Author: AESCHYLUS,
Title: Choephori. With an introduction and commentary by A.F. Garvie.
Description: Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987. Reprint 1st ed.1986. LX,394p. Cloth. School library stamp on free endpaper. Nice copy. ?Undergraduates and professional scholars alike can be grateful to Garvie for this excellent edition. G.?s virtues as an editor and commentator on Aeschylus are considerable. He is not himself an adventurous textual critic, nor does he offer a particularly novel or distinctive reading of the play. But he has read widely and thought hard, he brings to bear a sober and discriminating judgment, he is open to different opinions and approaches, and, above all, he combines both philological and literary expertise for the elucidation of matters large and small. (?) The first section of the introduction provides a skillful survey of the scattered and often enigmatic evidence for ?The Story before Aeschylus?. (?) In the second section of the introduction (?The Play?), G. begins with a succinct but thorough analysis of the preceding play, incidentally disposing of a number of misleading or untenable interpretations, while providing a coherent and well-balanced preparation for ?Choephori?. (?) Much of the power of ?Choephori?, and of the trilogy, derives from the presence of these two conflicting dramatic logics: one presenting us with an unending series of crimes ?like their parents?, promising light but delivering us into further darkness; the other building up to a third and final stage of salvation, capping and ?perfecting? all that has preceded. (?) As for Orestes? motivation and feelings, G. emphasizes the importance of 297-305 and identifies ?three factors (that) drive him to murder Clytaemnestra?: the will of the Olympian gods; the vengeance required by Agamemnon?s spirit, and Orestes?own will. (?) G.?s reading of the kommos is balanced and convincing, drawing equally on both Schadewaldt and Lesky; and his account of the build-up to the matricide is masterly. (?) In this same section of the introduction, G. pays close attention (as he does throughout the commentary) to Aeschylus? dense and pervasive patterns of imagery. (?) The other two sections of the introduction (?Staging?, ?The Text?) are straightforward. (?) The commentary, for all the textual corruption and interpretive disagreement that it must address, manages to remain admirably clear and easy to follow (and easy to consult on individual points). This clarity is possible in large part because G. introduces each section of the play with a separate interpretive essay, outlining the main areas of controversy and indicating his own position.? (MARK GRIFFITH in Classical Philologie, 1989, pp.335-339). Gew/weight: up to 1 Kg.

Keywords: