¹ Agam. 750 ff.

² Except to say that Professor E. R. Dodds is not among them. ‘What to the partial vision of the living appears as the act of a fiend, is perceived by the wider insight of the dead to be an aspect of cosmic justice’ (The Greeks and the Irrational 39). If there is any originality in my article, it is in regard to the art rather than to the thought of Aeschylus.

³ I am not concerned to deny that the play has patriotic and political aspects. It is indeed obvious that, in some degree, it was bound to evoke a patriotic response, at which certain features may have been aimed. On the political aspect, cf. Podlecki, A. J., The political background of Aeschylean tragedy 8–26Google Scholar, and my review in Gnomon 39 (1967) 641 ff.; Dodds, E. R., PCPS n.s. 6 (1960) 22 n. 1Google Scholar.

⁴ Cf. Dawe, R. D., PCPS, n.s. 9 (1963) 27Google Scholar.

⁵ The point is made by Pohlenz, M., Die griechische Tragödie² I 61Google Scholar.

⁶ Cf. Aristophanes, , Frogs 1027Google Scholar.

⁷ The case for the transposition is well argued by Broadhead on 93–106. Korzeniewski, D.'s suggestion (Helikon 6 [1966] 573 ffGoogle Scholar.) that the mesode should be placed between Str. γ′ and Ant. γ′ seems an awkward and unrewarding compromise. Scott, W. C., GRBS 9 (1968) 25–66Google Scholar, defends the MS order, arguing that, in the mind of the Chorus, it is the Greeks who, in resisting the Persians, are victimized by the divine deceit.

⁸ Broadhead (on 100–3) and Coxon, A. H. (CQ n.s. 8 [1958] 46)Google Scholar argue conclusively that the first part of the stanza refers not to the Hellespont but to the sea in general. It is therefore very awkward if, as Broadhead (on 104–6) holds, the subsequent lines refer to the bridge of boats, the Chorus having ‘passed from the general to the particular’. Coxon and Groencboom (and others) seem to be right that the Chorus is thinking of the sea, generally, throughout.

⁹ The textual problems are too complex for discussion here. On ate see Dodds, E. R., GI 2–8Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Cf. Dodds, , GI 23 n. 65, 42, 58 n. 79Google Scholar.

¹¹ See n. 21 below.

¹² On the difficulties of 159–69 see my review of Broadhead, in CR n.s. 12 (1962) 124Google Scholar.

¹³ On the third catalogue see n. 35 below.

¹⁴ On double causation or ‘over-determination’ in Homer and Aeschylus see Dodds, , GI 30 fGoogle Scholar. (with specific reference to this passage) and PCPS n.s. 6 (1960) 27 n. 5.

¹⁵ See Broadhead on 472 (and App.): the scholiast is wrong. This is the apate/ate of the parodos. Cf. 552, 724 f.

¹⁶ Here I reluctantly part company with Professor Kitto who has so much of value to say about the play, when he asserts (Poiesis 56, 88) that ‘it is a matter of indifference to Aeschylus’ how the divine power is named. For Aeschylus himself no doubt, but not for the attitudes of his characters and the form of the play.

¹⁷ Cf. e.g. Nilsson, M. P., Greek piety 59 f.Google Scholar; Dodds, , GI 10 ffGoogle Scholar. (with special reference to the Odyssey); Chantraine, P., Fondation Hardt Entretiens I 50 ffGoogle Scholar. (with special reference to daimon). The name of Zeus is sometimes used to stand for the divine world in general, which perhaps facilitates the transitions in the Persae, the Aeschylean Zeus fading in at 532, fading out at 915.

¹⁸ The possible influence of the Persae on Herodotus is too big a question to be handled here: the modes of expression which we find, e.g. in Hdt. i and vii, are in any case appropriate to the proverbial wisdom which he is expounding.

¹⁹ Weil's emendation is compelling. One cannot accept the attempts of Groeneboom and Broadhead to defend δαίμονα…τύχης by reference to such expressions as θϵοῦ μοῑρα, τύχη δαίμονος, which clearly are not reversible.

²⁰ Contr. 827, 831. This seems to be an example of the way in which the implications of a word or theme are unfolded during the course of an Aeschylean play, on which I have a note in BICS 20 (1973), with particular reference to the use of οἴχομαι in this play.

²¹ πλοῦτος should by all means be retained, but the force of the image has not been determined beyond doubt. See recently Korzeniewski, op. cit. 577 ff.

²² Agam. 773 ff.

²³ Dodds GI 32: ‘Man projects into the cosmos his own nascent demand for social justice; and when from the outer spaces the magnified echo of his own voice returns to him, promising punishment for the guilty, he draws from it courage and reassurance.’

²⁴ I should take ὡς (with Groeneboom) as explanatory rather than exclamatory. The only real problem in the lines concerns Πέρσαις, and the best solution seems to be in taking it with ὡς θϵός (cf.157 f., 654 f., 856). This carries matters a step beyond the normal Greek description of continuous prosperity (cf. Plato, Gorg. 473c).

²⁵ A portrait of doubtful historicity, no doubt. But Aeschylus treats history as myth—and could do so, as long as he did not flagrantly disregard facts well known to his audience. Marathon could not be omitted but demanded—and received—cautious handling. Darius' own bridging of the Bosphorus is quietly disregarded. (Cf. Quincey, J. H., CQ n.s. 12 [1962] 184)Google Scholar. Kitto, , Poiesis 74 ff.Google Scholar, has a good discussion of the relationship between the historical events and the dramatic treatment. See also n. 29 below.

²⁶ See n. 28.

²⁷ Observe the phrases which come so close to one another in the parodos: (50), (72).

²⁸ Groeneboom has helpful notes on 724 and 742. His parallels suggest strongly that συνάπτομαι has a sense akin to συλλαμβάνω, and we can therefore compare the use of συλλήπτωρ at Agam. 1508. These are the passages in which Aeschylus comes closest to formulating the relationship between divine and human responsibility: on which see Dodds, ' admirable discussion in PCPS n.s. 6 (1960) 25 ffGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ For his purposes Aeschylus deliberately and grossly exaggerates both the military and the economic effects of the Persian defeat (cf. Lloyd-Jones, H., The justice of Zeus 89)Google Scholar. When we read 751 f,. we should not however forget that the aims of the Delian Confederacy included reprisals as well as liberation.

³⁰ Of the two motives attributed to the Persians in Herodotus—retaliation and expansionism—Aeschylus, for fairly obvious reasons, places the emphasis on the latter. Atossa speaks of retaliation at 473 ff., but after that the theme is silent, except for divine talio.

³¹ Some might prefer to see the βαρὺς δαίμων as a minister of Zeus: perhaps it does not matter greatly.

³² On the instructions of Darius (832 ff.). A device no doubt for removing her from a scene in which she is not needed. But also preparation for the man who has by his folly squandered his great wealth. Darius' closing words (839–42) have caused difficulty, but they too have a point in reintroducing the ploutos-theme, with a reminder of the ultimate futility of amassing wealth. Cf. Alexandersen, B., ‘Darius in the Persians’, Eranos 65 (1967) 7Google Scholar.

³³ Note that Atossa addresses the daimon at 845.

³⁴ Many instances will be found in Korzeniewski op. cit. and in Holtsmark, E. B., ‘Ring composition and the Persae of Aeschylus’, SO 45 (1970) 5–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who however seems to attach an exaggerated importance to this stylistic feature. One can agree that ring composition has an ‘ideationa’ as well as a structural purpose, since it can be used as a mode of emphasis and is perhaps most effective when what intervenes between the two occurrences casts a new light upon word or theme. It is interesting to find MrHopkins, Antony (Talking about sonatas 18Google Scholar) saying much the same about the effect of Recapitulation in sonata-form—and reminding us (ibid. 52) that it is not the ‘ground-plan in itself’ which has significance but the use to which it is put.

³⁵ There are echoes of the parodos in 916 (cf. 1 and n. 20 above); 925 (cf. 59); 926 (cf. 26); 1013 (cf. 87 ff., esp. 91). The catalogue of fallen princes (955–1001)—cf. Holtsmark op. cit. 19 f.—echoes not only the parodos (21–58) but the Messenger's report (302–28).