Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T06:23:18.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Force to Persuasion: Aeschylus' Oresteia as Cosmogonic Myth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Nancy S. Rabinowitz
Nancy S. Rabinowitz*
Affiliation:
Hamilton College
Get access

Extract

Modern critics have done much interpretive work on the Oresteia, ranging from specific studies of particular motifs (for example, of wind, music, nature, sacrifice) to the more synthetic studies of E. T. Owen, Anne Lebeck, and most recently, Michael Gagarin. The latter group has taken note of what may be called a superstructure in the plays, a moral framework which parallels the action of the trilogy. They have, of course, different visions of this structure. Thus, for example, Owen sees the subject of the plays as the creation of a ‘new spiritual order,’ while Lebeck describes the pattern as ‘movement from enigmatic utterance to clear statement, from riddle to solution.’

While these treatments are valuable to the student of the plays, the overriding question is still, ‘Why this structure and why these particular images?’ Owen and Lebeck, while undeniably correct in their analyses, are too general. It is possible to go further still, for the structure is more specific than a movement ‘from riddle to solution.’ Structure and image both, in fact, have their roots in the creation myth. Just as many rituals re-enact cosmogony to restore an interrupted order, Aeschylus, in order to achieve a sense of stability, builds on the religious response that a presentation of the myth evokes. It is no accident, then, that the patterns of light, wind, and nature imagery, all studied by separate scholars, are important in the creation myth; we can only fully understand these patterns when we uncover these roots.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , 1981 , pp. 159 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. On motifs, see: Peradotto, John J., ‘Some Patterns of Nature Imagery in Aeschylus' Oresteia,’ AJP 85 (1964), 379–93Google Scholar; Haldane, J. A., ‘Musical Themes and Imagery in Aeschylus,’ JHS 85 (1965), 33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zeitlin, Froma I., ‘The Motif of the Corrupted Sacrifice in Aeschylus' Oresteia,’ TAPA 96 (1965), 463–508Google Scholar; Scott, W. C., ‘Wind Imagery in the Oresteia,’ TAPA 97 (1966), 459–71Google Scholar; Fowler, Barbara, ‘Aeschylus' Imagery,’ C&M 28 (1970) 1–74Google Scholar. Or, the more general studies of: Owen, Eric T., The Harmony of Aeschylus (Toronto, 1952Google Scholar); Lebeck, Anne, The Oresteia: A Study in Language and Structure (Washington, D.C., 1971Google Scholar); Gagarin, Michael, Aeschylean Drama (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1976Google Scholar). Cf. also Ewans, Michael, ‘Agamemnon at Aulis: A Study in the Oresteia,’ Ramus 4 (1975), 17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Owen (n.1 above), 128.

3. Lebeck (n.1 above), 1-2.

4. Owen (n.1 above), 128.

5. On the general notion of creation as definition and ordering, note the remark of J. Rudhardt, who calls creation ‘un passage de l'indéterminé au déterminé’: La Thème de l'eau primordiale dans la mythologie grecque, Travaux Publiées sous les auspices de la Société Suisse des Sciences Humaines, vol. 12 (Berne, 1971), 121Google Scholar. See also: Krappe, Alexander H., La Genèse des mythes (Paris, 1938), 252ff.Google Scholar; Cornford, Francis M., Principium Sapientiae: Origins of Greek Philosophical Thought (Cambridge, 1952), 194Google Scholar; Eliade, Mircea, The Sacred and the Profane (New York, 1959), 22-24, 29–32Google Scholar; Fontenrose, Joseph, Python (Berkeley and L.A., 1959), 218–29Google Scholar; Vernant, Jean-Pierre, ‘Thétis et la poème cosmogonique d'Alcman,’ Hommages à Marie Delcourt (Brussels, 1970), 38–69Google Scholar.

6. Pyramid Text 1466; cited and translated by Frankfort, Henri, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago, 1948), 233Google Scholar.

7. Ibid., p. 155.

8. Heidel, Alexander, tr. Babylonian Genesis (Chicago, 1951), 18Google Scholar.

9. SB: Satapathbrahmana; RV: Rig Veda. The Satapathbrahmana are translated by Eggeling, Julius in vols. 12, 26, 41, 43, 44 of the Sacred Books of the East (Oxford, 1882–1900Google Scholar); the Vedas have been translated by Griffith, Ralph, The Hymns of the Rig Veda (2nd ed.; Delhi, 1973Google Scholar).

10. West, M. L., ed. Theogony (Oxford, 1966), 361Google Scholar. For another interpretation see Kirk, G. S. and Raven, J. E., The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1964), 31Google Scholar.

11. Pherecydes Syr. (DK B5) makes the Harpies and Thyella guard Tartaros. See Vernant (n.5 above) and Detienne, Marcel and Vernant, Jean-Pierre, Les Ruses d'intelligence (Paris, 1974), 119Google Scholar.

12. See Kahn, Charles, Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology (New York, 1960), 232Google Scholar.

13. Schol. Ar. Nub. 336; Val. Flacc. Arg. 3.130-31; schol. Pind. P.I.54. Worms, F., ‘Der Typhoeus-Kampf in Hesiods Theogonie,’ Hermes 81 (1953), 29–47Google Scholar.

14. Z and Pazazu, in Mesopotamia, and Hahimmas, in the Puruli texts. On Zu and Pazazu see Fish, Stanley, ‘The Zu Bird,’ Bulletin of John Rylands Library 21 (1948), 162–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on Hahimmas, see Gaster, Theodore H., Thespis: Ritual, Myth and Drama in the Ancient Near East (New York, 1950), 344Google Scholar.

15. Kirk and Raven (n.10 above), 11-19.

16. Oxy. Pap. XXIV, 2390 col. III, Lobel and Page (fr. 5 Page).

17. See especially Vernant (n.5 above), 46-56. Cf. Fränkel, Hermann, Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy, trans. by Hadas, Moses and Willis, James (New York, 1975), 254 n.5Google Scholar. For a different interpretation of poros, tekmōr and Thetis in this fragment see Penwill, J. L. ‘Alkman's Cosmogony’, Apeiron 8.2 (1974), 13–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which incorporates a useful survey of the early occurrences of these words (18f., 23, 27).

18. On this similarity, see West, M. L., ‘Alcman and Pythagoras,’ CQ n.s. 17 (1976), 2 and 5, and Vernant (n.5 above), 45Google Scholar; contra Penwill (n.17 above), 20.

19. Vernant (n.5 above), 53.

20. Fontenrose, (n.5 above), 151, 156, 256; West (n.10 above), 213, 216.

21. Fontenrose (n.5 above), 257.

22. Apollod. Bibl. 3.5.8; Peisander ap. schol. Ph. 1760. In Euripides' Phoenissae, the Sphinx is represented as carrying off young men (1027) and is associated with Echidna and Ge (1019-20). She is sent by Hades (810-11) and is called an Erinys (1028-29). Schol. Ph. 1750 on desire for Haemon.

23. Anaxilas fr. 22 (2.270 Kock); Plut. Amor. (7.133 Bernadakis). cf. Gould's, Thomas edition of Oedipus the King (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1970), 18–19, 72–73Google Scholar.

24. Apollod. Bibl. 2.5.9, 2.6.4; Diod. 4.32; Val Flacc. Arg. 2.451-578; for a general connection between dragons and flood/plague, see Fontenrose (n.5 above), 349.

25. Hooke, S. H., Myth and Ritual (London, 1933), 9.Google Scholar; Eliade, Mircea, Cosmos and History (New York, 1954), 35, 37-38, 52, 55 n.4, 76Google Scholar; Trumpf, Josef, ‘Stadtgrundung und Drachenkampf,’ Hermes, 86 (1958), 129–57Google Scholar; Fontenrose (n.5 above), passim.

26. Stanford, William, Aeschylus in his Style, (Dublin, 1942Google Scholar), notes that Clytemnestra is called arachna and echidna because she kills with venom (pp. 89-90). On the monster imagery applied to Clytemnestra, see also Betensky, Aya, ‘Aeschylus’ Oresteia: ‘The Power of Clytemnestra’, Ramus 7 (1978), 11-25, esp. 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27. Fraenkel, Eduard, Agamemnon (3 vols.; Oxford, 1950), III, 569Google Scholar.

28. For analogous battles between the eagle, as representative of the god, and serpent, as representative of evil and darkness, see Wittkower, Rudolf, ‘Eagle and Serpent,’ Bulletin of the Warburg Institute, II (1939), 239–325Google Scholar; also Dumortier, Jean, Les Images dans la poésie d'Eschyle (Paris, 1935), 88–91Google Scholar; Fontenrose, Joseph, ‘Gods and Men in the Oresteia,’ TAPA 102 (1974), 71–109Google Scholar.

29. Picard, Charles, ‘La Religion de Pindare et l'esprit des sculptures … à Olympie,’ BAGB 58 (1938), 10Google Scholar, points out the well-known sacred symbolism represented on coins there: the victory of the eagle over the chthonic serpent.

30. For Hekate's relationship to Hounds see Rohde, Erwin, Psyche (8th ed; New York, 1966), 108, 324 n. 99Google ScholarPubMed. He cites Hymni Magici 5, 17 Ab. (head of a dog for Hekate). Furthermore, Hekate is called a dog: Hsch. s.v. Hekatē's agalma AB 336.31-337.5; Call. fr. 100 h, 4; invoked as a dog: P. Mag. Par. 1432ff.; identified with Kerberos: Lyd. Mens. 3.8, p. 42 W.; followed by demonic hounds: Porph. ap. Eus. P.E. 4.23.7-8; Lyk. 1174-80 (cf. PLG iii, 721f.).

31. Through the reference to Skylla as simply dog, Aeschylus defines the encounter of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra in another way as well. She deceives him with her fawning insincerity, lures him onto the fateful tapestries, thus acting like a cowardly bitch. In this sense, the scene represents a conflict between male and female, between the straight-forward warrior and the woman, artful because physically weak (See Gagarin on the sexual conflict of the play, n.1 above 90-105). At the same time, because of Skylla's associations with sea and the darkness of the underworld, we are also meant to recognize the meeting of hero and monster. Since Agamemnon does not know the true name and form of his enemy, he is conquered. Clytemnestra fawns like a poodle, but kills like the supernatural Skylla.

32. Headlam, W. G. and Thomson, George, The Oresteia, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1938), II, 110Google Scholar; Fraenkel (n.27 above), III, 569; cf. Fontenrose (n.28 above): ‘Clytemnestra is truly mother of Hades, i.e. Death, and not merely a “Hellish mother,” as the phrase is often translated, although she is that too’ (97).

33. Stanford (n.26 above), 117, says that the oxymoron reveals ‘woman's hopeful heart combined with the careful forethought of a man. The interplay of these paradoxically united feminine and masculine characteristics is sometimes confusing, always arresting.’ Winnington-Ingram notes in ‘Aeschylus' Agamemnon, 1348-71,’ CQ 48 (1954), 23–30Google Scholar, that ‘the primary quality of Clytemnestra is masculinity’ (p. 26). Gagarin obscures the point it seems to me, saying ‘We must bear in mind, however, that these and other references to Clytemnestra's masculinity are made by the male characters in the play, who consider it abnormal for any woman to display qualities that they (and many modern critics) feel belong more properly to men’ (n.1 above, 93). She does confuse characteristics, and the play makes it very clear; if this is overlooked — or if we limit ourselves to criticizing the narrowminded chorus — we miss a crucial element in the conflict between her and Agamemnon.

34. Headlam and Thomson (n.32 above), I. 14-16. In their discussions of light and dark, this interpretation is accepted by Stanford (n.26 above), 100ff.; Lebeck (n.1 above), 187 n.44; Sheppard, J. T., Aeschylus the Prophet of Freedom (New York, 1974), 10Google Scholar.

35. This genitive is translated by Fraenkel as ‘in dark,’ for, as he says, in Homer orphnaios is exclusively the epithet of something dark (Agamemnon II, p. 15Google Scholar); thus it seems impossible to him to take it as an adjective applying to the beacon's fire. We, however, can take it this way, if we understand the light as evil, chaotic, and therefore inherently mixed — thus, dark light, as Clytemnestra is a man woman.

36. Peradotto (n.1 above), 379; Lebeck (n.1 above), 41.

37. Clytemnestra refers to her own ability to temper steel, by denying it (612). When she refers again to dipping cloths in the sea, she may be subtly alluding to the skills of sea demons in metallurgy (Thetis, , Il. 18. 395ff.Google Scholar, and Telchines; see Vernant (n.5 above), 39-40, (n.11 above), 135-36). At the same time, the dipping reminds us of her masculinity, and in so doing, reminds us of her mixedness.

38. Eur. frr. 121, 145 Nauck; Soph. ap. ps. Erat. 16, 36; Apollod. 2.4.2, 2.5.10; Ach. Tat. LK 3.6.3-3.7.9; Lucian, D.Mar. 14Google Scholar; Ovid, Met. 4.820–908Google Scholar; Hyg. Fab. 151.2.

39. Vernant (n.5 above), 57.

40. This phrase is another unholy inauspicious mixture, since the paian is properly the song of Apollo: Winnington-Ingram (n.33 above), 28-30; Haidane (n.1 above), 37.

41. Peradotto (n.1 above), 383-88.

42. Stanford (n.26 above) shows how the ‘wall’ becomes a hull, and as a result of a slight ambiguity in homotoichos, the poet moves to the new image (p. 77).

43. On disease imagery in the play, see: Stanford (n.26 above), 98-100;.Lebeck (n.1 above), 21; Fowler (n.1 above), 43.

44. See Peradotto (n.1 above).

45. Ar. Av. 696ff.; Plato, Symp. 203b ff.Google Scholar; Parm. DK B 3; Orphic, Hymn Quandt 58Google Scholar, to Eros ‘who holds the keys of all’ (1.4) and who ‘alone guides the rudder of all’ (cf. Hymn 87); Acusilaos DK 9 B1 (Damasc. de princ. 124), DK 9 B 2 (Plato, Symp. 178bGoogle Scholar); see Vernant (n.5 above), 44-46.

46. Wheelwright, Philip, The Burning Fountain (Bloomington, Indiana, 1954Google Scholar), refers to the tapestry as the icon of blood about to flow (p. 237). Lebeck also takes it as the image of blood (n.1 above), 80-81. These interpretations are powerful, and, of course, need not be in disagreement with the other, sexual, undercurrent — since the dragoness may kill with her sexuality, we would expect the two meanings to coexist.

47. Gagarin implies this in his comment: ‘One can see from these remarks that the audience is continually reminded of the sexual conflict that underlies Agamemnon's murder ‥ For such a man to die at the hands of a woman and in a womanly manner is the ultimate disgrace for the male forces in the trilogy’ (n.1 above, 96-97).

48. Dumortier (n.28 above) enumerates some images, but without any very enlightening commentary; for him the flowers simply connote life and death because of the briefness of their beauty (pp. 25-26). Peradotto (n.1 above) sees that ‘nature is a sensitive sounding board for events in the moral sphere … In the Agamemnon man is surrounded by a hostile world, the blossoming of ugliness, evil and pain under a shower of blood, where flowers are blighted and leaves withered' (p. 379). More sensitive and enlightening are the remarks of Betensky (n.26 above), 20.

49. West cites Apollod, Bibl. 3.4.2; Enuma Elish 4.29Google Scholar; Nonnos, D. 1.480, 5.571, 3.197Google Scholar in his discussion of Pherecydes' account of Ge's marriage to Zas. He argues, from the existence of these parallels, that the robe is meant to celebrate their union (‘Three Presocratic Cosmologies’, CQ n.s. 13 [1963], 154ff., 164 n.1Google Scholar).

On two occasions, robes are given to virgin deities, to Orthia in Aleman's Partheneion, and to Athena at the Panathenaia. The robe in the latter case is embroidered with the story of the Gigantomachy, in which Athena fought nobly. That battle was also a struggle for order — the Giants threatened Olympos — and it is recalled at the celebration of the founding of Athens because of its cosmic significance. For the implications of the Arrephoroi in this interpretation, see Burkert, Walter, ‘Kekropidensage und Arrephoria: vom Initiation zum Panathenäenfest,’ Hermes 94 (1966), 24Google Scholar.

50. In particular see the accounts of Osiris-Horos, both of whom fight Set (Plut. Mor. 355D-358E), and the Weather God versus Illuyankas in Hittite legend (Gaster, n.14 above, 326-39, 332-34).

51. A. R., Argon. 2.706Google Scholar; Nonnos, , D. 3.28Google Scholar; Call. fr. 365 (88Pf., p.96); D.P. 442; schol. A.R., Argon. 2.706Google Scholar. The gender of the monster is uncertain in these passages. Apollonios gives only the name, so that it is impossible to be sure, and the scholiasts reflect continuing confusion. Otto Gruppe believed that Apollo had conquered Typhoeus before assuming his place on Olympos in the Hymn, Homeric (Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte [Munich, 1906], 1257–59Google Scholar). See also Fontenrose (n.5 above), 252, 365, 392; he accepts Gruppe's interpretation of the opening to the Hymn, but maintains that both a male and a female monster inhabited the region.

52. On the stasimon, see Rösler, Wolfgang, Reflexe vorsokratischen Denkens bei Aischylos (Meisenheim am Glan, 1970), 41Google Scholar; Lebeck, Anne, ‘The First Stasimon of Aeschylus' Choephoroi: Myth and Mirror Image,’ CP 62 (1967), 82–84Google Scholar; Holtsmark, E. G., ‘On Choephoroi 586-651,’ CW 59 (1966), 215–17Google Scholar.

53. The main sources for the Perseus story are: Hes. Th. 270-83, Shield 216-37; Pind. P. 10.31-48, P. 12.6-21; Pherek Athn. 10-12 (1.75 FHG fr. 26); Apollod. Bibl. 2.4.1-5; Dionys. Skyt. ap Diod. 3.52.4-3.55.3; ps-Erat. 15-17, 22, 36; Lyk. 834-46 with schol. vet.; Conon 40; Paus. 2.16, 2.21.5-7, 2.23.7, 4.35.9; Lucian, D. Mar. 14Google Scholar; Palaiph. Incred. 31; Ach. Tat. LK 3.6.3-3.7.9; Ovid Met. 4.607-5.263; Lucan, BC 9.619–99Google Scholar; Manil. 5.538-619; Hyg. Fab. 63f.; Nonnos, D. 25.31–142, 30.264-277Google Scholar; 31.8-15; 47.498-741; Malal. 2, pp. 34-39 Dind.; Serv. Aen. 6.289, 7.372; schol. ABT Il. 14.319.

54. Hes. Th. 278-80; Serv. Aen. 6.289; Paus. 2.21-25; Lyk. 834-46; Ovid, Met. 4.607Google Scholar. The tradition continues in John Barth's Chimaera which presents both Medusa and Andromeda as loves of Perseus'.

55. The Stesichorus version did give Orestes Apollo's bow to use against the Erinyes. Fr. 217, p. 116 Page.

56. The exchange between Pylades and Orestes is viewed by Lebeck (n.1 above), 123, as the climax of the action of the kommos. Gagarin (n.1 above), 98-100, characterizes Orestes' reply as ‘from the male perspective,’ but he recognizes that Orestes is ‘a less extreme representative of the male point of view than his father.’

57. Fontenrose (n.28 above), observes this doubleness and relates it to his earlier thesis about the dragon couple, but he does not make the full comparison to what Aeschylus is doing on the large scale. Higgins, W. E. discusses the passage, but places it in the context of ‘Double-dealing Ares in the Oresteia,‘ CP 73 (1978), 24–35Google Scholar.

58. Ach. Tat. LK. 3.63-3.79; Malal. Chron. V 14 D, E; Manilius makes Andromeda a bride for Poseidon, Astronom. V. 538–619Google Scholar.

59. Xanthus ap. Ael. Var Hist. 4.26Google Scholar gives alektron as the derivation of Electra. The motifs of her spinsterhood and childlessness play an increasingly important part in the Sophoclean and Euripidean versions of the story.

60. On the need to be like the clever enemy in order to conquer, see Vernant (n.11 above), 110-112.

61. Lebeck (n.1 above), 131.

62. Peradotto (n.1 above), 388-93. He sees the Choephoroi as a struggle to bring back light, but that it begins in a moral ambiguity or shadow.

63. Rohde (n.30 above), 79; Harrison, Jane, ‘Delphika,’ JHS 19 (1899), 205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64. Harrison, Jane, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (Cambridge, 1908), 233Google Scholar.

65. Marie Delcourt goes so far as to say that the relationship between Orestes and Apollo was suggested entirely by the legend of Telphusa-Delphyne; she notes that nothing in either tradition or religion demanded that Orestes act under the edict of a god: L'Oracle de Delphes (Paris, 1955), 263, 265Google Scholar.

66. The two enemies of Apollo may even be one. See Gruppe (n.51 above), 744, n. 19; Delcourt (n.65 above), 137-39; Fontenrose (n.5 above), 372-73; Kolk, Dieter, Der pythische Apollonhymnus als aitiologische Dichtung (Meisenheim am Glan, 1963), 25Google Scholar.

67. At Tilphusa, Poseidon coupled with an Erinys who later gave birth to Areion; Ares and Tilphossa were the parents of the Theban Drakon (Schol. ABT Il. 23.346; Schol. vet. Soph. Ant. 125).

68. Fontenrose (n.5 above), 370-71, notes that Medusa's union with Poseidon also resulted in the birth of a horse monster, Pegasus.

69. On the Erinyes at the omphalos, see Harrison (n.63 above), 205-51. See also her Themis, reprinted in Epilegomena and Themis (New Hyde Park, N.Y., 1962), 414Google Scholar.

70. See Vidal-Naquet, Pierre, ‘Chasse et sacrifice dans L'Orestie’ in Mythe et tragédie en Grèce ancienne (Paris, 1973), 155Google Scholar.

71. Call fr. 643 Pf.; Clem. Alex. Protr. 2.18, P. 15; Tatian, Adv. Gr. 8Google Scholar; Plut. Mor. 365a; Philochoros 7.3B, 100J.; Deinarchos ap. Eus. Chron. an. 718 et ap. Malal. 2, p. 45 Dind.

72. Eur. Alc., especially 1-27; Plato, Symp. 179bcGoogle Scholar; Apollod. Bibl. 1.9.15; 3.10.3-4; Hyg. Fab. 50, 51, 251.3; see Fontenrose (n.5 above), pp. 323-37.

73. Lebeck (n.1 above), 146-47, notes the vampirish elements in the Erinyes. She cites (p. 208 n.2) Reinhardt, , Aischylos als Regisseur, pp. 149–50Google Scholar: ‘In dieser Reinheit gleichsam also die Quintessenz alles Erinyshaften, zeigen sie ihr wesen hier im Spiegel eines Denkens, das erfüllt ist von der Anschauung einer Entzweiten Auseinanderstrebenden, das durch ein Wunder sich vereinigt. Doch also einseitiger Widerpart alles Olympischen ziehen sie auch wider eine Fülle alles möglichen Widerolympischen an sich heran, sie sondern sich und integrieren sich zugleich. Etwas von allem dem vielen, was Hesiod sum Teil nur in seine Théogonie hineinliess, von unheimlichen Gespenstern, Vampyren, Werwölfen, raffenden Todesdämonen, von Harpyien, Mormonen, Empusen, Keren, scheint mit ihrem Wesen zu verwachsen.’

74. Philostr. V.A. 4. 25; schol. vet. Ar. Eq. 693; Suid. M 1252; Basilius schol. ap. Ruhnken Tim. Lex. Plat. 182; schol. vet. on Theoer. 15.40. See Fontenrose (n.5 above), 115-18.

75. Lyk. 33-38, 472, 952, with schol. vet. 34, 839; schol. Il. 20.146; Diod. 4.42; Apollod. Bibl. 2.5.9; Val. Flacc. Arg. 4.451-550; Hyg. Fab. 89; Serv. Aen. 8. 157.

76. Plague occupies a parallel place in the myth of Poine — after the killing of the monster, a plague descends on Argos, and in order to lift the nosos, the murderer must be sacrificed. In the Sphinx story, too, a plague replaces the monster as a bane to Thebes. Oedipus conquers the Sphinx to take the throne; Orestes conquers Clytemnestra to ascend the throne. The plague demands Oedipus, as Erinyes and their plague demand Orestes.

77. Delcourt cites this threat of the Erinyes as evidence of the general association of human and agricultural fertility, but she does not take note of the social ramifications of the plague (Stérilités mystérieuses et naissances maléfiques dans l'antiquité classique [Paris, 1938], 14Google Scholar). She thinks that Aeschylus makes the Erinyes daughters of Nux, not earth, because he is trying to make the earth wholly beneficent by overlooking her role as mother of monsters (pp. 77-79). Cf. Harrison (n.63 above), 212, who says that they are the daughters of Nux to conceal their fertility aspect. Interesting in this connection is Zuntz's, Gunther book Persephone (Oxford, 1971), especially pp. 75–83Google Scholar on the separation of one goddess — queen of dead and living — into Persephone and Demeter.

78. Jane Harrison discusses the prologue, saying that Aeschylus here chooses to ‘set forth or rather conceal the real agon of the play, the conflict between the new order and the old, the daimones of the earth, the Erinyes, and the theoi of Olympos, Apollo and his father Zeus’ (n.69 above, 385-86). On the specific phrase oude pros bian tinos, see Vidal-Naquet (n.70 above), 157.

79. See Detienne and Vernant, (n.11 above), 100-03, for a good statement of the difference between the victory of Zeus and the seemingly comparable one of Kronos.

80. On the tranformation of Persuasion, see Owen (n.1 above), 83-84, 123-29; Headlam, Walter, ‘Praelections Delivered before the Senate of the University of Cambridge, January 1906,’ Cambridge Praelections (1906), 101–37Google Scholar. See also Goheen, R. P., ‘Aspects of Dramatic Symbolism: Three Studies in the Oresteia,’ AJP 76 (1955), 129-30, 130 n. 39Google Scholar; Lebeck (n.1 above), 20-21, 40-41, 131. On the importance of Persuasion to Aeschylus, see Winnington-Ingram's, ‘A Religious Function of Greek Tragedy,’ JHS 74 (1954), 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar and his ‘Tragedy and Greek Archaic Thought,’ Classical Drama and its Influence, ed. by Anderson, M. J. (London, 1965), 42Google Scholar.

81. Cf. the ideas of Delcourt and Harrison, n.77 above.

82. Winnington-Ingram, in ‘Religious Function,’ (n.80 above) seems to argue that the Erinyes are always identified with Zeus (p.20). See Lloyd-Jones, Hugh, The Justice of Zeus (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1971), 92–93Google Scholar; cf. his ‘Zeus in Aeschylus,’ JHS 76 (1956), 55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Grube's, G. M. ‘Zeus in Aeschylus,’ AJP 90 (1970), 43–51Google Scholar.

83. Lebeck (n.1 above), 145-66, discusses the transformation of the Erinyes at length and focuses on their echo of the Agamemnon; Gagarin (n.1 above), 112-14, recognizes their concern for order. Higgins (n.57 above), 32, finds the Furies ‘curiously out of place in the world of the Eumenides' and discusses the need to placate them (pp. 33-35).

84. Rösler (n. 52 above), 41-44, compares the two passages and makes a further analogy to Empedocles' cosmology; see also Peradotto (n.1 above), 388.

85. Goheen (n.80 above), 122-126; Lebeck (n.1 above), 81-91.

86. Headlam and Thomson (n.32 above), II, 317-319; Wheelwright (n.46 above), 266-67; Lebeck (n.1 above), 15.

87. Arist. Ath. Con. 49.3; 54.6; 60.1; Eur. Hec. 466; Diod. 20.46; Harpocration s.v. peplos.

88. Plato, , Euthyphro 6b–cGoogle Scholar; the scholiast on Aristides' Panathenaicus (xiii. 189.4–5, iii. 323 Dind.Google Scholar) says that the festival was established by Erichthonios to commemorate the death of the Giant Asterius. See Davison, J. A., ‘Notes on the Panathenaea,’ JHS 78 (1958), 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89. Farnell, Lewis, Cults of the Greek States (5 vols.; Oxford, 1896), I, 298Google Scholar.

90. Thomson, George, Aeschylus and Athens (2nd ed., London, 1950), 296Google Scholar.