Aeschylus: The Earlier Plays and Related Studies

Richard W. Parker is an associate professor and chair of the Classics
Department at Brock University in St. Catharines.

Following up his previous studies on Prometheus Bound (1980) and the
Oresteia trilogy (1987) with this volume on the earlier plays, D.J.
Conacher now completes a literary commentary on all the extant works of
this highly innovative dramatist, “the first of the Greeks to build
towers of majestic words” as Aristophanes calls him.

The present tome comprises five chapters, two of them brand-new and the
rest substantially revised and expanded versions of previously published
(or delivered) papers. In the chapters on the Persai, the Seven Against
Thebes, and the Suppliants, Conacher ably demonstrates how Aeschylus
charges situations of minimal dramatic action with tension and
excitement by the sheer use of imagery and spectacle. The final two
chapters range over the entire Aeschylean corpus. The chapter on imagery
focuses on its dramatic function, in an admittedly narrow sense;
interesting on the whole, this discussion is somewhat diffuse. The
similarly wide-ranging final chapter seems better concentrated on the
function and collective character of the chorus.

The book is aimed at university undergraduate and graduate students,
and is very well suited for its intended audience. The Greek is limited
to words, phrases, or a few lines at most, and is always translated,
while a number of the more familiar terms are transliterated.
Conacher’s writing and thought are always clear and direct, with
little jargon to impede the nonspecialist. His enthusiasm for the
subject is palpable, his grasp of previous criticism and interpretation
is firm, and he skilfully represents other views fairly, succinctly, and
with a minimum of polemic. Those seeking a nod to structuralist or
deconstructionist theories, however, will be disappointed; the method
here is traditional, although the author has wisely profited from
Taplin’s Stagecraft of Aeschylus. Judging from the bibliography, it
appears that there was an interval between desk and press (only one item
was published later than 1992). The editing is very good (one slip:
“Jocasta’s” should read “Atossa’s” on the first line of page
34). Conacher’s third volume will be welcome alongside its forebears.