[144] _Ath. Pol._ 4, 8. [145] _Ib._ ch. 9. [146] _Eum._ pp. 135-136. [147] _Eum._ p. 135. [148] _Ib._ p. 153. [149] _Ib._ p. 135. [150] See _supra_, p. 254. [151] Aristotle, _Ath. Pol._ 25, 27. [152] _In Aristoc._ 642. [153] _Op. cit._ p. 122 ff. [154] viii. 125. [155] _Solon_, 19. [156] Pollux, viii. 125. [157] _Ars Poetica_, 23. BOOK III POINE IN ATTIC TRAGEDY CHAPTER I AESCHYLUS The ruthless hand of callous Fortune has robbed the world and civilisation of all save seven of the dramatic works of Aeschylus, the first and perhaps the greatest of European tragedians. Of these seven extant plays, there are only three which directly and formally present any problems of blood-vengeance. These three plays are concerned with a single theme, the murder of Agamemnon, King of Argos, by his wife Clytaemnestra and by her paramour Aegisthus, and the subsequent vengeance of Orestes. In the remaining plays (if one excludes the _Persians_) one finds occasional and incidental references to bloodshed, which require and will receive from us only a brief discussion. It is the Oresteian ‘trilogy’ which is our first and chief concern. Horace[1] mentions the following maxim as one of the canons of ancient dramatic art: aut famam sequere aut sibi convenientia finge (‘Either follow tradition or create new themes which are congruous and consistent’). Now these alternatives are not necessarily mutually exclusive unless the tradition is rigidly stereotyped. A considerable scope for inventive genius and dramatic skill was provided by such legends as those which centred around Orestes. We are convinced that there existed quite a number of variants in the story of Orestes. First of all, there was the original Homeric story, to which we have already referred.[2] In this account, Orestes slew his mother and Aegisthus in strict accordance with the Achaean system of vendetta. His act was not murder but just revenge. There is no suggestion of an ancestral curse, of an indefinite series of murders continuing from generation to generation. Blood has been shed; blood is avenged by blood. It was the Achaean principle, whether for strangers or for kinsmen. There is no trace of divine interference or of social justice. Apollo has no place or part in the story: there is no trial or official execution. We cannot discover even the element of psychological conflict. The Achaeans were soldiers, trained in the stern school of war. Neither emotion nor family religion stood between passion and its satisfaction.