Chapter IV: The Relation of Soul and Body (6)

As regards _Alastor_, this explanation stands already condemned by the fact that it pre-supposes the derivation from λανθάνομαι, and even then it does fresh and incredible violence to language; a sane philologist may commit the error of deriving ἀλάστωρ from λανθάνομαι and making it mean ‘one who does not forget’; but only the maddest could dream of interpreting it as ‘one who does deeds which others do not forget.’ But, if in spite of this we trouble to turn up the references which the lexicons give under this heading, it is obvious at once that there is no more support for such a meaning in idiomatic usage than in etymological origin. Three references are cited. The first is to that passage of the _Eumenides_ in which Orestes declares himself ἀλάστορα, οὐ προστρόπαιον[1203], a phrase which means, as I have already shown, ‘an avenger, not a murderer.’ This then should be classified as an example of the active, not of the hypothetical passive, meaning of _Alastor_. Of the other two passages, one is from the _Ajax_ of Sophocles, where the hero in his anger and despair speaks of the guileful enemies who robbed him of his prize as _Alastores_[1204], and the other a passage from Demosthenes in which he criticizes Aeschines for applying the word as an opprobrious name to Philip of Macedon[1205]. But in what possible sense could either Ajax’ enemies or Philip of Macedon be described as ‘suffering from Avengers’? On the contrary, at the times when the word _Alastor_ was applied to them, their success should surely have suggested that they were favoured by heaven, and their opponents rather were the sufferers. What then was the meaning of the word thus opprobriously employed? A meaning, I answer, very little removed from that of ‘Avenger’ and arising out of it. For how was the Avenger--be he the _revenant_ himself or a demon acting on his behalf--constantly pictured? Was it not as a fiend tormenting with every torment the object of his wrath, plaguing him, maddening him, sucking his very blood? Little wonder then if the justice of that vengeance was sometimes obscured in men’s minds by their horror of it, and if the word _Alastor_ suggested to them a fiend, a merciless tormentor. In that sense Ajax might well apply the name to his enemies, and Aeschines to Philip. Nor are other instances of it lacking. Demosthenes himself, for all his criticism of Aeschines’ vulgarity in calling Philip βάρβαρόν τε καὶ ἀλάστορα, ‘a foreign devil,’ used the same word of Aeschines and his friends[1206]; again, in Sophocles, the lion of Nemea for the loss and havoc that he inflicted is unique among beasts that perish in having merited the same sorry title--βουκόλων ἀλάστωρ, the ‘herdsmen’s Tormentor[1207]’; and indeed, apart from living men and animals, there are many instances in Tragedy[1208] in which the word _Alastor_, applied to some supernatural foe, _revenant_ or demon, may be more appropriately rendered by ‘fiend’ or ‘tormentor’ than by ‘avenger.’

And the same thing is true, I hold, of the word _Miastor_. The theory of the lexicons, namely, that the word denotes a polluted and blood-guilty man because such an one is inevitably a ‘polluter’ of others, is certainly not intrinsically bad; for it recognises the primary meaning of the word, ‘polluter,’ and bases the secondary meaning ‘polluted’ upon a right understanding of the old belief that pollution was contagious. But at the same time it gives some occasion to wonder why the word should have been diverted from its most natural meaning in order to denote that which the cognate word μιαρός already expressed more simply. Moreover, when examination is made of those passages which are claimed as examples of such an usage, the theory becomes wholly unnecessary. The two most specious examples are two passages from Aeschylus[1209] and Euripides[1210], in both of which the persons called _Miastores_ are Aegisthus and Clytemnestra. Now the authors of Agamemnon’s death were certainly polluted, and might with justice have been called μιαροί--that is admitted. But because they might have been called μιαροί and actually are called μιάστορες, it does not follow that, though the words have the same root, they also bear the same meaning. Obviously the word ‘fiends,’ if μιάστορες ever has that sense, would be an equally apt description of the murderous pair. The choice therefore between these two renderings here must be guided by more certain examples of usage elsewhere.

Two may be selected as eminently clear. In one Orestes calls Helen τὴν Ἑλλάδος μιάστορα[1211], where the word cannot mean a ‘polluted wretch,’ for the construction postulates an active meaning in _Miastor_; nor yet can the phrase be intelligibly rendered ‘the polluter of Greece,’ for there was no pollution involved in the warfare which Helen had caused; clearly Orestes means ‘the tormentor of Greece,’ the fiend who had proved the bane of ships and men and cities. In the other passage Peleus applies the word to Menelaus: ‘I look upon thee,’ he says, ‘as on the murderer--the fiend-like destroyer (μιάστορ’ ὥς τινα)--of Achilles[1212].’ Here again _Miastor_ clearly bears an active sense, and at the same time cannot be rendered ‘polluter.’ Menelaus had brought upon Achilles not pollution but death, and the word _Miastor_ explains the word ‘murderer’ (αὐθέντην) which precedes it--explains that the murder laid to Menelaus’ charge was not the open violence of a stronger foe, but resembled the death-dealing of some lurking fiend. In these two passages then the interpretation of _Miastor_ in the sense of ‘fiend,’ ‘tormentor,’ ‘destroyer,’ is necessary and proven; and, this being known, common reason bids us read more ambiguous scriptures in the light thus obtained. There is therefore no call to suppose that μιάστωρ ever meant ‘polluted’; from the active meaning ‘Avenger’ it developed, like _Alastor_, the broader sense of ‘Tormentor’ or ‘Fiendish Destroyer’; and these meanings completely satisfy the conditions of Tragic and other usage of the words.

There remains the word προστρόπαιος, to which the lexicons, I admit, rightly ascribe a twofold meaning. It is clearly used both of the Avenger of blood and also of the blood-guilty person who is seeking purification. But as regards both the means by which the first signification was obtained, and the primary application of the word in that signification, I join issue. The second meaning is more satisfactorily explained, and my criticism of it will not go beyond an alternative suggestion.

The lexicons elucidate the first meaning as follows: _he to whom one turns_, especially with supplications, θεός or δαίμων προστρόπαιος the god _to whom the murdered person turns_ for vengeance, hence _an avenger_, like ἀλάστωρ ... hence also of the _manes_ of murdered persons, _visiting with vengeance, implacable_.

The objections to this explanation are obvious. It may well be questioned whether προστρόπαιος is at all likely to have had any passive meaning--as it were a person who ‘is turned to’--when the verb προστρέπω itself was, so far as I can ascertain, never so used; and further, if a god had really been called προστρόπαιος because the murdered man turned for vengeance to him, the extension of the term to the _manes_ of murdered persons must imply a conception of the murdered man turning for vengeance towards--himself. This is not a little cumbrous; and for my part I deny the existence of any passive sense of προστρόπαιος.

I do however find two senses of the word, the one active, corresponding to the transitive use of the verb προστρέπειν or προστρέπεσθαι (for the middle as well as the active voice might be used transitively, as will shortly appear), the other middle, corresponding to the ordinary usage of the middle προστρέπεσθαι. Thus the active meaning of προστρόπαιος will be _turning_ something _towards_ or _against_ someone; the middle meaning, _turning oneself towards_ someone.

The active usage is best illustrated by a passage of Aeschines, in which he accuses Demosthenes of wilful perjury in calumniating him, and then appeals to the jury in these words--ἐάσετε οὖν τὸν τοιοῦτον αὑτοῦ προστρόπαιον (μὴ γὰρ δὴ τῆς πόλεως) ἐν ὑμῖν ἀναστρέφεσθαι[1213]; ‘Will you then allow this perjurer, who has turned upon his own head (for I pray that it be not on the city) the anger of the gods in whose name he swore, to continue in your midst?’ Here the very brevity of the Greek, which I am compelled to expand in translation, proves that Aeschines’ audience were perfectly familiar with an active meaning of προστρόπαιος with an evil connotation, ‘turning some misfortune or punishment or vengeance upon someone.’

The middle sense of προστρόπαιος is equally clearly exhibited by Aeschylus, who in telling the story of Thyestes says that after his banishment by his brother Atreus he came again προστρόπαιος ἑστίας[1214], ‘turning himself (as a suppliant) towards the hearth’ of his father’s home, so that his own life at least was spared out of respect for the place.

Thus the two meanings of the word are established, and it remains only to show how they were specially used in connexion with blood-guilt.

In the active sense προστρόπαιος was primarily applied, I hold, like _Miastor_ and _Alastor_, to the murdered man himself, who ‘turned’ his wrath ‘against’ the murderer, or, if it so happened, against the next of kin who had failed in his duty of bringing the murderer to justice. It is precisely thus that Plato uses the verb προστρέπεσθαι in recording the old tradition in which he apparently reposed so much faith as to base his own laws upon it. ‘If the nearest of kin,’ so runs the passage, ‘do not seek vengeance for the deed, it is held that the pollution devolves upon him, and that _the sufferer_ (i.e. the dead man) _turns upon him the suffering_ (i.e. that which the homicide himself should have incurred), and anyone who will may bring a suit against him, etc.[1215]’ The words which I have italicised are in the Greek τοῦ παθόντος προστρεπομένου τὴν πάθην, where the middle presumably was preferred to the active because the sufferings which the dead man inflicts are, as we already know and as the language of the particular phrase itself suggests, exactly those which he himself suffers. This usage of the verb, though it is distinctly rare and probably a technicality of religion or law, is so perfectly clear in this one example[1216], that there should be no hesitation about understanding the cognate word προστρόπαιος in the same sense. And indeed one lexicographer, Photius, shows that he did so understand it; for he tells us that Zeus was sometimes invoked under this title, as turning against murderers the pollution (including perhaps the punishments) of their crime: Ζεὺς ... προστρόπαιος, ὁ προστρέπων τὸ ἄγος αὐτοῖς (sc. τοῖς παλαμναίοις)[1217]--such are his actual words, and this time of course the verb is rightly in the active, for Zeus is in no way personally concerned but acts only in the interests of the dead man. Clearly then it was in virtue of this active meaning that προστρόπαιος came to be practically a synonym of _Miastor_ and _Alastor_ in the sense of an Avenger of blood.

Once more then we return to the same question which has been propounded and answered with regard to those two other names--to whom was the term προστρόπαιος primarily applied?

I find the application of it more restricted than that of the other two words. It was used of the dead man himself, and it was used of demons avenging his cause; but it was never used[1218] of the next of kin in the character of avenger--and that for the very good reason that when the word was applied to a living man it bore an entirely different meaning, which has yet to be discussed, the meaning of ‘blood-guilty.’

A few examples of each usage must be given. Both Antiphon and Aeschylus apply the word to murdered men; Antiphon, in a speech in which the kinsman, who has, as in duty bound, undertaken the prosecution of the murderer, claims that, if the jury wrongfully acquit, the dead man will not become προστρόπαιος, an Avenger, against his kinsmen who have done their best in his service, but will visit his anger on the jury for condoning and thereby sharing the blood-guilt[1219]; Aeschylus, in that list of penalties which has been discussed, when he depicts the ‘madness and vain terror,’ which will befall Orestes if he fail in his task, as an arrow that flieth in darkness sped by powers of hell ‘at the behest of fallen kindred that turn their vengeance upon him’ (ἐκ προστροπαίων ἐν γένει πεπτωκότων[1220]). But equally clearly in other passages the Avenger indicated is not the murdered man, but some divine being. Antiphon again is an authority for this usage. Twice, in a context similar to that which has just been noticed, he speaks not of the murdered man himself becoming an Avenger, but of certain divine powers--whom he also calls ἀλιτήριοι, the powers that deal with sin--acting as Avengers (προστρόπαιοι) of the dead[1221]. And similarly in later time Pausanias also speaks of ‘the pollution (μίασμα) incurred by Pelops and of the Avenger (προστρόπαιος) of Myrtilus[1222].’

Since then there is no question but that the word προστρόπαιος was actually applied both to dead men and to gods, to which of the two did it refer primarily? We already know the answer. The dead man himself, as a _revenant_, was the prime and proper Avenger of his own wrongs; demons of vengeance acted only in his name, as his subordinates and agents. To him therefore the name primarily belonged. And even if we had not already learnt this from other sources, the passage of Aeschylus, to which I have just referred, might well guide us to the same conclusion. The arrow that flieth in darkness is sped indeed, he says, ‘by powers of hell’ (τῶν ἐνερτέρων)--the demonic agents of the dead--but ‘at the behest of fallen kindred.’ The activity both of the principal and of the agent is recognised in the same passage, and either might have been called προστρόπαιος: but, because the activity of both was plainly asserted, Aeschylus reserved the name for the one to whom it primarily belonged, the murdered man, who turns his wrath, who turns indeed those powers of hell who execute his wrath, against his enemies.

There now remains for consideration only the second meaning of προστρόπαιος; how could a word, which in reference to dead men or to deities meant ‘an Avenger of blood,’ bear, in relation to living men, the sense of ‘blood-guilty’? Very likely the dictionaries are right in accepting the explanation of this use which Hesychius[1223] and others give. We have seen one case[1224] in which the word clearly has a middle sense ‘turning oneself towards’ a place or a person in supplication; and there is no difficulty in supposing that the word was used technically in the same sense of a blood-guilty man who turned to some god or to some sanctuary in quest of purification. This, I say, is very probably the right explanation. But I may perhaps offer an alternative explanation which I do not count preferable but merely possible. The active meaning of προστρόπαιος, ‘turning something upon someone,’ might conceivably have produced this sense of ‘blood-guilty’ as well as the other sense ‘an Avenger of blood.’ As the dead man was held to turn something, namely his wrath, against his enemy, so might the murderer have been pictured as trying to turn something, namely the pollution which he had incurred, upon some object and so to cleanse himself therefrom. Now the chief feature in the Delphic ceremony of purification was the slaying of a sucking-pig[1225]. This may of course have been merely a propitiatory sacrifice; but it is possible also that the animal was really a surrogate victim for the murderer himself, that by laying his polluted hand on its head he transferred the religious uncleanness from himself to it, and that, by the subsequent slaughter of the now blood-guilty animal, he vicariously satisfied the old law that blood could only be washed out by blood. This is only a conjecture, and I leave others to judge of its probability; but, if the ceremony had followed the lines which I have suggested, it is easily intelligible that, in the technical language of religion, the murderer who sought to turn his own pollution upon the victim might have been called προστρόπαιος.

Thus then the problem of the ancient nomenclature of _revenants_ is solved, and the results are briefly these: all _revenants_ were originally called ἀλάστορες, ‘Wanderers’; but subsequently that name was restricted only to the vengeful class of _revenants_, to which the names μιάστορες and προστρόπαιοι had always belonged; and for the more harmless and purely pitiable _revenants_ no name remained, but men said of such an one simply, ‘He wanders.’

FOOTNOTES:

[959] Heard by me from a fisherman of Myconos.

[960] Πολίτης, Παραδόσεις, I. pp. 573 and 593.

[961] The list of dialectic forms compiled by Bern. Schmidt (_das Volksleben der Neugriechen_, p. 158) comprises, besides that which I have adopted as in my experience the most general, the following: βουρκόλακας, βρουκόλακας, βουρκούλακας, βουλκόλακας, βουθρόλακας, βουρδόλακας, βορβόλακας. To these may be added βαρβάλακας from Syme (Πολίτης, Παραδόσεις, I. 601), βουρδούλακας, from Cythnos (Βάλληνδας, Κυθνιακά, p. 125), and an occasional diminutive form such as βρυκολάκι. The κ is often doubled in spelling.

[962] A plural in -οι, -ους, with accent either paroxytone or proparoxytone, also occurs.

[963] _De quorumdam Graecorum opinationibus_, cap. 12 sqq.

[964] ὁποῦ τὸν ἐγνώριζε προτίτερα, leg. ἐγνώριζαν.

[965] For these memorial services (μνημόσυνα) and the appropriate funeral-meats (κόλλυβα) see below, pp. 534 ff.

[966] The reference given by Allatius is to _Turco-Grecia_, Bk 8, but I cannot find the passage.

[967] With this description compare a phrase used in a recent Athenian account of a _vrykolakas_, σὰν τουλοῦμι, ‘like a (distended) wine-skin,’ Πολίτης, Παραδ. I. 575.

[968] See p. 339.

[969] _Relation de ce qui s’est passé de plus remarquable a Sant-Erini Isle de l’Archipel, depuis l’établissement des Peres de la compagnie de Jesus en icelle_ (Paris, MDCLVII.), cap. XV. pp. 208-226.

[970] In many places at the present day it is believed that _vrykolakes_ (and sometimes other supernatural beings) cannot cross salt water. Hence to bury (not burn) the corpse in an island is often held sufficient.

[971] Some modern authorities state that Turks are believed to be more subject to become _vrykolakes_ than Christians. Schmidt (_Das Volksleben_, p. 162) appears to me to overstate this point of view, which I should judge to be rarer and more local than its contrary. Even where found, it is unimportant, being a mere invention of priestcraft for purposes of intimidation. See below, pp. 400 and 409.

[972] Evidently a local form of τουμπί (= τύμπανον, cf. Du Cange, _Med. et infim. Graec._, s.v. τυμπανίτης), with metathesis of the nasal. Cf. the word τυμπανιαῖος above.

[973] To this phrase I return later.

[974] leg. ἄσπρος.

[975] _Histoire nouvelle des anciens ducs et autres souverains de l’Archipel_, pp. 255-6 (Paris, 1699).

[976] _Voyage du Levant_, I. pp. 158 ff. (Lyon, 1717). Cf. also Salonis, _Voyage à Tine_ (Paris, 1809), translated by Δ. Μ. Μαυρομαρᾶς, as Ἱστορία τῆς Τήνου, pp. 105 ff.

[977] Paul Lucas, _Voyage du Levant_ (la Haye, 1705), vol. II. pp. 209-210.

[978] Cf. Tournefort, _Voyage du Levant_, I. p. 164 (Lyon, 1717).

[979] Ἀντών. Βάλληνδας, Κυθνιακά, p. 125.

[980] Γρηγ. Παπαδοπετράκης, Ἱστορία τῶν Σφακίων, pp. 72-3.

[981] The writer points out in a note the correspondence of the number of priests who assemble for τὸ εὐχέλαιον, the anointing of the sick with oil.

[982] The Cretan word used throughout this passage is καταχαν-ᾶς (plur. -ᾶδες), on which see below, p. 382.

[983] διπλοσαραντίσῃ. I have given what I take to be the meaning of a popular word otherwise unknown to me.

[984] Ᾱντ. Μηλιαράκης, Ὑπομνήματα περιγραφικὰ τῶν Κυκλάδων νήσων.--Ἄνδρος, Κέως, p. 56.

[985] Good examples may be found in Bern. Schmidt, _Märchen_, etc., no. 7, and Πολίτης, Παραδόσεις, I. 590 sqq.

[986] _The Cyclades_, p. 299.

[987] Πολίτης, Παραδόσεις, I. p. 577.

[988] _Ibid._, p. 578.

[989] In Scyros and in Cythnos, as I have noted above, this means of riddance has given place to milder remedies. But in the former I heard of fairly recent cases of vampirism, and in the latter, according to Βάλληνδας (Κυθνιακά, p. 125), the names of several persons (including one woman) who became _vrykolakes_ are still remembered.

[990] Communicated to me by word of mouth in Maina.

[991] ἑορτοπιάσματα (see above, p. 208), who are commonly regarded as subject to lycanthropy in life and continue the same predatory habits as vampires after death.

[992] Bern. Schmidt, _Das Volksleben_, p. 162 (from Aráchova).

[993] This belief belongs chiefly, in my experience, to the Cyclades.

[994] Curt. Wachsmuth, _Das alte Griechenland im Neuen_, p. 117 (from Elis).

[995] _Ibid._ p. 114 (from Elis). Bern. Schmidt, _op. cit._ p. 162 (Parnassus district). Πολίτης, Παραδόσεις, I. 578 (Calávryta).

[996] _Das Volksleben der Neugriechen_, p. 170.

[997] This derivation is reviewed and rejected by Bern. Schmidt, _Das Volksleben_ etc., p. 158.

[998] Cf. Miklosich, _Etym. Wörterbuch d. Slav. Spr._, p. 380, s.v. *velkŭ, Old Slav., vlъkъ, _wolf_....

Old Slav., vlЪkodlakЪ; Slovenian, volkodlak, vukodlak, vulkodlak; Bulg., vrЪkolak; Kr., vukodlak; Serb., vukodlak; Cz., vlkodlak; Pol., wilkodłak; Little Russian, vołkołak; White Russian, vołkołak; Russian, volkulakЪ; Roum. ve̥lkolak, ve̥rkolak; Alb., vurvolak; cf. Lith., vilkakis.

‘Der vlЪkodlak ist der Werwolf der Deutschen, woraus m. Lat. guerulfus, mannwolf, der in Wolfgestalt gespenstisch umgehende Mann.’ The second half of the compound is less certainly identified with _dlaka_, Old Slav., New Slav., Serb., = ‘hair’ (of cow or horse).

I am indebted for this note to the kindness of Mr E. H. Minns, of Pembroke College, Cambridge. It will be found to corroborate the view pronounced by B. Schmidt, _Das Volksleben der Neugriechen_, p. 159.

[999] Bern. Schmidt, _Das Volksleben der Neugriechen_, p. 160 (with note 1).

[1000] Ralston, _Songs of the Russian people_, p. 409.

[1001] Whether this word is originally Slavonic appears to be uncertain, but it is at any rate found in all Slavonic languages and is proved by the forms which it has assumed to have been in use there for fully a thousand years. This note also I owe to my friend, Mr Minns.

[1002] Abbott, _Macedonian Folklore_, p. 217.

[1003] _Das Volksleben d. Neugr._ p. 159.

[1004] _Ibid._ note 2.

[1005] Mannhardt’s _Zeitschrift f. d. Mythol. und Sittenk._ IV. 195.

[1006] _Les Slaves de Turquie_, I. p. 69 (Paris, 1844).

[1007] Cf. above, p. 183.

[1008] Cf. pp. 183 and 208.

[1009] In Chios at the present day the word _vrykolakas_ is in general usage, except that in the village of Pyrgi, owing to a confusion of _vrykolakes_ and _callicantzari_, a local name of the latter is applied also to the former. Cf. Κανελλάκης, Χιακὰ Ἀνάλεκτα, p. 367, and see above p. 193.

[1010] Ἀντ. Βάλληνδας, Κυθνιακά, p. 125. The two words are given in the neuter plural τυμπανιαῖα and ἄλυτα, as equivalents of the word _vrykolakas_ which, in the form βουρδούλακκας, is also employed.

[1011] The periodical Πανδώρα, vol. 12, no. 278, p. 335 and vol. 13, no. 308, p. 505, cited by Schmidt, _op. cit._ p. 160.

[1012] Schmidt, _op. cit._ p. 160, referring to Φιλίστωρ (periodical), III. p. 539; Πολίτης, Παραδόσεις, I. p. 574.

[1013] Πολίτης, _ibid._

[1014] Cf. above, p. 277.

[1015] Βάλληνδας in Ἐφημερὶς τῶν Φιλομαθῶν, 1861, p. 1828. Schmidt interprets the word as ‘der Aufhockende,’ one who sits upon and crushes his victims, a habit sometimes ascribed to _vrykolakes_, but more often to _callicantzari_. My own interpretation has the support of many popular stories, in which, when the exhumation of a _vrykolakas_ takes place, he is found sitting up in his tomb. See e.g. Πολίτης, Παραδόσεις, I. p. 590.

[1016] Cf. Χουρμούζης, Κρητικά, p. 27 (Athens, 1842); Γρηγ. Παπαδοπετράκης, Ἱστορία τῶν Σφακίων, pp. 72-3.

[1017] _Op. cit._ p. 160.

[1018] Ἄτακτα, II. p. 114.

[1019] _Os hians, dentes candidi_, cf. above, p. 367.

[1020] The word is mentioned by Newton, _Travels and Discoveries in the Levant_, I. p. 212. I have been unable to obtain any more recent information.

[1021] Τὸ Θανατικὸν τῆς Ῥόδου (_The Black Death of Rhodes_), ll. 267 and 579, published in Wagner’s _Medieval Greek Texts_, I. p. 179 (from Schmidt, _op. cit._ p. 160, note 4).

[1022] I have shown above (pp. 239 ff.) that in certain districts the word λυκάνθρωπος was superseded by a new Greek compound λυκοκάντζαρος; but this new term was probably always confined, as it now is, to the vocabulary of a few districts only, while the Slavonic word _vrykolakas_ enjoyed a wider vogue.

[1023] See above, p. 378.

[1024] I quote my authority only for choice specimens which I have not myself heard. Variations may be found in almost any work bearing on popular speech or belief.

[1025] Δελτίον τῆς Ἱστορ. καὶ Ἐθνολ. Ἑταιρίας, II. 123 (from Crete).

[1026] _Ibid._

[1027] Ἰ. Σ. Ἀρχέλαος, Ἡ Σινασός, p. 199 (from Sinasos in Asia Minor).

[1028] Christophorus Angelus, _De statu hodiernorum Graecorum_, cap. 25.

[1029] Cf. above, p. 370.

[1030] In the details of my account of this custom I follow Βάλληνδας, Κυθνιακά, pp. 113-114. But it prevails also in substantially the same form in many places besides Cythnos.

[1031] I have been at some pains to make wide enquiries on this point, but have found no example.

[1032] The version which I translate is No. 517 in Passow’s _Popularia Carmina Graec. recent._

[1033] Prof. Πολίτης has collected seventeen in a monograph entitled Τὸ δημοτικὸν ἅσμα περὶ τοῦ νεκροῦ ἀδελφοῦ (originally published in the Δελτίον τῆς Ἱστορ. καὶ Ἐθνολ. Ἑταιρίας).

[1034] Πολίτης, _op. cit._ p. 43 (Version No. 4, ll. 18, 19).

[1035] The periodical Πανδώρα, 1862, vol. 13, p. 367 ( Πολίτης, _op. cit._ p. 66, no. 17, ll. 19, 20).

[1036] Ἰ. Σ. Ἀρχέλαος, Ἡ Σινασός, p. 164 (from Sinasos in Asia Minor).

[1037] I make this statement with as full confidence as can be felt in any such negation, after perusing nearly a score of versions.

[1038] See above, p. 368.

[1039] Πολίτης, Παραδόσεις, I. p. 589.

[1040] _Ibid._ p. 591.

[1041] Goar, _Eucholog._ p. 685.

[1042] Cf. Leo Allatius, _De quor. Graecorum opinat._ XIII. Balsamon, I. 569 (Migne). _Epist. S. Niconis_, quoted by Balsamon, II. p. 1096 (ed. Paris, 1620). Christophorus Angelus, cap. 25.

[1043] S. Matthew xviii. 18.

[1044] The power of excommunicating belonged to priests as well as to bishops, but they might not exercise it without their bishop’s sanction. Cf. Balsamon, I. 27 and 569 (Migne).

[1045] Quoted by Leo Allatius, _De quor. Graec. opinat._ XIII. and XIV.

[1046] The reversal of the decree of excommunication by the same person who had pronounced it was always preferred, largely as a precaution against an excommunicated person obtaining absolution too easily. Cf. Balsamon, I. 64-5 and 437 (Migne).

[1047] _op. cit._ cap. XV. Cf. also Christophorus Angelus, Ἐγχειρίδιον περὶ τῆς καταστάσεως τῶν σήμερον εὑρισκομένων Ἑλλήνων (Cambridge, 1619), cap. 25, where is told the story of a bishop who was excommunicated by a council of his peers, and whose body remained ‘bound, like iron, for a hundred years,’ when a second council of bishops at the same place pronounced absolution and immediately the body ‘turned to dust.’

[1048] According to Georgius Fehlavius, p. 539 (§ 422) of his edition of Christophorus Angelus, _De statu hodiernorum Graecorum_ (Lipsiae, 1676), Emanuel Malaxus was the writer of a work entitled _Historia Patriarcharum Constantinopolitanorum_, which I have not been able to discover. It was apparently used by Crusius for his _Turco-Grecia_; for the story here told is narrated by him in two versions (I. 56 and II. 32, pp. 27 and 133 ed. Basle) and he alludes also (p. 151) to a story concerning Arsenios, Bishop of Monemvasia, which likewise according to Fehlavius (_l.c._) was narrated by Malaxus.

[1049] See below, p. 409.

[1050] Christophorus Angelus (_op. cit._ cap. 25) vouches for the early use of this word by one Cassianus, whom he describes as Ἕλλην παλαιὸς ἱστορικός. I cannot identify this author.

[1051] Du Cange, _Med. et infim. Graec._, s.v. τυμπανίτης.

[1052] Christophorus Angelus, _l.c._

[1053] Matthew xviii. 18.

[1054] John xx. 23.

[1055] See above, p. 365.

[1056] The word μνημόσυνα, which I have rendered with verbal correctness ‘memorial services,’ really implies more, and corresponds to a mass for the repose of the dead.

[1057] Anastasius Sinaita, in Migne’s _Patrologia Gr.-Lat._, vol. 89, 279-280.

[1058] i.e. the πνευματικοί, as they were called, the more discreet and ‘spiritual’ priests who alone were authorised by their bishops to discharge this function. Cf. Christophorus Angelus, _op. cit._ cap. 22.

[1059] Κωνστ. Κανελλάκης, Χιακὰ Ἀνάλεκτα, pp. 335 and 339.

[1060] On this symbol see above, pp. 112 f.

[1061] Newton, _Travels and Discoveries in the Levant_, I. p. 212 (1865). (Cf. B. Schmidt, _das Volksleben_, p. 164.)

[1062] Cf. Christophorus Angelus, _op. cit._ cap. 25 (init.).

[1063] _I. Cor._ v. 5 and _I. Tim._ i. 20.

[1064] Theodoretus, on _I. Cor._ v. 5 (Migne, _Patrologia Gr.-Lat._, vol. 82, 261).

[1065] Aesch. _Choeph._, 432-3.

[1066] Paus. IX. 32. 6.

[1067] _Philopseudes_, cap. 29.

[1068] See above, p. 208.

[1069] Πολίτης, Παραδόσεις, I. p. 576.

[1070] Ralston, _Songs of the Russian people_, p. 412.

[1071] Mirabilia, cap. I.

[1072] By ‘seer’ I render μάντις, a man directly inspired; by ‘diviner’ οἰωνοσκόπος, one who is skilled in the science of interpreting signs and omens.

[1073] _Relation de ce qui s’est passé de plus remarquable a Sant-Erini etc._, p. 213. He calls Philinnion a Thessalian girl, and makes Machates come from Macedonia. But his reference to the story contains a patent inaccuracy (for he speaks of the girl being buried a second time, whereas she was burnt), and in all probability he was quoting from memory, not from a more complete text than that now preserved.

[1074] See Pashley, _Travels in Crete_, II. p. 221; Carnarvon, _Reminiscences of Athens and the Morea_, p. 162; Schmidt, _das Volksleben_, p. 165; Πολίτης, Παραδόσεις, I. pp. 589, 591 and 593; Βάλληνδας, Κυθνιακά, p. 125.

[1075] Alardus Gazaeus, _Commentary on_ Ioh. Cassianus, _Collatio_, VIII. 21 (Migne, _Patrologia_, Ser. I. vol. 49).

[1076] On ‘striges’ see above, pp. 179 ff.

[1077] On this word see above, p. 288.

[1078] _Das Volksleben der Neugriechen_, p. 170, with note 1.

[1079] _Philopseudes_, cap. 26.

[1080] Ar. _Eccles._, 1072-3.

[1081] See above, pp. 387-91.

[1082] Eur. _Or._, 1086.

[1083] Eur. _Hipp._, 1038.

[1084] Soph. _O. C._, 1383 ff.

[1085] Soph. _O. C._, 1405.

[1086] 261-297.

[1087] Aesch. _Choeph._, 287-8.

[1088] Κατὰ Ἀριστογείτονος, I. p. 788. συμπεπτωκότος is a necessary correction of the ἐμπεπτωκότος of the MSS.

[1089] Cf. l. 366 μιαίνεται.

[1090] Aesch. _Suppl._, 407 ff.

[1091] Aesch. _Eum._, 173 ff. reading ἄλλον μιάστορ’ ἐξ ἐμοῦ.

[1092] See above, p. 398.

[1093] _Works and Days_, 325 ff.

[1094] See above, p. 397.

[1095] See above, p. 370.

[1096] Hom. _Il._ XXIII. 69 ff.

[1097] Hom. _Od._ XI. 51 ff.

[1098] Eur. _Hec._ 1-58.

[1099] Aesch. _Eum._ 94 ff. It must be observed, however, that Clytemnestra’s restlessness is represented as being due to her being a murderess quite as much as to her having been violently slain. There was a double cause. See below, p. 474.

[1100] cap. 29.

[1101] Other references are given by Schmidt, _das Volksleben_, p. 169, among them Servius on Virg. _Aen._, IV. 386 and Heliod. _Aethiop._, II. 5.

[1102] Certain hints however are to be found, on which see below, pp. 438-9.

[1103] Aesch. _Choeph._ 480 ff.

[1104] See below, pp. 438-9.

[1105] p. 81 C, D.

[1106] _Iliad_ XXIII. 65 ff.

[1107] Eurip. _Hecuba_ 1 ff.

[1108] τοῦ ὁρατοῦ as opposed to τοῦ ἀειδοῦς τε καὶ Ἅιδου.

[1109] See above, pp. 110 ff.

[1110] See above, p. 340.

[1111] Soph. _El._ 453-4.

[1112] Aesch. _Choeph._ 480-1.

[1113] Aesch. _Ag._ 455.

[1114] Eur. _Or._ 491-541.

[1115] _Ibid._ 580 ff.

[1116] Aesch. _Choeph._ 924-5. Cf. also 293.

[1117] Soph. _El._ 445.

[1118] Aesch. _Choeph._ 439 ff.

[1119] Antiphon, pp. 119, 125, and 126.

[1120] Cf. below, p. 459.

[1121] Plato, _Leges_, 865 D, παλαιόν τινα τῶν ἀρχαίων μύθων.

[1122] The word δειμαίνει, which in this passage seems clearly transitive, is perhaps a verbal reminiscence of the old language in which Plato had heard the tradition.

[1123] Plato, _Leges_, 865 D ff.

[1124] Cf. Demosth., _in Aristocr._, pp. 634 and 643.

[1125] The word technically used of this withdrawal without formal sentence of banishment was ἀπενιαυτεῖν, or simply ἐξιέναι (cf. ὑπεξελθεῖν τῷ παθόντι in the above passage of Plato), or, as again in the same passage, ἀποξενοῦσθαι; whereas legal banishment was denoted by φεύγειν.

[1126] Plato, _Leges_, 872 D ff.

[1127] In early Greek, as witness the first line of the _Iliad_, the use of μῆνις, was less restricted than in later times; but the word, μήνιμα even in Homer occurs only, I think, in the phrase μήνιμα θεῶν. See below, p. 449.

[1128] Plato, _Phaedrus_, § 49, p. 244 D.

[1129] Cf. especially Eur. _Or._ 281-2, as pointed out by Bekker in his note on Plato, _Phaedrus_, _l.c._

[1130] Aesch. _Choeph._ 293.

[1131] Plato, _Leges_, 869 A (Bekker’s text); cf. also 869 E.

[1132] See Aesch. _Eum._ 101 and 317 ff.; cf. Eur. _Or._ 583.

[1133] _Ibid._ 94-139.

[1134] _Ibid._ 417.

[1135] Xenoph. _Cyrop._ VIII. 7, 18.

[1136] Hom. _Il._ XXII. 358.

[1137] Hom. _Od._ XI. 73.

[1138] Pind. _Pyth._ IV. 280 ff.

[1139] Cf. Plato, _Leges_, IX. _passim_, and especially p. 871.

[1140] Cf. Aesch. _Eum._ 285 and 448 ff.

[1141] Plato, _Leges_, 868 A and 871 A.

[1142] Cf. Aesch. _Eum._ 445.

[1143] Plato, _Leges_, 871 B.

[1144] _Ibid._ 865 C.

[1145] Cf. Plato, _Leges_, p. 854 A, δυσίατα καὶ ἀνίατα.

[1146] Cf. Plato, _Leges_, 866-874, _passim_.

[1147] Aesch. _Eum._ 74 ff.

[1148] Aesch. _Choeph._ 280-1.

[1149] Aesch. _Choeph._ 288-9.

[1150] Cf. especially Aesch. _Choeph._ 400 ff.

[1151] Aesch. _Eum._ 336, θανὼν δ’ οὐκ ἄγαν ἐλεύθερος.

[1152] Aesch. _Eum._ 137-9.

[1153] _Ibid._ 264-7.

[1154] _Ibid._ 328 ff., and again 343 ff.

[1155] This rendering of the word αὐονά has been challenged, but has the support of the Scholiast who explains it by the words ὁ ξηραίνων τοὺς βροτούς, (the hymn) which dries and withers men.

[1156] The tense of ταριχευθέντα in the phrase from which I started (_Choeph._ 296) is hereby explained.

[1157] Plato, _Phaedrus_, 244 E, πρός τε τὸν παρόντα καὶ τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον.

[1158] Plato’s list is ‘father, mother, brother, sister, or child,’ _Leges_, IX. 873 A.

[1159] Plato, _Leges_, IX. 873 B.

[1160] Cf. especially Tournefort, _Voyage du Levant_, I. p. 163, who was an eye-witness of such an occurrence in Myconos.

[1161] Cf. Aesch. _Eumen._ 780 ff., and (for the withdrawal of the curse) 938 ff.

[1162] Eur. _Phoen._ 1592 ff. The word here translated ‘avengers’ is ἀλάστορες, which is fully discussed below, pp. 465 ff.

[1163] Aesch. _Suppl._ 262 ff., reading in 266 μηνιτὴ δάκη, the emendation of Porson.

[1164] _l.c._ 265-6, μιάσμασιν ... μηνιτή ... ἀνῆκε.

[1165] Aesch. _Eum._ 52.

[1166] Aesch. _Eum._ 53, 137-9.

[1167] _Ibid._ 254.

[1168] _Ibid._ 75, 111, 131, 246-7.

[1169] _passim._

[1170] 183-4, 264.

[1171] _Ibid._ 780 ff., 938 ff.

[1172] _Ibid._ 644.

[1173] _Ibid._ 70, 73, 644.

[1174] Eur. _Med._ 1370.

[1175] Aesch. _Eum._ 177.

[1176] Soph. _El._ 603.

[1177] Aesch. _Eum._ 349, reading μαυροῦμεν νέον αἷμα.

[1178] Aesch. _Eum._ 236.

[1179] L. and S. s.v.

[1180] Cf. Aesch. _Choeph._ 1026 ff., and _Eumen._ _passim_.

[1181] Cf. Preller, _Griech. Mythol._, I. p. 145 (edit. 4, Carl Robert).

[1182] Clem. Alex. _Protrept._ II. § 26.

[1183] Aesch. _Pers._ 353.

[1184] This fact is recognised by Geddes in his edition of the _Phaedo_, in the course of his note (p. 280 ff.) on the difficulty concerning the words ἢ λόγου θείου τινὸς in cap. 33 (p. 85 D). He does not however infer that the words really contrasted are ἀλάστωρ and δαίμων, but claims for the particle ἢ an epexegetic sense (‘or, in other words,’) besides its usual disjunctive sense (‘or else’). I am far from being satisfied that the epexegetic use of ἢ existed at all in Classical Greek, which idiomatically employed καὶ in that way. At any rate its existence is not proved by the other passages which Geddes cites--Aesch. _Pers._ 430 and Soph. _Phil._ 934--where the ἢ perhaps equals _vel_ rather than _aut_, but has none of the epexegetic sense of _sive_.

[1185] Eur. _Med._ 1059 ff.

[1186] Eur. _Med._ 1333 ff.

[1187] Eur. _H. F._ 1229 ff.

[1188] Cf. Paley, in his note to elucidate this dialogue. It should be added however that in a second note on the same page, dealing with this line only, he apparently contradicts his previous explanation.

[1189] Eur. _H. F._ 1218 ff.

[1190] Cf. 1324.

[1191] See Eustath. on _Il._ IV. 295.

[1192] _Gk Etymol._ 547.

[1193] _Vergleichende Grammatik_, II. § 122.

[1194] The nearest parallel could only be the dubious form ἀδώτης in Hesiod, _W. and D._, 353. But that form, if correct, is probably best treated as adjective (giftless) not as substantive (non-giver).

[1195] I am indebted to Mr P. Giles, of Emmanuel College, for pointing out to me that the analogy with μιάστωρ is mentioned in the last edition of Meyer’s _Griechische Philologie_.

[1196] Hom. _Il._ IV. 295, Ἀμφὶ μέγαν Πελάγοντα, Ἀλάστορά τε, Χρόμιόν τε. The hiatus in the third foot has been made the basis of a suggestion, to which Mr P. Giles has kindly called my attention, that ἀλάστωρ should begin with a digamma. There is however no need for the supposition, since hiatus after the trochaic caesura is not infrequent (e.g. _Il._ I. 569) and some license is generally allowed in any case in the metrical treatment of proper names; moreover, in _Il._ VIII. 333, we have a line δῖος Ἀλάστωρ which makes against the original existence of a digamma in the word.

[1197] Aesch. _Eum._ 103.

[1198] Aesch. _Eum._ 114.

[1199] Aesch. _Eum._ 98.

[1200] This is distinctly stated in the passage, though of course her own violent death might equally well have been given as a cause of ‘wandering.’

[1201] Eur. _Tro._ 1023.

[1202] Cf. Plutarch, _de defect. orac._, cap. 15 (p. 418).

[1203] Aesch. _Eum._ 236, cf. above, p. 466.

[1204] Soph. _Ajax_, 373.

[1205] Demosth. _de Falsa Legat._, p. 438, 28.

[1206] Demosth. _de Corona_, § 296, p. 324.

[1207] Soph. _Trach._ 1092.

[1208] e.g. Eur. _Iph. in Aul._ 878; _Phoen._ 1550; _El._ 979; _Or._ 1668.

[1209] _Choeph._ 928.

[1210] _Electra_, 677.

[1211] Eur. _Or._ 1584.

[1212] Eur. _Andr._ 614.

[1213] Aeschines, _De falsa legatione_, § 168 (p. 49). Cf. § 162 (p. 48).

[1214] Aeschylus, _Agam._ 1587.

[1215] Plato, _Leges_, IX. p. 866 B, cf. above, p. 445.

[1216] So far as I can discover, it is a solitary example of the use in Classical Greek; but I very strongly suspect that in Antiphon, p. 127 (init.), προστρέψομαι should be read instead of προστρίψομαι. A man accused of murder is saying, ἀδίκως μὲν γὰρ ἀπολυθεὶς, διὰ τὸ μὴ ὀρθῶς διδαχθῆναι ὑμᾶς ἀποφυγὼν, τοῦ μὴ διδάξαντος καὶ οὐχ ὑμέτερον τὸν προστρόπαιον τοῦ ἀποθανόντος καταστήσω· μὴ ὀρθῶς δὲ καταληφθεὶς ὑφ’ ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν καὶ οὐ τούτῳ τὸ μήνιμα τῶν ἀλιτηρίων προστρίψομαι. The sense is, ‘If I were really guilty of this murder and yet owing to the feeble case presented by the prosecutor I were acquitted by you, my escape would bring the Avenger of the dead man upon the prosecutor and not on you; whereas, if you condemn me wrongly when I am innocent, it will be on you and not on him that I, after death, shall turn the wrath of the Avengers.’ Clearly προστρέψομαι is required to answer προστρόπαιον, and it could have no more natural object than τὸ μήνιμα, the special word denoting the wrath which follows on bloodguilt.

[1217] Photius, s.v. παλαμναῖος.

[1218] I venture upon this emphatic negation, not so much because I have found no such usage in my reading of Greek literature, as because the line of the _Eumenides_ in which Orestes calls himself ἀλάστορα, οὐ προστρόπαιον, would be hopelessly ambiguous if such an usage had been possible.

[1219] Antiphon, 119. 6.

[1220] Aesch. _Choeph._ 287.

[1221] Antiphon, 125. 32 and 126. 39.

[1222] Pausan. II. 18. 2.

[1223] Hesychius, s.v. προστρόπαιος.

[1224] Aesch. _Agam._ 1587; see above, p. 480.

[1225] Cf. Aesch. _Eum._ 283 and 450.