Chapter V: The Cult of Souls (4)

[131\5: This is true at least of the Greeks, as ancient philosophy was already aware: Arist., _Pol._ i, 2; Dicaearchus ap. St. Byz. ~pa/tra~ (who apparently thinks of the ~pa/tra~ as held together by "endogamous" marriage). The whole development of Greek law and politics--this much at least may be conceded to the analysis of Fustel de Coulanges (_La Cité antique_)--points to the conclusion that the division into the smallest groups goes back to the beginning of Greek life. The Greeks were even then divided into families and groups of kinsfolk, from the combination of which the later Greek state grew up; they never (as happened elsewhere) lived the community life of the tribe or the horde. And yet, can we imagine the Greek gods without the tribal community that worshipped them?]

[132\5: The idea of the _Lar familiaris_ can be translated into Greek not inadequately by the words ~ho kat' oiki/an hê/rôs, hê/rôs oikouro/s~, as is done by Dionys. Hal., and Plutarch in their accounts of the story {207} of Ocrisia (D.H. 4, 2, 3; Plu. _Fort. Rom._ 9, p. 323 C). But this was not an idea current among the Greeks. The Latin _genius generis_ = _Lar familiaris_ (Laber. 54 Rib.) is most nearly approached by the remarkable expression ~hê/rôs suggenei/as~, _CIA._ iii, 1460. Inside the house, at the family hearth (in whose ~muchoi/~, "dwells" Hekate: E., _Med._ 397), the Greeks worshipped--no longer the spirits of the ancestors--but the ~theoi\ patrô=|oi, ktê/sioi, mu/chioi, herkei=oi~. These were compared with the Roman Penates (D.H. 1, 67, 3; cf. Hyg. ap. Macr. 3, 4, 13), but their relationship to the spirits of the house and of the family is considerably less apparent than in the case of the Penates. (It is simply imitation of Roman custom that makes the dying Peregrinus call upon the ~dai/mones patrô=|oi kai\ mêtrô=|oi~: Luc., _Peregr._ 36. ~Ste/phanos toi=s tou= patro\s hautou= dai/mosin~, ins. from Lykia, _CIG._ 4232 = _BCH._ xv, 552, n. 26. ~toi=s dai/mosi tê=s apothanou/sês gunaiko/s~, Philo, _Leg. ad G._ 65, ii, p. 555 M. More in Lob., _Agl._ 769 n.)]

[133\5: The ~_agatho\s dai/môn_~ of which Attic writers in particular often speak has very indefinite features. Those who used the word combined ideas--no longer fully intelligible--of a divine being of fairly definite nature and shape with this name which in itself was altogether too liable to generalization. Modern writers have declared that it was originally a daimon of the fertility of crops. But there is just as little ground for believing this as there is for identifying it with Dionysos, as was done by the physician Philonides in connexion with an absurd story which he has invented on his own account (Ath. 675 B). There is much, however, that points to the connexion of the ~agatho\s dai/môn~ with chthonic powers. He appears as a snake (Gerhard, _Akad. Abh._ ii, 24) like all ~chtho/nioi~. (On a snake on a talisman the words are written ~to\ o/noma tou= agathou= dai/monos~: _P. Mag. Par._ 2427 ff.) ~agathodai/mones~ was the name given to a special kind of non-poisonous snake (described after Archigenes, in the Vatican iologus brought to light by myself: _Rh. Mus._ 38, 278; cf. Photius, ~parei=ai o/pheis~, and again esp. s.v. ~o/pheis parei/as~, 364, 1). Sacrifice was made to them in Alexandria on the 25th Tybi as ~toi=s agathoi=s dai/mosi toi=s _pronooume/nois tô=n **oikiô=n_~: [Callisth.] i, 32 (cod. A, or as "penates dei" as the words are translated by Jul. Valer., p. 38, 29 ff. (Kuebl.). In this instance the ~ag. d.~ is evidently a good spirit who protects the house. Only with this in mind can we understand how anyone could consecrate his house ~agathô=| dai/moni~, as Timoleon did at Syracuse (~_agathô=| dai/moni~_, Plu., _Ips. Laud._, 11, p. 542 E; ~tê\n oiki/an _hierô=|_ dai/moni kathie/rôsen~, Plu., _Timol._ 36, where ~hierô=|~ is evidently an ancient copyist's error). Cf. also the saying of Xeniades, D.L. vi, 74. Such guardian spirits of the house are of course familiar enough in our own popular superstition, but in their case "the transition from souls of the dead to kindly house-spirits or kobolds is still demonstrable" (Grimm, p. 913). At the household meal the first few drops of unmixed wine belong by right to the ~agatho\s dai/môn~ (Hug, _Plat. Symp._^2, p. 23); then follows the libation to Zeus Soter. But sometimes it was the "Heroes" and not the ~ag. d.~ who preceded Zeus Soter (Sch. Pi., _I_ v, 10; Gerhard, p. 39): they have taken the place of the ~ag. d.~, which itself reveals the connexion between the ~ag. d.~ and these "souls". Another fact pointing in the same direction is the worship of the ~agatho\s dai/môn~ in common with many other deities of chthonic nature in the temple of Trophonios at Lebadeia (Paus. 9, 39, 5). In this case it is mentioned by the side of Tyche and these two are sometimes met with together in grave-inscriptions (e.g. _CIG._ 2465 f.) and Tyche herself appears with such chthonic deities as Despoina, Plouton, and Persephone (_CIG._ {208} 1464 Sparta). In epitaphic inscriptions ~daimo/nôn agathô=n~ sometimes occurs as completely equivalent to _Dis Manibus_: e.g. ~Daimo/nôn agathô=n Poti/ou~, _CIG._ 2700 b.c. (Mylasa); ~daimo/nôn agathô=n Arte/mônos kai\ Ti/tou~, _Ath. Mitt._ '90, p. 110 (Mylasa); cf. the inscr. from Mylasa in _Ath. Mitt._ '90, pp. 276-7 (nn. 23-5, 27). The singular is rare: ~Dai/monos agathou= Ariste/ou ktl.~ _BCH._ '90, p. 626 (Karia). (~dai/mosin heautou= te kai\ Laititi/as tê=s gunaiko\s autou=~ = Dis Manibus suis et Laetitiae uxoris in the bilingual ins. from Beroea, _CIG._ 4452: cf. 4232 and 5827.) All these have come under Roman influence, but it is worth noticing, all the same, that the ~agatho\s d.~ was identified with the _Di Manes_; which means that it was regarded as a daimon that had once been a disembodied human soul.--The subject might be dealt with more fully than would be in place here.]

[134\5: In Boeotia (and elsewhere, particularly in Thessaly) the designation of the dead as ~hê/rôs~--always an indication of a higher conception of its spirit nature--is especially frequent on tombstones. More will be found on this subject below. The inscriptions are for the most part of late date. But even in the fifth century (at all events at the beginning of the fourth) the custom of "heroizing" the ordinary dead was current. To this Plato Com. (i, p. 622 K.) alludes in the "Menelaos", ~ti/ ouk apê/gxô, hi/na Thê/bêsin hê/rôs ge/nê|~; (Zenob. vi, 17, etc. The Paroemiogrr. connect this with the Theban custom of refusing the honours of the dead to those who committed suicide. This is certainly wrong and contradicts Pl.'s intention. Keil shows this clearly, _Syll. Insc. Boeot._, p. 153).]

[135\5: Among the Epizephyrian Locrians ~odu/resthai ouk e/stin epi\ toi=s teleutê/sasin, all' epeida\n ekkomi/sôsin, euôchou=ntai~, Heraclid., _Pol._ 30, 2. In Keos the men never wear any sign of mourning, though women mourn for a year for a son who dies young; ib. 9, 4 (see Welcker, _Kl. Schr._ ii, 502). The funeral regulation of Iulis (_SIG._ 877) published in imitation of Athenian usage implies rather a tendency to exaggerated display of mourning, at least among the common people.]

[136\5: e.g. Is. 2, 47: ~boêthê/sate kai\ hêmi=n kai\ ekei/nô| _tô=| en Ha/idou o/nti_~. Strictly speaking no one can ~boêthei=n~ the departed in Hades. Few nations have entirely escaped such contradictions between a cult of the dead in the house or at a grave and the conception of the relegation of the soul to an inaccessible other world. They arise from two simultaneously existing mental attitudes (representing also different stages of culture) towards these obscure subjects. The naive theology of the common people reconciles such discrepancies by attributing two souls to men, one of which goes down to Hades while the other remains beside the still-animated body and receives the offerings of the family: e.g. North American Indians: Müller, _Ges. d. Amer. Urrel._ 66; cf. Tylor, i, 434. These two souls are in reality the creation of two mutually incompatible modes of thought.]

[137\5:--idne testamento cavebit is qui nobis quasi oraculum ediderit nihil post mortem ad nos pertinere? Cic., _Fin._ ii, 102.--Besides Epic., Theophrastos seems to have made some arrangement for the regular celebration of his memory (by the associates of the Peripatos?). Harp. 139, 4 ff.: ~mê/pote de\ hu/steron neno/mistai to\ epi\ timê=| tinas tô=n _apothano/ntôn_ sunie/nai kai\ _orgeô=nas_ homoi/ôs ônoma/sthai; hôs e/sti sunidei=n ek tô=n Theophra/stou diathêkô=n~. The will of Thphr. preserved by D.L. 5, 2, 14, is silent on the point.] {209}

III

[138\5: Oracle ap. D. 43, 66 (cf. 67) ~toi=s apophthime/nois en hiknoume/na| hame/ra| (en tai=s kathêkou/sais hême/rais, § 67) telei=n tou\s kathê/kontas katta\ hagême/na.--ta\ hagême/na = ta\ nomizo/mena~ "the customary things" (Buttmann, _Ausf. Gramm._, § 113 n. 7, 1, p. 84 Lob.).]

[139\5: Inquiry, at sacrifices to the dead, of an ~exêgêtê/s~: Is. 8, 39; of the ~exêgêtai/~ (who give detailed instructions and advice: [D.] 47, 68 ff. Harp. ~exêgêtê/s; e/sti de\ kai\ ha\~ (perh. ~ho/te ta\~) ~pro\s tou\s katoichome/nous nomizo/mena exêgou=nto toi=s deome/nois~. Tim. Lex. ~exêgêtai/; trei=s gi/nontai putho/chrêstoi~ (there is no need to understand this other than literally, i.e. that the college of the ~putho/chr. exêg.~ consisted of three members: Schöll, _Hermes_, 22, 564), ~hoi=s me/lei kathai/rein tou\s a/gei tini\ enischêthe/ntas~. The purification of the ~enagei=s~ is closely connected with the cult of the souls. It is true that prescriptions for such purification were to be found also ~en toi=s tô=n Eupatridô=n~ (so Müller, _Aesch. Eum._ 163 A. 20 [152 n. E.T.]) ~patri/ois~: Ath. 9, 410 A, and it may be that the college of the ~ex Eupatridô=n exêgêtai/~ may have also given decisions in such cases. Still, that does not prevent the statement of Timaeus in regard to the ~exêg. putho/chr.~ from being true. (Expiations belong principally if not exclusively to the Apolline cult.)]

[140\5: Plu., _Ser. Num._ 17, p. 650 C.D. expressly appeals for confirmation of the belief in a continued existence of the soul after the death of the body to utterances of the Delphic god: ~a/chri tou= polla\ toiau=ta prothespi/zesthai, ouch ho/sio/n esti tê=s psuchê=s katagnô=nai tha/naton~.]

[141\5: That already in Homer the circle of the ~agchistei=s~ (in the Athenian legal sense) was called upon to prosecute the blood-feud is certainly probable in itself; it cannot, however, be proved from examples occurring in Homer. Leist's statements in _Graecoital. Rechtsges._, p. 42, are not quite exact. The facts are: a father is called upon to avenge his son, and a son his father, and a brother to avenge his brother (~g~ 307; ~I~ 632 f.; ~ô~ 434); once the avengers are the ~kasi/gnêtoi/ te e/tai te~ of the murdered man, ~o~ 273. ~e/tai~ has a very wide sense and is not even confined to kinship; at any rate it is not simply "cousins" (~e/tai kai\ anepsioi/~ side by side. ~I~ 464).--In Attic law, too, in certain cases the duty of prosecuting the murderer extended beyond the limits of the ~anepsiadoi=~ to more distant relatives and even to the ~phra/tores~ of the murdered man (Law ap. D. 43, 57).]

[142\5: Flight, indeed ~aeiphugi/a~, on account of ~pho/nos akou/sios~: ~Ps~ 85 ff. (The fugitive becomes the ~thera/pôn~ of the person who receives him into his house in the foreign land: l. 90; cf. ~O~ 431 f.; this must have been the rule.)--Flight on account of ~pho/nos hekou/sious (lochêsa/menos~ 268) ~n~ 259 ff. And so frequently.]

[143\5: ~I~ 632 ff. ~kai\ me/n ti/s te kasignê/toio phonê=os **poinê\n ê\ hou= paido\s hede/xato tethnêô=tos; kai/ rh' ho me\n en dê/mô| me/nei autou= po/ll' apoti/sas tou= de/ t' erêtu/etai kradi/ê kai\ thumo\s agê/nôr poinê\n dexame/nou~. Here it is very plainly represented that all that is required is to appease "the heart and spirit" of the receiver of the ~poinê/~: the murdered man is not considered.]

[144\5: It is very natural to suppose that the ~poinê/~ (as K. O. Müller suggests in _Aesch. Eum._ 145 [122 E T.]) may have arisen out of the substitution of a vicarious sacrifice instead of that of the murderer himself, who should strictly have been offered to the dead man. In this way primitive human sacrifice has in many cases been replaced by sacrifice of animals. In that case the ~poinê/~ too must have originally been offered to the murdered man: in Homeric times {210} only the satisfaction of the living avenger was thought of.--In any case it is a mistake to look upon the permission to buy off the blood-feud as a mitigation of primitive severity in the taking of vengeance due to the intervention of the State. The State in this case mitigated nothing since it took no interest at all (in Homer) in the treatment of murder cases. Of course, legal proceedings can be taken to decide whether a stipulated ~poinê/~ has been paid or not (~S~ 497 ff.), as in the case of any other ~sumbo/laion~. But the prosecution of the murderer in all its departments is left entirely in the hands of the family of the murdered man.]

[145\5: We have very few details on this point. In Sparta ~hoi ge/rontes (dika/zousi) ta\s phonika\s (di/kas)~, Arist., _Pol._ 3, 1, p. 1275b 10 (and in Corinth, too, D.S. 16, 65, 6 ff.). Involuntary homicide is punished by exile and (in this being more severe than at Athens) perpetual exile as it appears. The Spartiate Drakontios serving in the army of the Ten Thousand ~e/phuge _pai=s_ ô\n oi/kothen pai=da a/kôn **katakanô\n~ (like Patroklos in fact, ~Ps~ 87), ~xuê/lê| pata/xas~, Xen., _An._ 4, 8, 25. If his banishment had been only temporary the period must have expired long before.--In Kyme there are vestiges of _legal_ prosecution of murder (with witnesses): Arist., _Pol._ 1269a, 1 ff.--In Chalkis ~epi\ Thra/kê|~ the laws of Androdamas of Rhegion were in force ~peri/ te ta\ _phonika\_ kai\ ta\s epiklê/rous~, Arist., _Pol._ 2, 8, p. 1274b 23 ff.--In Lokri were used the laws of Zaleukos in combination with Cretan, Spartan and Areopagite institutions; these last undoubtedly dealing with homicide, which must therefore have been regulated constitutionally. (Str. vi, 260, following Eph.)]

[146\5: The limits of those qualified to inherit extends in Athenian law ~me/chri **anepsiadô=n pai/dôn~ (Law ap. D. 43, 51; cf. § 27) as did the duty of avenging murder ~mechri\ anepsiadô=n~: D. 47, 72 (~ento\s anepsio/têtos~, which must mean the same thing, Law ap. D. 43, 57). The circle of persons thus united in the right of inheritance and the duty of taking vengeance for murder constituted the ~_agchistei/a_~, the body of kinsfolk tracing their descent (in the male line only) from the same man, the father, grandfather, or great-grandfather of them all. This is the limit to which the ~gonei=s~ are traced: Is. 8, 32; cf. above, note 123. Many nations of the earth are familiar with a similar limitation of the narrower body of kinsfolk composing a "house": as to the underlying reasons for the practice many conjectures are made by H. E. Seebohm, _On the Structure of Greek Tribal Society_ (1895).]

[147\5: As to the restless wandering of the ~biaiotha/natoi~ more details will be given below [Append. vii]. In the meantime it will be enough to refer to A., _Eum._ 98, where the still unavenged soul of the murdered Klytaimnestra complains ~aischrô=s _alô=mai_~. A later authority uses words that correspond well with ancient belief: Porph., _Abst._ ii, 47, ~tô=n anthrô/pôn hai tô=n bi/a| apothano/ntôn (psuchai\) kate/chontai pro\s tô=| sô/mati~, like the souls of the ~a/taphoi~.]

[148\5: In Homeric times the injured dead becomes a ~_theô=n_ mê/nima~ to the evil-doer (~Ch~ 358, ~l~ 73). Later times believed that the soul of the dead man himself angrily pursued the murderer with its terrors till it drove him beyond its own boundaries: ~ho thanatôthei\s thumou=tai tô=| dra/santi ktl.~, Pl., _Lg._ 865 DE, appealing to ~palaio/n tina tô=n archai/ôn mu/thôn lego/menon~; cf. X., _Cyr._ 8, 7, 18: A., _Cho._ 39 ff., 323 ff. If the next-of-kin whose duty it is to avenge the death of his relative shirks the duty incumbent on him the anger of the dead man is turned upon the latter: Pl., _Leg._ 9, 866 B--~tou= patho/ntos prostrepome/nou tê\n pa/thên~. The indignant soul becomes _~prostro/paios~_. ~prostro/paios~ probably {211} applies only in a derivative sense to a ~dai/môn~ who takes the part of the dead man (esp. ~Zeu\s prostro/paios~); it is strictly speaking an epithet of the soul itself in its longing for vengeance. Thus in Antiphon _Tetral._ 1, ~g~ 10, ~hêmi=n me\n prostro/paios ho apothanô\n ouk e/stai~. 3, ~d~ 10, ~ho apoktei/nas~ (or rather ~ho tethnêkô\s~) ~toi=s aiti/ois prostro/paios e/stai~. So, too, A., _Cho._ 287, ~ek prostropai/ôn en ge/nei peptôko/tôn~. _EM._ 42, 7, ~Êrigo/nên, anartê/sasan heautê/n, prostro/paion toi=s Athênai/ois gene/sthai~. We can, however, see particularly well from this case how easily the change came about from a soul in a special condition to a similar _daimonic_ being which takes the place of the soul of the dead. The same Antiphon speaks also of ~hoi tô=n apothano/ntôn prostro/paioi, ho prostro/paios tou= apothano/ntos~ as something distinct from the dead man himself: _Tetr._ 3, ~a~ 4; 3, ~b~ 8; cf. ~ho Murti/lou prostro/paios~, Paus. 2, 18, 2, etc.; cf. Zacher, _Dissert. phil. Halens._, iii, p. 228. The injured dead himself becomes ~_arai=os_~, Soph., _Tr._ 1201 ff. (cf. _fr._ 367; E., _IT._ 778; _Med._ 608); later his place is taken by ~dai/mones arai=oi~. What terrible evils the unavenged soul can bring upon the person who is called upon to take vengeance are painted for us by Aesch. in _Cho._ 278 ff. (or else as some think an ancient interpolator of A.). Sickness and trouble might be sent over several generations by such ~palaia\ mêni/mata~ of the dead: Pl., _Phdr._ 244 D (see Lobeck's account, _Agl._ 636 f.). True to ancient beliefs an Orphic hymn prays to the Titanes ~_mê=nin_ chalepê\n apope/mpein, ei/ tis _apo\ chthoni/ôn progo/nôn_ oi/koisi pela/sthê~, _H._ 37, 7 f.; cf. 39, 9-10.]

[149\5: ~chreô/n estin _hupexelthei=n_ tô=| _patho/nti to\n dra/santa_ ta\s hô/ras pa/sas tou= eniautou=, kai\ erêmô=sai pa/ntas tou\s oikei/ous to/pous xumpa/sês tê=s patri/dos~, Pl., _Lg._ ix, 865 E. The law says in the case of the criminal convicted of murder ~ei/rgein me\n tê=s tou= patho/ntos patri/dos, ktei/nein de\ ouch ho/sion hapantachou=~, D. 23, 38.]

[150\5: When the victim was a citizen, and also in wilful murder of a non-citizen. See Mei. and Sch., _Att. Proc._^2, p. 379, n. 520.--When the citizenship of a city rested upon conquest the lives of the subjects belonging to the older subject population were of less account. In Tralles (Karia) the murder of one of the Leleges by an (Argive) full citizen might be bought off by payment of a bushel of peas (a purely symbolical ~poinê/~) to the relations of the victim: Plu., _Q.Gr._ 46, p. 302 B.]

[151\5: On the expiry of the legally appointed period of banishment the relations of the dead man do not seem to have been allowed to refuse ~ai/desis~. See Philippi, _Areop. u. Epheten_, 115 f.]

[152\5: Law ap. D. 43, 57.]

[153\5: D. 37, 59. See Philippi, op. cit., p. 144 ff. Cf. E., _Hipp._ 1435 f., 1442 f., 1448 f.]

[154\5: Such prohibition against taking a ~poinê/~ for murder is made by the Law ap. D. 23, 28: ~tou\s d' andropho/nous exei=nai apoktei/nein . . . lumai/nesthai de\ mê/, _mêde\ apoina=n_~ (cf. § 33 ~to\ de\ mêd' apoina=n; mê\ chrê/mata pra/ttein, ta\ ga\r chrê/mata a/poina ôno/mazon hoi palaioi/~). In spite of this Meier and others unjustifiably conclude that murder could be indemnified by payment of money, from the illegal practice mentioned in [D.] 58, 29: this speaks rather for the contrary. They have more appearance of justification when they appeal to Harp. (Phot. Suid., _E.M._ 784, 26; _AB._ 313, 5 ff.), s.v. ~hupopho/nia; ta\ epi\ pho/nô| dido/mena chrê/mata toi=s oikei/ois tou= phoneuthe/ntos, hi/na mê\ epexi/ôsin~. On the strength of this Hermann, _Gr. Staatsalt._^5 104, 6, says, "even intentional murder could be absolutely indemnified." Nothing is actually said of ~pho/nos hekou/sios~ here nor do we anywhere learn that the payment of ~hupopho/nia~ {212} on the occasion of a murder was ever a formally _legalized_ proceeding. It remains possible, and even in the circumstances more probable, that Dinarch. and Thphr. in the passages on ~hupopho/nia~ quoted by Harp. referred to the practice as one _forbidden_ by law, though it might be, on occasion, an actual fact. If we had only the gloss of Suidas--~a/poina; lu/tra, ha\ di/dôsi/ tis hupe\r pho/nou ê\ sô/matos. hou/tôs So/lôn en no/mois~--we might have concluded that payment of such blood-money was allowed in Athens and mentioned in Solon's laws as allowable. This would be quite as justifiable as to argue as above from Harp. s. ~hupopho/nia~. We know, in fact, that the law referred to the ~a/poina~ and ~apoina=n~ as _forbidden_ things, from the passages already quoted from Dem. (23, 28-33). From these the gloss was itself probably derived.]

[155\5: We cannot, however, believe on the poor authority of Sch. Dem, p. 607, 16 ff., that the ~hieropoioi\ tai=s Semnai=s theai=s~ were selected out of the whole Athenian citizen body by the Areiopagos. ("Three" were chosen out of all the Athenians: D. 21, 115; at other times "ten": Dinarch. ap. _EM._ 469, 12 ff.; an indefinite number: Phot. ~hieropoioi/~.) According to all analogies we should rather expect this selection to have been made by the popular Assembly.]

[156\5: ~hai diômosi/ai kai\ ta\ to/mia~, Antiphon, _Herod._ 88. In more detail D. 23, 67-8. Those who had to take an oath swore by the ~Semnai\ theai/~ and other gods: Dinarch., _adv. Demosth._ 47. Both sides had to swear to the justice of their case in respect of the material facts in dispute (Philippi, _Areop._, pp. 87-95). Such a compulsory oath taken by both parties could not of course in any circumstances serve as proof: one side at least must be perjured. Nor can the Athenians themselves have failed to see this. It is surely doing them an injustice not to see the simple explanation of this strange sort of preliminary oath-taking and to dismiss the matter with a reference to the Athenians as "not a legally-minded people" (as Philippi does, p. 88). It is much more natural to suppose that this double oath, taken under circumstances of peculiar solemnity, was not regarded as a juridical matter at all, but had a purely religious sense (as it had in the quite similar cases mentioned by Meiners, _Allg. Gesch. d. Relig._ ii, 296 f.). The oath-taker invokes a dreadful curse upon himself if he breaks his oath and devotes ~hauto\n kai\ ge/nos kai\ oiki/an tê\n hautou=~ (Antiphon, _Herod._ 11) to the Curse-Goddesses, the ~Arai/~ or the ~Erinu/es hai/ th' hupo\ gai=an anthrô/pous ti/nuntai, ho/tis k' epi/orkon omo/ssê|~ (~T~ 259 f.)--and to the Gods who are to punish his children and his whole kith and kin on earth (Lycurg., _Leocr._ 79). If the court discovers the perjured party the punishment due to his action overtakes him (or if he is the plaintiff, he fails in his purpose) and at the same time the justice of heaven punishes him for his broken oath (cf. D. 23, 68). But the court may make a mistake and not find out the perjurer; in which case the perjurer is still punished for he becomes a victim of the gods to whom he has devoted himself--who do not err. Thus the double oath is an _addition_ to the judicial inquiry, and heavenly punishment stands side by side with that of men. The two may coincide, but this need not be so, and in this way the guilty is punished whatever happens. (How familiar such ideas were in antiquity we see from expressions used by orators: Isoc. 18, 3; D. 19, 239-40; Lycurg., _Leocr._ 79.) The oath, being an appeal to a higher court, supplemented human justice, or rather the legal processes of men supplemented the oath-taking, for in this partnership the appeal to an oath must have been the older member.] {213}

[157\5: Poll. 8, 117, ~kath' he/kaston de\ mê=na triô=n hêmerô=n edi/kazon~ (the judges on the Areiopagos) ~ephexê=s, teta/rtê| phthi/nontos, tri/tê|, deute/ra|~.]

[158\5: ~hoi Areopagi=tai trei=s pou tou= mê=nos hême/ras ta\s phonika\s di/kas edi/kazon, heka/stê| tô=n theô=n mi/an hême/ran apone/montes~, Sch. Aeschin. 1, 188, p. 282 Sch. This certainly implies that the limitation of the number of the Erinyes to three (and not two for example--which first appears in Eurip., but was certainly not his own invention--was officially current in the worship of the city.--Since these three days were sacred to the Erinyes, as goddesses of Hades, they counted as ~apophra/des hême/rai~: _EM._ 131, 16 f.; _Et. Gud._ 70, 5 (the thirtieth day of the month is for that reason ~phau/lê pa=sin e/rgois~ acc. to "Orpheus" _fr._ 28 Ab.).]

[159\5: Paus. 1, 28, 6.]

[160\5: The Erinyes are the accusers of Orestes not only in Aeschylus (and thence in Eurip. too, _IT._ 940 ff.), but also in the varying accounts derived from different sources, in which the twelve gods served as judges ap. D. 23, 66 (cf. 74, and Dinarch., _adv. Dem._ 87).]

[161\5: The Erinyes are said ~apo\ zô=ntos rhophei=n eruthro\n ek mele/ôn pe/lanon~, A., _Eum._ 264 f.; cf. 183 f.; 302; 305. In this they closely resemble the "vampires" which we hear of especially in Slav popular mythology, and the Tii of the Polynesians, etc. These, however, are the _souls of the dead_ returned from the grave and sucking men's blood.]

[162\5: The Erinyes say to Orestes: ~emoi\ traphei/s te kai\ kathierôme/nos kai\ zô=n me dai/seis oude\ pro\s bômô=| sphagei/s~, A., _Eum._ 304 f. The matricide is divis parentum (i.e. their Manes) sacer, their sacrificial victim (~_thu=ma_ katachthoni/ou Dio/s~ D.H. 2, 10, 3), in the older belief of Greece, too.]

[163\5: See _Rh. Mus._ 50, 6 ff.]

[164\5: The fact that after receiving the ~ai/desis~ of the dead man's relatives the agent of a ~pho/nos akou/sios~ was still required to offer the expiatory sacrifice as well as undergo purification (~hilasmo/s~ and ~katharmo/s~) is alluded to by Dem. 23, 72-3, in the double expression ~thu=sai kai\ katharthê=nai, hosiou=n kai\ kathai/resthai~ (cf. Müller, _Aesch. Eum._, p. 144 [122, n. 2, E.T.]).]

[165\5: See Philippi, _Areop. u. Eph._ 62.]

[166\5: In the Iliad and the Odyssey there is a total absence not only of all reference to purification from blood-guiltiness but of the necessary conditions for it. The murderer goes freely among men without there being any fear of others suffering from a ~mi/asma~ attaching to him. Cf. the case especially of Theoklymenos, ~o~ 271-8. Lobeck rightly emphasizes this, _Agl._ 301. K. O. Müller's attempts to prove in spite of everything that purifications from the stain of murder were a Homeric custom, are failures. See Nägelsbach, _Hom. Theol._^2, p. 293.--The oldest examples of purifications from murder in the literature are (Lobeck 309): purification of Achilles from the blood of Thersites in the ~Aithiopi/s~, p. 33 Kink.; refusal of Neleus to purify Herakles from the murder of Iphitos: Hesiod ~en katalo/gois~, Sch., Il. ~B~ 336.--Mythical exx. of such purifications in later accounts: Lob., _Agl._ 968-9.]

[167\5: E g. offering of cakes, sacrifice of drink-offerings without wine, burning of the materials of sacrifice; cf. the description of ~hilasmo/s~ (in this place clearly distinguished from ~katharmo/s~) in A.R. iv, 712 ff. Similar account (offerings without wine, etc.) of the ~hilasmo/s~ (which is, however, improperly called ~katharmo/s~, l. 466) of the Eumenides at Kolonos which the chorus recommends to Oedipus, S., _O.C._ 469 ff. No one might eat of the expiatory sacrifice: Porph., _Abst._ 2, 44. It is burnt completely: Stengel, _Jahrb. f. Phil._ 1883, p. 369 ff.--The {214} clash of bronze was used ~pro\s pa=san aphosi/ôsin kai\ apoka/tharsin~: Apollod. _fr._ 36 (and in offerings to Hekate, Theoc. ii, 36; as protection against ghosts, Luc., _Philops._ 15; Sch. Theoc. ii, 36; Tz., _Lyc._ 77. Clash of bronze in this apotropaic sense occurs, too, in the dance of the Kouretes, etc.; see below). The ritual of expiation was affected in many ways by admixture of foreign superstitions from Phrygia and Lydia. Its chief source is to be found in the _Cretan_ worship of the (chthonic) Zeus. Thence it seems to have spread all over Greece assisted by the Apolline oracle of Delphi. This is why the ram, the peculiar victim of ~Zeu\s chtho/nios~, is the principal victim in expiatory sacrifices, its fleece, the ~Dio\s kô/dion~, receiving the various materials of expiation, etc.]

[168\5: On the chthonic character of the deities of expiation see in gen. K. O. Müller, _Aesch. Eum._, p. 139 ff. (112 ff.). Chief among them is ~Zeu\s meili/chios~ (a euphemistic title; cf. above, n. 5), who is unmistakably a ~chtho/nios~. Hence, like all ~chtho/nioi~ he is represented as a snake on the votive tablet to ~Z. meil.~ discovered in the Peiraeus (certainly the Athenian god and not a foreign deity identified with this god whom all Athenians knew well from the feast of the Diasia): _BCH._ 7, 507 ff.; _CIA._ ii, 1578 ff. On a votive insc. from Lykia we have, side by side with the chthonic Hekate, ~Dii\ Meilichi/ô| kai\ Enodi/a|~, _BCH._ 13, 392. Other ~theoi\ meili/chioi~ in Lokris were worshipped with _nocturnal_ sacrifice (as regularly in the case of underworld deities): Paus. 10, 38, 8. The ~dai/mones meili/chioi~ as ~chtho/nioi~ are contrasted with the ~maka/ressin ourani/ois~ in the oracle verses ap. Phlegon, _Macr._ iv, p. 93, 5 Kel.: deis milicheis _Acta Lud. Saecul._ Tab. A l. 11 [= _CIL._ vi, 32, 323; see Mommsen, _Ges. Schr._ viii, 570].--Then come the ~apotro/paioi~: their nature can be guessed from the fact that they were worshipped together with the dead and Hekate on the thirtieth day of the month (see above, n. 88). After a bad dream offerings were made to the ~apotro/paioi~, to Ge and the Heroes: Hp., _Diaet._ 4, 8, vi, p. 652 L. ~Zeu\s apotro/paios~ must have been a ~chtho/nios~, but we have side by side with him an ~Athêna= apotropai/a~ (and an Apollo ~apotr.~ too): ins. from Erythrai, _SIG._ 600, 69; 115: the provinces of ~Olu/mpioi~ and ~chtho/nioi~ were not always kept absolutely distinct.--An ancient and hereditary service of the propitiation deities belonged to the Attic family of the Phytalids who had once purified and offered expiatory sacrifice for Theseus after the murder of Skiron and others (~hagni/santes kai\ meili/chia thu/santes~): Plu., _Thes._ 12. The gods to whom this family offered sacrifice were Demeter and Zeus Meilichios: Paus. 1, 37, 2-4.--Isoc. 5, 117, makes a clear distinction between the ~theoi\ Olu/mpioi~ and the gods to whom only an apotropaic cult, ~apopompa/s~, was offered; these being the gods of expiation (cf. ~apodiopompei=sthai~ in propitiatory sacrifices; ~apopompai=oi theoi/~: Apollod. ap. Harp. ~apopompa/s~. Cf. also ~apopompê/~ of evil daimones in contrast to the ~epipompê/~ of the same: Anon. _Vir. Herb._ xxii, 165. See Hemsterhuys, _Lucian_ ii, p. 255 Bip.; Lob., _Agl._ 984, ii).]

[169\5: e.g. in the description of the ~hilasmo/s~ of Medea by Kirke in A.R. iv, 712 ff.]

[170\5: K. O. Müller, _Dorians_, i, 328, 336; cf. the same ancient custom of flight for nine years and penance for the slaying of a man in the legend and cult of Zeus Lykaios; cf. H. D. Müller, _Myth. d. gr. St._ ii, 105. See below.]

[171\5: _Cho._ 1055-60. _Eum._ 237 ff., 281 ff., 445 ff., 470.]

[172\5: The Delphinion, the court for trying ~pho/nos di/kaios~, and the ancient dwelling of Aegeus (Plu., _Thes._ 12), was at the same time {215} (and perhaps originally) an expiation site. Expiatory sacrifice was there made for Theseus after his fights with the Pallantidai and the highway robbers (~aphosiou/menos to\ a/gos~, Poll. viii, 119).]

[173\5: Plu., _Ser. Num._ 17, p. 560 EF. Note the expressions: ~_hila/sasthai_ tê\n tou= Archilo/chou psuchê/n, _hilasasthai_ tê\n Pausani/ou psuchê/n~. Suid. ~Archi/lochos~, from Aelian: ~_meili/xasthai_ tê\n tou= Telesiklei/ou paido\s psuchê/n, kai\ _praü=nai_ choai=s~.]

[174\5: The three ~exêgêtai\ putho/chrêstoi, hoi=s me/lei kathai=rein tou\s a/gei tini\ enischêthe/ntas~, Tim. **_Lex._ p. 109 R.]

[175\5: Pl., _Lg._ 865 B: the agent in a ~pho/nos akou/sios~ (of a special kind) ~katharthei\s kata\ to\n ek Delphô=n komisthe/nta peri\ tou/tôn no/mon e/stô katharo/s~.]

[176\5: I set down here the expressions occurring in the speeches and the (at any rate contemporary [see Appendix iv]) Tetralogies of Antiphon, which throw light on the religious ideas lying behind the procedure in trials for murder. In the prosecution of the murderer the following are concerned: ~ho tethneô/s, hoi no/moi~, and ~theoi\ hoi ka/tô~, _Or._ 1, 31. The vigorous prosecution of the case on the part of the relations of the dead is ~_boêthei=n_ tô=| tethneô=ti~: 1, 31. _Tetr._ 1 ~b~, 13. The condemnation of the murderer is ~timôri/a tô=| adikêthe/nti~, his personal revenge: 5, 88 = 6, 6. The accusing relatives come before the court as representatives of the dead man, ~_anti\_ tou= patho/ntos episkê/ptomen humi=n~, as they say to the judges, _Tetr._ 3 ~g~, 7. The duty of accusing as well as the ~ase/bêma~ of the deed of bloodshed rests upon them until satisfaction is made for it: _Tetr._ 1 ~a~, 3. But the ~mi/asma~ of the deed attaches to the whole city in which the murderer lives. All who sit at table with him, or live under the same roof, even the temples he walks in, are polluted by his mere presence: hence come ~aphori/ai~ and ~dustuchei=s pra/xeis~ on the city. It is to the greatest interest of the judges to avert this pollution by giving a propitiatory judgment: _Tetr._ 1 ~a~, 10; _Or._ 5, 11, 82; _Tetr._ 1 ~a~, 3; 1 ~g~, 9, 11; 3 ~g~, 6, 7. Above all it is necessary to find the real criminal and to punish him. If the relatives of the dead prosecute some one other than the real doer of the deed, it is they, and not the judges (on account of their wrong decision), who will have to bear the wrath of the dead man and of the avenging spirits: _Tetr._ 1 ~a~, 3; 3 ~a~, 4; 3 ~d~, 10; for in this case the murdered man is deprived of his ~timôri/a~: 3 ~a~, 4. But perjured witnesses and unjust judges are liable to a ~mi/asma~, too, which they then introduce into their own houses: _Tetr._ 3 ~a~, 3; or at least, if they give a false condemnation (but not a false acquittal) of the accused, they incur the ~mê/nima tô=n alitêri/ôn~ acc. to _Tetr._ 3 ~b~, 8--i.e. that of the falsely condemned person (whereas the murdered man still continues angry with his own relatives). If they _knowingly_ acquit the murderer contrary to justice, the murdered man becomes ~enthu/mios~ to the judges and no longer to his relatives: _Tetr._ 1 ~g~, 10.--The source of the resentment is said to be the dead man himself: ~prostro/paios ho apothanô/n~, _Tetr._ 1 ~g~, 10; cf. 3 ~d~, 10; where he is parallel with ~to\ mê/nima tô=n _alitêri/ôn_~. The murdered man leaves behind him ~tê\n tô=n alitêri/ôn dusme/neian~ (and _this_ is what the ~mi/asma~ really is--not as some modern writers have imagined, any sort of "moral" pollution--as is clearly stated in this passage: ~tê\n tô=n alit. dusme/neian, ê\n . . . mi/asma . . . eisa/gontai~): _Tetr._ 3 ~a~, 3; cf. Again 3 ~b~, 8; 3 ~g~, 7. In this case the avenging spirits substitute themselves for the soul of the dead man (just as in the case where a ~prostro/paios tou= apothano/ntos~ is spoken of: cf. above, n. 148). The ~prostro/paioi tô=n apothana/ntôn~ become themselves ~deinoi\ alitê/rioi~ of the dilatory relatives: {216} _Tetr._ 3 ~a~, 4. There is no essential distinction between the two (cf. Poll. 5, 131). Elsewhere we hear of ~to\ prostro/paion~ as the special attribute or feeling of the murdered man himself: _Tetr._ 2 ~d~, 9. Thus also we have the alternatives ~enthu/mios ho apothanô/n~ (1 ~g~, 10) and ~to\ _enthu/mion_~ (2 ~a~, 2; 2 ~d~, 9). In this connexion it is clear that ~enthu/mion~ (as the fixed and conventional expression for these superstitions) means the indignant memory, the longing for revenge of the murdered man (--~enthu/mion e/stô Da/matros kai\ Kou/ras~, _GDI._ 3541, 8). The proper understanding of this word will help us to see what is meant by the expression ~_oxuthu/mia_~ used of the meal offered to the dead and Hekate, and the almost identical purificatory offerings, that after the religious cleansing of a house were thrown out at the cross-roads (Harp. s.v. Phot. s.v. Art. 1, 2, 3; _AB._ 287, 24, 288, 7; _EM._ 626, 44 ff.). They are intended to appease the easily awakened anger of the souls (and of their patroness Hekate), their ~oxu/thumon~, a stronger version of ~enthu/mion~, by apotropaic sacrifice.]

[177\5: See Appendix ii (~maschalismo/s~).]

[178\5: Xen., _Cyr._ 8, 7, 17 ff.: ~ou ga\r dê/pou tou=to/ ge saphô=s dokei=te eide/nai hôs oude/n eimi egô\ e/ti, epeida\n tou= anthrôpi/nou bi/ou teleutê/sô; oude\ ga\r nu=n toi tê/n g' emê\n psuchê\n heôra=te . . . ta\s de\ tô=n a/dika patho/ntôn psucha\s ou/pô katenoê/sate, hoi/ous me\n pho/bous toi=s miaipho/nois emba/llousin, hoi/ous de\ palamnai/ous~ (which means first the criminal and then, as here, the punishing spirit that avenges the criminal deed, exactly like ~prostro/paios, alitê/rios, ala/stôr, mia/stôr~: see Zacher, _Dissert. phil. Halens._ iii, 232 ff.) ~toi=s anosi/ois epipe/mpousi? toi=s de\ phthime/nois ta\s tima\s diame/nein e/ti a\n dokei=te, ei mêdeno\s autô=n hai psuchai\ ku/riai ê=san? ou/toi e/gôge, ô= pai=des, oude\ **tou=to pô/pote epei/sthên, hôs hê psuchê/, he/ôs me\n a\n en thnêtô=| sô/mati ê=|, zê=|, ho/tan de\ tou/tou apallagê=|, te/thnêken~. Then follow other popular arguments for the belief in the continued existence of the soul after its separation from the body.]

{{217}}