first entrance: for instance, there is an exception in the Eumenides, in which the disposition into rank and file does not occur until it is time to sing the Binding Hymn: and the Parodos is announced by the words ἄγε δὴ καὶ χόρον ἅψωμεν, ν. 297. In all the previous part of the Drama, the Choreutæ move about the stage dispersedly (σπоρádŋv), and their songs (koμμaтikà) are equally irregular. rangements, 10. In the opening scene of the Eumenides, the Delphian scenic arpriestess is discovered praying before an altar, in the outer court pp. 88–99. of the temple of Apollo. This altar, we learn from the Ion of Euripides, was adorned with wooden images of the gods (óava), which it was customary for suppliants to embrace. They perhaps represented Gaia, Themis, Phoebe, and Phoebus, the four successive holders of the seat of prophecy; for it is to these Deities that the Priestess first addresses her prayers, as if they were actually present. 11. When the Prologue is concluded, the interior of the temple is suddenly exposed to view; Orestes sitting on the Omphalus, Apollo by his side, the Furies asleep on the surrounding seats, and Hermes in the background; altogether forming a group of no fewer than eighteen persons. How was this large company exhibited at once to the spectators? It has generally been supposed that the Eccyclema or Exostra was employed for this purpose. But in every instance where this machine was beyond all question introduced, those scenes only are exhibited which would naturally take place within doors, and in cases where the subjects of such scenes would be unable of themselves to come out on the stage. [See Esch. Agam. 1345, Choeph. 967; Soph. Elect. 1450, Antig. 1293, Ajax 346, Ed. R. 1297; Eurip. Hippol. 818, Med. 1314.] 12. Besides, the number of persons thus wheeled forward is never above three or four; but here no fewer than eighteen must be exhibited, and the floor of the Eccyclema must represent the area of the temple, on which the Furies have to perform their evolutions. These considerations make the use of the Eccyclema impossible in the present case. We are therefore led to suppose that, during the Prologue, the interior of the temple was concealed by a Tаражéтаσμа, оr curtain, extending the whole breadth and height of the stage, which was withdrawn after the exit of the Priestess.1 13. The next change of scene is at v. 226, where we are transported from Delphi to Athens, and must suppose a long interval of time to have elapsed during the wanderings of Orestes. This change was easily effected: nothing more being needed than a contrivance in the centre door to remove the Omphalus and bring forward the ancient image of Pallas: thus the temple 1 Hermann, in his review of Müller's Eumenides (Opusc. vol. vi.), and his treatise "De Re Scenicâ," denies that the Priestess prayed before an altar, and ridicules the idea of the góava, mentioned in § 10. It must be allowed that this last inference is somewhat far-fetched. With less justice he attacks the TapaTÉTασμα, calling it "ideal, and existing only in Müller's fervent imagination." Hermann's own explanation of these scenes is by no means satisfactory, and does not solve the dilemma brought forward above in the matter of the Eccyclema. He thinks that the Furies do not appear at all before v. 137, loù loù nóдαέ, &c., when they precipitate themselves through the doors of the temple into the orchestra; and that when the Prologue is ended, Orestes, Apollo, and Hermes come out of the temple in like manner. But who that reads the scene between the Ghost of Clytemnestra and the Furies, can believe that the latter were not visible to the audience during the whole of it? of Apollo becomes transformed into that of Athene Polias. Here the scene continues without interruption until the end of the Play. 14. In v. 653, where Pallas speaks of Mars' Hill as before the eyes of the audience, we must suppose a distant prospect of the hill opposite the citadel to have been represented on a TЄρíaктоs, or scene-painting, and that the Goddess pointed to this picture. When the Areopagites have taken their seats in the Orchestra, and Pallas, in v. 536, bids the people be silent, she addresses the whole audience as well as the persons on the stage: no doubt actual blasts of the trumpet pealed through the theatre, and the herald's cry, "'Aкoveтe λew," was heard. Thus are the entire Athenian people irresistibly drawn in to bear their part in the drama. avenging pp. 124-132. 15. The duty of avenging blood, at Athens, devolved ex- Duty of clusively upon the kindred of the deceased; not as though blood, homicide were no violation of the public peace, but because the avenging it was deemed a sacred office, which could no more be taken from the relatives than the right of burying their dead, or succession to a patrimony. The words of the law, preserved in Demosth. c. Macart. p. 1069, are as follows: "The kinsmen of the deceased, within the degree of first cousin inclusive, shall issue a proclamation in the market-place, charging the homicide to hold aloof from the altars and temples in the city, and from all assemblies for the exercise of religious rites; and they shall be supported in the prosecution by the other kindred, and the members of their Phratria." 16. It was only when the dying man forgave his slayer that this prosecution was omitted. Thus the idea of vengeance as a claim due to the murdered kinsman was familiar to the Greeks in the time of Eschylus; though the State had now assumed the office of mediator, and the avenger was obliged to lay his indictment, if for wilful murder, before the Areopagus, if for manslaughter, before the Ephetæ. 17. The accused was at liberty to take flight before sentence was passed: but if, after conviction for murder, he still remained in the country, his execution then became the business of the State. Duty of After a verdict of manslaughter the prosecutor and accused sometimes made a compromise at once, but generally the latter quitted the country, and remained an exile until one of the relatives of the deceased took compassion on him, and made good his reconciliation with the others. 18. In the Heroic ages, the punishment for homicide was more severe, for the pursuit might be carried beyond the frontiers, nor did any city of refuge, sanctuary, or claims of hospitality, protect the fugitive. (See Hom. Odyss. xv. 278.) Even when not pursued by the avenger, the murderer was universally regarded as a polluted person, and excluded in particular from his Phratria and from all religious ceremonies. So the Erinnyes say of Orestes, v. 625, ποίοισι βωμοῖς χρώμενος τοῖς δημίοις, ποία δὲ χέρνιψ φρατόρων προσδέξεται ; and in Homer, Il. ix. 64, Nestor, speaking of civil war, which is in fact murder, says, ἀφρήτωρ, ἀθέμιστος, ἀνέστιος ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος, ὃς πολέμου ἔραται ἐπιδημίου, ὀκρυόεντος. 19. Clytemnestra having murdered her husband, was expected pp. 131–137. at least to quit her home and her country's altars according to law and this sentence the Council of Elders in the Agamemnon pronounced against her. But having the support of Ægisthus, she imagined herself superior to the law, and so remained. The natural avenger of Agamemnon was his son Orestes; and Eschylus emphatically declares the strictness of this obligation, and the infamy of neglecting it, in Apollo's admonitions to Orestes, Choeph. 267-294. But notwithstanding these motives to vengeance, it would have been impious in him to have pursued his mother had she taken to flight; whereas, daring as she did to remain and still sacrifice at the public altars, her immediate death became justifiable and even necessary; because recourse could be had to no higher powers for her punishment, where she and EÆgisthus were supreme. 20. Accordingly, Eschylus represents Orestes as by no means repentant of the deed: in Eum. v. 566, he says, kaì deûpó y ảeì Tηv túxηv où μéμpoμal. Euripides, on the contrary, less true to the ancient customs and traditions, exhibits him as the remorseful sinner, condemning his own act as impious and needless, and apprehending in Apollo a destroying spirit. See Eurip. Orest. 283, 1685. With regard to the vengeance directed against Orestes, this was peculiarly the office of the Erinnyes: it could not lawfully be undertaken by any of Clytemnestra's relatives, because Orestes was a constituted avenger of blood, and, therefore, legally speaking, justified in his act. the fugitive pp. 137-140. 21. The shedder of blood was regarded amongst the Greeks Position of with mixed feelings. On the one hand, he was avoided with a homicide, kind of dread, excluded from all sanctuaries, religious ceremonies, and courts of law; and himself studious to avoid all contact and conversation with his fellow-men. (Eum. 268, 426; Eurip. Iph. in Taur. 947, sqq.) On the other hand, he was the object of a certain peculiar awe or respect, as an ikéτŋs, or distressed person in want of protection; and it was the duty of all men, αἰδεῖσθαι τὸν ἱκέτην, " to respect the claims of the suppliant," and to grant his demands. In Hom. Il. xxiv. 480, these feelings are well described: ὡς δ ̓ ὅτ ̓ ἂν ἄνδρ ̓ ἄτη πυκινὴ λάβῃ, ὅστ ̓ ἐνὶ πάτρη ἀνδρὸς ἐς ἁγνίτεω, θάμβος δ ̓ ἔχει εἰσορόωντας, ὡς ̓Αχιλεὺς θάμβησεν, ἰδὼν Πρίαμον θεοειδέα. 22. This passage proves how great a change in the suppliant's position was wrought by his purification; a prominent feature in the Eumenides: and herein the term πроσтрóπαιos occupies an important place. Its proper sense is, like ikéτns, "one who applies for protection;" but being generally coupled with the notion of a fugitive homicide not yet cleansed, it takes the meaning of "homo piacularis," (Eum. 168, Choeph. 285,) and in the Eumenides is used in the peculiar sense of "a suppliant for purification." Such was Orestes at Delphi-at Athens he |