A final example of the tenacity with which custom may outlive the belief on which it is founded is afforded by the story told of Odysseus, that in fleeing from the Kikonian land, he did not leave it until he had called thrice upon those of his companions who had fallen in the battle with the Kikones (_Od._ ix, 65-6). References to similar callings upon the dead in later literature make the meaning of such behaviour clear. The souls of the dead who have fallen in foreign lands must be "called";[87\1] they will then, if this is properly done, follow the caller to their distant home, where an "empty grave" awaits them.[88\1] This duty is regularly performed in Homer for the benefit of those whose bodies it is impossible to recover and bury in the proper way. But a summons of the dead and the erection of such empty receptacles--intended for whom if not for the souls who must then be accessible to the devotion of their relations?--was natural enough for those who believed in the possibility of the soul's sojourn in the neighbourhood of its living friends; it was not admissible for supporters of the Homeric belief. Here we have once more a remarkable vestige of an ancient belief, surviving in a custom that has not been entirely given up even in altered times. Here, too, the belief which had given rise to the custom, was extinct. {43} If we ask the Homeric poet for what purpose a mound was heaped up over the grave of the dead and a gravestone set upon it, he will answer us: in order that his fame may remain imperishable among men, and that future generations may not be ignorant of his story.[89\1] That sounds truly Homeric. When a man dies his soul departs into a region of twilit dream-life; his body, the visible man, perishes. Only his glorious name, in fact, lives on. His praises speak to after ages from the monument to his honour on his grave-mound--and in the song of the bard. A _poet_ would naturally be inclined to think such things. NOTES TO CHAPTER I I [1\1: E. Kammer, _Einheit d. Odyssee_, 510 ff.] [2\1: E.g. _Il._ ~A~ 3, ~polla\s d' iphthi/mous _psucha\s_ (kephala/s~ Apol. Rhod., as in ~L~ 55: mistakenly) ~A/ïdi proï/apsen hêrô/ôn, _autou\s_ de\ helô/ria teu=che ku/nessin.~ ~Ps~ 105, ~pannuchi/ê ga\r moi Patroklê=os deiloi=o _psuchê\_ ephestê/kei . . . e/ïkto de\ the/skelon _autô=|_~ (cf. 66).] [3\1: E.g. ~L~ 262, ~e/nth' Antê/noros hui=es hup' Atrei/dê| basilê=i po/tmon anaplê/santes e/dun do/mon A/ïdos ei/sô~. The ~_psuchê/_~ of Elpenor and afterwards that of Teiresias, of his mother, of Agamemnon, etc., is addressed by Odysseus in the Nekyia of the Od. simply as: ~Elpê=nor, Teiresi/ê, mê=ter emê/~, etc. And cf. such expressions as: ~Ps~ 244, ~eis ho/ ken _auto\s_ egô\ A/ïdi keu/thômai~, or ~O~ 251, ~kai\ dê\ e/gôg' epha/mên, ne/kuas kai\ dô=m' Ai/dao ê/mati tô=|d' hi/xesthai . . .~ or ~X~ 456 f., etc.] [4\1: The first view is Nägelsbach's, the second that of Grotemeyer.]