^{page 190 note 1} Dindorf rejected 767–74 as an interpolation dating to the Peloponnesian War, but more recent editors have rightly refused to follow him; despite the inroads of textual corruption the whole passage has an authentic ring. Thomson, n. on 765–7 (his numeration), strikes a note of caution: ‘It seems more likely that Aeschylus is merely availing himself of a contemporary event in order to add point to a profession of eternal gratitude which is appropriate to the dramatic situation’. But this, if I understand it aright, is tantamount to conceding the connexion.

^{page 190 note 2} Like Dover, K. J., ‘The Political Aspects of Aeschylus's Eumenides’, J.H.S. lxxvii (1957) 230–7, I see no evidence in the play that Aeschylus gave only qualified approval to the democratic programme.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 1} Construe with and not, as Verrall does, with … , and cf. Eum. 1025.

^{page 191 note 2} For temporal see Cho. 684, Eum. 83, 401, 891 ; Groeneboom .p. 99 n. 4.

^{page 192 note 1} 'The Danaid Tetralogy of Aeschylus', J.H.S. lxxvii (1957), 221.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 1} Jebb's note, as distinct from his translation, which obscures the issue, ascribes to Antigone a non sequitur of the kind ‘even if human sympathy fails me, let me acquire you as witnesses’.

^{page 194 note 2} For of a god cf. Cho. 2 and 19.

^{page 195 note 1} Groeneboom is wrong to include the Argives, who have been adequately covered by .

^{page 195 note 2} So Dobree conjectured for the manuscripts' . at Eum. 381.

^{page 195 note 3} Thuc. I. 107. 5—108. 1,I.G. i. 931/932 (cf. Meritt, , ‘The Argives at Tanagra’, Hesp. xiv [1945], 134–47). iCrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 195 note 4} , Thuc. 1. 105. 2.

^{page 195 note 5} Thuc. 1. 111. 1.

^{page 196 note 1} The oath sworn by Aegeus to Medea in Eur. Med. 746–54 is only a personal guaran-tee, and even then Aegeus has not made the explicit (755).

^{page 197 note 1} For cf. I.G. i. 14/15. 52–55, cited on p. 200 below.

^{page 197 note 2} Compare , Eum. 683, 1031, with , Eum. 708, Pers. 526.

^{page 197 note 3} C.R. viii (1894), 301–2.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 4} On Cho. 1029 (Cambridge, 1901).

^{page 197 note 5} See Zuntz, G., The Political Plays of Euripides, pp. 88–94.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 6}

^{page 198 note 1} See Paus. 2. 20. 2.

^{page 199 note 1} See Frazer on Paus. i. 28. 5 and Thomson on Eum. 685.

^{page 199 note 2} has been derived with some probability from by Wachsmuth, C., Die Stadt Athen, i. 428 n. 2,Google ScholarG.Gilbert, , Griech. Staatsalterthümer, i. 425n. 4.Google Scholar This al ternative, if it was familiar to the Athenians, could not be accepted by Aeschylus without embarrassing the theme of the second part of the Eumenides.

^{page 199 note 3} Line 693, , is the crucial point. Here one can only marvel at the waywardness of the emendators. For the vox nihili of the manuscripts at least seven conjectures have been proposed, including such recherché items as and , but never the commonplace , a thoroughly Aeschylean word which, if we place a full stop immediately after , gives admirable sense. Of the rest is the best (so Dover), but it is adding laws (cf. ., 694), not changing laws, which suits the context, and cannot be Athena's enactment, for that is called elsewhere only , (484, 491, 571, 615) because it is made by a deity and institutes a permanent constitutional body (see 484, 572). The of elsewhere has intensifying force, and this is not excluded here (‘provided that the citizens do not ratify laws on their own initiative’), but the sense ‘additionally’, frequent in other compounds, should be preferred. For of legislation cf. Suppl. 608, 622, 942–3, 964–5 and , Eum. 391–2. This interpretation would confirm the view that the powers removed from the Council in 462 B.C. had been acquired constitutionally and that the democrats did not deny it.

^{page 200 note 1} I.G. i. 26. 9–13; cf. Tod, , Greek Historical Inscriptions, i. 39,Google ScholarMeritt, , A.J.P. lxix (1948), 312–14,Google ScholarS.E.G. x. 18.

^{page 200 note 2} I.G. i. 14/15. 52–55. An execration of this sort is evidently envisaged for the ratification of the Peace of Nicias by Thuc. 5. 18. 9.

^{page 201 note 1} Hdt. 5. 76 omits it from the list of ‘Dorian Invasions of Attica’.

^{page 201 note 2} See now Huxley, G. L., Early Sparta (London, 1962), pp. 67–87.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 1} Poralla, , Prosopographie der Lakedaimonier, pp. 45–46.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 2} This seems to be the nucleus of the argu ment used against the Spartans in 481 B.C. (Hdt. 7. 148. 4); see Diamantopoulos, loc. cit.

^{page 202 note 3} The Spartans accepted the tradition that Orestes married Hermione and ruled at Lacedaemon, being succeeded by his son Tisamenus (Paus. 2. 18. 5–6, 7. 1. 8).

^{page 203 note 1} See Thomson's note, referring to Din. 1. 9, Lycurg. Leocr. 52, and Dem. 23. 70.

^{page 204 note 1} See Apollo's , 668, Athena's address to the , 949, and 687–8.

^{page 204 note 2}

^{page 205 note 1} So Dover concludes, from the historical evidence.

^{page 205 note 2} See Huxley, pp. 77–96.

^{page 206 note 1} Wilamowitz, , Hermes lxiv (1929), 461–2.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 2} In preparing this article I have profited by the criticisms of Professor K. J. Dover and Dr. W. Ritchie, but I must be held solely responsible for the views expressed and for any errors which remain.