the open violence of a stronger foe, but resembled the death-dealing of some lurking fiend. In these two passages then the interpretation of Miastor in the sense of 'fiend,' 'tormentor,' 'destroyer,' is necessary and proven; and, this being known, common reason bids us read more ambiguous scriptures in the light thus obtained. There is therefore no call to suppose that [Greek: miastôr] ever meant 'polluted'; from the active meaning 'Avenger' it developed, like Alastor, the broader sense of 'Tormentor' or 'Fiendish Destroyer'; and these meanings completely satisfy the conditions of Tragic and other usage of the words.
There remains the word [Greek: prostropaios], to which the lexicons, I admit, rightly ascribe a twofold meaning. It is clearly used both of the Avenger of blood and also of the blood-guilty person who is seeking purification. But as regards both the means by which the first signification was obtained, and the primary application of the word in that signification, I join issue. The second meaning is more satisfactorily explained, and my criticism of it will not go beyond an alternative suggestion.
The lexicons elucidate the first meaning as follows: he to whom one turns, especially with supplications, [Greek: theos] or [Greek: daimôn prostropaios] the god to whom the murdered person turns for vengeance, hence an avenger, like [Greek: alastôr] . . . hence also of the manes of murdered persons, visiting with vengeance, implacable.
The objections to this explanation are obvious. It may well be questioned whether [Greek: prostropaios] is at all likely to have had any passive meaning—as it were a person who 'is turned to'—when the verb [Greek: prostrepô] itself was, so far as I can ascertain, never so used; and further, if a god had really been called [Greek: prostropaios] because the murdered man turned for vengeance to him, the extension of the term to the manes of murdered persons must imply a conception of the murdered man turning for vengeance towards—himself. This is not a little cumbrous; and for my part I deny the existence of any passive sense of [Greek: prostropaios].
I do however find two senses of the word, the one active, corresponding to the transitive use of the verb [Greek: prostrepein] or [Greek: prostrepesthai] (for the middle as well as the active voice might be used transitively, as will shortly appear), the other middle, corresponding to the ordinary usage of the middle [Greek: prostrepesthai]. Thus the active meaning of [Greek: prostropaios] will be turning some-
