« PrécédentContinuer »
sentation of the Eumenides, viz. in Olymp. 80, 3; whereas Diodorus, xi. 77, expressly informs us that it was carried in the year but one before the Eumenides was acted, viz. in Olymp. 80, 1. There is no evidence sufficient to contradict this statement, nor are we justified in departing from Diodorus' chronology.
79. But independently of this, there is nothing in Æschylus Hermann's to prove that “it was in this quarter the rights of the Areopagus were attacked.” On the contrary, he everywhere seems to take it for granted that these rights were in perfect safety, and not likely to be disturbed. Had they been in danger, he would have mentioned the fact very explicitly. Wherefore Hermann (Opusc. vol. vi. p. 136) argues that the total silence of Æschylus on this point proves that the penal judicature was not attacked ;-exactly the reverse of Müller's deduction. On the other hand, Pallas clearly alludes to the withdrawal of other rights, viz. the senatorial, in the significant lines addressed to the Athenian people, Eum, 666-676.
80. “ All that we can safely infer from the very indistinct Real object allusions in the Eumenides of Æschylus,” says Mr. Grote, “ is that he himself was full of reverence for the Areopagus, and that the season was one in which party bitterness ran so high as to render civil war (éu úlcov "Apn, Eum. v. 864) a result to be dreaded by the moderate citizens. Probably he may have been averse to the diminution of privileges carried by Ephialtes ; but even this is not quite certain, for he puts forward the Areopagus prominently and specially as a tribunal for homicide, exercising this jurisdiction by inherent prescription, and confirmed in it by the Eumenides themselves. Now, when we consider that this was precisely the power which Ephialtes left untouched, we may plausibly argue that Æschylus, by enhancing the solemnity and predicting the perpetuity of the remaining privilege, intended to conciliate those who resented the recent innovations, and to soften the hatred of the opposite factions." (Vol. v. p. 495, note.) 81. That this view of Mr. Grote's with regard to the real political Argive Alliobjects of Æschylus is correct, is further confirmed by the high 80, 2.
terms in which the Argive Alliance is spoken of, Eum. vv. 280 and 734, 899. Had the poet intended to make a decisive stand against Ephialtes and his party,—had it been his object to excite the popular feeling against them by the Eumenides,-he never would have eulogised this alliance so openly and entirely; for it was the very point on which Cimon and the oligarchs were most at issue with Pericles and the advocates of democracy. 82. As a moderate man, we may suppose that Æschylus desired rather to reconcile the opposite factions, and, consequently, he acquiesces cheerfully in this newly-made treaty with the Argives, knowing that it had been entered into in conformity with the wishes of the citizens in general, and could not now be retracted. He might moreover have no reason to suppose it likely to prejudice the real interests of Athens, tending, as it necessarily would, to increase and consolidate her maritime power.
83. Thus we have examined, step by step, the erroneous theory of Boeckh, Meier, and Müller, concerning the Areopagus. But if any doubt still remains in the reader's mind, there is a passage in Demosthenes (cont. Aristocr. p. 741, 28), which we have reserved as the finishing argument in this disputed question : Τούτο μόνον το δικαστήριον (το εν 'Αρείω πάγω) ουχί τύραννος, ουκ ολιγαρχία, ου δημοκρατία της φονικάς δίκας åpenéodai tetódunkev. It is in vain that Boeckh and Schoemann endeavour to explain this away as a mere oratorical exaggeration : it is an explicit statement of a fact which must have been well known to all the Athenians at the time, and had it been untrue, every one of Demosthenes' audience could have easily contradicted him. Nothing could ever set aside the distinct and positive proof which this passage contains, were volumes to be written on the opposite side: and with it we shall conclude this chapter, trusting that so prolonged a discussion has not exhausted the reader's patience.
List of Passages in which the Text of this Edition departs from
that of Wellauer.'
βίαν. και πρόσω δ'. γραίαι. βεβώτ' άν. καρδίας σέθεν, ουδ' αιματηρόν, θρόνον. αιρούμενον εκείνου.
λίβα, Burges. και πρόσωγ, Blomf. Νυκτός, Valckenaer». βιβώντ' άν, Musgr. καρδία σέθεν, Pauw. συ δ' αιματηρόν, Pears. θρόμβον, Wakef. αρόμενον, Abresch. εξ εμού, Scholef. κακούται, (4 MSS.) λευσμός, Casaub. ειργάσω, J. Wordsworth. λίπω, Ρorson. κακκυνηγετώ, Herm. λευσσέ τε, Herm. Omit o, Herm. όδ' αύτε γ αλκαν, Herm. φέρουμ' αν βοσκάν. αντίποιν' ως τίνης, Schutz. ματροφόνου, Casaub. άλλος, Heath. Λιβυστικής, Aurat. καθαράς καθαρώς χείρας, Herm. προνέμοντας, Herm.
λευσμόν. ήρκέσω. λείπω. κακκυνηγέτις. λεύσσετον. ο μητροφόνος. άδ' αύτε γούν αλκάν. βοσκαν φεροίμαν. αντιποίνους τίνεις. ματροφόνας. άλλον. Λιβυστικούς. καθαρας χείρας. προσνέμοντας.
54 65 69 76 102 132 158 163 172 179 180 204 216 222 246 247 248 256 258 id. 259 282 305
i This list does not include mere differences of punctuation, nor cases where another mode of writing certain words and forms has been adopted by common consent, since the publication of Wellauer's Eschylus : e.9. πέλει for πέλη, &c.