First it is necessary to establish the fact that in usage the terms θύειν
and ἐναγίζειν are clearly distinguished. A passage in Pausanias is for
this purpose of capital importance. Pausanias is visiting a sanctuary of
Heracles at Sicyon. He makes the following observations[131]: ‘In the
matter of sacrifice they are accustomed to do as follows. They say that
Phaestos, when he came to Sicyon, found the Sicyonians devoting offerings
to Heracles as to a hero. But Phaestos would do nothing of the kind, but
would sacrifice to him as to a god. And even now the Sicyonians, when
they slay a lamb and burn the thighs upon the altar, eat a portion of the
flesh as though it were a sacrificial victim, and another part of the
flesh they make over as to a hero.’ The passage is not easy to translate,
because we have no English equivalent for ἐναγίζειν. I have translated
the word by ‘devote’ because it connotes entire dedication—part of the
sacrifice is shared, eaten by the worshipper in common with Heracles
regarded as a _god_, the other part is utterly consecrated to Heracles
as a hero; it is dead men’s food. Pausanias, who is often careless in
his use of θύειν, here carefully marks the distinction. The victim is an
animal: part of it is offered to an Olympian—that portion is shared; part
of it is offered, like the offerings at the _Chytroi_, to no Olympian,
but to a ghost, and of that portion no man eats.
A second passage from Pausanias adds a further element of
differentiation. At Megalopolis, Pausanias visited a sanctuary of the
Eumenides. Of their ritual he speaks as follows[132]: ‘They say that when
these goddesses would drive Orestes mad they appeared to him black, but
that after he had bitten off his finger they seemed to him white, and his
senses returned to him, and therefore he made over an offering to the
black goddesses to turn away their wrath, but to the white ones he did
sacrifice.’
Language and ritual could scarcely speak more plainly: θύειν is to the
Olympians, a joyous thanksgiving to gods who are all white and bright,
beneficent, of the upper air; ἐναγίζειν is to those below who are black
and bad and malignant: θύειν is for θεραπεία, tendance; ἐναγίζειν for
ἀποτροπή, riddance.
* * * * *
The distinction between the two forms of ritual having been thus
definitely established, it remains to examine more closely the word
ἐναγίζειν and the ritual it expresses, that of the dead—a ritual which,
it must at this point be remembered, is also concerned with purification.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account