This paper argues that Aeschylus' Eumenides presents a coherent geography that, when associated with the play's judicial proceedings, forms the basis of an imperial ideology. The geography of Eumenides constitutes a form of mapping, and mapping is associated with imperial power. The significance of this mapping becomes clear when linked to fifth-century Athens' growing judicial imperialism. The creation of the court inEumenides, in the view of most scholars, refers only to Ephialtes' reforms of 462 BC. But in the larger context, Athenian courts in the mid-fifth century are a form of imperial control. When geographically specific jurisdiction combines with new courts, it supports and even creates a developing imperial ideology. Moreover, the figure of Athena and the role she gives the Athenian jury emphasizes a passionate pro-Athenian nationalism, a nationalism that the text connects to Athens' geographic and judicial superiority. This imperial ideology did not spring from Aeschylus' imagination fully formed; it reflects a trend in Athens of promoting her own cultural superiority. This sense of cultural superiority in fact disguises the realities of Athens' developing power and increasingly harsh subjection of her former allies.

No abstract

In recent years, there have been a number of books either focused on or including discussions of various receptions of Aeschylus on stage.1 Given the rich modern production history of Aeschylus' Oresteia, especially, but also Persians, this should be no surprise.2 But Aeschylus' reception is much broader than its re-performance on the stage and this volume seeks to explore some of those spaces that have not been as widely discussed, such as Aeschylus' reception in political philosophy, film, literature,3 in translation, and as school texts.4 This is not a comprehensive volume-such a thing would fill thousands of pages-nor is it structured to give an overview of the reception of individual plays-there are only seven, if Prometheus Bound is included (as it is here). Instead, this volume offers a combination of explorations of receptions and acts of reception. The idea behind it is to provide some insights into the myriad ways that Aeschylus has been received into the world since his first productions in the early 5th century BCE. Ideally, the chapters here included will inspire thoughts of other receptions of Aeschylus and perhaps even further acts. One of the key elements to understanding the reception of Aeschylus is to understand that it is not just his plays that have a reception-the figure of Aeschylus himself does as well. Thus, this introduction does not include a "life of Aeschylus" section as might be expected in such a volume. Rather, various

The frequent assumption that they [the Persians] were as greatly concerned on these levels [historically, culturally, strategically] with Greece [as they were with the east] is a misconception which stems from our own western view of the world and from the unfortunate fact that Greece has given us our main literary sources of information on the Achaemenids. It was the Greeks who were fascinated by Persia, by Persian mores, and, yes, by Persian court art and luxury goods—not the reverse. If only the Persians had spawned the likes of Aeschylus and Herodotus, our perceptions of their preoccupations would be quite different.Athenians were indeed fascinated by Persia as their art and literature attest. The fascination was both cultural and political, but not without tensions. Part of that fascination manifested itself in the allure of Persian kings and what they represented. The kings ruled over a vast empire, larger than any the Mediterranean world had yet seen. They sought in their iconography and building programmes to exert a particular identity for themselves and the Achaemenid dynasty. Although the Athenians were not imperialists of the type we see in Persia, Rome or the figure of Alexander, they did build for themselves a small, Hellenic empire (archē) and they adopted a number of Persian mechanisms of power and some aspects of Achaemenid iconography for representing their power. Aeschylus' Persians, produced in 472 BCE, helps us understand the Athenians' developing archē, specifically how the representations of the two Persian Kings in the play helped the Athenians differentiate and define their power vis-à-vis the Great Persian Menace and, more importantly, the rest of the Greeks. By understanding better the engagement by the Athenians with Persian culture, we can better understand how the Athenians conceptualised their own power and position in the Aegean in the early 5th century BCE.

the timeless sphere of God, Augustine aspires to transcend experience and teleology' (p. 315). Here G. reaches the limits of his concept of Futures Past. This well-produced volume is completed by a substantial bibliography and helpful indexes. Although G. explores a topic that has been in the focus of scholarship for decades and each case study contains little that is fundamentally new, his comparative approach provides innovative results and allows us to see similarities and differences where they were not to be expected. But maybe G. goes too far in this point: with the two poles of Futures Past providing the structure of the volume, the case studies inevitably tend to display a somewhat one-sided picture of the historiographical texts. As a result, the study sometimes offers connections where actually disparities predominate. Despite this objection, the study nevertheless offers an excellent contribution to the research of ancient historiography. Its strength lays in G.'s ability to combine theoretical reflections with close readings and to see the complex intertwining of narrative form, purpose and historical circumstance.