This book contributes to scholarship on Greek literature in regard to the effect of the figure of Dionysus in Greek tragedy and beyond and has two main aims: to discuss the reception of Aeschylus’ Dionysiac plays in Euripides’ Bacchae and the reuse of the latter in the Byzantine drama Christus Patiens. In the introduction X.-K. describes the kind of evidence for Aeschylus’ fragmentary texts dealing with the Lycurgeia and the so-called ‘Theban’ tetralogy that both have a plot-pattern based on theomachia, the powerful opposition to Dionysus of Lycurgus, king in Thrace, and of Pentheus, king of Thebes, respectively. Appendix 1 consists of evidence for Aeschylus’ Dionysiac plays and is extremely useful for academic readers; it shows that the first section of the book related to the dialogue between Aeschylus and Euripides on Dionysus is a thorough investigation of the preserved scanty evidence. On the other hand, the investigation of Bacchae and Christus Patiens has received attention in the past, and X.-K. revisits the discussion of the reception of Euripides’ Bacchae in Christus Patiens.

Chapter 1 deals with the Lycurgus myth and the dramatic action of the Lycurgeia in Aeschylus. X.-K. describes the Dionysiac features related to Aeschylus’ and Euripides’ treatments of Dionysiac cult. She attempts to identify the thematic association of the two tetralogies, Lycurgeia and the Theban tetralogy, with the action of Euripides’ Bacchae. The fragments she chooses to analyse depict the connection with Dionysian cult and ritual, such as the parallel function of the disguise motif in Aeschylus and Euripides or the scenes of illusion from Aeschylus, in the Bassarae, which were probably adjusted by Euripides since in the Bacchae illusion and hallucination are basic features of Dionysus’ impact on his opponents, Pentheus and Lycurgus. She concludes that the naming of the tetralogy after Lycurgus does not entail that he was the main character in all four plays, Edonai, Bassarae, Neaniskoi and Lycurgus, but it is likely that his story covers a part of their plots. X.-K. emphasises that the Lycurgeia tetralogy seems to coincide with the Oresteia as far as the reconciliation motif is concerned (Neaniskoi and Eumenides). Finally, she claims that the few preserved fragments of Aeschylus’ satyr play Lycurgus are suggestive of typical satyr themes, such as captivity and the drunkenness of the satyrs. Her conclusion is that Aeschylus’ tetralogies and Euripides’ Bacchae portray the coherence of two worlds: the unity of polis and life in nature, both of which are preserved by Dionysiac cult.

Chapter 2 focuses on the content and the themes of the Christus Patiens and its relationship with Euripides’ Bacchae. The Byzantine drama deliberately imitates Euripides’ play in terms of both its theme and its plot. Drawing on literary and iconographical sources, X.-K. shows how Christus Patiens preserves themes of Euripides’ Bacchae as far as the structure, content and the characters are concerned. It is one of the longest surviving examples of cento, since about half of the lines are quotations from Euripides. The drama has a tripartite structure (passion, burial, resurrection) and, as expected in line with Byzantine attitudes towards ancient literature, the Euripidean themes of the Bacchae are widely received but are reconfigured within Christian contexts. After discussing selected passages and shared conventions of the ancient and the Byzantine plays X.-K. presents the wide range of intertextuality. She analyses the parallelisms between Jesus Christ and Dionysus, who are both the offspring of a divine father, the ruler of the world, and of a human mother. However, Jesus Christ suffers as a mortal with the passion and resurrection contrary to the avenging god of the Bacchae. Through this discussion she concludes that the dramatic situations, concepts and ideas of Euripides’ Bacchae are reworked and transformed in Christus Patiens, adapted to the intellectual and ideological context of this Byzantine play. Appendix 1 collects evidence for Aeschylus’ Dionysiac plays. In Appendix 2 X.-K. discusses the iconographic evidence and sheds light on the plot and the staging mainly of the Lycurgeia and partly of the plays of the ‘Theban’ tetralogy. Most importantly, in Appendix 3 X.-K. uses Christus Patiens as a source for the missing part of the Exodos of the Bacchae, and, finally, Appendix 4 offers readings of the text of Christus Patiens adopted in the text of Euripides’ Bacchae.

This book should be used by anyone interested in ancient Greek tragedy and Byzantine literature, and more generally in the reception of ancient Greek cultural heritage. X.-K. opens up possible routes on how Aeschylus influenced Euripides as far as the dramatic use of the Dionysiac ritual is concerned. X.-K. also claims that the reused passages in Christus Patiens were carefully chosen, which is already known from older bibliographical sources (such as A. Tuilier's edition [1969]). The book does a good job of presenting a comparison between Christus Patiens and its ancient source, but it does not shed light on other issues that would be useful, such as the different ethical values and aesthetics as well as the depiction of emotions in ancient and Byzantine times. On the whole, the book is interesting not so much for its uniqueness on its subject but rather for the attempt to connect the Aeschylean fragments related to Dionysus with Euripides’ Bacchae. Finally, X.-K. has sought with considerable success to speak to the experts, but also to make the book accessible to general readers.