¹ Aeschylus and Athens (2nd edn, London 1946) 322Google Scholar,reiterating Aeschylus: Prometheus Bound (Cambridge 1932) 6Google Scholar; cf. Podlecki, A., The Political Background of Aeschylean Tragedy (Ann Arbor 1966) 101–22Google Scholar; Grossmann, G., Promethie und Orestie (Heidelberg 1970) 19–24Google Scholar; Saïd, S., Sophiste et tyran, ou le problème du Prométhée enchaîné (Paris 1985) 284–91Google Scholar.

² See esp. Wecklein, N., The Prometheus Bound of Aeschylus (Leipzig 1878; tr. Allen, F.D., Boston 1891) 7–19Google Scholar. For a survey of scholarship, see Conacher, D., Aeschylus' ‘Prometheus Bound’: A Literary Commentary (Toronto 1980) 120–37Google Scholar; cf. Dodds, E.R., ‘The PV and the progress of scholarship’, in The Ancient Concept of Progress (Oxford 1973) 26–44Google Scholar.

³ Lloyd-Jones, H., ‘Zeus in Aeschylus’, JHS 76 (1956) 55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and The Justice of Zeus (2nd edn, Berkeley 1983) 95-103, 245–6Google Scholar; Golden, L., In Praise of Prometheus (Chapel Hill 1962)Google Scholar; cf. Schmid, W., Untersuchungen zum gefesselten Prometheus (Stuttgart 1929)Google Scholar.

⁴ Wilamowitz, U., Aischylos: Interpretationen (Berlin 1914) 114–58Google Scholar; G. Thomson (n.l: 1946) 317-46; Dodds (n.2); Solmsen, F., Hesiod and Aeschylus (Ithaca 1949) 147–77Google Scholar; Fitton-Brown, A.D., ‘Prometheia’, JHS 79 (1959) 52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kitto, H.D.F., Poiesis (Berkeley 1966) 33–74Google Scholar; Podlecki (n.l) 101-3; Grossmann (n.l) 70-110; Buxton, R.G.A., Persuasion in Greek Tragedy (Cambridge 1982) 90–104Google Scholar; Winnington-Ingram, R.P., Studies in Aeschylus (Cambridge 1983) 175–97Google Scholar; Herington, J., Aeschylus (New Haven 1986) 157–77Google Scholar; Meier, C., The Political Art of Greek Tragedy (Munich 1988; tr. Webber, A., Oxford 1993) 137–59Google Scholar; Sommerstein, A., Aeschylean Tragedy (Ban 1996) 301–19Google Scholar. The very idea of Zeus maturing has been challenged: Farnell, L.R., ‘The paradox of the PV’, JHS 54 (1933) 40–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reinhardt, K., Aischylos als Regisseur und Theologe (Bern 1951) 68–73Google Scholar; Lloyd-Jones (n.3: 1956) 56-7.

⁵ Pohlenz, M., Die griechische Tragödie (2nd edn, Göttingen 1954) 75–83Google Scholar; Reinhardt (n.4) 64-76; Conacher (n.2) 131-7; Griffith, M., Aeschylus: Prometheus Bound (Cambridge 1983) 7–8Google Scholar.

⁶ Studies in Aeschylus (Stuttgart 1990) 63Google Scholar; cf. Dodds (n.2) 32.

⁷ Griffith (n.5) 281-305; West, M.L., ‘The Prometheus trilogy’, JHS 99 (1979) 130–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for PD as the first play, see Conacher (n.2) 98-119 and Winnington-Ingram (n.4) 188-97; for a monodrama, see Schmid (n.3), Rosenmeyer, T.G., The Masks of Tragedy (Austin 1963) 51–102Google Scholar. It would suit my argument best if Purphoros preceded Desmotes and Luomenos followed in a sequence of problematic transgression, disturbing retribution and revelatory reconciliation; cf. Pohlenz (n.5) 77-8 and n.83 below.

⁸ See Griffith, M., The Authenticity of Prometheus Bound (Cambridge 1977)Google Scholar. I shall frequently cite parallels with undisputed works of Aeschylus, complete and fragmentary alike. My aim is not to insinuate any claim about authorship, only to contextualize the play by indicating affinities in theme, diction, ideology and religious outlook.

⁹ Plays produced elsewhere might have taken more liberties; but see Griffith, M., ‘Aeschylus, Sicily, and Prometheus’, in Dawe, R. et al. (eds.), Dionysiaca (Cambridge 1978) 105–39Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Tragic decorum probably forbad bringing Zeus onstage; cf. Taplin, O., The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford 1977) 431–3Google Scholar.

¹¹ Even after PD, Prometheus was viewed with a mixture of admiration and distrust. The parody in Birds 1494-1552 portrays him skulking unheroically and still ready to betray Zeus as he earlier had Kronos; and in Plato's sophistic fable (Protag. 320d-21e), he ironically fails to foresee and forestall his brother's foolish over-sight; cf. Farnell (n.4) 49.

¹² Most attempts to justify Zeus are vitiated by vilification of Prometheus and disregard for mortals; cf. Dodds (n.2) 32-3.

¹³ Cf. Sourvinou-Inwood, C., ‘The Hesiodic Myth of the Five Races and the tolerance of plurality in Greek mythology’, in Palagia, O. (ed.), Greek Offerings (Oxford 1987) 1–21Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Frequency in the six extant plays of Aeschylus is comparable for βροτ- (83 times) and ἄνθρωπος (14 times) but much lower for θνητός (only 10 times). In Protag. 320c-21c, τὸ άνθρώπων γένος is only one of many θνητά γένη.

¹⁵ This blurring of boundaries may be reflected in the high frequency of -ωπος terminations: γοργωπόν (356), στενωπόν (568), πυρωπόν (667), φλογωπόν (253, 498), στενωποῦ (364), θεμερῶπις (134), and Αίθίοψ (809); cf. Griffith (n.8) 222. These terms, which describe things by their ‘look’ alone (cf. 998 and 21-2), are applied indifferently to physical phenomena (thunderbolts, flames, straits), the mortal monster Argos, holy αίδώς, and of course ἄνθρωποι (Crat. 399c suggests an etymological link could be heard). For similarly ‘porous’ boundaries, see Heath, J., ‘Disentangling the beast: humans and other animals in Aeschylus' Oresteia’, JHS 119 (1999) 17–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ The opening of the antistrophe recalls the opening of the first stasimon in Pers., which equates Asia with the Persian empire: πρόπασα δ̉ ἤδη στονόεν λέλακε / χώρα (406-7) echoing νῦν δὴ πρόπασα μὲν στένει / γαῖ̕ Άσίς (548-9).

¹⁷ Later in the play, both groups are situated in Europe (709, 723), and a lacuna in 409 may hide a referuence to Europe here; but see West (n.6) 297-8, who jectures <ῥαιομέναν>.

¹⁸ Cf. Eum. 685-90. The parallel figures prominently in contemporary art: murals in the Theseion and Stoa Poikile from the 460s, west metopes on the Parthenon and Athena's golden shield inside from the 440s and 430s, and innumerable imitations on pots; see Tyrrell, W., Amazons: A Study in Athenian Mythmaking (Baltimore 1984) 9–22Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Cf. Cho. 160-3; see Hartog, F., The Mirror of Herodotus (Paris 1980; tr. Lloyd, J., Baltimore 1988), esp. 193–9Google Scholar. Hdt. explicitly ascribes cannibalism only to the ‘Androphagoi’ (ἀγριώτατα πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἔχουσι ἤθεα) who border the ‘royal’ Scythians on the north (4.18, 100), where Io will apparently go (712-13).

²⁰ An unmetrical θ' in 421 would distinguish Arabia and Caucasus; its deletion either conflates two regions or alludes to later migrations; see Griffith (n.5) on 420-1.

²¹ In their catalogue of mortals, the Oceanids name not peoples but regions, as if invoking eponymous immortals: Asia (equated with Prometheus' wife Hesione, according to Hdt. 4.45; cf. 560), Colchis, Arabia and Caucasus.

²² Schmid (n.3) 80-3, recognizing the problem, suggests that Prometheus had created mortals. But PD nowhere recalls this tradition, and even iffr. 369 R comes from the trilogy, as West (n.7) 134 suggests, it refers only to females and is thus compatible with Hes. WD 61-2; cf. Ar. Birds 686, Philemon fr. 93 KA.

²³ His earlier report, which follows Hesiod in having Zeus distribute honours himself, is surely the one we are meant to accept, as his praeteritio in 441-2 may be designed to emphasize.

²⁴ Griffith (n.5) on 448-50 observes that ἔφυρον usually applied to animals.

²⁵ Compounds occur three times in the prologue: first φιλανθρώπον derisively by Kratos (11), then άπανθρώπωι (20) and φιλανθρώπον (28) sympathetically by Hephaestus.

²⁶ How fire and technology relate to ‘blind hopes’ (248-50) is also unexplained.

²⁷ See Conacher (n.2) 82-97; cf. Benardete, S., ‘The crimes and arts of Prometheus’, RhM 107 (1964) 126–39Google Scholar. Mention of the seasons in 454-6 and livestock in 462-4 may allude to agriculture; but the lines suit nomadic gatherers or herders equally well, farming is not evident among anv mortals described in the play, it is absent from Hesiod's first three eras in WD, and contemporary speculation envisioned an era of gathering before the advent of farming; see Diod. 1.14-15, and Cole, T., Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology (Cleveland 1967) 30–9Google Scholar.

²⁸ If by Aesch., PD was produced over a decade before Antigone; if not, it could be later. If Plato's fable reflects lost work by Protagoras (cf. B8b and Cl DK), the play may be later; cf. West (n.7) 147-8. Context renders both accounts deeply ambiguous: each occurs early in the work, and as the play's ensuing conflict between civic and religious authority undercuts the ode, so prolonged debate challenges the fable; cf. Segal, C., ‘Sophocles' praise of man and the conflicts of the Antigone’, Arion 3.2 (1964) 46–66Google Scholar = Interpreting Greek Tragedy (Ithaca 1986) 137–61Google Scholar; Burton, R.W.B., The Chorus in Sophocles' Tragedies (Oxford 1980) 95–103Google Scholar; Farrar, C., The Origins of Democratic Thinking (Cambridge 1988) 76–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Prometheus labels the Olympian powers γέρα 439 and 229, and likewise his gifts to mortals in 107; Kratos does so in 82; Hephaestus calls them γέρατιμαί in 30, Hermes in 946; cf. Protag. 321de. Benardete (n.27) 137 sees an allusion to weaving in πλινθυφεῖς (450, cf. 709) and λινόπτερα (468), and notes that έργάνην (461) is a cult-title of Athena. For the absence of pottery, see n.87 below.

³⁰ Cf. Hes. frr. 51, 54 MW, Naupactia EGF 10, Panyassis EGF 19, Pi. Pylh. 3.47-62; for Zeus's prohibition on reviving the dead, cf. the Chorus in Ag. 1022-4, Apollo in Eum. 647-9. The function Prometheus assigns to έλπίς in 248 is also suspicious: τῆσδε νόσου in 249 suggests death itself, not simply ‘foreseeing’ it.

³¹ The sequence of metals reverses Hesiod's suggestively: first functional bronze and iron, then precious silver and gold; or from implements of war and work to idle luxuries.

³² Only one method is missing: inspired utterance (oracles, seers, poets), the holiest type and distinctly Olympian (cf. Eum. 16-18). See Sansone, D., Aeschylean Metaphors for Intellectual Activity (Hermes Einzelschrift 35, Wiesbaden 1975) 41–4Google Scholar; cf. Dover, K. J., ‘Some neglected aspects of Agamemnon's dilemma’, JHS 93 (1973) 58–69, esp. 61-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar on the dubious status of omens in Ag.

³³ Cf. Loraux, N., ‘What is a goddess?’, in Pantel, P. Schmitt (ed.), A History of Women in the West 1 (Rome 1990; tr. Goldhammer, A., Cambridge, MA 1992) 11–44, esp. 22-8Google Scholar.

³⁴ Rosenmeyer (n.7) 65-6 calls Io ‘a mask for the soul of pre-Promethean man, for the terrors of human life prior to the advent of cultural progress and enlightenment.’

³⁵ The resolution is promptly and dramatically postponed when Prometheus announces that a future rival will overthrow Zeus (907-27) but refuses to say how. The play then ends with his immediate and long-term fate still in doubt: will the harsher punishment he is about to receive compel him to submit promptly and win release, or will he refuse and Zeus eventually fall? The second half of the play thus supplies both motive for the sequel and clues to its final resolution. How that was achieved is a question too complex to pursue here; I suspect that Prometheus misinterprets his ‘secret’, that Zeus only appears to be at risk, and that the marriage of Thetis to Peleus was eventually revealed to be part of his plan, but evidence is too tenuous for confidence about any of this.

³⁶ Thomson (n. 1: 1946) 323, cf. Thomson (n. 1: 1932) 9.

³⁷ A notable exception is Murray, R.D., The Motif of Io in Aeschylus' ‘Suppliants’ (Princeton 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; his thesis that ‘the web of imagery woven around Io … conveys much of the meaning of the Suppliants’ (15) suits PD at least equally well. Cf. Zeitlin, F., ‘The politics of eros in the Danaid trilogy of Aeschylus’, in Hexter, R. and Selden, D. (eds.), Innovations of Antiquity (New York 1992) 203–52Google Scholar (= Zeitlin, F., Playing the Other (Chicago 1996) 123-71), esp. 229–32Google Scholar: ‘the story of Io … symbolizes the union of male and female that marks the point of departure for human generation and genealogy.’

³⁸ I borrow this term from my colleague Douglass Parker. For the main problems, see Griffith (n.5) 213-14. These are usually ascribed to confusion in either the poet or his sources. But the explanation may be dramatic: errors may indicate that Prometheus is confused, hencepresumes to know more than he does; this would help explain why his forecast departs so far from the account in Suppl. 538-89 only a few years earlier.

³⁹ Plausible sources include the Hesiodic Catalogue, Aigimios, Phoronis, Danais, Arimaspeia, various plays including Aesch. Phorcides, and chronicles by Hecataeus, Acusilaus and Pherecydes; see Stoessl, F., Der Prometheus des Aischylos als geistesgeschichtliches und theatergeschichtliches Phänomen (Palingenesia 24, Stuttgart 1988) 42–56Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Hall, E., Inventing the Barbarian (Oxford 1989) 147Google Scholar; cf. Hartog (n.19). Hall contrasts an archaic emphasis on the temporally primitive with a shift to ethnic and cultural difference in tragedy; PD, with its primeval setting, intertwines these strategies throughout. For similar themes and strategies in the Oresteia, see Bowie, A.M., ‘Religion and politics in Aeschylus' Oresteia’, CQ 43 (1993) 10–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ In ST 727-33 the Chorus likens the Fury of Oedipus' curse (720-6) to a ‘Chalybian settler from Scythia … bitter, raw-minded [ώμόφρων] iron’; cf. ST 941-5.

⁴² The hapax ἀστρογείτων, evoking ἀστυγείτων signals the absence of ‘neighbours’ and ‘towns’. Contrast Eum. 10-14: Athenian roadbuilders ‘tame the untamed land’ of Parnassus; cf. Bowie (n.40) 14-16.

⁴³ Io's descendants include Libya, Aegyptus, the houses of Danaus, Cadmus, Europa, Perseus and innumerable Heraclids; see West, M.L., The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women (Oxford 1985) 76-91, 144–54Google Scholar; Hall (n.40) 172-81; Fowler, R., ‘Genealogical thinking, Hesiod's Catalogue, and the creation of the Hellenes’, PCPS n.s. 44 (1998) 1–19Google Scholar. Athenian envoys to Susa reported that Argive emissaries reminded Artaxerxes at his accession in 465/4 of their shared descent from Perseus, also a descendant of Io (Hdt. 7.150-2, cf. 6.53-4, 7.61, Pers. 80, 181 -7); her route would thus have territorial implications in Athens in the following decade, when Suppl. and probably PD were composed.

⁴⁴ The scholia complain that the Gorgons are out of place; but like the Amazons, they could later migrate to the west, where Pherecydes (FGrHist 3 Fll) had Perseus find them. The whole passage probably had parallels in Aesch. Phorcides (see frr. 261-2 R), which it may recall.

⁴⁵ On the Arimaspeia and its possible influence here, Bolton, J.D.P., Aristeas of Proconnesus (Oxford 1962)Google Scholar. Of the metals listed in 502, the silver of Attic Laureion (allegedly a key to victory over the Persians: Pers. 238, Hdt. 7.144) is a Hellenic mean between luxurious gold in the Asian East (805) and deadly iron in the Scythian North (714).

⁴⁶ Hdt. 7.69-70 distinguishes eastern Ethiopians ‘from the rising of the sun’ (near India as in Suppl. 284-6) from southern Ethiopians in or near Arabia; Aethiops here should be the eponymous river-god ancestor of both. Cf. n.115.

⁴⁷ The only sign of habitation is πόλις Κάνωβος in 846; but the name is from the helmsman of Menelaus (Hec. FGrHist 1 F308; cf. Nic. Ther. 309-19) centuries later, and άποικίαν κτίσαι 814 suggests that πόλις is proleptic (sch. 846b notes the anachronism), Assimilation of Io and Epaphus to Isis and Apis was already under way (Hdt. 2.41, 3.27-8; cf. 2.59), but PD nowhere exploits it; see Solmsen, F., Isis among the Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, MA 1979) 16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁸ Θεσπρωτοῦ Διός, evoking the θέσπισμα πρῶτον of Zeus (cf. προυτεθεσπίκει in 211), underscores the sanctity of his oldest and most hallowed oracle (cf. Hdt. 2.52). On δάμαρ see n.68.

⁴⁹ Κεκλήσεται in 840 echoes κλεινὴ δάμαρ in 834 (each a final metron). The area may also have been called ‘sea of Kronos’ after his father (Ap. Rhod. 4.327 with sch., Lycophr. 631 with Tzetzes). The play, by making Io the daughter of Inachus, telescopes the Argive tradition of an earlier Inachid named Niobe (daughter of Phoroneus) being the first mortal mate of Zeus (Apollod. 2.1.1); see West (n.43) 76-7; Dowden, K., Death and the Maiden: Girls' Initiation Rites in Greek Mythology (London 1989) 118–24Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ lo is elsewhere Hera's priestess (Suppl. 291-3, cf. Hes. fr. 124 MW). But here Hera's role is notably down-played and left uncertain: Prometheus blames her (592, 704), as do the Chorus (900, cf. n.106 below); but Io blames only Zeus (577-85, 759) and never mentions Hera (unless in a lacuna in 600 where sch. 599a led Hermann to propose “Ηρας). Contrast Hera's prominence as Io's alleged tormentor in Suppl. 296-303, 561-4, 586-7; cf. Conacher (n.2) 17, 60.

⁵¹ Both his ‘myriad eyes’ (568) and his ‘earth-born’ lineage (as in Acus. FGrHist 2 F27; other early accounts assign him mortal parents) liken Argos to other primeval esp. ‘hundred-headed’ Typho (351-3, cf. Theog. 825).

⁵² For the metaphor, see Janko, R., The Iliad: A Commentary 4 (Cambridge 1992)Google Scholar on Il. 13.812.

⁵³ Bacch. 19.25-36, a dithyramb for Athens, assumes this account but puzzles over its details.

⁵⁴ Why Zeus chose Io and why she migrates to Egypt are questions the play does not address. Pelasgian ‘Apidania’ (cf. Suppl. 250-70), as Zeus's birthplace (Call. Hymn 1.10-32, glossing or correcting Theog. 468-84; cf. Paus. 8.38, 8.36.2-3) and Hera's favourite land, obviously warrants favour. Io's destination also provides a Greek origin for putative Egyptian influences on Greek culture and religion (Hdt. 2.49-58); cf. Froidefond, C., Le mirage égyptien (Aix-en-Provence 1971) 105–12Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Io calls herself a ‘maiden’ (παρθένος, 588, 608), Prometheus calls her a ‘daughter’ (κόρη, 589, 739), her dream calls her both (646-8), the Chorus cite her παρθενία (898), and Prometheus calls Zeus only her ‘suitor’ (μνηστήρ, 740). The period of παρθενία (technically from menarche to parturition) normally implies chastity, though not necessarily virginity; see King, H., ‘Bound to bleed: Artemis and Greek women’, in Cameron, A. and Kuhrt, A. (eds.), Images of Women in Antiquity (London 1983) 109-27, esp. 111–12Google Scholar (cf. King, H., Hippocrates' Woman (London 1998) 75–99)Google Scholar, and Sissa, G., Greek Virginity (Paris 1987; tr. Goldhammer, A., Cambridge, MA 1990) 73–104Google Scholar. The play's emphatic avoidance of rape may be deliberate expurgation of archaic tradition (cf. Pi. Ol. 1.25-53); in Suppl. 291-313, only the Danaids, all too anxious themselves about male sexuality and speaking only on hearsay (φασί, 291 and 301; φάτις, 293 as in Pi. Ol. 1.28; λόγος τις, 295), tell of Io being seduced; but cf. Johansen, H. Friis and Whittle, E.W., Aeschylus: The Suppliants (Copenhagen 1980) on 230Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Sch. 813 relates τρίγωνον to the Egyptian origin of geometry, which Hdt. 2.109 traces to agriculture.

⁵⁷ The emphasis in Suppl. may be different; for discussion, see Winnington-Ingram (n.4) 59-60; Conacher, , Aeschylus: The Earlier Plays and Related Studies (Toronto 1996) 75–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Seaford, R., ‘The tragic wedding’, JHS 107 (1987) 106-30, esp. 110–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In both plays, the gentle and ultimately consensual union of Io and Zeus marks a contrasting ideal; cf. Zeitlin (n.37) 226-38.

⁵⁸ The κέρδος of foreknowledge in 777 (cf. 876) answers Io's anguished question in 747: τί δῆτ̕ έμοὶ ζῆν κέρδος

⁵⁹ This οἷστρος (unlike μύωψ, 675) may allude specifically to the female erotic frenzy of ‘estrus’; cf. Hippol. 1300-4; Winnington-Ingram (n.4) 195 n.54; and n.69 below. Similarly, λακτίζει (881) of Io's frenzy echoes ἀπολακτίσηις λέχος (651) in the dreams that urged her not to reject Zeus's love; this image, with ἐνέζευξας in 579 and κέντροισι in 597, underscores the common erotic and conjugal motif of taming a filly; cf. Calame, C., Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece (Rome, 1977; tr. Collins, D. and Orion, J., Lanham, MD 9); 1997) 238–44Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Reinhardt (n.4) 75; cf. Pohlenz (n.5) 80: ‘einer Urzeit … überhaupt noch hart und wild’.

⁶¹ See Hdt. 4.32-6, 4.26; Bolton (n.45) 22-4, 76-9; cf. the exemplary Gabioi in Luomenos fr. 196 R.

⁶² In Suppl., the third stasimon opens by invoking Zeus Xenios (627, cf. 672, Ag. 61, 362, 748) and ends by ranking respect for xenoi alongside respect for citizens and ancestral gods as the three commandments of Dike (698-709; see Friis Johansen and Whittle (n.55) on 7079); and King Pelasgus counts disregard for xenia as the Egyptian herald's ‘first’ and decisive offence against Dike (915-17); cf. n.115 below.

⁶³ Wecklein (n.2) 8 defends Zeus by calling mortals ‘imbecile and insensate’; contrast Dodds (n.2) 32-4; Lloyd-Jones (n.3: 1956) 56.

⁶⁴ The etymology was probably felt: Penelope prays that the Olympians ἀιστώσειαν her to Hades so she may ‘see’ Odysseus again (20.79-81); cf. Lloyd-Jones, H., CR 15 (1965) 241–3Google Scholar. Plato's fable (echoing Protagoras?) uses the verb for extinction: γένος ἀιστωθείη (Protag. 321a2).

⁶⁵ Cf. Vernant, J.-P., ‘At man's table: Hesiod's foundation myth of sacrifice’, in Detienne, M. and Vernant, J.-P. (eds.), The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks (Paris 1979; tr. Wissing, P., Chicago 1989) 21–86, esp. 23-9, 57-61Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Cypria fr. 1 = sch. Il. 1.5, glossing Διὸς βουλή Hes.fr 204.96-104 MW, where Zeus has the limited aim of γένος μερόπων ἀνθρώπ ' πολλὸν ἀιστῶαι (cf. Pi. Pyth. 3.36-7: πολλὰν … ὰίσωεν ὕλαν).

⁶⁷ A tragic equivalent of (βούλομαι, χρήιζω, is a virtual leitmotif in the play: used nine times, always of immortals except in 609 (only thrice in Aesch., all in Cho.). The root idea of χρεία (typically an instrumental need to use or employ something for a further purpose) is marked in 700-1 but does not seem apt in every case. Nowhere does it seem to imply passion or lust; even in 738, where Prometheus uses it for Zeus's interest in Io, the context is notably devoid of the erotic imagery used in 648-54. It suggests rather a rational interest, as befits a divine plan or ‘design.’

⁶⁸ So Hesione in 560 (where πιθών implies consent), Hera in fr. 383 R, all four instances in Homer, both in Pindar, and Dracon's law on homicide; even in 767, where δάμαρτος refers to Thetis (though unbeknownst to Io, who wonders how a wife could cause Zeus's fall), it follows δάμαρτος (764, cf. 909), hence signifies legitimacy. For monogamy as the Greek mean between barbaric extremes of abstinence and polygamy or promiscuity, see Hall (n.40) 201-3.

⁶⁹ [Hippocr.] Virg. See Dumortier, J., Le vocabulaire médical d'Eschyle et les écrits hippocratiques (Paris 1935) 69–79Google Scholar; H. King (n.55) 113-17; Dean-Jones, L., Women's Bodies in Classical Greek Science (Oxford 1994) 50–3Google Scholar; cf. n.55 above and §V below.

⁷⁰ If he is on his way to the Hesperides, as fr. 199 R seems to imply, then he has accomplished most of his tasks when the Luomenos begins; Griffith (n.5) 297-300; West (n.7) 143-6. It would be natural for the sequel to recount his prior exploits, as in the grandiloquent first stasimon of Eur. Hcl. cf. Winnington-Ingram (n.4) 192; Thomson (n.1: 1932) 37.

⁷¹ See T70 and frr. 13-15 R; cf. Hes. fr 297 MW; Eur. Phoen. 187-9; Dowden (n.49) 151-3.

⁷² Bacchyl. 9.42-4; Apollod. 2.5.8; Diod. 4.16.

⁷³ See frr. 261-2 R; cf. n.44 above. This exploit also figures in Cho.: the Chorus exhorts Orestes and Electra to imitate their ancestor and (with Kirchhoff's emendation) slay the ‘deadly Gorgon’ who is their mother (831-7); her avenging spirits later appear looking like Gorgons (1048, Eum. 48-9). The Gorgons also have links to Heracles: Medusa's son Chrysaor fathered Geryon (Theog. 287-94), whose fate was apparently foretold in Luomenos (fr. 199 R).

⁷⁴ Canopus is ἐσχάτη χθονός (sc. of Egypt) in 846; cf. Hec. FGrHist 1 F307-9; Lloyd, A.B., Herodotus Book II (Leiden 1975-1983) 2.78–83Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ For the Egyptian travels of Perseus, who was identified with Horus, see Lloyd (n.74) 2.367-70. The tale of Heracles slaying Busiris was told by Panyassis (EGF fr. 23) and Pherecydes (FGrHist 3 F17) but dismissed by Hdt. 2.45; Pherecydes situates events in Memphis, but the exceptional right of asylum at the Heracleion (Hdt. 2.113) suggests that Canopus was also involved, perhaps as the site of his landing or departure; cf. Strabo 17.1.18-19 (from Eratosthenes), Lloyd (n.74) 2.81.

⁷⁶ See sch. 1027c; cf. Hephaestus in 27, Prometheus in 771-4, 871-3. A puzzling tale from Pherecydes (FGrHist 3 F83) assigns a role to Chiron; but an allusion to Heracles is more credible, given the three earlier forecasts of his role (πόνων here directly echoes 872); see Schmid (n.3) 78-9; Griffith (n.5) 302.

⁷⁷ To avoid prejudicing the argument, I translate ἁματία neutrally; on its wide range of meaning in tragedy, from factual or prudential errors to moral or psychological flaws, see Stinton, T., ‘Hamartia in Aristotle and Greek tragedy’, CQ 25 (1975) 221–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar (= Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy (Oxford 1990) 143–85Google Scholar).

⁷⁸ Aesch. parodied these risks in Prom. Purkaeus: the satyrs delight in the prospect of their fire attracting nymphs (fr. 204b R), and they burn themselves trying to kiss it (fr. 207 R).

⁷⁹ Griffith (n.8) 199 observes that τόλμα is ‘almost invariably accompanied by feelings of disapproval’ in Aesch. This also applies to PD, most clearly when Hermes caustically voices frustration with Prometheus (imperative τόλμησον twice in 999), but also when Hephaestus reluctantly accepts his task (privative ἄτολμος in 14 indicates his Olympian sensibility, and τόλμα in 16 his horror at what he feels ‘compelled’ to do), and when Prometheus spurns Ocean's offer of help (299, 331; cf. 383, mocking Ocean's τολμᾶν, 381). For Prometheus to say ‘I myself dared’ (ἐγὼ δ' ἐτόλμησ) to give mortals fire thus signals that he somehow erred.

⁸⁰ Hephaestus rejects Kratos' demand to impale Prometheus (64-8) and instead binds his chest with straps (69-71); see S. White, ‘Binding Prometheus (PV 55-81)’ (forthcoming).

⁸¹ The mechanics of the ending are problematic; see Taplin (n.10) 270-5; Griffith (n.5) on 1016-19 and 1080.

⁸² Taken literally, bondage for 10,000 years (30,000 in fr. 208a R) is preposterous and plainly belied by 774. But there is no need to imagine Zeus relenting or Prometheus miscounting; ‘myriads’ is simply rhetorical exaggeration (cf. Hes. WD 252, Emped. B115.6 DK); cf Conacher (n.2) 101 n.3.

⁸³ This closing affirmation by the Chorus, according to Dodds (n.2) 34, is ‘decisive evidence of the side on which our sympathies are meant to lie’. But sympathy is only part of the point. The similar Chorus of Asian women in Cho., which sides with Orestes throughout and celebrates his matricide in triumphal tones (931-71), provide a similarly incomplete and misleading perspective: no sooner do they congratulate Orestes (1044-7) than he is driven off-stage by the Furies, as Prometheus is here hurled below. Both plays end abruptly in ways that challenge the Chorus' – and hence the audience's -–sympathies and perception of justice; and as Eum. goes on to clarify where justice really lies, so I would argue did Luomenos. Both Orestes and Prometheus deserve our sympathy; but each has also committed terrible wrongs for which they must atone.

⁸⁴ Fraenkel, E., Aeschylus: Agamemnon (Oxford 1950) on 182fGoogle Scholar. compares Homer's Zeus ὑψίζυγος; cf. n.95 below. The μνησιπήμων πόνος, 180 is all too apt for the protracted πόνοι of Prometheus (so called 13 times).

⁸⁵ Hermes is widely denounced as a nasty lackey. But an impartial reading of his lines, by themselves and uncoloured by Prometheus' abuse, gives a favourable impression; esp. in the stichomythia of 964-86, his is the voice of reason astonished at Prometheus' insolent folly.

⁸⁶ If Zeus sends the eagle, as 1021-2 suggests (cf. Theog. 523), its gnawing may be therapeutic. The liver, as the source of bile (χολή), was widely seen as the source of ‘rage’ (χόλος, 29, 199, 370, 376; not in Aesch.), and more generally as a locus of intense pain (Ag. 791-2, Il. 24.212-13); cf. R. Onians, The Origins of European Thought (Cambridge 1951) 84-9. The eagle could thus cure Prometheus’ ‘bilious choler’ surgically. Alternatively, this torment may owe less to Zeus than loss of the Luomenos allows us to suppose: in Pherecydes (FGrHist 3 F3), the eagle is spawned by Echidna and Typho; Zeus could intend Heracles to defeat it (Theog. 529-32), as he does other Echidnids (Nemean lion, Hydra, Cerberus and Geryon's Orthos: Theog. 306-32).

⁸⁷ For likely aetiological ties to the Attic Prometheia, see West (n.7) 144, 148. The finale may also have supplied an aetiology for the special status Prometheus enjoyed among Attic potters: a torch-race from the Academy passed by the potteries outside the Dipylon gate and the inner Ceramicus on the Panathenaic way, then the Royal Stoa, Stoa of Zeus and altar of Hephaestus; the route thus reenacts the promotion of Earth-born Prometheus to patron of fire for Athens' earth-enware industry, alongside Olympian Hephaestus, patron of fire in metalwork. Luomenos fr. 192 R may refer to Kronos presiding over the heroic dead in the west: ἀναπαύει of Helios suits sunset as well as sunrise, ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάσσης suits the Hesperides (one named Erytheia, Hes. fr. 360 MW) near Erytheia (Theog. 215, 290-4), where Kronos (or Heracles?) is headed rather than whence the Titan chorus arrives.

⁸⁸ Podlecki (n.l) 104 and others object that Zeus is called ‘inexorable’ (34, 163, 185, 333) and ‘unaccountable’ (324), grave faults indeed for mortal rulers (Xerxes: Pers. 213-14), especially in Athens. But Zeus sets and upholds mortal standards (Suppl. 595-9); if his judgements are just, he cannot rescind them without violating justice and promoting further wrongs. Similarly, every process of appeal or review must reach an end; if Zeus is both just and supreme, his verdicts neither can nor should be changed; cf. n.92.

⁸⁹ See Thomson (n.1: 1932) 6-10; Hall (n.40) 191200. Discussions of PD tend to equate tyranny and despotism; but only the latter entails oppression, and Zeus's rule, while repeatedly labelled tyranny (12 times; 957 refers to Ouranos and Kronos), is never called despotic. The Egyptian Danaids, virtually translating Persian liturgy, invoke Zeus as ἄναξ ἀνάκτων (Suppl. 524, opening the tale of Io), and the Persian elders entitle Xerxes ‘king of kings’ (Pers. 24 inverts the formula) and Darius δέσποτα δεσπότου (Pers. 666); cf. Broadhead, H.D., The Persae of Aeschylus (Cambridge 1960) 40, 253Google Scholar. This is sacrilege by Greek standards because it treats mortals like gods (in Pers. 150-9, the Chorus calls both kings gods); but piety demands exalted honour for gods, Zeus above all.

⁹⁰ The noun occurs 48 times (18 of gods; ἄνασσα another 9 times: 7 of Athena, 2 of Atossa) and ἀνάωωσ twice in the six extant plays of Aesch., but each only once in PD and both times of Zeus. The comparable use of βασιλεύς / -ειος / -εια (41 times in the six plays) makes its absence from the world of PD all the more striking. In Homer, both terms signify primarily political authority, typically sanctioned by Zeus; see Carlier, P., La royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre (Strasbourg 1984) 178–94Google Scholar. On these and related terms in Orest., see Griffith, M., ‘Brilliant dynasts: power and politics in the Oresteia’, CIA 14 (1995) 79 n.66Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Easterling, P., ‘Agamemnon's skêptron in the Iliad’, in Mackenzie, M.M. and Roueché, C. (eds.), Images of Authority (PCPS Suppl. 16, Cambridge 1989) 104–21Google Scholar, calling the sceptre ‘the sign of the community's delegated authority’, points out that it is used not only by ‘kings’ but also by priests, heralds and all authorized speakers in council or assembly.

⁹² In Hdt. 3.80, absence of ‘review’ (ἀνευθύνωι) is a crucial flaw in ‘monarchy’ (unlike βασιλεύς, typically pejorative) contrasted with the ὑπεύθυνον ἀρχήν of Athenian ‘isonomia’; cf. Pers. 213-14 on Xerxes. Zeus, however, is himself the ultimate reviewer, as Darius realizes sadly: εὔθυνος βαρύς (Pers. 828, cf. PD 77, Suppl. 347).

⁹³ Orestes likens Athena to a ταγοῦχος when he prays for her help in Eum. 296; τάγοι along with ‘ephors’ applies collectively to the Persian generals in Pers. 23 (cf. 324, 480, ST 58). Even in aristocratic Thessaly, τάγοι were elected, collegial, and officially restricted to military roles; see Carlier (n.90) 412-17.

⁹⁴ Cf. Podlecki, A., ‘Polis and monarch in early Attic tragedy’, in Euben, J.P. (ed.), Greek Tragedy and Political Theory (Berkeley 1986) 76–100, esp. 82-6Google Scholar on this ‘democratized’ king. In Athens and elsewhere, βασιλεύς was a title not for a supreme monarch but for an annual official with very limited civic and religious functions; see Carlier (n.90) 325-72; Drews, R., Basileus (New Haven 1983) 116–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁵ Heraclitus uses οἰακίζει of Zeus's thunderbolt (B64 DK), Pers. 767 ὠιακοστρόφουν of Cyrus the Great, ST 62 οἰακοστρόφος of Eteocles (cf. 1-3), PD 515 of the Fates and Furies, or Zeus if Prometheus is mistaken (Theog. 904-6 makes the Fates or ‘portions’ his daughters, and the Furies serve him in Aesch.). Navigational imagery suits Athenian pride in its democratic navy and usually has positive overtones in Aesch.; since helmsmen and crew share the same fate, the image minimizes partisanship; cf. Petrounias, E., Funktion und Thematik der Bilder bei Aischylos (Hypomnemata 48, Göttingen 1976) 37–51Google Scholar. The Oceanids, in saying Zeus rules ἀθέτως (151), may mean ‘illegitimately’ (ἀθέσμως Hesych. s.v.), but their words also evoke his ‘athetizing’ of Titanic rule; cf. Griffith (n.5) on 150-1.

⁹⁶ Cf. Aesch. fr. 344 R (from an Armenian text of Philo), which West (n.7) 133 suspects may come from Purphoros: ‘law [sc. νόμος?] distinguishes Zeus from the wicked and unjust’.

⁹⁷ This striking phrase has troubled many scholars; see Saïd (n.1) 286. But the allusion to Justice beside her father's throne is unmistakable (cf. ST 662, Cho. 949, fr. 281a.5-ll from the Danaid trilogy, WD 256-62, Theog. 901-3); and a few lines later Prometheus places Themis also ‘on Zeus's side’ (συμπαραστατεῖν 216-18; cf. Pi. Ol. 8.21-2).

⁹⁸ See White (n.80); cf. Allen, D., The World of Prometheus (Princeton 2000) 25–34Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ Golden (n.3) 107-12; his polarity of natural forces and civic culture better suits the play's contrast between primordial and Olympian immortals; cf. Reinhardt (n.4) 72-6.

¹⁰⁰ ‘Zeus and the Erinyes’ (n.4) 174; cf. Buxton (n.4) 58-63.

¹⁰¹ Suppl. 260-70 similarly describes Apollo's son Apis clearing ‘Apia’ (mainland Greece entire: 254-9), previously ‘a nasty serpent-infested habitat’, of ‘mortal-destroying beasts’.

¹⁰² The plural γενημάτων in 850 is proleptic for all of Io's descendants; cf. n.109. On the traditionally broad scope of ‘persuasion’ in tragedy, see Buxton (n.4).

¹⁰³ Inachus' choice, like Agamemnon's at Aulis, results from ‘fear of greater ills’; but unlike Ag., PD emphasizes his reluctance and his daughter survives. His response thus fits Aristotle's model of ‘mixed actions’ that reasonable people should choose, and that warrant συγγνώμη (at least ‘sympathy’ if not ‘forgiveness’) rather than reproach or punishment (NE 3.1 1110a4-29). Cf. Lesky, A., ‘Decision and responsibility in the tragedy of Aeschylus’, JHS 86 (1966) 78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with Dover (n.32) and Williams, B, Shame and Necessity (Berkeley 1993) 130–40Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ The received text in 899 makes the relevance of marriage explicit: γάμωι δαπτομέναν (cf. δάπτομαι κέαρ 437); but Weil's emendation (based on sch. 899a) is compelling. For defence of the received text in 900, see West (n.6) 310-11.

¹⁰⁵ The hapax ἀστεργάνορα should signify an active ‘dislike’ (cf. στυγάνορα 724), not the passive ‘unloved’, though the lyrical context admits an ambiguous ‘affection with a man’.

¹⁰⁶ Io's ties to Hera were especially prominent in Argive myth and ritual; see Seaford, R., ‘The Eleventh Ode of Bacchylides: Hera, Artemis, and the absence of Dionysos’, JHS 108 (1988) 118–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar on the Proitids and the premarital or nubility rites of the Argive Heraia; cf. Burkert, W., Homo Necans (Berlin 1972; tr. Bing, P., Berkeley 1983) 161–73Google Scholar; Dowden (n.49) 70-95; Clark, I., ‘The gamos of Hera: myth and ritual’, in Blundell, S. and Williamson, M. (eds.), The Sacred and the Feminine in Ancient Greece (London 1998) 13–26Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ Calame (n.59) 238-44; Irving, P.M.C. Forbes, Metamorphosis in Greek Myths (Oxford 1990) 63–79Google Scholar; for ritual connections, see Dowden (n.49) 117-45; Kate, P., ‘Io in the Promethus Bound: A coming of age paradigm for the Athenian community’, in Padilla, M. (ed.), Rites of Passage in Ancient Greece (Bucknell Review 43, Lewisburg 1999) 129–47Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ See Seaford (n.57) 106-10 on the assimilation of bridal and funeral motifs.

¹⁰⁹ In Suppl. 313-15, the Danaids claim that Epaphus is named for a ‘pledge’ (ἀληθῶς ῥυσίων ἐπώνυμος) Zeus made to Io and her descendants; see Murray (n.37) 33-7.

¹¹⁰ Prometheus predicts that Zeus will make Io ‘reasonable’ (τίθησιν ἔμφρονα, cf. 444, 628) at Canopus (848-9), which may allude to a new awareness associated with maternity. But Io's own words suggest a simple return to sanity (φρένες διάστροφοι, 673; cf. 878, 881), not a new or higher state of understanding. For the φρένες as the seat of reason, see Sansone (n.32) 21-33.

¹¹¹ See Redfield, J., ‘Notes on the Greek wedding’, Arethusa 15 (1982) 181–201, esp. 191Google Scholar: ‘Virginity is precious and is not abandoned voluntarily… The bride is expected to be unwilling, to take with her into marriage a certain virginal modesty.’ Cf. Sourvinou-Inwood, C., ‘A series of erotic pursuits: images and meanings’, JHS 107 (1987) 131-53, esp. 140–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in ‘Reading’ Greek Culture: Texts and Images, Rituals and Myths (Oxford 1991) 58–98Google Scholar.

¹¹² An Athenian bride had no formal ‘right of consent’ and was officially subject to her kurios, first her father and then her husband. Fathers could expel daughters suspected of sexual activity, as Inachus does, or sell them into slavery, according to a law ascribed to Solon (Plut. Sol. 23.2), though when this law lapsed or was rescinded is unclear; see Just, R., Women in Athenian Life (London 1989) 26-9 and 70Google Scholar; Sissa (n.55) 87-104.

¹¹³ In a similar contrast, Protag. 322c-d pairs αἰδώς and δίκη for πόλεων κόσμοι τε καὶ δεσμοὶ φιλίας cf. Buxton (n.4) 90-1, contrasting political aspects of persuasion in Prometheus' role with its erotic aspects in Io's.

¹¹⁴ An anonymous referee suggests further connections: the garlands (fr. 202 R) and finger-rings (Hygin. Astron. 2.15) which Luomenos apparently aetiologized as tokens of Prometheus' penalty and release were tokens of religiously charged civic and conjugal authority.

¹¹⁵ The ‘Ethiopian’ fountains of Helios (808-9) evoke rejuvenation (fr. 192 R, Hdt. 3.23); cf. n.46.

¹¹⁶ On these closely related aspects of αἰδώς toward outsiders, see Gould, J., ‘HIKETEIA’, JHS 93 (1973) 74–103, esp. 87-94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.