The importance of determining the exact origin of the trial of Orestes before the Areopagus at the end of Aeschylus's Eumenides has not been fully acknowledged by modern scholars. Through a close scrutiny of the surviving evidences concerning the genealogical book of Pherecydes, the aition of the Choes-festival and the roll of the Twelve Gods in the sphere of mythic history, this article suggests that there is no reason to accept the widespread belief that Aeschylus was the heir of some (...) pre-existent attic tradition. The trial of Orestes before the Athenian court turns out to be Aeschylus' own innovation, used by the poet to convey his new vision of justice. (shrink)

In the only surviving fragment of Aristias’ Antaeus a difficulty arises when one tries to make sense of the proper name ∫Antaiov, which, in the only source that transmits the fragment, is featured just before what is usually considered to be the beginning of the fragment itself. Snell’s interpretation of ∫Antaiov as a piece of information provided by Herodian about the identity of the persona loquens is not convincing; however, the expunction of the word preferred by both Lehrs and Lentz (...) is not justified either. Instead of interpreting ∫Antaiov as a word introduced by Herodian or as an explanatory gloss, this article suggests incorporating the proper name in Aristias’ verse and interpreting this new text as an acatalectic iambic tetrameter. As in dramatic poetry this kind of metre is found only in satyr play, it is worth reconsidering the evidence for attributing the Antaeus - the plot of which is far from certain - to this literary genre. (shrink)