^{page 104 note 1} U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aischylos: lnterpretationen, 11; J. Vürtheim, Aischylos' Schutzflehende, 183.

^{page 104 note 2} Cf. R. Hirzel, Themis, Dike und Verwandtes, 104–106, 157–166, 178, 210–225.

^{page 104 note 3} 5. φεγομεν in both the literal sense of ‘ flee ’ and the secondary sense of ‘ be in exile.’ 7.γνωσθεῖσαν, the simple verb instead of καταγιγνῴσκω, as in I.G. I² IO. 29. 172. γνῳ(φσει), a legal term. Cf. Lys. 13. 91. 22.φγηματαων αἰτας. If the correction ματαωνissound, we appear to have a poetic variant of 233. irpayos, poetic for πργmu;α in the sense of‘ case.’ 239. πρξενοι, obviously in its technical sense, although this involves an anachronism. 314. ῤφσων, ‘ restitution,’ ‘deliverance’ (Liddell and Scott). There may also be a hint of the legal implications of the word, the gesture of touching involving an assertion of proprietorship. Cf. Vürtheim, op. cit., 38–39. 383–384. A suggestion of the institution of δκαι π συμβλων.388. γγτατα γνους, a legal phrase; cf. Isaeus 10. 5. 390. φεγειν, ‘urge in your defence.’ 391. κρος, the authority of a legal κριος. 412. ῤυσω, property seized in distraint. 435–6.κπρξω χρος, equivalent to the prosaic διναι δκην. 472. κπξω χρος, exact payment of a debt. 517. λαοὐς συγκαλν, a suggestion of the technical σγκκλησα. 598–9. See page 106. 601. παντελ is used in the sense κρια, valid. 604. The reading is very uncertain,; but there is probably a reminiscence of the technical χειροτονω. 605–14. These lines contain a poetical paraphrase ofthe language of Athenian decrees. Cf. Wilamowitz, op. cit., 12. 622. ᾄνευ κλητρος.The scholiast interprets this as meaning that they showed their hands before a vote was called for. 701–3. is suggestive of the technical phrase δκαι πό συμβλων. δκας διδοῖεν: here in the sense of ‘ permit legal action,’ ‘ grant the right to use the courts.’ 726. ξυνδκους, a suggestion of the public advocates at Athens. 728. ἂγειν θλοντες ῥυσων φπτορες: a reference to the primitive practice of self-help. Cf. R. J. Bonner and G. Smith, The Administration of Justice from Homer to Aristotle, 11–15. 732. κυρῳ τ' ν üρᾳ in this context carries suggestion of ‘ the 'appointed day of trial.’ 733. δῴσει δκην hasa legal flavour. 919. reference to the well-known practice of requiring foreigners to be represented by citizens in legal proceedings. 932. φαιρεθες is used its legal sense of ‘ robbed,’ ‘ deprived of one's property.’ 935–6. τό νεῑκος δ οὑκ ν ρηγρουλαῄαβ ἔλυσεν is poetic for τ ἔγκημα οὐ χρημτωςλῄψει διλυσεν. 942–3. is an elaboration of the formula ἔδοξς κκρανται. 963. προττης δ' ὐγῲ:a reminiscence of Athenian law which required that a metic should have a προσττης as his legal representative. 1071–2. κα δκᾳ δ៷καςἕπεσθαι: δκς appears to be used in the sense of ‘ causes,’ or ‘ claims of right,’ somewhatas in Iliad XVI11. 508 and XXIII. 542, for which see Bonner and Smith, op. cit., 32, 39. The δκᾳ δjuxtaposition of κας serves to emphasize the contrast between men's conflicting claims and the universal principle of justice.

^{page 105 note 1} Cf. Hirzel, op. cit., 131, n. 1, 166.

^{page 105 note 2} The idea that the Danaids are warlike, man-hating amazons has little basis in the text of the play and is derived from other sources of somewhat doubtful implication. Cf. Elisei, Anna,‘ Le Danaidi nelle Supplici di Eschilo,’ Stud. Ilal. di Filol. Class. VI (1928), 197–219Google Scholar; Nilsson, M. P., Mycenean Origins of Greek Religion, 66: G. A. Megas, ‘ Die Sage von Danaos und den Danaiden,’ Hermes LXVIII (1933). 422.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 1} Reading οιττο in 337.

^{page 106 note 2} 387–391. One of the most troublesome problems in theplay turns upon the question of the legal rights of the suitors and the status of the Danaids as πκληρι. The Athenian law regarding this does not appear to be relevant, inasmuch astheir father is still living. E. Meyer, Forsch. zuralt. Gesch., 1.83, suggests that in an earlier version of the story Danaus wasalready dead. This would explain the inconsistency, though hardly justifying it; but the suggestion has rightly been rejected by later critics. Why then does Aeschylus refer to the matter at all when it appears to be irrelevant ? There might appear to be a suggestion that, while the suitors come very near to having a legal claim, such a situation gives them no real status and to press such claims is presumptuous and unjust. But the phrases ν⊙μῳ πλεως (388) andκατ νμους οἴκοθεν(390) show that the king is obviously not thinking of the law of Solon; rather he is thinking of the possibility thatEgyptian law may give the suitors a lawful claim. It is known that the termπκληρς might be used of an heiress in the lifetime of her father (see Pollux, 111. 33; Ar., Birds, 1652) and that the laws about heiresses varied in different places (cf. Daremberg and Saglio, s.v. πκληρος); hence it is not unreasonable to suppose that in some cases the principle of Solon's legislation may have been carried further and there may have been provisions forbidding the marriage of an heiress toany but her next of kin even during the lifetime of her father. This would appear to be at least as reasonable as a system that allowed her to contract a marriage when there was no prospect of its being permanent. It is the possibility of there being some such law which troubles the king. The purpose of Aeschylus in introducing this aspect of the situation is to suggest that δκη demands, among other things, careful consideration of the terms of statute law.

^{page 107 note 1} Cf. W. Headlam, The Plays of Aeschylus, 135, n. 5.

^{page 107 note 2} This, or its synonyms, is referred to in lines 9, 30, 81, 104, 225, 426, 487, 511, 528, 741–742, 750–752, 757–759, 762–763, 789, 798–799. 817, 845, 880–881, 911.

^{page 107 note 3} The attitude of the Danaids to their cousins has been variously explained. Gilbert Murray (The Suppliant Women, 18–27) sees in the play dramatic treatment of the problem of combining the sacredness of virginity with the acceptance of marriage, basing his view largely upon the presumed contents of the two lost plays and an allegorizing of the Io myth. But if Aeschylus wished to present dramatically the case for the institution of marriage, the suitors appear to be singularly ill chosen forthe purpose. The contrast in the play is rather between civilized marriage based on δκη and primitive forced marriage. G. Megas (op. cit., 422), in dealing with the myth in general ratherthan with Aeschylus' play, observes that the quarrel between the Danaids' father and uncle would be sufficient to explain their aversion. While this is true of some versions of the story, the impression conveyed by Aeschylus is that the Danaids hate their cousins for reasons of their own and that their father is a relatively subordinate character. Wilamowitz (op. cit., 15) argued that the aversion proceeded from ‘ angeborene Männerfeindschaft.’ But the reading αὑτογενεῖ φυξανορᾳ (8) is conjectural and its interpretation is debatable. It might well be argued that αὐτογενεῑ means ‘ of the same race ’ and modifies the second part of the compound noun. (Cf. Elisei, loc. cit., who points out further that ἂνδρες and ἂρσενς, as frequently used in the play, mean the sons of Aegyptus, not the whole sex.) Murray (op. cit., 17) suggests that apparent expressions of aversion to all marriage really mean merely that the Danaids loathe marriage with the suitors, an exaggeration natural under the circumstances. Wilamowitz also postulates an armed encounter in which the suitors had been victorious and hence claimed their cousins as the spoil of war. The two passages in the play on which this view is basedare inconclusive. Eοτι δ κκ πολμσυ τειρνοις βωμύςρς φυγσιν ῥμα (83–85) may simply be an argument a fortiori; the Danaids have an even better claim for protection than the conquered in war. In (741–742), we have, in all probability, merely another reference to the suitors' lustful violence.

H. N. Couch (‘ The Loathing of the Danaids,’ Proc. Am. Philol. Assoc, LXIII (1932), liv) has argued that the attitude of the Danaids is to be explained as arising from the conflict of Greek and barbarian cultures, the persistence of Greek tradition in a barbarian environment being symbolized by the Danaids. The opposition is undoubtedly felt in the play, but is subordinated to the conflict of δῷκη and ὔβρις, of which it is conspicuous example.

^{page 108 note 1} 8, 38, 223–226, 337, 388. Cf. also 933, 983– 984, 1053.

^{page 108 note 2} Cf. 225–226. There is no suggestion that cousin marriages were regarded as incestuous, as has sometimes been supposed (e.g., by P. Vinogradoff, Outlines of Historical Jurisprudence, II. 22). Cf. Murray, op. cit., 15 f. More plausible is the view expressed by W. Ridgeway, The Origin of Tragedy, 190–197, that we have in the play a dramatization of the conflict between patrilinear and matrilinear systems of inheritance. The theory, however, has been rejected by latercritics. Cf. Vürtheim, op. cit., 92–94. The objections to the view are: (¹) that, if Athenian law is under discussion, the Danaids do not as yet come under its provisions, as their father is still living; (²) that the suitors do not make any claim basedon their relationship, but it is merely a possibility suggested by the king(387–389); (³) that the Danaids do not base their objections upon any principle of rights for heiresses, but only on their loathing of the suitors.

^{page 109 note 1} Poet. 1450b 7.