CHAPTER V

I

[1\5: This dual efficacy of the ~chtho/nioi~ is explained naturally enough by their nature as underground spirits. There is no reason for supposing that their influence on the fertility of the fields was a later addition (as Preller does, _Dem. u. Perseph._ 188 ff., followed by many). Still less have we any grounds for regarding the protection of souls and the care for the fertility of crops as a sort of allegorizing parallel (soul = grain of seed) as has been usual since the time of K. O. Müller.]

[2\5: ~Zeu\s katachtho/nios~, ~I~ 457. ~theou= chthoni/ou . . . iphthi/mou Aï/deô~, Hes. _Th._ 767 f. Evidently there is no distinction here between ~katachtho/nios~ and ~chtho/nios~, as Preller, _Dem. u. Pers._ 187, wishes to make out.]

[3\5: Hes. _Op._ 465, ~eu/chesthai de\ Dii\ chthoni/ô| Dêmê/teri/ th' hagnê=| ktl.~ It is impossible even by far-fetched methods of interpretation (such as Lehrs makes use of, _Popul. Aufs._^2 298 f.) to make this ~Zeu\s chtho/nios~ into anything else than a Zeus of the underworld. The god of the lower world, totally distinct from the Olympian Zeus (~Zeu\s _a/llos_~, Aesch., _Supp._ 231), is here a dispenser of blessings to the farmer. In the sacrificial regulation from Mykonos (_SIG._ 615) it is prescribed to offer: ~hupe\r karpô=n (kampô=n~ on the stone) ~Dii\ Chtho/ni/ô| Gê=| Chthoni/ê| DERTA me/lana etê/sia? xe/nô| ou the/mis~ (where ~derta\~ = _hostias pelle spoliatas_, see Prott, _Leg. Sacr._ i, p. 17; though the addition of the colour of the no longer visible skin seems remarkable)--~hupe\r karpô=n~ here belongs to ~Dii/~, etc., as the division-mark on the stone before ~hupe\r~ shows: see _BCH._ 1888, p. 460 f. Evidence of this sort makes it clear how unjustifiable it would be to rule out all fructifying influence from the "idea of the chthonic" and to regard the chthonic deities as simply the power of death and destruction in the world of nature and men, as is done by H. D. Müller (who is met by serious difficulty in this passage from the _Op._: _Mythol. d. griech. St._ ii, 40). It is, indeed, scarcely necessary to seek for an abstractly formulated "idea of the chthonic"; but if this fructifying and life-giving force does belong to the nature of the ~chtho/nioi~ as such, what becomes of H. D. Müller's ingeniously thought-out and violently defended view according to which the chthonic only constitutes one side of the nature of certain deities who have in addition a different, Olympian, side in which they are positively creative and beneficent?]

[4\5: ~Zeu\s chtho/nios~ at Corinth, Paus. 2, 2, 8; at Olympia, 5, 14, 8.]

[5\5: Thus Persephone is called ~Hagnê/, De/spoina~, etc. (Lehrs, _Pop. Aufs._^2 288), also ~Melitô/dês, Meli/boia~; ~Melindi/a~, consort of Hades, Malalas, p. 62, 10, Di. [8th ed., Bonn.] (? ~Meli/noia~, as Hekate is ~Meilino/ê~, Orph., _H._ 71). ~Ari/stê chthoni/a~, _P. Mag. Par._ 1450.--Hekate is ~Kalli/stê, Eukoli/nê (kat' anti/phrasin hê mê\ ou=sa eu=kolos~, _EM._), the Erinyes ~Semnai/, Eumeni/des~; their mother ~Euônu/mê (= Gê=~): Ister ap. Sch. Soph., _OC._ 42 (from a similar source, Sch. Aeschin. i, 188), etc. Cf. Bücheler, _Rh. Mus._ 33, 16-17.]

[6\5: ~Polude/ktês, Polude/gmôn, Agêsi/laos~ (_Epigr. Gr._ 195; see Bentley ad Callim., _Lav. Pall._ 130; Preller, _Dem. u. Pers._ 192; Welcker, _Götterl._ ii, 482), ~Euklê=s~ (Bücheler, _Rh. Mus._ 36, 332 f.).--~Eu/kolos~ (corresponding to the ~Eukoli/nê~ above as a title of Hades must be rejected if Köhler's correction of _CIA._ ii, 3, 1529, is right: ~Hêdu/los--Euko/lou~.] {184}

[7\5: Cult of ~Zeu\s Eubouleu/s~ at Amorgos, Paros (insc. cit. by Foucart, _BCH._ vii, 402), of ~Zeu\s Bouleu/s~ at Mykonos, _SIG._ 615 (~Zeu\s Boulai=os~, _Ins. Perg._ i, 246, l. 49, does not belong here); of ~**Eu/boulos~ (original title of Hades: Orph., _H._ xviii, 12) in Eleusis (side by side ~ho theo/s, hê thea/~): _SIG._ 20, 39; _CIA._ ii, 1620 c.d. (The Athenian legend makes Eubouleus into a mortal herdsman: Clem. Al., _Protr._ ii, pp. 14-15 P.; Schol. Luc., _De Merc._, 2, p. 275, 27 Rabe.) ~Eubouleu/s~ simply = Hades: Nic., _Al._ 14; epitaph from Syros, _Epigr. Gr._ 272, 9, and frequently. So, too, the ~Zeu\s Eubouleu/s~ (Hesych. s. ~Eub.~) worshipped in Kyrene must have been a ~Zeu\s chtho/nios~. Eubouleus is also a title of Dionysos as Zagreus (Iakchos), i.e. the Dionysos of the underworld.--Incidentally, what is the origin of this designation of the god of the underworld as "good counsellor" (_boni consilii praestitem_ as Macr. 1, 8, 17, translates ~Euboulê=a~)? It can hardly have been because he was specially able to take counsel on his own behalf (this is the sense in which D.S. 5, 72, 2, takes the title; but rather because he was an _oracle_ god, and as such dispensed good counsel to inquirers. Thus the oracle-god Nereus is called ~eu/boulos~ in Pi., _P._ iii, 92; so also _I._ vii, 32: ~eu/boulos The/mis~.]

[8\5: Lasos _fr._ 1 (_PLG._ iii, 376), etc.--Consecration to ~Klu/menos~ from Athens: _CIG._ 409.--Hesych. ~Periklu/menos; ho Plou/tôn~ (it is no accident that gave the name Periklymenos to the magically gifted son of Neleus). Klymenos = Hades, _Epigr. Gr._ 522 a 2.]

[9\5: The name ~Trephô/nios~, ~Trophô/nios~ itself also points to the fact that assistance to the fertility of the earth was expected of this ~Zeu\s chtho/nios~. In the later cult of Trophonios not a trace of such a belief survives.]

[10\5: ~en oudemia=| po/lei Ha/idou bômo/s estin. Aischu/los phêsi/n; mo/nos theô=n ga\r Tha/natos ou dô/rôn era=| ktl.~ (_fr._ 161 Sidg.): Schol., AB. on ~A~ 158.]

[11\5: In Elis ~hiero\s tou= Ha/idou peri/bolo/s te kai\ nao/s~, Paus. 6, 25, 2. Cult of Demeter and Kore and of Hades in the very fertile Triphylia, Str. 344.]

[12\5: Kaukones from Pylos, the Nelidai at their head, reach Attica: connexion with the cult of the ~chtho/nioi~ in Phlya in Eleusis: see K. O. Müller, _Kl. S._ ii, 258. Such accounts may have an historical foundation. The elaborate accounts by H. D. Müller, _Mythol. Gr._ 1, c. 6, and O. Crusius, _Ersch-Gruber_ "Kaukones"--operate with too many uncertain factors for the results to have any certainty.]

[13\5: ~Ha/idês . . . toi=s entha/de tosau=ta agatha\ ani/êsin~: Pl., _Crat._ 403 E. ~ho Ha/idês ou mo/non ta\s psucha\s sune/chei, alla\ kai\ toi=s karpoi=s ai/tio/s estin anapnoê=s kai\ anado/seôs kai\ auxê/seôs~: Schol. B.L., ~O~ 188.]

[14\5: ~hoi polloi\ phobou/menoi to\ o/noma Plou/tôna kalou=sin auto/n (to\n Ha/idên)~, Pl., _Crat._ 403 A.]

[15\5: At the Genesia (Nekysia sacrifice for Ge and the dead, Hesych. ~Gene/sia.--choai\ Gê=| te kai\ phthitoi=s~, A. _Pers._ 220: calling to Hermes, Ge, and Aïdoneus in "spirit-raising", _Pers._ 628 ff., 640 ff. cf. _Ch._ 124 ff.--appeal to Hermes and ~Gê= ka/tochos~ on _defixiones_: _CIG._ 538-9.]

[16\5: ~Gai=os~ in Olympia, Paus. 5, 14, 10; cf. E. Curtius, _Altäre v. Olymp._, p. 15. At Kos it would seem to have been stated that Ge was worshipped ~mo/nê theô=n~, Ant. Lib. 15 (acc. to Boios). Side by side with ~Zeu\s Chtho/nios~ was worshipped ~Gê= chthoni/ê~ at Mykonos, _SIG._ 615, 26.]

[17\5: ~po/tnia Gê= Zagreu= te, theô=n panupe/rtate pa/ntôn~, _Alkmaionis fr._ 3 (Kink.).]

[18\5: Cult of Klymenos and Demeter ~Chthoni/a~ (her festival ~Chtho/neia~: see also Ael. _HA._ xi, 4) in Hermione, Paus. 2, 35, 4 ff. Pausanias also thinks (3, 14, 5) that the cult of Dem. ~Chthoni/a~ was brought to Sparta {185} from Hermione, which may be right. Kore as ~Meli/boia~ is also mentioned in this connexion by Lasos of Herm. _fr._ 1, _PLG._ iii, 376. Dedicatory inscriptions (_CIG._ 1194-1200) also mention, side by side with Demeter Chthonia, Klymenos, and Kore as well. Once (_BCH._ 1889, p. 198, n. 24) only ~Da/matri, Klume/nô|~. Demeter was clearly the chief goddess: cf. _CIG._ 1193.--From the community of the worship of Damater Chthonia in both Hermione and Asine it may be justifiable to conclude that this cult belonged originally to the Dryopians who combined with the Dorians in Hermione and were driven by them out of Argolic Asine. There is no warrant whatever for the fanciful derivation of the Demeter-cult of these neighbourhoods from "Pelasgians" submerged by Dryopian invaders.]

[19\5: There was a common worship of: Zeus Eubouleus, Demeter, and Kore at Amorgos; Zeus Eub., Demeter Thesmophoros, Kore, Here, Babo at Paros; Plouton, Demeter, Kore, Epimachos, Hermes in Knidos; Plouton and Kore in Karia. See the citations given by Foucart, _BCH._ vii, 402 (with whose own pronouncements I cannot, however, agree at all). In Delos, Demeter, Kore, Zeus Eubouleus: _BCH._ 24, 505 n. 4. So, too, in Corinth Plouton, Demeter, and Kore: Paus. 2, 18, 3; Hades Demeter and Kore in Triphylia, Str. 344. Observe also the group of divinities at Lebadeia in the cult of Trophonios: Paus. 9, 39.--At Eleusis side by side with Demeter and Kore Plouton also was worshipped: _CIA._ ii, 834 b. But there existed even there other groups of ~chtho/nioi~ worshipped in conjunction, ~tô\ theô/~ once more joined with Triptolemos, and a second triad: ~ho theo/s, hê thea/~, and Eubouleus, _CIA. Suppl._ i, 27b, p. 59, ff. ii, 1620 bc; iii, 1108-9. This second triad, which is not mentioned on the inscr. _CIA._ i, 5 (from the beginning of the fifth century), may have only been subsequently added to the Eleusinian official cult (see Ziehen, _Leg. Sacr., Dissert._ pp. 9-10). It is a waste of time to try and identify the vague appellations ~theo/s~ and ~thea/~ with the names of definite chthonic deities (as e.g. Kern attempts, _Ath. Mitth._ 1891, pp. 5-6). Acc. to Löschcke, _D. Enneakrunosepis. bei Paus._, pp. 15-16, these Eleusinian divinities were imported into Athens, established in the chasm of the Eumenides, and instead of ~ho theo/s, hê thea/~ and Eubouleus, were called Hermes, Ge, and Plouton. But the correlation of these divinities worshipped there in conjunction with the ~Semnai/~ (acc. to Paus. 1, 28, 6) with the Eleusinian group depends entirely upon the identification of the ~Semnai/~ with Demeter and Kore. This, however, is based on nothing more than a guess of K. O. Müller's (_Aesch. Eum._, p. 176 [160 f. E.T.]), which would still be very much in the air even if the theories about "Demeter Erinys" with which it is connected did not rest on such insecure foundations. (To identify the Eleusinian-Athenian Eubouleus with Plouton is impossible, if only because of the fact that in the chthonic cult of those places ~Eubouleu/s~, originally the name of an underworld god, has developed into the name of a Hero who now has a place _alongside_ the chthonic deities.)--With the cautious appelations ~ho theo/s, hê thea/~ we may compare the appeal on a _defixio_ from Athens, _CIG._ 1034: ~dai/moni chthoni/ô| kai\ tê=| chthoni/a| kai\ toi=s chthoni/ois pa=si ktl.~]

[20\5: Cf. Mannhardt, _Mythol. Forsch._ 1884, p. 225 ff.]

[21\5: It cannot, however, be denied that already in Homer Persephone is the daughter of Demeter and Zeus. Adducing ~X~ 326 and ~l~ 217 K. O. Müller (_Kl. Sch._ ii, 91) has disposed conclusively of Preller's doubts: in spite of which H. D. Müller in his reconstruction of the Demeter-myth clings firmly to the view that the goddess carried {186} away by Hades was only afterwards made the daughter of Demeter.--The Homeric poems seem to know of the rape of Persephone by Aïdoneus but not the story of her periodical return to the upper world--which is the most important feature in the Eleusinian creed. What Lehrs says on this much-discussed subject is completely convincing (_Pop. Aufs._^2, p. 277 f.).]

[22\5: The cult of Demeter is old in Phthiotis too (--~Pu/rason, Dê/mêtros te/menos~, ~B~ 695 f.--~e/chousai Antrô=na petrê/enta~, _h. Cer._ 490). Also in Paros and Crete. That it is possible to trace the extension of the worship of Demeter in detail (as many have tried to do, is one of the current illusions on this subject that I cannot share.]

[23\5: _Aornon_ and ~nekuomantei=on~ (~psuchopompei=on~ Phot. ~Theoi\ Molottikoi/~ cf. Append. prov. iii, 18 L.-S.; Eust. ~k~ 514, p. 1667) at Ephyre on the River Acheron in Thesprotia: well known from Hdt.'s story of Periander (v, 92). Here the place of Orpheus' descent to the lower world was localised, Paus. 9, 30, 6; cf. also Hyg. 88, p. 84, 19-20 Schm.--Entrance to Hades at Tainaron, through which Herakles dragged up Kerberos (Schol. D.P. 791, etc.), with ~psuchomantei=on~: cf. Plu., _Ser. Num. Vind._ 17, p. 560 E (cf. Stat., _Th._ ii, 32 ff., 48 f., etc.).--Similar entrance to Hades at Hermione, see below; ~kataba/sion ha/|dou~ at Aigialos = Sikyon: Call. _fr._ 110.--At Phigaleia in Arcadia a ~psuchomantei=on~ at which King Pausanias inquired, Paus. 3, 17, 9.--More famous is the ~psuchomantei=on~ at Herakleia Pont.: see _Rh. Mus._ 36, 556 (this also was a place where Kerberos appeared above, Mela i, 103). Hither Pausanias came for guidance, acc. to Plu., _Ser. Num._ 10, p. 555 C; _Cimon_ 6.--The ~Ploutô/nion~ and ~psuchomantei=on~ at Cumae in Italy had a long-standing reputation (mentioned as early as Soph., _fr._ 682 [748 P.]): cf. _Rh. Mus._ 36, 555 (an Italian Greek applies to ~ti psuchomantei=on~, Plu., _Cons. Apoll._ 14, p. 109 C).--Next the Asiatic ~Ploutô/nia~ and ~Charô/neia~: at Acharaka in Karia, Str. 649-50; at Magnesia on the Maiander, ~a/ornon spê/laion hiero/n, Charô/nion lego/menon~, Str. 636; at Myous, Str. 579. This is what ~to\ en La/tmô| o/rugma~ must have been, mentioned among other ~Charô/nia~ by Antig. Caryst. 123; the ~Ki/mbros kalou/menos ho peri\ Phrugi/an bo/thunos~ also mentioned there, may very well have been the place in Phrygia spoken of by Alkman ap. Str. 580: ~bo/thunos Kerbê/sios e/chôn olethri/ous apophora/s~ (suggested by Keller on Antig). Perhaps the latter place--named after the Korybantes (?) see Bergk on Alcm. _fr._ 82--is the same as the cave at Hierapolis.--Better known than any was the oracular cavern at Hierapolis in Phrygia into which only the Galli of the Great Mother, the _Matris Magnae sacerdos_, can go without being overcome by the vapours issuing from it: Str. 629-30, Plin. ii, 208. There existed under a temple of Apollo a direct ~kataba/sion ha/|dou~, accessible at least to the faithful ~tetelesme/noi~: see the very remarkable account of Damasc., _V. Isid._ ap. Phot., p. 344b, 35-345a, 27 Bk. (Cult of Echidna in Hierapolis, see Gutschmid, _Rh. Mus._ 19, 398 ff.; this is also a chthonic cult: ~ne/rteros E/chidna~, Eur. _Ph._ 1023; Echidna among the monsters of Hades: Ar., _Ra._ 473).--These are the mortifera in Asia Plutonia, quae vidimus, Cic., _Div._ i, 79 (cf. Gal. iii, 540; xvii, 1, 10).--Entrances to Hades were regularly to be found at those places where the cave was shown by which Aidoneus made his exit or his entrance in carrying off Kore. Thus at Eleusis, ~to/thi per pu/lai eis' Aï/dao~, Orph., _H._ 18, 15, Paus. 1, 38, 5; at Kolonos, Sch. S., _OC._ 1590-3; at Lerna, Paus. 2, 36, 7; at Pheneos (a ~cha/sma en Kullê/nê|~: Conon 15), and probably in Crete too (cf. Bacch. _fr._ 53 Jebb, ap. Sch. Hes., _Th._ 914); at Enna in Sicily a ~cha/sma **kata/geion~: D.S. 5, 3, 3; Cic., _Verr._ iv, 107; {187} at Syracuse at the spring Kyane, D.S. 5, 4, 2; at Kyzikos, Prop. 3 (4), 22, 4.]

[24\5: The ~Semnai/~ live there in a ~cha/sma chthono/s~, Eur., _El._ 1266 f., on the eastern slope of the hill.]

[25\5: Paus. 2, 35, 10. The precinct of the temple was an Asylon, Phot. ~Hermi/onê~; _AB._ 256, 15; Znb. ii, 25 (Ar. ~Babul.~).--Kerberos is brought up from below at Hermione: Eur., _HF._ 615. An Acheron, and even an ~Acherousia\s li/mnê~, was to be found in Thesprotia, Triphylia, Herakleia on the Pontus, Cumae, and Cosentia in Bruttium--all sites of ancient cults of Hades and reputed as in close proximity to the underworld.]

[26\5: Strabo viii, 373--the same is reported by Call. _fr._ 110 of the inhabitants of ~Aigialo/s~ (prob. = Sikyon, where there was a cult of Demeter, Paus. 2, 11, 2-3; cf. 2, 5, 8. Hesych. ~_epôpi/s_; Dêmê/têr para\ Sikuôni/ois~), where, at any rate, there was a ~kataba/sion ha/|dou~.--The name "Hermione" seems almost to have acquired a generic sense. In the Orphic _Argonautica_ a city Hermioneia is said to be situated in the fabulous north-west of Europe in the neighbourhood of the gold-bearing river Acheron, where (as always on the margin of the ~oikoume/nê~) there dwell ~ge/nê dikaiota/tôn anthrô/pôn, hoi=sin apophthime/nois a/nesis nau/loio te/tuktai~, etc. (1135-47). Thus Hermione in this case lies immediately in the country of souls and blessedness, which the ancient inhabitants of the Peloponnesian city rather supposed to be in the neighbourhood of their own country.--Hesych. strangely: ~_Hermio/nê_; kai\ hê Dêmê/têr kai\ hê ko/rê en Surakou/sais~. Was there a place called Hermione there too? See Lob., _Paralip._ 299.]

II

[27\5: If a father makes money by his son's unchastity, the son is released from the duty of providing food or shelter for his father while the latter is alive--~apothano/nta d' auto\n thapte/tô kai\ ta=lla poiei/tô ta\ nomizo/mena~: Solonian law ap. Aeschin., _Tim._ 13.]

[28\5: Dem. 43, 57-8.]

[29\5: Sch. Soph., _Ant._ 255. Philo ap. Euseb., _PE._ viii, 358 D; 359 A. See Bernays, _Berichte Ber. Ak._ 1876, p. 604, 606 f.]

[30\5: ~Ps~ 71 ff.]

[31\5: Isoc. 14, 55.]

[32\5: The ~ba/rathron~ at Athens, the ~Kaia/das~ at Sparta. But the bodies were often given up to the relatives to bury, and in any case the refusal of burial can only have been temporary--it is incredible that they could have wished to leave the bodies to putrify in the open air.]

[33\5: Athenian law, Xen., _HG._ 1, 7, 22; common Greek institution at least as against temple-robbers, D.S. 16, 25. Examples of the enforcement of this law in the fifth and fourth centuries discussed by W. Vischer, _Rh. Mus._ 20, 446 ff.--Suicides in some places were refused burial honours (in Thebes and Cyprus); even in Athens it was customary to cut off the hand of the suicide and bury it separately (Aeschin., _Ctes._ 244). This is the punishment of ~auto/cheires~. Self-starvation was considered less shocking and that is perhaps why it occurs so frequently as a method of suicide. Cf. Thalheim, _Gr. Rechtsalt._ p. 44 f. Perhaps also the religious objection of the Pythagoreans (and Platonists) to taking this means of escape from an existence that has become unbearable rests upon popular feeling and belief--it was not shared at all by the enlightened of later ages. (There is, however, nothing in ancient beliefs that points to the idea that the body of the suicide should be allowed only burial, not burning. Acc. {188} to the ~Ilia\s mikra/~ Aias after taking his own life was buried, not burnt, ~dia\ tê\n orgê\n tou= basile/ôs~--_fr._ 3: [Apollod.] _Epit._ v, 7. There is no ground for supposing that the fable of Philostr., _H._ 721, p. 188 K., acc. to which Kalchas declared the burning of the bodies of suicides to be not ~ho/sion~, is taken out of an ancient poem; as Welcker does _Kl. Schr._ ii, 291.)]

[34\5: Cf. the words of Teles ~peri\ phugê=s~ ap. Stob., _Fl._ 40, 8 (iii, p. 738, 17 ff. Hens.), and the answer of Krates Cyn. to Demetrius of Phaleron ap. Plu., _Adul._ 28, p. 69 CD. It is worth remarking that in the fourth and even third centuries it was still necessary to reply to the idea ~ho/môs de\ to\ epi\ xe/nês taphê=nai o/neidos~. When later on the cosmopolitanism preached by the Cynics (and after their model by Teles) becomes really common property it seems no longer necessary to introduce special grounds of consolation for having to be buried in foreign soil into pamphlets ~peri\ phugê=s~. At least this is not done by the Stoic Musonius or the Platonizing Plutarch. Cf. also Philodem. _Mort._, p. 33-4 Mekl.]

[35\5: This is the reason why so often the bones or ashes of those who die abroad are collected and brought home for burial by their relations. Exx. ap. Westermann on Dem., _Eubul._ 70; cf. also Plu., _Phoc._ 37.]

[36\5: Ar., _Ec._ 1030. Origanon (wild marjoram, white thyme possesses apotropaic power: it keeps away evil spirits. The ancients knew of the virtue possessed by these plants of scaring snakes, ants, and other vermin--Aristot., _HA._ 4, 8, 534b, 22; Plin. 10, 195; Thphr., _CP._ 6, 5, 4; Diosc., _MM._ iii, 29 = i, p. 375 Spr.; _Gp._ 12, 19, 9: cf. Niclas ad _Gp._ 13, 10, 5. Modern superstition employs them against goblins and water sprites, witches and ghosts, Grimm, p. 1214; p. 1820, n. 980. If marjoram and gentian are laid by women in child-bed ghosts and devils can do them no harm "for they shun such herbs": J. Ch. Männlingen ap. Alwin Schultz, _Alltagsleben e. d. Frau im 18 Jahrh._, p. 195 f. The two purposes are closely connected. The pungent odour of herbs and burning stuff keeps away snakes as do nocentes spiritus monstra noxia: Pall. 1, 35 = 11, 3, p. 49 Sohn. The same thing applies to monstra noxia if they try to approach the corpse in the shape of snakes or insects (just as the ghost in Apul., _M._ ii, 25, approaches the corpse in the shape of a weasel; where we also read that the versipelles which threaten the corpse et aves et rursum canes et mures immo vero etiam muscas induunt: ii, 22). So, too, the marjoram has a kathartic effect on the corpse, i.e. it is a means of keeping off underworld spirits.]

[37\5: Ar., _Ec._ 1031. The corpse lay on vine branches in several of the recently discovered Dipylon graves at Athens: _Athen. Mitt._ 1893, pp 165, 184. Superstitious reasons (as in the cases where olive leaves are used as a bed: see below) are to be suspected in this case, too, but can hardly be proved: cf. **Fredrich, _Sarkophagstud._, Nach. Gött. Ges. Wiss. Ph. Cl. 1895, pp. 18, 69; Anrich, _Gr. Mysterienw._ 102, 3. Apart from this the ~a/mpelos~ does not seem to have lustral effect.]

[38\5: ~lê/kuthoi, tou/strakon~: Ar., _Ec._ 1032 f.; ~che/rnips epi\ phthitô=n pu/lais~: Eur., _Al._ 98 ff. The bowl was called ~arda/nion~: Sch. Ar., _Ec._ 1033; Poll. viii, 65 (cf. Phot. 346, 1 ~orda/nion~). It contained water fetched from _another_ house: Hesych, ~o/strakon~--obviously because the water in the house where the corpse lay was regarded as polluted. (Thus when the fire, for example, is "polluted", fresh fire is brought in from outside: Plu., _Q. Gr._ 24, p. 297 A; _Arist._ 20.) Those who left the house purified themselves with it: Hesych. ~arda/nia~, cf. {189} ~pêgai=on, pêgai=on hu/dôr~. A laurel branch (as holy-water sprinkler, as commonly in lustrations) was placed in it: Sch. Eur., _Al._ 98.]

[39\5: Serv., _A._ iii, 680: apud Atticos funestae domus huius (cupressi) frondo velantur. The object may have been to warn the superstitious against approaching the "unclean" house: it is a characteristic of the ~deisidai/môn, ou/te epibê=nai mnê/mati, ou/te epi\ nekro\n ou/t' epi\ lechô\ elthei=n ethelê=sai~, Thphr., _Ch._ 16. This at least was the reason given at Rome for a similar custom: Serv., _A._ 3, 64; 4, 507.]

[40\5: Crowning of the dead with garlands, afterwards a general custom, is first mentioned in the ~Alkmaiôni/s~ (epical, but hard to date precisely: _fr._ ii, p. 76 Kink.). On the "Archemoros" vase a woman is about to place a myrtle-wreath on the head of Archemoros. The myrtle is sacred to the ~chtho/nioi~, and hence the myrtle-crown belongs to the Mystai of Demeter as well as to the dead: see Apollod. ap. Sch. Ar., _Ran._ 330; Ister ap. Sch. Soph., _OC._ 681. Grave-monuments too were crowned and planted especially with myrtles; Eur., _El._ 324, 512; cf. Thphr., _HP._ 5, 8, 3; Vg., _A._ iii, 23. Not only the dead but graves too were frequently crowned with ~se/linon~, parsley: Plu., _Timol._ 26; _Smp._ 5, 3, 2, p. 676 D; Diogen. viii, 57, and others; cf. above, chap. iv, n. 21. The crowning invariably implies some form of consecration to a god. Acc. to Tertul., _Cor. Mil._ 10, the dead were crowned quoniam et ipsi idola statim fiunt habitu et cultu consecrationis; which at least gets nearer the real sense of the practice than the view of Sch. Ar., _Lys._ 601: ~ste/phanos edi/doto toi=s nekroi=s hôs to\n bi/on diêgônisme/nois~.]

[41\5: Pl., _Lg._ 959 A. Poll. iii, 65. A still stranger reason added ap. Phot. ~pro/thesis~.]

[42\5: Permission to attend either the ~pro/thesis~ of the corpse (and the funeral lamentation) or the funeral procession (the ~ekphora/~) given only to women of kinship ~mechri\ anepsio/têtos~: Law ap. Dem. 43, 62-3: i.e. within the ~agchistei/a~, to which alone the duty of the cult of the dead belonged in principle. Only these women of the immediate kin are ~miaino/menai~ in the case of death: cf. Hdt. vi, 58; this is the reason for the restrictions laid down by the funeral regulation from Keos (_SIG._ 877, 25 ff.), which makes an even narrower selection within the ranks of the ~agchistei/a~. (From l. 22 ~mê\ hupotithe/nai~, etc., the law speaks of the ~pro/thesis~, even though at the beginning only the ~ekphora/~ is in question.)]

[43\5: ~amucha\s koptome/nôn aphei=len~. Plu., _Sol._ 21. The democratizing of life in Attica after Solon's time may have contributed to the carrying out there of provisions restricting the elaborate funeral rites of the old aristocratic period. The practice of ~ko/ptesthai epi\ tethnêko/ti~ appears, however, to have remained in use: beating of the head at funeral lamentations is a favourite motif in Attic vase-paintings (the so-called "Prothesis" vases); cf. _Monum. dell' Instit._ viii, 4, 5; iii, 60, etc. See Benndorf, _Griech. Sicil. Vasenb._ 1.]

[44\5: ~to\ thrênei=n pepoiême/na~, Plu., _Sol._ 21: by which is meant funeral hymns carefully prepared beforehand and perhaps ordered from professional ~thrê/nôn sophistai/~, not spontaneous expressions of grief breaking out as though involuntarily.]

[45\5: Plu., _Sol._ 21: ~kai\ to\ kôku/ein a/llon en taphai=s hete/rôn aphei=len~. This must surely mean: Solon forbade dirges to be sung at a funeral of one person in honour of another, different from the person actually being buried. (~hete/rôn~ is only used for variety after ~a/llon~ and simply = ~a/llôn~: as frequently by Attic writers: ~mê\ proïe/menon a/llon hete/rô| tê\n allagê\n~, Pl., _Lg._ viii, 849 E: ~he/teron--a/llon~ Isoc. 10, 36, etc.). {190} The tendency to extend the funeral hymns to include others besides the dead man is implied by a prohibition in a funeral ordinance of the ~patri/a~ of the ~Labua/dai~ at Delphi (fifth-fourth century B.C.), _BCH._ '95, p. 11, l. 39 ff. ~tô=n de\ pro/sta tethnako/tôn en toi=s sama/tessi mê\ thrênei=n mêd' ototu/zen~ (at the funeral of another person). Was Homer thinking of something of the kind in ~T~ 302: ~Pa/troklon pro/phasin~--?]

[46\5: In Athens it had once been the custom ~hierei=a prospha/ttein pro\ tê=s ekphora=s~, i.e. while still in the house of the dead person: [Pl.] _Min._ 315 C. Such a sacrifice _before_ the ~ekphora/~ (which is not described till l. 1261 ff.) is implied by Euripides, _Hel._ 1255, at the burial of the dead body found in the sea: ~prospha/zetai me\n hai=ma prô=ta nerte/rois~--where ~prospha/gion~ is used inaccurately of sacrifice at the grave, in which case the ~_pro/_~ is meaningless; as also in the insc. from Keos (_SIG._ 877, 21). ~pro/sphagma~ is also thus used, Eur., _Hec._ 41. Plu. (_Sol._ 21) says of Solon: ~enagi/zein de\ bou=n ouk ei/asen~. Possibly Solon **forbade the sacrifice of animals _before_ the ~ekphora/~, since the author of the Ps.-Platonic _Minos_ seems also to refer to such a prohibition.]

[47\5: The Solonian restrictions says Plu. (_Sol._ 21) have been for the most part adopted in our (i.e. the Boeotian) ~no/moi~--as acc. to the indubitable witness of Cicero, Solon's funeral regulations had been reproduced **eisdem prope verbis in the tenth of the Twelve Tables by the Decemviri. Limits set to ceremonial mourning in Sparta: Plu., _Lyc._ 27 (whence _Inst. Lac._, 18, p. 238 D), in Syracuse by Gelon: D.S. 11, 38, 2; cf. "Charondas", Stob., _Fl._ 44, 40 M. = iv, 2, 24, p. 153, 10 H. Some degree of restriction was imposed on their members (about the beginning of the fourth century B.C.) by the ~patri/a~ of the ~Labua/dai~ in Delphi in the ~tethmo/s~ published in the _BCH._ '95, p. 9 ff.]

[48\5: We have a very naive expression of the ideas lying behind such violent lamentations, self-inflicted injuries, and other excessive demonstrations of grief in the presence of the dead body, when e.g. in Tahiti people wound themselves and then "call out to the soul of the dead man to witness their attachment to him" (Ratzel, _Hist. of Mankind_, i, 330); cf. Waitz-Gerland, _Anthrop._ vi, 402.]

[49\5: It is a very ancient idea common to many different nations that too violent expressions of grief for the dead man may disturb his rest and make him return: see Mannhardt, _Götter der deutschen Völker_, 1860, p. 290 (for Germany in partic. see Wuttke, _Deut. Volksabergl._^2, § 728, p. 431; Rochholz, _D. Glaube u. Brauch_, i, 207). Similar superstition in Greece is referred to in Lucian, _Luct._ 24 (in which the lateness of the witness does not prevent the belief from being ancient). The survivors who prolong beyond reason their laments are asked: ~me/chri ti/nos oduro/metha? e/ason anapau/sasthai tou\s tou= makari/ou dai/monas~.--In Pl., _Mx._ 248 B, the dead say ~deo/metha pate/rôn kai\ mête/rôn eide/nai ho/ti ou thrênou=tes oude\ olophuro/menoi hêma=s hêmi=n ma/lista chariou=ntai~--thus violent grief is intended in Greece, too, to please the dead: see last note--~alla\ . . . hou/tôs _acha/ristoi_ ei=en a\n ma/lista~: while acc. to "Charondas", Stob., _Fl._ iv, 2, 24, p. 153 H.: ~_acharisti/a esti\ pro\s dai/monas chthoni/ous_ lu/pê hupe\r to\ me/tron gignome/nê~.]

[50\5: ~ekphe/rein to\n apothano/nta tê=| husterai/a| hê=| a\n prothô=ntai, pri\n hê/lion exe/chein~, Solonian law in D. 43, 62; cf. Antipho, _Chor._ 34. Klearch. ap. Proclus _in Pl. _Rp.__ ii, 114 Kroll: Kleonymos in Athens, ~tethna/nai do/xas tri/tês hême/ras ou/sês kata\ to\n no/mon proute/thê~, i.e. it was the morning of the third day, immediately before the ~ekphora/~, the ~pro/thesis~ having occupied the whole of the second day (quite differently taken by Maass, _Orpheus_, 1895, p. 232, 46; but hardly correctly. It is scarcely probable that a man ~tethna/nai do/xas~, i.e. seeming to those {191} around him to be dead, should be recognized by these same people and treated as merely in a trance--as in fact, was the case). So, too, in the analogous story of Thespesios of Soli in Plutarch, _S. Num. Vind._ 22, p. 563 D, ~tritai=os, ê/dê peri\ ta\s tapha\s auta/s, anê/negke~ (Philostr., _VA._ 3, 38, p. 114, 28 K.: the wife of the man who has just died ~peri\ tê\n eunê\n hu/brise, tritai/ou keime/nou~ [sc. ~tou= andro/s~] ~gamêthei=sa hete/rô|~: i.e. immediately before the ~ekphora/~, while the dead man still was in the house). Similar customs are implied for the Greeks in Cyprus ap. Ant. Lib. 39, 5, p. 235, 21 West. [= p. 122, 7 f. Mart.]: ~hême/ra| de\ tritê| to\ sô=ma proê/negkan eis emphane/s (eis toumphane/s~?) ~hoi prosê/kontes~. Further, acc. to Plato's view as given in _Lg._ 959 A, there should be ~tritai/a pro\s to\ mnê=ma ekphora/~.]

[51\5: Before sunrise: D. 43, 62 (more distinctly commanded by a law of Dem. Phal.: Cic., _Lg._ ii, 66). On the other hand, it was considered a disgrace to be buried during the night: ~ê= kako\s kakô=s taphê/sê|, nukto\s ouk en hême/ra|~, Eur., _Tro._ 448.]

[52\5: So in particular the funeral-law from Keos, _SIG._ 877; cf. Plu., _Sol._ 21; Bergk, _Rh. Mus._ 15, 468. Funeral-law of the Labyadai at Delphi, l. 29 f.: ~strô=ma de\ he\n hupobale/tô kai\ poikepha/laion he\n potithe/tô~ (for the dead).]

[53\5: Reproduced _Monum. dell' Instituto_, ix, 391 [and in Rayet-Collignon, _Céramique grecque_, Pl. i].]

[54\5: The law in D. 43, 62 (cf. 64), makes restrictions in the attendance at a funeral which are to apply to women only (and only then for those under 60): men seem therefore to be granted permission indiscriminately. We are told too in Plu., _Sol._ 21, that at the ~ekkomidê/~ Solon had _not_ forbidden ~ep' allo/tria mnê/mata badi/zein~--for men that is, we must suppose. The men went in front in procession; the women followed: D. 43, 62. Evidently the same applied in Keos: _SIG._ 877, 20.--Pittakos as aesymnetes in Mitylene forbade absolutely accedere quemquam in funus aliorum, Cic., _Lg._ ii, 65.--Funeral-law of the Labyadai (Delphi, l. 42 ff.: from the burial ~api=men woi/kade he/kaston, e/chthô homesti/ôn kai\ patradelpheô=n kai\ pentherô=n kêkgo/nôn kai\ gambrô=n~, i.e. the next-of-kin of the dead in ascending and descending order.]

[55\5: This is referred to as still-existing custom by Plato, _Lg._ 800 E; cf. Sch. ad loc.; Hesych. ~Kari=nai~. Menand. ~Kari/nê~, Mein., _Com._ iv, p. 144 (Karo-phrygian funeral-flutes: Ath. 174 F: Poll. iv, 75-9).]

[56\5: ~to\n thano/nta de\ phe/ren katakekalumme/non siôpê=| me/chri epi\ to\ sê=ma~, _SIG._ 877, 11. Funeral-law of Labyad., l. 40 ff. ~to\n de\ nekro\n kekalumme/non phere/tô siga=|, kê\n tai=s strophai=s~ ("at the street-corners") ~mê\ kattithe/ntôn mêdamei=, mêd' ototuzo/ntôn e/chthos ta=s woiki/as pri/g k' epi\ to\ sa=ma hi/kônti; tênei= d' e/nagos e/stô ktl.~ (the last not yet satisfactorily explained).

[57\5: Solon diminished (under the alleged influence of Epimenides) at funerals ~to\ sklêro\n kai\ to\ barbariko\n hô=| sunei/chonto pro/teron hai plei=stai gunai=kes~, Plu., _Sol._ 12.]

[58\5: In the list of quotations from individual authors from the fifth century on, given in Becker **_Char._^2 iii, 98 ff. [= E.T.^3 pp. 390-1], only the foll. speak for _burial_ as the prevailing custom: Plu., _Sol._ 21. ~ouk ei/asen~ (Solon) ~_suntithe/nai_ ple/on himati/ôn triô=n~, and Plu., _Lyc._ 27, ~_suntha/ptein_ ou/den eiasen~ (Lycurg.) ~alla\ en phoiniki/di kai\ phu/llois elai/as _the/ntes to\ sô=ma_ perie/stellon~: cf. Th. i, 134, 4. _Cremation_, on the other hand, is implied as the more common in Athens (fourth century) by Is. 4, 19: ~_ou/t' e/kausen_ out' ôstolo/gêsen~; so, too, the will (third century) of the Peripatetic Lykon (D.L. v, 70): ~peri\ de\ tê=s ekphora=s kai\ {192} _kau/seôs_ epimelêthê/tôsan ktl.~ Cf. Also Teles ap. Stob. 40, 8, i, p. 747, 5 H.; ~ti/ diaphe/rei hupo\ puro\s katakauthê=nai~--which is here regarded as _Greek_ funeral usage.--In the graves recently discovered before the Dipylon gate in Athens those belonging to the earliest period almost without exertion have their dead _buried_ (without coffin); the following period (into the sixth century) generally burnt their dead; later, burial seems to have been more usual--see the account by Brückner and Pernice of the excavations before the Dipylon gate, _Ath. Mitt._ 1893, pp. 73-191. Thus it appears that in the later period burial was the prevailing practice in Attica (L. Ross, _Archaeol. Aufs._ i, 23), as also, being essentially cheaper than cremation, in other parts of Greece as well (a few references given in _BCH._ '95, p. 144, 2).]

[59\5: ~ôstolo/gêsen~, Is. 4, 19.]

[60\5: The custom of ~ekphora/~ on an open ~kli/nê~ is not in harmony with the intention of laying the body of the dead in a coffin, but evidently presupposes that the body is to be placed either unenveloped in the ground or else to be burnt. The practice of coffin-burial (probably introduced from the East) later became common, but was never completely harmonized with the ancient ceremonies of the _~ekphora/~_.]

[61\5: Coffinless burial was usual in the graves of the "Mycenaean" period, and also in the oldest times in Attica. The Spartans were merely keeping up this ancient custom when they ~en phoiniki/di kai\ phu/llois elai/as the/ntes to\ sô=ma perie/stellon~ (buried), Plu., _Lyc._ 27. Here everything points to the retention of primitive usage. The bodies were buried in the ancient fashion, not burnt; they were wrapped in a crimson robe. Crimson is otherwise the special colour for war and festival dress (cf. Müller, _Dorians_, ii, 264); here it is used in connexion with chthonic cult: ~e/chei ga/r tina to\ porphurou=n chrô=ma sumpa/theian pro\s to\n tha/naton~ says rightly Artemid. 1, 77, p. 70, 11 H. This can hardly be because of the red colour of blood; any more than that is why ~tha/natos~ is called ~porphu/reos~. But even Homer ~Ô~ 796 makes Hektor's bones wrapped ~_purphure/ois_ pe/ploisi~--the bones only in this case instead of the whole body: clearly a vestige of an older custom which survived unchanged in Sparta. Similarly ~Ps~ 254. So, too, e.g. in the Dipylon graves at Athens burnt bones were found wrapped in a cloth, _Ath. Mitt._ 18, 160-1, 185. The head of the murdered brother ~_phoiniki/di_ ekalupsa/tên kai\ ethapsa/tên~ the two other Kabeiroi in the religious myth related by Clem. Al., _Protr._ ii, p. 16 P. Crimson frequently occurs as a colour used in chthonic cult: e.g. at the ceremonial ~a/rai~ implying consecration to the infernal deities in [Lys.] 6, 51; at sacrifices to the Plataean Heroes: Plu., _Arist._ 21; at the transfer of the bones of Rhesos: see above, chap. iv, n. 36; Polyaen. vi, 53; at sacrifices to the Eumenides, Aesch., _Eum._ 1028.--The custom of burial upon leaves was also retained by the Pythagoreans: they buried their dead (without burning them, Iamb., _VP._ 154) in myrti et oleae et populi nigrae foliis (in fact, the trees regularly sacred to the ~chtho/nioi~), Plin. 35, 160. Fauvel (ap. Ross, _Arch. Aufs._ i, 31) found in graves by the Melitean gate at Athens le squelette couché sur un lit épais de feuilles d'olivier encore en état de brûler. (Olive stones in Mycenaean Graves, Tsundas, ~Eph. Arch.~, '88, p. 136; '89, p. 152.)]

[62\5: Thus in the letter of Hipparchos, in Phlegon, 1; similarly Xen. Eph. 3, 7, 4 (see my _Griech. Roman_, p. 391 n. 2). Plato wished his Euthynoi to be buried like this on stone ~kli=nai~ (_Lg._ xii, 947 D); and this is probably how the bodies were placed in the rock burial-chambers provided with separate couches, such as occur at e.g. Rhodos and Kos {193} (see Ross, _Arch. Aufs._ ii, 384 ff., 392): cf. esp. the description given by Heusey, _Mission arch. de Macédoine_ (_Texte_), p. 257 ff., '76. It is the regular mode of burial in Etruria (following Greek models?): several skeletons have been found there lying on couches of masonry in the grave-chambers.]

[63\5: As though the dead had not entirely departed ~kai\ ho/pla kai\ skeu/ê kai\ hima/tia sunê/thê toi=s tethnêko/sin suntha/ptontes hê/dion e/chousin~ Plu., _Ne Suav. Ep._ 26, p. 1104 D. Restrictions in Law of the Labyad. (l. 19 ff.) ~ho/d' ho tethmo/s per tô=n entothêkô=n; mê\ ple/on pe/nte kai\ tria/konta drachma=n enthe/men, mê/te pria/menon mê/te woi/kô~.]

[64\5: Helbig, _Hom. Epos._ 41.]

[65\5: ~belti/ones kai\ krei/ttones~. Arist., _Eudem._ 37 [44] ap. Plu., _Cons. Apoll._ 27, p. 115 BC.]

[66\6: [Pl.] _Min._ 315 D. To raise doubts on this point is mere perversity. It is of no avail to advance the argument (which is commonly used also against the similar statements about Rome in Serv., _A._ v, 64; vi, 152) that this story only intends to explain the origin of the worship of the household _Lares_. The Greeks did not have this particular worship, or else it was so completely forgotten that no explanatory account of its origin was ever offered.--Beside the hearth and the altar of Hestia the most ancient resting place of the head of the house must have been placed too. When the wife of Phokion had had the body of her husband burnt abroad ~entheme/nê tô=| ko/lpô| ta\ osta= kai\ komi/sasa nu/ktôr eis tê\n oiki/an katô/ruxe para\ tê\n hesti/an~, Plu., _Phoc._ 37.--It was wrongly believed that in the remarkable rock-graves in the neighbourhood of the Pnyx at Athens examples of such graves situated inside the house had been discovered. See Milchhöfer in Baumeister's _Denkm._ 153b.]

[67\5: This occurs among the New Zealanders, Eskimos, etc.; cf. Lubbock, _Prehistoric Times_, pp. **465, 511, etc.]

[68\5: In Sparta and Tarentum: see Becker, _Char._^2 iii, 105 (E.T.^3 p. 393). Acc. to Klearch. ap. Ath. 522 F certain men of Tarentum were struck by lightning and killed; they were then buried ~pro\ tô=n thurô=n~ of their houses and ~stê=lai~ were put up in their honour. If they had really been the criminals that legend made them it would have been impossible, even in Tarentum, for them to have been buried within the walls of the city, still less before the doors of their houses--an honour given only to Heroes; cf. above, chap. iv, n. 136. The violent alteration of ~pro\ tô=n thurô=n~ into ~pro\ tô=n pulô=n~ in order to avoid this difficulty, is obviously rendered untenable by the previous ~heka/stê tô=n oikiô=n ho/sous ktl.~ The legend is evidently a fiction and these ~dio/blêtoi~ (to whom it appears, as Heroes, neither the funeral dirge nor the usual ~choai/~ were offered) must have belonged to the class of those whom death by the flash of lightning raised to a higher and honoured rank (see _Append._ 1). Thus, too, the graves in the market at Megara mentioned by Becker must have been Hero-graves: see above, chap. iv, n. 83. These cases where the graves of Heroes are found in the middle of the city, in the market place, etc., show very plainly the essential difference that was held to exist between the Heroes and the ordinary dead.]

[69\5: The ~mnê=ma koino\n pa=si toi=s apo\ Bouse/lou genome/nois~ was a ~polu\s to/pos peribeblême/nos, hô/sper hoi archai=oi eno/mizon~: D. 43, 79. The Bouselidai composed not a ~ge/nos~, but a group of five ~oi=koi~ bound together by definitely traceable ties of kinship. The members of a ~ge/nos~ in its political sense no longer held graves in common possession: see Meier, _de gentil. Att._ 33; Dittenb., _Hermes_, 20, 4. The ~Kimô/neia {194} mnê/mata~ were also family-graves: Plu., _Cim._ 4, Marcellin. _V. Th._ 17, Plu., _X Or._, p. 838 B. It was always insisted on, for obvious reasons, that no stranger to the family should be laid in the family grave. But just as the penal clauses so often inscribed on graves of a later period were necessary to prevent the burial of strangers in those graves, so too Solon had to make a law in respect of graves ne quis alienum inferat: Cic., _Lg._ ii, 64.]

[70\5: The speaker in Dem. 55, 13 ff., mentions the ~palaia\ mnê/mata~ of the ~pro/gonoi~ of the earlier possessors of his ~chôri/on~ (country-estate). This custom of burying the family dead in the private ground of the family ~kai\ toi=s a/llois chôri/ois sumbe/bêke~. Timarchos is asked by his mother ~to\ Alôpe/kê|si chôri/on~ (which lay 11 or 12 stades away from the city walls) ~_entaphê=nai_ hupolipei=n autê=|~ (in spite of which he sold it): Aeschin., _Tim._ 99. Examples in East Attica of walled-in family cemeteries with room for many graves: Belger, _Localsage von den Gräbern Agamem._, etc. (Progr. Berl. 1893), pp. 40-2. It was thus the very general custom to keep the family graves on their own ground and soil; and this corresponds closely enough with the oldest custom of all, that of burying the master of the house in his own home.--In Plu., _Arist._ 1, Demetr. Phal. mentions an ~Aristei/dou chôri/on en hô=| te/thaptai~ in Phaleron.]

[71\5: Restriction of the growing magnificence of grave columns in Athens made by Demetr. Phal., Cic., _Lg._ ii, 66. (Penal clauses ~ei/ ti/s ka tha/[ptê| ê\ epi/]stama ephista=| ktl.~ in a law from Nisyros [_Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1896, pp. 190, 420]: they probably do not refer to a general prohibition of tombstones altogether.)]

[72\5: Cf. Curtius, _Z. Ges. Wegebaus Gr._, p. 262.]

[73\5: Nemora aptabant sepulcris ut in amoenitate animae forent post vitam: Serv., _A._ v, 760. In lucis habitabant manes piorum: iii, 302; cf. ad i, 441; vi, 673. "My grave is in a grove, the pleasant haunt of birds," says a dead man ~o/phra kai\ ein A/ïdi terpno\n e/choimi to/pon~, _Epigr. Gr._ 546, 5-14.]

[74\5: Cf. the ins. from Keos, _SIG._ 877, 8-9. Eur. _IT._ 633 ff.: ~xanthô=| t' elai/ô| sô=ma so\n katasbe/sô, kai\ **. . . ga/nos xouthê=s meli/ssês es pura\n balô=~.]

[75\5: ~enagi/zein de\ bou=n ouk ei/asen~, Plu., _Sol._ 21.]

[76\5: ~prosphagi/ô|~ (at the funeral) ~chrê=sthai kata\ ta\ pa/tria~, _SIG._ 877, 13. In general, however, the sacrifice of animals at the graves of private individuals gradually became rarer and rarer: see Stengel, _Chthon. u. Todt._ 430 f.]

[77\5: Cf. esp. the ins. from Keos, l. 15 ff., 30. The ~egchutri/striai~ employed in old Athenian usage, [Pl.] _Min._ 315 C, seem to have been women who caught the blood of the sacrificed animals in bowls and purified the ~miaino/menoi~ with it. The name itself suggests it; to this effect is one among several other, clearly mistaken, explanations given by the Schol. to _Min._, loc. cit. (differently Sch. Ar., _Vesp._ 289).]

[78\5: ~peri\ ta\ pe/nthê . . . homopathei/a| tou= kekmêko/tos kolobou=men hêma=s autou\s tê=| te koura=| tô=n trichô=n kai\ tê=| tô=n stepha/nôn aphaire/sei~, Arist. _fr._ 108 (101) Rose.]

[79\5: ~peri/deipnon~. This is implied as universally occurring by Aen. Tact. 10, 5. This meal shared by the relatives (who alone are invited: Dem. 43, 62) must be meant by Heraklid., _Pol._ 30, 2, ~para\ toi=s Lo/krois odu/resthai ouk e/stin epi\ toi=s teleutê/sasin, all' epeida\n ekkomi/sôsin euôchou=ntai~.]

[80\5: ~hê hupodochê\ gi/gnetai hupo\ tou= apothano/ntos~, Artemid. 5, 82, p. 271, 10 H.]

[81\5: Cic., _Lg._ ii, 63 (cf. **~le/gein epide/xia epi\ tethnêko/ti~, Anaxandr. ap. Ath. 464 A.). On the other {195} hand, mentiri nefas erat. And yet ~eiô/thesan hoi palaioi\ en toi=s peridei/pnois to\n teleutêko/ta epainei=n, kai\ ei phau=los ê=n~, Zenob. v, 28, and other Paroemiogr.--Besides this the lamentation for the dead may have been renewed at the various commemorations of the dead; the funeral regulation of the Labyadai at Delphi forbids expressly (not the festival but) the funeral dirge on such occasions: l. 46 ff. ~mêde\ ta=| husterai/a|~ (after the burial, on which day the ~peri/deipnon~ was held) ~mêde\ en tai=s deka/tais mêd' en toi=s eniautoi=[s]~ (we should expect rather ~en t. _eniauti/ois_~, cf. nn. 88-92 of this chap.) ~mê/t' oimô/zen mê/t' ototu/zen~.]

[82\5: These meals given to the dead took place at the grave itself. Ar., _Lys._ 612 f. ~hê/xei soi . . .~; Is. 8, 39, ~ta\ e/nata epê/negka~.]

[83\5: The ~tri/ta~ and ~e/nata~, at any rate, were held on the third and ninth days after the funeral, and not after the day of death. It is true the references to these sacrifices in Ar., _Lys._ 612 ff., Is., etc., do not make this very clear. But if the ~tri/ta~ had taken place on the third day after death it would have coincided with the ~ekphora/~ itself, which is against all the evidence. Further, the Roman _novemdiale_, which was clearly modelled on Greek custom, also occurred on the ninth day after the burial, acc. to the unequivocal testimony of Porph. on Hor., _Epod._ xvii, 48 (nona die quam sepultus est). This is also deducible from Vg., _A._ v, 46 ff., and 105; cf. also Ap., _M._ ix, 31.]

[84\5: That this was the object of the Novemdialia festival at Rome is shown clearly enough by the evidence; that the same was true of Greece is at least highly probable; cf. K. O. Müller, _Aesch. Eum._, p. 143 [120 E.T.]. Leist, _Graecoitalische Rechts._, p. 34.--Nine is evidently a round number, esp. in Homer; i.e. the division of periods of time into groups of nine was in antiquity a very common and familiar practice. Cf. now, Kaegi, _Die Neunzahl bei den Ostariern_, Phil. Abh. f. Schweitzer-Sidler, 50 ff. Mourning customs were really intended to ward off maleficent action on the part of the dead. They lasted as a rule as long as the return of the soul of the dead was to be feared (esp. so in India: see Oldenberg, _Rel. d. Veda_, p. 589), and acc. to ancient belief the soul can return once more on the ninth day after death. See below, chap. xiv, ii, n. 154.]

[85\5: A ~chro/nos pe/nthous~ of eleven days, the mourning concluded with a sacrifice to Demeter: Plu., _Lyc._ 27; cf. Hdt. vi, 58 fin. The Labyadai at Delphi celebrate the _tenth_ day after the funeral as a feast of the dead; see above, n. 81 of this chapter. This mourning period is not otherwise demonstrable for Greece (_SIG._ 633, 5, is different), but it is met with again among the Indians and Persians (cf. Kaegi, p. 5, 11), and may be primitive.]

[86\5: Lex. Rh., in _AB._ 268, 19 ff.; Phot. a little differently: ~kathe/dra; tê=| triakostê=| (prô/tê|~ Phot.: ~A~ instead of ~L~) ~hême/ra| tou= apothano/ntos hoi prosê/kontes suneltho/ntes koinê=| edeipnou=n epi\ tô=| apothano/nti--kai\ tou=to kathe/dra ekalei=to~ (Phot. adds: ~ho/ti kathezo/menoi edei/pnoun kai\ ta\ nomizo/mena eplê/roun;) ê=san de\ kathe/drai te/ssares~ (the last clause is absent from Phot.) It was a meal shared by the relatives of the dead in honour of the dead and held "on the thirtieth day"; possibly nothing more nor less than the oft-mentioned ~triaka/des~. The guests eat their food _sitting_ after the old custom prevailing in Homeric times and always observed by women; as applied to men it survived in Crete only, see Müller, _Dorians_, ii, 284. Perhaps this primitive attitude preserved in cultus is what we see in the Spartan sculptured reliefs representing "feasts of the dead" where the figures are _seated_. There were four such ~kathe/drai~, i.e. the period of mourning extended over four months: thus it was the law in Gambreion (_SIG._ 879, 11 ff.) that {196} mourning might last at the most three months, or in the case of women four. We often hear of monthly repetitions of the feasts of the dead: monthly celebration of the ~eika/des~ for Epicurus in acc. with his will, D.L. x, 18; cf. Cic., _Fin._ ii, 101; Plin. 35, 5; ~kata\ mê=na~ sacrifice to the deified Ptolemies, _CIG._ 4697, 48. (In India, too, the sacrifices to the dead on the thirtieth of the month were several times repeated: Kaegi, 7; 11.)]

[87\5: The Lexicographers, Harp., Phot., etc. (_AB._ 308, 5, is ambiguous, too), speak of the ~triaka/s~ in a way that makes it hard to see whether they mean the traditional sacrifice of the dead taking place regularly on the thirtieth day of the month, or a special offering on the thirtieth day after burial or after the day of death (~hê triakostê\ hême/ra dia\ tou= thana/tou~ Harp., Phot. ~meta\ tha/naton~ is the correction of Schömann on Is., p. 219, but ~dia\ thana/tou~ is formed, not quite correctly, on the analogy of ~dia\ chro/nou, dia\ me/sou~ [even ~dia\ progo/nôn~ "since the time of our forefathers", Polyb. 21, 21, 4], and must mean the same thing, viz. "after death"). But in Lys. 1, 14, we have the idea clearly expressed that the period of mourning should last till the thirtieth day (see Becker, _Char._^2 3, 117 E.T.^3, p. 398), and in this case it is natural to suppose that the ~triaka/des~ corresponding with the ~tri/ta~ and ~e/nata~, took place on the thirtieth day after burial. So, too, the ins. from Keos, _SIG._ 877, 21, ~epi\ tô=| thano/nti triêko/stia mê\ poiei=n~. For Argos see Plu., _Q. Gr._ 24, p. 296 F. It is evident that the ~triaka/des~ were not so firmly established in Athens (at least in the fourth century) as the ~tri/ta~ and ~e/nata~: e.g. Isaeus generally only refers to these last as the indispensable ~nomizo/mena~: 2, 36-7; 8, 39. It appears also that it is wrong to regard the ~triaka/des~ as otherwise exactly on a footing with the ~tr.~ and ~e/nata~, as is generally done. The last-mentioned pair were sacrifices to the dead, the ~triaka/des~ seems to have been a commemorative banquet of the living.--These fixed periods of mourning like so much else in the cult of the dead may have been handed down by tradition from a very early time. The third, ninth (or tenth), and thirtieth days after the funeral marked stages in the gradually diminishing "uncleanness" of the relatives of the dead, and this existed, it appears, already in "Indo-Germanic" times. Until the ninth day the relatives were still in contact with the departed and were consequently "unclean"; the thirtieth day puts an end to this, and is a memorial festival (though often repeated); cf. Kaegi, pp. 5, 10, 12 (of the separate edition); Oldenberg, 578. In Christian usage, sanctioned by the church, the third, ninth, and fortieth days after death or after burial were very early observed as memorial days (sometimes third, seventh, thirtieth; cf. Rochholz, _D. Gl. u. Brauch_, i, 203), and survive in some cases to the present day: see _Ac. Soc. ph. Lips._ v, 304 f.]

[88\5: ~ta\ neku/sia tê=| triaka/di a/getai~: Plu., _Prov. Alex._ viii, p. 6, 10 Crus. (App. prov. Vat. in Schneidewin's Crit. App. to Diogen. viii, 39). There was a festival kept by servants in honour of their dead masters (~allathea/des~, _GDI._ 1731, 10; 1775, 29; 1796, 6) twice monthly, at the ~_noumêni/a_~ and on the seventh: _GDI._ 1801, 6-7 Delphi. The last three days of the month are at Athens sacred to the inhabitants of the lower world and therefore ~apophra/des~: _EM._ 131, 13 f.; _E. Gud._ 70, 3 ff.; cf. Lys., _fr._ 53. On these days banquets were prepared, at the crossroads, etc., for Hekate (acc. to Ath. 325 A, for Hekate ~kai\ toi=s apotropai/ois~ (Plu., _Symp._ 7, 6, p. 709 A). The souls of the dead were then not forgotten. Sch. Pl., _Lg._ vii, 800 D, ~apophra/des hême/rai en hai=s toi=s katoichome/nois choa\s epiphe/rousin~.] {197}

[89\5: The son ~enagi/zei kath' he/kaston eniauto/n~ to his dead father, Is. 2, 46. This sacrifice to the dead, celebrated once every year (~thusi/a epe/teios~ offered by a ~pai=s patri/~), is the festival of the _~Gene/sia~_, in vogue acc. to Hdt. iv, 26, among the Greeks, everywhere as it appears. As the name shows this festival fell on the birthday of the honoured ancestor as it recurred (not on the day of his death as Amm. pp. 34-5 Valck. incorrectly says); cf. Schol. Pl., _Alc._ i, 121 C. So Epicurus in his will (D.L. x, 18) provides for a yearly celebration of his birthday. (Similar foundation, _CIG._ 3417.) The Koans ~enagi/zousi~ to Hippokrates every year on the 27th Agrianos as his birthday: Soran., _V.Hp._, p. 450, 13-14 West. Hero-festivals, too, fall on the birthday of the Hero: Plu., _Arat._ 53. Gods have their feast-days and their birthdays combined; thus Hermes has his on the 4th of the month, Artemis on the 6th, Apollo on the 7th, and so on. These are birthday festivals repeated every month. In the second century at Sestos, following such precedents, there was held ~ta\ gene/thlia tou= basile/ôs~ (one of the deified Attalids) ~kath' he/kaston mê=na~: _SIG._^1 246, 36. Celebration of the ~e/mmênos gene/sios~ of the ruling Emperor: _Ins. Perg._ ii, 374 B, 14. Even in later times in imitation of heathen usage the Kephallenians still honour Epiphanes, son of Karpokrates, ~kata\ _noumêni/an, gene/thlion_ apothe/ôsin~, Clem. Al., _Str._ iii, p. 511 P.]

[90\5: This is the public festival meant by Phryn., p. 103 Lob. = 83, p. 184 Ruth., when, to distinguish it from the birthday celebrations of living persons, ~gene/thlia~ (which did not become common till later), he calls the ~Gene/sia, Athê/nêsin heortê/ [pe/nthimos~ add. Meursius; cf. Hesych. ~gene/sia~; _AB._ 231, 19]. The Antiatticista, in his rather absurd polemic against Phryn. (p. 86, 20 ff.), adds the still clearer statement (taken from Solon's ~a/xones~ and Philochoros) that the ~heortê\ dêmotelê/s~ of the ~Gene/sia~ at Athens was held on the 5th Boedromion. There is not the slightest reason for doubting the correctness of this statement (as many have done). In Rome, too, besides the many moveable _parentalia_ of the families there was an official and public Parentalia held every year (in Feb.). Similarly in ancient India: Oldenberg, 550, 3.]

[91\5: The ~Neme/seia~ is mentioned by Dem. 41, 11. The context suggests a rite performed by a daughter in honour of her dead father. It is a quite certainly correct _conjecture_ (~mê/pote--~) of the Lexicog. that the _Nemeseia_ may be a festival of the dead (see Harp. s.v. _AB._ 282, 32: both glosses combined in Phot. Suid. ~neme/sia~). It is clear, however, that they knew nothing further about it. Mommsen declares (_Heort._ 209) the _Nemeseia_ to have been "without doubt" identical with the ~Gene/sia~. I see no reason at all for supposing so.--The name ~neme/seia~ characterizes it as a festival dedicated to the "wrath" of the dead, to the ~ne/mesis tô=n thano/ntôn~, Soph., _El._ 792; ~phthime/nôn ôkuta/tê ne/mesis~, _Epigr. Gr._ 119; cf. 195--this easily becomes a personified ~Ne/mesis~: ~e/sti ga\r en phthime/nois Ne/mesis me/ga~, _Epigr. Gr._ 367, 9. The cult of the dead, like the cult of the underworld in general, is always apotropaic in character (placantur sacrificiis ne noceant, Serv., _A._ iii, 63): the Nemeseia must then have been apotropaic in intention too.]

[92\5: At Apollonia in Chalcidice there was a yearly custom to ~ta\ no/mima suntelei=n toi=s teleutê/sasin~ in early times in Elaphebolion, later in Anthesterion: Hegesand. ap. Ath. 334 F.--~eniau/sia~, a yearly festival of the dead (but perhaps rather to be taken as _sacra privata_) in Keos: _SIG._ 878.--There is a month called ~Neku/sios~ in Knossos (and common to the whole of Crete acc. to the ~Hêmerolo/gion~ Flor. [Corsini, _Fast. Att._ ii, 428]). It took its name from a feast of the dead (~neku/sia~ is mentioned along with ~peri/deipna~, as a regular expression by Artemid. {193} iv, 81, p. 249, 9 H.): for this see "Treaties of Kretan cities", _BCH._ 1879, 294, l. 56 f.--There was a month ~Agriô/nios~ or ~Agria/nios~ in Boeotia and even in Byzantium, Kalymna, Kos, Rhodos: Hesych. ~Agria/nia; _neku/sia_ para\ Argei/ois kai\ agô=nes en _Thê/bais_~ (as to the _Agon_ at the A. see the ins. from Thebes, _Ath. Mitt._ vii, 349).--~etelei=to de\ kai\ thusi/a toi=s nekroi=s en Kori/nthô|, di' hê\n tê=s po/leôs en toi=s mnê/masin ou/sês epe/rchetai ho Alê/tês ktl.~ Sch. Pi. _N._ vii, 155.]

[93\5: Hesych. ~miarai\ hême/rai~. Phot. ~miara\ hême/ra~.]

[94\5: ~sugkleisthê=nai ta\ hiera\~ during the _Choes_: Phanodem. ap. Ath. 437 C.]

[95\5: Phot. ~miara\ hême/ra; en toi=s Chousi\n Anthestêriô=nos mêno/s, en hô=|~ (~en hoi=s~?) ~dokou=sin hai psuchai\ tô=n teleutêsa/ntôn anie/nai, rha/mnon he/ôthen emasô=nto, kai\ pi/ttê| ta\s thu/ras e/chrion. Rha/mnos; phuto/n, ho\ en toi=s Chousi\n hôs alexipha/rmakon emasô=nto he/ôthen; kai\ pi/ttê| echri/onto ta\ sô/mata~ (leg. ~dô/mata); ami/antos ga\r hau/tê; dio\ kai\ en **tai=s gene/sesi tô=n paidi/ôn chri/ousi ta\s oiki/as eis ape/lasin tô=n daimo/nôn~.--I do not recollect having read elsewhere of pitch as a protection against malevolent spirits or of its use in Greek superstitious practices. (The _flame_ and _smoke_ of burning pitch--and of ~a/sphaltos~: Diph. _fr._ 126 [ii, p. 577 K.] ap. Clem. Al. _Str._ 7, 4, 26, p. 844 P.--as of sulphur, belong to the region of magic and are ~katharmoi/~: but that is a different matter.--~ta\ katha/rsia; tau=ta de/ esti da=|des kai\ thei=on kai\ a/sphaltos~, Zos. ii, 5, p. 67, 19 Bk.). Better known is the magic protective power of the ~rha/mnos~. It is of use against ~pha/rmaka~ and ~phanta/smata~, and is therefore hung up on the doors ~en toi=s enagi/smasi~: Sch. Nic., _Th._ 860 (Euphorion and Sophnon had also referred to this superstition). Cf. Anon., _de Vir. Herb._ 9-13, 20 ff., and the Scholia (p. 486, ed. Haupt., _Opusc._ 2); also Dioscorides i, 119 fin. (~rha/mnos~ also frightens away poisonous beasts: Diosc. iii, 12. In the same way marjoram and scilla are equally available against daimones and ~iobo/la~.) At Rome the hawthorn (_spina alba_) is specially known for these purificatory properties. Ovid, _F._ vi, 129 (at a wedding procession a torch made of a branch of the _spina alba_ is used [Fest. 245_a_, 3 Mü.], and this is _purgationis causa_: Varro ap. Charis., p. 144, 22 K.).--At the _Choes_ the ~rha/mnos~ (i.e. twigs or leaves of it) is _chewed_: this is in order that its powers may be absorbed into the chewer's own body. The Superstitious man (like the Pythia) puts laurel leaves in his mouth ~kai\ hou/tô tê\n hême/ran peripatei=~: also at the _Choes_? Thphr., _Ch._ 16. The laurel in addition to its other marvellous properties can also drive off spirits: ~e/ntha a\n hê=| da/phnê, ekpodô\n dai/mones~, _Gp._ 11, 2, 5-7. Lyd., _Mens._ 4, 4, p. 68, 9 Wü.]

[96\5: Sch. Ar., _Ach._ 961, p. 26, 8 ff. Dübn.--At the ~nekrô=n dei=pna~ the souls of the departed members of the family are summoned by the ~prosê/kontes~ to come and take their share (with the single exception of those who have hanged themselves): Artemid. i, 4, p. 11, 10 f. H. (cf. what is said of the ~neku/sia~ in Bithynia by Arr. ap. Eust., ~i~ 65, p. 1615). The same thing must have happened at the Anthesteria.]

[97\5: Worshippers offered the ~chu/tran panspermi/as~ to Hermes ~hilasko/menoi to\n Hermê=n kai\ peri\ tô=n apothano/ntôn~, Sch. Ar., _Ach._ 1076 (Didymus from Theopomp.)--~tou\s to/te paragenome/nous~ (read ~periginome/nous~, viz. from the Flood) ~hupe\r tô=n apothano/ntôn hila/sasthai to\n Hermê=n~, Sch. Ar., _Ran._ 218 (after Theop.). The offering was merely placed ready for the recipients (not sent up to heaven in flames and smoke) as was customary at the Theoxenia (esp. those in honour of chthonic deities) and in offerings made to Heroes. The ~Heka/tês dei=pna~ were similar, and particularly the offerings to the Erinyes: ~ta\ pempo/mena autai=s hiera\ po/pana kai\ ga/la en a/ggesi keramei/ois~, Sch. Aeschin. i, 188.] {199}

[98\5: _EM._ 774, 56: ~Hudropho/ria; heortê\ Athê/nêsi pe/nthimos~ (so far Hesych. too, s.v.) ~epi\ toi=s en tô=| kataklusmô=| apolome/nois~. The feast of _Chytrai_ was also supposed to have been a commemoration of Deucalion's Flood. The flood was said to have subsided finally through a cleft in the earth in the Temple of ~Gê= Olumpi/a~: Paus. 1, 18, 7. Pausanias adds, ~esba/llousin es auto\~ (the chasm) ~ana\ pa=n e/tos a/lphita purô=n me/liti ma/xantes~. It is at least natural, with Preller, _Dem. u. Pers._ 229, n., to see in the _Hydrophoria_ a part of which is described by Pausanias, a festival related to the Chytrai. Connexion of the dead with ~Gê=~ in the ~Gene/sia~ too: Hesych. s.v.--~Hudropho/ria~ a feast of Apollo at Aegina: Sch. Pi., _N._ v, 81 (fanciful remarks thereon by K. O. Müller, in _Aesch. Eum._, p. 141 [116 E.T.]).]

[99\5: Ovid's account of the _Lemuria_ at Rome, _F._ v, shows the closest resemblances to the Athen. customs. The spirits are finally driven out: Manes exite paterni! (443). The same happens in the festivals of the dead in many places: esp. in India, Oldenberg, 553; cf. also the Esthonian customs: Grimm, p. 1844, n. 42. A parallel from ancient Prussia is given (after Joh. Meletius, 1551) by Ch. Hartknoch, in _Alt- u. Neues Preussen_, 1684, pp. 187-8. There on the third, sixth, ninth, and fortieth day after the funeral a banquet of the relatives of the dead was held. The souls of the dead were invited and (with other souls as well) entertained. "When the feasting was ended the priest rose from the table and swept out the house, driving forth the souls of the dead as though he were driving out fleas, saying the while: 'Ye have eaten and drunk, O ye Blessed Ones, depart hence! depart hence!'" At the close of the lantern-feast to the dead in Nagasaki (Japan) when the entertainment of the souls was over a great noise was made all over the house "so that no single soul should remain behind and haunt the place--they must be driven out without mercy": _Preuss. Exped. nach Ostasien_, ii, 22. Other examples of the expulsion of souls given in Tylor, ii, 199. The ghosts were thought of in a thoroughly materialistic fashion, and driven out by waving clubs in the air, swinging torches, etc., as in the case of the ~xenikoi\ theoi/~ of the Kaunians: Hdt. i, 172. Compare with this the prayers addressed to Herakles in the Orphic Hymns (reproducing ancient superstitions as frequently): ~elthe\ ma/kar . . . exe/lason de\ kaka\s _a/tas, kla/don en cheri\ pa/llôn_, ptênoi=s t' iobo/lois _kê=ras_ chalepa\s apo/pempe~ (12, 15-16). It will be clear how near such personified ~a=tai~ and ~kê=res~ are to the angry "souls", from which in fact they have arisen; cf. besides, Orph., _H._ 11, 23; 14, 14; 36, 16; 71, 11.--~kê=ras apodiopompei=sthai~, Plu., _Lys._ 17.]

[100\5: ~thu/raze _Kê=res_, ouk e/t' Anthestê/ria~. This is the correct wording of the formula; ~Ka=res~ the form common later and explained with mistaken ingenuity. Photius has it right and explains, ~hôs kata\ tê\n po/lin toi=s Anthestêri/ous tô=n _psuchô=n_ perierchome/nôn.--Kê=res~--is clearly a most primitive equivalent for ~psuchai/~ which has become almost completely obscured in Homer, though it dimly appears in ~B~ 302, ~x~ 207, where the ~Kê=res~ are spoken of as those who carry away other ~psuchai/~ to Hades. Aeschylus knew it (presumably from old Attic speech) and simply substituted ~psuchai/~ for the Keres in the fate-weighing scene in Homer, thus turning the Kerostasia into a ~Psuchostasi/a~ (to the surprise of the Schol. A, ~Th~ 70; A.B. ~Ch~ 209). See O. Crusius in Ersch-Gruber, "Keren," 2, 35, 265-7 [Aesch. _fr._ 279 Sidg.].]

[101\5: Cf. the collections in Pottier, _Les lécythes blancs attiques à représ. funér._, p. 57, 70 ff.]

[102\5: Though not all of them, some at any rate of the scenes in which {200} lyre-playing at a grave is represented on a lekythos are to be taken as implying that the living provide music for the entertainment of the dead: see Furtwängler on the _Sammlung Saburoff._ i, Pl. lx.]

[103\5: See **Benndorf, _Sicil. u. unterital. Vasenb._, p. 33.]

[104\5: How the mode of conceiving the spiritual activity of the dead and consequently the cult of the dead was at first more solemn and awestruck and completely on a par with the cult of the ~chtho/nioi~; how in the course of time the relations of the living to the departed became more familiar and the cult of the dead correspondingly less awe-inspiring, more piously protective in character than apotropaic--all this is set out in more detail by P. Stengel, _Chthonisch. u. Todtencult_ [Festschrift für Friedländer], p. 414 ff.]

[105\5: The reliefs represent a man enthroned, sometimes alone, sometimes with a woman beside him, stretching out a kantharos to receive the offerings. As a rule he is approached by a group of worshippers represented on a smaller scale. The earliest examples of these reliefs were found in Sparta and go back to the sixth century. Since the investigations of Milchhöfer especially, they are now generally recognised as representing the family worship of the dead. They are the forerunners of the representations of similar food-offerings in which (following later custom) the Hero is lying on a _kline_ and receiving his worshippers. (That this class of reliefs representing "banquets of the dead" was also sacrificial in character is proved clearly by the presence of the worshippers who in many cases lead sacrificial victims. H. v. Fritze in _Ath. Mitt._ '96, p. 347 ff., supposes that they are intended to represent not sacrifices but the ~sumpo/sion~ which the dead person is to enjoy in the after life. But he can only account for the presence of the worshippers in such a forced and unnatural way [p. 356 ff.], that this alone seems to refute his theory. ~purami/des~ and incense among the offerings made do not by any means contradict its nature as a sacrifice to the dead.) The same is the meaning of the reliefs found esp. in Boeotia in which the person worshipped is seated on a horse, or leading a horse, and accepting offerings (summary by Wolters, _Archäol. Zeitung_, 1882, p. 299 ff.; cf. also Gardner, _JHS._ 1884, pp. 107-42; Furtwängler, _Samml. Sab._ i, p. 23). The worshippers bring pomegranates, a cock (e.g. _Ath. Mitt._ ii, Pl. 20-2), a pig (cock and pig on Theban relief: _A. Mitt._ iii, 377; pig on Boeotian rel.: _A. Mitt._ iv, Pl. 17, 2), a ram (rel. from Patras: _A. Mitt._ iv, 125 f.; cf. the ram's head on a grave monument from the neighbourhood of Argos, _A. Mitt._ viii, 141). All these gifts are of the kind proper to the underworld. We know the pomegranate as food of the ~chtho/nioi~ from the Hymn to Demeter; the pig and ram are the main constituents of sacrifice made to the ~chtho/nioi~ and burnt in cathartic or hilastic (propitiatory) ceremonial. In such cases the cock, of course, does not appear because it was sacred to Helios and Selene (cf. D.L. viii, 34; Iamb., _VP._ 84), but because it was a sacrificial animal of the ~chtho/nioi~ (and of Asklepios) and for the same reason much used in necromancy, spirit-raising, and magic [Dieterich, _Pap. mag._ 185, 3]. As such it was forbidden food to the Mystai of Demeter at Eleusis: Porph., _Abs._ 4, 16, p. 255, 5 N. Sch. Luc., _D. Me._ 7, 4, p. 280, 23 Rabe--Anyone who partakes of the food of the underworld spirits is forfeit to them. On their side the reclining or enthroned spirits of the dead on these reliefs are brought into conjunction with a snake (_A. Mitt._ ii, Pl. 20-2; viii, Pl. 18, 1, etc.), a dog, or a horse (sometimes a horse's head only occurs). The snake is the well-known symbol of the Hero: the {201} dog and the horse certainly do not represent victims as Gardner, p. 131, thinks--their real meaning has not yet been made out. The horse occurs sometimes by the side of women and therefore can hardly symbolize a knight's status. I regard it as also a symbol of the departed as now having entered the spirit-world, like the snake too (Grimm understands it differently: p. 841 f., 844). I can form no decided opinion as to the dog: it is not likely to be mere genre--any more than anything else in these sculptures.]

[106\5: The ~choai/, ha/per nekroi=si meiliktê/ria~, of wine, honey, water, or oil, which are offered in Tragedy by children at the grave of a father--A. _Pers._ 609 ff.; _Ch._ 84 ff.; E., _IT._ 159 ff.--are modelled upon the food offerings to the dead in real life. Honey and water (~meli/kraton~) were always the chief ingredients: cf. Stengel, _Philolog._ 39, 378 ff.; _Jahr. f. Phil._ 1887, p. 653. The ritual at the pouring of an ~apo/nimma~--essentially a cathartic libation-sacrifice but also offered ~eis timê\n toi=s nekroi=s~ is described by Kleidemos ~en tô=| Exêgêtikô=|~ (the quotation is not complete, Ath. 409 E f. (Striking similarities in ritual and language in Indian sacrifice to the dead: Oldenberg, _Rel. d. Ved._ 550. Something extremely primitive may be preserved in these uses.) The same is the meaning of the ~chtho/nia loutra\ toi=s nekroi=s epiphero/mena~, Zenob. vi, 45, etc. These things have nothing to do with the ~Hudropho/ria~, as some have thought.]

[107\5: The regular animal used as victim in ~enagi/smata~ for the dead is a sheep; other animals occur less frequently. The black colour is general; the sacrifice was burnt completely: cf. the instances collected by Stengel, _Ztschr. f. Gymnasi._, 1880, p. 743 f., _Jahrb. f. Phil._ 1882, p. 322 f.; '83, p. 375.--Phot. ~kausto/n; karpôto\n ho\ enagi/zetai toi=s teteleutêko/sin~ (cf. Hesych. ~kauto/n~).--The ~se/linon~ (a plant sacred to the dead; see above, n. 40) probably served as food for the dead at the ~tri/ta~ and other banquets "of the dead", and was not used as food for the living at the ~peri/deipnon~; consequently it might never be used at the meals of the living: Plin. 20, 113, following Chrysippos and Dionysios. (In the mysteries of the Kabeiroi the ~anaktotele/stai~ had a special reason of their own for forbidding parsley ~auto/rizon epi\ trape/zês tithe/nai~, Clem. Al., _Protr._ ii, p. 16 P.)]

[108\5: The food offered is a meal for the dead: A., _Ch._ 483 ff. (cf. Luc., _Luct._ 9; _Char._ 22). The dead man is summoned to come and drink the offerings (~elthe\ d' hôs pi/ê|s~): E., _Hec._ 535 ff. It was the general opinion that ~ho nekro\s pi/etai~ of the drink offerings (_AP._ xi, 8; _Epigr. Gr._ 646, 12), ~hai ga\r choai\ parapsuchê/ tis eisephe/reto toi=s eidô/lois tô=n teteleutêko/tôn ktl.~ Lyd., _Mens._ 4, 31, p. 90 Wü.]

[109\5: It feels when friends or enemies approach its grave: Is. 9, 4, 19.]

[110\5: Sch. Ar., _Av._ 1490 (referring to the ~Titano/panes~ of Myrtilos, a poet of the Old Comedy). Phot. ~krei/ttones~ (Hesych. ~krei/ttonas~) ~hoi hê/rôes; dokou=si de\ kakôtikoi\ ei=nai; di' ho\ kai\ hoi ta\ hêrô=|a pario/ntes siôpô=sin. (hê/rôes~ and ~hêrô=|a~ here, in accordance with the usage common in later times, simply = ~teteleutêko/tes~ and ~mnê/mata~ of the usual kind.) Since a Hero in the higher sense was buried there it was customary to pass in silence the monument, e.g., of Narkissos, ~hê/rôs Sigêlo/s~: Str. 404 (so also the grove and chasm of Kolonos where the Erinyes dwell: S., _OC._ 130 ff.). The feeling underlying this is easy to understand, and the custom therefore is widespread: e.g. among West African negroes, Réville, _Relig. des peuples non civil._ i, 73. It is a German superstition (Grimm, p. 1811, n. 830). "Never call the dead by name or you may _cry them up_".]

[111\5: Pl., _Phd._ 81 CD. The ~psuchê/ . . . hô/sper le/getai peri\ ta\ mnê/mata/ te {202} kai\ tou\s ta/phous kulindome/nê; peri\ ha\ dê\ kai\ _ô/phthê_ a/tta psuchô=n skioeidê= phanta/smata, ktl.~]

[112\5: See O. Jahn, _Archäol. Beitr._ 128 ff.; Benndorf, _Griech. u. sicil. Vasenb._, p. 33 f., p. 65 (on Pl. 14, 32); also Pottier, _Lécythes blancs_, p. 65, 2 (who proposes a doubtful theory of a supposed _Éros funèbre_, p. 76 ff.).]

[113\5: We frequently on vases see the occupant of a grave represented in the form of a snake at the foot of his tomb, etc.; e.g. on the _Prothesis_ vase, _Monum. d. Instit._ viii, 4, 5, and often, see Luckenbach, _Jahrb. f. Phil._, Suppl. ii, 500.--We have already met with snakes as a favourite form of incarnation chosen by ~chtho/nioi~ of all kinds, deities of the underworld, Heroes, and the ordinary dead, and we shall frequently meet with the same thing again. Here we need only refer to Photius ~hê/rôs poiki/los--dia\ to\ tou\s o/pheis poiki/lous o/ntas hê/rôas kalei=sthai~.]

[114\5: What falls to the ground belongs to the ~hê/rôes~ ( = souls of the dead): Ar. ~Hê/rôes~ _fr._ 305 H. and G. ~toi=s teteleutêko/si tô=n phi/lôn ape/nemon ta\ pi/ptonta tê=s trophê=s apo\ tô=n trapezô=n~ (alluded to by Eur. in the _Belleroph._ [_Stheneb. fr._ 667 Din.]), ap. Ath. 427 E. This is the origin of the Pythagorean ~su/mbolon~--as usual founded on ancient belief about the soul--~ta\ peso/nta apo\ trapezê=s mê\ anairei=sthai~, D.L. viii, 34. Suid. ~Puthago/ra ta\ su/mbola~. This superstition is also the reason for the ~no/mos~ said to have been current in Kroton, ~to\ peso\n epi\ tê\n gê=n kôlu/ôn anairei=sthai~, Iamb., _VP._ 126. Similar belief and custom in Rome: Plin. 28, 27. Among the ancient Prussians it was the custom not to pick up the fragments of food that fell to the ground at meal times, but to leave them for the "poor" souls that have no blood-relations or friends left behind in the world to look after them; see Chr. Hartknoch, _Alt u. Neues Preussen_, p. 188. Similar customs elsewhere: Spencer, _Princ. of Sociol._ i, 281.]

[115\5: Solonian law: D. 20, 104; 40, 49. Plu., _Sol._ 21, ~So/lônos ho kôlu/ôn no/mos to\n tethnêko/ta kakô=s agoreu/ein. kai\ ga\r ho/sion tou\s methestêko/tas _hierou\s_ nomi/zein~. This reminds us of the words of Arist., _Eudem. fr._ 37 [44] given in Plu., _C. Apoll._ 27, p. 115 B, ~to\ pseu/sasthai/ ti kata\ tô=n teteleukêko/tôn kai\ to\ blasphêmei=n ouch ho/sion hôs kata\ beltio/nôn kai\ kreitto/nôn ê/dê gegono/tôn~ (Chilon ap. Stob., _Fl._ 125, 15 M.: ~to\n teteleukêko/ta mê\ kakolo/gei alla\ maka/rize~). A very extreme form of outrage is ~pseu/sasthai kata\ tou= teleutê/santos~: Is. 9, 6; 23; 26. (The ~kakolo/gos~ is

## particularly liable to ~kaka\ eipei=n peri\ tô=n teteleutêko/tôn~,

Thphr., _Char._ 28.) The heir of the dead man has the duty of carrying out the cult of the dead man's soul, and this includes the legal prosecution of slanderers of the dead: see Meier and Schömann, _Att. Process_^2, p. 630.]

[116\5: Ar., _Tagenist. fr._ **485, 12, says of the dead, ~kai\ thu/ome/n g' autoi=si toi=s enagi/smasin, hô/sper _theoi=sin_ ktl.~]

[117\5: ~krei/ttones~ Hesych. Phot. s.v. Arist. ap. Plu., _C. Apoll._ 27, p. 115 C.]

[118\5: ~hi/leôs e/chein (tou\s teleutê/santas)~: Pl., _Rp._ 427 B.]

[119\5: That the ~hê/rôes duso/rgêtoi kai\ chalepoi\ toi=s empela/zousi gi/gnontai~ (Sch. Ar., _Av._ 1490) applies equally to the "Heroes" properly so called--see above, chap. iv, § 11, the legends of the Hero Anagyros, the Hero of Temesa, etc.--and to those who gradually came to be called "Heroes" in later times by an extension of the term, viz. the souls of the dead in general--~chalepou\s kai\ plê/ktas tou\s hê/rôas nomi/zousi, kai\ ma=llon nu/ktôr ê\ meth' hême/ran~: Chamaileon ap. Ath. 461 C (and hence the precautions taken against nocturnal {203} apparitions: Ath. 149 C). Cf. Zenob. v, 60. Hesych. Phot. s. ~krei/ttones~.--That the ~hê/rôes~ do, and are responsible for, evil _only_ and never good (Sch. Ar., _Av._ 1490; Babr. 63) is a late belief; it does not apply either to Heroes or ordinary dead in the conceptions of earlier ages. Originally the "gods", just as much as Heroes and the dead, shared in the violent and malignant nature of the unseen. This was later confined more and more to the lower classes of the ~krei/ttones~ and came to be attached to them so exclusively that it could in the end be regarded as a sufficient ground of distinction between them and the gods (as it certainly had not been to start with) that malice is excluded from the nature of the gods and benevolence on the contrary from that of Heroes and the dead.]

[120\5: Ar., _Tagenist. fr._ **485, 13: ~kai\ choa/s ge cheo/menoi~ (to the dead) ~aitou/meth' autou\s ta\ _kala\_ deu=r' _anie/nai_~ (intended as a ~paroimi/a~ or at any rate imitated from a tragedian--apostrophe to a dead woman ~ekei= ble/pousa, deu=r' ani/ei tagatha/~, Sch. Ar., _Ran._ 1462--and reproduced in this passage by the interpolator of Aristoph.). This "sending-up blessings from below" is to be understood in the widest sense (cf. A., _Pers._ 222); but it is natural to be reminded by such a prayer to ~anie/nai tagatha/~ of Demeter ~anêsidô/ra~ (Paus. 1, 31, 4; Plu., _Smp._ 9, 14, 4, p. 745 A), and of ~Gê= anêsidô/ra. dia\ to\ _karpou\s_ anie/nai~ (Hesych.); S., _OT._ 269, ~eu/chomai theou\s mê/t' a/roton autoi=s gê=s anie/nai tina/~.--That the dead who dwell beneath the ground were really expected to assist the growth of the soil we may learn especially from a very interesting statement in the Hippocratic work ~peri\ enupni/ôn~ (ii, p. 14 Kühn; vi, p. 658 Littré [~p. diai/tês~ iv, 92]). If a person in his dream sees ~apothano/ntas~ dressed in white, offering something, that is a good omen: ~apo\ ga\r tô=n apothano/ntôn hai trophai\ kai\ auxêsies kai\ spe/rmata gi/nontai~. There was a custom at Athens of strewing seeds of all kinds over the newly-made grave: Isigon., _Mir._ 67; Cic., _Lg._ ii, 63. The reason for this (evidently religious) is variously given (another, no more convincing, is suggested by K. O. Müller, _Kl. Schr._ ii, 302 f.). It seems most natural to suppose that the seed of the earth is put under the protection of the souls of dead who have now themselves become spirits inhabiting the earth. (Note besides the entirely similar custom in ancient India, Oldenberg, _Rel. d. Veda_, 582.)]

[121\5: Electra in A., _Ch._ 486 ff., makes a vow to the soul of her father: ~kagô\ _choa/s_ soi tê=s emê=s pagklêri/as oi/sô patrô/|ôn ek do/môn _gamêli/ous_; pa/ntôn de\ prô=ton to/nde presbeu/sô ta/phon~.--As chthonic powers the Erinyes also send blessings on agriculture and the bringing-up of children. _Rh. Mus._ 50, 21. Prayer was also made to ~Gê=~ by those who desired to have children.]

[122\5: ~Phano/dêmo/s phêsin ho/ti mo/noi Athênai=oi thu/ousin kai\ eu/chontai autoi=s hupe\r gene/seôs pai/dôn, ho/tan gamei=n me/llôsin~, Phot. Suid. ~tritopa/tores~.]

[123\5: The form of the word itself shows that the ~tritopa/tores~ are simply ~pro/pappoi~. ~tritopa/tôr~ is the earliest ancestor, ~ho pa/ppou ê\ tê/thês patê/r~ (Arist. ap. Poll. 3, 17). Just as ~mêtropa/tôr~ is ~ho mêtro\s patê/r~ and ~patropa/tôr ho patro\s patê/r~ (Poll. 3, 16), ~propatô/r~ the forefather, ~pseudopa/tôr = pseudê\s patê/r, epipa/tôr~ the stepfather (~mêtromê/têr = mêtro\s mê/têr~)--in the same way ~tritopa/tôr~ is the third forefather, the father of the ~patropa/tôr~, i.e. the ~pro/pappos~. The ~tritopa/tores~ have an alternative form ~tritopa/trei=s~, Philoch. ap. Suidas ~tritopa/tores~: _SIG._ 443; _Leg. Sacr._ i, p. 49, l. 32, 52: in Orphic _verse_ this form alone, and not ~tritopa/tores~, could be used: see Lobeck, _Agl._ 764. They were in fact the ~tri/toi pate/res~ (just as {204} the ~trite/ggonoi~ are the ~tri/toi e/ggonoi~, the ~e/ggonoi~ of the third generation). But the "third forefathers" are in fact the first ancestors (Lobeck, 763 f.), ~hoi propa/tores~ (Hesych.), ~hoi prô=toi _archêge/tai_~ (_AB._ 307, 16)--the ancestors of the individual first of all, his bodily ~gonei=s~ (the series of whom was not generally counted beyond the ~pro/pappos~--Is. 8, 32--i.e. the ~tritopa/tôr~), and then the "ancestors" of the human race in general (acc. to the explanation of Philoch. ap. Phot. Suid. ~tritop.~; cf. Welcker, _Götterl._ iii, 73).--We cannot do more than refer here to the completely analogous ideas of the ancient Indians about the "three-fathers": the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, as the Sapinda-fathers beyond whom the line of ancestry was not traced (Kaegi, _Neunzahl_, pp. 5, 6).]

[124\5: The Tritopatores are most distinctly referred to as ~a/nemoi~: Demon ap. Phot. Suid. ~tritop.~ cf. ~despo/tai ane/môn~ Phot. ~tritopa/tôr~; Tz. Lyc. 738. Orphic poetry made them ~thurôrou\s kai\ phu/lakas tô=n ane/môn~. This is already a free interpretation; the Attic belief, expressed by Demon, knows nothing about this. It can only have been learned invention that limited their number to three (as in the case of the originally unlimited number of Horai, Erinyes, etc.), and gave them definite names (Amalkeides, etc., Orph. _fr._ 240, Ab.) or identified them with the three Hekatoncheires (Kleidemos in the ~Exêg.~). The genuine and ancient belief about them can still be discerned through all the confusion of misinterpretation and misunderstanding, and according to this the ~tritopa/tores~ were the souls of ancestors who were also wind-spirits. People prayed for children to these spirits: and Lobeck, _Agl._ 755 ff., is right in connecting with this custom the Orphic doctrine that the soul of man comes into him from without with the wind. Even this, however, is only a speculative embellishment of the popular belief about the Tritopatores (which the Orphics cannot, as Welcker thinks, _Götterl._ iii, 71, have "invented": they only explained it after their fashion and consequently must have found it already existing). When we have stripped off all speculative accretions we find the Tritopatores to have been the souls of ancestors who have become wind-spirits and travel in the wind like other ~psuchai/~ (whose name even is derived from the breath of the wind). From these as from real ~pnoiai\ zô|ogo/noi~ their descendants hope for aid where the entry into life of a new ~psuchê/~ is concerned. It is not hard to understand the connexion between souls and wind-spirits; it is merely that such conceptions were rare among the Greeks and for that reason these isolated wind-spirits surviving in popular belief were turned into individual daimones--the Tritopatores no less than the Harpies (see _Rh. Mus._ 50, 3 ff.).]

[125\5: The words of Orestes in A., _Ch._ 483, give very naive expression to the belief. He calls to the soul of his father: ~hou/tô~ (if thou sendest me aid) ~ga\r a/n soi dai=tes e/nnomoi brotô=n ktizoi/at'; ei de\ mê/, par' eudei/pnois e/sei a/timos empu/roisi knisôtoi=s chthono/s~. Thus we see that the belief ridiculed by Luc., _Luct._ 9, was true of earlier times as well: ~tre/phontai de\ a/ra~ (the dead) ~tai=s par' hêmi=n choai=s kai\ toi=s kathagizome/nois epi\ tô=n ta/phôn; hôs ei/ tô| mê\ ei/ê kataleleimme/nos hupe\r gê=s phi/los ê\ suggenê/s, a/sitos hou=tos nekro\s kai\ limô/ttôn en autoi=s politeu/etai~.]

[126\5: Epicurus devotes by will certain definite ~pro/sodoi~ to the yearly offering of ~enagi/smata~ to his parents, his brothers, and himself: D.L. x, 18.--To the end of the third century belongs the "Testament of Epikteta", i.e. the inscription recording the foundation by Epikteta (who came from Thera as we know now for certain: ~Eph. Arch.~ 1894, p. 142) of a three-day sacrificial feast to be performed every year for {205} the Muses and "the Heroes", i.e. for her husband, herself, and her sons; and the institution for this special purpose of a ~koino\n tou= andrei/ou tô=n suggenô=n~ (together with women of the family). The inscr. gives also the rules of this sacrificial society (Michel n. 1001; _CIG._ 2448).--The offerings to the dead in this case (vi, 6 ff.) consist of a ~hierei=on~ (i.e. a sheep) and ~hiera/~, especially ~ellu/tai~ of five choinikes of wheaten flour and a stater of dry cheese (~ell.~ are a kind of sacrificial cake specially offered to the deities of the lower world, as for ex. to Trophonios at Lebadeia: _GDI._ 413 with n., p. 393), and in addition to these garlands are mentioned. The following are to be sacrificed: the customary parts of the victim, an ~ellu/tês~, a loaf, a ~pa/rax (= ba/rax, bê/rêx~: interchange of tenuis and media as frequently) and some ~opsa/ria~ (i.e. small fishes: cf. the ~apopuri/s~ for the dead, _GDI._ 3634 Kos). The rest was probably consumed by the religious society: these special portions the person offering the sacrifice, we are told, ~_karpôsei=_~, i.e. (he shall offer them to the Heroes by burning them entire. Cf. Phot. ~kausto/n; _karpôto/n_, ho\ enagi/zetai toi=s teteleutêko/sin (karpô=sai, ka/rpôma, holoka/rpôsis~, etc., are frequent in the LXX) and Phot. ~holokarpou/menon~ and ~holokautismo/s. karpou=n = holokautou=n~ in the sacrificial calendar from Kos, _GDI._ 3636; cf. Stengel, _Hermes_, 27, 161 f.]

[127\5: See Is. 1, 10.]

[128\5: In manumission records it is sometimes definitely enjoined that the freed persons shall at the death of their masters ~thapsa/ntô kai\ ta\ _hô/ria_ autô=n poiêsa/tôsan~: thus on the insc. from Phokis, _SIG._ 841. (Instructions of this kind as esp. frequent in the records of emancipation from Delphi: see Büchsenschütz, _Bes. u. Erw._, 178 Anm. 3-4.) ~ta\ _hô/ria_~ when applied to the dead (_GDI._ 1545-6; ~hôrai/ôn tuchei=n~ E., _Sup._ 175) means the ~kath' hô/ran suntelou/mena hiera/~ (Hesych. ~hôrai=a~; funeral ordinance of the Labyadai, l. 49 ff.: ~ta\s d' a/llas thoi/nas kat' ta\n hô/ran agage/sthai~), i.e. the sacrifices to be celebrated periodically (~tai=s hiknoume/nais hême/rais~, n. 138; cf. ~teletai\ hô/riai~, Pi., _P._ ix, 98 ff.). This doubtless means in particular the ~eniau/sia hiera/~ (cf. nn. 81, 89, 92 of this chap.). Garlanding of graves ~kat' eniauto\n tai=s hôri/ois~ (sc. ~hame/rais~), _GDI._ 1775, 21; ~kat' eniauto\n hôrai=a hiera\ apete/loun~ (to the Heroes), Pl., _Cri._ 116 C.]

[129\5: The foll. are the expressions occurring in the speeches of Isaeus which conclusively warrant what is said above. The childless Menekles ~esko/pei ho/pôs mê\ e/soito a/pais, all' e/soito autô=| ho/stis zô=nta gêrotrophê/soi kai\ teleutê/santa tha/psoi auto\n kai\ eis to\n e/peita chro/non ta\ nomizo/mena autô=| poiê/soi~, 2, 10. To be cared for in old age, buried after death, and to have permanent attention paid to one's soul is a single unified conception, in which ritual burial at the hands of one's own ~e/kgonoi~ (thus securing the cult of the family) does not form the least important part (cf. Pl., _Hipp. ma._ 291 DE: it is ~ka/lliston~ for a man--according to the popular view--~aphikome/nô| es gê=ras tou\s hautou= gone/as teleutê/santas kalô=s peristei/lanti hupo\ tô=n hautou= ekgo/nôn kalô=s kai\ megaloprepô=s taphê=nai~. Medea says to her children in E., _Med._ 1032 ~ei=chon elpi/das polla\s en humi=n gêroboskê/sein t' eme\ kai\ katthanou=san chersi\n eu= peristelei=n, zêlôto\n anthrô/poisin~). That he may share in this attention to the souls of the dead a man must leave behind him a son; upon a son alone this will fall as a sacred duty. Hence a man who has no son takes the chosen heir of his possessions into his own _family_ by adoption. Inheritance and adoption invariably accompany each other in such cases (and even in the first speech, where, though nothing is actually said of adoption, it is certainly implied throughout). The {206} _motive_ of adoption is said in the clearest possible terms to be the desire on the part of the adopter for a permanent care of his own soul at the hands of his adopted son: 2, 25, 46; 6, 51, 65; 7, 30; 9, 7, 36. There is consequently a close connexion between ~ei=nai klêrono/mon kai\ epi\ ta\ mnê/mata ie/nai, cheo/menoi kai\ enagiou=nta~ (6, 51). It is a mark of the heir ~ta\ nomizo/mena poiei=n, enagi/zein, chei=sthai~ (6, 65); cf. also D. 43, 65. Duties towards the soul of the dead consist in the son and heir's provision for a solemn funeral, the erection of a handsome grave-monument and in his offering of the ~tri/ta~ and ~e/nata kai\ ta=lla ta\ peri\ tê\n taphê/n~: 2, 36, 37; 4, 19; 9, 4. After that he is responsible for the regular continuation of the cult and of sacrifice to the dead, ~enagi/zesthai kath' he/kaston _eniauto/n_~ (2, 46), and generally, ~kai\ eis to\n _e/peita_ chro/non ta\ nomizo/mena poiei=n~ (2, 10). Then, just as he has to carry on for the dead man his family worships, his ~hiera\ patrô=|a~ (2, 46: e.g. for Zeus Ktesios: 8, 16); so also he must, as the dead man once did, make regular offering to the ~_pro/gonoi_~ of the house: 9, 7. In this way the family cult secures its own continuity.--Everything in this reminds us in the strongest way of what is done for the continuation of the cult of the dead, esp. by adoption, in the country where ancestor-worship reaches its greatest height--China. Desire to perpetuate the _family_ name, the strongest motive with us in the adoption of male children, could not be so strong in Greece when only individual names were usual. Even this, however, occurs as a motive for the adoption of a son, ~hi/na mê\ anô/numos ho oi=kos autou= ge/nêtai~, 2, 36, 46; cf. Isocr. 19, 35 (and Philodem., _Mort._, p. 28, 9 ff. Mekl.). The "house" at any rate is called after its ancestors (like those ~Bouseli/dai~ of whom Dem. speaks), and if the house has no male heir this common name will disappear. Apart from this, the adopted person will call himself the son of his adoptive father, and will ensure the preservation of the latter's name, in the well-known fashion, by giving this name to the eldest (Dem. 39, 27) of his own sons. (A similar perpetuation of a name is probably intended in E., _IT._ 695-8.)]

[130\5: Appealing to ~phê=mai, pollai\ kai\ spho/dra palaiai/~, Plato asserts, _Lg._ 927 A, ~hôs a/ra hai tô=n teleutêsa/ntôn psuchai\ _du/namin_ e/chousi/ tina teleutê/sasai, hê=| tô=n kat' anthrô/pous pragma/tôn epimelou=ntai~. Hence the ~epi/tropoi~ of orphaned children ~prô=ton me\n tou\s a/nô theou\s phobei/sthôn . . . ei=ta ta\s tô=n kekmêko/tôn psucha/s, hai=s estin en tê=| phu/sei _tô=n hautô=n ekgo/nôn kê/desthai diaphero/ntôs_, kai\ timô=si/ te autou\s eumenei=s kai\ atima/zousi dusmenei=s~. It is only the circle of influence belonging to the ~psuchai/~ which is here limited (and the circle of worship in consequence, not the potency of that influence.]

[131\5: This is true at least of the Greeks, as ancient philosophy was already aware: Arist., _Pol._ i, 2; Dicaearchus ap. St. Byz. ~pa/tra~ (who apparently thinks of the ~pa/tra~ as held together by "endogamous" marriage). The whole development of Greek law and politics--this much at least may be conceded to the analysis of Fustel de Coulanges (_La Cité antique_)--points to the conclusion that the division into the smallest groups goes back to the beginning of Greek life. The Greeks were even then divided into families and groups of kinsfolk, from the combination of which the later Greek state grew up; they never (as happened elsewhere) lived the community life of the tribe or the horde. And yet, can we imagine the Greek gods without the tribal community that worshipped them?]

[132\5: The idea of the _Lar familiaris_ can be translated into Greek not inadequately by the words ~ho kat' oiki/an hê/rôs, hê/rôs oikouro/s~, as is done by Dionys. Hal., and Plutarch in their accounts of the story {207} of Ocrisia (D.H. 4, 2, 3; Plu. _Fort. Rom._ 9, p. 323 C). But this was not an idea current among the Greeks. The Latin _genius generis_ = _Lar familiaris_ (Laber. 54 Rib.) is most nearly approached by the remarkable expression ~hê/rôs suggenei/as~, _CIA._ iii, 1460. Inside the house, at the family hearth (in whose ~muchoi/~, "dwells" Hekate: E., _Med._ 397), the Greeks worshipped--no longer the spirits of the ancestors--but the ~theoi\ patrô=|oi, ktê/sioi, mu/chioi, herkei=oi~. These were compared with the Roman Penates (D.H. 1, 67, 3; cf. Hyg. ap. Macr. 3, 4, 13), but their relationship to the spirits of the house and of the family is considerably less apparent than in the case of the Penates. (It is simply imitation of Roman custom that makes the dying Peregrinus call upon the ~dai/mones patrô=|oi kai\ mêtrô=|oi~: Luc., _Peregr._ 36. ~Ste/phanos toi=s tou= patro\s hautou= dai/mosin~, ins. from Lykia, _CIG._ 4232 = _BCH._ xv, 552, n. 26. ~toi=s dai/mosi tê=s apothanou/sês gunaiko/s~, Philo, _Leg. ad G._ 65, ii, p. 555 M. More in Lob., _Agl._ 769 n.)]

[133\5: The ~_agatho\s dai/môn_~ of which Attic writers in

## particular often speak has very indefinite features. Those who used

the word combined ideas--no longer fully intelligible--of a divine being of fairly definite nature and shape with this name which in itself was altogether too liable to generalization. Modern writers have declared that it was originally a daimon of the fertility of crops. But there is just as little ground for believing this as there is for identifying it with Dionysos, as was done by the physician Philonides in connexion with an absurd story which he has invented on his own account (Ath. 675 B). There is much, however, that points to the connexion of the ~agatho\s dai/môn~ with chthonic powers. He appears as a snake (Gerhard, _Akad. Abh._ ii, 24) like all ~chtho/nioi~. (On a snake on a talisman the words are written ~to\ o/noma tou= agathou= dai/monos~: _P. Mag. Par._ 2427 ff.) ~agathodai/mones~ was the name given to a special kind of non-poisonous snake (described after Archigenes, in the Vatican iologus brought to light by myself: _Rh. Mus._ 38, 278; cf. Photius, ~parei=ai o/pheis~, and again esp. s.v. ~o/pheis parei/as~, 364, 1). Sacrifice was made to them in Alexandria on the 25th Tybi as ~toi=s agathoi=s dai/mosi toi=s _pronooume/nois tô=n **oikiô=n_~: [Callisth.] i, 32 (cod. A, or as "penates dei" as the words are translated by Jul. Valer., p. 38, 29 ff. (Kuebl.). In this instance the ~ag. d.~ is evidently a good spirit who protects the house. Only with this in mind can we understand how anyone could consecrate his house ~agathô=| dai/moni~, as Timoleon did at Syracuse (~_agathô=| dai/moni~_, Plu., _Ips. Laud._, 11, p. 542 E; ~tê\n oiki/an _hierô=|_ dai/moni kathie/rôsen~, Plu., _Timol._ 36, where ~hierô=|~ is evidently an ancient copyist's error). Cf. also the saying of Xeniades, D.L. vi, 74. Such guardian spirits of the house are of course familiar enough in our own popular superstition, but in their case "the transition from souls of the dead to kindly house-spirits or kobolds is still demonstrable" (Grimm, p. 913). At the household meal the first few drops of unmixed wine belong by right to the ~agatho\s dai/môn~ (Hug, _Plat. Symp._^2, p. 23); then follows the libation to Zeus Soter. But sometimes it was the "Heroes" and not the ~ag. d.~ who preceded Zeus Soter (Sch. Pi., _I_ v, 10; Gerhard, p. 39): they have taken the place of the ~ag. d.~, which itself reveals the connexion between the ~ag. d.~ and these "souls". Another fact pointing in the same direction is the worship of the ~agatho\s dai/môn~ in common with many other deities of chthonic nature in the temple of Trophonios at Lebadeia (Paus. 9, 39, 5). In this case it is mentioned by the side of Tyche and these two are sometimes met with together in grave-inscriptions (e.g. _CIG._ 2465 f.) and Tyche herself appears with such chthonic deities as Despoina, Plouton, and Persephone (_CIG._ {208} 1464 Sparta). In epitaphic inscriptions ~daimo/nôn agathô=n~ sometimes occurs as completely equivalent to _Dis Manibus_: e.g. ~Daimo/nôn agathô=n Poti/ou~, _CIG._ 2700 b.c. (Mylasa); ~daimo/nôn agathô=n Arte/mônos kai\ Ti/tou~, _Ath. Mitt._ '90, p. 110 (Mylasa); cf. the inscr. from Mylasa in _Ath. Mitt._ '90, pp. 276-7 (nn. 23-5, 27). The singular is rare: ~Dai/monos agathou= Ariste/ou ktl.~ _BCH._ '90, p. 626 (Karia). (~dai/mosin heautou= te kai\ Laititi/as tê=s gunaiko\s autou=~ = Dis Manibus suis et Laetitiae uxoris in the bilingual ins. from Beroea, _CIG._ 4452: cf. 4232 and 5827.) All these have come under Roman influence, but it is worth noticing, all the same, that the ~agatho\s d.~ was identified with the _Di Manes_; which means that it was regarded as a daimon that had once been a disembodied human soul.--The subject might be dealt with more fully than would be in place here.]

[134\5: In Boeotia (and elsewhere, particularly in Thessaly) the designation of the dead as ~hê/rôs~--always an indication of a higher conception of its spirit nature--is especially frequent on tombstones. More will be found on this subject below. The inscriptions are for the most part of late date. But even in the fifth century (at all events at the beginning of the fourth) the custom of "heroizing" the ordinary dead was current. To this Plato Com. (i, p. 622 K.) alludes in the "Menelaos", ~ti/ ouk apê/gxô, hi/na Thê/bêsin hê/rôs ge/nê|~; (Zenob. vi, 17, etc. The Paroemiogrr. connect this with the Theban custom of refusing the honours of the dead to those who committed suicide. This is certainly wrong and contradicts Pl.'s intention. Keil shows this clearly, _Syll. Insc. Boeot._, p. 153).]

[135\5: Among the Epizephyrian Locrians ~odu/resthai ouk e/stin epi\ toi=s teleutê/sasin, all' epeida\n ekkomi/sôsin, euôchou=ntai~, Heraclid., _Pol._ 30, 2. In Keos the men never wear any sign of mourning, though women mourn for a year for a son who dies young; ib. 9, 4 (see Welcker, _Kl. Schr._ ii, 502). The funeral regulation of Iulis (_SIG._ 877) published in imitation of Athenian usage implies rather a tendency to exaggerated display of mourning, at least among the common people.]

[136\5: e.g. Is. 2, 47: ~boêthê/sate kai\ hêmi=n kai\ ekei/nô| _tô=| en Ha/idou o/nti_~. Strictly speaking no one can ~boêthei=n~ the departed in Hades. Few nations have entirely escaped such contradictions between a cult of the dead in the house or at a grave and the conception of the relegation of the soul to an inaccessible other world. They arise from two simultaneously existing mental attitudes (representing also different stages of culture) towards these obscure subjects. The naive theology of the common people reconciles such discrepancies by attributing two souls to men, one of which goes down to Hades while the other remains beside the still-animated body and receives the offerings of the family: e.g. North American Indians: Müller, _Ges. d. Amer. Urrel._ 66; cf. Tylor, i, 434. These two souls are in reality the creation of two mutually incompatible modes of thought.]

[137\5:--idne testamento cavebit is qui nobis quasi oraculum ediderit nihil post mortem ad nos pertinere? Cic., _Fin._ ii, 102.--Besides Epic., Theophrastos seems to have made some arrangement for the regular celebration of his memory (by the associates of the Peripatos?). Harp. 139, 4 ff.: ~mê/pote de\ hu/steron neno/mistai to\ epi\ timê=| tinas tô=n _apothano/ntôn_ sunie/nai kai\ _orgeô=nas_ homoi/ôs ônoma/sthai; hôs e/sti sunidei=n ek tô=n Theophra/stou diathêkô=n~. The will of Thphr. preserved by D.L. 5, 2, 14, is silent on the point.] {209}

III

[138\5: Oracle ap. D. 43, 66 (cf. 67) ~toi=s apophthime/nois en hiknoume/na| hame/ra| (en tai=s kathêkou/sais hême/rais, § 67) telei=n tou\s kathê/kontas katta\ hagême/na.--ta\ hagême/na = ta\ nomizo/mena~ "the customary things" (Buttmann, _Ausf. Gramm._, § 113 n. 7, 1, p. 84 Lob.).]

[139\5: Inquiry, at sacrifices to the dead, of an ~exêgêtê/s~: Is. 8, 39; of the ~exêgêtai/~ (who give detailed instructions and advice: [D.] 47, 68 ff. Harp. ~exêgêtê/s; e/sti de\ kai\ ha\~ (perh. ~ho/te ta\~) ~pro\s tou\s katoichome/nous nomizo/mena exêgou=nto toi=s deome/nois~. Tim. Lex. ~exêgêtai/; trei=s gi/nontai putho/chrêstoi~ (there is no need to understand this other than literally, i.e. that the college of the ~putho/chr. exêg.~ consisted of three members: Schöll, _Hermes_, 22, 564), ~hoi=s me/lei kathai/rein tou\s a/gei tini\ enischêthe/ntas~. The purification of the ~enagei=s~ is closely connected with the cult of the souls. It is true that prescriptions for such purification were to be found also ~en toi=s tô=n Eupatridô=n~ (so Müller, _Aesch. Eum._ 163 A. 20 [152 n. E.T.]) ~patri/ois~: Ath. 9, 410 A, and it may be that the college of the ~ex Eupatridô=n exêgêtai/~ may have also given decisions in such cases. Still, that does not prevent the statement of Timaeus in regard to the ~exêg. putho/chr.~ from being true. (Expiations belong principally if not exclusively to the Apolline cult.)]

[140\5: Plu., _Ser. Num._ 17, p. 650 C.D. expressly appeals for confirmation of the belief in a continued existence of the soul after the death of the body to utterances of the Delphic god: ~a/chri tou= polla\ toiau=ta prothespi/zesthai, ouch ho/sio/n esti tê=s psuchê=s katagnô=nai tha/naton~.]

[141\5: That already in Homer the circle of the ~agchistei=s~ (in the Athenian legal sense) was called upon to prosecute the blood-feud is certainly probable in itself; it cannot, however, be proved from examples occurring in Homer. Leist's statements in _Graecoital. Rechtsges._, p. 42, are not quite exact. The facts are: a father is called upon to avenge his son, and a son his father, and a brother to avenge his brother (~g~ 307; ~I~ 632 f.; ~ô~ 434); once the avengers are the ~kasi/gnêtoi/ te e/tai te~ of the murdered man, ~o~ 273. ~e/tai~ has a very wide sense and is not even confined to kinship; at any rate it is not simply "cousins" (~e/tai kai\ anepsioi/~ side by side. ~I~ 464).--In Attic law, too, in certain cases the duty of prosecuting the murderer extended beyond the limits of the ~anepsiadoi=~ to more distant relatives and even to the ~phra/tores~ of the murdered man (Law ap. D. 43, 57).]

[142\5: Flight, indeed ~aeiphugi/a~, on account of ~pho/nos akou/sios~: ~Ps~ 85 ff. (The fugitive becomes the ~thera/pôn~ of the person who receives him into his house in the foreign land: l. 90; cf. ~O~ 431 f.; this must have been the rule.)--Flight on account of ~pho/nos hekou/sious (lochêsa/menos~ 268) ~n~ 259 ff. And so frequently.]

[143\5: ~I~ 632 ff. ~kai\ me/n ti/s te kasignê/toio phonê=os **poinê\n ê\ hou= paido\s hede/xato tethnêô=tos; kai/ rh' ho me\n en dê/mô| me/nei autou= po/ll' apoti/sas tou= de/ t' erêtu/etai kradi/ê kai\ thumo\s agê/nôr poinê\n dexame/nou~. Here it is very plainly represented that all that is required is to appease "the heart and spirit" of the receiver of the ~poinê/~: the murdered man is not considered.]

[144\5: It is very natural to suppose that the ~poinê/~ (as K. O. Müller suggests in _Aesch. Eum._ 145 [122 E T.]) may have arisen out of the substitution of a vicarious sacrifice instead of that of the murderer himself, who should strictly have been offered to the dead man. In this way primitive human sacrifice has in many cases been replaced by sacrifice of animals. In that case the ~poinê/~ too must have originally been offered to the murdered man: in Homeric times {210} only the satisfaction of the living avenger was thought of.--In any case it is a mistake to look upon the permission to buy off the blood-feud as a mitigation of primitive severity in the taking of vengeance due to the intervention of the State. The State in this case mitigated nothing since it took no interest at all (in Homer) in the treatment of murder cases. Of course, legal proceedings can be taken to decide whether a stipulated ~poinê/~ has been paid or not (~S~ 497 ff.), as in the case of any other ~sumbo/laion~. But the prosecution of the murderer in all its departments is left entirely in the hands of the family of the murdered man.]

[145\5: We have very few details on this point. In Sparta ~hoi ge/rontes (dika/zousi) ta\s phonika\s (di/kas)~, Arist., _Pol._ 3, 1, p. 1275b 10 (and in Corinth, too, D.S. 16, 65, 6 ff.). Involuntary homicide is punished by exile and (in this being more severe than at Athens) perpetual exile as it appears. The Spartiate Drakontios serving in the army of the Ten Thousand ~e/phuge _pai=s_ ô\n oi/kothen pai=da a/kôn **katakanô\n~ (like Patroklos in fact, ~Ps~ 87), ~xuê/lê| pata/xas~, Xen., _An._ 4, 8, 25. If his banishment had been only temporary the period must have expired long before.--In Kyme there are vestiges of _legal_ prosecution of murder (with witnesses): Arist., _Pol._ 1269a, 1 ff.--In Chalkis ~epi\ Thra/kê|~ the laws of Androdamas of Rhegion were in force ~peri/ te ta\ _phonika\_ kai\ ta\s epiklê/rous~, Arist., _Pol._ 2, 8, p. 1274b 23 ff.--In Lokri were used the laws of Zaleukos in combination with Cretan, Spartan and Areopagite institutions; these last undoubtedly dealing with homicide, which must therefore have been regulated constitutionally. (Str. vi, 260, following Eph.)]

[146\5: The limits of those qualified to inherit extends in Athenian law ~me/chri **anepsiadô=n pai/dôn~ (Law ap. D. 43, 51; cf. § 27) as did the duty of avenging murder ~mechri\ anepsiadô=n~: D. 47, 72 (~ento\s anepsio/têtos~, which must mean the same thing, Law ap. D. 43, 57). The circle of persons thus united in the right of inheritance and the duty of taking vengeance for murder constituted the ~_agchistei/a_~, the body of kinsfolk tracing their descent (in the male line only) from the same man, the father, grandfather, or great-grandfather of them all. This is the limit to which the ~gonei=s~ are traced: Is. 8, 32; cf. above, note 123. Many nations of the earth are familiar with a similar limitation of the narrower body of kinsfolk composing a "house": as to the underlying reasons for the practice many conjectures are made by H. E. Seebohm, _On the Structure of Greek Tribal Society_ (1895).]

[147\5: As to the restless wandering of the ~biaiotha/natoi~ more details will be given below [Append. vii]. In the meantime it will be enough to refer to A., _Eum._ 98, where the still unavenged soul of the murdered Klytaimnestra complains ~aischrô=s _alô=mai_~. A later authority uses words that correspond well with ancient belief: Porph., _Abst._ ii, 47, ~tô=n anthrô/pôn hai tô=n bi/a| apothano/ntôn (psuchai\) kate/chontai pro\s tô=| sô/mati~, like the souls of the ~a/taphoi~.]

[148\5: In Homeric times the injured dead becomes a ~_theô=n_ mê/nima~ to the evil-doer (~Ch~ 358, ~l~ 73). Later times believed that the soul of the dead man himself angrily pursued the murderer with its terrors till it drove him beyond its own boundaries: ~ho thanatôthei\s thumou=tai tô=| dra/santi ktl.~, Pl., _Lg._ 865 DE, appealing to ~palaio/n tina tô=n archai/ôn mu/thôn lego/menon~; cf. X., _Cyr._ 8, 7, 18: A., _Cho._ 39 ff., 323 ff. If the next-of-kin whose duty it is to avenge the death of his relative shirks the duty incumbent on him the anger of the dead man is turned upon the latter: Pl., _Leg._ 9, 866 B--~tou= patho/ntos prostrepome/nou tê\n pa/thên~. The indignant soul becomes _~prostro/paios~_. ~prostro/paios~ probably {211} applies only in a derivative sense to a ~dai/môn~ who takes the part of the dead man (esp. ~Zeu\s prostro/paios~); it is strictly speaking an epithet of the soul itself in its longing for vengeance. Thus in Antiphon _Tetral._ 1, ~g~ 10, ~hêmi=n me\n prostro/paios ho apothanô\n ouk e/stai~. 3, ~d~ 10, ~ho apoktei/nas~ (or rather ~ho tethnêkô\s~) ~toi=s aiti/ois prostro/paios e/stai~. So, too, A., _Cho._ 287, ~ek prostropai/ôn en ge/nei peptôko/tôn~. _EM._ 42, 7, ~Êrigo/nên, anartê/sasan heautê/n, prostro/paion toi=s Athênai/ois gene/sthai~. We can, however, see

## particularly well from this case how easily the change came about

from a soul in a special condition to a similar _daimonic_ being which takes the place of the soul of the dead. The same Antiphon speaks also of ~hoi tô=n apothano/ntôn prostro/paioi, ho prostro/paios tou= apothano/ntos~ as something distinct from the dead man himself: _Tetr._ 3, ~a~ 4; 3, ~b~ 8; cf. ~ho Murti/lou prostro/paios~, Paus. 2, 18, 2, etc.; cf. Zacher, _Dissert. phil. Halens._, iii, p. 228. The injured dead himself becomes ~_arai=os_~, Soph., _Tr._ 1201 ff. (cf. _fr._ 367; E., _IT._ 778; _Med._ 608); later his place is taken by ~dai/mones arai=oi~. What terrible evils the unavenged soul can bring upon the person who is called upon to take vengeance are painted for us by Aesch. in _Cho._ 278 ff. (or else as some think an ancient interpolator of A.). Sickness and trouble might be sent over several generations by such ~palaia\ mêni/mata~ of the dead: Pl., _Phdr._ 244 D (see Lobeck's account, _Agl._ 636 f.). True to ancient beliefs an Orphic hymn prays to the Titanes ~_mê=nin_ chalepê\n apope/mpein, ei/ tis _apo\ chthoni/ôn progo/nôn_ oi/koisi pela/sthê~, _H._ 37, 7 f.; cf. 39, 9-10.]

[149\5: ~chreô/n estin _hupexelthei=n_ tô=| _patho/nti to\n dra/santa_ ta\s hô/ras pa/sas tou= eniautou=, kai\ erêmô=sai pa/ntas tou\s oikei/ous to/pous xumpa/sês tê=s patri/dos~, Pl., _Lg._ ix, 865 E. The law says in the case of the criminal convicted of murder ~ei/rgein me\n tê=s tou= patho/ntos patri/dos, ktei/nein de\ ouch ho/sion hapantachou=~, D. 23, 38.]

[150\5: When the victim was a citizen, and also in wilful murder of a non-citizen. See Mei. and Sch., _Att. Proc._^2, p. 379, n. 520.--When the citizenship of a city rested upon conquest the lives of the subjects belonging to the older subject population were of less account. In Tralles (Karia) the murder of one of the Leleges by an (Argive) full citizen might be bought off by payment of a bushel of peas (a purely symbolical ~poinê/~) to the relations of the victim: Plu., _Q.Gr._ 46, p. 302 B.]

[151\5: On the expiry of the legally appointed period of banishment the relations of the dead man do not seem to have been allowed to refuse ~ai/desis~. See Philippi, _Areop. u. Epheten_, 115 f.]

[152\5: Law ap. D. 43, 57.]

[153\5: D. 37, 59. See Philippi, op. cit., p. 144 ff. Cf. E., _Hipp._ 1435 f., 1442 f., 1448 f.]

[154\5: Such prohibition against taking a ~poinê/~ for murder is made by the Law ap. D. 23, 28: ~tou\s d' andropho/nous exei=nai apoktei/nein . . . lumai/nesthai de\ mê/, _mêde\ apoina=n_~ (cf. § 33 ~to\ de\ mêd' apoina=n; mê\ chrê/mata pra/ttein, ta\ ga\r chrê/mata a/poina ôno/mazon hoi palaioi/~). In spite of this Meier and others unjustifiably conclude that murder could be indemnified by payment of money, from the illegal practice mentioned in [D.] 58, 29: this speaks rather for the contrary. They have more appearance of justification when they appeal to Harp. (Phot. Suid., _E.M._ 784, 26; _AB._ 313, 5 ff.), s.v. ~hupopho/nia; ta\ epi\ pho/nô| dido/mena chrê/mata toi=s oikei/ois tou= phoneuthe/ntos, hi/na mê\ epexi/ôsin~. On the strength of this Hermann, _Gr. Staatsalt._^5 104, 6, says, "even intentional murder could be absolutely indemnified." Nothing is actually said of ~pho/nos hekou/sios~ here nor do we anywhere learn that the payment of ~hupopho/nia~ {212} on the occasion of a murder was ever a formally _legalized_ proceeding. It remains possible, and even in the circumstances more probable, that Dinarch. and Thphr. in the passages on ~hupopho/nia~ quoted by Harp. referred to the practice as one _forbidden_ by law, though it might be, on occasion, an actual fact. If we had only the gloss of Suidas--~a/poina; lu/tra, ha\ di/dôsi/ tis hupe\r pho/nou ê\ sô/matos. hou/tôs So/lôn en no/mois~--we might have concluded that payment of such blood-money was allowed in Athens and mentioned in Solon's laws as allowable. This would be quite as justifiable as to argue as above from Harp. s. ~hupopho/nia~. We know, in fact, that the law referred to the ~a/poina~ and ~apoina=n~ as _forbidden_ things, from the passages already quoted from Dem. (23, 28-33). From these the gloss was itself probably derived.]

[155\5: We cannot, however, believe on the poor authority of Sch. Dem, p. 607, 16 ff., that the ~hieropoioi\ tai=s Semnai=s theai=s~ were selected out of the whole Athenian citizen body by the Areiopagos. ("Three" were chosen out of all the Athenians: D. 21, 115; at other times "ten": Dinarch. ap. _EM._ 469, 12 ff.; an indefinite number: Phot. ~hieropoioi/~.) According to all analogies we should rather expect this selection to have been made by the popular Assembly.]

[156\5: ~hai diômosi/ai kai\ ta\ to/mia~, Antiphon, _Herod._ 88. In more detail D. 23, 67-8. Those who had to take an oath swore by the ~Semnai\ theai/~ and other gods: Dinarch., _adv. Demosth._ 47. Both sides had to swear to the justice of their case in respect of the material facts in dispute (Philippi, _Areop._, pp. 87-95). Such a compulsory oath taken by both parties could not of course in any circumstances serve as proof: one side at least must be perjured. Nor can the Athenians themselves have failed to see this. It is surely doing them an injustice not to see the simple explanation of this strange sort of preliminary oath-taking and to dismiss the matter with a reference to the Athenians as "not a legally-minded people" (as Philippi does, p. 88). It is much more natural to suppose that this double oath, taken under circumstances of peculiar solemnity, was not regarded as a juridical matter at all, but had a purely religious sense (as it had in the quite similar cases mentioned by Meiners, _Allg. Gesch. d. Relig._ ii, 296 f.). The oath-taker invokes a dreadful curse upon himself if he breaks his oath and devotes ~hauto\n kai\ ge/nos kai\ oiki/an tê\n hautou=~ (Antiphon, _Herod._ 11) to the Curse-Goddesses, the ~Arai/~ or the ~Erinu/es hai/ th' hupo\ gai=an anthrô/pous ti/nuntai, ho/tis k' epi/orkon omo/ssê|~ (~T~ 259 f.)--and to the Gods who are to punish his children and his whole kith and kin on earth (Lycurg., _Leocr._ 79). If the court discovers the perjured party the punishment due to his action overtakes him (or if he is the plaintiff, he fails in his purpose) and at the same time the justice of heaven punishes him for his broken oath (cf. D. 23, 68). But the court may make a mistake and not find out the perjurer; in which case the perjurer is still punished for he becomes a victim of the gods to whom he has devoted himself--who do not err. Thus the double oath is an _addition_ to the judicial inquiry, and heavenly punishment stands side by side with that of men. The two may coincide, but this need not be so, and in this way the guilty is punished whatever happens. (How familiar such ideas were in antiquity we see from expressions used by orators: Isoc. 18, 3; D. 19, 239-40; Lycurg., _Leocr._ 79.) The oath, being an appeal to a higher court, supplemented human justice, or rather the legal processes of men supplemented the oath-taking, for in this partnership the appeal to an oath must have been the older member.] {213}

[157\5: Poll. 8, 117, ~kath' he/kaston de\ mê=na triô=n hêmerô=n edi/kazon~ (the judges on the Areiopagos) ~ephexê=s, teta/rtê| phthi/nontos, tri/tê|, deute/ra|~.]

[158\5: ~hoi Areopagi=tai trei=s pou tou= mê=nos hême/ras ta\s phonika\s di/kas edi/kazon, heka/stê| tô=n theô=n mi/an hême/ran apone/montes~, Sch. Aeschin. 1, 188, p. 282 Sch. This certainly implies that the limitation of the number of the Erinyes to three (and not two for example--which first appears in Eurip., but was certainly not his own invention--was officially current in the worship of the city.--Since these three days were sacred to the Erinyes, as goddesses of Hades, they counted as ~apophra/des hême/rai~: _EM._ 131, 16 f.; _Et. Gud._ 70, 5 (the thirtieth day of the month is for that reason ~phau/lê pa=sin e/rgois~ acc. to "Orpheus" _fr._ 28 Ab.).]

[159\5: Paus. 1, 28, 6.]

[160\5: The Erinyes are the accusers of Orestes not only in Aeschylus (and thence in Eurip. too, _IT._ 940 ff.), but also in the varying accounts derived from different sources, in which the twelve gods served as judges ap. D. 23, 66 (cf. 74, and Dinarch., _adv. Dem._ 87).]

[161\5: The Erinyes are said ~apo\ zô=ntos rhophei=n eruthro\n ek mele/ôn pe/lanon~, A., _Eum._ 264 f.; cf. 183 f.; 302; 305. In this they closely resemble the "vampires" which we hear of especially in Slav popular mythology, and the Tii of the Polynesians, etc. These, however, are the _souls of the dead_ returned from the grave and sucking men's blood.]

[162\5: The Erinyes say to Orestes: ~emoi\ traphei/s te kai\ kathierôme/nos kai\ zô=n me dai/seis oude\ pro\s bômô=| sphagei/s~, A., _Eum._ 304 f. The matricide is divis parentum (i.e. their Manes) sacer, their sacrificial victim (~_thu=ma_ katachthoni/ou Dio/s~ D.H. 2, 10, 3), in the older belief of Greece, too.]

[163\5: See _Rh. Mus._ 50, 6 ff.]

[164\5: The fact that after receiving the ~ai/desis~ of the dead man's relatives the agent of a ~pho/nos akou/sios~ was still required to offer the expiatory sacrifice as well as undergo purification (~hilasmo/s~ and ~katharmo/s~) is alluded to by Dem. 23, 72-3, in the double expression ~thu=sai kai\ katharthê=nai, hosiou=n kai\ kathai/resthai~ (cf. Müller, _Aesch. Eum._, p. 144 [122, n. 2, E.T.]).]

[165\5: See Philippi, _Areop. u. Eph._ 62.]

[166\5: In the Iliad and the Odyssey there is a total absence not only of all reference to purification from blood-guiltiness but of the necessary conditions for it. The murderer goes freely among men without there being any fear of others suffering from a ~mi/asma~ attaching to him. Cf. the case especially of Theoklymenos, ~o~ 271-8. Lobeck rightly emphasizes this, _Agl._ 301. K. O. Müller's attempts to prove in spite of everything that purifications from the stain of murder were a Homeric custom, are failures. See Nägelsbach, _Hom. Theol._^2, p. 293.--The oldest examples of purifications from murder in the literature are (Lobeck 309): purification of Achilles from the blood of Thersites in the ~Aithiopi/s~, p. 33 Kink.; refusal of Neleus to purify Herakles from the murder of Iphitos: Hesiod ~en katalo/gois~, Sch., Il. ~B~ 336.--Mythical exx. of such purifications in later accounts: Lob., _Agl._ 968-9.]

[167\5: E g. offering of cakes, sacrifice of drink-offerings without wine, burning of the materials of sacrifice; cf. the description of ~hilasmo/s~ (in this place clearly distinguished from ~katharmo/s~) in A.R. iv, 712 ff. Similar account (offerings without wine, etc.) of the ~hilasmo/s~ (which is, however, improperly called ~katharmo/s~, l. 466) of the Eumenides at Kolonos which the chorus recommends to Oedipus, S., _O.C._ 469 ff. No one might eat of the expiatory sacrifice: Porph., _Abst._ 2, 44. It is burnt completely: Stengel, _Jahrb. f. Phil._ 1883, p. 369 ff.--The {214} clash of bronze was used ~pro\s pa=san aphosi/ôsin kai\ apoka/tharsin~: Apollod. _fr._ 36 (and in offerings to Hekate, Theoc. ii, 36; as protection against ghosts, Luc., _Philops._ 15; Sch. Theoc. ii, 36; Tz., _Lyc._ 77. Clash of bronze in this apotropaic sense occurs, too, in the dance of the Kouretes, etc.; see below). The ritual of expiation was affected in many ways by admixture of foreign superstitions from Phrygia and Lydia. Its chief source is to be found in the _Cretan_ worship of the (chthonic) Zeus. Thence it seems to have spread all over Greece assisted by the Apolline oracle of Delphi. This is why the ram, the peculiar victim of ~Zeu\s chtho/nios~, is the principal victim in expiatory sacrifices, its fleece, the ~Dio\s kô/dion~, receiving the various materials of expiation, etc.]

[168\5: On the chthonic character of the deities of expiation see in gen. K. O. Müller, _Aesch. Eum._, p. 139 ff. (112 ff.). Chief among them is ~Zeu\s meili/chios~ (a euphemistic title; cf. above, n. 5), who is unmistakably a ~chtho/nios~. Hence, like all ~chtho/nioi~ he is represented as a snake on the votive tablet to ~Z. meil.~ discovered in the Peiraeus (certainly the Athenian god and not a foreign deity identified with this god whom all Athenians knew well from the feast of the Diasia): _BCH._ 7, 507 ff.; _CIA._ ii, 1578 ff. On a votive insc. from Lykia we have, side by side with the chthonic Hekate, ~Dii\ Meilichi/ô| kai\ Enodi/a|~, _BCH._ 13, 392. Other ~theoi\ meili/chioi~ in Lokris were worshipped with _nocturnal_ sacrifice (as regularly in the case of underworld deities): Paus. 10, 38, 8. The ~dai/mones meili/chioi~ as ~chtho/nioi~ are contrasted with the ~maka/ressin ourani/ois~ in the oracle verses ap. Phlegon, _Macr._ iv, p. 93, 5 Kel.: deis milicheis _Acta Lud. Saecul._ Tab. A l. 11 [= _CIL._ vi, 32, 323; see Mommsen, _Ges. Schr._ viii, 570].--Then come the ~apotro/paioi~: their nature can be guessed from the fact that they were worshipped together with the dead and Hekate on the thirtieth day of the month (see above, n. 88). After a bad dream offerings were made to the ~apotro/paioi~, to Ge and the Heroes: Hp., _Diaet._ 4, 8, vi, p. 652 L. ~Zeu\s apotro/paios~ must have been a ~chtho/nios~, but we have side by side with him an ~Athêna= apotropai/a~ (and an Apollo ~apotr.~ too): ins. from Erythrai, _SIG._ 600, 69; 115: the provinces of ~Olu/mpioi~ and ~chtho/nioi~ were not always kept absolutely distinct.--An ancient and hereditary service of the propitiation deities belonged to the Attic family of the Phytalids who had once purified and offered expiatory sacrifice for Theseus after the murder of Skiron and others (~hagni/santes kai\ meili/chia thu/santes~): Plu., _Thes._ 12. The gods to whom this family offered sacrifice were Demeter and Zeus Meilichios: Paus. 1, 37, 2-4.--Isoc. 5, 117, makes a clear distinction between the ~theoi\ Olu/mpioi~ and the gods to whom only an apotropaic cult, ~apopompa/s~, was offered; these being the gods of expiation (cf. ~apodiopompei=sthai~ in propitiatory sacrifices; ~apopompai=oi theoi/~: Apollod. ap. Harp. ~apopompa/s~. Cf. also ~apopompê/~ of evil daimones in contrast to the ~epipompê/~ of the same: Anon. _Vir. Herb._ xxii, 165. See Hemsterhuys, _Lucian_ ii, p. 255 Bip.; Lob., _Agl._ 984, ii).]

[169\5: e.g. in the description of the ~hilasmo/s~ of Medea by Kirke in A.R. iv, 712 ff.]

[170\5: K. O. Müller, _Dorians_, i, 328, 336; cf. the same ancient custom of flight for nine years and penance for the slaying of a man in the legend and cult of Zeus Lykaios; cf. H. D. Müller, _Myth. d. gr. St._ ii, 105. See below.]

[171\5: _Cho._ 1055-60. _Eum._ 237 ff., 281 ff., 445 ff., 470.]

[172\5: The Delphinion, the court for trying ~pho/nos di/kaios~, and the ancient dwelling of Aegeus (Plu., _Thes._ 12), was at the same time {215} (and perhaps originally) an expiation site. Expiatory sacrifice was there made for Theseus after his fights with the Pallantidai and the highway robbers (~aphosiou/menos to\ a/gos~, Poll. viii, 119).]

[173\5: Plu., _Ser. Num._ 17, p. 560 EF. Note the expressions: ~_hila/sasthai_ tê\n tou= Archilo/chou psuchê/n, _hilasasthai_ tê\n Pausani/ou psuchê/n~. Suid. ~Archi/lochos~, from Aelian: ~_meili/xasthai_ tê\n tou= Telesiklei/ou paido\s psuchê/n, kai\ _praü=nai_ choai=s~.]

[174\5: The three ~exêgêtai\ putho/chrêstoi, hoi=s me/lei kathai=rein tou\s a/gei tini\ enischêthe/ntas~, Tim. **_Lex._ p. 109 R.]

[175\5: Pl., _Lg._ 865 B: the agent in a ~pho/nos akou/sios~ (of a special kind) ~katharthei\s kata\ to\n ek Delphô=n komisthe/nta peri\ tou/tôn no/mon e/stô katharo/s~.]

[176\5: I set down here the expressions occurring in the speeches and the (at any rate contemporary [see Appendix iv]) Tetralogies of Antiphon, which throw light on the religious ideas lying behind the procedure in trials for murder. In the prosecution of the murderer the following are concerned: ~ho tethneô/s, hoi no/moi~, and ~theoi\ hoi ka/tô~, _Or._ 1, 31. The vigorous prosecution of the case on the part of the relations of the dead is ~_boêthei=n_ tô=| tethneô=ti~: 1, 31. _Tetr._ 1 ~b~, 13. The condemnation of the murderer is ~timôri/a tô=| adikêthe/nti~, his personal revenge: 5, 88 = 6, 6. The accusing relatives come before the court as representatives of the dead man, ~_anti\_ tou= patho/ntos episkê/ptomen humi=n~, as they say to the judges, _Tetr._ 3 ~g~, 7. The duty of accusing as well as the ~ase/bêma~ of the deed of bloodshed rests upon them until satisfaction is made for it: _Tetr._ 1 ~a~, 3. But the ~mi/asma~ of the deed attaches to the whole city in which the murderer lives. All who sit at table with him, or live under the same roof, even the temples he walks in, are polluted by his mere presence: hence come ~aphori/ai~ and ~dustuchei=s pra/xeis~ on the city. It is to the greatest interest of the judges to avert this pollution by giving a propitiatory judgment: _Tetr._ 1 ~a~, 10; _Or._ 5, 11, 82; _Tetr._ 1 ~a~, 3; 1 ~g~, 9, 11; 3 ~g~, 6, 7. Above all it is necessary to find the real criminal and to punish him. If the relatives of the dead prosecute some one other than the real doer of the deed, it is they, and not the judges (on account of their wrong decision), who will have to bear the wrath of the dead man and of the avenging spirits: _Tetr._ 1 ~a~, 3; 3 ~a~, 4; 3 ~d~, 10; for in this case the murdered man is deprived of his ~timôri/a~: 3 ~a~, 4. But perjured witnesses and unjust judges are liable to a ~mi/asma~, too, which they then introduce into their own houses: _Tetr._ 3 ~a~, 3; or at least, if they give a false condemnation (but not a false acquittal) of the accused, they incur the ~mê/nima tô=n alitêri/ôn~ acc. to _Tetr._ 3 ~b~, 8--i.e. that of the falsely condemned person (whereas the murdered man still continues angry with his own relatives). If they _knowingly_ acquit the murderer contrary to justice, the murdered man becomes ~enthu/mios~ to the judges and no longer to his relatives: _Tetr._ 1 ~g~, 10.--The source of the resentment is said to be the dead man himself: ~prostro/paios ho apothanô/n~, _Tetr._ 1 ~g~, 10; cf. 3 ~d~, 10; where he is parallel with ~to\ mê/nima tô=n _alitêri/ôn_~. The murdered man leaves behind him ~tê\n tô=n alitêri/ôn dusme/neian~ (and _this_ is what the ~mi/asma~ really is--not as some modern writers have imagined, any sort of "moral" pollution--as is clearly stated in this passage: ~tê\n tô=n alit. dusme/neian, ê\n . . . mi/asma . . . eisa/gontai~): _Tetr._ 3 ~a~, 3; cf. Again 3 ~b~, 8; 3 ~g~, 7. In this case the avenging spirits substitute themselves for the soul of the dead man (just as in the case where a ~prostro/paios tou= apothano/ntos~ is spoken of: cf. above, n. 148). The ~prostro/paioi tô=n apothana/ntôn~ become themselves ~deinoi\ alitê/rioi~ of the dilatory relatives: {216} _Tetr._ 3 ~a~, 4. There is no essential distinction between the two (cf. Poll. 5, 131). Elsewhere we hear of ~to\ prostro/paion~ as the special attribute or feeling of the murdered man himself: _Tetr._ 2 ~d~, 9. Thus also we have the alternatives ~enthu/mios ho apothanô/n~ (1 ~g~, 10) and ~to\ _enthu/mion_~ (2 ~a~, 2; 2 ~d~, 9). In this connexion it is clear that ~enthu/mion~ (as the fixed and conventional expression for these superstitions) means the indignant memory, the longing for revenge of the murdered man (--~enthu/mion e/stô Da/matros kai\ Kou/ras~, _GDI._ 3541, 8). The proper understanding of this word will help us to see what is meant by the expression ~_oxuthu/mia_~ used of the meal offered to the dead and Hekate, and the almost identical purificatory offerings, that after the religious cleansing of a house were thrown out at the cross-roads (Harp. s.v. Phot. s.v. Art. 1, 2, 3; _AB._ 287, 24, 288, 7; _EM._ 626, 44 ff.). They are intended to appease the easily awakened anger of the souls (and of their patroness Hekate), their ~oxu/thumon~, a stronger version of ~enthu/mion~, by apotropaic sacrifice.]

[177\5: See Appendix ii (~maschalismo/s~).]

[178\5: Xen., _Cyr._ 8, 7, 17 ff.: ~ou ga\r dê/pou tou=to/ ge saphô=s dokei=te eide/nai hôs oude/n eimi egô\ e/ti, epeida\n tou= anthrôpi/nou bi/ou teleutê/sô; oude\ ga\r nu=n toi tê/n g' emê\n psuchê\n heôra=te . . . ta\s de\ tô=n a/dika patho/ntôn psucha\s ou/pô katenoê/sate, hoi/ous me\n pho/bous toi=s miaipho/nois emba/llousin, hoi/ous de\ palamnai/ous~ (which means first the criminal and then, as here, the punishing spirit that avenges the criminal deed, exactly like ~prostro/paios, alitê/rios, ala/stôr, mia/stôr~: see Zacher, _Dissert. phil. Halens._ iii, 232 ff.) ~toi=s anosi/ois epipe/mpousi? toi=s de\ phthime/nois ta\s tima\s diame/nein e/ti a\n dokei=te, ei mêdeno\s autô=n hai psuchai\ ku/riai ê=san? ou/toi e/gôge, ô= pai=des, oude\ **tou=to pô/pote epei/sthên, hôs hê psuchê/, he/ôs me\n a\n en thnêtô=| sô/mati ê=|, zê=|, ho/tan de\ tou/tou apallagê=|, te/thnêken~. Then follow other popular arguments for the belief in the continued existence of the soul after its separation from the body.]

{{217}}

##