Chapter V: The Cult of Souls (3)

[62\5: Thus in the letter of Hipparchos, in Phlegon, 1; similarly Xen. Eph. 3, 7, 4 (see my _Griech. Roman_, p. 391 n. 2). Plato wished his Euthynoi to be buried like this on stone ~kli=nai~ (_Lg._ xii, 947 D); and this is probably how the bodies were placed in the rock burial-chambers provided with separate couches, such as occur at e.g. Rhodos and Kos {193} (see Ross, _Arch. Aufs._ ii, 384 ff., 392): cf. esp. the description given by Heusey, _Mission arch. de Macédoine_ (_Texte_), p. 257 ff., '76. It is the regular mode of burial in Etruria (following Greek models?): several skeletons have been found there lying on couches of masonry in the grave-chambers.]

[63\5: As though the dead had not entirely departed ~kai\ ho/pla kai\ skeu/ê kai\ hima/tia sunê/thê toi=s tethnêko/sin suntha/ptontes hê/dion e/chousin~ Plu., _Ne Suav. Ep._ 26, p. 1104 D. Restrictions in Law of the Labyad. (l. 19 ff.) ~ho/d' ho tethmo/s per tô=n entothêkô=n; mê\ ple/on pe/nte kai\ tria/konta drachma=n enthe/men, mê/te pria/menon mê/te woi/kô~.]

[64\5: Helbig, _Hom. Epos._ 41.]

[65\5: ~belti/ones kai\ krei/ttones~. Arist., _Eudem._ 37 [44] ap. Plu., _Cons. Apoll._ 27, p. 115 BC.]

[66\6: [Pl.] _Min._ 315 D. To raise doubts on this point is mere perversity. It is of no avail to advance the argument (which is commonly used also against the similar statements about Rome in Serv., _A._ v, 64; vi, 152) that this story only intends to explain the origin of the worship of the household _Lares_. The Greeks did not have this particular worship, or else it was so completely forgotten that no explanatory account of its origin was ever offered.--Beside the hearth and the altar of Hestia the most ancient resting place of the head of the house must have been placed too. When the wife of Phokion had had the body of her husband burnt abroad ~entheme/nê tô=| ko/lpô| ta\ osta= kai\ komi/sasa nu/ktôr eis tê\n oiki/an katô/ruxe para\ tê\n hesti/an~, Plu., _Phoc._ 37.--It was wrongly believed that in the remarkable rock-graves in the neighbourhood of the Pnyx at Athens examples of such graves situated inside the house had been discovered. See Milchhöfer in Baumeister's _Denkm._ 153b.]

[67\5: This occurs among the New Zealanders, Eskimos, etc.; cf. Lubbock, _Prehistoric Times_, pp. **465, 511, etc.]

[68\5: In Sparta and Tarentum: see Becker, _Char._^2 iii, 105 (E.T.^3 p. 393). Acc. to Klearch. ap. Ath. 522 F certain men of Tarentum were struck by lightning and killed; they were then buried ~pro\ tô=n thurô=n~ of their houses and ~stê=lai~ were put up in their honour. If they had really been the criminals that legend made them it would have been impossible, even in Tarentum, for them to have been buried within the walls of the city, still less before the doors of their houses--an honour given only to Heroes; cf. above, chap. iv, n. 136. The violent alteration of ~pro\ tô=n thurô=n~ into ~pro\ tô=n pulô=n~ in order to avoid this difficulty, is obviously rendered untenable by the previous ~heka/stê tô=n oikiô=n ho/sous ktl.~ The legend is evidently a fiction and these ~dio/blêtoi~ (to whom it appears, as Heroes, neither the funeral dirge nor the usual ~choai/~ were offered) must have belonged to the class of those whom death by the flash of lightning raised to a higher and honoured rank (see _Append._ 1). Thus, too, the graves in the market at Megara mentioned by Becker must have been Hero-graves: see above, chap. iv, n. 83. These cases where the graves of Heroes are found in the middle of the city, in the market place, etc., show very plainly the essential difference that was held to exist between the Heroes and the ordinary dead.]

[69\5: The ~mnê=ma koino\n pa=si toi=s apo\ Bouse/lou genome/nois~ was a ~polu\s to/pos peribeblême/nos, hô/sper hoi archai=oi eno/mizon~: D. 43, 79. The Bouselidai composed not a ~ge/nos~, but a group of five ~oi=koi~ bound together by definitely traceable ties of kinship. The members of a ~ge/nos~ in its political sense no longer held graves in common possession: see Meier, _de gentil. Att._ 33; Dittenb., _Hermes_, 20, 4. The ~Kimô/neia {194} mnê/mata~ were also family-graves: Plu., _Cim._ 4, Marcellin. _V. Th._ 17, Plu., _X Or._, p. 838 B. It was always insisted on, for obvious reasons, that no stranger to the family should be laid in the family grave. But just as the penal clauses so often inscribed on graves of a later period were necessary to prevent the burial of strangers in those graves, so too Solon had to make a law in respect of graves ne quis alienum inferat: Cic., _Lg._ ii, 64.]

[70\5: The speaker in Dem. 55, 13 ff., mentions the ~palaia\ mnê/mata~ of the ~pro/gonoi~ of the earlier possessors of his ~chôri/on~ (country-estate). This custom of burying the family dead in the private ground of the family ~kai\ toi=s a/llois chôri/ois sumbe/bêke~. Timarchos is asked by his mother ~to\ Alôpe/kê|si chôri/on~ (which lay 11 or 12 stades away from the city walls) ~_entaphê=nai_ hupolipei=n autê=|~ (in spite of which he sold it): Aeschin., _Tim._ 99. Examples in East Attica of walled-in family cemeteries with room for many graves: Belger, _Localsage von den Gräbern Agamem._, etc. (Progr. Berl. 1893), pp. 40-2. It was thus the very general custom to keep the family graves on their own ground and soil; and this corresponds closely enough with the oldest custom of all, that of burying the master of the house in his own home.--In Plu., _Arist._ 1, Demetr. Phal. mentions an ~Aristei/dou chôri/on en hô=| te/thaptai~ in Phaleron.]

[71\5: Restriction of the growing magnificence of grave columns in Athens made by Demetr. Phal., Cic., _Lg._ ii, 66. (Penal clauses ~ei/ ti/s ka tha/[ptê| ê\ epi/]stama ephista=| ktl.~ in a law from Nisyros [_Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1896, pp. 190, 420]: they probably do not refer to a general prohibition of tombstones altogether.)]

[72\5: Cf. Curtius, _Z. Ges. Wegebaus Gr._, p. 262.]

[73\5: Nemora aptabant sepulcris ut in amoenitate animae forent post vitam: Serv., _A._ v, 760. In lucis habitabant manes piorum: iii, 302; cf. ad i, 441; vi, 673. "My grave is in a grove, the pleasant haunt of birds," says a dead man ~o/phra kai\ ein A/ïdi terpno\n e/choimi to/pon~, _Epigr. Gr._ 546, 5-14.]

[74\5: Cf. the ins. from Keos, _SIG._ 877, 8-9. Eur. _IT._ 633 ff.: ~xanthô=| t' elai/ô| sô=ma so\n katasbe/sô, kai\ **. . . ga/nos xouthê=s meli/ssês es pura\n balô=~.]

[75\5: ~enagi/zein de\ bou=n ouk ei/asen~, Plu., _Sol._ 21.]

[76\5: ~prosphagi/ô|~ (at the funeral) ~chrê=sthai kata\ ta\ pa/tria~, _SIG._ 877, 13. In general, however, the sacrifice of animals at the graves of private individuals gradually became rarer and rarer: see Stengel, _Chthon. u. Todt._ 430 f.]

[77\5: Cf. esp. the ins. from Keos, l. 15 ff., 30. The ~egchutri/striai~ employed in old Athenian usage, [Pl.] _Min._ 315 C, seem to have been women who caught the blood of the sacrificed animals in bowls and purified the ~miaino/menoi~ with it. The name itself suggests it; to this effect is one among several other, clearly mistaken, explanations given by the Schol. to _Min._, loc. cit. (differently Sch. Ar., _Vesp._ 289).]

[78\5: ~peri\ ta\ pe/nthê . . . homopathei/a| tou= kekmêko/tos kolobou=men hêma=s autou\s tê=| te koura=| tô=n trichô=n kai\ tê=| tô=n stepha/nôn aphaire/sei~, Arist. _fr._ 108 (101) Rose.]

[79\5: ~peri/deipnon~. This is implied as universally occurring by Aen. Tact. 10, 5. This meal shared by the relatives (who alone are invited: Dem. 43, 62) must be meant by Heraklid., _Pol._ 30, 2, ~para\ toi=s Lo/krois odu/resthai ouk e/stin epi\ toi=s teleutê/sasin, all' epeida\n ekkomi/sôsin euôchou=ntai~.]

[80\5: ~hê hupodochê\ gi/gnetai hupo\ tou= apothano/ntos~, Artemid. 5, 82, p. 271, 10 H.]

[81\5: Cic., _Lg._ ii, 63 (cf. **~le/gein epide/xia epi\ tethnêko/ti~, Anaxandr. ap. Ath. 464 A.). On the other {195} hand, mentiri nefas erat. And yet ~eiô/thesan hoi palaioi\ en toi=s peridei/pnois to\n teleutêko/ta epainei=n, kai\ ei phau=los ê=n~, Zenob. v, 28, and other Paroemiogr.--Besides this the lamentation for the dead may have been renewed at the various commemorations of the dead; the funeral regulation of the Labyadai at Delphi forbids expressly (not the festival but) the funeral dirge on such occasions: l. 46 ff. ~mêde\ ta=| husterai/a|~ (after the burial, on which day the ~peri/deipnon~ was held) ~mêde\ en tai=s deka/tais mêd' en toi=s eniautoi=[s]~ (we should expect rather ~en t. _eniauti/ois_~, cf. nn. 88-92 of this chap.) ~mê/t' oimô/zen mê/t' ototu/zen~.]

[82\5: These meals given to the dead took place at the grave itself. Ar., _Lys._ 612 f. ~hê/xei soi . . .~; Is. 8, 39, ~ta\ e/nata epê/negka~.]

[83\5: The ~tri/ta~ and ~e/nata~, at any rate, were held on the third and ninth days after the funeral, and not after the day of death. It is true the references to these sacrifices in Ar., _Lys._ 612 ff., Is., etc., do not make this very clear. But if the ~tri/ta~ had taken place on the third day after death it would have coincided with the ~ekphora/~ itself, which is against all the evidence. Further, the Roman _novemdiale_, which was clearly modelled on Greek custom, also occurred on the ninth day after the burial, acc. to the unequivocal testimony of Porph. on Hor., _Epod._ xvii, 48 (nona die quam sepultus est). This is also deducible from Vg., _A._ v, 46 ff., and 105; cf. also Ap., _M._ ix, 31.]

[84\5: That this was the object of the Novemdialia festival at Rome is shown clearly enough by the evidence; that the same was true of Greece is at least highly probable; cf. K. O. Müller, _Aesch. Eum._, p. 143 [120 E.T.]. Leist, _Graecoitalische Rechts._, p. 34.--Nine is evidently a round number, esp. in Homer; i.e. the division of periods of time into groups of nine was in antiquity a very common and familiar practice. Cf. now, Kaegi, _Die Neunzahl bei den Ostariern_, Phil. Abh. f. Schweitzer-Sidler, 50 ff. Mourning customs were really intended to ward off maleficent action on the part of the dead. They lasted as a rule as long as the return of the soul of the dead was to be feared (esp. so in India: see Oldenberg, _Rel. d. Veda_, p. 589), and acc. to ancient belief the soul can return once more on the ninth day after death. See below, chap. xiv, ii, n. 154.]

[85\5: A ~chro/nos pe/nthous~ of eleven days, the mourning concluded with a sacrifice to Demeter: Plu., _Lyc._ 27; cf. Hdt. vi, 58 fin. The Labyadai at Delphi celebrate the _tenth_ day after the funeral as a feast of the dead; see above, n. 81 of this chapter. This mourning period is not otherwise demonstrable for Greece (_SIG._ 633, 5, is different), but it is met with again among the Indians and Persians (cf. Kaegi, p. 5, 11), and may be primitive.]

[86\5: Lex. Rh., in _AB._ 268, 19 ff.; Phot. a little differently: ~kathe/dra; tê=| triakostê=| (prô/tê|~ Phot.: ~A~ instead of ~L~) ~hême/ra| tou= apothano/ntos hoi prosê/kontes suneltho/ntes koinê=| edeipnou=n epi\ tô=| apothano/nti--kai\ tou=to kathe/dra ekalei=to~ (Phot. adds: ~ho/ti kathezo/menoi edei/pnoun kai\ ta\ nomizo/mena eplê/roun;) ê=san de\ kathe/drai te/ssares~ (the last clause is absent from Phot.) It was a meal shared by the relatives of the dead in honour of the dead and held "on the thirtieth day"; possibly nothing more nor less than the oft-mentioned ~triaka/des~. The guests eat their food _sitting_ after the old custom prevailing in Homeric times and always observed by women; as applied to men it survived in Crete only, see Müller, _Dorians_, ii, 284. Perhaps this primitive attitude preserved in cultus is what we see in the Spartan sculptured reliefs representing "feasts of the dead" where the figures are _seated_. There were four such ~kathe/drai~, i.e. the period of mourning extended over four months: thus it was the law in Gambreion (_SIG._ 879, 11 ff.) that {196} mourning might last at the most three months, or in the case of women four. We often hear of monthly repetitions of the feasts of the dead: monthly celebration of the ~eika/des~ for Epicurus in acc. with his will, D.L. x, 18; cf. Cic., _Fin._ ii, 101; Plin. 35, 5; ~kata\ mê=na~ sacrifice to the deified Ptolemies, _CIG._ 4697, 48. (In India, too, the sacrifices to the dead on the thirtieth of the month were several times repeated: Kaegi, 7; 11.)]

[87\5: The Lexicographers, Harp., Phot., etc. (_AB._ 308, 5, is ambiguous, too), speak of the ~triaka/s~ in a way that makes it hard to see whether they mean the traditional sacrifice of the dead taking place regularly on the thirtieth day of the month, or a special offering on the thirtieth day after burial or after the day of death (~hê triakostê\ hême/ra dia\ tou= thana/tou~ Harp., Phot. ~meta\ tha/naton~ is the correction of Schömann on Is., p. 219, but ~dia\ thana/tou~ is formed, not quite correctly, on the analogy of ~dia\ chro/nou, dia\ me/sou~ [even ~dia\ progo/nôn~ "since the time of our forefathers", Polyb. 21, 21, 4], and must mean the same thing, viz. "after death"). But in Lys. 1, 14, we have the idea clearly expressed that the period of mourning should last till the thirtieth day (see Becker, _Char._^2 3, 117 E.T.^3, p. 398), and in this case it is natural to suppose that the ~triaka/des~ corresponding with the ~tri/ta~ and ~e/nata~, took place on the thirtieth day after burial. So, too, the ins. from Keos, _SIG._ 877, 21, ~epi\ tô=| thano/nti triêko/stia mê\ poiei=n~. For Argos see Plu., _Q. Gr._ 24, p. 296 F. It is evident that the ~triaka/des~ were not so firmly established in Athens (at least in the fourth century) as the ~tri/ta~ and ~e/nata~: e.g. Isaeus generally only refers to these last as the indispensable ~nomizo/mena~: 2, 36-7; 8, 39. It appears also that it is wrong to regard the ~triaka/des~ as otherwise exactly on a footing with the ~tr.~ and ~e/nata~, as is generally done. The last-mentioned pair were sacrifices to the dead, the ~triaka/des~ seems to have been a commemorative banquet of the living.--These fixed periods of mourning like so much else in the cult of the dead may have been handed down by tradition from a very early time. The third, ninth (or tenth), and thirtieth days after the funeral marked stages in the gradually diminishing "uncleanness" of the relatives of the dead, and this existed, it appears, already in "Indo-Germanic" times. Until the ninth day the relatives were still in contact with the departed and were consequently "unclean"; the thirtieth day puts an end to this, and is a memorial festival (though often repeated); cf. Kaegi, pp. 5, 10, 12 (of the separate edition); Oldenberg, 578. In Christian usage, sanctioned by the church, the third, ninth, and fortieth days after death or after burial were very early observed as memorial days (sometimes third, seventh, thirtieth; cf. Rochholz, _D. Gl. u. Brauch_, i, 203), and survive in some cases to the present day: see _Ac. Soc. ph. Lips._ v, 304 f.]

[88\5: ~ta\ neku/sia tê=| triaka/di a/getai~: Plu., _Prov. Alex._ viii, p. 6, 10 Crus. (App. prov. Vat. in Schneidewin's Crit. App. to Diogen. viii, 39). There was a festival kept by servants in honour of their dead masters (~allathea/des~, _GDI._ 1731, 10; 1775, 29; 1796, 6) twice monthly, at the ~_noumêni/a_~ and on the seventh: _GDI._ 1801, 6-7 Delphi. The last three days of the month are at Athens sacred to the inhabitants of the lower world and therefore ~apophra/des~: _EM._ 131, 13 f.; _E. Gud._ 70, 3 ff.; cf. Lys., _fr._ 53. On these days banquets were prepared, at the crossroads, etc., for Hekate (acc. to Ath. 325 A, for Hekate ~kai\ toi=s apotropai/ois~ (Plu., _Symp._ 7, 6, p. 709 A). The souls of the dead were then not forgotten. Sch. Pl., _Lg._ vii, 800 D, ~apophra/des hême/rai en hai=s toi=s katoichome/nois choa\s epiphe/rousin~.] {197}

[89\5: The son ~enagi/zei kath' he/kaston eniauto/n~ to his dead father, Is. 2, 46. This sacrifice to the dead, celebrated once every year (~thusi/a epe/teios~ offered by a ~pai=s patri/~), is the festival of the _~Gene/sia~_, in vogue acc. to Hdt. iv, 26, among the Greeks, everywhere as it appears. As the name shows this festival fell on the birthday of the honoured ancestor as it recurred (not on the day of his death as Amm. pp. 34-5 Valck. incorrectly says); cf. Schol. Pl., _Alc._ i, 121 C. So Epicurus in his will (D.L. x, 18) provides for a yearly celebration of his birthday. (Similar foundation, _CIG._ 3417.) The Koans ~enagi/zousi~ to Hippokrates every year on the 27th Agrianos as his birthday: Soran., _V.Hp._, p. 450, 13-14 West. Hero-festivals, too, fall on the birthday of the Hero: Plu., _Arat._ 53. Gods have their feast-days and their birthdays combined; thus Hermes has his on the 4th of the month, Artemis on the 6th, Apollo on the 7th, and so on. These are birthday festivals repeated every month. In the second century at Sestos, following such precedents, there was held ~ta\ gene/thlia tou= basile/ôs~ (one of the deified Attalids) ~kath' he/kaston mê=na~: _SIG._^1 246, 36. Celebration of the ~e/mmênos gene/sios~ of the ruling Emperor: _Ins. Perg._ ii, 374 B, 14. Even in later times in imitation of heathen usage the Kephallenians still honour Epiphanes, son of Karpokrates, ~kata\ _noumêni/an, gene/thlion_ apothe/ôsin~, Clem. Al., _Str._ iii, p. 511 P.]

[90\5: This is the public festival meant by Phryn., p. 103 Lob. = 83, p. 184 Ruth., when, to distinguish it from the birthday celebrations of living persons, ~gene/thlia~ (which did not become common till later), he calls the ~Gene/sia, Athê/nêsin heortê/ [pe/nthimos~ add. Meursius; cf. Hesych. ~gene/sia~; _AB._ 231, 19]. The Antiatticista, in his rather absurd polemic against Phryn. (p. 86, 20 ff.), adds the still clearer statement (taken from Solon's ~a/xones~ and Philochoros) that the ~heortê\ dêmotelê/s~ of the ~Gene/sia~ at Athens was held on the 5th Boedromion. There is not the slightest reason for doubting the correctness of this statement (as many have done). In Rome, too, besides the many moveable _parentalia_ of the families there was an official and public Parentalia held every year (in Feb.). Similarly in ancient India: Oldenberg, 550, 3.]

[91\5: The ~Neme/seia~ is mentioned by Dem. 41, 11. The context suggests a rite performed by a daughter in honour of her dead father. It is a quite certainly correct _conjecture_ (~mê/pote--~) of the Lexicog. that the _Nemeseia_ may be a festival of the dead (see Harp. s.v. _AB._ 282, 32: both glosses combined in Phot. Suid. ~neme/sia~). It is clear, however, that they knew nothing further about it. Mommsen declares (_Heort._ 209) the _Nemeseia_ to have been "without doubt" identical with the ~Gene/sia~. I see no reason at all for supposing so.--The name ~neme/seia~ characterizes it as a festival dedicated to the "wrath" of the dead, to the ~ne/mesis tô=n thano/ntôn~, Soph., _El._ 792; ~phthime/nôn ôkuta/tê ne/mesis~, _Epigr. Gr._ 119; cf. 195--this easily becomes a personified ~Ne/mesis~: ~e/sti ga\r en phthime/nois Ne/mesis me/ga~, _Epigr. Gr._ 367, 9. The cult of the dead, like the cult of the underworld in general, is always apotropaic in character (placantur sacrificiis ne noceant, Serv., _A._ iii, 63): the Nemeseia must then have been apotropaic in intention too.]

[92\5: At Apollonia in Chalcidice there was a yearly custom to ~ta\ no/mima suntelei=n toi=s teleutê/sasin~ in early times in Elaphebolion, later in Anthesterion: Hegesand. ap. Ath. 334 F.--~eniau/sia~, a yearly festival of the dead (but perhaps rather to be taken as _sacra privata_) in Keos: _SIG._ 878.--There is a month called ~Neku/sios~ in Knossos (and common to the whole of Crete acc. to the ~Hêmerolo/gion~ Flor. [Corsini, _Fast. Att._ ii, 428]). It took its name from a feast of the dead (~neku/sia~ is mentioned along with ~peri/deipna~, as a regular expression by Artemid. {193} iv, 81, p. 249, 9 H.): for this see "Treaties of Kretan cities", _BCH._ 1879, 294, l. 56 f.--There was a month ~Agriô/nios~ or ~Agria/nios~ in Boeotia and even in Byzantium, Kalymna, Kos, Rhodos: Hesych. ~Agria/nia; _neku/sia_ para\ Argei/ois kai\ agô=nes en _Thê/bais_~ (as to the _Agon_ at the A. see the ins. from Thebes, _Ath. Mitt._ vii, 349).--~etelei=to de\ kai\ thusi/a toi=s nekroi=s en Kori/nthô|, di' hê\n tê=s po/leôs en toi=s mnê/masin ou/sês epe/rchetai ho Alê/tês ktl.~ Sch. Pi. _N._ vii, 155.]

[93\5: Hesych. ~miarai\ hême/rai~. Phot. ~miara\ hême/ra~.]

[94\5: ~sugkleisthê=nai ta\ hiera\~ during the _Choes_: Phanodem. ap. Ath. 437 C.]

[95\5: Phot. ~miara\ hême/ra; en toi=s Chousi\n Anthestêriô=nos mêno/s, en hô=|~ (~en hoi=s~?) ~dokou=sin hai psuchai\ tô=n teleutêsa/ntôn anie/nai, rha/mnon he/ôthen emasô=nto, kai\ pi/ttê| ta\s thu/ras e/chrion. Rha/mnos; phuto/n, ho\ en toi=s Chousi\n hôs alexipha/rmakon emasô=nto he/ôthen; kai\ pi/ttê| echri/onto ta\ sô/mata~ (leg. ~dô/mata); ami/antos ga\r hau/tê; dio\ kai\ en **tai=s gene/sesi tô=n paidi/ôn chri/ousi ta\s oiki/as eis ape/lasin tô=n daimo/nôn~.--I do not recollect having read elsewhere of pitch as a protection against malevolent spirits or of its use in Greek superstitious practices. (The _flame_ and _smoke_ of burning pitch--and of ~a/sphaltos~: Diph. _fr._ 126 [ii, p. 577 K.] ap. Clem. Al. _Str._ 7, 4, 26, p. 844 P.--as of sulphur, belong to the region of magic and are ~katharmoi/~: but that is a different matter.--~ta\ katha/rsia; tau=ta de/ esti da=|des kai\ thei=on kai\ a/sphaltos~, Zos. ii, 5, p. 67, 19 Bk.). Better known is the magic protective power of the ~rha/mnos~. It is of use against ~pha/rmaka~ and ~phanta/smata~, and is therefore hung up on the doors ~en toi=s enagi/smasi~: Sch. Nic., _Th._ 860 (Euphorion and Sophnon had also referred to this superstition). Cf. Anon., _de Vir. Herb._ 9-13, 20 ff., and the Scholia (p. 486, ed. Haupt., _Opusc._ 2); also Dioscorides i, 119 fin. (~rha/mnos~ also frightens away poisonous beasts: Diosc. iii, 12. In the same way marjoram and scilla are equally available against daimones and ~iobo/la~.) At Rome the hawthorn (_spina alba_) is specially known for these purificatory properties. Ovid, _F._ vi, 129 (at a wedding procession a torch made of a branch of the _spina alba_ is used [Fest. 245_a_, 3 Mü.], and this is _purgationis causa_: Varro ap. Charis., p. 144, 22 K.).--At the _Choes_ the ~rha/mnos~ (i.e. twigs or leaves of it) is _chewed_: this is in order that its powers may be absorbed into the chewer's own body. The Superstitious man (like the Pythia) puts laurel leaves in his mouth ~kai\ hou/tô tê\n hême/ran peripatei=~: also at the _Choes_? Thphr., _Ch._ 16. The laurel in addition to its other marvellous properties can also drive off spirits: ~e/ntha a\n hê=| da/phnê, ekpodô\n dai/mones~, _Gp._ 11, 2, 5-7. Lyd., _Mens._ 4, 4, p. 68, 9 Wü.]

[96\5: Sch. Ar., _Ach._ 961, p. 26, 8 ff. Dübn.--At the ~nekrô=n dei=pna~ the souls of the departed members of the family are summoned by the ~prosê/kontes~ to come and take their share (with the single exception of those who have hanged themselves): Artemid. i, 4, p. 11, 10 f. H. (cf. what is said of the ~neku/sia~ in Bithynia by Arr. ap. Eust., ~i~ 65, p. 1615). The same thing must have happened at the Anthesteria.]

[97\5: Worshippers offered the ~chu/tran panspermi/as~ to Hermes ~hilasko/menoi to\n Hermê=n kai\ peri\ tô=n apothano/ntôn~, Sch. Ar., _Ach._ 1076 (Didymus from Theopomp.)--~tou\s to/te paragenome/nous~ (read ~periginome/nous~, viz. from the Flood) ~hupe\r tô=n apothano/ntôn hila/sasthai to\n Hermê=n~, Sch. Ar., _Ran._ 218 (after Theop.). The offering was merely placed ready for the recipients (not sent up to heaven in flames and smoke) as was customary at the Theoxenia (esp. those in honour of chthonic deities) and in offerings made to Heroes. The ~Heka/tês dei=pna~ were similar, and particularly the offerings to the Erinyes: ~ta\ pempo/mena autai=s hiera\ po/pana kai\ ga/la en a/ggesi keramei/ois~, Sch. Aeschin. i, 188.] {199}

[98\5: _EM._ 774, 56: ~Hudropho/ria; heortê\ Athê/nêsi pe/nthimos~ (so far Hesych. too, s.v.) ~epi\ toi=s en tô=| kataklusmô=| apolome/nois~. The feast of _Chytrai_ was also supposed to have been a commemoration of Deucalion's Flood. The flood was said to have subsided finally through a cleft in the earth in the Temple of ~Gê= Olumpi/a~: Paus. 1, 18, 7. Pausanias adds, ~esba/llousin es auto\~ (the chasm) ~ana\ pa=n e/tos a/lphita purô=n me/liti ma/xantes~. It is at least natural, with Preller, _Dem. u. Pers._ 229, n., to see in the _Hydrophoria_ a part of which is described by Pausanias, a festival related to the Chytrai. Connexion of the dead with ~Gê=~ in the ~Gene/sia~ too: Hesych. s.v.--~Hudropho/ria~ a feast of Apollo at Aegina: Sch. Pi., _N._ v, 81 (fanciful remarks thereon by K. O. Müller, in _Aesch. Eum._, p. 141 [116 E.T.]).]

[99\5: Ovid's account of the _Lemuria_ at Rome, _F._ v, shows the closest resemblances to the Athen. customs. The spirits are finally driven out: Manes exite paterni! (443). The same happens in the festivals of the dead in many places: esp. in India, Oldenberg, 553; cf. also the Esthonian customs: Grimm, p. 1844, n. 42. A parallel from ancient Prussia is given (after Joh. Meletius, 1551) by Ch. Hartknoch, in _Alt- u. Neues Preussen_, 1684, pp. 187-8. There on the third, sixth, ninth, and fortieth day after the funeral a banquet of the relatives of the dead was held. The souls of the dead were invited and (with other souls as well) entertained. "When the feasting was ended the priest rose from the table and swept out the house, driving forth the souls of the dead as though he were driving out fleas, saying the while: 'Ye have eaten and drunk, O ye Blessed Ones, depart hence! depart hence!'" At the close of the lantern-feast to the dead in Nagasaki (Japan) when the entertainment of the souls was over a great noise was made all over the house "so that no single soul should remain behind and haunt the place--they must be driven out without mercy": _Preuss. Exped. nach Ostasien_, ii, 22. Other examples of the expulsion of souls given in Tylor, ii, 199. The ghosts were thought of in a thoroughly materialistic fashion, and driven out by waving clubs in the air, swinging torches, etc., as in the case of the ~xenikoi\ theoi/~ of the Kaunians: Hdt. i, 172. Compare with this the prayers addressed to Herakles in the Orphic Hymns (reproducing ancient superstitions as frequently): ~elthe\ ma/kar . . . exe/lason de\ kaka\s _a/tas, kla/don en cheri\ pa/llôn_, ptênoi=s t' iobo/lois _kê=ras_ chalepa\s apo/pempe~ (12, 15-16). It will be clear how near such personified ~a=tai~ and ~kê=res~ are to the angry "souls", from which in fact they have arisen; cf. besides, Orph., _H._ 11, 23; 14, 14; 36, 16; 71, 11.--~kê=ras apodiopompei=sthai~, Plu., _Lys._ 17.]

[100\5: ~thu/raze _Kê=res_, ouk e/t' Anthestê/ria~. This is the correct wording of the formula; ~Ka=res~ the form common later and explained with mistaken ingenuity. Photius has it right and explains, ~hôs kata\ tê\n po/lin toi=s Anthestêri/ous tô=n _psuchô=n_ perierchome/nôn.--Kê=res~--is clearly a most primitive equivalent for ~psuchai/~ which has become almost completely obscured in Homer, though it dimly appears in ~B~ 302, ~x~ 207, where the ~Kê=res~ are spoken of as those who carry away other ~psuchai/~ to Hades. Aeschylus knew it (presumably from old Attic speech) and simply substituted ~psuchai/~ for the Keres in the fate-weighing scene in Homer, thus turning the Kerostasia into a ~Psuchostasi/a~ (to the surprise of the Schol. A, ~Th~ 70; A.B. ~Ch~ 209). See O. Crusius in Ersch-Gruber, "Keren," 2, 35, 265-7 [Aesch. _fr._ 279 Sidg.].]

[101\5: Cf. the collections in Pottier, _Les lécythes blancs attiques à représ. funér._, p. 57, 70 ff.]

[102\5: Though not all of them, some at any rate of the scenes in which {200} lyre-playing at a grave is represented on a lekythos are to be taken as implying that the living provide music for the entertainment of the dead: see Furtwängler on the _Sammlung Saburoff._ i, Pl. lx.]

[103\5: See **Benndorf, _Sicil. u. unterital. Vasenb._, p. 33.]

[104\5: How the mode of conceiving the spiritual activity of the dead and consequently the cult of the dead was at first more solemn and awestruck and completely on a par with the cult of the ~chtho/nioi~; how in the course of time the relations of the living to the departed became more familiar and the cult of the dead correspondingly less awe-inspiring, more piously protective in character than apotropaic--all this is set out in more detail by P. Stengel, _Chthonisch. u. Todtencult_ [Festschrift für Friedländer], p. 414 ff.]

[105\5: The reliefs represent a man enthroned, sometimes alone, sometimes with a woman beside him, stretching out a kantharos to receive the offerings. As a rule he is approached by a group of worshippers represented on a smaller scale. The earliest examples of these reliefs were found in Sparta and go back to the sixth century. Since the investigations of Milchhöfer especially, they are now generally recognised as representing the family worship of the dead. They are the forerunners of the representations of similar food-offerings in which (following later custom) the Hero is lying on a _kline_ and receiving his worshippers. (That this class of reliefs representing "banquets of the dead" was also sacrificial in character is proved clearly by the presence of the worshippers who in many cases lead sacrificial victims. H. v. Fritze in _Ath. Mitt._ '96, p. 347 ff., supposes that they are intended to represent not sacrifices but the ~sumpo/sion~ which the dead person is to enjoy in the after life. But he can only account for the presence of the worshippers in such a forced and unnatural way [p. 356 ff.], that this alone seems to refute his theory. ~purami/des~ and incense among the offerings made do not by any means contradict its nature as a sacrifice to the dead.) The same is the meaning of the reliefs found esp. in Boeotia in which the person worshipped is seated on a horse, or leading a horse, and accepting offerings (summary by Wolters, _Archäol. Zeitung_, 1882, p. 299 ff.; cf. also Gardner, _JHS._ 1884, pp. 107-42; Furtwängler, _Samml. Sab._ i, p. 23). The worshippers bring pomegranates, a cock (e.g. _Ath. Mitt._ ii, Pl. 20-2), a pig (cock and pig on Theban relief: _A. Mitt._ iii, 377; pig on Boeotian rel.: _A. Mitt._ iv, Pl. 17, 2), a ram (rel. from Patras: _A. Mitt._ iv, 125 f.; cf. the ram's head on a grave monument from the neighbourhood of Argos, _A. Mitt._ viii, 141). All these gifts are of the kind proper to the underworld. We know the pomegranate as food of the ~chtho/nioi~ from the Hymn to Demeter; the pig and ram are the main constituents of sacrifice made to the ~chtho/nioi~ and burnt in cathartic or hilastic (propitiatory) ceremonial. In such cases the cock, of course, does not appear because it was sacred to Helios and Selene (cf. D.L. viii, 34; Iamb., _VP._ 84), but because it was a sacrificial animal of the ~chtho/nioi~ (and of Asklepios) and for the same reason much used in necromancy, spirit-raising, and magic [Dieterich, _Pap. mag._ 185, 3]. As such it was forbidden food to the Mystai of Demeter at Eleusis: Porph., _Abs._ 4, 16, p. 255, 5 N. Sch. Luc., _D. Me._ 7, 4, p. 280, 23 Rabe--Anyone who partakes of the food of the underworld spirits is forfeit to them. On their side the reclining or enthroned spirits of the dead on these reliefs are brought into conjunction with a snake (_A. Mitt._ ii, Pl. 20-2; viii, Pl. 18, 1, etc.), a dog, or a horse (sometimes a horse's head only occurs). The snake is the well-known symbol of the Hero: the {201} dog and the horse certainly do not represent victims as Gardner, p. 131, thinks--their real meaning has not yet been made out. The horse occurs sometimes by the side of women and therefore can hardly symbolize a knight's status. I regard it as also a symbol of the departed as now having entered the spirit-world, like the snake too (Grimm understands it differently: p. 841 f., 844). I can form no decided opinion as to the dog: it is not likely to be mere genre--any more than anything else in these sculptures.]

[106\5: The ~choai/, ha/per nekroi=si meiliktê/ria~, of wine, honey, water, or oil, which are offered in Tragedy by children at the grave of a father--A. _Pers._ 609 ff.; _Ch._ 84 ff.; E., _IT._ 159 ff.--are modelled upon the food offerings to the dead in real life. Honey and water (~meli/kraton~) were always the chief ingredients: cf. Stengel, _Philolog._ 39, 378 ff.; _Jahr. f. Phil._ 1887, p. 653. The ritual at the pouring of an ~apo/nimma~--essentially a cathartic libation-sacrifice but also offered ~eis timê\n toi=s nekroi=s~ is described by Kleidemos ~en tô=| Exêgêtikô=|~ (the quotation is not complete, Ath. 409 E f. (Striking similarities in ritual and language in Indian sacrifice to the dead: Oldenberg, _Rel. d. Ved._ 550. Something extremely primitive may be preserved in these uses.) The same is the meaning of the ~chtho/nia loutra\ toi=s nekroi=s epiphero/mena~, Zenob. vi, 45, etc. These things have nothing to do with the ~Hudropho/ria~, as some have thought.]

[107\5: The regular animal used as victim in ~enagi/smata~ for the dead is a sheep; other animals occur less frequently. The black colour is general; the sacrifice was burnt completely: cf. the instances collected by Stengel, _Ztschr. f. Gymnasi._, 1880, p. 743 f., _Jahrb. f. Phil._ 1882, p. 322 f.; '83, p. 375.--Phot. ~kausto/n; karpôto\n ho\ enagi/zetai toi=s teteleutêko/sin~ (cf. Hesych. ~kauto/n~).--The ~se/linon~ (a plant sacred to the dead; see above, n. 40) probably served as food for the dead at the ~tri/ta~ and other banquets "of the dead", and was not used as food for the living at the ~peri/deipnon~; consequently it might never be used at the meals of the living: Plin. 20, 113, following Chrysippos and Dionysios. (In the mysteries of the Kabeiroi the ~anaktotele/stai~ had a special reason of their own for forbidding parsley ~auto/rizon epi\ trape/zês tithe/nai~, Clem. Al., _Protr._ ii, p. 16 P.)]

[108\5: The food offered is a meal for the dead: A., _Ch._ 483 ff. (cf. Luc., _Luct._ 9; _Char._ 22). The dead man is summoned to come and drink the offerings (~elthe\ d' hôs pi/ê|s~): E., _Hec._ 535 ff. It was the general opinion that ~ho nekro\s pi/etai~ of the drink offerings (_AP._ xi, 8; _Epigr. Gr._ 646, 12), ~hai ga\r choai\ parapsuchê/ tis eisephe/reto toi=s eidô/lois tô=n teteleutêko/tôn ktl.~ Lyd., _Mens._ 4, 31, p. 90 Wü.]

[109\5: It feels when friends or enemies approach its grave: Is. 9, 4, 19.]

[110\5: Sch. Ar., _Av._ 1490 (referring to the ~Titano/panes~ of Myrtilos, a poet of the Old Comedy). Phot. ~krei/ttones~ (Hesych. ~krei/ttonas~) ~hoi hê/rôes; dokou=si de\ kakôtikoi\ ei=nai; di' ho\ kai\ hoi ta\ hêrô=|a pario/ntes siôpô=sin. (hê/rôes~ and ~hêrô=|a~ here, in accordance with the usage common in later times, simply = ~teteleutêko/tes~ and ~mnê/mata~ of the usual kind.) Since a Hero in the higher sense was buried there it was customary to pass in silence the monument, e.g., of Narkissos, ~hê/rôs Sigêlo/s~: Str. 404 (so also the grove and chasm of Kolonos where the Erinyes dwell: S., _OC._ 130 ff.). The feeling underlying this is easy to understand, and the custom therefore is widespread: e.g. among West African negroes, Réville, _Relig. des peuples non civil._ i, 73. It is a German superstition (Grimm, p. 1811, n. 830). "Never call the dead by name or you may _cry them up_".]

[111\5: Pl., _Phd._ 81 CD. The ~psuchê/ . . . hô/sper le/getai peri\ ta\ mnê/mata/ te {202} kai\ tou\s ta/phous kulindome/nê; peri\ ha\ dê\ kai\ _ô/phthê_ a/tta psuchô=n skioeidê= phanta/smata, ktl.~]

[112\5: See O. Jahn, _Archäol. Beitr._ 128 ff.; Benndorf, _Griech. u. sicil. Vasenb._, p. 33 f., p. 65 (on Pl. 14, 32); also Pottier, _Lécythes blancs_, p. 65, 2 (who proposes a doubtful theory of a supposed _Éros funèbre_, p. 76 ff.).]

[113\5: We frequently on vases see the occupant of a grave represented in the form of a snake at the foot of his tomb, etc.; e.g. on the _Prothesis_ vase, _Monum. d. Instit._ viii, 4, 5, and often, see Luckenbach, _Jahrb. f. Phil._, Suppl. ii, 500.--We have already met with snakes as a favourite form of incarnation chosen by ~chtho/nioi~ of all kinds, deities of the underworld, Heroes, and the ordinary dead, and we shall frequently meet with the same thing again. Here we need only refer to Photius ~hê/rôs poiki/los--dia\ to\ tou\s o/pheis poiki/lous o/ntas hê/rôas kalei=sthai~.]

[114\5: What falls to the ground belongs to the ~hê/rôes~ ( = souls of the dead): Ar. ~Hê/rôes~ _fr._ 305 H. and G. ~toi=s teteleutêko/si tô=n phi/lôn ape/nemon ta\ pi/ptonta tê=s trophê=s apo\ tô=n trapezô=n~ (alluded to by Eur. in the _Belleroph._ [_Stheneb. fr._ 667 Din.]), ap. Ath. 427 E. This is the origin of the Pythagorean ~su/mbolon~--as usual founded on ancient belief about the soul--~ta\ peso/nta apo\ trapezê=s mê\ anairei=sthai~, D.L. viii, 34. Suid. ~Puthago/ra ta\ su/mbola~. This superstition is also the reason for the ~no/mos~ said to have been current in Kroton, ~to\ peso\n epi\ tê\n gê=n kôlu/ôn anairei=sthai~, Iamb., _VP._ 126. Similar belief and custom in Rome: Plin. 28, 27. Among the ancient Prussians it was the custom not to pick up the fragments of food that fell to the ground at meal times, but to leave them for the "poor" souls that have no blood-relations or friends left behind in the world to look after them; see Chr. Hartknoch, _Alt u. Neues Preussen_, p. 188. Similar customs elsewhere: Spencer, _Princ. of Sociol._ i, 281.]

[115\5: Solonian law: D. 20, 104; 40, 49. Plu., _Sol._ 21, ~So/lônos ho kôlu/ôn no/mos to\n tethnêko/ta kakô=s agoreu/ein. kai\ ga\r ho/sion tou\s methestêko/tas _hierou\s_ nomi/zein~. This reminds us of the words of Arist., _Eudem. fr._ 37 [44] given in Plu., _C. Apoll._ 27, p. 115 B, ~to\ pseu/sasthai/ ti kata\ tô=n teteleukêko/tôn kai\ to\ blasphêmei=n ouch ho/sion hôs kata\ beltio/nôn kai\ kreitto/nôn ê/dê gegono/tôn~ (Chilon ap. Stob., _Fl._ 125, 15 M.: ~to\n teteleukêko/ta mê\ kakolo/gei alla\ maka/rize~). A very extreme form of outrage is ~pseu/sasthai kata\ tou= teleutê/santos~: Is. 9, 6; 23; 26. (The ~kakolo/gos~ is particularly liable to ~kaka\ eipei=n peri\ tô=n teteleutêko/tôn~, Thphr., _Char._ 28.) The heir of the dead man has the duty of carrying out the cult of the dead man's soul, and this includes the legal prosecution of slanderers of the dead: see Meier and Schömann, _Att. Process_^2, p. 630.]

[116\5: Ar., _Tagenist. fr._ **485, 12, says of the dead, ~kai\ thu/ome/n g' autoi=si toi=s enagi/smasin, hô/sper _theoi=sin_ ktl.~]

[117\5: ~krei/ttones~ Hesych. Phot. s.v. Arist. ap. Plu., _C. Apoll._ 27, p. 115 C.]

[118\5: ~hi/leôs e/chein (tou\s teleutê/santas)~: Pl., _Rp._ 427 B.]

[119\5: That the ~hê/rôes duso/rgêtoi kai\ chalepoi\ toi=s empela/zousi gi/gnontai~ (Sch. Ar., _Av._ 1490) applies equally to the "Heroes" properly so called--see above, chap. iv, § 11, the legends of the Hero Anagyros, the Hero of Temesa, etc.--and to those who gradually came to be called "Heroes" in later times by an extension of the term, viz. the souls of the dead in general--~chalepou\s kai\ plê/ktas tou\s hê/rôas nomi/zousi, kai\ ma=llon nu/ktôr ê\ meth' hême/ran~: Chamaileon ap. Ath. 461 C (and hence the precautions taken against nocturnal {203} apparitions: Ath. 149 C). Cf. Zenob. v, 60. Hesych. Phot. s. ~krei/ttones~.--That the ~hê/rôes~ do, and are responsible for, evil _only_ and never good (Sch. Ar., _Av._ 1490; Babr. 63) is a late belief; it does not apply either to Heroes or ordinary dead in the conceptions of earlier ages. Originally the "gods", just as much as Heroes and the dead, shared in the violent and malignant nature of the unseen. This was later confined more and more to the lower classes of the ~krei/ttones~ and came to be attached to them so exclusively that it could in the end be regarded as a sufficient ground of distinction between them and the gods (as it certainly had not been to start with) that malice is excluded from the nature of the gods and benevolence on the contrary from that of Heroes and the dead.]

[120\5: Ar., _Tagenist. fr._ **485, 13: ~kai\ choa/s ge cheo/menoi~ (to the dead) ~aitou/meth' autou\s ta\ _kala\_ deu=r' _anie/nai_~ (intended as a ~paroimi/a~ or at any rate imitated from a tragedian--apostrophe to a dead woman ~ekei= ble/pousa, deu=r' ani/ei tagatha/~, Sch. Ar., _Ran._ 1462--and reproduced in this passage by the interpolator of Aristoph.). This "sending-up blessings from below" is to be understood in the widest sense (cf. A., _Pers._ 222); but it is natural to be reminded by such a prayer to ~anie/nai tagatha/~ of Demeter ~anêsidô/ra~ (Paus. 1, 31, 4; Plu., _Smp._ 9, 14, 4, p. 745 A), and of ~Gê= anêsidô/ra. dia\ to\ _karpou\s_ anie/nai~ (Hesych.); S., _OT._ 269, ~eu/chomai theou\s mê/t' a/roton autoi=s gê=s anie/nai tina/~.--That the dead who dwell beneath the ground were really expected to assist the growth of the soil we may learn especially from a very interesting statement in the Hippocratic work ~peri\ enupni/ôn~ (ii, p. 14 Kühn; vi, p. 658 Littré [~p. diai/tês~ iv, 92]). If a person in his dream sees ~apothano/ntas~ dressed in white, offering something, that is a good omen: ~apo\ ga\r tô=n apothano/ntôn hai trophai\ kai\ auxêsies kai\ spe/rmata gi/nontai~. There was a custom at Athens of strewing seeds of all kinds over the newly-made grave: Isigon., _Mir._ 67; Cic., _Lg._ ii, 63. The reason for this (evidently religious) is variously given (another, no more convincing, is suggested by K. O. Müller, _Kl. Schr._ ii, 302 f.). It seems most natural to suppose that the seed of the earth is put under the protection of the souls of dead who have now themselves become spirits inhabiting the earth. (Note besides the entirely similar custom in ancient India, Oldenberg, _Rel. d. Veda_, 582.)]

[121\5: Electra in A., _Ch._ 486 ff., makes a vow to the soul of her father: ~kagô\ _choa/s_ soi tê=s emê=s pagklêri/as oi/sô patrô/|ôn ek do/môn _gamêli/ous_; pa/ntôn de\ prô=ton to/nde presbeu/sô ta/phon~.--As chthonic powers the Erinyes also send blessings on agriculture and the bringing-up of children. _Rh. Mus._ 50, 21. Prayer was also made to ~Gê=~ by those who desired to have children.]

[122\5: ~Phano/dêmo/s phêsin ho/ti mo/noi Athênai=oi thu/ousin kai\ eu/chontai autoi=s hupe\r gene/seôs pai/dôn, ho/tan gamei=n me/llôsin~, Phot. Suid. ~tritopa/tores~.]

[123\5: The form of the word itself shows that the ~tritopa/tores~ are simply ~pro/pappoi~. ~tritopa/tôr~ is the earliest ancestor, ~ho pa/ppou ê\ tê/thês patê/r~ (Arist. ap. Poll. 3, 17). Just as ~mêtropa/tôr~ is ~ho mêtro\s patê/r~ and ~patropa/tôr ho patro\s patê/r~ (Poll. 3, 16), ~propatô/r~ the forefather, ~pseudopa/tôr = pseudê\s patê/r, epipa/tôr~ the stepfather (~mêtromê/têr = mêtro\s mê/têr~)--in the same way ~tritopa/tôr~ is the third forefather, the father of the ~patropa/tôr~, i.e. the ~pro/pappos~. The ~tritopa/tores~ have an alternative form ~tritopa/trei=s~, Philoch. ap. Suidas ~tritopa/tores~: _SIG._ 443; _Leg. Sacr._ i, p. 49, l. 32, 52: in Orphic _verse_ this form alone, and not ~tritopa/tores~, could be used: see Lobeck, _Agl._ 764. They were in fact the ~tri/toi pate/res~ (just as {204} the ~trite/ggonoi~ are the ~tri/toi e/ggonoi~, the ~e/ggonoi~ of the third generation). But the "third forefathers" are in fact the first ancestors (Lobeck, 763 f.), ~hoi propa/tores~ (Hesych.), ~hoi prô=toi _archêge/tai_~ (_AB._ 307, 16)--the ancestors of the individual first of all, his bodily ~gonei=s~ (the series of whom was not generally counted beyond the ~pro/pappos~--Is. 8, 32--i.e. the ~tritopa/tôr~), and then the "ancestors" of the human race in general (acc. to the explanation of Philoch. ap. Phot. Suid. ~tritop.~; cf. Welcker, _Götterl._ iii, 73).--We cannot do more than refer here to the completely analogous ideas of the ancient Indians about the "three-fathers": the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, as the Sapinda-fathers beyond whom the line of ancestry was not traced (Kaegi, _Neunzahl_, pp. 5, 6).]

[124\5: The Tritopatores are most distinctly referred to as ~a/nemoi~: Demon ap. Phot. Suid. ~tritop.~ cf. ~despo/tai ane/môn~ Phot. ~tritopa/tôr~; Tz. Lyc. 738. Orphic poetry made them ~thurôrou\s kai\ phu/lakas tô=n ane/môn~. This is already a free interpretation; the Attic belief, expressed by Demon, knows nothing about this. It can only have been learned invention that limited their number to three (as in the case of the originally unlimited number of Horai, Erinyes, etc.), and gave them definite names (Amalkeides, etc., Orph. _fr._ 240, Ab.) or identified them with the three Hekatoncheires (Kleidemos in the ~Exêg.~). The genuine and ancient belief about them can still be discerned through all the confusion of misinterpretation and misunderstanding, and according to this the ~tritopa/tores~ were the souls of ancestors who were also wind-spirits. People prayed for children to these spirits: and Lobeck, _Agl._ 755 ff., is right in connecting with this custom the Orphic doctrine that the soul of man comes into him from without with the wind. Even this, however, is only a speculative embellishment of the popular belief about the Tritopatores (which the Orphics cannot, as Welcker thinks, _Götterl._ iii, 71, have "invented": they only explained it after their fashion and consequently must have found it already existing). When we have stripped off all speculative accretions we find the Tritopatores to have been the souls of ancestors who have become wind-spirits and travel in the wind like other ~psuchai/~ (whose name even is derived from the breath of the wind). From these as from real ~pnoiai\ zô|ogo/noi~ their descendants hope for aid where the entry into life of a new ~psuchê/~ is concerned. It is not hard to understand the connexion between souls and wind-spirits; it is merely that such conceptions were rare among the Greeks and for that reason these isolated wind-spirits surviving in popular belief were turned into individual daimones--the Tritopatores no less than the Harpies (see _Rh. Mus._ 50, 3 ff.).]

[125\5: The words of Orestes in A., _Ch._ 483, give very naive expression to the belief. He calls to the soul of his father: ~hou/tô~ (if thou sendest me aid) ~ga\r a/n soi dai=tes e/nnomoi brotô=n ktizoi/at'; ei de\ mê/, par' eudei/pnois e/sei a/timos empu/roisi knisôtoi=s chthono/s~. Thus we see that the belief ridiculed by Luc., _Luct._ 9, was true of earlier times as well: ~tre/phontai de\ a/ra~ (the dead) ~tai=s par' hêmi=n choai=s kai\ toi=s kathagizome/nois epi\ tô=n ta/phôn; hôs ei/ tô| mê\ ei/ê kataleleimme/nos hupe\r gê=s phi/los ê\ suggenê/s, a/sitos hou=tos nekro\s kai\ limô/ttôn en autoi=s politeu/etai~.]

[126\5: Epicurus devotes by will certain definite ~pro/sodoi~ to the yearly offering of ~enagi/smata~ to his parents, his brothers, and himself: D.L. x, 18.--To the end of the third century belongs the "Testament of Epikteta", i.e. the inscription recording the foundation by Epikteta (who came from Thera as we know now for certain: ~Eph. Arch.~ 1894, p. 142) of a three-day sacrificial feast to be performed every year for {205} the Muses and "the Heroes", i.e. for her husband, herself, and her sons; and the institution for this special purpose of a ~koino\n tou= andrei/ou tô=n suggenô=n~ (together with women of the family). The inscr. gives also the rules of this sacrificial society (Michel n. 1001; _CIG._ 2448).--The offerings to the dead in this case (vi, 6 ff.) consist of a ~hierei=on~ (i.e. a sheep) and ~hiera/~, especially ~ellu/tai~ of five choinikes of wheaten flour and a stater of dry cheese (~ell.~ are a kind of sacrificial cake specially offered to the deities of the lower world, as for ex. to Trophonios at Lebadeia: _GDI._ 413 with n., p. 393), and in addition to these garlands are mentioned. The following are to be sacrificed: the customary parts of the victim, an ~ellu/tês~, a loaf, a ~pa/rax (= ba/rax, bê/rêx~: interchange of tenuis and media as frequently) and some ~opsa/ria~ (i.e. small fishes: cf. the ~apopuri/s~ for the dead, _GDI._ 3634 Kos). The rest was probably consumed by the religious society: these special portions the person offering the sacrifice, we are told, ~_karpôsei=_~, i.e. (he shall offer them to the Heroes by burning them entire. Cf. Phot. ~kausto/n; _karpôto/n_, ho\ enagi/zetai toi=s teteleutêko/sin (karpô=sai, ka/rpôma, holoka/rpôsis~, etc., are frequent in the LXX) and Phot. ~holokarpou/menon~ and ~holokautismo/s. karpou=n = holokautou=n~ in the sacrificial calendar from Kos, _GDI._ 3636; cf. Stengel, _Hermes_, 27, 161 f.]

[127\5: See Is. 1, 10.]

[128\5: In manumission records it is sometimes definitely enjoined that the freed persons shall at the death of their masters ~thapsa/ntô kai\ ta\ _hô/ria_ autô=n poiêsa/tôsan~: thus on the insc. from Phokis, _SIG._ 841. (Instructions of this kind as esp. frequent in the records of emancipation from Delphi: see Büchsenschütz, _Bes. u. Erw._, 178 Anm. 3-4.) ~ta\ _hô/ria_~ when applied to the dead (_GDI._ 1545-6; ~hôrai/ôn tuchei=n~ E., _Sup._ 175) means the ~kath' hô/ran suntelou/mena hiera/~ (Hesych. ~hôrai=a~; funeral ordinance of the Labyadai, l. 49 ff.: ~ta\s d' a/llas thoi/nas kat' ta\n hô/ran agage/sthai~), i.e. the sacrifices to be celebrated periodically (~tai=s hiknoume/nais hême/rais~, n. 138; cf. ~teletai\ hô/riai~, Pi., _P._ ix, 98 ff.). This doubtless means in particular the ~eniau/sia hiera/~ (cf. nn. 81, 89, 92 of this chap.). Garlanding of graves ~kat' eniauto\n tai=s hôri/ois~ (sc. ~hame/rais~), _GDI._ 1775, 21; ~kat' eniauto\n hôrai=a hiera\ apete/loun~ (to the Heroes), Pl., _Cri._ 116 C.]

[129\5: The foll. are the expressions occurring in the speeches of Isaeus which conclusively warrant what is said above. The childless Menekles ~esko/pei ho/pôs mê\ e/soito a/pais, all' e/soito autô=| ho/stis zô=nta gêrotrophê/soi kai\ teleutê/santa tha/psoi auto\n kai\ eis to\n e/peita chro/non ta\ nomizo/mena autô=| poiê/soi~, 2, 10. To be cared for in old age, buried after death, and to have permanent attention paid to one's soul is a single unified conception, in which ritual burial at the hands of one's own ~e/kgonoi~ (thus securing the cult of the family) does not form the least important part (cf. Pl., _Hipp. ma._ 291 DE: it is ~ka/lliston~ for a man--according to the popular view--~aphikome/nô| es gê=ras tou\s hautou= gone/as teleutê/santas kalô=s peristei/lanti hupo\ tô=n hautou= ekgo/nôn kalô=s kai\ megaloprepô=s taphê=nai~. Medea says to her children in E., _Med._ 1032 ~ei=chon elpi/das polla\s en humi=n gêroboskê/sein t' eme\ kai\ katthanou=san chersi\n eu= peristelei=n, zêlôto\n anthrô/poisin~). That he may share in this attention to the souls of the dead a man must leave behind him a son; upon a son alone this will fall as a sacred duty. Hence a man who has no son takes the chosen heir of his possessions into his own _family_ by adoption. Inheritance and adoption invariably accompany each other in such cases (and even in the first speech, where, though nothing is actually said of adoption, it is certainly implied throughout). The {206} _motive_ of adoption is said in the clearest possible terms to be the desire on the part of the adopter for a permanent care of his own soul at the hands of his adopted son: 2, 25, 46; 6, 51, 65; 7, 30; 9, 7, 36. There is consequently a close connexion between ~ei=nai klêrono/mon kai\ epi\ ta\ mnê/mata ie/nai, cheo/menoi kai\ enagiou=nta~ (6, 51). It is a mark of the heir ~ta\ nomizo/mena poiei=n, enagi/zein, chei=sthai~ (6, 65); cf. also D. 43, 65. Duties towards the soul of the dead consist in the son and heir's provision for a solemn funeral, the erection of a handsome grave-monument and in his offering of the ~tri/ta~ and ~e/nata kai\ ta=lla ta\ peri\ tê\n taphê/n~: 2, 36, 37; 4, 19; 9, 4. After that he is responsible for the regular continuation of the cult and of sacrifice to the dead, ~enagi/zesthai kath' he/kaston _eniauto/n_~ (2, 46), and generally, ~kai\ eis to\n _e/peita_ chro/non ta\ nomizo/mena poiei=n~ (2, 10). Then, just as he has to carry on for the dead man his family worships, his ~hiera\ patrô=|a~ (2, 46: e.g. for Zeus Ktesios: 8, 16); so also he must, as the dead man once did, make regular offering to the ~_pro/gonoi_~ of the house: 9, 7. In this way the family cult secures its own continuity.--Everything in this reminds us in the strongest way of what is done for the continuation of the cult of the dead, esp. by adoption, in the country where ancestor-worship reaches its greatest height--China. Desire to perpetuate the _family_ name, the strongest motive with us in the adoption of male children, could not be so strong in Greece when only individual names were usual. Even this, however, occurs as a motive for the adoption of a son, ~hi/na mê\ anô/numos ho oi=kos autou= ge/nêtai~, 2, 36, 46; cf. Isocr. 19, 35 (and Philodem., _Mort._, p. 28, 9 ff. Mekl.). The "house" at any rate is called after its ancestors (like those ~Bouseli/dai~ of whom Dem. speaks), and if the house has no male heir this common name will disappear. Apart from this, the adopted person will call himself the son of his adoptive father, and will ensure the preservation of the latter's name, in the well-known fashion, by giving this name to the eldest (Dem. 39, 27) of his own sons. (A similar perpetuation of a name is probably intended in E., _IT._ 695-8.)]

[130\5: Appealing to ~phê=mai, pollai\ kai\ spho/dra palaiai/~, Plato asserts, _Lg._ 927 A, ~hôs a/ra hai tô=n teleutêsa/ntôn psuchai\ _du/namin_ e/chousi/ tina teleutê/sasai, hê=| tô=n kat' anthrô/pous pragma/tôn epimelou=ntai~. Hence the ~epi/tropoi~ of orphaned children ~prô=ton me\n tou\s a/nô theou\s phobei/sthôn . . . ei=ta ta\s tô=n kekmêko/tôn psucha/s, hai=s estin en tê=| phu/sei _tô=n hautô=n ekgo/nôn kê/desthai diaphero/ntôs_, kai\ timô=si/ te autou\s eumenei=s kai\ atima/zousi dusmenei=s~. It is only the circle of influence belonging to the ~psuchai/~ which is here limited (and the circle of worship in consequence, not the potency of that influence.]