ff. had been killed by a flash of lightning and therefore removed to
a higher state of being [see Append. i]) appears by night to his
mother and confirms her own assertion, ~ouk ê/mên broto/s~, _Ep._
320. The soul of their daughter who has died ~a/ôros~ and
~athala/meutos~ appears to her parents on the ninth day (l. 35)
after death, 372, 31 ff. (The ninth day marks the end of the first
offerings to the dead: see above, chap. v, n. 84; cf. "Apparitions
of the deceased occur most frequently on the ninth day after death":
a German superstition mentioned by Grimm, 1812, n. 856.) It is
significant that the daughter who thus appears in a vision has died
unmarried. The ~a/gamoi~, like the ~a/ôroi~, do not find rest after
death: see Append. vii and iii. The {577} soul of another unmarried
maiden says distinctly that those like herself are especially able
to appear in dreams: ~_êïthe/ois_ ga\r e/dôke theo\s meta\ moi=ran
ole/thron hôs zô/ousi lalei=n pa=sin epichthoni/ois~, _Ep._ 325,
7-8.--It becomes more general, however, in 522, 12-13: ~sô/mata
ga\r kate/luse Di/kê, psuchê\ de\ propa=sa atha/natos di' ho/lou~
(thus the stone, _Ath. Mitt._ xiv, 193) ~pôtôme/nê pa/nt' epakou/ei~
(cf. Eur., _Orest._ 667 ff.).]
[155\15: ~psuchê\ de\~--says his son and pupil to the dead physician
Philadelphos--~ek rhethe/ôn ptame/nê meta\ dai/monas a/llous ê/luthe
sê/, nai/es d' en maka/rôn dape/dô|, hi/lathi kai/ moi o/paze no/sôn
a/kos, hôs to\ pa/roithen, nu=n ga\r theiote/rên moi=ran e/cheis
bio/tou~, _Ep._ 243, 5 ff. (_Inscr. Perg._ ii, 576).]
[156\15: There is a striking conjunction of the most exalted hope
and the most utter unbelief on a single stone: _Ep._ 261.]
[157\15: ~ei/ ge/ ti e/sti (este/) ka/tô~, _CIG._ 6442.--~kata\ gê=s
ei/per chrêstoi=s ge/ras esti/n~, _Ep._ 48, 6; 63, 3. ~ei/ g' en
phthime/noisi/ tis ai/sthêsis, te/knon, esti/n~--_Ep._ 700, 4. ~ei
de/ ti/s esti no/os para\ Tarta/rô| ê\ para\ Lê/thê|~, 722, 5. ~ei
ge/nos eusebe/ôn zô/ei meta\ te/rma bi/oio~, _AP._ vii, 673.--Cf.
above, chap. xii, n. 17.]
[158\15: Call., _Epigr._ 15; _Ep._ 646; 646a (p. xv); 372, 1 ff.]
[159\15: ~hêmei=s de\ pa/ntes hoi ka/tô, tethnêko/tes, oste/a,
te/phra gego/namen, a/llo d' oude\ he/n~, _Ep._ 646, 5 f.; cf. 298,
3-4. ~ek gai/as blastô\n gai=a pa/lin ge/gona~, 75 (third century
B.C.); cf. 438; 311, 5: ~tou=th' ho/ pot' ô/n~ (the I that was once
living has now become these things, viz.), ~stê/lê, tu/mbos,
li/thos, eikô/n~. 513, 2, ~kei=tai anai/sthêtos hô/sper li/thos~
(cf. Thgn. 567 f.) ~êe\ si/dêros~. 551, 3, ~kei=tai li/thos hô/s, hê
pa/nsophos, hê peri/bôtos~.]
[160\15: ~He/stêken me\n He/rôs~ (prob. on the monument) ~heu/dôn
hu/pnon, en phthime/nois de\ ou po/thos, ou philo/tês e/sti
katoichome/nois. all' ho thanô\n kei=tai pedi/ô| li/thos hoi=a
pepêgô/s, eichô/rôn apalô=n sa/rkas aposkeda/sas--ex hu/datos kai\
gê=s kai\ pneu/matos~ (here evidently not in the Stoic sense, but
simply = ~aê/r~) ~êa pa/roithen; alla\ thanô\n kei=mai pa=si~ (all
the elements) ~ta\ pa/nt' apodou/s. pa=sin tou=to me/nei; ti/ de\
to\ ple/on? hoppo/then ê=lthen, eis tou=t' au=t' elu/thê sô=ma
maraino/menon~ (inscr. in Bucharest; Gomperz, _Arch. epigr. Mitt. a.
Oest._ vi, 30).]
[161\15: ~pneu=ma labô\n da/nos ourano/then tele/sas chro/non
antape/dôka~, _Ep._ 613, 6. (This is a commonplace of popular
philosophy: "life is only lent to man"; see Wyttenbach on Plu.,
_Cons. ad Apoll._ 106 F; Upton on Epict. 1, 1, 32 Schw.; cf. usura
vitae _Anth. Lat. Ep._ ed. Bücheler, i, p. 90, n. 183.)]
[162\15: Epitaph from Amorgos: _Ath. Mitt._ 1891, p. 176, which
ends: ~to\ te/los ape/dôka~.]
[163\15: ~dai/môn ho pikro\s ktl.~, _Ep._ 127, 3 (cf. 59).
~asto/rgou moi=ra ki/chen thana/tou~, 146, 6. ~di/ssa de\ te/kna
lipou=san ha pantoba/rês la/be m' Ha/idês, a/kriton a/storgon
thêro\s e/chôn kradi/ên~ (Tyrrheion in Akarnania, _BCH._ 1886, p.
178).]
[164\15: ~pau/sasthai deinou= pe/nthous deinou= te kudoimou=; oude\n
ga\r ple/on (PACIN~ the stone as stated) ~esti/, thano/nta ga\r
oude/na~ (read ~oude\n~) ~egei/rei ktl.~, ins. from Larisa, _Ath.
Mitt._ xi, 451. ~ei d' ê=n tou\s agathou\s ana/gein pa/lin~, ins.
from Pherai, _BCH._ 1889, p. 404.]
[165\15: ~ou kako/s est' Ai/dês~--comfort being derived from the
fact that death is "common". _Ep._ 256, 9-10; 282; 292, 6; 298.]
[166\15: ~eupsu/chei, te/knon, oudei\s atha/natos~, _IG. Sic. et
It._ 1531; 1536 (cf. 1743 ad fin.); 1997 and frequent; _CIG._ 4463;
4467 (Syria), ~eupsu/chei Atala/ntê, ho/sa genna=tai teleuta=|~, _IG.
Sic. et It._ 1832. ~kai\ ho Hêraklê=s ape/thanen~, 1806.--Even on
Christian graves the formula is frequent: ~eupsu/chei (hê dei=na),
oudei\s atha/natos~ (see Schultze, _Die Katakomben_, 251).] {578}
[167\15: ~ouk ê/mên, geno/mên, ouk e/som' ou me/kei moi; ho bi/os
tau=ta~. _IG. Sic. et It._ 2190 (the original form of the ending is
probably ~ouk e/somai; ti/ ple/on~; see Gomperz, _Arch. ep. Mitt.
Oesterr._ vii, 149; _Ztschr. f. öst. Gymn._ 1879, p. 437); cf. _Ep._
1117, ~ouk ê/mên, geno/mên, ê/mên, ouk eimi/; tosau=ta;~ (this
_~tosau=ta~_, or more commonly _~tau=ta~_, is frequent in epitaphs
as a formula of resignation--a summary of existence: "all life comes
to nothing but this." See Loch, _Zu d. griech. Grabschr._
289-95)--~ei de/ tis a/llo here/ei, pseu/setai; ouk e/somai~. _CIG._
6265: ~eupsuchô=, ho/stis ouk ê/mên kai\ egeno/mên, ou/k eimi kai\
ou lupou=mai~ (cf. also _Ep._ 502, 15; 646, 14; _AP._ vii, 339, 5-6;
x, 118, 3-4). Frequent also in a Latin form: Non eris, nec fuisti,
Sen., _Epist._ 77, 11 (see above, chap. xiv, pt. i, n. 68).
Ausonius, p. 252, ed. Schenkl (ex sepulchro latinae viae): nec sum
nec fueram; genitus tamen e nihilo sum. mitte nec explores singula,
talis eris (probably this is how it should be read); cf. _CIL._ ii,
1434; v, 1813, 1939, 2893; viii, 2885, etc.; Bücheler, _Carm. lat.
epigr._ i, p. 116.]
[168\15: ~gnou\s hôs thnatoi=s oude\n glukerô/teron auga=s zê=thi~,
_Ep._ 560, 7. Coarser admonitions to enjoy the passing hour, _CIG._
3846 (iii, p. 1070). _Ep._ 362, 5. ~pai=son, tru/phêson, zê=son;
apothanei=n se dei=~, 439, 480a, 7. An ins. from Saloniki, second
century A.D., _Ath. Mitt._ 1896, p. 99, concludes--~ho bi/os
hou=tos. ti/ stê/hkeis anthrôpe? tau=ta ble/pôn UPALOUSOU
(_apo/lauson_~? Or ~_apolau/ou_~?).]
[169\15: ~ei kai\ . . . phrou=don sô=ma . . . all' areta\ biota=s
aie\n zôoi=si me/testi, psucha=s manu/ous' eukle/a sôphrosu/nên~,
_Ep._ 560, 10 ff. ~sô=ma me\n entha/d' e/chei so/n, Di/phile, gai=a
thano/ntos, mnê=ma de\ sê=s e/lipes pa=si dikaiosu/nês~ (and
elsewhere with variations): _Ep._ 56-8. Or only: . . ~te/lesen de\
kai\ essome/noisi noê=sai stê/lên~, _Ath. Mitt._ 1891, p. 263, 3
(Thessaly). Homeric: see above, chap. i, n. 88, and cf. ~sa=ma toz'
Idameneu\s poi/êsa hi/na kle/ôs ei/ê . . .~ ancient inscr. from
Rhodos: _Ath. Mitt._ 1891, p. 112, 243 (_IGM. Aeg._ i, n. 737).]
[170\15: From an earlier period (_ca._ third century B.C.), _Ep._
44: ~ê\n ho su/neunos e/sterxen me\n zô=san epe/nthêsen de\
thanou=san. phô=s d' e/lip' eudai/môn, pai=das pai/dôn epidou=sa~.
Fine also are 67 and 81b. But something like them appears even late:
647, 5-10; 556: a priestess of Zeus congratulates herself ~eu/teknon
astona/chêton e/chei ta/phos; ou ga\r amaurô=s dai/mones hêmete/rên
e/blepon eusebi/ên~.--To recover for a moment the taste of the old
robust spirit we may remind ourselves of Herodotos' story of Tellos
the Athenian, the happiest of mankind. He was born in a prosperous
city, had fine children and saw the children of all these children,
none of whom died. And his happy life was crowned by a noble end. In
a battle of the Athenians against their neighbours he was successful
in putting the foe to rout and then he himself fell while fighting,
so that his country buried him in the place where he fell and
honoured him greatly. (Hdt. i, 30. Herodotos' Solon does indeed
assign the second prize of happiness to Kleobis and Biton and their
fortunate end: c. 31. A changed attitude to life makes itself felt
in their story.)]
[171\15: Mundus senescens, Cyprian, _ad Demetr._ 3 ff. The
Christians lay the blame for the impoverishment and decay of life on
the heathen. The latter in turn blame the recently arrived and now
dominant Christianity for the unhappiness of the time: Tertull.,
_Apol._ 40 ff.; Arnob. 1; Aug., _CD._ It was already a vulgare
proverbium--Pluvia defit, causa Christiani sunt, _CD._ ii, 3. The
Emp. Julian found ~tê\n oikoume/nên hô/sper lipopsuchou=san~ and
wished ~tê\n phthora\n tê=s oikoume/nês stê=sai~, Liban., _Or._ i,
p. 617, 10; 529, 4.--The Christians returned the compliment: the
reason why everything in nature and the life {579} of men was going
awry is simply paganorum exacerbata perfidia (_Leg. Novell. Theodos.
ii_, i, 3, p. 10 Ritt.).]
[172\15: We know of a certain Nikagoras Minuc. f. (significantly
enough an ardent admirer of Plato) temp. Const. ~da|dou=chos tô=n
hagiôta/tôn Eleusi=ni mustêri/ôn~, _CIG._ 4770. Julian, even as a
boy, was initiated at Eleusis: Eunap., _V. Soph._, p. 53 (Boiss.).
At that time, however, in miserandam ruinam conciderat Eleusina,
Mamert., _Act. Jul._ 9. Here again Julian seems to have restored the
cult. Valentinian I, on the point of abolishing all nocturnal
festivals (see _Cod. Theod. iii_, 9, 16, 7), allowed them to
continue when Praetextatus Procons. of Achaea represented to him
that for the Greeks ~ho bi/os~ would be ~abi/ôtos, ei me/lloien
kôlu/esthai ta\ sune/chonta to\ anthrô/peion ge/nos hagiô/tata
mustê/ria kata\ thesmo\n ektelei=n~, Zosim. iv, 3. (Praetext. was a
friend of Symmachus and, like him, one of the last pillars of Roman
orthodoxy: _princeps religiosorum_, Macr., _S._ i, 11, 1. He was
himself _sacratus Eleusiniis_, and _hierophanta_ there: _CIL._ vi,
1779; probably the ~Praite/xtatos ho hieropha/ntês~ of Lyd., _Mens._
4, 2, p. 148 R. [p. 65 W.], is the same person.) In 375 A.D. we hear
of a Nestorius (probably the father of the Neoplatonic Plutarch) as
~hierophantei=n tetagme/nos~ at the time (Zos. iv, 18). In 396
during the _hierophantia_ of a ~patê\r tê=s Mithriakê=s teletê=s~
(whose oath should have excluded him from that office) the temple of
Eleusis was destroyed by Alaric, incited thereto by the monks who
accompanied him (Eunap., _VS._, p. 52-3). The regular holding of the
festival must then have come to an end.--Evidence of later
celebration of the Eleusinia is not forthcoming. The expressions of
Proclus, which Maass regards as "certainly" proving that the
festival was still being held in the fifth century (_Orpheus_, 15),
are quite insufficient to the purpose. Proclus speaks of various
sacred ceremonies of initiation from which we ~memathê/kamen~
something: of a ~phê/mê~, i.e. written tradition, of certain
unspecified Eleusinian ~theolo/goi~; of what the Eleus. mysteries
~hupischnou=ntai~ to the _mystai_ (just as we might speak in the
present tense of the permanent content of Greek religion). These
passages prove nothing: whereas the imperfects which he uses
elsewhere clearly show that neither temple nor festival existed any
longer in his time. (He speaks, _in Alc._, p. 5 Crz., of what used
to be in the temple of Eleusis and still more of what formerly
occurred ~en toi=s Eleusini/ois hieroi=s--ebo/ôn ktl.~, _in Ti._ 293
C.) The festival moreover cannot have gone on without the temple and
its apparatus.]
[173\15: The Orphic hymns in the form in which we have them all
belong as it seems to one period, and that can hardly have been
earlier than the third century A.D. They are all composed for
practical use in the cult, and that presupposes the existence of
Orphic communities (see Schöll, _Commun. et coll. quib. Graec._
[_Sat. Saupp._], p. 14 ff.; Dieterich, _de H. Orph._).--It must be
admitted that they were not purely and exclusively Orphic
communities for which the poems were written. These hymns, called
"Orphic" a potiori, make use in parts of older Orphic poetry (cf.
_H._ 62, 2 f., with [Dem.] 25, 11).]
[174\15: Probably all these cults promised immortality to their
_mystai_. This is certain in the worship of Isis (cf. Burckhardt,
_Zeit Constantins d. G._^2, p. 195 ff.). Apul., _M._ xi, 21-3,
alludes to symbolic death and reawakening to everlasting life as the
subject of the ~drô/mena~ in the Isis mysteries. The initiated is
thus _renatus_ (21). In the same way the mystai of Mithras are said
to be _in aeternum renati_: _CIL._ vi, 510; 736. Immortality must
certainly have been promised. Acc. to Tert., _Pr. Haer._ 40, the
mysteries of Mithras {580} included an _imago resurrectionis_. By
this the Christian author can only understand a real ~ana/stasis
tê=s sarko/s~. Did these mysteries promise to their ~ho/sioi~ a
resurrection of the body and everlasting life? This belief in the
~ana/stasis nekrô=n~ (always a difficulty for the Greeks: _Act Ap._
xvii, 18; 32; Plotin. 3, 6, 6 fin.) is in fact ancient Persian
(Theopomp. _fr._ 71-2; Hübschmann, _Jb. Prot. Theol._ v, p. 222
ff.), and probably came to the Jews from Persia. It is possible then
that it may have been the essential idea of the Mithras
mysteries.--Hopes of immortality as they appeared to the _mystai_ of
Sabazios are illustrated by the sculptures of the monument of Vibia
(in the Catac. of Praetextatus), and of Vincentius: numinis antistes
Sabazis Vincentius hic est. Qui sacra sancta deum mente pia coluit
(Garrucci, _Tre Sepolcri_, etc., tab. i-iii, Nap. 1852).--It is
difficult to see why Christian archeologists should regard this
Vincentius as a Christian. He calls himself a worshipper of "the
gods" and an _antistes Sabazii_ (there cannot be the slightest
objection to giving this meaning to numinis antistes Sabazis. The
difficulties raised by Schultze, _Katakomben_, 44, are groundless:
Sabazis = Sabazii is no more objectionable or doubtful than the
**genitives Clodis, Helis: see Ritschl, _Opusc._ iv, 454-6. The
arrangement of words, _n. a. Sab._, is due to the exigencies of
metre.]
[175\15: ~hê o/rexis tou= agathou= eis he\n o/ntôs a/gei kai\ epi\
tou=to speu/dei pa=sa phu/sis~, Plot. 6, 5, 1. ~pa/nta ore/getai
ekei/nou kai\ ephi/etai autou= phu/seôs ana/gkê| . . . hôs a/neu
autou= ou du/natai ei=nai~, 5, 5, 12; 1, 8, 2. ~pothei= de\ pa=n to\
gennê=san~ (the ~nou=s~ desires the ~prô=ton~, the ~psuchê/~ the
~nou=s~): 5, 1, 6.]
[176\15: ~hai e/xô tou= aisthêtou= geno/menai (psuchai/)~, Plot. 3,
4, 6. In death ~ana/gein to\ en hêmi=n thei=on pro\s to\ en tô=|
pa/nti thei=on~, Porph., _V. Plot._ 2. Return ~eis patri/da~, Plot.,
5, 9, 1.]
[177\15: 2, 9, esp. § 16 ff.]
[178\15: ~to\ me\n ga\r aischro\n enanti/on kai\ tê=| phu/sei kai\
tô=| theô=|~, 3, 5, 1.]
[179\15: Flight from the ~en sô/mati ka/llos~ to the ~tê=s psuchê=s
ka/llê~, etc., 5, 9, 2. And again in the fine treatise, ~p. tou=
kalou=~, 1, 6, 8. Though even here it is in a different sense from
that in which Plato speaks in the _Symp._ of the ascent from ~kala\
sô/mata~ to ~kala\ epitêdeu/mata~, etc. Plotinos protests
energetically against the idea that his own sense of beauty makes
him any the less ~pheu/gein to\ sô=ma~ than the hatred of beauty
cultivated by the Gnostics: 2, 9, 18. He too waits here below, only
a little less impatiently, for the time when he will be able to say
farewell to every earthly habitation: ib.]
[180\15: ~. . . kai\ hou/tô theô=n kai\ anthrô/pôn thei/ôn kai\
eudaimo/nôn bi/os apallagê\ tô=n tê=|de, bi/os anê/donos tô=n
tê=|de, phugê\ mo/nou pro\s mo/non~, 6, 9, 11 fin.]
{{581}}
APPENDIX I
In many legends death by _lightning_ makes the victim holy and
raises him to godlike (everlasting) life. We need only remember the
story of Semele who now ~zô/ei en Olumpi/ois apothanoi=sa bro/mô|
keraunou=~ (Pi., _O._ ii, 27), or that of Herakles and his vanishing
from the pyre of wood lighted by Zeus' flash of lightning (see
partic. D.S. 4, 38, 4-5), or the parallel accounts of the
translation or death by lightning of Erechtheus (above, chap. iii,
n. 39). The primitive, popular belief finds unusually clear
expression in the words of Charax ap. Anon. _de Incred._ xvi, p.
325, 5 ff. West., who says of Semele, ~keraunou= kataskê/psantos
êphani/sthê; ekei/nên me\n ou=n, _hopoi=a epi\ toi=s dioblê/tois
le/getai, thei/as moi/ras lachei=n ô|ê/thêsan_~. (In this account
Semele is _immediately_ raised to heaven by the flash of
lightning--a version of the story frequently given by later authors:
~Zeu\s tê\n Seme/lên ek tê=s gê=s eis to\n O/lumpon komi/zei dia\
puro/s~, Aristid. 1, p. 47 Dind. [_O._ 41, 3 K.]. Cf. Philostr.,
_Imag._ i, 14; Nonnus, _D._ viii, 409 ff. The passage of Pindar
quoted above would also admit of a similar interpretation.)
Generally speaking, ~ho keraunôthei\s hôs theo\s tima=tai~ (Artem.
2, 9, p. 94, 26) as one ~hupo\ Dio\s tetimême/nos~ (ib. 93, 24). The
belief in such elevation of a mortal through the disruption and
purification of his body by the sacred fire of lightning (a ~pu=r
katha/rsion~ of the highest kind--see chap. i, n. 41) need not be of
late origin simply because it so happens that only late authorities
speak of it in unmistakable terms (as Wilamowitz thinks, _Ind.
Schol. Götting. hib._ 1895, pp. 12-13). Such lofty conceptions were
by this time no longer the product of popular imagination. Besides,
it is quite clearly referred to in the above-mentioned story of
Semele (see esp. D.S. 5, 52, 2) and in those of Herakles,
Erechtheus, Asklepios. In the same way lightning struck the tomb of
Lykourgos (as afterwards that of Euripides) as ~theophile/statos
kai\ hosiô/tatos~ (Plu., _Lyc._ 31). When the statues of the Olympic
victor Euthymos at Locri and Olympia are struck by lightning it
shows that he has become a Hero: Pliny, _NH._ vii, 152. The body of
the person struck by lightning remains uncorruptible: dogs and birds
of prey dare not touch it: Plu., _Smp._ 4, 2, 3, p. 665 B; it must
be buried in the place where the lightning struck it (Artem., p. 95,
6; cf. Fest., p. 178b, 21 ff.; Plin., _NH._ ii, 145). Every detail
shows plainly that the ~dio/blêtos~ was regarded as holy. This,
however, does not prevent death by lightning from being regarded on
other occasions as the punishment of crime--as in the cases of
Salmoneus, Kapaneus, etc.; though in some even of these cases the
idea is occasionally present that the lightning's victim is raised
to a higher existence. This is distinctly so when Euripides in
_Suppl._ makes a character call Kapaneus, who has been killed by
lightning, a ~_hiero\s_ nekro/s~ (935) and his ~tu/mbos~ (_rogus_)
~hiero/s~ too (981). ~hiero/s~ never means {582} "accursed" like the
Lat. _sacer_: it is invariably a title of honour. Kapaneus is here
called "holy" just as Astakides, on his translation to everlasting
life, is ~hiero/s~ in Kallimachos; and as Hesiod speaks of the
~hiero\n ge/nos athana/tôn~ (with ~tu/mbos hiero/s~ cf. S., _OC._
1545, 1763). We must not fail to observe that in this passage, where
a friend of Kap. is supposed to be speaking, the latter is certainly
not regarded by Eurip. as an impious person (as he is generally in
Tragedy, and by Eurip. himself in _Phoen._, and even in _Suppl._ the
enemy so regards him (496 ff.), though acc. to this speaker
Amphiaraos too is snatched away in atonement for his crime).
Euripides in fact makes him highly praised by Adrastos (861 ff.) as
the very opposite of a ~hubristê/s~; and it is obvious that Euadne's
sacrifice of her life which immediately follows is not intended to
be offered for the benefit of a criminal and enemy of the gods. For
these reasons Euripides ennobles the character of Kapaneus and,
consequently, the death of the Hero by lightning can no longer stand
for his punishment, but is on the contrary a distinction. He becomes
a ~_hiero\s_ nekro/s~. This, however, could not have been done by
Eurip. unless the view that such a death might in certain
circumstances bring honour on the victim and elevate him to a higher
plane of being, had been at that time widespread and generally
recognized. Eurip. therefore provides the most distinct evidence for
the existence of such a belief in his time. (As one of the exalted
dead Kapaneus is to be separated from the rest of the dead and burnt
~par' oi/kous tou/sde~: 935, 936, 1009--i.e. before the ~ana/ktoron~
of the Goddesses at Eleusis: 88, 290.)--Finally Asklepios, in all
the stories that are told of his death by lightning (and already in
Hes. _fr._ 109 Rz.), is never regarded as entirely removed from this
life: he lives on as Hero or god for all time, dispensing blessings.
Zeus allows him to live on for ever immortal (Luc., _DD._ 13), and
acc. to later versions of the story, in the constellation Ophiuchus
(Eratosth. ~katast.~ 6; Hygin., _Astron_, ii, 14); the real and
primitive conception evidently being that he was transported to
everlasting life by Zeus' lightning-flash. So Min. Fel. 22, 7, says
quite rightly: Aesculapius, ut in deum surgat, fulminatur.
APPENDIX II
~_maschalismo/s_~
~emaschali/sthê~ is the word used by Aesch., _Cho._ 439, of the
murdered Agamemnon. Soph., _El._ 445, says ~huph' hê=s
(Klutaimnê/stras) thanô\n a/timos hô/ste dusmenê\s
emaschali/sthê~--also of Agamemnon. What particular abomination was
meant by this brief statement must have been immediately understood
by the Athenian public of the day. A more detailed account is given
by Phot. and Suid. ~maschali/smata~ (cf. Hesych. s.v.; Apostol.,
_Pr._ xi, 4), and they give Aristophanes of Byzantium as their
authority. (Not from Aristophanes--for they differ in many
particulars--but from a closely related source come the two versions
{583} of the Scholion to Soph., _El._ 446 and _EM._ 118, 22 f.)
According to their authority ~maschalismo/s~ is something done by
the murderer (~hoi phoneu/santes ex epiboulê=s~--Aristoph.) to the
corpse of the murdered man. He cuts off the extremities of his
victim, strings the severed parts on a chain and puts them on.--On
whom? on himself? or the murdered man? Aristophanes' words are
undecisive: the Schol. Soph., _El._ 445, speaks in the first version
of "himself" (~heautoi=s~, p. 123, 17 Papag.) and in the second of
"him", i.e. the murdered man: ~peri\ tê\n mascha/lên autou=
ekre/mazon auta/ [ta\ a/kra]~, p. 123, 23; cf. 124, 5. This too is
probably the meaning of Schol. Ap. Rh. iv, 477; _EM._ 118, 28-9,
speaks distinctly of hanging the chain round the neck of the dead
man. This is, in fact, the most probable version. The murderer hung
the limbs, strung together on a rope, round the neck of his victim
and then drew the rope under the armpits (~mascha/lai~): a
proceeding which is far from being "impossible" (as has been said),
as anyone may discover by trying it for himself. The murderer then
crossed the ends of the rope over the breast of his victim and after
drawing them under the armpits fastened them behind his back. From
this process of drawing under the armpits the whole procedure is
called ~maschalismo/s~, and the ~mo/ria~ of the dead man thus
fastened to his body are his ~maschali/smata~ (Aristoph.).
Anyone who wishes to reject this description of ~maschalismo/s~ (as
some have done recently) must first of all show from what source
Aristophanes of Byzantium--whom no one who knows him would accuse of
improvizing such details or of concealing his ignorance by
invention--can have got his information if not from actual report
and historical tradition. The possibility that he arrived at it by
straining the meaning and giving a private interpretation of his own
to the words ~maschali/zein~ and ~maschalismo/s~ is excluded by the
nature of these words. They offer no hint whatever in the direction
of the special meaning suggested by his account. We cannot indeed
say (as Wilamowitz does on A., _Cho._ 439) that "grammar" forbids us
to accept the explanation of what happened in ~maschali/zein~ given
by Aristoph. To say: ~emaschali/sthê~, "he had to suffer
~maschali/zein, maschalismo/s~," is equally correct whatever sense
we give to the process of ~maschalismo/s~. But the word itself does
not testify, by its mere form, to the absolute or exclusive
correctness of Aristophanes' interpretation: it denotes without
distinction absolutely any proceeding in which the ~mascha/lai~
figure at all. Verbs in ~-izein~, derived from the names of parts of
the body, can denote according to the circumstances the utmost
variety of actions done to or with the part of the body concerned:
cf. ~kephali/zein, aucheni/zein, trachêli/zein, laimi/zein,
ômi/zein, rhachi/zein, cheiri/zein, daktuli/zein, gastri/zein,
skeli/zein~ (and even ~pugi/zein~). What particular sort of activity
applied to the ~mascha/lai~ is indicated by the verb ~maschali/zein~
cannot be decided from the mere form of the verb. This only makes it
the more necessary to adhere to Aristophanes' interpretation, which
must have been derived from some other source, i.e. from actual
knowledge. It may be true that ~maschali/zein~, considered simply
from {584} the point of view of its form, might conceivably mean to
tear the arm from the shoulder at the armpits (as Benndorf suggests,
_Monument von Adamklissi_, p. 132 A)--though such an ~ekmochleu/ein
to\n brachi/ona ek tê=s mascha/lês~ should rather be
~apomaschali/zein~ or ~ekmaschali/zein~. But that out of its many
possible meanings the verb should have just this particular one is
not suggested by anything: least of all by the sculptured relief on
which the gods appear to be tearing out the right arms of their
defeated enemies. Such scenes according to Benndorf represent
~maschalismo/s~. But can the Greeks really have attributed to the
gods this much execrated practice of cowardly murderers? We are not
told by anyone that this scene represents ~maschalismo/s~--that is
only a conclusion drawn from an apparent agreement between the
representation and the view (itself as yet unproved) of what
happened in ~maschali/zein~. Is the correctness of the meaning
assigned to the word to be proved in its turn from its agreement
with the representation? A most palpable argument in a circle!
There is no valid reason for rejecting the statement of
Aristophanes; and there must be very good reason indeed for so doing
before we may discredit such an authority. He gives his information
with no uncertain voice and no suggestion of hesitation, and it must
be regarded as the simple account of well-established facts. It
would receive additional confirmation--if it needed any--from the
very meaning and conception of the word _~mascha/lisma~_.
~maschali/smata~ must be the product of ~maschalismo/s~; they are,
in fact, the severed ~mo/ria~ of the murdered man, with which too
Aristophanes identifies them. ~Sophoklê=s en **Trôï/lô| plê/rê
maschalisma/tôn ei/rêke to\n maschalismo/n~ (probably a mere
oversight for ~to\n tra/chêlon~): Suid. s.v. ~emaschali/sthê~ (Soph.
_fr._ 566 = 623 P.). If ~maschali/zein~ had consisted in the
dislocation of the arm from its socket, it would be impossible to
say what such ~maschali/smata~ might be. They are without doubt
identical with what are otherwise called, in descriptions of
mutilations of the corpse of a murdered man, ~apa/rgmata~ (Jason
after the murder of Apsyrtos ~apa/rgmata ta/mne thano/ntos~, A.R.
iv, 477; cf. Schol. and _EM._ 118, 22 ff.), ~akrôtêria/smata, to/mia
(ta\ apotmê/mata kai\ akrôtêria/smata tou= nekrou=~, Hesych.). These
expressions allow us to conclude that the whole procedure is
intended to offer the murdered man as a sacrifice to some sort of
~apotro/paioi~. The ~maschali/smata~ are the ~aparchai/~ of this
sacrificial victim. Indeed, Aristoph. of Byzantium, ap. Phot.
[Suid.] ~maschali/smata~, definitely states that ~maschali/smata~
was the name given to ~ta\ toi=s mêroi=s epitithe/mena apo\ tô=n
ômô=n~ (not ~ô/môn~ as the edd. give; as also Nauck, _Arist. Byz._,
p. 221) ~kre/a en tai=s tô=n theô=n thusi/ais~. This refers--though
it does not seem to have been remarked by those who have hitherto
dealt with the passage--to the parts of the body which were cut off
from the raw flesh of the ~hierei=on~ before the sacrifice, laid on
the severed ~mêroi/~ of the victim, and burnt up completely with
these: the _~ômothetei=n~_ in fact so often mentioned in Homer (~A~
460 i.; ~B~ 423 f.; ~g~ 456 ff.; ~m~ 360 f.; ~x~ 427 f.). If these
~ômothetou/mena~ could also be called (in {585} a comparison)
~maschali/smata~, that again shows that at the ~maschalismo/s~ there
was no tearing out of an arm from its socket, but that in reality
the extremities of the murdered man (~--akrôtêria/santes mo/ria
tou/tou~) were hewn off and a piece cut off ~ek panto\s me/rous tou=
sô/matos~ as the grammarians following Aristophanes say. Only in
this case is the proceeding like that which took place at the
~ômothetei=n~ when the sacrificers ~e/kopsan mikro\n apo\ panto\s
**me/lous~ (Aristonic. in Schol. ~A~ 461; Apollon., _Lex. Hom._ 171,
8; _lex. Rhet._ ap. Eust. ~A~ 461, p. 134, 36: ~ômothe/têsan; to\
aph' heka/stou me/lous tou= hierei/ou apete/monto kai\ apê/rxanto
ap' _ômou=~ [so the last word should be written here too, though
Eustath. found--and was surprised--~ô/mou~] ~kai\ ene/balon eis ta\
mêri/a kata\ tê\n thusia/n~). So too it is said of Eumaios: ~ho d'
ômothetei=to subô/tês, pa/ntôn arxa/menos mele/ôn~, ~x~ 427 f. (this
is the passage in which ~hêrmê/neuse [ho poiêtê/s], ti/ esti to\
ômothetei=n~: Schol., B.L. ~A~ 461; it is this passage, and not ~A~
461, which is meant by Hesych. too s.v. ~ômothetei=n~, when he says
~exêgei=tai d' auto\s Ho/mêros~; cf. also Dion. Hal. 7, 72, 15).
~maschalismo/s~ was then essentially an offering intended to avert
evil or, what comes to the same thing, a kathartic offering (i.e. a
symbol indicating such an offering). It was consummated by murderers
~epi\ tai=s katha/rsesin~ (Sch. S., _El._ 445); ~hupe\r tou= tê\n
mê=nin ekkli/nein~ as Aristoph. Byz. says (p. 221 N.); ~to\ e/rgon
aphosiou/menoi~ as we are told by Apostolius, _Prov._ xi, 4. All
these mean the same thing. But besides these there may still have
been another intention present in the minds of the superstitious.
The mutilation of the murdered man took place according to Sch. S.,
_El._ 445 (in the second version; there is something similar even in
the first, p. 123, 18 f.) ~hi/na, phasi/n, asthenê\s ge/noito pro\s
to\ antiti/sasthai to\n phone/a~. The mutilation of the corpse was
transferred to the ~psuchê/~ that was leaving the body--such is the
ancient conception to which Homer too is not a stranger (cf. e.g.
~l~ 40 ff.). If the dead man is mutilated he will not, for example,
be able to hold or throw the spear which in Athens was borne before
the murdered man at his funeral (if he left no kinsman as avenger
behind him) and was then set up beside his grave ([D.] 47, 69: Eur.,
_Tro._ 1147 f.: Poll. viii, 65; Ister ap., _EM._ 354, 33 ff.; _AB._
237, 30 f.)--certainly for no other purpose than that of supplying
the dead man himself with a weapon with which to take vengeance on
his own account since no one else would ~boêthei=~ him. (Thus among
the Tasmanians a spear was planted on the grave of the dead that he
might have a weapon ready for fighting: Quatrefages, _Hommes
fossiles et hommes sauvages_, p. 346.) Probably the Greek murderer
when he ~emascha/lizen~, calculated in exactly the same fashion as
the Australian negro who cuts off the thumb from the right hand of
his fallen foe in order that his soul may no longer be able to hold
a spear (Spencer, _Princ. of Sociol._ i, p. 212).
In Soph., _El._ 446, the murderer after the ~maschalismo/s~ also
wipes the bloody instrument of death on the head of the murdered
man. Murderers did this ~hô/sper apotropiazo/menoi to\ mu/sos to\ en
tô=| pho/nô|~ {586} (Schol.). There are passages in the Odyssey
which allude to the custom (~me/ga e/rgon, ho\ sê=| kephalê=|
anama/xeis~, ~t~ 92) as well as in Herodotos and Demosthenes (see
Schneidewin on _Electra_). Their meaning is quite correctly given in
Eust. on _Od._ ~t~ 92: ~hôs eis kephalê\n dê=then ekei/nois (toi=s
pephoneume/nois) trepome/nou tou= kakou=~. Evidently a mimic version
of ~eis kephalê\n soi/~. Something similar is intended when the
murderer sucks the blood of the murdered man three times and spits
it out again three times. Ap. Rh. describes such a scene (iv, 477
f.); and something similar occurred in Aesch. (_fr._ 354; _EM._
refers to this in immediate connexion with ~maschalismo/s~). Here
too the object is the ~ka/tharsis~ of the murderer, the expiation of
the impious deed. (~hê\ the/mis authe/ntê|si doloktasi/as
_hile/asthai_~, A.R.; ~apoptu/sai dei= kai\ _kathê/rasthai_ sto/ma~,
A.) Spitting three times is a regular feature in magic charms and
counter-charms: in this case the blood of the murdered man and with
it the power of vengeance that rises up out of the blood, is
averted, (despuimus comitiales morbos, hoc est, contagia regerimus,
Plin., _NH._ 28, 35.)--What "savage" tribe ever had more primitive
ideas or a more realistic symbolism than the Greek populace--and
perhaps not populace only--of classical times in the sinister
backwaters of their life into which we have here for a moment
descended?
APPENDIX III
~_amu/êtoi, a/gamoi_~ AND DANAÏDES IN THE UNDERWORLD
In Polygnotos' picture of the underworld were to be seen the figures
~tô=n ou memuême/ôn, tô=n ta\ drô/mena Eleusi=ni en oudeno\s
theme/nôn lo/gô|~--an old man, a ~pai=s~, a young and an old woman,
who bear water to a ~pi/thos~ in broken pitchers: Paus. 10, 31,
9-11. The myth is evidently founded upon an etymological play on
words--those who have neglected the "completion" of the holy ~te/lê~
and are ~atelei=s hierô=n~ (_h. Cer._ 482) must perform the vain
labour in the realm of Persephone of carrying water in broken
vessels: the ~Danaï/dôn hudrei/as _atelei=s_~ (_Axioch._ 371 E). It
can only have been an oversight that made Pausanias forget to say
that the ~pi/thos~ is ~_tetrême/nos_~, for this is essential to the
story (see Pl., _Gor._ 493 BC; Philetair. ap. Ath. 633 F, 18 [2, p.
235 K.]; Zenob., _Prov._ ii, 6, etc.), and certainly cannot, as
Dieterich, _Nekyia_, 70, imagined, be replaced by the ~kateago/ta
o/straka~. That the ~ou memuême/noi~, the ~amu/êtoi~, as the
inscription on the picture called them (Paus. § 9), were in fact
those who had neglected the Eleusinian mysteries is only a
conclusion of Pausanias' (or of his authority), as we see from the
way he speaks in § 11; but it is probably the right conclusion. The
Orphics took over the Eleusinian fable, but exaggerated it to the
point of absurdity: they ~tou\s anosi/ous kai\ adi/kous koski/nô|
hu/dôr anagka/zousi phe/rein~ in Hades (Pl., _Rp._ 363 D; _Gor._ 493
BC). In this they followed a hint given by a popular
proverb--representing one of the ~adu/nata--koski/nô| hu/dôr
phe/rein~ (which is also Roman: cf. Plaut., {587} _Pseud._ 102; as
an "ordeal": Plin., _NH._ 28, 12). It is not until later (nor in
surviving literature before the _Axiochus_, 371 E: though perhaps a
little earlier on vase paintings from South Italy) that the story
occurs in which it is the _daughters of Danaos_ who are punished in
Hades by having to fill the leaking vessel. The reason given for
this punishment is their murder of the sons of Aigyptos in the
marriage bed: but why did the punishment take this particular form?
Clearly in the case of the Danaides their non-fulfilment of an
important ~te/los~ is requited in the ever ~atelei=s hudrei=ai~.
Their marriage union was uncompleted through their own choice (thus
marriage itself was often called a ~te/los~ and the wedding was
preceded by ~prote/leia~ and compared with the ~te/lê~ of the
mysteries). In this it is certainly implied that their deed had not
been expiated, and they themselves had not found other husbands, but
had as it were immediately after their impious deed been sent down
to Hades (cf. Sch. Eur., _Hec._ 886, p. 436, 14 Dind.). The
daughters of Danaos came to the underworld as ~a/gamoi~. To die
before marriage was regarded as the height of ill-luck by the common
people (cf. Welcker, _Syll. ep._, p. 49): the essential reason being
that those who die thus leave behind them nobody who is called upon
to keep up the cult of their souls (E. _Tro._ 380). Other ideas may
have been vaguely combined with this. Thus, on the graves of
~a/gamoi~ a ~loutropho/ros~ was set up--a figure of a ~pai=s~ or a
~ko/rê loutropho/ros~, or a vessel called the ~loutropho/ros~ which
has been identified with certain _bottomless_ vases (see
Furtwängler, _Samml. Sabouroff_, on Pl. lviii-lix; cf. Wolters,
_Ath. Mitth._ xvi, 378 ff.). Can this have referred to a similar
fate awaiting the ~a/gamoi~ after their death, a fate such as was
imputed to the Danaides in particular as mythical types of those who
are ~a/gamoi~ by their own fault?--an ever unsuccessful carrying of
water for the ~loutro/n~ of the bridal bath. (Dieterich, _Nekyia_,
76, with some probability takes this as the reason for the
water-carrying.)
Of these two myths, was the one which appears later in order of
time--the story of the Danaids--merely a subsequent development out
of the earlier one (even said to occur on a black-figured vase),
which told of the vain water-carrying of the _~amu/êtoi~_? I cannot
be so sure of this as I once was. I cannot indeed admit (with
Dümmler, _Delphica_, 18 ff., who, however, fails to prove an
earlier date for the story of the Danaids' jar) that it would be
difficult to imagine how a special class of human beings came to be
replaced later on by certain mythical representatives such as the
Danaids were. But it is a very suspicious fact that the Danaids do
_not_ as a matter of fact represent the particular class of
mankind--the ~amu/êtoi~--whose place they are supposed to have taken
as their mythological representatives. They are not ~amu/êtoi~ at
all, but _~a/gamoi~_. The ~a/gamoi~ and their ~atelei=s hudrei=ai~
in Hades must have been familiar in popular belief: in addition to
this the mystical fable of the similar behaviour of those who had
neglected the ~te/los~ of initiation may have sprung up, but
certainly not as the model of the ~a/gamoi~ story, more probably as
a subsequent {588} rehandling of it for the purposes of mystical
edification. (The story of the ~a/gamoi~ has a much more primitive
and popular flavour; and it alone gives a definite relation between
the special labour of water-carrying in Hades and the nature of
their default on earth.) The mythical fate of the ~a/gamoi~ was then
forgotten owing to the competing interest of the story of the
**~amu/êtoi~, which, in fact, absorbed it, when a poet--for a poet
it must have been--took up what still-surviving custom and its
accompanying legend applied to the ~a/g.~ in general and transferred
it to the _Danaides_. This version of the myth was then victorious
in the general consciousness both over the popular tradition about
the ~a/gamoi~ and the mystery-fable of the **~amu/êtoi~.--It remains
to be said that the Danaids (and the **~amu/êtoi~ too in a lesser
degree) were supposed to be _punished_ by their ~atelei=s hudrei=ai~,
This, so long as it was a matter of the ~a/gamoi~ simply, cannot
have been the meaning of that fate of purposeless toil in their case
any more than it was in the case of Oknos. Even Xenophon, _Oec._
vii, 40, lets us see that the vain toilers are not as a matter of
fact intended to inspire horror, as sinners, but rather pity. His
words are: ~ouch hora=|s, hoi eis to\n tetrême/non pi/thon antlei=n
lego/menoi hôs _oikti/rontai_, ho/ti ma/tên ponei=n dokou=si? nê\
Di/', e/phê hê gunê/, kai\ ga\r tlê/mone/s eisin, ei tou=to/ ge
poiou=sin~. This gives us the attitude of mind from which the whole
story originally grew up.
APPENDIX IV
THE TETRALOGIES OF ANTIPHON
I ought not to have admitted the doubt suggested in chap. v, n. 176,
as to the genuineness of the Tetralogies traditionally ascribed to
Antiphon. I have examined more carefully the well-known linguistic
variations between the Tetralogies and speeches i, v, and vi of
Antiphon, and also the recently noticed divergences (see
Dittenberger, _Hermes_, 31; 32) of the Tetralogies from Athenian law
(for which the author, like the declamation-writers of later times,
substitutes occasionally a "_ius scholasticum_"--a purely fanciful
creation but one more suited to pleading _in utramque partem_). All
these objections seem to me, on maturer consideration, insufficient
to make us reject the identity--otherwise so well established--of
the author of the Tetralogies with the author of the Speeches.
APPENDIX V
RITUAL PURIFICATION EFFECTED BY RUNNING WATER, RUBBING WITH ANIMAL
OR VEGETABLE SUBSTANCES (~ski/lla~, FIGS), ABSORPTION OF THE
_materia peccans_ INTO EGGS.
For the purpose of ritual purification it is necessary to have water
drawn from running springs or streams, or from the sea: ~tha/lassa
klu/xei pa/nta tanthrô/pôn kaka/~, Eur., _IT._ 1193. (Hence in the
exalted {589} semi-oracular language of bardic poetry ~hê ami/antos
= tha/lassa~, Aesch., _P._ 578. At a sacrifice ~ho hiareu\s
aporrai/netai thala/ssa|~, sacrificial calendar from Kos: _Inscr.
Cos_, 38, 23.) Various details on this point in Lomeier, _De
lustrat._ c. 17. In the water thus drawn from running sources the
power of washing off and carrying away the evil still seemed to be
inherent. When the pollution is unusually severe it has to be purged
by the water from several running springs: ~krêna/ôn apo\ pe/nte~,
Emped. 452 M. = 143 D.; ~apo\ krênô=n triô=n~, Menand., ~Deis.~ 530,
22 K.; Orestes se apud tria flumina circum Hebrum ex response
purificavit (from the stain of matricide), Lamprid., _Heliog._ vii,
7--or else at Rhegion in the seven streams which combine to form one
river: Varro ap. Prob., _ad Verg._, p. 3, 4 Keil; Sch. Theoc.,
prol., p. 1, 3 ff. Düb. (and cf. Hermann, _Opusc._ ii, 71 ff.). Even
water from fourteen different springs might be used at a
purification of murder: Suid. 476 BC Gaisf. (~apo\ di\s hepta
kuma/tôn~, conclusion of an iambic or trochaic line). In all this the
remarkable persistence of Greek ritual performances is shown once
more. Even in a late period the same kathartic rules prevail. An
order of the Klarian oracle of about the third century A.D. (ap.
Buresch, _Klaros_, p. 9) commands those who seek its aid ~apo\
Naïa/dôn hepta mateu/ein katharo\n po/ton entu/nesthai, ho/n
theiô=sai pro/sothen~ (taken from _Il._ ~Ps~ 533, but understood in
a temporal sense) ~echrê=n kai\ epessume/nôs aphu/sasthai rhê=nai/ te
do/mous ktl.~ And in a magical papyrus (about fourth century), ap.
Parthey, _Abh. Berl. Ak._ 1865, p. 126, l. 234-5, instructions are
given to collect ~hu/dôr pêgai=on apo\ z' pêgô=n~ for magic
purposes. (Then again in mediæval superstition: for the purposes of
_hydromantia_ "water must be taken from three running streams, a
little from each", etc.--Hartlieb ap. Grimm, p. 1770--probably a
survival from classical antiquity: cf. Plin., _NH._ 28, 46, _e
tribus puteis_, etc.) Cf. also and in general the completely
analogous use of water in old Indian ceremonies of purification:
Oldenberg, _Rel. Veda_, 423 ff.; 489.--~_perima/ttein,
apoma/ttein_~: wiping-off of the uncleanness: see Wyttenb. ad Plu.,
_Mor._ vi, pp. 1006-7. In this use _~peripsê=n~_ also occurs: in a
transferred sense a ~pharmako/s~ is called a ~peri/psêma =
perika/tharma~, _Ep. ad Cor._ 1, 4, 13. Washing-off with bran,
earth, etc., is often mentioned. Otherwise the _~ski/lla~_ is used
or the bodies of sacrificed dogs: ~eka/thêre/ te/ me kai\ _ape/maxe_
kai\ periê/gnise da|di/ois~ (with ~periê/gn.~) ~kai\ _ski/llê|_~,
Luc., _Necyom._ 7. The Superstitious Man is accustomed ~hierei/as
kale/sas ski/llê| ê\ _sku/laki_ keleu=sai hauto\n perikatha=rai~,
Thphr., _Ch._ 28 (16) fin. All sorts of medicinal properties were
attributed to the ~ski/lla~. (The idea is elaborated farcically in
the pamphlet of "Pythagoras" ~peri\ ski/llês~ [D.L. viii, 47?
~kê/lês~ Cobet], an extract of which is given by Galen ~p.
eupori/st.~ 3, vol. xiv, **576-9 K.) But above all it is regarded as
~katha/rsios~: Artem. iii, 50; ~kathartikê\ pa/sês kaki/as~, Sch.
Theoc. v, 121, and cf. Cratin., ~Chei/r.~ 232 K. Hence it is also
~alexipha/rmakon, ho/lê pro\ tô=n thurô=n kremame/nê~, Diosc. ii,
202 fin. (see _Hermes_, 51, 628); such also was the teaching of
"Pythagoras": Plin., _NH._ 20, 101; **or it may be buried at the
threshold: Ar. ~Danaï/d.~ _fr._ 8 [255 H.-G.]. {590} It is also
~lu/kôn phthartikê/~: Artem. iii, 50 (cf. _Gp._ 15, 1, 6, with notes
of Niclas). As being able to keep off daimones (in wolf-form) it was
then used in religious "purification".--Figs are also used for the
purpose of religious cleansing and scouring (_black_ figs
particularly inferum deorum et avertentium in tutela sunt, Macr. 3,
20, 2-3). Figs used ~en katharmoi=s~: Eustath., _Od._, p. 1572, 57
(? is this the meaning of the ~perima/ttein~ of the eyes with figs
in Pherecr. ap. Ath. 3, 78 D [132 K.]). Hence ~Zeu\s suka/sios =
katha/rsios~ (Eustath.). Figs the best ~alexipha/rmakon~: Arist. ap.
Jul., _Ep._ 24, p. 505, 7 ff. From the specially magic properties of
the fig comes the idea that fig-trees are never struck by lightning:
Plu., _Smp._ 5, 9, p. 684 C; _Gp._ 11, 2, 7; Theoph. Nonn. 260, 288
(and cf. _Rh. Mus._ 50, 584); Lyd., _Mens. fr. fals._ 1, p. 181 W.;
4, 4, p. 69 W. The ~pharmakoi/~ at the Thargelia (above, chap. ix,
n. 26) wear strings of figs round their necks (Hellad. ap. Phot.,
_Bibl._, p. 534a, 5 ff.), and are beaten with branches of the
fig-tree (~kra/dai~) and with ~ski/llai~ (Hippon. _frr._ 4, 5, 8;
Hsch. ~kradi/ês no/mos~): here again the figs have a kathartic
purpose (Müller mistakes this, _Dorians_, i, 346), as is shown also
by the presence of ~ski/llai~ as well (cf. in general Theoc. vii,
107; v, 121). Before the ~pharmakoi/~ were driven out of the city as
scapegoats they were thus "purified" with the above-mentioned
~kra/dai~ and ~ski/llai~. The same thing is said in the story of the
ravens which parodies this expiatory rite. The ravens are offered up
to ~Loimo/s~ as a sort of ~pharmakoi/--_perikathai/rontas_ epô|dai=s
aphie/nai zô=ntas, kai\ epile/gein tô=| Loimô|; pheu=g' es ko/rakas~
(Arist. _fr._ 454 [496 Tbn.]; for a similar ~apotropiasmo/s (eis
ai=gas agri/as)~ see the commentators on Macar. iii, 59, Diogen. v,
49; cf. ~tê\n _no/son_~ (regarded as a daimon), ~phasi/n, es ai=gas
tre/psai~, Philostr., _Her._ 179, 8 Kays.).--Rubbing-off of the
"impurity" was effected also with the dead bodies of puppies
(~ski/llê ê\ sku/laki~, Thphr., _Ch._ 28 [16]). Those ~hagnismou=
deo/menoi~ were rubbed down with the bodies of puppies (which had
been sacrificed to Hekate): ~perima/ttontai~, and this is
~periskulakismo/s~, Plu., _Q. Rom._ 68, p. 280 C.
It was believed that these materials (wool and the skins of animals
were also employed) received into themselves the harmful and
polluting substance. This is why _eggs_ are also used as
~katha/rsia~: e.g. in _P. Mag. Lond._, n. 121, l. 522 ap. Kenyon,
_Greek papyri in BM._ i, p. 101 (1893): ~gra/phe to\ o/noma eis ô|a\
du/o arrenika\ kai\ tô=| heni\ _perikathai/reis_~ (sic) ~seauto\n
ktl.~ More in Lomeier, _Lustr._ (ed. 2 Zutph. 1700), p. 258 f. They
were meant to absorb the impurity. ~anela/mbanon ta\ tou=
perikatharthe/ntos kaka/~, Auct. ~p. deisid.~ ap. Clem., _Str._ vii,
p. 844 P.
APPENDIX VI
HEKATE AND THE ~Hekatika\ pha/smata~, GORGYRA, GORGO, MORMOLYKE,
MORMO, BAUBO, GELLO, EMPOUSA, ETC.
Hekate herself is addressed as ~Gorgô\ kai\ Mormô\ kai\ Mê/nê kai\
polu/morphe~: _Hymn._ ap. Hipp., _RH._ iv, 35, p. 102, 67 D.-S. Sch.
A.R. {591} iii, 861, says of Hek. ~le/getai kai\ _pha/smata_
epipe/mpein~ (cf. Eur., _Hel._ 569; D. Chr. iv, p. 73 M. [i, p. 70
Arn.]; Hsch. ~antai/a), ta\ kalou/mena _Heka/taia_ (pha/smata
Hekatika/~, Marin., _V. Procl_. 28) ~kai\ polla/kis _autê\
metaba/llein to\ ei=dos_ dio\ kai\ _E/mpousan_ kalei=sthai~.
Hekate-Empousa also in Ar. _Tagen. fr._ 500-1: Sch. Ar., _Ran_, 293;
Hesych. ~E/mpousa~. Thus Hekate is the same as Gorgo, Mormo, and
Empousa. Baubo also is one of her names: _H. Mag._, p. 289 Abel.
(Baubo probably identical with the _~Babô/~_ mentioned among other
~chtho/nioi~ in an inscr. from Paros: ~Athê/naion~, v, 15; cf. the
male personal names ~Babô/, Babei/s~. ~Baubô/~ can hardly be
etymologically connected with ~baubô/n~ unpleasantly familiar in
Herond. (though the mistake has been repeated in Roscher, _Myth.
Lex._ ii, 3025); one does not see how a female daimon could be named
after a male _~o/lisbos~_. The nature of Hekate makes its more
probable that she got her name from _~bau/~_ the noise of the baying
hound: cf. ~bauku/ôn~, _P. Mag. Par._ 1911.) Baubo, too, is
elsewhere the name of a gigantic nocturnal spectre: Orph. _fr._ 216
Ab.; Lob., _Agl._ 823.--Elsewhere these ~epiklê/seis~, or forms in
which Hekate, Gorgo, Mormo, etc., appear, are found as the names of
separate infernal spirits. ~_Gorgu/ra_; Ache/rontos gunê/~ Apollod.
~p. theô=n~ ap. Stob., _Ecl._ i, 49, p. 419, 15 W.; cf. [Apollod.]
1, 5, 3. ~Gorgô/~ is probably only the shortened form of this daimon
(she is alluded to as an inhabitant of Hades as early as _Od._ ~l~
634; in the ~kata/basis~ of Herakles [Apollod.] 2, 5, 12; ~chthoni/a
Gorgô/~, Eur., _Ion_, 1053). Acheron, whose consort she is, must
have been regarded as the lord of the underworld. We also hear of a
mother of the underworld god: in Aesch., _Ag._ 1235, Kassandra calls
Klytaimnestra _~thu/ousan Ha/idou mête/ra~_. In this very striking
phrase it is impossible to take ~ha/|dou~ in its generalized sense
(as Lob. does: _Aj._^3, p. 292), and the whole phrase as merely
metaphorical = ~ainomê/tora~. Why ~mête/ra~ in particular? And,
above all, what would be the point of ~thu/ousan~? Klytaimnestra, of
course, it goes without saying, is only metaphorically called the
"raging mother of Hades", i.e. a true she-devil; but the thing with
which she is compared, from which the metaphor is taken, must have
been a real figure of legend. In exactly the same way, in Byz.
Greek, _~tô=n daimo/nôn mê/têr~_ is a figurative expression for a
wicked woman: see ~Kalli/m. kai\ Chrusorro/ê~ 2579 ed. Lambros; cf.
ib., 1306, ~tô=n Nêrêi/dôn ma/mmê~. In German too "the **devil's
mother", or grandmother, or the devil's wife or bride, are of
frequent occurrence in a metaphorical sense: Grimm, p. 1007; 1607.
But in all these cases the comparison invariably implies the
existence of real legendary figures to which the comparison refers:
and often enough in mediæval and modern Greek folk-lore these
creatures actually occur. We may therefore conclude that the
~thu/ousa Ha/idou mê/têr~ was a real figure of Greek legend. "Hades"
in this connexion cannot be the god of the underworld, common in
Homer and a regular poetic character elsewhere, the brother of Zeus
and Poseidon. In that case his mother would be Rhea who certainly
cannot be identified with the ~thu/ousa Ha/idou mê/têr~. In local
mythology there were numerous other underworld {592} gods any of
whom might be loosely called ~Ha/idês~, the word being used as a
general name for such deities. But the "raging" mother of the
underworld god has the most unmistakable resemblance to Hekate who
flies about by night on the wind (see above, chap. ix, p. 297 f.;
below, App. vii) ~psuchai=s neku/ôn me/ta bakcheu/ousa~ (Reiss, _Rh.
Mus._ 49, 181 n., compares her less well with the "huntsman of
Hades"). It seems almost as if the two were identical: local legend
could quite well have made Hekate the mother of the underworld god
(just as she was the daughter of Admetos, or of Eubouleus, i.e. of
Hades). If she is the same as ~Mormô/~ (cf. the _Hymn._ ap. Hipp.,
_RH._ iv, 35) then she was also known to folk-lore as the
foster-mother of Acheron. This title is applied to ~_Mormolu/ka_;
tithê/nê~ of Acheron in Sophron _fr._ 9 Kaibel. But _~Mormô/~_ is
simply the abbreviated form of ~Mormolu/kê~ as ~Gorgô/~ is of
~Gorgu/ra~, and cf. also ~Mommô/~ Hsch., and with metathesis of ~r~,
~Mombrô/~ id. (~Mormol.~ is mentioned together with ~Lamia/, Gorgô/,
Ephia/ltês~ as a legendary creature in Str., p. 19, and see Ruhnken,
_Tim. Lex._, p. 179 ff., ~Mormolu/keion~.) ~Mormô/~ also in plural:
~hô/sper mormo/nas paida/ria (phobou=ntai)~, Xen., _HG._ 4, 4, 17;
Hsch. ~mormo/nas; pla/nêtas dai/monas~ (i.e. "wandering", as in
Hesiod, and like the Erinyes in the Pythagorean ~su/mbolon~, and the
~ala/stôr~, the unquiet and wandering soul whose name is derived
from ~ala=sthai~--so Lob., _Paralip._ 450). Besides this we have
~Heka/tas~ too in the plural: Luc., _Philops._ 39 fin. (perhaps only
generalizing); ~trissô=n Hekatô=n~, _P. Mag. Par._ 2825 f.;
~E/mpousai~ (with ~a/lla ei/dôla~), D.P. 725, etc., to say nothing
of ~Gorgo/nes~. ~Mormô/~ as a bogey to frighten children: ~Mormô\
da/knei~, Theoc. xv, 40 (cf. ~[ana/]klêsis Mormo[u=s]~, a theatrical
piece, probably a farce: _IGM. Aeg._ i, 125g). So too is the monster
~_La/mia_~ that kidnaps children: Duris, _fr._ 35 (2 _FHG_); D.S.
20, 41; Heraclit., _Incred._ 34, etc. Some details in Friedländer,
_Darstell. a. d. Sitteng._^4, i, 511 f. (as a nickname ~Lamô/~: Sch.
Ar., _Eq._ 62). Mormo herself is called Lamia, ~Mormou=s tê=s kai\
Lami/as~, Sch. Greg. Nz. ap. Ruhnken, _Tim. Lex._, p. 182a. With
Mormo and Lamia ~_Gellô/_~ is also identified (Sch. Theoc. xv, 40),
a ghost that kidnaps children mentioned already by Sappho, _fr._ 44;
Zenob. iii, 3, etc. _~Karkô/~_, too, is the same as ~La/mia~
(Hesych.). Lamia is evidently the general name (see above, chap. iv,
n. 115), while Mormo, Gello, Karko, and even Empousa, are particular
Lamiai, who also merge into one another. Just as Mormo and Gello
coincide, so also do Gello and Empousa: ~_Gellô\_ ei/dôlon
Empou/sês~, Hsch. (Empousai, Lamiai, and Mormolykai the same:
Philostr., _V. Ap._ 4, 25, p. 145, 16 K.). Empousa, who appears in
continually changing shapes (Ar., _Ran._ 289 ff.), is seen by human
beings at night (~nukterino\n pha/sma hê E/mpousa~, _V. Aeschin._
init.; Philostr. _V. Ap._ 2, 4), but even more commonly at midday
(like the Hekate of Lucian): ~mesêmbri/as ho/tan toi=s
katoichome/nois enagi/zôsin~, Sch. Ar., _Ran._ 293. She is, in fact,
the _daemonium meridianum_ known to Christian writers as Diana
(Lob., _Agl._ 1092; Grimm, 1162). For devils appearing at midday see
Rochholz, _Glaube u. Br._, i, 67 ff.; Mannhardt, _Ant._ {593} _Wald
u. Feldc._ ii, 135 f.; Haberland, _Ztschr. Völkerpsych._ xiii, 310
ff.; Drexler in _Myth. Lex._ ii, 2832 ff; Grimm, 1661. Hekate, in so
far as she appears as an ~ei/dôlon~ in the upper world is identical
with Emp. and with Borbo, Gorgo, Mormo, as well as Gello, Karko,
Lamia. (Acc. to Sch. A.R. iv, 828 Stesichoros, ~en tê=| Sku/llê|
_ei/dous_ [Eidou=s~ Bergk on Stes. _fr._ 13 quite unconvincingly]
~_tino\s Lami/as_ tê\n Sku/llan phêsi\ thugate/ra ei=nai~. Here Hek.
herself seems to be described as "a kind of Lamia", for she was
generally regarded as the mother of Skylla, e.g. by Akousilaos [73
B, 27 _Vors._], in the Hesiodic _Eoiai_, 172 Rz. [Sch. A.R.], and
even in A.R. himself who in iv, 829, explains the Homeric Krataiis
[~m~ 124] as merely a name of Hekate.)--The vagueness of feature and
confusion of personality is characteristic of these ghostly and
delusive apparitions. In reality the individual names (in some cases
onomatopoeic formations to suggest terror) were originally the
titles of local ghosts. In the long run they all come to suggest the
same general idea and are therefore confused with each other and are
identified with the best known of them, Hekate. The underworld and
the realm of ghosts is the proper home of these feminine daimones as
a whole and of Hekate too; most of them, with the possible exception
of Empousa, give way entirely to Hekate in importance and are
relegated to children's fairy-tales. In the case of Gorgyra (Gorgo)
and Mormolyke (Mormo) this fact is clearly attested. Lamia and Gello
carry off children and also ~aô/rous~ from this life, like other
daimones of the underworld, Keres, Harpies, Erinyes, and Thanatos
himself. The Lamiai rise to the light from their underground
lairs--~_lami/as_ tina\s historou=ntes~ (the oldest writers of
histories) ~en hu/lais kai\ na/pais _ek gê=s anieme/nas_~, D.H.,
_Thuc._ 6. Empousa appears on earth at midday because that was the
time when sacrifice was offered to the dead (Sch. Ar., _Ran._ 293;
sacrifice to Heroes at midday: above, chap. iv, n. 9). She
approaches the offerings to the creatures of the lower world because
she herself is one of their number. (In the same way the chthonic
character of the _Seirenes_--they are closely related to the
Harpies--is shown by the fact that they too appear like Empousa at
midday and oppress sleepers, etc., according to the popular
demonology. See Crusius, _Philol._ 50, 97 ff.)
APPENDIX VII
The _Hosts of Hekate_ cause fear and sickness at night: ~ei/t'
e/nupnon pha/ntasma phobê=| chthoni/as th' _Heka/tês kô=mon_
ede/xô~, Trag. Incert. _fr._ 375 (Porson suggested Aesch.). They
form the ~nukti/phantoi _pro/poloi_ Enodi/as~, Eur., _Hel._ 570.
(These ~pro/poloi ta=s theou=~ are probably also referred to in the
_defixio_ _CIG._ 5773; Wünsch, _Tab. Defix._, p. ixb.) They are
nothing else than the restless souls of the dead wandering in the
train of Hekate. Nocturnal terrors are produced by ~Heka/tês
epibolai\ kai\ hêrô/ôn e/phodoi~, Hp., _Morb. Sacr._ (vi, 362 L.).
Hence Orph., _H._ i, 1, calls Hekate ~psuchai=s neku/ôn me/ta
bakcheu/ousan~. The souls which thus wander about with Hekate are
{594} in part those of the _~a/ôroi~_, i.e. of those who have died
before the completion of their "destined" period of life, ~pri\n
moi=ran exê/kein bi/ou~, Soph., _Ant._ 896; cf. Phrynich. in _AB._
24, 22, and ~pro/moiros harpagê/~, _Inscr. Cos_, 322. Thanatos has
acted unjustly towards them ~en tachutê=ti bi/ou pau/ôn neoê/likas
akma/s~, Orph., _H._ 87, 5-6. The period of conscious existence on
earth which they had left incomplete they must now fulfil as
disembodied "souls": aiunt immatura morte praeventas (animas) eo
usque vagari istic, donec reliquatio compleatur aetatum quas tum
pervixissent si non intempestive obiissent, Tert., _An._ 56. (They
haunt the place of their burial: ~hê/rôes atuchei=s, hoi\ en tô=|
dei=ni to/pô| sune/chesthe~, _P. Mag. Par._ 1408; cf. _CIG._ 5858b.)
For this reason it is often mentioned on gravestones (and elsewhere:
Eur., _Alc._ 168 f.) as something specially to be lamented that the
person there buried had died ~a/ôros~--see _Epigr. Gr._ 12; 16; 193;
220, 1; 221, 2; 313, 2-3: ~a/teknos a/ôros~, **236, 2; and cf. 372,
32; 184, 3; _CIG._ 5574 (see also App. iii and chap. xiv, pt. ii, n.
155, ~a/gamoi~). Gello who herself ~parthe/nos aô/rôs eteleu/têse~
then becomes a ~pha/ntasma~, slays children and causes ~tou\s tô=n
aô/rôn thana/tous~, Zenob. iii, 3; Hsch. ~Gellô/~. The souls of the
~a/ôroi~ cannot rest but must continually wander: see Plaut.,
_Most._ 499. They (~ane/môn ei/dôlon e/chontes~, _H. Hec._, l. 15:
Orph., p. 290 Ab.) are the creatures which accompany Hekate in her
nocturnal wanderings. The _Hymn._ to Hekate, p. 289 Ab. (cf. _P.
Mag. Par._ 2727 ff.) addresses Hek. thus (10 ff.): ~deu=r' Heka/tê
triodi=ti, puri/pnoe, pha/smat' e/chousa (a/gousa~ Mein.)~, hê/ t'
e/laches deina\s me\n hodou\s (deina/s t' epho/dous~?) ~chalepa/s
t' epipompa/s, tê\n Heka/tên se kalô= su\n apophthime/noisin aô/rois
kei/ tines hêrô/ôn tha/non agnai=oi/ te (kai\~ Mein., but this
position of ~te/~ is a regular Hellenistic usage; occurs frequently
in _Orac. Sibyll._) ~a/paides ktl.~ Thus the ~a/ôroi~ became the
typical haunting spirits ~kat' exochê/n~. Just as in this _Hymn._
they are summoned (with Hek.) for unholy purposes of magic, so an
~a/ôros~ is sometimes expressly invoked in the _defixiones_ which
were placed in graves (esp. in those of ~a/ôroi~: see the
instructions given in _P. Mag. Par._ 332 ff., 2215, 2220 f.; _P.
Anastasy_, l. 336 ff.; 353): ~le/gô tô=| aô/rô| tô=| k[ata\ tou=ton
to\n to/pon~, etc.]: Roman _defixio_, _I. Sic. et It._ 1047;
~exorki/zô se, neku/daimon a/ôre~, leaden tablet from Carth., _BCH._
1888, p. 299 (_Tab. Defix._, p. xvi); cf. also _P. Mag. Par._ 342 f.;
1390 ff.; ~para/dote~ (the victim) ~aô/rois~, leaden tablet from
Alexandria, _Rh. Mus._ 9, 37, l. 22; a lead tablet from Phrygia
(_BCH._ 1893, p. 251) has: ~gra/phô pa/ntas tou\s emoi\ anti/a
poiou=ntas meta\ tô=n aô/rôn; Epa/gathon Sabi=nan~, etc. In the
curses of _Epigr. Gr._, p. 149, the ~Heka/tês melai/nês dai/mones~
alternate with ~a/ôroi sumphorai/~; see also Sterrett, _Amer. Sch.
Athens_, ii, 168.--Everything that has been said of the ~a/ôroi~
applies also to the _~biaiotha/natoi~_ (or ~bi/aioi~, a term found
in the magical papyri; cf. also ~biotha/naton pneu=ma~, _P. Mag.
Par._ 1950); they are a special kind of ~a/ôroi~: they find no rest,
see above, chap. v, n. 147; Tert., _An._ 56-7; Serv., _A._ iv, 386,
quoting the _physici_; cf. also Heliod., 2, 5, p. 42, 20 ff. Bk. A
~biaiotha/natos~, who has thus been deprived of his life, has to
make special supplication for admission {595} into Hades: _Epigr.
Gr._ 625; cf. Verg., _A._ iv, 696 ff. Such souls become
~_ala/stores_~, wandering spirits: see above, Append. vi, p. 592;
wandering of a ~biaiotha/natos~, Plu., _Cim._ 1.--Finally the souls
of unburied persons who have no share in the cult of the souls or
home in the grave are also condemned to wander (cf. Eur., _Hec._
31-50): see above, chap. v, p. 163. The ~a/taphos~ is detained
~entha/de~: Soph., _Ant._ 1070, and wanders about the earth:
~alai/nei~, Eur., _Tro._ 1083; cf. Tert., _An._ 56. Hence the souls
of these ~a/taphoi~ could be forced to appear and answer the
sorcerer: Heliod., p. 177, 15 ff. Bk.; _rite conditis Manibus_ the
wanderings of the soul cease: Plin., _Ep._ 7, 27, 11; Luc.,
_Philops._ 31 fin.--The art of the ~ma/ntis~ and of the ~kathartê/s~
(and of the ~apoma/ktria grau=s~, Plu., _Superst._ 3, p. 166 A) is
supposed to keep off such nocturnal terrors; it is "purification"
precisely because it drives away such unholy beings. It is also a
kind of ~katha/rsion~ that is employed when ~apomagdali/ai~ (instead
of to the dogs: Ath. 409 D) are thrown out ~en toi=s ampho/dois
ginome/nois nukterinoi=s pho/bois~ (Harmodios of Leprea ap. Ath. 149
C), i.e. to Hekate and her rout which also appears as a pack of
hounds.
APPENDIX VIII
DISINTEGRATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND REDUPLICATION OF PERSONALITY
In that period of extreme excitement the Greeks must have had
frequent experience of the abnormal but by no means unusual
psychical state in which a division of consciousness takes place and
becomes apparent. The single personality splits up into two (or more)
distinct centres of consciousness; and these give rise to two
personalities (succeeding each other, or contemporaneous), with a
double will and a double intellect appearing in one man. Even
unprejudiced psychological observers of our own time are unable to
describe such phenomena, which appear (spontaneously or produced
experimentally) in certain neuropathic conditions, except as a
reduplication or multiplication of personality. A second self comes
into being, a second centre of consciousness following or by the
side of the first and normal personality, which is generally unaware
of the existence of its rival. (Probably the most complete and
cautious account of these matters is that given by Pierre Janet in
_L'automatisme psychologique_, Paris, 1889.) When such phenomena
appear in conjunction with marked religious or spiritualistic
tendencies they are naturally explained in accordance with these
intellectual preconceptions. The appearance in a man or woman of an
intelligent will, unguided or unperceived by the normally dominant
personality, is conceived as the entrance of a foreign personality
into the individual; or as the expulsion of the real soul of the
individual by such a demonic or spiritual visitor. Nothing, however,
is commoner, in all ages, than the religious or spiritualist
preconceptions that lead to such an explanation; and so {596} what
the Greeks called ~e/kstasis~ or ~kate/chesthai ek theou=~ has been
a very frequent explanation of such mysterious occurrences from the
earliest times (and in the present day). It has appealed just as
much to the person affected by such "reduplication of personality"
as to those round about him (unless they have been scientifically
educated). The actual experience of such phenomena is generally a
fact; fancy begins only with the explanation offered. For the Greeks
the Pythia was always the best known example of such "possession" of
a human being by a foreign will or spirit which seemed to enter
violently and from outside into the human individual, having little
correspondence (as it usually happened) with the character or the
intellect of the "medium" in his or her normal state of
consciousness. The Sibyls, Bakides, ~Ba/kchoi~, the seers and
priests of purification, Epimenides, Aristeas, and so many others,
were further cases of the ascent of the soul to the divine or the
entrance of a god into the soul. It was inevitable that the idea of
an immediate relation between the soul and the divine, and of the
divine nature of the soul itself, should grow up in connexion with
such cases as these, and seem to be authenticated in them more than
in any other way. Greece is not the only place where this has
happened.
APPENDIX IX
THE GREAT ORPHIC THEOGONY
The information about a coherent Orphic Theogony and Anthropogony
which has come down to us from the statements of Neoplatonic
philosophers and their contemporaries, is derived, as Lobeck very
rightly concluded, from the ~en tai=s _rhapsô|di/ais_ Orphikai=s
theologi/a, hê\n kai\ hoi philo/sophoi diermêneu/ousin~ (Damasc.,
_Princ._, p. 380 K.). This last statement means that they were
explained in lectures given by the heads of the Platonic school
since the time of Syrianos (~Orphikai\ sunousi/ai~ of Syrian.:
Procl., _in Tim._ 96 B; Scholia of Proclus on Orpheus, ~ei kai\ mê\
eis pa/sas ta\s _rhapsô|di/as_~: Marin., _V. Procl._ 27). Written
commentaries were also published, more particularly in order to
prove the ~sumphôni/an Orphe/ôs, Puthago/rou kai\ Pla/tônos~
(Syrianos wrote a book with this title, wrongly ascribed to Proclus
by Suidas: see R. Schöll on Procl. _in Rp._, p. 5. Probably the work
of Syr. ~eis tê\n Orphe/ôs theologi/an~ is the source of Orph.,
_frr._ 123-4, which are traced back in the ~Theosophi/a~, § 50, to
~Suriano\s en toi=s heautou= ponê/masin~. From Syr. also probably
comes the citation from Orpheus ~en tê=| teta/rtê| rhapsô|di/a|~,
ib., § 61). The older Neoplatonists before Syrianos took little
notice of the Orphica. Plotinos gives no quotation at all (though
perhaps an allusion in 4, 3, 12; see Lob., p. 555), Iamblichos
quotes nothing from immediate acquaintance, Porphyrios, who read
everything, gives a little (_frr._ 114; 123 Euseb. from Porph.; 211)
and what he does give certainly comes from the Rhapsodiai. In fact,
{597} the Neoplatonics as a whole when they quote Orpheus from their
own knowledge (and do not, for example, simply write "Orpheus"
instead of "Pythagoras": see above, chap. x, n. 9) use the
Rhapsodiai _only_, as Lobeck rightly maintains, p. 466 (Abel did not
realize this, to the detriment of his collection of the _frr._). The
title of the poem they used can hardly have been ~Theogoni/a~. (This
seems to occur as a title in _fr._ 188 [Clem. Al. from auct. ~p.
klopê=s~]. In _fr._ 108 it is only a description of contents; _fr._
310 is spurious. In Suidas, Gaisford's MSS., we do indeed read of a
~theogoni/a, e/pê "as'"~: but the figure indicating the number of
lines corresponds most suspiciously with that of the previous
~onomastiko/n~, and in any case would be insufficient for the great
length of the ~rhapsô|di/ai~.) It seems extremely probable (as
Lobeck already suspected, p. 716, 726) that the simple description:
an Orphic poem divided into several Rhapsodiai, ~_hieroi\ lo/goi_ en
rhapsô|di/ais kd'~ (Suid.), was the real title of the poem, which
consisted of several ~rhapsô|di/ai~. This ~hiero\s lo/gos~ (the
plural only means that there were several books) is, however a
different one (Lobeck missed this, p. 716) from the ~hiero\s lo/gos~
which Epigenes (ap. Clem. Al., _Str._ i, 21, p. 144 P.) attributed
to the Pythagorean Kerkops. (And again when Suid. attributes the 24
Rhaps. to the Thessalian Theognetos or to Kerkops he also means the
_old_ ~hiero\s lo/gos~ not divided into Rhaps., and confuses this
with the later and much extended ~hiero\s lo/gos~.) The older
~hiero\s lo/gos~ is that alluded to by Cic., _ND._ i, 107, and prob.
also by Plu., _Smp._ 2, 3, 2, p. 636 D (_fr._ 42); the quotation in
_EM._ (_fr._ 44) from the 8th Bk. refers to the later ~hiero\s
lo/gos~. But it is certain that the ~hiero\s lo/gos~ in 24 Bks., the
poem possessed by the Neoplatonists, from which by far the greater
number of our fragments are taken, was not a work of the sixth
century, written for instance (as Lobeck was inclined to think, 683
f.) by Onomakritos. It is even untrue--regrettably enough we might
add--that as the Neoplatonists presumed (and Lobeck believed in
consequence: p. 508, 529 f., 602, 613) Plato knew and made use of
the "Rhapsodies". (This emerges with particular plainness from
Gruppe's study of the question in _Jb. Philol. Supp._ xvii, 689
ff.). And when this is gone no other evidence for the earlier date
of the Orphic Theogony in this form is left. And in the very few
passages in which a real coincidence (and not a doubtfully assumed
one) exists between the Rhapsodies and Pherekydes, Herakleitos,
Parmenides (see Lob., p. 532; Kern, _Theogon._, p. 52; Gruppe, p.
708) or Empedokles, the poet of the Rhapsodies is the borrower not
the creditor. The age in which he lived cannot be precisely
determined; the fact that Neoplatonic writers are the first to quote
him does not settle the question; it is uncertain whether he lived
after (as I think) or before the (otherwise unknown) Hieronymos
whose statement about an Orphic Theogony is quoted by Damasc.,
_Princ._ 381 f. K. In any case Gruppe (p. 742) has correctly
appreciated the character of the bulky poem (equalling or even
surpassing the length of the Iliad), when he says that it consists
in the main of a loosely connected patchwork of older Orphic
tradition. {598} There are many points in which agreement between
the Rhapsodies and older Orphic teaching and poetry is still
demonstrable; lines from older Orphic poems were taken over
unaltered; subjects from older Orphic Theogonies were combined,
sometimes without regard for their divergent character; different
versions of the same motif occur together. Thus we have the
~kata/posis~ (modelled eventually upon Hesiod) twice over: in the
first version Zeus swallows Phanes, in the second the heart of
Zagreus. Both mean the same thing; the devouring of the heart of
Zagreus may perhaps belong to the older Orphic legendary material,
the devouring of Phanes to the later. The personality of ~Pha/nês~,
however, cannot have been unknown even to the older stratum of
Orphic poetry. D.S. 1, 11, 3, quotes a line of "Orpheus", which
certainly was not taken from the Rhaps., in which ~Pha/nês~ is
mentioned (and identified with Dionysos). And in a gold tablet,
folded up with the tablet bearing an inscription of Orphic
character, _I. Sic. et It._ 642, and found in the same grave near
Sybaris, there occurs in addition to other (illegible) matter a list
of divine names which includes that of _~Pha/nês~_ (and also
~Prôto/gonous~ here apparently distinguished from ~Pha/nês~ with
whom this figure of Orphic theology is generally identified): see
Comparetti, _Notizie degli scavi di antichità_, 1879, p. 157; 1880,
p. 156. This establishes the existence of this figure of Orphic
mythology as early as the third cent. B.C. (the prob. date of these
tablets).--We may therefore employ the facts derived from the
Rhapsodies with some confidence for the reconstruction of Orphic
poetry and doctrine at those points at least in which coincidence
with older Orphic teaching and the fantastic creatures of Orphic
theology can still be proved. [I leave these remarks exactly as they
stood in the first edition of this book, for they still fully
correspond to my own opinion. Others in the meanwhile have expressed
divergent views, esp. Gomperz, _Greek Thinkers_, i, p. 539. But that
Gruppe's proof of the fact that Plato did not know the Rhapsodist
Theogony is "wholly unsuccessful", is something which no one has yet
sought to show upon intelligible _grounds_. Until such a disproof is
forthcoming the belief in the early date of the Rhapsodies has no
real ground on which to stand.]
APPENDIX X
PREVIOUS LIVES OF PYTHAGORAS. HIS DESCENT TO HADES
Pythagoras' miraculous power of remembering what had happened long
ago in previous lives seems to be already alluded to in the lines of
Empedokles, 430 ff. M. = _fr._ 129 D. The legend in which it was
related how Pythag. showed that he had once been **Euphorbos the son
of Panthous who had been slain by Menelaos in the Trojan war, must,
at any rate, have been put forward at an early period. The story is
often told or alluded to: D.S. 10, 6, 1-3; Sch. V. {599} on ~R~ 28:
Max. Tyr. 16 (i, 287 f. R.); Porph., _VP._ 26-7; Iambl., _VP._ 63;
Philostr., _V. AP._ 1, 1, 1; 8, 7, 4; _Her._ 17, p. 192, 23 ff. Ks.;
Tatian, _Gr._ 25; Hor., _C._ 1, 28, 10; Ov., _M._ 15, 160 ff.;
Hygin. 112; Lact., _Inst._ 3, 18, 15; cf. also Call., _fr._ 83a
(completely misunderstood by Schneider) who even calls Pythag.
"Euphorbos", as Hor. does and Luc., _DM._ 20, 3. The story is always
told in such a way as to imply that no intermediate **~ensômatô/sis~
of his soul had taken place between Pythag. himself and Euphorbos
(they are definitely excluded in Luc., _Gall._ 17).--Why was
Euphorbos in particular selected? The fact that through his father
Panthous he had a special connexion with Apollo, like Pythagoras (a
true ~psuchê\ Apollôniakê/~: cf. also Luc., _Gall._ 16), can hardly
have been sufficient reason (as Göttling, _Opusc._ 210; Krische,
_Soc. Pythag._ 67 f. suggest).--Euphorbos was taken up and made one
of a whole series of previous incarnations
(Aithalides--Euphorbos--Hermotimos--Pyrrhos the Delian
fisherman--Pythagoras) by Herakleides Pont.: D.L. viii, 4-5 (with
which agree Hippol., _RH._ 1, 2, p. 12, 54 f. D.-S.; Porph., _VP._
45; Tert., _An._ 28, 31; Sch. Soph., _El._ 62). Starting with
Aithalides (to whom Herakleides was perhaps the first to ascribe the
gift of miraculous memory in addition to other miraculous powers)
the power of ~ana/mnêsis~ in life and death was transmitted through
all the links in the chain down to Pythag. himself. (The story of
the shield of Euphorbos was now transferred to Hermotimos for
obvious reasons.) According to D.L. Herakleides ~phêsi\n peri\
hautou= ta/de le/gein (to\n Puthago/ran)~. It is very possible that
the language is here inexact and Herakleides did not (as the words
of D.L. would strictly suggest) appeal to a statement of Pythagoras
(in a book) but represented him as saying all this (in a dialogue).
If this is correct, apart from the incarnation as Euphorbos which he
took over from the tradition, Herakleides invented all the rest,
according to his own fancy. The fable was then taken up with
variations by others: in Sch. A.R. i, 645, two versions derived from
the fiction of Herakl. but diverging in some points are mentioned
(one being supported by ~hoi Puthagorikoi/~, the other by Pythagoras
himself--in a book? ~Puthago/ras phêsi/n~ are the actual words).
What Gellius 4, 11, 14, has to say on the authority of Klearchos and
Dikaiarchos differs (except in the matter of Euphorbos) entirely
from Herakleides (and the names given should not be altered). But it
may, nevertheless, be essentially the same fable over again, this
time in the form of a parody of Herakl. (which is not very likely in
the case of Klearchos but suits Dikaiarch. very well). Encouraged by
these predecessors Lucian in the _Cock_ (19-20) carried still
further the parody of the fabulous tale. The story of Herakleides
seems to be seriously used in the ~graphê/~ in which Pythagoras
~auto/s phêsi di' hepta\ kai\ diêkosi/ôn etô=n ex ai/deô
paragegenê=sthai es anthrô/pous~, D.L. viii, 14. As Diels, _Archiv.
f. Gesch. Philos._ iii, 468 f., shows to be very probable, this was
in the ps.-Pythagorean book written in the Ionic dialect, not before
the third century and divided into three parts, which D.L. quotes
and makes use of (viii, 6; 9; 14; cf. also Sch. Pl., _Rp._ 600 B).
{600} Pyth. here states that he appears on earth from the underworld
"every 207 years", and the calculation may possibly be based on the
series of lives invented by Herakleides and the Chronology of
Apollodoros (in which case it could not be before the last century
B.C.), thus: Pythag. born 572, Pyrrhos 779, Hermotimos 986,
Euphorbos 1193 (in the first year of the ~Trôika/~ acc. to
Eratosthenes and Apollodor.), Aithalides 1490. It must indeed be
admitted that this method of reckoning makes the gross error of
calculating from birth to birth instead of from the death of A to
the birth of B. (Other intervals are given in _Theologum. Arithm._,
p. 40 Ast [216 = 6^3: D.L. viii, 14, should not be altered to suit
this as I once proposed]; Sch. Bern. Lucan, ix, 1, p. 289, 12 Us.
[462, ? an error for 432 = 2 x 216; cf. _Theol. Arith._, p. 40,
30])--The existence of a Pythagorean writing belonging to the period
before Herakleides, in which these previous lives of Pythag. were
mentioned cannot be certainly proved. It might be supposed (as I
once supposed: _Rh. Mus._ 26, 558) that the conjunction of the
legend of Pythagoras' previous lives with the descent of P. to
Hades, which appears in Sch. Soph., _El._ 62, and Tert., _An._ 28,
is ancient and original; in which case the previous lives would have
been described in a Pythagorean ~kata/basis eis ha/|dou~. But the
conjunction is quite arbitrary and is not such as would be likely in
a Pythagorean book on the descent: the descent is, in fact, told as
a parody, the form which had been given to it by Hermippos, and with
the implication that it is untrue. Nor is it very likely that the
previous lives would be described in connexion with a descent to
Hades, considering that Pyth. remembered them while alive on earth
and not in a condition of ecstasy, and did not learn of them in
Hades. It would be more natural that, vice versa, an account of the
previous lives should also include something about ~ta\ en
ha/|dou~--the ~ana/mnêsis~ included that also: cf. D.L. viii, 4 fin.
(see the decisive objections to my previous view raised by G. Ettig,
_Acheruntica_, Leipz. Stud. 13, 289 f.). This applies equally to the
view of Diels[1\A10] (_Archiv_, p. 469) that Herakleides (in his
work ~p. tô=n en ha/|dou~) told of the previous lives of P. in
connexion with the descent of P. to Hades and that Herakl. was the
first to make P. go down to Hades. There is nothing to prove that
Herakl. did this or to make it even probable. Without any {601}
grounds for doing so Diels supposes that what Pythagoras (acc. to
Sch. Ambros. on ~a~ 371) ~"phêsi/n"; e/xô geno/menos tou= sô/matos
akê/koa emme/lous harmoni/as~, was said by Pythag., not in a book
going under his name, but in a dialogue by Herakleides (who is not
even mentioned in that Schol.). There is no reason at all to doubt
that these words (as Lobeck supposed, 944) came from a book ascribed
to Pythagoras himself, in which he described his ekstasis and
ecstatic visions (cf. Sch. Arist. 496b, 1 f., 13 ff. Br.). There is
no further definite evidence for the existence of such a Pythagorean
~Kata/basis eis ha/|dou~ (for the ~graphê/~ of D.L. viii, 21, has
another and better interpretation, as already remarked). But a
fairly early date for the origin of at least a legend about a
descent of P. to Hades (and of quite definite statements about it
with a propagandist aim) is attested by Hieronymos of Rhodos ap.
D.L. viii, 21. (But we should not without more definite reason
ascribe the invention of the fable itself to Hieron., as is done by
Hiller, _Hier. Rh. frag._, p. 25. What reason could Hieron. have had
for inventing anything of the kind?) Further, the lines of the comic
poet Aristophon ap. D.L. viii, 38 [_fr._ 12 K.], already suggest
that such legends were in existence in the third century B.C.
Whether the work on the subject of Pythagoras' descent to Hades
called forth the legend or whether the legend was already current
and called forth the book, must remain undecided. But in any case
the book included no account of the previous lives of Pythagoras:
these (apart from the older legend of P. and Euphorbos) were first
put forward by Herakleides Pont. (but not the Descent of P. to
Hades).
[1\A10: What Diels, _Parmenides_, p. 15 (1897) says in support of
his view might stand if we were willing to ignore the fact that
Pythag., as has already been remarked, remembered his previous lives
while he was still alive, and not in the ecstatic condition--not
~e/xô geno/menos tou= sô/matos~. But this is a fact, so that Diels'
view remains untenable.--I cannot see what there is of a
"rationalist" character (Diels) in the fact that Pyth. saw Hesiod
and Homer in Hades undergoing punishment ~anth' hô=n ei=pon peri\
theô=n~ (D.L. viii, 21). This is, in fact, an anti-rationalist,
priestly invention (and so I see Dieterich also understands it,
_Nekyia_, 130). This fact certainly does not tell against the view
that the Hades poem had its origin in the sixth (or the first half
of the fifth) century B.C.]
APPENDIX XI
INITIATION CONSIDERED AS ADOPTION BY THE GOD
The Mystes whose soul is speaking in the first of the gold tablets
found at Sybaris (Diels, No. 18) says, l. 7-8: ~himertou= d' epe/ban
stephanou= posi\ karpali/moisi, _despoi/nas d' hupo\ ko/lpon e/dun
chthoni/as basilei/as_~. This ~hupo\ ko/lpon e/dun . . .~ can hardly
mean anything else than: I seek (as ~hike/tês~) the protection of
her maternal bosom (or lap). It would certainly be attractive to
take this (with Dieterich, _de hymn. Orph._, p. 38) as referring to
a symbolical act, corresponding to the ceremony in which in Greece
and elsewhere, the adoption of a boy, his reception into a new
~ge/nos~, was symbolically represented. (D.S. 4, 39, 2, in
particular records the process: see Wesseling's learned note there;
cf. also Preller, _Gr. Mythol._^4 i, 702.) But such a _symbolical_
proceeding if it was to bring about the association of the ~mu/stês~
with the goddess must have taken place already in the ~o/rgia~ once
held upon earth--here we are in Hades, and it is to say the least of
it difficult to believe that this ~die/lkesthai tou= ko/lpou~ can
have been supposed to occur in Hades in the neighbourhood of the
goddess herself (a fact which made a merely symbolical act of the
kind supposed quite {602} unnecessary).--Apart from this the views
of Dieterich are quite sound: the ceremony was essentially regarded
as an _adoption_ of the ~mu/stês~ by the goddess or the god, as a
reception of the initiated into the divine ~ge/nos~. The ~dra/kôn~
(who represents the god himself) ~dielko/menos tou= ko/lpou~ in the
Sabazia seems actually to have had this meaning. Further the
~mu/stês~ is sometimes called _renatus_, or _in aeternum renatus_
(Apul., _M._ xi, 21; _CIL._ vi, 510; 736); the day of his initiation
is his _natalis sacer_ (Apul., _M._ xi, 24, where _natalem sacrum_
should be read): in these circumstances we may venture to recall
that the above-mentioned solemn rites of adoption also represented a
_new birth_ of the ~theto\s huio/s~ from the womb of his new mother
(see D.S. l.c. Hence Hera is called the _~deute/ra tekou=sa~_ of
Herakles whom she adopted: Lycophr. 39; and hence also the adopted
is called _~deutero/potmos~_, i.e. reborn: Hsch. s.v. ad fin.) This
conception also provides the simplest explanation of the fact that
the ~_muô=n_~, who has received the ~ne/os mu/stês~ into the divine
~ge/nos~ to which he himself already belongs, can be called the
_pater_ or _parens_ of the ~mu/stês~ (Apul., _M._ xi, 25; Tert.,
_Apol._ 8; _ad Nat._ i, 7)--he effects the entrance of the new
member into his own family. (In Greek the name for such a mystic
"father" seems to have been ~patromu/stês~, _CIG._ 3173,
3195.)--This conception of a _new birth_ by initiation reminds us of
the Christian idea of _rebirth_ by baptism (which in its turn is
developed from older Jewish ideas: see Anrich, _Ant.
Mysterienwesen_, p. 111, n.). It is nevertheless one which the
Greeks themselves had at an early date. The ~mu/stai~ of the
Eleusinia seem to have been not far from regarding initiation as an
adoption into the divine ~ge/nos~.
In the ps.-Platonic _Axiochus_, p. 371 D, we read in the description
of the ~chô=ros eusebô=n: entau=tha toi=s memuême/nois esti/ tis
proedri/a kai\ ta\s hosi/ous hagistei/as kakei=se suntelou=si; pô=s
ou=n ou soi\ prô/tô| me/testi tê=s timê=s, _o/nti gennê/tê|_ tô=n
theô=n? kai\ tou\s peri\ Hêrakle/a te~ (perhaps ~de/~ would be
better) ~kai\ Dio/nuson katio/ntas eis Ha/idou pro/teron lo/gos
entha/de~ (i.e. at Athens) ~_muêthê=nai_ kai\ to\ tha/rsos tê=s
ekei=se porei/as para\ tê=s Eleusini/as enau/sasthai~.--Here
Axiochos (for it is to him that Sokrates is speaking) is plainly
described as ~gennê/tês tô=n theô=n~ simply and solely because he
belongs to the ~memuême/noi~. According to Wilamowitz (Gött. Gel.
Anz._, 1896, p. 984) he is called ~gennê/tês tô=n theô=n~ only as a
member of the ~ge/nos~ of the ~Eupatri/dai~ to which he apparently
belonged. But that anyone just on the strength of the by no means
uncommon fact that he belonged to a ~ge/nos~ that happened to trace
its earliest origin from a god (nor is it certain even that the
~Eupatri/dai~ did this)--that anyone on this account should have
dared to call himself a "member of the same family as the gods" is
to say the least of it difficult to parallel. In this case at any
rate nothing of the kind can be meant. From the general principle
that the initiated have a ~proedri/a~ in Hades it is deduced, simply
as conclusion from premiss, with a "surely then"--(~pô=s _ou=n_
ou--~), that Axiochos too may hope to enjoy this same honour
(~_tê=s_ timê=s--~). It is then entirely impossible that, to account
for this hope, a reason {603} should be implied and expressed which,
like the supposed descent of Axiochos from the gods, had nothing to
do with the mysteries and the privileges of the ~mu/stai~. If it was
the (alleged) descent of Axiochos from the gods which secured him
~timê/~ in Hades it would be quite meaningless to accompany the
mention of the ~timê/~ thus secured to Axiochos with an allusion to
the ~timê/~ obtained on quite different grounds by the ~memuême/noi~
(which yet is mysteriously equivalent to that obtained by right of
birth). This allusion, moreover, is put in such a way that it quite
unambiguously includes the special case of Axiochos in the common
denomination of the ~memuême/noi~ of whom he is said to be one. The
fact, indeed, that the privileges of the ~memuême/noi~ is the only
subject alluded to throughout is shown also by the third and last
sentence: the famous cases of the initiation of Herakles and
Dionysos are only mentioned as emphasizing still further the
importance of _~muêthê=nai~_ for those ~eis ha/|dou katio/ntas~.
Here then Axiochos can only be called ~gennê/tês tô=n theô=n~ in so
far as he is ~memuême/nos~. Why, indeed, he ~prô=tos~, before other
~memuême/noi~, should have a claim to the honour of ~proedri/a~ is
something that our text does not say and that can hardly be
extracted from it. It certainly appears that Axiochos has a special
privilege beyond that of other Mystai. Had he reached a specially
high stage of the ~te/lê~ which was not open to everyone and at
which kinship with the gods was first fully assured? Did the family
of the ~Eupatri/dai~ undertake some active part in the ~mu/êsis~
which gave them a closer relation to the gods? In any case his claim
to be regarded as ~gennê/tês tô=n theô=n~ must have depended on his
having been initiated at Eleusis.
Now this kinship with the gods to which he thus attains can only be
made intelligible, if, in accordance with the analogies adduced
above, we regard the ~mu/êsis~ (or perhaps only its highest stages)
as a symbolic adoption by the divinities, suggesting or representing
entrance into the divine ~ge/nos~. No one will maintain that
~gennê/tês tô=n theô=n~ is a "very unnatural phrase" (Wil.) for one
who has been "adopted" by the gods, who will recall the fact that at
Athens the adopted person was inscribed ~eis tou\s _gennê/tas_~ of
the adopter (Is. 7, 13; 15; 17; 43), or, which is precisely the same
thing, ~eis tou\s suggenei=s~ of the adopter (Is. 7, 27; 1).
Thereby he becomes himself ~gennê/tês~ of the members of the
~ge/nos~ into which he thus enters; he is now their ~gennê/tês~, or,
as it is once expressed in an absolutely equivalent phrase, their
~_suggenê\s_ kata\ tê\n poi/êsin~ ([Dem.] 44, 32).
Thus the fully initiated is ~gennê/tês~ of the divine family, ~kata\
tê\n poi/êsin~.
APPENDIX XII
MAGICAL EXORCISMS OF THE DEAD ON LATE _~kata/desmoi, phimôtika/~_,
ETC.
Invocations and conjurings of ~a/ôroi~ and other ~nekudai/mones~ of
an earlier period are mentioned above (p. 594 f.). To a later period
belong {604} the _defixiones_ found at Cyprus (Kurion) and edited in
the _Proc. of the Soc. of Bibl. Archaeology_, p. 174 ff. The
_defixiones_ are there called ~parathê=kai, _phimôtikai\_ tou=
antidi/kou~ (i, 39, and frequently), or ~phimôtika\ katathe/mata~
(iv, 15, etc.). _~phimou=n~_ and _~phimôtiko/n~_ in this rude
Egypto-Syrian Greek are equivalent to the terms, otherwise usual for
such magic charms, _~katadei=n, kata/desmos~_ (see above, chap. ix,
n. 107). See also _P. Mag. Lond._ (Kenyon, _Greek Pap. in BM._, p.
114), l. 967 ff.: in an appeal to a god (~deu=ro/ moi kai\)
_phi/môson_, hupo/taxon, katadou/lôson to\n dei=na tô=| dei=ni
ktl.~--ib., p. 97, l. 396 ff.: ~_phimôtiko\n_ kai\ hupotaktiko\n
gennai=on kai\ ka/tochos; labô\n mo/lubon apo\ psuchropho/rou
sôlê=nos poi/êson la/mnan kai\ epi/graphe chalkô=| graphei/ô|~
(bronze is a magic metal), ~hôs hupokei=tai, kai\ the\s para\
a/ôron~ (see above, p. 594 f.) here follows the rest of the
barbarous text.--On these Cypriote _defixiones_ among the other
invocations regularly appear those addressed to the souls of the
unquiet dead, to the ~dai/mones polua/ndrioi~ (vi, 17. adds
~pepelekisme/noi kai\ es[taurôme/noi~ or ~eskolopisme/noi~? cf.
Luc., _Philops._ 29]) ~kai\ biotha/natoi kai\ a/ôroi kai\ a/poroi
taphê=s (tê=s hiera=s taphê=s~ iv, 18): thus i, 30 f., and
frequently. The ~dai/mones _polua/ndrioi_~ were probably the souls
of executed criminals whose bodies were thrown out into the common
burial grounds--as at Melite in Athens: Plu., _Themist._ 22--the
~polua/ndria~ (cf. Perizon. on Ael., _VH._ 12, 21). ~biotha/natoi
ei/te xe/noi ei/te ento/pioi~ are invoked, iv, 4. Invocation is made
in common to: ~tu/mbe panda/krute kai\ chtho/nioi theoi\ kai\
Heka/tê chthoni/a kai\ Hermê= chtho/nie kai\ Plou/tôn kai\ Erinu/es
hupochtho/nioi kai\ humei=s hoi hô=de katô|kême/noi a/ôroi kai\
anô/numoi~ (see _Rh. Mus._ 50, 20, 3): i, 35, and frequently
repeated with the same formula. What we have here is of frequent
occurrence: a dead person is called upon to carry out a curse. An
early example is _CIG._ 539: ~katadô= autou\s~ (the persons to be
cursed) ~soi/, Onê/sime~ (Attica, fourth century B.C.). The tablet
in Böckh, i, p. 487, admits the reading ~Onê/sime~ as well as
~Onê/simê~. The latter (as a nominative is preferred by Wünsch,
_Tab. Defix._, p. ivb, p. 25 (n. 100), simply in order to expel
every example of the invocation of a dead person to carry out a
curse. But this is only a petitio principii; and if we accepted
~Onêsi/mê~ (as the name of the curser) at least the addition of some
word like ~egô/~ after ~autou\s soi/~ would be necessary--for which
there is no room on the tablet. It will be necessary to retain the
generally accepted vocative ~Onê/sime~ (to which the coming ~pa/ntas
. . . têrei=n~, l. 5-8, is much better suited than to the following
~Hermê=~, l. 8, as in Wünsch's version). There is nothing remarkable
in the invocation here of the individual ~nekudai/môn~ by name (thus
doubling the force of compulsion exerted; cf. Kroll, _Rh. Mus._, 52,
345 f.) to complete and carry out the curse: parallels are given
above, p. 594 ff., and in the above-mentioned Cypriote ~phimôtika/~:
cf. also _CIG._ 5858b, ~dai/mones kai\ pneu/mata~ (i.e. "souls") ~en
tô=| to/pô| tou/tô| thêlukô=n kai\ arrenikô=n, exorki/zô huma=s~.
The custom of burying such magic defixions was astonishingly
widespread. Defigi diris deprecationibus nemo non metuit, Plin.,
_NH._ 28, 19. In the places where Latin was spoken such abominations
were {605} indeed even more common than in Greek-speaking countries.
(The Latin _defixiones_ are collected now by Wünsch, _Tab. Defix._
xxv f.) The practice had a long life and is not quite dead even
to-day. On the Roman side examples from the seventh and eighth
centuries are by no means rare: see e.g. [Aug.] _Hom. de Sacrileg._,
§ 20. For a Greek example see e.g. the story ap. Sophronius, _SS.
Cyri et Ioannis Miracula_ (saec. vi), chap. 55, p. 3625 Migne:
magical objects were buried under the doorstep of the victim's
house; were discovered and dug up; whereupon the death immediately
followed of--not the victim but--the magician.
12_th August_, 1897 (= 2nd German Ed.).
INDEX
_The figures indicate pages, except where they follow a Roman
numeral, in which case they refer to the numbered notes._
Abarbareë and Boukolion, xiv, ii, 105.
Abaris, 300.
Abioi, 63.
Abipones in Paraguay, i, 30; viii, 28.
Academy, its doctrine of the Soul, xiv, 1.
Acheron, ~Acherousia\s li/mên~, i, 67; v, 25; 241.
Acheron, god of Hades, 591.
Achilles, i, 41; in Hades, 39; translated, 64 f.; on the ~maka/rôn
nê=sos~, xiv, ii, 99; on Leuke, xiv, ii, 102; as Hero or God, 66;
126; iv, 3, 87, 137; xiv, ii, 42.
Admetos, xii, 40; ix, 90.
Adonis, iii, 30.
Adoption, 172; Ritual Act of Adoption in the Mysteries, 601 f.
Aeneas translated, xiv, ii, 110, 114 (ii, **3).
Aeracura, xiv, ii, 144.
Aeschylus, 157; vii, 12; 422 f.; _Agam._ 1235, 591 f.
Aether, the element of the Souls, 435 f.; dwelling place of Souls,
170-1; x, 45; xiv, 53, 69; 541.
Aethiopians, 63.
Ages, different, of Mankind (Hesiod), 67 f.; Golden Ages, ii, 49;
vii, 18.
Agamemnon translated, xiv, ii, 99.
~a/gamoi~ after death, 586; xiv, ii, 154.
Agathos daimon, v, 133.
Agides in Sparta, iv, 53.
Agon, see _Funeral Games_.
Agriania, viii, 28; ix, 11-12.
Agrianios, name of a month in **Boeotia, v, 92.
Aiaia, ii, 14.
Aiakos, vii, 13.
Aias, Hero, 126; 137; xiv, ii, 55, 102; Sophokles' Aias, xii, 88.
~ai/desis~, v, 151.
~Ha/idês = tha/natos, Tha/natos~, xii, 4; = the grave, xiv, ii,
135; confusion of the two ideas, ib., 92; cf. _Hades_.
~eis Ai/dao, A/ïdo/sde~, i, 32.
~Ha/idou mê/têr~, 591 f.
~haimakouri/a~, iv, 13.
Aipytos, 123; iv, 53.
Air, see _Aether_.
Aithalides, xi, 51; 599.
Aithiopis, 64; v, 166; xiv, ii, 102.
Akrisios, iii, 43.
Aktaion, 134.
Akousilaos, 593.
Alabandos, iv, 138.
Alaric, xiv, ii, 172.
~ala/stôr~, v, 148, 178; xii, 73; 592, 595.
Albanians in the Caucasus, i, 30.
Aletes, ix, 66.
Alexander the Great reaches the land of the Blest, xiv, ii, 101;
translated, ib., 107; Return of, and false Alexanders, ib., 112.
Alexander of Aphrodisias, xiv, 34.
Alexis, comic poet, xiv, ii, 143.
~alitê/rios~, v, 176, 178.
Alkandros, iii, 56.
Alkmaion Hero, iv, 105, 136; Physician, xi, 28, 35, 40, 55; xii,
150; xiii, 22.
_Alkmaionis_, v, 17, 40.
Alkmene, iv, 134; translated, xiv, ii, 99.
Alkon, iii, 56.
~allathea/des~, v, 88.
Allegorical interpretation of myths, vi, 23.
Althaimenes, iii, 4.
Ambrosia, 58.
Ameinias (Pythagorean), xi, 30.
Amelesagoras, ix, 58.
~ametastrepti/~, ix, 104.
Ampelius, _Lib. Mem._, viii, 3; iii, 12. {608}
Amphiaraos, translated, 89 f., 92-3; (Zeus Amph.), 94, 101, 159; (not
originally a god), iii, 57; (later cult of), xiv, ii, 104.
~amphidro/mia~, ix, 72.
Amphilochos translated, iii, 5, 13, 56; 133; iv, 105; xiv, ii, 104,
114.
Amphilytos, ix, 59.
Amphion, 238.
~amu/êtoi~, 586 f.
Amyklai, 99 f.
~anabiô/seis~, xi, 103.
Anæsthesia, see _Insensibility_.
Anagyros, Hero, 134.
~ana/mnêsis~ as taught by Pythagoras, Empedokles, Plato, xi, 96; 598
f.
Anaxagoras, vi, 23; 386; 432; xii, 143; fr. 6 [12], xi, 110-11.
Anaximander, x, 38; 366; xi, 98.
Anaximenes, 366; xi, 98.
Ancestor-cult, 10 f.; 27 f.; 77 f. (Hesiod); Ancestors in the cult
of Heroes, 119 f., 527 f.; of the ~ge/nê~, etc., 124 f. (with nn.).
Anchises translated, xiv, ii, 110.
~agchistei/a~ (in the cult of souls), v, 42, 141; 176; xiv, ii, 10.
~anie/nai (ta\ kala/~, etc.), v, 120.
Anima and animus in Lucretius, xiv, 74.
Animals in cult of the dead, v, 105; care of animals enjoined, vi,
35 (and see _Food_); skin of, apotropaic use of, xi, 58 (v, 167);
souls of, x, 45; xiii, 40.
Andronikos (Peripatetic), 512.
~a/nemoi~, x, 45.
~anemokoi=tai~, ix, 107.
Angekoks, of Greenland, 262; ix, 117.
Angels, xiv, ii, 144.
Anthropogony (Orphic), 341 f., (Hesiodic) 67 f.
Anios, iv, 102.
Anthesteria, 168; ix, 11.
_Anthologia Palatina_, xiv, ii, 122.
~anthrôpodai/môn~, ii, 43.
Antichrist, xiv, ii, 113.
Antigone, 163; 426; xii, 94.
Antilochos translated, xiv, ii, 102 (p. 567).
Antinous translated, xiv, ii, 114.
Antiochos of Kommagene, his tomb, xiv, ii, 13 (p. 554).
Antiphon (of Rhamnous, the orator), v, 176; 588.
Antipodes, xiv, ii, 101.
~aôrotha/natoi~, 594 (add Phryn. App. Soph. in Bekk. Anecd., 24,
22).
~a/ôroi~, xiii, 36; 533; 553; 594; 604; xiv, ii, 154.
~aôrobo/ros~ Hekate, ix, 92.
Apis, ix, 68.
~apokata/stasis~, x, 47; 519.
Apollo, 97 f.; 130; xii, 40; god of expiation, 180 f.; as leader of
the Souls, xiv, ii, 146; and Dionysos, 287 f.; supplants Gaia, 290;
Hyakinthos, 99 f.; ~Atu/mnios~, etc., iv, 99.
Apolline _mantiké_, 289 f.
Apollonia in Chalkidike, v, 92.
Apollonios of Tyana, ii, 18; xiv, ii, 115.
~apomagdali/ai~, 595.
~apoma/ttein~, **589, 590.
~apo/nimma~, ix, 88.
~apopompê/ (daimo/nôn)~, v, 168.
~apo/taphoi~, **xiv, ii, 20.
~apotropai=oi (theoi/)~, v, 168.
Apparitions of the departed, xiv, ii, 154; see _Ghosts_.
~a/psucha~ trial held over, iv, 118.
~arai=os (ne/kus, dai/môn)~, v, 148; xii, 107.
Aratos as Hero, xiv, ii, 57 f.
~archêgoi/, archêge/tai~, iv, 51, 55; 527.
Archelaos, the philosopher, 432; xii, 152.
Archemoros Vase, v, 40.
Archilochos, v, 173.
Archon Basileus at Athens, 178.
Areopagos, 162; v, 145; 178.
Argeios and Herakles, i, 35.
Argimpaioi, x, 78.
Arginousai, battle of, 162.
Aristaios, iii, 6.
Aristeas of Prokonnesos, 300, 596.
Aristogeiton and Harmodios in Hades, 237.
Aristogeiton, Speech against, vii, 15.
Aristomenes as Hero, 528.
Aristophanes _Frogs_, 240.
Aristophon, comic poet, 601.
Aristotle, 383; xiv, 1; 493 f. (_An._ 408_b_, 18; xiv, 27).
Aristoxenos, xi, 47, 52; 512.
Aristophanes of Byzantium, 583.
Arkesilaos, xiv, 1.
Art of the Greeks, 157; Cult of Souls as represented in, v, 105.
{609}
Askesis (Asceticism), vi, 35; 302, 338; Orphic, 343; Thracian, x,
78; Pythagorean, xi, 47; Empedokles, 381; practised in foreign
mystery-religions, 546.
Asklepiades, doctor, xi, 69.
Asklepios, iii, 13; chthonic, mantic, 100 f.; his death by
lightning, 582; Asklepiadai, iv, 92 f.
Asphalt (bitumen), apotropaic virtue of, v, 95.
~aspho/delos~ sacred to the ~chtho/nioi~, ix, 115.
Associations: burial, xiv, ii, 4; religious, xiv, ii, 53.
Astakides, xiv, ii, 105; 582.
Astarte, iii, 30.
Astrabakos, 137.
~a/taphoi~, restless wandering of, 163; v, **147; 595 (i, 33).
~ate/lestoi~, uninitiated, lying in mud in the underworld, vii, 15;
586 f.
~atha/natos pêgê/~ (in the underworld), xiv, ii, 151.
Athenaeus (139 E), iii, 48.
Athenaïs, ix, 59.
Athene ~apotropai/a~, v, 168.
Athenodoros, philosopher and Hero, 530.
Athens, 98; A. and Eleusis, 219 f.
Atlantes, x, 78.
Atomists, 385 f.; 506.
Atonement in Plato (Purgation), xiii, 36.
Attis, iii, 30; viii, 55, 546.
Augustine, xiv, ii, 87.
Augustus, ascent to Heaven, of, xiv, ii, 107.
Aurelius, M. Antoninus, xiv, 44, 63, 69; 504.
Ausonius, xiv, ii, 167.
Australian natives, religious dances of, viii, 55; 585.
Autolykos, iv, 101; xiv, ii, 43.
Authority, later Antiquity's need of, 545.
_Axiochos_, the pseudo-Platonic dialogue, vii, 15; xii, 120; 602 f.
Avenging spirit, v, 148, 176; cf. ~ala/stôr~.
Averting the eves from the sight of spirits, ix, 104.
Avoiding the sight of spirits, iv, 84; ix, 104.
Baal, ecstatic prophets of, viii, 43.
Babo, v, 19; 591.
Babylonia, i, 44.
Bacchanalia in Rome, xiv, ii, 106; viii, 54.
Bakchiadai, iv, 46, 47.
~Ba/kchos~, viii, 10, 35; 335; cf. _Dionysos_.
~Ba/kchoi~, viii, 31 f.
Bakis, Bakides, 292; ix, 58, 63, 66; 595.
Banishment, 163; in expiation of murder, 175 f. (v, 142 f.).
Banquet of the Pure (Orphic doctrine of), in the other world, vii,
18; x, 70.
Barathron at Athens, v, 32.
Barbarossa, legend of, iii, 16.
~Basili/dai~, iv, 47.
~Bassareu/s~ (Bassarides), viii, 10 f.
Batloka, viii, 30.
Baubo, 591 f.
Beans, see _Food, prohibition of_.
Beer known to the Thracians, viii, 38.
Bendis, Bendideia at Athens, x, 4.
Berenike, translated, xiv, ii, 107.
Bessoi in Thrace, 260; viii, 53-4.
~biaiotha/natoi (biotha/natoi, bi/aioi~), 175 f.; v, 148, 176; 594
f.; 604.
Birds (incarnations of Heroes), xiv, ii, 102.
Birth, pollution of, 295.
Birthday as day of remembrance of the dead, v, 89; xiv, ii, 18, 45.
Biton and Kleobis, xiv, ii, 148, 170.
Black objects (trees, fruit, etc.) sacred to ~chtho/nioi~, and hence
have kathartic properties, v, 61; ix, 81; cf. ix, 26; 590.
_Blest_, of the dead, 171; vii, 10; xiv, ii, 31; 541 (cf.
~makari/tês~ and _Islands of the Blest_).
Blindness follows the sight of a deity, xiv, ii, 41.
Bliss, life of, in Hades; see _Utopia_.
Blood = thought, 380.
Boccaccio, iv, 134.
Boëthos, xiv, 34 (fin.), 57.
Bones of Heroes, cult paid to, 122.
Born, better not to be, xii, 10.
Boukolion, xiv, ii, 105.
~Bouko/loi~, Dionysiac, viii, 35.
Bouselidai, v, 69, 129.
Brahminism, 302; x, 83.
Brasidas, as Hero, iv, 20; 128.
Breathing out the soul, i, 25; 30.
Bride, contests for the hand of a, i, 19.
Bronze: see _Noise_, etc.
Brotinos (Pythagorean), x, 7. {610}
Brutus, 515; xiv, ii, 88.
Buddhism, viii, 60; x, 83; xi, 54, 96.
Burial, i, 34; oldest customs of, 22 f.; coffinless, v, 61, 62;
inhumation and burning in Attica, v, 58; within the house, at the
hearth, v, 66; xiv, ii, 9; within the city, v, 68; xiv, ii, 8.
Burial societies, xiv, ii, 4.
Burning and inhumation, 19 f.; burning the possessions of the dead,
i, 30, 51; burning the dead; see _Cremation_.
Butios of Antilles, 262.
Cæsar, deification of, xiv, ii, 111.
Calling home the Souls, 42.
Canosa, vase from, vii, 27.
Cannibalism, x, 54.
Caracalla as an avatar of Alexander, xiv, ii, 112.
Cato of Utica, xiv, 64.
Cave of Zeus in Crete, 96 f.
Cave-deities, 89 f.; viii, 68.
Caves, sleep in, ix, 116.
Catacombs, xiv, ii, 144, 166, 174.
Celsus, xiv, ii, 96.
Celts, x, 81.
Cenotaph, i, 88.
Ceremonial of funerals restricted, 165, 167; v, 135; 540.
Cities, Founders of, 127 f.; cf. ~archêgoi/~.
Chains attached to a sacred statue, iv, 108.
~chai=re~ on tombstones, 526 f.
Chalkis, criminal law of, v, 145.
~cha/risma~, 292.
Charon, 237.
~Charô/nion~, v, 23.
Charon's fare given to the dead, 18; 162; vii, 9.
Children, importance of, 172; xii, 7.
China, ancestor-worship in, v, 129.
~choai/~, for the dead, v, 106, 120.
Choes, v, 95; ix, 11.
~chrêstoi/~ of the dead, xiv, ii, 29 f. (vii, 10).
Christianity; ascetics and exorcists, 292, xiv, ii, 171, 179; use of
word ~hê/rôs~, xiv, ii, 82; violation of graves by, xiv, ii, 11;
Hell, 242; future rewards and punishments, xiv, ii, 96; rebirth,
602; Antichrist, xiv, ii, 113.
Christi, Russian sect of, viii, 57.
Chrysippos, xiv, 40, 47, 60-1; xiv, ii, 87.
Chthonic deities, 158 f., 218 f.; vi, 29; groups of ~chtho/nioi~, v,
19; invoked at marriage and birth, 171; ix, 91.
Chytroi, festival at Athens, 168; ix, 11.
Cicero, vi, 22, 23; xiv, 54; 519; xiv, ii, 71, 96.
Cliff of Leukas, xiv, ii, 102.
Closing the eyes of the dead, i, 25.
Coffin-burial, v, 60.
Collegia funeraticia, xiv, ii, 4.
Colonies, Greek, 27; 156.
Comedy, Descents to Hades in, 240.
Conscience, 294, 384.
Consciousness division of, 595; see ~e/kstasis~.
_Consolationes_, xiv, ii, 6, 100.
Corinth, criminal law of, v, 145.
Cornutus, 504.
Corpes devoured by a daimon (Eurynomos), vii, 25; (Hekate), ix, 92.
Cosmopolitanism, v, 34; 499 f.
Cosmos, 29.
Costume, see _Dress_.
Coulanges, Fustel de, iv, 48; v, 131.
Cremation, 8, 19 f., 28; i, 66; iv, 38; v, 33, 58; and burial in
later period, v, 58.
Crete, cult of Zeus in, 96 f.; v, 167; ix, 113-14 (mantic and
kathartic reputation).
Creuzer, 223.
Crossways, 216; ix, 88.
Crowning the dead body with garlands, v, 40.
Crowns (of flowers) for the dead, v, 40.
Crumbs, etc., left on the ground for the Souls, v, 114.
Cult-societies, 221.
Cure of diseases by prophets, 294 f.
Curses against tomb-violators, 526 f.
Curse-tablets; see _Defixiones_.
Cycle, Epic, 34, 64 f., 75, 90.
Cyclic poetry, editing of, x, 17.
Cynics, v, 34; 499.
Cypress at funerals, v, 39.
Daeira, Daira, ~Daeiri/tês~ at Eleusis, vi, 8.
_daemonium meridianum_, ix, 96; 592.
Daimones, deities of second rank, i, 56; distinct from Heroes, iv,
23; xii, 121; in Hesiod, 70 f.; Empedokles, 381; Stoics, 500. {611}
~dai/môn~, personal, of individual men, xiv, 44; (= ~po/tmos~),
xii, 26; xiv, 44; ~agatho\s d.~, v, 133; cf. xiv, 44; ~dai/môn
thnêto/s (anthrôpodai/môn, nekudai/môn)~, ii, 43.
~dai/mones apotro/paioi~, v, 168; ~arai=oi~, v, 148; ~meili/chioi~,
v, 168; ~pla/nêtes~, 592; ~prostro/paioi~, v, 148, 176; = Angel,
xiv, ii, 144; ~daimo/nôn mê/têr~, 591.
Daites, Trojan Hero, iv, 3.
Damon, ix, 19.
Danaides, 242; 587.
Dances, religious, 257; viii, 55; ix, 19.
Dance, circular, in cult of Dionysos, viii, 15.
Dante, 33, 242.
Danube, mouths of, xiv, ii, 102.
Daphne, 100.
~da/phnê~, v, 38, 95; ix, 46; xi, 85.
Daphnis, xiv, ii, 105.
Days, unlucky, v, 158.
Dea Syria, viii, 55.
Dead, offerings to, 18 f.; 165 f.; v, 105; dirge for the, 18, 164;
Banquet of, 168; sacrifices to (Patroklos), 12 f.; in Mycenean
graves, 22 f.; in Od. ~l~, 36 f.; elsewhere, 116, 164, 167 f.;
Oracles of the, 24; i, 73; Judges of the (Aesch. and Plato), 238 f.;
(Pindar), xii, 34 f.; (Aesch.), xii, 77; (later), 541; classes of
the, xii, 62; xiv, ii, 127; imagined as skeletons, xiv, 11, 92;
exorcism, conjuration of, see _Souls_ and _Ghosts_.
Death, **3; superior to life, 229, 542; causing pollution, 295; of
gods, iii, 30; Black Death, 284.
_Defixiones_, ix, 92, 107; 534, 594, 603 f.
Deification of Rulers, 537 f. (cf. 530 f.).
Delos, purification of, ix, 119.
Delphic Oracle, regulates expiatory rites, v, 167; 180 f.; authority
of, in the cult of Heroes, 128 f.; gives support to the cult of
Souls, 174; to the Eleusinian worship, vi, 5; to the worship of
Dionysos in Attica, vi, 9; sources of oracular inspiration, 289 f.;
importance of D. in religious life of Greece, 157; grave of Python
at D., 97; Delphic funeral ordinance, v, 45.
Delphinion at Athens, v, 172.
Demeter (and Kore), 160 f.; v, 168; 218 f.
Demetrios Poliorketes as Hero, xiv, ii, 69.
Demetrios, Cynic, xiv, 64.
Demigods (~hêmi/theoi~), iv, 23.
~dê=moi~ called after ~ge/nê~ in Attica, etc., iv, 52.
Demokritos, xi, 35; 385 f.; xii, 150; xiii, 27; ~peri\ tô=n en
ha/|dou~, xi, 103 (fragg. moral.).
Demonassa, vi, 35.
Demonology, 534.
Demophoön, i, 41.
De mortuis nil nisi bene, v, 81; 170.
Dervishes, viii, 15, 43; 262, 266.
Devil's Bride, ii, 7.
Devil's Mother, 591.
Dexikreon, ix, 111.
Dexion the Hero (Sophokles), iv, 71.
Diagoras of Melos, 240; xii, 65.
Diana = Empousa, 592; in the Middle Ages, ix, 101.
Diasia at Athens. v, 168.
Dies nefasti, v, 158.
Dikaiarchos, xi, 52; 512; 599.
Dikte, Mt. in Crete, 96.
Diochaites, Pythagorean, xi, 30.
Diogenes, of Apollonia, 432, 436.
Diogenes, Cynic, vi, 27; 239.
Diogenes Laertius (viii, 31), xi, 50.
Diomedes, 67; on the ~maka/rôn nê=sos~, xiv, ii, 99.
Dionysos, the Thracian, 256 f.; Greek god, 282 f.; Greek (not
Thracian) name, ix, 1; Orphic, 335 f.; 340 f.
~Dio/nusos maino/menos~, viii, 4; Lord of Souls, 168, 271; ix, 11;
at Delphi, 97, 287; Oracle of Dionysos, 260, 290; as Bull, viii, 19,
33, 35; x, 35; as ~bouko/los~, viii, 35; at Eleusis, vi, 9;
Epiphanies of, 258, 279, 285; Worship of, in Rome, viii, 54; xiv,
ii, 106.
Dioscuri, ~heterê/meroi~, xi, 51; translated, xiv, ii, 109.
Dipylon, cemetery at Athens, v, 58.
Dipylon vases, 165.
Dirge, 164.
Discovery, geographical, xiv, ii, 101.
Disease, origin of, in daimonic influence, 294 f.; ix, 81-2.
Division of consciousness, 595 f.
Dodona, iii, 14; ix, 42. {612}
Dogs sacrificed to Hekate, 298, 589-90; Hekate appears as a dog, ix,
99; 595; on grave reliefs, v, 105.
Dorians in the Peloponnese, 27.
Drakon, 115, 176.
Drama, 285, 421; in cult, 222, 258; mystic drama at Eleusis, 227.
Dreams, visions of the dead in, 7 (proving survival); xiv, ii, 154;
i, 55; see _Incubation_ and _Prophecy_.
Dress in Dionysiac worship, 257.
Drimakos (Hero), 530.
Driving out the souls, v, 99, 100.
Druids, x, 81.
Drusilla (ascent to heaven), xiv, ii, 107.
Dryopes, v, 18.
~Du/alos~, viii, 10.
Duty, as conceived by the Stoics, 498 f.
Earth = Hell, xi, 75.
Earth-deities; see _Chthonic_.