797 / 682 this first trial ever for the shedding of blood Aeschylus is departing from a well-known tradition that explained the name Aereopagus (“hill of Ares,” 800 / 685) by making it the site of an earlier trial of Ares for murder before a jury of his fellow gods. See further Introduction, pp. 18–19. The trial of Orestes in Athens may or may not have been Aeschylus’ invention; that Orestes visited Athens after his matricide certainly was not. There is evidence for non-Aeschylean versions of the story in which relatives of Clytemnestra or Aegisthus were the plaintiffs and a jury made up only of gods or only of men decided the case. This evidence postdates the Oresteia, but it is likely that the variant versions predate it, since it is hard to see how they would arise once Aeschylus had given the story so definitive a form. In any case, we can be reasonably certain that it was Aeschylus who connected Orestes’ trial with the founding of the Areopagus Council, and who made the first act of that body the first murder trial in history.
800–806 / 685–90 In line with his change in the foundation myth for murder trials on the Areopagus from a trial of Ares by gods to a trial of Orestes by what would become the Areopagus Council, Aeschylus substitutes a new explanation for the name “Hill of Ares.” This he does by making the future site of Orestes’ trial the encampment of the invading Amazons, a tribe of barbarian women warriors, who sacrificed to the war god. The Areopagus would in fact be the best place from which to attack the Acropolis, and was the Persians’ base when they sacked it in 490. The tradition that the Amazons used it for their attack may well predate Aeschylus. For the possible significance of this allusion to the Amazons, see Introduction, p. 23.
802 / 686 angry at King Theseus This may refer to the story that Theseus had attacked their territory and carried their queen, Antiope, back to Greece, but the phrase (which could also be translated “jealous of King Theseus”) is vague enough to be compatible with the tradition that the invasion was unprovoked by any prior hostilities.
807–17 / 690–99 Athena emphatically endorses ideas expressed by the Erinyes at 610–20 / 517–28. Lines 807–12 / 6 90–95 have generated enormous controversy because they are capable of being interpreted as representing Aeschylus’ opinion of the recent reform of the Areopagus Council (see Introduction, pp. 18–19). The very variety of interpretations, however, suggests that Aeschylus is making no such direct political statement. The text leaves it open to scholars to argue that the laws Athena instructs the people to “leave intact” and “never alter ... with foul infusions” are the laws of Athens as a whole, or the laws concerning homicide, or the laws that governed the Areopagus Council itself. Similarly, some have argued that Aeschylus is condemning Ephialtes’ reform of 462, and others that he is supporting the reform by suggesting that the state of affairs Ephialtes confronted, in which the Areopagus had assumed broad political authority, represents what happens when ill-considered changes “muddy the clearest stream.” Nothing in Athena’s words here, and nothing elsewhere in the trilogy, compels such choices.
822 / 703 Scythians, or Spartans Both peoples, one barbarian but “naturally” law-abiding, the other a Greek community whose long history of stable laws and good government helped them fend off tyranny, were considered models of successful self-government.
828 / 709 take up your ballots and decide the case The voting takes place during the following exchange. Assuming ten jurors, we can imagine that one juror reaches the urns and casts his ballot during each of the ten couplets at 830–49 / 711–30. (For other assumptions, see note on 854.) The Chorus Leader’s lines at 850–52 / 731–33 then mark the end of the voting, and during them Athena would proceed to a place behind the table with the urns. The “ballots” are tokens, usually pebbles (which is what the Greek word psêphos, used here, literally means). In this instance, the jurors cast their ballots into one of two urns to vote for conviction or acquittal.
835–36 / 717–18 Apollo adduces the case of Ixion, the first murderer (and already mentioned as a suppliant at 524 / 441) as the precedent set by Zeus himself for the purification of blood-guilt. Apollo’s rhetorical question as to whether Zeus made a mistake would raise eyebrows among those who remembered the whole story, in which Ixion went on to betray Zeus by attempting to seduce Hera (see Glossary for details). The Chorus Leader, however, answers with a noncommittal “You said it, not I” (837 / 719) and returns to threats of destruction if the Erinyes should lose.
842–47 / 723–28 The Erinyes supply their own mythological example to illustrate Apollo’s devious tampering with fate. This is the story, familiar from Euripides Alcestis, that Apollo tricked the Fates into allowing Admetus, the son of King Pheres of Thessaly, to live beyond his allotted time if he could find someone else to die in his place. The Chorus Leader says that Apollo got the “ancient goddesses” drunk to secure their agreement (a detail not found in Euripides), thus connecting this episode to the charge that “you would trample down your elders” (850 / 731).
854 / 735 I will cast my ballot for Orestes Precisely what role Athena has in the voting has been the subject of vigorous debate. The most important question is this: Were the jurors’ votes tied (implying an even number of jurors), with the tie then broken by Athena; or was there an uneven number of votes (implying a majority of one to convict), with the tie, and thus acquittal, being achieved only by counting Athena’s vote? Unfortunately, the evidence of our text yields no easy answer. The original audience would have seen a voting procedure that clarified the text, so that every solution makes assumptions about how the scene was staged. E.g., those who favor an uneven number of jurors generally assume that an eleventh juror votes during the first two of the Chorus Leader’s final three lines (850–52 / 731–33), leaving the final line for Athena’s approach to the voting urns. Most important for our purposes, the result of the vote was regarded as decisive and final by all parties, however it was reached, and there is no suggestion of any irregularity or impropriety, even on the part of the Erinyes.
We have adopted the view that the jurors cast an even number of votes, so that the vote of Athena (a term that becomes proverbial for just this situation) is actually a tiebreaker. This approach has the notable advantage of avoiding Athena’s overturn of a majority vote by the human jurors. If one takes the view that Athena creates the tie with her vote, one must either deal with that anomaly as part of Aeschylus’ plan, or else assume that for the purpose of the vote, at least, the audience will accept Athena as simply another member of the jury, with no distinction between her vote and that of her mortal colleagues, even though it is she who set up the court and will shortly make the rule that a tie acquits (861 / 741). On the other hand, the greatest impediment to the view we have adopted is that Athena says she will cast her vote for Orestes before the votes are counted and a tie declared. A possible solution is that Athena does not actually put a voting token in the urn, so that her vote is notional and contingent on the tie that emerges from the counting completed between 864 / 744 and 873 / 752. This staging would in effect provide a sort of instantiation, in the foundation legend of the judicial system, of the Athenian practice that allowed a tie to result automatically in acquittal by invoking the purely notional “vote of Athena.” Another, perhaps less persuasive, possibility is that she adds her vote only after she has announced the tie at 874 / 753.
855 / 736 No mother gave me birth Athena confirms what Apollo said about her (776–78 / 663–66), although without any indication that she subscribes to his general view about procreation. What she does assert is her predisposition to value the male, which constitutes the decisive reason for her vote. As a virgin goddess, Athena rejects the role of wife, but she does not share the antipathy for males felt by others who shun marriage bonds, such as the Amazons or the Erinyes. She does, however, share a strain of androgyny with them, and with Clytemnestra. And yet, since she is “entirely my father’s child” (857 / 738), she also abhors Clytemnestra’s overturning of patriarchal order, and she will not condemn her killing. Her inclinations are thu
s entirely opposed to those of the Erinyes, who have a mother but no father (cf. note on 374).
862 / 743 You jurors who have this duty to fulfill We know that in the fourth century B.C.E., four jurors were chosen by lot to count the votes. This passage is evidence for a similar practice before the middle of the fifth century.
880–81 / 759–61 The final appearance in the trilogy of the motif of the third libation to Zeus Savior, with the Savior restored to his proper place of honor. Now, at last, he has shown himself to be both savior and teleios (the one who “brings all to fulfillment;” see note on Agamemnon, 1115–18) for the house of Atreus. See further Introduction, p. 33.
882–84 / 760–61 One of the passages in Eumenides (cf. note on 262–63) that suggest the gods can feel respect and responsibility for mortals.
885–98 / 762–74 An alliance between Argos and Athens has been mentioned twice before in Eumenides (335–36 / 289–91 and 782–87 / 669–73). Now, as Orestes leaves for Argos, he solemnizes the alliance with an oath to maintain friendship between his land and Athens both in his lifetime, and thereafter from the grave. Aeschylus thus gives a patina of great antiquity to an alliance made very recently between Athens and Argos. In 462, at about the same time as the reforms to the Areopagus were being undertaken, Athens abandoned an alliance with Sparta that was dear to the more conservative elements of the city in favor of a thirty-year treaty with Sparta’s enemy in the Peloponnese, Argos. To the extent that this alliance is part of the ascendancy of more democratic policies in Athens, as has often been suggested, Orestes’ warm offer of friendship between Argos and Athens may provide a clue to Aeschylus’ political sympathies.
889 / 767 Even from my tomb The long-standing belief that a hero continues to exercise power from his grave was an important element of the first half of Libation Bearers, set at Agamemnon’s tomb. Here, Orestes takes a solemn oath to use that power after his death to protect his friends, the Athenians. Similar promises are made to Athens by Oedipus in Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus and by Eurystheus in Euripides’ Children of Heracles. That such beliefs were not confined to tragic poetry can be gauged from Herodotus’ account of the importance that Sparta attributed to recovering the bones of Orestes from Tegea, where they had been buried and forgotten (Histories, 1, 67–8).
893 / 770 with ominous wingbeats The Greek parornithas literally means “contrary to bird [signs],” i.e., visited by bad omens.
900 / 776 the hold you get on all your enemies A final use of the wrestling metaphor. Orestes the wrestler (see 687–88 / 589–90 and Libation Bearers, 992–95 / 866–68) has in effect linked his victory with future victories for Athens.
902 / 777 With Orestes’ exit, the great story of crime and retribution in the house of Atreus is over at last, and the curse that lasted through generations is finally lifted. Orestes is mentioned only once more in the remainder of the play (929 / 799). Apollo’s part in the story is over as well, but his exit is far more problematic, since it is entirely unmarked, which is irregular in Greek tragedy even for a minor character—much less for a major deity. Furthermore, Orestes hardly mentions Apollo in his final speech, despite the crucial part Apollo played, as purifier and defense attorney, in winning his freedom. Nevertheless, the least jarring way for Apollo to exit seems to be in the company of Orestes.
903–1226 / 778–1047 The last third of the play is an extended scene for the Erinyes and Athena, capped by a short choral exodus sung by a group of Athenians as they escort the ancient goddesses to their new home below the Acropolis. Orestes’ acquittal and disappearance leaves the Erinyes, who have repeatedly threatened to wreak terrible damage should their prosecution fail, ready to turn their full wrath against Athens. Athena uses her powers of persuasion to transform anger into benevolence and vengeance into blessing, and the Erinyes at last accept a new role in Athens as Eumenides (“kindly ones,” see note on 1158).
This scene is formally varied through alternation of song and speech, but its structure does not readily lend itself to the traditional divisions into episode and stasimon. The sequence begins with the strong act division of a choral song, which, however, turns out not to be the usual stasimon but the beginning of a kind of kommos (see note on Agamemnon 1220–1348) in which the Chorus expresses its outrage in two stanzas, each repeated as a refrain between conciliatory speeches in dialogue verse by Athena (903–1024 / 778–880). There follows a short episode, again in spoken dialogue, in which Athena’s persuasion works its magic as she explains the benefits she can offer the Erinyes in return for their blessings on the land and people of her city (1025–64 / 881–915). The process continues in a kommos (the Chorus singing, Athena responding in anapests, 1065–1194 / 916–1020) in which the Erinyes agree to accept new honors, new functions, and a new home in Athens, and then sing songs of blessing that in effect cancel and replace the songs of wrath with which the scene began. Athena then leads the Erinyes-Eumenides on their way to new dwellings in the Attic earth, accompanied by their Athenian escort (1195–1226 / 1021–47).
903–22 / 778–93 Repeated verbatim (and presumably with identical music and dance) at 938–57 / 808–23, as is 975–86 / 837–47 at 1013–24 / 870–80. This is an effective way of showing the stubborn intransigence that Athena’s persistence in persuasion has to overcome.
906 / 780 my honor stripped away Concern for the loss of honor has been a recurrent theme of the Erinyes’ complaints (see note on 110–17), and has previously been expressed, as it is here, by the metaphor of young gods trampling down their elders (see note on 127). The Erinyes emphasize this fear obsessively in their refrains, and Athena keeps attempting to reassure them that they will continue to be held in the highest honor (926 / 796, 937 / 807, 958 / 824, 969–70 / 833, 995–96 / 854–55, 1011–12 / 868–69, 1025–28 / 881–84).
910 / 782–83 poison will now ooze and drip Apollo alluded to the Erinyes’ spewing of venom, only to dismiss it as harmless (848–49 / 729–30), but their threat of blighting the land is a real and terrible danger for Athens. Averting it will test Athena’s powers of persuasion.
934 / 805 your seat in a vast cavern Chthonic deities were thought of as dwelling underground, and Aeschylus’ audience would have known the grotto between the Areopagus and the Acropolis where Athens honored the Erinyes under the cult name Semnai (see note on 1158).
961 / 826 why even bring it up? Athena can answer threat with threat, but she prefers to use persuasion. Violent struggles like those of the past are always possible, but now not inevitable. The threat is dispelled immediately, and Zeus’ lightning bolt is depicted as being kept under lock and key, in contrast to its unrestrained use at Agamemnon, 534–35 / 469–70 and 741 / 651 (with note).
965 / 829 let me persuade you Peithô (persuasion), which appeared in its negative incarnations as temptation and deception in the earlier plays, now finally emerges as a constructive force, the power to convince by reason rather than subdue by force—the power needed to govern a democratic polis.
972–73 / 835 children / … the marriage rite The earlier opposition between blood ties and bonds of marriage disappears in Athena’s promise of offerings made to ensure the success of both childbirth and marriage vows. The Greek phrase translated “for the fulfillment of the marriage rite” (pro … gameliou telous) alludes to the proteleia (sacrifice made before a marriage) that had appeared in distorted contexts of bloodshed in Agamemnon (see notes on 79–80, 260, 821) and is now shorn of any sinister connotations and restored at last to its normal signification.
976–77 / 871 Force me … / under this earth The Erinyes associate Athena’s offer of a new home underground with the dishonor and imprisonment of Cronus and the Titans, with which they reproached Zeus at 750 / 641.
991–92 / 852 you’ll long just like a lover / for this country Although the Erinyes are invited to remain in Athens as resident aliens, Athena predicts that they will feel what the city ideally meant to Athenian citizens. The language is reminiscent of the exhortation that Thucydides
will later put into the mouth of Pericles in the famous Funeral Oration to “see the city’s power in practice day by day and become its passionate lovers” (History of the Peloponnesian War, 2, 43.1).
999–1009 / 858–66 Although the desire to avert civil strife does not require special circumstances to motivate it (there is a similar prayer in Aeschylus, Suppliants, 678–83), the probability that Athenian political tensions were high in 458 (see Introduction, footnote 12) may have made this theme more than usually urgent. The injunction to fight only foreign wars may reflect the ongoing Athenian expedition in Egypt (see note on 337).
1008–9 / 866 a cock who fights / inside the nest In addition to the pugnaciousness of fighting cocks in general (cf. 1002–4 / 861–63), there is a suggestion here of the Greek belief that cocks were unusually prone to fight their kin. Cf. the image of Aegisthus, who has eliminated his rival and “brags on bravely, like a cock beside his hen” (Agamemnon 1932 / 1671). And since Athena’s concern is for reckless young men, she may also be glancing at the idea that young birds consider it “a fine thing to bite and throttle their fathers” (Aristophanes, Birds, 1337–38).
1032 / 886 the power of my tongue to soothe and enchant Persuasion in its positive form has the same power of enchantment that in early Greek thought was held (perhaps paradoxically from our point of view) to guarantee the truth of great poetry. See Walsh, Varieties of Enchantment.