The year 2019 witnessed the publication of two commentaries on Aeschylus’ Suppliants, namely, A.H. Sommerstein’s Aeschylus’ Suppliants (Cambridge) and the Italian book reviewed here. The Italian volume has a lot to offer and represents a reliable working tool, full of well-thought-out opinions and interesting ideas, though almost exclusively in matters of traditional philology, the constitutio textus in particular. The analytical introduction, in addition to offering essential data (a biography of the poet, sources of the myth, scenic reconstructions and an overview of the manuscript tradition), provides an effective synthesis with various levels of interpretation. Emphasis is given to the reason why Danaus flees from Egypt with his daughters, their presence in Argos and the ways in which marriage is achieved between cousins.
On the order of the first two tragedies, the debate is open, and the commentary follows the reconstruction of W. Rösler (‘Der Schluss der Hiketiden und die Danaiden-Trilogie des Aischylos’, RhM 136 (1993), 1–22), who identifies the first drama as the Egyptians, against the prevailing opinion, according to which Suppliants opened the tetralogy. The central argument is the presence in the Suppliants of some elements which may not make sense if the audience had not attended a previous drama. In particular, the insistence that Danaus shows in the finale in recommending his daughters not to marry, which reveals an interest in the maintenance of their virginity that seems to go beyond the legitimate concern of a father for the reputation of his daughters. Yet, again following Rösler, the authors argue that the reason for the involvement of Danaus must be knowledge of an oracle, mentioned by some predominantly scholastic sources. Since nothing of this oracle is mentioned in the Suppliants, it had to be remembered by the audience from a previous tragedy, that is, the Egyptians. The same goes for the reference to the bellicosity of the Aegyptiads in lines 741–42, which is given as a comment to Danaus without having been mentioned elsewhere.
As for the chronology of the work, the authors believe that the most likely year for the representation is 463 BC, but they do not rule out other possibilities, with a time span between 470 and 459 BC, most probably between 466 and 462. The introduction continues with a discussion of the various themes of the Suppliants, including the perception of the spectators and relevant cultural data such as supplication, marriage, the ‘Greeks vs barbarians’ opposition and the relationship between monarchy and democracy. On stage issues, the commentary follows the well-established view that the Suppliants, in which no building is required, belongs to the phase of the history of the Theatre of Dionysus prior to the construction of the skēnē (‘stage-building’), which appears for the first time in the Oresteia.
The critical apparatus that accompanies the edition is extremely detailed. The readings are recorded with great precision; the same is also true of the authors’ conjectures. This is the great merit of the volume. The line-by-line commentary that follows fully addresses issues of textual criticism, again and again argued for with philological rigour. However, one is less happy when it comes to more interpretative issues such as intertextuality, intratextuality, structuralism, poetics, gender studies, reception, etc. This is regrettable for a contemporary commentary, which should not have dismissed such important trends of classical criticism.
All in all, one must make clear that this commentary, apart from its value in textual issues, is quite restricted, repetitive and derivative, with expanded discussions of well-known issues. Therefore, the book is a good working tool especially for Italian readers, who, however, will not gain more from it if they have read Sommerstein’s English commentary first.
