To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter explores how the dynamics of Pindar’s and Aeschylus’ embedded speeches are refracted through their exploration of crafted tools as metaphors for the transfer of voice from one performer to another.
This chapeter offers close readings of two complex embedded speeches in order to show the sophisticated manipulation of voice to play with time, space, and identity.
This chapter examines how both Pindar and Aeschylus invoke snakes as an example of how bodies, no less than voices, are rendered multiform through the reenactment of choral performance.
This chapter demonstrates how Pindar’s and Aeschylus’ unusual, yet shared, approach to embedded speech (oratio recta) reflects a common interest in performance as reenactment. It is argued that their distinctive mode of duplicating voices through the “meta-language” of embedded speech stands as an emblem of choral mimesis more broadly.
This introduction calls into question the communis opino that the works of Pindar and Aeschylus are defined, and thus divided, by genre and performance context.
This chapter explores how, despite their common interest in reenactment, Pindar and Aeschylus treat space in different ways. Drawing on recent theoretical advances in performance studies, it is shown how the appearance of ghosts in the works of Pindar and Aeschylus allows us to better appreciate how drama creates a firmer spatial matrix than lyric performance.
What would Pindar and Aeschylus have talked about had they met at some point during their overlapping poetic careers? How do we map the space shared by these two fifth-century choral poets? In the first book-length comparative study of Pindar and Aeschylus in over six decades, Anna S. Uhlig pushes back against the prevailing tendency to privilege interpretive frames that highlight the differences in their works. Instead, she adopts a more inclusive category of choral performance, one in which both poets are shown to be grappling to understand how the vivid here and now of their compositions are in fact a reenactment of voices and bodies from elsewhere. Pairing close readings of the ancient texts with insights from modern performance studies, Uhlig offers a novel perspective on the 'song culture' of early fifth-century BC Greece.