of the Areiopagus in cases of murder was still left to them. In such cases the process was as follows:--The king archon brought the case into court, and sat as one of the judges, who were assembled in the open air, probably to guard against any contamination from the criminal. The accuser first came forwards to make a solemn oath that his accusation was true, standing over the slaughtered victims, and imprecating extirpation upon himself and his whole family were it not so. The accused then denied the charge with the same solemnity and form of oath. Each party then stated his case with all possible plainness, keeping strictly to the subject, and not being allowed to appeal in any way to the feelings or passions of the judges. After the first speech, a criminal accused of murder might remove from Athens, and thus avoid the capital punishment fixed by Draco’s _Thesmi_, which on this point were still in force. Except in cases of parricide, neither the accuser nor the court had power to prevent this; but the party who thus evaded the extreme punishment was not allowed to return home, and when any decree was passed at Athens to legalize the return of exiles, an exception was always made against those who had thus left their country. The Areiopagus continued to exist, in name at least, till a very late period. Thus we find Cicero mentioning the council in his letters; and an individual is spoken of as an Areiopagite under the emperors Gratian and Theodosius (A.D. 380). The case of St. Paul is generally quoted as an instance of the authority of the Areiopagus in religious matters; but the words of the sacred historian do not necessarily imply that he was brought before the council. It may, however, be remarked, that the Areiopagites certainly took cognizance of the introduction of new and unauthorised forms of religious worship, called ἐπίθετα ἱερά, in contradistinction to the πάτρια or older rites of the state. ĂRĒNA. [AMPHITHEATRUM.] ĂRĔTĀLŎGI, persons who amused the company at the Roman dinner tables.