{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_78248/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_78248","id":"gutenberg_78248","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/78248","summary":null,"tags":["Cults -- Greece","Greece -- Religion","Mysteries, Religious","Mythology, Greek","Rites and ceremonies -- Greece"],"text":"Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion\n\n London: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,\n CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,\n AVE MARIA LANE.\n Glasgow: 50, WELLINGTON STREET.\n\n [Illustration]\n\n Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS.\n New York: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.\n Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.\n\n [_All Rights reserved._]\n\n\n\n\n Prolegomena to the\n Study of Greek Religion\n\n by\n JANE ELLEN HARRISON,\n HON. D.LITT. (DURHAM), HON. LL.D. ABERDEEN,\n FELLOW AND LECTURER OF NEWNHAM COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.\n\n Cambridge\n at the University Press\n 1903\n\n Cambridge:\n PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY,\n AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.\n\n\n\n\n ARTURO ET MARGARITAE VERRALL\n\n HUIC AMICAE MEAE CONSTANTISSIMAE\n ILLI ET AMICO ET MAGISTRO\n\n HUNC LIBRUM DEDICO\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nThe object of the following pages is to draw attention to some neglected\naspects of Greek religion.\n\nGreek religion, as set forth in popular handbooks and even in more\nambitious treatises, is an affair mainly of mythology, and moreover of\nmythology as seen through the medium of literature. In England, so far\nas I am aware, no serious attempt has been made to examine Greek ritual.\nYet the facts of ritual are more easy definitely to ascertain, more\npermanent, and at least equally significant. What a people _does_ in\nrelation to its gods must always be one clue, and perhaps the safest, to\nwhat it _thinks_. The first preliminary to any scientific understanding\nof Greek religion is a minute examination of its ritual.\n\nThis habit of viewing Greek religion exclusively through the medium of\nGreek literature has brought with it an initial and fundamental error in\nmethod\u2014an error which in England, where scholarship is mainly literary,\nis likely to die hard. For literature Homer is the beginning, though\nevery scholar is aware that he is nowise primitive; for theology, or\u2014if\nwe prefer so to call it\u2014mythology, Homer presents, not a starting-point,\nbut a culmination, a complete achievement, an almost mechanical\naccomplishment, with scarcely a hint of _origines_, an accomplishment\nmoreover, which is essentially literary rather than religious, sceptical\nand moribund already in its very perfection. The Olympians of Homer are\nno more primitive than his hexameters. Beneath this splendid surface lies\na stratum of religious conceptions, ideas of evil, of purification, of\natonement, ignored or suppressed by Homer, but reappearing in later poets\nand notably in Aeschylus. It is this substratum of religious conceptions,\nat once more primitive and more permanent, that I am concerned to\ninvestigate. Had ritual received its due share of attention, it had not\nremained so long neglected.\n\nI would guard against misapprehension. Literature as a starting-point\nfor investigation, and especially the poems of Homer, I am compelled to\ndisallow; yet literature is really my goal. I have tried to understand\nprimitive rites, not from love of their archaism, nor yet wholly from\na single-minded devotion to science, but with the definite hope that\nI might come to a better understanding of some forms of Greek poetry.\nReligious convention compelled the tragic poets to draw their plots\nfrom traditional mythology, from stories whose religious content and\nmotive were already in Homer\u2019s days obsolete. A knowledge of, a certain\nsympathy with, the _milieu_ of this primitive material is one step to the\nrealization of its final form in tragedy. It is then in the temple of\nliterature, if but as a hewer of wood and drawer of water, that I still\nhope to serve.\n\nAs the evidence to be set before the reader is necessarily somewhat\ncomplex in detail, and the arguments of the successive chapters closely\ninterdependent, it may be well at the outset to state, as simply as may\nbe, the conclusions at which I have arrived, and to summarize briefly the\nsteps of the discussion.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn Chapter I. it is established that the Greeks themselves in classical\ntimes recognized two forms of ritual, Olympian and Chthonic. It is\nfurther seen that the characteristic ritual of Homeric days was of the\nkind known to them as Olympian. Sacrifice in Homer takes the form of an\noffering to the god to induce his favour. Its formulary is _do ut des_.\nMoreover the sacrificial banquet to which the god is bidden is shared by\nthe worshipper. In sharp contradistinction to this cheerful sacrificial\nfeast, when we examine the supposed festival of Zeus at Athens, the\nDiasia, we find rites of quite other significance; the sacrifice is a\nholocaust, it is _devoted_, made over entirely to the god, unshared by\nthe worshipper, and its associations are gloomy. The rites of the Diasia,\nthough ostensibly in honour of Zeus, are found really to be addressed to\nan underworld snake on whose worship that of Zeus has been superimposed.\n\nIn the three chapters that follow, on the festivals of the Anthesteria,\nThargelia, and Thesmophoria, held respectively in the spring, summer,\nand autumn, the Olympian ritual superimposed is taken as known and only\nalluded to in passing. The attention is focussed on the rites of the\nunderlying stratum.\n\nIn the Anthesteria, ostensibly sacred to Dionysos, the main ritual is\nfound to be that of the placation of ghosts. Ghosts, it is found, were\nplacated in order that they might be kept away; the formulary for these\nrites is not, as with the Olympians, _do ut des_, but _do ut abeas_. The\nobject of these rites of Aversion, practised in the spring, is found to\nbe strictly practical; it is the promotion of fertility by the purgation\nof evil influences.\n\nThe ritual of the Thargelia is even more primitive and plain-spoken.\nIn this festival of the early summer, ostensibly dedicated to Apollo,\nthe first-fruits of the harvest are gathered in. The main gist of the\nfestival is purification, necessary as a preliminary to this ingathering.\nPurification is effected by the ceremonial of the pharmakos. Though the\nfestival in classical days was \u2018sacred to\u2019 Apollo, the pharmakos is\nnowise a \u2018human sacrifice\u2019 to a god, but a direct means of physical and\nmoral purgation, and again with a view to the promotion and conservation\nof fertility.\n\nThus far it will be seen that the rites of the lower stratum are\ncharacterized by a deep and constant sense of evil to be removed and of\nthe need of purification for its removal; that the means of purification\nadopted are primitive and mainly magical nowise affects this religious\ncontent.\n\nThis practical end of primitive ceremonies, the promotion of fertility\nby magical rites, comes out still more strongly in the autumn sowing\nfestival of the Thesmophoria. Here the women attempt, by carrying certain\nmagical _sacra_, the direct impulsion of nature. In connection with\nthese _sacra_ of the Thesmophoria the subject of \u2018mysteries\u2019 falls to be\nexamined. The gist of all primitive mysteries is found to be the handling\nor tasting of certain _sacra_ after elaborate purification. The _sacra_\nare conceived of as having magical, i.e. divine, properties. Contact\nwith them is contact with a superhuman potency, which is taboo to the\nunpurified. The gist of a mystery is often the removal of a taboo. From\nthe Olympian religion \u2018mysteries\u2019 appear to have been wholly absent.\n\nIn Chapter V. we pass from ritual to theology, from an examination of\nrites performed to the examination of the beings to whom these rites\nwere addressed. These beings, it is found, are of the order of sprites,\nghosts, and bogeys, rather than of completely articulate gods, their\nstudy that of demonology rather than theology. As their ritual has been\nshown to be mainly that of the Aversion of evil, so they and their\nshifting attributes are mainly of malevolent character. Man makes his\ndemons in the image of his own savage and irrational passions. Aeschylus\nattempts, and the normal man fails, to convert his Erinyes into Semnai\nTheai.\n\nIn Chapter VI. the advance is noted from demonology to theology, from\nthe sprite and ghost to the human and humane god. The god begins to\nreflect not only human passions but humane relations. The primitive\nassociation of women with agriculture is seen to issue in the figures of\nthe Mother and the Maid, and later of the Mother and the Daughter, later\nstill in the numerous female trinities that arose out of this duality.\nIn Chapter VII. the passage from ghost to god is clearly seen, and the\nhumane relation between descendant and ancestor begets a kindliness which\nmollifies and humanizes the old religion of Aversion. The culminating\npoint of the natural development of an anthropomorphic theology is here\nreached, and it is seen that the goddesses and the \u2018hero-gods\u2019 of the\nold order are, in their simple, non-mystic humanity, very near to the\nOlympians.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAt this point comes the great significant moment for Greece, the\nintrusion of a new and missionary faith, the religion of an immigrant\ngod, Dionysos.\n\nIn Chapter VIII. the Thracian origin of Dionysos is established. In his\nreligion two elements are seen to coexist, the worship of an old god of\nvegetation on which was grafted the worship of a spirit of intoxication.\nThe new impulse that he brought to Greece was the belief in _enthusiasm_,\nthe belief that a man through physical intoxication at first, later\nthrough spiritual ecstasy, could pass from the human to the divine.\n\nThis faith might have remained in its primitive savagery, and therefore\nfor Greece ineffective, but for another religious impulse, that known to\nus under the name of Orpheus. To the discussion of Orphism the last four\nchapters IX.-XII. are devoted.\n\nIn Chapter IX. I have attempted to show that the name Orpheus stands for\na real personality. I have hazarded the conjecture that Orpheus came\nfrom Crete bringing with him, perhaps ultimately from Egypt, a religion\nof spiritual asceticism which yet included the ecstasy of the religion\nof Dionysos. Chapter X. is devoted to the elucidation of the Orphic and\nDionysiac mysteries. It has been shown that before the coming of the\nOrphic and Dionysiac religion the mysteries consisted simply in the\nhandling of certain _sacra_ after elaborate purification. By handling\nthese _sacra_ man came into contact with some divine potency. To this\nrudimentary mysticism Orphism added the doctrine of the possibility of\ncomplete union with the divine. This union was effected in the primitive\nCretan rite of the Omophagia by the physical eating of the god; union\nwith the divine was further symbolically effected by the rite of the\nSacred Marriage, and union by adoption by the rite of the Sacred Birth.\nThe mission of Orphism was to take these primitive rites, originally of\nthe crudest sympathetic magic, and inform them with a deep spiritual\nmysticism. The rite of the Omophagia found no place at Eleusis, but the\nother two sacramental rites of union, the Sacred Marriage and the Sacred\nBirth, formed ultimately its central mysteries.\n\nWith the doctrine and ritual of union with the divine there came as\na necessary corollary the doctrine that man could attain the divine\nattribute of immortality. Orphic eschatology is the subject of Chapter\nXI. Its highest spiritual form, the belief that perfect purity issued\nin divinity and hence in immortality, is found expressed in the Orphic\ntablets. Its lower expression, the belief in a Hades of eternal\npunishment as contrasted with the shadowy after-world of Homer, is seen\nin the vases of Lower Italy and the eschatology denounced by Plato.\n\nFinally in Chapter XII. it is shown how, as a concomitant to their\nEschatology, the Orphics, unlike Homer, evolved a Cosmogony, and with\nthis Cosmogony was ultimately bound up a peculiar and philosophic\ntheology. In the fifth century B.C. the puppet-show of the Olympians was\nwell-nigh played out, but the two gods of the Orphics remained potent.\nIn ritual they worshipped Dionysos, but their theoretical theology\nrecognized Eros as source of all things. The Eros of the Orphics was a\nmystery-being, a _daimon_ rather than a _theos_, a potency wholly alien\nto the clear-cut humanities of Olympus.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWith the consideration of Orphism it has become, I hope, abundantly\nclear why at the outset attention was focussed on the primitive rites of\nAversion and Purification rather than on the Service of the Olympians.\nThe ritual embodied in the formulary _do ut des_ is barren of spiritual\ncontent. The ritual embodied in _do ut abeas_ contains at least the\nrecognition of one great mystery of life, the existence of evil. The\nrites of the Olympians were left untouched by the Orphics; the rites\nof purification and of sympathetic magic lent them just the symbolism\nthey needed. Moreover even in theology the crude forms of demons were\nmore pliant material for mysticism than the clear-cut limitations and\nvivid personality of the Olympians. Orphism was the last word of Greek\nreligion, and the ritual of Orphism was but the revival of ancient\npractices with a new significance.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe reader will note that in the pages that follow, two authors, Plutarch\nand Euripides, have been laid under special contribution. Plutarch\u2019s\ngentle conservatism made him cling tenaciously to antique faith.\nAccording to him, one function of religion was to explain and justify\nestablished rites, and in the course of his attempted justification he\ntells us many valuable ritual facts. Euripides, instant in his attack on\nthe Olympian gods, yet treats with respect the two divinities of Orphism,\nDionysos and Eros. I have suggested that, born as he was at Phlya, the\nancient home of Orphic mysteries, his attitude on this matter may have\nbeen influenced by early associations. In any case, a religion whose\nchief divinities were reverently handled by Euripides cannot be dismissed\nas a decadent maleficent superstition.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI would ask that the chapters I have written be taken strictly as they\nare meant, as Prolegomena. I am deeply conscious that in surveying\nso wide a field I have left much of interest untouched, still more\nonly roughly sketched in. I wished to present my general theory in\nbroad outline for criticism before filling in details, and I hope in\nthe future to achieve a study of Orphism that may have more claim to\ncompleteness. If here I have dwelt almost exclusively on its strength and\nbeauty, I am not unaware that it has, like all mystical religions, a weak\nand ugly side.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIf in these Prolegomena I have accomplished anything, this is very\nlargely due to the many friends who have helped me; the pleasant task\nremains of acknowledging my obligations.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMy grateful thanks are offered to the Syndics of the University Press\nfor undertaking the publication of this book; to the Syndics of the\nUniversity Library and the Fitzwilliam Museum for the courtesy they have\nshown in allowing me free access to their libraries; to my own College,\nwhich, by electing me to a Fellowship, has given me for three years the\nmeans and leisure to devote myself to writing.\n\nFor the illustrations they have placed at my disposal I must record my\ndebt to the Trustees of the British Museum, to the Hellenic Society,\nthe German Archaeological Institute, and the \u00c9cole Fran\u00e7aise of Athens.\nThe sources of particular plates are acknowledged in the notes.\nThe troublesome task of drawing from photographs and transcribing\ninscriptions has been most kindly undertaken for me by Mrs Hugh Stewart.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPassing to literary obligations, it will be evident that in the two first\nchapters I owe much, as regards philology, to the late Mr R. A. Neil. His\nfriendship and his help were lost to me midway in my work, and that loss\nhas been irreparable.\n\nIt is a pleasure to me to remember gratefully that to Sir Richard Jebb I\nowe my first impulse to the study of Orphism. The notes in his edition\nof the _Characters_ of Theophrastos first led me as a student into the\nby-paths of Orphic literature, and since those days the problem of\nOrphism, though often of necessity set aside, has never ceased to haunt\nme.\n\nTo Professor Ridgeway I owe much more than can appear on the surface. The\nmaterial for the early portion of my book was collected many years ago,\nbut, baffled by the ethnological problems it suggested, I laid it aside\nin despair. The appearance of Professor Ridgeway\u2019s article, \u2018What people\nmade the objects called Mycenaean?\u2019 threw to me an instant flood of light\non the problems of ritual and mythology that perplexed me, and I returned\nto my work with fresh courage. Since then he has, with the utmost\nkindness, allowed me to attend his professorial lectures and frequently\nto refer to him my difficulties. I have thought it best finally to state\nmy own argument independently of his ethnological conclusions, first\nbecause those conclusions are, at the time I write, only in part before\nthe public, but chiefly because I hoped that by stating my evidence\nindependently it might, in the comparatively narrow sphere in which\nI work, offer some slight testimony to the truth of his illuminating\ntheories.\n\nTo all workers in the field of primitive religion Dr Frazer\u2019s writings\nhave become so part and parcel of their mental furniture that special\nacknowledgement has become almost superfluous. But I cannot deny myself\nthe pleasure of acknowledging a deep and frequent debt, the more as from\ntime to time I have been allowed to ask for criticism on individual\npoints, and my request, as the notes will show, has always met with\ngenerous response.\n\nMr F. M. Cornford of Trinity College has, with a kindness and patience\nfor which I can offer no adequate thanks, undertaken the revision of\nmy proof-sheets. To him I owe not only any degree of verbal accuracy\nattained, but also, which is much more, countless valuable suggestions\nmade from time to time in the course of my work. Many other scholars have\nallowed me to refer to them on matters outside my own competency. Some of\nthese debts are acknowledged in the notes, but I wish specially to thank\nDr A. S. Murray, Mr Cecil Smith and Mr A. H. Smith of the British Museum\nfor constant facilities afforded to me in my work there, and Mr R. C.\nBosanquet and Mr M. Tod for help in Athens; and, in Cambridge, Dr Haddon,\nDr Hans Gadow, Mr Francis Darwin, Mr H. G. Dakyns and Mr A. B. Cook.\n\nMy debt to Dr A. W. Verrall is so great and constant that it is hard to\nformulate. If in one part of my book more than another I am indebted to\nhim it is in the discussion of the Erinyes. Chapter V. indeed owes its\ninception to Dr Verrall\u2019s notes in his edition of the _Choephoroi_, and\nits final form to his unwearied criticism. Throughout the book there is\nscarcely a literary difficulty that he has not allowed me to refer to\nhim, and his sure scholarship and luminous perception have dissipated\nfor me many a mental fog.\n\nMr Gilbert Murray has written for me the critical Appendix on the\ntext of the Orphic tablets, a matter beyond my competence. Many verse\ntranslations, acknowledged in their place, are also by him, and uniformly\nthose from the _Bacchae_ and _Hippolytus_ of Euripides. It is to Mr\nMurray\u2019s translation of the _Bacchae_ that finally, as regards the\nreligion of Dionysos, I owe most. The beauty of that translation, which\nhe kindly allowed me to use before its publication, turned the arduous\ntask of investigation into a labour of delight, and throughout the later\nchapters of the book, the whole of which he has read for me in proof, it\nwill be evident that, in many difficult places, his sensitive and wise\nimagination has been my guide.\n\n JANE ELLEN HARRISON.\n\nNEWNHAM COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, _September 9, 1903_.\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n\n OLYMPIAN AND CHTHONIC RITUAL.\n\n Mr Ruskin on the absence of fear in the Greek genius,\n Religion, to writers of the fifth century B.C., mainly a\n matter of festivals. In the _Euthyphron_ religion is \u2018doing\n business with the gods,\u2019 a form of \u2018tendance\u2019 (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1).\n Contrast of \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, \u2018fear of spirits.\u2019 Plutarch on\n \u2018fear of spirits.\u2019 Distinction drawn by Isocrates and others\n between Olympian and apotropaic ritual. Contrast between\n \u2018Tendance\u2019 (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1) and \u2018Aversion\u2019 (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae). Sacrifice\n to Zeus in Homer is a banquet shared. Contrast of the ritual\n of the Diasia. The holocaust or uneaten sacrifice. Ritual\n of the Diasia addressed primarily to an underworld snake.\n Superposition of the Homeric Zeus. Evidence of art. The \u2018Dian\u2019\n fleece, not the \u2018fleece of Zeus\u2019 but the fleece of magical\n purification. Examination of the Attic calendar. The names of\n festivals not connected with the names of Olympian divinities.\n The ritual of these festivals belongs to a more primitive\n stratum than that of the Olympians, pp. 1-31.\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n THE ANTHESTERIA. THE RITUAL OF GHOSTS AND SPRITES.\n\n The Anthesteria, ostensibly dedicated to Dionysos, a spring\n festival of the revocation and aversion of ghosts. Examination\n of the rites of the three days. Meaning of the Chytroi, the\n Choes and the Pithoigia. Derivation of the word _Anthesteria_.\n Rites of purgation among the Romans in February. The Feralia\n and Lupercalia. The ritual of \u2018devotion\u2019 (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af).\n Contrast of \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. The word \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd used of burnt\n sacrifice to the Olympians, the word \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd of \u2018devotion\u2019\n to underworld deities. The ritual of \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1. Gist of the\n word \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is purgation by means of placation of ghosts.\n Contrast of \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, the victim sacrificed and eaten, with\n \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, the victim sacrificed and \u2018devoted.\u2019 The \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 in\n use for the taking of oaths, for purification, for omens, for\n sacrifice to winds and other underworld powers. Elements of\n \u2018tendance\u2019 in the ritual of \u2018aversion,\u2019 pp. 32-74.\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n HARVEST FESTIVALS. THE THARGELIA, KALLYNTERIA, PLYNTERIA.\n\n The Thargelia an early summer festival of first-fruits. The\n Eiresione. Object of the offering of first-fruits a release\n from taboo. The Australian Intichiuma. Removal of taboo\n developes into idea of consecration, dedication, sacrifice.\n The material of sacrifice. The god fares as the worshipper,\n but sometimes, from conservatism, fares worse. Instances in\n ritual of survival of primitive foods. The \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, the\n pelanos and the nephalia. The fireless sacrifice. The bringing\n in of first-fruits preceded by ceremonies of purification.\n The pharmakos. Details of the ritual. The pharmakos only\n incidentally a \u2018human sacrifice.\u2019 Its object physical and\n spiritual purgation. Meaning of the term. The pharmakos in\n Egypt, at Chaeronea, at Marseilles. Analogous ceremonies. The\n Charila at Delphi. The Bouphonia. The Stepterion. Further\n ceremonies of purification. The Kallynteria, Plynteria,\n Vestalia. General conclusion: in the Thargelia the gist of\n sacrifice is purification, a magical cleansing as a\n preparation for the incoming of first-fruits, pp. 75-119.\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n THE WOMEN\u2019S FESTIVALS. THESMOPHORIA, ARREPHORIA, SKIROPHORIA,\n STENIA, HALOA.\n\n Importance of these festivals as containing the germ of\n \u2018Mysteries.\u2019 Detailed examination of the ritual of the\n Thesmophoria. The Kathodos and Anodos, the Nesteia, the\n Kalligeneia. Gist of the rites the magical impulsion of\n fertility by burying _sacra_ in the ground. Magical rites\n preceded by purification and fasting. Analogy of Arrephoria,\n Skirophoria and Stenia with Thesmophoria. Meaning of the word\n _Thesmophoria_, the carrying of magical _sacra_. Magical\n spells, curses and law. \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. The curse and\n the law. The Dirae of Teos. The Haloa, a festival of the\n threshing-floor, later taken over by Dionysos. Tabooed foods.\n Eleusinian Mysteries a primitive harvest-festival. Order of the\n ritual. The pig of purification. Other rites of purification.\n The _tokens_ of the mysteries. Ancient confessions rather\n of the nature of _Confiteor_ than _Credo_. The fast and\n the partaking of the _kykeon_. The Kernophoria. Ancient\n mysteries in their earliest form consist of the tasting of\n first-fruits and the handling of _sacra_ after preliminary\n purification, pp. 120-162.\n\n CHAPTER V.\n\n THE DEMONOLOGY OF GHOSTS, SPRITES AND BOGEYS.\n\n Primitive demonology constantly in flux. Various connotations\n of the word Ker. The Ker as evil sprite, the Ker as bacillus of\n disease. The Keres of Old Age and Death. The Ker as Harpy and\n Wind-Daimon. The Ker as Fate in Homer and Hesiod. The Ker as\n Gorgon. Origin of the Gorgoneion. Apotropaic masks. The Gorgon\n developed from the Gorgoneion. The Graiae. The Evil Eye. The\n Ker as Siren. The Sirens of Homer. Problem of the bird-form\n in art. The Siren as midday daimon. The Siren on funeral\n monuments. The bird-form of the soul in Greece and Egypt.\n Plato\u2019s Sirens. The Ker as Sphinx. Mantic aspect of Sphinx.\n The Sphinx as Man-slaying Ker, as Funeral Monument. The Ker\n as Erinys. The Erinyes as angry Keres. Erinys an adjectival\n epithet. The Erinyes primarily the ghosts of slain men crying\n for vengeance. The Erinyes developed by Homer and Herakleitos\n into abstract ministers of vengeance. The Erinyes of Aeschylus\n more primitive than the Erinyes of Homer. The blood-curse\n in the _Choephoroi_. The Erinyes of the stage. The Erinyes\n analogous to Gorgons and Harpies, but not identical. The\n wingless Erinyes of Aeschylus. The winged Erinyes of later art.\n The Poinae. The Erinys as snake. The _Semnai Theai_. New cult\n at Athens. New underworld ritual. The transformation of Erinyes\n into Semnai Theai. The Eumenides at Colonos, at Megalopolis,\n at Argos, pp. 163-256.\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n\n THE MAKING OF A GODDESS.\n\n Anthropomorphism. Gradual elimination of animal forms. The\n gods begin to mirror human relations and at first those of\n \u2018matriarchal\u2019 type. The Mother and the Maid, two forms of\n one woman-goddess. The Great Mother as \u03a0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, as\n Kourotrophos. Influence of agriculture. Relation of women\n to primitive agriculture. Demeter and Kore as Mother and\n Maid rather than Mother and Daughter. Gradual predominance\n of the Maid over the Mother. The Anodos of the Maiden.\n Influence of mimetic agricultural rites. The evidence of\n vase-paintings. Pandora Mother and Maid. The Hesiodic story.\n The Maiden-Trinities. Origin of Trinities from the duality\n of Mother and Maid. Korai, Charites, Aglaurides, Nymphs. The\n Judgment of Paris a rivalry of three dominant Korai\u2014Hera,\n Athene and Aphrodite. Evidence of vase-paintings. Development\n of Athene, her snake- and bird-forms. Athene finally a frigid\n impersonation of Athens. Developement of Aphrodite. Myth of her\n sea-birth. Its origin in a ritual bath. The Ludovisi throne.\n Ultimate dominance of the mother-form of Aphrodite as Genetrix.\n Hera as maiden. Her marriage with Zeus. Intrusion of Olympian\n \u2018patriarchal\u2019 cults on the worship of the Mother and the Maid.\n Evidence from art, pp. 257-322.\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n\n THE MAKING OF A GOD.\n\n The passage from ghost to god more plainly seen in the\n cult of heroes than in that of heroines. Instances from\n heroine-worship. Helen and Hebe. The hero as snake. Origin of\n the bearded snake. Heroes called by adjectival cultus-titles\n rather than personal names. The \u2018nameless\u2019 gods of the\n Pelasgians. The name \u2018hero\u2019 adjectival. Origin of supposed\n \u2018euphemistic\u2019 titles. The \u2018Blameless\u2019 Aigisthos. The\n \u2018Blameless\u2019 Salmoneus. Antagonism between the gods proper\n of the Olympian system and local heroes. Beneficence of\n the heroes. Asklepios and the heroes of healing. Asklepios\n originally a hero-snake. Evidence of votive reliefs. Amynos and\n Dexion. The \u2018Hero-Feasts.\u2019 Cult of Hippolytus. Zeus Philios.\n Hero-Feasts lead to Theoxenia. Type of the Hero-Feast taken\n over by Dionysos. Evidence from reliefs, pp. 323-363.\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n\n DIONYSOS.\n\n Mystical character of the religion of Dionysos. Dionysos\n an immigrant Thracian. The legend of Lycurgus. Historical\n testimony. In Euripides Dionysos an oriental. Explanation\n of apparent discrepancy. The Satyrs. Analogy with the\n Centaurs. The Satyrs represent an indigenous people who became\n worshippers of Dionysos. Cheiron the good Centaur. The Maenads\n not merely mythological. The Thyiades of historical times. The\n Maenads, Thyiades, Bacchants, women possessed by Dionysos. They\n are the nurses of the god and worship him as Liknites. Dionysos\n son of Semele. Semele the Earth-Mother. Cult of thunder-smitten\n places. Dionysos son of Zeus. Zeus adopts Dionysos as god\n of the grape. Examination of the titles Bromios, Braites,\n Sabazios. All three are titles of a god of a cereal intoxicant.\n The cereal intoxicant preceded in the North the intoxicant\n made from the grape. Tragedy the song of the cereal drink.\n Dionysos emerges from obscurity as god of the grape. Dionysos\n the tree and vegetation god. Evidence of art. The \u2018Principle\n of Moisture.\u2019 Dionysos the Bull-god. Animal incarnations. The\n \u2018return to nature.\u2019 Dithyrambos and the Dithyramb. Dithyrambos\n the Mystery-Babe. Plutarch on the Dithyramb. Possible\n association with the Bee-Maidens, the Thriae. Moderation of\n the Greek in the use of wine. Sacramentalism of eating and\n drinking. The ecstasy of asceticism, pp. 364-454.\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n\n ORPHEUS.\n\n Problem of relation between Orpheus and Dionysos. Analogy\n and contrast between the two. Orpheus a Thracian; a magical\n musician. Possible Cretan origin of Orpheus. The island route\n from Crete to Thrace. The death of Orpheus. Representations on\n vase-paintings. Orpheus an enemy of the Maenads. His burial and\n the cult at his tomb. His oracle at Lesbos. His relation to\n Apollo. Orpheus a real man, a reformer, and possibly a martyr;\n heroized but never deified. Orpheus as reformer of Bacchic\n rites. Influence of Orphism at Athens. New impulse brought\n by Orphism into Greek religion. Spiritualization of the old\n Dionysiac doctrine of divine possession. Contrast with the\n anthropomorphism of Homer and Pindar. Consecration the\n keynote of Orphic religion, pp. 455-478.\n\n CHAPTER X.\n\n ORPHIC AND DIONYSIAC MYSTERIES.\n\n Our chief source a fragment of the _Cretans_ of Euripides.\n The Idaean Zeus the same as Zagreus. The _Omophagia_ or\n feast of raw flesh. The bull-victim. Bull-worship in\n Crete. The Minotaur. Evidence of Clement of Alexandria\n as to the _Omophagia_. Narrative of Firmicus Maternus.\n Analogous _Omophagia_ among primitive Arabs. Account of\n Nilus. Sacramental union with the god by eating his flesh.\n Reminiscences of human sacrifice in Greek tradition. The\n Titans and the infant Zagreus. The Titans white-earth men. The\n smearing with gypsum. The Orphic doctrine of the dismembered\n god. The Mountain Mother. Her image on a Cretan seal\n impression. The Kouretes her attendants. The final consecration\n of the mystic. Meaning of the word \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2, \u2018consecrated.\u2019\n Orphic taboos. Orphic formalism. Parody of Orphic rites of\n initiation in the _Clouds_ of Aristophanes. The \u2018shady side\u2019\n of Orphism. The Liknophoria. Dionysos Liknites. Symbolism\n of the _liknon_. Purification, rebirth. The _liknon_ and\n the Homeric _ptyon_. The _liknon_ in marriage ceremonies.\n The Sacred Marriage. Orphic elements in Eleusinian Ritual.\n Iacchos at Eleusis. The Liknophoria at Eleusis. The Sacred\n Marriage and the Sacred Birth at Eleusis. Thessalian influence,\n Brimo. Thracian influence, Eumolpos. Dionysos at Eleusis. As\n child, and as grown man. The pantomime element in the cult\n of Dionysos. Its influence on the Eleusinian Mysteries, pp. 479-572.\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n\n ORPHIC ESCHATOLOGY.\n\n The tablets our chief source for Orphic doctrines. Their\n _provenance_ and general character. The Petelia tablet of\n the British Museum. Analogous tablets from Crete. The Well\n of Mnemosyne. Parallels in Fiji and Egypt. Lethe in Greek\n Literature. Lethe in the ritual of Trophonios. The river of\n Euno\u00eb, Good Consciousness, in Dante. The Sybaris tablets. The\n tablet of Caecilia Secundina. The confession of Ritual Acts\n on the Sybaris tablets. The attainment of divinity through\n purification. The escape from the Wheel. The kid and the\n milk. The formulary of adoption. Eschatology on Orphic vases\n from Lower Italy. Orpheus in Hades. The tortured criminals.\n Developement by Orphism of doctrine of eternal punishment.\n The Danaides and the Uninitiated, pp. 573-624.\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n\n ORPHIC COSMOGONY.\n\n Orphic theology as seen in the Hymns. The World-Egg. Use of\n eggs in Orphic ritual of purification. Birth of Eros from\n World-Egg. Complex origin of Orphic Eros. Eros as Herm. Eros\n as Ker of life. Evidence of art. Eros as Ephebos. Eros and\n the Earth-Mother. Eros present at the Anodos. Evidence of\n art. The Mystery-cult at Phlya, the birthplace of Euripides.\n Pythagorean revival of the cult of the Mother. The mystic Eros\n as Phanes and Protogonos. _Contaminatio_ of Eros and Dionysos.\n Popular Orphism on vases from Thebes. Eros as Proteurhythmos.\n The divinities of Orphism are demons rather than gods. Orphism\n resumed, pp. 625-659.\n\n CRITICAL APPENDIX ON THE ORPHIC TABLETS pp. 660-674.\n\n INDEX\n\n I. Greek pp. 675, 676.\n\n II. General pp. 676-680.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nOLYMPIAN AND CHTHONIC RITUAL.\n\n \u2018\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f31\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\u2019\n\n\nIn characterizing the genius of the Greeks Mr Ruskin says: \u2018_there is no\ndread in their hearts; pensiveness, amazement, often deepest grief and\ndesolation, but terror never. Everlasting calm in the presence of all\nFate, and joy such as they might win, not indeed from perfect beauty,\nbut from beauty at perfect rest._\u2019 The lovely words are spoken of course\nmainly with reference to art, but they are meant also to characterize the\nGreek in his attitude towards the invisible, in his religion\u2014meant to\nshew that the Greek, the favoured child of fortune yet ever unspoilt, was\nexempt from the discipline to which the rest of mankind has been subject,\nnever needed to learn the lesson that in the Fear of the Lord is the\nbeginning of Wisdom.\n\nAt first sight it seems as though the statement were broadly true. Greek\nwriters of the fifth century B.C. have a way of speaking of, an attitude\ntowards, religion, as though it were wholly a thing of joyful confidence,\na friendly fellowship with the gods, whose service is but a high festival\nfor man. In Homer sacrifice is but, as it were, the signal for a banquet\nof abundant roast flesh and sweet wine; we hear nothing of fasting, of\ncleansing, and atonement. This we might perhaps explain as part of the\ngeneral splendid unreality of the heroic saga, but sober historians of\nthe fifth century B.C. express the same spirit. Thucydides is assuredly\nby nature no reveller, yet religion is to him in the main \u2018a rest from\ntoil.\u2019 He makes Pericles say[1]: \u2018Moreover we have provided for our\nspirit very many opportunities of recreation, by the celebration of games\nand sacrifices throughout the year.\u2019\n\nMuch the same external, quasi-political, and always cheerful attitude\ntowards religion is taken by the \u2018Old Oligarch[2].\u2019 He is of course\nthoroughly orthodox and even pious, yet to him the main gist of religion\nappears to be a decorous social enjoyment. In easy aristocratic fashion\nhe rejoices that religious ceremonials exist to provide for the less\nwell-to-do citizens suitable amusements that they would otherwise lack.\n\u2018As to sacrifices and sanctuaries and festivals and precincts, the\nPeople, knowing that it is impossible for each poor man individually to\nsacrifice and feast and have sanctuaries and a beautiful and ample city,\nhas discovered by what means he may enjoy these privileges. The whole\nstate accordingly at the common cost sacrifices many victims, while it\nis the People who feast on them and divide them among themselves by\nlot\u2019; and again[3], as part of the splendour of Athens, he notes that\n\u2018she celebrates twice as many religious holidays as any other city.\u2019 The\nvery language used by this typical Athenian gentleman speaks for itself.\nBurnt-sacrifice (\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1), feasting, agonistic games, stately temples are\nto him the essence of religion; the word sacrifice brings to his mind not\nrenunciation but a social banquet; the temple is not to him so much the\nawful dwelling-place of a divinity as an integral part of a \u2018beautiful\nand ample city.\u2019\n\nThucydides and Xenophon need and attempt no searching analysis of\nreligion. Socrates of course sought a definition, a definition that\nleft him himself sad and dissatisfied, but that adequately embodied\npopular sentiment and is of importance for our enquiry. The end of the\n_Euthyphron_ is the most disappointing thing in Plato; Socrates extracts\nfrom Euthyphron what he thinks religion is; what Socrates thought he\ncannot or will not tell[4].\n\nSocrates in his enquiry uses not one abstract term for religion\u2014the\nGreeks have in fact no one word that covers the whole field\u2014he uses\ntwo[5], piety (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ad\u03c2) and holiness (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd). Euthyphron of\ncourse begins with cheerful confidence: he and all other respectable men\nknow quite well what piety and holiness are. He willingly admits that\n\u2018holiness is a part of justice,\u2019 that part of justice that appertains\nto the gods; it is giving the gods their due. He also allows, not quite\nseeing to what the argument is tending, that piety and holiness are \u2018a\nsort of tendance (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1) of the gods.\u2019 This \u2018tendance,\u2019 Socrates\npresses on, \u2018must be of the nature of service or ministration,\u2019 and\nEuthyphron adds that it is the sort of service that servants shew their\nmasters. Socrates wants to know in what particular work and operation the\ngods need help and ministration. Euthyphron answers with some impatience\nthat, to put it plainly and cut the matter short, holiness consists in\n\u2018a man understanding how to do what is pleasing to the gods in word\nand deed, i.e. by prayer and sacrifice.\u2019 Socrates eagerly seizes his\nadvantage and asks: \u2018You mean then that holiness is a sort of science of\npraying and sacrificing?\u2019 \u2018Further,\u2019 he adds, \u2018sacrifice is giving to the\ngods, prayer is asking of them, holiness then is a science of asking and\ngiving.\u2019 If we give to the gods they must want something of us, they must\nwant to \u2018do business with us.\u2019 \u2018Holiness is then an art in which gods and\nmen do business with each other.\u2019 So Socrates triumphantly concludes, to\nthe manifest discomfort of Euthyphron, who however can urge no tenable\nobjection. He feels as a pious man that the essence of the service or\ntendance he owes to the gods is of the nature of a freewill tribute of\nhonour, but he cannot deny that the gods demand this as a _quid pro quo_.\n\nSocrates, obviously unfair though he is, puts his finger on the weak\nspot of Greek religion as orthodoxly conceived in the fifth century\nB.C. Its formula is _do ut des_. It is, as Socrates says, a \u2018business\ntransaction\u2019 and one in which, because god is greater than man, man gets\non the whole the best of it. The argument of the _Euthyphron_ is of\nimportance to us because it clearly defines one, and a prominent, factor\nin Greek religion, that of _service_ (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1), and in this service,\nthis kindly \u2018tendance,\u2019 there is no element of fear. If man does his part\nin the friendly transaction, the gods will do theirs. None of the deeper\nproblems of what we moderns call religion are even touched: there is no\nquestion of sin, repentance, sacrificial atonement, purification, no fear\nof judgment to come, no longing after a future complete beatitude. Man\noffers what seems to him in his ignorance a reasonable service to gods\nconceived of as human and rational. There is no trace of scepticism; the\ngods certainly exist, otherwise as Sextus Empiricus[6] quaintly argues\n\u2018you could not serve them\u2019: and they have human natures. \u2018You do not\nserve Hippocentauri, because Hippocentauri are non-existent.\u2019\n\nTo the average orthodox Greek the word \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, service, tendance,\ncovered a large, perhaps the largest, area of his conception of religion.\nIt was a word expressing, not indeed in the Christian sense a religion\nwhose mainspring was love, but at least a religion based on a rational\nand quite cheerful mutual confidence. The Greeks have however another\nword expressive of religion, which embodies a quite other attitude of\nmind, the word \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, _fear of spirits_; fear, not tendance,\nfear not of gods but of spirit-things, or, to put it abstractly, of the\nsupernatural.\n\nIt is certainly characteristic of the Greek mind that the word\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 and its cognates early began to be used in a bad sense,\nand this to some extent bears out Mr Ruskin\u2019s assertion. By the time of\nTheophrastos \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd is frankly in our sense \u2018the superstitious\nman,\u2019 and superstition Theophrastos defines as not just and proper\nreverence but simply \u2018cowardice in regard to the supernatural.\u2019 Professor\nJebb[7] has pointed out that already in Aristotle the word \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\nhas about it a suspicion of its weaker side. An absolute ruler,\nAristotle[8] says, will be the more powerful \u2018if his subjects believe\nthat he fears the spiritual beings\u2019 (\u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9)\nbut he adds significantly \u2018he must shew himself such _without fatuity_\u2019\n(\u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5 \u1f00\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2).\n\nPlutarch has left us an instructive treatise on \u2018the fear of the\nsupernatural.\u2019 He saw in this fear, this superstition, the great element\nof danger and weakness in the religion that he loved so well. His\nintellect steeped in Platonism revolted from its unmeaning folly, and\nhis gentle gracious temperament shrank from its cruelty. He sees[9] in\nsuperstition not only an error, a wrong judgment of the mind, but that\nworse thing a \u2018wrong judgment inflamed by passion.\u2019 Atheism is a cold\nerror, a mere dislocation of the mind: superstition is a \u2018dislocation\ncomplicated, inflamed, by a bruise.\u2019 \u2018Atheism is an apathy towards the\ndivine which fails to perceive the good: superstition is an excess of\npassion which suspects the good to be evil; the superstitious are afraid\nof the gods yet fly to them for refuge, flatter and yet revile them,\ninvoke them and yet heap blame upon them.\u2019\n\nSuperstition grieved Plutarch in two ways. He saw that it terrified men\nand made them miserable, and he wanted all men to be as cheerful and\nkindly as himself; it also made men think evil of the gods, fear them as\nharsh and cruel. He knew that the canonical religion of the poets was\nan adequate basis for superstitious fear, but he had made for himself\na way out of the difficulty, a way he explains in his treatise on \u2018How\nthe poets ought to be taken.\u2019 \u2018If Ares be evil spoken of we must imagine\nit to be said of War, if Hephaistos of Fire, if Zeus of Fate, but if\nanything honourable it is said of the real gods[10].\u2019 Plutarch was too\ngentle to say sharply and frankly:\n\n \u2018If gods do aught that\u2019s shameful, they are no gods[11],\u2019\n\nbut he shifted the element of evil, of fear and hate, from his\ntheological ideals to the natural and purely human phenomena from which\nthey had emerged. He wants to treat the gods and regard them as he\nhimself would be treated and regarded, as kindly civilized men. \u2018What!\u2019\nhe says[12], \u2018is he who thinks there are no gods an impious man, while he\nwho describes them as the superstitious man does, does he not hold views\nmuch more impious? Well anyhow I for my part would rather people would\nsay of me there never was or is any such a man as Plutarch, than that\nthey should say Plutarch is an unstable, changeable fellow, irritable,\nvindictive, and touchy about trifles; if you invite friends to dinner and\nleave out Plutarch, or if you are busy and omit to call on him, or if\nyou do not stop to speak to him, he will fasten on you and bite you, or\nhe will catch your child and beat him, or turn his beast loose into your\ncrops and spoil your harvest.\u2019\n\nBut though he is concerned for the reputation of the gods, his chief\ncare and pity are for man. Atheism shuts out a man, he says, from the\npleasant things of life. \u2018These most pleasant things,\u2019 he adds[13] in\ncharacteristic fashion, \u2018are festivals and feastings in connection with\nsacred things, and initiations and orgiastic festivals, and invocations\nand adorations of the gods. At these most pleasant things the atheist\ncan but laugh his sardonic laugh, but the superstitious man would fain\nrejoice and cannot, his soul is like the city of Thebes:\n\n \u201cIt brims with incense and burnt sacrifice\n And brims with paeans and with lamentations.\u201d\n\nA garland is on his head and pallor on his face, he offers sacrifice and\nis afraid, he prays and yet his tongue falters, he offers incense and\nhis hand trembles, he turns the saying of Pythagoras into foolishness,\n\u201cThen we become best when we approach the gods, for those who fear\nspirits when they approach the shrines and dwellings of the gods make as\nthough they came to the dens of bears and the holes of snakes and the\nlairs of sea-monsters.\u201d\u2019 In his protest against the religion of fear\nPlutarch rises to a real eloquence[14]. \u2018He that dreads the gods dreads\nall things, earth and sea, air and heaven, darkness and light, a voice,\na silence, a dream. Slaves forget their masters in sleep, sleep looses\ntheir fetters, salves their gangrened sores, but for the superstitious\nman his reason is always adreaming but his fear always awake.\u2019\n\nPlutarch is by temperament, and perhaps also by the decadent time in\nwhich he lived, unable to see the good side of the religion of fear,\nunable to realize that in it was implicit a real truth, the consciousness\nthat all is not well with the world, that there is such a thing as evil.\nTinged with Orphism as he was, he took it by its gentle side and never\nrealized that it was this religion of fear, of consciousness of evil and\nsin and the need of purification, of which Orphism took hold and which it\ntransformed to new issues. The cheerful religion of \u2018tendance\u2019 had in it\nno seeds of spiritual development; by Plutarch\u2019s time, though he failed\nto see this, it had done its work for civilization.\n\nStill less could Plutarch realize that what in his mind was a\ndegradation, superstition in our sense, had been to his predecessors\na vital reality, the real gist of their only possible religion. He\ndeprecates the attitude of the superstitious man who enters the\npresence of his gods as though he were approaching the hole of a snake,\nand forgets that the hole of a snake had been to his ancestors, and\nindeed was still to many of his contemporaries, literally and actually\nthe sanctuary of a god. He has explained and mysticized away all the\nprimitive realities of his own beloved religion. It can, I think, be\nshewn that what Plutarch regards as superstition was in the sixth and\neven the fifth century before the Christian era the _real_ religion of\nthe main bulk of the people, a religion not of cheerful tendance but of\nfear and deprecation. The formula of that religion was not _do ut des_ \u2018I\ngive that you may give,\u2019 but _do ut abeas_ \u2018I give that you may go, and\nkeep away.\u2019 The beings worshipped were not rational, human, law-abiding\n_gods_, but vague, irrational, mainly malevolent \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, spirit-things,\nghosts and bogeys and the like, not yet formulated and enclosed into\ngod-head. The word \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 tells its own tale, but the thing itself\nwas born long before it was baptized.\n\nArguments drawn from the use of the word \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 by particular\nauthors are of necessity vague and somewhat unsatisfactory; the use of\nthe word depends much on the attitude of mind of the writer. Xenophon[15]\nfor example uses \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 in a good sense, as of a bracing\nconfidence rather than a degrading fear. \u2018The more men are god-fearing,\nspirit-fearing (\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2), the less do they fear man.\u2019 It would be\nimpossible to deduce from such a statement anything as to the existence\nof a lower and more \u2018fearful\u2019 stratum of religion.\n\nFortunately however we have evidence, drawn not from the terminology of\nreligion, but from the certain facts of ritual, evidence which shews\nbeyond the possibility of doubt that the Greeks of the classical period\nrecognised two different classes of rites, one of the nature of \u2018service\u2019\naddressed to the Olympians, the other of the nature of \u2018riddance\u2019 or\n\u2018aversion\u2019 addressed to an order of beings wholly alien. It is this\nsecond class of rites which haunts the mind of Plutarch in his protest\nagainst the \u2018fear of spirits\u2019; it is to this second class of rites that\nthe \u2018Superstitious Man\u2019 of Theophrastos was unduly addicted; and this\nsecond class of rites, which we are apt to regard as merely decadent,\nsuperstitious, and as such unworthy of more than a passing notice and\ncondemnation, is primitive and lies at the very root and base of Greek\nreligion.\n\nFirst it must clearly be established that the Greeks themselves\nrecognised two diverse elements in the ritual of their state. The\nevidence of the orator Isocrates[16] on this point is indefeasible. He is\nextolling the mildness and humanity of the Greeks. In this respect they\nare, he points out, \u2018like the better sort of gods.\u2019 \u2018Some of the gods are\nmild and humane, others harsh and unpleasant.\u2019 He then goes on to make a\nsignificant statement: \u2018_Those of the gods who are the source to us of\ngood things have the title of Olympians, those whose department is that\nof calamities and punishments have harsher titles; to the first class\nboth private persons and states erect altars and temples, the second is\nnot worshipped either with prayers or burnt-sacrifices, but in their case\nwe perform ceremonies of riddance._\u2019 Had Isocrates commented merely on\nthe _titles_ of the gods, we might fairly have said that these titles\nonly represent diverse aspects of the same divinities, that Zeus who is\nMaimaktes, the Raging One, is also Meilichios, Easy-to-be-Intreated,\na god of vengeance and a god of love. But happily Isocrates is more\nexplicit; he states that the two classes of gods have not only diverse\nnatures but definitely _different rituals_, and that these rituals not\nonly vary for the individual but are also different by the definite\nprescription of the state. The ritual of the gods called Olympian is of\nburnt-sacrifice and prayer, it is conducted in temples and on altars: the\nritual of the other class has neither burnt-sacrifice nor prayer nor,\nit would seem, temple or altar, but consists in ceremonies apparently\nfamiliar to the Greek under the name of \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03af, \u2018sendings away.\u2019\n\nFor \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03af the English language has no convenient word. Our religion\nstill countenances the fear of the supernatural, but we have outgrown the\nstage in which we perform definite ceremonies to rid ourselves of the\ngods. Our nearest equivalent to \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03af is \u2018exorcisms,\u2019 but as the word\nhas connotations of magic and degraded superstition I prefer to use the\nsomewhat awkward term \u2018ceremonies of riddance.\u2019\n\nPlato more than once refers to these ceremonies of riddance. In the\n_Laws_[17] he bids the citizen, if some prompting intolerably base occur\nto his mind, as e.g. the desire to commit sacrilege, \u2018betake yourself\nto ceremonies of riddance, go as suppliant to the shrines of the gods of\naversion, fly from the company of wicked men without turning back.\u2019 The\nreference to a peculiar set of rites presided over by special gods is\nclear. These gods were variously called \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 and \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, the\ngods of Aversion and of Sending-away.\n\nHarpocration[18] tells us that Apollodorus devoted the sixth book of his\ntreatise _Concerning the gods_ to the discussion of the \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9,\nthe gods of Sending-away. The loss of this treatise is a grave one for\nthe history of ritual, but scattered notices enable us to see in broad\noutline what the character of these gods of Aversion was. Pausanias[19]\nat Titane saw an altar, and in front of it a barrow erected to the hero\nEpopeus, and \u2018near to the tomb,\u2019 he says, \u2018are the gods of Aversion,\nbeside whom are performed the ceremonies which the Greeks observe for\nthe averting of evils.\u2019 Here it is at least probable, though from the\nvagueness of the statement of Pausanias not certain, that the ceremonies\nwere of an underworld character such as it will be seen were performed\nat the graves of heroes. The gods of Aversion by the time of Pausanias,\nand probably long before, were regarded as gods who presided over the\naversion of evil; there is little doubt that to begin with these gods\nwere the very evil men sought to avert. The domain of the spirits of the\nunderworld was confined to things evil. Babrius[20] tells us that in the\ncourtyard of a pious man there was a precinct of a hero, and the pious\nman was wont to sacrifice and pour libations to the hero, and pray to him\nfor a return for his hospitality. But the ghost of the dead hero knew\nbetter; only the regular Olympians are the givers of good, his province\nas a hero was limited to evil only. He appeared in the middle of the\nnight and expounded to the pious man this truly Olympian theology:\n\n \u2018Good Sir, no hero may give aught of good;\n For _that_ pray to the gods. We are the givers\n Of all things evil that exist for men.\u2019\n\nIt will be seen, when we come to the subject of hero-worship, that this\nis a very one-sided view of the activity of heroes. Still it remains,\nbroadly speaking, true that dead men and the powers of the underworld\nwere the objects of fear rather than love, their cult was of \u2018aversion\u2019\nrather than \u2018tendance.\u2019\n\nA like distinction is drawn by Hippocrates[21] between the attributes,\nspheres and ritual of Olympian and chthonic divinities. He says: \u2018we\nought to pray to the gods, for good things to Helios, to Zeus Ouranios,\nto Zeus Ktesias, to Athene Ktesia, to Hermes, to Apollo; but in the case\nof things that are the reverse we must pray to Earth and the heroes, that\nall hostile things may be averted.\u2019\n\nIt is clear then that Greek religion contained two diverse, even\nopposite, factors: on the one hand the element of _service_ (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1),\non the other the element of _aversion_[22] (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae). The rites of\n_service_ were connected by ancient tradition with the Olympians, or as\nthey are sometimes called the Ouranians: the rites of _aversion_ with\nghosts, heroes, underworld divinities. The rites of service were of a\ncheerful and rational character, the rites of aversion gloomy and tending\nto superstition. The particular characteristics of each set of rites will\nbe discussed more in detail later; for the present it is sufficient to\nhave established the fact that Greek religion for all its superficial\nserenity had within it and beneath it elements of a darker and deeper\nsignificance.\n\nSo far we have been content with the general statements of Greek writers\nas to the nature of their national religion, and the evidence of these\nwriters has been remarkably clear. But, in order to form any really just\nestimate, it is necessary to examine in detail the actual ritual of some\nat least of the national festivals. To such an examination the next three\nchapters will be devoted.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe main result of such an examination, a result which for clearness\u2019\nsake may be stated at the outset, is surprising. We shall find a series\nof festivals which are nominally connected with, or as the handbooks say,\n\u2018celebrated in honour of\u2019 various Olympians; the Diasia in honour of\nZeus, the Thargelia of Apollo and Artemis, the Anthesteria of Dionysos.\nThe service of these Olympians we should expect to be of the nature of\njoyous \u2018tendance.\u2019 To our surprise, when the actual rites are examined,\nwe shall find that they have little or nothing to do with the particular\nOlympian to whom they are supposed to be addressed; that they are rites\nnot in the main of burnt-sacrifice, of joy and feasting and agonistic\ncontests, but rites of a gloomy underworld character, connected mainly\nwith purification and the worship of ghosts. The conclusion is almost\nforced upon us that we have here a theological stratification, that\nthe rites of the Olympians have been superimposed on another order of\nworship. The contrast between the two classes of rites is so marked, so\nsharp, that the unbroken development from one to the other is felt to be\nalmost impossible.\n\nTo make this clear, before we examine a series of festivals in regular\ncalendar order, one typical case will be taken, the Diasia, the supposed\nfestival of Zeus; and to make the argument intelligible, before the\nDiasia is examined, a word must be said as to the regular ritual of this\nparticular Olympian. The ritual of the several Olympian deities does not\nvary in essentials; an instance of sacrifice to Zeus is selected because\nwe are about to examine the Diasia, a festival of Zeus, and thereby\nuniformity is secured.\n\nAgamemnon[23], beguiled by Zeus in a dream, is about to go forth to\nbattle. Zeus intends to play him false, but all the same he accepts the\nsacrifice. It is a clear instance of _do ut des_.\n\nThe first act is of prayer and the scattering of barley grains; the\nvictim, a bull, is present but not yet slain:\n\n \u2018They gathered round the bull and straight the barley grain did take,\n And \u2019mid them Agamemnon stood and prayed, and thus he spake:\n O Zeus most great, most glorious, Thou who dwellest in the sky\n And storm-black cloud, oh grant the dark of evening come not nigh\n At sunset ere I blast the house of Priam to black ash,\n And burn his doorways with fierce fire, and with my sword-blade gash\n His doublet upon Hector\u2019s breast, his comrades many a one\n Grant that they bite the dust of earth ere yet the day be done.\u2019\n\nNext follows the slaying and elaborate carving of the bull for the\nbanquet of gods and men:\n\n \u2018When they had scattered barley grain and thus their prayer had made,\n The bull\u2019s head backward drew they, and slew him, and they flayed\n His body and cut slices from the thighs, and these in fat\n They wrapped and made a double fold, and gobbets raw thereat\n They laid and these they burnt straightway with leafless billets dry\n And held the spitted vitals Hephaistos\u2019 flame anigh\u2014\n The thighs they burnt; the spitted vitals next they taste, anon\n The rest they slice and heedfully they roast till all is done\u2014\n When they had rested from their task and all the banquet dight,\n They feasted, in their hearts no stint of feasting and delight.\u2019\n\nDr Leaf[24] observes on the passage: \u2018The significance of the various\nacts of the sacrifice evidently refers to a supposed invitation to the\ngods to take part in a banquet. Barley meal is scattered on the victim\u2019s\nhead that the gods may share in the fruits of the earth as well as in\nthe meat. Slices from the thigh as the best part are wrapped in fat to\nmake them burn and thus ascend in sweet savour to heaven. The sacrificers\nafter roasting the vitals taste them as a symbolical sign that they are\nactually eating with the gods. When this religious act has been done, the\nrest of the victim is consumed as a merely human meal.\u2019\n\nNothing could be simpler, clearer. There is no mystic communion, no\neating of the body of the god incarnate in the victim, no awful taboo\nupon what has been offered to, made over to, the gods, no holocaust.\nHomer knows of victims slain to revive by their blood the ghosts of those\nbelow, knows of victims on which oaths have been taken and which are\nutterly consumed and abolished, but the normal service of the Olympians\nis a _meal shared_. The god is Ouranios, so his share is burnt, and the\nobject of the burning is manifestly sublimation not destruction.\n\nWith the burnt-sacrifice and the joyous banquet in our minds we turn to\nthe supposed festival of Zeus at Athens and mark the contrast, a contrast\nit will be seen so great that it compels us to suppose that the ritual of\nthe festival of the Diasia had primarily nothing whatever to do with the\nworship of Olympian Zeus.\n\n\nTHE DIASIA.\n\nOur investigation begins with a festival which at first sight seems of\nall others for our purpose most unpromising, the Diasia[25]. Pollux, in\nhis chapter[26] on \u2018Festivals which take their names from the divinities\nworshipped,\u2019 cites the Diasia as an instance\u2014\u2018the Mouseia are from the\nMuses, the Hermaia from Hermes, the Diasia and Pandia from Zeus (\u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2),\nthe Panathenaia from Athene.\u2019 What could be clearer? It is true that\nthe modern philologist observes what naturally escaped the attention of\nPollux, i.e. that the _i_ in Diasia is long, that in \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 short, but\nwhat is the quantity of a vowel as against the accredited worship of an\nOlympian?\n\nTo the question of derivation it will be necessary to return later, the\nnature of the cult must first be examined. Again at the outset facts\nseem against us. It must frankly be owned that as early as the middle of\nthe seventh century B.C. in common as well as professional parlance, the\nDiasia was a festival of Zeus, of Zeus with the title Meilichios.\n\nOur first notice of the Diasia comes to us in a bit of religious history\nas amusing as it is instructive, the story of the unworthy trick played\nby the Delphic oracle on Cylon. Thucydides[27] tells how Cylon took\ncounsel of the oracle how he might seize the Acropolis, and the priestess\nmade answer that he should attempt it \u2018on the greatest festival of Zeus.\u2019\nCylon never doubted that \u2018the greatest festival of Zeus\u2019 was the Olympian\nfestival, and having been (B.C. 640) an Olympian victor himself, he felt\nthat there was about the oracle \u2018a certain appropriateness.\u2019 But in\nfine oracular fashion the god had laid a trap for the unwary egotist,\nintending all the while not the Olympian festival but the Attic Diasia,\n\u2018for,\u2019 Thucydides explains, \u2018the Athenians too have what is called the\nDiasia, the greatest festival of Zeus, of Zeus Meilichios.\u2019 The passage\nis of paramount importance because it shows clearly that the obscurity\nlay in the intentional omission by the priestess of the cultus epithet\nMeilichios, and in that epithet as will be presently seen lies the whole\nsignificance of the cult. Had Zeus _Meilichios_ been named no normal\nAthenian would have blundered.\n\nThucydides goes on to note some particulars of the ritual of the\nDiasia; the ceremonies took place outside the citadel, sacrifices\nwere offered by the whole people collectively, and many of those who\nsacrificed offered not animal sacrifices but offerings in accordance\nwith local custom. The word \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, the regular ritual term for _animal_\nsacrifices, is here opposed to \u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, local sacrifices. But\nfor the Scholiast the meaning of \u2018local sacrifices\u2019 would have remained\ndubious; he explains, and no doubt rightly, that these customary \u2018local\nsacrifices\u2019 were cakes made in the shape of animals. The principle _in\nsacris simulata pro veris accipi_ was and is still of wide application,\nand as there is nothing in it specially characteristic of the Diasia it\nneed not be further exemplified.\n\nTwo notices of the Diasia in the _Clouds_ of Aristophanes[28] yield\nnothing. The fact that Strepsiades bought a little cart at the Diasia\nfor his boy or even cooked a sausage for his relations is of no\nsignificance. Wherever any sort of religious ceremony goes on, there\namong primitive peoples a fair will be set up and outlying relations\nwill come in and must be fed, nor does it concern us to decide whether\nthe cart bought by Strepsiades was a real cart or as the Scholiast\nsuggests a cake-cart. Cakes in every conceivable form belong to the\ncommon fund of _quod semper quod ubique_. Of capital importance however\nis the notice of the Scholiast on line 408 where the exact date of the\nDiasia is given. It was celebrated on the 8th day of the last decade of\nthe month Anthesterion\u2014i.e. about the 14th of March. The Diasia was a\nSpring festival and therein as will be shown later (p. 52) lies its true\nsignificance.\n\nFrom Lucian we learn that by his time the Diasia had fallen somewhat into\nabeyance; in the _Icaro-Menippos_ Zeus complains that his altars are as\ncold as the syllogisms of Chrysippos. Worn out old god as he was, men\nthought it sufficient if they sacrificed every six years at Olympia. \u2018Why\nis it,\u2019 he asks ruefully, \u2018that for so many years the Athenians have left\nout the Diasia?\u2019 It is significant that here again, as in the case of\nCylon, the Olympian Zeus has tended to efface from men\u2019s mind the ritual\nof him who bore the title Meilichios. The Scholiast[29] feels that some\nexplanation of an obsolete festival is desirable, and explains: \u2018the\nDiasia, a festival at Athens, which they keep with a certain element\nof chilly gloom (\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), offering sacrifices to Zeus Meilichios.\u2019\nThis \u2018chilly gloom\u2019 arrests attention at once. What has Zeus of the\nhigh heaven, of the upper air, to do with \u2018chilly gloom,\u2019 with things\nabhorrent and abominable? Styx is the chill cold water of death, Hades\nand the Erinyes are \u2018chilly ones\u2019 (\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03af), the epithet is utterly\naloof from Zeus. The Scholiast implies that the \u2018chilly gloom\u2019 comes in\nfrom the sacrifice to Zeus _Meilichios_. Zeus qu\u00e2 Zeus gives no clue, it\nremains to examine the title Meilichios.\n\nXenophon in returning from his Asiatic expedition was hindered, we are\ntold[30], by lack of funds. He piously consulted a religious specialist\nand was informed that \u2018Zeus Meilichios\u2019 stood in his way and that he must\nsacrifice to the god as he was wont to do at home. Accordingly on the\nfollowing day Xenophon \u2018sacrificed and offered a holocaust of pigs in\naccordance with ancestral custom and the omens were favourable.\u2019\n\nThe regular ancestral ritual to Zeus Meilichios was a holocaust of\npigs, and the god himself was regarded as a source of wealth, a sort\nof Ploutos. Taken by itself this last point could not be pressed, as\nprobably by Xenophon\u2019s time men would pray to Zeus pure and simple for\nanything and everything; taken in conjunction with the holocaust and the\ntitle Meilichios, the fact, it will presently be seen, is significant.\nThere is of course nothing to prove that Xenophon sacrificed at the time\nof the Diasia, though this is possible; we are concerned now with the\ncult of Zeus Meilichios in general, not with the particular festival\nof the Diasia. It may be noted that the Scholiast, on the passage of\nThucydides already discussed, says that the \u2018animal sacrifices\u2019 at the\nDiasia were \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, a word usually rendered \u2018sheep\u2019; but if he is basing\nhis statement on any earlier authority \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 may quite well have meant\npig or any four-legged household animal; the meaning of the word was only\ngradually narrowed down to \u2018sheep.\u2019\n\nIt may be said once for all that the exact animal sacrificed is not of\nthe first importance in determining the nature of the god. Pigs came to\nbe associated with Demeter and the underworld divinities, but that is\nbecause these divinities belong to a primitive stratum, and the pig then\nas now was cheap to rear and a standby to the poor. The animal sacrificed\nis significant of the status of the worshipper rather than of the content\nof the god. The argument from the pig must not be pressed, though\nundoubtedly the cheap pig as a sacrifice to Zeus is exceptional.\n\nThe manner of the sacrifice, not the material, is the real clue to\nthe significance of the title Meilichios. Zeus as Meilichios demanded\na holocaust, a whole burnt-offering. The Zeus of Homer demanded and\nreceived the tit-bits of the victim, though even these in token of\nfriendly communion were shared by the worshippers. Such was the custom\nof the Ouranioi, the Olympians in general. Zeus Meilichios will have all\nor nothing. His sacrifice is not a happy common feast, it is a dread\nrenunciation to a dreadful power, hence the atmosphere of \u2018chilly gloom.\u2019\nIt will later be seen that these _un_-eaten sacrifices are characteristic\nof angry ghosts demanding placation and of a whole class of underworld\ndivinities in general, divinities who belong to a stratum of thought\nmore primitive than Homer. For the present it is enough to mark that the\nservice of Zeus Meilichios is wholly alien to that of the Zeus of Homer.\nThe next passage makes still clearer the nature of this service.\n\nMost fortunately for us Pausanias, when at Myonia in Locris, visited[31]\na sanctuary, not indeed of Zeus Meilichios, but of \u2018the Meilichians.\u2019 He\nsaw there no temple, only a grove and an altar, and he learnt the nature\nof the ritual. \u2018The sacrifices to \u201cthe Meilichians\u201d are at night-time and\nit is customary to consume the flesh on the spot before the sun is up.\u2019\nHere is no question of Zeus; we have independent divinities worshipped\non their own account and with nocturnal ceremonies. The suspicion begins\nto take shape that Zeus must have taken over the worship of these dread\nMeilichian divinities with its nocturnal ceremonial. The suspicion is\nconfirmed when we find that Zeus Meilichios is, like the Erinyes, the\navenger of kindred blood. Pausanias[32] saw near the Kephissos \u2018an\nancient altar of Zeus Meilichios; on it Theseus received purification\nfrom the descendants of Phytalos after he had slain among other robbers\nSinis who was related to himself through Pittheus.\u2019\n\nAgain Pausanias[33] tells us that, after an internecine fray, the Argives\ntook measures to purify themselves from the guilt of kindred blood, and\none measure was that they set up an image of Zeus Meilichios. Meilichios,\nEasy-to-be-entreated, the Gentle, the Gracious One, is naturally the\ndivinity of purification, but he is also naturally the other euphemistic\nface of _Maimaktes_, he who rages eager, panting and thirsting for blood.\nThis Hesychius[34] tells us in an instructive gloss. Maimaktes-Meilichios\nis double-faced like the Erinyes-Eumenides. Such undoubtedly would have\nbeen the explanation of the worship of Zeus Meilichios by any educated\nGreek of the fifth century B.C. with his monotheistic tendencies. Zeus he\nwould have said is all in all, Zeus Meilichios is Zeus in his underworld\naspect\u2014Zeus-Hades.\n\nPausanias[35] saw at Corinth three images of Zeus, all under the open\nsky. One he says had no title, another was called He of the underworld\n(\u03c7\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2), the third The Highest. What earlier cults this triple Zeus had\nabsorbed into himself it is impossible to say.\n\nSuch a determined monotheism is obviously no primitive conception, and it\nis interesting to ask on what facts and fusion of facts it was primarily\nbased. Happily where literature and even ritual leave us with suspicions\nonly, art compels a clearer definition.\n\nThe two reliefs in figs. 1 and 2 were found at the Peiraeus and are\nnow in the Berlin Museum[36]. From the inscription on the relief in\nfig. 1 and from numerous other inscribed reliefs found with it, it is\npractically certain that at the place in which they were found Zeus\nMeilichios was worshipped. In any case the relief in fig. 1 is clearly\ndedicated to him. Above the splendid coiled beast is plainly inscribed\n\u2018to Zeus Meilichios\u2019 (\u0394\u03b9\u1f76 \u039c\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03af\u1ff3). We are brought face to face with\nthe astounding fact that Zeus, father of gods and men, is figured by his\nworshippers as a snake.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 1.]\n\nSo astonishing is the inscription that it drove a man of M. Foucart\u2019s\nlearning and ability into strange straits. He was the first to attempt\nthe interpretation of these remarkable reliefs, and so determined is\nhe that the Hellenic Zeus _is_ not, cannot be, a mere snake that he\nresorts to the perfectly gratuitous assumption that Meilichios is\nMoloch (Melek) and that the reliefs are dedicated by foreigners to\ntheir foreign god[37]. We have no evidence that Moloch was figured as a\nsnake, but anything is good enough for a foreigner. This explanation,\nthough supported by a great name, was too preposterous long to command\nattention and another way was sought out of the difficulty. The snake,\nit was suggested, was not the god himself, it was his attribute. Again\nthe assumption is baseless. Zeus is one of the few Greek gods who never\nappear attended by a snake. Asklepios, Hermes, Apollo, even Demeter and\nAthene have their snakes, Zeus never. Moreover when the god developed\nfrom snake form to human form, as, it will later be shown, was the case\nwith Asklepios, _the snake he once was_ remains coiled about his staff\nor attendant at his throne. In the case of Zeus Meilichios in human form\n_the snake he once was not_ disappears clean and clear.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 2.]\n\nThe explanation of the snake as merely an attribute is indeed impossible\nto any unbiassed critic who looks at the relief in fig. 2. Here clearly\nthe snake is the object worshipped by the woman and two men who approach\nwith gestures of adoration. The colossal size of the beast as it towers\nabove its human adorers is the _Magnificat_ of the artist echoed by the\nworshippers. When we confront the relief in fig. 3, also found at the\nPeiraeus, with those in figs. 1 and 2, the secret is out at last. In\nfig. 3 a man followed by a woman and child approaches an altar, behind\nwhich is seated a bearded god holding a sceptre and patera for libation.\nAbove is clearly inscribed \u2018Aristarche to Zeus Meilichios\u2019 (\u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\n\u0394\u03b9\u1f76 \u039c\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03af\u1ff3). And the truth is nothing more or less than this. The\nhuman-shaped Zeus has slipped himself quietly into the place of the\nold snake-god. Art sets plainly forth what has been dimly shadowed\nin ritual and mythology. It is not that Zeus the Olympian has \u2018an\nunderworld aspect\u2019; it is the cruder fact that he of the upper air, of\nthe thunder and lightning, extrudes an ancient serpent-demon of the lower\nworld, Meilichios. Meilichios is no foreign Moloch, he is home-grown,\nautochthonous before the formulation of Zeus.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 3.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 4.]\n\nHow the shift may have been effected art again helps us to conjecture.\nIn the same sanctuary at the Peiraeus that yielded the reliefs in figs.\n1 and 2 was found the inscribed relief[38] in fig. 4. We have a similar\nbearded snake and above is inscribed \u2018Heracleides to the god.\u2019 The\nworshipper is not fencing, uncertain whether he means Meilichios or\nZeus; he brings his offering to the local precinct where the god is a\nsnake and dedicates it to _the_ god, the god of that precinct. It is not\nmonotheism, rather it is parochialism, but it is a conception tending\ntowards a later monotheism. When and where the snake is simply \u2018the god,\u2019\nthe fusion with Zeus is made easy.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 5.]\n\nIn fig. 5 is figured advisedly a monument of snake worship, which it must\nbe distinctly noted comes, not from the precinct of Zeus Meilichios at\nthe Peiraeus, but from Eteonos in Boeotia. When we come to the discussion\nof hero-worship, it will be seen that all over Greece the dead hero\nwas worshipped in snake form and addressed by euphemistic titles akin\nto that of Meilichios. The relief from Boeotia is a good instance of\nsuch worship and is chosen because of the striking parallelism of its\nart type with that of the Peiraeus relief in fig. 3. The maker of this\nclass of votive reliefs seems to have kept in stock designs of groups\nof pious worshippers which he could modify as required and to which\nthe necessary god or snake and the appropriate victim could easily be\nappended. Midway in conception between the Olympian Zeus with his sceptre\nand the snake demon stands another relief[39] (fig. 6), also from the\nPeiraeus sanctuary. Meilichios is human, a snake no longer, but he is\nan earth god, he bears the cornucopia, his victim is the pig. He is\nthat Meilichios to whom Xenophon offered the holocaust of pigs, praying\nfor wealth; he is also the Zeus-Hades of Euripides. We might have been\ntempted to call him simply Hades or Ploutos but for the inscription\n[\u039a\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf]\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7 \u0394\u03b9\u1f76 \u039c\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03af\u1ff3, \u2018Kritoboule to Zeus Meilichios,\u2019 which makes\nthe dedication certain.\n\nBy the light then of these reliefs the duality, the inner discrepancy of\nZeus Meilichios admits of a simple and straightforward solution. It is\nthe monument of a superposition of cults. But the difficulty of the name\nof the festival, _Diasia_, remains. There is no reason to suppose that\nthe name was given late; and, if primitive, how can we sever it from \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2?\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 6.]\n\nIt is interesting to note that the ancients themselves were not quite at\nease in deriving Diasia from \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2. Naturally they were not troubled by\ndifficulties as to long and short vowels, but they had their misgivings\nas to the connotation of the word, and they try round uneasily for\netymologies of quite other significance. The Scholiast on Lucian\u2019s\n_Timon_[40] says the word is probably derived from \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u2018to fawn\non,\u2019 \u2018to propitiate.\u2019 Suidas[41] says it comes from \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, because in the Diasia \u2018men escaped from curses by\nprayers.\u2019 If etymologically absurd, certainly, as will be seen, a happy\nguess.\n\nSuch derivations are of course only worth citing to show that even in\nancient minds as regards the derivation of Diasia from \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 misgiving\nlurked.\n\nThe misgiving is emphasized by the modern philologist. The derivation\nof Diasia with its long from \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 with its short _i_ is scientifically\nimprobable if not impossible. Happily another derivation that at least\nsatisfies scientific conditions has been suggested by Mr R. A. Neil.\nNot only does it satisfy scientific conditions but it also confirms\nthe view arrived at by independent investigation of the ritual and art\nrepresentations of Zeus Meilichios. Mr Neil[42] suggests that in several\nGreek words showing the stem \u03b4\u1fd1\u03bf this stem may stand by the regular\nfalling away of the medial \u03c3 for \u03b4\u1fd1\u03c3\u03bf and is identical with the Latin\n_d\u012bro_[43]. _dirus_, he notes, was originally a purely religious word.\nSuch words would be the D\u012basia, whatever the termination may be, the \u0394\u1fd6\u03b1\nof Teos (p. 143) and perhaps the \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 of Athens. Seen in the light of\nthis new etymology the Diasia becomes intelligible: it is the festival\nof curses, imprecations; it is nocturnal and associated with rites of\nplacation and purgation, two notions inextricably linked in the mind of\nthe ancients.\n\nWe further understand why Meilichios seems the male double of Erinys\nand why his rites are associated with \u2018chilly gloom.\u2019 The Diasia has\nprimarily and necessarily nothing to do with \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2, with Zeus; it has\neverything to do with \u2018dirae,\u2019 magical curses, exorcisms and the like.\nThe keynote of primitive ritual, it will become increasingly clear, is\nexorcism.\n\nIn the light of this new derivation it is possible further to explain\nanother element in the cult of Zeus Meilichios hitherto purposely left\nunnoticed, the famous \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ce\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, the supposed \u2018fleece of Zeus.\u2019 The\n\u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ce\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is, I think, no more the fleece of Zeus than the Diasia is\nhis festival.\n\nPolemon, writing at the beginning of the second century B.C., undoubtedly\naccepted the current derivation, and on the statement of Polemon most of\nour notices of \u2018the fleece of Zeus\u2019 appear to be based. Hesychius[44]\nwrites thus: \u2018The fleece of Zeus: they use this expression when the\nvictim has been sacrificed to Zeus, and those who were being purified\nstood on it with their left foot. Some say it means a great and perfect\nfleece. But Polemon says it is the fleece of the victim sacrificed to\nZeus.\u2019\n\nBut Polemon is by no means infallible in the matter of etymology,\nthough invaluable as reflecting the current impression of his day. Our\nconviction that the \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ce\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is necessarily \u2018the fleece of Zeus\u2019 is\nsomewhat loosened when we find that this fleece was by no means confined\nto the ritual of Zeus, and in so far as it was connected with Zeus, was\nused in the ritual only of a Zeus who bore the titles Meilichios and\nKtesios. Suidas[45] expressly states that \u2018they sacrifice to Meilichios\nand to Zeus Ktesios and they keep the fleeces of these (victims) and call\nthem \u201cDian,\u201d and they use them when they send out the procession in the\nmonth of Skirophorion, and the Dadouchos at Eleusis uses them, and others\nuse them for purifications by strewing them under the feet of those who\nare polluted.\u2019\n\nIt is abundantly clear that Zeus had no monopoly in the fleece supposed\nto be his; it was a sacred fleece used for purification ceremonies in\ngeneral. He himself had taken over the cult of Meilichios, the Placable\nOne, the spirit of purification; we conjecture that he had also taken\nover the fleece of purification.\n\nFinal conviction comes from a passage in the commentary of Eustathius[46]\non the purification of the house of Odysseus after the slaying of the\nsuitors. Odysseus purges his house by two things, first after the slaying\nof the suitors by water, then after the hanging of the maidens by fire\nand brimstone. His method of purifying is a simple and natural one, it\nmight be adopted to-day in the disinfecting of a polluted house. This\nEustathius notes, and contrasts it with the complex magical apparatus\nin use among the ancients and very possibly still employed by the\npagans of his own day. He comments as follows: \u2018The Greeks thought such\npollutions were purified by being \u201csent away.\u201d Some describe one sort of\npurifications, some others, and these purifications they carried out of\nhouses after the customary incantations and they cast them forth in the\nstreets with averted faces and returned without looking backwards. But\nthe Odysseus of the poet does not act thus, but performs a different and\na simpler act, for he says:\n\n \u201cBring brimstone, ancient dame, the cure of ills, and bring me fire\n That I the hall may fumigate.\u201d\u2019\n\nIn the confused fashion of his day and of his own mind Eustathius sees\nthere is a real distinction but does not recognise wherein it lies. He\ndoes not see that Homer\u2019s purification is actual, physical, rational, not\nmagical. He goes on: \u2018Brimstone is a sort of incense which is reputed to\ncleanse pollutions. Hence the poet distinguishes it, calling it \u201ccure of\nills.\u201d In this passage there are none of the incantations usual among\nthe ancients, nor is there the small vessel in which the live coals were\ncarried and thrown away vessel and all backwards.\u2019\n\nWhat half occurs to Eustathius and would strike any intelligent modern\nobserver acquainted with ancient ritual is that the purification of\nthe house of Odysseus is as it were scientific; there is none of the\napparatus of magical \u2018riddance.\u2019 Dimly and darkly he puts a hesitating\nfinger on the cardinal difference between the religion of Homer and\nthat of later (and earlier) Greece, that Homer is innocent, save for an\noccasional labelled magician, of magic. The Archbishop seems to feel\nthis as something of a defect, a shortcoming. He goes on: \u2018It must be\nunderstood that purifications were effected not only as has just been\ndescribed, by means of sulphur, but there are also certain plants that\nwere useful for this purpose; at least according to Pausanias there is\nverbena, a plant in use for purification, and the pig was sometimes\nemployed for such purposes, as appears in the _Iliad_.\u2019 This mention\nof means of purification in general brings irresistibly to the mind\nof Eustathius a salient instance, the very fleece we are discussing.\nHe continues: \u2018Those who interpret the word \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd say that they\napplied the term \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd to the fleece of the animal that had been\nsacrificed to Zeus Meilichios in purifications at the end of the month of\nMaimakterion[47] when they performed the Sendings and when the castings\nout of pollutions at the triple ways took place: and they held in their\nhands a sender which was they say the kerukeion, the attribute of Hermes,\nand from a sender of this sort, _pompos_, and from the \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, the fleece\ncalled \u201cDian,\u201d they get the word \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, divine sending.\u2019\n\nFrom this crude and tentative etymological guessing two important points\nemerge. Eustathius does not speak of the \u2018fleece of Zeus,\u2019 but of the\n_Dian_ or perhaps we may translate _divine_ fleece. \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 is with him an\nadjective to be declined, not the genitive of \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2. This loosens somewhat\nthe connection of the fleece with Zeus, as the adjective \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 could be\nused of anything divine or even magical in its wonder and perfection.\nFurther, and this is of supreme importance, he connects the Dian fleece\nwith the difficult word \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, and in this lies the clue to its\nreal interpretation. \u2018That this,\u2019 he goes on\u2014meaning his derivation\nof \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd from \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 the kerukeion of Hermes and \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd the divine\nfleece\u2014\u2018is so we find from special investigation, but in more general\nparlance by \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd and \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is meant the sending away of\nunclean things in the name of Zeus Averter of Evil.\u2019 Eustathius evidently\ngets nervous; his \u2018special investigation\u2019 is leading him uncomfortably\nnear the real truth, uncomfortably far from the orthodox Zeus, so he\npulls himself up instinctively.\n\nThe explanation of the strange word \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, to which Eustathius at\nthe close of his remarks piously reverts, is still accredited by modern\nlexicons. \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u2014the middle form is the most usual\u2014means, we\nare told, \u2018to avert threatened evils by offerings to Zeus[48].\u2019 Are\nscholars really prepared to believe that \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 means, to put\nit shortly, \u2018to Zeus things away\u2019? The lexicons after this desperate\netymology proceed \u2018hence, to conjure away, to reject with abhorrence,\u2019\nand finally, under a heading apart, \u2018\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd to purify a\nhouse.\u2019 Surely from beginning to end the meaning inherent in the word\nis simply \u2018to rid of pollution\u2019; \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is substantially the\nsame as \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, to send away, to get rid of, but\u2014and this is the\nimportant part\u2014the element \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf emphasizes the means and method of the\n\u2018sending.\u2019 The quantity of the \u03b9 in \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 we have no means of\nknowing, the \u03b9 in Diasia the feast of Zeus Meilichios is long, the \u03b9 in\nthe \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03ce\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd used in his service is long, the \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03ce\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is used in\nritual concerned with \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, its purpose is \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Is\nit too bold to see in the mysterious \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf the same root as has been seen\nin Diasia and to understand \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 as \u2018to effect riddance by\nmagical imprecation or deprecation\u2019?\n\nThe word _dirus_ is charged with magic, and this lives on in the Greek\nword \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 which is more magical than divine. It has that doubleness, for\ncursing and for blessing, that haunts all inchoate religious terms. The\nfleece is not divine in our sense, not definitely either for blessing or\nfor cursing; it is taboo, it is \u2018medicine,\u2019 it is magical. As magical\nmedicine it had power to purify, i.e. in the ancient sense, not to\ncleanse physically or purge morally, but to rid of evil influences, of\nghostly infection.\n\nMagical fleeces were of use in ceremonies apparently the most diverse,\nbut at the bottom of each usage lies the same thought, that the skin\nof the victim has magical efficacy as medicine against impurities.\nDicaearchus[49] tells us that at the rising of the dog-star, when the\nheat was greatest, young men in the flower of their age and of the\nnoblest families went to a cave called the sanctuary of Zeus Aktaios,\nand also (very significantly it would seem) called the Cheironion; they\nwere girded about with fresh fleeces of triple wool. Dicaearchus says\nthat this was because it was so cold on the mountain; but if so, why\nmust the fleeces be fresh? Zeus Aktaios, it is abundantly clear, has\ntaken over the cave of the old Centaur Cheiron; the magic fleeces, newly\nslain because all \u2018medicine\u2019 must be fresh, belong to his order as they\nbelonged to the order of Meilichios.\n\nAgain we learn that whoever would take counsel of the oracle of\nAmphiaraos[50] must first purify himself, and Pausanias himself adds\nthe explanatory words, \u2018Sacrificing to the god is a ceremony of\npurification.\u2019 But the purification ceremony did not, it would appear,\nend with the actual sacrifice, for he explains, \u2018Having sacrificed a\nram they spread the skin beneath them and go to sleep, awaiting the\nrevelation of a dream\u2019; here again, though the name is not used, we have\na \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03ce\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, a magic fleece with purifying properties. It is curious\nto note that Zeus made an effort to take over the cult of Amphiaraos, as\nhe had taken that of Meilichios; we hear of a Zeus Amphiaraos[51], but\nthe attempt was not a great success; probably the local hero Amphiaraos,\nhimself all but a god, was too strong for the Olympian.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe results of our examination of the festival of the Diasia are then\nbriefly this. The cult of the Olympian Zeus has overlaid the cult of\na being called Meilichios, a being who was figured as a snake, who\nwas a sort of Ploutos, but who had also some of the characteristics\nof an Erinys; he was an avenger of kindred blood, his sacrifice was a\nholocaust offered by night, his festival a time of \u2018chilly gloom.\u2019 A\nfurther element in his cult was a magical fleece used in ceremonies of\npurification and in the service of heroes. The cult of Meilichios is\nunlike that of the Olympian Zeus as described in Homer, and the methods\nof purification characteristic of him wholly alien. The name of his\nfestival means \u2018the ceremonies of imprecation.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe next step in our investigation will be to take in order certain\nwell-known Athenian festivals, and examine the ceremonies that actually\ntook place at each. In each case it will be found that, though the\nseveral festivals are ostensibly consecrated to various Olympians, and\nthough there is in each an element of prayer and praise and sacrificial\nfeasting such as is familiar to us in Homer, yet, when the ritual is\nclosely examined, the main part of the ceremonies will be seen to be\nmagical rather than what we should term religious. Further, this ritual\nis addressed, in so far as it is addressed to any one, not to the\nOlympians of the upper air, but to snakes and ghosts and underworld\nbeings; its main gist is purification, the riddance of evil influences,\nthis riddance being naturally prompted not by cheerful confidence but by\nan ever imminent fear.\n\nIn the pages that follow but little attention will be paid to the\nfamiliar rites of the Olympians, the burnt sacrifice and its attendant\nfeast, the dance and song; our whole attention will be focussed on the\nrites belonging to the lower stratum. This course is adopted for two\nreasons. First, the rites of sacrifice as described by Homer are simple\nand familiar, needing but little elucidation and having already received\nsuperabundant commentary, whereas the rites of the lower stratum are\noften obscure and have met with little attention. Second, it is these\nrites of purification belonging to the lower stratum, primitive and\nbarbarous, even repulsive as they often are, that furnished ultimately\nthe material out of which \u2018mysteries\u2019 were made\u2014mysteries which, as will\nbe seen, when informed by the new spirit of the religions of Dionysos and\nOrpheus, lent to Greece its deepest and most enduring religious impulse.\n\n\nATTIC CALENDAR.\n\nNOTE. Names of Festivals selected for special discussion are printed in\nlarge type. Names of Festivals incidentally discussed in italics.\n\n 1. Hecatombaion July, August Kronia, Panathenaia\n\n 2. Metageitnion Aug., September Metageitnia\n\n 3. Boedromion Sept., October Eleusinia and _Greater Mysteries_\n\n 4. _Pyanepsion_ Oct., November THESMOPHORIA. Pyanepsia and\n Oschophoria [Id. Oct. (Oct. 15)\n October Horse]\n\n 5. Maimakterion Nov., December \u2018\u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ce\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u2019\n\n 6. Poseideon Dec., January _Haloa_\n\n 7. Gamelion Jan., February Gamelia (Lenaia?)\n\n 8. _Anthesterion_ Feb., March ANTHESTERIA, DIASIA, _Lesser\n Mysteries_ [XV. Kal. Mart.\n (Feb. 15) Lupercalia] [(Feb.\n 21) Feralia]\n\n 9. Elaphebolion March, April Dionysia\n\n 10. Munychion April, May Munychia, Brauronia\n\n 11. _Thargelion_ May, June THARGELIA, _Kallynteria_,\n _Plynteria_ (May 15 Argei,\n June 15 Vestalia,\n Q. St. D. F.)\n\n 12. Skirophorion June, July _Skirophoria_, _Arrephoria_,\n Dipolia, Bouphonia\n\nThe Athenian official calendar began in the month Hecatombaion\n(July-August) at the summer\u2019s height. In it was celebrated the great\nfestival of the Panathenaia, whose very name marks its political import.\nSuch political festivals, however magnificent and socially prominent, it\nis not my purpose to examine; concerning the gist of primitive religious\nconceptions they yield us little. The Panathenaia is sacred rather to\na city than a goddess. Behind the Panathenaia lay the more elementary\nfestival of the Kronia, which undoubtedly took its name from the faded\ndivinity Kronos; but of the Kronia the details known are not adequate for\nits fruitful examination.\n\nA cursory glance at the other festivals noted in our list shows that\nsome, though not all, gave their names to the months in which they were\ncelebrated, and (a fact of high significance) shows also that with one\nexception, the Dionysia, these festivals are not named after Olympian or\nindeed after any divinities. _Metageitnia_, the festival of \u2018changing\nyour neighbours,\u2019 is obviously social or political. The Eleusinia are\nnamed after a place, so are the Munychia and Brauronia. The Thesmophoria,\nOschophoria, Skirophoria and Arrephoria are festivals of _carrying\nsomething_; the Anthesteria, Kallynteria, Plynteria festivals of persons\nwho _do something_; the Haloa a festival of _threshing-floors_, the\nThargelia of _first-fruits_, the Bouphonia of _ox-slaying_, the Pyanepsia\nof _bean-cooking_. In the matter of nomenclature the Olympians are much\nto seek.\n\nThe festivals in the table appended are arranged according to the\nofficial calendar for convenience of reference, but it should be noted\nthat the agricultural year, on which the festivals primarily depend,\nbegins in the autumn with sowing, i.e. in Pyanepsion. The Greek\nagricultural year fell into three main divisions, the autumn sowing\nseason followed by the winter, the spring with its first blossoming\nof fruits and flowers beginning in Anthesterion, and the early summer\nharvest (\u1f44\u03c0\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1) beginning in Thargelion, the month of first-fruits; to\nthis early harvest of grain and fruits was added with the coming of the\nvine the vintage in Boedromion, and the gathering in of the later fruits,\ne.g. the fig. All the festivals fall necessarily much earlier than the\ndates familiar to us in the North. In Greece to-day the wheat harvest is\nover by the middle or end of June.\n\nNo attempt will be made to examine all the festivals, for two practical\nreasons, lack of space and lack of material; but fortunately for us we\nhave adequate material for the examination of one characteristic festival\nin each of the agricultural seasons, the Thesmophoria for autumn, the\nAnthesteria for spring, the Thargelia for early summer, and in each case\nthe ceremonies of the several seasons can be further elucidated by the\nexamination of the like ceremonies in the Roman calendar. To make clear\nthe superposition of the two strata[52], which for convenience\u2019 sake may\nbe called Olympian and chthonic, the Diasia has already been examined. In\nthe typical festivals now to be discussed a like superposition will be\nmade apparent, and from the detailed examination of the lower chthonic\nstratum it will be possible to determine the main outlines of Greek\nreligious thought on such essential points as e.g. purification and\nsacrifice.\n\nIt would perhaps be more methodical to begin the investigation with\nthe autumn, with the sowing festival of the Thesmophoria, but as the\nThesmophoria leads more directly to the consummation of Greek religion in\nthe Mysteries it will be taken last. The reason for this will become more\napparent in the further course of the argument. We shall begin with the\n_Anthesteria_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE ANTHESTERIA.\n\nTHE RITUAL OF GHOSTS AND SPRITES.\n\n\nOur examination of the unpromising Diasia has so far led us to the\nfollowing significant, if somewhat vague, results. The festival in\nall probability did not originally belong to Zeus, but to a being\ncalled Meilichios, a snake god or demon. The worship of this being was\ncharacterized by nightly ceremonies, holocausts which the sun might not\nbehold, it was gloomy in character, potent for purification. The name of\nthe festival is probably associated with _dirae_, curses, imprecations.\n\nThe Diasia, gloomy though it is, is a spring festival and its\nsignificance will be yet more plainly apparent if we examine another,\n_the_ other spring festival of the Greeks, i.e. the Anthesteria, which\ngives its name to the first spring month Anthesterion.\n\nIf we know little about the Diasia, about the Anthesteria[53] we know\nmuch. Apollodorus, quoted by Harpocration, tells us that the whole\nfestival collectively was called _Anthesteria_, that it was celebrated in\nhonour of Dionysos, and that its several parts, i.e. its successive days,\nwere known as Pithoigia (cask-opening), Choes (cups), Chytroi (pots). The\nexact date of the festival is fixed, the three successive days falling\nfrom the 11th to the 13th of Anthesterion[54].\n\nOn the first day, the 11th of Anthesterion, i.e. the Pithoigia,\nPlutarch[55] tells us \u2018they broached the new wine at Athens. It was an\nancient custom,\u2019 he adds, \u2018to offer some of it as a libation before they\ndrank it, praying at the same time that the use of the drug (\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5)\nmight be rendered harmless and beneficial to them.\u2019 This is a clear case\nof the offering of first-fruits[56]. Among his own people, the Boeotians,\nPlutarch adds, \u2018the day was called the day of the Good Spirit[57], the\nAgathos Daimon, and to him they made offerings. The month itself was\nknown as Prostaterios.\u2019 The scholiast to Hesiod[58] tells us that the\nfestival was an ancestral one (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2), and that it was not\nallowable to hinder either household slaves or hired servants from\npartaking of the wine.\n\nThe casks once opened, the revel set in and lasted through the next day\n(the Choes or Cups) and on through the third (the Chytroi or Pots). The\nday of the Choes seems to have been the climax, and sometimes gave its\nname to the whole festival.\n\nIt is needless to dwell on all the details of what was in intent a\nthree days\u2019 fair. A \u2018Pardon\u2019 in the Brittany of to-day affords perhaps\nthe nearest modern analogy. The children have holidays, fairings are\nbought, friends are feasted, the sophists get their fees, the servants\ngenerally are disorganized, and every one down to the small boys, as\nmany a vase-painting tells us, is more or less drunk. The drinking bore\nof course its ritual aspect; there is a drinking contest presided over\nby the King Archon, he who first drains his cup gets a cake, each man\ncrowns his cup with a garland and deposits the wreath in keeping of the\npriestess of the sanctuary of Dionysos in the Marshes. On the day of the\n_Cups_ takes place the august ceremony of the wedding of the wife of the\nKing Archon to the god Dionysos. On that day alone in all the year the\ntemple of Dionysos is opened[59]; the wedding ceremony itself takes place\nin the Boukoleion.\n\nOn the third day, the _Chytroi_ or Pots, there was a dramatic contest\nknown as \u03a7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, Pot-contests. During this third day the revel went\non; Aristophanes[60] has left us the picture of the drunken mob thronging\nthe streets at the holy Pot-Feast:\n\n \u2018O brood of the mere and the spring,\n Gather together and sing\n From the depths of your throat\n By the side of the boat\n Co\u00e4x, as we move in a ring.\n\n As in Limnae we sang the divine\n Nyse\u00efan Giver of Wine,\n When the people in lots\n With their sanctified Pots\n Came reeling around my shrine.\u2019\n\nThe scholiast on the _Acharnians_[61], a play which gives us a lively\npicture of the festival, says that the Choes and the Chytroi were\ncelebrated on one day. The different days and acts of the whole\nAnthesteria were doubtless not sharply divided, and if each day was\nreckoned from sunrise to sunset confusion would easily arise.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSo far a cursory inspection clearly shows that the Anthesteria was a\nwine-festival in honour of Dionysos. Moreover we have the definite\nstatement of Thucydides[62] that \u2018the more ancient Dionysia were\ncelebrated on the 12th day of the month Anthesterion in the temple of\nDionysos in the Marshes.\u2019 The reference can only be to the Choes, so that\nthe festival of the Choes seems actually to have borne the name Dionysia.\nHarpocration[63] goes even further; he says, quoting Apollodorus, that\n\u2018the whole month was sacred to Dionysos.\u2019\n\nA more searching examination of the sources reveals beneath the surface\nrejoicings, as in the case of the Diasia, another and more primitive\nritual, and a ritual of widely different significance. It has escaped no\nstudent of Greek festivals that through the Anthesteria there ran \u2018a note\nof sadness.\u2019 Things were not altogether so merry as they seemed. This\nhas been variously explained, as due to the \u2018natural melancholy of the\nspring,\u2019 or more recently as evidence of the fact that Dionysos had his\n\u2018chthonic side\u2019 and was the \u2018Lord of souls.\u2019 A simpler explanation lies\nat the door.\n\nThe clue to the real gist of the Anthesteria is afforded by a piece\nof ritual performed on the last day, the _Chytroi_. The Greeks had a\nproverbial expression spoken, we are told, of those who \u2018on all occasions\ndemand a repetition of favours received.\u2019 It ran as follows: \u2018Out of the\ndoors! ye Keres; it is no longer Anthesteria.\u2019 Suidas[64] has preserved\nfor us its true signification; it was spoken, he says, \u2018implying that\nin the Anthesteria the ghosts are going about in the city.\u2019 From this\nfragmentary statement the mandate, it is clear, must have been spoken at\nthe close of the festival, so we cannot be wrong in placing it as the\nlast act of the Chytroi.\n\nThe statement of Suidas in itself makes the significance of the words\nabundantly clear, but close parallels are not wanting in the ritual\nof other races. The Lemuria at Rome is a case in point. According to\nOvid[65] each father of a family as the festival came round had to\nlay the ghosts of his house after a curious and complex fashion. When\nmidnight was come and all was still, he arose and standing with bare\nfeet he made a special sign with his fingers and thumb to keep off any\nghost. Thrice he washes his hands in spring water, then he turns round\nand takes black beans into his mouth; with face averted he spits them\naway, and as he spits them says, \u2018These I send forth, with these beans I\nredeem myself and mine.\u2019 Nine times he speaks, and looks not back. The\nghost, they believe, picks them up and follows behind if no one looks.\nAgain he touches the water and strikes the brass of Temesa and begs the\nghost to leave his house. When nine times he has said, \u2018Shades of my\nfathers, depart\u2019 (Manes exite paterni!), he looks back and holds that\nthe rite has been duly done. We cannot impute to the Anthesteria all the\ncrude minutiae of the Lemuria, but the content is clearly the same\u2014the\nexpulsion of ancestral ghosts. The Lemuria took place not in the spring\nbut in the early summer, May\u2014a time at which ceremonies of purification\nwere much needed.\n\nA second striking parallel is recorded by Mr Tylor[66]. He says of a like\nSclavonic custom, \u2018when the meal was over the priest rose from the table\nand hunted out the souls of the dead like fleas with these words: \u201cYe\nhave eaten and drunk, souls, now go, now go\u201d.\u2019 Dr Oldenberg[67] calls\nattention to another analogy. In sacrifices in India to the dead the\nsouls of ancestors are first invoked, then bidden to depart, and even\ninvited to return again after the prescribed lapse of a month.\n\nThe formula used at the close of the Anthesteria is in itself ample proof\nthat the Anthesteria was a festival of All Souls; here at last we know\nfor certain what was dimly shadowed in the Diasia, that some portion at\nleast of the ritual of the month Anthesterion was addressed to the powers\nof the underworld, and that these powers were primarily the ghosts of\nthe dead. The evidence is not however confined to an isolated proverbial\nformulary. The remaining ritual of the Chytroi confirms it. Before they\nwere bidden to depart the ghosts were feasted and after significant\nfashion.\n\nThe scholiast on Aristophanes[68] commenting on the words \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03a7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9, \u2018at the holy Pot-feast,\u2019 explains the ceremonies as follows:\n\u2018The Chytroi is a feast among the Athenians; the cause on account of\nwhich it is celebrated is explained by Theopompos who writes thus: ...\n\u201cThey have the custom of sacrificing at this feast, not to any of the\nOlympian gods at all, but to Hermes Chthonios\u201d; and again in explaining\nthe word \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, pot: \u201cAnd of the pot which all the citizens cook none of\nthe priests tastes, they do this on the (13th) day\u201d; and again: \u201cThose\npresent appease Hermes on account of the dead\u201d.\u2019 The scholiast on another\npassage in Aristophanes[69] says substantially the same, but adds, again\non the authority of Theopompos, that the practice of cooking the dish of\nseeds was observed by those who were saved from the deluge on behalf of\nthose who perished. The deluge is of course introduced from a desire to\nget mythological precedent; the all-important points are that the \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1,\nthe dish of grain and seeds, was offered to none of the Olympians, not\neven to Dionysos in whose honour the festival was ostensibly celebrated,\nbut only to Hermes Chthonios, Hermes of the Underworld, and that of this\nsacrifice _no man tasted_. It was no sacrifice of communion, but like\nthe holocaust made over utterly to dread chthonic powers, and behind\nthis notion of sacrifice to the underworld deities lay the still earlier\nnotion that it was dead men\u2019s food, a supper for the souls.\n\nBefore we leave the \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 it is necessary to examine more precisely the\nname of the day, Chytroi. August Mommsen[70] has emphasized the fact, too\nmuch neglected, that the name of the festival is masculine, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\nnot \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9. The feminine form \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 means pots artificially made;\nthe masculine form \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, which occurs far less frequently, means in\nordinary parlance natural pots, i.e. holes in the ground. Pausanias[71]\nspeaks of a certain natural bath at Thermopylae which the country people\ncalled \u2018the Chytroi of the women\u2019; and Herodotus[72] describes it in\nthe same terms. Theophrastos[73] in his _History of Plants_ speaks of a\ncertain plant as growing in a place between the Kephisos and the Melas,\n\u2018the place being called Pelekania, i.e. certain hollows in the marsh,\nthe so-called Pot-holes.\u2019 Hesychius[74], interpreting \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, says\nthey are \u2018the hollow places of the earth through which springs come up.\u2019\nThe word \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ae\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1 itself, in classical Greek a natural pool, became in\nmediaeval Greek a font, and it may be noted that the natural chasms that\noccur in western Yorkshire still locally bear the name of \u2018Pots.\u2019\n\nIt is possible therefore that the festival took its name from natural\nholes in the ground in the district of the Limnae where it was\ncelebrated, a district to this day riddled with Turkish cisterns made of\ngreat earthen jars (\u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9). Such holes may have been used for graves, and\nwere in many parts of Greece regarded as the constant haunt of ghosts\ngoing up and down. They were perhaps the prototypes of the \u2018chasms in the\nearth\u2019 seen in the vision of Er[75]. Near akin were the megara or chasms\nof Demeter at Potniae[76], and the clefts on and about the Pnyx where\nthe women celebrated the Thesmophoria (p. 125). Such chasms would be the\nnatural sanctuaries of a Ge and ghost cult.\n\nIt is obvious that the two forms \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 and \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 would easily pass over\ninto each other, and it is hard to say which came first. It is also to be\nnoted that, though the masculine form more often means natural hole, it\nis also used for artificial pot. Pollux[77], in discussing \u2018the vessels\nused by cooks,\u2019 says that when Delphilos speaks of the big pot (\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd) at the cook\u2019s, he clearly means the \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, not the foot-pan\n(\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1). Though the form \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 ultimately established itself, the\nassociations of \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, artificial pot, seem to have prevailed, and these\nassociations are important and must be noted.\n\nHesychius[78] says that by \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae is meant the \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 which they prepared\nfor those who cleansed the cities. From the scholiast on the _Choephoroi_\nof Aeschylus[79] we learn that the Athenians purified their houses with a\ncenser made of a pot; \u2018this they threw away at the meeting of three ways\nand went away without turning back.\u2019 Here we have of course the origin\nof \u2018Hecate\u2019s suppers.\u2019 These were primarily not feasts for the goddess\nbut purification ceremonies, of which, as no mortal might taste them, it\nwas supposed an infernal goddess partook. The day of the Chytroi was a\nday of such purifications. From some such notion arose the Aristophanic\nword \u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u2018to pot,\u2019 i.e. to utterly ruin and destroy, to make\naway with. The scholiast[80] explains it as referring to the practice\nof exposing children, but Suidas[81] knows of another meaning; he says\nthe \u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 were those \u2018women who purified the unclean, pouring\nupon them the blood of the victim,\u2019 and also those who \u2018poured libations\nto the dead,\u2019 those in a word who performed ceremonies of placation and\npurgation.\n\nIt is curious that, though most modern writers from Crusius onwards\nhave recognised that the Chytroi was a _dies nefastus_ and in the main\na festival of ghosts, this day has been separated off from the rest of\nthe Anthesteria, and the two previous days have been regarded as purely\ndrinking festivals:\u2014the Pithoigia the opening of the wine-cask, the\nChoes the drinking of the wine-cups. And yet for the second day, the\nChoes, literary testimony is explicit. Spite of the drinking contest, the\nflower-wreathed cups and the wedding of Dionysos, all joyful elements of\nthe service of the wine-god, the Choes was a _dies nefastus_, an unlucky\nday, a day to be observed with apotropaic precautions. Photius[82], in\nexplaining the words \u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, \u2018day of pollution,\u2019 says such a day\noccurred \u2018in the Choes in the month of Anthesterion, in which (i.e.\nduring the Choes) they believed that the spirits of the dead rose up\nagain. From early morning they used to chew buckthorn and anointed their\ndoors with pitch.\u2019 Buckthorn, known to modern botanists as _Rhamnus\ncatharticus_, is a plant of purgative properties. The ancient Athenian,\nlike the modern savage, believed that such plants have the power of\nkeeping off evil spirits, or rather perhaps of ejecting them when\nalready in possession. Chewing a substance was naturally a thorough\nand efficient way of assimilating its virtues. The priestess of Apollo\nchewed the laurel leaf. It seems possible that she may have primarily\nhad to do this rather as a means of ejecting the bad spirits than to\nobtain inspiration from the good. Fasting is a substantial safe-guard,\nbut purgation more drastically effective. The prophylactic properties of\n_rhamnus_, buckthorn, were well known to the ancients. Dioscorides[83]\nin his _Materia Medica_ writes, \u2018it is said that branches of this plant\nattached to doors or hung up outside repel the evil arts of magicians.\u2019\nPossibly, in addition to the chewing of buckthorn, branches of it were\nfastened to doors at the festival of the Choes, and served the same\npurpose as the pitch. Pitch, Photius tells us in commenting on _rhamnus_,\nwas on account of its special purity used also to drive away sprites at\nthe birth of a child\u2014always a perilous moment[84].\n\nIt is not easy to imagine an enlightened citizen of the Athens of the\nfifth century B.C., an Aeschylus, a Pericles, chewing buckthorn from\nearly dawn to keep off the ghosts of his ancestors, but custom in such\nmatters has an iron hand. If the masters of the house shirked the\nchewing of buckthorn, the servants would see to it that the doors were\nat least anointed with pitch; it is best to be on the safe side in these\nmatters, and there is the public opinion of conservative neighbours to\nbe considered. Be this as it may, it is quite clear that the day of the\n_Choes_ was a day of ghosts like the day of the _Chytroi_.\n\nBut, if the ceremonies of the Choes clearly indicate the \u2018unlucky\u2019 nature\nof the day, what is to be made of the name? Nothing, as it stands.\n_Choes_, _Cups_, are undeniably cheerful. But, as in the case of Chytroi,\nthere _may_ have been a confusion between approximate forms; the two\nwords \u03c7\u03bf\u03ae, funeral libation, and \u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, cup, have a common stem \u03c7\u03bf\u03dd.\nMay not \u03c7\u03cc\u03b5\u03c2 have superimposed itself on \u03c7\u03bf\u03b1\u03af, wine-cups upon funeral\nlibations? A scholiast on Aristophanes[85] seems to indicate some such\na _contaminatio_. In explaining the word \u03c7\u03bf\u03ac\u03c2, he says the meaning is\n\u2018pourings forth, offerings to the dead or libations. An oracle was\nissued that they must offer libations (\u03c7\u03bf\u03ac\u03c2) yearly to those of the\nAetolians who had died, and celebrate the festival so called.\u2019 Here the\nname of a festival \u03a7\u03bf\u03ac\u03c2 is oxytone, and though we cannot assume that\nit was identical with the Athenian Choes, it looks as if there was some\nconfusion as to the two analogous forms.\n\nIf we view the Choes as \u03a7\u03bf\u03b1\u03af, the Cups as Libations, the anomalous\nand, as it stands, artificial connection of Orestes with the festival\nbecomes at once clear. At the drinking bout of the Choes, we learn from\nAthenaeus[86] and other authorities, the singular custom prevailed that\neach man should drink by himself. A mythological reason was sought to\naccount for this, and the story was told[87] that Orestes, polluted by\nthe blood of his mother, came to Athens at the time of the celebration of\nthe Choes. The reigning king, variously called Pandion and Phanodemus,\nwished to show him hospitality, but religious scruple forbade him to let\na man polluted enter the Sanctuaries or drink with those ceremonially\nclean. He therefore ordered the Sanctuaries to be shut and a measure of\nwine (\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2) to be set before each man severally, and bade them, when\nthey had finished drinking, not to offer up the garlands with which\nthey had been crowned in the Sanctuaries, because they had been under\nthe same roof with Orestes; but he bade each man place his wreath round\nhis own cup, and so bring them to the priestess at the precinct of the\nLimnae. That done, they were to perform the remaining sacrifices in\nthe Sanctuary. From this, Athenaeus adds, the festival got the name of\n_Cups_. The mad Orestes in the _Iphigenia in Tauris_[88] tells the same\ntale and na\u00efvely states that, though he was hurt by the procedure, he\ndare not ask the reason, knowing it all too well.\n\nThe whole account is transparently aetiological. Some mythological\nprecedent is desired for the drinking bout of the Choes, based as it was\non a ceremony of funeral libations; it is sought and found or rather\ninvented in the canonical story of Orestes, and he is made to say in a\nfashion almost too foolish even for a madman:\n\n \u2018And this I learn, that my mishaps became\n A rite for the Athenians; and Pallas\u2019 folk\n Have still this custom that they reverence\n The Choan vessel.\u2019\n\nIf we suppose that the Cups (\u03c7\u03cc\u03b5\u03c2) were originally Libations (\u03c7\u03bf\u03b1\u03af), the\nsomewhat strained punctilio of the host becomes at least intelligible.\nOrestes is polluted by the guilt (\u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) of his mother\u2019s blood, he finds\nthe people in the Limnae[89], close to the Areopagos, celebrating the\n\u03a7\u03bf\u03b1\u03af, the libations to the dead; till he is purified from kindred blood\nhe cannot join: all is simple and clear.\n\nIf the Choes were in intent \u03c7\u03bf\u03b1\u03af, the Cups Libations, the ceremony has\nan interesting parallel in a rite performed at the Eleusinian mysteries.\nAthenaeus[90], in discussing various shapes of cups says: \u2018The plemocho\u00eb\nis an earthen vessel shaped like a top that stands fairly steady; some\ncall it, Pamphilos tells us, the cotyliscus. And they use it at Eleusis\non the last day of the mysteries, which takes its name Plemochoai from\nthe cup. On this day they fill two plemochoae and set them up, the one\ntowards the East, the other towards the West, and pronounce over them a\nmagic formula. The author of the _Peirithous_ mentions them, whether he\nbe Ktesias the Tyrant or Euripides, as follows:\n\n \u201cThat these plemochoae down the Chthonian chasm\n With words well-omened we may pour.\u201d\u2019\n\nIt is at least significant that a compound of the word \u03c7\u03bf\u03ae should both\ngive its name to a festival day and to a vessel used in chthonic ritual.\n\nThe Chytroi and Choes then bear unmistakeably a character of gloom,\nand in their primary content are festivals of ghosts. But what of the\nPithoigia? Surely this day is all revel and jollity, all for Dionysos?\n\nHad we been dependent on literature alone, such would have been our\ninevitable conclusion. In Plutarch\u2019s account of the Pithoigia (p.\n33), the earliest and fullest we possess, there is no hint of any\nworship other than that of the wine-god, no hint of possible gloom.\nEustathius[91] indeed tells of a Pithoigia or Jar-opening which was\n\u2018not of a festal character, but in every respect unlucky,\u2019 but this is\nthe Pithoigia, the Jar-opening, of Pandora. Here we have a hint that a\nPithoigia need not be an opening of wine-jars; there are other jars,\nother openings, but save for the existence of one small fragile monument\nthe significance of the hint would have escaped us.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 7.]\n\nIn the vase-painting in fig. 7 from a lekythos in the University Museum\nof Jena[92] we see a Pithoigia of quite other and more solemn intent. A\nlarge _pithos_ is sunk deep into the ground. It has served as a grave.\nIn primitive days many a man, Diogenes-like, lived the \u2018life of the\njar\u2019 (\u03b6\u03c9\u1f74 \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5), but not from philosophy, rather from dire necessity.\nDuring the Peloponnesian war, when the city was crowded with refugees,\na jar (\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03ac\u03ba\u03bd\u03b7) was a welcome shelter[93]. A man\u2019s home during his life\nis apt to be his grave in death. In the Dipylon Cemetery at Athens, at\nAphidna[94], at Corfu, at Thoricus, and in many another burying place,\nsuch grave _pithoi_ have come to light. From the grave-jar in fig. 7 the\nlid has been removed; out of it have escaped, fluttering upward, two\nwinged Keres or souls, a third soul is in the act of emerging, a fourth\nis diving headlong back into the jar. Hermes Psychopompos, with his magic\nstaff in his hand, is evoking, _re_voking the souls. The picture is a\nspeaking commentary on the Anthesteria; we seem to hear the mandate \u2018Out\nof the doors! ye souls; it is no longer Anthesteria!\u2019 The Pithoigia of\nthe Anthesteria is the primitive Pithoigia of the _grave_-jars, later\noverlaid by the Pithoigia of the _wine_-jars.\n\nThe vase-painting in fig. 7 must not be regarded as an actual conscious\nrepresentation of the Athenian rite performed on the first day of the\n_Anthesteria_. It is more general in content; it is in fact simply a\nrepresentation of ideas familiar to every Greek, that the _pithos_\nwas a grave-jar, that from such grave-jars souls escaped and to them\nnecessarily returned, and that Hermes was Psychopompos, Evoker and\nRevoker of souls. The vase-painting is in fact only another form of the\nscene so often represented on Athenian white lekythoi, in which the souls\nflutter round the grave-stele. The grave-jar is but the earlier form of\nsepulture; the little winged figures, the Keres, are identical in both\nclasses of vase-painting.\n\nThe nature of these Keres will be further analysed when we come to the\ndiscussion of primitive demonology. For the present it is enough to note\nthat the Keres in the vase-paintings and the Keres of the Anthesteria\nare regarded as simply souls of dead men, whereas the little winged\nphantoms that escape from Pandora\u2019s jar are indeed ghosts, but ghosts\nregarded rather as noisome sprites than as spirits; they are the source\nof disease and death rather than dead men\u2019s souls. The jar of Pandora is\nnot so much a grave as a store-house of evil; the _pithos_ as store-house\nnot only of wine but of grain and all manner of provisions was familiar\nto the Greeks. The ordinary _pithos_ was pointed at the base and buried\npermanently in the earth like a Turkish cistern; a row of such pithoi,\nlike those recently unearthed at Cnossus, might serve equally as a\nwine-cellar or a granary or a cemetery.\n\nThe attributes of Hermes in the vase-painting in fig. 7 are noticeable.\nIn one hand he holds his familiar herald\u2019s staff, the kerykeion. But, and\nthis is the interesting point, he is not using it; it is held in the left\nhand, inert; it is merely attributive, present out of convention. The\nreal implement of his agency in revoking the souls is held uplifted in\nthe right hand; it is his rhabdos, his magic wand.\n\nThis _rhabdos_ is, I think, clearly to be distinguished from the\nkerykeion, though ultimately the two became contaminated. The kerykeion\nor herald\u2019s staff is in intent a king\u2019s sceptre held by the herald as\ndeputy; it is a staff, a walking-stick, a \u03b2\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, by which you are\nsupported; the _rhabdos_ is a simple rod, even a pliable twig, a thing\nnot by which you are supported but with which you sway others. It is in a\nword the enchanter\u2019s wand.\n\nIt is with a rhabdos that Circe[95] transforms the comrades of Odysseus\ninto swine; it is as magical as the magic potion they drink:\n\n \u2018Straight with her rhabdos smote she them and penned them in the sties.\u2019\n\nWith the rhabdos Hermes[96] led the ghosts of the slain suitors to Hades.\nHe held in his hand\n\n \u2018His rhabdos fair and golden wherewith he lulls to rest\n The eyes of men whoso he will, and others by his hest\n He wakes from sleep. He stirred the ghosts; they followed to their doom\n And gibbered like the bats that throng and gibber in the gloom.\u2019\n\nThis magic wand became the attribute of all who hold sway over the dead.\nIt is the wand, not the sceptre, that is the token of life or death, as\nPindar[97] shows:\n\n \u2018Nor did Hades the king\n Forget his wand to wave\n Whereby he doth bring\n Shapes of men dying\n Adown the hollow roadway of the grave.\u2019\n\nThe rhabdos as magic wand was \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03af\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _enchanter_ of the dead,\nbefore it became as sceptre \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03af\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _ruler_ of mortals.\n\nEustathius tells us in the passage already discussed[98], that the\nkerykeion was also called \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2, conductor, and that it was carried\nin the hands of those who performed ceremonies of purification. He\nis trying, it will be remembered, to derive the words \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd and\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. When an ancient author is trying to derive words, we\nare bound to accept his statements only with the utmost caution; still\nin this particular instance there seems no reason for suspecting the\nstatement that the kerykeion was called \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2; it is dragged in quite\ngratuitously, and does not help out the proposed derivation. What\nEustathius says is this: \u2018At the end of the month Maimakterion they\nperform ceremonies of sending, among which was the carrying of the magic\nfleece, and there take place then throwings out of purifications at the\ncrossways, and they hold in their hands the _pompos_ (i.e. conductor),\nthe which they say is the kerykeion, the attribute of Hermes.\u2019 The object\nof the whole ceremony is \u2018to send out polluted things.\u2019 It is, I think,\nsignificant that the kerykeion, or rather to be strictly accurate the\nrhabdos[99], was carried in apotropaic ceremonies, presumably with a view\nto exorcise bad spirits, which as will appear later were regarded as the\nsource of all impurities. It is the other face of revocation; the rhabdos\nis used either for the raising or the laying of ghosts, for the induction\n(\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae) of good spirits, for the exorcism (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae) of bad.\n\nIn discussing the Anthesteria on a previous occasion[100], I felt\nconfident that in the opening of the grave-jars we had the complete\nsolution of the difficulty of the unlucky character of the day Pithoigia.\nIt seems to me now in the light of further investigation that another\nritual element may have gone to its determination.\n\nPlutarch[101], in discussing the nature of the sacred objects committed\nto the care of the Vestal Virgins, makes the following notable statement:\n\u2018Those who pretend to have most special knowledge about them (i.e. the\nVestal Virgins) assert that there are set there two jars (\u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9) of no\ngreat size, of which the one is open and empty, the other full and sealed\nup, and neither of them may be seen except by these all-holy virgins. But\nothers think that this is false, and that the idea arose from the fact\nthat the maidens then placed most of their sacred things in two jars, and\nhid them underground below the temple of Quirinus, and that the place\neven now is called from that by the title _Pithisci_ (Doliola).\u2019 We have\ntwo other notices of these Doliola. Varro[102] says: \u2018The place which is\ncalled Doliola is at the Cloaca Maxuma, where people are not allowed to\nspit. It is so called from the jars beneath the earth. Two accounts are\ngiven of these jars: some say they contain the bones of dead bodies,\nothers that after the death of Numa Pompilius certain sacred objects\n(religiosa quaedam) were buried there.\u2019 Festus[103] gives substantially\nthe same account, but he says that the sacred objects were buried there\nwhen the Gauls invaded the city.\n\nOf jars containing \u2018sacra\u2019 we have in Greece no knowledge, but it is\nsignificant to find that Zeus, who was the heir to so much antique\nritual, had on his threshold in Olympus two jars, one containing good the\nother evil[104]:\n\n \u2018Jars twain upon Zeus\u2019 threshold ever stood;\n One holds his gifts of evil, one of good.\u2019\n\nWith some such notion as that of the Pithoigia must have been connected\nthe ceremony of the opening of the _mundus_ or round pit on the Palatine.\nFestus[105] tells us that on three days in the year, August 24, October\n5, November 6, the _lapis manalis_ that covered it was removed. Varro,\nquoted by Macrobius[106], adds: \u2018when the _mundus_ is open, the gate of\nthe doleful underworld gods is open.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt has been shown that the ritual of each of the several days points\ndeterminedly ghost-wards. The names in each case _admit_ at least of\nchthonic interpretation. It remains to examine the collective name\n_Anthesteria_.\n\nThe ancients sought and found what was to them a satisfactory etymology.\nIstros, writing in the third century B.C. and quoted by Harpocration,\nsays that Anthesterion is the blossoming month because then \u2018the most\nof the things that spring from the earth blossom forth[107].\u2019 The\n_Etymologicon Magnum_[108] offers an easy-going alternative: feast and\nmonth bear their names either because the earth then began to blossom, or\nbecause they offered flowers at the festival.\n\nIt was not the habit of those days to trouble about \u2018verb-stems\u2019 and\n\u2018nouns of the agent in \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1,\u2019 but it is surprising to find that the\ndubious guess hazarded by Istros should have passed so long unchallenged\nby modern science, the more so as flowers have but a general and\naccidental connection with the ritual of the feast. Are scholars really\ncontent with an etymology that makes of the Anthesteria the festival of\nthose who \u2018did the flowers\u2019?\n\nIn a recent paper in the _Hellenic Journal_[109] Dr A. W. Verrall has\nfaced the difficulty and offered a new solution. The names of festivals,\nhe points out, are no exception to the rule that nouns in \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf are\nnormally formed from verb-stems through the \u2018noun of the agent\u2019 in \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1,\nand take their sense from the action described by the verb, as \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. In like fashion the names of festivals ending\nin \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 describe the action in which the ceremony consisted, or with\nwhich it was chiefly connected. Thus \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 is a feast or ceremony\nof \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 of \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 and so on. _Prima facie_ then\na derivation of _Anthesteria_, should start from the assumption that the\nstem is verbal.\n\n\u201cBut we need not assume that the verbal stem is \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3-. Perhaps \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3-\nitself needs analysis; and for the first syllable there is an obviously\npossible origin in the preposition \u1f00\u03bd- (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac), of which so many examples\n(e.g. \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1 = \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1) are preserved in the poets. The verb-stem\nwill then be \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3-, which is in fact a verb-stem and has more than one\nmeaning. The meaning which would perhaps in any case have suggested\nitself first, and which now seems especially attractive, is that which\nappears in the archaic verb \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 or \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 _to pray_ or _pray\nfor_[110], and in the adjectives \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Prayers and\ninvocations addressed to the dead were a regular part of the proceedings\nby which they were brought back to the world of the living. The compound\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 would, after the analogy of \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd and the like, bear the\nsense _to raise by prayer_ or _to recall by prayer_, literally \u2018to pray\nup\u2019 or \u2018pray back.\u2019 And \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, derived from \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, would be\nthe _feast of revocation_, the name, as usual, signifying the action in\nwhich the ceremony consisted and which was the object of it[111].\u201d\n\nIn connection with this new and illuminating etymology, it is interesting\nto note that even in their misguided derivation from \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 the ancients\nthemselves lay stress not so much on the flowers as on the rising\nup[112], the \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2. Under the word \u1f0c\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 the _Etymologicon\nMagnum_ says \u2018a title of Hera when she sends up (\u1f00\u03bd\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9) fruits,\u2019 where\nthere seems a haunting of the true meaning though none of the _form_[113].\n\nDr Verrall declines to assert positively the derivation of _Anthesteria_\nhe propounds, but a second philological argument brings certain\nconviction. Mr R. A. Neil suggests that the root which appears in Greek\nas \u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 may appear as _fes fer_ in Latin. This gives us the delightful\nequation or rather analogy \u1f00\u03bd-\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3-\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, _in-fer-iae_. Of course\n_inferiae_ is usually taken as from _inferi_, _infra_ etc., but no Latin\nword ought to have medial _f_ except when preceded by a separable prefix.\nTo make certainty more certain we have the Feralia, the festival of All\nSouls, kept from the 13th to the 31st of the month of Fe(b)ruary. The\nmonth of _purification_ is the month of rites to the dead, in a word\n_purgation is the placation of souls_. This is true for Latin and Greek\nalike and will emerge more clearly when we come to study in detail the\nritual of the month of February.\n\n\nANTHESTERION AND FEBRUARY.\n\nThe general analogy between the months of Anthesterion and February,\nand the fact that both alike were unlucky and given over to the service\nof the dead, was clear to the ancients themselves. The scholiast on\nLucian\u2019s _Timon_[114], commenting on the word _Diasia_, says: \u2018The day is\nunlucky ... there were among the Greeks certain days which brought with\nthem complete idleness and cessation of business, and which were called\nunlucky (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2). On these days no one would accost any one else,\nand friends would positively have no dealings with each other, and even\nsanctuaries were not used. These times were so accounted on the analogy\nof the month of February, when also it was the custom to sacrifice to\nthose below, and all that month was dedicated to the dead and accompanied\nby gloom, everything going on in an unusual fashion just as the Athenians\ncelebrated the Diasia in gloom.\u2019 Clearly to the scholiast the Diasia is\nbut one element of a month given over to the dead.\n\nThe meaning of Anthesterion, the significance of its ceremonies, have\nbeen effectively overlaid by the wine-god and his flower garlands, but\nwith the Romans there was no such superposition and consequently no\nmisunderstanding. They clearly realized two things, that February was the\nmonth of the dead, and that it was the month of purification. Plutarch in\nhis _Roman Questions_[115] asks \u2018Why was Decimus Brutus wont to sacrifice\nto the dead in December, whereas all other Romans offered libations and\nsacrifices to the dead in the month of February?\u2019 In his twenty-fifth\nQuestion[116], while discussing the reasons why the days following\nrespectively the Calends, Nones and Ides of each month were unlucky,\nhe tells us that the Romans \u2018used to consecrate the first month of the\nyear to the Olympian gods, but the second to the gods of the earth,\nand in this second month (February) they were wont to practise certain\npurifications and to sacrifice to the dead.\u2019 Athenaeus[117] states that\n\u2018Juba the Mauretanian said that the month of February was so called from\nthe terrors of the lower world, with regard to means taken for riddance\nfrom such alarms at the time when the winter is at its height, and it\nis the custom to offer libations to the dead on several days.\u2019 Juba the\nMauretanian must have known quite well that in February the winter was\nnot at its height. He states correctly the fact that February was a month\ndevoted to ceremonies for the riddance of terrors from the underworld,\nbut carelessly adds an impossible reason for the selection of this\nparticular month.\n\nOvid is of all witnesses the most weighty because his testimony is\nin part unconscious. In the opening words of the second book of the\n_Fasti_[118], after an invocation to Janus, he goes straight to the\nquestion of what the Romans meant by the word _februum_; he notes that\nthe term was applied to many things, wool, a branch from a pine-tree,\ngrain roasted with salt, and finally concludes that \u2018any thing by which\nthe soul was purged was called by his rude ancestors _februum_.\u2019\n\n \u2018Denique quodcumque est, quo pectora nostra piantur,\n Hoc apud intonsos nomen habebat avos.\u2019\n\nThe month he feels sure got its name from these \u2018februa\u2019 or\npurifications, but he asks \u2018was it because the Luperci purified all\nthe soil with the strips of skin and accounted that a purification or\natonement, or was it because when the _dies ferales_ were accomplished\nthen _owing to the fact that the dead were appeased_ there was a season\nof purity?\u2019\n\n \u2018Mensis ab his dictus secta quia pelle Luperci\n Omne solum lustrant idque piamen habent?\n Aut quia placatis sunt tempora pura sepulcris,\n Tunc cum ferales praeteriere dies?\u2019\n\nBoth the ceremonials, the Lupercalia and the Feralia, were, he\nknows, cathartic: that Fe(b)rua and Feralia were etymologically and\nsignificantly the same naturally he does not guess. Still less could he\nconjecture that etymologically February and Anthesterion are in substance\none.\n\nThe two great February festivals[119] to which Ovid alludes are of course\nthe Feralia and the Lupercalia, celebrated respectively on the 21st and\n15th of February.\n\nThe Feralia was but the climax of a series of days beginning on Feb. 13th\nand devoted to ceremonies of the worship of ancestors, Parentalia. It is\ncurious that, though the Lemuria (May 9-13) were marked as Nefasti, none\nof the days of the Parentalia were so marked: still from the 13th to the\n21st marriages were forbidden, temples closed, and magistrates appeared\nwithout their insignia; clearly there was some lingering dread of ghosts\nthat might be about. Parentalia and Feralia alike were ceremonies wholly\ndevoted to the placation of ghosts.\n\nIn the Lupercalia, on the other hand, it is purification rather than\nplacation that is the prominent feature in the rites. Much in the\nLupercalia is obscure, and especially the origin of its name, but one\nritual element is quite certain. Goats and a dog were sacrificed, two\nyouths girt themselves in the skins of the slain goats, they held in\ntheir hands strips of the hides of the victims. They ran round a certain\nprescribed portion of the city, and as they ran smote the women they\nmet with the strips of skin. These strips of skin were among the things\nknown as _februa_, _purifiers_, and by their purifying power they became\nfertility charms.\n\n \u2018Forget not in your speed, Antonius,\n To touch Calpurnia, for our elders say\n The barren touch\u00e8d in this holy chase\n Shake off their sterile curse[120].\u2019\n\nThere has been much needless discussion as to whether in ceremonies\nwhere striking and beating occur the object is to drive out evil spirits\nor to stimulate the powers of fertility. Primitive man does not so\nnarrowly scrutinize and analyse his motives. To strike with a sacred\nthing, whether with a strip of skin from a victim or a twig from a holy\ntree, was to apply what the savage of to-day would call \u2018good medicine.\u2019\nPrecisely how it worked, whether by expulsion or impulsion, is no\nbusiness of his.\n\nWhen the Catholic makes the sacred sign of the Cross over his food, is\nhe, need he be quite clear as to whether he does it to induce good or to\nexorcise evil? The peasant mother of to-day may beat her boy partly with\na view to stirring his dormant moral impulses, but it is also, as she is\ncareful to explain, with intent to \u2018beat the mischief out of him.\u2019 In the\nthird Mime of Herondas[121] the mother is explicit as to the expulsive\nvirtue of beating. Her boy is a gambler and a dunce, so she begs the\nschoolmaster to\n\n \u2018Thrash him upon his shoulders till his spirit,\n Bad thing, is left just hovering on his lips.\u2019\n\nShe is in the usual primitive dilemma: his spirit is bad but it is his\nlife; it is kill and cure.\n\nThe strips of goat-skin were _februa_[122], purifying, and thereby\nfertility charms. As such they cast sudden illumination on the \u2018magic\nfleece\u2019 already discussed. The animal sacrificed, be it sheep or goat\nor dog, is itself a placation to ghosts or underworld powers; hence its\nskin becomes of magical effect: the deduction is easy, almost inevitable.\nThe primary gist of the sacrifice is to appease and hence keep off evil\nspirits; it is these evil spirits that impair fertility: in a word\n_purification is the placation of ghosts_.\n\nThe question \u2018What was purity to the ancients?\u2019 is thus seen to be\nanswered almost before it is asked. Purity was not _spiritual_ purity in\nour sense\u2014that is foreign to any primitive habit of thought, nor was it\nphysical purity or cleanliness\u2014it was possible to be covered from head to\nfoot with mud and yet be ceremonially pure. But so oddly does the cycle\nof thought come round, that the purity of which the ancients knew _was_,\nthough in a widely different sense, _spiritual_ purity, i.e. freedom from\nbad spirits and their maleficent influence. To get rid of these spirits\nwas to undergo purification. In the month of February and Anthesterion\nthe Roman or Greek might, _mutatis mutandis_, have chanted our Lenten\nhymn:\n\n \u2018Christian, dost thou see them\n On the holy ground\n How the hosts of Midian\n Prowl and prowl around?\n Christian, up and smite them!\u2019\n\nTill the coming of the new religion of Dionysos, the Greek notion\nof purity seems not to have advanced beyond this negative combative\nattitude, this notion of spiritual forces outside and against them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe question yet remains \u2018Why did this purification need to take place\nin the spring?\u2019 The answer is clear. Why did our own near ancestors have\nspring cleanings?\n\n \u2018Winter rains and ruins are over\n And all the season of snows and sins,\n ...\n While in green underwood and cover\n _Blossom by blossom the Spring begins_.\u2019\n\nWinter is a reckless time with its Christmas and its Saturnalia. There is\nlittle for the primitive agriculturist to do and less to fear. The fruits\nof the earth have died down, the gods have done their worst. But when the\ndead earth begins to awake and put forth bud and blossom, then the ghosts\ntoo have their spring time, then is the moment to propitiate the dead\nbelow the earth. Ghosts were placated that fertility might be promoted,\nfertility of the earth and of man himself.\n\nIt is true that the primitive rites of February and Anthesterion, of\nRomans and Greeks, were in the main of \u2018riddance.\u2019 The ghosts, it would\nseem from the ritual of the Choes and Chytroi, the chewing of buckthorn,\nanointing with pitch, the mandate to depart, were feared as evil\ninfluences to be averted; but there is curious evidence to show that at\nthe time of the Anthesteria the coming of the ghosts was regarded as a\ndirect promotion of fertility. Athenaeus[123], quoting the Commentaries\nof Hegesander[124], tells us of a curious tradition among the natives\nof Apollonia in Chalkis. \u2018Around Apollonia of Chalkidike there flow two\nrivers, the Ammites and the Olynthiacus and both fall into the lake\nBolbe. And on the river Olynthiacus stands a monument of Olynthus,\nson of Herakles and Bolbe. And the natives say that in the months of\nElaphebolion and Anthesterion the river rises because Bolbe sends the\nfish apopyris to Olynthus, and at that season an immense shoal of fish\npasses from the lake to the river Olynthus. The river is a shallow one,\nscarcely overpassing the ankles, but nevertheless so great a shoal of\nthe fish arrives that the inhabitants round about can all of them lay up\nsufficient store of salt fish for their needs. And it is a wonderful fact\nthat they never pass by the monument of Olynthus. They say that formerly\nthe people of Apollonia used to perform the accustomed rites to the dead\nin the month of Elaphebolion, but now they do them in Anthesterion, and\nthat on this account the fish come up in those months only in which they\nare wont to do honour to the dead.\u2019 Here clearly the dead hero is the\nsource of national wealth, the honours done him are the direct impulsion\nto fertility. The gloomy rites of _aversion_ tend to pass over into a\ncheerful, hopeful ceremonial of \u2018tendance.\u2019\n\nTo resume, the Anthesteria was primarily a Feast of All Souls: it\nlater[125] became a revel of Dionysos, and at the revel men wreathed\ntheir cups with flowers, but, save for a vague and unscientific\netymology, we have no particle of evidence that the Anthesteria was ever\na Feast of Flowers. The transition from the revocation of ghosts with\nits dire association to a drunken revel may seem harsh, but human nature\nis always ready for the shift from Fast to Feast, witness our own Good\nFriday holiday.\n\n\nTHE RITUAL OF \u1f18\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af.\n\nIn the light of the ceremonies of the spring month February and\nAnthesterion, it is now possible to advance a step in the understanding\nof Greek ritual terminology and through it of Greek religious thought.\n\nIn the first chapter the broad distinction was established between\nsacrifice to the Olympians of the upper air\u2014sacrifice which involved\ncommunion with the worshipper, and sacrifice to chthonic powers which\nforbade this communion\u2014in which the sacrifice was wholly made over to the\nobject of sacrifice. The first, the Olympian sacrifice, is expressed by\ntwo terms, \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; the second, if the sacrifice is burnt, by\n\u1f41\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, and as will presently be seen by \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, also more generally\nby the term \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nAs regards the Olympian terms, it is only necessary to say definitely\nwhat has already been implied, that \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd strictly is applicable only\nto the portion of the sacrifice that was actually burnt with a view\nto sublimation, that it might reach the gods in the upper air; whilst\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd applies rather to the portion unburnt, which was sacred indeed,\nas its name implies, to the gods, but was actually eaten in communion by\nthe worshipper. With the growing prevalence of burnt sacrifice and the\nincreasing popularity of the Olympians and their service, the word \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\ncame to cover the whole field of sacrifice, and in late and careless\nwriters is used for any form of sacrifice burnt or unburnt without any\nconsciousness of its primary meaning.\n\nThe term \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is strictly used only of the sacrifice of an animal;\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd is the animal victim. Among the Homeric Greeks sacrifice and\nthe flesh feast that followed were so intimately connected that the\none almost implied the other; the \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, the animal victim, was the\nmaterial for the \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, the flesh feast. So prominent in the\nHomeric mind was the element of feasting the worshipper that the feast\nis sometimes the only stated object. Thus Odysseus[126] gives command to\nTelemachus and his thralls:\n\n \u2018Now get you to my well-built house, the best of all the swine\n Take you and quickly _sacrifice_ that straightway we may dine.\u2019\n\nHere the object is the meal, though incidentally sacrifice to the gods\nis implied. It is not that on the occasion of sacrifice to the gods man\nsolemnly communicates, but that when man would eat his fill of flesh food\nhe piously remembers the gods and burns a little of it that it may reach\nthem and incline their hearts to beneficence.\n\nIn the Homeric sacrifice there is communion, but not of any mystical\nkind; there is no question of partaking of the life and body of the god,\nonly of dining with him. Mystical communion existed in Greece, but, as\nwill be later seen, it was part of the worship of a god quite other than\nthese Homeric Olympians, the god Dionysos.\n\nBefore we leave the \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, the animal sacrificed and eaten, one word\nof caution is necessary. It is sometimes argued that animal sacrifice,\nas contrasted with the simpler offerings of grain and fruits, is the\nmark of a later and more luxurious civilization. Such was the view of\nPorphyry[127] the vegetarian. Flesh-eating and flesh sacrifice is to\nhim the mark of a cruel and barbarous licence. Such too was the view\nof Eustathius[128]. In commenting on the \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, the barley grain\nscattered, he says, \u2018after the offering of barley grain came sacrifices\nand the eating of meat at sacrifices, because after the discovery of\nnecessary foods the luxury of a meat diet and imported innovations in\nfood were invented.\u2019 As a generalization this is false to facts; it\ndepends on the environment of a race whether man will first eat vegetable\nor animal food; but as regards the particular case of the Greeks\nthemselves, the observations of Porphyry and Eustathius are broadly\ntrue. The primitive dwellers in Greece and round the Mediterranean\ngenerally lived mainly on vegetarian diet, diversified by fish, and the\ncustom of flesh-eating in large quantities was an innovation brought from\nwithout[129] (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd). Athenaeus[130] in his first book discusses\nthe various kinds of food, and dwells with constant astonishment on the\nflesh-eating habits of the Achaean heroes of Homer. He quotes the comic\npoet Eubulos as asking\n\n \u2018I pray you, when did Homer ever make\n An Achaean chief eat fish? \u2019tis always flesh,\n And roasted too, not boiled.\u2019\n\nAchaean chiefs, he notes\u2014and in this they resemble their northern\ndescendants\u2014\u2018do not care for made-dishes, kickshaws and the like. Homer\nsets before them only roast meat, and for the most part beef, such as\nwould put life into them, body and soul.\u2019 It is true Athenaeus is arguing\nabout the simplicity of the Homeric as contrasted with later Greek life,\nbut the fact he states is beyond dispute, i.e. that the Homeric diet was\nmainly of flesh and unlike the vegetarian and fish diet of the ordinary\nGreek. Given a flesh diet for man, and the sacrifice of flesh to the gods\nhe makes in his own image follows.\n\nThe terms \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd belong then to sacrifice regarded as a\nfeast; it remains to consider the term \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, in the definition of\nwhich we come, I think, to the fullest understanding of the ideas of the\nlower stratum of Greek religion.\n\nFirst it is necessary to establish the fact that in usage the terms \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\nand \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd are clearly distinguished. A passage in Pausanias is for\nthis purpose of capital importance. Pausanias is visiting a sanctuary of\nHeracles at Sicyon. He makes the following observations[131]: \u2018In the\nmatter of sacrifice they are accustomed to do as follows. They say that\nPhaestos, when he came to Sicyon, found the Sicyonians devoting offerings\nto Heracles as to a hero. But Phaestos would do nothing of the kind, but\nwould sacrifice to him as to a god. And even now the Sicyonians, when\nthey slay a lamb and burn the thighs upon the altar, eat a portion of the\nflesh as though it were a sacrificial victim, and another part of the\nflesh they make over as to a hero.\u2019 The passage is not easy to translate,\nbecause we have no English equivalent for \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. I have translated\nthe word by \u2018devote\u2019 because it connotes entire dedication\u2014part of the\nsacrifice is shared, eaten by the worshipper in common with Heracles\nregarded as a _god_, the other part is utterly consecrated to Heracles\nas a hero; it is dead men\u2019s food. Pausanias, who is often careless in\nhis use of \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, here carefully marks the distinction. The victim is an\nanimal: part of it is offered to an Olympian\u2014that portion is shared; part\nof it is offered, like the offerings at the _Chytroi_, to no Olympian,\nbut to a ghost, and of that portion no man eats.\n\nA second passage from Pausanias adds a further element of\ndifferentiation. At Megalopolis, Pausanias visited a sanctuary of the\nEumenides. Of their ritual he speaks as follows[132]: \u2018They say that when\nthese goddesses would drive Orestes mad they appeared to him black, but\nthat after he had bitten off his finger they seemed to him white, and his\nsenses returned to him, and therefore he made over an offering to the\nblack goddesses to turn away their wrath, but to the white ones he did\nsacrifice.\u2019\n\nLanguage and ritual could scarcely speak more plainly: \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is to the\nOlympians, a joyous thanksgiving to gods who are all white and bright,\nbeneficent, of the upper air; \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is to those below who are black\nand bad and malignant: \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is for \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, tendance; \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd for\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, riddance.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe distinction between the two forms of ritual having been thus\ndefinitely established, it remains to examine more closely the word\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and the ritual it expresses, that of the dead\u2014a ritual which,\nit must at this point be remembered, is also concerned with purification.\n\nThe word \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd can only mean the making of or dealing with something\nthat is of the nature of an \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, or, as the word sometimes appears, a\n\u1f05\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. It did not escape that acute observer of man and his language,\nArchbishop Eustathius[133], that this word and its cognate \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, holy,\nhad in ancient days a double significance, that holy was not only\npure but also polluted; this, he says, \u2018is on account of the double\nmeaning of \u1f05\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2.\u2019 To put the matter into modern phraseology, \u1f05\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 is\nthe thing that is _taboo_, the thing consecrated to the gods, and hence\nforbidden to man, the thing \u2018devoted.\u2019 The word lies deep down in the\nritual of ancient sacrifice and of ancient religious thought; it is the\nvery antithesis of communion; it is tinged with, though not quite the\nequivalent of, expiation.\n\nFortunately we are not left to conjecture as to what was the precise\nnature of the ceremonies covered by the word \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. We know what\nwas done, though we have no English word fully to express that doing.\nThis fact may well remind us that we have lost not only the word but the\nthought, and must be at some pains to recover it. In the discussion that\nfollows no translation of \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd will be attempted: I shall frankly\nuse the Greek word and thereby avoid all danger from misleading modern\nconnotations[134].\n\nQuite accidentally, in the middle of a discourse on the various sorts of\nsoap and washing basins, Athenaeus[135] has preserved for us a record of\nthe exact ritual of \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af. After stating that the word \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd,\nwashing off, is applied alike to the water in which either feet or hands\nare washed, he goes on to note that the word \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1, \u2018offscouring,\u2019\nslightly different in form but substantially the same in meaning,\nhas among the Athenians a technical ritual usage. \u2018The term \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\nis specially applied _to the ceremonies in honour of the dead_ and to\n_those that take place in the purification of the polluted_.\u2019 The word\ntranslated \u2018polluted\u2019 is \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, i.e. under or in a state of \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. He\nthen proceeds to quote from a lost treatise on ceremonies of \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2,\nthe exact details of the ritual. \u2018Kleidemos, in his treatise called\n_Exegeticus_, writes on the subject of \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af as follows: \u201cDig a\ntrench to the west of the tomb. Then, look along the trench towards the\nwest, pour down water, saying these words: A purification for you to whom\nit is meet and right. Next pour down a second time myrrh.\u201d Dorotheos adds\nthese particulars, alleging that the following prescription is written\nalso in the ancestral rites of the Eupatridae concerning the purification\nof suppliants: \u201cNext having washed himself, and the others who had\ndisembowelled the victim having done the same, let him take water and\nmake purification and wash off the blood from the suppliant who is being\npurified, and afterwards, having stirred up the washing, pour it into the\nsame place.\u201d\u2019\n\nThe conjoint testimony of the two writers is abundantly clear: either\nalone would have left us in doubt as to the real gist of the ceremony.\nKleidemos tells us that it was addressed to the dead; the trench near the\ntomb, the western aspect of the setting sun, the cautious formulary, \u2018To\nyou to whom it is meet and right,\u2019 all tell the same tale. It is safest\nnot even to name the dead, lest you stir their swift wrath. But Kleidemos\nleaves us in the dark as to why they want an \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1, \u2018an offscouring,\u2019\nwater defiled: why will not pure water or water and myrrh suffice?\nDorotheos supplies the clue\u2014those who have slain the victim wash the\nblood from their hands and _wash it off him who has been purified_, and\nthen stirring it all up pour it into the trench. The ghost below demands\nthe _blood of the victim washed off from the polluted suppliant_: when\nthe ghost has drunk of this, then, and not till then, there is placation\nand purification.\n\nThat the ghost should demand the blood of the victim is natural enough;\nthe ghosts in the Nekuia of the _Odyssey_ \u2018drink the black blood\u2019 and\nthereby renew their life; but in ceremonies of purification they demand\npolluted water, the \u2018offscourings,\u2019 and why? The reason is clear. The\nvictim is a surrogate for the polluted suppliant, the blood is put upon\nhim that he may be identified with the victim, the ghost is deceived\nand placated. The ghost demands blood, not to satisfy a physical but so\nto speak a spiritual thirst, the thirst for vengeance. This thirst can\nonly be quenched by the water polluted, the \u2018offscourings\u2019[136] of the\nsuppliant.\n\nThe suppliant for purification in the ritual just described was\nidentified with the victim, or rather perhaps we should say the victim\nwith the suppliant, by pouring over the suppliant the victim\u2019s blood.\nThere were other means of identification. It has already been seen (p.\n27) that the suppliant sometimes put on the whole skin of the victim,\nsometimes merely stood with his foot on the fleece. Another and more\nattenuated form of identification was the wearing of fillets, i.e.\nstrands of wool confined at intervals by knots to make them stronger.\nSuch fillets were normally worn by suppliants and by seers: the symbolism\nfor suppliants is obvious, for seers evident on a closer inspection.\nThe seer himself was powerless, but he could by the offering of a\nsacrifice to ghosts or heroes invoke the mantic dead; he wears the\nsymbols of this sacrifice, the wreath and the fillets. Later their\nsignificance was forgotten, and they became mere symbols of office. The\nomphalos at Delphi, itself a mantic tomb, was covered with a net-work of\nwool-fillets, renewed no doubt at first with the offering of each new\nvictim, later copied in stone[137], but always the symbol of recurring\nsacrifice.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 8.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 9.]\n\nFillets of wool became as it were the attributes of the sacrificial\nvictim. In the curious vase-painting[138] in fig. 8 Salmoneus, himself\nthe victim, is wreathed, decorated all over with fillets, which of\ncourse, as there was no animal slain, are merely symbolic[139]. Animal\nvictims in like fashion are adorned for sacrifice with these merely\nroutine fillets. The animal sacrifice is to the ghost the surrogate of\nthe human victim, the fillet in its turn the surrogate of the animal.\n\nThe dread ceremonial of \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 in its crudest, most barbarous\nform, is very clearly shown on the vase-painting in fig. 9, from a\n\u2018Tyrrhenian\u2019 amphora now in the British Museum[140]. The scene depicted\nis the sacrifice of Polyxena on the tomb of Achilles. In the _Hecuba_ of\nEuripides[141], Neoptolemos takes Polyxena by the hand and leads her\nto the top of the mound, pours libations to his father, praying him to\naccept the \u2018soothing draughts,\u2019 and then cries\n\n \u2018Come thou and drink the maiden\u2019s blood\n Black and unmixed.\u2019\n\nIn the centre of the design in fig. 9 is the omphalos-shaped grave[142],\nwhich is in fact the altar. Right over it the sacrifice takes place.\nNeoptolemos, as next of kin to the slain man, is the sacrificer;\nPolyxena, as next of kin to the slayer, is the sacrifice. The ghost of\nthe slain man drinks her blood and is appeased, and thereby the army is\npurged.\n\nThe blood only is offered to the ghost\u2014the blood is the life, and it is\nvengeance, not food, the ghost cries for. It is so with the Erinyes, who\nare but angry ghosts[143]; when they hunt Orestes they cry[144],\n\n \u2018The smell of human blood smiles wooingly.\u2019\n\nEarth polluted has drunk a mother\u2019s blood, and they in turn\n\n \u2018Will gulp the living gore red from his limbs[145].\u2019\n\nWhen the ghost of Achilles has drunk the fresh blood of the maiden her\nbody will be burnt, not that it may rise as a sweet savour to the gods\nabove, but as a holocaust; it is a \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u1f04\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, a sacrifice without\nfeast. It will be burnt on the low-lying _eschara_ or portable hearth\nthat stands on the grave. The _eschara_ was by the ancients clearly\ndistinguished from the altar proper, the \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2. The _eschara_, says the\nscholiast on the _Phoenissae_[146] of Euripides, is \u2018accurately speaking\nthe trench in the earth where they offer \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af to those who are gone\nbelow; the altar is that on which they sacrifice to the heavenly gods.\u2019\n\nPorphyry[147], who is learned in ritual matters, draws the same\ndistinction. \u2018To the Olympian gods they set up temples and images and\naltars, but to the Earth-gods and to heroes, escharas, while for those\nbelow the earth there are trenches and megara.\u2019\n\nIt is on an _eschara_ that Clytaemnestra does her infernal service to the\nErinyes[148]. She cries to them in bitter reproach:\n\n \u2018How oft have ye from out my hands licked up\n Wineless libations, sober offerings,\n And on the hearth of fire banquets grim\n By night, an hour unshared of any god!\u2019\n\nHer ritual was the ritual of the underworld abhorred of the Olympians.\n\nThe eschara on which the holocaust to the underworld gods is burnt\nlies low upon the ground; the \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, the altar of the Olympians, rises\nhigher and higher heavenwards. There is the like symbolism in the actual\nmanner of the slaying of the victim. Eustathius[149], in commenting\non the sacrifice of Chryses to Phoebus Apollo, when they \u2018drew back\nthe victims\u2019 heads,\u2019 says \u2018according to the custom of the Greeks, for\nif they are sacrificing to those above they bend back the neck of the\nsacrificial animal so that it may look away towards the sky, but if\nto heroes or to the dead in general the victim is sacrificed looking\ndownwards.\u2019 Eustathius[150] again says of the prayer of Achilles, \u2018by\nlooking heavenwards he expresses vividly whither the prayer is directed,\nfor Achilles is not praying to Zeus of the underworld, but to Zeus of the\nsky.\u2019 The Christian of to-day, though he believes his God is everywhere,\nyet uplifts his hands to pray. For the like reason the victim for the\ndead was black and that for the Olympians frequently white; that for the\ndead sacrificed at the setting of the sun, that for the Ouranians at the\ndawn[151]. Upon certain holocausts, as has already been seen, the sun\nmight not look.\n\nThe ritual of the \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af is then of _purgation by placation of the\nspirits of the underworld_. The extreme need of primitive man for\nplacation is from the stain of bloodshed; purgation from this stain is at\nfirst only obtained by the offering of the blood of the murderer himself,\nthen by the blood of a surrogate victim applied to him.\n\nIt is, I think, probable that at the back of many a mythological legend\nthat seems to us to contain what we call \u2018human sacrifice\u2019 there lies,\nnot the slaying of a victim for the pleasure of a Moloch-like god, but\nsimply the appeasement of an angry ghost. So long as primitive man\npreserves the custom of the blood-feud, so long will he credit his dead\nkinsman with passions like his own.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn this connection it is interesting to note some further details of the\nritual terminology of \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af as contrasted with that of the service of\nthe Olympians.\n\nThe sacrifice burnt that the Olympians may eat of it is \u03b8\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, the\nthing burned to smoke; the sacrificial victim slain to be eaten by the\nworshipper is \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd; the victim slain for placation and purification\nis by correct authors called by another name, it is a \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, a thing\nslaughtered. The word explains itself: it is not the sacrifice burnt,\nnot the sacred thing killed and carved for a meal, but simply the victim\nhacked and hewn to pieces. Such a victim was not even necessarily\nskinned. Of what use to carefully flay a thing doomed to utter\ndestruction? In the _Electra_ of Euripides[152] the old man describes\nsuch a \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd:\n\n \u2018I saw upon the pyre with its black fleece\n A sheep the victim, and fresh blood outpoured.\u2019\n\nIt is interesting to note in this connection that the word \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is\nalways used of human victims, and of such animals as were in use as\nsurrogates. The term is applied to all the famous maiden sacrifices of\nmythology. Ion[153] asks Creousa:\n\n \u2018And did thy father sacrifice thy sisters?\u2019\n\nAnd Creousa with greater ritual precision makes answer:\n\n \u2018He dared to slay them as _sphagia_ for the land.\u2019\n\nAs a \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd Polyxena[154] is slain on the tomb of Achilles; she dies as\nan atonement, a propitiation, as \u2018medicine of salvation.\u2019\n\nThe normal and most frequent use of \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 was, as in the case of\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af in general, for purification by placation. In stress of great\nemergency, of pestilence, of famine, and throughout historical times at\nthe moment before a battle, \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 were regularly offered. They seem to\nhave been carried round or through the person or object to be purified.\nAthenaeus[155] records an instructive instance. The inhabitants of\nKynaetho, a village in Arcadia, neglected the civilizing influences of\ndancing and feasting, and became so savage and impious that they never\nmet except for the purpose of quarrelling. They perpetrated at one time\na great massacre, and after this, whenever their emissaries came to any\nother of the Arcadian cities, the citizens by public proclamation bade\nthem depart, and the Mantineans after their departure made a purification\nof the city, leading the slaughtered victims round the whole circuit of\nthe district.\n\nAs purifications the use of \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 needs no further comment. It is less\nobvious at first why \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 were always employed in the taking of oaths.\nThe expression \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 is the equivalent of the familiar \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1. In the _Suppliants_ of Euripides[156] Athene says to Theseus:\n\n \u2018Hearken whereinto thou must cut the _sphagia_.\u2019\n\nShe then bids him write the oaths in the hollow of a tripod-cauldron\nand then cut the throats of the victims into the cauldron, thus clearly\nidentifying the oaths and the blood.\n\nIn the ordinary ritual of the taking of oaths, the oath-taker actually\nstood upon the pieces of the slaughtered animal. Pausanias[157], on the\nroad between Sparta and Arcadia, came to a place called \u2018Horse\u2019s Tomb.\u2019\nThere Tyndareus sacrificed a horse and made Helen\u2019s suitors take an oath,\ncausing them to stand on the cut-up pieces of the horse,\u2014having made them\ntake the oath, he buried the horse. At Stenyclerum[158] in Messenia was\nanother monument, called \u2018Boar\u2019s Monument,\u2019 where it was said Herakles\nhad given an oath to the sons of Neleus on the cut pieces of a boar. Nor\nis the custom of swearing on the cut pieces recorded only by mythology.\nIn the Bouleuterion at Elis was an image of Zeus, \u2018of all others,\u2019 says\nPausanias[159], \u2018best fitted to strike terror into evildoers.\u2019 Its\nsurname was Horkios, He of the Oath. Near this image the athletes, their\nfathers, brothers, and trainers had to swear on the cut pieces of a boar\nthat they would be guilty of no foul play as regarded the Olympian games.\nPausanias regrets that he \u2018forgot to ask what they did with the boar\nafter the oath had been taken by the athletes.\u2019 He adds, \u2018With the men of\nold days the rule was as regards a sacrificial animal on which an oath\nhad been taken that it should be no more accounted as eatable for men.\nHomer,\u2019 he says, \u2018shows this clearly, for the boar on the cut pieces of\nwhich Agamemnon swore that Briseis had not been partner of his bed is\nrepresented as being cast by the herald into the sea:\n\n \u201cHe spake and with the pitiless bronze he cut\n The boar\u2019s throat, and the boar Talthybios whirled\n And in the great wash of the hoary sea\n He cast it to the fish for food[160].\u201d\n\nThis in ancient days was their custom about such matters.\u2019\n\nThe custom of standing on the fragments of the victim points clearly to\nthe identification of oath-taker and sacrifice. The victim was hewn in\nbits; so if the oath-taker perjure himself will he be hewn in bits: the\nvictim is not eaten but made away with, utterly destroyed, _devoted_; a\nlike fate awaits the oath-breaker: the oath becomes in deadly earnest a\nform of self-imprecation.\n\nStill less obvious is it why sacrifices to the winds should uniformly\nhave taken the form of \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 rather than \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1. At first sight the\nwinds if anything would appear to be Ouranian powers of the upper air,\nyet it would appear that sacrifices to the winds were buried, not burnt.\n\nWhat astonished Pausanias[161] more than anything else he saw at Methana\nin Troezen was a ceremony for averting the winds. \u2018A wind called Lips,\nwhich rushes down from the Saronic gulf, dries up the tender shoots of\nthe vine. When the squall is upon them two men take a cock, which must\nhave all its feathers white, tear it in two, and run round the vines in\nopposite directions, each of them carrying one half of the cock. When\nthey come back to the place they start from they bury the cock there.\nThis is the device they have invented for counteracting Lips. I myself,\u2019\nhe adds, \u2018have seen the people keeping off hail by sacrifices and\nincantations.\u2019 The Methanian cock is a typical \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd: it is carried\nround for purification, the evil influences of the wind are somehow\ncaught by it, in rather proleptic fashion, and then buried away. It is\nreally of the order of pharmakos ceremonies, to be considered later,\nrather than a sacrifice proper. For a \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd we should expect the cock\nto be black, but on the principle of sympathetic magic it is in this\ncase white. The normal sacrifice to a wind was a black animal. When in\nthe _Frogs_[162] a storm is brewing between Aeschylus and Euripides, and\nthreatens to burst, Dionysos calls out:\n\n \u2018Bring out a ewe, boys, bring a black-fleeced ewe,\n Here\u2019s a typhoon that\u2019s just about to burst.\u2019\n\nWinds were underworld gods, but when propitious they had a strong and\nnatural tendency to become Ouranian, and the white sacrifices with intent\nto compel their beneficence would help this out. They are an exact\nparallel to the black and white Eumenides already noted. Virgil[163] says:\n\n \u2018To Storm a black sheep, white to the favouring West.\u2019\n\nEqually instructive is the account given by Pausanias[164] of the\nceremonies performed at Titane to soothe the winds, though with his\ncustomary vagueness Pausanias describes them by the word \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd when they\nare really \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af. They are performed on one _night_ in each year, and\nPausanias adds, the priest also \u2018does secret ceremonies into four pits,\u2019\nsoothing the fury of the winds, and he chants over them as they say\nMedea\u2019s charms. Each of the four winds dwelt, it is clear, as a chthonic\npower in a pit; his sacrifice was after the fashion of heroes and ghosts.\nIt is possible, indeed probable, that the pits were in connection with\nthe tomb of some hero or heroine. The sacrifice of Iphigeneia was\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2[165], with power to stay the winds; that of Polyxena at the\ntomb of Achilles had the like virtue. Be that as it may, it will be seen\nwhen we come to demonology that the winds were regarded as ghosts, as\nbreaths: as such their cult was necessarily chthonic.\n\nAnother of their functions \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 share with the ordinary\nanimal-sacrifices, the \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1. Like the \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 they could be used for\npurposes of divination. Used as they were for purification in any great\nemergency, mere economy may have suggested that they should be further\nutilized for oracular purposes. The greater solemnity of \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 would\nlend to the omens taken from them a specially portentous virtue[166]. It\nis amusing to find that even Porphyry[167], averse though he is to human\nsacrifice, still seems to feel a dim possibility that for mantic purposes\nhuman entrails may have special virtue. \u2018But it will be urged,\u2019 he says,\nas though stating a possible and reasonable argument, \u2018that the future\nmay be more clearly divined from the vitals of a man.\u2019\n\nPrecise authors who know about ritual always distinguish between the\nomens taken from ordinary animal sacrifice and those from \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1. Thus\nXenophon[168] in the _Anabasis_ says, \u2018The sacrifices (\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1) are\npropitious to us, the omens favourable, the \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 most propitious.\u2019 The\npractice of using \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 for omens before a battle would seem to have\nbeen uniform. When women, says Eteocles[169], are wailing and making a\ncommotion, it is the part of men\n\n \u2018To slay the victims, take therefrom the omens\n Before the gods, at the onset of the foe.\u2019\n\nIt is probably to this oracular function of \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 that we owe the very\nfrequent use of the middle \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, as in the parallel case of\n\u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, the sacrifice by fire. For \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 the distinction is\nfamiliar, and expressly stated by Ammonius[170]: \u2018of those who simply\nsacrifice (active) the victims the word \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 is used, of those who\ntake omens from the entrails \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\u2019 The active is of the nature of\nthanksgiving, the middle partakes of prayer and impulsion. In the case of\n\u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 the active is very rarely in use, and naturally, for the sacrifice\nof \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 has in it no element of thanksgiving[171].\n\nThe ritual then of \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 and of \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, of slaughter and of\npurification, is based on the fear of ghosts, of ghosts and their action\non men alive, whether as evil winds, or for dread portents, or for\nvengeance on the broken oath, or, first and foremost, for the guilt of\nshed blood. Its essence is of \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, _aversion_.\n\nNowhere perhaps is this instinct of aversion so clearly seen, seen in\na form where the instinct has not yet chilled and crystallized into\ndefinite ritual, as in the account of the murder of Absyrtos by Jason\nand Medea as given by Apollonius Rhodius[172]. The murder was by a\ntreacherous ambuscade set for Absyrtos at the threshold of the temple of\nArtemis; Jason smites him like a bull for sacrifice, while Medea stands\nby.\n\n \u2018So by that portal old kneeling he fell,\n And while the last of life yet sobbed and passed,\n Craving, clasped both hands to the wound, to hold\n The dark blood back. But the blood reached, and sprang,\n And, where the veil\u00e8d woman shuddered from him,\n Lay red on the white robe and the white veil.\n Then swift a sidelong eye, a pitiless eye,\n The Erinys all subduing, that knoweth Sin,\n Awoke, and saw what manner of deed was there.\n And Aeson\u2019s son smote from that sacrifice\n Red ravine, and three times ravined with his mouth\n Amid the blood, and three times from him spewed\n That horror of sin; as men that slay by guile\n Use, to make still the raging of the dead.\u2019\n\nApollonius tries to make a ritual of the awful instinct of physical\nfear. The body is mangled that the angry ghost may be maimed, the blood\nactually licked up that the murderer may spit it forth and rid himself of\nthe fell pollution. Only then can the corpse be safely buried[173]. But\nit is too late, for Absyrtos has put the blood upon Medea.\n\nClytaemnestra, when she murdered Agamemnon, followed the same horrid\npractice of \u2018aversion.\u2019 Sophocles[174] makes Electra say:\n\n \u2018She lopped his limbs as though he were a foe\n And for libations wiped upon his head\n The blood stains.\u2019\n\nBy the time of Apollonius the Erinys is no longer the actual ghost but a\nseparate spirit of vengeance, and even the primitive ritual of _aversion_\nis explained as a sort of tendance; the lopped limbs are \u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03c1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1,\nfirst beginnings, a sort of hideous sacrifice to the murdered man rather\nthan mainly the means of maiming him[175]. But the scholiast[176] on the\n_Electra_ clearly explains the gist of the ceremonial. He says these\nthings were done \u2018as taking away the force of the dead so that later they\nmay suffer nothing fearful from them.\u2019\n\nIt may perhaps be felt that such instances are purely mythological, and\nthat fear of the ghost had wholly waned in historical times. The horrid\npractice of mutilation no doubt fell into abeyance, but the fear of the\nghost and the sense that purification from guilt could only be obtained\nby direct appeal to the ghost itself lived on.\n\nThe case of Pausanias gives curious evidence as to the procedure of\nan educated murderer of the fifth century B.C. Pausanias[177] the\ntraveller tells how his namesake sought protection from the Goddess\nof the Brazen House, but failed because he was defiled by blood. This\npollution he tried by every possible means to expiate: he had recourse\nto purifications of all kinds, he made supplication to Zeus Phyxios, a\nbeing obviously akin to Meilichios\u2014and he resorted to the Psychagogi, the\nGhost-Compellers of Phigalia. They seem to have failed, for Plutarch[178]\ntells us he sent to Italy for experts, and they, after they had done\nsacrifice, _wrenched the ghost out of the sanctuary_.\n\nThe historical case of Pausanias is exactly parallel to that of the\nmythological Orestes. Man expects that the dead man will behave as he\nwould behave were he yet living\u2014pursue him for vengeance; the ghost is an\nactual, almost physical reality. It needed a Euripides to see that this\nghost was a purely subjective horror, a disordered conscience. He makes\nMenelaos ask the mad Orestes[179]:\n\n \u2018What dost thou suffer? What disease undoes thee?\u2019\n\nand Orestes makes answer:\n\n \u2018Conscience, for I am conscious of fell deeds.\u2019\n\nAnthropomorphism is usually regarded as a humane trait in Greek religion;\nit is noted as a thing distinguishing their cultus from the animal\nworship of less civilized nations. But anthropomorphism, as is clearly\nseen in ghost-worship, looks both ways. To be human is not necessarily\nto be humane. Man is cruel and implacable, and he makes the ghost after\nhis own image. Man is also foolish and easily tricked, so he plays tricks\nupon the vengeful ghost, cheating him of his real meed of the murderer\u2019s\nor kinsman\u2019s blood. Hence the surrogate victims, hence the frequent\nsubstitution stories. Another element enters in. The gods, and specially\nthe ghost-gods, are conservative; man gets in advance of the gods he\nhas made, and is ashamed of the rites he once performed with complete\nconfidence in their rightness. Then he tries by a cheat to reconcile his\nnew view and his old custom. Religion, which once inspired the best in\nhim, lags behind, expressing the worst.\n\nSuidas[180] tells a story which curiously expresses this state of\ntransition, this cheating of the god to save the conscience of the\nworshipper. The Greeks had a proverb, \u1f1c\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9, \u2018I am Embaros,\u2019 which\nthey used, according to Suidas, of a \u2018sharp man with his wits about him,\u2019\nand, according to one of the collectors of proverbs, of those who \u2018gave\na false impression, i.e. were out of their minds.\u2019 The origin of the\nproverb was as follows: There was a sanctuary of Artemis at Munychia. A\nbear came into it and was killed by the Athenians. A famine followed,\nand the god gave an oracle that the famine should cease if some one\nwould sacrifice his daughter to the goddess. Embaros was the only man\nwho promised to do it, on condition that he and his family should have\nthe priesthood for life. He disguised his daughter and hid her in the\nsanctuary, and \u2018dressed a goat in a garment and sacrificed it as his\ndaughter.\u2019 The story is manifestly aetiological, based on a ritual with a\nhereditary priesthood, and the sacrifice of a surrogate goat dressed as a\nwoman.\n\nIt is probable, though not certain, that behind the figure of the\nOlympian Artemis, of the goddess who was kindly to lions\u2019 cubs and\n\u2018suckling whelps,\u2019 there lay the cult of some vindictive ghost or heroine\nwho cried for human blood. In moments of great peril this belief in\nthe vindictiveness of ghosts, a belief kept in check by reason in the\nday-time, might surge up in a man\u2019s mind and haunt his dreams by night.\nPlutarch[181] tells an instructive story about a dream that came to\nPelopidas before the battle of Leuctra. Near the field of battle was a\nfield where were the tombs of the daughters of Scedasos, a local hero.\nThe maidens, who were obviously local nymphs, were called from the place\nLeuctrides. The night before the battle, as Pelopidas was sleeping in his\ntent, he had a vision which \u2018caused him no small disturbance.\u2019 He thought\nhe saw the maidens crying at their tombs and cursing the Spartans, and\nhe saw Scedasos their father bidding him sacrifice to his daughters a\nmaiden with auburn hair if he wished to overcome his enemies on the\nmorrow. Being a humane as well as a pious man, the order seemed to him\na strange and lawless one, but none the less he told the soothsayers\nand the generals about it. Some of them thought that it ought not to\nbe neglected, and brought forward as precedents the ancient instances\nof Menoiceus, son of Creon, and Macaria, daughter of Heracles, and,\nin more recent times, the case of Pherecydes the philosopher, who was\nput to death by the Spartans and whose skin was preserved (no doubt as\n\u2018medicine\u2019) by their kings in accordance with an oracle; also the case\nof Leonidas, who sacrificed himself for Greece; and, lastly, the human\nvictims sacrificed to Dionysos Omestes before the battle of Salamis, all\nwhich cases had the sanction of success. Moreover, they pointed out,\nAgesilaus, when he was about to set sail from Aulis itself, had the same\nvision as Agamemnon, and disregarding it through misplaced tenderness,\ncame to grief in consequence. The more advanced section of the army used\nthe argument of the fatherhood of God and the superior nature of the\nsupreme deities; such sacrifices were only fit for Typhons and Giants\nand inferior and impotent demons. Pelopidas, while they were discussing\nthe question in the abstract, only got more and more uncomfortable,\nwhen on a sudden a she-colt got loose from the herd and ran through the\ncamp; the laymen present only admired her shining red coat, her proud\npaces and shrill neighing, but Theocritus the soothsayer saw the thing\nin his heart, and cried aloud to Pelopidas, \u2018Happy man, here is the\nsacred victim, wait for no other maiden, use the one the god has given\nthee.\u2019 And they took the colt and led her to the tombs of the maidens,\nand prayed and wreathed her head and cut her throat and rejoiced and\npublished the vision of Pelopidas and the sacrifice to the army. Whether\nPlutarch\u2019s story is matter of fact or not is of little moment; it was\nfelt to be _probable_, or else it would never have been narrated.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI have purposely dwelt on the dark side of \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, of the service of\nthe placation of ghosts, because in the vengeance of the ghost exacted\nfor bloodshed lies the kernel of the doctrine of purification. But since\nman\u2019s whole activity is not bounded by revenge, ghosts have other and\nsimpler needs than that of vengeance. The service of the underworld is\nnot all _aversion_, there is also some element of _tendance_.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 10.]\n\nIn the vase-painting in fig. 10, a design from a rather late red-figured\nkrater in the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale[182] in Paris, we have a\nrepresentation of a familiar scene, the raising of the ghost of Teiresias\nby Odysseus, as described in the _Nekuia_. Vase-paintings of this date\ntend to be rather illustrations than independent conceptions, but they\nsometimes serve the purpose of vivid presentation. Odysseus[183] has\ndug the trench, he has poured the drink-offering of mead and sweet wine\nand water, and sprinkled the white meal, and he has slain the sheep;\nthe head and feet of one of them, seemingly a black ram, are visible\nabove the trench. He has sat him down sword in hand to keep off the\nthrong of lesser ghosts, and he and his comrades wait the up-rising of\nTeiresias. Out of the very trench is seen emerging the bald ghost-like\nhead of the seer. This is a clear case, not of deprecation but of\ninvocation. Teiresias by the strength of the black blood returns to\nlife. There is a clear reminiscence of the ghost-raising[184] that went\non at many a hero\u2019s tomb, for, as will later be seen in the discussion\nof hero-worship, every hero was apt to be credited with mantic powers.\nThe victims slain are in a sense, as Homer calls them, \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03b9\u03b1; they\nare sacrificed and eaten, but eaten by a ghost. As such they have been\naccompanied by offerings that could only be intended for drink-offerings,\nnot the \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1, the offscourings, but libations of mead and wine and\npure water. Here again the ghost is made in the image of man: the Homeric\nhero drinks wine in his life and demands it after his death. The service\nof the dead is here very near akin to that of the Olympians; it is no\ngrim atonement, but at worst a bloody banquet, at best a human feast, too\nhuman, too universal to need detailed elucidation. It is a ritual founded\non a belief deep-rooted and long-lived; with the Greeks it was alive in\nLucian\u2019s[185] days. Charon asks Hermes why men dig a trench, and burn\nexpensive feasts, and pour wine and honey into a trench. Hermes answers\nthat he cannot think what good it can do to those in Hades, but \u2018anyhow\npeople believe that the dead are summoned up from below to the feast, and\nthat they flutter round the smoke and fat and drink the honey draught\nfrom the trench.\u2019 Here the ghosts invade the late and popular burnt\nsacrifice of the Olympians, but the principle is the same.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Anthesteria was a festival of ghosts, and so far the _riddance_\nof ghosts by means of placation has been shown to be an important\nelement in ancient sacrifice and in the ancient notion of purification.\nBut placation of ghosts does not exhaust the content even of ancient\nsacrifice: another element will appear in the festival of early summer\nthat has next to be considered, the _Thargelia_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nHARVEST FESTIVALS.\n\nTHE THARGELIA, KALLYNTERIA, PLYNTERIA.\n\n \u2018\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1.\u2019\n\n\nSpring-time, it has been seen in the last chapter, is the season for\n_purification_ by means of the _placation of ghosts_. But spring-time\nis not the only anxious time for primitive man. As the year wears on, a\nseason approaches of even more critical import, when purification was\neven more imperatively needed, the season of harvest; in the earliest\ndays the gathering in of such wild fruits as nature herself provides, in\nlater times the reaping and garnering of the various kinds of cereals.\n\nIn the North with our colder climate we associate harvest with autumn;\nour harvest festivals fall at the end of September. September was to the\nGreek the month of the grape harvest, the vintage, but his grain harvest\nfell in ancient days as now in the month Thargelion, the latter part of\nMay and the beginning of June. This month is marked to the Greeks by\nthree festivals, the Thargelia, which gave its name to the month, the\nKallynteria, and the Plynteria. No festival has been more frequently\ndiscussed than the Thargelia, and on no festival has comparative\nanthropology thrown more light. The full gist of the ceremony has never,\nI think, been clearly set forth, owing to the simple fact that the\nThargelia has usually been considered alone, not in connection with the\ntwo other festivals[186]. In the present chapter I shall consider first\nthat element in the festival to which it and the month owe their names,\ni.e. the first-fruits; second, the ceremony of the Pharmakos, which has\nmade the festival famous; third the connection with the Kallynteria and\nPlynteria and the light thrown on both by the Roman festival of the\nVestalia. Finally from the consideration of the gist of these harvest\nfestivals it will be possible to add some further elements to our\nconception of Greek religious thought, and especially of the Greek notion\nof sacrifice.\n\n\nTHARGELION AND THARGELIA.\n\nAbout the meaning[187] of the word Thargelia there is happily not the\nslightest doubt. Athenaeus[188] quotes a statement made by Krates, a\nwriter of about the middle of the 2nd century A.D., in his book on the\nAttic dialect as follows: \u2018The _thargelos_ is the first loaf made after\nthe carrying home of the harvest.\u2019 Now a loaf of bread is _not_ a very\nprimitive affair, but happily Hesychius[189] records an earlier or at\nleast more rudimentary form of nourishment: \u2018Thargelos,\u2019 he says, \u2018is\na pot full of seeds.\u2019 From Athenaeus[190] again we learn that the cake\ncalled _thargelos_ was sometimes also called _thalusios_. The Thalusia,\nthe festival of the first-fruits of Demeter, is familiar to us from the\nlovely picture in the Seventh Idyll of Theocritus[191]. The friends meet\nLycidas the goatherd and say to him:\n\n \u2018The road on which our feet are set it is a harvest way,\n For to fair-robed Demeter our comrades bring to-day\n The first-fruits of their harvesting. She on the threshing place\n Great store of barley grain outpoured, for guerdon of her grace.\u2019\n\nHomer[192] tells how the plague of the Calydonian boar came to waste the\nland of the Aetolians, because Oineus their king forgot to celebrate\nthe Thalusia, and Eustathius, commenting on the passage, says: \u2018The\nfirst-fruits are the _thalusia_.\u2019 He adds that some of the rhetoricians\ncall the _thalusia_ \u2018feasts of the Harvest-Home.\u2019\n\nIt is then abundantly clear that the festival of the Thargelia is in\nthe main a festival of the offering of first-fruits on the occasion of\nharvest, and the month Thargelion the month of harvest rites. Of one\nof these harvest rites, the carrying of the _Eiresione_[193], we have\nunusually full particulars.\n\nIn the _Knights_ of Aristophanes[194], Cleon and the Sausage-Seller are\nclamouring at the door of Demos. Demos comes out and asks angrily:\n\n \u2018Who\u2019s bawling there? do let the door alone,\n You\u2019ve torn my Eiresione all to bits.\u2019\n\nThe scholiast explains. \u2018At the Pyanepsia and the Thargelia the Athenians\nhold a feast to Helios and the Horae, and the boys carry about branches\ntwined with wool, from which they get the name of _Eiresiones_, and\nthey hang them up before the doors.\u2019 It is very probable that the wool\n(\u03b5\u1f36\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2), taken perhaps from a sacred animal, gave its name to the\nEiresione, but there were many other things besides wool hung on the\nbranch. Our fullest account comes from the rhetorician Pausanias, who is\nquoted by Eustathius[195] in his commentary on the _Iliad_. Eustathius is\nexplaining that the term \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c2 means a child with both parents alive,\nand he adds by way of illustration that children of this sort were chosen\nby the ancients to deck out the Eiresione. He then quotes from the works\nof Pausanias the following account of the ceremony: \u2018The Eiresione is\na branch of olive twined with wool, and having hanging from it various\nfruits of the earth; a boy, both of whose parents are alive, carries it\nforth and places it in front of the doors of Apollo\u2019s sanctuary, at the\nfeast of Pyanepsia.\u2019 He then goes on to an aetiological legend about\nTheseus, and finally records the words of the song sung by the children\nwho carried or attended the Eiresione:\n\n \u2018Eiresione brings\n All good things,\n Figs and fat cakes to eat,\n Soft oil and honey sweet,\n And brimming wine-cup deep\n That she may drink and sleep.\u2019\n\nThe boy who actually carried the Eiresione must have both parents alive,\nbecause any contact with death even remote was unlucky; the ghost of\neither parent might be about. The song is of some interest because of\nthe half-personification of Eiresione. The Maypole or harvest-sheaf is\nhalfway to a harvest Maiden; it is thus, as will be seen later, that a\ngoddess is made. A song is sung, a story told, and the very telling fixes\nthe outline of personality. It is possible to worship long in spirit,\nbut as soon as the story-telling, myth-making, instinct awakes you have\nanthropomorphism and theology.\n\nWhat was hung on the Eiresione no doubt depended on the wealth of\nparticular worshippers; we hear of white wool and purple wool, vessels\nof wine, figs, strings of acorns, cakes; nothing in the way of natural\nproduce came amiss. The Eiresione once fixed over the door remained\nthere, a charm against pestilence and famine, till the next year; then\nit was changed for a new one. The withered branch must have been a\nfamiliar sight at Athens. When in the _Plutus_[196] of Aristophanes the\nyoung rough is insulting the old woman and thrusting his torch into her\nwithered face, she cries:\n\n \u2018For pity\u2019s sake don\u2019t bring your torch so near me,\u2019\n\nand Chremylus says:\n\n \u2018Yes, right she is, for if she caught a spark\n She\u2019d burn up like an old Eiresione.\u2019\n\nThe Eiresione, Pausanias says, was fastened before the door of the\nsanctuary of Apollo. Plutarch[197], in his rather clumsy aetiological\naccount of the Oschophoria, connects the Eiresione with vows paid to\nApollo by Theseus on his return from Crete to Athens. Harpocration[198]\nsays \u2018The Thargelia was celebrated in the month of Thargelion, which\nis sacred to Apollo,\u2019 and the author of the _Etymologicon Magnum_[199]\nstates \u2018The Thargelia, a festival at Athens. The name is given from\nthe _thargelia_, and thargelia are all the fruits that spring from the\nearth. The festival is celebrated in the month Thargelion to Artemis and\nApollo.\u2019 From Suidas[200] we learn that there was a musical contest at\nthe Thargelia, and that the actors dedicated their prize tripods in the\nsanctuary of Apollo known as the Pythion.\n\nAll this makes it quite clear that at some time or other the festival of\nthe Thargelia was connected with the Olympian Apollo, and more vaguely\nwith his sister Artemis, but the connection is obviously loose and late.\nThe Eiresione was fastened up not only over the door of the sanctuary\nof Apollo, but over the house-door of any and every Athenian. The house\nof Demos was no sanctuary of Apollo. Moreover, when the scholiast on\nAristophanes[201] is commenting on the Eiresione, he says, to our\nsurprise, that it was carried and hung at the Thargelia and Pyanepsia\nin honour, not of Apollo and Artemis, but of \u2018Helios and the Horae.\u2019\nPorphyry[202] does not definitely name the Eiresione, but he is clearly\nalluding to it when he speaks of the procession that still took place at\nAthens in his own day to Helios and the Horae. It is evidence, he says,\nthat in early days the gods desired in their service not the sacrifice of\nanimals, but the offering of vegetable first-fruits. \u2018In this procession\nthey carried wild herbs as well as ground pulse, acorns, barley, wheat, a\ncake of dried figs, cakes of wheat and barley flour, and a pot (\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2).\u2019\n\nIt is abundantly clear that the Eiresione is simply a harvest-home,\nan offering of first-fruits that was primarily an end in itself,\nbut that could easily be affiliated to any dominant god. It will be\nremembered[203] that Oineus got into trouble because, when all the other\ngods had their feasts of hecatombs, he did not offer first-fruits to\nArtemis, great daughter of Zeus. Oineus, we may conjecture, was the\nfaithful conservative worshipper of earlier gods; the Athenians were\nwiser in their generation; their ancient service of the primitive Helios\nand the Horae they somehow affiliated to that of the incoming Olympians.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt remains to ask more precisely what was the primitive significance\nof the offering of first-fruits. At first sight it may seem as if the\nquestion were superfluous. Surely we have here the simplest possible\ninstance of the service of \u2018tendance\u2019 (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1), the primitive sacrifice\nthat embodies the very essence of _do ut des_, a gift given to the god to\n\u2018smooth his face,\u2019 a gift that necessarily presupposes the existence of a\ngod with a face to be smoothed.\n\nSuch seems to have been the view of Aristotle[204]. He says in\ncharacteristically Greek fashion, \u2018They hold sacrifices, and meetings in\nconnexion therewith, paying rites of worship to the gods while providing\nrest and recreation for themselves. For the most ancient sacrifices\nand meetings seem to be as it were offerings of first-fruits after the\ngathering in of the various harvests. For those were the times of year\nwhen the ancients were especially at leisure.\u2019 Aristotle clearly takes\nthe view of sacrifice already discussed, that sacrifice is mainly an\noccasion for enjoyment and the result of leisure, but his remark as to\nits early connection with first-fruits goes deeper down than he himself\nknows. Regarded as a \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, a sacrifice, the offering of first-fruits\npresupposes, as we have said, a god or spirit to whom sacrifice is made,\nand a god of human passions. But it must not be forgotten that in this\nview we are making a very large assumption, i.e. that of the existence\nof some such god or spirit. It is instructive to note that among other\nprimitive races ceremonies have been observed which apparently are not\naddressed to any god or spirit, and yet which seem to contain in them a\npossible germ of some idea akin to sacrifice.\n\nSuch are the ceremonies of the Australian Arunta, observed and described\nin detail by Messrs Spencer and Gillen[205]. These ceremonies, consisting\nof lengthy and elaborate mummeries, are called _Intichiuma_, and their\nobject seems to be to secure the increase of the animal or plant\nassociated with a particular totem. The pantomimes enacted seem to be of\nthe nature of sympathetic magic, and they are interspersed with chanted\ninvitations to the particular plant or animal to be fertile. The point\nof special interest is that the ceremonies are closely connected with\ncertain taboos on particular foods. Mr Lang[206] suggests that the\nremoval of the taboo at the time of the _Intichiuma_ may indicate that\nthe necessary \u2018close time\u2019 is over. The imposition of the taboo is on\nthis showing not due to any primary moral instinct in man, but simply a\npractical necessity if the plant or animal is not to become extinct. The\nremoval of the taboo after a suitable lapse of time is, if man himself\nis not to become extinct, equally practical and necessary. This sort of\ntaboo is in fact a kind of primitive \u2018game law.\u2019 Philochoros[207] gives\nan instance: \u2018At Athens,\u2019 he says, \u2018a prohibition was issued that no\none should eat of unshorn lamb on the occasion of failure in the breed\nof sheep.\u2019 If at the end of the close time it was customary to eat a\nlittle of a plant or animal, the eating being accompanied by certain\nsolemn ceremonials, the food itself would easily come to be regarded as\nspecially sacred and as having sacramental virtue, and the further step\nwould soon be taken of regarding it as consecrated to certain spirits or\ndivinities. This _may_ have been in part the origin of the offering of\nfirst-fruits.\n\nThe removal of a taboo is assuredly not the same thing as the worship\nof a god, but it is easy to see how the one might slide over into the\nother. A taboo is by common consent placed upon the harvest fruits till\nall are ripe: such harvest-fruits are _sacred_, forbidden, dangerous.\nWhy? As soon as primitive man has fashioned for himself any sort of god\nin his own image, the answer is ready, \u2018The Lord thy God is a jealous\nGod.\u2019 Primitive man is so instinctively anthropomorphic that it seems to\nme rash to assert that the notion of taboo _precedes_ that of sacrifice.\nThe natives of Central Australia appear to have taboo without the notion\nof sacrifice, i.e. of any spirit to whom sacrifice is made; another race\nmight have a primitive notion of a spirit to be placated without the\nnotion of taboo; or the two might be inextricably blended and only our\nmodern habit of pitiless analysis separate them.\n\nLate writers on ritual, and it is only late that there are such writers,\nalways explain taboo as consecration rather than prohibition. Festus[208]\nsays \u2018they called the juice of the vine _sacrima_ because they sacrificed\n(or consecrated) it to Liber with a view to the protection of the\nvineyards and the vessels and the wine itself, just as they sacrificed\nto Ceres a first harvest from the ears they had first reaped.\u2019 Here the\n\u2018sacramental\u2019 wine is clearly a sacrifice of the Olympian kind; but in\nthe Pithoigia, already discussed, the more primitive notions of release\nfrom taboo and \u2018aversion\u2019 of evil influences clearly emerge. \u2018Libation of\nthe new wine is poured out that the use of the magical thing (\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5)\nmay become harmless and a means of safety[209].\u2019 In the Thargelia we\nhave no definite information as to a solemn _eating_ as well as offering\nof first-fruits, but this element will appear when we reach the great\nharvest festival commonly known as the Eleusinian Mysteries.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt remains to note some details as to the material of sacrifice. The\ngeneral principle is clear and simple. The god fares as his worshipper.\nPorphyry[210], in discussing the various kinds of animals sacrificed,\nobserves with much common sense, \u2018No Greek sacrifices a camel or an\nelephant to the gods, because Greece does not produce camels and\nelephants.\u2019\n\nIt might not be necessary to state a fact so obvious but that writers on\nthe subject of ritual seem haunted by the notion that certain animals\nare sacrificed to certain gods because they are in some mystical\nsense \u2018sacred to them,\u2019 and this notion has introduced much needless\ncomplexity. It is quite true that locally we find certain taboos on the\nsacrifice of certain animals, the cause of which is unknown, but these\ntaboos are local and by no means uniform. Moreover the animal \u2018sacred\u2019\nto the particular god is by no means always the material of sacrifice;\nthe owl, for reasons to be later discussed, is \u2018sacred\u2019 to Athene, but we\nhear of no sacrifice of owls. Broadly then, as noted before, the material\nof sacrifice is conditioned, not by the character of the god, but by the\ncircumstances of the worshipper.\n\nThe principle that the god fares as his worshipper is however crossed\nby another, _he sometimes fares worse_. This was noticed by writers on\nritual such as Porphyry[211] and Eustathius[212], and they explain it\nas a sort of survival of a golden age of simple manners, dear to the\nconservatism of the gods. This conservatism of the gods mirrors, of\ncourse, the natural and timid conservatism of their worshippers. They\nhave begun by offering just what they eat themselves, and, from the\nfact that they have once offered it, they attach to this food special\nsanctity. They advance in civilization, and their own food becomes more\ndelicate and complex, but they dare not make any change in the diet of\ntheir gods; they have learnt to bake and eat fermented bread themselves,\nbut the gods are still nurtured on barley grains and porridge.\nPorphyry[213] reduces the successive stages of sacrifice to a regular\nsystem of progressive vegetarianism. First men plucked and offered grass,\nwhich was like the \u2018soft wool\u2019 of the earth; then the fruit of trees and\ntheir leaves, the acorn and the nut; then barley appeared first of the\ngrains, and they offered simple barley-corns; then they broke and bruised\ngrain and made it into cakes. In like fashion they made libations first\nof water, then of honey, the natural liquid prepared for us by bees,\nthirdly of oil, and last of all of wine; but after each advance the older\nservice remained \u2018in memory of the ancient manner of life.\u2019 Last, through\ndiverse influences of ignorance and fear, came \u2018the luxury of flesh and\nimported forms of diet[214].\u2019\n\nThe incoming of the luxury of flesh diet was, it has already been noted,\ndue not to ignorance and fear but to the inroad of a flesh-eating\nNorthern race whose splendid physical stature and strength Porphyry\nwas little likely to appreciate. They were not wholly flesh-eaters;\nhence, as has been seen, they offered the sacrifice of the barley grains\n(\u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9), and offered these at a time when they were themselves eating\nsome form of manufactured bread. The primitive character of the rite is,\nI think, marked by the ritual precedence. The \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, the sprinkling\nof grains, has usually been explained as the sprinkling of meal on the\nheads of the victims, as the equivalent of the _mola salsa_ of the\nRomans; but Eustathius is probably right when, in commenting on the\nsacrifice of Nestor[215], he says, \u2018the sprinkled grains are in memory\nof the food of old times which consisted in grains, i.e. barley-corns\u2019.\n\u2018Hence,\u2019 he adds, \u2018one of the ancient commentators explains the sprinkled\ngrains as barley-corns.\u2019 That \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 were nothing more nor less than\nthe actual barley-corns is also shewn by a passage from Strato[216]. A\ncook, who apparently from his use of archaic terminology is according to\nhis master more like a male sphinx than a cook, calls for \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9:\n\n \u2018\u039f\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u2014why what on earth is that?\u2019\n\nAnd the answer is\n\n \u2018Just barley-corns.\u2019\n\nThe first act in a Homeric sacrifice was uniformly prayer and the\nsprinkling of grain[217], and it is important to observe that\nEustathius[218] expressly notes this as a previous sacrifice (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1);\nthe \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 were, he says, a mixture of grain and salt poured on\nthe altar before the sacrificial ceremony began. By the \u2018sacrificial\nceremony\u2019 Eustathius means the slaying of the animal victim. It is\nimportant to note that the grain was poured _on the altar_ and was\ntherefore in itself a sacrifice, as it is sometimes stated that it was\nmerely thrown on the head of the victim. The statement of Eustathius\nis confirmed by the account in Euripides[219] of the sacrifice made\nby Aegisthus to the Nymphs. Here, before the elaborate slaying of the\nbull, we have, just as in Homer, the sprinkling of the grain, and _it is\nsprinkled on the altar_. The Messenger tells Electra that when all was\nready Aegisthus\n\n \u2018Took the grains for sprinkling and he cast them\n Upon the altar and these words he spake.\u2019\n\nThe sprinkling of _salted_ meal (_mola salsa_) was, if we may believe\nAthenaeus[220], a later innovation. He tells us distinctly, quoting\nAthenion as his authority, that the use of salt for seasoning was\na comparatively late discovery and therefore excluded from certain\nsacrifices to the gods.\n\n \u2018Whence even now, remembering days of old,\n The entrails of their victims for the gods\n They roast with fire and bring no salt thereto,\n Because at first they knew no use for salt.\n And even when they knew and loved its savour\n They kept their fathers\u2019 sacred written precepts.\u2019\n\nThe sacrifice of the animal victim never in Homer takes place without\nthe \u2018previous sacrifice\u2019 of grain-sprinkling and prayer, but prayer and\ngrain-sprinkling can take place, as in the prayer of Penelope[221],\nwithout the animal sacrifice. This looks as though the animal sacrifice\nwere rather a supplementary later-added act than a necessary climax.\nLater, when animal sacrifice became common and even as a rule imperative,\nthe real sacrificial intent of the preliminary grain-sprinkling would\nnaturally become obscured and it would be brought into connection with\nanimal sacrifice by the practice of sprinkling grain on the heads of the\nvictims.\n\nBy Plutarch\u2019s[222] time the sprinkling of grain was regarded as something\nof an archaeological curiosity. He asks in his _Greek Questions_ \u2018Who is\nhe who is called among the Opuntians _krithologos_,\u2019 i.e. the \u2018barley\ncollector\u2019? The answer is \u2018Most of the Greeks make use of barley for\ntheir very ancient sacrifices when the citizens offer first-fruits. And\nthe man who regulates these sacrifices and gets in these first-fruits is\ncalled _krithologos_.\u2019 He adds a curious detail illustrative of the two\nstrata of worship, \u2018and they had two priests, one to supervise divine\nthings, one for those of things demonic.\u2019 In like archaic fashion, when\nPisthetairos[223] would inaugurate the blessed simplicity of bird-rule,\nhe revives the ancient ritual of the sprinkling of barley-corns:\n\n \u2018O better than worship of Zeus Most High\n Is the service of Birds that sing and fly.\n They ask for no carven temple\u2019s state,\n They clamour not for a golden gate.\n The shrine they ask of a mortal\u2019s vow\n Is leave to perch on an olive bough.\n In the little thickets of ash and oak\n They dwell anigh us. We humble folk\n Never need fare to the far-off lands\n Of Ammon or Delphi, but lift our hands\n Under our vine and our fig-tree\u2019s shade.\n For a slender grace let our prayer be said,\n As we cast up our barley in little showers\n And a little grace from the Birds is ours.\u2019\n\nThe barley grain sprinkled is part of the ritual of the Olympians, but\nin the case of the two survivals to be next considered, the _pelanos_\nand the _nephalia_, their use was almost wholly confined to, and\ncharacteristic of, the lower stratum of worship, that of ghosts and\nsprites and underworld divinities.\n\nAfter the sacrifice of the natural fruits of the earth, the \u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03af\u03b1,\ncomes the most primitive form of artificial food, i.e. the _pelanos_, a\nsort of porridge.\n\nWe speak of Bread and Wine as sacramental _elements_, but both are\nfar removed from being elemental. Leavened bread, the Greek \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\nis a product of advanced civilization, and with a true conservative\nritual instinct the Roman Church prescribes to this day the use of the\nunleavened wafer. Athenaeus[224], citing the author of a play called the\n_Beggars_, tells us that when the Athenians set a meal in the Prytaneum\nfor the Dioscuri they serve upon the tables cheese and barley-porridge\n(\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd) and chopped olives and leeks, making remembrance of their\nancient mode of life. And Solon bids them supply to those who had free\nmeals in the Prytaneum barley cake (\u03bc\u1fb6\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd), but at feasts to place in\naddition loaves of bread (\u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd), and this in imitation of Homer. For\nHomer, when he brought the chiefs together to Agamemnon, says \u2018they\nstirred up meal.\u2019 The words \u2018they stirred up meal,\u2019 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1, do\nnot occur in our text, but the author of the _Beggars_ clearly refers\nto the ordinary Homeric meal, and takes us straight back to the real\nprimitive meaning of _pelanos_. On the shield of Achilles[225] we have\nthe picture of a harvest feast:\n\n \u2018The heralds dight the feast apart beneath a spreading oak,\n The ox they slew, and much white barley-meal the women folk\n Sprinkled, a supper for the thralls.\u2019\n\nThe lord and his fellows feast on flesh-meat, the workmen have their\nsupper of primitive porridge. So the Townley scholiast clearly\nunderstands the passage; he comments: \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f14\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f14\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u2018they\nsprinkle, i.e. they knead or mix together.\u2019 It is noticeable that he\nemploys the exact word, \u1f14\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, quoted by Athenaeus as in the text of\nHomer[226]. To explain the passage as \u2018sprinkle on the heads of the\nvictims or on the roast flesh\u2019 is to miss the whole antithesis between\nmaster and man. Eustathius[227], that close observer of primitive fact,\nsaw what was being done in Homer and doubtless still by the poor of his\nown days. He says \u2018to sprinkle barley-meal does not mean bread-making but\na sort of paste in ordinary use among the ancients.\u2019 To any one who has\nwatched the making of porridge, the shift of meaning from \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, to\n_sprinkle_, to \u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, to stir and to knead, is natural and\nnecessary. You first sprinkle the meal on the water, you then stir it,\nso far you have porridge; if you let it get thicker and thicker you must\nknead it and then you have oat-cake. It has of course frequently been\nnoted that a _pelanos_ may be either fluid or solid, and herein lies the\nexplanation. When the _pelanos_ is thick and subjected to fire, baked, it\nbecomes a _pemma_, an ordinary cake. The Latin _libum_[228], a cake, is a\nstrict parallel; it was primarily a thing out-poured, a _libation_, then\na solid thing cooked and eaten.\n\nA _pelanos_ was then primarily the same as _alphita_, barley-meal. The\nfood of man was the food of the gods, but the word was early specialized\noff to ritual use. There is, I believe, no instance in which a _pelanos_,\nunder that name, is eaten in daily life or indeed eaten at all save by\nEarth and underworld gods, their representative snakes and other Spirits\nof Aversion[229]. The comic poet Sannyrion[230] puts it thus:\n\n \u2018We gods do call it pelanos,\n You pompous mortals barley-meal.\u2019\n\nTo us the pomposity seems on the side of the gods.\n\nAs there was a time when leavened bread was not, and men ate porridge\ncooked or uncooked, so before the coming of the vine men drank a honey\ndrink. And as the conservative gods, long after men ate fermented bread,\nwere faithful to their porridge, so long after men drank wine they\nstill offered to the gods who were there before the coming of the vine\n\u2018wineless libations,\u2019 nephalia[231].\n\nThe ritual of the underworld gods is in many respects identical with\nthat of the ghosts out of which they are developed, but with this\ndifference\u2014ghosts are less conservative than fully developed gods; the\nhabits and tastes of ghosts are more closely akin to those of the men who\nworship them. Quite early, it would appear, man offered to ghosts the\nwine he loved so well himself.\n\nAtossa[232] brings for the ghost of Darius a _pelanos_, as was meet. She\nbrings also all manner of \u2018soothing gifts\u2019 (\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1), but she pours\nwine also:\n\n \u2018A holy heifer\u2019s milk, white, fair to drink,\n Bright honey drops from flowers bee-distilled,\n With draughts of water from a virgin fount,\n And from the ancient vine its mother wild\n An unmixed draught, this gladness; and fair fruit\n Of gleaming olive ever blossoming\n And woven flowers, children of mother earth.\u2019\n\nThe dead fare as the living; wine is added to milk and honey and olive\noil and water, but wine perhaps significantly as an innovation is never\n_named_. Atossa seems also consciously to insist over much on its being\nwild, primitive, ancient, and therefore permissible. We are reminded of\nthe religious shifts to which the Romans were put by the introduction of\nwine into their daily life and thence into their ritual. Plutarch[233] in\nhis _Roman Questions_ says that \u2018when the women poured libations of wine\nto Bona Dea, they called it by the name of milk,\u2019 and Macrobius[234] adds\n\u2018that wine could not be brought in under its own name, but the wine was\ncalled milk and the vessel containing it a honey-jar.\u2019\n\nThe ghosts of the dead admit and even welcome the addition of wine, but\nactual chthonic divinities are stricter. When Oedipus[235] came to the\nprecinct of the Semnae, the Chorus bid him make atonement, because,\nthough unwittingly, he has violated the precinct. He asks the precise\nritual to be observed. The answer, though it is thrice familiar, is so\nimportant for the understanding of chthonic ceremonies that it must be\ngiven in full:\n\n \u2018_Oed._ And with what rites, O strangers? teach me this.\n\n _Chor._ First, fetch thou from an ever-flowing fount,\n Borne in clean hands, an holy drink-offering.\n\n _Oed._ And next, when I have brought the holy draught?\n\n _Chor._ Bowls are there next, a cunning craftsman\u2019s work,\n Crown thou their lips and handles at the brim.\n\n _Oed._ With branches, woollen webs, or in what wise?\n\n _Chor._ Of the ewe-lamb take thou the fresh-shorn wool.\n\n _Oed._ So be it, and then to what last rite I pass?\n\n _Chor._ Pour thy drink offerings, facewards to the dawn.\n\n _Oed._ With these same vessels do I pour the draught?\n\n _Chor._ Yes, in three streams, the last pour wholly out.\n\n _Oed._ And filled wherewith this last? teach me this also.\n\n _Chor._ _Water and honey\u2014bring no wine thereto._\n\n _Oed._ When the dark shadowed earth hath drunk of this?\n\n _Chor._ Lay on it thrice nine sprays of olive tree\n With both thine hands, and make thy prayer the while.\n\n _Oed._ That prayer? vouchsafe to teach, for mighty is it.\n\n _Chor._ Pray thou that, as they are called the Kindly Ones,\n With kindly hearts they may receive and bless.\n Be this thy prayer, thine own or his who prays\n For thee. Whisper thy prayer nor lift thy voice,\n Then go, look not behind, so all is well.\u2019\n\nThe Kindly Ones, though their name is only adjectival, have crystallized\ninto divinities; they are no longer ghosts, and none may tamper with\ntheir archaic ritual.\n\nFor the dread counterpart of the Eumenides, the Erinyes, there is the\nsame wineless service, witness the reproach of Clytaemnestra. The Erinyes\nhave deserted her, yet she has given them of the ritual they exact[236]:\n\n \u2018Full oft forsooth from me have ye licked up\n Wineless libations, sober balms of wrath.\u2019\n\nTo offer wine was the last outrage done by the parvenu Apollo to ancient\nritual, hence the bitter protest[237]:\n\n \u2018Thou hast bewildered the old walks of life,\n With wine the Ancient Goddesses undone.\u2019\n\nThe wineless service of the Eumenides in the _Oedipus Coloneus_\nis of course no mere invention of the poet. At Titane near Sicyon\nPausanias[238] came to a grove of evergreen oaks and a temple of the\ngoddesses whom, he says, the Athenians call Semnae, but the Sicyonians\nEumenides, and every year on one day they celebrate a festival in their\nhonour, \u2018sacrificing sheep with young and a _libation of water and\nhoney_.\u2019\n\nThe scholiast in the _Oedipus Coloneus_[239] gives a list of the\ndivinities to whom at Athens wineless sacrifices were made. He quotes as\nhis authority Polemon. \u2018The Athenians were careful in these matters and\nscrupulously pious (\u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9) in the things that pertain to the gods, and\nthey made wineless sacrifices to Mnemosyne the Muse, to Eos, to Helios,\nto Selene, to the Nymphs, to Aphrodite Ourania.\u2019 The list is at first\nsurprising. We associate _nephalia_ with the Underworld powers, but\nhere it is quite clear that, in primitive days, side by side with the\nEarth-gods were worshipped sky-gods, but in their own simple being as\nDawn and Sun and Moon, not as full-blown human Olympians. Mnemosyne[240],\nit will later be seen, had a well of living water herself; she needed no\nwine. The Heavenly Aphrodite is more surprising, but her honey libation\nis further attested by Empedokles[241]. He tells of the days long ago\nwhen the god Ares was not, nor King Zeus, nor Kronos, nor Poseidon, but\nonly\n\n \u2018Kypris the Queen\n Here they adored with pious images,\n With painted victims and with fragrant scents,\n With fume of frankincense and genuine myrrh.\n Honey of yellow bees upon the ground\n They for libation poured.\u2019\n\nBut though here and there a very early \u2018Heavenly One\u2019 claimed the honey\nservice, it was mostly the meed of the dead. Porphyry knew that honey was\nused to embalm the body of the dead because it prevented putrefaction,\nand this custom of honey burial is echoed in the myth of Glaukos and the\nhoney-jar. The marvellous sweetness of honey lent itself to the notions\nof propitiation and placation\u2014\u2018sweets to the sweet\u2019 or rather, as it\nseemed to the practical primitive mind, \u2018sweets to the spirits to be\nsweetened,\u2019 the Meilichioi, ghosts and heroes to be appeased[242].\n\nOne more element in archaic ritual yet remains to be considered\u2014the\nfireless sacrifice.\n\nFire, it has been seen, was used in the Homeric burnt sacrifice _for\nsublimation_. By fire, Eustathius[243] says in speaking of the burning\nof the dead among the northern nations, \u2018the divine element was borne\non high as though in a chariot and mingled with the heavenly beings.\u2019\nIn like fashion we may suppose the burnt victim was freed from the\ngrosser elements and in purified vaporous form ascended to the gods of\nthe upper air. This is what Porphyry[244] means when he says that in\nburnt sacrifice we \u2018immortalize the dues of the heavenly gods by means\nof fire.\u2019 Fire again in the service of the underworld gods was used, it\nhas further been seen, for utter destruction, for the holocaust. But in\ncertain rituals established, it may be, before the discovery of fire, it\nwas definitely prescribed that the sacrifice should be fireless. Diogenes\nLaertius[245] relates that according to tradition there was but one altar\nin Delos at which Pythagoras could worship, the \u2018Altar of Apollo the\nSire,\u2019 which stood behind the great Altar of the Horns, because on this\naltar wheat and barley and cakes are the only offering laid and the\nsacrifice is without fire and there is no sacrificial victim\u2014so Aristotle\nstated in his _Constitution of the Delians_. This altar was also known as\nthe Altar of the Pious. The foundation of the great blood-stained Altar\nof the Horns may still be seen in Delos; the primitive Altar of the Sire\nhas left no trace, but in some bygone time a voice, it would seem, had\nbeen heard on Mount Cynthus saying, \u2018Thou shalt not hurt nor destroy in\nall my Holy Mountain.\u2019\n\nWhat ancient worship of a \u2018Sire\u2019 Apollo had taken to himself in Delos we\ndo not know, but in remote Arcadia a fireless sacrifice of a specially\nsimple kind went on right down to the time of Pausanias[246] in honour\nof a home-grown goddess, Demeter. At Phigalia Pausanias visited the\ncave-sanctuary of the Black Demeter; indeed he says in his pious way\nit was chiefly for her sake that he went to Phigalia, and he adds \u2018I\nsacrificed no victim to the goddess, such being the custom of the people\nof the country. They bring instead as offerings the fruit of the vine and\nof other trees they cultivate, and honey-combs and wool which is still\nunwrought and full of the natural grease; these they lay on the altar\nwhich is set up in front of the cave, and having laid them there they\npour on them olive oil. Such is the rite of sacrifice observed by private\npersons and once a year by the Phigalian people collectively.\u2019 Everything\nhere prescribed is in its most natural form, grapes rather than wine,\nhoney-comb rather than honey, unwrought wool not artificial fillets, and\nthe service is fireless. It was a service to content even Pythagoras.\n\nThat there was between the early fireless sacrifice and the burnt\nsacrifice of the Olympian in some prehistoric time a rivalry and clashing\nof interests, is clear from the Rhodian tradition of the Heliadae.\nPindar[247] tells how:\n\n \u2018Up to the hill they came,\n Yet in their hand\n No seed of burning flame,\n And for the Rhodian land\n With fireless rite\n The grove upon the citadel they dight.\u2019\n\nAnd the scholiast commenting on the passage says: \u2018The Rhodians going\nup to the Acropolis to sacrifice to Athene, forgot to take fire with\nthem for their offerings (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9) and made a fireless sacrifice.\nHence it came about that, as the Athenians were the first to sacrifice\nby fire, Athene thought it best to live with them.\u2019 Athene was always\na prudent goddess, ready to swim with the tide; she was \u2018all for the\nfather,\u2019 all for the Olympians, and she had her reward. Philostratos[248]\ntells the same story with something more of emphasis. He contrasts\nthe Acropolis of Athens and the Acropolis of Rhodes; the Rhodians had\nonly a fireless cheap service, the people of Athens provide the savour\nof burnt sacrifice and fragrant smoke; the goddess went to live with\nthem because \u2018they were wiser in their generation (\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) and\ngood at sacrificing.\u2019 From Diodorus[249] we learn that it was Cecrops\nwho introduced the fire-sacrifice at Athens. On Cecrops were fathered\nmany of the innovations of civilized life, among them marriage. He was\nhalfway between the old and the new, half civilized man, half snake. He,\nPausanias[250] significantly tells us, was the first to give to Zeus the\nname of the Highest. He too became all for the Olympian.\n\nThese forms of primitive sacrifice\u2014the _pelanos_, the barley grains,\nthe _nephalia_, the fireless rites\u2014have been considered at some length\nbecause, though in part they went over to the Olympians, they remain\nbroadly speaking and in their simplest forms characteristic of the\nlower stratum and of the worship of underworld spirits. Moreover it is\nthese primitive rites which were, as will later be seen, taken up and\nmysticized by the religion of Orpheus.\n\nIt remains to consider the second and by far the most important element\nin the harvest festival of the Thargelia, the ceremony of the Pharmakos.\n\n\nTHE PHARMAKOS.\n\nThat the leading out of the _pharmakos_ was a part of the festival of\nthe Thargelia we know from Harpocration[251]. He says in commenting on\nthe word: \u2018At Athens they led out two men to be purifications for the\ncity; it was at the Thargelia, one was for the men and the other for the\nwomen.\u2019 These men, these pharmakoi, whose function it was to purify the\ncity, were, it will later be seen, in all probability put to death, but\nthe expression used by Harpocration is noteworthy\u2014they were led out. The\ngist of the ceremony is not death but expulsion; death, if it occurs, is\nincidental.\n\nThe ceremony of expulsion took place, it is again practically certain,\non the 6th day of Thargelion, a day not lightly to be forgotten, for it\nwas the birthday of Socrates. Diogenes Laertius[252] says in his life\nof Socrates: \u2018He was born on the 6th day of Thargelion, the day when\nthe Athenians purify the city.\u2019 The pharmakos is not expressly named,\nbut it will be seen in the sequel that the cleansing of the city by the\nexpulsion of the pharmakos was regarded as _the_ typical purification of\nthe whole year. The etymology of the word will be best considered when\nthe nature of the rites has been examined[253].\n\nThe ceremony of the pharmakos has been often discussed, but I think\nfrequently and fundamentally misapprehended. It appears at first sight to\ninvolve what we in our modern terminology call \u2018Human Sacrifice.\u2019 To be\ntold that this went on in civilized Athens in the 5th cent. B.C. shocks\nour preconceived notions of what an Athenian of that time would be likely\nto do or suffer. The result is that we are inclined to get out of the\ndifficulty in one of two ways: either we try to relegate the ceremony of\nthe pharmakos to the region of prehistoric tradition, or we so modify and\nmollify its main issues as to make it unmeaning.\n\nThe issue before us is a double one and must not be confused. We have to\ndetermine what the ceremonial of the pharmakos was, and next, did that\nceremonial last on into historic times?\n\nMy own view is briefly this: that we have no positive evidence that it\ndid last on into the 5th century B.C., but that, if the gist of the\nceremonial is once fairly understood, there is no a priori difficulty\nabout its continuance, and that, this a priori difficulty being removed,\nwe shall accept an overwhelming probability. The evidence for the\nhistorical pharmakos is just as good as e.g. the evidence for the\nchewing of the buckthorn at the Anthesteria.\n\nIt should be noted at the outset that the pharmakos, i.e. the human\nscape-goat, though it seems to us a monstrous and horrible notion,\nwas one so familiar to the Greek mind as to be in Attic literature\npractically proverbial. Aristophanes[254] wants to point the contrast\nbetween the old mint of sterling state officials and the new democratic\ncoinage: he says, now-a-days we fill offices by\n\n \u2018Any chance man that we come across,\n Not fit in old days for a pharmakos,\n These we use\n And these we choose,\n The veriest scum, the mere refuse,\u2019\n\nand again in a fragment[255]:\n\n \u2018_Your_ kinsman! how and whence, you pharmakos,\u2019\n\nand in the _Knights_[256] Demos says to Agoracritos:\n\n \u2018I bid you take the seat\n In the Prytaneum where this pharmakos\n Was wont to sit.\u2019\n\nPharmakos is in fact, like its equivalent \u2018offscouring\u2019 (\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1), a\ncurrent form of utter abuse, disgust and contempt.\n\nMoreover its ritual import was perfectly familiar. Lysias[257] in his\nspeech against Andokides is explicit: \u2018We needs must hold that in\navenging ourselves and ridding ourselves of Andokides we purify the city\nand perform apotropaic ceremonies, and solemnly expel a pharmakos and rid\nourselves of a criminal; for of this sort the fellow is.\u2019\n\nFor the fullest details of the horrid ceremony we are indebted to a\nvery late author. Tzetzes[258] (A.D. 1150) in his _Thousand Histories_\ndescribes it as follows: \u2018The pharmakos was a purification of this sort\nof old. If a calamity overtook the city by the wrath of God, whether it\nwere famine or pestilence or any other mischief, they led forth as though\nto a sacrifice the most unsightly of them all as a purification and a\nremedy to the suffering city. They set the sacrifice in the appointed\nplace, and gave him cheese with their hands and a barley cake and figs,\nand seven times they smote him with leeks and wild figs and other wild\nplants. Finally they burnt him with fire with the wood of wild trees and\nscattered the ashes into the sea and to the winds, for a purification,\nas I said, of the suffering city. Just as, I think, Lycophron records it\nof the Locrian maidens, speaking somewhat after this manner, I do not\nremember the exact verse, \u201cwhen, having consumed their limbs with fuel\nfrom fruitless trees, the flame of fire cast into the sea the ashes of\nthe maidens that died on the hill of Traron.\u201d\u2019\n\nTzetzes is not inventing the ceremonies, and in his awkward confused\nway he goes on to tell us his source\u2014the iambic poet Hipponax. \u2018And\nHipponax gives us the best complete account of the custom when he says,\n\u2018_to purify the city and strike_ (the pharmakos) _with branches_\u2019; and\nin another place he says in his first iambic poem, \u2018_striking him in the\nmeadow and beating him with branches and with leeks like a pharmakos_\u2019;\nand again in other places he says as follows: \u2018_we must make of him a\npharmakos_\u2019; and he says, \u2018_offering him figs and a barley cake and\ncheese such as pharmakoi eat_\u2019; and \u2018_they have long been waiting\nagape for them, holding branches in their hands as pharmakoi do_\u2019; and\nsomewhere else he says in the same iambic poem, \u2018_may he be parched with\nhunger, so that in (their) anger he may be led as pharmakos and beaten\nseven times_.\u2019\n\nTzetzes quotes for us six fragmentary statements from Hipponax, and the\nwords of Hipponax correspond so closely in every detail with his own\naccount that we are justified in supposing that his account of the end\nof the ceremonial, the burning and scattering of the ashes, is also\nborrowed; but the evidence of this from Hipponax he omits.\n\nHipponax makes his statements apparently, not from any abstract interest\nin ritual, but as part of an insult levelled at his enemy Boupalos. This\nis made almost certain by another fragment of Hipponax[259] in which\nhe says, \u2018as they uttered imprecations against that abomination (\u1f05\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2)\nBoupalos.\u2019 The fragments belong obviously to one or more iambic poems\nin which Hipponax expresses the hope that Boupalos will share the fate\nof a pharmakos, will be insulted, beaten, driven out of the city, and\nat last presumably put to death. Hipponax is _not_ describing an actual\nhistorical ceremony, but to make his insults have any point he must have\nbeen alluding to a ritual that was, in the 6th century B.C., perfectly\nfamiliar to his hearers.\n\nSome of the statements of Hipponax as to the details of the ritual are\nconfirmed from other sources, and are given in these with certain slight\nvariations which seem to show that Hipponax was not the only source of\ninformation.\n\nHelladius[260] the Byzantine, quoted by Photius, says that \u2018it was the\ncustom at Athens to lead in procession two pharmakoi with a view to\npurification; one for the men, one for the women. The pharmakos of the\nmen had black figs round his neck, the other had white ones, and he says\nthey were called \u03c3\u03c5\u03b2\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9.\u2019 Helladius added that \u2018this purification was\nof the nature of an apotropaic ceremony to avert diseases, and that it\ntook its rise from Androge\u00f4s the Cretan, when at Athens the Athenians\nsuffered abnormally from a pestilential disease, and the custom obtained\nof constantly purifying the city by pharmakoi.\u2019\n\nThe man and woman and the black and white figs are variant details.\nHelladius is our sole authority for the curious name \u03c3\u03c5\u03b2\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9: what this\nmeans is not certain. The term may have meant \u2018pig-Bacchoi.\u2019 The Bacchoi,\nas will later be seen, were sacred and specially purified persons with\nmagical powers, and the term may have been applied to mark analogous\nfunctions. Crete was the home of ceremonies of purification.\n\nHarpocration, in the passage already quoted, confirms the view that there\nwere two pharmakoi, but he says they were both men: one for the women,\none for the men. The discrepancy is not serious. It would be quite easy\nif necessary to dress up a man as a woman, and even a string of white\nfigs would be sufficient presentment of gender; _simulata pro veris_ is a\nprinciple of wide acceptation in primitive ritual.\n\nThe beating of the pharmakoi was a point of cardinal importance. It was\na ceremonial affair and done to the sound of the flute. Hesychius[261]\nsays, \u2018The song of the branches is a measure that they play on the flute\nwhen the pharmakoi are expelled, they being beaten with branches and fig\nsprigs. The pharmakos was actually called \u201che of the branches.\u201d\u2019 It must\nhave been a matter of very early observation that beating is expulsive.\nYou beat a bush, a bird escapes; you beat a garment, the dust comes\nout; you beat a man, the evil, whatever it be, will surely emerge. We\nassociate beating with moral stimulus, but the first notion is clearly\nexpulsive.\n\nProbably some notion of the application or instigation of good as well\nas the expulsion of evil early came in. This may be conjectured from the\nfact that rods made of special plants and trees were used, notably leeks\nand fig-trees. Plants with strong smells, and plants the eating of which\nis purgative, are naturally regarded as \u2018good medicine\u2019; as expulsive of\nevil, and hence in a secondary way as promotive of good.\n\nPythagoras[262] taught that to have a leek hung up over a doorway was a\ngood thing to prevent the entrance of evil, and Dioscorides[263] records\nthe same belief. Lucian[264] makes Menippus relate how before he was\nallowed to consult the oracle of the dead he was \u2018purged and wiped clean\nand consecrated with leek and torches.\u2019\n\nThe _locus classicus_ on beating with leek is of course the beating of\nthe god Pan by his Arcadian worshippers. Theocritus[265] makes Simichidas\nsing:\n\n \u2018Dear Pan, if this my prayer may granted be\n Then never shall the boys of Arcady\n Flog thee on back and flank with leeks that sting\n When scanty meat is left for offering;\n If not, thy skin with nails be flayed and torn\n And amid nettles mayst thou couch till morn.\u2019\n\nAnd the scholiast remarks, \u2018they say that a festival was held in Arcadia\nin which the youths beat Pan with leeks when the officials sacrificed a\nsmall victim, and there was not enough to eat for the worshipper; or the\nArcadians when they went out hunting if they had good sport paid honour\nto Pan; if the reverse they maltreated him with leeks because, being a\nmountain god, he had power over the produce of the chase.\u2019 The first\nexplanation confuses cause with effect, the second is undoubtedly right.\nPan is beaten because, as lord of the chase, he has failed to do his\nbusiness.\n\nIt is sometimes said that Pan is beaten, and the pharmakoi beaten, in\norder to \u2018stimulate their powers of fertility.\u2019 In a sense this is\nultimately true, but such a statement gives a false and misleading\nemphasis. The image and the pharmakoi are beaten partly to drive out evil\ninfluences, partly, it should not be forgotten, to relieve the feelings\nof the beaters. When the evil influences are beaten out, the god will\nundoubtedly do better next time, but it is only in this sense that the\npowers of fertility are stimulated. The pharmakos has no second chance.\nHe is utterly impure, so that the more purifying influences, the more\ngood medicine brought to bear upon him, the better; but he is doomed to\ndeath, not to reform. In the Lupercalia, already discussed (p. 51), the\nwomen are struck by the _februum_ as a fertility charm, but even here the\nprimary notion must have been the expulsion of evil influences.\n\nThe beating, like the pharmakos, became proverbial. Aristophanes[266]\nmakes Aeacus ask how he is to torture the supposed Xanthias, and the real\nXanthias makes answer:\n\n \u2018Oh, in the usual way, but when you beat him\n Don\u2019t do it with a leek or a young onion.\u2019\n\nHere undoubtedly the meaning is, \u2018don\u2019t let this be a merely ceremonial\nbeating, a religious performance,\u2019 and the allusion gains in point by the\nfact that the supposed slave was a real god to be treated worse than a\npharmakos. Lucian[267] says that the Muses, he is sure, would never deign\nto come near his vulgar book-buyer, and instead of giving him a crown of\nmyrtle they will beat him with myrrh and mallow and _get rid of him_, so\nthat he may not pollute their sacred fountains. Clearly here the vulgar\nbook-buyer is a pharmakos.\n\nWe have then abundant evidence that the pharmakos was beaten; was he also\nput to death? Tzetzes, as has been seen, states that he was burnt with\nthe wood of certain fruitless trees, and that his ashes were scattered\nto the sea and the winds. The scholiast on Aristophanes[268] also states\nexpressly that by \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, i.e. people fed and kept at the public\nexpense, was meant \u2018those who were called pharmakoi, and these pharmakoi\npurified cities by their slaughter.\u2019 So far his statement is of the\nmost general character, and it need not have been inferred that he was\nspeaking of Athens, but he goes on, \u2018for the Athenians maintained certain\nvery ignoble and useless persons, and on the occasion of any calamity\nbefalling the city, I mean a pestilence or anything of that sort, they\nsacrificed these persons with a view to purification from pollution and\nthey called them purifications\u2019 (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1). Tzetzes said a pharmakos was\nexcessively ungainly (\u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd), the scholiast, worthless and useless.\nAristophanes himself regarded them as the \u2018scum\u2019 of humanity.\n\nThe scholiast is of course a late and somewhat dubious authority, and did\nthe fact of the death of the pharmakos rest on him and on Tzetzes alone,\nwe might be inclined to question it. A better authority is preserved for\nus by Harpocration[269]; he says, \u2018Istros (_circ._ B.C. 230), in the\nfirst book of his Epiphanies of Apollo, says that Pharmakos is a proper\nname, and that Pharmakos stole sacred _phialae_ belonging to Apollo, and\nwas taken and stoned by the men with Achilles, and the ceremonies done at\nthe Thargelia are mimetic representations of these things.\u2019 The aetiology\nof Istros is of course wrong, but it is quite clear that he believed the\nceremonies of the Thargelia to include the stoning of a man to death.\n\nThat in primitive pharmakos-ceremonies the human pharmakos was actually\nput to death scarcely admits of doubt: that Istros believed this took\nplace at the ceremony of the Thargelia in honour of Apollo may be\n_inferred_ from his aetiology. There still remains in the minds of some a\nfeeling that the Athens of the fifth century was too civilized a place to\nhave suffered the actual death of human victims, and that periodically,\nas part of a public state ritual. This misgiving arises mainly, as was\nindicated at the outset, from a misunderstanding of the gist of the\nceremony. Tzetzes, after the manner of his day, calls it a \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, a burnt\nsacrifice; but it was not really a sacrifice in our modern sense at all,\nthough, as will later be shown, it was one of the diverse notions that\nwent to the making of the ancient idea of sacrifice.\n\nThe pharmakos was not a sacrifice in the sense of an offering _made to\nappease an angry god_. It came to be associated with Apollo when he took\nover the Thargelia, but primarily it was not intended to please or to\nappease any spirit or god. It was, as ancient authors repeatedly insist,\na \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, a purification. The essence of the ritual was not atonement,\nfor there was no one to atone, but riddance, the artificial making of an\n\u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, a pollution, to get rid of all pollution. The notion, so foreign\nto our scientific habit of thought, so familiar to the ancients, was\nthat evil of all kinds was a physical infection that could be caught and\ntransferred; it was highly catching. Next, some logical savage saw that\nthe notion could be utilized for artificial riddance. The Dyaks[270]\nsweep misfortunes out of their houses and put them into a toy-house made\nof bamboo; this they set adrift on a river. On the occasion of a recent\noutbreak of influenza in Pithuria \u2018a man had a small carriage made, after\na plan of his own, for a pair of scape-goats which were harnessed to it\nand driven to a wood at some distance where they were let loose. From\nthat hour the disease completely ceased in the town. The goats never\nreturned; had they done so the disease must have come back with them.\u2019\nIt is needless for our purpose to accumulate instances of the countless\nvarieties of scape-goats, carts, cocks, boats, that the ingenuity of\nprimitive man has invented. The instance chosen shows as clearly as\npossible that, as the gist of the ceremony is magical riddance, it is\nessential that the scape-goat, whatever form he takes, _should never\nreturn_.\n\nThis necessity for utter destruction comes out very clearly in an account\nof the way the Egyptians treated their scape-goats. Plutarch[271] in his\ndiscourse on Isis and Osiris says, on the authority of Manetho, that in\nthe dog-days they used to burn men alive whom they called Typhonians,\nand _their ashes they made away with by winnowing and scattering them_.\nThe winnowing-fan in which the corn was tossed and by means of which\nthe chaff was blown utterly away was to Clement of Alexandria[272] the\nsymbol of utter ruin and destruction. In his protest against the ruinous\nforce of convention among pagan people, he says finely: \u2018let us fly from\nconvention, it strangles men, it turns them away from truth, it leads\nthem afar from life; convention is a noose, a place of execution, a pit,\na winnowing-fan; convention is ruin.\u2019\n\nThe pharmakos is killed then, not because his death is a vicarious\nsacrifice, but because he is so infected and tabooed that his life is\na practical impossibility. The uneducated, among whom his lot would\nnecessarily be cast, regard him as an infected horror, an incarnate\npollution; the educated who believe no such nonsense know that the\nkindest thing is to put an end to a life that is worse than death.\nMoreover nearly every civilized state to this day offers \u2018human\nsacrifice\u2019 in the shape of the criminals it executes. Why not combine\nreligious tradition with a supposed judicial necessity? Civilized Athens\nhad its barathron; why should civilized Athens shrink from annually\nutilizing two vicious and already condemned criminals to \u2018purify the\ncity\u2019?\n\nThe question of whether the pharmakos was actually put to death in\ncivilized Athens is of course for our purpose a strictly subordinate one.\nIt has only been discussed in detail because the answer that we return\nto it depends in great measure on how far we realize the primary gist\nof a pharmakos, i.e. the two notions of (_a_) the _physicalness_, the\nactuality of evil, and (_b_) the possibility of contagion and transfer.\n\nOur whole modern conception of the scape-man is apt to be unduly\ninfluenced by the familiar instance of the Hebrew scape-goat. We remember\nhow\n\n \u2018The scape-goat stood all skin and bone\n _While moral business, not his own,_\n _Was bound about his head_.\u2019\n\nAnd the pathos of the proceeding haunts our minds and prevents us from\nrealizing the actuality and the practicality of the more primitive\nphysical taboo. It is interesting to note that even in this moralized\nHebrew conception, the scape-goat was not a sacrifice proper; its\nsending away was _preceded by sacrifice_. The priest \u2018made an atonement\nfor the children of Israel for all their sins once a year,\u2019 and when\nthe sacrifice of bullock and goat and the burning of incense, and the\nsprinkling of blood was over, then and not till then the live goat was\npresented to the Lord[273]. The Hebrew scriptures emphasize the fact that\nthe burden laid upon the goat is not merely physical evil, not pestilence\nor famine, but rather the burden of moral guilt. \u2018And Aaron shall lay\nboth his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over him all\nthe iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions in\nall their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send\nhim away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness. And the goat shall\nbear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited.\u2019\n\nBut so close is the connection of moral and physical that even here,\nwhere the evil laid upon the scape-goat is moral only, there is evident\ndanger of infection; the goat is sent forth into a land not inhabited and\nit would be manifestly undesirable that he should return. At Athens we\nhear of no confession of sins, it is famine and pestilence from which a\nterror-stricken city seeks riddance.\n\nThis physical aspect of evil is still more clearly brought out in a\nceremony performed annually at Chaeronea. Plutarch[274] himself, when he\nwas archon, had to preside over the ritual and has left us the account.\nA household slave was taken and ceremonially beaten with rods of agnus\ncastus\u2014again a plant of cathartic quality\u2014and driven out of doors to\nthe words, \u2018Out with hunger, in with wealth and health.\u2019 The ceremony\nwas called the \u2018expulsion of hunger,\u2019 and Plutarch speaks of it as an\n\u2018ancestral sacrifice.\u2019 It was performed by each householder for his own\nhouse, and by the archon for the common hearth of the city. When Plutarch\nwas archon he tells us the ceremony was largely attended. The name of\nthe \u2018ceremony\u2019 is instructive, it is \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, riddance, expulsion, not\nas the pharmakos was, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, purification; both are called \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9,\nsacrifices, only by concession to popular usage when every religious\nceremony is regarded as of the nature of burnt sacrifice. The ceremony of\nthe pharmakos was taken on by Apollo, but in the Chaeronea \u2018expulsion\u2019\nthere is no pretence that any god is worshipped; the performance remains\nfrankly magical.\n\nAt Chaeronea the slave was merely beaten and expelled. At Delphi a\npharmakos ceremony of still milder form took place in which the victim\nwas merely a puppet.\n\nIn his 12th _Greek Question_ Plutarch asks, \u2018What is Charila among the\nDelphians?\u2019 His answer is as follows: \u2018Concerning Charila they tell a\nstory something on this wise. The Delphians were afflicted by a famine\nfollowing after a drought. They came to the gates of the king\u2019s palace\nwith their children and their wives to make supplication. And the king\ndistributed grain and pulse to the noblest of them as there was not\nenough for all. And there came a little girl who had lost both her father\nand mother, and she made supplication. But he struck her with his shoe\nand threw the shoe into her face. Now she was poor and desolate but of\nnoble spirit, and she went away and loosed her girdle and hanged herself.\nAs the famine went on and pestilence was added thereto, the Pythia gave\nan oracle to the king that he must appease Charila, a maiden who had died\nby her own hand. After some difficulty they found out that this was the\nname of the girl who had been struck. So they performed a sacrifice which\nhad in it some admixture of a purification, and this they still perform\nevery nine years.\u2019\n\nThe tale told of Charila is, of course, pure aetiology, to account for\ncertain features in an established ritual. The expression Plutarch uses,\na \u2018sacrifice with admixture of purification\u2019 (\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd), is interesting because it shows that though by his time almost\nevery religious ceremony was called a \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, his mind is haunted by\nthe feeling that the Charila ceremony was in reality a purification,\na \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2; he would have been nearer the truth had he said it was a\n\u2018purification containing in it a certain element of sacrifice.\u2019\n\nHe then proceeds to give the actual ritual. \u2018The king is seated to\npreside over the pulse and the grain and he distributes it to all, both\ncitizens and strangers: there is brought in an image of Charila as a\nlittle girl, and when they all receive the corn, the king strikes the\nimage with his shoe and the leader of the Thyiades takes the image and\nconducts it to a certain cavernous place, and there fastening (a rope)\nround the neck of the image they bury it where they buried the strangled\nCharila.\u2019\n\nThe festival Charila, festival of rejoicing and grace, is like the\nThargelia, a festival of first-fruits containing the ceremony of the\nPharmakos, only in effigy. Charila is beaten with a shoe: leather is to\nthis day regarded as magically expulsive, though the modern surrogate is\nof white satin. On a curious vase in the National Museum at Athens[275],\nwe have a representation of a wedding procession at which a man is in the\nact of throwing a shoe. It is still to-day regarded as desirable that\nbride and bridegroom should be hit, evil influences are thereby expelled,\nand the shower of fertilizing rice is made the more efficacious. The\neffigy of Charila is buried, not burnt, possibly a more primitive form of\ndestruction. The origin of the ceremony is dated back to the time when\nthe king was priest, but the actual celebrants are women.\n\nA pharmakos ceremony that is known to have taken place at Marseilles adds\nsome further instructive details. Servius, in commenting on the words\n_auri sacra fames_[276] \u2018accursed hunger of gold,\u2019 notes that _sacer_\nmay mean accursed as well as holy, and he seems, rather vaguely, to\nrealize that between these two meanings is the middle term \u2018devoted.\u2019\nThe use of the term, he says, is derived from a custom among the Gauls:\n\u2018Whenever the inhabitants of Marseilles suffer from a pestilence, one of\nthe poorer class offers himself to be kept at the public expense and fed\non specially pure foods. After this has been done he is decorated with\nsacred boughs and clad in holy garments, and led about through the whole\ncity to the accompaniment of curses, in order that upon him may fall all\nthe ills of the whole city, and thus he is cast headlong down.\u2019\n\nHere we have the curious added touch that the vehicle of impurity is\npurified. To our modern minds pure and impure stand at two opposite\npoles, and if we were arraying a scape-goat we certainly should not\ntrouble about his preliminary purification. But the ancients, as Servius\ndimly feels, knew of a condition that combined the two, the condition\nthat the savage describes as \u2018taboo.\u2019 For this condition the Latins used\nthe word \u2018sacer,\u2019 the Greeks, as has already been seen, the word \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. It\nis in such complex primitive notions as those of _sacer_ and \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, that\nour modern habit of clear analysis and differentiation causes us to miss\nthe full and complex significance.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe leading out of the pharmakos is then a purely magical ceremony based\non ignorance and fear; it is not a human sacrifice to Apollo or to any\nother divinity or even ghost, it is a ceremony of physical expulsion.\nIt is satisfactory to find that the etymology[277] of the word confirms\nthis view, \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 means simply \u2018magic-man.\u2019 Its Lithuanian cognate is\n_bur\u012bn_, magic; in Latin it appears as _forma_, formula, magical spell;\nour _formulary_ retains some vestige of its primitive connotation.\n\u03a6\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd in Greek means healing drug, poison, and dye, but all, for\nbetter for worse, are magical. To express its meaning we need what our\nlanguage has lost, a double-edged word like the savage \u2018medicine.\u2019 The\npharmakos of the Thargelia shows us a state of things in which man does\nnot either tend or avert god[278] or ghost, but seeks, by the \u2018medicine\u2019\nhe himself makes, to do, on his own account, his spring or rather\nWhitsuntide \u2018thorough cleaning.\u2019 The ceremony of the pharmakos went in\nsome sense to the making of the Greek and modern notion of sacrifice, but\nthe word itself has other and perhaps more primitive connotations.\n\nTzetzes, looking back at the ceremony of the expulsion of the pharmakos,\ncalls it a sacrifice (\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1), but we need not imitate him in his\nconfusion of ideas new and old. The rite of the Thargelia was a rite of\nexpulsion, of riddance, which incidentally, as it were, involved loss\nof life to a human being. The result is, indeed, in both cases the same\nto the human being, but the two ceremonials of sacrifice and riddance\nexpress widely different conditions and sentiments in the mind of the\nworshipper.\n\nIt may indeed be doubted whether we have any certain evidence of \u2018human\nsacrifice\u2019 in our sense among the Greeks even of mythological days. A\nlarge number of cases which were by the tragedians regarded as such,\nresolve themselves into cases of the blood feud, cases such as those\nof Iphigeneia and Polyxena, when the object was really the placation\nof a ghost, not the service of an Olympian. Perhaps a still larger\nnumber are primarily not sacrifices, \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, but ceremonies of riddance\nand purification, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03af. The ultimate fact that lies behind such\nceremonies is the use of a human pharmakos, and then later, when the real\nmeaning was lost, all manner of aetiological myths are invented and some\noffended Olympian is introduced.\n\nThe case of the supposed \u2018human sacrifice\u2019 of Athamas is instructive,\nboth as to its original content and as to the shifting sentiments with\nwhich it was regarded. When Xerxes came to Alos in Achaia his guides,\nHerodotus[279] tells us, anxious to give him all possible information as\nto local curiosities, told him the tradition about the sanctuary of Zeus\nLaphystios: \u2018The eldest of the race of Athamas is forbidden to enter the\nPrytaneion which is called by the Achaians the _Le\u00efton_. If he enters\nhe can only go out to be sacrificed.\u2019 It was further told how some,\nfearing this fate, had fled the country, and coming back and entering\nthe Prytaneion were decked with fillets and led out in procession to\nbe sacrificed (\u1f61\u03c2 \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c2\n\u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2). Here there is obvious confusion, as the man who\nleft the country to avoid death would never have been so foolish as,\nimmediately on his return, to enter the forbidden place. The point is\nclear: great stress is laid on the leading forth in procession\u2014the\ndescendant of the royal race was a scape-goat. Herodotus makes this\nquite clear. Athamas was sacrificed because the Achaeans _were making\na purification of the land_ (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd).\nHerodotus gives as the cause of this primitive and perfectly intelligible\ncustom various conflicting reasons which well reflect the various stages\nof opinion through which the thinking Greek passed. We have first the\nreal reason\u2014Athamas as a scape-goat. Then the public conscience is\nuneasy, and we have a legend that the \u2018sacrifice\u2019 is interrupted at the\nmoment of consummation either by Herakles (according to Sophocles in the\nlost _Athamas_) or by Kytissoros. It is wrong to sacrifice; hence the\nsacrifice is interrupted, but it is wrong to interrupt sacrifice, so\nthe descendants of Kytissoros are punished. Then, finally, it is felt\nthat the sacrifice must go on, but it is a dreadful thing, an \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, so\na chance of escape is given to the victim. Finally in the same complex\nlegend we have the substitution of a ram for the human victim Phrixos.\n\nSometimes incidentally we learn that other peoples adopted the device\nwhich may have satisfied the Athenians, i.e. needing a pharmakos they\nutilized a man already condemned by the state. Thus in the long list\nof \u2018human sacrifices\u2019 drawn up by Porphyry[280] in his indictment of\nhuman ignorance and fear he mentions that on the 6th day of the month\nMetageitnion a man was sacrificed to Kronos, a custom, he says, which\nwas maintained for a long time unchanged. _A man who had been publicly\ncondemned to death_ was kept till the time of the festival of Kronia.\nWhen the festival came they brought him outside the gates before the\nimage (\u1f15\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) of Aristobule, gave him wine to drink and slew him. The\nvictim is already doomed, and it would seem intoxicated before he is\nsacrificed.\n\nIn noting the substitution of animal for human sacrifice, one curious\npoint remains to be observed. The step seems to us momentous because to\nus human life is sacrosanct. But to the primitive mind the gulf between\nanimal and human is not so wide. The larger animals, and certain animals\nwhich for various reasons were specially venerated, were in early days\nalso regarded as sacrosanct, and to slay them was murder, to be atoned\nfor by purification.\n\nThis notion comes out very clearly in the ritual of the Murder of the Ox,\nthe _Bouphonia_[281], or, as it was sometimes called, the Dipolia[282].\nThe Bouphonia by the time of Aristophanes[283] was a symbol of what was\narchaic and obsolete. After the Just Logos in the _Clouds_ has described\nthe austere old educational _r\u00e9gime_ of ancient Athens, the Unjust Logos\nremarks:\n\n \u2018Bless me, that\u2019s quite the ancient lot Dipolia-like, chock-full\n Of crickets and Bouphonia too.\u2019\n\nAnd the scholiast comments, \u2018Dipolia, a festival at Athens, in which\nthey sacrifice to Zeus Polieus, on the 14th day of Skirophorion. It is\na mimetic representation of what happened about the cakes (\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9) and\nthe cows[284].\u2019 What happened was this: \u2018Barley mixed with wheat, or\ncakes made of them, was laid upon the bronze altar of Zeus Polieus, on\nthe Acropolis. Oxen were driven round the altar, and the ox which went\nup to the altar and ate the offering on it was sacrificed. The axe and\nknife with which the beast was slain had been previously wetted with\nwater, brought by maidens called \u201cwater-carriers.\u201d The weapons were then\nsharpened and handed to the butchers, one of whom felled the ox with\nthe axe and another cut its throat with the knife. As soon as he had\nfelled the ox, the former threw the axe from him and fled, and the man\nwho had cut the beast\u2019s throat apparently imitated his example. Meantime\nthe ox was skinned and all present partook of its flesh. Then the hide\nwas stuffed with straw and sewed up, and next the stuffed animal was set\non its feet and yoked to a plough as if it were ploughing. A trial then\ntook place in an ancient law court, presided over by the king (as he\nwas called), to determine who had murdered the ox. The maidens who had\nbrought the water accused the men who had sharpened the axe and knife,\nthe men who had sharpened the axe and knife blamed the men who had handed\nthese implements to the butchers, the men who had handed the implements\nto the butchers blamed the butchers and the butchers blamed the axe and\nknife, which were accordingly found guilty and condemned and cast into\nthe sea.\u2019\n\nThe remarks of the Unjust Logos are amply justified. That a mummery so\nabsurd, with all its leisurely House-that-Jack-built hocus-pocus, should\nbe regularly carried on in the centre of civilized Athens was enough to\nmake the most careless and the most conventional reflect on the nature\nand strength of religious conservatism. But the rite was once of real and\nsolemn import, and, taken as such, the heart of a terror-stricken service\nof Aversion. The ox had to be killed, man imperatively demanded his feast\nof flesh-meat, but it was a dreadful \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, an abomination, to kill it, as\nbad as, perhaps worse than killing a man, and the ghost of the ox and the\nspirits of vengeance generally must at all costs be tricked or appeased.\nSo great is the terror that no one device is enough. You pretend that the\nox is not really dead, or at least that he has come to life: if that is\nnot enough you pretend that he was himself an offender: he ate the sacred\ncakes, not by compulsion, but of his own free, wicked will. Last you\npretend that you did not do it yourself, it was some one else. No, not\nsome one else, but some_thing_ else. Finally that thing is got rid of;\nthe \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, the pollution, is thrown into the sea.\n\nThe important point for the moment is that the ox, though no surrogate\nfor human sacrifice, is as good as human, is a man. His murdered ghost,\nor at least the pollution of his murder, cries for placation and\npurification. It is satisfactory to note that if you had to be purified\nyourself for murdering an ox, an ox, even a bronze ox, had to be\npurified for murdering you. Pausanias[285] was told the following story\nabout a bronze ox, dedicated at Olympia by the Corcyreans. A little boy\nwas sitting playing under the ox, and suddenly he lifted up his head\nand broke it against the bronze, and a few days after he died of the\nwounds. The Eleans consulted as to whether they should remove the ox out\nof the Altis, as being guilty of blood, but the Delphic oracle, always\nconservative in the matter of valuable property, ordained \u2018that they were\nto leave it and perform the same ceremonies as were customary among the\nGreeks in the case of involuntary homicide.\u2019\n\nTo return to the Bouphonia, the confused notion that a thing must be\ndone, and yet that its doing involves an \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, a pollution, comes out\nin all the rituals known as Flight-ceremonies. The gist of them is\nvery clear in the account given by Diodorus[286] of the ceremonies\nof embalming among the Egyptians. He tells us \u2018the man called\nHe-who-slits-asunder (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) takes an Aethiopian stone, and, making\na slit in the prescribed way, instantly makes off with a run, and they\npursue him and pelt him with stones, and heap curses on him, _as though\ntransferring the pollution of the thing on to him_.\u2019\n\nThe _Flight-Ceremony_ recorded by Plutarch[287] is specially instructive,\nand must be noted in detail, the more so as it, like the Bouphonia,\nis connected with rites of the threshing-floor. In his 12th _Greek\nQuestion_, Plutarch says that among the three great festivals celebrated\nevery eighth year at Delphi was one called _Stepterion_[288], and in\nanother discourse (_De defect. orac._ XIV.) he describes the rite\npractised, though he mixes it up with so much aetiological mythology that\nit is not very easy to disentangle the actual facts. This much is clear;\nevery eighth year a hut (\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03c2) was set up about the threshing-floor\nat Delphi. This hut, Plutarch says, bore more resemblance to a kingly\npalace than to a snake\u2019s lair; we may therefore safely infer that\nit held a snake. A boy with both his parents alive was led up by a\ncertain prescribed way[289] with lighted torches; fire was set to the\nhut, a table overturned, and the celebrants took flight without looking\nback through the gates of the precinct; afterwards the boy went off\nto Tempe, fasted, dined, and was brought back crowned with laurel in\nsolemn procession. Plutarch never says that the boy killed the snake,\nbut as the ceremony was supposed to be a mimetic representation of the\nslaying of the Python and the banishment of Apollo, this may be inferred.\nPlutarch is of course _more suo_ shocked at the idea that Apollo could\nneed purification, and at a loss to account decently for the curious\nceremonial, but he makes one acute remark: \u2018finally the wanderings and\nthe servitude of the boy and the purifications at Tempe raise a suspicion\nof some great pollution and deed of daring\u2019 (\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bc\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c8\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9). This hits the mark: a sacred snake has been\nslain; the slayer has incurred an \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, from which he must be purified.\nThe slaying is probably formal and sacrificial, for the boy is led to\nthe hut with all due solemnity, and has been carefully selected for the\npurpose; but the \u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, the outrage, the deed of daring, is an \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, so\nhe must take flight after its accomplishment. Sacred snake, or sacred ox,\nor human victim, the procedure is the same.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTo resume. The outcome of our examination of the ceremony of the\npharmakos is briefly this: the gist of the pharmakos rite is physical\npurification, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, and this notion, sometimes alone, sometimes\ncombined with the notion of the placation of a ghost, is the idea\nunderlying among the Greeks the notion we are apt to call Human\nSacrifice. To this must be added the fact that in a primitive state of\ncivilization the line between human and animal \u2018sacrifice\u2019 is not sharply\ndrawn.\n\n\nKALLYNTERIA, PLYNTERIA.\n\nPlutarch[290] tells us that it was on a day of ill-omen that Alcibiades\nreturned to Athens: \u2018On the day of his return they were solemnizing\nthe Plynteria to the Goddess. For on the 6th day of the third part of\nThargelia the Praxiergidae solemnize the rites that may not be disclosed:\nthey take off the adornments of the image, and cover it up. Hence the\nAthenians account this day as most unlucky of all, and do no work on it.\nAnd it seemed as though the Goddess were receiving him in no friendly or\nkindly fashion, as she hid her face from him and seemed to banish him\nfrom her presence.\u2019 At the Plynteria, as at other \u2018unlucky\u2019 festivals,\nthe sanctuaries, Pollux[291] tells us, were roped round. The object was\nin part to keep out the common herd, perhaps primarily to \u2018avert\u2019 evil\ninfluences.\n\nPhotius[292] discusses the two festivals, the Kallynteria and the\nPlynteria, together, placing the Kallynteria first; they have indeed\npractically always been bracketed in the minds of commentators as\nsubstantially identical in content. The Plynteria, it is usually stated,\nwas the washing festival. The image of Pallas was taken in solemn\nprocession down to the sea, stripped of its gear, veiled from the eyes\nof the vulgar, washed in sea-water, and brought back. At the Kallynteria\nit was re-dressed, re-decked, \u2018beautified.\u2019 This simple explanation of\nthe sequence of rites presents only one trifling difficulty. Photius\nexpressly tells us that the Kallynteria preceded the Plynteria; the\nKallynteria took place on the 19th of the month Thargelion, and the\nPlynteria on the second day of the 3rd decade, i.e. on the 22nd[293]. It\nwould be strange if the image was first \u2018beautified\u2019 and then washed.\nThe explanation of the seeming incongruity is of course a simple one.\nThe word \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd means not only \u2018to beautify\u2019 but to brush out, to\nsweep, \u2018to give a shine to.\u2019 The Greek for broom is \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, also\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb<\u03bb>\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd in Hesych. s.v. \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd; and \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, if we may trust\nHesychius[294], means sweepings (\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1). In a word the Kallynteria is a\nfestival of what the Romans call _everruncatio_, the festival of \u2018those\nwho do the sweeping.\u2019 They swept out the sacred places, made them as we\nsay now-a-days \u2018beautifully clean,\u2019 and then, having done their sweeping\nfirst like good housewives, when the house was ready they washed the\nimage and brought it back in new shining splendour.\n\nIt is evident that when we hear of sweeping out sanctuaries and washing\nan image we have come to a religious stage in which there is a definite\ngod worshipped, and that god is conceived of as anthropomorphic. There\nmay have been rites of the Thargelia, including the Pharmakos, i.e. the\nceremony of the expulsion of evil, before there were any Kallynteria or\nPlynteria. Be this as it may, the Kallynteria and Plynteria throw light\non the purport of the pharmakos, and emphasize the fact that all the\ncleansing, whether of image, sanctuary or people, was but a preliminary\nto the bringing in of the first-fruits.\n\nThis connection between first-fruits and purification explains a\nfeature in the Plynteria that would otherwise remain obscure. In the\nprocession that took place at the Plynteria, probably, though not quite\ncertainly, the procession in which the image was taken down to the sea,\nHesychius[295] tells us they carried a cake or mass of dried figs, which\nwent by the name of _Hegeteria_. Hesychius is at no loss to account for\nthe strange name. Figs were the first cultivated fruit of which man\npartook; the cake of figs is called Hegeteria because it \u2018Led the Way\u2019 in\nthe matter of diet!\n\nWe may perhaps be allowed to suggest a possible alternative. May not\nthe fig-cake be connected with the root of \u1f05\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 rather than with \u1f04\u03b3\u03c9?\nFigs were used in purification. Is not the Hegeteria the fig-cake\nof purification? A necklace of figs was hung about the neck of the\npharmakos, and the statues of the gods had sometimes a like adornment.\nPrimitive man is apt to get a little confused as to cause and effect. He\nperforms a rite of purification to protect his first-fruits; he comes\nto think the offering of those first-fruits is in itself a rite of\npurification.\n\nAs usual when we come to consider the analogous Roman festival the\nmeaning of the rites practised is more baldly obvious. Plutarch[296] in\nhis _Roman Questions_ asks, \u2018Why did not the Romans marry in the month\nof May?\u2019 and for once he hits upon the right answer: \u2018May it be that\nin this month they perform the greatest of purificatory ceremonies?\u2019\nWhat these purificatory ceremonies, these \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, were, he tells us\nexplicitly: \u2018for at the present day they throw images from the bridge\ninto the river, but in old times they used to throw human beings.\u2019 We\nmust here separate sharply the fact stated by Plutarch, the actual ritual\nthat took place in his own day, from his conjecture about the past. We\n_know_ images, puppets, were thrown from the bridge, we may conjecture,\nas Plutarch did, that they were the surrogates of human sacrifice, but\nwe must carefully bear in mind that this is pure conjecture. The _fact_\nPlutarch certifies in another of his _Questions_[297], and adds the name\nof the puppets. \u2018What,\u2019 he asks, \u2018is the reason that in the month of May\nthey throw images of human beings from the wooden bridge into the river,\ncalling them Argeioi?\u2019 Ovid[298] tells us a little more: \u2018Then (i.e. on\nMay 15th) the Vestal is wont to throw from the oaken bridge the images of\nmen of old times, made of rushes.\u2019 He adds that it was in obedience to an\noracle: \u2018Ye nations, throw two bodies in sacrifice to the Ancient One who\nbears the sickle, bodies to be received by the Tuscan streams.\u2019 Ovid and\nPlutarch clearly both held that the _Argei_ of rushes were surrogates. It\nseems possible, on the other hand, that the myth of human sacrifice may\nhave arisen from a merely dramatic apotropaic rite. The one certain thing\nis that the _Argei_[299] _were_ pharmakoi, were \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nThat the time of the Argei, and indeed the whole month till the Ides of\nJune, was unlucky is abundantly proved by the conduct of the Flaminica.\nPlutarch[300] goes on to say that the Flaminica is wont to be gloomy\n(\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) and not to wash nor to adorn herself. Ovid[301] adds\ndetails of this mourning; he tells us that he consulted the Flaminica\nDialis as to the marriage of his daughter, and learnt that till the Ides\nof June there was no luck for brides and their husbands, \u2018for thus did\nthe holy bride of the Dialis speak to me: \u201cUntil tranquil Tiber has borne\nto the sea in his tawny waters the cleansings from Ilian Vesta it is not\nlawful for me to comb my shorn locks with the boxwood, nor to pare my\nnails with iron, nor to touch my husband though he be priest of Jove....\nBe not in haste. Better will thy daughter marry when Vesta of the Fire\nshines with a cleansed hearth.\u201d\u2019\n\nThe Roman Vestalia fell a little later than the Kallynteria and\nPlynteria, but their content is the same. I borrow the account of the\nritual of the Vestalia from Mr Warde-Fowler[302]. On June 7 the _penus_,\nor innermost sanctuary of Vesta, which was shut all the rest of the year\nand to which no man but the pontifex maximus had at any time right of\nentry, was thrown open to all matrons. During the seven following days\nthey crowded to it barefoot. The object of this was perhaps to pray for\na blessing on the household. On plain and old-fashioned ware offerings\nof food were carried into the temple: the Vestals themselves offered\nthe sacred cakes made of the first ears of corn, plucked as we saw in\nthe early days of May; bakers and millers kept holiday, all mills were\ngarlanded and donkeys decorated with wreaths and cakes. On June 15 the\ntemple (_aedes_) was swept and the refuse taken away and either thrown\ninto the Tiber or deposited in some particular spot. Then the _dies\nnefasti_ came to an end, and the 15th itself became _fastus_ as soon\nas the last act of cleansing had been duly performed. _Quando stercus\ndelatum fas_, \u2018When the rubbish has been carried away.\u2019\n\nDr Frazer[303] has collected many savage parallels to the rites of the\nVestalia. The most notable is the _busk_ or festival of first-fruits\namong the Creek Indians of North America, held in July or August when\nthe corn is ripe. Before the celebration of the _busk_ no Indian would\neat or even touch the new corn. In preparation for its rites they got\nnew clothes and household utensils: old clothes, rubbish of all kinds,\nand the old corn that remained were carefully burnt. The village fires\nwere put out and the ashes swept away, and in particular the hearth and\naltar of the temple were dug up and cleaned out. The public square was\ncarefully swept out \u2018for fear of polluting the first-fruit offerings.\u2019\nBefore the sacramental eating of the new corn a strict fast was observed,\nand (for the precautions taken by the savage ritualist are searching and\nlogical) a strong purgative was swallowed. With the new corn was solemnly\ndispensed the freshly-kindled fire, and the priest publicly announced\nthat the new divine fire had purged away the sins of the past year. Such\npowerful \u2018medicine\u2019 was the new corn that some of the men rubbed their\nnew corn between their hands, then on their faces and breasts.\n\nTo resume. In the Anthesteria we have seen that sacrifice was in intent\npurification, and that this purification took the form of the placation\nof ghosts. In the Thargelia, purification is again the end and aim of\nsacrifice, but this purification, though it involves the taking of a\nhuman life, is of the nature of a merely magical cleansing to prepare for\nthe incoming first-fruits.\n\nWe pass to the consideration of the autumn festival of sowing, the\n_Thesmophoria_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE WOMEN\u2019S FESTIVALS.\n\nTHESMOPHORIA, ARREPHORIA, SKIROPHORIA, STENIA, HALOA.\n\n \u2018\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u2019 \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\u2019\n\n\n_The Thesmophoria._\n\nWith the autumn festival of the Thesmophoria[304] we come to a class of\nrites of capital interest. They were practised by women only and were\nof immemorial antiquity. Although, for reasons explained at the outset,\nthey are considered after the Anthesteria and Thargelia, their character\nwas even more primitive, and, owing to the conservative character of\nwomen and the mixed contempt and superstition with which such rites were\nregarded by men, they were preserved in pristine purity down to late\ndays. Unlike the Diasia, Anthesteria, Thargelia, they were left almost\nuncontaminated by Olympian usage, and\u2014a point of supreme interest\u2014under\nthe influence of a new religious impulse, they issued at last in the most\nwidely influential of all Greek ceremonials, the Eleusinian Mysteries.\n\nTo the primitive character and racial origin of these rites we have the\nwitness of Herodotus[305], though unhappily piety sealed his lips as\nto details. He says, \u2018Concerning the feast of Demeter which the Greeks\ncall Thesmophoria I must preserve an auspicious silence, excepting in\nso far as every one may speak of it. It was the daughters of Danaus who\nintroduced this rite from Egypt and taught it to the Pelasgian women;\nbut after the upset of the whole of Peloponnesos by the Dorians the rite\ndied down completely, and it was only those of the Peloponnesians who\nwere left, and the Arcadians who did not leave their seats who kept it\nup.\u2019 Herodotus oddly enough does not mention the Athenians, who were as\nstable and as untouched as the Arcadians, but his notice is invaluable as\nfixing the pre-Dorian character of the rites. Knowing that they were of\nimmemorial antiquity, _more suo_ he attributes them to the Egyptians, and\nas will later be seen (p. 128) there may be some element of probability\nin his supposition.\n\nThe Thesmophoria, like the Anthesteria, was a three days\u2019 festival. It\nwas held from the 11th-13th of Pyanepsion (October-November); the first\nday, the 11th, was called both _Kathodos_ and _Anodos_, Downgoing and\nUprising, the second _Nesteia_, Fasting, and the third _Kalligeneia_,\nFair-Born or Fair-Birth[306]. The meaning of the name Thesmophoria and\nthe significance of the three several days will appear later: at present\nit is sufficient to note that the Thesmophoria collectively was a late\nautumn festival and certainly connected with sowing. Cornutus[307] says,\n\u2018they fast in honour of Demeter ... when they celebrate her feast at\nthe season of sowing.\u2019 Of a portion of the ritual of the Thesmophoria\nwe have an unusually detailed account preserved to us by a scholiast on\nthe _Hetairae_ of Lucian; and as this portion is, for the understanding\nof the whole festival, of capital importance it must at the outset be\nexamined in detail. In the dialogue of Lucian, Myrto is reproaching\nPamphilos for deserting her; \u2018the girl,\u2019 says Myrto, \u2018you are going to\nmarry is not good-looking; I saw her close at hand at the Thesmophoria\nwith her mother.\u2019 The notice is important as it has been asserted that\nthe Thesmophoria was a festival of married women only, which, in Lucian\u2019s\ntime, was clearly not the case.\n\nThe scholiast[308] on the passage comments as follows, and ancient\ncommentators have left us few commentaries more instructive: \u2018The\nThesmophoria, a festival of the Greeks, including mysteries, and these\nare called also Skirrophoria.\u2019 According to the more mythological\nexplanation they are celebrated in that Kore when she was gathering\nflowers was carried off by Plouton. At the time a certain Eubouleus, a\nswineherd, was feeding his swine on the spot and they were swallowed down\nwith her in the chasm of Kore. Hence in honour of Eubouleus the swine\nare thrown into the chasms of Demeter and Kore. Certain women who have\npurified themselves for three days[309] and who bear the name of \u2018Drawers\nup\u2019 bring up the rotten portions of the swine that have been cast into\nthe _megara_. And they descend into the inner sanctuaries and having\nbrought up (the remains) they place them on the altars, and they hold\nthat whoever takes of the remains and mixes it with his seed will have\na good crop. And they say that in and about the chasms are snakes which\nconsume the most part of what is thrown in; hence a rattling din is made\nwhen the women draw up the remains and when they replace the remains by\nthose well-known (\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1) images, in order that the snakes which they\nhold to be the guardians of the sanctuaries may go away.\n\n\u2018The same rites are called Arretophoria (carrying of things unnamed) and\nare performed with the same intent concerning the growth of crops and\nof human offspring. In the case of the Arretophoria, too, sacred things\nthat may not be named and that are made of cereal paste, are carried\nabout, i.e. images of snakes and of the forms of men[310]. They employ\nalso fir-cones on account of the fertility of the tree, and into the\nsanctuaries called _megara_ these are cast and also, as we have already\nsaid, swine\u2014the swine, too, on account of their prolific character\u2014in\ntoken of the growth of fruits and human beings, as a thank-offering to\nDemeter, inasmuch as she, by providing the grain called by her name,\ncivilized the human race. The interpretation then of the festival given\nabove is mythological, but the one we give now is physical. The name\nThesmophoria is given because Demeter bears the title Thesmophoros, since\nshe laid down a law or Thesmos in accordance with which it was incumbent\non men to obtain and provide by labour their nurture.\u2019\n\nThe main outline of the ritual, in spite of certain obscurities in the\nscholiast\u2019s account, is clear. At some time not specified, but during\nthe Thesmophoria, women, carefully purified for the purpose, let down\npigs into clefts or chasms called \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 or chambers. At some other time\nnot precisely specified they descended into the _megara_, brought up the\nrotten flesh and placed it on certain altars, whence it was taken and\nmixed with seed to serve as a fertility charm. As the first day of the\nfestival was called both _Kathodos_ and _Anodos_ it seems likely that the\nwomen went down and came up the same day, but as the flesh of the pigs\nwas rotten some time must have elapsed. It is therefore conjectured that\nthe flesh was left to rot for a whole year, and that the women on the\nfirst day took down the new pigs and brought up last year\u2019s pigs.\n\nHow long the pigs were left to rot does not affect the general content\nof the festival. It is of more importance to note that the flesh seems\nto have been regarded as in some sort the due of the powers of the\nearth as represented by the guardian snakes. The flesh was wanted by\nmen as a fertility charm, but the snakes it was thought might demand\npart of it; they were scared away, but to compensate for what they did\nnot get, surrogates made of cereal paste had to be taken down. These\npaste surrogates were in the form of things specially fertile. It is not\nquite clear whether the pine-cones etc. or only the pigs were let down\nat the Thesmophoria as well as the Arrephoria, but as the scholiast is\ncontending for the close analogy of both festivals this seems probable.\nIt does not indeed much matter what the exact form of the _sacra_ was:\nall were fertility charms.\n\nThe remarks of the scholiast about the double \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, i.e. the double\n_rationale_ of the festival, are specially instructive. By his time, and\nindeed probably long before, educated people had ceased to believe that\nby burying a fertile animal or a fir-cone in the earth you could induce\nthe earth to be fertile; they had advanced beyond the primitive logic\nof \u2018sympathetic magic.\u2019 But the Thesmophoria was still carried on by\nconservative womanhood:\n\n \u2018They keep the Thesmophoria as they always used to do.\u2019\n\nAn origin less crude and revolting to common sense is required and\npromptly supplied by mythology[311]. Kore had been carried down into\na cleft by Plouton: therefore in her memory the women went down and\ncame up. Pigs had been swallowed down at the same time: therefore they\ntook pigs with them. Such a mythological _rationale_ was respectable if\npreposterous. The myth of the rape of Persephone of course really arose\nfrom the ritual, not the ritual from the myth. In the back of his mind\nthe scholiast knows that the content of the ritual was \u2018physical,\u2019 the\nobject the impulsion of nature. But even after he has given the true\ncontent his mind clouds over with modern associations. The festival, he\nsays, is a \u2018thank-offering\u2019 to Demeter. But in the sympathetic magic of\nthe Thesmophoria man attempts direct compulsion, he admits no mediator\nbetween himself and nature, and he thanks no god for what no god has\ndone. A thank-offering is later even than a prayer, and prayer as yet\nis not. To mark the transition from rites of compulsion to rites of\nsupplication and consequent thanksgiving is to read the whole religious\nhistory of primitive man.\n\nSome details of the rites of the Thesmophoria remain to be noted. The\nThesmophoria, though, thanks to Aristophanes, we know them best at\nAthens, were widespread throughout Greece. The ceremony of the pigs went\non at Potniae in Boeotia. The passage in which Pausanias[312] describes\nit is most unfortunately corrupt; but he adds one certain detail,\nthat the pigs there used were new-born, sucking pigs (\u1f57\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd).\nAmong nations more savage than the Greeks a real Kore took the place of\nthe Greek sucking pig or rather reinforced it. Among the Khonds, as Mr\nAndrew Lang[313] has pointed out, pigs and a woman are sacrificed that\nthe land may be fertilized by their blood; the Pawnees of North America,\ndown to the middle of the present century, sacrificed a girl obtained by\npreference from the alien tribe of the Sioux, but among the Greeks there\nis no evidence that the pigs were surrogates.\n\nThe _megara_ themselves are of some importance; the name still survives\nin the modern Greek form Megara. _Megara_ appear to have been natural\nclefts or chasms helped out later by art. As such they were at first the\nnatural places for rites intended to compel the earth; later they became\ndefinite sanctuaries of earth divinities. In America, according to Mr\nLang\u2019s account, Gypsies, Pawnees, and Shawnees bury the sacrifices they\nmake to the Earth Goddess in the earth, in natural crevices or artificial\ncrypts. In the sanctuary of Demeter, at Cnidos, Sir Charles Newton[314]\nfound a crypt which had originally been circular and later had been\ncompressed by earthquake. Among the contents were bones of pigs and other\nanimals, and the marble pigs which now stand near the Demeter of Cnidos\nin the British Museum. It is of importance to note that Porphyry[315],\nin his _Cave of the Nymphs_, says, that for the Olympian gods are set\nup temples and images and altars (\u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2), for the chthonic gods and\nheroes hearths (\u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9), for those below the earth (\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2) there\nare trenches and _megara_. Philostratos[316], in his Life of Apollonius,\nsays, \u2018The chthonic gods welcome trenches and ceremonies done in the\nhollow earth.\u2019\n\nEustathius[317] says that _megara_ are \u2018underground dwellings of the two\ngoddesses,\u2019 i.e. Demeter and Persephone, and he adds that \u2018Aelian says\nthe word is \u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd not \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd and that it is the place in which the\nmystical sacred objects are placed.\u2019 Unless this suggestion is adopted\nthe etymology of the word remains obscure[318]. The word itself, meaning\nat first a cave-dwelling, lived on in the _megaron_ of kings\u2019 palaces\nand the temples of Olympian gods, and the shift of meaning marks the\ntransition from under to upper-world rites.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 11.]\n\nArt has left us no certain representation of the Thesmophoria; but in the\ncharming little vase-painting from a lekythos in the National Museum at\nAthens[319], a woman is represented sacrificing a pig. He is obviously\nheld over a trench and the three planted torches indicate an underworld\nservice. In her left hand the woman holds a basket, no doubt containing\n_sacra_. There seems a reminiscence of the rites of the Thesmophoria,\nthough we cannot say that they are actually represented.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is practically certain that the ceremonies of the burying and\nresurrection of the pigs took place on the first day of the Thesmophoria\ncalled variously the _Kathodos_ and the _Anodos_. It is further probable\nfrom the name _Kalligeneia_, Fairborn, that on the third day took place\nthe strewing of the rotten flesh on the fields. The second, intervening\nday, also called \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03b7, the middle day, was a solemn fast, _Nesteia_;\nprobably on this day the magical _sacra_ lay upon the altars where the\nwomen placed them. The strictness of this fast made it proverbial. On\nthis day prisoners were released, the law courts were closed, the Boule\ncould not meet[320]. Athenaeus mentions the fast when he is discussing\ndifferent kinds of fish. One of the Cynics comes in and says: \u2018My\nfriends too are keeping a fast as if this were the middle day of the\nThesmophoria since we are feasting like _cestreis_\u2019; the _cestreus_ being\nnon-carnivorous.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 12.]\n\nThe women fasted sitting on the ground, and hence arose the aetiological\nmyth that Demeter herself, the desolate mother, fasted sitting on the\n\u2018Smileless Stone.\u2019 Apollodorus[321], in recounting the sorrows of\nDemeter, says: \u2018and first she sat down on the stone that is called after\nher \u201cSmileless\u201d by the side of the \u201cWell of Fair Dances.\u201d\u2019 The \u2018Well of\nFair Dances\u2019 has come to light at Eleusis, and there, too, was found a\ncurious monument[322] which shows how the Eleusinians made the goddess in\ntheir own image. In fig. 12 we have a votive relief of the usual type,\na procession of worshippers bearing offerings to a seated goddess. But\nthe goddess is not seated goddess-fashion on a throne; she is the Earth\nmother, and she crouches as the fasting women crouched on her own earth.\n\nA passage in which Plutarch speaks of the women fasting is of great\nimportance for the understanding of the general gist of the festival.\nIn the discourse on Isis and Osiris[323] he is struck by the general\nanalogy of certain agricultural ceremonies in Egypt and Greece, and makes\nthe following instructive remarks: \u2018How are we to deal with sacrifices\nof a gloomy, joyless and melancholy character if it be not well either\nto omit traditional ceremonies, or to upset our views about the gods or\nconfuse them by preposterous conjectures? And among the Greeks also many\nanalogous things take place about the same time of the year as that in\nwhich the Egyptians perform their sacred ceremonies, e.g. at Athens _the\nwomen fast at the Thesmophoria seated on the ground_, and the Boeotians\nstir up the _megara_ of _Achaia_, calling that festival grievous\n(\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u1fc6), inasmuch as Demeter was in grief (\u1f10\u03bd \u1f04\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9), on account of the\ndescent of her daughter. And that month about the rising of the Pleiades\nis the month of sowing which the Egyptians call Athor, and the Athenians\nPyanepsion (bean month), and the Boeotians Damatrion. And Theopompos\nrelates that those who dwell towards the West account and call the Winter\nKronos, and the Summer Aphrodite, and the Spring Persephone, and from\nKronos and Aphrodite all things take their birth. And the Phrygians think\nthat in the Winter the god is asleep, and that in the Summer he is awake,\nand they celebrate to him revels which in winter are Goings-to-sleep and\nin summer Wakings-up. And the Paphlagonians allege that in winter the god\n_is bound down_ and imprisoned, and in spring aroused and set free again.\u2019\n\nWhatever be the meaning of the difficult _Achaia_[324] Plutarch has hit\nupon the truth. Common to all the peoples bordering on the Aegean and,\nhad he known it, to many another primitive race, were ceremonies of which\nthe gist was pantomime, the mimicking of nature\u2019s processes, in a word\nthe ritual of sympathetic magic. The women fasted seated on the ground\nbecause the earth was desolate; they rose and revelled, they stirred the\n_megara_ to mimic the impulse of spring. Then when they knew no longer\nwhy they did these things they made a goddess their protagonist.\n\nPlutarch[325] has made for himself in his own image his \u2018ideal\u2019 Greek\ngods, serene, cheerful, beneficent; but he is a close observer of facts,\nand he sees there are ceremonies\u2014\u2018sacrifices\u2019 (\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9) in his late\nfashion he calls them\u2014which are \u2018mournful,\u2019 \u2018gloomy,\u2019 \u2018smileless.\u2019 Who\nand what are these gods who demand fasting and lamentation? He must\neither blink the facts of acknowledged authorized ritual\u2014this he cannot\nand will not do, for he is an honest man\u2014or he must confuse and confound\nhis conceptions of godhead. Caught on the horns of this dilemma he\nbetakes himself to comparative anthropology and notes analogies among\nadjacent and more primitive peoples.\n\nOf two other elements in the Thesmophoria we have brief notice from\nthe lexicographers. Hesychius[326] says of the word \u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 (pursuit),\n\u2018a sacrifice at Athens, performed in secret by the women at the\nThesmophoria. The same was later called \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1.\u2019 From Suidas[327]\nwe learn that it was also called \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, the \u2018Chalcidian\npursuit,\u2019 and Suidas of course gives a historical explanation. Only one\nthing is clear, that the ceremony must have belonged to the general class\nof \u2018pursuit\u2019 rituals which have already been discussed in relation to the\nThargelia.\n\nThe remaining ceremony is known to us only from Hesychius[328]. He says,\n\u2018\u03b6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 (penalty), a sacrifice offered on account of the things done at\nthe Thesmophoria.\u2019\n\nOf the Thesmophoria as celebrated at Eretria we are told two\ncharacteristic particulars. Plutarch, in his _Greek Questions_[329],\nasks, \u2018Why in the Thesmophoria do the Eretrian women cook their meat\nnot by fire but by the sun, and why do they not invoke Kalligeneia?\u2019 The\nsolutions suggested by Plutarch for these difficulties are not happy.\nThe use of the sun in place of fire is probably a primitive trait; in\nGreece to-day it is not difficult to cook a piece of meat to a palatable\npoint on a stone by the rays of the burning midday sun, and in early days\nthe practice was probably common enough; it might easily be retained in\nan archaic ritual. Kalligeneia also presents no serious difficulty, the\nword means \u2018fair-born\u2019 or \u2018fair-birth.\u2019 It may be conjectured that the\nreference was at first to the good crop produced by the rotten pigs\u2019\nflesh. With the growth of anthropomorphism the \u2018good crop\u2019 would take\nshape as Kore the \u2018fair-born,\u2019 daughter of earth. Of such developments\nmore will be said when we discuss (p. 276) the general question of \u2018the\nmaking of a goddess.\u2019 A conservative people such as the Eretrians seem to\nhave been would be slow to adopt any such anthropomorphic development.\n\nAnother particular as regards the Thesmophoria generally is preserved\nfor us by Aelian in his _History of Animals_[330]; speaking of the plant\n_Agnos_ (the _Agnus castus_), he says, \u2018In the Thesmophoria the Attic\nwomen used to strew it on their couches and it (the _Agnos_) is accounted\nhostile to reptiles.\u2019 He goes on to say that the plant was primarily used\nto keep off snakes, to the attacks of which the women in their temporary\nbooths would be specially exposed. Then as it was an actual preventive of\none evil it became a magical purity charm. Hence its name.\n\nThe pollution of death, like marriage, was sufficient to exclude the\nwomen of the house from keeping the Thesmophoria. Athenaeus[331] tells us\nthat Democritus of Abdera, wearied of his extreme old age, was minded to\nput an end to himself by refusing all food; but the women of his house\nimplored him to live on till the Thesmophoria was over in order that they\nmight be able to keep the festival; so he obligingly kept himself alive\non a pot of honey.\n\nAn important and easily intelligible particular is noted by Isaeus[332]\nin his oration About the Estate of Pyrrhos. The question comes up, \u2018Was\nPyrrhos lawfully married?\u2019 Isaeus asks, \u2018If he were married, would he not\nhave been obliged, on behalf of his lawful wife, to feast the women at\nthe Thesmophoria and to perform all the other customary dues in his deme\non behalf of his wife, his property being what it was?\u2019 This is one of\nthe passages on which the theory has been based that the Thesmophoria was\na rite performed by married women only. It really points the other way;\na man when he married by thus obtaining exclusive rights over one woman\nviolated the old matriarchal usages and may have had to make his peace\nwith the community by paying the expenses of the Thesmophoria feast.\n\nBefore passing to the consideration of the etymology and precise meaning\nof the word Thesmophoria, the other women festivals must be briefly\nnoted, i.e. the Arrephoria or Arretophoria, the Skirophoria or Skira, and\nthe Stenia.\n\n\nARREPHORIA, SKIROPHORIA, STENIA.\n\nThe scholiast on Lucian, as we have already seen, expressly notes that\nthe Arretophoria and Skirophoria were of similar content with the\nThesmophoria. Clement of Alexandria[333], a dispassionate witness,\nconfirms this view. \u2018Do you wish,\u2019 he asks, \u2018that I should recount for\nyou the Flower-gatherings of Pherephatta and the basket, and the rape\nby A\u00efdoneus, and the cleft of the earth, and the swine of Eubouleus,\nswallowed down with the goddesses, on which account in the Thesmophoria\nthey cast down living swine in the _megara_? This piece of mythology\nthe women in their festivals celebrate in diverse fashion in the\ncity, dramatizing the rape of Pherephatta in diverse fashion in the\nThesmophoria, the Skirophoria, the Arretophoria.\u2019\n\nThe Arretophoria or Arrephoria was apparently the Thesmophoria of the\nunmarried girl. Its particular ritual is fairly well known to us from the\naccount of Pausanias. Immediately after his examination of the temple\nof Athene Polias on the Athenian Acropolis, Pausanias[334] comes to the\ntemple of Pandrosos, \u2018who alone of the sisters was blameless in regard\nto the trust committed to them\u2019: he then adds, \u2018what surprised me very\nmuch, but is not generally known, I will describe as it takes place. Two\nmaidens dwell not far from the temple of Polias: the Athenians call them\nArrephoroi, they are lodged for a time with the goddess, but when the\nfestival comes round they perform the following ceremony by night. They\nput on their heads the things which the priestess of Athena gives them to\ncarry, but what it is she gives is known neither to her who gives nor to\nthem who carry. Now there is in the city an enclosure not far from the\nsanctuary of Aphrodite, called Aphrodite in the Gardens, and there is a\nnatural underground descent through it. Down this way the maidens go.\nBelow they leave their burdens, and getting something else which is wrapt\nup, they bring it back. These maidens are then discharged and others\nbrought to the Acropolis in their stead[335].\u2019\n\nFrom other sources some further details, for the most part insignificant,\nare known. The girls were of noble family, they were four in number\nand had to be between the ages of seven and eleven, and were chosen by\nthe Archon Basileus. They wore white robes and gold ornaments. To two\nof their number was entrusted the task of beginning the weaving of the\npeplos of Athene. Special cakes called \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 were provided for them,\nbut whether to eat or to carry as _sacra_ does not appear. It is more\nimportant to note that the service of the Arrephoroi was not confined to\nAthene and Pandrosos[336]. There was an Errephoros (_sic_) to Demeter\nand Proserpine[337], and there were Hersephoroi (_sic_) of \u2018Earth with\nthe title of Themis\u2019 and of \u2018Eileithyia in Agrae[338].\u2019 Probably any\nprimitive woman goddess could have Arrephoria.\n\nMuch is obscure in the account of Pausanias; we do not know what the\nprecinct was to which the maidens went, nor where it was. It is possible\nthat Pausanias confused the later sanctuary of Aphrodite (in the gardens)\nwith the earlier sanctuary of the goddess close to the entrance of\nthe Acropolis. One thing, however, emerges clearly, the main gist of\nthe ceremonial was the carrying of unknown _sacra_. In this respect\nwe are justified in holding with Clement that the Arrephoria (held in\nSkirophorion, June-July) was a parallel to the Thesmophoria.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 13.]\n\nIt is possible, I think, to go a step further. A rite frequently throws\nlight on the myth made to explain it. Occasionally the rite itself is\nelucidated by the myth to which it gave birth. The maidens who carried\nthe sacred _cista_ were too young to know its holy contents, but they\nmight be curious, so a scare story was invented for their safeguarding,\nthe story of the disobedient sisters who opened the chest, and in horror\nat the great snake they found there, threw themselves headlong from the\nAcropolis. The myth is prettily represented on an amphora in the British\nMuseum[339], reproduced in fig. 13. The sacred chest stands on rude\npiled stones that represent the rock of the Acropolis, the child rises\nup with outstretched hand, Athene looks on in dismay and anger, and the\nbad sisters hurry away. Erichthonios is here a human child with two great\nsnakes for guardians, but what the sisters really found, what the maidens\nreally carried, was a snake[340] and symbols like a snake. Snake and\nchild to the primitive mind are not far asunder; the Greek peasant of\nto-day has his child quickly baptized, for till baptized he may at any\nmoment disappear in the form of a snake. The natural form for a human\nhero to assume is, as will later be seen, a snake.\n\nThe little girl-Arrephoroi in ignorance, as became their age, carried the\nsame _sacra_ as the full-grown women in the Thesmophoria. The perfect\nseemliness and reverence of the rite is shown by the careful precautions\ntaken. When goddesses began to take shape the _sacra_ were regarded, not\nas mere magical charms, but as offerings as was meet to Ge, to Themis,\nto Aphrodite, to Eileithyia, but always the carrying was a reverent\n\u2018mystery.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Skira or Skirophoria[341] presents more difficulties. It was\nspecially closely associated with the Thesmophoria of which it may have\nformed part. The chorus in the _Thesmophoriazusae_ of Aristophanes[342]\nsays, \u2018If any of us bear a good citizen to the state, a taxiarch or\nstrategos, she ought to be rewarded by some honourable office, the\npresidency ought to be given her at the Stenia and the Skira and at any\nother of the feasts which we (women) celebrate.\u2019 The scholiast remarks,\n\u2018both were feasts of women; the Stenia took place before the two days of\nthe Thesmophoria on the 7th of Pyanepsion, and the Skira, some say, are\nthe sacred rites that took place on this feast (i.e. the Thesmophoria)\nto Demeter and Kore. But others say that sacrifice was made \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03a3\u03ba\u03af\u03c1\u1ff3 to\nAthene.\u2019 On the other hand in an inscription, usually a most trustworthy\nauthority, the two ceremonies are noted as separate though apparently\nanalogous. In the inscription in question[343] which is of the 4th\ncentury B.C., certain regulations are enforced \u2018when the feast of the\nThesmophoria takes place, and at the Plerosia, and at the Kalamaia and\nthe Skira, and if there is any other day on which the women congregate by\nancestral usage.\u2019\n\nThe ancients themselves had raised the question whether the Skira were\nsacred to Athene or to Demeter and Kore. This question is not really\nrelevant to our enquiry; Athene, as will be seen later, when the \u2018making\nof a goddess\u2019 is discussed, is simply \u1f21 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7, the \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7, the\n_maiden of Athens_, and any festival of any Kore\u2014any maiden\u2014would early\nattach itself to her.\n\nMore important is the question, What does the word \u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03c1\u03b1 mean? Two\nsolutions are offered. The scholiast on Aristophanes[344] says \u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\nmeans the same as \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, umbrella, and the feast and the month took\nthat name from the fact that at a festival of Demeter and Kore on the\n12th of Skirophorion, the priest of Erechtheus carried a white umbrella.\nA white umbrella is a slender foundation for a festival, but the element\nof white points in the right direction. The scholiast on the _Wasps_ of\nAristophanes[345] commenting on \u03c3\u03ba\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd has a happier thought: he says a\ncertain sort of white earth, like gypsum, is called \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2, and Athene\nis called \u03a3\u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2 inasmuch as she is daubed with white, from a similarity\nin the name.\n\nThe same notion of white earth appears in the notice of the _Etymologicon\nMagnum_ on the month _Skirophorion_, \u2018the name of a month among the\nAthenians; it is so called from the fact that in it Theseus carried\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd by which is meant gypsum. For Theseus, coming from the Minotaur,\nmade an Athene of gypsum, and carried it and as he made it in this month\nit is called Skirophorion.\u2019\n\nBut, it will be asked, supposing it be granted that Skira means things\nmade of gypsum and Skirophoria the carrying of such things, what, in\nthe name of common sense, has this to do with a festival of women\nanalogous to the Thesmophoria? Dr A. Mommsen[346], who first emphasized\nthis etymology, proposes that the white earth was used as manure; this,\nthough possible and ingenious, seems scarcely satisfactory. I would\nsuggest another connection. The scholiast on Lucian has told us that\nthe surrogates deposited in the _megara_ were shaped out of paste made\nof grain. Is it not possible that the \u03a3\u03ba\u03af\u03c1\u03b1 were such surrogates made\nof gypsum alone or part gypsum, part flour-paste? That such a mixture\nwas manufactured for food we learn from Pliny[347]. In discussing\nthe preparation of _alica_ from _zea_ (spelt) he says, \u2018astonishing\nstatement, it is mixed with chalk.\u2019 In the case of a coarse sort of _zea_\nfrom Africa, the mixture was made in the proportion of a quarter of\ngypsum to three of _zea_. If this suggestion be correct, the Skirophoria\nis simply a summer Thesmophoria.\n\nIf the Skirophoria must, all said, remain conjectural, the gist of the\nStenia is clear and was understood by the ancients themselves. Photius\nremarks on _Stenia_\u2014\u2018a festival at Athens in which the Anodos of Demeter\nis held to take place. At this festival, according to Euboulos, the women\nabuse each other by night.\u2019 Hesychius[348] explains in like fashion and\nadds: \u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u2018to use bad language,\u2019 \u2018to abuse.\u2019 According to him\nthey not only abused each other but \u2018made scurrilous jests.\u2019 Such abuse,\nwe know from Aristophanes[349], was a regular element of the licence of\nthe Thesmophoria. The _Gephyrismoi_, the jokes at the bridge, of the\nEleusinian Mysteries, will occur to every one: similar in content is the\nstone-throwing, the Lithobolia of Damia and Auxesia.\n\nIt is interesting to note that in the primitive festivals of the Romans,\nthe same scurrility contests appear. At the ancient feast of the _Nonae\nCapratinae_, Plutarch[350] tells us, \u2018the women are feasted in the fields\nin booths made of fig-tree branches, and the servant-maids run about and\nplay; afterwards they come to blows and throw stones at one another.\u2019\nThe servant-maids represent here as elsewhere a primitive subject\npopulation; they live during the festival in booths as the women did at\nthe Thesmophoria. How precisely this fight and this scurrility serve the\nend proposed, the promotion of fertility, is not wholly clear, but the\nthrowing of stones, the beating and fighting, all look like the expulsion\nof evil influences. The scurrilous and sometimes to our modern thinking\nunseemly gestures savour of sympathetic magic, an intent that comes out\nclearly in the festival of the Haloa, the discussion of which must be\nreserved to the end.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe come next to the all-absorbing question, What is the derivation,\nthe real root-meaning of the term _Thesmophoria_ and the title\n_Thesmophoros_? The orthodox explanation of the Thesmophoria is that it\nwas the festival of Demeter Thesmophoros, the law-carrier or law-giver.\nWith Demeter, it is said, came in agriculture, settled life, marriage\nand the beginnings of civilized law. This is the view held by the\nscholiast on Theocritus[351]. In commenting on various sacred plants,\nwhich promoted chastity, he adds, \u2018It was a law among the Athenians that\nthey should celebrate the Thesmophoria yearly, and the Thesmophoria is\nthis: women who are virgins and have lived a holy life, on the day of\nthe feast, place certain customary and holy books on their heads, and as\nthough to perform a liturgy they go to Eleusis.\u2019\n\nThe scholiast gives himself away by the mention of Eleusis. He confuses\nthe two festivals in instructive fashion, and clearly is reconstructing a\nritual out of a cultus epithet. Happily we know from the other and better\ninformed scholiast[352] that the women carried at the Thesmophoria not\nbooks but pigs. How then came the pigs and other _sacra_ to be Thesmoi?\nDr Frazer proposes a solution. He suggests that the _sacra_, including\nthe pigs, were called \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, because they were \u2018the things laid down.\u2019\nThe women were called Thesmophoroi because they carried \u2018the things laid\ndown\u2019; the goddess took her name from her ministrants.\n\nThis interpretation is a great advance on the derivation from\nThesmophoros, Law-giver. Thesmophoros is scarcely the natural form for\nlaw-_giver_, which in ordinary Greek appears as Thesmothetes. Moreover\nthe form Thesmophoros _must_ be connected with actual _carrying_\nand must also be connected with what we know _was_ carried at the\nThesmophoria. But Thesmoi in Greek did certainly mean _laws_, and Demeter\n_Thesmophoros_ was in common parlance supposed to be Law-giver. What we\nwant is a derivation that will combine both factors, the notion of law as\nwell as the carrying of pigs.\n\nIn the light of Dr Verrall\u2019s new explanation of Anthesteria (p. 48) such\na derivation may be found. If the Anthesteria be the festival of the\ncharming up, the magical revocation of souls, may not the Thesmophoria\nbe the festival of the carrying of the _magical sacra_? To regard the\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, whether they are pigs or laws, as simply \u2018things laid down,\u2019\nderiving them from the root \u03b8\u03b5, has always seemed to me somewhat frigid.\nThe root \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3 is more vivid and has the blood of religion, or rather\nmagic, in its veins. Although it came, when man entered into orderly and\ncivilized relations with his god, to mean \u2018pray,\u2019 in earlier days it\ncarried a wider connotation, and meant, I think, to perform any kind of\nmagical ceremonies. Is not \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 alive with magic?\n\n\nTHE CURSE AND THE LAW.\n\nBut what has law, sober law, to do with magic? To primitive man, it\nseems, everything. Magic is for cursing or for blessing, and in primitive\ncodes it would seem there was no commandment without cursing. The curse,\nthe \u1f00\u03c1\u03ac, is of the essence of the law. The breaker of the law is laid\nunder a ban. \u2018Honour thy father and thy mother\u2019 was the first commandment\n\u2018with promise.\u2019 Law in fact began at a time long before the schism of\nChurch and State, or even of Religion and Morality. There was then no\nsuch thing as \u2018civil\u2019 law. Nay more, it began in the dim days when\nreligion itself had not yet emerged from magic, in the days when, without\ninvoking the wrath of a righteous divinity, you could yet \u2018put a curse\u2019\nupon a man, bind him to do his duty by magic and spells.\n\nPrimitive man, who thought he could constrain the earth to be fertile by\nburying in it fertile objects, by \u2018sympathetic magic,\u2019 was sure to think\nhe could in like fashion compel his fellow. Curse tablets deposited in\ngraves and sanctuaries have come to light in thousands; but before man\nlearnt to write his curse, to spell out the formulary \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u1ff6, \u2018I bind you\ndown,\u2019 he had a simpler and more certain plan. In a grave in Attica was\nfound a little lead figure[353] which tells its own tale. It is too ugly\nfor needless reproduction, but it takes us into the very heart of ancient\nmalignant magic. The head of the figure has been wrenched off, both\narms are tightly swathed behind the back, and the legs in like fashion;\nright through the centre of the body has been driven a great nail. Dr\nW\u00fcnsch[354], in publishing the figure, compares the story recorded of a\ncertain St Theophilos[355] \u2018who had his feet and hands bound by magic.\u2019\nThe saint sought relief in vain, till he was told in a dream to go out\nfishing, and what the fishermen drew up would cure him of his malady.\nThey let down the net and drew up a bronze figure, bound hand and foot\nand with a nail driven through the hand: they drew out the nail and the\nsaint immediately recovered.\n\nThe _locus classicus_ on ancient magic and spells is of course the\nsecond Idyll of Theocritus[356], on Simaetha the magician. Part of her\nincantation may be quoted here because a poet\u2019s insight has divined the\nstrange fierce loveliness that lurks in rites of ignorance and fear,\nrites stark and desperate and non-moral as the passion that prompts them.\n\nDelphis has forsaken her, and in the moonlight by the sea Simaetha makes\nready her magic gear:\n\n \u2018Lo! Now the barley smoulders in the flame.\n Thestylis, wretch! thy wits are woolgathering!\n Am I a laughing-stock to thee, a Shame?\n Scatter the grain, I say, the while we sing,\n \u201cThe bones of Delphis I am scattering.\u201d\n _Bird[357], magic Bird, draw the man home to me._\n\n Delphis sore troubled me. I, in my turn,\n This laurel against Delphis will I burn.\n It crackles loud, and sudden down doth die,\n So may the bones of Delphis liquefy.\n _Wheel, magic Wheel, draw the man home to me._\n\n Next do I burn this wax, God helping me,\n So may the heart of Delphis melted be.\n This brazen wheel I whirl, so, as before\n Restless may he be whirled about my door.\n _Bird, magic Bird, draw the man home to me._\n\n Next will I burn these husks. O Artemis,\n Hast power hell\u2019s adamant to shatter down\n And every stubborn thing. Hark! Thestylis,\n Hecate\u2019s hounds are baying up the town,\n The goddess at the crossways. Clash the gong.\n\n ...\n Lo, now the sea is still. The winds are still.\n The ache within my heart is never still.\u2019\n\nThe incantations of Simaetha are of course a private rite to an\nindividual end. That the practice of such rites was very frequent long\nbefore the decadent days of Theocritus is clear from the fact that\nPlato[358] in the _Laws_ regards it as just as necessary that his ideal\nstate should make enactments against the man who tries to slay or injure\nanother by magic, as against him who actually does definite physical\ndamage. His discussion of the two kinds of evil-doing is curious and\ninstructive, both as indicating the prevalence of sorcery in his days,\nand as expressing the rather dubious attitude of his own mind towards\nsuch practices. \u2018There are two kinds of poisoning in use among men, the\nnature of which forbids any clear distinction between them. There is the\nkind of which we have just now spoken, and which is the injury of one\nbody by another in a natural and normal way, but the other kind injures\nby sorceries and incantations and magical bindings as they are called\n(\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9), and this class induces the aggressors to injure others as\nmuch as is possible, and persuades the sufferers that they more than any\nother are liable to be damaged by this power of magic. Now it is not easy\nto know the whole truth about such matters, nor if one knows it is one\nlikely to be able lightly to persuade others. When therefore men secretly\nsuspect each other at the sight of, say, waxen images fixed either at\ntheir doors or at the crossways or at the tombs of their parents, it\nis no good telling them to make light of such things because they know\nnothing certain about them.\u2019 Evidently Plato is not quite certain as\nto whether there _is_ something in witchcraft or not: a diviner or a\nprophet, he goes on to admit, may really know something about these\nsecret arts. Anyhow, he is clear that they are deleterious and should be\nstamped out if possible, and accordingly, any one who injures another\neither by magical bindings (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) or by magical inductions\n(\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2) or by incantations (\u1f10\u03c0\u1ff3\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2) or by another form of magic is\nto die.\n\nThe scholiast[359] on the Idyll of Theocritus just quoted knows that one\nat least of the magical practices of Simaetha was also part of public\nritual:\n\n \u2018The goddess at the crossways. Clash the gong.\u2019\n\nHecate is magically _induced_, yet her coming is feared. The clash of\nthe bronze gong is apotropaic. The scholiast says that \u2018they sound the\nbronze at eclipses of the moon ... because it has power to purify and\nto drive off pollutions. Hence, as Apollodorus states in his treatise\n_Concerning the Gods_, bronze was used for all purposes of consecration\nand purgation.\u2019 Apollodorus also stated that \u2018at Athens, the Hierophant\nof her who had the title of Kore sounded what was called a gong.\u2019 It was\nalso the custom \u2018to beat on a cauldron when the king of the Spartans\ndied.\u2019 All the ceremonies noted, relating to eclipses, to Kore and to\nthe death of the Spartan king, are on _public_ occasions, and all are\napotropaic, directed against ghosts and sprites. Metal in early days,\nwhen it is a novelty, is apt to be magical. The _din_ (\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) made by\nthe women when they took down the _sacra_, whether it was a clapping of\nhands or of metal, is of the same order. The snakes are feared as hostile\ndemons. These apotropaic rites are not practised against the Olympians,\nagainst Zeus and Apollo, but against sprites and ghosts and the\ndivinities of the underworld, against Kore and Hecate. These underworld\nbeings were at first dreaded and exorcised, then as a gentler theology\nprevailed, men thought better of their gods, and ceased to exorcise\nthem as demons, and erected them into a class of \u2018spiritual beings who\npreside over curses.\u2019 Pollux[360] has a brief notice of such divinities.\nHe says \u2018those who resolve curses are called \u201cProtectors from evil\nspirits,\u201d Who-send-away, Averters, Loosers, Putters-to-flight; those who\nimpose curses are called gods or goddesses of Vengeance, Gods of Appeal,\nExactors.\u2019 The many adjectival titles are but so many descriptive names\nfor the ghost that cries for vengeance.\n\nThe \u2018curse that binds,\u2019 the \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, throws light on another element\nthat went to the making of the ancient notion of sacrifice. The\nformula[361] in cursing was sometimes \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u1ff6 \u2018I bind down,\u2019 but it was\nalso sometimes \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b9 \u2018I give over.\u2019 The person cursed or bound\ndown was in some sense a gift or sacrifice to the gods of cursing, the\nunderworld gods: the man stained by blood is \u2018consecrate\u2019 (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2)\nto the Erinyes. In the little sanctuary of Demeter at Cnidos[362] the\ncurse takes even more religious form. He or she dedicates (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6),\nor offers as a votive offering (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9, for \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9), and finally\nwe have the familiar \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1 of St Paul. Here the services of cursing,\nthe rites of magic and the underworld are half way to the service of\n\u2018tendance,\u2019 the service of the Olympians, and we begin to understand why,\nin later writers, the pharmakos and other \u2018purifications\u2019 are spoken of\nas \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9. It is one of those shifts so unhappily common to the religious\nmind. Man wants to gain his own ends, to gratify his own malign passion,\nbut he would like to kill two birds with one stone, and as the gods are\nmade in his own image, the feat presents no great difficulty. Later as\nhe grows gentler himself, he learns to pray only \u2018good prayers,\u2019 _bonas\npreces_[363].\n\nThe curse (\u1f00\u03c1\u03ac) on its religious side developed into the vow[364] and\nthe prayer (\u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03ae), on its social side into the ordinance (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2) and\nultimately into the regular law (\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2); hence the language of early\nlegal formularies still maintains as necessary and integral the sanction\nof the curse. The formula is not \u2018do this\u2019 or \u2018do not do that,\u2019 but\n\u2018cursed be he who does this, or does not do that.\u2019\n\nOne instance may be selected, the inscription characteristically known as\n\u2018the Dirae of Teos[365].\u2019 The whole is too long to be transcribed, a few\nlines must suffice.\n\n\u2018Whosoever maketh baneful drugs against the Teans, whether against\nindividuals or the whole people:\n\n \u2018_May he perish, both he and his offspring._\n\n\u2018Whosoever hinders corn from being brought into the land of the Teans,\neither by art or machination, whether by land or sea, and whosoever\ndrives out what has been brought in:\n\n \u2018_May he perish, both he and his offspring._\u2019\n\nSo clause after clause comes the refrain of cursing, like the tolling of\na bell, and at last as though they could not have their fill, comes the\ncurse on the magistrate who fails to curse:\n\n\u2018Whosoever of them that hold office doth not make this cursing, what time\nhe presides over the contest at the Anthesteria and the Herakleia and the\nDia, let him be bound by an overcurse (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u1fc3 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9), and whoever\neither breaks the stelae on which the cursing is written, or cuts out the\nletters or makes them illegible:\n\n \u2018_May he perish, both he and his offspring._\u2019\n\nIt is interesting to find here that the curses were recited at the\nAnthesteria, a festival of ghosts, and the Herakleia, an obvious hero\nfestival, and at the Dia\u2014this last surely a festival of imprecation like\nthe Diasia.\n\nOn the strength of these _Dirae_ of Teos, recited at public and primitive\nfestivals, it might not be rash to conjecture that at the Thesmophoria\nsome form of \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af or binding spells was recited as well as carried.\nThis conjecture becomes almost a certainty when we examine an important\ninscription[366] found near Pergamos and dealing with the regulations\nfor mourning in the city of Gambreion in Mysia. The mourning laws of\nthe ancients bore harder on women than on men, a fact explicable not by\nthe general lugubriousness of women, nor even by their supposed keener\nsense of convention, but by those early matriarchal conditions in which\nrelationship naturally counted through the mother rather than the father.\nWomen, the law in question enacts, are to wear dark garments; men if\nthey \u2018did not wish to do this\u2019 might relax into white; the period of\nmourning is longer for women than for men. Next follows the important\nclause: \u2018the official who superintends the affairs of women, who has\nbeen chosen by the people at the purifications that take place _before\nthe Thesmophoria_, is to invoke blessings on the men who abide by the\nlaw and the women who obey the law that they may happily enjoy the goods\nthey possess, but on the men who do not obey and the women who do not\nabide therein he is to invoke the contrary, and such women are to be\naccounted impious, and it is not lawful for them to make any sacrifice\nto the gods for the space of ten years, and the steward is to write up\nthis law on two stelae and set them up, the one _before the doors of the\nThesmophorion_, the other before the temple of Artemis Lochia.\u2019\n\nFrom the _Thesmophoriazusae_ of Aristophanes we learn almost nothing\nof the ritual of the Thesmophoria, save the fact that the feast was\ncelebrated on the Pnyx[367]: but the fashion in which the woman-herald\nprays is worth noting; she begins by a real prayer[368]:\n\n \u2018I bid you pray to Gods and Goddesses\n That in Olympus and in Pytho dwell\n And Delos, and to all the other gods.\u2019\n\nBut when she comes to what she really cares about, she breaks into the\nold habitual curse formularies:\n\n \u2018If any plots against the cause of Woman\n Or peace proposes to Euripides\n Or to the Medes, or plots a tyranny,\n Or if a female slave in her master\u2019s ear\n Tells tales, or male or female publican\n Scants the full measure of our legal pint\u2014\n _Curse him that he may miserably perish,_\n _He and his house_,\u2014but for the rest of you\n Pray that the gods may give you all good things.\u2019\n\nIt is of interest to find that not only were official curses written\nup at the doors of a Thesmophorion, but, at Syracuse, an oath of\nspecial sanctity \u2018the great oath\u2019 was taken there. Plutarch[369] tells\nus that when Callippus was conspiring against his friend Dion, the\nwife and sister of Dion became suspicious. To allay their suspicions,\nCallippus offered to give any pledge of his sincerity they might desire.\nThey demanded that he should take \u2018the great oath\u2019 (\u1f40\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd). \u2018Now the great oath was after this wise. The man who gives this\npledge has to go to _the temenos of the Thesmophoroi_, and after the\nperformance of certain sacred ceremonies, he puts on him the purple\nrobe of the goddess, and taking a burning torch he denies the charge\non oath\u2019 (\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9). It is clear that this \u2018great oath\u2019 was some form\nof imprecation on the oath-taker, who probably by putting on the robe,\ndedicated himself in case of perjury to the goddess of the underworld.\nThat the goddess was Kore we know from the fact that Callippus eventually\nforswore himself in sacrilegious fashion by sacrificing his victim on the\nfeast of the _Koreia_, \u2018the feast of the goddess by whom he had sworn.\u2019\nThe curse is the dedication or devotion of others; the oath, like its\nmore concrete form the ordeal, is the dedication of the curser himself.\n\nThe connection between primitive law and agriculture seems to have been\nvery close. The name of the earliest laws recorded\u2014they are rather\nprecepts than in our sense laws\u2014the \u2018Ploughman\u2019s Curses\u2019 speaks for\nitself. Some of these Ploughman\u2019s Curses are recorded. We are told by\none of the \u2018Writers of Proverbs[370]\u2019 that \u2018the Bouzyges at Athens, who\nperforms the sacred ploughing, utters many other curses and also curses\nthose who do not share water and fire as a means of subsistence and\nthose who do not show the way to those who have lost it.\u2019 Other similar\nprecepts, no doubt sanctioned by similar curses, have come down to us\nunder the name of the Thrice-Plougher _Triptolemos_[371], the first\nlawgiver of the Athenians. He bade men \u2018honour their parents, rejoice the\ngods with the fruits of the earth and not injure animals.\u2019 Perhaps these\nwere to the Greeks the first commandments \u2018with promise.\u2019\n\nSuch are the primitive precepts that grow up in a community which\nagriculture has begun to bind together with the ties of civilized life.\nIn the days before curses were graven in stone and perhaps for long\nafter, it was well that when the people were gathered together for sowing\nor for harvest, these salutary curses should be recited. Amid the decay\nof so much that is robust and primitive, it is pleasant to remember that\nin the Commination Service of our own Anglican Church with its string of\nholy curses annually recited\n\n \u2018_They keep the Thesmophoria as they always used to do._\u2019\n\n\nTHE HALOA.\n\nThe consideration of the _Haloa_ has been purposely reserved to the\nend for this reason. The rites of the Thesmophoria, Skirophoria and\nArrephoria are carried on by women only, and when they come to be\nassociated with divinities at all, they are regarded as \u2018sacred to\u2019\nDemeter and Kore or to analogous women goddesses Ge, Aphrodite,\nEileithyia and Athene. Moreover the _sacra_ carried are cereal cakes and\nnephalia: but the rites of the _Haloa_, though indeed mainly conducted\nby women, and sacred in part to Demeter, contain a new element, that of\nwine, and are therefore in mythological days regarded as \u2018sacred to\u2019 not\nonly Demeter but Dionysos.\n\nOn this point an important scholion[372] to Lucian is explicit. The\nHaloa is \u2018a feast at Athens containing mysteries of Demeter and Kore and\nDionysos on the occasion of the cutting of the vines and the tasting of\nthe wine made from them.\u2019 Eustathius[373] states the same fact. \u2018There\nis celebrated, according to Pausanias, a feast of Demeter and Dionysos\ncalled the Haloa.\u2019 He adds, in explaining the name, that at it they were\nwont to carry first-fruits from Athens to Eleusis and to sport upon\nthe threshing-floors, and that at the feast there was a procession of\nPoseidon. At Eleusis, Poseidon was not yet specialized into a sea-god\nonly; he was _Phytalmios_, god of plants, and as such, it will be later\nseen (p. 427), his worship was easily affiliated to that of Dionysos.\n\nThe affiliation of the worship of the corn-goddess to that of the\nwine-god is of the first importance. The coming of Dionysos brought a new\nspiritual impulse to the religion of Greece, an impulse the nature of\nwhich will later be considered in full, and it was to this new impulse\nthat the Eleusinian mysteries owed, apart from political considerations\nwhich do not concern us, their ultimate dominance. Of these mysteries the\nHaloa is, I think, the primitive prototype.\n\nAs to the primitive gist of the Haloa, there is no shadow of doubt:\nthe name speaks for itself. Harpocration[374] rightly explains the\nfestival, \u2018the Haloa gets its name, according to Philochorus, from\nthe fact that people hold sports at the _threshing-floors_, and he\nsays it is celebrated in the month Poseideon.\u2019 The sports held were of\ncourse incidental to the business of threshing, but it was these sports\nthat constituted the actual festival. To this day the great round\nthreshing-floor that is found in most Greek villages is the scene of the\nharvest festival. Near it a booth (\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03ae) is to this day erected, and\nin it the performers rest and eat and drink in the intervals of their\npantomimic dancing.\n\nThe Haloa was celebrated in the month Poseideon (December-January), a\nfact as surprising as it is ultimately significant. What has a threshing\nfestival to do with mid-winter, when all the grain should be safely\nhoused in the barns? Normally, now as in ancient days, the threshing\nfollows as soon as may be after the cutting of the corn; it is threshed\nand afterwards winnowed in the _open_ threshing-floor, and mid-winter is\nno time even in Greece for an open-air operation.\n\nThe answer is simple. The shift of date is due to Dionysos. The rival\nfestivals of Dionysos were in mid-winter. He possessed himself of the\nfestivals of Demeter, took over her threshing-floor and compelled the\nanomaly of a winter threshing festival. The latest time that a real\nthreshing festival could take place is Pyanepsion, but by Poseideon it is\njust possible to have an early _Pithoigia_ and to revel with Dionysos.\nThere could be no clearer witness to the might of the incoming god.\n\nAs to the nature of the Haloa we learn two important facts from\nDemosthenes. It was a festival in which the priestess, not the\nHierophant, presented the offerings, a festival under the presidency of\nwomen; and these offerings were bloodless, no animal victim (\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd)\nwas allowed. Demosthenes[375] records how a Hierophant, Archias by name,\n\u2018was cursed because at the Haloa he offered on the _eschara_ in the court\nof Eleusis burnt sacrifice of an animal victim brought by the courtezan\nSinope.\u2019 His condemnation was on a double count, \u2018it was not lawful on\nthat day to sacrifice an animal victim, and the sacrifice was not his\nbusiness but that of the priestess.\u2019 The epheboi[376] offered bulls at\nEleusis, and, it would appear, engaged in some sort of \u2018bull fight[377],\u2019\nbut this must have been in honour either of Dionysos or of Poseidon who\npreceded him: the _vehicle_ of both these divinities was the bull. It\nwas the boast of the archon at the Haloa that Demeter had given to men\n\u2018gentle foods.\u2019\n\nOur fullest details of the Haloa, as of the Thesmophoria, come to us from\nthe newly discovered scholia on Lucian[378]. From the scholiast\u2019s account\nit is clear that by his day the festival was regarded as connected with\nDionysos as much as, or possibly more than, with Demeter. He definitely\nstates that it was instituted in memory of the death of Ikarios after\nhis introduction of the vine into Attica. The women he says celebrated\nit alone, in order that they might have perfect freedom of speech. The\nsacred symbols of both sexes were handled, the priestesses secretly\nwhispered into the ears of the women present words that might not be\nuttered aloud, and the women themselves uttered all manner of what seemed\nto him unseemly quips and jests. The _sacra_ handled are, it is clear,\nthe same as those of the Thesmophoria: that their use and exhibition were\ncarefully guarded is also clear from the exclusion of the other sex. The\nclimax of the festival, it appears, was a great banquet. \u2018Much wine was\nset out and the tables were full of all the foods that are yielded by\nland and sea, save only those that are prohibited in the mysteries, I\nmean the pomegranate and the apple and domestic fowls, and eggs and red\nsea-mullet and black-tail and crayfish and shark. The archons prepare the\ntables and leave the women inside and themselves withdraw and remain\noutside, making a public statement to the visitors present that the\n\u201cgentle foods\u201d were discovered by them (i.e. the people of Eleusis) and\nby them shared with the rest of mankind. And there are upon the tables\ncakes shaped like the symbols of sex. And the name Haloa is given to the\nfeast on account of the fruit of Dionysos\u2014for the growths of the vine are\ncalled _Aloai_.\u2019\n\nThe materials of the women\u2019s feast are interesting. The diet prescribed\nis of cereals and of fish and possibly fowl, but clearly not of flesh.\nAs such it is characteristic of the old Pelasgian population before\nthe coming of the flesh-eating Achaeans. Moreover\u2014a second point of\ninterest\u2014it is hedged in with all manner of primitive taboos. The precise\n_reason_ of the taboo on pomegranates, red mullet and the like, is lost\nbeyond recall, but some of the particular taboos are important because\nthey are strictly paralleled in the Eleusinian mysteries. That the\npomegranate was \u2018taboo\u2019 at the Eleusinian mysteries is clear from the\naetiological myth in the Homeric hymn to Demeter[379]. Hades consents to\nlet Persephone return to the upper air.\n\n \u2018So spake he, and Persephone the prudent up did rise\n Glad in her heart and swift to go. But he in crafty wise\n Looked round and gave her stealthily a sweet pomegranate seed\n To eat, that not for all her days with Her of sable-weed,\n Demeter, should she tarry.\u2019\n\nThe pomegranate was dead men\u2019s food, and once tasted drew Persephone back\nto the shades. Demeter admits it; she says[380] to Persephone:\n\n \u2018If thou hast tasted food below, thou canst not tarry here,\n Below the hollow earth must dwell the third part of the year.\u2019\n\nPorphyry[381] in his treatise on _Abstinence from Animal Food_, notes\nthe reason and the rigour of the Eleusinian taboos. Demeter, he says,\nis a goddess of the lower world and they consecrate the cock to her.\nThe word he uses, \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, really means put under a _taboo_. We are\napt to associate the cock with daylight and his early morning crowing,\nbut the Greeks for some reason regarded the bird as chthonic. It is a\ncock, Socrates remembers, that he owes to Asklepios, and Asklepios, it\nwill be seen when we come to the subject of hero-worship, was but a\nhalf-deified hero. The cock was laid under a taboo, reserved, and then\ncame to be considered as a sacrifice. Porphyry goes on \u2018It is because of\nthis that the mystics abstain from barndoor fowls. And at Eleusis public\nproclamation is made that men must abstain from barndoor fowls, from fish\nand from beans, and from the pomegranate and from apples, and to touch\nthese defiles as much as to touch a woman in child-birth or a dead body.\u2019\nThe Eleusinian Mysteries were in their enactments the very counterpart of\nthe Haloa.\n\n\nTHE ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES.\n\nThe Eleusinian Mysteries[382] are usually treated as if they were a thing\nby themselves, a ceremony so significant, so august, as to stand apart\nfrom the rest of Greek Ritual. If my view be correct, they are primarily\nbut the Eleusinian _Haloa_: all their ultimate splendour and spiritual as\nwell as social prestige are due to two things, first the fact that Athens\nfor political purposes made them her own, second that at some date we\ncannot exactly fix, they became affiliated to the mysteries of Dionysos.\nTo Athens the mysteries owe their external magnificence, to Dionysos\nand Orpheus their deep inward content. The external magnificence, being\nnon-religious, does not concern us; the deep inward content, the hope\nof immortality and the like are matters of cardinal import, but must\nstand over till a later chapter, after the incoming of Dionysos has\nbeen discussed. For the present what concerns us is, setting aside all\nvague statements and opinions as to the meaning and spiritual influence\nattributed by various authors, ancient and modern, to the mysteries, to\nexamine the actual ritual facts of which evidence remains.\n\nMysteries were by no means confined to the religion of Demeter and\nKore. There were mysteries of Hermes, of Iasion, of Ino, of Archemoros,\nof Agraulos, of Hecate. In general mysteries seem to occur more\nusually in relation to the cult of women divinities[383], of heroines\nand earth-goddesses; from the worship of the Olympians in Homer they\nare markedly absent. In general, by a mystery is meant _a rite in\nwhich certain sacra are exhibited, which cannot be safely seen by the\nworshipper till he has undergone certain purifications_.\n\nThe date of the mysteries at Eleusis is fortunately certain. The\nceremonies began on the 13th of Boedromion, i.e. about the end of\nSeptember, an appropriate date for any harvest festival which was\nto include the later fruits and notably the grape. Our evidence for\nthis date is an imperial Roman inscription[384], but this inscription\nexpressly states that its enactments are \u2018according to ancient\nusage.\u2019 \u2018The people has decided to order the Kosmeter of the Epheboi\nin accordance with ancient usage to send them to Eleusis on the 13th\nday of Boedromion, in their customary dress, for the procession that\naccompanies the _sacra_, in order that on the 14th they may escort them\nto the Eleusinion which is at the foot of the Acropolis. Also to order\nthe Kosmeter of the Epheboi to conduct them on the 19th to Eleusis in\nthe same dress, escorting the _sacra_.\u2019 The inscription is of great\nimportance, as it is clear evidence that _sacra_ were part of the regular\nritual. What precisely these _sacra_ were we do not know; presumably they\nwere objects like those in use at the Thesmophoria. The going to and\nfro from Eleusis to Athens is purely political. The _sacra_ were really\nresident at Eleusis, but Athens liked to think she brought them there.\nThe Epheboi _escorted_ the _sacra_, but, as was fitting, they were really\nin charge of, and actually carried by, _priestesses_[385].\n\nOn the 15th of Boedromion took place the \u1f00\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 or assembling of the\ncandidates for initiation, and the proclamation by the Hierophant in\nthe Stoa Poikile interdicting those whose hands were defiled and those\nwhose lips spoke unintelligible words[386]. Some such interdiction,\nsome \u2018fencing of the tables,\u2019 took place in all probability before\nall mysteries. It is this _prorrhesis_ of course that is parodied by\nAristophanes in the _Frogs_[387], who actually dares to put his burlesque\ninto the mouth of the Hierophant himself.\n\nThe 16th of Boedromion saw the accomplishment of a rite of cardinal\nimportance. The day was called in popular parlance \u2018\u1f05\u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\u2019 \u2018To\nthe sea ye mystics,\u2019 from the cry that heralded the act of purification.\nHesychius[388] in commenting on the expression says \u2018a certain day of the\nMysteries at Athens.\u2019 Polyaenus[389] is precise as to the date. He says\n\u2018Chabrias won the sea-fight at Naxos on the 16th of Boedromion. He had\nfelt that this was a good day for a battle, because it was one of the\ndays of the Great Mysteries. The same thing happened with Themistocles\nagainst the Persians at Salamis. But Themistocles and his troops had\nthe \u201cIacchos\u201d for their call, while Chabrias and his troops had \u201cTo\nthe sea ye mystics.\u201d\u2019 The victory of Chabrias was won, as we know from\nPlutarch[390], at the full moon, and at the full moon the Mysteries were\ncelebrated.\n\nThe procession to the sea was called by the somewhat singular name\n\u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u2018driving\u2019 or \u2018banishing[391],\u2019 and the word is instructive. The\nprocession was not a mere procession, it was a driving out, a banishing.\nThis primary sense seems to lurk in the Greek word \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03ae[392], which in\nprimitive days seems to have mainly meant a conducting out, a sending\naway of evil. The bathing in the sea was a purification, a conducting\nout, a banishing of evil, and each man took with him his own pharmakos, a\nyoung pig. The \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, the driving, may have been literally the driving\nof the pig, which, as the goal was some 6 miles distant, must have\nbeen a lengthy and troublesome business. Arrived at the sea, each man\nbathed with his pig\u2014the pig of purification was itself purified. When\nin the days of Phocion[393] the Athenians were compelled to receive a\nMacedonian garrison, terrible portents appeared. When the ribbons with\nwhich the mystic beds were wound came to be dyed, instead of taking\na purple colour they came out of a sallow death-like hue, which was\nthe more remarkable as when it was the ribbons belonging to private\npersons that were dyed, they came out all right. And more portentous\nstill\u2014\u2018when a mystic was bathing his pig in the harbour called Kantharos,\na sea-monster ate off the lower part of his body, by which the god made\nclear beforehand that they would be deprived of the lower parts of the\ncity that lay near the sea, but keep the upper portion.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 14.]\n\nThe pig of purification was a ritual element, so important that when\nEleusis was permitted (B.C. 350-327) to issue her autonomous coinage[394]\nit is the pig that she chooses as the sign and symbol of her mysteries.\nThe bronze coin in fig. 14 shows the pig standing on the torch: in\nthe _exergue_ an ivy spray. The pig was the cheapest and commonest of\nsacrificial animals, one that each and every citizen could afford.\nSocrates in the _Republic_[395] says \u2018if people are to hear shameful and\nmonstrous stories about the gods it should be only rarely and to a select\nfew in a mystery, and they should have to sacrifice not a (mere) pig but\nsome huge and unprocurable victim.\u2019\n\nPurification, it is clear, was an essential feature of the mysteries, and\nthis brings us to the consideration of the meaning of the word mystery.\nThe usual derivation of the word is from \u03bc\u03cd\u03c9, I close the apertures\nwhether of eyes or mouth. The _mystes_, it is supposed, is the person\nvowed to secrecy who has not seen and will not speak of the things\nrevealed. As such he is distinguished from the _epoptes_ who has seen,\nbut equally may not speak; the two words indicate successive grades of\ninitiation. It will later be seen (p. 480) that in the Orphic Mysteries\nthe word _mystes_ is applied, without any reference to seeing or not\nseeing, to a person who has fulfilled the rite of eating the raw flesh\nof a bull. It will also be seen that in Crete, which is probably the\nhome of the mysteries, the mysteries were open to all, they were not\nmysterious. The derivation of mystery from \u03bc\u03cd\u03c9, though possible, is not\nsatisfactory. I would suggest another and a simple origin.\n\nThe ancients themselves were not quite comfortable about the connection\nwith \u03bc\u03cd\u03c9. They knew and felt that _mystery_, secrecy, was not the main\ngist of \u2018a mystery\u2019: the essence of it all primarily was purification\nin order that you might safely eat and handle certain _sacra_. There\nwas no revelation, no secret to be kept, only a mysterious _taboo_ to\nbe prepared for and finally overcome. It might be a _taboo_ on eating\nfirst-fruits, it might be a taboo on handling magical _sacra_. In the\nThesmophoria, the women fast before they touch the _sacra_; in the\nEleusinian mysteries you sacrifice a pig before you offer and partake of\nthe first-fruits. The gist of it all is purification. Clement[396] says\nsignificantly, \u2018Not unreasonably among the Greeks in their mysteries do\nceremonies of purification hold the initial place, as with barbarians\nthe bath.\u2019 Merely as an insulting conjecture Clement[397] in his\nirresponsible abusive fashion throws out what I believe to be the real\norigin of the word _mystery_. \u2018I think,\u2019 he says, \u2018that these orgies and\nmysteries of yours ought to be derived, the one from the wrath (\u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae) of\nDemeter against Zeus, the other from the pollution (\u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2) relating to\nDionysos.\u2019 Of course Clement is formally quite incorrect, but he hits on\nwhat seems a possible origin of the word _mystery_, that it is the doing\nof what relates to a \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, a pollution, it is primarily a ceremony of\npurification. Lydus[398] makes the same suggestion, \u2018Mysteries,\u2019 he says,\n\u2018are from the separating away of a pollution (\u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2) as equivalent to\nsanctification.\u2019\n\nThe bathing with the pig was not the only rite of purification in\nthe mysteries, though it is the one of which we have most definite\ndetail. From the aetiology[399] of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, we may\nconjecture that there were, at least for children, rites of purification\nby passing through fire, and ceremonies of a mock fight or stone-throwing\n(\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03cd\u03c2). All have the same intent and need not here be\nexamined in detail.\n\nOn the night of the 19-20th[400] the procession of purified mystics,\ncarrying with them the image of Iacchos, left Athens for Eleusis, and\nafter that we have no evidence of the exact order of the various rites\nof initiation. The exact order is indeed of little importance. Instead\nwe have recorded what is of immeasurably more importance, the precise\nformularies in which the mystics avowed the rites in which they had taken\npart, rites which we are bound to suppose constituted the primitive\nceremony of initiation.\n\nBefore these are examined it is necessary to state definitely what\nalready has been implied, i.e. the fact that at the mysteries there was\nan offering of first-fruits; the mysteries were in fact the _Thargelia_\nof Eleusis. An inscription[401] of the 5th century B.C. found at Eleusis\nis our best evidence. \u2018Let the Hierophant and the Torch-bearer command\nthat at the mysteries the Hellenes should offer first-fruits of their\ncrops in accordance with ancestral usage.... To those who do these things\nthere shall be many good things, both good and abundant crops, whoever\nof them do not injure the Athenians, nor the city of Athens, nor the two\ngoddesses.\u2019 The order of precedence is amusing and characteristic. Here\nwe have indeed a commandment with promise.\n\nThe \u2018token\u2019 or formulary by which the mystic made confession is preserved\nfor us by Clement[402] as follows: \u2018_I fasted, I drank the kykeon, I took\nfrom the chest, (having tasted?) I put back into the basket and from the\nbasket into the chest_.\u2019 The statement involves, in the main, two acts\nbesides the preliminary fast, i.e. the drinking of the kykeon and the\nhandling of certain unnamed _sacra_.\n\nIt is significant of the whole attitude of Greek religion that the\nconfession is not a confession of dogma or even faith, but an avowal of\nritual acts performed. This is the measure of the gulf between ancient\nand modern. The Greeks in their greater wisdom saw that uniformity in\nritual was desirable and possible; they left a man practically free\nin the only sphere where freedom is of real importance, i.e. in the\nmatter of thought. So long as you fasted, drank the _kykeon_, handled\nthe _sacra_, no one asked what were your opinions or your sentiments in\nthe performance of those acts; you were left to find in every sacrament\nthe only thing you could find\u2014what you brought. Our own creed is mainly\na _Credo_, an utterance of dogma, formulated by the few for the many,\nbut it has traces of the more ancient conception of _Confiteor_, the\navowal of ritual acts performed. _Credo in unam sanctam catholicam\net apostolicam ecclesiam_ is immediately followed by _Confiteor unum\nbaptismum_, though the instinct of dogma surges up again in the final\nwords _in remissionem peccatorum_.\n\nThe preliminary fast before the eating of sacred things is common to most\nprimitive peoples; it is the simplest negative form of purification:\namong the more logical savages it is often accompanied by the taking\nof a powerful emetic. The _kykeon_ requires a word of explanation. The\nfirst-fruits at Eleusis were presented in the form of a _pelanos_[403].\nThe nature of a _pelanos_ has already been discussed, and the fact noted\nthat the word _pelanos_ was used only of the half-fluid mixture offered\nto the gods. Its equivalent for mortals was called _alphita_ or sometimes\n_kykeon_. Eustathius in commenting on the drink prepared by Hekamede\nfor Nestor, a drink made of barley and cheese and pale honey and onion\nand Pramnian wine, says that the word _kykeon_ meant something between\nmeat and drink, but inclining to be like a sort of soup that you could\nsup. Such a drink it was that in the Homeric Hymn Metaneira prepared for\nDemeter, only with no wine, for Demeter, as an underworld goddess \u2018might\nnot drink red wine\u2019: and such a wineless drink, made in all probability\nfrom the _pelanos_ and only differing from it in name, was set before the\nmystae.\n\nSome ceremony like the drinking of the _kykeon_ is represented in the\nvase-painting[404] in fig. 15. Two worshippers, a man and a woman, are\nseated side by side; before them a table piled with food, beneath it a\nbasket of loaves. They are inscribed _Mystae_ (\u039c\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1). A priest holding\nin the left hand twigs and standing by a little shrine, offers to them a\ncylix containing some form of drink. The presence of the little shrine\nhas made some commentators see in the priest an itinerant quack priest\n(\u1f00\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), but it is quite possible that shrines of this kind containing\nsacra were carried at the Eleusinian mysteries. Anyhow the scene depicted\nis analogous.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 15.]\n\nOf the actual _sacra_ which the initiated had to take from the chest,\nplace in the basket, and replace in the chest, we know nothing. The\n_sacra_ of the Thesmophoria are known, those of the Dionysiac mysteries\nwere of trivial character, a ball, a mirror, a cone, and the like: there\nis no reason to suppose that the _sacra_ of the Eleusinian mysteries were\nof any greater intrinsic significance.\n\nClement[405] in a passage preceding that already quoted gives the\nEleusinian \u2018tokens,\u2019 with slightly different wording and with two\nadditional clauses: he says \u2018the symbols of this initiation are, I ate\nfrom the timbrel, I drank from the cymbal, I carried the _kernos_, I\npassed beneath the _pastos_.\u2019 The scholiast[406] on Plato\u2019s _Gorgias_\nmakes a similar statement. He says \u2018at the lesser mysteries many\ndisgraceful things were done, and these words were said by those who\nwere being initiated: I ate from the timbrel, I drank from the cymbal,\nI carried the _kernos_\u2019; he further adds by way of explanation \u2018the\n_kernos_ is the _liknon_ or _ptuon_,\u2019 i.e. it is some form of winnowing\nfan.\n\nThere has been much and, I think, needless controversy as to whether this\nform of the tokens belongs to the mysteries at Eleusis or not. From the\nwords that precede Clement\u2019s statement, a mention of Attis, Kybele and\nthe Korybants, it is quite clear that he has in his mind the mysteries\nof the Great Mother of Asia Minor, but from his mentioning Demeter also,\nit is also clear that he does not exactly distinguish between the two.\nThe mention of the \u2018tokens\u2019 by the scholiast on Plato is expressly made\nwith reference to the Lesser Mysteries, and these, it will later (Chap.\nX) be seen, are related especially to Kore and Dionysos. The whole\nconfusion rests on the simple mythological fact that Demeter and Cybele\nwere but local forms of the Great Mother worshipped under diverse names\nall over Greece. Wherever she was worshipped she had mysteries, the\ntimbrel and the cymbal came to be characteristic of the wilder Asiatic\nMother, but the Mother at Eleusis also clashed the brazen cymbals. In her\n\u2018tokens\u2019 however her mystics ate from the _cista_ and the basket, but the\ndistinction is a slight one.\n\nThe question of the _kernos_ is of some interest. The scholiast states\nthat the _kernos_ was a winnowing fan, and the winnowing fan we shall\nlater see (p. 548) was, at least in Alexandrine days, used in the\nmysteries of Eleusis. It was a simple agricultural instrument taken\nover and mysticized by the religion of Dionysos. From Athenaeus[407]\nhowever we learn of another kind of _kernos_. In his discussion of the\nvarious kinds of cups and their uses he says: \u2018_Kernos_, a vessel made\nof earthenware, having in it many little cups fastened to it, in which\nare white poppies, wheat, barley, pulse, vetch, ochroi, lentils; and he\nwho carries it after the fashion of the carrier of the _liknon_, tastes\nof these things, as Ammonius relates in his third book On Altars and\nSacrifices.\u2019 A second and rather fuller notice of the _kernos_ is given\nby Athenaeus[408] a little later in discussing the _kotylos_. \u2018Polemon\nin his treatise \u201cOn the Dian Fleece\u201d says, \u201cAnd after this he performs\nthe rite and takes it from the chamber and distributes it to those who\nhave borne the _kernos_ aloft.\u201d\u2019 Then follows an amplified list of\nthe contents of the _kernos_. The additions are italicized: \u2018_sage_,\nwhite poppies, wheat, barley, pulse, vetch, ochroi, lentils, _beans_,\n_spelt_, _oats_, _a cake_, _honey_, _oil_, _wine_, _milk_, _sheep\u2019s wool\nunwashed_.\u2019\n\nThe list of the \u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03af\u03b1, the offering of all fruits and natural\nproducts, is in some respects a primitive one: the unwashed wool reminds\nus of the simple offering made by Pausanias at the cave of Demeter at\nPhigalia; but there are late additions, the manufactured olive oil and\nwine. Demeter in early days would assuredly never have accepted wine.\nThe _kernos_, like the offerings it contained, is comparatively late\nand complex. Vessels exactly corresponding to the description given by\nAthenaeus have been found in considerable numbers in the precinct at\nEleusis, both vessels meant for use and others obviously votive. In\nthe accounts[409] of the officials at Eleusis for the year 408-7 B.C.\nthere is mention of a vessel called \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, which in all probability is\nidentical with the _kernos_ of Athenaeus. The shape and purport of the\nvessel are clearly seen in the very perfect specimen[410] in fig. 16.\nSuch a vessel might well be called a _separator_; each of the little\n_kotyliskoi_ attached would contain a sample of the various grains and\nproducts. It is easy to see how the scholiast might explain it as a\n_liknon_. The _liknon_ was an implement for winnowing, _separating_\ngrain from chaff, the _kernos_ a vessel in which various sorts of grain\ncould be kept _separate_. The _Kernophoria_ was nothing but a late and\nelaborate form of the offering of first-fruits. In the simple primaeval\nform of the Mysteries as certified by the tokens, we have but two\nelements, the presentation and tasting of first-fruits and the handling\nof _sacra_. All later accretions will be discussed in the chapter on\nOrphic Mysteries.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 16.]\n\nIn discussing the Anthesteria (p. 42) mention has already been made of\na rite which, according to Athenaeus[411], took place on the final day\nof the Mysteries. On this day, which took its name from the rite, two\nvessels called _plemochoae_ are emptied, one towards the east, the other\ntowards the west, and at the moment of outpouring a mystic formulary was\npronounced. Athenaeus explains that a _plemocho\u00e8_ was an earthenware\nvessel \u2018shaped like a top but standing secure on its basis\u2019: it seems to\nhave been a vessel in general use for the service of the underworld, for\nhe quotes a play called _Peirithous_ in which one of the characters said:\n\n \u2018That these _plemochoai_ with well-omened words\n We may pour down into the chthonian chasm.\u2019\n\nWhat the mystic formulary was we cannot certainly say, but it is tempting\nto connect the libation of the _plemocho\u00e8_ with a formulary recorded\nby Proclus[412]. He says \u2018In the Eleusinian mysteries, looking up to\nthe sky they cried aloud \u201cRain,\u201d and looking down to earth they cried\n\u201cBe fruitful.\u201d\u2019 The simplicity of the solemn little prayer cannot be\nreproduced in English. It was a fitting close to rites so primitive.\n\nLast of all, over those who had been initiated were uttered, if we may\ntrust Hesychius[413], the mysterious words \u039a\u1f78\u03b3\u03be \u1f44\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03be.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt remains to resume the results of the last four chapters. It has been\nseen in examining four of the great public festivals of Athens, the\nDiasia, the Anthesteria, the Thargelia, the Thesmophoria, that neither\ntheir names, nor primarily their ritual, were concerned with the worship\nof the Olympian gods to whom the festivals were ostensibly dedicated.\nWhen the nature of that ritual was examined, it was seen to consist not\nin sacrifice like that paid to the Olympians, which was of the nature of\n_tendance_ and might be embodied in the formula _do ut des_, but rather\nof ceremonies of _aversion_ based on ignorance and fear. Its formula was\n_do ut abeas_. In the Anthesteria the ceremonies known as \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af were\nseen to be purifications (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03af), and by purifications were meant\nplacations of Keres, of ghosts and sprites. In the Thargelia the ceremony\nof the pharmakos was seen to be also a purification, but in the sense\nnot of the placation or riddance of ghosts and sprites but of a magical\ncleansing from physical evil. In the Thesmophoria the ceremony with the\npigs was preceded by ceremonies of purification, and was in itself of\nmagical intent. Moreover the element of cursing and _devotion_ was seen\nto lie at the root of the later notion of _consecration_. To these three\nfestivals, taken from the three seasons of the agricultural year, has\nnow been added the rite of the Eleusinian Mysteries, the gist of which\nhas been shown to be purification as preliminary to the handling of\nmagical _sacra_ and to the partaking of first-fruits.\n\nThe only just way of understanding the religious notions of a particular\nrace is to examine the terminology of the language of that race. Our\nmodern notion of ancient religion is largely summed up by the word\n\u2018sacrifice.\u2019 We are too apt to ask \u2018what was the nature of sacrifice\namong the Greeks?\u2019 If we follow the lead of their language instead of\nimposing our language on them, it is abundantly clear that sacrifice,\nwith all our modern connotations of vicarious expiation and of mystical\ncommunion, they had not. All the ancient ceremonies, so far considered,\npoint to a thought simpler and nowise less beautiful or less deeply\nreligious, and that thought is _purification_. Purification practically\nunknown to Olympian worship is the keynote of the lower stratum.\n\nIt is all important that this should be clearly and emphatically stated\nat this point in order that the sequel may be intelligible. When the\nnew impulse connected with the names of Dionysos and Orpheus entered\nGreece, it left aside the great and popular Olympian system embodied in\nthe formula _do ut des_, and, by a true instinct, fastened on an element\nwhich, if in some respects it was lower, was truer to fact and had in it\nhigher possibilities, a religion that recognized evil, though mainly in\nphysical form, and that sought for purification.\n\nThe essence of that new religion was, as will later be shown, the belief\nthat man could become god: the new ritual feature it introduced, a\nfeature wholly lacking in the old uneaten \u2018sacrifices,\u2019 was mystical\ncommunion by the eating of the body of the god. But, because man was\nmortal, there was mortality to be purged away; and hence, although with a\nnew faith and hope, men reverted to the old ritual of purification.\n\nSo much by anticipation; but before we come to the study of the new\nimpulse it is necessary to leave ritual and turn to theology, which is\nin fact mythology: the rites have been considered, and now in the next\nthree chapters something must be said of the beings worshipped,\u2014at first\nin vague shifting outlines as ghosts and sprites,\u2014later crystallized into\nclear shapes as goddesses and gods.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE DEMONOLOGY OF GHOSTS AND SPRITES AND BOGEYS.\n\n \u2018\u1f66 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u039a\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2.\u2019\n\n\nIn the preceding chapters the nature of Greek ritual has been discussed.\nThe main conclusion that has emerged is that this ritual in its earlier\nphases was mainly characterized by a tendency to what the Greeks called\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, i.e. the turning away, the _aversion_ of evil. This tendency\nwas however rarely quite untouched by an impulse more akin to our modern\nnotion of worship, the impulse to \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, i.e. the induction, the\nfostering of good influences.\n\nIncidentally we have of course gathered something of the nature of the\nobjects of worship. When the ritual was not an attempt at the direct\nimpulsion of nature, we have had brief uncertain glimpses of sprites\nand ghosts and underworld divinities. It now remains to trace with more\nprecision these vague theological or demonological or mythological\noutlines, to determine the character of the beings worshipped and\nsomething of the order of their development.\n\nIn theology facts are harder to seek, truth more difficult to formulate\nthan in ritual. Ritual, i.e. what men _did_, is either known or not\nknown; what they meant by what they did\u2014the connecting link between\nritual and theology\u2014can sometimes be certainly known, more often\nprecariously inferred. Still more hazardous is the attempt to determine\nhow man thought of the objects or beings to whom his ritual was\naddressed, in a word what was his theology, or, if we prefer the term,\nhis mythology.\n\nAt the outset one preliminary caution is imperative. Our minds are\nimbued with current classical mythology, our imagination peopled with\nthe vivid personalities, the clear-cut outlines of the Olympian gods;\nit is only by a somewhat severe mental effort that we realize the fact\nessential to our study that _there were no gods at all_, that what we\nhave to investigate is not so many actual facts and existences but only\nconceptions of the human mind, shifting and changing colour with every\nhuman mind that conceived them. Art which makes the image, literature\nwhich crystallizes attributes and functions, arrest and fix this shifting\nkaleidoscope; but, until the coming of art and literature and to some\nextent after, the formulary of theology is \u2018all things are in flux\u2019\n(\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6).\n\nFurther, not only are we dealing solely with conceptions of the human\nmind, but often with conceptions of a mind that conceived things in a\nfashion alien to our own. There is no greater bar to that realizing of\nmythology[414] which is the first condition of its being understood, than\nour modern habit of clear analytic thought. The very terms we use are\nsharpened to an over nice discrimination. The first necessity is that\nby an effort of the sympathetic imagination we should think back the\n\u2018many\u2019 we have so sharply and strenuously divided, into the haze of the\nprimitive \u2018one.\u2019\n\nNor must we regard this haze of the early morning as a deleterious mental\nfog, as a sign of disorder, weakness, oscillation. It is not confusion\nor even synthesis; rather it is as it were a protoplasmic fulness and\nforcefulness not yet articulate into the diverse forms of its ultimate\nbirths. It may even happen, as in the case of the Olympian divinities,\nthat articulation and discrimination sound the note of approaching\ndecadence. As Maeterlinck[415] beautifully puts it, _la clart\u00e9 parfaite\nn\u2019est-elle pas d\u2019ordinaire le signe de la lassitude des id\u00e9es?_\n\nThere is a practical reason why it is necessary to bear in mind this\nprimary fusion, though not confusion, of ideas. Theology, after\narticulating the one into the many and diverse, after a course of\nexclusive and determined discrimination, after differentiating a number\nof departmental gods and spirits, usually monotheizes, i.e. resumes the\nmany into the one. Hence, as will be constantly seen, _mutatis mutandis_,\na late philosophizing author is often of great use in illustrating a\nprimitive conception: the multiform divinity of an Orphic Hymn is nearer\nto the primitive mind than the clear-cut outlines of Homer\u2019s Olympians.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn our preliminary examination of Athenian festivals we found underlying\nthe Diasia the worship of a snake, underlying the Anthesteria the\nrevocation of souls. In the case of the Thesmophoria we found magical\nceremonies for the promotion of fertility addressed as it would seem\ndirectly to the earth itself: in the Thargelia we had ceremonies of\npurification not primarily addressed to any one. In the Diasia and\nAnthesteria only was there clear evidence of some sort of definite being\nor beings as the object of worship. The meaning of snake-worship will\ncome up for discussion later (p. 326), for the present we must confine\nourselves to the theology or demonology of the beings worshipped in the\nAnthesteria, the Keres, sprites, or ghosts, and the theological shapes\ninto which they are developed and discriminated.\n\n\nTHE KER AS GHOST AND SPRITE.\n\nThat the Keres dealt with in the Anthesteria\u2014\u2018worshipped\u2019 is of course\ntoo modern a word\u2014were primarily ghosts, admits, in the face of the\nevidence previously adduced (pp. 43, 44), of no doubt. That in the\nfifth century B.C. they were thought of as little winged sprites the\nvase-painting in fig. 7 clearly shows, and to it might be added the\nevidence of countless other Athenian white lekythi where the _eidolon_ or\nghost is shown fluttering about the grave. But to the ancients _Keres_\nwas a word of far larger and vaguer connotation than our modern _ghosts_,\nand we must grasp this wider connotation if we would understand the later\ndevelopments of the term.\n\nSomething of their nature has already appeared in the apotropaic\nprecautions of the Anthesteria. Pitch was smeared on the doors to catch\nthem, cathartic buckthorn was chewed to eject them; they were dreaded\nas sources of evil; they were, if not exactly evil spirits, certainly\nspirits that brought evil: else why these precautions? Plato has this in\nhis mind when he says[416] \u2018There are many fair things in the life of\nmortals, but in most of them there are as it were adherent Keres which\npollute and disfigure them.\u2019 Here we have not merely a philosophical\nnotion, that there is a soul of evil in things good, but the reminiscence\nsurely of an actual popular faith, i.e. the belief that Keres, like a\nsort of personified bacilli, engendered corruption and pollution[417].\nTo such influences all things mortal are exposed. Conon[418] in telling\nthe story of the miraculous head of Orpheus (p. 468) says that when it\nwas found by the fisherman \u2018it was still singing, nor had it suffered\nany change from the sea nor any other of the outrages that human Keres\ninflict on the dead, but it was still blooming and bleeding with fresh\nblood.\u2019 Conon is of course a late writer, and full of borrowed poetical\nphrases, but the expression human Keres (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2) is not\nequivalent to the Destiny of man, it means rather sources of corruption\ninherent in man.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 17.]\n\nIn fig. 7 we have seen a representation of the harmless Keres, the souls\nfluttering out of the grave-pithos. Fortunately ancient art has also left\nus a representation of a baleful Ker. The picture in fig. 17 is from a\npelike[419] found at Thisbe and now in the Berlin Museum[420]. Heracles,\nknown by his lion skin and quiver, swings his rudely hewn club (\u03ba\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2)\nagainst a tiny winged figure with shrivelled body and distorted ugly\nface. We might have been at a loss to give a name to his feeble though\nrepulsive antagonist but for an Orphic Hymn to Heracles[421] which ends\nwith the prayer:\n\n \u2018Come, blessed hero, come and bring allayments\n Of all diseases. Brandishing thy club,\n Drive forth the baleful fates; with poisoned shafts\n Banish the noisome Keres far away.\u2019\n\nThe primitive Greek leapt by his religious imagination to a forecast of\nthe truth that it has taken science centuries to establish, i.e. the fact\nthat disease is caused by little live things, germs\u2014bacilli we call them,\nhe used the word Keres. A fragment of the early comic poet Sophron[422]\nspeaks of Herakles throttling Hepiales. Hepiales must be the demon of\nnightmare, well known to us from other sources and under various confused\nnames as Ephialtes, Epiales, Hepialos. The _Etymologicon Magnum_[423]\nexplains \u2018Hepialos\u2019 as a shivering fever and \u2018a daimon that comes upon\nthose that are asleep.\u2019 It has been proposed to regard the little winged\nfigure which Herakles is clearly taking by the throat as Hepiales[424],\ndemon of nightmare, rather than as a Ker. The question can scarcely be\ndecided, but the doubt is as instructive as any certainty. Hepiales is a\ndisease caused by a Ker; i.e. it is a special form of Ker, the nightmare\nbacillus. Blindness also was caused by a Ker, as was madness; hence\nthe expression \u2018casting a black Ker on their eyes[425].\u2019 Blindness and\nmadness, blindness of body and spirit are scarcely distinguished, as in\nthe blindness of Oedipus; both come of the Keres-Erinyes.\n\nTo the primitive mind all diseases are caused by, or rather _are_, bad\nspirits. Porphyry[426] tells us that blisters are caused by evil spirits\nwhich come at us when we eat certain food and settle on our bodies.\nHe goes to the very heart of ancient religious \u2018aversion\u2019 when he adds\nthat it is on account of this that purifications are practised, _not\nin order that we may induce the presence of the gods, but that these\nwretched things may keep off_. He might have added, it is on account of\nthese bad spirits that we fast; indeed \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, the word he uses, means\nabstinence as well as purity. Eating is highly dangerous because you\nhave your mouth open and a Ker may get in. If a Ker should get in when\nyou are about to partake of specially holy food there will naturally be\ndifficulties. So argues the savage. Porphyry being a vegetarian says that\nthese bad spirits specially delight in blood and impurities generally\nand they \u2018creep into people who make use of such things.\u2019 If you kept\nabout you holy plants with strong scents and purging properties, like rue\nand buckthorn, you might keep the Keres away, or, if they got in, might\nspeedily and safely eject them.\n\nThe physical character of the Keres, their connection with \u2018the lusts of\nthe flesh,\u2019 comes out very clearly in a quaint moralising poem preserved\nby Stobaeus and attributed to Linos. It deals with the dangers of Keres\nand the necessity for meeting them by \u2018purification.\u2019 Its ascetic tone\nand its attribution to Linos probably point to Orphic origin. It runs as\nfollows[427]:\n\n \u2018Hearken to these my sayings, zealously lend me your hearing\n To the simple truth about all things. Drive far away the disastrous\n Keres, they who destroy the herd of the vulgar and fetter\n All things around with curses manifold. Many and dreadful\n Shapes do they take to deceive. But keep them far from thy spirit,\n Ever watchful in mind. This is the purification\n That shall rightly and truly purge thee to sanctification\n (If but in truth thou hatest the baleful race of the Keres),\n And most of all thy belly, the giver of all things shameful,\n For desire is her charioteer and she drives with the driving of\n madness.\u2019\n\nIt is commonly said that diseases are \u2018personified\u2019 by the Greeks. This\nis to invert the real order of primitive thought. It is not that a\ndisease is realized as a power and then turned into a person, it is that\nprimitive man seems unable to conceive of any force except as resulting\nfrom some person or being or sprite, something a little like himself.\nSuch is the state of mind of the modern Greek peasant who writes \u03a7\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\nwith a capital letter. Hunger, pestilence, madness, nightmare have each a\nsprite behind them; _are_ all sprites.\n\nOf course, as Hesiod[428] knew, there were ancient golden days when these\nsprites were not let loose, when they were shut up safe in a cask and\n\n \u2018Of old the tribes of mortal men on earth\n Lived without ills, aloof from grievous toil\n And catching plagues which Keres gave to men[429].\u2019\n\nBut alas!\n\n \u2018The woman with her hands took the great lid\n From off the cask and scattered them, and thus\n Devised sad cares for mortals. Hope alone\n Remained therein, safe held beneath the rim,\n Nor flitted forth, for she thrust to the lid[430].\u2019\n\nWho the woman was and why she opened the jar will be considered later (p.\n283); for the moment we have only to note what manner of things came out\nof it. The account is strange and significant. She shut the cask too late:\n\n \u2018For other myriad evils wandered forth\n To man, the earth was full, and full the sea.\n Diseases, that all round by day and night\n Bring ills to mortals, hovered, self-impelled,\n Silent, for Zeus the Counsellor their voice\n Had taken away[431].\u2019\n\nProclus understands that these silent ghostly insidious things _are_\nKeres, though he partly modernizes them. He says in commenting on the\npassage, \u2018Hesiod gives them (i.e. the diseases) bodily form making them\napproach without sound, showing that even of these things spirits are the\nguardians, sending invisibly the diseases decreed by fate and scattering\nthe Keres in the cask.\u2019 After the manner of his day he thinks the Keres\nwere presided over by spirits, that they were diseases sent by spirits,\nbut primitive man believes the Keres _are_ the spirits, _are_ the\ndiseases. Hesiod himself was probably not quite conscious that the jar or\npithos was the great grave-jar of the Earth-mother Pandora (p. 286), and\nthat the Keres were ghosts. \u2018Earth,\u2019 says Hesiod, \u2018was full and full the\nsea.\u2019 This crowd of Keres close-packed is oddly emphasized in a fragment\nby an anonymous poet[432]:\n\n \u2018Such is our mortal state, ill upon ill,\n And round about us Keres crowding still;\n No chink of opening\n Is left for entering.\u2019\n\nThis notion of the swarm of unknown unseen evils hovering about men\nhaunts the lyric poets, lending a certain primitive reality to their\nvague mournful pessimism. Simonides of Amorgos[433] seems to echo Hesiod\nwhen he says \u2018hope feeds all men\u2019\u2014but hope is all in vain because of the\nimminent demon host that work for man\u2019s undoing, disease and death and\nwar and shipwreck and suicide.\n\n \u2018No ill is lacking, Keres thousand-fold\n Mortals attend, woes and calamities\n That none may scape.\u2019\n\nHere and elsewhere to translate \u2018Keres\u2019 by fates is to make a\npremature abstraction. The Keres are still physical actual things not\nimpersonations. So when Aeschylus[434] puts into the mouth of his Danaid\nwomen the prayer\n\n \u2018Nor may diseases, noisome swarm,\n Settle upon our heads, to harm\n Our citizens,\u2019\n\nthe \u2018noisome swarm\u2019 is no mere \u2018poetical\u2019 figure but the reflection of a\nreal primitive conviction of live pests.\n\nThe little fluttering insect-like diseases are naturally spoken of for\nthe most part in the plural, but in the _Philoctetes_ of Sophocles[435]\nthe festering sore of the hero is called \u2018an ancient Ker\u2019; here again\nthe usage is primitive rather than poetical. Viewing the Keres \u2018as\nlittle inherent physical pests,\u2019 we are not surprised to learn from\nTheognis[436] that\n\n \u2018For hapless man wine doth two Keres hold\u2014\n Limb-slacking Thirst, Drunkenness overbold.\u2019\n\nNor is it man alone who is beset by these evil sprites. In that\nstorehouse of ancient superstition, the Orphic _Lithica_[437], we hear of\nKeres who attack the fields. Against them the best remedy is the Lychnis\nstone, which was also good to keep off a hailstorm.\n\n \u2018Lychnis, from pelting hail be thou our shield,\n Keep off the Keres who attack each field.\u2019\n\nAnd Theophrastus[438] tells us that each locality has its own Keres\ndangerous to plants, some coming from the ground, some from the air,\nsome from both. Fire also, it would seem, might be infested by Keres.\nA commentator on Philo says that it is important that no profane fire,\ni.e. such as is in ordinary use, should touch an altar because it may be\ncontaminated by myriads of Keres[439]. Instructive too is the statement\nof Stesichorus[440], who according to tradition \u2018called the Keres by\nthe name Telchines.\u2019 Eustathius in quoting the statement of Stesichorus\nadds as explanatory of Keres \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2: the word \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 is late\nand probably a gloss, it means darkening, killing, eclipse physical\nand spiritual. Leaving the gloss aside, the association of Keres with\nTelchines is of capital interest and takes us straight back into the\nworld of ancient magic. The Telchines were the typical magicians of\nantiquity, and Strabo[441] tells us that one of their magic arts was to\n\u2018besprinkle animals and plants with the water of Styx and sulphur mixed\nwith it, with a view to destroy them.\u2019\n\nThus the Keres, from being merely bad influences inherent and almost\nautomatic, became exalted and personified into actual magicians.\nEustathius in the passage where he quotes Stesichorus allows us to see\nhow this happened. He is commenting on the ancient tribe of the Kouretes:\nthese Kouretes, he says, were Cretan and also called Thelgines (_sic_),\nand they were sorcerers and magicians. \u2018Of these there were two sorts:\none sort craftsmen and skilled in handiwork, the other sort pernicious\nto all good things; these last were of fierce nature and were fabled to\nbe the origins of squalls of wind, and they had a cup in which they used\nto brew magic potions from roots. They (i.e. the former sort) invented\nstatuary and discovered metals, and they were amphibious and of strange\nvarieties of shape, some were like demons, some like men, some like\nfishes, some like serpents; and the story went that some had no hands,\nsome no feet, and some had webs between their fingers like geese. And\nthey say that they were blue-eyed and black-tailed.\u2019 Finally comes the\nsignificant statement that _they perished struck down by the thunder of\nZeus or by the arrows of Apollo_. The old order is slain by the new. To\nthe imagination of the conqueror the conquered are at once barbarians\nand magicians, monstrous and magical, hated and feared, craftsmen and\nmedicine men, demons, beings endowed like the spirits they worship, in a\nword Keres-Telchines[442]. When we find the good, fruitful, beneficent\nside of the Keres effaced and ignored we must always remember this fact\nthat we see them through the medium of a conquering civilization[443].\n\n\nTHE KERES OF OLD AGE AND DEATH.\n\nBy fair means or foul, by such ritual procedures as have already been\nnoted, by the chewing of buckthorn, the sounding of brass, the making\nof comic figures, most of the Keres could be kept at bay; but there were\ntwo who waited relentless, who might not be averted, and these were Old\nAge and Death. It is the thought that these two Keres are waiting that\nwith the lyric poets most of all overshadows the brightness of life.\nTheognis[444] prays to Zeus:\n\n \u2018Keep far the evil Keres, me defend\n From Old Age wasting, and from Death the end.\u2019\n\nThese haunting Keres of disease, disaster, old age and death\nMimnermus[445] can never forget:\n\n \u2018We blossom like the leaves that come in spring,\n What time the sun begins to flame and glow,\n And in the brief span of youth\u2019s gladdening\n Nor good nor evil from the gods we know,\n But always at the goal black Keres stand\n Holding, one grievous Age, one Death within her hand.\n\n And all the fruit of youth wastes, as the Sun\n Wastes and is spent in sunbeams, and to die\n Not live is best, for evils many a one\n Are born within the soul. And Poverty\n Has wasted one man\u2019s house with niggard care,\n And one has lost his children. Desolate\n Of this his earthly longing, he must fare\n To Hades. And another for his fate\n Has sickness sore that eats his soul. No man\n Is there but Zeus hath cursed with many a ban.\n\nHere is the same dismal primitive faith, or rather fear. All things are\nbeset by Keres, and Keres are all evil. The verses of Mimnermus are of\ninterest at this point because they show the emergence of the two most\ndreaded Keres, Old Age and Death, from the swarm of minor ills. Poverty,\ndisease and desolation are no longer definitely figured as Keres. The\nvase-painter shows this fact in a cruder form. On a red-figured amphora\n(fig. 18) in the Louvre[446] Herakles is represented lifting his club\nto slay a shrivelled ugly little figure leaning on a stick\u2014the figure\nobviously is an old man. Fortunately it is inscribed \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2. It is not\nan old man, but Old Age itself, the dreaded Ker. The representation is\na close parallel to Herakles slaying the Ker in fig. 17. The Ker of Old\nAge has no wings: these the vase-painter rightly felt were inappropriate.\nIt is in fact a Ker developed one step further into an impersonation.\nThe vase may be safely dated as belonging to about the middle of the 5th\ncentury B.C. It is analogous in style, as in subject, to an amphora[447]\nin the British Museum bearing the love-name Charmides.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 18.]\n\nGradually the meanings of Ker became narrowed down to one, to the\ngreat evil, death and the fate of death, but always with a flitting\nremembrance that there were Keres of all mortal things. This is the\nusage most familiar to us, because it is Homeric. Homer\u2019s phraseology\nis rarely primitive\u2014often fossilized\u2014and the regularly recurring \u2018Ker\nof death[448]\u2019 (\u03ba\u1f74\u03c1 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf) is heir to a long ancestry. In Homer we\ncatch the word Ker at a moment of transition; it is half death, half\ndeath-spirit. Odysseus[449] says\n\n \u2018Death and the Ker avoiding, we escape,\u2019\n\nwhere the two words death and Ker are all but equivalents: they are both\ndeath and the sprite of death, or as we might say now-a-days death and\nthe angel of death. Homer\u2019s conception so dominates our minds that the\ncustom has obtained of uniformly translating \u2018Ker\u2019 by fate, a custom that\nhas led to much confusion of thought.\n\nTwo things with respect to Homer\u2019s usage must be borne in mind. First,\nhis use of the word Ker is, as might be expected, far more abstract\nand literary than the usage we have already noted. It is impossible to\nsay that Homer has in his mind anything of the nature of a tiny winged\nbacillus. Second, in Homer Ker is almost always defined and limited by\nthe genitive \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, and this looks as though, behind the expression,\nthere lay the half-conscious knowledge that there were Keres of other\nthings than death. Ker itself is _not_ death, but the two have become\nwell-nigh inseparable.\n\nSome notion of the double nature, good and bad, of Keres seems to survive\nin the expression two-fold Keres (\u03b4\u03b9\u03c7\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u039a\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2). Achilles[450] says:\n\n \u2018My goddess-mother silver-footed Thetis\n Hath said that Keres two-fold bear me on\n To the term of death.\u2019\n\nIt is true that both the Keres are carrying him deathward, but there is\nstrongly present the idea of the diversity of fates. The English language\nhas in such cases absolutely no equivalent for Ker, because it has no\nword weighted with the like associations.\n\nIn one passage only in the Iliad[451], i.e. the description of the shield\nof Achilles, does a Ker actually appear in person, on the battlefield:\n\n \u2018And in the thick of battle there was Strife\n And Clamour, and there too the baleful Ker.\n She grasped one man alive, with bleeding wound,\n Another still unwounded, and one dead\n She by his feet dragged through the throng. And red\n Her raiment on her shoulders with men\u2019s blood.\u2019\n\nA work of art, it must be remembered, is being described, and the feeling\nis more Hesiodic than Homeric. The Ker is in this case not a fate but a\nhorrible she-demon of slaughter.\n\n\nTHE KER AS HARPY AND WIND-DEMON.\n\nIn Homer the Keres are no doubt mainly death-spirits, but they have\nanother function, they actually _carry off_ the souls to Hades. Odysseus\nsays[452]:\n\n \u2018Howbeit him Death-Keres carried off\n To Hades\u2019 house.\u2019\n\nIt is impossible here to translate Keres by \u2018fates,\u2019 the word is too\nabstract: the Keres are \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, angels, messengers, death-demons,\nsouls that carry off souls.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 19.]\n\nThe idea that underlies this constantly recurring formulary, \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, emerges clearly when we come to consider those\nanalogous apparitions, the Harpies. The Harpies betray their nature\nclearly in their name, in its uncontracted form \u2018\u1f08\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1,\u2019 which\nappears on the vase-painting in fig. 19; they are the Snatchers, winged\nwomen-demons, hurrying along like the storm wind and carrying all things\nto destruction. The vase-painting in fig. 19 from a large black-figured\nvessel in the Berlin Museum[453] is specially instructive because, though\nthe winged demons are inscribed as Harpies, the scene of which they form\npart, i.e. the slaying of Medusa, clearly shows that they are Gorgons;\nso near akin, so shifting and intermingled are the two conceptions. On\nanother vase (fig. 20), also in the Berlin Museum[454], we see an actual\nGorgon with the typical Gorgon\u2019s head and protruding tongue performing\nthe function of a Harpy, i.e. of a Snatcher. We say \u2018an actual Gorgon,\u2019\nbut it is not a Gorgon of the usual form but a bird-woman with a Gorgon\u2019s\nhead. The bird-woman is currently and rightly associated with the Siren,\na creature to be discussed later (p. 197), a creature malign though\nseductive in Homer, but gradually softened by the Athenian imagination\ninto a sorrowful death angel.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 20.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 21.]\n\nThe tender bird-women of the so-called \u2018Harpy tomb\u2019 from Lycia (fig. 21),\nnow in the British Museum, perform the functions of a Harpy, but very\ngently. They are at least near akin to the sorrowing Sirens on Athenian\ntombs. We can scarcely call them by the harsh name of the \u2018Snatchers.\u2019\nAnd yet, standing as it did in Lycia, this \u2018Harpy tomb\u2019 may be the\noutcome of the same stratum of mythological conceptions as the familiar\nstory of the daughters of the Lycian Pandareos. Penelope[455] in her\ndesolation cries aloud:\n\n \u2018Would that the storm might snatch me adown its dusky way\n And cast me forth where Ocean is outpour\u2019d with ebbing spray,\n As when Pandareos\u2019 daughters the storm winds bore away,\u2019\n\nand then, harking back, she tells the ancient Lycian story of the fair\nnurture of the princesses and how Aphrodite went to high Olympus to plan\nfor them a goodly marriage. But whom the gods love die young:\n\n \u2018Meantime the Harpies snatched away the maids, and gave them o\u2019er\n To the hateful ones, the Erinyes, to serve them evermore[456].\u2019\n\nEarly death was figured by the primitive Greek as a snatching away by\nevil death-demons, storm-ghosts. These snatchers he called Harpies, the\nmodern Greek calls them Nereids. In Homer\u2019s lines we seem to catch the\nwinds as snatchers, half-way to their full impersonation as Harpies.\nTo give them a capital letter is to crystallize their personality\nprematurely. Even when they become fully persons, their name carried to\nthe Greek its adjectival sense now partly lost to us.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAnother function of the Harpies links them very closely with the Keres,\nand shows in odd and instructive fashion the animistic habit of ancient\nthought. The Harpies not only snatch away souls to death but they give\nlife, bringing things to birth. A Harpy was the mother by Zephyros of\nthe horses of Achilles[457]. Both parents are in a sense winds, only the\nHarpy wind halts between horse and woman. By winds as Vergil tells us\nmares became pregnant[458].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 22.]\n\nAs such a Harpy, half horse, half Gorgon-woman, Medusa is represented\non a curious Boeotian vase (fig. 22) of very archaic style now in the\nLouvre[459]. The representation is instructive, it shows how in art as\nin literature the types of Gorgon and Harpy were for a time in flux;\na particular artist could please his own fancy. The horse Medusa was\napparently not a success, for she did not survive.\n\nIt is easy enough to see how winds were conceived of as Snatchers,\ndeath-demons, but why should they impregnate, give life? It is not, I\nthink, by a mere figure of speech that breezes (\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03af) are spoken of\nas \u2018life-begetting\u2019 (\u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9) and \u2018soul-rearing\u2019 (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9). It is\nnot because they are in our sense life-giving and refreshing as well\nas destructive: the truth lies deeper down. Only life can give life,\nonly a soul gives birth to a soul; the winds _are_ souls as well as\nbreaths (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1). Here as so often we get at the real truth through\nan ancient Athenian cultus practice. When an Athenian was about to be\nmarried he prayed and sacrificed, Suidas tells us, to the Tritopatores.\nThe statement is quoted from Phanodemus who wrote a book on _Attic\nMatters_[460]. Suidas tells us also who the Tritopatores were. They\nwere, as we might guess from their name, fathers in the third degree,\nforefathers, ancestors, ghosts, and D\u00eamon in his _Atthis_ said they\nwere winds. To the winds, it has already been seen (p. 67), are offered\nsuch expiatory sacrifices (\u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1) as are due to the spirits of the\nunderworld. The idea that the Tritopatores were winds as well as ghosts\nwas never lost. To Photius and Suidas they are \u2018lords of the winds\u2019 and\nthe Orphics make them \u2018gate-keepers and guardians of the winds.\u2019 From\nghosts of dead men, Hippocrates[461] tells us, came nurture and growth\nand seeds, and the author of the _Geoponica_[462] says that winds give\nlife not only to plants but to all things. It was natural enough that\nthe winds should be divided into demons beneficent and maleficent, as it\ndepends where you live whether a wind from a particular quarter will do\nyou good or ill.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 23.]\n\nIn the black-figured vase-painting in fig. 23, found at Naukratis and\nnow in the British Museum[463], a local nymph is depicted: only the\nlower part of her figure is left us, drapery, the ends of her long hair\nand her feet, but she must be the nymph Cyrene beloved of Apollo, for\nclose to her and probably held in her hand is a great branch of the\nsilphium plant. To right of her approaching to minister or to worship are\nwinged genii. It is the very image of \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, tendance, ministration,\nfostering care, worship, all in one. The genii tend the nymph who is the\nland itself, her and her products. The figures to the right are bearded:\nthey can scarcely be other than the spirits of the North wind, the\nBoreadae, the cool healthful wind that comes over the sea to sun-burnt\nAfrica. If these be Boreadae, the opposing figures, beardless and\ntherefore almost certainly female, are Harpies, demons of the South wind,\nto Africa the wind coming across the desert and bringing heat and blight\nand pestilence[464].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 24.]\n\nIt might be bold to assert so much, but for the existence of another\nvase-painting on a situla from Daphnae (fig. 24), also, happily for\ncomparison, in the British Museum[465]. On the one side, not figured\nhere, is a winged bearded figure ending in a snake, probably Boreas:\nsuch a snake-tailed Boreas was seen by Pausanias[466] on the chest of\nCypselus in the act of seizing Oreithyia. There is nothing harsh in the\nsnake tail for Boreas, for the winds, as has already been noted (p.\n68), were regarded as earth-born. Behind Boreas is a plant in blossom\nrising from the ground, a symbol of the vegetation nourished by the North\nwind. On the reverse (fig. 25) is a winged figure closely like the left\nhand genii of the Cyrene cylix, and this figure drives in front of it\ndestructive creatures, a locust, the pest of the South, two birds of\nprey attacking a hare, and a third that is obviously a vulture. The two\nrepresentations taken together justify us in regarding the left hand\ngenii as destructive. Taking these two representations together with a\nthird vase-painting, the celebrated Phineus cylix[467], we are further\njustified in calling these destructive wind-demons Harpies. On this\nvase[468] the Boreadae, Zetes and Kalais, show their true antagonism. The\nHarpies have fouled the food of Phineus like the pestilential winds they\nwere, and the clean clear sons of the North wind give chase. It is seldom\nthat ancient art has preserved for us so clear a picture of the duality\nof things.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 25.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nOn black-figured vase-paintings little winged figures occur not\nunfrequently to which it is by no means easy to give a name. In fig. 26\nwe have such a representation[469]\u2014Europa seated on the bull passes in\nrapid flight over the sea which is indicated by fishes and dolphins.\nIn front of her flies a vulture-like bird, behind comes a winged figure\nholding two wreaths. Is she Nike, bringing good success to the lover?\nis she a favouring wind speeding the flight? I incline to think the\nvase-painter did not clearly discriminate. She is a sort of good Ker, a\nfostering favouring influence. In all these cases of early genii it is\nimportant to bear in mind that the sharp distinction between moral and\nphysical influence, so natural to the modern mind, is not yet established.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 26.]\n\nWe return to the Keres from which the wind demons sprang.\n\n\nTHE KER AS FATE.\n\nOne Homeric instance of the use of Ker remains to be examined. When\nAchilles[470] had the fourth time chased Hector round the walls of Troy,\nZeus was wearied and\n\n \u2018Hung up his golden scales and in them set\n Twain Keres, fates of death that lays men low.\u2019\n\nThis weighing of Keres, this \u2018Kerostasia,\u2019 is a weighing of death fates,\nbut it is interesting to find that it reappears under another name, i.e.\nthe \u2018Psychostasia,\u2019 the weighing of souls. We know from Plutarch[471]\nthat Aeschylus wrote a play with this title. The subject was the weighing\nof the souls or lives not of Hector and Achilles, but Achilles and\nMemnon. This is certain because, Plutarch says, he placed at either\nside of the scales the mothers Thetis and Eos praying for their sons.\nPollux[472] adds that Zeus and his attendants were suspended from a\ncrane. In the scene of the Kerostasia as given by Quintus Smyrnaeus[473],\na scene which probably goes back to the earlier tradition of \u2018Arctinos,\u2019\nit is noticeable that Memnon the loser has a swarthy Ker while Achilles\nthe winner has a bright cheerful one, a fact which seems to anticipate\nthe white and black Erinyes.\n\nThe scene of the Psychostasia or Kerostasia, as it is variously called,\nappears on several vase-paintings, one of which from the British\nMuseum[474] is reproduced in fig. 27. Hermes holds the scales, in either\nscale is the Ker or _eidolon_ of one of the combatants; the lekythos is\nblack-figured, and is our earliest source for the Kerostasia. The Keres\nor \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u03af are represented as miniature men, it is the _lives_ rather than\nthe fates that are weighed. So the notion shifts.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 27.]\n\nIn Hesiod, as has already been noted (p. 169), the Keres are more\nprimitive and actual, they are in a sense fates, but they are also\nlittle winged spirits. But Hesiod is Homer-ridden, so we get the \u2018black\nKer,\u2019 own sister to Thanatos and hateful Moros (Doom) and Sleep and the\ntribes of Dreams[475]. We get also[476] the dawnings of an Erinys, of an\n_avenging_ fate, though the lines look like an interpolation:\n\n \u2018Night bore\n The Avengers and the Keres pitiless.\u2019\n\nHesiod goes on to give the names usually associated with the Fates,\nKlotho, Lachesis, Atropos, and says they\n\n \u2018To mortals at their birth\n Give good and evil both.\u2019\n\nWhether interpolated or not the passage is significant both because it\ngives to the Keres the functions Homer allotted to the Erinyes, and also\nbecause with a reminiscence of earlier thought it makes them the source\nof good and of evil. It is probably this last idea that is at the back of\nthe curious Hesiodic epithet \u039a\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ae\u03c2, which occurs in the _Works and\nDays_[477]:\n\n \u2018Then, when the dog-star comes and shines by day\n For a brief space over the heads of men\n Ker-nourished.\u2019\n\n\u2018Men nourished for death\u2019 assuredly is not the meaning; the idea seems\nto be that each man has a Ker within him, a thing that nourishes him,\nkeeps him alive, a sort of fate as it were on which his life depends.\nThe epithet might come to signify something like _mortal_, subject to,\ndepending on fate. If this be the meaning it looks back to an early stage\nof things when the Ker had not been specialized down to death and was not\nwholly \u2018black,\u2019 when it was more a man\u2019s luck than his fate, a sort of\nembryo Genius.\n\n\u039a\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ae\u03c2, Ker-nourished, would then be the antithesis of \u039a\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u2018slain by Keres,\u2019 which Hesychius[478] explains as those who died of\ndisease; and would look back to a primitive doubleness of functions when\nthe Keres were demons of all work. In vague and fitful fashion they begin\nwhere the Semnae magnificently end, as Moirae with control over all human\nweal and woe.\n\n \u2018These for their guerdon hold dominion\n O\u2019er all things mortal[479].\u2019\n\nIn such returning cycles runs the wheel of theology.\n\n * * * * *\n\nBut the black side of things is always, it would seem, most impressive\nto primitive man. Given that the Ker was a fate of death, almost a\npersonified death, it was fitting and natural that it should be tricked\nout with ever increasing horrors. Hesiod, or the writer of the _Shield_,\nwith his rude peasant imagination was ready for the task. The Keres of\nPandora\u2019s jar are purely primitive, and quite natural, not thought out at\nall: the Keres of the _Shield_ are a literary effort and much too horrid\nto be frightening. Behind the crowd of old men praying with uplifted\nhands for their fighting children stood\n\n \u2018The blue-black Keres, grinding their white teeth,\n Glaring and grim, bloody, insatiable;\n They strive round those that fall, greedy to drink\n Black blood, and whomsoever first they found\n Low lying with fresh wounds, about his flesh\n A Ker would lay long claws, and his soul pass\n To Hades and chill gloom of Tartarus[480].\u2019\n\nPausanias[481] in his description of the chest of Cypselus tells of the\nfigure of a Ker which is thoroughly Hesiodic in character. The scene\nis the combat between Eteokles and Polyneikes; Polyneikes has fallen\non his knees and Eteokles is rushing at him. \u2018Behind Polyneikes is a\nwoman-figure with teeth, as cruel as a wild beast\u2019s, and her finger-nails\nare hooked. An inscription near her says that she is a Ker, as though\nPolyneikes were carried off by Fate, and as though the end of Eteokles\nwere in accordance with justice.\u2019 Pausanias regards the word Ker as the\nequivalent of Fate, but we must not impose a conception so abstract on\nthe primitive artist who decorated the chest.\n\nWe are very far from the little fluttering ghosts, the winged bacilli,\nbut there is a touch of kinship with those other ghosts who in the\nNekuia draw nigh to drink the black blood (p. 75), and\u2014a forecast of\nthe Erinyes\u2014the \u2018blue-black[482]\u2019 Keres are near akin to the horrid\nHades demon painted by Polygnotus on the walls of the Lesche at Delphi.\nPausanias[483] says, \u2018Above the figures I have mentioned (i.e. the\nsacrilegious man, etc.) is Eurynomos; the guides of Delphi say that\nEurynomos is one of the demons in Hades, and that he gnaws the flesh of\nthe dead bodies, leaving only the bones. Homer\u2019s poem about Odysseus, and\nthose called the _Minyas_ and the _Nostoi_, though they all make mention\nof Hades and its terrors, know no demon Eurynomos. I will therefore say\nthis much, I will describe what sort of a person Eurynomos is and in what\nfashion he appears in the painting. The colour is blue-black (\u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03cd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) like the colour of the flies that\nsettle on meat; he is showing his teeth and is seated on the skin of a\nvulture.\u2019 The Keres of the _Shield_ are human vultures; Eurynomos is the\nsarcophagus incarnate, the great carnivorous vulture of the underworld,\nthe flesh-eater grotesquely translated to a world of shadows. He rightly\nsits upon a vulture\u2019s skin. Such figures, Pausanias truly observes,\nare foreign to the urbane Epic. But rude primitive man, when he sees\na skeleton, asks who ate the flesh; the answer is \u2018a Ker.\u2019 We are in\nthe region of mere rude bogeydom, the land of Gorgo, Empusa, Lamia and\nSphinx, and, strange though it may seem, of Siren.\n\nTo examine severally each of these bogey forms would lead too far afield,\nbut the development of the types of Gorgon, Siren and Sphinx both in art\nand literature is so instructive that at the risk of digression each of\nthese forms must be examined somewhat in detail.\n\n\nTHE KER AS GORGON.\n\nThe Gorgons are to the modern mind three sisters of whom one, most evil\nof the three, Medusa, was slain by Perseus, and her lovely terrible face\nhad power to turn men into stone.\n\nThe triple form is not primitive, it is merely an instance of a\ngeneral tendency, to be discussed later\u2014a tendency which makes of each\nwoman-goddess a trinity, which has given us the Horae, the Charites, the\nSemnae, and a host of other triple groups. It is immediately obvious that\nthe triple Gorgons are not really three but one + two. The two unslain\nsisters are mere superfluous appendages due to convention; the real\nGorgon is Medusa. It is equally apparent that in her essence Medusa is a\nhead and nothing more; her potency only begins when her head is severed,\nand that potency resides in the head; she is in a word a mask with a body\nlater appended. The primitive Greek knew that there was in his ritual a\nhorrid thing called a Gorgoneion, a grinning mask with glaring eyes and\nprotruding beast-like tusks and pendent tongue. How did this Gorgoneion\ncome to be? A hero had slain a beast called the Gorgon, and this was its\nhead. Though many other associations gathered round it, the basis of the\nGorgoneion is a cultus object, a ritual mask misunderstood. The ritual\nobject comes first; then the monster is begotten to account for it; then\nthe hero is supplied to account for the slaying of the monster.\n\nRitual masks are part of the appliances of most primitive cults. They\nare the natural agents of a religion of fear and \u2018riddance.\u2019 Most\nanthropological museums[484] contain specimens of \u2018Gorgoneia\u2019 still in\nuse among savages, Gorgoneia which are veritable Medusa heads in every\ndetail, glaring eyes, pendent tongue, protruding tusks. The function of\nsuch masks is permanently to \u2018make an ugly face,\u2019 _at_ you if you are\ndoing wrong, breaking your word, robbing your neighbour, meeting him in\nbattle; _for_ you if you are doing right.\n\nScattered notices show us that masks and faces were part of the apparatus\nof a religion of terror among the Greeks. There was, we learn from the\nlexicographers[485], a goddess Praxidike, Exactress of Vengeance, whose\nimages were heads only, and her sacrifices the like. By the time of\nPausanias[486] this head or mask goddess had, like the Erinys, taken on a\nmultiple, probably a triple form. At Haliartos in Boeotia he saw in the\nopen air \u2018a sanctuary of the goddesses whom they call Praxidikae. Here\nthe Haliartans swear, but the oath is not one that they take lightly.\u2019 In\nlike manner at ancient Pheneus, there was a thing called the Petroma[487]\nwhich contained a mask of Demeter with the surname of Cidaria: by this\nPetroma most of the people of Pheneus swore on the most important\nmatters. If the mask like its covering were of stone, such a stone-mask\nmay well have helped out the legend of Medusa. The mask enclosed in the\nPetroma was the vehicle of the goddess: the priest put it on when he\nperformed the ceremony of smiting the Underground Folk with rods.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 28.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 29.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 30.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 31.]\n\nThe use of masks in regular ritual was probably a rare survival, and\nwould persist only in remote regions, but the common people were slow to\nlose their faith in the apotropaic virtue of an \u2018ugly face.\u2019 Fire was a\nnatural terror to primitive man and all operations of baking beset by\npossible Keres. Therefore on his ovens he thought it well to set a Gorgon\nmask. In fig. 28, a portable oven now in the museum at Athens[488], the\nmask is outside guarding the entrance. In fig. 29 the upper part of a\nsimilar oven is shown, and inside, where the fire flames up, are set\nthree masks. These ovens are not very early, but they are essentially\nprimitive. The face need not be of the type we call a Gorgon. In fig.\n30 we have a Satyr type, bearded, with stark upstanding ears and hair,\nthe image of fright set to frighten the frightful. It might be the\npicture of Phobos himself. In fig. 31 we have neither Gorgon nor Satyr\nbut that typical bogey of the workshop, the Cyclops. He wears the typical\nworkman\u2019s cap, and to either side are set the thunderbolts it is his\nbusiness to forge. The craftsman is regarded as an uncanny bogey himself,\ncunning over-much, often deformed, and so he is good to frighten other\nbogeys. The Cyclops was a terror even in high Olympus. Callimachus[489]\nin his charming way tells how\n\n \u2018Even the little goddesses are in a dreadful fright;\n If one of them will not be good, up in Olympos\u2019 height,\n Her mother calls a Cyclops, and there is sore disgrace,\n And Hermes goes and gets a coal, and blacks his dreadful face,\n And down the chimney comes. She runs straight to her mother\u2019s lap,\n And shuts her eyes tight in her hands for fear of dire mishap.\u2019\n\nThis fear of the bogey that beset the potter, and indeed beset every\naction, even the simplest, of human life, is very well shown in the\nHymn[490] \u2018The Oven, or the Potters,\u2019 which shows clearly the order of\nbeings against which the \u2018ugly face\u2019 was efficacious:\n\n \u2018If you but pay me my hire, potters, I sing to command.\n Hither, come hither, Athene, bless with a fostering hand\n Furnace and potters and pots, let the making and baking go well;\n Fair shall they stand in the streets and the market, and quick shall\n they sell,\n Great be the gain. But if at your peril you cheat me my price,\n Tricksters by birth, then straight to the furnace I call in a trice\n Mischievous imps one and all, Crusher and Crasher by name,\n Smasher and Half-bake and Him-who-burns-with-Unquenchable-Flame,\n They shall scorch up the house and the furnace, ruin it, bring it to\n nought.\n Wail shall the potters and snort shall the furnace, as horses do snort.\u2019\n\nHow real was the belief in these evil sprites and in the power to avert\nthem by magic and apotropaic figures is seen on a fragment of early\nCorinthian pottery[491] now in the Berlin Museum reproduced in fig. 32.\nHere is the great oven and here is the potter hard at work, but he is\nafraid in his heart, afraid of the Crusher and the Smasher and the rest.\nHe has done what he can; a great owl is perched on the oven to protect\nit, and in front he has put a little ugly comic man, a charm to keep off\nevil spirits: he might have put a Satyr-head[492] or a Gorgoneion; he\noften did put both; it is all the same. Pollux[493] tells us it was the\ncustom to put such comic figures (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1) before bronze-foundries; they\ncould be either hung up or modelled on the furnace, and their object was\n\u2018the aversion of ill-will\u2019 (\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc7). These little images\nwere also called \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 or by the unlearned \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1, charms against\nthe evil eye; and if we may trust the scholiast on Aristophanes[494] they\nformed part of the furniture of most people\u2019s chimney corners at Athens.\nOf such \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 the Gorgon mask was one and perhaps the most common\nshape.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 32.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn literature the Gorgon first meets us as a Gorgoneion, and this\nGorgoneion is an underworld bogey. Odysseus[495] in Hades would fain have\nheld further converse with dead heroes, but\n\n \u2018Ere that might be, the ghosts thronged round in myriads manifold,\n Weird was the magic din they made, a pale-green fear gat hold\n Of me, lest for my daring Persephone the dread\n From Hades should send up an awful monster\u2019s grizzly head.\u2019\n\nHomer is quite non-committal as to who and what the awful monster is; all\nthat is clear is that the head only is feared as an \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, a bogey\nto keep you off. Whether he knew of an actual monster called a Gorgon is\nuncertain. The nameless horror may be the head of either man or beast, or\nmonster compounded of both.\n\nIn this connection it is instructive to note that, though the human\nMedusa-head on the whole obtained, the head of any beast is good as a\nprotective charm. Prof. Ridgeway[496] has conclusively shown that the\nGorgoneion on the aegis of Athene is but the head of the slain beast\nwhose skin was the raiment of the primitive goddess; the head is worn on\nthe breast, and serves to protect the wearer and to frighten his foe; it\nis a primitive half-magical shield. The natural head is later tricked out\ninto an artificial bogey.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 33.]\n\nWe are familiar with the Gorgoneion on shields, with the Gorgoneion on\ntombs, and as an amulet on vases. On the basis[497] in fig. 33 the\nGorgoneion is set to guard a statue of which two delicate feet remain. On\ntwo sides of the triangular statue we have the Gorgon head; on the third,\nserving a like protective purpose, a ram\u2019s head. The statue, dedicated\nin the precinct of Apollo at Delos, probably represents the god himself,\nbut we need seek for no artificial connection between Gorgon, rams and\nApollo; Gorgoneion and ram alike are merely prophylactic. The basis has\na further interest in that the inscription[498] dates the Gorgon-type\nrepresented with some precision. The form of the letters shows it to have\nbeen the work and the dedication of a Naxian artist of the early part of\nthe 6th century.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 34.]\n\nOn a Rhodian plate[499] in the British Museum in fig. 34 the Gorgoneion\nhas been furnished with a body tricked out with wings, but the mask-head\nis still dominant. The figure is conceived in the typical heraldic\nfashion of the Mistress of Wild Things (\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd); she is in fact the\nugly bogey-, Erinys-side of the Great Mother; she is a potent goddess,\nnot as in later days a monster to be slain by heroes. The highest\ndivinities of the religion of fear and riddance became the harmful bogeys\nof the cult of \u2018service.\u2019 The Olympians in their turn became Christian\ndevils.\n\nAeschylus[500] in instructive fashion places side by side the two sets of\nthree sisters, the Gorgons and the Graiae. They are but two by-forms of\neach other. Prometheus foretells to Io her long wandering in the bogey\nland of Nowhere:\n\n \u2018Pass onward o\u2019er the sounding sea, till thou\n Dost touch Kisthene\u2019s dreadful plains, wherein\n The Phorkides do dwell, the ancient maids,\n Three, shaped like swans, having one eye for all,\n One tooth\u2014whom never doth the rising sun\n Glad with his beams, nor yet the moon by night\u2014\n Near them their sisters three, the Gorgons, winged,\n With snakes for hair\u2014hated of mortal man\u2014\n None may behold and bear their breathing blight.\u2019\n\nThe daughters of Phorkys, whom Hesiod[501] calls Grey Ones or Old Ones,\nGraiae, are fair of face though two-thirds blind and one-toothed; but\nthe emphasis on the one tooth and the one eye shows that in tooth and\neye resided their potency, and that in this they were own sisters to the\nGorgons.\n\nThe Graiae appear, so far as I know, only once in vase-paintings, on\nthe cover of a pyxis in the Central Museum at Athens[502], reproduced\nin fig. 35. They are sea-maidens, as the dolphins show; old Phorkys\ntheir father is seated near them, and Poseidon and Athene are present in\nregular Athenian fashion. Hermes has brought Perseus, and Perseus waits\nhis chance to get the one eye as it is passed from hand to hand. The eye\nis clearly seen in the hand outstretched above Perseus; one blind sister\nhands it to the other. The third holds in her hand the fanged tooth. The\nvase-painter will not have the Graiae old and loathsome, they are lovely\nmaidens; he remembers that they were white-haired from their youth.\n\nThe account given by Aeschylus of the Gorgons helps to explain their\nnature:\n\n \u2018None may behold, and bear their breathing blight[503].\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 35.]\n\nThey slay by a malign effluence, and this effluence, tradition said,\ncame from their eyes. Athenaeus[504] quotes Alexander the Myndian as his\nauthority for the statement that there actually existed creatures who\ncould by their eyes turn men to stone. Some say the beast which the\nLibyans called Gorgon was like a wild sheep, others like a calf; it had\na mane hanging over its eyes so heavy that it could only shake it aside\nwith difficulty; it killed whomever it looked at, not by its breath but\nby a destructive exhalation from its eyes.\n\nWhat the beast was and how the story arose cannot be decided, but it is\nclear that the Gorgon was regarded as a sort of incarnate Evil Eye. The\nmonster was tricked out with cruel tusks and snakes, but it slew by the\neye, it _fascinated_.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Evil Eye itself is not frequent on monuments; the Gorgoneion as a\nmore complete and more elaborately decorative horror attained a wider\npopularity. But the prophylactic Eye, the eye set to stare back the\nEvil Eye, is common on vases, on shields and on the prows of ships (see\nfig. 38). The curious design in fig. 36 is from a Roman mosaic dug up\non the Caelian hill[505]. It served as the pavement in an entrance\nhall to a Basilica built by a certain Hilarius, a dealer in pearls\n(_margaritarius_) and head of a college of Dendrophoroi, sacred to the\nMother of the Gods. The inscription prays that \u2018God may be propitious to\nthose who enter here and to the Basilica of Hilarius,\u2019 and to make divine\nfavour more secure, a picture is added to show the complete overthrow\nof the evil eye. Very complete is its destruction. Four-footed beasts,\nbirds and reptiles attack it, it is bored through with a lance, and as a\nfinal prophylactic on the eye-brow is perched Athene\u2019s little holy owl.\nHilarius prayed to a kindly god, but deep down in his heart was the old\nsavage fear[506].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 36.]\n\nThe Gorgon is more monstrous, more savage, than any other of the\nKer-forms. The Gorgoneion figures little in poetry though much in\nart. It is an underworld bogey but not human enough to be a ghost, it\nlacks wholly the gentle side of the Keres, and would scarcely have\nbeen discussed here, but that the art-type of the Gorgon lent, as will\nbe seen, some of its traits to the Erinys, and notably the deathly\ndistillation by which they slay:\n\n \u2018From out their eyes they ooze a loathly rheum[507].\u2019\n\n\nTHE KER AS SIREN[508].\n\nThe Sirens are to the modern mind mermaids, sometimes all human,\nsometimes fish-tailed, evil sometimes, but beautiful always. Milton\ninvokes Sabrina from the waves by\n\n \u2018... the songs of Sirens sweet,\n By dead Parthenope\u2019s dear tomb,\n And fair Ligeia\u2019s golden comb\n Wherewith she sits on diamond rocks\n Sleeking her soft alluring locks.\u2019\n\nHomer by the magic of his song lifted them once and for all out of the\nregion of mere bogeydom, and yet a careful examination, especially of\ntheir art form, clearly reveals traces of rude origin.\n\nCirce\u2019s warning to Odysseus runs thus[509]:\n\n \u2018First to the Sirens shalt thou sail, who all men do beguile.\n Whoso unwitting draws anigh, by magic of their wile,\n They lure him with their singing, nor doth he reach his home\n Nor see his dear wife and his babes, ajoy that he is come.\n For they, the Sirens, lull him with murmur of sweet sound\n Crouching within the meadow: about them is a mound\n Of men that rot in death, their skin wasting the bones around.\u2019\n\nOdysseus and his comrades, so forewarned, set sail[510]:\n\n \u2018Then straightway sailed the goodly ship and swift the Sirens\u2019 isle\n Did reach, for that a friendly gale was blowing all the while.\n Forthwith the gale fell dead, and calm held all the heaving deep\n In stillness, for some god had lulled the billows to their sleep.\u2019\n\nThe song of the Sirens is heard[511]:\n\n \u2018Hither, far-famed Odysseus, come hither, thou the boast\n Of all Achaean men, beach thou thy bark upon our coast,\n And hearken to our singing, for never but did stay\n A hero in his black ship and listened to the lay\n Of our sweet lips; full many a thing he knew and sailed away.\n For we know all things whatsoe\u2019er in Troy\u2019s wide land had birth\n And we know all things that shall be upon the fruitful earth.\u2019\n\nIt is strange and beautiful that Homer should make the Sirens appeal to\nthe spirit, not to the flesh. To primitive man, Greek or Semite, the\ndesire to know\u2014to be as the gods\u2014was the fatal desire.\n\nHomer takes his Sirens as already familiar; he clearly draws from popular\ntradition. There is no word as to their form, no hint of parentage: he\ndoes not mean them to be mysterious, but by a fortunate chance he leaves\nthem shrouded in mystery, the mystery of the hidden spell of the sea,\nwith the haze of the noon-tide about them and the meshes of sweet music\nfor their unseen toils,\u2014knowing all things yet for ever unknown. It is\nthis mystery of the Sirens that has appealed to modern poetry and almost\nwholly obscured their simple primitive significance.\n\n \u2018Their words are no more heard aright\n Through lapse of many ages, and no man\n Can any more across the waters wan\n Behold these singing women of the sea.\u2019\n\nFour points in the story of Homer must be clearly noted. The Sirens,\nthough they sing to mariners, are _not_ sea-maidens; they dwell on an\nisland in a flowery meadow. They are mantic creatures like the Sphinx\nwith whom they have much in common, knowing both the past and the future.\nTheir song takes effect at midday, in a windless calm. The end of that\nsong is death. It is only from the warning of Circe that we know of\nthe heap of bones, corrupt in death\u2014horror is kept in the background,\nseduction to the fore.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is to art we must turn to know the real nature of the Sirens. Ancient\nart, like ancient literature, knows nothing of the fish-tailed mermaid.\nUniformly the art-form of the Siren is that of the bird-woman. The\nproportion of bird to woman varies, but the bird element is constant. It\nis interesting to note that, though the bird-woman is gradually ousted\nin modern art by the fish-tailed mermaid, the bird element survives in\nmediaeval times[512]. In the _Hortus Deliciarum_ of the Abbess Herrad\n(circ. A.D. 1160), the Sirens appear as draped women with the clawed feet\nof birds; with their human hands they are playing on lyres.\n\nThe bird form of the Sirens was a problem even to the ancients. Ovid[513]\nasks:\n\n \u2018Whence came these feathers and these feet of birds?\n Your faces are the faces of fair maids.\u2019\n\nOvid\u2019s aetiology is of course beside the mark. The answer to his\npertinent question is quite simple. The Sirens belong to the same order\nof bogey beings as the Sphinx and the Harpy; the monstrous form expresses\nthe monstrous nature; they are birds of prey but with power to lure by\ntheir song. In the Harpy-form the ravening snatching nature is emphasized\nand developed, in the Sphinx the mantic power of all uncanny beings, in\nthe Siren the seduction of song. The Sphinx, though mainly a prophetess,\nkeeps Harpy elements; she snatches away the youths of Thebes: she is\nbut \u2018a man-seizing Ker[514].\u2019 The Siren too, though mainly a seductive\nsinger, is at heart a Harpy, a bird of prey.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 37.]\n\nThis comes out very clearly in representations on vase-paintings. A\nblack-figured aryballos[515] of Corinthian style (fig. 37), now in the\nBoston Museum of Fine Arts, is our earliest artistic source for the Siren\nmyth. Odysseus, bound to the mast, has come close up to the island: on\nthe island are perched \u2018Sirens twain.\u2019 Above the ship hover two great\nblack birds of prey in act to pounce on the mariners. These birds\ncannot be merely decorative: they in a sense duplicate the Sirens. The\nvase-painter knows the Sirens are singing demons sitting on an island;\nthe text of Homer was not in his hands to examine the account word by\nword, but the Homeric story haunts his memory. He knows too that in\npopular belief the Sirens are demons of prey; hence the great birds. To\nthe right of the Sirens on the island crouches a third figure; she is\nall human, not a third Siren. She probably, indeed all but certainly,\nrepresents the mother of the Sirens, Chthon, the Earth. Euripides[516]\nmakes his Helen in her anguish call on the\n\n \u2018Winged maidens, virgins, daughters of the Earth,\n The Sirens,\u2019\n\nto join their sorrowful song to hers. The parentage is significant.\nThe Sirens are not of the sea, not even of the land, but demons of the\nunderworld; they are in fact a by-form of Keres, souls.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe notion of the soul as a human-faced bird is familiar in Egyptian,\nbut rare in Greek, art. The only certain instance is, so far as I know,\nthe vase in the British Museum[517] on which is represented the death of\nProcris. Above Procris falling in death hovers a winged bird-woman. She\nis clearly, I think, the soul of Procris. To conceive of the soul as a\nbird escaping from the mouth is a fancy so natural and beautiful that\nit has arisen among many peoples. In Celtic mythology[518] Maildun, the\nIrish Odysseus, comes to an island with trees on it in clusters on which\nwere perched many birds. The aged man of the island tells him, \u2018These are\nthe souls of my children and of all my descendants, both men and women,\nwho are sent to this little island to abide with me according as they\ndie in Erin.\u2019 Sailors to this day believe that sea-mews are the souls of\ntheir drowned comrades. Antoninus Liberalis[519] tells how, when Ktesulla\nbecause of her father\u2019s broken oath died in child-bed, \u2018they carried her\nbody out to be buried, and from the bier a dove flew forth and the body\nof Ktesulla disappeared.\u2019\n\nThe persistent anthropomorphism of the Greeks stripped the bird-soul\nof all but its wings. The human winged _eidolon_ prevailed in art: the\nbird-woman became a death-demon, a soul sent to fetch a soul, a Ker that\nlures a soul, a Siren.\n\nLater in date and somewhat different in conception is the scene on a\nred-figured stamnos in the British Museum[520] (fig. 38). The artist\u2019s\ndesire for a balanced design has made him draw two islands, on each of\nwhich a Siren is perched. Over the head of one is inscribed \u1f39\u03bc\u03b5(\u03c1)\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\n\u2018lovely-voiced.\u2019 A third Siren flies or rather falls headlong down on to\nthe ship. The drawing of the eye of this third Siren should be noted.\nThe eye is indicated by two strokes only, without the pupil. This is\nthe regular method of representing the sightless eye, i.e. the eye in\ndeath or sleep or blindness. The third Siren is dying; she has hurled\nherself from the rock in despair at the fortitude of Odysseus. This is\nclearly what the artist wishes to say, but he may have been haunted by\nan artistic tradition of the pouncing bird of prey. He also has adopted\nthe number three, which by his time was canonical for the Sirens. By\nmaking the third Siren fly headlong between the two others he has neatly\nturned a difficulty in composition. On the reverse of this vase are three\nLove-gods, who fall to be discussed later (Chap. XII.). Connections\nbetween the subject matter of the obverse and reverse of vases are\nsomewhat precarious, but it is likely, as the three Love-gods are flying\nover the sea, that the vase-painter intended to emphasize the seduction\nof love in his Sirens.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 38.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe clearest light on the lower nature of the Sirens is thrown by\nthe design in fig. 39 from a Hellenistic relief[521]. The monument\nis of course a late one, later by at least two centuries than the\nvase-paintings, but it reflects a primitive stage of thought and one\nmoreover wholly free from the influence of Homer. The scene is a rural\none. In the right-hand corner is a herm, in front of it an altar, near\nat hand a tree on which hangs a votive syrinx. Some peasant or possibly\na wayfarer has fallen asleep. Down upon him has pounced a winged and\nbird-footed woman. It is the very image of obsession, of nightmare, of a\nhaunting midday dream. The woman can be none other than an evil Siren.\nHad the scene been represented by an earlier artist, he would have made\nher ugly because evil; but by Hellenistic times the Sirens were beautiful\nwomen, all human but for wings and sometimes bird-feet.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 39.]\n\nThe terrors of the midday sleep were well known to the Greeks in their\nsun-smitten land; nightmare to them was also daymare. Such a visitation,\ncoupled possibly with occasional cases of sunstroke, was of course the\nobsession of a demon[522]. Even a troubled tormenting illicit dream was\nthe work of a Siren. In sleep the will and the reason are becalmed and\nthe passions unchained. That the midday nightmare went to the making of\nthe Siren is clear from the windless calm and the heat of the sun in\nHomer. The horrid end, the wasting death, the sterile enchantment, the\nloss of wife and babes, all look the same way. Homer, with perhaps some\nblend of the Northern mermaid in his mind, sets his Sirens by the sea,\nthereby cleansing their uncleanness; but later tradition kept certain\nhorrid primitive elements when it made of the Siren a hetaira disallowing\nthe lawful gifts of Aphrodite.\n\nThere remains another aspect of the Sirens. They appear frequently as\nmonuments, sometimes as actual mourners, on tombs. Here all the erotic\nelement has disappeared; they are substantially Death-Keres, Harpies,\nthough to begin with they imaged the soul itself. The bird-woman of the\nHarpy tomb, the gentle angel of death, has been already noted (p. 177).\nThe Siren on a black-figured lekythos in the British Museum[523] (fig.\n40) is purely monumental. She stands on the grave stele playing her great\nlyre, while two bearded men with their dogs seem to listen intent. She\nis grave and beautiful with no touch of seduction. Probably at first the\nSiren was placed on tombs as a sort of charm, a \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, a soul to\nkeep off souls. It has already been shown, in dealing with apotropaic\nritual (p. 196), that the charm itself is used as counter-charm. So the\ndreaded Death-Ker is set itself to guard the tomb. Other associations\nwould gather round. The Siren was a singer, she would chant the funeral\ndirge; this dirge might be the praises of the dead. The epitaph that\nErinna[524] wrote for her girl-friend Baukis begins\n\n \u2018Pillars and Sirens mine and mournful urn.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 40.]\n\nOn later funeral monuments Sirens appear for the most part as mourners,\ntearing their hair and lamenting. Their apotropaic function was wholly\nforgotten. Where an apotropaic monster is wanted we find an owl or a\nsphinx.\n\nEven on funeral monuments the notion of the Siren as either soul or\nDeath-Angel is more and more obscured by her potency as sweet singer.\nOnce, however, when she appears in philosophy, there is at least a\nhaunting remembrance that she is a soul who sings to souls. In the\ncosmography with which he ends the _Republic_, Plato[525] thus writes:\n\u2018The spindle turns on the knees of Ananke, and on the upper surface of\neach sphere is perched a Siren, who goes round with them hymning a single\ntone. The eight together form one Harmony.\u2019 Commentators explain that the\nSirens are chosen because they are sweet singers, but then, if music be\nall, why is it the evil Sirens and not the good Muses who chant the music\nof the spheres? Plutarch[526] felt the difficulty. In his _Symposiacs_ he\nmakes one of the guests say: \u2018Plato is absurd in committing the eternal\nand divine revolutions not to the Muses but to the Sirens; demons who\nare by no means either benevolent or in themselves good.\u2019 Another guest,\nAmmonius, attempts to justify the choice of the Sirens by giving to them\nin Homer a mystical significance. \u2018Even Homer,\u2019 he says, \u2018means by their\nmusic not a power dangerous and destructive to man, but rather a power\nthat inspires in the souls that go from Hence Thither, and wander about\nafter death, a love for things heavenly and divine and a forgetfulness\nof things mortal, and thereby holds them enchanted by singing. Even\nhere,\u2019 he goes on to say, \u2018a dim murmur of that music reaches us, rousing\nreminiscence.\u2019\n\nIt is not to be for a moment supposed that Homer\u2019s Sirens had really any\nsuch mystical content. But, given that they have the bird-form of souls,\nthat they \u2018know all things,\u2019 are sweet singers and dwellers in Hades, and\nthey lie ready to the hand of the mystic. Proclus[527] in his commentary\non the _Republic_ says, with perhaps more truth than he is conscious\nof, \u2018the Sirens are a kind of souls living the life of the spirit.\u2019\nHis interpretation is not merely fanciful; it is a blend of primitive\ntradition with mystical philosophy.\n\nThe Sirens are further helped to their high station on the spheres by the\nOrphic belief that purified souls went to the stars, nay even _became_\nstars. In the _Peace_ of Aristophanes[528] the servant asks Trygaeus,\n\n \u2018It is true then, what they say, that in the air\n A man becomes a star, when he comes to die?\u2019\n\nTo the poet the soul is a bird in its longing to be free:\n\n \u2018Could I take me to some cavern for mine hiding,\n On the hill-tops, where the sun scarce hath trod,\n Or a cloud make the place of mine abiding,\n As a bird among the bird-droves of God[529].\u2019\n\nAnd that upward flight to heavenly places is as the flying of a Siren:\n\n \u2018With golden wings begirt my body flies,\n Sirens have lent me their swift winged feet,\n Upborne to uttermost ether I shall meet\n And mix with heavenly Zeus beyond the skies[530].\u2019\n\nBut, though Plato and the poets and the mystics exalt the Siren,\n\u2018half-angel and half-bird,\u2019 to cosmic functions, yet, to the popular\nmind, they are mainly things, if not wholly evil, yet fearful and to be\nshunned. This is seen in the myth of their contest with the Muses[531].\nHere they are the spirits of forbidden intoxication; as such on vases\nthey join the motley crew of Centaurs and Satyrs who revel with Dionysos.\nThey stand, it would seem, to the ancient as to the modern, for the\nimpulses in life as yet unmoralized, imperious longings, ecstasies,\nwhether of love or art or philosophy, magical voices calling to a man\nfrom his \u2018Land of Heart\u2019s Desire\u2019 and to which if he hearken it may be he\nwill return home no more\u2014voices too, which, whether a man sail by or stay\nto hearken, still sing on.\n\nThe Siren bird-woman transformed for ever by the genius of Homer into the\nsweet-voiced demon of seduction may seem remote from the Ker of which\nshe is but a specialized form. A curious design[532] on a black-figured\ncylix in the Louvre (fig. 41) shows how close was the real connection.\nThe scene is a banquet: five men are reclining on couches, two of them\nseparated by a huge _deinos_, a wine-vessel, from which a boy has drawn\nwine in an oinocho\u00eb. Over two of the men are hovering winged figures,\neach holding a crown and a spray; over two others hover bird-women, each\nalso holding a crown and a spray. What are we to call these ministrant\nfigures, what would the vase-painter himself have called them? Are the\nhuman winged figures Love-gods, are the bird-women Sirens? For lack of\ncontext it is hard to say with certainty. Thus much is clear, both kinds\nof figures are favouring genii of the feast, and for our purpose this\nis all-important: the bird-women, be they Sirens or not, and the winged\nhuman figures, be they Love-gods or merely Keres, _perform the same\nfunction_. The development of the Love-god, Eros, from the Ker will be\ndiscussed later (Chap. XII.); for the present it is best to regard these\nbird-women and winged sprites as both of the order of Keres, as yet\nunspecialized in function.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 41.]\n\n\nTHE KER AS SPHINX.\n\nTwo special features characterize the Sphinx: she was a Harpy carrying\noff men to destruction, an incarnate plague; she was the soothsayer\nwith the evil habit of asking riddles as well as answering them. Both\nfunctions, though seemingly alien, were characteristic of underworld\nbogeys; the myth-making mind put them together and wove out of the two\nthe tale of the unanswered riddle and the consequent deathly pest.\n\nOn the vase-painting in fig. 42 from a cylix[533] in the Museo Gregoriano\nof the Vatican, we have a charming representation of the riddle-answering\nOedipus, whose name is written _Oidipodes_, sitting meditating in\nfront of the oracle. The Sphinx on her column is half monument, half\npersonality; she is a very human monster, she has her lion-body, but she\nis a lovely attentive maiden. From her lips come the letters \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9,\nwhich may mean _and three_ or _and three (-footed)_. In the field is a\ndelicate decorative spray, which, occurring as it does on vases with a\ncertain individuality of drawing, seems to be, as it were, the signature\nof a particular master[534].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 42.]\n\nThe Sphinx in fig. 42 is all oracular, but occasionally, on vases of the\nsame date, she appears in her other function as the \u2018man-snatching Ker.\u2019\nShe leaves her pedestal and carries off a Theban youth. The 5th century\nvase-painter with his determined euphemism, even when he depicts her\ncarrying off her prey, makes her do it with a certain Attic gentleness,\nmore like a death-Siren than a Harpy. Aeschylus[535] in the _Seven\nagainst Thebes_ describes her as the monster she is; the Sphinx on the\nshield of Parthenopaeus is a horrid bogey, the \u2018reproach of the state,\u2019\n\u2018eater of raw-flesh,\u2019 with hungry jaws, bringing ill-luck to him who\nbears her on his ensign.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 43.]\n\nIn the curious vase-painting in fig. 43, a design from a late Lower Italy\nkrater[536] in the museum at Naples, the Sphinx is wholly oracular, and\nthis time she must answer the riddle, not ask it. The Sphinx is seated\non a rocky mound, near which stands erect a snake. The snake is not, I\nthink, without meaning; it is the oracular beast of the earth-oracle.\nThe Silenus who has come to consult the oracle holds in his hand a bird.\nThe scene would be hopelessly enigmatic but for one of the fables that\nare current under the name of Aesop[537], which precisely describes the\nsituation. \u2018A certain bad man made an agreement with some one to prove\nthat the Delphic oracle was false, and when the appointed day came, he\ntook a sparrow in his hand and covered it with his garment and came to\nthe sanctuary, and standing in front of the oracle, asked whether the\nthing in his hand was alive or dead, and he meant if the oracle said it\nwas dead, to show the sparrow alive, but if the oracle said it was alive,\nto strangle it first and then show it. But the god knew his wicked plan,\nand said to him, \u201cHave done, for it depends on you whether what you hold\nis dead or living.\u201d The story shows plainly that the divinity is not\nlightly to be tempted.\u2019\n\nThe story, taken in conjunction with the vase-painting it explains,\nshows clearly another thing. The Sphinx was mainly a local Theban bogey,\nbut she became the symbol of oracular divinity. At Delphi there was an\nearth-oracle guarded by a snake, and in honour of that earth-oracle the\nNaxians upreared their colossal Sphinx[538] and set it in the precinct of\nGaia. As time went on, the savage \u2018man-snatching\u2019 aspect of the Sphinx\nfaded, remembered only in the local legend, while her oracular aspect\ngrew; but the local legend is here as always the more instructive.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 44.]\n\nThe next representation of the Sphinx (fig. 44), from the fragment of\nan oinocho\u00eb in the Berlin Museum[539], is specially suggestive. The\nmonster is inscribed, not with the name we know her by, \u2018Sphinx,\u2019 but\nas \u2018Kassmia,\u2019 the Kadmean One, the bogey of Kadmos. The bearded monster\nwith wings and claws and dog-like head has lost her orthodox lion-body,\nand lent it perhaps to Oedipus who stands in front of her. The scene is\nof course pure comedy, and shows how near to the Greek mind were the\nhorrible and the grotesque, the thing feared and the thing scoffed at.\nThe Kassmia, the bogey of Kadmos, may have brought her lion-body with\nKadmos from the East, but the supposition, though very possible, is not\nnecessary. Cithaeron was traditionally lion-haunted[540]. The Sphinx may\nhave borrowed some of her traits and part of her body from a real lion\nhaunting a real local tomb.\n\nIt is worth noting in this connection that Hesiod[541] calls the monster\nnot Sphinx but Phix:\n\n \u2018By stress of Orthios, she, Echidna, bare\n Disastrous Phix, a bane to Kadmos\u2019 folk.\u2019\n\nThe scholiast remarks that \u2018Mount Phikion where she dwelt was called\nafter her,\u2019 but the reverse is probably true. Phix was the local bogey\nof Phikion. The rocky mountain which rises to the S.-E. corner of Lake\nCopais is still locally known as Phaga[542]. By a slight and easy\nmodification Phix became Sphix or Sphinx, the \u2018throttler,\u2019 an excellent\nname for a destructive bogey.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 45.]\n\nThe last representation of the Sphinx, in fig. 45, brings us to her\ncharacteristic as tomb-haunter. The design is from a krater[543] in\nthe Vagnonville Collection of the Museo Greco Etrusco at Florence. The\nSphinx is seated on a tomb-mound (\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2) of the regular sepulchral\ntype. That the mound is sepulchral is certain from the artificial stone\nbasis pierced with holes[544] on which it stands. Two lawless Satyrs\nattack the mound with picks. The Sphinx is a tomb-haunting bogey, a Ker,\nbut ultimately she fades into a decorative tomb monument, with always\nperhaps some prophylactic intent. In this, as in her mantic aspect, she\nis own cousin to the Ker-Siren, but with the Sphinx the mantic side\npredominates. The Sphinx, unlike the Siren, never developed into a\ntrinity, though when she became decorative she is doubled for heraldic\npurposes.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is time to resume the various shifting notions that cluster round the\nterm Ker, perhaps the most untranslateable of all Greek words. Ghost,\nbacillus, disease, death-angel, death-fate, fate, bogey, magician have\nall gone to the making of it. So shifting and various is the notion that\nit is hard to say what is primary, what developed, but deep down in the\nlowest stratum lie the two kindred conceptions of ghost and bacillus. It\nis only by a severe effort of the imagination that we can think ourselves\nback into an adequate mental confusion to realize all the connotations of\nKer.\n\nWhen the lexicographers came to define the word they had no easy\ntask. Their struggles\u2014they are honest men, if not too intelligent\u2014are\ninstructive. Happily they make no attempt at real formulation, but jot\nthings down as they come. Hesychius, after his preliminary statement\n\u2018\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1 (neuter, with circumflex accent) the soul, (oxytone, feminine)\ndeath-bringing fate, death,\u2019 gives us suggestive particulars: \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03b2\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2, where we see the unclean bacilli;\n\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd, which reminds us of the evil skinny Ker of the\nvase-painting (fig. 17); \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, where the bogey Ker is\nmanifest; \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, where the whirlwind seems\nindicated, though it may be the dizziness of death. Kerukainae were the\nfemale correlatives of Kerykes, \u2018women whose business it was to collect\nthings polluted\u2019 and carry them off to the sea[545]. Most curious and\nprimitive of all, we are told[546] that \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 itself means not only\nmessengers, ministers, a priestly race descended from Hermes, but \u2018they\ncall the insects that impregnate the wild fig \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2.\u2019 Here are bacilli\nindeed, but for life not for death.\n\n\nTHE KER AS ERINYS.\n\nIt has been already indicated that a Ker is sometimes an avenger, but\nthis aspect of the word has been advisedly reserved because it takes us\nstraight to the idea of the Erinys.\n\nPausanias[547], _\u00e0 propos_ of the grave of Koroibos at Megara, tells us\na story in which a Ker figures plainly as an Erinys, with a touch of\nthe Sphinx and of the death-Siren. Psamathe, daughter of Krotopos, King\nof Argos, had a child by Apollo, which, fearing her father\u2019s anger, she\nexposed. The child was found and killed by the sheep-dogs of Krotopos.\nApollo sent Poine (Penalty or Vengeance) on the city of the Argives.\nPoine, they say, snatched children from their mothers until Koroibos, to\nplease the Argives, slew her. After he had slain her, there came a second\npestilence upon them and lasted on. Koroibos had to go to Delphi to\nexpiate his sin; he was ordered to build a temple of Apollo wherever the\ntripod he brought from Delphi should fall. He built of course the town of\nTripodisci. The grave of Koroibos at Megara was surmounted by the most\nancient Greek stone images Pausanias had ever seen, a figure of Koroibos\nslaying Poine. There were elegiac verses carved on it recounting the tale\nof Psamathe and Koroibos. Now Pausanias mentions no Ker, only Poine; but\nthe Anthologists[548] have preserved for us verses which, if not actually\nthose carved on the grave, at all events refer to it, and in them occur\nthe notable words:\n\n \u2018I am the Ker, slain by Koroibos, I dwell on his tomb,\n Here at my feet, on account of the tripod, he lies for his doom.\u2019\n\nPoine is clearly the avenging ghost of the child of Psamathe causing a\npest which snatched babes from their mother, and Poine the ghost-pest is\na Ker and practically a Ker-Erinys.\n\nThe simple truth emerges so clearly as to be almost self-evident, yet\nis constantly ignored, that primarily the Keres-Erinyes are just what\nthe words say, the \u2018Keres Angry-ones.\u2019 There is no reason to doubt the\ntruth of what Pausanias[549] tells us, that the Arcadians and, with\nthe Arcadians, probably the rest of the primitive Greeks, called \u2018being\nin a rage\u2019 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. Demeter at Thelpusa had two surnames and even two\nstatues. When she was wroth they called her _Erinys_[550] on account\nof her wrath, when she relented and bathed they called her _Lousia_.\nPausanias gives as literary authority for the surname Erinys, Antimachus\nwho wrote (4th cent. B.C.) of the expedition of the Argives against\nThebes.\n\nThe Erinyes, on this showing, are one form of the countless host of\ndivine beings whose names are simply adjectival epithets, not names\nproper. Such others are the Eumenides the Kindly Ones, the Potniae the\nAwful Ones, the Maniae the Madnesses, the Praxidikae the Vengeful Ones.\nWith a certain delicate shyness, founded possibly on a very practical\nfear, primitive man will not address his gods by a personal name; he\ndecently shrouds them in class epithets. There are people living now,\nCelts for the most part, who shrink from the personal attack of a proper\nname, and call their friends, in true primitive fashion, the Old One, the\nKind One, the Blackest One, and the like.\n\nIt is apparent that, given these adjectival names, the gods are as many\nas the moods of the worshipper, i.e. as his thoughts about his gods.\nIf he is kind, they are Kindly Ones; when he feels vengeful, they are\nVengeful Ones.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe question arises, why did the angry aspect of the Keres, i.e. the\nErinyes, attain to a development so paramount, so self-sufficing, that\nalready in Homer they are distinct from the Keres, with functions, if not\nforms, clearly defined, beyond possibility of confusion. It is precisely\nthese functions that have defined them. A Ker, as has been seen, is for\ngood and for evil, is active for plants, for animals, as for men: a\nKer when angry is Erinys: a Ker is never so angry as when he has been\nkilled. The idea of Erinys as distinct from Ker is developed _out of a\nhuman relation intensely felt_. The Erinys primarily is the Ker of a\nhuman being unrighteously slain. Erinys is not death; it is the outraged\nsoul of the dead man crying for vengeance; it is the Ker as Poine. In\ndiscussing the Keres it has been abundantly shown that ghost is a\nword too narrow: Keres denote a wider animism. With Erinys the case is\notherwise: the Erinyes are primarily human ghosts, but all human ghosts\nare not Erinyes, only those ghosts that are angry, and that for a special\nreason, usually because they have been murdered. Other cases of angry\nghosts are covered by the black Ker. It is the vengeful inhumanity of the\nErinyes, arising as it does from their humanity, which marks them out\nfrom the Keres.\n\nThat the Erinyes are primarily the vengeful souls of murdered men can and\nwill in the sequel be plainly shown, but it would be idle to deny that\nalready in Homer they have passed out of this stage and are personified\nalmost beyond recognition. They are no longer souls; they are the\navengers of souls. Thus in Homer, in the prayer of Althaea, Erinys[551],\nthough summoned to avenge the death of Althaea\u2019s brethren, is clearly not\nthe ghost of either of them; she is one, they are two; she is female,\nthey are male. Althaea prays:\n\n \u2018And her the Erinys blood-haunting[552]\n Heard out of Erebos\u2019 depths, she of the soul without pity.\u2019\n\nThere is nothing that so speedily blurs and effaces the real origin of\nthings as this insistent Greek habit of impersonation. We were able to\ntrack the Keres back to something like their origin just because they\nnever really got personified. In this respect poets are the worst of\nmythological offenders. By their intense realization they lose all touch\nwith the confusions of actuality. The Erinyes summoned by Althaea were\nreally ghosts of the murdered brothers, but Homer separates them off into\navengers.\n\nIn other Homeric Erinyes there is often not even a _fond_ of possible\nghosts. Phoenix transgresses against his father Amyntor[553], and Amyntor\nfor his unnatural offence invokes against him the \u2018hateful Erinyes\u2019:\nthey are no ancestral ghosts, they are merely avengers of the moral law,\nvaguer equivalents of \u2018Underworld Zeus and dread Persephone.\u2019 Ares[554]\noffends his mother Aphrodite, who is certainly _not_ dead and has no\nghost, and the wounds inflicted on him by Athene appease the \u2018Erinys of\nhis mother.\u2019 In a word, in Homer, as has frequently been pointed out, the\nErinyes are avengers of offences against blood-relations on the mother\u2019s\nand father\u2019s side, of all offences against moral, and finally even\nnatural law.\n\nThe familiar case of Xanthus, the horse of Achilles[555], marks the\nfurthest pole of complete abstraction. Xanthus warns Achilles that, for\nall their fleetness, his horses bear him to his death, and\n\n \u2018When he thus had spoken\n The Erinyes stayed his voice.\u2019\n\nThe intervention of the Erinyes here is usually explained by a reference\nto the saying of Heracleitus[556] that \u2018the sun could not go out of his\ncourse without the Erinyes, ministers of justice, finding him out.\u2019 I\ndoubt if the philosophy of Heracleitus supplies the true explanation. The\nhorse speaks as the mouthpiece of the fates, the Erinyes; they tell of\nwhat fate (\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1) will accomplish; nay more, _as fates_ they, reluctant\nbut obedient, carry him to his death. When Xanthus has uttered the\nmandate of fate, the Fates close his mouth, not because he transgresses\ntheir law, but because he has uttered it to the full.\n\nBe that as it may, the view stated by Heracleitus is of capital\nimportance. It shows that to a philosopher writing at the end of the\n6th century B.C. the Erinyes were embodiments of law, ministers of\nJustice. Of course a philosopher is as little to be taken as reflecting\npopular faith as a poet, indeed far less; but even a philosopher cannot,\nsave on pain of becoming unintelligible, use words apart from popular\nassociations. Heracleitus was indeed drunk with the thought of law, of\nFate, of unchanging \u2018moral retribution,\u2019 with the eternal sequence\nof his endless flux; his Erinyes are cosmic beyond the imagination of\nHomer, but still the fact remains that he uses them as embodiments of the\nvengeance that attends transgression. By his time they are not Keres, not\nsouls, still less bacilli, not even avengers of tribal blood, but in the\nwidest sense ministers of Justice[557] (\u0394\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9).\n\n\nTHE ERINYES OF AESCHYLUS.\n\nHeracleitus has pushed abstraction to its highest pitch. When we come to\nAeschylus we find, as would be expected, a conception of the Erinyes that\nis at once narrower and more vitalized, more objective, more primitive.\nIn the _Septem_[558] the conception is narrower, more primitive than in\nHomer; the Erinys is in fact an angry ghost. This is stated with the\nutmost precision.\n\n \u2018Alas, thou Fate\u2014grievous, dire to be borne,\n And Oedipus\u2019 holy Shade,\n Black Erinys, verily, mighty art thou,\u2019\n\nchant the chorus again and again. Fate is close at hand and nigh akin,\nbut the real identity and apposition is between the shade, the ghost of\nOedipus, and the black Erinys.\n\nHere and in the _Prometheus Bound_[559] Aeschylus is fully conscious that\nit is the actual ghost, not a mere abstract vengeance that haunts and\npursues. Io is stung by the oestrus[560] because she was a cow-maiden,\nbut the real terror that maddens her is that most terrifying of all\nancient ghosts, the phantom of earth-born Argus.\n\n \u2018Woe, Woe!\n Again the gadfly stings me as I go.\n The earth-born neatherd Argos hundred-eyed,\n Earth, wilt thou never hide?\n\n O horror! he is coming, coming nigh,\n Dead, with his wandering eye.\n Uprising from the dead\n He drives me famished\n Along the shingled main,\n\n His phantom pipe drones with a sleepy strain.\n Ye gods, what have I done to cry in vain,\n Fainting and frenzied with sting-driven pain?\u2019\n\nBut when we come to the Oresteia, the Erinyes are envisaged from a\ndifferent angle. The shift is due partly to the data of the plot, the\nprimitive saga out of which it is constructed, partly to a definite moral\npurpose in the mind of the tragedian.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe primitive material of the trilogy was the story of the house of\nAtreus in which the motive is the blood-curse working from generation\nto generation, working within the narrow limits of one family and\nculminating in the Erinys of a slain mother. At the back of the Orestes\nand Clytaemnestra story lay the primaeval thought so clearly expressed by\nPlato in the _Laws_[561]. \u2018If a man,\u2019 says the Athenian, \u2018kill a freeman\neven unintentionally, let him undergo certain purifications, but let\nhim not disregard a certain ancient tale of bygone days as follows: \u201cHe\nwho has died by a violent death, if he has lived the life of a freeman,\nwhen he is newly dead, is angry with the doer of the deed, and being\nhimself full of fear and panic on account of the violence he has suffered\nand seeing his murderer going about in his accustomed haunts, he feels\nterror, and being himself disordered[562] communicates the same feeling\nwith all possible force, aided by recollection, to the guilty man\u2014both\nto himself and to his deeds.\u201d\u2019 Here the actual ghost is the direct\nsource of the disorder and works like a sort of bacillus of madness. It\nis not the guilty conscience of the murderer, but a sort of onset of\nthe consciousness of the murdered. Its action is local, and hence the\ninjunction that the murderer must leave the land. How fully Aeschylus was\nconscious of this almost physical aspect of crime as the action of the\ndisordered ghost on the living comes out with terrible vividness in the\n_Choephori_[563]:\n\n \u2018The black bolt from below comes from the slain\n Of kin who cry for vengeance, and from them\n Madness and empty terror in the night\n Comes haunting, troubling.\u2019\n\nIt is \u2018the slain of kin\u2019 who cries for vengeance. As Pausanias[564]\nsays of the same house, \u2018the pollution of Pelops and the avenging ghost\nof Myrtilos dogged their steps.\u2019 \u2018Fate,\u2019 says Polybius[565], \u2018placed\nby his (Philip\u2019s) side Erinyes and Poinae and Pointers-to-Vengeance\n(\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2).\u2019 Here clearly all the words are synonymous. Apollo\nthreatens the slayer of his mother with\n\n \u2018Yet other onsets of Erinys sent\n Of kindred blood the dire accomplishment,\n Visible visions that he needs must mark,\n Aye, though he twitch his eyebrows in the dark[566].\u2019\n\nTo cause these \u2018onsets,\u2019 these \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03af, or, as they are sometimes\ncalled, \u1f14\u03c6\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9, was, Hippocrates[567] tells us, one of the regular\nfunctions of dead men.\n\nBehind the notion of these accesses of fright, these nocturnal\napparitions caused by ghosts, there is in the mind of Aeschylus the\nstill more primitive notion that the shed blood not only \u2018brings these\napparitions to effect,\u2019 but is itself a source of physical infection.\nHere we seem to get down to a stratum of thought perhaps even more\nprimitive than that of the bacillus-like Keres. The Chorus in the\n_Choephori_ sings[568]:\n\n \u2018Earth that feeds him hath drunk of the gore,\n Blood calling for vengeance flows never more,\n But stiffens, and pierces its way\n Through the murderer, breeding diseases that none may allay.\u2019\n\nThe blood poisons the earth, and thereby poisons the murderer fed by\nearth. As Dr Verrall (_ad loc._) points out, it is the old doctrine of\nthe sentence of Cain, \u2018And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath\nopened her mouth to receive thy brother\u2019s blood from thy hand; when thou\ntillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength.\u2019\n\nIn the crudest and most practical form, this notion of the physical\ninfection of the earth comes out in the story of Alcmaeon. Pausanias[569]\ntells us that when Alcmaeon had slain his mother Eriphyle, he came to\nPsophis in Arcadia, but there his disease nowise abated. He then went to\nDelphi, and the Pythia taught him that the only land where the avenger\nof Eriphyle could not dog him was the newest land which the sea had laid\nbare subsequently to the pollution of his mother\u2019s blood, and he found\nout the deposit of the river Achelo\u00fcs and dwelt there. There, by the new\nand unpolluted land he might be nourished and live. Apollodorus[570]\nmisses the point: he brings Alcmaeon to Thesprotia and purifies him, but\nby the _waters_ of Achelo\u00fcs.\n\nThe case of Alcmaeon does not stand alone. It has a curious parallel in\nthe fate that befell Bellerophon, a fate that, I think, has not hitherto\nbeen rightly understood.\n\nIn Homer[571] the end of Bellerophon is mysterious. After the episode\nwith Sthenoboea, he goes to Lycia, is royally entertained, marries the\nking\u2019s daughter, rules over a fair domain, begets three goodly children,\nand then, suddenly, without warning, without manifest cause, he comes to\nbe\n\n \u2018Hated of all the gods. And in the Ale\u00efan plain apart\n He strayed, shunning men\u2019s foot-prints, consuming his own heart.\u2019\n\nHomer, with a poet\u2019s instinct for the romantic and mysterious, asks no\nquestions; Pindar[572] with his Olympian prejudice saw in the downfall\nof Bellerophon the proper meed of \u2018insolence.\u2019 Bellerophon\u2019s heart was\n\u2018aflutter for things far-off,\u2019 he had vainly longed for\n\n \u2018The converse of high Zeus.\u2019\n\nBut the mythographers knew the real reason of the madness and the\nwandering, knew of the old sin against the old order. Apollodorus[573]\nsays: \u2018Bellerophon, son of Glaukos, son of Sisyphos, having slain\nunwittingly his brother Deliades, or, as some say, Peiren, and others\nAlkimenes, came to Proetus and was purified.\u2019 On Bellerophon lay the\n_taboo_ of blood guilt. He came to Proetus, but, the sequel shows, was\n_not_ purified. In those old days he _could_ not be. Proetus sent him on\nto the king of Lycia, and the king of Lycia drove him yet further to the\nonly land where he could dwell, the Ale\u00efan or Cilician plain[574]. This\nAle\u00efan plain was, like the mouth of the Achelo\u00fcs, _new land_, an alluvial\ndeposit slowly recovered from the sea, ultimately in Strabo\u2019s time most\nfertile, but in Bellerophon\u2019s days a desolate salt-marsh. The madness of\nBellerophon\u2014for in Homer he is obviously mad\u2014is the madness of Orestes,\nof the man blood-stained, Erinys-haunted; but the story of Bellerophon,\nlike that of Alcmaeon, looks back to days even before the Erinys was\nformulated as a personality, to days when Earth herself was polluted,\npoisoned by shed blood.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAeschylus then in the _Oresteia_ is dealing with a primitive story and\nrealizes to the uttermost its primaeval savagery. But he has chosen\nit for a moral purpose, nay more, when he comes to the Eumenides,\nwith an actual topical intent. He desires first and foremost by the\nreconciliation of old and new to justify the ways of God to men, and next\nto show that in his own Athenian law-court of the Areopagus, those ways\nfind their fullest practical human expression. That court, he somehow\ncontrived to believe, or at least saw fit to assert, was founded on a\nfact of tremendous moral significance, the conversion of the Erinyes\ninto Semnae. The conception of the Erinyes comes to Aeschylus from Homer\nalmost full-fledged; his mythological data, unlike his plots, were\n\u2018slices from the great feasts of Homer,\u2019 and this in a very strict sense,\nfor, owing no doubt partly to the primitive legend selected, he has had\nto narrow somewhat the Homeric conception of the Erinyes and make of\nthem not avengers in general, but avengers of tribal blood. Moreover he\nhas emphasized their legal character. It is noteworthy that when Athene\nformally asks the Erinyes who and what they are[575], their answer is not\n\u2018Erinyes\u2019 but\n\n \u2018Curses our name in haunts below the earth.\u2019\n\nAnd when Athene further asks their function and prerogatives (\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03af) the\nanswer is:\n\n \u2018Man-slaying men we drive from out their homes[576].\u2019\n\nThe essence of primitive law resided, as has already (p. 142) been seen,\nin the curse, the imprecation. Here the idea is not that of a cosmic\nFate but of a definite and tangible curse, the curse of blood-guilt. It\nis scarcely possible to doubt that in emphasizing the curse aspect of\nthe Erinyes, Aeschylus had in his mind some floating reminiscence of a\ntraditional connection between the Arae and the Areopagus. He is going to\nmake the Erinyes turn into Semnae, the local Athenian goddesses invoked\nupon the Areopagus: the conception of the Erinyes as Arae makes as it\nwere a convenient bridge. The notion of the Erinyes as goddesses of\nCursing is of course definitely present in Homer, but it is the notion\nof the curse of the broken oath rather than the curse of blood-guilt. In\nthe great oath of Agamemnon[577] he, as became an Achaean, prays first to\nZeus, but also to Earth and to the Sun and to the Erinyes who\n\n \u2018Beneath the earth\n Take vengeance upon mortals, whosoe\u2019er\n Forswears himself.\u2019\n\nHesiod[578], borrowing from Melampus, tells us that\n\n \u2018On the fifth day, they say, the Erinyes tend\n Oath at his birth whom Eris bore, a woe\n To any mortal who forswears himself.\u2019\n\nAeschylus narrows the Homeric and Hesiodic conception of the Erinyes\nto the exigencies of the particular legend he treats; they are for him\nalmost uniformly the personified Curses that attend the shedding of\nkindred blood, though now and again he rises to the cosmic conception of\nHeracleitus, as when the chorus in the _Eumenides_ exclaim[579]\n\n \u2018O Justice, O ye thrones\n Of the Erinyes,\u2019\n\nand chant the doom that awaits the transgressor in general; but the\ncircumstances of the plot compel a speedy return within narrower limits.\n\n\nTHE TRAGIC ERINYES.\n\nThe Erinyes in Homer are terrors unseen: Homer who lends to his Olympians\nsuch clear human outlines has no embodied shape for these underworld\nAngry Ones; he knows full well what they do, but not how they look. But\nAeschylus can indulge in no epic vagueness. He has to bring his Erinyes\nin flesh and blood actually on the stage; he must make up his mind what\nand who they are. Fortunately at this point we are not left with a mere\nuncertain stage tradition or the statements of late scholiasts and\nlexicographers. From Aeschylus himself we know with unusual precision\nhow his Erinyes appeared on the stage. The priestess has seen within\nthe temple horrible things; she staggers back in terror to give\u2014for her\nhorror-stricken state\u2014a description remarkably explicit. The exact order\nof her words is important[580]:\n\n \u2018Fronting the man I saw a wondrous band\n Of women, sleeping on the seats. But no!\n No women these, but Gorgons\u2014yet methinks\n I may not liken them to Gorgon-shapes.\n Once on a time I saw those pictured things\n That snatch at Phineus\u2019 feast, but these, but these\n Are wingless\u2014black, foul utterly. They snore,\n Breathing out noisome breath. From out their eyes\n They ooze a loathly rheum.\u2019\n\nThe whole manner of the passage arrests attention at once. Why is\nAeschylus so unusually precise and explicit? Why does he make the\npriestess midway in her terror give this little archaeological lecture\non the art-types of Gorgons and Harpies? The reason is a simple one; the\nErinyes _as Erinyes_ appear for the first time in actual definite shape.\nUp to the time when Aeschylus brought them on the stage, no one, if he\nhad been asked what an Erinys was like, could have given any definite\nanswer; they were unseen horrors which art up to that time had never\ncrystallized into set form. The priestess is literally correct when she\nsays[581]:\n\n \u2018This race of visitants ne\u2019er have I seen.\u2019\n\nAeschylus had behind him, to draw from, a great wealth of bogey types; he\nhad black Keres, such as those on the shield of Herakles; he had Gorgons,\nhe had Harpies, but he had no ready-made shape for his Erinyes, only the\nHomeric horror of formlessness. What will he do? What he _did_ do is\nclearly set forth by the priestess. When she first, in the gloom of the\nadyton, catches sight of the sleeping shapes, she thinks they are women,\nthey have something human about them; but no, they are too horrible for\nwomen, they must be Gorgons. She looks a little closer. No, on second\nthoughts, they are not Gorgons; they have not the familiar Gorgon mask;\nthere is something else she has seen in a picture, Harpies, \u2018those that\nsnatch at Phineus\u2019 feast.\u2019 Can they be Harpies? No, again, Harpies have\nwings, and these are wingless. Here precisely came in the innovation of\nAeschylus; he takes the Harpy-type, loathsome and foul, and rids them of\ntheir wings. It was a master-touch[582], lifting the Erinyes from the\nregion of grotesque impossible bogeydom to a lower and more loathsome,\nbecause wholly human, horror.\n\nThe \u2018Gorgon shapes,\u2019 which indeed amount almost to Gorgon _masks_\u2014so\ncharacteristic is the ugly face with tusks and protruding tongue\u2014have\nbeen already fully discussed (p. 187), but for clearness\u2019 sake\nanother illustration, which can be securely dated as before the time\nof Aeschylus, may be added here. The design in fig. 46 is from a\nblack-figured _olpe_ in the British Museum[583]. It is signed by the\npotter Amasis (\u1f0c\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03c2 \u03bc\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd), and dates about the turn of the 6th\nand 5th centuries B.C. The scene depicted is the slaying of the Gorgon\nMedusa by Perseus. Medusa is represented with the typical ugly face,\nprotruding tusks and tongue. On her lower lip is a fringe of hair; four\nsnakes rise from her head. She wears a short purple chiton, over which\nis a stippled skin with two snakes knotted at the waist. She has high\nhuntress-boots and two pairs of wings, one outspread the other recurved.\nThe essential feature of the Gorgon in Greek art is the hideous mask-like\nhead; but she has usually, though not always, snakes somewhere about\nher, in her hair or her hands or about her waist. The wings, also a\nfrequent though not uniform appendage, are sometimes two, sometimes\nfour. In common with the Harpy, to whom she is so near akin, she has the\nbent knee that indicates a striding pace. That Harpy and Gorgon are not\nclearly distinguished is evident from the vase-painting already discussed\n(p. 176, fig. 19), in which the Gorgon sisters of Medusa are inscribed\nHarpies (\u1f08\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 46.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 47.]\n\nBroadly speaking the Gorgon is marked off from the Harpy by the\nmask-face. The Harpy is a less monstrous form of Gorgon, but at worst\nthere was not much to choose between them. We sympathize with the\nhesitation of the priestess, when we compare the Medusa-Gorgon of\nthe Amasis vase (fig. 46) with the undoubted Harpies of the famous\nW\u00fcrzburg[584] cylix (fig. 47). Here we have depicted the very scene\nremembered by the priestess, \u2018those pictured things that snatch at\nPhineus\u2019 feast.\u2019 The vase is in a disastrous condition, and the\ninscriptions present many difficulties as well as uncertainties, but\nhappily those that are legible and certain are sufficient to place the\nsubject of the scene beyond a doubt. It would indeed be clear enough\nwithout the added evidence of inscriptions. Phineus to the right reclines\nat the banquet, attended by women of his family, whose names present\ndifficulties and need not here be discussed. The Harpies[585] (\u1f08\u03c1\u03b5...),\npestilential unclean winds as they are, have fouled the feast. But for\nthe last time they are chased away by the two sons of Boreas, Zetes and\nKalais, sword in hand. The sons of the clean clear North Wind drive away\nthe unclean demons. All the winds, clean and unclean, are figured alike,\nwith four wings each; but the Boreadae are of course male, the women\nHarpies are draped.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 48.]\n\nBefore returning to the tragic Erinyes, another vase must be discussed.\nThe design, from an early black-figured cylix in the Louvre[586], is\nreproduced in fig. 48. The centre of interest is clearly the large dog,\na creature of supernatural size, almost the height of a man. To the\nleft of him a bearded man is hastening away; he looks back, apparently\nin surprise or consternation. Immediately behind the dog comes a winged\nfigure, also in haste, and manifestly interested in the dog. Behind her\nis Hermes, and behind him, as quiet spectators, two women figures. There\nis only one possible explanation of the general gist of the scene. It\nis the story of the golden dog of Minos stolen from Crete by Pandareos,\nking of Lycia, and by him from fear of Zeus deposited with Tantalos. The\nscholiast on the _Odyssey_[587] tells the story in commenting on the\nlines \u2018As when the daughter of Pandareos the bright brown nightingale\u2019\nas follows. \u2018There is a legend about the above-mentioned Pandareos,\nthat he stole the golden dog of Zeus in Crete, a life-like work of\nHephaistos, from the precinct of Zeus, and having stolen it he deposited\nit with Tantalos. And when Zeus demanded the stolen thing by the mouth\nof Hermes Tantalos swore that he had it not. But Zeus when he had got\nthe dog again, Hermes having secretly taken it away, buried Tantalos\nunder Sipylos.\u2019 Another scholiast[588] gives a different version,\nin which judgment fell on the daughters of Pandareos. \u2018Merope and\nKleothera (daughters of Pandareos) were brought up by Aphrodite; but\nwhen Pandareos, having received the dog stolen from Crete in trust for\nTantalos, denied that he ever took it, Merope and Kleothera were snatched\naway by the Harpies and given to the Erinyes.\u2019\n\nIn the light of this version the vase-painting is clear. The moment\nchosen is the coming of Hermes to claim the dog. It is no use Pandareos\ndenying he had it, for there it is, larger than life. The vase-painter\nhad to put the dog in, to make the story manifest. The two women\nspectators are the daughters of Pandareos, Merope and Kleothera. Who is\nthe winged figure? Archaeologists variously name her Iris, a Harpy, an\nErinys. Iris I unhesitatingly reject. Between a Harpy and an Erinys the\nchoice is harder, and the doubt is instructive. Taking into consideration\nthe Lycian character of the story, and the not unimportant fact that the\ndesign of the reverse represents a Lycian myth also, Bellerophon and\nthe Chimaera, I think we may safely say that the figure is a Harpy,\nbut it is a Harpy performing the functions of an Erinys, avenging the\ntheft, avenging the broken oath, come also to fetch the two maidens whom\nshe will give to be handmaids to the hateful Erinyes\u2014so near akin, so\nfluctuating are the two conceptions.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe fact then that Aeschylus brought them on the stage and his finer\npoetical conception of horror compelled the complete and human\nformulation of the Erinyes; before his time they have no definite\nart-type. The Erinyes of Aeschylus are near akin to Gorgons, but\nthey lack the Gorgon mask; nearer still to Harpies, but wingless.\nIt is curious and interesting to note that at the close of the\n_Choephori_[589], where they do not appear on the stage, where they are\nvisible only to the imagination of the mad Orestes, he sees them like the\nshapes he knows\u2014\n\n \u2018These are like Gorgon shapes\n Black-robed, with tangled tentacles entwined\n Of frequent snakes.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 49.]\n\nAeschylus felt the imaginative gain of the purely human form, but his\nfellow artist the vase-painter will not lightly forego the joy of drawing\ngreat curved wings. In vases that are immediately post-Aeschylean the\nwingless type tends to prevail, though not wholly; later it lapses and\nthe great fantastic wings reappear. On the red-figured vase-painting[590]\nin fig. 49\u2014the earliest of the series and dating somewhere towards the\nend of the 5th century\u2014we have the scene of the purification of Orestes.\nHe is seated close to the omphalos\u2014sword in hand. Above his head Apollo\nholds the pig of purification, in his left hand the laurel; to the right\nis Artemis as huntress with spears; to the left are the sleeping wingless\nErinyes; the ghost of Clytaemnestra beckons to them to wake. From the\nground rises another Erinys, a veritable earth demon. The euphemism of\nthe vase-painter makes the Erinyes not only wingless but beautiful, as\nfair to see as Clytaemnestra.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 50.]\n\nThe next picture[591] (fig. 50) is later in style, but far more\nclosely under dramatic influence. We have the very opening scene of\nthe _Eumenides_. The inner shrine of the temple, a small Ionic naos,\nthe omphalos, and the supplicant Orestes, with no Apollo to purify;\nthe frightened priestess holding the symbol of her office, the great\ntemple key with its sacred fillet. All about the shrine are lying the\nErinyes, wingless and loathly; the scanty dishevelled hair and pouting\nbarbarous lips are best seen in the rightmost Erinys, whose face is drawn\nprofile-wise.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 51.]\n\nIn the third representation[592] from a krater formerly in the Hope\nCollection (fig. 51) the style is late and florid, and the vase-painter\nhas shaken himself quite free from dramatic influence. Orestes crouches\nin an impossible pose on the great elaborately decorated omphalos; Apollo\nis there with his filleted laurel staff. The place of Artemis is taken\nby Athene, her foot resting on what seems to be an urn for voting. To\nthe left is an Erinys, in huntress garb, with huge snake and high curved\nwings; but the vase-painter is indifferent and looks for variety: a\nsecond Erinys, who leans over the tripod, is well furnished with snakes,\nbut has no wings.\n\nIn the last and latest of the series, a kalpis in the Berlin Museum[593]\n(fig. 52), the Erinys is a mere angel of vengeance; her wings are no\nlonger fantastic, she is no huntress, but a matronly, heavily draped\nfigure; she holds a scourge in her hand, she is more Poine than Erinys,\nonly about her is still curled a huge snake.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 52.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nAeschylus then, we may safely assert, first gave to the Erinyes outward\nand visible shape, first differentiated them from Keres, Gorgons, or\nHarpies. In this connection it is worth noting that the Erinyes or Poinae\nwere not infrequently referred to in classical literature as though they\nwere almost the exclusive property of the stage. Aeschines[594], in his\noration against Timarchus, exhorts the Athenians not to imagine \u2018that\nimpious men _as in the tragedies_ are pursued and chastized by Poinae\nwith blazing torches.\u2019 Plutarch[595] in his life of Dion tells how,\nwhen the conspiracy of Callippus was on foot against him, Dion had a\n\u2018monstrous and portentous vision.\u2019 As he was meditating alone one evening\nhe heard a sudden noise and saw, for it was still light, a woman of\ngigantic size, \u2018in form and raiment exactly like a tragic Erinys.\u2019 She\nwas sweeping the house with a sort of broom.\n\nOn Lower Italy vases the Erinyes as Poinae frequently appear (Chap.\nXI.). They are sometimes winged, sometimes unwinged. From the august\nministers of the vengeance of the dead they have sunk to be the mere\npitiless tormentors of hell. They lash on Sisyphos to his ceaseless task,\nthey bind Peiritho\u00f6s, they fasten Ixion to his wheel. But it is curious\nto note that, though the notion of pursuit is almost lost, they still\nwear the huntress garb, the short skirt and high boots. It is needless to\nfollow the downward course of the Erinys in detail, a course accelerated\nby Orphic eschatology, but we may note the last stage of degradation in\nPlutarch\u2019s treatise \u2018On those who are punished by the Deity late[596].\u2019\nThe criminals whom Justice (Dike)\u2014the Orphic divinity of purification\nrather than vengeance\u2014rejects as altogether incurable are pursued by an\nErinys, \u2018the third and most savage of the ministrants of Adrasteia.\u2019 She\ndrives them down into a place which Plutarch very properly describes as\n\u2018not to be seen, not to be spoken of.\u2019 The Erinyes are from beginning to\nend of the old order, implacable, vindictive; they know nothing of Orphic\npenance and purgatory; as \u2018angels of torment[597]\u2019 they go to people a\nChristian Hell.\n\n\nTHE ERINYS AS SNAKE.\n\nWe return to Aeschylus. His intent was to humanize the Erinyes that\nthereby they might be the more inhuman. The more horrible the shape of\nthese impersonations of the old order the greater the miracle of their\nconversion into the gentle Semnae, and yet the easier, for so early as we\nknow them the Semnae are goddesses, human as well as humane.\n\nIn his persistent humanizing of the Erinyes Aeschylus suffers one lapse,\nthe more significant because probably unconscious. When Clytaemnestra\nwould rouse the Erinyes from their slumber, she cries[598],\n\n \u2018Travail and Sleep, chartered conspirators,\n Have spent the fell rage of the _dragoness_.\u2019\n\nIt is of course possible to say that she uses the word \u2018dragoness\u2019\n(\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1) \u2018poetically,\u2019 for a monster in general, possibly a human\nmonster; but the question is forced upon us, why is this particular\nmonster selected? why does she say \u2018dragoness\u2019 and not rather \u2018hound\nof hell\u2019? In the next lines[599] comes the splendid simile of the dog\nhunting in dreams, and it would surely have been more \u2018poetical\u2019 to keep\nthe figure intact. But language and associations sometimes break through\nthe best regulated conceptions, and deep, very deep in the Greek mind\nlay the notion that the Erinys, the offended ghost, was a snake. The\nnotion of the earth demon, the ghost as snake, will be considered when\nhero-worship is dealt with (p. 326). For the present it can only be noted\nin Aeschylus as an outcrop of a lower stratum of thought, a stratum in\nwhich the Erinys was not yet an abstracted or even humanized minister of\nvengeance, but simply an angry ghost in snake form.\n\nThe use of the singular number, \u2018dragoness,\u2019 is, in itself, significant.\nThe Erinyes as ministers of vengeance are indefinitely multiplied, but\nthe old ghost-Erinys is one, not many; she is the ghost of the murdered\nmother. Clytaemnestra herself is the real \u2018dragoness,\u2019 though she does\nnot know it, and by a curious unconscious reminiscence the Erinyes sleep\ntill she, the true Erinys, rouses them.\n\nThe mention by Aeschylus of the \u2018dragoness\u2019 does not stand alone. To\nEuripides also the Erinys is a snake. In the _Iphigeneia in Tauris_[600]\nthe mad Orestes cries to Pylades,\n\n \u2018Dost see her, her the Hades-snake who gapes\n To slay me, with dread vipers, open-mouthed?\u2019\n\nHere it can hardly be said that the conception is borrowed from\nAeschylus, for assuredly the stage Erinyes of Aeschylus, as he\nconsciously conceived them, were in no wise snakes. Moreover the\n\u2018Hades-snake\u2019 confuses the effect of the \u2018dread vipers\u2019 that follow. In\nhis _Orestes_ also[601] Euripides makes the Erinyes \u2018maidens with the\nforms of snakes,\u2019 where it is straining language, and quite needlessly,\nto say that the word \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 means \u2018having snakes in their hands or\nhair.\u2019\n\nArt too has these harkings back to the primitive snake form. The design\nin fig. 53 is from a black-figured amphora in the Vatican Museum[602],\ndating about the turn of the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. We have the\nusual striding flying type, the four wings, the huntress boots\u2014a type\nof which, as has been shown, it is hard to say whether it represents\nGorgon or Harpy. There is no context to decide. One thing is clear.\nThe vase-painter is afraid that we shall miss his meaning, shall not\nunderstand that this winged thing striding through the air is an earth\ndemon, so he paints below, moving _pari passu_, a great snake. The winged\ndemon _is_ also a snake[603].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 53.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 54.]\n\nMost clearly of all the identity of ghost and snake comes out in the\nvase-painting in fig. 54 from an archaic vase of the type known as\n\u2018prothesis\u2019 vases, in the Museum at Athens[604]. They are a class used\nin funeral ceremonies and decorated with funeral subjects. Two mourners\nstand by a grave tumulus, itself surmounted by a funeral vase. Within the\ntumulus the vase-painter depicts what he believes to be there. Winged\neidola, ghosts, and a great snake, also a ghost. Snake and eidolon are\nbut two ways of saying the same thing. The little fluttering figures here\nrepresented are merely harmless Keres, not angry vindictive Erinyes, but\nwhen the Erinys developes into an avenger she yet remembers that she is a\nsnake-ghost.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 55.]\n\nThe Gorgon, too, has her snakes. To the primitive Greek mind every bogey\nwas earth-born. In the design in fig. 55[605] we have the slaying of the\nGorgon Medusa. The inscriptions are not clearly legible, but the scene\nis evident. Perseus attended by Athene and one of the nymphs, who gave\nhim the kibisis and helmet and winged sandals, is about to slay Medusa.\nMedusa is of the usual Gorgon type, but she holds in her hand a huge\nsnake, the double of herself.\n\nBut the crowning evidence as to the snake-form of the Erinys is literary,\nClytaemnestra\u2019s dream in the _Choephori_. Clytaemnestra dreams that she\ngives birth to and suckles a snake[606]. Dr Verrall (ad loc.) has pointed\nout that the snake is here the regular symbol of things subterranean and\nespecially of the grave, and he conjectures that the snake may have been\npresented to the eyes of the audience by \u2018the visible tomb of Agamemnon\nwhich would presumably be marked as a tomb in the usual way.\u2019 I would go\na step further. The snake is more than the symbol of the dead; it is, I\nbelieve, the actual vehicle of the Erinys. The Erinys is in this case not\nthe ghost of the dead Agamemnon, but the dead Agamemnon\u2019s son Orestes.\nThe symbol proper to the ghost-Erinys is transferred to the living\navenger. Orestes states this clearly[607]:\n\n \u2018Myself in serpent\u2019s shape\n Will slay her.\u2019\n\nAnd this, not merely because he is deadly as a snake, but because he _is_\nthe snake, i.e. the Erinys.\n\nAgain, when Clytaemnestra cries for mercy, Orestes answers[608]:\n\n \u2018Nay, for my father\u2019s fate _hisses_ thy doom.\u2019\n\nThe snake-Erinys in the _Eumenides_, and here again in the _Choephori_,\nremains of course merely an incidental survival, important mainly\nas marking the road Aeschylus has left far behind. It is an almost\nunconscious survival of a tradition that conceived of the Erinyes as\nactually ghosts, not merely as the ministers of ghostly vengeance.\n\nBefore we leave the snake-Erinys, one more vase-painting must be cited,\nwhich brings this conception very vividly before us. The design in\nfig. 56 is from an early black-figured amphora of the class known as\n\u2018Tyrrhenian,\u2019 formerly in the Bourguignon collection at Naples[609]. The\nfigure of a woman just murdered lies prostrate over an omphalos-shaped\ntomb. The warrior who has slain her escapes with drawn sword to the\nright. But too late. Straight out of the tomb, almost indeed out of the\nbody of the woman, rises a huge snake, mouthing at the murderer. The\nintent is clear; it is the snake-Erinys rising in visible vengeance. The\nmurderer is probably Alcmaeon, who has just slain his mother Eriphyle.\nHis story, already discussed (p. 220), is as it were the double of that\nof Orestes. The interpretation as Alcmaeon is not quite certain. It\ndoes not however affect the general sense of the scene, i.e. a murderer\npursued by the instant vengeance of a snake-Erinys.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 56.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nBefore passing to the shift from Erinyes to Semnae it may be well to note\nthat another tragedian\u2014priest as well as poet\u2014held to the more primitive\nview, realized definitely that the Erinyes, the avengers, were merely\nangry implacable Keres. To Sophocles in the _Oedipus Tyrannus_[610]\nApollo is the minister, not, as in the _Eumenides_, of reconciliation,\nbut of vengeance. He has taken over the functions of the Erinyes. With\nthe lightning and fire of his father Zeus he leaps full-armed upon the\nguilty man; but even Apollo cannot dispense with the ancient avengers.\nWith him\n\n \u2018Dread and unerring\n Follow the Keres.\u2019\n\nThe Keres here are certainly regarded as a kind of Fate, but to translate\nthe word \u2018Fates\u2019 is to precipitate unduly the meaning. The words calls up\nin the poet\u2019s mind[611], not only the notion of ministers of vengeance,\nbut also the reminiscence of ghostly fluttering things. He says of the\nguilty man:\n\n \u2018Fierce as a bull is he,\n Homeless, with desolate foot he seeks to flee\n The dooms of Gaia\u2019s central mound.\n In vain, they live and flit ever around.\u2019\n\nAgain, in the _Electra_ of Euripides[612], though the Erinyes are fully\npersonified as dog-faced goddesses, yet they are also Keres.\n\n \u2018They hunt you like dread Keres, goddesses\n Dog-faced, in circling madness.\u2019\n\nHere the word Keres seems to be used because Moirae is of too beneficent\nand omnipotent association; Keres keeps the touch of personal ghostly\nvengeance.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTo resume: the Erinyes are attributive epithets of ghosts, formless in\nHomer, but gradually developed by literature, and especially by the\ngenius of Aeschylus, into actual impersonations. In accordance with\nthis merely attributive origin it is not strange that qu\u00e2 Erinyes their\ncult is practically non-existent. In only one instance do we hear of\na definite place of worship for the Erinyes _as such_. Herodotus[613]\ntells us that at Sparta the children of the clan of the Aegidae \u2018did\nnot survive.\u2019 Accordingly in obedience to an oracle the Aegidae \u2018made a\nsanctuary to the Erinyes of Laios and Oedipus.\u2019\n\nHere the Erinyes are plainly offended ancestral ghosts destructive to\nthe offspring of their descendants, and demanding to be appeased. In\nso far as they are ghosts, the ghosts of murdered or outraged men,\nthe Erinyes were of course everywhere propitiated, but rarely under\ntheir \u2018Angry\u2019 name. That the natural prudence of euphemism forbade. As\nabstract ministers of vengeance we have no evidence of their worship.\nClytaemnestra[614] indeed recounts in detail her dread service to\nthe Erinyes, but when closely examined it is found to be merely the\nregular ritual of the dead and of underworld divinities; it has all\nthe accustomed marks, the \u2018wineless libations\u2019 and the \u2018nephalia for\npropitiation, the banquets by night\u2019 offered on the low brazier (\u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1)\ncharacteristic of underworld sacrifice (p. 62). The hour was one, she\nadds, \u2018shared by none of the gods.\u2019 What she means is none of the gods\nof the upper air, the Olympians proper: it was an hour shared by every\nunderworld divinity. Aeschylus has in a word transferred the regular\nritual of ghosts to his partially abstracted ministers of vengeance, and\nhas thereby left unconscious witness to their real origin.\n\n\nTHE \u2018SEMNAI THEAI.\u2019\n\nTo these Erinyes, adjectival, cultless, ill-defined, the Venerable\nGoddesses (\u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03af) present a striking contrast. If the Erinyes owe\nsuch substance and personality as they have mainly to poets, to Homer\nfirst, later to Aeschylus and the other tragedians, with the Semnae it\nis quite otherwise. Their names are of course adjectival\u2014almost all\nprimitive cultus names are\u2014but from the first, as we know them, they are\npersonal and local. The Erinyes range over earth and sea, the Semnae\nare seated quietly and steadfastly at Athens. They are the objects of a\nstrictly local cult, never emerging to Pan-Hellenic importance. But for\nthe fact that Aeschylus was an Athenian we should scarcely have realized\ntheir existence; they would have remained obscure local figures like the\nAblabiae and the Praxidikae.\n\nIn this connection it is of cardinal importance that, though we are apt\nto speak of them as the Semnae, the Venerable Ones, this is not their\ncultus title, not the fashion in which they were actually addressed\nat Athens. They are uniformly spoken of, not as the Venerable Ones,\nbut as the Venerable Goddesses[615] (\u03b1\u1f31 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03af). The distinction\nis important. It marks the fact that the Semnae from the first moment\nthey come into our view have attained a complete anthropomorphism,\nhave passed from ghosts to goddesses[616]; they are clearly defined\npersonalities with a definite cultus; they are primitive forms, in\nfact _the_ primitive forms, of earth goddesses, of such conceptions\nas culminated finally in the great figures of Demeter and Kore. Other\nsuch figures are, for Athens the two Thesmophoroi, who are indeed\nbut developments, other aspects, of the Semnae; for Eleusis the \u2018two\ngoddesses,\u2019 \u03c4\u1f7c \u03b8\u03b5\u03ce, known to us by inscriptions and reliefs; for Aegina\nDamia and Auxesia; and for the rest of Greece many another local form,\ndual or triune, which need not now be enumerated. The process of this\ngradual anthropomorphism, this passage from sprite and ghost and demon\nto full-fledged divinity will be fully traced when we come to the\n\u2018making of a goddess\u2019 (p. 257). For the present it can only be noted\nthat the term \u2018goddesses\u2019 sharply differentiates the Semnae from the\nErinyes, who, save for sporadic literary mention, never attained any such\nrank. Euripides[617] does indeed make Orestes call the Erinyes \u2018dread\ngoddesses,\u2019 but Aeschylus[618] is explicit: \u2018their adornment (\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2)\nwas neither human nor divine.\u2019 It must be distinctly understood that,\nas the Semnae are goddesses, they are dealt with at this point only by\nanticipation, to elucidate the transformation effected by Aeschylus.\n\nWhat we certainly know of the Semnae, as distinct from kindred figures\nsuch as the Eumenides, is not very much, but such as it is, is\nsignificant. We know the site of their sanctuary, something of the aspect\nof their images, something also of their functions and of the nature of\ntheir ritual. We know in fact enough, as will be shown, to feel sure that\nlike the Erinyes they were underworld potencies, ghosts who had become\ngoddesses. The origin of the two conceptions is the same, but their\ndevelopment widely different, and moreover we catch it arrested at a\ndifferent stage.\n\nIt is obvious from the play of the _Eumenides_ that the worship of\nthe Semnae at Athens was of hoary antiquity. It is true that Diogenes\nLaertius[619] states (on the authority of the augur Lobon) that the\nsanctuary of the Semnae at Athens was founded by Epimenides. The scene\nof the operations of Epimenides was undoubtedly the Areopagos, but, as\nthe purification of Athens took place in the 46th Olympiad, the statement\nthat he founded the sanctuary must be apocryphal. Very likely he may\nhave revived and restored the cult. Diogenes says that he took a number\nof black and white sheep and led them up to the Areopagos and thence let\nthem go whither they would, and he commanded those who followed them to\nsacrifice each of them wherever the sheep happened to lie down, and so\nthe plague would be stayed. Whence even now, adds Diogenes, you may find\nin the Athenian demes nameless altars in memory of this atonement. Some\nsuch altar as this was still to be seen at or near the Areopagos when St\nPaul preached there, and such an altar may have got associated with the\nSemnae, who like many other underworld beings were Nameless Ones.\n\nThe site of the worship of the Semnae was undoubtedly some sort of cave\nor natural chasm amplified artificially into a sanctuary. Such caves,\nclefts or chasms are, as has already been shown (p. 125), the proper\nhaunts of underworld beings; they are also usually, though not uniformly,\nprimitive. Of the sanctuary and the cultus images Pausanias[620] speaks\nas follows. After describing the Areopagos and the two unwrought stones\ncalled \u2018Transgression\u2019 (\u1f55\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2) and \u2018Pitilessness\u2019 (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1) on which\naccused and accuser stood, he says \u2018And near is a sanctuary (\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd)\nof the goddesses whom the Athenians call Semnae, but Hesiod in the\n_Theogony_ calls Erinyes. Aeschylus represents them with snakes in their\nhair, but in their images there is nothing frightful, nor in the other\nimages of the underworld gods that are set up. There is a Pluto also and\na Hermes and an image of Ge. And there those who have been acquitted in a\nsuit before the Areopagos sacrifice. And others besides sacrifice, both\nstrangers and citizens, and within the enclosure there is the tomb of\nOedipus.\u2019\n\nPausanias by his reference to Aeschylus betrays at once the source of\nhis identification of the Semnae with the Erinyes. The statement cannot\nbe taken as evidence that prior to Aeschylus any such identification was\ncurrent. After the time of Aeschylus, classical writers, except when they\nare quoting ritual formularies, begin to accept the fusion and use the\nnames Erinyes, Eumenides, and Semnae as interchangeable terms. A like\nlaxity unhappily obtains among modern commentators.\n\nThe statement of Pausanias, that about the cultus images of the Semnae\nthere was nothing frightful, is important, as showing how foreign to the\nSemnae was the terror-haunted conception of the tragic Erinys. Aeschylus\nmight fuse the Erinyes and the Semnae at will, but the cultus images\nof the Semnae take on no attribute of the Erinyes. About these cultus\nimages we learn something more from the scholiast on Aeschines[621].\nCommenting on the Semnae he says \u2018These were three in number and were\ncalled Venerable Goddesses, or Eumenides, or Erinyes. Two of them were\nmade of lychnites stone by Scopas the Parian, but the middle one by\nKalamis.\u2019 Here again we must of course discount the statement as regards\nthe triple appellation, at least for a date preceding Aeschylus. The\nnumber of the statues is noticeable. At the time when the scholiast\nor his informant[622] wrote the images were unquestionably three. The\norigin and significance of the female trinities will be considered later\n(p. 286). For the present it is sufficient to note that the trinity was\nprobably a later stage of development than the duality. From the notice\nof the scholiast we cannot be certain that the images were _originally_\nthree; nay more, it looks as if there was some reminiscence of a duality.\nMoreover the scholiast on the _Oedipus Coloneus_[623] expressly states\nthat according to Phylarchus the images of the Semnae at Athens were two\nin number. He adds that according to Polemon they were three. That the\nnumber three ultimately prevailed is highly probable, indeed practically\ncertain. The scholiast on Aeschines goes on to say \u2018the court of the\nAreopagos adjudged murder cases on three days in each month, assigning\none day to each goddess.\u2019 The three days were probably a primitive\ninstitution, three being a number sacred to the dead, and these three\ndays may have helped the development of the threefold form of the Semnae.\nLater in considering the Charites and other kindred shapes (p. 286)\nit will be shown that many different strands went to the weaving of a\ntrinity. The strictly definite number of the Semnae, be it two or three,\nis in marked contrast to the indefinite \u2018wondrous throng\u2019 (\u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2) of the Aeschylean Erinyes. The contrast may have been softened,\nif in the concluding scene the chorus of Erinyes filed away in groups of\nthree.\n\nThe sanctuary of the Semnae was, in the narrower sense of the word\n\u2018sanctuary,\u2019 a refuge for suppliants. This is, of course, a trait that\nit has in common with many other precincts. Thucydides[624] tells how in\nthe conspiracy of Kylon some of the conspirators sat down at the altars\nof the Venerable Goddesses, and were put to death at the entrance. A\nmonument, the Kyloneion, was put up close to the Nine Gates to expiate\nthe pollution. Plutarch[625], in his account of this same conspiracy,\nadds a curious primitive touch: the conspirators connected themselves\nwith the image of \u2018the goddess\u2019 by a thread, believing thereby they would\nremain immune; the thread broke of its own accord when they reached the\nSemnae; this was taken as an omen of rejection and they were put to\ndeath. Aristophanes twice alludes to the precinct of the Semnae as a\nplace of sanctuary. In the Knights[626], he makes the outraged triremes\nsay\n\n \u2018If this is what the Athenians like, we must needs set sail forthwith\n And sit us down in the Theseion or in the Semnae\u2019s shrine.\u2019\n\nIn the _Thesmophoriazusae_[627], when Mnesilochus is about to make off in\na fright, Euripides asks\n\n \u2018You villain, where are you off to?\u2019\n\nand the answer is\n\n \u2018To the shrine of the Semnae.\u2019\n\nIt is noticeable that in both these cases the name given to the goddesses\nof sanctuary is Semnae, not Erinyes or Eumenides. The confusion of the\nthree was never local, only literary, and by the time of Aristophanes it\nhas not yet begun.\n\nEuripides[628] is our solitary authority for the fact that the sanctuary\nwas also oracular. At the close of the _Electra_ he makes the Dioscuri,\nin a speech not untinged by irony, prophesy that Orestes, pursued by the\nErinyes, will come to Athens and be acquitted by the equal vote, and\nthat in consequence the baffled Erinyes will descend in dudgeon into a\nsubterranean cleft hard by the Areopagos:\n\n \u2018A mantic shrine,\n Sacred, adored of mortals.\u2019\n\nOracular functions were ascribed to most, if not all, underworld\ndivinities, so that it is quite probable that the description of the\nDioscuri is correct.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe sanctuary of the Semnae was open to suppliants and to those who\nsought oracular counsel, but to one unfortunate class of the community,\nhappily a small one, it was rigidly closed. These were the people known\nas \u2018second-fated\u2019 or \u2018later-doomed.\u2019 Hesychius[629], in explaining\nthe term \u2018second-fated\u2019 (\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2), says \u2018he is called by some\n\u201clater-doomed.\u201d So a man is termed when the accustomed rites have been\nperformed as though he were dead, and later on he reappears alive; and\nPolemon says that to such it was forbidden to enter the sanctuary of the\nVenerable Goddesses. The term is also used of a man who is reported to\nhave died abroad and then comes home, and again of a man who passes a\nsecond time through the folds of a woman\u2019s garment, as was the custom\namong the Athenians in a case of second birth.\u2019\n\nThis curious statement is fortunately explained to us in instructive\ndetail by Plutarch in the answer to his 5th _Roman Question_. He there\nsays \u2018Those who have had a funeral and sepulture as though they were dead\nare accounted by the Greeks as not pure, and they will not associate\nwith them, nor will they permit them to approach sanctuaries. And they\nsay that a certain Aristinus, who believed in this superstition, sent to\nDelphi to enquire of the god and to ask release from the disabilities\nthis custom imposed on him, and the Pythian made answer:\n\n \u201cWhatsoe\u2019er is accomplished by woman that travails in childbed,\n That in thy turn having done, sacrifice thou to the gods.\u201d\n\nAnd Aristinus being a good and wise man gave himself up, like a new-born\nchild, to the women to wash and swaddle and suckle, and all the others\nwho were called \u201clater-doomed\u201d did the like.\u2019 \u2018But,\u2019 adds Plutarch, and\ndoubtless most justly, \u2018some say that these things were done with respect\nto the \u201clater-doomed\u201d before Aristinus did them, and the custom was an\nancient one.\u2019\n\nPlutarch says the exclusion was from all sacred rites. In this he\nis probably mistaken. Anyhow in the case of the Semnae, and of all\nunderworld divinities, the significance is clear. If a man comes back to\nlife after burial rites, the reason to the primitive mind is that there\nis something wrong with him; he is rejected by the powers below and\nunfit to mingle with his fellows in the world above; he is highly taboo.\nDespised of the gods, he is naturally rejected of his fellow men. The\nonly chance for him is to be born again.\n\nWhen we come to the ritual of the Semnae every detail confirms the view\nthat they are underworld beings. From Aeschylus himself[630] we know that\n\u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1, animal sacrifices consumed but not eaten, were offered to them.\nAthene bids the Erinyes, after they have turned Semnae,\n\n \u2018pass below the earth\n With these your sacred sphagia.\u2019\n\nThe underworld nature of _sphagia_\u2014the word has no English equivalent\u2014has\nbeen fully discussed (p. 63). In careful writers, as has been seen, it is\nnever interchangeable with \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, victims sacrificed and eaten.\n\nThe scholiast on Sophocles[631] speaks of the holocaust of a black\nsheep to the Eumenides, whom he identifies with the Semnae; but, as he\nexpressly states that this sacrifice took place in the Peloponnese, we\ncannot safely attribute it to the local Semnae of Athens. It is probable\nthat \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 formed part of the regular sacrifice mentioned by Pausanias\nas offered to the Semnae by the acquitted; \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 belong, as has already\nbeen shown, to the class of expiatory offerings. It was on \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1, which\nwere also called \u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1, that oaths were taken (p. 64) in the law courts,\noaths the extraordinary solemnity of which Demosthenes[632] emphasizes.\nA man so swearing stood on the fragments of victims officially and\nsolemnly slain, and devoted himself and his household to destruction\nin case of perjury. By standing on the slain fragments he identifies\nhimself proleptically with them. We have no explicit statement that the\ndivinities by whom these awful oaths on the \u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1 had to be taken were\nthe Semnae, but as the Semnae were the underworld divinities resident on\nthe Areopagos, and as they were frequently invoked with the local heroes,\nand as sacrifice was done to them by the acquitted, it seems highly\nprobable. If they were the goddesses of oaths, this is another link with\nthe Erinyes, the avengers of oaths. It is notable that in an ordinary\nimprecation in the law-courts they take precedence of Athene herself.\nThus Demosthenes[633] says, \u2018I call to witness the Venerable Goddesses,\nand the place they inhabit, and the heroes of the soil, and Athene of\nthe city, and the other gods who have the city and the land in their\ndominion.\u2019\n\nWe learn from Philo[634] that no slave was allowed to take part in the\nprocessions of the Semnae. This in a worship of special antiquity and\nsolemnity is natural enough. But it is strange to hear from Polemon[635]\nthat there was the same taboo on all the Eupatrids. Strange at first\nsight, but easily explicable. The Semnae are women divinities, and in\nthis taboo on the Eupatrids there seems to lurk a survival of matriarchal\nconditions. Aeschylus in the _Eumenides_ is not concerned, save\nincidentally, to emphasize the issue between matriarchy and patriarchy,\nbetween kinship through the mother and through the father, but it lies\nat the back of the legend he has chosen for his plot. The stories of\nOrestes and Clytaemnestra, of Alcmaeon and Eriphyle, are deep-rooted in\nmatriarchy\u2014both look back to the days when the only relationship that\ncould be proved, and that therefore was worth troubling about, was that\nthrough the mother; and hence special vengeance attends the slayer of\nthe mother. In the light of this it is easy to understand why in the\nworship of the Semnae the family of Eupatrids\u2014those well-born through\ntheir fathers\u2014had no part. For them Apollo Patr\u00f4os was the fitter\ndivinity. The family of the Eupatrids had their own rites of expiation,\nancestral rites significantly called \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, paternal. These rites as\ndescribed by Dorotheos have been already discussed (p. 60).\n\nThe name of the family that held the priesthood of the Semnae is also\nrecorded; they were the Hesychidae whom Hesychius[636] describes as \u2018a\nfamily of well-born people at Athens.\u2019 Polemon is again our authority\nfor connecting these \u2018Silent Ones\u2019 with the cult of the Semnae. He is\nquoted by the scholiast already cited (p. 246 note). In commenting on\nthe expression \u2018uttering words inaudible\u2019 the scholiast says \u2018This is\nfrom the sacrifice performed to the Eumenides. For they enact the sacred\nrites in silence, and on account of this the descendants of Hesychos\n(the Silent One) sacrifice to them, as Polemon says in his writings\nabout Eratosthenes, thus: \u201cthe family of the Eupatrids has no share in\nthis sacrifice\u201d; and then further, \u201cin this procession the Hesychidae,\nwhich is the family that has to do with the Venerable Goddesses, take the\nlead.\u201d And before the sacrifice they make a preliminary sacrifice of a\nram to Hesychos ... giving him this name because of the ritual silence\nobserved. His sanctuary is by the Kyloneion outside the Nine Gates.\u2019\n\nThough these remarks of the scholiast are prompted by the cult of the\nEumenides at Colonos, it is quite clear that Polemon is speaking of the\nSemnae at Athens. He states three important facts. The cult of the Semnae\nwas in the hands of a clan descended from a hero called aetiologically\n\u2018the Silent One.\u2019 Sacrifice to the goddesses was regularly preceded by\nthe sacrifice of a ram to the eponymous hero. That hero had a sanctuary\nof his own outside the Nine Gates of the old Pelasgic fortification, and\nnear the historic monument of Kylon. The name \u2018Silent One\u2019 is possibly\na mere cultus epithet, used to preserve safely the anonymity of the\nhero; heroes, as will later (p. 340) be seen, are dangerous persons to\nmention. On the other hand Hesychos may have been the actual name of a\nreal hero, and after his death it may have seemed charged with religious\nsignificance. This seems quite possible, the more so as the name was\nadopted by the whole family. The female form Hesychia was a proper name\nin the days of Nikias, and it is curious to find that even then an omen\ncould be drawn from it. Plutarch[637] recounts that when the Athenians\nwere taking omens before the Syracusan expedition an oracle ordered them\nto fetch a priestess of Athene from Clazomenae. They found, when they got\nher, that her name was Hesychia; and this seemed \u2018a divine indication\nthat they should remain quiet.\u2019\n\nThe scholiast speaks of Hesychidae, male members of the family of\nHesychos, but if we may trust Callimachus[638] it was the women of the\nfamily who brought burnt-offerings; and these offerings were, as we\nshould expect, wineless libations and honey-sweet cakes. The name of\nthe priestesses was according to Callimachus \u03bb\u1fc4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, and it is no\ndoubt from this source that Hesychius[639] gets his gloss, \u2018Leteirai,\npriestesses of the Semnae.\u2019\n\nThe Semnae were women divinities served by priestesses, and it is\nnoticeable that Athene, who was \u2018all for the father,\u2019 promises to the\nErinyes that, if they become Semnae, they shall have worshippers, both\nmen and women[640]. But when the procession to the cave is actually\nformed, in strict accordance no doubt with the traditional ritual of the\nplace, it is women attendants who bring the ancient image,\n\n \u2018A goodly band,\n Maidens and wives and throng of ancient dames[641].\u2019\n\nIt can scarcely be doubted that among these ancient dames were members of\nthe clan of Hesychids.\n\nAeschylus[642] has left us other notes of underworld significance in the\nritual of the Semnae. When the procession is forming for the cave Athene\nspeaks:\n\n \u2018Do on your festal garments crimson-dyed\n For meed of honour, bid the torches flame\u2014\n So henceforth these our visitants shall bless\n Our land and folk with shining of their grace.\u2019\n\nAthene proffers for guerdon to the Semnae the ritual that as underworld\ngoddesses was already theirs, torches and crimson raiment.\n\nIn connection with the torches it cannot be forgotten that some, though\npossibly not all, the sittings of the court of the Areopagos took place\nby night, doubtless in honour of the underworld goddesses who presided.\nIn Lucian\u2019s time, at least, these sittings were almost proverbial. He\nsays of a man perceiving with difficulty[643], \u2018unless he chance to be\nstone-blind or like the Council of the Areopagos which gives its hearing\nby night\u2019: and again in the _Hermotimus_[644] \u2018he is doing it like the\nAreopagites who give judgment in darkness.\u2019 To these sittings in the\nnight-time it may be that Athene refers when she says[645]\n\n \u2018This court I set, untouched of gain, revered,\n Alert, a wakeful guard o\u2019er those who sleep.\u2019\n\nThe garments of crimson or purple dye point to a ritual of placation\nand the service of the underworld. This is clearly shown in the details\ngiven by Plutarch[646] of the rites of placation performed annually for\nthose who fell in the battle of Plataea. \u2018On the 16th day of the month\nMaimakterion the archon of Plataea, who on other days may not touch iron\nnor wear any garment that is not white, puts on a crimson chiton and\ntaking a hydria and girded with a sword goes to the sepulchres. There\nwith water from the spring he washes the stelae and anoints them with\nmyrrh; he slays a black bull, prays to Zeus and Hermes Chthonios, and\ninvokes to the banquet and the bloodshed the heroes who died for Greece.\u2019\n\nThe crimson-purple is blood colour[647], hence it is ordained for the\nservice of the dead. It has already been noted (p. 144) that Dion[648]\nwhen he took the great oath in the Thesmophorion identified himself with\nKore of the underworld by putting on her crimson robe and holding a\nburning torch. Purple, Pliny[649] tells us, was employed when gods had to\nbe appeased.\n\nThe purple robes, the torches, the night-time, above all the \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1,\npoint to a dread underworld ritual, a ritual that shows clearly that the\ndarker side of the Venerable Ones was not far remote from the Erinyes.\nBut Aeschylus, whose whole mind is bent on a doctrine of mercy, naturally\nemphasizes the brighter side of their functions and worship. Athene[650]\nherself knows that they are underworld goddesses, that they must have\nlow-lying altars and underground dwellings; only so seated will they\never feel really at home. She remembers even that for their feast they\nmust have the wineless sacrifice that drives them mad[651]; but she bids\nthem leave this madness, and they for their part promise that the earth,\ntheir kingdom as vengeful ghosts, shall cease to drink the black blood of\ncitizens. Henceforth they will be content with the white side of their\nservice[652].\n\n \u2018From this great land, thine is the sacrifice\n Of first-fruits offered for accomplishment\n Of marriage and for children[653].\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 57.]\n\nAgain Athene offers what was theirs from the beginning. Underworld\ngoddesses presided over marriage: in later days, as Plutarch[654] tells\nus, it was the priestess of Demeter; earlier we can scarcely doubt it was\nthe Semnae. Here they stand in sharp contrast to the Erinyes, who are\nall black. Who would have bidden an Erinys to a marriage feast? as well\nbid Eris who, in form (fig. 57) and function as perhaps in name, was but\nanother Erinys, Eris\n\n \u2018The Abominable, who uninvited came\n And cast the golden fruit upon the board.\u2019\n\nThe Erinyes transformed to Semnae ask Athene what spells they shall chant\nover the land. She makes answer[655]:\n\n \u2018Whatever charms wait on fair Victory\n From earth, from dropping dew and from high heaven,\n The wealth of winds that blow to hail the land\n Sunlit, and fruits of earth and teeming flocks\n Untouched of time, safety for human seed.\u2019\n\nThe chorus accept these functions of health and life, and chant their\npromised guerdon[656].\n\n \u2018No wind to wither trees shall blow,\n By our grace it shall be so;\n Nor that nor shrivelling heat\n On budding plants shall beat\n With parching drouth\n To waste their growth,\n Nor any plague of dismal blight come creeping;\n But teeming, doubled flocks the earth\n In her season shall bring forth,\n And evermore a wealthy race\n Pay reverence for this our grace\n Of spirits that have the rich earth in their keeping.\u2019\n\nWe are reminded that Ploutos himself, the Wealth of the underworld,\nhad, according to Pausanias[657], a statue in the precinct of the\nVenerable Goddesses. Moreover it is impossible to hear the words \u2018no\nwind to wither trees shall blow\u2019 without recalling the altar of the\nWind-stillers (\u0395\u1f50\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9), which stood somewhere on the western slope\nof the Areopagos. Arrian[658], speaking of the statues of Harmodios and\nAristogeiton, says \u2018they stand at Athens in the Cerameicus where we go\nup to the citadel, just opposite the Metr\u00f4on not far from the altar of\nthe Wind-stillers. Whoever has been initiated in the Eleusinia knows the\naltar of the Wind-stillers which stands on the ground.\u2019 A low-lying altar\ndoubtless, an eschara, for, as has already been shown (p. 65), the winds\nwere to primitive thinking ghosts or caused by ghosts and worshipped with\nunderworld sacrifices. Hesychius[659] tells us that there was at Corinth\na family called the Wind-calmers. The Areopagos was a wind-swept hill.\nIt was thence, according to a form of the legend recorded by Plato[660],\nthat Boreas caught up Oreithyia.\n\nThe Semnae claim as their special \u2018grace[661]\u2019 control over the winds.\nAs goddesses who bring the blessings of marriage and of fertile breezes,\nthey are but good fructifying Keres like the Tritopatores already\ndiscussed (p. 179); the Erinyes are blighting poisonous Keres, who\nHarpy-like foul the food by which men live.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Erinyes, in the play of Aeschylus, are transformed into Semnae, into\nthe local goddesses of Athens. Of this there is no shadow of doubt. They\naccept the citizenship of Pallas[662], and they are actually hailed as\nSemnae[663]. Aeschylus it is true never definitely states that they\nentered the cleft of the Areopagos, but Euripides, manifestly borrowing\nfrom him, is as has been seen explicit.\n\nSuch a conversion may have been gratifying to the patriotism of an\nAthenian audience, but Athenian though he is, it is not the glorification\nof a local cult that inspires Aeschylus; it is the reconciliation of\nthe old order of vengeance with the new law of mercy. It is significant\nin this connection that Aeschylus, or some one who took his meaning,\ngave to the play the title, not as we should expect of _Semnae_, but of\n_Eumenides_. The moral of the play is thereby emphasized.\n\nIt is, to say the least, curious that a play called traditionally, if\nnot by the author, the \u2018_Eumenides_\u2019 should contain no single mention\nof the Eumenides by this name. Harpocration[664], commenting on the\nword Eumenides, says \u2018Aeschylus _in the Eumenides_, recounting what\nhappened about the trial of Orestes, says that Athene, having mollified\nthe Erinyes so that they did not deal harshly with Orestes, called them\nEumenides.\u2019 Aeschylus says no such thing. The text of the play contains\nno mention of the Eumenides, though in the hypothesis prefixed to the\ntext occur the following words: \u2018Having prevailed by the counsel of\nAthene, he (Orestes) went to Argos, and when he had mollified the Erinyes\nhe addressed them as Eumenides[665].\u2019 Harpocration attributes to Athene\nin the play what the hypothesis notes as done by Orestes in the sequel\nat Argos. By his use of the word \u2018mollified\u2019 (\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b0\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1) he betrays, I\nthink, the source of his information. It must always be remembered that\nthe Orestes legend was native to Argos and at Argos the local cult was of\nEumenides not Semnae.\n\n\nTHE EUMENIDES.\n\nThe worship of divinities bearing the name of Eumenides, though unknown\nat Athens[666], was wider-spread than that of the Semnae, which is found\nnowhere outside Attica. It was possibly for this reason that Aeschylus\nor later tradition gave this name to the play. The Semnae were familiar\nfigures at Athens, and, spite of many underworld analogies, the shift\nfrom Erinyes to Semnae must have been a difficult one. A great deal is\nborne for the glory of the gods, but there must have been among the\naudience men conservative and hard-headed who would be likely to maintain\nthat, all said and done, the Erinyes were not, could not be, Semnae. If\nasked to believe that the Erinyes became Eumenides, they would feel and\nprobably say: that is a matter for Colonos, for Argos, for Sekyon to\nconsider; it affects no Athenian\u2019s faith or practice. At Colonos it is\ncertain that goddesses were worshipped who bore the name of Eumenides,\ngoddesses of function and ritual precisely identical with the Semnae, but\naddressed by a different cultus epithet. We have the express statement\nof Sophocles[667], who, as a priest himself and a conservative, was not\nlikely to tamper with ritual titles. He makes Oedipus ask the stranger\nwho they are whose dread name he is to invoke. The answer is explicit:\n\n \u2018Eumenides all-seeing here the folk\n Would call them: other names please otherwhere.\u2019\n\nSophocles no doubt shows the influence of Aeschylus in his \u2018other names\nplease otherwhere.\u2019 He realizes that Eumenides and Semnae are \u2018one form\nof diverse names[668].\u2019 This truth it was the mission of the reconciling\nmonotheist always to preach, but he would scarcely dare to tamper with\nthe familiar titles of a local cult. In fact by this very statement, that\nelsewhere the goddesses bore other names, he makes the local appellation\ncertain. He may indeed have brought Oedipus to Colonos rather than to the\nAreopagos, where he had also a grave, just because the local attributive\ntitle of the goddesses at Colonos suited the gentle moral of his play.\n\nAgain when Oedipus asks to be taught to pray aright, the Chorus lay\nemphasis on the title Eumenides.\n\n \u2018That, as we call them Kindly, from kind hearts\n They may receive the suppliant[669].\u2019\n\nSo strong is the exclusiveness of local cults that, had the title of\nEumenides occurred only at Colonos, neither Aeschylus nor tradition would\nperhaps have ventured to assume it for the Semnae. But from Pausanias\nwe learn of sanctuaries of the Eumenides at Titane[670] near Sekyon,\nat Cerynaea[671] in Achaia, and in Arcadia near Megalopolis[672]. The\nsanctuary between Sekyon and Titane consisted of a grove and a temple.\nPausanias expressly says these belonged to the goddesses whom the\nAthenians called Semnae and the Sikyonians Eumenides. The festival in\ntheir honour was a yearly one, and has already been discussed (p. 56).\nTradition said that the sanctuary at Cerynaea was founded by Orestes, and\nthat \u2018if any one stained by blood or any other pollution, or impious,\nentered the sanctuary wishing to see it, he straightway went out of his\nwits by the terrors he beheld. The images in it were made of wood[673]\n... and they were not large.\u2019 The ritual of the sanctuary at Megalopolis,\nwith its black and white sides, addressed severally to the goddesses as\nMadnesses (Maniae) and Kindly Ones (Eumenides), has already been noted\n(p. 56). To the Madnesses Orestes sacrifices, it will be remembered, with\nunderworld rites to avert their wrath; to the Kindly Ones when healed,\nand after the same fashion as to the gods; the clearest possible instance\nof two stages of development in ritual and theology, of \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae side by\nside with \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 58.]\n\nTo these four instances of the cult of the Eumenides a fifth may safely\nbe added, the sanctuary at or near Argos. Of any such sanctuary we have\nno literary record, but we have what is of even greater value\u2014monumental\nevidence. Three votive reliefs dedicated to the Eumenides have been\nfound at the little church of Hag. Johannes, about half-an-hour to the\neast of the modern village of Argos[674]. They are still preserved in\nthe local museum of the Demarchy. The material of all three is the hard\nlocal limestone, and they must have been set up in a local sanctuary. The\nsanctuary of Titane was nearly twenty miles away, too far to admit of\nany theory of transportation. All three are inscribed, and in each the\ndedicator is a woman. The relief reproduced in fig. 58 was found built\ninto the outside of the Church of Hag. Johannes. It is clearly inscribed\n\u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd, a vow or prayer to the Eumenides. The beginning of the\ninscription is lost, but enough remains, ...\u03b7 \u0391...\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, to show that a\nwoman dedicated it, and that she was probably an Argive. It is a woman\u2019s\noffering, but she likes to have her husband carved upon it and she lets\nhim walk first. Perhaps he went with her to the sanctuary and offered\nsacrifice of honey and water and flowers and a ewe great with young[675].\n\n \u2018The first-fruits offered for accomplishment\n Of marriage and for children.\u2019\n\nAbout the figures of the Eumenides at Argos, as of the Semnae at Athens,\n\u2018there is nothing frightful.\u2019 These are not the short-girt huntress women\nof the vases, nor yet the loathly black horrors of tragedy; they are\ngentle, staid, matronly figures, bearing in their left hands, for tokens\nof fertility, flowers or fruit, and in their right, snakes[676] as the\nsymbols, not of terror and torture, but merely of that source of wealth,\nthe underworld; but for the snakes, which lend a touch of austerity,\nthey would be Charites (p. 297). From the inscriptions these reliefs are\ncertainly known to be later than Aeschylus, but because a poet writes\na great play at Athens the local stonemason does not alter the type of\nthe votive offerings he supplies. Why should he frighten pious women\nand perhaps lose his custom? The Erinys of tragedy took strong hold of\nliterature, but even at Athens there was a sceptic to whom the great\nconversion scene was merely absurd. If we may trust Suidas[677], the\ncomic poet Philemon held to it that \u2018the Semnae were quite other than the\nEumenides,\u2019 and we may be sure that the humour of the situation attempted\nwould lose nothing in his hands. Great though the influence of Aeschylus\nover the educated undoubtedly was, it was powerless to alter traditional\ntypes in art; equally powerless we may be sure to abate or alter one\njot or one tittle of hieratic ceremonial. The Erinyes remained Erinyes,\nand in popular bogey form went, as has been seen (p. 232), to people\nwith horrors a Christian hell. Man was not ready yet to worship only the\nKindly Ones. For generations, nay centuries, he must bear the hard yoke\nof \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae before he might offer to gods remade in his own image the\nfree-will offering of a kindly \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE MAKING OF A GODDESS.\n\n \u2018\u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b3\u1fc6 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c5\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd.\u2019\n\n\nIn the last chapter we have traced the development from Keres to Erinyes,\nand have seen that, on the whole, this development was a downward course.\nThe Erinyes are in a sense more civilized than the Keres; they are beings\nmore articulate, more clearly outlined and concerned with issues moral\nrather than physical; but the career they start as angry souls they end\nas Poinae, ministers of vindictive torment; there is in them no element\nof hope, no kindly impulse towards purification, they end where they\nbegan as irreconcileable demons rather than friendly gods.\n\nWe have further marked the attempt of Aeschylus to turn the vindictive\ndemons of the old religion into the gentler divinities of the new, and\nwe have seen that, for all his genius, the attempt failed wholly. The\nErinyes never, save here and there to a puzzled antiquarian, became\nreally Semnae; the popular instinct of their utter distinctness remained\nsound. We have now to note that, where the genius of a poet fails, the\nslow-moving widespread instinct of a people may prevail; ghosts are not\nwholly angry, and the gentler form of ghost may and does become a god.\n\nThe line between a spirit (\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd) and a regular god (\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2) is drawn with\nno marked precision. The difference is best realized by remembering the\nold principle that man makes all the objects of his worship in his own\nimage. Before he has himself clearly realized his own humanity\u2014the line\nthat marks him off from other animals, he makes his divinities sometimes\nwholly animal, sometimes of mixed, monstrous shapes. His animal-shaped\ngods the Greek quickly outgrew; something will be said of them when we\ncome to the religion of the Bull-Dionysos. Mixed monstrous shapes long\nhaunted his imagination; bird-woman-souls, Gorgon-bogeys, Sphinxes,\nHarpies and the like were, as has been seen, the fitting vehicles of a\nreligion that was mainly of vague fear. But as man became more conscious\nof his humanity and _pari passu_ grew more _humane_, a more complete\nanthropomorphism steadily prevailed, and in the figures of wholly human\ngods man mirrored his gentler affections, his advance in the ordered\nrelations of life.\n\nXenophanes[678], writing in the 6th century B.C., knew that God is\n\u2018without body, parts or passions,\u2019 but he knew also that, till man\nbecomes wholly philosopher, his gods are doomed perennially to take and\nretake human shape. His thrice-familiar words still bear repetition:\n\n \u2018One God there is greatest of gods and mortals;\n Not like to man is he in mind or body.\n All of him sees, all of him thinks and hearkens....\n But mortal man made gods in his own image\n Like to himself in vesture, voice and body.\n Had they but hands, methinks, oxen and lions\n And horses would have made them gods like-fashioned,\n Horse-gods for horses, oxen-gods for oxen.\u2019\n\nWe are apt to regard the advance to anthropomorphism as necessarily a\nclear religious gain. A gain it is in so far as a certain element of\nbarbarity is softened or extruded, but with this gain comes loss, the\nloss of the element of formless, monstrous mystery. The ram-headed\nKnum of the Egyptians is to the mystic more religious than any of the\nbeautiful divine humanities of the Greek. Anthropomorphism provides a\nstore of lovely motives for art, but that spirit is scarcely religious\nwhich makes of Eros a boy trundling a hoop, of Apollo a youth aiming\na stone at a lizard, of Nike a woman who stoops to tie her sandal.\nXenophanes put his finger on the weak spot of anthropomorphism. He\nsaw that it comprised and confined the god within the limitations\nof the worshipper. It is not every religion that advances as far as\nanthropomorphism, but the farthest of anthropomorphism is not very far.\n\nTraces of animal form are among the recognized Greek gods few and\nscattered. Pausanias[679] heard at Phigaleia of a horse-headed Demeter,\nand again of a fish-bodied Eurynome[680] whom some called Artemis, but\nfor the most part by the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. mixed forms, half\nanimal, half human, belong to beings half-way between man and god, demons\nrather than full-fledged divinities and demons malignant rather than\nbeneficent. Such are Boreas, Echidna, Typhon and the snake-tailed giants.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 59.]\n\nIn the design from a black-figured cylix[681] in fig. 59 we have a\ncurious and rare instance of beings of monstrous form, yet obviously\nbeneficent. The scene is a vineyard at the time of vintage. On the\nreverse (not figured here) we have the same vintage-setting, but goats,\nthe destroyers of the vine, are nibbling at the vine-stems. On the\nobverse (fig. 59) we have snake-bodied nymphs rejoicing in the grape\nharvest. Two of them hold a basket of net or wicker in which the grapes\nwill be gathered, a third holds a great cup for the vine-juice, a fourth\nplays on the double flutes.\n\nUnhappily we can give no certain name to these kindly grape-gathering,\nflute-playing snake-nymphs. They are \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, but assuredly\nthey are not Erinyes and we dare not even call them Eumenides. Probably\nany Athenian child would have named them without a moment\u2019s hesitation,\nbut we must be content to say that, in their essence, they are Charites,\ngivers of grace and increase, and that their snake-bodies mark them not\nas malevolent, but as earth-daemons, genii of fertility. They are near\nakin to the local Athenian hero, the snake-tailed Cecrops, and we are\ntempted to conjecture that in art, though not in literature, he may have\nlent his snake-tail to the Agraulid nymphs, his daughters. Later it will\nbe seen that earth-born goddesses, though they shed their snake-form,\nkeep as their vehicle and attribute the snake they once were.\n\n\nTHE MOTHER AND THE MAID.\n\nThe gods reflect not only man\u2019s human form but also his human relations.\nIn the Homeric Olympus we see mirrored a family group of the ordinary\npatriarchal type, a type so familiar that it scarcely arrests attention.\nZeus, Father of Gods and men, is supreme; Hera, though in constant and\nsignificant revolt, occupies the subordinate place of a wife; Poseidon is\na younger brother, and the rest of the Olympians are grouped about Zeus\nand Hera in the relation of sons and daughters. These sons and daughters\nare quarrelsome among themselves and in constant insurrection against\nfather and mother, but still they constitute a family, and a family\nsubject, if reluctantly, to the final authority of a father.\n\nBut when we come to examine local cults we find that, if these mirror\nthe civilization of the worshippers, this civilization is quite other\nthan patriarchal. Hera, subject in the Homeric Olympus, reigns alone\nat Argos; Athene at Athens is no god\u2019s wife, she is affiliated in some\nloose fashion to Poseidon, but the relation is one of rivalry and\nultimate conquest, nowise of subordination. At Eleusis two goddesses\nreign supreme, Demeter and Kore, the Mother and the Maid; neither Hades\nnor Triptolemos their nursling ever disputes their sway. At Delphi in\nhistorical days Apollo held the oracle, but Apollo, the priestess[682]\nknows, was preceded by a succession of women goddesses:\n\n \u2018First in my prayer before all other gods\n I call on Earth, primaeval prophetess.\n Next Themis on her mother\u2019s oracular seat\n Sat, so men say. Third by unforced consent\n Another Titan, daughter too of Earth,\n Phoebe. She gave it as a birthday gift\n To Phoebus, and giving called it by her name.\u2019\n\nGaia the Earth was first, and elsewhere Aeschylus[683] tells us that\nThemis was but another name of Gaia. Prometheus says the future was\nforetold him by his mother:\n\n \u2018Themis she\n And Gaia, one in form with many names.\u2019\n\nIn historical days in Greece, descent was for the most part traced\nthrough the father. These primitive goddesses reflect another condition\nof things, a relationship traced through the mother, the state of society\nknown by the awkward term matriarchal[684], a state echoed in the lost\n_Catalogues of Women_, the _Eoiai_ of Hesiod, and in the Boeotian\nheroines of the _Nekuia_. Our modern patriarchal society focusses its\nreligious anthropomorphism on the relationship of the father and the son;\nthe Roman Church with her wider humanity includes indeed the figure of\nthe Mother who is both Mother and Maid, but she is still in some sense\nsubordinate to the Father and the Son.\n\nOf the many survivals of matriarchal notions in Greek mythology one\nsalient instance may be noted. St Augustine[685], telling the story\nof the rivalry between Athene and Poseidon, says that the contest was\ndecided by the vote of the citizens, both men and women, for it was the\ncustom then for women to take part in public affairs. The men voted for\nPoseidon, the women for Athene; the women exceeded the men by one and\nAthene prevailed. To appease the wrath of Poseidon the men inflicted on\nthe women a triple punishment, \u2018they were to lose their vote, _their\nchildren were no longer to be called by their mother\u2019s name_ and they\nthemselves were no longer to be called after their goddess, Athenians.\u2019\n\nThe myth is aetiological, and it mirrors surely some shift in the social\norganization of Athens. The citizens were summoned by Cecrops, and it\nis noticeable that with his name universal tradition associates the\nintroduction of the patriarchal form of marriage. Athenaeus[686] quoting\nfrom Clearchos, the pupil of Aristotle, says, \u2018At Athens Cecrops was the\nfirst to join one woman to one man: before connections had taken place\nat random and marriages were in common\u2014hence, as some think, Cecrops\nwas called \u201cTwy-formed\u201d (\u03b4\u03b9\u03c6\u03c5\u03ae\u03c2), since before his day people did not\nknow who their fathers were, on account of the number (of possible\nparents).\u2019 A society that had passed to patriarchy naturally misjudged\nthe marriage-laws of matriarchy and regarded it as a mere state of\npromiscuity. Cecrops, tradition[687] said, was the first to call Zeus the\nHighest, and with the worship of Zeus the Father it is possible that he\nintroduced the social conditions of patriarchy. Apollo, the son of Zeus,\nwas worshipped at Athens as _Patr\u00f4os_.\n\nThe primitive Greek was of course not conscious that he mirrored his\nown human relations in the figures of his gods, but, in the reflective\ndays of Pythagoras, the analogy between human and divine was not left\nunnoted. The evidence he adduces as to the piety of women is perhaps the\nmost illuminating comment on primitive theology ever made by ancient or\nmodern. \u2018Women,\u2019 he[688] says, \u2018give to each successive stage of their\nlife the same name as a god, they call the unmarried woman _Maiden_\n(\u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7), the woman given in marriage to a man _Bride_ (\u039d\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b7), her who\nhas borne children _Mother_ (\u039c\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1), and her who has borne children\u2019s\nchildren _Grandmother_ (\u039c\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1).\u2019 Invert the statement and we have the\nwhole matriarchal theology in a nutshell. The matriarchal goddesses\nreflect the life of women, not women the life of the goddesses.\n\nOf these various forms of the conditions of woman, woman as maiden,\nbride, mother and grandmother, the last, grandmother, comes little\ninto prominence; it only lends a name to Maia, the mother of Hermes.\nNymphs we have everywhere, but the two cardinal conditions are obviously\nto a primitive society Mother[689] and Maiden. When these conditions\ncrystallized into the goddess forms of Demeter and Kore, they appear\nas Mother and _Daughter_, but primarily the conditions expressed are\nMother and Maid, woman mature and woman before maturity, and of these\ntwo forms the Mother-form as more characteristic is, in early days, the\nmore prominent; Kore _as daughter_ rather than maiden is the product of\nmythology. When we come to the religion of Dionysos, it will be seen that\nthe Mother-goddess has for her attribute of motherhood a son rather than\na daughter.\n\n\nTHE EARTH-MOTHER AS KARPOPHOROS OR LADY OF THE WILD THINGS.\n\nThe Mother-goddess was almost necessarily envisaged as the Earth. The\nancient Dove-priestesses at Dodona[690] were the first to chant the\nLitany:\n\n \u2018Zeus was, Zeus is, Zeus shall be, O great Zeus.\n Earth sends up fruits, so praise we Earth the Mother.\u2019\n\nThe two lines have no necessary connection; it may be that their order\nis inverted and that long before the Dove-priestesses sang the praises\nof Zeus they had chanted their hymn to the Mother. It was fitting that\nwomen priestesses should sing to a woman goddess, to Ga who was also\nMa. Mother-Earth bore not only fruits but the race of man. As the poet\nAsius[691] said:\n\n \u2018Divine Pelasgos on the wood-clad hills\n Black Earth brought forth, that mortal man might be.\u2019\n\nPelasgos claimed no father, but he, the first father, had a mother.\nAnd here it must be noted that the local mother must necessarily have\npreceded Gaia the abstract and universal. Primitive man does not tend\nto deal in abstractions. Each local hero claimed descent from a local\nearth-nymph or mother[692]. Salamis, Aegina and \u2018dear mother Ida\u2019 are not\nlate geographical abstractions; each is a local mother, a real parent,\nand all are later merged in the great All-Mother Ge.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 60.]\n\nThe Earth-Mother and each and every local nymph was mother not only of\nman but of all creatures that live; she is the \u2018Lady of the Wild Things\u2019\n(\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd). Art brings her figure very clearly before us. On an early\nstamped Boeotian amphora[693] in the National Museum at Athens (figs. 60\nand 61) she is vividly presented. The Great Mother stands with uplifted\nhands exactly in the attitude of the still earlier figures recently\ndiscovered in the Mycenaean shrine at Cnossos. To either side of her is\na lion, heraldically posed like the lions of the Gate at Mycenae; below\nher is a frieze of deer. The figure is supported or rather encircled by\ntwo women figures, one at either side. These seem to be part of a ring of\nencircling worshippers[694].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 61.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 62.]\n\nThe design in fig. 62 from a painted Boeotian amphora[695], also in the\nMuseum at Athens, shows a similar and even more complete conception of\nthe \u2018Lady of the Wild Things.\u2019 Her two lions still keep heraldic guard,\nabove her outstretched arms are two birds[696], her gown is decorated\nwith the figure of a great fish. We are reminded of the Eurynome of\nPhigalia with her fish-tailed body.\n\nThe interesting thing about these early representations, these and\ncountless others, is that we can give the goddess no proper name. We\ncall her rightly the Great Mother and the \u2018Lady of the Wild Things,\u2019 but\nfarther we cannot go. She has been named Artemis and Cybele, but for\nneither name is there a particle of evidence.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 63.]\n\nThe Great Mother is mother of the dead as well as the living. The design\nin fig. 63 is from the interior of a rock-hewn tomb in Phrygia[697]. The\ngreat figure of the Mother and her lions occupies the whole height of the\nback wall of the tomb. \u2018All things,\u2019 as Cicero[698] says, \u2018go back to\nearth and rise out of the earth.\u2019 \u2018Dust we are, and unto dust we shall\nreturn,\u2019 and more tenderly Aeschylus[699]:\n\n \u2018Yea, summon Earth, who brings all things to life\n And rears and takes again into her womb.\u2019\n\nAnd so the Mother herself keeps ward in the _metro_polis of the dead, and\ntherefore \u2018the Athenians of old called the dead \u201cDemeter\u2019s people\u201d[700].\u2019\nOn the festival day of the dead, the _Nekusia_ at Athens, they sacrificed\nto Earth. To a people who practised inhumation, such ritual and such\nsymbolism were almost inevitable. When the Earth-Mother developed into\nthe Corn-Mother, such symbolism gained new life and force from the\nprocesses of agriculture. Cicero[701] records that in his day it was\nstill the custom to sow the graves of the dead with corn: \u2018that which\nthou sowest is not quickened except it die[702].\u2019 Out of the symbolism of\nthe corn sown the Greeks did _not_ develope a doctrine of immortality,\nbut, when that doctrine came to them from without, the symbolism of the\nseed lay ready to hand.\n\n\nTHE MOTHER AS KOUROTROPHOS.\n\nEarly art figures the Mother in quaint instructive fashion as\n_Kourotrophos_, the Child-Rearer. As such she appears in the design in\nfig. 64 taken from an early black-figured amphora of the 6th century\nB.C. in the British Museum[703]. This figure of the Mother is usually\nexplained as Leto with the twins Apollo and Artemis, but such an\ninterpretation is, I think, over-bold, and really misleading. The artist\nknows that there is a Mother-Goddess; one child would be sufficient\nas an attribute of motherhood, but in his quaint primitive fashion he\nwishes to emphasise her motherhood, he gives her all the children she can\nconveniently hold, one on each shoulder.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 64.]\n\nWe have no right to name the children Apollo and Artemis, unless\ninscribed or marked as such by attributes. This is clear from the\nfact that, on a fragment of a vase found in the Acropolis excavations\nand unhappily still unpublished, we have a figure closely analogous,\nthough later in style, to our Kourotrophos, bearing on her elbows two\nlittle naked imps _who are inscribed_: the one is _Himeros_, the other\n_E_(ros). The mother can in this case be none other than Aphrodite. The\nattribution is confirmed by another fragment[704] in which only half of\nthe Mother-goddess is preserved and one child seated on her elbow; the\nchild is not inscribed, but against the mother, in archaic letters, is\nwritten _Aphrodi_(te); near her as on our vase is standing Dionysos.\n\nPausanias[705], when examining the chest of Cypselos, saw a design on\nwhich was represented \u2018a woman carrying a white boy sleeping on her right\narm; on the other arm she has a black boy who is like the one who is\nasleep; they both have their feet twisted (\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2); the inscriptions show that the boys are Death and Sleep, and that\nNight is the nurse of both.\u2019 He adds the rather surprising statement that\nit \u2018would have been easy to see who they were without the inscriptions.\u2019\n\nA woman with a child on each arm can then represent Aphrodite with\nHimeros and Eros; if one child is white and asleep and the other black,\nthe group represents Night with Death and Sleep; if the group is to\nrepresent Leto and her twins, there must be something to mark the twins\nas Apollo and Artemis. On another amphora in the British Museum[706]\nthere does exist just the necessary differentiation: the child on the\nleft arm is naked, the child on the right though also painted black\nwears a short chiton. We are justified in supposing that the one is a\nboy the other a girl, and there is at least a high probability that the\ndifferentiation of sex points to Apollo and Artemis.\n\nI have dwelt on this point because vase-paintings are here, as so\noften, highly instructive in the matter of the development and slow\ndifferentiation and articulation of theological types. At first all is\nvague and misty; there is, as it were, a blank formula, a mother-goddess\ncharacterized by twins. If we give her a name at all she is Kourotrophos.\nAs her personality grows she differentiates, she is Aphrodite with Eros\nand Himeros, she is Night with Sleep and Death. When Apollo and Artemis\ncame from the North they became _the_ twins _par excellence_, and they\nare affiliated to the old religion; the Mother as Kourotrophos became\nLeto with Apollo and Artemis.\n\nThe like process goes on in literature, though it is less obviously\nmanifest. At the opening of the Thesmophoria the Woman-Herald in\nAristophanes[707] makes proclamation as follows:\n\n \u2018Keep solemn silence. Keep solemn silence. Pray to the two\n Thesmophoroi, to Demeter, and to Kore, and to Plouton, and\n to Kalligeneia, and to Kourotrophos, and to Hermes, and the\n Charites.\u2019\n\nDiscussion from the time of the scholiast onwards has raged as to who\nKourotrophos is\u2014is she Hestia, is she Ge? The simple truth is never\nfaced that she is _Kourotrophos_, an attribute become a personality.\nHer personality, it is true, faded before the dominant personality of\nthe Mother of Eleusis, but her presence in the ancient ritual-formulary\nspeaks clearly for her original actuality. Once she had faded, all the\nother more successful goddesses, Ge, Artemis, Hekate, Leto, Demeter,\nAphrodite, even Athene, contend for her name as their epithet. There is\nno controversy so idle and apparently so prolific as that which seeks to\nfind in these ancient inchoate personalities, such as Kourotrophos and\nKalligeneia, the epithets of the Olympians they so long predated.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe figure of the Mother as Kourotrophos lent itself easily to later\nabstractions. Themis is one of the earliest, and she attains a real\npersonality; her sisters Eunomia and Dike are scarcely flesh and blood,\nthey are beautiful stately shadows. The \u2018making of a goddess\u2019 is always\na mystery, the outcome of manifold causes of which we have lost count.\nAt the close of the 5th century B.C. at the end of the weary, fatal\nPeloponnesian war, Eirene, Peace, almost attained godhead, and godhead as\nthe Mother. Cephisodotos, father of Praxiteles, made for the market-place\nat Athens a statue of her carrying the child Ploutos, the Athenians built\nher an altar and did sacrifice to her, Aristophanes brings her on the\nstage, but it is all too late and in vain, she remains an abstraction as\nlifeless as Theoria or Opora, and finds no place among the humanities of\nOlympus.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 65.]\n\nTyche, Fortune, another late abstraction of the Mother, though she\nis scarcely more human than Eirene, obtained a wide popularity.\nPausanias[708] saw at Thebes a sanctuary of Tyche; he remarks after\nnaming the artists, \u2018it was a clever plan of them to put Ploutos in\nthe arms of Tyche as his mother or nurse, and Cephisodotos was no less\nclever; he made for the Athenians the image of Eirene holding Ploutos.\u2019\n\nThese abstractions, Tyche, Ananke and the like, were popular with the\nOrphics. Their very lack of personality favoured a growing philosophic\nmonotheism. The design in fig. 65 is carved in low relief on one of the\ncolumns of the Hall of the Mystae of Dionysos, recently excavated at\nMelos[709]. Tyche holds a child\u2014presumably the local Ploutos of Melos\u2014in\nher arms. Above her is inscribed, \u2018May Agathe Tyche of Melos be gracious\nto Alexandros, the founder of the holy Mystae.\u2019 Tyche, Fortune, might\nbe, to the uninitiated, the Patron, the Good Luck of any and every city,\nbut to the mystic she had another and a deeper meaning; she, like the\nAgathos Daimon, was the inner Fate of his life and soul. In her house,\nas will later be seen (Chap. XI.), he lodged, observing rules of purity\nand abstinence before he was initiated into the underworld mysteries of\nTrophonios, before he drank of the waters of Lethe and Mnemosyne. It is\none of the countless instances in which the Orphics went back behind the\nOlympian divinities and mysticized the earlier figures of the Mother or\nthe Daughter.\n\n\nDEMETER AND KORE.\n\nSo long as and wherever man lived for the most part by hunting, the\nfigure of the \u2018Lady of the Wild Things\u2019 would content his imagination.\nBut, when he became an agriculturist, the Mother-goddess must perforce\nbe, not only Kourotrophos of all living things, but also the Corn-mother,\nDemeter.\n\nThe derivation of the name Demeter has been often discussed[710]. The\nmost popular etymology is that which makes her \u0394\u03b1\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, Earth-mother,\n\u0394\u1fb6, which occurs in such interjections[711] as \u03c6\u03b5\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1fb6, \u03bf\u1f30\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1fb6, being\nregarded as the equivalent of \u0393\u1fb6. From the point of view of meaning this\netymology is nowise satisfactory. Demeter is _not_ the Earth-Mother, not\nthe goddess of the earth in general, but of the fruits of the civilized,\ncultured earth, the _tilth_; not the \u2018Lady of the Wild Things,\u2019 but\nShe-who-bears-fruits, _Karpophoros_. Mannhardt was the first to point\nout another etymology, more consonant with this notion. The author\nof the _Etymologicon Magnum_[712], after stringing together a whole\nseries of senseless conjectures, at last stumbles on what looks like\nthe truth. \u2018Deo,\u2019 he says, \u2018may be derived from \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b7\u03ac\u03c2, for barley\ngrains are called by the Cretans \u03b4\u03b7\u03b1\u03af.\u2019 The Cretan word \u03b4\u03b7\u03b1\u03af is near\nakin to the ordinary Greek \u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03ac, the word used for a coarse wheat or\nspelt; the fruitful field in Homer[713] bears the epithet \u03b6\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u2018spelt-yielding.\u2019 Demeter, it will later be seen (p. 565), probably came\nfrom Crete, and brought her name with her; she is the Earth, but only in\nthis limited sense, as \u2018Grain-Mother.\u2019\n\nTo the modern mind it is surprising to find the processes of agriculture\nconducted in the main by women, and mirroring themselves in the figures\nof women-goddesses. But in days when man was mainly concerned with\nhunting and fighting it was natural enough that agriculture and the\nritual attendant on it should fall to the women. Moreover to this\nsocial necessity was added, and still is among many savage communities,\na deep-seated element of superstition. \u2018Primitive man,\u2019 Mr Payne[714]\nobserves, \u2018refuses to interfere in agriculture; he thinks it magically\ndependent for success on woman, and connected with child-bearing.\u2019 \u2018When\nthe women plant maize,\u2019 said the Indian to Gumilla, \u2018the stalk produces\ntwo or three ears. Why? Because women know how to produce children. They\nonly know how to plant corn to ensure its germinating. Then let them\nplant it, they know more than we know.\u2019 Such seems to have been the mind\nof the men of Athens who sent their wives and daughters to keep the\nThesmophoria and work their charms and ensure fertility for crops and man.\n\nIt was mainly in connection with agriculture, it would seem, that the\nEarth-goddess developed her double form as Mother and Maid. The ancient\n\u2018Lady of the Wild Things\u2019 is both in one or perhaps not consciously\neither, but at Eleusis the two figures are clearly outlined; Demeter and\nKore are two persons though one god. They take shape very charmingly in\nthe design in fig. 66, from an early red-figured skyphos[715], found\nat Eleusis. To the left Demeter stands, holding in her left hand her\nsceptre, while with her right she gives the corn-ears to her nursling,\nTriptolemos, who holds his \u2018crooked plough.\u2019 Behind is Kore, the maiden,\nwith her simple chiton for dress, and her long flowing hair, and the\ntorches she holds as Queen of the underworld. Mother and Maid in this\npicture are clearly distinguished, but not infrequently, when both appear\ntogether, it is impossible to say which is which.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 66.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe relation of these early matriarchal, husbandless goddesses, whether\nMother or Maid, to the male figures that accompany them is one altogether\nnoble and womanly, though perhaps not what the modern mind holds to be\nfeminine. It seems to halt somewhere half-way between Mother and Lover,\nwith a touch of the patron saint. Aloof from achievement themselves, they\nchoose a local hero for their own to inspire and protect. They ask of\nhim, not that he should love or adore, but that he should do great deeds.\nHera has Jason, Athene Perseus, Herakles and Theseus, Demeter and Kore\nTriptolemos. And as their glory is in the hero\u2019s high deeds, so their\ngrace is his guerdon. With the coming of patriarchal conditions this high\ncompanionship ends. The women goddesses are sequestered to a servile\ndomesticity, they become abject and amorous.\n\nIt is important to note that primarily the two forms of the Earth or\nCorn-goddess are not Mother and _Daughter_, but Mother and Maiden,\nDemeter and Kore. They are, in fact, merely the older and younger form of\nthe same person, hence their easy confusion. The figures of the Mother\nand _Daughter_ are mythological rather than theological, i.e. they arise\nfrom the story-telling instinct:\n\n \u2018Demeter of the beauteous hair, goddess divine, I sing,\n She and the slender-ancled maid, her daughter, whom the king\n A\u00efdoneus seized, by Zeus\u2019 decree. He found her, as she played\n Far from her mother\u2019s side, who reaps the corn with golden blade[716].\u2019\n\nThe corn is reaped and the earth desolate in winter-time. Aetiology is\nready with a human love-story. The maiden, the young fruit of the earth,\nwas caught by a lover, kept for a season, and in the spring-time returns\nto her mother; the mother is comforted, and the earth blossoms again[717]:\n\n \u2018Thus she spake, and then did Demeter the garlanded yield\n And straightway let spring up the fruit of the loamy field,\n And all the breadth of the earth, with leaves and blossoming things\n Was heavy. Then she went forth to the law-delivering kings\n And taught them, Triptolemos first.\u2019\n\nMythology might work its will, but primitive art never clearly\ndistinguished between the Mother and the Maid, never lost hold of the\ntruth that they were one goddess. On the Boeotian plate[718] in fig.\n67 is figured the Corn-goddess, but whether as Mother or Maid it is\ndifficult, I incline to think impossible, to decide. She is a great\ngoddess, enthroned and heavily draped, wearing a high polos on her\nhead. She holds ears of corn, a pomegranate, a torch; before her is an\nomphalos-like altar, on it what looks like a pomegranate\u2014is she Demeter\nor Persephone? I incline to think she is both in one; the artist has not\ndifferentiated her.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 67.]\n\nThe dead, according to Plutarch\u2019s[719] statement, were called by the\nAthenians \u2018Demeter\u2019s people.\u2019 The ancient \u2018Lady of the Wild Things,\u2019\nwith her guardian lions, keeps ward over the dead in the tombs of\nAsia Minor, and every grave became her sanctuary. But in Greece\nproper, and especially at Eleusis, where the Mother and the Maid take\nmythological, differentiated form as Demeter and her daughter Persephone,\ntheir individual functions tend more and more to specialize. Demeter\nbecomes more and more agricultural, more and more the actual corn. As\nPlutarch[720] observes\u2014with full consciousness of the anomalous blend of\nthe human and the physical\u2014a poet can say of the reapers:\n\n \u2018What time men shear to earth Demeter\u2019s limbs.\u2019\n\nThe Mother takes the physical side, the Daughter the spiritual\u2014the Mother\nis more and more of the upper air, the Daughter of the underworld.\n\nDemeter as Thesmophoros has for her sphere more and more the things of\nthis life, laws and civilized marriage; she grows more and more human and\nkindly, goes more and more over to the humane Olympians, till in the\nHomeric Hymn she, the Earth-Mother, is an actual denizen of Olympus. The\nDaughter, at first but the young form of the mother, is in maiden fashion\nsequestered, even a little _farouche_; she withdraws herself more and\nmore to the kingdom of the spirit, the things below and beyond:\n\n \u2018She waits for each and other,\n She waits for all men born,\n Forgets the earth her mother,\n The life of fruits and corn.\n And spring and seed and swallow\n Take wing for her and follow\n Where summer song rings hollow\n And flowers are put to scorn.\u2019\n\nAnd in that kingdom aloof her figure waxes as the figure of the Mother\nwanes:\n\n \u2018O daughter of earth, my mother, her crown and blossom of birth,\n I am also I also thy brother, I go as I came unto earth.\u2019\n\nShe passes to a place unknown of the Olympians, her kingdom is not of\nthis world.\n\n \u2018Thou art more than the Gods, who number the days of our temporal\n breath,\n For these give labour and slumber, but thou, Proserpina, Death.\u2019\n\nAll this is matter of late development. At first we have merely the\nfigures of the Two Goddesses, the Two Thesmophoroi, the Two Despoinae.\nDemeter at Hermione is Chthonia, in Arcadia[721] she is at once Erinys\nand Lousia. But it is not surprising that, as will later be seen, a\nreligion like Orphism, which concerned itself with the abnegation of this\nworld and the life of the soul hereafter, laid hold rather of the figure\nof the underworld Kore, and left the prosperous, genial Corn-Mother to\nmake her way alone into Olympus.\n\n\nTHE ANODOS OF THE MAIDEN EARTH-GODDESSES.\n\nIn discussing the Boeotian plate (fig. 67), it has been seen that it\nis not easy always to distinguish in art the figures of the Mother and\nthe Maid. A like difficulty attends the interpretation of the series of\ncurious representations of the earth-goddess now to be considered (figs.\n68-72).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 68.]\n\nWe begin with the vase-painting in fig. 68, where happily an inscription\nmakes the interpretation certain. The design is from a red-figured\nkrater, now in the Albertinum Museum at Dresden[722]. To the right is a\nconventional earth-mound (\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2). In front of it stands Hermes. He\nholds not his _kerykeion_, but a rude forked _rhabdos_. It was with the\n_rhabdos_, it will be remembered (p. 44), that he summoned the souls from\nthe grave-_pithos_. Here, too, he is present as Psychagogos; he has come\nto summon an earth-spirit, nay more, _the_ Earth-goddess herself. Out\nof the artificial mound, which symbolizes the earth itself, rises the\nfigure of a woman. At first sight we might be inclined to call her Ge,\nthe Earth-_Mother_, but the figure is slight and maidenly, and over her\nhappily is written (Phe)rophatta. It is the Anodos of Kore\u2014the coming of\nthe goddess is greeted by an ecstatic dance of goat-horned _Panes_. They\nare not Satyrs: these, as will later be seen (p. 380), are horse demons.\nBy the early middle of the 5th century B.C., the date of this red-figured\nvase, the worship of the Arcadian Pan was well-established at Athens, and\nthe goat-men, the Panes, became the fashionable and fitting attendants of\nthe Earth-Maiden. The inscriptions above their heads can, unfortunately,\nnot be read.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 69.]\n\nA vase of much later date (fig. 69) shows us substantially the same\nscene. The design is from a red-figured krater[723] in the Berlin\nAntiquarium. The goddess again rises from an artificial mound decorated\nwith sprays of foliage. The attendant figures are different. A\ngoat-legged Pan leans eagerly over the mound, but Dionysos himself, with\nhis thyrsos, sits quietly waiting the Anodos, and with him are his real\nattendants, the horse-tailed Satyrs. In the left-hand corner a little\nwinged Love-god plays on the double flutes. The rising goddess is not\ninscribed, and she is best left unnamed. She is an Earth-goddess, but\nthe presence of Dionysos makes us suspect that there is some reminiscence\nof Semele (p. 407). The presence of the Love-god points, as will be\nexplained later (Chap. XII.), to the influence of Orphism.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 70.]\n\nMore curious, more instructive, but harder completely to explain, is the\ndesign in fig. 70, from a black-figured lekythos in the Biblioth\u00e8que\nNationale[724] at Paris. The colossal head and lifted hands of a woman\nare rising out of the earth. This time there is no artificial mound, the\nscene takes place in a temple or sanctuary, indicated by the two bounding\ncolumns. Two men, not Satyrs, are present, and this time not as idle\nspectators. Both are armed with great mallets or hammers, and one of them\nstrikes the head of the rising woman.\n\nSome possible light is thrown on this difficult vase by the consideration\nof two others. First we have two designs from the obverse and reverse\nof an amphora[725], shown together in fig. 71. On the obverse to the\nleft we have a scene fairly familiar, a goddess rising from the ground,\nwatched by a youth, who holds in his hand some sort of implement, either\na pick or a hammer. The meaning of the reverse design is conjectural.\nA man, short of stature and almost deformed in appearance, looks at\na curious and problematic figure, half woman and half vase, set on a\nquadrangular basis. Before it, if the drawing be correct, is a spiked\ncrown; round about, in the field, a number of rosettes. A design so\nproblematic is not likely to be a forgery. Before its meaning is\nconjectured, another vase, whose interpretation is perfectly clear and\ncertain, remains to be considered. Its meaning may serve to elucidate the\nothers.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 71.]\n\nThe design in fig. 72 is from a red-figured amphora[726] of the finest\nperiod, in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford. At a first glance, when we\nsee the splendid figure rising from the ground with outstretched arms,\nthe man with the hammer and Hermes attendant, we think that we have the\nfamiliar scene of the rising of Kore or Ge. As such, had no inscriptions\nexisted, the design would certainly have been interpreted. But, as it\nhappens, each figure is carefully inscribed. To the left _Zeus_, next to\nhim _Hermes_, next _Epimetheus_, and last, not Ge or Kore, but _Pandora_.\nOver Pandora, to greet her uprising, hovers a Love-god with a fillet in\nhis outstretched hands.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 72.]\n\nPandora rises from the earth; she _is_ the Earth, giver of all gifts.\nThis is made doubly sure by another representation of her birth or rather\nher making. On the well-known _Bale_-cylix of the British Museum[727]\nPandora, half statue half woman, has just been modelled by Hephaistos,\nand Athene is in the act of decking her. Pandora she certainly is, but\nagainst her is written her other name (A)nesidora[728], \u2018she who sends up\ngifts.\u2019 Pandora is a form or title of the Earth-goddess in the Kore form,\nentirely humanized and vividly personified by mythology.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the light of this substantial identity of Pandora and the Earth-Kore,\nit is possible perhaps to offer an explanation of the problematic vase\nin fig. 71. Have we not on obverse and reverse a juxtaposition of the\ntwo scenes, the Rise of Kore, the Making of Pandora? On this showing the\nshort deformed man would be Hephaistos, and Pandora, half woman half\nvase, may be conceived as issuing from her once famous _pithos_.\n\nThe _contaminatio_ of the myths of the Making of Pandora and the Anodos\nof Kore may explain also another difficulty. In the making and moulding\nof Pandora, Hephaistos the craftsman uses his characteristic implement,\nthe hammer[729]. This hammer he also uses to break open the head of Zeus,\nin representations of the birth of Athene (p. 366). On vases with the\nAnodos of Kore the Satyrs or _Panes_ carry and use sometimes an ordinary\npick, sometimes a hammer, like the hammer of Hephaistos. The pick is the\nnatural implement for breaking clods of earth, the spade appears to have\nbeen unknown before the iron age\u2014the hammers have always presented a\ndifficulty. May they not have arisen in connection with the myth of the\nmaking of Pandora, and then, by confusion, passed to the Anodos of Kore?\n\nFinally, returning to the difficult design in fig. 70, I would offer\nanother suggestion. The fact that the scene takes place in a sanctuary\nseems to me to indicate that we have here a representation of some sort\nof mimetic ritual. The Anodos of Kore was, as has already been seen (p.\n131), dramatized at certain festivals; exactly how we do not know. At the\nfestival of the _Charila_ (p. 107) a puppet dressed as a girl was brought\nout, beaten, and ultimately hanged in a chasm. Is it not possible that\nat some festival of the Earth-goddess there was a mimetic enactment of\nthe Anodos, that the earth or some artificially-formed chasm was broken\nopen by picks, and that a puppet or a real woman emerged. It is more\nlikely, I think, that the vase-painter had some such scene in his mind\nthan that the Satyrs with their picks or hammers represent the storm and\nlightning from heaven beating on the earth to subdue it and compel its\nfertility[730]. At Megara, near the Prytaneion, Pausanias[731] saw \u2018a\nrock which was called Anaklethra[732], \u201cCalling Up,\u201d because Demeter,\nif anyone like to believe it, when she was wandering in search of her\ndaughter, called her up there.\u2019 He adds, \u2018the women of Megara to this day\nperform rites that are analogous to the legend told.\u2019 Unhappily he does\nnot tell us what these rites were. Lucian devotes a half-serious treatise\nto discussing the scope and merits of pantomimic dancing, Xenophon[733]\nin his _Banquet_ lets us see that educated guests after dinner preferred\nthe acting of a myth to the tumbling of a dancing girl, but the actual\n_ritual_ pantomime of the ancients is to us a sealed book. Of one thing\nwe may be sure, that the \u2018things done\u2019 (\u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1) of ritual helped to\nintensify mythological impersonation as much as, or perhaps more than,\nthe \u2018things spoken\u2019 (\u1f14\u03c0\u03b7) of the poet.\n\n\nPANDORA.\n\nTo the primitive matriarchal Greek Pandora was then a real goddess,\nin form and name, of the Earth, and men did sacrifice to her. By the\ntime of Aristophanes[734] she had become a misty figure, her ritual\narchaic\u2014matter for the oracles of \u2018Bakis.\u2019 The prophet instructing\nPeisthetairos reads from his script:\n\n \u2018First to Pandora sacrifice a white-fleeced ram.\u2019\n\nThe scholiast gives the correct and canonical interpretation \u2018to Pandora,\nthe earth, because she bestows all things necessary for life.\u2019 By his\ntime, and long before, explanation was necessary. Hipponax[735] knew of\nher; Athenaeus, in his discussion of cabbages, quotes from memory the\nmysterious lines:\n\n \u2018He grovelled, worshipping the seven-leaved cabbage\n To which Pandora sacrificed a cake\n At the Thargelia for a pharmakos.\u2019\n\nThe passage, though obscure, is of interest because it connects Pandora\nthe Earth-goddess with the Thargelia, the festival of the first-fruits\nof the Earth. Effaced in popular ritual she emerges in private\nsuperstition. Philostratos[736], in his _Life of Apollonius_, tells how\na certain man, in need of money to dower his daughter, \u2018sacrificed\u2019 to\nEarth for treasure, and Apollonius, to whom he confided his desire,\nsaid, \u2018Earth and I will help you,\u2019 and he prayed to Pandora, sought in a\ngarden, and found the desired treasure.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPandora is in ritual and matriarchal theology the earth as Kore, but\nin the patriarchal mythology of Hesiod her great figure is strangely\nchanged and minished. She is no longer Earth-born, but the creature,\nthe handiwork of Olympian Zeus. On a late, red-figured krater in the\nBritish Museum[737], obviously inspired by Hesiod, we have the scene\nof her birth. She no longer rises halfway from the ground, but stands\nstiff and erect in the midst of the Olympians. Zeus is there seated with\nsceptre and thunderbolt, Poseidon is there, Iris and Hermes and Ares\nand Hera, and Athene about to crown the new-born maiden. Earth is all\nbut forgotten, and yet so haunting is tradition that, in a lower row,\nbeneath the Olympians, a chorus of men, disguised as goat-horned Panes,\nstill dance their welcome. It is a singular reminiscence, and, save as a\nsurvival, wholly irrelevant.\n\nHesiod loves the story of the Making of Pandora: he has shaped it to\nhis own _bourgeois_, pessimistic ends; he tells it twice. Once in the\n_Theogony_[738], and here the new-born maiden has no name, she is just\na \u2018beautiful evil,\u2019 a \u2018crafty snare\u2019 to mortals. But in the _Works and\nDays_[739] he dares to name her and yet with infinite skill to wrest her\nglory into shame:\n\n \u2018He spake, and they did the will of Zeus, son of Kronos, the Lord,\n For straightway the Halting One, the Famous, at his word\n Took clay and moulded an image, in form of a maiden fair,\n And Athene, the gray-eyed goddess girt her and decked her hair.\n And about her the Graces divine and our Lady Persuasion set\n Bracelets of gold on her flesh; and about her others yet,\n The Hours with their beautiful hair, twined wreaths of blossoms of\n spring,\n While Pallas Athene still ordered her decking in everything.\n Then put the Argus-slayer, the marshal of souls to their place,\n Tricks and flattering words in her bosom and thievish ways.\n He wrought by the will of Zeus, the Loud-thundering giving her voice,\n Spokesman of gods that he is, and for name of her this was his choice,\n PANDORA, because in Olympus the gods joined together then\n And _all_ of them gave her, a _gift_, a sorrow, to covetous men.\u2019\n\nThrough all the magic of a poet, caught and enchanted himself by the\nvision of a lovely woman, there gleams the ugly malice of theological\nanimus. Zeus the Father will have no great Earth-goddess, Mother and\nMaid in one, in his man-fashioned Olympus, but her figure _is_ from the\nbeginning, so he re-makes it; woman, who was the inspirer, becomes the\ntemptress; she who made all things, gods and mortals alike, is become\ntheir plaything, their slave, dowered only with physical beauty, and\nwith a slave\u2019s tricks and blandishments. To Zeus, the archpatriarchal\n_bourgeois_, the birth of the first woman is but a huge Olympian\njest[740]:\n\n \u2018He spake and the Sire of men and of gods immortal laughed.\u2019\n\nSuch myths are a necessary outcome of the shift from matriarchy to\npatriarchy, and the shift itself, spite of a seeming retrogression, is\na necessary stage in a real advance. Matriarchy gave to women a false\nbecause a magical prestige. With patriarchy came inevitably the facing\nof a real fact, the fact of the greater natural weakness of women. Man\nthe stronger, when he outgrew his belief in the magical potency of\nwoman, proceeded by a pardonable practical logic to despise and enslave\nher as the weaker. The future held indeed a time when the non-natural,\nmystical truth came to be apprehended, that the stronger had a need, real\nand imperative, of the weaker. Physically nature had from the outset\ncompelled a certain recognition of this truth, but that the physical was\na sacrament of the spiritual was a hard saying, and its understanding\nwas not granted to the Greek, save here and there where a flicker of the\ntruth gleamed and went through the vision of philosopher or poet.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSo the great figure of the Earth-goddess, Pandora, suffered eclipse:\nshe sank to be a beautiful, curious woman; she opened her great\ngrave-_pithos_[741], she that was Mother of Life; the Keres fluttered\nforth, bringing death and disease;\u2014only Hope remained. Strangely enough,\nwhen the great figure of the Earth-Mother re-emerges, she re-emerges, it\nwill later be seen, as Aphrodite.\n\n\nTHE MAIDEN-TRINITIES.\n\nSo far we have seen that a goddess, to the primitive Greek, took twofold\nform, and this twofold form, shifting and easily interchangeable, is seen\nto resolve itself very simply into the two stages of a woman\u2019s life, as\nMaiden and Mother. But Greek religion has besides the twofold Mother and\nMaiden a number of _triple_ forms, Women-Trinities, which at first sight\nare not so readily explicable. We find not only three Gorgons and three\nGraiae, but three Semnae, three Moirae, three Charites, three Horae,\nthree Agraulids, and, as a multiple of three, nine Muses.\n\nFirst it should be noted that the trinity-form is confined to the\nwomen goddesses. Greek religion had in Zeus and Apollo the figures of\nthe father and the son, but of a male trinity we find no trace. Zeus\nand Apollo, incomers from the North, stand alone in this matter of\nrelationship. We do not find the fatherhood of Poseidon emphasized, nor\nthe sonship of Hermes; there is no wide and universal development of the\nfather and the son as there was of the Mother and the Maiden. Dualities\nand trinities alike seem to be characteristic of the old matriarchal\ngoddesses.\n\nEvidence is not lacking that the trinity-form grew out of the duality.\nPlutarch[742] notes as one of the puzzling things at Delphi which\nrequired looking into, that two Moirae were worshipped there, whereas\neverywhere else three were canonical. It has already been seen (p. 242)\nthat the number of the Semnae varied between two and three, and that,\nas three was the ultimate canonical number, we might fairly suppose the\nnumber two to have been the earlier. It is the same with the Charites.\nPausanias[743] was told in Boeotia that Eteocles not only was \u2018the first\nwho sacrificed to the Charites,\u2019 but, further, he \u2018instituted three\nCharites.\u2019 The names Eteocles gave to his three Charites the Boeotians\ndid not remember. This is unfortunate, as Orchomenos was the most ancient\nseat of the worship of the Charites; their images there were natural\nstones that fell to Eteocles from heaven. Pausanias goes on to note that\n\u2018among the Lacedaemonians two Charites only were worshipped; their names\nwere Kleta and Phaenna. The Athenians also from ancient days worshipped\ntwo Charites, by name Auxo and Hegemone.\u2019 Later it appears they fell\nin with the prevailing fashion, for \u2018in front of the entrance to the\nAcropolis there were set up the images of three Charites.\u2019 The ancient\nCharites at Orchomenos, at Sparta, at Athens, were two, and it may be\nconjectured that they took form as the Mother and the Maid.\n\nThe three daughters of Cecrops[744] are by the time of Euripides \u2018maidens\nthreefold\u2019; the three daughters of Erechtheus[745], who are but their\nlater doubles, are a \u2018triple yoke of maidens,\u2019 and yet\u2014in the case of\nthe daughters of Cecrops\u2014there is ample evidence[746] that originally\nthey were two, and these two probably a mother and a maid. Aglauros and\nPandrosos are definite personalities; they had regular precincts and\nshrines, known in historical times, Aglauros on the north slope of the\nAcropolis[747], where the maidens danced, Pandrosos to the west of the\nErechtheion[748]. But of a shrine, precinct, or sanctuary of Herse we\nhave no notice. Ovid[749] probably felt the difficulty; he lodges Herse\nin a chamber midway between Aglauros and Pandrosos. The women of Athens\nswore by Aglauros and more rarely by Pandrosos[750]. Aglauros, by whom\nthey swore most frequently, and who gave her name to the Agraulids, was\nprobably the earlier and mother-form. Herse was no good even to swear\nby; she is the mere senseless etymological eponym of the festival of\nthe Hersephoria, a third sister added to make up the canonical triad.\nThe Hersephoria out of which she is made was not in her honour; it was\ncelebrated to Athene, to Pandrosos, to Ge, to Themis, to Eileithyia.\n\nThe women trinities rose out of dualities, but not every duality became a\ntrinity. Plutarch[751], in discussing the origin of the nine Muses, notes\nthat we have not three Demeters, or three Athenes, or three Artemises.\nHe touches unconsciously on the reason why some dualities resisted the\nimpulse to become trinities. Where personification had become complete,\nas in the case of Demeter and Kore, or of their doubles, Damia and\nAuxesia, no third figure could lightly be added. Where the divine pair\nwere still in flux, still called by merely adjectival titles that had\nnot crystallized into proper names, a person more or less mattered\nlittle. Thus we have a trinity of Semnae, of Horae, of Moirae, but the\nThesmophoroi, who _as_ Thesmophoroi might have easily passed into a\ntrinity, remain always, because of the clear outlines of Demeter and\nKore, a duality.\n\nWhen we ask what was the impulse to the formation of trinities, the\nanswer is necessarily complex. Many strands seem to have gone to their\nweaving.\n\n * * * * *\n\nFirst, and perhaps foremost, in the ritual of the lower stratum, of the\ndead and of chthonic powers, three was, for some reason that escapes us,\na sacred number[752]. The dead were thrice invoked; sacrifice was offered\nto them on the third day; the mourning in some parts of Greece lasted\nthree days; the court of the Areopagus, watched over by deities of the\nunderworld, sat, as has been seen (p. 242), on three days; at the three\nways the threefold Hecate of the underworld was worshipped. It was easy\nand natural that threefold divinities should arise to keep ward over a\nritual so constituted. When the powers of the underworld came to preside\nover agriculture, the transition from two to three seasons would tend in\nthe same direction. For two seasons a duality was enough\u2014the Mother for\nthe fertile summer, the Maid for the sterile winter\u2014but, when the seasons\nbecame three, a trinity was needed, or at least would be welcomed.\n\nLast, the influence of art must not be forgotten. A central figure of the\nmother, with her one daughter, composes ill. Archaic art loved heraldic\ngroupings, and for these two daughters were essential. Such compositions\nas that on the Boeotian amphora in fig. 60 might easily suggest a\ntrinity[753].\n\n * * * * *\n\nOnce the triple form established, it is noticeable that in Greek\nmythology the three figures are always regarded as _maiden_ goddesses,\nnot as mothers. They may have taken their rise in the Mother and the\nMaid, but the Mother falls utterly away. The Charites, the Moirae, the\nHorae, are all essentially maidens. The reverse is the case in Roman\nreligion; trinities of women goddesses of fertility occur frequently in\nvery late Roman art, but they are Matres, Mothers[754]. Three Mothers are\nrather heavy, and do not dance well.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 73.]\n\nIn the archaic votive relief[755] in fig. 73 we have the earliest\nsculptured representation of the maiden trinity extant. Had the relief\nbeen uninscribed, we should have been at a loss how to name the three\naustere figures. Two carry fruits, and one a wreath. They might be\nCharites or Eumenides, or merely nymphs. Most happily the sculptor\nhas left no doubt. He has written against them \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2, \u2018Sotias\n(dedicated) the Korai\u2019 the Maidens.\u2019 Sotias has massed the three\nstately figures very closely together; he is reverently conscious that\nthough they are three persons, yet they are but one goddess. He is half\nmonotheist.\n\nThe same origin of the maiden trinity is clearly indicated in the\nrelief[756] in fig. 74, found during the \u2018Enneakrounos\u2019 excavations in\nthe precinct of Dionysos, at Athens. The main field of the relief is\noccupied by two figures of _Panes_, with attendant goats; between them\nan altar. The Panes are twofold, not because they are father and son,\nbut because there were two caves of Pan, and the god is thought of as\ndwelling in each. After the battle of Marathon the worship of Pan was\nestablished in the ancient dancing-ground of the Agraulids; by the time\nof Euripides[757], Pan is thought of as host and they as guests:\n\n \u2018O seats of Pan and rock hard by\n To where the hollow Long Rocks lie,\n Where before Pallas\u2019 temple-bound\n Agraulos\u2019 daughters three go round\n Upon their grassy dancing-ground\n To nimble reedy staves,\n When thou, O Pan, art piping found\n Within thy shepherd caves.\u2019\n\nBut Pan was a new-comer; the Agraulids were there from the beginning, as\nearly as Cecrops, their snake-tailed father. Busy though he is with Pan,\nthe new-comer, the artist cannot, may not forget the triple maidens. He\nfigures them in the upper frieze, and in quaint fashion he hints that\nthough three they are one. In the left-hand corner he sets the image of a\nthreefold goddess, a Hecate[758].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 74.]\n\nBut, as time went on, the fact that the three were one is more and more\nforgotten. They become three single maidens, led by Hermes in the dance;\nby Hermes _Charidotes_, whose worship as the young male god of fertility,\nof flocks and herds, was so closely allied to that of the Charites.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 75.]\n\nThere is no more frequent type of votive relief[759] than that of which\nan instance is given in fig. 75. The cave of Pan is the scene, Pan\nhimself is piping, and the three maidens, led by Hermes, dance. The cave,\nthe artist knows, belonged in his days to Pan, but the ancient dwellers\nthere, the Maidens, still bulk the largest. As a rule the reliefs are\nnot inscribed, sometimes there is a dedication \u2018to the Nymphs.\u2019 The\npersonality of the Agraulids has become shadowy, they are merely Maidens\nor Brides.\n\nThe ancient threefold goddesses, as all-powerful Charites, paled before\nthe Olympians, faded away into mere dancing attendant maidens; but\nsometimes, in the myths told of these very Olympians, it is possible to\ntrace the reflection of the older potencies. A very curious instance\nis to be found in the familiar story[760] of the \u2018Judgment of Paris,\u2019\na story whose development and decay are so instructive that it must be\nexamined in some detail.\n\n\nTHE \u2018JUDGMENT OF PARIS.\u2019\n\nThe myth in its current form is sufficiently patriarchal to please the\ntaste of Olympian Zeus himself, trivial and even vulgar enough to make\nmaterial for an ancient Satyr-play or a modern _opera-bouffe_.\n\n \u2018Goddesses three to Ida came\n Immortal strife to settle there\u2014\n Which was the fairest of the three,\n And which the prize of beauty should wear.\u2019\n\nThe bone of contention is a golden apple thrown by Eris at the marriage\nof Peleus and Thetis among the assembled gods. On it was written, \u2018Let\nthe fair one take it,\u2019 or, according to some authorities, \u2018The apple for\nthe fair one[761].\u2019 The three high goddesses betake them for judgment to\nthe king\u2019s son, the shepherd Paris. The kernel of the myth is, according\nto this version, a \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, a beauty-contest.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 76.]\n\nOn one ancient vase, and on one only of all the dozens that remain,\nis the Judgment so figured. The design in fig. 76 is from a late\nred-figured krater in the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale[762]. Paris, dressed as\na Phrygian, is seated in the centre. Hermes is telling of his mission.\nGrouped around, the three goddesses prepare for the beauty-contest in\ncharacteristic fashion. Hera needs no aid, she orders her veil and gazes\nwell satisfied in a mirror; Aphrodite stretches out a lovely arm, and a\nLove-God fastens \u2018a bracelet of gold on her flesh\u2019; and Athene, watched\nonly by the great grave dog, goes to a little fountain shrine and,\nclean-hearted goddess as she is, lays aside her shield, tucks her gown\nabout her, and has\u2014a good wash. Our hearts are with Oenone when she cries:\n\n \u2018\u201cO Paris,\n Give it to Pallas!\u201d but he heard me not,\n Or hearing would not hear me, woe is me!\u2019\n\nIt is noteworthy that even in this representation, obviously of a\nbeauty-contest, the apple is absent.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 77.]\n\nIt is quite true that now and again one of the goddesses holds in her\nhand a fruit. An instance is given in the charming design in fig. 77,\nfrom a red-figured stamnos in the British Museum[763]. Fruit and flowers\nare held indifferently by one or all of the goddesses, and the reason\nwill presently become clear. In the present case Hera holds a fruit, in\nfig. 81 the two last goddesses hold each a fruit. In fig. 77, against\nboth Aphrodite and Hera, is inscribed \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae, \u2018Beautiful,\u2019 and before the\nblinding beauty of the goddesses Paris veils his face. The inscription\n\u03a7\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 enables us to date the vase as belonging to the first half of\nthe 5th cent. B.C.\n\nTurning to black-figured vases, a good instance is given in fig. 78\nfrom a patera[764] in the Museo Greco-Etrusco at Florence. The three\ngoddesses, bearing no apple and no attributes, the centre one only\ndistinguished by the spots upon her cloak, follow Hermes into the\npresence of Paris. Paris starts away in manifest alarm. In the curious\ndesign[765] in fig. 79, Hermes actually seizes Paris by the wrist to\ncompel his attendance. There is here clearly no question of voluptuous\ndelight at the beauty of the goddesses. The three maiden figures are\nscrupulously alike; each carries a wreath. Discrimination would be a hard\ntask. The figures are placed closely together, as in the representation\nof the Maidens in fig. 73.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 78.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 79.]\n\nFinally, in fig. 80, a design from a black-figured amphora[766], we\nhave the type most frequent of all; Hermes leads the three goddesses,\nbut in the Judgment of Paris _no figure of Paris is present_. Without\nexaggeration it may be said that in three out of four representations of\nthe \u2018Judgment\u2019 in black-figured vase-paintings the protagonist is absent.\nThe scene takes the form of a simple procession, Hermes leading the three\ngoddesses.\n\nThis curious fact has escaped the attention of no archaeologist who\nhas examined the art types of the \u2018Judgment.\u2019 It has been variously\nexplained. At a time when vase-paintings were supposed to have had\nliterary sources, it was usual to attempt a literary explanation.\nAttention was called to the fact that Proklos[767], in his excerpts\nof the _Kypria_, noted that the goddesses, \u2018by command of Zeus were\nled to Ida by Hermes\u2019; of this leading it was then supposed that the\nvase-paintings were \u2018illustrations.\u2019 Such methods of interpretation are\nnow discredited; no one supposes that the illiterate vase-painter worked\nwith the text of the _Kypria_ before him. Art had its own traditions.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 80.]\n\nAnother explanation, scarcely more happy, has been attempted. \u2018Archaic\nart,\u2019 we are told, \u2018loved processions.\u2019 Archaic art, concerned to fill\nthe space of a circular frieze surrounding a vase, did indeed \u2018love\nprocessions,\u2019 but not with a passion so fond and unreasonable, and it\nloved something else better, the lucid telling of a story. In depicting\nother myths, archaic art is not driven to express a story in the terms of\nan inappropriate procession; it is indeed largely governed by traditional\nform, but not to the extent of tolerating needless obscurity. The\n\u2018Judgment\u2019 is a situation essentially stationary, with Paris for centre;\nHermes is subordinate.\n\nWe are so used to the procession form that it requires a certain effort\nof the imagination to conceive of the myth embodied otherwise. But, if we\nshake ourselves loose of preconceived notions, surely the natural lucid\nway of depicting the myth would be something after this fashion: Paris in\nthe centre, facing the successful Aphrodite, to whom he speaks or hands\nthe apple or a crown; behind him, to indicate neglect, the two defeated\ngoddesses; Hermes anywhere, to indicate the mandate of the gods. Such a\nform does indeed appear later, when the vase-painter thought for himself\nand shook himself free of the dominant tradition. The procession form,\nas we have it, _was not made for the myth_, it was merely adapted and\ntaken over, and instantly the suggestion occurs, \u2018Did not the myth itself\nin some sense rise out of the already existing art form, an art form in\nwhich Paris had no place, in which the golden apple was not?\u2019 That form\nwas the ancient type of _Hermes leading the three Korai or Charites_.\nIn the design in fig. 80, the centre figure Athene is differentiated by\nher tall helmet and her aegis. Athene is the first of the goddesses to\nbe differentiated\u2014and why? She was not victorious, but the vase-painter\nis an Athenian, and he is concerned for the glory of \u1f21 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7, the\nMaiden of Athens.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 81.]\n\nIn the design in fig. 81, from a black-figured amphora in the Berlin\nMuseum[768], the three goddesses are all alike: the first holds a flower,\nthe two last fruits, all fitting emblems of the Charites. Hermes, their\nleader, carries a huge irrelevant sheep\u2014irrelevant for the herald of the\ngods on his way to Ida, significant for the leader of the Charites, the\ngod of the increase of flocks and herds. Does the picture represent a\n\u2018Judgment,\u2019 or Hermes and the Charites? Who knows? The doubt is here, as\noften, more instructive than certainty.\n\nFrom vases alone it would be sufficiently evident, I think, that the\n\u2018Judgment of Paris\u2019[769] is really based on Hermes and the Charites,\nbut literary evidence confirms the view. The \u039a\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, the Decision,\nof Paris is always as much a Choice as a Judgment; a Choice somewhat\nlike that invented for Heracles by the philosopher Prodicus, though at\nonce more spontaneous and more subtle than that rather obvious effort\nat edification. The particular decision is associated in legend with\nthe name of a special hero, of one particular \u2018young man moving to and\nfro alone, in an empty hut in the firelight[770].\u2019 It is an anguish of\nhesitancy ending in a choice which precipitates the greatest tragedy of\nGreek legend. But before Paris was there the Choice was there. The exact\nelements of the Choice vary in different versions. Athene is sometimes\nWisdom and sometimes War. But in general Hera is Royalty or Grandeur;\nAthene is Prowess; Aphrodite of course is Love. And what exactly has the\n\u2018young man\u2019 to decide? Which of the three is fairest? Or whose gifts he\ndesires the most? It matters not at all, for both are different ways of\nsaying the same thing. Late writers, Alexandrian and Roman, degrade the\nstory into a beauty-contest between three thoroughly personal goddesses,\nvulgar in itself and complicated by bribery still more vulgar. But early\nversions scarcely distinguish the goddesses from the gifts they bring.\nThere is no difference between them except the difference of their gifts.\nThey are Charites, Gift-bringers. They are their own gifts. Or, as the\nGreek put it, their gifts are their \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, their tokens. And Hermes\nhad led them long since, in varying forms, before the eyes of each and\nall of mankind. They might be conceived as undifferentiated, as mere\nGivers-of-Blessing in general. But it needed only a little reflection\nto see that \u03a7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 often wars against \u03a7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, and that if one be chosen,\nothers must be rejected[771].\n\n * * * * *\n\nAs gift-givers the same three goddesses again appear in the myth of the\ndaughters of Pandareos, but this time they are not rivals; and with them\ncomes a fourth, Artemis, whose presence is significant. Homer tells the\nstory by the mouth of Penelope[772]:\n\n \u2018Their father and their mother dear died by the gods\u2019 high doom,\n The maidens were left orphans alone within their home;\n Fair Aphrodite gave them curds and honey of the bee\n And lovely wine, and Hera made them very fair to see,\n And wise beyond all women-folk. And holy Artemis\n Made them to wax in stature, and Athene for their bliss\n Taught them all glorious handiworks of woman\u2019s artifice.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 82.]\n\nThe maiden goddesses tend the maidens, but to Homer _the_ Maiden above\nall others is Artemis, sister of Apollo, daughter of Zeus[773]. He puts\nthe story into the mouth of Penelope as part of a prayer to Artemis.\n\nIt is curious and significant that the early vase-painter, in dealing\nwith the story of the daughters of Pandareos, knows of three goddesses\nonly. The design in fig. 82 is from the lid of a pyxis, of early\nblack-figured style, in a private collection at Athens[774]. The\nvase-painter is concerned mainly with the story of the theft of the\ngreat golden dog of Crete. He makes the dog of supernatural size, with\na splendid high-curled tail. Pandareos has stolen it, and the theft has\nbeen discovered by Hermes, who comes hurriedly up to seize the prize.\nPandareos[775] is just making off in eager haste. His two daughters,\nquaintly enveloped in one cloak to show their close relationship, stand\nby. Behind Hermes, with his huge kerykeion, come in familiar procession\nthe three ancient maidens\u2014Aphrodite with a wreath, her hair arrayed in\na quaint twisted pigtail; Hera with a ram-headed sceptre; Athene with\na helmet nearly as big as herself. The goddesses have come a little\nproleptically; Pandareos is still there, the maidens are not yet \u2018alone\nwithin their home,\u2019 but the vase-painter wants to tell all he knows, and,\nnot being inspired by Homer, he is faithful to the old three goddesses.\nArtemis is\u2014nowhere[776].\n\nBut, owing to the influence of Homer and the civilization he represented,\nthe figure of Artemis waxes more and more dominant, and this especially\nby contrast with the Kore of the lower stratum, Aphrodite. In the\n_Hippolytus_ of Euripides they are set face to face in their eternal\nenmity. The conflict is for the poet an issue of two moral ideals, but\nthe human drama is played out against the shadowy background of an\nancient racial theomachy, the passion of the South against the cold\npurity of the North.\n\nBelonging as she does to this later Northern stratum, the figure of\nArtemis lies properly outside our province, but to one of the ancient\nmaiden trinity, to Athene, she lent much of her cold, clean strength. An\nepigram[777] to her honour in the _Anthology_ is worth noting, because\nit shows, clearly and beautifully, how the maidenhood of the worshipper\nmirrors itself in the worship of a maiden, whether of the South or of the\nNorth:\n\n \u2018Maid of the Mere, Timaret\u00e8 here brings,\n Before she weds, her cymbals, her dear ball\n To thee a Maid, her maiden offerings,\n Her snood, her maiden dolls, their clothes and all,\n Hold, Leto\u2019s Child, above Timaret\u00e8\n Thine hand, and keep her virginal like thee.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt would be a lengthy though in some respects a profitable task to take\neach maiden form that the great matriarchal goddess assumed and examine\nit in turn, to enquire into the rise and development of each local Kore,\nof Dictynna, of Aphaia, of Callisto, of Hecate, of Bendis and the like.\nInstead it will be necessary to confine ourselves to the three great\ndominant Korai of the \u2018Judgment,\u2019 Hera, Athene and Aphrodite.\n\n\nATHENE.\n\nThe doubt has probably long lurked in the reader\u2019s mind, whether two\nof the three, Hera and Aphrodite, have any claim to the title maiden.\nHappily in the case of Athene no such difficulty arises. She is _the_\nParthenos, _the_ maiden; her temple is the maiden-chamber, the Parthenon;\nnatural motherhood she steadfastly refuses, she is the foster-mother of\nheroes after the old matriarchal fashion; Ge, the real mother, bears\nErichthonios, and Athene nurtures him to manhood; she bears the like\nrelationship to Herakles, she is the maiden of Herakles (\u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7[778]).\n\nMoreover it has been frequently observed that the early form of her\nname _Athenaia_ is purely adjectival[779], she is the Athenian one, the\nAthenian Maid, Pallas, our Lady of Athens. Plato[780] in the _Laws_ sees\nclearly that Athenaia is but the local Kore, the incarnation of Athens,\nthough, after the fashion of his day, he inverts cause and effect; he\nmakes the worshipper in the image of the worshipped. Speaking of the\narmed Athene, he says, \u2018and methinks our Kore and Mistress who dwells\namong us, joying her in the sport of dancing, was not minded to play\nwith empty hands, but adorned her with her panoply, and thus accomplished\nher dance, and it is fitting that in this our youths and our maidens\nshould imitate her.\u2019 It was she who imitated her youths and maidens, she\nwho was the very incarnation of their life and being, dancing in armour\nas they danced, fighting when they fought, born of her father\u2019s head when\nthey were reborn as the children of Reason and Light.\n\nAthene\u2019s other name, Pallas, tells the same tale. If Athene is the Kore\nof the local clan of the Athenians, Pallas is the Kore of the clan of the\nPallantidae, the foes of Athenian Theseus; later their male eponym was\nPallas[781]:\n\n \u2018Pallas had for lot\n The southern land, rough Pallas, he who rears\n A brood of giants.\u2019\n\nThe very name Pallas means, it would seem, like Kore, the maiden. Suidas\nin defining the word says, \u2018a great maiden, and it is an epithet of\nAthene.\u2019 More expressly Strabo[782], in discussing the cults of Egyptian\nThebes, says, \u2018To Zeus, whom they worship above all other divinities,\na maiden of peculiar beauty and illustrious family is dedicated; _such\nmaidens the Greeks call Pallades_.\u2019 This local Pallas had for her\ndominion the ancient court of the Palladium; her image as Pallas, not\nas Athene, was carried in procession by the epheboi[783]; but with the\nsubjection of her clan her figure waned, effaced by that of Athenaia.\nPallas became a mere adjectival _praenomen_ to Athene, as Phoebus to\nApollo. It may be conjectured that this ancient image of Pallas was\nresident on the Areopagos, home of the ancient Semnae, a place probably\nof sacred association to a local clan long before the dominance of the\nAcropolis; it is by her name of Pallas that the Semnae[784] hail the\ngoddess:\n\n \u2018I welcome Pallas\u2019 fellowship.\u2019\n\nIn such a matter a poet might well have been instinctively, though\nunconsciously, true to fact.\n\nTo tell the story of the making of Athene is to trace the history of the\ncity of Athens, to trace perhaps, in so far as they can be severed, its\npolitical rather than its religious developement. At first the maiden\nof the elder stratum, she has to contend for supremacy with a god of\nthat stratum, Poseidon. Poseidon, the late Mr R. A. Neil[785] has shown,\nwas the god of the ancient aristocracy of Athens, an aristocracy based,\nas they claimed descent from Poseidon, on patriarchal conditions. The\nrising democracy not unnaturally revived the ancient figure of the Kore,\nbut in reviving her they strangely altered her being and reft from her\nmuch of her beauty and reality. They made her a sexless thing, neither\nman nor woman; she is laden with attributes like the Parthenos of\nPheidias, charged with intended significance, but to the end she remains\nmanufactured, unreal, and never convinces us. She is, in fact, the Tyche,\nthe Fortune of the city, and the real object of the worship of the\ncitizens was not the goddess but the city herself, \u2018immortal mistress of\na band of lovers[786]\u2019:\n\n \u2018The grace of the town that hath on it for crown\n But a head-band to wear\n Of violets one-hued with her hair,\n For the vales and the green high places of earth hold nothing so fair\n And the depths of the sea know no such birth of the manifold births\n they bear,\u2019\n\na city,\n\n \u2018Based on a crystalline sea\n Of thought and its eternity.\u2019\n\nNowhere is this artificiality, this unreality of Athene as distinct from\nAthens so keenly felt as in the famous myth of her birth from the brain\nof Zeus. A poet may see its splendour:\n\n \u2018Her life as the lightning was flashed from the light of her Father\u2019s\n head,\u2019\n\nbut it remains a desperate theological expedient to rid an earth-born\nKore of her matriarchal conditions. The Homeric Hymn[787] writer\nsurrounds the Birth with all the apparatus of impressiveness, yet it\nnever impresses; the goddess is manifestly to him Reason, Light and\nLiberty; she is born at the rising of the Sun:\n\n \u2018Hyperion\u2019s bright son stayed\n His galloping steeds for a space.\u2019\n\nThe event is of cosmic import:\n\n \u2018High Olympus reeled\n At the wrath in the sea-grey eyes and Earth on every side\n Rang with a terrible cry, and the Deep was disquieted\n With a tumult of purple waves and outpouring of the tide\n Suddenly.\u2019\n\nFear takes hold of all the Immortals, and \u2018the Councillor Zeus is glad,\u2019\nbut the mortal reader remains cold. It is all an unreal, theatrical show,\nand through it all we feel and resent the theological intent. We cannot\nlove a goddess who on principle forgets the Earth from which she sprang;\nalways from the lips of the Lost Leader we hear the shameful denial[788]:\n\n \u2018There is no mother bore me for her child,\n I praise the Man in all things (save for marriage),\n Whole-hearted am I, strongly for the Father.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 83.]\n\nPolitics and literature turned the local Kore of Athens into a non-human,\nunreal abstraction. It is pleasant to find that the art of the simple\nconservative vase-painter remembered humbler beginnings. The design in\nfig. 83 is from a Corinthian alabastron in the Museum at Breslau[789]. In\nthe centre of the design, Herakles is engaged in slaying a Hydra with an\nunusually large number of heads. Iolaos comes up from the right to engage\nsome of the heads, the charioteer of Iolaos, Lapythos, waits in the\nchariot. Throughout the design all the figures are carefully and legibly\ninscribed in early Corinthian letters, dating about the beginning of\nthe 6th century B.C. \u2018Athena,\u2019 the Maiden of Herakles, has also come up\n(to the left) in her chariot to help her hero. Just behind her, perched\non the goad, is a woman-headed bird. Had there been no inscription\nwe should at once have named it a \u2018decorative Siren,\u2019 but against the\nwoman-headed bird is clearly written \u03dc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2. At first sight the inscription\ndoes not seem to help much, but happily the lexicographers enable us\nto explain the word[790]. The _Etymologicon Magnum_ tells us that by\n\u03c0\u03ce\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2 are meant \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9, and that another form of the word was \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2.\nHesychius merely states that the \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c5\u03be is \u2018a kind of bird,\u2019 and refers\nus to Aristotle[791] \u2018On Animals.\u2019 Our text of Aristotle gives the form\n\u03c6\u1ff6\u03c5\u03be. It seems clear that the \u03dc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 of the Corinthian vase is a variant\nform of a name given to the Diver-bird.\n\nThe inscriptions prove the vase to be Corinthian, and Corinth is not\nfar remote from Megara. Pausanias[792], in discussing the genealogies\nof Athenian kings, tells us that Pandion fled to Megara. There he fell\nsick and died, and by the sea in the territory of Megara is his tomb,\non a cliff which is called the cliff of Athene Aithuia, i.e. Athene the\nDiver-bird. Bird myths haunt the family of Pandion: Procne, Philomela,\nItys and Tereus[793] all turn into birds, and Tereus, the hoopoe, had a\nregular cult at his grave. There, they say, the hoopoe first appeared,\nand the story looks like a reminiscence of a bird soul seen haunting\na grave. Lycophron knows of a maiden goddess, a Diver-bird; he makes\nCassandra in her prophetic madness foresee the outrage of Ajax and her\nown empty prayers[794]:\n\n \u2018In vain shall I invoke the Diver-Maid.\u2019\n\nReturning, with this evidence in our minds, to the woman-headed bird in\nfig. 83, the conclusion seems inevitable that we have in her an early\nlocal form of Athene. The vase-painter had advanced to an anthropomorphic\nconception of the goddess, so he draws her in full human form as\nAthene, but he is haunted by the remembrance of the Megarian Diver,\nAithuia, so he adds her figure, half as the double of Athene (hence\nthe parallelism of attitude), half as attendant, and calls her \u03dc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2.\nAthene on the Acropolis had another attendant bird, the little owl that\nstill at evening haunts the sacred hill and hoots among the ruins of\nthe Parthenon. Whatever bird was locally abundant and remarkable would\nnaturally attach itself to the goddess, and be at first her vehicle\nand later her attribute: at seaside Megara the diver, at Athens the\nowl. The vase-painter remembers Athens as well as Megara, and adds for\ncompleteness a little owl.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 84.]\n\nThe design in fig. 84 is from a black-figured lekythos in a private\ncollection in Sicily[795]. The scene represents Cassandra flying from\nAjax and taking refuge at the xoanon of Athene. To the left stands old\nKing Priam, in helpless anguish. The notable point about the scene is\nthat Athene, who, statue though she be, is apparently about to move to\nthe rescue, has sent as her advance guard her sacred animal, a great\nsnake. The snake is clearly regarded as the vehicle of the wrath of the\ngoddess. Just such a snake did Chryse, another local Kore, send out\nagainst the intruder Philoctetes[796], and the snake of Chryse, Sophocles\nexpressly tells us, was the secret guardian of the open-air shrine. This\n\u2018house-guarding snake,\u2019 we may conjecture, was the earliest form of every\nearth-born Kore. At Athens, in the chryselephantine statue of Pheidias,\nit crouched beneath the shield, and tradition said it was the earth-born\nhero Erichthonios, fostered by the goddess. But almost certainly this\nguardian snake was primarily the guardian genius and fate of the city,\nbefore that genius or fate emerged to the status of godhead. When the\nPersians besieged the citadel, Herodotus[797] says, the guardian snake\nleft the honey cake that was its monthly sacrificial food untouched, and,\n\u2018when the priestess told this, the Athenians the more readily and eagerly\nforsook their city, inasmuch as it seemed that the goddess had abandoned\nthe citadel.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 85.]\n\nThe design in fig. 85 is from a late red-figured lekythos in the National\nMuseum at Athens[798]. The scene represented is a reminiscence of the\nJudgment of Paris, but one goddess only is present, Athene, and by her\nside, equal in height and majesty, a great snake. The artist seems dimly\nconscious that the snake is somehow the double of Athene[799]. To the\nleft is the figure of a woman, probably Helen; she seems to be imploring\nthe little xoanon of Athene to be gracious. Eros is apparently drawing\nthe attention of Paris away from Athene to Helen.\n\nAthene, by the time she appears in art, has completely shed her animal\nform, has reduced the shapes she once wore of snake and bird to\nattributes, but occasionally in black-figured vase-paintings she still\nappears with wings. On the obverse of the black-figured cup[800] in fig.\n86 the artist gives her wings: but for her helmet we might have called\nher an Erinys. In the _Eumenides_ of Aeschylus, a play in which Athene\nis specially concerned to slough off all traces of primitive origin,\nshe lays suspicious emphasis on the fact that she can _fly without\nwings_[801]:\n\n \u2018With foot unwearied haste I without wings,\n Whirred onward by my aegis\u2019 swelling sail.\u2019\n\nOn the reverse of the vase she is wingless: the artist has no clear\nconviction. The vase is instructive as showing how long the art type of a\ndivinity might remain in flux.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 86.]\n\n\nAPHRODITE.\n\nThe next of the three \u2018Maidens\u2019 to be considered is Aphrodite. A doubt\nperhaps arises as to her claim to bear the name. Kore she is in her\neternal radiant youth: Kore as virgin she is not. She is rather _Nymphe_\nthe Bride, but she is the Bride of the old order; she is never wife,\nnever tolerates permanent patriarchal wedlock. In the lovely Homeric hymn\nit is clear that her will is for love, not marriage. Admitted to the\npatriarchal Olympus, an attempt foolish and futile is made to attach her\nto one husband, the craftsman Hephaistos, and, significantly enough, her\nother name as his bride is Charis[802]. She is the Charis of physical\nbeauty incarnate.\n\nIn Homer it is evident that she is a new-comer to Olympus, barely\ntolerated, an alien, and always thankful to escape. Like the other alien,\nAres, she is fain to be back in her own home. Her Homeric titles, Kypris\nand Kythereia, show that originally and locally she is goddess of the\nisland South, never really at home in the cold austere North, where\nArtemis loved to dwell. She has about her too much of the physical joy of\nlife ever to find an abiding home far from the sunshine.\n\nAnother note of her late coming into Greece proper is that she is in\nHomer a departmental goddess, having for her sphere one human passion.\nThe earlier forms of divinities are of larger import, they tend to\nbe gods of all work. When the fusion of tribes and the influence of\nliterature conjointly bring together a number of local divinities,\nperforce, if they are to hold together, they divide functions and\nattributes, i.e. become departmental. Poseidon, who locally was\nPhytalmios, is narrowed down to the god of one element; Hermes, who at\nhome had dominion over flocks and herds and all life and growth, becomes\nmerely a herald.\n\nSome such process of narrowing of functions has, we may suspect, gone on\nin the shaping of the figure of Aphrodite. It would be rash to assert\nthat she was primarily an earth-goddess, but certain traits in her cult\nand character show clearly that she had analogies with the \u2018Lady of the\nWild Things.\u2019 Fertile animals belong to her, especially the dove and the\ngoat, the dove probably from very early days. In the Mycenaean shrine\nrecently discovered by Mr Arthur Evans, one of the figures of goddesses,\na quaint early figure with cylindrical body and upraised hands, bears on\nher head a dove. Such a figure, dating more than a thousand years B.C.,\nmay be the prototype of Aphrodite. About the cylindrical bodies of other\nsimilar figures snakes are coiled, as though to mark an earth-goddess.\nIn those early days differentiation was not sharply marked, and as yet we\ndare not give to these early divinities Olympian names.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 87.]\n\nAt Pompeii the excavations have recently brought to light the charming\nrelief in fig. 87[803], a relief which from its style must date about the\nturn of the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. A goddess is seated Demeter-like\nupon the ground, and holds her sceptre as Queen. Worshippers approach,\nman and wife and children. The offerings they bring, a sheep and a dove,\nmark the goddess as Aphrodite.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe myth of her birth from the sea\u2014a myth which probably took its rise in\npart from a popular and dubious etymology\u2014seems, at first sight, to sever\nAphrodite wholly from the company of the earth-born Korai. And yet, even\nhere, when we come to examine the art-forms of the myth, it is at once\nmanifest that the Sea-birth is but the Anodos adopted and adapted.\n\nThe design in fig. 88 is from a red-figured hydria[804] now in the\nmuseum of the Municipio at Genoa. It dates about the middle of the\n5th century B.C. and is, so far as I know, the only instance of the\nbirth of Aphrodite in a vase-painting. In the centre of the picture a\ngoddess, clad only in a chiton, rises up from below, but whether from\nsea or land the vase-painter is apparently not concerned to express.\nHad he wished to utter his meaning more precisely nothing would have\nbeen easier than to represent the sea by the curved lines that in his\nday were the conventional indication of waves. But he is silent and I\nthink significantly. The goddess on the vase-painting is received by a\nslender winged Eros; she uplifts her hands to take the taenia with which\nhe greets her. Eros is here grown to young manhood and his presence at\nonce makes us think of Aphrodite; but we are bound to remember that on\nthe Ashmolean amphora already discussed (fig. 72) it is the Anodos of\nPandora, not of Aphrodite, that is greeted by the Love-god with a taenia.\nMoreover, it must also be remembered that on the Berlin krater (fig. 69)\na Love-god greets the rising of an Earth-goddess, be she Ge or Kore or\nSemele[805].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 88.]\n\nSo far then all that can safely be said is that on the Genoa hydria we\nhave the Anodos of _a_ goddess greeted by Eros. But to the right of the\npicture, behind the rising goddess, stands another figure, a woman, and\nshe holds out a piece of drapery with which she is about to clothe the\nrising goddess. This is a new element in the Anodos type and it is this\nelement that inclines me, with certain reservations and qualifications,\nto call the goddess Aphrodite, though I am by no means sure that the\nvase-painter conceives her as _rising from the sea_.\n\nOn two occasions, according to ancient tradition, Aphrodite is received\nand decked by her women attendants, be they Charites or Horae, on her\nBirth from the Sea and after her sacred Bath in Paphos. Of the Bath we\nhear in the lay of Demodocus[806]. He tells how after the joy and terror\nof her marriage with Ares she uprose\n\n \u2018And fast away fled she,\n Aphrodite, lover-of-laughter, to Cyprus over the sea,\n To the pleasant shores of Paphos and the incensed altar-stone,\n Where the Graces washed her body, and shed sweet balm thereon,\n Ambrosial balm that shineth on the Gods that wax not old,\n And wrapped her in lovely raiment, a wonder to behold.\u2019\n\nOf the bedecking at the Birth we learn in a Homeric Hymn[807]:\n\n \u2018For the West Wind breathed to Cyprus and lifted her tenderly\n And bore her down the billow and the stream of the sounding sea\n In a cup of delicate foam. And the Hours in wreaths of gold\n Uprose in joy as she came, and laid on her fold on fold\n Fragrant raiment immortal, and a crown on the deathless head.\u2019\n\nThe two events, the ritual Bath and the Sea-birth, are not I think\nclearly distinguished, and both have somehow their counterpart in the\nmaking and decking of Pandora, The ritual bath[808] Aphrodite shared with\nthe two other Korai, Athene and Hera. Callimachus devotes a Hymn to the\n\u2018Bath of Pallas.\u2019 Pallas in her austerity, even when she contends for\nthe prize of beauty, rejects the mirror and gold ornaments and mingled\nunguents; but, because she is maiden goddess, year by year she must renew\nher virginity by the bath in the river Inachus. The renewal of virginity\nis no fancy. Pausanias[809] saw at Nauplia a spring called Canathus\nand the Argives told him that every year Hera bathed in it and became a\nvirgin. He adds significantly, \u2018this story is of the mysteries and is\ntheir explanation of a rite which they celebrate to Hera.\u2019 Virginity\nwas to these ancients in their wisdom a grace not lost but perennially\nrenewed, hence the immortal maidenhood of Aphrodite.\n\nThe artist of the Genoa hydria _probably_ knew of the birth of Aphrodite\nfrom the sea, he _certainly_ knew of her reception by Eros; but that he\nremembered also the ritual bath is, I think, clear from the fact that the\nscene is laid in a sanctuary, indicated in the vase-painter\u2019s fashion\nby the altar and sacred palm-tree standing to the right just below the\nhandle. Probably the sanctuary at Paphos is intended.\n\nThe Genoa hydria is of great importance because it helps to the\nunderstanding of another monument, earlier and far more beautiful.\n\nThe design in fig. 89 is from a sculptured slab[810], one of three that\nserved to decorate the so-called \u2018Ludovisi Throne\u2019 now in the Boncompagni\ncollection in the Museo delle Terme at Rome. Again we have manifestly\nan Anodos, again the like uncertainty as to who the goddess is and\nwhence she uprises. The two women who support her, and to whom in her\nuprising she clings, stand on a sloping bank of shingle. Between the\nedges of the banks is no indication of the sea, simply a straight line.\nIs the goddess rising from earth or sea or sacred river or ritual bath?\nArchaeologists offer explanations apparently the most diverse, and it\nis this doubt and diversity that instruct. One sees in the design the\nBirth of Aphrodite from the Sea, another a ceremonial Bath at the lesser\nmysteries of Agrae, another the Anodos of Kore. No one, so far as I am\naware, sees that the artist is haunted by, is as it were halting between,\nreminiscences of each and all. Or rather the Anodos, the Bath, the Birth\nare as yet undifferentiated. By their articulation and separation we have\nimmeasurably lost.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 89.]\n\nOne other point remains. On the Ludovisi relief we have no Eros. The\nrelief is archaic. The straight folds of the drapery, the delicate\nover-long feet, the strong chin, the over-emphasis of the lovely breasts,\nall remind us vividly of red-figured vases of the severe style; they\nbelong to the last bloom of archaism just before the perfect utterance of\nPheidias. Pheidias[811] on the pedestal of the image of Zeus at Olympia\nsculptured \u2018Eros receiving Aphrodite as she rises from the sea and Peitho\ncrowning Aphrodite.\u2019 Pheidias was much, perhaps over, inspired by Homeric\ntradition, hence a certain sense of literary chill in his conceptions. He\nforgets the ritual Bath, and remembers the mythological Birth. The artist\nof the Genoa hydria is very near to his tradition, but the drapery held\nby Peitho, the altar and the palm-tree, recall rather the Bath than\nthe Birth. But the sculptor of the relief embodies a tradition more\ntheological, less mythological, than either Pheidias or the vase-painter.\nHe is inspired by the Anodos[812] and the Bath, which was but one of\nits ritual humanized forms, and a form that we may venture to call\nmatriarchal. What he is concerned to show is the birth and re-birth of\nAphrodite, Aphrodite untouched of Eros, eternally virgin, central figure\nof a Trinity of Maidens and, as Ourania, She of the Heavens.\n\nAphrodite as island queen comes to have a birth from the sea, but a poet\nremembers that, though she is of the sea and of the air, she is of earth\nalso:\n\n \u2018We have seen thee, O Love, thou art fair, thou art goodly, O Love,\n Thy wings make light in the air as the wings of a dove;\n Thy feet are as winds that divide the stream of the sea,\n Earth is thy covering to hide thee, the garment of thee.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nAphrodite the earth-born Kore is also sea-born, as became an island\nQueen, but more than any other goddess she becomes Ourania, the Heavenly\nOne, and the vase-painter sets her sailing through heaven on her great\nswan[813]. She is the only goddess who in passing to the upper air yet\nkept life and reality. Artemis becomes unreal from sheer inhumanity;\nAthene, as we have seen, becomes a cold abstraction; Demeter, in Olympus,\nis but a lovely metaphor. As man advanced in knowledge and in control\nover nature, the mystery and the godhead of things natural faded into\nscience. Only the mystery of life, and love that begets life, remained,\nintimately realized and utterly unexplained; hence Aphrodite keeps her\ngodhead to the end. For a while, owing to special social conditions, and,\nas will be seen, owing to the impulse of Orphism, her figure is effaced\nby that of her son Eros, but effaced only to re-emerge with a new dignity\nas Mother rather than Maid. In the image of Venus Genetrix[814] we have\nthe old radiance of Aphrodite, but sobered somehow, grave with the\nhauntings of earlier godheads, with shadows about her cast by Ourania, by\nHarmonia, by Kourotrophos, by Eirene, by each and every various form of\nthe ancient Mother of Earth and Heaven:\n\n \u2018Of Rome the Mother, of men and gods the pleasure,\n Fostering Venus, under heaven\u2019s gliding signs\n Thou the ship-bearing sea, fruit-bearing land\n Still hauntest, since by thee each living thing\n Takes life and birth and sees the light of the sun.\n\n Thee, goddess, the winds fly from, thee the clouds\n And thine approach; for thee the daedal earth\n Sends up sweet flowers, the ocean levels smile,\n And heaven shines with floods of light appeased.\n\n Thou, since alone thou rulest all the world\n Nor without thee can any living thing\n Win to the shores of light and joy and love,\n Goddess, bid thou throughout the seas and land\n The works of furious war quieted cease.\u2019\n\n\nHERA.\n\nThe figure of Hera remains. At first sight she seems all wife, not\nmaiden; she is the great typical bride, Hera Teleia, queen in Olympus by\nvirtue of her marriage with Zeus; their Sacred Marriage is the prototype\nof all human wedlock. This is true for Homeric theology, but a moment\u2019s\nreflection on the facts of local cultus and myth shows that this marriage\nwas not from the beginning. The Hera who in the ancient Argonautic\nlegend is queen in Thessaly and patron of the hero Jason is of the old\nmatriarchal type; it is she, Pelasgian Hera, not Zeus, who is really\ndominant; in fact Zeus is practically non-existent. In Olympia, where\nZeus in historical days ruled if anywhere supreme, the ancient Heraion\nwhere Hera was worshipped alone long predates the temple of Zeus. At\nArgos the early votive terra-cottas[815] are of a woman goddess, and the\nvery name of the sanctuary, the Heraion, marks her supremacy. At Samos,\nat the curious festival of the _Tonea_[816], it is the image of a woman\ngoddess that is carried out of the town and bound among the bushes, and\nStrabo[817] tells us that in ancient days Samos was called Parthenia, the\nisland of the Maiden. At Stymphalus, in remote Arcadia, Pausanias[818]\nsays that Hera had three sanctuaries and three surnames: while yet a\ngirl she was called Child, married to Zeus she was called Complete or\nFull-Grown (\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1), separated from Zeus and returned to Stymphalus she\nwas called Chera (Widow). Long before her connection with Zeus, the\nmatriarchal goddess may well have reflected the three stages of a woman\u2019s\nlife; Teleia, full-grown, does not necessarily imply patriarchal marriage.\n\nHomer himself was dimly haunted by the memory of days when Hera was no\nwife, but Mistress in her own right. Otherwise, unless the poet was the\nlowest of low comedians, what means her ceaseless turbulence and the\nunending unseemly strife between the Father of Gods and Men and the woman\nhe cannot even beat into submission? What her urgent insistent tyranny\nover Herakles whom Zeus loves yet cannot protect? Is the tyrannous\nmistress really made by the Greek housewife even of Homeric days in her\nown image? The answer is clear: Hera has been forcibly married, but she\nis never really wife, and a wife\u2019s submission she leaves to the shadowy\ndouble of Zeus, who echoed his nature and (significant fact) took his\nname, she who was the real Achaean patriarchal double\u2014Dione[819].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 90.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 91.]\n\nOnce fairly married, Zeus and Hera became Sharers of one Altar\n(\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b2\u03ce\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9), and against the conjunction the older women divinities\nare but too often powerless. In the designs[820] in figs. 90 and 91 we\nhave a curious instance of the ruthless fashion in which the Olympian\npair extrude the objects of an ancient local cult. In fig. 90 we have a\nvotive relief to the Nymphs of the familiar type: three maiden figures\nlinked together. That the figures are Nymphs is certain, for above is\nthe inscription, \u2018To the Mistress Nymphs (\u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u039d\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2).\u2019 The relief,\none of a large series found together at Oroch\u00e1k and now in the local\nMuseum at Sofia, is of late Roman style. The design in fig. 91 shows\na theological shift. The two dominant Olympians, of large stature to\nmark their supremacy, occupy the forefront; they hold each an expectant\n_phiale_ for libations; to them only is sacrifice to be made. It is\nthey who hold the sceptres. Humbly in the background, minished and\nall but effaced, are the three ancient Maidens. The local peasant is\nconservative[821], and we may hope they too had their meed of offering.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 92.]\n\nThe intrusion of Zeus[822] and Hera on the local cultus of the Nymphs\nbrings to mind a story preserved by Diogenes Laertius[823] in his Life of\nEpimenides. Theopompus in his \u2018Wonderful Things\u2019 told how when Epimenides\nwas preparing the sanctuary of the Nymphs a voice was heard from heaven\nsaying, \u2018Epimenides, not of the Nymphs, but of Zeus.\u2019 Perhaps Epimenides\nwent further than the orthodox Olympian religion could tolerate in the\nmatter of the revival of ancient cults. To him, as has been already seen\n(p. 241), was credited the founding of the sanctuary of the Semnae; he\nintroduced ceremonies of purification brought from Crete, and wholly\nalien to Olympian ritual. It was time for Zeus to reassert himself.\n\nThe conflict of theological conceptions is very clearly seen in the\ndesign in fig. 92, from a votive relief[824] found at Eleusis and now\nin the National Museum at Athens. The general type of the design, which\nbelongs to the class known in English as \u2018Funeral Banquets,\u2019 will be\ndiscussed more in detail later, when we come to hero-worship. For the\npresent it is enough to note that on the left side of the relief we have\nthe two Goddesses of Eleusis, the old matriarchal couple, seated side\nby side as equals, on the right a patriarchal couple, man and wife, the\nman reclining at the banquet and holding a great _rhyton_, the wife\nsubmissively seated by his side. In naming them it is safest at present\nnot to go beyond what is written. The artist has inscribed over their\nheads the non-committal words, \u2018To the God,\u2019 and \u2018To the Goddess.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 93.]\n\nIt was not only the Olympian Father Zeus who victoriously took over to\nhimself the cult of the Earth-Mother and the Earth-Maidens. Even more\nmarked is the triumph of the Olympian Son, Apollo[825]. The design\nin fig. 93 is from a rather late red-figured amphora in the Naples\nMuseum[826]. A wayfarer, possibly Orestes, has come to Delphi to consult\nthe god; he finds him seated on the very omphalos itself, holding the\nlaurel and the lyre in his hands. So Hermes found him in the prologue to\nthe _Ion_ of Euripides[827]:\n\n \u2018To Delphi, where\n Phoebus, on earth\u2019s mid navel o\u2019er the world\n Enthron\u00e8d, weaveth in eternal song\n The sooth of all that is or is to be.\u2019\n\nThe vase-painter knows quite well that it is really a priestess who\nutters the oracles. Only a priestess can mount the sacred tripod, and he\npaints her so seated, the laurel wreath on her head and the sacred taenia\nin her hand, but he knows also that Apollo is by this time Lord of All.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 94.]\n\nIn the _Eumenides_ of Aeschylus, where the contest is between the old\nangry ghosts, the Erinyes envisaged as merely the spirits of the blood\nfeud, and the mild and merciful god, our sympathies are at least in part\nwith the new-comer. But even here, so stately and yet so pitiful are\nthe ancient goddesses that our hearts are sore for the outrage on their\norder. And on the vase-painting, when we remember that the omphalos is\nthe very seat and symbol of the Earth-Mother[828], that hers was the\noracle and hers the holy oracular snake that Apollo slew, the intrusion\nis hard to bear.\n\nThe triumph of the Olympian order is still more clearly presented in\nthe design in fig. 94, from a votive relief[829] in the local Museum at\nSparta. The centre of the design is occupied by the omphalos on a low\nbasis. It looks very humble and obscure. At either side of it are perched\nnew guardians, the great eagles of Olympian Zeus. The story[830] said\nthat starting from either end of the world they met at Pytho, at the\nomphalos. The birds were variously said to be swans or eagles. Neither\nswans nor eagles have anything to do with the Earth-goddess; they are\nOuranian eagles for Zeus or swans for Apollo, and, standing over the\nomphalos, they mark the dominion of the Father and the Son. But the\nartist has uttered his meaning still more emphatically. Towering over the\nomphalos is the great figure of Apollo with his lyre. He holds out a cup,\nand libation to him is poured by his sister Artemis. The Olympian victory\nis complete.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSo far we have dealt with the _Making of a goddess_; we have seen one\nwoman-form take various shapes as Mother and Maiden, as duality and\ntrinity; we have seen these shapes crystallize into Olympian divinities\nas Athene, as Aphrodite, as Hera, and as it were resume themselves again\ninto the great monotheistic figure of Venus Genetrix. We have noted\nevidence, very scattered and fragmentary, of earlier animal forms of the\ngoddess as bird and snake. But it has been obvious enough that the weak\npoint in the argument is just this transitional phase. The goddesses,\nwhen they first come into our ken, _are_ goddesses, fully human and\nlovely in form, figures whose lineaments have been fixed and beautified\nby art, and of mythological rather than of ritual content. In a word\nlinks are wanting in the transition from ghost or snake or bogey to\ngoddess. Two reasons may be suggested. The full development of the women\ndivinities seems to have been earlier accomplished, the sublimation\nearlier complete, and hence the early phases of that development are more\neffaced; and next these goddess figures became more completely material\nfor poetic treatment. In the _Making of a god_ we catch in some figures\nthe process at an earlier stage, and many missing links in the passage\nfrom ghost and snake to Olympian will thereby become manifest.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE MAKING OF A GOD.\n\n \u2018\u1f30\u1f7c \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5.\u2019\n\n\nFrequently, in his wanderings through Greece, Pausanias came upon the\nsanctuaries of local heroines, and these sanctuaries are almost uniformly\ntombs at which went on the cultus of the dead. At Olympia[831] inside the\nAltis he noted the _Hippodameion_ or sanctuary of Hippodameia, a large\nenclosure surrounded by a wall. Into this enclosure once a year women\nwere permitted to enter to sacrifice to Hippodameia and do other rites\nin her honour. The tomb of Auge[832] was still to be seen at Pergamos, a\nmound of earth enclosed by a stone basement and on the top the figure of\na naked woman. At Leuctra[833] in Laconia there was an actual _temple_\n(\u03bd\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2) of Cassandra with an image; the people of the place called her\nAlexandra, \u2018Helper of Men.\u2019 At Sparta[834] Helen had a sanctuary, and in\nRhodes she was worshipped as She of the Tree, \u2018Dendritis,\u2019 and to her as\nDendritis, if we may trust Theocritus[835], maidens brought offerings. At\nher wedding they sing:\n\n \u2018O fair, O gracious maiden, the while we chant our lay,\n A wedded wife art thou. But we, at dawning of the day,\n Forth to the grassy mead will go, to our old racing place,\n And gather wreaths of odorous flowers, and think upon thy face,\n Again, again, Helen, on thee, as young lambs in the dew\n Think of the milk that fed them and run back to mother ewe.\n For thee the first of Maidens shall the lotus creeping low\n Be culled to hang in garlands where the shadowy plane doth grow;\n To thee where grows the shadowy plane the first oil shall be poured,\n Drop by drop from a silver cruse, to hold thy name adored:\n And letters on the bark be wrought, for him who goes to see,\n A message graven Dorian-wise: \u201cKneel; I am Helen\u2019s tree.\u201d\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 95.]\n\nHelen as local heroine had, it would seem, not only a sanctuary and a\nsacred tree but a very ancient image. The design in figs. 95 and 96\nis from a lekythos[836] in the Louvre, of the kind usually known as\n\u2018proto-Corinthian.\u2019 Its style dates it as not later than the 7th century\nB.C., and it is our earliest extant monument of \u2018the rape of Helen.\u2019 The\nsubject seems to have had a certain popularity in archaic art, as it\noccurred on the throne of Apollo at Amyclae[837]. In the centre of the\ndesign stands a woman-figure of more than natural size. Two men advance\nagainst her from the right; the foremost seizes her by the wrist. In\nhis left hand he holds a sceptre. He is Theseus, and behind him comes\nPeiritho\u00f6s, brandishing a great sword. To the left of Helen are her two\nbrothers, the horsemen Kastor and Polydeukes. It is important to note\nthat Helen is here more image than living woman. Dr Blinkenberg, who\nrightly interprets the scene as the rape of Helen, says \u2018ses mains lev\u00e9es\nexpriment la surprise et l\u2019effroi,\u2019 but since the discovery of the early\nimage of the Mycenaean goddess with uplifted hands[838] it will at once\nbe seen that the gesture is hieratic rather than human. This early 7th\ncentury document suggests that \u2018the rape of Helen\u2019 was originally perhaps\nthe rape of a xoanon from a sanctuary, rather than of a wife from her\nhusband. Be that as it may, the great dominant hieratic figure on the\nvase is more divine than human.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 96.]\n\nFor Homer, poet of the immigrant Achaeans, Helen of the old order of\ndaughters of the land is a mortal heroine, beautiful and sinful, yet in\na sense divine. To the modern poet she is altogether goddess, for she is\nBeauty herself:\n\n \u2018O Light and Shadow of all things that be,\n O Beauty, wild with wreckage like the sea,\n Say, who shall win thee, thou without a name?\n O Helen, Helen, who shall die for thee?\u2019\n\nHebe, another local heroine, has at Phlius[839] a sacred grove and a\nsanctuary, \u2018most holy from ancient days.\u2019 The goddess of the sanctuary\nwas called by the earliest authorities of the place Ganymeda, but later\nHebe. Her sanctuary was an asylum, and this was held to be her greatest\nhonour that \u2018slaves who took refuge there were safe and prisoners\nreleased hung their fetters on the trees in her grove.\u2019 That a sanctuary\nshould be an asylum is a frequent note of antiquity. When the immigrant\nconqueror reduces the whole land to subjection, he, probably from\nsuperstitious awe, leaves to the conquered their local sanctuary, the\none place safe from his tyranny. Hebe-Ganymeda, female correlative of\nGanymedes, is promoted to Olympus, but significantly she is admitted only\nas cupbearer and wife of Herakles. Olympus here as always mirrors human\nrelations. Hera by marriage with Zeus is admitted to full patriarchal\ncitizenship, her shadowy double Hebe is but her Maid of Honour.\n\nAs a rule then the local heroine remains merely the object of a local\ncult. Where she passed upward to the rank of a real divinity, the steps\nof transition are almost wholly lost. We feel inwardly sure that Hera and\nAphrodite were once of mere local import, like Auge or Iphigeneia, but we\nlack definite evidence. In the case of Athene the local origin, it has\nbeen shown (p. 301), is fairly clear.\n\nThe reason why the local heroine failed to emerge to complete godhead\nis sometimes startlingly clear. Her development was checked midway by\nthe intrusion of a full-blown goddess of the Olympian stock. Near to\nCruni in Arcadia Pausanias[840] saw the grave of Callisto. It was a high\nmound on which grew trees, some of them fruit-bearing, some barren. \u2018On\nthe top of the mound,\u2019 Pausanias adds, \u2018is a sanctuary of Artemis with\nthe title Calliste.\u2019 Nothing could be clearer. Over the tomb of the old\nBear-Maiden, Callisto, daughter of Lycaon, Artemis the Northerner, the\nOlympian, has superposed her cult, and to facilitate the shift she calls\nherself _Calliste_, the Fairest. Possibly here, as at Athens under the\ntitle of Brauronia, she kept up the ancient bear-service[841].\n\nThe passage from ghost to goddess is for the most part lost in the mists\nof time, but of the analogous process from ghost to god the steps are\nstill in historical times clearly traceable. The reason is clear. The\nintrusion of the patriarchal system, the practice of tracing descent from\nthe father instead of the mother, tended to check, if it was powerless\nwholly to stop, the worship of eponymous heroines. Conservatism compelled\nthe worship of old established heroines, but no fresh canonizations\ntook place. The ideal woman of Pericles was assuredly not the stuff of\nwhich goddesses were made. If we would note the actual process of the\nmanufacture of divinity, it is to _hero_-worship we must turn[842].\n\n\nTHE HERO AS SNAKE.\n\nThe design in fig. 97 is from an archaic relief[843] of the sixth century\nB.C., now in the local Museum at Sparta. It forms one of a series of\nreliefs found near Sparta, all of which are cast approximately in the\nsame type. A male and a female figure are seated side by side on a great\nthrone-like chair. The female figure holds her veil, the male figure a\nlarge cantharus or two-handled cup, as if expecting libation. Worshippers\nof diminutive size approach with offerings\u2014a cock and some object that\nmay be a cake, an egg or a fruit. The reliefs are, for the most part,\nuninscribed, but on some of rather later date names are written near the\nfigure, and they are the names of mortals, e.g. \u2018Timocles[844].\u2019 It is\nclear that we have in these monuments representations of the dead, but\nthe dead conceived of as half divine, as heroized\u2014hence their large size\ncompared with that of their worshipping descendants. They are \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2,\n\u2018Better and Stronger Ones.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 97.]\n\nThe artist of the relief in fig. 97 is determined to make his meaning\nclear. Behind the chair, equal in height to the seated figures, is a\ngreat curled snake, but a snake strangely fashioned. From the edge\nof his lower lip hangs down a long beard; a decoration denied by\nnature. The intention is clear; he is a _human_ snake, the vehicle,\nthe incarnation of the dead man\u2019s ghost. Snakes lurk about tombs, they\nare uncanny-looking beasts, and the Greeks are not the only people who\nhave seen in a snake the vehicle of a ghost. M. Henri Jumod[845], in\ndiscussing the beliefs of the Barongas, notes that among this people the\nsnake is regarded as the _chikonembo_ or ghost of a dead man, usually\nof an ancestor. The snake, so regarded, is feared but not worshipped.\nA free-thinker among the Barongas, if bored by the too frequent\nreappearance of the snake ancestor, will kill it, saying \u2018Come now, we\nhave had enough of you.\u2019\n\nZeus Meilichios, it has been seen (p. 18), was worshipped as a snake. If\nwe examine the great snake on his relief in fig. 1 (p. 18) it is seen to\nbe also bearded. The beard in this case is not at the end of the lip, but\na good deal further back.\n\nThe addition of the beard was no doubt mainly due to frank\nanthropomorphism; the snake is in a transition stage between animal\nand human, and human for the artist means divine. He gives the snake\na beard to mark his anthropomorphic divinity, just as he gave to the\nbull river-god on coins a human head with horns. The further question\narises, \u2018Was there anything in nature that might have acted as a possible\nsuggestion of a beard?\u2019 An interesting answer to this question has been\nsuggested to me by an eminent authority on snakes, Dr Hans Gadow, and to\nhim I am indebted for the following scientific particulars.\n\nThe snake represented in fig. 1 (p. 18) Dr Gadow believes to be the\nspecies known as _Coelopeltis lacertina_. It occurs from Spain to Syria\nand specimens of 6 ft. long are not uncommon. The creature\u2019s head,\naccording to Dr Gadow, is reproduced with admirable fidelity; the name\n_lacertina_ is due to the lizard-like, instead of snake-like, depressed\nhead. Moreover this species is really poisonous, but only to its proper\nprey, e.g. mice, rats, lizards, etc., while it is practically harmless to\nman, on account of the position of the poison fangs, which are far back\nin the mouth instead of near the front. This is a somewhat exceptional\narrangement and probably well known to the ancients. In fact the\n_Coelopeltis lacertina_ is a snake with poison that does not ordinarily\nstrike. On occasion it could bite a man\u2019s hand, i.e. if it opened its\nmouth _very_ wide, as wide as a striking cobra. This position of the\ndropped jaw, according to Dr Gadow, is very noticeable and must have\nbeen observed by the ancients. The angle of the dropped jaw is just that\nof the beard on the snake in fig. 1 (p. 18). It seems possible and even\nhighly probable that the dropped jaw, seen at a distance, might have\nsuggested a beard, or that an artist representing an actual dropped jaw\nmay have been copied by another who misinterpreted the jaw into a beard.\nIn any case the scheme of the dropped jaw would be ready to hand and\nwould help to soften the anomaly of the bearded snake[846].\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn snake form the hero dwelt in his tomb, and to indicate this fact not\nuncommonly on vase-paintings we have a snake depicted on the very grave\nmound itself. The design in fig. 98, from a black-figured lekythos[847]\nin the Museum at Naples, is a good instance. The funeral mound which\noccupies the centre of the design is, on the original vase, white, and on\nit is painted a black snake; the mound itself is surmounted by a black\nstele: whether the vase-painter regards his snake as painted actually\n_outside_ the tomb or as representing the snake-hero actually resident\n_within_, is not easy to determine. The figure of a man on the left of\nthe tomb with uplifted sword points probably to the taking of an oath, it\nmay be of vengeance.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 98.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 99.]\n\nIn the curious design in fig. 99, from a kotylos also in the Naples\nMuseum[848], we have again a funeral mound, again decorated with a huge\nsnake, this time represented with dropped jaw and beard. The tomb seems\nto have become a sort of mantic shrine. Two men are seated watching\nattentively the portent of the eagle and the snake. On the reverse of\nthe vase, to the right, the tomb-mound is decorated with a stag, and the\nportent is an eagle devouring a hare.\n\nHerodotus[849] notes that among the Libyan tribe of the Nasamones tombs\nwere used for two purposes, for the taking of oaths and for dream\noracles. \u2018In their oaths and in the art of divination they observe the\nfollowing practice: they take oaths by those among them who are accounted\nto be most virtuous and excellent, by touching their tombs, and when\nthey divine they regularly resort to the monuments of their ancestors,\nand having made supplication they go to sleep, and whatever vision they\nbehold of that they make use.\u2019 Herodotus like many travellers was more\nfamiliar, it would seem, with the customs of foreigners than with those\nof his own people. He notes the two customs as though they were alien\ncuriosities, but the practice of swearing on a tomb must have been\nfamiliar to the Greeks. The slave in the _Choephori_ says to Electra[850]:\n\n \u2018Reverencing thy father\u2019s tomb like to an altar,\n Mine inmost thoughts I speak, doing thy hest.\u2019\n\nBy the hero Sosipolis at Olympia[851] oaths were taken \u2018on the greatest\noccasions\u2019\u2014by Sosipolis who in true hero-fashion was wont to appear in\nsnake-form. That these oaths were taken on his actual tomb we are not\ntold, but the sanctuary of a snake-hero can scarcely in its origin have\nbeen other than his tomb. Almost every hero in Greece had his dream\noracle. Later as the hero was conceived of as in human rather than animal\nshape the connection between hero and snake is loosened, and we get the\nhalting, confused theology of Aeneas[852]:\n\n \u2018Doubtful if he should deem the gliding snake\n The genius of the place, or if it were\n His father\u2019s ministrant.\u2019\n\nIn fig. 100 we have an altar to a hero found in Lesbos[853], not the\nold primitive grave mound which was the true original form, but a\nlate decorative structure such as might have served an Olympian. It\nis inscribed in letters of Roman date, \u2018The people to Aristandros the\nhero, son of Cleotimos,\u2019 and that the service is to a hero is further\nemphasized by the snakes sculptured on the top round the hollow cup which\nserved for libations. There are two snakes; it is no longer realized that\nthe hero himself is a snake, but the snake reminiscence clings.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 100.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIf the question be raised, \u2018why did the Greeks image the dead hero\nas a snake?\u2019 no very certain or satisfactory answer can be offered.\nAelian[854] in his treatise on \u2018The Nature of Animals\u2019 says that the\nbackbone of a dead man when the marrow has decayed turns into a snake.\nThe chance, sudden apparition of a snake near a dead body may have\nstarted the notion. Plutarch[855] tells how, when the body of Cleomenes\nwas impaled, the people, seeing a great snake wind itself about his\nhead, knew that he was \u2018more than mortal\u2019 (\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2). Of course, by\nthe time of Cleomenes, the snake was well established as the vehicle of\na hero, but some such coincidence may very early have given rise to this\nassociation of ideas. Plutarch adds that \u2018the men of old time associated\nthe snake most of all beasts with heroes.\u2019 They did this because, he\nsays, philosophers had observed that \u2018when part of the moisture of the\nmarrow is evaporated and it becomes of a thicker consistency it produces\nserpents.\u2019\n\nThe snake was not the only vehicle. As has already been noted (p. 305),\nthe spirit of the dead could take shape as a human-headed bird or even\nperhaps, if a bird happened to perch on a tomb, as a mere natural\nhoopoe or swallow. Between the bird-souls and the snake-souls there is\nthis difference. So far as we know, the human-headed bird was purely a\ncreature of mythology, whereas the bearded human snake was the object of\na cult. Also the bird-soul, though sometimes male, tends, on the whole,\nto be a woman; the snake, even when not bearded, is usually the vehicle\nof a male ghost; as such he is the incarnation rather of the hero than\nthe heroine. So close is the connection that it gave rise to the popular\nexpression \u2018Speckled hero,\u2019 which arose, Photius[856] explains, because\nsnakes which are speckled are called heroes. Of these snake-heroes and\ntheir cultus Homer knows absolutely nothing, but the belief in them is\nessentially primitive and recrudesces with other popular superstitions.\n\n\nTHE CULTUS-TITLES.\n\nThe great snake, later worshipped as Zeus Meilichios, was, we have\nalready seen (p. 21), not Zeus himself, but an underworld being addressed\nby the title Meilichios, gracious, kindly, easy to be intreated. It\nwill now be evident that his snake form marks him as the vehicle or\nincarnation of a ghost, a local hero. He was only one of a large class of\nlocal divinities who were invoked not by proper names but by adjectival\nepithets, descriptive of their nature, epithets which gradually\ncrystallized into cultus-titles. That these titles were really adjectival\nis shown sometimes by the actual word, e.g. _Meilichios_, which retains\nits adjectival sense, sometimes by the fact that it is taken on as a\ndistinguishing epithet by an Olympian, e.g. Zeus-Amphiaraos. These\ncultus-titles mark an important stage in the making of a god and must be\nexamined somewhat more in detail.\n\nHerodotus[857] in discussing the origins of Greek theology makes the\nfollowing significant statement: \u2018The Pelasgians formerly made all sorts\nof sacrifice to the gods and invoked them in prayer, as I know from what\nI heard in Dodona, but they gave to none of them either name or eponym,\nfor such they had not yet heard: they addressed them as gods because they\nhad set all things in order and ruled over all things. Then after a long\nlapse of time they learnt the names of the other gods which had come from\nEgypt and much later that of Dionysos. As time went on they inquired of\nthe oracle at Dodona about these names, for the oracle there is held to\nbe the most ancient of all the oracles in Greece and was at that time the\nonly one. When therefore the Pelasgians inquired at Dodona whether they\nshould adopt the names that came to them from the barbarians, the oracle\nordained that they should use them. And from that time on they sacrificed\nto the gods making use of their names.\u2019\n\nIf the gods were in these primitive days invoked in prayer, some sort\nof name, some mode of address they must have had. Is it not at least\npossible that the advance noted by Herodotus is the shift from mere\ncultus-title, appropriate to any and every divinity, to actual _proper_\nname which defined and crystallized the god addressed? Any and every\nhero or divinity might rightly be addressed as _Meilichios_, but a\nsingle individual personality is caught and crystallized in the proper\nname _Zeus_. When an epithet lost its adjectival meaning, as is the case\nwith Amphiaraos, then and not till then did it denote an individual god.\nApollo, Artemis, Zeus himself, may have been adjectival to begin with,\nmere cultus epithets, but their meaning once lost they have become proper\nand personal.\n\nIt is significant that the shift is said to have taken place owing to\nan oracle at Dodona. There, accepting Prof. Ridgeway\u2019s[858] theory, was\nthe first clash of Pelasgian and Achaean, there Zeus and his shadow-wife\nDione displaced the ancient Earth-Mother with her dove-priestesses;\nthere surely the Pelasgians with their \u2018nameless\u2019 gods, their heroes\nand heroines addressed by cultus epithets, met and mingled with the\nworshippers of Zeus the Father and Apollo the Son and Artemis his\nsister, and learnt to fix the personalities of their formless shifting\ndivinities, learnt the lesson not from the ancient civilized Egyptians\nbut from the northern \u2018barbarians.\u2019\n\nThe word _hero_ itself is adjectival. A gloss in Hesychius[859] tells\nus that by hero was meant \u2018mighty,\u2019 \u2018strong,\u2019 \u2018noble,\u2019 \u2018venerable.\u2019 In\nHomer the hero is the strong man _alive_, mighty in battle; in cultus the\nhero is the strong man _after death_, dowered with a greater, because a\nghostly, strength. The dead are, as already noted, \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u2018Better\nand Stronger Ones.\u2019 The avoidance of the actual proper name of a dead man\nis an instructive delicate decency and lives on to-day. The newly dead\nbecomes, at least for a time, \u2018He\u2019 or \u2018She\u2019; the actual name is felt too\nintimate. It is a part of the tendency in all primitive and shy souls, a\ntendency already noted (p. 214), to remove a little whatever is almost\ntoo close, to call your friend \u2018the kind one,\u2019 or \u2018the old one,\u2019 or\n\u2018the black one,\u2019 and never name his silent name. Of course the delicate\ninstinct soon crystallizes into definite ritual prescription, and\ngathers about it the practical cautious utilitarianism of _de mortuis nil\nnisi bene_.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is often said that the Greeks were wont to address their heroized\ndead and underworld divinities by \u2018euphemistic\u2019 titles, Eumenides for\nErinyes, \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad, \u2018Good One,\u2019 when they meant \u2018Bad One.\u2019 Such is the ugly\nmisunderstanding view of scholiasts and lexicographers. But a simpler,\nmore human explanation lies to hand. The dead are, it is true, feared,\nbut they are also loved, felt to be friendly, they have been _kin_ on\nearth, below the earth they will be _kind_. But in primitive days it is\nonly those who have been kin who will hereafter be kind; the ghosts of\nyour enemies\u2019 kin will be _un_kind; if to them you apply kindly epithets\nit is by a desperate euphemism, or by a mere mechanical usage.\n\nOf such euphemism Homer[860] has left us a curious example. Zeus would\nfain remind the assembled gods of the blindness and fatuity of mortal man:\n\n \u2018Then spake the Sire of Gods and Men, and of the Blameless One,\n Aigisthos, he bethought him, whom Agamemnon\u2019s son,\n Far-famed Orestes, slew.\u2019\n\nAigisthos, traitor, seducer, murderer, craven, is \u2018the Blameless One.\u2019\nThe outraged morality of the reader is in instant protest. These\nOlympians, these gods \u2018who live at ease,\u2019 go too far.\n\nThe epithets in Homer are often worn very thin, but here, once the point\nis noted[861], it is manifest that \u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, \u2018the Blameless One,\u2019 is a\ntitle perfectly appropriate to Aigisthos _as a dead hero_. Whatever his\nlife on the upper earth, he has joined the company of the \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2,\n\u2018the Stronger and Better Ones.\u2019 The epithet \u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd in Homer is applied\nto individual heroes, to a hero\u2019s tomb[862], to magical, half-mythical\npeoples like the Phaeacians and Aethiopians[863] who to the popular\nimagination are half canonized, to the magic island[864] of the god\nHelios, to the imaginary, half-magical Good Old King[865]. It is used\nalso of the \u2018convoy[866]\u2019 sent by the gods, which of course is magical\nin character; it is never, I believe, an epithet of the Olympians\nthemselves. There is about the word a touch of what is dead and demonic\nrather than actually divine.\n\nHomer himself is ignorant of, or at least avoids all mention of, the dark\nsuperstitions of a primitive race; he knows nothing at least ostensibly\nof the worship of the dead, nothing of the cult at his tomb, nothing of\nhis snake-shape; but Homer\u2019s epithets came to him already crystallized\nand came from the underlying stratum of religion which was based on the\nworship of the dead. And here comes in a curious complication. To Homer,\nthough he calls him mechanically, or if we like \u2018euphemistically,\u2019 the\n\u2018Blameless One,\u2019 Aigisthos is really bad, though not perhaps so black\nas Aeschylus painted him. But was he bad in the eyes of those who first\nmade the epithet? The story of Aigisthos is told _by the mouth of the\nconquerors_. Aigisthos is of the old order, of the primitive population,\nthere before the coming of the family of Agamemnon. Thyestes, father of\nAigisthos, had been banished[867] from his home; Aigisthos is reared as\nan alien and returns to claim his own. Clytaemnestra too was of the old\norder, a princess of the primitive dwellers in the land, regnant in her\nown right. Agamemnon leaves her, leaves her significantly in the charge\nof a bard[868], one of those bards pledged to sing the glory of the\nconquering Achaeans, and the end is inevitable: she reverts to the prince\nof the old stock, Aigisthos, to whom we may even imagine she was plighted\nbefore her marriage to Agamemnon. Menelaos in like fashion marries a\nprincess of the land and his too are the sorrows of the king-consort.\nThe tomb of Aigisthos was shown to Pausanias[869]. We hear of no cult;\npossibly under the force of hostile epic tradition it dwindled and died,\nbut in old days we may be sure \u2018the Blameless One\u2019 had his meed of\nservice at Argos, and the epithet itself remains as eternal witness.\n\nSalmoneus to the Achaean mind was scarcely more \u2018Blameless\u2019 than\nAigisthos and yet he too bears the epithet. In the Nekuia[870] Odysseus\nsays:\n\n \u2018Then of the throng of women-folk first Tyro I did see,\n Child of Salmoneus, Blameless One, a noble sire he.\u2019\n\nThe case of Salmoneus is highly significant. He too belongs to the old\norder, as indeed do all the Aeolid figures connected with the group of\ndead heroines, and more, in his life he was in violent opposition to the\nnew gods. To Hesiod[871] he is \u2018the Unjust One\u2019 (\u1f04\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2). He even dared\nto counterfeit the thunder and lightning of Zeus, and Zeus enraged slew\nhim with a thunderbolt. The vase-painting already discussed (p. 60) is\nthe very mirror of the picture drawn by Vergil[872] of the insolent king:\n\n \u2018Through the Greek folk, midway in Elis town\n In triumph went he; for himself, mad man,\n Honours divine he claimed.\u2019\n\nTo every worshipper of the new order his crime must have seemed heinous\nand blasphemous, but among his own people he was glorious before death\nand probably \u2018Blameless\u2019 after.\n\nThe case of Tityos, Son of Earth, presents a close parallel, though\nTityos never bore the title of \u2018Blameless.\u2019 To the orthodox worshipper of\nthe Olympians he was the vilest of criminals; as such Homer[873] knew him:\n\n \u2018For he laid hands on Leto, the famous bride of Zeus,\n What time she fared to Pytho through the glades of Panopeus.\u2019\n\nAnd for this his sin he lay in Hades tortured for ever. This is from\nthe Olympian point of view very satisfactory and instructive, but when\nwe turn to local tradition Tityos is envisaged from quite another point\nof view. Strabo[874], when he visited Panopeus, learnt that it was the\nfabled abode of Tityos. He reminds us that it was to the island of Euboea\nthat, according to Homer[875], the Phaeacians conducted fair-haired\nRhadamanthys that he might see Tityos, Son of Earth. We wonder for a\nmoment why the just Rhadamanthys should care to visit the criminal.\nHomer leaves us in doubt, but Strabo makes the mystery clear. On Euboea,\nhe says, they show a \u2018cave called Elarion from Elara who was mother\nto Tityos, and a hero-shrine of Tityos, and some kind of honours are\nmentioned which are paid to him.\u2019 One \u2018blameless\u2019 hero visits another,\nthat is all. Golden-haired Rhadamanthys found favour with the fair-haired\nAchaeans; but for Tityos, _the son of Earth_, there is no place in the\nNorthern Elysium.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe may take it then that the \u2018euphemistic\u2019 epithets were applied at first\nin all simplicity and faith to heroes and underworld gods by the race\nthat worshipped them. The devotees of the new Achaean religion naturally\nregarded the heroes and saints of the old as demons. Such was in later\ndays the charitable view taken by the Christian fathers of the Olympian\ngods in their turn. All the activities that were uncongenial, all the\nblack side of things, were carefully made over by the Olympians to the\ndivinities they had superseded. Only here and there the unconscious use\nof a crystallized epithet like \u2018Blameless\u2019 lets out the real truth. The\nritual prescription that heroes should be worshipped by night, their\nsacrifice consumed before dawn, no doubt helped the conviction that as\nthey loved the night their deeds were evil. Their ritual too was archaic\nand not lacking in savage touches. At Daulis[876] Pausanias tells of the\nshrine of a hero-founder. It was evidently of great antiquity, for the\npeople of the place were not agreed as to who the hero was; some said\nPhocos, some Xanthippos. Service was done to him every day, and when\nanimal sacrifice was made the Phocians poured the blood of the victim\nthrough a hole into the grave; the flesh was consumed on the spot. Such\nplain-spoken ritual would go far to promote the notion that the hero was\nbloodthirsty.\n\nSometimes a ritual prescription marks clearly the antipathy between old\nand new, between the hero and the Olympian. Pausanias[877] describes in\ndetail the elaborate ceremonial observed in sacrificing to Pelops at\nOlympia. The hero had a large _temenos_ containing trees and statues\nand surrounded by a stone wall, and the entrance, as was fitting for a\nhero, was towards the west. Sacrifice was done into a pit and the victim\nwas a black ram. Pausanias ends his account with the significant words:\n\u2018Whoever eats of the flesh of the victim sacrificed to Pelops, whether he\nbe of Elis or a stranger, _may not enter the temple of Zeus_.\u2019 But we are\nglad to know from Pindar[878] that no spiteful ritual prescription of\nthe Olympian could dim the splendour of the local hero:\n\n \u2018In goodly streams of flowing blood outpoured\n Upon his tomb, beside Alpheios\u2019 ford,\n Now hath he still his share;\n Frequent and full the throng that worship there.\u2019\n\nThe scholiast comments on the passage: \u2018Some say that it was not (merely)\na tomb but a sanctuary of Pelops and that the followers of Herakles\nsacrificed to him before Zeus.\u2019\n\nAt yet another great Pan-Hellenic centre there is the memory, though more\nfaded, of the like superposition of cults. The scholiast on Pindar[879]\nsays that the contest at Nemea was of the nature of funeral games\n(\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) and that it was in honour of Archemoros, but that later,\nafter Herakles had slain the Nemean lion, he \u2018took the games in hand and\nput many things to rights and ordered them to be sacred to Zeus.\u2019\n\nMore commonly there is between the Olympian and the hero all appearance\nof decent friendliness. A compromise is effected; the main ritual is\nin honour of the Olympian, but to the hero is offered a preliminary\nsacrifice. A good instance of this procedure is the worship of Apollo at\nAmyclae[880] superposed on that of the local hero Hyakinthos. The great\nbronze statue of Apollo stood on a splendid throne, the decorations\nof which Pausanias describes in detail. The image itself was rude and\nancient, the lower part pillar-shaped, but for all that the god was\na new-comer. \u2018The basis of the image was in form like an altar, and\nthey say that Hyakinthos was buried in it, and at the festival of the\nHyakinthia _before_ the burnt sacrifice (\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) to Apollo, they devote\nofferings (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) to Hyakinthos into this altar through a bronze\ndoor.\u2019\n\nApollo and Hyakinthos established a _modus vivendi_. Apollo instituted\nhis regular Olympian sacrifices (\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9) and left to Hyakinthos his\nunderworld offerings (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1). But not every Olympian was so\nsuccessful. Ritual is always tenacious. So too at Delphi, Apollo may\nseat himself on the omphalos, but he is still forced to utter his\noracles through the mouth of the _priestess_ of Gaia. Zeus, we have\nseen, arrogated to himself the title of Meilichios; he had the old snake\nreliefs dedicated to him, but he was powerless to change the ritual\nof the hero, and had to content himself, like an underworld god, with\nholocausts. All that he could do was to emphasize the untruth that he,\nnot the hero, was Meilichios, Easy to be intreated.\n\nAll that could be effected by theological _animus_ was done. It has\nbeen seen (p. 9) how in the fable of Babrius the hero-ancestor is\npositively forbidden to give good things, and meekly submits; and, long\nbefore Babrius, the blackening process had set in. The bird-chorus in\nAristophanes[881] tells of the strange sights it has seen on earth:\n\n \u2018We know of an uncanny spot,\n Very dark, where the candles are not;\n There to feast with the heroes men go\n By day, but at evening, oh no!\n For the night time is risky you know.\n If the hero Orestes should meet with a mortal by night,\n He\u2019d strip him and beat him and leave him an elegant sight.\u2019\n\nOrestes was of course a notable local thief, but the point of the joke\nis the ill-omened character of a hero. The scholiast says that \u2018heroes\nare irascible and truculent to those they meet and possess no power\nover what is beneficial.\u2019 He cites Menander as his authority, but adds\non his own account that this explains the fact that \u2018those who go past\nhero-shrines keep silence.\u2019 So easy is it to read a bad meaning into a\nreverent custom. So possessed are scholiasts and lexicographers by the\nOlympian prejudice that, even when the word they explain is dead against\na bad interpretation, they still maintain it. Hesychius[882], explaining\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \u2018Better or Stronger Ones,\u2019 says \u2018they apply the title to\nheroes, and they seem to be a bad sort of persons; it is on this account\nthat those who pass hero-shrines keep silence lest the heroes should do\nthem some harm.\u2019 Among gods, as among mortals, one rule holds good: the\nking can do no wrong and the conquered no right.\n\n\nASKLEPIOS AND THE HEROES OF HEALING.\n\nHeroes, like the ghosts from which they sprang, had of course their\nblack angry side, but, setting aside the prejudice of an Olympianized\nliterature, it is easy to see that in local cultus they would tend rather\nto beneficence. The ghost you worship and who by your worship is erected\ninto a hero is your kinsman, and the ties of kinship are still strong in\nthe world below. \u2018In almost all West African districts,\u2019 says Miss Mary\nKingsley[883], \u2018is a class of spirits called \u201cWell-disposed Ones\u201d and\nthis class is clearly differentiated from \u201cThem,\u201d the generic term for\nnon-human spirits. These \u201cWell-disposed Ones\u201d are ancestors and they do\nwhat they can to benefit their particular village or family fetish who is\nnot a human spirit or ancestor.\u2019 So it was with the Greek; he was careful\nnot to neglect or offend his local hero, but on the whole he relied on\nhis benevolence:\n\n \u2018When a man dies we all begin to say\n The sainted one has passed away, he has \u2018fallen asleep,\u2019\n Blessed therein that he is vexed no more.\n And straight with funeral offerings we do sacrifice\n As to a god and pour libations, bidding\n Him send good things up here from down below[884].\u2019\n\nThe cult of heroes had in it more of human \u2018tendance\u2019 than of demonic\n\u2018aversion.\u2019\n\nThe hero had for his sphere of beneficence the whole circle of human\nactivities. Like all primitive divinities he was of necessity a\ngod-of-all-work; a primitive community cannot afford to departmentalize\nits gods. The local hero had to help his family to fight, to secure\nfertility for their crops and for themselves, act as oracle when the\ncommunity was perplexed, be ready for any emergency that might arise, and\neven on occasion he must mend a broken jug. But most of all he was adored\nas a Healer. As a Healer he rises very nearly to the rank of an Olympian,\nbut through the gentleness of his office he keeps a certain humanity that\nprevents complete deification. A typical instance of the Hero-Healer is\nthe god Asklepios.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe conceive of Asklepios as he is figured in many a Greek and\nGraeco-Roman statue, a reverend bearded god, somewhat of the type of\nZeus, but characterized by the staff on which he leans and about which is\ntwined a snake. The snake, our hand-books tell us, is the \u2018symbol of the\nhealing art,\u2019 and hence the attribute of Asklepios, god of medicine.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 101.]\n\nThe design in fig. 101, from a votive relief[885] found in the\nAsklepieion and now in the National Museum at Athens, gives cause for\nreflection. The god himself stands in his familiar attitude, waiting\nthe family of worshippers who approach with offerings. A little happy\nhonoured boy is allowed to lead the procession bringing a sheep to the\naltar. Behind the god is his attribute, a huge coiled snake, his head\nerect and level _with the god he is_. Take away the human Asklepios and\nthe scene is yet complete, complete as on the Meilichios relief in fig.\n2, the great hero snake and his worshippers.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 102.]\n\nThe relief in fig. 101 is under a foot in length, the offering probably\nof some poor man who clung to his old faith in the healing snake-hero. It\nforces us in its plain-spoken simplicity to face just the fact that the\ndedicator of the next relief[886] (fig. 102) is so anxious to conceal.\nThis second relief is the offering of a rich man, the figures are about\nhalf life-size; it was found in the same Asklepieion on the S. slope of\nthe Acropolis. Asklepios no longer stands citizen-fashion leaning on\nhis staff: he is seated in splendour, and beside him is coiled a very\nhumble attributive snake. Behind are two figures, probably of a son and\na daughter, and they all three occupy a separate chapel aloof from their\nhuman worshippers.\n\nIn token of his humble birth as the ghost of a mortal the snake always\nclings to Asklepios, but it is not the only evidence. An essential part\nof his healing ritual was always and everywhere the \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2[887],\nthe \u2018sleeping in\u2019 his sanctuary. The patient who came to be cured must\nsleep and in a dream the god either healed him or revealed the means of\nhealing. It was the dream oracle sent by Earth herself[888] that Apollo\nthe Olympian came to supersede. All the strange web of human chicanery\nthat was woven round the dream cure it would here be irrelevant to\nexamine: only the simple fact need be noted that the prescribed ritual\nof sleep was merely a survival of the old dream oracle of the hero.\nIt was nowise peculiar to Asklepios. When men came to the beautiful\nlittle sanctuary of Amphiaraos[889] at Oropus they purified themselves,\nsacrificed a ram, and spreading the skin under them they went to sleep\n\u2018awaiting a revelation in a dream.\u2019\n\nThe dream oracle remained always proper to the earth-born heroes; we\nhear of no one _sleeping_ in the precinct of Zeus, or of Apollo, and the\nbelief in the magic of sleep long outlasted the service of the Olympians.\nTo-day year by year on the festival of the Panagia a throng of sick\nfrom the islands round about make their pilgrimage to Tenos, and the\nsick sleep in the Church and in the precinct and are healed, and in the\nmorning is published the long list of miraculous cures (\u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1). It is\nonly the truth and the true gods that lived. The Panagia has taken to\nherself all that was real in ancient faith, in her are still incarnate\nthe Mother and the Maid and Asklepios the Saviour. Like most primitive\nfaiths the belief in the dream cure appealed to something very deep-down\nand real, however misunderstood and perverted, something in the secret\nbidding of nature that said, that always will say:\n\n \u2018Sleep Heart, a little free\n From thoughts that kill.\n Nothing now hard to thee\n Or good or ill.\n And when the shut eyes see\n Sleep\u2019s mansions fill,\n Night might bring that to be\n Day never will.\u2019\n\nThe worship of Asklepios, we know from the evidence of an\ninscription[890], was introduced at Athens about 421 B.C.: it was still\nno doubt something of a new excitement when Aristophanes wrote his\n_Plutus_. But Athens was not left till 421 B.C. without a Hero-Healer.\nAsklepios came to Athens as a full-blown god, came first from Thessaly,\nwhere he was the rival of Apollo, and finally from his great sanctuary\nat Epidauros, and, when he came, we have definite evidence that his\ncult was superimposed on that of a more ancient hero. \u2018Affiliated\u2019 is\nperhaps the juster word, for when a hero from without took over the cult\nof an indigenous hero there is no clash of ritual as in the case of an\nOlympian, no conflict between \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 and \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af; both heroes alike are\ncontent with the simple offering of the _pelanos_.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the course of the \u2018Enneakrounos\u2019 excavations Dr D\u00f6rpfeld came upon\na small sanctuary consisting of a precinct, an altar, and a well[891].\nThe precinct wall, the well and the conduit leading to it were clearly,\nfrom the style of their masonry, of the date of Peisistratos. Within and\naround the precinct were votive offerings that pointed to the worship of\na god of healing, reliefs representing parts of the human body, breasts\nand the like, a man holding a huge leg marked with a varicose vein,\nreliefs of the usual \u2018Asklepios\u2019 type, and above all votive snakes. Had\nthere been no inscriptions the precinct could have been at once claimed\nas \u2018sacred to Asklepios,\u2019 and we should have been left with the curious\nproblems, \u2018Why had Asklepios two precincts, one on the south, one on\nthe west of the Akropolis; and, if the god had already a shrine on the\nwest slope in the days of Peisistratos, why did he trouble to make a\ntriumphant entry into Athens on the south slope in 421 B.C.?\u2019\n\nHappily we are left in no such dilemma. On a stele found in the precinct\nwe have the following inscription[892]: \u2018Mnesiptolem\u00e8 on behalf of\nDikaiophanes dedicated (this) to Asklepios Amynos.\u2019 If the inscription\nstood alone, we should probably decide that Asklepios was worshipped\nin the precinct _under the title of Amynos_, the Protector. Whatever\nthe original meaning of the word Asklepios\u2014and we may conjecture it was\nmerely a cultus-title\u2014it soon became a proper name, and could therefore\neasily be associated with an adjectival epithet.\n\nA second inscription[893] happily makes it certain that Amynos was not\nmerely an adjective, but an adjectival title of a person distinct\nfrom Asklepios. It runs as follows: \u2018Certain citizens held it just to\ncommemorate concerning the common weal of the members of the thiasos\nof Amynos and of Asklepios and of Dexion.\u2019 Here we have the names of\nthree personalities manifestly separate and enumerated in significant\norder. We know Asklepios and most fortunately Dexion. The author of the\n_Etymologicon Magnum_[894], in explaining the word _Dexion_, says: \u2018The\ntitle was given by the Athenians to Sophocles after his death. They say\nthat when Sophocles was dead the Athenians, wishing to give him added\nhonours, built him a hero-shrine and named him Dexion, the Receiver, from\nhis reception of Asklepios\u2014for he received the god in his own house and\nset up an altar to him.\u2019 For the heroization of Sophocles we have earlier\nevidence than the _Etymologicon Magnum_. The historian Istros[895] (3rd\ncent. B.C.) is quoted as saying that the Athenians \u2018on account of the\nman\u2019s virtue passed a vote that yearly sacrifice should be made to him.\u2019\n\nIt seems an extraordinary story, but, if we do not press too hard the\nwords of the panegyrist, the explanation is natural enough. Sophocles\nwas not exactly canonised \u2018because of his virtue.\u2019 He became a hero,\nofficially, because he had officially received Asklepios, and the\n\u2018Receiver\u2019 of a god, like the \u2018Founder\u2019 of a town, had a right to ritual\nrecognition. \u2018Dexion\u2019 is the Receiver of the god, and from the fact\nthat the inscription with his name is set up in the little precinct\non the west slope of the Acropolis we may be sure his worship went on\nthere. It was in that little precinct, we may conjecture, that he served\nas priest. This conjecture is made almost certain by the fact that a\nlater inscription[896] (1st cent. B.C.), with a dedication to Amynos\nand Asklepios, is dated by the priesthood of a \u2018Sophocles,\u2019 probably a\ndescendant of the poet. Sophocles as a hero was not a success, probably\nhe was too alive and human as a poet; he was in his own precinct\ncompletely submerged by the god he \u2018received.\u2019\n\nThe theological history of the little precinct is quite clear. The\ninscription preserves the ritual order of precedence. The sanctuary\nbegan, not later than Peisistratos, as an Amyneion, shrine of a local\nhero worshipped under the title of Amynos, Protector. At some time,\nprobably owing to the recent pestilence which the local hero had failed\nto avert, it was thought well to affiliate a Healer-god who had attained\nenormous prestige in the Peloponnesus. The experiment was quietly and\ncarefully tried in the little Amyneion before the foundation of the great\nAsklepieion on the south slope. It was a very simple matter. A sacred\nsnake would be sent for[897] from Epidauros, to join the local snake of\nAmynos. Both were snakes, both were healers; the same offerings served\nfor both, the votive limbs, the _pelanoi_. Sophocles the human Receiver,\nwho had introduced Asklepios in due course, naturally enough dies, and\na third healing hero is added to the list. Dexion fades, and Asklepios\ngradually effaces Amynos and takes his name as a ceremonial title.\n\n * * * * *\n\nBecause Athens alone is really alive to us, because we know Sophocles as\nhuman poet, Asklepios as divine Healer, the case of Amynos, Asklepios,\nSophocles seems specially vital and convincing. But we must take it\nonly as one instance of the ladder from earth to heaven that had its\nlowest rungs planted in every village scattered over Greece\u2014a ladder\nthat reached sometimes, but not always or even often, up to high Olympus\nitself. Whether a local hero became a god depended on a multitude of\nchances and conditions, the clue to which is lost. If a local hero became\nfamous beyond his own parish the Olympian religion made every effort to\nmeet him half-way. Herakles was of the primitive Pelasgian[898] stock.\nHis name, if the most recent etymology[899] be accepted, means only\n_the_ young dear Hero\u2014_the_ Hero _par excellence_. No pains were spared\nto affiliate him. He is allowed the Olympian burnt sacrifice[900], he\nis passed through the folds of Hera\u2019s robe to make him her child by\nadoption[901], he is married in Olympus to Hebe, herself but newly\ntranslated, the vase-painter[902] diligently paints his reception into\nOlympus, he is always elaborately entering, yet he is never really\n_in_, he is too much a man to wear at ease the livery of an Olympian,\nand literature, always over-Olympianized, makes him too often the\nlaughing-stock of the stage.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 103.]\n\nMore often it is the fate of a hero to become locally a divinity of\nhealing, but never to emerge as a Pan-Hellenic god. In the design in\nfig. 103 we have a good instance\u2014from a vase[903] found in Boeotia and\nnow in the National Museum at Athens. On the obverse a bearded man,\nwearing a wreath, reclines at a banquet. A table with cakes stands by his\ncouch. An enormous coiled snake is about to drink from the wine-cup in\nhis hand. On the reverse a woman-goddess holding a sceptre is seated, a\ngirl brings offerings\u2014an oinocho\u00eb, cakes, a lighted taper. Above are hung\nvotive offerings\u2014a hand, two legs, such as hang in the shrines of saints\nin Brittany and Italy to-day. An interpreter unversed in the complexity\nof hero-cults would at once name the god with the snake on the obverse\nAsklepios, the goddess with the votive limbs on the reverse Hygieia;\nbut to these names they have no sort of right. Found as the vase was in\nBoeotia, the vase-painter more probably intended Amphiaraos, or possibly\nTrophonios, and Agathe Tyche. All we can say is that they are a couple of\nhealing divinities\u2014hero and heroine divinized.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 104.]\n\nThe vase is of late style, and the artist has forgotten that the snake is\nthe hero; he makes him a sort of tame attributive pet, feeding out of the\nwine-cup. The snake is not bearded, but he has a touch of human unreality\nin that he is about to drink out of the wine-cup. These humanized snakes\nare fed with human food; their natural food would be a live bird or a\nrabbit. Dr Gadow kindly tells me that a snake will lap milk, but if he is\nto eat his sacrificial food, the _pelanos_, it must be made _exceedingly\nthin_; anything of the nature of a cake or even porridge he could not\nswallow. And yet the snake on the Acropolis had for his monthly due a\n\u2018honey cake,\u2019 and at Lebadeia[904] in the shrine of Trophonios, where it\nwas a snake who gave oracles, the inhabitants of the country \u2018cast into\nhis shrine flat cakes steeped in honey.\u2019\n\nRepresentations of the hero reclining at a feast occur very frequently\non votive reliefs of a class shortly to be discussed. They appear very\nrarely on vases and only on those of late style. A good instance is\nthe design in fig. 104 from a late red-figured krater in the Berlin\nMuseum[905]. The attempt to give a name to the recumbent man is quite\nfruitless: the great snake marks him as a dead hero. The woman and boy\ncan scarcely be said to be worshippers, though the boy brings cakes and\nfruit; it is rather the feast that went on in life figured as continuing\nafter death.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt remains to examine some of the class of votive reliefs closely\nanalogous to the vase-painting in fig. 104, reliefs usually known as\n\u2018Hero-Feasts\u2019 or \u2018Funeral Banquets.\u2019 They are monuments especially\ninstructive for our purpose, because nowhere else is seen so clearly the\ntransition from hero to god, and also the gradual superposition of the\nOlympians over local hero-cults.\n\n\nTHE \u2018HERO-FEASTS.\u2019\n\nPlato[906] in the _Laws_ arranges the objects of divine worship in a\nregular sequence: first the Olympian gods together with those who keep\nthe city; second the underworld gods whose share are things of unlucky\nomen; third the daemons whose worship is characterized as \u2018orgiastic\u2019;\nfourth the heroes; fifth ancestral gods. He concludes the list with\nliving parents to whom much honour should be offered. As early as\nHesiod[907] theology attempted some differentiation between heroes and\ndaemons; daemons being accounted divine in some higher sense. Of all\nthis minute departmentalism ritual knows nothing. The only recognized\ndistinction is that burnt offerings are the meed of the Olympians,\nofferings _devoted_ (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af) of the chthonic gods. Between the\nchthonic gods and the whole class of dead men, heroes and daemons, the\nonly distinction observed is, as already noted, that certain chthonic\ngods from sheer conservatism reject the service of wine, whereas it is\napparently acceptable to dead men, to heroes and to daemons not fully\ndivinized.\n\nIn like fashion votive reliefs of the type known as Hero-Feasts\ndraw no distinction between hero and daemon, nor indeed do they\nclearly distinguish between ordinary dead man and hero. As a rule the\n\u2018Hero-Feasts\u2019 are depicted on reliefs set up in sanctuaries rather than\ngraveyards, but they occur sometimes on actual tombstones[908] set up in\nactual cemeteries.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 105.]\n\nThe \u2018Hero-Feast\u2019 is found broadcast over Attica, the Peloponnese and\nthe islands; there is scarcely a local museum that does not contain\nspecimens. The design in fig. 105 is from a relief in the local museum\nat Samos[909]. Three heroes are lying at the banquet; one holds a large\nrhyton. A snake coiled about a tree is about to drink from it. Snake\nand tree mark a sanctuary, otherwise the scene is very homelike and\n_non_-hieratic. Of the inscription only two letters remain, and they tell\nnothing. The round shield and the horse\u2019s head and the dog tell us we\nhave to do with actual heroes, but who they were it is impossible to say.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 106.]\n\nThe relief in fig. 106 is also from Samos[910]. It is of the usual\ntype\u2014the recumbent man, the seated woman, the boy about to draw wine. The\nfield is full of characteristic tokens; for the man, the horse\u2019s head,\nthe cuirass, helm, shield and greaves; for the woman, the work-basket of\nthe shape so often occurring on Athenian grave-reliefs, and, it may be,\nthe tame bird which stands on the casket pecking at a fruit. The snake\nis for both, for both are dead. The inscription at first surprises us;\nit is as follows: \u2018Lais daughter of Phoenix, heroine, hail.\u2019 There is no\nmention of the hero, but on examination of the stone it is seen that a\nprevious inscription has been erased[911]. Some one cared more for Lais\nthan for her husband, hence the palimpsest.\n\nThese two specimens from Samos have been selected out of countless\nothers because in them it is quite certain that heroized mortals are\nrepresented. The earliest specimens of the \u2018Hero-Feast\u2019 discovered had no\ninscriptions, and though horse and snake were present an attempt was made\nto interpret them as sacred to Asklepios; the snake was \u2018the symbol of\nhealing,\u2019 the horse that mysterious creature the \u2018horse of Hades[912].\u2019\nThe most ardent devotee of symbolic interpretation can scarcely make\nmythology out of the greaves and the work-basket.\n\n * * * * *\n\nReliefs of the \u2018Hero-Feast\u2019 type are all of late date. The earliest one\nis doubtfully assigned to the end of the 5th century; the great majority\nare much later. The reason is not far to seek. In the fine period of\nGreek Art, the period to which we owe most of the grave-reliefs found at\nAthens, hero-worship is submerged. It is a time of rationalism, and the\nfuneral monuments of that time tend to represent this life rather than\nthe next. I have tried elsewhere to show that early Attic grave-reliefs\nare cast in the _type_ of the Sparta hero-reliefs, but nowhere in Attic\ngrave-reliefs of the 5th century do we find the dead heroized. But once\nthe age of reason past, hero-worship re-emerged, and it would seem in\ngreater force than before.\n\nIn the fine period of art hero-reliefs do exist, but not as funeral\nmonuments. One of the earliest and finest[913] we possess is represented\nin fig. 107. It is not at all of the same type as the \u2018Hero-Feast,\u2019 and\nis figured here partly for its beauty and interest, partly to mark the\ncontrast. A hero occupies the central place, leading his horse, followed\nby his hound. That he _is_ a hero we are sure, for in front of him is\nhis low, omphalos-like altar, and to the left a worshipper approaches.\nUnhappily there is no inscription, but yet we are tempted to give the\nhero a name.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 107.]\n\nHorse and horseman are set against a rocky background. The marble\nof which the relief is made is Pentelic, the style Attic, with many\nreminiscences of the Parthenon marbles. It is therefore not too bold to\nsee in the rocky background a slope of the Acropolis. To the right above\nthe hero is a seated figure, with only the lower part of the body draped.\nZeus is so represented and Asklepios. Zeus has no shrine in the slopes\nof the Acropolis, nor is it probable he would be depicted on a relief of\nthis date seated in casual fashion as a spectator. The figure is almost\ncertainly Asklepios. Given that the figure is Asklepios, the narrative of\nPausanias[914] supplies the clue to the remaining figures. \u2018Approaching\nthe Acropolis by this road, next after the sanctuary of Asklepios is the\ntemple of Themis, and in front of this temple is a mound upreared as a\nmonument to Hippolytos.\u2019 Then Pausanias tells the story of Phaedra and\nHippolytos; he does not actually mention the sanctuary of Aphrodite, but\nhe says \u2018the old images were not there in my time, but those I saw were\nthe work of no obscure artists.\u2019 Images of course presuppose a sanctuary,\nand such a sanctuary we now know from inscriptions and votive offerings\nfound on the spot to have existed, and that it was dedicated to Aphrodite\nPandemos. The figures on the relief exactly correspond to the account\nof Pausanias. To the right, i.e. to the East, the figure of Asklepios;\nnext Themis with her temple, clearly indicated by the two columns between\nwhich she stands; immediately in front of her Hippolytos with his sacred\naltar-mound. Above it Aphrodite, literally \u2018_over_ Hippolytos\u2019 (\u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3\n\u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b9). It is as Euripides[915] knew it:\n\n \u2018And Phaedra then, his father\u2019s Queen high born,\n Saw him, and as she saw her heart was torn\n With great love by the working of my will.\n And there, when he was gone, on Pallas\u2019 hill\n Deep in the rock, that Love no more might roam,\n She built a shrine and named it _Love-at-Home_.\n And the rock held it, but its face always\n Seeks Trozen o\u2019er the seas.\u2019\n\nIt is worth noting that the relief, now in the Torlonia Museum at\nRome, was found not far from Aricia, where the hero Virbius, the Latin\nequivalent of Hippolytos, was worshipped.\n\nIt is possible that in the tragedy of the wrath of Aphrodite against\nthe hero who worshipped Artemis, and in the title of the goddess \u2018over\nHippolytos,\u2019 later misunderstood as \u2018because of,\u2019 \u2018for the sake of\u2019\nHippolytos, we have a reminiscence of a superposition of cults\u2014that the\nactual contest was between a local hero and Aphrodite who had waxed to\nthe glory of an Olympian. Such a view can however scarcely be deduced\nfrom the relief in question, which seems to present relations merely\ntopographical and perfectly peaceful.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe design in fig. 108, from a relief in the Jacobsen[916] collection\nat Ny Carlsberg, Copenhagen, shows a clearer case of supersession. The\ndesign is not earlier than the 4th century B.C. and of the usual type\nof \u2018Hero-Feast\u2019; we have the reclining man, seated wife, attendant\ncupbearer, and, to make the scene quite complete, three worshippers of\nsmaller size. The procession of worshippers is a frequent, though not\nuniform, element in the reliefs representing \u2018Hero-Feasts.\u2019 When present\nthey serve to show very clearly that the hero and his wife are objects\nof worship. As a rule it is, we have seen, safest not to name the hero.\nIn the cases so far where he or the heroine is inscribed, the name has\nbeen that of a mortal. In the present case the inscription has a surprise\nin store for us. Assuredly no one, without the inscriptions, would have\nventured to conjecture the inscribed names. The inscription runs as\nfollows:\n\n \u2018Aristomache and Theoris dedicated (it) to Zeus Epiteleios\n Philios, and to Philia the mother of the god, and to Tyche\n Agathe the wife of the god.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 108.]\n\nPhilia, the Friendly One, is mother not wife of Zeus Philios, \u2018Zeus the\nFriendly\u2019; it is the old matriarchal relation of Mother and Son (p. 273).\nBut the dedicators, wedded themselves no doubt after patriarchal fashion,\nseem to feel a need that Zeus Philios should be married; they give him\nnot his natural shadow-wife Philia\u2014she has been used up as mother\u2014but\nTyche Agathe, \u2018Good Fortune.\u2019 In the procession of worshippers there are\ntwo women with a man between them: probably they are his mother and wife\nand wish to see their relation to him mirrored in their dedication. But\nthey are content with the traditional type of Hero-Feasts, possibly the\nonly type that the conservative workman kept in stock in his workshop.\n\nIt is worth noting that this interesting relief came from a precinct\nof Asklepios in Munychia down at the Peiraeus, the same precinct which\nyielded the snake reliefs (figs. 1 and 2) dedicated to Meilichios. There\nwere also found the relief in fig. 4, several reliefs adorned with\nsnakes only, some reliefs representing Asklepios, and various ritual\ninscriptions. The precinct seems to have become a sort of melting-pot of\ngods and heroes. Tyche we know at Lebadeia as the wife of the Agathos\nDaimon, the Good or Rich Spirit, and it is curious to note that Zeus\non the relief holds a cornucopia, symbol of plenty. His other title\n_Epiteleios_ points the same way. Hesychius[917] tells us that the word\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 means the same as \u03b1\u1f54\u03be\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u2018increase,\u2019 and Plato[918] gives\nthe name \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u2018accomplishments,\u2019 to family feasts held in\nthanksgiving for the birth _and welfare_ of children.\n\nIt seems obvious that the precinct once belonged to a hero, worshipped\nunder the form of a snake, and as Meilichios, god of the wealth of the\nunderworld\u2014a sort of Agathos Daimon or Good Spirit. He must have had two\nother titles\u2014Epiteleios, the Accomplished, and Philios, the Friendly\nOne. At some time or other Asklepios took over the shrine of Meilichios,\nPhilios, Epiteleios, as he took over the shrine of Amynos, but Zeus also\nput in a claim and the two divided the honours of the place. The old\nsnake-hero was forgotten, overshadowed by the Olympian and the great\nimmigrant healer; but the Olympian does not wholly triumph. He cannot\nchange the local ritual, and he must consent to a certain interchange of\nattributes.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 109.]\n\nThis is quaintly shown in the two reliefs placed side by side in\nfig. 109[919]. The larger one to the left shows a seated god holding\na cornucopia; beneath his chair is an eagle. In deference to this\ncharacteristically Olympian bird we should expect the dedication\nto be to Zeus. We find it is to the \u2018Good Spirit.\u2019 In the smaller\nrelief a similar bird is perched below the chair, and a humble pig is\nthe sacrifice, as it is to Zeus Meilichios; the inscription tells us\nthat \u2018the Club-men dedicated it to Zeus Philios in the archonship of\nHegesios.\u2019 The relief is dated by this archonship as set up in the year\n324/3 B.C. The Friendly Zeus was the god of good fellowship and was of\nwide popularity[920]. To cheerful, hilarious souls it was comforting to\nthink that there was another Zeus, less remote, more of the cornucopia\nand less of the thunderbolt, and that he was ready to join a human feast.\nThe diner-out needs and finds a god in his own image, and Zeus\u2014Zeus with\nhis title of Philios, accustomed as he was to Homeric banquets, was ready\nfor the post. So the comic parasite reasons[921]:\n\n \u2018I wish to explain clearly\n What a holy orthodox business this dining-out is\u2014\n An invention of the gods; the other arts\n Were invented by men of talent, not by the gods.\n But dining-out was invented by Zeus the Friendly,\n By common consent the greatest of all the gods.\n Now good old Zeus comes straight into people\u2019s houses\n In his free and easy way, rich and poor alike.\n Wherever he sees a comfortable couch set out\n And by its side a table properly laid,\n Down he sits to a regular dinner with courses,\n Wine and dessert and all, and then off he goes\n Straight back home, and he never pays his shot.\u2019\n\nThe fooling is obviously based on ritual practice in the \u2018Hero-Feast\u2019\nthat developed into the Feasts of the Gods, the Theoxenia.\n\n * * * * *\n\nOur argument ends where it began\u2014with Zeus Meilichios, an early chthonic\nstratum of worship, a later Olympian supersession. The two religions,\nalien in ritual, alien in significance, never more than mechanically\nfused. We have also seen that the new religion was powerless to alter the\nold save in name; the Diasia becomes the festival of Zeus, the ritual\nis a holocaust offered to a snake; Apollo and Artemis take over the\nThargelia, but it remains a savage ceremony of magical purification.\n\nIt might seem that we had reached the end. In reality, for religion in\nany deep and mystical sense, we have yet to watch the beginning; we have\nyet to see the coming of a god, who came from the North and yet was no\nAchaean, no Olympian, who belonging to the ancient stock revived the\nancient ritual, the sacrifice that was in its inner content a sacrifice\nof purification, but revived it with a significance all his own, the god\nwho took over the ritual of the Anthesteria, Dionysos.\n\n\nDIONYSOS ON HERO-RELIEFS.\n\nThe passing from the old to the new is very curiously and instructively\nshown in the two designs in figs. 110 and 111. The design in fig. 110 is\nfrom a relief found in the harbour of Peiraeus and now in the National\nMuseum at Athens[922]. The material is Pentelic marble; in places the\nsurface has suffered considerably from the corrosion of sea-water. The\nfine style of the relief dates it as probably belonging to the end of 5th\ncentury B.C.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 110.]\n\nThe general type of the relief is of course the same as that of the\n\u2018Hero-Feast[923].\u2019 A youth on a couch holds a rhyton, the usual woman\nis seated at his feet, the usual procession stands to the left. But it\nis a \u2018Hero-Feast\u2019 with a difference. The group of \u2018worshippers\u2019 are not\nworshippers; they are talking among themselves, they hold not victims or\nother offerings, but the implements of the drama\u2014a mask, a tambourine.\nThis is clearly seen in the case of the middle figure, a woman[924]. The\nworshippers are tragic actors. This prepares us for the fact disclosed\nby the inscriptions beneath the figures of the youth and the attendant\nwoman. Under the youth is written quite clearly _Dionysos_: under the\nwoman was an inscription of which only two certain letters remain, the\ntwo last, \u03b9\u03b1. These inscriptions, it should clearly be noted, are later\nthan the relief itself, probably not earlier than 300 B.C. The name of\nthe woman attendant cannot certainly be made out: the most probable\nconjecture is (Paid)ia, Play, a natural enough name for a nymph attendant\non Dionysos.\n\nThe name of the god is certain, and, though the inscription is an\nafterthought, it certainly voices the intention of the original artist.\nIt is to the honour of Dionysos, not to that of a hero, that the actors\nwith their masks assemble\u2014to his _honour_ rather than to his definite\nworship. But none the less there remains the significant fact that the\ngod has taken over the art-type of the \u2018Hero-Feast.\u2019\n\nThe second relief[925] in fig. 111 tells in slightly different and more\nelaborate form the same tale. The design is from a relief in the Museum\nat Naples, and is an instance of a type long known as the \u2018Ikarios\nreliefs.\u2019 Its style dates it as about the 2nd cent. B.C. It clearly\npresents a blend of the \u2018Hero-Feast\u2019 to the left and the triumphal entry\nof Dionysos, drunken, elderly, attended by a train of worshippers to\nthe right. The immigrant god is received by the local hero. What local\nhero receives him we cannot say. Legend tells of such receptions by\nIkarios, by Pegasos, by Amphictyon, by Semachos. The hero must remain\nunnamed; anyhow he plays to Dionysos the part played by Sophocles, he\nis _Dexion_, Receiver, Host. It is a Theoxenia, a feasting of the god.\nThe \u2018Ikarios\u2019 reliefs are late, and, in the euphemistic manner of the\ntime, the representation is all peace and harmony. The hero, be he who\nhe may, receives in awe and reverence and gladness the incoming divine\nguest. But Herodotus tells another tale\u2014a tale of the forcible wresting\nof the honours of the hero to the glory of the god. In telling the early\nhistory of Sekyon under the tyrant Cleisthenes he[926] makes this notable\nstatement: \u2018The inhabitants of Sekyon paid other honours to Adrastos and\nthey celebrated his misfortunes by tragic choruses, for at that time\nthey did not honour Dionysos, but honoured Adrastos. Now Cleisthenes\n_transferred these choruses_ (from Adrastos) _to Dionysos_, but the rest\nof the sacrifice he gave to Melanippos.\u2019 It is a sudden glimpse into a\nvery human state of affairs. To put down the cult of Adrastos, the hero\nof a family alien to his own, Cleisthenes introduced the worship of a\nTheban hero Melanippos. He dared not for some reason give the tragic\nchoruses to Melanippos; rather than the local enemy should still have\nthem he hands them over to a popular immigrant god, Dionysos.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 111.]\n\nThe recumbent hero in the \u2018Hero-Feasts\u2019 is usually represented as\nreclining at a feast and as drinking from a large wine-cup, attended by\na cupbearer. It may be conjectured that this type, which does not appear\ntill late in the 5th century, came in with the worship of Dionysos. The\nidea of future bliss as an \u2018eternal drunkenness\u2019 came, it will later\nbe seen (Chap. XI.), with the religion of Dionysos from the North. By\nanticipation we may note a curious fact. On the late Roman coins of\nthe Bizuae[927], a Thracian tribe, the type of the Hero-Feast occurs.\nAn instance is given in fig. 112. A hero is represented\u2014of that we are\nsure from the cuirass suspended on the tree, from the horse and from the\nsnake\u2014but a hero, I would conjecture, conceived of as transfigured into\nthe feasting god, Dionysos himself.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 112.]\n\nTo the examination in detail of the cult of Dionysos we must now turn.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nDIONYSOS.\n\n \u2018\u1f66 \u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1 \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03af-\n \u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u1f70\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9.\u2019\n\n\nSo far the formula for Greek theology has been, \u2018Man makes the gods in\nhis own image.\u2019 Mythological development has proceeded on lines perfectly\nnormal, natural, intelligible. In so far as we understand humanity we can\npredicate divinity. The gods are found to be merely magnified men, on the\nwhole perhaps better but with frequent lapses into worse, _quot homines\ntot sententiae, quot sententiae tot dei_.\n\nAs man grew more civilized, his image, mirrored in the gods, grew more\nbeautiful and _pari passu_ the worship he offered to these gods advanced\nfrom \u2018aversion\u2019 (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae) to \u2018tendance\u2019 (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1). But all along we\nhave been conscious that something was lacking, that even these exquisite\npresentations of the Nymphs and the Graces, the Mother and the Daughter,\nare really rather human than divine, that their ritual, whether of\nignorant and cruel \u2018aversion\u2019 or of genial \u2018tendance,\u2019 was scarcely in\nour sense religious. These perfect Olympians and even these gracious\nEarth-goddesses are not really Lords over man\u2019s life who made them, they\nare not even ghosts to beckon and threaten, they are lovely dreams, they\nare playthings of his happy childhood, and when full-grown he comes to\nface realities, from kindly sentiment he lets them lie unburied in the\nlumber-room of his life.\n\nJust when Apollo, Artemis, Athene, nay even Zeus himself, were losing\ntouch with life and reality, fading and dying of their own luminous\nperfection, there came into Greece a new religious impulse, an impulse\nreally religious, the mysticism that is embodied for us in the two names\nDionysos and Orpheus. The object of the chapters that follow is to try\nand seize, with as much precision as may be, the gist of this mysticism.\n\nDionysos is a difficult god to understand. In the end it is only the\nmystic who penetrates the secrets of mysticism. It is therefore to poets\nand philosophers that we must finally look for help, and even with this\nhelp each man is in the matter of mysticism peculiarly the measure of his\nown understanding. But this ultimate inevitable vagueness makes it the\nmore imperative that the few certain truths that can be made out about\nthe religion of Dionysos should be firmly established and plainly set\nforth.\n\n\nDIONYSOS AN IMMIGRANT THRACIAN.\n\nFirst it is certain beyond question that Dionysos was a late-comer into\nGreek religion, an immigrant god, and that he came from that home of\nspiritual impulse, the North. These three propositions are so intimately\nconnected that they may conveniently be dealt with together.\n\nIn the face of a steady and almost uniform ancient tradition that\nDionysos came from without, it might scarcely be necessary to emphasize\nthis point but for a recent modern heresy. Anthropologists have lately\nrecognized[928], and rightly, that Dionysos is in one of his aspects\na nature-god, a god who comes and goes with the seasons, who has like\nDemeter and Kore, like Adonis and Osiris, his Epiphanies and his\nRecessions. They have rashly concluded that these undoubted appearances\nand disappearances adequately account for the tradition of his\nimmigration, that he is merely a new-comer year by year, not a foreigner;\nthat he is welcomed every spring, every harvest, every vintage,\nexorcised, expelled and slain in the death of each succeeding winter.\nThis error is beginning to filter into handbooks.\n\nA moment\u2019s consideration shows that the actual legend points to the\nreverse conclusion. The god is first met with hostility, exorcised\nand expelled, then by the compulsion of his might and magic at last\nwelcomed. Demeter and Kore are season-goddesses, yet we have no legend\nof their forcible entry. Comparative anthropology has done much for the\nunderstanding of Dionysos, but to tamper with the historical fact of his\nimmigration is to darken counsel.\n\nAncient tradition must be examined, and first as to the lateness of his\ncoming.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn Homer Dionysos is not yet an Olympian. On the Parthenon frieze he\ntakes his place among the seated gods. Somewhere between the dates of\nHomer and Pheidias his entry was effected. The same is true of the\nindigenous Demeter, so that this argument alone is inadequate, but the\nfact must be noted.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 113.]\n\nThe earliest monument of art showing Dionysos as an actual denizen of\nOlympus is the curious design from an amphora[929] now in the Berlin\nMuseum. The scene depicted is the birth of Athene and all the divinities\npresent are carefully and sometimes curiously inscribed. Zeus with his\nthunderbolt is seated on a splendid throne in the centre. Athene springs\nfrom his head. To the right are Demeter, Artemis, Aphrodite, and last of\nall Apollo. To the left Eileithyia, Hermes, Hephaestos, and last Dionysos\nholding his great wine cup.\n\nFrom the style of the inscriptions the design can scarcely date later\nthan the early part of the sixth century. The position and grouping of\nthe different gods is noteworthy. Of course someone must stand on the\noutside, but Dionysos is markedly aloof from the main action. Hermes\nseems to come as messenger to the furthest verge of Olympus to tell him\nthe news. At the right, the other Northerner, Apollo, occupies the last\nplace.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 114.]\n\nMoreover on vase-paintings substantially earlier than the Parthenon\nmarbles the scene of his entry into Olympus is not infrequent. As we have\nno literary tradition of this entry, the evidence of vase-paintings is\nhere of some importance. The design selected (fig. 114) is from a cylix\nsigned by the potter Euxitheos[930] and can be securely dated as a work\nexecuted about the turn of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. On the\nobverse is an assembly of the Olympians all inscribed; Zeus himself with\nhis thunderbolt and Ganymede about to fill his wine cup, Athene holding\nhelmet and lance, Hermes with a flower, Hebe, Hestia with flower and\na branch, Aphrodite with dove and flower, Ares with helmet and lance.\nWe might not have named them right but for their inscriptions. Hera and\nPoseidon are absent, Demeter not yet come. At this time the vase-painter\nis still free to make a certain choice, the twelve Olympians are not\nyet canonical. On the obverse the gods are seated waiting, and on the\nreverse the new god is coming in all his splendour in his chariot with\nvine and wine-cup in his hand. With him, characteristically, for he is\nnever unaccompanied, come the Satyr Terpes playing on the lyre and the\nMaenad Thero with thyrsos and fawn and snake, and behind the chariot\nanother Maenad Kalis with thyrsos and lion and a Satyr Terpon playing on\nthe flute. At the close of the sixth century when Pratinas and Choirilos\nand Phrynichus were writing tragedies in his honour, the gates of that\nexclusive epic Olympus could no longer be closed against the people\u2019s\ngod, and the potter knew it. But there had been a time of doubt and\ndebate. We do not have these entries of Athene or Poseidon or even Hermes.\n\n * * * * *\n\nHomer is of course our first literary source and his main notice of\nDionysos is so characteristic it must be quoted in full. The fact that\nthe passage stands alone\u2014elsewhere through all Homer Dionysos is of no\nreal account\u2014has led critics to suspect that it is of later and local\norigin. Be that as it may, the story glistens like an alien jewel in a\nbedrock of monotonous fighting. Diomede[931] meets Glaucus in battle, but\nso great is the hardihood of Glaucus that Diomede fears he is one of the\nimmortals and makes pious, prudent pause:\n\n \u2018I, Diomedes, will not stand \u2019gainst heavenly Gods in war.\n Not long in life was he of old who raised \u2019gainst gods his hand\n Strong Lyco\u00f6rgos, Dryas\u2019 son. Through Nysa\u2019s goodly land\n He Dionysos\u2019 Nursing Nymphs did chase, till down in fear\n They cast their wands upon the ground, so sore he smote them there,\n That fell king with the ox-smiter. But Dionysos fled,\n And plunged him \u2019neath the salt sea wave. Him sore discomfited\n Fair Thetis to her bosom took. Great fear the god did seize.\n With Lyco\u00f6rgos they were wroth, those gods that dwell at ease,\n And Kronos\u2019 son did make him blind, and he was not for long,\n The immortal gods they hated him because he did them wrong.\u2019\n\nHomer is somewhat mysterious as to the end of Lycurgus\u2014\u2018Not long\nin life was he.\u2019 Sophocles[932] is more explicit, both as to his\nnationality and his doom. He is a Thracian king, son of Dryas, and he\nwas \u2018rock-entombed.\u2019 When Antigone is going to her death the chorus sing\nhow in like fashion others had been forced to bend beneath the yoke of\nthe gods, Danae, Lycurgus, the sons of Phineus, Oreithyia\u2014three of them\nThracians; and of Lycurgus they tell:\n\n \u2018He was bound by Dionysos, rock-entombed,\n Dryas\u2019 son, Edonian king; swiftly bloomed\n His dire wrath and drooped. So was he wrought\n To know his blindness and what god he sought\n With gibes mad-tongued. Yea and he set his hand\n To stay the god-inspired band,\n To quell his women and his joyous fire\n And rouse the fluting Muses into ire.\u2019\n\nThe loss of the Lycurgus trilogy of Aeschylus is hard to bear. One scene\nat least must have been something like a forecast of the _Bacchae_ of\nEuripides. The dialogue between Lycurgus and the stranger-god captured\nand brought into his presence, is parodied by Aristophanes in the\n_Thesmophoriazusae_ and the scholiast[933] tells us that the words:\n\n \u2018Whence does the womanish creature come?\u2019\n\noccurred in the _Edonians_.\n\nNeither Homer nor Sophocles knew anything of the murder of the children.\nWho first piled up this fresh horror we do not know. Vase-paintings of\nthe rather late red-figured style (middle of the fifth century B.C.)\nare our first sources. The punishment of sin was to the primitive mind\nalways incomplete unless the offender was cut off with his whole family\nroot and branch, and the murder of the children may have been an echo of\nthe story of the mad Heracles. It is finely conceived on a red-figured\nkrater[934]. On the obverse is the mad Lycurgus with his children dead\nand dying. He swings a double axe (\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03be). The \u2018ox-feller\u2019 of Homer\nis probably a double axe, not a goad. It is the typical weapon of the\nThracian, and with it the Thracian women regularly on vases slay Orpheus\n(p. 463). Through the air down upon Lycurgus swoops a winged demon of\nmadness, probably Lyssa herself, and smites at the king with her pointed\ngoad. To the left, behind a hill, a Maenad smites her timbrel in token of\nthe presence of the god. On the reverse of the vase we have the peace of\nDionysos who made all this madness. The god has sent his angel against\nLycurgus, but no turmoil troubles him or his. About him his thiasos of\nMaenads and Satyrs seem to watch the scene, alert and interested but in\nperfect quiet.\n\nThe exact details of the fate of Lycurgus, varying as they do from author\nto author, are not of real importance. The essential thing, the factor\nwhich recurs in story after story, is the rage against the dominance of\na new god, the blind mad fury, the swift sudden helpless collapse at the\ntouch of a real force. This is no symbol of the coming of the spring\nor the gathering of the vintage. It is the mirrored image of a human\nexperience, of the passionate vain beating of man against what is not man\nand is more and less than man.\n\nThe nature and essence of the new influence will be in part determined\nlater. For the present the question that presses for solution is \u2018whence\ndid it come?\u2019 \u2018where was the primitive seat of the worship of Dionysos?\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe testimony of historians, from Herodotus to Dion Cassius, is uniform,\nand confirms the witness of Homer and Sophocles. Herodotus[935] tells\nhow Xerxes, when he marched through Thrace, compelled the sea tribes to\nfurnish him with ships and those that dwelt inland to follow by land.\nOnly one tribe, the Satrae, would suffer no compulsion, and then come\nthe significant words: \u2018The Satrae were subject to no man so far as\nwe know, but down to our own day they alone of all the Thracians are\nfree, for they dwell on high mountains covered with woods of all kinds\nand snow-clad, and they are keenly warlike. These are the people that\npossess an oracle shrine of Dionysos and this oracle is on the topmost\nrange of their mountains. And those among the Satrae who interpret the\noracle are called Bessi; it is a priestess who utters the oracles as it\nis at Delphi, and the oracles are nothing more extraordinary than that.\u2019\nHerodotus is not concerned with the religion of Dionysos; he does not\neven say that the religion of Dionysos spread southward into Greece, but\nhe states the all-important fact that the Satrae were never conquered.\nThey received no religion from without. Here among those splendid\nunconquerable savages in their mountain fastnesses was the real home of\nthe god.\n\nHerodotus speaks of the Bessi as though they were a kind of priestly\ncaste among the Satrae, but Strabo[936] knows of them as the wildest\nand fiercest of the many brigand tribes that dwelt on and around Mt.\nHaemus. All the tribes about Mt. Haemus were, he says, \u2018much addicted to\nbrigandage, but the Bessi who possessed the greater part of Mt. Haemus\nwere called brigands by brigands. They are the sort of people who live in\nhuts in very miserable fashion, and they extend as far as Rhodope and the\nPaeonians.\u2019 He mentions the Bessi again[937] as a tribe living high up on\nthe Hebrus at the furthest point where the river is navigable, and again\nemphasizes their tendency to brigandage.\n\nThe evil reputation of the Bessi lasted on till Christian days, till they\nbowed beneath the yoke of a greater than Dionysos. Towards the end of\nthe fourth century A.D. the good Bishop of Dacia, Niketas, carried the\ngospel to these mountain wolves and, if we may trust the congratulatory\node written to him by his friend Paulinus, he carried it not in vain.\nPaulinus celebrates the conversion of the Bessi as follows:\n\n \u2018Hard were their lands and hard those Bessi bold,\n Cold were their snows, their hearts than snow more cold,\n Sheep in the fold from roaming now they cease,\n Thy fold of peace.\n\n Untamed of war, ever did they refuse\n To bow their heads to servitude\u2019s hard use,\n \u2019Neath the true yoke their necks obedient\n Are gladly bent.\n\n They who were wont with sweat and manual toil\n To delve their sordid ore from out the soil\n Now for their wealth with inward joy untold\n Garner heaven\u2019s gold.\n\n There where of old they prowled like savage beasts,\n Now is the joyous rite of angel feasts.\n The brigands\u2019 cave is now a hiding place\n For men of grace[938].\u2019\n\nThucydides[939] in his account of Thracian affairs is silent about the\nBessi and his silence surprises us. It is probably accounted for by the\nfact that in his days the Odrysae had complete supremacy, a supremacy\nthat seems to have lasted down to the days of Roman domination. The\nautochthonous tribes were necessarily obscured. He mentions however\ncertain mountain peoples who had retained their autonomy against Sitalkes\nking of the Odrysae and calls them by the collective name Dioi. Among\nthem were probably the Bessi, for we learn from Pliny[940] that the Bessi\nwere known by many names, among them that of Dio-Bessi. It seems possible\nthat to these _Dio_-Bessi the god may have owed one of his many names.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the face of all this historical evidence, it is at first a little\nsurprising to find that, in the _Bacchae_ of Euripides, Dionysos is\nno Thracian. He is Theban born, and comes back to Thebes, after long\ntriumphant wanderings not in Thrace but in Asia, through Lydia, Phrygia\nto uttermost Media and Arabia. On this point Euripides is explicit. In\nthe prologue[941] Dionysos says:\n\n \u2018Far now behind me lies the golden land\n Of Lydian and of Phrygian\u2014far away\n The wide, hot plains where Persian sun-beams play,\n The Bactrian war-holds and the storm-oppressed\n Clime of the Mede and Araby the blest,\n And Asia all, that by the salt sea lies\n In proud embattled cities, motley-wise\n Of Hellene and Barbarian interwrought,\n And now I come to Hellas, having taught\n All the world else my dances and my rite\n Of mysteries, to show me in man\u2019s sight\n Manifest God.\u2019\n\nDionysos is made to come from without, not as an immigrant stranger\nbut as an exile returned. Moreover, if historical tradition be true, he\nis made to come from the wrong place. He comes also attended by a train\nof barbarian women, Asiatic not Thracian. They chant their oriental\norigin[942]:\n\n \u2018From Asia, from the day-spring that uprises,\n From Tmolus ever glorying we come,\u2019\n\nand again[943]:\n\n \u2018Hither, O fragrant of Tmolus the golden.\u2019\n\nYet Euripides wrote the play in Macedonia and must have known perfectly\nwell that these Macedonian rites that so impressed his imagination were\nfrom Thrace; that, as Plutarch tells us[944], \u2018The women called Klodones\nand Mimallones performed rites which were the same as those done by the\nEdonian women and the Thracian women about the Haemus.\u2019 He knows it\nperfectly well and when he is off his guard betrays his knowledge. In\nthe epode of the third choric song[945] he makes Dionysos come to bless\nPieria and in his coming cross the two Macedonian rivers, the Axios and\nLydias:\n\n \u2018Blessed land of Pierie,\n Dionysos loveth thee,\n He will come to thee with dancing,\n Come with joy and mystery,\n With the Maenads at his hest\n Winding, winding to the west;\n Cross the flood of swiftly glancing\n Axios in majesty,\n Cross the Lydias, the giver\n Of good gifts and waving green,\n Cross that Father Stream of story\n Through a land of steeds and glory\n Rolling, bravest, fairest River\n E\u2019er of mortals seen.\u2019\n\nEuripides as poet can afford to contradict himself. He accepts popular\ntradition, too careless of it to attempt an irrelevant consistency.\nIt matters nothing to him _whence_ the god came[946]. The Theban\nbirth-place, the home-coming were essential to the human pathos of his\nstory. But for that we should have missed the appeal to Dirce[947]:\n\n \u2018Achelo\u00fcs\u2019 roaming daughter,\n Holy Dirce, virgin water,\n Bathed he not of old in thee\n The Babe of God, the Mystery?\u2019\n\nand again[948]:\n\n \u2018Why, O Blessed among Rivers,\n Wilt thou fly me and deny me?\n By his own joy I vow,\n By the grape upon the bough,\n Thou shalt seek him in the midnight, thou shalt love him even now.\u2019\n\nHe came unto his own and his own received him not.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 115.]\n\nWhen we examine the evidence of art, we find that the simple vase-painter\naccepts the fact that Dionysos has become a Greek, and does not raise the\nquestion whence he came. In black and early red figured designs Dionysos\nis almost uniformly dressed a Greek and attended by Greek Maenads. Later\nthe artist becomes more learned and dresses Dionysos as a Thracian or\noccasionally as an Oriental. The vase-painting[949] in fig. 115, from a\nlate aryballos in the British Museum, has been usually interpreted as\nrepresenting the Oriental triumph of Dionysos. Rightly so, I incline to\nthink, because the figure on the camel is attended not only by Orientals\nbut by Greek maidens playing on cymbals. Their free upward bearing\ncontrasts strongly with the strange abject fantastic posturings of the\nOrientals. It must however be distinctly borne in mind that the figure\non the camel carries no Dionysiac attributes and cannot be certainly said\nto be the god.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe question remains\u2014why did popular tradition, accepted by Euripides and\nembodied occasionally in vase-paintings, point to Asia rather than to the\nreal home, Thrace? The answer in the main is given by Strabo[950] in his\nimportant account of the provenance of the orgiastic worships of Greece.\nStrabo is noting that Pindar, like Euripides, regards the rites of\nDionysos as substantially the same with those performed by the Phrygians\nin honour of the Great Mother. \u2018Very similar to these are,\u2019 he adds, \u2018the\nrites called Kotytteia and Bendideia, celebrated among the Thracians. Nor\nis it at all unlikely that, as the Phrygians themselves are colonists\nfrom the Thracians, they brought their religious rites from thence.\u2019 In a\nfragment[951] of the lost seventh book he is still more explicit. He is\nmentioning the mountain Bernicos as formerly in possession of the Briges,\nand the Briges, he says, were \u2018a Thracian tribe of which some portion\nwent across into Asia and were called by a modified name, Phrygians.\u2019\n\nThe solution is simple and is indeed almost a geographical necessity. If\nthe Thracians dwelling in the ranges of Rhodope and Haemus went south at\nall, they would inevitably split up into two branches. The one would move\nwestward into Macedonia, across the Axios and Lydias into Thessaly and\nthence downwards to Delphi, Thebes and Attica; the other eastward across\nthe Bosporus or the Hellespont into Asia Minor. Greek colonists in Asia\nMinor would recognize in the orgiastic cults they found there elements\nakin to their own worship of Dionysos. Wise men are not slow to follow\nthe star that leads to the east, and it was pleasanter to admit a debt to\nAsia Minor than to own kinship with the barbarous north. Similarity of\nnames, e.g. Lydias and Lydia, may have helped out the illusion and most\nof all the Theban legend of the Phoenician Kadmos[952].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 116.]\n\nBut mythology is too unconscious not to betray itself. Herodotus[953]\nsays that the Thracians worship three gods only: Ares, Dionysos\nand Artemis. Between Ares and Dionysos there would seem to be but\nlittle in common, but in one current myth their kinship comes out all\nunconsciously. It is just these unconscious revelations that are in\nmythology of cardinal importance. The story is that known as \u2018the bonds\nof Hera\u2019 (\u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af). Hephaistos, to revenge himself for his downfall\nfrom heaven, sent to his mother Hera a golden throne with invisible\nbonds. The Olympians took counsel how they might free their queen. None\nbut Hephaistos knew the secret of loosing. Ares[954] vowed he would bring\nHephaistos by force. Hephaistos drove him off with firebrands. Force\nfailed, but Hephaistos yielded to the seduction of Dionysos and was\nbrought in drunken triumph back to Olympus. It was a good subject for\nbroad comedy, and Epicharmus used it in his \u2018Revellers or Hephaistos.\u2019\nIt attained a rather singular popularity in art; the subject occurs on\nupwards of thirty vase-paintings black and red figured. Earlier than any\nliterary source for the myth is unquestionably the famous Fran\u00e7ois[955]\nvase (early sixth century B.C.) in the Museo Civico at Florence, where\nthe scene is depicted in broad epic fashion and with some conscious\nhumour. All the figures are inscribed. Zeus is there and Hera, seated\non the splendid, fatal throne. Dionysos leads the mule on which sits the\ndrunken Hephaistos. Up they come into the very presence of Zeus with\nthree attendant Silenoi carrying respectively a wine-skin, a flute, a\nwoman. It is the regular revel rout. Behind the throne of Hera crouches\nAres in deep dejection, on a sort of low stool of repentance, while\nAthene looks back at him with scorn. Why are Ares and Dionysos thus set\nin rivalry? Not merely because wine is mightier than war, but because the\ntwo, Ares and Dionysos, are Thracian rivals, with Hephaistos of Lemnos\nfor a third. It is a bit of local mythology transplanted later to Olympus.\n\nThe diverse fates of these two Thracian gods are instructive. Ares was\nrealized as a Thracian to the end. In Homer he is only half accepted in\nOlympus, he is known as a ruffian and a swashbuckler and like Aphrodite\nescapes[956] to his home as soon as he is released:\n\n \u2018Straightway forth sprang the twain;\n To savage Thrace went Ares, but Kypris with sweet smile\n Hied her to her fair altar place, in pleasant Paphos\u2019 isle.\u2019\n\nThe newly admitted gods, such as Ares and Aphrodite, are never really\nat home in Olympus. Dionysos, as has already been seen (p. 366), has no\nplace in the Homeric Olympus, but, once he does force an entry, his seat\nis far more stable. In the _Oedipus Tyrannos_ Sophocles[957] realizes\nthat Dionysos and Ares are the great Theban divinities, but Ares is of\nslaughter and death, Dionysos of gladness and life. He makes his chorus\nsummon Dionysos to banish Ares his fellow divinity:\n\n \u2018O thou with golden mitre band,\n Named for our land,\n On thee in this our woe\n I call, thou ruddy Bacchus all aglow\n With wine and Bacchant song.\n Draw nigh, thou and thy Maenad throng,\n Drive from us with bright torch of blazing pine\n The god unhonoured \u2019mong the gods divine.\u2019\n\nSophocles just hits the theological mark, Ares _is_ a god but he is\nunhonoured of the orthodox gods, the Olympians.\n\nEuripides[958] too lets out the kinship with Ares. He knows of\n\n \u2018Harmonia, daughter of the Lord of War,\u2019\n\nHarmonia, bride of Kadmos, mother of Semele, and though his Dionysos is\nat the outset all gentleness and magic, his kingdom scarcely of this\nworld, Teiresias[959] knows that he is not only Teacher, Healer, Prophet,\nbut\n\n \u2018of Ares\u2019 realm a part hath he.\n When mortal armies mail\u00e8d and arrayed\n Have in strange fear, or ever blade met blade,\n Fled, maddened, \u2019tis this god hath palsied them,\u2019\n\nand though the panic he sends is from within not without, yet the mention\nis significant. Dionysos, for all his sweetness, is to the end militant,\nhe came not to bring peace upon the earth but a sword, only in late\nauthors his weapons are not those of Ares. On vase-paintings he is not\nunfrequently depicted doing on his actual armour, but Polyaenus[960], in\nthe little treatise on mythological warriors with which he prefaces his\n_Strategika_, notes the secret armour of the god, the lance hidden in\nivy, the fawn-skin and soft raiment for breastplate, the cymbals and drum\nfor trumpet. To the end the god of the brigand Bessi was Lord of War.\n\nArt tells the same tale, that the Thracian Dionysos succeeded where\nthe equally Thracian Ares failed. Among the archaic seated gods on the\nfrieze of the treasury of Cnidos recently discovered at Delphi[961]\nAres has found a place, but a significant one, at the very end, on a\nseat by himself, as though na\u00efvely to mark the difference. Even on the\neast frieze of the Parthenon, where all is softened down to a decent\ntheological harmony, there is just a lingering, semi-conscious touch\nof the same prejudice. Ares is admitted indeed, but he is not quite at\nhome among these easy aristocratic Olympians. He is grouped with no one,\nhe leans his arm on no one\u2019s shoulder; even his pose is a little too\nconsciously assured to be quite confident.\n\nIt is abundantly clear that the remote Asiatic origin of Dionysos is\nemphasized to hide a more immediate Thracian provenance. The Greeks\nknew the god was not home-grown, but he was so great, so good, so\nall-conquering, that they were forced to accept him. But they could not\nbear the truth, that he came from their rough north-country kinsmen\nthe Thracians. They need not have been ashamed of these Northerners,\nwho were as well born as and more bravely bred than themselves. Even\nHerodotus[962] owns that \u2018the nation of the Thracians is the greatest\namong men, except at least the Indians.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nOnce fairly uprooted from his native Thracian soil, it was easy to\nplant Dionysos anywhere and everywhere wherever went his worshippers.\nHis homeless splendour grows and grows till by the time of Diodorus his\nbirthplace is completely apocryphal. In Homer, as has been seen (p.\n368), Nysa or as it is called Nyse\u00efon, whether it be mountain or plain,\nis clearly in Thrace, home of Lycurgus son of Dryas. But already in\nSophocles[963], in the beautiful fragment preserved by Strabo, wherever\nit may be, it is a place touched by magic, a silent land which\n\n \u2018The horned Iacchus loves for his dear nurse,\n Where no shrill voice doth sound of any bird.\u2019\n\nEuripides[964] never expressly states where he supposes Nysa to be, but\nthe name comes to his lips coupled with the Korykian peaks on Parnassos\nand the leafy haunts of Olympus, so we may suppose he believed it to be\nnorthwards. As the horizon of the Greeks widened, Nysa is pushed further\nand further away to an ever more remote _Nowhere_. Diodorus[965] with\nmuch circumstance settles it in Libya on an almost inaccessible island\nsurrounded by the river Triton. It mattered little so long as it was a\nfar-off happy land.\n\nConvinced as he was of this remote African Nysa and of the great Asiatic\ncampaign of Dionysos, it is curious to note that even Diodorus cannot\nrid his mind of Thrace. He knows of course the story of the Thracian\nLycurgus and mentions incidentally that it was in a place called Nysion\nthat Lycurgus set upon the Maenads and slew them, he knows too of the\nconnection between Dionysos and Orpheus[966] and never doubts but that\nOrpheus was a Thracian, a matter to be discussed later. Most significant\nof all, when he is speaking[967] of the trieteric ceremonies instituted\nin memory of the Indian expedition, he automatically records that these\nwere celebrated not only by Boeotians and the other Greeks but _by\nthe Thracians_. Thrace is obscured by the glories of Phrygia, Lydia,\nPhoenicia, Arabia and Libya, but never wholly forgotten.\n\n\nTHE SATYRS.\n\nDionysos then, whatever his nature, is an immigrant god, a late-comer,\nand he enters Greece from the north, from Thrace. He comes not\nunattended. With him are always his revel rout of Satyrs and of Maenads.\nThis again marks him out from the rest of the Olympians; Poseidon,\nAthene, Apollo, Zeus himself has no such accompaniment. As man makes the\ngods in his own image, it may be well before we examine the nature and\nfunctions of Dionysos to observe the characteristics of his attendant\nworshippers, to determine who and what they are and whence they come.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 117.]\n\nThe Satyrs first\u2014they are (what else should they, could they be?) the\n_Satrae_[968]; and these Satrae-Satyrs have many traits in common with\nthe more mythological Centaurs. The evidence of the coins of Macedonia\nis instructive. On the coins of Orreskii[969], a centaur, a horse-man,\nbears off a woman in his arms. At Lete close at hand, with a coinage\nclosely resembling in style, fabric, weight the money of the Orreskii and\nother Pangaean tribes, the type is the same in _content_, though with an\ninstructive difference of form\u2014a naked Satyr or Seilenos with the hooves,\nears and tail of a horse seizes a woman round the waist. These coins are\nof the sixth century B.C. Passing to Thasos, a colony of the Thracians\nand like it rich in the coinage that came of gold mines, we find the\nsame type. On a series of coins that range from _circ._ 500-411 B.C. we\nhave again the Satyr or Seilenos bearing off the woman. An instance, for\nclearness\u2019 sake one of comparatively late date[970], is given in fig. 117.\n\nThis interchange of types, Satyr and Centaur, is evidence about which\nthere can be no mistake. Satyr and Centaur, slightly diverse forms of the\nhorse-man, are in essence one and the same. Nonnus[971] is right: \u2018the\nCentaurs are of the blood of the shaggy Satyrs.\u2019 It remains to ask\u2014who\nare the Centaurs?\n\n * * * * *\n\nThere are few mythological figures about which more pleasant baseless\nfancies have been woven; woven irresponsibly, because mythologists\nare slow to face solid historical fact; woven because, intoxicated by\ncomparative philology, they refuse to seek for the origin of a myth in\nits historical birthplace. The Centaurs, it used to be said, are Vedic\nGandharvas, cloud-demons. Mythology now-a-days has fallen from the\nclouds, and with it the Centaurs. They next became mountain torrents, the\noffspring of the cloud that settles on the mountain top. The Centaurs\nhave possession of a wine-cask, the imprisoned forces of the earth\u2019s\nfertility are left in charge of the genius of the mountain. The cask is\nopened, this is the unlocking of the imprisoned forces at the approach of\nHerakles, the sun in spring, and this unlocking is the signal for the mad\nonset of the Centaurs, the wild rush of the torrents. Of the making of\nsuch mythology truly there is no end.\n\nHomer[972] knew quite well who the opponents of Peiritho\u00f6s were, not\ncloud-demons, not mountain torrents, but real wild _men_ (\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2), as real\nas the foes they fought with. He tells of the heroes Dryas, father of\nLycurgus, and Peiritho\u00f6s and Kaineus:\n\n \u2018Mightiest were they, and with the mightiest fought,\n _With wild men mountain-haunting_.\u2019\n\nNo one has, so far as we know, reduced the mighty Peiritho\u00f6s, Dryas and\nLycurgus to mountain torrents or sun myths. Why are their mighty foes to\nbe less human?\n\nAgain in the Catalogue of the Ships[973] we are told how Peiritho\u00f6s\n\n \u2018Took vengeance on the shaggy mountain-men,\n Drave them from Pelion to the Aithikes far.\u2019\n\nIn the name of common sense, did Peiritho\u00f6s expel a storm-cloud or a\nmountain torrent and force it to leave Pelion and settle elsewhere? The\nvengeance of Peiritho\u00f6s is simply the expulsion of one wild tribe by\nanother.\n\nIn these passages from the _Iliad_ the foes of Peiritho\u00f6s are simply\na tribe of wild men, Pheres. In the _Odyssey_, Homer[974] calls these\nsame foes by the name Kentauri, and implies that they are _non_-human.\nSpeaking of the peril of \u2018honey-sweet wine\u2019 he says:\n\n \u2018Thence \u2019gan the feud \u2019twixt Centaurs and mankind.\u2019\n\nFor the right understanding of this later non-humanity of the Centaurs\nthe development of their art type is of paramount importance.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe are apt to think of the Centaurs exclusively somewhat as they appear\non the metopes of the Parthenon, i.e. as splendid horses with the head\nand trunk of a man. By the middle of the fifth century B.C. in knightly\nhorse-loving Athens the horse form had got the upper hand. In archaic\nrepresentations the reverse is the case. The Centaurs are in art what\nthey are in reality, men with men\u2019s legs and feet, but they are shaggy\nmountain men with some of the qualities and habits of beasts; so to\nindicate this in a horse-loving country they have the hind-quarters of a\nhorse awkwardly tacked on to their human bodies.\n\nA good example is the vase-painting in fig. 118 from an early\nblack-figured lekythos in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Vases of this\nstyle cannot be dated later than the beginning of the sixth century B.C.\nand may be somewhat earlier[975]. The scene represented is the fight\nof Herakles with the Centaurs. To the left is a Centaur holding in his\nright hand a branch, the primitive weapon of a primitive combatant. He is\nfigured as a complete man with a horse-trunk appended. In the original\ndrawing the horse-trunk is made more obviously an extra appendage from\nthe fact that the human body is painted red and the horse-trunk black.\nHerakles too is a fighter with rude weapons; he carries his club, which\nin this case is plainly what its Greek name indicates, a rough hewn trunk\nor branch or possibly root of a tree. The remainder of the design is not\nso clear and does not affect the present argument. The man with the sword\nto the right is probably Iolaos. The object surmounted by the eagles I am\nquite unable to explain.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 118.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 119.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 120.]\n\nThe next stage in the development of the Centaur is seen in the archaic\ngem from the British Museum[976] in fig. 120. Here the noticeable point\nis that the Centaur, though he has still the body of a man, is beginning\nto be more of a horse. He has hoofs for feet. He is behaving just like\nthe Satyr on the coin in fig. 117, or the aggressor on the Fran\u00e7ois vase\n(fig. 116), he is carrying off a woman. It is the last step in the\ntransition to the Centaur of the Parthenon, i.e. the horse with head and\ntrunk of a man. Between Satyr and Centaur the sole difference is this:\nthe Centaur, primarily a wild man, became more and more of a horse, the\nSatyr resisted the temptation and remained to the end what he was at the\nbeginning, a wild man, with horse adjuncts of ears, tail and occasionally\nhoofs. Greek art, as has been already seen in discussing the Gorgon, was\nliberal in its experiments with monster forms, the horse Medusa failed\n(p. 179), the horse Centaur prevailed[977].\n\nThe Parthenon type of the Centaur, the type in which the horse-form is\npredominant, obtains later in red-figured vase-paintings for all Centaurs\nsave one, the virtuous Cheiron. Cheiron always keeps his human feet\nand legs and often wears a decent cloak to mark his gentle civilized\ncitizenship. Pausanias[978] when examining the chest of Kypselos at\nOlympia, a monument dedicated in the seventh century B.C., noted this\npeculiarity: \u2018And the Centaur has not all his feet like a horse, but the\nfront feet are the feet of a man.\u2019 Pindar[979] does definitely in the\ncase of Cheiron identify \u03c6\u03ae\u03c1 and \u039a\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, but art kept for Cheiron the\nmore primitive and human type to emphasize his humanity, for he is the\ntrainer of heroes, the utterer of wise saws, the teacher of all gentle\narts of music and medicine, he has the kind heart of a man.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 121.]\n\nThe charming little design in fig. 121 is from an oinocho\u00eb in the\nBritish Museum[980]. Though the technique is black-figured the delicate\nsoft style is archaistic rather than archaic and the vase is probably not\nolder than the middle of the fifth century B.C. The good Cheiron is a\nquaint blend of horse and middle-aged citizen. The tree branch he still\ncarries looks back to the primitive habits he has left far behind, and\nthe little tree in front marks the woodland home. But there is nothing\nshaggy about his neat decorous figure. Even the dog who used to go\nhunting with him is now alert to give a courteous welcome to the guest.\nA father is bringing his child, a little miniature copy of himself, to\nbe reared in the school of Cheiron. Father and son are probably Peleus\nand Achilles, but the child might be Jason or even Asklepios. It is the\ngood Centaur only who concerns us. How has he of the mountains, fierce\nand untameable, come to keep a preparatory school for young heroes? The\nanswer to this question is interesting and instructive.\n\n * * * * *\n\nProf. Ridgeway[981] has shown that in the mythology of the Centaurs\nwe have a reflection of the attitude of mind of the conquerors to the\nconquered. This attitude is, all the world over, a double one. The\nconquerors are apt to regard the conquered with mixed feelings, mainly,\nit is true, with hatred and aversion, but in part with reluctant awe.\n\u2018The conquerors respect the conquered as wizards, familiar with the\nspirits of the land, and employ them for sorcery, even sometimes when\nrelations are peaceable employ them as foster-fathers for their sons, yet\nthey impute to them every evil and bestial characteristic and believe\nthem to take the form of wild beasts. The conquered for their part take\nrefuge in mountain fastnesses and make reprisals in the characteristic\nfashion of Satyrs and Centaurs by carrying off the women of their\nconquerors.\u2019\n\nNonnus is again right, it was jealousy that gave to the Satyrs their\nhorns, their manes, tusks and tails, but not, as Nonnus supposed, the\njealousy of Hera, but of primitive conquering man who gives to whatever\nis hurtful to himself the ugly form that utters and relieves his\nhate[982]. It should not be hard for us to realize this impulse; our own\ndevil, with horns and tail and hoofs, died hard and recently.\n\nMost instructive of all as to the real nature of the Centaurs and their\nclose analogy to the Satrai-Satyroi is the story of the opening of the\nwine cask. Pindar[983] tells how\n\n \u2018Then when the wild men knew\n The scent of honeyed wine that tames men\u2019s souls,\n Straight from the board they thrust the white milk-bowls\n With hurrying hands, and of their own will flew\n To the horns of silver wrought,\n And drank and were distraught.\u2019\n\nStorm-clouds and mountain torrents, nay even four-footed beasts do not\nget drunk, the perfume of wine is for the subduing of man alone. The wild\nthings (\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2) are all human, \u2018they thrust with their hands.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 122.]\n\nThe scene is a favourite one on vases. One of the earliest\nrepresentations is given in fig. 122 from a skyphos in the Louvre[984].\nIt dates about the beginning of the sixth century B.C. The scene is the\ncave of the Centaur Pholos. The great pithos or wine jar is open. Pholos\nhimself has a large wine-cup in his hand. Pholos is sober still, he is\na sort of Cheiron, but not so the rest. They are mad with drink and are\nhustling and fighting in wild confusion. Herakles comes out and tries to\nrestore order. Wine has come for the first time to a primitive population\nunused to so strong an intoxicant. The result is the same all over the\nworld. A like notion comes out in the popular myth of the wedding feast\nof Peiritho\u00f6s; the Centaurs taste wine and fall to fighting and in\nSatyr fashion seek to ravish the bride. These stories are of paramount\nimportance because they point the analogy between two sets of primitive\nworshippers of Dionysos, the Centaurs and the Satrai-Satyroi.\n\nTo these Satrai-Satyroi we must now return. It is now sufficiently clear\nthat, whatever they became to a later imagination, to Homer and Pindar\nand the vase-painters these horse-men, these attendants of Dionysos, were\nnot fairies, not \u2018spirits of vegetation,\u2019 though from such they may have\nborrowed many traits, but the representatives of an actual primitive\npopulation. They owe their monstrous form, their tails, their horses\u2019\nears and hoofs, not to any desire to express \u2018powers of fertilization\u2019\nbut to the malign imagination of their conquerors. They are not\nincarnations of a horse-god Dionysos[985]\u2014such a being never existed\u2014they\nare simply Satrai. It is not of course denied that they ultimately\n_became_ mythological, that is indeed indicated by the gradual change\nof form. As a rule the Greek imagination tends to anthropomorphism, but\nhere we have a reverse case. By lapse of time and gradual oblivion of\nthe historical facts of conquest, what was originally a primitive man\ndevelopes in the case of the Centaurs into a mythological horse-demon.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Satyrs undergo no such change, they remain substantially human. The\nelement of horse varies but is never predominant. The form in which there\nis most horse is well shown in fig. 123. This picture is from the reverse\nof the cylix in the W\u00fcrzburg Museum[986], on which is depicted the feast\nof Phineus already discussed (p. 225). The fact is worth noting that\nboth representations come from a Thracian cycle of mythology. Phineus is\na Thracian hero, Dionysos a Thracian god. Dionysos stands in a chariot\nto which are yoked a lion and a stag. By his side is a woman, probably a\ngoddess, but whether Ariadne or Semele cannot certainly be determined,\nnor for the present argument does it matter. The god has stopped to water\nhis steeds at a fountain. Satyrs attend him, one is drawing water from\nthe well basin, another clambers on the lion\u2019s back. Some maidens have\nbathed at the fountain, and are resting under a palm tree, one is just\nstruggling back into her clothes. Two prying Satyrs look on with evil in\ntheir hearts. They are wild men with shaggy bodies, rough hair, horses\u2019\nears and tails, and they have the somewhat exceptional addition of hoofs;\nthe human part of them is closely analogous to the shaggy Centaurs of\nfig. 122.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 123.]\n\nThe Satyrs are not pleasant to contemplate; they are ugly in form and\ndegraded in habits, and but for a recent theory[987] it might not be\nneedful to emphasize so strongly their nature and functions. This\ntheory, which has gained wide and speedy popularity, maintains that the\nfamiliar horse-men of black and red figured vases are not Satyrs at\nall. The Satyrs, we are told, are goat-men, the horse-men of the vases\nare Seilenoi. This theory, if true, would cut at the root of our whole\nargument. To deny the identity of the horse-men with the Satyrs is to\ndeny their identity with the Satrai, i.e. with the primitive population\nwho worshipped Dionysos.\n\nWhy then, with the evidence of countless vase-paintings to support us,\nmay we not call the horse-men who accompany Dionysos Satyrs? Because, we\nare told, _tragedy_ is the _goat-song_, the goat-song gave rise to the\nSatyric drama, hence the Satyrs must be _goat_-demons, hence they cannot\nbe _horse_-demons, hence the _horse_-demons of vases cannot be Satyrs,\nhence another name must be found for them. On the Fran\u00e7ois-vase (fig.\n116) the horse-demons are inscribed Seilenoi, hence let the name Seilenoi\nbe adopted for all _horse_-demons. Be it observed that the whole complex\nstructure rests on the philological assumption that _tragedy_ means\nthe goat-song. What _tragedy_ really does or at least _may_ mean will\nbe considered later (p. 421); for the present the point is only raised\nbecause I hold to the view now discredited[988] that the familiar throng\nof idle disreputable vicious _horse_-men who constantly on vases attended\nDionysos, who drink and sport and play and harry women, are none other\nthan Hesiod\u2019s[989]\n\n \u2018race\n Of worthless idle Satyrs.\u2019\n\nThat they are also called Seilenoi I do not for a moment deny. In\ndifferent lands their names were diverse.\n\n\nTHE MAENADS.\n\nIt is refreshing to turn from the dissolute crew of Satyrs to the\nwomen-attendants of Dionysos, the Maenads. These Maenads are as real,\nas actual as the Satyrs; in fact more so, for no poet or painter ever\nattempted to give them horses\u2019 ears and tails. And yet, so persistent is\nthe dislike to commonplace fact, that we are repeatedly told that the\nMaenads are purely mythological creations and that the Maenad orgies\nnever appear historically in Greece.\n\nIt would be a mistake to regard the Maenads as the mere female\ncorrelatives of the Satyrs. The Satyrs, it has been seen, are\nrepresentations of a primitive subject people, but the Maenads do\nnot represent merely the women of the same race. Their name is the\ncorruption of no tribal name, it represents a state of mind and body, it\nis almost a cultus-epithet. Maenad means of course simply \u2018mad woman,\u2019\nand the Maenads are the women-worshippers of Dionysos of whatever race,\npossessed, maddened or, as the ancients would say, inspired by his spirit.\n\nMaenad is only one, though perhaps the most common, of the many names\napplied to these worshipping women. In Macedonia Plutarch[990] tells us\nthey were called Mimallones and Klodones, in Greece, Bacchae, Bassarides,\nThyiades, Potniades and the like. Some of the titles crystallized into\nsomething like proper names, others remained consciously adjectival. At\nbottom they all express the same idea, women possessed by the spirit of\nDionysos.\n\nPlutarch in his charming discourse on Superstition[991] tells how\nwhen the dithyrambic poet Timotheos was chanting a hymn to Artemis he\naddressed the daughter of Zeus thus:\n\n \u2018Maenad, Thyiad, Phoibad, Lyssad.\u2019\n\nThe titles may be Englished as Mad One, Rushing One, Inspired One, Raging\nOne. Cinesias the lyric poet, whose own songs were doubtless couched in\nlanguage less orgiastic, got up and said: \u2018I wish you may have such a\ndaughter of your own.\u2019 The story is instructive on two counts. It shows\nfirst that Maenad and Thyiad were at the date of Timotheos so adjectival,\nso little crystallized into proper names, that they could be applied not\nmerely to the worshippers of Dionysos, but to any orgiastic divinity,\nand second the passage is clear evidence that educated people, towards\nthe close of the fifth century B.C., were beginning to be at issue with\ntheir own theological conceptions. Cultus practices however, and still\nmore cultus epithets, lay far behind educated opinion. It is fortunately\npossible to prove that the epithet Thyiad certainly and the epithets\nPhoibad and Maenad probably, were applied to actually existing historical\nwomen. The epithet Lyssad, which means \u2018raging mad,\u2019 was not likely to\nprevail out of poetry. The chorus in the _Bacchae_[992] call themselves\n\u2018swift hounds of raging Madness,\u2019 but the title was not one that would\nappeal to respectable matrons.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe begin with the Thyiades. It is at Delphi that we learn most of their\nnature and worship, Delphi where high on Parnassos Dionysos held his\norgies. Thus much even Aeschylus, though he is \u2018all for Apollo,\u2019 cannot\ndeny. To this he makes the priestess[993] in her ceremonial recitation of\nlocal powers bear almost reluctant witness:\n\n \u2018You too I salute,\n Ye nymphs about Korykia\u2019s caverned rock,\n Kindly to birds, haunt of divinities.\n And Bromios, I forget not, holds the place,\n Since first to war he led his Bacchanals,\n And scattered Pentheus, like a riven hare.\u2019\n\nAeschylus[994], intent on monotheism, would fain know only the two\ndivinities who were really one, i.e. Zeus and\n\n \u2018Loxias utterer of his father\u2019s will,\u2019\n\nthe Father and the Son, these and the line of ancient Earth-divinities to\nwhom they were heirs. But religious tradition knew of another immigrant,\nDionysos, and Aeschylus cannot wholly ignore him. On the pediments of the\ngreat temple were sculptured at one end, Pausanias[995] tells us, Apollo,\nArtemis, Leto and the Muses, and at the other \u2018the setting of the sun and\nDionysos with his Thyiad women.\u2019 The ritual year at Delphi was divided,\nas will later be seen, between Apollo and Dionysos.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 124.]\n\nThe vase-painting in fig. 124 from a krater in the Hermitage Museum at St\nPetersburg[996] is a brief epitome of the religious history of Delphi,\nmarking its three strata. In the foreground is the omphalos of Gaia\ncovered with fillets:\n\n \u2018First in my prayer before all other gods\n I call on Earth, primaeval prophetess[997],\u2019\n\nGaia, of whom her successors Themis and Phoebe are but by-forms. Higher\nup in the picture are other divinities superimposed on this primitive\nEarth-worship. Apollo and Dionysos clasp hands while about them is a\ncompany of Maenads and Satyrs. It is perhaps not quite certain which is\nregarded as the first comer, but the balance is in favour of Dionysos\nas the sanctuary is already peopled with his worshippers. His dress has\nsomething of Oriental splendour about it as compared with the Hellenic\nsimplicity of Apollo. Each carries his characteristic wand, Apollo a\nbranch of bay, Dionysos a thyrsos.\n\nIn this vase-painting, which dates about the beginning of the fourth\ncentury B.C., all is peace and harmony and clasped hands. The Delphic\npriesthood were past masters in the art of glossing over awkward passages\nin the history of theology. Apollo had to fight with the ancient mantic\nserpent of Gaia and slay it before he could take possession, and we may\nbe very sure that at one time or another there was a struggle between the\nfollowers of Apollo and the followers of Dionysos. Over this past which\nwas not for edification a decent veil was drawn[998].\n\nA religion which conquered Delphi practically conquered the whole Greek\nworld. It was probably at Delphi, no less than at Athens, that the\nwork of reforming, modifying, adapting the rude Thracian worship was\neffected, a process necessary to commend the new cult to the favour of\ncivilized Greece. If then we can establish the historical actuality of\nthe Thyiads at Delphi we need not hesitate to believe that they, or their\ncounterparts, existed in the worship of Dionysos elsewhere.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPausanias[999] when he was at Panopeus was puzzled to know why Homer\nspoke of the \u2018fair dancing grounds\u2019 of the place. The reason he says was\nexplained to him by the women whom the Athenians call Thyiades. He adds,\nthat there may be no mistake, \u2018these Thyiads are Attic women who go every\nother year with the Delphian women to Parnassos and there hold orgies in\nhonour of Dionysos. On their way they stopped to dance at Panopeus, hence\nHomer\u2019s epithet.\u2019 Of course this college of sacred women, these Thyiades,\nwere provided with an eponymous ancestress, Thyia. She is mythological.\nPausanias[1000] says in discussing the origin of Delphi that \u2018some would\nhave it that there was a man called Castalius, an aboriginal, who had a\ndaughter Thyia, and that she was the first priestess of Dionysos and held\norgies in honour of the god, and they say that afterwards all women who\nwere mad in honour of Dionysos have been called Thyiades after her\u2019 (\u1f45\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u0398\u03c5\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd). If \u2018those who\nare mad in honour of Dionysos\u2019 are not substantially Maenads, it is hard\nto say what they are. It is fortunate that Pausanias saw and spoke to\nthese women or else his statement[1001] that they raved upon the topmost\npeaks of Parnassos in honour of Dionysos and Apollo would have been\nexplained away as mere mythology.\n\nPlutarch was a priest in his own Chaeronea and intimately acquainted with\nthe ritual of Delphi, and a great friend of his, Klea, was president\n(\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2) of the Thyiades at Delphi[1002]. He mentions them more than\nonce. In writing to Favorinus[1003] on \u2018the First Principle of Cold\u2019\nhe argues that cold has its own special and proper qualities, density,\nstability, rigidity, and gives as an instance the cold of a winter\u2019s\nnight out on Parnassos. \u2018You have heard yourself at Delphi how the people\nwho went up Parnassos to bring help to the Thyiades were overtaken by\na violent gale with snow, and their coats were frozen as hard as wood,\nso that when they were stretched out they crumbled and fell to bits.\u2019\nThe crumbling coats sound apocryphal, but the Thyiades out in the cold\nare quite real. You do not face a mountain snow-storm to succour the\nmythological \u2018spirits of the spring.\u2019\n\nIt may have been from his friend Klea that Plutarch learnt the pleasant\nstory of the Thyiades and the women of Phocis, which he records in his\ntreatise on the \u2018Virtues of Women[1004].\u2019 \u2018When the tyrants of Phocis had\ntaken Delphi and undertook against them what was known as the Sacred War,\nthe women who attended Dionysos whom they call Thyiades being distraught\nwandered out of their way and came without knowing it to Amphissa. And\nbeing very weary and not yet having come to their right mind they flung\nthemselves down in the agora and fell asleep anyhow where they lay.\nAnd the women of Amphissa were afraid lest, as their city had made an\nalliance with the Phocians and the place was full of the soldiery of\nthe tyrants, the Thyiades might suffer some harm. And they left their\nhouses and ran to the agora and made a ring in silence round them and\nstood there without disturbing them as they slept, and when they woke up\nthey severally tended them and brought them food and finally got leave\nfrom their husbands to set them on their way in safety as far as the\nmountains.\u2019 These Thyiades are the historical counterparts of the Maenads\nof countless vases and bas-reliefs, the same mad revelry, the same utter\nexhaustion and prostrate sleep. They are the same too as the Bacchant\nWomen of Euripides[1005] on the slopes of Cithaeron:\n\n \u2018There, beneath the trees\n Sleeping they lay, like wild things flung at ease\n In the forest, one half sinking on a bed\n Of deep pine greenery, one with careless head\n Amid the fallen oak-leaves.\u2019\n\nIn the reverence shown by the women of Amphissa we see that though the\nThyiades were real women they were something more than real. This brings\nus to another of the cultus titles enumerated by Timotheos, \u2018Phoibad.\u2019\nPhoibas is the female correlative of Phoebus, a title we are apt to\nassociate exclusively with Apollo. Apollo, Liddell and Scott say, was\ncalled Phoebus because of the purity and radiant beauty of youth. The\nepithet has more to do with purity than with radiant beauty; if with\nbeauty at all it is \u2018the beauty of holiness.\u2019 Plutarch in discussing this\ntitle of Apollo makes the following interesting statement[1006]: \u2018The\nancients, it seems to me, called everything that was pure and sanctified\n_phoebic_ as the Thessalians still, I believe, say of their priests\nwhen they are living in seclusion apart on certain prescribed days that\nthey are living phoebically.\u2019 The meaning of this passage, which is\npractically untranslateable, is clear. The root of the word Phoebus meant\n\u2018in a condition of ceremonial purity, holy in a ritual sense,\u2019 and as\nsuch specially inspired by and under the protection of the god, under a\ntaboo. Apollo probably took over his title of Phoebus from the old order\nof women divinities to whom he succeeded. Third in order of succession\nafter Gaia and Themis[1007]:\n\n \u2018Another Titaness, daughter of Earth,\n Phoebe, possessed it, and for birthday gift\n To Phoebus gave it, and he took her name.\u2019\n\nApollo, we may be sure, did not get his birthday gift without substantial\nconcessions. He took the name of the ancient Phoebe, daughter of\nearth, nay more he was forced, woman-hater as he always was, to utter\nhis oracles through the mouth of a raving woman-priestess, a Phoibas.\nHerodotus in the passage already quoted (p. 370) justly observed that in\nthe remote land of the Bessi as at Delphi oracular utterance was by the\nmouth of a priestess. Kassandra was another of these women-prophetesses\nof Gaia. She prophesied at the altar-omphalos of Thymbrae, a shrine\nApollo took over as he took Delphi[1008]. Her frenzy against Apollo is\nmore than the bitterness of maiden betrayed; it is the wrath of the\nprophetess of the old order discredited, despoiled by the new; she breaks\nher wand and rends her fillets and cries[1009]:\n\n \u2018Lo now the seer the seeress hath undone.\u2019\n\nThe priestess at Delphi, though in intent a Phoibas, was called the\nPythia, but the official name of the priestess Kassandra was, we know,\nPhoibas[1010]:\n\n \u2018The Phoibas whom the Phrygians call Kassandra,\u2019\n\nand the title, \u2018she who is ceremonially pure,\u2019 lends a bitter irony to\nHecuba\u2019s words of shame.\n\nThe word Phoibades is never, so far as I know, actually applied to\ndefinite Bacchantes, though I believe its use at Delphi to be due to\nDionysiac influence, but another epithet _Potniades_ points the same\nway. In the _Bacchae_[1011], when the messenger returns from Cithaeron,\nhe says to Pentheus:\n\n \u2018I have seen the wild white women there, O king,\n Whose fleet limbs darted arrow-like but now\n From Thebes away, and come to tell thee how\n They work strange deeds.\u2019\n\nThe \u2018wild white women\u2019 are in a hieratic state of holy madness, hence\ntheir miraculous magnetic powers. Photius[1012] has a curious note on\nthe verb with which \u2018Potniades\u2019 is connected. He says its normal use was\nto express a state in which a woman \u2018suffered something and entreated\na goddess\u2019 and \u2018if any one used the word of a man he was inaccurate.\u2019\nBy \u2018suffering something\u2019 he can only mean that she was possessed by the\ngoddess (\u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2), and he may have the Maenads and kindred\nworshippers in his mind. Madness could be caused by the Mother of the\ngods or by Dionysos, in fact by any orgiastic divinity.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt may possibly be objected that Maenads are not the same as either\nThyiades or Phoibades. My point is that they _are_. The substantial\nbasis of the conception is the actual women-worshippers of the god;\nout of these were later created his mythical attendants. Such is the\nnatural order of mythological genesis. Diodorus[1013] like most modern\nmythologists inverts this natural sequence, and his inversion is\ninstructive. In describing the triumphal return of Dionysos from India he\nsays: \u2018And the Boeotians and the other Greeks and the Thracians in memory\nof the Indian expedition instituted the biennial sacrifices to Dionysos\nand they hold that at these intervals the god makes his epiphanies to\nmortals. Hence in many towns of Greece every alternate year Bacchanalian\nassemblies of women come together and it is customary for maidens to\ncarry the thyrsos and to revel together to the honour and glory of the\ngod, and the married women worship the god in organized bands and they\nrevel, and in every way celebrate the presence of Dionysos _in imitation\nof the Maenads_ who from of old, it was said, constantly attended the\ngod.\u2019 Diodorus is an excellent instance of mistaken mythologizing.\nMythology invents a reason for a fact, does not base a fact on a fancy.\n\nIt is not denied for a moment that the Maenads _became_ mythical. When\nSophocles sings[1014]:\n\n \u2018Footless, sacred, shadowy thicket, where a myriad berries grow,\n Where no heat of the sun may enter, neither wind of the winter blow,\n Where the Reveller Dionysos with his nursing nymphs will go,\u2019\n\nwe are not in this world, and his nursing nymphs are \u2018goddesses\u2019; but\nthey are goddesses fashioned here as always in the image of man who made\nthem.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe difficulty and the discrepancy of opinion as to the reality of the\nMaenads are due mainly to a misunderstanding about words. Maenad is to us\na proper name, a fixed and crystallized personality; so is Thyiad, but in\nthe beginning it was not so. Maenad is the Mad One, Thyiad the Rushing\nDistraught One or something of that kind, anyhow an adjectival epithet.\nMad One, Distraught One, Pure One are simply ways of describing a woman\nunder the influence of a god, of Dionysos. Thyiad and Phoibad obtained as\ncultus names, Maenad tended to go over to mythology. Perhaps naturally\nso; when a people becomes highly civilized madness is apt not to seem,\nsave to poets and philosophers, the divine thing it really is, so they\ntend to drop the mad epithet and the colourless Thyiad becomes more and\nmore a proper name.\n\nStill Maenad, as a name of actual priestly women, was not wholly lost.\nAn inscription[1015] of the date of Hadrian, found in Magnesia and now\nin the Tschinli Kiosk at Constantinople, gives curious evidence. This\ninscription recounts a little miracle-story. A plane tree was shattered\nby a storm, inside it was found an image of Dionysos[1016]. Seers were\npromptly sent to Delphi to ask what was to be done. The answer was, as\nmight be expected, the Magnesians had neglected to build \u2018fair wrought\ntemples\u2019 to Dionysos; they must repair their fault. To do this properly\nthey must send to Thebes and thence obtain three Maenads of the family of\nKadmean Ino[1017]. These would give to the Magnesians orgies and right\ncustoms. They went to Thebes and brought back three \u2018Maenads\u2019 whose names\nare given, Kosko, Baubo and Thettale; and they came and founded three\nthiasoi or sacred guilds in three parts of the city. The inscription\nis of course late; Baubo and Kosko are probably Orphic, but the main\nissue is clear: in the time of Hadrian at least three actual women of a\nparticular family were called \u2018Maenads.\u2019\n\nWe are so possessed by a set of conceptions based on Periclean Athens, by\nideas of law and order and reason and limit, that we are apt to dismiss\nas \u2018mythological\u2019 whatever does not fit into our stereotyped picture.\nThe husbands and brothers of the women of historical days would not,\nwe are told, have allowed their women to rave upon the mountains; it\nis unthinkable taken in conjunction with the strict oriental seclusion\nof the Periclean woman. That any woman might at any moment assume the\nliberty of a Maenad is certainly unlikely, but much is borne even by\nhusbands and brothers when sanctioned by religious tradition. The men\neven of Macedonia, where manners were doubtless ruder, did not _like_\nthe practice of Bacchic orgies. Bacchus came emphatically not to bring\npeace. Plutarch[1018] conjectures that these Bacchic orgies had much to\ndo with the strained relations between the father and mother of Alexander\nthe Great. A snake had been seen lying by the side of Olympias and\nPhilip feared she was practising enchantments, or worse, that the snake\nwas the vehicle of a god. Another and probably the right explanation\nof the presence of the snake was, as Plutarch tells us, that \u2018all the\nwomen of that country had been from ancient days under the dominion of\nOrphic rites and Dionysiac orgies, and that they were called Klodones\nand Mimallones because in many respects they imitated the Edonian and\nThracian women round about Haemus, from whom the Greek word \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\nseems to come, a word which is applied to excessive and overdone\nceremonials. Now Olympias was more zealous than all the rest and carried\nout these rites of possession and ecstasy in very barbarous fashion and\nintroduced huge tame serpents into the Bacchic assemblies, and these kept\ncreeping out of the ivy and the mystic likna and twining themselves round\nthe thyrsoi of the women and their garlands, and _frightening the men out\nof their senses_.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 125.]\n\nHowever much the Macedonian men disliked these orgies, they were clearly\ntoo frightened to put a stop to them. The women were possessed, magical,\nand dangerous to handle. Scenes such as those described by Plutarch as\nactually taking place in Macedonia are abundantly figured on vases. The\nbeautiful raging Maenad in fig. 125 from the centre of a cylix with white\nground at Munich[1019] is a fine example. She wears the typical Maenad\ngarb, the fawn-skin over her regular drapery; she carries the thyrsos,\nshe carries in fact the whole gear (\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b7) of Dionysos. When Pentheus\nwould counterfeit a Bacchant he is attired just so; he wears the long\ntrailing chiton and over it the dappled fawn-skin, his hair flows loose,\nin his hand is the thyrsos. For snood (\u03bc\u03af\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1) in her hair the Maenad has\ntwined a great snake. Another Maenad[1020] is shown in fig. 126. She is\ncharacterized only by the two snakes she holds in her hand. But for her\nlong full drapery she might be an Erinys.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 126.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 127.]\n\nThe snakes emerging from the sacred cistae are illustrated by the class\nof coins[1021] known as cistophoroi, a specimen of which is reproduced\nin fig. 127. These coins, of which the type is uniform, originated,\naccording to Dr Imhoof, in Ephesus a little before B.C. 200, and spread\nthrough all the dominions of Attalos the First. They illustrate a phase\nof Dionysos worship in Asia Minor closely akin to that of Macedonia.\n\nMacedonia is not Athens, but the reforms of Epimenides allow us to\ndivine that Athenian brothers and husbands also had their difficulties.\nPlutarch[1022] again is our informant. Athens was beset by superstitious\nfears and strange appearances. They sent to Crete for Epimenides, a\nman beloved of the gods and skilled in the technicalities of religion,\nespecially as regards enthusiastic and mystic rites. He and Solon\nmade friends and the gist of his religious reforms was this: \u2018he\nsimplified their religious rites, and made the ceremonies of mourning\nmilder, introducing certain forms of sacrifice into their funeral\nsolemnities and abolishing the cruel and barbarous elements to which\nthe women were addicted. But most important of all, by lustrations and\nexpiations and the foundings of worships he hallowed and consecrated\nthe city and made it subserve justice and be more inclined to unity.\u2019\nThe passage is certainly not as explicit as could be wished, but the\nwords used\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\u2014and the fact that Epimenides was\nan expert in _ecstatic_ rites, that they gave him the name of the new\nKoures, the special attention paid to the rites of women, though they\nare mentioned in relation to funerals, make it fairly clear that some of\nthe barbarous excesses were connected with Bacchic orgies. This becomes\nmore probable when we remember that many of Solon\u2019s own enactments were\ndirected against the excesses of women. \u2018He regulated,\u2019 Plutarch[1023]\ntells us, \u2018the outgoings of women, their funeral lamentations and their\nfestivals, forbidding by law all disorder and excess.\u2019 Among these dreary\nregulations comes the characteristically modern touch that they are not\nto go out at night \u2018except in a carriage and with a light before them.\u2019\nIt was the going out at night that Pentheus could not bear[1024]. When he\nwould know what were the rites of Dionysos he asks the god:\n\n \u2018_P._ How is this worship held, by night or day?\n\n _D._ Most oft by night, \u2019tis a majestic thing\n The Darkness.\n\n _P._ Ha, with women worshipping?\n \u2019Tis craft and rottenness.\u2019\n\n\nDIONYSOS LIKNITES.\n\nThe Maenads then are the frenzied sanctified women who are devoted to\nthe worship of Dionysos. But they are something more; they tend the god\nas well as suffer his inspiration. When first we catch sight of them in\nHomer (p. 368) they are his \u2018nurses\u2019 (\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9). One of the lost plays of\nAeschylus bore the title \u2018Rearer of Dionysos\u2019 and Sophocles[1025], here\nas so often inspired by Homer, makes his chorus sing:\n\n \u2018There the reveller Dionysos with his nursing nymphs doth go.\u2019\n\nIn Homer and Aeschylus and Sophocles, though Dionysos has his goddess\nnurses, he is himself no nursling. A child no longer, he revels with them\nas coevals. Mythology has half forgotten the ritual from which it sprang.\nFortunately Plutarch[1026] has left us an account, inadequate but still\nsignificant, of the actual ritual of the Thyiades[1027], and from it we\nlearn that they worshipped and tended no full-grown god, but a baby in\nhis cradle.\n\nPlutarch is speaking of the identity of Osiris and Dionysos, both being\nembodiments according to him of the \u2018moist principle.\u2019 \u2018You, Klea,\u2019 he\nsays, \u2018if any one, should know that Osiris is the same as Dionysos, you\nwho are leader of the Thyiades at Delphi and were initiated by your\nfather and mother into the rites of Osiris.\u2019 After pointing out various\nanalogies, he adds: \u2018For the Egyptians, as has been said, point out\ntombs of Osiris in many places, and the Delphians hold that they possess\nthe relics of Dionysos buried by the side of their oracular shrine; the\nHosioi make a secret sacrifice in the sacred precinct of Apollo _when\nthe Thyiades raise up Liknites_.\u2019 It will later (p. 483) be seen that\nDionysos was represented in ritual as slain and dismembered; from this\npassage it is clear that there was some sort of resurrection of the god,\na new birth as a little child. Liknites can be none other than the babe\nin the cradle. Hesychius in commenting on the word Liknites says: \u2018a\ntitle of Dionysos from the cradle in which they put children to sleep.\u2019\nIn primitive agricultural days, the _liknon_, a shovel-shaped basket,\nserved three purposes: it was a \u2018fan\u2019 with which to winnow grain, it was\na basket to hold grain or fruit or sacred objects, it was a cradle for\na baby. The various forms of _likna_ and the beautiful mysticism that\ngathered round the cradle and the winnowing fan, will be considered when\nOrphic ceremonial is discussed (p. 518). For the present it is enough to\nnote that the ceremony of raising or waking Liknites marks clearly the\nworship of a child-god.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe worship by women of Liknites, of the child in the cradle, reflects\na primitive stage of society, a time when the main realized function of\nwoman was motherhood and the more civilized, less elemental, function of\nwedded wife was scarcely adventured. It is at once a cardinal point and\na primary note in the mythology of Dionysos that he is _the son of his\nmother_. The religion of the Mother and the Daughter is already familiar\n(p. 271); it reflected, as has been seen, primarily not so much the\nrelations of mother and daughter as the two stages of woman\u2019s life, woman\nas maid, and woman as mother. If we are to have the relation of parent\nand child mirrored in mythology, assuredly the closest relation is not\nthat even of mother and daughter but of mother and son. Father and son,\nZeus and Apollo, reflect a still further advance in civilization.\n\nBefore leaving the Thyiades, it is important to note that they had a cult\nnot only of Liknites, the child in the cradle, but of the mother who bore\nhim, Semele, and this too at Delphi. Plutarch is again our authority.\nIn his _Greek Questions_[1028], he treats of the three great enneateric\nfestivals of Delphi, the Stepterion, Hero\u00efs and Charila. Of the Hero\u00efs he\nsays: \u2018Its inner meaning is for the most part mystical as is known to the\nThyiades, but from the rites that are openly performed one may conjecture\nthat it is a Return of Semele.\u2019 Plutarch\u2019s conjecture was undoubtedly\nright. The Hero\u00efs was a resurrection festival, with rites of Return and\nUprising, such as have been already (p. 276) fully discussed in relation\nto Demeter and Kore.\n\nThe relation of Dionysos to his father Zeus was slight and artificial.\nHe is, as aforesaid, essentially the son of his mother, \u2018child of\nSemele[1029].\u2019 The meaning of the fatherhood of Zeus and the strange\nhieratic legend of the double birth will be discussed later: the question\nmust first be asked \u2018Who is Semele?\u2019\n\n\nDIONYSOS SON OF SEMELE.\n\nDionysos, we have seen, was a Thracian; if his mother can be shown to be\nThracian too, each will confirm the other. The certain remains of the\nPhrygio-Thracian tongue are but scanty, happily however they suffice for\nthe certain interpretation of the name Semele.\n\nProf. Ramsay in his Phrygian explorations[1030] has brought to light a\nnumber of inscriptions from tombs which run after this fashion:\n\n \u03b4\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b6\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03c9.\n \u03bc\u03b5 \u03b6\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2.\n \u03b4\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5 \u03b6\u03b5\u03bc(\u03b5\u03bb\u03c9).\n \u03bc\u03b5 \u03b6\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03c9.\n\nThese various permutations and combinations are followed by a curse\nformulary as follows: \u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u03b4\u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, which is Phrygian for \u1f43\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 (\u03c4\u1ff7) \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9, \u2018Cursed be he that does any damage to this tomb.\u2019 The\ninscriptions which all date after the Christian era belong to a time\nwhen the well-to-do classes spoke and wrote Greek, but, in the case of\na curse, it was well to couch your inscription in a tongue understanded\nof the people. \u03bc\u03b5 and \u03b4\u03b7 would appear to be affirmative curse particles;\n\u03bc\u03b5 has for cognates \u03bc\u03ac, \u03bc\u03ae\u03bd and possibly \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd, as well as the Latin _me_\nin _me Hercle, me Dius Fidius_. \u03b4\u03b7 is cognate not only to the ordinary\naffirmative Greek \u03b4\u03ae but also to the _de_ of the Latin oath _e-de-pol_.\nThe divinities sworn by remain to be considered. \u03b4\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c2 can scarcely be\nother than \u03bd\u1f74 \u0394\u03af\u03b1, \u2018by Zeus.\u2019 \u03b6\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03c9 at once brings Semele to mind. But\nwho and what is Semele? Phrygian and Thracian are now admitted to belong\nto the Indo-European family of languages, and a conjoint consonantal\ncharacteristic of the two is that they replace the palatals _g_ and\n_gh_ (Greek \u03b3 and \u03c7) by a spirant; this spirant the Greeks rendered\nindifferently by their nearest equivalents \u03b6 and \u03c3. The Phrygian \u03b6\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03c9\nis the Greek \u03b3\u1fc6 (earth) appearing in nasalized form as \u03c7\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03af, \u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2,\n\u03c7\u03b8\u03ce\u03bd, in Latin as _humus_, _humilis_, _homo_, in Sclavonic, to quote only\na familiar and convincing instance, in Nova _Zembla_, \u2018new earth.\u2019 The\nGreek form \u03b3\u1fc6 looks remote but we have also its nasalized form \u03a7\u03b1\u03bc\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\n(Lit. _Zemyna_). At Elis Pausanias[1031] saw, opposite the place where\nthe umpires stood, an altar of white marble. On that altar sat the\npriestess of Demeter Chamyne, to behold the Olympic games. \u2018She of the\nGround\u2019 was probably at Olympia long before the coming of Zeus.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSemele, mother of Dionysos, is the Earth. This the vase-painter\nknew well. In dealing with the Earth-Mother (p. 276) a number of\nvase-paintings have been considered, in which Kore, the earth in her\nyoung form as maiden, has been seen represented as rising out of the\nactual earth she really is. To these as counterpart must now be added\nthe curious vase-painting in fig. 128, now in the Hope collection at\nDeep-dene[1032]. Out of the earth-mound rises a youthful figure, a male\nKore; he holds a sceptre as king and is welcomed, or rather heralded, by\na little winged Nike. His worshippers await him: a Maenad with thyrsos\nand tray of offerings to the right, a Satyr also with thyrsos to the\nleft. The rising figure can be none other than the child of Semele, the\nearth-Dionysos himself. It is rash, I think, to give the rising god any\nspecial name, to call him Iacchos or Brimos; all we can be sure that the\nvase-painter meant was that the god is earth-born.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 128.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 129.]\n\nThe same notion comes clearly out in the second design in fig. 129 from\na kalpis in the British Museum[1033]. Here the familiar type[1034] of\nthe birth of Erichthonios from the earth is taken over and adapted to\nthe birth of Dionysos. The vase-painter thus in instructive fashion\nassimilates the immigrant stranger to his own heroic mythology. Ge is\nrising from the earth; she presents, not Erichthonios, but another\nsacred child to a foster-mother, Athene. It is practically certain that\nthe child is Dionysos, not Erichthonios, for the maiden who in such\nfamiliar fashion leans on the shoulder of Zeus in inscribed \u2018Wine-bloom,\u2019\nOinanthe. Zeus himself with his thunderbolt is a reminiscence of the\nthunder-smitten birth. On authentic representations of the birth of\nErichthonios, Hephaistos, his putative father, is present, not Zeus. As\nin fig. 128 the new-born hero is welcomed by a winged Victory, who brings\na taenia to crown him. It is clear that the vase-painter wants to make\nthe new-born child as Athenian as possible, almost to substitute him for\nthe autochthonous Erichthonios; he is welcomed and received not by Satyrs\nand Maenads, his own worshippers and kinsfolk, but by his new relations,\nAthene and Athenian Victory.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 130.]\n\nThe third vase-painting in fig. 130 from a cylix in the Museum at\nNaples[1035] is a much earlier piece of work. It dates about the middle\nof the sixth century, and is free from any specifically Athenian\ninfluence. Out of the ground rise two great busts inscribed severally\n\u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 (Dionysos) and \u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 (Semele). Even without the inscriptions\nthere could be no doubt as to Dionysos. The vase-painter in his primitive\neager fashion makes assurance doubly sure. The god holds aloft with\npardonable pride his characteristic high-handled wine-cup, the kantharos;\nbehind him and Semele a great vine is growing, up one side of which a\nSatyr is clambering. Dionysos is not Liknites here; he is in the full\nbloom of his youth, not elderly though bearded, coeval with fair Semele.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAt Thebes the legend of the birth of Dionysos took on a special form. He\nis not only son of Semele, of Earth[1036], but son of Semele as Keraunia,\nEarth the thunder-smitten.\n\nThis aspect of Semele as Keraunia is familiar in classical literature.\nSophocles[1037] has \u2018thou and thy mother, she of the thunder.\u2019 To\nEuripides[1038] in the _Hippolytus_ Semele thunder-smitten is the stuff\nof which is made perhaps the most splendid poetry he ever wrote:\n\n \u2018O mouth of Dirce, O god-built wall\n That Dirce\u2019s wells run under;\n Ye know the Cyprian\u2019s fleet foot-fall,\n Ye saw the heavens round her flare\n When she lulled to her sleep that Mother fair\n Of Twy-born Bacchus and crowned her there\n The Bride of the bladed thunder:\n For her breath is on all that hath life, and she floats in the air\n Bee-like, death-like, a wonder.\u2019\n\nAnd this splendid poetry is based, it seems, not merely on mythology\nbut on a local cult, a cult of thunder and a place thunder-smitten. The\nprologue[1039] of the _Bacchae_, spoken by Dionysos, opens thus, with a\ndescription of the sanctuary of Semele:\n\n \u2018Behold god\u2019s son is come unto this land\n Of Thebes, even I, Dionysos, whom the brand\n Of heaven\u2019s hot splendour lit to life, when she\n Who bore me, Cadmus\u2019 daughter Semele,\n Died here. So, changed in shape from god to man,\n I walk again by Dirce\u2019s stream, and scan\n Ismenus\u2019 shore. There by the castle side\n I see her place, the Tomb of the Lightning\u2019s Bride,\n The wreck of smouldering chambers and the great\n Faint wreaths of fire undying, as the hate\n Dies not that Hera held for Semele.\n Ay Cadmus hath done well: in purity\n He keeps this place apart, inviolate\n His daughter\u2019s sanctuary, and I have set\n My green and clustered vines to robe it round.\u2019\n\nNor again is this merely the effective scenic setting of a play.\nAny place that was struck by lightning was regarded as specially\nsacred[1040]. If the place was the tomb of a local heroine there was\na double sanctity. Such a tomb there unquestionably was at Thebes.\nPausanias[1041] asserts the fact though he does not state that he\nactually saw the tomb: \u2018There are also the ruins of the house of\nLycus and Semele\u2019s monument.\u2019 Primarily of course the sanctity of a\nthunder-smitten place was more of the nature of a _taboo_ than of\nconsecration in our sense of the word. It would lend itself easily to a\nlegend of judgment on a heroine or of a divine Epiphany. The figure of\nthe great Earth-goddess Semele faded before the splendour of Zeus.\n\nPossibly the cult of these thunder-smitten places may serve to answer\na question asked by Plutarch[1042]\u2014\u2018Who among the Boeotians are the\nPsoloeis (Smoky Ones) and who the Aioleiai?\u2019 Plutarch tells a confused\nstory of the daughters of Minyas who went mad with desire for human flesh\nand slew the child of one of them. The dreadful deed was commemorated by\na \u2018flight ceremony\u2019 that formed part of the Agrionia, in which the priest\nof Dionysos pursued with a sword the women of the clan in which the men\nwere called Psoloeis and the women Aioleiai, and if he caught one, had\nleave to slay her. Zoilos, a priest in the time of Plutarch, actually\navailed himself of the permission. Bad luck followed. Zoilos sickened and\ndied, and the priesthood ceased to be hereditary and became elective. The\nstory is very obscure, but Lydus[1043] in discussing thunderbolts says\nthere are two kinds, the one is swift and rarefied (\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2) and fiery and\nis called \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03c2, the other is slow and smoky and is called \u03c8\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. The\nfamily of the Smoky Ones _may_ have been worshippers of the smoky kind of\nthunderbolt.\n\nBe this as it may, the cult and mythology of Dionysos are haunted by\nreminiscences of lightning and sudden fiery apparitions that are probably\nnot merely poetical but primitive. In the _Bacchae_ not only is Dionysos\nfire-born and attended by the light of torches, but his Epiphany is\nmarked by a manifest thunderstorm, a storm that takes the shape of a\nresurgence of the flame on Semele\u2019s tomb. A voice is heard[1044]:\n\n \u2018Unveil the Lightning\u2019s Eye, arouse\n The fire that sleeps, against this house.\u2019\n\nAnd the chorus make answer:\n\n \u2018Ah saw ye, marked ye there the flame\n From Semele\u2019s enhallowed sod\n Awaken\u2019d? Yea the Death that came\n Ablaze from heaven of old\u2014the same\n Hot splendour of the shaft of God.\u2019\n\nAnd again on Cithaeron[1045] there is not only the mysterious voice and\nthe awful silence, but the manifestation of the pillar of fire:\n\n \u2018So spake he and there came\n \u2019Twixt earth and sky a pillar of high flame:\n And silence took the air, and no leaf stirred\n In all the forest dell. Thou hadst not heard\n In that vast silence any wild thing\u2019s cry.\u2019\n\nThe Epiphany by fire is of course common to many theologies; we have the\nBurning Bush and the Pentecostal tongues, but it is interesting to find\nthat, in far-away Thrace, the favour of Dionysos was made manifest by a\ngreat light. The evidence comes from Aristotle[1046]. He says: \u2018There is\nin the same place (i.e. in Krastonia near the district of the Bisaltae) a\nlarge and beautiful sanctuary of Dionysos, in which it is reported that\nat the time of the festival and the sacrifice, if the god intends to send\na good season, _a great blaze of fire appears_, and this is seen by all\nthose whose business is in the temenos; but if the god intends a barren\nseason, the light does not make its appearance, but there is darkness\non the place as on other nights.\u2019 It would be vain to ask what natural\nfact, whether of summer lightning or burning bush, caused the belief;\nthe essential point is the primitive Epiphany by fire, an Epiphany not\nvengeful but beneficent.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDionysos is then the son of an ancient Thracian Earth-goddess, Semele,\nand she is Keraunia, thunder-smitten, in some sense the bride, it would\nseem, of our old sky and thunder-god, a sort of Ouranos later effaced\nby the splendour of the Hellenic Zeus. If some such old nature-god\nexisted as is probable in the far background of primitive mythology, the\naffiliation of Zeus and Dionysos would be an easy matter.\n\nIn this connection it is interesting to note that not only Zeus himself\nwas associated with the thunder and the lightning, but also the ancient\n\u2018Mother of the Gods.\u2019 Pindar[1047], who all through the third Pythian has\nin his mind the sore sickness of Hieron, not only bethinks him of Cheiron\nthe primitive Healer but also sings:\n\n \u2018I would pray to the Mother to loose her ban,\n The holy goddess, to whom and to Pan\n Before my gate, all night long,\n The maids do worship with dance and song.\u2019\n\nThe scholiast tells us how it came that Pindar prayed to the Mother\nfor healing. One day while Pindar was teaching a pupil on a mountain,\npossibly Cithaeron itself, \u2018there was heard a great noise, and a flame\nof lightning was seen descending, and Pindar saw that a stone image of\nthe Mother had come down at their feet, and the oracle ordained that\nhe should set up a shrine to the Mother.\u2019 The story is transparent\u2014a\nthunderstorm, lightning and a fallen aerolite, the symbol of the Mother,\nsurely of Keraunia. And the Mother, the scholiast further tells us,\n\u2018had power to purify from madness.\u2019 She had power to loose as well as\nto bind. In this she was like her son Dionysos. The magical power for\npurification of aerolites and indeed of almost any strange black stone is\nattested by many instances[1048]. Orestes[1049] was purified at Trozen\nfrom his madness, mother-sent, by a sacred stone. Most curious of all,\nPorphyry[1050] tells us that Pythagoras when he was in Crete met one of\nthe Idaean Dactyls, worshippers of the Mother, and was by him purified\nwith a thunderbolt.\n\nWith a mother thunder-smitten, it was not hard for Dionysos to become\nadopted child of the Hellenic Zeus, God of the Thunderbolt. Theologians\nwere ready with the myth of the double birth. Semele fell into partial\ndiscredit, obscured by the splendour of the Father. Matriarchy pales\nbefore the new order of patriarchy, and from henceforth the name\nDionysos[1051], \u2018son of Zeus,\u2019 is supreme.\n\n\nDIONYSOS SON OF ZEUS.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 131.]\n\nThe fatherhood of Zeus is charmingly set forth by the lovely little\nvase-fragment in fig. 131 from a red-figured cylix[1052], found in the\nexcavations on the Acropolis and now in the National Museum at Athens.\nZeus with his sceptre holds the infant Dithyramb and displays him proudly\nto the other Olympians. Semele is ignored, perhaps half forgotten.\nDionysos in the new order is \u2018all for the father.\u2019\n\nThe all-important question is forced upon us\u2014why did Zeus adopt him?\nDionysos is the child of the Earth-goddess, but why was this particular\nearth-child adopted? Why did his worship spread everywhere with\nirresistible might, overshadowing at the end even the cult of his adopted\nfather? Kore too is daughter of Earth, she too in awkward fashion was\nhalf affiliated to Zeus, yet he never takes her in his arms and her cult\nthough wide-spread has no militant missionary aspect.\n\nZeus holds the infant Dionysos in his arms, and Dionysos holds in his\nthe secret of his strength, the vine with its great bunch of grapes. But\nfor that bunch of grapes Zeus would never have troubled to adopt him. To\nthe popular mind Dionysos was always Lord of the Vine, as Athene was Lady\nof the Olive. It is by the guerdon of the grape that his Bacchants appeal\nto Dirce[1053]:\n\n \u2018By his own joy I vow,\n By the grape upon the bough.\u2019\n\nIt is by his great gift of Wine to sorrowful man that his kingdom is\nestablished upon earth[1054]:\n\n \u2018A god of Heaven is He,\n And born in majesty,\n Yet hath he mirth in the joy of the Earth\n And he loveth constantly\n Her who brings increase,\n The Feeder of children, Peace.\n\n No grudge hath He of the great,\n No scorn of the mean estate,\n But to all that liveth, his Wine he giveth,\n Griefless, immaculate.\n Only on them that spurn\n Joy may his anger burn.\u2019\n\nIt is the usual mythological inversion, he of the earth is translated to\nheaven that thence he may descend.\n\nDionysos as god of the grape is so familiar that the idea needs no\nemphasis. It is more important to note that the vine as the origin of his\nworship presents certain difficulties.\n\nIt has clearly been seen that Dionysos was a Northerner, a Thracian. Wine\nis not the characteristic drink of the North. Is it likely that wine, a\ndrink characteristic to this day of the South, is the primitive essence\nof the worship of a god coming into Greece from the North?\n\nThe answer to this difficulty is an interesting one. The main\ndistinguishing factor of the religion of Dionysos is always the cult of\nan intoxicant, but wine is not the only intoxicant, nor in the North the\nmost primitive. Evidence is not wanting that the cult of the vine-god was\nsuperimposed on, affiliated to, in part developed out of, a cult that had\nfor its essence the worship of an early and northern intoxicant, cereal\nnot vinous.\n\nTo this conclusion I have been led by the consideration of the cultus\ntitles of the god.\n\n\nBROMIOS. BRAITES. SABAZIOS.\n\nDionysos is a god of many names; he is Bacchos, Baccheus, Iacchos,\nBassareus, Bromios, Euios, Sabazios, Zagreus, Thyoneus, Lenaios,\nEleuthereus, and the list by no means exhausts his titles. A large\nnumber of these names are like Lenaios, \u2018He of the Wine-Press,\u2019 only\ndescriptive titles; they never emerge to the dignity of proper names.\nSome, like Iacchos and probably Bacchos itself, though they ultimately\nbecame proper names, were originally only cries. Iacchos was a song even\ndown to the time of Aristophanes[1055], and was probably, to begin with,\na ritual shout or cry kept up long after its meaning was forgotten. Such\ncries from their vagueness, their aptness for repetition, are peculiarly\nexciting to the religious emotions. How many people attach any precise\nsignificance to the thrice repeated, stately and moving words that form\nthe pro\u0153mium to our own Easter Hymn?\n\n \u2018Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia.\u2019\n\nThey are a homage beyond articulate speech. Then, as now, these excited\ncries became sacred titles of the worshippers who used them: \u2018Evian\nwomen\u2019 (\u03b5\u1f54\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2) were the ancient and more reverent counterpart of\nour \u2018Hallelujah lasses.\u2019\n\nThe various titles of the god are of course of considerable use in\ndetermining his nature, for they all express some phase of emotion in the\nworshipper, and it is of these phases that a god is compounded. Certain\nnames seem to cling to certain places. Sabazios is Thracian, Zagreus\nCretan, Bromios largely Theban, Iacchos Athenian. Some of the epithets\nhave unquestionably shifted their meaning in the course of time. The\nGreeks were adepts at false etymology, and an excellent instance of this\nis a title of the first importance for our argument, _Bromios_.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe title Bromios has to our modern ears a poetical, somewhat mystical\nring[1056]. It never occurs in Homer, nor in Sophocles. Pindar and\nAeschylus both use it, Euripides often. The poets, by their usage,\nclearly show that they connect the title with the verb \u03b2\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03c9, which\nmeans \u2018to make a confused sound.\u2019 Pindar in a dithyrambic fragment[1057]\nsays:\n\n \u2018We hymn thee Bromios and Him of the loud cry.\u2019\n\nThe address it may be noted is to the Cadmean Dionysos.\n\nSometimes the association is definitely with thunder (\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae). Thus in\nthe second Olympian[1058] we have:\n\n \u2018High in Olympus lives for evermore\n She of the delicate hair,\n Semele fair,\n Who died by the thunder\u2019s roar.\u2019\n\nHere the title Bromios can scarcely have been remote from Pindar\u2019s mind,\nthough he does not care to press the allusion. In the _Bacchae_ there\nseems no consciousness of etymology. The titles Dionysos and Bromios come\nhaphazard, but throughout the play Dionysos is in some degree a god of\nthunder as well as thunder-born, a god of mysterious voices, of strange,\nconfused, orgiastic music, music which we know he brought with him from\nthe North.\n\nStrabo[1059] has preserved for us two fragments from the lost _Edonians_\nof Aeschylus which deal with this music of orgy and madness. Aeschylus,\nhe says, speaks in the _Edonians_ of the goddess Kotys and the\ninstruments of her worship, and immediately introduces the worshippers of\nDionysos, thus:\n\n \u2018One on the fair-turned pipe fulfils\n His song, with the warble of fingered trills\n The soul to frenzy awakening.\n From another the brazen cymbals ring.\n The shawm blares out, but beneath is the moan\n Of the bull-voiced mimes, unseen, unknown,\n And in deep diapason the shuddering sound\n Of drums, like thunder, beneath the ground.\u2019\n\nOf the \u2018bull-voiced mimes\u2019 we should have been glad to know more details,\nbut the fragment, obscure as it is, leaves at least the impression of\nweird exciting ceremonial, and most of all of mysterious music.\n\nAll this must have helped to make of Bromios the god of sounds and\nvoices; yet it is probable, indeed almost certain, that the title had\nanother origin, simpler, less poetical. We owe the clue to this primitive\nmeaning to the Emperor Julian.\n\n * * * * *\n\nJulian in his northern campaign saw and no doubt tasted with compunction\na wine, made not from the grape but from barley. After the fashion of his\nage he wrote an epigram[1060] to this new, or rather very old, Dionysos.\nFrom the number of instructive puns it contains this epigram is almost\nuntranslateable, but as its evidence is for our purpose of paramount\nimportance it may be roughly Englished as follows:\n\n _To wine made of barley_[1061].\n\n \u2018Who and whence art thou, Dionyse? Now, by the Bacchus true\n Whom well I know, the son of Zeus, say\u2014\u2018Who and what are you?\u2019\n _He_ smells of nectar like a god, _you_ smack of goats and spelt,\n For lack of grapes from ears of grain your countryman the Celt\n Made you. Your name\u2019s Demetrios, but never Dionyse,\n Bromos, Oat-born, not Bromios, Fire-born from out the skies.\u2019\n\nThe emperor makes three very fair puns, as follows: \u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 oats, \u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\nof the thunder; \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6 wheat-born, \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6 fire-born; \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 goat\nand \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 an inferior kind of wheat, spelt. The gist of the third pun\nwill be considered more fully at a later stage of the argument. For the\npresent it is sufficient to note that all three have the same substantial\ncontent, there is a Dionysos who is not of heaven but of earth. Julian\npropounds as an elegant jest the simple but illuminating mythological\ntruth that the title Bromios points to a god born not of the lightning\nand thunder but of an intoxicant made from the cereal \u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. Bromios is\nDemetrios, son of Demeter the Corn-Mother, before he becomes god of the\ngrape and son by adoption of Olympian Zeus.\n\nJulian is not precise in his discrimination between the various edible\ngrasses. His epigram is headed, \u2018To wine made of barley (\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c2)\u2019; the\ngod, he says, smacks of _spelt_ (\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2), he is _wheat_-born (\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6)\nand he is of _oats_ (\u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2). It matters to Julian nothing, nor is it\nto our argument of first importance, of _what_ particular cereal this\nnew-old Dionysos is made. The point is that it is of some cereal, not\nof the grape. The god is thus seen to be son of Semele, Earth-goddess\nin her agricultural aspect as Demeter, Corn-Mother. We shall later (p.\n518) see that he was worshipped with service of the winnowing-fan, and\nwe shall further see that, when he-of-the-cereal-intoxicant became\nhe-of-the-wine-of-grapes, the instrument that had been a winnowing-fan\nbecame a grape-basket.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe possibility of this simple origin of Bromios grows when we consider\nanother epithet of the god. In the Paean to Dionysos recently discovered\nat Delphi[1062] there occurs the title hitherto unexplained\u2014Braites. The\nhymn opens thus with a string of cultus epithets:\n\n \u2018Come, O Dithyrambos, Bacchos, come,\n Euios, Thyrsos-Lord, Braites, come,\n Bromios, come, and coming with thee bring\n Holy hours of thine own holy spring.\u2019\n\nNowhere else does the title Braites occur; but the hymn, as an actual\nritual composition, inscribed and set up at Delphi, is an important\nsource. Braites has been explained as the Breaker or Striker, but this\nis scarcely a happy epithet for the Spring-god. In the light of Bromios\nit may be suggested that the epithet is connected with the late Latin\nword _braisum_, which means \u2018grain prepared for the making of the beer\n_braisum_[1063].\u2019 Braites would then like Bromios be an epithet derived\nfrom a cereal intoxicant.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAn examination of the title Sabazios leads to results more certain and\nsatisfactory. The name Sabazios has a more foreign sound than Dionysos,\neven than Bromios. Sabazios was never admitted even to the outskirts of\nOlympus. In the time of Demosthenes[1064] his rites were regarded by the\northodox as foreign, outrageous, disreputable. One of the counts in the\nunmannerly attack of Demosthenes on Aeschines is that Aeschines had been\ninstructed by his mother in mysteries and rites that were certainly those\nof Sabazios, that having performed various degrading ceremonials he \u2018led\nthose admirable thiasoi about the streets, they being crowned with fennel\nand poplar, and gesticulated with great red snakes, waving them over his\nhead and shouting Euoi Saboi.\u2019 The Saboi were the worshippers of Sabazios\nas the Bacchae of Bacchos. Of course Demosthenes is grossly unjust. The\nceremonies of Sabazios could be closely paralleled by the perfectly\northodox ritual of Dionysos, but they passed under another name, were\nnot completely canonical, and above all things were still realized as\nforeign. That pious men of good repute might quietly worship Sabazios is\nclear from the account of the \u2018Superstitious Man\u2019 in Theophrastos[1065].\nAgainst his moral character nothing can be urged, but that he was a\nlittle over-zealous, and \u2018whenever he chanced to see a red snake he would\ninvoke Sabazios.\u2019\n\nDown to Christian days the snake was an important feature in the cult\nof Sabazios. Clement and Arnobius[1066] both state that one of the\n\u2018tokens\u2019 of the mysteries of Sabazios was \u2018the god (gliding) through the\nbosom.\u2019 The snake was of course associated also with Dionysos\u2014he may have\ninherited it from the earlier god\u2014but his more characteristic vehicle was\nthe bull. Sabazios seems always to have been regarded as more primitive\nand savage than Dionysos. Diodorus[1067], puzzled by the many forms of\nDionysos, says: \u2018Some people fable that there was another Dionysos very\nmuch earlier in date than this one, for they allege that there was a\nDionysos born of Zeus and Persephone, the one called by some Sabazios,\nwhose birth and sacrifices and rites they instance as celebrated by night\nand in secret on account of shameless ceremonies attending them.\u2019 These\nlast words probably refer to the mystic marriage of the god with the\ninitiated (p. 535).\n\nThe symbolism of the snake has already (p. 326) been discussed. A god\nwhose vehicle was the snake would find easy affiliation in Greece, where\nevery dead hero was a snake.\n\nSabazios is left unsung by tragic poets, but the realism of comedy\nreflects the popular craze for semi-barbarian worship. The temper of\nDemosthenes was not, if Strabo[1068] be right, characteristically\nAthenian. \u2018As in other matters,\u2019 Strabo says, \u2018the Athenians were always\nhospitable to foreign customs, so with the gods. They adopted many sacred\ncustoms from abroad and were ridiculed in comedies for doing so, and this\nespecially as regards Phrygian and Thracian rites. Plato mentions the\nBendidean, and Demosthenes the Phrygian, rites in his accusation against\nAeschines and his mother on the count that Aeschines joined his mother in\nher rites and went about in a thiasos and cried aloud Euoi Saboi and Hyes\nAttes, for these cries are of Sabazios and the Mother.\u2019\n\nIt is then to comedy, to Aristophanes, that we owe most of our references\nto Sabazios, hints of his real character and his inner kinship with\nDionysos. In an untranslateable pun in the _Birds_[1069] he tells us that\nSabazios is a Phrygian, and from the _Lysistrata_[1070] we learn that his\nworship was orgiastic and much affected by women. The \u2018deputation man\u2019\nexclaims:\n\n \u2018Has the wantonness of women then blazed up,\n Their tabourings, Sabazios all about,\n Their clamour for Adonis on the roofs?\u2019\n\nBut most instructive of all is the mention of Sabazios in the opening of\nthe _Wasps_[1071]. The two slaves Sosias and Xanthias are watching over\ntheir master Bdelycleon. They know he is a dangerous monster and they\nought to keep awake.\n\n \u2018_Xan._ I know, but I _do_ want a little peace.\n\n _Sos._ Well, chance it then. Some sweet and drowsy thing\n Is falling drop by drop upon my eyes.\n\n _Xan._ What? Are you clean mad or a Korybant?\n\n _Sos._ No, a sleep holds me from Sabazios.\n\n _Xan._ And I too herd the same Sabazios.\n Just now a very Mede of a nodding sleep\n Came down and made an onset on my eyes.\u2019\n\nSabazios is here clearly not so much the god of ecstasy and orgy as of\ncompelling irresistible sleep. And why? A late historian gives the simple\nanswer.\n\nAmmianus Marcellinus[1072] tells us that, when the Emperor Valens was\nbesieging Chalcedon, the besieged by way of insult shouted to him\n\u2018Sabaiarius.\u2019 He adds in explanation \u2018_sabaia_ is a drink of the poor\nin Illyria made of barley or corn turned into a liquor.\u2019 \u2018Sabaiarius\u2019\nis then \u2018Beer-man,\u2019 beer-drinker or brewer. S. Jerome, himself a\nDalmatian, says in his commentary on Isaiah[1073] that \u2018there is a sort\nof drink made from grain and water, and in the provinces of Dalmatia and\nPannonia it is called, in the local barbarian speech, _sabaium_.\u2019 To the\nwine-drinker the beer-drinker seemed a low fellow. Wine was in itself a\nrarer, finer beverage, probably at first more expensive. Even to-day in\nsome parts of beer-drinking Germany to drink beer at the solemn midday\ndinner is almost a vulgarity. Sabazios, god of the cheap cereal drink,\nbrings rather sleep than inspiration.\n\nThe testimony of Sabazios is now added to that of Bromios and Braites.\nSeparately the conjectured etymology of each epithet might fall far short\nof conviction, but the cumulative force of the three together offers\nevidence that seems conclusive.\n\nA fourth link in the chain still remains. The emperor Julian\u2019s third pun\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, goat, and \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, spelt, has yet to be considered:\n\n \u2018_He_ smells of nectar like a god, _you_ smack of goats and spelt.\u2019\n\nThe word \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 is usually rendered \u2018goat,\u2019 and the meaning \u2018spelt\u2019\nignored. There is of course a reference to the time-honoured jest about\nthe animal, but that the primary reference is to grain, not the goat, is\nclear from the words that immediately follow:\n\n \u2018For lack of grapes from ears of grain your countryman the Celt\n Made you.\u2019\n\nIn translating I have therefore used both the meanings; the formal pun is\nuntranslateable.\n\nIt is an odd fact that the ancients seem to have called certain _wild_\nforms of fruits and cereals by names connecting them with the goat[1074].\nThe reason is not clear, but the fact is well-established. The Latins\ncalled the wild fig _caprificus_; Pausanias expressly tells us that the\nMessenians gave to the wild fig-tree the name \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, goat. Vines, when\nthey ran wild to foliage rather than fruit, were said \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1fb6\u03bd. I would\nconjecture that the inferior sort of spelt called \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, goat, owes its\nname to this unexplained linguistic habit. It is even possible that the\nbeard with which spelt is furnished may have helped out the confusion.\nTragedy I believe to be not the \u2018goat-song,\u2019 but the \u2018harvest-song\u2019 of\nthe cereal \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, the form of spelt known as \u2018the goat.\u2019 When the god\nof the cereal, Bromios-Braites-Sabazios, became the god of the vine, the\nfusion and confusion of \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1, the spelt-song, with \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1, the song\nof the winelees[1075], was easy and indeed inevitable. The \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1ff3\u03b4\u03bf\u03af, the\n\u2018beanfeast-singers,\u2019 became \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u1ff3\u03b4\u03bf\u03af or \u2018must-singers.\u2019\n\nThe difficulties in the way of the canonical etymology of _tragedy_\nare acknowledged to be great[1076]. In discussing the Satyrs it has\nalready been shown that the primitive followers of Dionysos are\nmythologically conceived of not as _goat_-men, but as _horse_-men. The\nprimitive \u2018_goat_-song,\u2019 we are asked to believe, was sung by a chorus\nof _horse_-men. The case in fact stands thus. We are confronted on\nthe one hand by the undoubted fact that on countless vase-paintings\nof the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. the attendants of Dionysos are\n_horse_-men, while _goat_-men attend the Earth-goddess (p. 277); on the\nother hand we have the _supposed_ fact that tragedy is the _goat_-song.\nBut this supposed fact is merely an etymological assumption. If another\netymology be found for _tragedy_, the whole discrepancy disappears.\nSuch an etymology is, I think, offered by \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u2018spelt,\u2019 with the\nfurther advantage that it contains in itself a hint of how the goat\nmisunderstanding arose.\n\n * * * * *\n\nA fragment of Aeschylus cited, but I think erroneously, as evidence of a\ngoat chorus remains to be examined. In a lost tragedy[1077] a Satyr on\nthe stage sees for the first time fire just given to mortals, and he runs\nto kiss her as though she were a beautiful maiden. Prometheus warns him:\nif you do this\n\n \u2018You\u2019ll be a goat mourning his beard.\u2019\n\nThe passage is used as evidence for the goat form and dress of the\nSatyric chorus. Surely such an inference is needless; the point of the\njest is the morals and manners of the Satyr. To reconstruct a goat-chorus\nout of a casual joke is labour in vain.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe have then found four several titles, Bromios, Braites, Sabazios and\ntragedy, for which the supposition of a cereal drink affords a simple,\nsatisfactory explanation. It remains to show that, though the words\n_bromos_, _braisum_, _sabaia_ and _tragos_ have become to us dim and\nalmost forgotten in the lapse of time, a cereal drink such as they imply\nwas widely in use in ancient days, and that among Northern nations.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe history of fermented drink in Europe seems to have been briefly\nthis. Never, so far back as we can look into mythology, was miserable man\nwithout some rudimentary means of intoxication. Before he had advanced\nto agriculture he had a drink made of naturally fermented honey, the\ndrink we now know as mead, which the Greeks called \u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03c5 or \u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7. The\nepithet \u2018sweet\u2019 which they constantly apply to wine surprises us, but as\na characteristic of \u2018mead\u2019 it is natural enough. This mead made of honey\nappears in ancient legends. When Zeus would intoxicate Kronos he gave him\nnot wine, Porphyry[1078] says, for wine was not, but a honey-drink to\ndarken his senses. Night says to Zeus:\n\n \u2018When prostrate \u2019neath the lofty oaks you see him\n Lie drunken with the work of murmuring bees,\n Then bind him,\u2019\n\nand again Plato[1079] tells how when Poros falls asleep in the garden\nof Zeus he is drunk not with wine but with nectar, for wine was not\nyet. Nectar, the ancient drink of the gods, is mead made of honey; and\nmen know this, for they offer to the primitive earth-god libations of\nhoney (\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1). The gods like their worshippers knew the joys of\nintoxication before the coming of the grape-Dionysos. Plutarch[1080]\nsays mead (\u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03c5) was used as a libation before the appearance of the\nvine, and \u2018even now those of the barbarians who do not drink wine drink\nhoney-drink\u2019 (\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd). The _nephalia_ are but intoxicants more\nprimitive than wine.\n\nNext in order came the drinks made of cereals fermented, the various\nforms of beer and crude malt spirit. These gave to the Thracian Dionysos\nhis names Bromios, Braites, Sabazios, but they never seem to have found\na real home in Greece. Mention of them occurs in classical writers, but\nthey are always named as barbarian curiosities, as drinks in use in\nThrace, Armenia, Egypt, but never like mead even in primitive times the\nnational drink of Hellas. Isis in Egypt is addressed as not only Our Lady\nof Bread but also Our Lady of Beer[1081], but Bromios when he comes to\nGreece forgets the oats from which he sprang.\n\nThe first beer was probably a very rude product, like the drink mentioned\nby Xenophon[1082] as still in use among the Armenians of his day; the\ngrain was pounded and allowed to ferment with the grains still floating\nabout in the drinking-cups. The Lithuanians in the Middle Ages are said\nto have made their beer over-night and drunk it next morning[1083].\nBeer of this primitive kind was best sucked up through a pipe.\nArchilochus[1084] alludes to the practice:\n\n \u2018As through a reed Phrygian and Thracian men\n Suck up their brew.\u2019\n\nThe name given to the drink, \u03b2\u03c1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, means simply something brewed or\nfermented. Aeschylus[1085] in his _Lykurgos_ makes some one, probably\nLykurgos the Thracian, drink \u03b2\u03c1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd:\n\n \u2018Thereat he drank the _bruton_ and waxed strong\n And boasted thus within the hero\u2019s halls.\u2019\n\nAthenaeus, in the passage in which he quotes Archilochus, cites quite\na number of authorities about the making of these rude cereal drinks.\nAccording to Hellanicus in his _Origins_, _bruton_ could be made also\nof roots. \u2018Some people,\u2019 he says, \u2018drink _bruton_ made of roots as the\nThracian drink is made of barley.\u2019 Hecataeus in his _Journey round\nEurope_ notes that the Paeonians drank _bruton_ made from barley and an\nadmixture of millet and endive.\n\nAnother name for this drink made from grain was _zythos_. Diodorus[1086]\ndraws a lamentable picture of the straits to which the peoples of Gaul\nwere put because \u2018from the excessive cold and intemperate character of\nthe climate, the land could not bring forth either wine or oil. Bereft\nof these products the Gauls make of barley the drink that is called\n_zythos_; they likewise wash out their honeycombs with water and use the\nrinsings. They had only imported wine, but to this they were excessively\naddicted (\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9), they drank it intemperately and either fell asleep\ndead drunk or became stark mad.\u2019 Here we have the living historical\nprototype of the Centaurs, the uncivilized men who cannot support the\ntaste of wine, the lamentable story of _imported_ intoxicants told in all\nages all the world over.\n\nThe number of primitive beers\u2014_cervisia_, _korma_, _sabaia_, _zythos_\u2014is\ncountless and it would be unprofitable to discuss them in detail. All\nhave this in common, and it is sufficient for our purpose, that they\nare spirituous drinks made of fermented grain, they appear with the\nintroduction of agriculture, they tend to supersede mead, and are in turn\nsuperseded by wine. To put it mythologically the worship of Bromios,\nBraites and Sabazios pales before the Epiphany of Dionysos. Sabazios is\nalmost wholly left behind, a foreigner never naturalized[1087]. Bromios\nis transformed beyond recognition; to the old name is given a new\nmeaning, a new etymology.\n\nIt is important to note that had there been only Sabazios, had Bromios\nnever emerged from himself, both would probably have remained in\nThracian obscurity. The Thracians never conquered Greece; there was,\ntherefore, no historical reason why their god should impose himself.\nHis dominance is unquestionably due to the introduction and rapid\nspread of the vine. Popular tradition enshrined as it usually does a\nreal truth\u2014the characteristic gift (\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2) of Dionysos by which he won\nall hearts was wine, wine made not of barley but of the juice of the\ngrape. A new, incoming plant attaches itself to the local divinity,\nwhoever and whatever he be. The olive attached itself to Athene who was\nthere before its coming, and by the olive the prestige of Athene was\nsensibly increased; but the olive, great glory though it was and though\na Sophocles sang its praises, had never the divine omnipotence of the\nvine. Olive oil over all the countries of Southern Europe supplanted the\nother primitive grease, butter[1088]. Butter is hard to keep fresh in\nhot countries, as every traveller finds to his cost in Italy and Greece\nto-day. But the supersession of butter by oil was a quiet, unnoticed\nadvance, not a triumphant progress like the Coming of the Vine.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe are now at last in a position to say what was the characteristic\nessence of the worship of Dionysos. The fact however repugnant must\nbe fairly faced. This essence was intoxication. But by the very nature\nof primitive thought this essence was almost instantly transformed\ninto something more, something deeper and higher than mere physical\nintoxication. It was intoxication thought of as possession. The savage\ntastes of some intoxicant for the first time, a great delight takes him,\nhe feels literally a new strange life within him. How has it come about?\nThe answer to him is simple. He is possessed by a god (\u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2), not\nfiguratively but literally and actually: there is a divine thing within\nhim that is more than himself, he is mad, but with a divine madness.\nAll intense sorrow or joy is to him obsession, possession. When in the\n_Hippolytus_[1089] the chorus see Phaedra distraught with passion,\ninstinctively they ask:\n\n \u2018Is this some spirit, O child of man,\n Doth Hecate hold thee perchance or Pan,\n Doth She of the Mountains work her ban\n Or the dread Corybantes bind thee?\u2019\n\nThey utter not poetical imagery but a real belief.\n\nTo what beautiful imaginations, to what high spiritual vision this\nBacchic cult of intoxication led will best be considered when we come\nto speak of Orpheus. For the present some other primitive elements in\nDionysiac worship remain to be considered, elements essential to the\nunderstanding of his cult.\n\n\nDIONYSOS THE TREE-GOD (DENDRITES).\n\nIntoxication is of the essence of the god Dionysos, it is the element\nthat marks him out from other gods, it is the secret of his missionary\nimpulse; but to suppose that it exhausts his content would be a grave\nmisunderstanding. There go to his making not only this distinctive\nelement of intoxication but certain other primitive factors common to the\ngods of other peoples.\n\nThinking people even in antiquity, when the study of comparative\nmythology scarcely existed, were struck by analogies between Dionysos\nand other divinities. Plutarch, who thought much, if somewhat vaguely,\non religious matters, was very sensible of this. In the enlightened and\ninstructive parallel that he draws[1090] between Osiris and Dionysos,\nhe sees that Dionysos like the gods of many other peoples is a god who\nin some sense embodies the life of nature that comes and goes with the\nseasons, dies and rises again with the fruits of the earth. In a passage\nfull of insight he draws attention to the analogies of the diverse cults\nhe had observed. \u2018The Phrygians think that the god is asleep in the\nwinter, and is awake in summer, and at the one season they celebrate with\nBacchic rites his goings to bed and at the other his risings up. And the\nPaphlagonians allege that in the winter he is bound down and imprisoned\nand in the spring he is stirred up and let loose.\u2019 The passage and\nothers that will later be quoted are as it were a forecast of the whole\ncomparative method.\n\nThe truth that Dionysos, like many another god, was a god of the impulse\nof life in nature was not only apprehended by the philosopher, it was\nalso evidenced in cultus. This is seen very clearly in two popular phases\nof the worship of Dionysos, his worship as a tree-god and his worship as\na bull.\n\nThe vine is a tree; but Dionysos is Dendrites, Tree-god, and a plant-god\nin a far wider sense. He is god of the fig-tree, Sykites; he is Kissos,\ngod of the ivy; he is Anthios, god of all blossoming things; he is\nPhytalmios, god of growth. In this respect he differs scarcely at all\nfrom certain aspects of Poseidon, or from the young male god of Attica\nand the Peloponnese, Hermes. Probably this aspect of the god, at once\nmilder and wider, was always acceptable in Southern Greece and made his\naffiliation with the indigenous Hermes an easy matter. This affiliation\nis clearly shown by the fact that in art Hermes and Dionysos appear, as\nthey were worshipped in cultus, as herms; the symbol of both as gods\nof fertility is naturally the phallos. The young Dionysos, a maturer\nLiknites, is not distinguishable from Hermes.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 132.]\n\nOn the beautiful cylix by Hieron[1091] reproduced in fig. 132, perhaps\nthe most exquisite thing that ancient ceramography has left us, this\naffiliation is clearly shown. In the centre design Dionysos is all\nvine-god. He holds a great vine-branch in his left hand, in his right\nhis own sceptre the thyrsos; his worshipper is a horse-Satyr piping on\nthe double flutes. But on the exterior of the cup, a scene of cultus\nrather than mythology, he is of wider import, he is Dendrites. The god\nround whom the lovely Maenads dance in circle is a rude pillar or plank\ndraped with a splendid ritual garment. It is a primitive herm decorated\nwith great bunches of grapes, but also with ivy sprigs and honeycombs\nand a necklace of dried figs, such as the Greek peasant now-a-days takes\nwith him for food on a journey. He is god of all growing things, of every\ntree and plant and natural product, and only later exclusively of the\nvine. He takes to himself ivy and pine and honeycomb. The honey-drink he\nsupersedes, yet honey is sacred to him. Only the olive he never takes,\nfor Athene had it already. Ivy especially was sacred to him; his Maenads\nchewed ivy leaves[1092] for inspiration, as the Delphic prophetess chewed\nthe bay. Pliny[1093] says: \u2018Even to this day ivy is used to decorate the\nthyrsos of the god and the helmets and shields used by the peoples of\nThrace in their rites,\u2019 and this ritual ivy is remembered by Dionysos\nwhen he comes to Thebes[1094]:\n\n \u2018I cry to Thebes to waken, set her hands\n To clasp my wand, mine ivied javelin,\n And round her shoulders hang my wild fawn-skin.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 133.]\n\nVery primitive in form but wholly of the vine-god is the xoanon on a\nkrater in the Campana collection of the Louvre[1095] (fig. 133). The\nimage of the god is a column treated as a herm, and reminds us that\nDionysos was called by the name Perikonios, He-about-the-pillar. The two\nrepresentations in figs. 133 and 132 are characteristically different.\nThe rude Satyrs have but one way of worshipping their god, they fall upon\nthe wine-cup; the Maenads, worshipping the god of life, bend in ritual\necstasy to touch the earth, mother of life; the wine-jar in Hieron\u2019s vase\nis present as a symbol, but the Maenads revel aloof.\n\nThe worship of the tree-god was probably indigenous in Thrace long before\nthe coming of the vine. We have evidence that it lingered on there down\nto Roman times. An inscription on a cippus recently discovered in a\nmosque at Eski Djoumi[1096] and now in the museum at Saloniki affords\ncurious evidence. The cippus marked the grave of a priestess of Dionysos.\nHer name is lost, but the word priestess (\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1) is followed by two\ncharacteristically Bacchic epithets, \u03b8\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1 and \u03b5\u1f50\u03b5\u03af\u03b1. She is priestess of\nthe thiasos of the \u2018Carriers of the Evergreen Oak\u2019 (\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9), and she\nleaves to her guild certain property in vineyards. If they do not fulfil\nthe conditions of the bequest, including the offering of a wreath of\nroses, the property is to go to another thiasos, that of the \u2018Carriers of\nthe Oak\u2019 (\u0394\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9), and on the same conditions.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe tree-god was too simple for the philosopher. He wanted to abstract\nDionysos, rid him of not only his anthropomorphic but his zoomorphic\nand phytomorphic shapes. Still he used the tree-god as a stepping-stone\nto his \u2018principle of moisture.\u2019 Plutarch[1097] says the Greeks regard\nDionysos as not merely lord and originator of wine, but of the whole\nprinciple of moisture. Of this, he adds, Pindar is in himself sufficient\nwitness when he says:\n\n \u2018Of all the trees that are\n He hath his flock, and feedeth root by root,\n The Joy-god Dionysos, the pure star\n That shines amid the gathering of the fruit.\u2019\n\nPlutarch is fond of this beautiful little bit of Pindar. He quotes it\nagain in his _Symposiacs_[1098]. A friend who is a farmer objects that\nPlutarch has shut out his calling from the worship of the Muses, whereas\nhe had hoped that at least Thalia, goddess of increase, might be his to\nworship. Plutarch says the charge is not a just one, for farmers have\nDendrites, He-of-the-Trees, and Anesidora, She-who-sends-up-gifts; and\nthen he quotes his favourite passage. Pindar is of course no evidence for\na Principle of Moisture. Neither poets nor primitive people use any such\nphilosophical jargon; but all the world over primitive man did and still\ndoes welcome the coming and lament the going of the something or someone\nwho makes the trees and plants to grow and beasts and man to bring forth.\nLater, though they are little the wiser as to what that something is,\nthey will call it the \u2018Principle of Moisture,\u2019 or if they are poets Love\nor Life.\n\nThe \u2018Principle of Moisture\u2019 was in fashion among theologists long before\nPlutarch. In the _Bacchae_ of Euripides the new wine of the religion\nof Dionysos has to be poured into some very old bottles. Teiresias in\na typically orthodox fashion, characteristic of the timid and kindly\npriest all the world over, tries to water it down with weak rationalism.\nDionysos, he urges, is not new at all, he is very old, as old and\nrespectable as Demeter herself; she is the Principle of Dryness, he of\nMoisture, nothing could be more safe and satisfactory. He thus instructs\nhonest Pentheus[1099]:\n\n \u2018Two spirits there be,\n Young prince, that in man\u2019s world are first of worth.\n Demeter one is named. She is the Earth\u2014\n Call her what name thou wilt!\u2014who feeds man\u2019s frame\n With sustenance of things dry. And that which came\n Her work to perfect, second, is the Power\n From Semele born. He found the liquid shower\n Hid in the grape[1100].\u2019\n\nThis is the rationalism not of the poet Euripides, but of the priest\nTeiresias. This is clear, for the poet in the next line breaks clean away\nfrom the tiresome Dryness and Moisture and is gone to the magic of sleep\nand the blood of the God outpoured.\n\nPlutarch quotes Pindar as authority for the Principle of Moisture, and\nundoubtedly the sap of trees and plants sacred to Dionysos may have\nhelped out the abstraction. But, had Plutarch known it, the notion is\nassociated not so much with Dendrites, the Tree-God, as with a figure\nperhaps still more primitive, Dionysos the Bull.\n\n\nDIONYSOS THE BULL-GOD.\n\nDionysos Dendrites is easy to realize; he is but a step back from the\nfamiliar, canonical Vine-god. The Bull-god Dionysos is harder to accept\nbecause we have lost the primitive habit of thinking from which he\nsprang. The Greeks themselves suffered the like inconvenience. They\nrapidly advanced to so complete an anthropomorphism that in Periclean\nAthens the dogma of the Bull-incarnation was, we cannot doubt, a\nstumbling-block, a faith as far as possible put out of sight.\n\nThe particular animal in which a god is incarnate depends of course on\nthe circumstances of the worshippers. If he is in a land lion-haunted\nhis god will be apt to take shape as a lion; later the lion will be\nhis attendant, his servitor. Lions attend the Mountain-Mother of Asia\nMinor, guard her as has been seen (p. 265) in heraldic fashion, draw her\nchariot, watch her throne[1101]. In like manner Dionysos, son of Semele,\nwho is but one form of the same Earth-Mother, has a chariot drawn by\nlions (fig. 123), and sometimes, though not so frequently as his Mother,\nan attendant lion.\n\nIn the vase-painting in fig. 134 from an amphora in the British\nMuseum[1102] Dionysos, with kantharos and great spreading vine, stands\nbetween two great prophylactic eyes. A little lion looks up at him,\ndog-like, adoring his master. On the reverse Hephaistos with his mallet\ncarries the vine in token of the power of the god. The lion in this\npicture is losing his reality, because the lion has ceased to be a\ndominant terror in Greece. The god of a civilized, agricultural people\nmust reincarnate himself in other animal shapes, in the Snake, in the\nKid, most of all in the Bull. The Bull-god may have been too savage\nfor Periclean Athens, but Euripides must have found him in full force\nin Macedonia. To a people of goat-herds like the Arcadians the goat\nis the impersonation of life and generation; to a people of cow-herds\nthe bull is the more potent and splendid vehicle. In the _Bacchae_\nthere are Snake-Epiphanies, Lion-Epiphanies, but first and foremost\nBull-Epiphanies. At the mystery of the Birth[1103]\n\n \u2018A Horned God was found\n And a God with serpents crowned.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 134.]\n\nIn the supreme Orphic mystery, to be discussed later (p. 483), the\nworshipper before he became \u2018Bacchos\u2019 ate the raw flesh of a bull, and,\nprobably in connection with this sacrament, the Bull form of the god\ncrystallized into a mystery dogma. When Pentheus has imprisoned the\n\u2018Bacchos\u2019 he finds in the manger not the beautiful stranger but a raging\nbull; the hallucination was doubtless bred of ancient faith and ritual.\nAgain when in the _Bacchae_[1104] Dionysos leads him forth enchanted to\nhis doom on Cithaeron, Pentheus in his madness sees before him strange\nsights:\n\n \u2018Yea and mine eye\n Is bright! Yon sun shines twofold in the sky,\n Thebes twofold and the Wall of Seven Gates,\n And is it a Wild Bull this, that walks and waits\n Before me? There are horns upon thy brow!\n What art thou, man or beast? For surely now\n The Bull is on thee!\u2019\n\nand last when at the moment of their uttermost peril the Bacchants invoke\ntheir Lord to vengeance, the ancient incarnations loom in upon their\nmaddened minds[1105]:\n\n \u2018Appear, appear, whatso thy shape or name,\n O Mountain Bull, Snake of the Hundred Heads,\n Lion of the Burning Flame!\n O God, Beast, Mystery, come!\u2019\n\nAll this madness is based not only on a definite faith, but that faith\nis the utterance of a definite ritual. In discussing the name Bromios\nwe have seen (p. 415) that in the ritual of Dionysos in Thrace there\nwere \u2018bull-voiced mimes\u2019 who bellowed to the god. The scholiast[1106]\non Lycophron\u2019s _Alexandra_ says that the \u2018women who worshipped Dionysos\nLaphystios wore horns themselves, in imitation of the god, for he is\nimagined to be bull-headed and is so represented in art.\u2019 Plutarch[1107]\ngives more particulars. \u2018Many of the Greeks represent Dionysos in their\nimages in the form of a bull, and the women of Elis in their prayers\ninvoke the god to come to them with his bull-foot, and among the Argives\nthere is a Dionysos with the title Bull-born. And they summon him by\ntheir trumpets out of the water, casting into the depths lambs to the\nDoor-keeper; they hide their trumpets in their thyrsoi, as Socrates has\ntold in his treatise on the Hosioi.\u2019 A bull-god is summoned and _he\nemerges from water_.\n\nIt will later (p. 496) be seen to what strange theological uses the\nOrphics put their bull and lion and snake-shaped Epiphanies; for the\npresent it must be noted how near akin these were to the shapes that the\nSouthern Greeks gave to their own indigenous gods. Zeus and Athene and\neven Poseidon had, by the fifth century B.C., become pure human shapes,\nbut the ministrants of Poseidon at Cyzicus were down to the time of\nAthenaeus known as Bulls[1108], and lower divinities like rivers still\nkept their bull shape, witness the pathetic story of Deianeira and\nAchelo\u00fcs[1109]:\n\n \u2018A river was my lover, him I mean\n Great Achelo\u00fcs, and in threefold form\n Wooed me, and wooed again; a visible bull\n Sometimes, and sometimes a coiled gleaming snake,\n And sometimes partly man, a monstrous shape\n Bull-fronted, and adown his shaggy beard\n Fountains of clear spring water glistening flowed.\u2019\n\nIn those old divine days a wooer might woo in a hundred shapes, and a\nmaiden in like fashion might fly his wooing. It is again Sophocles[1110]\nwho tells us of the marriage of Pentheus:\n\n \u2018The wedlock of his wedding was untold,\n His wrestling with the maiden manifold.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 135.]\n\nThe red-figured vase-painting in fig. 135 looks almost like an\nillustration of the _Trachiniae_[1111]. Here is the monster; but he is\nman-fronted, his body that of a bull, and from his mouth flows the water\nof his own stream Achelo\u00fcs. Herakles is about to break off his mighty\nhorn, the seat of his strength; Deianeira stands by unmoved. With odd\ninsistence on his meaning the vase-painter draws in a horn parallel\nwith the stream to show that the stream is itself a cornucopia of growth\nand riches. The vase-painting is many years earlier than the play of\nSophocles.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 136.]\n\nI know of no instance where an actual bull-Dionysos is represented on a\nvase-painting, but in the design in fig. 136 from an amphora[1112] in\nthe W\u00fcrzburg Museum his close connection is indicated by the fact that\nhe rides on a bull. From the kantharos in his hand he pours his gift of\nwine. This representation is of special interest because on the reverse\nof the same vase Poseidon holding his trident is represented riding on a\nwhite bull. This looks as though the vase-painter had in his mind some\nanalogy between the two divinities of moisture and growth.\n\nWith the bull-Poseidon and the bull river-god at hand, the assimilation\nof the bull-shaped Dionysos would be an easy task, the more as he was god\nof sap and generation and life, as well as of wine. Water and wine were\nblended in theology as in daily life, and the Greeks of the South lent\nthe element of water.\n\nDionysos then by his tree-shape and his bull-shape is clearly shown to\nbe not merely a spirit of intoxication, but rather a primitive nature\ngod laid hold of, informed by a spirit of intoxication. Demeter and Kore\nare nature-goddesses, they have their uprisings and down-goings, but to\nthe end they remain sedate and orderly. Dionysos is as it were the male\ncorrelative of Kore, but informed, transfigured by this new element of\nintoxication and orgy.\n\nThis double nature of the god finds expression in one of his titles,\nthe cultus epithet of Dithyrambos, and it is only by keeping his double\naspect clearly in mind that this difficult epithet can at all be\nunderstood.\n\n\nDITHYRAMBOS AND THE DITHYRAMB.\n\nThe title Dithyrambos given to Dionysos and the Dithyramb, the song sung\nin his honour, must be considered together, in fact this title like\n\u2018Iacchos\u2019 seems to have arisen out of the song.\n\nThe epithet Dithyrambos was always regarded by the Greeks themselves\nas indicating and describing the manner of the birth of the god.\nDisregarding the quantity of the vowel _i_ in _Di_ they believed it to\nbe derived from \u0394\u1fd0 and \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1, double door, and took it to mean \u2018he who\nentered life by a double door,\u2019 the womb of his mother and the thigh of\nhis father. This was to them the cardinal \u2018mystery\u2019 of the birth. So much\nis clear from the birth-song of the chorus in the _Bacchae_[1113]:\n\n \u2018Achelo\u00fcs\u2019 roaming daughter,\n Holy Dirce, virgin water,\n Bathed he not of old in thee\n The Babe of God, the Mystery?\n When from out the fire immortal\n To himself his God did take him,\n To his own flesh, and bespake him:\n \u201cEnter now life\u2019s second portal,\n Motherless mystery; lo I break\n Mine own body for thy sake,\n Thou of the Two-fold Door, and seal thee\n Mine, O Bromios\u201d\u2014thus he spake\u2014\n \u201cAnd to this thy land reveal thee.\u201d\u2019\n\nDithyrambos was \u2018he of the miraculous birth,\u2019 Liknites conceived\nmystically. The mistaken etymology need not make us distrust the\nsubstantial truth of the tradition.\n\nAs Dithyrambos is the Babe mystically born, so the Dithyramb was\nuniformly regarded as the Song of the Birth. Plato states this, though\nsomewhat tentatively, in the _Laws_[1114]. When discussing various kinds\nof music he says: \u2018Another form of song, the Birth of Dionysos called, I\nthink, the dithyramb.\u2019\n\nIt has already been seen that Dionysos as the principle of life and\ngeneration was figured as a bull, it is therefore no surprise to learn\nfrom Pindar[1115] that the Dithyramb \u2018drives\u2019 the bull:\n\n \u2018Whence did appear the Charites who sing\n To Dionyse their king\n The dithyramb, the chant of Bull-driving?\u2019\n\nThe Charites here halt half-way between ritual and poetry. They are half\nabstract rhythmical graces, half the Charites of an actual cult. The song\nof invocation to the Bull sung by the women of Elis has been already\nnoted. It is the earliest Dithyramb preserved, and happily in his _Greek\nQuestions_ Plutarch[1116] has left us a somewhat detailed account. He\nasks, \u2018Why do the women of Elis summon Dionysos in their hymns to be\npresent with them with his bull-foot?\u2019 He goes on to give the exact words\nof the little ritual hymn:\n\n Hero, Dionysos, come\n To thy temple-home\n Here at Elis, worshipful\n We implore thee\n With thy Charites adore Thee,\n Rushing with thy bull-foot, come!\n Noble Bull, noble Bull.\u2019\n\nThe fact that \u2018Hero\u2019 precedes \u2018Dionysos\u2019 in the invocation makes it\ntempting to conjecture that we have here a superposition of cults, that\nthe women of Elis long before the coming of Dionysos worshipped a local\nhero in the form of a bull and that Dionysos affiliated his cult; but\nanother possibility is perhaps more probable, that Hero is in the hymn\npurely adjectival. It has already been shown that the word meant to begin\nwith only \u2018strong\u2019 and then \u2018strong one.\u2019\n\nThe mention of the Charites is important. They are the givers of increase\n(p. 298), who naturally attend the coming of the life-god; they seem here\nanalogous to the nurses of Dionysos, the sober form of his Maenads. They\nattend alike his coming and his birth.\n\nIn the Delphic Paean (p. 417), where the birth of Dionysos in the spring\nis celebrated, the title Dithyrambos[1117] is first and foremost, before\nBacchos, Euios, Braites and Bromios:\n\n \u2018Come, O Dithyrambos, Bacchos, come,\n Euios, Thyrsos-Lord, Braites, come,\n Bromios, come, and coming with thee bring\n Holy hours of thine own holy spring.\n _Evoe, Bacchos, hail, Paean, hail_,\n Whom in sacred Thebes the mother fair,\n She, Thyone, once to Zeus did bear.\n All the stars danced for joy. Mirth\n Of mortals hailed thee, Bacchos, at thy birth.\u2019\n\nThe new-born god is Dithyrambos, and he is born at the resurrection of\nearth in the spring-time.\n\nThe epithet Paean, belonging to Apollo, is here given to Dionysos. At the\ngreat festival of the finishing of the temple all is to be harmony and\npeace; theology attempts an edifying but impossible syncretism. Nothing\nin mythology is more certain than that the Paean and the Dithyramb were\nto begin with poles asunder, and it is by the contrast between them that\nwe best understand not only the gist of the Dithyramb itself but the\nsignificance of the whole religion of Dionysos.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe contrast between Apollo and Dionysos, Paean and Dithyramb, has been\nsharply and instructively drawn by Plutarch, himself a priest at Delphi.\nThe comparison instituted by Plutarch between the rites of Osiris and\nthose of Dionysos has been already noted (p. 402). In the discourse\nabout Isis and Osiris[1118], it will be remembered, Plutarch says \u2018the\naffair about the Titans and the Night of Accomplishment accords with what\nare called in the rites of Osiris \u201cTearings to pieces,\u201d Resurrections,\nRegenerations. The same,\u2019 he adds, \u2018is true about rites of burying. The\nEgyptians show in many places burial chests of Osiris, and the Delphians\nalso hold that the remains of Dionysos are deposited with them near to\nthe place of the oracle, and the Consecrated Ones (\u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9) perform a\nsecret sacrifice in the sanctuary of Apollo what time the Thyiades awaken\nLiknites.\u2019 In a word, at Delphi there were rites closely analogous to\nthose of Osiris and concerned with the tearing to pieces, the death and\nburial of the god Dionysos, and his resurrection and re-birth as a child.\n\nIn another discourse (_On the Ei at Delphi_) Plutarch[1119] tells us\nthat these ceremonials were concerned with the god as Dithyrambos, that\nthe characteristic of the Dithyramb was that it sang of these mutations,\nthese re-births, and that it was thereby marked off sharply from the\nPaean of Apollo. The passage is so instructive both as to the real nature\nof Dionysos and as reflecting the attitude of an educated Greek towards\nhis religion that it must be quoted in full. Plutarch has been discussing\nand contrasting Dionysos and Apollo apropos of the worship of Dionysos\nat Delphi, a worship every detail of which he must certainly have known.\nDionysos, he says, has just as much to do with Delphi as Apollo himself,\na statement rather startling to modern ears. Then he begins to work out\nthe contrast between the two gods after the philosophic fashion of his\nday. Apollo is the principle of simplicity, unity and purity, Dionysos of\nmanifold change and metamorphosis. This is the esoteric doctrine known to\nexperts, cloaked from the vulgar. Among these experts (\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9) were\nprobably, as will be seen later (p. 463), Orphic theologians. He goes on\nto tell how these esoteric doctrines were expressed in popular ritual.\nHe of course inverts the natural order of development. He believes that\nthe doctrine known only to the few gave rise to a ritual intended to\nexpress it in popular terms for the vulgar; whereas of course in reality\nthe ritual existed first and was then by the experts made to bear a\nmystical meaning. Bearing this proviso in mind Plutarch\u2019s account is full\nof interest. \u2018These manifold changes that Dionysos suffers into winds\nand water and earth and stars and the births of plants and animals they\nenigmatically term \u201crending asunder\u201d and \u201ctearing limb from limb\u201d; and\nthey call the god Dionysos and Zagreus and Nyktelios and Isodaites, and\ntell of certain Destructions and Disappearances and Resurrections and\nNew-Births which are fables and riddles, appertaining to the aforesaid\nmetamorphoses. And to him (i.e. Dionysos) they sing _dithyrambic_\nmeasures full of sufferings and metamorphosis, which metamorphosis has\nin it an element of wandering and distraction. For \u201cit is fitting,\u201d as\nAeschylus says, that \u201cthe dithyramb of diverse utterance should accompany\nDionysos as his counterpart, but the ordered Paean and the sober Muse\nshould attend Apollo.\u201d And artists in sculpture represent Apollo as ever\nyoung and ageless, but Dionysos they represent as having many forms and\nshapes. In a word, they attribute to the one uniformity and order and an\nearnest simplicity, but to the other a certain incongruousness owing to\na blend made up of sportiveness and excess and earnestness and madness.\nThey invoke him thus:\n\n \u201cEuios, thou Dionysos, who by the flame of thy rite\n Dost women to madness incite.\u201d\u2019\n\nPlutarch goes on to tell of the division of the ritual year at Delphi\nbetween Apollo and Dionysos. Apollo as incoming conqueror has taken the\nlarger and the fairer portion.\n\n\u2018And since the time of the revolutions in these changes is not equal, but\nthe one which they call Satiety is longer, and the other which they call\nCraving is shorter, they observe in this matter a due proportion. For the\nremainder of the year they use the Paean in their sacrificial ceremonies,\nbut at the approach of winter they wake up the Dithyramb and make the\nPaean cease. For three months they invoke the one god (Dionysos) in place\nof the other (Apollo), as they hold that in respect to its duration the\nsetting in order of the world is to its conflagration as three to one.\u2019\n\nPlutarch\u2019s use of technical terms, e.g. conflagration (\u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2),\nbetrays that he is importing into his religious discussion philosophic\nspeculations, and especially those of Heraclitus. Into these it is\nunnecessary to follow him; the important points that emerge for the\npresent argument are that the Dithyramb was a ritual song sung in the\nwinter season, probably at festivals connected with the winter solstice,\nof an orgiastic character and dealing with the god as an impersonation of\nnatural forces, dealing with his sufferings, his death and resurrection,\nand as such contrasted with the sober simple Paean. In a word the\nDithyramb, and with it the title Dithyrambos, resume the two factors that\nwe have detected in the religion of Dionysos, the old spirit of life and\ngeneration, and the new spirit of intoxication.\n\nIt remains to enquire if any light can be thrown on the difficult\netymology[1120] of the word.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe popular etymology, that saw in Dithyrambos the\ngod-of-the-double-door, is of course impossible. Dithyrambos, all\nphilologists agree, cannot etymologically be separated from its cognate\n_thriambos_, which gave to the Latins their word _triumphus_. The word\n_thriambos_ looks as if it were formed on the analogy of _iambos_. It\nmay be that Suidas[1121] among his many confused conjectures as to the\nmeaning of the word throws out accidentally the right clue. He says\n\u2018they call the madness of poets _thriasis_.\u2019 May not _thriambos_ mean\nthe mad inspired orgiastic measure? The first syllable with its long _i_\nmay possibly be referred to the root \u0394\u03b9 already discussed under Diasia\n(p. 23). At a time when in etymology the length of syllables was wholly\ndisregarded the \u0394\u03b9 in \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 might help out the confusion, and last some\nbrilliant theologian intent on edification thought of the double doors.\nMythology has left us dim hints as to the functions of certain ancient\nmaiden prophetesses at Delphi called Thriae. May they not have been the\nMad Maidens who sang the mad song, the _thriambos_?\n\nOf the Thriae we are told by Philochoros[1122] that they were nymphs of\nParnassos, nurses of Apollo. Save for this mention we never hear that\nApollo had any nurses, he was wholly the son of his father. Is it not\nmore probable that they were nurses of Dionysos?\n\nThe account of these mysterious Thriae given in the Homeric Hymn[1123] to\nHermes is strange and suggestive. Hermes is made to tell how his first\ngift of prophecy came not from Zeus, but from three maiden prophetesses:\n\n \u2018For there are sisters born, called Thriae, maiden things,\n Three are they and they joy them in glory of swift wings.\n Upon their heads is sprinkled fine flour of barley white,\n They dwell aloof in dwellings beneath Parnassos\u2019 height.\n They taught me love of soothsaying, while I my herds did feed,\n Being yet a boy. Of me and mine my father took no heed.\n And thence they flitted, now this way, now that, upon the wing,\n And of all things that were to be they uttered soothsaying.\n What time they fed on honey fresh, food of the gods divine,\n Then holy madness made their hearts to speak the truth incline,\n But if from food of honeycomb they needs must keep aloof\n Confused they buzz among themselves and speak no word of sooth.\u2019\n\nThe Thriae are nurses like the Maenads, they rave in holy madness\n(\u03b8\u03c5\u0390\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) like the Thyiades, but their inspiration is not from Bacchos,\nthe wine-god, not even from Bromios or Sabazios or Braites, the\nbeer-gods; it is from a source, from an intoxicant yet more primitive,\nfrom honey. They are in a word \u2018Melissae,\u2019 honey-priestesses, inspired\nby a honey intoxicant; they are bees, their heads white with pollen;\nthey hum and buzz, swarming confusedly. The honey service of ancient\nritual has already been noted (p. 91), and the fact that not only the\npriestesses of Artemis at Ephesus were \u2018Bees,\u2019 but also those of Demeter,\nand, still more significant, the Delphic priestess herself was a Bee.\nThe oracle of the Bessi (p. 370) was delivered by a priestess, and the\nanalogy with Delphi is noted by Herodotus; may not the priestess of the\nBessi have also been a Bee? The Delphic priestess in historical times\nchewed a laurel leaf, but when she was a Bee surely she must have sought\nher inspiration in the honeycomb.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWith all these divine associations about the bee, a creature wondrous\nenough in nature, it is not surprising that she was figured by art as a\ngoddess and half human. In fig. 137 we have such a representation[1124],\na woman with high curled wings and a bee body from the waist downwards.\nThe design is from a gold embossed plaque found at Camiros.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 137.]\n\nWhen Euripides would tell of the dread power of Aphrodite haunting with\nher doom all living things, Aphrodite who was heir to all the sacred\ntraditions of the Earth-Mother, the image of the holy bee comes to his\nmind charged with mysterious associations half lost to us. He makes the\nchorus of maidens in the _Hippolytus_ sing[1125]:\n\n \u2018O mouth of Dirce, O god-built wall\n That Dirce\u2019s wells run under;\n Ye know the Cyprian\u2019s fleet foot-fall,\n Ye saw the heavens round her flare\n When she lulled to her sleep that Mother fair\n Of Twy-born Bacchus and crowned her there\n The Bride of the bladed thunder,\n For her breath is on all that hath life, and she floats in the air\n Bee-like, death-like, a wonder.\u2019\n\nThe _thriambos_[1126] was then, if this conjecture be correct, the song\nof the Thriae or honey-priestesses, a song from the beginning like\nthe analogous Dithyramb confused, inspired, impassioned. The title\nDithyrambos through its etymology and by its traditional use belonged\nto Dionysos, conceived of in his twofold aspect as the nature-god born\nanew each year, the god of plants and animals as well as of human life,\nand also as the spirit of intoxication. It remains to ask what was the\nsignificance of such a god to the Greeks who received him as an immigrant\nfrom the North. How far did they adopt and how far modify both elements\nin this strange and complex new worship?\n\nFirst, what significance had Dionysos to the Greeks as a nature-god, in\nhis animal and vegetable forms as bull and tree?\n\n * * * * *\n\nLong before the coming of Dionysos the Greeks had nature-gods: they had\nDemeter goddess of the corn, they had Poseidon Phytalmios god of the\ngrowth of plants, they had the Charites givers of all increase. But it\nshould be distinctly noted that all these and many another nature-god had\npassed into a state of complete anthropomorphism. They represent human\nrather than merely physical relations, they have cut themselves as far as\npossible loose from plant and animal nature. Demeter is far more mother\nthan corn. Hermes is the young man in his human splendour, and spite of\nhis Herm-form and phallic worship has well nigh forgotten that he was\nonce a spirit of generation in flocks and plants. Athene, like her mother\nthe earth, had once for her vehicle a snake (p. 306), but she has waxed\nin glory till she comes to be a motherless splendour born of the brain\nof Zeus, an incarnate city of Athens. These magnificent Olympians have\nshed for ever the slough of animal shapes. Dionysos came to Greece at an\nearlier stage of his development when he was still half bull half tree,\nand this earlier stage was tolerated, even welcomed, by a people who had\nthemselves outgrown it.\n\nIt is not hard to see how this came to be. Man when he worships a bull\nor a tree has not, even to himself, consciously emerged as human.\nHe is still to his own thinking brother of plants and animals. As\nhe advances he gains but also loses, and must sometimes retrace his\nsteps. The Greeks of the sixth century B.C. may well have been a little\nweary of their anthropomorphic Olympians, tired of their own magnified\nreflection in the mirror of mythology, whether this image were distorted\nor halo-crowned. They had taken for their motto \u2018Know Thyself,\u2019 but at\nthe fountain of self-knowledge no human soul has ever yet quenched its\nthirst. With Dionysos, god of trees and plants as well as human life,\nthere came a \u2018return to nature,\u2019 a breaking of bonds and limitations\nand crystallizations, a desire for the life rather of the emotions than\nof the reason, a recrudescence it may be of animal passions. Nowhere\nis this return to nature more clearly seen than in the _Bacchae_[1127]\nof Euripides. The Bacchants leave their human homes, their human work\nand ordered life, their looms and distaffs, and are back with the wild\nthings upon the mountains. In token of this their hair flows loose, they\nclothe themselves with the skin of beasts, they are girt with snakes,\nand crowned with ivy and wild briony, and leaving their human babes they\nsuckle the young of wolves and deer[1128]:\n\n \u2018And one a young fawn held, and one a wild\n Wolf-cub, and fed them with white milk and smiled\n In love, young mothers with a mother\u2019s breast,\n And babes at home forgotten.\u2019\n\nEuripides, it may be, utters his own longing to be free from the tangle\nand stress of things human, but it is into the mouths of the chorus of\nMaenads that he puts the lovely song[1129]:\n\n \u2018Will they ever come to me, ever again,\n The long, long dances,\n On through the dark till the dim stars wane?\n Shall I feel the dew on my throat and the stream\n Of wind in my hair? Shall our white feet gleam\n In the dim expanses?\n O feet of a Fawn to the greenwood fled,\n Alone in the grass, and the loveliness;\n Leap of the Hunted, no more in dread,\n Beyond the snares and the deadly press.\n Yet a voice still in the distance sounds,\n A voice and a fear and a haste of hounds,\n O wildly labouring, fiercely fleet,\n Onward yet by river and glen\u2014\n Is it joy or terror ye storm-swift feet?\u2014\n To the dear lone lands untroubled of men,\n Where no voice sounds, and amid the shadowy green\n The little things of the woodland live unseen.\u2019\n\nNor is it only that the Maenads escape from their humanity to worship\non the mountain, they find there others, a strange congregation, that\nworship with them[1130]:\n\n \u2018There\n Through the appointed hour, they made their prayer\n And worship of the Wand, with one accord\n Of heart, and cry \u201cIacchos, Bromios, Lord,\n God of God born!\u201d And all the mountain felt\n And worshipped with them; and the wild things knelt,\n And ramped and gloried, and the wilderness\n Was filled with moving voices and dim stress.\u2019\n\nThis notion of a return to nature[1131] is an element in the worship of\nDionysos so simple, so moving and in a sense so modern that we realize\nit without effort. It is harder to attain to anything like historical\nsympathy with the second element\u2014that of intoxication.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is not easy to deal with the worship of Dionysos without rousing in\nour own minds an instinctive protest. Intoxication to us now-a-days means\nnot inspiration but excess and consequent degradation; its associations\nare with crime, with the slums, with hereditary disease, with every form\nof abuse that abases man, not to the level of the beasts but far beneath\nthem.\n\nIn trying to understand how the Greeks felt towards Dionysos we must bear\nin mind one undoubted fact. The Greeks were not as a nation drunkards.\nSerious excess in drink is rare among southern nations, and the Greeks\nwere no exception to the general rule. When they came in contact with\nnorthern nations like the Thracians, who drank deep and seriously, they\nwere surprised and disgusted.\n\nOf this we have ample evidence, much of it drawn from the discussion\nin the _Deipnosophistae_ of Athenaeus[1132] on Wine and Wine-cups.\nThe general tone of the discourse, while it is strongly in favour of\ndrinking, is averse to drunkenness. \u2018The men of old time were not wont\nto get drunk.\u2019 The reason given is characteristically Greek; they\ndisliked the unbridled license that ensued. It was well said by the\ninventors of proverbs, \u2018Wine has no rudder.\u2019 Plato[1133] in the sixth\nbook of the _Laws_ said it was unfitting for a man to drink to the\npoint of drunkenness, except on the occasions of festivals of that god\nwho was the giver of wine. An occasional and strictly defined license\nunder the sanction of religion is widely different from a general habit\nof intemperance. In the first book of the _Laws_[1134], in speaking of\nvarious foreign nations Northern and Oriental, e.g. Celts, Iberians,\nThracians, Lydians and Persians, he says \u2018nations of that sort make a\npractice of drunkenness.\u2019\n\nThe Greek habit of drinking was marked off from that of the Thracians\nby two customs, they drank their wine in small cups and they mixed it\nfreely with water. One of the guests in Athenaeus remarks[1135] that\nit is worth while enquiring whether the men of old times drank out of\nlarge cups. \u2018For,\u2019 he adds, \u2018Dicaearchus the Messenian, the disciple of\nAristotle, in his discourse on Alcaeus says they used small cups and\ndrank their wine mixed with much water.\u2019 He goes on to cite a treatise\n\u2018On Drunkenness\u2019 by Chamaeleon of Heracleia, in which Chamaeleon stated\nnot only that the custom of using large cups was a recent one but that\nit was imported from the barbarians. Imported indeed but never really\nnaturalized, for he goes on to say, \u2018They being devoid of culture rush\neagerly to excess in wine and provide for themselves all manner of\nsuperfluous delicacies.\u2019 It is clear that in respect of wine and food as\nof everything else the Greek was in the main true to his motto \u2018Nothing\ntoo much.\u2019 Drunkenness was an offence in his eyes against taste as well\nas morals.\n\nLarge drinking cups were a northern barbarian characteristic[1136];\nthey were made originally of the huge horns of the large breed of\ncattle common in the North, they were set in silver and gold, and later\nsometimes actually made of precious metals and called _rhyta_. Chamaeleon\ngoes on to say, \u2018in the various regions of Greece neither in works of art\nnor in poems shall we find any trace of a large cup being made save in\nsuch as deal with heroes.\u2019 That to the dead hero was allowed even by the\nOrphics the guerdon of \u2018eternal drunkenness\u2019 will be seen later (Chap.\nXI.), but the living hero only drank of large cups of unmixed wine out\nof ceremonial courtesy to the Northerner. Xenophon in the seventh book\nof the _Anabasis_ describes in detail the drinking festival given by the\nThracian Seuthes. When the Greek general and his men came to Seuthes they\nembraced first and then _according to the Thracian custom_ horns of wine\nwere presented to them. In like manner the Macedonian Philip pledged his\nfriends in a horn of wine. It was from silver horns that the Centaurs\ndrank (p. 386). A flatterer and a demagogue might drink deep for his own\nbase purposes. Of the arch-demagogue Alcibiades Plutarch[1137] says:\n\u2018At Athens he scoffed and kept horses, at Sparta he went close-shaved\nand wore a short cloak and washed in cold water, in Thrace he fought\nand drank.\u2019 War and drink, Ares and Dionysos, have been in all ages\nthe chosen divinities of the Northerner. Diodorus[1138] in speaking of\nceremonial wine-drinking makes a characteristically Greek statement:\n\u2018They say that those who drink at banquets when unmixed wine is provided\ninvoke the Good Genius, but when after the meal wine is given mixed with\nwater they call on the name of Zeus the Saviour; for they hold that wine\ndrunk unmixed produces forms of madness, but that when it is mixed with\nthe rain of Zeus the joy of it and the delight remain, and the injurious\nelement that causes madness and license is corrected.\u2019 The Good, or\nperhaps we ought to call him \u2018Wealthy,\u2019 Spirit is the very essence of\nthe old wine-god of Thrace and Boeotia; the blending with the rain of\nZeus is the taking of it over to the mildness and temperance of the Greek\ncharacter.\n\n * * * * *\n\nExcess was rare among the southern Greeks, and, even when they exceeded,\nbecause they were a people of artists they euphemized. No one but a Greek\ncould have conceived the lovely little vase-painting from an oinocho\u00eb in\nthe Boston Museum of Fine Arts[1139] in fig. 138. A beautiful maiden is\nthe centre of the scene. She is a worshipper of Dionysos. In her left\nhand is a tall thyrsos and she holds the cup of Dionysos, the kantharos,\nin her right. It is empty, and she seems to ask the Satyr who stands\nbefore her to refill it from his oinocho\u00eb. But he will not, she has had\ntoo much already. Over her beautiful head, slightly inclined as if in\nweariness, is inscribed\u2014and who but a Greek would have dared to write\nit?\u2014her name \u2018Kraipale.\u2019 Behind her comes a kindly sober friend bearing\nin her hand a hot drink, smoking still, to cure her sickness.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 138.]\n\nPerhaps because the extreme of drunkenness, its after degradation and\nsqualid ugliness, was rare among the Greeks, they were better able to\nrealize that in its milder forms it lent lovely motives for art. Wine\nby the release it brings from self-consciousness unslacks the limbs\nand gives to pose and gesture the new beauty of abandonment. Degas has\ndared to seize and fix for ever the beauty he saw in that tragedy of\ndegradation\u2014a woman of the people besotted by absinthe. The peeping\nmoralist that lurks in most of us intrudes to utter truth beside the mark\nand say that she is wicked. To the Greek artist there was no such extreme\nissue between art and morality. To him, whether poet or vase-painter,\nto drink and fall asleep was if not a common at least a beautiful\nexperience, one he painted on many a vase and sang in many a song. A\nfestival without the grace and glory of wine would to him have been shorn\nof well nigh all its goodliness. On this it is needless to insist. To him\npeace and wine and sleep are playfellows loving and lovely[1140]:\n\n \u2018Eyelids closed and lulled heart deep\n In gentle, unforbidden sleep,\n Street by street the city brims\n With lovers\u2019 feasts and burns with lovers\u2019 hymns.\u2019\n\nAnother point remains to be noted. Not only did the Greeks mix their\nThracian wine with water, tempering the madness of the god, but they saw\nin Dionysos the god of spiritual as well as physical intoxication. It\ncannot be forgotten that the drama sprang from the religion of Dionysos;\nhis nurses are not only Maenads, they are Muses; from him and him only\ncomes the beauty and magic of their song:\n\n \u2018Hail Child of Semele, only by thee\n Can any singing sweet and gracious be.\u2019\n\nThe contrast between sheer Thracian madness and the Athenian notion\nof inspiration is very clearly seen in the two figures of Dionysos\nas represented on the two vase-paintings in fig. 139 and fig. 140,\nvase-paintings roughly contemporaneous, the first in the style of\nHieron, the second in that of Brygos. In fig. 139 from a red-figured\nstamnos[1141] in the British Museum we have the Thracian Dionysos drunk\nwith wine, a brutal though still splendid savage; he dances in ecstasy\nbrandishing the fawn he has rent asunder in his madness. In the second\npicture[1142] (fig. 140), a masterpiece of decorative composition, we\nhave Dionysos as the Athenian cared to know him. The strange mad Satyrs\nare twisted and contorted to make exquisite patterns, they clash their\nfrenzied crotala and wave great vine branches. But in the midst of the\nrevel the god himself stands erect. He holds no kantharos, only a great\nlyre. His head is thrown back in ecstasy; he is drunken, but with music,\nnot with wine.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 139.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 140.]\n\nAgain, with the Maenad worshippers there is the same transformation.\n\nThe delicate red-figured kotylos[1143] in fig. 141 from the National\nMuseum in Athens is like a little twofold text on the double aspect of\nthe worship of Dionysos. On the obverse is a Maenad about to execute her\nold savage ritual of tearing a kid asunder. In a moment she will raise\nher bent head and chant[1144]:\n\n \u2018O glad, glad on the Mountains\n To swoon in the race outworn,\n When the holy fawn-skin clings\n And all else sweeps away,\n To the joy of the quick red fountains,\n The blood of the hill-goat torn,\n The glory of wild-beast ravenings\n Where the hill-top catches the day,\n To the Phrygian, Lydian mountains\n \u2019Tis Bromios leads the way.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 141.]\n\nOn the reverse for counterpart is a sister Maenad. She dances in gentle\necstasy, playing on her great timbrel. She is all for the service of the\nMuses, and she might sing[1145]:\n\n \u2018But a better land is there\n Where Olympus cleaves the air,\n The high still dell, where the Muses dwell,\n Fairest of all things fair.\n O there is Grace, and there is the Heart\u2019s Desire,\n And peace to adore thee, thou Spirit of guiding Fire.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nThere are some to whom by natural temperament the religion of\nBromios, son of Semele, is and must always be a dead letter, if not a\nstumbling-block. Food is to such a troublesome necessity, wine a danger\nor a disgust. They dread all stimulus that comes from without, they\nwould fain break the ties that link them with animals and plants. They\ndo not feel in themselves and are at a loss to imagine for others the\nsacramental mystery of life and nutrition that is accomplished in us day\nby day, how in the faintness of fasting the whole nature of man, spirit\nas well as body, dies down, he cannot think, he cannot work, he cannot\nlove, how in the breaking of bread, and still more in the drinking of\nwine, life spiritual as well as physical is renewed, thought is re-born,\nhis equanimity, his magnanimity are restored, reason and morality rule\nagain. But to this sacramentalism of life most of us bear constant, if\npartly unconscious, witness. We will not eat with the man we hate, it is\nfelt a sacrilege leaving a sickness in body and soul. The first breaking\nof bread and drinking of wine together is the seal of a new friendship;\nthe last eaten in silence at parting is more than many words. The\nsacramental feast of bread and wine is spread for the newly married, for\nthe newly dead.\n\nThose to whom wine brings no inspiration, no moments of sudden\nillumination, of wider and deeper insight, of larger human charity\nand understanding, find it hard to realize what to others of other\ntemperament is so natural, so elemental, so beautiful\u2014the constant shift\nfrom physical to spiritual that is of the essence of the religion of\nDionysos. But there are those also, and they are saintly souls, who know\nit all to the full, know the exhilaration of wine, know what it is to\nbe drunken with the physical beauty of a flower or a sunset, with the\nsensuous imagery of words, with the strong wine of a new idea, with\nthe magic of another\u2019s personality, yet having known, turn away with\nsteadfast eyes, disallowing the madness not only of Bromios but of the\nMuses and of Aphrodite. Such have their inward ecstasy of the ascetic,\nbut they revel with another Lord, and he is Orpheus.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nORPHEUS.\n\n \u2018\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b5 \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9.\u2019\n\n\nMythology has left us no tangle more intricate and assuredly no problem\nhalf so interesting as the relation between the ritual and mythology of\nOrpheus and Dionysos.\n\nBy the time of Herodotus[1146] the followers of Orpheus and of Bacchus\nare regarded as substantially identical. In commenting on the taboo\namong the Egyptians against being buried in woollen garments he says:\n\u2018In this respect they agree with the rites which are called Bacchic and\nOrphic but are really Egyptian and Pythagorean.\u2019 The identification is of\ncourse a rough and ready one, an identification of race on the precarious\nbasis of a similarity of rites, but one thing is clear to the mind of\nHerodotus\u2014Orphic and Bacchic and Egyptian rites are either identical or\nclosely analogous. The analogy between Orpheus and Bacchus passed by the\ntime of Euripides into current language. Theseus[1147] when he would\ntaunt Hippolytus with his pseudo-asceticism says:\n\n \u2018Go revel thy Bacchic rites\n With Orpheus for thy Lord,\u2019\n\nand Apollodorus[1148] in his systematic account of the Muses states\nthat Orpheus \u2018invented the mysteries of Dionysos.\u2019 The severance of the\ntwo figures by modern mythologists has often led to the misconception\nof both. The full significance, the higher spiritual developments of\nthe religion of Dionysos are only understood through the doctrine of\nOrpheus, and the doctrine of Orpheus apart from the religion of Dionysos\nis a dead letter.\n\nAnd yet, clearly linked though they are, the most superficial survey\nreveals differences so striking as to amount to a spiritual antagonism.\nOrpheus reflects Dionysos, yet at almost every point seems to contradict\nhim. The sober gentle musician, the precise almost pedantic theologist,\nis no mere echo, no reincarnation of the maddened, maddening wine-god.\nDiodorus expresses a truth that must have struck every thinker among the\nGreeks, that this real and close resemblance veiled an inner, intimate\ndiscrepancy. He says[1149], in telling the story of Lycurgus, \u2018Charops,\ngrandfather of Orpheus, gave help to the god, and Dionysos in gratitude\ninstructed him in the orgies of his rites; Charops handed them down\nto his son Oiagros, and Oiagros to his son Orpheus.\u2019 Then follow the\nsignificant words: \u2018Orpheus, being a man gifted by nature and highly\ntrained above all others, _made many modifications in the orgiastic\nrites_: hence they call the rites that took their rise from Dionysos,\nOrphic.\u2019 Diodorus seems to have put his finger on the secret of Orpheus.\nHe comes later than Dionysos, he is a man not a god, and his work is to\nmodify the rites of the god he worshipped.\n\nIt is necessary at the outset to emphasize the humanity of Orpheus. About\nhis legend has gathered much that is miraculous and a theory[1150] has\nbeen started and supported with much learning and ability, a theory which\nsees in Orpheus an underworld god, the chthonic counterpart of Dionysos,\nand that derives his name from chthonic darkness (\u1f44\u03c1\u03c6\u03bd\u03b7). This is to my\nmind to misconceive the whole relation between the two.\n\n\nORPHEUS AS MAGICAL MUSICIAN.\n\nLike the god he served, Orpheus is at one part of his career a Thracian,\nunlike him a magical musician. Dionysos, as has been seen (p. 452),\nplayed upon the lyre, but music was never of his essence.\n\nIn the matter of Thracian music we are happily on firm ground. The\nmagical musician, whose figure to the modern mind has almost effaced the\ntheologist, comes as would be expected from the home of music, the North.\nConon[1151] in his life of Orpheus says expressly, \u2018the stock of the\nThracians and Macedonians is music-loving.\u2019 Strabo[1152] too is explicit\non this point. In the passage already quoted (p. 415), on the strange\nmusical instruments used in the orgies of Dionysos, he says: \u2018Similar\nto these (i.e. the rites of Dionysos) are the Kotyttia and Bendideia\npractised among the Thracians, and with them also Orphic rites had their\nbeginning.\u2019 A little further he goes on to say that the Thracian origin\nof the worship of the Muses is clear from the places sacred to their\ncult. \u2018For Pieria and Olympus and Pimplea and Leibethra were of old\nThracian mountains and districts, but are now held by the Macedonians,\nand the Thracians who colonized Boeotia consecrated Helicon to the Muses\nand also the cave of the Nymphs called Leibethriades. And those who\npractised ancient music are said to have been Thracians, Orpheus and\nMusaeus and Thamyris, and the name Eumolpus comes from Thrace.\u2019\n\nThe statement of Strabo is noticeable. As Diodorus places Orpheus two\ngenerations later than Dionysos, so the cult of the Muses with which\nOrpheus is associated seems chiefly to prevail in Lesbos and among\nthe Cicones of Lower Thrace and Macedonia. We do not hear of Orpheus\namong the remote inland Bessi. This may point to a somewhat later date\nof development when the Thracians were moving southwards. That there\nwere primitive and barbarous tribes living far north who practised\nmusic we know again from Strabo. He tells[1153] of an Illyrian tribe,\nthe Dardanii, who were wholly savage and lived in caves they dug under\ndung-heaps, but all the same they were very musical and played a great\ndeal on pipes and stringed instruments. The practice of music alone does\nnot even now-a-days necessarily mark a high level of culture, and the\nmagic of Orpheus was, as will later be seen, much more than the making of\nsweet sounds.\n\nOrpheus, unlike Dionysos, remained consistently a Northerner. We have\nno universal spread of his name, no fabulous birth stories everywhere,\nno mystic Nysa; he does not take whole nations by storm, he is always\nknown to be an immigrant and is always of the few. At Thebes we hear of\nmagical singers Zethus and Amphion, but not of Orpheus. In Asia he seems\nnever to have prevailed; the orgies of Dionysos and the Mother remained\nin Asia in their primitive Thracian savagery. It is in Athens that he\nmainly re-emerges.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTo the modern mind the music of Orpheus has become mainly fabulous, a\nmagic constraint over the wild things of nature.\n\n \u2018Orpheus with his lute made trees\n And the mountain tops that freeze\n Bow themselves when he did sing.\u2019\n\nThis notion of the fabulous music was already current in antiquity. The\nMaenads in the _Bacchae_[1154] call to their Lord to come from Parnassos,\n\n \u2018Or where stern Olympus stands\n In the elm woods or the oaken,\n There where Orpheus harped of old,\n And the trees awoke and knew him,\n And the wild things gathered to him,\n As he sang among the broken\n Glens his music manifold,\u2019\n\nand again in the lovely song of the _Alcestis_[1155], the chorus sing to\nApollo who is but another Orpheus:\n\n \u2018And the spotted lynxes for joy of thy song\n Were as sheep in the fold, and a tawny throng\n Of lions trooped down from Othrys\u2019 lawn,\n And her light foot lifting, a dappled fawn\n Left the shade of the high-tressed pine,\n And danced for joy to that lyre of thine.\u2019\n\nIn Pompeian wall-paintings and Graeco-Roman sarcophagi it is as magical\nmusician, with power over all wild untamed things in nature, that Orpheus\nappears. This conception naturally passed into Christian art and it is\ninteresting to watch the magical musician transformed gradually into the\nGood Shepherd. The bad wild beasts, the lions and lynxes, are weeded out\none by one, and we are left, as in the wonderful Ravenna[1156] mosaic,\nwith only a congregation of mild patient sheep.\n\nIt is the more interesting to find that on black and red-figured\nvase-paintings, spite of this literary tradition, the power of the\nmagical musician is quite differently conceived. Orpheus does not appear\nat all on black-figured vases\u2014again a note of his late coming\u2014and on\nred-figured vases never with the attendant wild beasts.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 142.]\n\nOn a vase found at Gela and now in the Berlin Museum[1157], reproduced\nin fig. 142, we have Orpheus as musician. He wears Greek dress and\nsits playing on his lyre with up-turned head, utterly aloof, absorbed.\nAnd round him are not wild beasts but wild _men_, Thracians. They wear\nuniformly the characteristic Thracian dress, the fox-skin cap and the\nlong embroidered cloak, of both of which Herodotus[1158] makes mention as\ncharacteristic. The Thracians who joined the Persian expedition, he says,\n\u2018wore fox-skins on their heads and were clothed with various-coloured\ncloaks.\u2019 These wild Thracians in the vase-painting are all intent on the\nmusic; the one to the right looks suspicious of this new magic, the one\nimmediately facing Orpheus is determined to enquire into it, the one just\nbehind has gone under completely; his eyes are shut, his head falling, he\nis mesmerized, drunken but not with wine.\n\nThis beautiful picture brings to our minds very forcibly one note of\nOrpheus, as contrasted with Dionysos, his extraordinary quiet. Orpheus\nnever plays the flute \u2018that rouses to madness\u2019 nor clangs the deafening\ncymbals; he plays always on the quiet lyre, and he is never disturbed or\ndistraught by his own music. He is the very mirror of that \u2018orderliness\nand grave earnestness\u2019 (\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ae) which, as we have seen (p.\n441), Plutarch took to be the note of Apollo. Small wonder that Apollo\nwas imaged as Orpheus.\n\nOrpheus, before the dawn of history, had made his home in Thrace. His\nmusic is all of the North, but after all, though mythology always\nemphasizes this music, it was not the whole secret of his influence.\nHe was more priest than musician. Moreover, though Orpheus has certain\nApolline touches, the two figures are not really the least like. About\nApollo there is no atmosphere of mysticism, nothing mysterious and\nineffable; he is all sweet reasonableness and lucidity. Orpheus came to\nThrace and thence to Thessaly, but he came, I believe, from the South. It\nwill later be seen that his religion in its most primitive form is best\nstudied in Crete. In Crete and perhaps there only is found that strange\nblend of Egyptian and primitive Pelasgian which found its expression in\nOrphic rites. Diodorus[1159] says Orpheus went to Egypt to learn his\nritual and theology, but in reality there was no need to leave his native\nisland. From Crete by the old island route[1160] he passed northwards,\nleaving his mystic rites as he passed at Paros, at Samos, at Samothrace,\nat Lesbos. At Maroneia among the Cicones he met the vine-god, among the\nThracians he learnt his music. All this is by anticipation. That Crete\nwas the home of Orphism will best be seen after examination of the\nmysteries of Orpheus (p. 565). For the present we must be content to\nexamine his mythology.\n\nThe contrast between Orpheus and Dionysos is yet more vividly emphasized\nin the vase-painting[1161] next to be considered (fig. 143), from a\nred-figured hydria of rather late style. Again Orpheus is the central\nfigure, and again a Thracian in his long embroidered cloak and fox-skin\ncap is listening awe-struck. It is noticeable that in this and all\nred-figured vases of the fine period Orpheus is dressed as a Greek; he\nhas been wholly assimilated, nothing in his dress marks him from Apollo.\nIt is not till a very late date, and chiefly in Lower Italy, that the\nvase-painter shows himself an archaeologist and dresses Orpheus as a\nThracian priest. Not only a Thracian but a Satyr looks and listens\nentranced. But this time Orpheus will not work his magic will. He may\ntame the actual Thracian, he may tame the primitive population of Thrace\nmythologically conceived of as Satyrs, but the real worshipper of\nDionysos is untameable as yet. Up from behind in hot haste comes a Maenad\narmed with a great club, and we foresee the pitiful end.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 143.]\n\n\nTHE DEATH OF ORPHEUS.\n\nThe story of the slaying of Orpheus by the Thracian women, the Maenads,\nthe Bassarids, is of cardinal importance. It was the subject of a lost\nplay by Aeschylus, but vases of the severe red-figured style remain our\nearliest extant source. Manifold reasons, to suit the taste of various\nages, were of course invented to account for the myth. Some said Orpheus\nwas slain by Zeus because Prometheus-like he revealed mysteries to man.\nWhen love came into fashion he suffers for his supposed sin against the\nLove-God. Plato[1162] made him be done to death by the Maenads, because,\ninstead of dying for love of Eurydice, he went down alive into Hades. But\nserious tradition always connected his death somehow with the cult of\nDionysos. According to one account he died the death of Dionysos himself.\nProklos[1163] in his commentary on Plato says: \u2018Orpheus, because he was\nthe leader in the rites of Dionysos, is said to have suffered the like\nfate to his god.\u2019 It will later be shown in discussing Orphic mysteries\n(p. 484) that an important feature in Dionysiac religion was the rending\nand death of the god, and no doubt to the faithful it seemed matter of\nedification that Orpheus, the priest of his mysteries, should suffer the\nlike passion.\n\nBut in the myth of the death by the hands of the Maenads there is\nanother element, possibly with some historical kernel, the element of\nhostility between the two cults, the intimate and bitter hostility of\nthings near akin. The Maenads tear Orpheus to pieces, not because he\nis an incarnation of their god, but because he despises them and they\nhate him. This seems to have been the form of the legend followed by\nAeschylus. It is recorded for us by Eratosthenes[1164]. \u2018He (Orpheus)\ndid not honour Dionysos but accounted Helios the greatest of the gods,\nwhom also he called Apollo. And rising up early in the morning he climbed\nthe mountain called Pangaion and waited for the rising of the sun that\nhe might first catch sight of it. Therefore Dionysos was enraged and\nsent against him his Bassarids, as Aeschylus the poet says. And they\ntore him to pieces and cast his limbs asunder. But the Muses gathered\nthem together and buried them in the place called Leibethra.\u2019 Orpheus\nwas a reformer, a protestant; there is always about him a touch of the\nreformer\u2019s priggishness; it is impossible not to sympathize a little with\nthe determined looking Maenad who is coming up behind to put a stop to\nall this sun-watching and lyre-playing.\n\nThe devotion of Orpheus to Helios is noted also in the hypothesis to the\nOrphic _Lithika_[1165]. Orpheus was on his way up a mountain to perform\nan annual sacrifice in company with some friends when he met Theiodamas.\nHe tells Theiodamas the origin of the custom. When Orpheus was a child\nhe was nearly killed by a snake and he took refuge in a neighbouring\nsanctuary of Helios. The father of Orpheus instituted the sacrifice and\nwhen his father left the country Orpheus kept it up. Theiodamas waits\ntill the ceremony is over, and then follows the discourse on precious\nstones.\n\nThat there was a Thracian cult of the Sun-god later fused with that of\nApollo is certain. Sophocles[1166] in the _Tereus_ made some one say:\n\n \u2018O Helios, name\n To Thracian horsemen dear, O eldest flame!\u2019\n\nHelios was a favourite of monotheism, as we learn from another fragment\nof Sophocles[1167]:\n\n \u2018Helios, have pity on me,\n Thou whom the wise men call the sire of gods\n And father of all things.\u2019\n\nThe \u2018wise men\u2019 here as in many other passages[1168] may actually be\nOrphic teachers, anyhow they are specialists in theology. Helios, as\nall-father, has the air of late speculation, but such speculations are\noften only the revival in another and modified form of a primitive faith.\nBy the time of Homer, Helios had sunk to a mere impersonation of natural\nfact, but he may originally have been a potent sky god akin to Keraunios\nand to Ouranos, who was himself effaced by Zeus. Orpheus was, as will\nlater be seen, a teacher of monotheism, and it was quite in his manner to\nattempt the revival of an ancient and possibly purer faith.\n\nBe this as it may, it is quite certain that ancient tradition made him\nthe foe of Dionysos and the victim of the god\u2019s worshippers. His death\nat their hands is depicted on numerous vase-paintings of which a typical\ninstance is given in fig. 144. The design is from a red-figured stamnos\nin the Museo Gregoriano of the Vatican[1169]. The scheme is usually much\nthe same; we have the onset of the Thracian women bearing clubs or double\naxes or great rocks for weapons. Usually they are on foot, but on the\nVatican stamnos one Maenad appears mounted, Amazon fashion. Before this\nfierce onset the beautiful musician falls helpless, his only weapon of\ndefence the innocent lyre. On a cylix[1170] with white ground about the\ndate of Euphronios, the Thracian Maenad who slays Orpheus is tattooed;\non the upper part of her right arm is clearly marked a little stag.\nPopular aetiology connected this tattooing with the death of Orpheus.\nThe husbands of the wicked women tattooed them as a punishment for their\ncrime, and all husbands continued the practice down to the time of\nPlutarch. Plutarch[1171] says he \u2018cannot praise them,\u2019 as long protracted\npunishment is \u2018the prerogative of the Deity.\u2019 Prof. Ridgeway[1172] has\nshown that the practice of tattooing was in use among the primitive\nPelasgian population but never adopted by the Achaeans.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 144.]\n\nThe Maenads triumphed for a time.\n\n \u2018What could the Muse herself that Orpheus bore,\n The Muse herself for her enchanting son,\n Whom universal nature did lament,\n When by the rout that made the hideous roar\n His gory visage down the stream was sent,\n Down the swift Hebrus to the Lesbian shore?\u2019\n\nThe dismal savage tale comes to a gentle close. The head of Orpheus,\nsinging always, is found by the Muses, and buried in the sanctuary at\nLesbos. Who are the Muses? Who but the Maenads repentant, clothed and in\ntheir right minds.\n\nThat Maenads and Muses, widely diverse though they seem to us, were not\nby classical writers sharply sundered is seen in the variant versions\nof the story of Lycurgus. Dionysos in Homer is attended by his nurses\n(\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9) and these, as has already been shown (p. 402), are Maenads,\nbut, when we come to Sophocles, these same nurses, these \u2018god-inspired\u2019\nwomen, are not Maenads, but Muses. The chorus in the _Antigone_[1173]\nsings of Lycurgus; how he\n\n \u2018Set his hand\n To stay the god-inspired woman-band,\n To quell his Women and his joyous fire,\n And rouse the fluting Muses into ire.\u2019\n\nNor is it poetry only that bears witness. In the introduction to the\neighth book of his _Symposiacs_ Plutarch[1174] is urging the importance\nof mingling improving conversation with the drinking of wine. \u2018It is\na good custom,\u2019 he says, \u2018that our women have, who in the festival of\nthe Agrionia seek for Dionysos as though he had run away, and then they\ngive up seeking and say that _he has taken refuge with the Muses_ and\nis lurking with them, and after some time when they have finished their\nfeast they ask each other riddles and conundrums (\u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03af\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c1\u03af\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2).\nAnd this mystery teaches us....\u2019 In some secret Bacchic ceremonial extant\nin the days of Plutarch and carried on by women only, Dionysos was\nsupposed to be in the hands of his women attendants, but they were known\nas Muses not as Maenads. The shift of Maenad to Muse is like the change\nof Bacchic rites to Orphic; it is the informing of savage rites with the\nspirit of music, order and peace.\n\n\nTHE HERO-SHRINE OF ORPHEUS.\n\nTradition says that Orpheus was buried by the Muses, and fortunately\nof his burial-place we know some definite particulars. It is a general\nprinciple in mythology that the reputed death-place of a god or hero\nis of more significance than his birth-place, because, among a people\nlike the Greeks, who practised hero-worship, it is about the death-place\nand the tomb that cultus is set up. The birth-place may have a mythical\nsanctity, but it is at the death-place that we can best study ritual\npractice.\n\nPhilostratos[1175] in the _Heroicus_ says: \u2018After the outrage of the\nwomen the head of Orpheus reached Lesbos and dwelt in a cleft of the\nisland and gave oracles in the hollow earth.\u2019 It is clear that we have\nhere some form of _Nekyomanteion_, oracle of the dead. Of such there were\nmany scattered all over Greece; in fact, as has already been seen (p.\n341), the tomb of almost any hero might become oracular. The oracular\ntomb of Orpheus became of wide repute. Inquirers, Philostratos[1176]\ntells us, came to it even from far-off Babylon. It was from the shrine of\nOrpheus in Lesbos that in old days there came to Cyrus the brief, famous\nutterance: \u2018Mine, O Cyrus, are thine.\u2019\n\nLucian[1177] adds an important statement. In telling the story of the\nhead and the lyre he says: \u2018The head they buried at the place where\nnow they have a sanctuary of Bacchus. The lyre on the other hand was\ndedicated in a sanctuary of Apollo.\u2019 The statement carries conviction.\nIt would have been so easy to bury head and lyre together. The truth\nprobably was that the lyre was a later decorative addition to an old\nhead-oracle story; the head was buried in the shrine of the god whose\nreligion Orpheus reformed.\n\nAntigonus[1178] in his \u2018History of Wonderful Things\u2019 records a lovely\ntradition. He quotes as his authority Myrtilos, who wrote a treatise on\nLesbian matters. Myrtilos said that, according to the local tradition,\nthe tomb of the head of Orpheus was shown at Antissaia, and that\nthe nightingales sang there more sweetly than elsewhere. In those\nwonder-loving days a bird had but to perch upon a tomb and her song\nbecame a miracle.\n\nThe oracle shrine of Orpheus is depicted for us on a somewhat late\nred-figured cylix of which the obverse[1179] is reproduced in fig. 145.\nIt is our earliest definite source for his cult. The head of Orpheus is\nprophesying with parted lips. We are reminded of the vase-painting in\nfig. 10, where the head of Teiresias emerges bodily from the sacrificial\ntrench near which Odysseus is seated. A youth has come to consult the\noracle and holds in his hands a tablet and style. Whether he is putting\ndown his own question or the god\u2019s answer is uncertain. We know from\nPlutarch[1180] that at the oracle shrine of another hero, Mopsos,\nquestions were sometimes sent in on sealed tablets[1181]. In the case\ncited by Plutarch a test question was set and the oracle proved equal to\nthe occasion. The vase-painting calls to mind the lines in the _Alcestis_\nof Euripides where the chorus sings[1182]:\n\n \u2018Though to high heaven I fly,\n Borne on the Muses\u2019 wing,\n Thinking great thoughts, yet do I find no thing\n Stronger than stern Necessity.\n No\u2014not the spell\n On Thracian tablets legible\n That from the voice of Orpheus fell,\n Nor those that Phoebus to Asklepios gave\n That he might weary woe-worn mortals save.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 145.]\n\nOrpheus on the vase-painting is a voice (\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c1\u03c5\u03c2) and nothing more. As\nto the tablets, if we may trust the scholiast on the passage, tablets\naccredited to Orpheus actually existed. He quotes Herakleitos[1183]\nthe philosopher as stating that Orpheus \u2018set in order the religion of\nDionysos in Thrace on Mount Haemus, where they say there are certain\nwritings of his on tablets.\u2019 There is no reason to doubt the tradition,\nand it serves to emphasize the fact that Orpheus was an actual person,\nliving, teaching, writing, writing perhaps in those old \u2018Pelasgian\u2019\ncharacters which Linos used long before the coming of Phoenician letters,\ncharacters which it may be are those still undeciphered which have come\nto light in Crete[1184].\n\nAbove the head of Orpheus in the vase-painting (fig. 145) stands Apollo.\nIn his left hand he holds his prophetic staff of laurel, his right\nis outstretched, but whether to command or forbid is hard to say. A\ncurious account of the oracle on Lesbos given by Philostratos[1185] in\nhis Life of Apollonius of Tyana informs us that the relations of Apollo\nand Orpheus were not entirely peaceable. Apollonius, says Philostratos,\nlanded at Lesbos and visited the adyton of Orpheus. They say that in this\nplace of old Orpheus was wont to take pleasure in prophecy until Apollo\ntook the oversight himself. For inasmuch as men no longer resorted to\nGryneion for oracles nor to Klaros nor to the place of the tripod of\nApollo, but the head of Orpheus, recently come from Thrace, alone gave\nresponses, the god came and stood over him as he uttered oracles and\nsaid: \u2018Cease from the things that are mine, for long enough have I borne\nwith thee and thy singing.\u2019 Apollo will brook no rivalry even of his most\nfaithful worshipper. The quaint story is evidence of the intolerance of a\ndominant and missionary cult.\n\nMost circumstantial of all accounts of Orpheus is that given by\nConon[1186]. No one would of course accept as evidence _en bloc_ the\nstatements of Conon, concerned as he mainly is to compile a complete and\ninteresting story. Certain of his statements however have an inherent\nprobability which makes them of considerable value. He devotes to\nOrpheus the whole of one of his narrations. He tells all the orthodox\ndetails, how Orpheus won the hearts of Thracians and Macedonians by his\nmusic, how he charmed rocks and trees and wild beasts and even the heart\nof Kore, queen of the underworld. Then he proceeds to the story of the\ndeath. Orpheus refused to reveal his mysteries to women, whom since the\nloss of his own wife he had hated _en masse_. The men of Thrace and\nMacedonia were wont to assemble in arms on certain fixed days, in a\nbuilding at Leibethra of large size and well arranged for the purpose\nof the celebration of rites. When they went in to celebrate their\norgiastic rites they laid down their arms before the entrance gate. The\nwomen watched their opportunity, seized the arms, slew the men and tore\nOrpheus to pieces, throwing his limbs into the sea. There was the usual\npestilence in consequence and the oracular order that the head of Orpheus\nshould be buried. After some search the head was found by a fisherman at\nthe mouth of the river Meles. \u2018It was still singing nor had it suffered\nany change from the sea, nor any other of the outrages that the Keres\nwhich beset mortals inflict on the dead, but it was still blooming\nand even then after the long lapse of time it was bleeding with fresh\nblood.\u2019 Other stories of bleeding miraculous heads occur in antiquity.\nAelian[1187] records several and Phlegon[1188] in his \u2018Wonders\u2019 tells of\nthe miracle that happened at the battle against Antiochus in 191 A.D. A\nbleeding head gave an oracle in elegiac verse and very wisely ordained\nthat the spectators were not to touch it but only to listen.\n\nThe details supplied by Conon are of course aetiological, but we seem to\ndiscern behind them some possible basis of historical fact, some outrage\nof the wild women of Thrace against a real immigrant prophet in whose\nreforms they saw contempt of their rites. The blood of some real martyr\nmay have been the seed of the new Orphic church. How this came to be\nConon at the end of his narrative explains: \u2018When the miraculous head,\nsinging and bleeding, was found, they took it and buried it beneath a\ngreat monument and fenced it in with a sacred precinct, a precinct that\nno woman might ever enter.\u2019 The significant statement is added that the\ntomb with its precinct was at first a _hero\u00f6n_, but later it obtained as\na _hieron_ and the proof was that it was honoured with burnt sacrifices\n(\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2) and all the other meeds of the gods.\n\n * * * * *\n\nConon has undoubtedly put his finger on the truth. Orpheus was a real\nman, a mighty singer, a prophet and a teacher, bringing with him a new\nreligion, seeking to reform an old one. He was martyred and after his\ndeath his tomb became a mantic shrine. So long as it was merely a hero\nshrine the offerings were those proper to the dead (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1), but an\neffort was made by the faithful to raise him to the rank of an upperworld\nOlympian. Locally burnt sacrifices, the meed of the Olympians of the\nupper air, were actually no doubt offered, but the cult of Orpheus _as\na god_ did not obtain. Translation to the Upper House of the Olympians\nwas not always wholly promotion. What you gain as a personage you are\napt to lose as a personality. Orpheus sacrificed divinity to retain his\nbeautiful humanity. He is somewhere on the same plane with Herakles and\nAsklepios (p. 347), too human ever to be quite divine. But the escape was\na narrow one. Probably if a greater than he, Apollo, had not \u2018taken the\noversight,\u2019 the sequel would have been otherwise.\n\nConon writing in the time of Augustus believed Orpheus to have been\na real man. So did Strabo[1189]. In describing the Thermaean gulf he\nsays that the city of Dium is not on the coast but about seven stadia\ndistant and \u2018near the city of Dium is a village called Pimpleia where\nOrpheus lived.... Orpheus was of the tribe of the Cicones and was a man\nof magical power both as regards music and divination. He went about\npractising orgiastic rites and later, waxing self-confident, he obtained\nmany followers and great influence. Some accepted him willingly, others,\nsuspecting that he meditated violence and conspiracy, attacked and slew\nhim.\u2019 He adds that \u2018in olden times prophets were wont to practise the art\nof music also.\u2019\n\nStill more completely human is the picture that Pausanias[1190] draws of\nthe life and work of Orpheus. In the monument to Orpheus that he saw on\nMt. Helicon the spell-bound beasts are listening to the music, and by\nthe musician\u2019s side is the figure of _Telete_, \u2018Rite of Initiation.\u2019\nPausanias comments as follows: \u2018In my opinion Orpheus was a man who\nsurpassed his predecessors in the beauty of his poems and attained to\ngreat power, because he was believed to have discovered rites of the\ngods and purifications for unholy deeds and remedies for diseases and\nmeans of averting divine wrath.\u2019 And again, at the close of his account\nof the various miraculous legends that had gathered about Orpheus he\nsays: \u2018Whoever has concerned himself with poetry knows that all the hymns\nof Orpheus are short and that the number of them all is not great. The\nLycomids[1191] know them and chant them over their rites. In beauty they\nmay rank as second to the hymns of Homer, but they have attained to even\nhigher divine favour.\u2019\n\nPausanias puts the relation between Homer and Orpheus in much the same\nfashion as Aristophanes[1192], who makes Aeschylus recount the service of\npoets to the state:\n\n \u2018It was Orpheus revealed to us holy rites, our hands from bloodshed\n withholding;\n Musaeos gave us our healing arts, oracular words unfolding;\n And Hesiod showed us to till the earth and the seasons of fruits and\n ploughing;\n But Homer the god-like taught good things, and this too had for his\n glory\n That he sang of arms and battle array and deeds renowned in story.\u2019\n\nHomer sang of mortals, Orpheus of the gods; both are men, but of the two\nOrpheus is least fabulous. About both gather alien accretions, but the\nkernel remains human not divine.\n\nOrpheus then halted half way on the ladder between earth and heaven,\na ladder up which many mortals have gone and vanished into the remote\nunreality of complete godhead.\n\nS. Augustine admirably hits the mark when he says[1193]: \u2018After the same\ninterval of time there came the poets, who also, since they wrote poems\nabout the gods, are called theologians, Orpheus, Musaeus, Linus. But\nthese theologians were not worshipped as gods, though in some fashion the\nkingdom of the godless is wont to set Orpheus as head over the rites of\nthe underworld.\u2019\n\nThe line indeed between hero and underworld god was, as has already been\nabundantly seen, but a shifting shadow. It is useless however to urge\nthat because Orpheus had a local shrine and a cult he was therefore a god\nin the current acceptation of the term. Theseus had a shrine, so had\nDiomede, so had each and every canonical hero; locally they were potent\nfor good and evil, but we do not call them gods. Athenaeus[1194] marks\nthe distinction. \u2018Apollo,\u2019 he says, \u2018the Greeks accounted the wisest and\nmost musical of the gods, and Orpheus of the semi-gods.\u2019\n\nOnce we are fairly awake to the fact that Orpheus was a real live man,\nnot a faded god, we are struck by the human touches in his story, and\nmost by a certain vividness of emotion, a reality and personality of like\nand dislike that attends him. He seems to have irritated and repelled\nsome as much as he attracted others. Pausanias[1195] tells how of old\nprizes were offered for hymns in honour of a god. Chrysothemis of Crete\nand Philammon and Thamyris come and compete like ordinary mortals, but\nOrpheus \u2018thought such great things of his rites and his own personal\ncharacter that he would not compete at all.\u2019 Always about him there\nis this aloof air, this remoteness, not only of the self-sufficing\nartist, who is and must be always alone, but of the scrupulous moralist\nand reformer; yet withal and through all he is human, a man, who\nSocrates-like draws men and repels them, not by persuading their reason,\nstill less by enflaming their passions, but by sheer magic of his\npersonality. It is this mesmeric charm that makes it hard even now-a-days\nto think soberly of Orpheus.\n\n\nORPHEUS AT ATHENS.\n\nOrpheus, poet, seer, musician, theologist, was a man and a Thracian,\nand yet it is chiefly through his influence at Athens that we know him.\nThe author of the _Rhesos_ makes the Muse complain that it is Athene\nnot Odysseus that is the cause of the tragedy that befell the Thracian\nprince. She thus appeals to the goddess[1196]:\n\n \u2018And yet we Muses, we his kinsmen hold\n Thy land revered and there are wont to dwell,\n And Orpheus, he own cousin to the dead,\n Revealed to thee his secret mysteries.\u2019\n\nThe tragedian reflects the double fact\u2014the Thracian _provenance_, the\nnaturalization in Athens.\n\nOrpheus, we know, reorganized and reformed the rites of Bacchus. How\nmuch he was himself reorganized and reformed we shall never fully know.\nThe work of editing and popularizing Orpheus at Athens was accredited\nto Onomacritos, he who made the indiscreet interpolation in the oracles\nof Musaeus and was banished for it by the son of Peisistratos[1197]. If\nOnomacritos interpolated oracles into the poems of Musaeus, why should he\nspare Orpheus? Tatian[1198] writes that \u2018Orpheus was contemporary with\nHerakles,\u2019 another note that he is heroic rather than divine, and adds:\n\u2018They say that the poems that were circulated under the name of Orpheus\nwere put together by Onomacritos the Athenian.\u2019 Clement[1199] goes\nfurther. He says that these poems were actually by Onomacritos who lived\nin the 50th Olympiad in the reign of the Peisistratidae. The line in\nthose days between writing poems of your own and editing those of other\npeople was less sharply drawn than it is to-day. Onomacritos had every\ntemptation to interpolate, for he himself wrote poems on the rites of\nDionysos. Pausanias[1200] in explaining the presence of the Titan Anytos\nat Lycosura says: \u2018Onomacritos took the name of the Titans from Homer and\ncomposed orgies for Dionysos and made the Titans the actual agents in the\nsufferings of Dionysos.\u2019\n\nSomething then was done about \u2018Orpheus\u2019 in the time of the Peisistratidae\nas something was done about \u2018Homer,\u2019 some work of editing, compiling,\nrevising. What form precisely this work took is uncertain. What is\ncertain is that somehow Orphism, Orphic rites and Orphic poems had,\nbefore the classical period, come to Athens. The effect of this Orphic\nspirit was less obvious, less widespread, than that of Homer, but\nperhaps more intimate and vital. We know it because Euripides and Plato\nare deep-dyed in Orphism, we know it not only by the signs of actual\ninfluence, but by the frequently raised protest.\n\n * * * * *\n\nOrpheus, it has been established in the mouth of many witnesses,\nmodified, ordered, \u2018rearranged\u2019 Bacchic rites. We naturally ask\u2014was this\nall? Did this man whose name has come down to us through the ages, in\nwhose saintly and ascetic figure the early Church saw the prototype of\nher Christ, effect nothing more vital than modification? Was his sole\nmission to bring order and decorum into an orgiastic and riotous ritual?\n\nSuch a notion is _a priori_ as improbable as it is false to actual fact.\nExternally Orpheus differs from Dionysos, to put it plainly, in this.\nDionysos is drunken, Orpheus is utterly sober. But this new spirit of\ngentle decorum is but the manifestation, the outward shining of a lambent\nflame within, the expression of a new spiritual faith which brought to\nman at the moment he most needed it, the longing for purity and peace in\nthis life, the hope of final fruition in the next.\n\nBefore proceeding to discuss in detail such records of actual Orphic\nrites as remain, this new principle must be made clear. Apart from it\nOrphic rites lose all their real sacramental significance and lapse into\nmere superstitions.\n\n\nTHE CARDINAL DOCTRINE OF ORPHISM.\n\nThe whole gist of the matter may thus be summed up. Orpheus took an\nancient superstition, deep-rooted in the savage ritual of Dionysos, and\nlent to it a new spiritual significance. The old superstition and the new\nfaith are both embodied in the little Orphic text that stands at the head\nof this chapter:\n\n \u2018Many are the wand-bearers, few are the Bacchoi.\u2019\n\nCan we be sure that this is really an Orphic text or was it merely a\ncurrent proverb of any and every religion and morality? Plato[1201] says:\n\u2018Those who instituted rites of initiation for us said of old in a parable\nthat the man who came to Hades uninitiated lay in mud, but that those\nwho had been purified and initiated and then came thither dwell with the\ngods. For those who are concerned with these rites say, They that bear\nthe wand are many, the Bacchoi are few.\u2019 Plato does not commit himself to\nany statement as to who \u2018those who are concerned with these rites\u2019 were,\nbut Olympiodorus commenting on the passage says: \u2018He (Plato) everywhere\nmisuses the sayings of Orpheus and therefore quotes this verse of his,\n\u201cMany are the wand-bearers, few are the Bacchoi,\u201d giving the name of\nwand-bearers and not Bacchoi to persons who engage in politics, but the\nname of Bacchoi to those who are purified.\u2019\n\nIt has already been shown that the worshippers of Dionysos believed\nthat they were possessed by the god. It was but a step further to pass\nto the conviction that they were actually identified with him, actually\n_became_ him. This was a conviction shared by all orgiastic religions,\nand one doubtless that had its rise in the physical sensations of\nintoxication. Those who worshipped Sabazios became Saboi, those who\nworshipped Kubebe became Kubeboi, those who worshipped Bacchos Bacchoi;\nin Egypt the worshippers of Osiris after death became Osiris. The mere\nfact of intoxication would go far to promote such a faith, but there is\nlittle doubt that it was fostered, if not originated, by the pantomimic\ncharacter of ancient ritual. It has been seen (p. 415) that in the\nThracian rites \u2018bull-voiced mimes\u2019 took part, Lycophron (p. 435) tells\nthat the women who worshipped the bull-Dionysos wore horns. It is a\nnatural primitive instinct of worship to try by all manner of disguise to\nidentify yourself more and more with the god who thrilled you.\n\nDirect evidence of this pantomimic element in the worship of Dionysos\nis not wanting, though unhappily it is of late date. In the course of\nthe excavations on the west slope of the Acropolis, Dr D\u00f6rpfeld laid\nbare a building known to be an \u2018Iobaccheion,\u2019 superimposed on an ancient\ntriangular precinct of Dionysos, that of Dionysos in the Limnae. On this\nsite was discovered an inscription[1202] giving in great detail the\nrules of a thiasos of Iobacchoi in the time of Hadrian. Among a mass\nof regulations about elections, subscriptions, feast-days, funerals of\nmembers and the like, come enactments about a sacred pantomime in which\nthe Iobacchoi took part. The divine persons to be represented were\nDionysos, Kore, Palaemon, Aphrodite, Proteurhythmos, and the parts were\ndistributed by lot.\n\nThe name Proteurhythmos, it will later (p. 656) be shown, marks the\nthiasos as Orphic, and thoroughly Orphic rather than Dionysiac are the\nregulations as to the peace and order to be observed. \u2018Within the place\nof sacrifice no one is to make a noise, or clap his hands, or sing,\nbut each man is to say his part and do it in all quietness and order\nas the priest and the Archibacchos direct.\u2019 More significant still and\nmore beautiful is the rule, that if any member is riotous an official\nappointed by the priest shall set against him who is disorderly or\nviolent the thyrsos of the god. The member against whom the thyrsos\nis set up, must if the priest or the Archibacchos so decide leave the\nbanquet hall. If he refuse, the \u2018Horses\u2019 appointed by the priest shall\ntake him and set him outside the gates. The thyrsos of the god has become\nin truly Orphic fashion the sign not of revel and license, but of a\nworship fair and orderly.\n\nWe have noted the quiet and order of the representation because it is so\ncharacteristically Orphic, but the main point is that in the worship of\nDionysos we have this element of direct impersonation which helped on the\nconviction that man could identify himself with his god. The term Bacchae\nis familiar, so familiar that we are apt to forget its full significance.\nBut in the play of Euripides there are not only Bacchae, god-possessed\nwomen worshippers, but also a Bacchos, and about his significance\nthere can be no mistake. He is the god himself incarnate as one of\nhis own worshippers. The doctrines of possession and incarnation are\ncomplementary, god can become man, man can become god, but the Bacchic\nreligion lays emphasis rather on the one aspect that man can become\ngod. The Epiphany of the Bacchos, it may be noted, is after a fashion\ncharacteristically Orphic; the beautiful stranger is intensely quiet,\nand this magical quiet exasperates Pentheus just as Orpheus exasperated\nthe Maenads. The real old Bromios breaks out in the Epiphany of fire and\nthunder, in the bull-god and the madness of the end.\n\nThe savage doctrine of divine possession, induced by intoxication and\nin part by mimetic ritual, was it would seem almost bound to develope a\nhigher, more spiritual meaning. We have already seen (p. 453) that the\nmadness of Dionysos included the madness of the Muses and Aphrodite,\nbut, to make any real spiritual advance, there was needed it would seem\na man of spiritual insight and saintly temperament, there was needed an\nOrpheus. The great step that Orpheus took was that, while he kept the old\nBacchic faith that man might become a god, he altered the conception of\nwhat a god was, and he sought to obtain that godhead by wholly different\nmeans. The grace he sought was not physical intoxication but spiritual\necstasy, the means he adopted not drunkenness but abstinence and rites of\npurification.\n\nAll this is by anticipation, to clear the ground; it will be abundantly\nproved when Orphic rites and documents known to be Orphic are examined.\nBefore passing to these it may be well to emphasize one point\u2014the\nsalient contrast that this new religious principle, this belief in the\npossibility of attaining divine life, presented to the orthodox Greek\nfaith.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe old orthodox anthropomorphic religion of Greece made the gods in\nman\u2019s image, but, having made them, kept them aloof, distinct. It never\nstated in doctrine, it never implied in ritual, that man could become\ngod. Nay more, against any such aspiration it raised again and again\na passionate protest. To seek to become even _like_ the gods was to\nthe Greek the sin most certain to call down divine vengeance, it was\n\u2018Insolence.\u2019\n\nPindar is full of the splendour and sweetness of earthly life, but\nfull also of its insuperable limitation. He is instant in warning\nagainst the folly and insolence of any attempt to outpass it. To one\nhe says[1203], \u2018Strive not thou to become a god\u2019; to another[1204],\n\u2018The things of mortals best befit mortality.\u2019 It is this limitation,\nthis constant protest against any real aspiration, that makes Pindar,\nfor all his pious orthodoxy, profoundly barren of any vital religious\nimpulse. Orphic though he was in certain tenets as to a future life, his\ninnate temperamental materialism prevents his ever touching the secret\nof Orphism \u2018werde was du bist,\u2019 and he transforms the new faith into\nan other-worldliness. He is compounded of \u2018Know thyself\u2019 and \u2018Nothing\ntoo much.\u2019 \u2018In all things,\u2019 he says, \u2018take measure by thyself[1205].\u2019\n\u2018It behoveth to seek from the gods things meet for mortals, knowing the\nthings that are at our feet and to what lot we are born. Desire not,\nthou soul of mine, life of the immortals, but drink thy fill of what\nthou hast and what thou canst[1206].\u2019 In the name of religion it is\nall a desperate unfaith. We weary of this reiterated worldliness. It\nis not that he beats his wings against the bars; he loves too well his\ngilded cage. The gods are to him only a magnificent background to man\u2019s\nlife. But sometimes, just because he is supremely a poet, he is ware\nof a sudden sheen of glory, an almost theatrical stage effect lighting\nthe puppet show. It catches his breath and ours. But straightway we are\nback to the old stock warnings against Tantalos, against Bellerophon,\nwhose \u2018heart is aflutter for things far off[1207].\u2019 Only one thing he\nremembers, perhaps again because he was a poet, that winged Pegasos\n\u2018dwelt for ever in the stables of the gods[1208].\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe cardinal doctrine of Orphic religion was then the possibility\nof attaining divine life. It has been said by some that the great\ncontribution of Dionysos to the religion of Greece was the hope of\nimmortality it brought. Unquestionably the Orphics believed in a future\nlife, but this belief was rather a corollary than of the essence of\ntheir faith. Immortality, immutability, is an attribute of the gods. As\nSophocles says[1209]:\n\n \u2018Only to gods in heaven\n Comes no old age nor death of anything,\n All else is turmoiled by our master Time.\u2019\n\nTo become a god was therefore incidentally as it were to attain\nimmortality. But one of the beautiful things in Orphic religion was that\nthe end completely overshadowed the means. Their great concern was to\nbecome divine now. That could only be attained by perfect purity. They\ndid not so much seek purity that they might become divinely immortal,\nthey needed immortality that they might become divinely pure. The choral\nsongs of the _Bacchae_ are charged with the passionate longing after\npurity, in the whole play there is not one word, not one hint, of the\nhope of immortality. Consecration (\u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), perfect purity issuing in\ndivinity, is, it will be seen, the keynote of Orphic faith, the goal of\nOrphic ritual.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nORPHIC MYSTERIES.\n\n \u2018\u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03bd\u03b7\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf \u03b8\u03c5\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f30\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n \u1f14\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b7 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1.\u2019\n\n\n_a._ THE OMOPHAGIA.\n\nThe most important literary document extant on Orphic ceremonial is a\nfragment of the _Cretans_ of Euripides, preserved for us by Porphyry in\nhis treatise on \u2018Abstinence from Animal Food\u2019\u2014a passage Porphyry says he\nhad \u2018almost forgotten to mention.\u2019\n\nFrom an allusion in Aristophanes[1210] to \u2018Cretan monodies and unhallowed\nmarriages\u2019 it seems probable that the _Cretans_ dealt with the hapless\nwedlock of Pasipha\u00eb. The fragment, Porphyry tells us, was spoken by the\nchorus of Cretan mystics who have come to the palace of Minos. It is\npossible they may have come to purify it from the recent pollution[1211].\n\nThe mystics by the mouth of their leader make full and definite\nconfession of the faith, or rather acknowledgement of the ritual acts,\nby which a man became a \u2018Bacchos,\u2019 and they add a statement of the\nnature of the life he was thereafter bound to lead. Though our source\nis a poetical one, we learn from it, perhaps to our surprise, that to\nbecome a \u2018Bacchos\u2019 it was necessary to do a good deal more than dance\nenthusiastically upon the mountains. The confession runs as follows[1212]:\n\n \u2018Lord of Europa\u2019s Tyrian line,\n Zeus-born, who holdest at thy feet\n The hundred citadels of Crete,\n I seek to thee from that dim shrine,\n\n Roofed by the Quick and Carven Beam,\n By Chalyb steel and wild bull\u2019s blood\n In flawless joints of cypress wood\n Made steadfast. There in one pure stream\n\n My days have run, the servant I,\n Initiate, of Idaean Jove;\n Where midnight Zagreus roves, I rove;\n I have endured his thunder-cry[1213];\n\n Fulfilled his red and bleeding feasts;\n Held the Great Mother\u2019s mountain flame;\n I am Set Free and named by name\n A Bacchos of the Mailed Priests.\n\n Robed in pure white I have borne me clean\n From man\u2019s vile birth and coffined clay,\n And exiled from my lips alway\n Touch of all meat where Life hath been.\u2019\n\nThis confession must be examined in detail.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe first avowal is:\n\n \u2018the servant I,\n Initiate, of Idaean Jove[1214].\u2019\n\nIt is remarkable that the mystic, though he becomes a \u2018Bacchos,\u2019 avows\nhimself as initiated to Idaean Zeus. But this Idaean Zeus is clearly the\nsame as Zagreus, the mystery form of Dionysos. Zeus, the late-comer (p.\n319, n. 2), has taken over an earlier worship, the nature of which will\nbecome more evident after the ritual has been examined.\n\nZeus has in a sense supplanted Zagreus, but only by taking on his nature.\nAn analogous case has already been discussed in dealing with Zeus\nMeilichios (p. 19). At a time when the whole tendency of theology, of\nphilosophy and of poetry was towards monotheism these fusions were easy\nand frequent. Of such a monotheistic divinity, half Zeus, half Hades,\nwholly Ploutos, we are told in another fragment of Euripides preserved\nby Clement of Alexandria[1215]. His ritual is that of the earth-gods.\n\n \u2018Ruler of all, to thee I bring libation\n And honey cake, by whatso appellation\n Thou wouldst be called, or Hades, thou, or Zeus,\n Fireless the sacrifice, all earth\u2019s produce\n I offer. Take thou of its plenitude,\n For thou amongst the Heavenly Ones art God,\n Dost share Zeus\u2019 sceptre, and art ruling found\n With Hades o\u2019er the kingdoms underground.\u2019\n\nIt has been conjectured that this fragment also is from the _Cretans_,\nbut we have no certain evidence. Clement says in quoting the passage that\n\u2018Euripides, the philosopher of the stage, has divined as in a riddle that\nthe Father and the Son are one God.\u2019 Another philosopher before Euripides\nhad divined the same truth, and he was Orpheus, only he gave to his\nFather and Son the name of Bacchos, and, all important for our purpose,\ngave to the Son in particular the title of Zagreus.\n\nIn discussing the titles of Dionysos (p. 414), it has been seen that the\nnames Bromios, Braites, Sabazios, were given to the god to mark him as a\nspirit of intoxication, of enthusiasm. The title Zagreus has been so far\nleft unconsidered because it is especially an Orphic name. Zagreus is\nthe god of the mysteries, and his full content can only be understood in\nrelation to Orphic rites.\n\nZagreus is the mystery child guarded by the Kouretes, torn in pieces by\nthe Titans. Our first mention of him is a line preserved to us from the\nlost epic the _Alcmaeonis_[1216], which ran as follows:\n\n \u2018Holy Earth and Zagreus greatest of all gods.\u2019\n\nThe name of Zagreus never occurs in Homer, and we are apt to think that\nepic writers were wholly untouched by mysticism. Had the _Alcmaeonis_ not\nbeen lost, we might have had occasion to modify this view. It was an epic\nstory the subject-matter of which was necessarily a great sin and its\npurification, and though primarily the legend of Alcmaeon was based, as\nhas been seen, on a curiously physical conception of pollution (p. 220),\nit may easily have taken on Orphic developments. Zagreus appears little\nin literature; he is essentially a ritual figure, the centre of a cult\nso primitive, so savage that a civilized literature instinctively passed\nhim by, or at most figured him as a shadowy Hades.\n\nBut religion knew better. She knew that though Dionysos as Bromios,\nBraites, Sabazios, as god of intoxication, was much, Dionysos as\nZagreus, as Nyktelios, as Isodaites[1217], he of the night, he who is\n\u2018a meal shared by all\u2019 was more. The Orphics faced the most barbarous\nelements of their own faith and turned them not only qu\u00e2 theology into\na vague monotheism, but qu\u00e2 ritual into a high sacrament of spiritual\npurification. This ritual, the main feature of which was \u2018the red and\nbleeding feast,\u2019 must now be examined.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe avowal of the first certain ritual act performed comes in the line\nwhere the mystic says\n\n \u2018I have ...\n Fulfilled his red and bleeding feasts[1218].\u2019\n\nThe victim in Crete was a bull.\n\nThe shrine of Idaean Zeus, from which the mystics came, was cemented\nwith bulls\u2019 blood[1219]. Possibly this may mean that at its foundation\na sacred bull was slain and his blood mixed with the mortar; anyhow it\nindicates connection with bull-worship. The characteristic mythical\nmonster of Crete was the bull-headed Minotaur. Behind the legend of\nPasipha\u00eb, made monstrous by the misunderstanding of immigrant conquerors,\nit can scarcely be doubted that there lurks some sacred mystical ceremony\nof ritual wedlock (\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) with a primitive bull-headed divinity. He\nneed not have been imported from Thrace; zoomorphic nature-gods spring\nup everywhere. The bull-Dionysos of Thrace when he came to Crete found a\nmonstrous god, own cousin to himself.\n\nSuch a monstrous god is depicted on the curious seal-impression found by\nMr Arthur Evans[1220] at Cnossos and reproduced in fig. 146. He is seated\non a throne of camp-stool shape, and before him stands a human figure,\nprobably a worshipper. That the monster is a god seems clear from the\nfact that he is seated; that he is a _bull_-god is not so certain. The\nhead is not drawn with sufficient exactness for us to be sure what beast\nis intended. He has certainly no horns, but the hoof and tail might be\nthose of a bull. The seal-impressions found by Mr Hogarth[1221] in such\nlarge numbers at Zakro show how widespread in Crete were these fantastic\nforms. The line between man and beast is a faint one. Mr Hogarth holds\nthat the majority of these sealings have nothing to do with cults\u2014they\nare the product, he thinks, of an art which has \u2018passed from monsters\nwith a meaning to monsters of pure fancy.\u2019 He excepts however certain\nsealings where a Minotaur is represented[1222], a monster with horned\nbull-head, pronounced bovine ears and tail, but apparently human trunk,\narms and legs. Like the monster in fig. 146, this Minotaur is seated,\nbut with his left leg crossed human-fashion over his right knee and with\nhuman hands extended.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 146.]\n\nThe traditional Minotaur took year by year his tale of human victims. Of\nthe ritual of the bull-god in Crete, we know that it consisted in part of\nthe tearing and eating of a bull, and behind is the dreadful suspicion of\nhuman sacrifice.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPart of the avowal of the Cretan mystic is that he has accomplished the\n\u1f60\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, the rite of \u2018the feast of raw flesh.\u2019 That a feast of raw flesh\nof some sort was traditionally held to be a part of Bacchic ceremonial,\nis clear from the words Euripides[1223] put into the mouth of his Maenads:\n\n \u2018The joy of the red quick fountains,\n The blood of the hill-goat torn,\u2019\n\nwhere the expression in the original, \u1f60\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u2018joy in eating raw\nflesh,\u2019 admits of no doubt.\n\nAn integral part of this terrible ritual was the tearing asunder of the\nslain beast, in order, no doubt, to get the flesh as raw as might be,\nfor the blood is the life. Plutarch[1224], in his horrified protest\nagainst certain orgiastic rites, joins the two ritual acts together, the\n\u2018eatings of raw flesh\u2019 and the \u2018rendings asunder.\u2019 \u2018There are certain\nfestivals,\u2019 he says, \u2018and sacrificial ceremonies as well as unlucky\nand gloomy days, in which take place eatings of raw flesh and rendings\nasunder, and fastings and beatings of the breast, and again disgraceful\nutterances in relation to holy things, and mad ravings and yells upraised\nwith a loud din and tossing of the neck to and fro.\u2019 These ceremonies,\nhe goes on to explain, are, to his thinking, not performed in honour of\nany _god_, but \u2018they are propitiations and appeasements performed with a\nview to the riddance of mischievous _demons_; such also, he says, were\nthe human sacrifices performed of old.\u2019 Plutarch\u2019s words read like a\ncommentary on the Orphic ritual under discussion: we have the fasting, we\nhave the horrid feast; he sees the savage element of \u2018riddance,\u2019 but he\nmisses the saving grace of enthusiasm and mystic significance.\n\nIf the sympathetic religious-minded Plutarch was horrified at a ritual\nso barbarous, it filled the Christian Fathers with unholy joy. Here was\nan indefeasible argument against paganism, and for once they compel our\nreluctant sympathy. \u2018I will not,\u2019 cries Clement[1225], \u2018dance out your\nmysteries, as they say Alcibiades did, but I will strip them naked, and\nbring them out on to the open stage of life, in view of those who are\nthe spectators at the drama of truth. The Bacchoi hold orgies in honour\nof a mad Dionysos, they celebrate a divine madness by the Eating of Raw\nFlesh, the final accomplishment of their rite is the distribution of the\nflesh of butchered victims, they are crowned with snakes, and shriek\nout the name of Eva, that Eve through whom sin came into the world,\nand the symbol of their Bacchic orgies is a consecrated serpent.\u2019 And\nagain[1226]: \u2018the mysteries of Dionysos are wholly inhuman; for while he\nwas still a child and the Kouretes were dancing their armed dance about\nhim, the Titans stole upon him, deceived him with childish toys and tore\nhim to pieces.\u2019\n\nArnobius[1227] pretends that the Bacchanalia are so horrible he must\npass them by, and then goes on to revel in revolting detail over the\nrites \u2018which the Greeks call Feasts of Raw Flesh (\u1f60\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9) in which\nwith feigned frenzy and loss of a sane mind you twine snakes about you,\nand, to show yourselves full of the divinity and majesty of the god, you\ndemolish with gory mouths the entrails of goats bleating for mercy.\u2019\nThe gentle vegetarian Porphyry[1228] knows that in Chios, according to\ntradition, there had been a Dionysos called Omadius, the Raw One, and\nthat the sacrifice he used to exact was the tearing of a man to pieces.\nIstros[1229] stated that of old the Kouretes sacrificed children to\nKronos. On Kronos all human sacrifice was apt to be fathered, but the\nmention of the Kouretes, coupled with the confession of the Cretan\nmystic, shows that the real divinity is Zagreus.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTo these vague though consistent traditions of the eating and tearing\nof raw flesh, whether of man or goat or calf, in honour of some form\nof Dionysos, evidence more precise and definitely descriptive of\nCretan ritual has been left us, again by a Christian Father, Firmicus\nMaternus[1230]. The festival he describes was, like many others in honour\nof Dionysos, trieteric, i.e. celebrated each alternate year.\n\nFirmicus in the fashion of his day gives first a long and purely\naetiological narrative of the death of the son of a king of Crete, to\nappease whose wrath the ceremony, it was believed, was instituted. \u2018The\nCretans commemorated the death of the boy by certain ceremonies, doing\nall things in regular order which the boy did or suffered.\u2019 These\nceremonies included an enactment of the scene of the child playing with\nthe toys and surprised by the Titans, and perhaps originally the slaying\nand tearing to pieces of a real child, but in the festival as described\nby Firmicus a bull was surrogate. \u2018They tear in pieces a live bull with\ntheir teeth and by howling with discordant shouts through the secret\nplaces of the woods they simulate the madness of an enraged mind.\u2019\n\nFirmicus, by his obviously somewhat inaccurate statement, has gone far\nto discredit his own testimony. After the performance of a religious\nceremony that involved the tearing of a _live_ bull\u2019s flesh by human\nteeth[1231] the surviving worshippers would be few. But, because of this\nexaggeration, we need not discredit the whole ritual of the bull-slaying,\nnor the tearing and eating of _raw_, though not actually living, flesh.\nThe bull indeed comes in so awkwardly in the midst of the aetiological\nstory of the child, that we may be practically sure this account of a\nbygone ritual is authentic.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSome light is thrown on the method, and much on the meaning, of the\nhorrible feast by an account left us by S. Nilus[1232], a hermit of Mt.\nSinai in the 4th century, of the sacrifice of a camel among the Arabs\nof his time. S. Nilus seems to have spent some of his abundant leisure\nin the careful examination of the rites and customs of the heathen\naround, and it is much to be regretted that in his \u2018Narrations\u2019 he has\nnot recorded more of his observations. The nomadic condition of the\nArabs about Sinai impressed him much; he notes that they are without\ntrade, arts or agriculture, and if other food failed them, fed on their\ncamels and only cooked the flesh just enough to enable them to tear it\nwith their teeth. They worshipped no god, either in spirit or through an\nimage made by hands, but sacrificed to the morning star at its rising.\nThey by preference sacrificed boys in the flower of their age and of\nspecial beauty, and slew them at dawn on a rude heap of piled-up stones.\nHe pathetically observes that this practice of theirs caused him much\nanxiety; he was nervous lest they should take a fancy to a beautiful\nyoung boy convert he had with him and sacrifice \u2018his pure and lovely\nbody to unclean demons.\u2019 But, he goes on, \u2018when the supply of boys was\nlacking, they took a camel of white colour and otherwise faultless,\nbent it down upon its knees, and went circling round it three times in\na circuitous fashion. The leader of the song and of the procession to\nthe star was either one of their chiefs or a priest of special honour.\nHe, after the third circuit had been made, and before the worshippers\nhad finished the song, while the last words were still on their lips,\ndraws his sword and smites the neck of the camel and eagerly tastes of\nthe blood. The rest of them in like fashion run up and with their knives\nsome cut off a small bit of the hide with its hairs upon it, others hack\nat any chance bit of flesh they can get. Others go on to the entrails\nand inwards and leave no scrap of the victim uneaten that might be seen\nby the sun at its rising. They do not refrain even from the bones and\nmarrow, but overcome by patience and perseverance the toughness of the\nresistance.\u2019\n\nThe account of Nilus leaves no doubt as to the gist of the ceremony: the\nworshippers aim at devouring the victim before the life has left the\nstill warm blood. Raw flesh, Prof. Robertson Smith points out, is called\nin Hebrew and Syriac \u2018living\u2019 flesh. Thus, in the most literal way, all\nthose who shared in the ceremony absorbed into themselves part of the\nvictim\u2019s life.\n\nFor _live_ bull then we substitute _raw_ bull, and the statement of\nFirmicus presents no difficulties. Savage economy demands that your\n_juju_, whatever it may be, should be as fresh as possible. Probably, at\nfirst, the bull may have been eaten just for the sake of absorbing its\nstrength, without any notion of a divine sacrament.\n\nThe idea that by eating an animal you absorb its qualities is too\nobvious a piece of savage logic to need detailed illustration. That the\nuneducated and even the priestly Greek had not advanced beyond this\nstage of sympathetic magic is shown by a remark of Porphyry\u2019s[1233].\nHe wants to prove that the soul is held to be affected or attracted\neven by corporeal substances of kindred nature, and of this belief he\nsays we have abundant experience. \u2018At least,\u2019 he says, \u2018those who wish\nto take unto themselves the spirits of prophetic animals, swallow the\nmost effective parts of them, such as the hearts of crows and moles and\nhawks, for so they possess themselves of a spirit present with them and\nprophesying like a god, one that enters into them themselves at the time\nof its entrance into the body.\u2019 If a mole\u2019s heart can make you see into\ndark things, great virtue may be expected from a piece of raw bull. It\nis not hard to see how this savage theory of communion would pass into a\nhigher sacramentalism, into the faith that by partaking of an animal who\nwas a divine vehicle[1234] you could enter spiritually into the divine\nlife that had physically entered you, and so be made one with the god. It\nwas the mission of Orphism to effect these mystical transitions.\n\n * * * * *\n\nBecause a goat was torn to pieces by Bacchants in Thrace, because a bull\nwas, at some unknown date, eaten raw in Crete, we need not conclude\nthat either of these practices regularly obtained in civilized Athens.\nThe initiated bull-eater was certainly known of there, and the notion\nmust have been fairly familiar, or it would not have pointed a joke\nfor Aristophanes. In the audacious prorrhesis of the _Frogs_[1235] the\nuninitiated are bidden to withdraw, and among them those\n\n \u2018Who never were trained by bull-eating Kratinos\n In mystical orgies poetic and vinous.\u2019\n\nThe worship of Dionysos of the Raw Flesh must have fallen into abeyance\nin Periclean Athens; but though civilized man, as a rule, shrinks from\nraw meat, yet, given imminent peril to rouse the savage in man, even\nin civilized man the faith in Dionysos Omestes burns up afresh. Hence\nstories of human sacrifice on occasions of great danger rise up and are\naccepted as credible. Plutarch[1236], narrating what happened before the\nbattle of Salamis, writes as follows: \u2018As Themistocles was performing\nthe sacrifice for omens (\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3) alongside of the admiral\u2019s\ntrireme, there were brought to him three captives of remarkable beauty,\nattired in splendid raiment and gold ornaments; they were reputed to be\nthe sons of Arta\u00ffktes and Sandauke sister to Xerxes. When Euphrantides\nthe soothsayer caught sight of them, and observed that at the same\nmoment a bright flame blazed out from the burning victims, and at the\nsame time a sneeze from the right gave a sign, he took Themistocles by\nthe hand and bade consecrate and sacrifice all the youths to Dionysos\nOmestes, and so make his prayer, for thus both safety and victory would\nensue to the Greeks. Themistocles was thunderstruck at the greatness\nand strangeness of the omen, it being such a thing as was wont to occur\nat great crises and difficult issues, but the people, who look for\nsalvation rather by irrational than rational means, invoked the god\nwith a loud shout together, and bringing up the prisoners to the altar\nimperatively demanded that the sacrifice should be accomplished as the\nseer had prescribed. These things are related by Phanias the Lesbian, a\nphilosopher not unversed in historical matters.\u2019 Phanias lived in the 4th\ncentury B.C. Plutarch evidently thought him a respectable authority, but\nthe fragments of his writings that we possess are all of the anecdotal\ntype, and those which relate to Themistocles are evidently from a hostile\nsource. His statement, therefore, cannot be taken to prove more than that\na very recent human sacrifice was among the horrors conceivably possible\nto a Greek of the 4th century B.C., especially if the victim were a\n\u2018barbarian.\u2019\n\nThe suspicion is inevitable that behind the primitive Cretan rites of\nbull-tearing and bull-eating there lay an orgy still more hideous, the\nsacrifice of a human child. A vase-painting in the British Museum[1237],\ntoo revolting for needless reproduction here, represents a Thracian\ntearing with his teeth a slain child, while the god Dionysos, or rather\nperhaps we should say Zagreus, stands by approving. The vase is not\nadequate evidence that human children were slain and eaten, but it shows\nthat the vase-painter of the 5th century B.C. believed such a practice\nwas appropriate to the worship of a Thracian god.\n\nA very curious account of a sacrifice to Dionysos in Tenedos helps us to\nrealize how the shift from human to animal sacrifice, from child to bull\nor calf, may have come about. Aelian[1238] in his book on the Nature of\nAnimals makes the following statement: \u2018The people of Tenedos in ancient\ndays used to keep a cow with calf, the best they had, for Dionysos, and\nwhen she calved, why, they tended her like a woman in child-birth. But\nthey sacrificed the new born calf, having put cothurni on its feet. Yes,\nand the man who struck it with the axe is pelted with stones in the holy\nrite and escapes to the sea.\u2019 The conclusion can scarcely be avoided that\nhere we have a ritual remembrance of the time when a child was really\nsacrificed. A calf is substituted but it is humanized as far as possible,\nand the sacrificer, though he is bound to sacrifice, is guilty of an\noutrage[1239]. Anyhow, that the calf was regarded as a child is clear;\nthe line between human and merely animal is to primitive man a shifting\nshadow.\n\nThe mystic in his ritual confession clearly connects his feast of raw\nflesh with his service of Zagreus:\n\n \u2018Where midnight Zagreus roves, I rove;\n I have endured his thunder-cry;\n\n Fulfilled his red and bleeding feasts.\u2019\n\nIt remains to consider more closely the import of the sacred legend of\nZagreus.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThat the legend as well as the rite was Cretan and was connected with\nOrpheus is expressly stated by Diodorus[1240]. In his account of the\nvarious forms taken by the god Dionysos, he says \u2018they allege that the\ngod (i.e. Zagreus) was born of Zeus and Persephone in Crete, and Orpheus\nin the mysteries represents him as torn in pieces by the Titans.\u2019\n\nWhen a people has outgrown in culture the stage of its own primitive\nrites, when they are ashamed or at least a little anxious and\nself-conscious about doing what yet they dare not leave undone, they\ninstinctively resort to mythology, to what is their theology, and say\nthe men of old time did it, or the gods suffered it. There is nothing\nlike divine or very remote human precedent. Hence the complex myth of\nZagreus. When precisely this myth was first formulated it is impossible\nto say; it comes to us in complete form only through late authors[1241].\nIt was probably shaped and re-shaped to suit the spiritual needs of\nsuccessive generations. The story as told by Clement and others is\nbriefly this: the infant god variously called Dionysos and Zagreus was\nprotected by the Kouretes or Korybantes who danced around him their\narmed dance. The Titans desiring to destroy him lured away the child\nby offering him toys, a cone, a rhombos, and the golden apples of the\nHesperides, a mirror, a knuckle bone, a tuft of wool. The toys are\nvariously enumerated[1242]. Having lured him away they set on him, slew\nhim and tore him limb from limb. Some authorities add that they cooked\nhis limbs and ate them. Zeus hurled his thunderbolts upon them and sent\nthem down to Tartaros. According to some authorities, Athene saved the\nchild\u2019s heart, hiding it in a cista. A mock figure of gypsum was set up,\nthe rescued heart placed in it and the child brought thereby to life\nagain. The story was completed under the influence of Delphi by the\nfurther statement that the limbs of the dismembered god were collected\nand buried at Delphi in the sanctuary of Apollo.\n\nThe monstrous complex myth is obviously aetiological through and through,\nthe kernel of the whole being the ritual fact that a sacrificial bull, or\npossibly a child, was torn to pieces and his flesh eaten. Who tore him to\npieces? In actual fact his worshippers, but the myth-making mind always\nclamours for divine precedent. If there was any consistency in the mind\nof the primitive mythologist we should expect the answer to be \u2018holy men\nor gods,\u2019 as an example. Not at all. In a sense the worshipper believes\nthe sacrificial bull to be divine, but, brought face to face with the\nnotion of the dismemberment of a god, he recoils. It was primitive\nbad men who did this horrible deed. Why does he imitate them? This is\nthe sort of question he never asks. It might interfere with the pious\npractice of ancestral custom, and custom is ever stronger than reason.\nSo he goes on weaving his aetiological web. He eats the bull; so the bad\nTitans must have eaten the god. But, as they were bad, they must have\nbeen punished; on this point primitive theology is always inexorable. So\nthey were slain by Zeus with his thunderbolts.\n\nOther ritual details had of course to be worked in. The Kouretes,\nthe armed Cretan priests, had a local war or mystery dance: they\nwere explained as the protectors of the sacred child. Sacred objects\nwere carried about in cistae; they were of a magical sanctity,\nfertility-charms and the like. Some ingenious person saw in them a new\nsignificance, and added thereby not a little to their prestige; they\nbecame the toys by which the Titans ensnared the sacred baby. It may\nnaturally be asked why were the Titans fixed on as the aggressors? They\nwere of course known to have fought against the Olympians in general, but\nin the story of the child Dionysos they appear somewhat as bolts from the\nblue. Their _name_ even, it would seem, is aetiological, and behind it\nlies a curious ritual practice.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe _Dionysiaca_ of Nonnus[1243] is valuable as a source of ritual\nand constantly betrays Orphic influence. From it we learn in many\npassages[1244] that it was the custom for the mystae to bedaub themselves\nwith a sort of white clay or gypsum. This gypsum was so characteristic\nof mysteries that it is constantly qualified in Nonnus by the epithet\n\u2018mystic.\u2019 The technical terms for this ritual act of bedaubing with clay\nwere \u2018to besmear\u2019 and \u2018to smear off\u2019 (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd), and\nthey are used as roughly equivalent for \u2018to purify.\u2019 Harpocration[1245]\nhas an interesting note on the word \u2018smear off\u2019 (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd). \u2018Others use\nit in a more special sense, as for example when they speak of putting a\ncoat of clay or pitch on those who are being initiated, as we say to take\na cast of a statue in clay; for they used to besmear those who were being\npurified for initiation with clay and pitch. In this ceremony they were\nmimetically enacting the myth told by some persons, in which the Titans,\nwhen they mutilated Dionysos, wore a coating of gypsum in order not to\nbe identified. The custom fell into disuse, but in later days they were\nplastered with gypsum out of convention (\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd).\u2019 Here we have\nthe definite statement that in rites of initiation the worshippers were\ncoated with gypsum. The \u2018some persons\u2019 who tell the story of Dionysos and\nthe Titans are clearly Orphics. Originally, Harpocration says, the Titans\nwere coated with gypsum that they might be disguised. Then the custom, by\nwhich he means the original object of the custom, became obsolete, but\nthough the reason was lost the practice was kept up out of convention.\nThey went on doing what they no longer understood.\n\nHarpocration is probably right. Savages in all parts of the world, when\nabout to perform their sacred mysteries, disguise themselves with all\nmanner of religious war-paint. The motive is probably, like most human\nmotives, mixed; they partly want to disguise themselves, perhaps from\nthe influence of evil spirits, perhaps because they want to counterfeit\nsome sort of bogey; mixed with this is the natural and universal instinct\nto \u2018dress up\u2019 on any specially sacred occasion, in order to impress\noutsiders. An element in what was at once a disguise and a decoration\nwas coloured clay. Then having become sacred from its use on sacred\noccasions it became itself a sort of _medicine_, a means of purification\nand sanctification, as well as a ceremonial sign and token of initiation.\nSuch performances went on not only in Crete but in civilized Athens. One\nof the counts brought by Demosthenes against Aeschines[1246] was, it will\nbe remembered (p. 418), \u2018that he purified the initiated and wiped them\nclean with mud and pitch\u2019\u2014_with_, be it noted, not _from_. Cleansing\nwith mud does not seem to us a practical procedure, but we are back in\nthe state of mind fully discussed in an earlier chapter (p. 39), when\npurification was not physical cleansing in our sense of the word, but a\nthing at once lower and higher, a magical riddance from _spiritual_ evil,\nfrom evil spirits and influences. For this purpose clay and pitch were\nhighly efficacious.\n\nBut what has all this to do with the Titans? Eustathius[1247], commenting\non the word Titan, lets us into the secret. \u2018We apply the word _titanos_\nin general to dust, in particular to what is called _asbestos_, which\nis the white fluffy substance in burnt stones. It is so called from the\nTitans in mythology, whom Zeus in the story smote with his thunderbolts\nand consumed to dust. For from them, the fine dust of stones which has\ngot crumbled from excessive heat, so to speak Titanic heat, is called\n_titanic_, as though a Titanic penalty had been accomplished upon it. And\nthe ancients call dust and gypsum _titanos_.\u2019\n\nThis explanation is characteristically Eustathian. In his odd confused\nway the Archbishop, as so often, divines a real connection, but inverts\nand involves it. The simple truth is that the Titan myth is a \u2018sacred\nstory\u2019 (\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1) invented to account for the ritual fact that Orphic\nworshippers, about to tear the sacred bull, daubed themselves with white\nclay, for which the Greek word was _titanos_: they are Titans, but not as\ngiants, only as white-clay-men. It is not exactly a false etymology, as\nthe mythological Titan giant probably owed his name to the fact that he\nwas clay-born, earth-born, like Adam, only of white instead of red earth;\nbut it was of course a false connection of meaning[1248].\n\nThat this connection of meaning, this association of white-clay-men\nof the mysteries with primaeval giants, was late and fictitious is\nincidentally shown by the fact that it was fathered on Onomacritus. In\nthe passage from Pausanias[1249] already quoted (p. 473), we are told\nthat Onomacritus _got the name of the Titans from Homer_, and composed\n\u2018orgies\u2019 for Dionysos, _and made the Titans the actual agents in the\nsufferings of Dionysos_. He did not invent the white-clay worshippers,\nbut he gave them a respectable orthodox Homeric ancestry. What confusion\nand obscurity he thereby introduced is seen in the fact that a bad\nmythological precedent is invented for a good ritual act; all consistency\nwas sacrificed for the sake of Homeric association.\n\n * * * * *\n\nBut nothing, nothing, no savage rite, no learned mythological confusion,\ndaunts the man bent on edification, the pious Orphic. The task of\nspiritualizing the white-clay-men, the dismembered bull, was a hard one,\nbut the Orphic thinker was equal to it. He has not only taken part in\nan absurd and savage rite, he has brooded over the real problems of man\nand nature. There is evil in the universe, human evil to which as yet\nhe does not give the name of sin, for he is not engaged with problems\nof free-will, but something evil, something that mixes with and mars\nthe good of life, and he has long called it impurity. His old religion\nhas taught him about ceremonial cleansings and has brought him, through\nconceptions like the Keres, very near to some crude notion of spiritual\nevil. The religion of Dionysos has forced him to take a momentous step.\nIt has taught him not only what he knew before\u2014that he can rid himself\nof impurity, but also that he can become a Bacchos, become divine. He\nseems darkly to see how it all came about, and how the old and the new\nwork together. His forefathers, the Titans, though they were but \u2018dust\nand ashes,\u2019 dismembered and ate the god; they did evil, and good came of\nit; they had to be punished, slain with thunderbolts; but even in their\nashes lived some spark of the divine; that is why he their descendant can\nhimself become Bacchos. From these ashes he himself has sprung. It is\nonly a little hope; there is all the element of dust and ashes from which\nhe must cleanse himself; it will be very hard, but he goes back with\nfresh zeal to the ancient rite, to eat the bull-god afresh, renewing the\ndivine within him.\n\nTheology confirms his hope by yet another thought. Even the wicked\nTitans, before they ate Dionysos, had a heavenly ancestry; they were\nchildren of old Ouranos, the sky-god, as well as of Ge, the earth-mother.\nHis master Orpheus worshipped the sun (p. 462). Can he not too,\nbelieving this, purify himself from his earthly nature and rise to be the\n\u2018child of starry heaven\u2019? Perhaps it is not a very satisfactory theory of\nthe origin of evil; but is the sacred legend of the serpent and the apple\nmore illuminating? Anyhow it was the faith and hope the Orphic, as we\nshall later see (p. 571), carried with him to his grave.\n\nThere were other difficulties to perplex the devout enquirer. The god in\nthe mysteries of Zagreus was a bull, but in the mysteries of Sabazios (p.\n419) his vehicle was a snake, and these mysteries must also enshrine the\ntruth. Was the father of the child a snake or a bull; was the \u2018horned\nchild\u2019 a horned snake? It was all very difficult. He could not solve the\ndifficulty; so he embodied it in a little dogmatic verse, and kept it by\nhim as a test of reverent submission to divine mysteries:\n\n \u2018The Snake\u2019s Bull-Father\u2014the Bull\u2019s Father-Snake[1250].\u2019\n\nThe snake, the bull, the snake-bull-child[1251]\u2014not three\nIncomprehensibles, but one Incomprehensible. On the altar of his Unknown\nGod through all the ages man pathetically offers the holocaust of his\nreason.\n\nThe weak point of the Orphic was, of course, that he could not, would\nnot, break with either ancient ritual or ancient mythology, could not\ntrust the great new revelation which bade him become \u2018divine,\u2019 but must\nneeds mysticize and reconcile archaic obsolete traditions. His strength\nwas that in conduct he was steadfastly bent on purity of life. He could\nnot turn upon the past and say, \u2018this daubing with white clay, this\neating of raw bulls, is savage nonsense; give it up.\u2019 He could and\ndid say, \u2018this daubing with white clay and eating of raw bulls is not\nin itself enough, it must be followed up by arduous endeavour after\nholiness.\u2019\n\nThis is clear from the further confession of the Cretan chorus, to which\nwe return. From the time that the neophyte is accepted as such, i.e.\nperforms the initiatory rites of purification and thereby becomes a\n_Mystes_, he leads a life of ceremonial purity (\u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd). He accomplishes\nthe rite of eating raw sacrificial flesh and also holds on high the\ntorches to the Mountain Mother. These characteristic acts of the\n_Mystes_, are, I think, all preliminary stages to the final climax, the\nfull fruition, when, cleansed and consecrated by the Kouretes, he is\nnamed by them a Bacchos, he is made one with the god.\n\n * * * * *\n\nBefore we pass to the final act consummated by the Kouretes, the place of\nthe Mountain Mother has to be considered. The mystic\u2019s second avowal is\nthat he has\n\n \u2018Held the Great Mother\u2019s mountain flame[1252].\u2019\n\nIn the myth of Zagreus, coming to us as it does through late authors,\nthe child is all-important, the mother only present by implication. Zeus\nthe late-comer has by that time ousted Dionysos in Crete. The mythology\nof Zeus, patriarchal as it is through and through, lays no stress on\nmotherhood. Practically the Zeus of the later Hellenism has no mother.\nBut the bull-divinity worshipped in Crete was wholly the son of his\nmother, and in Crete most happily the ancient figure of the mother has\nreturned after long burial to the upper air. On a Cretan seal Mr Arthur\nEvans found the beast-headed monster whom men called Minotaur; on a\nCretan seal also he found the figure of the Mountain Mother, found her at\nCnossos, the place of the birth of the bull-child, Cnossos overshadowed\nby Ida where within the ancient cave the holy child was born and the\n\u2018mailed priests\u2019 danced at his birth.\n\nThe design in fig. 147 is from the clay impression of a signet ring\nfound at the palace at Cnossos[1253]. It is a veritable little manual\nof primitive Cretan faith and ritual. On the very apex of her own great\nmountain stands the Mountain Mother. The Mycenaean women of Cnossos\nhave made their goddess in their own image, clad her, wild thing though\nshe was, in their own grotesque flounced skirt, and they give her for\nguardians her own fierce mountain-ranging lions, tamed into solemn\nheraldic guardians. We know the lions well enough; they came to Mycenae\nto guard the great entrance-gate. Between them at Mycenae is a column,\na thing so isolated and protected, that we long suspected it was no\ndead architectural thing but a true shrine of a divinity, and here on\nthe Cretan seal the divinity has come to life. She stands with sceptre\nor lance extended, imperious, dominant. Behind her is her shrine of\n\u2018Mycenaean\u2019 type, with its odd columns and horns, these last surely\nappropriate enough to a cult whose central rite was the sacrifice of a\nbull; before her in rapt ecstasy of adoration stands her Mystes.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 147.]\n\nPre-historic Crete has yielded, I venture to think will yield, no\nfigure of a _dominant_ male divinity, no Zeus; so far we have only a\nbeast-headed monster and the Mountain Mother. The little seal impression\nis a standing monument of matriarchalism. In Greece the figure of the\nSon was developed in later days, the relation of Mother and Son almost\nforgotten; child and parent were represented by the figures of the Mother\nand the Daughter. It matters very little what names we give the shifting\npairs. In Thrace, in Asia Minor, in Crete, the primitive form is the\nMother with the Son as the attribute of Motherhood; the later form the\nSon with the Mother as the attribute of Sonship. A further development is\nthe Son with only a faded Mother in the background, Bacchos and Semele;\nnext the Son is made the Son of his Father, Bacchos is Dionysos; finally\nhe eclipses his Father and reigns omnipotent as Zeus-Hades. The Mother\nwith the Son as attribute came back from Asia Minor to Greece when in\nGreece the Mother was but the appendage of the Son, and coming made sore\nconfusion for mythology. But for prehistoric Crete, for the Cretan mystic\nof Euripides in the days of Minos, the ritual is of the Mother and the\nSon.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe \u2018mystic\u2019 holds aloft the torches of the mother. Fire as well as water\nis for cleansing. He is finally consecrated (\u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2) by the Kouretes:\n\n \u2018I am Set Free and named by name\n A Bacchos of the Mailed Priests[1254].\u2019\n\nThe Kouretes need not long detain us. They are the Cretan brothers of the\nSatyrs, the local Satyrs of Crete. Hesiod[1255] knows of their kinship:\nfrom the same parent\n\n \u2018The goddesses, nymphs of the mountain, had their being,\n And the race of the worthless do-nothing Satyrs,\n And the divine Kouretes, lovers of sport and dancing.\u2019\n\nHesiod\u2019s words are noteworthy and characteristic of his theological\nattitude. The Satyrs, we have seen (p. 380), are _Satrai_, primitive\nDionysos-worshippers of Thrace and Thessaly. Seen through the hostile\neyes of their conquerors they have suffered distortion and degradation\nin form as in content, they are horse-men, worthless, idle. The Kouretes\nhave just the same beginning in actuality, but their mythological\nending is different. They are seen, not through the distorting medium\nof conquest, but with the halo of religion about their heads; they are\ndivine (\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af) and their dancing is sacred. It all depends on the point of\nview.\n\nStrabo, in his important discussion of the Kouretes and kindred figures,\nknows that they are all ministers (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9) of orgiastic deities, of\nRhea and of Dionysos; he knows also that Kouretes, Korybantes, Daktyloi,\nTelchines and the like represent primitive populations. What bewilders\nhim is the question which particular form originated the rest and where\nthey all belong. Did Mother Rhea send her Korybants to Crete? how do\nthe Kouretes come to be in Aetolia? Why are they sometimes servants of\nRhea, sometimes of Dionysos? why are some of them magicians, some of them\nhandicraftsmen, some of them mystical priests? In the light of Prof.\nRidgeway\u2019s investigations, discussed in relation to the Satyrs (p. 385),\nall that puzzled Strabo is made easy to us.\n\nThe Kouretes then are, as their name betokens, the young male population\nconsidered as worshipping the young male god, the _Kouros_; they are\n\u2018mailed priests\u2019 because the young male population were naturally\nwarriors. They danced their local war-dance over the new-born child, and,\nbecause in those early days the worship of the Mother and the Son was not\nyet sundered, they were attendants (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9) on the Mother also. They\nare in fact the male correlatives of the Maenads as Nurses (\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9). The\nwomen-nurses were developed most fully, it seems, in Greece proper; the\nmale attendants, in Asia Minor and the islands.\n\nIn the fusion and confusion of these various local titles given to\nprimitive worshippers, this blend of Satyrs, Korybants, Daktyls,\nTelchines, so confusing in literature till its simple historical basis\nis grasped, one equation is for our purpose important\u2014Kouretes = Titans.\nThe Titans of ritual, it has been shown, are men bedaubed with white\nearth. The Titans of mythology are children of Earth, primitive giants\nrebellious against the new Olympian order. Diodorus[1256] knows of a\nclose connection between Titans and Kouretes and attempts the usual\ngenealogical explanation. The Titans, he says, are, according to some,\nsons of one of the Kouretes and of a mother called Titaia; according to\nothers of Ouranos and Ge. Titaia is mother Earth. The Cretans, he says,\nallege that the Titans were born in the age of the Kouretes and that the\nTitans settled themselves in the district of Cnossos \u2018where even now\nthere are shown the site and foundations of a house of Rhea and a cypress\ngrove dedicated from ancient days.\u2019 The Titans as Kouretes worshipped the\nMother, and were the guardians of the Son, the infant Zagreus, to whom\nlater monotheism gave the name of Zeus.\n\n * * * * *\n\nFrom the time that the neophyte enters the first stage of initiation,\ni.e. becomes a \u2018mystic\u2019 (\u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), he leads a life of abstinence (\u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd).\nBut abstinence is not the end. Abstinence, the sacramental feast of raw\nflesh, the holding aloft of the Mother\u2019s torches, all these are but\npreliminary stages to the final climax, the full fruition when, cleansed\nand consecrated, he is made one with the god and the Kouretes name him\n\u2018Bacchos.\u2019\n\nThe word \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd, i.e. \u2018pure,\u2019 in the negative sense, \u2018free from evil,\u2019\nmarks, I think, the initial stage\u2014a stage akin to the old service of\n\u2018aversion\u2019 (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae). The word \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2, \u2018set free,\u2019 \u2018consecrated,\u2019\nmarks the final accomplishment and is a term of positive content. It is\ncharacteristic of orgiastic, \u2018enthusiastic\u2019 rites, those of the Mother\nand the Son, and requires some further elucidation.\n\n\nTHE HOSIOI AND HOSIA.\n\nAt Delphi there was an order of priests known as Hosioi. Plutarch is our\nonly authority for their existence, but, for Delphic matters, we could\nhave no better source. In his 9th _Greek Question_ he asks[1257] \u2018who\nis the Hosioter among the Delphians, and why do they call one of their\nmonths Bysios?\u2019 The second part of the question only so far concerns\nus as it marks a connection between the Hosioter and the month Bysios,\nwhich, Plutarch tells us, was at the \u2018beginning of spring,\u2019 the \u2018time of\nthe blossoming of many plants.\u2019 On the 8th day of this month fell the\nbirthday of the god and in olden times \u2018on this day only did the oracle\ngive answers.\u2019\n\nPlutarch\u2019s answer to his question is as follows: \u2018They call Hosioter the\nanimal sacrificed when a Hosios is designated.\u2019 He does not say _how_\nthe animal\u2019s fitness was shown, but from another passage[1258] we learn\nthat various tests were applied to the animals to be sacrificed, to see\nif they were \u2018pure, unblemished and uncorrupt both in body and soul.\u2019\nAs to the body Plutarch says it was not very difficult to find out. As\nto the soul the test for a bull was to offer him barley-meal, for a\nhe-goat vetches; if the animal did not eat, it was pronounced unhealthy.\nA she-goat, being more sensitive, was tested by being sprinkled with cold\nwater. These tests were carried on by the Hosioi and by the \u2018prophets\u2019\n(\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9), these last being concerned with omens as to whether the god\nwould give oracular answers. The animal, we note, became _Hosios_ when\nhe was pronounced unblemished and hence fit for sacrifice: the word\n\u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, it appears, carried with it the double connotation of purity and\nconsecration; it was used of a thing found blameless and then made over\nto, accepted by, the gods.\n\nThe animal thus consecrated was called Hosioter, which means \u2018He\nwho consecrates.\u2019 We should expect such a name to be applied to the\nconsecrating priest rather than the victim. If Plutarch\u2019s statement\nbe correct, we can only explain Hosioter on the supposition that the\nsacrificial victim was regarded as an incarnation of the god. If the\nvictim was a bull, as in Crete, and was regarded as divine, the title\nwould present no difficulties.\n\nThat the Hosioter was not merely a priest is practically certain from\nthe fact that there were, as already noted, priests who bore the cognate\ntitle of Hosioi. Of them we know, again from Plutarch, some further\nimportant particulars. They performed rites\u2014as in the case of the testing\nof the victims\u2014in conjunction with the \u2018prophets\u2019 or utterers of the\noracle, but they were not identical with them. On one occasion, the\npriestess while prophesying had some sort of fit, and Plutarch[1259]\nmentions that not only did all the seers run away but also the prophet\nand \u2018those of the Hosioi that were present.\u2019\n\nIn the answer to his \u2018Question\u2019 about the Hosioter, Plutarch states\ndefinitely that the Hosioi were five in number, were elected for life,\nand that they did many things and performed sacred sacrifices with the\n\u2018prophets.\u2019 Yet they were clearly not the same[1260]. A suspicion of\nthe real distinction dawns upon us when he adds that they were reputed\nto be descended from Deucalion. Deucalion marks Thessalian ancestry and\nThessaly looks North. We begin to surmise that the Hosioi were priests of\nthe immigrant cult of Dionysos. This surmise approaches certainty when we\nexamine the actual ritual which the Hosioi performed.\n\nIt will be remembered[1261] that when Plutarch is describing the ritual\nof the Bull Dionysos, he compares it, in the matter of \u2018tearings to\npieces\u2019 and burials and new births, to that of Osiris. Osiris has his\ntombs in Egypt and \u2018the Delphians believe that the fragments of Dionysos\nare buried near their oracular shrine, and the Hosioi offer a secret\nsacrifice \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd in the sanctuary of Apollo at the time when\nthe Thyiades wake up Liknites.\u2019 To clinch the argument Lycophron[1262]\ntells us that Agamemnon before he sailed\n\n \u2018Secret lustrations to the Bull did make\n Beside the caves of him the God of Gain\n Delphinios,\u2019\n\nand that in return for this Bacchus Enorches overthrew Telephos, tangling\nhis feet in a vine. The scholiast commenting on the \u2018secret lustrations\u2019\nsays, \u2018because the mysteries were celebrated to Dionysos in a corner.\u2019 It\nis, I think, clear that the mysteries of Liknites at Delphi, like those\nof Crete, included the sacrifice of a sacred bull, and that the bull at\nDelphi was called Hosioter, that, in a word, Hosioi and Hosioter are\nritual terms specially linked with the primitive mysteries of Dionysos.\n\nThe word Hosios was then, it would seem, deep-rooted in the savage ritual\nof the Bull; but with its positive content, its notion of consecration,\nit lay ready to hand as a vehicle to express the new Orphic doctrine of\nidentification with the divine. Its use was not confined to Dionysiac\nrites, though it seems very early to have been specialized in relation\nto them, probably because the Orphics always laid stress on _fas_ rather\nthan _nefas_. In ancient curse-formularies, belonging to the cult of\nDemeter[1263] and underworld divinities, the words \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1,\n\u2018consecrated and free,\u2019 are used in constant close conjunction and are\npractically all but equivalents. The offender, the person cursed, was\neither \u2018sold\u2019 or \u2018bound down\u2019 to the infernal powers; but the cursing\nworshipper prays that the things that are accursed, i.e. tabooed to the\noffender, may to him be \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1, \u2018consecrated and free,\u2019 i.e.\nto him they are freed from the taboo. It is the dawning of the grace in\nuse to-day \u2018Sanctify these creatures to our use and us to thy service\u2019;\nit is the ritual forecast of a higher guerdon, \u2018Ye shall know the truth\nand the truth shall make you free.\u2019\n\nThis primitive notion of release from _taboo_, which lay at the root of\nthe Orphic and Christian notion of spiritual freedom, comes out very\nclearly in the use of the word \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. For this word we have no\nexact English equivalent, but it may be rendered as \u2018to purify by means\nof an expiatory offering.\u2019 Plato in the _Laws_ describes the ceremonial\nto be performed in the case of a man who has intentionally murdered one\nnear of kin. The regular officials are to put him to death, and this\ndone \u2018let them strip him, and cast him outside the city into a place\nwhere three ways meet, appointed for the purpose, and on behalf of the\ncity collectively let the authorities, each one severally, take a stone\nand cast it on the head of the dead man, and thereby purify (\u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9)\nthe city.\u2019 The significance of this ritual is drastically explicit.\nThe taint of the murder, the taboo of the blood-guilt, is on the whole\ncity; the casting of the stones, on behalf of the city, _purifies it\noff_ on to the criminal; it is literally conveyed from one to other by\nthe stone. The guilty man is the _pharmakos_, and his fate is that of a\n_pharmakos_; \u2018this done let them carry him to the confines of the city,\nand cast him out unburied, as is ordained.\u2019 Dedication, _devotion_ of\nthe thing polluted, \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, is the means whereby man attains \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,\nconsecration. The scholiast[1264] on the passage has an interesting\ngloss on the word \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9. \u2018It is used,\u2019 he says, \u2018as in this passage,\nto mean \u201cto purify,\u201d or \u201cto bring first-fruits,\u201d or \u201cto give honour,\u201d\nor \u201cto give a meed of honour on the occasion of death,\u201d or \u201cto give\nfulfilment.\u201d\u2019 He feels dimly the shifts and developments of meaning.\nYou can devote, \u2018make over\u2019 a _pharmakos_; you can devote, consecrate\nfirst-fruits, thereby releasing the rest from taboo; you can consecrate a\nmeed of honour on the occasion of death.\n\nIn this connection it is interesting to note the well-known fact that in\ncommon Greek parlance \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is the actual opposite of \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2. Suidas[1265]\ntells us that a \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd is \u2018a place on which you may tread, which is\n_not_ sacred, into which you may go.\u2019 He quotes from the _Lysistrata_ of\nAristophanes, where a woman with child prays:\n\n \u2018O holy Eileithyia, keep back the birth\n Until I come unto a _place allowed_.\u2019\n\nHe further notes the distinction often drawn by the orators between\ngoods that are _sacred_ (\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac) and those that are (in the Latin sense)\n_profane_ (\u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1). The contrast is in fact only fully intelligible when we\ngo back to the primitive notions, under a taboo, released from a taboo.\nThe notion \u2018released from a taboo\u2019 was sure to be taken up by a spiritual\nreligion, a religion that aimed at expansion, liberation, enthusiasm\nrather than at check, negation, restraint. If we may trust Suidas, the\nword \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 was applied to those who \u2018were nurtured in piety, even if\nthey were not priests.\u2019 The early Christians owed some of their noblest\ninstincts to Orphism.\n\nAs we find \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 contrasted with \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, so also between the two kindred\nwords \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9 and \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c9 a distinction may be observed. Both denote\npurification, but \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c9 marks a stage more final and complete. It is the\nword chosen to describe the state of those who are _fully_ initiated.\nPlutarch[1266] says that the souls of men pass, by a natural and divine\norder, from mortal men to heroes, from heroes to daemons, and finally, if\nthey are completely purified and consecrated (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd),\nas if by a rite of initiation they pass from daemons to the gods.\nLucian[1267] again in speaking of the final stage of initiation reserved\nfor hierophants uses the word \u2018consecrated\u2019 (\u1f61\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd).\n\nPlutarch[1268] makes another interesting suggestion. In a wild attempt\nto glorify Osiris and make him the god of everything, he derives his\nname from the two adjectives \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, and incidentally lets fall\nthis suggestive remark, \u2018the name of Osiris is so compounded because his\nsignificance is compounded of things in heaven and things in Hades. It\nwas customary among the ancients to call the one \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 the other \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac.\u2019\nThe things of the underworld are \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1; of the upper sky, things Ouranian,\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac. Translated into ritual, this means that the old underworld rites\nalready discussed, the rites of the primitive Pelasgian stratum of the\npopulation, were known as \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, the new burnt sacrifices of the Ouranians\nor Olympians were \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac. Dionysos was of the old order: his rites were\n\u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, burial rites were \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1. It was the work of Orpheus to lift these\nrites from earth to heaven, but spiritualized, uplifted as they are,\nthey remain in their essence primitive. It is because of this peculiar\norigin that there is always about \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 something of an antique air; it\nhas that \u2018imprint of the ancient,\u2019 that \u2018crust and patina\u2019 of archaism,\nwhich Iamblichus[1269] says were characteristic of things Pythagorean,\nand which, enshrining as it does a new life and impulse, lends to Orphism\na grace all its own.\n\nMoreover, though \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is so \u2018free\u2019 that it verges on the profane, the\nsecular, yet it is the freedom always of consecration, not desecration;\nit is the negation of the Law, but only by the Gospel. Hence, though\nthis may seem paradoxical, it is concerned rather with the Duty towards\nGod, than the Duty towards our Neighbour. Rising though it does out of\nform, it is so wholly aloof from formalism, that it tends to become\nthe \u2018unwritten law.\u2019 Hence such constant oppositions as \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019\n\u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u2018allowed by neither human prescription nor divine law,\u2019 and again\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u2018right neither in the eye of God nor of man.\u2019\nPlato[1270] says \u2018he who does what is proper in relation to man, would\nbe said to do just things (\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1), he who does what is proper towards\nGod, holy things (\u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1).\u2019 Hence finally the spiritual illumination and\nadvance of \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u2019[1271], breaking through human Justice for\nthe Divine Right, the duty, sacred, sacrosanct, of rebellion.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Greeks had their goddess Dike, she who divides and apportions\nthings mortal, who according to Hesiod[1272] was sister of the lovely\nhuman figures, Fair Order and Peace. But, because she was human, she\ncarried the symbol of human justice, the sword. She lapses constantly\ninto Vengeance. The Bacchants of Euripides[1273] are fully initiated,\nconsecrated as well as cleansed, yet in their hour of extreme need it is\nto this Goddess of Vengeance they cry for visible, physical retribution\non the blasphemer Pentheus:\n\n \u2018Hither for doom and deed,\n Hither with lifted sword,\n Justice, Wrath of the Lord,\n Come in our visible need,\n Smite till the throat shall bleed,\n Smite till the heart shall bleed\n Him the tyrannous, lawless, godless, Echion\u2019s earth-born seed.\u2019\n\nOrpheus did all he could to raise the conception of Dike. We are\nexpressly told that it was he who raised her to be the \u2018Assessor of\nZeus.\u2019 Demosthenes[1274] pleads with his fellow citizens to honour Fair\nOrder (\u0395\u1f50\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1), who loves just deeds and is the Saviour of cities and\ncountries, and Justice (Dike), holy and unswerving, _whom Orpheus who\ninstituted our most sacred mysteries declares to be seated by the throne\nof Zeus_. The dating of Orphic hymns is precarious, but it looks as\nthough Demosthenes had in his mind the Orphic Hymn to Dike[1275] or at\nleast its prototype:\n\n \u2018I sing the all-seeing eye of Dike of fair form,\n Who sits upon the holy throne of Zeus\n The king, and on the life of mortals doth look down,\n And heavy broods her justice on the unjust.\u2019\n\nThe Orphic could not rid himself of the notion of Vengeance. Dike\nas avenger finds a place, it will be seen later (p. 612), in the\nOrphic Hades. Hosia, the real Heavenly Justice, she who is Right and\nSanctity and Freedom and Purity all in one, never attained a vivid and\nconstant personality; she is a goddess for the few, not the many; only\nEuripides[1276] called her by her heavenly name and made his Bacchants\nsing to her a hymn:\n\n \u2018Thou Immaculate on high;\n Thou Recording Purity;\n Thou that stoopest, Golden Wing,\n Earthward, manward, pitying,\n Hearest thou this angry king?\u2019\n\nIt was Euripides, and perhaps only Euripides, who made the goddess Hosia\nin the image of his own high desire, and, though the Orphic word and\nOrphic rites constantly pointed to a purity that was also freedom, to a\nsanctity that was by union with rather than submission to the divine, yet\nOrphism constantly renounced its birth-right, reverted as it were to the\nold savage notion of abstinence (\u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1). After the ecstasy of\n\n \u2018I am Set Free and named by name\n A Bacchos of the Mailed Priests,\u2019\n\nthe end of the mystic\u2019s confession falls dull and sad and formal:\n\n \u2018Robed in pure white I have borne me clean\n From man\u2019s vile birth and coffined clay,\n And exiled from my lips alway\n Touch of all meat where Life hath been[1277].\u2019\n\nHe that is free and holy (\u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2) and divine, marks his divinity by a\ndreary formalism. He wears white garments, he flies from death and birth,\nfrom all physical contagion, his lips are pure from flesh-food, he fasts\nafter as before the Divine Sacrament. He follows in fact all the rules of\nasceticism familiar to us as \u2018Pythagorean.\u2019\n\nDiogenes Laertius[1278] in his life of Pythagoras gives a summary of\nthese prescriptions, which show but too sadly and clearly the reversion\nto the negative purity of abstinence (\u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1). \u2018Purification, they say,\nis by means of cleansings and baths and aspersions, and because of this\na man must keep himself from funerals and marriages and every kind of\nphysical pollution, and abstain from all food that is dead or has been\nkilled, and from mullet and from the fish melanurus, and from eggs, and\nfrom animals that lay eggs, and from beans, and from the other things\nthat are forbidden by those who accomplish holy rites of initiation.\u2019\nThe savage origin of these fastings and taboos on certain foods has been\ndiscussed; they are deep-rooted in the ritual of \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, of aversion,\nwhich fears and seeks to evade the physical contamination of the Keres\ninherent in all things. Plato[1279], in his inverted fashion, realizes\nthat the Orphic life was a revival of things primitive. In speaking of\nthe golden days before the altars of the gods were stained with blood,\nwhen men offered honey cakes and fruits of the earth, he says then it\nwas not holy (\u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) to eat or offer flesh-food, but men lived a sort of\n\u2018Orphic\u2019 life, as it is called.\n\nPoets and philosophers, then as now, sated and hampered by the\ncomplexities and ugliness of luxury, looked back with longing eyes to the\nold beautiful gentle simplicity, the picture of which was still before\ntheir eyes in antique ritual, in the \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, the rites of the underworld\ngods\u2014those gods who in their beautiful conservatism kept their service\ncleaner and simpler than the lives of their worshippers. Sophocles[1280]\nin the lost _Polyidos_ tells of the sacrifice \u2018dear to these gods\u2019:\n\n \u2018Wool of the sheep was there, fruit of the vine,\n Libations and the treasured store of grapes.\n And manifold fruits were there, mingled with grain\n And oil of olive, and fair curious combs\n Of wax compacted by the yellow bee.\u2019\n\nSome of these gods, it has been seen, would not taste of the fruit\nof the vine: such were at Athens the Sun, the Moon, the Dawn, the\nMuses, the Nymphs, Mnemosyne and Ourania. To them the Athenians[1281],\nwho were careful in matters of religion (\u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9), brought only sober\nofferings, _nephalia_; and such an offering we have seen was brought to\nDionysos-Hades. Philochoros[1282], to our great surprise, extends the\nlist of wineless divinities to Dionysos. Plutarch[1283] knows the custom\nof the wineless libation to Dionysos, and after the fashion of his day\nexplains it as an ascetic protest. In his treatise on \u2018the Preservation\nof Health\u2019 he says, \u2018We often sacrifice _nephalia_ to Dionysos,\naccustoming ourselves rightly not to desire unmixed wine.\u2019 The practice\nis manifestly a survival in ritual of the old days before Dionysos took\npossession of the vine, or rather the vine took possession of him.\n\nEmpedokles had taught men that \u2018to fast from evil\u2019 was a great and\ndivine thing; it is not surprising that the \u2018wineless\u2019 rites became to\nthose who lived the Orphic life the symbol, perhaps the sacrament, of\ntheir spiritual abstinence. Plutarch we know (p. 628) was suspected by\nhis robuster friends of Orphism, and probably with good reason. In his\ndialogue on \u2018Freedom from Anger\u2019 he[1284] makes one of the speakers, who\nis transparently himself, tell how he conquered his natural irritability.\nHe set himself to observe certain days as sacred, on which he would not\nget angry, just as he might have abstained from getting drunk or taking\nany wine, and these \u2018angerless days\u2019 he offered to God as \u2018Nephalia\u2019 or\n\u2018Melisponda,\u2019 and then he tried a whole month, and then two, till he\nwas cured. To a greater than Plutarch, a priest who was poet also, the\nwineless sacrifice of the Eumenides[1285] is charged with sacramental\nmeaning; the rage of the king is over, in his heart is meekness, in his\nhands olive, shorn wool, water and honey; so only may he enter their\nsanctuary, \u2018he sober and they wineless.\u2019\n\nIn the confession of the Orphic there is no mention of wine, no avowal of\nhaving sacramentally drunk it, no resolve to abstain. The Bacchos, with\nwhom the mystic is made one, is the ancient Bull-god, lord of the life\nof Nature, rather than Bromios, god of intoxication. Also it must not be\nforgotten that the mystic is a votary of the Mother as well as the Son,\nand though the Mother is caught and carried away in the later revels of\nthe Son, she is never goddess of the vine. It is noteworthy that the\nlater Orphics turned rather to the Mother than the Son; they revived\nthe ancient rite of earth to earth burial, supplanted for a time by\ncremation, and the house of Pythagoras[1286] was called by the people of\nMetapontum the \u2018temple of Demeter.\u2019 Pythagoras never insisted on \u2018total\nabstinence,\u2019 but he told his disciples that if they would drink plain\nwater they would be clearer in head as well as healthier in body. In the\nancient rites of the Mother, rites instituted before the coming of the\ngrape, they found the needful divine precedent[1287]:\n\n \u2018Then Metaneira brought her a cup of honey-sweet wine,\n But the goddess would not drink it, she shook her head for a sign,\n For red wine she might not taste, and she bade them bring her meal\n And water and mix it together, and mint that is soft to feel.\n Metaneira did her bidding and straight the posset she dight,\n And holy Deo took it and drank thereof for a rite.\u2019\n\nIt is strange that Orpheus if he came from the North, the land of Homeric\nbanquets, should have preached abstinence from flesh: if he was of\nCretan origin the difficulty disappears. Perhaps also such abstinence is\na necessary concomitant of a mysticism that asks for nothing short of\ndivinity. The mystic Porphyry[1288] says clearly that his treatise on\n\u2018Abstinence from Animal Food\u2019 is not meant for soldiers or for athletes;\nfor these flesh food may be needful. He writes for those who would\nlay aside every weight and \u2018entering the stadium naked and unclothed\nwould strive in the Olympic contest of the soul.\u2019 And a great modern\nmystic[1289], looking more deeply and more humbly into the mystery of\nthings natural, writes as follows:\n\n\u2018_Toute notre justice, toute notre morale, tous nos sentiments et toutes\nnos pens\u00e9es d\u00e9rivent en somme de trois ou quatre besoins primordiaux,\ndont le principal est celui de la nourriture. La moindre modification de\nl\u2019un de ces besoins am\u00e9nerait des changements consid\u00e9rables dans notre\nvie morale._\u2019 Maeterlinck believes, as Pythagoras did, that those who\nabstain from flesh food \u2018_ont senti leurs forces s\u2019accro\u00eetre, leur sant\u00e9\nse r\u00e9tablir ou s\u2019affermir, leur esprit s\u2019all\u00e9ger et se purifier, comme au\nsortir d\u2019une prison s\u00e9culaire naus\u00e9abonde et mis\u00e9rable_.\u2019\n\nBut the plain carnal man in ancient Athens would have none of this. What\nto him are \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, things hallowed to the god, as compared with \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1,\nthings consecrated by his own usage? So Demosthenes taunts Aeschines,\nbecause he cries aloud \u2018Bad have I fled, better have I found\u2019; so\nTheseus[1290], the bluff warrior, hates Hippolytos, not only, or perhaps\nnot chiefly, because he believes him to be a sinner, but because he is an\nOrphic, righteous overmuch. All his rage of flesh and blood breaks out\nagainst the prig and the ascetic.\n\n \u2018Now is thy day! Now vaunt thee; thou so pure,\n No flesh of life may pass thy lips! Now lure\n Fools after thee; call Orpheus King and Lord,\n Make ecstasies and wonders! Thumb thine hoard\n Of ancient scrolls and ghostly mysteries.\n Now thou art caught and known. Shun men like these,\n I charge ye all! With solemn words they chase\n Their prey, and in their hearts plot foul disgrace.\u2019\n\nHappily there were in Athens also those who did not hate but simply\nlaughed, laughed aloud genially and healthily at the outward absurdities\nof the thing, at all the mummery and hocus-pocus to which the lower\nsort of Orphic gave such solemn intent. Among these genial scoffers was\nAristophanes.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThere is no more kindly and delightful piece of fooling than the scene\nin the _Clouds_[1291] in which he deliberately and in detail parodies\nthe Orphic mysteries. The tension of Orphism is great; it is, like all\nmysticisms, a state of mind intrinsically and necessarily transient, and\nwe can well imagine that, in his lighter moods, the most pious of Orphics\nmight have been glad to join the general fun. In any case it helps us to\nrealize vividly both the _mise-en-sc\u00e8ne_ of the mysteries themselves and\nthe attitude of the popular mind towards them. Exactly what particular\nrite is selected for parody we do not know; probably some lesser mystery\nof purification, for there is no allusion to the supreme sacramental\nfeast of bull\u2019s flesh nor to the idea that the neophyte is made one with\nthe god.\n\nThe old unhappy father Strepsiades comes to the \u2018Thinking-Shop\u2019 of\nSokrates that he may learn to evade his creditors by dexterity of speech\nand new-fangled sophistries in general. A disciple opens the door with\nreluctance and warns Strepsiades that he cannot reveal these \u2018mysteries\u2019\nto the chance comer. Strepsiades enters and sees a number of other\ndisciples lost in the contemplation of earth and heaven. He calls for\nSokrates and is answered by a voice up in the air.\n\n \u2018_Sok._ Why dost thou call me, Creature of a Day?\n\n _Str._ First tell me please, what are you doing up there?\n\n _Sok._ I walk in air and contemplate the Sun.\u2019\n\nHere is the first Orphic touch. Sokrates instead of climbing a mountain\nhas taken an easier way: he is suspended in a basket, and, Orpheus-like,\nreveres the Sun. The mysteries are not Eleusinian, not of the underworld.\nThe comedian might and did dare to bring the Mystics of Kore and Iacchos\nin Hades on the stage, but a direct parody of the _actual_ ceremony of\ninitiation at Eleusis would scarcely have been tolerated by orthodox\nAthens. The Eleusinian rites had become by that time a state religion,\npolitically and socially sacred (\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1). The Orphics were Dissenters,\nand a parody of Orphic mysteries was an appeal at once to popular\nprejudice and popular humour. Sokrates explains that he is sitting aloft\nto avoid the intermixture of earthly elements in his contemplation;\nagain we have a skit on the Orphic doctrine of the double nature of man,\nearthly and heavenly, and the need for purification from earthly Titanic\nadmixture.\n\nAfter some preliminary nonsense Strepsiades tells his need, and Sokrates\ndescends and asks:\n\n \u2018Now, would you fain\n Know clearly of divine affairs, their nature\n When rightly apprehended?\n\n _Str._ Yes, if I may.\n\n _Sok._ And would you share the converse of the Clouds,\n The spiritual beings we worship?\n\n _Str._ Why, yes, rather.\n\n _Sok._ Then take your seat upon this sacred\u2014campstool.\n\n _Str._ All right, I\u2019m here.\n\n _Sok._ And now, take you this wreath.\n\n _Str._ A wreath\u2014what for? Oh mercy, Sokrates,\n Don\u2019t sacrifice me, I\u2019m not Athamas!\n\n _Sok._ No, no. I\u2019m only doing just the things\n We do at initiations.\u2019\n\nStrepsiades is of the old order; he knows nothing of these new \u2018spiritual\nbeings\u2019 worshipped by Orphics and sophists. Something religious and\nuncomfortable is going to be done to him, and his thoughts instinctively\nrevert to the old order. A wreath suggests a sacrificial victim, and\nthe typical victim is Athamas (p. 61). Sokrates at once corrects him,\nand puts the audience on the right scent. It is not a common old-world\nsacrifice; it is an \u2018initiation\u2019 into a new-fangled rite, in which it\nwould appear the mystic was crowned, probably by way of consecration to\nthe gods. Strepsiades is not clear about the use of such things:\n\n \u2018_Str._ Well, what good\n Shall I get out of it?\n\n _Sok._ Why, just this, you\u2019ll be\n A floury knave, uttering fine flowers of speech.\n Now just keep still.\n\n _Str._ By Jove, be sure you do it,\n Come flour me well, I\u2019ll be a flowery knave[1292].\u2019\n\nIf any doubt were possible as to the nature of the ceremonies parodied,\nthe words translated \u2018flour\u2019 (\u03c4\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7) to preserve the pun,\nsettle the matter. The word \u03c4\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 means something rubbed, pounded,\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd the noise made in rubbing and pounding; it might be rendered\n\u2018rattle.\u2019 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 is the fine flour or powder resulting from the process.\nStrepsiades is to become subtle in his arguments, a rattle in his speech.\nThe words would have no sort of point but for the fact that Sokrates\nat the moment takes up two pieces of gypsum, pounds them together and\nbespatters Strepsiades till he is white all over like a Cretan mystic.\nThe scholiast[1293] is quite clear as to what was done on the stage.\n\u2018Sokrates while speaking rubs together two friable stones, and beating\nthem against each other collects the splinters and pelts the old man\nwith them, as they pelt the victims with grain.\u2019 He is quite right as to\nthe thing done, quite wrong as to the ritual imitated. Strepsiades, as\nSokrates said, is not being sacrificed; it is not the ritual of sacrifice\nthat is mimicked, but of initiation.\n\nThe certainty that the scene is one of initiation, not sacrifice, is\nmade more certain by the fact that Strepsiades is sitting all the while,\nnot on an altar, but on a sort of truckle-bed or campstool (\u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2).\nWe have no evidence of the use of a \u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 in mystic ritual, but it\nis clearly the comic equivalent of the seat or throne (\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) used\nin Orphic rites. The candidate for initiation, whether Eleusinian or\nOrphic, was always seated, and the ceremony was known as the \u2018seating\u2019\nor enthronement. Dion Chrysostom[1294] says those who perform initiation\nceremonies are wont in the ceremony called \u2018the seating\u2019 to make the\ncandidates sit down and to dance round them. It is to this ceremonial\nthat Plato[1295] alludes in the _Euthydemus_. \u2018You don\u2019t see, Kleinias,\nthat the two strangers are doing what the officials in the rites of the\nKorybantes are wont to do, when they perform the ceremony of \u201cseating\u201d\nfor the man who is about to be initiated.\u2019 Kleinias is undergoing\ninstruction like the neophyte in the mysteries; he has to sit in silence\nwhile his instructors dance argumentatively round him, uttering what seem\nto him unmeaning words.\n\nSo far Strepsiades is a _mystic_ in the first stage of initiation, i.e.\nhe is being prepared and purified. All this ceremonial is preliminary\nto the next stage, that of full vision (\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1). He is seated on the\nstool, he is covered with chalk, to one end only, and that is that he may\nbehold clearly, may hold communion with, the heavenly gods. Sokrates, in\nregular ritual fashion, first proclaims the sacred silence, then makes\npreliminary prayer to the sophistic quasi-Orphic divinities of Atmosphere\nand Ether[1296], and finally invokes the Holy Clouds in pseudo-solemn\nritual fashion:\n\n \u2018_Sok._ Silence the aged man must keep, until our prayer be ended.\n O Atmosphere unlimited, who keepst our earth suspended,\n Bright Ether and ye Holy Clouds, who send the storm and thunder,\n Arise, appear above his head, a Thinker waits in wonder.\n\n _Str._ Wait, please, I must put on some things before the rain has\n drowned me,\n I left at home my leather cap and macintosh, confound me.\n\n _Sok._ Come, O come! Bring to this man full revelation.\n Come, O come! Whether aloft ye hold your station\n On Olympus\u2019 holy summits, smitten of storm and snow,\n Or in the Father\u2019s gardens, Okeanos, down below,\n Ye weave your sacred dance, or ye draw with your pitchers gold\n Draughts from the fount of Nile, or if perchance ye hold\n Maiotis mere in ward, or the steep Mimantian height,\n Snow-capped, hearken, we pray, vouchsafe to accept our rite\n And in our holy meed of sacrifice take delight.\u2019\n\nThe address is after the regular ritual pattern, which mentions, for\nsafety\u2019s sake, any and every place where the divine beings are likely to\nwander. That such an invocation formed part of Orphic Dionysiac rites\nis not only a priori probable but certain from the Iacchos song in the\n_Frogs_ (p. 541). In a word the \u2018full revelation,\u2019 the \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, of these\nand all mysteries, was only an intensification, a mysticizing, of the old\nEpiphany rites\u2014the \u2018Appear, appear\u2019 of the Bacchants, the \u2018summoning\u2019 of\nthe Bull-god by the women of Elis (p. 438). It was this Epiphany, outward\nand inward, that was the goal of all purification, of all consecration,\nnot the enunciation or elucidation of arcane dogma, but the revelation,\nthe fruition, of the god himself. To what extent these Epiphanies were\nactualized by pantomimic performances we do not know; that some form of\nmimetic representation was enacted seems probable from the scene that\nfollows the Epiphany of the Clouds, when Strepsiades confused and amazed\ngropes in bewilderment, and bit by bit attains clear vision of the\ngoddesses.\n\nThat the new divinities are _goddesses_ is as near as Aristophanes dare\ngo to a skit on Eleusinian rites; that they are goddesses of the powers\nof the air, not dread underworld divinities, saves him from all scandal\nas regards his Established Church. He guards himself still further by\nmaking his Clouds, in one of their lovely little songs, chant the piety\nof Athens, home of the mysteries.\n\nThe Clouds themselves were as safe as they were poetical. Even the\nOrphics did not actually _worship_ clouds; but their theogony, their\ncosmogony, is, as will later (Chap. XII.) be seen, full of vague\nnature-impersonations, of air and ether and Erebos and Chaos, and the\nwhirlpool of things unborn. No happier incarnation of all this, this and\nthe vague confused cosmical philosophy it embodied, than the shifting\nwonder of mists and clouds.\n\nThe scene, though it goes on far too long, must have been exquisitely\ncomic. With no stage directions probably half the trivial and absurd\ndetails have been lost, but we can imagine that the whole hocus-pocus\nof an Orphic mystery was carefully mimicked. We can even imagine that\nSokrates was dressed up as an initiating Silen, such a one as is depicted\nin the relief in fig. 149.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe can also imagine that in Athens it was hard to be an Orphic, a\ndissenter, a prig, a man overmuch concerned about his own soul. We have\nseen how against such eccentrics the advocate Demosthenes could appeal\nto the prejudices of a jury. We know that to Theophrastos[1297] it was\nthe characteristic of a \u2018superstitious man\u2019 that he went every month to\nthe priest of the Orphic mysteries to participate in these rites, and we\ngather dimly that he did not always find sympathy at home; his wife was\nsometimes \u2018too busy\u2019 to go with him, and he had to take the nurse and\nchildren.\n\nPlutarch[1298], sympathetic as he is to some aspects of Orphism, yet, in\nhis protest against superstition, says, \u2018these are the sort of things\nthat make men atheists, the incantations, wavings and enchantments and\nmagic, runnings round and tabourings, _unclean purifications_, filthy\ncleansings, barbarous and outrageous penances in sanctuaries, and\nbemirings.\u2019 And again[1299], when he is describing the hapless plight of\nthe man who thinks that affliction comes to him as a punishment for sin,\n\u2018It is useless to speak to him, to try and help him. He sits girt about\nwith foul rags, and many a time he strips himself and rolls about naked\nin the mud; he accuses himself of sins of omission and commission, he has\neaten something or drunk something or walked in some road the divinity\nforbade him.\u2019 This morbid habit of self-examination is a thoroughly\nOrphic trait. Pythagoras[1300] advised his disciples to repeat these\nlines to themselves when they went home at night:\n\n \u2018What have I done amiss? what of right accomplished?\n What that I ought to have done have I omitted to do?\u2019\n\n\u2018When he is at his best,\u2019 Plutarch goes on, \u2018and has only a slight attack\nof superstition on him he will sit at home, becensed and bespattered,\nwith a parcel of old women round him, hanging all sorts of odds and ends\non him as though, as Bion says, he were a peg.\u2019 Such rites as those\ndescribed by Plutarch were not late decadent inventions, though we hear\nof them mainly from late authors; they were primitive savageries revived\nwith new spiritual meaning by the Orphics. Herakleitos[1301] refers to\nthem: \u2018polluted they are purified with blood, as though if a man stepped\ninto mud he should be purified by mud.\u2019\n\nThis is the shady side of Orphism, the way it had of attaching to itself\nancient, obscure and even degraded rites, the more obscure the easier\nto mysticize. It was this shady side that Plato hated, against which he\nprotested. In the _Republic_[1302] he says \u2018seers and mendicant quacks\nbesiege rich men\u2019s doors, exhibiting books by Musaeus and Orpheus ...\nand in accordance with these they perform sacrifices, inducing not only\nindividual persons but whole cities to believe that you can obtain\nfreedom and purification from sins, while you are still alive, by\nsacrifices and performances that might please a child, and that there\nare things they call \u201crites,\u201d which will release us from suffering after\nwe are dead, and that if we do not perform them, then there are fearful\nthings in store for us.\u2019 The Orphics, alas, fell before the temptation,\nalways assailing the theologist, to enforce his moral and religious\nprecepts by the terrors of another world; there can be little doubt\nthat the lower class of Orphic priest in some fashion sold indulgences.\nThe fearful things with which the uninitiated were threatened, will be\ndiscussed when we come to the question of Orphic eschatology.\n\n\nTHE LIKNOPHORIA.\n\nThe tearing of the bull is, however mysticized, a savage orgy; the\npurification by mud and clay can never have been pleasing. It is a\nrelief to turn to another Orphic ceremonial of more genial content\u2014the\nLiknophoria, the carrying of the _liknon_.\n\nIn discussing the worship of Dionysos Liknites at Delphi, a worship\nattended, it will be remembered, by a secret sacrifice performed by\npriests who bore the specially Orphic name of Hosioi, Holy Ones, we have\nseen the _liknon_ in use as a cradle for the infant god (p. 402). It\nwill further be noted that Dionysos Liknites is, like the infant Ploutos\nin the cornucopia, only an anthropomorphic presentation of the new-born\nfruits of the earth, of the fruits whether of spring or autumn; he is a\nmale form of Kore the earth-daughter. The ceremony of \u2018waking\u2019 him was\nprimarily but a mimetic summons to the earth to bring forth her fruits in\ndue season.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 148.]\n\nOn the relief in fig. 148 in the Glyptothek at Munich[1303] we see a\nshovel-shaped _liknon_, of a shape that might well serve for a cradle;\nbut it contains not a child, only grapes and leaves, and the phallic\nsymbol of animal life. The relief, of Hellenistic date, represents a\npeasant going to market; he carries fruits and some animal slung on a\nstick over his shoulder, and he drives in front of him a cow with her\ncalf tied on to her. He is passing a sanctuary of Dionysos; a wine cup\nand torches and a thyrsos are seen to the left. Up above is a second\nlittle shrine with a Herm, whether of Hermes or Dionysos it is impossible\nto say. High in the middle of the main building is an elaborate erection,\non the top of which is set up the sacred _liknon_.\n\nWe are at once reminded of a fragment of Sophocles[1304]:\n\n \u2018Go on your road,\n All ye the folk of handicraft who pray\n To Ergane, your bright-eyed child of Zeus,\n With service of your posted winnow-corbs.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 149.]\n\nThe passage is of interest because it shows that the _liknon_, the\nharvest basket, though undoubtedly used in the cult of Dionysos, was\nnowise confined to him. Athene Ergane, goddess at first no doubt of\n\u2018works\u2019 in the Hesiodic sense, of tilth[1305] rather than of weaving and\nhandicraft, was, as has been previously shown (p. 301), only another\nKore, the local Earth-daughter of Athens. To her rather than to the\nwork-fellow of Hephaistos, the _liknon_ full of fruits was a fit\noffering, and in solemn consecration it was set up, erected (\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd), as\non the relief. The word \u2018_erected_\u2019 is used no doubt to mark the contrast\nwith other ceremonies of the _carrying_ of the _liknon_ (Liknophoria).\n\nThis setting up of the _liknon_ was too open and public a matter to be\na mystery. It was a mere offering of first-fruits whether to Athene or\nKore or Liknites. But in the service of Liknites there was an element of\nmystery, the birth of the divine child, and it is largely in connection\nwith the cult of Dionysos that the _liknon_ takes on mystic developments.\nIt is an excellent instance of determined Orphic mysticizing.\n\nIn the relief[1306] reproduced in fig. 149 we have what is manifestly a\nDionysiac mystery. The neophyte is in the act of being veiled; he may\nnot look at the _liknon_, with its fruit and sacred symbol, which will\npresently be placed upon his head. A satyr holds it in readiness, and\nbehind the neophyte is a Maenad with her cymbal.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe veiling of the head marks the mysterious character of the ceremony.\nWe see it again in the delicate piece of stucco-work from the Farnesina\npalace reproduced in fig. 150, and now in the Museo delle Therme\nat Rome[1307]. The scene is clearly one of initiation; the thyrsos\ncarried by the boy with head closely veiled marks it as a mystery of\nDionysos. A priest is unveiling an object on what seems to be an altar.\nUnfortunately the stucco is much damaged and what the object is cannot\nbe certainly made out; it looks like a _liknon_ in shape[1308]. In any\ncase the ceremony of veiling at a Dionysiac mystery is clear. Behind the\nofficiating priestess is a cista, containing no doubt the further _sacra_\nof the rite. The scene takes place in a sanctuary, indicated by a column\nand a sacred tree.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 150.]\n\nThe custom of veiling survives for us in the ritual veil of the bride and\nthe widow, but we have almost emptied it of its solemn ancient content.\nThe bride veils herself, it is usually supposed, out of modesty. It\nis therefore with some surprise we learn that in the primitive church\nbridegroom as well as bride were veiled. This custom, according to the\nAbb\u00e9 Duchesne[1309], obtained till quite recently in France and still\nobtains in the Armenian Church. At the actual moment of the ceremony,\napparently as an integral part of it, the priest spreads over bride and\ngroom together a long red veil, the _flammeum_ of the Romans. In the\nCoptic ritual the veil is white, but is spread alike over man and woman.\n\nThe real symbolism of the veil, which indicates neither modesty nor\nchastity, comes out when we examine classical usage. The question was\nraised long ago by Plutarch[1310] \u2018Why do men veil their heads when they\nworship the gods and uncover them when they wish to do honour to men?\u2019\nPlutarch is better at asking questions than at answering them, but,\namong the various odd solutions he propounds, he gives one suggestive\nclue, viz. that the custom was analogous to those of the Pythagoreans.\nPythagorean, as we have seen, spells Orphic revival of primitive usage.\n\nThe real reason of the custom comes out in the ceremonial known as the\nSacred Spring (ver sacrum), which Festus[1311] describes as follows: \u2018The\nSacred Spring was a rite of dedication among the Italians. Under the\npressure of extreme disasters they used to make a vow that they would\nsacrifice all animal things born to them in the spring next ensuing. But\nas it seemed to them a barbarous thing to slay innocent boys and girls,\nwhen they came to adult years they _veiled them_ and drove them out\nbeyond the boundaries of their state.\u2019 Whether the horrid practice of the\n\u2018Sacred Spring\u2019 is real or imaginary, does not for our purpose greatly\nmatter. One thing is clear: the practice of veiling symbolized, was the\nequivalent of, _dedication_. The bride and bridegroom alike are veiled\nbecause they are dedicated in the mystery of marriage, consecrated, made\nover to the powers of life. The penitent is veiled because he dedicates\nhimself as atonement for sin; the widow is made over to the powers\nof death, primarily no doubt as a substitute for her sacrifice, her\n\u2018devotio\u2019 of herself to the ghost of her dead husband. Alcestis[1312]\nwhen she returns to the upper air is veiled and silent, and must so\nremain for the space of three days; she is consecrate to Hades:\n\n \u2018Thou mayst not hear sound of her spoken words\n Till she be disenhallowed from the gods\n Of the nether earth and see the third day\u2019s light.\u2019\n\nThe old meaning of _devotion_ to the gods survives now-a-days only in the\nbeautiful ceremonial of the Roman Church, known in popular parlance as\n\u2018taking the veil,\u2019 and even here its dread significance has been softened\ndown by the symbolism of a mystic marriage; the \u2018devotio\u2019 for life is\nblended with the \u2018devotio\u2019 for death[1313].\n\nIn fig. 148 the _liknon_ has been set up (\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd), on high, in open\nevidence; it contains simply an offering of first-fruits with the added\nsymbol of the phallos; it is sacred, but nowise mysterious. It forms in\nthis particular monument a part of the worship of Dionysos, but it might\nbelong, as already noted, equally well to any and every god or goddess of\nharvest to whom first-fruits were due. In figs. 149 and 150 the _liknon_\nhas become part of a mystery cult; it is about to be put on the head\nof the worshipper: he is veiled and may not look upon it. What are the\nelements of mystery and how were they imported?\n\nIn discussing the religion of Dionysos it has been seen that, at Delphi,\nhe was worshipped as Liknites. Hesychius[1314] thus explains the title:\n\u2018Liknites, a name of Dionysos, from the cradle in which they put children\nto sleep.\u2019 The _liknon_, the shovel-shaped basket used for the carrying\nof fruits, served in primitive days another purpose, that of cradle for a\nchild.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 151.]\n\nOn the vase-painting[1315] in fig. 151, from a red-figured cylix in the\nMuseo Gregoriano of the Vatican, we see the wicker-work _liknon_ in use\nas a cradle. The baby Hermes, wearing his broad petasos, sits up in\nhis _liknon_ looking at the oxen he has just stolen. One of them turns\nround surprised at the strange little object he sees, and gently snuffs\nthe cradle. Maia, the mother of Hermes, comes up in consternation and\nholds out a protesting hand. It is the scene described in the Homeric\nhymn[1316], though, as usual, the vase-painter is independent in matters\nof detail:\n\n \u2018Straightway did goodly Hermes back to his cradle hie,\n And round his shoulders pulled the clothes, as when a babe doth lie\n All snug and warm in swaddling bands. And\u2014for he loved it well\u2014\n Tight in his left hand held he his lyre of tortoise-shell.\u2019\n\nThe Thyiades, as has been noted (p. 402), awakened the child Liknites.\nOf the actual ceremony of \u2018awakening\u2019 ancient art has left us no record;\nbut on a sarcophagus in the Fitzwilliam Museum[1317] at Cambridge (fig.\n152) we have a scene depicted that looks like a reminiscence of some\nsuch ceremonial. On the front face of the sarcophagus is represented the\ntriumphant procession of Bacchos; at one of the ends is the scene of the\ncarrying of the infant god. The two men, one bearded, the other youthful,\ngrasp the _liknon_ by its convenient handles, and emerge hurriedly from\nbehind a curtain slung between two trees. The curtain and the flaming\ntorches point to a mystery scene enacted by night. Nothing certain is\nknown of the details of the ceremony, but it may be conjectured that\nat a given signal the birth of the sacred child was announced, and the\nattendants issued from behind a screen of some kind, bearing the child in\na _liknon_.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 152.]\n\nThe vase-painting in fig. 153 from a hydria in the Museum at\nConstantinople[1318] offers a close analogy to Liknites, the child in the\ncradle, and throws instant light on his primitive significance. The vase\nis of somewhat late style, about the turn of the 5th and 4th centuries\nB.C., the drawing only indifferent, but the subject-matter all important.\nThe scene is at Eleusis. Of that we are sure, because Triptolemos is\npresent with his winged car and the corn-ears he is about to carry\nthrough the world. The side figures in the top row of vases of this class\nare always subordinate, usually difficult of interpretation. The figure\nin the left-hand corner is Aphrodite, by this time tediously omnipresent.\nThe group to the right cannot certainly be named, but the seated woman\nis known to be a priestess from the great temple-key she holds over her\nright shoulder. On the lower row the interpretation of the central group\nis certain. Ge rises from the ground, watched by two goddesses; one to\nthe right bears a gold lance; she is obviously Athene. The group to the\nleft, of two women, one holding a torch, represents Kore and Demeter.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 153.]\n\nThe scene represented is clearly the birth of a divine child at Eleusis.\nThe birth of such a child[1319] was, as will later be seen (p. 552),\nproclaimed by the hierophant at some moment during the celebration of the\nMysteries: \u2018Brimo has borne a child Brimos,\u2019 but such a mystery would\nscarcely be represented openly on a vase-painting. A simpler name lies\nto hand. _The child rises out of a cornucopia, symbol of fertility._ He\n_is_ the fruits of the earth. He is solemnly presented to Athene because\nEleusis gave to Athens her corn and her mysteries. Art could speak no\nplainer. On vases representing Eleusinian scenes, e.g. the sending forth\nof Triptolemos, Plouton, who is none other than Ploutos, Wealth, is\nrepresented as an aged man, white-haired, carrying a cornucopia full\nof fruits[1320]; but here we have the young Ploutos, the babe who _is_\nwealth itself. In like fashion the _liknon_ is either a basket for\nfruits or a cradle for a child. It is all the same beautiful symbolism\nthat refuses coldly to discriminate between the human and the natural,\nthat sees in marriage the plough, in man the sower, in earth the mother,\nand in the fruits of the earth the new-born child.\n\nWhen we realize that the _liknon_ is, as it were, a cornucopia that for\nhuman fruit becomes a cradle, we naturally expect that, in its mystical\nsense, it will be a symbol of new birth, that Liknites will be connected\nwith a doctrine of _palingenesia_, a sort of spiritual resurrection. The\nOrphics had their doctrine of _palingenesia_, but the symbolism of the\n_liknon_ was to them mainly of purification, to which they added that of\nrebirth. The history of how this came to be is a curious and instructive\nchapter in the development of primitive mysticism.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe _locus classicus_ on the _liknon_ is the commentary of Servius on\nVergil\u2019s[1321] words in the first _Georgic_, where among the stock\nimplements of Demeter he notes the _mystica vannus Iacchi_. So confused\nand confusing is the commentary that it has gone far to make the _liknon_\nor _vannus_ mysterious.\n\nVirgil first enumerates all the heavy agricultural implements: the\nploughshare\u2019s heavy strength, the slow rolling waggons, the irksome\nweight of the mattock, and next he notes\n\n \u2018Slight wares entwined of wicker work that Celeus made for man,\n Frames of arbutus wood compact, Iacchus\u2019 mystic fan.\u2019\n\nIf we were left with Virgil only we should conclude that the fan _was a\nfan_, i.e. a thing with which to cause wind, to _ventilate_[1322], and,\nas it was an instrument of Demeter, we should further suppose that this\nfan was used for _ventilating_, for winnowing her corn. We should still\nbe left with two unanswered questions: (1) \u2018why was a winnowing fan, a\nthing in constant use in everyday life, \u201cmystic\u201d?\u2019 and (2) \u2018how had the\nwinnowing fan of the corn-goddess become the characteristic implement of\nthe wine-god?\u2019 These two difficulties presented themselves to the mind\nof Servius, and he attempts to answer them after his kind. He does not\nfairly face the problem, but he tells us everything he can remember that\nanybody has said about or around the matter. His confused statement is so\ninstructive it must be quoted in full:\n\n\u2018The mystic fan of Iacchus, that is the sieve (_cribrum_) of the\nthreshing-floor. He calls it the mystic fan of Iacchus, because the rites\nof Father Liber had reference to the purification of the soul, and men\nwere purified through his mysteries as grain is purified by fans. It is\nbecause of this that Isis is said to have placed the limbs of Osiris,\nwhen they had been torn to pieces by Typhon, on a sieve, for Father Liber\nis the same person, he in whose mysteries the fan plays a part, because\nas we said he purifies souls. Whence also he is called Liber, because\nhe _liberates_, and it is he who, Orpheus said, was torn asunder by the\nGiants. Some add that Father Liber was called by the Greeks _Liknites_.\nMoreover the fan is called by them _liknon_, in which he is said to have\nbeen placed directly after he was born from his mother\u2019s womb. Others\nexplain its being called \u2018mystic\u2019 by saying that the fan is a large\nwicker vessel in which peasants, because it is of large size, are wont to\nheap their first-fruits and consecrate it to Liber and Libera. Hence it\nis called \u201cmystic\u201d.\u2019\n\nIf by \u2018mystic\u2019 is meant hopelessly and utterly unintelligible, the fan of\nIacchos certainly justifies its name. Servius leaves us with a \u2018vannus\u2019\nthat is at once a sieve, a winnowing fan and a fruit basket, with\nmysterious contents that are at once a purified soul, an infant and a\ndismembered Dionysos, leaves us also with no clue to any possible common\nfactor that might explain all three uses and their symbolism.\n\nTo solve the problems presented by Servius it is necessary briefly to\nexamine the evidence of classical authors as to the process of winnowing\nand the shape of winnowing fans[1323]. So far we have assumed that a\nwinnowing fan is a basket, but when we turn to Homer we are confronted by\nan obvious difficulty.\n\nIt happens by an odd chance that we know something of the shape of\nthe instrument for winnowing used in Homeric days. It was a thing so\nshaped that by a casual observer it could be mistaken for an oar.\nTeiresias[1324] in Hades foretells to Odysseus what shall befall him\nafter the slaying of the suitors: he is to go his way carrying with\nhim a shapen oar, until he comes to a land where men have no knowledge\nof sea-things, and a sign shall be given to him where he is to abide.\nTeiresias thus instructs him:\n\n \u2018This token manifest I give, another wayfarer\n Shall meet thee and shall say, on thy stout shoulder thou dost bear\n A winnowing fan, that day in earth plant thou thy shapen oar\n And to Poseidon sacrifice a bull, a ram, a boar.\u2019\n\nThe word used is not _liknon_; it is \u1f00\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2, chaff-destroyer, but\nnone the less it is clear that the ancient instrument of winnowing was,\nroughly speaking, shaped like an oar[1325]; confusion between the two\nwas possible. Such an instrument might well be called a fan, and of some\nsuch shape must have been the primitive winnower. It is obviously quite\na different thing from the _liknon_ of the reliefs, the fruit basket. A\nthing shaped like an oar would not be easily carried on the head, nor\nwould it suggest itself as a convenient cradle for a baby.\n\nThe way in which this primitive winnowing fan was used is clear from\nanother Homeric passage[1326]. In the fray of battle the Achaeans are\nwhite with falling dust, just as\n\n \u2018When in the holy threshing floors away the wind doth bear\n The chaff, when men are winnowing. She of the golden hair\n Demeter with the rushing winds the husk from out the grain\n Divideth, and the chaff-heaps whiten and grow amain.\u2019\n\nThe wind is the natural winnower, but man can help the wind by exposing\nthe mixed chaff and grain. This he throws up on the winnowing fan against\nthe wind, the wind blows away the chaff and the heavier grain falls\nto the ground. The best instrument with which to do this is naturally\nan oar-like pole, broadened at the end to serve as a shovel. Such an\ninstrument was the \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd or winnowing fan:\n\n \u2018As when from a broad winnowing fan, in a great threshing floor,\n The pulse and black-skinned beans leap out the whistling wind before\n Sped by the winnower\u2019s swinging, so the bitter arrow flew\n From Menelaos glancing far nor pierced his corslet through[1327].\u2019\n\nHere the joint work of the wind and the human winnower is clearly shown.\n\nA basket of the shape of an old-fashioned coal-scuttle could be used\nto scoop up the grain and toss it against the wind. It would not be so\nconvenient as the oar-shaped winnowing fan, because the labourer would\nhave to stoop to shovel up the grain, but it would hold more grain and\nwould serve the second purpose of an ordinary basket and of a child\u2019s\ncradle. Primitive man is not averse to these economies.\n\nThe _liknon_ and the _vannus_ alike begin as winnowing fans and end as\nbaskets for corn or fruit. The _liknon_ of the Hellenistic reliefs and\nthe _vannus_ of Virgil are made of wicker-work; the fan of Homer shaped\nlike an oar was made of sterner stuff, probably of wood. This may be\ngathered from a pathetic fragment of the _Proteus_ of Aeschylus[1328]\nwhere some one tells of\n\n \u2018The piteous dove who feeding beats and breaks\n Her hapless breast amid the winnowing fans.\u2019\n\nThe winnowing fan is essentially and necessarily an instrument of\nDemeter. This Virgil knew, though he knew also that it had passed into\nthe service of Iacchos. Theocritus[1329] at the end of his harvest Idyll\nprays\n\n \u2018O once again may it be mine to plant\n The great fan on her corn-heap, while she stands\n Smiling, with sheaves and poppies in her hands.\u2019\n\nThe \u2018great fan\u2019 here, as the word \u03c0\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9 \u2018fix\u2019 or \u2018plant\u2019 shows, must\nhave been the oar-shaped fan, not the basket. The basket, the light thing\nof osier carried on the head, is mainly characteristic of Dionysos. An\nepigram in the _Anthology_[1330] enumerates the various instruments of\nthe worship of Bacchus, the rhombos, the fawn-skin, the cymbals, the\nthyrsos, and\n\n \u2018The timbrel lightly carried with its deep and muttering sound,\n The liknon often borne aloft on hair with fillet bound.\u2019\n\nWe have then, it is clear, two implements in use in ancient days for\nwinnowing; distinct in shape and made of different materials. The\n\u2018chaff-consumer\u2019 of Homer, called also a _ptuon_, made of wood and later\nof iron, is an oar-shaped implement with a long handle; the _liknon_\nproper, the _vannus_ of Vergil, is a shovel-shaped basket made of wicker\nwork. The only factor common to the two is that they are both winnowers.\nThere the resemblance ends. The _ptuon_ remained a simple agricultural\ntool, the _liknon_, the winnow-_corb_, became \u2018mystic\u2019 because of its\nfunction as a purifier and because of its second use as a cradle for the\nmystery-babe. In it was carried the phallos, the symbol of life; hence it\nwas reverently veiled. The confusion between the two is entirely caused\nby our modern terminology, which uses the word \u2018fan\u2019 to translate both\n\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u2018winnow-corb,\u2019 and \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd, \u2018winnow-fork\u2019 or \u2018shovel.\u2019 The religion\nof Dionysos, and with it the Orphic mysteries, adopted the _liknon_, the\nwinnow-corb, and left the _ptuon_, the winnow-shovel, to Demeter.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe diverse shapes of the _liknon_ have been discussed at length because\nthey are of vital importance for the understanding of Orphic mysteries\nand Orphic mysticism. The shift from winnowing fan to fruit basket marks\nthe transition from agriculture to vine culture, from Demeter to Bacchus,\nand the connecting link is Bromios. The vine-growers have no use for\nthe winnowing fork but they were once grain-growers, and they keep the\n_liknon_-basket in their worship.\n\nMoreover, and this is the most curious and conclusive evidence, though\nthey have turned their winnowing fans into fruit-baskets, they by an\ninstructive and half unconscious confusion take over from the winnowing\nfan its proper symbolism and apply it to the fruit-basket.\n\nThe winnowing fan symbolized purification; as the husk is separated from\nthe grain so is evil winnowed away from good; it mattered little whether\nthe separation was effected by an actual fan (\u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd) or by a sieve\n(\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd)[1331]. Plato[1332], whose mind was charged with Orphism, knew\nthat all purification is _discernment_, separation, from the outward\ncleansing of the body to that innermost purification which is \u2018the\npurging away by refutation of all prejudice and vain conceit within the\nsoul.\u2019 We have kept among our sacraments the outward washing with water,\nbut we have lost the lovely and more intimate symbolism of the _liknon_.\nYet we still remember that \u2018His fan is in his hand and he will throughly\npurge his floor.\u2019\n\nThe symbolism of the basket of first-fruits was quite other; it was the\nsign of plenty, of new life, of the birth of fruits and children. But\nthe Orphic cannot forget purification; his fusion of new and old is at\nthe back of all his confused mysticism that baffled Servius. The fan\nhe knows symbolizes purification, but the basket is the cradle of the\nnew-born Liknites. He sees in a flash how he can connect the two. Was not\nthe child torn asunder? is it not that divine dismembered life by which\nall men are purged and consecrated and born anew? It even seems to him\nfull of a wondrous significance that this divine dismembered life should\nbe carried on the head, the seat of the divine reason, and he invents\na story of a nymph, with an old Satyr name, Hippa[1333], who carried\nthe _liknon_ on her head and symbolized the soul. Charged with all this\nsymbolism we cannot wonder that the _liknon_ as fan for winnowing,\nas sieve for sifting, as basket for first-fruits, as cradle for a\nchild, was, as Harpocration[1334] tells, \u2018serviceable for every rite of\ninitiation, for every sacrifice.\u2019\n\nThe rite in which the _liknon_ was used, and that a rite of supreme\nimportance for the understanding of Orphic mysteries, has been reserved\nto the end\u2014the rite of marriage.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 154.]\n\nOn the engraved gem[1335] in fig. 154, signed by the artist Tryphon,\nthe scene represented is the marriage, or possibly the initiation and\nmarriage ceremonies in one, of Eros and Psyche. The subject is of course\nmythological, but none the less is it a transcript of actual usage. Eros\nand Psyche, _both_ closely veiled, are led by a sacred fillet in the\nhand of the Eros who bears the nuptial torch. Another Eros to the right\nunveils a seat or couch. Over the veiled heads of bride and groom a third\nEros holds the _liknon_ full of fruits.\n\nThat the _liknon_ was carried at marriage ceremonies is known also from\nliterary sources. Plutarch[1336] says it was the custom at Athens\nat marriages that a boy both whose parents were alive should carry a\n_liknon_ full of loaves and then pronounce the words \u2018Bad have I fled,\nbetter have I found.\u2019 The fact that the boy must have both parents alive,\ni.e. that he should be uncontaminated by any contact however remote with\nthe unlucky spirits and influences of the dead, shows clearly that here\nagain the carrying of the _liknon_ was a fertility charm, a charm to\ninduce the birth of children and all natural wealth and increase. In a\nmarriage rite the symbolism of Liknites, of fruit and child, could not\nbe forgotten. The scholiast to Kallimachos[1337] says \u2018in old days they\nwere wont to lull babies to sleep in _likna_ as an omen for wealth and\nfruits,\u2019 and Servius says, as already noted (p. 528), it was the custom\nto do this the moment the child was born.\n\nBut the _liknon_ in the marriage rite became not merely a fertility\ncharm but the symbol of spiritual grace. This is clear from the words of\nSuidas[1338]. The boy, he says, carried branches of acanthus and acorns\nas well as loaves. If Suidas is right, these ruder natural products\nwere only present as being earlier first-fruits before man made loaves\nof corn, but Suidas says he carried them and pronounced the formulary\n_signifying as in a riddle_ the change to what is better, for the wreath\nof oak and acanthus signified what was bad. It was this mysticizing of\neveryday things that irritated the plain man, that seemed to him at\nonce foolish and pretentious; this it was that raised Demosthenes to\nhis angry protest: \u2018You bid your mystics,\u2019 he says to Aeschines[1339],\n\u2018when you have daubed them with mud and purified them with clay, say\n\u201cBad have I fled, better have I found,\u201d pluming yourself that no one has\never before uttered such words, you,\u2019 he goes on, \u2018who are kistophoros\nand liknophoros.\u2019 Had not every plain man pronounced the words at his\nmarriage and meant by them\u2014increase of income and family?\n\nThe \u2018mystic fan of Iacchos\u2019 was used in marriage rites. This brings us\nface to face with the question\u2014did Orphic mysteries include a mystic\nmarriage[1340]? The Orphics worshipped, as has been seen (p. 499), both\nMother and Son; they mysticized the birth of the Son; did they look back\nbefore the birth and mysticize the marriage of the Mother? On _a priori_\ngrounds we should expect they did. A religion based on the belief of\npossible union with the divine had everything to gain from the symbolism\nof marriage. Happily we are not left to _a priori_ speculation; we have\npositive evidence that Dionysiac mysteries contained a sacred marriage\nand that Orphics mysticized it.\n\n\nTHE SACRED MARRIAGE.\n\nBy a most unhappy chance our main evidence as to the Sacred Marriage of\nthe mysteries comes to us from the Christian Fathers; their prejudiced\nimaginations see in its beautiful symbolism only the record of unbridled\nlicense. We may and must discredit their unclean interpretations, but we\nhave no ground for doubting the substantial accuracy of their statements\nas to ritual procedure. They were preaching to men who had been initiated\nin the very mysteries they describe, and any mis-statement as to ritual\nwould have discredited their teaching.\n\nClement[1341] in his \u2018Exhortation\u2019 wishes to prove the abominable\nwickedness of Zeus and says that he became the husband of his daughter\nin the form of a snake. He adds: \u2018The token of the Sabazian mysteries is\n_the snake through the bosom_, and this snake gliding through the bosom\nof the initiated is the proof of the license of Zeus.\u2019 Arnobius[1342]\ntoo holds that the ceremony of the snake is but a witness against Zeus.\nHe adds the important detail that the snake was of gold. It was let down\ninto the bosom and taken away from below. The _gold_ snake is in itself\nevidence of the simple symbolic innocence of the rite.\n\nThe snake ceremony of Sabazios is of course the relic of a very primitive\nfaith, of the time when the snake was the god. We are reminded of the\nstory told of Philip of Macedon (p. 398) and his fear that Olympias was\nthe bride of a divine snake. As civilization advanced the sacred marriage\nwould take a purely human form.\n\nClement[1343] again gives invaluable evidence. Happily he has preserved\nfor us the symbols or _tokens_ of initiation into the mysteries of the\nGreat Mother in her Asiatic form as Cybele. \u2018The symbols,\u2019 he says, in\nhis gross and ignorant blasphemy, \u2018will abundantly excite your laughter,\nthough on account of the exposure you will not be in laughing condition:\nI have eaten from the timbrel, I have drunk from the cymbal, I have\ncarried the kernos, I have gone down into the bridal chamber.\u2019 The first\nthree _tokens_ are, as has been already shown (p. 155), practically\nidentical with the _tokens_ of Eleusis and relate to the solemn partaking\nof first-fruits; the last is a manifest avowal of a Sacred Marriage. The\nword \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2[1344] here used means bridal chamber or bridal bed. It is\nroughly the equivalent of \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, and like it had a hieratic as well as\na secular use. The houses of the gods are built after the pattern of the\ndwellings of men.\n\nIt is curious and interesting to find that a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2, a bridal chamber,\nexisted in the sanctuary of the Great Mother at Phlya. The anonymous\nauthor of the _Philosophoumena_[1345] or \u2018Refutation of all Heresies\u2019\ntells us the Bacchic rites of Orpheus \u2018were established and given to men\nat Phlya in Attica before the establishment of the Eleusinian rite of\ninitiation.\u2019 These rites were those of her called the Great One. At Phlya\nthere was a bridal chamber (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2) and on the chamber were paintings,\nexisting to the author\u2019s own time, representing the whole semblance\nof what has been described. On the subject of the many representations\nPlutarch wrote in his ten books against Empedokles. Unhappily the\ntreatise by Plutarch is lost and the author of the _Philosophoumena_\nonly describes one painting, which will be discussed later (Chap. XII.)\nin relation to the theogony of Orpheus. At present it is important to\nnote the one fact that in a primitive home of Orphism there was a sacred\nbridal chamber. In such a chamber must have been enacted a mimetic\nmarriage.\n\nNor was it only at Phlya that a marriage chamber existed and a marriage\nceremonial was enacted. At Athens itself was such a chamber, and our\nevidence for its existence is no less an authority than Aristotle[1346].\nIn his discussion of the official residences of the various archons he\nnotes that in past days the King Archon used to live in a place called\nthe Boukolion near to the Prytaneion, \u2018And the proof of this is that\nto this day the union and marriage of the wife of the King Archon with\nDionysos takes place there.\u2019\n\nIn a place called the \u2018cattle shed\u2019 the Queen Archon was married to\nDionysos. The conjecture lies near to hand that in bygone days there\nwas a marriage to a sacred bull. We are reminded that the worshipper of\nSabazios was said to \u2018herd\u2019 the god (p. 420). Be that as it may, at the\nfestival of the Anthesteria the Queen Archon was \u2018given in marriage\u2019 to\nDionysos, and from the author of the Speech against Neaira[1347] we learn\nhow dread and sacred was the rite.\n\nThe mother of Neaira, a base-born alien, had on behalf of the city\nperformed the \u2018unspeakable sacrifice\u2019; she had seen what none but an\nAthenian woman might see; she had entered where none but the Queen Archon\nmight enter; she had heard what none might hear; she had administered the\noath to her celebrants, fourteen in number, one for each of the altars\nof Dionysos, administered it on the sacred baskets before they touched\nthe holy things. The oath was written on a stone stele set up by the\naltar in the ancient sanctuary of Dionysos in the marshes, opened but\nonce in the year at the festival of the marriage. It was set there in\nsecret because it was too holy to be read by the many; the letters were\ndim with age; so the orator called for the sacred herald and bade him\nread it that the court might hear how \u2018holy and pure and ancient were its\nprescriptions.\u2019\n\n _The Oath of the Celebrants._\n\n \u2018I fast[1348] and am clean and abstinent from all things that\n make unclean and from intercourse with man and I celebrate the\n Theoinia and the Iobaccheia to Dionysos in accordance with\n ancestral usage and at the appointed times.\u2019\n\nUnhappily though we have the oath of purity we know nothing definite of\neither the Theoinia or the Iobaccheia[1349]. Only this much is certain, a\nsacred marriage was enacted by a woman high-born and blameless, and that\nmarriage was a mystery.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAt Athens Dionysos is bridegroom, not new-born child. This is one of\nthe shifts from Son to Father that constantly occur in Greek mythology.\nThe Christian Fathers see in it evidence of incest, but the horrid\nsupposition is wholly gratuitous. It has been shown in detail (p. 260)\nthat the Mother and the Maid are two persons but one god, are but the\nyoung and the old form of a divinity always waxing and waning. It is the\nsame with the Father and the Son; he is one but he reflects two stages\nof the same human life. We are perplexed because both Father and Son in\nthe religion of Dionysos take on many names: Sabazios, Dionysos, Bacchos,\nIacchos, Zagreus. Each reflects some special function, but each is apt to\nbe both Father and Son. The Romans in their dull way, with little power\nfor intense personification, leave the simple truth more manifest. Libera\nthe Mother has a Son Liber, a _child_, but even with them the inevitable\nconfusion arises, the _child_ Liber grows up and becomes \u2018Father Liber.\u2019\n\nAnother bridal chamber in the cult of Dionysos remains to be noted,\nand one of special significance. On his way from Sekyon to Phlius\nPausanias[1350] came to a grove called Pyraea. In it there was a\nsanctuary of Demeter the Protectress and of Kore. \u2018Here the men celebrate\na festival by themselves, and they give up the place called the Bridal\nChamber (\u039d\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1) to the women for their festival. Of the images of\nDionysos and Demeter and Kore in the Bridal Chamber the faces only are\nvisible.\u2019 Here, as manifestly at Athens, the marriage service of Dionysos\nwas accomplished by women; the men leave them alone with their god. If\nany one, Pentheus-like, charges these holy women with license, this plain\nprimitive prescription refutes his impiety.\n\nFrom the evidence of Aristotle and Pausanias we may be sure that the\nmarriage rites, so grossly libelled by Christian Fathers, were not\nthe products of their own imaginations. Their wilful misunderstanding\nis an ugly chapter in the history of human passion and prejudice. Now\nand again, when they seek an illustration for their own mysteries,\nthey confess that the pagan mysteries of marriage were believed by the\ncelebrants to be spiritual. Epiphanios[1351] says \u2018some prepare a bridal\nchamber and perform a mystic rite accompanied by certain words used to\nthe initiated, and they allege that it is a spiritual marriage\u2019; and\nFirmicus[1352] by a happy chance records the social formularies. \u2018Not\nonly words,\u2019 he says, \u2018but even nuptial rites occur in their sacred\nmysteries, and the proof of this is the greeting in which the mystae hail\nthose just initiated by the name of \u201cbrides\u201d:\n\n \u201cA light upon the shining sea\u2014\n The Bridegroom and his Bride\u201d.\u2019\n\nA mimetic marriage was, it is clear, an element in the rites of Dionysos\nand an element mysticized by the Orphics. Equally clear is it that in\nthe ceremony of waking Liknites and in the story of Zagreus we have as\nanother element the birth of a child. At present we have no evidence of\ndefinite connection between the two. At Athens in the Boukolion we have\na marriage rite but no birth rite, at Delphi in the waking of Liknites we\nhave a birth but no marriage. When the mysteries at Eleusis are examined\nwe find, as will shortly be seen, that the two rites\u2014the marriage and the\nbirth\u2014were in close and manifest connection.\n\n\nORPHIC ELEMENTS IN ELEUSINIAN RITUAL.\n\nThe question may fairly be asked\u2014are we entitled to use evidence drawn\nfrom Eleusinian mysteries to elucidate Orphic ceremonial? or in other\nwords have we any clear evidence that the worship of Dionysos in the form\nknown as \u2018Orphic\u2019 came to Eleusis and modified the simple rites of the\nMother and the Maid?\n\nThese simple rites have been already examined. It has been shown from the\nplain evidence of the Eleusinian \u2018tokens\u2019 that the rites of Eleusis were\nprimarily rites of a harvest festival, that the ceremonies consisted of\nelaborate purification and fasting, followed by the removal of the taboo\non first-fruits, and the consequent partaking of the sacred _kykeon_\nand the handling of certain sacred objects. I have advisedly devoted no\nseparate chapter to the Eleusinian Mysteries because all in them that\nwas not a primitive harvest festival, all or nearly all their spiritual\nsignificance, was due to elements borrowed from the cult of Dionysos.\nWe have now obtained some notion, fairly clear if fragmentary, of the\ncontents of Orphic and Dionysiac rites; we have examined the Omophagia of\nCrete, the Liknophoria of Delphi and the Sacred Marriage of Athens and\nPhlya, and we are able to begin the enquiry as to whether and how far\nthese rites are part of the ritual of Eleusis.\n\nBefore attempting to answer this question it may be well to resume\nbriefly the literary evidence for the affiliation of Dionysos to the\nEleusinian goddesses. The actual fact of his presence at Eleusis must be\nestablished before we consider the extent and nature of his influence on\nEleusinian rites.\n\n\n_a. Iacchos at Eleusis._\n\nDionysos at Eleusis is known by the title of Iacchos. The _locus\nclassicus_ for Iacchos of the mysteries is of course the chorus of the\nMystae in the _Frogs_ of Aristophanes[1353]:\n\n CHORUS (_unseen_).\n\n Iacchus, O Iacchus!\n Iacchus, O Iacchus!\n\n XANTHIAS.\n\n That\u2019s it, sir. These are the Initiated\n Rejoicing somewhere here, just as he told us.\n Why, it\u2019s the old Iacchus hymn that used\n To warm the cockles of Diagoras!\n\n DIONYSUS.\n\n Yes, it must be. However, we\u2019d best sit\n Quite still and listen, till we\u2019re sure of it.\n\n CHORUS.\n\n Thou that dwellest in the shadow\n Of great glory here beside us,\n Spirit, Spirit, we have hied us\n To thy dancing in the meadow!\n Come, Iacchus; let thy brow\n Toss its fruited myrtle bough;\n We are thine, O happy dancer; O our comrade, come and guide us!\n Let the mystic measure beat:\n Come in riot fiery fleet;\n Free and holy all before thee,\n While the Charites adore thee,\n And thy Mystae wait the music of thy feet!\n\n XANTHIAS.\n\n O Virgin of Demeter, highly blest,\n What an entrancing smell of roasted pig!\n\n DIONYSUS.\n\n Hush! hold your tongue! Perhaps they\u2019ll give you some.\n\n CHORUS.\n\n Spirit, Spirit, lift the shaken\n Splendour of thy tossing torches!\n All the meadow flashes, scorches:\n Up, Iacchus, and awaken!\n Come, thou star that bringest light\n To the darkness of our rite,\n Till thine old men dance as young men, dance with every thought forsaken\n Of the dulness and the fear\n Left by many a circling year:\n Let thy red light guide the dances\n Where thy banded youth advances\n To be joyous by the blossoms of the mere!\n\nThe lovely hymn to Iacchos, as choragos of the mystae of Demeter, is\nspeedily followed by a second hymn[1354] to the goddess herself\u2014the\nFruit-bearer:\n\n One hymn to the Maiden; now raise ye another\n To the Queen of the Fruits of the Earth.\n To Demeter the Corn-giver, Goddess and Mother,\n Make worship in musical mirth.\n\nThe blend of the smell of roast pork and the odour of mystic torches, of\nbuffoonery and ecstasy, is the perfect image of the fusion of old and new.\n\nIn the ritual hymn of Delphi, already noted (p. 417), Dionysos, who in\nthe pro\u0153mium is addressed by his titles as god of a cereal drink, as\nBromios and Braites, is when he leaves Parnassos and comes to Eleusis\nhailed by his new name Iacchos[1355]:\n\n \u2018With thy wine cup waving high,\n With thy maddening revelry,\n To Eleusis\u2019 flowery vale\n Comest thou\u2014Bacchos, Paean, hail!\n Thither thronging all the race\n Come, of Hellas, seeking grace\n Of thy nine-year revelation,\n And they called thee by thy name,\n Loved Iacchos, he who came\n To bring salvation,\n And disclose\n His sure haven from all mortal woes.\u2019\n\nSophocles[1356] in the _Antigone_ invokes the god of many names for the\ncleansing of sin-stricken Thebes, but being an Athenian he remembers the\ngod of the mysteries of Eleusis:\n\n \u2018Thou of the Many Names, delight and wonder\n Of the Theban bride, Child of the pealing thunder,\n Thou who dost rule over Italia\u2019s pride\n And at Eleusis in Deo\u2019s bosom wide\n Dwellest, Deo, she the mother of all,\n Bacchos, Bacchos, on thee we call.\u2019\n\nBacchos at Thebes, but, when the poet remembers the nocturnal rites of\nthe mysteries, the name Iacchos comes irresistibly back:\n\n \u2018Thou who dost lead the choir\n Of stars aflame with fire,\n Of nightly voices King,\n Of Zeus offspring,\n Appear, O Lord, with thine attendant maids The Thyiades,\n Who mad and dancing through the long night chant\n Their hymn to thee, Iacchos, Celebrant.\u2019\n\nFor Iacchos at the Eleusinian mysteries we are not left to the evidence\nof poetry alone. Herodotus[1357] tells how, when Attica was being laid\nwaste by Xerxes, Dicaeus, an exile, happened to be with Demaratus, a\nLacedaemonian, in the Thriasian plain. They saw a great cloud of dust\ncoming from Eleusis, so great that it seemed to be caused by thirty\nthousand men. They were wondering at the cloud, and they suddenly heard\na sound, and the sound seemed to Dicaeus to be \u2018the mystic Iacchos.\u2019\nDemaratos did not know about the sacred rites at Eleusis, and he asked\nwhat it might be that they heard. Dicaeus, who took the sound to be\nof ill omen to the Persians, explained it as follows: \u2018The Athenians\ncelebrate this festival every year to the Mother and the Maiden, and any\nAthenian or other Greek who wishes is initiated, and the sound that you\nhear is the cry \u201cIacchos,\u201d which they raise at this feast.\u2019\n\nThe account is interesting because it shows that \u2018the Iacchos\u2019 was a\nritual cry, one easily recognizable by an Athenian, just as now-a-days we\nshould recognize Alleluia or Hosanna. That the mysteries at Eleusis were\nstill in the main of local import is clear from the fact that a Spartan\ndid not recognise the cry.\n\nIacchos gave his name to one of the days of the Eleusinian mysteries\u2014the\n20th of Boedromion (Sept., Oct.). On this day he was taken from his\nsanctuary in Athens, the Iaccheion, and escorted in solemn procession to\nEleusis. Plutarch[1358], in commenting on lucky and unlucky days, says\nhe is aware that unlucky things sometimes happen on lucky days: for the\nAthenians had to receive a Macedonian garrison \u2018even on the 20th of\nBoedromion, the day on which they lead forth the mystic Iacchos.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nIacchos then was the name by which Dionysos was known at Eleusis, his\nmystery name _par excellence_ for Athens. It is important to note what\nspecial form of the god the name expressed.\n\nStrabo[1359] says vaguely, \u2018they call Dionysos, Iacchos, and the spirit\n(\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1) who is leader of the mysteries of Demeter\u2019; but vagueness\nis pardonable in the particular connection in which he speaks, as\nhe is concerned to show the general analogy of all orgiastic rites.\nMythologists have too readily concluded that Iacchos is a vague title\ndenoting a sort of \u2018genius of the mysteries,\u2019 and \u2018the mystic Iacchos\u2019\nhas come to mean anything and nothing in particular.\n\nBut Suidas[1360] is quite precise; he notes that Iacchos means \u2018a certain\nday,\u2019 \u2018a certain song,\u2019 but he puts, first and foremost, what is the root\nidea of Iacchos, he is \u2018Dionysos at the breast.\u2019 Iacchos at Eleusis is\nnot the beer-god, not the wine-god, but the son-god, \u2018child of Semele,\nthe wealth-giver[1361],\u2019 the same as Liknites, \u2018He of the cradle,\u2019 whom,\nyear by year on Parnassos, the Thyiades wakened to new life (p. 402).\n\nIacchos had his sanctuary at Athens and was received as a guest at\nEleusis. Never, so far as we know, had he temple precinct or shrine at\nEleusis, and his name occurs very rarely in inscriptions. He is a god\nmade by the Athenians in their own image; they were guests at Eleusis, so\ntheir god was a guest. He is as it were a reflection of the influence of\nAthens at Eleusis.\n\nAnother point must be noted. Zagreus, it has been seen, is a god of\nritual rather than poetry, Iacchos is of poetry rather than ritual, of\npoetry touched and deepened by mysticism. He is just so much of the\nreligion of Dionysos as the imaginative Athenian can face. We never hear\nthat Iacchos was a bull, there is no legend that he was torn to pieces.\nSophocles[1362], the most orthodox of poets, knows he has horns, but he\nsends his horned Iacchos to dwell in fabulous Nysa,\n\n \u2018Where no shrill voice doth sound of any bird,\u2019\n\nand for the rest he is compact of torchlight and dancing.\n\nThe learned Nonnus[1363], who is steeped in Orphism and a most careful\nritualist, seems to hit the mark when he makes Iacchos the latest born\nof the divine Bacchic incarnations. According to Nonnus, Iacchos is the\nchild of Aura by Bacchus, and is presented by his father to Athene, and\nAthene adopted him, and gave him the breast that before him none but\nErechtheus had sucked. Here we have a manifest reminiscence of Iacchos\nas \u2018Dionysos at the breast.\u2019 Nonnus goes on to say how the nymphs, the\nBacchae of Eleusis, received the new-born child with dance and song, and\nthey hymned first Zagreus son of Persephone, next Bromios son of Semele,\nand third in order Iacchos.\n\nSo shadowy, so poetical are the associations that cluster round the name\nIacchos, that, if Iacchos were our only evidence of Dionysos at Eleusis,\nI should be inclined to believe his influence was in the main late and\nliterary. It is to ritual we must look for evidence more substantial.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is perhaps worth noting that Pausanias[1364], in mentioning a trivial\nritual taboo, notes that it is common to the mysteries of Eleusis and\nthe teaching of Orpheus. He is speaking of the temple of the Bean-Man\n(Cyamites), but is uncertain of the origin of the name and cult, and\nknows he is treading on delicate ground, so he contents himself with\nsaying darkly, \u2018Whoever has seen the rite at Eleusis, or has read what\nare called the sayings of Orpheus, knows what I mean.\u2019 More than once,\nin examining a sanctuary of Demeter or Kore, he stops to note that local\ntradition attributed its foundation to Orpheus. Thus at Sparta[1365] he\nsaw a temple of Kore the Saviour, and \u2018some say Orpheus the Thracian made\nit, but others Abaris who came from the Hyperboreans.\u2019 Here the diverse\ntradition is unanimous as to Northern influence. The Lacedaemonians\nbelieved, he says, that Orpheus taught them to worship Demeter of the\nUnderworld, but Pausanias himself thinks that they, like other people,\ngot it from Hermione[1366]. No great importance can be attached to these\nfloating traditions, but they serve to show that popular belief connected\nthe worship of the Mother and the Maid with Orpheus and the North. We are\ninclined to connect the rise of their worship exclusively with Eleusis,\nso that local tradition to the contrary is of some value.\n\nBut the real substantial evidence as to the presence and influence of\nOrphic rites and conceptions at Eleusis is drawn from the Eleusinian\nceremonial itself. Of the three main Orphic mysteries examined, the\nOmophagia, the Liknophoria, and the Sacred Marriage, two, the Liknophoria\nand the Sacred Marriage, are known with absolute certainty to have been\npractised at Eleusis.\n\nThe first and perhaps the most profound and characteristic of Orphic\nrites, the Omophagia, is wholly absent[1367]. The reason is not far to\nseek. The Omophagia, deep though its spiritual meaning was, is in its\nactual ritual savage and repulsive. We have seen a rite closely analogous\npractised by primitive nomadic Arabs. The cultus at Eleusis is, as has\nalready been shown, based on agricultural conditions; the emergence of\nEleusis was primarily due to the fertile Rarian corn plain. A god who\ncomes to Eleusis, who is affiliated by this agricultural people, will\nshed the barbarous side of his worship, and develope only that side of\nhis nature and ritual that is consonant with civilized life. A god can\nonly exist so long as he is the mirror of the people who worship him.\nAccordingly we find, as might be expected, that it is the Dionysos of\nagriculture, and of those marriage rites that go with agriculture, who is\nworshipped at Eleusis, worshipped with the rites of the Liknophoria and\nof the Sacred Marriage.\n\n\n_b. The Liknophoria at Eleusis._\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 155.]\n\nThe Liknophoria as an element in the rites at Eleusis is clearly shown in\nthe monument reproduced in figs. 155-157. The design forms the decoration\nof a cinerary urn[1368] (fig. 155) found in a grave near a Columbarium\non the Esquiline Hill. The scenes represented are clearly rites of\ninitiation. In fig. 156 we see Demeter herself enthroned; about her is\ncoiled her great snake caressed by the initiated mystic[1369]. To the\nleft stands a female torch-bearer; she is probably Persephone. This scene\nrepresents the final stage of initiation (\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1), where the _epoptes_\nis admitted to the presence and converse of the goddesses.\n\nThe remainder of the design (fig. 157) is occupied by two preliminary\nceremonies of purification, the sacrifice of the \u2018mystic \u2019 pig already\ndiscussed (p. 152) and the _liknon_ ceremonial. It is on this last\nthat attention must be focussed. The candidate is seated on a low seat\n(\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2); his right foot rests on a ram\u2019s head which doubtless stands\nfor the \u2018fleece of purification\u2019 (p. 24); he is veiled and in his left\nhand carries a torch; above his head a priestess holds a _liknon_. It\nis remarkable that the _liknon_ in this representation, unlike those\npreviously discussed, contains no fruits. This can scarcely, I think, be\naccidental. When the artist wishes to show fruits in a sacred vessel,\nhe is quite able to do so, as is seen in the dish of poppy heads held\nby the priest to the right, where perspective is violated to make the\ncontent clear. The absence of the fruits is best, I think, explained\non the supposition that the _liknon_ is by this time mysticized. It is\nregarded as the winnowing fan, the \u2018mystic fan of Iacchos,\u2019 rather than\nas the basket of earth\u2019s fruits. It is held empty over the candidate\u2019s\nhead merely as a symbol of purification. This explanation is the more\nprobable, if the scene be, as is generally supposed, a representation of\nEleusinian mysteries, but of Eleusinian mysteries held not at Eleusis but\nat Alexandria. The vertical corn-ears on the head of Demeter, the fringed\ngarment of the youth who handles the snake, and the scale pattern that\ndecorates the cover of the urn itself (fig. 155), all find their closer\nanalogies in Egyptian rather than indigenous Greek monuments.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 156.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 157.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nA Liknophoria, it is clear, was part of Eleusinian ritual. But the\nquestion naturally arises\u2014did not Dionysos borrow the _liknon_ from\nDemeter rather than Demeter from Dionysos? It is almost certain that\nhe did not. Dionysos was worshipped as Liknites at Delphi before he\ncame to Eleusis. Moreover, in the Eleusinian \u2018tokens\u2019 the confession is\nnot \u2018I have carried the _liknon_,\u2019 but \u2018I have carried the _kernos_.\u2019\nThat Kernophoria and Liknophoria were analogous ceremonies, both being\nthe carrying of first-fruits, is possible; that they were identical is\nimprobable. Dionysos borrowed the _liknon_ from his own mother, not from\nher of Eleusis.\n\nFar more complete and satisfactory is the evidence for the Sacred\nMarriage and the Birth of the holy child. These were as integral a part\nof the mysteries of Eleusis as of the rites of Sabazios and Dionysos.\n\n\n_c. The Sacred Marriage and the Sacred Birth at Eleusis._\n\nIacchos, we have seen, was defined as the child Dionysos \u2018at the breast,\u2019\nbut for any ceremony of his birth or awakening under the name of Iacchos\nwe look in vain. Iacchos is Athenian; no one ventured to say he was\nborn at Eleusis, but by a most fortunate chance the record is left us\nof another Mother and Son at Eleusis, and we know too that the marriage\nof this Mother and the birth of this Son were the central acts, the\nculmination, of the whole ritual of its mysteries. We owe this knowledge\nto the anonymous treatise which has already furnished the important\ndetails as to the Mysteries of Phlya.\n\nThe author of the _Philosophoumena_[1370] is concerned to prove that\nthe heretical sect of the Naassenes got their doctrine from ceremonials\npractised by the Phrygians. The Phrygians, the Naassene says, assert that\ngod is \u2018a fresh ear of grain reaped.\u2019 He then goes on to make a statement\nto us of supreme importance. \u2018And following the Phrygians the Athenians,\nwhen they initiate at the Eleusinian rites, exhibit to the epoptae the\nmighty and marvellous and most complete epoptic mystery, an ear of grain\nreaped in silence. And this ear of grain the Athenians themselves hold\nto be the great and perfect light that is from that which has no form,\nas the Hierophant himself, who is not like Attis, but who is made a\neunuch by means of hemlock and has renounced all carnal generation, he,\nby night at Eleusis, accomplishing by the light of a great flame the\ngreat and unutterable mysteries, says and cries in a loud voice \u201cHoly\nBrimo has borne a sacred Child, Brimos,\u201d that is, the mighty has borne\nthe mighty; and holy, he (i.e. the Naassene) says, is the generation that\nis spiritual, that is heavenly, that is from above, and mighty is he so\nengendered.\u2019\n\nThe evidence of the writer of the _Philosophoumena_ is indefeasible, not\nindeed as to the mystical meaning either he or the Naassene he quotes\nattached to the rites, but as to the rites themselves. He describes the\nrites only to discredit them and he quotes an actual ritual formulary. We\nmay take it then as certain that to the epoptae at Eleusis was shewn as\nthe supreme revelation a \u2018fresh ear reaped\u2019 and that by night there was\ndeclared to these epoptae the birth of a sacred Child: \u2018Unto us a Child\nis born, unto us a Son is given.\u2019 The close conjunction in which the two\nrites are placed makes it highly probable, though not absolutely certain,\nthat the one, the human birth, was but the anthropomorphic form of the\nother, that in fact we have here the drama of Liknites, child and fruit,\nreenacted; the thought is the same as that expressed by the vase-painter\n(fig. 153) where the new-born child rises out of the cornucopia of\nfruits. And last it is highly satisfactory to learn, and that from the\nmouth of a Christian writer, that the birth and the begetting were\nsymbolical. The express statement that the Hierophant partook of some\ndrug compelling abstinence cannot have been invented[1371].\n\nThe author of the _Philosophoumena_ says nothing of the Sacred Marriage,\nthough from the birth of the holy Child it might be inferred. The\nconfession \u2018I have gone down into the bridal chamber\u2019 is one of the\n\u2018tokens\u2019 of the mysteries of the Great Mother, but we cannot certainly\nsay that it was a \u2018token\u2019 at Eleusis; neither Clement nor Firmicus nor\nArnobius includes it in his enumeration. We cannot therefore assert that\neach mystic at Eleusis went through a mimetic marriage, but we do know\nthat the holy rite was enacted between the hierophant and the chief\npriestess of Demeter. Asterius[1372], speaking of the various procedures\nof initiation at Eleusis, asks\u2014\u2018is there not there the descent into\ndarkness and the holy congress of the hierophant and the priestess, of\nhim alone and her alone?\u2019\n\nLucian[1373] adds incidental testimony. In his account of the doings of\nthe false prophet Alexander he describes how the impostor instituted\nrites that were a close parody of those at Eleusis, and he narrates the\ndetails of the blasphemous travesty. Among the mimetic performances were\nnot only the Epiphany and Birth of a god but the enactment of a Sacred\nMarriage. All preliminaries were gone through, and Lucian says that but\nfor the abundance of lighted torches the marriage rite would actually\nhave been consummated. The part of the hierophant was taken by the false\nprophet himself. A short time after the parody of the marriage ceremony\nhe came in wearing the characteristic dress of the hierophant, and, amid\na deep silence, announced in the usual loud voice \u2018Hail, Glykon,\u2019 and\n\u2018some fellows attending him, Paphlagonians, wearing sandals and smelling\nof garlic and supposed to be Eumolpidae and Kerykes, cried in answer\n\u201cHail, Alexander.\u201d\u2019\n\nLucian\u2019s account of this scurrilous travesty is not pleasant reading, but\nit serves one important end\u2014it enables us to put together the two rites,\nthe Sacred Marriage and the Birth of the holy Child; but for Lucian\nthe sequence must have remained conjectural. We may now be certain that\nin silence, in darkness and in perfect chastity the Sacred Marriage was\nfirst enacted, and that immediately after the Hierophant came forth, and,\nstanding in a blaze of torchlight, cried aloud that the supreme mystery\nwas accomplished, \u2018Holy Brimo has borne a sacred Child, Brimos.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Sacred Marriage[1374] formed part of the ritual of Eleusis, as it\nformed part of the Orphic mysteries of Sabazios and the Great Mother,\nbut the further question arises\u2014was this Sacred Marriage indigenous at\nEleusis or did it, like the religion of Dionysos, come from the North?\nWas Brimo only a title of the Eleusinian Demeter? This it would seem was\nthe view of Clement[1375] who is not strong in ethnography, but it can\nI think be shown that Clement was wrong. Brimo _is_ a form of the Great\nMother who is also the Maid, but she is a Northern not an Eleusinian\nform. This is clearly evidenced by what we know of her apart from the\nmysteries.\n\n\n_d. Thessalian influence at Eleusis. Brimo._\n\nOf Brimos we know nothing save as the mystery child; he is the\nattributive son marking by identity of name the function of his mother.\nBrimo we know as an underworld goddess, and, a fact all important for the\nargument, she comes from Pherae in Thessaly.\n\nIn the _Alexandra_ of Lycophron Cassandra thus addresses her mother\nHecuba[1376]:\n\n \u2018Mother, unhappy mother, not untold\n Shall be thy fame, for Brimo, Perses\u2019 maid,\n The Threefold One, shall for her ministrant\n Take thee, to fright men with dire sounds at night,\n Yea such as worship not with torchlit rites\n The images of her who Strymon holds,\n Pherae\u2019s dread goddess leaving unassoiled.\u2019\n\nFor once Lycophron is intelligible; Hecuba is to be transformed into a\nhound of the triple Hecate, Thessalian goddess of the underworld, and\nBrimo is but her other name: she is the Thessalian Kore. The mystic child\nat Eleusis was born of a maiden; these ancients made for themselves the\nsacred dogma, \u2018A virgin shall conceive and bear a son.\u2019 It was left to\nChristian fathers, blending the motherhood of Demeter with the virgin\nmother and the parentage of Zeus, things they did not and would not\nunderstand, to make of the sacred legend a story of vile human incest.\n\nBrimo, though we find her, in late times, in the very heart of the\nmysteries, belongs with her hell-hounds to a _couche_ of mythology\nobviously primitive. To the popular mind of the uninitiated she lapsed\ninto mere bogeydom. Lucian[1377] in his _Oracle of the Dead_ brings her\nin with the rest of the comic horrors of Hades. When the underworld\ndecree is passed the magistrates of Hades record their votes, the\npopulace holds up its hands, \u2018Brimo snorts approval, Cerberus yelps his\naye.\u2019\n\nBut Apollonius Rhodius[1378], writing of things Thessalian, and by\nnatural temper inclined always to the serious and beautiful, knows\nof Brimo as terrible and magical, but yet as the Nursing Mother\n(Kourotrophos). When Medea is about to pluck the awful underworld root\nfor the undoing of Jason,\n\n \u2018Seven times bathed she herself in living founts,\n Seven times called she on Brimo, she who haunts\n The night, the Nursing Mother. In black weed\n And murky gloom she dwells, Queen of the dead.\u2019\n\nAnd the scholiast commenting on the passage says she is Hecate, \u2018whom\nsorceresses were wont magically to induce (\u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9); and they called\nher Brimo because of the terror and horror of her; and she sent against\nmen the apparitions called Hekataia; and she was wont to change her\nshape, hence they called her Empusa.\u2019 He goes off into fruitless\netymology but drops by the way a suggestion that may contain some truth,\nthat the name Brimo is connected with \u1f44\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u2018raging,\u2019 the epithet of\nanother Thracian, Ares.\n\nBrimo then, some said, meant the Mighty, some the Angry One. The two,\nfor minds obsessed by the atmosphere of \u2018aversion,\u2019 are not far apart:\nthe Angry-Raging One is own sister to the Angry Demeter, Demeter Erinys.\nBut by their Angry name it is not well to address the gods, lest by\nsympathetic magic you rouse the very anger you seek to allay. Brimo may\nwell have been one of the Silent Names.\n\nBrimo is Thessalian, and Thessalian often spells \u2018later Thracian.\u2019 Brimo\nis near akin to the Mother Kotys, the mystery goddess of the Thracians,\nbut we cannot say that she is herself certainly Thracian. For definite\nevidence of a Thracian element at Eleusis we must look to its chief\nhereditary priesthood, the family from which the Hierophant was taken,\nthe Eumolpidae.\n\n\n_e. Thracian influence at Eleusis. Eumolpos._\n\nThe Eumolpidae must also be the keystone of any contention as to Thracian\ninfluence at Eleusis, and fortunately we are fairly well informed as to\ntheir _provenance_.\n\nSophocles[1379] in the _Oedipus Coloneus_ makes the chorus sing:\n\n \u2018O to be there\n Upon the sea shore, where,\n Ablaze with light,\n The Holy Ones for mortals their dread rite\n Nurse, and on mortal lips the golden key\n Is set of celebrant Eumolpidae.\u2019\n\nThe scholiast[1380] asks the very pertinent question\u2014\u2018Why in the world\nhave the Eumolpidae presidency over the rites, when they are foreigners?\u2019\nHe proceeds as usual to make several puzzled and contradictory\nsuggestions. Perhaps the reason is that it was Eumolpos, son of Deiope\ndaughter of Triptolemos, who first instituted the mysteries at Eleusis,\nand not the Thracian, and this was the view taken by Istros in his book\non \u2018Things out of Order,\u2019 or perhaps Akesidorus was right; his theory was\nthat the Eumolpos who founded the rites was fifth in descent from the\nfirst Eumolpos.\n\nUnpleasant facts are always apt to be classed as \u2018Things out of Order.\u2019\nFacts are facts, but Order is what you happen to like yourself. The\nsimple fact cheerfully accepted at Eleusis was that the Eumolpidae\nwere Thracians, but the Athenians did not like the Thracians, so when\nthey came to Eleusis they proceeded to get the unpalatable fact into\n\u2018order.\u2019 One of two things must be done, either the Eumolpidae, whose\nrespectability was above impeachment, must be provided with a new and\nlocal parentage, they must be affiliated to Triptolemos, or the old\nparentage must be removed to a safe and decorous antiquity. Few people\nfeel very acutely about what happened five generations ago.\n\nBut all the time historians knew perfectly well what really had happened,\nand Akesidorus proceeds to state it quite simply: \u2018Tradition says that\nEleusis was first inhabited by an autochthonous population, and then\nby those Thracians who came with Eumolpos to help in the war against\nErechtheus.\u2019 He lets out at last what was at the bottom of the whole\ncomplication, a fight between Eleusis and Athens and a contingent of\nThracian auxiliaries. The war had been internecine, for the legend says\nthe single combat between Erechtheus and Eumolpos ended in the death of\nboth. Athens ultimately emerged to political supremacy, but Eleusis,\nto which Eumolpos first brought his rites, maintained her religious\nhegemony. Athens did what she could. She even built herself an Eleusinion\nand instituted Lesser Mysteries; there was much to-ing and fro-ing of\nsacred objects, the \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac are brought from Eleusis and Iacchos makes a\nreturn visit, but the actual final initiation takes place at Eleusis and\nthe chief celebrant is still to all time a Thracian Eumolpid[1381].\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 158.]\n\nArt is not without its evidence as to Eumolpos at Eleusis. The simple\nvase-painter is untroubled by the Eleusinian blend of Dionysos and\nDemeter, and the Thracian origin of Eumolpos. On the kotyle in fig.\n158, signed by the potter Hieron, and now in the British Museum[1382],\nhe has brought together in friendly comradeship a group of Eleusinian\npersonages, some of the ancient local stock, some of the northern\nimmigrants. All the figures are carefully inscribed, so that there is\nno question of doubtful interpretation. On the obverse, and plainly\noccupying the central important place, the young local hero Triptolemos\nstarts in his winged chariot to carry his ears of corn to the world.\nDemeter in her splendid robe stands behind him, and \u2018Pherophatta\u2019\npours out the farewell cup. Triptolemos was, as has already been noted\n(p. 273), originally a local king; it may be he became young out of\ncomplimentary rivalry with the child Iacchos. Behind \u2018Pherophatta\u2019\nstands a nymph whom, but for the inscription, we should not have dared\nto name, \u2018Eleusis.\u2019 Beneath one handle, looking back at the group of\nlocal divinities, is the seated Eumolpos, and near him is a great\nswan\u2014for Eumolpos is the sweet singer. He is the Thracian warrior when\nhe fights Erechtheus, but here he holds the sceptre as priestly king;\nhe is, Thracian-fashion, compounded of Ares and Orpheus. The centre of\nthis reverse picture is occupied by the Thracian Dionysos, with his great\nvine branch, and behind him comes his father Zeus, with thunderbolt and\nsceptre. Dionysos a full-grown man, not babe, balances Triptolemos.\nEumolpos is _vis \u00e0 vis_ to Poseidon, with whom he had close relations.\nAmphitrite completes the picture, a veritable little manual of the\nmythology of Eleusis.\n\n\n_f. The Delphic Dionysos at Eleusis and Agrae._\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 159.]\n\nAnother class of vase-paintings, in date nearly a century later than that\nof Hieron, bring before us Dionysos at Eleusis, but they depict him as\nan incomer, not from Thrace, but from the half-way station of Delphi.\nA polychrome vase of the 4th century B.C., formerly in the Tyskiewicky\nCollection[1383] (fig. 159), puts the matter very clearly. The central\nfigure is Demeter, crowned and sceptred, sitting on an altar-like throne.\nTo the right is Kore with her torches. She turns towards Dionysos. He\ntoo is seated, as becomes a god, and he holds his thyrsos. He is seated,\nbut on what a throne! He is seated on the _omphalos_. To the ancient\nmind no symbolism could speak more clearly; Dionysos is accepted at\nEleusis; he has come from Delphi and brought his omphalos with him. We\nare apt to regard the omphalos as exclusively the property of Apollo,\nand it comes as something of a shock to see Dionysos seated quietly upon\nit. We have already (p. 320) seen that Apollo took it from Ge, took the\nancient symbol of Mother Earth and made it his oracular throne; but at\nDelphi men knew that it had another and earlier content. It was the tomb\nof the dismembered Dionysos. The tradition that Dionysos was buried at\nDelphi is recorded again and again by lexicographers, Christian Fathers,\nand Byzantine historians; but the common source of their information\nseems to be the _Atthis_ of Philochoros (3rd cent. B.C.). Cedrenus[1384],\nin his history of the whole world, tells the story of how Dionysos was\nchased from Boeotia, and ended his days at Delphi, \u2018and the remains of\nhim are buried there in a coffin (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c1\u1ff7). And his gear is hung up in\nthe sanctuary, as the learned Demarchus says in his history of him. And\nthe learned Philochoros gives the same account in his exposition about\nDionysos himself; his tomb is to be seen near the gold Apollo. It may\nbe conjectured that there is a sort of basis on which he writes \u201cHere\nlies the dead Dionysos the son of Semele\u201d.\u2019 We need not attach serious\nimportance to what is \u2018conjectured,\u2019 as the conjecture seems to be rather\nof Cedrenus than Philochoros, but it is clear that Philochoros recorded\na tradition that the tomb of Dionysos was at Delphi. Tatian[1385]\nidentifies the tomb of Dionysos with the omphalos.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe vase in fig. 159 does not stand alone. The Ninnion pinax[1386],\nthough details in its interpretation remain obscure, is clear on this one\npoint\u2014the influence of Delphi on the Mysteries.\n\nIn the discussion of this difficult and important monument I shall\nconfine myself to such points as seem to me certain and immediately\nrelevant. The inscription at the base tells us that it was dedicated by\na woman \u2018Ninnion\u2019 to the \u2018Two Goddesses.\u2019 The main field of the pinax\nis occupied by two scenes, occupying the upper and lower halves, and\ndivided, according to the familiar convention of the vase-painter, into\ntwo parts by an irregular white line, indicating the ground on which\nthe figures in the upper part stand. In each of these two parts some of\nthe figures, distinguished by their larger size, are divine, e.g. the\nseated goddesses to the right; others, of smaller stature, are human.\nAmong the human figures in both the upper and lower row one is marked\nout by the fact that she carries on her head a _kernos_ (see p. 159).\nShe is a dancing _Kernophoros_[1387]. She is the principal figure among\nthe worshippers, and she can scarcely be other than Ninnion[1388],\nwho dedicated the pinax. In a word, Ninnion, in her votive offering,\ndedicates the representation of one, and certainly an important, element\nin her own initiation, her _Kernophoria_.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 160.]\n\nOf this initiation why does she give a twofold representation? The\nanswer, once suggested, is simple and convincing. Each and every\ncandidate was _twice_ initiated, once in the spring, at Agrae, in\nthe Lesser Mysteries; once in the autumn, at Eleusis, in the Greater\nMysteries. The scene in the lower half is the initiation at Agrae, that\nin the upper half the initiation at Eleusis. It is the scene in the lower\nhalf that specially concerns us.\n\nThe two seated goddesses to the right are clearly the \u2018Two Goddesses,\u2019\nand the lower one is, it is equally evident, the younger, Kore. She is\nseated in somewhat curious fashion on the ground; near her is _an empty\nthrone_. Some interpreters have said that the vase-painter _meant_ her to\nbe seated _on_ the throne, but by an oversight drew in her figure seated\na little above it. But the artist\u2019s intention is quite clear. Kore is\nseated on the ground, indicated by the curved white line beneath her. The\nempty throne is intentional and emphatic. Demeter, who should be seated\non it, who in the upper tier _is_ seated on a throne precisely identical,\nis absent. A vase-painter could not speak more clearly.\n\nThe explanation is again as simple as illuminating. The lower tier\nrepresents the initiation of Ninnion into the Lesser Mysteries at Agrae.\nThese were sacred to Persephone, not Demeter. The scholiast[1389] on\nthe _Plutus_ of Aristophanes says: \u2018In the course of the year two sets\nof mysteries are performed to Demeter and Kore, the Lesser and the\nGreater ... the Greater were of Demeter, the Lesser of Persephone her\ndaughter.\u2019 He further tells us that these Lesser Mysteries were a sort\nof pre-purification (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) for the Greater, and that they were\nfounded later than the great Eleusinian Mysteries, tradition said, in\norder that Herakles might be initiated. To these statements Stephen[1390]\nof Byzantium adds an important fact: \u2018the Lesser Mysteries performed\nat Agra or Agrae were,\u2019 he says, \u2018an imitation of _what happened about\nDionysos_.\u2019\n\nWith these facts in our minds we are able to interpret the lower row of\nfigures. Kore alone receives the mystic Ninnion, and Dionysos himself\nacts as Dadouchos. That the figure holding the torches is a god is\nclear from his greater stature, and, if a god, he can be none other than\nDionysos, who, as Iacchos, led the mystics in their dance. Dionysos has\ncome from Delphi and brought his great white omphalos[1391], his Delphic\ngrave, with him. Below it are depicted two of the bundles of myrtle\ntwigs, which are frequently the emblems of initiation, and which bore the\nname of \u2018Bacchoi[1392].\u2019\n\nThis interpretation is confirmed when we turn to the upper tier.\n\u2018Ninnion,\u2019 having been initiated by Dionysos into the mysteries at\nAgrae, which he shared with Kore, now comes for the Greater Mysteries to\nEleusis. Kore herself brings her mystic, and leads her into the presence\nof Demeter enthroned. The scene is the telesterion of Eleusis marked by\ntwo columns, which, be it noted, extend only half-way down the pinax. In\nthe Lesser Mysteries, a later foundation, Dionysos shares the honours\nwith Kore; in the Greater and earlier to the end he is only a visitant.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe direct influence of Delphi on Eleusis as evidenced by these vases,\nand by many inscriptions, may have been comparatively late, but in a\nplace to which Eumolpos had already brought the worship of Dionysos it\nwould have easy access. At home Delphi became in the lapse of time more\nand more \u2018all for Apollo,\u2019 but abroad, as Athens, Eleusis, and Magnesia\ntestify, she remembered sometimes to promote the worship of a god greater\nthan Apollo, a god who was before him, and who never ceased, even at\nDelphi, to be his _paredros_, Dionysos.\n\nBoth on the kotylos of Hieron (fig. 158) and on the Tyskiewicky vase\n(fig. 159) Dionysos at Eleusis is represented as a full-grown man, not as\na mystery babe. This fact is highly significant. The son has ceased to\nbe a child, and growing to maturity forgets his relation to his mother.\nIn the old Thracian religion, preserved in its primitive savagery in\nAsia Minor, the Mother, by whatever name she be called, whether Kotys or\nKybele or Rhea or the Great Mother, is the dominant factor; the Son is,\nas is natural in a matriarchal civilization, at first but the attribute\nof motherhood. When a cult is mainly in the hands of primitive women they\nwill tend to keep their male god in the only condition they _can_ keep\nhim, i.e. as child. But if that cult is to advance with civilization, if\nthe god is to have his male worshippers, he must grow to be a man; and\nas the power of the Son waxes and he becomes more and more the Father,\nthe power of the Mother wanes, and she that was the Great Mother sinks\nto be Semele the thunder-stricken. If we bear in mind the old principle\nthat man makes the gods in his own image, that a god only _is_ because he\nreflects the life of his worshipper, the constant shift of Dionysos from\nchild to full-grown man, from Son of his Mother to Son of his Father,\nbecomes intelligible, nay more, necessary.\n\nIn all probability the development of Dionysos from child to man was\nhelped and precipitated by his appropriation of the vine\u2014a spirit of\nintoxication will be worshipped by man as much and perhaps more than\nby women. But the interesting thing about Dionysos is that, develope\nas he may, he bears to the end, as no other god does, the stamp of his\nmatriarchal origin. He can never rid himself of the throng of worshipping\nwomen, he is always the nursling of his Maenads. Moreover the instruments\nof his cult are always not his but his mother\u2019s. It is not enough to say\nthat all orgiastic cults have analogies, nor, as is usually maintained,\nthat the worship of Kybele came in classical times from Asia Minor, and\nwas _contaminated_ with that of Dionysos. All this is true, but the roots\nof the analogy lie deeper down. The Mother and the Son were together\nfrom the beginning. Brimos never came to Eleusis without Brimo. Demeter\nat Eleusis did not borrow her cymbals from Rhea; she had her own, and\nDionysos shared them. Pindar knows it, if only half consciously:\n\n \u2018Or this, O Thebes, thy soul hath for its pride,\n That Dionysos thou to birth didst bring,\n Him of the flowing hair, who sits beside\n Deo for whom the brazen cymbals ring.\u2019\n\nStrabo[1393], as we have already seen (p. 375), knew that the orgies of\nThrace and Phrygia and Crete were substantially the same, that Kuretes\nand Satyrs and Korybants, attendants on the Son, are also satellites of\nthe Mother\u2014and he cites Euripides[1394]. The Bacchae never forget that\ntheir worship is of the Mother as of the Son:\n\n \u2018But the Timbrel, the Timbrel is another\u2019s,\n And away to Mother Rhea it must wend;\n And to our holy singing from the Mother\u2019s\n The mad Satyrs carried it, to blend\n In the dancing and the cheer\n Of our third and perfect Year;\n And it serves Dionysos in the end!\u2019\n\nBut the modern mind, obsessed and limited by a canonical Olympus, an\nOlympus which is \u2018all for the Father,\u2019 has forgotten the Great Mother,\nrobbed the Son of half his grace, and left him desolate of all kinship\nsave adoption.\n\nIt is not hard to see why at Eleusis the mother of Dionysos should fade\ninto obscurity, fade so all but entirely that save for the one mention\nin the _Philosophoumena_ we should have had no certainty of the birth of\nthe holy child. Eleusis, before the coming of Eumolpos and Dionysos, had\nits Mother-goddess Demeter, and she would not lightly brook a rival. The\nold matriarchal couple, the Mother and the Maid, who though they were\ntwo persons were yet but one goddess, had for their foster-child now\none local hero, now another, now Demophon, now and chiefly Triptolemos.\nAt the coming of the northern Mother and Son, of Brimo and Brimos or\nSemele and Dionysos, matters had to be adjusted between the immigrant\nand the indigenous divinities. The northern Mother fades almost wholly,\nbut in the Mysteries her Thessalian name is still proclaimed aloud. The\nattributive child Brimos is merged, partly in the Athenian Iacchos,\npartly in the local hero Triptolemos, who, to meet him half way,\ndescended from his high estate as local chieftain to become a beautiful\nboy in a chariot drawn by snakes.\n\nThe hopeless fusion and confusion is well evidenced by monuments like the\nrelief from Eleusis[1395] in fig. 161. Here are the Mother and the Maid,\nthe Mother with her sceptre, the Maid with her torch, and between them is\na boy, their nursling. Is he Triptolemos, is he Iacchos? The question may\nbe asked, learned monographs may be and have been written in favour of\neither name, but it is a question that can never certainly be answered.\nHe is the young male divinity of Eleusis, the nursling of the goddesses;\nbeyond that we cannot go.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe rite of the Sacred Marriage and the Birth of the Holy Child have\nbeen considered in detail because they were, I believe, _the_ central\nmystery. Asterius[1396], in his \u2018Encomium on the Blessed Martyrs\u2019 already\ncited, protests against the Eleusinian Mysteries as the head and front of\nheathen idolatry and speaks of the Sacred Marriage as its crowning act.\n\u2018Are not the Mysteries at Eleusis the chief act of your worship and does\nnot the Attic people and the whole land of Hellas assemble that it may\naccomplish a rite of folly? Is there not there performed the descent into\ndarkness, the venerated congress of the Hierophant with the priestess, of\nhim alone with her alone? Are not the torches extinguished and does not\nthe vast and countless assemblage believe _that in what is done by the\ntwo in darkness is their salvation_?\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 161.]\n\nMaking all allowance for the fact that Christian Fathers naturally\nfocus their attention on rites they chose to regard as immoral, it is\nyet abundantly clear that at Eleusis the Marriage and the Birth were\nthe culminating ritual acts, acts by which _union with the divine_,\nthe goal of all mystic ceremonial, was at first held to be actually\neffected, later symbolized. Preceded by rites of purification such\nas the Liknophoria, amplified, emphasized by endless subordinate\nscenes, reenacted in various mythological forms, as e.g. in the rape of\nPersephone, they yet remained at Eleusis, at Samothrace and elsewhere,\n_the_ cardinal mysteries. Man makes the rites of the gods in the image\nof his human conduct. The mysteries of these man-made gods are but the\neternal mysteries of the life of man. The examination of endless various\nand shifting details would lead us no further.\n\nBefore we leave the Sacred Marriage, an ethnographical point of some\ninterest remains to be considered.\n\n\n_g. Cretan influence on the mysteries at Eleusis._\n\nIn Crete we found the _Omophagia_ and the Mother, but no marriage rite,\nand yet there is evidence that makes it highly probable that Demeter and\nher marriage developed in Crete and came thence to Eleusis.\n\nSuch is the tradition of the Homeric Hymn[1397]:\n\n \u2018Dos is the name that to me my holy mother gave,\n And I am come from Crete across the wide sea-water wave.\u2019\n\nThis may be a mere chance pirate legend, but such legends often echo\nethnographical fact.\n\nAgain at the close of the Hymn[1398] the poet seems to remember the\nisland route by which Demeter passed to Thessaly:\n\n \u2018Goddess who holdst the fragrance of Eleusis in thy hands,\n Mistress of rocky Antron and Paros\u2019 sea-girt strand,\n Lady revered, fair Deo, gift-giver year by year,\n Thou and thy fair Persephone, to us incline thine ear.\u2019\n\nWhether Demeter brought her daughter from Crete must remain for the\npresent unconsidered; but from mythology, not ritual, we learn that in\nCrete she had a Sacred Marriage. Calypso, recounting the tale of ancient\nmortal lovers of whom the gods were jealous, says[1399]:\n\n \u2018So too fair-haired Demeter once in the spring did yield\n To love, and with Iasion lay in a new-ploughed field.\n But not for long she loved him, for Zeus high overhead\n Cast on him his white lightning and Iasion lay dead.\u2019\n\nIt is one of the lovely earth-born myths that crop up now and again in\nHomer, telling of an older simpler world, of gods who had only half\nemerged from the natural things they are, real earth-born flesh and blood\ncreatures, not splendid phantoms of an imagined Olympic pageant. To smite\nand slay these primitive divinities of the order he supersedes, Zeus is\nalways ready with his virtuous thunderbolt.\n\nHesiod[1400], if later in date, is almost always earlier in thought than\nHomer. He knows of the Marriage and knows that it was in Crete:\n\n \u2018Demeter brought forth Ploutos; a glorious goddess she,\n And yet she loved Iasion, a mortal hero he.\n In Crete\u2019s rich furrows lay they; glad and kindly was the birth\n Of him whose way is on the sea and over all the Earth.\n Happy, happy is the mortal who doth meet him as he goes,\n For his hands are full of blessings and his treasure overflows.\u2019\n\nTheocritus[1401] knows that this Marriage of Iasion was a Mystery:\n\n \u2018Oh, happy, happy, in his changeless fate,\n Endymion dreaming; happy, Love, and great\n Iasion, who won the mystic joy\n That ye shall never learn, Unconsecrate!\u2019\n\nHesiod is all husbandman; he knows of no mystery child[1402], only of\nthe old agricultural mimetic rite and the child who is the fruits of the\nearth and of the sea. Zeus with his thunder has not yet come to make of\ninnocent bliss a transgression. Hesiod might have written the ancient tag\npreserved for us by his scholiast[1403]:\n\n \u2018Ah for the wheat and barley, O child Ploutos.\u2019\n\nThe writer of the Homeric Hymn[1404] is altogether Zeus-ridden, hence\nmany of the anomalies and absurdities of the tale he so beautifully\ntells; he is Homeric in his aloofness from things primitive, he is also\nOrphic in his emphasis on the spiritual bliss of the initiated and in his\nother-worldliness. He is concerned to show their future weal rather than\ntheir present wealth:\n\n \u2018Blessed is he among men who is given these rites to know,\n But the uninitiate man, the man without, must go\n To no such happy lot when dead in the dusk below.\u2019\n\nAnd yet, so strong is the ancient agricultural tradition and association\nof the rites that the primitive sacred child of Crete, the Wealth-god,\nreemerges[1405] almost automatically at the close, though in half\nabstracted fashion, born of heaven not earth:\n\n \u2018Then when the goddess all things had ordered of her grace,\n She fared to high Olympus, their great assembly place.\n There do they dwell with Father Zeus, who thunders through the sky,\n Holy and reverend are their names, and great his earthly joy\n Whom they vouchsafe to love. Above all mortals is he blest,\n Swiftly they send to his great home Ploutos to be his guest.\u2019\n\nThe mimetic marriage of Crete, a bit of sympathetic magic common to\nmany primitive peoples, became a cardinal _mystic_ rite. Diodorus[1406]\nin a very instructive passage tells us that in Crete \u2018mysteries\u2019 were\nnot mysterious, and we shall not, I think, be far wrong if we suppose\nthat the Cretan non-mysterious form was the earlier. After discussing\nCretan mythology he says: \u2018The Cretans in alleging that they from Crete\nconferred on other mortals the services of the gods, sacrifices and rites\nappertaining to mysteries, bring forward this point as being to their\nthinking the principal piece of evidence. The rite of initiation, which\nis perhaps the most celebrated of all, is that which is performed by\nthe Athenians at Eleusis, and the rite at Samothrace and that in Thrace\namong the Cicones, the country of Orpheus, inventor of rites, all these\nare imparted as mysteries, whereas in Crete at Cnossos the custom from\nancient times was that these rites should be communicated openly and to\nall, and things that among the other peoples were communicated in secrecy\namong the Cretans no one concealed from any one who wished to know.\u2019\n\nThe Cretans, like most patriots, went a little too far. The gods had\nnot left themselves without witness among other peoples till they, the\nelect Cretans, started on their missionary enterprise. But, as regards\ncertain mystery rites, as regards two of those discussed in detail, the\nOmophagia and the Sacred Marriage, may not their statement have been\nsubstantially true? Before the downward movement of Dionysos from the\nNorth, may there not have been an upward movement of (shall we say)\nOrpheus from the South? May not the Orphic mysteries of the Mother have\nstarted, or at least fully developed, in matriarchal Crete[1407], Crete\nthat was to the end \u2018of the Mother,\u2019 that refused even in her language\nto recognize the foolish empty patriarchalism, \u2018Father-land\u2019? In Crete\nthe discoveries of Mr Arthur Evans have shown us a splendid and barbarous\ncivilization, mature, even decadent, before the uprising of Athens. From\nCrete to Athens came Epimenides, who is but a quasi-historical Orpheus,\nand with him he brought rites of cleansing. In Cretan \u2018Mycenaean\u2019\ncivilization[1408] and only there, is seen that strange blend of Egyptian\nand \u2018Pelasgian\u2019 that haunted Plutarch and made him say that Osiris was\none with Dionysos, Isis with Demeter.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDiodorus, quoting the local tradition, knows the very route by which the\nrites of Crete went northward, by way of the islands, by Samothrace home\nof the mysteries, up to the land of the Cicones. There, it would seem,\nOrpheus the sober met the raging wine-god, there the Maenads slew him,\nand repented and upraised his sanctuary. Thence the two religions, so\ndifferent yet so intimately fused, came down to Greece, a conjoint force,\ndominant, irresistible. Mysticism and \u2018Enthusiasm\u2019 are met together, and,\nfor Greek religion, the last word is said.\n\nOrpheus for all his lyre-playing is a priest or rather a \u2018religious.\u2019\nDionysos is, at least as we know him at Athens, less priest than artist.\nMost primitive religions have \u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, but from the religion of Dionysos\nsprang the drama. The analogy between \u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, things done, actions, and\n\u03b4\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bc\u03b1, a Thing Acted in the stage sense, has been often observed, but the\nproblem still remains\u2014why was the transition effected in the religion of\nDionysos and in his only, why have Athene and Zeus and Poseidon no drama,\nonly \u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1?\n\n\n_h. The Drama of Dionysos and the \u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 of Eleusis._\n\nThe question would not be raised here but that the answer I would suggest\ncomes mainly from religion, and some stages of the transition are, I\nbelieve, to be found in the ritual of Eleusis.\n\nEpic, lyric and dramatic poetry succeed each other in our handbooks\nand our minds in easy and canonical fashion. Lyric poetry asks no\nexplanation, or finds it instantly in our common human egotism. But we\nare apt to forget that from the _epos_, the narrative, to the _drama_,\nthe enactment, is a momentous step, one, so far as we know, not taken\nin Greece till after centuries of epic achievement, and then taken\nsuddenly, almost in the dark, and irrevocably. All we really know of\nthis momentous step is that it was taken some time in the sixth century\nB.C. and taken in connection with the worship of Dionysos. Surely it is\nat least possible that the real impulse to the drama lay not wholly in\n\u2018goat-songs\u2019 and \u2018circular dancing places\u2019 but also in the cardinal, the\nessentially dramatic, conviction of the religion of Dionysos, that the\nworshipper can not only worship, but can become, can _be_, his god[1409].\nAthene and Zeus and Poseidon have no drama because no one, in his wildest\nmoments, believed he could become and be Athene or Zeus or Poseidon. It\nis indeed only in the orgiastic religions that these splendid moments of\nconviction could come, and, for Greece at least, only in an orgiastic\nreligion did the drama take its rise.\n\nIn the rites at Eleusis of which most details are known we have the very\nlast stage of the development before the final step was actually taken,\nwe have \u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 on the very verge of _drama_.\n\n * * * * *\n\nLate authors in describing the Eleusinian rites use constantly the\nvocabulary of the stage. Take the account of Psellus[1410], whose\ntestimony has been too much neglected. Psellus is recording \u2018what the\nGreeks believe about demons\u2019 and he passes from theology to ritual. \u2018Yes\nand the mysteries of these (demons), as for example those of Eleusis,\nenact the double story of Deo or Demeter and her daughter Pherephatta\nor Kore. As in the rite of initiation love affairs are to take place,\nAphrodite of the Sea is represented as uprising. Next there is the\nwedding rite for Kore. And the initiated sing as an accompaniment \u201cI have\neaten from the timbrel, I have drunk from the cymbals, I have carried the\n_kernos_, I have gone down into the bridal chamber.\u201d Then also they enact\nthe birth-pains of Deo. At least there are cries of entreaty of Deo, and\nthere is the draught of gall and the throes of pain. After these there is\na goat-legged mime because of what Zeus did to Demeter. After all this\nthere are the rites of Dionysos and the cista and the cakes with many\nbosses and the initiated to Sabazios and the Klodones and Mimallones who\ndo the rites of the Mother and the sounding cauldron of Thesprotia and\nthe gong of Dodona and a Korybas and a Koures, separate figures, mimic\nforms of demons. After this is the action of Baubo[1411].\u2019\n\nPsellus shows us the sacred pantomime in full complexity. From other\nsources we know that it was not all dumb-show, that other words were\nspoken besides the confession of the \u2018tokens.\u2019 Galen[1412] when he is\nurging his readers to attend to natural science no less than theology\nsays: \u2018Lend me then your whole attention even more than you did supposing\nyou were initiated in the Eleusinian and Samothracian mysteries or any\nother holy rite and gave yourself up wholly _to the things done and the\nthings spoken_ by the Hierophants.\u2019\n\nThe fashion in which the \u2018things spoken\u2019 supplemented and helped out the\n\u2018things done\u2019 comes out very clearly in the curious fictitious legal\ncase which occurs among the collection of rhetorical exercises made by\nSopater[1413]. A young man dreams that he is initiated, and sees the\n\u2018things done.\u2019 He recounts the \u2018things done\u2019 to an initiated friend and\nasks if they correspond to the actual Eleusinian rite. The friend nods\nassent. Is the friend guilty of impiety, i.e. has he revealed the \u2018things\ndone\u2019 to one uninitiated? No, argues the initiated man, for the dreamer\nwas really initiated by the goddesses themselves; only one thing was\nlacking to him, he had not heard the voice of the hierophant so as to\nunderstand clearly the sense of the symbols uttered by him. The symbols\nuttered must have been words corresponding to, explanatory of, the things\ndone, dark enough no doubt, but felt to be illuminating. The Hierophant\nacted as sacred showman to the pantomime. Here we have brought into\nclose, inevitable conjunction the narrative element of the epos and the\naction element of the drama. We have all the apparatus of the stage, the\nappearances and disappearances, the dancing and the singing, the lights,\nthe voices and the darkness. Religion gave all the circumstances and the\nscenery, religion woke the instinct of intense impersonation, some genius\nmade the dumb figures speak themselves and tragedy was born.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDionysos gave men tragedy to gladden and to greaten their toilsome life\non earth. His other great gift was, as has been already shown, the hope\nthat by attaining divinity they would as a necessary consequence attain\nimmortality. To the dim forecast of some sort of after guerdon that\nDemeter gave, he brought something as near conviction as the human mind\ncan get. Plutarch[1414] writes to his wife when they have lost their\nlittle girl, who was so like the father and so dear to the mother, and\nhe bids her remember both her traditional faith and \u2018the mystic symbols\nof the rites of initiation to Dionysos.\u2019 These, he says, will prevent\nher from thinking that the soul suffers nothing after death, that it\nceases to be. He reads into these rites of course his own Platonism;\nthey teach him that the soul is like a bird caught in a cage, caught\nand recaught ever in new births, that the evil of old age is not its\nwrinkles and grey hairs but, hardest thing of all, the dimness and\nstaleness of the soul to the memory of things \u2018there\u2019 not here; and the\nsoul that leaves the body soon is not cramped and bent but only softly\nand pliantly moulded and soon shakes its mane and is free, just as fire\nthat is quenched and relighted forthwith flames and sparkles anew. The\ncustoms of his country forbade him to make libations for children, and\nhe reads into the old barbarous convention, based on the harmlessness of\nthe child-ghost, the doctrine that children have no part in earth and\nearthly things, but have passed straightway to a better and more divine\nfate. Still in the mystic symbols of Dionysos he sees only what was there\nimplicit if only in dim fashion.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt has been thought that the rites of Eleusis and other Orphic mysteries\ncontained among these \u2018things done\u2019 mimetic presentations of a future\nlife, a sort of revelation and instruction for the conduct of the soul in\nthe world below. Elements of this kind, it will later be seen, may easily\nhave been interpolated from Egypt, but for Eleusis we have no certain\nevidence. The best witness to the faith of the Orphic as to the future\nlife are his own confessions buried with him in his tomb, inscribed\nhappily for us on imperishable gold, and to this witness we must now turn.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nORPHIC ESCHATOLOGY.\n\n \u2018\u03a7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u2019, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u2019 \u1f54\u03bc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.\u2019\n\n\n_a._ THE ORPHIC TABLETS.\n\nThe monuments in question are a series of eight inscribed tablets\nall of very thin gold, which have come to light in tombs. Six out of\nthe eight were found in Lower Italy, in the neighbourhood of ancient\nSybaris, one near Rome, one in Crete. In the first and third cases, it\nshould be noted, the place _provenance_ is an ancient home of Orphism.\nThese tablets are of such cardinal importance that they will need to be\nexamined separately and in detail. But all have this much in common:\nburied with the dead they contain instructions for his conduct in the\nworld below, exhortations to the soul, formularies to be repeated,\nconfessions of faith and of ritual performed, and the like. They belong\nto the domain of ritual rather than of literature, and therefore offer\nevidence the more unimpeachable; but, though defective in style and\noften regardless of metre, they are touched with a certain ecstasy of\nconviction that lifts them sometimes to a high level of poetry.\n\nThe Orphic tablets have frequently been discussed[1415], but their full\nimportance as documents for the history of Greek religion has perhaps as\nyet not been fully realized. Their interpretation presents exceptional\ndifficulties; the shining surface and creased condition of the gold-leaf\non which they are written make them difficult to photograph and irksome\nto decipher; moreover the text, even when deciphered, is in some cases\nobviously fragmentary. It has been thought best to reserve all textual\ndifficulties for separate discussion[1416].\n\nThe series of tablets or scrolls is as follows:\n\nI. _The Petelia tablet_[1417] (fig. 162).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 162.]\n\n \u2018Thou shalt find on the left of the House of Hades a Well-spring,\n And by the side thereof standing a white cypress.\n To this Well-spring approach not near.\n But thou shalt find another by the Lake of Memory,\n Cold water flowing forth, and there are Guardians before it.\n Say: \u201cI am a child of Earth and of Starry Heaven;\n But my race is of Heaven (alone). This ye know yourselves.\n And lo, I am parched with thirst and I perish. Give me quickly\n The cold water flowing forth from the Lake of Memory.\u201d\n And of themselves they will give thee to drink from the holy\n Well-spring,\n And thereafter among the other Heroes thou shalt have lordship....\u2019\n\nThe text breaks off at this point. The scattered words that remain make\nno consecutive sense. Of the last line, written from bottom to top of the\nright edge of the tablet, the two last words only are legible, \u2018darkness\nenfolding\u2019 (\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2).\n\nAs sequel to this tablet comes a second found in Crete:\n\nII. _The Eleuthernae tablet_[1418].\n\n \u2018I am parched with thirst and I perish.\u2014Nay, drink of Me,\n The well-spring flowing for ever on the Right, where the Cypress is.\n Who art thou?...\n Whence art thou?\u2014I am son of Earth and of Starry Heaven.\u2019\n\nThe soul itself speaks to the Well of Mnemosyne and the Well makes answer.\n\nBoth tablets contain the same two elements, the Well of Remembrance, and\nthe avowal of origin. The avowal of origin constitutes in each the claim\nto drink of the Well.\n\nThe origin claimed is divine. Hesiod[1419] uses exactly the same words in\ndescribing the parentage of the gods. He bids the Muse\n\n \u2018Sing the holy race of Immortals ever existing,\n Who from Earth were born and born from Starry Heaven.\u2019\n\nWe have in the avowal of the soul the clearest possible statement of the\ncardinal doctrine of Orphic faith\u2014immortality is possible only in virtue\nof the divinity of humanity. The sacrament of this immortality is the\ndrinking of a divine well.\n\n\nTHE WELL OF MNEMOSYNE.\n\nOn the first tablet the soul is bidden to avoid a well on the left hand.\nThis well is left nameless, but contrasted as it is with the Well of\nMnemosyne or Remembrance, we may safely conclude that the forbidden well\nis Lethe, Forgetfulness.\n\nThe notion that in death we forget, forget the sorrows of this\ntroublesome world, forget the toilsome journey to the next, is not\nOrphic, not even specially Greek; it is elemental, human, and may occur\nanywhere.\n\nThe Fiji islanders[1420] have their \u2018Path of the Shades\u2019 beset with\nperils and their Wai-na-dula, a well from which the dead man drinks and\nforgets sorrow. \u2018He passed the twin goddesses Nino who peered at him\nand gnashed their terrible teeth, fled up the path and came to a spring\nand stopped and drank, and, as soon as he tasted the water, he ceased\nweeping, and his friends also ceased weeping in his home, for they\nstraightway forgot their sorrows and were consoled. Therefore this spring\nis called the Wai-na-dula, Water of Solace.\u2019 After many other perils,\nincluding the escape from two savage Dictynnas who seek to catch him in\ntheir nets, the soul at last is allowed to pass into the dancing grounds\nwhere the young gods dance and sing.\n\nThis Fiji parallel is worth noting because it is so different. The Fiji\nsoul drinks of forgetfulness, and why? Because his friends and relations\nmust put a term to their irksome mourning, and till the soul sets the\nexample and himself forgets they must remember. His confession of faith\nis also somewhat different. Before he can be admitted to his Happy Land\nhe must prove that he has died a violent death, otherwise he must go back\nto the upper air and die respectably, i.e. violently.\n\nI have noted the Lethe of the Fiji islands to shew that I am not unaware\nthat savage parallels exist, that a well may be drunk on the \u2018Path of the\nShades\u2019 in any land, and that there is no need to suppose that the Greeks\nborrowed their well either from Fiji or from Egypt; and yet in this\nparticular case it can, I believe, be shewn that the Orphic well came\nfrom Egypt[1421], came I believe to Crete, and passed with Orpheus from\nCrete by the islands to Thrace and to Athens, and thence to Magna Graecia.\n\nOsiris in Egypt had a \u2018cold\u2019 well or water of which he gave the souls to\ndrink. On tombs of Roman date[1422] the formulary appears: \u2018May Osiris\ngive thee the cold water.\u2019 Sometimes it is A\u00efdoneus sometimes Osiris who\nis invoked, for by that time the two were not clearly distinguished.\nIn so far as Osiris was a sun-god the well became a well of light, in\nwhich the sun-god Ra was wont to wash his face. In one of the magical\npapyri[1423] the line occurs\n\n \u2018Hail to the water white and the tree with the leaves high hanging,\u2019\n\nwhich seems to echo vaguely the white cypress and the forbidden well.\nThe well of Osiris, whatever the precise significance of its Egyptian\nname, would easily to the Greeks become of double significance; \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\nwould suggest \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, and the well would be both cool and fresh and\n_life_-giving; by it the soul would _revive_ (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd), it would become\n\u2018a living water, springing up into everlasting life.\u2019\n\nA \u2018living water\u2019 given by Osiris to the thirsty soul was part of the\neschatology of Egypt, but, so far as we know, Egypt had neither Lethe nor\nMnemosyne. In the _Book of the Dead_ there occurs indeed the _Chapter\nof making a man possess memory in the underworld_ (No. XXV.), but the\nprocess has no connection with the drinking from a well. The _Chapter of\ndrinking water in the underworld_ (No. LXII.) is quite distinct. Lethe\nand Mnemosyne are, I think, Greek developments from the neutral _fonds_\nof Egypt, and developments due to the influence of Orpheus.\n\n * * * * *\n\nLethe as a person is as old as Hesiod[1424]. She is bad from the\nbeginning:\n\n \u2018Next hateful Strife gave birth to grievous Toil,\n Forgetfulness and Famine, tearful Woes,\n Contests and Slaughters.\u2019\n\nBy the time of Aristophanes the \u2018plain of Lethe\u2019 is part of the stock\nfurniture of Hades. In the _Frogs_[1425] Charon on the look-out for\npassengers asks:\n\n \u2018Who\u2019s for the plain of Lethe? Who\u2019s for the Donkey-shearings?\n Who\u2019s for the Cerberus folk? or Taenarus? Who\u2019s for the Rookeries?\u2019\n\nThe mystic comic Hades of Aristophanes is thoroughly Orphic. He mentions\nno well, but he knows of a _Stone of Parching_[1426], where it may be the\nthirsty soul sat down to rest.\n\nLethe as a water, a river, first appears in the _Republic_ of Plato[1427]\nand in such fashion that it seems as though it was by that time\nproverbial. \u2018Our story,\u2019 says Socrates, \u2018has been saved and has not\nperished, and it will save us if we are obedient to it, and we shall make\na good passage of the river of Lethe and shall not be defiled in our\nsouls.\u2019 It is noticeable that to Plato Lethe is of death and pollution.\nJust before, Socrates has recounted the myth of Er, a myth steeped in\nOrphic eschatology of metempsychosis and retribution. The souls have\nbeen forced to pass each one into the plain of Lethe through scorching\nsuffocating heat, for the plain of Lethe was devoid of trees and of\nplants that spring from the earth. Towards evening they took shelter by\nthe river of Unmindfulness whose water no vessel can hold[1428]. Of this\nall were compelled to drink a certain measure, and those who were not\nsafe-guarded by wisdom drank more than the measure, and each one as he\ndrank forgot all things. The river _Ameles_, Unmindfulness, is of course\nLethe: Plato likes to borrow a popular notion and slightly rechristen\nit. Just so he takes Mnemosyne, Remembrance, and makes of her Anamnesis,\nRemembering-again. It was not the fashion of his day to give chapter and\nverse for your borrowings, and Plato so detested the lower side of Orphic\nrites that perhaps he only half realized the extent of his debts. It is a\nhuman and rather malicious touch, that in the order of those who remember\nagain, the man who lives the \u2018initiated life\u2019 comes only fifth, side by\nside with the seer, below the philosopher and the lover and the righteous\nking and the warrior, below even the economist and the man of business;\nbut after all he cannot much complain, for low though he is, he is above\nthe poet and the artist. Moreover Plato would take as clearly and vividly\nknown to the initiated all that through lapse of time has become dim to\nus, and his constant use of the technical terms of initiation is adequate\nacknowledgement. He tells[1429] of the uninitiate (\u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), the partly\ninitiate (\u1f00\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), the newly initiate (\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c2), wholly initiate\n(\u1f00\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c2), of the man rapt by the divine (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd), whom the vulgar\ndeem distraught, of how before we were caught in the prison of the body\nwe celebrated (\u1f60\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd) a most blessed rite, being initiated to\nbehold dimly and see perfectly (\u03bc\u03c5\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) apparitions\ncomplete, simple, quiet and happy, shining in a clear light.\n\nFor Mnemosyne and Lethe in Greek religion we are not however dependent\non the myths and philosophy of Plato. We have definite evidence in local\nritual. Mnemosyne herself takes us straight to the North, the land of\nEumolpos and the Muses, to Pangaion, to Pieria, to Helicon. If Orpheus\nfound in Egypt, or as is more probable in Crete, a well of living water,\nthat well was I think nameless, or at least did not bear the name of\nMnemosyne. It may of course be accidental, but in the tablet from Crete\nthe well, though obviously the same as that in the Petelia tablet, is\nunnamed. The name Mnemosyne was found for the well when Orpheus took\nit with him to the land of the Muses, where he himself got his magic\nlyre. Not ten miles away from the slopes of Helicon, at the sanctuary of\nTrophonios at Lebadeia, we find a well not only of Mnemosyne but also of\nLethe, and we find the worshipper is made to drink of these wells not in\nthe imagined kingdom of the dead, but in the actual ritual of the living.\nMan makes the next world in the image of this present.\n\nPausanias[1430] has left us a detailed account of the ritual of the\noracle of Trophonios of which only the essential points can be noted\nhere. Before the worshipper can actually descend into the oracular\nchasm, he must spend some days in a house that is a sanctuary of the\nAgathos Daimon and of Tyche; then he is purified and eats sacrificial\nflesh. After omens have been taken and a black ram sacrificed into a\ntrench, the inquirer is washed and anointed and led by the priests to\ncertain \u2018springs of water which are very near to one another, and then\nhe must drink of the water called Forgetfulness (\u039b\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2), that there may\nbe forgetfulness of everything that he has hitherto had in his mind, and\nafter that he drinks of yet another water called Memory (\u039c\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2), by\nwhich he remembers what he has seen when he goes down below.\u2019 He is then\nshown an image which Daedalus made, i.e. a very ancient xoanon, and one\nwhich was only shown to those who are going to visit Trophonios; this he\nworships and prays to, and then, clad in a linen tunic\u2014another Orphic\ntouch\u2014and girt with taeniae and shod with boots of the country he goes\nto the oracle. The ritual that follows is of course a descent into the\nunderworld, the man goes down into the oven-shaped cavity, an elaborate\nartificial chasm, enters a hole, is dragged through by the feet, swirled\naway, hears and sees \u2018the things that are to be\u2019 (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1), he comes\nup feet foremost and then the priests set him on the seat, called the\nseat of Memory, which is near the shrine. They question him and, when\nthey have learnt all they can, give him over to his friends, who carry\nhim possessed by fear and unconscious to the house of Agathe Tyche and\nAgathos Daimon where he lodged before. Then he comes to himself and, one\nis relieved to hear, is able to laugh again. Pausanias says expressly\nthat he had been through the performance himself and is not writing from\nhearsay.\n\nThe Orphic notes in this description are many. To those already discussed\nwe may add that Demeter at Lebadeia was known as Europa, a name which\npoints to Crete. Another Cretan link indicates that the worship of\nTrophonios was, as we should expect if it is Dionysiac, of orgiastic\ncharacter. Plutarch[1431], in a passage that has not received the\nattention it deserves, classes together certain daemons who \u2018do not\nalways stay in the moon, but descend here below to have the supervision\nof _oracular shrines_, and they are present at and _celebrate the\norgies of the most sublime rites_. They are punishers of evil deeds\nand _watchers_ over such.\u2019 The word watchers (\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2) is the same as\nthat used in the tablet of the guardians of Mnemosyne\u2019s well. If in the\nperformance of their office they themselves do wrong either through fear\nor favour, they themselves suffer for it, and in characteristically\nOrphic fashion they are thrust down again and tied to human bodies.\nThen comes this notable statement. \u2018Those of the age of Kronos said\nthat they themselves were of the better sort of these daemons, and the\nIdaean Daktyls who were formerly in Crete, and the Korybantes who were\nin Phrygia, and the Trophoniads in Lebadeia, and thousands of others\nthroughout the world whose titles, sanctuaries and honours remain to this\nday.\u2019 The rites of Daktyls, Korybants and Trophoniads are all the same\nand all are orgiastic and of the nature of initiation, all deal with\npurgation and the emergence of the divine. All have rites that tell of\n\u2018things to be\u2019 and prepare the soul to meet them.\n\nPausanias of course understands \u2018things to be\u2019 (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1) as merely\nthe future, his attention is fixed on what is merely oracular and\nprophetic. The action of Lethe is to prepare a blank sheet for the\nreception of the oracle of Mnemosyne, to make the utterance of the oracle\nindelible. In point of fact, no doubt, the Trophoniads, the Orphics,\nfound when they came to Lebadeia an ancient hero-oracle. That is clear\nfrom the sacrifice of the ram in the trench, a sacrifice made, be it\nobserved, not to Trophonios but to Agamedes, the old hero. That the\nrevelation at Lebadeia of \u2018things to be\u2019 was to the Orphic a vision\nof and a preparation for the other world (\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6) is clear from the\nexperiences recounted by Timarchos[1432] as having occurred to him in the\nchasm of Trophonios. Socrates, it is said, was angry that no one told\nhim about it while Timarchos was alive, for he would have liked to hear\nabout it at first hand. What Timarchos saw was a vision of heaven and\nhell after the fashion of a Platonic myth, and his guide instructed him\nas to the meaning of things and how the soul shakes off the impurities\nof the body. The whole ecstatic mystic account beginning with the\nsensation of a blow on the head and the sense of the soul escaping,\nreads like a trance-experience or like the revelation experienced under\nan anaesthetic. It may be, and probably is, an invention from beginning\nto end. The important point is that this vision of things invisible is\nconsidered an appropriate experience to a man performing the rites of\nTrophonios.\n\nThe worshipper initiated at Lebadeia drank of Lethe; there was evil\nstill to forget. The Orphic who, after a life spent in purification,\npassed into Hades, had done with forgetting; his soul drinks only of\nRemembrance. It is curious to note that in the contrast between Lethe and\nMnemosyne we have what seems to be an Orphic protest against the lower,\nthe sensuous side of the religion of Dionysos. To Mnemosyne, it will be\nremembered (p. 509), as to the Muses, the Sun and the Moon and the other\nprimitive potencies affected by the Orphics, the Athenians offered only\nwineless offerings, but \u2018ancestral tradition,\u2019 Plutarch[1433] tells us,\n\u2018consecrated to Dionysos, Lethe, together with the narthex.\u2019 It is this\nancestral tradition that Teiresias[1434] remembers when he tells of the\nblessings brought by the god, and how\n\n \u2018He rests man\u2019s spirit dim\n From grieving, when the vine exalteth him.\n He giveth sleep to sink the fretful day\n In cool forgetting. Is there any way\n With man\u2019s sore heart save only to forget?\u2019\n\nTo man entangled in the flesh, man to whom sleep for the body, death\nfor the soul was the only outlook, Lethe became a Queen of the Shades,\nAssessor of Hades[1435]. Orestes[1436], outworn with madness, cries\n\n O magic of sweet sleep, healer of pain,\n I need thee and how sweetly art thou come.\n O holy Lethe, wise physician thou,\n Goddess invoked of miserable men.\u2019\n\nOrpheus found for \u2018miserable men\u2019 another way, not by the vine-god, but\nthrough the wineless ecstasy of Mnemosyne. The Orphic hymn[1437] to the\ngoddess ends with the prayer\n\n \u2018And in thy mystics waken memory\n Of the holy rite, and Lethe drive afar.\u2019\n\nLethe is to the Orphic as to Hesiod wholly bad, a thing from which he\nmust purge himself. Plato[1438] is thoroughly Orphic when he says in the\n_Phaedrus_ that the soul sinks to earth \u2018full of forgetfulness and vice.\u2019\nThe doctrine as to future punishment which Plutarch[1439] expounds in\nhis treatise \u2018On Living Hidden\u2019 touches the high water mark of Orphic\neschatology. The extreme penalty of the wicked in Erebos is not torture\nbut unconsciousness (\u1f04\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1). Pindar\u2019s \u2018sluggish streams of murky\nnight,\u2019 he says, receive the guilty, and hide them in unconsciousness\nand forgetfulness. He denies emphatically the orthodox punishments, the\ngnawing vulture, the wearisome labours; the body cannot suffer torment or\nbear its marks, for the body is rotted away or consumed by fire; \u2018the one\nand only instrument of punishment is unconsciousness and obscurity, utter\ndisappearance, carrying a man into the smileless river that flows from\nLethe, sinking him into an abyss and yawning gulf, bringing in its train\nall obscurity and all unconsciousness.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Orphic well of Mnemosyne lives on not only in the philosophy of\nPlato, but also, it would seem, in the inspired vision of Dante. At the\nclose of the _Purgatorio_, when Dante[1440] is wandering through the\nancient wood, his steps are stayed by a little stream so pure that it\nhid nothing, and beside it all other waters seemed to have in them some\nadmixture. The lady gathering flowers on the further bank tells him he\nis now in the Earthly Paradise: the Highest Good made man good and for\ngoodness and gave him this place as earnest of eternal peace. Man fell\naway,\n\n \u2018changed to toil and weeping\n His honest laughter and sweet mirth.\u2019\n\nThen she tells of the virtue of the little stream. It does not rise, like\nan earthly water, from a vein restored by evaporation, losing and gaining\nforce in turn, but issues from a fountain sure and safe, ever receiving\nagain by the will of God as much as on two sides it pours forth.\n\n \u2018On this side down it flows and with a virtue\n That takes away from man of sin the memory,\n On that the memory of good deeds it bringeth.\n Lethe its name on this side and Euno\u00eb\n On that, nor does it work its work save only\n If first on this side then on that thou taste it.\u2019\n\nDante hears a voice unspeakable say _Asperges me_, and is bathed in\nLethe, and thereafter cannot wholly remember what made him to sin.\nBeatrice says to him smiling,\n\n \u2018And now bethink thee thou hast drunk of Lethe;\n And if from smoke the flame of fire be argued,\n This thine oblivion doth conclude most clearly\n A fault within thy Will elsewhere intended.\u2019\n\nAnd she turns to her attendant maid saying,\n\n \u2018See there Euno\u00eb from its source forth flowing.\n Lead thou him to it, and as thou art wonted\n His virtue partly dead do thou requicken.\u2019\n\nAnd Dante comes back from \u2018that most holy wave\u2019:\n\n \u2018Refect was I, and as young plants renewing\n Their new leaves with new shoots, so I in spirit\n Pure, and disposed to mount towards starry heaven.\u2019\n\nThe Euno\u00eb[1441] of Dante is Good-Consciousness, or the Consciousness of\nGood. It is the result of a purified, specialized memory, from which\nevil has fallen away. On the tomb-inscriptions the formulary occurs\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u2018for good thought and remembrance\u2019 sake,\u2019 where\nthe two are very near together. It is just what the Orphic meant by his\nRemembrance of the Divine, and, when we come to the next tablet, it will\nseem probable that not only the idea of Good-Consciousness but the very\nname _Eunoia_ may perhaps have been suggested to Dante by an analogous\nOrphic well _En_noia.\n\n\nTHE SYBARIS TABLETS.\n\nSix tablets still remain to be considered. Of these five were all found\nin tombs in the territory of ancient Sybaris, in the modern commune of\nCorigliano-Calabro. Two of them (III and IV) were found together in a\ntomb known locally as the _Timpone grande_. They were folded closely\ntogether, and lay near the skull of the skeleton. Their contents, so far\nas they can be deciphered, are as follows:\n\nIII. _Timpone grande tablet (a)_[1442].\n\n \u2018But so soon as the Spirit hath left the light of the sun,\n To the right...............................of Ennoia\n Then must man..............being right wary in all things.\n Hail, thou who hast suffered the Suffering. This thou hadst never\n suffered before.\n Thou art become God from Man. A kid thou art fallen into milk.\n Hail, hail to thee journeying on the right.........\n ...Holy meadows and groves of Phersephoneia.\u2019\n\nThe second line seems to be a fragment of a whole sentence or set of\nsentences put for the whole, as we might put \u2018Therefore with Angels and\nArchangels,\u2019 leaving those familiar with our ritual to supply the missing\nwords. Popular quotations and extracts always tend to make the grammar\ncomplete or at least intelligible.\n\nThe name of the well, \u2018Ennoia,\u2019 depends on a conjectural emendation. The\ntablet of course cannot be the actual source of Dante\u2019s Euno\u00eb. It is,\nhowever, very unlikely that Dante invented the name; he may have known\nof _En_noia, and modified it to _Eu_noia. It has been seen that Lethe is\nregarded as the equivalent of Agnoia, Unconsciousness, and to _Ag_noia\n_En_noia would be a fitting contrast.\n\nThe formularies that occur at the end, the \u2018Suffering,\u2019 the \u2018kid\u2019 and the\n\u2018groves of Phersephoneia,\u2019 will be considered in relation to other and\nmore complete tablets (p. 586).\n\n * * * * *\n\nWith the \u2018Ennoia\u2019 tablet was found\n\nIV. _Timpone grande tablet (b)_[1443]. The inscription on this tablet is\nunhappily as yet only partially read. It appears to be in some cryptic\nscript.\n\nThe broken formularies of tablet (_a_) and the cryptic script of (_b_)\nmark a stage in which the Orphic prescriptions are ceasing to be\nintelligent and intelligible, and tending to become cabalistic charms.\nOrphism shared the inevitable tendency of all mystic religions to lapse\ninto mere mechanical magic. In the _Cyclops_ of Euripides[1444], the\nSatyr chorus, when they want to burn out the eye of the Cyclops, say they\nknow\n\n \u2018A real good incantation\n Of Orpheus, that will make the pole go round\n Of its own accord.\u2019\n\nThree tablets found near Sybaris yet remain. All these were found in\ndifferent tombs in the same district as the _Timpone grande_ tablets. In\neach case the tablet lay near the hand of the skeleton. The tombs were on\nthe estate of Baron Compagno, who presented the tablets to the National\nMuseum at Naples. In form of letters and in content they offer close\nanalogies. They are all three reproduced in the Appendix, and will be\nconsidered together[1445].\n\nV. _Compagno tablet (a)_[1446].\n\n \u2018Out of the pure I come, Pure Queen of Them Below,\n Eukles and Eubouleus and the other Gods immortal.\n For I also avow me that I am of your blessed race,\n But Fate laid me low and the other Gods immortal\n ..............starflung thunderbolt.\n I have flown out of the sorrowful weary Wheel.\n I have passed with eager feet to the Circle desired.\n I have sunk beneath the bosom of Despoina, Queen of the Underworld.\n I have passed with eager feet from the Circle desired.\n Happy and Blessed One, thou shalt be God instead of mortal.\n A kid I have fallen into milk.\u2019\n\nVI. _Compagno tablet (b)_[1447].\n\n \u2018Out of the pure I come, Pure Queen of the Pure below,\n Eukles and Eubouleus and the other Gods and Daemons.\n For I also, I avow me, am of your blessed race.\n I have paid the penalty for deeds unrighteous\n Whether Fate laid me low or.......\n with starry thunderbolt.\n But now I come a suppliant to holy Phersephoneia\n That of her grace she receive me to the seats of the Hallowed.\u2019\n\nVII. _Compagno tablet (c)_[1448].\n\nBut for one or two purely verbal differences tablet (_c_) is precisely\nthe same as (_b_). It is written carelessly on both sides of the gold\nplate, and but for the existence of (_b_) could scarcely have been made\nout. Tablet (_b_) has itself so many omissions that its interpretation\ndepends mainly on the more complete contents of (_a_).\n\nThe last tablet to be considered presents two features of special\ninterest. First, the name of its owner Caecilia Secundina[1449] is\ninscribed, and from this fact, together with the loose cursive script in\nwhich it is written, the tablet can be securely dated as of Roman times.\nSecond, the contents show but too plainly that the tablet was buried with\nmagical intent.\n\nVIII. _Caecilia Secundina tablet._\n\n \u2018She comes from the Pure, O Pure Queen of those below\n And Eukles and Eubouleus.\u2014Child of Zeus, receive here the armour\n Of Memory, (\u2019tis a gift songful among men)\n Thou Caecilia Secundina, (armour) in due rite to avert evil for ever.\u2019\n\nThe tablet reads like a brief compendium from the two sets of formularies\nalready given. We have the statement made to Despoina, Eukles and\nEubouleus on behalf of Caecilia that she comes from the congregation of\nthe pure, but it is not followed by the detailed confession of ritual\nperformed\u2014that is, so to speak, \u2018taken as read.\u2019 Mention is further made\nof the divine origin of Caecilia and of Mnemosyne, but in both cases\nafter significant fashion. The \u2018gift of Mnemosyne\u2019 is now not water from\na well, but rather the tablet itself, a certificate of Caecilia\u2019s purity,\nin verse (\u1f00\u03bf\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd), and graven on imperishable gold. Caecilia claims\ndivine descent not from the Orphic Zagreus but from Zeus, who as has\nalready been shown (p. 480) took on, in popular monotheism, something\nof the nature and functions of Zagreus. Caecilia\u2019s theology, like that\nof the Lower Italy vases (pp. 602, 603), is Orphism made orthodox,\nOlympicized, conventionalized. The word \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u2018in due rite\u2019 seems to\nimply that the tablet has been \u2018certified and found correct\u2019 by human\nauthority. It is the usual priestly confusion: the soul _is_ divine\u2014that\nno Orphic priest dare deny; and yet this divine soul needs the \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1,\nthe \u2018armour\u2019 forged by mortal hands. The concluding words \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ac,\n\u2018averting evil for ever,\u2019 make it certain that the intent is magical.\nThe Orphic reverts to the spirit and the vocabulary of the old ritual\nof \u2018Aversion.\u2019 The \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, the armour, is perhaps touched with symbolism\nlike \u2018the whole armour of God,\u2019 but it is also in part the magic gear of\nthe charlatan. The \u2018Superstitious Man\u2019 of Theophrastus[1450] is \u2018apt to\npurify his house frequently, alleging that there has been an induction\n(\u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae) of Hecate,\u2019 Caecilia Secundina brings a tablet engraved with\nOrphic formularies, and thereby secures means for \u2018the _aversion_ of evil\nfor ever.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nIf the mutilated condition of tablet VII, the illegible character of IV\nand the express statement of VIII are evidence of the lower, the magical\nside of Orphism, the complete text of tablets V and VI are the expression\nof its highest faith, of a faith so high that it may be questioned\nwhether any faith, ancient or modern, has ever out-passed it.\n\nTablets V and VI both begin with a prayer or rather a claim addressed\nto the queen of the underworld, later defined as Phersephoneia or\nDespoina, and to two gods called Eukles and Eubouleus. The two are\nmanifestly different titles of the same divinity. Eukles, \u2018Glorious One,\u2019\nis only known to us from a gloss in Hesychius[1451], who defines it as\na euphemism for Hades. Eubouleus, \u2018He of good Counsel,\u2019 the local hero\nand underworld divinity of Eleusis, the equivalent of Plouton, occurs\nfrequently in the Orphic Hymns as an epithet of Dionysos[1452]. Eukles\nand Eubouleus are in fact only titles of the one god of Orphism who\nappears under many forms, as Hades, Zagreus, Phanes and the like. The\ngist of this monotheism will fall to be discussed when we come to the\ntheogony of Orpheus (Chap. XII.). For the present it is sufficient to\nstate that the Eukles-Eubouleus of the tablets, whom the Orphic invokes,\nis substantially the same as the Zagreus to whom the Cretan Orphic (p.\n480) was initiated. To the names named, i.e. the Queen of the Underworld,\nEukles and Eubouleus, the Orphic adds \u2018the other gods and daemons.\u2019 This\nis a somewhat magical touch. The ancient worshipper was apt to end his\nprayer with some such formulary; it was dangerous to leave any one out.\nThe word \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, daemons or subordinate spirits, is significant at once\nof the lower, the magical side of Orphism, and as will be seen later (p.\n656) of its higher spirituality. Orphism tended rather to the worship of\npotencies (\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2) than of anthropomorphic divinities (\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af).\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Orphic then proceeds to state the general basis of his claim: he is\nof divine birth,\n\n \u2018For I also avow me that I am of your blessed race.\u2019\n\nBy this he means, as has been shewn in examining the legend of Zagreus,\nthat some portion of the god Zagreus or Eubouleus or whatever he be\ncalled was in him; his fathers the Titans had eaten the god and he sprang\nfrom their ashes. That this is the meaning of the tablets is quite clear\nfrom the words\n\n \u2018But Fate laid me low ... starflung thunderbolt.\u2019\n\nHe identifies himself with the whole human race as \u2018dead in trespasses\nand sins.\u2019 If this were all, his case were hopeless; \u2018dust we are and\nunto dust we must return.\u2019 He urges at the outset another claim,\n\n \u2018Out of the pure I come.\u2019\n\nThat is, as an Orphic I am purified by the ceremonials of the Orphics.\nHe presents as it were his certificate of spiritual health, he is free\nfrom all contagion of evil. \u2018Bearer is certified pure, coming from a\ncongregation of pure people.\u2019 In like fashion in the Egyptian _Book of\nthe Dead_ (No. CXXV.) after the long negative confession made to Osiris\nthe soul says, \u2018I am pure,\u2019 \u2018I am pure,\u2019 \u2018I am pure,\u2019 \u2018I am pure.\u2019 He\nthen proceeds to recite his creed, or rather in ancient fashion[1453] to\nconfess or acknowledge the ritual acts he has performed. The gist of them\neach and all is, \u2018Bad have I fled, better have I found,\u2019 or as we should\nput it, \u2018I have passed from death unto life.\u2019 He does not himself say, I\nam a god\u2014that might be overbold\u2014but the answer he looks for comes clear\nand unmistakeable,\n\n \u2018Happy and Blessed One, thou shalt be God instead of mortal.\u2019\n\nThe confession he makes of ritual acts is so instructive as to his\nconvictions, so expresses his whole attitude towards religion that it\nmust be examined sentence by sentence.\n\nI say advisedly confession of _ritual acts_, because each of the little\nsentences describes in the past tense an action performed, \u2018I have\nescaped,\u2019 \u2018I have set my feet,\u2019 \u2018I have crept,\u2019 \u2018I have fallen.\u2019 These\nseveral acts described are, I believe, statements of actual ritual\nperformed on earth by the Orphic candidate for initiation, and in the\nfact that they have been performed lies his certainty of ultimate bliss.\nThey are the exact counterpart of the ancient Eleusinian confession\nformularies, \u2018I have fasted, I have drunk the _kykeon_\u2019 (p. 155).\n\n\nTHE RITUAL FORMULARIES.\n\nThe first article in the creed or confession of the Orphic soul is\n\n \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf.\n\n \u2018I have flown out of the sorrowful weary Wheel.\u2019\n\nThe notion of existence as a Wheel, a cycle of life upon life ceaselessly\nrevolving, in which the soul is caught, from the tangle and turmoil\nof which it seeks and at last finds rest, is familiar to us from the\nsymbolism of Buddha. Herodotus[1454] expressly says that the Egyptians\nwere the first to assert that the soul of man was immortal, born and\nreborn in various incarnations, and this doctrine he adds was borrowed\nfrom the Egyptians by the Greeks. To Plato[1455] it was already \u2018an\nancient doctrine that the souls of men that come Here are from There\nand that they go There again and come to birth from the dead.\u2019 It was\nindeed a very ancient saying or doctrine. It has already been observed\nin discussing (p. 179) the mythology of the Keres and Tritopatores.\nOrpheus took it as he took so many ancient things that lay to his hand,\nand moralized it. Rebirth, reincarnation, became for him _new_ birth.\nThe savage logic which said that life could only come from life, that\nnew souls are old souls reborn in endless succession, was transformed by\nhim into a Wheel or cycle of ceaseless purgation. So long as man has not\nsevered completely his brotherhood with plants and animals, not realized\nthe distinctive marks and attributes of his humanity, he will say with\nEmpedocles[1456]:\n\n \u2018Once on a time a youth was I, and I was a maiden,\n A bush, a bird, and a fish with scales that gleam in the ocean.\u2019\n\nTo Plato the belief in the rebirth of old souls was \u2018an ancient\ndoctrine,\u2019 but because the Orphics gave it a new mystical content the\nnotion was for the most part fathered on Orpheus or Pythagoras. Diogenes\nLaertius[1457], who is concerned to glorify Pythagoras, said that he was\nthe first to assert that \u2018the soul went round in a changing Wheel of\nnecessity, being bound down now in this now in that animal.\u2019 A people\nwho saw in a chance snake the soul of a hero would have no difficulty in\nformulating a doctrine of metempsychosis. They need not have borrowed it\nfrom Egypt, and yet it is probable that the influence of Egypt, the home\nof animal worship, helped out the doctrine by emphasizing the sanctity\nof animal life. The almost ceremonial tenderness shown to animals by the\nPythagorean Orphics is an Egyptian rather than a Greek characteristic.\nThe notion of kinship with the brute creation harmonized well with the\nsomewhat elaborate and self-conscious humility of the Orphic.\n\nWhat precisely the ritual of the Wheel was we do not know. That there\nwas an actual Wheel[1458] in the rites and that some form of symbolical\nrelease was enacted is probable. It is indeed almost certain, as\nwe know that Wheels formed part of the sacred furniture of certain\nsanctuaries. It is worth noting that on Orphic vases of Lower Italy to\nbe discussed later (p. 600) wheels are suspended in the palace of Hades\nand Persephone, and these are of two kinds, solid and spoked, designed\nprobably for quite different uses. The grammarian Dionysios, surnamed\nthe Thracian, wrote a book on \u2018The Interpretation of the Symbolism that\nhas to do with Wheels,\u2019 which probably contained just the necessary\nmissing information. Clement[1459] has preserved for us one valuable\nsentence which makes the ritual use of Wheels a certainty. \u2018People\nsignify actions,\u2019 he says, \u2018not only by words but by symbols, by words\nas in the case of the Delphic utterances \u201cNothing too much\u201d and \u201cKnow\nthyself,\u201d and in like manner by symbols as in the case of the Wheel that\nis turned round in the precincts of the gods and that was derived from\nthe Egyptians.\u2019 Dionysios is probably right. The Wheel like the Well may\nhave come from Egypt, or from Egyptianized Crete.\n\nHero of Alexandria[1460] in his curious treatise on \u2018Machines moved by\nair\u2019 twice mentions Wheels as in ritual use. \u2018In Egyptian sanctuaries\nthere are Wheels of bronze against the door-posts, and they are moveable\nso that those who enter may set them in motion, because of the belief\nthat bronze purifies; and there are vessels for purifying so that those\nwho enter may purify themselves. The problem is how to arrange so that\nwhen the Wheel is turned the water may flow mechanically so that as\naforesaid it may be sprinkled for purifying.\u2019 The problem which Hero\nfaced mechanically the Orphics solved in metaphor\u2014how to connect the\nWheel with purification. It was not difficult. Bronze, as Hero notes,\nwas supposed to be a purifier; in another section he says the Wheel was\nactually called _Hagnisterion_, the thing for purification. Each metal\nwhen first it comes into use is regarded as having magical properties.\nA resonant metal was of special use because it frightened away bogeys.\nSimaetha[1461] in her incantations cries\n\n \u2018The goddess at the Crossways. Sound the gong,\u2019\n\nand the Scholiast on the passage remarks instructively that bronze was\nsounded at eclipses of the moon, inasmuch as it was held to be pure and\nto have the power of warding off pollutions, and he quotes the treatise\nof Apollodorus \u2018Concerning the Gods\u2019 as his authority for the statement\nthat bronze was in use in all kinds of consecration and purification. It\nwas appropriate to the dead, he adds, and at Athens the Hierophant beats\na gong when Kore is invoked.\n\nHere again we have a primitive superstition ready to the hand of the\nOrphic. He is familiar with bronze-beating as a piece of apotropaic\nritual; he sees, probably in an Egyptian temple, a bronze wheel known\nby some name that he translates as \u2018a thing for purifying\u2019; he has a\ndoctrine of metempsychosis and an ardent longing after purification; he\nputs them all together and says with Proclus[1462] the one salvation\noffered by the creator is that the spirit free itself from the wheel of\nbirth. \u2018This is what those who are initiated by Orpheus to Dionysos and\nKore pray that they may attain, to\n\n \u201cCease from the Wheel and breathe again from ill.\u201d\u2019\n\nThe notion of escape whether from the tomb of the body, or from the\nrestless Wheel or from the troubled sea, haunts the Orphic, haunts\nPlato, haunts Euripides, lends him lovely metaphors of a fawn escaped,\nmakes his Bacchants sing[1463],\n\n \u2018Happy he, on the weary sea\n Who hath fled the tempest and won the haven.\n Happy whoso hath risen free\n Above his striving.\u2019\n\nThe downward steps from purification to penance, from penance to\nvindictive punishment, were easy to take and swiftly taken. Plato, in\nthe vision of Er, though he knows of purification, is not free from this\ndismal and barren eschatology of vengeance and retribution. On Lower\nItaly vases under Orphic influence, as will later be seen (p. 606), great\nAnanke, Necessity herself, is made to hold a scourge and behave like a\nFury. That such notions were not alien to Orphism is clear from the line\nin tablet VI:\n\n \u2018I have paid the penalty for deeds unrighteous.\u2019\n\nThe deeds unrighteous are not only the soul\u2019s own personal sins but\nhis hereditary taint, the \u2018ancient woe\u2019 that is his as the heir of the\nearth-born Titans.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe next avowal is\n\n \u1f31\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n \u2018I have passed with eager feet to the Circle desired.\u2019\n\nIt occurs in a second form, thus:\n\n \u1f31\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n \u2018I have passed with eager feet _from_ the Circle desired.\u2019\n\nIt is impossible to say which form is correct. It may be that both were\nindispensable, that the neophyte had to pass first _into_ and then _out\nof_ a ring or circle.\n\nThe word \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 (I step on or over) is of course frequently used\nmetaphorically with the meaning \u2018I entered on, embarked on.\u2019 It might\ntherefore be possible to translate the words as \u2018with eager feet I\nentered on, i.e. I obtained, the crown I longed for.\u2019 But as the word\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 means not only a crown for the head, but a ring or circle, a\nthing that encloses, it is perhaps better to take it here in its wider\nsense[1464]. The mystic has escaped from the Wheel of Purgation, he\npasses with eager feet over the Ring or circle that includes the bliss\nhe longs for, he enters and perhaps passes out of some sort of sacred\nenclosure. As to the actual rite performed we are wholly in the dark.\nPossibly the innermost shrine was garlanded about with mystic magical\nflowers. This is however pure conjecture. We know[1465] that the putting\non of garlands or \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 was the final stage of initiation for\nHierophants and other priests, a stage that was as it were Consecration\nand Ordination in one; but the putting on of garlands is not the entering\nof a garlanded enclosure, and it is the entering of an enclosure that the\n\u2018eager feet\u2019 seem to imply.\n\n * * * * *\n\nNext comes the clause,\n\n \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n \u2018I have sunk beneath the bosom of Despoina, Queen of the Underworld.\u2019\n\nThat this clause is an avowal of an actual rite performed admits of no\ndoubt. It is the counterpart of the \u2018token\u2019 of the mysteries of the\nMother: \u2018I have passed down into the bridal-chamber,\u2019 but here the\nsymbolism seems to be rather of birth than marriage. In discussing the\nritual of the Semnae (p. 244), it has been seen that the \u2018second-fated\nman\u2019 had to be reborn before he could be admitted to the sanctuary,\nand the rebirth was a mimetic birth[1466]. The same ceremony was gone\nthrough among some peoples at adoption[1467]. Dionysos himself in Orphic\nhymns is called \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03b5, \u2018he who is beneath the bosom.\u2019 If the rites\nare enumerated in the order of their performance this rite of birth or\nadoption must have taken place _within_ the Circle, after the entrance\n_into_ and before the exit _from_.\n\nIn the highest grades of initiation not only was there a new birth but\nalso a new name given, a beautiful custom still preserved in the Roman\nChurch. Lucian[1468] makes Lexiphanes tell of a man called Deinias, who\nwas charged with the crime of having addressed the Hierophant and the\nDadouchos by name, \u2018and that when he well knew that from the time they\nare consecrated they are nameless and can no longer be named, on the\nsupposition that they have from that time holy names.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe last affirmation of the mystic is\n\n \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u2019 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\n\n \u2018A kid I have fallen into milk,\u2019\n\na sentence which occurred, it will be remembered, in the second person,\non tablet III.\n\nThe quaint little formulary is simple almost to fatuity. Mysticism, in\nits attempt to utter the ineffable, often verges on imbecility.\n\nBefore we attempt to determine the precise nature of the ritual act\nperformed, it may be well to consider the symbolism of the kid and\nthe milk. It is significant that in both cases the formulary occurs\nimmediately after another statement:\n\n \u2018Thou shalt be God instead of mortal.\u2019\n\nIt would seem that about the kid there is something divine. Eriphos\naccording to Hesychius[1469] was a title of Dionysos. Stephanus[1470]\nthe Byzantine says that Dionysos bore the title Eriphios among the\nMetapontians, i.e. in the very neighbourhood where these Orphic tablets\nwere engraved. It is clear that there was not only a Bull-Dionysos\n(Eiraphiotes) but a Kid-Dionysos (Eriphos), and this was just the sort of\ntitle that the Orphics would be likely to seize on and mysticize. In the\n_Bacchae_ it has been seen (p. 446) that there seems to attach a sort of\nspecial sanctity to young wild things, a certain mystic symbolism about\nthe fawn escaped, and the nursing mothers who suckle the young of wolves\nand deer. It may be that each one thought her nursling was a Baby-God.\nChristian children to this day are called Christ\u2019s Lambs because Christ\nis the Lamb of God, and Clement[1471] joining new and old together says:\n\u2018This is the mountain beloved of God, not the place of tragedies like\nCithaeron but consecrated to the dramas of truth, a mount of sobriety\nshaded with the woods of purity. And there revel on it not the Maenads,\nsisters of Semele the thunderstruck, initiated in the impure feast of\nflesh, but the daughters of God, fair Lambs who celebrate the holy rites\nof the Word, raising a sober choral chant.\u2019\n\nThe initiated then believed himself new born as a young divine animal,\nas a kid, one of the god\u2019s many incarnations; and as a kid he falls\ninto milk. Milk was a god-given drink before the coming of wine, and\nthe Epiphany of Dionysos was shown not only by wine but by milk and\nhoney[1472]:\n\n \u2018Then streams the earth with milk, yea streams\n With wine and honey of the bee.\u2019\n\nOut on the mountain of Cithaeron he gives his Maenads draughts of\nmiraculous wine, and also[1473]\n\n \u2018If any lips\n Sought whiter draughts, with dipping finger-tips\n They pressed the sod, and gushing from the ground\n Came springs of milk. And reed-wands ivy-crowned\n Ran with sweet honey.\u2019\n\nThe symbolism of honey, the nectar of gods and men, does not here\nconcern us, but it is curious to note how honey, used in ancient days to\nembalm the dead body, became the symbol of eternal bliss. A sepulchral\ninscription of the first century A.D. runs as follows[1474]:\n\n \u2018Here lies Boethos Muse-bedewed, undying\n Joy hath he of sweet sleep in honey lying.\u2019\n\nBoethos lies in honey, the mystic falls into milk, both are symbols taken\nfrom the ancient ritual of the _Nephalia_ and mysticized.\n\nThe question remains\u2014what was the exact ritual of the falling into\nmilk? The ritual formulary is not \u1f14\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u2018I _drank_ milk,\u2019 but\n\u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u2018I _fell into_ milk.\u2019 Did the neophyte actually fall\ninto[1475] a bath of milk, or, as in the case of \u2018I stepped on the crown\nI longed for,\u2019 is the ritual act of drinking milk from the beginning\nmetaphorically described? The question unhappily cannot with certainty be\ndecided. The words \u2018I fell into milk\u2019 are not even exactly what we should\nexpect if a rite of Baptism were described; of a rite of immersion in\nmilk we have no evidence.\n\nIt is however from primitive rites of Baptism that we get most light as\nto the general symbolism of the formulary. In the primitive Church the\nsacrament of Baptism was immediately followed by Communion. The custom\nis still preserved among the Copts[1476]. The neophyte drank not only of\nWine but also of a cup of Milk and Honey mixed[1477], those \u2018new born in\nChrist\u2019 partook of the food of babes. Our Church has severed Communion\nfrom Baptism and lost the symbolism of Milk and Honey, nor does she any\nlonger crown her neophytes after Baptism[1478].\n\nS. Jerome[1479] complains in Protestant fashion that much was done in\nthe Church of his days from tradition that had not really the sanction\nof Holy Writ. This tradition which the early Church so wisely and\nbeautifully followed can only have come from pagan sources. Among the\nunsanctioned rites S. Jerome mentions the cup of Milk and Honey. That the\ncup of Milk and Honey was pagan we know from a beautiful prescription\npreserved in one of the Magic Papyri[1480] in which the worshipper is\nthus instructed: \u2018Take the honey with the milk, drink of it before the\nrising of the sun, and there shall be in thy heart something that is\ndivine.\u2019 The milk and honey can be materialized into a future \u2018happy\nland\u2019 flowing with milk and honey, but the promise of the magical papyrus\nis the utmost possible guerdon of present spiritual certainty. We find in\nevery sacrament what we bring.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIf the formularies inscribed on the tablets have been actually recited\nwhile the Orphic was alive we naturally ask\u2014When and at what particular\nMysteries? To this question no certain answer can be returned. Save for\none instance,\n\n \u2018I have sunk beneath the bosom of Despoina, Queen of the Underworld,\u2019\n\nthe formularies of the tablets bear no analogy either to the tokens of\nEleusis or to those of the Great Mother. The Greater Mysteries at Eleusis\nwere preceded, we know, by Lesser Mysteries celebrated at Agra[1481],\na suburb of Athens. These mysteries were sacred to Dionysos and Kore\nrather than to Demeter, and it is noticeable that in the tablets there\nis no mention of Demeter, no trace of agricultural intent; the whole\ngist is eschatological. But, found as they are in Crete and Lower\nItaly, it is more probable that these tablets refer to Orphic mysteries\npure and simple before Orphic rites have blended with those of the\nWine-God. Pythagoras, tradition[1482] says, was initiated in Crete; he\nmet there \u2018one of the Idaean Daktyls and at their hands was purified by\na thunderbolt; he lay from dawn outstretched face-foremost by the sea\nand by night lay near a river covered with fillets from the fleece of a\nblack lamb, and he went down into the Idaean cave holding black wool and\nspent there the accustomed thrice nine hallowed days and beheld the seat\nbedecked every year for Zeus, and he engraved an inscription about the\ntomb with the title \u201cPythagoras to Zeus\u201d of which the beginning is:\n\n \u201cHere in death lies Zan, whom they call Zeus,\u201d\n\nand after his stay in Crete he went to Italy and settled in Croton.\u2019\n\nThe story looks as if Pythagoras had brought to Italy from Crete Orphic\nrites in all their primitive freshness. The religion of Dionysos was not\nthe only faith that taught man he could become a god. The dead Egyptian\nalso believed that he could become Osiris. The Orphic in Crete and Lower\nItaly may have had rites dealing with his conduct in the next world more\ndirectly than those of the Great Mother or of Eleusis.\n\nThis is made the more probable from the fact that we certainly know\nthat the sect of the Pythagoreans had special burial rites, strictly\nconfined to the Initiated. Of this Plutarch[1483] incidentally gives\nclear evidence in his discourse of \u2018The Daemon of Socrates.\u2019 A young\nPythagorean, Lysis, came to Thebes and died there and was buried by his\nTheban friends. His ghost appeared in a dream to the Pythagorean friends\nhe had left in Italy. The Pythagoreans, more skilled in these matters\nthan modern psychical experts, had a certain sign by which they knew\nthe apparition of a dead man from the phantasm of the living. They got\nanxious as to how Lysis had been buried, for \u2018there is something special\nand sacrosanct (\u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) that takes place at the burial of the Pythagoreans\nand is peculiar to them, and if they do not attain this rite they think\nthat they will fail in reaching the very happy end that is proper to\nthem.\u2019 So concerned were some of the Pythagoreans that they wished to\nhave the body of Lysis disinterred and brought to Italy to be reburied.\nAccordingly one of them, Theanor, started for Thebes to make enquiries as\nto what had been done. He was directed by the people of the place to the\ntomb and went in the evening to offer libations, and he invoked the soul\nof Lysis to give inspired direction as to what was to be done. \u2018As the\nnight went on,\u2019 Theanor recounts, \u2018I saw nothing, but I thought I heard\na voice say \u201cMove not that which should not be moved,\u201d for the body of\nLysis was buried by his friends with sacrosanct ceremonies (\u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c2), and\nhis spirit is already separated from it and set free into another birth,\nhaving obtained a share in another spirit.\u2019 On enquiry next morning\nTheanor found that Lysis had imparted to a friend all the secret of the\nmysteries so that the funeral rites had been performed after Pythagorean\nfashion.\n\nWhat precisely the \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, the sacrosanct rites, were we cannot in detail\nsay, but we may be tolerably sure that something special was done for\nthe man who had been finally initiated, who was like the Cretan mystic\n\u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2, \u2018consecrated.\u2019 This something may have included the burial with\nhis body of tablets inscribed with sentences from his \u2018Book of the Dead.\u2019\nThis I think is implied in a familiar passage of Plato. Socrates in the\n_Phaedo_[1484] says that \u2018the journey to Hades does not seem to him a\nsimple road like that described by Aeschylus in the _Telephos_. On the\ncontrary it is neither simple nor one. If it were there would be no need\nof guides. But it appears in point of fact to have many partings of the\nways and circuits. And this,\u2019 he adds, \u2018I say conjecturing it from the\ncustomary and sacrosanct (\u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd) rites which we observe in this world.\u2019\nThe customary rites (\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1) were for each and all; the sacrosanct rites\n(\u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1) were for the initiated only, for they only were sacrosanct (\u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9).\n\nThe Pythagoreans we know revived the custom of burial in the earth,\nwhich had been at least in part superseded by the Northern practice of\ncremation. It was part of their general return to things primitive. Earth\nwas the kingdom of \u2018Despoina, Queen of the underworld,\u2019 who was more\nto them than Zeus of the upper air. To their minds bent on symbolism\nburial itself would be a consecration, they would remember that to the\nAthenians the dead were \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9[1485], Demeter\u2019s people, that burial\nwas refused to the traitor because he was unworthy \u2018to be consecrated\nby earth[1486],\u2019 and burial in itself may well have been to them as to\nAntigone a mystic marriage:\n\n \u2018I have sunk beneath the bosom of Despoina, Queen of the Underworld.\u2019\n\n\n_b._ ORPHIC VASES OF LOWER ITALY.\n\nOrphic religion, as seen on the tablets just discussed, is singularly\nfree from \u2018other-worldliness.\u2019 It is a religion promising, indeed,\nimmortality, but instinct not so much with the hope of future rewards\nas with the ardent longing after perfect purity; it is concerned with\nthe state of a soul rather than with its circumstances. We have the\ncertainty of beatitude for the initiated, the \u2018seats of the blessed,\u2019 the\n\u2018groves of Phersephoneia,\u2019 but the longing uttered is ecstatic, mystic\nnot sensuous; it is summed up in the line:\n\n \u2018Happy and Blessed One, thou shalt be God instead of mortal.\u2019\n\nNone knew better than the Orphic himself that this was only for the few:\n\u2018Many are they that carry the narthex, few are they that are made one\nwith Bacchus.\u2019 For the many there remained other and lower beatitudes,\nthere remained also\u2014a thing wholly absent from the esoteric Orphic\ndoctrine\u2014the fear of punishment, punishment conceived not as a welcome\npurification, but as a fruitless, endless vengeance. Of the existence of\nthis lower faith or rather _un_faith in the popular forms of Orphism we\nhave definite and curious evidence from a class of vases, found in Lower\nItaly, representing scenes in the underworld and obviously designed under\nOrphic influence.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTwo specimens[1487] of these \u2018Apulian\u2019 vases are given in figs. 163 and\n164. It will be obvious at the first glance that the composition of both\ndesigns is substantially the same. This need not oblige us to conjecture\nany one great work of art of which these two and the other designs not\nfigured here are copies; it only shows that some vase-painter of note in\nthe 4th century B.C. conceived the scheme and it became popular in his\nfactory.\n\nThe main lines of both compositions are as follows: in the centre the\npalace of Hades with Plouton and Persephone. Immediately below, and\nalso occupying a central position, is Herakles, carrying off Cerberus.\nImmediately to the left of the temple and therefore also fairly central,\nis the figure of Orpheus. About these central figures various groups of\ncriminals and other denizens of Hades are diversely arrayed.\n\nWith this scheme in our minds we may examine the first specimen, the most\nimportant of the series, because inscribed. The vase itself, now in the\nNaples Museum and usually known from the place where it was found as the\n\u2018Altamura\u2019 vase[1488], is in a disastrous condition. It was put together\nout of hundreds of fragments, painted over and freely restored after\nthe fashion of the day, and it has never yet been subjected to a proper\nchemical cleaning. Much therefore in the drawing remains uncertain,\nand only such parts and inscriptions will be dealt with as are above\nsuspicion.\n\nThe palace of Hades, save for the suspended wheels (p. 591), presents no\nfeatures of interest. In the \u2018Altamura\u2019 vase many of its architectural\nfeatures are from the hand of the restorer, but from the other vases the\nmain outlines are sure. In the Altamura vase both Hades and Persephone\nare seated\u2014in the others sometimes Persephone, sometimes Plouton\noccupies the throne. Had the designs been exclusively inspired by\nOrphic tradition, more uniform stress would probably have been laid on\nPersephone.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 163.]\n\nThe figure of Orpheus, common to both vases, is interesting from its\ndress, which reminds us of Vergil\u2019s[1489] description,\n\n \u2018There too the Thracian priest in trailing robe.\u2019\n\nThe vase-painter of the late 4th cent. B.C. was more archaeologist than\npatriot. In the Lesche picture of Polygnotus, Pausanias[1490] expressly\nnotes that Orpheus was \u2018Greek in appearance,\u2019 and that neither his\ndress nor the covering he had on his head was Thracian. The Orpheus of\nPolygnotus must have been near akin to the beautiful Orpheus of the\nvase-painter in fig. 142. Polygnotus, too, made him \u2018seated as it were\non a sort of hill, and grasping his cithara with his left hand; with\nthe other he was touching some sprays of willow, and he leant against a\ntree.\u2019 Very different this from the frigid ritual priest.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 164.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nAbout this figure of Orpheus an amazing amount of nonsense has been\nwritten. The modern commentator thinks of Orpheus as two things\u2014as\nmagical musician, which he _was_, as passionate lover, which in early\ndays he was _not_. The commentator\u2019s mind is obsessed by \u2018Che far\u00f2 senza\nte, Eurydice?\u2019 He asks himself the question, \u2018Why has Orpheus descended\ninto Hades?\u2019 and the answer rises automatically, \u2018To fetch Eurydice.\u2019\nAs regards these Lower Italy vases there is one trifling objection to\nthis interpretation, and that is that _there is no Eurydice_. Tantalos,\nSisyphos, Danaides, Herakles, but no Eurydice. This does not deter the\ncommentator. The figure of Eurydice is \u2018inferred rather than expressed.\u2019\nHappily this line of interpretation, which might lead us far, has been\nput an end to by the discovery of a vase in which Eurydice _does_ appear;\nOrpheus leads her by the wrist and a love-god floats above. It is evident\nthat when the vase-painter wishes to \u2018express\u2019 Eurydice he does not leave\nher to be \u2018inferred.\u2019\n\nIt may be taken as an axiom in Greek mythology that passionate lovers are\nalways late. The myth of Eurydice is of considerable interest, but not as\na love-story. It is a piece of theology taken over from Dionysos, and,\nprimarily, has nothing to do with Orpheus. Anyone who realizes Orpheus at\nall would feel that the intrusion of desperate emotion puts him out of\nkey. Semele, the green earth, comes up from below, year by year; with her\ncomes her son Dionysos, and by a certain instinct of chivalry men said he\nhad gone to fetch her. The mantle of Dionysos descends on Orpheus.\n\nEurydice is one of those general, adjectival names that are appropriate\nto any and every goddess: she is the \u2018Wide-Ruler.\u2019 At Trozen,\nPausanias[1491] saw \u2018a Temple of Artemis the Saviour, and in it were\naltars of those gods who are said to rule below the earth, and they\nsay that in this place Semele was brought up from Hades by Dionysos,\nand that here Herakles dragged up the hound of Hades.\u2019 Pausanias is\nsceptical: \u2018But I do not the least believe that Semele died, she who\nwas the wife of Zeus, and as to the beast called the hound of Hades, I\nshall state what I am sure is the truth about him in another place.\u2019 The\ncult of Artemis is clearly superposed over an ancient, perhaps nameless,\nanyhow forgotten cult of underworld gods. There was probably a cleft at\nhand and a legend of a rising Earth-goddess, as at the rock of Recall,\n_Anaklethra_ (p. 283), and the Smileless Rock at Eleusis (p. 127); and\nof course, given somebody\u2019s _Anodos_, a Kathodos is soon supplied, and\nthen a formal descent into Hades. At the Alcyonian lake, near Argos,\nwhich Nero tried in vain to sound, the Argives told Pausanias[1492] that\nDionysos went down to Hades to fetch Semele, and Polymnos, a local hero,\nshowed him the way down, and \u2018there were certain rites performed there\nyearly.\u2019 Unfortunately, as is mostly the case when he comes to the real\npoint, Pausanias found it would \u2018not be pious\u2019 to reveal these rites to\nthe general public. At Delphi, too, it will be remembered (p. 403), the\nThyiades knew the mystic meaning of the festival of Hero\u00efs, and \u2018even an\noutsider could conjecture,\u2019 Plutarch says, \u2018from what was done, that it\nwas an upbringing of Semele.\u2019\n\nOrpheus, priest of Dionysos, took on his resurrection as well as his\ndeath; that is the germ from which sprang the beautiful love-story. A\ntaboo-element, common to many primitive stories, is easily added. You\nmay not look back when spirits are about from the underworld. If you do\nyou may have to join them. Underworld rites are often performed \u2018without\nlooking back\u2019 (\u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03af, see p. 24 note 2).\n\n * * * * *\n\nThere is another current fallacy about these underworld vases.\nCommentators are not only prone to the romantic tendency to see a\nlove-story where none is, but, having once got the magical musician into\ntheir minds, they see him everywhere. In these vases, they say, we have\n\u2018the power of music to stay the torments of hell.\u2019 They remember, and\nsmall wonder, the amazing scene in Gluck\u2019s opera, where Orpheus comes\ndown into the shades playing on his lyre, and the clamour of hell is\nspell-bound; or they bethink them of Vergil:\n\n \u2018The very house itself, the inmost depths\n Of Death stood still to hearken.\u2019\n\nBut the vase-painter of the 4th cent. B.C. is necessarily guiltless of\nVergil as of Gluck. Moreover his work is untinged by any emotion, whether\nof poetry or religion; his composition is simply an _omnium gatherum_ of\nconventional orthodox dwellers in Hades. Orpheus is there because, by\nthat time, convention demanded his presence. The vase-painter\u2019s wealthy\nclients\u2014these Apulian vases were as expensive as they are ugly\u2014would have\nbeen ill-pleased had the founder of popular mysteries not had his fitting\nplace. But if interest focusses anywhere in a design so scattered and\ndevitalized, it is on the obvious \u2018record\u2019 of Herakles, who, tradition\nsaid, had been initiated, not on the secret magic of Orpheus. It is true\nthat the \u2018Danaides,\u2019 when they appear, are doing nothing but dangling\ntheir pitchers in attitudes meant to be decorative, but Tantalos still\nextends a hand to keep off his rock, and Sisyphos still uprolls the\n\u2018pitiless\u2019 stone; there is no pause in their torments.\n\nIt remains to note the figures in the side groups. In the top row to the\nleft are Megara and her sons, placed there by a pardonable anachronism,\nout of compliment to Herakles and Athens. We should never have guessed\ntheir names, but the inscriptions are certain. Opposite them to the\nright a group which on the Altamura vase is almost certainly due to\nrestoration. The figures are Myrtilos, Pelops, and Hippodameia. To\nthe left of Orpheus are two _Poinae_, developments, as has been seen\n(p. 231), of the tragic Erinyes. Above Sisyphos is another figure,\na favourite of the Orphics, Ananke, Necessity. Only three letters\n(\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd) of the name remain, but the restoration is practically certain.\nOpposite Orpheus are the three \u2018Judges\u2019 of Hades, Triptolemos, Aiakos,\nRhadamanthys. Below the Judges are women bearing water-vessels, to whom\nprovisionally we may give the canonical name of \u2018Danaides.\u2019 The sea horse\nis probably due to the restorer.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTurning to the Canosa vase, now in the Old Pinakothek at Munich[1493], we\nfind that, though none of the figures are inscribed, most can easily be\ntraced. Some modifications of the previous scheme must be noted. Tantalos\nthe Phrygian takes the place of the Danaides. Near Orpheus, in place of\nthe _Poinae_, is a group, man, wife and child, who are hard to interpret.\nNo mythological figures quite suit them, and some authorities incline to\nsee in the group just a human family initiated by Orpheus in his rites.\nIn face of the fact that all the other figures present are mythological,\nthis is, I think, difficult to accept. The figures are best left unnamed\ntill further evidence comes to light. On the right hand, in the top row,\nis a group of great interest, Theseus, Peiritho\u00f6s and Dike, armed with a\nsword.\n\nTo resume, we have as certain elements in these vases Orpheus, the three\nJudges of Hades, two heroes, Herakles and Theseus, who go down into Hades\nand return thence, two standard Homeric criminals, Sisyphos and Tantalos,\nand, in the case of the Altamura vase, the Danaides. The question\nnaturally rises, is there in all these figures any common factor which\ndetermines their selection, or is it a mere haphazard aggregate?\n\nThe answer is as simple as instructive, and may be stated at the outset:\n_All the canonical denizens of the underworld are hero and heroine\nfigures of the older stratum of the population_. Hades has become a sort\nof decent Dower-house to which are relegated the divinities of extinct or\ndying cults.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn discussing hero-worship, we have already seen (p. 336) that Tityos and\nSalmoneus are beings of this order. Once locally the rivals of Zeus, they\npaled before him, and as vanquished rivals became typical aggressors,\npunished for ever as a warning to the faithful. Tityos does not appear\non Lower Italy vases, but Pausanias[1494] saw him on the fresco of\nPolygnotus at Delphi, a \u2018dim and mangled spectre,\u2019 and Aeneas[1495] in\nthe underworld says:\n\n \u2018I saw Salmoneus cruel payment make,\n For that he mocked the lightning and the thunder\n Of Jove on high.\u2019\n\nIt was an ingenious theological device, or rather perhaps unconscious\ninstinct, that took these ancient hero figures, really regnant in the\nworld below, and made the place of their rule the symbol of their\npunishment. According to the old faith all men, good and bad, went below\nthe earth, great local heroes reigned below as they had reigned above;\nbut the new faith sent its saints to a remote Elysium or to the upper air\nand made this underworld kingdom a place of punishment; and in that place\nsignificantly we find that the tortured criminals _are all offenders\nagainst Olympian Zeus_.\n\nWe must confine our examination to the two typical instances selected by\nthe vase-painter, Sisyphos and Tantalos.\n\nWe are apt to think of Sisyphos and Tantalos as punished for overweening\npride and insolence, and to regard their downfall as a warning of the\nephemeral nature of earthly prosperity.\n\n \u2018Oh what are wealth and power! Tantalus\n And Sisyphus were kings long years ago,\n And now they lie in the lake dolorous;\n The hills of hell are noisy with their woe,\n Aye swift the tides of empire ebb and flow.\u2019\n\nKings they were, but kings of the old discredited order. Homer says\nnothing of their crime, he takes it as known; but in dim local legends we\ncan in both cases track out the real gist of their ill-doing: they were\nrebels against Zeus.\n\nThis is fairly clear in the case of Tantalos. According to one\nlegend[1496] he suffered because he either stole or concealed for\nPandareos the golden hound of Zeus. According to the epic author[1497]\nof the \u2018Return of the Atreidae,\u2019 he had been admitted to feast with the\ngods, and Zeus promised to grant him whatever boon he desired. \u2018He,\u2019\nAthenaeus says, \u2018being a man insatiable in his desire for enjoyment,\nasked that he might have eternal remembrance of his joys and live after\nthe same fashion as the gods.\u2019 Zeus was angry; he kept his promise, but\nadded the torment of the imminent stone. It is clear that in some fashion\nTantalos, the old hero-king, tried to make himself the equal of the new\nOlympians. The insatiable lust is added as a later justification of the\nvengeance. Tantalos is a real king, with a real grave. Pausanias[1498]\nsays, \u2018In my country there are still signs left that Pelops and Tantalos\nonce dwelt there. There is a famous grave of Tantalos, and there is\na lake called by his name.\u2019 The grave, he says elsewhere[1499], he\nhad himself seen in Mount Sipylos, and \u2018well worth seeing it was.\u2019 He\nmentions no cult, but a grave so noteworthy would not be left untended.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe legend of Sisyphos, if more obscure than that of Tantalos, is not\nless instructive. The _Iliad_ knows of Sisyphos as an ancient king. When\nGlaukos would tell his lineage to Diomede he says[1500]:\n\n \u2018A city Ephyre there was in Argos\u2019 midmost glen\n Horse-rearing, there dwelt Sisyphos the craftiest of all men,\n Sisyphos son of Aiolos, and Glaukos was his son,\n And Glaukos had for offspring blameless Bellerophon.\u2019\n\nEphyre is the ancient name of Corinth, and on Corinth Pausanias[1501] in\nhis discussion of the district has a highly significant note. He says, \u2018I\ndo not know that anyone save the majority of the Corinthians themselves\nhas ever seriously asserted that Corinthos was the son of Zeus.\u2019 He\ngoes on to say that according to Eumelus (circ. B.C. 750), the \u2018first\ninhabitant of the land was Ephyra, daughter of Okeanos.\u2019 The meaning is\ntransparent. An ancient pre-Achaean city, with an eponymous hero, a later\nattempt\u2014discredited of all but the interested inhabitants\u2014to affiliate\nthe indigenous stock to the immigrant conquerors by a new eponymous\nhero, a son of Zeus.\n\nThe epithet \u2018craftiest,\u2019 \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, is, as Eustathius[1502] observes, a\n\u2018mid-way expression,\u2019 i.e. for better for worse. \u2018Glaukos,\u2019 he says in\nhis observant way, \u2018does not wish to speak evil of his ancestor.\u2019 The\nword he uses means very clever (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), very ready and versatile\n(\u03b5\u1f50\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2). It is in fact no more an epithet of blame than\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u2018of many wiles,\u2019 the stock epithet of Odysseus. Eustathius\ngoes on to explain the meaning of the name Sisyphos. Sisyphos, he says,\nwas among the ancients a word of the same significance as \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2,\ndivinely wise, \u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 being among the Peloponnesians a form of \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. He\ncites the oath used by comic poets, \u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f7c \u03c3\u03b9\u03ce for \u03bd\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u2018by\nthe gods.\u2019 Whether Eustathius is right, and Sisyphos means \u2018divinely\nwise,\u2019 or whether we adopt the current etymology[1503] and make Sisyphos\na reduplicated form of \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2, i.e. the \u2018Very Very Wise One,\u2019 thus much is\nclear. The title was traditionally understood as of praise rather than\nblame, and it is not rash to see in it one of the cultus epithets of the\nold religion like \u2018The Blameless One.\u2019\n\nIt is as a benefactor that Sisyphos appears in local legend. It was\nSisyphos, Pausanias[1504] says, who found the child Melicertes, buried\nhim, and instituted in his honour the Isthmian games. It was to Sisyphos\nthat Asopos[1505] gave the fountain behind the temple of Aphrodite, and\nfor a reason most significant. \u2018Sisyphos,\u2019 the story says, \u2018knew that it\nwas Zeus who had carried off Aegina, the daughter of Asopos, but he would\nnot tell till the spring on Acrocorinthus was given him. Asopos gave it\nhim, and then he gave information, and for that information he, if you\nlike to believe it, paid the penalty in Hades.\u2019 Pausanias is manifestly\nsceptical, but his story touches the real truth. Sisyphos is the ally\nof the indigenous river Asopos. Zeus carries off the daughter of the\nneighbouring land; Sisyphos, hostile to the conqueror, gave information,\nand for that hostility he suffers in Hades. But though he points a moral\nin Olympian eschatology, he remains a great local power. The stronghold\nof the lower city bore his name, the Sisypheion. Diodorus[1506] relates\nhow it was besieged by Demetrius, and when it was taken the garrison\nsurrendered. It must have been a place of the old type, half fortress\nhalf sanctuary. Strabo[1507] notes that in his day extensive ruins of\nwhite marble remained, and he is in doubt whether to call it temple or\npalace.\n\nAs to the particular punishment selected for Sisyphos, a word remains\nto be said. It bears no relation to his supposed offence, whether that\noffence be the cheating of Death or the betrayal of Zeus. His doom is\nceaselessly to upheave a stone. Reluctant though I am to resort to\nsun-myths, it seems that here the sun counts for something. The sun\nwas regarded by the sceptical as a large red-hot stone: its rising and\nsetting might very fitly be represented as the heaving of such a stone\nup the steep of heaven, whence it eternally rolls back. The worship of\nHelios was established at Corinth[1508]; whether it was due to Oriental\nimmigration or to some pre-Hellenic stratum of population cannot here be\ndetermined. Sisyphos was a real king, the place of his sepulture on the\nIsthmus was known only to a few. It may have been kept secret like that\nof Neleus[1509] for prophylactic purposes. But a real king may and often\ndoes take on some of the features and functions of a nature god[1510].\n\n * * * * *\n\nOn the \u2018Canosa\u2019 vase, immediately above Tantalos, is a group of three\nJudges, carrying sceptres. On the Altamura vase are also three Judges,\noccupying the same place in the composition, and happily they are\ninscribed\u2014Triptolemos, Aiakos, and Rhadamanthys. Two of the three,\nTriptolemos and Aiakos, certainly belong to the earlier stratum.\n\nTriptolemos had never even the shadowiest connection with any Olympian\nsystem; there is no attempt to affiliate him; he ends as he began, the\nfoster-child of Demeter and Kore, and by virtue of his connection with\nthe \u2018Two Goddesses\u2019 of the underworld he reigns below. Demeter and Kore,\nthe ancient Mother and Maid, were strong enough to withstand, nay to\nout-top, any number of Olympian divinities. To tamper with the genealogy\nof their local hero was felt to be useless and never attempted.\n\nIn striking contrast to Triptolemos, Aiakos seems at first sight entirely\nof the later stratum. He is father of the great Homeric heroes, Telamon\nand Peleus, and when a drought afflicts Greece it is he who by sacrifice\nand prayer to Pan-Hellenian Zeus procures the needful rain. Recent\ninvestigation[1511] has, however, clearly shown that Aiakos is but one of\nthe countless heroes taken over, affiliated by the new religion, and his\ncult, though overshadowed, was never quite extinguished. One fact alone\nsuffices to prove this. Pausanias[1512] saw and described a sanctuary\nin Aegina known as the Aiakeion. \u2018It stood in the most conspicuous part\nof the city, and consisted of a quadrangular precinct of white marble.\nWithin the precinct grew ancient olives, and there was there also an\naltar rising only a little way from the ground, and it was said, as a\nsecret not to be divulged, that this altar was the tomb of Aiakos.\u2019 The\naltar-tomb was probably of the form already discussed (p. 63) and seen in\nfig. 9. Such a tomb, as altar, presupposes the cult of a hero.\n\nMinos does not appear on these Lower Italy vases. In his place is\nRhadamanthys, his brother and like him a Cretan. The reason of the\nsubstitution is perhaps not far to seek. Eustathius[1513] notes that\nsome authorities held that Minos was a pirate and others that he was\njust and a lawgiver. It is not hard to see to which school of thinkers\nthe Athenians would be apt to belong, and the Lower Italy vases are\nmanifestly under Attic influence. If the old Cretan tradition had to\nbe embodied, Rhadamanthys was a safe non-committal figure. He is most\nat home in the Elysian fields, a conception that was foreign to the\nold order. As brother of Minos, Rhadamanthys must have belonged to\nthe old Pelasgian dark-haired stock, but we find with some surprise\nthat he is in the _Odyssey_ \u2018golden-haired\u2019 (\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2), like any other\nAchaean. Eustathius hits the mark when he says[1514], \u2018Rhadamanthys is\ngolden-haired, out of compliment to Menelaos, for Menelaos had golden\nhair.\u2019\n\nHerakles and Theseus remain, and need not long detain us. Herakles is\nobviously no permanent denizen of Hades; he is triumphant, not tortured;\nhe hales Cerberus to the upper air, and that there may be no mistake\nHermes points the way. It has already been seen (p. 55) that Herakles was\na hero, _the_ hero well worth Olympianizing though he never became quite\nOlympianized. In the _Nekuia_, when the poet is describing Herakles, he\nis caught on the horns of a dilemma between the old and the new faith,\nand instinctively he betrays his predicament. Odysseus[1515] says:\n\n \u2018Next Herakles\u2019 great strength I looked upon,\n His shadow, for the man himself is gone\n To join him with the gods immortal; there\n He feasts and hath for bride Hebe the fair.\u2019\n\nThe case of Theseus is different. In the Hades of Vergil[1516] he is a\ncriminal condemned for ever:\n\n \u2018There sits, and to eternity shall sit,\n Unhappy Theseus.\u2019\n\nBut on these Lower Italy vases we have again to reckon with Athenian\ninfluence. Theseus is of the old order, son of Poseidon, but Athens was\nnever fully Olympianized, and she will not have her hero in disgrace.\nHad he not a sanctuary at Athens, an ancient asylum[1517]? Were not his\nbones brought in solemn pomp from Skyros[1518]? So the matter is adjusted\nwith considerable tact. Theseus, never accounted as guilty as Peiritho\u00f6s,\nis suffered to return to the upper air, Peiritho\u00f6s has to remain below;\nand this satisfies Justice, Dike, the woman seated by his side. That\nthe woman holding the sword is none other than Dike herself is happily\ncertain, for she appears inscribed on the fragment of another and similar\namphora in the Museum at Carlsruhe[1519]. Near her on this fragment is\nPeiritho\u00f6s, also inscribed.\n\nSo far in our consideration of the criminals of Hades it might seem as\nthough they owed their existence purely to theological _animus_. They\nare, we have seen, figures of the old religion degraded by the new.\nBut to suppose that this was the sole clue to their presence would\nbe a grave mistake. The notion of punishment, and especially eternal\npunishment, cannot be fairly charged to the account of Homer and the\nOlympian religion he represents. This religion was too easy-going, too\nessentially aristocratic to provide an eternity even of torture for the\nreligious figures it degraded and despised. Enough for it if they were\ncarelessly banished to their own proper kingdom, the underworld. It is,\nalas, to the Orphics, not to the Achaeans, that religion owes the dark\ndisgrace of a doctrine of eternal punishment. The Orphics were concerned,\nas has fully been seen, with two things, immortality and purification;\nthe two notions to them were inseparable, but by an easy descent the\npains that were for purification became for vengeance. The germ of such a\ndoctrine is already in the line:\n\n \u2018I have paid the penalty for deeds unrighteous.\u2019\n\nThe lower kind of Orphic could not rid of vengeance the Hades he made in\nhis own vindictive image. We have seen (p. 507) the heights to which Dike\ncould rise as Heavenly Justice, as Purity; here in Hades she descends to\nanother and more human level.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 165.]\n\nThe figure of Dike in art was not invented by the artist of the Lower\nItaly vases. She is quaintly figured in the design in fig. 165, from an\namphora in the Museum at Vienna[1520]. Dike, with uplifted mallet, is\nabout to pound the head of an ugly speckled woman, Adikia, Injustice.\nThe vase, though not signed by Nikosthenes, is manifestly of his school,\nand therefore dates about the turn of the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.\nThe figure of Dike smiting with the mallet or club was familiar to\nliterature. Theseus, when he learns the death of Hippolytos, asks:\n\n \u2018How then did Justice smite him with her club,\n My son who shamed me?\u2019\n\nThe Hades, then, of the Lower Italy vases is a popular blend of Orphism\nand of Olympian theology, or rather of ancient Pelasgian figures viewed\nthrough the medium of Olympianism. The old stratum provides the material,\nthe new stratum degrades it, and Orphism moralises it.\n\n\nTHE DANAIDES.\n\nWe have left to the end the figures of the \u2018Danaides,\u2019 the maiden-figures\ncarrying water-jars, who on the Altamura vase[1521] stand in the lowest\nrow on the right hand. The \u2018Danaides\u2019 have been reserved advisedly,\nbecause in their case we have positive evidence of the blend between new\nand old.\n\nWhen mention is made of the water-carriers in Hades, maidens who carry\nwater in a leaky vessel, to the modern mind the name \u2018Danaides\u2019 instantly\noccurs:\n\n \u2018O Danaides, O sieve.\u2019\n\nThe association is real and valid, but its cause and origin have been\nmisunderstood, and thereby much confusion has arisen.\n\nThe water-carriers of Hades are familiar to us mainly through the famous\nattack made by Plato[1522] in the _Republic_ on Orphic eschatology.\nSeizing, according to his fashion, on the lower side of Orphism, Plato\ncomplains that it is riddled through and through with other-worldliness.\nHomer and Hesiod promise to the just man good in this life, \u2018bees\u2019 and\n\u2018woolly sheep,\u2019 and \u2018trees laden with fruit,\u2019 and \u2018wealthy marriages\u2019\nand \u2018high offices.\u2019 That in Plato\u2019s eyes is bad enough, but religious\npoets, among them Orpheus, do worse. \u2018Still more lusty are the blessings\nthat Musaeus and his son give on behalf of the gods to the just, for on\ntheir showing they take them down into Hades and set them on couches and\nprepare a Banquet of the Blest; they crown them with garlands and make\nthem spend their whole time being drunk, accounting eternal drunkenness\nto be the fairest reward of virtue; and others lengthen out still longer\nthe recompense given by the gods, saying that there shall be children\u2019s\nchildren and a posterity of the blessed and those who keep faith. In\nsuch and the like fashion do they sing the praise of justice. But the\nimpious and unjust they bury in a kind of mud in Hades, and compel them\nto carry water in a sieve.\u2019\n\nThe \u2018immortal drunkenness\u2019 promised as guerdon to the blessed was of\ncourse conceived of by the higher sort of Orphic as a spiritual ecstasy,\nby the lower Orphic as merely eternal banqueting. The notion was easily\npopularized, for the germ of it existed in the \u2018Hero-feast\u2019 already\ndiscussed (p. 350), and these \u2018Hero-feasts,\u2019 we have seen, were taken\nover by Dionysos.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe mud and the sieve to which the impious were condemned remain to be\nconsidered. They can only be understood in relation to Orphic ritual,\nand in this relation are instantly clear. Daubing with mud was, we have\nseen (p. 492), an integral rite in certain Orphic mysteries. The rite\nneglected on earth by the impious must be performed for ever in Hades.\nThe like notion lies at the bottom of the water-carrying. He who did not\npurify himself on earth by initiation must for ever purify himself in\nHades. But the vindictive instinct, always alive in man, adds, it is too\nlate, he carries water in a pierced vessel, a sieve, and carries it for\never.\n\nIt is often said by modern commentators who have made no trial of eternal\nburning that fruitless labour is the greatest of all punishments. Goethe\nwas the first offender. \u2018The ancients,\u2019 he says, \u2018rightly considered\nfruitless labour as the greatest of all torments, and the punishments\nwhich Tantalos, Sisyphos, the Danaides and the Uninitiated undergo in\nHades bear witness to this.\u2019 But it is not in this reflective fashion\nthat primitive mythology and eschatology are made.\n\nThe word used by Plato for those who carry the water in the sieve\nis noteworthy, it is \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, which perhaps is best translated\n\u2018unconsecrated ones.\u2019 The word \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 we have already seen denoted\ncomplete initiation, the full and final stage; \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 is almost, though\nnot quite, \u2018uninitiated.\u2019 In the _Phaedo_, Plato does not mention the\nwater-carriers, but he says explicitly what he here implies, that those\nwho lie in mud are those uninitiated in the mysteries. \u2018I think,\u2019 says\nSocrates, \u2018that those who founded our mysteries were not altogether\nfoolish, but from old had a hidden meaning when they said that whoso goes\nto Hades uninitiated (\u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), and not having finally accomplished the\nrites (\u1f00\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), will lie in mud.\u2019\n\nAgain, when in the _Gorgias_ Plato[1523] notes the moralization of\nthe notion of the water-carrying, he quite clearly states that the\nwater-carriers are the uninitiated. Socrates is refuting the notion\npropounded by Callicles that the full satisfaction of the passions is\nvirtue. \u2018You make of life a fearful thing,\u2019 he says, and I think perhaps\nEuripides was right when he said:\n\n \u2018Life may be death, death life\u2014who knows?\u2019\n\n\u2018A certain philosopher,\u2019 he goes on, \u2018has said we are dead, and that the\nbody (\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1) is a tomb (\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1).\u2019 This doctrine, it will be remembered, was\nfathered in the _Cratylus_ on the Orphics. Then with the notion of the\ntomb-body (\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c3\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1) still in his mind, Socrates continues: \u2018A certain\ningenious man, probably an Italian or a Sicilian, playing on the word,\ninvented a myth in which he called that part of the soul which is the\nseat of the desires a _pithos_, because it was _bid_able (\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd) and\npersuadable, and he called the ignorant \u201cunshutting\u201d (\u1f00\u03bc\u03c5\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) ...\nand he declared that of the souls in Hades the uninitiated were most\nmiserable, for they carry water into a _pithos_ which is pierced, with a\nsieve that is pierced in like manner.\u2019 Whether the \u2018ingenious man\u2019 was\nEmpedocles or Pythagoras is not for our purpose important; both held\nOrphic doctrines, and one of these doctrines was that the uninitiated\ncarried water in Hades. It has not, I think, been noticed that the tomb\n(\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1) as a symbol of the body evidently suggests the _pithos_ or jar\nas symbol of the seat of the desires. We have seen in discussing the\nAnthesteria (p. 43) that the souls rise from a grave-_pithos_.\n\nSo far it must be distinctly noted that Plato nowhere calls the\nwater-carriers in Hades _Danaides_. The first literary source for the\nDanaides _as water-carriers in Hades_ is the pseudo-Platonic dialogue\nthe _Axiochus_[1524]. In Hades, we are there told, is the region of the\nunholy (\u03c7\u1ff6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u1ff6\u03bd) and the \u2018unaccomplished water-carryings of the\nDanaides\u2019 (\u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u0390\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2). The word \u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u2018unaccomplished,\u2019\nmeans also uninitiated, and we are left in doubt\u2014a doubt probably\nintentional, as to which meaning is here proposed. The whole purport\nof the _Axiochus_ is to prepare a coward to face death decently, and\nthe dialogue is full of mysticism. We have as the meed of the blessed\n\u2018flowery meadows,\u2019 streams of \u2018pure water,\u2019 \u2018drinking feasts with songs,\u2019\nand the like. Moreover and most significant of all, the uninitiated have\n\u2018some sort of _proedria_\u2019 or right of the first place, and even in Hades\nthey \u2018_go on performing their pure and sanctified rites_.\u2019 It is the very\nmirror of the heaven where\n\n \u2018Congregations ne\u2019er break up and Sabbaths have no end.\u2019\n\nTo Plato, then, the water-carriers of Hades are \u2018uninitiated\u2019; by the\ntime of the _Axiochus_ they are Danaides: what is the connecting link?\nThe answer must wait till the evidence of art has been examined.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 166.]\n\nThe evidence of vase-painting is of high importance, because we possess\ntwo black-figured vases which antedate Plato by more than a century.\nThe design in fig. 166 is from an amphora in the old Pinakothek[1525]\nin Munich. The scene is laid in the underworld; of that we are sure\nfrom the figure of Sisyphos. On the reverse of the vase (not figured\nhere) Herakles is represented with Cerberus. On the obverse (fig.\n166), four little winged _eidola_ (ghosts) are climbing carefully up a\nhuge _pithos_, and into it they pour water from their water-jars. The\n_pithos_, it should be noted, is sunk deep into the earth; it is in\nintent the mouth of a well. Such _pithoi_ are still to be found sunk in\nthe earth at Athens, and served the Turks for cisterns. The upper part\nof the _pithos_ is intact, so are the water-jars, but it is possible and\nindeed almost certain that the _pithos_ is thought of as pierced at the\nbottom so that the water poured in flows away into the ground:\n\n \u2018inane lymphae\n dolium fundo pereuntis _imo_.\u2019\n\nThe vase in fig. 166 is usually figured as an illustration of the\n\u2018Danaid\u2019 myth, but there is not the faintest adducible evidence that the\nwinged _eidola_ are Danaides.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 167.]\n\nThe design in fig. 167, from a black-figured lekythos in the museum at\nPalermo[1526], allows us to go a step further. The water-carriers are\nemphatically _not_ Danaides. Of the six figures who rush in grotesque\nhurry to fill the _pithos_, three are men, three women. If we give them\na name, it must be not Danaides but \u2018Uninitiated.\u2019 They are burlesqued,\nin the spirit of Aristophanes; the uninitiated soul pauses to refresh\nhis mind by pulling the donkey\u2019s tail. The donkey, it may be noted, is\nfurther evidence that the vase-painter has the mysteries in his mind.\nHe has fallen on his knees, and his burden has dropped from his back.\nThe seated old man gazes at it helplessly. There seems a reminiscence\nof the \u2018ass who carried the mysteries,\u2019 and in this topsy-turvy Hades,\nas in Aristophanes, he turns and will carry them no more. The ass and\nthe old man, sometimes called Oknos, are stock figures in the comic\nHades, and they are variously moralized. The closest literary analogy to\nour picture is offered centuries later by Apuleius[1527]. Psyche, when\nabout to descend into the lower world, is warned that when she has gone\nsome distance on the \u2018deadly way\u2019 she will come upon a lame ass and a\nlame ass-driver. The driver will ask her to pick up for him some of the\nbundles that have fallen from the ass\u2019s pack. She is to remain silent and\npass on.\n\nIt is of course matter for regret that neither of the black-figured vases\nthat we possess is inscribed. It would have been most instructive to\nlearn what that echo of popular tradition, the vase-painter, actually\n_called_ the water-carriers. Happily we have, not indeed a work of art\nitself, but the literary record of such a work in which an inscription\n_did_ occur\u2014the painting by Polygnotus of the descent of Odysseus into\nHades, frescoed on the wall of the Lesche of Delphi, and minutely\ndescribed by Pausanias.\n\n\u2018Above the figure of Penthesilea,\u2019 Pausanias[1528] says, \u2018are women\ncarrying water in broken earthen sherds.\u2019 The vessels are here described\nas broken, not pierced, and Pausanias says nothing about whether the\nvessel into which they pour is pierced or not. \u2018One of the women is\nrepresented as in the flower of her youth, the other of advanced years.\u2019\nThere were certainly no _old_ Danaides. There is no separate inscription\nover each woman, but there is an inscription common to both which says\nthey are \u2018of those who have not been initiated.\u2019 Pausanias then goes on\nto describe some other mythological figures unconnected with these women,\namong them Sisyphos, who is \u2018struggling to push a rock up a precipice.\u2019\nHe then adds, \u2018There is also in the picture a _pithos_ and an elderly\nman, a boy and two women, one just below the rock, who is young, and\nnear to the old man a woman of similar age. The others are going on\ncarrying water, but the old woman seems to have broken her hydria, but\nwhat is left in the potsherd she is pouring into the _pithos_.\u2019 As in\nthe black-figured vase-paintings it is a hydrophoria into a _pithos_,\nbut the hydriae are in some cases at least broken. How many figures in\nall Pausanias saw is not clear, owing to his disjointed account, nor\ndoes it matter, the essential thing is that they are of both sexes and\nany age\u2014they are nowise Danaides. Nor did Pausanias, charged though he\nwas with later mythological associations, suppose them to be so\u2014that the\ninscription forbade. He concludes his account thus: \u2018We inferred that\nthese also (i.e. the last group mentioned by him) were persons who held\nthe rites at Eleusis to be of no account. For the Greeks of early days\nheld initiation at Eleusis to be of as much more account than any other\nmatter as the gods are compared to the heroes.\u2019\n\nPolygnotus and Plato certainly, the black-figured vase-painter probably,\nregarded the water-carriers of Hades not as mythical Danaides, but\nas real human persons uninitiated. By the date of the _Axiochus_ the\nfruitless water-carriers are Danaides. The question still remains to\nbe answered, Why are the Danaides selected as typically Uninitiate? It\nwas, it must be noted, perfectly natural that popular theology, when it\nmade of the Uninitiate water-carriers in Hades, should seek a mythical\nprototype, but why were the Danaides selected? The reason is primarily\nsimple and obvious, though later it became curiously complex.\n\nThe Danaides of mythology were _well-nymphs_. One of the sisterhood was\ncalled Amymone: she gave her name to the spring near Lerna, still called\nin Strabo\u2019s time Amymone. Strabo[1529] preserves for us a line from an\nepic poet,\n\n \u2018Argos, waterless once, the Danai made well-watered.\u2019\n\nLong before the tragedy about their husbands, the Danaides were at work\nwatering, fertilizing thirsty Argos. The Danaides, _as merely Danaides_,\nmight fitly be represented as filling a great well-_pithos_.\n\nBut, it must next be observed, the Danaides belong to the old stratum of\nthe population, the same stratum as Tantalos, as Sisyphos, as Tityos:\nthey are of the old matriarchal order, their prayer persistently iterated\nis:\n\n \u2018We, the great seed of a Holy Mother, ah me!\n Grant us that we\n Unwed, unsubdued, from marriage of men may flee[1530].\u2019\n\nIn the _Suppliants_ of Aeschylus it is from a marriage they deem lawless\nthat the Danaides flee, and their act is justified. Behind the legend we\nseem to discern, though dimly, the reflection of some shift of old to\nnew, some transition from matriarchal freedom to patriarchal marriage\nenactments. In any case, in the late orthodox form of the myth, we meet\nthe Danaides as criminals, and their crime is clearly not only that of\nmurder, but of rejection of marriage. What was justified by the old order\nwas criminal in the new. Here was an opportunity for the moralist. Of old\nthe Danaides carried water because they were well-nymphs; the new order\nhas made them criminals, and it makes of their fruitful water-carrying a\nfruitless punishment\u2014an atonement for murder[1531].\n\nIt will readily be seen that the well-nymphs, regarded by the new order\nas guilty maidens seeking purification, offered just the mythological\nprototype needed for the uninitiated water-carriers. Once the analogy was\nseized, many further traits of resemblance would eagerly be added. At\nthe lake of Lerna, near which was the spring known as Amymone, expiatory\npurifications were, Strabo[1532] tells us, actually performed. Hence,\nhe says, arose the expression \u2018a Lerna of ills.\u2019 It was the custom no\ndoubt at Lerna as in many another swamp and lake to bury \u2018purifications\u2019\n(\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1). Such rites of the old order were the \u2018mysteries\u2019 of\nprimitive religion. Herodotus[1533] expressly tells us that it was the\nDanaides who taught to the Pelasgian women the sacred rites of Demeter,\nwhich the Greeks called Thesmophoria, and of which Herodotus dares not\ndisclose the full details. The Danaides, who later became types of the\nUninitiated, were, it would seem, the prime Initiators. So does theology\nshift.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAnother ritual fact helped out the fusion and confusion. To the Roman\nChurch marriage is a sacrament, to the Anglican still \u2018an excellent\nmystery.\u2019 In like fashion to the Greeks marriage was conceived of as a\nrite of initiation, and through initiation of consummation; the word\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7 in its plural form was used of all mysteries, the singular form\nwas expressly applied to marriage. Pollux[1534], in discussing wedding\nceremonies, says, \u2018and marriage is called \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, i.e. a rite that\ncompletes, and those who have been married are called complete, and on\nthis account the Hera of marriage is called Teleia, the Complete One.\u2019\nIt has already been seen (p. 533) that one special rite of purification,\nthe _Liknophoria_, was common to marriage and the mysteries. The same is\ntrue of the _Loutrophoria_, carrying of the bath. Is it surprising that\nin the figures of the well-nymphs some ingenious person saw the Danaides\nas \u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u2018uninitiated in marriage,\u2019 and therefore condemned\nto carry for ever in vain the water for their bridal bath in Hades?\nThe more so as, if we may trust Eustathius[1535], it was the custom\nto place \u2018on the grave of those who died unmarried a water jar called\n_Loutrophoros_[1536] in token that the dead had died unbathed and without\noffspring.\u2019 Probably these vases, as Dr Frazer[1537] suggests, were at\nfirst placed on the graves of the unmarried with the kindly intent of\nhelping the desolate unmarried ghost to accomplish his wedding in the\nworld below. But once the custom fixed, it might easily be interpreted as\nthe symbol of an underworld punishment.\n\nSome versions of the story say that the water was carried in a sieve\n(\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u1ff3). This notion may have arisen from another ritual practice. It\nis noticeable that the sieves of the stone age seem to have been simply\npierced jars. Sieve and _pithos_ were one and the same. Carrying water in\na sieve was an ancient test of virginity. Pliny[1538] tells us that the\ntest of the sieve was applied to the Vestal Tuccia. If the water-carrying\nof the Danaides was conceived as a virginity test, the forty-nine sisters\nmarried before the murder would fail at the test, and Hypermnestra alone\nwould carry the water in the leaky sieve:\n\n \u2018Splendide mendax et in omne _virgo_\n Nobilis aevum[1539].\u2019\n\nFinally, it will be remembered (p. 575) that the Orphics had their Well\nof Memory, which was in effect a Well of Life. It would not escape a\nmystic who saw the figures of the water-carriers that these were drawing\nwater for ever but in vain from the Well of Life. So the scholiast[1540]\nto Aristides in quaint fashion interprets the myth: \u2018the pierced _pithos_\nof the Danaides,\u2019 he says, \u2018signifies that the Danaides after the murder\nof their dearest can never obtain from another man the grace of the\nliving water of marriage.\u2019 The notion of a \u2018Water of Life\u2019 haunts him,\nbut he knows the real gist of the symbolism, for he adds: they have\n\u2018become suspected on account of their pollution.\u2019 Of the making of such\nmysticism there is clearly no end.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe symbolism of marriage, of virginity tests, of living water might,\ndoubtless did, gather about the figures of the Danaides, but the primary\nnotion that fitted them to be mythical prototypes of the \u2018Uninitiated\u2019\nwas that they were polluted, uncleansed. They are Choephoroi, but in\nvain; the libations that they pour into the grave-_pithoi_ of their\nhusbands are a \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2, an attempted offscouring, \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1, but no\nreal purification. Of such a vain Choephoria performed by Clytaemnestra\nElectra[1541] says:\n\n \u2018It is not right or meet\n By law of gods or men that from a hateful wife\n Grave-dues and washings should be brought my father.\n Give them the winds, or in the deep dug earth\n Go hide them.\u2019\n\nThe water-carriers in Hades have been discussed at some length[1542],\nbecause they afford an instance typical of the methods of Orphic\nprocedure. In discussing the mysteries it has been repeatedly seen\nthat Orphism did not invent new rites, but mysticized and moralized\nold ones. In like fashion when Orphism developes eschatology, it takes\nfor its material the mythology of the older stratum[1543], invents\nno new figures but gives to the old ones an intensified and moralized\nsignificance.\n\nThe Orphic tablets showed us the heights to which Orphism could rise. If\nwe are inclined to estimate over highly the general level of the Orphic\nfaith, the Lower Italy vases may correct the error. They mirror Orphism\nas it seemed to the many. In the matter of doctrine, instead of or at\nbest in addition to purification, we have vindictive punishment; in the\nmatter of theology, in place of what was practically monotheism on the\ntablets, the vases restore the old popular polytheism.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is natural to ask, Is this the end? Did Orphism create no new figure,\nmake no new god in its own purified image? The answer to this question\nwill be found in our concluding enquiry as to the nature of Orphic\nCosmogony.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nORPHIC COSMOGONY.\n\n \u2018\u1f69\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9....\u2019\n\n\nIf, in attempting to understand Orphic Theogony, we turn to the\ncollection of hymns known as \u2018Orphic,\u2019 hymns dating for the most part\nabout the 4th century A.D., we find ourselves at once in an atmosphere\nof mystical monotheism. We have addresses to the various Olympians,\nto Zeus and Apollo and Hera and Athene and the rest, but these are no\nlonger the old, clear-cut, departmental deities, with attributes sharply\ndistinguished and incommunicable; the outlines are all blurred; we feel\nthat everyone is changing into everyone else. A few traditional epithets\nindeed remain; Poseidon is still \u2018dark-haired,\u2019 and \u2018Lord of Horses\u2019\u2014he\nis a stubborn old god and hard to fuse; but, for the most part, sooner or\nlater, all divinities greater or less, mingle in the mystery melting-pot,\nall become \u2018multiform,\u2019 \u2018mighty,\u2019 \u2018all-nourishing,\u2019 \u2018first-born,\u2019\n\u2018saviours,\u2019 \u2018all-glorious,\u2019 and the like. In a word the several gods by\nthis time are all really one, and this one god is mystically conceived as\na potency (\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd) rather than a personal divinity (\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2).\n\nThe doctrine of the mutation of the gods, now into one shape, now into\nanother, was, it would seem, part of the regular symbolic teaching of\nthe mysteries. It is easy to see that such a doctrine would lend itself\nreadily to the notion of their interchangeability. Proclus says[1544]:\n\u2018In all the rites of initiation and mysteries the gods exhibit their\nshapes as many, and they appear changing often from one form to another,\nand now they are made manifest in the emission of formless light, now\ntaking human shape, now again in other and different form.\u2019\n\nBy the date of the \u2018Hymns\u2019 monotheism was of course in some degree the\ncommon property of all educated minds, and cannot therefore be claimed\nas distinctive of Orphism. Wholly Orphic, however, is the mystical\njoy with which the Hymns brim over; they are \u2018full of repetitions and\nmagniloquence, and make for emotion[1545].\u2019 They are like learned,\nself-conscious, even pretentious echoes of the simple ecstasy of the\ntablets.\n\nIt would therefore be idle to examine the Orphic Hymns severally and in\ndetail, in order to extract from them the Orphic characteristics of each\nparticular god. Any one who reads them through will speedily be conscious\nthat, save for the pro\u0153mium, and an occasional stereotyped epithet, it\nwould usually be impossible to determine which hymn was addressed to what\ngod. With whatever attempt at individualization they begin, the poet is\nsoon safe away into a mystical monotheism. A more profitable enquiry is,\nhow far did primitive Orphism attempt monotheism, and of what nature was\nthe one God whom the Orphic made in his own image? Here, fortunately, we\nare not left wholly without evidence.\n\n\nTHE WORLD-EGG.\n\nIn the _Birds_ of Aristophanes[1546], the chorus tells of a time, when\nEarth and Air and Heaven as yet were not, only Chaos was, and Night and\nblack Erebos:\n\n \u2018In the beginning of Things, black-winged Night\n Into the bosom of Erebos dark and deep\n Laid a wind-born egg, and, as the seasons rolled,\n Forth sprang Love, gleaming with wings of gold,\n Like to the whirlings of wind, Love the Delight\u2014\n And Love with Chaos in Tartaros laid him to sleep;\n And we, his children, nestled, fluttering there,\n Till he led us forth to the light of the upper air.\u2019\n\nThis is pure Orphism. Homer knows of no world-egg[1547], no birth of\nLove. Homer is so dazzled by the splendour of his human heroes and their\nradiant reflections in Olympus that his eyes never look back to see\nfrom whence they sprang. He cares as little, it seems, for the Before\nas for the Hereafter. The two indeed seem strangely linked together. An\neschatology and a cosmogony are both pathetic attempts to answer the\nquestion Homer never cared to raise, Whence came Man and the Good and\nEvil of humanity?\n\nWe have of course a cosmogony in Hesiod, Hesiod who is a peasant and a\nrebel, a man bitter and weary with the hardness of life, compelled by\nrude circumstances to ask why things are so evil, and always ready, as in\nthe myth of Pandora, to frame or borrow a crude superstitious hypothesis.\nHow much Hesiod borrowed from Orphism is hard to say. He knows of Night\nand Chaos and the birth of Eros, but he does _not_ know, or does not care\nto tell, of one characteristic Orphic element, the cosmic egg. He only\nsays[1548]:\n\n \u2018First Chaos came to be and Gaia next\n Broad-bosomed, she that was the steadfast base\n Of all things\u2014Ge, and murky Tartaros\n Deep in the hollow of wide earth. And next\n Eros, most beautiful of deathless gods,\n Looser of limbs, Tamer of heart and will\n To mortals and immortals.\u2019\n\nHesiod is not wholly Orphic, he is concerned to hurry his Eros up into\nOlympus, one and most beautiful among many, but not for Hesiod the real\nsource of life, the only God.\n\nBy common traditional consent the cosmic egg was attributed to Orpheus.\nWhether the father was Tartaros or Erebos or Chronos is of small moment\nand varies from author to author. The cardinal, essential doctrine is the\nworld-egg from which sprang the first articulate god, source and creator\nof all, Eros.\n\nDamascius[1549], in his \u2018Inquiry concerning first principles,\u2019 attributes\nthe egg to Orpheus. For Orpheus said:\n\n \u2018What time great Chronos fashioned in holy aether\n A silver-gleaming egg.\u2019\n\nIt is fortunate that Damascius has preserved the actual line, though\nof course we cannot date it. Clement of Rome[1550] in his Homilies\ncontrasts the cosmogonies of Hesiod and Orpheus. \u2018Orpheus likened Chaos\nto an egg, in which was then a blending of the primaeval elements; Hesiod\nassumes this chaos as a substratum, the which Orpheus calls an egg, a\nbirth emitted from formless matter, and the birth was on this wise....\u2019\nPlato, usually so Orphic, avoids in the _Timaeus_ all mention of the\nprimaeval egg; his mind is preoccupied with triangles, but Proclus in his\ncommentary[1551] says \u2018the \u201cbeing\u201d (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd) of Plato would be the same as\nthe Orphic egg.\u2019\n\nThe doctrine of the egg was not a mere dogmatic dead-letter. It was\ntaught to the initiated as part of their mysteries, and this leads\nus to suspect that it had its rise in a primitive taboo on eggs.\nPlutarch[1552], in consequence of a dream, abstained for a long time from\neggs. One night, he tells us, when he was dining out, some of the guests\nnoticed this, and got it into their heads that he was \u2018infected by Orphic\nand Pythagorean notions, and was refusing eggs just as certain people\nrefuse to eat the heart and brains, because he held an egg to be taboo\n(\u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) as being the principle of life.\u2019 Alexander the Epicurean,\nby way of chaff, quoted,\n\n \u2018To feed on beans is eating parents\u2019 heads.\u2019\n\n\u2018As if,\u2019 Plutarch says, \u2018the Pythagoreans meant eggs by _be_ans because\nof _be_ing (\u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1fa0\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd),\nand thought it just as bad to eat eggs as to eat the animals that laid\nthem.\u2019 It was no use, he goes on, in talking to an Epicurean, to plead a\ndream as an excuse for abstinence, for to him the explanation would seem\nmore foolish than the fact; so, as Alexander was quite pleasant about it\nand a cultivated man, Plutarch let him go on to propound the interesting\nquestion, which came first, the bird or the egg? Alexander in the course\nof the argument came back to Orpheus and, after quoting Plato about\nmatter being the mother and nurse, said with a smile,\n\n \u2018I sing to those who know\n\nthe Orphic and sacred dogma (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) which not only affirms that the egg\nis older than the bird, but gives it priority of being over all things.\u2019\nFinally, the speaker adds to his theorizing an instructive ritual fact:\n\u2018and therefore it is not inappropriate that in the orgiastic ceremonies\nin honour of Dionysos an egg is among the sacred offerings, as being the\nsymbol of what gives birth to all things, and in itself contains all\nthings.\u2019\n\nMacrobius[1553] in the _Saturnalia_ states the same fact, and gives a\nsimilar reason. \u2018Ask those who have been initiated,\u2019 he says, \u2018in the\nrites of Father Liber, in which an egg is the object of reverence,\non the supposition that it is in its spherical form the image of the\nuniverse\u2019; and Achilles Tatius[1554] says, \u2018some assert that the universe\nis cone-shaped, others egg-shaped, and this opinion is held by those who\nperform the mysteries of Orpheus.\u2019\n\nBut for the bird-cosmogony of Aristophanes we might have inclined to\nthink that the egg was a late importation into Orphic mysteries, but, the\nmore closely Orphic doctrines are examined, the more clearly is it seen\nthat they are for the most part based on very primitive ritual. A ritual\negg was good material; those who mysticized the kid and the milk would\nnot be likely to leave an egg without esoteric significance.\n\nHow, precisely, the egg was used in Orphic ritual we do not know.\nIn ordinary ceremonial it served two purposes: it was used for\n_purification_, it was an _offering to the dead_. It has been previously\nshown in detail (p. 53) that in primitive rites purgation often _is_\npropitiation of ghosts and sprites, and the two functions, propitiation\nand purgation, are summed up in the common term _devotions_ (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1).\n_Lucian_[1555] in two passages mentions eggs, together with Hecate\u2019s\nsuppers, as the refuse of \u2018purification.\u2019 Pollux is bidden by Diogenes\nto tell the Cynic Menippus, when he comes down to Hades, to \u2018fill his\nwallet with beans, and if he can he is to pick up also a Hecate\u2019s supper\nor an egg from a purification or something of the sort\u2019; and in another\ndialogue, the \u2018Landing,\u2019 Clotho, who is waiting for her victims, asks\n\u2018Where is Kyniskos the philosopher who ought to be dead from eating\nHecate\u2019s suppers and eggs from purification and raw cuttle fish too?\u2019\nAgain in Ovid\u2019s _Art of Love_[1556] the old hag who makes purifications\nfor the sick woman is to bring sulphur and eggs:\n\n \u2018Then too the aged hag must come,\n And purify both bed and home,\n And bid her, for lustration, proffer\n With palsied hands both eggs and sulphur.\u2019\n\nThat eggs were offered not only for a purification of the living, but\nas the due of the dead, is certain from the fact that they appear on\nAthenian white lekythoi among the objects brought in baskets to the\ntomb[1557].\n\nWe think of eggs rather as for nourishment than as for purification,\nthough the yolk of an egg is still used for the washing of hair.\nDoubtless, in ancient days, the cleansing action of eggs was more magical\nthan actual. As propitiatory offerings to the dead (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1) they\nbecame \u2018purifications\u2019 in general; then connection with the dead explains\nof course the taboo on them as food.\n\nStill, primitive man though pious is also thrifty. A Cynic may show his\natheism, and also eke out a scanty subsistence by eating \u2018eggs from\npurification\u2019; and even the most superstitious man may have hoped that,\nif he did not break the egg, he might cleanse himself and yet secure a\nchicken. Clement[1558] says, \u2018you may see the eggs that have been used\nfor purifications hatched, if they are subjected to warmth\u2019: he adds\ninstructively, \u2018this could not have taken place if the eggs had taken\ninto themselves the sins of the man who had been purified.\u2019 Clement\u2019s own\nstate of mind is at least as primitive as that of the \u2018heathen\u2019 against\nwhom he protests. The Orphics themselves, it is clear, merely mysticized\nan ancient ritual. Orphism is here as elsewhere only the pouring of new\nwine into very old bottles.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe may say then with certainty that the cosmic egg was Orphic, and was\nprobably[1559] a dogma based on a primitive rite. The origin of the\nwinged Eros who sprang from it is more complex. Elements many and diverse\nseem to have gone to his making.\n\n\nEROS AS HERM.\n\nHomer knows nothing of Eros as a person; with him love is of Aphrodite.\nFrom actual local cultus Eros is strangely and significantly absent.\nTwo instances only are recorded. Pausanias[1560] says, \u2018The Thespians\nhonoured Eros most of all the gods from the beginning, and they have\na very ancient image of him, an unwrought stone.\u2019 \u2018Every four years,\u2019\nPlutarch[1561] says, \u2018the Thespians celebrated a splendid festival to\nEros conjointly with the Muses.\u2019 Plutarch went to this festival very\nsoon after he was married, before his sons were born. He seems to have\ngone because of a difference that had arisen between his own and his\nwife\u2019s people, and we are expressly told by his sons that he took his\nnewly-married wife with him \u2018for both the prayer and the sacrifice were\nher affair.\u2019 Probably they went to pray for children. Plutarch, if we\nmay trust his own letter to his wife, was a kind husband, but the intent\nof the conjoint journey was strictly practical, and points to the main\nfunction of the Thespian Eros. The \u2018unwrought stone\u2019 is very remote from\nthe winged Eros, very near akin to the rude Pelasgian Hermes himself,\nown brother to the Priapos[1562] of the Hellespont and Asia Minor. There\nseems then to have gone to the making of Eros some old wide-spread\ndivinity of generation.\n\nPausanias did not know who instituted the worship of Eros among the\nThespians, but he remarks that the people of Parium on the Hellespont,\nwho were colonists from Erythrae in Ionia, worshipped him equally. He\nknew also of an older and a younger Eros. \u2018Most people,\u2019 he says, \u2018hold\nthat he is the youngest of the gods and the son of Aphrodite; but Olen\nthe Lycian (again Asia Minor), maker of the most ancient hymns among the\nGreeks, says in a hymn to Eileithyia that she is the mother of Eros.\u2019\n\u2018After Olen,\u2019 he goes on, \u2018Pamphos and Orpheus composed epic verses, and\nthey both made hymns to Eros to be sung by the Lycomids at their rites.\u2019\n\n\nEROS AS KER OF LIFE.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 168.]\n\nThe Orphic theologist found then to his hand in local cultus an ancient\ngod of life and generation, and in antique ritual another element quite\nunconnected, the egg of purification. Given an egg as the beginning of\na cosmogony, and it was almost inevitable that there should emerge from\nthe egg a bird-god, a winged thing, a source of life, more articulate\nthan the egg yet near akin to it in potency. The art-form for this winged\nthing was also ready to hand. Eros is but a specialized form of the Ker;\nthe Erotes are Keres of life, and like the Keres take the form of winged\n_Eidola_. In essence as in art-form, Keres and Erotes are near akin. The\nKeres, it has already been seen, are little winged bacilli, fructifying\nor death-bringing; but the Keres developed mainly on the dark side; they\nwent downwards, deathwards; the Erotes, instinct with a new spirit, went\nupwards, lifewards.\n\nThe close analogy, nay, the identity of the art-form of Keres and Erotes\nis well seen in the two vase-paintings in figs. 168 and 169. The design\nin fig. 168 is from a vase-fragment in the Museum at Palermo[1563]. A\nwarrior lies fallen in death. From his open mouth the breath of life\nescapes. Over him hovers a winged Ker, and with his right hand seems\nas though he would tenderly collect the parting soul. A ghost has come\nto fetch a ghost. Among the Romans this gentle office of collecting\nthe parting breath was done with the lips, by the nearest of kin. So\nAnna[1564] for Dido:\n\n \u2018Give water, I will bathe her wounds, and catch\n Upon my lips her last stray breath.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 169.]\n\nThe design in fig. 169 is from a red-figured cylix[1565] in the\nMunicipal Museum at Corneto. Theseus, summoned by Hermes, is in the act\nof deserting Ariadne; he picks up his sandal from the ground and in a\nmoment he will be gone. Ariadne is sunk in sleep beneath the great vine\nof Dionysos. Over her hovers a winged genius to comfort and to crown\nher. He is own brother to the delicate Ker in fig. 168. Archaeologists\nwrangle over his name. Is he Life or Love or Sleep or Death? Who knows?\nIt is this shifting uncertainty we must seize and hold; no doubt could be\nmore beautiful and instructive. All that we can certainly say is that the\nvase-painter gave to the ministrant the form of a winged Ker, and that\nsuch was the form taken by Eros, as also by Death and by Sleep.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIf we would understand at all the spirit in which the Orphic Eros is\nconceived we must cleanse our minds of many current conceptions, and\nin effecting this riddance vase-paintings are of no small service. To\nblack-figured vase-paintings Eros is unknown. Keres of course appear, but\nEros has not yet developed personality in popular art. As soon as Eros\ntakes mythological shape in art, he leaves the Herm-form under which he\nwas worshipped at Thespiae, leaves it to Hermes himself and to Dionysos\nand Priapos, and, because he is the egg-born cosmic god, takes shape as\n_the_ winged Ker. Early red-figured vase-paintings are innocent alike of\nthe fat boy of the Romans and the idle impish urchin of Hellenism. Nor\ndo they know anything of the Eros of modern romantic passion between man\nand woman. If we would follow the safe guiding of early art, we must be\ncontent to think of Eros as a Ker, a life-impulse, a thing fateful to\nall that lives, a man because of his moralized complexity, terrible and\nsometimes intolerable, but to plants and flowers and young live things in\nspring infinitely glad and kind. Such is the Eros of Theognis[1566]:\n\n \u2018Love comes at his hour, comes with the flowers in spring,\n Leaving the land of his birth,\n Kypros, beautiful isle. Love comes, scattering\n Seed for man upon earth.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 170.]\n\nSuch little spirits of life the vase-painter Hieron makes to cluster\nround their mother and mistress, Aphrodite. The design in fig. 170\nis from a cylix in the Berlin Museum[1567] and is part of a scene\nrepresenting the Judgment of Paris. Aphrodite, she the victorious\nGift-Giver, greatest of the Charites, stands holding her dove. About her\ncluster the little solemn worshipping Erotes, like the winged Keres that\nminister to Kyrene (fig. 23): they carry wreaths and flower-sprays in\ntheir hands, not only as gifts to the Gift-Giver, but because they too\nare spirits of Life and Grace.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 171.]\n\nJust such another Eros is seen in fig. 171, from the centre of a\nbeautiful archaic red-figured cylix[1568] in the Museo Civico at\nFlorence. The cylix is signed by the master Chachrylion: he signs\nit twice over, proudly, as well he may, \u2018Chachrylion made it, made\nit, Chachrylion made it.\u2019 His Eros too carries a great branching\nflower-spray, and as the spirit of God moves upon the face of the waters.\nSo Sophocles[1569]:\n\n O Thou of War unconquered, thou, Er\u00f4s,\n Spoiler of garnered gold, who liest hid\n In a girl\u2019s cheek, under the dreaming lid,\n While the long night time flows:\n\n O rover of the seas, O terrible one\n In wastes and wildwood caves,\n None may escape thee, none:\n Not of the heavenly Gods who live alway,\n Not of low men, who vanish ere the day;\n And he who finds thee, raves.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 172.]\n\nThe Erotes retain always the multiplicity of the Keres, but as Eros\ndevelopes complete personality he becomes one person, and he changes\nfrom a delicate sprite to a beautiful youth. But down to late days\nthere linger about him traces of the Life-Spirit, the Grace-Giver. The\ndesign in fig. 172 is from a late red-figured vase in the Museum at\nAthens[1570]. Here we find Eros employed watering tall slender flowers\nin a garden. Of course by this time the Love-God is put to do anything\nand everything: degraded to a god of all work, he has to swing a\nmaiden, to trundle a hoop, to attend a lady\u2019s toilet; but here in the\nflower-watering there seems a haunting of the old spirit. We are reminded\nof Plato[1571] in the _Symposium_ where he says \u2018The bloom of his body\nis shown by his dwelling among flowers, for Eros has his abiding, not in\nthe body or soul that is flowerless and fades, but in the place of fair\nflowers and fair scents, there sits he and abides.\u2019\n\n\nEROS AS EPHEBOS.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 173.]\n\nVase-paintings with representations of Eros come to us for the most\npart from Athens, and it was at Athens that the art-type of Eros as the\nslender ephebos was perfected. This type appears with marked frequency\non the vases of early red-figured technique which bear the inscription\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 \u2018beautiful,\u2019 vases probably made to sell as love-gifts. Eros is\nrepresented bearing a torch, a lyre, a hare, sometimes still a flower.\nPerhaps the finest of these representations left us is the Eros in fig.\n173. The design is from an amphora[1572] which bears the inscription\n\u2018Charmides is beautiful.\u2019 Eros is armed, he carries shield and spear, he\nflies straight downward, the slender naked body making a clean lovely\nline. A poet thinks as he will, but these Love-gods of the vase-painter,\nthese Keres of Life and Death, and most of all this Eros, armed,\ninevitable, recall the prayer of the chorus in the _Hippolytus_ of\nEuripides[1573]:\n\n \u2018Er\u00f4s, Er\u00f4s, who blindest, tear by tear,\n Men\u2019s eyes with hunger, thou swift Foe that pliest\n Deep in our hearts joy like an edged spear;\n Come not to me with Evil haunting near,\n Wrath on the wind, nor jarring of the clear\n Wing\u2019s music as thou fliest.\n There is no shaft that burneth, not in fire,\n Not in wild stars, far off and flinging fear\n As in thine hands the shaft of All Desire,\n Er\u00f4s, Child of the Highest.\u2019\n\nMost often the presentments of painting hinder rather than help the\nimagery of poetry, but here both arts are haunted by the same august\ntradition of Life and Death.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 174.]\n\nThe Eros of the vase-painter is the love not untouched by passion of man\nfor man, and these sedate and even austere Erotes help us to understand\nthat to the Greek mind such loves were serious and beautiful, of the\nsoul, as Plato says, rather than of the body, aloof from common things\nand from the emotional squalour of mere domestic felicity. They seem to\nembody that white beat of the spirit before which and by which the flesh\nshrivels into silence.\n\nIt is curious to note that, as the two women Charites, Mother and\nDaughter, became three, so there is a distinct effort to form a trinity\nof Erotes. On the vase-painting in fig. 174 from a red-figured _stamnos_\nin the British Museum[1574] we have three beautiful Erotes flying over\nthe sea. The foremost is inscribed Himeros; he carries a long taenia, and\nhe looks back at the others; one of these carries a tendril, the other\na hare. Near each of them is written \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2. But the triple forms, Eros,\nHimeros and Pothos, never really obtain. The origin of the countless\nwomen trinities has been already examined. Male gods lack the natural\ntie that bound the women types together; the male trinity is in Greek\nreligion felt to be artificial and lapses.\n\n\nEROS AND THE MOTHER.\n\nThe mention of these women trinities brings us back to the greatest of\nthe three Grace-Givers, Aphrodite. At the close of the chapter on _The\nMaking of a Goddess_ her figure reigned supreme, but for a time at Athens\nshe suffered eclipse; we might almost say with Alcman[1575]:\n\n \u2018There is no Aphrodite. Hungry Love\n Plays boy-like with light feet upon the flowers.\u2019\n\nWe cannot fairly charge the eclipse of Aphrodite wholly to the count of\nOrphism. Legend made Orpheus a woman-hater and credited him with Hesiodic\ntags about her \u2018dog-like\u2019 nature; but such tradition is manifestly\ncoloured and distorted by two influences, by the orthodox Hesiodic\npatriarchalism, and by the peculiar social conditions of Athens and\nother Greek states. Both these causes, by degrading women, compelled the\nimpersonation of love to take form as a youth.\n\nTo these we must add the fact that as Orphism was based on the religion\nof Dionysos, and as that religion had for its god Dionysos, son of\nSemele, so Orphism tended naturally to the formulation of a divinity\nwho was the Son of his Mother. By the time the religion of Dionysos\nreached Athens the Son had well nigh effaced the Mother, and in like\nfashion Eros was supreme over Aphrodite; and significantly enough the\nwoman-goddess, in so far as she was worshipped by the Orphics, was rather\nthe old figure of Ge, the Earth-goddess, than the more specialized\ndepartmental Love-goddess Aphrodite.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThis blend of the old Earth-goddess and the new Love-god is shown in very\ninstructive fashion by representations on late red-figured vases. The\ndesign in fig. 175 is from a late red-figured hydria[1576]. It will at\nonce be seen that we have the representation of a scene exactly similar\nto that in figs. 68 and 70, the Anodos of an Earth-goddess. The great\nhead rises from the ground, the Satyr worshippers of the Earth-goddess\nare there with their picks. But a new element is introduced. Two Erotes\nhover over the goddess to greet her coming. In like fashion in fig. 72\nEros receives Pandora, and in fig. 88 receives Aphrodite at her Birth or\nBath. It is usual to name the goddess in fig. 175 Aphrodite. This is, I\nthink, to miss the point. She is an Earth Kore like Persephone herself.\nShe is the new life rising from the ground, and she is welcomed by the\nspirits of life, the Keres-Erotes. Beyond that we cannot go. Nothing\ncould better embody the shift from old to new, and the blend of both,\nthan the presence together of the Satyrs, the primitive Ge-worshippers,\nand the Erotes, the new spirits of love and life.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 175.]\n\nIf we bear in mind the simple fact that Aphrodite and Persephone are\neach equally and alike Kore, the Maiden form of the Earth-goddess, it\nis not hard to realise how easily the one figure passes into the other.\nThe Orphic, we have seen (p. 594), put his faith in the Kore who is\nPersephone; to her he prays:\n\n \u2018Out of the pure I come, Pure Queen of Them Below\u2019;\n\nhis confession is\n\n \u2018I have sunk beneath the bosom of Despoina, Queen of the Underworld,\u2019\n\nand again\n\n \u2018But now I come a suppliant to holy Phersephoneia\n That of her grace she receive me to the seats of the Hallowed\u2019;\n\nbut from the fragment of an epic poet preserved for us by the anonymous\nauthor of the _Philosophoumena_[1577], we learn that, according to some,\nin the underworld grove another Kore, or rather Kore by another name, was\nbelieved to rule. \u2018The Lesser Mysteries,\u2019 he says, \u2018are of Persephone\nbelow, in regard to which Mysteries and the path that leads there, which\nis wide and large and leads the dying to Persephone, the poet also says:\n\n \u201cAnd yet \u2019neath it there is a rugged track,\n Hollow, bemired; yet best whereby to reach\n All-hallowed Aphrodite\u2019s lovely grove.\u201d\u2019\n\nThe figures of the two Maidens, Persephone and Aphrodite, acted and\nreacted on each other; Persephone takes on more of Love, Aphrodite\nmore of Death; as Eros the Son waxes, Aphrodite the Mother wanes into\nPersephone the underworld Maid.\n\nThe blend of the two notions, the primitive Earth-goddess and the Orphic\nEros, is for art very clearly seen on the vase in fig. 175. Happily we\nhave definite evidence that in local _cultus_ there was the like fusion,\nand that at a place of associations specially sacred, the deme of Phlya\nin Attica, the birthplace of Euripides[1578].\n\n\nTHE MYSTERIES OF EROS AND THE MOTHER AT PHLYA.\n\nPhlya, as the birthplace of Euripides, has special claims on our\nattention. Here, it will be shown, were mysteries reputed to be more\nancient than those of Eleusis, mysteries not only of the Mother and the\nMaid but of Eros the cosmic spirit of the Orphics. Euripides, obviously\nhostile as he is to orthodox Olympian theology, handles always with\nreverence the two gods or spirits of Orphism, Dionysos and Eros; it seems\nnot improbable that, perhaps unconsciously, the mysteries of his early\nhome may have influenced his religious attitude.\n\nFrom Pausanias[1579] we learn that Phlya had a cult of the Earth-goddess.\nShe was worshipped together with a number of other kindred divinities.\n\u2018Among the inhabitants of Phlya there are altars of Artemis the\nLight-Bearer, and of Dionysos Anthios, and of the Ismenian Nymphs, and of\nGe, whom they call the Great Goddess. And another temple has altars of\nDemeter Anesidora, and of Zeus Ktesios, and of Athene Tithrone, and of\nKore Protogene, and of the goddesses called Venerable.\u2019\n\nThe district of Phlya[1580] is still well watered and fertile, still\na fitting home for Dionysos \u2018of the Flowers,\u2019 and for Demeter \u2018Sender\nup of Gifts\u2019; probably it took its name from this characteristic\nfertility[1581]. Plutarch[1582] discussed with some grammarians at\ndessert the reason why apples were called by Empedocles \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b1, \u2018very\nfruitful.\u2019 Plutarch made a bad and unmetrical guess; he thought the word\nwas connected with \u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2, husk or rind, and that the apple was called\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u2018because all that was eatable in it lay outside the inner\nrind-like core.\u2019 The grammarians knew better; they pointed out that\nAratus[1583] used the word \u03c6\u03bb\u03cc\u03bf\u03bd to mean verdure and blossoming, the\n\u2018greenness and bloom of fruits,\u2019 and they added the instructive statement\nthat \u2018certain of the Greeks sacrificed to Dionysos Phloios, \u201cHe of\nblossom and growth.\u201d\u2019 Dionysos Phloios and Dionysos Anthios are one and\nthe same potency.\n\nAmong this family group of ancient earth divinities Artemis and Zeus\nread like the names of late Olympian intruders. Artemis as Light-Bearer\nmay have taken over an ancient mystery cult of Hecate, who also bore the\ntitle of Phosphoros; Zeus Ktesios, we are certain, is not the Olympian.\nLike Zeus Meilichios he has taken over the cult of an old divinity of\n\u2018acquisition\u2019 and fertility. \u2018Zeus\u2019 Ktesios was the god of the storeroom.\nHarpocration[1584] says, \u2018they set up Zeus Ktesios in storerooms.\u2019\nThe god himself lived in a jar. In discussing the various shapes of\nvessels Athenaeus[1585] says of the _kadiskos_, \u2018it is the vessel in\nwhich they consecrate the Ktesian Zeuses, as Antikleides says in his\n\u201cInterpretations,\u201d as follows\u2014the symbols of Zeus Ktesios are consecrated\nas follows: \u201cthe lid must be put on a new _kadiskos_ with two handles,\nand the handles crowned with white wool ... and you must put into it\nwhatever you chance to find and pour in ambrosia. Ambrosia is pure water,\nolive oil and all fruits (\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03c0\u03b9\u03b1). Pour in these.\u201d\u2019 Whatever are\nthe obscurities of the account of Antikleides, thus much is clear\u2014Zeus\nKtesios is not the Olympian of the thunderbolt, he is Zeus in nothing\nbut his name[1586]. _Ktesios_ is clearly an old divinity of fertility,\nof the same order as Meilichios; his \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 are symbols not statues,\nsymbols probably like the _sacra_ carried in chests at the Arrephoria;\nthey are \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, magical spells kept in a jar for the safe guarding of\nthe storeroom. Zeus Ktesios is well in place at Phlya. The great _pithoi_\nthat in Homer stand on the threshold of Olympian Zeus (p. 47) may be the\nlast reminiscence of this earlier _Dian_ daemon who had his habitation,\ngenius-like, in a jar.\n\n * * * * *\n\nBut this old daemon of fertility who took on the name of Zeus only\nconcerns us incidentally. In the complex of gods enumerated by Pausanias\nas worshipped at Phlya, the Great Goddess is manifestly chief. The name\ngiven to Kore, _Protogene_, suggests Orphism, but we are not told that it\nwas a mystery cult, and of Eros there is no notice. Happily from other\nsources we know further particulars. In discussing the parentage of\nThemistocles Plutarch[1587] asserts that Themistocles was related to the\nfamily of the Lycomids. \u2018This is clear,\u2019 he says, \u2018for Simonides states\nthat, when the Telesterion at Phlya, which was the common property of\nthe gens of the Lycomids, was burnt down by the barbarians, Themistocles\nhimself restored it and decorated it with paintings.\u2019 In this\nTelesterion, this \u2018Place of Initiation,\u2019 the cult of Eros was practised.\nThe evidence is slight but sufficient. In discussing the worship of Eros\nat Thespiae Pausanias states incidentally, we already noted (p. 471),\nthat the poets Pamphos and Orpheus both composed \u2018poems about Eros to be\nchanted by the Lycomids over their rites.\u2019\n\nThis mystery cult, we further know, was also addressed to a form of the\nEarth goddess. When actually at Phlya, Pausanias, as already noted,\ncuriously enough says nothing of _mysteries_; he simply notes that the\nGreat Goddess and other divinities were worshipped there. Probably by his\ntime the mystery cult of Phlya was completely overshadowed and obscured\nby the dominant, orthodox rites at Eleusis. But, _apropos_ of the\nmysteries at Andania in Messene[1588], he gives significant details about\nPhlya. He tells us three facts which all go to show that the cult at\nPhlya was a mystery-cult. First, the mysteries of Andania were, he says,\nbrought there by a grandson of Phlyos; and this Phlyos, we may conclude,\nwas the eponymous hero of Phlya. Second, for the Lycomids, who, we have\nseen, had a \u2018Place of Initiation\u2019 at Phlya and hymns to Eros, Musaeus\nwrote a hymn to Demeter, and in this hymn it was stated that Phlyos was a\nson of Ge. Third, Methapos, the great \u2018deviser of rites of initiation.\u2019\nhad a statue in the sanctuary of the Lycomids, the metrical inscription\non which Pausanias quotes. In view of this evidence it cannot be doubted\nthat the cult of Phlya was a mystery-cult, and the divinities worshipped\namong others were the Mother and the Maid and Eros.\n\nAt Phlya then, it is clear, we have just that blend of divinities that\nappears on the vase-painting in fig. 175. We have the worship of the\ngreat Earth-goddess who was Mother and Maid in one, and, conjointly,\nwe have the worship of the Orphic spirit of love and life, Eros. It is\nprobable that the worship of the Earth-goddess was primaeval, and that\nEros was added through Orphic influence.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Eros of the Athenian vase-painting is the beautiful Attic boy, but\nthere is evidence to show that the Eros of Phlya was conceived of as\nnear akin in form to a Herm. In discussing the Orphic mysteries (p.\n536), we found that at Phlya according to the anonymous author of the\n_Philosophoumena_ there was a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 or bridal-chamber decorated with\npaintings. This bridal chamber was probably the whole or a part of\nthat Telesterion which was restored and decorated by Themistocles. The\nsubjects of these paintings Plutarch had fully discussed in a treatise\nnow unhappily lost. The loss is to be the more deeply regretted because\nthe account by Plutarch of pictures manifestly Orphic would have been\nsympathetic and would greatly have helped our understanding of Orphism.\nThe author of the _Philosophoumena_[1589] describes briefly one picture\nand one picture only, as follows: \u2018There is in the gateway the picture\nof an old man, white-haired, winged; he is pursuing a blue-coloured\nwoman who escapes. Above the man is written \u03c6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03c5\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, above the\nwoman \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b7\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1. According to the doctrine of the Sethians, it seems\nthat \u03c6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03c5\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 is light and that \u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1 is dark water.\u2019 The exact\nmeaning of these mysterious paintings is probably lost for ever; but it\nis scarcely rash to conjecture that the male figure is Eros. He pursues a\nwoman; he is winged; that is like the ordinary Eros of common mythology.\nBut this is the Eros of the mysteries; not young, but very ancient, and\nwhite-haired, the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2[1590] of Orphic tradition, eldest of\nall the Gods. And the name written above him as he pursues his bride\ninscribed \u2018Darkness\u2019 or \u2018Dark Water\u2019 is \u2018Phaos Ruentes,\u2019 \u2018The rushing or\nstreaming Light.\u2019 We are reminded of the time when \u2018the Spirit of God\nmoved upon the face of the waters.\u2019 The ancient Eros of Thespiae, who\nwas in intent a Herm, has become the principle not only of Life but of\nLight\u2014Light pursuing and penetrating Darkness. Exactly such a being, such\na strange blend of animal and spiritual, is the egg-born Protogonos of\nthe Orphic hymn[1591]:\n\n \u2018Thou tempest spirit in all the ordered world\n On wild wings flashing; bearer of bright light\n And holy; therefore Phanes named, and Lord\n Priapos, and the Dawn that answereth Dawn.\u2019\n\nSo chants the mystic, seeking to utter the unutterable, and the\npoet[1592], born in the home of mysticism, sings to Mother and Son:\n\n \u2018Thou comest to bend the pride\n Of the hearts of God and man,\n Cypris; and by thy side\n In earth\u2019s encircling span\n He of the changing plumes,\n The Wing that the world illumes,\n As over the leagues of land flies he,\n Over the salt and sounding sea.\n\n For mad is the heart of Love,\n And gold the gleam of his wing;\n And all to the spell thereof\n Bend, when he makes his spring;\n All life that is wild and young,\n In mountain and wave and stream,\n All that of earth is sprung\n Or breathes in the red sunbeam.\n Yea and Mankind. O\u2019er all a royal throne,\n Cyprian, Cyprian, is thine alone.\u2019\n\n\nPYTHAGOREAN REVIVAL OF THE MOTHER.\n\nThe development of the male Eros, the beautiful youth, was due, we may be\nsure, to influences rather Athenian than Orphic. In this connection it is\nimportant to note that the Orphic Pythagoreans tended to revive religious\nconceptions that were matriarchal rather than patriarchal. The religion\nof Dionysos, based on the worship of Mother and Son, gave to women a\nfreedom and a consequence possible only perhaps among the more spiritual\npeoples of the North. Under Pythagoras we have clear indications of a\nrevival of the like conditions, of course with a difference, a resurgence\nas it were of matriarchal conditions, and with it a realization of the\nappeal of women to the spirit as well as the flesh.\n\nAccording to Aristoxenus[1593] Pythagoras got most of his ethical lore\nfrom a woman, Themistoclea, a priestess of Delphi. We are reminded of\nSocrates and Diotima, Diotima the wise woman of Mantinea, which has\nyielded up to us the great inscription dealing with the mysteries of\nDemeter at Andania[1594]. We are reminded too of the close friendship\nbetween Plutarch and the Thyiad, Clea. It was to a woman, his daughter\nDamo, that Pythagoras entrusted his writings with orders to divulge\nthem to no outside person. Diogenes further[1595] records with evident\nsurprise that men \u2018gave their wives into the charge of Pythagoras to\nlearn somewhat of his doctrine,\u2019 and that these women were called\n\u2018Pythagoreans.\u2019 Kratinos wrote a comedy on these Pythagorean women in\nwhich he ridiculed Pythagoras; so we may be sure his women followers\nwere not spared. This Pythagorean woman movement probably suggested some\nelements in the ideal state of Plato, and may have prompted the women\ncomedies of Aristophanes. Of a woman called Arignote we learn[1596] that\n\u2018she was a disciple of the famous Pythagoras and of Theano, a Samian\nand a Pythagorean philosopher, and she edited the Bacchic books that\nfollow: one is about the mysteries of Demeter, and the title of it is the\n_Sacred Discourse_, and she was the author of the _Rites of Dionysos_ and\nother philosophical works.\u2019 That this matriarchalism of Pythagoras was\na revival rather than an innovation seems clear. Iamblichus[1597] says,\n\u2018whatever bore the name of Pythagoras bore also the stamp of antiquity\nand was crusted with the patina of archaism.\u2019\n\nIt is not a little remarkable that, in his letter[1598] to the women of\nCroton, Pythagoras says expressly that \u2018women as a sex are more naturally\nakin to piety.\u2019 He says this reverently, not as Strabo[1599] does taking\nit as evidence of ignorance and superstition. Strabo in discussing the\ncelibate customs of certain among the Getae remarks, \u2018all agree that\nwomen are the prime promoters of superstition, and it is they who incite\nmen to frequent worshippings of the gods and to feasts and excited\ncelebrations (\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2).\u2019 He adds with charming frankness \u2018you could\nscarcely find a man living by himself who would do this sort of thing.\u2019\nIt is to Pythagoras, as has already been noted (p. 262), that we owe the\nfertile suggestion that in the figures of the women goddesses we have the\ncounterpart of the successive stages of a woman\u2019s life as Maiden, Bride\nand Mother.\n\nThe doctrine of the Pythagoreans in their lifetime was matriarchal and in\ntheir death they turned to Mother Earth. The house of Pythagoras[1600]\nafter his death was dedicated as a sanctuary to Demeter, and Pliny[1601]\nrecords\u2014significant fact\u2014that the disciples of Pythagoras reverted to the\nancient method of inhumation long superseded by cremation and were buried\nin _pithoi_, earth to earth.\n\n\nEROS AS PHANES, PROTOGONOS, METIS, ERIKAPAIOS.\n\nThe Eros of Athenian poetry and painting is unquestionably male, but\nthe Protogonos of esoteric doctrine is not male or female but bisexed,\nresuming in mystic fashion Eros and Aphrodite. He is an impossible,\nunthinkable cosmic potency. The beautiful name of Eros is foreign to\nOrphic hymns. Instead we have Metis, Phanes, Erikapaios, \u2018which being\ninterpreted in the vulgar tongue are Counsel, Light and Lifegiver[1602].\u2019\nThe commentators on Plato are conscious of what Plato himself scarcely\nrealizes, that in his philosophy he is always trying to articulate the\nsymbolism of these and other Orphic titles, trying like Orpheus to utter\nthe unutterable; he puts \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 for Metis, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd for Erikapaios, but, in\ndespair, he constantly lapses back into myth and we have the winged soul,\nthe charioteer, the four-square bisexed man. Proklos[1603] knows that\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd is but the primaeval egg, knows too that Erikapaios was male and\nfemale[1604]:\n\n \u2018Father and Mother, the mighty one Erikapaios,\u2019\n\nand Hermias[1605] knows that Orpheus made Phanes four-square:\n\n \u2018He of the fourfold eyes, beholding this way, that way.\u2019\n\nIt was \u2018the inspired poets,\u2019 Hermias[1606] says, \u2018not Plato, who invented\nthe charioteer and the horses,\u2019 and these inspired poets are according to\nhim Homer, Orpheus, Parmenides.\n\nThe mention of Homer comes as something of a shock; but it must be\nremembered that the name _Homer_ covered in antiquity a good deal more\nthan our _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_. It is not unlikely that some of the\n\u2018Homeric\u2019 poems were touched with Orphism. The name _Metis_ suggests it.\nThe strange denaturalized birth of Athene from the brain of Zeus is a\ndark, desperate effort to make _thought_ the basis of being and reality,\nand the shadowy parent in the _Kypria_ is the Orphic Metis. Athene, as\nhas already been shown (p. 301), was originally only one of the many\nlocal Korae; she was \u1f21 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 (\u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7), the \u2018maiden of Athens,\u2019 born of\nthe earth, as much as the Kore of Eleusis. Patriarchalism wished to rid\nher of her matriarchal ancestry, and Orphic mysticism was ready with the\nmale parent Metis. The proud rationalism of Athens, uttering itself in a\ngoddess who embodied Reason, did the rest.\n\nThere is a yet more definite tinge of Orphism in the story of Leda and\nthe swan. Leda herself is all folklore and faery story based probably\non a cultus-object. In the sanctuary of the ancient Maidens Hilaira and\nPhoebe at Sparta[1607] there hung from the roof suspended by ribbons an\negg, and tradition said it was the egg of Leda. But the author of the\n_Kypria_[1608] gave to Zeus another bride, Nemesis, who belongs to the\nsisterhood of shadowy Orphicized female impersonations, Dike, Ananke,\nAdrasteia and the like. The birth of the child from the egg appears on no\nblack-figured vase-painting, and though it need not have been originated\nby the Orphics, the birth of Eros doubtless lent it new prestige. The\ncharming little design in fig. 176 is from a red-figured lekythos in the\nBerlin Museum[1609]. On an altar lies a huge egg. Out of it breaks the\nfigure of a boy. The boy is not winged; otherwise we should be inclined\nto call him Eros. The woman to whom the child stretches out his hands\nmust be Leda. The scene is the birth of one of the Dioscuri, but probably\nwith some reminiscence of Eros. On most vases in which the birth from the\negg is represented it takes place in a sanctuary.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 176.]\n\nHomeric theology, as we know it in our canonical Homer, was wholly\nuntouched by Orphism. The human figures of the Olympians, clear-cut and\ndepartmental as they are, have no kinship with the shifting mystical\nProtogonos. The Olympians lay no claim to be All in All, nor are they\nin any sense Creators, sources of life. Homer has no cosmogony, only a\nsplendid ready-made human society. His gods are immortal because death\nwould shadow and mar their splendour, not because they are the perennial\nsources of things. It is noticeable that Zeus himself, the supreme god\nof Homeric theology, can only be worked into the Orphic system by making\nhim become Eros[1610], and absorb Phanes[1611]; only so can he become\n_demiourgos_, a feat which, to do him justice, he never on his own\naccount attempted. Proklos says \u2018Orpheus in inspired utterance declares\nthat Zeus swallowed Phanes his progenitor, and took into his bosom all\nhis powers.\u2019 This mysticism was of course made easy by savage cosmogonies\nof Kronos and the swallowing of the children.\n\nThe Olympians concern themselves as little with the Before as with\nthe Hereafter; they are not the source of life nor are they its goal.\nMoreover, another characteristic is that they are, with the strictest\nlimitations, _human_. They are not one with the life that is in beasts\nand streams and woods as well as in man. Eros, \u2018whose feet are on the\nflowers,\u2019 who \u2018couches in the folds,\u2019 is of all life, he is Dionysos,\nhe is Pan. Under Athenian influence Eros secludes himself into purely\nhuman form, but the Phanes[1612] of Orpheus was polymorphic, a\nbeast-mystery-god:\n\n \u2018Heads had he many,\n Head of a ram, a bull, a snake, and a bright-eyed lion.\u2019\n\nHe is like Dionysos, to whom his Bacchants cry[1613]:\n\n \u2018Appear, appear, whatso thy shape or name,\n O Mountain Bull, Snake of the Hundred Heads,\n Lion of the Burning Flame!\n O God, Beast, Mystery, come!\u2019\n\nIn theology as in ritual Orphism reverted to the more primitive forms,\nlending them deeper and intenser significance. These primitive forms,\nshifting and inchoate, were material more malleable than the articulate\naccomplished figures of the Olympians.\n\nThe conception of Phanes Protogonos remained always somewhat esoteric, a\nthing taught in mysteries, but his content is popularized in the figure\nof the goat-god who passed from being \u1f41 \u03a0\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd the feeder, the shepherd, to\nbe \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd Pan the All-God.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPan came to Athens[1614] from Arcadia after the Persian War, came at\na time when scepticism was busy with the figures of the Olympians\nand their old prestige was on the wane. Pan of course had to have his\nreception into Olympus, and a derivation duly Olympian was found for\nhis name. The Homeric Hymn[1615], even if it be of Alexandrian date, is\nthoroughly Homeric in religious tone: the poet tells how\n\n \u2018Straight to the seats of the gods immortal did Hermes fare\n With his child wrapped warmly up in skins of the mountain hare,\n And down by the side of Zeus and the rest, he made him to sit,\n And showed him that boy of his, and they all rejoiced at it.\n But most of all Dionysos, the god of the Bacchanal,\n And they called the name of him PAN because he delighted them ALL.\u2019\n\nDionysos the Bull-god and Pan the Goat-god both belong to early\npre-anthropomorphic days, before man had cut the ties that bound him\nto the other animals; one and both they were welcomed as saviours by a\ntired humanity. Pan had no part in Orphic ritual, but in mythology as the\nAll-god[1616] he is the popular reflection of Protogonos. He gave a soul\nof life and reality to a difficult monotheistic dogma, and the last word\nwas not said in Greek religion, until over the midnight sea a voice[1617]\nwas heard crying \u2018Great Pan is dead.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nOur evidence for the mystic Phanes Protogonos, as distinguished from the\nbeautiful Eros of the Athenians, has been, so far, drawn from late and\npurely learned authors, commentators on Plato, Christian Fathers, and the\nlike. The suspicion may lurk in some minds that all this cosmogony, apart\nfrom the simple myth of the world-egg vouched for by Aristophanes, is a\nmatter of late mysticizing, and never touched popular religion at all, or\nif at all, not till the days of decadence. It is most true that \u2018the main\ncurrent of speculation, as directed by Athens, set steadily contrariwise,\nin the line of getting bit by bit at the meaning of things through hard\nthinking,\u2019 but we need constantly to remind ourselves of the important\nfact \u2018that the mystical and \u201centhusiastic\u201d explanation of the world was\nnever without its apostles in Greece[1618].\u2019 That the common people\nheard this doctrine gladly is curiously evidenced by the next monument\nto be discussed, a religious document of high value, the fragment of a\nblack-figured vase-painting[1619] in fig. 177.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 177.]\n\nIn the sanctuary of the Kabeiroi near Thebes[1620] there came to light\na mass of fragments of black-figured vases, dating about the end of the\n5th or the beginning of the 4th century B.C., of local technique and\nobviously having been used in a local cult. The important inscribed\nfragment is here reproduced. The reclining man holding the kantharos,\nwould, if there were no inscription, be named without hesitation\nDionysos. But over him is clearly written _Kabiros_.\n\nGoethe makes his Sirens say of the Kabeiroi that they\n\n \u2018Sind G\u00f6tter, wundersam eigen,\n Die sich immerfort selbst erzeugen\n Und niemals wissen was sie sind.\u2019\n\nThey have certainly a wondrous power of taking on the forms of other\ndeities; here in shape and semblance they are Dionysos, the father and\nthe son. Very surprising are the other inscribed figures, a man and a\nwoman closely linked together, Mitos and Krateia, and a child Protolaos.\nWhat precisely is meant by the conjunction is not easy to say, but the\nnames Mitos and Protolaos take us straight to Orphism. Clement[1621] says\nin the _Stromata_ that Epigenes wrote a book on the poetry of Orpheus and\n\u2018in it noted certain characteristic expressions.\u2019 Among them was this,\nthat by warp (\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9) Orpheus meant furrow, and by woof (\u03bc\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) he meant\nseed (\u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1).\n\nDid this statement stand alone we might naturally dismiss it as late\nallegorizing, but here, on a bit of local pottery of the 5th or 4th\ncentury B.C., we have the figure of Mitos in popular use. All the Theban\nKabeiroi vases are marked by a spirit of grotesque and sometimes gross\ncaricature. Mitos, Krateia and Protolaos it will be noted have snub\nnegro faces. This gives us a curious glimpse into that blending of the\ncosmic and the mystic, that concealing of the sacred by the profane,\nthat seems inherent in the anxious primitive mind. It makes us feel that\nAristophanes, to his own contemporaries, may have appeared less frankly\nblasphemous than he seems to us.\n\nThe vase fragment has another interest. The little Orphic cosmogonic\ngroup, _Seed_ and _Strong One_ and _First people_, the birth of the\nhuman world as it were, is in close connection with Dionysos, the father\nand the son. It is all like a little popular diagram of the relation of\nOrphic and Bacchic rites, and moreover it comes to us from the immediate\nneighbourhood of Thebes, the reputed birthplace of the god.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 178.]\n\nThe vase fragment from Thebes shows plainly the influence of mystery\ndoctrines on popular conceptions of Dionysos. It is worth noting that in\nred-figured vase-paintings of a somewhat late style Eros comes to be a\nfrequent attendant on Dionysos, whereas in vases of severe style he is\nwholly absent, Maenads and Satyrs revel either together or alone. The\ndesign in fig. 179, from the lid of a red-figured lekane (fig. 178) in\nthe Museum at Odessa[1622], is a singularly beautiful instance of Eros\nas present at a Bacchic revel. A Maenad and a Satyr dance in ecstasy,\nholding between them a little fawn, as though in the act of rending it\nasunder. Over her long chiton, that trails and swirls about her feet in\noddly modern fashion, the Maenad wears a fawn-skin; a second dancing\nMaenad strikes her timbrel. One half of the design is all ecstasy\nand even savagery, the other half is perfectly quiet. Two Maenads\nstand talking, at rest; the god Dionysos is seated and Eros offers\nhim the wine-cup. Here it is Eros the son, not Aphrodite the mother,\nwho is linked with Dionysos, but we remember how in the _Bacchae_ of\nEuripides[1623] the Messenger thus pleads with Pentheus:\n\n \u2018Therefore I counsel thee,\n O King, receive this Spirit whoe\u2019er he be\n To Thebes in glory. Greatness manifold\n Is all about him\u2014and the tale is told\n That this is he who first to man did give\n The grief-assuaging vine.\u2014Oh, let him live,\n For if he die, then Love herself is slain;\n And nothing joyous in the world again.\u2019\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 179.]\n\nEros and Dionysos, the poet sees, are near akin; both are spirits of Life\nand of Life\u2019s ecstasy.\n\nDionysos like Eros is a _daimon_, a spirit rather than a clear-cut\ncrystallized god; he is as has been already seen of many shapes, of\nplants and animals as well as man, so he like Eros becomes Phanes:\n\n \u2018Therefore him we call both Phanes and Dionysos[1624].\u2019\n\nDionysos is but a new ingredient in the monotheistic mystery melting-pot:\n\n \u2018One Zeus, one Hades, one Helios, one Dionysos,\n Yea in all things One God, his name why speak I asunder[1625]?\u2019\n\nIn becoming the Orphic Phanes Dionysos lost most of his characteristics.\nIn spite of his persistent monotheism we are somehow conscious\nthat Orpheus did not feel all the gods to be really one, all equal\nmanifestations of the same potency. He is concerned to push the claims of\nthe cosmic Eros as against the simpler wine god. Possibly he felt that\nDionysos needed much adjustment and was not always for edification. Of\nthis we have some hint in the last literary document to be examined.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the statutes of the Iobacchoi[1626] at Athens, we have already seen\n(p. 476), the thyrsos became the symbol not of revel but of quiet\nseemliness. We shall now find that though by name and tradition they are\npledged to the worship of Dionysos the Iobacchoi have introduced into\ntheir ceremonies a figure more grave and orderly, a figure bearing in\nthe inscription a name of beautiful significance, Proteurhythmos. A part\nof their great festival consisted in a sacred pantomime, the _r\u00f4les_\nin which were distributed by lot. The divine persons represented were\n\u2018Dionysos, Kore, Palaimon, Aphrodite, and Proteurhythmos[1627].\u2019 Who\nwas Proteurhythmos, First of fair rhythm? The word defies translation\ninto English, but its initial syllable \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4, first, at once inclines\nus to see in it an Orphic title like Protogonos or Protolaos. The\nword has indeed been interpreted[1628] as a title of Orpheus himself,\nOrpheus Proteurhythmos, First dancer or singer. Such an interpretation\nargues, I think, a grave misunderstanding. It ignores the juxtaposition\nof Proteurhythmos with Aphrodite and rests for support on the initial\nerror that Orpheus himself is a faded god. Proteurhythmos is, I think,\nnot Orpheus, but a greater than he, the god whom he worshipped, Eros\nProtogonos. Orpheus is a musician, but it was Eros, not Orpheus, who gave\nimpulse and rhythm to the great dance of creation when \u2018the Morning Stars\nsang together.\u2019 Eros, not Orpheus, is demiourgos.\n\nLucian[1629] knew this. \u2018It would seem that dancing came into being at\nthe beginning of all things, and was brought to light together with Eros,\nthat ancient one, for we see this primaeval dancing clearly set forth\nin the choral dance of the constellations, and in the planets and fixed\nstars, their interweaving and interchange and orderly harmony.\u2019\n\nIt is the primaeval life that Eros, not Orpheus, begets within us, that\nwakes now and again, that feels the rhythm of a poem, the pulse of a\npattern and the chime of a dancer\u2019s feet.\n\n \u2018In the beginning when the sun was lit\n The maze of things was marshalled to a dance.\n Deep in us lie forgotten strains of it,\n Like obsolete, charmed sleepers of romance.\n\n And we remember, when on thrilling strings\n And hollow flutes the heart of midnight burns,\n The heritage of splendid, moving things\n Descends on us, and the old power returns.\u2019\n\nEros is Lord of Life and Death, he is also Proteurhythmos, but because\nof the bitter antinomy of human things to man he is also Lord of Discord\nand Misrule. And therefore the chorus in the _Hippolytus_[1630], brooding\nover the sickness and disorder of Phaedra, prays:\n\n \u2018When I am thine, O Master, bring thou near\n No spirit of evil, make not jarred the clear\n Wings\u2019 music as thou fliest.\u2019\n\nThe gods whose worship Orpheus taught were two, Bacchus and Eros; in\nactual religion chiefly Bacchus, in mystical dogma Eros, and in ancient\nGreek religion these are the only real gods. Orpheus dimly divined the\ntruth, later to become explicit through Euripides of Phlya:\n\n \u2018I saw that there are first and above all\n The hidden forces, blind necessities\n Named Nature, but the things self-unconceived.\n We know not how imposed above ourselves,\n We well know what I name the god, a power\n Various or one.\u2019\n\nThrough all the chaos of his cosmogony and the shifting, uncertain\noutlines of his personifications, we feel, in these two gods, lies the\nreal advance of the religion of Orpheus\u2014an advance, not only beyond\nthe old _riddance_ of ghosts and sprites and demons, but also beyond\nthe gracious and beautiful _service_ of those magnified mortals, the\nOlympians. The religion of Orpheus _is_ religious in the sense that it\nis the worship of the real mysteries of life, of potencies (\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2)\nrather than personal gods (\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af); it is the worship of life itself in its\nsupreme mysteries of ecstasy and love. \u201c_Reason is great, but it is not\neverything. There are in the world things, not of reason, but both below\nand above it, causes of emotion which we cannot express, which we tend to\nworship, which we feel perhaps to be the precious things in life. These\nthings are God or forms of God, not fabulous immortal men, but \u2018Things\nwhich Are,\u2019 things utterly non-human and non-moral which bring man bliss\nor tear his life to shreds without a break in their own serenity[1631]._\u201d\n\nIt is these real gods, this life itself, that the Greeks, like most men,\nwere inwardly afraid to recognize and face, afraid even to worship.\nOrpheus too was afraid\u2014the garb of the ascetic that he always wears\nis the token at once of his realization and his fear\u2014but at least he\ndares to worship. Now and again a philosopher or a poet, in the very\nspirit of Orpheus, proclaims these true gods, and asks in wonder why to\ntheir shrines is brought no sacrifice. Plato[1632] in the _Symposium_\nmakes Aristophanes say, \u2018Mankind would seem to have never realized the\nmight of Eros, for if they had really felt it they would have built him\ngreat sanctuaries and altars and offered solemn sacrifices, and none\nof these things are done, but of all things they ought to be done.\u2019\nEuripides[1633] in the _Hippolytus_ makes his chorus sing:\n\n \u2018In vain, in vain by old Alpheus\u2019 shore,\n The blood of many bulls doth stain the river,\n And all Greece bows on Phoebus\u2019 Pythian floor,\n Yet bring we to the Master of Man no store,\n The Keybearer that standeth at the door\n Close barred, where hideth ever\n Love\u2019s inmost jewel. Yea, though he sack man\u2019s life,\n Like a sacked city and moveth evermore,\n Girt with calamity and strange ways of strife,\n Him have we worshipped never.\u2019\n\nTo resume: the last word in ancient Greek religion was said by the\nOrphics, and the beautiful figure of Orpheus is strangely modern.\nThen, as now, we have, for one side of the picture, a revived and\nintensified spirituality, an ardent, even ecstatic enthusiasm, a high\nand self-conscious standard of moral conduct, a deliberate simplicity of\nlife; abstinence from many things, temperance in all, a great quiet of\ndemeanour, a marvellous gentleness to all living things.\n\nAnd, for the reverse, we have formalism, faddism, priggishness, a\nconstant, and it would seem inevitable lapse into arid symbolism,\npseudo-science, pseudo-philosophy, the ignorant revival of obsolete\nrites, the exhibition of all manner of ignoble thaumaturgy and squalid\ncredulity. The whole strange blend redeemed, illuminated by two impulses,\nin practice by the strenuous effort after purity of life, in theory by\nthe \u2018further determination of the Absolute\u2019 into the mysticism of Love.\n\n\n\n\nCRITICAL APPENDIX ON THE ORPHIC TABLETS.\n\n\nI. _The Petelia Tablet._\n\nFound in excavations near Petelia, S. Italy: now in the British Museum.\nKaibel, _CIGIS_, No. 638. Cf. Comparetti, _J.H.S._ III. p. 112.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n \u0395\u03a5\u03a1\u0397\u03a3\u03a3\u0395\u0399\u03a3 \u0394\u2019 \u0391\u0399\u0394\u0391\u039f \u0394\u039f\u039c\u03a9\u039d \u0395\u03a0\u2019 \u0391\u03a1\u0399\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0391 \u039a\u03a1\u0397\u039d\u0397\u039d,\n \u03a0\u0391\u03a1 \u0394\u2019 \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u0397\u0399 \u039b\u0395\u03a5\u039a\u0397\u039d \u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0397\u039a\u03a5\u0399\u0391\u039d \u039a\u03a5\u03a0\u0391\u03a1\u0399\u03a3\u03a3\u039f\u039d\u00b7\n \u03a4\u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u0397\u03a3 \u03a4\u0397\u03a3 \u039a\u03a1\u0397\u039d\u0397\u03a3 \u039c\u0397\u0394\u0395 \u03a3\u03a7\u0395\u0394\u039f\u039d \u0395\u039c\u03a0\u0395\u039b\u0391\u03a3\u0395\u0399\u0391\u03a3.\n \u0395\u03a5\u03a1\u0397\u03a3\u0395\u0399\u03a3 \u0394\u2019 \u0395\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0391\u039d \u03a4\u0397\u03a3 \u039c\u039d\u0397\u039c\u039f\u03a3\u03a5\u039d\u0397\u03a3 \u0391\u03a0\u039f \u039b\u0399\u039c\u039d\u0397\u03a3\n \u03a8\u03a5\u03a7\u03a1\u039f\u039d \u03a5\u0394\u03a9\u03a1 \u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u03a1\u0395\u039f\u039d, \u03a6\u03a5\u039b\u0391\u039a\u0395\u03a3 \u0394\u2019 \u0395\u03a0\u0399\u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u03a3\u0398\u0395\u039d \u0395\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039d\n \u0395\u0399\u03a0\u0395\u0399\u039d\u00b7 \u0393\u0397\u03a3 \u03a0\u0391\u0399\u03a3 \u0395\u0399\u039c\u0399 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u039f\u03a5\u03a1\u0391\u039d\u039f\u03a5 \u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u0395\u039d\u03a4\u039f\u03a3,\n \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u0391\u03a1 \u0395\u039c\u039f\u0399 \u0393\u0395\u039d\u039f\u03a3 \u039f\u03a5\u03a1\u0391\u039d\u0399\u039f\u039d\u00b7 \u03a4\u039f\u0394\u0395 \u0394\u2019 \u0399\u03a3\u03a4\u0395 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u0399\u00b7\n \u0394\u0399\u03a8\u0397\u0399 \u0394\u2019 \u0395\u0399\u039c\u0399 \u0391\u03a5\u0397 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u03a0\u039f\u039b\u039b\u03a5\u039c\u0391\u0399\u00b7 \u0391\u039b\u039b\u0391 \u0394\u039f\u03a4\u2019 \u0391\u0399\u03a8\u0391\n \u03a8\u03a5\u03a7\u03a1\u039f\u039d \u03a5\u0394\u03a9\u03a1 \u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u03a1\u0395\u039f\u039d \u03a4\u0397\u03a3 \u039c\u039d\u0397\u039c\u039f\u03a3\u03a5\u039d\u0397\u03a3 \u0391\u03a0\u039f \u039b\u0399\u039c\u039d\u0397\u03a3\n \u039a\u0391\u03a5\u03a4<\u039f\u0399 \u03a3\u039f>\u0399 \u0394\u03a9\u03a3\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\u0399 \u03a0\u0399\u0395\u0399\u039d \u0398\u0395\u0399\u0397\u03a3 \u0391\u03a0<\u039f \u039b\u0399\u039c\u039d>\u0397\u03a3\n \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u03a4\u039f\u03a4\u2019 \u0395\u03a0\u0395\u0399\u03a4\u2019 \u0391<\u039b\u039b\u039f\u0399\u03a3\u0399 \u039c\u0395\u0398\u2019> \u0397\u03a1\u03a9\u0395\u03a3\u03a3\u0399\u039d \u0391\u039d\u0391\u039e\u0395\u0399\u03a3\n \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 \u0399\u0397\u03a3 \u03a4\u039f\u0394\u0395 \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 \u0398\u0391\u039d\u0395\u0399\u03a3\u0398 \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\n \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 \u03a4\u039f\u0394\u0395\u0393\u03a1\u0391\u03a8 \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\n \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 \u0393\u039b\u03a9\u03a3\u0395\u0399\u03a0\u0391 (?) \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 \u03a3\u039a\u039f\u03a4\u039f\u03a3 \u0391\u039c\u03a6\u0399\u039a\u0391\u039b\u03a5\u03a8\u0391\u03a3\n\n \u2018Thou shalt find to the left of the House of Hades a Well-spring,\n And by the side thereof standing a white cypress.\n To this Well-spring approach not near.\n But thou shalt find another by the Lake of Memory,\n Cold water flowing forth, and there are Guardians before it.\n Say: \u201cI am a child of Earth and of Starry Heaven;\n But my race is of Heaven (alone). This ye know yourselves.\n And lo, I am parched with thirst and I perish. Give me quickly\n The cold water flowing forth from the Lake of Memory.\u201d\n And of themselves they will give thee to drink from the holy\n Well-spring,\n And thereafter among the other Heroes thou shalt have lordship....\u2019\n\nKaibel (l.c.) says \u201cpertinet lammina, ut nunc apparet, ad saeculum iii\nvel summum iv ante Chr. n.\u201d It had formerly been supposed to be much\nlater. He confidently attributes the accompanying tablet (No. V.) to\nthe fourth century, and this one seems to me to be quite as early or\nearlier. It is altogether more carefully written, which detracts from\nits appearance of age. The use of the diphthong \u03bf\u03c5 for instance, where\nNo. V. has \u03bf, is probably a sign of careful writing, not of lateness.\nThe letters are very well formed and early in shape. Subscript \u03b9 is\nnever neglected. Elision only once (\u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f54\u03b7) and then, it would seem,\nof set purpose to avoid ambiguity. Weight must also be allowed to the\ncompleteness and accuracy with which the text of the \u201cancient Orphic\npoem\u201d (see below on No. V.) is given, with no compendia or corruptions.\nThe dialect, also, is pure literary epic; i.e., one may presume, the pure\ndialect of the \u201cancient poem\u201d itself, with no admixture of local forms\nsuch as have crept by process of time into the formulae on the other\ntablets. The double \u03c3 of \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in l. 1 may indeed be dialectical;\ncf. \u1f00\u03c3\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1, \u0394\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 in V., but that scarcely affects the main\nimpression.\n\n\nII. Three tablets from Crete (Eleuthernae?) now in the National Museum at\nAthens.\n\n[Illustration: A.\n\nLength 55 mm.; breadth 7 mm.]\n\n[Illustration: B.\n\nLength 62 mm.; breadth 8 mm.]\n\n[Illustration: C.\n\nLength 56 mm.; breadth 10 mm.]\n\nThe general formula represented by these tablets is:\n\n \u0394\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f56\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u2014\u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03af\u03b5 \u03bc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n \u039a\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c9 [or \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9] \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f70, \u03c4\u1fc6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2.\n \u03a4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c3\u03b9;.....................\n \u03c0\u1ff6 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c3\u03b9;...\u0393\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bc\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f60\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n \u2018I am parched with thirst and I perish.\u2014Nay, drink of Me,\n The well-spring flowing for ever on the Right, where the Cypress is.\n Who art thou?..................\n Whence art thou?\u2014I am son of Earth and of Starry Heaven.\u2019\n\nTablet C was published, with some inaccuracies, by M. Joubin in _Bull.\nde Corr. Hell._ xvii. p. 122, where it is said to have been found at\nEleuthernae in Crete. I subjoin an account of the three tablets kindly\nsent by Mr Marcus Tod, Assistant Director of the British School at\nAthens, to whom are also due the above fac-similes.\n\n\u201cThe inscription is at present in the _Ethnikon Mouseion_ here, and\nalong with it are two others almost exactly similar. I could get no\ninformation about them, save that they also, according to the \u0395\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\nof the Museum, are \u2018from Crete.\u2019 All three are on thin strips of gold,\nroughly rectangular, and are traced in very small and fine letters with\na needle point. The execution is in all three instances rough, but C\nis considerably better in this respect than A; B holds an intermediate\nposition. I worked with a powerful magnifying glass, and in most cases am\nquite sure of my readings even where I differ from _Bull. Corr. Hell._\u201d\n\nNOTES: l. 1. What comes between \u03b1\u1f56\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c in A, Mr Tod cannot\ndecipher. Was it \u03b1\u1f56\u03bf\u03c2 written twice?\n\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03b5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 C: \u03c0\u03b9\u03b5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 B (and C, according to Joubin). I had conjectured\nfrom Joubin\u2019s reading \u03c0\u03af\u03b5 \u03bc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, the initial \u03bc being doubled as in \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, etc., in the so-called Aeolic poetry (Cretan = Arcadian =\n\u2018Urgriechisch\u2019), and this proves to be the reading of A.\n\nl. 2. \u03b1\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c9 C and B. Joubin gave \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03ad\u03c9: \u03b1\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c9 A. Evidently the\nDoric genitive of an adj. \u03b1\u1f30\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03b1\u1f30\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2. Mr Tod (and I also) had\nconjectured \u03b1\u1f30\u1f72 \u1fe5\u03ad\u03c9, and he would also take \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9 as a verb.\n\n\u03c4\u1fc6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2: sc. \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af.\n\nAs to the metre and reading of the last line, see below p. 672.\n\n\nIII. _Timpone Grande Tablet (a)._\n\nA thin rectangular slip of gold, like the others, found in a large tomb\nin the commune of Corigliano-Calabro, S. Italy. (Published in the _Atti\nd. R. Accad. dei Lincei_, Serie III. 1878-79; _Memorie_, p. 328: cf.\nKaibel, _CIGIS_, 642.) The fac-simile that follows was kindly furnished\nby Prof. Comparetti.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03b7\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\n \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u0323\u00b7\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u0323\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\n ............\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f56 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n \u03a7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 \u03c0\u0323\u03c1\u0323\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5.\n \u1f14\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n \u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5, \u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5, \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1<\u1ff6\u03bd>\n \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac <\u03c4\u2019> \u1f04<\u03bb>\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1 \u03a6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5<\u03c6\u03bf>\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n \u2018But so soon as the Spirit hath left the light of the sun,\n To the right................................. of Ennoia\n Then must man..............being right wary in all things.\n Hail, thou who hast suffered the Suffering. This thou hadst never\n suffered before.\n Thou art become God from Man. A kid thou art fallen into milk.\n Hail, hail to thee journeying on the right.........\n ... Holy meadows and groves of Phersephoneia.\u2019\n\nl. 2. The reading is doubtful. The strip of gold has been folded over\nand over, making eight little divisions by vertical lines and four by\nhorizontal. The curious thing is that in some cases the fold has been\nallowed for in the writing, in others not. For instance, the first\nvertical fold would cut, as a rule, the seventh or eighth letter from the\nbeginning. A large space has been left for it between \u1f10\u03be and \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\nin line 5 (the gold is worn into a little hole at this point, and may\nhave been somehow injured before the writing was made); and in lines\n1, 3, 4 and 7 the letters successfully dodge it. But the \u03c7 of \u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5 is\nhalf obliterated, and the letter following \u03b5 in l. 2 is lost in a mass\nof crumpled gold. It might be \u0395\u0399\u039f\u0399\u0391\u03a3 = \u1f20\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, supposing a space to be\nvacant in the crumple, as between \u1f10\u03be and \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5. But \u0395\u039d\u039f\u0399\u0391\u03a3 is the\nmost probable, standing presumably for \u0395\u039d\u039d\u039f\u0399\u0391\u03a3. The following word has\ngenerally been read as \u0394\u0395\u0399, though \u0391\u0395\u0399 is equally probable.\n\nl. 3. \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9: \u03c4\u03cc \u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c0\u03c9 coni. Kaibel.\n\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. The \u03b3 is clear.\n\nAs to the interpretation of l. 2, we may accept Kaibel\u2019s judgment:\n\u201cvidetur versus ex duobus coaluisse: nam hoc quoque carmen ex antiquiore\narchetypo derivatum est.\u201d But any attempt to restore the original \u201ccarmen\nantiquum\u201d is utterly uncertain. How uncertain, it may be worth while\nillustrating from a parallel instance.\n\nThere is a small oval Christian amulet (_CIGIS_ 2413, 18) containing\nverses from an elegiac poem of Gregory Nazianzene in an abbreviated form.\nOne passage, for instance, runs in the original\n\n \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\n \u1f20\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f20\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd,\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u039b\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nThis appears on the amulet (I divide the words):\n\n \u03a7\u03c3 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u0342\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3 \u03bb\u03b5\u0342\u03c4\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\n \u1f72 \u1f70 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f72 \u03c3\u03c5\u1ff6 \u1f00\u1f74\u03bd\n \u1f61 \u03b5\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nThe accented letter alone, or the first and last, or a group of letters\nin the middle are made to stand for a word. On this principle we might\nfind in \u0394\u0395\u0399\u03a4\u0399\u039d\u0391\n\n \u0394\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f18\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u0394\u0323\u03b5\u0323\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u0323\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u0323\u03b9\u0323 \u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u0323\u03b1\u0323\u03c2\n\nor various other formulae built up in the same manner. (I mark the\nletters which occur, not those which are omitted.)\n\nBut, is this the process that has taken place at all? The same amulet, a\nfew lines earlier, in place of\n\n \u03c6\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b3\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b3\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5,\n \u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03c8, \u1f44\u03c6\u03b9, \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1, \u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03c1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b7, \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\n\ngives\n\n \u03c6\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b3\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03c8\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b7 \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\n\nthrough mere lipography, the writer\u2019s eye having wandered from \u03c6 to \u03c8.\n\nOn this principle we may here be dealing with an original such as\n\n \u0394\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f18\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b5\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f56 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\nSuch conjectures are merely illustrative. The basis of sound conclusion\nseems to be that we have here fragments of formulae, not a complete\nsentence. (See below p. 672.)\n\nThe word \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd must, I think, certainly bear its ordinary meaning\n\u201cright,\u201d \u201con the right\u201d: cf. l. 6 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, and, for the syntax,\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a9 320; \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 Theogn. 943. \u201cOn the right, by the Spring of Ennoia\u201d means,\nperhaps \u201cby the Spring of Thought issuing from the Lake of Memory.\u201d\n\nSuch a sense would suit the doctrines of tablets I. and II., and\nmight even help to explain the origin of Dante\u2019s _Euno\u00eb_. (Professor\nComparetti, who takes \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd in the metaphorical prose sense of \u201cclever,\u201d\nconsiders the introduction of such a word to be due to Euripidean or\nsophistic influence.)\n\n\nIV. _Timpone Grande Tablet (b)._\n\n[Illustration]\n\nProf. Comparetti examined the tablet when it was discovered in 1879,\nand reported (_Notizie d. Scavi_, 1880, p. 328) that it contained names\nof divinities belonging to the Orphic theology. Of these he then read\n_Protogonos_, _G\u00ea_, _Pamm\u00eator_, _Kybel\u00ea_, _Kor\u00ea_, _D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear_ and _Tych\u00ea_.\nFor his later results we must await his publication and discussion of the\nnew fac-simile which, by his kindness, is reproduced above. Prof. Diels\npublished the tablet with a full discussion in 1902 (_Ein Orphischer\nDemeter-Hymnus, Festschrift Theodor Gomperz_, p. 1). He also with great\nkindness has allowed his photographs of the tablet to be used for the\npurposes of the present book.\n\nI examined the tablet itself in the Naples Museum and was able here\nand there to make out a few more letters than Prof. Diels; but, as it\nevidently did not contain any special Orphic doctrines, and was besides\nvery trying to the eyes, I did not attempt a complete transcript. This\nnote is based chiefly on Prof. Comparetti\u2019s fac-simile.\n\nThat the tablet is unintelligible as it stands, no one will deny. It\nseems indeed to belong to that class of magical or cryptic writings in\nwhich, as W\u00fcnsch puts it, \u201csingulari quadam scribendi ratione id agitur\nne legi possint.\u201d\n\nProf. Diels, however, did not view it in this light. He adopted the\nhypothesis that the tablet was the simple and _bon\u00e2 fide_ work of an\nApulian engraver who knew very little Greek, but was copying a Greek\noriginal which already contained various readings. He often got his\nletters down in the wrong order; often mistook one letter for another;\noften tried to correct his mistakes by repeating words or syllables.\n\nMuch of this seems perfectly true. Cf. for transpositions \u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n= \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c1\u03c3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03b1 = \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9, \u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 = \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7 =\n\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03af\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd = \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 (?).\n\nConfusions: \u03c4\u03bb\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1 \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6 (= \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1? or \u1f04\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f30\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1 written\nbackward?), so \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, if that is what is written, must be an\nattempt to get some word right by repeated correction.\n\nIgnorance of Greek: \u0397\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1 = \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1, \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1 = \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1 are typical,\nbut the above transpositions and confusions point to the same conclusion.\nOn the other hand, there is knowledge of the Greek alphabet, as is\nshown by the varying shapes of many letters, e.g. \u03b4, \u03c1 [sometimes R],\n\u03c0 [sometimes P], and the use of compendia: cf. especially the curious\ncompounds with \u039d.\n\nProf. Diels, however, goes a good deal further than this. He attempts\nto shew that the original from which the tablet is copied is a Hymn\nto Demeter, written in hexameters; and he proceeds to its conjectural\nreconstruction\u2014while observing that \u201c_Niemand die Unsicherheit der\nErg\u00e4nzung verkennen oder die Barbarei der Formen beanstanden wird._\u201d\n\nThe conjecture was worth making, and is carried out with the learning and\nability which mark all Prof. Diels\u2019s work. So it is less surprising than\nit would otherwise be, to find the tablet described by scholars[1634],\nwithout further qualification, as a _Demeter-hymnus_! But it remains a\nhighly improbable hypothesis, not only because of the violent changes\nnecessary to get any consecutive sense suitable to a _Demeter-hymnus_,\nbut more definitely because among the few really legible passages in the\ntablet, the very clearest are certainly not in dactylic metre; \u03bd\u03c5\u03be\u1f76\u03bd\n\u1f22 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f30\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f2d\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5, \u03b5\u1f54\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd. True, there are fragments\nalso which seem dactylic; \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u2019 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, \u039d\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03a4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ae\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u039c\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2(?). But this need not surprise us. The words of a\ncharm, for instance, are sometimes found set in the midst of a hexameter\nverse; cf. the Tanagra Tablet in W\u00fcnsch, _App. CIA_, Praef. p. viii:\n\n \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 \u03c7\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd)\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a6\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03b1\u03bd. (\u03b4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.)\n\nThis parallel would account easily for all the hexameter fragments that\nwe have in this tablet.\n\nOn the other hand, the strange corruptions and repetitions of the tablet\nare more than can be explained by the mere ignorance of a copy-maker.\nThey are not indeed similar to the rows of abracadabra-like syllables\nfound in magical papyri (cf. Dieterich, _Abraxas_, p. 178 \u03b8\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b1\u03b8\u03c9\n\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c1 \u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.) but they do bear a fairly close\nresemblance to some of the cryptic curses, in which, as said above, the\nwriting is deliberately confused by transpositions and the like, so as to\nbe unintelligible. Cf. W\u00fcnsch, 110:\n\n \u03a0\u03a1\u03a9\u03a4\u039f\u039d\u03a9\u03a3\u03a0\u0395\u03a1\u03a4\u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u0391\u0391\u039d\u0391\u03a4\u0399 \u039f\u03a4\u03a9\u03a3\u039a\u0391\u0399\u03a4\u039f\u03a3\u0391\u0393\u039f\u03a1\u0391\u0399\u0391\u03a3\u03a0\u03a1\u03a9\u03a4\u039f\n \u039d\u0391\u039d\u0391\u03a4\u0399\u0391\u0395\u0397\u0391\u03a0\u0391\u03a4\u0391\u039a\u0391\u0399\u0397\u039c\u0391\u0399\u039f\u0399\u03a4\u039f\u0399\u03a3\u03a4\u039f\u0399\u03a3\u03a4\u0399\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u0399 \u0399\u03a4\u0391\u03a4\u039f\u03a0\u03a9\u0391\u0395\n \u03a4\u039f\u0399\u03a0\u0391\u03a1\u0391\u03a0\u03a1\u03a9\u03a4\u039f\u0399\u039f\u03a4\u039f\u039a\u0391\u0399\u039f\u03a4\u039f\u03a0\u03a9\u039b\u039f\u03a4\u0399\u039a\u0391\u039d\u0394\u0395\u039a\u0391\u0399\u0391\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u03a3\u039a\u0391\u0399\u03a4\u0397\u03a4\u0397\u03a7\u039d\u0397\n\n (\u03a0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 ... \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 ... then at the\n end \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03ad\u03c9 (?) \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd.)\n\n\u03a4\u039f\u03a3\u0391\u0393\u039f\u03a1\u0391\u0399\u0391\u03a3 = \u1f41 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 is just like what we find in our tablet, and\nexamination will show many other resemblances.\n\nI have here attempted no reconstruction. I have merely copied the\ninscription and tried to collect such intelligible words or phrases\nas presented themselves at once or were to be reached by very slight\nemendations. The result so obtained is a patchwork of a few ritual\nphrases and fragmentary formulae; rows of titles of gods, heroes and\ndaemons, including possibly Phanes and certainly Rhadamanthys; and\nlastly, an unintelligible residuum.\n\nThe whole seems to be a charm of some kind, concerned with healing and\nfasting. I can find no signs of its being a curse; nor indeed was gold,\nunless I am mistaken, used for writing curses. The long lists of titles\nof gods can be paralleled in abundance from magical inscriptions and\npapyri.\n\nTranscript:\n\n \u03a0\u03a1\u03a9\u03a4\u039f\u03a4\u0323\u039f\u039d\u039f\u03a4\u0397\u039c\u0391\u0399\u03a4\u0399\u0395\u03a4\u0397\u0393\u0391\u039c\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u03a1\u0399\u0395\u03a0\u0323\u0391\u039a\u03a5\u0392\u0395\u039b\u0395\u0399\u0391\u039a\u039f\u03a1\u03a1\u0391\u039f\u03a3\n \u0395\u039d\u03a4\u0391\u0399\u039d\u0394\u0397\u039c\u0397\u03a4\u03a1\u039f\u03a3\u0397\u03a4\u0323 |\n\n \u03a4\u039b\u03a4\u0391\u03a0\u0323\u03a4\u0391\u03a4\u0391\u03a0\u03a4\u0391\u0396\u0395\u03a5\u0399\u0323\u0391\u03a4\u0397\u03a4\u03a5\u0394\u0395\u03a1\u03a3\u0391\u03a0\u0399\u0391\u0397\u0394\u0399\u0395\u03a0\u03a5\u03a1\u0323\u0391\u0323\u03a5\u0323\u0397\u0399\u0323\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0397\u0399\u0323\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\n \u0397\u039d\u039a\u0391\u03a4\u039f\u03a4\u0399\u0395\u039d\u0323\u0399\u039a\u0391\u0399\u0399\n\n \u03a3\u0397\u0394\u0395\u03a4\u03a5\u03a7\u0391\u0399\u0323\u03a4\u0323\u0395\u03a6\u0391\u039d\u0397\u03a3\u03a0\u0391\u039c\u039c\u0397\u00b7\u0395\u039f\u0323\u0399\u039c\u039f\u0399\u03a1\u0391\u0399\u03a3\u03a3\u03a4\u0397\u03a4\u039f\u0399\u0393\u0391\u039d\u039d\u03a5\u0391\u039d\u0323\n \u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0397\u03a3\u03a5\u039a\u039b\u0397\u03a4\u0395\u0394\u0391\u0399\u039c\u039f\u039d\u0394\u0395\n\n \u03a3\u03a0\u0391\u03a4\u03a1\u0399\u0391\u03a4\u0399\u00b7\u03a0\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391\u0394\u0391\u039c\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0391\u03a1\u0323\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0397\u03a1\u039d\u03a5\u039d\u03a4\u0391\u0399\u03a3\u0323\u0395\u039b\u0391\u0392\u03a1\u039f\u039d\u03a4\u0391\n \u0394\u0395\u03a0\u0391\u039d\u0399\u0395\u039c\u039f\u0399\u0392\u039d\u0323\u03a4\u0323\u03a3\u03a4\u039b\u0397\u03a4\u0395\u0391\u03a0\u0391\n\n \u00b7\u03a4\u0397\u039c\u0397\u0391\u0395\u03a1\u0399\u03a0\u03a5\u039f\u039c\u0395\u039c\u039c\u0391\u0399\u0395\u03a1\u0323\u0391\u03a5\u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0399\u03a3\u00b7\u00b7\u0394\u00b7\u0395\u03a0\u0323\u03a4\u0391\u03a4\u039f\u039d\u0397\u03a3\u03a3\u0399\u039d\n \u039d\u03a5\u039e\u0323\u0399\u039d\u0397\u039c\u0395\u0398\u0397\u039c\u0395\u03a1\u0391\u039d\u0395\u0393\u03a9\u0323\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\n\n \u0395\u03a0\u0399\u03a4\u0399\u0397\u039c\u0391\u03a1\u03a4\u0399\u039d\u0323\u039d\u0323\u00b7\u03a3\u00b7\u0399\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0391\u039d\u0396\u0395\u03a5\u0395\u039d\u039f\u03a1\u03a5\u03a4\u03a4\u0399\u0395\u039a\u0391\u0399\u0397\u0391\u039d\u039f\u03a0\u03a4\u0391\n \u0394\u0399\u0395\u039d\u0391\u039c\u0399\u039d\u0323\u0391\u0323\u039c\u0323\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u0399\u039f\u039c\u0323\u0391\u03a3\u0395\u03a0\n\n \u00b7\u03a0\u0399\u0394\u03a5\u03a3\u0395\u0323\u0399\u0323\u00b7\u0395\u03a1\u0323\u0395\u03a5\u039c\u0323\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0391\u039a\u03a4\u0391\u03a0\u03a5\u03a1\u039f\u03a3\u00b7\u039b\u039a\u0391\u03a0\u0395\u0394\u0399\u039f\u039d\u0323\u0391\u039c\u0397\u0393\u0395\u039c\u039f\u039d\n \u039a\u0391\u039d\u0323\u039d\u0391\u0394\u0399\u0395\u03a1\u0391\u0394\u0391\u039c\u0391\u0323\u039d\u0398\u03a5\u0394\u0391\u039c\u039d\u03a5\u0399\n\n \u03a4\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0397\u039f\u03a4\u0395\u039e\u0323\u0391\u039c\u0391\u03a1\u0323\u0399\u0323\u0395\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u039d\u03a4\u0395\u0391\u03a1\u0393\u0323\u0399\u0396\u0395\u03a5\u039a\u0395\u03a4\u0397\u039e\u0323\u0395\u0399\u0394\u0391\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u03a4\u03a1\u0391\u0392\u0323\u00b7\u00b7\n \u0399\u0397\u03a4\u03a1\u039f\u03a3\u0397\u0323\u039b\u0399\u03a3\u0323\u03a4\u0399\u0323\u0399\u0323\u039f\u039d\u0323\u03a4\u0323\u0395\u0399\n\n \u0397\u0399\u00b7\u03a9\u03a3\u039d\u0397\u0393\u0323\u03a3\u0323\u03a5\u039d\u039d\u0391\u039f\u03a3\u0395\u03a3\u03a0\u03a4\u0323\u0395\u039d\u0391\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u0391\u039c\u0397\u03a4\u0397\u0323\u039d\u00b7\u00b7\u03a4\u0397\u03a3\u039d\u039d\u03a3\u03a5\u039c\n \u039c\u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u039f\u03a1\u0395\u0323\u039c\u0395\u00b7\u00b7\u03a9\u03a1\u0397\u039c\u0323\n\n \u00b7\u0391\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u0397\u03a1\u0323\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u039d\u039f\u03a3\u03a3\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u0395\u03a5\u0323\u03a4\u039f\u039b\u0391\u0395\u03a1\u03a4\u0391\u0399\u00b7 \u039c\u03a5\u0397\u00b7\u03a6\u0391\u0395\u039d\u0391\n \u0399\u039d\u0323\u0391\u0399\n\n\u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u0323\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u0323 \u0393\u1fc6 \u039c\u03b7\u03c4\u03af\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03af\u0323\u03b1 (?) \u039a\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1, \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03b7 \u03c0\u0323\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\u0323 (?)\n\u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (?) \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1 (= \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1?) \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7, \u03c4\u1f7a \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a3\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9 (?)\n\u1f2d\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03cd\u03b7 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c6\u0323\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u00b7\u00b7\u03b9\u03b5 (?) \u039d\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b1\u00b7 \u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03a6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u0323\u03c4\u0323\u03bf\u03b9 \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 [or \u039d\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ae\u03b4\u0323\u03b5\u0323\u03c3\u03b9 \u039c\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2]\n\u03a3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 (?) \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 (?) \u03b5\u1f54\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u0394\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u0323\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f38\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 (?) \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u0323\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (= \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1?) \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03c1\u0323\u03b5\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03b5 (?)\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u03c4\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7. \u039c\u1f74 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03cd\u03c9\u03bc\u2019 \u1f14\u03bc \u03bc\u03bf\u0323\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u0323\u03b1\u03cd\u03b7\u03c2, (?) \u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c9\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. \u039d\u03c5\u03be\u1f76\u03bd\n\u1f22 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f74\u0323\u03bd \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f7a\u0323\u03bd (?) \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u0323\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1fd6\u03b5 \u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b5 (?)\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u1f10\u03ba\u0323\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u2019 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03c0 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\n(?)\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u03b4\u1fd6\u03b5 \u1fec\u03b1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c5\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u1f11\u03be\u1fb6\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u0396\u03b5\u1fe6\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u0394\u03ac<\u03bc\u03b1>\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u1f30\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f2d\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5 (?)\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u1f61\u03c2 <\u1f02>\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\n(?)\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\n\nOne might translate tentatively: \u201cO First-Born, Earth, Counsellor,\nAll-Motherly, Cybelean, Kora, Holy Child of Demeter (?) ..., All-Seeing\nZeus, Healer, and thou Sarapis, Sun, Fire-Kindler, Maker-of-Appearances,\nFar-Seeing (??)\n\nVictory and equal Fortune; come ye, Phanes, All-Counselling Fates (or\nWith victories and Fortunes thou didst appear, with the All-Devising\nFates)\n\nStayers (?), All-Accomplishers (?), Well-named Daemon, Master, Healer\n(?), All-Subduer, All-Controller, Driver of Thunder, Sickle-Bearer (?),\n... to be endured in all wise. That thou mayest not with vapour make to\nburn a tumour in me (??) ... I will pay ... sevenfold fasting. In the\nnights or after daybreak I ... for seven days the fasting.\n\nZeus Penetrator (?) and All-seeing, Divine, Ruler of Streams, ... ye will\nmake to spring a stream not in drops of fire....\n\nPlain ... guide ... Divine Rhadamanthys ... for six days.... Zeus ...\nDemeter ... Healer, Sun ... that She sharing the Shrine for five days may\nnot....\u201d\n\n\nV., VI. and VII. _The Compagno Tablets._\n\nPublished _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1880. Cf. Kaibel, _CIGIS_, 481, _a_,\n_b_, _c_. These three tablets were found on the estate of the Baron\nCompagno, near Naples, not far from the Timpone Grande. The tablets were\nclose to the hand of the skeleton in each case.\n\n\nV. _Compagno Tablet (a)._\n\n[Illustration]\n\n \u0395\u03a1\u03a7\u039f\u039c\u0391\u0399 \u0395\u039a \u039a\u039f\u0398\u0391\u03a1\u039f\u03bd, \u039a\u039f\u0398\u0391\u03a1\u0391 \u03a7\u0398\u039f\u039d\u0399<\u03c9\u03bd>; \u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u0399\u0391,\n \u0395\u03a5\u039a\u039b\u0397\u03a3 \u0395\u03a5\u0392\u039f\u039b\u0395\u03a5\u03a3 \u03a4\u0395 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u0398\u0391\u039d\u0391\u03a4\u039f\u0399 \u0398\u0395\u039f\u0399 \u0391\u039b\u039b\u039f\u0399.\n \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0393\u0391\u03a1 \u0395\u0393\u03a9\u039d \u03a5\u039c\u03a9\u039d \u0393\u0395\u039d\u039f\u03a3 \u039f\u039b\u0392\u0399\u039f\u039d \u0395\u03a5\u03a7\u039f\u039c\u0391<\u03b9>; \u0395\u0399\u039c\u0395\u039d,\n \u0391\u039b\u0391 \u039c\u0395 \u039c\u039f\u03a1\u0391 \u0395\u0394\u0391\u039c\u0391\u03a3\u0395 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u0398\u0391\u039d\u0391\u03a4\u039f\u0399 \u0398\u0395\u039f\u0399 \u0391\u039b\u039b\u039f\u0399\n \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u03a3\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u0392\u039b\u0397\u03a4\u0391 \u039a\u0395\u03a1\u0391\u03a5\u039d\u039f\u039d.\n\n \u039a\u03a5\u039a\u039b\u039f \u0394\u2019 \u0395\u039e\u0395\u03a0\u03a4\u0391\u039d \u0392\u0391\u03a1\u03a5\u03a0\u0395\u039d\u0398\u0395\u039f\u03a3 \u0391\u03a1\u0393\u0391\u039b\u0395\u039f\u0399\u039f\u00b7\n \u0399\u039c\u0395\u03a1\u03a4\u039f \u0394\u2019 \u0395\u03a0\u0395\u0392\u0391\u039d \u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u03a6\u0391\u039d\u039f \u03a0\u039f\u03a3\u0399 \u039a\u0391\u03a1\u03a0\u0391\u039b\u0399\u039c\u039f\u0399\u03a3\u0399\u00b7\n \u0394\u0395\u03a3\u03a3\u03a0\u039f\u0399\u039d\u0391\u03a3 \u0394\u0395 \u03a5\u03a0\u039f \u039a\u039f\u039b\u03a0\u039f\u039d \u0395\u0394\u03a5\u039d \u03a7\u0398\u039f\u039d\u0399\u0391\u03a3 \u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u0399\u0391\u03a3\n \u0399\u039c\u0395\u03a1\u03a4\u039f \u0394\u2019 \u0391\u03a0\u0395\u0392\u0391\u039d \u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u039c\u0391\u039d\u039f \u03a0\u039f\u03a3\u0399 \u039a\u0391\u03a1\u03a0\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039c\u039f\u0399\u03a3\u0399.\n \u039f\u039b\u0392\u0399\u0395 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u039c\u0391\u039a\u0391\u03a1\u0399\u03a3\u03a4\u0395, \u0398\u0395\u039f\u03a3 \u0394\u2019 \u0395\u03a3\u0397\u0399 \u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0399 \u0392\u03a1\u039f\u03a4\u039f\u0399\u039f.\n \u0395\u03a1\u0399\u03a6\u039f\u03a3 \u0395\u03a3 \u0393\u0391\u039b\u2019 \u0395\u03a0\u0395\u03a4\u039f\u039d.\n\nKaibel remarks with regard to these three documents: \u201cFuit aliquando\nSaeculo Quarto antiquius apud Sybaritas carmen, quod Orphico, ut ita\ndicam, dicendi genere conceptum lamminis aureis inscriptum defunctorum\ncorporibus imponi solebat, quo ipsi vitae ante actae quasi testimonio\nfidei deorum inferorum commendarentur. Quod carmen cum in usum\nsepulcrorum saepius describeretur, sensim corrumpebatur et in brevius\nredigebatur, omissis aliis, aliis additis, pluribus denique mutatis, ut\ntamen primaria indoles non oblitteraretur. Tria nunc exempla inventa\nsunt.... Antiquius primum est, quod ad IV a. Chr. n. saeculum referri\niubet ipsa ratio orthographica (\u039a\u03a5\u039a\u039b\u039f, \u0399\u039c\u0395\u03a1\u03a4\u039f, \u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u03a6\u0391\u039d\u039f) sed haud ita\nmulto recentiora reliqua duo, quod docet scripturae genus simillimum.\u201d\n\nThe letters are ancient and well formed, approaching more closely to\nthose of fourth and fifth century inscriptions than to the papyrus of,\nsay, Timotheus.\n\nl. 1. The form \u03ba\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 is dialectical. It occurs in Elean and Thurian\ninscriptions, e.g. the Heraclean Tables. Contrast this peculiarity with\nthe style of Tablet I.\n\nI punctuate after \u03ba\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd: \u201cI come from the Pure, O Pure Queen,\u201d not\n\u201cPure I come from the Pure, O Queen.\u201d The rhythm of the line points\nstrongly to this. Only by a definite system of punctuation, such as did\nnot exist in ancient Greek, could you in such a sentence make a reader\npause elsewhere than in the natural pause of the metre. The sense is: \u201cI\ncome from the Orphically-initiated, O Queen of the Orphically-initiated.\u201d\n\n3, 4, 5, 8. \u03b5\u1f36\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u039c\u03bf\u0342\u03c1\u03b1 (= \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1: cf. the next tablet), \u1f00\u03c3\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1,\n\u0394\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 are all dialectical forms.\n\n7 and 9. Observe the difference of reading. _V._ 9 is wrong in \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\nand \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9, so \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd, in itself an interesting variant, must be\nsuspected to be mere mistake also.\n\n\nVI. _Compagno Tablet (b)._\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\u0395\u03a1\u03a7\u039f\u039c\u0391 \u0395 \u039a\u0391\u03a1\u03a9\u0399\u03a3 \u03a7\u039f\u039d\u03a9\u039d \u039a\u0391\u0398\u0391\u03a1\u0391 \u03a7\u039f\u039d\u0399\u03a9\u039d \u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0397\u0395\u0399 \u0395\u03a5\u039a\u039b\u0395 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0395\u03a5\u0392\u039f\u03a5\u039b\u0395\u03a5\u0399 \u039a\u0391\u0399\n\u0398\u0395\u039f\u0399 <\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9> \u0394\u0391\u0399\u039c\u039f\u039d\u0395<\u03f2> \u0391\u039b\u039b\u039f\u0399 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0393\u03a1\u0391 \u0395\u0393\u03a9\u039d \u03a5\u039c\u03a9 \u0393\u0395\u039d\u039f \u0395\u03a5\u03a7\u039f\u039c\u0391\u0399 \u039f\u039b\u0392\u0399\u039f\u0399\u039d \u0395\u0323\u0399\u039d\u0391\u0399\n\u03a0\u039f\u039d\u0391\u039d\u0323 \u0394 \u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391\u03a0\u0395\u0399\u0393\u0323\u0395\u03a3\u0395\u0399 \u0395\u03a1\u0393\u03a9\u0399 \u0395\u039d\u0395\u039a\u0391 \u039f\u03a5\u03a3\u0323\u0399 \u0394<\u03b9>\u039a\u0391\u03a9\u039d \u0395\u0399\u03a4\u0395 \u039c\u0395 \u039c\u039f\u03a1\u0391 \u0395\u0394\u0391\u039c\u0391\u03a3\u0391\u03a4\u039f\n\u0395\u0399\u03a4\u0395 \u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u03a0\u0397\u03a4\u0399 \u039a<\u03b5>\u03a1\u0391\u03a5\u039d\u03a9\u039d \u039d\u03a5\u039d \u0394 \u0399\u039a\u0395\u03a4\u0399 \u0399\u039a\u03a9\u0399 \u03a0\u0391\u0399\u0323 \u0391\u0393\u039d\u0397\u03bd \u03a6\u0395\u03a3\u0395\u03a6\u039f\u039d\u0395\u0391\u039d \u03a9\u03a3 \u039c\u0395\u0399\n\u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u03a6\u03a9 \u03a0\u0395\u0399\u03a8\u0397 \u0395\u0323\u0394\u03a1\u0391\u0399\u0323\u03a3 \u0395\u03a3 \u0395\u03a5\u0391\u0393\u0395\u0399\u03a9\u0399\n\n1. \u039a may be compendium for \u039a\u0398; \u0399\u03a3 seems to be a mistake for \u039d.\n\n3. \u0395\u0399\u039d\u0391\u0399 either begun _per compendium_ and then written in full, or else\nthe \u039d of \u03bf\u03bb\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is compounded with the \u0395. Cf. the next tablet.\n\n4. Sc. \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u2019 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n6, 7. Sc.\n\n \u039d\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f35\u03ba\u03c9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd (or \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c5\u1f74\u03bd?) \u03a6\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u1fc3 \u1f15\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n\nVII. _Compagno Tablet (c)._\n\n[Illustration]\n\n \u0395\u03a1\u03a7\u039f\u039c\u0391\u0399 \u0395 \u039a\u0391\u0398\u0391\u03a1\u03a9 \u039a\u0391[symbol] \u039f \u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u0391\u0395\u0323\n \u0395\u0323\u03a5\u039a\u039b\u0395<\u03a5\u0391> \u039a\u0391 \u0395\u03a5\u0392\u039f\u039b\u0395\u03a5 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0398\u0395\u039f\u0399 \u039f\u03a3\u039f\u0399 \u0394\u039c\u039f\u039d\u0395\u03a3 \u0391\u039b\u039b\u039f\n \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0393\u0391\u03a1 \u0395\u03a9 \u03a5\u03a9\u0323 \u0393\u0395\u039d\u039f\u03a3 \u0395\u03a5\u03a7\u039f\u039c\u0391\u0399 \u0395\u0399\u039d\u0391\u0399 \u039f\u039b\u0392\u0399\u039f\n \u03a0\u039f\u0399\u039d\u0391\u039d \u039d\u0391\u03a4\u0391\u03a0\u0395\u03a4\u0395 \u0395\u03a1\u0393\u03a9 \u039f\u03a4\u0399 \u0394\u0399\u039a\u0391\u03a9\u039d\n \u0395\u03a4 \u039c\u0395 \u039c\u039f\u0399\u03a1\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u03a0\u0397\u03a4\u0399 <\u039a\u0391\u0323\u0399> \u039a\u0395\u03a1\u0391\u03a5\u039d\u039f\n \u039d\u03a5\u039d \u0394\u0395 \u039a\u0395 \u0399\u039a\u03a9 \u039b\u039a\u03a9 \u03a0\u0391\u03a1\u0391 \u03a6\u03a3\u0395\u03a6\n \u03a9\u03a3 \u039c\u0395 \u03a1\u039f\u03a6 \u03a0\u0395\u03a8\u0395 \u039c \u0395\u0394\u03a1\u0391\u03a3 \u0395\u03a3 \u0395\u03a5\u0393\u03a9\n\n1. Perhaps \u0395\u039a\u039a\u0391\u0398\u0391\u03a1\u03a9, a double \u039a being written _per compendium_.\n\n\u039a\u0391[symbol] apparently \u039a\u0391\u0398\u03a1\u039f _per compendium_, or even \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac. The letter\ngiven as \u039f is more like \u03a0, but really illegible.\n\nAfter \u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u0391 (\u0395\u0391 _per compendium_) a letter like \u0395 or R. The name Eukles\nseems to have puzzled the scribe.\n\n2. \u0395\u03a5\u039a\u039b\u0395\u03a5\u039b. The last letter may be \u0391 or \u039b. Probably there is some\nconfused dittography, as if the \u0395 suggested beginning \u0395\u03a5\u039a\u039b\u0395 again.\n\n\u039f\u03a3\u039f\u0399 seems miswriting for \u039a\u0391\u0399.\n\n3. \u03a5\u03a9 or \u03a5\u039c: uncertain.\n\n\u0395\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 _per compendium_: cf. the foregoing. Kaibel says of (_b_) and\n(_c_): \u201cHaec duo carmina videntur ex communi archetypo esse descripta non\nsolum quod inter se magis similia sunt quam utrumque primo, sed etiam\npropterea quod eadem ligatura in utroque verba \u1f44\u03bb\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 scripta sunt.\u201d\n\n4. Or \u039d\u0391\u03a4\u0391\u03a0\u0395\u03a4\u0395\u0399\u03a3 \u03a1\u0393\u03a9 for \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u2019.\n\n5. \u0395\u03a4: perhaps _compendium_ for \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5.\n\nThe \u03a3 of \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b9 is like \u0395. Before \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u0342 there seems to be \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 by\ndittography.\n\nThe general formulae represented by the three tablets together, may be\ntranslated:\n\n \u2018Out of the Pure I come, Pure Queen of Them Below,\n And Eukles and Eubouleus, and other Gods and Daemons:\n For I also avow me that I am of your blessed race.\n And I have paid the penalty for deeds unrighteous,\n Whether it be that Fate laid me low or the Gods Immortal\n Or ... with star-flung thunderbolt.\n I have flown out of the sorrowful weary Wheel;\n I have passed with eager feet to the Circle desired;\n I have sunk beneath the bosom of Despoina, Queen of the Underworld;\n I have passed with eager feet to (or from) the Circle desired;\n And now I come a suppliant to Holy Phersephoneia\n That of her grace she receive me to the seats of the Hallowed.\u2014\n Happy and Bless\u00e8d One, thou shalt be God instead of Mortal.\u2019\n\n(The prose formula: \u2018A kid I have fallen into milk\u2019: is once inserted in\nthe midst of the poem.)\n\nTo sum up, we find in these three tablets some common characteristics.\nThey all show traces of the influence of some colloquial Italian dialect.\nThe form \u03ba\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 is Thurian. The free omission and addition of final \u039d\nis probably another Italian symptom, having its analogy in the treatment\nof final M in Latin. It seems not to have been pronounced. We find \u03a5\u039c\u03a9\n(\u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd), \u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u03a6\u03a9 (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd), \u0391\u0393\u039d\u0397 (\u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd), \u0395\u03a5\u0391\u0393\u0395\u0399\u03a9 (\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd) and _vice\nvers\u00e2_ \u039a\u03a1\u0391\u03a5\u039d\u03a9\u039d (\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u1ff7). There is the same uncertainty about \u0399 following\nanother vowel: we have \u0395\u03a1\u03a7\u039f\u039c\u0391, \u039c\u0395\u0399 (\u03bc\u03b5), \u0399\u039a\u03a9\u0399. The writer of (_b_), and\nperhaps of (_c_) also, did not understand what words he was writing.\nOne could be more sure about (_c_) if it were not that some of his most\nglaring apparent mistakes prove on examination to be compendiary forms\nand possibly accurate.\n\nBut another form of compendiary writing occurs, I think, in all of these\ntablets, and is of more interest.\n\nThere is a sentence which appears in (_c_) as\n\n \u0395\u03a4 \u039c\u0395 \u039c\u039f\u0399\u03a1\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u03a0\u0397\u03a4\u0399 (\u039a\u0391\u0399) \u039a\u0395\u03a1\u0391\u03a5\u039d\u039f.\n\nEvidently not a complete sentence, any more than it is a complete verse,\nbut a beginning and end with the middle omitted.\n\nIn (_b_) we have it a little fuller.\n\n \u0395\u0399\u03a4\u0395 \u039c\u0395 \u039c\u039f\u03a1\u0391 \u0395\u0394\u0391\u039c\u0391\u03a3\u0391\u03a4\u039f\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u0395\u0399\u03a4\u0395 \u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u03a0\u0397\u03a4\u0399 \u039a\u03a1\u0391\u03a5\u039d\u03a9\u039d.\n\nThis, with a little necessary emendation, might seem to be a complete\nsentence, as indeed Kaibel takes it, were it not for a fuller version\nstill in (_a_).\n\n \u0391\u039b\u0391 \u039c\u0395 \u039c\u039f\u03a1\u0391 \u0395\u0394\u0391\u039c\u0391\u03a3\u0395 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u0398\u0391\u039d\u0391\u03a4\u039f\u0399 \u0398\u0395\u039f\u0399 \u0391\u039b\u039b\u039f\u0399\n \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u03a3\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u0392\u039b\u0397\u03a4\u0391 \u039a\u0395\u03a1\u0391\u03a5\u039d\u039f\u039d.\n\nThis fuller and correcter version is obviously incomplete, both in sense\nand in metre. The conclusion seems to be that we have in all three cases\na confessedly incomplete collection of words, standing for a complete\nand well-known formula. The words seem to be from the beginning and end\nof the sentences. It is as though, in a community accustomed to the\nAnglican Church service, we found, first: \u201c_When the wicked man his soul\nalive._\u201d Second, and deceptively complete in appearance: \u201c_When the\nwicked man shall save his soul alive._\u201d Third, fuller and betraying its\nincompleteness: \u201c_When the wicked man turneth from save his soul alive._\u201d\n\nInstances of this sort of abbreviation can be found in most liturgies,\nthough of course in modern times we should put dots to mark the gap\nin the middle. But it is certainly not common on Greek inscriptions.\nOrdinary abbreviations are common enough\u2014\u0398 \u039a = \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b4\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n= \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, and the like. And there is the system, if system it can be\ncalled, illustrated by the quotation from Gregory Nazianzene in the note\non Tablet III. The case most closely resembling the present that is\nknown to me is that of the Cyprian Curses, published by Miss Macdonald\nin the _Proceedings of the Soc. Bibl. Archaeology_, 1890, p. 160 sqq.\nCf. W\u00fcnsch, _Append. CIA_, Praef. p. xviii sqq. They are prayers to all\nGhosts and Daemons to hamper and paralyse and \u201ctake away the \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 from\u201d\nsome adversary, of whom the writer is in mortal fear. They begin with\nmetrical formulae.\n\nThe first starts:\n\n \u039f\u0399\u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0391\u0393\u0397\u039d\u039a\u0394\u039c\u039f\u039d\u0395\u03a3\u039f\u0399\n \u039a\u03a0\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0395\u03a3\u03a0\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u03a9\u039d\u039a\u039c\u0397\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0395\n \u039f\u0399\u039a\u039f\u0399\u03a4\u0399\u039d\u0395\u03a3\u0395\u039d\u0398\u0391\u0394\u0395\u039a\u0395\u0399\u03a3\u0398\u0395\u039a\u039f\u0399\u03a4\u0399\u039d\u0395\u03a3\n \u0398\u0395\u0398\u03a5\u039c\u039f\u039d\u0391\u03a0\u039f\u039a\u03a1\u0391\u0394\u0399\u0397\u03a3\u03a0\u039f\u039b\u03a5\u039a\u0397\u0394\u0395\u0391\n \u039f\u039d\u03a4\u0395\u03a3\n\nAnother, No. IV.:\n\n \u0391\u03a4\u0391\u2014\u0393\u0397\u039d\u039a\u0394\u039c\u039f\u039d\u0395\u03a3\u039f\u0399\u03a4\u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u039a\n \u03a9\u039d\u039a\u039c\u0397\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0395\u03a3\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0399\u0395\u039d\u0399\u03a1\u039f\u0399\u0391\u039d\u0394\u03a1\u0399\u039f\u0399\n \u039d\u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0399\u039d\u0395\u03a3\u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u039a\u039f\u0399\u03a4\u0399\u039d\u0395\u03a3\u0395\u039d\u0398\u0391\n \u0395\u0391\n\nThese seem to represent two very similar formulae. The first will run:\n\n \u0394\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 (?),\n \u03c7\u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5,\n .........................................................\n \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nThe other:\n\n \u0394\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9,\n ..................... \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9,\n \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\n .........................................................\n <\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7\u03c2> \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1 <\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.>\n\nThe reconstruction of the verses is helped out by several other smaller\nfragments. I have followed, with slight variations, Dieterich and W\u00fcnsch.\n\nNow here we find several points closely reminding us of the Compagno\nTablets. (1) The different documents are all quoting the same magical\npoem. (2) Since the prayer is a prayer to take away somebody\u2019s \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, and\notherwise weaken and paralyse him, I think we may conclude that the line\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 is added as a v. l.\nin one only of the fragments) is the final line of the prayer. \u201cDo this,\nthat, and the other, having first taken away the hurtful spirit out of\nhis heart.\u201d\n\n(3) The second tablet (No. IV.) gives a half line \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9,\nfor which there is no place, and which therefore shows the incompleteness\nof a formula which, as written in No. I., might have seemed complete,\nexactly like \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 in Compagno (_a_).\n\nThere is possibly a case of the same phenomenon in the Eleuthernae\ntablets (II.). There is one place at the end where the metre is broken.\nIt may be the full formula contained a series of questions, beginning\nwith \u03a4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c3\u03b9; and ending with \u03a0\u1ff6 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c3\u03b9;\u2014\u0393\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bc\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f60\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\n\u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. If there were only one tablet containing the formula,\none would prefer to suppose that \u03a4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c3\u03b9; \u03c0\u1ff6 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c3\u03b9; was mere\ndittography, a scribe having first written the phrase slightly wrong and\nthen re-written it right without deleting the first version. But this\nhypothesis becomes more difficult when there are three tablets differing\nin several particulars but agreeing in this unmetrical double question.\n\nIn any case, it would probably be wisest to regard the tablets as each\nconsisting of a series of formulae, mostly in verse but some in prose,\nsome apparently complete, others compendiary.\n\n\nVIII. _The Tablet of Caecilia Secundina._\n\nA thin gold tablet (75 mm. by 24 mm. in size) found in Rome about the\nyear 1899, probably in one of the ancient tombs on the Ostia Road; now\nin the British Museum. The script, though generally clear, is peculiar.\nThe form of \u03b5 (cf. \u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5 in line 2) is new to me, but in general\nthe writing is like that of a cursive papyrus of Roman times. Prof.\nComparetti, who has published and discussed the tablet in _Atene e Roma_,\nLIV. and LV. (1903), considers it certainly later than the Herculanean\npapyri, and would place it in the second century or possibly the first,\nA.D.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nI read it thus:\n\n \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1,\n \u0395\u1f54\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b5\u03c2 \u0395\u1f50\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5. \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u2019 \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5\n \u039c\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bf\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd)\n \u039a\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03a3\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1, \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ac.\n\n \u2018She comes from the Pure, O Pure Queen of those below\n And Eukles and Eubouleus.\u2014Child of Zeus, receive here the armour\n Of Memory, (\u2019tis a gift songful among men)\n Thou Caecilia Secundina, in due rite to avert evil for ever.\u2019\n\n_v._ 2. Probably \u0395\u1f54\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b5\u03c2 as Comparetti: not \u03b5\u1f54\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ad \u03c4\u2019. The rest of this\nline is certain as far as \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2: after that, I make out \u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5,\nthe first \u03b4 being (cf. that in \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5 below) very like \u03b1, and the \u03bf not\nwell finished. Repeated examination of the tablet has confirmed my belief\nthat these are the inscribed letters; and I may add that Dr A. S. Murray\nand Mr Cecil Smith, as well as Dr Hartwig, who formerly possessed the\ntablet, all independently read the same.\n\nTaking these letters as they stand, we may obtain sense, grammar and\nmetre by dividing \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u2019 \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5: \u201c_Have here the armour of Memory_,\u201d\nand I believe that this interpretation, though curious, is right. The\nchange to the second person and the imperative addressed to the Soul are\njust like phrases in the other tablets: \u1f44\u03bb\u03b2\u03b9\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03af\u03b5\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb. The peculiar use of \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1, to which I can find nothing quite\nsimilar in our fragments of Orphic literature, has its exact parallel in\nSt Paul\u2019s repeated metaphors \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 (Rom. vi. 12; 2 Cor. vi.\n7), \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 (Rom. xiii. 2). The \u201carmour of Mnemosyne\u201d to an Orphic\nwould probably bear just the same shade of meaning as the \u201carmour of\nlight\u201d to a Christian. Lethe was the Orphic \u201cDarkness.\u201d The use of \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5\nmight be paralleled by Homer\u2019s \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u2019 \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5, and the scholiasts have\nremarked long since that in the later Epic language \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 was used more\nfreely than in Homer. The Cyprian Curses just quoted give \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nA further question here suggests itself. Who is the \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2?\nEubouleus, by a straining of the identifications of mythologers, might\nclaim the title; and it would save trouble, no doubt, to admit his claim.\nBut apart from the unfair advantage which this would give him over\nEukles, a comparison of the phrases applied to the pure soul in the other\ntablets (\u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bb\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f54\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, etc.) suggests\nthat \u201cChild of Zeus\u201d is vocative. \u201cChild of Zeus, receive here thine\narmour of Memory.\u201d The doctrine is orthodox in Orphism; the completely\npure soul is the pure blood of Zagreus, freed from the dross of charred\nTitan corpses, and as such is the child of Zeus. In an earlier stage it\nwas \u0393\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f68\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6.\n\n(Prof. Comparetti reads \u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b1 on the tablet, which he takes to be a\nmistake for \u1f01\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70 \u201ctender,\u201d agreeing _per sensum_ with \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\u2014not a very\nfortunate conjecture.)\n\n_v._ 3. Should we divide \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 or \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5 in apposition to \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1?\n\n_v._ 4. Scanned, apparently, \u03a3\u2019\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1: such licenses are of course\ncommon. The last three words, forming l. 6 on the tablet, are difficult.\nThe line begins with a vertical bar, like \u0399, which in a document of an\nearlier time one would certainly take for the final \u0399 of \u039d\u039f\u039c\u03a9\u0399. Then\nfollows \u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b9; the gap in the middle of the word would be less, if the\nbottom of the \u03b5 were visible. After this I make out the letters \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b1,\napparently the n. pl. of a word \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2, \u201c_calculated to avert_\u201d opposed\nto \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2, \u201c_calculated to induce_\u201d magic influences. Mr Cecil Smith\nagrees with this reading. Prof. Comparetti, having only the photograph to\nwork from, read [\u1f00]\u03b9\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1, \u201chaving always lived lawfully.\u201d\n\nThe \u201carmour of Memory,\u201d the \u201cgift songful among men,\u201d is firstly perhaps\nthe spiritual gift, and then in a secondary sense the actual tablet\nwhich both symbolises and _preserves from oblivion_ Cecilia\u2019s claims to\nimmortality; and does so _in song_.\n\nCaecilia Secundina is not otherwise known, but must have belonged in some\nway to the clan of Caecilii Secundi. She would thus be connected with\nthe Younger Pliny, whose name before his adoption was Publius Caecilius\nSecundus.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] Thuc. II. 38.\n\n[2] Ps.-Xen. _Rep. Athen._ II. 99.\n\n[3] Ps.-Xen. _Rep. Athen._ III. 8.\n\n[4] Plat. _Euthyph._ 15 D.\n\n[5] So far as it is possible to distinguish the two, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03ad\u03c2 is\nreligion from man\u2019s side, his attitude towards the gods, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\nreligion from the gods\u2019 side, the claim they make on man. \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is\nthe field of what is made over, consecrated to the gods. The further\nconnotations of the word as employed by Orphism will be discussed\nlater. \u2018Holiness\u2019 is perhaps the nearest equivalent to \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd in the\n_Euthyphron_.\n\n[6] Sext. Empir. _adv. Math._ IX. 123.\n\n[7] _The Characters of Theophrastus_, p. 264.\n\n[8] Arist. _Polit._ p. 1315 a 1.\n\n[9] Plut. _de Superstit._ I.\n\n[10] Plut. _de aud. poet._ 4.\n\n[11] Eur. frg. 292.\n\n[12] Plut. _de Superstit._ X.\n\n[13] Plut. _de Superstit._ IX.\n\n[14] Plut. _de Superstit._ III.\n\n[15] Xen. _Cyropaed._ III. 3. 58.\n\n[16] Isocr. _Or._ V. 117.\n\n[17] Plat. _Legg._ 854 B \u1f34\u03b8\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f34\u03b8\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b3\u03b5\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03af.\n\n[18] Harpocrat. s.v. \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c2.\n\n[19] P. II. 11. 1.\n\n[20] Babr. _Fab._ 63.\n\n[21] Hippocr. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd 639 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n[22] English has no convenient equivalent for \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, which may mean\neither turning ourselves away from the thing or turning the thing away\nfrom us. _Aversion_, which for lack of a better word I have been obliged\nto adopt, has too much personal and no ritual connotation. Exorcism\nis nearer, but too limited and explicit. Dr Oldenberg in apparent\nunconsciousness of \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 and \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae uses in conjunction the two\nwords Cultus and Abwehr. To his book, _Die Religion des Veda_, though he\nhardly touches on Greek matters, I owe much.\n\n[23] Hom. _Il._ II. 421.\n\n[24] _Companion to the Iliad_, p. 77. I have advisedly translated\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 by barley grain, not meal, because I believe the \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 to\nbe a primitive survival of the custom of offering actual grain, but this\ndisputed question is here irrelevant. I follow Dr H. von Fritze, _Hermes_\nXXXII. 1897, p. 236.\n\n[25] The sources for the Diasia are all collected in the useful and so\nfar as I am aware complete work, Oskar Band, _Die Attischen Diasien\u2014ein\nBeitrag zur Griechischen Horteologie_, Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum\nProgramm der Victoriaschule, Ostern 1883 (Berlin). Many of the more\nimportant sources are easily accessible in Mr Farnell\u2019s _Cults of the\nGreek States_, vol. I. pp. 171, 172. Mr Farnell regards Zeus Meilichios\nas merely a form of the Olympian Zeus, not as a _contaminatio_ of two\nprimarily distinct religious conceptions.\n\n[26] _On._ I. 37.\n\n[27] Thucyd. I. 126 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f03 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74\n\u039c\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7, \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f97 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 <\u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u1f70> \u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1.\n\nSchol. ad loc. \u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b6\u1ff4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f14\u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[28] _vv._ 864 and 408.\n\n[29] Luc. _Icaro-Menip._ 24 schol. ad loc. \u0394\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f23\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u0394\u03b9\u1f76 \u039c\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03af\u1ff3.\n\n[30] Xen. _Anab._ VII. 8. 4 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f41 \u039e\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd ... \u1f10\u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f61\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c7\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff4\u1ff3 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9. The incident probably\ntook place in February, the month of the Diasia. See Mr H. G. Dakyns,\n_Xen._ vol. I. p. 315.\n\n[31] P. X. 38. 8.\n\n[32] P. I. 37. 4.\n\n[33] P. II. 20. 1.\n\n[34] Hesych. s.v. \u039c\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c7\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[35] P. II. 2. 8.\n\n[36] Permission to republish the two reliefs figured here and that\nin fig. 5 has been courteously granted me by Professor Kekul\u00e9 von\nStradowitz, Director of the Berlin Museum, and I owe to his kindness the\nexcellent photographs from which the reproductions are made. From the\nofficial catalogue (_Beschreibung der Antiken Skulpturen in Berlin_) I\nquote the following particulars as to material, provenance &c.\n\n1. _Cat._ 722, H. 0\u00b758, Br. 0\u00b731. Hymettus marble found with No. 723\nat the Zea harbour not far from Ziller\u2019s house. Taken to Berlin 1879.\nInscribed \u0394\u0399\u0399 \u039c\u0395\u0399\u039b\u0399\u03a7\u0399\u03a9\u0399. Date fourth century B.C., see _CIA._ II. 3,\n1581, cf. _CIA._ II. 3. 1578, 1582, 1583.\n\n2. _Cat._ 723, material, provenance, date, same as 722.\n\n[37] _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ VII. p. 507.\n\n[38] _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1883, p. 510.\n\n[39] From a photograph (Peiraeus 12) published by kind permission of the\nGerman Archaeological Institute, see _Eph. Arch._ 1886, p. 47.\n\n[40] Lucian, _Tim._ c. 7.\n\n[41] Suidas s.v. \u0394\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n[42] _J.H.S._ XIX. p. 114, note 1.\n\n[43] Mr P. Giles kindly tells me that a rare Sanskrit word _dveshas_\nmeaning \u2018hate\u2019 and the like exists and phonetically would nearly\ncorrespond to the Latin _dirus_. The corresponding form in Greek would\nappear as \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, unless in late Greek. But from the end of the 5th\ncentury B.C. onwards the pronunciation would be the same as \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, and if\nthe word survived only in ritual terms it would naturally be confused\nwith \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2. Almost all authorities on Latin however regard the _ru_ in\n_dirus_ as a suffix containing an original _r_ as in _mirus_, _durus_,\netc. This view, which would be fatal to the etymology of _dirus_ proposed\nin the text, seems supported by a statement of Servius (if the statement\nbe accurate) on _Aen._ III. 235 \u2018Sabini et Umbri quae nos mala _dira_\nappellant,\u2019 as, though _s_ between vowels passes in Latin and Umbrian\ninto _r_, it remains an _s_ sound in Sabine.\n\n[44] Hesych. s.v. \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b9\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. From\nAthenaeus also we learn that Polemon had treated in some detail of the\n\u2018fleece of Zeus\u2019; Athenaeus says (XI. \u00a7 478 C), \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03c9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af....\n\n[45] Suidas s.v. \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b5 \u039c\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1ff3 \u0394\u03b9\u03af, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03ce\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03af\u03b1 (\u03b4\u1fd6\u03b1) \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f35 \u03c4\u03b5\n\u03a3\u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03b4\u1fb3\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd. For \u0394\u03af\u03b1\nGaisford conjectures \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 but from the passage of Eustathius (see infr.)\nit is clear that we must read \u03b4\u1fd6\u03b1.\n\n[46] Eustath. ad _Od._ XXII. 481 \u00a7 1934-5 \u1f10\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f03 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b8\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03af. \u1f41 \u03b4\u03ad \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2\n\u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f36\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b8\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd ... \u03b8\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03cc \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1ff3\u03b4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f10\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u1f40\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2. \u1f30\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f26\u03bd.\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, \u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03ae\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u03bf\u1f57, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f38\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03ba\u03ce\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u0394\u03b9\u1fd2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f24\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf. \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f26\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af, \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd ... \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03b1. Eustathius passes on to speak of purification by\nblood and the \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, see p. 95.\n\n[47] Maimaktes, it will be remembered, is the other face of Meilichios,\nsee supra.\n\n[48] See Liddell and Scott, s.v.\n\n[49] Dicaearch. _Frg. Hist._ II. 262.\n\n[50] P. I. 34. 2-5. Strabo (VI. \u00a7 284) says that the Daunians when they\nconsulted the oracle of the hero Calchas sacrificed a black ram to him\nand slept on the fleece. The worshippers of the \u2018Syrian Goddess,\u2019 Lucian\nsays (_De Syr. Dea_ 35), knelt on the ground and put the feet and the\nhead of the victim on their heads. He probably means that they got inside\nthe skin and wore it with the front paws tied round the neck as Herakles\nwears the lion-skin.\n\n[51] Dicaearchus I. 6.\n\n[52] As regards the ethnography of these two strata, I accept Prof.\nRidgeway\u2019s view that the earlier stratum, which I have called chthonic,\nbelongs to the primitive population of the Mediterranean to which he\ngives the name Pelasgian; the later stratum, to which belongs the manner\nof sacrifice I have called \u2018Olympian,\u2019 is characteristic of the Achaean\npopulation coming from the North. But, as I have no personal competency\nin the matter of ethnography and as Prof. Ridgeway\u2019s second volume is\nas yet unpublished, I have thought it best to state the argument as it\nappeared to me independently, i.e. that there are two strata in religion,\none primitive, one later. I sought for many years an ethnographical clue\nto this stratification, but sought in vain.\n\n[53] The sources for the Anthesteria are collected and discussed in the\nLexicons of Pauly-Wissowa and of Daremberg and Saglio and more completely\nin Dr Martin Nilsson\u2019s _Studia de Dionysiis Atticis_ (Lundae, 1900),\nwhich has been of great service to me.\n\n[54] Harpocrat. s.v.\n\n[55] Plut. _Q. Symp._ III. 7. 1.\n\n[56] The gist of such offerings will be considered under the _Thargelia_.\n\n[57] Plut. _Q. Symp._ VIII. 3.\n\n[58] _Op._ 368.\n\n[59] Discussed in relation to Dionysos, see infra, Chapter VIII.\n\n[60] Ar. _Ran._ 212, trans. Mr Gilbert Murray.\n\n[61] Aristoph. _Ach._ 1076, schol. ad loc.\n\n[62] Thucyd. II. 15.\n\n[63] Harpocrat. s.v. \u03a7\u03cc\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n[64] Suidas s.v. \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5\u00b7 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7\n\n \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5 \u039a\u1fb6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c4\u2019 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1,\n\n\u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd. \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2\u00b7\n\n \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5 \u039a\u1fb6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c4\u2019 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u00b7\n\n \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5 \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1,\n\n\u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nPhotius s.v. substantially identical.\n\nTo the information here given Zenobius (_Cent. Paroimiogr._) adds:\n\u0395\u1f34\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\nIt is fortunate that Suidas records his second conjecture, as his first\nis rendered plausible by the fact that we know the household servants\nwere admitted to the Pithoigia. Probably in classical days \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 had\nalready become an old fashioned word for souls and the formulary may have\nbeen easily misunderstood. Mommsen in his second edition (_Feste der\nStadt Athen_, p. 386) argues that the form \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 is impossible because\n\u2018Gespenstern zeigt man nicht die Th\u00fcr wie einem Bettler,\u2019 a difficulty\nthat will scarcely be felt by any one acquainted with primitive customs.\n\n[65] Ovid, _Fasti_ V. 443.\n\n[66] _Primitive Culture_ II. p. 40.\n\n[67] _Religion des Vedas_, p. 533.\n\n[68] Schol. ad Ar. _Ran._ 218 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u00b7 \u03a7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019\n\u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f23\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\u00b7 < > ... \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f48\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u1ff3. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f23\u03bd \u1f15\u03c8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 <\u03b9\u03b3\u02b9>\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3. \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f31\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd. \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd Rav., \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd Ven.: whichever be followed, the mandate of not\ntasting is clear.\n\n[69] Schol. ad Ar. _Ach._ 1076 \u03a7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u00b7 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f11\u03c8\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\n... \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[70] _Feste der Stadt Athen_, p. 385.\n\n[71] P. IV. 35. 9 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ae\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f25\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\n[72] Herod. VIII. 176.\n\n[73] Theoph. _Hist. Plant._ IV. 11. 8 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f04\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n[74] Hesych. s.v. \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n[75] Plato, _Rep._ 614 C.\n\n[76] P. IX. 8.\n\n[77] _On._ X. 99.\n\n[78] Hesych. s.v. \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae\u00b7 \u1f21 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f23\u03bd \u1f21\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[79] _v._ 96.\n\n[80] Schol. ad Ar. _Vesp._ 289.\n\n[81] Suidas s.v. \u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03bf\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[82] Photius s.v. \u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f08\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1fe5\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[83] Diosc. _De mat. med._ I. 119 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f22\n\u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. For this\nreference I am indebted to the kindness of Dr Frazer, who also notes that\nin Ovid _spina alba_, white thorn, is placed in a window to keep off\n_tristes noxas_ and _striges_ (Ovid, _Fasti_ VI. 129-163), and compares\nthe English notion that hawthorn keeps off witches (see _Golden Bough_,\nsecond edit. vol. I. p. 124, note 3). Miss M. C. Harrison tells me that\nto this day rue (_ruta_) is eaten on Ascension Day at Pratola Peligna and\nother places in the Abruzzi, \u201cthat the witches may not come to torment\nour children\u201d (noi mangiamo la ruta affinche le streghe non vengano a\ntormentare le creature nostre); see A. De Nino, _Usi Abruzzesi_ I. p. 168.\n\n[84] Phot. s.v. \u1fe5\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f43 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n\u1f15\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f00\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7\u00b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[85] Schol. ad Ar. _Ach._ 961 \u03a7\u03bf\u1f70\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f22\n\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03ac\u03c2. \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c7\u03bf\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a7\u03bf\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[86] Athen. VII. 2 \u00a7 276.\n\n[87] Athen. X. 49 \u00a7 437 and Suidas s.v. \u03a7\u03cc\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n[88] Eur. _Iph. in T._ 953 seq.\n\n[89] The topographical question does not here immediately concern the\nargument. I have tried to show elsewhere (_J.H.S._ XX. p. 111) that the\nprecinct of the Limnae cannot be severed from the Areopagos without grave\nloss to mythology.\n\n[90] Athen. XI. 93 \u00a7 496.\n\n[91] Eustath. ad _Il._ XXIV. 526, p. 1363. 26 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2.\n\n[92] First published by Dr Paul Schadow, _Eine Attische Grablekythos_,\nInaugural-Dissertation (Jena, 1897), reproduced and discussed by the\npresent writer _J.H.S._ XX. p. 101.\n\n[93] Ar. _Eq._ 792. Mr R. A. Neil ad loc. points out that \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 answers\nto _fidelia_ in etymology, to _dolium_ in meaning.\n\n[94] Dr Sam. Wide, \u2018Aphidna in Nord-Attica,\u2019 _A. Mitt._ 1896, p. 398.\n\n[95] _Od._ X. 236.\n\n[96] _Od._ XXIV. 1-9.\n\n[97] Pind. _Ol._ IX. 33\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f08\u0390\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5 \u1fe5\u03ac\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f87 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c5\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd\n \u03b8\u03bd\u1fb3\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd is usually rendered \u2018unraised\u2019 as though the sceptre were\nlifted in token of kingly power. I translate by \u2018wave\u2019 because I believe\nthe action denoted is the waving or moving of a wand, not the raising\nof a sceptre. The verb \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9 is, I believe, characteristic of this\nwand-waving. \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9 is used in Homer (loc. cit.) \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. By\nPindar\u2019s time the wand and the sceptre were fused, but he is haunted by\nthe old connotation of magic.\n\n[98] For text, see p. 24, note 2.\n\n[99] Space forbids the discussion of the whole evolution of the\nkerykeion. It contains elements drawn from both sceptre and rhabdos. The\nrhabdos is sometimes forked like a divining rod: the forks were entwined\nin various shapes. Round the rhabdos a snake, symbol of the underworld,\nwas sometimes curled as the snake is curled round the staff of\nAesculapius. Ultimately the twisted ends of the rhabdos were crystallized\ninto curled decorative snakes. In like fashion the frayed fringe of the\nleather aegis of Athene is misunderstood and rendered as snakes. By the\ntime of Eustathius, kerykeion and rhabdos are not clearly differentiated.\n\n[100] _J.H.S._ XX. p. 101.\n\n[101] Plut. _Vit. Cam._ XX.\n\n[102] _Ling. Lat._ 5 \u00a7 157.\n\n[103] _Pauli excerpta ex Lib. Pomp._ Fest. s.v. doliola.\n\n[104] _Iliad_ XXIV. 527\n\n \u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1ff7\n \u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03b1 \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f11\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[105] Fest. 154.\n\n[106] Macr. _Sat._ I. 16. 18.\n\n[107] Harpocrat. s.v. \u1f08\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4. \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5.\n\n[108] _Etym. Mag._ s.v. \u1f08\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n[109] _J.H.S._ XX. 115.\n\n[110] _Od._ X. 526.\n\n[111] My view of the primitive significance of the root \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3, which is\nperhaps primarily rather _to conjure_ than _to pray_, will appear more\nclearly when we come to the discussion of the Thesmophoria.\n\n[112] Dr Wuensch in his instructive pamphlet _Ein Fr\u00fchlingsfest auf\nMalta_ (Leipzig, 1902) discusses a spring festival of the flowering\nof beans which he believes to be analogous to the _Anthesteria_, but\nthe rites practised are wholly different. Dr Hiller von Gaertringen\n(_Festschrift f\u00fcr O. Benndorf_) calls attention to the title _Anthister_\nwhich occurs in an inscription found on Thera, but the inscription is of\nthe second century B.C., the festival of the \u2018Anthesteria\u2019 was celebrated\non Thera, as indeed wherever there was a primitive population, and\n_Anthister_ must have borrowed rather than lent his name.\n\n[113] Archbishop Eustathius may have had a dim consciousness of the\nseparable \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1 when he says \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc6\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n[114] Schol. ad Luc. _Tim._ 43 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1] ... \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f03\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd. \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u1ff3,\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f26\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2. \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03a6\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ca\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f43\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u0394\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03bd\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f26\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n[115] Plut. _Q.R._ XXXIV. \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03af, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1fec\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a6\u03b5\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3\n\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03bf\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9, \u0394\u03ad\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u0392\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (\u1f61\u03c2\n\u039a\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd) \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0394\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd;\n\n[116] Plut. _Q.R._ XXV. \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[117] Athen. III. 53 \u00a7 98 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u039c\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f38\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03bf\u1f70\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[118] Ovid, _Fasti_ II. 19.\n\n[119] The ceremonies of the Lupercalia have been fully discussed by\nWarde-Fowler, _The Roman Festivals_, p. 310, and very fully by Mannhardt,\n_Mythologische Forschungen_, p. 72.\n\n[120] _Julius Caesar_, Act I. Sc. 2, _v._ 6.\n\n[121] Herond. _Mim._ III. 3.\n\n[122] Serv. ad Verg. _Aen._ VIII. 343 nam pellem ipsam capri veteres\n_februum_ vocabant. Varro (_Ling. Lat._ VI. 13) says that _februum_ was\nSabine for _purgamentum_.\n\n[123] Athen. VIII. 11 \u00a7 334 F.\n\n[124] 3rd cent. B.C.\n\n[125] That the religion of Dionysos came to Greece at a comparatively\nlate date will be shewn in Chapter VIII.\n\n[126] _Od._ XXIV. 215\n\n \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c8\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f45\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[127] Porph. _de Abst._ II. passim.\n\n[128] Eust. ad _Il._ I. 449 \u00a7 132 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03c9\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03c9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[129] Prof. Ridgeway (_Early Age of Greece_, vol. I. p. 524) has shown\n(to me conclusively) that these Homeric Achaeans were of Celtic origin\nand brought with them from central Europe the flesh-_roasting_ and\nflesh-eating habits of their northern ancestors.\n\n[130] Athen. I. 46 \u00a7 25.\n\n[131] P. II. 10. 1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9. \u03a6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03c5\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c3\u03c6\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03ca \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7\n\u03bf\u1f54\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u1f20\u03be\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f04\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03c5\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03ca \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\nThat the distinction between \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is no late invention\nof Pausanias is shown by the fact that Herodotos (II. 43) uses the same\nwords and draws the same distinction though with less explicit detail.\nSpeaking of Herakles as god and hero, he says: \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f48\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03af\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03ca \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n[132] P. VIII. 34. 3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd (\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2) \u1f10\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd,\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n[133] Eust. ad _Il._ XXIII. 429, 1357. 59 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f05\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[134] I do not deny that the word can be translated if we are content\nto vary our rendering in each various case. In the passages already\ndiscussed \u2018devote\u2019 is perhaps a fair equivalent, because the contrast\nemphasized is with a sacrifice shared. Sometimes the word may be rendered\nsimply \u2018sacrifice to the dead,\u2019 sometimes \u2018purificatory sacrifice,\u2019\nsometimes \u2018expiatory sacrifice.\u2019 No one word covers the whole field. It\nis this lost union of many diverse elements that has to be recovered and\nis nameless.\n\n[135] Athen. IX. 78 \u00a7 409 E ff. \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u1f18\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff7. \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u00b7 \u201c\u1f4c\u03c1\u03c5\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03cc\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\u1f1c\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03cc\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5, \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b5\u03b5, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u00b7\n\u2018\u1f59\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2.\u2019 \u1f1c\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f56\u03b8\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b5\u03b5.\u201d\n\u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u0395\u1f50\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. \u1f1c\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c8\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b5.\n\n[136] Hesych. \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03cd\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f24\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n[137] _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ XXIV. p. 258.\n\n[138] Now in the Museum at Chicago. _American Journal of Archaeology_,\n1899, pl. IV. The vase presents some difficulties, the discussion of\nwhich would be irrelevant here. The figure of Salmoneus madly and\nsacrilegiously counterfeiting Zeus and holding his thunder-bolt is I\nthink certain.\n\n[139] Fillets are specially characteristic of sacrificial victims.\nHerodotus VII. 197 describes Athamas as \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2.\n\n[140] Published by Mr H. B. Walters, _J.H.S._ XVIII. 1898, p. 281, pl.\nXV. The class of vases known sometimes as \u2018Tyrrhenian,\u2019 sometimes as\nCorintho-Attic, all belong to the same period, about the middle of the\nsixth century B.C., and are apparently from the same workshop.\n\n[141] Eur. _Hec._ 535.\n\n[142] Omphalos and tomb are in intent the same, see _J.H.S._ XIX. p. 225.\n\n[143] The genesis of the Erinys is discussed later, in Chapter V.\n\n[144] Aesch. _Eum._ 253.\n\n[145] Aesch. _Eum._ 264.\n\n[146] Schol. ad Eur. _Phoen._ 284 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1. ad 274\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03cc\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n[147] Porph. _de antr. nymph._ 3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f48\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f15\u03b4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03b2\u03cc\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1. The _megara_ will be discussed later (p. 125).\n\n[148] Aesch. _Eum._ 106.\n\n[149] Eustath. ad _Il._ I. 459 \u00a7 134.\n\n[150] Eustath. \u00a7 1057, 37.\n\n[151] Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod. I. 587 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f15\u03c9, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[152] Eur. _El._ 514.\n\n[153] Eur. _Ion_ 277\n\n \u0399\u03a9. \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2;\n\n \u039a\u03a1. \u1f14\u03c4\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n[154] Eur. _Hec._ 121 \u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[155] Athen. XIV. 22 \u00a7 626 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n[156] Eur. _Supp._ 1296 \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae \u03c3\u2019 \u1f04\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[157] P. III. 20. 9.\n\n[158] P. IV. 15. 8.\n\n[159] P. V. 24. 10 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f26\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1fa7\n\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u1ff3. Strictly\nspeaking Pausanias ought to have written \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u1ff3, but his meaning is\nsufficiently clear. \u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1 are actually \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1, not \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1. Eustathius, in\ndiscussing the sacrifice of Odysseus to the ghosts in the Nekuia, makes\nthe following statement: \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f49\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f0d\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c7\u03bf\u1fc7 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03ac \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1. Pausanias in the passage cited\nabove (III. 20. 9) uses \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd where \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 would be more correct.\nHe makes a sort of climax of confusion when, in describing the ritual of\nthe hero Amphiaraos, he says (I. 34. 5): \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\nwhen he should have said \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[160] _Il._ XIX. 265.\n\n[161] P. II. 34. 3.\n\n[162] Ar. _Ran._ 847.\n\n[163] Virg. _Aen._ III. 120.\n\n[164] P. II. 12. 1.\n\n[165] Aesch. _Agam._ 214.\n\n[166] The full and somewhat revolting details as to how omens were\ntaken from \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 do not concern us here; they are given in full by the\nscholiast on Eur. _Phoenissae_ 1255; see P. Stengel, _Hermes_ 1899,\nXXXIV. p. 642.\n\n[167] Porph. _de Abst._ II. 51.\n\n[168] Xen. _Anab._ VI. 5. 21.\n\n[169] Aesch. _Sept._ 230\n\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[170] Ammon. p. 72 Valck. \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f33 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[171] The question of \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 has been very fully discussed by Dr Paul\nStengel in four papers as follows: \u2018\u03a3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1,\u2019 _Hermes_ XXI. p. 307,\n1886; \u2018Miscellen,\u2019 XXV. p. 321; \u2018Prophezeiung aus der \u03a3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1,\u2019 XXXI. p.\n479 and XXXIV. p. 642. To this must be added papers by the same author\non \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 in the _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Gymnasial-Wesen_ 1880, p.\n743, and in the _Jahrbuch f\u00fcr Philologie_ 1882, p. 322, and 1883, p.\n375, and on the winds, _Hermes_ 1900, p. 626. I owe much in the matter\nof references to Dr Stengel\u2019s full collection of sources, but his\nconclusions as stated in \u2018Die Sakralaltert\u00fcmer\u2019 (Iwan M\u00fcller\u2019s _Handbuch\nder kl. Altertumswissenschaft_, Band V. Abt. 3) seem to me to be vitiated\nby the assumption that ceremonies of purification are late and foreign\nimportations.\n\n[172] Apoll. Rhod. IV. 470, trans. by Mr Gilbert Murray.\n\n[173] Since the above was written my attention has been called to Dr J.\nG. Frazer\u2019s paper \u2018On certain Burial Customs as illustrations of the\nprimitive theory of the soul\u2019 (_Journal of Anthropological Institute_,\nvol. XV. 1885-6). After a detailed examination of the burial rites and\ncustoms of the Greeks and many other peoples Mr Frazer reaches the\nfollowing memorable and to me most welcome conclusion: \u2018In general\nI think we may lay down the rule that wherever we find so-called\npurification by fire or water from pollution contracted by contact with\nthe dead we may assume with much probability that the original intention\nwas to place a physical barrier of fire or water between the living and\nthe dead, and that the conceptions of pollution and purification are\nmerely the fictions of a later age invented to explain the purpose of a\nceremony of which the original intention was forgotten.\u2019\n\n[174] Soph. _El._ 445.\n\n[175] The details described by Suidas s.v. \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 have a somewhat\napocryphal air and are probably due to etymology.\n\n[176] Schol. ad Soph. _El._ 445.\n\n[177] P. III. 17. 7.\n\n[178] Plut. _de ser. num. vind._ XVII. \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b8\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[179] Eur. _Or._ 395\n\n \u039c\u0395. \u03c4\u03af \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2; \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03c3\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2;\n\n \u039f\u03a1. \u1f21 \u03be\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[180] Suidas s.v. \u1f1c\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9, _Paroimiograph._ I. 402, App. Cent. and\nEustath. ad _Il._ II. 732 \u00a7 331.\n\n[181] Plut. _Vit. Pelop._ XXI.\n\n[182] _Cat._ 422.\n\n[183] _Od._ XI. 23 ff.\n\n[184] For the ceremonials of ghost-raising, see Dr W. G. Headlam,\n_Classical Review_, 1902, p. 52.\n\n[185] Luc. _Char._ 22.\n\n[186] A. Mommsen (_Feste der Stadt Athen_, p. 486) discusses the\nThargelia, Kallynteria and Plynteria in immediate succession, but without\na hint of the connection of the two last with the first.\n\n[187] Vani\u010dek (s.v. p. 310) derives \u0398\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1, which appears also in the\nform \u03a4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1, from a root \u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3 meaning \u2018hot\u2019 and \u2018dry\u2019 and connects it\nwith \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3 in \u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9, \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c9 etc. All these analogous forms have the same\nmeaning, i.e. \u2018ripened by the sun,\u2019 \u2018ready for harvesting.\u2019\n\n[188] Athen. III. 52 \u00a7 115 \u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[189] Hesych. s.v. \u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[190] loc. cit. supra.\n\n[191] Theocr. _Id._ VII. 31 \u1f01 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f05\u03b4\u03b5 \u0398\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03c2.\n\n[192] Hom. _Il._ IX. 534\n\n \u1f45 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bf\u1f54 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u039f\u1f30\u03bd\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ad\u03be\u2019.\n\nEustath. ad loc. \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76 ... \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd ... \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af, \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[193] The sources for the Eiresione are very fully given and discussed\nby Mannhardt, _Wald- und Feldkulte_, pp. 214-248; see Dr Frazer, _Golden\nBough_, 2nd edition, vol. I. p. 190, for modern parallels.\n\n[194] Ar. _Eq._ 729, schol. ad loc.\n\n[195] Eustath. ad _Il._ XXII. 496, p. 1283 \u1f96\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2\n\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c3\u1fe6\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f54\u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u1fc3.\n\n[196] Ar. _Plut._ 1054, schol. ad loc. \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f24\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. \u1f23\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n[197] Plut. _Vit. Thes._ XVIII. The account of Plutarch is substantially\nthe same as that of his contemporary Pausanias the rhetorician; both\nappear to draw from some common source, which may be Krates\u2019 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd:\nsee Mannhardt, _Wald- und Feldkulte_, p. 219.\n\n[198] Harpocrat. s.v.\n\n[199] _Etym. Mag._ s.v.\n\n[200] Suidas s.v. \u03a0\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[201] Schol. ad Ar. _Plut._ 1054.\n\n[202] Porph. _de Abst._ II. 7. The text contains obscure words, e.g.\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03b1 of which Nauck observes _loci medela nobis negata_, but those\ntranslated above seem certain.\n\n[203] _Iliad_ loc. cit. supra.\n\n[204] Aristot. _Eth. Nic._ 1160 \u0398. IX. 5 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c2 <\u03c4\u03b5> \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2. \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af. \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n[205] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, pp. 167\nff.\n\n[206] A. Lang, _Religion and Magic_, p. 265.\n\n[207] Philoch. ap. Athen. I. 16 \u00a7 9 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b6\u1ff4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n[208] Fest. \u00a7 318 _sacrima_ appellabant mustum quod Libero sacrificabant,\npro vineis et vasis et ipso vino conservando, sicut praemetium de spicis\nquas primum messuissent sacrificabant Cereri.\n\n[209] Plut. _Q. Symp._ III. 7. 1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u2019 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f54\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1fc6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[210] Porph. _de Abst._ I. 14.\n\n[211] Porph. _de Abst._ II. 56. The treatise of Porphyry, so far as\nit relates to sacrifice, is mainly based on the previous treatise of\nTheophrastos.\n\n[212] Eustath. ad _Il._ I. 449 \u00a7 132.\n\n[213] Porph. _de Abst._ II. 20.\n\n[214] Porph. loc. cit. \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03c9\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1. \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03c9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[215] Eustath. ad _Od._ III. 440, 1476. 37 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n[216] Strato ap. Athen. IX. 29 \u00a7 382.\n\n[217] For a full discussion of \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03b1\u03af and \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 see Dr H. von Fritze,\n_Hermes_ 1897, p. 236.\n\n[218] Eustath. ad _Il._ I. 449 \u00a7 132, 23 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 ... \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 ... \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f01\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f03\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[219] Eur. _El._ 804\n\n \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5 \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b7.\n\n[220] Athen. XIV. 81 \u00a7 661.\n\n[221] Hom. _Od._ IV. 761.\n\n[222] Plut. _Q. Gr._ VI.\n\n[223] Ar. _Av._ 622.\n\n[224] Athen. IV. 14 \u00a7 137.\n\n[225] Hom. _Il._ XVIII. 560.\n\n[226] The process of primitive bread-making is fully discussed by Prof.\nBenndorf (_Eranos Vindobensis_, p. 374), to whom I am indebted for the\nview here expressed. In Yorkshire within my own remembrance a rather\nrepulsive mess of corn stewed in milk with currants was always eaten on\nChristmas Eve before the regular feast began. It was served as soup and\ncalled _frummety_.\n\n[227] Eustath. ad _Il._ XVIII. 563 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u0390\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f42\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, and again in\ndiscussing the feast of Eumaeus (\u00a7 1751, 33) \u1f41 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd,\n\u1f45 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n[228] Varro _L.L._ V. 106 libum quod ut libaretur. The Latin _puls_ and\n_polenta_ are probably from the same root as \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Pliny (_N.H._\nXVIII. 19) says it is clear that in ancient days _pulte non pane Romanos\nvixisse_. He adds that to his day primitive rites and those on birthdays\nare carried on with _pulse_.\n\n[229] Aesch. _Pers._ 204 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9, and 523 \u03b3\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b8\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n[230] Sannyr. frg. 1 Koch.\n\n[231] The sources for \u03bd\u03b7\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 are well collected and discussed by Dr von\nFritze, _De Libatione veterum Graecorum_, Berlin 1893, also by Stengel,\n_Hermes_ XXII. p. 645, and \u2018Chthonische und Totenkult\u2019 in _Festschrift\nf\u00fcr Friedl\u00e4nder_, p. 418, and W. Barth, \u2018Bestattungsspende bei den\nGriechen,\u2019 _Neue Jahrb\u00fccher f\u00fcr klass. Altert\u00fcm._ 1900, p. 177. W. Barth\ndraws distinctions between the cultus of the dead and that of chthonic\ndivinities, which I think cannot be clearly made out.\n\n[232] Aesch. _Pers._ 607.\n\n[233] Plut. _Q.R._ XX. \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[234] Macr. I. 12. 25 quod vas in quo vinum inditum est mellarium\nnominetur et vinum lac nuncupetur.\n\n[235] Soph. _Oed. Col._ 468.\n\n[236] Aesch. _Eum._ 104.\n\n[237] Aesch. _Eum._ 727.\n\n[238] P. II. 11. 3. The relation between the Semnae and the Eumenides and\nthe ritual of the Semnae, which is identical with that of the Eumenides,\nwill be discussed later in Chapter V.\n\n[239] Schol. ad _Oed. Col._ 100.\n\n[240] Porph. _de antr. Nymph._ 7.\n\n[241] Emped. frg. ap. Porph. _de Abst._ II. 21.\n\n[242] Some further points as to the Nephalia will be considered in\nrelation to the Eleusinian ritual (p. 150), and the Orphic mysteries\n(Chapter X.).\n\n[243] Eustath. ad _Il._ I. 52. For a full discussion of the purport of\ncremation see Prof. Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece_ I. p. 540.\n\n[244] Porph. _de Abst._ II. 5.\n\n[245] Diog. Laert. VIII. 13.\n\n[246] P. VIII. 42. 5.\n\n[247] Pind. _Ol._ VII. 47, schol. ad loc.\n\n[248] Philostrat. _Eik._ II. 27 \u00a7 852.\n\n[249] Diod. V. 56.\n\n[250] P. VIII. 2. 2.\n\n[251] Harpocrat. s.v. \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n[252] Diog. Laert. II. 4.\n\n[253] Classical sources for the _pharmakos_ are most fully enumerated by\nMannhardt, _Myth. Forschungen_, pp. 123, 133. For primitive analogies see\nFrazer, _Golden Bough_, 2nd ed., vol. III. p. 93, from whom I have taken\nthe instances adduced.\n\n[254] Ar. _Ran._ 734.\n\n[255] Ar. frg. 532.\n\n[256] Ar. _Eq._ 1405.\n\n[257] Lys. _c. Andok._ 108. 4: \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd _\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd_ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9_\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f13\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9.\n\n[258] Fragments of Hipponax (6th cent. B.C.) incorporated by Tzetzes\n_Hist._ 23. 726-756:\n\n \u03a4\u03af \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1;\n \u1f41 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9.\n \u1f02\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3,\n \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf,\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2.\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1fe5\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n\u1f41 \u03b4\u03ad \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\n\n 1 _\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9_ (\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd),\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c0\u03bf\u03cd \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f30\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u1ff3 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\n\n 2 _\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2_\n _\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd._\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03ac \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\n\n 3 _\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9._\n\n 4 _\u03ba\u1f04\u03c6\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd_\n _\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03af._\n\n 5 _\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1(\u03b9) \u03c7\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2_\n _\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03af._\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c0\u03bf\u03cd \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f30\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u1ff3\n\n 6 _\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1ff7_\n _\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b7._\n\n[259] Hippon. frg. 11 (4) \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f05\u03b3\u03b5\u03ca \u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n[260] Hellad. ap. Phot. _Bibl._ c. 279, p. 534.\n\n[261] Hesych. s.v. \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[262] Plin. _N.H._ XX. 9. 39.\n\n[263] Diosc. _de mat. med._ II. 202.\n\n[264] Luc. _Nek._ 7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03be\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ae\u03b3\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b4\u1fb3\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc3.\n\n[265] Theocr. _Id._ VII. 104, schol. ad loc.\n\n[266] Ar. _Ran._ 620.\n\n[267] Luc. _Indoct._ 1.\n\n[268] Schol. ad Ar. _Eq._ 1136.\n\n[269] Harpocrat. s.v. \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2,\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f01\u03bb\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u0398\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd,\n\u1f3c\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n[270] For these modern savage analogies and many others see Dr Frazer,\n_Golden Bough_, 2nd ed., vol. III. p. 93.\n\n[271] Plut. _de Is. et Os._ LXXIII. \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2\n\u039c\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03a4\u03c5\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f20\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[272] Clem. Al. _Protr._ XII. 118 \u03c6\u03cd\u03b3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd ... \u1f04\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b2\u03cc\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n[273] Lev. xvi. 21, and for the Egyptian scape-animal see Herod. II. 39.\n\n[274] Plut. _Q. Symp._ VI. 8.\n\n[275] My attention was kindly drawn to this vase by M. Perdrizet who\nproposes shortly to publish it. Suidas (s.v. \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd) seems to refer\nto the Charila ceremony, \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u1f44\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u1fb6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2. For this and the\n_oscilla_ ceremonies and the analogy of Artemis \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 (P. VIII. 23.\n7) see Lobeck, _Aglaoph._ p. 175. The beating of the female slave in the\ntemple of Leucothea (Plut. _Q.R._ XVI.) seems to have been based on a\nracial taboo, but a \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 ceremony may underlie it.\n\n[276] Serv. ad Verg. _Aen._ III. 75.\n\n[277] For a full and very interesting discussion of the etymology\nand meaning of \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, see Osthoff, \u2018Allerhand Zauber etymologisch\nbeleuchtet,\u2019 Bezzenberger, _Beitr\u00e4ge_ XXIV. p. 109. As to the\naccentuation of the word \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 Eustathius (1935. 15) notes that it was\nproparoxytone \u2018among the Ionians.\u2019\n\n[278] As to the god worshipped at the Thargelia it is probable that\nwhen godhead came to be formulated Demeter Chloe long preceded Apollo.\nDiogenes Laertius (II. 44) notes that on the sixth day of Thargelia when\nthe Athenians purified the city, sacrifice was done to Demeter Chloe.\nHere as elsewhere Apollo took over the worship of an Earth-goddess.\n\n[279] Herod. VII. 197. My attention was drawn to this passage and its\nimportance as reflecting the attitude of the Greek mind towards Human\nSacrifices by Dr A. W. Verrall.\n\n[280] Porphyr. _de Abst._ II. 53-56.\n\n[281] My account of the Bouphonia is taken from Dr Frazer\u2019s summary,\nwhich is exactly based on the complex double account given by Porphyry\nfrom Theophrastos (Porphyr. _de Abst._ II. 29 seq.) and Aelian (_V.H._\nVIII. 3). With Dr Frazer\u2019s exhaustive commentary (_Golden Bough_, 2nd ed.\nvol. II. p. 295) I am in substantial agreement, save that I do not see\nin the murdered ox the representative of the Corn Spirit. The Bouphonia\nas ox-_murder_ was first correctly explained by Prof. Robertson Smith\n(_Religion of the Semites_, p. 286 ff.). I have discussed it previously\nin _Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens_, p. 424 ff.: see also\nDr Paul Stengel, _Rhein. Mus._ 1897, p. 187. With Dr von Prott\u2019s view\n(_Rhein. Mus._ 1897, p. 187) that the sense of guilt in the sacrifice\narises from the fact that the ox was the surrogate of a human victim I\nwholly disagree.\n\n[282] It is possible that Dipolia is etymologically not festival of Zeus\nPolieus but festival of the Plough Curse, see p. 23.\n\n[283] Ar. _Nub._ 984.\n\n[284] The scholiast is (so far as I know) the only authority who\ngives the female form. It is possible that the sacrifice may have\nbeen primarily to an earth-goddess and hence the animals are female.\nThe curious ceremonial of the _Chthonia_ (P. II. 35. 3) was a similar\nbutchery of cows in honour of Chthonia and presided over by old women who\ndid the actual slaughter, and no man native or foreigner was allowed to\nsee it.\n\n[285] P. V. 27. 6.\n\n[286] Diod. I. 91 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[287] Plut. _De defect. orac._ XIV., the text is in places corrupt.\n\n[288] I have elsewhere (_J.H.S._ XIX. 1899, p. 223) stated that the\nword \u2018Stepterion\u2019 cannot to my thinking be translated \u2018Festival of\nCrowning.\u2019 This explanation rests only on Aelian (_Hist. An._ XII. 34),\nand purification (\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f14\u03ba\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), not crowning, is the main gist of\nthe ceremonies. The name Stepterion, is, I suspect, connected with the\nenigmatic \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b7 and \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd as occurring in Aesch. _Choeph._ 94, Soph.\n_Ant._ 431, _Elec._ 52, 458, and means in some way purification.\n\n[289] Other instances are given Ael. _Hist. An._ XII. 34, Philostr. _Im._\nII. 24. 850. For analogous Roman Festivals see Regifugium and Poplifugia,\nWarde-Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, pp. 327 and 174. For the Stepterion and\nsavage analogies see Dr Frazer, _Pausanias_, vol. III. p. 53.\n\n[290] Plut. _Vit. Alc._ XXXIV.\n\n[291] Poll. _On._ VIII. 141.\n\n[292] Phot. s.v. \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n[293] Plutarch and Photius cannot both be right, but it is unlikely that\nPhotius would give the _sequence_ incorrectly.\n\n[294] Hesych. s.v. \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n[295] Hesych. s.v. \u1f21\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u00b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f21\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f21\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1.\n\n[296] Plut. _Q.R._ LXXXVI.\n\n[297] Plut. _Q.R._ XXXII.\n\n[298] Ov. _Fasti_ V. 621.\n\n[299] The whole ceremony of the _Argei_ has been fully discussed by\nMr Warde-Fowler (_The Roman Festivals_, p. 111). Abundant primitive\nanalogies have been collected by Mannhardt (_Baumkultus_, pp. 155, 411,\n416, and _Antike Wald- und Feldkulte_, p. 276). For the etymology of\n_Argei_ see Mr A. B. Cook, _Class. Rev._ XVII. 1903, p. 269.\n\n[300] Plut. _Q.R._ LXXXVI.\n\n[301] Ov. _Fasti_ VI. 219-234.\n\n[302] Warde-Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, p. 148.\n\n[303] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2nd ed., vol. II. p. 329.\n\n[304] The sources for the Thesmophoria are collected and discussed by Dr\nJ. G. Frazer, _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, Art. Thesmophoria.\n\n[305] II. 171. See also Frazer, _Pausanias_, vol. V. p. 29; Harrison and\nVerrall, _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, pp. xxxiv. and 102-105 and 482; A.\nLang, _Homeric Hymns_, Introd. Essay and Hymn to Demeter.\n\n[306] Schol. ad Aristoph. _Thesm._ 78. Photius, s.v. and Schol. ad\nAristoph. _Thesm._ 585.\n\n[307] Cornut. _de Theol._ 28.\n\n[308] Lucian, _Dial. Meretr._ II. 1, first published and commented\non by E. Rohde, _Rhein. Mus._ XXV. p. 549. As the text is not very\neasily accessible it is given below: \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1. _\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9._ \u1f24\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03c9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f21\u03c1\u03c0\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f21 \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b2\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f57\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2. \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0395\u1f50\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2\n\u1fe5\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c7\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2. \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03b4\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. \u1f67\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f15\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2\n\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f04\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2. \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1, \u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03ce\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 _\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78_ \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f04\u03b4\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f25\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. _\u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2_ \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2\u00b7 \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f21 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[309] The rites of purification included strict chastity, for the purport\nof which as a conservation of energy see Dr Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2nd\ned. II. p. 210.\n\n[310] \u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 ... \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, i.e. \u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af. Cf. Septuagint, Is.\niii. 17. The Arrephoroi are not as I previously (_Myth. and Mon. Ancient\nAthens_, p. xxxiv.) suggested _Hersephoroi_, Carriers of Young Things.\nSuidas, it may be noted, has the formally impossible word _\u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf_\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\nIt may have arisen from a paronomasia and seems to point in the same\ndirection as the \u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd of the scholiast. On the use of\nthe \u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 among agriculturalists as a prophylactic against the evil eye\nand \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 ... \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, see Diod. IV. 6.\n\n[311] The influence of mimetic ritual on the development of mythology\nwill be considered later, p. 279.\n\n[312] P. IX. 8. 1.\n\n[313] _Nineteenth Century_, April, 1887.\n\n[314] Newton, C. T., _Discoveries at Halicarnassus_, vol. II. p. 383, and\n_Travels and Discoveries in the Levant_, II. p. 180.\n\n[315] Porphyr. _de antro Nymph._ VI.\n\n[316] VI. 11. 18.\n\n[317] Eustath. \u00a7 1387.\n\n[318] Dr Frazer reminds me that Prof. Robertson Smith (_Religion of the\nSemites_, p. 183) derived \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd from the Phoenician _maghar_, Hebrew\n_meghara_ \u2018a cave.\u2019 The form \u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd adduced by Aelian, favours this\nview; cf. also Photius s.v. \u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f43 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u039c\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[319] Heydemann, _Griechische Vasenbilder_, Taf. II. 3. For a somewhat\nsimilar design cf. _Brit. Mus. Cat._ E 819.\n\n[320] Marcellinus on Hermog. in _Rhet. Graec._, ed. Walz, IV. 462.\nSopater, _ibid._ VIII. 67. Aristoph. _Thesm._ 80. Dr Frazer kindly\nsuggests to me that the custom of releasing prisoners at the Thesmophoria\nmay be explained as a precaution against the magical influence of knots,\nfetters, and the like in trammeling spiritual activities whether for good\nor evil, cf. _Golden Bough_, 2nd ed. I. p. 392 sqq.\n\n[321] Apollod. I. 5. 1.\n\n[322] _Ath. Mitt._ 1899, Taf. VIII. 1.\n\n[323] Plut. _de Is. et Os._ LXIX.\n\n[324] As to the meaning of the difficult word \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 I can offer nothing\nsatisfactory. It is perhaps worth noting that Athenaeus (III. 74 \u00a7 109),\non the authority of Semos, mentions a sort of cake called \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u0390\u03bd\u03b1, which\nwas made on the occasion of the Thesmophoria; the people who carried it\nare said to have exclaimed \u2018Munch an Achaina full of fat,\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u2018\u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u0390\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5.\u2019 The scholiast on Ar.\n_Ach._ 709 says that Demeter got her name of Achaia \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2, and he may be\nright.\n\n[325] Plut. loc. cit. \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c8\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2;\n\n[326] Hesych. s.v. \u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n[327] Suid. s.v.\n\n[328] Hesych. s.v. \u03b6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u00b7 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. It is possible, I think, that \u03b6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 may conceal some form\nconnected with Damia.\n\n[329] Plut. _Q. Gr._ XXXI.\n\n[330] IX. 26.\n\n[331] Athen. II. 26 \u00a7 46.\n\n[332] Is. _Pyrr. Hered._ 80.\n\n[333] Clem. Al. _Protr._ II. 17, p. 14, \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f23\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2* (\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, Lobeck) \u03c7\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, \u03a3\u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, \u1f08\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1ff3\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n[334] I. 27. 3.\n\n[335] Trans. J. G. Frazer. Dr Frazer in his commentary on the passage,\nvol. II. p. 344, enumerates the other sources respecting the Arrephoroi;\nsee also Harrison and Verrall, _Mythology and Monuments of Ancient\nAthens_, pp. xxxii and 512.\n\n[336] Dr Frazer draws my attention to the curiously analogous ritual\npractised at Lanuvium, in a grove near the temple of the Argive Hera,\ndescribed by Aelian (_Hist. An._ XI. 16) and Propertius (IV. 8. 3 sqq.).\nOnce a year sacred maidens descended with bandaged eyes into a serpent\u2019s\ncave and offered it a barley cake. If the serpent ate of the cake the\npeople rejoiced, taking it to show that the girls were pure maidens and\nthat the year\u2019s crops would be good:\n\n Si fuerint castae, redeunt in colla parentum;\n Clamantque agricolae Fertilis annus erit.\n\n[337] _C.I.A._ III., No. 19.\n\n[338] _C.I.A._ III., Nos. 318, 319.\n\n[339] _B.M. Cat._ E 418, see _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. xxxii.\n\n[340] \u1f04\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 ... \u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, see p. 122,\nnote 2.\n\n[341] For various views of the Skirophoria, see Robert, _Hermes_ XX. 394;\nRohde, _Kleine Schriften_, p. 371; A. Mommsen, _Philolog._ L. p. 123.\n\n[342] Ar. _Thesmoph._ 834.\n\n[343] _C.I.A._ II. p. 422, n. 573 b.\n\n[344] Ar. _Eccles._ 18.\n\n[345] Ar. _Vesp._ 925.\n\n[346] A. Mommsen, \u2018Die Attischen Skira-Gebr\u00e4uche,\u2019 _Philolog._ L. p. 123.\n\n[347] Plin. _N.H._ XVII. 29. 2.\n\n[348] Hesych. s.v.\n\n[349] Ar. _Thesm._ 533.\n\n[350] Plut. _Vit. Rom._ sub fin.\n\n[351] Schol. ad Theocr. _Id._ IV. 25 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n[352] See supra, p. 121 sq.\n\n[353] Sixteen similar figures with feet and hands tightly bound, and in\nsome cases the arms pierced by nails, were recently found on the site of\nthe ancient Palestrina, see _Egypt Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement_,\np. 332.\n\n[354] R. W\u00fcnsch, \u2018Eine antike Rachepuppe,\u2019 _Philolog._ LXI. 1902, p. 26.\n\n[355] Migne, _Patrol. Gr._ LXXXVII. 50 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[356] Theocr. _Id._ II. 18 ff.\n\n[357] The bird \u1f34\u03cb\u03b3\u03be, supposed to be the wry-neck _Iynx torquilla_, bound\non a wheel was a frequent love-charm. It is like the Siren (p. 201)\na bird-soul, an enchanted maiden with the power to lure souls. Such\nenchanters, half-human, half-bird, were also the Keledones, cf. Athen.\nVII. \u00a7 290 E \u03b1\u1f33 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. In\nmetaphorical language Siren and Iynx are equivalents, cf. Xen. _Mem._\nIII. 11. 18; and cf. Diog. Laert. VI. 2. 76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bd \u1f34\u03cb\u03b3\u03be\n\u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[358] Plat. _Legg._ 933.\n\n[359] Schol. ad Theocr. _Id._ II. 10 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1fc7\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2* \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\n... \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u039b\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03ce\u03b8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1. The reading \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 is doubtful; see Mr A.\nB. Cook, _J.H.S._ 1902, p. 14.\n\n[360] Poll. _On._ V. 131 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd. \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2,\n\u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bb\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9,\n\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c6\u03cd\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9,\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n[361] W. H. D. Rouse, _Greek Votive Offerings_, p. 339. Dr Rouse\nsays that \u2018binding spells\u2019 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u2018are still the terror of the Greek\nbridegroom.\u2019\n\n[362] C. T. Newton, _Discoveries at Cnidus and Halicarnassus_.\n\n[363] Cato, _de agr. cult._ 134. 3 bonas preces precor uti sies volens\npropitius mihi liberisque, etc.\n\n[364] Suidas in explaining \u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 says \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019\n\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f03\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03ce\u03b8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. It is\nworth noting that in M.H.D. _segen_ is not only as in modern German\n_benedictio_ but also _maledictio_, see Osthoff, \u2018Allerhand Zauber\netymologisch beleuchtet,\u2019 Bezzenberger, _Beitr\u00e4ge_ XXIV. p. 180.\n\n[365] R\u00f6hl, _I.G.A._ 497. The whole subject of legal curses has been well\ndiscussed by Dr Ziebart, \u2018Der Fluch im Griechischen Recht\u2019 (_Hermes_\nXXX. p. 57) to whom I owe many references. Also by the same writer in\nhis \u2018Neue Attische Fluchtafeln\u2019 (_Nachrichten der K. Ges. d. Wiss. zu\nG\u00f6ttingen_, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1889, pp. 105 and 135), and by R. W\u00fcnsch,\n\u2018Neue Fluchtafeln\u2019 (_Rhein. Mus._ 1900, I. p. 62, II. p. 232). Curse\nInscriptions are collected in an Appendix to the _Corpus Inscriptionum\nAtticarum_, under the title _Defixionum Tabulae_.\n\n[366] Dittenberger, _Syll. Inscr._ 879.\n\n[367] _Mon. and Myth. Anc. Athens_, p. 104.\n\n[368] Ar. _Thesm._ 331.\n\n[369] Plut. _Vit. Dion._ 56.\n\n[370] Paroimiogr. I. 388 \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03b6\u03cd\u03b3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f22 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[371] Porph. _de Abst._ IV. 22.\n\n[372] Schol. ad Luc. _Dial. Meretr._ VII. 4 \u1f19\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[373] Eustath. ad _Il._ IX. 530, 772 \u1f38\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f97 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f24\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03a0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f01\u03bb\u1ff7\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f05\u03bb\u03c9 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f22 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f4d\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f05\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f97 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03ae.\n\n[374] Harp. s.v. \u1f09\u03bb\u1ff7\u03b1.\n\n[375] Dem. 59. 116 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03a3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u1fb3 \u1f09\u03bb\u1ff4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u1fc7 \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b8\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03bf\u1f54\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[376] _C.I.A._ II. 1, n. 471 \u1f24\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf[\u1f7a\u03c2] \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. Cf. Dittenberger, _De Epheb._ p. 77.\n\n[377] The nature of the contest is not clear. Artemidorus (I. 8) says:\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f08\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9 \u2018\u039a\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd.\u2019 See Lobeck, _Agl._\np. 206.\n\n[378] Luc. _Dial. Meretr._ VII. 4 \u2018\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f09\u03bb\u1ff7\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd;\u2019 schol. ad loc. \u1f19\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\n\u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (d.\nSubject fehlt im Cod.: zu erg\u00e4nzen ist \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac?) \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n(sic) \u1f10\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f67\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.... After recounting the death\nof Ikarios the scholiast continues, \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\n\u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae. \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f03 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5, \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f31\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03be\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd (so die\nHs.: der Sinn erfordert \u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd genitalium) \u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u1fc6 (\u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6 die Hs.)\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1. \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff7, \u1fe5\u03bf\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03c1\u03bd\u03af\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fa0\u1ff6\u03bd,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b3\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 (\u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 die Hs.), \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03c9\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\n(?\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5), \u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 (\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6?). \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03b6\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03be\u1f76\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03b6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1.\n\u1f01\u03bb\u1ff7\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03c9\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[379] _Hom. Hym. ad Cer._ 370.\n\n[380] _v._ 399.\n\n[381] Porphyr. _de Abst._ IV. 16.\n\n[382] The sources for the Eleusinian Mysteries are collected in Lobeck\u2019s\n_Aglaophamus_. Reference to inscriptions discovered since Lobeck\u2019s days\nwill be found in Daremberg and Saglio\u2019s _Dictionnaire des Antiquit\u00e9s_,\ns.v. The best general account in English is that by Prof. Ramsay in the\n_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, in French two articles reprinted from the\n_M\u00e9moires de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres_, vol. XXXV.\n2nd part 1895, and vol. XXXVII. 1900, entitled \u2018Recherches sur l\u2019origine\net la nature des Myst\u00e8res d\u2019\u00c9leusis,\u2019 and \u2018Les Grands Myst\u00e8res d\u2019\u00c9leusis,\nPersonnel, C\u00e9r\u00e9monies.\u2019\n\n[383] The rites at Eleusis were _probably_ at first confined to women.\nDionysios of Halicarnassos (_Ant. Rom._ I. 331) says in speaking of the\ncult of Demeter in Arcadia, \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b7\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f67\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f41\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f24\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03b5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[384] _C.I.A._ III. 5.\n\n[385] Inscr. _A. Mitth._ 1894 p. 163 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f31\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f00\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n[386] The exact formulary is preserved by Theon of Smyrna, p. 22, \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u2018\u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 ... \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\u2019 Some authorities think that \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 means speaking an\nunknown, barbarous tongue, others that it meant having some impediment\nof speech that prevented the due utterance of the sacred formularies. I\nthink the former more probable.\n\n[387] Ar. _Ran._ 354.\n\n[388] Hesych. s.v.\n\n[389] Polyaen. _Strat._ III. 11.\n\n[390] Plut. _de glor. Ath._ VII.\n\n[391] _C.I.A._ IV. 385 d, l. 20 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n[392] Mr R. A. Neil suggested that the same root and idea may lurk in\nthe unexplained _pontifex_, i.e. maker of \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03af. The connection with\n_bridges_ is late and fanciful.\n\n[393] Plut. _Vit. Phoc._ XXVIII.\n\n[394] Head, _Hist. Num._ p. 328: on the reverse is Triptolemos in his\nwinged car.\n\n[395] Plat. _Rep._ II. 378 A.\n\n[396] Clem. Al. _Strom._ V. 689 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019\n\u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n[397] Clem. Al. _Protr._ II. \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 ... \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\n[398] Lyd. _de mens._ IV. 38 \u039c\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2. In form \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 might come from \u03bc\u03cd\u03c9 (cf. \u1f00\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af), but Mr\nGilbert Murray draws my attention to some uses of \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd which point\nrather to \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, e.g. Eur. _Suppl._ 470 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03ac \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\nand _El._ 87 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[399] The aetiology of the Hymn and the various ceremonies that gave\nrise to it are well explained by Mr F. B. Jevons, _Introd. to History of\nReligion_, Appendix to Chapter XXIV.\n\n[400] I omit altogether the ceremonies of the 17th-18th, the _Epidauria_,\nas they were manifestly a later accretion; the worship of the Epidaurian\nAsklepios was formally inaugurated at Athens (see p. 344) in 421 B.C.\n\n[401] Dittenberger, _Syllog. Inscript._ 13.\n\n[402] Clem. Al. _Protr._ II. 18 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f18\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1,\n\u1f14\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1, \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (? \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2)\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd. Since the above was\nwritten, Dr Dieterich (_Eine Mithras-Liturgie_ p. 125) has shown good\nreason for supposing that \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is a euphemism for rites analogous\nto the \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2: see p. 535.\n\n[403] _C.I.A._ vol. IV. p. 203, ll. 68 and 72.\n\n[404] _Annali dell\u2019 Inst._ 1865, Tav. d\u2019 agg. F. Naples, Heydemann,\n_Cat._ 3358.\n\n[405] Clem. Al. _Protr._ I. 2. 13 \u0394\u03b7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 (leg. \u03b1\u1f31) \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1. \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0394\u03b7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f31\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9. \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03a6\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f0c\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03c5\u03b2\u03ad\u03bb\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9,\u2014\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. \u1f18\u03ba \u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1, \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[406] Schol. ad Plat. _Gorg._ p. 123 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2)\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u03ac, \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u1f10\u03ba\n\u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 (\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f24\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd), \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2. The concluding\nformulary, which does not occur in the Eleusinian confession, will be\nexplained later (Chap. X).\n\n[407] Athen. XI. 52 \u00a7 476.\n\n[408] Athen. XI. 56 \u00a7 478 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u2019\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u00b7\n\u1f14\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bc\u03ae\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03af, \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03af, \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03af, \u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9,\n\u1f66\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c6\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03af, \u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9, \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1,\n\u1f44\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c0\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\nI have translated the difficult \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 by _aloft_ taking it as referring to\nthe carrying on the head, but see \u2018Kerchnos,\u2019 O. Rubensohn, _A. Mitt._\n1898, XXIII. p. 270, to whom I am indebted for many references. The\n_Kernophoria_ is well shown in the Ninnion pinax in fig. 160.\n\n[409] \u1f18\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1898, p. 61 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u0393.\n\n[410] S\u00e8vres Museum, _Annual of British School at Athens_, vol. III. p.\n57, Pl. IV.\n\n[411] Athen. XI. 93 \u00a7 496.\n\n[412] Procl. ad Plat. _Tim._ p. 293 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b2\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd \u2018\u1f55\u03b5,\u2019 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u2018\u03ba\u03cd\u03b5.\u2019\n\n[413] Hesych. s.v. \u039a\u1f78\u03b3\u03be \u1f44\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03be\u00b7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. Mr F. M. Cornford\nsuggests that the original form may have been \u039a\u03cc\u03b3\u03be\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03be, \u2018Sound the\nconch\u2014enough.\u2019 See also Lobeck, _Aglaoph._ 775.\n\n[414] My position in this matter was stated long ago in an article in the\n_Journal of Hellenic Studies_ XX. 1899, p. 211, 244.\n\n[415] _Sagesse et Destin\u00e9e_, p. 76.\n\n[416] _Legg._ XI. p. 937 D \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u039a\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03cd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n\u03b1\u1f33 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ac.\n\n[417] I am indebted for this and many important references to the article\non Keres by Dr Otto Crusius in Roscher\u2019s _Lexicon_ (Bd. II. 1148). Dr\nCrusius\u2019 admirable exposition of the nature of the Keres suffers only\nfrom one defect, that he feels himself obliged to begin it with the\ncomparatively late literary conceptions of Homer.\n\n[418] Conon, _Narr._ XLV.\n\n[419] Published and explained as Heracles \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 by Professor\nFurtw\u00e4ngler, _Jahrb. d. Inst._ 1895, p. 37.\n\n[420] Berlin, _Inv._ 3317.\n\n[421] _Orph. Hymn._ XII.\n\n \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1, \u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7\n \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd,\n \u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f30\u03bf\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5.\n\n[422] Ahrens, No. 99 b, \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c0\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bd\u03af\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[423] s.v. \u1fe5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[424] Roscher, _Lexicon_ s.v. Nosoi p. 459, following Professor\nFurtw\u00e4ngler. For the whole subject of the demonic cause of nightmare,\nsee Roscher\u2019s Monograph on Ephialtes, _Abhandl. d. K. S\u00e4chs. Ges._\nPhil.-Hist. Kl. XX. 1900.\n\n[425] Eur. _Phoen._ 950 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f44\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd.\n\n[426] Wolff. Porphyr. _De philos. ex orac. haur._ p. 149 = Eusebius\n_Praep. Ev._ 4. 23. 3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9,\n\u03c3\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03b6\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03b1\u1f31 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f35\u03bd\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u00b7\n\u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. The word \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 does not so far as I\nknow occur elsewhere, it seems from the context to mean \u2018inductively,\u2019\nwith a view to _induce_ rather than expel.\n\n[427] Stob. V. 22. \u039b\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03ae\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f35 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f04\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf.\n \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u2020\u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u2020,\n \u03b5\u1f34 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bb\u03bf\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd,\n \u03bd\u03b7\u03b4\u1f7a\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f23\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n[428] Hes. _Erg._ 90\n\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b6\u03ce\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c6\u1fe6\u03bb\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\n \u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f35\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n[429] I prefer to read: \u1f05\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd, i.e. \u2018grievous\ndiseases which Keres gave to men,\u2019 but I have translated the text as it\nstands, since possibly Hesiod, though he clearly knew of a connection\nbetween \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 and \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, may have inverted cause and effect. I have\nalready discussed the passage in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, XX.\n1900, p. 104.\n\n[430] Hes. _Erg._ 94.\n\n[431] Hes. _Erg._ 102. Procl. ad 102 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7\n\u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u0395\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u1ff3 \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n[432] Frg. ap. Plut. _Consol. ad Apoll._ XXVI. \u03a4\u03af \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd; \u1f06\u03c1\u03ac \u03b3\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9; \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\n\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03af \u03c4\u03b5\n\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c3\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9. Bergk (_Frg. adesp._ 2\nB) points out that Plutarch\u2019s second quotation is an elegiac couplet,\nand for the MS. \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9 reads \u1f08\u0390\u03b4\u03b5\u03c9. This gives no satisfactory sense. Mr\nGilbert Murray reads \u1f00\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9 a conjecture made certain by a passage in the\ndialogue \u2018Theophrastos\u2019 (p. 399 E) by Aeneas of Gaza, \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b3\u1fc6\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c7\u03b1 \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n[433] Simon. Amorg. I. 20.\n\n[434] Aesch. _Suppl._ 684.\n\n[435] Soph. _Phil._ 4.\n\n[436] Theog. 837.\n\n[437] Orph. _Lith._ 268\n\n \u039b\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03b9, \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1fe5\u03cc\u03b8\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c7\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd\n \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c7\u03cc\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.\n\n[438] Theophr. _De caus. pl._ 5. 10. 4 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03b4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n[439] \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f34\u03c3\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u1fd6\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\nThis reference I borrow from the Thesaurus of Stephanos s.v., but I have\nbeen unable to verify the quotation. The reference as given by Stephanos\nis Bud. ap. Philon. _V.M._ 3. In connection with fire and fire-places the\nbelief in Keres is not dead to-day. An Irish servant of mine who failed\nto light a fire firmly declined to make a second attempt on the ground\nthat she knew \u2018there was a little fairy in the grate.\u2019 The Ker in this\ncase was, as often in antiquity, a malign draught.\n\n[440] Frg. ap. Eustath. 772. 3.\n\n[441] XIV. 2. 652.\n\n[442] Professor Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece_ I. p. 177.\n\n[443] As evidence of the evil reputation of Keres Mr Gilbert Murray calls\nmy attention to the pun in Eur. _Tro._ 424 which seems to have escaped\nthe attention of commentators:\n\n \u03c4\u03af \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f54\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1;\n \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f13\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n\u2018What name have they? A _Ker_ish name.\u2019 Hermes as _\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1_\u03c5\u03be invokes and\nrevokes _\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1_\u03b5\u03c2 with his _\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1_\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, see pp. 26 and 43.\n\n[444] Theog. 707.\n\n[445] Mimnermus 2.\n\n[446] Pottier _Cat._ 343. P. Hartung, _Philologos_ L. (N.F. IV. 2) Taf. I.\n\n[447] _Cat._ E 290. Cecil Smith, _J.H.S._ 1883, Pl. XXX. p. 96.\n\n[448] _Od._ XI. 398 \u03a4\u03af\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cd \u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f10\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf.\n\n[449] _Od._ XII. 158 \u1f2c \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c6\u03cd\u03b3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n[450] _Il._ IX. 410.\n\n[451] _Il._ XVIII. 535.\n\n[452] _Od._ XIV. 207.\n\n[453] _Cat._ 1682, _Arch. Zeit._ 1882, Pl. 9.\n\n[454] _Cat._ 2157, _Jahrbuch d. Arch. Inst._ I. p. 210.\n\n[455] _Od._ XX. 66\n\n \u1f22 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac \u03bc\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\n \u03bf\u1f34\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f20\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u1fc7\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c8\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f68\u03ba\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf,\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[456] _Od._ XX. 77\n\n \u03c4\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f05\u03c1\u03c0\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fe5\u2019 \u1f14\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[457] _Iliad_ XVI. 150.\n\n[458] _Georg._ III. 274\n\n saepe sine ullis\n conjugiis vento gravidae, mirabile dictu.\n\n[459] _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ XXII. 1898, Pl. V.\n\n[460] Suidas s.v. Tritopatores. \u03a6\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f15\u03ba\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f54\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff7 ... \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f08\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd and supra \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f08\u03c4\u03b8\u03af\u03b4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd ... \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f20\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[461] Hipp. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd. II. p. 14 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03be\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n[462] _Geop._ IX. 3 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n[463] _Cat._ B 4.\n\n[464] The full interpretation of the Cyrene vase is due to Mr Cecil\nSmith, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ p. 103, \u2018Harpies in Greek Art.\u2019 The\nvase is reproduced and discussed, but only with partial success, by Dr\nStudniczka in his _Kyrene_ p. 18.\n\n[465] _Cat._ B 104.\n\n[466] P. V. 19. 1 \u0392\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f21\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f68\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f44\u03c6\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7.\n\n[467] W\u00fcrzburg, no. 354.\n\n[468] Reproduced later, fig. 47.\n\n[469] Cecil Smith, _J.H.S._ XIII. p. 112, fig. 2.\n\n[470] _Il._ XXII. 208.\n\n[471] Plut. _Moral._ p. 17 a.\n\n[472] Poll. _Onomast._ IV. 130.\n\n[473] _Post-Hom._ II. 509\n\n \u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\n \u039a\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b7 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03b2\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f76 \u039c\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\n \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03c1\u1f74 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u2019 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b1\u0390\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1.\n\nMr T. R. Glover, in the chapter on Quintus Smyrnaeus in his _Life\nand Letters in the Fourth Century_, points out that the Keres in the\npoem of Quintus have developed a supremacy unknown to Homer, they are\n\u1f04\u03c6\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u2014even the gods cannot check them. They are by-forms of Aisa and\nMoira.\n\n[474] _Cat._ B 639; Murray, _Hist. of Greek Sculpture_ vol. II. p. 28. Dr\nMurray cites this vase as an instance of primitive perspective. Hermes,\ndepicted in an impossible position, actually between the two advancing\ncombatants, is thought of as in the background.\n\n[475] Hes. _Theog._ 211.\n\n[476] _Theog._ 217 ff.\n\n[477] Hes. _Erg._ 416. The only other passage in which this difficult\nword occurs is in one of the oracles collected in the \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae of\nMnaseas (3rd cent. B.C.) and preserved for us by the scholiast on the\n_Phoenissae_ of Euripides (ad _v._ 638, M\u00fcller _F.H.G._ 3, p. 157) where\nKadmos is told to go on \u2018till he comes to the herds of the Ker-nourished\nPelagon\u2019 (\u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2). Here it looks as if the epithet\nindicated prosperity, the man nourished and favoured and cherished by\nthe Keres, see Roscher, _Lexicon_ s.v. Kadmos, p. 834, and s.v. Keres,\np. 1139, but it is possible that, as suggested to me by Mr Cornford,\nthe word may have been coined by Hesiod in bitter parody of the Homeric\n\u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ae\u03c2. The notion of the evil wasting action of Keres comes out in\nthe word \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, as in Eur. Hipp. 223 \u03c4\u03af \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019, \u1f66 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,\nand more physically in Aesch. _Supp._ 999 \u03b8\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n[478] Hesych. s.v., \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[479] Aesch. _Eum._ 930.\n\n[480] Hes. _Scut._ 249.\n\n[481] P. V. 19. 6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f44\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f15\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f40\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31\n\u1f44\u03bd\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u039a\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03a0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f18\u03c4\u03b5\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n[482] Blue-black, \u03ba\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, remained the traditional colour of the\nunderworld, as in the _Alcestis_ of Euripides (_v._ 262):\n\n \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u1f40\u03c6\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\n \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\u2014\u2020\u03b1\u1f35\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2\u2020.\n\n[483] P. X. 28. 4.\n\n[484] Admirable specimens of savage dancing-masks with Medusa-like tongue\nand tusks are exhibited in the Berlin Museum f\u00fcr V\u00f6lkerkunde.\n\n[485] Hesych. s.v., Photius s.v.\n\n[486] P. VIII. 15. 3, see Dr Frazer ad loc.\n\n[487] P. VIII. 15. 3.\n\n[488] For these ovens see Conze, \u2018Griechische Kohlenbecken,\u2019 _Jahrbuch d.\nInst._, 1890, Taf. I. and II., and Furtw\u00e4ngler, _op. cit._ 1891, p. 110.\n\n[489] Callim. _Hym. ad Dian._ 67, and see _Myths of the Odyssey_, p. 26.\n\n[490] Hom. _Epigr._ XIV. \u039a\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f22 \u039a\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n[491] Pernice, _Festschrift f\u00fcr Benndorf_, p. 75. The inscriptions are\nnot yet satisfactorily explained.\n\n[492] A satyr-mask on an oven is figured in my _Greek Vase-paintings_, p.\n9, fig. 1.\n\n[493] Poll. _On._ VII. 108.\n\n[494] Schol. ad Ar. _Nub._ 436.\n\n[495] _Od._ XI. 633\n\n \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f95\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03bc\u03ae \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf \u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n \u1f10\u03be \u1f08\u0390\u03b4\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c5\u1f74 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1.\n\nI have translated \u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u2018grizzly,\u2019 not \u2018Gorgon,\u2019 advisedly. Homer does\nnot commit himself to a definite Gorgon. Mr Neil on Aristoph. _Eq._ 1181\nsays \u201c\u0393\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03c6\u03b1 means merely \u2018fierce-plumed.\u2019\u201d _The_ Gorgon was made out\nof the terror, not the terror out of _the_ Gorgon.\n\n[496] _J.H.S._ XX. 1900, p. xliv. On an _askos_ in the British Museum\n(_Cat._ G 80) decorated with a stamped relief, a Gorgon\u2019s head is figured\nwith horns and animal ears. The head stands above, but separated from, a\nfantastic body.\n\n[497] Th. Homolle, _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ XII. 1888, p. 464.\n\n[498] \u03dc\u03b9[\u03c6]\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 | \u03bc\u2019\u03b1|\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5 | h\u03bf | \u039d\u03ach\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, see M. Homolle, _op.\ncit._\n\n[499] _J.H.S._ 1885, Pl. LIX. _Brit. Mus. Cat._\n\n[500] Aesch. _Prom. Vinct._ 793.\n\n[501] Hes. _Theog._ 270.\n\n[502] Cat. 1956; _Ath. Mitt._ 1886, Taf. X. 270.\n\n[503] Aesch. _Prom. Vinct._ 800 \u1f03\u03c2 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f15\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ac\u03c2. The\nline is usually rendered \u2018no mortal may behold them and live,\u2019 but, in\nthe light of the account of Athenaeus, it is clear that the \u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03b1\u03af are the\nintolerable exhalations, not the breath of life.\n\n[504] Athen. V. 64 \u00a7 221 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6. The\nsame account is given by Aelian, _Hist. An._ VII. 5, and Eustathius \u00a7\n1704 in commenting on _Od._ XI. 633.\n\n[505] Visconti, _Bull. de Comm. Arch._ 1890, Tav. I. and II. p. 24. A\nrelief with similar design exists on the back of a Corinthian marble in\nthe British Museum: its apotropaic functions are fully discussed by Prof.\nMichaelis, _J.H.S._ VI. 1885, p. 312.\n\n[506] For the evil eye in Greece see O. Jahn, _Berichte d. k. s\u00e4chs. Ges.\nd. Wissenschaften_, Wien 1855, and P. Perdrizet, _Bull. de Corr. Hell._\n1900, p. 292, and for modern survivals, Tuchmann, _M\u00e9lusine_ 1885.\n\n[507] Aesch. _Eum._ 54 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u2019 \u1f40\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6 \u03b4\u03af\u03b1. Following Dr\nVerrall, I keep the MS. reading.\n\n[508] Since this section was written Dr G. Weicker\u2019s treatise _Der\nSeelenvogel_ has appeared. As the substance of his argument as to the\nsoul-origin of the Sirens had been previously published in a dissertation\n_De Sirenibus Quaestiones Selectae_ (Leipzig, 1895) he had long\nanticipated my view and I welcome this confirmation of a theory at which\nI had independently arrived, a theory which indeed must occur to everyone\nwho examines the art-form of the Sirens. I regret that his work was known\nto me too late for me to utilize the vast stores of evidence he has\naccumulated.\n\n[509] _Od._ XII. 39.\n\n[510] _Od._ XII. 166.\n\n[511] _Od._ XII. 184.\n\n[512] Mediaeval Sirens are more fully discussed in my _Myths of the\nOdyssey_, p. 172.\n\n[513] _Met._ V. 552\n\n vobis Achelo\u00efdes unde\n pluma pedesque avium cum virginis ora geratis?\n\nApollonius Rhodius also believes that the bird form was a metamorphosis.\n_Argon._ IV. 898\n\n \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[514] Aesch. _Sept._ 776. The nature of the Sphinx as a mantic\nearth-demon will be discussed in detail later (p. 207).\n\n[515] Published and discussed by H. Bulle, _Strena Helbigiana_, p. 31.\nRecently acquired for the Boston Museum, see _Twenty-sixth Annual Report\nof Boston Museum of Fine Arts_, Dec. 31, 1901, p. 35.\n\n[516] Eur. _Hel._ 167.\n\n[517] _Cat._ E 477. The vase is a _kelebe_ of late style with columnar\nhandles. In previously discussing this design (_Myths of the Odyssey_, p.\n158, pl. 40 and _Myth. and Mon. Ancient Athens_, p. lxix, fig. 14) I felt\nuncertain whether the bird-woman were Harpy, Siren, or Soul. I am now\nconvinced that a soul is intended, and that the bird form was probably\nborrowed from Egypt: see _Book of the Dead_, Vignette XCI.\n\n[518] See _Myths of the Odyssey_, p. 180.\n\n[519] Anton. Lib. I. I owe this reference to Prof. Sam. Wide, _A. Mitt._\nXXVI. 1901, 2, p. 155. At the miracle plays it was a custom to let a bird\nfly when a person died\u2014a crow for the impenitent thief and a white dove\nfor the penitent one. See Mr Hugh Stewart, _Boethius_, p. 187.\n\n[520] _B.M. Cat._ E 440. _Monimenti dell\u2019 Inst._ vol. I. pl. 8.\n\n[521] Published by Schreiber, _Hellenistische Reliefbilder_, Taf. LXI.:\nwhere the relief now is is not known. Fully discussed by Dr Otto Crusius,\n\u2018Die Epiphanie der Sirene,\u2019 _Philologos_ (N.F. IV.) p. 93. Dr Crusius\nrightly observes that the relief has been misunderstood. It represents\nrather an \u1f14\u03c6\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 than a \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, and the recumbent figure is a mortal\nman not a Silen.\n\n[522] Pliny cites Dinon as authority for a like superstition in India.\n_Nat. Hist._ X. 49 (_F.H.G._ II. p. 90): Nec Sirenes impetraverunt fidem\nadfirmet licet Dinon Clitarchi celebrati auctoris pater in India esse\nmulcerique earum cantu quos gravatos somno lacerent. And cf. Aelian\n_H.A._ XVIII. 22, 23. Siren in the Septuagint is the word used of the\ndesert bogey that our translation renders \u2018dragon,\u2019 Job xxx. 30 \u2018I am\nbrother to the dragon and companion to owls,\u2019 and again Micah i. 8 \u2018I\nwill make a wailing like the dragon and a mourning as the owls.\u2019\n\n[523] _B.M. Cat._ B 651. J. E. Harrison, _Myths of the Odyssey_, Pl. 39.\n\n[524] Erinna, frg. 5 \u03a3\u03c4\u1fb6\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03ad.\n\n[525] Plat. _Rep._ 617 B.\n\n[526] Plut. _Symp._ IX. 14. 6.\n\n[527] Procl. ad Plat. _Rep._ loc. cit. \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[528] Ar. _Pax_ 832. For this Orphic doctrine see Rohde, _Psyche_ II. p.\n423\u2074, Dieterich, _Nekuia_, pp. 104 ff.\n\n[529] Eur. _Hipp._ 732.\n\n[530] Eur. frg. 911.\n\n[531] _Myths of the Odyssey_, p. 166.\n\n[532] _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898, p. 238, fig. 6.\n\n[533] _Mus. Greg._ No. 186. Hartwig, _Meisterschalen_, Taf. LXXIII.\n\n[534] Dr Hartwig _op. cit._ has collected and discussed these vases and\ngives to the artist the name \u2018Meister mit dem Ranke.\u2019\n\n[535] Aesch. _Sept. c. Theb._ 539.\n\n[536] Heydemann, _Cat._ No. 2846. _Museo Borbonico_ XII. 9. Discussed\nand explained by Dr Otto Crusius, _Festschrift f\u00fcr Overbeck_, p. 102. Dr\nCrusius holds that the snake is merely a \u2018F\u00fcllfigur.\u2019\n\n[537] Aesop. _Fab._ 55.\n\n[538] Discovered in the excavations at Delphi, see Homolle, _Fouilles de\nDelphes_, 1902, T. II. pl. XIV.\n\n[539] Berlin, _Inv._ 3186. _Jahrbuch d. Inst._ 1891, Anzeiger, p. 119,\nfig. 17.\n\n[540] P. I. 41. 4.\n\n[541] Hes. _Theog._ 326 and _Scut. Her._ 33, and see Plat. _Crat._ 414 D.\n\n[542] Dr Frazer ad P. IX. 26. 2.\n\n[543] Milani, _Museo Topografico_, p. 69. \u2018Delphika,\u2019 _J.H.S._ 1899, p.\n235.\n\n[544] The purpose of these holes, which occur frequently in\nrepresentations of tomb-mounds on Athenian lekythoi, is not, so far as I\nknow, made out.\n\n[545] Suidas s.v., \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u1f08\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b1\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1fa7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n[546] Hesych. s.v., \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n[547] P. I. 43. 7.\n\n[548] _Anthol. Pal._ VII. 154\n\n \u0395\u1f30\u03bc\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039a\u1fc6\u03c1 \u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5 \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f67\u03b4\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1.\n\n[549] P. VIII. 25. 4 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n[550] The explanation of Erinyes as \u2018angry ones\u2019 is confirmed by modern\nphilology. F. Froehde, Bezzenberger. _Beitr\u00e4ge_, XX. p. 188, derives the\nword Erinys from \u1f10-\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3-\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Lith. _rustas_, angry.\n\n[551] _Il._ IX. 571\n\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f20\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f18\u03c1\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1.\n\n[552] On the epithet \u1f20\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u2018blood-haunting,\u2019 usually translated\n\u2018walking in darkness,\u2019 Roscher (_Myth. Lex._ s.v.) has based a whole\nmistaken theory of the nature of the Erinyes as \u2018storm-clouds.\u2019 The\nTownley scholion (_ad loc._) offers an alternative reading of the\nepithet more consonant with the nature of the Erinys: \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2,\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b1\u03c1 \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1. On this showing the\nErinyes would be not those who \u2018walked in darkness\u2019 but those who sucked\nthe blood, a view certainly consonant with the picture of the Erinyes\npresented by Aeschylus: \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n(_Eum._ 264). The termination -\u03c0\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 instead of -\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 gives of course\na simple and satisfactory meaning; but, accepting \u1f20\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf- as representing\nthe Cyprian form \u03b5\u1f36\u03b1\u03c1 \u2018blood,\u2019 it is perhaps possible to retain -\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\nand explain the epithet as \u2018blood haunting.\u2019 Another alternative\nis suggested by Fick, i.e. that the primitive form is \u1f21\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf-\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n\u2018blutrachend,\u2019 \u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 being akin to \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae, cf. Apollo Poitios (see A.\nFick, \u2018G\u00f6tternamen,\u2019 in Bezzenberger. _Beitr\u00e4ge_, XX. p. 179).\n\n[553] _Il._ IX. 454.\n\n[554] _Il._ XXI. 412.\n\n[555] _Il._ XIX. 418 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03b4\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n[556] Plut. _de Ex._ 11 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 (\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f41\n\u1f29\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd, \u0394\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[557] The conception of Dike was largely due to Orphic influence, see p.\n507.\n\n[558] _v._ 988\n\n \u1f30\u1f7c \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70\n \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac \u03c4\u2019 \u039f\u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1f70\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u2019 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03c2, \u1f26 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36.\n\n[559] Aesch. _Prom. Vinct._ 566.\n\n[560] The gadfly is purely incidental to Io as cow. Oistros is an\nincarnation of the distraction caused by the ghost. On a vase-painting\nrepresenting the slaying of her children by Medea, Oistros (inscribed) is\nrepresented as a figure in a chariot drawn by snakes, and near at hand is\n\u2018the ghost of Aietes\u2019 (inscribed) who sent it. (_Arch. Zeit._ 1847, T. 3.)\n\n[561] Plat. _Legg._ IX. 865.\n\n[562] Mr F. M. Cornford draws my attention to a similar and even cruder\nEnglish superstition. Sir Kenelm Digby, in his _Observations on the\nReligio Medici_ (5th ed. p. 128), maintains as against Sir Thomas\nBrowne who says that apparitions are devils, that those that appear in\ncemeteries and charnel-houses are the souls of the dead which have \u2018a\nbyas and a languishing\u2019 towards their bodies, and that the body of a\nmurdered man bleeds when the murderer approaches (\u2018which is frequently\nseen in England\u2019) because the soul, desiring revenge, and being unable\nto speak, \u2018must endeavour to cause a motion in the subtilest or most\nfluid parts (and consequently the most moveable ones) of it. This can be\nnothing but the blood, which then being violently moved, must needs gush\nout at those places where it findeth issues.\u2019\n\n[563] Aesch. _Choeph._ 285.\n\n[564] P. II. 18. 2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u039c\u03c5\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5.\n\n[565] XXIII. 10. 2.\n\n[566] _Choeph._ 282. In the interpretation of this passage I follow Dr\nVerrall, _Choephori_, ad _v._ 286.\n\n[567] Hippocr. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, p. 123, 20 \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03b4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f19\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03c1\u1ff4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\n[568] Aesch. _Choeph._ 64. The same idea comes out in the _Electra_ of\nEuripides (_v._ 318).\n\n[569] P. VIII. 24. 8 and 9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f21 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b5\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c6\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c7\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u1fa4\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5.\n\n[570] Apollod. III. 7. 5.\n\n[571] _Il._ VI. 200.\n\n[572] Pind. _Isth._ V. 66.\n\n[573] Apollod. II. 2. 3.\n\n[574] For this information as to the character of the Ale\u00efan plain, which\nsuggested the view in the text, I am indebted to the kindness of Prof.\nRamsay.\n\n[575] Aesch. _Eum._ 417.\n\n[576] _Ib._ 421.\n\n[577] _Il._ XIX. 258.\n\n[578] Hes. _Erg._ 803.\n\n[579] Aesch. _Eum._ 511.\n\n[580] Aesch. _Eum._ 46 ff.\n\n[581] _v._ 57.\n\n[582] A master-touch from the point of view of Aeschylus, who is all for\nthe new order. It is however impossible to avoid a regret that he stooped\nto the cheap expedient of blackening the Erinyes as representatives\nof the old. He thereby half alienates our sympathies. See \u2018Delphika,\u2019\n_J.H.S._ XIX. 1899, p. 251.\n\n[583] _Cat._ B 471. _Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_ 1889, Taf. II. 1 _a_.\n\n[584] W\u00fcrzburg, _Inv._ 354.\n\n[585] The Phineus cylix is published in phototype by Carl Sittl, \u2018Die\nPhineus Schale, und \u00e4hnliche Vasen,\u2019 Programm XXV., forming part of the\n_Jahresbericht des Wagnerischen Kunst-Instituts der Kgl. Universit\u00e4t\nW\u00fcrzburg_ 1892. The account there given of the difficult inscriptions\nis inadequate and must be supplemented by reference to Dr B\u00f6hlau\u2019s\ncorrections in his paper on \u2018Die Ionischen Augenschalen,\u2019 _A. Mitt._ 1898\n(XXIII.) pp. 54, 77; see also Furtw\u00e4ngler-Reinhold, Pl. 41.\n\n[586] Pottier, _Cat. A._ 478, pl. 17. 1. The vase is further discussed by\nMr Barnett, _Hermes_, \u2018Miscellen,\u2019 1898, p. 639. Mr Barnett sees in the\nwinged figure Iris, an interpretation with which I cannot agree.\n\n[587] Schol. ad _Od._ \u03c4 518 and P. X. 30. 2. Pind. Schol. _Ol._ I. 90.\n\n[588] Schol. Ambros. B. ad \u03c4 518.\n\n[589] Aesch. _Choeph._ 1048. The noisome exudation from the eyes\nnoted by Aeschylus (_Eum._ 54) has already been shown (p. 195) to be\ncharacteristically Gorgon.\n\n[590] _Monimenti dell\u2019 Inst._ IV. pl. 48. Baumeister, p. 1314. The vase,\nan _oxybaphon_, is now in the Louvre.\n\n[591] Hermitage, _Cat._ I. 349. Stephani, _Compte Rendu_ 1863, pl. VI. 5.\n\n[592] Millin, _Peintures des vases grecs_ II. 68. Baumeister, fig. 1315,\np. 1118.\n\n[593] _Jahrbuch d. Inst._ 1890, Anzeiger, p. 90.\n\n[594] Aeschin. _c. Tim._ 80.\n\n[595] Plut. _Vit. Dion._ C. 55.\n\n[596] Plut. _de ser. num. vind._ XXII.\n\n[597] \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af in the Apocalypse of Peter; see Dieterich,\n_Nekuia_ p. 61.\n\n[598] Aesch. _Eum._ 126.\n\n[599] _v._ 131.\n\n[600] Eur. _Iph. in T._ 286.\n\n[601] Eur. _Or._ 256.\n\n[602] Passerius, _Pict. Etrusc._ III. 297. _J.H.S._ vol. XIX. 1899, p.\n219. This representation does not stand alone. Among the fragments of\nvase-paintings found in the excavations on the Acropolis, and as yet\nunpublished, is one of considerably earlier style than the design in fig.\n53, and with a representation exactly similar in all essentials. The\nwinged feet and part of the drapery of the figure remain, and below is a\nlarge snake with open mouth. Found as it was in the \u2018pre-Persian\u2019 d\u00e9bris,\nthis fragment cannot be later and is probably much earlier than 480 B.C.\n\n[603] This striding flying pose with the bent knee has been used by some\narchaeologists to explain the epithet \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. But bending or turning\nthe _knee_ is not bending or turning the foot. It is possible that in\nthis epithet applied (Aesch. _Sept._ 791) to the Erinys we have merely\nan expression of the instinct to create an uncouth deformed bogey. M.\nPaul Perdrizet (_M\u00e9lusine_ vol. IX. 1898, p. 99, \u2018Les pieds ou les genoux\n\u00e0 rebours\u2019) makes the interesting suggestion that the \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03c2\nmay be an Erinys with feet turned the reverse way, a horrid distorted\ncripple. This peculiar form of deformity was not unknown among the\nancients, as witness the statuettes cited as examples by M. Perdrizet, a\nbronze in the British Museum (_Cat. Walters_ no. 216) and a terracotta\nin the National Museum at Athens (_Cat._ 7877: Stackelberg, _Gr\u00e4ber der\nHellenen_, pl. LXXIII. 475). I do not feel confident of the rightness of\nthis interpretation for two reasons, firstly, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 seems scarcely\nto be the right epithet for a striking distortion which would rather be\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 or some such word, and secondly, constant stress is laid\non the _swiftness_ of the Erinys which would be inconsistent with a\ncrippling deformity. On the other hand, figures with their feet reversed\n_may_ have suggested the inevitable back-coming of the Erinys. Mr F. M.\nCornford suggests to me that \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 is the humanized equivalent of\n\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c5\u03be, an interpretation proffered by Blomfield but rejected in favour\nof _pernix_. The suggestion seems to me to carry fresh conviction now\nthat the Erinys is seen to be in her original essence and in her art-form\nnear akin to Harpy, Sphinx and Bird-woman. Sophocles (_Oed. Tyr._ 1199)\ncalls the Sphinx \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c5\u03be. In fig. 44 she is claw-footed; the Harpy to\nthe right in fig. 19 has crooked claws for hands. Aeschylus may be using\nan epithet that originally meant \u2018clutch-foot\u2019 in some new sense as\n\u2018plying the foot,\u2019 i.e. swift, or as \u2018back-returning.\u2019\n\n[604] _A. Mitt._ XVI. p. 379. _J.H.S._ XIX. 1899, p. 219, fig. 4.\n\n[605] Vienna Museum. Masner, _Cat._ 221. _Annali dell\u2019 Inst._ 1866, Tav.\nd\u2019 agg. R. 2.\n\n[606] Aesch. _Choeph._ 527 and 531.\n\n[607] _v._ 549.\n\n[608] _v._ 927\n\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n\naccepting Dr Verrall\u2019s reading \u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n[609] _Jahrbuch d. Inst._ 1893, p. 93, pl. I. The vase is there\ninterpreted as the slaying of Polyxena, but I agree with Dr Thiersch\n(_Tyrrhenische Amphoren_, p. 56) that the scene represented is the\nslaying of Eriphyle by Alcmaeon. In connection with the omphalos-tomb of\nthe vase-painting it is worth noting that at Phlius near the house of\ndivination of Amphiaraos there was an omphalos. See P. II. 13. 7.\n\n[610] Soph. _Oed. Tyr._ 469. The attitude of Sophocles towards the\nOrestes myth, and the fashion in which he ignores the conflict between\nApollo and the Erinyes, cannot be discussed here. It has been ably\ntreated by Miss Janet Case in the _Classical Review_, May 1902, p. 195.\n\n[611] _v._ 475.\n\n[612] Eur. _El._ 1252.\n\n[613] Herod. IV. 149.\n\n[614] Aesch. _Eum._ 106.\n\n[615] Pausanias (I. 31. 2) mentions one other place in Attica where the\nSemnae are worshipped under this name. At Phlya in one and the same\nsanctuary there were altars of Demeter Anesidora, of Zeus Ktesios, of\nAthene Tithrone, of Kore Protogone and of goddesses called Venerable\n(\u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd).\n\n[616] The best evidence of this is the language, always ceremonial,\nof oaths taken in the law courts, where we may be sure the Semnae are\ninvoked by their official title, e.g. Deinarchus _c. Dem._ 47. \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03ac\u03c2, \u1f66 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9. But so far as I am aware the Semnae\nare never alluded to merely as Semnae.\n\n[617] Eur. _Or._ 259.\n\n[618] Aesch. _Eum._ 55.\n\n[619] Diog. Laert. I. X. 6. See Demoulin, _\u00c9pim\u00e9nide de Cr\u00e8te_, p. 110.\n\n[620] P. I. 28. 6.\n\n[621] Schol. ad Aeschin. _c. Timarch._ I. 188 C \u2018\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2.\u2019\n\u03a4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f57\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f22 \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f22 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f67\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03a3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03c5\u03c7\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd \u039a\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2. \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. \u1f26\u03bd\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u0393\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c9\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f23\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u0393\u1fc6\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b7\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd [de conj.: \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b7\u03c1\u03b1\nVat. \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1f48\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 cett.] \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2. The entire scholion is given\nhere for convenience, the ritual of cakes and milk has been previously\ndiscussed (p. 90).\n\n[622] Dr Wellmann (_de Istro_ 14) has shown that in all probability the\ninformation of the scholiast is borrowed from the treatise of Polemon\nquoted by Clement of Alexandria in his _Protrepticus_, p. 41.\n\n[623] Schol. ad _Oed. Col._ 39 \u2018\u1f14\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03af.\u2019 \u03a6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf, \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n[624] Thucyd. I. 126.\n\n[625] Plut. _Vit. Sol._ XII.\n\n[626] Ar. _Eq._ 1312\n\n \u1f22\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\n \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u0398\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f22 \u2019\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n[627] Ar. _Thesm._ 224\n\n \u0395\u03a5\u03a1. \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2;\n\n \u039c\u039d. \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n[628] Eur. _El._ 1270.\n\n[629] Hesych. s.v. \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[630] Aesch. _Eum._ 1006\n\n \u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b4\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[631] Schol. ad Soph. _Oed. Col._ 42 \u2018\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u2019 \u1f41\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2\u2019....\n\u03a4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03ca\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 [the reading \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 is\ndoubtful] \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5. \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[632] Dem. _c. Aristocr._ p. 642.\n\n[633] Dem. _c. Dein._ 47.\n\n[634] Philo _de praest. liber_ p. 886 B \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f40\u03be\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ba\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u1f74\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[635] Schol. ad Soph. _Oed. Col._ 489 \u2018\u1f04\u03c0\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd.\u2019 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u00b7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21\u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f29\u03c3\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f18\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f43 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f29\u03c3\u03cd\u03c7\u1ff3 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u039a\u03c5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n[636] Hesych. s.v., \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f30\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n[637] Plut. _Vit. Nik._ XIII.\n\n[638] Callim. frg. (Schneider II. 123)\n\n \u039d\u03b7\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bc\u03c0\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03bb\u1fc4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f29\u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n[639] Hesych. s.v. \u039b\u1fc4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f31\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n[640] Aesch. _Eum._ 856.\n\n[641] _v._ 1026.\n\n[642] Aesch. _Eum._ 1028\n\n \u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03ad\u03b3\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2,\n \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f54\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f25\u03b4\u2019 \u1f41\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u1fc3.\n\nThe construction of \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b5 is uncertain, there being no expressed\ngrammatical object; but the two ritual factors, the torches and crimson\ngarments, are certain.\n\n[643] Luc. _de domo_ 18.\n\n[644] Luc. _Hermot._ 806.\n\n[645] Aesch. _Eum._ 706.\n\n[646] Plut. _Vit. Aristid._ XXI.\n\n[647] Cf. \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd (_Il._ XVI. 159). \u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9\u03be and \u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 are\nnot far asunder: cf. also the tragic use of \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 for corpse. For purple\nin the ritual of the dead, see Diels, _Sibyllinische Bl\u00e4tter_, p. 69 note.\n\n[648] Plut. _Vit. Dion._ LVI. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u1fb7\u03b4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n[649] Plin. _N.H._ IX. 60 purpura dis advocatur placandis.\n\n[650] Aesch. _Eum._ 804. The significance of the \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1 as distinguished\nfrom the \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 has been already discussed (p. 61).\n\n[651] Aesch. _Eum._ 860.\n\n[652] Aesch. _Eum._ 980.\n\n[653] _v._ 834.\n\n[654] Plut. _Conj. Praec._ Proem. \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f43\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f31\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ae\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n[655] Aesch. _Eum._ 903.\n\n[656] Aesch. _Eum._ 938. The translation offered only attempts to render\nthe general sense of this difficult passage, a sense sufficiently clear\nfor the immediate purpose. No satisfactory explanation has yet been\noffered of the enigmatic \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f45\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, see Dr Verrall, ad loc.\n\n[657] P. I. 28. 6.\n\n[658] Arrian, _Anab._ III. 16. 8.\n\n[659] Hesych. s.v. \u1f08\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[660] Plat. _Phaedr._ p. 229. The legend no doubt took its rise in\nthe Areopagos, where the king\u2019s daughter was flower-gathering, or\nfetching water from the Enneakrounos just outside the city gate. It was\ntransplanted later with many another legend and cult to the banks of the\nIlissus, outside the enlarged city.\n\n[661] Aesch. _Eum._ 939.\n\n[662] Aesch. _Eum._ 916 \u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n[663] _v._ 1041 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c1\u2019 \u1f34\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03af.\n\n[664] Harpocrat. s.v. \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 ... \u0391\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f48\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f21 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u1fb6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b0\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f48\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f60\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f08\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c,\n\u039c\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1, \u03a4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7.\n\n[665] Aesch. _Eum._ hypoth.... \u1f27\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1fc7 \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b0\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2. To suit the statement of\nHarpocration, \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b0\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 has been altered to \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b0\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1.\n\n[666] There is no evidence that can be relied on to show that before\nAeschylus wrote his play the Semnae ever bore the title of Eumenides.\nPausanias indeed (VII. 25. 1) quotes an oracle from Dodona ostensibly\nbelonging to the mythical days of Apheidas, in which the title Eumenides\nis given to the goddesses of the Areopagos,\n\n \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03bf \u03b4\u2019 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03c5\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.\n\nAnd this oracle, he says, the Greek called to mind when the\nPeloponnesians came against Athens in the time of Codrus. The passage\nstands alone, and oracle-mongering was rife at all times.\n\n[667] Soph. _Oed. Col._ 41.\n\n[668] Aesch. _Prom. Vinct._ 209\n\n \u0398\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0393\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f74 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1.\n\n[669] _Oed. Col._ 486\n\n \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be \u03b5\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd.\n\n[670] P. I. 11. 4.\n\n[671] P. VII. 25. 7.\n\n[672] P. VIII. 34. 2.\n\n[673] At this point unhappily a lacuna occurs.\n\n[674] _A. Mitt._ IV. 1879, pl. IX. p. 176.\n\n[675] The regular ritual offerings at Titane, see P. I. 11. 4 and Aesch.\n_Eum._ 834.\n\n[676] The archaic marble statuette found at Olympia and representing a\nwoman with polos on her head and a snake in each hand may very possibly\nbe one of three Eumenides. See _Olympia_, vol. III. p. 27.\n\n[677] Suidas s.v. \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[678] Xenoph. frg. 1, 2, 5 and 6.\n\n[679] P. VIII. 42. 4. The material for the study of the non-human forms\ntaken by Greek gods has been recently collected by Dr M. W. de Visser,\n_Die nicht-menschengestaltigen G\u00f6tter der Griechen_, 1903.\n\n[680] P. VIII. 41. 6.\n\n[681] Munich. Published and discussed by Dr B\u00f6hlan, \u2018Schlangenleibige\nNymphen,\u2019 _Philologos_ LVII. N.F. XI. 1, and see \u2018Delphika,\u2019 _J.H.S._\nXIX. 1899, p. 216, note 1.\n\n[682] Aesch. _Eum._ 1.\n\n[683] Aesch. _Prom. Vinct._ 209.\n\n[684] The clearest and most scientific statement of the facts as to this\ndifficult subject known to me is to be found in an article by Dr E. B.\nTylor, \u2018The Matriarchal family system,\u2019 _Nineteenth Century_, July 1896.\n\n[685] S. Augustine, _De civitat. Dei_ 18. 9 ut nulla ulterius ferrent\nsuffragia, ut nullus nascentium maternum nomen acciperet, ut ne quis eas\nAthenaeas vocaret.\n\n[686] Athen. XIII. 2 \u00a7 555 and Tzetzes _Chil._ V. 19. 650. Other\ninstances of the survival in Greek mythology of traces of matriarchal\nconditions are collected by Bachofen in his _Mutterrecht_, a book which,\nspite of the wildness of its theories, remains of value as the fullest\nexisting collection of ancient facts.\n\n[687] P. VIII. 2. 3.\n\n[688] Diog. 8. 1. 10, and Iambl. _Vit. Pyth._ 3. 11.\n\n[689] The fundamental unity of all the Greek goddesses was, I think,\nfirst observed by Gerhard, _Ueber Metroon und Goetter-Mutter_, 1849, p.\n103, but his illuminating suggestion has been obscured for half a century\nby systems, such as that of Preller and Max M\u00fcller, that see in ancient\ndeities impersonations of natural phenomena.\n\n[690] P. X. 12. 10\n\n \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd, \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af, \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f66 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5 \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6.\n \u0393\u1fb6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03af\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc4\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n[691] P. VIII. 2. 4.\n\n[692] The distinction has been acutely observed by Miss W. M. L.\nHutchinson in discussing the earth-born parentage of Aeacus, see _Aeacus\na Judge of the Underworld_, p. 6.\n\n[693] \u1f18\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1892, Pl. 9; for stamped Boeotian amphorae in\ngeneral, see Mr A. de Ridder, _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ XXII. 1898, p. 440.\n\n[694] Dr Wolters (\u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1892, p. 225) explains the figure of the\nEarth-Mother as Artemis \u039b\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce. I entirely agree with Prof. S. Wide that\nher pose is not that of \u2018eine geb\u00e4rende Frau\u2019: see S. Wide, \u2018Mykenische\nG\u00f6tterbilder und Idole,\u2019 _A. Mitt._ XXVI. 1901, p. 253.\n\n[695] \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1892, Pl. 10. 1.\n\n[696] On the head of one of the idols in the recently discovered shrine\nat Cnossos, Mr Arthur Evans kindly tells me, is perched a dove, a\nforecast it may be of Aphrodite.\n\n[697] See Prof. Ramsay, _J.H.S._ 1884, p. 245.\n\n[698] Cic. _De Nat. Deor._ II. 26 et recidunt omnia in terras et oriuntur\ne terris.\n\n[699] Aesch. _Choeph._ 127.\n\n[700] Plut. _de fac. in orb. lun._ 28 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9\n\u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f60\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n[701] Cic. _Legg._ II. 22, and 25, 63.\n\n[702] 1 Cor. XV. 36.\n\n[703] _B.M. Cat._ B 213. Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ III. 300. Mr A. Lang,\n_Homeric Hymns_, plate facing p. 104, names the design \u2018Leto with her\ninfants Apollo and Artemis.\u2019 The catalogue of the British Museum with\njust caution says \u2018Leto (?),\u2019 but adds that the children are \u2018probably\nApollo and Artemis.\u2019 The figures to either side of the central \u2018Mother,\u2019\nDionysos and a Satyr, give no clue to the interpretation.\n\n[704] Mr G. C. Richards, _J.H.S._ XIII. 1892, p. 284, pl. XI.\n\n[705] P. V. 18. 1. Dr Frazer translates the difficult word \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u2018turned different ways\u2019; the word seems usually to imply distortion, but\nin the case of Death and Sleep this seems inappropriate.\n\n[706] _B.M. Cat._ B 168.\n\n[707] Ar. _Thesm._ 295 and schol. ad loc. The words \u03c4\u1fc7 \u0393\u1fc7 have been\ninterpolated after \u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u1ff3 but without MS. authority.\n\n[708] P. IX. 16. 2.\n\n[709] Mr R. C. Bosanquet, \u2018Excavations of the British School at Melos,\u2019\n_J.H.S._ XVIII. 1898, p. 60, Fig. 1, and Dr P. Wolters, \u2018Melische\nKultstatuen,\u2019 _A. Mitt._ XV. 1890, p. 248.\n\n[710] All the proposed etymologies, possible and impossible, are\ncollected by Mannhardt, _Mythologische Forschungen_, p. 287. To his\ndiscussion must now be added Dr Kretschmer\u2019s view that \u0394\u1fb6 like \u039c\u1fb6 means\nmother and that the form \u0394\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 arose when \u0394\u1fb6 had crystallized into a\nproper name. See _Festschrift der Wiener-Studien_, 1902, p. 291.\n\n[711] Aesch. _Prom. Vinct._ 568.\n\n[712] _Etym. Mag._ s.v. \u0394\u03b7\u03ce sub fin.: \u1f22 \u0394\u03b7\u03ce, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b7\u03ac\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b7\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03af.\n\n[713] Hom. _Il._ II. 528 \u03b6\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1.\n\n[714] _History of the New World_, vol. II. p. 7.\n\n[715] O. Rubensohn, \u2018Eleusinische Beitr\u00e4ge,\u2019 _A. Mitth._ 1899, pl. VII.\n\n[716] _Hom. Hymn. ad Cer._ 1.\n\n[717] _Hom. Hymn. ad Cer._ 470. The elaborate aetiology of the whole\nHomeric Hymn to Demeter has been fully examined and explained by Mr F. B.\nJevons in his _Introduction to the History of Religion_, ch. XXIII. and\nAppendix.\n\n[718] Athens Nat. Mus. 484. Fig. 67 is reproduced from a photograph\nkindly sent me by Prof. Sam. Wide. For further particulars of this class\nof vases I must refer to Prof. Wide\u2019s article \u2018Eine lokale Gattung\nBoiotischer Gef\u00e4sse,\u2019 _A. Mitt._ XXVI. 1901, p. 143. Prof. Wide makes\nthe interesting suggestion that the bird in the field is a bird-soul and\npoints out that merely decorative \u2018F\u00fcllfiguren\u2019 do not occur on this\nclass of vases. This interpretation seems to me highly probable, but till\nfurther evidence emerges, I hesitate to adopt it as certain.\n\n[719] Plut. _de fac. in orb. lun._ XXVIII.\n\n[720] Plut. _de Is. et Osir._ LXVI. \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u2018\u03a4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b6\u03b7\u03bf\u1f76 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\u2019\n\n[721] P. VIII. 25. 4-7.\n\n[722] _Jahrbuch d. Inst. Anz._ 1893, p. 166.\n\n[723] Berl. _Cat._ 2646. _Mon. d. Inst._ XII. tav. IV. This vase with\nothers of the same type is explained by Dr Robert, _Arch\u00e4ologische\nM\u00e4hrchen_, p. 196, as the rising of a Spring-Nymph, but the inscribed\nBerlin vase was not known to him, see also \u2018Delphika,\u2019 _J.H.S._ XIX.\n1899, p. 232.\n\n[724] _Cat._ 298. Milliet et Giraudon, Pl. LII. B, discussed by Prof.\nFurtw\u00e4ngler, _Jahrbuch d. Inst._ 1891, p. 113, and Prof. Gardner,\n_J.H.S._ XXI. 1901, p. 5, and J. E. Harrison, \u2018Delphika,\u2019 _J.H.S._ XIX.\n1899, p. 232.\n\n[725] Vasi dipinti del Museo Vivenzio designati di C. Angelini nel\nMDCCXCVI. Illustrato di G. Patroni 1900, Tav. XXIX. All the plates of\nthis publication are of course reproduced from very old drawings and\nare quite untrustworthy as regards style. The vase under discussion is\nnow lost, so that the original cannot be compared. Sig. Patroni thinks\nthe drawing is authentic. I reproduce it partly because the subject is\nnot wholly explicable, partly in the hope that by making it more widely\nknown, I may lead to the rediscovery of the vase, which may be in some\nprivate collection.\n\n[726] Prof. Percy Gardner, \u2018A new Pandora Vase,\u2019 _J.H.S._ XXI. 1901,\nPlate 1.\n\n[727] _Brit. Mus. Cat._ D 4. _White Athenian Vases_, Plate 19. _Myth. and\nMon. of Anc. Athens_, p. 450, fig. 50.\n\n[728] The worship of Ge as Anesidora at Phlya will be later discussed,\nChap. XII.\n\n[729] A lost play of Sophocles was called \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f22 \u03a3\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9. The\n\u03c3\u03c6\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b1 though characteristic of Hephaistos the craftsman was used by\nagriculturists. Trygaeus in the _Pax_ (_v._ 566) remembers that his \u03c3\u03c6\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b1\nwaits at home glittering and ready, see _J.H.S._ XX. 1900, p. 107.\n\n[730] Prof. Furtw\u00e4ngler, _Jahrbuch d. Inst._ 1891, pp. 117 and 124, \u2018Ein\nuraltes mythisches Symbol f\u00fcr die Blitze sind aber Hammer und Beil. Sie\nsind es ... die mit m\u00e4chtigen Gewittern den Kopf der grossen Mutter Erde\nschlagen und h\u00e4mmern bis sie erwacht und erweicht.\u2019\n\n[731] P. I. 43. 2 ... \u1f10\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f31 \u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n[732] The _Etymologicon Magnum_ has the form \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03c1\u03af\u03c2.\n\n[733] Xen. _Symp._ VII. 5. I have elsewhere (_Myth. and Mon. of Anc.\nAthens_, p. cxvii) discussed the possible influence of such mimetic\npresentations on the fixed mythological types of vase-paintings. Dr\nFrazer (_Golden Bough_, 2nd ed. vol. III. p. 165) makes the interesting\nsuggestion that in sacred dramas may be found a possible meeting-ground\nbetween Euhemerists and their opponents.\n\n[734] Ar. _Av._ 971, schol. ad loc.\n\n[735] Frg. Hippon. ap. Athen. IX. \u00a7 370.\n\n[736] Philostr. _Vit. Apoll._ XXXIX. \u00a7 275.\n\n[737] _Brit. Mus. Cat._ E 467. _J.H.S._ XI. pl. 11 and 12, p. 278, and\nRoscher, _Lex._ s.v. Pandora, fig. 2.\n\n[738] Hes. _Theog._ 570, trans. Mr D. S. MacColl.\n\n[739] Hes. _Op._ 69 ff.\n\n[740] Hes. _Op._ 59.\n\n[741] For the origin of the _pithos_ see _J.H.S._ XX. 1900, p. 99.\n\n[742] Plut. _de Ei ap. Delph._ II. 1.\n\n[743] P. IX. 35. 1.\n\n[744] Eur. _Ion_ 496.\n\n[745] Eur. _Erech._ frg. V. 3.\n\n[746] I have collected and discussed this evidence in \u2018Mythological\nStudies,\u2019 _J.H.S._, vol. XII. 1891, p. 350.\n\n[747] P. I. 18. 2.\n\n[748] P. I. 26. 6.\n\n[749] Ov. _Met._ II. 759.\n\n[750] Schol. ad Ar. _Thesm._ 533 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f64\u03bc\u03bd\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[751] Plut. _Quaest. Symp._ IX. 14. 2.\n\n[752] For three in the cultus of the dead, see Diels, _Sibyllinische\nBl\u00e4tter_, p. 40. For a discussion of trinities other than of maiden\ngoddesses, see Usener, \u2018Dreiheit\u2019 (_Rhein. Mus._ LVIII. pp. 1-47).\n\n[753] In this connection it may be worth noting that where the nature\nof the dual goddess prevents her taking a central place as in the case\nof Eileithyia she never merges into a trinity. There are often two\nEileithyiai, e.g. one to either side of Zeus at the birth of Athene, but\nnever three.\n\n[754] Roscher, _Lex._ s.v. Matres, Matronae.\n\n[755] Fr\u00f6hner, Coll. Tyszkicwisk, Pl. XVI.; _J.H.S._ XIX. p. 218, Fig. 3.\n\n[756] _A. Mitt._ 1896, p. 266, Taf. VIII.\n\n[757] Eur. _Ion_ 490, trans. Mr D. S. MacColl.\n\n[758] For the development of the type of Hecate in conjunction with the\nCharites, see _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. 373.\n\n[759] In the Vienna Museum, found at Gallipoli, _Arch. Epigr. Mitt._ vol.\nI. Taf. 1. Prof. O. Benndorf, \u2018Die Chariten des Sokrates,\u2019 _Arch. Zeit._\n1869.\n\n[760] The sources for the story are well collected in Roscher\u2019s\n_Lexicon_, s.v. Paris, but the author of the article seems to have no\nsuspicion of the real substratum of the myth.\n\n[761] Luc. _dial. deor._ 20 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9. Tzetzes ad Lycophr. 93 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc7\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[762] _Cat._ 422. Milliet et Giraudon, Pl. 104.\n\n[763] _B.M. Cat._ E 289. _J.H.S._ VII. 1886, p. 9.\n\n[764] _J.H.S._ VII. 1888, p. 198, fig. 1.\n\n[765] _J.H.S._ VII. 1888, p. 203.\n\n[766] _J.H.S._ VII. 1888, p. 282.\n\n[767] Procl. _Excerpt._ \u03b1\u1f33 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f3c\u03b4\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03c6\u2019\n\u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. See Schneider, _Der troische Sagenkreis_,\np. 99, and Welcker, _Ep. Kyklos_ II. 88.\n\n[768] _Berl. Cat._ 2154. Endt, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Ionischen Vasenmalerei_, p.\n29, figs. 11, 12 and 13.\n\n[769] The figure of Paris which does not here concern us came in with the\npopularity of the Homeric cycle, and the connection between the conflict\nof \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 and the Trojan war may probably have been due to the author of\nthe _Kypria_.\n\n[770] Eur. _Andr._ 281.\n\n[771] Since the above was written I see that Eustathius (\u00a7 1665. 59)\nexpressly states that Aphrodite strove _with the Charites_: \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03a7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03b7, \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd, \u1f23\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f2d\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. He goes on to say that Kal\u00e8 married Arachnos in Crete and that\nArachnos \u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[772] Hom. _Od._ XX. 67.\n\n[773] I follow Prof. Ridgeway (_J.H.S._ 1898, p. xxxiv) in holding that\nArtemis with her father Zeus and her brother Apollo are immigrants from\nthe North, divinities of the Achaean stock. Hence their dominance in\nHomer.\n\n[774] Published and discussed by M. P. Perdrizet, _Bull. de Corr. Hell._\n1898, p. 584.\n\n[775] Tradition variously ascribed the theft to Tantalos and Pandareos.\nHere the presence of the two daughters points to Pandareos as the\noffender. The sources for the myth of the theft in its various forms,\nwhich do not here immediately concern us, are collected in Roscher\u2019s\n_Lexicon_, s.v. Pandareus, see also p. 226.\n\n[776] On only one vase representing the \u2018Judgment\u2019 does Artemis so far\nas I know appear, viz. the _very_ late amphora in the Naples Museum.\n(Heydemann, _Cat._ 2870.)\n\n[777] _Anthol. Palat._ VI. 280; the play on \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1 in the lines\n\n \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u039b\u03b9\u03bc\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u1fb3, \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u1f72\u03c2\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\n\ncannot be rendered in English.\n\n[778] Dilthey, _Arch. Zeit._ 1873.\n\n[779] Pauly-Wissowa s.v. Athena, p. 1941, 50.\n\n[780] Plat. _Legg._ 796 \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 ... \u1f03 \u03b4\u1f74\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[781] Soph. frg. ap. Strabo \u00a7 392. That Pallas was the eponymous hero of\nthe Pallantidae was first pointed out by D\u00fcncker, _Hist. of Greece_, vol.\nI. p. 113.\n\n[782] Strab. XVII. 46 \u00a7 816 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f03\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2: see A. Fick, _Indogerm. Beitr\u00e4ge_, 1896.\n\n[783] _C.I.A._ II. 470. 10 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03be\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 (\u03bf\u1f31 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9) \u03a0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ae\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[784] Aesch. _Eum._ 916.\n\n[785] _The Knights of Aristophanes_, p. 83.\n\n[786] See Mr Gilbert Murray, _Ancient Greek Literature_, p. 178.\n\n[787] _Hom. Hymn._ XXVIII., translated by Mr D. S. MacColl.\n\n[788] Aesch. _Eum._ 736.\n\n[789] Rossbach, _Griechische Antiken des arch. Museums in Breslau,\nFestgruss 40 d. Philologen_ (G\u00f6rlitz, 1889), Taf. I.\n\n[790] The meaning of the woman-headed bird and of her name was first seen\nby Dr Max Mayer, \u2018Mythhistorica,\u2019 _Hermes_ XXXVII.\n\n[791] Ar. _Hist. Anim._ IX. 18, p. 617 _a_ 9.\n\n[792] P. I. 5. 3 and I. 41. 6; see Dr Frazer ad loc.\n\n[793] P. I. 41. 9.\n\n[794] Lyc. _Alc._ 359. In connection with Lycophron\u2019s account it is\ncurious to find that in the earliest known representation of the rape of\nCassandra in vase-paintings (_J.H.S._ 1884, Pl. XL.) behind the figure\nof Athene stands a large human-headed bird, but this may be a mere\ncoincidence.\n\n[795] O. Benndorf, _Griechische und Sicilische Vasenbilder_, pl. 51. 1.\n\n[796] Soph. _Phil._ 1327.\n\n[797] Herod. VIII. 41.\n\n[798] Collignon et Couve, _Cat._ 1942. _Jahrbuch d. Inst._, Anzeiger,\n1896, p. 36.\n\n[799] Since the above was written I learn that Mr Evans has discovered at\nCnossos the figure of a goddess with a snake in either hand and a snake\nor snakes coiled about her head. She may prove to be the prototype of\nAthene, of the Erinys and of many another form of Earth-goddess.\n\n[800] Coll. Faina. _R\u00f6m. Mitt._ 1897, XII. pl. 12. Another instance of a\nwinged Athene occurs on the fine vase published by Mr A. de Ridder, _Cat.\nBibl. Nat._ No. 269, p. 173, fig. 23. Athene flies over the sea carrying\nthe dead body of a hero. Here she performs the office of Eos or of a\nDeath-Siren or Harpy.\n\n[801] Aesch. _Eum._ 407.\n\n[802] _Il._ XVIII. 382.\n\n[803] From a photograph. The slab is now in the Museum at Naples.\n\n[804] E. Petersen, _R\u00f6m. Mittheil._ 1899, pl. VII. p. 154.\n\n[805] Some further instances of the rising of an Earth-goddess greeted by\nErotes will be discussed in Chapter XII., and see p. 570.\n\n[806] Hom. _Od._ VIII. 270.\n\n[807] _Hom. Hymn_ VI. 2, trans. by Mr Gilbert Murray.\n\n[808] At Sekyon, though we are not expressly told of a bath of Aphrodite,\nshe had a maiden-priestess who was called Loutrophoros, see P. II. 10. 4.\nThe Orphic Hymn to Aphrodite (LV. 19) joins together the notions of bath\nand birth: \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03b1 \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac.\n\n[809] P. II. 38. 2.\n\n[810] Reproduced from a photograph. The relief is published and fully\ndiscussed by Dr Petersen, _R\u00f6m. Mittheilungen_, 1892, Taf. II. p. 32. The\nrelief with two other slabs manifestly belonging to the same structure\ncame to light on a Sunday during the summer of 1887, during the absence\nof the official inspector, in the piece of ground formerly belonging to\nthe Villa Ludovisi and now bounded by the Vie Boncompagni, Abruzzi e\nPiemonte. It is said to have been found in an upright position, but as no\nother monuments came to light, though the ground was examined to a depth\nof 50 metres, the reliefs were probably not _in situ_. Dr Petersen thinks\nthey formed the three sides of a throne of Aphrodite. They may, however,\nhave formed part of the decoration of the mouth of a well. That they\nwere in some way connected with Aphrodite is practically certain from\nthe design on the two other reliefs (not figured here). These represent\nrespectively a nude woman playing on the double flutes, who, from the\nanalogy of similar representations on vase-paintings, is certainly a\nhetaira, and a woman draped and veiled bringing incense who is probably a\nbride. The various interpretations and restorations of the monument are\ngiven by Dr Helbig, _F\u00fchrer Rom_ II. p. 128, and _Antike Denkm\u00e4ler d. K.\nArch. Inst._ vol. II. Pl. 6 and 7, p. 3.\n\n[811] P. V. 11. 8.\n\n[812] Since the above was written I see that M. Joubin (_La Sculpture\nGrecque entre les guerres m\u00e9diques et l\u2019\u00e9poque de P\u00e9ricl\u00e8s_, p. 204)\nhas anticipated me in using the Genoa vase as evidence to show that the\nuprising woman in the Ludovisi relief is Aphrodite. But unfortunately\nM. Joubin fails to see that Aphrodite is also Kore; he says, \u2018D\u2019autres\narch\u00e9ologues avaient identifi\u00e9 le personnage figur\u00e9 \u00e0 mi-corps avec\nKor\u00e8 ou Ge; mais la d\u00e9couverte du vase de G\u00e8nes coupe court toutes\nces interpr\u00e9tations.\u2019 This is to my mind to miss the real religious\nsignificance of the figure; but M. Joubin is, of course, mainly concerned\nwith artistic criticism.\n\n[813] Brit. Mus. _Cat._ D 2. The best reproduction of this beautiful vase\nis plate XV. of _White Athenian Vases in Brit. Mus._\n\n[814] Lucret. I. 1.\n\n[815] As long ago as 1857, H. D. M\u00fcller in his remarkable book\n_Mythologie der Griechischen St\u00e4mme_, pp. 249-255, saw that Zeus and\nHera belonged to stocks racially distinct, and that in the compulsory\nmarriage of Hera to Zeus is reflected the subjugation of a primitive race\nto Achaean invaders. In discussing the American excavations at Argos I\nfollowed his leading, see \u2018Primitive Hera-Worship,\u2019 _Cl. Review_, Dec.\n1892, p. 474, and 1893, p. 44.\n\n[816] Athen. \u00a7 672.\n\n[817] Strab. \u00a7 637.\n\n[818] P. VIII. 22. 2. The sources for the cult of Hera are well collected\nby Mr Farnell in his _Cults of the Greek States_, p. 211, but with Mr\nFarnell\u2019s main thesis \u2018that her association with Zeus is a primitive\nfactor in the Greek worship of Hera\u2019 I am still as he then notes (p. 199)\ncompletely at issue.\n\n[819] Again acutely observed by H. D. M\u00fcller, _Mythologie d. Gr. St\u00e4mme_,\npp. 254, 255, where the identity of Dione and Juno is noted.\n\n[820] These reliefs are now in the Museum at Sofia: there were discovered\nin all ninety-two of the same type. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ XXI. 1897, p.\n130, fig. 12; p. 138, fig. 17.\n\n[821] The survival of the type of the \u2018Three Sisters\u2019 in mediaeval days\nhas been well traced by Miss Eckenstein, _Woman under Monasticism_, p. 40\nff.\n\n[822] Since the above was written Mr A. B. Cook has with great kindness\nand generosity allowed me to read in proof his article on \u2018Zeus, Jupiter\nand the Oak,\u2019 shortly to be published in the _Classical Review_. Mr Cook\nbelieves that the worship of Zeus was indigenous in Greece and that Zeus,\nPoseidon and Hades are three forms of one primaeval god. His contention\nis supported by an immense mass of evidence. I am at present unconvinced,\nbut space forbids my entering on the controversy here.\n\n[823] Diog. Laert. _Vit. Epim._ XI.\n\n[824] \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1866, pl. 3. The \u2018patriarchal couple\u2019 are, I incline to\nthink, rightly explained by Dr Svoronos (_Journal d\u2019Arch\u00e9ol. et Num._\n1901, p. 503) as Asklepios and Hygieia, but as for my purpose it is not\nnecessary to name them, and as the evidence is too detailed to be resumed\nhere, I prefer not to go beyond the inscription.\n\n[825] I follow Prof. Ridgeway in holding that Apollo and his sister\nArtemis belong to the immigrant Achaean stock, see p. 31, note 1.\n\n[826] Heydemann, _Cat._ 108. Raoul Rochette, _Mon. In\u00e9d._ pl. 37.\n\n[827] Eur. _Ion_ 5.\n\n[828] The evidence for this I have collected elsewhere, see \u2018Delphika,\u2019\nB. The Omphalos, _J.H.S._ 1899, XIX. 225.\n\n[829] _A. Mitt._ 1887, Taf. XII.\n\n[830] Plut. _de defect. orac._ 1.\n\n[831] P. VI. 20. 7.\n\n[832] P. VIII. 4. 9.\n\n[833] P. III. 26. 5\n\n[834] P. III. 15. 3.\n\n[835] Theocr. _Id._ XVIII. 38.\n\n[836] _Inv. C.A._ 617. Published by M. L. Couve, _Revue Arch\u00e9ologique_,\n1898, p. 213, figs. 1 and 2, and discussed by Dr Blinkenberg, 1898, p.\n398.\n\n[837] P. III. 18. 15.\n\n[838] Dr S. Wide, \u2018Mykenische G\u00f6tterbilder und Idole,\u2019 _A. Mitt._ 1901,\np. 247, Pl. XII.\n\n[839] P. II. 13. 3.\n\n[840] P. VIII. 35. 8.\n\n[841] For the bear-service of Artemis and the bear dedicated to her, see\n_Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. 403.\n\n[842] The materials for the study of hero-worship are well collected\nin Roscher\u2019s _Lexicon_, s.v. Heroes, and for English readers there is\nan excellent survey in Mr W. H. D. Rouse\u2019s _Greek Votive Offerings_,\nc. I. In the pages that follow I confine myself for the most part\nto such aspects of hero-worship as affect my main argument, and to\ncertain evidence from art which seems to me to have been neglected,\nor misunderstood. I must also note that, advisedly, I only deal with\nthe \u2018Making of a God\u2019 in so far as the god developes out of the hero.\nThe most important and far more difficult question of the relation\nbetween totemism and god-making, a problem for the solution of which\nGreek tradition provides but scanty material, I leave for the present\nuntouched. It can only be decided by much wider anthropological\ninvestigation than is within my scope.\n\n[843] _A. Mitt._ 1877, pl. XXII.\n\n[844] For the \u2018Timocles\u2019 relief and for the whole class in general,\nsee _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. 590, where I have discussed the\ninfluence of the typography of these hero-reliefs on Attic gravestones.\n\n[845] H. Jumod, _Les Barongas_, p. 396, and see \u2018Delphika,\u2019 _J.H.S._ XIX.\n1899, p. 216.\n\n[846] Mr F. M. Cornford kindly points out to me that the _bearded_ snake\nis not unknown to Greek literature. He is one of the many \u03b8\u03b1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 that\nmeet us in the life of Apollonius of Tyana, see Philostr. _Vit. Apoll._\nIII. 7 and 8. These snakes belong to the wonder land of India.\n\n[847] Published and discussed, \u2018Delphika,\u2019 _J.H.S._ XIX. 1899, p. 229,\nfigs. 9 and 10.\n\n[848] _Cat._ 2458. _J.H.S._ 1899, p. 227, figs. 7 and 8. I have here\ndiscussed and rejected a possible mythological interpretation.\n\n[849] Herod. IV. 172.\n\n[850] Aesch. _Choeph._ 105.\n\n[851] P. VI. 20. 3.\n\n[852] Verg. _Aen._ V. 95.\n\n[853] A. Conze, _Reise in der Insel Lesbos_, Pl. IV. fig. 5, p. 11.\n\n[854] Ael. _Hist. An._ I. 51.\n\n[855] Plut. _Vit. Cleom._ 39.\n\n[856] Phot. s.v. \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. After Christian days the notion started\nby the Olympian religion that the snake was bad was strengthened by\nassociation with the \u2018old serpent\u2019 of Semitic mythology. Mr R. C.\nBosanquet kindly drew my attention to a curious survival of the belief\nthat a bad soul takes the form of a snake in the account of the life and\nmiracles of the fifth century saint, St Marcellus (_Boll. Acta Sanctorum_\n1-3, vol. LXIII. of the whole series, pp. 259 and 267). It was related\nthat a certain matron of noble family, but bad character, died and\nwas buried with great pomp. \u2018Ergo ad consumendum ejus cadaver coepit\nserpens immanissimus frequentare, et, ut dicam clarius, mulieri, cujus\nmembra bestia devorabat, ipse draco factus est sepultura.\u2019 St Marcellus\nsubdued the snake by striking it thrice with his staff and putting\nhis prayer-book on its head. To the present day among the Greeks an\nunbaptized child, who is not yet quite human (\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2), is sometimes\nspoken of as a snake-monster (\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2) and is apt to disappear in snake\nform. For the \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 see Abbott, _Macedonian Folklore_, p. 261.\n\n[857] Herod. II. 51 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. Herodotus according to the\nfashion of his day derives \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af from the root \u03b8\u03b5, to put in order.\n\n[858] Prof. Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece_, vol. I. p. 339. Aristotle\ndistinctly states that the region round Dodona was \u2018ancient Greece,\u2019\nsee Ar. _Meteor._ I. 12. 9 \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 (\u1f21 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03b1) \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u0394\u03c9\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03c7\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1fa4\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03a3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u0393\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, see Prof. Bury, _J.H.S._ XV. p. 217.\n\n[859] Hesych. s.v. \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n[860] Hom. _Od._ I. 29.\n\n[861] I owe this explanation of \u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd entirely to Mr Gilbert Murray.\n\n[862] Hom. _Od._ XXIV. 80.\n\n[863] _Il._ I. 423.\n\n[864] _Od._ XII. 261.\n\n[865] _Od._ XIX. 109.\n\n[866] _Il._ VI. 171.\n\n[867] Aesch. _Choeph._ 1586. Prof. Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece_, vol.\nI. p. 97, has pointed out that Agamemnon and Menelaos were new-comers,\nand that Helen was of the indigenous stock. I venture to suggest that\nAigisthos and Clytaemnestra belong also to the \u2018Pelasgian\u2019 stratum.\n\n[868] Hom. _Od._ III. 267.\n\n[869] P. II. 16. 7.\n\n[870] Hom. _Od._ XI. 235.\n\n[871] Hes. frg. ap. Schol. Pind. _Pyth._ IV. 253.\n\n[872] Verg. _Aen._ VI. 585. Hygin. _Fab._ 61. Salmoneus, not Athamas,\nis I think represented on the Chicago vase (fig. 8) as holding the\nthunderbolt of Zeus; the vase has been rightly explained by Mr A. B.\nCook, _Cl. Rev._ July 1903, p. 276. It will later (Chap. XI.) be shown\nthat the canonical Hades was peopled by these heroes of an early racial\nstratum.\n\n[873] _Od._ XI. 576.\n\n[874] Strab. IX. 3 \u00a7 423.\n\n[875] _Od._ VII. 323.\n\n[876] P. X. 4. 10.\n\n[877] P. V. 13. 3.\n\n[878] Pind. _Ol._ I. 90 schol. ad loc.\n\n[879] Schol. ad hyp. _Nem._ \u1f49 \u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039d\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd) \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u1ff3\n... \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5.\n\n[880] P. III. 19. 3.\n\n[881] Ar. _Av._ 1482, schol. ad loc. Athenaeus (XI. 4 \u00a7 461) gives the\nsame account of the character of heroes: \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n[882] Hesych. s.v. \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[883] _West African Studies_, p. 132.\n\n[884] Ar. _Tagenist._ frg. 1.\n\n[885] _Cat._ 1407, from a photograph. For permission to publish this\nrelief and those in figs. 102, 105, 106, my grateful thanks are due to Mr\nKabbadios, Ephor of Antiquities at Athens.\n\n[886] _Cat._ 1377, from a photograph.\n\n[887] For the whole subject of \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 see L. Deubner, _De Incubatione\ncapitula duo_.\n\n[888] Eur. _Iph. in T._ 1261.\n\n[889] P. I. 34. 5.\n\n[890] _A. Mitt._ 1893, p. 250. The introduction of the healer of\nEpidauros may have been connected with the great plague at Athens.\n\n[891] A. Koerte, \u2018Bezirk eines Heilgottes,\u2019 _A. Mitt._ 1893, p. 237, and\n1896, p. 311.\n\n[892] Koerte, _op. cit._ \u039c\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03b7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u0394\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03b9\u1ff7 \u1f08\u03bc\u03cd\u03bd\u1ff3\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5.\n\n[893] Koerte, _op. cit._ \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5[\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd]\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03bc\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.\n\n[894] _Etym. Mag._ s.v. \u0394\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03bd. It seems possible that by the \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 in\nwhich Sophocles received Asklepios is meant the Amyneion.\n\n[895] Istr. frg. 51.\n\n[896] Koerte, _op. cit._ \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[897] Cf. P. VIII. 8. 4, II. 10. 3, III. 23. 7.\n\n[898] Prof. Ridgeway, _The Early Age of Greece_, vol. I. p. 640.\n\n[899] Usener, _Die Sinflutsagen_, p. 58, draws attention to the\nhypocoristic form \u1f29\u03c1\u03cd\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, see Hesych. s.v. \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 \u03a3\u03ce\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2, and supposes an old Greek diminutive \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 = Lat. _culus_,\nhomunculus, Herculus.\n\n[900] See p. 12.\n\n[901] Diod. Sic. IV. 40 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[902] Rosch. _Lex._ s.v. Herakles, \u2018Apotheose,\u2019 p. 2239.\n\n[903] \u1f18\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1890, Pl. VII.\n\n[904] Schol. ad Ar. _Nub._ 508 \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03a4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f44\u03c6\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1fa7 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. The women in the fourth Mime of Herondas (_v._ 90) offer a\npelanos to the snake of Asklepios.\n\n[905] Berl. _Cat._ 3155. _Jahrb. d. Inst._, Anzeiger, 1890, p. 89.\n\n[906] Plat. _Legg._ 717 A. The Olympian gods do not here concern us,\nbut it may be worth noting that the gods who keep the state \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, who are classed with the Olympians as of the first\nrank, seem to correspond with the \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 and \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 of Aeschylus\n(_Ag._ 90) who take rank with the \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9. Some gods wherever found\nwere Olympian, e.g. Zeus and Apollo; others though not Pan-Hellenically\nrecognised took rank as such locally, e.g. Demeter.\n\n[907] Hes. _Erg._ 109.\n\n[908] There are several instances in the National Museum at Athens and\n\u2018Hero-Feasts\u2019 have been carved on sarcophagi which are still in the\ncourtyard of the local museum at Paros.\n\n[909] _Inv._ 55, see Dr Wiegand, \u2018Antike Sculpturen in Samos,\u2019 _A. Mitt._\n1900, p. 176.\n\n[910] _Inv._ 60.\n\n[911] See Dr Wiegand, _op. cit._ p. 180.\n\n[912] See Dr Verrall, \u2018Death and the Horse,\u2019 _J.H.S._, XVIII. 1898, p. 1.\n\n[913] Roscher, s.v. Heros, p. 2559, No. 5. A better reproduction\nin phototype has been published by Dr Chr. Blinkenberg, \u2018Et Attisk\nVotivrelief,\u2019 _Festskrift til J. L. Ussing_, Kopenhagen, 1900. I follow\nDr Ussing\u2019s view (kindly translated for me by Dr Martin Nilsson).\n\n[914] P. I. 22. 1-3, see Dr Frazer ad loc., and _Myth. and Mon. Anc.\nAthens_, p. 328.\n\n[915] Eur. _Hipp._ 26 ff., trans. Mr Gilbert Murray. For Aphrodite\nEndemos, _Love-at-Home_, see Dr Verrall, _Cl. Rev._, Dec. 1901, p. 449.\nDr Svoronos makes the interesting suggestion that the sanctuary founded\nby Phaedra may have been on the site later occupied by the temple of Nike\nApteros, and that the Wingless Victory may have been a title rather of\nAphrodite than the Athene. See _Journal International d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie_,\n1901, p. 459.\n\n[916] _Cat._ 95, published and fully discussed by Prof. Furtw\u00e4ngler, \u2018Ein\nsogenanntes Todtenmahlrelief mit Inschrift,\u2019 _Sitzungsberichte d. k. Bay.\nAk. d. Wissenschaften_, Philos.-Philolog. Klasse 1897, p. 401.\n\n[917] Hesych. s.v.\n\n[918] Plat. _Legg._ VI. 784 D.\n\n[919] Both reliefs are reproduced from photographs kindly given me by the\nGerman Archaeological Institute. The relief to Zeus Philios was found\nnear the Hill of the Nymphs at Athens (_C.I.A._ II. 1330), that to the\nAgathos Daimon at Thespiae (_C.I.A._ I. 1815).\n\n[920] \u03bd\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a6\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd was a popular oath, cf. Ar. _Acharn._ 730. The\nomission of the proper name is significant.\n\n[921] Diod. Sinop. frg. ap. Athen. VI. 2396. Meineke, _F.C.G._ III. p.\n543.\n\n[922] Cat. 1500. Both designs in figs. 110 and 111 are reproduced from\nphotographs.\n\n[923] The most recent account of this much discussed relief is by Dr\nStudniczka, \u2018Ueber das Schauspielerrelief aus dem Peiraeus,\u2019 in _M\u00e9langes\nPerrot_, p. 307. The relief was first published _A. Mittheilungen_ 1882,\nTaf. 14, p. 389; see also _Hermes_ 1887, p. 336. _A. Mitt._ 1888, p. 221.\nReisch, _Weihgeschenke_, p. 23. _Jahrbuch d. Inst._ 1896, p. 104. _A.\nMitt._ 1896, p. 362.\n\n[924] Dr Studniczka (op. cit. supra) has made a very close examination\nof the objects held, and attempts, I do not think successfully, to\ndeduce therefrom the dramatic characters impersonated. The object held\nby the last figure to the left as well as his face is obliterated. It is\nsufficient for our purpose that it is clear from the middle figure they\nare _actors_.\n\n[925] From a photograph. There are similar reliefs not quite so well\npreserved in the Louvre and in the British Museum (_Cat._ 176). A\ncomplete list of those extant is given by Hauser, _Die Neu-attischen\nReliefs_, Anhang, p. 189. The earliest specimen, more nearly approaching\nthe \u2018Hero-Relief,\u2019 and so marked by the presence of a snake, is published\n_Arch. Zeit._ 1882, Taf. XIV., and I have already discussed it, _Myth.\nand Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. xlv, fig. 7.\n\n[926] Herod. V. 67. I owe this important reference to the article _Heros_\nin Roscher\u2019s _Lexicon_, p. 2492, but Dr Deneken calls no attention to its\nsignificance in relation to Dionysos.\n\n[927] _J.H.S._ V. p. 116. Prof. Percy Gardner explains the coin as\nbelonging to Asklepios: my suggestion is made with the utmost diffidence\nas differing from so great an authority on numismatics.\n\n[928] Mr A. G. Bather in an interesting article on \u2018The Problem of the\nBacchae\u2019 (_J.H.S._ XIV. 1894, p. 263) concludes that the myths of the\nintroduction of Dionysos \u2018do not find their origin in any introduction of\nthe god from without, but in the yearly inbringing of the new statue.\u2019\n\n[929] Berlin, _Cat._ 1704. _Mon. d. Inst._ 1873 vol. IX. Pl. LV. W.\nHelbig, _Annali_ 1873, p. 106. The curious inscriptions do not here\nconcern us.\n\n[930] _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, Serie D, Taf. 1 and 2. The vase is now in\nthe Municipal Museum at Corneto.\n\n[931] _Il._ VI. 129.\n\n[932] Soph. _Ant._ 955.\n\n[933] Ar. _Thesm._ 135, schol. ad loc.\n\n[934] Naples. Heydemann, Cat. 3237. _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, pp.\n260, 261, figs. 11 and 12.\n\n[935] Herod. VII. 110.\n\n[936] Strabo VII. \u00a7 318.\n\n[937] Strabo frg. VII.\n\n[938] Paulinus Nol. _carm. xxx. de reditu Niket. Episc. in Daciam_.\n\n Nam simul terris animisque duri\n et sua Bessi nive duriores\n nunc oves facti duce te gregantur\n pacis in aulam.\n quasque cervices dare servituti\n semper a bello indomiti negarant\n nunc iugo veri domini subactas\n sternere gaudent.\n nunc magis dives pretio laboris\n Bessus exultat, quod humi manuque\n ante quaerebat, modo mente caeli\n colligit aurum.\n ...\n mos ubi quondam fuerat ferarum,\n nunc ibi ritus viget angelorum\n et latet justus quibus ipse latro\n vixit in antris.\n\nFor this and many other valuable references about the Bessi, I am\nindebted to Dr Tomaschek\u2019s article \u2018Ueber Brumalia und Rosalia,\u2019\n_Sitzungsber. d. K. Akad. d. Wissenschaften_, Phil.-Hist. Kl., Wien 1868,\np. 351.\n\n[939] Thucyd. II. 96.\n\n[940] Plin. _N.H._ IV. 18. 11. 40.\n\n[941] Eur. _Bacch._ 13.\n\n[942] Eur. _Bacch._ 65.\n\n[943] _Ib._ 152.\n\n[944] Plut. _Vit. Alex._ 2.\n\n[945] Eur. _Bacch._ 565.\n\n[946] To Euripides in the _Bacchae_ Dionysos is the god of the grape. The\nvine probably came from Asia, though about this experts do not seem to\nbe agreed, see Schrader, _Real-lexicon_; but Dionysos, as will later be\nshown, is earlier than the coming of the vine.\n\n[947] Eur. _Bacch._ 519.\n\n[948] _Ib._ 530.\n\n[949] B.M. Cat. E 695. _Mon. d. Inst._ 1833 tav. L.\n\n[950] Strabo X. 3 \u00a7 470.\n\n[951] Strabo frg. 25.\n\n[952] For the orientalism of the Theban character and legends, see Mr D.\nG. Hogarth, _Philip and Alexander_, p. 34.\n\n[953] Herod. V. 7.\n\n[954] Sappho, frg. 66.\n\n[955] _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, Serie II. Taf. iii., iv. An even earlier\nsource is the Corinthian vase published by Dr L\u00f6schke, _A. Mitt._ 1894,\np. 524, Taf. viii.\n\n[956] _Od._ VII. 265.\n\n[957] Soph. _Oed. Tyr._ 209.\n\n[958] Eur. _Bacch._ 1356.\n\n[959] _Ib._ 302.\n\n[960] Polyaen. _Strat._ I. 1.\n\n[961] This remarkable frieze is in the local museum at Delphi and is not\nas yet completely published.\n\n[962] Herod. V. 3.\n\n[963] Soph. frg. 782 ap. Strab. XV. 687.\n\n[964] Eur. _Bacch._ 556.\n\n[965] Diod. III. 4.\n\n[966] _Ib._ 65.\n\n[967] Diod. IV. 3.\n\n[968] This was first, I believe, observed by Dr Head (_Hist. Num._ p.\n176). In discussing the coinage of Lete in Macedonia he says: \u2018The coin\ntypes all refer to the orgiastic rites practised in the worship of the\nmountain Bacchus, which originated in the country of the Satrae or\nSatyrs\u2019 (Herod. VII. 111).\n\n[969] Prof. Ridgeway (_Early Age of Greece_, vol. I. p. 343) identifies\nthe Orreskii of the coins with the Orestae of Strabo (\u00a7 434). He thinks\nthe slight difference in form is due to a copyist\u2019s mistake of \u03c4 for \u03ba.\n\n[970] Head, _Hist. Num._ p. 176.\n\n[971] Nonnus, _Dionys._ XIII. 43\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u039a\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n[972] _Il._ I. 262\n\n \u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n \u03c6\u03b7\u03c1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u1ff4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n[973] _Il._ II. 711\n\n \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c6\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bd\u03ae\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f66\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n[974] _Od._ XXI. 303 \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57 \u039a\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7.\n\n[975] Boston, _Inv._ No. 6508. _American Journal of Archaeology_\n1900, pl. VI. p. 441. The vase belongs to the class usually called\n\u2018proto-Corinthian.\u2019 Mr J. C. Hopkins prefers to call it \u2018Argive.\u2019\n\n[976] _J.H.S._ vol. I. p. 130, fig. 1, published and discussed with other\nart representations by Mr Sidney Colvin.\n\n[977] It is, it would seem, a mere chance that we have not what might\nbe called a \u2018fish Centaur.\u2019 On an early black-figured vase (_R.\nMitt._ II. 1887, Taf. viii.) we have a series of men represented as\ncompletely human, not with the body ending in fish tails, but with an\nextra fish tail added to the complete human body. These are the natural\nmonster-forms of a people dwelling on the sea-coast.\n\n[978] P. V. 19. 9.\n\n[979] Pind. _Pyth._ III. 5.\n\n[980] B.M. _Cat._ B 620. _J.H.S._ vol. I. pl. ii. p. 132.\n\n[981] _Early Age of Greece_, vol. I. p. 177.\n\n[982] An analogous case to the Satyrs and Centaurs has already been noted\n(p. 172), i.e. the Keres, regarded as Telchines, and of monstrous forms;\nand still more clear is the case of the Kyklopes (p. 190), barbarous\nmonsters yet builders and craftsmen.\n\n[983] Pind. frg. 44.\n\n[984] _J.H.S._ I. Pl. ii. Engelmann, _Bilder-Atlas_, 110.\n\n[985] The animal form assumed by Dionysos was (as will later be shown,\np. 432) that of a bull. Had his own worshippers invented the monstrous\nSatyrs, they would probably have chosen the bull shape. With the horse\nDionysos, unlike his attendants, has no affinities.\n\n[986] W\u00fcrzburg, No. 354. _Mon. d. Inst._ X. 8 a. _Myth. and Mon. Ancient\nAthens_, p. lxxix.\n\n[987] The literature of this controversy is fully given and discussed by\nDr K. Wernicke, \u2018Bocksch\u00f6re und Satyrdrama,\u2019 _Hermes_ XXXII. 1897, p. 29.\n\n[988] Since the above was written I see with great pleasure that Dr\nEmil Reisch in his article \u2018Zur Vorgeschichte der attischen Trag\u00f6die\u2019\n(_Festschrift Theodor Gomperz_ 1902, p. 459) reasserts the old view that\nthe horse-demons of the vases are Satyrs.\n\n[989] Hes. frg. CXXIX.\n\n[990] Plut. _Vit. Alex._ 2. For many references as to the Maenads I am\nindebted to the articles by Dr A. Rapp, \u2018Die Maenade in gr. Cultus in der\nKunst und Poesie,\u2019 _Rhein. Mus._ 1872, pp. 1 and 562, and for references\nto the Thyiades to Dr Weniger\u2019s _Das Collegium der Thyiaden_.\n\n[991] Plut. _de Superstit._ X.\n\n \u039c\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 \u0398\u03c5\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 \u03a6\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 \u039b\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1.\n\n[992] Eur. _Bacch._ 977.\n\n[993] Aesch. _Eum._ 22.\n\n[994] Aesch. _Eum._ 19.\n\n[995] P. X. 19. 3.\n\n[996] Hermitage, _Cat._ 1807.\n\n[997] Aesch. _Eum._ 1.\n\n[998] See Dr Verrall, _Euripides the Rationalist_, p. 223. The same\ntheological euphemism is observable in the Hymn to Dionysos recently\ndiscovered at Delphi and which will be discussed later (p. 417). Here\nthere is a manifest attempt to fuse the worship of Apollo and Dionysos.\nDionysos even adopts the characteristic Apolline title of Paean.\n\n[999] P. X. 4. 2.\n\n[1000] P. X. 6. 2.\n\n[1001] P. X. 32. 7.\n\n[1002] _De Is. et Os._ 35. Herodotus (VII. 178) mentions an altar of the\nwinds at Delphi in a place called Thyia, which was the temenos of the\nheroine, who may herself have been a raging wind. The same precinct,\nwe know from an inscription found at Delphi, was called Thyiai. See E.\nBourguet, _M\u00e9langes Perrot_, p. 25.\n\n[1003] Plut. _de prin. frig._ XVIII.\n\n[1004] Plut. _de mul. virt._ XIII.\n\n[1005] Eur. _Bacch._ 683.\n\n[1006] Plut. _de Ei apud Delph._ XX. 1 \u03a6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03ae \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f60\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u2019 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, see _J.H.S._ XIX. p. 241.\n\n[1007] Aesch. _Eum._ 6.\n\n[1008] On a curious \u2018Tyrrhenian\u2019 amphora (Gerhard, _Auserlesene\nVasenbilder_ 220), the scene of the slaying of Troilos is represented.\nThis took place according to tradition in the Thymbraean sanctuary. The\nsanctuary is indicated by a regular omphalos covered by a fillet and\nagainst it is inscribed \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n[1009] Aesch. _Ag._ 1275.\n\n[1010] Eur. _Hec._ 827\n\n \u1f21 \u03a6\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f23\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u039a\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03a6\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n[1011] Eur. _Bacch._ 664\n\n \u03b2\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f33 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03bf\u1f34\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u1ff6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nMr Murray\u2019s translation preserves the twofold connotation of the word,\npurity and inspired madness.\n\n[1012] Phot. _Bibl._ V. 533\u1d47 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ae\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f31\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u1fc3 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd. \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u1fc3 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n[1013] Diod. IV. 3.\n\n[1014] _Oed. Col._ 670, trans. by Mr D. S. MacColl.\n\n[1015] First published by Kondolleon, _Ath. Mitt._ XV. (1890) p. 330,\ndiscussed by E. Maass, _Hermes_ XXVI. (1891) p. 178, and S. Reinach,\n_Rev. des \u00c9tudes grecques_ III. (1890) p. 349, and O. Kern, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur\nGeschichte der griechischen Philosophie und Religion_, Berlin 1895.\n\n[1016] \u1f00\u03c6\u03af\u03b4\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[1017]\n\n \u1f44\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\n \u039c\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0395\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039a\u03b1\u03b4\u03bc\u03b7\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2.\n \u03b1\u1f33 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u03ac.\n\n[1018] Plut. _Vit. Alex._ 2.\n\n[1019] Munich. Jahn, _Cat._ 382. _Greek Vase Paintings_, J. E. Harrison\nand D. S. MacColl, pl. XV. Baumeister, _Ab._ 928.\n\n[1020] _J.H.S._ XIX. p. 220, fig. 6.\n\n[1021] Head, _Hist. Num._ p. 461, fig. 287.\n\n[1022] Plut. _Vit. Sol._ XII. Epimenides is as it were a historical\nOrpheus. Coming from Crete, he, like Orpheus (p. 460), modified Dionysiac\nritual.\n\n[1023] Plut. _Vit. Sol._ XXI.\n\n[1024] Eur. _Bacch._ 485.\n\n[1025] _Oed. Col._ 674, see p. 369.\n\n[1026] _De Isid. et Os._ XXXV. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f4d\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u0398\u03c5\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u039b\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd.\n\n[1027] The verb \u03b8\u03c5\u03af\u03c9 is used of the excited beating of the heart under\nstrong emotion, e.g. Ap. Rhod. III. 754\n\n \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03bd\u1f70 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03c5\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n[1028] Plut. _Q. Gr._ XII. \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f29\u03c1\u03c9\u0390\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f43\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u0398\u03c5\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5.\n\n[1029] Eur. _Bacch._ 375\n\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0392\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n_v._ 580\n\n \u1f41 \u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u1f41 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n_v._ 278\n\n \u1f41 \u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[1030] Ramsay, _Journal of Asiatic Soc._ XV. 1883, pp. 120 ff., and\nLatischew, _F\u00fcr vergleichende Sprachforschung_, vol. XXVIII. pp. 381 ff.\nThe inscriptions are explained and discussed in relation to Semele by\nDr Paul Kretschmer, \u2018Semele und Dionysos,\u2019 in _Aus der Anomia_ (Berlin\n1890), and to him I owe entirely the view adopted in the text.\n\n[1031] P. VI. 20. 9.\n\n[1032] I regret to be obliged to reproduce the publication of Tischbein\n(_Greek Vases_ I. 39). As regards style it is obviously inadequate. The\nvase has been examined by Mr Cecil Smith (_Jahrbuch d. Inst._ 1891, p.\n120, note 17) and the reproduction of Tischbein is pronounced by him to\nbe as regards subject-matter substantially correct.\n\n[1033] B.M. _Cat._ vol. III. E 182, cf. C. Robert, _Arch\u00e4ologische\nM\u00e4hrchen_ 161. Dr Robert explains the vase as the birth of Dionysos\nfrom the well-nymph Dirce, but vase-paintings offer no analogy to the\nrepresentation of a well-nymph as a figure rising from the ground.\n\n[1034] Cf. _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. xxxix.\n\n[1035] Heydemann, _Cat. St Angelo Coll._ 172. Gerhard, _Ges. Abh._\nTaf. LXVIII. The authenticity of the inscriptions has been questioned.\nI examined them last year in the Naples Museum and see no ground for\nsuspicion.\n\n[1036] An inscription of the 5th century B.C. recently discovered shows\nthat at Thebes there was an actual sanctuary of Earth. It runs as\nfollows: \u1f31\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u0393\u1fb6\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf. The titles \u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 and \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\nare applied to Ge in the Orphic Hymn (xxvi. 1 and 10). See _Bull. de\nCorr. Hell._ 1901, p. 363.\n\n[1037] Soph. _Ant._ 1139.\n\n[1038] Eur. _Hipp._ 555.\n\n[1039] Eur. _Bacch._ 1.\n\n[1040] Such places were, if we may trust the _Etymologicon Magnum_,\ncalled \u1f10\u03bd\u03b7\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, which at least in popular etymology was believed to\nmean \u2018Places of Advent.\u2019 They are thus defined: \u1f10\u03bd\u03b7\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f03\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f03 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u0394\u03b9\u1fd2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f04\u03b4\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f04\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n[1041] P. IX. 16. 7.\n\n[1042] Plut. _Q. Gr._ XXXVIII.\n\n[1043] Lydus, _de mens._ IV. 96.\n\n[1044] Eur. _Bacch._ 594.\n\n[1045] Eur. _Bacch._ 1082.\n\n[1046] Aristot. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc. 122.\n\n[1047] Pind. _Pyth._ III. 77 and schol. ad loc.\n\n[1048] I have collected and discussed some instances of these in my\narticle \u2018Delphika,\u2019 _J.H.S._ XIX. 1899, p. 238.\n\n[1049] P. VIII. 31. 4, and at Gythium, P. III. 22. 1.\n\n[1050] Porph. _Vit. Pyth._ XVII.\n\n[1051] Dr Kretschmer (_Aus der Anomia_ p. 23) has shown that in all\nprobability the second half of the name Dionysos (-\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2) means \u2018son\u2019 or\n\u2018young man\u2019: it is the cognate of Lat. _nurus_ and of Gr. \u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b7, which\nin the compound \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 (Eur. _Alc._ 206, 990) appears in masculine\nform. On the fragment of an early black-figured vase signed by Sophilos,\nthree nymphs appear with the inscription \u039d\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 which seems equivalent\nto \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 or \u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9 or \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 (_A. Mitt._ XIV. Taf. i.). Aristophanes\nseems to have vaguely felt or imagined some connection between the last\nhalf of the word and Nysa, the birthplace of the god, in his \u039d\u03c5\u03c3\u03ae\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2\n\u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd (_Ran._ 215) echoed by Apollonius Rhodius in \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u039d\u03c5\u03c3\u03ae\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c5\u1f37\u03b1\n(_Arg._ IV. 1132). Dionysos then is practically either \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, a term\nof wide application, or possibly child of the tribe of Dioi (see p. 372).\nDr Kretschmer further points out that the fluctuation in inscriptions\nbetween \u03b9 and \u03b5 (\u0394\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 and \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2) is best accounted for by Thracian\norigin, as the Thracians appear to have had a vowel which was not exactly\neither, and was indifferently rendered in Greek by both. Probably then,\nthough not certainly, Dionysos brought his name with him from the North.\n\n[1052] _Jahrbuch des Inst._ 1891, Taf. I. Sufficient fragments of the\nvase remain to show that the scene represented was the presentation of\nDionysos to the Olympians.\n\n[1053] Eur. _Bacch._ 535.\n\n[1054] Eur. _Bacch._ 416.\n\n[1055] Ar. _Ran._ 331.\n\n[1056] Preller (3rd ed. p. 665) goes so far as to say \u2018\u0392\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 scheint\nnur poetisches Beiwort zu sein.\u2019\n\n[1057] Pind. frg. 45\n\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0392\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n[1058] Pind. _Ol._ II. 27\n\n \u03b6\u03ce\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f48\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3\n \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c5\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 \u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1.\n\n[1059] Strabo X. p. 470.\n\n[1060] _Anthol. Pal._ IX. 368\n\n \u0395\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n \u03a4\u03af\u03c2; \u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5; \u03bc\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03b1 \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03bf\u1f54 \u03c3\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1 \u1f44\u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5, \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f26 \u1fe5\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5 \u039a\u03b5\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76\n \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u1fc3 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd.\n \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u0392\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nThe epigram is discussed and the play on \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6, \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6, \u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 and\n\u0392\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 rightly observed by Hehn (_Kulturpflanzen_, 6th ed. p. 147),\nand to his book and Schrader\u2019s _Reallexicon_ I am indebted for many\nreferences. Hehn misses the point of \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 but it was noted long ago by\nCouring in the _Thesaurus_ of Stephanos (2342 B) s.v. \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. He remarks\napropos of the epigram: \u2018non hircum sed ex olyra et tritico confectum\npanem.\u2019 See also Dr W. Headlam, _Cl. Rev._ 1901, p. 23.\n\n[1061] Mr Francis Darwin kindly tells me that \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 is said to be a\nkind of wheat known now as _triticum amylaeum_. It is akin to spelt,\n_triticum spelta_, the ancient \u03b6\u03b5\u03af\u03b1. \u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 is some form of oats, in\nmodern Greek \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7. It is of interest to note that in the 4th century\nB.C. \u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 was an important cereal accounted as more wholesome than\nbarley. This is clear from the words of the physician Dieuches: \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f04\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5. \u03c6\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03c7\u03cd\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd. \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\n\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c1\u03cd\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f04\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 (_xxi. veter. et clar.\nmedic. Graec. var. opusc._ ed. F. de Matthaei, Mosquae 1808, p. 39; see\nHehn, _Kulturpfl._ 7th edit. p. 553). By the time of Galen it seems to\nhave fallen into comparative disuse, displaced probably by the richer\ncereals. He says (_de aliment. facult._ I. 14): \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1f74 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u03ae \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03ce\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The modern history of oats presents a close analogy.\nDisplaced in the south by the richer wheat it remains the staple food of\nthe northern Scot, and is the food of cattle only in the south.\n\n[1062] H. Weil, _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ XIX. p. 401\n\n [\u0394\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c1\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1 \u0394]\u03b9\u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5, \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u2019,\n \u03b5[\u1f54\u03ca\u03b5 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03c3\u1fc6]\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, \u0392\u03c1\u03b1\u03ca-\n \u03c4\u03ac, \u0392\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9(\u03b5), \u1f20\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1[\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b4(\u03b5)] \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nDr Weil suggests \u201cfaut-il le rattacher \u00e0 \u03dc\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c9 = \u1fe5\u03b1\u03af\u03c9 et l\u2019expliquer\n\u2018celui qui frappe et qui brise\u2019?\u201d\n\n[1063] Ducange s.v. braisum: grana ad conficiendam braisum cerevisiam\npraeparata.\n\n[1064] Dem. _de Cor._ 313.\n\n[1065] Theophr. _Char._ LXXVII.\n\n[1066] Clem. Al. _Protr._ II. Arnob. _c. gent._ V. p. 170.\n\n[1067] Diod. IV. 4.\n\n[1068] Strab. X. 3 \u00a7 471.\n\n[1069] Ar. _Av._ 875\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03b6\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u1fc3\n \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[1070] Ar. _Lys._ 388.\n\n[1071] Ar. _Vesp._ 5-12. The word \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 (_v._ 6) points to the\n\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, priests or attendants of the bull-Dionysos.\n\n[1072] Ammian. Marcell. 26. 8. 2: est autem sabaia ex ordeo vel frumento\nin liquorem conversis paupertinus in Illyrico potus. O. Schrader,\n_Reallexikon_ p. 89, points out that the derivation of Sabazios from\n_sabaia_ is possible, if the view of Kretschmer (_Einleitung_ p. 195)\nbe accepted that Sabazios represents an earlier _Savadios_; he compares\nthe old Gallic divinity Braciaca \u2018God of Malt.\u2019 Mr A. B. Cook kindly\ndrew my attention to the remark of De Vit in his edition of Forcellini\u2019s\n_Lexicon_, s.v. sabaia: \u2018unde etiam _zabaion_ vulgo apud nostrates\u2019\n(Venetos?).\n\n[1073] Hieron. _Com._ 7 _in Is._ cap. 19: quod genus est potionis ex\nfrugibus aquaque confectum et vulgo in Dalmatiae Pannoniaeque provinciis\ngentili barbaroque sermone appellatur _sabaium_.\n\n[1074] This was first observed by Grimm (_Geschichte d. d. Sprache_ p.\n66), see Hehn, _Kulturpflanzen_, 7th edit. p. 550, but Hehn\u2019s explanation\nof the custom does not seem satisfactory. Our custom of calling inferior\nvarieties of plants by _dog_-names, e.g. Dog-Rose, Dog-Violet, seems\nanalogous.\n\n[1075] For the group of words denoting \u2018dregs\u2019 e.g. O.P. _dragios_, with\nwhich \u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 is connected, see Schrader, _Prehistoric Antiquities_ p.\n322, and Hehn, _Kulturpflanzen_ p. 159.\n\n[1076] For the literature of this protracted controversy see U. v.\nWilamowitz, Eur. _Her._ I. p. 32; A. K\u00f6rte, _Jahrbuch d. Inst._ 1893,\nVIII. p. 61; L\u00f6schke, _A. Mitt._ XV. 1894, p. 518; K. Wernicke, _Hermes_\n1897, p. 290; Bethe, _Proleg._ p. 48. My own view was first suggested in\nthe _Classical Rev._ July 1902, p. 331.\n\n[1077] Aesch. frg. 190 ap. Plut. _Mor._ p. 86 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u1f61\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f64\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2\n\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f06\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5.\n\n[1078] Porph. _de antr. nymph._ 7.\n\n[1079] Plat. _Symp._ \u00a7 203.\n\n[1080] Plut. _Symp._ IV. 6.\n\n[1081] Brugsch, _Religion und Mythologie d. alten Egypter_, p. 647.\n\n[1082] Xen. _Anab._ IV. 5. 26 \u1f10\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n[1083] Lasicius, _De Diis Sarmagitarum_, p. 44.\n\n[1084] Archil. frg. ap. Athen. X. 67 \u00a7 447. Bergk 32\n\n \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03c1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u0398\u03c1\u1fc6\u03b9\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1\n \u1f22 \u03a6\u03c1\u1f7a\u03be \u1f14\u03b2\u03c1\u03c5\u03b6\u03b5.\n\n[1085] Aesch. frg. 123 ap. Athen. loc. cit.\n\n[1086] Diod. V. 26.\n\n[1087] In the north as to-day the Beer-god retained his supremacy. It\nis interesting to note that the British saint, St Brigida, re-performed\nthe miracle of Cana with the characteristically northern modification\nthat she turned the water into excellent beer: _Christi autem ancilla\nvidens quia tunc illico non poterat invenire cerevisiam, aquam ad balneum\nportatam benedixerit et in optimam cerevisiam conversa est a Deo et\nabundanter sitientibus propinata est_. _Acta SS. Febr._ I. Vita IV. S.\nBrigidae cap. IV. quoted by Hehn, _op. cit._ p. 149. In the Egyptian\n_Book of the Dead_ (Chap. CX.) the desire of the soul is for cakes and\n_ale_.\n\n[1088] Hehn, _Kulturpflanzen_, 7th edit. p. 154.\n\n[1089] Eur. _Hipp._ 141.\n\n[1090] Plut. _de Is. et Osir._ LXIX. \u03a6\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9. \u03a0\u03b1\u03c6\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f26\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9. The\nearlier portion of this passage deals with the analogous cult of Demeter\n(p. 128) already discussed.\n\n[1091] Berlin, _Cat._ 2290. _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, Serie A, Taf. VI.\n\n[1092] Plut. _Quaest. R._ CXII.\n\n[1093] Pliny _N.H._ XVI. 62.\n\n[1094] Eur. _Bacch._ 55.\n\n[1095] _Annali d. Inst._ 1862, Tav. d\u2019agg. C.\n\n[1096] Perdrizet, _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1900, p. 322.\n\n[1097] Plut. _de Is. et Os._ XXXV. \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f51\u03b3\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\n\u03a0\u03af\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7\n\n \u0394\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b3\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03be\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03b3\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c0\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[1098] Plut. _Symp._ IX. 14. 4.\n\n[1099] Eur. _Bacch._ 274.\n\n[1100] The doctrine of Teiresias was wide-spread in Greece by the time\nof Diodorus. He says (IV. 3): \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f55\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[1101] _Myth. and Mon. Anc._ Athens, pp. 44-50.\n\n[1102] B.M. _Cat._ B 264. Gerhard, _Auserlesene Vasenbilder_, Taf. 38.\n\n[1103] Eur. _Bacch._ 99.\n\n[1104] Eur. _Bacch._ 918.\n\n[1105] Eur. _Bacch._ 1017\n\n \u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[1106] Schol. ad Lyc. _Al._ 1237 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f57\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03c9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[1107] Plut. _de Is. et Os._ XXXV.\n\n[1108] Athen. \u00a7 425 C.\n\n[1109] Soph. _Trach._ 9.\n\n[1110] Soph. frg. 548.\n\n[1111] _Arch\u00e4ologische Zeitung_ XVI. (1883), Taf. 11. This vase is now in\nthe Louvre.\n\n[1112] Gerhard, _Auserlesene Vasenbilder_, Taf. 47.\n\n[1113] Eur. _Bacch._ 519.\n\n[1114] Plato _Legg._ III. 700 B \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1fa0\u03b4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f36\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[1115] Pind. _Ol._ XIII. 18\n\n \u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03b7\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u1fb3 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u1ff3;\n\n[1116] Plut. _Q. Gr._ XXXVI.\n\n \u1f18\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\n \u1f08\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b1\u03cc\u03bd,\n \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03bf\u03ad\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u1f76 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd.\n \u1f0c\u03be\u03b9\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b5, \u1f04\u03be\u03b9\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b5.\n\n[1117]\n\n [\u0394\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c1\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1 \u0394]\u03b9\u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5, \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u2019,\n \u03b5[\u1f54\u03b9\u03b5 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03c3\u1fc6]\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, \u0392\u03c1\u03b1\u03ca-\n \u03c4\u03ac, \u0392\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9(\u03b5), \u1f20\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1[\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b4(\u03b5)] \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\n \u0395\u1f50\u03bf\u1fd6 \u1f66 \u1f30\u1f78 [\u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u2019 \u1f66 \u1f30\u1f72 \u03a0\u03b1\u03b9\u1f70]\u03bd\n [\u1f43]\u03bd \u0398\u03ae\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n \u0396\u03b7[\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf] \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u0398\u03c5\u03ce\u03bd\u03b1.\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 [\u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c7]\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5-\n \u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c7[\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7-\n \u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2], \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5, \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nI have followed throughout Dr H. Weil\u2019s version.\n\n[1118] Plut. _de Is. et Os._ XXXV.\n\n[1119] Plut. _de Ei ap. Delph._ IX.\n\n[1120] The suggestion that follows as to the connection of the word\nDithyramb with Thriae is only given tentatively. It is also possible that\nthe word Dithyramb may be of foreign origin. Epiphanius (_Adv. Haeres._\nvol. I. bk iii. p. 1093 D) tells of a goddess in Egypt, worshipped with\norgiastic rites under the name \u03a4\u03af\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2. She was akin to Hecate (\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03a4\u03b9\u03b8\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u1ff3 \u1f19\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd). \u03a4\u03af\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 may have come with other\norgiastic elements from Crete to Thrace (see p. 460).\n\n[1121] Suidas s.v. \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b8\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n[1122] Philoch. frg. 125 ap. Zenob. _prov. cent._ V. 75 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u0398\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03af, \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u1f67\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u1fc6\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[1123] _Hom. Hymn. ad Merc._ 551-563. I accept Hermann\u2019s reading \u0398\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\nfor \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, cf. Gemoll ad loc.\n\n[1124] For a full account of \u2018the Bee in Greek Mythology\u2019 see Mr A. B.\nCook, _J.H.S._ XV. 1895, p. 1.\n\n[1125] Eur. _Hipp._ 555.\n\n[1126] \u03b8\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 translated by the Romans into the plain prose of\n\u2018triumph\u2019 seems to have remained to the Greeks a poetical word\nconsecrated to poetical usage. Conon says indeed of Tereus in telling the\nstory of Philomela: \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd\n(_Narrat._ XXXI.), but the story and the usage of the word seem borrowed\nfrom some poetical source. Sir Richard Jebb kindly draws my attention\nto the fact that in our earliest literary mention of the _thriambos_\n(Kratinos, Koch frg. 36) it is apparently sung by a female singer:\n\n \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03c7\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[1127] See Mr Gilbert Murray, _Euripides_ p. lxvii.\n\n[1128] Eur. _Bacch._ 699.\n\n[1129] _Ib._ 862.\n\n[1130] _Ib._ 723.\n\n[1131] Nietzsche has drawn in this respect a contrast, beautiful and\nprofoundly true, between the religion and art of Apollo and Dionysos.\nApollo, careful to remain his splendid self, projects an image, a\ndream, and calls it _god_. It is illusion (_Schein_), its watchword is\nlimitation (_Maass_), Know thyself, Nothing too much. Dionysos breaks\nall bonds; his motto is the limitless (_Uebermaass_), Excess, Ecstasy.\n_Das Individuum mit allen seinen Grenzen und Maassen ging hier in der\nSelbstvergessenheit der dionysischen Zust\u00e4nde unter, und vergass die\napollinischen Satzungen_ (Nietzsche, _Die Geburt der Trag\u00f6die_, p. 37).\n\n[1132] Ath. XI. 31 \u00a7 427.\n\n[1133] Plat. _Legg._ p. 775.\n\n[1134] _Ib._ p. 637.\n\n[1135] Ath. XI. 4 \u00a7 461.\n\n[1136] Ath. XI. 51 \u00a7 476.\n\n[1137] Plut. _De adul. et amic._ VII.\n\n[1138] Diod. IV. 3.\n\n[1139] _Boston Museum Annual Report_, 1901, p. 60, No. 20. P. Hartung,\n_Strena Helbigiana_, p. 111.\n\n[1140] Bacchyl. _Paean_, Bergk 13, trans. by Mr D. S. MacColl.\n\n[1141] Brit. Mus. _Cat._ E 439, pl. XV. On the reverse a Satyr plays the\nflute to his master\u2019s dancing.\n\n[1142] Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale, _Cat._ 576. P. Hartwig, _Meisterschalen_\nXXXIII. 1.\n\n[1143] Athens, Nat. Mus. _Inv._ 3442. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ XIX. 1895,\np. 94.\n\n[1144] Eur. _Bacch._ 135.\n\n[1145] Eur. _Bacch._ 409.\n\n[1146] Herod. II. 81 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0392\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n[1147] Eur. _Hipp._ 954\n\n \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03b2\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5.\n\n[1148] Apollod. I. 3. 2, 3.\n\n[1149] Diod. III. 65 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[1150] E. Maass, _Orpheus_. To Dr Maass\u2019s learned book I owe much, but I\nam reluctantly compelled to differ from his main contention.\n\n[1151] Conon, _Narr._ XLV. \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u0398\u03c1\u1fb4\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[1152] Strabo X. 3 \u00a7 722.\n\n[1153] Strabo VII. 7 \u00a7 315.\n\n[1154] Eur. _Bacch._ 560.\n\n[1155] Eur. _Alc._ 579.\n\n[1156] In the Church of S. Apollinare in Classe. See Kurth, _Mosaiken von\nder christlich. Era_, Taf. XXVII.\n\n[1157] Berlin Mus. _Cat._ 3172; _Progr. Winckelmannsfeste_, Berlin, No.\n50, Taf. II.; Roscher, _Lexicon_, vol. III. p. 1179.\n\n[1158] Herod. VII. 75.\n\n[1159] Diod. IV. 25.\n\n[1160] These wanderings by sea may perhaps be reflected in the voyage of\nthe Argonauts.\n\n[1161] Roscher, _Lexicon_, vol. III. p. 1181, fig. 5. The vase was\nformerly in the Dutuit collection.\n\n[1162] Plat. _Symp._ 179 C. Phanocles (ap. Stob. _serm._ LXIV.) makes\nOrpheus suffer for his introduction of paiderastia, the introduction of\nwhich is attributed by Aristotle (_Pol._ II. 10) to the _Cretan_ Minos.\n\n[1163] Prokl. ad Plat. _Polit._ p. 398 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f05\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7.\n\n[1164] Eratosth. _Catast._ XXIV. Since the above was written M. Salomon\nReinach\u2019s interesting paper \u2018La Mort d\u2019Orph\u00e9e\u2019 (_Rev. Arch._ 1902, p.\n242) has appeared. He sees in Orpheus a fox-totem of the Bassarids.\nBut the traits of Orpheus recorded by tradition seem to me exclusively\nhuman. I am more inclined to see in his dismemberment the echo of some\ntradition of \u2018secondary burial,\u2019 such as is known to have been practised\nin primitive Egypt and, significantly, in Crete, at Palaiokastro. See\n_J.H.S._ 1902, p. 386.\n\n[1165] Hypoth. ad _Orph. Lith._\n\n[1166] Soph. frg. 523.\n\n[1167] Soph. frg. 1017. The attribution to Sophocles is doubtful.\n\n[1168] Evidence of the use of \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03af to indicate the Orphics has been\ncollected by Dr J. Adam in his edition of the _Republic_, Vol. II. p. 378.\n\n[1169] Museo Gregoriano II. 60. 1; Roscher, _Lexicon_ III. p. 1187, fig.\n12.\n\n[1170] _J.H.S._ 1888, pl. I. On another vase in the British Museum (Cat.\nE 301) a Maenad pursuing Orpheus is tattooed on the right arm and both\ninsteps with a ladder-like pattern.\n\n[1171] Plut. _de ser. num. vind._ XII. \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u0398\u03c1\u1fb7\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2, and Phanocles\nap. Stob. _Florileg._ p. 399 _v._ 13 says:\n\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03ca \u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f35\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n[1172] _Early Age of Greece_, vol. I. p. 398.\n\n[1173] Soph. _Ant._ 962.\n\n[1174] Plut. _Symp._ VIII. Proem.\n\n[1175] Philostr. _Her._ V. \u00a7 704 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c2 \u039b\u03ad\u03c3\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039b\u03ad\u03c3\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 \u1fa4\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bb\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff4\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n[1176] Philostr. _Her._ V. \u00a7 704.\n\n[1177] Lucian _adv. indoct._ 11.\n\n[1178] _Antiq. Hist. Mir._ V.\n\n[1179] Minervini, _Bull. Arch. Nap._ vol. VI. 1857, Tav. IV.; Roscher,\n_Lexicon_ III. p. 1178, fig. 3. The vase was last seen by Prof.\nFurtw\u00e4ngler in the Barone collection; where it now is I am unable to say.\nOn the reverse of the vase (not figured here) a Muse is handing a lyre to\na woman.\n\n[1180] Plut. _de defect. orac._ XLV.\n\n[1181] The scholiast on the _Plutus_ of Aristophanes _v._ 39, commenting\non the words \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, says that persons who consulted an\noracle made their inquiries of the god in writing. They wrote on a tablet\n(\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u1ff3) placed in the shrine for that purpose and wreathing it with\ngarlands gave it to the divining priest. But this information has an\napocryphal air.\n\n[1182] Eur. _Alc._ 962.\n\n[1183] Schol. ad Eur. _Alc._ 968 \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n\u2018\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0398\u03c1\u1fb4\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n\u0391\u1f35\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\u2019\n\n[1184] According to Diodorus, Linos and Orpheus both used \u2018Pelasgic\u2019\nletters, and in them Linos wrote the deeds of Dionysos. \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u039b\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03ad\u03b1.\n\n[1185] Philostr. _Vit. Apoll._ XIV. 151. Dr Deubner (_de Incubat._ p.\n11) notes that \u1f10\u03c6\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 is the regular word used for sudden divine\napparitions.\n\n[1186] Conon, _Narr._ XLV. The narrative concludes thus: \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd\n(\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd) \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f43\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f21\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd, \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03be\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1187] Ael. _V.H._ XII. 8.\n\n[1188] Phleg. _Mirab._ III. It is possible that the trait of the severed\nhead was borrowed from the ritual of Adonis at Byblos. See C. Fries. _N.\nJahrb. Kl. Alt._ VI. 1903, Heft 1.\n\n[1189] Strab. VII. frgs. 17, 18 and 19.\n\n[1190] P. IX. 30. 12.\n\n[1191] The worship of Eros by the Lycomids will be discussed later (p.\n644).\n\n[1192] Ar. _Ran._ 1032.\n\n[1193] S. August. _de civit. dei_ XVIII. 14: Verum isti theologi non pro\ndiis culti sunt quamvis Orpheum nescio quomodo inferiis sacris praeficere\nsoleat civitas impiorum.\n\n[1194] Athen. XIV. 32 \u00a7 632.\n\n[1195] P. X. 7. 2.\n\n[1196] [Eur.] _Rhes._ 941.\n\n[1197] Herod. VII. 6.\n\n[1198] Tat. _adv. Graec._ XLI. 271 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03ac \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78\n\u1f48\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[1199] Clem. Al. _Str._ I. 332 \u1f48\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f48\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1.\n\n[1200] P. VIII. 37. 5.\n\n[1201] Plato _Phaed._ p. 69 C \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af, \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9. Olympiod. ad loc. \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff3\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u00b7\n\n \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b5 \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.\n\n[1202] Published by Dr Sam. Wide, _A. Mitt._ XIX. (1894), p. 248;\ndiscussed by Dr Ernst Maass, _Orpheus_ (1895); see Dr Erwin Rohde,\n_Kleine Schriften_, p. 293.\n\nLine 63 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f06\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 | \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03b2\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 | \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3|\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 | \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nLine 135 \u03b5\u1f54\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9 \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3|\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03b9\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3|\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f22 \u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5|\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f67\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af|\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 | \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n\u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00|\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c5\u03bb\u1ff6|\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd | \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 | \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af|\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[1203] Pind. _Ol._ V. 24.\n\n[1204] _Isth._ IV. 14.\n\n[1205] _Pyth._ II. 34.\n\n[1206] Pind. _Pyth._ III. 59.\n\n[1207] _Isth._ VI. 36.\n\n[1208] _Ol._ XIII. 92.\n\n[1209] Soph. _Oed. Col._ 607, trans. Mr Gilbert Murray.\n\n[1210] Ar. _Ran._ 849; see Nauck ad loc.\n\n[1211] The restoration attempted by Dr K\u00f6rte (_Die Kreter des Euripides_,\nAufs\u00e4tze Ernst Curtius gewidmet, p. 197), on evidence drawn from Etruscan\nurns, seems to me quite uncertain.\n\n[1212] Eur. frg. 475 ap. Porph. _De Abst._ IV. 19, trans. Mr Gilbert\nMurray.\n\n[1213] Mr Murray translates the MS. reading:\n\n \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u0396\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f60\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nFor \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 Dr Diels would read \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, i.e. \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. (See Dieterich,\n_De Hymnis Orphicis_, p. 11, and cf. Eur. frg. 203.) This emendation\nseems to me probable, but as both MS. readings and all suggested\nemendations are uncertain I have based no argument on the word \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2.\n\n[1214] _v._ 10 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd.\n\n[1215] Eur. frg. 904 ap. Clem. Al. _Strom._ V. p. 688.\n\n[1216] Ap. _Etym. Gud._ p. 227. The lexicographers explain the title as\nmeaning mighty hunter, but in the ritual Zagreus is more hunted than\nhunter.\n\n[1217] Plut. _de Ei_ IX. \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0396\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039d\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f38\u03c3\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9. Taking the three ritual titles in conjunction\nit seems almost certain that \u1f38\u03c3\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 refers to the \u1f60\u03bc\u03cc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 of\nthe Zagreus ritual shared alike by all mystics.\n\n[1218] _v._ 11 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f60\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[1219] Eur. frg. 476 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03ad\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u2019.\n\n[1220] A. Evans, _Annual of British School at Athens_, vol. VII. p. 18,\nfig. 7 _a_.\n\n[1221] D. Hogarth, _J.H.S._ vol. XXII. 1902, p. 76 and plates VI.-IX.\n\n[1222] _Op. cit._ nos. 17-18, and _Ann. B.S.A._ VII. fig. 45.\n\n[1223] See supr. p. 452.\n\n[1224] Plut. _de defect. orac._ XIV.\n\n[1225] Clem. Al. _Protr._ II. 12 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f60\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd (? \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd) \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u0395\u1f54\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.;\nand again speaking of the analogous ceremonies of the Korybants Clement\n(_Protr._ II. 6) says: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n[1226] Clem. Al. _Protr._ II. 17 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1, \u1f43\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\u03cc\u03c0\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03a4\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03a4\u03b9\u03c4\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b7\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f41 \u0398\u03c1\u1fb4\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2: and _Protr._ XII. 119 referring to the _Bacchae_ he speaks of\nthe Maenads as \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[1227] Arnob. V. 19 atque _vos plenos Dei numine ac majestate docentes_\ncaprorum reclamantium viscera cruentatis oribus dissipatis: the words in\nitalics shew that Arnobius understood the real gist of the rite.\n\n[1228] Porphyr. _De Abst._ II. 55 \u1f14\u03b8\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f68\u03bc\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u1ff3 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u1ff3\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a4\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u1ff3 \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u0395\u1f54\u03b5\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41 \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[1229] Ap. Porphyr. _De Abst._ II. 56. Clement (_Protr._ III. 4) says,\nciting as his authority the _Nostoi_ of Antikleides, that this human\nsacrifice was offered by the Lyctii, a Cretan tribe.\n\n[1230] Firmicus Maternus _de err. profan._ relig. c. 6 Cretenses, ut\nfurentis tyranni saevitiam mitigarent, festos funeris dies statuunt et\nannuum sacrum trieterica consecratione componunt, omnia per ordinem\nfacientes, quae puer moriens aut fecit aut passus est. Vivum laniant\ndentibus taurum, crudeles epulas annuis commemorationibus excitantes et\nper secreta silvarum clamoribus dissonis ejulantes fingunt animi furentis\ninsaniam ut illud facinus non per fraudem factum sed per insaniam\ncrederetur.\n\n[1231] If any one finds the tearing of the bull with the teeth a hard\nsaying, he may be reassured by the statement of Nonnus (_Dionys._ VI.\n205) that the bull-shaped Dionysos was cut in little bits _by a knife_,\nwhich would greatly facilitate matters:\n\n \u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u1fc3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u1fc6 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u1fc3.\n\n[1232] _Nili opera_, Narrat. III. 28, Migne, Patrol. LXXIX. I owe this\nreference to Nilus to Prof. Robertson Smith\u2019s _Religion of the Semites_\np. 320, but as the passage is of cardinal importance in relation to the\naccount of Firmicus I have substituted a translation for his summary.\n\n[1233] Porphyr. _De Abst._ II. 48.\n\n[1234] One of the titles of Dionysos, i.e. Eiraphiotes, is as Mr R.\nA. Neil has pointed out the etymological equivalent of the Sanscrit\n_varsabha_, _bull_: see _Golden Bough_, 2nd edit. vol. II. p. 164.\n\n[1235] Ar. _Ran._ 355 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u039a\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c4\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u0392\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u2019\n\u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7, trans. Rogers.\n\n[1236] Plut. _Vit. Them._ XIII. In this same way a legend grew up and was\naccredited by Neanthes, the Cyzicene historian, that when Epimenides was\n\u2018purifying Attica by human blood\u2019 a youth, Kratinos, offered himself as\na willing sacrifice. But how apocryphal such stories may be is owned by\nAthenaeus himself (XIII. 78 \u00a7 602), who adds after his narrative that he\nis aware that the whole story was said by Polemon to have been a fiction.\n\n[1237] Published and discussed in relation to the myth of Zagreus by Mr\nCecil Smith, _J.H.S._, 1890, p. 343.\n\n[1238] Ael. _N.A._ XII. 34 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3. \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 is the regular\nword for a _mystic_ rite, cf. _Hom. Hymn. ad Cer._ 211 \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7.\n\n[1239] See supra, p. 113.\n\n[1240] Diod. Sic. V. 75. 4.\n\n[1241] The scattered sources for the Zagreus myth are given in full in\nAbel\u2019s _Orphica_ (p. 230 ff.). They appear to be all based on a lost poem\nor poems attributed to Orpheus of which Clement in the passage already\ndiscussed (p. 484) quotes two lines: \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2\n\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u0398\u03c1\u1fb4\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7\n\n \u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b3\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1\n \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bb\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f19\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03c5\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\n\nand the scholiast on the passage observes (Dind. I. p. 433) \u1f60\u03bc\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n\u1f24\u03c3\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03c5\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u1ff3, \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f43\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03a4\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[1242] Among these sacred objects which cannot be discussed in detail\nhere perhaps the most interesting was the rhombos or bull-roarer still\nin use among savage tribes, on the significance of which fresh light has\nrecently been thrown by Dr Frazer in his paper \u2018On some ceremonies of the\nCentral Australian Tribes.\u2019 Melbourne 1900.\n\n[1243] Nonnus may have based his poem on the \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac of Dionysius, to\nwhich it seems possible that the fragments recently discovered of an\nepic poem dealing with Bacchic subjects belong. These fragments contain\na curious account of the slaying and eating of a human victim disguised\nas a stag. See Mr Kenyon in Herwerden\u2019s _Album Gratulatorium_ and Dr\nLudwich, \u2018Das Papyros-Fragment eines Dionysos-Epos\u2019 (_Berl. Philolog.\nWochenschrift_, Jan. 3, 1903, p. 27).\n\n[1244] Nonn. _Dionys._ XXVII. 228\n\n \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03cd\u03c8\u1ff3\n \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u1ff3\n\nand see XXVII. 204, XXIX. 274, XXXIV. 144, XLVII. 732. Cf. also the\ndisguise of the Phocians described by Herodotus (VIII. 27).\n\n[1245] Harpocrat. s.v. \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[1246] Dem. _de Coron._ \u00a7 259.\n\n[1247] Eustath. ad _Il._ II. 735 \u00a7 332 \u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u1ff6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd. \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a4\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5. \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03be \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f60\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7, \u03bf\u1f37\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7. \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03cd\u03c8\u03bf\u03c2, and see Eustath. 1676 where a child who sees\nsnow for the first time is said to have mistaken it for \u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[1248] Since writing the above I find that my explanation of the Titans\nhas been anticipated by Dr Dieterich, _Rh. Mus._ 1893, p. 280. His high\nauthority is a welcome confirmation of my view.\n\n[1249] P. VIII. 37. 5.\n\n[1250] \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, frg. ap. Clem. Al.\n_Protr._ I. 2. 12. What was made of such a reverent mystic dogma by the\nunsavoury minds of Christian fathers can be read by the curious.\n\n[1251] M. Salomon Reinach, who has done so much for the elucidation of\nOrphism, has shown that the Celts held in honour and depicted on their\nmonuments a _horned snake_. Such a conception would keep up the confusion\nof bull and snake. He believes the original form of Zagreus to have been\nthat of a horned snake. The point is an interesting one and is evidence\nof Northern elements in Orphic as well as Dionysiac conceptions, see\n_Rev. Arch._ 1899, vol. XXXV. p. 210, S. Reinach, \u2018Zagreus le serpent\ncornu.\u2019\n\n[1252] _v._ 12 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u2019 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b4\u1fb7\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03ce\u03bd. In the recently discovered\nfragment of Timotheos (_v._ 135) it is to the \u2018Mountain Mother\u2019 that the\ndrowning sailor would pray:\n\n \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf-\n \u03c7\u03af\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b5\u03af-\n \u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd....\n\nSee Timotheos, _Die Perser_, Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 1903.\n\n[1253] Published and discussed by the discoverer Mr Evans in the _Annual\nof the British School at Athens_, vol. VII. 1900-1901, p. 29, fig. 9.\nThe enlargement (3/1) here reproduced from the _Annual_ is based on a\nrestoration, but a perfectly certain one. A series of clay fragments\nimpressed by the same seal, but not from the same impression, were found\nin a deposit of burnt wood. The various fragments overlapped sufficiently\nfor certain reconstruction. When I first saw a drawing of the seal I\nwas inclined to think it was \u2018too good to be true,\u2019 but by Mr Evans\u2019\nkindness I was allowed while at Crete to examine the original fragments\nand am satisfied that the reconstruction is correct. We owe the most\nimportant monument of Mycenaean religion to the highly trained eye and\nextraordinarily acute perception of the excavator.\n\n[1254]\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03b2\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2.\n\nThe word \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 is rendered \u2018Set Free\u2019 by Mr Murray in his translation\nfor reasons explained later, p. 504.\n\n[1255] Hes. frg. CXXIX. ap. Strab. X. p. 323.\n\n[1256] Diod. V. 66.\n\n[1257] Plut. _Q. Gr._ IX. \u03a4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f49\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03af \u0392\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd; \u1f49\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f4d\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03b8\u1fc7, \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f05\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u0394\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Stephanos comments \u2018mendose ut videtur pro \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\naccipiendo sc. \u03b8\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd active pro \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.... Recte autem habet \u03c4\u1f78 si\nquidem \u1f49\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 (\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2) est Hostia quae immolatur.\u2019\n\n[1258] Plut. _de Defect. Orac._ XLIX. \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.\n\n[1259] Plut. _de Defect. Orac._ LI.\n\n[1260] Nikitsky, _Delphisch-Epigraphische Studien_ p. 145, points out\nthat in inscriptions two hereditary families of priests are traceable;\nthese he thinks may correspond with the \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 or utterers whom he\nholds to be Apolline and the \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 who are manifestly Dionysiac. His book\nis in Russian, and I only know it at second hand.\n\n[1261] Plut. _de Is. et Os._ XXXV. and see p. 441. Had the treatise by\nSocrates \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f49\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd which Plutarch refers to been preserved, we should\nhave been informed.\n\n[1262] Lyc. _Al._ 207 and schol. ad loc. \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u1ff3.\n\n[1263] C. T. Newton, _Discoveries at Cnidos_ p. 735 and Insc. 88, 83 etc.\n\n[1264] Plat. _Legg._ 873 B, schol. ad loc. \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9* \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9, \u1f61\u03c2\n\u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd, \u1f22 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9, \u1f22 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9, \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd, \u1f22\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c9. I owe the reference to this interesting passage to Mr F. M.\nCornford. I am not sure what the scholiast means by the post-classical\nword \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9; the passive means in the New Testament \u2018to have full\nassurance\u2019 of faith and the like. It may point to the final stage of\ninitiation.\n\n[1265] Suidas s.v. \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1266] Plut. _Vit. Rom._ 28.\n\n[1267] Lucian, _Lexiphan._ 10.\n\n[1268] Plut. _de Is. et Os._ LXI. \u1f41 \u1f4c\u03c3\u03b9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f54\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u00b7 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f85\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2.\n\u1f67\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 <\u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2?> \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. It is\npractically certain that \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd refers to the first mentioned class, i.e.\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7.\n\n[1269] Iambl. _Vit. Pythag._ 58 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[1270] Plat. _Gorg._ p. 507 B.\n\n[1271] Soph. _Ant._ 74.\n\n[1272] Hes. _Theog._ 901.\n\n[1273] Eur. _Bacch._ 991 \u1f34\u03c4\u03c9 \u0394\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f34\u03c4\u03c9 \u03be\u03b9\u03c6\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[1274] Dem. _c. Aristogeit._ XXV. 11.\n\n[1275] _Orph. Hymn._ LXII.\n\n[1276] Eur. _Bacch._ 370 \u1f49\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd. It is worth noting in\nconnection with the \u1f49\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 of Euripides, that on tomb-inscriptions in\nPhrygia, and so far as at present known only there, dedications occur to\na divinity bearing the titles \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. These inscriptions are\nof Roman date, and it is usual to refer them to Mithras worship, but,\nfound as they are in Phrygia, the home of the Bacchants, it is possible,\nI think, that they may indicate an old tradition of Cybele worship. See\nRoscher s.v. Hosios.\n\n[1277]\n\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03c9\n \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03b2\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[1278] Diog. Laert. _Vit. Pyth._ 19 \u00a7 33.\n\n[1279] Plat. _Legg._ VI. p. 782.\n\n[1280] Soph. frg. 464, ap. Porphyr. _de Abst._ II. p. 134.\n\n[1281] Schol. ad Soph. _Oed. Col._ 100.\n\n[1282] Philoch. frg. 30, ap. Schol. ad Soph. _Oed. Col._ 99.\n\n[1283] Plut. _de tuend. sanit._ XVII.\n\n[1284] Plut. _de cohibend. ir._ XVI. sub fin.\n\n[1285] Soph. _Oed. Col._ 100, \u03bd\u03ae\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, and schol. ad loc.\n\n[1286] Diog. Laert. _Vit. Pythag._ XV., and see p. 91.\n\n[1287] _Hom. Hymn. ad Cer._ 205-210\n\n \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u0394\u03b7\u03ce.\n\n[1288] Porphyr. _de Abst._ II. 4 and I. 31.\n\n[1289] Maeterlinck, _Le Temple enseveli_, p. 188.\n\n[1290] Eur. _Hipp._ 952.\n\n[1291] Ar. _Nub._ 223 ff. That this scene is in intent a parody of Orphic\nceremonial was first observed by Dr Dieterich, _Rh. Mus._ 1893, p. 275.\n\n[1292] Ar. _Nub._ 259\n\n \u03a3\u03a4. \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u03af \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6;\n\n \u03a3\u03a9. \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1, \u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7.\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u2019 \u1f00\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03af.\n\n \u03a3\u03a4. \u03bc\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03af\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5\u00b7\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[1293] Schol. ad Ar. _Nub._ 260 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a3\u03c9\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n[1294] Dio Chrysost. _Or._ XII. 387 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ce\u03b8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[1295] Plat. _Euthyd._ 277 D.\n\n[1296] Aether, air and whirlwind frequently appear in the Orphic\nfragments preserved to us, e.g. Damasc. _Quaest. de primis princ._ p. 147\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2\u00b7\n\n \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03be\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03af\u1ff3\n \u1f60\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd,\n\nand in the fragment of a hymn to the Sun preserved by Macrobius _Sat._ I.\n23. 22. Solem esse omnia et Orpheus testatur his versibus:\n\n \u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b1 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03be\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1f72\u03bd \u1f11\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u1f72 \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5, \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f34\u03b7\u03c2,\n \u1f2d\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03c2,\n\nwords which might have been sung by Sokrates in his basket.\n\n[1297] Theoph. _Char._ XXVIII.\n\n[1298] Plut. _de Superstit._ XII. \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, \u1fe5\u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af.\n\n[1299] Plut. _de Superstit._ VII.\n\n[1300] Diog. Laert. _Vit. Pyth._ XIX.\n\n[1301] Heracleit. frg. 130, Bywater, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n[1302] Plato, _Rep._ 364 B.\n\n[1303] Munich Glyptothek, No. 601. Schreiber, _Hell. Reliefbilder_, Taf.\n80 A.\n\n[1304] Soph. frg. 724\n\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5.\n\n[1305] I have already discussed the _liknon_ in connection with the\nfragment of Sophocles in the _Classical Review_, vol. VIII. p. 270.\nIn the Thorwaldsen collection at Copenhagen there is a relief closely\nanalogous to that in fig. 148. A _liknon_ is erected on a column: above\nit appears a large goat\u2019s head, see Schreiber, _Reliefbilder_, Taf. CXI.\n1.\n\n[1306] Baumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_ p. 449, fig. 496. Campana _op. plast._ 45.\nAn almost identical relief on a \u2018Campana\u2019 terracotta is in the Kestner\nMuseum at Hanover.\n\n[1307] Helbig, _Museo delle Therme_, no. 1122. Fig. 150 is drawn from a\nphotograph.\n\n[1308] Since the above was written and the drawing in fig. 150 made,\nI have examined the original, and find that the obscure object _is_ a\n_liknon_; the main outline and even the handle can be clearly made out.\n\n[1309] Duchesne, _Origines du culte chr\u00e9tien_ p. 416.\n\n[1310] Plut. _Q.R._ X.\n\n[1311] Festus, p. 379.\n\n[1312] Eur. _Alc._ 1144. The ritual word \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, disenhallowed,\nmarks the primitive meaning, getting rid of the pollution of the dead; it\nis a form of \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae.\n\n[1313] For the whole subject see \u2018Le voile d\u2019oblation,\u2019 S. Reinach, Acad.\ndes Inscriptions, _C.R._ 1897, p. 644.\n\n[1314] Hesych. s.v.\n\n[1315] Baumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_ vol. I. p. 680, fig. 741.\n\n[1316] _Hom. Hymn. Merc._ 150.\n\n[1317] _Cat._ 31. Pashley, _Travels in Crete_, 1837, vol. I. p. 37. A\nvery similar representation of Liknites carried by two Satyrs occurs\non a sarcophagus in the Naples Museum. Dr Hans Graeven kindly pointed\nout to me a majolica plate in the Kestner Museum at Hanover on which\noddly enough exactly the same scene occurs. Clearly it is a copy from an\nancient sarcophagus. The only addition is that the group stands against\nthe background of a mediaeval landscape.\n\n[1318] S. Reinach, _Revue Arch._ 1900, vol. XXXVI. p. 87. The vase has\nbeen more fully interpreted by Dr Svoronos, _Journal d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie et\nNumismatique_, 1901, p. 387.\n\n[1319] The birth of Brimos is discussed later (p. 549).\n\n[1320] _B.M. Cat._ E 183. _Myth. and Mon. Ancient Athens_, p. liii, fig.\n9.\n\n[1321] Verg. _Georg._ I. 165\n\n Virgea praeterea Celei vilisque supellex,\n Arbuteae crates, et mystica vannus Iacchi.\n\nServ. ad loc. Id est cribrum areale. _Mystica_ autem _Iacchi_ ideo ait\nquod Liberi Patris sacra ad purgationem animae pertinebant: et sic\nhomines ejus Mysteriis purgabantur, sicut vannis frumenta purgantur.\nHinc est quod dicitur Osiridis membra a Typhone dilaniata Isis cribro\nsuperposuisse: nam idem est Liber Pater in cujus Mysteriis _vannus_ est:\nquia ut diximus animas purgat. Unde et Liber ab eo quod liberet dictus,\nquem Orpheus a gigantibus dicit esse discerptum. Nonnulli Liberum Patrem\napud Graecos \u039b\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd dici adferunt; _vannus_ autem apud eos \u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\nnuncupatur; ubi deinde positus esse dicitur postquam est utero matris\neditus. Alii mysticam sic accipiunt ut vannum vas vimineum latum dicant,\nin quod ipsi propter capacitatem congerere rustici primitias frugum\nsoleant et Libero et Liberae sacrum facere. Inde _mystica_.\n\n[1322] Mr Andrew Lang (_Custom and Myth_ p. 36) conjectures that the\n\u2018use of the _mystica vannus Iacchi_ was a mode of raising a sacred wind\nanalogous to that employed by whirlers of the tundun or bull-roarer\u2019; but\nwith his accustomed frankness Mr Lang owns that like Servius he is \u2018only\nguessing.\u2019\n\n[1323] For the full discussion of this subject I may refer to a paper I\nhope shortly to publish in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1903.\n\n[1324] Hom. _Od._ XI. 127\n\n \u1f41\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03ae \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03be\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03c6\u03ae\u1fc3 \u1f00\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bc\u1ff3 \u1f64\u03bc\u1ff3\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03ae\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb.\n\nIn the _Odysseus Acanthoplex_ of Sophocles the winnowing fan was called\nby another of these descriptive epithets. Eustathius has preserved the\nline\n\n \u1f64\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nThat it was understood to be simply the \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd is clear from Porphyry\n(_De antr. nymph._ 35) ... \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03ce\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd. Eustathius\n(\u00a7 1675) pertinently observes \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\n\u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1325] Odysseus is figured on gems with a broad-bladed oar, see\nInghirami, _Galleria Omerica_ III., Harrison, _Myths of the Odyssey_, pl.\n30.\n\n[1326] Hom. _Il._ V. 499.\n\n[1327] Hom. _Il._ XIII. 588\n\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c4\u03c5\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03c9\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03b8\u03c1\u1ff4\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f22 \u1f10\u03c1\u03ad\u03b2\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u1fc7.\n\n[1328] Aesch. frg. 194, ap. Athen. IX. \u00a7 394.\n\n[1329] Theocr. _Id._ VII. 155\n\n \u1f07\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c1\u1ff7\n \u03b1\u1f56\u03b8\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03c0\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nCf. \u03c0\u03ae\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd of the oar of Odysseus. The scholiast\non Theocritus says \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03bd\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf. For the modern\nrepresentative of the \u03b8\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03be still used in Crete I may refer to my\narticle in the _Hellenic Journal_, 1903, part I.\n\n[1330] _Anthol. Palat._ VI. 165.\n\n[1331] \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd according to Vani\u010dek is from the root _pu_, meaning to\ncleanse, which in its various modifications gives us \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9. \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\nlike \u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03bf\u03bd is a reduplicated form of _sak_, _ska_, _ski_ to separate.\nThe symbolism of the sieve will be discussed later. In meaning it is\nidentical with _cribrum_; both are \u2018separators.\u2019\n\n[1332] Plat. _Soph._ 226 E \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[1333] Procl. in Plat. _Tim._ II. 124 C, D, and III. 208 D. According to\nProclus p. 171 F Orpheus wrote a discourse on Hippa.\n\n[1334] Harpocrat. s.v. \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03ae\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1335] M\u00fcller-Wieseler II. 54. The gem was formerly in the Marlborough\nColl. It is published in phototype and discussed by Dr Furtw\u00e4ngler,\n_Ancient Gems_, pl. LVII. ii. p. 339. It is now in the Boston Museum\nof Fine Arts. The antiquity of both the artist\u2019s signature and the gem\nitself is accepted by Prof. Furtw\u00e4ngler, but has been questioned by many\ncompetent archaeologists. As I have not seen the original I am unable to\nexpress any certain conviction. For a full account of the controversy see\n_Boston Museum Annual Report_, XXIV., 1900, p. 88.\n\n[1336] Plutarch or the author of the \u2018Proverbial sayings of Alexander\u2019\n(_Prov. Alex._ XVI. 1255), \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\n\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f1c\u03c6\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1337] Schol. ad Call. _Hymn. ad Jov._ 48 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7 \u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b1, \u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. For similar modern\ncustoms see Mannhardt, _Mythologische Forschungen_, \u2018Kind und Korn,\u2019 p.\n366.\n\n[1338] Suidas s.v. \u1f14\u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, and Hesych. s.v.\n\n[1339] Dem. _de Cor._ \u00a7 313.\n\n[1340] Strictly speaking a \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03bc\u03b9\u03be\u03b9\u03c2. These rites are probably of\nearlier origin than the patriarchal institution of monogamy.\n\n[1341] Clem. Al. _Protr._ 16 \u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03b6\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2. The meaning of \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\nand with it \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 is sufficiently evident from this passage.\nAny possible doubt is removed by the use of \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 in Lucian\u2019s\n_Alexander_ c. 39.\n\n[1342] Arnob. _c. gent._ V. c. 21. Ipsa novissime sacra et ritus\ninitiationis ipsius quibus Sebadiis nomen est, testimonio esse potuerunt\nveritati, in quibus aureus coluber in sinum dimittitur consecratis et\neximitur rursus ab inferioribus partibus.\n\n[1343] Clem. Al. _Protr._ II. 15 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03ba\n\u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u00b7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd.\n\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f55\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c7\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1;\n\n[1344] The uses of the word \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 are discussed by Sir Richard Jebb in\ncommenting on _v._ 1207 of the _Antigone_ of Sophocles, App. p. 263,\nwhere the suggestion is made that the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 was some interior portion or\narrangement in the \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[1345] _Philosophoumena_ ed. Cruice v. 3 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2) ... \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 ... \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u03a6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f08\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 [\u03c4\u1f70] \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03a6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1. \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1. \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u00b7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f67\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f18\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. Whether the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2\nis here bridal chamber or bridal bed it is impossible to decide; it may\nhave been a sort of decorative baldacchino. That \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 meant sometimes\nbed, not chamber, is clear I think from the title \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 applied to\nAphrodite.\n\n[1346] Arist. _De Rep. Ath._ III. 5 (p. 118) \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\nRutherford and Hude bracket \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. I see no reason for this. By\nAristotle\u2019s time the old matriarchal \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 was regarded as a regular\npatriarchal \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. The double expression marks a transitional attitude of\nmind.\n\n[1347] [Demosthenes] _in Neaer._ \u00a7 73. The sources for the ceremony in\nthe Boukolion are fully given by Dr Martin Nilsson, _Studia de Dionysiis\nAtticis_ p. 156.\n\n[1348] \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[1349] The club rules of the Iobacchoi, noted p. 475, do not deal with\nthe mysteries of the cult.\n\n[1350] P. II. 11. 3.\n\n[1351] Epiph. _L.I.T._ III. p. 255, and Iren. I. 18, p. 89, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c1\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03ce\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[1352] Firmicus Mat. _de Ev. Pr. Relig._ p. 38 C neque verba solum\nsed etiam ritus nuptialis sacris mysticis intercurrisse indicio est\nsolemnis gratulatio qua mystae recens initiatos sponsarum nomine\nconsalutabant\u2014\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03b5, \u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2.\n\n[1353] Ar. _Ran._ 324.\n\n[1354] Ar. _Ran._ 382.\n\n[1355] The text as emended by Dr Weil runs as follows, see _Bull. de\nCorr. Hell._ XIX.\n\n [\u039f\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1]\u03bb\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb-\n \u03bb\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4[\u03ad\u03c0]\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 [\u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03bf\u1f34\u03c3-]\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 [\u1f18\u03bb\u03b5]\u03c5-\n \u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd[\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b5\u03af]\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n \u0395\u1f50\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f66 \u1f30\u1f78 \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u2019 \u1f66 \u1f30[\u1f72 \u03a0\u03b1\u03b9]\u03ac\u03bd\u00b7\n [\u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u2019] \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03b3\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f00[\u03bc\u03c6(\u1f76) \u1f10]\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 [\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd] \u1f10\u03c0[\u03cc\u03c0]\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41\u03c3[\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f3c\u03b1]\u03ba-\n \u03c7\u03bf\u03bd [\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3]\u1f72 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1fa6\u03be[\u03b1\u03c2] \u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c1]\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd [\u1f04\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd].\n\n[1356] Soph. _Ant._ 1115 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f3c\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd. The title \u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 points, I\nthink, to the rites dispensed, \u2018steward of the mysteries.\u2019\n\n[1357] Herod. VIII. 65 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f34\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f41\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f30\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n[1358] Plut. _Cam._ XIX. 15. The word used for the ceremony of escorting\nis variously \u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, and once \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, see Foucart, _Les\nGrands Myst\u00e8res d\u2019\u00c9leusis_, p. 121 (1900), and Roscher s.v. Iacchos.\n\n[1359] Strab. X. 3. 11 \u1f3c\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1. An inscription of Roman date has\n[\u03b4\u03b1\u03af]\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd \u1f30\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03c9\u03b9, see \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1899, p. 215. We are reminded of\nthe Agathos Daimon, the spirit of wealth (p. 33).\n\n[1360] Suidas s.v. \u1f3c\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2. Lucret. IV. 1160 \u2018tumida et mammosa Ceres est\nipsa ab Iaccho.\u2019\n\n[1361] Schol. ad Ar. _Ran._ 479 \u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03b9\u2019 \u1f3c\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n[1362] Soph. frg. 782, ap. Strab. XV. p. 687, see p. 379.\n\n[1363] Nonn. XLVIII. 951 ff.\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f38\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u1ff3\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f40\u03c8\u03b9\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u0396\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u0392\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u1ff3.\n\nThat the child Iacchos at Eleusis became an element in Orphic teaching is\nevident from the degraded form of the Baubo legend expressed in an Orphic\nhymn and quoted in full by Clement, _Protr._ 21. 26, see Dindorf, vol.\nIV. p. 11.\n\n[1364] P. I. 37. 4.\n\n[1365] P. III. 13. 2.\n\n[1366] P. III. 14. 5.\n\n[1367] The singular and very peculiar ritual of bull-sacrifice described\nin the _Kritias_ of Plato, and represented on imperial coins of Ilium,\nhas recently been elucidated by Dr von Fritze (\u2018Troja und Ilium,\u2019\n_Beitr\u00e4ge_, pp. 514, 563). It probably took place at Eleusis, cf.\n_C.I.A._ II. 467, \u1f24\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039c\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3. But this ceremony I believe to have been part of the primitive\nritual of Poseidon at Eleusis, which, interesting though it is, does\nnot here concern us. Of an Omophagia at Eleusis the \u2018tokens\u2019 contain\nno trace, though the bull-ritual of Poseidon may have facilitated the\naffiliation of Dionysos.\n\n[1368] Helbig, _Cat._ 1168, Museo delle Terme, Rome, published and\ndiscussed by E. Caetani Lovatelli, _Ant. Mon. illustr._ p. 25 ff., tav.\nII.-IV.\n\n[1369] The mystic initiated holds a club. He is probably Herakles, who,\naccording to tradition, was initiated in the mysteries at Agrae.\n\n[1370] This passage is of such cardinal importance that the text is given\nbelow. The birth of Brimos and the \u2018ear of grain reaped\u2019 are often cited\nseparately as elements in Eleusinian rites, but so far as I know their\nsubstantial identity has never been noted, nor has attention been called\nto the fact that they are both Dionysiac (Thraco-Phrygian) elements. The\ntext is that of Cruice, _Philosophoumena_, Paris 1860, p. 170. \u039b\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af, \u03a6\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u2018\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u2019 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03a6\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03c5\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u1fc7\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd. \u1f49 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f0c\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f50\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b2\u03bf\u1fb7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u2018\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u0392\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u1f7c \u0392\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd,\u2019 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd. \u03a0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd,\n\u1f21 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae, \u1f21 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f21 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u00b7 \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd of course refers to the Naassene not the Hierophant.\n\n[1371] So determined are some commentators to see in pagan rites\nevil where no evil is, that Miller has substituted \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 for\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fc3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, thus making nonsense of the passage.\n\n[1372] Aster. _Encom. Mart._ p. 113 B \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd;\n\n[1373] Luc. _Alex._ 38 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b4\u1fb7\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u1fc4\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc7 \u1f30\u1f74\n\u0393\u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n[1374] The Christian fathers of course regarded the Sacred Marriage as a\nshameful rape. Tertullian (_ad nat._ II. 7, p. 57 D) asks \u2018Cur rapitur\nsacerdos Cereris si non tale Ceres passa est?\u2019 That Tertullian\u2019s view is\nwrong is sufficiently evidenced by the author of the _Philosophoumena_,\nloc. cit.\n\n[1375] Clem. Al. _Protr._ I. 15 \u0394\u03b7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\n\u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0394\u03b7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f27\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u0392\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u1f7c\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[1376] Lyc. _Al._ 1175.\n\n[1377] Luc. _Menippus_ 20 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f21 \u0392\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u1f7c \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41\n\u039a\u03ad\u03c1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. The untranslatable play on the words shows that the name Brimo\nwas taken to imply a loud angry noise.\n\n[1378] Apoll. Rhod. III. 861, and schol. ad loc.\n\n[1379] Soph. _Oed. Col._ 1048. I have translated \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc4\u03c2 by _key_ not by\n_seal_, although, as Prof. Jebb (ad loc.) points out, \u2018there is no\nevidence for the Eleusinian Hierophant putting a key to the lips of the\ninitiated.\u2019 In face of the fact that the key was the recognized symbol of\npriestly office, I incline to think some such ceremony was enacted. We\nknow from Hesychius (s.v.) that there was a festival or ceremony called\n\u2018the festival of the keys,\u2019 Epikleidia, but unhappily we have no details\nand cannot use the fact as an argument.\n\n[1380] Schol. ad _Oed. Col._ 1048 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f31 \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u0395\u1f54\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03b7\u03ca\u03cc\u03c0\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03c1\u1fb7\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f3c\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\u1f08\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u2018\u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u0398\u03c1\u1fb7\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03b2\u03bf\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0395\u1f54\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03cd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9 \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u1fc3.\u2019\n\n[1381] I have elsewhere (_Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. lvii ff.)\ndiscussed the relations of Erechtheus and Eumolpos. The view there\nexpressed as to the Eumolpidae and their relation to Thrace and the\nincoming of Dionysos is confirmed by the more detailed and independent\nexamination of the legend by Dr Toepffer, _Attische Genealogie_, p. 40.\n\n[1382] _Cat._ 61, 140; _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_ A. 7.\n\n[1383] For polychrome fac-simile see _Coll. Tyskiewicky_, Pl. X. The vase\nis now in the Museum at Lyons.\n\n[1384] Cedrenus _Comp. T._ I. p. 24. The sources are fully given in\nLobeck\u2019s _Aglaophamus_, p. 572. The word \u03b2\u03ac\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd is sometimes written\n\u03b2\u03cc\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, a detail which does not affect the present argument.\n\n[1385] Tatian _c. Gr._ VIII. 251 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039b\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u0390\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n\u1f40\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f40\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[1386] _Rev. Internat. d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie et Numismatique_ 1901, pl. I. and Dr\nSvoronos\u2019s interpretation, p. 234.\n\n[1387] Poll. _Onom._ IV. 103 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f22\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n[1388] Dr Svoronos identifies \u2018Ninnion,\u2019 and I believe correctly, with\nthe hetaira Nannion, whose notorious career is related by Athenaeus (Bk.\nXIII. \u00a7\u00a7 582 and 587), but this question is for my purpose irrelevant.\n\n[1389] Schol. Ar. _Plut._ 845.\n\n[1390] Steph. Byz. \u1f0c\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f0c\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1391] Dr Svoronos, whose brilliant interpretation of the pinax I follow\nin the main, sees in the \u2018omphalos\u2019 the \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Here reluctantly\nI am obliged to differ.\n\n[1392] Schol. ad Ar. _Eq._ 409, \u03b2\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd ... \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9. The name given to these bunches of myrtle is evidence in\nitself of the intrusion of the worship of Dionysos.\n\n[1393] Strab. X. iii. 13 \u00a7 468.\n\n[1394] Eur. _Bacch._ 126.\n\n[1395] From a photograph of the relief, now in the National Museum at\nAthens.\n\n[1396] S. Aster. _Amasen. Hom. x. in SS. Martyr._ \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1; \u039f\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b1\u1f31 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd; \u039f\u1f50\u03c7\n\u03b1\u1f31 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b2\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1;\n\n[1397] _Hymn. ad Cer._ 122.\n\n[1398] _v._ 490.\n\n[1399] Od. V. 125 \u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff7 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u1ff3. I venture to render \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u1ff3 by \u2018in\nthe spring,\u2019 because Theophrastos (_H.P._ VII. 1) says there were three\nploughings, one in the winter, one in the summer and a third between the\ntwo (\u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03cd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd) which must have been in the spring\nbefore the seed was sown. _Triptolemos_ is the Eleusinian Iasion.\n\n[1400] Hes. _Theog._ 969.\n\n[1401] Theocr. _Id._ III. 50. Translated by Mr Gilbert Murray.\n\n[1402] In Samothrace, Iasion becomes a mystery-figure. He is the father\nof Korybas, and his sister Harmonia takes her \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 to Thebes.\nAgain the route is by the islands, see Diod. V. 45.\n\n[1403] Schol. ad Hes. _Theog._ 971 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u2018\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u1ff6\u03bd,\n\u1f66 \u03bd\u03ae\u03c0\u03b9\u03b5 \u03a0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b5.\u2019\n\n[1404] _Hom. Hymn. ad Cer._ 480.\n\n[1405] _v._ 483.\n\n[1406] Diod. V. 77, and see Diod. V. 64.\n\n[1407] Plut. _An sen. est ger. resp._ XVII. \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 (\u1f61\u03c2\n\u039a\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9).\n\n[1408] A. J. Evans, _The Palace of Knossos in its Egyptian relations_,\nEgypt Exploration Fund, Arch. Report 1899-90, p. 60.\n\n[1409] An instance of a sacred pantomime in which the parts of gods were\ntaken by \u2018Iobacchoi\u2019 is given in another connection (p. 475), but this\npantomime cannot be used as evidence. Its date is long after the rise of\nthe drama.\n\n[1410] Psellus, _Quaenam sunt Graecorum opiniones de daemonibus_ 3 (ed.\nMigne). \u1f03 \u03b4\u03ad \u03b3\u03b5 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u0394\u03af\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f24\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u0394\u03b7\u03bf\u1fd6 \u1f22 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03a6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u1fc3, \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u1fc3. \u1f18\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03af, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f21 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. \u0395\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u1fc3 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fb4\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u2018\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1, \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03ad\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd.\u2019 \u1f59\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u0394\u03b7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f60\u03b4\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2. \u1f39\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u0394\u03b7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9. \u1f18\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f41 \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bd\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f44\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\n\u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. \u1f18\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03b6\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u039a\u03bb\u03ce\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f20\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03c9\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1. \u1f18\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f21\n\u0392\u03b1\u03c5\u03b2\u1f7c \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1ff6 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nI owe this reference to Taylor\u2019s _Eleusinian Mysteries_. The book is by\nmodern authorities as a rule contemptuously ignored, probably because\nTaylor\u2019s construing is always vague and often inaccurate and he entirely\ndeclines to accentuate his Greek. In spite of these minor drawbacks his\nattitude towards the interpretation of the Mysteries is far in advance of\nthat of many better furnished scholars.\n\n[1411] The account of Psellus is for obvious reasons rather resumed than\ntranslated. Some of the rites recorded by Psellus are not in harmony with\nmodern conventions, and for my purpose it is not needful to discuss them.\nBut once for all I wish to record my conviction that such evil as we find\nin these mysteries we bring with us. The mind of Herondas is not the\nmeasure of primitive sanctities. The story of Babo or Baubo has always\nbeen a stumbling-block, but we know now that her action was a primitive\nand perfectly reverent \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; as such it is depicted on ancient\namulets. Its significance and its apotropaic potency alike appear in\nthe very early matriarchal legend of the Lycian Bellerophon (Plut. _de\nmulier. virt._ IX.). The true mystic said with Heracleitos (ap. Clem.\n_Protr._ II. p. 30): \u0395\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f06\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\n\u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u1f08\u0390\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5\u1ff3\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. See Pfleiderer, _Die Philosophie des Heraklit\nim Lichte der Mysterienidee_, p. 28.\n\n[1412] Galen, _de Usu Part._ VII. 14 \u00a7 469; see Lobeck, _Aglaoph._ p. 63.\n\n[1413] Sopat. _Dist. Quaest._ Walz, _Rhet. Graec._, vol. VIII. p. 1.\n\n[1414] Plut. _Consol. ad uxor._ X. \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f03 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n[1415] See especially A. Dieterich, _Nekuia_, pp. 84 ff., and _De Hymnis\nOrphicis_, pp. 31 ff. Other references are given in the notes and\nAppendix.\n\n[1416] In the Appendix kindly written for me by Mr Gilbert Murray.\n\n[1417] Brit. Mus. Gold Ornament Room, Table-Case H. Kaibel, _CIGIS_, No.\n641. The tablet had been rolled up and placed in a hexagonal cylinder\nhanging from a delicate gold chain and doubtless worn by the dead person\nas an amulet. The facsimile reproduced here and first published _J.H.S._\nIII. p. 112 was verified for Prof. Comparetti by Mr Cecil Smith and\nsupersedes Kaibel\u2019s publication. As the letters in the original are small\nand in places not easily legible, Mr Smith\u2019s reading is given below:\n\n \u0395\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f08\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\n \u03c0\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7\n \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2.\n \u0395\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039c\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f14\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n \u0395\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f34\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u00b7\n \u03b4\u03af\u03c8\u1fc3\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f54\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f36\u03c8\u03b1\n \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039c\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\u00b7\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f50[\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03c3\u03bf]\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0[\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd]\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u2019 \u1f04[\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u2019] \u1f21\u03c1\u03ce\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9[\u03c2]\n ............\u03b9\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5.................................\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6[\u03c3]\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n .....................\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8[\u03b5\u03bd?]...\n .......................................\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[1418] Joubin, _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ XVII. 1893, p. 122. This tablet,\nwith two others which are duplicates of the one here given, are now in\nthe National Museum at Athens. For fac-similes and discussion of text see\nAppendix.\n\n[1419] Hes. _Theog._ 135.\n\n[1420] Basil Thomson, \u2018The Kalou-Vu\u2019 (_Journal Anthrop. Inst._ May 1895,\np. 349). I am indebted for this reference to Mr Andrew Lang\u2019s _Homeric\nHymns_ p. 91.\n\n[1421] Mr Lang, op. cit. p. 81, examines \u2018the alleged Egyptian origins\u2019\nof the Eleusinian mysteries and decides against M. Foucart\u2019s theory\n_in toto_. Mr Lang certainly succeeds in showing that for all Greek\nmysteries a satisfactory savage analogy can be found; but this surely\ndoes not preclude the possibility of occasional borrowing. Crete has\nshown conclusively that \u2018Mycenaean\u2019 art borrowed from Egypt: why not\n\u2018Mycenaean\u2019 religion? See _Classical Review_, Feb. 1903, p. 84.\n\n[1422] Kaibel, _CIGIS_ 1842:\n\n \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03b4\u03bf\u03af\u03b7 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f08\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2,\n \u1f66 \u039c\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f25\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2\n\nand 1488 \u0398(\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2) \u039a(\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2). \u03b5\u1f50\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f41 \u1f4c\u03c3\u03b9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1. For the analogy of the Christian _refrigerium_ see Mr J.\nA. Stewart\u2019s interesting note in the _Classical Review_ for March 1903,\np. 117, published since the above was written. See Dieterich, _Nekuia_\np. 95, and Foucart, _Recherches sur l\u2019Origine et la Nature des Myst\u00e8res\nd\u2019\u00c9leusis_, Paris 1895, p. 68.\n\n[1423] Dieterich, _Abraxas_, p. 97:\n\n \u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c8\u03b9\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nIt is perhaps worth noting that in the Egyptian _Book of the Dead_\n(Vignette to Chapter LXIII. A.) the dead man receives water from a\ngoddess in a tree growing out of a pool of water.\n\n[1424] Hes. _Theog._ 227.\n\n[1425] Ar. _Ran._ 186.\n\n[1426] _Ib._ 194 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0391\u1f51\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1427] Plat. _Rep._ X. 621.\n\n[1428] A reminiscence of Styx, see Pausanias VIII. 18. 5 and Dr Frazer\u2019s\ncommentary.\n\n[1429] Plat. _Phaedr._ 249 ff.\n\n[1430] P. IX. 39. 5-14.\n\n[1431] Plut. _de fac. in orb. lun._ XXX. \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd_. \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2_ \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[1432] Plut. _de Gen. Soc._ XXI. ff.\n\n[1433] Plut. _Symp._ Proem. and VII. 5. 3.\n\n[1434] Eur. _Bacch._ 280.\n\n[1435] Apollod. _Epit. Vat._ 6. 3.\n\n[1436] Eur. _Or._ 211.\n\n[1437] _Orph. Hymn._ LXXVII.\n\n[1438] Plat. _Phaedr._ p. 248 C.\n\n[1439] Plut. _de occult. viv._ sub fin. \u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u1fb3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 ... \u1f13\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1f00\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f04\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n[1440] Dante _Purg._ XXVIII. 130, XXXI. 98, XXXIII. 127. I owe this\nreference to Dante\u2019s well to the kindness of Mr F. M. Cornford. He tells\nme that the source from which Dante took _Euno\u00eb_ is not known.\n\n[1441] \u0395\u1f50\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7 is the name of a Nymph, apparently a Naiad; see Roscher, s.v.\n\n[1442] Naples Museum, Kaibel, _CIGIS_ 642. For fac-similes of this and\nthe following tablets, the text of which presents many difficulties, see\nAppendix, pp. 663, 665.\n\n[1443] See Appendix, p. 665.\n\n[1444] Eur. _Cycl._ 646.\n\n[1445] _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1880, Tav\u1d43 III\u1d43, Figs. 1, 2, 3. With these\nthree tablets was found a red-figured plate of Lucanian fabric on which\nwas represented a winged genius bearing a crown.\n\n[1446] Kaibel, _CIGIS_ 641: see Appendix, p. 668.\n\n[1447] Kaibel, _CIGIS_ 2: see Appendix, p. 669.\n\n[1448] Kaibel, _CIGIS_ 641. 8: see Appendix, p. 669.\n\n[1449] Nothing certain is known of Caecilia Secundina, though her name\nsuggests connection with the family of Pliny the Younger, whose original\nname before his adoption by his uncle C. Plinius Secundus was Publius\nCaecilius Secundus.\n\n[1450] Theophr. _Char._ XXVIII.\n\n[1451] Hesych. s.v. \u0395\u1f50\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n[1452] _Orph. Hymn._ XXX. 6, 7, and see Abel, _Orphica_ s.v.\n\n[1453] In magical papyri the utterance of certain \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1 or tokens is\nurged as a plea for acceptance:\n\n \u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, \u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9.\n\nSee Dieterich, _Abraxas_, p. 97.\n\n[1454] Herod. II. 122.\n\n[1455] _Plat._ Phaedo 70 C. Plato may have had some Orphic rite vaguely\nin his mind in the _Phaedrus_. The soul escapes by wings from the inside\nof the sphere into heavenly places (248 C).\n\n[1456] Emped. ap. Diog. Laert. VII. 77.\n\n[1457] Diog. Laert. VII. 12.\n\n[1458] The \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 of the rites was probably a real wheel, but it is also\npossible that it was a circle drawn round the neophyte out of which he\nescaped. Psellus (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd) records an old Bacchic rite in which\ndemons were expelled by the action of leaping out of a circle of fire:\n\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2. \u1f24\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f41 \u03b4\u03ad \u03b3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd. The wheel and the magic mesmeric circle may have\ngot \u2018contaminated.\u2019\n\n[1459] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ V. p. 242 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f45 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f31\u03bb\u03ba\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nI have throughout translated \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 by wheel. The same idea is rendered\nindifferently by \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, though \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 occurs more frequently:\ncf. Proclus _ad Tim._ p. 330 A \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n... \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u1ff7. The same thing is in English a \u2018cycle,\u2019 in American a \u2018wheel.\u2019\nIn the Orphic Hades of Vergil the \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 is a _rota_.\n\n[1460] Hero Alex. _Pneum._ I. 32 and II. 32. \u0398\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u1f74 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f43\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1461] Theocr. II. 36 schol. \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u1f65\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd. For a full\ndiscussion of the apotropaic uses of bronze gongs see Mr A. B. Cook, \u2018The\nGong at Dodona,\u2019 _J.H.S._ vol. XXII. 1902, p. 5.\n\n[1462] Procl. in Plat. _Tim._ V. 330 \u1f27\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f54\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7\n\n \u039a\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f56 \u03bb\u1fc6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[1463] Eur. _Bacch._ 901.\n\n[1464] Dr Dieterich in his valuable tract _De Hymnis Orphicis capitula\nquinque_ says (p. 55): \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 est qui cingit loca beatorum, vel prata\nilla ipsa desiderata. Simili notione vox \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 usurpatur in Orphicorum\nArgonauticorum versu 71\n\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd\n \u0391\u1f30\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03b5\u03b1.\n\nHis interpretation suggested that given in the text, though the two are\nnot identical.\n\n[1465] Theo. Smyrn. _Mathem._ I. p. 18 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f43 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 ... \u03b4\u1fb3\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f22\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n[1466] Hesych. s.v. \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f22 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03cd\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[1467] Diod. IV. 39.\n\n[1468] Luc. _Lexiph._ 10 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f56 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f61\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03ad \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\u1f61\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd here clearly marks the final stage of initiation only open to\npriests: it is practically \u2018ordination.\u2019\n\n[1469] Hesych. s.v. \u1f1c\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[1470] Steph. Byz. s.v. \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f18\u03c1\u03af\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[1471] Clem. Al. _Protr._ XII. 119 \u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f00\u03bc\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f44\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03ce\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n[1472] Eur. _Bacch._ 142.\n\n[1473] Eur. _Bacch._ 706.\n\n[1474] O. Benndorf, _Grabschrift von Telmessos_ (Sonderabdruck aus der\nFestschrift f\u00fcr Th. Gomperz) p. 404:\n\n \u2018\u1f1c\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u0392\u03cc\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03c1\u03c1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f55\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03b1\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9.\u2019\n\n[1475] M. Salamon Reinach (\u2018Une formule Orphique,\u2019 _Rev. Arch._ XXXIX.\n1901, p. 202) takes \u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 to be metaphorical and compares _incidere\nin_ and the French _tomber sur_. But the division of verb and preposition\nand the fact that the sentence is a religious formulary are against this\nlight colloquial sense. If the expression _is_ metaphorical it has a\nclose analogy in \u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Porphyry says (_De Antr. Nymph._ 13)\nof the souls \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. It may I think be worth noting that\nin Egypt, when the soles of the feet (of the mummy) which had trodden\nthe mire of earth were removed, the gods were prayed to grant milk to\nthe Osiris that he might bathe his feet in it. See Wiedemann, _Ancient\nEgyptian Doctrine of Immortality_, p. 48.\n\n[1476] Usener, \u2018Milch und Honig,\u2019 _Rhein. Mus._ 1902, Heft 2, p. 177.\n\n[1477] Tertull. _de corona militis_ 3: dehinc ter mergitamur ... unde\nsuscepti lactis et mellis concordiam praegustamus.\n\n[1478] For a full account of the complex and beautiful ceremony of\nprimitive Baptism see _Didaskaliae fragmenta Veronensia latina_,\ned. Ettauler (Lips. 1900), pp. 111-113, and E. Trumpf, _Abh. d.\nphilos.-philol. Cl. der K. Bayer. Ak. d. Wiss._ XIV. 3, p. 180.\n\n[1479] S. Hieron. _Altercat. Lucif. et orthodox._ c. 8, t. 11, p.\n180\u1d49: nam et multa alia quae per traditionem in ecclesiis observantur\nauctoritatem sibi scriptae legis usurpaverunt, velut in lavacro ter caput\nmergitare deinde egresso lactis et mellis praegustare concordiam.\n\n[1480] \u2018Berliner Zauber-papyrus,\u2019 _Abh. d. Berl. Akad._ 1865, p. 120. 20:\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 (\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9)\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03b9\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\n\u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3.\n\n[1481] Steph. Byz. s.v. \u1f0c\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u00b7 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f97 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd. These Lesser Mysteries\nwere celebrated in the month Anthesterion sacred to Dionysos, see p.\n560. For Persephone see Schol. Ar. _Plut._ 845 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n[1482] Porphyr. _Vit. Pythag._ 17.\n\n[1483] Plut. _de Gen. Socr._ XVI. \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f57 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u039b\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n[1484] Plat. _Phaedo_ 108 A \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5.\n\n[1485] Plut. _de fac. in orb. lun._ XXVIII.\n\n[1486] Philostr. _Her._ 714 \u1f60\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u00b7 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03ae\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1fc7.\n\n[1487] The whole series is published in the _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_,\nSerie E, Taf. I-VII.\n\n[1488] Heydemann, _Cat._ 3222. _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, Serie E, Taf.\nII. This vase was carefully examined by Dr Studniczka in 1887. On his\nreport is based the full discussion by Dr Winkler, \u2018Unter-italische\nUnterweltsdarstellungen,\u2019 _Breslauer Philolog. Abhandlungen_, Band III.\nHeft 5, 1888. I verified Dr Studniczka\u2019s report of the inscriptions in\n1902. Nothing further can be done till the vase is properly cleaned, and,\nnow that the Naples Museum is under new direction, this, it may be hoped,\nwill be done.\n\n[1489] Verg. _Aen._ VI. 644.\n\n[1490] P. X. 30. 6.\n\n[1491] P. II. 31. 1.\n\n[1492] P. II. 37. 5.\n\n[1493] Jahn, _Cat._ 849. _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, Serie E, Taf. I.\n\n[1494] P. X. 29. 3.\n\n[1495] Verg. _Aen._ VI. 585.\n\n[1496] Schol. ad Pind. _Ol._ I. 89.\n\n[1497] Athen. VII. 14 \u00a7 281. The sources for the punishment of Tantalos\nare fully collected by Dr Frazer ad Paus. X. 31.\n\n[1498] P. V. 13. 7.\n\n[1499] P. II. 22. 3.\n\n[1500] Hom. _Il._ VI. 152.\n\n[1501] P. II. 1. 1.\n\n[1502] Eustath. ad _Il._ VI. 153, 631 and ad _Od._ XI. 592, 1702.\n\n[1503] By substitution of the Aeolic \u03c5 for \u03bf. See Vani\u010dek, _Etym.\nW\u00f6rterbuch_, p. 592.\n\n[1504] P. II. 1. 3.\n\n[1505] P. II. 5. 1.\n\n[1506] Diod. XX. 103.\n\n[1507] Strab. VIII. 21 \u00a7 379.\n\n[1508] P. II. 5. 1.\n\n[1509] P. II. 2. 2.\n\n[1510] My present object is not to discuss the origin of the particular\nforms of punishment inflicted in Hades, but it may be noted in passing\nthat the stone overhanging Tantalos and the lake in which he is submerged\nmay have contained a reminiscence of some natural precipice and actual\ncatastrophe, see Eustath. ad _Od._ XI. 592, 1701. In the _Aeneid_ (VI.\n601) the Lapithae, Ixion and Peiritho\u00f6s all alike suffer the penalty of\nthe imminent stone.\n\n[1511] W. M. L. Hutchinson, _Aeacus, a Judge of the Underworld_, p. 25.\n\n[1512] P. II. 29. 6.\n\n[1513] Eustath. ad _Il._ XIV. 321, 989.\n\n[1514] Eustath. ad _Od._ IV. 564, 187 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u1fec\u03b1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd\n\u039c\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n[1515] Hom. _Od._ XI. 601.\n\n[1516] Verg. _Aen._ VI. 617.\n\n[1517] P. I. 17. 2, and Ar. _Eq._ 1311 schol. ad loc.\n\n[1518] P. III. 3. 7.\n\n[1519] _Cat._ 258. Hartung, _Arch. Zeit._ p. 263, Taf. XIX. and _Wiener\nVorlegebl\u00e4tter_, Serie E, Taf. VI. 3.\n\n[1520] _Cat._ 319. Masner, p. 39, fig. 22.\n\n[1521] In a vase in the Museum at Carlsruhe (_Cat._ 388) one \u2018Danaid\u2019\nappears in the second tier of figures, see Winkler, _Darstellungen der\nUnterwelt_, p. 13.\n\n[1522] Plat. _Rep._ 363 D and E.\n\n[1523] Plat. _Gorg._ 493.\n\n[1524] Ps.-Plat. _Axioch._ 573 E. In Xenophon (_Oec._ VII. 40) the\nwater-carriers are unnamed and masculine: \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n[1525] Jahn, _Cat._ 153. Baumeister II. 866.\n\n[1526] _Arch. Zeit._ 1871, Taf. 31. The objects in front of the seated\nold man are apparently a collection of loose sticks. I had doubts\nas to the accuracy of the reproduction, but the original at Palermo\nwas examined for me by the late Mr R. A. Neil, and he pronounced the\nreproduction substantially correct.\n\n[1527] Apul. _Met._ VI. 18. Prof. Furtw\u00e4ngler was, I believe, the\nfirst to call attention to the passage of Apuleius in connection with\nthis vase. See _Jahrbuch d. Inst._ 1890, Anz. p. 24, and for the whole\nquestion of Oknos, which does not here immediately concern us, see O.\nRossbach, \u2018D\u00e4monen der Unterwelt,\u2019 _Rhein. Mus._ 1893, p. 593.\n\n[1528] P. X. 31. 9-11.\n\n[1529] Strab. VIII. \u00a7 256. Eustathius ad _Il._ IV. 171. 351 attributes\nthe verse in slightly different form to Hesiod: \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u0390\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f33\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03be \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n\n \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c5\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03c5\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1530] Aesch. _Supp._ 158.\n\n[1531] The story that the _heads_ of the murdered husbands were buried in\nor near Lerna apart from their bodies may have been merely aetiological\nand based on the practice of calling the brim of a well \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae. Cf. our\n\u2018well-head,\u2019 \u2018fountain-head.\u2019 Latin _caput aquae_. It is not my purpose\nhere to examine completely the Danaid myth save in so far as the Danaides\nwere _contaminated_ with the Uninitiated in Hades. The folklore of the\nsubject has been well collected by Dr Campbell Bonner, _Trans. American\nPhilol. Ass._ vol. XXXI. 1900, II. p. 27.\n\n[1532] Strab. loc. cit. supra.\n\n[1533] Herod. II. 171.\n\n[1534] Poll. _On._ III. 38 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21 \u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1. The play on the word \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\ncannot be reproduced in English.\n\n[1535] Eustath. ad _Il._ XXIII. 141, p. 1293.\n\n[1536] For the vases known as Loutrophoroi see Milchhoeffer, _A. Mitt._\nV. 1880, p. 174, and P. Wolters, _A. Mitt._ XVI. 1891, p. 371, and _ib._\nXVIII. 1893, p. 66. These vases were sometimes pierced at the bottom but\nit is not certain that the pierced vases were placed only on the graves\nof the unmarried.\n\n[1537] Dr Frazer, ad P. X. 31. 9, collects a number of interesting modern\nparallels.\n\n[1538] Plin. _N.H._ XXVIII. 2. 3.\n\n[1539] Hor. _Od._ 3. 11. 35. Apollodorus II. 1. 14 says of Hypermnestra\n\u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039b\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03ad\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n[1540] Schol. ad Arist. _Orat._ II. p. 229 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u0390\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[1541] Soph. _El._ 433.\n\n[1542] It is scarcely necessary to say that in my interpretation of\nthis myth I owe much to my predecessors, though my view is slightly\ndifferent from any previously given. Controversy has raged as to whether\nthe mythical Danaides gave rise to the \u2018Uninitiated\u2019 or _vice vers\u00e2_.\nThis seems to me a fruitless question with no possible answer. Each form\narose separately, and the point is their ultimate _contaminatio_. The\nliterature of the controversy is given by Dr Frazer ad P. X. 31. 9. To\nhis references may be added, D\u00e4mmler, _Delphika_ p. 22, and Mr A. B.\nCook, _J.H.S._ XIII. 1892, p. 97.\n\n[1543] I much regret that M. Salomon Reinach\u2019s brilliant article on the\ncriminals eternally condemned in Hades, \u2018Sisyphe aux enfers et quelques\nautres damn\u00e9s\u2019 (_Rev. Arch._ 1903, p. 1), reached me too late for me to\nuse the results of his researches.\n\n[1544] Procl. _Ennead._ I. 6. 9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03ac\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n[1545] Mr Gilbert Murray, _Greek Literature_, p. 66.\n\n[1546] Ar. _Av._ 692.\n\n[1547] The world-egg is of course an element common to many cosmogonies.\nIt may very likely be one of the many elements primarily borrowed by\nOrphism from the Egyptians. The Egyptian demiurgus Chnoum gave birth to a\ncosmic egg, see Euseb. _de praep. ev._ 3. 11. According to Diodorus (I.\n27) Osiris says \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1fa0\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2. Our concern here is\nmerely with the particular form taken by the doctrine in Orphism.\n\n[1548] Hes. _Theog._ 116.\n\n[1549] Damasc. _Quaest. de prim. princ._ p. 147. The sources are fully\ngiven in Abel\u2019s _Orphica_, p. 173. I am also indebted for references to\nSch\u00f6mann\u2019s _De Cupidine Cosmog._, see Sch\u00f6mann, _Opuscula_, vol. II. p.\n60.\n\n[1550] Clem. Rom. _Homil._ VI. 4. 671 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a7\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 \u1fa0\u1ff7\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f29\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03a7\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1fa0\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n[1551] Procl. in Plat. _Tim._ 2, p. 307 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc \u03c4\u03b5 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f42\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1fa0\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n[1552] Plut. _Quaest. Symp._ II. 3. 1.\n\n[1553] Macrob. _Sat._ VII. 16. 691.\n\n[1554] Achill. Tat. Isag. ad Arati _Phenom._, p. 77.\n\n[1555] Luc. _Dial. Mort._ I. 1 and _Catapl._ 7.\n\n[1556] Ov. _Ars Am._ II. 330. Cf. Juvenal VI. 518.\n\n[1557] This fact, that eggs were offered to the dead, has been clearly\nestablished by Dr Martin Nilsson in his tract _Das Ei im Totenkultus der\nGriechen_. The \u2018Sonderabdruck\u2019 he has kindly sent me appeared in the\n_Fr\u00e2n Filologiska F\u00f6reningen i Lund Spr\u00e5kliga uppsatser_ II. (Lund, 1902).\n\n[1558] Clem. Al. _Str._ VII. 4, p. 713 \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1fa0\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b7, \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f02\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f30\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac.\n\n[1559] It is possible that the cosmic egg may have been imported from\nEgypt and _contaminated_ later with the egg of purification.\n\n[1560] P. IX. 27. 1.\n\n[1561] _Amat._ 1.\n\n[1562] Diod. IV. 6 \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n[1563] _Inv._ 2351. P. Hartwig, _J.H.S._ XII. 1891, p. 340.\n\n[1564] Verg. _Aen._ IV. 684. If we may trust Servius (ad loc.), with\nstrictly practical intent, \u2018Muliebriter tanquam possit animam sororis\nexcipere et in se transferre. Sic Cicero in Verrinis \u201cut extremum\nfiliorum spiritum ore excipere liceret.\u201d\u2019 So according to the thinking\nof many primitive people are new souls born of old souls, see Tylor,\n_Primitive Culture_, II. p. 4.\n\n[1565] _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, Serie D, Taf. VIII.\n\n[1566] _Theog._ 1275.\n\n[1567] _Cat._ 2291. _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, Serie A, Taf. V.\n\n[1568] _Museo Ital. di Antichita_, vol. III. 1, pl. 2.\n\n[1569] Soph. _Ant._ 781, trans. by Mr Gilbert Murray.\n\n[1570] _Cat._ 1852. Fig. 172 is reproduced from a hasty sketch kindly\nmade for me by Mrs Hugh Stewart; it is only intended as a note of subject\nand not as a substitute for complete publication.\n\n[1571] Plat. _Symp._ 196 A.\n\n[1572] Now in the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale, Paris, De Ridder, _Cat._ 366;\nsee Lenormant et de Witte, _\u00c9lite des Monuments C\u00e9ramographiques_ IV.,\nPl. LI.\n\n[1573] Eur. _Hipp._ 525.\n\n[1574] _Cat._ E 440. _Mon. d. Inst._ I. Pl. VIII. The design in fig. 38,\nOdysseus passing the Sirens, is from the obverse of this vase. The three\nSirens probably suggested the triple Erotes.\n\n[1575] Alcman frg. 38 (34).\n\n[1576] Fr\u00f6hner, _Choix de vases grecs_, Pl. VI. p. 24.\n\n[1577] _Philosoph._ V. 8, ed. Cruice.\n\n[1578] Harpocrat. s.v. \u03a6\u03bb\u03c5\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n[1579] P. I. 31. 4. Attention was first drawn to this passage in\nconnection with the \u2018Anodos\u2019 vase-paintings by Prof. Furtw\u00e4ngler,\n_Jahrbuch d. Inst._ 1891, pp. 117-124, but with his interpretation of the\nvases I find myself unable to agree (see p. 282, n. 2) and the evidence\nfrom the _Philosophoumena_ seems to be unknown to him.\n\n[1580] See Dr Frazer, _Pausanias_, vol. II. p. 412.\n\n[1581] The roots \u03c6\u03bb\u03b5, \u03c6\u03bb\u03b9, \u03c6\u03bb\u03c5 and the guttural form \u03c7\u03bb\u03b9 (cf. \u03c7\u03bb\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae) all\nexpress the same notion of bursting, bubbling, germinating, see Vani\u010dek\nad voc. and cf. Hesych. \u03c6\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u00b7 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b5\u1f50\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6, and the words\n\u03c6\u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1, \u03c6\u03bb\u03cd\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n[1582] Plut. _Symp._ V. 8. 2 and 3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f18\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7\n\n \u03bf\u1f55\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f40\u03c8\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b1.\n\nThe text has \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1: the superfluous \u03b9 may have crept in owing to\nPlutarch\u2019s guess.\n\n[1583] Plut. loc. cit. \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03c6\u03bb\u03cc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f64\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1,\n\n\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c6\u03bb\u03cc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd ... \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f33 \u03a6\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u1ff3 \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[1584] Harp. s.v. \u039a\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2\u00b7 ... \u039a\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u0394\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f35\u03b4\u03c1\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n[1585] Athen. XI. 46 \u00a7 478: the portions omitted \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f64\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 are unintelligible as they stand,\nbut their meaning does not affect the present argument.\n\n[1586] Probably not even in name; if my conjecture be correct the \u0394\u03af\u03b1s\nset up are of the same nature as the _dirae_ and the \u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03ce\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, see p.\n23, note 2.\n\n[1587] Plut. _Them._ I. Pausanias (IV. 1. 7) in speaking of this same\n_telesterion_, which was the sanctuary of the Lycomids, calls it by the\nvery peculiar name \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, Dr Frazer translates \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u2018chapel.\u2019 The\nword _may_ mean a \u2018lean to,\u2019 a rough annexe, but I would conjecture that\nhere it means the same as \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2, i.e. \u2018bridal chamber,\u2019 the place of the\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, see p. 536.\n\n[1588] P. IV. 1. 7 and 8.\n\n[1589] _Philosophoum._ V. 3 ed. Cruice, \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2, \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc6 (\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc6 the MS.: but Schneidewin\u2019s correction is\ngenerally admitted), \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7 \u03c6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03c5\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b7\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1. \u1f14\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a3\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\n\u03c6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03c5\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f21 \u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n[1590] Luc. _de Salt._ 7, and Xen. _Symp._ VIII. 1.\n\n[1591] _Orph. Hymn._ VI. 7 (trans. by Mr Gilbert Murray):\n\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1fe5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03a6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9\n \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03c1\u03af\u03b7\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b7\u03bd \u1f11\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[1592] Eur. _Hipp._ 1269.\n\n[1593] Diog. Laert. _Vit. Pyth._ V.\n\n[1594] Sauppe, _Die Mysterieninschrift von Andania_.\n\n[1595] Diog. Laert. _Vit. Pyth._ XXI.\n\n[1596] Clem. Al. _Strom._ IV. 19 \u00a7 583.\n\n[1597] Iambl. _de Myst._ \u00a7 247 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n[1598] Diog. Laert. _Vit. Pyth._ 8. 1. 10.\n\n[1599] Strab. VII. \u00a7 297.\n\n[1600] Valer. Max. 8. 15. 1.\n\n[1601] Plin. _Nat. Hist._ XXXVI. 46.\n\n[1602] Johannes Malala, _Chronogr._ IV. 74 \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f41 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03b5 \u039c\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u03a6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f28\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74, \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1.\n\n[1603] Prokl. in Plat. _Tim._ II. 207 \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc \u03c4\u03b5 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f42\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1fa0\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n[1604] Prokl. in Plat. _Tim._ II. 130 \u03b8\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f28\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[1605] Herm. in Plat. _Phaedr._ p. 135 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u03a6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\n\n \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1.\n\n[1606] Herm. in Plat. _Phaedr._ p. 125 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f4d\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2,\n\u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n[1607] P. III. 16. 1.\n\n[1608] _Kypria_, frg. ap. Athen. VIII. \u00a7 334.\n\n[1609] _Cat._ 2254. Kekul\u00e9, _Ueber ein griechisches Vasengem\u00e4lde im\nakademischen Kunstmuseum zu Bonn_, 1879, p. 1.\n\n[1610] Pherekydes ap. Prokl. in Plat. _Tim._ III. 368 \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03af\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd.\n\n[1611] Prokl. in Plat. _Cratyl._ p. 66 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2.\n\n[1612] Procl. in Plat. _Tim._ II. 130 B \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd. \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b6\u1ff4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\n\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f44\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1fa0\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b6\u1ff7\u03cc\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, and\np. 131 E \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b6\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c2.\n\n[1613] Eur. _Bacch._ 1017.\n\n[1614] _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. 538.\n\n[1615] _Hom. Hym._ XIX. 42 trans. by Mr D. S. MacColl.\n\n[1616] The Orphic conception of Pan as All-god was no doubt helped out\nby the fact that as early as the time of Herodotus (II. 46) the analogy\nwas noted between the Greek Pan and the Egyptian Mendes, who was both\nGoat-god and All-god; see Roscher, \u2018Pan als Allgott\u2019 in _Festschrift f.\nOverbeck_, 1893, p. 56 ff., and for Mendes, Roscher, s.v.\n\n[1617] Plut. _de defect. orac._ 17.\n\n[1618] Murray, _Ancient Greek Literature_, p. 68.\n\n[1619] _A. Mitth._ XIII. pl. IX.\n\n[1620] P. IX. 25. 5.\n\n[1621] Clem. Al. _Strom._ V. 8 \u00a7 231.\n\n[1622] Reproduced by kind permission of Dr E. von Stern from the\n_M\u00e9moires de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Imp\u00e9riale d\u2019histoire et des antiquit\u00e9s_, vol.\nXVIII. pl. I. The vase was found at Kertsch.\n\n[1623] Eur. _Bacch._ 769.\n\n[1624] Diod. Sic. I. 11. 3 \u0395\u1f54\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u0392\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03af \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f08\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u1fc6 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72\n\n \u2018\u03a4\u03bf\u1f54\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd.\u2019\n\n[1625] Justinus, _Cohort._ c. 15 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f56\u03b8\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\n\n \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f08\u0390\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f2d\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2,\n \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c4\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03af\u03c7\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u2019 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9;\n\n[1626] Dr Sam. Wide, _A. Mitt._ XIX. 1894, p. 248 ff.\n\n[1627] Inscr. line 120 \u039c\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2,\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7, \u03a0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03b7,\n\u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n[1628] E. Maass, _Orpheus_, p. 64. The theory that Orpheus is a god seems\nto me to vitiate much of Dr Maass\u2019s interesting and valuable book.\n\n[1629] Lucian _De Salt._ 7 \u00a7 271 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03b5\u1f54\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2_ \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b5\u1f54\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 _\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5_ \u1f40\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9.\n\n[1630] Eur. _Hipp._ 527.\n\n[1631] Murray, _Ancient Greek Literature_, p. 272.\n\n[1632] Plat. _Symp._ 189.\n\n[1633] Eur. _Hipp._ 535.\n\n[1634] E.g. Maass, _Die Tagesg\u00f6tter_, p. 288.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Note: In the original, footnote references were given\nin the form 232\u00b2 (page number, and in superscript, the number of the\nfootnote on that page). As all footnotes have been moved and renumbered\nin creating this e-text, a reference to the relevant footnote has been\nadded in brackets.\n\n\nI. GREEK.\n\n \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af, 232\u00b2 (Footnote 597)\n\n \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, 57\n\n \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, 168\n\n \u1f04\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1, 582\n\n \u1f05\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, 57, 58, 113, 114, 116\n\n \u1f00\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, 151\n\n \u1f00\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2, 529\n\n \u1f05\u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, 152\n\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1, 88\n\n \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03af, 605\n\n \u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, 335-337\n\n \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, 77\n\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, 46\n\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, 132\n\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, 615\n\n \u1f0c\u03be\u03b9\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b5, 438\u00b3 (Footnote 1116)\n\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ac, 587\n\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, 26, 27, 43\n\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, 46\n\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1, 57, 58, 623\n\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03af, 8, 9\n\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, 68, 163, 256, 364, 509\n\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, 48\n\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03ac, 139-145\n\n \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, 523\n\n \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, 149\n\n\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03cd\u03c2, 155\n\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1, 191\n\n \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac, 492\u00b9 (Footnote 1243)\n\n \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03be, 369\n\n \u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, 416, 417\n\n \u03b2\u03c1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, 424\n\n \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, 61, 62\n\n\n \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, 173\n\n\n \u0394\u1fb6, 271\n\n \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, 588, 625, 658\n\n \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, 4-7\n\n \u03b4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, 141\u00b2 (Footnote 361)\n\n \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, 244\n\n \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, 267, 600\n\n \u0394\u1fd6\u03b1, festival of, 23, 143\n\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, 43\n\n \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ce\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, 23-28, 643\n\n \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1, 232\n\n \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, 233\n\n \u03b4\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bc\u03b1 and \u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, 568-571\n\n \u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, 283, 568-571\n\n\n \u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, 36\n\n \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 152\n\n \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7, 69\n\n \u1f1c\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9, 70\n\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, 58\n\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, 53-63\n\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, 470, 629, 630\n\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, 53-63, 161\n\n \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, 426\n\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b1\u03af, 140\n\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae, 587\n\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, 593\n\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, 516, 547\n\n \u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03c1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, 69\n\n \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 106\n\n \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, 595\n\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1, 61, 62, 147\u00b9 (Footnote 375)\n\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, 125\n\n \u0395\u1f51\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, 251\n\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, 430\n\n \u03b5\u1f54\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, 414\n\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03ae, 142\n\n \u1f14\u03c6\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9, 219\n\n\n \u03b6\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, 129\n\n\n \u1f21\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, 116\n\n \u1f20\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, 215\n\n\n \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, 77\n\n \u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, 76\n\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, 3, 163, 181, 256\n\n \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, 137\n\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, 137, 643\n\n \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, 46\n\n \u03b8\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03be, 530\u00b3 (Footnote 1329), 532\n\n \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, 514, 548\n\n \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, 53\n\n \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, 67\n\n \u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, 14\n\n \u03b8\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1, 430\n\n \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, 80\n\n \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u1f04\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\n\n \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac, 555\n\n \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, 54\n\n \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, 53\n\n \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, 482\n\n \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, 475\u00b9 (Footnote 1202)\n\n \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b9, 355\n\n \u1f34\u03cb\u03b3\u03be, 139\n\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, 116, 161\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, 401\n\n \u039a\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1, 210\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, 401\n\n \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, 158\u00b2 (Footnote 406)\n\n \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1 \u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, 213\n\n \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, 176\n\n \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ae\u03c2, 184, 185\n\n \u03ba\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, 172\u00b2 (Footnote 443)\n\n \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9, 45\u00b2 (Footnote 97)\n\n \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc4\u03c2, 554\u00b9 (Footnote 1379)\n\n \u03ba\u1f78\u03b3\u03be \u1f44\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03be, 161\n\n \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ae\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1, 35\n\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, 327, 335, 340\n\n \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, 591\u00b9 (Footnote 1458)\n\n\n \u03bb\u1fc4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, 248\n\n \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, 155\n\n \u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, 158\u00b2 (Footnote 406)\n\n\n \u039c\u1fb6, 271\u00b2 (Footnote 710)\n\n \u039c\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1, 262\n\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1, 61, 123, 125\n\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7, 423\n\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1, 423\n\n \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, 154\n\n \u03bc\u03cd\u03c9, 153\n\n\n \u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, 474\u00b9 (Footnote 1201)\n\n \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1, 511, 513\n\n \u039d\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b7, 262\n\n \u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, 539\u00b3 (Footnote 1352)\n\n \u039d\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd, 539\n\n \u039d\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, 412\u00b9 (Footnote 1051)\n\n\n \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1, 587\n\n \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, 64\n\n \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, 599\n\n \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, 478\n\n \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2, 499\u00b9 (Footnote 1254), 600\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, 54, 86-89\n\n\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03af\u03b1, 80, 159, 643\n\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6, 164\n\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2, 536\n\n \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, 88-90\n\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, 46\n\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03ae, 152\n\n \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, 194, 264-266\n\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, 15\n\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 560\n\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03af, 219\n\n\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, 594\n\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, 593\n\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, 15\n\n \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, 155\u00b3 (Footnote 402)\n\n \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1, 63-73, 245, 250\n\n\n \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1, 64\n\n \u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, 402, 465, 500\n\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, 416, 421, 422\n\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1, 421\n\n\n \u1f55\u03b5 \u03ba\u03cd\u03b5, 161\n\n \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, 594\n\n\n \u03c6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03c5\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, 645\n\n \u03c6\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1, 645\n\n \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, 374, 580\n\n\n \u03a7\u03b1\u03bc\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7, 405\n\n \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad, 335\n\n \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, 35\n\n \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f31, 35\n\n \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, 79\n\n\n \u1f60\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, 483, 485\n\n\nII. GENERAL.\n\n Absyrtos, 68\n\n Achaia, 128\n\n Achelo\u00fcs, 435\n\n Adikia, 613\n\n Adrastos, 362\n\n Agathos Daimon, 357, 544\n\n Aglauros, 287\n\n Agnoia, 585\n\n Agnus castus, 106, 130\n\n Agrae, 560\n\n \u2014 mysteries at, 557-561\n\n Agrionia, 465\n\n Aiakos, 611\n\n Aigisthos, 335\n\n Aioleiai, 409\n\n Alcmaeon, 220, 481\n\n _Alphita_, 156\n\n Amphiaraos, 27, 344\n\n Amynos, 345-347\n\n _Anaklethra_, 604\n\n Ananke, 270, 606\n\n Anodos, 122, 126, 276-285, 604\n\n Anthesteria, 32-74\n\n Anthropomorphism, 70\n\n Aphrodite, 308-316, 641\n\n Apollo and Orpheus, 460\n\n Archemoros, 339\n\n Archibacchos, 476\n\n Ares, 375-377\n\n Argei, 117\n\n Arrephoria, 131-134\n\n Artemis, 299-301\n\n Artemis Munychia, 71\n\n Asklepios, 341-350\n\n Athamas, 110, 513\n\n Athene, 301-308\n\n Athene Aithuia, 305\n\n Athene, birth of, 366\n\n Aversion, gods of, ceremonies of, 8, 9\n\n\n Bacchoi, 474-478, 561\n\n Bacchos, 433\n\n \u2018Bacchos\u2019, 479, 480\n\n Banquet of the Blest, 614\n\n Baptism, 597\n\n Bassarids, 461\n\n Bath, ritual, 312\n\n Baubo, 570, 570\u00b9 (Footnote 1411)\n\n Beating ceremonial, 100\n\n Bee, 443, 444\n\n Bellerophon, 220\n\n Bessi, 370, 371\n\n Birth of Aphrodite, 312\n\n Birth, Sacred, 549-552\n\n Book of the Dead, 577, 589\n\n Boreads, 181\n\n Boukolion, 537, 539\n\n Bouphonia, 111-113\n\n Brimo, 552-554\n\n Brimos, 526, 549\u00b9 (Footnote 1370)\n\n Bromios, 414-417, 531\n\n Buckthorn, 37\n\n Bull-God, 432-437, 516\n\n Bull-roarer, 527\u00b2 (Footnote 1322)\n\n Burning Bush, 410\n\n \u2018Busk\u2019, 118\n\n\n Caecilia Secundina, 586, 587\n\n Calendar, Attic, 29\n\n Cereal intoxicants, 416-525\n\n Cervisia, 424\n\n \u2018Chalcidian pursuit\u2019, 129\n\n Chaos, 516\n\n Charila, 106\n\n Charites, 287-299, 438, 439\n\n Choes, 38-40\n\n Chryse, 306\n\n Chthon, 200\n\n Chytroi, 33-37\n\n Cicones, 457, 470\n\n Circle, 593-595\n\n _Clouds_, parody of Orphism in, 512\n\n Cnossos, 483\n\n Commination Service, 145\n\n Cradle, 524, 528\n\n Credo and Confiteor, 156\n\n Cremation, 510\n\n _Cretans_, the, 479\n\n Crete, 460, 565-568\n\n Curses, 138-145\n\n Cyamites, 545\n\n\n Danaides, 614-624\n\n Delphi, influence of, 557-561\n\n Demeter and Kore, 271-273\n\n \u2018Demeter\u2019s people,\u2019 dead as, 267\n\n Dendrites, 426-432\n\n Deo, 272\n\n Despoina, 594-598, 600\n\n _Devotion_, 161, 523\n\n Dexion, 346-347\n\n Diasia, 11-28\n\n Dike, 507, 613\n\n Dionysos, 364\n\n \u2014 at Eleusis, 557, 561\n\n \u2014 grave of, 558\n\n \u2014 Omestes, 71\n\n \u2014 on hero-reliefs, 360-363\n\n Dipolia, 111\n\n Dirae, 23, 143\n\n \u2018Dirae\u2019 of Teos, 143\n\n Dithyramb, 412\n\n Dithyrambos, 437-445\n\n Dodona, gong at, 570\n\n Dolioli, 44\n\n Drama, origin of, 568\n\n Drunkenness, 448\n\n Dryas, 369\n\n\n Egg in Mysteries, 628-630\n\n Eiraphiotes, 488-495\n\n Eirene, 270\n\n Eiresione, 77-82\n\n Eleusinian Mysteries, 540\n\n Ennoia, 584-585\n\n Epikleidia, 554\u00b9 (Footnote 1379)\n\n Epimenides, 401\n\n Epoptes, 547\n\n Erechtheus, 555\n\n Ergane, 520\n\n Erichthonios, 406\n\n Erikapaios, 649\n\n Erinyes, 61, 68, 213-239\n\n Eris, 250\n\n Eros, 626-659\n\n \u2014 and Psyche, 533\n\n \u2014 and the Mother, 639-641\n\n Eubouleus, 586, 587, 588\n\n Eukles, 586, 587, 588\n\n Eumenides, 253-256\n\n Eumolpidae, 554-557\n\n Eumolpos, 554-557\n\n Euno\u00eb, 583, 584\n\n Eurydice, 461, 603-605\n\n Eurynomos, 186\n\n _Euthyphron_, discussion of religion in the, 2\n\n _Everruncatio_, 115\n\n Eye, Evil, 196\n\n\n Fan, winnowing, 528-535\n\n February, 48-51\n\n Februum, 49\n\n Feralia, 49\n\n Figs for purification, 99\n\n Flaminica Dialis, 117\n\n _Flammeum_, 522\n\n Fleece of purification, 548\n\n Flight ceremonies, 113\n\n Fox totem, 462\n\n \u2018Frummety\u2019, 89\u00b2 (Footnote 226)\n\n\n Gephyrismoi, 136\n\n Gong of Dodona, 570\n\n Gorgoneion, 187-191\n\n Graiae, 194-196\n\n Gypsum, 135, 514\n\n\n Hades, 601\n\n Haloa, 145-150\n\n Harpies, 178-183\n\n Harvest-festivals, 75-119\n\n Head of Orpheus, 469\n\n Hebe-Ganymeda, 325\n\n Hecate, 288\n\n Helen Dendritis, 322\n\n Helios, 462, 463\n\n Hephaistos, 377\n\n Hepialos, 167\n\n Hera, 316-319\n\n Herakles, 166, 347\n\n \u2014 at Agrae, 547\n\n \u2014 at Sekyon, 55\n\n \u2014 in Hades, 612\n\n \u2014 initiation of, 547\n\n Herm, Eros as, 631\n\n Hermes, 631\n\n \u2014 Chthonios, 34, 35, 249\n\n Heroes, 326-363\n\n \u2018Hero-Feasts\u2019, 350-363, 615\n\n Hero-healers, 341-350\n\n Heroines, cult of, 323-326\n\n Hero\u00efs, 403\n\n Hersephoria, 287\n\n Hesychidae, 247\n\n Hesychos, 247\n\n Hierophant, 550, 551, 564, 571, 594\n\n Hippolytos, 354, 512\n\n Holocaust, 16\n\n Honey, 597\n\n Horse-demons, 388\n\n Horse-Medusa, 179\n\n \u2018Horses\u2019, 476\n\n Hosia, 507\n\n Hosioi, 434, 501-508\n\n Hyakinthos, 339\n\n\n Iacchos, 379, 414, 541-545\n\n Iasion, 565, 566\n\n \u2018Ikarios\u2019 reliefs, 361\n\n Immortality, 478, 571\n\n Inferiae, 47\n\n Intichiuma, 83\n\n Iobaccheia, 538\n\n Iobaccheion, 475\n\n Iobacchoi, 656\n\n Isodaites, 441, 482\n\n Ivy, 429\n\n\n Judges in Hades, 610\n\n\n Kabeiroi, 653, 654\n\n Kalligeneia, 126, 130, 270\n\n Kallynteria, 114-116\n\n Karpophoros, 263\n\n Kathodos, 123\n\n Ker, Eros as, 632, 636\n\n Keraunia, 408-411\n\n Keres, 35\u00b9 (Footnote 45), 41-43, 165-217\n\n Kernophoria, 160-549, 559\n\n Kernophoros, 559\n\n _Kernos_, 158, 159, 160, 549\n\n Kerostasia, 183\n\n Kerykainae, 212\n\n Kerykeion, 42, 277\n\n Kid, 595\n\n Klodones, 373\n\n Kore and Demeter, 271-273\n\n Koreia, 145\n\n Korybantes, 515\n\n Korybas, 570\n\n Koures, 401, 570\n\n Kouretes, 172, 485, 492, 499-501\n\n Kourotrophos, 267-271\n\n _Krithologos_, 87\n\n Kronia, 110\n\n Kykeon, 155, 156\n\n\n Leibethra, 457, 462, 469\n\n Lemuria, 33, 34\n\n Lesbos, 466-468\n\n Lethe, 575-584\n\n Liber, 528, 538\n\n Libera, 528, 538\n\n _Libum_, 89\n\n Likna, 403\n\n Liknites, 402, 403, 523, 524, 532, 534, 550\n\n _Liknon_, 519-535\n\n Liknophoria, 518-535, 547-549\n\n Liknophoros, 534\n\n Loutrophoria, 622\n\n Lupercalia, 49-51\n\n Lycomids, 471\n\n Lycurgus, 369\n\n\n Maenads, 389\n\n Maiden, 262\n\n Maimaktes, 17\n\n Maniae, 255\n\n Marriage, the Sacred, 535-538, 549-552\n\n Masks, in ritual, 188\n\n Masks on furnaces, 190\n\n Matriarchy, 261, 273\n\n Meilichioi, 16\n\n Meilichios, 340\n\n Melisponda, 510\n\n Metempsychosis, 590\n\n Metis, 649\n\n Milk, 596-598\n\n Mimallones, 373, 570\n\n Mimes, 475\n\n Minos, 611\n\n Minotaur, 483\n\n Mitos, 653\n\n Mnemosyne, 509\n\n \u2014 Well of, 575-584, 623\n\n Moisture, Principle of, 431\n\n Monotheism, 626\n\n Mother, the, 260-271, 510\n\n \u2014 and Son, 560, 561-563\n\n Mountain Mother, 497-499\n\n Mud in Mysteries, 615\n\n Mysteries, 150\n\n \u2014 Eleusinian, 150-160\n\n \u2014 Lesser, 560\n\n _Mystes_, 153\n\n \u2018Mystic pig\u2019, 548\n\n\n Naassenes, 550\n\n Name, new, 594\n\n Nekuia, 73, 267\n\n Nephalia, 91-98, 423, 509-511\n\n Nesteia, 126\n\n Nilus, S., 486\n\n Ninnion, pinax of, 558, 561\n\n Nyktelios, 441\n\n Nymphs, 291, 318\n\n Nysa, 379\n\n\n Oknos, 618\n\n Omadius, 485\n\n Omestes, 489\n\n Omophagia, 546\u00b2 (Footnote 1367)\n\n Omphalos, 59, 320, 321\n\n \u2014 at Eleusis, 557, 558, 569, 561\n\n Onomacritus, 473, 494\n\n Orpheus, 456-478\n\n \u2014 on vases, 602\n\n Orphic Burial-Rites, 599\n\n \u2014 Cosmogony, 625-659\n\n \u2014 Eschatology, 573-624\n\n \u2014 tablets, 574-600\n\n \u2014 Theogony, 625, 626\n\n \u2014 vases, 600-613\n\n Osiris, 402, 440, 576, 577\n\n Ourania, 316, 509\n\n\n Paean, 439-442\n\n _Palingenesia_, 527\n\n Palladium, 302\n\n Pallas, 301, 302\n\n Pan, 101, 651\n\n Panagia, 344\n\n Pandora, 280-283\n\n Pandrosos, 287\n\n Panes, 278, 282, 290\n\n Pangaion, 462\n\n Pantomime, in ritual, 283\n\n \u2014 sacred, 570\n\n Pantomimes, 475\n\n Parentalia, 49\n\n Paris, judgment of, 292-299\n\n _Pastos_, 158\n\n Peiritho\u00f6s, 612\n\n _Pelanos_, 88-90, 156, 345, 349\n\n Pelasgian characters, 468\n\n Pelasgians, nameless gods of, 333\n\n Pelops, 338\n\n Perikonios, 430\n\n Phanes, 646-648, 656\n\n Pharmakos, 95-114\n\n Pherophatta, 556\n\n Philia, 356\n\n Phix, 211\n\n Phlya, 536, 537, 549\n\n Phlya, mysteries at, 549, 641-646\n\n Phokos, 338\n\n Pholos, 386\n\n Phytalmios, 427\n\n Pig of purification, 152, 153\n\n Pimpleia, 470\n\n _Pithoi_, 617\n\n Pithoigia, 32, 33\u00b9 (Footnote 55), 37, 40-45\n\n Pithos, 41\n\n Plemochoae, 40, 161\n\n Ploutos, 566, 567\n\n Plynteria, 115\n\n Poinae, 606\n\n Polyxena, 61\n\n Praxidikae, 188, 214\n\n Priapos, 631\n\n Proteurhythmos, 656-658\n\n Protogene, 643\n\n Protogonos, 648-651, 657\n\n Protolaos, 653\n\n Psoloeis, 409\n\n Psychagogoi, 69\n\n Psychostasia, 183\n\n _Ptuon_, 531\n\n Purification, ritual of, 24-29, 162\n\n Purple in ritual, 249\n\n Pyanepsia, 81\n\n Pythagorean rites, 455, 646\n\n\n Queen Archon, 537\n\n\n Re-birth, 590\n\n Rhabdos, 42-44, 277\n\n Rhadamanthys, 611\n\n Rhea, 562, 563\n\n Rhombos, 491\n\n\n Sabaiarius, 420\n\n Sabazios, 418-420\n\n _Sacra_, 157\n\n Sacramentalism of food and drink, 454\n\n Sacred Marriage, 551, 552, 564-566\n\n \u2014 Spring, 522, 523\n\n Sacrifice, fireless, 94\n\n \u2014 human, 96, 109, 114\n\n _Sacrima_, 84\n\n Salmoneus, 59, 336, 607\n\n Satrae, 370\n\n Satyrs, 211, 380-388, 421, 422\n\n Scape-goat, 105\n\n Seilenoi, 388\n\n Semele, 404\n\n Semnai Theai, 239-253\n\n Sieve, 532, 622\n\n Simaetha, 139\n\n Siren, 139, 197-207\n\n Sisyphos, 607-610\n\n Skedasos, daughters of, 71\n\n Skira, 134, 135\n\n Skirophoria, 134-136\n\n \u2018Smileless Stone\u2019, 127\n\n Snake, Erinys as, 232-237\n\n \u2014 form of hero, 327-332\n\n Soul as bird, 200-201\n\n \u2014 as star, 205\n\n Sphinx, 207-211\n\n Stenia, 136\n\n Stepterion, 113\n\n Stone of Parching, 577\n\n Sublimation, 93\n\n\n Tablets, Orphic, 574-600\n\n Taboo, 83-85, 148, 154\n\n Tantalos, 607, 608\n\n \u2014 dog of, 227, 459\n\n Tattooing, practice of, 464\n\n Telchines, 171\n\n Telesterion, 644\n\n Thargelia, 74-119\n\n Theoinia, 538\n\n Theseus in Hades, 612\n\n Thesmophoria, 120-160\n\n _Thesmophoriazusae_, 144\n\n Thesmophoros, 137\n\n Thracians, 555\n\n Thriae, 442, 443\n\n Thriambos, 442-444\n\n Thyiades, 402, 524\n\n Titans, 493-495\n\n Titles, cultus, 333-340\n\n Tityos, 337\n\n \u2018Token\u2019, 155, 536, 551\n\n _Tonea_, festival of, 316\n\n Tragedy, 388, 421\n\n Trinities, maiden, 286-292\n\n Triptolemos, 273, 556, 563, 564, 610\n\n Tritopatores, 179\n\n Trophoniads, 580\n\n Trophonios, 349, 579-581\n\n Tyche, 270, 271\n\n\n Uninitiated, the, 615\n\n\n Vannus, 527-535\n\n Veil, symbolism of, 522\n\n Ver Sacrum, 522\n\n Vestal Virgins, 44\n\n\n Wand-bearers, 474-478\n\n Water-Carriers in Hades, 615, 616\n\n \u2018Well of Fair Dances,\u2019 127\n\n Well-Nymphs, 620\n\n Wheel, 589-593\n\n Wine, 447\n\n Women and agriculture, 272\n\n World Egg, 626-630\n\n\n Zagreus, 441, 480, 489, 491-496, 587, 588\n\n Zan, 598\n\n Zetes and Kalais, 181\n\n Zeus Aktaios, 27\n\n \u2014 Epiteleios, 356\n\n \u2014 Hades, 17, 21\n\n \u2014 Idaean, 480\n\n \u2014 Ktesios, 643\n\n \u2014 Meilichios, 13-28\n\n \u2014 Philios, 356, 357\n\n \u2014 Phyxios, 69\n\n \u2014 Polieus, 111\n\n \u2014 sacrifice to, in Homer, 11\n\n _Zythos_, 424\n\n\nCAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.","title":"Prolegomena to the study of Greek religion","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":254398}