Editing Prometheus Bound (section)

{{short description|Ancient Greek tragedy by Aeschylus}}
{{other uses}}
{{Infobox play
 | name       = Prometheus Bound
 | image      = Prometheus door Vulcanus geketend, SK-A-1606.jpg
 | caption    = ''[[Prometheus Being Chained by Vulcan]]'' by Dirck van Baburen
 | writer     = [[Aeschylus]] (disputed)
 | chorus     = [[Oceanids]]
 | characters = {{Plainlist|
* [[Cratus]]
* [[Bia (mythology)|Bia]]
* [[Hephaestus]]
* [[Prometheus]]
* [[Oceanus]]
* [[Io (mythology)|Io]]
* [[Hermes]]
 }}
}}
'''''Prometheus Bound''''' ({{langx|grc|Προμηθεὺς Δεσμώτης|Promētheús Desmṓtēs}}) is an [[Ancient Greek theatre|ancient Greek tragedy]] traditionally attributed to [[Aeschylus]] and thought to have been composed sometime between 479&nbsp;BC and the [[terminus ante quem]] of 424&nbsp;BC.{{sfn|Flintoff|1986|pp=82–91}}{{sfn|Ruffell|2012|pp=14–18,18}} The tragedy is based on the myth of [[Prometheus]], a [[Titan (mythology)|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 (Aeschylus)|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-Bringer|Prometheus the Fire-Bearer]])''; the latter two survive only in fragments.{{sfn|Herington|1973–1974|p=665}} 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.{{efn|'The climate of opinion has certainly changed since my undergraduate days the fifties when only those studying Prometheus as a special option ever heard that its authenticity had been questioned, and this was presented as a curiosity of scholarship and a dreadful aberration from the plain truth.';{{sfn|West|2015|p=54}} 'Ancient scholarship from the Hellenistic period onwards had no doubts about Prometheus Bound's Aeschylean authorship... this silence is not decisive.. Modern anxieties about the reliability of the ascription to Aeschylus stem from nineteenth-century scholarship, which, particularly in Germany, was keen to spot where plays had been modified or reworked by a later hand.. In the twentieth century, critics recognized that the oddities of the Prometheus Bound could not be localized and introduced the idea that the play was not by Aeschylus at all'{{sfn|Ruffell|2012|p=14}}{{sfn|Griffith|2007|p=32, n.103}}}} 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.{{efn|'the majority of classical scholars still accept the Aeschylean authorship of the play (which was not questioned in antiquity).';{{sfn|Conacher|1980|p=21}} 'The vast majority of scholars are in no doubt that ''Prometheus'' is entirely the work of Aeschylus.'{{sfn|Taplin|1989|p=460}}}} 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 [[Martin Litchfield West|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.{{sfn|Manousakis|2020}}{{sfn|Barrios-Lech|2021}}