n.508 98 181 59 34 98

Index Locorum  

4.351–586 9.397 11.15–19 11.41 11.321–325 18.21 24.73–74 Hymni Homerici –II Demeter 480–482 –VII Dionysus 13–14 –XXVI Dionysus Hyginus –Fabulae 132 167, 179 180 182 242

61 n.309 149 72 59 10 n.48 149 10 n.48

173 9, 10, 92 and n.441, 93 152 85

11, 47 n.234, 70 n.353 77 n.376 82 84 7 n.38, 11, 70 n.353

Hypothesis to E. Bacchae see Aristophanes of Byzantium Hypothesis to E. Medea

2, 84, 85

Josephus –Bellum Judaicum 7.1.3 –7.4.1

183–184

Libanius –Orationes 10.6, 12.38

171 n.191

[Longinus] –De Sublime 15.3 15.6

69 and n.348 35 and n.173, 91, 101, 199

Lucianus –Piscator 2.18 = TrGF adesp. fr. 291 44 Lycophron 119 218 381 771, 772 1106 1393

149 72 149 21 71 21

Lysias 6.10–11

177

Menander –Perikeiromene 797

58

Naevius –Lucurgus 40–42 fr. TrRF 1 18 Schauer =30–32 Warm. 41 fr. 19 Schauer =46–47 Warm. 5, 40 fr. 21 Schauer=49 Warm. 21, 42 fr. 22 Schauer =41–42 Warm. 41 fr. 23 Schauer=55–56 Warm. 42 fr. 24 Schauer=52–53 Warm. 36, 42 fr. 25 Schauer =36 Warm. 41 fr. 26 Schauer=50–51 Warm. 21, 42 frr. 28, 30 Schauer =25–26 Warm. 40 fr. 32 Schauer =33–34 Warm. 41 fr. 33 Schauer=48 Warm. 21, 42 fr. 34 Schauer =27–29 Warm. 5, 40 fr. 36 Schauer=24 Warm. 40 frr. 37, 27 Schauer=44–45 Warm. 41 fr. 38 Schauer =40 Warm. 41 fr. 39 Schauer=54 Warm. 36–37, 42 fr. 40 Schauer=39 Warm. 41 inc. fr. 43 Schauer=43 Warm. 22, 24–25, 42 Nonnus –Dionysiaca 20.149–181 20.150–153

62 65

  Index Locorum 20.167–170 20.226–227 20.248–250 20.311–324 21.155–160 36.391

65 62, 65 62, 65 65 56 and n.290 34

Nostoi PEG fr. 7

84

Orion –Anthologion 4.3

169

Ovidius –Fasti 3.715–718 –Metamorphoses 3.138–250 3.249–315 3.658–659 4.1–42 4.389–415 7.294–296 Papyri –PAnt I 24 fr. 2a

77 n.377 82 77 n.376, n.377 37, 51 n.259, 102 67 67 84

148–149, 194, 209, 211 n.12 211

I 24 fr. 2b –POxy 2164=fr.168 R.=220a Sommerstein 68, 76, 77, 78–81 –GLP no. 129 Page 11 n.52, 52 n.263 Pausanias 1.20.3 1.21.2 2.37.5 1.40.6 5.19.6

70 n.354 1 n.3, 53 n.273 77 n.378 72 24 n.112

Pherecydes –FGrHist 3 F 113

84

Philostratus –Imagines 1.14.3 1.15.2 1.18

37 n. 186 25 n.115 67 n.338

Photius –Lexicon α 1321, 1322 Theodoridis α 1346 Theodoridis α 1429 Theodoridis α 3003 Theodoridis δ 588 Theodoridis –Codex Galeanus 326, 19 409, 10 Pindarus –Fragmenta 25, 252 121 –Nemeonici 4.52 –Olympionici 2.25–28 2.71–80 9.1–3 9.100 –Pythionici 2.94–96 Plato –Apologia 22b –Charmides 159b –Ion 534b –Leges 653d 666b 815c 829c, 919e 840d 920e –Phaedrus 69c

34 58 73 83 87 68 71

87, 105 173 52 77 n.378 176 135 168 n.183 185 n.247

95 166 n.173 95 37 84 173 n.197 133 57 n.296 177 165

Index Locorum  

230b 244c 244e 245a 265b –Republica 354a 381d 621b –Symposium 188d 196c 218b –Timaeus 40b –[Axiochus] 370d Plutarchus –Moralia 268 B 299 A–B 321 F 389 A–B 432 E 715 E 717 A –v. Alex. 7

58 31 n.157, 96 96 n.454, 152 95, 103 96 173 77 52, 94 66 166 n.173 31 n.157, 96 n.454 54 171 n.192

59 50 n.254 59 60 98 n.453 1 31 n.156, 95 n.449 58

Pollux 4.70, 82 4.142

16 n.75 69 n.345

Quintilianus –Institutio Oratoria 10.2.26

114

Scholia –A. Eu. 26 66 n.333 –A.R. Argon. 1.636a 76 –Ar. Ach. 1227–1228, 1230–1231, 1233 135 –Ar. Av. 1764 135 –Ar. Eq. 1150a 64 –Ar. Lys. 757 34

–Ar. Ra. 868 –Ar. Ra. 1344 –Ar. Th. 135 –Cl. Protr. 1.2.2 –Hom. Il. 6.131 –Lyc. 211ff. –Nic. Ther. 288c –Pi. O. 9. 1–3 –Pi. P. 2. 40b –Pl. Tht. 160 –Rh. 922 –Rh. 972 –S. OC 674

108 n.497 68 n.342, 77 2, 61 43 9 n.47 77 n.378 53 135 69 34 51 32 n.159 65

Servius –In Aen. 3.14

7, 70 n.353

Simonides PMG 548

847

Simplicius In Arist. De Caelo 2.13, 293b 30 Sophocles –Acrisius fr. 72 R. –Ajax 352 464 915–916 1201 –Antigone 133 153–154 454–457 876 956 955–965 957 962 965 1126–1130 1146 1146–1153 1308

54, 104

83 34, 104 133 213 n.24, 214 n.29 19 17 n.80 38 n.190 177 181 29, 56 n.285 6–7, 11, 12 54, 56 and n.291 24 31 n.156, 95 51, 92 37 52 83

  Index Locorum –Cedalion fr. 329 R. 62 –Clytaemestra fr. 334 R. 83 –Colchides frr. 337, 338 R. 71 –Dionysiscus Satyricus fr. 172 R. 52 –Electra 27 65 195 83 570 72 900 34 920 177 –Heracles fr. 225 R. 62 –Incertarum fabularum fragmenta fr. 837 R. 173 fr. 959 R. 50 n.254 –Lacainai fr. *369a R. 149 –Laokoōn fr. 371 R. 52 –Manteis or Polyidus fr. *400 R. 83 –Oedipus Coloneus 312 34 891 180 1606 20 –Pandora frr. 482, 483 R. 62 –Philoctetes 164, 690, 1159 86 –Salmoneus frr. 538, 539 R. 71, 104 –Trachiniae 788 52 810 66 1278 109 n.502 –Triptolemus fr. 610 R. 63 Soranus –Gynaecology 2.4.1

76

Spantharus –Semele Keraunomene 4 Stobaeus 1.3.26–27 W.–H. 4.23.8 W.–H. Strabo 10.3.16 p.470–471 C

66 167 n.177

11, 13, 55, 91, 198 and n.14

Suda α 2574 Adler αι 44 Adler γ 504 Adler κ 1730 Adler

65 33 29 4

Theocritus 26.22–24

70 n.352

Theognidea 887 W.

65

Theophrastus –Historia Plantarum 9.11.3

87, 105

Thespis –Eitheoi

57

Thucydides 2.37.3 3.82

172 179 n.230

Trag. Adespota TrGF 2 fr. 291 (= Dubia iii Diggle) fr. 144 N2

54 47

Vita Aeschyli 5 7 9, 14 12

107 71 n.356, 105 105 108 n.497

Xenophon –Cynegeticus 2.7

87, 105

Index Locorum  

–De Equitandi Ratione (Eq.) 5.3 64, 104 –Historia Graeca 1.2.10 133 –Memorabilia 4.4.19 177 CHRISTIAN TEXTS Actus Apostolorum 1.18 5.39 9.1 9.3–6 12.6–10 16.25–30 26.13–14 26.24–25

141 185 185 154, 157 153 153 154, 157 166 n.174, 169

Apocalypsis Iohannis 5.5 22.16

145 n.115 95

Christus Patiens Poets’ prologue 4–5, 6–7, 28–30 Main text 1–1133 1–90 25–31 60–67 68–89 71 152–266 161–169 164 165–166 191 191–194 191–264 262 262–264 265 267–268 267–857 272–346 376–418

131 n.77, 78 119, 132 122 122 122 123 122–123 124 127 133 n.86 133 124, 130 n.76 176 128 167 129 n.74, 130 n.76, 167 128 124 124 182 128

383–386 423–425 444 467–469 472–473 509 563–564 566, 569 580 584–586 587–589 647–648 657–668 657–681 659 676–678 686, 688, 695, 697 695–696 815–819, 821–823 827–828 848 853 869–870 872–873 873 920–922 1042–1045 1048, 1049 1049–1052 1053–1057 1059–1062 1106–1108 1107 1130–1134 1134–1905 1139 1139–1141 1145–1147 1148–1149 1152 1189–1239 1221–1222 1227–1230 1262–1265 1295–1297

128 163 n.165 147 124 124 163 n.165 144 n.113 160 130 n.76 174 159 136 136, 141 134, 136 136 n.96 134 124 124 135 n.91, 188 n.260 188 n.260 124 147 124 155 155 and n.145 125, 126 135 n.91 125 and n.57 134–135 135 140 n.106 155 155 n.145 130 119, 132 130 n.76 141 129 and n.74, 130 n.76, 168 163, 180 176 n.216 128 n.69 128 128 and n.70 144 147

  Index Locorum 1300 1306 1306–1307 1306–1308 1309–1426 1310–1311 1383–1386 1427–1433 1436–1437 1481–1484 1486–1487 1489–1619 1508 1511 1512 1516 1521–1526 1529 1529–1532 1531–1532 1535 1536 1543 1545 1546 1547–1553 1547ff. 1550 1555–1557 1563–1565 1567–1574 1572ff. 1575–1577 1581–1584 1587–1596 1595–1596 1598 1602–1606 1614–1616 1653–1655 1665–1689 1700–1702 1752–1754 1779–1782 1787–1791 1797–1799

135 and n.92 130 n.76 137, 187 n.254 147 147 147 151, 152 141 180 125 150 139, 142, 184 142 142 142 142 139, 187 n.254 178 179 138, 187 n.254 161 142 142 144 142 143 142 130 n.76 144 164 164, 184 142 164 182 163 163 n.165 163 146 146 157 163 n.165 150 176 158 n.149 162, 163, 165 n.169, 180 163

1801–1805 1805 1906–2531 2051–2052, 2060 2070–2075 2076–2077 2097 2100 2102–2104 2104–2107 2108–2114 2194–2388 2210–2223 2212–2214 2227–2228 2230–2240 2241–2269 2242–2245 2245 2256–2259 2256–2261 2257 2262–2265 2270–2377 2498, 2500 2504–2531 2532–2602 2542 2557–2563 Evangelia –Iohannes 1.14 3.31 5.25, 28–29 6.54, 56 11.27 13.31, 17.1, 17.4 15.1 18.4–8 19.38–40 19.41 20.14–17 20.19 20.19–29 20.21–23

129 n.74, 170, 171 179 and n.231 119 156 151, 152 125 and n.55 131 n.80 161 156 125, 131 n.81 125, 126 128 128 157 184 128 128 158 128 and n.71 153 154 130 n.76 161 128 131 and n.82 131 and n.82 119 and n.28 161 186

165 n.171 165 n.171 152 n.134 175 n.213 165 n.171 133 175 42 n.212 149 n.128, 150 n.129 176 n.215 160 n.155 131 and n.82 160 n.155 132

Index Locorum  

21.1–22 –Lucas 3.22, 9.35 10.1, 3 22.19–20 23.44–45 23.52 23.53 23.53–54 24.15–31, 36–50 24.47–49 –Marcus 1.11, 9.7 14.22–24 15.38 15.43–45 15.46 16.9, 14–18 16.15–16 –Mattheus 1.18–21 3.17 17.5 26.26–28 26.50 27.52–53

160 n.155 154 n.141 151 175 n.213 155 n.145 150 n.129 149 n.128 176 n.215 160 n.155 132 154 n.141 175 n.213 155 n.145 150 n.129 149 n.128, 176 n.215 160 n.155 132 144 n.113 154 n.141 154 n.141 175 n.213 42 n.212 152 n.134, 155 n.145

27.58 27.59 27.60 28.9–10 28.10 28.17–20

150 n.129 149 n.128 176 n.215 160 n.155 131 n.81, 156 n.146 132, 160 n.155

Iohannes Chrysostomus –In Iohan. Homiliis 85 PG 59, 463, 61–63 151 n.130 –In Matth. Homiliis 1 PG 57, 24, 14–15 171 n.191 Iohannes Damascenus –In Navitate v. 8 142 n.109 Paulus –Corinth. I 1.24 –Tim. II 4.6

175

Romanos –Cantica 3.10.7

175 and n.210

179 n.231

Index of Hapax and Rare Words in Aeschylus’ Dionysiac Tetralogies A. Hapax ἄδασμος A. Edonoi fr. 63 R.: 20, 32–33, 103 ἀναγκόδακρυς A. Xantriae fr. 172a R.: 20, 73–74, 106 ἄσσιστα A. Edonoi fr. 66 R.: 20, 34, 103 ἀφοίβατος (ἀφοίβατον) A. Neaniskoi fr. 148 R.: 55, 60, 103 βαρυταρβής A. Edonoi fr. 57.11 R.: 17, 19, 20, 33, 103, 105–107 βούλευτις A. Xantriae fr. 172 R.: 73, 103 δακτυλόδικτος (δακτυλόδικτον) A. Edonoi fr. 57.4 R.: 14, 16, 17, 19, 103, 106 ἐμψίω (ἐμψίουσα–ἐψιοῦσα) Α. Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi fr. 246b R.: 86, 103 ὀτοβέω (ὀτοβεῖ) Α. Edonoi fr. 57.6 R.: 14, 19, 20, 103, 106 σεμνοκομπέω –ῶ (κἀσεμνοκόμπει) A. Lycurgus Satyricus fr. 124.2 R.: 20, 63, 103 σκάρφος (σκάρφει) Α. Bassarae or Bassarides fr. 24 R.: 54, 103 ταυρόφθογγος (ταυρόφθογγοι) Α. Edonoi fr. 57.8 R.: 17, 19, 20, 50, 94, 103, 105, 106 ὑπομυκάομαι –ῶμαι (ὑπομυκῶνται) Α. Edonoi fr. 57.8 R.: 17, 19, 20, 103 ψόλος (ψόλῳ) A. Bassarae or Bassarides fr. 24 R.: 20, 54, 103 B. Rare Words αἰγίς (αἰγίδες) A. Edonoi fr. 64 R.: 33, 104, 107 ἀμφίδρομος A. Edonoi fr. 65 R. and Semele or Hydrophoroi fr. 222 R.: 23, 34, 83, 87, 104 ἀμφιλαφής (ἀμφιλαφῆ) A. Neaniskoi fr. 146a R.: 58–59, 104 ἀνταῖος (ἀνταία) A. Semele or Hydrophoroi fr. 223 R.: 83, 104 ἀργυρήλατος (ἀργυρήλατον, ἀργυρήλατοι) Α. Bassarae or Bassarides fr. 23a.1 R.: 51–52, 94, 104, 106 ἀρείφατος – ἀρείφατον A. Neaniskoi fr. 146b R., 147 R.: 59–60, 104 ἄστεκτος –ον (ἄστεκτα) A. Semele or Hydrophoroi fr. 224 R.: 83, 104 βασσάρα (βασσάρας) A. Edonoi fr. 59 R.: 21, 24, 41, 45, 104 βόμβυξ (βόμβυκας) A. Edonoi fr. 57.3 R.: 16, 19, 33, 93, 104, 107 γύννις A. Edonoi fr. 61.1 R.: 26–29, 30, 101, 104 δίκρα Α. Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi fr. 246c R.: 86–87, 105 εἰλλόμενον (for εἰργόμενον) A. Bassarae or Bassarides fr. 25 R.: 54, 104 ἴκταρ A. Edonoi fr. 67 R.: 35, 104 κημός (κημούς) A. Lycurgus Satyricus fr. 125 R.: 64–65, 104 μουσόμαντις Α. Edonoi fr. 60 R.: 30–32, 49, 95–96, 104, 106 πέδοικος (πεδοίκου) Α. Trophoi or Dionysou Trophoi fr. 246d R.: 87, 105 πέμφιξ A. Xantriae fr. 170 R. and Pentheus fr. 183 R.: 71, 74, 104 προπηδάω –ῶ (προπηδήσεται) Α. Bassarae or Bassarides fr. 23.2 R.: 47–49, 104 τύπανον (τυπάνου) Α. Edonoi fr. 57.10 R.: 14, 17, 18, 19, 104–106 ὑπόσκιος –ον (ὑποσκίοισιν) A. Neaniskoi fr. 146 R.: 57–58, 104

 Bold figures indicate a main discussion. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110764413-010

  Index of Hapax and Rare Words in Aeschylus’ Dionysiac Tetralogies χαλκόδετος (χαλκοδέτοις) Α. Edonoi fr. 57.6 R.: 16, 17, 20, 104 χλούνης Α. Edonoi fr. 62 R.: 29–30, 101, 104 ψυκτήριον (ψυκτήρια) A. Neaniskoi fr. 146 R.: 57–58, 60, 104