[32\12: Pindar in these lines speaks only of the ~aiô=nos ei/dôlon~;

but that by this he means the ~psuchê/~ is obvious in itself and is

stated by Plutarch, who preserves the lines, _Cons. ad Apoll._ 35,

p. 120 D (~peri\ psuchê=s le/gôn~; cf. _Rom._ 28).--~psuchê/~ in

Pindar sometimes stands for what is otherwise called ~kardi/a~ or

~phrê/n~, "heart" or "disposition" e.g. _P._ i, 48; iv, 122; _N._

ix, 39; _I._ iv, 53b, and _O._ ii, 77, and prob. also _P._ iii, 41;

"disposition," _N._ ix, 32. The word is sometimes (as in Homer)

equivalent to ~zôê/~, _P._ iii, 101, ~psucha\n lipô/n~. It

simultaneously = "life" and the _alter ego_ dwelling within the

living man, _O._ viii, ~psucha\s ba/lon~; cf. _N._ i, 47. But the

poet knows also the full meaning of ~psucha/~ in the older idiom and

belief. Entirely in the manner of Homeric usage ~psucha/~ denotes

the spiritual double of mankind, which survives the man himself, in

those instances where the ~psuchê/~ of the dead is said to be still

in existence: ~psucha\n komi/xai~, _P._ iv, 159; _N._ viii, 44 f.;

~su\n Agamemnoni/a| psucha=|~ (is Kassandra sent into Hades), _P._

xi, 20 f. Persephone ~anadidoi= psucha\s pa/lin~ (out of Hades),

_fr._ 133, 3 (Bgk.); _I._ i, 68, ~psucha\n Aï/da| tele/ôn~ (in

death).--~psuchai/~ is also used in the old idiomatic sense in _fr._

132, 1: which is, however, spurious.--~psucha/~ in Pindar never

denotes the psychical powers of the living man inclusive of the

intellect, much less the intellect, ~nou=s~, alone.]

[33\12: ~kai\ sô=ma me\n pa/ntôn he/petai thana/tô| peristhenei=,

zô=on d' e/ti lei/petai aiô=nos ei/dôlon; to\ _ga\r_ esti mo/non ek

theô=n~, _fr._ 131 (96 Boeckh).]

[34\12: ~oi=si de\ Phersepho/na poina\n palaiou= pe/ntheos

de/xetai~--_fr._ 133. What is meant is undoubtedly the ancient

"guilt" of the soul for which Perseph. receives satisfaction. This

guilt can only be called a ~pe/nthos~ if she who accepts the

satisfaction is regarded as herself grief-stricken by the guilty

dead; if, in fact, the deed has been the occasion of mourning for

Persephone. That this can apply to the goddess of the underworld is

startling, but it cannot be got rid of by artificial interpretation

(as Dissen would like to get rid of it). Pindar follows throughout

the analogy of the ancient procedure of expiation in the case of

blood-guiltiness. But this procedure seems to be familiar with the

idea that, apart from the ~agchistei/a~ of the murdered man, the

underworld gods themselves (as guardians of the Souls) are

immediately injured by the deed and stricken by grief and must

receive satisfaction on their own account. Hence in certain legends

(typificatory of ritual) the murderer not only has to fly from the

land but to undergo servitude to the ~chtho/nioi~: Apollo,

especially after the slaying of Python, has to serve ~A/dmêtos~,

i.e. Hades for an _ennaëteris_ (more on this subject below, n. 40).

Thus, the guilty soul banished from its proper home serves a "great

year" under Persephone, and this is the ~poina/~ that it pays.]

[35\12: _O._ ii, 63-5. Everything here refers to judgment and

compensation _in Hades_. In the words ~thano/ntôn me\n entha/d'

auti/k' apa/lamnoi phre/nes poina\s e/tisan~ the ~entha/de~ cannot

possibly belong to the ~poina\s e/tisan~, as Aristarchos supposed,

so that the words should refer to the punishment in the course of a

new birth upon _earth_ of crimes committed in Hades (in itself a

remarkable conception). ~thano/ntes~ alone would not be put for

~thano/ntes _kai\ anabebiôko/tes_~, and we can only understand by

the word those who after a life-time upon earth have died and are

now spending their time below in the underworld. Moreover, it is

hardly likely (as Ty. Mommsen reminds us _adnot. crit. ad Olymp._

24) that the exposition of the "knowledge of the future" (62) on the

part of {443} a man still living upon earth would begin with what

may happen to man, not after his death, but in a second appearance

upon earth that is to fall to his lot later on. We must first of all

be told what happens after the conclusion of the present condition

of life, viz. that upon earth. Finally, the use of ~auti/ka~ is

quite satisfactory if it refers to the judgment in Hades that

follows immediately after death; while it is meaningless in

Aristarchos' interpretation (hence Rauchenstein writes ~au=tis~--a

mere conjecture and a superfluous one). The view that the ~me\n--de/~

of 63-4 necessitates Aristarchos' explanation is not convincing (as

Lübbert thinks, _Ind. Schol. Bonn. hib._ 1887, p.

xviii--incidentally he quite unjustifiably introduces specifically

Platonic fancies into Pindar, p. xix). The ~thano/ntôn me/n~ of 63

is not answered till ~ho/soi d' eto/lmasan . . .~ 75, just as the

~auti/ka~ of 63 does not receive its contrast till we come to what

happens much later--after the life on earth has been thrice

repeated--described in 75 ff. The ~de/~ of 64 and 67 are subordinate

(not adversative) to what is introduced by the ~me/n~ of 63 and they

continue the thought. The ~entha/de~ of 63 might indeed, in

accordance with an otherwise correct usage, be connected with

~apa/lamnoi phre/nes~, as it is by one of the Scholiasts: "the

~phre/nes~ which have committed crimes here upon earth." But

~apa/lamnos~ does not mean _sceleratus_, _impius_ (nor does it in

the passages adduced for this meaning by Zacher, _Diss. Halens._

iii, 237: Thgn. 281; Sim. v, 3). The ~apa/lamnoi phre/nes~ are

simply equivalent to the ~amenêna\ ka/rêna~ of Homer, and are a very

suitable expression for the ~psuchai/~ of the dead (though not

indeed for the ~psuchai/~ of the reborn as Aristarchos would have

it). No alternative remains save to connect ~thano/ntôn~ and

~entha/de~: simulac mortui sunt hic, s. decedunt hinc (Dissen). The

sentence ~ta\ d' en ta=|de . . .~ must then either be a more exact

description of what has been stated generally just before in

~poina\s e/tisan~ (and this is Mommsen's view supported by one

Schol.), or else be subordinated--together with its contrasted

~i/sais de\ . . .~ 67 ff.--to ~poina\s e/tisan~. ~poina/~ in Pindar

means regularly compensation, whether expiation for evil deeds or

reward for good (cf. _P._ i, 59; _N._ i, 70b). If we might suppose

that by a brachylogy not beyond possibility in Pindar ~poina\s

e/tisan~ is put for ~poina\s e/tisan kai\ ede/xanto~, then the sense

might be: after death the souls receive at once recompense for their

actions--and _then_ follows the division of the bad 64 ff., and the

good 67 ff. But we may perhaps rest content with Mommsen's

explanation.]

[36\12: _O._ ii, 74.]

[37\12: Plu., _de Lat. Viv._ 7, p. 1130 C after citing the lines of

Pindar _fr._ 130 (95) adds: (the rivers of Erebos) ~decho/menoi kai\

apokru/ptontes agnoi/a| kai\ lê/thê| tou\s koazome/nous~. This

_might_ possibly be an addition made by Plu. on his own account--he

had frequently spoken of ~eis a/gnoian auto\n embalei=n~, etc., in

his war against the Epicurean ~la/the biô/sas~ and here the same

thing appears again from Erebos. But the words are more probably a

paraphrase from Pindar. At any rate, what is said in Plu. about the

~_mnê=mai_ kai\ lo/goi~ of the ~eusebei=s~ in clear contrast with

the _~lê/thê~_ of the ~asebei=s~, comes from Pindar: this is shown

by the allusions of Aristid. i, p. 146, 1 Dind. From this parallel

it is also clearly proved that the ~lê/thê~ does not refer (as

Lehrs, _Pop. Aufs._ 313 thinks) to the forgetfulness of the

~kolazo/menoi~ in the minds of the living, but forgetfulness of

their previous life by the ~kolazo/menoi~ themselves. Accordingly we

are to suppose that Pindar assigns retention of memory and complete

consciousness only to the good in Hades, as their special privilege

(cf. the position of Teiresias in ~k~ 494), while the punishment

{444} of the wicked is enhanced by ~lê/thê~ (cf. above, chap. vii,

n. 21 ). Not to have fallen a victim to ~lê/thê~ in Hades--not to

have drunk the waters of Lethe--is occasionally alluded to in

poetico-religious utterances of later times as a special privilege

of the good, e.g. _Epigr. Gr._ 204, 11 (first century B.C.); 414,

10. ~Lê/thês~ and ~Mnêmosu/nês pê/gê~ in Hades (as in the sanctuary

of Trophonios at Lebadea, Paus. 9, 39, 8); _Epigr._ 1037 (cf. above,

chap. vii, n. 21; chap. xi, n. 96; and see also below).]

[38\12: ~toi=si la/mpei me/n me/nos aeli/ou ta\n entha/de nu/kta

ka/tô~ _fr._ 129. In this naive conception, what Helios only

threatens to do in Homer, ~du/somai eis Aï/dao kai\ en neku/essi

phaei/nô~, he does in reality and regularly during the earthly

night. The same idea must be referred to in _O._ ii, 61 ff., ~i/son

de\ nu/ktessin aiei\ i/son en hame/rais ha/lion e/chontes~ (so

Boeckh)--the ~esthloi/~ live in the ~chô=ros eusebô=n~ in Hades:

they have by night and day the same sun (as we: the ~apone/steron~

of 62 also implies this), that is to say, just as much of the sun as

we have on earth only in reverse order of time. The sun only shines

upon the ~eusebei=s~ below; ~mo/nois ga\r hêmi=n hê/lios kai\

phe/ggos hilaro/n esti~ sing the initiated in Hades in Ar., _Ran._

454 f. (but it is the _same_ sun which shines upon them as shines on

us, ~phô=s ka/lliston hô/sper entha/de~ 155. solemque suum sua

sidera norunt is a subtlety of later excogitation). Helios shining

by night in Hades occurs again in the late Greek Hymn ~eis Hê/lion~

(_Orph._, p. 291 Ab.), v, 11, ~ê\n gai/ês keuthmô=na mo/lê|s neku/ôn

t' epi\ chô=ron~. _Epigr. Gr._ 228b, 7-8, ~Lêtogene/s, su\ de\

pai=das en hêrô/essi phula/ssois, _eusebe/ôn aei\ chô=ron

epercho/menos_~.]

[39\12: _O._ ii, 75 ff.]

[40\12: _fr._ 133 ~ena/tô| e/teï~. What is meant is beyond all

question "after the expiration of an _ennaëteris_" (period of 99

months, i.e. 8 years and 3 intercalary months), a period which

besides being familiar as a cycle of religious festivals (Apolline

specially but not exclusively) also occurs in the ancient procedure

of atonement for murder as the period of self-banishment and

servitude in a foreign land undergone by the murderer. Apollo after

slaying Python serves ~me/gan eis eniauto/n~ (i.e. an ennaëteris) in

the house of Admetos (i.e. the god of the lower world) and then

returns purified (Müller, _Dorians_, i, 338); in the same way

Herakles serves Eurystheus (at least a trace of this is found in

[Apollod.] 2, 5, 11, 1; see Müller, _Dorians_, i, 445).--After the

murder of Iphitos Herakles has to serve as bondsman to Omphale

(peculiar in this case is the combination of this species of

atonement for murder with the buying-off of the relatives of the

murdered man [Apollod.] 2, 6, 2, 5; D.S. 4, 31, 5). At the end of

this period of service he is once more "pure" (~hagno\s ê=n~ S.,

_Trach._ 258).--Kadmos after slaying the dragon and the ~Spartoi/~

serves Ares (the chthonic?) for an ~eniauto/s~ of eight years

[Apollod.] 3, 4, 2, 1; Müller, _Orchomen._ 213.--Hippotes after the

murder of Mantis has to fly the country ~de/ka e/tê~ [Apollod.] 2,

8, 3, 3.--On the analogy of this custom the gods, too, who have

broken an oath sworn by the Styx are banished nine years from the

rest of the Olympians (and confined to Hades, since menial service

of the ~chtho/nioi~ is the essential idea of all such

~apeniautismo/s~), Hes., _Th._ 793 ff.: Orph. _fr._ 157. With a

reminiscence of this expiatory banishment Pindar makes the souls at

the conclusion of their earthly pilgrimage (which is itself a

banishment) undergo a final period of penance in Hades for an

ennaëteris, at the end of which the ~poinê/~ for the ancient crime

is regarded as completely paid off.--The life on earth and the

period in Hades which follows is regarded as an exile of the souls

(on account of serious crime).--Such an idea was most natural if the

real home of the soul was thought of as being {445} a divine (not

earthly) country; the idea occurs quite clearly in Empedokles

(certainly uninfluenced by the brief allusions of Pindar); see

above, chap. xi, n. 75.]

[41\12: _fr._ 133. The similarity to the promises made by Emped.

_fr._ 146 (457 f.) is immediately apparent, but is not to be

explained by imitation of Pindar by Emped., but simply by the

similarity of imaginative outlook which led to similar results in

the two cases.--Elevation to the rank of Hero is the reward which

next awaits the man who is born a king, according to this view. Very

remarkable is the manner in which Pindar, _O._ ii, 58-62, effects

the transition to his eschatological statement: the man who

possesses ~plou=tos aretai=s dedaidalme/nos~ knows the future, viz,

what we are then told about the fate of the soul hereafter. This

assertion, which seems to attribute to the virtuous Great Man at

once a higher and a profounder knowledge, is perhaps best explained

by the allusions of _fr._ 133. He who has reached this highest stage

of earthly happiness must deduce from that very circumstance that

for him now it is fated after another death to become a Hero. He

therefore knows that everything, indeed, happens that is related in

ll. 63-74, but that before him in particular lies that which follows

in ll. 75 ff.; and this is to be regarded as the real import of what

the man in question "knows", 62, while the rest, 63-74, is only

added for the sake of completeness. Theron, therefore--for it is he

who is alluded to throughout--may be assured beforehand that after

death he will be gathered to the Heroes. This is what Pindar means

to say here, or at least to give the ~sunetoi/~ to understand 91 ff.

As a matter of historical fact Theron was worshipped with ~hêrôïkai\

timai/~ after his death, D.S. xi, 53, 2.]

[42\12: _fr._ 133. There is according to Dissen a contradiction

between _fr._ 133 and _O._ ii, 75 ff.: in the latter three periods

of life on earth are necessary before the final departure, in _fr._

133 only two. This variation would be got rid of if we could adopt

the interpretation given by Ty. Mommsen, _adnot. crit. Olymp._ 30,

and assert that in _O._ ii also Pindar only speaks of two earthly

lives with a single residence in Hades intervening. But the words

~es tri\s hekate/rôthi mei/nantes~, 75-6, can hardly bear any other

interpretation than "three times on each of the two sides" (not: "on

both sides--once on that side, twice on this side: total three

times"). At the same time there is nothing in _fr._ 133 to prevent

us taking the same number of lives (three as a minimum) to be

implied there too. We are not there told that the birth as kings,

etc., must always be the one to follow the first birth: in this case

also two earlier lives may have gone before.]

[43\12: See above, chap. iv, § 8.]

[44\12: ~e/teilan Dio\s hodo\n para\ Kro/nou tu/rsin~, _O._ ii, 77.

What exactly is to be understood by the "way of Zeus" was presumably

clearer to the ~sunetoi/~ versed in the mythology of mysticism for

whom Pindar is here writing, than it is to us. It must mean (as

Boeckh supposes) the way which Zeus treads in order to reach that

Island, far to the West in Okeanos, inaccessible as the Land of the

Hyperboreans to ship or traveller on foot; it is a special

~athana/tôn hodo/s~ like that which leads to Homer's grotto of the

Nymphs, ~n~ 112. Acc. to Bergk, _Opusc._ ii, 708, it is "certain"

that Pindar means the Milky Way. Along this the gods travel to the

house of Zeus, Ovid, _M._ i, 168; and Orpheus in the same way _fr._

123, 17 Ab., speaks of the ~theô=n hodoi\ ouraniô/nôn~ in the

heavens. But the souls could only be made to travel along the Milky

Way if their habitation was placed in the sky as it often was later.

So, as Bergk points out, following Lob., _Agl._ 935, {446} the

Empedotimos of Herakld. Pont. calls the Milky Way ~hodo\s psuchô=n

tô=n ha=|dên to\n en oura/nô| diaporeuome/nôn~ ap. Philop. in

Arist., _Mete._, p. 117, 10 Hayd.; see above, chap. ix, n. 111. But

Pindar situates his ~maka/rôn nê=sos~ in the Ocean (78): it is

difficult to see how the souls could arrive there on the Milky Way

from the place where they find themselves after death. (We may

surely acquit Pindar of the later fancies about an Okeanos in the

heavens.) Q.S. iii, 761 ff. (cited by Tafel) knows of a special way

belonging to the gods which leads from heaven down to the ~Êlu/sion

pedi/on~. But the way by which the souls reach the ~maka/rôn nê=sos~

does not, like that way, begin in heaven. We should rather think of

some way only passable for gods and spirits leading from the

inhabited world over the pathless Ocean to the latter's "sources"

far in the West.]

[45\12: In _O._ ii, 84-5, it is certainly Kronos who is meant (as

Didymos took it, though he gave an absurd interpretation of the

passage) and not Zeus as Aristarchos imagined. The exceedingly

corrupt and (owing to the intrusion of glosses) unmetrical lines are

beyond certain restoration: the emendations of the Byzantine

scholars give the required sense.--What happened to the incorrigibly

wicked? In accordance with the theory of the soul's Transmigration

two alternative views as to their fate were possible: they might be

regarded as passing from body to body unceasingly (Empedokl.) or as

doing penance by suffering eternal punishment in Hell (as with Plato

and others). The circumstances in which he alludes to these matters

do not give Pindar any special occasion to declare himself for

either view. He has only to speak of the final condition of the

just; the fate of the ~asebei=s~ is left in semi-obscurity.

Something about the matter is, however, said in _fr._ 132; ~psuchai\

asebe/ôn~ hover under the vault of heaven that covers the earth

(~gai/a|~ either corrupt or grammatically bad Greek), while the

pious above the vault of heaven (~epoura/nioi~) sing to the "Great

Blessed One". Everything in this is un-Pindaric, the inadequacy and

even incorrectness of the language (~molpai=s en hu/mnois~), the

unconcealed monotheism of the phrase ~ma/kara me/gan~, the

conception of the souls as having nothing else to do than sing to

the One God, the whole idea that these blessed ones dwell "in

heaven". This last is an idea familiar to Greeks of a later period,

nor is the division of souls into ~hupoura/nioi~ and ~epoura/nioi~

unknown to them; cf. _Epigr. Gr._ 650, 9 ff. But Pindar cannot have

written anything of the kind. It is even doubtful whether Clem. Al.

who, _Str._ iv, 640 P., names as the author of the lines ~to\n

melopoio/n~, meant Pindar by the words: Theodoret. (_Gr. Aff. C._

viii, 599 C), who attributes the second half of the frag. to Pindar,

had no other source but the same Clem. Al. But it may be doubted

whether the whole is to be attributed to any Greek of the older

faith. It has quite the appearance, as Zeller, _Socr. and

Socratics_, p. 24, n. 3, strikingly suggests, of one of those

_Jewish_ forgeries in which Jewish monotheism and the ideas

connected with it were to be fathered upon Greek antiquity. Welcker,

_Kl. Schr._ v, 252 ff.; Götterl._ i, 741 f., defends the _fr._ (and

most unconvincingly connects the ~psuchai\ hupoura/nioi~ and

~epoura/nioi~ of the _fr._ with the quite different ~dai/mones

epichtho/nioi~ and ~hupochtho/nioi~ of Hes., _Op._ 123 and 141). He

thinks he can defend the genuineness of the lines (which had already

been declared spurious by Dissen) by pointing to the words of Horace

about Pindar's ~thrê=noi~ (_O._ iv, 2, 21): flebili sponsae iuvenem

raptum plorat, et vires animumque moresque aureos educit in astra

nigroque invidet Orco. Even supposing that this referred to the

transport of the souls to the stars the witness of Horace thus given

would only {447} remove a single difficulty from a passage that has

other overwhelming difficulties in profusion. But Horace says

nothing of the transport of the "Soul" to the heavenly regions,

_vires_, _animus_, _mores_, all these together refer not at all to

the ~psuchê/~ but to the ~ê=thos~ and the ~aretai/~ of the dead.

Pindar, Horace means, rescues the memory of the nature and merits of

the youth from decay: only the fame which the poet secures for him

is under discussion. _educit in astra_ and _invidet Orco_ mean

nothing more than: he rescues the memory of the dead from oblivion,

exactly as in the epitaph quoted above, n. 20: ~houde\ thanô\n

areta=s o/num' ô/lesas alla/ se Pha/ma kudai/nous' ana/gei dô/matos

ex Aï/da~. Thus, it is least of all to be concluded from Horace's

words that Pindar transported the souls of the ~eusebei=s~ into the

heavens (rather that in the ~thrê=noi~--as much as anywhere else:

see above, n. 25--Pindar sometimes only recognizes the immortality

of fame: of that alone does Horace speak).]

[46\12: _O._ ii celebrates the victory which Theron had won at

Olympia in _Ol._ 76, but was probably written some time after that

victory. Theron died _Ol._ 77, 1, or 76, 4.]

[47\12: Sicily was rich in cults of ~chtho/nioi~, in which Gelon,

Hieron and their ancestors were hierophants, Hdt. vii, 153; Pi.,

_O._ vi, 95. So, too, Akragas the city of Theron (and the home of

Empedoldes which also is not without its importance) was

~Phersepho/nas he/dos~, Pi., _P._ xii, 2, having been given by Zeus

to Persephone on her marriage, Sch. Pi., _O._ ii, 16 (as also had,

in addition to other cities, Pindar's native city Thebes, Euphorion,

_fr._ 48; cf. Eur., _Phoen._ 684 ff. Theron's family traced its

descent from Eteokles the son of Oedipus). It is very possible that

the hopes of a blessed immortality of the soul such as were fostered

in many ways in the cult of the ~chtho/nioi~ and particularly in

that of Persephone, should have been familiar to Theron from such a

cult and attractive to him.]

[48\12: The theological character of much of Pindar's work makes

knowledge of mystic doctrine not surprising in him. In _fr._ 137 he

speaks of the Eleusinia (to which he otherwise owes nothing). In

_fr._ 131, though the words are unfortunately most corrupt and

probably contain lacunae as they have been transmitted, he speaks of

the "releasing Initiations", ~olbi/a d' ha/pantes ai=sa lusi/ponon

_teleta/n_~--this is the form of the words required by the metre

(dactylo-epitritic), and thus (not ~teleuta/n~) they appear in Plu.,

_Cons. Apoll._ 35, p. 120 D, and also in cod. Vatic. 139 (which I

have collated).]

[49\12: _IG._ xiv = _IG. Sic. et It._, 641, 1-2-3. [Harrison-Murray,

_Prolegom._ 661 ff.; _Vors._ 66 B, 18, 19.]--The inscription of the

oldest of these poems belongs to the fourth century B.C. The verses

can, however, be cited here because the original or rather the two

originals upon which the poems are modelled were older than the

oldest of the three surviving inscr. (which itself shows serious

corruption of the primitive text); and nothing prevents us from

supposing that the original forms of these verses go to the fifth

century.--The common ancestor of versions 2 and 3 is not derived

from version 1, even in the parts in which it agrees with that

version, but from a still older original.--Acc. to Dieterich,

_Nekyia_ 128 f., 135 f., the lines are taken from a poem of

_Orpheus'_ descent to Hades; but of this they themselves offer not

the slightest suggestion.]

[50\12: The feminine ~e/rchomai ek katharô=n kathara/~--and also

~nu=n d' hike/tis hêkô~ (though this indeed is metrically impossible)

_IG._ xiv, 641, 2, l. 6--refers probably to the ~psuchê/~ and not to

the sex of the dead person as though a woman were speaking in all

three cases. Moreover, in {448} No. 1, 9, Persephone speaks as

though to a man ~o/lbie kai\ makariste/, theo\s d' e/sê| anti\

brotoi=o~.]

[51\12: l. 1, ~e/rchomai ek katharô=n kathara/, chthoni/ôn

basi/leia~. This is certainly the right punctuation (and is given by

the editors), and not Hofmann's ~ek katharô=n, kathara\ chth. b.~

"Pure and born of the pure" (referring to the immediate parents of

the dead: more distant ancestry would be expressed by ~apo/~); cf.

~ka/kistos kak kakô=n~, etc. (Nauck on Soph., _OT._ 1397; _Ph._

874); ~agathoi\ ex agathô=n o/ntes~, Andoc., _M._ 109.]

[52\12: The parents are ~katharoi/~, the soul of the dead

~kathara/~, simply as being "purified", "sanctified", in ~teletai/~

of the ~chtho/nioi~. In the same way, elsewhere, the Mystai are

~ho/sioi~ "the pure": see above, chap. vi, n. 18.]

[53\12: ~kai\ ga\r egô\n humô=n ge/nos o/lbion eu/chomai ei=men~--so

in all three versions.]

[54\12: ~alla/ me moi=r' eda/masse kai\ asteropê=ta keraunô=n~

(particip.): so in the original to which the readings of three

versions point, as restored by O. Hofmann in _GDI._ 1654.

~asteroblê=ta~ is in No. 1--this might simply = ~asteropoblê=ta~,

but it may only have been substituted by mistake for ~asteropê=ta

( = asteropêtê/s~ of Homer). The line in this form occurs in No. 1,

4. Versions 2 and 3 have ~_ei/te_ me moi=r' eda/mass' _ei/t'_

astropê=ta keraunô=n~. But the dead had no _choice_ between natural

death (for this is what ~moi=ra~ must mean as contrasted with death

by the thunderbolt) and death by being struck by lightning; one or

other of the two (or more) forms of death must in actual fact have

occurred. In this embarrassment--for death by lightning is not a

very frequent occurrence--the ancient verse was altered in such a

way that it might refer also to one who had died a natural death.

The attempt was indeed not a great success. Originally death by

lightning can alone have been mentioned (as in No. 1) and the

original form of the lines must have referred to someone who had

actually perished in this way. The dead person was then immediately

regarded as sanctified simply on account of the method of his death;

he became a ~_hiero\s_ nekro/s~ translated to a higher and continued

life: see above, chap. ix, n. 127, and Appendix i. This is the only

interpretation of the lines which gives any point to the

introduction here of this peculiar manner of death--one who has been

thus translated out of life will certainly now be ~theo\s anti\

brotoi=o~.]

[55\12: ~ku/klos tê=s gene/seôs~, rota fati, etc. Lob., _Agl._ 798

ff.]

[56\12: ~himertou= d' epe/ban stepha/nou posi\ karpali/moisi,

Despoi/nas d' hupo\ ko/lpon e/dun chthoni/as basilei/as~, No. 1,

6-7. The ~ste/phanos~ will probably be the sacred precinct, the

enclosure that surrounds the realm of Persephone, as Dieterich, _De

hymn. Orph._ 35, very plausibly suggests.]

[57\12: See Appendix xi.]

[58\12: ~hô/s me pro/phrôn pe/mpsê| he/dras es euage/ôn~. The

~he/drai euage/ôn~ correspond to the ~chô=ros eusebô=n~ of other

poets and mythologists. But the strange phrase does also contain an

allusion to the fact that this paradise of the "pure" is specially

reserved for the initiates of the mysteries. The ~euagê/s~, the man

untouched by any ~a/gos~, is ~ho/sios (ho/sios e/stô kai\ euagê/s~

law ap. And., _M._ 96): ~euagei=n = hosiou=n~ in an ins. from

Ialysos in Rhodes, _IGM. Aeg._ i, 677. Ordinary non-religious

language also preserves the original meaning of the word: it

frequently means (in contrast to ~skotô/dês~ and the like) "bright,

pure, clean" (and in places, too, where it is customary to insert

without good reason ~euaugê/s~, following the ex. of Hemsterh. on

Eur., _Suppl._ 662).]

[59\12: The similarity with the stages of the reward given to the

good in Pindar is obvious: ~chô=ros eusebô=n~ in Hades; then and not

till then {449} escape from the underworld and from human life as

well. The only difference is that in Pi. the soul's final end is to

become a ~hê/rôs~ while here it becomes ~theo/s~.]

[60\12: _IG._ xiv, 642.]

[61\12: id. 641, 1, v, 10, ~e/riphos es ga/l' e/peton~. 642, 4,

~theo\s ege/nou ex anthrô/pou. e/riphos es ga/la e/petes~. The

conjunction of the two phrases in 642 shows that "As a kid I fell

into the milk" is a condition of "I became a God". We may certainly

recognize in the phrase a ~su/nthêma~ or ~su/mbolon~ of the Mystai

like those usual in other secret initiatory rites--~ek tumpa/nou

ephagon ktl.~, Lob. 23 ff.--which refer to performance of symbolical

actions in the initiation ceremonies. The precise sense of _this_

~su/nthêma~ cannot be made out (Dieterich's efforts, _H. Orph._, p.

35, have not succeeded in clearing up the matter).]

[62\12: Worth remarking is the instruction ~all' hopo/tam' psuchê\

proli/pê| pha/os aeli/oio, _dexio\n_ eisie/nai pephulagme/nos eu=

ma/la pa/nta~ (this or something like it may have been the original

form of the lines which have been thrown into confusion by the

intrusion of the explanatory words ~dei= tina~). Then at the

conclusion ~(ô=) chai=re chai=re, dexia\n hodoiporô=n leimô=na/s te

hierou\s kai\ a/lsea Phersephonei/as.~ (~kai/~: this and nothing

else is probably concealed by the KAT of the inscription--~kai/~

long before a vowel in 3rd thesis is even in Homer not unheard of.)

Here at a comparatively early date we meet with the legend of the

Two Ways at the entrance to the underworld, of which that to the

right leads to the ~chô=ros eusebô=n~, the left to the place of

punishment of the ~a/dikoi~. It may derive from the fancies of South

Italian mystic sects. ~dexio/n~ and ~aristero/n~ in the Pythagorean

table of Opposites--and in _oionistike_ for a long time before

that--mean the same as ~agatho/n~ and ~kako/n~ (Arist., _Metaph._ 1,

5, p. 986a, 24; cf. Iamb., _VP._ 156).--The ~U~ Pythagoreum denoted

the parting of the ways of life to the right (to virtue) and to the

left (vice): Serv., _A._ vi, 136; cf. O. Jahn, _Pers._, p. 155 f.

Plato transferred the Two Ways to the underworld probably following

Pythagorean example, _Rp._ 614 C; cf. ~tô\ hodô/~, _Gorg._ 524 A;

_divorso itinere_, Cato ap. Sall., _C._ 52, 13, in a Platonist

passage. To the right the fountain of Mnemosyne, to the left that of

Lethe--grave-tablet from Petelia: _Epigr. Gr._ 1037 = _IG._ xiv.

638. The Two Ways in the underworld (of which that to the right hand

regularly leads to salvation) are also spoken of by the ~poêtê/s~

whose lines are quoted by Hippol., _RH._ 5, 8, p. 164, 80 D.-S.

(perhaps "Orpheus" as Dieterich, _Nek._ 193 thinks); cf. also Verg.,

_A._ vi, 540 ff., Hegesipp., _AP._ vii, 545, and the Jewish forgery

under the name of Philem., Mein. 4, 67, 6 f. (ii, p. 539

K.).--_Three_ Ways in the world of the spirits, which he takes as

being in the sky, are seen by the Empedotimos of Herakld. Pont. (see

above, chap. ix, n. 111): Serv., _G._ i, 34. Plutarch also alludes

to _three_ Ways in the underworld, _Lat. Viv._ vii, p. 1130, for in

giving his quotation from Pindar's ~thrê=nos~ _fr._ 129-30 he

suddenly, without having previously said anything about the other

two Ways, speaks of the ~_tri/tê_ tô=n anosi/ôs bebiôko/tôn kai\

para/nomôn _hodo/s_~ which leads into Erebos. We should suppose that

he found these three Ways in Pindar whom he is making use of

throughout the passage. Three Ways would seem natural to one who

knew of three classes of souls; the ~eusebei=s~ and the ~asebei=s~

having in between them those who have not strayed seriously from

either side of the middle way of ordinary morality and deserve

neither reward nor severe punishment. To these then was probably

allotted, instead of the bliss or sorrow of the two other classes,

the indifferent state of the Homeric ~ei/dôla kamo/ntôn~. So at

least it appears from Lucian, _Luct._ 7-9. A similar triple {450}

division occurs in a popular form ap. D.H. viii, 52 ad fin.: (1) a

place of punishment, a kind of Tartaros: (2) ~to\ lê/thês pedi/on~

(which is here the indifferent state); (3) the ~aithê/r~ which is the

dwelling-place of the Blessed. Verg., too, has three classes, but he

places the middling characters in the _limbus infantium_, beyond

which the road first divides towards Elysium and Tartarus. Did

Pindar then anticipate these and incidentally--he need not have been

logically consistent about it--introduce such a triple division of

the souls?]

[63\12: Plato's violent attacks on poets and poetry--in which

nevertheless acc. to his own account ~oude\n spoudê=s chari/n, alla\

paidia=s he/neka pa/nta dra=tai~--show once more clearly enough that

in his time the old Greek view of the poets as the true _teachers_

of their age was by no means a thing of the past. It was precisely

as teachers, whether rightly or wrongly so regarded, that they

seemed to him dangerous and worth opposing.]

[64\12: Aristophanes is only formulating popular opinion--and in

unusually naive language--when he says _Ran._ 1030 ~tau=ta ga\r

a/ndras chrê\ poiêta\s askei=n; ske/psai ga\r ap' archê=s hôs

_ôphe/limoi_ tô=n poiêtô=n hoi gennai=oi gege/nêntai ktl.~ And again

1053 ff. where he is referring particularly to tragic dramatists,

~apokru/ptein chrê\ to\ ponêro\n to/n ge poiêtê/n, kai\ mê\

para/gein mêde\ dida/skein. toi=s me\n ga\r paidari/oisin e/sti

dida/skalos ho/stis phra/zei, toi=s hêbô=sin de\ poiêtai/~.]

[65\12: This idea is alluded to as early as ~D~ 160 ff. Then Hes.,

_Op._ 282 ff. It is established for Hdt.; cf. i, 91, vi, 86. Further

examples collected by Nägelsbach, _Nachhom. Theol._ 34 f. Thgn. 205

ff., 731 ff., is particularly definite. Among Attic authors; cf.

Sol., _fr._ 13, 29 (~_anai/tioi_ e/rga ti/nousin~); E., _Hipp._ 831

ff., 1378 ff. (where note ~to\n oude\n o/nt' epai/tion~), _fr._ 980;

[Lys.] 6, 20; Lycurg. 79. It is briefly alluded to as a commonly

held opinion by Isoc. 11, 25; cf. Lys., _fr._ 53 Th. The case of

Diagoras of Melos the ~a/theos~ may also be remembered; cf. above,

chap. vii, n. 16.--This idea of the punishment of the son for the

deeds of the father receives its justification acc. to Plu., _Ser.

Nu. Vi._ 16, 559 D (quite in accordance with primitive ideas) in the

unity that belongs to all the members of the same ~ge/nos~--so that

in the person of the son it is the father himself, though he may be

dead, who is also punished. The idea arises from the deeply

ingrained feeling of the unity, solidarity, and continuity of the

ancient family cult-circle pre-supposed by the cult of souls. (This

is primitive and meets us, e.g. in India as well: "release us from

the wrongs that our fathers have done; take away the sins of that we

ourselves have committed" is the prayer to Varuna in the Rigveda, 7,

86, 5. ~ta\ ek prote/rôn aplakê/mata~ are transferred also to the

next generation "like a pestilence-breeding substance", Oldenberg,

_Rel. d. V._ 289. Elsewhere the conception emerges that the guilty

ancestor lives again in the descendant and is punished in his

person: Robinsohn, _Psychol. d. Naturv._ 47.)]

[66\12: It is precisely on this point, namely, that evil does not

befall men without their own fault, that the Chorus, i.e. the poet,

of the _Agamemnon_ (757), acknowledges ~di/cha d' a/llôn mono/phrôn

eimi/~.]

[67\12: In this way, too, the Stoics saved the responsibility of men

for their own deeds in spite of the unavoidable ~eimarme/nê~. The

deeds would not have come to fruition if the personal

~sugkata/thesis~ of the man had not been added to the original

necessary cause conditioning the acts. The ~sugk.~, though not

itself "free", yet always remains ~eph' hêmi=n~ and makes us

responsible: Cic., _Fat._ 18; Nemes. _Nat. Hom._, p. 291 Matth.]

{451}

[68\12: Clearly so from l. 689 onwards.]

[69\12: ~ta\ ga\r ek prote/rôn aplakê/mata/ nin pro\s ta/sd' (ta\s

Erinu/as) apa/gei~, _Eum._ 934.]

[70\12: Only when Eteokles and Polyneikes have fallen in single

combat ~e/lêxe dai/môn~, _Sept._ 956.]

[71\12: This idea is quite common in Homer (Nägelsbach, _Hom.

Theol._ 70 f., 320 f.), and in later times reappears frequently in

the case of such authors as always, or on occasion, express popular

ideas: Thgn. Hdt. esp. Eur. (cf. _Fr. Trag. Adesp._ 4, 55 N.), and

the orators: see Nägelsbach, _Nachhom. Th._ 54 ff., 332 f., 378.]

[72\12: ~apa/tês _dikai/as_ ouk apostatei= theo/s~, _fr._ 301 S.

This, too, must be the meaning of other expressions in which the

poet refers less plainly to the righteous purpose of divine

deception: _Pers._ 93 ff., 742; _frr._ 156, 302 (cf. also _Suppl._

403 f.).--Aristoph. makes his Clouds speak quite in accordance with

the Aeschylean ideas, _Nub._ 1458 ff. This grim idea must, in fact,

have had considerable success and spread beyond the stage. Falsehood

and deception for a good end presented no difficulty to the mind of

the Greeks (even as applied to their gods). Hence Sokrates (in

Xen.), Plato, and certain Stoics could quite openly approve of and

recommend such falsehoods (and the author of the ~Diale/xeis~, c. 3

in defending the same theory also appeals to the lines of Aesch.).]

[73\12: _Ag._ 1497-1508. Here there is a clear opposition between

the popular view which attributed all guilt to an ~ala/stôr~

tempting to crime (a reminiscence of which appears in Soph., _El._

197 ff.), and the more elevated conception of the poet who holds

fast to the view that though the ~ala/stôr~ may contribute to the

result the agent of the evil deed is not ~anai/tios~.]

[74\12: The dead man stands in need of the cult paid by his

surviving kinsfolk, _Cho._ 484 (his grave a ~bômo/s~, _Cho._ 106;

~choai\ gamê/lioi~ for him, 486 f.). As an appeasement of his easily

aroused wrath ~choai\ nerte/rôn meili/gmata~, _Cho._ 15. The dead

man is still conscious of events both past and present upon earth:

~phro/nêma tou= thano/ntos ou dama/zei puro\s malera\ gna/thos~,

_Cho._ 324 f. In the song of awakening addressed to the departed and

the invocations sung by Electra and the Chorus in _Cho._ the soul of

Agamem. is similarly regarded as fully alive and accessible to the

callers (though, indeed, ~ex amaura=s phreno/s~ 157) and addressed

accordingly (cf. 139, 147 f., 156 f., 479 ff.; _Pers._ 636). It is

even expected that his soul, invisibly present in the upper world,

will take an active share in the work of vengeance: ~a/kouson es

pha/os molô/n, xu\n de\ genou= pro\s echthrou/s~, _Cho._ 459; cf.

489. So, too, Orestes, _Eum._ 598, hopes in his extremity of need

that ~arôga\s ek ta/phou pe/mpsei patê/r~. More especially the

murdered man has a right to be avenged by his ~agchistei=s (oud' ap'

a/llôn~, _Cho._ 472) and Apollo himself has commanded Orestes to

take such vengeance, _Cho._ 269 ff., etc. Dread results of

neglecting this duty, _Cho._ 278-96 (possibly an interpolated

passage, but still an extension of the words of A. himself 271 ff.

in a sense thoroughly in consonance with popular belief).]

[75\12: The Erinyes only avenge the murder of a blood-relation and

not therefore when one of a married pair is murdered by the other,

_Eum._ 210-12, 604 ff. But the opinion emerges that they are

particularly charged with the vengeance of a _mother_ who has been

murdered by her son (rather than a father who has suffered the same

fate), 658 ff., 736 ff. (Reminiscences of such a view in S., _El._

341 ff., 352 ff.; E., _Orest._ 552 ff., _fr._ 1064.) This may

possibly be an old popular belief (not fully understood by A.

himself) which need not, however (as is often {452} supposed),

depend upon an ancient system of "matriarchy" for which there is no

other evidence in Greece. It is simply explained by the fact that

the father has plenty of men still living among his kinsfolk who

will avenge him (even against his own son), whereas the mother who

is separated from her _own_ family can expect no avenger from that

side, while in the family of her husband there will be nobody yet

old enough to take vengeance on her own son. For this reason it is

for her most particularly and necessarily that the daimonic avengers

of murder must intervene, and they are the Erinyes, who are always

thought of as only active where no earthly avenger is available.--Of

course, it could never be denied that there exists also ~_patro\s_

euktai/an Erinu/n~, _Sep._ 783.]

[76\12: ~dai/môn, theo/s, di=os ana/ktôr, isodai/môn basileu/s~ are

titles given only to the dead Persian king, _Pers._ 620, 633, 644,

651. They are, however, probably intended to characterize Persian

and not Greek beliefs (the Greek king, too, is still a king in

Hades, but not a ~dai/môn~, _Cho._ 355-62).]

[77\12: ~kakei= dika/zei tamplakê/math', hôs _lo/gos_, Zeu\s a/llos~

(cf. ~Zê=na tô=n kekmêko/tôn~ 158) ~en kamou=sin husta/tas di/kas~,

_Suppl._ 230 f.; cf. 414 ff.--~me/gas ga\r Ha/idês esti\n eu/thunos

brotô=n e/nerthe chtho/nos, deltogra/phô| de\ pa/nt' epôpa=|

phreni/~, _Eum._ 273 ff. Not even in Hades do the Erinyes let the

murderer go, _Eum._ 340. The punishment in Hades seems to be

regarded as merely supplementary to the (perhaps delayed) punishment

of crime on earth ~rhopê\ d' episkopei= di/kas tachei=a _tou\s me\n_

en pha/ei, ta\ d' en metaichmi/ô| sko/tou me/nei chroni/zontas

a/chê, tou\s d' a/kratos e/chei nu/x~, _Cho._ 61 ff.]

[78\12: ~tou\s thano/ntas ei the/leis euergetei=n ei/t' ou=n

kakourgei=n, amphidexi/ôs e/chei tô=| mê/te chai/rein mê/te

lupei=sthai nekrou/s~, _fr_ 266. This does, not, however, agree with

_Cho._ 324 f., or with the frequently occurring expressions which

presuppose consciousness and feeling (and so also ~chai/rein~ and

~lupei=sthai~) in the dead. Consistency in such matters must not, in

fact, be looked for in a non-theological poet. The ~psuchê/~ of the

dead man a shadow without the sap of life, _fr._ 229. Death a refuge

from earthly suffering, _fr._ 255. The speedy death which the Chorus

wish for themselves, _Ag._ 1449 ff., brings with it ~to\n aei\

ate/leuton hu/pnon~ and therefore a condition of unconsciousness if

not of complete nothingness.--The shadow of Dareios takes his leave

of the Persian nobles in the foll. words: ~humei=s de/, pre/sbeis,

chai/ret', en kakoi=s ho/môs psuchê\n dido/ntes hêdonê=| kath'

hême/ran, hôs toi=s thanou=si plou=tos oude\n ôphelei=~, _Pers._ 840

ff. This view of life is perhaps intended to have an Oriental

colouring (like the epitaph of Sardanapalus which is rightly quoted

in illustration of this passage); the reason given ~hôs toi=s

thanou=si ktl.~ is perhaps to be similarly explained.]

[79\12: ~_e/ndikoi_ sphagai/~, 37. Orestes is to his father's house

~_di/kê|_ kathartê\s pro\s theô=n hôrmême/nos~ 70.]

[80\12: One reason why no Erinys pursues Orestes after he has

murdered his mother is, indeed, the fact that Sophokles is treating

the "Elektra" in isolation as an independent drama and could not

therefore introduce a fresh thread of interest at the end, if he was

to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. But the mere fact that he

could so arrange matters shows that for him, in contrast with

Aeschylus, the belief in the veritable reality of the Erinys and the

necessary perpetuation of the idea of vengeance in the family was

already obscured and almost obsolete. The ancient family blood-feud

is less important to him than the rights of the separate and

independent individual.]

[81\12: Casual allusions, _El._ 504 ff.; _OC._ 965; _Ant._ 856; and

cf. 584 ff., 594 ff.] {453}

[82\12: ~ou ga\r i/dois a\n athrô=n broto\n ho/stis a\n, ei theo\s

a/goi, ekphugei=n du/naito~, _O.C._ 252. ~ho/tan de/ tis theô=n

bla/ptê|, du/nait' a\n oud' a\n ho sthe/nôn phugei=n~, _El._ 696 f.

~ai/schê me/n, ô= gunai=kes, oud' a\n hei=s phu/goi brotô=n poth'

hô=| kai\ Zeu\s~ (as the one who rules and ordains everything, cf.

_El._ 175; _O.C._ 1085) ~ephormê/sê| kaka/; no/sous d' ana/gkê ta\s

theêla/tous phe/rein~, _fr._ 619 N.]

[83\12: _Phil._ 191-200.]

[84\12: It is fixed long before by an oracle: 821 ff.; 1159 ff. It

is not exactly overpowering violence or heaven-sent madness that

drives Deianeira to carry out the prophecy; it is rather an obscure

force that transforms her purest intentions to an evil result. She

herself is completely innocent: ~hê/marte chrêsta\ môme/nê~.]

[85\12: The reason for this will of the gods is not revealed to us,

either in _OT._ or in the subsequent treatment given in _OC._ The

only thing that is made quite clear there is the complete innocence

of Oedipus; as to the meaning of the divine purpose that has plunged

him into such deeds of horror the sufferer can only say ~theoi=s

ga\r ê=n hou/tô phi/lon, ta/ch' a/n ti _mêni/ousin_ eis ge/nos

pa/lai~ (964 f.). This is a passage in which modern interpretation

of the ancients finds the "upholding of the moral order in the

world" clearly expressed as a motive of divine will.]

[86\12: ~kai\ ga\r ê=n tô=n theosebesta/tôn~, Sch., _El._ 831.]

[87\12: _fr._ 226 N., ~sopho\s ga\r oudei\s plê\n ho\n a\n tima=|

theo/s. all' eis theo/n s' horô=ta, ka\n _e/xô di/kês chôrei=n

keleu/ê|_, kei=s' hodoiporei=n chreô/n. aischro\n ga\r oude\n hô=n

huphêgou=ntai theoi/~.]

[88\12: Aias has angered the goddess because he has boasted that he

could do without her help. Thus he has drawn upon himself

~_astergê=_ thea=s orgê/n~, 776. The goddess makes him insane that

he may recognize ~tê\n theô=n ischu\n **ho/sê~, 118. Thus, her

superior power is shown and the folly of men who despise that power.

But as for showing that the revengeful act of the goddess has any

sort of moral purpose or meaning behind it, the pious poet makes no

such attempt.--The interpolation of ideas more familiar in modern

times does not make it any easier to understand the peculiar

character of such antique ~euse/beia~ and ~deisidaimoni/a~. The same

kind of fearful awe of the gods which we find here, runs through the

whole of Herodotos' historical writing (Hdt. was not without reason

a friend of Sophokles) and meets us again in the character of Nikias

and to a large extent in Xenophon, too. Thuc. and, on the whole,

Eurip. (for he varies) calmly ignore it or else violently reject it.

Its nature is shown (better than in the more usual ~euse/beia~) by

the phrase ~hê pro\s tou\s theou\s _eula/beia_~ which also occurs:

[D.] 59 (_Neaer._) 74.]

[89\12: _Trach._ 1266 f.; 1272 (where, however, there remains a

suspicion that the traditional text may be unsound); _fr._ 103 N.

Parallels occur also in _Phil._]

[90\12: There exists a region of divine mystery that is not to be

fathomed: ~ou ga\r a\n ta\ thei=a krupto/ntôn theô=n ma/thois a/n,

oud' ei pa/nt' epexe/lthois skopô=n~, _fr._ 833; cf. _OT._ 280 f.

and ~polla\ kai\ lathei=n kalo/n~, _fr._ 80 N.]

[91\12: The behaviour of Athene in the prologue of the _Aias_ is an

exception.]

[92\12: Odysseus beholding the insane Aias: ~epoikti/rô de/ nin

du/stênon o/nta kai/per o/nta dusmenê=, hothou/nek' a/tê|

sugkate/zeuktai kakê=|, oude\n to\ tou/tou ma=llon ê\ toumo\n

skopô=n; horô= ga\r hêma=s oude\n o/ntas a/llo plê\n ei/dôl'

ho/soiper zô=men, ê\ kou/phên skia/n~, _Ai._ 121 ff.]

[93\12: ~iô\ geneai\ brotô=n ktl.~ _OT._ 1186 ff.; ~ho/stis tou=

ple/onos me/rous chrê/|zei . . .~ _OC._ 1211-38; cf. _frr._ 12, 535,

536, 588, 859, 860.]

[94\12: Nor is Antigone affected by such motives as might appear

from a casual or isolated study of such lines as _Ant._ 73 ff. The

whole play {454} shows that Antig. throughout follows the ~a/grapta

kasphalê= theô=n no/mima~ and the instincts of her own nature,

without paying any attention to what may happen to her on earth and

without a side glance at what may be the result in the world below

of her "pious crime".]

[95\12: We often have ~en Ha/idou kekeutho/tôn~ (_Ant._ 911)

~muchou\s kichei=n tou= ka/tô theou=~ (_Ai._ 571) and other phrases

= "be dead" (cf. to be an ~oikê/tôr~ of Erebos, _Ai._ 395 ff. Hades

seems to be called ~pando/kos xeno/stasis~ _fr._ 252). The confusion

of the idea of a kingdom of Hades with that of the grave is shown in

the not infrequent expression ~en Ha/idou, par' Ha/idê|

_kei=sthai_~, _El._ 463; _OT._ 972; _Ph._ 861; ~phi/lê met' autou=

_kei/somai_ phi/lou me/ta~, _Ant._ 73; cf. _fr._ 518.]

[96\12: ~to\n apo/tropon Ha/idan~, _Ai._ 608; _fr._ 518.]

[97\12: The dead man is a ~skia/~, _Ai._ 1231. ~spodo\s kai\ skia\

anôphelê/s~, _El._ 1159a. ~mêde/n~, _El._ 1166; _Ai._ 1231.--In

spite of this, in the Homeric manner, a definite shape and a measure

of semi-conscious existence is presumed in the shades in Hades:

_OT._ 1371 ff.--Doubt: ~_ei/_ tis e/st' ekei= cha/ris~, _El._ 356.]

[98\12: ~thano/ntôn oude\n a/lgos a/ptetai~, _OC._ 955. ~toi=s ga\r

thanou=si mo/chthos ou prosgi/gnetai~, _Tr._ 1173. ~tou\s ga\r

thano/ntas ouch horô= lupoume/nous~, _El._ 1170. (All three lines

are denied to Soph. by the latest criticism.)]

[99\12: _Ph._ 797 f.; _Ai._ 854; _OC._ 1220 ff.; _fr._ 631 (cf. A.,

_fr._ 255; _Fr. Tr. Adesp._ 360. ~limê\n kakô=n ho tha/natos~, a

commonplace of later moralists: see Wyttenb. Plu., _Mor._ vi, p.

720, was taken over from tragedy).--The converse _fr._ 64, 275.]

[100\12: Collectively ~hoi ne/rteroi, hoi ne/rteroi theoi/~, _OC._

1661; _Ant._ 602. Hades in particular is often mentioned, and also

~Plou/tôn~: ~Ha/idês stenagmoi=s kai\ go/ois plouti/zetai~, _OT._

30; _fr._ 251. ~ho para\ to\n Ache/ronta (ta\n Ache/rontos akta/n~,

_Ant._ 812. ~akta\n hespe/rou theou=~, _OT._ 177) ~theo\s ana/ssôn~,

_El._ 184. Persephone and Aidoneus, _OC._ 1556 ff. Erinyes,

Thanatos, Kerberos: _OC._ 1568 ff. ~pompai=os Hermê=s chtho/nios~,

_Ai._ 832; and see _El._ 110 B., etc.--~Ha/idês~ (here as often =

~Tha/natos~) desires to devour men: ~dai/sasthai~, _El._ 542, f.--a

popular conception or at least popular language: see above, chap.

vii, n. 25.]

[101\12: Hades ~ho\s ou/te tou\pieike\s ou/te tê\n cha/rin oi=den,

monê\n d' e/sterxe tê\n haplôs di/kên~, _fr._ 703, i.e. the justice

of absolute equality (for all earthly distinctions have passed

away): ~ho/ g' Ha/idês tou\s no/mous i/sous pothei=~, _Ant._ 519.]

[102\12: ~hê ga\r euse/beia sunthnê/|skei brotoi=s~ (it dies when

the man dies to whom it belonged: i.e. it follows him, or his

~psuchê/~, into the lower-world. No textual corruption need be

assumed here, ~ka\n zô=si ka\n tha/nôsin ouk apo/llutai~, _Ph._ 1443

f.]

[103\12: Without ritual burial the dead man is ~tô=n ka/tôthe theô=n

a/moiros akte/ristos ano/sios ne/kus~, _Ant._ 1070 f.]

[104\12: ~enta/phia hoi=a toi=s ka/tô nomi/zetai~, _El._ 326.

~kteri/smata~, 434, 931. ~loutra/~, 84, 434 (cf. above, chap. v, nn.

106, 107), ~e/mpura~, 405. ~choai/~, 440.--_El._ 452, prayer is made

to the dead that he "shall help us and Orestes" ~ho/pôs to\ loipo\n

auto\n aphneôte/rais chersi\n ste/phômen ê\ ta\ nu=n dôrou/metha~

(at present only a lock of hair and a girdle, 448 ff.).--Offerings

to the dead made by foes and even the approach of such persons to

the neighbourhood of the grave is displeasing and hateful to the

departed who lies therein: _El._ 431 ff., 442 ff.; _Ai._ 1394 f.

(cf. above, chap. v, n. 109). In this case as in the cult of the

soul generally the presence of the dead man in the grave, or else in

its immediate neighbourhood, is presupposed--not his departure into

an inaccessible land of the dead. The latter view, retained from

Homeric {455} poetry, is generally allowed to remain incongruously

side by side with the former.]

[105\12: _El._ 1066 ff.]

[106\12: The god of the underworld is ~ouk aperi/tropos~ of the

murdered man: _El._ 182 f. Hence all the gods and spirits of the

lower world are summoned to take vengeance for the murder of

Agamemnon: _El._ 110-16. We hear of ~Di/kê hê xu/noikos tô=n ka/tô

theô=n~ as the patron of the dead in their claim to justice: _Ant._

451.]

[107\12: Herakles in giving his last commands to Hyllos finally

threatens the latter: ~ei de\ mê/, menô= s' egô\ kai\ ne/rthen ô/n,

arai=os eis aei\ baru/s~, _Tr._ 1201 f.; cf. _fr._ 367; see above,

chap. v, n. 148.]

[108\12: Elektra thinks that Agamemnon himself may have sent the

~duspro/sopt' onei/rata~ to Klytaimnestra: _El._ 459 f. (There is no

reason for altering the traditional text here--with Nauck--to make

the gods the senders of the dreams instead of the dead man.

~hê/rôes~, too, can send nocturnal visions of terror: see above,

chap. ix, n. 102.) Here Elektra supposes that by sending such

harbingers of his wrath the unavenged victim of murder has signified

his readiness to assist in the taking of vengeance. This makes

perfectly good sense and is the only interpretation that suits the

context of Elektra's admonitions to her sister.]

[109\12: ~arôgo/s~, _El._ 454. ~zô=sin hoi ga=s ka/tô kei/menoi.

pali/rruton ga\r hai=ma hupexairou=si tô=n ktano/ntôn hoi pa/lai

thano/ntes~, _El._ 1419 f. "The dead man brings death to the

living," Nauck on _Tr._ 1163.]

[110\12: _frr._ 753, 805.]

[111\12: _OC._ 1049 ff., 680; _fr._ 736.]

[112\12: Oedipus does not die but vanishes (is seen no more, 1649);

the depths of the earth open and receive him: 1661 f., 1681. What is

meant is _translation_ without death as in the case of Amphiaraos,

etc. The poet only hints at the miracle in intentionally vague

words--but they cannot refer to anything but translation. ~ô/leto~

1656, and ~e/thane~ are therefore only inaccurate expressions to

describe his departure (see also above, chap. iii, n. 2). The

Messenger of 1583 f. refuses, however, to give a distinct answer to

the question of the Chorus ~o/lôle ga\r du/stênos~; he will only

hint that Oedipus has indeed ~o/lôle~ (1580), but has not simply

died--he has instead been translated out of earthly life. The

corrupt ~hôs leloipo/ta kei=non to\n aei\~ (this was already what

the Alexandrians read) ~bi/oton exepi/staso~ may not therefore be

altered simply into ~to\n aino/n, to\n a/bion bi/oton~. It may

perhaps have originally been something like ~to\n e/ntha, to\n en

gê=|, to\n andrô=n bi/oton~ (cf. Medea to her children ~es a/llo

schê=m' aposta/ntes bi/ou~, E., _Med._ 1039. A dead woman

~hupokechô/rêke aiphni/dion tou= _kath' hêma=s_ bi/ou~. Ins. from

Amorgos, _BCH._ 1891, p. 576, ll. 9-10).]

[113\12: A distinct act of precaution against disbelief in such a

miracle: _OC._ 1665 f. (cf. ~e/rrei de\ ta\ thei=a~, _OT._ 906 ff.;

which refers esp. to the belief in the Oracle of Loxias, a matter of

great importance to Soph.).]

[114\12: The innocence of Oedipus and the fact that the awful crimes

committed by him have been done in ignorance and against his will

~theô=n ago/ntôn~, is stressed in order that his elevation to the

position of _Heros_ may not seem to be an honour done to a

guilt-stained criminal. But the poet does not attribute positive

virtues to him even in _OC._--far less in fact than in _OT._]

[115\12: One has only to read the play without preconceived ideas to

see that this passionate and savage old man, pitilessly heaping

dreadful curses on his sons, gloating vindictively over the coming

misfortunes {456} of his own country, is quite ignorant of the "deep

peace from the gods" or the "illumination of the pious sufferer"

which conventional literary interpretation has been anxious to

ascribe to him. The poet is not one to gloss over the harsh

realities of life with trite phrases of vapid consolation, and he

has clearly perceived that the usual effect of unhappiness and

misery upon men is not to "illuminate" but to enfeeble and vulgarize

them. His Oedipus is pious (he was that from the beginning in _OT._

as well), but he is made savage, ~êgri/ôtai~, exactly like

Philoktetes in his misery (_Ph._ 1321).]

[116\12: Humanitarianism of Athens and her king: 562 ff., 1125 ff.]

[117\12: It is emphasized over and over again that the settlement of

Oedipus on Attic soil is meant to bring about the salvation of the

Athenians and the discomfiture of the Thebans (Apollo's oracle has

thus decreed it): 92 f., 287 f., 402, 409 ff., 576 ff., 621 ff. The

whereabouts of the valuable possession must therefore be kept secret

(as frequently with the graves of Heroes: see above, chap. iv, n.

38); 1520 ff. This elevation of Oedipus to be the ~sôtê/r~ of Attica

(459 f.) is evidently what makes the interest and importance for the

poet of the whole mystery which he relates.]

[118\12: ~nu=n ga\r theoi/ s' orthou=si, pro/sthe d' ô/llusan~, 394.

The gods now feel ~ô/ran tina/~ for Oedipus, 386. After many

~pê/mata pa/lin sphe dai/môn di/kaios au/xoi (a/n)~, 1565 f. It is,

in fact, an act of kindness after a long period of ill-usage; there

is a reversal of fortune, but there is no reward or indemnification

given in recognition of a just claim. It is all _grace_.]

[119\12: In this, too, ~hôs a/n tis hei=s tô=n chrêstô=n Athênai/ôn~

(Ion ap. Ath. 13, 604 D).]

[120\12: Prodikos is, acc. to Welcker, _Kl. Schr._ ii, 497 ff.,

responsible for most of the theories propounded in the Ps.-Platonic

_Axiochus_ on the subject of the ~athanasi/a tê=s psuchê=s~, _Ax._

370 B ff., the tendency of the soul to the heavenly ~aithê/r~ (366

A, and even of the Platonizing fantasy at the end about the fate of

the departed (371-2). Prodikos, if we adopted this attribution,

would become less the "forerunner of Sokrates" (as Welcker calls

him) than the forerunner of Plato. There is, however, no real reason

to attribute to him any more share in that document than is asserted

distinctly in it. The brief and carelessly composed pamphlet

consists of a medley of the conventional ingredients of the usual

~lo/goi paramuthêtikoi/~ loosely strung together. To Prod. is

assigned: the disquisition on the troubles of life in all its stages

336 D-367 E; and the saying ~ho/ti ho tha/natos ou/te peri\ tou\s

zô=nta/s estin ou/te peri\ tou\s metêllacho/tas ktl.~, 369 B (cf.

Buresch, _Leip. Stud._ ix, 8-9). These two passages put together

would establish as the opinion of Prodikos just the opposite of what

Welcker wishes to ascribe to him. He would show himself as a true

~peisitha/natos (--ex ekei/nou thanata=| mou hê psuchê/~, 366 C),

who would make death a mere exit into a state of unconsciousness

after the troubles of life, and thus seem an absolute nonentity. But

the piece is in reality quite without authority: it apparently puts

forward the name of Prodikos, who is so often stated in Plato to

have been the "teacher" of Sokrates, merely in order to have a

definite authority (like the fabulous Gobryes later on) for what the

author does not wish to represent Sokrates as saying on his own

account. One of the sayings attributed to the imaginary Prodikos,

~ho/ti ho tha/natos . . .~ is, however, only too clearly a simple

appropriation of Epicurus' aphorism, ~ho tha/natos oude\n pro\s

hêma=s ktl.~ (p. 61, 6 Usen.; cf. p. 227, 30; 391. Heinze also

points this out, _Ber. sächs. Ges. d. Wiss._ 1884, p. 332). The

other passage (366 D ff.) agrees suspiciously {457} with what Teles

(p. 38 Hens.) has to say on the same subject apparently in entire

dependence on Krates the Cynic. It seems extremely probable that the

author of the _Axiochus_ also had Krates before him or even Teles

(as Wyttenbach already suggested, Plu., _Mor._ vi, p. 41); and that

he attributes what he has thus borrowed from extraneous sources to

"Prodikos" by a fiction that never came amiss to the composers of

such dialogues.--It follows then that what Prodikos really said

about the soul and its destiny is unknown to us; cf. on this

recently much-discussed subject: Brinkmann, _Rh. Mus._ 51, 444 ff.]

[121\12: In the Prologue Thanatos at once describes his claims and

his office. He has to receive the departed and cut off the lock of

hair from the forehead (75 f. probably as a sign that the dead enter

into the possession of the underworld deities: in Verg., _A._ iv,

698 f. Proserpina in the same way dedicates the dead to Orcus). He

then leads them to Hades, 871. He comes in person to the grave and

enjoys the offerings laid there, 844 ff., 851 f. (like the dead man

himself on other occasions, see above, chap. v, n. 108). Properly

speaking he is only the servant of Hades; but just as the word

~ha/|dês~ was already common as = ~tha/natos~, so Thanatos himself

is also actually called ~Ha/idês~ (268, see above, n. 4); only as

identical with Hades can he be called ~a/nax nekrô=n~, 843; cf.

~daimo/nôn koi/ranos~, 1140.--In the underworld are Charon ~ho

psuchopompo/s~, 361, 254 ff., 458 f., and Kerberos, 360. Hades and

Hermes ~chtho/nios~ receive the dead. ~ei de/ ti kakei= ple/on e/st'

agathoi=s~ Alkestis will have the seat of honour next to Persephone:

744 ff. By the living who survive she is regarded on account of her

incomparable virtue as ~ma/kaira dai/môn~ and her grave is not the

abode of a dead woman but a place of worship, 995-1005. Such facile

elevation to the rank of "Heroine" was supposed to be characteristic

of Thessaly and Eurip. may in this also have intended to give his

poem a touch of Thessalian local colour. (~dai/môn~ as an

intermediate stage between ~theoi/~ and ~a/nthrôpoi~; so frequently

in Eur., e.g. _Tro._ 55-6; _Med._ 1391; is this the meaning of the

~me/son~ in _Hel._ 1137?)--Thoroughly in keeping with popular belief

is ~chai=re kan Ha/idou do/mois eu= soi ge/noito~, 626 f. (such a

~chai=re~ is the last word with which ~hôs nomi/zetai~ one addresses

the dead ~exiou=san husta/tên ho/don~, 609 f.). Similar also (but

really implying the conception of the dead as resting in the grave

and not in Hades) is: ~kou=pha/ soi chthô\n epa/nôthe pe/soi~, 463.]

[122\12: The funeral dirge, 86 ff.; ~ko/smos~ buried with the dead,

618 ff.; mourning ceremonies: the manes of the horses are cut short;

no sound of flute or lyre is to be heard in the town for twelve

months, 428 ff. (~pe/nthos etê/sion~ is usual, 336). These extreme

observances are probably taken from the mourning customs of the

Thessalian dynastic families.]

[123\12: Burial of the dead in accordance with ~no/mos palaio\s

daimo/nôn~, _Suppl._ 563; ~no/mima theô=n~, 19; a general Hellenic

custom, 526 f.--Burial of Polyneikes in spite of Kreon's

prohibition: _Phoen._ and probably ~Antigo/nê~.]

[124\12: ~toi=s ga\r thanou=si chrê\ to\n ou tethnêko/ta tima\s

dido/nta chtho/nion eusebei=n theo/n~, _Ph._ 1320 f. ~en eusebei=

gou=n no/mima mê\ kle/ptein nekrô=n~, _Hel._ 1277. The honour of the

grave more important even than good fortune upon earth, _Hec._ 317

f. Lament over the dishonouring of the grave of Agamem., _El._ 323

ff. Request for the burial of Astyanax, _Tro._ 1133 ff., of Orestes,

_IT._ 702 ff., of Makaria, _Hcld._ 588 ff. The shade of the murdered

Polydoros prays especially for burial, _Hec._ 47 ff. (31 f., 796

f.). He is an example of the wandering of the ~a/taphoi~ upon the

upper earth; he ~a/thaptos alai/nei~, _Tro._ 1084 (see above, p.

163, and Append. vii).--Funeral ceremony for those who have {458}

been drowned at sea, _Hel._ 1057 ff., 1253 ff.; though there the

idea is only used as an excuse for the intrigue.]

[125\12: ~choai/~ for the dead, e.g. _Or._ 112 ff., _El._ 511 ff.;

_IT._ 159 ff.]

[126\12: ~choai/~ make the dead ~eumenê=~ towards the givers of the

offering, _Or._ 119. The children call upon the soul of the murdered

father to help them, _El._ 676 ff., in the belief that ~pa/nt'

akou/ei ta/de patê/r~, 684. The soul of the dead man hovers above

the living observing everything, _Or._ 674 ff. Invocation of the

dead (striking both hands on the ground: see above, chap. iii, n.

10), _Tro._ 1305 f. Expectation that the dead thus called on will

~sô=sai~ his friends, _Or._ 797, or help them, _El._ 679. Calling

upon the departed in Hades ~a/rêxon, elthe\ kai\ _skia\_ pha/nêthi/

moi~, _HF._ 494 (though with the qualification ~_ei/_ tis phtho/ggos

eisakou/setai thnêtô=n par' Ha/idê|~, 490).]

[127\12: Translation miracles are touched upon by the poet with

obvious pleasure; cf. transl. of Kadmos and Harmonia, _Bac._ 1330

ff., 1338 ff.: of Peleus, _Andr._ 1257 ff.; of Helen, _Or._ 1629

ff.: of Herakles, _Hcld._ 910; of Menelaos (in unmistakable

sarcasm), _Hel._ 1676 ff. So, too, in the spurious conclusion to the

_IA._ there is a translation of Iphigeneia, 1583 ff. (~pro\s theou\s

aphi/ptato~, 1608).]

[128\12: Eurystheus buried in the temple of Athene Pallenis will

bring safety to Athens and evil to her enemies: _Hcld._ 1026 ff.

Eurysth. says ~soi\ me\n eu/nous kai\ po/lei _sôtê/rios_ me/toikos

aei\ kei/somai kata\ chthono/s~, 1032 f.; i.e. he will become a

~hê/rôs _sôtê/r_~ of the land (just as Oedip. was to become ~sôtê/r~

for Attica. S., _OC._ 460, and Brasidas Heros ~sôtê/r~ of the

Amphipolitans, Thuc. 5, 11, 1). Heroic cult of Hippolytos, _Hip._

1423 ff., _fr._ 446.]

[129\12: The Erinyes are spoken of (apparently with real belief) in

_IT._ 79 ff. and elsewhere.]

[130\12: _Or._ 258 f., not very different, _IT._ 288-94.]

[131\12: ~to\ thêriô=des tou=to kai\ miaipho/non~, _Or._ 524.

Orestes instead of committing murder himself should have brought his

father to justice, _Or._ 500 f. Agamemnon himself if he could have

been asked would not have desired this bloody vengeance, _Or._ 288

ff. It is only Apollo's unwise counsel that has led Orestes to the

murder of his mother, _El._ 971 ff., 1296 f.; _Or._ 276 ff., 416,

591. After the deed Orestes does indeed feel remorse but no

religious terrors, _El._ 1177 (in spite of which there is much about

the pursuing Erinyes of his mother). How completely this whole

series of ideas, the duty of vengeance, etc., has lost its meaning

for the poet, is to be felt more especially in the sophistical

frigidity with which the subject is treated in an ~agô/n~ between

Tyndareos and Orestes, _Or._ 491-604, and in the hair-splitting of

the speech of Orestes himself, 932 ff.]

[132\12: ~dokô= de\ toi=s thanou=si diaphe/rein brachu/, ei

plousi/ôn tis teu/xetai kterisma/tôn; keno\n de\ gau/rôm' esti\ tô=n

zô/ntôn to/de~, _Tro._ 1248 ff.]

[133\12: _fr._ 176.]

[134\12: ~oude\n e/sth' ho katthanô/n~, _Alc._ 381. The dead are

~hoi ouke/t' o/ntes~ 322. ~toi=s~ (the dead) ~me\n ga\r oude\n

a/lgos a/psetai/ pote, pollô=n de\ mo/chthôn _eukleê\s_ epau/sato~,

937 f. But even fame is nothing to the dead. Admetos says to his

father in the scurrilous dialogue ~thanei= ge me/ntoi duskleê/s,

ho/tan tha/nê|s~. To which the old man unconcernedly replies ~kakô=s

akou/ein ou me/lei thano/nti moi~ (725 f.).]

[135\12: It might seem simpler to regard all the utterances of

persons in the plays which correspond to conventional beliefs as

being merely dramatic expressions of the character's own (orthodox)

view, and in no sense put forward by the poet as his own opinion.

And certainly the separate and independently acting persons of the

drama can only {459} speak and act in accordance with their own

proper conceptions and springs of action--not in accordance with the

poet's. But in the antique drama this complete detachment of the

creatures of the dramatic imagination from their creator, the poet

of the drama, only holds good in a limited sense. The ancient

dramatists exercised their office of judge much more vigorously than

the greatest of the moderns. The course of his play showed clearly

what acts and characters the poet disapproved of, but also which

opinions he sanctioned and which he did not. We have only to

remember the attacks of Oedipus and Iokaste upon the judgments of

the gods in _OT._ (or the story of Sen., _Ep._ 115, 14: Eur. _fr._

324). Accordingly we may take it that such utterances of dramatic

characters as are not supplied with practical or spoken corrective

are among those of which the poet did not disapprove. Euripides so

very frequently puts words into the mouth of his characters which

can only express his own moods or opinions that we may also assume

that when their language harmonizes with traditional belief then,

too, the most subjective of the tragedians is for the moment

expressing his own view. Thus, for example, we cannot doubt that the

strain of piety running through the whole of the _Hiketides_

(subjection of ~phro/nêsis~ to God's wisdom, 216 ff., submission to

the guidance of the gods, 592 ff., and to Zeus' government of the

world, 734 ff.), and especially the whole-hearted elaboration of the

picture of Theseus as a model of ~euse/beia~ represent the actual

opinion of the poet at that particular period (he clearly speaks of

himself, 180-3). At other times, too (apart from the _Bacchae_),

though generally for a short time only, he shows vague aspirations

towards orthodoxy.]

[136\12: _Alc._ 968 ff.; _Hipp._ 952 ff.--Asceticism of the _mystai_

of Zeus and Zagreus of the Mountain Mother and the Kouretes:

~Krê=tes~, _fr._ 472.]

[137\12: _Polyid. fr._ 638; _Phrixos_, _fr._ 833. It is usual (cf.

Bergk, _Gr. Litt._ 3, 475, 33) to see here a reminiscence of

Herakleitos. But the latter's ~atha/natoi thnêtoi/, thnêtoi\

atha/natoi, zô=ntes to\n ekei/nôn tha/naton, to\n de\ ekei/nôn bi/on

tethneô=tes~ (_fr._ 67 Byw. 62 D.) is clearly intended to express the

view that "death" and "life" are purely relative concepts; that

death (of the one, i.e. Fire) and life (of the other, i.e, Water or

Earth) are simultaneously present in the same object (see also

_frr._ 68, 78 = 36, 88). According to this view it would be strictly

true that life on earth is not more life than it is death; but that

is certainly not what Eurip. means to say. Philo and Sext. Emp. are

mistaken in attributing to Herakl. the Orphic doctrine of the

"death" of the soul which takes place when it is enclosed in the

~sô=ma~, as its ~sê=ma~ (see above, chap. xi, n. 19). But it is

precisely this Orphic doctrine that is present to the mind of Eurip.

(and Plato, _Gorg._ 492 E, 493 A, brings it into immediate connexion

with the verses of E.). He is speaking of the true "death" of the

soul in the life of the body and of its release to a real (and not a

merely relative) life after death; and thinks that "life" has no

claim to the distinguishing name (cf. ~ho\ dê\ bi/oton kale/ousi~

Emped. 117 Mull. = _fr._ 15 D.).]

[138\12: _Palingenesia_ is alluded to once only and in jest as a

desirable reward for the virtuous, _HF._ 655-68; cf. M. Ant. xii,

5.]

[139\12: ~ho nou=s ga\r hêmô=n estin en heka/stô| theo/s~, _fr._

1018.]

[140\12: _fr._ 839 (_Chrysipp._) fully physical in _fr._ 898, 7

ff.--_fr._ 1023 ~Aithe/ra kai\ Gai=an pa/ntôn gene/teiran aei/dô~.

Cf. _fr._ 1004.]

[141\12: _fr._ 484 ~(Melan. hê sophê/)--hôs ourano/s te gai=a/ t'

ê=n morphê\ mi/a ktl.~ Here, too, the poet is speaking of a mere

initial association of the elements afterwards to be parted, but

thought of as always from the {460} beginning independent--there is

no derivation of both from a single common original element, or of

one out of the other. Eurip. may really have been thinking here of

the ~ho/mou pa/nta chrê/mata ê=n~ of Anaxagoras (as the ancient

authorities supposed), esp. as, with Anax. also, out of the general

conglomeration _two_ masses, ~aê/r~ and ~aithê/r~, first emerge

(though in this case ~nou=s~ is not included in the ~aithê/r~ as it

is with Eurip.). Here, too, then the usual dualism of the Euripidean

cosmogony is preserved. For the rest this _fr._ 484 allows us to

perceive that in spite of all his physiological tendencies Eurip.

can never quite get rid of the _mythical_ element in his

cosmogonical events. The reason why Ouranos and Gaia in particular

recommend themselves to him as elemental forces (and ~koinoi\

hapa/ntôn gonei=s~, _fr._ 1004) was that these figures had long been

set at the beginning of the world and of the gods by cosmogonical

poetry (~aithê/r~ is simply the more physiological term for what is

half-personified as ~Ourano/s~). This probably explains why matter

(or at least the more solid forms of matter as distinguished from

the ~aithê/r~ the ~lepto/taton pa/ntôn chrêma/tôn~) is for him

included in the description "earth". In this he is not following the

old physiologists, none of whom had called "earth" the original

matter--at least not earth alone (see Ilberg, _Quaest.

Pseudohippocrat._, p. 16 ff., 1883). "Earth" as describing the

merely material, matter deserted by spirit, may have come to him

from popular usage. As early as ~Ô~ 54 the body deserted by soul and

life is called ~kôphê\ gai=a~ (cf. Eur. _frr._ 532; 757, 5). Thus

for the poet the contrast between ~gê=~ and ~aithê/r~ almost amounts

to that between "matter" and "mind", except that he either could not

or would not think of a "mind" without any material substratum and

that for this reason his ~aithê/r~ still preserves a remnant of

matter.]

[142\12: This is esp. clear in _fr._ 839, 8 ff. In the disruption of

the elements out of which ~pa/nta~ are composed each of the two,

~gê=~ and ~aithê/r~, preserves itself undiminished and unmixed.

~thnê/|skei d' oude\n tô=n gignome/nôn _diakrino/menon_ d' a/llo

pro\s a/llou morphê\n idi/an ape/deixen~ (restores itself in its

independent being). Whereupon we feel ourselves irresistibly

reminded of the saying of Anaxagoras--~oude\n ga\r chrê=ma gi/netai

oude\ apo/llutai, all' ap' eo/ntôn chrêma/tôn summi/sgetai/ te kai\

diakri/netai, kai\ hou/tôs a\n orthô=s kaloi=en to/ te gi/nesthai

summi/sgesthai kai\ to\ apo/llusthai diakri/nesthai~, _fr._ 17 Mull.

[and D.].]

[143\12: That it was not Anaxagoras, or at least not he alone, who

gave the decided direction to the philosophic ideas of Eurip. has

rightly come to be held of late. We do not find a trace in Eurip. of

the separation of ~nou=s~ from matter, at least not in the form in

which Anaxagoras understood it. For E. the mind is bound to one of

the two primal elements and quite foreign to the other, the earth.

Thus he arrives at a dualism indeed, but in quite a different sense

from that of Anaxag. Dümmler, _Proleg. zu Platons Staat_ (Progr.

Basel, 1891), p. 48, points out reminiscences in Eurip. of Diogenes

of Apollonia--but it is not true to say that the poet's views show

the "closest kinship" with the monistic system of Diog., or with any

Monism.]

[144\12: _Tro._ 884 ff. The air, called by the name of Zeus, and

identical with the ~nou=s brotô=n~, can only be taken from the

doctrine of Diog.: Diels, _Rh. Mus._ 42, 12.]

[145\12: Diog. Apoll., _frr._ 3, 4, 5 Mull. (= 8, 3, 4 D.). The soul

is ~aê\r thermo/teros tou= e/xô, en hô=| esmen~, though it is colder

than the air which is ~para\ tô=| hêli/ô|~, _fr._ 6 [5]. The soul is

therefore more akin to the ~aithê/r~ than to the ~aê/r~ (~aithê/r~

and ~aê/r~ were at that time often confused: e.g. in E., _fr._ 944,

~aithê/r~ instead of ~aê/r~).] {461}

[146\12: _Suppl._ 1140 ~aithê\r e/chei nin ê/dê ktl.~ Elektra

expects to find her dead father in the Aither, _El._ 59. Of a dying

man, ~pneu=m' aphei\s eis aithe/ra~, _fr_ 971 (differently, _Or._

1086 f.); cf. also _Suppl._ 531-6 (imitated from Epicharm.), where

again the ~aithê/r~ is only spoken of as the abode, and not as the

original and consubstantial element of the soul.]

[147\12: ~aithê\r oi/kêsis Dio/s~, Eur., _fr._ 487 (_Melanip._).]

[148\12: Epich., _fr._ 7, p. 257 Lor. [= _fr._ 265 Kaibel].]

[149\12: _CIA._ i, 442, ~aithê\r me\n psucha\s hupede/xato, sô/[mata

de\ chthô\n~ tô=nde. . . .~]

[150\12: ~sunekri/thê kai\ diekri/thê, kapê=lthen ho/then ê=lthen

pa/lin, ga= me\n es ga=n, pneu=m' a/nô; ti/ tô=nde cha/lepo/n?

ou\de\ he/n~, Epich. ap. Plu., _Cons. ad Apoll._ 15, 110 A; Epich.,

_fr._ 8 [245 Kaib.]. ~pneu=ma~ as a general name for the ~psuchê/~

occurs also in Epich., _fr._ 7 [265]. No earlier authority is to be

found for this usage that became so common later (under Stoic

influence) than Xenophanes who ~prô=tos apephê/nato ho/ti hê psuchê\

pneu=ma~ (D.L. ix, 19). Epicharm. may have been actually following

Xenophanes (whose writings he knew: Arist., _Meta._ iii, 5, 1010a,

6) in this use of the word. Eurip. then did the same, _Suppl._ 533.

~pneu=ma~ is the name given to the ~aê/r~ in so far as it is in

_motion_. ~(hupolêpte/on, ei=nai sô=ma to\n ae/ra) gi/netai de\

pneu=ma kinêthei/s. outhe\n ga\r he/tero/n esti pneu=ma ê\

kinou/menos aê/r~: Hero, ~mêchan. su/st.~, p. 121 (ed. Diels = i, p.

6. ed. Schmidt) after Straton. The soul is called a ~pneu=ma~ just

because the soul is that which has continual movement from its very

nature (and is the principle of movement); as such it had already

been regarded by Alkmaion (and later by Plato), and even before that

by Pythagoras (see above, chap. xi, n. 40); in a different way by

Herakleitos and Demokritos also. The universal ~aê/r~ and the

Soul-~pneu=ma~, if we give the terms their proper meaning, are to be

thought of as being of the same nature, so that the ~aê/r~, too

(still more the ~aithê/r~ as a higher ~aê/r~), is psychical and

animated by soul. That at least was how Diogenes of Apollonia

regarded it. (~aê/r~ = the outer air, ~pneu=ma~ the air which is

inside men's bodies: [Hp.] _de Flatib._ 3 [vi, 94 L.], a section

taken from Diog. Ap.)]

[151\12: Numerous references in Eurip. to verses of Epicharm. are

pointed out by Wilamowitz, _Eurip. Herakles_, i, 29. The fact that

Eurip. knew the poems of Epich. and valued them for their

philosophic contents is clearly made out by Wilamowitz' study. But

he goes on to assert that all the allusions of Eurip. refer only to

the (or one of the) forgeries in the name of Epicharm., of which many

were known in antiquity. The reason alleged for this

statement--"Euripides never quotes comedies"--is merely a petitio

principii. It may be that Eurip. does not "quote" contemporary Attic

comedy, but whether he maintained the same attitude to the

brilliantly original comic poet of Sicily, whom Aristotle and even

Plato (_Gorg._ 505 E and esp. _Tht._ 152 E) were not ashamed to

notice, is the very point at issue; nothing is gained by unproved

denial of this main premiss.--Moreover, it would be a most unusual

species of forger that preferred to publish gems like ~na=phe kai\ .

. .~ (imitated by Eurip.) or ~no/os horê=|~--under another man's

name. The fragments of the ~Politei/a~, which is really a forgery

fathered on Epicharmos (ap. Clem. Al., _Str._ v, p. 719 P. = Lor.,

p. 297), are of a very different character.]

[152\12: Archelaos makes a less satisfactory model for Eurip. here.

Arch. in his reconciliation of the doctrines of Anaxagoras and

Diogenes did not separate ~nou=s~ from the mixture of the material

elements (or from the ~aê/r~), but he distinguished between them,

while for the poet ~aithê/r~ and mind are the same.] {462}

[153\12: ~aithê/r~ = Zeus, _fr._ 941. ~aithê/r. . . . Zeu\s ho\s

anthrô/pois onoma/zetai~, _fr._ 877. Hence the ~aithê/r~ is

~koruphê\ theô=n~, _fr._ 919.--In the same way for Diog. Ap. the air

is god (Cic., _ND._ i, 29) and Zeus (Philod., _Piet._ c. 6b, p. 70

Gomp.; _Dox._ 536).--In E., _fr._ 941: ~to\n hupsou= to/nd' a/peiron

aithe/ra kai\ gê=n pe/rix e/chonth' hugrai=s en agka/lais~ the

~aithê/r~ is not put instead of ~aê/r~ (for ~to\n hupsou=~ only

suits ~aithê/r~ in its proper sense), but the two are combined under

the one word (~_hugrai=s_ en agka/lais~ could not be said of the

~aithê/r~ in the strict sense), just as the ~aê/r~ of Diogenes

includes the ~aithê/r~ (for the hot ~aê\r para\ tô=| hêli/ô|~, _fr._

6 [5 Diels] is, in fact, the ~aithê/r~, and so, too, essentially, is

the warm ~aê/r~ in our bodies).]

[154\12: ~--eis atha/naton aithe/r' empesô/n~, _Hel._ 1016.]

[155\12: ~ho ento\s aê\r~ (which alone ~aistha/netai~--not the

senses) ~mikro\n mo/rion ô\n tou= theou=~, Diog. ap. Thphr., _Sens._

42.]

[156\12: The living air, or Zeus, is ~nou=s brotô=n~, _Tro._ 886.

And vice versa, the ~nou=s~ in each one of us is no other than God,

_fr._ 1018.]

[157\12: ~ho nou=s tô=n katthano/ntôn zê=| me\n ou/, gnô/mên d'

e/chei atha/naton, eis atha/naton aithe/r' empesô/n~, _Hel._ 1013

ff.--Ambiguity attaches to the passages in which a dying person is

said to depart ~eis a/llo schê=ma bi/ou~ (_Med._ 1039), ~es a/llas

bio/tou morpha/s~ (_Ion_, 1068), to ~he/teron aiô=na kai\ moi=ran~

(_IA._ 1508). It is possible that in each case a personal existence

continued in a land of the dead is understood--but if they mean no

more than that they are remarkably pregnant in form. In reading them

(esp. _Med._ 1039) one is reminded of the remarkable lines of

Philiskos (pupil of Isocr.) ap. [Plu.] _Vit. X Or._, p. 243, 60

West. ~tô=| ga\r es a/llo schê=ma metharmosthe/nti kai\ a/llois en

ko/smoisi bi/ou sô=ma labo/nth' he/teron~--said of the dead Lysias.

But here the idea of metempsychosis seems really to be involved,

which it can hardly be in the case of Eurip.]

[158\12: Eur. adopts it for himself, _fr._ 189 (_Antiope_), and

confirms it by so many ~lo/gôn ha/millai~ in which he allows the

most contradictory opinions about a single subject to be given

equally plausible expression.]

[159\12: ~apeirosu/nê a/llou bio/tou~, etc. _Hip._ 191-7. ~to\ zê=n

ga\r i/smen, tou= thanei=n d' apeiri/a| pa=s tis phobei=tai phô=s

lipei=n to/d' hêli/ou~, _fr._ 816, 10 f. (_Phoinix_).]

[160\12: The dead man is ~gê= kai\ skia/--to\ mêde\n eis oude\n

rhe/pei~, _fr._ 532; cf. 533, 534. ~to\ mê\ gene/sthai tô=| thanei=n

i/son; hô/sper ouk idou=sa phô=s~ the dead woman knows nothing of

herself or her sufferings, _Tro._ 636-44 (a locus often initiated

in "consolations": _Axioch._ 365 D, Plu., _Cons. ad Apoll._ 15, p.

110 A).]

[161\12: ~phê/mê to\n esthlo\n kan muchoi=s dei/knusi gê=s~, _fr._

865. ~aretê\ de\ ka\n tha/nê| tis ouk apo/llutai, zê=| d' ouket'

o/ntos sô/matos~, _fr._ 734; cf. _Andr._ 772. At the sacrifice of

Makaria the chorus in _Hcld._ 621 ff. can only offer as consolation

the fame which awaits her--~oud' akleê/s nin do/xa pro\s anthrô/pôn

hupode/xetai~.]

[162\12: Makaria voluntarily going to meet her death--~ei/ ti dê\

kata\ chthono/s; _ei/ê ge me/ntoi mêde/n_. ei ga\r he/xomen kakei=

meri/mnas hoi thanou/menoi brotô=n ouk oi=d' ho/poi tis tre/psetai;

to\ ga\r thanei=n me/giston pha/rmakon nomi/zetai~, _Hcld._ 592 ff.;

cf. _fr._ 916.]

[163\12: _fr_, 757 (the metaphor of ll. 5 ff. is employed for

homiletic purposes by Epictet. ii, 6, 11-14); _Andr._ 1270 ff.]

{{463}}