XII. ORPHIC COSMOGONY

XII. ORPHIC COSMOGONY

‘Ὡραῖος καὶ Ἔρως ἐπιτέλλεται....’

If, in attempting to understand Orphic Theogony, we turn to the collection of hymns known as ‘Orphic,’ hymns dating for the most part about the 4th century A.D., we find ourselves at once in an atmosphere of mystical monotheism. We have addresses to the various Olympians, to Zeus and Apollo and Hera and Athene and the rest, but these are no longer the old, clear-cut, departmental deities, with attributes sharply distinguished and incommunicable; the outlines are all blurred; we feel that everyone is changing into everyone else. A few traditional epithets indeed remain; Poseidon is still ‘dark-haired,’ and ‘Lord of Horses’—he is a stubborn old god and hard to fuse; but, for the most part, sooner or later, all divinities greater or less, mingle in the mystery melting-pot, all become ‘multiform,’ ‘mighty,’ ‘all-nourishing,’ ‘first-born,’ ‘saviours,’ ‘all-glorious,’ and the like. In a word the several gods by this time are all really one, and this one god is mystically conceived as a potency (δαίμων) rather than a personal divinity (θεός).

The doctrine of the mutation of the gods, now into one shape, now into another, was, it would seem, part of the regular symbolic teaching of the mysteries. It is easy to see that such a doctrine would lend itself readily to the notion of their interchangeability. Proclus says[1544]: ‘In all the rites of initiation and mysteries the gods exhibit their shapes as many, and they appear changing often from one form to another, and now they are made manifest in the emission of formless light, now taking human shape, now again in other and different form.’

By the date of the ‘Hymns’ monotheism was of course in some degree the common property of all educated minds, and cannot therefore be claimed as distinctive of Orphism. Wholly Orphic, however, is the mystical joy with which the Hymns brim over; they are ‘full of repetitions and magniloquence, and make for emotion[1545].’ They are like learned, self-conscious, even pretentious echoes of the simple ecstasy of the tablets.

It would therefore be idle to examine the Orphic Hymns severally and in detail, in order to extract from them the Orphic characteristics of each particular god. Any one who reads them through will speedily be conscious that, save for the proœmium, and an occasional stereotyped epithet, it would usually be impossible to determine which hymn was addressed to what god. With whatever attempt at individualization they begin, the poet is soon safe away into a mystical monotheism. A more profitable enquiry is, how far did primitive Orphism attempt monotheism, and of what nature was the one God whom the Orphic made in his own image? Here, fortunately, we are not left wholly without evidence.

THE WORLD-EGG.

In the Birds of Aristophanes[1546], the chorus tells of a time, when Earth and Air and Heaven as yet were not, only Chaos was, and Night and black Erebos:

‘In the beginning of Things, black-winged Night Into the bosom of Erebos dark and deep Laid a wind-born egg, and, as the seasons rolled, Forth sprang Love, gleaming with wings of gold, Like to the whirlings of wind, Love the Delight— And Love with Chaos in Tartaros laid him to sleep; And we, his children, nestled, fluttering there, Till he led us forth to the light of the upper air.’

This is pure Orphism. Homer knows of no world-egg[1547], no birth of Love. Homer is so dazzled by the splendour of his human heroes and their radiant reflections in Olympus that his eyes never look back to see from whence they sprang. He cares as little, it seems, for the Before as for the Hereafter. The two indeed seem strangely linked together. An eschatology and a cosmogony are both pathetic attempts to answer the question Homer never cared to raise, Whence came Man and the Good and Evil of humanity?

We have of course a cosmogony in Hesiod, Hesiod who is a peasant and a rebel, a man bitter and weary with the hardness of life, compelled by rude circumstances to ask why things are so evil, and always ready, as in the myth of Pandora, to frame or borrow a crude superstitious hypothesis. How much Hesiod borrowed from Orphism is hard to say. He knows of Night and Chaos and the birth of Eros, but he does not know, or does not care to tell, of one characteristic Orphic element, the cosmic egg. He only says[1548]:

‘First Chaos came to be and Gaia next Broad-bosomed, she that was the steadfast base Of all things—Ge, and murky Tartaros Deep in the hollow of wide earth. And next Eros, most beautiful of deathless gods, Looser of limbs, Tamer of heart and will To mortals and immortals.’

Hesiod is not wholly Orphic, he is concerned to hurry his Eros up into Olympus, one and most beautiful among many, but not for Hesiod the real source of life, the only God.

By common traditional consent the cosmic egg was attributed to Orpheus. Whether the father was Tartaros or Erebos or Chronos is of small moment and varies from author to author. The cardinal, essential doctrine is the world-egg from which sprang the first articulate god, source and creator of all, Eros.

Damascius[1549], in his ‘Inquiry concerning first principles,’ attributes the egg to Orpheus. For Orpheus said:

‘What time great Chronos fashioned in holy aether A silver-gleaming egg.’

It is fortunate that Damascius has preserved the actual line, though of course we cannot date it. Clement of Rome[1550] in his Homilies contrasts the cosmogonies of Hesiod and Orpheus. ‘Orpheus likened Chaos to an egg, in which was then a blending of the primaeval elements; Hesiod assumes this chaos as a substratum, the which Orpheus calls an egg, a birth emitted from formless matter, and the birth was on this wise....’ Plato, usually so Orphic, avoids in the Timaeus all mention of the primaeval egg; his mind is preoccupied with triangles, but Proclus in his commentary[1551] says ‘the “being” (τὸ ὄν) of Plato would be the same as the Orphic egg.’

The doctrine of the egg was not a mere dogmatic dead-letter. It was taught to the initiated as part of their mysteries, and this leads us to suspect that it had its rise in a primitive taboo on eggs. Plutarch[1552], in consequence of a dream, abstained for a long time from eggs. One night, he tells us, when he was dining out, some of the guests noticed this, and got it into their heads that he was ‘infected by Orphic and Pythagorean notions, and was refusing eggs just as certain people refuse to eat the heart and brains, because he held an egg to be taboo (ἀφοσιοῦσθαι) as being the principle of life.’ Alexander the Epicurean, by way of chaff, quoted,

‘To feed on beans is eating parents’ heads.’

‘As if,’ Plutarch says, ‘the Pythagoreans meant eggs by _be_ans because of _be_ing (ὡς δὴ κυάμους τὰ ᾠὰ διὰ τὴν κύησιν αἰνιττομένων τῶν ἀνδρῶν), and thought it just as bad to eat eggs as to eat the animals that laid them.’ It was no use, he goes on, in talking to an Epicurean, to plead a dream as an excuse for abstinence, for to him the explanation would seem more foolish than the fact; so, as Alexander was quite pleasant about it and a cultivated man, Plutarch let him go on to propound the interesting question, which came first, the bird or the egg? Alexander in the course of the argument came back to Orpheus and, after quoting Plato about matter being the mother and nurse, said with a smile,

‘I sing to those who know

the Orphic and sacred dogma (λόγος) which not only affirms that the egg is older than the bird, but gives it priority of being over all things.’ Finally, the speaker adds to his theorizing an instructive ritual fact: ‘and therefore it is not inappropriate that in the orgiastic ceremonies in honour of Dionysos an egg is among the sacred offerings, as being the symbol of what gives birth to all things, and in itself contains all things.’

Macrobius[1553] in the Saturnalia states the same fact, and gives a similar reason. ‘Ask those who have been initiated,’ he says, ‘in the rites of Father Liber, in which an egg is the object of reverence, on the supposition that it is in its spherical form the image of the universe’; and Achilles Tatius[1554] says, ‘some assert that the universe is cone-shaped, others egg-shaped, and this opinion is held by those who perform the mysteries of Orpheus.’

But for the bird-cosmogony of Aristophanes we might have inclined to think that the egg was a late importation into Orphic mysteries, but, the more closely Orphic doctrines are examined, the more clearly is it seen that they are for the most part based on very primitive ritual. A ritual egg was good material; those who mysticized the kid and the milk would not be likely to leave an egg without esoteric significance.

How, precisely, the egg was used in Orphic ritual we do not know. In ordinary ceremonial it served two purposes: it was used for purification, it was an offering to the dead. It has been previously shown in detail (p. 53) that in primitive rites purgation often is propitiation of ghosts and sprites, and the two functions, propitiation and purgation, are summed up in the common term devotions (ἐναγίσματα). Lucian[1555] in two passages mentions eggs, together with Hecate’s suppers, as the refuse of ‘purification.’ Pollux is bidden by Diogenes to tell the Cynic Menippus, when he comes down to Hades, to ‘fill his wallet with beans, and if he can he is to pick up also a Hecate’s supper or an egg from a purification or something of the sort’; and in another dialogue, the ‘Landing,’ Clotho, who is waiting for her victims, asks ‘Where is Kyniskos the philosopher who ought to be dead from eating Hecate’s suppers and eggs from purification and raw cuttle fish too?’ Again in Ovid’s Art of Love[1556] the old hag who makes purifications for the sick woman is to bring sulphur and eggs:

‘Then too the aged hag must come, And purify both bed and home, And bid her, for lustration, proffer With palsied hands both eggs and sulphur.’

That eggs were offered not only for a purification of the living, but as the due of the dead, is certain from the fact that they appear on Athenian white lekythoi among the objects brought in baskets to the tomb[1557].

We think of eggs rather as for nourishment than as for purification, though the yolk of an egg is still used for the washing of hair. Doubtless, in ancient days, the cleansing action of eggs was more magical than actual. As propitiatory offerings to the dead (ἐναγίσματα) they became ‘purifications’ in general; then connection with the dead explains of course the taboo on them as food.

Still, primitive man though pious is also thrifty. A Cynic may show his atheism, and also eke out a scanty subsistence by eating ‘eggs from purification’; and even the most superstitious man may have hoped that, if he did not break the egg, he might cleanse himself and yet secure a chicken. Clement[1558] says, ‘you may see the eggs that have been used for purifications hatched, if they are subjected to warmth’: he adds instructively, ‘this could not have taken place if the eggs had taken into themselves the sins of the man who had been purified.’ Clement’s own state of mind is at least as primitive as that of the ‘heathen’ against whom he protests. The Orphics themselves, it is clear, merely mysticized an ancient ritual. Orphism is here as elsewhere only the pouring of new wine into very old bottles.

* * * * *

We may say then with certainty that the cosmic egg was Orphic, and was probably[1559] a dogma based on a primitive rite. The origin of the winged Eros who sprang from it is more complex. Elements many and diverse seem to have gone to his making.

EROS AS HERM.

Homer knows nothing of Eros as a person; with him love is of Aphrodite. From actual local cultus Eros is strangely and significantly absent. Two instances only are recorded. Pausanias[1560] says, ‘The Thespians honoured Eros most of all the gods from the beginning, and they have a very ancient image of him, an unwrought stone.’ ‘Every four years,’ Plutarch[1561] says, ‘the Thespians celebrated a splendid festival to Eros conjointly with the Muses.’ Plutarch went to this festival very soon after he was married, before his sons were born. He seems to have gone because of a difference that had arisen between his own and his wife’s people, and we are expressly told by his sons that he took his newly-married wife with him ‘for both the prayer and the sacrifice were her affair.’ Probably they went to pray for children. Plutarch, if we may trust his own letter to his wife, was a kind husband, but the intent of the conjoint journey was strictly practical, and points to the main function of the Thespian Eros. The ‘unwrought stone’ is very remote from the winged Eros, very near akin to the rude Pelasgian Hermes himself, own brother to the Priapos[1562] of the Hellespont and Asia Minor. There seems then to have gone to the making of Eros some old wide-spread divinity of generation.

Pausanias did not know who instituted the worship of Eros among the Thespians, but he remarks that the people of Parium on the Hellespont, who were colonists from Erythrae in Ionia, worshipped him equally. He knew also of an older and a younger Eros. ‘Most people,’ he says, ‘hold that he is the youngest of the gods and the son of Aphrodite; but Olen the Lycian (again Asia Minor), maker of the most ancient hymns among the Greeks, says in a hymn to Eileithyia that she is the mother of Eros.’ ‘After Olen,’ he goes on, ‘Pamphos and Orpheus composed epic verses, and they both made hymns to Eros to be sung by the Lycomids at their rites.’

EROS AS KER OF LIFE.

The Orphic theologist found then to his hand in local cultus an ancient god of life and generation, and in antique ritual another element quite unconnected, the egg of purification. Given an egg as the beginning of a cosmogony, and it was almost inevitable that there should emerge from the egg a bird-god, a winged thing, a source of life, more articulate than the egg yet near akin to it in potency. The art-form for this winged thing was also ready to hand. Eros is but a specialized form of the Ker; the Erotes are Keres of life, and like the Keres take the form of winged Eidola. In essence as in art-form, Keres and Erotes are near akin. The Keres, it has already been seen, are little winged bacilli, fructifying or death-bringing; but the Keres developed mainly on the dark side; they went downwards, deathwards; the Erotes, instinct with a new spirit, went upwards, lifewards.

The close analogy, nay, the identity of the art-form of Keres and Erotes is well seen in the two vase-paintings in figs. 168 and 169. The design in fig. 168 is from a vase-fragment in the Museum at Palermo[1563]. A warrior lies fallen in death. From his open mouth the breath of life escapes. Over him hovers a winged Ker, and with his right hand seems as though he would tenderly collect the parting soul. A ghost has come to fetch a ghost. Among the Romans this gentle office of collecting the parting breath was done with the lips, by the nearest of kin. So Anna[1564] for Dido:

‘Give water, I will bathe her wounds, and catch Upon my lips her last stray breath.’

The design in fig. 169 is from a red-figured cylix[1565] in the Municipal Museum at Corneto. Theseus, summoned by Hermes, is in the act of deserting Ariadne; he picks up his sandal from the ground and in a moment he will be gone. Ariadne is sunk in sleep beneath the great vine of Dionysos. Over her hovers a winged genius to comfort and to crown her. He is own brother to the delicate Ker in fig. 168. Archaeologists wrangle over his name. Is he Life or Love or Sleep or Death? Who knows? It is this shifting uncertainty we must seize and hold; no doubt could be more beautiful and instructive. All that we can certainly say is that the vase-painter gave to the ministrant the form of a winged Ker, and that such was the form taken by Eros, as also by Death and by Sleep.

* * * * *

If we would understand at all the spirit in which the Orphic Eros is conceived we must cleanse our minds of many current conceptions, and in effecting this riddance vase-paintings are of no small service. To black-figured vase-paintings Eros is unknown. Keres of course appear, but Eros has not yet developed personality in popular art. As soon as Eros takes mythological shape in art, he leaves the Herm-form under which he was worshipped at Thespiae, leaves it to Hermes himself and to Dionysos and Priapos, and, because he is the egg-born cosmic god, takes shape as the winged Ker. Early red-figured vase-paintings are innocent alike of the fat boy of the Romans and the idle impish urchin of Hellenism. Nor do they know anything of the Eros of modern romantic passion between man and woman. If we would follow the safe guiding of early art, we must be content to think of Eros as a Ker, a life-impulse, a thing fateful to all that lives, a man because of his moralized complexity, terrible and sometimes intolerable, but to plants and flowers and young live things in spring infinitely glad and kind. Such is the Eros of Theognis[1566]:

‘Love comes at his hour, comes with the flowers in spring, Leaving the land of his birth, Kypros, beautiful isle. Love comes, scattering Seed for man upon earth.’

Such little spirits of life the vase-painter Hieron makes to cluster round their mother and mistress, Aphrodite. The design in fig. 170 is from a cylix in the Berlin Museum[1567] and is part of a scene representing the Judgment of Paris. Aphrodite, she the victorious Gift-Giver, greatest of the Charites, stands holding her dove. About her cluster the little solemn worshipping Erotes, like the winged Keres that minister to Kyrene (fig. 23): they carry wreaths and flower-sprays in their hands, not only as gifts to the Gift-Giver, but because they too are spirits of Life and Grace.

Just such another Eros is seen in fig. 171, from the centre of a beautiful archaic red-figured cylix[1568] in the Museo Civico at Florence. The cylix is signed by the master Chachrylion: he signs it twice over, proudly, as well he may, ‘Chachrylion made it, made it, Chachrylion made it.’ His Eros too carries a great branching flower-spray, and as the spirit of God moves upon the face of the waters. So Sophocles[1569]:

O Thou of War unconquered, thou, Erôs, Spoiler of garnered gold, who liest hid In a girl’s cheek, under the dreaming lid, While the long night time flows:

O rover of the seas, O terrible one In wastes and wildwood caves, None may escape thee, none: Not of the heavenly Gods who live alway, Not of low men, who vanish ere the day; And he who finds thee, raves.

The Erotes retain always the multiplicity of the Keres, but as Eros developes complete personality he becomes one person, and he changes from a delicate sprite to a beautiful youth. But down to late days there linger about him traces of the Life-Spirit, the Grace-Giver. The design in fig. 172 is from a late red-figured vase in the Museum at Athens[1570]. Here we find Eros employed watering tall slender flowers in a garden. Of course by this time the Love-God is put to do anything and everything: degraded to a god of all work, he has to swing a maiden, to trundle a hoop, to attend a lady’s toilet; but here in the flower-watering there seems a haunting of the old spirit. We are reminded of Plato[1571] in the Symposium where he says ‘The bloom of his body is shown by his dwelling among flowers, for Eros has his abiding, not in the body or soul that is flowerless and fades, but in the place of fair flowers and fair scents, there sits he and abides.’

EROS AS EPHEBOS.

Vase-paintings with representations of Eros come to us for the most part from Athens, and it was at Athens that the art-type of Eros as the slender ephebos was perfected. This type appears with marked frequency on the vases of early red-figured technique which bear the inscription καλός ‘beautiful,’ vases probably made to sell as love-gifts. Eros is represented bearing a torch, a lyre, a hare, sometimes still a flower. Perhaps the finest of these representations left us is the Eros in fig. 173. The design is from an amphora[1572] which bears the inscription ‘Charmides is beautiful.’ Eros is armed, he carries shield and spear, he flies straight downward, the slender naked body making a clean lovely line. A poet thinks as he will, but these Love-gods of the vase-painter, these Keres of Life and Death, and most of all this Eros, armed, inevitable, recall the prayer of the chorus in the Hippolytus of Euripides[1573]:

‘Erôs, Erôs, who blindest, tear by tear, Men’s eyes with hunger, thou swift Foe that pliest Deep in our hearts joy like an edged spear; Come not to me with Evil haunting near, Wrath on the wind, nor jarring of the clear Wing’s music as thou fliest. There is no shaft that burneth, not in fire, Not in wild stars, far off and flinging fear As in thine hands the shaft of All Desire, Erôs, Child of the Highest.’

Most often the presentments of painting hinder rather than help the imagery of poetry, but here both arts are haunted by the same august tradition of Life and Death.

The Eros of the vase-painter is the love not untouched by passion of man for man, and these sedate and even austere Erotes help us to understand that to the Greek mind such loves were serious and beautiful, of the soul, as Plato says, rather than of the body, aloof from common things and from the emotional squalour of mere domestic felicity. They seem to embody that white beat of the spirit before which and by which the flesh shrivels into silence.

It is curious to note that, as the two women Charites, Mother and Daughter, became three, so there is a distinct effort to form a trinity of Erotes. On the vase-painting in fig. 174 from a red-figured stamnos in the British Museum[1574] we have three beautiful Erotes flying over the sea. The foremost is inscribed Himeros; he carries a long taenia, and he looks back at the others; one of these carries a tendril, the other a hare. Near each of them is written καλός. But the triple forms, Eros, Himeros and Pothos, never really obtain. The origin of the countless women trinities has been already examined. Male gods lack the natural tie that bound the women types together; the male trinity is in Greek religion felt to be artificial and lapses.

EROS AND THE MOTHER.

The mention of these women trinities brings us back to the greatest of the three Grace-Givers, Aphrodite. At the close of the chapter on The Making of a Goddess her figure reigned supreme, but for a time at Athens she suffered eclipse; we might almost say with Alcman[1575]:

‘There is no Aphrodite. Hungry Love Plays boy-like with light feet upon the flowers.’

We cannot fairly charge the eclipse of Aphrodite wholly to the count of Orphism. Legend made Orpheus a woman-hater and credited him with Hesiodic tags about her ‘dog-like’ nature; but such tradition is manifestly coloured and distorted by two influences, by the orthodox Hesiodic patriarchalism, and by the peculiar social conditions of Athens and other Greek states. Both these causes, by degrading women, compelled the impersonation of love to take form as a youth.

To these we must add the fact that as Orphism was based on the religion of Dionysos, and as that religion had for its god Dionysos, son of Semele, so Orphism tended naturally to the formulation of a divinity who was the Son of his Mother. By the time the religion of Dionysos reached Athens the Son had well nigh effaced the Mother, and in like fashion Eros was supreme over Aphrodite; and significantly enough the woman-goddess, in so far as she was worshipped by the Orphics, was rather the old figure of Ge, the Earth-goddess, than the more specialized departmental Love-goddess Aphrodite.

* * * * *

This blend of the old Earth-goddess and the new Love-god is shown in very instructive fashion by representations on late red-figured vases. The design in fig. 175 is from a late red-figured hydria[1576]. It will at once be seen that we have the representation of a scene exactly similar to that in figs. 68 and 70, the Anodos of an Earth-goddess. The great head rises from the ground, the Satyr worshippers of the Earth-goddess are there with their picks. But a new element is introduced. Two Erotes hover over the goddess to greet her coming. In like fashion in fig. 72 Eros receives Pandora, and in fig. 88 receives Aphrodite at her Birth or Bath. It is usual to name the goddess in fig. 175 Aphrodite. This is, I think, to miss the point. She is an Earth Kore like Persephone herself. She is the new life rising from the ground, and she is welcomed by the spirits of life, the Keres-Erotes. Beyond that we cannot go. Nothing could better embody the shift from old to new, and the blend of both, than the presence together of the Satyrs, the primitive Ge-worshippers, and the Erotes, the new spirits of love and life.

If we bear in mind the simple fact that Aphrodite and Persephone are each equally and alike Kore, the Maiden form of the Earth-goddess, it is not hard to realise how easily the one figure passes into the other. The Orphic, we have seen (p. 594), put his faith in the Kore who is Persephone; to her he prays:

‘Out of the pure I come, Pure Queen of Them Below’;

his confession is

‘I have sunk beneath the bosom of Despoina, Queen of the Underworld,’

and again

‘But now I come a suppliant to holy Phersephoneia That of her grace she receive me to the seats of the Hallowed’;

but from the fragment of an epic poet preserved for us by the anonymous author of the Philosophoumena[1577], we learn that, according to some, in the underworld grove another Kore, or rather Kore by another name, was believed to rule. ‘The Lesser Mysteries,’ he says, ‘are of Persephone below, in regard to which Mysteries and the path that leads there, which is wide and large and leads the dying to Persephone, the poet also says:

“And yet ’neath it there is a rugged track, Hollow, bemired; yet best whereby to reach All-hallowed Aphrodite’s lovely grove.”’

The figures of the two Maidens, Persephone and Aphrodite, acted and reacted on each other; Persephone takes on more of Love, Aphrodite more of Death; as Eros the Son waxes, Aphrodite the Mother wanes into Persephone the underworld Maid.

The blend of the two notions, the primitive Earth-goddess and the Orphic Eros, is for art very clearly seen on the vase in fig. 175. Happily we have definite evidence that in local cultus there was the like fusion, and that at a place of associations specially sacred, the deme of Phlya in Attica, the birthplace of Euripides[1578].

THE MYSTERIES OF EROS AND THE MOTHER AT PHLYA.

Phlya, as the birthplace of Euripides, has special claims on our attention. Here, it will be shown, were mysteries reputed to be more ancient than those of Eleusis, mysteries not only of the Mother and the Maid but of Eros the cosmic spirit of the Orphics. Euripides, obviously hostile as he is to orthodox Olympian theology, handles always with reverence the two gods or spirits of Orphism, Dionysos and Eros; it seems not improbable that, perhaps unconsciously, the mysteries of his early home may have influenced his religious attitude.

From Pausanias[1579] we learn that Phlya had a cult of the Earth-goddess. She was worshipped together with a number of other kindred divinities. ‘Among the inhabitants of Phlya there are altars of Artemis the Light-Bearer, and of Dionysos Anthios, and of the Ismenian Nymphs, and of Ge, whom they call the Great Goddess. And another temple has altars of Demeter Anesidora, and of Zeus Ktesios, and of Athene Tithrone, and of Kore Protogene, and of the goddesses called Venerable.’

The district of Phlya[1580] is still well watered and fertile, still a fitting home for Dionysos ‘of the Flowers,’ and for Demeter ‘Sender up of Gifts’; probably it took its name from this characteristic fertility[1581]. Plutarch[1582] discussed with some grammarians at dessert the reason why apples were called by Empedocles ὑπέρφλοα, ‘very fruitful.’ Plutarch made a bad and unmetrical guess; he thought the word was connected with φλοιός, husk or rind, and that the apple was called ὑπέρφλοιον ‘because all that was eatable in it lay outside the inner rind-like core.’ The grammarians knew better; they pointed out that Aratus[1583] used the word φλόον to mean verdure and blossoming, the ‘greenness and bloom of fruits,’ and they added the instructive statement that ‘certain of the Greeks sacrificed to Dionysos Phloios, “He of blossom and growth.”’ Dionysos Phloios and Dionysos Anthios are one and the same potency.

Among this family group of ancient earth divinities Artemis and Zeus read like the names of late Olympian intruders. Artemis as Light-Bearer may have taken over an ancient mystery cult of Hecate, who also bore the title of Phosphoros; Zeus Ktesios, we are certain, is not the Olympian. Like Zeus Meilichios he has taken over the cult of an old divinity of ‘acquisition’ and fertility. ‘Zeus’ Ktesios was the god of the storeroom. Harpocration[1584] says, ‘they set up Zeus Ktesios in storerooms.’ The god himself lived in a jar. In discussing the various shapes of vessels Athenaeus[1585] says of the kadiskos, ‘it is the vessel in which they consecrate the Ktesian Zeuses, as Antikleides says in his “Interpretations,” as follows—the symbols of Zeus Ktesios are consecrated as follows: “the lid must be put on a new kadiskos with two handles, and the handles crowned with white wool ... and you must put into it whatever you chance to find and pour in ambrosia. Ambrosia is pure water, olive oil and all fruits (παγκάρπια). Pour in these.”’ Whatever are the obscurities of the account of Antikleides, thus much is clear—Zeus Ktesios is not the Olympian of the thunderbolt, he is Zeus in nothing but his name[1586]. Ktesios is clearly an old divinity of fertility, of the same order as Meilichios; his σημεῖα are symbols not statues, symbols probably like the sacra carried in chests at the Arrephoria; they are θεσμοί, magical spells kept in a jar for the safe guarding of the storeroom. Zeus Ktesios is well in place at Phlya. The great pithoi that in Homer stand on the threshold of Olympian Zeus (p. 47) may be the last reminiscence of this earlier Dian daemon who had his habitation, genius-like, in a jar.

* * * * *

But this old daemon of fertility who took on the name of Zeus only concerns us incidentally. In the complex of gods enumerated by Pausanias as worshipped at Phlya, the Great Goddess is manifestly chief. The name given to Kore, Protogene, suggests Orphism, but we are not told that it was a mystery cult, and of Eros there is no notice. Happily from other sources we know further particulars. In discussing the parentage of Themistocles Plutarch[1587] asserts that Themistocles was related to the family of the Lycomids. ‘This is clear,’ he says, ‘for Simonides states that, when the Telesterion at Phlya, which was the common property of the gens of the Lycomids, was burnt down by the barbarians, Themistocles himself restored it and decorated it with paintings.’ In this Telesterion, this ‘Place of Initiation,’ the cult of Eros was practised. The evidence is slight but sufficient. In discussing the worship of Eros at Thespiae Pausanias states incidentally, we already noted (p. 471), that the poets Pamphos and Orpheus both composed ‘poems about Eros to be chanted by the Lycomids over their rites.’

This mystery cult, we further know, was also addressed to a form of the Earth goddess. When actually at Phlya, Pausanias, as already noted, curiously enough says nothing of mysteries; he simply notes that the Great Goddess and other divinities were worshipped there. Probably by his time the mystery cult of Phlya was completely overshadowed and obscured by the dominant, orthodox rites at Eleusis. But, apropos of the mysteries at Andania in Messene[1588], he gives significant details about Phlya. He tells us three facts which all go to show that the cult at Phlya was a mystery-cult. First, the mysteries of Andania were, he says, brought there by a grandson of Phlyos; and this Phlyos, we may conclude, was the eponymous hero of Phlya. Second, for the Lycomids, who, we have seen, had a ‘Place of Initiation’ at Phlya and hymns to Eros, Musaeus wrote a hymn to Demeter, and in this hymn it was stated that Phlyos was a son of Ge. Third, Methapos, the great ‘deviser of rites of initiation.’ had a statue in the sanctuary of the Lycomids, the metrical inscription on which Pausanias quotes. In view of this evidence it cannot be doubted that the cult of Phlya was a mystery-cult, and the divinities worshipped among others were the Mother and the Maid and Eros.

At Phlya then, it is clear, we have just that blend of divinities that appears on the vase-painting in fig. 175. We have the worship of the great Earth-goddess who was Mother and Maid in one, and, conjointly, we have the worship of the Orphic spirit of love and life, Eros. It is probable that the worship of the Earth-goddess was primaeval, and that Eros was added through Orphic influence.

* * * * *

The Eros of the Athenian vase-painting is the beautiful Attic boy, but there is evidence to show that the Eros of Phlya was conceived of as near akin in form to a Herm. In discussing the Orphic mysteries (p. 536), we found that at Phlya according to the anonymous author of the Philosophoumena there was a παστάς or bridal-chamber decorated with paintings. This bridal chamber was probably the whole or a part of that Telesterion which was restored and decorated by Themistocles. The subjects of these paintings Plutarch had fully discussed in a treatise now unhappily lost. The loss is to be the more deeply regretted because the account by Plutarch of pictures manifestly Orphic would have been sympathetic and would greatly have helped our understanding of Orphism. The author of the Philosophoumena[1589] describes briefly one picture and one picture only, as follows: ‘There is in the gateway the picture of an old man, white-haired, winged; he is pursuing a blue-coloured woman who escapes. Above the man is written φάος ῥυέντης, above the woman περεηφικόλα. According to the doctrine of the Sethians, it seems that φάος ῥυέντης is light and that φικόλα is dark water.’ The exact meaning of these mysterious paintings is probably lost for ever; but it is scarcely rash to conjecture that the male figure is Eros. He pursues a woman; he is winged; that is like the ordinary Eros of common mythology. But this is the Eros of the mysteries; not young, but very ancient, and white-haired, the ἀρχαῖος ἔρως[1590] of Orphic tradition, eldest of all the Gods. And the name written above him as he pursues his bride inscribed ‘Darkness’ or ‘Dark Water’ is ‘Phaos Ruentes,’ ‘The rushing or streaming Light.’ We are reminded of the time when ‘the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’ The ancient Eros of Thespiae, who was in intent a Herm, has become the principle not only of Life but of Light—Light pursuing and penetrating Darkness. Exactly such a being, such a strange blend of animal and spiritual, is the egg-born Protogonos of the Orphic hymn[1591]:

‘Thou tempest spirit in all the ordered world On wild wings flashing; bearer of bright light And holy; therefore Phanes named, and Lord Priapos, and the Dawn that answereth Dawn.’

So chants the mystic, seeking to utter the unutterable, and the poet[1592], born in the home of mysticism, sings to Mother and Son:

‘Thou comest to bend the pride Of the hearts of God and man, Cypris; and by thy side In earth’s encircling span He of the changing plumes, The Wing that the world illumes, As over the leagues of land flies he, Over the salt and sounding sea.

For mad is the heart of Love, And gold the gleam of his wing; And all to the spell thereof Bend, when he makes his spring; All life that is wild and young, In mountain and wave and stream, All that of earth is sprung Or breathes in the red sunbeam. Yea and Mankind. O’er all a royal throne, Cyprian, Cyprian, is thine alone.’

PYTHAGOREAN REVIVAL OF THE MOTHER.

The development of the male Eros, the beautiful youth, was due, we may be sure, to influences rather Athenian than Orphic. In this connection it is important to note that the Orphic Pythagoreans tended to revive religious conceptions that were matriarchal rather than patriarchal. The religion of Dionysos, based on the worship of Mother and Son, gave to women a freedom and a consequence possible only perhaps among the more spiritual peoples of the North. Under Pythagoras we have clear indications of a revival of the like conditions, of course with a difference, a resurgence as it were of matriarchal conditions, and with it a realization of the appeal of women to the spirit as well as the flesh.

According to Aristoxenus[1593] Pythagoras got most of his ethical lore from a woman, Themistoclea, a priestess of Delphi. We are reminded of Socrates and Diotima, Diotima the wise woman of Mantinea, which has yielded up to us the great inscription dealing with the mysteries of Demeter at Andania[1594]. We are reminded too of the close friendship between Plutarch and the Thyiad, Clea. It was to a woman, his daughter Damo, that Pythagoras entrusted his writings with orders to divulge them to no outside person. Diogenes further[1595] records with evident surprise that men ‘gave their wives into the charge of Pythagoras to learn somewhat of his doctrine,’ and that these women were called ‘Pythagoreans.’ Kratinos wrote a comedy on these Pythagorean women in which he ridiculed Pythagoras; so we may be sure his women followers were not spared. This Pythagorean woman movement probably suggested some elements in the ideal state of Plato, and may have prompted the women comedies of Aristophanes. Of a woman called Arignote we learn[1596] that ‘she was a disciple of the famous Pythagoras and of Theano, a Samian and a Pythagorean philosopher, and she edited the Bacchic books that follow: one is about the mysteries of Demeter, and the title of it is the Sacred Discourse, and she was the author of the Rites of Dionysos and other philosophical works.’ That this matriarchalism of Pythagoras was a revival rather than an innovation seems clear. Iamblichus[1597] says, ‘whatever bore the name of Pythagoras bore also the stamp of antiquity and was crusted with the patina of archaism.’

It is not a little remarkable that, in his letter[1598] to the women of Croton, Pythagoras says expressly that ‘women as a sex are more naturally akin to piety.’ He says this reverently, not as Strabo[1599] does taking it as evidence of ignorance and superstition. Strabo in discussing the celibate customs of certain among the Getae remarks, ‘all agree that women are the prime promoters of superstition, and it is they who incite men to frequent worshippings of the gods and to feasts and excited celebrations (ποτνιασμούς).’ He adds with charming frankness ‘you could scarcely find a man living by himself who would do this sort of thing.’ It is to Pythagoras, as has already been noted (p. 262), that we owe the fertile suggestion that in the figures of the women goddesses we have the counterpart of the successive stages of a woman’s life as Maiden, Bride and Mother.

The doctrine of the Pythagoreans in their lifetime was matriarchal and in their death they turned to Mother Earth. The house of Pythagoras[1600] after his death was dedicated as a sanctuary to Demeter, and Pliny[1601] records—significant fact—that the disciples of Pythagoras reverted to the ancient method of inhumation long superseded by cremation and were buried in pithoi, earth to earth.

EROS AS PHANES, PROTOGONOS, METIS, ERIKAPAIOS.

The Eros of Athenian poetry and painting is unquestionably male, but the Protogonos of esoteric doctrine is not male or female but bisexed, resuming in mystic fashion Eros and Aphrodite. He is an impossible, unthinkable cosmic potency. The beautiful name of Eros is foreign to Orphic hymns. Instead we have Metis, Phanes, Erikapaios, ‘which being interpreted in the vulgar tongue are Counsel, Light and Lifegiver[1602].’ The commentators on Plato are conscious of what Plato himself scarcely realizes, that in his philosophy he is always trying to articulate the symbolism of these and other Orphic titles, trying like Orpheus to utter the unutterable; he puts νοῦς for Metis, τὸ ὄν for Erikapaios, but, in despair, he constantly lapses back into myth and we have the winged soul, the charioteer, the four-square bisexed man. Proklos[1603] knows that τὸ ὄν is but the primaeval egg, knows too that Erikapaios was male and female[1604]:

‘Father and Mother, the mighty one Erikapaios,’

and Hermias[1605] knows that Orpheus made Phanes four-square:

‘He of the fourfold eyes, beholding this way, that way.’

It was ‘the inspired poets,’ Hermias[1606] says, ‘not Plato, who invented the charioteer and the horses,’ and these inspired poets are according to him Homer, Orpheus, Parmenides.

The mention of Homer comes as something of a shock; but it must be remembered that the name Homer covered in antiquity a good deal more than our Iliad and Odyssey. It is not unlikely that some of the ‘Homeric’ poems were touched with Orphism. The name Metis suggests it. The strange denaturalized birth of Athene from the brain of Zeus is a dark, desperate effort to make thought the basis of being and reality, and the shadowy parent in the Kypria is the Orphic Metis. Athene, as has already been shown (p. 301), was originally only one of the many local Korae; she was ἡ Ἀθηναία (Κόρη), the ‘maiden of Athens,’ born of the earth, as much as the Kore of Eleusis. Patriarchalism wished to rid her of her matriarchal ancestry, and Orphic mysticism was ready with the male parent Metis. The proud rationalism of Athens, uttering itself in a goddess who embodied Reason, did the rest.

There is a yet more definite tinge of Orphism in the story of Leda and the swan. Leda herself is all folklore and faery story based probably on a cultus-object. In the sanctuary of the ancient Maidens Hilaira and Phoebe at Sparta[1607] there hung from the roof suspended by ribbons an egg, and tradition said it was the egg of Leda. But the author of the Kypria[1608] gave to Zeus another bride, Nemesis, who belongs to the sisterhood of shadowy Orphicized female impersonations, Dike, Ananke, Adrasteia and the like. The birth of the child from the egg appears on no black-figured vase-painting, and though it need not have been originated by the Orphics, the birth of Eros doubtless lent it new prestige. The charming little design in fig. 176 is from a red-figured lekythos in the Berlin Museum[1609]. On an altar lies a huge egg. Out of it breaks the figure of a boy. The boy is not winged; otherwise we should be inclined to call him Eros. The woman to whom the child stretches out his hands must be Leda. The scene is the birth of one of the Dioscuri, but probably with some reminiscence of Eros. On most vases in which the birth from the egg is represented it takes place in a sanctuary.

Homeric theology, as we know it in our canonical Homer, was wholly untouched by Orphism. The human figures of the Olympians, clear-cut and departmental as they are, have no kinship with the shifting mystical Protogonos. The Olympians lay no claim to be All in All, nor are they in any sense Creators, sources of life. Homer has no cosmogony, only a splendid ready-made human society. His gods are immortal because death would shadow and mar their splendour, not because they are the perennial sources of things. It is noticeable that Zeus himself, the supreme god of Homeric theology, can only be worked into the Orphic system by making him become Eros[1610], and absorb Phanes[1611]; only so can he become demiourgos, a feat which, to do him justice, he never on his own account attempted. Proklos says ‘Orpheus in inspired utterance declares that Zeus swallowed Phanes his progenitor, and took into his bosom all his powers.’ This mysticism was of course made easy by savage cosmogonies of Kronos and the swallowing of the children.

The Olympians concern themselves as little with the Before as with the Hereafter; they are not the source of life nor are they its goal. Moreover, another characteristic is that they are, with the strictest limitations, human. They are not one with the life that is in beasts and streams and woods as well as in man. Eros, ‘whose feet are on the flowers,’ who ‘couches in the folds,’ is of all life, he is Dionysos, he is Pan. Under Athenian influence Eros secludes himself into purely human form, but the Phanes[1612] of Orpheus was polymorphic, a beast-mystery-god:

‘Heads had he many, Head of a ram, a bull, a snake, and a bright-eyed lion.’

He is like Dionysos, to whom his Bacchants cry[1613]:

‘Appear, appear, whatso thy shape or name, O Mountain Bull, Snake of the Hundred Heads, Lion of the Burning Flame! O God, Beast, Mystery, come!’

In theology as in ritual Orphism reverted to the more primitive forms, lending them deeper and intenser significance. These primitive forms, shifting and inchoate, were material more malleable than the articulate accomplished figures of the Olympians.

The conception of Phanes Protogonos remained always somewhat esoteric, a thing taught in mysteries, but his content is popularized in the figure of the goat-god who passed from being ὁ Πάων the feeder, the shepherd, to be τὸ πᾶν Pan the All-God.

* * * * *

Pan came to Athens[1614] from Arcadia after the Persian War, came at a time when scepticism was busy with the figures of the Olympians and their old prestige was on the wane. Pan of course had to have his reception into Olympus, and a derivation duly Olympian was found for his name. The Homeric Hymn[1615], even if it be of Alexandrian date, is thoroughly Homeric in religious tone: the poet tells how

‘Straight to the seats of the gods immortal did Hermes fare With his child wrapped warmly up in skins of the mountain hare, And down by the side of Zeus and the rest, he made him to sit, And showed him that boy of his, and they all rejoiced at it. But most of all Dionysos, the god of the Bacchanal, And they called the name of him PAN because he delighted them ALL.’

Dionysos the Bull-god and Pan the Goat-god both belong to early pre-anthropomorphic days, before man had cut the ties that bound him to the other animals; one and both they were welcomed as saviours by a tired humanity. Pan had no part in Orphic ritual, but in mythology as the All-god[1616] he is the popular reflection of Protogonos. He gave a soul of life and reality to a difficult monotheistic dogma, and the last word was not said in Greek religion, until over the midnight sea a voice[1617] was heard crying ‘Great Pan is dead.’

* * * * *

Our evidence for the mystic Phanes Protogonos, as distinguished from the beautiful Eros of the Athenians, has been, so far, drawn from late and purely learned authors, commentators on Plato, Christian Fathers, and the like. The suspicion may lurk in some minds that all this cosmogony, apart from the simple myth of the world-egg vouched for by Aristophanes, is a matter of late mysticizing, and never touched popular religion at all, or if at all, not till the days of decadence. It is most true that ‘the main current of speculation, as directed by Athens, set steadily contrariwise, in the line of getting bit by bit at the meaning of things through hard thinking,’ but we need constantly to remind ourselves of the important fact ‘that the mystical and “enthusiastic” explanation of the world was never without its apostles in Greece[1618].’ That the common people heard this doctrine gladly is curiously evidenced by the next monument to be discussed, a religious document of high value, the fragment of a black-figured vase-painting[1619] in fig. 177.

In the sanctuary of the Kabeiroi near Thebes[1620] there came to light a mass of fragments of black-figured vases, dating about the end of the 5th or the beginning of the 4th century B.C., of local technique and obviously having been used in a local cult. The important inscribed fragment is here reproduced. The reclining man holding the kantharos, would, if there were no inscription, be named without hesitation Dionysos. But over him is clearly written Kabiros.

Goethe makes his Sirens say of the Kabeiroi that they

‘Sind Götter, wundersam eigen, Die sich immerfort selbst erzeugen Und niemals wissen was sie sind.’

They have certainly a wondrous power of taking on the forms of other deities; here in shape and semblance they are Dionysos, the father and the son. Very surprising are the other inscribed figures, a man and a woman closely linked together, Mitos and Krateia, and a child Protolaos. What precisely is meant by the conjunction is not easy to say, but the names Mitos and Protolaos take us straight to Orphism. Clement[1621] says in the Stromata that Epigenes wrote a book on the poetry of Orpheus and ‘in it noted certain characteristic expressions.’ Among them was this, that by warp (στήμοσι) Orpheus meant furrow, and by woof (μίτος) he meant seed (σπέρμα).

Did this statement stand alone we might naturally dismiss it as late allegorizing, but here, on a bit of local pottery of the 5th or 4th century B.C., we have the figure of Mitos in popular use. All the Theban Kabeiroi vases are marked by a spirit of grotesque and sometimes gross caricature. Mitos, Krateia and Protolaos it will be noted have snub negro faces. This gives us a curious glimpse into that blending of the cosmic and the mystic, that concealing of the sacred by the profane, that seems inherent in the anxious primitive mind. It makes us feel that Aristophanes, to his own contemporaries, may have appeared less frankly blasphemous than he seems to us.

The vase fragment has another interest. The little Orphic cosmogonic group, Seed and Strong One and First people, the birth of the human world as it were, is in close connection with Dionysos, the father and the son. It is all like a little popular diagram of the relation of Orphic and Bacchic rites, and moreover it comes to us from the immediate neighbourhood of Thebes, the reputed birthplace of the god.

The vase fragment from Thebes shows plainly the influence of mystery doctrines on popular conceptions of Dionysos. It is worth noting that in red-figured vase-paintings of a somewhat late style Eros comes to be a frequent attendant on Dionysos, whereas in vases of severe style he is wholly absent, Maenads and Satyrs revel either together or alone. The design in fig. 179, from the lid of a red-figured lekane (fig. 178) in the Museum at Odessa[1622], is a singularly beautiful instance of Eros as present at a Bacchic revel. A Maenad and a Satyr dance in ecstasy, holding between them a little fawn, as though in the act of rending it asunder. Over her long chiton, that trails and swirls about her feet in oddly modern fashion, the Maenad wears a fawn-skin; a second dancing Maenad strikes her timbrel. One half of the design is all ecstasy and even savagery, the other half is perfectly quiet. Two Maenads stand talking, at rest; the god Dionysos is seated and Eros offers him the wine-cup. Here it is Eros the son, not Aphrodite the mother, who is linked with Dionysos, but we remember how in the Bacchae of Euripides[1623] the Messenger thus pleads with Pentheus:

‘Therefore I counsel thee, O King, receive this Spirit whoe’er he be To Thebes in glory. Greatness manifold Is all about him—and the tale is told That this is he who first to man did give The grief-assuaging vine.—Oh, let him live, For if he die, then Love herself is slain; And nothing joyous in the world again.’

Eros and Dionysos, the poet sees, are near akin; both are spirits of Life and of Life’s ecstasy.

Dionysos like Eros is a daimon, a spirit rather than a clear-cut crystallized god; he is as has been already seen of many shapes, of plants and animals as well as man, so he like Eros becomes Phanes:

‘Therefore him we call both Phanes and Dionysos[1624].’

Dionysos is but a new ingredient in the monotheistic mystery melting-pot:

‘One Zeus, one Hades, one Helios, one Dionysos, Yea in all things One God, his name why speak I asunder[1625]?’

In becoming the Orphic Phanes Dionysos lost most of his characteristics. In spite of his persistent monotheism we are somehow conscious that Orpheus did not feel all the gods to be really one, all equal manifestations of the same potency. He is concerned to push the claims of the cosmic Eros as against the simpler wine god. Possibly he felt that Dionysos needed much adjustment and was not always for edification. Of this we have some hint in the last literary document to be examined.

* * * * *

In the statutes of the Iobacchoi[1626] at Athens, we have already seen (p. 476), the thyrsos became the symbol not of revel but of quiet seemliness. We shall now find that though by name and tradition they are pledged to the worship of Dionysos the Iobacchoi have introduced into their ceremonies a figure more grave and orderly, a figure bearing in the inscription a name of beautiful significance, Proteurhythmos. A part of their great festival consisted in a sacred pantomime, the rôles in which were distributed by lot. The divine persons represented were ‘Dionysos, Kore, Palaimon, Aphrodite, and Proteurhythmos[1627].’ Who was Proteurhythmos, First of fair rhythm? The word defies translation into English, but its initial syllable πρωτ, first, at once inclines us to see in it an Orphic title like Protogonos or Protolaos. The word has indeed been interpreted[1628] as a title of Orpheus himself, Orpheus Proteurhythmos, First dancer or singer. Such an interpretation argues, I think, a grave misunderstanding. It ignores the juxtaposition of Proteurhythmos with Aphrodite and rests for support on the initial error that Orpheus himself is a faded god. Proteurhythmos is, I think, not Orpheus, but a greater than he, the god whom he worshipped, Eros Protogonos. Orpheus is a musician, but it was Eros, not Orpheus, who gave impulse and rhythm to the great dance of creation when ‘the Morning Stars sang together.’ Eros, not Orpheus, is demiourgos.

Lucian[1629] knew this. ‘It would seem that dancing came into being at the beginning of all things, and was brought to light together with Eros, that ancient one, for we see this primaeval dancing clearly set forth in the choral dance of the constellations, and in the planets and fixed stars, their interweaving and interchange and orderly harmony.’

It is the primaeval life that Eros, not Orpheus, begets within us, that wakes now and again, that feels the rhythm of a poem, the pulse of a pattern and the chime of a dancer’s feet.

‘In the beginning when the sun was lit The maze of things was marshalled to a dance. Deep in us lie forgotten strains of it, Like obsolete, charmed sleepers of romance.

And we remember, when on thrilling strings And hollow flutes the heart of midnight burns, The heritage of splendid, moving things Descends on us, and the old power returns.’

Eros is Lord of Life and Death, he is also Proteurhythmos, but because of the bitter antinomy of human things to man he is also Lord of Discord and Misrule. And therefore the chorus in the Hippolytus[1630], brooding over the sickness and disorder of Phaedra, prays:

‘When I am thine, O Master, bring thou near No spirit of evil, make not jarred the clear Wings’ music as thou fliest.’

The gods whose worship Orpheus taught were two, Bacchus and Eros; in actual religion chiefly Bacchus, in mystical dogma Eros, and in ancient Greek religion these are the only real gods. Orpheus dimly divined the truth, later to become explicit through Euripides of Phlya:

‘I saw that there are first and above all The hidden forces, blind necessities Named Nature, but the things self-unconceived. We know not how imposed above ourselves, We well know what I name the god, a power Various or one.’

Through all the chaos of his cosmogony and the shifting, uncertain outlines of his personifications, we feel, in these two gods, lies the real advance of the religion of Orpheus—an advance, not only beyond the old riddance of ghosts and sprites and demons, but also beyond the gracious and beautiful service of those magnified mortals, the Olympians. The religion of Orpheus is religious in the sense that it is the worship of the real mysteries of life, of potencies (δαίμονες) rather than personal gods (θεοί); it is the worship of life itself in its supreme mysteries of ecstasy and love. “Reason is great, but it is not everything. There are in the world things, not of reason, but both below and above it, causes of emotion which we cannot express, which we tend to worship, which we feel perhaps to be the precious things in life. These things are God or forms of God, not fabulous immortal men, but ‘Things which Are,’ things utterly non-human and non-moral which bring man bliss or tear his life to shreds without a break in their own serenity[1631].”

It is these real gods, this life itself, that the Greeks, like most men, were inwardly afraid to recognize and face, afraid even to worship. Orpheus too was afraid—the garb of the ascetic that he always wears is the token at once of his realization and his fear—but at least he dares to worship. Now and again a philosopher or a poet, in the very spirit of Orpheus, proclaims these true gods, and asks in wonder why to their shrines is brought no sacrifice. Plato[1632] in the Symposium makes Aristophanes say, ‘Mankind would seem to have never realized the might of Eros, for if they had really felt it they would have built him great sanctuaries and altars and offered solemn sacrifices, and none of these things are done, but of all things they ought to be done.’ Euripides[1633] in the Hippolytus makes his chorus sing:

‘In vain, in vain by old Alpheus’ shore, The blood of many bulls doth stain the river, And all Greece bows on Phoebus’ Pythian floor, Yet bring we to the Master of Man no store, The Keybearer that standeth at the door Close barred, where hideth ever Love’s inmost jewel. Yea, though he sack man’s life, Like a sacked city and moveth evermore, Girt with calamity and strange ways of strife, Him have we worshipped never.’

To resume: the last word in ancient Greek religion was said by the Orphics, and the beautiful figure of Orpheus is strangely modern. Then, as now, we have, for one side of the picture, a revived and intensified spirituality, an ardent, even ecstatic enthusiasm, a high and self-conscious standard of moral conduct, a deliberate simplicity of life; abstinence from many things, temperance in all, a great quiet of demeanour, a marvellous gentleness to all living things.

And, for the reverse, we have formalism, faddism, priggishness, a constant, and it would seem inevitable lapse into arid symbolism, pseudo-science, pseudo-philosophy, the ignorant revival of obsolete rites, the exhibition of all manner of ignoble thaumaturgy and squalid credulity. The whole strange blend redeemed, illuminated by two impulses, in practice by the strenuous effort after purity of life, in theory by the ‘further determination of the Absolute’ into the mysticism of Love.

CRITICAL APPENDIX ON THE ORPHIC TABLETS.

I. The Petelia Tablet.

Found in excavations near Petelia, S. Italy: now in the British Museum. Kaibel, CIGIS, No. 638. Cf. Comparetti, J.H.S. III. p. 112.

ΕΥΡΗΣΣΕΙΣ Δ’ ΑΙΔΑΟ ΔΟΜΩΝ ΕΠ’ ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΑ ΚΡΗΝΗΝ, ΠΑΡ Δ’ ΑΥΤΗΙ ΛΕΥΚΗΝ ΕΣΤΗΚΥΙΑΝ ΚΥΠΑΡΙΣΣΟΝ· ΤΑΥΤΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΚΡΗΝΗΣ ΜΗΔΕ ΣΧΕΔΟΝ ΕΜΠΕΛΑΣΕΙΑΣ. ΕΥΡΗΣΕΙΣ Δ’ ΕΤΕΡΑΝ ΤΗΣ ΜΝΗΜΟΣΥΝΗΣ ΑΠΟ ΛΙΜΝΗΣ ΨΥΧΡΟΝ ΥΔΩΡ ΠΡΟΡΕΟΝ, ΦΥΛΑΚΕΣ Δ’ ΕΠΙΠΡΟΣΘΕΝ ΕΑΣΙΝ ΕΙΠΕΙΝ· ΓΗΣ ΠΑΙΣ ΕΙΜΙ ΚΑΙ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥ ΑΣΤΕΡΟΕΝΤΟΣ, ΑΥΤΑΡ ΕΜΟΙ ΓΕΝΟΣ ΟΥΡΑΝΙΟΝ· ΤΟΔΕ Δ’ ΙΣΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΙ· ΔΙΨΗΙ Δ’ ΕΙΜΙ ΑΥΗ ΚΑΙ ΑΠΟΛΛΥΜΑΙ· ΑΛΛΑ ΔΟΤ’ ΑΙΨΑ ΨΥΧΡΟΝ ΥΔΩΡ ΠΡΟΡΕΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΜΝΗΜΟΣΥΝΗΣ ΑΠΟ ΛΙΜΝΗΣ ΚΑΥΤ<ΟΙ ΣΟ>Ι ΔΩΣΟΥΣΙ ΠΙΕΙΝ ΘΕΙΗΣ ΑΠ<Ο ΛΙΜΝ>ΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΤ’ ΕΠΕΙΤ’ Α<ΛΛΟΙΣΙ ΜΕΘ’> ΗΡΩΕΣΣΙΝ ΑΝΑΞΕΙΣ ····· ΙΗΣ ΤΟΔΕ ····· ΘΑΝΕΙΣΘ ···· ······· ΤΟΔΕΓΡΑΨ ····· ···· ΓΛΩΣΕΙΠΑ (?) ··· ΣΚΟΤΟΣ ΑΜΦΙΚΑΛΥΨΑΣ

‘Thou shalt find to the left of the House of Hades a Well-spring, And by the side thereof standing a white cypress. To this Well-spring approach not near. But thou shalt find another by the Lake of Memory, Cold water flowing forth, and there are Guardians before it. Say: “I am a child of Earth and of Starry Heaven; But my race is of Heaven (alone). This ye know yourselves. And lo, I am parched with thirst and I perish. Give me quickly The cold water flowing forth from the Lake of Memory.” And of themselves they will give thee to drink from the holy Well-spring, And thereafter among the other Heroes thou shalt have lordship....’

Kaibel (l.c.) says “pertinet lammina, ut nunc apparet, ad saeculum iii vel summum iv ante Chr. n.” It had formerly been supposed to be much later. He confidently attributes the accompanying tablet (No. V.) to the fourth century, and this one seems to me to be quite as early or earlier. It is altogether more carefully written, which detracts from its appearance of age. The use of the diphthong ου for instance, where No. V. has ο, is probably a sign of careful writing, not of lateness. The letters are very well formed and early in shape. Subscript ι is never neglected. Elision only once (εἰμὶ αὔη) and then, it would seem, of set purpose to avoid ambiguity. Weight must also be allowed to the completeness and accuracy with which the text of the “ancient Orphic poem” (see below on No. V.) is given, with no compendia or corruptions. The dialect, also, is pure literary epic; i.e., one may presume, the pure dialect of the “ancient poem” itself, with no admixture of local forms such as have crept by process of time into the formulae on the other tablets. The double σ of εὑρήσσεις in l. 1 may indeed be dialectical; cf. ἀσστεροβλῆτα, Δεσσποίνας in V., but that scarcely affects the main impression.

II. Three tablets from Crete (Eleuthernae?) now in the National Museum at Athens.

The general formula represented by these tablets is:

Δίψαι αὖος ἐγὼ καὶ ἀπόλλυμαι—Ἀλλὰ πίε μμου Κράνας αἰερόω [or αἰενάω] ἐπὶ δεξιὰ, τῆ κυφάρισος. Τίς δ’ ἔσι;..................... πῶ δ’ ἔσι;...Γᾶς υἱὸς ἠμὶ καὶ ὠρανῶ ἀστερόεντος.

‘I am parched with thirst and I perish.—Nay, drink of Me, The well-spring flowing for ever on the Right, where the Cypress is. Who art thou?.................. Whence art thou?—I am son of Earth and of Starry Heaven.’

Tablet C was published, with some inaccuracies, by M. Joubin in Bull. de Corr. Hell. xvii. p. 122, where it is said to have been found at Eleuthernae in Crete. I subjoin an account of the three tablets kindly sent by Mr Marcus Tod, Assistant Director of the British School at Athens, to whom are also due the above fac-similes.

“The inscription is at present in the Ethnikon Mouseion here, and along with it are two others almost exactly similar. I could get no information about them, save that they also, according to the Εὑρετήριον of the Museum, are ‘from Crete.’ All three are on thin strips of gold, roughly rectangular, and are traced in very small and fine letters with a needle point. The execution is in all three instances rough, but C is considerably better in this respect than A; B holds an intermediate position. I worked with a powerful magnifying glass, and in most cases am quite sure of my readings even where I differ from Bull. Corr. Hell.”

NOTES: l. 1. What comes between αὖος and ἐγὼ in A, Mr Tod cannot decipher. Was it αὖος written twice?

πιε μοι C: πιε μου B (and C, according to Joubin). I had conjectured from Joubin’s reading πίε μμου, the initial μ being doubled as in ἐνὶ μμεγάροισιν, etc., in the so-called Aeolic poetry (Cretan = Arcadian = ‘Urgriechisch’), and this proves to be the reading of A.

l. 2. αιειροω C and B. Joubin gave αἰεὶ ῥέω: αιεναω A. Evidently the Doric genitive of an adj. αἰέροος or αἰέναος. Mr Tod (and I also) had conjectured αἰὲ ῥέω, and he would also take αἰενάω as a verb.

τῆ κυφάρισος: sc. ἐστί.

As to the metre and reading of the last line, see below p. 672.

III. Timpone Grande Tablet (a).

A thin rectangular slip of gold, like the others, found in a large tomb in the commune of Corigliano-Calabro, S. Italy. (Published in the Atti d. R. Accad. dei Lincei, Serie III. 1878-79; Memorie, p. 328: cf. Kaibel, CIGIS, 642.) The fac-simile that follows was kindly furnished by Prof. Comparetti.

Ἀλλ’ ὁπόταμ ψυχὴ προλίπηι φάος ἀελίοιο δεξιὸν ἐν̣·οιας δ̣ειτινα ............πεφυλαγμένον εὖ μάλα πάντα. Χαῖρε παθὼν τὸ πάθημα, τόδ’ οὔπω π̣ρ̣όσθε ἐπεπόνθεις. θεὸς ἐγένου ἐξ ἀνθρώπου. ἔρυφος ἐς γάλα ἔπετες. χαῖρε, χαῖρε, δεξιὰν ὁδοιπορ<ῶν> λειμῶνάς τε ἱεροὺς κατά <τ’> ἄ<λ>σεα Φεσε<φο>νείας.

‘But so soon as the Spirit hath left the light of the sun, To the right................................. of Ennoia Then must man..............being right wary in all things. Hail, thou who hast suffered the Suffering. This thou hadst never suffered before. Thou art become God from Man. A kid thou art fallen into milk. Hail, hail to thee journeying on the right......... ... Holy meadows and groves of Phersephoneia.’

l. 2. The reading is doubtful. The strip of gold has been folded over and over, making eight little divisions by vertical lines and four by horizontal. The curious thing is that in some cases the fold has been allowed for in the writing, in others not. For instance, the first vertical fold would cut, as a rule, the seventh or eighth letter from the beginning. A large space has been left for it between ἐξ and ἀνθρώπου in line 5 (the gold is worn into a little hole at this point, and may have been somehow injured before the writing was made); and in lines 1, 3, 4 and 7 the letters successfully dodge it. But the χ of χαῖρε is half obliterated, and the letter following ε in l. 2 is lost in a mass of crumpled gold. It might be ΕΙΟΙΑΣ = ἠοίας, supposing a space to be vacant in the crumple, as between ἐξ and ἀνθρώπου. But ΕΝΟΙΑΣ is the most probable, standing presumably for ΕΝΝΟΙΑΣ. The following word has generally been read as ΔΕΙ, though ΑΕΙ is equally probable.

l. 3. τόδ’ οὔπω: τό τ’ οὔπω coni. Kaibel.

ἐγένου. The γ is clear.

As to the interpretation of l. 2, we may accept Kaibel’s judgment: “videtur versus ex duobus coaluisse: nam hoc quoque carmen ex antiquiore archetypo derivatum est.” But any attempt to restore the original “carmen antiquum” is utterly uncertain. How uncertain, it may be worth while illustrating from a parallel instance.

There is a small oval Christian amulet (CIGIS 2413, 18) containing verses from an elegiac poem of Gregory Nazianzene in an abbreviated form. One passage, for instance, runs in the original

Χριστὸς ἄναξ κέλεταί σε φυγεῖν ἐς λαῖτμα θαλάσσης ἠὲ κατὰ σκοπέλων ἠὲ συῶν ἀγελήν, ὡς Λεγεῶνα πάροιθεν ἀτάσθαλον.

This appears on the amulet (I divide the words):

Χσ ἄναξ κέλετέ σε φυγε͂ν ἐσ λε͂τμα θαλάσσης ὲ ὰ σκοπέλων ὲ συῶ ἀὴν ὡ εενα πάροι ἀτάσθαλον.

The accented letter alone, or the first and last, or a group of letters in the middle are made to stand for a word. On this principle we might find in ΔΕΙΤΙΝΑ

Δεξιόν, Ἐννοίας Δ̣ε̣σποί̣νας ὕδατ̣ι̣ λίμν̣α̣ς

or various other formulae built up in the same manner. (I mark the letters which occur, not those which are omitted.)

But, is this the process that has taken place at all? The same amulet, a few lines earlier, in place of

φεῦγ’ ἀπ’ ἐμῶν μελέων, φεῦγ’ ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ βιότου, κλώψ, ὄφι, πῦρ, βελιάρ, κακίη, μόρε

gives

φεῦγ’ ἀπ’ ἐμῶν μελέων ψόφι πῦρ βελιάρ κακίη μόρε

through mere lipography, the writer’s eye having wandered from φ to ψ.

On this principle we may here be dealing with an original such as

Δεξιόν, Ἐννοίας ἀεί τινα ποσσὶ φέρεσθαι χριμπτόμενον κρανᾶς, πεφυλαγμένον εὖ μάλα πάντα.

Such conjectures are merely illustrative. The basis of sound conclusion seems to be that we have here fragments of formulae, not a complete sentence. (See below p. 672.)

The word δεξιὸν must, I think, certainly bear its ordinary meaning “right,” “on the right”: cf. l. 6 δεξιὰν ὁδοιπορῶν, and, for the syntax, δεξιὸς ἀίξας ὑπὲρ ἄστεος Ω 320; ὧδε κατάστας, δεξιὸς, ἀθανάτοις θεοῖσιν ἐπευχόμενος Theogn. 943. “On the right, by the Spring of Ennoia” means, perhaps “by the Spring of Thought issuing from the Lake of Memory.”

Such a sense would suit the doctrines of tablets I. and II., and might even help to explain the origin of Dante’s Eunoë. (Professor Comparetti, who takes δεξιὸν in the metaphorical prose sense of “clever,” considers the introduction of such a word to be due to Euripidean or sophistic influence.)

IV. Timpone Grande Tablet (b).

Prof. Comparetti examined the tablet when it was discovered in 1879, and reported (Notizie d. Scavi, 1880, p. 328) that it contained names of divinities belonging to the Orphic theology. Of these he then read Protogonos, Gê, Pammêtor, Kybelê, Korê, Dêmêtêr and Tychê. For his later results we must await his publication and discussion of the new fac-simile which, by his kindness, is reproduced above. Prof. Diels published the tablet with a full discussion in 1902 (Ein Orphischer Demeter-Hymnus, Festschrift Theodor Gomperz, p. 1). He also with great kindness has allowed his photographs of the tablet to be used for the purposes of the present book.

I examined the tablet itself in the Naples Museum and was able here and there to make out a few more letters than Prof. Diels; but, as it evidently did not contain any special Orphic doctrines, and was besides very trying to the eyes, I did not attempt a complete transcript. This note is based chiefly on Prof. Comparetti’s fac-simile.

That the tablet is unintelligible as it stands, no one will deny. It seems indeed to belong to that class of magical or cryptic writings in which, as Wünsch puts it, “singulari quadam scribendi ratione id agitur ne legi possint.”

Prof. Diels, however, did not view it in this light. He adopted the hypothesis that the tablet was the simple and bonâ fide work of an Apulian engraver who knew very little Greek, but was copying a Greek original which already contained various readings. He often got his letters down in the wrong order; often mistook one letter for another; often tried to correct his mistakes by repeating words or syllables.

Much of this seems perfectly true. Cf. for transpositions ισελαβροντα = ἐλασίβροντα, ρσαπια = σάραπι, πτεν αματα = πέντ’ ἄματα, μαιτιετη = μητίετα, οσειιταιν = ὁσίη παῖς (?).

Confusions: τλταιτταταπτα Ζεῦ (= πάντοπτα? or ἄττα, ἰᾶτα written backward?), so παννυανταντης, if that is what is written, must be an attempt to get some word right by repeated correction.

Ignorance of Greek: Ηανοπτα = Πανόπτα, επιτιημαρ = ἑπτῆμαρ are typical, but the above transpositions and confusions point to the same conclusion. On the other hand, there is knowledge of the Greek alphabet, as is shown by the varying shapes of many letters, e.g. δ, ρ [sometimes R], π [sometimes P], and the use of compendia: cf. especially the curious compounds with Ν.

Prof. Diels, however, goes a good deal further than this. He attempts to shew that the original from which the tablet is copied is a Hymn to Demeter, written in hexameters; and he proceeds to its conjectural reconstruction—while observing that “Niemand die Unsicherheit der Ergänzung verkennen oder die Barbarei der Formen beanstanden wird.”

The conjecture was worth making, and is carried out with the learning and ability which mark all Prof. Diels’s work. So it is less surprising than it would otherwise be, to find the tablet described by scholars[1634], without further qualification, as a Demeter-hymnus! But it remains a highly improbable hypothesis, not only because of the violent changes necessary to get any consecutive sense suitable to a Demeter-hymnus, but more definitely because among the few really legible passages in the tablet, the very clearest are certainly not in dactylic metre; νυξὶν ἢ μεθ’ ἡμέραν, ἰητρὸς Ἥλιε, εὔκλητε δαῖμον. True, there are fragments also which seem dactylic; ῥεῦμ’ ἄστακτα πυρός, Νίκαις ἠδὲ Τύχαις ἐφάνης παμμήδεσι Μοίραις(?). But this need not surprise us. The words of a charm, for instance, are sometimes found set in the midst of a hexameter verse; cf. the Tanagra Tablet in Wünsch, App. CIA, Praef. p. viii:

Ἑρμῆν κικλήσκω χθόνιον (καταδίδημι Διονυσίαν) καὶ Φερσεφόνηαν. (δῆσαι Διονυσίας γλῶσαν κτλ.)

This parallel would account easily for all the hexameter fragments that we have in this tablet.

On the other hand, the strange corruptions and repetitions of the tablet are more than can be explained by the mere ignorance of a copy-maker. They are not indeed similar to the rows of abracadabra-like syllables found in magical papyri (cf. Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 178 θηθουθη ααθω αθηρουωραμια θαρ μιγαρναχφουρι κτλ.) but they do bear a fairly close resemblance to some of the cryptic curses, in which, as said above, the writing is deliberately confused by transpositions and the like, so as to be unintelligible. Cf. Wünsch, 110:

ΠΡΩΤΟΝΩΣΠΕΡΤΑΥΤΑΑΝΑΤΙ ΟΤΩΣΚΑΙΤΟΣΑΓΟΡΑΙΑΣΠΡΩΤΟ ΝΑΝΑΤΙΑΕΗΑΠΑΤΑΚΑΙΗΜΑΙΟΙΤΟΙΣΤΟΙΣΤΙΜΑΤΙ ΙΤΑΤΟΠΩΑΕ ΤΟΙΠΑΡΑΠΡΩΤΟΙΟΤΟΚΑΙΟΤΟΠΩΛΟΤΙΚΑΝΔΕΚΑΙΑΥΤΟΣΚΑΙΤΗΤΗΧΝΗ

(Πρῶτον ὥσπερ ταῦτα ... οὕτως καὶ ὁ Ἀρισταγόρας ... then at the end καταδέω (?) αὐτοὺς καὶ τὴν τέχνην.)

ΤΟΣΑΓΟΡΑΙΑΣ = ὁ Ἀρισταγόρας is just like what we find in our tablet, and examination will show many other resemblances.

I have here attempted no reconstruction. I have merely copied the inscription and tried to collect such intelligible words or phrases as presented themselves at once or were to be reached by very slight emendations. The result so obtained is a patchwork of a few ritual phrases and fragmentary formulae; rows of titles of gods, heroes and daemons, including possibly Phanes and certainly Rhadamanthys; and lastly, an unintelligible residuum.

The whole seems to be a charm of some kind, concerned with healing and fasting. I can find no signs of its being a curse; nor indeed was gold, unless I am mistaken, used for writing curses. The long lists of titles of gods can be paralleled in abundance from magical inscriptions and papyri.

Transcript:

ΠΡΩΤΟΤ̣ΟΝΟΤΗΜΑΙΤΙΕΤΗΓΑΜΜΑΤΡΙΕΠ̣ΑΚΥΒΕΛΕΙΑΚΟΡΡΑΟΣ ΕΝΤΑΙΝΔΗΜΗΤΡΟΣΗΤ̣ |

ΤΛΤΑΠ̣ΤΑΤΑΠΤΑΖΕΥΙ̣ΑΤΗΤΥΔΕΡΣΑΠΙΑΗΔΙΕΠΥΡ̣Α̣Υ̣ΗΙ̣ΑΝΤΑΣΤΗΙ̣ΑΝΤΑΣΤ ΗΝΚΑΤΟΤΙΕΝ̣ΙΚΑΙΙ

ΣΗΔΕΤΥΧΑΙ̣Τ̣ΕΦΑΝΗΣΠΑΜΜΗ·ΕΟ̣ΙΜΟΙΡΑΙΣΣΤΗΤΟΙΓΑΝΝΥΑΝ̣ ΑΝΤΗΣΥΚΛΗΤΕΔΑΙΜΟΝΔΕ

ΣΠΑΤΡΙΑΤΙ·ΠΑΝΤΑΔΑΜΑΣΤΑΡ̣ΑΝΤΗΡΝΥΝΤΑΙΣ̣ΕΛΑΒΡΟΝΤΑ ΔΕΠΑΝΙΕΜΟΙΒΝ̣Τ̣ΣΤΛΗΤΕΑΠΑ

·ΤΗΜΗΑΕΡΙΠΥΟΜΕΜΜΑΙΕΡ̣ΑΥΕΣΤΙΣ··Δ·ΕΠ̣ΤΑΤΟΝΗΣΣΙΝ ΝΥΞ̣ΙΝΗΜΕΘΗΜΕΡΑΝΕΓΩ̣···

ΕΠΙΤΙΗΜΑΡΤΙΝ̣Ν̣·Σ·ΙΑΣΤΑΝΖΕΥΕΝΟΡΥΤΤΙΕΚΑΙΗΑΝΟΠΤΑ ΔΙΕΝΑΜΙΝ̣Α̣Μ̣ΑΤΕΙΟΜ̣ΑΣΕΠ

·ΠΙΔΥΣΕ̣Ι̣·ΕΡ̣ΕΥΜ̣ΑΣΤΑΚΤΑΠΥΡΟΣ·ΛΚΑΠΕΔΙΟΝ̣ΑΜΗΓΕΜΟΝ ΚΑΝ̣ΝΑΔΙΕΡΑΔΑΜΑ̣ΝΘΥΔΑΜΝΥΙ

ΤΑΣΤΗΟΤΕΞ̣ΑΜΑΡ̣Ι̣Ε···ΝΤΕΑΡΓ̣ΙΖΕΥΚΕΤΗΞ̣ΕΙΔΑ···ΤΡΑΒ̣·· ΙΗΤΡΟΣΗ̣ΛΙΣ̣ΤΙ̣Ι̣ΟΝ̣Τ̣ΕΙ

ΗΙ·ΩΣΝΗΓ̣Σ̣ΥΝΝΑΟΣΕΣΠΤ̣ΕΝΑΜΑΤΑΜΗΤΗ̣Ν··ΤΗΣΝΝΣΥΜ ΜΕΣΤΟΡΕ̣ΜΕ··ΩΡΗΜ̣

·Α····ΗΡ̣···ΝΟΣΣ·····ΕΥ̣ΤΟΛΑΕΡΤΑΙ· ΜΥΗ·ΦΑΕΝΑ ΙΝ̣ΑΙ

Πρωτόγ̣ονε̣ Γῆ Μητίετα παμματριεί̣α (?) Κυβελεία Κόρρα, ὁσίη π̣αῖς̣ (?) Δήμητρος ηταται (?) παταπτα (= παντόπτα?) Ζεῦ Ἰάτη, τὺ δὲ Σάραπι (?) Ἥλιε πυραύη φανταστὴ φ̣ανταστὴ ἑκατο··ιε (?) Νίκα ἴση δὲ Τύχα· ἴτε Φάνης πάμμησ̣τ̣οι Μοῖραι [or Νίκαις ἠδὲ τύχαις ἐφάνης παμμήδ̣ε̣σι Μοίραις] Στῆτοι (?) παντανυσταὶ (?) εὔκλητε Δαῖμον δέσπο̣τα Ἰάτη (?) παντο̣δάμαστα παντήρνυντα (= παντοκράτυντα?) ἐλασίβροντα δρ̣επάνιε (?)·····τλητέα πάντη. Μὴ ἀέρι πύωμ’ ἔμ μο̣ι ἐπ̣αύης, (?) τίσω····ἑπτατόνηστιν. Νυξὶν ἢ μεθ’ ἡμέραν ἐγὼ····ἑπτῆμαρ τὴ̣ν νηστιαστὺ̣ν (?) Ζεῦ ἐνορύττιε καὶ π̣ανόπτα δῖε ναματιαῖε (?)···ἐκ̣πιδύσετε ῥεῦμ’ ἄστακτα πυρὸς···καπ πεδίον (?)···ἡγεμὸν·····δῖε Ῥαδάμανθυ·······ἑξᾶμαρ·····Ζεῦ···Δά<μα>τρα···ἰητρὸς Ἥλιε (?)············ὡς <ἂ>ν ἡ σύνναος πέντ’ ἄματα μὴ·········συμμηστόρε (?)···ωρην···················

One might translate tentatively: “O First-Born, Earth, Counsellor, All-Motherly, Cybelean, Kora, Holy Child of Demeter (?) ..., All-Seeing Zeus, Healer, and thou Sarapis, Sun, Fire-Kindler, Maker-of-Appearances, Far-Seeing (??)

Victory and equal Fortune; come ye, Phanes, All-Counselling Fates (or With victories and Fortunes thou didst appear, with the All-Devising Fates)

Stayers (?), All-Accomplishers (?), Well-named Daemon, Master, Healer (?), All-Subduer, All-Controller, Driver of Thunder, Sickle-Bearer (?), ... to be endured in all wise. That thou mayest not with vapour make to burn a tumour in me (??) ... I will pay ... sevenfold fasting. In the nights or after daybreak I ... for seven days the fasting.

Zeus Penetrator (?) and All-seeing, Divine, Ruler of Streams, ... ye will make to spring a stream not in drops of fire....

Plain ... guide ... Divine Rhadamanthys ... for six days.... Zeus ... Demeter ... Healer, Sun ... that She sharing the Shrine for five days may not....”

V., VI. and VII. The Compagno Tablets.

Published Notizie degli Scavi, 1880. Cf. Kaibel, CIGIS, 481, a, b, c. These three tablets were found on the estate of the Baron Compagno, near Naples, not far from the Timpone Grande. The tablets were close to the hand of the skeleton in each case.

V. Compagno Tablet (a).

ΕΡΧΟΜΑΙ ΕΚ ΚΟΘΑΡΟν, ΚΟΘΑΡΑ ΧΘΟΝΙ<ων>; ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ, ΕΥΚΛΗΣ ΕΥΒΟΛΕΥΣ ΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΑΘΑΝΑΤΟΙ ΘΕΟΙ ΑΛΛΟΙ. ΚΑΙ ΓΑΡ ΕΓΩΝ ΥΜΩΝ ΓΕΝΟΣ ΟΛΒΙΟΝ ΕΥΧΟΜΑ<ι>; ΕΙΜΕΝ, ΑΛΑ ΜΕ ΜΟΡΑ ΕΔΑΜΑΣΕ ΚΑΙ ΑΘΑΝΑΤΟΙ ΘΕΟΙ ΑΛΛΟΙ ········ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΣΤΕΡΟΒΛΗΤΑ ΚΕΡΑΥΝΟΝ.

ΚΥΚΛΟ Δ’ ΕΞΕΠΤΑΝ ΒΑΡΥΠΕΝΘΕΟΣ ΑΡΓΑΛΕΟΙΟ· ΙΜΕΡΤΟ Δ’ ΕΠΕΒΑΝ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟ ΠΟΣΙ ΚΑΡΠΑΛΙΜΟΙΣΙ· ΔΕΣΣΠΟΙΝΑΣ ΔΕ ΥΠΟ ΚΟΛΠΟΝ ΕΔΥΝ ΧΘΟΝΙΑΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ ΙΜΕΡΤΟ Δ’ ΑΠΕΒΑΝ ΣΤΕΜΑΝΟ ΠΟΣΙ ΚΑΡΠΑΣΙΜΟΙΣΙ. ΟΛΒΙΕ ΚΑΙ ΜΑΚΑΡΙΣΤΕ, ΘΕΟΣ Δ’ ΕΣΗΙ ΑΝΤΙ ΒΡΟΤΟΙΟ. ΕΡΙΦΟΣ ΕΣ ΓΑΛ’ ΕΠΕΤΟΝ.

Kaibel remarks with regard to these three documents: “Fuit aliquando Saeculo Quarto antiquius apud Sybaritas carmen, quod Orphico, ut ita dicam, dicendi genere conceptum lamminis aureis inscriptum defunctorum corporibus imponi solebat, quo ipsi vitae ante actae quasi testimonio fidei deorum inferorum commendarentur. Quod carmen cum in usum sepulcrorum saepius describeretur, sensim corrumpebatur et in brevius redigebatur, omissis aliis, aliis additis, pluribus denique mutatis, ut tamen primaria indoles non oblitteraretur. Tria nunc exempla inventa sunt.... Antiquius primum est, quod ad IV a. Chr. n. saeculum referri iubet ipsa ratio orthographica (ΚΥΚΛΟ, ΙΜΕΡΤΟ, ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟ) sed haud ita multo recentiora reliqua duo, quod docet scripturae genus simillimum.”

The letters are ancient and well formed, approaching more closely to those of fourth and fifth century inscriptions than to the papyrus of, say, Timotheus.

l. 1. The form κοθαρός is dialectical. It occurs in Elean and Thurian inscriptions, e.g. the Heraclean Tables. Contrast this peculiarity with the style of Tablet I.

I punctuate after κοθαρῶν: “I come from the Pure, O Pure Queen,” not “Pure I come from the Pure, O Queen.” The rhythm of the line points strongly to this. Only by a definite system of punctuation, such as did not exist in ancient Greek, could you in such a sentence make a reader pause elsewhere than in the natural pause of the metre. The sense is: “I come from the Orphically-initiated, O Queen of the Orphically-initiated.”

3, 4, 5, 8. εἶμεν, Μο͂ρα (= Μοῖρα: cf. the next tablet), ἀσστεροβλῆτα, Δεσσποίνας are all dialectical forms.

7 and 9. Observe the difference of reading. V. 9 is wrong in στεμάνο and καρπασίμοισι, so ἀπεβαν, in itself an interesting variant, must be suspected to be mere mistake also.

VI. Compagno Tablet (b).

ΕΡΧΟΜΑ Ε ΚΑΡΩΙΣ ΧΟΝΩΝ ΚΑΘΑΡΑ ΧΟΝΙΩΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΗΕΙ ΕΥΚΛΕ ΚΑΙ ΕΥΒΟΥΛΕΥΙ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΙ <και> ΔΑΙΜΟΝΕ<ϲ> ΑΛΛΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΓΡΑ ΕΓΩΝ ΥΜΩ ΓΕΝΟ ΕΥΧΟΜΑΙ ΟΛΒΙΟΙΝ Ε̣ΙΝΑΙ ΠΟΝΑΝ̣ Δ ΑΝΤΑΠΕΙΓ̣ΕΣΕΙ ΕΡΓΩΙ ΕΝΕΚΑ ΟΥΣ̣Ι Δ<ι>ΚΑΩΝ ΕΙΤΕ ΜΕ ΜΟΡΑ ΕΔΑΜΑΣΑΤΟ ΕΙΤΕ ΑΣΤΕΡΟΠΗΤΙ Κ<ε>ΡΑΥΝΩΝ ΝΥΝ Δ ΙΚΕΤΙ ΙΚΩΙ ΠΑΙ̣ ΑΓΝΗν ΦΕΣΕΦΟΝΕΑΝ ΩΣ ΜΕΙ ΠΡΟΦΩ ΠΕΙΨΗ Ε̣ΔΡΑΙ̣Σ ΕΣ ΕΥΑΓΕΙΩΙ

1. Κ may be compendium for ΚΘ; ΙΣ seems to be a mistake for Ν.

3. ΕΙΝΑΙ either begun per compendium and then written in full, or else the Ν of ολβιον is compounded with the Ε. Cf. the next tablet.

4. Sc. ποινὰν δ’ ἀνταπέτεισ’ ἔργων ἕνεκ’ οὐχὶ δικαίων.

6, 7. Sc.

Νῦν δ’ ἱκέτης ἵκω παρ’ ἁγνὴν (or ἀγαυὴν?) Φερσεφόνειαν ὡς με πρόφρων πέμψῃ ἕδρας ἐς εὐαγέων.

VII. Compagno Tablet (c).

ΕΡΧΟΜΑΙ Ε ΚΑΘΑΡΩ ΚΑ[symbol] Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΑΕ̣ Ε̣ΥΚΛΕ<ΥΑ> ΚΑ ΕΥΒΟΛΕΥ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΙ ΟΣΟΙ ΔΜΟΝΕΣ ΑΛΛΟ ΚΑΙ ΓΑΡ ΕΩ ΥΩ̣ ΓΕΝΟΣ ΕΥΧΟΜΑΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΟΛΒΙΟ ΠΟΙΝΑΝ ΝΑΤΑΠΕΤΕ ΕΡΓΩ ΟΤΙ ΔΙΚΑΩΝ ΕΤ ΜΕ ΜΟΙΡ·······ΑΣΤΕΡΟΠΗΤΙ <ΚΑ̣Ι> ΚΕΡΑΥΝΟ ΝΥΝ ΔΕ ΚΕ ΙΚΩ ΛΚΩ ΠΑΡΑ ΦΣΕΦ ΩΣ ΜΕ ΡΟΦ ΠΕΨΕ Μ ΕΔΡΑΣ ΕΣ ΕΥΓΩ

1. Perhaps ΕΚΚΑΘΑΡΩ, a double Κ being written per compendium.

ΚΑ[symbol] apparently ΚΑΘΡΟ per compendium, or even καθαρά. The letter given as Ο is more like Π, but really illegible.

After ΒΑΣΙΛΕΑ (ΕΑ per compendium) a letter like Ε or R. The name Eukles seems to have puzzled the scribe.

2. ΕΥΚΛΕΥΛ. The last letter may be Α or Λ. Probably there is some confused dittography, as if the Ε suggested beginning ΕΥΚΛΕ again.

ΟΣΟΙ seems miswriting for ΚΑΙ.

3. ΥΩ or ΥΜ: uncertain.

Εἶναι per compendium: cf. the foregoing. Kaibel says of (b) and (c): “Haec duo carmina videntur ex communi archetypo esse descripta non solum quod inter se magis similia sunt quam utrumque primo, sed etiam propterea quod eadem ligatura in utroque verba ὄλβιον εἶναι scripta sunt.”

4. Or ΝΑΤΑΠΕΤΕΙΣ ΡΓΩ for ἀνταπέτεισ’.

5. ΕΤ: perhaps compendium for εἴτε.

The Σ of ἀστεροπῆτι is like Ε. Before κεραυνο͂ there seems to be καὶ by dittography.

The general formulae represented by the three tablets together, may be translated:

‘Out of the Pure I come, Pure Queen of Them Below, And Eukles and Eubouleus, and other Gods and Daemons: For I also avow me that I am of your blessed race. And I have paid the penalty for deeds unrighteous, Whether it be that Fate laid me low or the Gods Immortal Or ... with star-flung thunderbolt. I have flown out of the sorrowful weary Wheel; I have passed with eager feet to the Circle desired; I have sunk beneath the bosom of Despoina, Queen of the Underworld; I have passed with eager feet to (or from) the Circle desired; And now I come a suppliant to Holy Phersephoneia That of her grace she receive me to the seats of the Hallowed.— Happy and Blessèd One, thou shalt be God instead of Mortal.’

(The prose formula: ‘A kid I have fallen into milk’: is once inserted in the midst of the poem.)

To sum up, we find in these three tablets some common characteristics. They all show traces of the influence of some colloquial Italian dialect. The form κοθαρὸς is Thurian. The free omission and addition of final Ν is probably another Italian symptom, having its analogy in the treatment of final M in Latin. It seems not to have been pronounced. We find ΥΜΩ (ὑμῶν), ΠΡΟΦΩ (πρόφρων), ΑΓΝΗ (ἁγνὴν), ΕΥΑΓΕΙΩ (εὐαγεῶν) and vice versâ ΚΡΑΥΝΩΝ (κεραυνῷ). There is the same uncertainty about Ι following another vowel: we have ΕΡΧΟΜΑ, ΜΕΙ (με), ΙΚΩΙ. The writer of (b), and perhaps of (c) also, did not understand what words he was writing. One could be more sure about (c) if it were not that some of his most glaring apparent mistakes prove on examination to be compendiary forms and possibly accurate.

But another form of compendiary writing occurs, I think, in all of these tablets, and is of more interest.

There is a sentence which appears in (c) as

ΕΤ ΜΕ ΜΟΙΡ············ΑΣΤΕΡΟΠΗΤΙ (ΚΑΙ) ΚΕΡΑΥΝΟ.

Evidently not a complete sentence, any more than it is a complete verse, but a beginning and end with the middle omitted.

In (b) we have it a little fuller.

ΕΙΤΕ ΜΕ ΜΟΡΑ ΕΔΑΜΑΣΑΤΟ····ΕΙΤΕ ΑΣΤΕΡΟΠΗΤΙ ΚΡΑΥΝΩΝ.

This, with a little necessary emendation, might seem to be a complete sentence, as indeed Kaibel takes it, were it not for a fuller version still in (a).

ΑΛΑ ΜΕ ΜΟΡΑ ΕΔΑΜΑΣΕ ΚΑΙ ΑΘΑΝΑΤΟΙ ΘΕΟΙ ΑΛΛΟΙ ·······ΚΑΙ ΑΣΣΤΕΡΟΒΛΗΤΑ ΚΕΡΑΥΝΟΝ.

This fuller and correcter version is obviously incomplete, both in sense and in metre. The conclusion seems to be that we have in all three cases a confessedly incomplete collection of words, standing for a complete and well-known formula. The words seem to be from the beginning and end of the sentences. It is as though, in a community accustomed to the Anglican Church service, we found, first: “When the wicked man his soul alive.” Second, and deceptively complete in appearance: “When the wicked man shall save his soul alive.” Third, fuller and betraying its incompleteness: “When the wicked man turneth from save his soul alive.”

Instances of this sort of abbreviation can be found in most liturgies, though of course in modern times we should put dots to mark the gap in the middle. But it is certainly not common on Greek inscriptions. Ordinary abbreviations are common enough—Θ Κ = Θεοὶ Καταχθόνιοι, δμονες = δαίμονες, and the like. And there is the system, if system it can be called, illustrated by the quotation from Gregory Nazianzene in the note on Tablet III. The case most closely resembling the present that is known to me is that of the Cyprian Curses, published by Miss Macdonald in the Proceedings of the Soc. Bibl. Archaeology, 1890, p. 160 sqq. Cf. Wünsch, Append. CIA, Praef. p. xviii sqq. They are prayers to all Ghosts and Daemons to hamper and paralyse and “take away the θυμὸς from” some adversary, of whom the writer is in mortal fear. They begin with metrical formulae.

The first starts:

ΟΙΚΑΤΑΓΗΝΚΔΜΟΝΕΣΟΙ ΚΠΑΤΕΡΕΣΠΑΤΕΡΩΝΚΜΗΤΕΡΕ ΟΙΚΟΙΤΙΝΕΣΕΝΘΑΔΕΚΕΙΣΘΕΚΟΙΤΙΝΕΣ ΘΕΘΥΜΟΝΑΠΟΚΡΑΔΙΗΣΠΟΛΥΚΗΔΕΑ ΟΝΤΕΣ

Another, No. IV.:

ΑΤΑ—ΓΗΝΚΔΜΟΝΕΣΟΙΤΕΣΤΕΚ ΩΝΚΜΗΤΕΡΕΣΑΝΤΙΕΝΙΡΟΙΑΝΔΡΙΟΙ ΝΕΣΤΙΝΕΣΕΣΤΕΚΟΙΤΙΝΕΣΕΝΘΑ ΕΑ

These seem to represent two very similar formulae. The first will run:

Δαίμονες οἱ κατὰ γῆν καὶ δαίμονες οἵτινες ἔστε, καὶ Πατέρες πατέρων καὶ Μητέρες ἀντιένειροι (?), χοἵτινες ἐνθάδε κεῖσθε καὶ οἵτινες ἔνθα καθῆσθε, ......................................................... θυμὸν ἀπὸ κραδίης πολυκηδέα πρόσθε λαβόντες.

The other:

Δαίμονες οἱ κατὰ γῆν καὶ δαίμονες οἵτινες ἔστε, καὶ Πατέρες πατέρων καὶ Μητέρες ἀντιένειροι, ..................... ἄνδριοι ἠδὲ γύναιοι, δαίμονες οἵτινες ἔστε καὶ οἵτινες ἐνθάδε κεῖσθε ......................................................... <θυμὸν ἀπὸ κραδίης> πολυκηδέα <πρόσθε λαβόντες.>

The reconstruction of the verses is helped out by several other smaller fragments. I have followed, with slight variations, Dieterich and Wünsch.

Now here we find several points closely reminding us of the Compagno Tablets. (1) The different documents are all quoting the same magical poem. (2) Since the prayer is a prayer to take away somebody’s θυμός, and otherwise weaken and paralyse him, I think we may conclude that the line θυμὸν ἀπὸ κραδίης πολυκηδέα πρόσθε λαβόντες (λιπόντες is added as a v. l. in one only of the fragments) is the final line of the prayer. “Do this, that, and the other, having first taken away the hurtful spirit out of his heart.”

(3) The second tablet (No. IV.) gives a half line ἄνδριοι ἠδὲ γύναιοι, for which there is no place, and which therefore shows the incompleteness of a formula which, as written in No. I., might have seemed complete, exactly like καὶ ἀθάνατοι θεοὶ ἄλλοι in Compagno (a).

There is possibly a case of the same phenomenon in the Eleuthernae tablets (II.). There is one place at the end where the metre is broken. It may be the full formula contained a series of questions, beginning with Τίς δ’ ἔσι; and ending with Πῶ δ’ ἔσι;—Γᾶς υἱὸς ἠμὶ καὶ ὠρανῶ ἀστερόεντος. If there were only one tablet containing the formula, one would prefer to suppose that Τίς δ’ ἔσι; πῶ δ’ ἔσι; was mere dittography, a scribe having first written the phrase slightly wrong and then re-written it right without deleting the first version. But this hypothesis becomes more difficult when there are three tablets differing in several particulars but agreeing in this unmetrical double question.

In any case, it would probably be wisest to regard the tablets as each consisting of a series of formulae, mostly in verse but some in prose, some apparently complete, others compendiary.

VIII. The Tablet of Caecilia Secundina.

A thin gold tablet (75 mm. by 24 mm. in size) found in Rome about the year 1899, probably in one of the ancient tombs on the Ostia Road; now in the British Museum. The script, though generally clear, is peculiar. The form of ε (cf. ευκλεεσευ in line 2) is new to me, but in general the writing is like that of a cursive papyrus of Roman times. Prof. Comparetti, who has published and discussed the tablet in Atene e Roma, LIV. and LV. (1903), considers it certainly later than the Herculanean papyri, and would place it in the second century or possibly the first, A.D.

I read it thus:

ἔρχεται ἐκ καθαρῶν, καθαρὰ χθονίων βασίλεια, Εὔκλεες Εὐβουλεῦ τε. Διὸς τέκος, ὅπλα δ’ ἔχ’ ὧδε Μνημοσύνης, (τὸ δὲ δῶρον ἀοίδιμον ἀνθρώποισιν) Καικιλία Σεκουνδεῖνα, νόμῳ αἰεὶ ἀπαγωγά.

‘She comes from the Pure, O Pure Queen of those below And Eukles and Eubouleus.—Child of Zeus, receive here the armour Of Memory, (’tis a gift songful among men) Thou Caecilia Secundina, in due rite to avert evil for ever.’

v. 2. Probably Εὔκλεες as Comparetti: not εὔκλεέ τ’. The rest of this line is certain as far as Διὸς τέκος: after that, I make out οπλαδεχωδε, the first δ being (cf. that in τόδε below) very like α, and the ο not well finished. Repeated examination of the tablet has confirmed my belief that these are the inscribed letters; and I may add that Dr A. S. Murray and Mr Cecil Smith, as well as Dr Hartwig, who formerly possessed the tablet, all independently read the same.

Taking these letters as they stand, we may obtain sense, grammar and metre by dividing ὅπλα δ’ ἔχ’ ὧδε: “Have here the armour of Memory,” and I believe that this interpretation, though curious, is right. The change to the second person and the imperative addressed to the Soul are just like phrases in the other tablets: ὄλβιε καὶ μακάριστε, ἀλλὰ πίε μου, κτλ. The peculiar use of ὅπλα, to which I can find nothing quite similar in our fragments of Orphic literature, has its exact parallel in St Paul’s repeated metaphors ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης (Rom. vi. 12; 2 Cor. vi. 7), ὅπλα φωτός (Rom. xiii. 2). The “armour of Mnemosyne” to an Orphic would probably bear just the same shade of meaning as the “armour of light” to a Christian. Lethe was the Orphic “Darkness.” The use of ὧδε might be paralleled by Homer’s πρόμολ’ ὧδε, and the scholiasts have remarked long since that in the later Epic language ὧδε was used more freely than in Homer. The Cyprian Curses just quoted give ὑμεῖς οἱ ὧδε κείμενοι.

A further question here suggests itself. Who is the Διὸς τέκος? Eubouleus, by a straining of the identifications of mythologers, might claim the title; and it would save trouble, no doubt, to admit his claim. But apart from the unfair advantage which this would give him over Eukles, a comparison of the phrases applied to the pure soul in the other tablets (θεὸς ἐγένου, ὑμῶν γένος ὄλβιον εὔχομαι εἶναι, etc.) suggests that “Child of Zeus” is vocative. “Child of Zeus, receive here thine armour of Memory.” The doctrine is orthodox in Orphism; the completely pure soul is the pure blood of Zagreus, freed from the dross of charred Titan corpses, and as such is the child of Zeus. In an earlier stage it was Γᾶς παῖς καὶ Ὠρανῶ.

(Prof. Comparetti reads απλαα on the tablet, which he takes to be a mistake for ἁπαλὰ “tender,” agreeing per sensum with τέκος—not a very fortunate conjecture.)

v. 3. Should we divide τὸ δὲ or τόδε in apposition to ὅπλα?

v. 4. Scanned, apparently, Σ’κουνδεῖνα: such licenses are of course common. The last three words, forming l. 6 on the tablet, are difficult. The line begins with a vertical bar, like Ι, which in a document of an earlier time one would certainly take for the final Ι of ΝΟΜΩΙ. Then follows αι ει; the gap in the middle of the word would be less, if the bottom of the ε were visible. After this I make out the letters απαγωγα, apparently the n. pl. of a word ἀπαγωγὸς, “calculated to avert” opposed to ἐπαγωγὸς, “calculated to induce” magic influences. Mr Cecil Smith agrees with this reading. Prof. Comparetti, having only the photograph to work from, read [ἀ]ιεὶ διαγεγῶσα, “having always lived lawfully.”

The “armour of Memory,” the “gift songful among men,” is firstly perhaps the spiritual gift, and then in a secondary sense the actual tablet which both symbolises and preserves from oblivion Cecilia’s claims to immortality; and does so in song.

Caecilia Secundina is not otherwise known, but must have belonged in some way to the clan of Caecilii Secundi. She would thus be connected with the Younger Pliny, whose name before his adoption was Publius Caecilius Secundus.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Thuc. II. 38.

[2] Ps.-Xen. Rep. Athen. II. 99.

[3] Ps.-Xen. Rep. Athen. III. 8.

[4] Plat. Euthyph. 15 D.

[5] So far as it is possible to distinguish the two, τὸ εὐσεβές is religion from man’s side, his attitude towards the gods, τὸ ὅσιον religion from the gods’ side, the claim they make on man. τὸ ὅσιον is the field of what is made over, consecrated to the gods. The further connotations of the word as employed by Orphism will be discussed later. ‘Holiness’ is perhaps the nearest equivalent to τὸ ὅσιον in the Euthyphron.

[6] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. IX. 123.

[7] The Characters of Theophrastus, p. 264.

[8] Arist. Polit. p. 1315 a 1.

[9] Plut. de Superstit. I.

[10] Plut. de aud. poet. 4.

[11] Eur. frg. 292.

[12] Plut. de Superstit. X.

[13] Plut. de Superstit. IX.

[14] Plut. de Superstit. III.

[15] Xen. Cyropaed. III. 3. 58.

[16] Isocr. Or. V. 117.

[17] Plat. Legg. 854 B ἴθι ἐπὶ θεῶν τὰς ἀποδιοπομπήσεις, ἴθι ἐπὶ ἀποτροπαίων ἱερὰ ἱκέτης ... τὰς δὲ τῶν κακῶν ξυνουσίας φεῦγε ἀμεταστρεπτί.

[18] Harpocrat. s.v. ἀποπομπάς.

[19] P. II. 11. 1.

[20] Babr. Fab. 63.

[21] Hippocr. περὶ ἐνυπνίων 639 ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖσιν ἐναντίοισιν καὶ γῇ καὶ ἥρωσιν ἀποτρόπαια γενέσθαι τὰ χαλεπὰ πάντα.

[22] English has no convenient equivalent for ἀποτροπή, which may mean either turning ourselves away from the thing or turning the thing away from us. Aversion, which for lack of a better word I have been obliged to adopt, has too much personal and no ritual connotation. Exorcism is nearer, but too limited and explicit. Dr Oldenberg in apparent unconsciousness of θεραπεία and ἀποτροπή uses in conjunction the two words Cultus and Abwehr. To his book, Die Religion des Veda, though he hardly touches on Greek matters, I owe much.

[23] Hom. Il. II. 421.

[24] Companion to the Iliad, p. 77. I have advisedly translated οὐλοχύται by barley grain, not meal, because I believe the οὐλοχύται to be a primitive survival of the custom of offering actual grain, but this disputed question is here irrelevant. I follow Dr H. von Fritze, Hermes XXXII. 1897, p. 236.

[25] The sources for the Diasia are all collected in the useful and so far as I am aware complete work, Oskar Band, Die Attischen Diasien—ein Beitrag zur Griechischen Horteologie, Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Programm der Victoriaschule, Ostern 1883 (Berlin). Many of the more important sources are easily accessible in Mr Farnell’s Cults of the Greek States, vol. I. pp. 171, 172. Mr Farnell regards Zeus Meilichios as merely a form of the Olympian Zeus, not as a contaminatio of two primarily distinct religious conceptions.

[26] On. I. 37.

[27] Thucyd. I. 126 ἔστι γὰρ καὶ Ἀθηναίοις Διάσια ἃ καλεῖται Διὸς ἑορτὴ Μειλιχίου μεγίστη, ἔξω τῆς πόλεως ἐν ᾗ πανδημεὶ θύουσι πολλὰ οὐχ ἱερεῖα ἀλλ’ <ἁγνὰ> θύματα ἐπιχώρια.

Schol. ad loc. θύματα· τινὰ πέμματα εἰς ζῴων μορφὰς τετυπωμένα ἔθυον.

[28] vv. 864 and 408.

[29] Luc. Icaro-Menip. 24 schol. ad loc. Διάσια ἑορτὴ Ἀθήνησιν, ἣν ἐπετέλουν μετά τινος στυγνότητος, θύοντες ἐν αὐτῇ Διὶ Μειλιχίῳ.

[30] Xen. Anab. VII. 8. 4 τῇ δὲ ὑστεραίᾳ ὁ Ξενοφῶν ... ἐθύετο καὶ ὡλοκαύτει χοίρους τῷ πατρῴῳ νόμῳ καὶ ἐκαλλιέρει. The incident probably took place in February, the month of the Diasia. See Mr H. G. Dakyns, Xen. vol. I. p. 315.

[31] P. X. 38. 8.

[32] P. I. 37. 4.

[33] P. II. 20. 1.

[34] Hesych. s.v. Μαιμάκτης· μειλίχιος, καθάρσιος.

[35] P. II. 2. 8.

[36] Permission to republish the two reliefs figured here and that in fig. 5 has been courteously granted me by Professor Kekulé von Stradowitz, Director of the Berlin Museum, and I owe to his kindness the excellent photographs from which the reproductions are made. From the official catalogue (Beschreibung der Antiken Skulpturen in Berlin) I quote the following particulars as to material, provenance &c.

1. Cat. 722, H. 0·58, Br. 0·31. Hymettus marble found with No. 723 at the Zea harbour not far from Ziller’s house. Taken to Berlin 1879. Inscribed ΔΙΙ ΜΕΙΛΙΧΙΩΙ. Date fourth century B.C., see CIA. II. 3, 1581, cf. CIA. II. 3. 1578, 1582, 1583.

2. Cat. 723, material, provenance, date, same as 722.

[37] Bull. de Corr. Hell. VII. p. 507.

[38] Bull. de Corr. Hell. 1883, p. 510.

[39] From a photograph (Peiraeus 12) published by kind permission of the German Archaeological Institute, see Eph. Arch. 1886, p. 47.

[40] Lucian, Tim. c. 7.

[41] Suidas s.v. Διάσια.

[42] J.H.S. XIX. p. 114, note 1.

[43] Mr P. Giles kindly tells me that a rare Sanskrit word dveshas meaning ‘hate’ and the like exists and phonetically would nearly correspond to the Latin dirus. The corresponding form in Greek would appear as δειος, unless in late Greek. But from the end of the 5th century B.C. onwards the pronunciation would be the same as δῖος, and if the word survived only in ritual terms it would naturally be confused with δῖος. Almost all authorities on Latin however regard the ru in dirus as a suffix containing an original r as in mirus, durus, etc. This view, which would be fatal to the etymology of dirus proposed in the text, seems supported by a statement of Servius (if the statement be accurate) on Aen. III. 235 ‘Sabini et Umbri quae nos mala dira appellant,’ as, though s between vowels passes in Latin and Umbrian into r, it remains an s sound in Sabine.

[44] Hesych. s.v. ὁ δὲ Πολέμων τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Διὶ τεθυμένου ἱερείου. From Athenaeus also we learn that Polemon had treated in some detail of the ‘fleece of Zeus’; Athenaeus says (XI. § 478 C), Πολέμων δ’ ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ δίου κωδίου φησί....

[45] Suidas s.v. θύουσί τε τῷ τε Μειλιχίῳ καὶ τῷ Κτησίῳ Διί, τὰ δὲ κώδια τούτων φυλάσσουσι καὶ Δία (δῖα) προσαγορεύονται, χρῶνται δ’ αὐτοῖς οἵ τε Σκιροφορίων τὴν πομπὴν στέλλοντες καὶ ὁ δᾳδοῦχος ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς πρὸς καθαρμοὺς ὑποστορνύντες αὐτὰ τοῖς ποσὶ τῶν ἐναγῶν. For Δία Gaisford conjectures Διὸς but from the passage of Eustathius (see infr.) it is clear that we must read δῖα.

[46] Eustath. ad Od. XXII. 481 § 1934-5 ἐδόκουν γὰρ οἱ Ἕλληνες οὕτω τὰ τοιαῦτα μύση καθαίρεσθαι διοπομπούμενα. καὶ ἕτεροι μὲν δηλοῦσι τρόπους καθαρσίων ἑτέρους, ἃ καὶ ἐξάγοντες τῶν οἴκων μετὰ τὰς ἐθίμους ἐπαοιδὰς προσέῤῥιπτον ἀμφόδοις ἔμπαλιν τὰ πρόσωπα στρέφοντες καὶ ἐπανιόντες ἀμεταστρεπτί. ὁ δέ γε ποιητικὸς Ὀδυσσεὺς οὐχ οὕτω ποιεῖ ἀλλ’ ἑτέρως ἁπλούστερον. φησὶ γοῦν· οἶσε θέειον γρῆυ κακῶν ἄκος ... πλέον ποιήσας οὐδέν ... θέειον δὲ θυμιάματος εἶδος καθαίρειν δοκοῦντος τοὺς μιασμούς. διὸ καὶ διαστείλας κακῶν ἄκος αὑτό φησιν ὁ ποιητής, οὔτε δέ τινες ἐνταῦθα ἐπῳδαὶ συνήθεις τοῖς παλαιοῖς οὔτε στενωπὸς ἐν ᾧ ἄνθρακες ἀπαγόμενοι αὐτῷ ἀγγείῳ ἐῤῥίπτοντο ὀπισθοφανῶς. ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι οὐ μόνον διὰ θείου ἐγίνοντο καθαρμοὶ καθὰ προσεχῶς ἐγράφη ἀλλὰ καὶ φυτά τινα εἰς τοῦτο χρήσιμα ἦν. ἀριστερεὼν γοῦν, φυτὸν κατὰ Παυσανίαν ἐπιτήδειον εἰς καθαρμόν· καὶ σῦς δὲ εἰς τοιαῦτα, ἐστὶν οὗ, παρελαμβάνετο, ὡς ἐν Ἰλιάδι φαίνεται. καὶ οἱ τὸ διοπομπεῖν δὲ ἑρμηνεύοντές φασιν ὅτι δῖον ἐκάλουν κώδιον ἱερείου τυθέντος Διῒ μειλιχίῳ ἐν τοῖς καθαρμοῖς, φθίνοντος Μαιμακτηριῶνος μηνὸς ὅτε ἤγοντο τὰ πομπαῖα, καὶ καθαρμῶν ἐκβολαὶ εἰς τὰς τριόδους ἐγίνοντο. εἶχον δὲ μετὰ χεῖρας πομπόν· ὅπερ ἦν, φασί, κηρύκιον, σέβας Ἑρμοῦ. καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τοιούτου πομποῦ καὶ τοῦ ῥηθέντος δίου τὸ διοπομπεῖν ... ἄλλως δὲ κοινότερον διοπομπεῖν καὶ ἀποδιοπομπεῖν ἐφαίνετο τὸ Διὸς ἀλεξικάκου ἐπικλήσει ἐκπέμπειν τὰ φαῦλα. Eustathius passes on to speak of purification by blood and the φαρμακοί, see p. 95.

[47] Maimaktes, it will be remembered, is the other face of Meilichios, see supra.

[48] See Liddell and Scott, s.v.

[49] Dicaearch. Frg. Hist. II. 262.

[50] P. I. 34. 2-5. Strabo (VI. § 284) says that the Daunians when they consulted the oracle of the hero Calchas sacrificed a black ram to him and slept on the fleece. The worshippers of the ‘Syrian Goddess,’ Lucian says (De Syr. Dea 35), knelt on the ground and put the feet and the head of the victim on their heads. He probably means that they got inside the skin and wore it with the front paws tied round the neck as Herakles wears the lion-skin.

[51] Dicaearchus I. 6.

[52] As regards the ethnography of these two strata, I accept Prof. Ridgeway’s view that the earlier stratum, which I have called chthonic, belongs to the primitive population of the Mediterranean to which he gives the name Pelasgian; the later stratum, to which belongs the manner of sacrifice I have called ‘Olympian,’ is characteristic of the Achaean population coming from the North. But, as I have no personal competency in the matter of ethnography and as Prof. Ridgeway’s second volume is as yet unpublished, I have thought it best to state the argument as it appeared to me independently, i.e. that there are two strata in religion, one primitive, one later. I sought for many years an ethnographical clue to this stratification, but sought in vain.

[53] The sources for the Anthesteria are collected and discussed in the Lexicons of Pauly-Wissowa and of Daremberg and Saglio and more completely in Dr Martin Nilsson’s Studia de Dionysiis Atticis (Lundae, 1900), which has been of great service to me.

[54] Harpocrat. s.v.

[55] Plut. Q. Symp. III. 7. 1.

[56] The gist of such offerings will be considered under the Thargelia.

[57] Plut. Q. Symp. VIII. 3.

[58] Op. 368.

[59] Discussed in relation to Dionysos, see infra, Chapter VIII.

[60] Ar. Ran. 212, trans. Mr Gilbert Murray.

[61] Aristoph. Ach. 1076, schol. ad loc.

[62] Thucyd. II. 15.

[63] Harpocrat. s.v. Χόες.

[64] Suidas s.v. θύραζε· ἔξω τῆς θύρας·

θύραζε Κᾶρες, οὐκ ἔτ’ Ἀνθεστήρια,

οἱ μὲν διὰ πλῆθος οἰκετῶν Καρικῶν εἰρῆσθαί φασιν, ὡς ἐν τοῖς Ἀνθεστηρίοις εὐωχουμένων αὐτῶν καὶ οὐκ ἐργαζομένων. τῆς οὖν ἑορτῆς τελεσθείσης λέγειν ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα ἐκπέμποντας αὐτούς·

θύραζε Κᾶρες, οὐκ ἔτ’ Ἀνθεστήρια.

τινὲς δὲ οὕτω τὴν παροιμίαν φασί·

θύραζε κῆρες, οὐκ ἔνι Ἀνθεστήρια,

ὡς κατὰ τὴν πόλιν τοῖς Ἀνθεστηρίοις τῶν ψυχῶν περιερχομένων.

Photius s.v. substantially identical.

To the information here given Zenobius (Cent. Paroimiogr.) adds: Εἴρηται δὲ ἡ παροιμία ἐπὶ τῶν τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπιζητούντων πάντοτε λαμβάνειν. It is fortunate that Suidas records his second conjecture, as his first is rendered plausible by the fact that we know the household servants were admitted to the Pithoigia. Probably in classical days κῆρες had already become an old fashioned word for souls and the formulary may have been easily misunderstood. Mommsen in his second edition (Feste der Stadt Athen, p. 386) argues that the form κῆρες is impossible because ‘Gespenstern zeigt man nicht die Thür wie einem Bettler,’ a difficulty that will scarcely be felt by any one acquainted with primitive customs.

[65] Ovid, Fasti V. 443.

[66] Primitive Culture II. p. 40.

[67] Religion des Vedas, p. 533.

[68] Schol. ad Ar. Ran. 218 τοῖς ἱεροῖσι Χύτροισι· Χύτροι ἑορτὴ παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις· ἄγεται δὲ παρὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν, ἣν καὶ Θεόπομπος ἐκτίθεται γράφων οὕτως· < > ... ἔπειτα· θύειν αὐτοῖς ἔθος ἔχουσι τῶν μὲν Ὀλυμπίων θεῶν οὐδενὶ τὸ παράπαν, Ἑρμῇ δὲ χθονίῳ. καὶ τῆς χύτρας, ἣν ἕψουσι πάντες οἱ κατὰ τὴν πόλιν, οὐδεὶς γεύεται τῶν ἱερέων· τοῦτο δὲ ποιοῦσι τῇ <ιγʹ> ἡμέρᾳ. καί· τοὺς τότε παραγινομένους ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀποθανόντων ἱλάσασθαι τὸν Ἑρμῆν. ἱερῶν Rav., ἱερέων Ven.: whichever be followed, the mandate of not tasting is clear.

[69] Schol. ad Ar. Ach. 1076 Χύτρους· Θεόπομπος τοὺς διασωθέντας ἐκ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ ἑψῆσαί φησι χύτρας πανσπερμίας ὅθεν οὕτω κληθῆναι τὴν ἑορτήν ... τῆς δὲ χύτρας οὐδένα γεύσασθαι.

[70] Feste der Stadt Athen, p. 385.

[71] P. IV. 35. 9 κολυμβήθρα ἥντινα ὀνομάζουσιν οἱ ἐπιχώριοι χύτρους γυναικείους.

[72] Herod. VIII. 176.

[73] Theoph. Hist. Plant. IV. 11. 8 οὗτος δὲ ὁ τόπος προσαγορεύεται μὲν Πελεκανία, τοῦτο δ’ ἐστὶν ἄττα χύτροι καλούμενοι βαθύσματα τῆς λίμνης.

[74] Hesych. s.v. οἱ χύτρινοι.

[75] Plato, Rep. 614 C.

[76] P. IX. 8.

[77] On. X. 99.

[78] Hesych. s.v. φαρμακή· ἡ χύτρα ἣν ἡτοίμαζον τοῖς καθαίρουσι τὰς πόλεις.

[79] v. 96.

[80] Schol. ad Ar. Vesp. 289.

[81] Suidas s.v. ἐγχυτρίστριαι· αἱ τὰς χοὰς τοῖς τετελευτηκόσιν ἐπιφέρουσαι ... ἐγχυτριστρίας δὲ λέγεσθαι καὶ ὅσαι τοὺς ἐναγεῖς καθαίρουσιν, αἷμα ἐπιχέουσαι ἱερείου.

[82] Photius s.v. μιαρὰ ἡμέρα· ἐν τοῖς Χουσὶν Ἀνθεστηριῶνος μηνός, ἐν ᾧ δοκοῦσιν αἱ ψυχαὶ τῶν τελευτησάντων ἀνιέναι, ῥάμνων ἕωθεν ἐμασῶντο καὶ πίττῃ τὰς θύρας ἔχριον.

[83] Diosc. De mat. med. I. 119 λέγεται δὲ καὶ κλῶνας αὐτῆς θύραις ἢ θύρασι προστεθέντας ἀποκρούειν τὰς τῶν φαρμακῶν κακουργίας. For this reference I am indebted to the kindness of Dr Frazer, who also notes that in Ovid spina alba, white thorn, is placed in a window to keep off tristes noxas and striges (Ovid, Fasti VI. 129-163), and compares the English notion that hawthorn keeps off witches (see Golden Bough, second edit. vol. I. p. 124, note 3). Miss M. C. Harrison tells me that to this day rue (ruta) is eaten on Ascension Day at Pratola Peligna and other places in the Abruzzi, “that the witches may not come to torment our children” (noi mangiamo la ruta affinche le streghe non vengano a tormentare le creature nostre); see A. De Nino, Usi Abruzzesi I. p. 168.

[84] Phot. s.v. ῥάμνος· φυτὸν ὃ ἐν τοῖς Χουσὶν ὡς ἀλεξιφάρμακον ἐμασῶντο ἕωθεν, καὶ πίττῃ ἐχρίοντο τὰ δώματα, ἀμίαντος γὰρ αὕτη· διὸ καὶ ἐν ταῖς γενέσεσι τῶν παιδίων χρίουσι τὰς οἰκίας εἰς ἀπέλασιν τῶν δαιμόνων.

[85] Schol. ad Ar. Ach. 961 Χοὰς· ἐγχύσεις, ἐναγίσματα ἐπὶ νεκροῖς ἢ σπονδάς. ἐκπίπτει χρησμὸς δεῖν χοὰς τοῖς τεθνεῶσι τῶν Αἰτωλῶν ἐπάγειν ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος καὶ ἑορτὴν Χοὰς ἄγειν.

[86] Athen. VII. 2 § 276.

[87] Athen. X. 49 § 437 and Suidas s.v. Χόες.

[88] Eur. Iph. in T. 953 seq.

[89] The topographical question does not here immediately concern the argument. I have tried to show elsewhere (J.H.S. XX. p. 111) that the precinct of the Limnae cannot be severed from the Areopagos without grave loss to mythology.

[90] Athen. XI. 93 § 496.

[91] Eustath. ad Il. XXIV. 526, p. 1363. 26 οὐχ ἑορτάσιμος ... ἀλλ’ ἐς τὸ πᾶν ἀποφράς.

[92] First published by Dr Paul Schadow, Eine Attische Grablekythos, Inaugural-Dissertation (Jena, 1897), reproduced and discussed by the present writer J.H.S. XX. p. 101.

[93] Ar. Eq. 792. Mr R. A. Neil ad loc. points out that πίθος answers to fidelia in etymology, to dolium in meaning.

[94] Dr Sam. Wide, ‘Aphidna in Nord-Attica,’ A. Mitt. 1896, p. 398.

[95] Od. X. 236.

[96] Od. XXIV. 1-9.

[97] Pind. Ol. IX. 33

οὐδ’ Ἀΐδας ἀκινήταν ἔχε ῥάβδον βρότεα σώμαθ’ ᾇ κατάγει κοίλαν πρὸς ἀγυιὰν θνᾳσκόντων.

ἀκινήταν is usually rendered ‘unraised’ as though the sceptre were lifted in token of kingly power. I translate by ‘wave’ because I believe the action denoted is the waving or moving of a wand, not the raising of a sceptre. The verb κινέω is, I believe, characteristic of this wand-waving. κινέω is used in Homer (loc. cit.) τῇ δ’ ἄγε κινήσας. By Pindar’s time the wand and the sceptre were fused, but he is haunted by the old connotation of magic.

[98] For text, see p. 24, note 2.

[99] Space forbids the discussion of the whole evolution of the kerykeion. It contains elements drawn from both sceptre and rhabdos. The rhabdos is sometimes forked like a divining rod: the forks were entwined in various shapes. Round the rhabdos a snake, symbol of the underworld, was sometimes curled as the snake is curled round the staff of Aesculapius. Ultimately the twisted ends of the rhabdos were crystallized into curled decorative snakes. In like fashion the frayed fringe of the leather aegis of Athene is misunderstood and rendered as snakes. By the time of Eustathius, kerykeion and rhabdos are not clearly differentiated.

[100] J.H.S. XX. p. 101.

[101] Plut. Vit. Cam. XX.

[102] Ling. Lat. 5 § 157.

[103] Pauli excerpta ex Lib. Pomp. Fest. s.v. doliola.

[104] Iliad XXIV. 527

δοιοὶ γάρ τε πίθοι κατακείαται ἐν Διὸς οὐδῷ δώρων οἷα δίδωσι κακῶν ἕτερος δὲ ἑάων.

[105] Fest. 154.

[106] Macr. Sat. I. 16. 18.

[107] Harpocrat. s.v. Ἀνθεστ. διὰ τὸ πλεῖστα τῶν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἀνθεῖν τότε.

[108] Etym. Mag. s.v. Ἀνθεστήρια.

[109] J.H.S. XX. 115.

[110] Od. X. 526.

[111] My view of the primitive significance of the root θεσ, which is perhaps primarily rather to conjure than to pray, will appear more clearly when we come to the discussion of the Thesmophoria.

[112] Dr Wuensch in his instructive pamphlet Ein Frühlingsfest auf Malta (Leipzig, 1902) discusses a spring festival of the flowering of beans which he believes to be analogous to the Anthesteria, but the rites practised are wholly different. Dr Hiller von Gaertringen (Festschrift für O. Benndorf) calls attention to the title Anthister which occurs in an inscription found on Thera, but the inscription is of the second century B.C., the festival of the ‘Anthesteria’ was celebrated on Thera, as indeed wherever there was a primitive population, and Anthister must have borrowed rather than lent his name.

[113] Archbishop Eustathius may have had a dim consciousness of the separable ἀνα when he says ἄνθος ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀναθέειν παρῆκται κατὰ συγκοπήν.

[114] Schol. ad Luc. Tim. 43 ἀποφρὰς ἡ ἡμέρα] ... ἦσαν παρ’ Ἕλλησιν ἡμέραι ἀπραξίαν εἰσηγούμεναι παντὸς καὶ ἀργίαν, ἃς ἀποφράδας ἐκάλουν. ἐν ταύταις οὐδὲ προσεῖπεν ἄν τίς τινα, οὐδὲ καθάπαξ φίλος ἐπεμίγνυτο φίλῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ ἀχρημάτιστα ἦν αὐτοῖς. ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ ταῦτα αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὸν Φευρουάριον μῆνα ὅτε καὶ ἐνήγιζον τοῖς καταχθονίοις· καὶ πᾶς οὗτος ὁ μὴν ἀνεῖτο κατοιχομένοις μετὰ στυγνότητος πάντων προϊόντων ἕτερον τρόπον ὃν καὶ τὰ Διάσια στυγνάζοντες ἦγον Ἀθηναῖοι.

[115] Plut. Q.R. XXXIV. διὰ τί, τῶν ἄλλων Ῥωμαίων ἐν τῷ Φεβρουαρίῳ μηνὶ ποιουμένων χοὰς καὶ ἐναγισμοὺς τοῖς τεθνηκόσι, Δέκιμος Βροῦτος (ὡς Κικέρων ἱστόρηκεν) ἐν τῷ Δεκεμβρίῳ τοῦτ’ ἔπραττεν;

[116] Plut. Q.R. XXV. τῶν μηνῶν τὸν μὲν πρῶτον ὀλυμπίοις θεοῖς ἱέρωσαν τὸν δὲ δεύτερον χθονίοις ἐν ᾧ καὶ καθαρμούς τινας τελοῦσι καὶ τοῖς κατοιχομένοις ἐναγίζουσιν.

[117] Athen. III. 53 § 98 τὸν δὲ μῆνα τοῦτον κληθῆναί φησιν ὁ Μαυρόσιος Ἰόβας ἀπὸ τῶν κατουδαίων φόβων κατ’ ἀναίρεσιν τῶν δειμάτων ἐν ᾧ τοῦ χειμῶνός ἐστι τὸ ἀκμαιότατον καὶ ἔθος τότε τοῖς κατοιχομένοις τὰς χοὰς ἐπιφέρειν πολλαῖς ἡμέραις.

[118] Ovid, Fasti II. 19.

[119] The ceremonies of the Lupercalia have been fully discussed by Warde-Fowler, The Roman Festivals, p. 310, and very fully by Mannhardt, Mythologische Forschungen, p. 72.

[120] Julius Caesar, Act I. Sc. 2, v. 6.

[121] Herond. Mim. III. 3.

[122] Serv. ad Verg. Aen. VIII. 343 nam pellem ipsam capri veteres februum vocabant. Varro (Ling. Lat. VI. 13) says that februum was Sabine for purgamentum.

[123] Athen. VIII. 11 § 334 F.

[124] 3rd cent. B.C.

[125] That the religion of Dionysos came to Greece at a comparatively late date will be shewn in Chapter VIII.

[126] Od. XXIV. 215

δεῖπνον δ’ αἶψα συῶν ἱερεύσατε ὅς τις ἄριστος.

[127] Porph. de Abst. II. passim.

[128] Eust. ad Il. I. 449 § 132 μετὰ δὲ τὰς οὐλοχύτας αἱ θυσίαι καὶ ἡ ἐν αὐταῖς κρεωφαγία διότι καὶ μετὰ τὴν τῶν ἀναγκαίων τροφῶν εὕρεσιν ἡ τῆς κρεωδαισίας πολυτέλεια καὶ τὸ τῆς τροφῆς ἐπείσακτον εὕρηται.

[129] Prof. Ridgeway (Early Age of Greece, vol. I. p. 524) has shown (to me conclusively) that these Homeric Achaeans were of Celtic origin and brought with them from central Europe the flesh-roasting and flesh-eating habits of their northern ancestors.

[130] Athen. I. 46 § 25.

[131] P. II. 10. 1 ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ θυσίᾳ τοιάδε δρᾶν νομίζουσι. Φαῖστον ἐν Σικυωνίᾳ λέγουσιν ἐλθόντα καταλαβεῖν Ἡρακλεῖ σφᾶς ὡς ἥρωϊ ἐναγίζοντας· οὔκουν ἠξίου δρᾶν οὐδὲν ὁ Φαῖστος τῶν αὐτῶν, ἀλλ’ ὡς θεῷ θύειν. καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἄρνα οἱ Σικυώνιοι σφάξαντες καὶ τοὺς μηροὺς ἐπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ καύσαντες τὰ μὲν ἐσθίουσιν ὡς ἀπὸ ἱερείου τὰ δὲ ὡς ἥρωϊ τῶν κρεῶν ἐναγίζουσι. That the distinction between θύειν and ἐναγίζειν is no late invention of Pausanias is shown by the fact that Herodotos (II. 43) uses the same words and draws the same distinction though with less explicit detail. Speaking of Herakles as god and hero, he says: τῷ μὲν ἀθανάτῳ Ὀλυμπίῳ δὲ ἐπωνυμίην θύουσι, τῷ δ’ ἑτέρῳ ὡς ἥρωϊ ἐναγίζουσι.

[132] P. VIII. 34. 3 καὶ οὕτω ταῖς μὲν (ταῖς μελαίναις) ἐνήγισεν, ἀποτρέπων τὸ μήνιμα αὐτῶν, ταῖς δὲ ἔθυσε ταῖς λευκαῖς.

[133] Eust. ad Il. XXIII. 429, 1357. 59 οὕτω καὶ ἅγιος παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς οὐ μόνον ὁ καθαρὸς ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ μιαρὸς διὰ τὸ τοῦ ἅγους διπλόσημον.

[134] I do not deny that the word can be translated if we are content to vary our rendering in each various case. In the passages already discussed ‘devote’ is perhaps a fair equivalent, because the contrast emphasized is with a sacrifice shared. Sometimes the word may be rendered simply ‘sacrifice to the dead,’ sometimes ‘purificatory sacrifice,’ sometimes ‘expiatory sacrifice.’ No one word covers the whole field. It is this lost union of many diverse elements that has to be recovered and is nameless.

[135] Athen. IX. 78 § 409 E ff. ἰδίως δὲ καλεῖται παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις ἀπόνιμμα ἐπὶ τῶν εἰς τιμὴν τοῖς νεκροῖς γινομένων καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν τοὺς ἐναγεῖς καθαιρόντων ὡς καὶ Κλείδημος ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ Ἐξηγητικῷ. Προθεὶς γὰρ περὶ ἐναγισμῶν γράφει τάδε· “Ὄρυξαι βόθυνον πρὸς ἑσπέραν τοῦ σήματος. Ἔπειτα παρὰ τὸν βόθυνον πρὸς ἑσπέραν βλέπε, ὕδωρ κατάχεε, λέγων τάδε· ‘Ὑμῖν ἀπόνιμμα οἷς χρὴ καὶ οἷς θέμις.’ Ἔπειτα αὖθις μύρον κατάχεε.” Παρέθετο ταῦτα καὶ Δωρόθεος φάσκων καὶ ἐν τοῖς Εὐπατριδῶν πατρίοις τάδε γεγράφθαι περὶ τῆς τῶν ἱκετῶν καθάρσεως. Ἔπειτ’ ἀπονιψάμενος αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι οἱ σπλαγχνεύοντες, ὕδωρ λαβὼν κάθαιρε ἀπόνιζε τὸ αἷμα τοῦ καθαιρομένου καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀπόνιμμα ἀνακινήσας εἰς ταὐτὸ ἔγχεε.

[136] Hesych. λουτρόν· τὸ ῥύπαρον ὕδωρ ἤγουν ἀπόνιμμα.

[137] Bull. de Corr. Hell. XXIV. p. 258.

[138] Now in the Museum at Chicago. American Journal of Archaeology, 1899, pl. IV. The vase presents some difficulties, the discussion of which would be irrelevant here. The figure of Salmoneus madly and sacrilegiously counterfeiting Zeus and holding his thunder-bolt is I think certain.

[139] Fillets are specially characteristic of sacrificial victims. Herodotus VII. 197 describes Athamas as στέμμασι πυκασθείς.

[140] Published by Mr H. B. Walters, J.H.S. XVIII. 1898, p. 281, pl. XV. The class of vases known sometimes as ‘Tyrrhenian,’ sometimes as Corintho-Attic, all belong to the same period, about the middle of the sixth century B.C., and are apparently from the same workshop.

[141] Eur. Hec. 535.

[142] Omphalos and tomb are in intent the same, see J.H.S. XIX. p. 225.

[143] The genesis of the Erinys is discussed later, in Chapter V.

[144] Aesch. Eum. 253.

[145] Aesch. Eum. 264.

[146] Schol. ad Eur. Phoen. 284 διαφέρει βωμὸς καὶ ἐσχάρα. ad 274 ἐσχάρα μὲν κυρίως ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς βόθρος ἔνθα ἐναγίζουσι τοῖς κάτω ἐρχομένοις, βωμὸς δὲ ἐν ᾧ θύουσι τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις θεοῖς.

[147] Porph. de antr. nymph. 3 τοῖς μὲν Ὀλυμπίοις θεοῖς ναούς τε καὶ ἕδη καὶ βωμοὺς ἱδρύσαντο, χθονίοις δὲ καὶ ἥρωσιν ἐσχάρας, ὑποχθονίοις δὲ βόθρους καὶ μέγαρα. The megara will be discussed later (p. 125).

[148] Aesch. Eum. 106.

[149] Eustath. ad Il. I. 459 § 134.

[150] Eustath. § 1057, 37.

[151] Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod. I. 587 τοῖς μὲν οὖν κατοιχομένοις ὡς περὶ ἡλίου δυσμὰς ἐναγίζουσι τοῖς δὲ οὐρανίδαις ὑπὸ τὴν ἕω, ἀνατέλλοντος τοῦ ἡλίου.

[152] Eur. El. 514.

[153] Eur. Ion 277

ΙΩ. πατὴρ Ἐρεχθεὺς σὰς ἔθυσε συγγόνους;

ΚΡ. ἔτλη πρὸ γαίας σφάγια παρθένους κτανεῖν.

[154] Eur. Hec. 121 τύμβῳ σφάγιον.

[155] Athen. XIV. 22 § 626 καθαρμὸν τῆς πόλεως ἐποιήσαντο σφάγια περιάγοντες κύκλῳ τῆς χώρας ἁπάσης.

[156] Eur. Supp. 1296 ἐν ᾧ δὲ τέμνειν σφάγια χρή σ’ ἄκουέ μου.

[157] P. III. 20. 9.

[158] P. IV. 15. 8.

[159] P. V. 24. 10 τοῖς γε ἀρχαιοτέροις ἐπὶ ἱερείῳ ἦν καθεστηκὸς ἐφ’ ᾧ τις ὅρκιον ἐποιήσατο μηδὲ ἐδώδιμον εἶναι τοῦτ’ ἔτι ἀνθρώπῳ. Strictly speaking Pausanias ought to have written ἐπὶ σφαγίῳ, but his meaning is sufficiently clear. τόμια are actually σφάγια, not ἱερεῖα. Eustathius, in discussing the sacrifice of Odysseus to the ghosts in the Nekuia, makes the following statement: ὅτι Ὁμήρου εἰπόντος ἱερήια τὰ ἐν Ἅιδου σφάγια ἐπὶ χοῇ νεκρῶν φασὶν οἱ παλαιοὶ οὐκ ὀρθῶς εἰρῆσθαι τοῦτο, ἐπὶ γὰρ νεκρῶν τόμιά φασι καὶ ἔντομα, ἐπὶ δὲ θεῶν ἱερεῖα. Pausanias in the passage cited above (III. 20. 9) uses θύειν where σφαγιάζεσθαι would be more correct. He makes a sort of climax of confusion when, in describing the ritual of the hero Amphiaraos, he says (I. 34. 5): ἐστὶ δὲ καθάρσιον τῷ θεῷ θύειν, when he should have said τῷ ἥρωι σφαγιάζεσθαι.

[160] Il. XIX. 265.

[161] P. II. 34. 3.

[162] Ar. Ran. 847.

[163] Virg. Aen. III. 120.

[164] P. II. 12. 1.

[165] Aesch. Agam. 214.

[166] The full and somewhat revolting details as to how omens were taken from σφάγια do not concern us here; they are given in full by the scholiast on Eur. Phoenissae 1255; see P. Stengel, Hermes 1899, XXXIV. p. 642.

[167] Porph. de Abst. II. 51.

[168] Xen. Anab. VI. 5. 21.

[169] Aesch. Sept. 230

ἀνδρῶν τάδ’ ἐστὶ σφάγια καὶ χρηστήρια θεοῖσιν ἔρδειν πολεμίων πειρωμένων.

[170] Ammon. p. 72 Valck. θύουσι μὲν γὰρ οἱ σφάζοντες τὰ ἱερεῖα, θύονται δὲ οἳ διὰ τῶν σπλάγχνων μαντεύονται.

[171] The question of σφάγια has been very fully discussed by Dr Paul Stengel in four papers as follows: ‘Σφάγια,’ Hermes XXI. p. 307, 1886; ‘Miscellen,’ XXV. p. 321; ‘Prophezeiung aus der Σφάγια,’ XXXI. p. 479 and XXXIV. p. 642. To this must be added papers by the same author on ἐντέμνειν ἔντομα in the Zeitschrift für Gymnasial-Wesen 1880, p. 743, and in the Jahrbuch für Philologie 1882, p. 322, and 1883, p. 375, and on the winds, Hermes 1900, p. 626. I owe much in the matter of references to Dr Stengel’s full collection of sources, but his conclusions as stated in ‘Die Sakralaltertümer’ (Iwan Müller’s Handbuch der kl. Altertumswissenschaft, Band V. Abt. 3) seem to me to be vitiated by the assumption that ceremonies of purification are late and foreign importations.

[172] Apoll. Rhod. IV. 470, trans. by Mr Gilbert Murray.

[173] Since the above was written my attention has been called to Dr J. G. Frazer’s paper ‘On certain Burial Customs as illustrations of the primitive theory of the soul’ (Journal of Anthropological Institute, vol. XV. 1885-6). After a detailed examination of the burial rites and customs of the Greeks and many other peoples Mr Frazer reaches the following memorable and to me most welcome conclusion: ‘In general I think we may lay down the rule that wherever we find so-called purification by fire or water from pollution contracted by contact with the dead we may assume with much probability that the original intention was to place a physical barrier of fire or water between the living and the dead, and that the conceptions of pollution and purification are merely the fictions of a later age invented to explain the purpose of a ceremony of which the original intention was forgotten.’

[174] Soph. El. 445.

[175] The details described by Suidas s.v. ἐμασχαλίσθη have a somewhat apocryphal air and are probably due to etymology.

[176] Schol. ad Soph. El. 445.

[177] P. III. 17. 7.

[178] Plut. de ser. num. vind. XVII. μεταπεμφθέντες οἱ ψυχαγωγοὶ καὶ θύσαντες ἀπεσπάσαντο τοῦ ἱεροῦ τὸ εἴδωλον.

[179] Eur. Or. 395

ΜΕ. τί χρῆμα πάσχεις; τίς σ’ ἀπόλλυσιν νόσος;

ΟΡ. ἡ ξύνεσις, ὅτι σύνοιδα δείν’ εἰργασμένος.

[180] Suidas s.v. Ἔμβαρός εἰμι, Paroimiograph. I. 402, App. Cent. and Eustath. ad Il. II. 732 § 331.

[181] Plut. Vit. Pelop. XXI.

[182] Cat. 422.

[183] Od. XI. 23 ff.

[184] For the ceremonials of ghost-raising, see Dr W. G. Headlam, Classical Review, 1902, p. 52.

[185] Luc. Char. 22.

[186] A. Mommsen (Feste der Stadt Athen, p. 486) discusses the Thargelia, Kallynteria and Plynteria in immediate succession, but without a hint of the connection of the two last with the first.

[187] Vaniček (s.v. p. 310) derives Θαργήλια, which appears also in the form Ταργήλια, from a root ταργ meaning ‘hot’ and ‘dry’ and connects it with τρυγ in τρύσκω, τρυγάω etc. All these analogous forms have the same meaning, i.e. ‘ripened by the sun,’ ‘ready for harvesting.’

[188] Athen. III. 52 § 115 θάργηλον καλεῖσθαι τὸν ἐκ τῆς συγκομιδῆς πρῶτον γενόμενον ἄρτον.

[189] Hesych. s.v. θάργηλος χύτρα ἐστὶν ἀνάπλεως σπερμάτων.

[190] loc. cit. supra.

[191] Theocr. Id. VII. 31 ἁ δ’ ὁδὸς ἅδε Θαλυσιάς.

[192] Hom. Il. IX. 534

ὅ οἱ οὔ τι θαλύσια γουνῷ ἀλωῆς Οἰνεὺς ῥέξ’.

Eustath. ad loc. θαλύσια δὲ αἱ ἀπαρχαὶ ... τινὲς δὲ τῶν ῥητόρων καὶ συγκομιστήρια ταῦτα καλοῦσιν ... ἔτι δὲ καὶ θαλύσιος ἄρτος ὁ ἐκ τῆς τῶν καρπῶν, φασί, συγκομιδῆς πρῶτος γινόμενος.

[193] The sources for the Eiresione are very fully given and discussed by Mannhardt, Wald- und Feldkulte, pp. 214-248; see Dr Frazer, Golden Bough, 2nd edition, vol. I. p. 190, for modern parallels.

[194] Ar. Eq. 729, schol. ad loc.

[195] Eustath. ad Il. XXII. 496, p. 1283 ᾖδον δὲ παῖδες

εἰρεσιώνη σῦκα φέρει καὶ πίονας ἄρτους καὶ μέλιτος κοτύλην καὶ ἔλαιον ἐπικρήσασθαι καὶ κύλικα εὔζωρον ἵνα μεθύουσα καθεύδῃ.

[196] Ar. Plut. 1054, schol. ad loc. ταύτην δὲ τὴν εἰρεσιώνην πρὸ τῶν οἰκημάτων ἐτίθεντο οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ κατ’ ἔτος αὐτὴν ἤλλαττον ... ἕκαστος πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν ἔστησαν εἰρεσιώνας εἰς ἀποτροπὴν τοῦ λοιμοῦ, καὶ διέμενεν εἰς ἐνιαυτόν. ἣν καὶ ξηρανθεῖσαν πάλιν κατ’ ἔτος ἐποίει ἑτέραν χλοάζουσαν.

[197] Plut. Vit. Thes. XVIII. The account of Plutarch is substantially the same as that of his contemporary Pausanias the rhetorician; both appear to draw from some common source, which may be Krates’ περὶ θυσιῶν: see Mannhardt, Wald- und Feldkulte, p. 219.

[198] Harpocrat. s.v.

[199] Etym. Mag. s.v.

[200] Suidas s.v. Πύθιον.

[201] Schol. ad Ar. Plut. 1054.

[202] Porph. de Abst. II. 7. The text contains obscure words, e.g. εἰλυσπόα of which Nauck observes loci medela nobis negata, but those translated above seem certain.

[203] Iliad loc. cit. supra.

[204] Aristot. Eth. Nic. 1160 Θ. IX. 5 θυσίας τε ποιοῦντες καὶ περὶ ταύτας συνόδους, τιμάς <τε> ἀπονέμοντες τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ αὑτοῖς ἀναπαύσεις πορίζοντες μεθ’ ἡδονῆς. αἱ γὰρ ἀρχαῖαι θυσίαι καὶ σύνοδοι φαίνονται γίνεσθαι μετὰ τὰς τῶν καρπῶν συγκομιδὰς οἷον ἀπαρχαί. μάλιστα γὰρ ἐν τούτοις ἐσχόλαζον τοῖς καιροῖς.

[205] Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes of Central Australia, pp. 167 ff.

[206] A. Lang, Religion and Magic, p. 265.

[207] Philoch. ap. Athen. I. 16 § 9 Φιλόχορος δὲ ἱστορεῖ καὶ κεκωλῦσθαι Ἀθήνῃσι ἀπέκτου ἀρνὸς μηδένα γεύεσθαι ἐπιλιπούσης ποτὲ τῆς τῶν ζῴων τούτων γενέσεως.

[208] Fest. § 318 sacrima appellabant mustum quod Libero sacrificabant, pro vineis et vasis et ipso vino conservando, sicut praemetium de spicis quas primum messuissent sacrificabant Cereri.

[209] Plut. Q. Symp. III. 7. 1 καὶ πάλαι γ’ ὡς ἔοικεν εὔχοντο τοῦ οἴνου πρὶν ἢ πιεῖν ἀποσπένδοντες ἀβλαβῆ καὶ σωτήριον αὐτοῖς τοῦ φαρμάκου τὴν χρῆσιν γενέσθαι.

[210] Porph. de Abst. I. 14.

[211] Porph. de Abst. II. 56. The treatise of Porphyry, so far as it relates to sacrifice, is mainly based on the previous treatise of Theophrastos.

[212] Eustath. ad Il. I. 449 § 132.

[213] Porph. de Abst. II. 20.

[214] Porph. loc. cit. μετὰ δὲ τοὺς οὐλοχύτας αἱ θυσίαι καὶ ἡ ἐν αὐταῖς κρεωφαγία. διότι καὶ μετὰ τὴν τῶν ἀναγκαίων τροφῶν εὕρεσιν ἡ τῆς κρεωδαισίας πολυτέλεια καὶ τὸ τῆς τροφῆς ἐπείσακτον εὕρηται.

[215] Eustath. ad Od. III. 440, 1476. 37 ὡς καὶ οἱ οὐλοχύται τῆς παλαιᾶς τροφῆς ἀνεμίμνησκον τῆς τε τῶν οὐλῶν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τῶν κριθῶν, διὸ καὶ τοὺς οὐλοχύτας τῶν τις παλαιῶν κριθὰς ἡρμήνευσεν.

[216] Strato ap. Athen. IX. 29 § 382.

[217] For a full discussion of οὐλαί and οὐλοχύται see Dr H. von Fritze, Hermes 1897, p. 236.

[218] Eustath. ad Il. I. 449 § 132, 23 εἰσὶ δὲ οὐλοχύται ... τὰ προθύματα ... οἱ οὐλοχύται οὐλαὶ ἦσαν τουτέστι κριθαὶ μετὰ ἁλῶν ἃς ἐπέχεον τοῖς βωμοῖς πρὸ τῆς ἱερουργίας.

[219] Eur. El. 804

λαβὼν δέ προχύτας μητρὸς εὐνέτης σέθεν ἔβαλλε βωμούς, τοιάδ’ ἐννέπων ἔπη.

[220] Athen. XIV. 81 § 661.

[221] Hom. Od. IV. 761.

[222] Plut. Q. Gr. VI.

[223] Ar. Av. 622.

[224] Athen. IV. 14 § 137.

[225] Hom. Il. XVIII. 560.

[226] The process of primitive bread-making is fully discussed by Prof. Benndorf (Eranos Vindobensis, p. 374), to whom I am indebted for the view here expressed. In Yorkshire within my own remembrance a rather repulsive mess of corn stewed in milk with currants was always eaten on Christmas Eve before the regular feast began. It was served as soup and called frummety.

[227] Eustath. ad Il. XVIII. 563 τὸ δὲ παλύνειν ἄλφιτα οὐδὲ νῦν δηλοῖ ἀρτοποιΐαν ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐπίπασμα σύνηθες ὂν τοῖς παλαιοῖς, and again in discussing the feast of Eumaeus (§ 1751, 33) ὁ δ’ ἄλφιτα λευκὰ ἐπάλυνεν, ὅ ἐστιν ἐπέπασε κατὰ ἔθος ἀρχαῖον τὸ ὕστερον ἀργῆσαν.

[228] Varro L.L. V. 106 libum quod ut libaretur. The Latin puls and polenta are probably from the same root as πέλανος. Pliny (N.H. XVIII. 19) says it is clear that in ancient days pulte non pane Romanos vixisse. He adds that to his day primitive rites and those on birthdays are carried on with pulse.

[229] Aesch. Pers. 204 ἀποτρόποισι δαίμοσι, and 523 γῇ τε καὶ φθιτοῖς δωρήματα.

[230] Sannyr. frg. 1 Koch.

[231] The sources for νηφάλια are well collected and discussed by Dr von Fritze, De Libatione veterum Graecorum, Berlin 1893, also by Stengel, Hermes XXII. p. 645, and ‘Chthonische und Totenkult’ in Festschrift für Friedländer, p. 418, and W. Barth, ‘Bestattungsspende bei den Griechen,’ Neue Jahrbücher für klass. Altertüm. 1900, p. 177. W. Barth draws distinctions between the cultus of the dead and that of chthonic divinities, which I think cannot be clearly made out.

[232] Aesch. Pers. 607.

[233] Plut. Q.R. XX. οἶνον δ’ αὐτῇ σπένδουσι γάλα προσαγορεύουσαι.

[234] Macr. I. 12. 25 quod vas in quo vinum inditum est mellarium nominetur et vinum lac nuncupetur.

[235] Soph. Oed. Col. 468.

[236] Aesch. Eum. 104.

[237] Aesch. Eum. 727.

[238] P. II. 11. 3. The relation between the Semnae and the Eumenides and the ritual of the Semnae, which is identical with that of the Eumenides, will be discussed later in Chapter V.

[239] Schol. ad Oed. Col. 100.

[240] Porph. de antr. Nymph. 7.

[241] Emped. frg. ap. Porph. de Abst. II. 21.

[242] Some further points as to the Nephalia will be considered in relation to the Eleusinian ritual (p. 150), and the Orphic mysteries (Chapter X.).

[243] Eustath. ad Il. I. 52. For a full discussion of the purport of cremation see Prof. Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece I. p. 540.

[244] Porph. de Abst. II. 5.

[245] Diog. Laert. VIII. 13.

[246] P. VIII. 42. 5.

[247] Pind. Ol. VII. 47, schol. ad loc.

[248] Philostrat. Eik. II. 27 § 852.

[249] Diod. V. 56.

[250] P. VIII. 2. 2.

[251] Harpocrat. s.v. φαρμακός.

[252] Diog. Laert. II. 4.

[253] Classical sources for the pharmakos are most fully enumerated by Mannhardt, Myth. Forschungen, pp. 123, 133. For primitive analogies see Frazer, Golden Bough, 2nd ed., vol. III. p. 93, from whom I have taken the instances adduced.

[254] Ar. Ran. 734.

[255] Ar. frg. 532.

[256] Ar. Eq. 1405.

[257] Lys. c. Andok. 108. 4: νῦν οὖν χρὴ νομίζειν τιμωρουμένους καὶ ἀπαλλαττομένους Ἀνδοκίδου τὴν πόλιν καθαίρειν καὶ ἀποδιοπομπεῖσθαι καὶ φαρμακὸν ἀποπέμπειν καὶ ἀλιτηρίου ἀπαλλάττεσθαι, ὡς ἓν τούτων οὗτός ἐστι.

[258] Fragments of Hipponax (6th cent. B.C.) incorporated by Tzetzes Hist. 23. 726-756:

Τί τὸ κάθαρμα; ὁ φαρμακὸς τὸ κάθαρμα τοιοῦτον ἦν τὸ πάλαι. ἂν συμφορὰ κατέλαβε πόλιν θεομηνίᾳ, εἴτ’ οὖν λιμὸς εἴτε λοιμὸς εἴτε καὶ βλάβος ἄλλο, τῶν πάντων ἀμορφότερον ἦγον ὡς πρὸς θυσίαν εἰς καθαρμὸν καὶ φάρμακον πόλεως τῆς νοσούσης. εἰς τόπον δὲ τὸν πρόσφορον στήσαντες τὴν θυσίαν τυρόν τε δόντες τῇ χειρὶ καὶ μᾶζαν καὶ ἰσχάδας, ἑπτάκις γὰρ ῥαπίσαντες ἐκεῖνον εἰς τὸ πέος σκίλλαις, συκαῖς ἀγρίαις τε καὶ ἄλλοις τῶν ἀγρίων, τέλος πυρὶ κατέκαιον ἐν ξύλοις τοῖς ἀγρίοις, καὶ τὸν σποδὸν εἰς θάλασσαν ἔρραινον καὶ ἀνέμους καὶ καθαρμὸν τῆς πόλεως ὡς ἔφην τῆς νοσούσης.

ὁ δέ Ἱππῶναξ ἄριστα σύμπαν τὸ ἔθος λέγει

1 πόλιν καθαίρειν καὶ κράδῃσι βάλλεσθαι (φαρμακόν),

καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ δέ πού φησι πρώτῳ ἰάμβῳ γράφων

2 βάλλοντες ἐν λειμῶνι καὶ ῥαπίζοντες κράδῃσι καὶ σκίλλῃσιν ὥσπερ φαρμακὸν.

καὶ πάλιν ἄλλοις τόποις δὲ ταῦτά φησι κατ’ ἔπος

3 δεῖ δ αὐτὸν ἐς φαρμακὸν ἐκποιήσασθαι.

4 κἄφη παρέξειν ἰσχάδας τε καὶ μᾶζαν καὶ τυρὸν οἷον ἐσθίουσι φαρμακοί.

5 πάλαι γὰρ αὐτοὺς προσδέχοντα(ι) χάσκοντες κράδας ἔχοντες ὡς ἔχουσι φαρμακοί.

καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ δέ πού φησιν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἰάμβῳ

6 λιμῷ γένηται ξηρὸς ὡς ἐν τῷ θυμῷ φαρμακὸς ἀχθεὶς ἑπτάκις ῥαπισθείη.

[259] Hippon. frg. 11 (4) ὡς οἱ μὲν ἅγεϊ Βουπάλῳ κατηρῶντο.

[260] Hellad. ap. Phot. Bibl. c. 279, p. 534.

[261] Hesych. s.v. κραδίης νόμος.

[262] Plin. N.H. XX. 9. 39.

[263] Diosc. de mat. med. II. 202.

[264] Luc. Nek. 7 ἐκάθηρέ τε με καὶ ἀπέμαξε καὶ περιήγνισε δᾳδίοις καὶ σκίλλῃ.

[265] Theocr. Id. VII. 104, schol. ad loc.

[266] Ar. Ran. 620.

[267] Luc. Indoct. 1.

[268] Schol. ad Ar. Eq. 1136.

[269] Harpocrat. s.v. φαρμακός· ὅτι δὲ ὄνομα κύριόν ἐστιν ὁ φαρμακός, ἱερὰς δὲ φιάλας τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος κλέψας καὶ ἁλοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἀχιλλέα κατελεύσθη, καὶ τὰ τοῖς Θαργηλίοις ἀγόμενα τούτων ἀπομιμήματά ἐστιν, Ἴστρος ἐν πρώτῳ τῶν Ἀπόλλωνος ἐπιφανειῶν εἴρηκεν.

[270] For these modern savage analogies and many others see Dr Frazer, Golden Bough, 2nd ed., vol. III. p. 93.

[271] Plut. de Is. et Os. LXXIII. ζῶντας ἀνθρώπους κατεπίμπρασαν ὡς Μανεθὼς ἱστόρηκε Τυφωνίους καλοῦντες καὶ τὴν τέφραν αὐτῶν λικμῶντες ἠφάνιζον καὶ διέσπειρον.

[272] Clem. Al. Protr. XII. 118 φύγωμεν οὖν τὴν συνήθειαν ... ἄγχει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τῆς ἀληθείας ἀποτρέπει, ἀπάγει τῆς ζωῆς, πάγις ἐστὶν βάραθρόν ἐστιν βόθρος ἐστὶ λίκνον ἐστίν, κακὸν ἡ συνήθεια.

[273] Lev. xvi. 21, and for the Egyptian scape-animal see Herod. II. 39.

[274] Plut. Q. Symp. VI. 8.

[275] My attention was kindly drawn to this vase by M. Perdrizet who proposes shortly to publish it. Suidas (s.v. εἴδωλον) seems to refer to the Charila ceremony, κελεύει ἡ Πυθία εἴδωλόν τι πεπλασμένον εἰς ὄψιν γυναικὸς μετέωρον ἐξαρτᾶν καὶ ἀνερρώσθη ἡ πόλις. For this and the oscilla ceremonies and the analogy of Artemis ἀπαγχομένη (P. VIII. 23. 7) see Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 175. The beating of the female slave in the temple of Leucothea (Plut. Q.R. XVI.) seems to have been based on a racial taboo, but a φαρμακός ceremony may underlie it.

[276] Serv. ad Verg. Aen. III. 75.

[277] For a full and very interesting discussion of the etymology and meaning of φαρμακός, see Osthoff, ‘Allerhand Zauber etymologisch beleuchtet,’ Bezzenberger, Beiträge XXIV. p. 109. As to the accentuation of the word φαρμακός Eustathius (1935. 15) notes that it was proparoxytone ‘among the Ionians.’

[278] As to the god worshipped at the Thargelia it is probable that when godhead came to be formulated Demeter Chloe long preceded Apollo. Diogenes Laertius (II. 44) notes that on the sixth day of Thargelia when the Athenians purified the city, sacrifice was done to Demeter Chloe. Here as elsewhere Apollo took over the worship of an Earth-goddess.

[279] Herod. VII. 197. My attention was drawn to this passage and its importance as reflecting the attitude of the Greek mind towards Human Sacrifices by Dr A. W. Verrall.

[280] Porphyr. de Abst. II. 53-56.

[281] My account of the Bouphonia is taken from Dr Frazer’s summary, which is exactly based on the complex double account given by Porphyry from Theophrastos (Porphyr. de Abst. II. 29 seq.) and Aelian (V.H. VIII. 3). With Dr Frazer’s exhaustive commentary (Golden Bough, 2nd ed. vol. II. p. 295) I am in substantial agreement, save that I do not see in the murdered ox the representative of the Corn Spirit. The Bouphonia as ox-murder was first correctly explained by Prof. Robertson Smith (Religion of the Semites, p. 286 ff.). I have discussed it previously in Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens, p. 424 ff.: see also Dr Paul Stengel, Rhein. Mus. 1897, p. 187. With Dr von Prott’s view (Rhein. Mus. 1897, p. 187) that the sense of guilt in the sacrifice arises from the fact that the ox was the surrogate of a human victim I wholly disagree.

[282] It is possible that Dipolia is etymologically not festival of Zeus Polieus but festival of the Plough Curse, see p. 23.

[283] Ar. Nub. 984.

[284] The scholiast is (so far as I know) the only authority who gives the female form. It is possible that the sacrifice may have been primarily to an earth-goddess and hence the animals are female. The curious ceremonial of the Chthonia (P. II. 35. 3) was a similar butchery of cows in honour of Chthonia and presided over by old women who did the actual slaughter, and no man native or foreigner was allowed to see it.

[285] P. V. 27. 6.

[286] Diod. I. 91 καθαπερεὶ τὸ μύσος εἰς ἐκεῖνον τρεπόντων.

[287] Plut. De defect. orac. XIV., the text is in places corrupt.

[288] I have elsewhere (J.H.S. XIX. 1899, p. 223) stated that the word ‘Stepterion’ cannot to my thinking be translated ‘Festival of Crowning.’ This explanation rests only on Aelian (Hist. An. XII. 34), and purification (κάθαρσις, ἔκθυσις), not crowning, is the main gist of the ceremonies. The name Stepterion, is, I suspect, connected with the enigmatic στέφη and στέφειν as occurring in Aesch. Choeph. 94, Soph. Ant. 431, Elec. 52, 458, and means in some way purification.

[289] Other instances are given Ael. Hist. An. XII. 34, Philostr. Im. II. 24. 850. For analogous Roman Festivals see Regifugium and Poplifugia, Warde-Fowler, Roman Festivals, pp. 327 and 174. For the Stepterion and savage analogies see Dr Frazer, Pausanias, vol. III. p. 53.

[290] Plut. Vit. Alc. XXXIV.

[291] Poll. On. VIII. 141.

[292] Phot. s.v. Καλλυντήρια.

[293] Plutarch and Photius cannot both be right, but it is unlikely that Photius would give the sequence incorrectly.

[294] Hesych. s.v. σάρματα.

[295] Hesych. s.v. ἡγητηρία· παρὰ ἡγήσασθαι οὖν τῆς τροφῆς κέκληται ἡγητηρία.

[296] Plut. Q.R. LXXXVI.

[297] Plut. Q.R. XXXII.

[298] Ov. Fasti V. 621.

[299] The whole ceremony of the Argei has been fully discussed by Mr Warde-Fowler (The Roman Festivals, p. 111). Abundant primitive analogies have been collected by Mannhardt (Baumkultus, pp. 155, 411, 416, and Antike Wald- und Feldkulte, p. 276). For the etymology of Argei see Mr A. B. Cook, Class. Rev. XVII. 1903, p. 269.

[300] Plut. Q.R. LXXXVI.

[301] Ov. Fasti VI. 219-234.

[302] Warde-Fowler, Roman Festivals, p. 148.

[303] Frazer, Golden Bough, 2nd ed., vol. II. p. 329.

[304] The sources for the Thesmophoria are collected and discussed by Dr J. G. Frazer, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Art. Thesmophoria.

[305] II. 171. See also Frazer, Pausanias, vol. V. p. 29; Harrison and Verrall, Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, pp. xxxiv. and 102-105 and 482; A. Lang, Homeric Hymns, Introd. Essay and Hymn to Demeter.

[306] Schol. ad Aristoph. Thesm. 78. Photius, s.v. and Schol. ad Aristoph. Thesm. 585.

[307] Cornut. de Theol. 28.

[308] Lucian, Dial. Meretr. II. 1, first published and commented on by E. Rohde, Rhein. Mus. XXV. p. 549. As the text is not very easily accessible it is given below: θεσμοφόρια ἑορτὴ Ἑλλήνων μυστήρια περιέχουσα. τὰ δὲ αὐτὰ καὶ σκιροφόρια καλεῖται. ἤγετο δὲ κατὰ τὸν μυθωδέστερον λόγον, ὅτι ἀνθολογοῦσα ἡρπάζετο ἡ Κόρη ὑπὸ τοῦ Πλούτωνος. τότε κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν τόπον Εὐβουλεύς τις συβώτης ἔνεμεν ὗς καὶ συγκατεπόθησαν τῷ χάσματι τῆς Κόρης. εἰς οὖν τιμὴν τοῦ Εὐβουλέως ῥίπτεῖσθαι τοὺς χοίρους εἰς τὰ χάσματα τῆς Δήμητρος καὶ τῆς Κόρης. τὰ δὲ σαπέντα τῶν ἐμβληθέντων εἰς τὰ μέγαρα κάτω ἀναφέρουσιν ἀντλήτριαι καλούμεναι γυναῖκες, καθαρεύσασαι τριῶν ἡμερῶν. καὶ καταβαίνουσιν εἰς τὰ ἄδυτα καὶ ἀνενέγκασαι ἐπιτιθέασιν ἐπὶ τῶν βωμῶν. ὧν νομίζουσι τὸν λαμβάνοντα καὶ τῷ σπόρῳ συγκαταβάλλοντα εὐφορίαν ἕξειν. λέγουσι δὲ καὶ δράκοντας κάτω εἶναι περὶ τὰ χάσματα, οὓς τὰ πολλὰ τῶν βληθέντων κατεσθίειν· διὸ καὶ κρότον γίνεσθαι ὁπόταν ἀντλῶσιν αἱ γυναῖκες καὶ ὅταν ἀποτιθῶνται πάλιν τὰ πλάσματα ἐκεῖνα, ἵνα ἀναχωρήσωσιν οἱ δράκοντες οὓς νομίζουσι φρουροὺς τῶν ἀδύτων. τὰ δὲ αὐτὰ καὶ ἀρρητοφόρια καλεῖται, καὶ ἄγεται τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον ἔχοντα περὶ τῆς τῶν καρπῶν γενέσεως καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων σπορᾶς. ἀναφέρονται δὲ κἀνταῦθα ἄρρητα ἱερὰ ἐκ στέατος τοῦ σίτου κατεσκευασμένα, μιμήματα δρακόντων καὶ ἀνδρῶν σχημάτων. λαμβάνουσι δὲ κώνου θαλλοὺς διὰ τὸ πολύγονον τοῦ φυτοῦ. ἐμβάλλονται δὲ καὶ εἰς τὰ μέγαρα οὕτως καλούμενα ἄδυτα ἐκεῖνά τε καὶ χοῖροι ὡς ἤδη ἔφαμεν, καὶ αὐτοὶ διὰ τὸ πολύτοκον, εἰς σύνθημα τῆς γενέσεως τῶν καρπῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὡς χαριστήρια τῇ Δήμητρι ἐπειδὴ τὸν δημήτριον καρπὸν παρέχουσα ἐποίησεν ἥμερον τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος. ὁ μὲν οὖν ἄνω τῆς ἑορτῆς λόγος ὁ μυθικός· ὁ δὲ προκείμενος φυσικός· Θεσμοφόρια καλεῖται καθότι θεσμοφόρος ἡ Δημήτηρ κατονομάζεται, τιθεῖσα νόμον ἤτοι θεσμὸν καθ’ οὓς τὴν τροφὴν πορίζεσθαί τε καὶ κατεργάζεσθαι ἀνθρώπους δέον.

[309] The rites of purification included strict chastity, for the purport of which as a conservation of energy see Dr Frazer, Golden Bough, 2nd ed. II. p. 210.

[310] μιμήματα ... ἀνδρῶν σχημάτων, i.e. φαλλοί. Cf. Septuagint, Is. iii. 17. The Arrephoroi are not as I previously (Myth. and Mon. Ancient Athens, p. xxxiv.) suggested Hersephoroi, Carriers of Young Things. Suidas, it may be noted, has the formally impossible word _ἀρρηνο_φορεῖν. It may have arisen from a paronomasia and seems to point in the same direction as the μιμήματα ἀνδρῶν σχημάτων of the scholiast. On the use of the φαλλός among agriculturalists as a prophylactic against the evil eye and ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς ... σχεδόν ἁπάσαις, see Diod. IV. 6.

[311] The influence of mimetic ritual on the development of mythology will be considered later, p. 279.

[312] P. IX. 8. 1.

[313] Nineteenth Century, April, 1887.

[314] Newton, C. T., Discoveries at Halicarnassus, vol. II. p. 383, and Travels and Discoveries in the Levant, II. p. 180.

[315] Porphyr. de antro Nymph. VI.

[316] VI. 11. 18.

[317] Eustath. § 1387.

[318] Dr Frazer reminds me that Prof. Robertson Smith (Religion of the Semites, p. 183) derived μέγαρον from the Phoenician maghar, Hebrew meghara ‘a cave.’ The form μάγαρον adduced by Aelian, favours this view; cf. also Photius s.v. μάγαρον· οὐ μέγαρον, εἰς ὃ τὰ μυστικὰ ἱερὰ κατατίθενται· οὕτως Μένανδρος.

[319] Heydemann, Griechische Vasenbilder, Taf. II. 3. For a somewhat similar design cf. Brit. Mus. Cat. E 819.

[320] Marcellinus on Hermog. in Rhet. Graec., ed. Walz, IV. 462. Sopater, ibid. VIII. 67. Aristoph. Thesm. 80. Dr Frazer kindly suggests to me that the custom of releasing prisoners at the Thesmophoria may be explained as a precaution against the magical influence of knots, fetters, and the like in trammeling spiritual activities whether for good or evil, cf. Golden Bough, 2nd ed. I. p. 392 sqq.

[321] Apollod. I. 5. 1.

[322] Ath. Mitt. 1899, Taf. VIII. 1.

[323] Plut. de Is. et Os. LXIX.

[324] As to the meaning of the difficult word Ἀχαία I can offer nothing satisfactory. It is perhaps worth noting that Athenaeus (III. 74 § 109), on the authority of Semos, mentions a sort of cake called Ἀχαιΐνα, which was made on the occasion of the Thesmophoria; the people who carried it are said to have exclaimed ‘Munch an Achaina full of fat,’ ἐπιλέγοντες τῶν φερόντων ‘Ἀχαΐνην στέατος ἔμπλεων τράγου.’ The scholiast on Ar. Ach. 709 says that Demeter got her name of Achaia ἀπὸ τοῦ κτύπου τῶν κυμβάλων καὶ τυμπάνων τοῦ γενομένου κατὰ ζήτησιν τῆς Κόρης, and he may be right.

[325] Plut. loc. cit. πῶς οὖν χρηστέον ἐστὶ ταῖς σκυθρωπαῖς καὶ ἀγελάστοις καὶ πενθίμοις θυσίαις εἰ μήτε παραλιπεῖν τὰ νενομισμένα καλῶς ἔχει, μήτε φύρειν τὰς περὶ θεῶν δόξας καὶ συνταράττειν ὑποψίαις ἀτόποις;

[326] Hesych. s.v. δίωγμα.

[327] Suid. s.v.

[328] Hesych. s.v. ζημία· θυσία τις ἀποδιδομένη ὑπὲρ τῶν γενομένων ἐν Θεσμοφορίοις. It is possible, I think, that ζημία may conceal some form connected with Damia.

[329] Plut. Q. Gr. XXXI.

[330] IX. 26.

[331] Athen. II. 26 § 46.

[332] Is. Pyrr. Hered. 80.

[333] Clem. Al. Protr. II. 17, p. 14, δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ἐν τοῖς Θεσμοφορίοις μεγαρίζοντες* (μεγάροις ζῶντας, Lobeck) χοίρους ἐμβάλλουσιν. ταύτην τὴν μυθολογίαν αἱ γυναῖκες ποικίλως κατὰ πόλιν ἑορτάζουσιν Θεσμοφόρια, Σκιροφόρια, Ἀρρητοφόρια ποικίλως τὴν Φερεφάττης ἐκτραγῳδοῦσαι ἁρπαγήν.

[334] I. 27. 3.

[335] Trans. J. G. Frazer. Dr Frazer in his commentary on the passage, vol. II. p. 344, enumerates the other sources respecting the Arrephoroi; see also Harrison and Verrall, Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens, pp. xxxii and 512.

[336] Dr Frazer draws my attention to the curiously analogous ritual practised at Lanuvium, in a grove near the temple of the Argive Hera, described by Aelian (Hist. An. XI. 16) and Propertius (IV. 8. 3 sqq.). Once a year sacred maidens descended with bandaged eyes into a serpent’s cave and offered it a barley cake. If the serpent ate of the cake the people rejoiced, taking it to show that the girls were pure maidens and that the year’s crops would be good:

Si fuerint castae, redeunt in colla parentum; Clamantque agricolae Fertilis annus erit.

[337] C.I.A. III., No. 19.

[338] C.I.A. III., Nos. 318, 319.

[339] B.M. Cat. E 418, see Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, p. xxxii.

[340] ἄρρητα ἱερὰ ... μιμήματα δρακόντων καὶ ἀνδρῶν σχημάτων, see p. 122, note 2.

[341] For various views of the Skirophoria, see Robert, Hermes XX. 394; Rohde, Kleine Schriften, p. 371; A. Mommsen, Philolog. L. p. 123.

[342] Ar. Thesmoph. 834.

[343] C.I.A. II. p. 422, n. 573 b.

[344] Ar. Eccles. 18.

[345] Ar. Vesp. 925.

[346] A. Mommsen, ‘Die Attischen Skira-Gebräuche,’ Philolog. L. p. 123.

[347] Plin. N.H. XVII. 29. 2.

[348] Hesych. s.v.

[349] Ar. Thesm. 533.

[350] Plut. Vit. Rom. sub fin.

[351] Schol. ad Theocr. Id. IV. 25 τὰς νομίμους βίβλους καὶ ἱερὰς ὑπὲρ τῶν κορυφῶν αὐτῶν ἀνετίθεσαν καὶ ὡσανεὶ λιτανεύσουσαι ἀπήρχοντο εἰς Ἐλευσῖνα.

[352] See supra, p. 121 sq.

[353] Sixteen similar figures with feet and hands tightly bound, and in some cases the arms pierced by nails, were recently found on the site of the ancient Palestrina, see Egypt Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, p. 332.

[354] R. Wünsch, ‘Eine antike Rachepuppe,’ Philolog. LXI. 1902, p. 26.

[355] Migne, Patrol. Gr. LXXXVII. 50 περὶ Θεοφίλου τοῦ ἀπὸ μαγείας συνδεθέντος τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας.

[356] Theocr. Id. II. 18 ff.

[357] The bird ἴϋγξ, supposed to be the wry-neck Iynx torquilla, bound on a wheel was a frequent love-charm. It is like the Siren (p. 201) a bird-soul, an enchanted maiden with the power to lure souls. Such enchanters, half-human, half-bird, were also the Keledones, cf. Athen. VII. § 290 E αἳ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ταῖς Σειρῆσι τοὺς ἀκροωμένους ἐποίουν ἐπιλανθανομένους τῶν τροφῶν διὰ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀφαναίνεσθαι. In metaphorical language Siren and Iynx are equivalents, cf. Xen. Mem. III. 11. 18; and cf. Diog. Laert. VI. 2. 76 τοιαύτη τις προσῆν ἴϋγξ Διογένους τοῖς λόγοις.

[358] Plat. Legg. 933.

[359] Schol. ad Theocr. Id. II. 10 τὸν γὰρ χαλκὸν ἐπῇδον ἐν ταῖς ἐκλείψεσι τῆς σελήνης καὶ ἐν τοῖς κατοιχομένοις* ἐπειδὴ ἐνομίζετο καθαρὸς εἶναι καὶ ἀπελαστικὸς τῶν μιασμάτων. διόπερ πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀφοσίωσιν καὶ ἀποκάθαρσιν αὐτῷ ἐχρῶντο, ὥς φησι καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῷ περὶ θεῶν ... φησὶν Ἀπολλόδωρος Ἀθήνῃσι τὸν ἱεροφάντην τῆς Κόρης ἐπικαλουμένης, ἐπικρούειν τὸ καλούμενον ἠχεῖον. καὶ παρὰ Λάκωσι βασιλέως ἀποθανόντος εἰώθασι κρούειν λέβητα. The reading κατοιχομένοις is doubtful; see Mr A. B. Cook, J.H.S. 1902, p. 14.

[360] Poll. On. V. 131 περὶ δαιμόνων τῶν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρῶν. οἱ δὲ δαίμονες, οἱ μὲν λύοντες τὰς ἀρὰς ἀλεξίκακοι λέγονται ἀποπομπαῖοι, ἀποτρόπαιοι, λύσιοι, φύξιοι, οἱ δὲ κυροῦντες ἀλιτήριοι, ἀλιτηριώδεις, προστρόπαιοι, παλαμναῖοι.

[361] W. H. D. Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings, p. 339. Dr Rouse says that ‘binding spells’ δέματα ‘are still the terror of the Greek bridegroom.’

[362] C. T. Newton, Discoveries at Cnidus and Halicarnassus.

[363] Cato, de agr. cult. 134. 3 bonas preces precor uti sies volens propitius mihi liberisque, etc.

[364] Suidas in explaining ἐξάρασθαι says τὸ ἐκτελέσαι τὰς ἀράς, τοῦτ’ ἔστι τὰς εὐχὰς ἃς ἐπὶ ταῖς ἱδρύσεσι τῶν ναῶν εἰώθασι ποιεῖσθαι. It is worth noting that in M.H.D. segen is not only as in modern German benedictio but also maledictio, see Osthoff, ‘Allerhand Zauber etymologisch beleuchtet,’ Bezzenberger, Beiträge XXIV. p. 180.

[365] Röhl, I.G.A. 497. The whole subject of legal curses has been well discussed by Dr Ziebart, ‘Der Fluch im Griechischen Recht’ (Hermes XXX. p. 57) to whom I owe many references. Also by the same writer in his ‘Neue Attische Fluchtafeln’ (Nachrichten der K. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1889, pp. 105 and 135), and by R. Wünsch, ‘Neue Fluchtafeln’ (Rhein. Mus. 1900, I. p. 62, II. p. 232). Curse Inscriptions are collected in an Appendix to the Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, under the title Defixionum Tabulae.

[366] Dittenberger, Syll. Inscr. 879.

[367] Mon. and Myth. Anc. Athens, p. 104.

[368] Ar. Thesm. 331.

[369] Plut. Vit. Dion. 56.

[370] Paroimiogr. I. 388 ὁ γὰρ βουζύγης Ἀθήνησιν ὁ τὸν ἱερὸν ἄροτον ἐπιτελῶν ἄλλα τε πολλὰ ἀρᾶται καὶ τοῖς μὴ κοινωνοῦσι κατὰ τὸν βίον ὕδατος ἢ πυρὸς ἢ μὴ ὑποφαίνουσιν ὁδὸν πλανωμένοις.

[371] Porph. de Abst. IV. 22.

[372] Schol. ad Luc. Dial. Meretr. VII. 4 Ἑορτὴ Ἀθήνησι μυστήρια περιέχουσα Δήμητρος καὶ Κόρης καὶ Διονύσου ἐπὶ τῇ τομῇ τῶν ἀμπέλων καὶ τῇ γεύσει τοῦ ἀποκειμένου ἤδη οἴνου γινόμενα παρὰ Ἀθηναίοις.

[373] Eustath. ad Il. IX. 530, 772 Ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι ἐπὶ συγκομιδῇ καρπῶν ἐφ’ ᾗ καὶ τὰ θαλύσια ἐθύετο ἑορτὴ ἤγετο Δήμητρος καὶ Διονύσου κατὰ Παυσανίαν, ἁλῷα καλουμένη διὰ τὸ ταῖς ἀπαρχαῖς καὶ μάλιστα ἐν Ἀθήναις ἀπὸ τῆς ἅλω τότε καταχρᾶσθαι φέροντας εἰς Ἐλευσῖνα ἢ ἐπεὶ καθὰ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἐμφαίνει ἐν ἅλωσιν ἔπαιζον κατὰ τὴν ἑορτὴν ἐν ᾗ καὶ Ποσειδῶνος ἦν πομπή.

[374] Harp. s.v. Ἁλῷα.

[375] Dem. 59. 116 κατηρήθη αὐτοῦ (τοῦ ἱεροφάντου) καὶ ὅτι Σινώπῃ τῇ ἑταίρᾳ Ἁλῴοις ἐπὶ τῆς ἐσχάρας τῆς ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ Ἐλευσῖνι προσαγούσῃ ἱερεῖον θύσειεν, οὐ νομίμου ὄντος ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἱερεῖα θύειν οὐδὲ ἐκείνου οὔσης τῆς θυσίας ἀλλὰ τῆς ἱερείας.

[376] C.I.A. II. 1, n. 471 ἤραντο δὲ καὶ τοὺς βοῦς το[ὺς] ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ τοῖς προηροσίοις καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἱεροῖς καὶ γυμνασίοις. Cf. Dittenberger, De Epheb. p. 77.

[377] The nature of the contest is not clear. Artemidorus (I. 8) says: ταύροις ἐν Ἰωνίᾳ παῖδες Ἐφεσίων ἀγωνίζονται καὶ ἐν Ἀττικῇ παρὰ ταῖς θεαῖς ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι ‘Κοῦροι Ἀθηναῖοι περιτελλομένων ἐνιαυτῶν.’ See Lobeck, Agl. p. 206.

[378] Luc. Dial. Meretr. VII. 4 ‘τήμερον Ἁλῷά ἐστι, τί δὲ σοὶ δέδωκεν εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν;’ schol. ad loc. Ἑορτὴ Ἀθήνησι μυστήρια περιέχουσα Δήμητρος καὶ Κόρης καὶ Διονύσου ἐπὶ τῇ τομῇ τῶν ἀμπέλων καὶ τῇ γεύσει τοῦ ἀποκειμένου ἤδη οἴνου γινόμενα παρὰ Ἀθηναίοις ἐν οἷς προτίθεται (d. Subject fehlt im Cod.: zu ergänzen ist πέμματά?) τινα αἰσχύναις ἀνδρείοις (sic) ἐοικότα, περὶ ὧν διηγοῦνται ὡς πρὸς σύνθημα τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων σπορᾶς γινομένων ὅτι ὁ Διόνυσος δοὺς τὸν οἶνον.... After recounting the death of Ikarios the scholiast continues, ὑπόμνημα δὲ τοῦ πάθους ἡ τοιαύτη ἑορτή. ἐν ταύτῃ καὶ τελετή τις εἰσάγεται γυναικῶν ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι, καὶ παιδιαὶ λέγονται πολλαὶ καὶ σκώμματα, μόναι δὲ γυναῖκες εἰσπορευόμεναι ἐπ’ ἀδείας ἔχουσιν ἃ βούλονται λέγειν. καὶ δὴ τὰ αἴσχιστα ἀλλήλαις λέγουσι τότε, αἱ δὲ ἱέρειαι λάθρα προσιοῦσαι ταῖς γυναιξὶ κλεψιγαμίας πρὸς τὸ οὖς ὡς ἀπόρρητόν τι συμβουλεύουσιν. ἀναφωνοῦσι δὲ πρὸς ἀλλήλας πᾶσαι αἱ γυναῖκες αἰσχρὰ καὶ ἄσεμνα, βαστάζουσαι εἴδη σωμάτων (so die Hs.: der Sinn erfordert σχημάτων genitalium) ἀπρεπῆ (ἀπρεπεῖ die Hs.) ἀνδρεῖά τε καὶ γυναικεῖα. ἐνταῦθα οἶνός τε πολὺς πρόκειται καὶ τράπεζαι πάντων τῶν τῆς γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης γέμουσαι βρωμάτων, πλὴν τῶν ἀπειρημένων ἐν τῷ μυστικῷ, ῥοιᾶς φημὶ καὶ μήλου καὶ ὀρνίθων κατοικιδίων, καὶ ᾠῶν, καὶ θαλασσίας τρίγλης ἐρυθίνου (ἐριθύνου die Hs.), μελανούρου, κωράβου (?καράβου), γαλαιοῦ (γαλεοῦ?). παρατιθέασι δὲ τὰς τραπέζας οἱ ἄρχοντες καὶ ἔνδον καταλιπόντες ταῖς γυναιξὶν, αὐτοὶ χωρίζονται ἔξω διαμένοντες, ἐπιδεικνύμενοι τοῖς ἐπιδημοῦσι πᾶσι τὰς ἡμέρους τροφὰς παρὰ αὐτῶν εὑρεθῆναι καὶ πᾶσι κοινωνηθῆναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις παρ’ αὐτῶν. πρόσκειται δὲ ταῖς τραπέζαις καὶ ἐκ πλακοῦντος κατεσκευασμένα ἀμφοτέρων γενῶν αἰδοῖα. ἁλῷα δὲ ἐκλήθη διὰ τὸν καρπὸν τοῦ Διονύσου· ἀλωαὶ γὰρ αἱ τῶν ἀμπέλων φυτεῖαι.

[379] Hom. Hym. ad Cer. 370.

[380] v. 399.

[381] Porphyr. de Abst. IV. 16.

[382] The sources for the Eleusinian Mysteries are collected in Lobeck’s Aglaophamus. Reference to inscriptions discovered since Lobeck’s days will be found in Daremberg and Saglio’s Dictionnaire des Antiquités, s.v. The best general account in English is that by Prof. Ramsay in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in French two articles reprinted from the Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, vol. XXXV. 2nd part 1895, and vol. XXXVII. 1900, entitled ‘Recherches sur l’origine et la nature des Mystères d’Éleusis,’ and ‘Les Grands Mystères d’Éleusis, Personnel, Cérémonies.’

[383] The rites at Eleusis were probably at first confined to women. Dionysios of Halicarnassos (Ant. Rom. I. 331) says in speaking of the cult of Demeter in Arcadia, ἱδρύσαντο δὲ καὶ Δήμητρος ἱερὸν καὶ τὰς θυσίας αὐτῇ διὰ γυναικῶν καὶ νηφαλίους ἔθυσαν ὡς Ἕλλησι νόμος ὧν οὐδὲν ὁ καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἤλλαξε χρόνος.

[384] C.I.A. III. 5.

[385] Inscr. A. Mitth. 1894 p. 163 ὡς ἂν τὰ ἱερὰ φέρωσιν αἱ ἱέρειαι ἀσφαλέστατα.

[386] The exact formulary is preserved by Theon of Smyrna, p. 22, τὸ κήρυγμα τοῦτο κηρύττεται ‘ὅστις τὰς χεῖρας μὴ καθαρός ... ὅστις φωνὴν ἀσύνετος.’ Some authorities think that φωνὴν ἀσύνετος means speaking an unknown, barbarous tongue, others that it meant having some impediment of speech that prevented the due utterance of the sacred formularies. I think the former more probable.

[387] Ar. Ran. 354.

[388] Hesych. s.v.

[389] Polyaen. Strat. III. 11.

[390] Plut. de glor. Ath. VII.

[391] C.I.A. IV. 385 d, l. 20 ἐπεμελήθησαν δὲ καὶ τῆς ἅλαδε ἐλάσεως.

[392] Mr R. A. Neil suggested that the same root and idea may lurk in the unexplained pontifex, i.e. maker of πομπαί. The connection with bridges is late and fanciful.

[393] Plut. Vit. Phoc. XXVIII.

[394] Head, Hist. Num. p. 328: on the reverse is Triptolemos in his winged car.

[395] Plat. Rep. II. 378 A.

[396] Clem. Al. Strom. V. 689 οὐκ ἀπεικότως καὶ τῶν μυστηρίων τῶν παρ’ Ἕλλησιν ἄρχει μὲν καθάρσια καθάπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς βαρβάροις τὸ λουτρόν.

[397] Clem. Al. Protr. II. μυστήρια ... ἀπὸ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον μύσους.

[398] Lyd. de mens. IV. 38 Μυστήρια ἀπὸ τῆς στερήσεως τοῦ μύσους ἀντὶ τῆς ἁγιοσύνης. In form μύστης might come from μύω (cf. ἀμυστί), but Mr Gilbert Murray draws my attention to some uses of μυστήριον which point rather to μύσος, e.g. Eur. Suppl. 470 λύσαντα σεμνά στεμμάτων μυστήρια and El. 87 ἐκ θεοῦ μυστηρίων.

[399] The aetiology of the Hymn and the various ceremonies that gave rise to it are well explained by Mr F. B. Jevons, Introd. to History of Religion, Appendix to Chapter XXIV.

[400] I omit altogether the ceremonies of the 17th-18th, the Epidauria, as they were manifestly a later accretion; the worship of the Epidaurian Asklepios was formally inaugurated at Athens (see p. 344) in 421 B.C.

[401] Dittenberger, Syllog. Inscript. 13.

[402] Clem. Al. Protr. II. 18 ἔστι τὸ σύνθημα Ἐλευσινίων Ἐνήστευσα, ἔπιον τὸν κυκεῶνα, ἔλαβον ἐκ κίστης, ἐργασάμενος (? ἐγγευσάμενος) ἀπεθέμην εἰς κάλαθον καὶ ἐκ καλάθου εἰς κίστην. Since the above was written, Dr Dieterich (Eine Mithras-Liturgie p. 125) has shown good reason for supposing that ἐργασάμενος is a euphemism for rites analogous to the ἱερὸς γάμος: see p. 535.

[403] C.I.A. vol. IV. p. 203, ll. 68 and 72.

[404] Annali dell’ Inst. 1865, Tav. d’ agg. F. Naples, Heydemann, Cat. 3358.

[405] Clem. Al. Protr. I. 2. 13 Δηοῦς μυστήρια καὶ (leg. αἱ) Διὸς πρὸς μητέρα. Δήμητρα ἀφροδίσιαι συμπλοκαὶ καὶ μῆνις τῆς Δηοῦς καὶ Διὸς ἱκετηρίαι. ταῦτα τελίσκουσιν οἱ Φρύγες Ἄττιδι καὶ Κυβέλῃ καὶ Κορύβασι,—τὰ σύμβολα τῆς μυήσεως ταύτης. Ἐκ τυμπάνου ἔφαγον, ἐκ κυμβάλου ἔπιον, ἐκερνοφόρησα, ὑπὸ τὸν παστὸν ὑπέδυον.

[406] Schol. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 123 ἐν οἷς (τοῖς σμικροῖς μυστηρίοις) πολλὰ μὲν ἐπράττετο αἰσχρά, ἐλέγετο δὲ πρὸς τῶν μυουμένων ταῦτα· ἐκ τυμπάνου ἔφαγον, ἐκ κυμβάλου ἔπιον, ἐκερνοφόρησα (κέρνος δὲ τὸ λίκνον ἤγουν τὸ πτύον ἐστίν), ὑπὸ τὸν παστὸν ὑπέδυον καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. The concluding formulary, which does not occur in the Eleusinian confession, will be explained later (Chap. X).

[407] Athen. XI. 52 § 476.

[408] Athen. XI. 56 § 478 ὅσοι ἄνω τὸ κέρνος περιενηνοχότες. τοῦτο δ’ ἐστὶν ἀγγεῖον κεραμεοῦν ἔχον ἐν αὐτῷ πολλοὺς κοτυλίσκους κεκολλημένους· ἔνεισι δ’ αὐτοῖς ὅρμινοι, μήκωνες λευκοί, πυροί, κριθαί, πισοί, λάθυροι, ὦχροι, φακοί, κύαμοι, ζειαί, βρόμος, παλάθιον, μέλι, ἔλαιον, οἶνος, γάλα, ὄιον ἔριον ἄπλυτον. ὁ δὲ τοῦτο βαστάσας οἷον λικνοφορήσας τούτων γεύεται. I have translated the difficult ἄνω by aloft taking it as referring to the carrying on the head, but see ‘Kerchnos,’ O. Rubensohn, A. Mitt. 1898, XXIII. p. 270, to whom I am indebted for many references. The Kernophoria is well shown in the Ninnion pinax in fig. 160.

[409] Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχ. 1898, p. 61 χρυσοῖ κέρχνοι Γ.

[410] Sèvres Museum, Annual of British School at Athens, vol. III. p. 57, Pl. IV.

[411] Athen. XI. 93 § 496.

[412] Procl. ad Plat. Tim. p. 293 ἐν τοῖς Ἐλευσινίοις εἰς μὲν τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀναβλέποντες ἐβόων ‘ὕε,’ καταβλέψαντες δὲ εἰς τὴν γῆν ‘κύε.’

[413] Hesych. s.v. Κὸγξ ὄμπαξ· ἐπιφώνημα τετελεσμένοις. Mr F. M. Cornford suggests that the original form may have been Κόγξον πάξ, ‘Sound the conch—enough.’ See also Lobeck, Aglaoph. 775.

[414] My position in this matter was stated long ago in an article in the Journal of Hellenic Studies XX. 1899, p. 211, 244.

[415] Sagesse et Destinée, p. 76.

[416] Legg. XI. p. 937 D τοῖς πλείστοις αὐτῶν οἷον Κῆρες ἐπιπεφύκασιν, αἳ καταμιαίνουσί τε καὶ καταρρυπαίνουσιν αὐτά.

[417] I am indebted for this and many important references to the article on Keres by Dr Otto Crusius in Roscher’s Lexicon (Bd. II. 1148). Dr Crusius’ admirable exposition of the nature of the Keres suffers only from one defect, that he feels himself obliged to begin it with the comparatively late literary conceptions of Homer.

[418] Conon, Narr. XLV.

[419] Published and explained as Heracles κηραμύντης by Professor Furtwängler, Jahrb. d. Inst. 1895, p. 37.

[420] Berlin, Inv. 3317.

[421] Orph. Hymn. XII.

ἔλθε μάκαρ, νούσων θελκτήρια πάντα κομίζων· ἐξέλασον δὲ κακὰς ἄτας, κλάδον ἐν χερὶ πάλλων, πτηνοῖς τ’ ἰοβόλοις κῆρας χαλεπὰς ἀπόπεμπε.

[422] Ahrens, No. 99 b, Ἡρακλῆς Ἡπιάλητα πνίγων.

[423] s.v. ῥιγοπύρετον.

[424] Roscher, Lexicon s.v. Nosoi p. 459, following Professor Furtwängler. For the whole subject of the demonic cause of nightmare, see Roscher’s Monograph on Ephialtes, Abhandl. d. K. Sächs. Ges. Phil.-Hist. Kl. XX. 1900.

[425] Eur. Phoen. 950 μέλαιναν κῆρ’ ἐπ’ ὄμμασιν βαλών.

[426] Wolff. Porphyr. De philos. ex orac. haur. p. 149 = Eusebius Praep. Ev. 4. 23. 3 καὶ γὰρ μάλιστα ταῖς ποιαῖς τροφαῖς χαίρουσι, σιτουμένων γὰρ ἡμῶν προσίασι καὶ προσιζάνουσι τῷ σώματι. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο αἱ ἁγνεῖαι, οὐ διὰ τοὺς θεοὺς προσηγουμένως ἀλλ’ ἵν’ οὗτοι ἀποστῶσι· μάλιστα δ’ αἵματι χαίρουσι καὶ ταῖς ἀκαθαρσίαις καὶ ἀπολαύουσι τούτων, εἰσδύνοντες τοῖς χρωμένοις. The word προσηγουμένως does not so far as I know occur elsewhere, it seems from the context to mean ‘inductively,’ with a view to induce rather than expel.

[427] Stob. V. 22. Λίνου.

κῆρας ἀπωσάμενος πολυπήμονας αἵ τε βεβήλων ὄχλον ἀνιστῶσαι ἄταις περὶ πάντα πεδῶσι παντοίαις μορφῶν χαλεπῶν ἀπατήματ’ ἔχουσαι τὰς μὲν ἀπὸ ψυχῆς εἴργειν φυλακαῖσι νόοιο. οὗτος γάρ σε καθαρμὸς ὄντως δικαίως †ὁσιεύσει†, εἴ κεν ἀληθείῃ μισέεις ὀλοὸν γένος αὐτῶν, νηδὺν μὲν πρώτιστ’ αἰσχρῶν δώτειραν ἁπάντων ἣν ἐπιθυμία ἡνιοχεῖ μαργοῖσι χαλινοῖς.

[428] Hes. Erg. 90

πρὶν μὲν γὰρ ζώεσκον ἐπὶ χθονὶ φῦλ’ ἀνθρώπων νόσφιν ἄτερ τε κακῶν καὶ ἄτερ χαλεποῖο πόνοιο νούσων τ’ ἀργαλέων αἵτ’ ἀνδράσι κῆρας ἔδωκαν.

[429] I prefer to read: ἅστ’ ἀνδράσι κῆρες ἔδωκαν, i.e. ‘grievous diseases which Keres gave to men,’ but I have translated the text as it stands, since possibly Hesiod, though he clearly knew of a connection between νόσοι and κῆρες, may have inverted cause and effect. I have already discussed the passage in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, XX. 1900, p. 104.

[430] Hes. Erg. 94.

[431] Hes. Erg. 102. Procl. ad 102 ἐσωματοποίησε δὲ αὐτὰς προσιούσας ἀφώνους ποιήσας ἐνδεικνύμενος ὅτι καὶ τούτων ἔφοροι δαίμονές εἰσιν· οἵτινες δρῶσιν ἀφανῶς ἐπιπέμποντες τὰς νόσους τὰς ὑπὸ τὴν Εἱμαρμένην τεταγμένας καὶ τὰς ἐν τῷ πίθῳ κῆρας διασπείροντες.

[432] Frg. ap. Plut. Consol. ad Apoll. XXVI. Τί οὖν; ἆρά γ’ ἡμεῖς τοῦτο διὰ τοῦ λόγου μαθεῖν οὐ δυνάμεθα, οὐδ’ ἐπιλογίσασθαι; ὅτι πλείη μὲν γαῖα κακῶν πλείη δὲ θάλασσα καὶ τοιάδε θνητοῖσι κακὰ κακῶν ἀμφί τε κῆρες εἰλεῦνται, κενεὴ δ’ εἴσδυσις οὐδ’ αἰθέρι. Bergk (Frg. adesp. 2 B) points out that Plutarch’s second quotation is an elegiac couplet, and for the MS. αἰθέρι reads Ἀΐδεω. This gives no satisfactory sense. Mr Gilbert Murray reads ἀθέρι a conjecture made certain by a passage in the dialogue ‘Theophrastos’ (p. 399 E) by Aeneas of Gaza, πλήρης δὲ καὶ ἡ γῆ καὶ ἡ θάλασσα καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ γῆν πάντα· καὶ ὡς ἔφη τις τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σοφῶν κενὸν οὐδὲν οὐδ’ ὅσον ἀθέρα καὶ τρίχα βαλεῖν.

[433] Simon. Amorg. I. 20.

[434] Aesch. Suppl. 684.

[435] Soph. Phil. 4.

[436] Theog. 837.

[437] Orph. Lith. 268

Λύχνι, σὺ δ’ ἐκ πεδίου ῥόθιόν τ’ ἀπόεργε χάλαζαν ἡμετέρου καὶ κῆρας ὅσαι στιχόωσιν ἐπ’ ἀγρούς.

[438] Theophr. De caus. pl. 5. 10. 4 ἕκαστοι τῶν τόπων ἰδίας ἔχει κῆρας, οἱ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἐδάφους οἱ δ’ ἐκ τοῦ ἀέρος οἱ δ’ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν.

[439] ὅπως μὴ προσάψαιτο τοῦ βωμοῦ διὰ τὸ μυρίας ἴσως ἀναμεμῖχθαι κῆρας. This reference I borrow from the Thesaurus of Stephanos s.v., but I have been unable to verify the quotation. The reference as given by Stephanos is Bud. ap. Philon. V.M. 3. In connection with fire and fire-places the belief in Keres is not dead to-day. An Irish servant of mine who failed to light a fire firmly declined to make a second attempt on the ground that she knew ‘there was a little fairy in the grate.’ The Ker in this case was, as often in antiquity, a malign draught.

[440] Frg. ap. Eustath. 772. 3.

[441] XIV. 2. 652.

[442] Professor Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece I. p. 177.

[443] As evidence of the evil reputation of Keres Mr Gilbert Murray calls my attention to the pun in Eur. Tro. 424 which seems to have escaped the attention of commentators:

τί ποτ’ ἔχουσι τοὔνομα; κήρυκες, ἓν ἀπέχθημα πάγκοινον βροτοῖς.

‘What name have they? A _Ker_ish name.’ Hermes as _κῆρ_υξ invokes and revokes _κῆρ_ες with his _κηρ_υκεῖον, see pp. 26 and 43.

[444] Theog. 707.

[445] Mimnermus 2.

[446] Pottier Cat. 343. P. Hartung, Philologos L. (N.F. IV. 2) Taf. I.

[447] Cat. E 290. Cecil Smith, J.H.S. 1883, Pl. XXX. p. 96.

[448] Od. XI. 398 Τίς νύ σε κὴρ ἐδάμασσε τανηλεγέος θανάτοιο.

[449] Od. XII. 158 Ἤ κεν ἀλευάμενοι θάνατον καὶ κῆρα φύγωμεν.

[450] Il. IX. 410.

[451] Il. XVIII. 535.

[452] Od. XIV. 207.

[453] Cat. 1682, Arch. Zeit. 1882, Pl. 9.

[454] Cat. 2157, Jahrbuch d. Arch. Inst. I. p. 210.

[455] Od. XX. 66

ἢ ἔπειτά μ’ ἀναρπάξασα θύελλα οἴχοιτο προφέρουσα κατ’ ἠερόεντα κέλευθα ἐν προχοῇς δὲ βάλοι ἀψορρόου Ὠκεανοῖο, ὡς δ’ ὅτε Πανδαρέου κούρας ἀνέλοντο θύελλαι.

[456] Od. XX. 77

τόφρα δὲ τὰς κούρας ἅρπυιαι ἀνηρείψαντο καὶ ῥ’ ἔδοσαν στυγερῇσιν ἐρινύσιν ἀμφιπολεύειν.

[457] Iliad XVI. 150.

[458] Georg. III. 274

saepe sine ullis conjugiis vento gravidae, mirabile dictu.

[459] Bull. de Corr. Hell. XXII. 1898, Pl. V.

[460] Suidas s.v. Tritopatores. Φανόδημος δὲ ἐν ἕκτῳ φησὶν ὅτι μόνοι Ἀθηναῖοι θύουσί τε καὶ εὔχονται αὐτοῖς ὑπὲρ γενέσεως παίδων ὅταν γαμεῖν μέλλωσιν. ἐν δὲ τῷ Ὀρφέως Φυσικῷ ... ὀνομάζεσθαι τοὺς Τριτοπάτορας Ἀμαλκείδην καὶ Πρωτοκλέα καὶ Πρωτοκλέοντα θυρωροὺς καὶ φύλακας εἶναι τῶν ἀνέμων and supra Δήμων ἐν τῇ Ἀτθίδι φησὶν ἀνέμους εἶναι τοὺς Τριτοπάτορας· Φιλόχορος δὲ τοὺς Τριτοπάτρεις πάντων γεγονέναι πρώτους. τὴν μὲν γὰρ γῆν καὶ τὸν ἥλιον, φησίν ... γονεῖς αὐτῶν ἠπίσταντο οἱ τότε ἄνθρωποι τοὺς δὲ ἐκ τούτων τρίτους πατέρας.

[461] Hipp. Περὶ ἐνυπν. II. p. 14 ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν ἀποθανόντων αἱ τροφαὶ καὶ αὐξήσεις καὶ σπέρματα.

[462] Geop. IX. 3 οὐ τὰ φυτὰ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντα ζωογονοῦσι.

[463] Cat. B 4.

[464] The full interpretation of the Cyrene vase is due to Mr Cecil Smith, Journal of Hellenic Studies p. 103, ‘Harpies in Greek Art.’ The vase is reproduced and discussed, but only with partial success, by Dr Studniczka in his Kyrene p. 18.

[465] Cat. B 104.

[466] P. V. 19. 1 Βορέας ἐστὶν ἡρπακὼς Ὠρείθυιαν, οὐραὶ δὲ ὄφεων ἀντὶ ποδῶν εἰσὶν αὐτῷ.

[467] Würzburg, no. 354.

[468] Reproduced later, fig. 47.

[469] Cecil Smith, J.H.S. XIII. p. 112, fig. 2.

[470] Il. XXII. 208.

[471] Plut. Moral. p. 17 a.

[472] Poll. Onomast. IV. 130.

[473] Post-Hom. II. 509

δοιαὶ ἄρ’ ἀμφοτέροισι θεῶν ἑκάτερθε παρέσταν Κῆρες· ἐρεμναίη μὲν ἔβη ποτὶ Μέμνονος ἦτορ φαιδρὴ δ’ ἀμφ’ Ἀχιλῆα δαΐφρονα.

Mr T. R. Glover, in the chapter on Quintus Smyrnaeus in his Life and Letters in the Fourth Century, points out that the Keres in the poem of Quintus have developed a supremacy unknown to Homer, they are ἄφυκτοι—even the gods cannot check them. They are by-forms of Aisa and Moira.

[474] Cat. B 639; Murray, Hist. of Greek Sculpture vol. II. p. 28. Dr Murray cites this vase as an instance of primitive perspective. Hermes, depicted in an impossible position, actually between the two advancing combatants, is thought of as in the background.

[475] Hes. Theog. 211.

[476] Theog. 217 ff.

[477] Hes. Erg. 416. The only other passage in which this difficult word occurs is in one of the oracles collected in the συναγωγή of Mnaseas (3rd cent. B.C.) and preserved for us by the scholiast on the Phoenissae of Euripides (ad v. 638, Müller F.H.G. 3, p. 157) where Kadmos is told to go on ‘till he comes to the herds of the Ker-nourished Pelagon’ (κηριτρεφέος Πελάγοντος). Here it looks as if the epithet indicated prosperity, the man nourished and favoured and cherished by the Keres, see Roscher, Lexicon s.v. Kadmos, p. 834, and s.v. Keres, p. 1139, but it is possible that, as suggested to me by Mr Cornford, the word may have been coined by Hesiod in bitter parody of the Homeric Διοτρεφής. The notion of the evil wasting action of Keres comes out in the word κηραίνω, as in Eur. Hipp. 223 τί ποτ’, ὦ τέκνον, τάδε κηραίνεις, and more physically in Aesch. Supp. 999 θῆρες δὲ κηραίνουσι.

[478] Hesych. s.v., ὅσοι νόσῳ τεθνήκασιν.

[479] Aesch. Eum. 930.

[480] Hes. Scut. 249.

[481] P. V. 19. 6 τοῦ Πολυνείκους δὲ ὄπισθεν ἕστηκεν ὀδόντας τε ἔχουσα οὐδὲν ἡμερωτέρους θηρίου καὶ οἱ καὶ τῶν χειρῶν εἰσὶν ἐπικαμπεῖς οἱ ὄνυχες· ἐπίγραμμα δὲ ἐπ’ αὐτῇ εἶναί φησι Κῆρα, ὡς τὸν μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πεπρωμένου τὸν Πολυνείκην ἀπαχθέντα, Ἐτεοκλεῖ δὲ γενομένης καὶ σὺν τῷ δικαίῳ τῆς τελευτῆς.

[482] Blue-black, κυάνεος, remained the traditional colour of the underworld, as in the Alcestis of Euripides (v. 262):

ὑπ’ ὀφρύσι κυαναυγέσι βλέπων πτερωτός—†αἵδας†.

[483] P. X. 28. 4.

[484] Admirable specimens of savage dancing-masks with Medusa-like tongue and tusks are exhibited in the Berlin Museum für Völkerkunde.

[485] Hesych. s.v., Photius s.v.

[486] P. VIII. 15. 3, see Dr Frazer ad loc.

[487] P. VIII. 15. 3.

[488] For these ovens see Conze, ‘Griechische Kohlenbecken,’ Jahrbuch d. Inst., 1890, Taf. I. and II., and Furtwängler, op. cit. 1891, p. 110.

[489] Callim. Hym. ad Dian. 67, and see Myths of the Odyssey, p. 26.

[490] Hom. Epigr. XIV. Κάμινος ἢ Κεραμεῖς.

[491] Pernice, Festschrift für Benndorf, p. 75. The inscriptions are not yet satisfactorily explained.

[492] A satyr-mask on an oven is figured in my Greek Vase-paintings, p. 9, fig. 1.

[493] Poll. On. VII. 108.

[494] Schol. ad Ar. Nub. 436.

[495] Od. XI. 633

ἐμὲ δὲ χλωρὸν δέος ᾕρει μή μοι γοργείην κεφαλὴν δεινοῖο πελώρου ἐξ Ἀΐδεος πέμψειεν ἀγαυὴ Περσεφόνεια.

I have translated γοργείην ‘grizzly,’ not ‘Gorgon,’ advisedly. Homer does not commit himself to a definite Gorgon. Mr Neil on Aristoph. Eq. 1181 says “Γοργολόφα means merely ‘fierce-plumed.’” The Gorgon was made out of the terror, not the terror out of the Gorgon.

[496] J.H.S. XX. 1900, p. xliv. On an askos in the British Museum (Cat. G 80) decorated with a stamped relief, a Gorgon’s head is figured with horns and animal ears. The head stands above, but separated from, a fantastic body.

[497] Th. Homolle, Bull. de Corr. Hell. XII. 1888, p. 464.

[498] Ϝι[φ]ικαρτίδης | μ’α|νέθεκε | hο | Νάhσιος, see M. Homolle, op. cit.

[499] J.H.S. 1885, Pl. LIX. Brit. Mus. Cat.

[500] Aesch. Prom. Vinct. 793.

[501] Hes. Theog. 270.

[502] Cat. 1956; Ath. Mitt. 1886, Taf. X. 270.

[503] Aesch. Prom. Vinct. 800 ἃς θνητὸς οὐδεὶς εἰσιδὼν ἕξει πνοάς. The line is usually rendered ‘no mortal may behold them and live,’ but, in the light of the account of Athenaeus, it is clear that the πνοαί are the intolerable exhalations, not the breath of life.

[504] Athen. V. 64 § 221 κτείνει τὸν ὑπ’ αὐτῆς θεωρηθέντα, οὐ τῷ πνεύματι ἀλλὰ τῇ γιγνομένῃ ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ὀμμάτων φύσεως φορᾷ καὶ νεκρὸν ποιεῖ. The same account is given by Aelian, Hist. An. VII. 5, and Eustathius § 1704 in commenting on Od. XI. 633.

[505] Visconti, Bull. de Comm. Arch. 1890, Tav. I. and II. p. 24. A relief with similar design exists on the back of a Corinthian marble in the British Museum: its apotropaic functions are fully discussed by Prof. Michaelis, J.H.S. VI. 1885, p. 312.

[506] For the evil eye in Greece see O. Jahn, Berichte d. k. sächs. Ges. d. Wissenschaften, Wien 1855, and P. Perdrizet, Bull. de Corr. Hell. 1900, p. 292, and for modern survivals, Tuchmann, Mélusine 1885.

[507] Aesch. Eum. 54 ἐκ δ’ ὀμμάτων λείβουσι δυσφιλῆ δία. Following Dr Verrall, I keep the MS. reading.

[508] Since this section was written Dr G. Weicker’s treatise Der Seelenvogel has appeared. As the substance of his argument as to the soul-origin of the Sirens had been previously published in a dissertation De Sirenibus Quaestiones Selectae (Leipzig, 1895) he had long anticipated my view and I welcome this confirmation of a theory at which I had independently arrived, a theory which indeed must occur to everyone who examines the art-form of the Sirens. I regret that his work was known to me too late for me to utilize the vast stores of evidence he has accumulated.

[509] Od. XII. 39.

[510] Od. XII. 166.

[511] Od. XII. 184.

[512] Mediaeval Sirens are more fully discussed in my Myths of the Odyssey, p. 172.

[513] Met. V. 552

vobis Acheloïdes unde pluma pedesque avium cum virginis ora geratis?

Apollonius Rhodius also believes that the bird form was a metamorphosis. Argon. IV. 898

τότε δ’ ἄλλο μὲν οἰωνοῖσιν ἄλλο δὲ παρθενικῇς ἐναλίγκιαι ἔσκον ἰδέσθαι.

[514] Aesch. Sept. 776. The nature of the Sphinx as a mantic earth-demon will be discussed in detail later (p. 207).

[515] Published and discussed by H. Bulle, Strena Helbigiana, p. 31. Recently acquired for the Boston Museum, see Twenty-sixth Annual Report of Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Dec. 31, 1901, p. 35.

[516] Eur. Hel. 167.

[517] Cat. E 477. The vase is a kelebe of late style with columnar handles. In previously discussing this design (Myths of the Odyssey, p. 158, pl. 40 and Myth. and Mon. Ancient Athens, p. lxix, fig. 14) I felt uncertain whether the bird-woman were Harpy, Siren, or Soul. I am now convinced that a soul is intended, and that the bird form was probably borrowed from Egypt: see Book of the Dead, Vignette XCI.

[518] See Myths of the Odyssey, p. 180.

[519] Anton. Lib. I. I owe this reference to Prof. Sam. Wide, A. Mitt. XXVI. 1901, 2, p. 155. At the miracle plays it was a custom to let a bird fly when a person died—a crow for the impenitent thief and a white dove for the penitent one. See Mr Hugh Stewart, Boethius, p. 187.

[520] B.M. Cat. E 440. Monimenti dell’ Inst. vol. I. pl. 8.

[521] Published by Schreiber, Hellenistische Reliefbilder, Taf. LXI.: where the relief now is is not known. Fully discussed by Dr Otto Crusius, ‘Die Epiphanie der Sirene,’ Philologos (N.F. IV.) p. 93. Dr Crusius rightly observes that the relief has been misunderstood. It represents rather an ἔφοδος than a σύμπλεγμα, and the recumbent figure is a mortal man not a Silen.

[522] Pliny cites Dinon as authority for a like superstition in India. Nat. Hist. X. 49 (F.H.G. II. p. 90): Nec Sirenes impetraverunt fidem adfirmet licet Dinon Clitarchi celebrati auctoris pater in India esse mulcerique earum cantu quos gravatos somno lacerent. And cf. Aelian H.A. XVIII. 22, 23. Siren in the Septuagint is the word used of the desert bogey that our translation renders ‘dragon,’ Job xxx. 30 ‘I am brother to the dragon and companion to owls,’ and again Micah i. 8 ‘I will make a wailing like the dragon and a mourning as the owls.’

[523] B.M. Cat. B 651. J. E. Harrison, Myths of the Odyssey, Pl. 39.

[524] Erinna, frg. 5 Στᾶλαι καὶ Σειρῆνες ἐμαὶ καὶ πένθιμε κρωσσέ.

[525] Plat. Rep. 617 B.

[526] Plut. Symp. IX. 14. 6.

[527] Procl. ad Plat. Rep. loc. cit. ψυχαί τινες νοερῶς ζῶσαι.

[528] Ar. Pax 832. For this Orphic doctrine see Rohde, Psyche II. p. 423⁴, Dieterich, Nekuia, pp. 104 ff.

[529] Eur. Hipp. 732.

[530] Eur. frg. 911.

[531] Myths of the Odyssey, p. 166.

[532] Bull. de Corr. Hell. 1898, p. 238, fig. 6.

[533] Mus. Greg. No. 186. Hartwig, Meisterschalen, Taf. LXXIII.

[534] Dr Hartwig op. cit. has collected and discussed these vases and gives to the artist the name ‘Meister mit dem Ranke.’

[535] Aesch. Sept. c. Theb. 539.

[536] Heydemann, Cat. No. 2846. Museo Borbonico XII. 9. Discussed and explained by Dr Otto Crusius, Festschrift für Overbeck, p. 102. Dr Crusius holds that the snake is merely a ‘Füllfigur.’

[537] Aesop. Fab. 55.

[538] Discovered in the excavations at Delphi, see Homolle, Fouilles de Delphes, 1902, T. II. pl. XIV.

[539] Berlin, Inv. 3186. Jahrbuch d. Inst. 1891, Anzeiger, p. 119, fig. 17.

[540] P. I. 41. 4.

[541] Hes. Theog. 326 and Scut. Her. 33, and see Plat. Crat. 414 D.

[542] Dr Frazer ad P. IX. 26. 2.

[543] Milani, Museo Topografico, p. 69. ‘Delphika,’ J.H.S. 1899, p. 235.

[544] The purpose of these holes, which occur frequently in representations of tomb-mounds on Athenian lekythoi, is not, so far as I know, made out.

[545] Suidas s.v., καὶ κηρυκαίνας ἐκάλουν Ἀλεξανδρεῖς γυναῖκας, αἵτινες εἰς τὰς αὐλὰς παριοῦσαι καὶ τὰς συνοικίας ἐφ’ ᾧτε συναγείρειν τὰ μιάσματα καὶ ἀποφέρειν εἰς θάλασσαν ἅπερ ἐκάλουν φυλάκια.

[546] Hesych. s.v., καὶ τοὺς ἐρινάζοντας τοὺς ἐρίνους κήρυκας λέγουσι.

[547] P. I. 43. 7.

[548] Anthol. Pal. VII. 154

Εἰμὶ δὲ Κῆρ τυμβοῦχος, ὁ δὲ κτείνας με Κόροιβος κεῖται δ’ ὧδ’ ὑπ’ ἐμοῖς ποσσὶ διὰ τρίποδα.

[549] P. VIII. 25. 4 ὅτι τῷ θυμῷ χρῆσθαι καλοῦσιν ἐρινύειν οἱ Ἀρκάδες.

[550] The explanation of Erinyes as ‘angry ones’ is confirmed by modern philology. F. Froehde, Bezzenberger. Beiträge, XX. p. 188, derives the word Erinys from ἐ-ρυσ-νος, Lith. rustas, angry.

[551] Il. IX. 571

τῆς δ’ ἠεροφοῖτις Ἐρινὺς ἔκλυεν ἐξ Ἐρέβεσφιν ἀμείλιχον ἦτορ ἔχουσα.

[552] On the epithet ἠεροφοῖτις ‘blood-haunting,’ usually translated ‘walking in darkness,’ Roscher (Myth. Lex. s.v.) has based a whole mistaken theory of the nature of the Erinyes as ‘storm-clouds.’ The Townley scholion (ad loc.) offers an alternative reading of the epithet more consonant with the nature of the Erinys: οἱ δὲ εἰαροπῶτις, ἐγκειμένου τοῦ εἶαρ ὅπερ ἐστὶ κατὰ Σαλαμινίους αἷμα. On this showing the Erinyes would be not those who ‘walked in darkness’ but those who sucked the blood, a view certainly consonant with the picture of the Erinyes presented by Aeschylus: ἀπὸ ζῶντος ῥοφεῖν ἐρυθρὸν ἐκ μελέων πέλανον (Eum. 264). The termination -πωτις instead of -φοιτις gives of course a simple and satisfactory meaning; but, accepting ἠερο- as representing the Cyprian form εἶαρ ‘blood,’ it is perhaps possible to retain -φοιτις and explain the epithet as ‘blood haunting.’ Another alternative is suggested by Fick, i.e. that the primitive form is ἡαρο-ποῖτις ‘blutrachend,’ ποῖτις being akin to ποινή, cf. Apollo Poitios (see A. Fick, ‘Götternamen,’ in Bezzenberger. Beiträge, XX. p. 179).

[553] Il. IX. 454.

[554] Il. XXI. 412.

[555] Il. XIX. 418 ὡς ἄρα φωνήσαντος ἐρινύες ἔσχεθον αὐδήν.

[556] Plut. de Ex. 11 ἥλιος γὰρ οὐχ ὑπερβήσεται μέτρα (φησὶν ὁ Ἡράκλειτος) εἰ δὲ μὴ Ἐριννύες μιν, Δίκης ἐπίκουροι, ἐξευρήσουσιν.

[557] The conception of Dike was largely due to Orphic influence, see p. 507.

[558] v. 988

ἰὼ μοῖρα βαρυδότειρα μογερὰ πότνιά τ’ Οἰδίπου σκιὰ μέλαιν’ Ἐρινύς, ἦ μεγασθενής τις εἶ.

[559] Aesch. Prom. Vinct. 566.

[560] The gadfly is purely incidental to Io as cow. Oistros is an incarnation of the distraction caused by the ghost. On a vase-painting representing the slaying of her children by Medea, Oistros (inscribed) is represented as a figure in a chariot drawn by snakes, and near at hand is ‘the ghost of Aietes’ (inscribed) who sent it. (Arch. Zeit. 1847, T. 3.)

[561] Plat. Legg. IX. 865.

[562] Mr F. M. Cornford draws my attention to a similar and even cruder English superstition. Sir Kenelm Digby, in his Observations on the Religio Medici (5th ed. p. 128), maintains as against Sir Thomas Browne who says that apparitions are devils, that those that appear in cemeteries and charnel-houses are the souls of the dead which have ‘a byas and a languishing’ towards their bodies, and that the body of a murdered man bleeds when the murderer approaches (‘which is frequently seen in England’) because the soul, desiring revenge, and being unable to speak, ‘must endeavour to cause a motion in the subtilest or most fluid parts (and consequently the most moveable ones) of it. This can be nothing but the blood, which then being violently moved, must needs gush out at those places where it findeth issues.’

[563] Aesch. Choeph. 285.

[564] P. II. 18. 2 τὸ μίασμα τὸ Πέλοπος καὶ ὁ Μυρτίλου προστρόπαιος ἠκολούθησε.

[565] XXIII. 10. 2.

[566] Choeph. 282. In the interpretation of this passage I follow Dr Verrall, Choephori, ad v. 286.

[567] Hippocr. περὶ ἱερῆς νούσου, p. 123, 20 ὁπόσα δὲ δείματα νυκτὸς παρίσταται καὶ φόβοι καὶ παράνοιαι καὶ ἀναπηδήσεις ἐκ κλίνης Ἑκάτης φασὶν εἶναι ἐπιβουλὰς καὶ ἡρῴων ἐφόδους.

[568] Aesch. Choeph. 64. The same idea comes out in the Electra of Euripides (v. 318).

[569] P. VIII. 24. 8 and 9 καὶ αὐτὸν ἡ Πυθία διδάσκει τὸν Ἐριφύλης ἀλάστορα ἐς ταύτην οἱ μόνην χώραν οὐ συνακολουθήσειν ἥτις ἐστὶ νεωτάτη, καὶ ἡ θάλασσα τοῦ μητρῴου μιάσματος ἀνέφηνεν ὕστερον αὐτήν. καὶ ὁ μὲν ἐξευρὼν τοῦ Ἀχελῴου τὴν πρόσχωσιν ἐνταῦθα ᾤκησε.

[570] Apollod. III. 7. 5.

[571] Il. VI. 200.

[572] Pind. Isth. V. 66.

[573] Apollod. II. 2. 3.

[574] For this information as to the character of the Aleïan plain, which suggested the view in the text, I am indebted to the kindness of Prof. Ramsay.

[575] Aesch. Eum. 417.

[576] Ib. 421.

[577] Il. XIX. 258.

[578] Hes. Erg. 803.

[579] Aesch. Eum. 511.

[580] Aesch. Eum. 46 ff.

[581] v. 57.

[582] A master-touch from the point of view of Aeschylus, who is all for the new order. It is however impossible to avoid a regret that he stooped to the cheap expedient of blackening the Erinyes as representatives of the old. He thereby half alienates our sympathies. See ‘Delphika,’ J.H.S. XIX. 1899, p. 251.

[583] Cat. B 471. Vorlegeblätter 1889, Taf. II. 1 a.

[584] Würzburg, Inv. 354.

[585] The Phineus cylix is published in phototype by Carl Sittl, ‘Die Phineus Schale, und ähnliche Vasen,’ Programm XXV., forming part of the Jahresbericht des Wagnerischen Kunst-Instituts der Kgl. Universität Würzburg 1892. The account there given of the difficult inscriptions is inadequate and must be supplemented by reference to Dr Böhlau’s corrections in his paper on ‘Die Ionischen Augenschalen,’ A. Mitt. 1898 (XXIII.) pp. 54, 77; see also Furtwängler-Reinhold, Pl. 41.

[586] Pottier, Cat. A. 478, pl. 17. 1. The vase is further discussed by Mr Barnett, Hermes, ‘Miscellen,’ 1898, p. 639. Mr Barnett sees in the winged figure Iris, an interpretation with which I cannot agree.

[587] Schol. ad Od. τ 518 and P. X. 30. 2. Pind. Schol. Ol. I. 90.

[588] Schol. Ambros. B. ad τ 518.

[589] Aesch. Choeph. 1048. The noisome exudation from the eyes noted by Aeschylus (Eum. 54) has already been shown (p. 195) to be characteristically Gorgon.

[590] Monimenti dell’ Inst. IV. pl. 48. Baumeister, p. 1314. The vase, an oxybaphon, is now in the Louvre.

[591] Hermitage, Cat. I. 349. Stephani, Compte Rendu 1863, pl. VI. 5.

[592] Millin, Peintures des vases grecs II. 68. Baumeister, fig. 1315, p. 1118.

[593] Jahrbuch d. Inst. 1890, Anzeiger, p. 90.

[594] Aeschin. c. Tim. 80.

[595] Plut. Vit. Dion. C. 55.

[596] Plut. de ser. num. vind. XXII.

[597] ἄγγελοι βασανισταί in the Apocalypse of Peter; see Dieterich, Nekuia p. 61.

[598] Aesch. Eum. 126.

[599] v. 131.

[600] Eur. Iph. in T. 286.

[601] Eur. Or. 256.

[602] Passerius, Pict. Etrusc. III. 297. J.H.S. vol. XIX. 1899, p. 219. This representation does not stand alone. Among the fragments of vase-paintings found in the excavations on the Acropolis, and as yet unpublished, is one of considerably earlier style than the design in fig. 53, and with a representation exactly similar in all essentials. The winged feet and part of the drapery of the figure remain, and below is a large snake with open mouth. Found as it was in the ‘pre-Persian’ débris, this fragment cannot be later and is probably much earlier than 480 B.C.

[603] This striding flying pose with the bent knee has been used by some archaeologists to explain the epithet καμψίπους. But bending or turning the knee is not bending or turning the foot. It is possible that in this epithet applied (Aesch. Sept. 791) to the Erinys we have merely an expression of the instinct to create an uncouth deformed bogey. M. Paul Perdrizet (Mélusine vol. IX. 1898, p. 99, ‘Les pieds ou les genoux à rebours’) makes the interesting suggestion that the καμψίπους Ἐρινύς may be an Erinys with feet turned the reverse way, a horrid distorted cripple. This peculiar form of deformity was not unknown among the ancients, as witness the statuettes cited as examples by M. Perdrizet, a bronze in the British Museum (Cat. Walters no. 216) and a terracotta in the National Museum at Athens (Cat. 7877: Stackelberg, Gräber der Hellenen, pl. LXXIII. 475). I do not feel confident of the rightness of this interpretation for two reasons, firstly, καμψίπους seems scarcely to be the right epithet for a striking distortion which would rather be στρεβλόπους or some such word, and secondly, constant stress is laid on the swiftness of the Erinys which would be inconsistent with a crippling deformity. On the other hand, figures with their feet reversed may have suggested the inevitable back-coming of the Erinys. Mr F. M. Cornford suggests to me that καμψίπους is the humanized equivalent of γαμψῶνυξ, an interpretation proffered by Blomfield but rejected in favour of pernix. The suggestion seems to me to carry fresh conviction now that the Erinys is seen to be in her original essence and in her art-form near akin to Harpy, Sphinx and Bird-woman. Sophocles (Oed. Tyr. 1199) calls the Sphinx γαμψῶνυξ. In fig. 44 she is claw-footed; the Harpy to the right in fig. 19 has crooked claws for hands. Aeschylus may be using an epithet that originally meant ‘clutch-foot’ in some new sense as ‘plying the foot,’ i.e. swift, or as ‘back-returning.’

[604] A. Mitt. XVI. p. 379. J.H.S. XIX. 1899, p. 219, fig. 4.

[605] Vienna Museum. Masner, Cat. 221. Annali dell’ Inst. 1866, Tav. d’ agg. R. 2.

[606] Aesch. Choeph. 527 and 531.

[607] v. 549.

[608] v. 927

πατρὸς γὰρ αἶσα τόνδε συρίζει μύρον

accepting Dr Verrall’s reading συρίζει.

[609] Jahrbuch d. Inst. 1893, p. 93, pl. I. The vase is there interpreted as the slaying of Polyxena, but I agree with Dr Thiersch (Tyrrhenische Amphoren, p. 56) that the scene represented is the slaying of Eriphyle by Alcmaeon. In connection with the omphalos-tomb of the vase-painting it is worth noting that at Phlius near the house of divination of Amphiaraos there was an omphalos. See P. II. 13. 7.

[610] Soph. Oed. Tyr. 469. The attitude of Sophocles towards the Orestes myth, and the fashion in which he ignores the conflict between Apollo and the Erinyes, cannot be discussed here. It has been ably treated by Miss Janet Case in the Classical Review, May 1902, p. 195.

[611] v. 475.

[612] Eur. El. 1252.

[613] Herod. IV. 149.

[614] Aesch. Eum. 106.

[615] Pausanias (I. 31. 2) mentions one other place in Attica where the Semnae are worshipped under this name. At Phlya in one and the same sanctuary there were altars of Demeter Anesidora, of Zeus Ktesios, of Athene Tithrone, of Kore Protogone and of goddesses called Venerable (Σεμνῶν ὀνομαζομένων θεῶν).

[616] The best evidence of this is the language, always ceremonial, of oaths taken in the law courts, where we may be sure the Semnae are invoked by their official title, e.g. Deinarchus c. Dem. 47. Μαρτύρομαι τὰς σεμνὰς θεάς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι. But so far as I am aware the Semnae are never alluded to merely as Semnae.

[617] Eur. Or. 259.

[618] Aesch. Eum. 55.

[619] Diog. Laert. I. X. 6. See Demoulin, Épiménide de Crète, p. 110.

[620] P. I. 28. 6.

[621] Schol. ad Aeschin. c. Timarch. I. 188 C ‘ταῖς σεμναῖς θεαῖς.’ Τρεῖς ἦσαν αὗται αἱ λεγόμεναι σεμναὶ θεαὶ ἢ Εὐμενίδες ἢ Ἐριννύες, ὧν τὰς μὲν δύο τὰς ἑκατέρωθεν Σκόπας ὁ Πάριος πεποίηκεν ἐκ τῆς λυχνίτου λίθου τὴν δὲ μέσην Κάλαμις. οἱ δὲ Ἀρεοπαγῖται τρεῖς που τοῦ μηνὸς ἡμέρας τὰς φονικὰς δίκας ἐδίκαζον ἑκάστῃ τῶν θεῶν μίαν ἡμέραν ἀπονέμοντες. ἦν δὲ τὰ πεμπόμενα αὐταῖς ἱερὰ πόπανα καὶ γάλα ἐν ἄγγεσι κεραμείοις. φασὶ μέντοι αὐτὰς Γῆς εἶναι καὶ Σκότους, οἱ δὲ Σκότους καὶ Εὐωνύμης ἣν καὶ Γῆν ὀνομάζεσθαι, κληθῆναι δὲ Εὐμενίδας ἐπιηρέστερον [de conj.: ἐπίηρα Vat. ἐπὶ Ὀρέστου cett.] πρῶτον καλουμένας. The entire scholion is given here for convenience, the ritual of cakes and milk has been previously discussed (p. 90).

[622] Dr Wellmann (de Istro 14) has shown that in all probability the information of the scholiast is borrowed from the treatise of Polemon quoted by Clement of Alexandria in his Protrepticus, p. 41.

[623] Schol. ad Oed. Col. 39 ‘ἔμφοβοι θεαί.’ Φύλαρχός φησι δύο αὐτὰς εἶναι τά τε ἀγάλματα Ἀθήνησι δύο, Πολέμων δὲ τρεῖς αὐτάς φησι.

[624] Thucyd. I. 126.

[625] Plut. Vit. Sol. XII.

[626] Ar. Eq. 1312

ἢν δ’ ἀρέσκῃ ταῦτ’ Ἀθηναίοις καθῆσθαί μοι δοκεῖ ἐς τὸ Θησεῖον πλεούσας ἢ ’πὶ τῶν σεμνῶν θεῶν.

[627] Ar. Thesm. 224

ΕΥΡ. οὗτος σὺ ποῖ θεῖς;

ΜΝ. ἐς τὸ τῶν σεμνῶν θεῶν.

[628] Eur. El. 1270.

[629] Hesych. s.v. δευτερόποτμος.

[630] Aesch. Eum. 1006

ἴτε καὶ σφαγίων τῶνδ’ ὑπὸ σεμνῶν κατὰ γῆς σύμεναι.

[631] Schol. ad Soph. Oed. Col. 42 ‘τὰς πάνθ’ ὁρώσας Εὐμενίδας’.... Τότε γὰρ πρῶτον Εὐμενίδας κληθῆναι εὐμενεῖς κριθέντι νικᾶν παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις καὶ ὁλοκαυτῆσαι αὐταῖς ὄϊν μέλαιναν ἐν Καρνείᾳ [the reading Καρνείᾳ is doubtful] τῆς Πελοποννήσου. Φιλήμων δὲ ὁ κωμικὸς ἑτέρας φησὶ τὰς σεμνὰς θεὰς τῶν Εὐμενίδων.

[632] Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 642.

[633] Dem. c. Dein. 47.

[634] Philo de praest. liber p. 886 B διό μοι δοκοῦσιν οἱ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὀξυδερκέστατοι Ἀθηναῖοι τὴν ἐπὶ ταῖς σεμναῖς θεαῖς πομπὴν ὅταν στέλλωσι δοῦλον μηδένα προσλαμβάνειν.

[635] Schol. ad Soph. Oed. Col. 489 ‘ἄπυστα φωνῶν.’ τοῦτο ἀπὸ τῆς δρωμένης θυσίας ταῖς Εὐμενίσι· μετὰ γὰρ ἡσυχίας τὰ ἱερὰ δρῶσι καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ Ἡσύχου θύουσιν αὐταῖς καθάπερ Πολέμων ἐν τοῖς πρὸς Ἐρατοσθένην φησὶν οὕτω, τὸ δὲ τῶν Εὐπατριδῶν γένος οὐ μετέχει τῆς θυσίας ταύτης. εἶτα ἑξῆς· τῆς δὲ πομπῆς ταύτης Ἡσυχίδαι ὃ δὴ γένος ἐστὶ περὶ τὰς Σεμνὰς θεὰς καὶ τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἔχει. καὶ προθύονται πρὸ τῆς θυσίας κριὸν Ἡσύχῳ ἱερόν, ἥρω τοῦτον οὕτω καλοῦντες διὰ τὴν εὐφημίαν· οὗ τὸ ἱερὸν παρὰ τὸ Κυλώνειον ἐκτὸς τῶν ἐννέα πυλῶν.

[636] Hesych. s.v., γένος Ἀθήνησιν ἰθαγενῶν.

[637] Plut. Vit. Nik. XIII.

[638] Callim. frg. (Schneider II. 123)

Νηφάλι’ αἱ καὶ τῇσιν ἀεὶ μελιηδέας ὄμπνας λῄτειραι καίειν ἔλλαχον Ἡσυχίδες.

[639] Hesych. s.v. Λῄτειραι· ἱέρειαι τῶν σεμνῶν θεῶν.

[640] Aesch. Eum. 856.

[641] v. 1026.

[642] Aesch. Eum. 1028

φοινικοβάπτοις ἐνδυτοῖς ἐσθήμασιν τιμᾶτε καὶ τὸ φέγγος ὁρμάσθω πυρός, ὅπως ἂν εὔφρων ἥδ’ ὁμιλία χθονὸς τὸ λοιπὸν εὐάνδροισι συμφοραῖς πρέπῃ.

The construction of τιμᾶτε is uncertain, there being no expressed grammatical object; but the two ritual factors, the torches and crimson garments, are certain.

[643] Luc. de domo 18.

[644] Luc. Hermot. 806.

[645] Aesch. Eum. 706.

[646] Plut. Vit. Aristid. XXI.

[647] Cf. αἵματι φοινόν (Il. XVI. 159). φοινός, φοῖνιξ and φόνος are not far asunder: cf. also the tragic use of αἷμα for corpse. For purple in the ritual of the dead, see Diels, Sibyllinische Blätter, p. 69 note.

[648] Plut. Vit. Dion. LVI. περιβάλλεται τὴν πορφυρίδα τῆς θεοῦ καὶ λαβὼν δᾷδα καιομένην ἀπόμνυσι.

[649] Plin. N.H. IX. 60 purpura dis advocatur placandis.

[650] Aesch. Eum. 804. The significance of the ἐσχάρα as distinguished from the βωμός has been already discussed (p. 61).

[651] Aesch. Eum. 860.

[652] Aesch. Eum. 980.

[653] v. 834.

[654] Plut. Conj. Praec. Proem. μετὰ τὸν πάτριον θεσμὸν ὃν ὑμῖν ἡ τῆς Δήμητρος ἱέρεια συνειργνυμένοις ἐφήρμοσεν.

[655] Aesch. Eum. 903.

[656] Aesch. Eum. 938. The translation offered only attempts to render the general sense of this difficult passage, a sense sufficiently clear for the immediate purpose. No satisfactory explanation has yet been offered of the enigmatic τὸ μὴ περᾶν ὅρον τόπων, see Dr Verrall, ad loc.

[657] P. I. 28. 6.

[658] Arrian, Anab. III. 16. 8.

[659] Hesych. s.v. Ἀνεμοκοῖται.

[660] Plat. Phaedr. p. 229. The legend no doubt took its rise in the Areopagos, where the king’s daughter was flower-gathering, or fetching water from the Enneakrounos just outside the city gate. It was transplanted later with many another legend and cult to the banks of the Ilissus, outside the enlarged city.

[661] Aesch. Eum. 939.

[662] Aesch. Eum. 916 δέξομαι Παλλάδος ξυνοικίαν.

[663] v. 1041 δεῦρ’ ἴτε, σεμναί.

[664] Harpocrat. s.v. Εὐμενίδες ... Αἰσχύλος ἐν Εὐμενίσιν εἰπὼν τὰ περὶ τὴν κρίσιν τὴν Ὀρέστου φησὶν ὡς ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ πραΰνασα τὰς Ἐρινύας ὥστε μὴ χαλεπῶς ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν Ὀρέστην Εὐμενίδας ὠνόμασεν, εἰσὶ δὲ Ἀληκτὼ, Μέγαιρα, Τισιφόνη.

[665] Aesch. Eum. hypoth.... ἧς βουλῇ νικήσας κατῆλθεν εἰς Ἄργος, τὰς δὲ Ἐρινύας πραΰνας προσηγόρευσεν Εὐμενίδας. To suit the statement of Harpocration, πραΰνας has been altered to πραΰνασα.

[666] There is no evidence that can be relied on to show that before Aeschylus wrote his play the Semnae ever bore the title of Eumenides. Pausanias indeed (VII. 25. 1) quotes an oracle from Dodona ostensibly belonging to the mythical days of Apheidas, in which the title Eumenides is given to the goddesses of the Areopagos,

φράζεο δ’ Ἄρειόν τε πάγον, βωμούς τε θυώδεις Εὐμενίδων κτλ.

And this oracle, he says, the Greek called to mind when the Peloponnesians came against Athens in the time of Codrus. The passage stands alone, and oracle-mongering was rife at all times.

[667] Soph. Oed. Col. 41.

[668] Aesch. Prom. Vinct. 209

Θέμις καὶ Γαῖα πολλῶν ὀνομάτων μορφὴ μία.

[669] Oed. Col. 486

ὥς σφας καλοῦμεν Εὐμενίδας, ἐξ εὐμενῶν στέρνων δέχεσθαι τὸν ἱκέτην.

[670] P. I. 11. 4.

[671] P. VII. 25. 7.

[672] P. VIII. 34. 2.

[673] At this point unhappily a lacuna occurs.

[674] A. Mitt. IV. 1879, pl. IX. p. 176.

[675] The regular ritual offerings at Titane, see P. I. 11. 4 and Aesch. Eum. 834.

[676] The archaic marble statuette found at Olympia and representing a woman with polos on her head and a snake in each hand may very possibly be one of three Eumenides. See Olympia, vol. III. p. 27.

[677] Suidas s.v. Εὐμενίδες· Φιλήμων δὲ ὁ κωμικὸς ἑτέρας φησὶ τὰς Σεμνὰς θεὰς τῶν Εὐμενίδων.

[678] Xenoph. frg. 1, 2, 5 and 6.

[679] P. VIII. 42. 4. The material for the study of the non-human forms taken by Greek gods has been recently collected by Dr M. W. de Visser, Die nicht-menschengestaltigen Götter der Griechen, 1903.

[680] P. VIII. 41. 6.

[681] Munich. Published and discussed by Dr Böhlan, ‘Schlangenleibige Nymphen,’ Philologos LVII. N.F. XI. 1, and see ‘Delphika,’ J.H.S. XIX. 1899, p. 216, note 1.

[682] Aesch. Eum. 1.

[683] Aesch. Prom. Vinct. 209.

[684] The clearest and most scientific statement of the facts as to this difficult subject known to me is to be found in an article by Dr E. B. Tylor, ‘The Matriarchal family system,’ Nineteenth Century, July 1896.

[685] S. Augustine, De civitat. Dei 18. 9 ut nulla ulterius ferrent suffragia, ut nullus nascentium maternum nomen acciperet, ut ne quis eas Athenaeas vocaret.

[686] Athen. XIII. 2 § 555 and Tzetzes Chil. V. 19. 650. Other instances of the survival in Greek mythology of traces of matriarchal conditions are collected by Bachofen in his Mutterrecht, a book which, spite of the wildness of its theories, remains of value as the fullest existing collection of ancient facts.

[687] P. VIII. 2. 3.

[688] Diog. 8. 1. 10, and Iambl. Vit. Pyth. 3. 11.

[689] The fundamental unity of all the Greek goddesses was, I think, first observed by Gerhard, Ueber Metroon und Goetter-Mutter, 1849, p. 103, but his illuminating suggestion has been obscured for half a century by systems, such as that of Preller and Max Müller, that see in ancient deities impersonations of natural phenomena.

[690] P. X. 12. 10

Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστί, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ. Γᾶ καρποὺς ἀνίει, διὸ κλῄζετε μητέρα γαῖαν.

[691] P. VIII. 2. 4.

[692] The distinction has been acutely observed by Miss W. M. L. Hutchinson in discussing the earth-born parentage of Aeacus, see Aeacus a Judge of the Underworld, p. 6.

[693] Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχ. 1892, Pl. 9; for stamped Boeotian amphorae in general, see Mr A. de Ridder, Bull. de Corr. Hell. XXII. 1898, p. 440.

[694] Dr Wolters (Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1892, p. 225) explains the figure of the Earth-Mother as Artemis Λεχώ. I entirely agree with Prof. S. Wide that her pose is not that of ‘eine gebärende Frau’: see S. Wide, ‘Mykenische Götterbilder und Idole,’ A. Mitt. XXVI. 1901, p. 253.

[695] Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1892, Pl. 10. 1.

[696] On the head of one of the idols in the recently discovered shrine at Cnossos, Mr Arthur Evans kindly tells me, is perched a dove, a forecast it may be of Aphrodite.

[697] See Prof. Ramsay, J.H.S. 1884, p. 245.

[698] Cic. De Nat. Deor. II. 26 et recidunt omnia in terras et oriuntur e terris.

[699] Aesch. Choeph. 127.

[700] Plut. de fac. in orb. lun. 28 καὶ τοὺς νεκροὺς Ἀθηναῖοι Δημητρείους ὠνόμαζον τὸ παλαιόν.

[701] Cic. Legg. II. 22, and 25, 63.

[702] 1 Cor. XV. 36.

[703] B.M. Cat. B 213. Inghirami, Vasi Fitt. III. 300. Mr A. Lang, Homeric Hymns, plate facing p. 104, names the design ‘Leto with her infants Apollo and Artemis.’ The catalogue of the British Museum with just caution says ‘Leto (?),’ but adds that the children are ‘probably Apollo and Artemis.’ The figures to either side of the central ‘Mother,’ Dionysos and a Satyr, give no clue to the interpretation.

[704] Mr G. C. Richards, J.H.S. XIII. 1892, p. 284, pl. XI.

[705] P. V. 18. 1. Dr Frazer translates the difficult word διεστραμμένους ‘turned different ways’; the word seems usually to imply distortion, but in the case of Death and Sleep this seems inappropriate.

[706] B.M. Cat. B 168.

[707] Ar. Thesm. 295 and schol. ad loc. The words τῇ Γῇ have been interpolated after Κουροτρόφῳ but without MS. authority.

[708] P. IX. 16. 2.

[709] Mr R. C. Bosanquet, ‘Excavations of the British School at Melos,’ J.H.S. XVIII. 1898, p. 60, Fig. 1, and Dr P. Wolters, ‘Melische Kultstatuen,’ A. Mitt. XV. 1890, p. 248.

[710] All the proposed etymologies, possible and impossible, are collected by Mannhardt, Mythologische Forschungen, p. 287. To his discussion must now be added Dr Kretschmer’s view that Δᾶ like Μᾶ means mother and that the form Δαμάτηρ arose when Δᾶ had crystallized into a proper name. See Festschrift der Wiener-Studien, 1902, p. 291.

[711] Aesch. Prom. Vinct. 568.

[712] Etym. Mag. s.v. Δηώ sub fin.: ἢ Δηώ, παρὰ τὰς δηάς· οὕτω γὰρ δηαὶ προσαγορεύονται ὑπὸ Κρητῶν αἱ κριθαί.

[713] Hom. Il. II. 528 ζείδωρος ἄρουρα.

[714] History of the New World, vol. II. p. 7.

[715] O. Rubensohn, ‘Eleusinische Beiträge,’ A. Mitth. 1899, pl. VII.

[716] Hom. Hymn. ad Cer. 1.

[717] Hom. Hymn. ad Cer. 470. The elaborate aetiology of the whole Homeric Hymn to Demeter has been fully examined and explained by Mr F. B. Jevons in his Introduction to the History of Religion, ch. XXIII. and Appendix.

[718] Athens Nat. Mus. 484. Fig. 67 is reproduced from a photograph kindly sent me by Prof. Sam. Wide. For further particulars of this class of vases I must refer to Prof. Wide’s article ‘Eine lokale Gattung Boiotischer Gefässe,’ A. Mitt. XXVI. 1901, p. 143. Prof. Wide makes the interesting suggestion that the bird in the field is a bird-soul and points out that merely decorative ‘Füllfiguren’ do not occur on this class of vases. This interpretation seems to me highly probable, but till further evidence emerges, I hesitate to adopt it as certain.

[719] Plut. de fac. in orb. lun. XXVIII.

[720] Plut. de Is. et Osir. LXVI. ποιητὴς δέ τις ἐπὶ τῶν θεριζόντων ‘Τῆμος ὅτ’ αἰζηοὶ Δημήτερα κωλοτομεῦσιν.’

[721] P. VIII. 25. 4-7.

[722] Jahrbuch d. Inst. Anz. 1893, p. 166.

[723] Berl. Cat. 2646. Mon. d. Inst. XII. tav. IV. This vase with others of the same type is explained by Dr Robert, Archäologische Mährchen, p. 196, as the rising of a Spring-Nymph, but the inscribed Berlin vase was not known to him, see also ‘Delphika,’ J.H.S. XIX. 1899, p. 232.

[724] Cat. 298. Milliet et Giraudon, Pl. LII. B, discussed by Prof. Furtwängler, Jahrbuch d. Inst. 1891, p. 113, and Prof. Gardner, J.H.S. XXI. 1901, p. 5, and J. E. Harrison, ‘Delphika,’ J.H.S. XIX. 1899, p. 232.

[725] Vasi dipinti del Museo Vivenzio designati di C. Angelini nel MDCCXCVI. Illustrato di G. Patroni 1900, Tav. XXIX. All the plates of this publication are of course reproduced from very old drawings and are quite untrustworthy as regards style. The vase under discussion is now lost, so that the original cannot be compared. Sig. Patroni thinks the drawing is authentic. I reproduce it partly because the subject is not wholly explicable, partly in the hope that by making it more widely known, I may lead to the rediscovery of the vase, which may be in some private collection.

[726] Prof. Percy Gardner, ‘A new Pandora Vase,’ J.H.S. XXI. 1901, Plate 1.

[727] Brit. Mus. Cat. D 4. White Athenian Vases, Plate 19. Myth. and Mon. of Anc. Athens, p. 450, fig. 50.

[728] The worship of Ge as Anesidora at Phlya will be later discussed, Chap. XII.

[729] A lost play of Sophocles was called Πανδώρα ἢ Σφυροκόποι. The σφῦρα though characteristic of Hephaistos the craftsman was used by agriculturists. Trygaeus in the Pax (v. 566) remembers that his σφῦρα waits at home glittering and ready, see J.H.S. XX. 1900, p. 107.

[730] Prof. Furtwängler, Jahrbuch d. Inst. 1891, pp. 117 and 124, ‘Ein uraltes mythisches Symbol für die Blitze sind aber Hammer und Beil. Sie sind es ... die mit mächtigen Gewittern den Kopf der grossen Mutter Erde schlagen und hämmern bis sie erwacht und erweicht.’

[731] P. I. 43. 2 ... ἐοικότα δὲ τῷ λόγῳ δρῶσιν ἐς ἡμᾶς ἔτι αἱ Μεγαρέων γυναῖκες.

[732] The Etymologicon Magnum has the form Ἀνακληθρίς.

[733] Xen. Symp. VII. 5. I have elsewhere (Myth. and Mon. of Anc. Athens, p. cxvii) discussed the possible influence of such mimetic presentations on the fixed mythological types of vase-paintings. Dr Frazer (Golden Bough, 2nd ed. vol. III. p. 165) makes the interesting suggestion that in sacred dramas may be found a possible meeting-ground between Euhemerists and their opponents.

[734] Ar. Av. 971, schol. ad loc.

[735] Frg. Hippon. ap. Athen. IX. § 370.

[736] Philostr. Vit. Apoll. XXXIX. § 275.

[737] Brit. Mus. Cat. E 467. J.H.S. XI. pl. 11 and 12, p. 278, and Roscher, Lex. s.v. Pandora, fig. 2.

[738] Hes. Theog. 570, trans. Mr D. S. MacColl.

[739] Hes. Op. 69 ff.

[740] Hes. Op. 59.

[741] For the origin of the pithos see J.H.S. XX. 1900, p. 99.

[742] Plut. de Ei ap. Delph. II. 1.

[743] P. IX. 35. 1.

[744] Eur. Ion 496.

[745] Eur. Erech. frg. V. 3.

[746] I have collected and discussed this evidence in ‘Mythological Studies,’ J.H.S., vol. XII. 1891, p. 350.

[747] P. I. 18. 2.

[748] P. I. 26. 6.

[749] Ov. Met. II. 759.

[750] Schol. ad Ar. Thesm. 533 κατὰ γὰρ τῆς Ἀγραύλου ὤμνυον κατὰ δὲ τῆς Πανδρόσου σπανιώτερον.

[751] Plut. Quaest. Symp. IX. 14. 2.

[752] For three in the cultus of the dead, see Diels, Sibyllinische Blätter, p. 40. For a discussion of trinities other than of maiden goddesses, see Usener, ‘Dreiheit’ (Rhein. Mus. LVIII. pp. 1-47).

[753] In this connection it may be worth noting that where the nature of the dual goddess prevents her taking a central place as in the case of Eileithyia she never merges into a trinity. There are often two Eileithyiai, e.g. one to either side of Zeus at the birth of Athene, but never three.

[754] Roscher, Lex. s.v. Matres, Matronae.

[755] Fröhner, Coll. Tyszkicwisk, Pl. XVI.; J.H.S. XIX. p. 218, Fig. 3.

[756] A. Mitt. 1896, p. 266, Taf. VIII.

[757] Eur. Ion 490, trans. Mr D. S. MacColl.

[758] For the development of the type of Hecate in conjunction with the Charites, see Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, p. 373.

[759] In the Vienna Museum, found at Gallipoli, Arch. Epigr. Mitt. vol. I. Taf. 1. Prof. O. Benndorf, ‘Die Chariten des Sokrates,’ Arch. Zeit. 1869.

[760] The sources for the story are well collected in Roscher’s Lexicon, s.v. Paris, but the author of the article seems to have no suspicion of the real substratum of the myth.

[761] Luc. dial. deor. 20 ἡ καλὴ λαβέτω. Tzetzes ad Lycophr. 93 τῇ καλῇ τὸ μῆλον.

[762] Cat. 422. Milliet et Giraudon, Pl. 104.

[763] B.M. Cat. E 289. J.H.S. VII. 1886, p. 9.

[764] J.H.S. VII. 1888, p. 198, fig. 1.

[765] J.H.S. VII. 1888, p. 203.

[766] J.H.S. VII. 1888, p. 282.

[767] Procl. Excerpt. αἳ πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον ἐν Ἴδῃ κατὰ Διὸς προσταγὴν ὑφ’ Ἑρμοῦ πρὸς τὴν κρίσιν ἄγονται. See Schneider, Der troische Sagenkreis, p. 99, and Welcker, Ep. Kyklos II. 88.

[768] Berl. Cat. 2154. Endt, Beiträge zur Ionischen Vasenmalerei, p. 29, figs. 11, 12 and 13.

[769] The figure of Paris which does not here concern us came in with the popularity of the Homeric cycle, and the connection between the conflict of σημεῖα and the Trojan war may probably have been due to the author of the Kypria.

[770] Eur. Andr. 281.

[771] Since the above was written I see that Eustathius (§ 1665. 59) expressly states that Aphrodite strove with the Charites: ἔνθα ἐρίσαι περὶ κάλλους τήν τε Ἀφροδίτην καὶ τὰς Χάριτας αἷς ὀνόματα Πασιθέη, Καλὴ καὶ Εὐφροσύνη, τὸν δὲ δικάσαντα κρῖναι καλὴν τὴν Καλήν, ἣν καὶ γῆμαι τὸν Ἥφαιστον. He goes on to say that Kalè married Arachnos in Crete and that Arachnos μιγέντα αὐχεῖν τῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ μιγῆναι.

[772] Hom. Od. XX. 67.

[773] I follow Prof. Ridgeway (J.H.S. 1898, p. xxxiv) in holding that Artemis with her father Zeus and her brother Apollo are immigrants from the North, divinities of the Achaean stock. Hence their dominance in Homer.

[774] Published and discussed by M. P. Perdrizet, Bull. de Corr. Hell. 1898, p. 584.

[775] Tradition variously ascribed the theft to Tantalos and Pandareos. Here the presence of the two daughters points to Pandareos as the offender. The sources for the myth of the theft in its various forms, which do not here immediately concern us, are collected in Roscher’s Lexicon, s.v. Pandareus, see also p. 226.

[776] On only one vase representing the ‘Judgment’ does Artemis so far as I know appear, viz. the very late amphora in the Naples Museum. (Heydemann, Cat. 2870.)

[777] Anthol. Palat. VI. 280; the play on κόρα in the lines

τὰς τε κόρας, Λιμνᾶτι κόρᾳ, κόρα, ὡς ἐπιεικὲς ἄνθετο καὶ τὰ κορᾶν ἐνδύματ’ Ἀρτέμιδι

cannot be rendered in English.

[778] Dilthey, Arch. Zeit. 1873.

[779] Pauly-Wissowa s.v. Athena, p. 1941, 50.

[780] Plat. Legg. 796 ἡ δὲ αὖ που παρ’ ἡμῖν Κόρη καὶ δέσποινα ... ἃ δὴ πάντως μιμεῖσθαι πρέπον ἂν εἴη κόρους τε ἅμα καὶ κόρας.

[781] Soph. frg. ap. Strabo § 392. That Pallas was the eponymous hero of the Pallantidae was first pointed out by Düncker, Hist. of Greece, vol. I. p. 113.

[782] Strab. XVII. 46 § 816 παρθένος ἱερᾶται ἃς καλοῦσιν οἱ Ἕλληνες παλλάδας: see A. Fick, Indogerm. Beiträge, 1896.

[783] C.I.A. II. 470. 10 συνεξήγαγον δὲ (οἱ ἔφηβοι) Παλλάδα μετὰ τῶν γεννητῶν καὶ πάλιν εἰσήγαγον μετὰ πάσης εὐκοσμίας.

[784] Aesch. Eum. 916.

[785] The Knights of Aristophanes, p. 83.

[786] See Mr Gilbert Murray, Ancient Greek Literature, p. 178.

[787] Hom. Hymn. XXVIII., translated by Mr D. S. MacColl.

[788] Aesch. Eum. 736.

[789] Rossbach, Griechische Antiken des arch. Museums in Breslau, Festgruss 40 d. Philologen (Görlitz, 1889), Taf. I.

[790] The meaning of the woman-headed bird and of her name was first seen by Dr Max Mayer, ‘Mythhistorica,’ Hermes XXXVII.

[791] Ar. Hist. Anim. IX. 18, p. 617 a 9.

[792] P. I. 5. 3 and I. 41. 6; see Dr Frazer ad loc.

[793] P. I. 41. 9.

[794] Lyc. Alc. 359. In connection with Lycophron’s account it is curious to find that in the earliest known representation of the rape of Cassandra in vase-paintings (J.H.S. 1884, Pl. XL.) behind the figure of Athene stands a large human-headed bird, but this may be a mere coincidence.

[795] O. Benndorf, Griechische und Sicilische Vasenbilder, pl. 51. 1.

[796] Soph. Phil. 1327.

[797] Herod. VIII. 41.

[798] Collignon et Couve, Cat. 1942. Jahrbuch d. Inst., Anzeiger, 1896, p. 36.

[799] Since the above was written I learn that Mr Evans has discovered at Cnossos the figure of a goddess with a snake in either hand and a snake or snakes coiled about her head. She may prove to be the prototype of Athene, of the Erinys and of many another form of Earth-goddess.

[800] Coll. Faina. Röm. Mitt. 1897, XII. pl. 12. Another instance of a winged Athene occurs on the fine vase published by Mr A. de Ridder, Cat. Bibl. Nat. No. 269, p. 173, fig. 23. Athene flies over the sea carrying the dead body of a hero. Here she performs the office of Eos or of a Death-Siren or Harpy.

[801] Aesch. Eum. 407.

[802] Il. XVIII. 382.

[803] From a photograph. The slab is now in the Museum at Naples.

[804] E. Petersen, Röm. Mittheil. 1899, pl. VII. p. 154.

[805] Some further instances of the rising of an Earth-goddess greeted by Erotes will be discussed in Chapter XII., and see p. 570.

[806] Hom. Od. VIII. 270.

[807] Hom. Hymn VI. 2, trans. by Mr Gilbert Murray.

[808] At Sekyon, though we are not expressly told of a bath of Aphrodite, she had a maiden-priestess who was called Loutrophoros, see P. II. 10. 4. The Orphic Hymn to Aphrodite (LV. 19) joins together the notions of bath and birth: Αἰγύπτου κατέχεις ἱερῆς γονιμώδεα λουτρά.

[809] P. II. 38. 2.

[810] Reproduced from a photograph. The relief is published and fully discussed by Dr Petersen, Röm. Mittheilungen, 1892, Taf. II. p. 32. The relief with two other slabs manifestly belonging to the same structure came to light on a Sunday during the summer of 1887, during the absence of the official inspector, in the piece of ground formerly belonging to the Villa Ludovisi and now bounded by the Vie Boncompagni, Abruzzi e Piemonte. It is said to have been found in an upright position, but as no other monuments came to light, though the ground was examined to a depth of 50 metres, the reliefs were probably not in situ. Dr Petersen thinks they formed the three sides of a throne of Aphrodite. They may, however, have formed part of the decoration of the mouth of a well. That they were in some way connected with Aphrodite is practically certain from the design on the two other reliefs (not figured here). These represent respectively a nude woman playing on the double flutes, who, from the analogy of similar representations on vase-paintings, is certainly a hetaira, and a woman draped and veiled bringing incense who is probably a bride. The various interpretations and restorations of the monument are given by Dr Helbig, Führer Rom II. p. 128, and Antike Denkmäler d. K. Arch. Inst. vol. II. Pl. 6 and 7, p. 3.

[811] P. V. 11. 8.

[812] Since the above was written I see that M. Joubin (La Sculpture Grecque entre les guerres médiques et l’époque de Périclès, p. 204) has anticipated me in using the Genoa vase as evidence to show that the uprising woman in the Ludovisi relief is Aphrodite. But unfortunately M. Joubin fails to see that Aphrodite is also Kore; he says, ‘D’autres archéologues avaient identifié le personnage figuré à mi-corps avec Korè ou Ge; mais la découverte du vase de Gènes coupe court toutes ces interprétations.’ This is to my mind to miss the real religious significance of the figure; but M. Joubin is, of course, mainly concerned with artistic criticism.

[813] Brit. Mus. Cat. D 2. The best reproduction of this beautiful vase is plate XV. of White Athenian Vases in Brit. Mus.

[814] Lucret. I. 1.

[815] As long ago as 1857, H. D. Müller in his remarkable book Mythologie der Griechischen Stämme, pp. 249-255, saw that Zeus and Hera belonged to stocks racially distinct, and that in the compulsory marriage of Hera to Zeus is reflected the subjugation of a primitive race to Achaean invaders. In discussing the American excavations at Argos I followed his leading, see ‘Primitive Hera-Worship,’ Cl. Review, Dec. 1892, p. 474, and 1893, p. 44.

[816] Athen. § 672.

[817] Strab. § 637.

[818] P. VIII. 22. 2. The sources for the cult of Hera are well collected by Mr Farnell in his Cults of the Greek States, p. 211, but with Mr Farnell’s main thesis ‘that her association with Zeus is a primitive factor in the Greek worship of Hera’ I am still as he then notes (p. 199) completely at issue.

[819] Again acutely observed by H. D. Müller, Mythologie d. Gr. Stämme, pp. 254, 255, where the identity of Dione and Juno is noted.

[820] These reliefs are now in the Museum at Sofia: there were discovered in all ninety-two of the same type. Bull. de Corr. Hell. XXI. 1897, p. 130, fig. 12; p. 138, fig. 17.

[821] The survival of the type of the ‘Three Sisters’ in mediaeval days has been well traced by Miss Eckenstein, Woman under Monasticism, p. 40 ff.

[822] Since the above was written Mr A. B. Cook has with great kindness and generosity allowed me to read in proof his article on ‘Zeus, Jupiter and the Oak,’ shortly to be published in the Classical Review. Mr Cook believes that the worship of Zeus was indigenous in Greece and that Zeus, Poseidon and Hades are three forms of one primaeval god. His contention is supported by an immense mass of evidence. I am at present unconvinced, but space forbids my entering on the controversy here.

[823] Diog. Laert. Vit. Epim. XI.

[824] Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1866, pl. 3. The ‘patriarchal couple’ are, I incline to think, rightly explained by Dr Svoronos (Journal d’Archéol. et Num. 1901, p. 503) as Asklepios and Hygieia, but as for my purpose it is not necessary to name them, and as the evidence is too detailed to be resumed here, I prefer not to go beyond the inscription.

[825] I follow Prof. Ridgeway in holding that Apollo and his sister Artemis belong to the immigrant Achaean stock, see p. 31, note 1.

[826] Heydemann, Cat. 108. Raoul Rochette, Mon. Inéd. pl. 37.

[827] Eur. Ion 5.

[828] The evidence for this I have collected elsewhere, see ‘Delphika,’ B. The Omphalos, J.H.S. 1899, XIX. 225.

[829] A. Mitt. 1887, Taf. XII.

[830] Plut. de defect. orac. 1.

[831] P. VI. 20. 7.

[832] P. VIII. 4. 9.

[833] P. III. 26. 5

[834] P. III. 15. 3.

[835] Theocr. Id. XVIII. 38.

[836] Inv. C.A. 617. Published by M. L. Couve, Revue Archéologique, 1898, p. 213, figs. 1 and 2, and discussed by Dr Blinkenberg, 1898, p. 398.

[837] P. III. 18. 15.

[838] Dr S. Wide, ‘Mykenische Götterbilder und Idole,’ A. Mitt. 1901, p. 247, Pl. XII.

[839] P. II. 13. 3.

[840] P. VIII. 35. 8.

[841] For the bear-service of Artemis and the bear dedicated to her, see Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, p. 403.

[842] The materials for the study of hero-worship are well collected in Roscher’s Lexicon, s.v. Heroes, and for English readers there is an excellent survey in Mr W. H. D. Rouse’s Greek Votive Offerings, c. I. In the pages that follow I confine myself for the most part to such aspects of hero-worship as affect my main argument, and to certain evidence from art which seems to me to have been neglected, or misunderstood. I must also note that, advisedly, I only deal with the ‘Making of a God’ in so far as the god developes out of the hero. The most important and far more difficult question of the relation between totemism and god-making, a problem for the solution of which Greek tradition provides but scanty material, I leave for the present untouched. It can only be decided by much wider anthropological investigation than is within my scope.

[843] A. Mitt. 1877, pl. XXII.

[844] For the ‘Timocles’ relief and for the whole class in general, see Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, p. 590, where I have discussed the influence of the typography of these hero-reliefs on Attic gravestones.

[845] H. Jumod, Les Barongas, p. 396, and see ‘Delphika,’ J.H.S. XIX. 1899, p. 216.

[846] Mr F. M. Cornford kindly points out to me that the bearded snake is not unknown to Greek literature. He is one of the many θαύματα that meet us in the life of Apollonius of Tyana, see Philostr. Vit. Apoll. III. 7 and 8. These snakes belong to the wonder land of India.

[847] Published and discussed, ‘Delphika,’ J.H.S. XIX. 1899, p. 229, figs. 9 and 10.

[848] Cat. 2458. J.H.S. 1899, p. 227, figs. 7 and 8. I have here discussed and rejected a possible mythological interpretation.

[849] Herod. IV. 172.

[850] Aesch. Choeph. 105.

[851] P. VI. 20. 3.

[852] Verg. Aen. V. 95.

[853] A. Conze, Reise in der Insel Lesbos, Pl. IV. fig. 5, p. 11.

[854] Ael. Hist. An. I. 51.

[855] Plut. Vit. Cleom. 39.

[856] Phot. s.v. ἥρως ποικίλος. After Christian days the notion started by the Olympian religion that the snake was bad was strengthened by association with the ‘old serpent’ of Semitic mythology. Mr R. C. Bosanquet kindly drew my attention to a curious survival of the belief that a bad soul takes the form of a snake in the account of the life and miracles of the fifth century saint, St Marcellus (Boll. Acta Sanctorum 1-3, vol. LXIII. of the whole series, pp. 259 and 267). It was related that a certain matron of noble family, but bad character, died and was buried with great pomp. ‘Ergo ad consumendum ejus cadaver coepit serpens immanissimus frequentare, et, ut dicam clarius, mulieri, cujus membra bestia devorabat, ipse draco factus est sepultura.’ St Marcellus subdued the snake by striking it thrice with his staff and putting his prayer-book on its head. To the present day among the Greeks an unbaptized child, who is not yet quite human (Χριστιανός), is sometimes spoken of as a snake-monster (δράκος) and is apt to disappear in snake form. For the δράκος see Abbott, Macedonian Folklore, p. 261.

[857] Herod. II. 51 θεοὺς ὅτι κόσμῳ θέντες. Herodotus according to the fashion of his day derives θεοί from the root θε, to put in order.

[858] Prof. Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece, vol. I. p. 339. Aristotle distinctly states that the region round Dodona was ‘ancient Greece,’ see Ar. Meteor. I. 12. 9 αὕτη δὲ (ἡ Ἑλλὰς ἡ ἀρχαία) ἐστὶν ἡ περὶ τὴν Δωδώνην καὶ τὸν Ἀχελῷον ... ᾤκουν γὰρ οἱ Σελλοὶ ἐνταῦθα καὶ οἱ καλούμενοι τότε μὲν Γραικοὶ νῦν δέ Ἕλληνες, see Prof. Bury, J.H.S. XV. p. 217.

[859] Hesych. s.v. ἥρως· δυνατός, ἰσχυρός, γενναῖος, σεμνός.

[860] Hom. Od. I. 29.

[861] I owe this explanation of ἀμύμων entirely to Mr Gilbert Murray.

[862] Hom. Od. XXIV. 80.

[863] Il. I. 423.

[864] Od. XII. 261.

[865] Od. XIX. 109.

[866] Il. VI. 171.

[867] Aesch. Choeph. 1586. Prof. Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece, vol. I. p. 97, has pointed out that Agamemnon and Menelaos were new-comers, and that Helen was of the indigenous stock. I venture to suggest that Aigisthos and Clytaemnestra belong also to the ‘Pelasgian’ stratum.

[868] Hom. Od. III. 267.

[869] P. II. 16. 7.

[870] Hom. Od. XI. 235.

[871] Hes. frg. ap. Schol. Pind. Pyth. IV. 253.

[872] Verg. Aen. VI. 585. Hygin. Fab. 61. Salmoneus, not Athamas, is I think represented on the Chicago vase (fig. 8) as holding the thunderbolt of Zeus; the vase has been rightly explained by Mr A. B. Cook, Cl. Rev. July 1903, p. 276. It will later (Chap. XI.) be shown that the canonical Hades was peopled by these heroes of an early racial stratum.

[873] Od. XI. 576.

[874] Strab. IX. 3 § 423.

[875] Od. VII. 323.

[876] P. X. 4. 10.

[877] P. V. 13. 3.

[878] Pind. Ol. I. 90 schol. ad loc.

[879] Schol. ad hyp. Nem. Ὁ ἀγὼν (τῶν Νεμέων) ἐπιτάφιος ἐπὶ Ἀρχεμόρῳ ... ὕστερον δὲ νικήσας Ἡρακλῆς ... ἐπεμελήθη τοῦ ἀγῶνος τὰ πολλὰ ἀνορθωσάμενος καὶ Διὸς εἶναι ἱερὸν ἐνομοθέτησε.

[880] P. III. 19. 3.

[881] Ar. Av. 1482, schol. ad loc. Athenaeus (XI. 4 § 461) gives the same account of the character of heroes: χαλεποὺς γὰρ καὶ πλήκτας τοὺς ἥρωας νομίζουσι.

[882] Hesych. s.v. κρείττονας.

[883] West African Studies, p. 132.

[884] Ar. Tagenist. frg. 1.

[885] Cat. 1407, from a photograph. For permission to publish this relief and those in figs. 102, 105, 106, my grateful thanks are due to Mr Kabbadios, Ephor of Antiquities at Athens.

[886] Cat. 1377, from a photograph.

[887] For the whole subject of ἐγκοίμησις see L. Deubner, De Incubatione capitula duo.

[888] Eur. Iph. in T. 1261.

[889] P. I. 34. 5.

[890] A. Mitt. 1893, p. 250. The introduction of the healer of Epidauros may have been connected with the great plague at Athens.

[891] A. Koerte, ‘Bezirk eines Heilgottes,’ A. Mitt. 1893, p. 237, and 1896, p. 311.

[892] Koerte, op. cit. Μνησιπτολέμη ὑπὲρ Δικαιοφάνους Ἀσκληπιῷ Ἀμύνῳ ἀνέθηκε.

[893] Koerte, op. cit. ἄνδρες δίκαιοι γε[γόν]ασι περὶ τὰ κοινὰ τῶν ὀργεώνων τοῦ Ἀμύνου καὶ τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ καὶ τοῦ Δεξίονος ἐπαινέσαι κτλ.

[894] Etym. Mag. s.v. Δεξίων. It seems possible that by the οἰκία in which Sophocles received Asklepios is meant the Amyneion.

[895] Istr. frg. 51.

[896] Koerte, op. cit. ἐπὶ ἱερέως Σοφοκλέους τοῦ Φιλώτου.

[897] Cf. P. VIII. 8. 4, II. 10. 3, III. 23. 7.

[898] Prof. Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece, vol. I. p. 640.

[899] Usener, Die Sinflutsagen, p. 58, draws attention to the hypocoristic form Ἡρύκαλος, see Hesych. s.v. τὸν Ἡρακλέα Σώφρων ὑποκοριστικῶς, and supposes an old Greek diminutive καλος = Lat. culus, homunculus, Herculus.

[900] See p. 12.

[901] Diod. Sic. IV. 40 τὴν Ἥραν ἀναβᾶσαν ἐπὶ κλίνην καὶ τὸν Ἡρακλέα προσλαβομένην πρὸς τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἐνδυμάτων ἀφεῖναι πρὸς τὴν γῆν μιμουμένην τὴν ἀληθινὴν γένεσιν· ὅπερ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν ποιεῖν τοὺς βαρβάρους ὅταν θετὸν υἱὸν ποιεῖσθαι βούλωνται.

[902] Rosch. Lex. s.v. Herakles, ‘Apotheose,’ p. 2239.

[903] Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχ. 1890, Pl. VII.

[904] Schol. ad Ar. Nub. 508 ἐν Λεβαδείᾳ ἱερὸν ἐστὶ Τροφωνίου ὅπου ὄφις ἦν ὁ μαντευόμενος ᾧ οἱ κατοικοῦντες πλακοῦντας ἔβαλλον μέλιτι δεδευομένους. The women in the fourth Mime of Herondas (v. 90) offer a pelanos to the snake of Asklepios.

[905] Berl. Cat. 3155. Jahrb. d. Inst., Anzeiger, 1890, p. 89.

[906] Plat. Legg. 717 A. The Olympian gods do not here concern us, but it may be worth noting that the gods who keep the state τοὺς τὴν πόλιν ἔχοντας θεούς, who are classed with the Olympians as of the first rank, seem to correspond with the ἀστυνόμοι and ἀγοραῖοι of Aeschylus (Ag. 90) who take rank with the οὐράνιοι. Some gods wherever found were Olympian, e.g. Zeus and Apollo; others though not Pan-Hellenically recognised took rank as such locally, e.g. Demeter.

[907] Hes. Erg. 109.

[908] There are several instances in the National Museum at Athens and ‘Hero-Feasts’ have been carved on sarcophagi which are still in the courtyard of the local museum at Paros.

[909] Inv. 55, see Dr Wiegand, ‘Antike Sculpturen in Samos,’ A. Mitt. 1900, p. 176.

[910] Inv. 60.

[911] See Dr Wiegand, op. cit. p. 180.

[912] See Dr Verrall, ‘Death and the Horse,’ J.H.S., XVIII. 1898, p. 1.

[913] Roscher, s.v. Heros, p. 2559, No. 5. A better reproduction in phototype has been published by Dr Chr. Blinkenberg, ‘Et Attisk Votivrelief,’ Festskrift til J. L. Ussing, Kopenhagen, 1900. I follow Dr Ussing’s view (kindly translated for me by Dr Martin Nilsson).

[914] P. I. 22. 1-3, see Dr Frazer ad loc., and Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, p. 328.

[915] Eur. Hipp. 26 ff., trans. Mr Gilbert Murray. For Aphrodite Endemos, Love-at-Home, see Dr Verrall, Cl. Rev., Dec. 1901, p. 449. Dr Svoronos makes the interesting suggestion that the sanctuary founded by Phaedra may have been on the site later occupied by the temple of Nike Apteros, and that the Wingless Victory may have been a title rather of Aphrodite than the Athene. See Journal International d’Archéologie, 1901, p. 459.

[916] Cat. 95, published and fully discussed by Prof. Furtwängler, ‘Ein sogenanntes Todtenmahlrelief mit Inschrift,’ Sitzungsberichte d. k. Bay. Ak. d. Wissenschaften, Philos.-Philolog. Klasse 1897, p. 401.

[917] Hesych. s.v.

[918] Plat. Legg. VI. 784 D.

[919] Both reliefs are reproduced from photographs kindly given me by the German Archaeological Institute. The relief to Zeus Philios was found near the Hill of the Nymphs at Athens (C.I.A. II. 1330), that to the Agathos Daimon at Thespiae (C.I.A. I. 1815).

[920] νὴ τὸν Φίλιον was a popular oath, cf. Ar. Acharn. 730. The omission of the proper name is significant.

[921] Diod. Sinop. frg. ap. Athen. VI. 2396. Meineke, F.C.G. III. p. 543.

[922] Cat. 1500. Both designs in figs. 110 and 111 are reproduced from photographs.

[923] The most recent account of this much discussed relief is by Dr Studniczka, ‘Ueber das Schauspielerrelief aus dem Peiraeus,’ in Mélanges Perrot, p. 307. The relief was first published A. Mittheilungen 1882, Taf. 14, p. 389; see also Hermes 1887, p. 336. A. Mitt. 1888, p. 221. Reisch, Weihgeschenke, p. 23. Jahrbuch d. Inst. 1896, p. 104. A. Mitt. 1896, p. 362.

[924] Dr Studniczka (op. cit. supra) has made a very close examination of the objects held, and attempts, I do not think successfully, to deduce therefrom the dramatic characters impersonated. The object held by the last figure to the left as well as his face is obliterated. It is sufficient for our purpose that it is clear from the middle figure they are actors.

[925] From a photograph. There are similar reliefs not quite so well preserved in the Louvre and in the British Museum (Cat. 176). A complete list of those extant is given by Hauser, Die Neu-attischen Reliefs, Anhang, p. 189. The earliest specimen, more nearly approaching the ‘Hero-Relief,’ and so marked by the presence of a snake, is published Arch. Zeit. 1882, Taf. XIV., and I have already discussed it, Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, p. xlv, fig. 7.

[926] Herod. V. 67. I owe this important reference to the article Heros in Roscher’s Lexicon, p. 2492, but Dr Deneken calls no attention to its significance in relation to Dionysos.

[927] J.H.S. V. p. 116. Prof. Percy Gardner explains the coin as belonging to Asklepios: my suggestion is made with the utmost diffidence as differing from so great an authority on numismatics.

[928] Mr A. G. Bather in an interesting article on ‘The Problem of the Bacchae’ (J.H.S. XIV. 1894, p. 263) concludes that the myths of the introduction of Dionysos ‘do not find their origin in any introduction of the god from without, but in the yearly inbringing of the new statue.’

[929] Berlin, Cat. 1704. Mon. d. Inst. 1873 vol. IX. Pl. LV. W. Helbig, Annali 1873, p. 106. The curious inscriptions do not here concern us.

[930] Wiener Vorlegeblätter, Serie D, Taf. 1 and 2. The vase is now in the Municipal Museum at Corneto.

[931] Il. VI. 129.

[932] Soph. Ant. 955.

[933] Ar. Thesm. 135, schol. ad loc.

[934] Naples. Heydemann, Cat. 3237. Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, pp. 260, 261, figs. 11 and 12.

[935] Herod. VII. 110.

[936] Strabo VII. § 318.

[937] Strabo frg. VII.

[938] Paulinus Nol. carm. xxx. de reditu Niket. Episc. in Daciam.

Nam simul terris animisque duri et sua Bessi nive duriores nunc oves facti duce te gregantur pacis in aulam. quasque cervices dare servituti semper a bello indomiti negarant nunc iugo veri domini subactas sternere gaudent. nunc magis dives pretio laboris Bessus exultat, quod humi manuque ante quaerebat, modo mente caeli colligit aurum. ... mos ubi quondam fuerat ferarum, nunc ibi ritus viget angelorum et latet justus quibus ipse latro vixit in antris.

For this and many other valuable references about the Bessi, I am indebted to Dr Tomaschek’s article ‘Ueber Brumalia und Rosalia,’ Sitzungsber. d. K. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl., Wien 1868, p. 351.

[939] Thucyd. II. 96.

[940] Plin. N.H. IV. 18. 11. 40.

[941] Eur. Bacch. 13.

[942] Eur. Bacch. 65.

[943] Ib. 152.

[944] Plut. Vit. Alex. 2.

[945] Eur. Bacch. 565.

[946] To Euripides in the Bacchae Dionysos is the god of the grape. The vine probably came from Asia, though about this experts do not seem to be agreed, see Schrader, Real-lexicon; but Dionysos, as will later be shown, is earlier than the coming of the vine.

[947] Eur. Bacch. 519.

[948] Ib. 530.

[949] B.M. Cat. E 695. Mon. d. Inst. 1833 tav. L.

[950] Strabo X. 3 § 470.

[951] Strabo frg. 25.

[952] For the orientalism of the Theban character and legends, see Mr D. G. Hogarth, Philip and Alexander, p. 34.

[953] Herod. V. 7.

[954] Sappho, frg. 66.

[955] Wiener Vorlegeblätter, Serie II. Taf. iii., iv. An even earlier source is the Corinthian vase published by Dr Löschke, A. Mitt. 1894, p. 524, Taf. viii.

[956] Od. VII. 265.

[957] Soph. Oed. Tyr. 209.

[958] Eur. Bacch. 1356.

[959] Ib. 302.

[960] Polyaen. Strat. I. 1.

[961] This remarkable frieze is in the local museum at Delphi and is not as yet completely published.

[962] Herod. V. 3.

[963] Soph. frg. 782 ap. Strab. XV. 687.

[964] Eur. Bacch. 556.

[965] Diod. III. 4.

[966] Ib. 65.

[967] Diod. IV. 3.

[968] This was first, I believe, observed by Dr Head (Hist. Num. p. 176). In discussing the coinage of Lete in Macedonia he says: ‘The coin types all refer to the orgiastic rites practised in the worship of the mountain Bacchus, which originated in the country of the Satrae or Satyrs’ (Herod. VII. 111).

[969] Prof. Ridgeway (Early Age of Greece, vol. I. p. 343) identifies the Orreskii of the coins with the Orestae of Strabo (§ 434). He thinks the slight difference in form is due to a copyist’s mistake of τ for κ.

[970] Head, Hist. Num. p. 176.

[971] Nonnus, Dionys. XIII. 43

καὶ λασίων Σατύρων Κενταυρίδος αἷμα γενέθλης.

[972] Il. I. 262

κάρτιστοι μὲν ἔσαν καὶ καρτίστοις ἐμάχοντο φηρσὶν ὀρεσκῴοισι.

[973] Il. II. 711

ὅτε φῆρας ἐτίσατο λαχνήεντας τοὺς δ’ ἐκ Πηλίου ὦσε καὶ Αἰθίκεσσι πέλασσεν.

[974] Od. XXI. 303 ἐξ οὗ Κενταύροισι καὶ ἀνδράσι νεῖκος ἐτύχθη.

[975] Boston, Inv. No. 6508. American Journal of Archaeology 1900, pl. VI. p. 441. The vase belongs to the class usually called ‘proto-Corinthian.’ Mr J. C. Hopkins prefers to call it ‘Argive.’

[976] J.H.S. vol. I. p. 130, fig. 1, published and discussed with other art representations by Mr Sidney Colvin.

[977] It is, it would seem, a mere chance that we have not what might be called a ‘fish Centaur.’ On an early black-figured vase (R. Mitt. II. 1887, Taf. viii.) we have a series of men represented as completely human, not with the body ending in fish tails, but with an extra fish tail added to the complete human body. These are the natural monster-forms of a people dwelling on the sea-coast.

[978] P. V. 19. 9.

[979] Pind. Pyth. III. 5.

[980] B.M. Cat. B 620. J.H.S. vol. I. pl. ii. p. 132.

[981] Early Age of Greece, vol. I. p. 177.

[982] An analogous case to the Satyrs and Centaurs has already been noted (p. 172), i.e. the Keres, regarded as Telchines, and of monstrous forms; and still more clear is the case of the Kyklopes (p. 190), barbarous monsters yet builders and craftsmen.

[983] Pind. frg. 44.

[984] J.H.S. I. Pl. ii. Engelmann, Bilder-Atlas, 110.

[985] The animal form assumed by Dionysos was (as will later be shown, p. 432) that of a bull. Had his own worshippers invented the monstrous Satyrs, they would probably have chosen the bull shape. With the horse Dionysos, unlike his attendants, has no affinities.

[986] Würzburg, No. 354. Mon. d. Inst. X. 8 a. Myth. and Mon. Ancient Athens, p. lxxix.

[987] The literature of this controversy is fully given and discussed by Dr K. Wernicke, ‘Bockschöre und Satyrdrama,’ Hermes XXXII. 1897, p. 29.

[988] Since the above was written I see with great pleasure that Dr Emil Reisch in his article ‘Zur Vorgeschichte der attischen Tragödie’ (Festschrift Theodor Gomperz 1902, p. 459) reasserts the old view that the horse-demons of the vases are Satyrs.

[989] Hes. frg. CXXIX.

[990] Plut. Vit. Alex. 2. For many references as to the Maenads I am indebted to the articles by Dr A. Rapp, ‘Die Maenade in gr. Cultus in der Kunst und Poesie,’ Rhein. Mus. 1872, pp. 1 and 562, and for references to the Thyiades to Dr Weniger’s Das Collegium der Thyiaden.

[991] Plut. de Superstit. X.

Μαινάδα Θυιάδα Φοιβάδα Λυσσάδα.

[992] Eur. Bacch. 977.

[993] Aesch. Eum. 22.

[994] Aesch. Eum. 19.

[995] P. X. 19. 3.

[996] Hermitage, Cat. 1807.

[997] Aesch. Eum. 1.

[998] See Dr Verrall, Euripides the Rationalist, p. 223. The same theological euphemism is observable in the Hymn to Dionysos recently discovered at Delphi and which will be discussed later (p. 417). Here there is a manifest attempt to fuse the worship of Apollo and Dionysos. Dionysos even adopts the characteristic Apolline title of Paean.

[999] P. X. 4. 2.

[1000] P. X. 6. 2.

[1001] P. X. 32. 7.

[1002] De Is. et Os. 35. Herodotus (VII. 178) mentions an altar of the winds at Delphi in a place called Thyia, which was the temenos of the heroine, who may herself have been a raging wind. The same precinct, we know from an inscription found at Delphi, was called Thyiai. See E. Bourguet, Mélanges Perrot, p. 25.

[1003] Plut. de prin. frig. XVIII.

[1004] Plut. de mul. virt. XIII.

[1005] Eur. Bacch. 683.

[1006] Plut. de Ei apud Delph. XX. 1 Φοῖβον δὲ δή που τὸ καθαρὸν καὶ ἁγνὸν οἱ παλαιοὶ πᾶν ὠνόμαζον ὡς ἔτι Θεσσαλοὶ τοὺς ἱερέας ἐν ταῖς ἀποφράσιν ἡμέραις αὐτοὺς ἐφ’ ἑαυτῶν ἔξω διατρίβοντας οἶμαι φοιβονομεῖσθαι, see J.H.S. XIX. p. 241.

[1007] Aesch. Eum. 6.

[1008] On a curious ‘Tyrrhenian’ amphora (Gerhard, Auserlesene Vasenbilder 220), the scene of the slaying of Troilos is represented. This took place according to tradition in the Thymbraean sanctuary. The sanctuary is indicated by a regular omphalos covered by a fillet and against it is inscribed βωμός.

[1009] Aesch. Ag. 1275.

[1010] Eur. Hec. 827

ἡ Φοιβὰς ἣν καλοῦσι Κασσάνδραν Φρύγες.

[1011] Eur. Bacch. 664

βάκχας ποτνιάδας εἰσιδών, αἳ τῆσδε γῆς οἴστροισι λευκὸν κῶλον ἐξηκόντισαν.

Mr Murray’s translation preserves the twofold connotation of the word, purity and inspired madness.

[1012] Phot. Bibl. V. 533ᵇ ὅτι τὸ ποτνιᾶσθαι κυριώτερον ἐπὶ γυναῖκας τάττεταί φησιν ὅταν κακόν τι πάσχῃ καὶ θήλειαν ἱκετεύῃ θεόν. ποτνιώμενον δὲ ἄνδρα ἄν τις εἴπῃ ἁμαρτάνει.

[1013] Diod. IV. 3.

[1014] Oed. Col. 670, trans. by Mr D. S. MacColl.

[1015] First published by Kondolleon, Ath. Mitt. XV. (1890) p. 330, discussed by E. Maass, Hermes XXVI. (1891) p. 178, and S. Reinach, Rev. des Études grecques III. (1890) p. 349, and O. Kern, Beiträge zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie und Religion, Berlin 1895.

[1016] ἀφίδρυμα Διονύσου.

[1017]

ὄφρα λάβητε Μαινάδας αἱ γενεῆς Εἰνοῦς ἀπὸ Καδμηείης. αἳ δ’ ὑμῖν δώσουσι καὶ ὄργια καὶ νόμιμ’ ἐσθλά.

[1018] Plut. Vit. Alex. 2.

[1019] Munich. Jahn, Cat. 382. Greek Vase Paintings, J. E. Harrison and D. S. MacColl, pl. XV. Baumeister, Ab. 928.

[1020] J.H.S. XIX. p. 220, fig. 6.

[1021] Head, Hist. Num. p. 461, fig. 287.

[1022] Plut. Vit. Sol. XII. Epimenides is as it were a historical Orpheus. Coming from Crete, he, like Orpheus (p. 460), modified Dionysiac ritual.

[1023] Plut. Vit. Sol. XXI.

[1024] Eur. Bacch. 485.

[1025] Oed. Col. 674, see p. 369.

[1026] De Isid. et Os. XXXV. καὶ θύουσιν οἱ Ὅσιοι θυσίαν ἀπόρρητον ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ὅταν αἱ Θυιάδες ἐγείρωσι τὸν Λικνίτην.

[1027] The verb θυίω is used of the excited beating of the heart under strong emotion, e.g. Ap. Rhod. III. 754

πυκνὰ δέ οἱ κραδίη στηθέων ἔντοσθεν ἔθυιεν.

[1028] Plut. Q. Gr. XII. τῆς δὲ Ἡρωΐδος τὰ πλεῖστα μυστικὸν ἔχει λόγον ὃν ἴσασιν αἱ Θυιάδες, ἐκ δὲ τῶν δρωμένων φανερῶς Σεμέλης ἄν τις ἀναγωγὴν εἰκάσειε.

[1029] Eur. Bacch. 375

τὸν Βρόμιον τὸν Σεμέλας.

v. 580

ὁ Σεμέλας, ὁ Διὸς παῖς.

v. 278

ὁ Σεμέλης γόνος.

[1030] Ramsay, Journal of Asiatic Soc. XV. 1883, pp. 120 ff., and Latischew, Für vergleichende Sprachforschung, vol. XXVIII. pp. 381 ff. The inscriptions are explained and discussed in relation to Semele by Dr Paul Kretschmer, ‘Semele und Dionysos,’ in Aus der Anomia (Berlin 1890), and to him I owe entirely the view adopted in the text.

[1031] P. VI. 20. 9.

[1032] I regret to be obliged to reproduce the publication of Tischbein (Greek Vases I. 39). As regards style it is obviously inadequate. The vase has been examined by Mr Cecil Smith (Jahrbuch d. Inst. 1891, p. 120, note 17) and the reproduction of Tischbein is pronounced by him to be as regards subject-matter substantially correct.

[1033] B.M. Cat. vol. III. E 182, cf. C. Robert, Archäologische Mährchen 161. Dr Robert explains the vase as the birth of Dionysos from the well-nymph Dirce, but vase-paintings offer no analogy to the representation of a well-nymph as a figure rising from the ground.

[1034] Cf. Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, p. xxxix.

[1035] Heydemann, Cat. St Angelo Coll. 172. Gerhard, Ges. Abh. Taf. LXVIII. The authenticity of the inscriptions has been questioned. I examined them last year in the Naples Museum and see no ground for suspicion.

[1036] An inscription of the 5th century B.C. recently discovered shows that at Thebes there was an actual sanctuary of Earth. It runs as follows: ἱαρὸν Γᾶς Μακαίρας Τελεσσφόρο. The titles μάκαιρα and τελεσφόρος are applied to Ge in the Orphic Hymn (xxvi. 1 and 10). See Bull. de Corr. Hell. 1901, p. 363.

[1037] Soph. Ant. 1139.

[1038] Eur. Hipp. 555.

[1039] Eur. Bacch. 1.

[1040] Such places were, if we may trust the Etymologicon Magnum, called ἐνηλύσια, which at least in popular etymology was believed to mean ‘Places of Advent.’ They are thus defined: ἐνηλύσια λέγεται εἰς ἃ κεραυνὸς εἰσβέβηκεν ἃ καὶ ἀνατίθεται Διῒ καταιβάτῃ καὶ λέγεται ἄδυτα καὶ ἄβατα.

[1041] P. IX. 16. 7.

[1042] Plut. Q. Gr. XXXVIII.

[1043] Lydus, de mens. IV. 96.

[1044] Eur. Bacch. 594.

[1045] Eur. Bacch. 1082.

[1046] Aristot. περὶ θαυμ. 122.

[1047] Pind. Pyth. III. 77 and schol. ad loc.

[1048] I have collected and discussed some instances of these in my article ‘Delphika,’ J.H.S. XIX. 1899, p. 238.

[1049] P. VIII. 31. 4, and at Gythium, P. III. 22. 1.

[1050] Porph. Vit. Pyth. XVII.

[1051] Dr Kretschmer (Aus der Anomia p. 23) has shown that in all probability the second half of the name Dionysos (-νυσος) means ‘son’ or ‘young man’: it is the cognate of Lat. nurus and of Gr. νύμφη, which in the compound κακόνυμφος (Eur. Alc. 206, 990) appears in masculine form. On the fragment of an early black-figured vase signed by Sophilos, three nymphs appear with the inscription Νῦσαι which seems equivalent to κόραι or νύμφαι or παρθένοι (A. Mitt. XIV. Taf. i.). Aristophanes seems to have vaguely felt or imagined some connection between the last half of the word and Nysa, the birthplace of the god, in his Νυσήιον Διὸς Διόνυσον (Ran. 215) echoed by Apollonius Rhodius in Διὸς Νυσήιον υἷα (Arg. IV. 1132). Dionysos then is practically either Διόσκουρος, a term of wide application, or possibly child of the tribe of Dioi (see p. 372). Dr Kretschmer further points out that the fluctuation in inscriptions between ι and ε (Δεόνυσος and Διόνυσος) is best accounted for by Thracian origin, as the Thracians appear to have had a vowel which was not exactly either, and was indifferently rendered in Greek by both. Probably then, though not certainly, Dionysos brought his name with him from the North.

[1052] Jahrbuch des Inst. 1891, Taf. I. Sufficient fragments of the vase remain to show that the scene represented was the presentation of Dionysos to the Olympians.

[1053] Eur. Bacch. 535.

[1054] Eur. Bacch. 416.

[1055] Ar. Ran. 331.

[1056] Preller (3rd ed. p. 665) goes so far as to say ‘Βρόμιος scheint nur poetisches Beiwort zu sein.’

[1057] Pind. frg. 45

τὸν Βρόμιον τὸν Ἐριβόαν τε καλέομεν.

[1058] Pind. Ol. II. 27

ζώει μὲν ἐν Ὀλυμπίοις ἀποθανοῦσα βρόμῳ κεραυνοῦ τανυέθειρα Σεμέλα.

[1059] Strabo X. p. 470.

[1060] Anthol. Pal. IX. 368

Εἰς οἶνον ἀπὸ κριθῆς.

Τίς; πόθεν εἶς Διόνυσε; μὰ γὰρ τὸν ἀληθέα Βάκχον οὔ σ’ ἐπιγιγνώσκω· τὸν Διὸς οἶδα μόνον. κεῖνος νέκταρ ὄδωδε, σὺ δὲ τράγον· ἦ ῥά σε Κελτοὶ τῇ πενίῃ βοτρύων τεῦξαν ἀπ’ ἀσταχύων. τῷ σε χρὴ καλέειν Δημήτριον, οὐ Διόνυσον, πυρογενῆ μᾶλλον καὶ βρόμον οὐ Βρόμιον.

The epigram is discussed and the play on πυριγενῆ, πυρογενῆ, βρόμος and Βρόμιος rightly observed by Hehn (Kulturpflanzen, 6th ed. p. 147), and to his book and Schrader’s Reallexicon I am indebted for many references. Hehn misses the point of τράγος but it was noted long ago by Couring in the Thesaurus of Stephanos (2342 B) s.v. τράγος. He remarks apropos of the epigram: ‘non hircum sed ex olyra et tritico confectum panem.’ See also Dr W. Headlam, Cl. Rev. 1901, p. 23.

[1061] Mr Francis Darwin kindly tells me that τράγος is said to be a kind of wheat known now as triticum amylaeum. It is akin to spelt, triticum spelta, the ancient ζεία. βρόμος is some form of oats, in modern Greek βρώμη. It is of interest to note that in the 4th century B.C. βρόμος was an important cereal accounted as more wholesome than barley. This is clear from the words of the physician Dieuches: γίνεται δὲ ἄλφιτον καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ βρόμου. φρύγεται δὲ σὺν τῷ ἀχύρῳ πᾶν. ἀποπήσσεταί τε καὶ τρίβεται καὶ ἐρύκεται καθάπερ καὶ τὸ κρίθινον ἄλφιτον. τοῦτο τὸ ἄλφιτον κρεῖττον καὶ ἀφυσώτερόν ἐστι τοῦ κριθίνου (xxi. veter. et clar. medic. Graec. var. opusc. ed. F. de Matthaei, Mosquae 1808, p. 39; see Hehn, Kulturpfl. 7th edit. p. 553). By the time of Galen it seems to have fallen into comparative disuse, displaced probably by the richer cereals. He says (de aliment. facult. I. 14): τροφὴ δ’ ἐστὶν ὑποζυγίων οὐκ ἀνθρώπων, εἰ μή ποτε ἄρα λιμώττοντες ἐσχάτως ἀναγκασθεῖεν, ἐκ τούτου τοῦ σπέρματος. The modern history of oats presents a close analogy. Displaced in the south by the richer wheat it remains the staple food of the northern Scot, and is the food of cattle only in the south.

[1062] H. Weil, Bull. de Corr. Hell. XIX. p. 401

[Δεῦρ’ ἄνα Δ]ιθύραμβε, Βάκχ’, ε[ὔϊε θυρσῆ]ρες, Βραϊ- τά, Βρόμι(ε), ἠρινα[ῖς ἱκοῦ ταῖσδ(ε)] ἱεραῖς ἐν ὥραις.

Dr Weil suggests “faut-il le rattacher à Ϝραίω = ῥαίω et l’expliquer ‘celui qui frappe et qui brise’?”

[1063] Ducange s.v. braisum: grana ad conficiendam braisum cerevisiam praeparata.

[1064] Dem. de Cor. 313.

[1065] Theophr. Char. LXXVII.

[1066] Clem. Al. Protr. II. Arnob. c. gent. V. p. 170.

[1067] Diod. IV. 4.

[1068] Strab. X. 3 § 471.

[1069] Ar. Av. 875

καὶ φρυγίλῳ Σαβαζίῳ καὶ στρουθῷ μεγάλῃ μητρὶ θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων.

[1070] Ar. Lys. 388.

[1071] Ar. Vesp. 5-12. The word βουκολεῖς (v. 6) points to the βουκόλοι, priests or attendants of the bull-Dionysos.

[1072] Ammian. Marcell. 26. 8. 2: est autem sabaia ex ordeo vel frumento in liquorem conversis paupertinus in Illyrico potus. O. Schrader, Reallexikon p. 89, points out that the derivation of Sabazios from sabaia is possible, if the view of Kretschmer (Einleitung p. 195) be accepted that Sabazios represents an earlier Savadios; he compares the old Gallic divinity Braciaca ‘God of Malt.’ Mr A. B. Cook kindly drew my attention to the remark of De Vit in his edition of Forcellini’s Lexicon, s.v. sabaia: ‘unde etiam zabaion vulgo apud nostrates’ (Venetos?).

[1073] Hieron. Com. 7 in Is. cap. 19: quod genus est potionis ex frugibus aquaque confectum et vulgo in Dalmatiae Pannoniaeque provinciis gentili barbaroque sermone appellatur sabaium.

[1074] This was first observed by Grimm (Geschichte d. d. Sprache p. 66), see Hehn, Kulturpflanzen, 7th edit. p. 550, but Hehn’s explanation of the custom does not seem satisfactory. Our custom of calling inferior varieties of plants by dog-names, e.g. Dog-Rose, Dog-Violet, seems analogous.

[1075] For the group of words denoting ‘dregs’ e.g. O.P. dragios, with which τρυγῳδία is connected, see Schrader, Prehistoric Antiquities p. 322, and Hehn, Kulturpflanzen p. 159.

[1076] For the literature of this protracted controversy see U. v. Wilamowitz, Eur. Her. I. p. 32; A. Körte, Jahrbuch d. Inst. 1893, VIII. p. 61; Löschke, A. Mitt. XV. 1894, p. 518; K. Wernicke, Hermes 1897, p. 290; Bethe, Proleg. p. 48. My own view was first suggested in the Classical Rev. July 1902, p. 331.

[1077] Aesch. frg. 190 ap. Plut. Mor. p. 86 τοῦ δὲ σατύρου τὸ πῦρ ὡς πρῶτον ὤφθη βουλομένου φιλῆσαι καὶ περιλαβεῖν ὁ Προμηθεύς

τράγος γένειον ἆρα πενθήσεις σύγε.

[1078] Porph. de antr. nymph. 7.

[1079] Plat. Symp. § 203.

[1080] Plut. Symp. IV. 6.

[1081] Brugsch, Religion und Mythologie d. alten Egypter, p. 647.

[1082] Xen. Anab. IV. 5. 26 ἐνῆσαν δὲ καὶ αὐταὶ αἱ κριθαὶ ἰσοχειλεῖς.

[1083] Lasicius, De Diis Sarmagitarum, p. 44.

[1084] Archil. frg. ap. Athen. X. 67 § 447. Bergk 32

ὥσπερ παρ’ αὐλῷ βρῦτον ἢ Θρῆιξ ἀνὴρ ἢ Φρὺξ ἔβρυζε.

[1085] Aesch. frg. 123 ap. Athen. loc. cit.

[1086] Diod. V. 26.

[1087] In the north as to-day the Beer-god retained his supremacy. It is interesting to note that the British saint, St Brigida, re-performed the miracle of Cana with the characteristically northern modification that she turned the water into excellent beer: Christi autem ancilla videns quia tunc illico non poterat invenire cerevisiam, aquam ad balneum portatam benedixerit et in optimam cerevisiam conversa est a Deo et abundanter sitientibus propinata est. Acta SS. Febr. I. Vita IV. S. Brigidae cap. IV. quoted by Hehn, op. cit. p. 149. In the Egyptian Book of the Dead (Chap. CX.) the desire of the soul is for cakes and ale.

[1088] Hehn, Kulturpflanzen, 7th edit. p. 154.

[1089] Eur. Hipp. 141.

[1090] Plut. de Is. et Osir. LXIX. Φρύγες δὲ τὸν θεὸν οἰόμενοι χειμῶνος καθεύδειν, θέρους δ’ ἐγρηγορέναι, τότε μὲν κατευνασμούς, τότε δ’ ἀνεγέρσεις βακχεύοντες αὐτῷ τελοῦσι. Παφλαγόνες δὲ καταδεῖσθαι καὶ καθείργνυσθαι χειμῶνος, ἦρος δὲ κινεῖσθαι καὶ ἀναλύεσθαι φάσκουσι. The earlier portion of this passage deals with the analogous cult of Demeter (p. 128) already discussed.

[1091] Berlin, Cat. 2290. Wiener Vorlegeblätter, Serie A, Taf. VI.

[1092] Plut. Quaest. R. CXII.

[1093] Pliny N.H. XVI. 62.

[1094] Eur. Bacch. 55.

[1095] Annali d. Inst. 1862, Tav. d’agg. C.

[1096] Perdrizet, Bull. de Corr. Hell. 1900, p. 322.

[1097] Plut. de Is. et Os. XXXV. ὅτι δ’ οὐ μόνον τοῦ οἴνου Διόνυσον ἀλλὰ καὶ πάσης ὑγρᾶς φύσεως Ἕλληνες ἡγοῦνται κύριον καὶ ἀρχηγὸν ἀρκεῖ Πίνδαρος μάρτυς εἶναι λέγων·

Δενδρέων δὲ νόμον Διόνυσος πολυγηθής αὐξάνοι ἁγνὸν φέγγος ὀπώρας.

[1098] Plut. Symp. IX. 14. 4.

[1099] Eur. Bacch. 274.

[1100] The doctrine of Teiresias was wide-spread in Greece by the time of Diodorus. He says (IV. 3): καθόλου δὲ μυθολογοῦσι τῶν θεῶν μεγίστης ἀποδοχῆς τυγχάνειν παρ’ ἀνθρώποις τοὺς ταῖς εὐεργεσίαις ὑπερβαλομένους κατὰ τὴν εὕρεσιν τῶν ἀγαθῶν Διόνυσόν τε καὶ Δήμητρα, τὸν μὲν τοῦ προσηνεστάτου ποτοῦ γενόμενον εὑρέτην, τὴν δὲ τῆς ξηρᾶς τροφῆς τὴν κρατίστην παραδοῦσαν τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

[1101] Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, pp. 44-50.

[1102] B.M. Cat. B 264. Gerhard, Auserlesene Vasenbilder, Taf. 38.

[1103] Eur. Bacch. 99.

[1104] Eur. Bacch. 918.

[1105] Eur. Bacch. 1017

φάνηθι ταῦρος ἢ πολύκρανος ἰδεῖν δράκων ἢ πυριφλέγων ὁρᾶσθαι λέων.

[1106] Schol. ad Lyc. Al. 1237 κερατοφοροῦσι γὰρ καὶ αὗται κατὰ μίμησιν Διονύσου, ταυρόκρανος γὰρ φαντάζεται καὶ ζωγραφεῖται.

[1107] Plut. de Is. et Os. XXXV.

[1108] Athen. § 425 C.

[1109] Soph. Trach. 9.

[1110] Soph. frg. 548.

[1111] Archäologische Zeitung XVI. (1883), Taf. 11. This vase is now in the Louvre.

[1112] Gerhard, Auserlesene Vasenbilder, Taf. 47.

[1113] Eur. Bacch. 519.

[1114] Plato Legg. III. 700 B ἄλλο εἶδος ᾠδῆς Διονύσου γένεσις, οἶμαι, διθύραμβος λεγόμενος.

[1115] Pind. Ol. XIII. 18

ταὶ Διωνύσου πόθεν ἐξέφανεν σὺν βοηλάτᾳ χάριτες διθυράμβῳ;

[1116] Plut. Q. Gr. XXXVI.

Ἐλθεῖν ἥρω Διόνυσε Ἀλείων ἐς ναόν, ἁγνὸν σὺν χαρίτεσσιν ἐς ναὸν τῷ βοέῳ ποδὶ θύων. Ἄξιε ταῦρε, ἄξιε ταῦρε.

[1117]

[Δεῦρ’ ἄνα Δ]ιθύραμβε, Βάκχ’, ε[ὔιε θυρσῆ]ρες, Βραϊ- τά, Βρόμι(ε), ἠρινα[ῖς ἱκοῦ ταῖσδ(ε)] ἱεραῖς ἐν ὥραις. Εὐοῖ ὦ ἰὸ [Βάκχ’ ὦ ἰὲ Παιὰ]ν [ὃ]ν Θήβαις ποτ’ ἐν εὐίαις Ζη[νὶ γείνατο] καλλίπαις Θυώνα. πάντες δ’ [ἀστέρες ἀγχ]όρευ- σαν, πάντες δὲ βροτοὶ χ[άρη- σαν σαῖς], Βάκχιε, γένναις.

I have followed throughout Dr H. Weil’s version.

[1118] Plut. de Is. et Os. XXXV.

[1119] Plut. de Ei ap. Delph. IX.

[1120] The suggestion that follows as to the connection of the word Dithyramb with Thriae is only given tentatively. It is also possible that the word Dithyramb may be of foreign origin. Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. vol. I. bk iii. p. 1093 D) tells of a goddess in Egypt, worshipped with orgiastic rites under the name Τίθραμβος. She was akin to Hecate (ἄλλοι δὲ τῇ Τιθράμβῳ Ἑκάτην ἑρμηνευομένην). Τίθραμβος may have come with other orgiastic elements from Crete to Thrace (see p. 460).

[1121] Suidas s.v. λέγουσι γὰρ θρίασιν τὴν τῶν ποιητῶν μανίαν.

[1122] Philoch. frg. 125 ap. Zenob. prov. cent. V. 75 Φιλόχορός φησιν ὅτι νύμφαι κατεῖχον τὸν Παρνασσὸν τροφοὶ Ἀπόλλωνος τρεῖς καλούμεναι Θριαί, ἀφ’ ὧν αἱ μαντικαὶ ψῆφοι θριαὶ καλοῦνται.

[1123] Hom. Hymn. ad Merc. 551-563. I accept Hermann’s reading Θριαί for Μοῖραι, cf. Gemoll ad loc.

[1124] For a full account of ‘the Bee in Greek Mythology’ see Mr A. B. Cook, J.H.S. XV. 1895, p. 1.

[1125] Eur. Hipp. 555.

[1126] θρίαμβος translated by the Romans into the plain prose of ‘triumph’ seems to have remained to the Greeks a poetical word consecrated to poetical usage. Conon says indeed of Tereus in telling the story of Philomela: τέμνει τὴν αὐτῆς γλῶσσαν δεδιὼς τὸν ἐκ λόγων θρίαμβον (Narrat. XXXI.), but the story and the usage of the word seem borrowed from some poetical source. Sir Richard Jebb kindly draws my attention to the fact that in our earliest literary mention of the thriambos (Kratinos, Koch frg. 36) it is apparently sung by a female singer:

ὅτε σὺ τοὺς καλοὺς θριάμβους ἀναρύτουσ’ ἀπηχθάνου.

[1127] See Mr Gilbert Murray, Euripides p. lxvii.

[1128] Eur. Bacch. 699.

[1129] Ib. 862.

[1130] Ib. 723.

[1131] Nietzsche has drawn in this respect a contrast, beautiful and profoundly true, between the religion and art of Apollo and Dionysos. Apollo, careful to remain his splendid self, projects an image, a dream, and calls it god. It is illusion (Schein), its watchword is limitation (Maass), Know thyself, Nothing too much. Dionysos breaks all bonds; his motto is the limitless (Uebermaass), Excess, Ecstasy. Das Individuum mit allen seinen Grenzen und Maassen ging hier in der Selbstvergessenheit der dionysischen Zustände unter, und vergass die apollinischen Satzungen (Nietzsche, Die Geburt der Tragödie, p. 37).

[1132] Ath. XI. 31 § 427.

[1133] Plat. Legg. p. 775.

[1134] Ib. p. 637.

[1135] Ath. XI. 4 § 461.

[1136] Ath. XI. 51 § 476.

[1137] Plut. De adul. et amic. VII.

[1138] Diod. IV. 3.

[1139] Boston Museum Annual Report, 1901, p. 60, No. 20. P. Hartung, Strena Helbigiana, p. 111.

[1140] Bacchyl. Paean, Bergk 13, trans. by Mr D. S. MacColl.

[1141] Brit. Mus. Cat. E 439, pl. XV. On the reverse a Satyr plays the flute to his master’s dancing.

[1142] Bibliothèque Nationale, Cat. 576. P. Hartwig, Meisterschalen XXXIII. 1.

[1143] Athens, Nat. Mus. Inv. 3442. Bull. de Corr. Hell. XIX. 1895, p. 94.

[1144] Eur. Bacch. 135.

[1145] Eur. Bacch. 409.

[1146] Herod. II. 81 ὁμολογέουσι δὲ ταῦτα τοῖσι Ὀρφικοῖσι καλεομένοισι καὶ Βακχικοῖσι, ἐοῦσι δὲ Αἰγυπτίοισι καὶ Πυθαγορείοισι.

[1147] Eur. Hipp. 954

Ὀρφέα τ’ ἄνακτ’ ἔχων βάκχευε.

[1148] Apollod. I. 3. 2, 3.

[1149] Diod. III. 65 πολλὰ μεταθεῖναι τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὀργίοις.

[1150] E. Maass, Orpheus. To Dr Maass’s learned book I owe much, but I am reluctantly compelled to differ from his main contention.

[1151] Conon, Narr. XLV. φιλόμουσον τὸ Θρᾴκων καὶ Μακεδόνων γένος.

[1152] Strabo X. 3 § 722.

[1153] Strabo VII. 7 § 315.

[1154] Eur. Bacch. 560.

[1155] Eur. Alc. 579.

[1156] In the Church of S. Apollinare in Classe. See Kurth, Mosaiken von der christlich. Era, Taf. XXVII.

[1157] Berlin Mus. Cat. 3172; Progr. Winckelmannsfeste, Berlin, No. 50, Taf. II.; Roscher, Lexicon, vol. III. p. 1179.

[1158] Herod. VII. 75.

[1159] Diod. IV. 25.

[1160] These wanderings by sea may perhaps be reflected in the voyage of the Argonauts.

[1161] Roscher, Lexicon, vol. III. p. 1181, fig. 5. The vase was formerly in the Dutuit collection.

[1162] Plat. Symp. 179 C. Phanocles (ap. Stob. serm. LXIV.) makes Orpheus suffer for his introduction of paiderastia, the introduction of which is attributed by Aristotle (Pol. II. 10) to the Cretan Minos.

[1163] Prokl. ad Plat. Polit. p. 398 Ὀρφεὺς ἅτε τῶν Διονύσου τελετῶν ἡγεμὼν γενόμενος τὰ ὅμοια παθεῖν λέγεται τῷ σφετέρῳ θεῷ.

[1164] Eratosth. Catast. XXIV. Since the above was written M. Salomon Reinach’s interesting paper ‘La Mort d’Orphée’ (Rev. Arch. 1902, p. 242) has appeared. He sees in Orpheus a fox-totem of the Bassarids. But the traits of Orpheus recorded by tradition seem to me exclusively human. I am more inclined to see in his dismemberment the echo of some tradition of ‘secondary burial,’ such as is known to have been practised in primitive Egypt and, significantly, in Crete, at Palaiokastro. See J.H.S. 1902, p. 386.

[1165] Hypoth. ad Orph. Lith.

[1166] Soph. frg. 523.

[1167] Soph. frg. 1017. The attribution to Sophocles is doubtful.

[1168] Evidence of the use of οἱ σοφοί to indicate the Orphics has been collected by Dr J. Adam in his edition of the Republic, Vol. II. p. 378.

[1169] Museo Gregoriano II. 60. 1; Roscher, Lexicon III. p. 1187, fig. 12.

[1170] J.H.S. 1888, pl. I. On another vase in the British Museum (Cat. E 301) a Maenad pursuing Orpheus is tattooed on the right arm and both insteps with a ladder-like pattern.

[1171] Plut. de ser. num. vind. XII. οὐδὲ γὰρ Θρᾷκας ἐπαινοῦμεν ὅτι στίζουσιν ἄχρι νῦν τιμωροῦντες Ὀρφεῖ τὰς αὑτῶν γυναῖκας, and Phanocles ap. Stob. Florileg. p. 399 v. 13 says:

ποινὰς δ’ Ὀρφῆϊ κταμένῳ στίζουσι γυναῖκας εἰς ἔτι νῦν κείνης εἵνεκεν ἀμπλακίης.

[1172] Early Age of Greece, vol. I. p. 398.

[1173] Soph. Ant. 962.

[1174] Plut. Symp. VIII. Proem.

[1175] Philostr. Her. V. § 704 ἡ κεφαλὴ γὰρ μετὰ τὸ τῶν γυναικῶν ἔργον ἐς Λέσβον κατασχοῦσα ῥῆγμα τῆς Λέσβου ᾤκισε καὶ ἐν κοίλῃ τῇ γῇ ἐχρησμῴδει.

[1176] Philostr. Her. V. § 704.

[1177] Lucian adv. indoct. 11.

[1178] Antiq. Hist. Mir. V.

[1179] Minervini, Bull. Arch. Nap. vol. VI. 1857, Tav. IV.; Roscher, Lexicon III. p. 1178, fig. 3. The vase was last seen by Prof. Furtwängler in the Barone collection; where it now is I am unable to say. On the reverse of the vase (not figured here) a Muse is handing a lyre to a woman.

[1180] Plut. de defect. orac. XLV.

[1181] The scholiast on the Plutus of Aristophanes v. 39, commenting on the words ἔλακεν ἐκ στεμμάτων, says that persons who consulted an oracle made their inquiries of the god in writing. They wrote on a tablet (ἐν πυκτίῳ) placed in the shrine for that purpose and wreathing it with garlands gave it to the divining priest. But this information has an apocryphal air.

[1182] Eur. Alc. 962.

[1183] Schol. ad Eur. Alc. 968 ὁ δὲ φυσικὸς Ἡράκλειτος ... γράφων οὕτως ‘τὸ δὲ τοῦ Διονύσου κατεσκεύασται ἐπὶ τῆς Θρᾴκης ἐπὶ τοῦ καλουμένου Αἵμου, ὅπου δή τινας ἐν σανίσιν ἀναγραφὰς εἶναί φασιν.’

[1184] According to Diodorus, Linos and Orpheus both used ‘Pelasgic’ letters, and in them Linos wrote the deeds of Dionysos. τόνδ’ οὖν Λίνον φασὶ τοῖς Πελασγικοῖς γράμμασι συνταξάμενον τὰς τοῦ πρώτου Διονύσου πράξεις καὶ τὰς ἄλλας μυθολογίας ἀπολιπεῖν ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν. ὁμοίως δὲ τούτοις χρήσασθαι τοῖς Πελασγικοῖς γράμμασι τὸν Ὀρφέα.

[1185] Philostr. Vit. Apoll. XIV. 151. Dr Deubner (de Incubat. p. 11) notes that ἐφίστασθαι is the regular word used for sudden divine apparitions.

[1186] Conon, Narr. XLV. The narrative concludes thus: λαβόντες οὖν (τὴν κεφαλὴν) ὑπὸ σήματι μεγάλῳ θάπτουσι, τέμενος αὐτῷ περιείρξαντες, ὃ τέως μὲν ἡρῷον ἦν, ὕστερον δ’ ἐξενίκησεν ἱερὸν εἶναι· θυσίαις τε γὰρ καὶ ὅσοις ἄλλοις θεοὶ τιμῶνται γεραίρεται· ἔστι δὲ γυναιξὶ παντελῶς ἄβατον.

[1187] Ael. V.H. XII. 8.

[1188] Phleg. Mirab. III. It is possible that the trait of the severed head was borrowed from the ritual of Adonis at Byblos. See C. Fries. N. Jahrb. Kl. Alt. VI. 1903, Heft 1.

[1189] Strab. VII. frgs. 17, 18 and 19.

[1190] P. IX. 30. 12.

[1191] The worship of Eros by the Lycomids will be discussed later (p. 644).

[1192] Ar. Ran. 1032.

[1193] S. August. de civit. dei XVIII. 14: Verum isti theologi non pro diis culti sunt quamvis Orpheum nescio quomodo inferiis sacris praeficere soleat civitas impiorum.

[1194] Athen. XIV. 32 § 632.

[1195] P. X. 7. 2.

[1196] [Eur.] Rhes. 941.

[1197] Herod. VII. 6.

[1198] Tat. adv. Graec. XLI. 271 τὰ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐπιφερόμενά φασιν ὑπὸ Ὀνομακρίτου τοῦ Ἀθηναίου συντετάχθαι.

[1199] Clem. Al. Str. I. 332 Ὀνομάκριτος οὗ τὰ εἰς Ὀρφέα φερόμενα λέγεται εἶναι κατὰ τὴν τῶν Πεισιστρατιδῶν ἀρχὴν περὶ τὴν πεντηκοστὴν Ὀλυμπιάδα.

[1200] P. VIII. 37. 5.

[1201] Plato Phaed. p. 69 C εἰσὶ γὰρ δὴ φασὶν οἱ περὶ τὰς τελετὰς ναρθηκοφόροι μὲν πολλοί, Βάκχοι δέ τε παῦροι. Olympiod. ad loc. παρῳδεῖ πανταχοῦ τὰ τοῦ Ὀρφέως, διὸ καὶ στίχον αὐτοῦ φησί·

Πολλοὶ μὲν ναρθηκοφόροι, παῦροι δέ τε Βάκχοι.

ναρθηκοφόρους οὐ μὴν Βάκχους τοὺς πολιτικοὺς καλῶν Βάκχους δὲ τοὺς καθαρτικούς.

[1202] Published by Dr Sam. Wide, A. Mitt. XIX. (1894), p. 248; discussed by Dr Ernst Maass, Orpheus (1895); see Dr Erwin Rohde, Kleine Schriften, p. 293.

Line 63 οὐδενὶ δὲ ἐξέσται ἐν τῆι στιβάδι οὔτε ἆισαι | οὔτε θορυβῆσαι οὔτε κροτῆσαι μετὰ δὲ | πάσης εὐκοσμίας καὶ ἡσυχίας τοὺς μερισ|μοὺς λέγειν καὶ ποιεῖν προστάσσοντος | τοῦ ἱερέως ἢ τοῦ ἀρχιβάκχου.

Line 135 εὔκοσμος δὲ κληρούσθω ἢ καθισ|τάσθω ὑπὸ τοῦ ἱερέως ἐπιφέρων τῶι ἀκοσ|μοῦντι ἢ θορυβοῦντι τὸν θύρσον τοῦ θε|οῦ ὧι δὲ ἂν παρατεθῆι ὁ θύρσος ἐπικρεί|ναντος τοῦ ἱερέως ἢ τοῦ ἀρχιβάκχου | ἐξερχέσθω τοῦ ἑστιατορείου. ἐὰν δὲ ἀ|πειθῆι αἱρέτωσαν αὐτὸν ἔξω τοῦ πυλῶ|νος οἱ κατασταθησόμενοι ὑπὸ τῶν | ἱερέων ἵπποι, καὶ ἔστω ὑπεύθυνος | τοῖς περὶ τῶν μαχομένων προστεί|μοις.

[1203] Pind. Ol. V. 24.

[1204] Isth. IV. 14.

[1205] Pyth. II. 34.

[1206] Pind. Pyth. III. 59.

[1207] Isth. VI. 36.

[1208] Ol. XIII. 92.

[1209] Soph. Oed. Col. 607, trans. Mr Gilbert Murray.

[1210] Ar. Ran. 849; see Nauck ad loc.

[1211] The restoration attempted by Dr Körte (Die Kreter des Euripides, Aufsätze Ernst Curtius gewidmet, p. 197), on evidence drawn from Etruscan urns, seems to me quite uncertain.

[1212] Eur. frg. 475 ap. Porph. De Abst. IV. 19, trans. Mr Gilbert Murray.

[1213] Mr Murray translates the MS. reading:

μύστης γενόμην καὶ νυκτιπόλου Ζαγρέως βροντὰς τάς τ’ ὠμοφάγους δαῖτας τελέσας.

For βροντὰς Dr Diels would read βούτας, i.e. βουκόλος. (See Dieterich, De Hymnis Orphicis, p. 11, and cf. Eur. frg. 203.) This emendation seems to me probable, but as both MS. readings and all suggested emendations are uncertain I have based no argument on the word βροντάς.

[1214] v. 10 Διὸς Ἰδαίου μύστης γενόμην.

[1215] Eur. frg. 904 ap. Clem. Al. Strom. V. p. 688.

[1216] Ap. Etym. Gud. p. 227. The lexicographers explain the title as meaning mighty hunter, but in the ritual Zagreus is more hunted than hunter.

[1217] Plut. de Ei IX. Διόνυσον δὲ καὶ Ζαγρέα καὶ Νυκτέλιον καὶ Ἰσοδαίτην αὐτὸν ὀνομάζουσι. Taking the three ritual titles in conjunction it seems almost certain that Ἰσοδαίτης refers to the ὠμόφαγοι δαῖτες of the Zagreus ritual shared alike by all mystics.

[1218] v. 11 τάς τ’ ὠμοφάγους δαῖτας τελέσας.

[1219] Eur. frg. 476 καὶ ταυροδέτῳ κόλλῃ κραθεῖσ’.

[1220] A. Evans, Annual of British School at Athens, vol. VII. p. 18, fig. 7 a.

[1221] D. Hogarth, J.H.S. vol. XXII. 1902, p. 76 and plates VI.-IX.

[1222] Op. cit. nos. 17-18, and Ann. B.S.A. VII. fig. 45.

[1223] See supr. p. 452.

[1224] Plut. de defect. orac. XIV.

[1225] Clem. Al. Protr. II. 12 Διόνυσον μαινόλην ὀργιάζουσι Βάκχοι ὠμοφαγίᾳ τὴν ἱερομηνίαν (? ἱερομανίαν) ἄγοντες καὶ τελέσκουσι τὰς κρεανομίας τῶν φόνων ἀνεστεμμένοι τοῖς ὄφεσιν, ἐπολολύζοντες Εὔαν κτλ.; and again speaking of the analogous ceremonies of the Korybants Clement (Protr. II. 6) says: καὶ ταῦτ’ ἔστι τὰ μυστήρια, συνελόντι φάναι, φόνοι καὶ τάφοι.

[1226] Clem. Al. Protr. II. 17 τὰ γὰρ Διονύσου μυστήρια τέλεον ἀπάνθρωπα, ὃν εἰσέτι παῖδα ὄντα ἐνόπλῳ κινήσει περιχορευόντων Κουρήτων δόλῳ δὲ ὑποδύντων Τιτάνων ἀπατήσαντες παιδαριώδεσιν ἀθύρμασιν οὗτοι δὴ οἱ Τιτᾶνες διέσπασαν ἔτι νηπίαχον ὄντα ὡς ὁ τῆς τελετῆς ποιητὴς Ὀρφεύς φησιν ὁ Θρᾴκιος: and Protr. XII. 119 referring to the Bacchae he speaks of the Maenads as αἱ δύσαγνον κρεανομίαν μυούμεναι.

[1227] Arnob. V. 19 atque vos plenos Dei numine ac majestate docentes caprorum reclamantium viscera cruentatis oribus dissipatis: the words in italics shew that Arnobius understood the real gist of the rite.

[1228] Porphyr. De Abst. II. 55 ἔθυον δὲ καὶ ἐν Χίῳ τῷ Ὠμαδίῳ Διονύσῳ ἄνθρωπον διασπῶντες καὶ ἐν Τενέδῳ ὥς φησιν Εὔελπις ὁ Καρύστιος.

[1229] Ap. Porphyr. De Abst. II. 56. Clement (Protr. III. 4) says, citing as his authority the Nostoi of Antikleides, that this human sacrifice was offered by the Lyctii, a Cretan tribe.

[1230] Firmicus Maternus de err. profan. relig. c. 6 Cretenses, ut furentis tyranni saevitiam mitigarent, festos funeris dies statuunt et annuum sacrum trieterica consecratione componunt, omnia per ordinem facientes, quae puer moriens aut fecit aut passus est. Vivum laniant dentibus taurum, crudeles epulas annuis commemorationibus excitantes et per secreta silvarum clamoribus dissonis ejulantes fingunt animi furentis insaniam ut illud facinus non per fraudem factum sed per insaniam crederetur.

[1231] If any one finds the tearing of the bull with the teeth a hard saying, he may be reassured by the statement of Nonnus (Dionys. VI. 205) that the bull-shaped Dionysos was cut in little bits by a knife, which would greatly facilitate matters:

ἀμοιβαίῃ δὲ φονῆες ταυροφυῆ Διόνυσον ἐμιστύλλοντο μαχαίρῃ.

[1232] Nili opera, Narrat. III. 28, Migne, Patrol. LXXIX. I owe this reference to Nilus to Prof. Robertson Smith’s Religion of the Semites p. 320, but as the passage is of cardinal importance in relation to the account of Firmicus I have substituted a translation for his summary.

[1233] Porphyr. De Abst. II. 48.

[1234] One of the titles of Dionysos, i.e. Eiraphiotes, is as Mr R. A. Neil has pointed out the etymological equivalent of the Sanscrit varsabha, bull: see Golden Bough, 2nd edit. vol. II. p. 164.

[1235] Ar. Ran. 355 μηδὲ Κρατίνου τοῦ ταυροφάγου γλώττης Βακχεῖ’ ἐτελέσθη, trans. Rogers.

[1236] Plut. Vit. Them. XIII. In this same way a legend grew up and was accredited by Neanthes, the Cyzicene historian, that when Epimenides was ‘purifying Attica by human blood’ a youth, Kratinos, offered himself as a willing sacrifice. But how apocryphal such stories may be is owned by Athenaeus himself (XIII. 78 § 602), who adds after his narrative that he is aware that the whole story was said by Polemon to have been a fiction.

[1237] Published and discussed in relation to the myth of Zagreus by Mr Cecil Smith, J.H.S., 1890, p. 343.

[1238] Ael. N.A. XII. 34 λίθοις βάλλεται τῇ ὁσίᾳ. ὁσία is the regular word for a mystic rite, cf. Hom. Hymn. ad Cer. 211 ὁσίης ἐπέβη.

[1239] See supra, p. 113.

[1240] Diod. Sic. V. 75. 4.

[1241] The scattered sources for the Zagreus myth are given in full in Abel’s Orphica (p. 230 ff.). They appear to be all based on a lost poem or poems attributed to Orpheus of which Clement in the passage already discussed (p. 484) quotes two lines: ὡς ὁ τῆς τελετῆς ποιητὴς Ὀρφεύς φησιν ὁ Θρᾴκιος·

κῶνος καὶ ῥόμβος καὶ παίγνια καμπεσίγυια μῆλά τε χρύσεα καλὰ παρ’ Ἑσπερίδων λιγυφώνων,

and the scholiast on the passage observes (Dind. I. p. 433) ὠμὰ γὰρ ἤσθιον κρέα οἱ μυούμενοι Διονύσῳ, δεῖγμα τοῦτο τελούμενοι τοῦ σπαραγμοῦ ὃν ὑπέστη Διόνυσος ὑπὸ Τιτάνων.

[1242] Among these sacred objects which cannot be discussed in detail here perhaps the most interesting was the rhombos or bull-roarer still in use among savage tribes, on the significance of which fresh light has recently been thrown by Dr Frazer in his paper ‘On some ceremonies of the Central Australian Tribes.’ Melbourne 1900.

[1243] Nonnus may have based his poem on the Βασσαρικά of Dionysius, to which it seems possible that the fragments recently discovered of an epic poem dealing with Bacchic subjects belong. These fragments contain a curious account of the slaying and eating of a human victim disguised as a stag. See Mr Kenyon in Herwerden’s Album Gratulatorium and Dr Ludwich, ‘Das Papyros-Fragment eines Dionysos-Epos’ (Berl. Philolog. Wochenschrift, Jan. 3, 1903, p. 27).

[1244] Nonn. Dionys. XXVII. 228

ἐλευκαίνοντο δὲ γύψῳ μυστιπόλῳ

and see XXVII. 204, XXIX. 274, XXXIV. 144, XLVII. 732. Cf. also the disguise of the Phocians described by Herodotus (VIII. 27).

[1245] Harpocrat. s.v. ἀπομάττων.

[1246] Dem. de Coron. § 259.

[1247] Eustath. ad Il. II. 735 § 332 τίτανον δὲ κυρίως τὴν κονίαν φαμέν, τὸ ἰδιωτικῶς λεγόμενον ἄσβεστον τὸ ἐν λίθοις κεκαυμένοις χνοῶδες λευκόν. ἐκλήθη δὲ οὕτως ἀπὸ τῶν μυθικῶν Τιτάνων οὓς ὁ τοῦ μύθου Ζεὺς κεραυνοῖς βαλὼν κατέφρυγε. δι’ αὐτοὺς γὰρ καὶ τὸ ἐξ ἄγαν πολλῆς καύσεως καὶ ὡς οἷον εἰπεῖν τιτανώδους διατρυφθὲν ἐν λίθοις λεπτὸν τίτανος ὠνομάσθη, οἷα ποίνης τινὸς Τιτανικῆς γενομένης καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ. οἱ δὲ παλαιοί φασι τίτανος κόνις γύψος, and see Eustath. 1676 where a child who sees snow for the first time is said to have mistaken it for τίτανος.

[1248] Since writing the above I find that my explanation of the Titans has been anticipated by Dr Dieterich, Rh. Mus. 1893, p. 280. His high authority is a welcome confirmation of my view.

[1249] P. VIII. 37. 5.

[1250] Ταῦρος δράκοντος καὶ δράκων ταύρου πατήρ, frg. ap. Clem. Al. Protr. I. 2. 12. What was made of such a reverent mystic dogma by the unsavoury minds of Christian fathers can be read by the curious.

[1251] M. Salomon Reinach, who has done so much for the elucidation of Orphism, has shown that the Celts held in honour and depicted on their monuments a horned snake. Such a conception would keep up the confusion of bull and snake. He believes the original form of Zagreus to have been that of a horned snake. The point is an interesting one and is evidence of Northern elements in Orphic as well as Dionysiac conceptions, see Rev. Arch. 1899, vol. XXXV. p. 210, S. Reinach, ‘Zagreus le serpent cornu.’

[1252] v. 12 μητρί τ’ ὀρείᾳ δᾷδας ἀνασχών. In the recently discovered fragment of Timotheos (v. 135) it is to the ‘Mountain Mother’ that the drowning sailor would pray:

εἰ δυνατὰ πρὸς μελαμπεταλο- χίτωνα Ματρὸς οὐρεί- ας δεσπόσυνα γόνατα πεσεῖν....

See Timotheos, Die Perser, Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 1903.

[1253] Published and discussed by the discoverer Mr Evans in the Annual of the British School at Athens, vol. VII. 1900-1901, p. 29, fig. 9. The enlargement (3/1) here reproduced from the Annual is based on a restoration, but a perfectly certain one. A series of clay fragments impressed by the same seal, but not from the same impression, were found in a deposit of burnt wood. The various fragments overlapped sufficiently for certain reconstruction. When I first saw a drawing of the seal I was inclined to think it was ‘too good to be true,’ but by Mr Evans’ kindness I was allowed while at Crete to examine the original fragments and am satisfied that the reconstruction is correct. We owe the most important monument of Mycenaean religion to the highly trained eye and extraordinarily acute perception of the excavator.

[1254]

καὶ Κουρήτων βάκχος ἐκλήθην ὁσιωθείς.

The word ὁσιωθείς is rendered ‘Set Free’ by Mr Murray in his translation for reasons explained later, p. 504.

[1255] Hes. frg. CXXIX. ap. Strab. X. p. 323.

[1256] Diod. V. 66.

[1257] Plut. Q. Gr. IX. Τίς ὁ παρὰ Δελφοῖς Ὁσιωτὴρ καὶ διὰ τί Βύσιον ἕνα τῶν μηνῶν καλοῦσιν; Ὁσιωτῆρα μὲν καλοῦσι τὸ θυόμενον ἱερεῖον, ὅταν Ὅσιος ἀποδειχθῇ, πέντε δέ εἰσιν ὅσιοι διὰ βίον καὶ τὰ πολλὰ μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν δρῶσιν οὗτοι καὶ συνιερουργοῦσιν, ἅτε γεγονέναι δοκοῦντες ἀπὸ Δευκαλίωνος. Stephanos comments ‘mendose ut videtur pro τὸν θυόμενον, accipiendo sc. θυόμενον active pro θύοντα.... Recte autem habet τὸ si quidem Ὁσιωτὴρ (ταῦρος) est Hostia quae immolatur.’

[1258] Plut. de Defect. Orac. XLIX. οἱ γὰρ ἱερεῖς καὶ θύειν φασὶ τὸ ἱερεῖον κτλ.

[1259] Plut. de Defect. Orac. LI.

[1260] Nikitsky, Delphisch-Epigraphische Studien p. 145, points out that in inscriptions two hereditary families of priests are traceable; these he thinks may correspond with the προφῆται or utterers whom he holds to be Apolline and the ὅσιοι who are manifestly Dionysiac. His book is in Russian, and I only know it at second hand.

[1261] Plut. de Is. et Os. XXXV. and see p. 441. Had the treatise by Socrates περὶ Ὁσίων which Plutarch refers to been preserved, we should have been informed.

[1262] Lyc. Al. 207 and schol. ad loc. ταῦρος δὲ ὁ Διόνυσος ... ὅτι ἐν παραβύστῳ τὰ μυστήρια ἐτελεῖτο τῷ Διονύσῳ.

[1263] C. T. Newton, Discoveries at Cnidos p. 735 and Insc. 88, 83 etc.

[1264] Plat. Legg. 873 B, schol. ad loc. ἀφοσιούτω* καθαιρέτω, ὡς νῦν, ἢ ἀπαρχὰς προσαγέτω, ἢ τιμάτω, ἢ τὴν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ ἀποδιδότω τιμήν, ἢ πληροφορείτω. I owe the reference to this interesting passage to Mr F. M. Cornford. I am not sure what the scholiast means by the post-classical word πληροφορέω; the passive means in the New Testament ‘to have full assurance’ of faith and the like. It may point to the final stage of initiation.

[1265] Suidas s.v. ὅσιος, ὅσιον χωρίον.

[1266] Plut. Vit. Rom. 28.

[1267] Lucian, Lexiphan. 10.

[1268] Plut. de Is. et Os. LXI. ὁ Ὄσιρις ἐκ τοῦ ὁσίου καὶ ἱεροῦ τοὔνομα μεμιγμένον ἔσχηκε· κοινὸς γάρ ἐστι τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ τῶν ἐν ᾅδου λόγος. ὧν τὰ μὲν ἱερὰ τὰ δὲ ὅσια τοῖς παλαιοῖς <ἔθος?> ἦν προσαγορεύειν. It is practically certain that τὰ μέν refers to the first mentioned class, i.e. τὰ ἐν οὐρανῷ.

[1269] Iambl. Vit. Pythag. 58 χαρακτὴρ παλαιότροπος ... ἀρχαιοτρόπου δὲ καὶ παλαιοῦ πίνου.

[1270] Plat. Gorg. p. 507 B.

[1271] Soph. Ant. 74.

[1272] Hes. Theog. 901.

[1273] Eur. Bacch. 991 ἴτω Δίκα φανερὸς ἴτω ξιφηφόρος.

[1274] Dem. c. Aristogeit. XXV. 11.

[1275] Orph. Hymn. LXII.

[1276] Eur. Bacch. 370 Ὁσία πότνα θεῶν. It is worth noting in connection with the Ὁσία of Euripides, that on tomb-inscriptions in Phrygia, and so far as at present known only there, dedications occur to a divinity bearing the titles ὅσιος καὶ δίκαιος. These inscriptions are of Roman date, and it is usual to refer them to Mithras worship, but, found as they are in Phrygia, the home of the Bacchants, it is possible, I think, that they may indicate an old tradition of Cybele worship. See Roscher s.v. Hosios.

[1277]

πάλλευκα δ’ ἔχων εἵματα φεύγω γένεσίν τε βροτῶν καὶ νεκροθήκης οὐ χριμπτόμενος, τήν τ’ ἐμψύχων βρῶσιν ἐδεστῶν πεφύλαγμαι.

[1278] Diog. Laert. Vit. Pyth. 19 § 33.

[1279] Plat. Legg. VI. p. 782.

[1280] Soph. frg. 464, ap. Porphyr. de Abst. II. p. 134.

[1281] Schol. ad Soph. Oed. Col. 100.

[1282] Philoch. frg. 30, ap. Schol. ad Soph. Oed. Col. 99.

[1283] Plut. de tuend. sanit. XVII.

[1284] Plut. de cohibend. ir. XVI. sub fin.

[1285] Soph. Oed. Col. 100, νήφων ἀοίνοις, and schol. ad loc.

[1286] Diog. Laert. Vit. Pythag. XV., and see p. 91.

[1287] Hom. Hymn. ad Cer. 205-210

δεξαμένη δ’ ὁσίης ἐπέβη πολυπότνια Δηώ.

[1288] Porphyr. de Abst. II. 4 and I. 31.

[1289] Maeterlinck, Le Temple enseveli, p. 188.

[1290] Eur. Hipp. 952.

[1291] Ar. Nub. 223 ff. That this scene is in intent a parody of Orphic ceremonial was first observed by Dr Dieterich, Rh. Mus. 1893, p. 275.

[1292] Ar. Nub. 259

ΣΤ. εἶτα δὴ τί κερδανῶ;

ΣΩ. λέγειν γενήσει τρῖμμα, κρόταλον, παιπάλη. ἀλλ’ ἔχ’ ἀτρεμί.

ΣΤ. μὰ τὸν Δί’ οὐ ψεύσει γέ με· καταπαττόμενος γὰρ παιπάλη γενήσομαι.

[1293] Schol. ad Ar. Nub. 260 ταῦτα μὲν λέγων ὁ Σωκράτης λίθους περιτρίβων πωρίνους καὶ κρούων πρὸς ἀλλήλους συναγαγὼν τὰ ἀπὸ τούτων θραύσματα βάλλει τὸν πρεσβύτην αὐτοῖς καθάπερ τὰ ἱερεῖα ταῖς οὐλαῖς οἱ θύοντες.

[1294] Dio Chrysost. Or. XII. 387 εἰώθασιν ἐν τῷ καλουμένῳ θρονισμῷ καθίσαντες τοὺς μυουμένους οἱ τελοῦντες κύκλῳ περιχορεύειν.

[1295] Plat. Euthyd. 277 D.

[1296] Aether, air and whirlwind frequently appear in the Orphic fragments preserved to us, e.g. Damasc. Quaest. de primis princ. p. 147 καὶ γὰρ Ὀρφεύς·

ἔπειτα δ’ ἔτευξε μέγας Χρόνος αἰθέρι δίῳ ὠεὸν ἀργύρεον,

and in the fragment of a hymn to the Sun preserved by Macrobius Sat. I. 23. 22. Solem esse omnia et Orpheus testatur his versibus:

κέκλυθι τηλεπόρου δίνης ἑλικαυγέα κύκλον οὐρανίαις στροφάλιγξι περίδρομον αἰὲν ἑλίσσων ἀγλαὲ Ζεῦ Διόνυσε, πάτερ πόντου, πάτερ αἴης, Ἥλιε παγγενέτωρ παναίολε χρυσεοφεγγές,

words which might have been sung by Sokrates in his basket.

[1297] Theoph. Char. XXVIII.

[1298] Plut. de Superstit. XII. τῆς δεισιδαιμονίας ἔργα καὶ πάθη καταγέλαστα καὶ ῥήματα καὶ κινήματα καὶ γοητεῖαι καὶ μαγεῖαι καὶ περιδρομαὶ καὶ τυμπανισμοὶ καὶ ἀκάθαρτοι μὲν καθαρμοί, ῥυπαραὶ δὲ ἁγνεῖαι, βάρβαροι δὲ καὶ παράνομοι πρὸς ἱεροῖς κολασμοὶ καὶ προπηλακισμοί.

[1299] Plut. de Superstit. VII.

[1300] Diog. Laert. Vit. Pyth. XIX.

[1301] Heracleit. frg. 130, Bywater, καθαίρονται δὲ αἵματι μιαινόμενοι ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις ἐς πηλὸν ἐμβὰς πηλῷ ἀπονίζοιτο.

[1302] Plato, Rep. 364 B.

[1303] Munich Glyptothek, No. 601. Schreiber, Hell. Reliefbilder, Taf. 80 A.

[1304] Soph. frg. 724

στατοῖς λίκνοισι προστρέπεσθε.

[1305] I have already discussed the liknon in connection with the fragment of Sophocles in the Classical Review, vol. VIII. p. 270. In the Thorwaldsen collection at Copenhagen there is a relief closely analogous to that in fig. 148. A liknon is erected on a column: above it appears a large goat’s head, see Schreiber, Reliefbilder, Taf. CXI. 1.

[1306] Baumeister, Denkmäler p. 449, fig. 496. Campana op. plast. 45. An almost identical relief on a ‘Campana’ terracotta is in the Kestner Museum at Hanover.

[1307] Helbig, Museo delle Therme, no. 1122. Fig. 150 is drawn from a photograph.

[1308] Since the above was written and the drawing in fig. 150 made, I have examined the original, and find that the obscure object is a liknon; the main outline and even the handle can be clearly made out.

[1309] Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien p. 416.

[1310] Plut. Q.R. X.

[1311] Festus, p. 379.

[1312] Eur. Alc. 1144. The ritual word ἀφαγνίσηται, disenhallowed, marks the primitive meaning, getting rid of the pollution of the dead; it is a form of ἀποτροπή.

[1313] For the whole subject see ‘Le voile d’oblation,’ S. Reinach, Acad. des Inscriptions, C.R. 1897, p. 644.

[1314] Hesych. s.v.

[1315] Baumeister, Denkmäler vol. I. p. 680, fig. 741.

[1316] Hom. Hymn. Merc. 150.

[1317] Cat. 31. Pashley, Travels in Crete, 1837, vol. I. p. 37. A very similar representation of Liknites carried by two Satyrs occurs on a sarcophagus in the Naples Museum. Dr Hans Graeven kindly pointed out to me a majolica plate in the Kestner Museum at Hanover on which oddly enough exactly the same scene occurs. Clearly it is a copy from an ancient sarcophagus. The only addition is that the group stands against the background of a mediaeval landscape.

[1318] S. Reinach, Revue Arch. 1900, vol. XXXVI. p. 87. The vase has been more fully interpreted by Dr Svoronos, Journal d’Archéologie et Numismatique, 1901, p. 387.

[1319] The birth of Brimos is discussed later (p. 549).

[1320] B.M. Cat. E 183. Myth. and Mon. Ancient Athens, p. liii, fig. 9.

[1321] Verg. Georg. I. 165

Virgea praeterea Celei vilisque supellex, Arbuteae crates, et mystica vannus Iacchi.

Serv. ad loc. Id est cribrum areale. Mystica autem Iacchi ideo ait quod Liberi Patris sacra ad purgationem animae pertinebant: et sic homines ejus Mysteriis purgabantur, sicut vannis frumenta purgantur. Hinc est quod dicitur Osiridis membra a Typhone dilaniata Isis cribro superposuisse: nam idem est Liber Pater in cujus Mysteriis vannus est: quia ut diximus animas purgat. Unde et Liber ab eo quod liberet dictus, quem Orpheus a gigantibus dicit esse discerptum. Nonnulli Liberum Patrem apud Graecos Λικνίτην dici adferunt; vannus autem apud eos λίκνον nuncupatur; ubi deinde positus esse dicitur postquam est utero matris editus. Alii mysticam sic accipiunt ut vannum vas vimineum latum dicant, in quod ipsi propter capacitatem congerere rustici primitias frugum soleant et Libero et Liberae sacrum facere. Inde mystica.

[1322] Mr Andrew Lang (Custom and Myth p. 36) conjectures that the ‘use of the mystica vannus Iacchi was a mode of raising a sacred wind analogous to that employed by whirlers of the tundun or bull-roarer’; but with his accustomed frankness Mr Lang owns that like Servius he is ‘only guessing.’

[1323] For the full discussion of this subject I may refer to a paper I hope shortly to publish in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1903.

[1324] Hom. Od. XI. 127

ὁππότε κεν δή τοι ξυμβλήμενος ἄλλος ὁδίτης φήῃ ἀθηρηλοιγὸν ἔχειν ἀνὰ φαιδίμῳ ὤμῳ καὶ τότε δὴ γαίῃ πήξας εὐῆρες ἐρετμὸν κτλ.

In the Odysseus Acanthoplex of Sophocles the winnowing fan was called by another of these descriptive epithets. Eustathius has preserved the line

ὤμοις ἀθηρόβρωτον ὄργανον φέρων.

That it was understood to be simply the πτύον is clear from Porphyry (De antr. nymph. 35) ... ὡς πτύον ἡγεῖσθαι εἶναι τὴν κώπην. Eustathius (§ 1675) pertinently observes πλάτη γὰρ θαλασσία τὸ ἐρετμὸν καὶ πλάτη χερσαία τὸ πτύον.

[1325] Odysseus is figured on gems with a broad-bladed oar, see Inghirami, Galleria Omerica III., Harrison, Myths of the Odyssey, pl. 30.

[1326] Hom. Il. V. 499.

[1327] Hom. Il. XIII. 588

ὡς δ’ ὅτ’ ἀπὸ πλατέος πτυόφιν μεγάλην κατ’ ἀλωὴν θρῴσκωσιν κύαμοι μελανόχροες ἢ ἐρέβινθοι πνοιῇ ὑπὸ λιγυρῇ καὶ λικμητῆρος ἐρωῇ.

[1328] Aesch. frg. 194, ap. Athen. IX. § 394.

[1329] Theocr. Id. VII. 155

ἇς ἐπὶ σωρῷ αὖθις ἐγὼ πάξαιμι μέγα πτύον.

Cf. πήξας εὐῆρες ἐρετμόν of the oar of Odysseus. The scholiast on Theocritus says ὅταν δὲ λικμῶνται καὶ σωρεύωσι τὸν πυρὸν κατὰ μέσον πηγνύουσι τὸ πτύον καὶ τὴν θρινάκην κατέθεντο. For the modern representative of the θρῖναξ still used in Crete I may refer to my article in the Hellenic Journal, 1903, part I.

[1330] Anthol. Palat. VI. 165.

[1331] πτύον according to Vaniček is from the root pu, meaning to cleanse, which in its various modifications gives us πῦρ πνέω. κόσκινον like κεσκίον is a reduplicated form of sak, ska, ski to separate. The symbolism of the sieve will be discussed later. In meaning it is identical with cribrum; both are ‘separators.’

[1332] Plat. Soph. 226 E πᾶσα ἡ τοιαύτη διάκρισις ... λέγεται παρὰ πάντων καθαρμός τις.

[1333] Procl. in Plat. Tim. II. 124 C, D, and III. 208 D. According to Proclus p. 171 F Orpheus wrote a discourse on Hippa.

[1334] Harpocrat. s.v. τὸ λίκνον πρὸς πᾶσαν τελετὴν καὶ θυσίαν ἐπιτήδειον.

[1335] Müller-Wieseler II. 54. The gem was formerly in the Marlborough Coll. It is published in phototype and discussed by Dr Furtwängler, Ancient Gems, pl. LVII. ii. p. 339. It is now in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. The antiquity of both the artist’s signature and the gem itself is accepted by Prof. Furtwängler, but has been questioned by many competent archaeologists. As I have not seen the original I am unable to express any certain conviction. For a full account of the controversy see Boston Museum Annual Report, XXIV., 1900, p. 88.

[1336] Plutarch or the author of the ‘Proverbial sayings of Alexander’ (Prov. Alex. XVI. 1255), νόμος ἦν Ἀθήνῃσι ἐν τοῖς γάμοις ἀμφιθαλῆ παῖδα λίκνον βαστάζοντα ἄρτων πλέων εἶτα ἐπιλέγειν Ἔφύγον κακὸν εὗρον ἄμεινον.

[1337] Schol. ad Call. Hymn. ad Jov. 48 ἐν γὰρ λείκνοις τὸ παλαιὸν κατεκοίμιζον τὰ βρέφη πλοῦτον καὶ καρποὺς οἰωνιζόμενοι· λίκνον οὖν τὸ κόσκινον ἢ τὸ κούνιον ἐν ᾧ τὰ παιδία, τιθέασιν. For similar modern customs see Mannhardt, Mythologische Forschungen, ‘Kind und Korn,’ p. 366.

[1338] Suidas s.v. ἔφυγον κακόν, εὗρον ἄμεινον, and Hesych. s.v.

[1339] Dem. de Cor. § 313.

[1340] Strictly speaking a ἱερὰ σύμμιξις. These rites are probably of earlier origin than the patriarchal institution of monogamy.

[1341] Clem. Al. Protr. 16 Σαβαζίων γοῦν μυστηρίων σύμβολον τοῖς μυουμένοις ὁ διὰ κόλπου θεός. δράκων δέ ἐστιν οὗτος διελκόμενος τοῦ κόλπου τῶν τελουμένων ἔλεγχος ἀκρατίας Διός. The meaning of διὰ κόλπου and with it ὑπὸ κόλπου is sufficiently evident from this passage. Any possible doubt is removed by the use of ὑπὸ κόλπου in Lucian’s Alexander c. 39.

[1342] Arnob. c. gent. V. c. 21. Ipsa novissime sacra et ritus initiationis ipsius quibus Sebadiis nomen est, testimonio esse potuerunt veritati, in quibus aureus coluber in sinum dimittitur consecratis et eximitur rursus ab inferioribus partibus.

[1343] Clem. Al. Protr. II. 15 τὰ σύμβολα τῆς μυήσεως ταύτης ... ἐκ τυμπάνου ἔφαγον, ἐκ κυμβάλου ἔπιον· ἐκερνοφόρησα· ὑπὸ τὸν παστὸν ὑπέδυν. ταῦτα οὐχ ὕβρις τὰ σύμβολα, οὐ χλεύη τὰ μυστήρια;

[1344] The uses of the word παστάς are discussed by Sir Richard Jebb in commenting on v. 1207 of the Antigone of Sophocles, App. p. 263, where the suggestion is made that the παστάς was some interior portion or arrangement in the θάλαμος.

[1345] Philosophoumena ed. Cruice v. 3 τετέλεσται δὲ ταῦτα (τὰ βακχικὰ τοῦ Ὀρφέως) ... πρὸ τῆς ... ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι τελετῆς, ἐν Φλοιοῦντι τῆς Ἀττικῆς, πρὸ γὰρ τῶν Ἐλευσινίων μυστηρίων ἐστὶ [τὰ] ἐν τῇ Φλοιοῦντι τῆς λεγομένης Μεγάλης ὄργια. ἔστι δὲ παστὰς ἐν αὐτῇ, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς παστάδος ἐγγέγραπται μέχρι σήμερον ἡ πάντων τῶν εἰρημένων λόγων ἰδέα. πολλὰ μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς παστάδος ἐκείνης ἐγγεγραμμένα· περὶ ὧν καὶ Πλούταρχος ποιεῖται λόγους ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Ἐμπεδοκλέα δέκα βίβλοις. Whether the παστάς is here bridal chamber or bridal bed it is impossible to decide; it may have been a sort of decorative baldacchino. That παστός meant sometimes bed, not chamber, is clear I think from the title παστοφόρος applied to Aphrodite.

[1346] Arist. De Rep. Ath. III. 5 (p. 118) ἔτι καὶ νῦν γὰρ τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως γυναικὸς ἡ σύμμειξις ἐνταῦθα γίγνεται τῷ Διονύσῳ καὶ ὁ γάμος. Rutherford and Hude bracket καὶ ὁ γάμος. I see no reason for this. By Aristotle’s time the old matriarchal σύμμειξις was regarded as a regular patriarchal γάμος. The double expression marks a transitional attitude of mind.

[1347] [Demosthenes] in Neaer. § 73. The sources for the ceremony in the Boukolion are fully given by Dr Martin Nilsson, Studia de Dionysiis Atticis p. 156.

[1348] ἁγιστεύω καὶ εἰμὶ καθαρὰ καὶ ἁγνὴ ἀπό τε τῶν ἄλλων τῶν οὐ καθαρευόντων, καὶ ἀπ’ ἀνδρὸς συνουσίας.

[1349] The club rules of the Iobacchoi, noted p. 475, do not deal with the mysteries of the cult.

[1350] P. II. 11. 3.

[1351] Epiph. L.I.T. III. p. 255, and Iren. I. 18, p. 89, οἱ μὲν νυμφῶνα κατασκευάζουσι καὶ μυσταγωγίαν ἐπιτελοῦσι μετ’ ἐπιρρήσεών τινων τοῖς τελουμένοις καὶ πνευματικὸν γάμον φάσκουσιν εἶναι.

[1352] Firmicus Mat. de Ev. Pr. Relig. p. 38 C neque verba solum sed etiam ritus nuptialis sacris mysticis intercurrisse indicio est solemnis gratulatio qua mystae recens initiatos sponsarum nomine consalutabant—χαῖρε νυμφίε, χαῖρε νέον φῶς.

[1353] Ar. Ran. 324.

[1354] Ar. Ran. 382.

[1355] The text as emended by Dr Weil runs as follows, see Bull. de Corr. Hell. XIX.

[Οἰνοθα]λὲς δὲ χειρὶ πάλ- λών δ[έπ]ας ἐνθέοις [σὺν οἴσ-] τροις ἔμολες μυχοὺς [Ἐλε]υ- σῖνος ἀν[θεμοεί]δεις Εὐοὶ ὦ ἰὸ Βάκχ’ ὦ ἰ[ὲ Παι]άν· [ἔθνος ἔνθ’] ἅπαν Ἑλλάδος γᾶς ἀ[μφ(ὶ) ἐ]νναέταις [φίλιον] ἐπ[όπ]ταις ὀργίων ὁσ[ίων Ἴα]κ- χον [κλείει σ]ὲ βροτοῖς πόνων ᾦξ[ας] δ’ ὅρ]μον [ἄλυπον].

[1356] Soph. Ant. 1115 τὸν ταμίαν Ἴακχον. The title ταμίας points, I think, to the rites dispensed, ‘steward of the mysteries.’

[1357] Herod. VIII. 65 καί οἱ φαίνεσθαι τὴν φωνὴν εἶναι τὸν μυστικὸν ἴακχον ... καὶ τὴν φωνὴν τῆς ἀκούεις ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ὁρτῇ ἰακχάζουσι.

[1358] Plut. Cam. XIX. 15. The word used for the ceremony of escorting is variously ἐξάγειν, προπέμπειν, and once ἐξελαύνειν, see Foucart, Les Grands Mystères d’Éleusis, p. 121 (1900), and Roscher s.v. Iacchos.

[1359] Strab. X. 3. 11 Ἴακχόν τε καὶ Διόνυσον καλοῦσι καὶ τὸν ἀρχηγέτην τῶν μυστηρίων τῆς Δήμητρος δαίμονα. An inscription of Roman date has [δαί]μονι πέμψαν ἰάκχωι, see Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1899, p. 215. We are reminded of the Agathos Daimon, the spirit of wealth (p. 33).

[1360] Suidas s.v. Ἴακχος. Lucret. IV. 1160 ‘tumida et mammosa Ceres est ipsa ab Iaccho.’

[1361] Schol. ad Ar. Ran. 479 Σεμελήι’ Ἴακχε πλουτοδότα.

[1362] Soph. frg. 782, ap. Strab. XV. p. 687, see p. 379.

[1363] Nonn. XLVIII. 951 ff.

καὶ τριτάτῳ νέον ὕμνον ἐπεσμαράγησαν Ἰάκχῳ καὶ χορὸν ὀψιτέλεστον ἀνεκρούσαντο πολῖται Ζαγρέα κυδαίνοντες ἅμα Βρομίῳ καὶ Ἰάκχῳ.

That the child Iacchos at Eleusis became an element in Orphic teaching is evident from the degraded form of the Baubo legend expressed in an Orphic hymn and quoted in full by Clement, Protr. 21. 26, see Dindorf, vol. IV. p. 11.

[1364] P. I. 37. 4.

[1365] P. III. 13. 2.

[1366] P. III. 14. 5.

[1367] The singular and very peculiar ritual of bull-sacrifice described in the Kritias of Plato, and represented on imperial coins of Ilium, has recently been elucidated by Dr von Fritze (‘Troja und Ilium,’ Beiträge, pp. 514, 563). It probably took place at Eleusis, cf. C.I.A. II. 467, ἤραντο δὲ τοῖς Μυστηρίοις τοὺς βοῦς ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι τῇ θυσίᾳ. But this ceremony I believe to have been part of the primitive ritual of Poseidon at Eleusis, which, interesting though it is, does not here concern us. Of an Omophagia at Eleusis the ‘tokens’ contain no trace, though the bull-ritual of Poseidon may have facilitated the affiliation of Dionysos.

[1368] Helbig, Cat. 1168, Museo delle Terme, Rome, published and discussed by E. Caetani Lovatelli, Ant. Mon. illustr. p. 25 ff., tav. II.-IV.

[1369] The mystic initiated holds a club. He is probably Herakles, who, according to tradition, was initiated in the mysteries at Agrae.

[1370] This passage is of such cardinal importance that the text is given below. The birth of Brimos and the ‘ear of grain reaped’ are often cited separately as elements in Eleusinian rites, but so far as I know their substantial identity has never been noted, nor has attention been called to the fact that they are both Dionysiac (Thraco-Phrygian) elements. The text is that of Cruice, Philosophoumena, Paris 1860, p. 170. Λέγουσι δὲ αὐτόν, φησί, Φρύγες καὶ ‘χλοερὸν στάχυν τεθερισμένον’ καὶ μετὰ τοὺς Φρύγας Ἀθηναῖοι μυοῦντες Ἐλευσίνια, καὶ ἐπιδεικνύντες τοῖς ἐποπτεύουσι τὸ μέγα καὶ θαυμαστὸν καὶ τελειότατον ἐποπτικὸν ἐκεῖ μυστήριον, ἐν σιωπῇ τεθερισμένον στάχυν. Ὁ δὲ στάχυς οὗτός ἐστι καὶ παρὰ Ἀθηναίοις ὁ παρὰ τοῦ ἀχαρακτηρίστου φωστὴρ τέλειος μέγας καθάπερ αὐτὸς ὁ ἱεροφάντης, οὐκ ἀποκεκομμένος μέν, ὡς ὁ Ἄττις, εὐνουχισμένος δὲ διὰ κωνείου καὶ πᾶσαν παρῃτημένος τὴν σαρκικὴν γένεσιν νυκτὸς ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι ὑπὸ πολλῷ πυρὶ τελῶν τὰ μεγάλα καὶ ἄρρητα μυστήρια βοᾷ καὶ κέκραγε λέγων ‘ἱερὸν ἔτεκε πότνια κοῦρον Βριμὼ Βριμόν,’ τουτέστιν ἰσχυρὰ ἰσχυρόν. Πότνια δέ ἐστι, φησίν, ἡ γένεσις ἡ πνευματική, ἡ ἐπουράνιος, ἡ ἄνω· ἰσχυρὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ οὕτω γεννώμενος. φησίν of course refers to the Naassene not the Hierophant.

[1371] So determined are some commentators to see in pagan rites evil where no evil is, that Miller has substituted ἀπηρτισμένος for παρῃτημένος, thus making nonsense of the passage.

[1372] Aster. Encom. Mart. p. 113 B οὐκ ἐκεῖ καταβάσιον τὸ σκοτεινὸν καὶ αἱ σεμναὶ τοῦ ἱεροφάντου πρὸς τὴν ἱερείαν συντυχίαι μόνου πρὸς μόνην;

[1373] Luc. Alex. 38 εἰ δὲ μὴ πολλαὶ ἦσαν αἱ δᾷδες τάχ’ ἄν τι καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ κόλπου ἐπράττετο. μετὰ μικρὸν δὲ πάλιν ἐσῄει ἱεροφαντικῶς ἐσκευασμένος ἐν πολλῇ τῇ σιωπῇ καὶ αὐτὸς μὲν ἔλεγε μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ ἰὴ Γλύκων κ.τ.λ.

[1374] The Christian fathers of course regarded the Sacred Marriage as a shameful rape. Tertullian (ad nat. II. 7, p. 57 D) asks ‘Cur rapitur sacerdos Cereris si non tale Ceres passa est?’ That Tertullian’s view is wrong is sufficiently evidenced by the author of the Philosophoumena, loc. cit.

[1375] Clem. Al. Protr. I. 15 Δηοῦς δὲ μυστήρια καὶ Διὸς πρὸς μητέρα Δήμητρα ἀφροδίσιοι συμπλοκαὶ καὶ μῆνις ... τῆς Δηοῦς ἧς δὴ χάριν Βριμὼ προσαγορευθῆναι λέγεται.

[1376] Lyc. Al. 1175.

[1377] Luc. Menippus 20 καὶ ἐνεβριμήσατο ἡ Βριμὼ καὶ ὑλάκτησεν ὁ Κέρβερος. The untranslatable play on the words shows that the name Brimo was taken to imply a loud angry noise.

[1378] Apoll. Rhod. III. 861, and schol. ad loc.

[1379] Soph. Oed. Col. 1048. I have translated κλῄς by key not by seal, although, as Prof. Jebb (ad loc.) points out, ‘there is no evidence for the Eleusinian Hierophant putting a key to the lips of the initiated.’ In face of the fact that the key was the recognized symbol of priestly office, I incline to think some such ceremony was enacted. We know from Hesychius (s.v.) that there was a festival or ceremony called ‘the festival of the keys,’ Epikleidia, but unhappily we have no details and cannot use the fact as an argument.

[1380] Schol. ad Oed. Col. 1048 ζητεῖται τί δήποτε οἱ Εὐμολπίδαι τῶν τελετῶν ἐξάρχουσι ξένοι ὄντες· εἴποι δ’ ἄν τις ὅτι ἀξιοῦσι πρῶτον τὸν Εὔμολπον ποιῆσαι τὸν Δηϊόπης τῆς Τριπτολέμου τὰ ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι μυστήρια καὶ οὐ τὸν Θρᾷκα καὶ τοῦτο ἱστορεῖν Ἴστρον ἐν τῷ περὶ τῶν Ἀτάκτων. Ἀκεστόδωρος δὲ πεμπτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου Εὐμόλπου εἶναι τὸν τὰς τελετὰς καταδείξαντα, γράφων οὕτως ‘Κατοικῆσαι δὲ τὴν Ἐλευσῖνα ἱστοροῦσι πρῶτον μὲν τοὺς αὐτόχθονας εἶτα Θρᾷκας τοὺς μετὰ Εὐμόλπου παραγενομένους πρὸς βοήθειαν εἰς τὸν κατ’ Ἐρεχθέως πόλεμον, τινὲς δέ φασι καὶ τὸν Εὔμολπον εὑρεῖν τὴν μύησιν τὴν συντελουμένην κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι Δήμητρι καὶ Κόρῃ.’

[1381] I have elsewhere (Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, p. lvii ff.) discussed the relations of Erechtheus and Eumolpos. The view there expressed as to the Eumolpidae and their relation to Thrace and the incoming of Dionysos is confirmed by the more detailed and independent examination of the legend by Dr Toepffer, Attische Genealogie, p. 40.

[1382] Cat. 61, 140; Wiener Vorlegeblätter A. 7.

[1383] For polychrome fac-simile see Coll. Tyskiewicky, Pl. X. The vase is now in the Museum at Lyons.

[1384] Cedrenus Comp. T. I. p. 24. The sources are fully given in Lobeck’s Aglaophamus, p. 572. The word βάθρον is sometimes written βόθρον, a detail which does not affect the present argument.

[1385] Tatian c. Gr. VIII. 251 ἐν τῷ τεμένει τοῦ Λητοΐδου καλεῖταί τις ὀμφαλός, ὁ δὲ ὀμφαλὸς τάφος τοῦ Διονύσου.

[1386] Rev. Internat. d’Archéologie et Numismatique 1901, pl. I. and Dr Svoronos’s interpretation, p. 234.

[1387] Poll. Onom. IV. 103 τὸ γὰρ κερνοφόρον ὄρχημα, οἶδα ὅτι λίκνα ἢ ἐσχαρίδας ἔφερον. κέρνα δὲ ταῦτα ἐκαλεῖτο.

[1388] Dr Svoronos identifies ‘Ninnion,’ and I believe correctly, with the hetaira Nannion, whose notorious career is related by Athenaeus (Bk. XIII. §§ 582 and 587), but this question is for my purpose irrelevant.

[1389] Schol. Ar. Plut. 845.

[1390] Steph. Byz. Ἄγρα καὶ Ἄγραι χωρίον πρὸ τῆς πόλεως, ἐν ᾧ τὰ μικρὰ μυστήρια ἐπιτελεῖται μίμημα τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον.

[1391] Dr Svoronos, whose brilliant interpretation of the pinax I follow in the main, sees in the ‘omphalos’ the πέτρα ἀγέλαστος. Here reluctantly I am obliged to differ.

[1392] Schol. ad Ar. Eq. 409, βάκχον ἐκάλουν ... τοὺς κλάδους οὓς οἱ μύσται φέρουσι. The name given to these bunches of myrtle is evidence in itself of the intrusion of the worship of Dionysos.

[1393] Strab. X. iii. 13 § 468.

[1394] Eur. Bacch. 126.

[1395] From a photograph of the relief, now in the National Museum at Athens.

[1396] S. Aster. Amasen. Hom. x. in SS. Martyr. οὐ κεφάλαιον τῆς σῆς θρησκείας τὰ ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι μυστήρια καὶ δῆμος Ἀττικὸς καὶ ἡ Ἑλλὰς πᾶσα συναίρει ἵνα τελέσῃ ματαιότητα; Οὐκ ἐκεῖ τὸ καταβάσιον τὸ σκοτεινὸν καὶ αἱ σεμναὶ τοῦ ἱεροφάντου πρὸς τὴν ἱερείαν συντυχίαι μόνου πρὸς μόνην; Οὐχ αἱ λαμπάδες σβέννυνται καὶ ὁ πολὺς καὶ ἀναρίθμητος δῆμος τὴν σωτηρίαν αὐτῶν εἶναι νομίζουσι τὰ ἐν τῷ σκότῳ παρὰ τῶν δύο πραττόμενα;

[1397] Hymn. ad Cer. 122.

[1398] v. 490.

[1399] Od. V. 125 νειῷ ἔνι τριπόλῳ. I venture to render τριπόλῳ by ‘in the spring,’ because Theophrastos (H.P. VII. 1) says there were three ploughings, one in the winter, one in the summer and a third between the two (ἄροτος τρίτος ὁ μεταξύ τούτων) which must have been in the spring before the seed was sown. Triptolemos is the Eleusinian Iasion.

[1400] Hes. Theog. 969.

[1401] Theocr. Id. III. 50. Translated by Mr Gilbert Murray.

[1402] In Samothrace, Iasion becomes a mystery-figure. He is the father of Korybas, and his sister Harmonia takes her ἱερὸς γάμος to Thebes. Again the route is by the islands, see Diod. V. 45.

[1403] Schol. ad Hes. Theog. 971 καὶ γὰρ ἡ παροιμία ‘πυρῶν καὶ κριθῶν, ὦ νήπιε Πλοῦτε.’

[1404] Hom. Hymn. ad Cer. 480.

[1405] v. 483.

[1406] Diod. V. 77, and see Diod. V. 64.

[1407] Plut. An sen. est ger. resp. XVII. ἡ δὲ πατρὶς καὶ μητρὶς (ὡς Κρῆτες καλοῦσι).

[1408] A. J. Evans, The Palace of Knossos in its Egyptian relations, Egypt Exploration Fund, Arch. Report 1899-90, p. 60.

[1409] An instance of a sacred pantomime in which the parts of gods were taken by ‘Iobacchoi’ is given in another connection (p. 475), but this pantomime cannot be used as evidence. Its date is long after the rise of the drama.

[1410] Psellus, Quaenam sunt Graecorum opiniones de daemonibus 3 (ed. Migne). ἃ δέ γε μυστήρια τούτων οἷα αὐτίκα τὰ Ἐλευσίνια τὸν μυθικὸν ὑποκρίνεται Δία μιγνύμενον ἤγουν τῇ Δηοῖ ἢ τῇ Δημήτερι καὶ τῇ θυγατρὶ ταύτης Φερεφάττῃ, τῇ καὶ Κόρῃ. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔμελλον καὶ ἀφροδίσιοι ἐπὶ τῇ μυήσει γίνεσθαι συμπλοκαί, ἀναδύεταί πως ἡ Ἀφροδίτη ἀπό τινων πεπλασμένων μηδέων πελάγιος. Εἶτα δὲ γαμήλιος ἐπὶ τῇ Κόρῃ ὑμεναῖος. Καὶ ὑπᾴδουσιν οἱ τελούμενοι ‘ἐκ τυμπάνου ἔφαγον, ἐκ κυμβάλων ἔπιον, ἐκιρνοφόρησα, ὑπὸ τὸν παστὸν εἰσέδυν.’ Ὑποκρίνεται δὲ καὶ τὰς Δηοῦς ὠδῖνας. Ἱκετηρίαι γοῦν αὐτίκα Δηοῦς. καὶ χολῆς πόσις καὶ καρδιαλγίαι. Ἐφ’ οἷς καὶ τραγόσκελες μίμημα παθαινόμενον περὶ τοῖς διδύμοις ὅτι περ ὁ Ζεὺς δίκας ἀποτιννὺς τῆς βίας τῇ Δήμητρι τράγου ὄρχεις ἀποτεμὼν τῷ κόλπῳ ταύτης κατέθετο ὥσπερ δὴ καὶ ἑαυτοῦ. Ἐπὶ πᾶσιν αἱ τοῦ Διονύσου τιμαὶ καὶ ἡ κίστις καὶ τὰ πολυόμφαλα πόπανα καὶ οἱ τῷ Σαβαζίῳ τελούμενοι καὶ οἱ μητριάζοντες Κλώδωνές τε καὶ Μιμαλλόνες, καί τις ἠχῶν λέβης Θεσπρώτειος καὶ Δωδώναιον χαλκεῖον καὶ Κορύβας ἄλλος καὶ Κούρης ἕτερος δαιμόνων μιμήματα. Ἐφ’ οἷς ἡ Βαυβὼ τοὺς μηροὺς ἀνασυρομένη καὶ ὁ γυναικεῖος κτείς· οὕτω γὰρ ὀνομάζουσι τὴν αἰδῶ αἰσχυνόμενοι. Καὶ οὕτως ἐν αἰσχρῷ τὴν τελετὴν καταλύουσιν.

I owe this reference to Taylor’s Eleusinian Mysteries. The book is by modern authorities as a rule contemptuously ignored, probably because Taylor’s construing is always vague and often inaccurate and he entirely declines to accentuate his Greek. In spite of these minor drawbacks his attitude towards the interpretation of the Mysteries is far in advance of that of many better furnished scholars.

[1411] The account of Psellus is for obvious reasons rather resumed than translated. Some of the rites recorded by Psellus are not in harmony with modern conventions, and for my purpose it is not needful to discuss them. But once for all I wish to record my conviction that such evil as we find in these mysteries we bring with us. The mind of Herondas is not the measure of primitive sanctities. The story of Babo or Baubo has always been a stumbling-block, but we know now that her action was a primitive and perfectly reverent προβασκάνιον; as such it is depicted on ancient amulets. Its significance and its apotropaic potency alike appear in the very early matriarchal legend of the Lycian Bellerophon (Plut. de mulier. virt. IX.). The true mystic said with Heracleitos (ap. Clem. Protr. II. p. 30): Εἰ μὴ γὰρ Διονύσῳ πομπὴν ἐποιεῦντο καὶ ὕμνεον ἆσμα αἰδοίοισιν, ἀναιδέστατα εἴργαστ’ ἄν· αὐτὸς δέ Ἀΐδης καὶ Διόνυσος ὅτεῳ μαίνονται καὶ ληναίζουσιν. See Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit im Lichte der Mysterienidee, p. 28.

[1412] Galen, de Usu Part. VII. 14 § 469; see Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 63.

[1413] Sopat. Dist. Quaest. Walz, Rhet. Graec., vol. VIII. p. 1.

[1414] Plut. Consol. ad uxor. X. ὅτι κωλύει σε πιστεύειν ὁ πάτριος λόγος καὶ τὰ μυστικὰ σύμβολα τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον ὀργιασμῶν ἃ σύνισμεν ἀλλήλοις οἱ κοινοῦντες.

[1415] See especially A. Dieterich, Nekuia, pp. 84 ff., and De Hymnis Orphicis, pp. 31 ff. Other references are given in the notes and Appendix.

[1416] In the Appendix kindly written for me by Mr Gilbert Murray.

[1417] Brit. Mus. Gold Ornament Room, Table-Case H. Kaibel, CIGIS, No. 641. The tablet had been rolled up and placed in a hexagonal cylinder hanging from a delicate gold chain and doubtless worn by the dead person as an amulet. The facsimile reproduced here and first published J.H.S. III. p. 112 was verified for Prof. Comparetti by Mr Cecil Smith and supersedes Kaibel’s publication. As the letters in the original are small and in places not easily legible, Mr Smith’s reading is given below:

Εὑρήσσεις δ’ Ἀίδαο δόμων ἐπ’ ἀριστερὰ κρήνην πὰρ δ’ αὐτῆι λευκὴν ἑστηκυῖαν κυπάρισσον· ταύτης τῆς κρήνης μηδὲ σχεδὸν ἐμπελάσειας. Εὑρήσεις δ’ ἑτέραν τῆς Μνημοσύνης ἀπὸ λίμνης ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ προρέον· φύλακες δ’ ἐπίπροσθεν ἔασιν. Εἰπεῖν· γῆς παῖς εἰμὶ καὶ οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος, αὐτὰρ ἐμοὶ γένος οὐράνιον· τόδε δ’ ἴστε καὶ αὐτοί· δίψῃι δ’ εἰμὶ αὔη καὶ ἀπόλλυμαι· ἀλλὰ δότ’ αἶψα ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ προρέον τῆς Μνημοσύνης ἀπὸ λίμνης· καὐ[τοί σο]ι δώσουσι πιεῖν θείης ἀπ[ὸ κρήν]ης καὶ τότ’ ἔπειτ’ ἄ[λλοισι μεθ’] ἡρώεσσιν ἀνάξει[ς] ............ιης τόδε.................................θανεῖ[σ]θαι .....................τοδ’ ἔγραψ[εν?]... .......................................σκότος ἀμφικαλύψας.

[1418] Joubin, Bull. de Corr. Hell. XVII. 1893, p. 122. This tablet, with two others which are duplicates of the one here given, are now in the National Museum at Athens. For fac-similes and discussion of text see Appendix.

[1419] Hes. Theog. 135.

[1420] Basil Thomson, ‘The Kalou-Vu’ (Journal Anthrop. Inst. May 1895, p. 349). I am indebted for this reference to Mr Andrew Lang’s Homeric Hymns p. 91.

[1421] Mr Lang, op. cit. p. 81, examines ‘the alleged Egyptian origins’ of the Eleusinian mysteries and decides against M. Foucart’s theory in toto. Mr Lang certainly succeeds in showing that for all Greek mysteries a satisfactory savage analogy can be found; but this surely does not preclude the possibility of occasional borrowing. Crete has shown conclusively that ‘Mycenaean’ art borrowed from Egypt: why not ‘Mycenaean’ religion? See Classical Review, Feb. 1903, p. 84.

[1422] Kaibel, CIGIS 1842:

ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ δοίη σοι ἄναξ ἐνέρων Ἀιδωνεύς, ὦ Μέλαν· ἥβης γάρ σοι ἀπώλετο φίλτατον ἄνθος

and 1488 Θ(εοῖς) Κ(αταχθονίοις). εὐψύχει, κυρία, καὶ δοῖ σοι ὁ Ὄσιρις τὸ ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ. For the analogy of the Christian refrigerium see Mr J. A. Stewart’s interesting note in the Classical Review for March 1903, p. 117, published since the above was written. See Dieterich, Nekuia p. 95, and Foucart, Recherches sur l’Origine et la Nature des Mystères d’Éleusis, Paris 1895, p. 68.

[1423] Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 97:

χαῖρε δὲ λευκὸν ὕδωρ καὶ δένδρεον ὑψιπέτηλον.

It is perhaps worth noting that in the Egyptian Book of the Dead (Vignette to Chapter LXIII. A.) the dead man receives water from a goddess in a tree growing out of a pool of water.

[1424] Hes. Theog. 227.

[1425] Ar. Ran. 186.

[1426] Ib. 194 παρά τὸν Αὑαίνου λίθον.

[1427] Plat. Rep. X. 621.

[1428] A reminiscence of Styx, see Pausanias VIII. 18. 5 and Dr Frazer’s commentary.

[1429] Plat. Phaedr. 249 ff.

[1430] P. IX. 39. 5-14.

[1431] Plut. de fac. in orb. lun. XXX. ἀλλὰ χρηστηρίων δεῦρο κατίασιν ἐπιμελησόμενοι καὶ ταῖς ἀνωτάτω συμπάρεισι καὶ συνοργιάζουσι τῶν τελετῶν. κολασταί τε γίνονται καὶ φύλακες ἀδικημάτων.

[1432] Plut. de Gen. Soc. XXI. ff.

[1433] Plut. Symp. Proem. and VII. 5. 3.

[1434] Eur. Bacch. 280.

[1435] Apollod. Epit. Vat. 6. 3.

[1436] Eur. Or. 211.

[1437] Orph. Hymn. LXXVII.

[1438] Plat. Phaedr. p. 248 C.

[1439] Plut. de occult. viv. sub fin. δεχόμενοι καὶ ἀποκρύπτοντες ἀγνοίᾳ καὶ λήθῃ τοὺς κολαζομένους ... ἓν κολαστήριον ... ἀδοξία καὶ ἄγνοια καὶ παντελῶς ἀφανισμὸς αἴρων εἰς τὸν ἀμειδῆ ποταμὸν ἀπὸ τῆς λήθης.

[1440] Dante Purg. XXVIII. 130, XXXI. 98, XXXIII. 127. I owe this reference to Dante’s well to the kindness of Mr F. M. Cornford. He tells me that the source from which Dante took Eunoë is not known.

[1441] Εὐνόη is the name of a Nymph, apparently a Naiad; see Roscher, s.v.

[1442] Naples Museum, Kaibel, CIGIS 642. For fac-similes of this and the following tablets, the text of which presents many difficulties, see Appendix, pp. 663, 665.

[1443] See Appendix, p. 665.

[1444] Eur. Cycl. 646.

[1445] Notizie degli Scavi, 1880, Tavᵃ IIIᵃ, Figs. 1, 2, 3. With these three tablets was found a red-figured plate of Lucanian fabric on which was represented a winged genius bearing a crown.

[1446] Kaibel, CIGIS 641: see Appendix, p. 668.

[1447] Kaibel, CIGIS 2: see Appendix, p. 669.

[1448] Kaibel, CIGIS 641. 8: see Appendix, p. 669.

[1449] Nothing certain is known of Caecilia Secundina, though her name suggests connection with the family of Pliny the Younger, whose original name before his adoption by his uncle C. Plinius Secundus was Publius Caecilius Secundus.

[1450] Theophr. Char. XXVIII.

[1451] Hesych. s.v. Εὐκλῆς.

[1452] Orph. Hymn. XXX. 6, 7, and see Abel, Orphica s.v.

[1453] In magical papyri the utterance of certain σύμβολα or tokens is urged as a plea for acceptance:

νεῦσον ἐμοί, λίτομαι, ὅτι σύμβολα μυστικὰ φράζω.

See Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 97.

[1454] Herod. II. 122.

[1455] Plat. Phaedo 70 C. Plato may have had some Orphic rite vaguely in his mind in the Phaedrus. The soul escapes by wings from the inside of the sphere into heavenly places (248 C).

[1456] Emped. ap. Diog. Laert. VII. 77.

[1457] Diog. Laert. VII. 12.

[1458] The κύκλος of the rites was probably a real wheel, but it is also possible that it was a circle drawn round the neophyte out of which he escaped. Psellus (περὶ δαιμόνων) records an old Bacchic rite in which demons were expelled by the action of leaping out of a circle of fire: πυρὰ δὲ πολλὰ κύκλῳ τινὶ περιγράφοντες ἐξάλλονται τῆς φλογός. ἤν δὲ καὶ τοῦτο τῆς παλαιᾶς βακχείας, ἵνα μὴ λέγω μανίας μέρος ... ὁ δέ γε κύκλος κατοχῆς ἔχει δύναμιν. The wheel and the magic mesmeric circle may have got ‘contaminated.’

[1459] Clem. Alex. Strom. V. p. 242 διὰ δὲ συμβόλων, ὡς ὅ τε τροχὸς ὁ στρεφόμενος ἐν τοῖς τῶν θεῶν τεμένεσιν εἱλκυσμένος παρὰ Αἰγυπτίων.

I have throughout translated κύκλος by wheel. The same idea is rendered indifferently by τροχός and κύκλος, though κύκλος occurs more frequently: cf. Proclus ad Tim. p. 330 A κύκλος τῆς γενέσεως, ἐν τῷ τῆς εἱμαρμένης ... τροχῷ. The same thing is in English a ‘cycle,’ in American a ‘wheel.’ In the Orphic Hades of Vergil the κύκλος is a rota.

[1460] Hero Alex. Pneum. I. 32 and II. 32. Θησαυροῦ κατασκευὴ τροχὸν ἔχοντος στρεφόμενον χάλκεον ὃς καλεῖται ἁγνιστήριον.

[1461] Theocr. II. 36 schol. διόπερ πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀφοσίωσιν καὶ ἀποκάθαρσιν αὐτῷ ἐχρῶντο ὥς φησι καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῷ περὶ θεῶν. For a full discussion of the apotropaic uses of bronze gongs see Mr A. B. Cook, ‘The Gong at Dodona,’ J.H.S. vol. XXII. 1902, p. 5.

[1462] Procl. in Plat. Tim. V. 330 ἧς καὶ οἱ παρ’ Ὀρφεῖ τῷ Διονύσῳ καὶ τῇ Κόρῃ τελούμενοι τυχεῖν εὔχονται·

Κύκλου τ’ αὖ λῆξαι καὶ ἀναπνεῦσαι κακότητος.

[1463] Eur. Bacch. 901.

[1464] Dr Dieterich in his valuable tract De Hymnis Orphicis capitula quinque says (p. 55): στέφανος est qui cingit loca beatorum, vel prata illa ipsa desiderata. Simili notione vox στέφανος usurpatur in Orphicorum Argonauticorum versu 71

αὐτίκα οἱ στέφανος καὶ τεῖχος ἐρυμνὸν Αἰητέω κατέφαινε καὶ ἄλσεα.

His interpretation suggested that given in the text, though the two are not identical.

[1465] Theo. Smyrn. Mathem. I. p. 18 τετάρτη δὲ ὃ δὴ καὶ τέλος τῆς ἐποπτείας ἀνάδεσις καὶ στεμμάτων ἐπίθεσις ... δᾳδουχίας τυχόντα ἢ ἱεροφαντίας ἢ τινος ἄλλης ἱεροσύνης.

[1466] Hesych. s.v. δευτερόποτμος· ἢ ὁ δεύτερον διὰ γυναικείου κόλπου διαδύς· ὡς ἔθος ἦν παρὰ Ἀθηναίοις ἐκ δευτέρου γεννᾶσθαι.

[1467] Diod. IV. 39.

[1468] Luc. Lexiph. 10 καὶ ταῦτα εὖ εἰδὼς ὅτι ἐξ οὗπερ ὡσιώθησαν ἀνώνυμοί τέ εἰσι καὶ οὐκέτι ὀνομαστοὶ ὡς ἂν ἱερώνυμοι ἤδη γεγενημένοι. ὡσιώθησαν here clearly marks the final stage of initiation only open to priests: it is practically ‘ordination.’

[1469] Hesych. s.v. Ἔριφος· Διόνυσος.

[1470] Steph. Byz. s.v. Διόνυσος· Ἐρίφιος παρὰ Μεταποντίοις.

[1471] Clem. Al. Protr. XII. 119 βακχεύουσι δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ οὐχ αἱ Σεμέλης τῆς κεραυνίας ἀδελφαὶ αἱ μαινάδες αἱ δύσαγνον κρεανομίαν μυούμεναι ἀλλὰ τοῦ θεοῦ θυγατέρες αἱ ἀμνάδες αἱ καλαὶ τὰ σεμνὰ τοῦ λόγου θεσπίζονται ὄργια χορὸν ἐγείρουσαι σώφρονα.

[1472] Eur. Bacch. 142.

[1473] Eur. Bacch. 706.

[1474] O. Benndorf, Grabschrift von Telmessos (Sonderabdruck aus der Festschrift für Th. Gomperz) p. 404:

‘Ἔνθα Βόηθος ἀνὴρ μουσόρρυτος ὕπνον ἰαύει αἰῶνος γλυκερῷ κείμενος ἐν μέλιτι.’

[1475] M. Salamon Reinach (‘Une formule Orphique,’ Rev. Arch. XXXIX. 1901, p. 202) takes πίπτειν ἐς to be metaphorical and compares incidere in and the French tomber sur. But the division of verb and preposition and the fact that the sentence is a religious formulary are against this light colloquial sense. If the expression is metaphorical it has a close analogy in πίπτειν ἐς γένεσιν. Porphyry says (De Antr. Nymph. 13) of the souls ὅταν ἐς γένεσιν πέσωσιν. It may I think be worth noting that in Egypt, when the soles of the feet (of the mummy) which had trodden the mire of earth were removed, the gods were prayed to grant milk to the Osiris that he might bathe his feet in it. See Wiedemann, Ancient Egyptian Doctrine of Immortality, p. 48.

[1476] Usener, ‘Milch und Honig,’ Rhein. Mus. 1902, Heft 2, p. 177.

[1477] Tertull. de corona militis 3: dehinc ter mergitamur ... unde suscepti lactis et mellis concordiam praegustamus.

[1478] For a full account of the complex and beautiful ceremony of primitive Baptism see Didaskaliae fragmenta Veronensia latina, ed. Ettauler (Lips. 1900), pp. 111-113, and E. Trumpf, Abh. d. philos.-philol. Cl. der K. Bayer. Ak. d. Wiss. XIV. 3, p. 180.

[1479] S. Hieron. Altercat. Lucif. et orthodox. c. 8, t. 11, p. 180ᵉ: nam et multa alia quae per traditionem in ecclesiis observantur auctoritatem sibi scriptae legis usurpaverunt, velut in lavacro ter caput mergitare deinde egresso lactis et mellis praegustare concordiam.

[1480] ‘Berliner Zauber-papyrus,’ Abh. d. Berl. Akad. 1865, p. 120. 20: καὶ λαβὼν τὸ γάλα σὺν τῷ (μέλι)τι ἀπόπιε πρὶν ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου καὶ ἔσται τι ἔνθεον ἐν τῇ σῇ καρδίᾳ.

[1481] Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἄγρα· χωρίον ... πρὸ τῆς πόλεως ἐν ᾗ τὰ μικρὰ μυστήρια ἐπιτελεῖται μίμημα τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον. These Lesser Mysteries were celebrated in the month Anthesterion sacred to Dionysos, see p. 560. For Persephone see Schol. Ar. Plut. 845 ἦσαν δὲ τὰ μὲν μεγάλα τῆς Δήμητρος τὰ δὲ μικρὰ Περσεφόνης.

[1482] Porphyr. Vit. Pythag. 17.

[1483] Plut. de Gen. Socr. XVI. ἔστι γάρ τι γενόμενον ἰδίᾳ περὶ τὰς ταφὰς τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν ὅσιον οὗ μὴ τυχόντες οὐ δοκοῦμεν ἀπέχειν τὸ μακαριστὸν καὶ οἰκεῖον τέλος ... ὁσίως γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν φίλων κεκηδεῦσθαι τὸ Λύσιδος σῶμα.

[1484] Plat. Phaedo 108 A ἀπὸ τῶν ὁσίων τε καὶ νομίμων τῶν ἐνθάδε.

[1485] Plut. de fac. in orb. lun. XXVIII.

[1486] Philostr. Her. 714 ὠμὸν γὰρ τὸ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ κήρυγμα· μὴ γὰρ θάπτειν τὸν Παλαμήδην μηδὲ ὁσιοῦν τῇ γῇ.

[1487] The whole series is published in the Wiener Vorlegeblätter, Serie E, Taf. I-VII.

[1488] Heydemann, Cat. 3222. Wiener Vorlegeblätter, Serie E, Taf. II. This vase was carefully examined by Dr Studniczka in 1887. On his report is based the full discussion by Dr Winkler, ‘Unter-italische Unterweltsdarstellungen,’ Breslauer Philolog. Abhandlungen, Band III. Heft 5, 1888. I verified Dr Studniczka’s report of the inscriptions in 1902. Nothing further can be done till the vase is properly cleaned, and, now that the Naples Museum is under new direction, this, it may be hoped, will be done.

[1489] Verg. Aen. VI. 644.

[1490] P. X. 30. 6.

[1491] P. II. 31. 1.

[1492] P. II. 37. 5.

[1493] Jahn, Cat. 849. Wiener Vorlegeblätter, Serie E, Taf. I.

[1494] P. X. 29. 3.

[1495] Verg. Aen. VI. 585.

[1496] Schol. ad Pind. Ol. I. 89.

[1497] Athen. VII. 14 § 281. The sources for the punishment of Tantalos are fully collected by Dr Frazer ad Paus. X. 31.

[1498] P. V. 13. 7.

[1499] P. II. 22. 3.

[1500] Hom. Il. VI. 152.

[1501] P. II. 1. 1.

[1502] Eustath. ad Il. VI. 153, 631 and ad Od. XI. 592, 1702.

[1503] By substitution of the Aeolic υ for ο. See Vaniček, Etym. Wörterbuch, p. 592.

[1504] P. II. 1. 3.

[1505] P. II. 5. 1.

[1506] Diod. XX. 103.

[1507] Strab. VIII. 21 § 379.

[1508] P. II. 5. 1.

[1509] P. II. 2. 2.

[1510] My present object is not to discuss the origin of the particular forms of punishment inflicted in Hades, but it may be noted in passing that the stone overhanging Tantalos and the lake in which he is submerged may have contained a reminiscence of some natural precipice and actual catastrophe, see Eustath. ad Od. XI. 592, 1701. In the Aeneid (VI. 601) the Lapithae, Ixion and Peirithoös all alike suffer the penalty of the imminent stone.

[1511] W. M. L. Hutchinson, Aeacus, a Judge of the Underworld, p. 25.

[1512] P. II. 29. 6.

[1513] Eustath. ad Il. XIV. 321, 989.

[1514] Eustath. ad Od. IV. 564, 187 τὸ δὲ ξανθὸς Ῥαδάμανθυς πρὸς ἡδονὴν Μενελάῳ πέφρασται, ξανθὸς γὰρ καὶ αὐτός.

[1515] Hom. Od. XI. 601.

[1516] Verg. Aen. VI. 617.

[1517] P. I. 17. 2, and Ar. Eq. 1311 schol. ad loc.

[1518] P. III. 3. 7.

[1519] Cat. 258. Hartung, Arch. Zeit. p. 263, Taf. XIX. and Wiener Vorlegeblätter, Serie E, Taf. VI. 3.

[1520] Cat. 319. Masner, p. 39, fig. 22.

[1521] In a vase in the Museum at Carlsruhe (Cat. 388) one ‘Danaid’ appears in the second tier of figures, see Winkler, Darstellungen der Unterwelt, p. 13.

[1522] Plat. Rep. 363 D and E.

[1523] Plat. Gorg. 493.

[1524] Ps.-Plat. Axioch. 573 E. In Xenophon (Oec. VII. 40) the water-carriers are unnamed and masculine: οἱ εἰς τὸν τετρημένον πίθον ἀντλεῖν λεγόμενοι.

[1525] Jahn, Cat. 153. Baumeister II. 866.

[1526] Arch. Zeit. 1871, Taf. 31. The objects in front of the seated old man are apparently a collection of loose sticks. I had doubts as to the accuracy of the reproduction, but the original at Palermo was examined for me by the late Mr R. A. Neil, and he pronounced the reproduction substantially correct.

[1527] Apul. Met. VI. 18. Prof. Furtwängler was, I believe, the first to call attention to the passage of Apuleius in connection with this vase. See Jahrbuch d. Inst. 1890, Anz. p. 24, and for the whole question of Oknos, which does not here immediately concern us, see O. Rossbach, ‘Dämonen der Unterwelt,’ Rhein. Mus. 1893, p. 593.

[1528] P. X. 31. 9-11.

[1529] Strab. VIII. § 256. Eustathius ad Il. IV. 171. 351 attributes the verse in slightly different form to Hesiod: ἢ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν Δαναΐδων αἳ παραγενόμεναι ἐξ Αἰγύπτου φρεωρυχίαν ἐδίδαξαν ὡς Ἡσίοδος

Ἄργος ἄνυδρον ἐὸν Δαναὸς ποίησεν ἔνυδρον.

[1530] Aesch. Supp. 158.

[1531] The story that the heads of the murdered husbands were buried in or near Lerna apart from their bodies may have been merely aetiological and based on the practice of calling the brim of a well κεφαλή. Cf. our ‘well-head,’ ‘fountain-head.’ Latin caput aquae. It is not my purpose here to examine completely the Danaid myth save in so far as the Danaides were contaminated with the Uninitiated in Hades. The folklore of the subject has been well collected by Dr Campbell Bonner, Trans. American Philol. Ass. vol. XXXI. 1900, II. p. 27.

[1532] Strab. loc. cit. supra.

[1533] Herod. II. 171.

[1534] Poll. On. III. 38 καὶ τέλος ὁ γάμος ἐκαλεῖτο καὶ τέλειοι οἱ γεγαμηκότες διὰ τοῦτο καὶ Ἥρα τελεία ἡ ζυγία. The play on the word τέλος cannot be reproduced in English.

[1535] Eustath. ad Il. XXIII. 141, p. 1293.

[1536] For the vases known as Loutrophoroi see Milchhoeffer, A. Mitt. V. 1880, p. 174, and P. Wolters, A. Mitt. XVI. 1891, p. 371, and ib. XVIII. 1893, p. 66. These vases were sometimes pierced at the bottom but it is not certain that the pierced vases were placed only on the graves of the unmarried.

[1537] Dr Frazer, ad P. X. 31. 9, collects a number of interesting modern parallels.

[1538] Plin. N.H. XXVIII. 2. 3.

[1539] Hor. Od. 3. 11. 35. Apollodorus II. 1. 14 says of Hypermnestra αὕτη δὲ Λυγκέα διέσωσε παρθένον αὐτὴν φυλάξαντα.

[1540] Schol. ad Arist. Orat. II. p. 229 τῶν δὲ Δαναΐδων ὁ τετρημένος πίθος τὸ μήποτε ταύτας μετὰ τὸν φόνον τῶν φιλτάτων τὴν ἀναψύχουσαν αὐτὰς ἐκ τῆς ἀνδρείας κηδεμονίας χάριν παρ’ ἄλλων τυγχάνειν, πᾶσι γενομένας ὑπόπτους διὰ τὸ ἄγος.

[1541] Soph. El. 433.

[1542] It is scarcely necessary to say that in my interpretation of this myth I owe much to my predecessors, though my view is slightly different from any previously given. Controversy has raged as to whether the mythical Danaides gave rise to the ‘Uninitiated’ or vice versâ. This seems to me a fruitless question with no possible answer. Each form arose separately, and the point is their ultimate contaminatio. The literature of the controversy is given by Dr Frazer ad P. X. 31. 9. To his references may be added, Dämmler, Delphika p. 22, and Mr A. B. Cook, J.H.S. XIII. 1892, p. 97.

[1543] I much regret that M. Salomon Reinach’s brilliant article on the criminals eternally condemned in Hades, ‘Sisyphe aux enfers et quelques autres damnés’ (Rev. Arch. 1903, p. 1), reached me too late for me to use the results of his researches.

[1544] Procl. Ennead. I. 6. 9 ἐν ἅπασι ταῖς τελεταῖς καὶ τοῖς μυστηρίοις οἱ θεοὶ πολλὰς μὲν ἑαυτῶν προτείνουσι μορφάς, πολλὰ δὲ σχήματα ἐξαλλάττοντες φαίνονται καὶ τοῖς μὲν ἀτύπωτον αὐτῶν προβέβληται φῶς τοῖς δὲ εἰς ἀνθρώπειον μορφὴν ἐσχηματισμένον, τότε δὲ εἰς ἀλλοῖον τύπον προεληλυθός.

[1545] Mr Gilbert Murray, Greek Literature, p. 66.

[1546] Ar. Av. 692.

[1547] The world-egg is of course an element common to many cosmogonies. It may very likely be one of the many elements primarily borrowed by Orphism from the Egyptians. The Egyptian demiurgus Chnoum gave birth to a cosmic egg, see Euseb. de praep. ev. 3. 11. According to Diodorus (I. 27) Osiris says εἰμὶ δὲ υἱὸς Κρόνου πρεσβύτατος καὶ βλαστὸς ἐκ καλοῦ τε καὶ εὐγενοῦς ᾠοῦ, σπέρμα συγγενὲς ἐγεννήθην ἡμέρας. Our concern here is merely with the particular form taken by the doctrine in Orphism.

[1548] Hes. Theog. 116.

[1549] Damasc. Quaest. de prim. princ. p. 147. The sources are fully given in Abel’s Orphica, p. 173. I am also indebted for references to Schömann’s De Cupidine Cosmog., see Schömann, Opuscula, vol. II. p. 60.

[1550] Clem. Rom. Homil. VI. 4. 671 καὶ Ὀρφεὺς δὲ τὸ Χάος ᾠῷ παρεικάζει, ἐν ᾧ τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων ἦν ἡ σύγχυσις, τοῦτο Ἡσίοδος Χάος ὑποτίθεται, ὅπερ Ὀρφεὺς ᾠὸν λέγει, γεννητὸν ἐξ ἀπείρου τῆς ὕλης προβεβλημένον, γεγονὸς δὲ οὕτω, κ.τ.λ.

[1551] Procl. in Plat. Tim. 2, p. 307 εἴη ἂν ταὐτὸν τό τε Πλάτωνος ὂν καὶ τὸ Ὀρφικὸν ᾠόν.

[1552] Plut. Quaest. Symp. II. 3. 1.

[1553] Macrob. Sat. VII. 16. 691.

[1554] Achill. Tat. Isag. ad Arati Phenom., p. 77.

[1555] Luc. Dial. Mort. I. 1 and Catapl. 7.

[1556] Ov. Ars Am. II. 330. Cf. Juvenal VI. 518.

[1557] This fact, that eggs were offered to the dead, has been clearly established by Dr Martin Nilsson in his tract Das Ei im Totenkultus der Griechen. The ‘Sonderabdruck’ he has kindly sent me appeared in the Frân Filologiska Föreningen i Lund Språkliga uppsatser II. (Lund, 1902).

[1558] Clem. Al. Str. VII. 4, p. 713 ὁρᾶν γοῦν ἔστι τὰ ᾠὰ ἀπὸ τῶν περικαθαρθέντων, εἰ θαλφθείη, ζωογονούμενα, οὐκ ἂν δέ τοῦτο ἐγένετο εἰ ἀνελάμβανεν τὰ τοῦ περικαθαρθέντος κακά.

[1559] It is possible that the cosmic egg may have been imported from Egypt and contaminated later with the egg of purification.

[1560] P. IX. 27. 1.

[1561] Amat. 1.

[1562] Diod. IV. 6 μυθολογοῦσιν οὖν οἱ παλαιοὶ τὸν Πρίαπον υἱὸν εἶναι τοῦ Διονύσου καὶ Ἀφροδίτης.

[1563] Inv. 2351. P. Hartwig, J.H.S. XII. 1891, p. 340.

[1564] Verg. Aen. IV. 684. If we may trust Servius (ad loc.), with strictly practical intent, ‘Muliebriter tanquam possit animam sororis excipere et in se transferre. Sic Cicero in Verrinis “ut extremum filiorum spiritum ore excipere liceret.”’ So according to the thinking of many primitive people are new souls born of old souls, see Tylor, Primitive Culture, II. p. 4.

[1565] Wiener Vorlegeblätter, Serie D, Taf. VIII.

[1566] Theog. 1275.

[1567] Cat. 2291. Wiener Vorlegeblätter, Serie A, Taf. V.

[1568] Museo Ital. di Antichita, vol. III. 1, pl. 2.

[1569] Soph. Ant. 781, trans. by Mr Gilbert Murray.

[1570] Cat. 1852. Fig. 172 is reproduced from a hasty sketch kindly made for me by Mrs Hugh Stewart; it is only intended as a note of subject and not as a substitute for complete publication.

[1571] Plat. Symp. 196 A.

[1572] Now in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, De Ridder, Cat. 366; see Lenormant et de Witte, Élite des Monuments Céramographiques IV., Pl. LI.

[1573] Eur. Hipp. 525.

[1574] Cat. E 440. Mon. d. Inst. I. Pl. VIII. The design in fig. 38, Odysseus passing the Sirens, is from the obverse of this vase. The three Sirens probably suggested the triple Erotes.

[1575] Alcman frg. 38 (34).

[1576] Fröhner, Choix de vases grecs, Pl. VI. p. 24.

[1577] Philosoph. V. 8, ed. Cruice.

[1578] Harpocrat. s.v. Φλυεῖς.

[1579] P. I. 31. 4. Attention was first drawn to this passage in connection with the ‘Anodos’ vase-paintings by Prof. Furtwängler, Jahrbuch d. Inst. 1891, pp. 117-124, but with his interpretation of the vases I find myself unable to agree (see p. 282, n. 2) and the evidence from the Philosophoumena seems to be unknown to him.

[1580] See Dr Frazer, Pausanias, vol. II. p. 412.

[1581] The roots φλε, φλι, φλυ and the guttural form χλι (cf. χλιδή) all express the same notion of bursting, bubbling, germinating, see Vaniček ad voc. and cf. Hesych. φλεῖ· γέμει, εὐκαρπεῖ, πολυκαρπεῖ, and the words φλύκταινα, φλύζει.

[1582] Plut. Symp. V. 8. 2 and 3 τοῦ δὲ Ἐμπεδοκλέους εἰρηκότος·

οὕνεκεν ὀψίγονοί τε σίδαι καὶ ὑπέρφλοια μῆλα.

The text has ὑπέρφλοια: the superfluous ι may have crept in owing to Plutarch’s guess.

[1583] Plut. loc. cit. ὁμοίως τὸν Ἄρατον ἐπὶ τοῦ Σειρίου λέγοντα·

καὶ τὰ μὲν ἔρρωσεν τὸν δέ φλόον ὤλεσε πάντα,

τὴν χλωρότητα καὶ τὸ ἄνθος τῶν καρπῶν φλόον προσαγορεύειν ... εἶναι δὲ καὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων τινὰς οἳ Φλοίῳ Διονύσῳ θύουσιν.

[1584] Harp. s.v. Κτησίου Διός· ... Κτήσιον Δία ἐν τοῖς ταμείοις ἵδρυντο.

[1585] Athen. XI. 46 § 478: the portions omitted καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ὤμου τοῦ δεξιοῦ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ μετώπου τοῦ κροκίου are unintelligible as they stand, but their meaning does not affect the present argument.

[1586] Probably not even in name; if my conjecture be correct the Δίαs set up are of the same nature as the dirae and the δίον κώδιον, see p. 23, note 2.

[1587] Plut. Them. I. Pausanias (IV. 1. 7) in speaking of this same telesterion, which was the sanctuary of the Lycomids, calls it by the very peculiar name κλίσιον, Dr Frazer translates κλίσιον ‘chapel.’ The word may mean a ‘lean to,’ a rough annexe, but I would conjecture that here it means the same as παστάς, i.e. ‘bridal chamber,’ the place of the ἱερὸς γάμος, see p. 536.

[1588] P. IV. 1. 7 and 8.

[1589] Philosophoum. V. 3 ed. Cruice, ἔστι δ’ ἐν τοῖς πυλεῶσι καὶ πρεσβύτης τις ἐγγεγραμμένος, πολιὸς, πτερωτὸς, γυναῖκα ἀποφεύγουσαν διώκων κυανοειδῆ (κυνοειδῆ the MS.: but Schneidewin’s correction is generally admitted), ἐπιγέγραπται δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ πρεσβύτου· φάος ῥυέντης, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς γυναικός· περεηφικόλα. ἔοικε δὲ εἶναι κατὰ τὸν Σηθιανῶν λόγον ὁ φάος ῥυέντης τὸ φῶς, τὸ δὲ σκοτεινὸν ὕδωρ ἡ φικόλα, τὸ δὲ ἐν μέσῳ τούτων διάστημα ἁρμονία πνεύματος μεταξὺ τεταγμένου.

[1590] Luc. de Salt. 7, and Xen. Symp. VIII. 1.

[1591] Orph. Hymn. VI. 7 (trans. by Mr Gilbert Murray):

πάντη δινηθεὶς πτερύγων ῥιπαῖς κατὰ κόσμον λαμπρὸν ἄγων φάος ἁγνόν, ἀφ’ οὗ σε Φάνητα κικλήσκω ἠδὲ Πρίηπον ἄνακτα καὶ Ἀνταύγην ἑλίκωπον.

[1592] Eur. Hipp. 1269.

[1593] Diog. Laert. Vit. Pyth. V.

[1594] Sauppe, Die Mysterieninschrift von Andania.

[1595] Diog. Laert. Vit. Pyth. XXI.

[1596] Clem. Al. Strom. IV. 19 § 583.

[1597] Iambl. de Myst. § 247 χαρακτὴρ παλαιότροπος ... ἀρχαιοτρόπου δὲ καὶ παλαιοῦ πίνου διαφερόντως ὥσπερ τινὸς ἀχειραπτήτου νοῦ προσπνέοντα.

[1598] Diog. Laert. Vit. Pyth. 8. 1. 10.

[1599] Strab. VII. § 297.

[1600] Valer. Max. 8. 15. 1.

[1601] Plin. Nat. Hist. XXXVI. 46.

[1602] Johannes Malala, Chronogr. IV. 74 οὗ ὄνομα ὁ αὐτὸς Ὀρφεὺς ἀκούσας ἐκ τῆς μαντείας ἐξεῖπε Μῆτιν, Φάνητα, Ἠρικεπαῖον ὅπερ ἑρμηνεύεται τῇ κοινῇ γλώσσῃ βουλὴ, φῶς, ζωοδοτήρ.

[1603] Prokl. in Plat. Tim. II. 207 εἴη ἂν ταὐτὸν τό τε Πλάτωνος ὂν καὶ τὸ Ὀρφικὸν ᾠόν.

[1604] Prokl. in Plat. Tim. II. 130 θῆλυς καὶ γενέτωρ κρατερὸς θεὸς Ἠρικαπαῖος.

[1605] Herm. in Plat. Phaedr. p. 135 τετρὰς δὲ ὁ Φάνης, ὡς Ὀρφεύς φησι

τετράσιν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὁρώμενος ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα.

[1606] Herm. in Plat. Phaedr. p. 125 οὐ πρῶτος δὲ ὁ Πλάτων ἡνίοχον καὶ ἵππους παρέλαβεν ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸ αὐτοῦ οἱ ἔνθεοι τῶν ποιητῶν Ὅμηρος, Ὀρφεύς, Παρμενίδης.

[1607] P. III. 16. 1.

[1608] Kypria, frg. ap. Athen. VIII. § 334.

[1609] Cat. 2254. Kekulé, Ueber ein griechisches Vasengemälde im akademischen Kunstmuseum zu Bonn, 1879, p. 1.

[1610] Pherekydes ap. Prokl. in Plat. Tim. III. 368 ὁ δὲ Φερεκύδης ἔλεγεν εἰς Ἔρωτα μεταβεβλῆσθαι τὸν Δία μέλλοντα δημιουργεῖν.

[1611] Prokl. in Plat. Cratyl. p. 66 ὡς ὁ Ὀρφεὺς ἐνθέῳ στόματι λέγει καὶ καταπίνει τὸν πρόγονον αὐτοῦ τὸν Φάνητα καὶ ἐγκολπίζεται πάσας αὐτοῦ τὰς δυνάμεις ὁ Ζεύς.

[1612] Procl. in Plat. Tim. II. 130 B τοιαῦτα γὰρ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ Ὀρφεὺς ἐνδείκνυται περὶ τοῦ Φάνητος θεολογῶν. πρῶτος γὰρ ὁ θεὸς παρ’ αὐτῷ ζῴων κεφαλὰς φέρει

πολλὰς κρίας, ταυρείας, ὄφιος χαροποῦ τε λέοντος,

καὶ πρόεισιν ἀπὸ τοῦ πρωτογενοῦς ᾠοῦ, ἐν ᾧ σπερματικῶς τὸ ζῷόν ἐστι, and p. 131 E διὸ καὶ ὁλικώτατον ζῷον ὁ θεόλογος ἀναπλάττει κριοῦ καὶ ταύρου καὶ λέοντος καὶ δράκοντος αὐτῷ περιθεὶς κεφαλάς.

[1613] Eur. Bacch. 1017.

[1614] Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, p. 538.

[1615] Hom. Hym. XIX. 42 trans. by Mr D. S. MacColl.

[1616] The Orphic conception of Pan as All-god was no doubt helped out by the fact that as early as the time of Herodotus (II. 46) the analogy was noted between the Greek Pan and the Egyptian Mendes, who was both Goat-god and All-god; see Roscher, ‘Pan als Allgott’ in Festschrift f. Overbeck, 1893, p. 56 ff., and for Mendes, Roscher, s.v.

[1617] Plut. de defect. orac. 17.

[1618] Murray, Ancient Greek Literature, p. 68.

[1619] A. Mitth. XIII. pl. IX.

[1620] P. IX. 25. 5.

[1621] Clem. Al. Strom. V. 8 § 231.

[1622] Reproduced by kind permission of Dr E. von Stern from the Mémoires de la Société Impériale d’histoire et des antiquités, vol. XVIII. pl. I. The vase was found at Kertsch.

[1623] Eur. Bacch. 769.

[1624] Diod. Sic. I. 11. 3 Εὔμολπος μὲν ἐν τοῖς Βακχικοῖς ἔπεσί φησιν Ἀστροφαῆ Διόνυσον ἐν ἀκτίνεσσι πυρωτόν. Ὀρφεὺς δὲ

‘Τοὔνεκά μιν καλέουσι Φάνητά τε καὶ Διόνυσον.’

[1625] Justinus, Cohort. c. 15 καὶ αὖθις ἀλλαχοῦ που οὕτως λέγει

εἷς Ζεύς, εἷς Ἀΐδης, εἷς Ἥλιος, εἷς Διόνυσος, εἷς θεὸς ἐν πάντεσσι· τί σοι δίχα ταῦτ’ ἀγορεύω;

[1626] Dr Sam. Wide, A. Mitt. XIX. 1894, p. 248 ff.

[1627] Inscr. line 120 Μερῶν δὲ γεινομένων αἰρέτω ἱερεὺς ἀνθιερεύς, ἀρχίβακχος ταμίας, βουκολικός, Διόνυσος, Κόρη, Παλαίμων, Ἀφροδείτη, Πρωτεύρυθμος, τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα αὐτῶν συνκληρούσθω πᾶσι.

[1628] E. Maass, Orpheus, p. 64. The theory that Orpheus is a god seems to me to vitiate much of Dr Maass’s interesting and valuable book.

[1629] Lucian De Salt. 7 § 271 ... καὶ εὔρυθμος αὐτῶν κοινωνία καὶ εὔτακτος ἁρμονία τῆς πρωτογόνου ὀρχήσεως δείγματά ἐστι.

[1630] Eur. Hipp. 527.

[1631] Murray, Ancient Greek Literature, p. 272.

[1632] Plat. Symp. 189.

[1633] Eur. Hipp. 535.

[1634] E.g. Maass, Die Tagesgötter, p. 288.

INDEX.

Transcriber’s Note: In the original, footnote references were given in the form 232² (page number, and in superscript, the number of the footnote on that page). As all footnotes have been moved and renumbered in creating this e-text, a reference to the relevant footnote has been added in brackets.

I. GREEK.

ἄγγελοι βασανισταί, 232² (Footnote 597)

ἅγιος, 57

ἁγνεία, 168

ἄγνοια, 582

ἅγος, 57, 58, 113, 114, 116

ἀγυρμός, 151

ἀθηρηλοιγός, 529

ἅλαδε μύσται, 152

ἄλφιτα, 88

ἀμεταστρεπτί, 605

ἀμύμων, 335-337

ἀμφιθαλὴς παῖς, 77

ἀναθέσσασθαι, 46

ἀνάστατοι, 132

ἀνόσιοι, 615

Ἄξιε ταῦρε, 438³ (Footnote 1116)

ἀπαγωγά, 587

ἀποδιοπομπεῖσθαι, 26, 27, 43

ἀπόθεστος, 46

ἀπόνιμμα, 57, 58, 623

ἀποπομπαί, 8, 9

ἀποτροπή, 68, 163, 256, 364, 509

ἀποφράδες, 48

ἀρά, 139-145

ἀφαγνίσηται, 523

ἀφιέρωσαν, 149

βαλλητύς, 155

βασκάνια, 191

Βασσαρικά, 492¹ (Footnote 1243)

βουπλήξ, 369

βρόμος, 416, 417

βρῦτον, 424

βωμός, 61, 62

γῆρας, 173

Δᾶ, 271

δαίμονες, 588, 625, 658

δεισιδαιμονία, 4-7

δέματα, 141² (Footnote 361)

δευτερόποτμοι, 244

Δημητρεῖοι, 267, 600

Δῖα, festival of, 23, 143

διοπομπεῖν, 43

Διὸς κώδιον, 23-28, 643

δράκαινα, 232

δρακοντώδεις, 233

δρᾶμα and δρώμενα, 568-571

δρώμενα, 283, 568-571

ἐγχυτρίζειν, 36

ἔλασις, 152

ἐμασχαλίσθη, 69

Ἔμβαρός εἰμι, 70

ἐναγεῖς, 58

ἐναγίζειν, 53-63

ἐναγίσματα, 470, 629, 630

ἐναγισμοί, 53-63, 161

ἔνθεος, 426

ἐπαγωγαί, 140

ἐπαγωγή, 587

ἐπιβαίνω, 593

ἐποπτεία, 516, 547

ἐξάργματα, 69

ἐξέλασις, 106

ἔριφος, 595

ἐσχάρα, 61, 62, 147¹ (Footnote 375)

ἐσχάραι, 125

Εὑδάνεμοι, 251

εὐεία, 430

εὔιοι γυναῖκες, 414

εὐχή, 142

ἔφοδοι, 219

ζημία, 129

ἡγητηρία, 116

ἠεροφοῖτις, 215

θαλύσια, 77

θάργηλος, 76

θεραπεία, 3, 163, 181, 256

θέσκελος, 137

θεσμοί, 137, 643

θέσσασθαι, 46

θρῖναξ, 530³ (Footnote 1329), 532

θρόνος, 514, 548

θύειν, 53

θύεσθαι, 67

θύματα ἐπιχώρια, 14

θύσα, 430

θυσία, 80

θυσία ἄδαιτος

ἱερά, 555

ἱερεῖον, 54

ἱερεύειν, 53

ἱερὸς γάμος, 482

ἵπποι, 475¹ (Footnote 1202)

Ἱππολύτῳ δ’ ἔπι, 355

ἴϋγξ, 139

καθαρμοί, 116, 161

καθοσιώσας, 401

Κάσσμια, 210

κατοργιάσας, 401

κέρνος, 158² (Footnote 406)

κῆρ τυμβοῦχος, 213

κῆρες θανάτοιο, 176

κηριτρεφής, 184, 185

κήρυκες, 172² (Footnote 443)

κινέω, 45² (Footnote 97)

κλῄς, 554¹ (Footnote 1379)

κὸγξ ὄμπαξ, 161

κολυμβήθρα, 35

κρείττονες, 327, 335, 340

κύκλος, 591¹ (Footnote 1458)

λῄτειραι, 248

λιθοβολία, 155

λίκνον, 158² (Footnote 406)

Μᾶ, 271² (Footnote 710)

Μαῖα, 262

μέγαρα, 61, 123, 125

μέθη, 423

μελίσπονδα, 423

μύσος and μυστήριον, 154

μύω, 153

ναρθηκοφόροι, 474¹ (Footnote 1201)

νόμιμα, 511, 513

Νύμφη, 262

νύμφιος, 539³ (Footnote 1352)

Νυμφών, 539

Νῦσαι, 412¹ (Footnote 1051)

ὅπλα, 587

ὅρκια τέμνειν, 64

ὅσια, 599

ὁσιότης, 478

ὁσιωθείς, 499¹ (Footnote 1254), 600

οὐλοχύται, 54, 86-89

παγκαρπία, 80, 159, 643

πάντα ῥεῖ, 164

παστός, παστάς, 536

πέλανος, 88-90

πολύθεστος, 46

πομπή, 152

πότνια θηρῶν, 194, 264-266

πρόβατα, 15

προκάθαρσις, 560

προσβολαί, 219

στέμματα, 594

στέφανος, 593

στυγνότης, 15

σύνθημα, 155³ (Footnote 402)

σφάγια, 63-73, 245, 250

τέμνειν σφάγια, 64

τίθηναι, 402, 465, 500

τράγος, 416, 421, 422

τραγῳδία, 421

ὕε κύε, 161

ὑποκόλπιος, 594

φάος ῥυέντης, 645

φίκολα, 645

φύλακες, 374, 580

Χαμύνη, 405

χρηστέ, 335

χύτραι, 35

χύτρινοι, οἱ, 35

χύτρος, 79

ὠμοφαγία, 483, 485

II. GENERAL.

Absyrtos, 68

Achaia, 128

Acheloüs, 435

Adikia, 613

Adrastos, 362

Agathos Daimon, 357, 544

Aglauros, 287

Agnoia, 585

Agnus castus, 106, 130

Agrae, 560

— mysteries at, 557-561

Agrionia, 465

Aiakos, 611

Aigisthos, 335

Aioleiai, 409

Alcmaeon, 220, 481

Alphita, 156

Amphiaraos, 27, 344

Amynos, 345-347

Anaklethra, 604

Ananke, 270, 606

Anodos, 122, 126, 276-285, 604

Anthesteria, 32-74

Anthropomorphism, 70

Aphrodite, 308-316, 641

Apollo and Orpheus, 460

Archemoros, 339

Archibacchos, 476

Ares, 375-377

Argei, 117

Arrephoria, 131-134

Artemis, 299-301

Artemis Munychia, 71

Asklepios, 341-350

Athamas, 110, 513

Athene, 301-308

Athene Aithuia, 305

Athene, birth of, 366

Aversion, gods of, ceremonies of, 8, 9

Bacchoi, 474-478, 561

Bacchos, 433

‘Bacchos’, 479, 480

Banquet of the Blest, 614

Baptism, 597

Bassarids, 461

Bath, ritual, 312

Baubo, 570, 570¹ (Footnote 1411)

Beating ceremonial, 100

Bee, 443, 444

Bellerophon, 220

Bessi, 370, 371

Birth of Aphrodite, 312

Birth, Sacred, 549-552

Book of the Dead, 577, 589

Boreads, 181

Boukolion, 537, 539

Bouphonia, 111-113

Brimo, 552-554

Brimos, 526, 549¹ (Footnote 1370)

Bromios, 414-417, 531

Buckthorn, 37

Bull-God, 432-437, 516

Bull-roarer, 527² (Footnote 1322)

Burning Bush, 410

‘Busk’, 118

Caecilia Secundina, 586, 587

Calendar, Attic, 29

Cereal intoxicants, 416-525

Cervisia, 424

‘Chalcidian pursuit’, 129

Chaos, 516

Charila, 106

Charites, 287-299, 438, 439

Choes, 38-40

Chryse, 306

Chthon, 200

Chytroi, 33-37

Cicones, 457, 470

Circle, 593-595

Clouds, parody of Orphism in, 512

Cnossos, 483

Commination Service, 145

Cradle, 524, 528

Credo and Confiteor, 156

Cremation, 510

Cretans, the, 479

Crete, 460, 565-568

Curses, 138-145

Cyamites, 545

Danaides, 614-624

Delphi, influence of, 557-561

Demeter and Kore, 271-273

‘Demeter’s people,’ dead as, 267

Dendrites, 426-432

Deo, 272

Despoina, 594-598, 600

Devotion, 161, 523

Dexion, 346-347

Diasia, 11-28

Dike, 507, 613

Dionysos, 364

— at Eleusis, 557, 561

— grave of, 558

— Omestes, 71

— on hero-reliefs, 360-363

Dipolia, 111

Dirae, 23, 143

‘Dirae’ of Teos, 143

Dithyramb, 412

Dithyrambos, 437-445

Dodona, gong at, 570

Dolioli, 44

Drama, origin of, 568

Drunkenness, 448

Dryas, 369

Egg in Mysteries, 628-630

Eiraphiotes, 488-495

Eirene, 270

Eiresione, 77-82

Eleusinian Mysteries, 540

Ennoia, 584-585

Epikleidia, 554¹ (Footnote 1379)

Epimenides, 401

Epoptes, 547

Erechtheus, 555

Ergane, 520

Erichthonios, 406

Erikapaios, 649

Erinyes, 61, 68, 213-239

Eris, 250

Eros, 626-659

— and Psyche, 533

— and the Mother, 639-641

Eubouleus, 586, 587, 588

Eukles, 586, 587, 588

Eumenides, 253-256

Eumolpidae, 554-557

Eumolpos, 554-557

Eunoë, 583, 584

Eurydice, 461, 603-605

Eurynomos, 186

Euthyphron, discussion of religion in the, 2

Everruncatio, 115

Eye, Evil, 196

Fan, winnowing, 528-535

February, 48-51

Februum, 49

Feralia, 49

Figs for purification, 99

Flaminica Dialis, 117

Flammeum, 522

Fleece of purification, 548

Flight ceremonies, 113

Fox totem, 462

‘Frummety’, 89² (Footnote 226)

Gephyrismoi, 136

Gong of Dodona, 570

Gorgoneion, 187-191

Graiae, 194-196

Gypsum, 135, 514

Hades, 601

Haloa, 145-150

Harpies, 178-183

Harvest-festivals, 75-119

Head of Orpheus, 469

Hebe-Ganymeda, 325

Hecate, 288

Helen Dendritis, 322

Helios, 462, 463

Hephaistos, 377

Hepialos, 167

Hera, 316-319

Herakles, 166, 347

— at Agrae, 547

— at Sekyon, 55

— in Hades, 612

— initiation of, 547

Herm, Eros as, 631

Hermes, 631

— Chthonios, 34, 35, 249

Heroes, 326-363

‘Hero-Feasts’, 350-363, 615

Hero-healers, 341-350

Heroines, cult of, 323-326

Heroïs, 403

Hersephoria, 287

Hesychidae, 247

Hesychos, 247

Hierophant, 550, 551, 564, 571, 594

Hippolytos, 354, 512

Holocaust, 16

Honey, 597

Horse-demons, 388

Horse-Medusa, 179

‘Horses’, 476

Hosia, 507

Hosioi, 434, 501-508

Hyakinthos, 339

Iacchos, 379, 414, 541-545

Iasion, 565, 566

‘Ikarios’ reliefs, 361

Immortality, 478, 571

Inferiae, 47

Intichiuma, 83

Iobaccheia, 538

Iobaccheion, 475

Iobacchoi, 656

Isodaites, 441, 482

Ivy, 429

Judges in Hades, 610

Kabeiroi, 653, 654

Kalligeneia, 126, 130, 270

Kallynteria, 114-116

Karpophoros, 263

Kathodos, 123

Ker, Eros as, 632, 636

Keraunia, 408-411

Keres, 35¹ (Footnote 45), 41-43, 165-217

Kernophoria, 160-549, 559

Kernophoros, 559

Kernos, 158, 159, 160, 549

Kerostasia, 183

Kerykainae, 212

Kerykeion, 42, 277

Kid, 595

Klodones, 373

Kore and Demeter, 271-273

Koreia, 145

Korybantes, 515

Korybas, 570

Koures, 401, 570

Kouretes, 172, 485, 492, 499-501

Kourotrophos, 267-271

Krithologos, 87

Kronia, 110

Kykeon, 155, 156

Leibethra, 457, 462, 469

Lemuria, 33, 34

Lesbos, 466-468

Lethe, 575-584

Liber, 528, 538

Libera, 528, 538

Libum, 89

Likna, 403

Liknites, 402, 403, 523, 524, 532, 534, 550

Liknon, 519-535

Liknophoria, 518-535, 547-549

Liknophoros, 534

Loutrophoria, 622

Lupercalia, 49-51

Lycomids, 471

Lycurgus, 369

Maenads, 389

Maiden, 262

Maimaktes, 17

Maniae, 255

Marriage, the Sacred, 535-538, 549-552

Masks, in ritual, 188

Masks on furnaces, 190

Matriarchy, 261, 273

Meilichioi, 16

Meilichios, 340

Melisponda, 510

Metempsychosis, 590

Metis, 649

Milk, 596-598

Mimallones, 373, 570

Mimes, 475

Minos, 611

Minotaur, 483

Mitos, 653

Mnemosyne, 509

— Well of, 575-584, 623

Moisture, Principle of, 431

Monotheism, 626

Mother, the, 260-271, 510

— and Son, 560, 561-563

Mountain Mother, 497-499

Mud in Mysteries, 615

Mysteries, 150

— Eleusinian, 150-160

— Lesser, 560

Mystes, 153

‘Mystic pig’, 548

Naassenes, 550

Name, new, 594

Nekuia, 73, 267

Nephalia, 91-98, 423, 509-511

Nesteia, 126

Nilus, S., 486

Ninnion, pinax of, 558, 561

Nyktelios, 441

Nymphs, 291, 318

Nysa, 379

Oknos, 618

Omadius, 485

Omestes, 489

Omophagia, 546² (Footnote 1367)

Omphalos, 59, 320, 321

— at Eleusis, 557, 558, 569, 561

Onomacritus, 473, 494

Orpheus, 456-478

— on vases, 602

Orphic Burial-Rites, 599

— Cosmogony, 625-659

— Eschatology, 573-624

— tablets, 574-600

— Theogony, 625, 626

— vases, 600-613

Osiris, 402, 440, 576, 577

Ourania, 316, 509

Paean, 439-442

Palingenesia, 527

Palladium, 302

Pallas, 301, 302

Pan, 101, 651

Panagia, 344

Pandora, 280-283

Pandrosos, 287

Panes, 278, 282, 290

Pangaion, 462

Pantomime, in ritual, 283

— sacred, 570

Pantomimes, 475

Parentalia, 49

Paris, judgment of, 292-299

Pastos, 158

Peirithoös, 612

Pelanos, 88-90, 156, 345, 349

Pelasgian characters, 468

Pelasgians, nameless gods of, 333

Pelops, 338

Perikonios, 430

Phanes, 646-648, 656

Pharmakos, 95-114

Pherophatta, 556

Philia, 356

Phix, 211

Phlya, 536, 537, 549

Phlya, mysteries at, 549, 641-646

Phokos, 338

Pholos, 386

Phytalmios, 427

Pig of purification, 152, 153

Pimpleia, 470

Pithoi, 617

Pithoigia, 32, 33¹ (Footnote 55), 37, 40-45

Pithos, 41

Plemochoae, 40, 161

Ploutos, 566, 567

Plynteria, 115

Poinae, 606

Polyxena, 61

Praxidikae, 188, 214

Priapos, 631

Proteurhythmos, 656-658

Protogene, 643

Protogonos, 648-651, 657

Protolaos, 653

Psoloeis, 409

Psychagogoi, 69

Psychostasia, 183

Ptuon, 531

Purification, ritual of, 24-29, 162

Purple in ritual, 249

Pyanepsia, 81

Pythagorean rites, 455, 646

Queen Archon, 537

Re-birth, 590

Rhabdos, 42-44, 277

Rhadamanthys, 611

Rhea, 562, 563

Rhombos, 491

Sabaiarius, 420

Sabazios, 418-420

Sacra, 157

Sacramentalism of food and drink, 454

Sacred Marriage, 551, 552, 564-566

— Spring, 522, 523

Sacrifice, fireless, 94

— human, 96, 109, 114

Sacrima, 84

Salmoneus, 59, 336, 607

Satrae, 370

Satyrs, 211, 380-388, 421, 422

Scape-goat, 105

Seilenoi, 388

Semele, 404

Semnai Theai, 239-253

Sieve, 532, 622

Simaetha, 139

Siren, 139, 197-207

Sisyphos, 607-610

Skedasos, daughters of, 71

Skira, 134, 135

Skirophoria, 134-136

‘Smileless Stone’, 127

Snake, Erinys as, 232-237

— form of hero, 327-332

Soul as bird, 200-201

— as star, 205

Sphinx, 207-211

Stenia, 136

Stepterion, 113

Stone of Parching, 577

Sublimation, 93

Tablets, Orphic, 574-600

Taboo, 83-85, 148, 154

Tantalos, 607, 608

— dog of, 227, 459

Tattooing, practice of, 464

Telchines, 171

Telesterion, 644

Thargelia, 74-119

Theoinia, 538

Theseus in Hades, 612

Thesmophoria, 120-160

Thesmophoriazusae, 144

Thesmophoros, 137

Thracians, 555

Thriae, 442, 443

Thriambos, 442-444

Thyiades, 402, 524

Titans, 493-495

Titles, cultus, 333-340

Tityos, 337

‘Token’, 155, 536, 551

Tonea, festival of, 316

Tragedy, 388, 421

Trinities, maiden, 286-292

Triptolemos, 273, 556, 563, 564, 610

Tritopatores, 179

Trophoniads, 580

Trophonios, 349, 579-581

Tyche, 270, 271

Uninitiated, the, 615

Vannus, 527-535

Veil, symbolism of, 522

Ver Sacrum, 522

Vestal Virgins, 44

Wand-bearers, 474-478

Water-Carriers in Hades, 615, 616

‘Well of Fair Dances,’ 127

Well-Nymphs, 620

Wheel, 589-593

Wine, 447

Women and agriculture, 272

World Egg, 626-630

Zagreus, 441, 480, 489, 491-496, 587, 588

Zan, 598

Zetes and Kalais, 181

Zeus Aktaios, 27

— Epiteleios, 356

— Hades, 17, 21

— Idaean, 480

— Ktesios, 643

— Meilichios, 13-28

— Philios, 356, 357

— Phyxios, 69

— Polieus, 111

— sacrifice to, in Homer, 11

Zythos, 424

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.