The purpose of the following paper is to identify what kind of mythical creature Aeschylus’ γρυπαίετος (‘griffin–eagle’) that caused such a scandal for ‘Euripides’ in Aristophanes’ Frogs 928–930 (= Aesch. fr. inc. fab. 422 R.) was. The term has usually been interpreted in three ways: (a) as a poetic form of ‘eagle’; (b) as a poetic form of ‘griffin’; (c) as ‘eagle of the griffin species’. The testimony of Aristophanes’ Frogs and vase-painting suggests that it may have been an idiosyncratic, archaic type of griffin, called by modern specialists ‘griffin-bird’ and characterised by having two legs, not four, and the body of a bird, not a lion. This fantastic creature appeared quite frequently on Archaic black-figure vases in Athens, but had completely disappeared by the end of the 6 th century BC. As a result, its appearance would be unknown to Aristophanes’ public, making the term γρυπαίετος impossible to make out (Ra. 930). Thus, the following paper suggests that Aeschylus’ γρυπαίετος (‘griffin-eagle’) is a fabulous composite beast made up of griffin and eagle parts, as its name suggests: a griffin head (with an open hooked beak, long pointed ears, a protuberance or horn over the eyes, and a curl or plume falling down one side of the neck) crowning an eagle body (two-legged, feathered, with wings and talons).
This paper is dedicated to the analysis of the intertextual relationship between Sophocles’ Antigone and the plays of Aeschylus, especially the Theban trilogy. It is shown that Sophocles in this play creates the situation that is radically different from that of Aeschylus’ tragedies. The main differences are the attitude towards “peace in death” and towards the ancestral curse. In Sophoclean play, by contrast with Aeschylus, death is not the end of the strife — at least not until those in power acknowledge that it is; blood ties are not enough for belonging to the cursed family, and this belonging is not necessarily envisaged in negative terms. To illustrate the utter inadequacy of the Aeschylean approach to the world and the events of his tragedy, Sophocles embodies such approach in his Chorus and provokes, during the course of the play, the growing disappointment of the spectator by it. The Chorus is irresponsive when directly addressed, annoyingly counterproductive during the commos with Antigone and prone to change their opinion and perspective too quickly and radically. At the fifth stasimon Sophocles, by the reference to another Aeschylus’ tragedy, this time the Eleusinians, gives the spectator the short-living hope for the rescue of Antigone. This trap is also intended to disappoint the spectators and show them the inadequacy of the Chorus’ Aeschylean perspective
This article examines the testimonia concerning Aeschylus’ purported brothers — Cynegirus and Ameinias — both of whom are said to have distinguished themselves during the Greco-Persian Wars. Cynegirus, a strategos, met a heroic death at the Battle of Marathon, while Ameinias earned renown for his bravery at Salamis. Although modern scholarship widely accepts Cynegirus as Aeschylus’ brother, the earliest extant testimony of their kinship derives from Heraclides of Pontus, later reiterated by an anonymous scholiast on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. The alleged kinship between Aeschylus and Ameinias, however, remains a subject of debate. This study aligns with the view that their association may stem from later conflation or errors within the ancient historiographical tradition. Regarding Aeschylus and Cynegirus, while Heraclides provides the primary testimony and the subsequent tradition is based on much later sources, their alleged fraternal relationship must be treated with due historiographical caution