We have now sufficiently indicated the methods and laws of Greek blood-vengeance in the post-Homeric epoch and in historical times. We may, therefore, proceed to examine and, if possible, to explain the problems of blood-vengeance which are presented by Attic tragedy. In our account of Homeric homicide we found it necessary to distinguish between a military dominant Achaean caste on the one hand, and a subject Pelasgian tribal people on the other. In our exposition of post-Homeric and historical developments we found it indispensable to distinguish the post-Achaean and Hesiodic periods from the ‘pollution’ era and to regard the final evolution of historical Greek murder law as a resultant compromise between divergent forces. When we turn to the legends which are given by the Attic tragedians, we must be prepared to consider the operation of several distinct alternative factors in the creation of these legends. Some legends are presented to us in a form which seems quite consistent with the period to which they refer, either because they came down comparatively unadulterated through the ages or because the dramatist consciously and correctly archaised. Other legends, however, become so adulterated in course of time that they are difficult to analyse and their evidential value is very small. Again, different myths about the same event assumed, in different places and at various times, forms which were legally, at least, incompatible. It was open to the dramatists to make a selection from amongst the most suitable varieties of the legend; but they naturally aimed at consistency in characterisation, rather than at harmony in their legal conceptions. As a result of the variety of inconsistent legends it was obviously impossible for those dramatists to fulfil the maxim of Horace[157]: denique sit quidvis, simplex dumtaxat et unum. FOOTNOTES [1] See _supra_, p. 80 ff. [2] _Supra_, p. 81. [3] _Supra_, pp. 93, 144. [4] _Eum._ 688. [5] _Op. cit._ pp. 282-3; but see Leaf, _Il._ xiv. 485 n. [6] i. 28. [7] _Eum._ 420. [8] _Supra_, pp. 72, 185 f. [9] _In Aristoc._ 641, 25. [10] _Eum._ 685. [11] _Ib._ 688. [12] _Iph. Taur._ 960, 1420; _Electra_, 1260. [13] i. 28. Pollux, viii. 119, makes Aegeus the founder. [14] Pausanias, i. 22, 28. [15] _Il._ ix. 632. [16] _In Aristoc._ 644, 20. [17] _See_ Müller, _Eum._ p. 141. [18] viii. 119. [19] i. 28. [20] _Supra_, p. 215. [21] See _infra_, p. 254. [22] i. 24. [23] i. 28. [24] Glotz, _op. cit._ pp. 178-9; see also Herodotus, i. 132, 140, ii. 41-42, 54. [25] _Supra_, p. 108. [26] _Infra_, pp. 250, 256 f. [27] Paus. i. 28; see Soph. _Ajax_, 1020. [28] See Müller, _Eum._ p. 134, and Sandys’ note, Aristotle, _Ath. Pol._ p. 228. [29] viii. 117-120. [30] _In Aristoc._ 627, 20. [31] _Loc. cit._ [32] i. 28. [33] _Infra_, p. 250. [34] viii. 121-122. [35] i. 28; see also Aristotle, _Ath. Pol._ 63. [36] _Ath. Pol._ 52. [37] _In Aristoc._ 647; _infra_, p. 257 ff.