Back برومثيوس في الأغلال Arabic Zəncirlənmiş Prometey Azerbaijani Прыкуты Праметэй Byelorussian Прикованият Прометей Bulgarian Prometeu encadenat Catalan Upoutaný Prométheus Czech Der gefesselte Prometheus (Aischylos) German Προμηθεύς Δεσμώτης Greek Prometeo Ligita Esperanto Prometeo encadenado Spanish
| Prometheus Bound | |
|---|---|
 Prometheus Being Chained by Vulcan by Dirck van Baburen | |
| Written by | Aeschylus (?) |
| Chorus | Oceanids |
| Characters | |
Prometheus Bound (Ancient Greek: Προμηθεὺς Δεσμώτης, romanized: Promētheús Desmṓtēs) is an ancient Greek tragedy traditionally attributed to Aeschylus and thought to have been composed sometime between 479 BC and the terminus ante quem of 424 BC.[1][2] The tragedy is based on the myth of Prometheus, a Titan who defies Zeus, and protects and gives fire to mankind, for which he is subjected to the wrath of Zeus and punished.
British-born author, C.J. Herington, a scholar of classical Greek and Latin, wrote that Aeschylus certainly did not mean Prometheus Bound to be a "self-contained dramatic unity", and suggests that "most modern students of the subject would probably agree" that Prometheus Bound was followed by a work with the title Prometheus Lyomenos (Prometheus Unbound). Herington adds that "some very slight evidence" indicates that Prometheus Unbound "may have been followed by a third play", Prometheus Pyrphoros (Prometheus the Fire-Bearer); the latter two survive only in fragments.[3] Some scholars have proposed that these fragments all originated from Prometheus Unbound, and that there were only two Promethean plays rather than three. Since the final two dramas of the trilogy have been lost, the author's intention for the work as a whole is not known.
The ascription to Aeschylus had never been challenged since antiquity down to relatively recent times.[a] By the 1970s, both R. P. Winnington-Ingram and Denys Page had become sceptical of its authenticity, but the majority of scholars still affirmed the traditional attribution of authorship.[b] Independently in 1977 both Oliver Taplin and Mark Griffith made forceful cases, on linguistic, technical and stagecraft grounds, for questioning its authenticity, a view supported by M. L. West. To date, no consensus on the matter has been established, though recent computerized stylometric analysis has thrown the burden of proof on those who uphold the traditional claim.[9][10]
- ^ Flintoff 1986, pp. 82–91.
- ^ Ruffell 2012, pp. 14–18, 18.
- ^ Herington 1973–1974, p. 665.
- ^ West 2015, p. 54.
- ^ Ruffell 2012, p. 14.
- ^ Griffith 2007, p. 32, n.103.
- ^ Conacher 1980, p. 21.
- ^ Taplin 1989, p. 460.
- ^ Manousakis 2020.
- ^ Barrios-Lech 2021.
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).