CHAPTER I

I

[1\1: E. Kammer, _Einheit d. Odyssee_, 510 ff.]

[2\1: E.g. _Il._ ~A~ 3, ~polla\s d' iphthi/mous _psucha\s_ (kephala/s~ Apol. Rhod., as in ~L~ 55: mistakenly) ~A/ïdi proï/apsen hêrô/ôn, _autou\s_ de\ helô/ria teu=che ku/nessin.~ ~Ps~ 105, ~pannuchi/ê ga\r moi Patroklê=os deiloi=o _psuchê\_ ephestê/kei . . . e/ïkto de\ the/skelon _autô=|_~ (cf. 66).]

[3\1: E.g. ~L~ 262, ~e/nth' Antê/noros hui=es hup' Atrei/dê| basilê=i po/tmon anaplê/santes e/dun do/mon A/ïdos ei/sô~. The ~_psuchê/_~ of Elpenor and afterwards that of Teiresias, of his mother, of Agamemnon, etc., is addressed by Odysseus in the Nekyia of the Od. simply as: ~Elpê=nor, Teiresi/ê, mê=ter emê/~, etc. And cf. such expressions as: ~Ps~ 244, ~eis ho/ ken _auto\s_ egô\ A/ïdi keu/thômai~, or ~O~ 251, ~kai\ dê\ e/gôg' epha/mên, ne/kuas kai\ dô=m' Ai/dao ê/mati tô=|d' hi/xesthai . . .~ or ~X~ 456 f., etc.]

[4\1: The first view is Nägelsbach's, the second that of Grotemeyer.]

[5\1: And of civilized peoples, too, in antiquity. Just such a second self, an ~ei/dôlon~ duplicating the visible self of man, were, in their original significance, the _genius_ of the Romans, the _Fravashi_ of the Persians, the _Ka_ of the Egyptians.]

[6\1: ~hupoti/thetai~ (sc. Homer) ~ta\s psucha\s toi=s eidô/lois toi=s en toi=s _kato/ptrois_ phainome/nois homoi/as kai\ toi=s dia\ tô=n _huda/tôn_ sunistame/nois, ha\ katha/pax hêmi=n exei/kastai kai\ ta\s kinê/seis mimei=tai steremniô/dê de\ hupo/stasin oudemi/an e/chei eis anti/lêpsin kai\ haphê/n~, Apollod. ~p. theô=n~ ap. Stob., _Ecl._ i, p. 420 W.]

[7\1: Cf. Cic., _Div._ i, 63: iacet corpus dormientis ut mortui, viget autem et vivit animus. Quod multo magis faciet post mortem cum omnino corpore excesserit. _TD_. i, 29: visis quibusdam saepe movebantur eisque maxime nocturnis, ut viderentur ei qui vita excesserant vivere. Here we have precise ancient testimony both for the subjective and the objective elements in dreaming and for their importance for the origin of belief about the soul.]

[8\1: ~To\n d' e/lipe psuchê/ . . . au=tis d' ampnu/nthê~, ~E~ 696 f. ~Tê\n de\ kat' ophthalmô=n erebennê\ nu\x eka/lupsen, ê/ripe d' exopi/sô, apo\ de\ psuchê\n eka/pussen . . . e/pei ou=n a/mpnuto kai\ es phre/na thumo\s age/rthê~--~Ch~ 466 ff., 475; and ~ô~ 348: ~apopsu/chonta~.]

[9\1: Speaking of _suspirium_ ( = ~leipopsuchi/a~), Sen., _Ep._ liv, 2, says, medici hanc "meditationem mortis" vocant. faciet enim aliquando spiritus ille quod saepe conatus est.]

[10\1: A remarkable idea seems to be obscurely suggested in an expression such as that of ~x~ 207, ~all' ê/toi to\n Kê=res e/ban thana/toio phe/rousai eis Aï/dao do/mous~; cf. ~B~ 302. Usually the Keres bring death to men: here (like Thanatos himself in later poetry) they conduct the dead into the realm of Hades. They are _daimones_ of Hades, originally and primitively themselves souls of the departed (see below, p. 168), and it is a natural idea to make such soul-spirits, hovering in the air, carry off the souls of men just dead to the realm of the souls. In Homer only a stereotyped phrase preserves the vague memory of such a conception.] {45}

[11\1: Of the dead we read in ~l~ 219, ~ou ga\r e/ti sa/rkas te kai\ oste/a i=nes e/chousi~. Taking the words strictly this might mean that the dead possess sinews but not the flesh or bones that should be held together by the sinews. This is how Nauck, in fact, understood the Homeric words: _Mélanges Grécorom._ iv, 718. But it is very difficult to picture "shadows" which in this manner possess sinews but no body of flesh and bones: the corrupt words of _fr._ 229, preserved apart from their context, are quite insufficient to prove that Aesch. derived such an unrealizable impression from the Homeric words.--That the poet of these lines from the Nek. simply meant "flesh, bones, and sinews, too, which might have held them together", is shown quite clearly by what follows: ~alla\ ta\ me/n te puro\s kratero\n me/nos aithome/noio damna=|, epei/ ke prô=ta li/pê| leu/k' oste/a thumo/s, psuchê\ d' êü/t' o/neiros apoptame/nê pepo/têtai~. How, then, could the fire help destroying the sinews too?]

[12\1: The sacrificial character of the proceedings at the _rogus_ of Patroklos has again been called in question by v. Fritze, _de libatione veterum Graecorum_, 71 f. (1893). He admits this interpretation of the pouring of the blood on the pyre, but explains the other circumstances differently. It would be quite easy to disprove in this fashion the sacrificial character of every ~holokau/tôma~ for ~chtho/nioi~ whether Heroes or the dead. It is true that the bodies of sheep and cattle, horses and dogs, thus completely consumed by fire, are not a "food-offering", but they are a sacrifice for all that, and belong to the class of expiatory offerings in which the flesh is not offered for the food of the daimon but the lives of the victims are sacrificed to him. That Achilles slays the Trojan prisoners at the rogus ~ktame/noio cholôthei/s~ (~Ps~ 23) does not destroy the sacrificial character of this offering intended to appease the wrath (felt also by Achilles) of the dead man.--The whole procedure gives a picture of primitive sacrificial ritual in honour of the dead and differs in no

## particular from the ritual of sacrifice to the ~theoi\ chtho/nioi~.

This is recognized by Stengel in his _Chthonischer und Todtencult_ (_Festschr. Friedländ._), p. 432, who also marks clearly the differences between the two religious ceremonies as they were gradually evolved in the process of time.]

[13\1: It cannot be denied that the libation of wine poured out by Achilles during the night (to which he expressly summons the psyche of Patroklos, ~Ps~ 218-22) is _sacrificial_ in character, like all similar ~choai/~. The wine with which the embers of the funeral pyre are extinguished may have been intended to serve that purpose alone and not as a sacrifice. But the jars of honey and oil which Achilles has placed upon the pyre (~Ps~ 170; cf. ~ô~ 67-8) can hardly be regarded as anything but sacrificial (cf. Bergk, _Opusc._ ii, 675; acc. to Stengel, _Jahrb. Philol._, p. 649, 1887, they only serve to kindle the flames, but the honey, at any rate, seems a strange material for the purpose. For libations at the _rogus_ or at the grave honey and oil are regularly used--see Stengel himself, loc. cit., and _Philol._ xxxix, 378 ff.). Acc. to v. Fritze, _de libat._, 72, the jars of honey and oil were intended not as libations but for the "bath of the dead"--in the next world, in the Homeric Hades!--Honey can only have been used for bathing purposes, in Greece as elsewhere, by those who unintentionally fell into it like Glaukos.]

[14\1: On Greek hair offerings see Wieseler, _Philol._ ix, 711 ff., who rightly regards these offerings as symbolic and as substitutes for primitive human sacrifice. The same explanation of the offering of hair is given in the case of other peoples also; cf. Tylor, ii, 401.] {46}

[15\1: Patroklos' request for prompt burial (69 ff.) gives no sufficient motive, since Achilles has already given orders for the funeral to take place next day, 49 ff. (cf. 94 f.).]

[16\1: ll. 19; 179. Again, in the night following the erection of the funeral pyre, when the body is burning, Achilles calls to the soul of Patroklos ~psuchê\n kiklê/skôn Patroklê=os deiloi=o~ 221. The person thus called upon is evidently supposed to be still close at hand. This is not contradicted by the formula ~chai=re . . . kai\ ein Aï/dao do/moisi~ (19, 179), for in l. 19. at least, the words cannot mean _in Hades_, since the soul is still outside Hades, as it tells us itself, 71 ff. The words can only mean "about", "before" the House of Hades (like ~en **potamô=|~ "by the river", etc.). In the same way ~eis Aï/dao do/mon~ often only means _towards_ the house of Hades (Ameis on ~k~ 512).]

[17\1: From descriptions in ancient poetry? or had similar customs--at least, at the funerals of chieftains--survived into the poet's own time? Especially magnificent, e.g., were the burials of Spartan kings--and also Cretan kings, it appears, so long as there were any; cf. Arist. _fr._ 476, p. 1556a, 37 ff.]

[18\1: Funeral games for Amarynkeus, ~Ps~ 630 ff., for Achilles, ~ô~ 85 ff. Such games are referred to as being quite the usual custom in ~ô~ 87 ff. Later poetry is full of descriptions of such ~agô=nes epita/phioi~ of the heroic age.]

[19\1: As Aristarchos noticed: see _Rh. Mus._ 36, 544 f. Rather different are the (certainly ancient) games and contests for the hand of a bride (cf. stories of Pelops, Danaos, Ikarios, etc.).]

[20\1: Cf. ~Ps~ 274, ~ei me\n nu=n _epi\_ a/llô| aethleu/oimen Achaioi/~, i.e. in _honour_ of Patroklos; cf. 646: ~so\n hetai=ron ae/thloisi _ktere/ïze_~. ~ktereï/zein~ means to give the dead man his ~kte/rea~, i.e. his former possessions (by burning them). The games are therefore on exactly the same footing as the burning of the personal effects of the dead in which the soul of the dead man was supposed still to take pleasure.]

[21\1: Aug., _CD._ viii, 26: Varro dicit omnes mortuos existimari manes deos, et probat per ea sacra quae omnibus fere mortuis exhibentur, ubi et ludos commemorat funebres, tamquam hoc sit maximum divinitatis indicium, quod non solent ludi nisi numinibus celebrari.]

[22\1: Quae pietas ei debetur a quo nihil acceperis? aut quid omnino, cuius nullum meritum sit, ei deberi potest? . . . (dei) quamobrem colendi sint non intellego nullo nec accepto ab eis nec sperato bono, Cic., _ND._ i, 116; cf. Pl., _Euthphr._ pass. Homer speaks in the same way of the ~_amoibê\_ agakleitê=s hekato/mbês~, ~g~ 58-9 (cf. ~amoiba\s tô=n thusiô=n~ from the side of the gods, Pl. _Smp._, 202 E).]

[23\1: ~tou=to/ nu kai\ ge/ras hoi=on oïzuroi=si brotoi=sin, kei/rasthai/ te ko/mên bale/ein t' apo\ da/kru pareiô=n~, ~d~ 197 f.; cf. ~ô~ 188 f., 294 f.]

[24\1: ~ou ga\r e/t' au=tis ni/somai ex' Aï/dao epê/n me puro\s lela/chête~, ~Ps~ 75 f.]

[25\1: ~--io/nti eis Aï/dao chersi\ kat' ophthalmou\s ele/ein su/n te sto/m' erei=sai~, ~l~ 426; cf. ~L~ 453, ~ô~ 296. To do this is the duty of the next of kin, mother or wife. The necessity for closing the sightless eyes and dumb mouth of the dead is intelligible without reference to any superstitious _arrière pensée_. Such an idea is, however, dimly discernible in such a phrase as ~a/chris ho/tou _psuchê/n_ mou mêtro\s che/res ei=lan ap' o/ssôn~, _Epigr. Gr._, 314, 24. Was there originally some idea of the "soul" being released by these means?--Seat of the soul in the ~ko/rê~ of the eye: ~psuchai\ d' en ophthalmoi=si tô=n teleutô/ntôn~, Babr. 95, 35 (see Crusius, _Rh. Mus._ 46, 319). Augurium non timendi mortem in aegritudine quamdiu oculorum pupillae imaginem reddant, Plin., _N.H._ 28, 64; cf. Grimm, p. 1181. (If a person can no longer see his or her ~ei/dôlon~ {47} in a mirror it is a sign of approaching death, Oldenburg, _Rel. d. Ved._, 526 [p. 449^3 French tr.].)--Among many peoples it is believed that the eyes of the dead must be closed in order to prevent the dead person seeing or haunting anyone in the future: Robinsohn, _Psychol. d. Naturv._, 44; cf. Cic., _Verr._ v, 118 (of the Greeks); Vg., _A._ iv, 684 f.: extremus si quis super halitus errat ore legam. Serv. ad loc.: muliebriter, tamquam possit animam sororis excipere et in se transferre (cf. _Epigr. Gr._, 547; _IG. Sic. et It._, 607e, 9-10). ~psuchê/~ making its exit through the mouth: ~I~ 409; cf. "Among the Seminoles of Florida when a woman died in childbirth the infant was held over her face to receive her parting spirit and thus acquire strength and knowledge for future use," Tylor, i, 433.]

[26\1: And even ~ana\ pro/thuron tetramme/nos~, ~T~ 212, i.e. with feet turned towards the door. The reason for this custom--which existed elsewhere, too, and still exists--is hardly to be sought only in the _ritus naturae_, as Plin. 7, 46, thinks. This has generally little to do with the customs observed on the solemn occasions of life. The meaning of the practice is much more naively revealed in a statement about the manners of the Pehuenchen Indians in South America given by Pöpig, _Reise in Chile, Peru, etc._, i, 393. There they carry the dead man feet foremost out of the door "because if the corpse of the dead man were carried out otherwise his wandering ghost might come back into the house". The Greek custom, though in Homeric times long faded to a mere symbol, must be supposed to have depended originally upon similar fears of the return of the "soul". (Similar precautions arising from the same belief were customary at funerals elsewhere: Oldenberg, _Rel. d. Veda_, 573-4 [489 F.T.]. Robinsohn, _Psychol. d. Naturv._, 45 f.) Belief in the incomplete departure of the soul from this world has dictated these customs, too.]

[27\1: The details of the procedure until the funeral dirge are given in ~S~ 343-55.]

[28\1: ~tu/mbos~ and ~stê/lê, P~ 457, 675, ~R~ 434, ~L~ 371, ~m~ 14. A heaped-up ~sê=ma~ as the burial-place of Eetion round which the Nymphs plant elms: ~Z~ 419 ff.--which preserves a trace of the custom, obtaining also in later times, of planting trees and even a whole grove round the grave.]

[29\1: ~kte/rea ktereï/zein~ in the formula ~sêma/ te/ hoi cheu=ai kai\ epi\ kte/rea ktereï/zein~, ~a~ 291, ~b~ 222. Here the ~ktereï/zein~ comes after the heaping up of the grave-mound--possibly the ~kte/rea~ are to be burnt on or at the grave-mound. Schol. B on ~T~ 212 is, however, mistaken in the rule deduced from these cases: ~prouti/thesan, ei=ta e/thapton, ei=ta etumbocho/oun, ei=ta ektere/ïzon~. All the cases refer to the ceremonial at _empty_ graves. Where the body was obtainable the relatives or friends would have burnt the ~kte/rea~ with the body. This is done in the case of Eetion and Elpenor, and it must be understood in the close connexion of the words ~en puri\ kê/aien kai\ epi\ kte/rea kteri/saien~, ~Ô~ 38, and again ~o/phr' he/taron tha/ptoi kai\ epi\ kte/rea kteri/seien~, ~g~ 285.]

[30\1:--a custom that originally belonged to all primitive peoples and remained in force for a very long time among many of them. _All_ the possessions of a dead Inca remain his own absolute property: Prescott, _Peru_^4, i, 31. Among the Abipones of Paraguay all the possessions of the dead are burnt: Klemm, _Culturges._ ii, 99. The Albanians of the Caucasus buried all the dead man's possessions with him, ~kai\ dia\ tou=to pe/nêtes zô=sin oude\n patrô=|on e/chontes~, Str. 503. Of ancient origin are also the extravagant burial customs of the Mingrelians living in what was formerly Albania: Chardin, _Voy. en Perse_ (ed. **Langlès), i, 325, 298, 314, 322.] {48}

[31\1: Examples given by O. Jahn, _Persius_, p. 219 fin.]

[32\1: ~psuchê\ d' ek rhethe/ôn ptame/nê A/ïdo/sde bebê/kei, ho\n po/tmon goo/ôsa lipou=s' androtê=ta kai\ hêbên~, ~P~ 756. ~Ch~ 362 cf. ~U~ 294, ~N~ 415. ~psuchê\ d' Aïdo/sde katê=lthen~, ~k~ 560, ~l~ 65. Complete departure into the depths of the kingdom of Hades is more clearly expressed in such words as ~bai/ên do/mon A/ïdos _ei/sô_~, ~Ô~ 246, ~ki/on A/ïdos ei/sô~, ~Z~ 422, etc. Again, in ~l~ 150, the soul of Teiresias while speaking to Odysseus is still in Hades in the wider sense but is more exactly on the extreme edge of that region: we are told ~psuchê\ me\n e/bê do/mon A/ïdos _ei/sô_~--now at last it goes back again into the depths of the Kingdom of Hades.]

[33\1: Aristonikos on ~Ps~ 104: ~hê diplê= ho/ti ta\s tô=n ata/phôn psucha\s Ho/mêros e/ti sôzou/sas tê\n phro/nêsin hupoti/thetai~. (Rather too systematically put by Porph. ap. Stob., _Ecl._ i, p. 422, 20 ff., 425, 25 ff. W.) Elpenor is the first to approach Odysseus' sacrificial trench ~ou ga/r pô ete/thapto~, ~l~ 52. His ~psuchê/~ had not yet been received into Hades (_Rh. Mus._ 1, 615). Achilles' treatment of the body of Hektor shows that he thought of his enemy (because he was still unburied) as being able to feel what was done to him: lacerari eum et sentire credo putat, Cic., _TD._ i, 105.]

[34\1: Plin. vii, 187, explains the change among the Romans from burial to cremation as being due to the fear that in times of war and disturbance the dead might be deprived of their rest. If a man dies in war time, i.e. during a period of temporary nomadism, his body is burnt, but a limb (sometimes the head) is cut off to be taken home and buried ad quod servatum iusta fierent, Paul. Festi, 148, 11; Varro, _LL._ v, 23; Cic., _Lg._ ii, 55, 60. The same custom is found among certain German tribes: see Weinhold, _Sitzb. Wien. Ac._ xxix, 156; xxx, 208. Even among the negroes of Guinea and the South American Indians practices resembling the _os resectum_ of the Romans are found in the case of those who die in war in foreign country; cf. Klemm, _Culturg._ iii, 297; ii, 98 f. In every case burial is regarded as the ancient and traditional mode of disposing of the dead, and the one strictly required on religious grounds.]

[35\1: Only once is there any mention of taking home the burnt bones, ~Ê~ 334 f. Aristarch. rightly recognized this as being in conflict with the normal conceptions and practice of Homer and regarded the lines as the composition of a later poet (Sch. A ad loc. and on ~D~ 174; Sch. EMQ., ~g~ 109). The lines may have been inserted to account for the absence from the Troad of such enormous grave-mounds as the burial of the ashes of both armies should have produced. The same reason--the desire expressed in these lines to bring back those who have died in a foreign country to their own land at last--is implied as the origin of cremation in the illustrative story of Herakles and Argeios, the son of Likymnios, in the ~histori/a~ (derived from Andron) of Sch. A on ~A~ 52.]

[36\1: _Kl. Schr._ ii, 216, 220.]

[37\1: It would apply better to Roman beliefs; cf. Vg., _A._ iv, 698-9--though even that means something else. (Cf. also Oldenberg, _Rel. d. Veda_, 585, 2.)]

[38\1: Cf. esp. ~Ps~ 75-6, ~l~ 218-22.]

[39\1: Serv. ad _A._ iii, 68: Aegyptii condita diutius servant cadavera scilicet ut anima multo tempore perduret et corpori sit obnoxia nec cito ad aliud transeat. Romani contra faciebant, comburentes cadavera ut statim anima in generalitatem, i.e. in suam naturam rediret (the pantheistic touch may be neglected).--Cf. the account given by Ibn Foslan of the burial customs of the pagan Russians {49} (quoted from Frähn by J. Grimm, _Kl. Schr._ ii, 292): the preference for burning was due to the idea that the soul was less quickly set free on its way to Paradise when the body was buried intact, than when it was destroyed by fire.]

[40\1: Cf. the Hymn of the Rigveda (x, 16) which is to be said at a cremation, esp. v. 2, 9 (quoted by Zimmer, _Altind. Leben_, 402 f.), and also _Rigv._ x, 14, 8 (Zimmer, p. 409). The Indians also wished to prevent the return of the dead to the world of the living. The feet of the corpse were chained so that the dead could not return (Zimmer, p. 402).]

[41\1: It lies at the root of the stories of Demeter and Demophoon (or Triptolemos), and also that of Thetis and Achilles, when the goddess, laying the mortal child in the fire, ~periê/|rei ta\s thnêta\s sa/rkas, e/phtheiren ho\ ê=n autô=| thnêto/n~, in order to make it immortal (cf. Preller, _Dem. u. Perseph._, 112); cf. also the custom observed at certain festivals (? of Hecate, cf. Bergk, _PLG._ iii, 682) of lighting fires in the streets and leaping through the flames carrying children, see Grimm (E.T.), p. 625; cf. also Cic., _Div._ i, 47: o praeclarum discessum cum ut Herculi contigit mortali corpore cremato in lucem animus excessit! Ov., _M._, ix, 250: Luc., _Herm._, 7; Q.S. v, 640 ff. (For more about the "purifying" effects of fire, see below, chap. ix, n. 127.)]

[42\1: Nothing else than this is implied by the words of ~Ê~ 409-10, ~ou ga\r tis pheidô\ neku/ôn katatethnêô/tôn gi/gnet', epei/ ke tha/nôsi puro\s meilisse/men ô=ka~. The souls of the dead must be quickly "assuaged with fire" (their longing gratified) and so their bodies are burnt. Purification from what is mortal and unclean, which Dieterich (_Nekyia_, 197, 3) thinks is referred to in this passage, is certainly not suggested as such by the words of the poet.]

[43\1: Light may be incidentally thrown on the question of the transition from burial to cremation by such a story as that which an Icelandic Saga tells of a man who is buried by his own wish before the door of his house; "but as he returned and did much mischief his body was exhumed and burnt and the ashes scattered over the sea" (Weinhold, _Altnord. Leben_, 499). We often read in old stories how the body of a dead man who goes about as a vampire is burnt. His soul is then exorcized and cannot come back again.]

[44\1: It is natural to think of Asiatic influence. Cremation hearths have recently (1893) been discovered in Babylonia.]

[45\1: See Helbig, _D. Hom. Epos aus d. Denkm. erl._, 42 f.]

[46\1: That the men of the "Mycenaean" culture, though much affected by foreign influences, were Greeks--the Greeks of the Heroic age of whom Homer speaks--may now be regarded as certain (see esp. E. Reisch, _Verh. Wien. Philol._, 99 ff.).]

[47\1: See Schliemann, _Mycenae_, E.T., 155, 165, 213-14.]

[48\1: Helbig. _Hom. Epos_^2, p. 52.]

[49\1: Cf. K. Weinhold, _Sitzb. Wien. Ak._, 1858 (_Phil. hist. Cl._), xxix, pp. 121, 125, 141. The remarkable coincidences between the Mycenaean and these North European burial customs do not seem as yet to have been noticed. (The object of this elaborate foundation and covering may have been to preserve the corpse from decay longer, and especially from the effects of damp.)]

[50\1: Also in the domed grave of Dimini: _Ath. Mitth._, xii, 138.]

[51\1: The soul of a dead man from whom a favourite possession is withheld returns (equally whether the body and the possessions with it are burnt or buried). The story in Lucian, _Philops._, xxvii, of the wife of Eukrates (cf. Hdt. v, 92~ê~), is quite in accordance with popular belief.] {50}

[52\1: Schliemann, _Myc._, 212-13: see plan F. A similar altar in the Hall of the Palace of Tiryus: Schuchhardt, _Schliemann's Exc._ (E.T.), p. 107.]

[53\1: ~escha/ra~ is essentially ~eph' hê=s toi=s hê/rôsin apothu/omen~, Poll. i, 8; cf. Neanthes ap. Ammon., _Diff. Voc._, p. 34 V. Such an altar rested directly on the ground without anything intervening (~mê\ e/chousa hu/psos all' epi\ gê=s hidrume/nê~), it is round (~strogguloeidê/s~) and hollow (~koi/lê~): cf. esp. Harp., 87, 15 ff. Phot., s.v. ~escha/ra~ (2 glosses); _AB._ 256, 32; _EM._, 384, 12 ff.; Sch. on ~z~ 52; Eust., _Od._, p. 1939 (~ps~ 71): Sch. Eur., _Ph._, 284. It is evident that the ~escha/ra~ is not very far removed from the sacrificial trench of the cult of the dead: thus it is actually called also ~bo/thros~; Sch. Eur., _Ph._, 274 (~skaptê/~ S. Byz., 191, 7 Mein.).]

[54\1: Stengel has a different view (_Chthon. u. Todt._, 427, 2).]

II

[55\1: It is doubtful whether Homer even knew of dream-oracles (which would be closely related to oracles of the dead**). That in ~A~ 63 ~egkoi/mêsis~ is "at least alluded to" (as Nägelsbach, _Nachhom. Theol._, 172, thinks) is by no means certain. The ~oneiropo/los~ would not be a priest who intentionally gave himself up to prophetic sleep and thus ~hupe\r hete/rôn onei/rous hora=|~, but rather an ~oneirokri/tês~--an interpreter of other men's unsought dream-visions.]

[56\1: Even the river-gods and Nymphs who are usually confined to their own homes are called to the ~agora/~ of all the gods in Olympos, ~U~ 4 ff. These deities who remain fixed in the locality of their worship are weaker than the Olympians just because they are not elevated with the rest to the ideal summit of Olympos. Kalypso resignedly admits this, ~e~ 169 f., ~ei/ ke theoi/ g' ethe/lôsi, toi\ ourano\n euru\n e/chousin, hoi/ meu phe/rteroi/ eisi noê=sai/ te krê=nai/ te~. They have sunk to the second rank of deities. They are, however, never thought of as free and independent, but as a mere addition to the kingdom of Zeus and the other Olympians.]

[57\1: Exx. in Nägelsbach, _Hom. Theol._^2, 387 f. (~phre/nes~), W. Schrader, _Jb. f. Philol._ 1885, p. 163 f. (~ê=tor~).]

[58\1: The belief in the existence of more than one soul in the same person is very wide-spread. See J. G. Müller, _Americ. Urrelig._, p. 66, 207 f., Tylor, i, 432 f. The distinction between the five spiritual powers dwelling within man given by the Avesta rests upon similar grounds (Geiger, _Civ. of East. Iran_, 1, 124 ff.). Even in Homer Gomperz, _Greek Thinkers_, i, 249, finds a "two-soul" theory fully developed. According to him Homer recognizes in the ~thumo/s~--a word supposed to be derived from the steam rising from freshly shed and still warm blood--a second soul in addition to the ~psuchê/~: a "smoke-soul" side by side with the "breath-soul". But if by soul a "something" is meant--as it must be in popular psychology--which is added independently to the body and its faculties, something which lives separately in the body and after the death of the body (with which it is not indissolubly united) dissociates itself and goes off independently--then the ~thumo/s~ of Homer cannot be called a "soul" or a double of the ~psuchê/~. Again and again the ~thumo/s~ is clearly referred to as a mental faculty of the living body; either thinking or willing or merely feeling (~thumô=| noe/ô, thumô=| dei=sai, gêthê/sei thumô=|, echolô/sato thumô=|, ê/rare thumo\n edôdê=|~, etc.) is conducted by its means. It is the seat of the emotions (~me/nos e/llabe thumo/n~) and belongs to the body of the living man, and is especially enclosed in the ~phre/nes~. In the face of {51} this it is impossible to regard it as something independent of the body or as anything else than a special faculty of the same living body. Once, indeed, ~Ê~ 131, the ~thumo/s~ is spoken of, instead of ~psuchê/ as that which goes down to Haides, but this can only be an error or an oversight (see also below, ch. xi, n. 2). According to Homeric ideas--and this is a conception repeated over and over again in Greek literature and even in Greek philosophy--the body has all its vital powers in itself, not merely ~thumo/s~ but ~me/nos, no/os, mê=tis, boulê/~. Yet it only acquires life when supplemented by the ~psuchê/~, which is something different from all these bodily powers--something with an independent being of its own and alone deserving the name "soul", a name which belongs as little to ~thumo/s~ as to ~no/os~. Gomperz thinks that ~thumo/s~, etc., were at first the only recognized faculties of the body and that ~psuchê/~ was only (for the Greeks) added later. This is certainly not to be made out from Homer--or any other part of Greek literature.]

[59\1: ~peri\ psuchê=s the/on~, ~Ch~ 161; ~peri\ psuche/ôn ema/chonto~, ~ch~ 245; ~psuchê\n paraballo/menos~, ~I~ 322; ~psucha\s parthe/menoi~, ~g~ 74, ~i~ 255; ~psuchê=s anta/xion~, ~I~ 401; and cf. ~i~ 523: ~ai\ ga\r dê\ psuchê=s te kai\ aiô=no/s se dunai/mên eu=nin poiê/sas pe/mpsai do/mon A/ïdos ei/sô~. No one strictly speaking can go into Hades bereft of his ~psuchê/~, for it is the ~psuchê/~ alone which goes there. Thus ~psuchê/~ here clearly = life, as is shown also by the addition of the words ~kai\ aiô=nos~ for the sake of clearness. It is more doubtful whether this is the explanation of ~psuchê=s o/lethros~, ~Ch~ 325, or of ~psucha\s ole/santes~, ~N~ 763, ~Ô~ 168. Other passages adduced by Nägelsb., _Hom. Th._^2, 381, and Schrader, _Jb. f. Philol._ 1885, p. 167, either admit or require the material sense of the word ~psuchê/~: e.g. ~E~ 696 ff., ~Th~ 123, ~s~ 91, etc.]

III

[60\1: A more detailed statement and documentation of the following analysis of the Nekyia in Od. ~l~ will be found in _Rh. Mus._ 1, 600 ff. (1895). [_Kl. Schr._ ii, 255.]]

[61\1: The information given by Teiresias, ~l~ 107 ff., about Thrinakia and the cattle of Helios seems to be put in such a brief and inadequate form just because the fuller account given by Kirke, ~m~ 127, was already known to the poet who did not wish to repeat this word for word.]

[62\1: A final example of such pictures intended to suggest the background of the Odyssey is the conversation between Achilles and Agamemnon in the "second Nekyia", ~ô~ 19 ff. The composer of these lines has understood quite correctly the meaning and purpose of his model, the original Nekyia of ~l~, though his continuation of it is certainly very clumsy.]

[63\1: ~k~ 539-40 is borrowed from ~d~ 389-90, 470.--I find after writing this that Kammer had already suggested imitation of ~d~ in the Nekyia: _Einheit d. Od._, 494 f.]

[64\1: It is striking (and may have some special reason) that in Kirke's account there is no mention of the Kimmerians. It is easier to see why the careful description of the country in Kirke's speech, ~k~ 509-15, is not afterwards repeated but merely recalled to the memory of the reader in a few words (~l~ 21-2).]

[65\1: I can see no essential difference between the conception and situation of Hades as indicated in the Iliad and the account given in the Nekyia of the Odyssey. J. H. Voss and Nitzsch were right in this matter. Nor do the additional details given in the "second Nekyia" of ~ô~ essentially "conflict" (as Teuffel, _Stud. u. Charact._, thinks) with the description of the first Nekyia. It does not adhere {52} slavishly to its original, but it rests upon the same fundamental conceptions.]

[66\1: Sch. H.Q., ~k~ 514, ~Puriphlege/thôn, ê/toi to\ pu=r to\ aphani/zon to\ sa/rkinon tô=n brotô=n~, cf. Apollodor., ~p. theô=n~, ap. Stob., _Ecl._ i, p. 420, 9 W. ~Puriphlege/thôn ei/rêtai apo\ tou= puri\ phle/gesthai tou\s teleutô=ntas~.]

[67\1: Acheron, too, seems to be regarded as a river. The soul of the unburied Patroklos, which has already departed, ~an' eurupule\s A/ïdos dô=~, and has therefore passed over Okeanos, is prevented by the other souls from passing over "the river", ~Ps~ 72 f. This can hardly be the Okeanos, and must, therefore, be Acheron (so, too, Porph. ap. Stob., _Ecl._ i, p. 422 f., 426 W.). ~k~ 515 does not in the least prove that Acheron was thought of as a lake and not a river, as Bergk, _Opusc._ ii, 695, thinks.]

[68\1: Cf. ~l~ 206 ff., 209-393 ff., 475.]

[69\1: See ~P~ 851 ff. (Patroklos), ~Ch~ 358 ff. (Hektor), ~l~ 69 ff. Behind each of these there lies the ancient belief that the soul in the moment of escape achieves a higher state of being and returns to a form of knowledge independent of sense-perception (cf. Artemon ap. Sch., ~P~ 854, Arist. _fr._ 12 (10) R.). Otherwise this power belongs to gods and, strictly, only to Zeus, who can foresee everything (in Homer). But the statements are intentionally modified to suggest an undefined middle position between prophecy in the full sense and mere ~stocha/zesthai~ (cf. Sch. B.V., ~Ch~ 359)--~Ch~ 359 at the most may go beyond this point.]

[70\1: ~l~ 218-24.]

[71\1: ~o/ïn arneio\n rhe/zein, thê=lu/n te me/lainan, eis E/rebos stre/psas~, ~k~ 527 f. From the word ~me/lainan~ the ~o/ïn arneio\n~ is also to be understood ~apo\ koinou=~ as being, more precisely, black (and so again in 572)--the ram offered to the gods (or Souls) of the underworld is regularly black. ~eis E/rebos stre/psas~, i.e. bending the head downwards (not towards the west) = ~es bo/thron~, ~l~ 36--as Nitzsch rightly explains it. Everything corresponds to the regular ~e/ntoma~ of later times for the underworld beings (cf. Stengel, _Ztsch. f. Gymn._, 1880, p. 743 f.).]

[72\1: ~koinê/ tis para\ anthrô/pois esti\n hupo/lêpsis ho/ti nekroi\ kai\ dai/mones si/dêron phobou=ntai~, Sch. Q., ~l~ 48. It is really the _sound_ of the bronze or iron that drives away spirits: Luc., _Philops_. 15 (cf. O. Jahn, _Abergl. d. bös. Blicks_, 70). But even the mere presence of iron objects is sufficient: [Aug.] _Hom. de sacrileg._ (about the seventh century), 22, states that to the _sacrilegi_ belong among others those who wear rings or armlets of iron, aut qui in domo sua quaecumque de ferro, propter ut daemones timeant, ponunt.]

[73\1: The idea that the Thesprotian ~nekuomantei=on~ by the river Acheron was the original of the Homeric picture was first started by Paus. 1, 17, 5. He was followed by K. O. Müller, _Introd. to a Scientific System of Myth._, pp. 297-8 (_E. T._, Leitch), who has been followed by many others. But it has scarcely more justification than has e.g. the localization of the Homeric entrance to Hades at Cumae, Herakleia Pont. (cf. _Rh. Mus._ 36, 555 ff.), or other places of ancient worship of the dead (e.g. Pylos). At such places the traditional names of Acheron, Kokytos, Pyriphlegethon were easily introduced--but taken from Homer and not coming thence into Homer. The fact that it is just this Thesprotian oracle of the dead that is mentioned in Hdt.'s well-known story (v, 92 ~ê~) does not at all prove that this was the oldest of all such oracles.]

[74\1: To this extent Lobeck's denial of necromancy to the Homeric poems (_Agl._ 316) may, perhaps, require to be modified; but so modified it may be accepted.] {53}

[75\1: In accordance with primeval sacrificial custom. To the dead only female (or castrated) animals are offered (see Stengel, _Chthon. u. Todtenc._, 424). Here it is a ~stei=ra bou=s, a/gona toi=s ago/nois~ (Sch.). So among the Indians, "to the Manes that are without the powers of life and procreation" a wether instead of a ram was offered: Oldenberg, _Rel. d. Ved._, 358 [= 306 Fr. T.].]

[76\1: ~Ô~ 592 ff. Achilles says to the dead Patroklos ~mê/ moi Pa/trokle skudmaine/men ai/ ke pu/thêai ein A/ïdo/s per eô\n ho/ti He/ktora di=on e/lusa patri\ phi/lô|, e/pei ou/ moi aeike/a dô=ken a/poina. soi\ d' au= egô\ kai\ tô=nd' apoda/ssomai ho/ss' epe/oiken~. The possibility that the dead in Hades may be able to know what is happening in the upper world is referred to only hypothetically (~ai/ ke~)--not so, however, the intention of giving the dead man a share in the gifts of Priam (~di' epitaphi/ôn eis auto\n agô/nôn~ as Sch. B.V. on 594 thinks). The strangeness of such a promise seems to have been one of the reasons that made Aristarch. (unjustly) athetize ll. 594-5.]

[77\1: 40-1. This is not un-Homeric, cf. esp. ~X~ 456. Thus on many vase-paintings we see the psyche of a fallen warrior flying over the corpse, often clad in full armour, but very diminutive in size--to express invisibility.]

[78\1: Strictly speaking Odysseus is supposed to enter into conversation with the women while each informs him of her fate (231-4); every now and then comes a ~pha/to~ 236, ~phê=~ 237, ~eu/cheto~ 261, ~pha/ske~ 306. But the whole section is little more than a review at which Odysseus assists without taking any real part.]

[79\1: Cf. _Rh. Mus._ 1, 625 ff. The nearest parallel to such a distinction between an ~ei/dôlon~ and the fully animated ~auto/s~ is to be found in what Stesichoros (and Hesiod before him: see Paraphr. ant. Lyc., 822, p. 71, Scheer, and _PLG._ iii, p. 215) relates of Helen and her ~ei/dôlon~. Prob. this latter story gave rise to the insertion of these lines, ~l~ 602 ff.]

[80\1: Cf. 623 ff.]

[81\1: Welcker, _Gr. Götterl._ i, 818, and others following him.]

[82\1: [Apollod.] 1, 9, 3, 2; Sch., ~A~ 180 (p. 18b, 23 ff., Bekk.) gives as reason for the punishment of Sisyphos that he betrayed to Asopos the rape of his daughter Aigina by Zeus. This, however, does not rest upon good epic tradition. Another story follows up the betrayal with the myth of the outwitting of Death and then Hades by S., after which he is sent down to Hades again and punished by the task of the endless stone-rolling. The story of the double outwitting of the powers of death (cf. the similar fairy tale of _Spielhansel_: Grimm, _Fairy Tales_, n. 82, and _Anm._, vol. ii, p. 163, ed. 1915) is obviously intended humorously, and so it seems to have been treated in a satyr-drama of Aesch., the ~Si/suphos drape/tês~ [Sch., ~Z~ 153.] The fact that this story ends in the punishment of the stone-rolling ought to be sufficient warning against taking it in the serious and edifying sense in which Welcker and his followers interpret it. It is quite contrary to ancient ideas to suppose that Sis. is punished for his cunning as a warning to other crafty (as well as good) men. In ~Z~ 153 he is called ~ke/rdistos andrô=n~ as praise and not blame: so Aristarch. rightly maintained and supported his case by clear ~anaphora/~ to the line of the Nekyia (see Sch., ~Z~ 153, ~K~ 44, Lehrs, _Aristarch._^3, p. 117 and ~l~ 593). The idea that the adj. refers to the ~kako/tropon~ of S. is merely a misunderstanding of Porph. ap. Sch., ~l~ 385. How little anyone thought of S. as a criminal, even with the Homeric story in his mind, is shown by the Platonic Sokrates who _rejoices_ (_Apol._, 41 C) over the fact that in Hades he will meet, amongst others, Sisyphos (cf. also {54} Thgn., 702 ff.). The case of Sis. presents the most serious difficulties that face any attempt to give a moralizing sense (quite outside the poet's intention) to the section of the "three penitents". (See also _Rh. Mus._ 1, 630.)]

[83\1: ~G~ 279, ~T~ 260 (cf. _Rh. Mus._ 1, 8). Nitzsch, _Anm. z. Od._ iii, p. 184 f., vainly employs all the arts of interpretation and criticism to deny their obvious meaning to both passages.]

[84\1: K. O. Müller, _Aeschylus Eumenides_, p. 167 = E.T., 1853, p. 159.]

[85\1: It should be remembered also that no legal penalties against perjury existed in Greece, any more than in Rome. They were unnecessary in face of the general expectation that the deity whom the perjurer had invoked against himself would take immediate revenge upon the criminal. (Esp. instructive are the words of Agamemnon on the Trojan breach of faith, ~D~ 158 ff.) Such revenge would be taken either during the life time of the perjurer--in which case the instruments of vengeance would be the spirits of Hell, the Erinyes: Hes., _Op._, 802 ff.--or else after death.]

[86\1: The oath as a bond in favour of the oath-gods: Thgn., 1195 f., ~mê/ti theou\s epi/orkon epo/mnuthi, ou ga\r anusto\n athana/tous kru/psai _chrei=os_ opheilo/menon~. Perjury would be ~eis theou\s hamarta/nein~, Soph. _fr._ 431 (472 P.).]

[87\1: Eust., _Od._, p. 1614-15, has understood this. He calls attention to Pi., _P_. 4, 159, ~ke/letai ga\r hea\n psucha\n komi/zai Phri/xos eltho/ntas pro\s Aiê/ta thala/mous~--on which passage the Sch. refers us back again to Homer. Both passages imply the same belief: ~tô=n apolome/nôn en xe/nê| gê=| ta\s psucha\s euchai=s tisin epekalou=nto apopleo/ntes hoi phi/loi eis tê\n ekei/nôn patri/da kai\ edo/koun _kata/gein_ autou\s pro\s tou\s oikei/ous~ (Sch. ~i~ 65 f., Sch. ~Ê~, ~i~ 62). Nitzsch, _Anm._ iii, 17-18, vainly attempts to get out of the necessity of seeing in this act the fulfilment of a religious duty. He supposes that Odysseus is merely satisfying a "need of the heart", etc. The real meaning of religious performance is too often obscured by such "ethical" interpretation.]

[88\1: The command of Athene to Telem., ~a~ 291, presupposes as universally customary the erection of a cenotaph for those who die in foreign lands unless their bodies can be obtained by their friends. Menelaos erects an empty tomb to Agamemnon in Egypt, ~d~ 584.]

[89\1: ~d~ 584, ~cheu=' Agame/mnoni tu/mbon hi=n' a/sbeston kle/os ei/ê~. ~l~ 75 f., ~sê=ma/ te/ moi cheu=ai poliê=s epi\ thini\ thala/ssês, andro\s dustê/noio, kai\ essome/noisi pu/thesthai~. Achilles in the second Nekyia, ~ô~ 30 ff., says to Agam.: Would thou hadst died before Troy, for then the Achaeans would have set up a tomb for thee and ~kai\ sô=| paidi\ me/ga kle/os ê/ra' opi/ssô~ (cf. 93 f., where Agam. says to Achilles ~hôs su\ me\n oude\ thanô\n o/nom' ô/lesas alla/ toi aiei\ pa/ntas ep' anthrô/pous kle/os e/ssetai esthlo\n Achilleu=~). The words of Hektor, ~Ê~ 84 ff., show how the ~sê=ma epi\ platei= Hellêspo/ntô|~ served to remind sailors as they passed, ~andro\s me\n to/de sê=ma pa/lai katatethnêô=tos ktl.~ and to suggest that this was the proper and principal purpose of such erections.--In contrast with this cf. what is stated of the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands: "they laid their illustrious dead in a chest and set them up on a high place or on a rock by the bank of a river in order that they might be _worshipped_ by the pious": Lippert, _Seelencult_, p. 22.]

{{55}}

##