Aeschylus’s Suppliant Women: The Tragedy of Immigration

Notes

127 Introduction 1. On the process see especially Grethlein 2003, 45–108. 2. Murray 1958, 3–4; Garvie (2006, 211–12) offers relevant bibliography. 3. Podlecki 1966, 52–57. 4. Sicherl 1986, 99: “Danaos und seine Töchter glauben, dem Orakel ausweichen zu können, während in Wirklichkeit seine Erfüllung bereits feststeht.” 5. Farenga (2006, 352–53) defines this as “the disquieting thought that each citizen self, and the collective citizen body, relies for its apparent autonomy and its harmony on a network of alliances with non-citizen others.” 6. Zeitlin 1992. 7. While the approaches of Zeitlin 1992 and Farenga 2006, 346–423, are particularly conducive, each suffers from an important limitation. On Zeitlin, see below and ch. 3. On Farenga, see ch. 1. 8. Zeitlin (1992) argues that one of Suppliant Women’s main themes is the acculturation of the Danaids to life at Argos. 9. Zeitlin 1992, 211. 10. The same infinitive μετοικεῖν is likewise used in a technical sense at Aristophanes Birds 1319, where the chorus lists the advantages that might lead a man to become a resident foreigner in Pisthetaerus’s new city. 11. Vidal-Naquet (1997) starts his study titled “The Place and Status of Foreigners in Athenian Tragedy” with a consideration of metic terminology, yet does not discuss the appearance of the term in Aeschylus’s Suppliant Women. 12. E.g. Clerc 1893, 225n2. Grethlein (2003, 93n168) offers bibliography but is himself somewhat skeptical (95–96). Wilamowitz (1887, 247, 256–59) and Whitehead (1977, 34–35) constitute the main exceptions in this regard. On their importance for the current study see below. 13. FJW 1980, 2.497. See also Mitchell (2006, 216), who focuses instead on the newcomers’ identity as barbaroi. Notes 128 Notes to Pages 5–7 14. Whitehead 1977, 34. 15. The powerful description of birds stripped of their young as μέτοικοι at Agamemnon 57 is perhaps influential in this regard. 16. Whitehead 1977, 38: “all three poets introduce the metic in contexts which, to a citizen audience, suggested something unattractive, precarious (except after death!) and pathetic.” 17. Pace Zeitlin (1992, 237), who believes that the trilogy depicts the newcomers ’ transformation from astoxenoi to metoikoi to “citizen wi[ves] of the Thesmophoria.” 18. Meier 1993, 43. 19. Goldhill 1987, 68. 20. Goldhill 1987, 74. 21. Zeitlin 1990 (first published in 1986). 22. E. Hall 1989. 23. Rhodes 1993 (first published in 1981). 24. E.g. Ober 1989. 25. Whitehead 1986. 26. Davies 1977; Patterson 1981; Manville 1990. In this regard they have been followed by Blok 2009. 27. Loraux 1986. 28. Anderson 2003. 29. On boundaries in general see Cole 2004, 78–79. On horoi (“boundary markers”) see Ober 1995, 106–11. 30. This was visible in e.g. the growth of the Agora. See Anderson 2003, 87–103. 31. Sealey (1983) argues that the distinction between epitimos and atimos preceded that between citizen and alien. 32. Manville 1990, 183: “Solon’s reforms had been most concerned to distinguish free Athenians from slaves.” 33. Speaking of archaic Athens, Whitehead (1977, 141) claims that “pockets of foreign residents will have built up, in the retinues of dynastic families or as independent artists and labourers. With no claim to ‘naturalisation,’ they will simply have merged into the appropriate socio-economic group, their status de iure unrecognized.” On the reflection of this fact in Aeschylus’s Agamemnon see Griffith 1995. 34. See ch. 2. 35. Thuc. 1.2. Plutarch (Solon 24.4) claims that Solon sought to bring to Athens those who had been permanently exiled from their homelands. Clerc 1893, 318: “aucune autre des cités antiques ne s’est, d’une façon générale, ouverte aux étrangers aussi facilement qu’ Athènes, et cela dans toutes les périodes de son histoire.” 36. Rosivach 1987. 37. Whitehead 1977, 140: “it is the appearance and rigid maintenance of Notes to Pages 7–9 129 the polites concept which is one—but only one—of the ideological foundations of the metoikia.” 38. On the ethnos as a basis for studying Athenian history see Cohen 2000. 39. Wilamowitz (1887, 211–12) acknowledges his own debt to others, especially Boeckh, Schenkl, and Mommsen. He avers that “Mommsens Abhandlung über das römische Gastrecht und die römische Clientel lehrt für die hier behandelten Fragen mehr als alle Handbücher der griechischen Alterthümer.” 40. Wilamowitz 1887...