From jmpfund@bgnet.bgsu.edu Sun Feb 25 11:36:20 2001 Received: from mxu4.u.washington.edu (mxu4.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW00.12) with ESMTP id LAA37842 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:36:19 -0800 Received: from sp07.notesnet.bgsu.edu (sp07.notesnet.bgsu.edu [129.1.7.7]) by mxu4.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id LAA03931 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:36:19 -0800 Received: from [129.1.190.218] ([129.1.190.218]) by sp07.notesnet.bgsu.edu (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.2b) with ESMTP id 2001022514340016:2502 ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 14:34:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jmpfund@popj.bgsu.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001101c09ec7$4794f9c0$74140dd0@t9q0o0> References: <003001c09e89$e5be3550$5d509318@ptr> <001101c09ec7$4794f9c0$74140dd0@t9q0o0> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 14:36:38 -0400 To: classics@u.washington.edu From: James Pfundstein Subject: Re: Prometheus Unprinted X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on MAIL03/SERVER/BGSU(Release 5.0.2b |December 16, 1999) at 02/25/2001 02:34:01 PM, Serialize by Router on MAIL03/SERVER/BGSU(Release 5.0.2b |December 16, 1999) at 02/25/2001 02:34:05 PM, Serialize complete at 02/25/2001 02:34:05 PM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Michael Hendry wondered: ><< Who was it who said that scientific theories (or was it political-science >theories?) are never really abandoned in favor of new ones, their supporters >just eventually die off? >> And A.J. Rose astutely suggested: >If memory serves, it was Thomas S. Kuhn in *The Structure of Scientific >Revolutions* (re: scientific theories), originator of the notion of the >"paradigm shift." ------------ It is, in fact, in Kuhn's _Structure etc._, although Kuhn didn't say it. On p. 150 he quotes Max Planck (_Scientific Autobiography_ pp.33-34): "... a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." In another message Michael Hendry summarized the external evidence for authenticity of the _Prometheus Bound_ and the internal evidence for its spuriousness, and added: >The smoking gun: Euphorion is reported to have produced leftover plays >of his father after the latter's death no less than four times. The idea >that Aeschylus left no fewer than 12 unproduced tragedies -- and 4 satyr >plays, too? -- on his desk when he died has raised some eyebrows. Unlike >Euripides, he seems to have been considered a classic in his own lifetime: >surely he had no difficulty getting his plays produced? I don't want to annoy Michael Hendry (whom I like, respect and share an office with) but I'm not sure this really rises to the level of a smoking gun. It seems like there are a few plausible explanations for this datum that don't involve Euphorion whomping up the plays from whole cloth. Aeschylus may have been considered a classic by the end of his own lifetime, but it was a long and prolific lifetime. It doesn't seem at so very unlikely to me that in the course of it he had four sets of plays which didn't meet his standards or those of the judges. This sort of thing happens to prolific writers. (Major work by Twain appeared at intervals through the 20th C., for instance.) Then, too, some of these plays might have been in various stages of completion, and Euphorion put them into produceable form. In this view E. might deserve a byline-- or might not. (Is it Mozart's _Requiem_ or Mozart & Sussmayr's _Requiem_?) And: does the source really say that E. produced four complete sets of plays by his father? Because it seems, on Michael's showing, that this statement might merely mean that, on four different occasions, E. produced one of his father's plays among a group of his own. This might reduce the number of orphan plays to as low as 4. Finally: is it possible that we are seeing a reference to revivals, rather than postumous premieres (like the last plays of Euripides)? This would reduce the number of orphan plays to zero. That being said, I have to confess that external evidence weighs a whole lot heavier with me than internal evidence on this issue. (Not that I'm any kind of expert-- just an interested bystander.) It's worth remembering that assessments of Aeschylean style are dependent on less than 10% of his output, all of which (if we exclude _PB_) can be dated to the later stage of his career. Further, if Michael's hypothesis is correct, the play was presented as (and accepted as) Aeschylus' by his own surviving contemporaries. They were native speakers of the language, contemporaries of Aeschylus, who had access to the great body of his work which we have never seen (not to mention Euphorion's). Not an easy audience to fool. Nor is Euphorion's motivation to produce spurious plays especially clear. As Michael points out, he produced plays in his own name and took the first prize against stiff competition. No doubt I sound like one of these grumpy old physicists plonking at Planck. But do we really have the authority to override the opinion of the generation that accepted the _Prometheus Bound_ as Aeschylus'? We may have grounds for doubt, but doubt is not proof, especially considering the sketchy nature of our evidence. JM("Minimus")P .