Chapter IX: Dionysiac Religion in Greece (3)

[72\9: Thus at the ~amphidro/mia~ all who have had anything to do with {318} the ~mai/ôsis, apokathai/rontai ta\s chei=ras~ (Suid. s.v.). But even the child is lustrated: it is carried in the arms of a grown-up who runs with it round the altar and the altar fire: clearly a vestige of the ~apotropiasmo\s kai\ ka/tharsis~ of the child by sacred fire of which so many relics have been observed: see Grimm, p. 625; Tylor, ii, 430 f.--Uncleanness of the pregnant woman until the fortieth day after the child is born: Welcker, _Kl. Schr._ iii, 197-9. At the birth of a child crowns of olive-branches or woollen fillets (~e/ria~) were in Attica hung up on the house-door; just as cypress-branches were hung on the doors of houses where a corpse lay (see above, chap. v, n. 39): for kathartic purposes strings of onions (squills) were suspended on house-doors; see below): Hsch. ~ste/phanon ekphe/rein~. Both are lustral materials. Use of olive branches at ~katharmo/s~: S., _OC._ 483 f.; Vg., _A._ 230. When a mother gives her child that is to be exposed a crown made of olive branches (as in Eur., _Ion_, 1433 ff.), this, too, has an apotropaic purpose as also has the Gorgon's head on the embroidered stuff that also accompanies the child (l. 1420 f.): see on this O. Jahn, _Bös. Blick_, 60. The olive is also sacred to the ~chtho/nioi~ (hence its use as a bed for corpses: see above, chap. v, n. 61; cf. ~toi=s apothanou=sin elaa=s sunekphe/rousin~: Artemid. iv, 57, p. 236, 20 H. ~koti/nô| kai\ taini/a|~ the goddess crowns Chios in his dream and points the man thus dedicated to death to his ~mnê=ma~: Chio, _Epist._ 17, 2). This makes the olive suitable for lustration and ~apotropiasmoi/~. The house in which the child lay was thus regarded as needing "purification". The "uncleanness" felt to exist in this case is clearly expressed by Phot. ~rha/mnos; ami/antos hê pi/tta; dio\ kai\ en tai=s gene/sesi tô=n paidi/ôn (tau/tê|) chri/ousi ta\s oiki/as, _eis ape/lasin daimo/nôn_~ (see above, chap. v, n. 95). It is the neighbourhood of these (chthonic) ~dai/mones~ that cause the pollution.]

[73\9: A., _Pers._ 201 ff., 216 ff.; Ar., _Ra._ 1340; Hp., _Insom._ (ii, p. 10, 13 K. = vi, p. 654 L.); cf. Becker, _Charicles_, p. 133, n. 4 E.T.]

[74\9: Cf. Plu., _Sept. Sap. Conv._ iii, p. 149 D, and on this Wyttenb. vi, p. 930 f.]

[75\9: Purification of houses (~ch~ 481 ff.); e.g. [D.] 47, 71. It was customary to purify ~oiki/as kai\ pro/bata~ with black hellebore: Thphr., _HP._ 9, 10, 4; Dsc. 4, 149 (hence the superstitious details of its gathering, Thphr., _HP._ 9, 8, 8, and Dsc.). The touching of the house by unholy daimones necessitates purification: Thphr., _Ch._ 28 (16), 15, of the ~deisidai/môn; kai\ pukna\ de\ tê\n oiki/an katha=rai deino\s Heka/tês pha/skôn epagôgê\n gegone/nai~.]

[76\9: Presence of a dead body in a house makes the water and fire unclean; "clean" water and fire must then be brought in from elsewhere. See Plu., _QG._ 24 (Argos), p. 297 A (see above, chap. v, n. 38). At a festival of the dead in Lemnos all the fires were put out (as unclean); "clean" fire was sought from Delos, and, after the completion of the ~enagi/smata~ brought into the country and distributed. Philostr., _H._ 19, 14, p. 206-8, 7 K.--Alexander was following Greek, as well as Persian, customs when at the burial of Hephaistion he allowed ~to\ para\ toi=s Pe/rsais kalou/menon hiero\n pu=r~ to go out, ~me/chri a\n tele/sê| tê\n ekphora/n~, D.S. 17, 114, 4.]

[77\9: "When a Greek saw anyone using expiatory rites, he presumed in that person the will to amend," Nägelsbach, _Nachhom. Theol._, 363. If this was really so it is strange that we never see this "presumption" expressed in words. We do indeed read that the ~deisidai/môn~ mortifies himself and ~exagoreu/ei tina\s _hamarti/as hautou=_ kai\ plêmmelei/as~, but in what do these ~hamarti/ai~ consist?--~hôs to/de phago/ntos ê\ pio/ntos ê\ badi/santos {319} hodo\n hê\n ouk ei/a to\ daimo/nion~, Plu., _Superstit._ 7, p. 168 D: merely ritual omissions in fact, not moral transgressions at all. It is the same everywhere in this domain. The conceptions underlying purificatory practice certainly did not correspond to the refined morality of later ages, but they continued in force so long as _kathartikê_ remained popular: they are well expressed (though disapprovingly) by Ovid in the well-known lines which we shall, however, do well to recall: omne nefas omnemque mali purgamina causam credebant nostri tollere posse senes. Graecia principium moris fuit: illa nocentis impia lustratos ponere facta putat.--a! nimium faciles, qui tristia crimina caedis fluminea tolli posse putetis aqua, _F._ 2, 35 ff.; cf. Hp. i, p. 593 K., vi, 362 L.]

[78\9: We can only here allude to the remarkable parallel provided by the purificatory and expiatory ritual of India, which is completely analogous to the _kathartikê_ of Greece and had a similar origin. Even in details Indian conceptions and procedure answer closely to Greek. They are both as far removed as possible from all idea of quieting a guilt-laden conscience and are directed solely towards effacing, expunging, or expelling an external ~mi/asma~, a pollution arriving from without, a taint arising from contact with a hostile ~daimo/nion~ conceived as something in the nature of a daimonic fluid. Indian sources are on this point very rich and full: an excellent account of them is given by Oldenberg in his _Religion des Veda_ (esp. Fr. tr. 243 ff.; 417 ff.). Greek and Indian practices illuminate each other. It would be a valuable experiment to take the highly elaborated kathartic ritual of the Avesta and compare it with the history and technique of purification and expiation in Greek religion. It would mean renewing Lomeier's old book [_Epimenides s. de lustrat._ Zutphen 1700]: the materials are very scattered and the ground has never been thoroughly gone over since then. By the help also of the "comparative" method of religious study, which in this case is quite justified, it would then be possible to reconstruct a most important fragment of primitive _religio_--a fragment which had become almost entirely forgotten in Homeric times, which then recovered its ancient influence and continued to develop and was even transmitted to the ritual of the Christian church (cf. Anrich, _D. ant. Mysterienw._ 190 f.). We must be careful, however, to shut our ears to the otherwise very convincing people who are so anxious to introduce purely _moral_ interests and conceptions into ancient _religio_. Morality is a later achievement in the life-history of the children of men: this fruit did not grow in Eden.]

[79\9: See Appendix v.]

[80\9: What the Greeks meant by ~mi/asma~ can be very clearly seen, e.g. in the conversation between Phaidra and her nurse in Eur. _Hp._ 316 ff. Phaidra's distress of mind is not derived from a deed of blood: ~chei=res me\n hagnai/~ she says ~phrê\n d' e/chei mi/asma/ ti~. Does the Nurse think of any _moral_ disgrace or defilement of the distressed woman in this ~phreno\s mi/asma~? Not at all: she only asks, ~mô=n ex epaktou= pêmonê=s echthrô=n tinos?~ in other words by "defilement of the mind" she can only conceive of an enchantment, something from without that comes, by ~epagôgê\ tinô=n daimoni/ôn~ (see below, n. 108), a stain derived from the polluting neighbourhood of such daimones. This was the general and popular conception. (Taken literally Plato's words also give expression to the popular conception: ~pollô=n o/ntôn kai\ kalô=n en tô=| tô=n anthrô/pôn bi/ô|, toi=s plei/stois autô=n hoi=on _kê=res_ epipephu/kasin, hai\ katamiai/nousi/ te kai\ katarrupai/nousin auta\~, _Lg._ 937 D.)] {320}

[81\9: Diseases come ~palaiô=n ek mênima/tôn~, Pl., _Phdr._ 244 DE; i.e. from the rage of departed generations of souls or of ~chtho/nioi~, Lob., _Agl._ 635-7. Esp. madness is a ~nosei=n ex alasto/rôn~, S., _Tr._ 1325, a ~ta/ragma tarta/reion~, E., _HF._ 89. Cure of such diseases is undertaken not by doctors but by ~kathartai/, ma/goi kai\ agu/rtai~, expiatory priests with magic proceedings--this is well shown by the treatment of the "sacred disease" in Hp., _Morb. Sac._, p. 587-94 K = vi, 352-64 L. Such people, introducing themselves as magicians in the strict sense (p. 358 L.), use no regular medicinal treatment (356), but operate partly with ~katharmoi/~ and ~epô|dai/~, partly with various prescriptions of abstinence ~hagnei=ai kai\ katharo/têtes~. These last are explained by Hp. on dietetic grounds but the _Kathartai_ themselves derived them from ~to\ thei=on kai\ to\ daimo/nion~ (358). And such they were evidently in intention. The account of such prescriptions given on pp. 354-6 mostly refers to abstentions from plants and animals supposed to be sacred to the underworld. Noticeable also: ~hima/tion me/lan mê\ e/chein, _thanatô=des_ ga\r to\ me/lan~ (all trees with black berries or fruit belong to the _inferi_: Macr. 3, 20, 3). Other superstitions are found with these: ~mêde\ po/da epi\ podi\ e/chein, mêde\ chei=ra epi\ cheiri/; tau=ta ga\r pa/nta _kôlu/mata_ ei=nai~. The belief is familiar from the story of the birth of Herakles. See Welcker, _Kl. Schr._ iii, 191. Sittl, _Gebärden_ 126. (Something of the kind in _P. Mag. Par._ 1052 ff., p. 71 Wess.) The source of the disease was, however, always supposed to be the direct influence of a ~dai/môn~ (360-2) which must therefore be averted. Acc. to popular belief it is always God who ~to\ anthrô/pou sô=ma miai/nei~ (cf. p. 362). For this reason the magicians purify, ~kathai/rousi~, the sick ~hai/masi kai\ toi=sin a/lloisi~ which are used to purify people ~mi/asma/ ti e/chontas~ or on whom a curse has been laid. The ~katha/rsia~ are buried or thrown into the sea (~kai\ eis ha/la lu/mat' e/ballon~, _A_ 314), or carried away into a deserted mountain district (p. 362). Such ~katha/rsia~ are now the resting place of the ~mi/asma~ that has been washed off, and so the magician drives ~eis ore/ôn kephala\s nou/sous te kai\ a/lgê~, Orph. _H._ 36, 16. Similarly in India, Oldenberg 495.]

[82\9: _Epôdai_ used for stopping the flow of blood, ~t~ 457. Frequently mentioned in later times: particularly used in the magic cure of epilepsy, Hp. vi, 352-4; [D.] 25, §§ 79-80. When houses and hearths are purified by being sprinkled with hellebore ~sunepa/|dousi/ tina epô|dê/n~, Thphr. _HP._ 9, 10, 4 (_comprecationem solemnem_ is Pliny's trans., _NH._ 25, 49). Pains of childbirth prevented or alleviated by _epôdai_, Pl., _Tht._ 149 CD. (Much more of the kind in Welcker, _Kl. S._ iii, 64 ff.) The essential meaning of such _epôdai_ is regularly an appeal or exorcism addressed to the daimonic creature (clearly an appeal when lions or snakes are appeased in this way: Welcker, iii, 70, 14-15). _Epôdai_ accompanying ~rhizotomi/a~ are ~epiklê/seis~ of the ~dai/môn hô=| hê bota/nê anie/rôtai~: _P. Mag. Par._ 2973 ff. The meaning of such "conjurings" addressed to diseases--when the daimon is exorcised--is clearly seen in what Plotin. says of the Gnostics: they claimed to heal the sick by means of ~_epaoidai/_, me/lê, ê=choi~, and ~_kathai/resthai_ no/sôn, hupostêsa/menoi ta\s no/sous _daimo/nia_ ei=nai, kai\ ta\ toiau=ta exairei=n _lo/gô|_ pha/skontes du/nasthai~, 2, 9, 14.]

[83\9: Clashing of bronze used at ~apokatha/rseis~ to drive away ghosts: see above, chap. v, n. 167; cf. also Macr. 5, 19, 11. Claud. _iv. Cons. Hon._ 149: nec te (like Juppiter) progenitum Cybeleius aere sonoro lustravit Corybas. The noise of bronze has a kathartic effect simply as averting ghosts. In the process of driving out the ghosts at the _Lemuria_, Temesaea concrepat aera, Ov., _F._ 5, 441. Hence (?) ~chalkou= {321} auda\n chthoni/an, E., _Hel._ 1346. At eclipses of the sun or moon ~kinou=si chalko\n kai\ si/dêron a/nthrôpoi pa/ntes~ (cf. Plu., _Aem._ 17; Juv. vi, 443; Mart. xii, 57, 16 f., etc.) ~_hôs tou\s dai/mones apelau/nontes_~, Al. Aphr., _Prb._ 2, 46, p. 65, 28 Id. This is the object of the _crepitus dissonus_ at eclipses of the moon: Plin., _NH._ ii, 54; Liv. xxvi, 5, 9; Tac., _A._ i, 28, and cf. Tib. i, 8, 21 f.; _ob strias_: [Aug.] _Sacrileg._ v, 16, with Caspari's refs., p. 31 f.]

[84\9: ~pho/nô| pho/non ekni/ptein~, E., _IT._ 1233. Purgantur <cruore> cum cruore polluuntur . . . Heraclit. (p. 335, 5 Schust. [5 D. = 130 B.]).]

[85\9: A.R. iv, 703 ff. ~katharmoi=s choirokto/nois . . .~: A., _Eum._ 283, 449, ~hai/matos katharsi/ou~; cf. Müller, _Aesch. Eum._ 124. Representation of the ~katharmo/s~ of Orestes on well-known vase-paintings: _Mon. d. inst._ iv, 48, etc.]

[86\9: The "purification" of the stain of blood in these and similar cases really consisted in a "substitution" sacrifice whereby the anger of the daimones was appeased: so much was, on the whole correctly, observed long ago by Meiners, _Allg. Gesch. der relig._ ii, 137. The ~mi/asma~ that clings to the murderer is in fact just the indignation of the murdered man or of the underworld spirits: this is plain in Antiph., _Tet._ 3~a~, 3 (see above, chap. v, n. 176). The thing that makes the son who has not avenged his father's murder "unclean" and keeps him away from the altars of the gods is ~ouch horôme/nê patro\s mê=nis~ A., _Ch._ 293.--In the case of murder or homicide there is not only the contact with the sinister other-world that makes men unclean (this applies to all cases of "pollution"), but, besides this, there is also the anger of the murdered soul itself (and of its protecting spirits). Hence in _this_ case, besides ~katharmo/s, hilasmo/s~ as well is necessary (see above, chap. v). It is evident, however, that it would be difficult to keep the two processes distinct and that they would easily merge into each other.]

[87\9: The ~pharmakoi/~ are put to death at the _Thargelia_ of Ionic cities: Hipponax _fr._ 37. In other places on extraordinary occasions, but regularly at the Thargelia in Athens. This is denied by Stengel, _Hermes_, 22, 86 ff., but in the face of definite statements from antiquity general considerations can have no weight. In addition it was only a special mode of execution applied to criminals already condemned to death. (Two men, acc. to Harp. 180, 19: a man and a woman Hsch. ~pharmakoi/~: the variation is explained by Hellad. ap. Phot., _Bibl._, p. 354a, 3 ff. Bk.) The ~pharmakoi/~ serve as ~katha/rsia~ to the city (Harp. 180, 19 Bk.): Hippon. _fr._ 4; Hellad. ap. Sch. Ar., _Eq._ 1136. ~pharmako/s = ka/tharma~, Phot., _Lex._ 640, 8 Pors. The ~pharmakoi/~ were _either_ burnt (after being put to death) like other propitiatory victims: Tz., _Ch._ v, 736, prob. following Hippon. (the burning of the ~pharm.~ at Athens seems to be alluded to by Eup. ~Dê=m.~ 120 [i, 290 K.]); _or_ stoned: this form of death is implied (in the case of Athens) by the legend of Istros ap. Harp. 180, 23. Analogous customs (indicated by Müller, _Dorians_, i, 345) at Abdera: Ov., _Ib._ 465 f. (which acc. to the Sch. is taken from Call., who evidently transferred to Apollonios the pious wish directed by Hippon. against Boupalos); at Massilia (Petr. _fr._ 1 Bü., where the ~pharmako/s~ is either thrown down the cliff or _saxis occidebatur a populo_: Lact. ad Stat., _Th._ 10, 793). Apollonios of Tyana was clearly following ancient custom when he made the people of Ephesos stone an old beggar, who was evidently nothing but the plague-daimon itself, for the purification of the city: ~kathê/ras tou\s Ephesi/ous tê=s no/sou~, Philostr., _VA._ 4, 10-11. Was the stoning a sort of counter-enchantment? See Roscher, _Kynanthropie_, 38-9.] {322}

[88\9: Among the ingredients of a ~Heka/tês dei=pnon en tê=| trio/dô|~ was an ~ôo\n ek katharsi/ou~: Luc., _DM._ 1, 1; or the testicles of a sucking pig that had been used as a victim: D., 54, 39. The ~oxuthu/mia~, sacrifices to Hekate and the souls of the dead (see above, chap. v, n. 176), are identical with the ~katha/rmata kai\ apolu/mata~ which were thrown out at the crossroads in the ~Hekatai=a~: Did. ap. Harp. ~oxuthu/mia~; cf. _E.M._ 626, 44. ~katha/rsia~ is the name of the purificatory offerings: ~katha/rmata~ of the same when they are thrown away: Ammon., p. 79 Valck. The dead bodies of dogs which had been used as victims at the "purification" were afterwards thrown ~tê=| Heka/tê| meta\ tô=n a/llôn katharsi/ôn~, Plu., _QR._ 68, p. 280 C. Even the blood and water of the purificatory sacrifice, the ~apo/nimma~, is also dedicated to the dead: Ath. 409 E ff. The fact that the ~katha/rmata~ are made over to the invisibly present spirits at the cross roads might be derived also from the necessity for throwing them out ~ametastrepti/~ (see below, n. 104). Even the Argive custom of throwing the ~katha/rmata~ into the Lernaean lake (Znb., iv, 86; Dgn., vi, 7; Hsch. ~Le/rnê theatô=n~) shows that these kathartic materials are intended as a sacrifice to the underground spirits since the Lernaean lake was an entrance to the underworld (see above, chap. viii, n. 28).]

[89\9: Annual ~teletê/~ to Hekate in Aegina reputed to have been founded by Orpheus. Hekate and her ~katharmoi/~ were there regarded as valuable against insanity (for she can remove what she herself has sent): Ar., _Ves._ 122; Lob., _Agl._ 242. This initiation festival lasted on into the fourth century A.D.--Paus. refers to only one other temple of Hekate in Argos: 2, 22, 7.--Indications of a rigorous worship of Hekate in Kos: _GDI._ 3624, iii, p. 345 fin. Hekate was patron-goddess of the city of Stratonikeia: Tac., _A._ iii, 62. Str., 660, and in other cities of Karia (as is known from inscr.). Possibly Hekate is there only a Greek title of a native Karian deity. The ancient cult of the ~chtho/nioi~ at the Triopion in Knidos was, however, Greek: Böckh on Sch. Pi., p. 314 f.; _CIG._ i, p. 45.]

[90\9: ~chthoni/a kai\ nerte/rôn pru/tanis~: Sophr. _fr._ 7 Kaib. ap. Sch. Theoc. ii, 12.--She is actually queen in Hades, sharing the throne of Plouton it seems: S., _Ant._ 1199. She is often called ~chthoni/a~. She is ~Admê/tou ko/rê~ (i.e. of Hades, K. O. Müller, _Introd. Scient. Myth._ 245): Hsch. She is called ~admê/tê~ herself in _H. Mag. Hec._, Abel, _Orph._, p. 289. She is the daughter of Euboulos, i.e. Hades: _Orph. H._, 72, 3 (elsewhere of course she has other origins). As ~chthoni/a~ she is often confused with Persephone (and both, as they are all thus united in several particulars, with Artemis). In the transcript of a metrical inscr. from Budrum (Cilicia) in _JHS._ xi, 252. there appears a ~Gê= Heka/tê~. This would certainly be very remarkable but on the stone itself the actual words are ~_tê\n_ sebo/mesth' Hek[a/tên]~. [But cf. _Tab. Defix._, p. xiii, a 13.]]

[91\9: Hekate goddess of childbirth: Sophr. _fr._ 7. worshipped in Athens as ~kourotro/phos~, Sch. Ar., _V._ 804. Samian worship of the ~kourotro/phos en tê=| trio/dô|~ (i.e. as Hek.), [Hdt.] _V. Hom._ 30; Hes., _Thg._ 450: ~thê=ke de/ min~ (Hek.) ~Kroni/dês kourotro/phon~. (Even as early as this ~kour.~ is the epithet of Hek. and not the name of an independ. feminine daimon which it may have been to begin with, and in isolated cases remained.) ~Genetulli/s~ goddess of childbirth is said to be ~eoikui=a tê=| Heka/tê|~: Hsch. ~Gen.~ The goddess Eileithyia to whom dogs were sacrificed in Argos is certainly a Hekate (Sokr. ap. Plu., _Q. Rom._ 52, p. 277 B--she was Artemis elsewhere). A consecration to Hekate ~hupe\r paido/s~: inscr. from Larisa, _Ath. Mitth._ xi, 450. Hek. is also a goddess of marriage: as such (~ho/ti gamê/lios hê Heka/tê~, Sch.) she is called upon with Hymenaios {323} by Kassandra in Eur., _Tr._ 323. Hekate is ~gamê/lios~ simply as ~chthoni/a~: the ~chtho/nioi~ frequently take part in marriage as well as birth: see above, chap. v, p. 64 ff.; Gaia: see Welcker, _Götterl._ i, 327. Offering made ~pro\ pai/dôn kai\ gamêli/ou te/lous~ to the Erinyes: A., _Eum._ 835.]

[92\9: Hekate present at funerals (rushing ~pro\s a/ndras nekro\n phe/rontas~, Sophr. _fr._ 7) ~erchome/na ana/ t' êri/a kai\ me/lan hai=ma~ Theoc. ii, 13. ~chai/rousa skula/kôn hulakê=| kai\ hai/mati phoi/nô| en ne/kusi stei/chousa kat' êri/a tethnêô/tôn~, _H. Hec._ ap. Hipp., _RH._ iv, 35, p. 102, 64 f. D.-S.--Hekate present at all infamous deeds: see the remarkable formulae ap. Plu., _Superst._ 10, p. 170 B (Bgk., _PLG_^4 iii, p. 680).--Hek. regarded as devouring corpses (like Eurynomos, etc., above, chap. vii, n. 24): ~haimopo/tis, kardio/daite, sarkopha/ge, aôrobo/re~ are said of her in the _Hymn. Magic_, 5, ll. 53-4 (p. 294 Ab.). ~phthisi/kêre~ should be also read, ib., l. 44 (~kê=res = psuchai/~, see above, chap. v, n. 100); cf. ~ômopha/goi chtho/nioi~, _P. Mag. Par._ 1444. ~Heka/tê akrourobo/rê~ on a _defixio_ from Megara ap. _Tab. Defix._, p. xiii_a_, l. 7 Wünsch. Probably ~aôrobo/rê~ should be read (Wünsch differently, p. xx_b_).]

[93\9: See above, chap. v, nn. 66, 132.]

[94\9: Medea in E., _Med._ 385 ff.: ~ou ga\r ma\ tê\n de/spoinan hê\n egô\~ (as magician) ~se/bô ma/lista pa/ntôn kai\ xunergo\n heilo/mên, Heka/tên, muchoi=s nai/ousan hesti/as emê\s.--Dê/mêtros ko/rê~ is addressed as ~_puro\s de/spoina_~, in company with Hephaistos, in E., _Phaeth._, _fr._ 781, 59. Probably Hekate is meant being here as frequently combined or confused with Persephone the daughter of Demeter (cf. _Ion_, 1048).]

[95\9: The pious man cleans and decorates every month ~to\n Hermê=n kai\ tê\n Heka/tên kai\ ta\ loipa\ tô=n hierô=n ha\ dê\ tou\s progo/nous katalipei=n~, Theopomp. ap. Porph., _Abs._ ii, 16 (p. 146, 8-9 N.). Acc. to this Hekate and Hermes belong to the ~theoi\ patrô=|oi~ of the house.--Shrines of Hekate before the house-door (Lob., _Agl._ 1336 f.); cf. the sacella of the Heroes in the same place: above, chap. iv, n. 135.]

[95a\9: The late interpolation in Hes., _Th._ 411-52, in praise of Hekate leaves out the uncanny side of her character altogether. Hekate has here become so much the universally revered goddess that she has lost all definite personality in the process. The whole is a telling example of the sort of extension that might be given to a single divinity who had once been the vital cult-object of a small locality. The name of this universally known daimon becomes finally of little importance (for everything is heaped upon one personality). Hence there is little to be learnt of the special characteristics of Hekate from this Hymn. (In any case it is time we gave up calling this Hymn to Hekate "Orphic": the word is even more than usually meaningless and conventional in this case.)]

[96\9: Hekate (~nai/ousa~ at the crossroads, S. _fr._ 492 N.) meets men as an ~antai/a theo/s~ (S. _fr._ 311) and is herself called ~antai/a~ (_fr._ 311, 368; cf. _EM._ 111, 50, where what precedes is from Sch. A.R. i, 1141). The same adj. applies to a ~dai/môn~ that she causes to appear: Hsch. ~antai/a, antai=os~, in this as in most cases with the added sense of hostile. Hek. ~phainome/nê en ekto/pois pha/smasin~, Suid. ~Heka/tên~. (from Elias Cret. on Greg. Nz. iv, p. 487 Mg.). She appears or sends apparitions by night as well as by day: ~Einodi/a, thu/gater Da/matros, ha\ tô=n nuktipo/lôn epho/dôn ana/sseis kai\ methameri/ôn~, E., _Ion_, 1048 ff. Meilinoe, a euphemistically (cf. above, chap. v, n. 5) named daimonic creature, either Hekate or Empousa, meets ~antai/ais epho/doisi kata\ zophoeide/a nu/kta~, Orph. _H._ 71, 9. Hek. appears at midday in Luc., _Philops._ 22. In this midday vision she opens the earth and ~ta\ en Ha/idou ha/panta~ become visible (c. 24). This reminds us of the story told by Herakl. {324} Pont. of Empedotimos to whom Plouton and Persephone appeared ~en mesêmbri/a| stathera=|~ in a lonely spot and the whole world of the spirits became visible (ap. Procl. _in _Rp.__ ii, 119 Kroll). Lucian is probably parodying that story. Elsewhere in the same pamphlet he gives an absurd turn to a fabulous narrative of Plutarch's (_de An. fr._ 1 Bern. = _Philops._ 25).]

[97\9: See Append. vi.]

[98\9: See Append. vii.]

[99\9: Hekate herself is regarded as having the head of a dog: undoubtedly an ancient conception of her (she has ~skulakô/dea phônê/n~, _H. Mag._ 5, 17 Ab.). She is sometimes even a dog herself: Hsch. ~Heka/tês a/galma~, and partic. _AB._ 336, 31-337, 5; Call. _fr._ 100 h, 4. She is identified with Kerberos: Lyd., _Mens._ 3, 8, p. 42 W. She is actually invoked as a dog in _P. Mag. Par._ 1432 ff., p. 80 W.: ~kuri/a Heka/tê einodi/a, ku/ôn me/laina~. Hence dogs are sacred to her and are sacrificed to her (earliest witness Sophr. _fr._ 8 Kaib.). The hounds with whom she flies about at night are daimonic creatures like Hekate herself. Porph. (who was specially well informed about such things) said that ~saphô=s~ the hounds of Hekate were ~ponêroi\ dai/mones~: ap. Eus., _PE._ 4, 23, 7-8. In Lycophron's account (ll. 1174-80) _Hekabe_ is represented exactly in this way, i.e. as a daimonic creature who appears to men as a hound (cf. _PLG._ iii, 721 f.). She is transformed by Hekate (Brimo) into one of her train (~hepôpi/da~) who by their nocturnal howling strike terror into men who have neglected to make offering to the goddess.--Dogs occur as symbols of the dead on grave-reliefs?--above, chap. v, n. 105. (Erinyes as hounds; Keres as "Hounds of Hades": A.R. iv, 1665; _AP._ vii, 439, 3 [Theodorid.], etc. Ruhnken, _Ep. Cr._ i, 94.)]

[100\9: See Dilthey, _Rh. Mus._ 25, 332 ff.]

[101\9: The Italian Diana who had long become identical with Hekate remained familiar to the Christianized peoples of the early Middle Ages (allusions in Christian authors: Grimm, pp. 283, 286, 933, 949, 1161 f. O. Jahn, _Bös. Blick_, 108). She was, in fact, the meeting point of the endless mass of superstition that had survived into that time from Graeco-Roman tradition. The nocturnal riding of a mob of women (i.e. "souls" of women) _cum Diana, paganorum dea_ is quoted as a popular superstition by the so-called _Canon Episcopi_, which in the controversies on witches was so often appealed to. This document, it seems, cannot be traced back further than Regino (end of ninth century). He seems to have got it out of [Aug.] _De Sp. et Anima_ (probably written in the sixth century). It was rescued from oblivion by Burkhard of Wurms, used in the Decretals of Gratian, and became very well known in the Middle Ages. (The passage from Burkhard is printed in Grimm, p. 1741. That the whole is a Canon (24) of the Council of Ancyra, 314 A.D., is, however, only a mistaken idea of Burkhard's.) This belief in the nightly hunt of Diana with the souls may be regarded as a vestige of the ancient idea of Hekate and her nocturnal crew. It was all the more likely to survive in northern countries with their native legends of wild Hunters and the "furious host" with which it could so easily combine. ["Herne the Hunter," _Merry Wives of Windsor_, iv, 4; v, 5.]]

[102\9: ~hoko/sa dei/mata nukto\s pari/statai, kai\ pho/boi kai\ para/noiai kai\ anapêdê/seis ek tê=s kli/nês kai\ pho/bêtra kai\ pheu/xeis e/xô, Heka/tês phasi\n ei=nai epibola\s kai\ hêrô/ôn epho/dous, katharmoi=si/ te chre/ontai kai\ epaoidai=s~, Hp., _Morb. Sac._ vi, 362 L.; cf. Plu., _Supers._, 3, p. 166 A; Hor., _AP._ 454. Hekate is ~maniô=n aiti/a~, Eust., _Il._, p. 87, 31 (hence also releases men from madness in the initiations of Aegina, see above, n. 89); cf. ~e/ntheos {325} ex Heka/tês~, E., _Hip._ 141. Dreams of Hekate, Artemid., 2, 37, p. 139, 1 ff. H. The ~hê/rôes apoplê/ktous poiei=n du/nantai~: Sch. Ar., _Av._ 1490. The ~hê/rôes~ are also the source of nightmares, _Rh. Mus._ 37, 467 n. (like Pan as Ephialtes: Didym. ap. Sch. Ar., _Ves._ 1038--where ~_Eua/pan_~ should be read, from ~eu/a~ the noise of bleating goats and ~Pa=n~: Suid. and _CIG._ iv, 8382). The Lamiai and Empousai seem also to have been night-terrors; cf. what is said of their amorous disposition and desire for human blood by Apollonios ap. Philostr. _VA._ 4, 25, p. 145, 18; and what is said of Pan-Ephialtes, ~ea\n de\ sunousia/zê|~, Artemid., p. 139, 21 H. General statement: ~oneirô/ssein~ comes ~apo\ _daimo/nôn_ energei/as~ Suid. ~oneiropolei=n~, p. 1124 Gaisf. Seirenes: Crusius, _Philol._ 50, 97 ff.]

[103\9: The "Banquets of Hekate", besides the ~katha/rmata~ referred to above (n. 88), included also the specially prepared dishes that were made and put out for Hekate ~kata\ mê=na~ (Ar., _Plu._ 596) at the ~triaka/des~ (see above, chap. v, n. 88) or else at the ~noumêni/ai~, Sch. Ar., _Plu._ 594: ~kata\ tê\n noumêni/an, _hespe/ras_~; cf. the offering to Hekate and Hermes at each ~noumêni/a~: Theopomp. ap. Porph., _Abs._ 2, 16, p. 146, 7 N. These banquets of Hek. are meant by Ar., _Plu._ 594 ff., S. _fr._ 668 N.; Plu., _Smp._ 7, 3, p. 709 A.--It is possible that at the turn of the month there was a "purification" of the house, in which case the ~katha/rsia~ and the ~Heka/tês dei=pna~ would be again combined.--Ingredients of the offerings to Hek.: eggs and toasted cheese (Sch. Ar.); ~tri/glê~ and ~maina/s~ Ath. 325 B.; flame-cakes (of cheese, ~plakou=ntes dia\ turou=~, Paus. Lex. ap. Eust. 1165, 14) ~amphiphô=ntes~ (see Lob., _Agl._ 1062 f.).]

[104\9: The person ~katha/rmata ekpe/mpsas~ throws them away ~aostro/phoisin o/mmasin~: A., _Cho._ 98-9. The vessel filled with the purificatory offerings was emptied ~en tai=s trio/dois~ and ~ametastrepti/~: Schol. ib. This was regular with ~katharmoi/~: Theoc. xxiv, 94 ff., and at offerings to the Erinyes: S., _OC._ 490. Even Odysseus is obliged at his sacrifice to the dead ~apono/sphi trape/sthai~, ~k~ 528. Medea in collecting her magic juices turns her eyes ~exopi/sô chero/s~: S. ~Rhiz.~ _fr._ 491 N.; A.R. iv, 1315; cf. also Lomeier, _de lustrat._, p. 455 f. This remained the rule at sacrifices to ~chtho/nioi~ and in magic ceremonies which regularly had to do with the underworld. Even Marc. Emp. in giving directions for the cure of ~phusika/~ often enjoins _nec retro respice_ e.g. 1, 54, likewise Plin., _NH._ 21, 176; 29, 91. In making an enchantment ~poreu/ou anepistreptei\ mêdeni\ dou\s apo/krisin~ _P. Mag. Lond._, given in Kenyon _Greek Pap. in B.M._, i, p. 98. Modern superstition agrees: cf. Grimm, p. 1789, n. 299; cf. nn. 357, 558, 890, 1137. The eye must be turned away from the "furious host": Birlinger, _Aus Schwaben_, _N.S._ i, 90. The precaution is, however, of primeval antiquity. In the old Indian cult of the dead and worship of formidable deities many of the proceedings must be performed ~ametastrepti/~, Oldenberg, 335 f., 487 f., 550, n. 5; 577 f., 580. The reason for the precaution is not hard to see. If the person looked round he would see the spirits engaged in taking possession of the objects thrown to them, which would be sure to bring ill-luck--~chalepoi\ de\ theoi\ phai/nesthai enargô=s~. Hence Odysseus, when he is returning Leukothoë's wimple by throwing it into the sea, must ~auto\s apono/sphi trape/sthai~, ~e~ 350. Hence Orpheus must not look back at Eurydike while she belongs to the lower world. (Cf. Hannibal's dream reported after Silenus and Cael. Ant. by Cic., _Div._ i, 49.) ~hoi entugcha/nontes nukto\s hê/rôsi die/strephon ta\s o/pseis~: Sch. Ar., _Av._ 1493. Very clearly put by Ov., _F._ 5, 437; at the Lemuria the sacrificer throws away the beans aversus . . . nec respicit. umbra putatur colligere et nullo terga vidente sequi. At last when the Manes are {326} all driven out, _respicit_ (444). One of the Pythagorean ~su/mbola~, those invaluable fragments of Greek old wives' wisdom, runs: ~apodêmô=n tê=s oiki/as mê\ epistre/phou; Erinu/es ga\r mete/rchontai~ (Iamb., _Protr._, p. 114, 29 f. Pist). Here the _reason_ for the superstitious practice is clearly shown (cf. also Grimm, p. 1778, n. 14; cf. n. 360): the underworld spirits (wandering over the earth, esp. on the fifth of the month, as in Hes., _Op._ 803) are following the departing person: if he were to turn round he would see them.]

[105\9: Appearance of ~ei/dôla~ of the dead: not as in Homer in dreams only, but openly before men's waking eyes. Stories of this go back as far as the poems of the Epic Cycle; cf. appearance of Achilles in the little Iliad (p. 37 Ki), in the ~No/stoi~ (p. 33). How familiar this idea had become by the fifth century may be judged from the frequency of ghosts in the tragedians: A., _Pers. Eum. Prom._ ~Psuch.~; S., ~Polux.~; cf. _fr._ 795 N.; E., _Hec._; raising of the spirit of a dead man, _fr._ 912; cf. also the stories of Simonides and the grateful dead (Bgk. on Sim. _fr._ 129); of Pelops and the ~ei/dôlon~ of Killos (see A. Marx, _Griech. Märchen von dankbaren Thieren_, p. 114 f.).]

[106\9: Spirit-raising at entrances to the underworld at definite ~psuchomantei=a~ or ~nekuomantei=a~: see above, chap. v, n. 23. There were, however, ~psuchagôgoi/~ who could compel individual souls to appear at other places as well: E., _Alc._ 1128 f. Such ~psuchagôgoi/~ belonging to the fifth century and to be found in Thessaly are spoken of by Plu. ap. Sch. E., _Alc._ 1128. People ~tou/s te tethneô=tas pha/skontes psuchagôgei=n kai\ theou\s hupischnou/menoi pei/thein, hôs thusi/ais te kai\ euchai=s kai\ epô|dai=s goêteu/ontes~ occur in Pl., _Lg._ 909 B. Later literature abounds in such spirit-raisings. Conjuring Hekate to appear was a favourite magic experiment: A.R. iii, 1030 f., etc., recipe for producing this illusion in Hipp., _RH._ iv, 35-6, p. 102 f. D.-S. A ~Heka/tês epagôgê/~ occurs as early as Thphr., _Ch._ 28 (16).]

[107\9: ~agu/rtai kai\ ma/nteis~ profess ~ea/n ti/s tin' echthro\n pêmê=nai ethe/lê| meta\ smikrô=n dapanô=n homoi/ôs di/kaion adi/kô| bla/psein, epagôgai=s tisi kai\ katade/smois tou\s theou/s, hô/s phasi, pei/thonte/s sphisin hupêretei=n~, Pl., _Rp._ 364 C. And esp. from _Lg._ 933 AE we get a good idea of the fear that the ~ma/nteis~ and ~teratosko/poi~ generally inspired with their ~katade/seis epagôgai/, epô|dai/~, and other ~magganei=ai~ (we even hear of wax-figures on house-doors, grave-stones, ~epi\ trio/dois~, as so frequently later, with the same superstitious purpose. Plato himself does not rule out the possibility of such magic incantations: at least they did not conflict with his own daimonic theory: see _Smp._ 203 A. ~epagôgai/~ are "evocations" of spirits or gods: see Ruhnk., _Tim._, p. 115. ~epipompai/~ have the same meaning: see above, chap. v, n. 168. ~epipe/mpein~ frequently in this sense in the _Orph. H._ ~_katade/seis_, _kata/desmoi_~ are the "bindings" whereby the spirit-raiser magically compels the unseen to do his will. Compulsion is regularly found to be necessary: the spirits do not come willingly. The magician by his spells and ceremonies is their master; he exerts over them that ~ana/gkê (ho epa/nagkos~ is frequent in the magical books) or ~peithana/gkê~ of which Porph. ap. Eus., _PE._ 5, 8, specially tells us (probably deriving it from Pythagoras of Rhodos). ~pei/thein~ is Plato's weaker word: the most extreme is ~biastikai\ apeilai/~ Iamb. _Myst._ 6, 5 [i.e. Porph. _Ep. Aneb. fr._ 31 Parth.]; cf. ~to\ dei=na pra/xeis ka\n the/lê|s ka\n mê\ the/lê|s~: refrain in a magic hymn, _P. Mag. Par._ 2252 ff.--Just as in these incantations the ~kata/desis~ affects the gods themselves so in other cases the victim is the unfortunate person whom the magician intends to harm: in this sense we have ~katade/seis, kata/desmoi~, _P. Par._ 336; Orph. _Lith._ 582, and the {327} _devotiones_ or _defixiones_ written on metal tablets which have been found in such numbers in graves; see Gothofred. ad _Cod. Theod._ 9, 16, 3. These are now collected and edited by R. Wünsch, _Defixionum tabellae in Attica repertae_ (_CIA._ App.), 1897, with those found outside Attica included in the _Praefatio_. Here we find ~katadô= (katadi/dêmi to\n dei=na~ his tongue, limbs, mind, etc. (nn. 68, 89, 95, etc.), i.e. a magical disabling, paralysing, fettering of his faculties--and of all his efforts: ~atelê=, enanti/a pa/nta ge/noito~, nn. 64, 98. The carrying out of this is entrusted to Hermes ~chtho/nios~ or to Hekate (~katadô= auto\n pro\s to\n Hermê=n ktl.~) as the ~_ka/tochoi_ dai/mones~; cf. nn. 81, 84, 85, 86, 101, 105, 106, 107. Sometimes the promoter of the ~kata/desis~ says of himself ~katadô= kai\ kate/chô~ 109, etc. The _defixio_ itself is called ~ho ka/tochos~, _Gk. Pap. in B.M._ (Ken.), No. 121, ll. 394, 429 = p. 97-8. ~katadei=n~ is therefore here = ~kate/chesthai poiei=n~ (= disable him--not make him "possessed") and implies the delivery of the victim into the power of the infernal spirits.--The ~ma/nteis~ and ~kathartai/~ appear as accomplished weather-magicians in Hp., _Morb. Sac._ vi, 358 L. They are claimed to be able to draw down the moon (an old art of Thessalian witches), make the sun go out, cause rain or drought at will, etc. A ~ge/nos~ of ~anemokoi=tai~ at Korinth was able ~tou\ ane/mous koimi/zein~: Hsch. Suid. ~anemok.~: cf. Welcker, _Kl.S._ iii, 63. The claims made by these ~kathartai/~ for themselves were made by later ages on behalf of Abaris, Epimenides, Pythagoras, etc.; Porph., _VP._ 28-9 (Iamb. 135 f.); Empedokles promised them to his own pupils; 464 ff. Mull., _fr._ 111 Diels; and cf. Welcker, _Kl.S._ iii, 60 f.--These are all examples of magical arts from early times: the overwhelming mass of evidence for such proceedings in later ages cannot be mentioned here except as explaining ancient accounts.]

[108\9: Abaris had been mentioned by Pindar (Harp. ~A/baris~); Hdt. mentions him in iv, 36. There we hear of the arrow which he bore along with him ~kata\ pa=san tê\n gê=n~ and of his complete abstention from food (cf. Iamb., _VP._ 141). The arrow, a ~su/mbolon tou= Apo/llônos~ (Lycurg. _fr._ 85, ap. Eudoc., p. 34, 10) is borne by Abaris in his hand--the suggestion of Wesseling, recently revived, that we should in Hdt.'s passage read ~hôs to\n oïsto\s perie/phere~, has been shown to be linguistically impossible by Struve, _Opusc. Crit._ ii, 269. The embellishment of the Abaris story, whereby he (like Musaios) flew through the air on his arrow, is later than Hdt. or than Lyk. (The arrow is presumably the same as the one of which Herak. Pont. tells some strange things; ap. [Eratosth.] _Catast._ 29.) The story sounds rather like Herakleides. See Porph., _VP._ 29; Iamb., _VP._ 91, 136; Him., _O._ 25, 2, 4; Nonn. _D._ 11, 132 f.; Proc. Gaz., _Ep._ 96. Abaris was regarded as ~e/ntheos~ (Eudoc.) as ~kathartê/s~ and ~chrêsmolo/gos~, as driving away pestilences by magic arts (esp. in Sparta, where ~kôlutê/ria~ = apotropaic sacrifices, were instituted and a temple of ~Ko/rê sô/teira~ founded: Apollon., _Mir._ 4--prob. from Theopomp.: see _Rh. Mus._ 26, 558--Iamb., _VP._ 92, 141; Paus. 3, 13, 2). He is also said to have prophesied earthquakes, pestilence, etc. (Apollon.), and to have given prescriptions against disease and ~epôdai/~ (Pl., _Chrm._ 158 CD); was a type of ~eukoli/as kai\ lito/têtos kai\ dikaiosu/nês~: Str. 301.--The figure of Abaris thus left rather vague in ancient legend was elaborated from two sources: (1) the Athenian cult-legends of the foundation of the _Proërosia_: Harp. ~A/b.~, Suid. ~proêrosi/a~. Sch. Ar., _Eq._ 729; Lycurg. ~kata\ Menesai/chmou~; and (2) the Pythagorean legends. It is in itself very probable that the story in Iamb., _VP._ 91-3, 147, of the meeting between Abaris and Pythagoras goes back to the fabulous "Abaris" of Herakleides {328} (the story in 215-17 of Abaris and Pythagoras before Phalaris evidently comes from Apoll. Ty.). This was suggested by Krische _de soc. Pythag._, p. 38, and has been more definitely maintained by Diels, _Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos._ iii, 468: it cannot, however, be demonstrated absolutely--there is not a scrap of evidence to show that Herakleides did actually make Abaris meet Pythagoras. (~Puthago/ras en tô=| pro\s A/barin lo/gô=|~, Procl. in _Tim._ 141 D. may very possibly, but not _necessarily_, as Diels thinks, refer to the _Abaris_ of Herakleides.)--In any case the bringing together of Abaris and Pyth. is a late invention; it is impossible to say whether it could have occurred or did occur as early as the Aristotelian work ~peri\ tô=n Puthagorei/ôn~.--In any case, the guiding conception in all this is that Abaris did not belong to the primeval past but came to Greece in the daylight of historical times. Pindar makes this happen ~kata\ Kroi=son to\n Ludô=n basile/a~ (prob. about the time of the ~Sa/rdeôn ha/lôsis~, Ol. 58, 3 = 546); "others" (acc. to Harp.) made it earlier, in Ol. 21 = 696. It is impossible to tell what the reasons were for either of these particular dates. Abaris might still be regarded as a contemporary of Pythagoras by those who, with Eusebios and Nikostratos ap. Harp., put him in Ol. 53 (~kata\ tê\n [=]n[=]g Olumpia/da~, for so the figure in Harp. should be read and not ~[=]g Ol.~; the right reading is preserved from Harp. in Suid. ~A/b.~). This view, however, is not, as Diels thinks, obtained by making Abaris forty years older than Pyth. (The ~akmê/~ of Pyth. falls in Ol. 62--see _Rh. Mus._ 26, 570--and that, too, is the date--not Ol. 63--given by "Eusebius _Chronica_", i.e. the Armenian, tr. and the MSS. _PEMR_ of Jerome.) Perhaps Abaris was regarded as the contemporary of Phalaris whose reign according to one of the versions given by Eusebios began in Ol. 53, or 52, 3. Cf. _Rh. Mus._ 36, 567.]

[109\9: _Ekstasis_ of Aristeas: ~tou/tou phasi\ tê\n psuchê\n, ho/tan ebou/leto, exie/nai kai\ epanie/nai pa/lin~. Suid. ~Ariste/as~. His body lies as if dead ~hê de\ psuchê\ ekdu=sa tou= sô/matos epla/zeto en tô=| aithe/ri ktl.~ Max. Tyr. 16, 2, p. 288 R. (reperimus) Aristeae animum evolantem ex ore in Proconneso corvi effigie, Plin., _NH._ vii, 174 (very similar stories from elsewhere, Grimm, p. 1083 [and Baring-Gould, _Myths of M.A._]). So, too, the ~Arima/speia~ said that Aristeas reached the Issedones ~phoiba/lamptos geno/menos~ (Hdt. iv, 13); which at least means in some strange way impossible for other men, i.e. in Apolline **ecstasy (cf. above, n. 63, ~numpho/lêptos~, etc.; ~en eksta/sei apophoibô/menos~, _P. Mag. Par._, p. 63 Wess.). So, too, Max. Tyr. 38, 3, p. 222 ff., makes Aristeas describe how his ~psuchê/, katalipou=sa to\ sô=ma~ had reached the Hyperboreans, etc. These accounts are not derived from Hdt. who on the contrary says that Arist. _died_ in a fuller's mill at Prokonnesos and that his body then disappeared and was seen by a man at Kyzikos. This would be _translation_ of body and soul together _not_ ~e/kstasis~ of the soul alone. In this case Hdt. is probably inaccurate. In such cases of translation the point of the story, in fact its whole meaning, lies in the fact that the translated person has not died but that he has vanished without his soul being separated from his body, i.e. without dying; for normally in death the soul alone vanishes. This applies to all the cases of translation referred to in this book (see e.g. the story of the Hero Euthymos: above, chap. iv, n. 116; of Kleomedes, p. 129, above; and also to the legend of Romulus in Plu., _Rom._ 27-8, in which Plu. rightly finds much resemblance with the story of Aristeas as told by Hdt. It applies to the numerous stories of translation which, evidently after Greek models, were told of the Latin and Roman kings (see Preller, _Röm. Mythol._^2, p. 84 f., 704). It appears then that {329} Hdt, has combined two versions of the legend: one acc. to which Aristeas "died" (not only on this occasion but often), i.e. his soul separated itself from his body and had a life of its own; another in which his body and soul were "translated" together without his death. In either version Aristeas might meet with the man in Kyzikos: if he were translated, it would be his vanished body (cf. Romulus' meeting Julius Proculus); but if his soul left his body behind as though lifeless then it would be the soul as ~ei/dôlon~ of its body that appeared to the man (as in the cases of Pythagoras and Apoll. Tyan. who were seen at two different places at the same time). This last story seems to be the real and primitive one; it is suggested by the above-mentioned accounts of the ~e/kstasis~ of the soul of Aristeas and it was so understood by the authority (apparently Thpomp.) whom Apollon., _Mirab._ 2, is following.]

[110\9: Hdt. iv, 15, Thpomp. ap. Ath. 13, 605 C: the bronze laurel was set up ~kata\ tê\n Ariste/a tou= Prokonnêsi/ou epidêmi/an ho/te e/phêsen ex Huperbore/ôn paragegone/nai~. This is not said by Hdt. but is compatible with his account. Acc. to Hdt. Aristeas told the people of Metapontum that they alone of all the Italiots had been visited by Apollo and that he, Aristeas, had been in the god's train in the shape of a raven (sacred to Apollo). This last feature allows us to conclude that Hdt., too, knew of the wanderings made by the soul of Aristeas while his body remained at home as though dead. The raven is clearly the soul of Aristeas: Plin., _NH._ vii, 174.--The ~epidêmi/a~ of Aristeas in Metapontum fell acc. to Hdt.'s own calculation (~hôs sumballo/menos . . . heu/riskon~) 240 years (not 230) after the second ~aphanismo/s~ of Aristeas from Prokonnesos. As Aristeas had in his poem spoken of the beginning of the Kimmerian invasion (Hdt. iv, 13) his first ~aphanismo/s~ cannot have been _before_ 681 (the first year of Ardys' reign, when the Kimmerian invasion began acc. to Hdt. i, 15: Prokonnesos was, too, first founded under Gyges: Str. 587). Taking this as a starting point (and it is the earliest admissible terminus) and subtracting 240 + 7 years (Hdt. iv, 14 fin.) we should arrive at the year 434. This, however, cannot possibly have been meant by Hdt. as the year of the miraculous presence of Aristeas in Metapontum. We seem to have one of Hdt.'s errors of calculation to which he is prone. We cannot indeed make out when exactly he intended to date the various scenes of the Aristeas story.--In any case, Hdt. never intended to make Aristeas the teacher of Homer, as Bergk following others thinks. He makes Homer's _flor._ about 856: see _Rh. Mus._ 36, 397; and puts the Kimmerian invasion much later. Aristeas could only be regarded as teacher of Homer (Str. 639; Tat. _Gr._ 41) by those who made Homer a contemporary of the Kimmerian invasion, Thpomp. esp.: see _Rh. Mus._ 36, 559.--We do not know what grounds those Chronologists had who made Aristeas contemp. with Kroisos and Kyros and put his _flor._ in Ol. 58, 3 (Suid.). The reason may possibly have been "identification"--this is hardly likely--"or conjunction with Abaris" (Gutschmid ap. Niese, _Hom. Schiffskat._, p. 49, n.). Unfortunately nothing is known of such a conjunction with Abaris (very problematical conjectures by Crusius in _Myth. Lex._ i, 2814 f.). Possibly those who favoured this view held that the ~Arima/speia~ had been foisted upon Aristeas; cf. D. H., _Thuc._ 23; ~p. hu/psous~, 10, 4. This work was certainly regarded as having been composed at the time of the Kim. invasion. The historical reality of Aristeas was never doubted in antiquity and in spite of the many legends that gathered about his name there is no need for us to do so. The stories of Aristeas' extremely prolonged lifetime (from the {330} Kim. invasion to the evidently much later period in which he really lived) appear to have been derived chiefly from fictions in the ~Arima/speia~ which probably also gave reasons of a mysterious kind for this marvellous extension of his existence. We cannot tell whether Aristeas himself wrote the poem and provided his own halo of marvel or whether someone else, coming later, made use of this name so famous in legend. If there was any basis for the account in Suid. ~Pei/sandros Pei/sônos~ fin. we might be justified in attributing the composition of the ~Arima/speia~ to Aristeas himself. In any case the poem was already in existence at the beginning of the fifth century: it can hardly be doubted that Aeschylus modelled upon it his picture of the griffins and Arimaspoi in _Pr._ 803 ff.]

[111\9: Dexikreon in Samos, Plu., _Q. Gr._ 54.--Polyaratos of Thasos, Phormion of Sparta: Cl. Al., _Str._ i, 21, p. 399 P. Phormion is better known because of his marvellous experiences: Paus. 3, 16, 2-3; Thpomp. ap. Suid. ~Phor.~: see Meineke, _Com._^2, p. 1227 ff.--At the end of the above-mentioned enumeration of ~ma/nteis~ ap. Clem. Al., a certain ~Empedo/timos ho Surako/sios~ is given. Varro ap. Serv. on _G._ i, 34, tells of the ecstatic vision of this Empedotimos: after being a quadam potestate divina mortalis aspectus detersus he saw in the sky _inter cetera_ three gates and three ways (to the gods and the kingdom of the dead). Varro is evidently quoting the account of some ancient authority not a work of Empedot. himself; but in any case this vision is the source of what Empedotimos had to say about the dwelling-place of the souls in the Milky Way: Suid. ~Emped., Iouliano/s~: _Rh. Mus._ 32, 331, n. 1; cf. Damasc. ap. Philop. _in Arist. Meteor._, p. 117, 10 Hayd. Suid. ~Emped.~ calls (probably a guess) the work in which Empedot. gave an account of his visions ~peri\ phusikê=s akroa/seôs~. (Because E. also brought back with him information about the future life, the usual stories about the subterranean chamber, etc., are transferred to him by Sch. ad Greg. Nz., _C._ vii, 286 = Eudocia, p. 682, 15.) Apart from this no one gives us any information about the personality of Emped. except Jul., _Ep._ 295 B., p. 379, 13 ff. H., who tells us how he was murdered but the gods avenged him upon his murderers. This, however, rests upon a confusion (either Julian's or his copyist's) with ~Hermo/timos~ whose murderers were punished in the next world acc. to Plu., _Gen. Socr._ 22, p. 592 C. The above-mentioned story of the souls and the Milky Way was also known to Julian (see Suid. ~Ioul.~): his source being Herakleides Pont. (who also probably supplied it to others, e.g. Noumenios ap. Procl. _in _Rp.__ ii, p. 129 Kroll, Porph., Iamb. ap. Stob., _Ecl._ i, p. 378, 12 W., and even earlier, Cicero, _Somn._ 15-16). No older source of this fancy is known: "Pythagoras" mentioned as its authority by Julian, etc., only takes us back again to Herakleides. All that we know up to the present about it suggests the suspicion that the very existence and history of this remarkably little-known "great Empedotimos" may have been a simple _invention_ of Herakleides', who may have made use of him in one of his dialogues to add interest and importance to some of his own fancies. But now we come upon something more detailed about the story told by Herakleides of the vision in which Emped. (~meta\ tou= sô/matos~, p. 122, 2) beheld ~pa=san tê\n peri\ tô=n psuchô=n alêthei/an~: Procl. _in _Rp.__ ii, 119, 21 Kroll. From this passage it is quite clear that Empedotimos is simply a figure in a dialogue by Herakleides, and no more existed in reality than Er the son of Armenios or Thespesios of Soli, or than their prototype Kleonymos of Athens ap. Klearchos of Soli (_Rh. Mus._ 32, 335).] {331}

[112\9: Apollon., _Mirab._ 3 (prob. from Thpomp.); Plin., _NH._ vii, 174; Plu., _Gen. Soc._ 22, p. 592 C (~Hermo/dôros~--the same copyist's error occurs in Procl. _in _Rp.__ ii, 113, 24 Kroll); Luc., _Enc. Musc._ 7; Tert., _An._ 2; 44 (from Soranos; cf. Cael. Aur., _Tard._ 1, 3, 5); Or., _Cels._ iii, 3; 32. The same Hermotimos of Klazomenai is undoubtedly the person meant when a ~Hermo/timos~ is mentioned among the earlier incarnations of the soul of Pythagoras, even when the country of the person in question is not named (as in D.L. viii, 5 f.; Porph., _VP._ 45; Tert., _An._ 28) or is incorrectly called a Milesian (e.g. in Hipp., _RH._ 1, 2, p. 12 D.-S.). A quite untenable theory about this Hermot. is given by Göttling, _Opusc. Ac._ 211.--Acc. to Plin. the enemies who finally burnt the body of Hermot. (with the connivance of his wife) were the Cantharidae--probably the name of a ~ge/nos~ hostile to Hermot.--There is a remarkably similar story in Indian tradition: see _Rh. Mus._ 26, 559 n. But I no longer suspect any historical connexion between this story and that of Hermot.; the same preconceptions have led in India as in Greece to the invention of the same tale. Similar conceptions in German beliefs: Grimm, 1803, n. 650.]

[113\9: Hence the legend that Apollo after the murder of Python was purified not at Tempe, as the story generally went, but in Krete at Tarrha by Karmanor: Paus. 2, 7, 7; 2, 30, 3; 10, 6, 7 (the hexameters of Phemonoë); 10, 16, 5. The ~katha/rsia~ for Zeus were brought from Krete: Orph. _fr._ 183 Ab.; cf. the oracle ap. Oinom. Eus., _PE._ 5, 31, 2: K. O. Müller, _Introd. Scient. Myth._ 98.--Krete an ancient seat of _mantikê_: the Lokrian Onomakritos, teacher of Thaletas, lived in Krete ~kata\ te/chnên mantikê/n~, Arist., _Pol._ 1274_a_, 25.]

[114\9: See above (pp. 96 f). As one who had been initiated into the orgiastic cult of Zeus in Krete (Str. 468), Epimenides is called ~ne/os Kou/rês~: Plu., _Sol._ 12; D.L. i, 115. He is called ~hiereu\s Dio\s kai\ Rhe/as~ in Sch. Clem. Al. iv, p. 103 Klotz.]

[115\9: Legend of the ~a/limon~ of E.: H. Smyrn. 18. D.L. i, 114. Plu. _7 Sap._ 14. He was prepared for it by living on ~aspho/delos, mala/chê~ and the edible root of a kind of ~ski/lla~ (Thphr., _HP._ 7, 12, 1). All these are sacred to the ~chtho/nioi~ (on ~aspho/delos~, see partic. _AB._ 457, 5 ff., which goes back to Aristarchos; and Hsch. s.v.), and were only eaten occasionally by the poor: Hes., _Op._ 41.]