[11\1: Of the dead we read in ~l~ 219, ~ou ga\r e/ti sa/rkas te kai\ oste/a i=nes e/chousi~. Taking the words strictly this might mean that the dead possess sinews but not the flesh or bones that should be held together by the sinews. This is how Nauck, in fact, understood the Homeric words: _Mélanges Grécorom._ iv, 718. But it is very difficult to picture "shadows" which in this manner possess sinews but no body of flesh and bones: the corrupt words of _fr._ 229, preserved apart from their context, are quite insufficient to prove that Aesch. derived such an unrealizable impression from the Homeric words.--That the poet of these lines from the Nek. simply meant "flesh, bones, and sinews, too, which might have held them together", is shown quite clearly by what follows: ~alla\ ta\ me/n te puro\s kratero\n me/nos aithome/noio damna=|, epei/ ke prô=ta li/pê| leu/k' oste/a thumo/s, psuchê\ d' êü/t' o/neiros apoptame/nê pepo/têtai~. How, then, could the fire help destroying the sinews too?] [12\1: The sacrificial character of the proceedings at the _rogus_ of Patroklos has again been called in question by v. Fritze, _de libatione veterum Graecorum_, 71 f. (1893). He admits this interpretation of the pouring of the blood on the pyre, but explains the other circumstances differently. It would be quite easy to disprove in this fashion the sacrificial character of every ~holokau/tôma~ for ~chtho/nioi~ whether Heroes or the dead. It is true that the bodies of sheep and cattle, horses and dogs, thus completely consumed by fire, are not a "food-offering", but they are a sacrifice for all that, and belong to the class of expiatory offerings in which the flesh is not offered for the food of the daimon but the lives of the victims are sacrificed to him. That Achilles slays the Trojan prisoners at the rogus ~ktame/noio cholôthei/s~ (~Ps~ 23) does not destroy the sacrificial character of this offering intended to appease the wrath (felt also by Achilles) of the dead man.--The whole procedure gives a picture of primitive sacrificial ritual in honour of the dead and differs in no particular from the ritual of sacrifice to the ~theoi\ chtho/nioi~. This is recognized by Stengel in his _Chthonischer und Todtencult_ (_Festschr. Friedländ._), p. 432, who also marks clearly the differences between the two religious ceremonies as they were gradually evolved in the process of time.]