¹ For suggestions concerning the relationship between satyr-play and trilogy, cf. Peradotto, J. J., ‘The Omen of the Eagles and the ἦθος of Agamemnon’, Phoenix 23 (1969), 261–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Rhodes, P. J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981), p. 312Google Scholar.

³ Lloyd-Jones, P. H. J., The Justice of Zeus (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1971), p. 93Google Scholar.

⁴ Livingstone, R. W., ‘The Problem of the Eumenides of Aeschylus’, JHS 45 (1925), 120–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Dover, K. J., ‘The Political Aspect of the Eumenides', in Greek and the Greeks: Collected papers, Volume I: Language, Poetry, Drama (Oxford, 1987), p. 171Google Scholar ( = JHS 77(1957), 236)Google Scholar.

⁶ Thomson, G. and Headlam, W. G., The Oresteia of Aeschylus (Cambridge, 1938), p. 357Google Scholar.

⁷ Dodds, E. R., ‘Morals and Politics in the Oresteia’, in The Ancient Concept of Progress and Other Essays on Greek Literature and Belief (Oxford, 1973), p. 49Google Scholar.

⁸ Dodds (n. 7), p. 48. Cf. for a similar view Podlecki, A. J., The Political Background of Aeschylean Tragedy (Ann Arbor, 1965), pp. 63–100Google Scholar.

⁹ Dodds (n. 7), p. 62.

¹⁰ Macleod, C., ‘Politics and the Oresteia’, in Collected Essays (Oxford, 1983), p. 28Google Scholar ( = JHS 102 (1982), 132)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Meier, C., The Greek Discovery of Politics (tr. D. McLintock, Cambridge, Mass, and London, 1990), p. 89Google Scholar.

¹² Meier (n. 11), p. 114.

¹³ Sommerstein, A. H., Aeschylus: Eumenides (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 31fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Lebeck, A., The Oresteia (Washington, 1971), pp. 134ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ Cf. Millett, K., Sexual Politics (New York, 1971), pp. 114ff.Google Scholar; Zeitlin, F. I. ‘The Dynamics of Misogyny: Myth and Mythmaking in the Oresteia’, Arethusa 11 (1978), 149–84Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Cohen, D., ‘The Theodicy of Aeschylus: Justice and Tyranny in the Oresteia’, G&R 33 (1986), 129–41 (p. 129)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Goldhill, S. D., Reading Greek Tragedy (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 32–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For other bibliography on politics in the Oresteia, cf. Wartelle, A., Bibliographie historique et critique d'Eschyle et de la tragédie grecque 1518–1974 (Paris, 1978), p. 672Google Scholar.

¹⁸ The analysis is very similar to the Marxian notion of ‘struggle’, in which the worse aspects of an earlier stage of social development are removed and the better retained. For Marx and Aeschylus, cf. Prawer, S. S., Karl Marx and World Literature (Oxford, 1976)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Cf. , Hsd.Theog. 617ffGoogle Scholar. For this type of story, cf. Fontenrose, J., Python: A Study of the Delphic Myth and its Origins (Berkeley, 1959)Google Scholar; Vian, F., La Guerre des Géants: le mythe avant l'époque hellénistique (Paris, 1952), pp. 94–113Google Scholar, who offers a critique of Fontenrose's methodology; Trumpf, J., ‘Stadtgriindüng und Drachenkampf, Hermes 86 (1958), 129–57Google Scholar, on Pi. Py. 1 and near-eastern mythology, a poem where this myth has a similarly paradigmatic function to that proposed here.

²⁰ Sommerstein (n. 13), p. 81.

²¹ Burian, P., ‘Zeus Σωτ⋯ρ τρίτος and Some Triads in Aeschylus' Oresteia’, AJP 107 (1986), 342Google Scholar; he also notes the parallels between Orestes and Zeus as τριακτήρ and τρίτος (p. 341).

²² For a discussion of the play in terms of a Gigantomachy, with Orestes opposing Qytaemestra and the Furies as dragon-like figures, cf. Rabinowitz, N. S., ‘From Force to Persuasion: Aeschylus’ Oresteia as Cosmogonic Myth’, Ramus 10 (1981), 159–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ 804–7, 833–6, 854–7, 890f.; cf. Carey, C., ‘Aischylos Eumenides 858–66’, ICS 15 (1990), 239–50Google Scholar.

²⁴ Deubner, L., Attische Feste (Berlin, 1932), pp. 152–5Google Scholar; Parke, H. W., Festivals of the Athenians (London, 1977), pp. 29fGoogle Scholar.

²⁶ So Accius, fr. 3 Morel: ‘maxima pars Graium Saturno et maxime Athenis / conficiunt sacra, quae Cronia esse iterantur abillis / … nosterque itidem est mos traditus illinc / iste, ut cum dominis famuli epulentur ibidem’; cf. Philochorus, , FGrHist 328 F 97Google Scholar. Cf. Farnell, , Cults i. 32–4Google Scholar for Cronus' cults; also Deubner (n. 24), pp. 152–5 for Athens.

²⁶ , Plut.Mor. 1098bcGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ Cf. Sourvinou-Inwood, C., ‘The Votum of 477/6 B.C. and the Foundation Legend of Locri Epizephyrii, CQ 24 (1974), 194fGoogle Scholar. for the ideology of festivals of this kind.

²⁸ Paus. 1.18.7.

²⁹ , Plut.Thes. 12.1Google Scholar; EM 321.4.

³⁰ For this use of Zeus in such myths, and on the Delphic succession myths generally, cf. Sourvinou-Inwood, C., ‘Myth as History: the Previous Owners of the Delphi Oracle’, in Bremmer, J. (ed.), Interpretations of Greek Mythology (London and Sydney, 1987), pp. 214–41Google Scholar, esp. 225–33, and now ‘Reading’ Greek Culture: Texts and Images, Rituals and Myths (Oxford, 1991), pp. 217–43Google Scholar.

³¹ See also on this passage and its possible antecedents Robertson, D. S., ‘The Delphian Succession in the Opening of the Eumenides’, CR 55 (1941), 69fGoogle Scholar.

³² Sourvinou-Inwood (n. 30), p. 231.

³³ Ibid.

³⁴ H.Ap. 372–4. On naming in the trilogy as an attempt at controlling language and so (the narrative of) events, as ultimately a political act, cf. Goldhill, S. D., Language, Sexuality, Narrative: The Oresteia (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 54–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar and index, s.v. ‘naming’.

³⁵ 186, 214ff.; cf. Podlecki, A. J., Aeschylus: Eumenides (Warminster, 1989), p. 130Google Scholar.

³⁶ Cf. Ephorus, , FGrHist 70 F 31bGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ ‘Probably only a periphrasis for “craftsmen”’ (Podlecki (n. 35), p. 130), but the point of such a reference is hard to discern, and the scholiasts' comment on the Athenian procession on 14 (which Podlecki quotes) surely suggests the meaning ‘Athenians’.

³⁸ For the idea in tragedy of Athens as a locus of civilization and fertility, an idea to which the end of the play will return, cf.Zeitlin, F. I., ‘Thebes: Theater of Self and Society in Athenian Drama’, in Winkler, J. J. and Zeitlin, F. I. (eds.), Nothing to do with Dionysus? (Princeton, 1989), pp. 130–67Google Scholar.

³⁹ 9.27.4.

⁴⁰ 4.70. See most recently, Tyrrell, W. B., Amazons: A Study of Athenian Mythmaking (Baltimore, 1984)Google Scholar.

⁴¹ , Plut.Thes. 27Google Scholar. The possibility should not be ruled out that some or all of these cults were created in response to myths like those of the Oresteia: cf. Richardson, N. J., ‘Innovazione poetica e mutamenti religiosi nell' antica Grecia’, SCO 33 (1983), 13–27Google Scholar; Sourvinou-Inwood (n. 30), p. 221 on the cult on Gaia and Themis at Delphi.

⁴² Cleidemus, , FGrHist 323 F 18Google Scholar (ap. Plut. (n. 41)); it was on the Areopagus.

⁴³ Lys. 2.4; Isoc. 4.68. Aeschylus appears to have invented this sacrifice, which is not mentioned elsewhere (Sommerstein (n. 13), p. 214).

⁴⁴ Dumézil, G., Le Crime des Lemniennes: rites et légendes du monde légléen (Paris, 1924)Google Scholar; Burkert, W., ‘Jason, Hypsipyle, and the New Fire at Lemnos: A Study in Myth and Ritual’, CQ 20 (1970), 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁵ (n. 13), p. 214.

⁴⁶ The fact that the Persians ha d similarly used the Areopagus as a base for their attacks, which resulted in the murder of suppliants and the destruction of the whole Acropolis, also characterizes the Amazons in a negative fashion: cf. Hdt. 8.52–3.

⁴⁷ On this story, cf. Preller-Robert, i. 202–4; Burkert, W., Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth (tr. Bing, P., Berkeley, 1983), pp. 136–61Google Scholar, and on Athena's relation to Poseidon, Detienne, M. and Vernant, J.-P., Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society (tr. Lloyd, J.; Hassocks and New Jersey, 1978), pp. 187–203Google Scholar; Parker, R., ‘Myths of Early Athens’, in Bremmer, (n. 30), pp. 198–200, 203Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ The traditions are varied: Apollod. 3.14.1 says ‘Zeus appointed arbiters(kritai), not, as some have affirmed, Cecrops and Cranaus, nor yet Erysichthon, but the twelve gods’; in Callimachus, there are two versions, fr. 194.66–8 and fr. 260.24. Hesychius related Cratinus, fr. 7 ἕνθα Δι⋯ς μεγ⋯λου θ⋯κοι πεσσοί τε καλο⋯νται to the story of Athena trading a first sacrifice for Zeus' vote, but Kassel–Austin doubt whether the interpretation is correct. For mortals judging such competitions, cf. Paus. 2.15.5 (Cephisus and Asterion assist the river Inachus to judge a competition between Hera and Poseidon for Mycenae) and Simon, fr. 552 ( = schol. Theoc. 1.65/6a). In Varro (ap. Aug. Civ. Dei 18.9) the whole city voted on the matter.

⁴⁹ For other bibliography on ritual and the Oresteia, cf. Wartelle (n. 17), p. 676.

⁵⁰ Zeitlin, F. I., ‘The Dynamics of Misogyny in the Oresteia: Myth and Myth-making’, Arethusa 11 (1978), 149–84Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Zeitlin, F. I., ‘The Motif of the Corrupted Sacrifice in Aeschylus' Oresteia’, TAPA 96 (1965), 463–508Google Scholar.

⁵² A general argument in Else, G. F., ‘Ritual and Drama in Aischyleian Tragedy’, ICS 2 (1977), 70–87Google Scholar.

⁵³ Seaford, R. A. S., ‘The Last Bath of Agamemnon’, CQ 34 (1984), 247–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁴ Schadewaldt, W., ‘Der Kommos in Aiskhylos' Choephoren’, Hermes 67 (1932), 312–54Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Faraone, C. A., ‘Aeschylus' ὔμνος δέσμιος (Eum. 306) and Attic Judicial Curse Tabletswcf., JHS 105 (1985), 150–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁶ Moritz, H. E., ‘Refrain in Aeschylus: Literary Adaptations of Traditional Form’, CPh 74 (1979), 187–213 (esp. 195ff.)Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ (n. 1), pp. 244–8.

⁵⁸ Lloyd-Jones, P. H. J., ‘Artemis and Iphigeneia’, JHS 103 (1983), 87–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quotation on 97.

⁵⁹ Sourvinou-Inwood, C., Studies in Girls' Transitions: Aspects of the Arkteia and Age Representation in Attic Iconography (Athens, 1988), p. 134Google Scholar. The book should be consulted on these festivals generally. See also on the myths Brelich, A., Paides e Parthenoi (Rome, 1969), pp. 248f. n. 44Google Scholar; Sale, W., ‘The Temple Legends of the Arkteia’, RhM 118 (1975), 265–84Google Scholar. On Iphigeneia in Athens, cf. Kearns, E., The Heroes of Attica, BICS Suppl. 57 (1989), 27–33, 57f., 174Google Scholar. Seaford, R. A. S., ‘The Tragic Wedding’, JHS 107 (1987), 108fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. has discussed the sacrifice of Iphigeneia in terms of Greek marriage; against this view, see C. Sourvinou-Inwood, ‘The Sacrifice of Iphigeneia in Aeschylus's Agamemnon: Ancient Meanings and Modern Constructs’, in Readings in Greek Tragedy, Religion and Society (forthcoming).

⁶⁰ The later correlative of this scene is that with Orestes in Eumenides, where the Furies wish to have him killed because they are angered at the death of Clytaemestra; they refer to him too as a ‘hare’ (26).

⁶¹ On the whole phrase ⋯уν⋯ɩ δ' ⋯ταύρωτος αὐδ⋯ɩ, cf. Armstrong, D. and Hanson, A. E., ‘The Virgin's Voice and Neck: Aeschylus, Agamemnon 245 and Other Texts’, BICS 33 (1987), 97–100Google Scholar.

⁶² , Eur.I.T. 1446–61Google Scholar.

⁶³ ‘Das Götterbild aus dem Taurerland’, AW 4 (1979), 33ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁴ Lloyd-Jones (n. 58), pp. 96f.

⁶⁵ Ephorus, , FGrHist 70 F 149Google Scholar; Bremmer, cf. J., ‘An Enigmatic Indo-European Rite: Paederasty‘, Arethusa 13 (1980), 279–98Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Hesych. s.v. Βραʋρώνɩα.

⁶⁷ Ar., Schol.Lys. 645Google Scholar; , Zenob.Ath. 1.8Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Paus. Att. 35 Erbse; Suda s.v. ʹΕμβαρος Lloyd-Jones (n. 58), pp. 93f. The Cypria (Proclus 104.12f. Allen) said that a hind was substituted for Iphigeneia, but Phanodemus, an Athenian, says it was a bear (FGrHist 325 F 14).

⁶⁹ Evidence in Burkert (n. 47), p. 20.

⁷⁰ The question of how these relate together in any realistic chronology is not of importance here.

⁷¹ For the placatory aspect of the Arcteia, cf. Suda s.v. ΄Αρκτєɩα ἥ Βραʋρώνɩα' ⋯πομєλɩσσόμєναɩ τ⋯ν θєάν; also schol. Theoc. 2.66 (on an uncertain festival of Artemis) ⋯ϕοσɩώσєɩ τ⋯ς παρθєνίας, μ⋯ νєμєσηθ⋯σɩν ὑπʼ αὐτ⋯ς (the reference to the ‘basket-bearer’ in Theocritus could point to the Brauronia: see Gow ad loc).

⁷² On the meaning of this word, see Fraenkel, ii.132.

⁷³ Cf. Apollo's, words at Eum. 179ffGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁴ (παρα)θέλуєɩν and its cognate noun reappear in the final persuasion of the Furies, (Eum. 886, 900)Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ For parallels between this scene and Eumenides, cf. Brown, A. L., ‘The Erinyes in the Oresteia: Real Life, the Supernatural, and the Stage’, JHS 103 (1983), 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁶ One might be tempted to say that the Areopagus court is something of an improvement over the court described by Agamemnon in Ag. 813–17, where the gods vote οὐ δɩχορρόπως(‘in a decision leaving no room for doubt’, Fraenkel),δίκας…οὐκ ⋯π⋯ уλώσσης… κλύοντєς ‘after they had heard by no spoken word the parties' claims’.

⁷⁷ Neitzel, H., ‘Das Thyestes-Mahl im “Agamemnon” des Aischylos’, Hermes 113 (1985), 406–9Google Scholar ingeniously suggests that⋯νδρακάς is in fact a noun = ‘Mannsportion’ (cf. , Nic.Ther. 643)Google Scholar; however, is it not perhaps more likely that Aeschylus would have used a Homeric word in the Homeric sense and that a Hellenistic writer should then have created a noun from it, than that Aeschylus should have made the change?

⁷⁸ iii.750. The word appears only in Od. 13.13f. The meaning κατ' ἄνδρα (a varia lectio in the Od. passage), viritim is found in Hesychius, and EM. s.v. and Artec. Bachm. p. 86.27Google Scholar; the lexicographers tell us that Cratinus used the word to meanκατ ἄνςρα, χωρίς (fr. 21).

⁷⁹ Denniston, J. D. and Page, D. L., Aeschylus: Agamemnon (Oxford, 1957), pp. 215fGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁰ Fraenkel's suggestion that Aeschylus is making ‘deliberate use of the discrepancy between the customs of Homeric society and those of his own time’ (iii.754f.) does not give any significance to this (rather recherché) Homeric echo.

⁸¹ iii.751. Cf. Denniston and Page (n. 79), p. 215: ‘grammar demands that the subject should be Atreus, the context insists that it must be Thyestes.’

⁸² On this festival, Parke, cf. H. W., Festivals of the Athenians (London, 1977), pp. 107–20Google Scholar; Deubner (n. 24), pp. 93–123; Burkert (n. 47), pp. 213–47; Greek Religion (Oxford, 1985), pp.237–42Google Scholar; Pickard-Cambridge, A. W., The Dramatic Festivals of Athens² (rev. J. Gould and D. M. Lewis, Oxford, 1988), pp. 1–25Google Scholar. The earliest reference is in , Eur.I.T. 947–60Google Scholar, and the other main source is , Ar.Ach., esp. 960f., 1000–2, 1076f., 1224fGoogle Scholar. with their scholia.

⁸³ The word is used of Orestes in Eum. 40f.; cf. also 176, 205, 234, 237, 445; Cho. 287, etc. Cf. Parker, R. C. T., Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford, 1983), p. 108Google Scholar; Fraenkel, iii.745.

⁸⁴ Cf. Hdt. 3.13.2, 7.181.2 quoted by Fraenkel, iii.747, who notes the wordsκρєοʋρуєîν and κρєοʋρуία become in later literature voces propriae for the cutting up of Pelops, father of Thyestes and Atreus.

⁸⁵ IG ii/iii² 1672.204 (329/8).

⁸⁶ The reading is defended against attacks on it as absurd by Fraenkel, iii.758; Denniston and Page(n. 79), p. 216 justify their obeli by reference to ‘a ludicrous multitude’ of sons; H. Neitzel (cf. n. 77), pp. 366–70 also opposes thirteen sons, but not convincingly.

⁸⁷ Cf. Philochoros, , FGrHist 328 F 84Google Scholar ἦуєτο ⋯ ⋯ορτ⋯ ʹΑνθєστηρɩ⋯νος τρίτηɩ ⋯πì δέκα. As in the case of⋯νδρακάς, the archaic nature of the expression makes it, as Fraenkel, iii.760 says, ‘hard to believe that the occurrence here is due to corruption’.

⁸⁸ A similar custom of solitary dining connected with Orestes is found in Troezen. The people did not take the polluted Orestes into their house until the pollution had been removed, but fed him in the ‘booth of Orestes’ in the sanctuary of Apollo; the descendants of the men who purified him still dine there on set days (Paus. ii.31.8, with Frazer). Cf. , Plut.Q.G. 44Google Scholar (Mor. 301 ef, with Halliday, W., The Greek Questions of Plutarch (Oxford, 1928), pp. 183–5)Google Scholar for a amilar Aeginetan custom deriving from the Trojan War.

⁸⁹ I hope to examine in more detail the opposition between Athens and Delphi in ‘Athens and Delphi in the Oresteiawcf. (in preparation).

⁹⁰ Sommerstein (n. 13), pp. 132f.

⁹¹ The Anthesteria also permitted for one day the circulation in the city of the ‘Cares’. It is debated whether these were spirits or Carian foreigners (cf. Burkert (n. 47), pp. 226–30), but whichever was meant (perhaps both) one has again the idea of full participation in the city by outsiders, like the Furies, Orestes, etc.

⁹² Headlam, W., ‘The Last Scene of the Eumenides’;, JHS 26 (1906), 268–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomson, G., ‘Mystical Allusions in the Oresteia’, JHS 55 (1935), 20–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomson-Headlam (n. 6), index s.v. ‘Eleusinian mysteries’. Tierney, M., ‘The Mysteries and the Oresteia’, JHS 57 (1937), 11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar accepted Thomson's main theory but preferred to refer to matters which were ‘simply mystic in general’, but his distinctions between Eleusinian and Orphic elements were challenged by Thomson in the commentary (362–6), and need to be reviewed now in the light of Graf, F., Eleusis und die orphische Dichtung Athens in vorhellenistischer Zeit (Berlin, 1974)Google Scholar. On the Mysteries, see most recently Burkert, , HN (n. 47), pp. 248–97Google Scholar, and Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, Mass, and London, 1987)Google Scholar.

⁹³ As do the Chorus, of Choephori (941f.)Google Scholar and Apollo (Eum. 82f.); the word σωτηρία appears repeatedly towards the end of Eumenides.

⁹⁴ Thomson quoted Firmicus, , err. prof. rel. 22Google Scholar for the words of the priest at Eleusis promising ⋯κ πόνων σωτηρία but, as Tierney (n. 92), pp. 11f. pointed out, Firmicus does not relate these words to Eleusis. The importance of ‘salvation’ in Eleusinian cult is, however, enough for Thomson's argument to stand: cf. e.g. Plato, , Phdr. 70aGoogle Scholar and Thomson (‘Allusions’ (n. 92)), pp. 21–3 for further examples, and Burkert (n. 92), index s.v. ‘salvation’.

⁹⁵ , Plut.Mor. 81eGoogle Scholar; Posidonius, , FGrHist 87 F 36.51, etcGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁶ The Watchman's reference to the silence caused by ‘an ox on the tongue’ (37) has Pythagorean and so mystical resonances (Philostratus, , Vit. Apoll. 6.11)Google Scholar. The opposition light/darkness is also related to the code of rites of passage: cf. e.g. Vidal-Naquet, P., “The Black Hunter and the Origin of the Athenian Ephebeia', in Gordon, R. L., Myth, Religion and Society (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 147–62Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ See esp. Plut. fr. 178.

⁹⁸ Thomson, , ‘Allusions’ (n. 92), pp. 24–7Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ Cho. 579–84. Epoptes was the name given the musles on his second journey to the Mysteries. For the verb, cf. Harpocr. s.v. ⋯ποπτєʋκότων, Sm., TheoMath. p. 14 HillerGoogle Scholar; Lobeck, C. A., Aglaophamus: she de theologiae mysticae Graecorum causis (Konigsberg, 1829), i.127–31Google Scholar. It is frequent(Cho. 1, 487, 581, 689, 983, 1061, and Ag. 1269, 1579, Eum. 220, 224), but its normal use is ‘in the context of divine, or semi-divine, superintendence of human affairs’ (Garvie, A. F., Aeschylus: Choephori (Oxford, 1986), p. 201)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Cf. Thomson, , ‘Allusions’ (n. 92), p. 24Google Scholar; Thomson-Headlam (n. 6), pp. 203–6 (on Cho. 581f.).

¹⁰¹ Taplin, O. P., The Stagecraft of Aeschylus: The Dramatic Use of Exits and Entrances in Greek Tragedy (Oxford, 1977), p. 357Google Scholar has him enter at 973, and Thomson's staging is also rejected by Garvie (n. 99), p. 313.

¹⁰² Tiemey (n. 92), p. 18.

¹⁰³ Both he (n. 92), pp. 13–17 and Thomson, , ‘Allusions’ (n. 92), p. 34Google Scholar point to the similarity between what Orestes is threatened with and the tribulations of the uninitiated in Heusinian-Orphic belief (cf. e.g. Plato, , Rep. 365a)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Tierney (n. 92), pp. 20f. There is nothing about rebirth in 757, but Orestes' move from the dutches of the chthonic Furies is perhaps enough to let Tierney's point stand.

¹⁰⁵ One might add the frequent repetition of words from the root tel- with its connotations of‘initiate’ etc.; Goldhill, cf. S. D., ‘Two Notes on telos and Related Words in the Oresteia’, JHS 104 (1984), 169–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Garvie (n. 99), p. 304 is, therefore, being too reductive when, in discussing Thomson's claims about the Chorus, in Cho. 935–71Google Scholar, he writes; ‘though the parallels [with the Mysteries] are undeniable it seems unnecessary to interpret the ode in mystic terms. The language is fully explicable in the dramatic context of the play itself.’ ‘Full’ explanations of imagery etc. will not necessarily involve merely the internal relations of the play; broader cultural reference also needs to be taken into account.

¹⁰⁷ The other was an inability to speak Greek; the prohibitions were proclaimed in the frorrhesis, Cf. , Isoc.Paneg. 157Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Cf. 235–3, 276–98. On the question of Orestes' condition, cf. Taplin (n. 101), pp. 381–4; Parker (n. 83), pp. 386–8.

¹⁰⁹ e.g. by Taplin (n. 101), p. 383: Aeschylus ‘wants the supplication at Delphi, but he also wants the salutary suffering of Orestes¹ wanderings’, and both are necessary for his purification; ‘perhaps there is a simple explanation which reconciles these features; but it seems more likely that they are meant to co-exist without this kind of close scrutiny’ (this is accepted by Sommerstein (n. 13), pp. 124f.).

¹¹⁰ Athena too describes him as καθαρòς ⋯βλαβής (474).

¹¹¹ For another play in which the Panathenaea and associated festivals play an important role, see the author's Aristophanes: Myth, Ritual and Comedy (Cambridge, forthcoming), on Aristophanes' Knights.

¹¹² Cf. too 1018 and also 804–8, 833, 869, 890,916; Headlam (n. 92) and Thomson-Headlam (n. 6), pp. 315–19. The language of 1011 echoes the juxtaposition of μєτοίκων and ’Ερɩνύν in Ag. 57–9; for μέτοɩκος elsewhere, cf. Cho. 684, 971 (of Furies) and Garvie (n. 99), ad locc. See also Goheen, R. F., ‘Aspects of Dramatic Symbolism: Three Studies in the Oresteia’, AJP 76 (1955), 113–37Google Scholar, and on the procession, Taplin (n. 101), pp. 410–15, esp. 411 and Sommerstein (n. 13), pp. 34, 275–82.

¹¹³ For this theme in the play, Sider, cf. D., ‘Stagecraft in the Oresteia’, AJP 99 (1978), 2–27Google Scholar; Tarkow, T. A., ‘Thematic Implications of Costuming in the Oresteia’, Maia 32 (1980), 153–65Google Scholar; Macleod (n. 10), pp. 41–3 (= Maia 27 (1975), 201–3)Google Scholar; Griffith, R. Drew, ‘Disrobing in the Oresteia’, CQ 38 (1988), 552–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁴ For ⋯νδύτοɩς (1028) ’‘additional’ cf. G. Hermann's edition (Leipzig, 1852), p. 645.

¹¹⁵ s.v. Σκαϕηϕόροɩ; cf. also similar language in Eum. 992,1013,1034 (Headlam (n. 92), p. 273; cf. 276f. for the significance of 990–5 to Athens' relation with the Metics).

¹¹⁶ [, Andoc.] Alcib. 42Google Scholar (Headlam (n. 92), p. 274).

¹¹⁷ Heracleid. 777ff.

¹¹⁸ Headlam (n. 92), p. 275; Mommsen, A., Heortologie: antiquarische Untersuchungen uber die stddtischen Feste der Athener (Leipzig, 1864), p. 171Google Scholar; IG ii² 334.30. Mommsen also noted the existence, at least in the fourth century, of hieropoioi for the Semnai appointed by the Areopagus (Dem. 21.115); the hieropoioi were generally in charge of the festival.

¹¹⁹ Cf. Lucian, , Hermot. 64Google Scholar. Sommerstein (n. 13), p. 279 notes that references to light begin at 906 and replace frequent reference to darkness; the Chorus calls on the sun at 926.

¹²⁰ (n. 92), pp. 274f.

¹²¹ Taplin (n. 101), p. 411 is sceptical of anything too elaborate. Sommerstein (n. 13), pp. 276–8 estimates a total of about thirty-five people on stage at the end.

¹²² Cf. Cho. 1035; for branches at the Panathenaea, cf. for thallophoroi schol. , Ar.Vesp. 544Google Scholar, X.Symp. 4.17Google Scholar, and for slaves etc. Bekker, , Anecd. i.242–3Google Scholar (Deubner (n. 24), p. 29).

¹²³ Cf. Iphigeneia's peplos at Ag. 233 and Ag. 1126, 1580, Cho. 1000.

¹²⁴ Flintoff, E., ‘The Treading of the Cloth’, QUCC 54 (1987), 122fGoogle Scholar. argues that there is an earlier near parody of the gift of the peplos to Athena in Agamemnon's walking on the robes, which are described asποɩκίλοɩς κάλλєσɩν (923; cf. for the adjective 926, 936), a phrase suitable to garments in a religious context (Headlam-Thomson (n. 6), p. 96, Fraenkel, ii.925).

¹²⁵ Hec. 466–74; cf. Ar., schol.Vesp. 544Google Scholar.

¹²⁶ Rabinowitz, N. S., ‘From Force to Persuasion: Aischylus' Oresteia as Cosmogonic Myth’, Remus 10 (1981), 186Google Scholar.

¹²⁷ Burkert (n. 47), pp. 135–61. There is no intention to imply that Athens had any ‘new-year’ festival of the kind found in Babylon: there was no such neat division. The Scira and Dipolieia took place in the middle of Scirophorion, the last month, the Cronia and Panathenaea in the middle of the first, Hecatombaion. The justification for taking the last as the ‘first’ festival of the new year is the nature of the festival. Some new officials took up their office after it (cf. Meiggs and Lewis, no. 58A.27–9).

¹²⁸ Aegisthus' effeminacy was traditional: , Horn.Od. 3.262–4, 310Google Scholar; cf. Ag. 1224f., 1625–7, Cho. 304.

¹²⁹ Carm. lat. epig. 52 (Buecheler); Lattimore, cf. R., Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana, 1962), p. 271Google Scholar.

¹³⁰ Tracy, S.V., ‘Darkness from Light: The Beacon Fire in the Agamemnon’, CQ 36 (1986), 257–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar relates the beacons to the (possible) use made of them by Mardonius to signal his capture of Athens (cf. Hdt. 9.3.1); another Persian element in Clytaemestra's account is ἂууαρος (282), which recalls the aggareion system of horse-riding messengers (Hdt. 8.98.2). Persian echoes would further blacken the picture of the queen, as in the case of the Amazons; cf. Dover, K. J., “The Red Fabric in the Agamemnon’, (n. 5), pp. 151–60Google Scholar ( = Dioniso 48 (1977), 55–69), esp. pp. 156–60Google Scholar on the Spartan king Pausanias and Agamemnon.

¹³¹ Cf. Fraenkel, ii.166–9 on this rite (with bibliography).

¹³² Ibid. 168f.

¹³³ The fullest account of the Buphonia is in , Porph.de abst. 2.28ff.Google Scholar, which is followed here.

¹³⁴ Another version of the story has Diomos ‘taking the others who were present when the ox ate the cakes as sunergoi and slaughtering it’ (, Porph.de abst. 2.10)Google Scholar.

¹³⁵ For the phrase, Meuli, K., ‘Griechische Opfergebräuche’, in Phyllobolia (Fest. P. Von der Mühll) (Basel, 1946), pp. 275fGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁶ I am very grateful to Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood for her careful criticism of this article, parts of which also benefited from comments at the Warwick Classical Association conference and seminars in London and Oxford. The views expressed remain the responsibility of the author.