^{page 22 note 1} I have restricted this discussion to the Oresteia and the Supplices simply because in the Persai there is no question of alteration in a received plot, and as far as we know Aeschylus followed traditional legends in the Septem and P. V. Scholars have, of course, for other reasons than plot-manipulation claimed to find political references in these three plays.

^{page 22 note 2} Thes. 29.

^{page 22 note 3} Suppl. 571, 634 ff.

^{page 23 note 1} iv. 58; xii. 168 ff.; xiv. 53.

^{page 23 note 2} C.Q. xxviii (1934). 115 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 3} Cf. Paus. iii. 15. 3.

^{page 23 note 4} Od. iii. 304.

^{page 23 note 5} i. 68.

^{page 23 note 6} iii. 19. 6.

^{page 24 note 1} von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Aischylos: Interpretationen (Berlin, 1914), 250 f.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 1} iii. 22. 1; viii. 34. 2–3; ii. 31. 4.

^{page 25 note 2} Cf. Od. iii. 306 ff.

^{page 25 note 3} Cf. Paus. i. 28. 5 (no jury given); Apollod. iii. 14. 2; Eur. El. 1258–60.

^{page 25 note 4} See M. Platnauer on Eur. I.T. 945–6.

^{page 25 note 5} F. Gr. H. iii B, Suppl. i. 22 ff.

^{page 25 note 6} xxiii. 66.

^{page 25 note 7} Or. 1643 ff.

^{page 26 note 1} Cf. 11. 40 ff., 235 ff.

^{page 26 note 2} Od. iii. 304.

^{page 26 note 3} Pyth. xi. 32; cf. Pausanias iii. 19. 6.

^{page 26 note 4} Cf. Lys. xv. 2–3.

^{page 26 note 5} Essays in Greek History (Oxford, 1958), 174–9, 182–5.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 6} Aristoteles und Athen (Berlin, 1893), ii 334.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 1} Cf. Paus. i. 28. 5.

^{page 28 note 1} Pers. 817.

^{page 29 note 1} See H. J. Rose, ad loc.

^{page 29 note 2} Cf., in particular, Livingstone, R. W. in J.H.S. xlv (1925), 120 ff.Google Scholar, and, against this view, K. J. Dover, ibid. lxxvii (1957), 236 f.

^{page 30 note 1} i. 107. 4.

^{page 30 note 2} Arist. Ath. Pol. 25. 2.

^{page 31 note 1} P. Oxy. xx. 2256. 3.

^{page 31 note 2} Cf. Winnington-Ingram, R. P., J.H.S. lxxxi (1961), 141 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 1} Paus. ii. 16. 1, 19. 3; Apollod. ii. i. 4. Plut. Pyrrhus 32. 5.

^{page 32 note 2} Scholiasts on Eur. Hec. 886 and V. Aen. x. 497; cf. Paus. ii. 16. 1.

^{page 32 note 3} Pind. Nem. x. 1; Strabo, viii. 6. 9; v. 2. 4; Eur. Fr. 228 Nauck.

^{page 32 note 4} e.g. Cavaignac, E., Rev. Phil. xlv (1921), 102 ff.Google Scholar, assuming a date c. 470.

^{page 32 note 5} e.g. Lavagnini, , Riv. di Fil. lx (1932)Google Scholar, assuming a date 492/491; Livingstone, R. W., The Hibbert Journal, xxxix (1940–1941), 65 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 6} Roussel, P., Rev. Phil. xliv (1920), 241 ff.Google Scholar, dating the play between 478 and 473: but the plot surely entails that hatred should be expressed for the Egyptians.

^{page 32 note 7} Stoessl, , A.J. Phil., lxxiii (1952), 121 ff.Google Scholar, dating the play between 480 and 472.

^{page 33 note 1} Historia, i (1950), 515 ff.Google Scholar, accepting a date for the play in the 490's.

^{page 34 note 1} Suppl. 523, 615, 623; cf. Eum. 885, 970.

^{page 34 note 2} Aristoteles und Athen, ii. 338.

^{page 34 note 3} I am grateful for much helpful advice and criticism of this paper from Professor E. R. Dodds and from Mr. G. E. M. de Ste Croix of New College, Oxford.