  [1] Xenophon, Repub. LacedÆmon. cap. xiii. 3. ?e? d?, ?ta? ???ta?, ???eta? ?? t??t?? t?? ????? ?t? ??efa???, p???a??e?? ????e??? t?? t?? ?e?? e????a?. [2] It is sufficient, here, to state this position briefly: more will be said respecting the allegorizing interpretation in a future chapter. [3] See Iliad, viii. 405, 463; xv. 20, 130, 185. Hesiod, Theog. 885. This unquestioned supremacy is the general representation of Zeus: at the same time the conspiracy of HÊrÊ, PoseidÔn, and AthÊnÊ against him, suppressed by the unexpected apparition of Briareus as his ally, is among the exceptions. (Iliad, i. 400.) Zeus is at one time vanquished by Titan, but rescued by HermÊs. (ApollodÔr. i. 6, 3). [4] Arist. Polit. i. 1. ?spe? d? ?a? t? e?d? ?a?t??? ?f?????s?? ?????p??, ??t?? ?a? t??? ????, t?? ?e??. [5] Hesiod, Theog. 116. ApollodÔrus begins with Uranos and GÆa (i. 1.); he does not recognize ErÔs, Nyx, or Erebos. [6] Hesiod, Theog. 140, 156. Apollod. ut sup. [7] Hesiod, Theog. 160, 182. Apollod. i. 1, 4. [8] Hesiod, Theog. 192. This legend respecting the birth of AphroditÊ seems to have been derived partly from her name (?f???, foam), partly from the surname Urania, ?f??d?t? ???a??a, under which she was so very extensively worshipped, especially both in Cyprus and CythÊra, seemingly originated in both islands by the Phoenicians. Herodot. i. 105. Compare the instructive section in Boeckh’s Metrologie, c. iv. § 4. [9] Hesiod, Theog. 452, 487. Apollod. i. 1, 6. [10] Hesiod, Theog. 498.— ??? ?? ?e?? st????e ?at? ?????? e????de??? ????? ?? ??a???, ??????? ?p? ?a???s???, S?? ?e? ???p?s?, ?a?a ???t??s? ??t??s?. [11] Hesiod, Theog. 212-232. [12] Hesiod, Theog. 240-320. ApollodÔr. i. 2, 6, 7. [13] Hesiod, Theog. 385-403. [14] Hesiod, Theog. 140, 624, 657. ApollodÔr. i. 2, 4. [15] The battle with the Titans, Hesiod, Theog. 627-735. Hesiod mentions nothing about the Gigantes and the Gigantomachia: ApollodÔrus, on the other hand, gives this latter in some detail, but despatches the Titans in a few words (i. 2, 4; i. 6, 1). The Gigantes seem to be only a second edition of the Titans,—a sort of duplication to which the legendary poets were often inclined. [16] Hesiod, Theog. 820-869. Apollod. i. 6, 3. He makes TyphÔn very nearly victorious over Zeus. TyphÔeus, according to Hesiod, is father of the irregular, violent, and mischievous winds: Notus, Boreas, ArgestÊs and Zephyrus, are of divine origin (870). [17] Hesiod, Theog. 885-900. [18] Apollod. i. 3, 6. [19] Hesiod, Theog. 900-944. [20] Homer, Iliad, xviii. 397. [21] See Burckhardt, Homer, und Hesiod. Mythologie, sect. 102. (Leipz. 1844). [22] ????—Hunger—is a person, in Hesiod, Opp. Di. 299. [23] See GÖttling, PrÆfat. ad Hesiod. p. 23. [24] Iliad, xiv. 249; xix. 259. Odyss. v. 184. Oceanus and TÊthys seem to be presented in the Iliad as the primitive Father and Mother of the Gods:— ??ea??? te ?e?? ???es??, ?a? ?t??a ?????. (xiv. 201). [25] Odyss. ix. 87. [26] Iliad, i. 401. [27] Iliad, xiv. 203-295; xv. 204. [28] Iliad, viii. 482; xiv. 274-279. In the Hesiodic Opp. et Di., Kronos is represented as ruling in the Islands of the Blest in the neighborhood of Oceanus (v. 168). [29] See the few fragments of the Titanomachia, in DÜntzer, Epic. GrÆc. Fragm. p. 2; and Hyne, ad ApollodÔr. I. 2. Perhaps there was more than one poem on the subject, though it seems that AthenÆus had only read one (viii. p. 277). In the Titanomachia, the generations anterior to Zeus were still further lengthened by making Uranos the son of ÆthÊr (Fr. 4. DÜntzer). ÆgÆon was also represented as son of Pontus and GÆa, and as having fought in the ranks of the Titans; in the Iliad he (the same who is called Briareus) is the fast ally of Zeus. A Titanographia was ascribed to MusÆus (Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. iii. 1178; compare Lactant. de Fals. Rel. i. 21). [30] That the Hesiodic Theogony is referable to an age considerably later than the Homeric poems, appears now to be the generally admitted opinion; and the reasons for believing so are, in my opinion, satisfactory. Whether the Theogony is composed by the same author as the Works and Days is a disputed point. The Boeotian literati in the days of Pausanias decidedly denied the identity, and ascribed to their Hesiod only the Works and Days: Pausanias himself concurs with them (ix. 31. 4; ix. 35. 1), and VÖlcker (Mithologie des Japetisch. Geschlechts, p. 14) maintains the same opinion, as well as GÖttling (PrÆf. ad Hesiod. xxi.): K. O. MÜller (History of Grecian Literature, ch. 8. § 4) thinks that there is not sufficient evidence to form a decisive opinion. Under the name of Hesiod (in that vague language which is usual in antiquity respecting authorship, but which modern critics have not much mended by speaking of the Hesiodic school, sect, or family) passed many different poems, belonging to three classes quite distinct from each other, but all disparate from the Homeric epic:—1. The poems of legend cast into historical and genealogical series, such as the Eoiai, the Catalogue of Women, etc. 2. The poems of a didactic or ethical tendency, such as the Works and Days, the Precepts of CheirÔn, the Art of Augural Prophecy, etc. 3. Separate and short mythical compositions, such as the Shield of HÊraklÊs, the Marriage of Keyx (which, however, was of disputed authenticity, AthenÆ. ii. p. 49), the Epithalamium of PÊleus and Thetis, etc. (See Marktscheffel, PrÆfat. ad Fragment. Hesiod. p. 89). The Theogony belongs chiefly to the first of these classes, but it has also a dash of the second in the legend of PromÊtheus, etc.: moreover in the portion which respects HekatÊ, it has both a mystic character and a distinct bearing upon present life and customs, which we may also trace in the allusions to KrÊte and Delphi. There seems reason to place it in the same age with the Works and Days, perhaps in the half century preceding 700 B. C., and little, if at all, anterior to Archilochus. The poem is evidently conceived upon one scheme, yet the parts are so disorderly and incoherent, that it is difficult to say how much is interpolation. Hermann has well dissected the exordium; see the preface to Gaisford’s Hesiod (PoetÆ Minor. p. 63). K. O. MÜller tells us (ut sup. p. 90), “The Titans, according to the notions of Hesiod, represent a system of things in which elementary beings, natural powers, and notions of order and regularity are united to form a whole. The CyclÔpes denote the transient disturbances of this order of nature by storms, and the Hekatoncheires, or hundred-handed Giants, signify the fearful power of the greater revolutions of nature.” The poem affords little presumption that any such ideas were present to the mind of its author, as, I think, will be seen if we read 140-155, 630-745. The Titans, the CyclÔpes, and the Hekatoncheires, can no more be construed into physical phÆnomena than Chrysaor, Pegasus, Echidna, the GrÆÆ, or the Gorgons. Zeus, like HÊraklÊs, or JasÔn, or Perseus, if his adventures are to be described, must have enemies, worthy of himself and his vast type, and whom it is some credit for him to overthrow. Those who contend with him or assist him must be conceived on a scale fit to be drawn on the same imposing canvas: the dwarfish proportions of man will not satisfy the sentiment of the poet or his audience respecting the grandeur and glory of the gods. To obtain creations of adequate sublimity for such an object, the poet may occasionally borrow analogies from the striking accidents of physical nature, and when such an allusion manifests itself clearly, the critic does well to point it out. But it seems to me a mistake to treat these approximations to physical phÆnomena as forming the main scheme of the poet,—to look for them everywhere, and to presume them where there is little or no indication. [31] The strongest evidences of this feeling are exhibited in Herodotus, iii. 48; viii. 105. See an example of this mutilation inflicted upon a youth named Adamas by the Thracian king Kotys, in Aristot. Polit. v. 8, 12, and the tale about the Corinthian Periander, Herod. iii. 48. It is an instance of the habit, so frequent among the Attic tragedians, of ascribing Asiatic or Phrygian manners to the Trojans, when SophoclÊs in his lost play Troilus (ap. Jul. Poll. x. 165) introduced one of the characters of his drama as having been castrated by order of Hecuba, S?a?? ??? ???e?? as???? ??t????s? ????,—probably the ?a?da?????, or guardian and companion of the youthful Troilus. See Welcker, Griechisch. TragÖd. vol. i. p. 125. [32] Herodot. viii. 105, e???????. Lucian, De De SyriÂ, c. 50. Strabo, xiv. pp. 640-641. [33] DiodÔr. v. 64. Strabo, x. p. 460. Hoeckh, in his learned work KrÊta (vol. i. books 1 and 2), has collected all the information attainable respecting the early influences of Phrygia and Asia Minor upon KrÊte: nothing seems ascertainable except the general fact; all the particular evidences are lamentably vague. The worship of the DiktÆan Zeus seemed to have originally belonged to the EteokrÊtes, who were not Hellens, and were more akin to the Asiatic population than to the Hellenic. Strabo, x. p. 478. Hoeckh, KrÊta, vol. i. p. 139. [34] Hesiod, Theogon. 161, ???a d? p???sasa ????? p????? ?d?a?t??, ?e??e ??a d??pa???, etc. See the extract from the old poem PhorÔnis ap. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 1129; and Strabo, x. p. 472. [35] See the scanty fragments of the Orphic theogony in Hermann’s edition of the Orphica, pp. 448, 504, which it is difficult to understand and piece together, even with the aid of Lobeck’s elaborate examination (Aglaophamus, p. 470, etc.). The passages are chiefly preserved by Proclus and the later Platonists, who seem to entangle them almost inextricably with their own philosophical ideas. The first few lines of the Orphic Argonautica contain a brief summary of the chief points of the theogony. [36] See Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 472-476, 490-500, ??t?? sp??a f????ta ?e?? ???t?? ????epa???; again, T???? ?a? ?e??t?? ??ate??? ?e?? ?????pa???. Compare Lactant. iv. 8, 4: Suidas, v. F????: Athenagoras, xx. 296: DiodÔr. i. 27. This egg figures, as might be expected, in the cosmogony set forth by the Birds, Aristophan. Av. 695. Nyx gives birth to an egg, out of which steps the golden ErÔs, from ErÔs and Chaos spring the race of birds. [37] Lobeck, Ag. p. 504. Athenagor. xv. p. 64. [38] Lobeck, Ag. p. 507. Plato, TimÆus, p. 41. In the ?????s?? t??f?? of Æschylus, the old attendants of the god Dionysos were said to have been cut up and boiled in a caldron, and rendered again young, by Medeia. PherecydÊs and SimonidÊs said that JasÔn himself had been so dealt with. Schol. Aristoph. Equit. 1321. [39] Lobeck, p. 514. Porphyry, de Antro Nympharum, c. 16. f?s? ??? pa?? ??fe? ? ???, t? ??? ?p?t??e??? t?? d?? t?? ???t?? d????, ??t? ?? d? ?? ?d?a? ?p? d??s?? ???????s? ?????s?? e????ta e??ss??? ??????, ??t??? ?? d?s??. ? ?a? p?s?e? ? ?????? ?a? de?e?? ??t??eta?, ?? ???a???. Compare TimÆus ap. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. iv. 983. [40] The Cataposis of PhanÊs by Zeus one of the most memorable points of the Orphic Theogony. Lobeck, p. 519.; also Fragm. vi. p. 456 of Hermann’s Orphica. From this absorption and subsequent reproduction of all things by Zeus, flowed the magnificent string of Orphic predicates about him,— ?e?? ????, ?e?? ?ssa, ???? d? ?? p??ta t?t??ta?,— an allusion to which is traceable even in Plato, de Legg. iv. p. 715. Plutarch, de Defectu Oracul. T. ix. p. 379. c. 48. DiodÔrus (i. 11) is the most ancient writer remaining to us who mentions the name of PhanÊs, in a line cited as proceeding from Orpheus; wherein, however, PhanÊs is identified with Dionysos. Compare Macrobius, Saturnal. i. 18. [41] About the tale of Zagreus, see Lobeck, p. 552, sqq. Nonnus in his Dionysiaca has given many details about it:— ?a???a ?e??a??? ????e? ??f??, etc. (vi. 264). Clemens Alexandrin. Admonit. ad Gent. p. 11, 12, Sylb. The story was treated both by Callimachus and by EuphoriÔn, Etymolog. Magn. v. ?a??e??, Schol. Lycophr. 208. In the old epic poem AlkmÆÔnis or Epigoni, Zagreus is a surname of HadÊs. See Fragm. 4, p. 7, ed. DÜntzer. Respecting the Orphic Theogony generally, Brandis (Handbuch der Geschichte der Griechisch-RÖmisch. Philosophie, c. xvii., xviii.), K. O. MÜller (Prolegg. Mythol. pp. 379-396), and Zoega (Abhandlungen, v. pp. 211-263) may be consulted with much advantage. Brandis regards this Theogony as considerably older than the first Ionic philosophy, which is a higher antiquity than appears probable: some of the ideas which it contains, such, for example, as that of the Orphic egg, indicate a departure from the string of purely personal generations which both Homer and Hesiod exclusively recount, and a resort to something like physical analogies. On the whole, we cannot reasonably claim for it more than half a century above the age of Onomakritus. The Theogony of PherekydÊs of Syros seems to have borne some analogy to the Orphic. See Diogen. LaËrt. i. 119, Sturz. Fragment. Pherekyd. § 5-6, Brandis, Handbuch, ut sup. c. xxii. PherekydÊs partially deviated from the mythical track or personal successions set forth by Hesiod. ?pe? ?? ?e e?????? a?t?? ?a? t? ? ?????? ?pa?ta ???e??, ???? Fe?e??d?? ?a? ?te??? t??e?, etc. (Aristot. Metaphys. N. p. 301, ed. Brandis). Porphyrias, de Antro Nymphar. c. 31, ?a? t?? S????? Fe?e??d?? ????? ?a? ?????? ?a? ??t?a ?a? ???a? ?a? p??a? ?????t??, ?a? d?? t??t?? a???tt????? t?? t?? ????? ?e??se?? ?a? ?p??e??se??, etc. EudÊmus the Peripatetic, pupil of Aristotle, had drawn up an account of the Orphic Theogony as well as of the doctrines of PherekydÊs, Akusilaus and others, which was still in the hands of the Platonists of the fourth century, though it is now lost. The extracts which we find seem all to countenance the belief that the Hesiodic Theogony formed the basis upon which they worked. See about Akusilaus, Plato, Sympos. p. 178. Clem. Alex. Strom. p. 629. [42] The Orphic Theogony is never cited in the ample Scholia on Homer, though Hesiod is often alluded to. (See Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 540). Nor can it have been present to the minds of XenophanÊs and Herakleitus, as representing any widely diffused Grecian belief: the former, who so severely condemned Homer and Hesiod, would have found Orpheus much more deserving of his censure: and the latter could hardly have omitted Orpheus from his memorable denunciation:—????a??? ???? ?? d?d?s?e?? ?s??d?? ??? ?? ?d?da?e ?a? ???a?????, a?t?? d? ?e??f??e? te ?a? ??ata???. Diog. LaËr. ix. 1. IsokratÊs treats Orpheus as the most censurable of all the poets. See Busiris, p. 229; ii. p. 309, Bekk. The Theogony of Orpheus, as conceived by ApollÔnius Rhodius (i. 504) in the third century B. C., and by Nigidius in the first century B. C. (Servius ad Virgil. Eclog. iv. 10), seems to have been on a more contracted scale than that which is given in the text. But neither of them notice the tale of Zagreus, which we know to be as old as Onomakritus. [43] This opinion of Herodotus is implied in the remarkable passage about Homer and Hesiod, ii. 53, though he never once names Orpheus—only alluding once to “Orphic ceremonies,” ii. 81. He speaks more than once of the prophecies of MusÆus. Aristotle denied the past existence and reality of Orpheus. See Cicero de Nat. Deor. i. 38. [44] Pindar Pyth. iv. 177. Plato seems to consider Orpheus as more ancient than Homer. Compare TheÆtÊt. p. 179; Cratylus, p. 402; De Republ. ii. p. 364. The order in which AristophanÊs (and Hippias of Elis, ap. Clem. Alex. Str. vi. p. 624) mentions them indicates the same view, RanÆ, 1030. It is unnecessary to cite the later chronologers, among whom the belief in the antiquity of Orpheus was universal; he was commonly described as son of the Muse CalliopÊ. AndrotiÔn seems to have denied that he was a Thracian, regarding the Thracians as incurably stupid and illiterate. AndrotiÔn, Fragm. 36, ed. Didot. Ephorus treated him as having been a pupil of the IdÆan Dactyls of Phrygia (see DiodÔr. v. 64), and as having learnt from them his te?et?? and ?st???a, which he was the first to introduce into Greece. The earliest mention which we find of Orpheus, is that of the poet Ibycus (about B. C. 530), ???????t?? ??f??. Ibyci Fragm. 9, p. 341, ed. Schneidewin. [45] Pausan. viii. 37, 3. ??t??a? d? p??t?? ?? p???s?? ?s??a?e? ?????, ?e??? e??a? sf?? ?p? t? ?a?????? ?a?t???? ?a? ?st?? ?? ???? ???? t? ?p?? pa?? d? ????? ???????t??, pa?a?a?? t?? ??t???? t? ???a, ?????s? te s??????e? ????a, ?a? e??a? t??? ??t??a? t? ?????s? t?? pa???t?? ?p???se? a?t???????. Both the date, the character and the function of Onomakritus are distinctly marked by Herodotus, vii. 6. [46] Herodotus believed in the derivation both of the Orphic and Pythagorean regulations from Egypt—????????s? d? ta?ta t??s? ??f????s? ?a?e?????s? ?a? ?a??????s?, ???s? d? ????pt???s? (ii. 81). He knows the names of those Greeks who have borrowed from Egypt the doctrine of the metempsychosis, but he will not mention them (ii. 123): he can hardly allude to any one but the Pythagoreans, many of whom he probably knew in Italy. See the curious extract from XenophanÊs respecting the doctrine of Pythagoras, Diogen. LaËrt. viii. 37; and the quotation from the Silli of TimÔn, ???a???a? d? ???t?? ?p?????a?t? ?p? d??a?, etc. Compare Porphyr. in Vit. Pythag. c. 41. [47] Aristophan. Ran. 1030.— ??fe?? ?? ??? te?et?? ?? ??? ?at?de??e, f???? t? ?p??es?a?? ???sa??? t?, ??a??se?? te ??s?? ?a? ???s???? ?s??d?? d?, G?? ???as?a?, ?a?p?? ??a?, ???t???? ? d? ?e??? ????? ?p? t?? t??? ?a? ????? ?s?e?, p??? t????, ?t? ???st? ?d?das?e?, ??et??, t??e??, ?p??se?? ??d???; etc. The same general contrast is to be found in Plato, Protagoras, p. 316; the opinion of Pausanias, ix. 30, 4. The poems of MusÆus seem to have borne considerable analogy to the Melampodia ascribed to Hesiod (see Clemen. Alex. Str. vi. p. 628); and healing charms are ascribed to Orpheus as well as to MusÆus. See Eurip. Alcestis, 986. [48] Herod. ii. 81; Euripid. Hippol. 957, and the curious fragment of the lost ???te? of EuripidÊs. ??f???? ???, Plato, Legg. vii. 782. [49] Herodot. ii. 42, 59, 144. [50] Herodot. v. 7, vii. 111; Euripid. Hecub. 1249, and RhÊsus, 969, and the Prologue to the BacchÆ; Strabo, x. p. 470; Schol. ad Aristophan. Aves, 874; Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieg. 1069; Harpocrat. v. S???; Photius, ???? Sa??. The “Lydiaca” of Th. Menke (Berlin, 1843) traces the early connection between the religion of Dionysos and that of CybelÊ, c. 6, 7. Hoeckh’s KrÊta (vol. i. p. 128-134) is instructive respecting the Phrygian religion. [51] Aristotle, Polit. viii. 7, 9. ??sa ??? ????e?a ?a? p?sa ? t??a?t? ????s?? ???sta t?? ??????? ?st?? ?? t??? a?????? t?? d? ??????? ?? t??? F????st? ??es? ?a??e? ta?ta t? p??p??, ???? ? d????a?? d??e? ??????????? e??a? F??????. Eurip. Bacch. 58.— ???es?e t?p?????? ?? p??e? F????? ??pa?a, ??a? te ?t??? ?? ?? e???ata, etc. Plutarch, ??. in Delph. c. 9; Philochor. Fr. 21, ed. Didot, p. 389. The complete and intimate manner in which EuripidÊs identifies the Bacchic rites of Dionysos with the Phrygian ceremonies in honor of the Great Mother, is very remarkable. The fine description given by Lucretius (ii. 600-640) of the Phrygian worship is much enfeebled by his unsatisfactory allegorizing. [52] Schol. ad Iliad, xi. 690—?? d?? t? ?a???s?a ?f?t?? p???e?ta? ? ?????, ?pe? t?? ?d?sse?? e???? ??st????, ?a? pa?? ???? ??? ??dae? f???a ?a?a???e???, ???? ??t?t????ta ? f??ade??e???. The examples are numerous, and are found both in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Iliad, ii. 665 (TlÊpolemos); xiii. 697 (MedÔn); xiii. 574 (Epeigeus); xxiii. 89 (Patroclos); Odyss. xv. 224 (Theoclymenos); xiv. 380 (an ÆtÔlian). Nor does the interesting mythe respecting the functions of AtÊ and the LitÆ harmonize with the subsequent doctrine about the necessity of purification. (Iliad, ix. 498). [53] Herodot. i. 35—?st? d? pa?ap??s?? ? ???a?s?? t??s? ??d??s? ?a? t??s? ????s?. One remarkable proof, amongst many, of the deep hold which this idea took of the greatest minds in Greece, that serious mischief would fall upon the community if family quarrels or homicide remained without religious expiation, is to be found in the objections which Aristotle urges against the community of women proposed in the Platonic Republic. It could not be known what individuals stood in the relation of father, son or brother: if, therefore, wrong or murder of kindred should take place, the appropriate religious atonements (a? ?????e?a? ??se??) could not be applied, and the crime would go unexpiated. (Aristot. Polit. ii. 1, 14. Compare Thucyd. i. 125-128). [54] See the Fragm. of the Æthiopis of Arktinus, in DÜntzer’s Collection, p. 16. [55] The references for this are collected in Lobeck’s Aglaophamos. Epimetr. ii. ad Orphica, p. 968. [56] Pausanias (iv. 1, 5)—ete??s?se ??? ?a? ???ap?? t?? te?et?? (the Eleusinian Orgies, carried by Kaukon from Eleusis into MessÊnia), ?st?? ?. ? d? ???ap?? ????? ?? ?? ????a???, te?et?? te ?a? ?????? pa?t???? s????t??. Again, viii. 37, 3, Onomakritus ?????s? s??????e? ????a, etc. This is another expression designating the same idea as the RhÊsus of EuripidÊs, 944.— ??st????? te t?? ?p????t?? f??a? ?de??e? ??fe??. [57] TÊlinÊs, the ancestor of the Syracusan despot GelÔ, acquired great political power as possessing t? ??? t?? ??????? ?e?? (Herodot. vii. 153); he and his family became hereditary Hierophants of these ceremonies. How TÊlinÊs acquired the ??? Herodotus cannot say—??e? d? ??t? ??ae, ? a?t?? ??t?sat?, t??t? ??? ??? e?pa?. Probably there was a traditional legend, not inferior in sanctity to that of Eleusis, tracing them to the gift of DÊmÊtÊr herself. [58] See Josephus cont. ApiÔn. ii. c. 35; Hesych. Te?? ??????; Strabo, x. p. 471; Plutarch, ?e?? ?e?s?da???. c. iii. p. 166; c. vii. p. 167. [59] Plato, Republ. ii. p. 364; Demosthen. de CoronÂ, c. 79, p. 313. The de?s?da??? of Theophrastus cannot be comfortable without receiving the Orphic communion monthly from the OrpheotelestÆ (Theophr. Char. xvi.). Compare Plutarch, ?e?? t?? ? ???? ?et?a, etc., c. 25, p. 400. The comic writer Phrynichus indicates the existence of these rites of religious excitement, at Athens, during the Peloponnesian war. See the short fragment of his ??????, ap. Schol. Aristoph. Aves, 989— ???? ???e?e?, ?a? t? t?? ?a???? ????e? ???pe??? etad??? ?a? t?pa?a; DiopeithÊs was a ???s??????, or collector and deliverer of prophecies, which he sung (or rather, perhaps, recited) with solemnity and emphasis, in public. ?ste p?????te? ???s??? a?t?? ??d?as? ?de?? ???pe??e? t? pa?aa??????. (Ameipsias ap. Schol. Aristophan. ut sup., which illustrates Thucyd. ii. 21). [60] Plutarch, SolÔn, c. 12; Diogen. LaËrt. i. 110. [61] See Klausen, “Æneas und die Penaten:” his chapter on the connection between the Grecian and Roman Sibylline collections is among the most ingenious of his learned book. Book ii. pp. 210-240; see Steph. Byz. v. G?????. To the same age belong the ???s?? and ?a?a??? of Abaris and his marvellous journey through the air upon an arrow (Herodot. iv. 36). EpimenidÊs also composed ?a?a??? in epic verse; his ?????t?? and ??????t?? ???es??, and his four thousand verses respecting MinÔs and Rhadamanthys, if they had been preserved, would let us fully into the ideas of a religious mystic of that age respecting the antiquities of Greece. (Strabo, x. p. 474; Diogen. LaËrt. i. 10). Among the poems ascribed to Hesiod were comprised not only the Melampodia, but also ?p? a?t??? and ?????se?? ?p? t??as??. Pausan. ix. 31, 4. [62] Among other illustrations of this general resemblance, may be counted an epitaph of Kallimachus upon an aged priestess, who passed from the service of DÊmÊtÊr to that of the Kabeiri, then to that of CybelÊ, having the superintendence of many young women. Kallimachus, Epigram. 42. p. 308, ed. Ernest. [63] Plutarch, (Defect. Oracul. c. 10, p. 415) treats these countries as the original seat of the worship of DÆmons (wholly or partially bad, and intermediate between gods and men), and their religious ceremonies as of a corresponding character: the Greeks were borrowers from them, according to him, both of the doctrine and of the ceremonies. [64] Strabo, vii. p. 297. ?pa?te? ??? t?? de?s?da????a? ???????? ????ta? t?? ???a??a?? a?ta? d? ?a? t??? ??d?a? p???a????ta? ?? t?? ?p? p???? ?e?ape?a? t?? ?e??, ?a? ???t??, ?a? p?t??as???. Plato (De Legg. x. pp. 909, 910) takes great pains to restrain this tendency on the part of sick or suffering persons, especially women, to introduce new sacred rites into his city. [65] Herodot. i. 146. The wives of the Ionic original settlers at Miletos were Karian women, whose husbands they slew. The violences of the Karian worship are attested by what Herodotus says of the Karian residents in Egypt, at the festival of Isis at Busiris. The Egyptians at this festival manifested their feeling by beating themselves, the Karians by cutting their faces with knives (ii. 61). The ?a???? ??sa became proverbial for funeral wailings (Plato, Legg. vii. p. 800): the unmeasured effusions and demonstrations of sorrow for the departed, some times accompanied by cutting and mutilation self-inflicted by the mourner was a distinguishing feature in Asiatics and Egyptians as compared with Greeks. Plutarch, Consolat. ad ApollÔn. c. 22, p. 123. Mournful feeling was, in fact, a sort of desecration of the genuine and primitive Grecian festival, which was a season of cheerful harmony and social enjoyment, wherein the god was believed to sympathize (e?f??s???). See Xenophanes ap. Aristot. Rhetor. ii. 25; Xenophan. Fragm. 1. ed. Schneidewin; Theognis, 776; Plutarch, De Superstit. p. 169. The unfavorable comments of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in so far as they refer to the festivals of Greece, apply to the foreign corruptions, not to the native character, of Grecian worship. [66] The Lydian HÊraklÊs was conceived and worshipped as a man in female attire: this idea occurs often in the Asiatic religions. Mencke, Lydiaca, c. 8, p. 22. ?????s?? ????? ?a? ?????. Aristid. Or. iv. p. 28; Æschyl. Fragm. Edoni, ap. Aristoph. Thesmoph. 135. ??dap?? ? ??????; t?? p?t?a; t?? ? st???; [67] Melampos cures the women (whom Dionysos has struck mad for their resistance to his rites), pa?a?a?? t??? d??at?t?t??? t?? ?ea???? et? ??a?a??? ?a? t???? ?????? ???e?a?. ApollodÔr. ii. 2, 7. Compare Eurip. Bacch. 861. Plato (Legg. vii. p. 790) gives a similar theory of the healing effect of the Korybantic rites, which cured vague and inexplicable terrors of the mind by means of dancing and music conjoined with religious ceremonies—a? t? t?? ??????t?? ??ata te???sa? (the practitioners were women), a? t?? ??f????? ?a??e??? ??se??—? t?? ????e? ??ate? ????s?? p??sfe????? t?? ??t?? f?e??? ??sa? ?a? a????? ????s??—?????????? d? ?a? a????????? et? ?e??, ??? ?? ?a???e??sa?te? ??ast?? ???s??, ?ate????sat? ??t? a????? ??? d?a??se?? ??e?? ?f???a? ??e??. [68] Described in the BacchÆ of EuripidÊs (140, 735, 1135, etc.). Ovid, Trist. iv. i. 41. “Utque suum Bacchis non sentit saucia vulnus, Cum furit Edonis exululata jugis.” In a fragment of the poet Alkman, a Lydian by birth, the Bacchanal nymphs are represented as milking the lioness, and making cheese of the milk, during their mountain excursions and festivals. (Alkman. Fragm. 14. Schn. Compare Aristid. Orat. iv. p. 29). Clemens Alexand. Admonit. ad Gent. p. 9, Sylb.; Lucian, Dionysos, c. 3, T. iii. p. 77, Hemsterh. [69] See the tale of SkylÊs in Herod. iv. 79, and AthenÆus, x. p. 445. Herodotus mentions that the Scythians abhorred the Bacchic ceremonies, accounting the frenzy which belonged to them to be disgraceful and monstrous. [70] Plutarch, De Isid. et Osir. c. 69, p. 378; Schol. ad Aristoph. Thesmoph. There were however Bacchic ceremonies practised to a certain extent by the Athenian women. (Aristoph. Lysist. 388). [71] “Ægyptiaca numina fere plangoribus gaudent, GrÆca plerumque choreis, barbara autem strepitu cymbalistarum et tympanistarum et choraularum.” (Apuleius, De Genio Socratis, v. ii. p. 149, Oudend). [72] The legend of Dionysos and Prosymnos, as it stands in Clemens, could never have found place in an epic poem (Admonit. ad Gent. p. 22, Sylb.). Compare page 11 of the same work, where however he so confounds together Phrygian, Bacchic, and Eleusinian mysteries, that one cannot distinguish them apart. DemÊtrius PhalÊreus says about the legends belonging to these ceremonies—??? ?a? t? ?st???a ???eta? ?? ????????a?? p??? ??p????? ?a? f?????, ?spe? ?? s??t? ?a? ???t?. (De Interpretatione, c. 101). [73] See the curious treatise of Plutarch, De Isid. et Osirid. c. 11-14. p. 356, and his elaborate attempt to allegorize the legend. He seems to have conceived that the Thracian Orpheus had first introduced into Greece the mysteries both of DÊmÊtÊr and Dionysos, copying them from those of Isis and Osiris in Egypt. See Fragm. 84, from one of his lost works, tom, v. p. 891, ed. Wyttenb. [74] Æschylus had dramatized the story of Pentheus as well as that of Lykurgus: one of his tetralogies was the Lykurgeia (Dindorf, Æsch. Fragm. 115). A short allusion to the story of Pentheus appears in Eumenid. 25. Compare Sophocl. Antigon. 985, and the Scholia. [75] Iliad, vi. 130. See the remarks of Mr. Payne Knight ad loc. [76] See Homer, Hymn 5, ?????s?? ? ??sta?.—The satirical drama of EuripidÊs, the CyclÔps, extends and alters this old legend. Dionysos is carried away by the Tyrrhenian pirates, and SilÊnus at the head of the Bacchanals goes everywhere in search of him (Eur. Cyc. 112). The pirates are instigated against him by the hatred of HÊrÊ, which appears frequently as a cause of mischief to Dionysos (BacchÆ, 286). HÊrÊ in her anger had driven him mad when a child, and he had wandered in this state over Egypt and Syria; at length he came to Cybela in Phrygia, was purified (?a?a??e??) by Rhea, and received from her female attire (ApollodÔr. iii. 5, 1, with Heyne’s note). This seems to have been the legend adopted to explain the old verse of the Iliad, as well as the maddening attributes of the god generally. There was a standing antipathy between the priestesses and the religious establishments of HÊrÊ and Dionysos (Plutarch, ?e?? t?? ?? ??ata?a?? ?a?d????, c. 2, tom. v. p. 755, ed. Wytt). Plutarch ridicules the legendary reason commonly assigned for this, and provides a symbolical explanation which he thinks very satisfactory. [77] Eurip. Bacch. 325, 464, etc. [78] Strabo, x. p. 471. Compare Aristid. Or. iv. p. 28. [79] In the lost XantriÆ of Æschylus, in which seems to have been included the tale of Pentheus, the goddess ??ssa was introduced, stimulating the BacchÆ, and creating in them spasmodic excitement from head to foot: ?? p?d?? d? ??? ?p???eta? spa?a??? e?? ????? ???a, etc. (Fragm. 155, Dindorf). His tragedy called Edoni also gave a terrific representation of the Bacchanals and their fury, exaggerated by the maddening music: ??p??s? ????, ?a??a? ?pa????? ?????? (Fr. 54). Such also is the reigning sentiment throughout the greater part of the BacchÆ of EuripidÊs; it is brought out still more impressively in the mournful Atys of Catullus:— “Dea magna, Dea Cybele, Dindymi Dea, Domina, Procul a me tuus sit furor omnis, hera, domo: Alios age incitatos: alios age rabidos!” We have only to compare this fearful influence with the description of DikÆopolis and his exuberant joviality in the festival of the rural Dionysia (Aristoph. Acharn. 1051 seq.; see also Plato. Legg. i. p. 637), to see how completely the foreign innovations recolored the old Grecian Dionysos,—?????s?? p????????,—who appears also in the scene of Dionysos and AriadnÊ in the Symposion of XenophÔn, c. 9. The simplicity of the ancient Dionysiac processions is dwelt upon by Plutarch, De Cupidine Divitiarum, p. 527; and the original dithyramb addressed by Archilochus to Dionysos is an effusion of drunken hilarity (Archiloch. Frag. 69, Schneid.). [80] Pindar, Isthm. vi. 3. ?a??????t?? p??ed??? ???te???,—the epithet marks the approximation of DÊmÊtÊr to the Mother of the Gods. ? ???t???? t?p???? t? ?a??, s?? te ???? a???? ??ade? (Homer. Hymn, xiii.),—the Mother of the Gods was worshipped by Pindar himself along with Pan; she had in his time her temple and ceremonies at ThÊbes (Pyth. iii. 78; Fragm. Dithyr. 5, and the Scholia ad l.) as well as, probably, at Athens (Pausan. i. 3, 3). Dionysos and DÊmÊtÊr are also brought together in the chorus of SophoklÊs, AntigonÊ, 1072. ?de?? d? pa???????? ??e?s???a? ????? ?? ???p???; and in Kallimachus, Hymn. Cerer. 70. Bacchus or Dionysos are in the Attic tragedians constantly confounded with the DÊmÊtrian Iacchos, originally so different,—a personification of the mystic word shouted by the Eleusinian communicants. See Strabo, x. p. 468. [81] EuripidÊs in his Chorus in the Helena (1320 seq.) assigns to DÊmÊtÊr all the attributes of Rhea, and blends the two completely into one. [82] Sophocl. Antigon. ?a???? ?t??p???? T?a?. [83] Homer, Hymn. Cerer. 123. The Hymn to DÊmÊtÊr has been translated, accompanied with valuable illustrative notes, by J. H. Voss (Heidelb. 1826). [84] Homer, Hymn. Cerer. 202-210. [85] This story was also told with reference to the Egyptian goddess Isis in her wanderings. See Plutarch, De Isid. et Osirid. c. 16, p. 357. [86] Homer, Hymn. Cerer. 274.— ????a d? a?t? ???? ?p???s?a?, ?? ?? ?pe?ta ??a???? ??d??te? ??? ???? ???s??s?e. The same story is told in regard to the infant Achilles. His mother Thetis was taking similar measures to render him immortal, when his father PÊleus interfered and prevented the consummation. Thetis immediately left him in great wrath (ApollÔn. Rhod. iv. 866). [87] Homer, Hymn. 290.— t?? d? ?? e???sset? ????, ?e???te?a? ??? d? ?? ???? t??f?? ?d? t????a?. [88] Homer, H. Cer. 305.— ????tat?? d? ???a?t?? ?p? ????a p?????te??a? ????s? ?????p???, ?d? ???tat??. [89] Hymn, v. 375. [90] Hymn, v. 443. [91] Hymn, v. 475.— ? d? ????sa ?e?st?p????? as??e?s? ?e??e?, ???pt???? te, ??????? te p????pp?, ????p?? te ??, ?e??? ?? ???t??? ?a??, ???s?s???? ?e???? ?a? ?p?f?ade? ????a pa?s?? ??es?t???? ?e?????, etc. [92] AristophanÊs, Vesp. 1363. Hesych. v. Gef????. Suidas, v. Gef??????. Compare about the details of the ceremony, Clemens Alexandr. Admon. ad Gent. p. 13. A similar license of unrestrained jocularity appears in the rites of DÊmÊtÊr in Sicily (DiodÔr. v. 4; see also Pausan. vii. 27, 4), and in the worship of Damia and Auxesia at Ægina (Herodot. v. 83). [93] Herodot. v. 61. [94] Pausan. i. 38, 3; ApollodÔr. iii. 15, 4. Heyne in his Note admits several persons named Eumolpus. Compare IsokratÊs, Panegyr. p. 55. Philochorus the Attic antiquary could not have received the legend of the Eleusinian Hymn, from the different account which he gave respecting the rape of PersephonÊ (Philoch. Fragm. 46, ed. Didot), and also respecting Keleos (Fr. 28, ibid.). [95] Phytalus, the Eponym or godfather of this gens, had received DÊmÊtÊr as a guest in his house, when she first presented mankind with the fruit of the fig-tree. (Pausan. i. 37, 2.) [96] Kallimach. Hymn. Cerer. 19. SophoklÊs, Triptolemos, Frag. 1. Cicero, Legg. ii. 14, and the note of Servius ad Virgil. Æn. iv. 58. [97] Herodot. vi. 16, 134. ????? Tes?f???? ???t???—t? ?? ??se?a ????? ????ta ?e??. [98] Herodot. vii. 200. [99] According to another legend, LÊtÔ was said to have been conveyed from the Hyperboreans to DÊlos in twelve days, in the form of a she-wolf, to escape the jealous eye of HÊrÊ. In connection with this legend, it was affirmed that the she-wolves always brought forth their young only during these twelve days in the year (Aristot. Hist. Animal. vii. 35). [100] Hom. Hymn. Apoll. i. 179. [101] Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 262. [102] Hom. Hymn. 363—p??es?a?, to rot. [103] Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 381. [104] Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 475 sqq. [105] Homer. Hymn. Apoll. 535.— ?e??t??? ??? ??ast?? ???? ?? ?e??? ??a??a? Sf??e?? a?e? ??a? t? d? ?f???a p??ta p??esta?, ?ssa ????? ?????s? pe?????ta f??? ?????p??. [106] Harpocration v. ?p????? pat???? and ???e??? ?e??. Apollo Delphinios also belongs to the Ionic Greeks generally. Strabo, iv. 179. [107] Thucydid. vi. 3; Kallimach. Hymn. Apoll. 56.— F???? ??? ?e? p???ess? f???de? ?t?????a??, a?t?? d? ?ee???a F???? ?fa??e?. [108] Iliad, iv. 30-46. [109] Iliad, i. 38, 451; Stephan. Byz. ?????, ???ed??. See also Klausen, Æneas und die Penaten, b. i. p. 69. The worship of Apollo Sminthios and the festival of the Sminthia at Alexandria Troas lasted down to the time of Menander the rhÊtÔr, at the close of the third century after Christ. [110] Plutarch. Defect. Oracul. c. 5, p. 412; c. 8, p. 414; Steph. Byz. v. ?e???a. The temple of the PtÔan Apollo had acquired celebrity before the days of the poet Asius. Pausan. ix. 23, 3. [111] The legend which Ephorus followed about the establishment of the Delphian temple was something radically different from the Homeric Hymn (Ephori Fragm. 70, ed. Didot): his narrative went far to politicize and rationalize the story. The progeny of Apollo was very numerous, and of the most diverse attributes; he was father of the Korybantes (Pherekydes, Fragm. 6, ed. Didot), as well as of AsklÊpios and AristÆus (Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 500; ApollodÔr. iii. 10, 3). [112] Strabo, ix. p. 421. Menander the Rhetor (Ap. Walz. Coll. Rhett. t. ix. p. 136) gives an elaborate classification of hymns to the gods, distinguishing them into nine classes,—???t????, ?p?pept????, f?s????, ??????, ?e?ea???????, pep?as????, e??t????, ?pe??t????, ??t??:—the second class had reference to the temporary absences or departure of a god to some distant place, which were often admitted in the ancient religion. Sappho and Alkman in their kletic hymns invoked the gods from many different places,—t?? ?? ??? ??te?? ?? ????? ?? ??e??, ????? d? p??e??, ?t? d? p?t???, ??a?a?e?,—also AphroditÊ and Apollo, etc. All these songs were full of adventures and details respecting the gods,—in other words of legendary matter. [113] Pindar, Olymp. xiv.; Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung der Athener, Appendix, § xx. p. 357. [114] Alexander Ætolus, apud Macrobium, Saturn. v. 22. [115] The birth of Apollo and Artemis from Zeus and LÊtÔ is among the oldest and most generally admitted facts in the Grecian divine legends. Yet Æschylus did not scruple to describe Artemis publicly as daughter of DÊmÊtÊr (Herodot. ii. 156; Pausan. viii. 37, 3). Herodotus thinks that he copied this innovation from the Egyptians, who affirmed that Apollo and Artemis were the sons of Dionysos and Isis. The number and discrepancies of the mythes respecting each god are attested by the fruitless attempts of learned Greeks to escape the necessity of rejecting any of them by multiplying homonymous personages,—three persons named Zeus; five named AthÊnÊ; six named Apollo, etc. (Cicero. de Natur. Deor. iii. 21: Clemen. Alexand. Admon. ad Gent. p. 17). [116] Hesiod, Theogon. 188, 934, 945; Homer, Iliad, v. 371; Odyss. viii. 268. [117] Homer, Hymn. Vener. 248, 286; Homer, Iliad, v. 320, 386. [118] A large proportion of the Hesiodic epic related to the exploits and adventures of the heroic women,—the Catalogue of Women and the Eoiai embodied a string of such narratives. Hesiod and Stesichorus explained the conduct of Helen and KlytÆmnÊstra by the anger of AphroditÊ, caused by the neglect of their father Tyndareus to sacrifice to her (Hesiod, Fragm. 59, ed. DÜntzer; Stesichor. Fragm. 9, ed. Schneidewin): the irresistible ascendency of AphroditÊ is set forth in the Hippolytus of EuripidÊs not less forcibly than that of Dionysos in the BacchÆ. The character of Daphnis the herdsman, well-known from the first Idyll of Theocritus, and illustrating the destroying force of AphroditÊ, appears to have been first introduced into Greek poetry by Stesichorus (see Klausen, Æneas und die Penaten, vol. i. pp. 526-529). Compare a striking piece among the Fragmenta Incerta of SophoklÊs (Fr. 63, Brunck) and Euripid. Troad. 946, 995, 1048. Even in the Opp. et Di. of Hesiod, AphroditÊ is conceived rather as a disturbing and injurious influence (v. 65). Adonis owes his renown to the Alexandrine poets and their contemporary sovereigns (see Bion’s Idyll and the AdoniazusÆ of Theocritus). The favorites of AphroditÊ, even as counted up by the diligence of Clemens Alexandrinus, are however very few in number. (Admonitio ad Gent. p. 12, Sylb.) [119] ??d????? d???? ... ????? Simmias Rhodius; ???e???, ap. HephÆstion. c. 9. p. 54, Gaisford. [120] ApollodÔr. ap. Schol. ad Sophokl. Œdip. vol. 57; Pausan. i. 24, 3; ix. 26, 3; DiodÔr. v. 73; Plato, Legg. xi. p. 920. In the Opp. et Di. of Hesiod, the carpenter is the servant of AthÊnÊ (429): see also Phereklos the t??t?? in the Iliad, v. 61: compare viii. 385; Odyss. viii. 493; and the Homeric Hymn, to AphroditÊ, v. 12. The learned article of O. MÜller (in the EncyclopÆdia of Ersch and Gruber, since republished among his Kleine Deutsche Schriften, p. 134 seq.), Pallas AthÊnÊ, brings together all that can be known about this goddess. [121] Iliad, ii. 546; viii. 362. [122] ApollodÔr. iii. 4, 6. Compare the vague language of Plato, Kritias, c. iv., and Ovid, Metamorph. ii. 757. [123] Herodot. iv. 103; Strabo, xii. p. 534; xiii. p. 650. About the Ephesian Artemis, see Guhl, Ephesiaca (Berlin, 1843), p. 79 sqq.; Aristoph. Nub. 590; Autokrates in Tympanistis apud Ælian. Hist. Animal. xii. 9; and Spanheim ad Kallimach. Hymn. Dian. 36. The dances in honor of Artemis sometimes appear to have approached to the frenzied style of Bacchanal movement. See the words of Timotheus ap. Plutarch. de Audiend. Poet. p. 22, c. 4, and pe?? ?e?s?d. c. 10, p. 170, also Aristoph. Lysist. 1314. They seem to have been often celebrated in the solitudes of the mountains, which were the favorite resort of Artemis (Kallimach. Hymn. Dian. 19), and these ??e??s?a? were always causes predisposing to fanatical excitement. [124] Strabo, iv. p. 179. [125] Iliad, ix. 529. [126] Strabo, viii. p. 374. According to the old poem called Eumolpia, ascribed to MusÆus, the oracle of Delphi originally belonged to PoseidÔn and GÆa, jointly: from GÆa it passed to Themis, and from her to Apollo, to whom PoseidÔn also made over his share as a compensation for the surrender of Kalaureia to him. (Pausan. x. 5, 3). [127] ApollodÔr. iii. 14, 1; iii. 15, 3, 5. [128] Plutarch, Sympos. viii. 6, p. 741. [129] Iliad, ii. 716, 766; Euripid. AlkÊstis, 2. See Panyasis, Fragm. 12, p. 24, ed. DÜntzer. [130] Iliad, vii. 452; xxi. 459. [131] Iliad, v. 386. [132] Iliad, iv. 51; Odyss. xii. 72. [133] Iliad, i. 544; iv. 29-38; viii. 408. [134] Iliad, xviii. 306. [135] Homer. Hymn. Mercur. 18.— ???? ?e?????, ?s? ?at? ?????????e?, ?sp????? ??? ????e? ??????? ?p???????, etc. [136] Homer. Hymn. Merc. 177.— ??? ??? ?? ?????a, ??a? d??? ??t?t???s??, ???e? ???? t??p?da? pe???a???a?, ?d? ???ta? ?????s? ?a? ???s??, etc. [137] Homer. Hymn. Merc. 442-454. [138] Homer. Hymn. Merc. 504-520.— ?a? t? ?? ???? ??t??d?? ?f???se d?ape???, ?? ?t? ?a? ???, etc. · · · · · ?a? t?te ?a?ad?? ???? ?p?s??e??? ?at??e?se ?? p?t? ?p?????e??, ?s? ??????? ??te?t?sta?, ??d? p?t? ?pe??se?? p????? d??? a?t?? ?p????? ??t??d?? ?at??e?se? ?p? ???? ?a? f???t?t? ?? t??a f??te??? ????? ?? ??a??t??s?? ?ses?a? ??te ?e??, ?t? ??d?a ???? ?????, etc. [139] Homer. Hymn. Merc. 574.— ?a??a ?? ??? ?????s?, t? d? ????t?? ?pe??pe?e? ???ta d?? ??f?a??? f??a ???t?? ?????p??. [140] Kallimach. Hymn. Apoll. 47. [141] Kallimach. Hymn. Jov. 79. ?? d? ???? as???e?, etc. [142] See Herodot. i. 44. Xenoph. Anabas. vii. 8, 4. Plutarch, ThÊseus, c. 12. [143] Ovid, Fasti, iv. 211, about the festivals of Apollo:— “Priscique imitamina facti Æra DeÆ comites raucaque terga movent.” And Lactantius, v. 19, 15. “Ipsos ritus ex rebus gestis (deorum) vel ex casibus vel etiam ex mortibus, natos:” to the same purpose Augustin. De Civ. D. vii. 18; DiodÔr. iii. 56. Plutarch’s QuÆstiones GrÆcÆ et RomaicÆ are full of similar tales, professing to account for existing customs, many of them religious and liturgic. See Lobeck, Orphica, p. 675. [144] Hesiod, Theog. 550.— F? ?a d???f??????? ?e?? d? ?f??ta ?dea e?d?? G?? ?? ??d? ??????se d????? ?a?? d? ?sset? ??? T??t??? ?????p??s?, t? ?a? te??es?a? ?e??e?. ?e?s? d? ??? ?f?t???s?? ??e??et? ?e???? ??e?fa?? ??sat? d? f???a?, ?f? ????? d? ?? ??et? ????, ?? ?de? ?st?a ?e??? ??? d???? ?p? t????. In the second line of this citation, the poet tells us that Zeus saw through the trick, and was imposed upon by his own consent, foreknowing that after all the mischievous consequences of the proceeding would be visited on man. But the last lines, and indeed the whole drift of the legend, imply the contrary of this: Zeus was really taken in, and was in consequence very angry. It is curious to observe how the religious feelings of the poet drive him to save in words the prescience of Zeus, though in doing so he contradicts and nullifies the whole point of the story. [145] Hesiod, Theog. 557.— ?? t?? d? ??a??t??s?? ?p? ????? f??? ?????p?? ?a???s? ?st?a ?e??? ?????t?? ?p? ???. [146] Hesiod, as cited in the Etymologicon Magnum (probably the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, as Marktscheffel considers it, placing it Fragm. 133), gives the parentage of a certain Brotos, who must probably be intended as the first of men: ???t??, ?? ?? ???e??? ? ?ess?????, ?p? ???t?? t???? a?t???????? ? d? ?s??d??, ?p? ???t?? t?? ???e??? ?a? ???a?. [147] Opp. Di. 120.— ??t?? ?pe?d? t??t? ????? ?at? ?a?a ?????e? ??? ?? da????? e?s? ???? e????? d?? ????? ?s????, ?p????????, f??a?e? ???t?? ?????p??? ?? ?a f???ss??s?? te d??a? ?a? s??t??a ???a, ???a ?ss?e???, p??t? f??t??te? ?p? a?a? ????t?d?ta?? ?a? t??t? ???a? as?????? ?s???. [148] Opp. Di. 140.— ??t?? ?pe? ?a? t??t? ????? ?at? ?a?a ?????e, ??? ?? ?p???????? ??a?e? ???t?? ?a????ta? ?e?te???, ???? ?p?? t?? ?a? t??s?? ?p?de?. [149] The ash was the wood out of which spear-handles were made (Iliad, xvi. 142): the ??fa? ????a? are born along with the Gigantes and the Erinnyes (Theogon. 187),—“gensque virÛm truncis et duro robore nata” (Virgil, Æneid, viii. 315),—hearts of oak. [150] Opp. Di. 157.— ??d??? ????? ?e??? ?????, ?? ?a????ta? ???e?? p??t??? ?e??? ?at? ?pe????a ?a?a?. [151] Opp. Di. 173.— ????t? ?pe?t? ?fe???? ??? p?pt??s? ete??a? ??d??s??, ???? ? p??s?e ?a?e??, ? ?pe?ta ?e??s?a?. ??? ??? d? ????? ?st? s?d??e??.... [152] Odyss. xvii. 486. [153] There are some lines, in which he appears to believe that, under the present wicked and treacherous rulers, it is not the interest of any man to be just (Opp. Di. 270):— ??? d? ??? ?t? a?t?? ?? ?????p??s? d??a??? ????, ?t? ??? ????? ?pe? ?a??? ?st? d??a??? ?e?a?, e? e??? ?e d???? ?d???te??? ??e?? ???? t?d? ??p? ???pa te?e?? ??a te?p????a????. On the whole, however, his conviction is to the contrary. Plutarch rejects the above four lines, seemingly on no other ground than because he thought them immoral and unworthy of Hesiod (see Proclus ad loc.). But they fall in perfectly with the temper of the poem: and the rule of Plutarch is inadmissible, in determining the critical question of what is genuine or spurious. [154] Aratus (PhÆnomen. 107) gives only three successive races,—the golden, silver, and brazen; Ovid superadds to these the iron race (Metamorph. i. 89-144): neither of them notice the heroic race. The observations both of Buttmann (Mythos der Ältesten Menschengeschlechter, t. ii. p. 12 of the Mythologus) and of VÖlcker (Mythologie des Japetischen Geschlechts, § 6, pp. 250-279) on this series of distinct races, are ingenious, and may be read with profit. Both recognize the disparate character of the fourth link in the series, and each accounts for it in a different manner. My own view comes nearer to that of VÖlcker, with some considerable differences; amongst which one is, that he rejects the verses respecting the dÆmons, which seem to me capital parts of the whole scheme. [155] See this subject further mentioned—infra, chap. xvi. p. 565. [156] Opp. Di. 252. ???? ??? ????? e?s?? ?p? ????? p?????te???, etc. [157] Opp. Di. 50-105. [158] Opp. Di. 630-650, 27-45. [159] Compare the fable (a????) in the “Works and Days,” v. 200, with those in Archilochus, Fr. xxxviii. and xxxix., Gaisford, respecting the fox and the ape; and the legend of PandÔra (v. 95 and v. 705) with the fragment of SimonidÊs of Amorgos respecting women (Fr. viii. ed. Welcker, v. 95-115); also PhokylidÊs ap. StobÆum Florileg. lxxi. IsokratÊs assimilates the character of the “Works and Days” to that of Theognis and PhokylidÊs (ad Nikokl. Or. ii. p. 23). [160] Hesiod, Theog. 510. [161] Hom. Odyss. i. 120.— ?t?a?t?? ???at?? ????f?????, ?ste ?a??ss?? ??s?? ???ea ??de, ??e? d? te ????a? a?t?? ?a????, a? ?a??? te ?a? ???a??? ?f?? ????s??. [162] Hesiod, Theog. 516.— ?t?a? d? ???a??? e???? ??e? ??ate??? ?p? ??????? ?st???, ?efa?? te ?a? ??a?t??s? ???ess?. Hesiod stretches far beyond the simplicity of the Homeric conception. [163] Pindar extends the family of EpimÊtheus and gives him a daughter, ???fas?? (Pyth. v. 25), Excuse, the offspring of After-thought. [164] ApollodÔr. i. 7. 1. Nor is he such either in Æschylus, or in the Platonic fable (Protag. c. 30), though this version became at last the most popular. Some hardened lumps of clay, remnants of that which had been employed by PromÊtheus in moulding man, were shown to Pausanias at Panopeus in Phokis (Paus. x. 4, 3). The first Epigram of Erinna (Anthol. i. p. 58, ed. Branck) seems to allude to PromÊtheus as moulder of man. The expression of AristophanÊs (Aves, 689)—p??sata p????—does not necessarily refer to PromÊtheus. [165] Hesiod, Theog. 566; Opp. Di. 52. [166] Theog. 580; Opp. Di. 50-85. [167] Opp. Di. 81-90. [168] Opp. Di. 93. PandÔra does not bring with her the cask, as the common version of this story would have us suppose: the cask exists fast closed in the custody of EpimÊtheus, or of man himself, and PandÔra commits the fatal treachery of removing the lid. The case is analogous to that of the closed bag of unfavorable winds which Æolus gives into the hands of Odysseus, and which the guilty companions of the latter force open, to the entire ruin of his hopes (Odyss. x. 19-50). The idea of the two casks on the threshold of Zeus, lying ready for dispensation—one full of evils the other of benefits—is Homeric (Iliad, xxiv. 527):— ????? ??? te p???? ?ata?e?ata? ?? ???? ??de?, etc. Plutarch assimilates to this the p???? opened by PandÔra, Consolat. ad ApollÔn. c. 7. p. 105. The explanation here given of the Hesiodic passage relating to Hope, is drawn from an able article in the Wiener JahrbÜcher, vol. 109 (1845), p. 220, Ritter; a review of SchÖmmann’s translation of the PromÊtheus of Æschylus. The diseases and evils are inoperative so long as they remain shut up in the cask: the same mischief-making influence which lets them out to their calamitous work, takes care that Hope shall still continue a powerless prisoner in the inside. [169] Theog. 590.— ?? t?? ??? ????? ?st? ???a???? ????te????, ??? ??? ?????? ?st? ?????? ?a? f??a ???a????, ??a ??a ???t??s? et? ??d??s? ?a?et???s?, etc. [170] Opp. Di. 105.— ??t?? ??t? p? ?st? ???? ???? ??a??as?a?. [171] Theog. 534. ???e?? ????et? ????? ?pe?e??? ????????. [172] Theog. 521-532. [173] Of the tragedy called ?????e?? ???e??? some few fragments yet remain: ?????e?? ???f???? was a satyric drama, according to Dindorf. Welcker recognizes a third tragedy, ?????e?? ???f????, and a satyric drama, ?????e?? ????ae?? (Die Griechisch. TragÖdien, vol. i. p. 30). The story of PromÊtheus had also been handled by SapphÔ in one of her lost songs (Servius ad Virgil. Eclog. vi. 42). [174] ApollodÔrus too mentions only the theft of fire (i. 7. 1). [175] Æsch. Prom. 442-506.— ??sa? t???a? ??t??s?? ?? ????????. [176] Æsch. Prom. 231.— ??t?? d? t?? ta?a?p???? ????? ??? ?s?e? ??d???, ???? ??st?sa? ????? ?? p??, ?????e? ???? f?t?sa? ????. [177] Æsch. Prom. 198-222. 123.— d?? t?? ??a? f???t?ta ??t??. [178] Æsch. Prom. 169-770. [179] Prometh. 2. See also the Fragments of the PromÊtheus Solutus, 177-179, ed. Dindorf, where Caucasus is specially named; but v. 719 of the PromÊtheus Vinctus seems to imply that Mount Caucasus is a place different from that to which the suffering prisoner is chained. [180] Appian, Bell. Mithridat. c. 103. [181] ApollodÔr. ii. 1. Mr. Fynes Clinton does not admit the historical reality of Inachus; but he places PhorÔneus seventeen generations, or 570 years prior to the Trojan war, 978 years earlier than the first recorded Olympiad. See Fasti Hellenici, vol. iii. c. 1. p. 19. [182] Pausan. ii. 5, 4. [183] See DÜntzer, Fragm. Epic. GrÆc. p. 57. The Argeian author Akusilaus treated PhorÔneus as the first of men, Fragm. 14. Didot ap. Clem. Alex. Stromat i. p. 321. F?????e?, a synonym for Argeians; Theocrit. Idyll. xxv. 200. [184] ApollodÔr. ii. 1, 1; Pausan. ii. 15, 5; 19, 5; 20, 3. [185] Apis in Æschylus is totally different: ?at??a?t?? or medical charmer, son of Apollo, who comes across the gulf from Naupactus, purifies the territory of Argos from noxious monsters, and gives to it the name of Apia (Æschyl. Suppl. 265). Compare Steph. Byz. v. ?p??; Soph. Œdip. Colon. 1303. The name ?p?a for PeloponnÊsus remains still a mystery, even after the attempt of Buttmann (Lexilogus, s. 19) to throw light upon it. Eusebius asserts that NiobÊ was the wife of Inachus and mother of PhorÔneus, and pointedly contradicts those who call her daughter of PhorÔneus—fas? d? t??e? ????? F??????? e??a? ???at??a, ?pe? ??? ?????? (Chronic. p. 23, ed. Scalig.): his positive tone is curious, upon such a matter. Hellanikus in his Argolica stated that PhorÔneus had three sons, Pelasgus, Iasus and AgÊnÔr, who at the death of their father divided his possessions by lot. Pelasgus acquired the country near the river Erasinus, and built the citadel of Larissa: Iasus obtained the portion near to Elis. After their decease, the younger brother AgÊnÔr invaded and conquered the country, at the head of a large body of horse. It was from these three persons that Argos derived three epithets which are attached to it in the Homeric poems—????? ?e?as?????, ?as??, ?pp??t?? (Hellanik. Fr. 38, ed. Didot; Phavorin. v. ?????). This is a specimen of the way in which legendary persons as well as legendary events were got up to furnish an explanation of Homeric epithets: we may remark as singular, that Hellanikus seems to apply ?e?as????? ????? to a portion of PeloponnÊsus, while the Homeric Catalogue applies it to Thessaly. [186] Apollod. l. c. The mention of StrymÔn seems connected with Æschylus Suppl. 255. [187] Akusil. Fragm. 17, ed. Didot; Æsch. Prometh. 568; Pherekyd. Fragm. 22, ed. Didot; Hesiod. Ægimius. Fr. 2, p. 56, ed. DÜntzer: among the varieties of the story, one was that Argos was changed into a peacock (Schol. Aristoph. Aves, 102). Macrobius (i. 19) considers Argos as an allegorical expression of the starry heaven; an idea which Panofska also upholds in one of the recent Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy, 1837, p. 121 seq. [188] Apollod. ii. 1, 1; Pausan. ii. 16, 1; Æsch. Prom. v. 590-663. [189] Æschyl. Prom. v. 790-850; Apollod. ii. 1. Æschylus in the Supplices gives a different version of the wanderings of IÔ from that which appears in the PromÊtheus: in the former drama he carries her through Phrygia, Mysia, Lydia, Pamphylia and Cilicia into Egypt (Supplic. 544-566): nothing is there said about PromÊtheus, or Caucasus or Scythia, etc. The track set forth in the Supplices is thus geographically intelligible, that in the PromÊtheus (though the most noticed of the two) defies all comprehension, even as a consistent fiction; nor has the erudition of the commentators been successful in clearing it up. See Schutz, Excurs. iv. ad Prometh. Vinct. pp. 144-149; Welcker, Æschylische Trilogie, pp. 127-146, and especially VÖlcker, Mythische Geographie der Griech. und RÖmer, part i. pp. 3-13. The Greek inhabitants at Tarsus in Cilicia traced their origin to Argos: their story was, that Triptolemus had been sent forth from that town in quest of the wandering IÔ, that he had followed her to Tyre, and then renounced the search in despair. He and his companions then settled partly at Tarsus, partly at Antioch (Strabo, xiv. 673; xv. 750). This is the story of Kadmos and EurÔpÊ inverted, as happens so often with the Grecian mythes. Homer calls HermÊs ???e?f??t??; but this epithet hardly affords sufficient proof that he was acquainted with the mythe of IÔ, as VÖlcker supposes: it cannot be traced higher than Hesiod. According to some authors, whom Cicero copies, it was on account of the murder of Argos that HermÊs was obliged to leave Greece and go into Egypt: then it was that he taught the Egyptians laws and letters (De Natur. Deor. iii. 22). [190] The story in ParthÊnius (Narrat. 1) is built upon this version of IÔ’s adventures. [191] Herodot. i. 1-6. Pausanias (ii. 15, 1) will not undertake to determine whether the account given by Herodotus, or that of the old legend, respecting the cause which carried IÔ from Argos to Egypt, is the true one: Ephorus (ap. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. ii. 168) repeats the abduction of IÔ to Egypt, by the Phoenicians, subjoining a strange account of the Etymology of the name Bosporus. The remarks of Plutarch on the narrative of Herodotus are curious: he adduces as one proof of the ?a????e?a (bad feeling) of Herodotus, that the latter inserts so discreditable a narrative respecting IÔ, daughter of Inachus, “whom all Greeks believe to have been divinized by foreigners, to have given name to seas and straits, and to be the source of the most illustrious regal families.” He also blames Herodotus for rejecting Epaphus, IÔ, Iasus and Argos, as highest members of the Perseid genealogy. He calls Herodotus f?????a??? (Plutarch, De Malign. Herodoti, c. xi. xii. xiv. pp. 856, 857). [192] It would be an unprofitable fatigue to enumerate the multiplied and irreconcilable discrepancies in regard to every step of this old Argeian genealogy. Whoever desires to see them brought together, may consult Schubart, QuÆstiones in Antiquitatem Heroicam, Marburg, 1832, capp. 1 and 2. The remarks which Schubart makes (p. 35) upon Petit-Radel’s Chronological Tables will be assented to by those who follow the unceasing string of contradictions, without any sufficient reason to believe that any one of them is more worthy of trust than the remainder, which he has cited:—“Videant alii, quomodo genealogias heroicas, et chronologiÆ rationes, in concordiam redigant. Ipse abstineo, probe persuasus, stemmata vera, historiÆ fide comprobata, in systema chronologiÆ redigi posse: at ore per sÆcula tradita, a poetis reficta, sÆpe mutata, prout fabula postulare videbatur, ab historiarum deinde conditoribus restituta, scilicet, brevi, qualia prostant stemmata—chronologiÆ secundum annos distributÆ vincula semper recusatura esse.” [193] Apollod. ii. 1. The Supplices of Æschylus is the commencing drama of a trilogy on this subject of the DanaÏdes,—??et?de?, ????pt???, ?a?a?de?. Welcker, Griechisch. TragÖdien, vol. i. p. 48: the two latter are lost. The old epic poem called DanaÏs or DanaÏdes, which is mentioned in the Tabula Iliaca as containing 5000 verses, has perished, and is unfortunately very little alluded to: see DÜntzer, Epic. GrÆc. Fragm. p. 3; Welcker, Der Episch. Kyklus, p. 35. [194] Apollod. 1. c.; Pherekyd. ap. Schol. Hom. Odyss. xv. 225; Hesiod, Fragm. Marktsch. Fr. 36, 37, 38. These Fragments belong to the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: ApollodÔrus seems to refer to some other of the numerous Hesiodic poems. DiodÔrus (iv. 68) assigns the anger of Dionysos as the cause. [195] Odyss. xv. 240-256. [196] Herod. ix. 34; ii. 49: compare Pausan. ii. 18, 4. Instead of the Proetides, or daughters of Proetos, it is the Argeian women generally whom he represents Melampus as having cured, and the Argeians generally who send to Pylus to invoke his aid: the heroic personality which pervades the primitive story has disappeared. Kallimachus notices the Proetid virgins as the parties suffering from madness, but he treats Artemis as the healing influence (Hymn. ad Dianam 235). [197] The beautiful fragment of SimonidÊs (Fragm. vii. ed. Gaisford. Poet. Min.), describing DanaÊ and the child thus exposed, is familiar to every classical reader. [198] Paus. ii. 15, 4; ii. 16, 5. Apollod. ii. 2. Pherekyd. Fragm. 26, Dind. [199] Odyss. ii. 120. Hesiod. Fragment. 154. Marktscheff.—Akusil. Fragm. 16. Pausan. ii. 16, 4. HekatÆus derived the name of the town from the ???? of the sword of Perseus (Fragm. 360, Dind.). The Schol. ad Eurip. Orest. 1247, mentions MykÊneus as son of SpartÔn, but grandson of PhÊgeus the brother of PhorÔneus. [200] Pausan. ii. 18, 4. [201] Herodot. vi. 53. [202] In the Hesiodic Shield of HÊraklÊs, AlkmÊnÊ is distinctly mentioned as daughter of ElektryÔn; the genealogical poet, Asios, called her the daughter of Amphiaraos and Eriphyle (Asii Fragm. 4, ed. Markt. p. 412). The date of Asios cannot be precisely fixed; but he may be probably assigned to an epoch between the 30th and 40th Olympiad. Asios must have adopted a totally different legend respecting the birth of HÊraklÊs and the circumstances preceding it, among which the deaths of her father and brothers are highly influential. Nor could he have accepted the received chronology of the sieges of ThÊbes and Troy. [203] So runs the old legend in the Hesiodic Shield of HÊraklÊs (12-82). ApollodÔrus (or PherekydÊs, whom he follows) softens it down, and represents the death of ElektryÔn as accidentally caused by AmphitryÔn. (Apollod. ii. 4, 6. PherekydÊs, Fragm. 27, Dind.) [204] Hesiod, Scut. Herc. 24. Theocrit. Idyll. xxiv. 4. Teleboas, the Eponym of these marauding people, was son of PoseidÔn (Anaximander ap. AthenÆ. xi. p. 498). [205] Apollod. ii. 4, 7. Compare the fable of Nisus at Megara, infra, chap. xii. p. 302. [206] Hesiod, Scut. Herc. 29. ?f?a ?e??s?? ??d??s? t? ??f?st?s?? ???? ???t??a f?te?s?. [207] Hesiod. Sc. H. 50-56. [208] Homer, Iliad, xix. 90-133; also viii. 361.— ??? a?e? ste???es??, ??? ??? f???? ???? ???t? ????? ?e???? ????ta, ?p? ????s???? ??????. [209] Hesiod, Theogon. 951, te??sa? st???e?ta? ???????. Hom. Odyss. xi. 620; Hesiod, EoeÆ, Fragm. 24, DÜntzer, p. 36, p?????tat?? ?a? ???st??. [210] Apollod. ii. 8, 1; HecatÆ. ap. Longin. c. 27; DiodÔr. iv. 57. [211] Herodot. ix. 26; DiodÔr. iv. 58. [212] Pausan. ii. 5, 5; 12, 5; 26, 3. His statements indicate how much the predominance of a powerful neighbor like Argos tended to alter the genealogies of these inferior towns. [213] Schol. ad ApollÔn. Rhod. iii. 1085. Other accounts of the genealogy of DeukaliÔn are given in the Schol. ad Homer. Odyss. x. 2, on the authority both of Hesiod and Akusilaus. [214] Hesiodic Catalog. Fragm. xi.; Gaisf. lxx. DÜntzer— ?t?? ??? ?????? ?e????? ???sat? ?a??, ???? ?? p?te ?????d?? ?e?? ?f??ta ?dea e?d??, ?e?t??? ?? ?a??? ??a? p??e ?e??a?????. The reputed lineage of DeukaliÔn continued in Phthia down to the time of DikÆarchus, if we may judge from the old Phthiot PherekratÊs, whom he introduced in one of his dialogues as a disputant, and whom he expressly announced as a descendant of DeukaliÔn (Cicero, Tuscul. Disp. i. 10). [215] The latter account is given by Dionys. Halic. i. 17; the former seems to have been given by Hellanikus, who affirmed that the ark after the deluge stopped upon Mount Othrys, and not upon Mount Parnassus (Schol. Pind. ut. sup.) the former being suitable for a settlement in Thessaly. Pyrrha is the eponymous heroine of PyrrhÆa or Pyrrha, the ancient name of a portion of Thessaly (Rhianus, Fragm. 18, p. 71, ed. DÜntzer). Hellanikus had written a work, now lost, entitled ?e??a????e?a: all the fragments of it which are cited have reference to places in Thessaly, Lokris and Phokis. See Preller, ad Hellanitum, p. 12 (DÖrpt. 1840). Probably Hellanikus is the main source of the important position occupied by DeukaliÔn in Grecian legend. Thrasybulus and AkestodÔrus represented DeukaliÔn as having founded the oracle of DÔdÔna, immediately after the deluge (Etm. Mag. v. ??d??a???). [216] ApollodÔrus connects this deluge with the wickedness of the brazen race in Hesiod, according to the practice general with the logographers of stringing together a sequence out of legends totally unconnected with each other (i. 7, 2). [217] Hesiod, Fragm. 135. ed. Markts. ap. Strabo. vii. p. 322, where the word ??a?, proposed by Heyne as the reading of the unintelligible text, appears to me preferable to any of the other suggestions. Pindar, Olymp. ix. 47. ?te? d? ????? ??da?? ?t?s?s?a? ??????? ?????? ?a?? d? ???as?e?. Virgil, Georgic i. 63. “Unde homines nati, durum genus.” Epicharmus ap. Schol. Pindar. Olymp. ix. 56. Hygin. f. 153. Philochorus retained the etymology, though he gave a totally different fable, nowise connected with DeukaliÔn, to account for it; a curious proof how pleasing it was to the fancy of the Greek (see Schol. ad Pind. 1. c. 68). [218] Apollod. i. 7, 2. Hellanic. Fragm. 15. Didot. Hellanikus affirmed that the ark rested on Mount Othrys, not on Mount Parnassus (Fragm. 16. Didot). Servius (ad Virgil. Eclog. vi. 41) placed it on Mount AthÔs—Hyginus (f. 153) on Mount Ætna. [219] Tatian adv. GrÆc. c. 60, adopted both by Clemens and Eusebius. The Parian marble placed this deluge in the reign of Kranaos at Athens, 752 years before the first recorded Olympiad, and 1528 years before the Christian Æra; ApollodÔrus also places it in the reign of Kranaos, and in that of Nyctimus in Arcadia (iii. 8, 2; 14, 5). The deluge and the ekpyrosis or conflagration are connected together also in Servius ad Virgil. Bucol. vi. 41: he refines both of them into a “mutationem temporum.” [220] Aristot. Meteorol. i. 14. Justin rationalizes the fable by telling us that DeukaliÔn was king of Thessaly, who provided shelter and protection to the fugitives from the deluge (ii. 6, 11). [221] Pausan. i. 18, 7; 40, 1. According to the Parian marble (s. 5), DeukaliÔn had come to Athens after the deluge, and had there himself founded the temple of the Olympian Zeus. The etymology and allegorization of the names of DeukaliÔn and Pyrrha, given by VÖlcker in his ingenious Mythologie des Iapetischen Geschlechts (Giessen, 1824), p. 343, appears to me not at all convincing. [222] Such is the statement of ApollodÔrus (i. 7, 3); but I cannot bring myself to believe that the name (G?a????) Greeks is at all old in the legend, or that the passage of Hesiod, in which GrÆcus and Latinus purport to be mentioned, is genuine. See Hesiod, Theogon. 1013, and Catalog. Fragm. xxix. ed. GÖttling, with the note of GÖttling; also Wachsmuth, Hellen. Alterth. i. 1. p. 311, and Bernhardy, Griech. Literat. vol. i. p. 167. [223] Apollod. i. 7, 4. [224] How literally and implicitly even the ablest Greeks believed in eponymous persons, such as HellÊn and IÔn, as the real progenitors of the races called after him, may be seen by this, that Aristotle gives this common descent as the definition of ????? (Metaphysic. iv. p. 118, Brandis):— G???? ???eta?, t? ?? ... t? d?, ?f? ?? ?? ?s? p??t?? ????sa?t?? e?? t? e??a?. ??t? ??? ?????ta? ?? ??, ?????e? t? ?????, ?? d?, ???e?? t?, ?? ?? ?p? ???????, ?? d? ?p? ?????, e??a? p??t?? ?e???sa?t??. [225] Hesiod, Fragm. 8. p. 278, ed. Marktsch.— ??????? d? ??????t? ?e?st?p???? as???e? ????? te, ?????? te, ?a? ?????? ?pp???????. ?????da? d? ??????t? ?e?st?p???? as???e? ????e?? ?d? ???a? ?a? S?s?f?? a?????t?? Sa???e?? t? ?d???? ?a? ?p?????? ?e??????. [226] Apollod. i. 7, 3. ??????? d? ?a? ??f?? ??s??d?? (?), ?????, ??????, ??????. ??t?? ?? ??? ?f? a?t?? t??? ?a???????? G?a????? p??s????e?se? ?????a?, t??? d? pa?s?? ????se t?? ???a?. ?a? ?????? ?? ?a?? t?? ?e??p????s??, ?? ??e??s?? t?? ??e????? ??a??? ??????se ?a? ???a, ?f? ?? ??a??? ?a? ???e? ?a????ta?. ????? d?, t?? p??a? ???a? ?e??p????s?? ?a??, t??? ?at?????? ?f? ?a?t?? ????e?? ????ese?. ?????? d?, as??e??? t?? pe?? t?? Tetta??a? t?p??, t??? ????????ta? ????e?? p??s????e?se. Strabo (viii. p. 383) and ConÔn (Narr. 27), who evidently copy from the same source, represent DÔrus as going to settle in the territory property known as DÔris. [227] Apollod. i. 7, 6. ??t???? ... f???? e?? t?? ?????t?da ???a?, ?te??a? t??? ?p?de?a????? F??a? ?a? ?p??????? ?????, ????? ?a? ?a?d???? ?a? ????p??t??, ?f? ?a?t?? t?? ???a? ??t???a? ????ese. Again, i. 8, 1. ??e???? (son of ÆtÔlus) ??a? ?a???pp?? t?? ?????, pa?da ??????se? ??????a. [228] Herod. i. 56. [229] Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. iv. 57. ??? d? ??d????a ?s??d?? ?? ?e????? t?? ???? ?a? ?a????? pa?da ???e?.... ?a? ?e?sa?d??? d? t? a?t? f?s?, ?a? ????s??a??, ?a? Fe?e??d??, ?a? ???a?d??? ?? de?t??? ??t??????, ?a? Te?p?p?? ?? ?p?p???a??. Respecting the parentage of HellÊn, the references to Hesiod are very confused. Compare Schol. Homer. Odyss. x. 2, and Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. iii. 1086. See also Hellanic. Frag. 10. Didot. ApollodÔrus, and PherekydÊs before him (Frag. 51. Didot), called ProtÔgeneia daughter of DeukaliÔn; Pindar (Olymp. ix. 64) designated her as daughter of Opus. One of the stratagems mentioned by the Scholiast to get rid of this genealogical discrepancy was, the supposition that DeukaliÔn had two names (d??????); that he was also named Opus. (Schol. Pind. Olymp. ix. 85). That the DeukalidÆ or posterity of DeukaliÔn reigned in Thessaly, was mentioned both by Hesiod and HekatÆus, ap. Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. iv. 265. [230] Dionys. H. A. R. i. 17. [231] Pausan. vii. 1, 1-3. Herodotus also mentions (ii. 97) Archander, son of Phthius and grandson of AchÆus, who married the daughter of Danaus. Larcher (Essai sur la Chronologie d’HÉrodote, ch. x. p. 321) tells us that this cannot be the Danaus who came from Egypt, the father of the fifty daughters, who must have lived two centuries earlier, as may be proved by chronological arguments: this must be another Danaus, according to him. Strabo seems to give a different story respecting the AchÆans in PeloponnÊsus: he says that they were the original population of the peninsula, that they came in from Phthia with Pelops, and inhabited Laconia, which was from them called Argos Achaicum, and that on the conquest of the DÔrians, they moved into Achaia properly so called, expelling the IÔnians therefrom (Strabo, viii p. 365). This narrative is, I presume, borrowed from Ephorus. [232] Eurip. Ion, 1590. [233] Eurip. Ion, 64. [234] See the Fragments of these two plays in Matthiae’s edition; compare Welcker, Griechisch. TragÖd. v. ii. p. 842. If we may judge from the Fragments of the Latin MelanippÊ of Ennius (see Fragm. 2, ed. Bothe), HellÊn was introduced as one of the characters of the piece. [235] Iliad, vi. 154. S?s?f?? ?????d??, etc. Again Odyss. xi. 234.— ???? ?t?? p??t?? ???? ?d?? e?pat??e?a?, ? f?t? Sa?????? ?????? ??????? e??a?, F? d? ??????? ???? ?e?a? ?????da?. [236] Homer, Odyss. xi. 234-257; xv. 226. [237] DiodÔrus, iv. 68. SophoklÊs, Fragm. 1. ????. Saf?? S?d??? ?a? f????sa t????a. The genius of SophoklÊs is occasionally seduced by this play upon the etymology of a name, even in the most impressive scenes of his tragedies. See Ajax, 425. Compare Hellanik. Fragm. p. 9, ed. Preller. There was a first and second edition of the TyrÔ—t?? de?t??a? ??????. Schol. ad Aristoph. Av. 276. See the few fragments of the lost drama in Dindorf’s Collection, p. 53. The plot was in many respects analogous to the AntiopÊ of EuripidÊs. [238] A third story, different both from Homer and from SophoklÊs, respecting TyrÔ, is found in Hyginus (Fab. lx.): it is of a tragical cast, and borrowed, like so many other tales in that collection, from one of the lost Greek dramas. [239] Apollod. i. 9, 7. Sa???e?? t? ?d???? ?a? ?p?????? ?e??????. Hesiod, Fragm. Catal. 8. Marktscheffel. Where the city of SalmÔneus was situated, the ancient investigators were not agreed; whether in the Pisatid, or in Elis, or in Thessaly (see Strabo, viii. p. 356). EuripidÊs in his Æolus placed him on the banks of the Alpheius (Eurip. Fragm. Æol. 1). A village and fountain in the Pisatid bore the name of SalmÔnÊ; but the mention of the river Enipeus seems to mark Thessaly as the original seat of the legend. But the naÏvetÉ of the tale preserved by ApollodÔrus (Virgil in the Æneid, vi. 586, has retouched it) marks its ancient date: the final circumstance of that tale was, that the city and its inhabitants were annihilated. Ephorus makes SalmÔneus king of the Epeians and of the PisatÆ (Fragm. 15, ed. Didot). The lost drama of SophoklÊs, called Sa???e??, was a d??a sat?????? See Dindorf’s Fragm. 483. [240] Hom. Od. xi. 280. Apollod. i. 9, 9. ??at??? ?e?ap??te ????, etc. [241] DiodÔr. iv. 68. [242] ????a te e??????, ??a??tat?? ????t?? (Hom. Odyss. xv. 228). [243] Hom. Od. xi. 278; xv. 234. Apollod. i. 9, 12. The basis of this curious romance is in the Odyssey, amplified by subsequent poets. There are points however in the old Homeric legend, as it is briefly sketched in the fifteenth book of the Odyssey, which seem to have been subsequently left out or varied. NÊleus seizes the property of Melampus during his absence; the latter, returning with the oxen from PhylakÊ, revenges himself upon NÊleus for the injury. Odyss. xv. 233. [244] Hesiod, Catalog. ap. Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. i. 156; Ovid, Metam. xii. p. 556; Eustath. ad Odyss. xi. p. 284. PoseidÔn carefully protects Antilochus son of NestÔr, in the Iliad, xiii. 554-563. [245] Hesiod, Catalog. ap. Schol. Ven. ad Iliad. ii. 336; and Steph. Byz. v. Ge????a; Homer, Il. v. 392; xi. 693; ApollodÔr. ii. 7, 3; Hesiod, Scut. Herc. 360; Pindar, Ol. ix. 32. According to the Homeric legend, NÊleus himself was not killed by HÊraklÊs: subsequent poets or logographers, whom ApollodÔrus follows, seem to have thought it an injustice, that the offence given by NÊleus himself should have been avenged upon his sons and not upon himself; they therefore altered the legend upon this point, and rejected the passage in the Iliad as spurious (see Schol. Ven. ad Iliad. xi. 682). The refusal of purification by NÊleus to HÊraklÊs is a genuine legendary cause: the commentators, who were disposed to spread a coating of history over these transactions, introduced another cause,—NÊleus, as king of Pylos, had aided the Orchomenians in their war against HÊraklÊs and the ThÊbans (see Sch. Ven. ad Iliad. xi. 689). The neighborhood of Pylos was distinguished for its ancient worship both of PoseidÔn and of HadÊs: there were abundant local legends respecting them (see Strabo, viii. pp. 344, 345). [246] About NestÔr, Iliad, i. 260-275; ii. 370; xi. 670-770; Odyss. iii. 5, 110, 409. [247] Hellanik. Fragm. 10, ed. Didot; Pausan. vii. 2, 3; Herodot. v. 65; Strabo, xiv. p. 633. Hellanikus, in giving the genealogy from NÊleus to Melanthus, traces it through Periklymenos and not through NestÔr: the words of Herodotus imply that he must have included NestÔr. [248] Herodot. v. 67; Strabo, vi. p. 264; Mimnermus, Fragm. 9, Schneidewin. [249] Iliad, ii. 715. [250] ApollodÔr. i. 9, 15; Eustath. ad Iliad. ii. 711. [251] Euripid. AlkÊst. init. Welcker; Griechisch. Tragoed. (p. 344) on the lost play of SophoklÊs called AdmÊtus or AlkÊstis; Hom. Iliad., ii. 766; Hygin. Fab. 50-51 (SophoklÊs, Fr. Inc. 730; Dind. ap. Plutarch. Defect. Orac. p. 417). This tale of the temporary servitude of particular gods, by order of Zeus as a punishment for misbehavior, recurs not unfrequently among the incidents of the mythical world. The poet Panyasis (ap. Clem. Alexand. Adm. ad Gent. p. 23)— ??? ?? ???t??, t?? d? ???t?? ?f????e??, ??? d? ??se?d???, t?? d? ??????t???? ?p????? ??d?? pa?? ???t? ??te?see? e?? ???a?t??? ??? d? ?a? ???????? ???? ?p? pat??? ???????. The old legend followed out the fundamental idea with remarkable consistency: LaÔmedÔn, as the temporary master of PoseidÔn and Apollo, threatens to bind them hand and foot, to sell them in the distant islands, and to cut off the ears of both, when they come to ask for their stipulated wages (Iliad, xxi. 455). It was a new turn given to the story by the Alexandrine poets, when they introduced the motive of love, and made the servitude voluntary on the part of Apollo (Kallimachus, Hymn. Apoll. 49; Tibullus, Elegii. 3, 11-30). [252] Eurip. AlkÊstis, Arg.; Apollod. i. 9, 15. To bring this beautiful legend more into the color of history, a new version of it was subsequently framed: HÊraklÊs was eminently skilled in medicine, and saved the life of AlkÊstis when she was about to perish from a desperate malady (Plutarch. Amator c. 17. vol. iv. p. 53, Wytt.). [253] The legend of Akastus and PÊleus was given in great detail in the Catalogue of Hesiod (Catalog. Fragm. 20-21, Marktscheff.); Schol. Pindar Nem. iv. 95. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. i. 224; Apollod. iii. 13, 2. [254] This incident was contained in one of the earliest dramas of EuripidÊs, the ?e??ade?, now lost. Moses of ChorÊnÊ (Progymnasm. ap. Maii ad Euseb. p. 43), who gives an extract from the argument, says that the poet “extremos mentiendi fines attingit.” The ????t??? of SophoklÊs seems also to have turned upon the same catastrophe (see Fragm. 479, Dindorf.). [255] The kindness of HÊrÊ towards JasÔn seems to be older in the legend than her displeasure against Pelias; at least it is specially noticed in the Odyssey, as the great cause of the escape of the ship ArgÔ: ???? ??? pa??pe?e?, ?pe? f???? ?e? ??s??. (xii. 70). In the Hesiodic Theogony Pelias stands to JasÔn in the same relation as Eurystheus to HÊraklÊs,—a severe taskmaster as well as a wicked and insolent man,—???st?? ?e???? ?a? ?t?s?a???, ????e????. (Theog. 995). ApollÔnius Rhodius keeps the wrath of HÊrÊ against Pelias in the foreground, i. 14; iii. 1134; iv. 242; see also Hygin, f. 13. There is great diversity in the stories given of the proximate circumstances connected with the death of Pelias: Eurip. MÊd. 491; ApollodÔr. i. 9, 27; DiodÔr. iv. 50-52; Ovid, Metam. vii. 162, 203, 297, 347; Pausan. viii. 11, 2; Schol. ad Lycoph. 175. In the legend of Akastus and PÊleus as recounted above, Akastus was made to perish by the hand of PÊleus. I do not take upon me to reconcile these contradictions. Pausanias mentions that he could not find in any of the poets, so far as he had read, the names of the daughters of Pelias, and that the painter MikÔn had given to them names (???ata d? a?ta?? p???t?? ?? ??et? ??de??, ?sa ?? ?pe?e??e?a ?e??, etc., Pausan. viii. 11, 1). Yet their names are given in the authors whom DiodÔrus copied; and AlkÊstis, at any rate, was most memorable. MikÔn gave the names Asteropeia and AntinoÊ, altogether different from those in DiodÔrus. Both DiodÔrus and Hyginus exonerate AlkÊstis from all share in the death of her father (Hygin. f. 24). The old poem called the ??st?? (see Argum. ad Eurip. MÊd., and Schol. Aristophan. Equit. 1321) recounted, that MÊdea had boiled in a caldron the old ÆsÔn, father of JasÔn, with herbs and incantations, and that she had brought him out young and strong. Ovid copies this (Metam. vii. 162-203). It is singular that PherÊkydÊs and SimonidÊs said that she had performed this process upon JasÔn himself (Schol. Aristoph. l. c.). Diogenes (ap. StobÆ. Florileg. t. xxix. 92) rationalizes the story, and converts MÊdea from an enchantress into an improving and regenerating preceptress. The death of ÆsÔn, as described in the text, is given from DiodÔrus and ApollodÔrus. MÊdea seems to have been worshipped as a goddess in other places besides Corinth (see Athenagor. Legat. pro Christ. 12; Macrobius, i. 12, p. 247, Gronov.). [256] These funeral games in honor of Pelias were among the most renowned of the mythical incidents: they were celebrated in a special poem by Stesichorus, and represented on the chest of Kypselus at Olympia. KastÔr, Meleager, Amphiaraos, JasÔn, PÊleus, Mopsos, etc. contended in them (Pausan. v. 17. 4; Stesichori Fragm. 1. p. 54, ed. Klewe; AthÊn. iv. 172). How familiar the details of them were to the mind of a literary Greek is indirectly attested by Plutarch, Sympos. v. 2, vol. iii. p. 762, Wytt. [257] Hesiod, Theogon. 998. [258] According to the Schol. ad Eurip. MÊd. 20, JasÔn marries the daughter of HippotÊs the son of KreÔn, who is the son of LykÆthos. LykÆthos, after the departure of BellerophÔn from Corinth, reigned twenty-seven years; then KreÔn reigned thirty-five years; then came HippotÊs. [259] ApollodÔr. i. 9, 27; DiodÔr. iv. 54. The MÊdea of EuripidÊs, which has fortunately been preserved to us, is too well known to need express reference. He makes MÊdea the destroyer of her own children, and borrows from this circumstance the most pathetic touches of his exquisite drama. ParmeniskÔs accused him of having been bribed by the Corinthians to give this turn to the legend; and we may regard the accusation as a proof that the older and more current tale imputed the murder of the children to the Corinthians (Schol. Eurip. MÊd. 275, where Didymos gives the story out of the old poem of Kreophylos). See also Ælian, V. H. v. 21; Pausan. ii. 3, 6. The most significant fact in respect to the fable is, that the Corinthians celebrated periodically a propitiatory sacrifice to HÊrÊ AkrÆa and to Mermerus and PherÊs, as an atonement for the sin of having violated the sanctuary of the altar. The legend grew out of this religious ceremony, and was so arranged as to explain and account for it (see Eurip. MÊd. 1376, with the Schol. DiodÔr. iv. 55). Mermerus and PherÊs were the names given to the children of MÊdea and JasÔn in the old Naupaktian Verses; in which, however, the legend must have been recounted quite differently, since they said that JasÔn and MÊdea had gone from IÔlkos, not to Corinth, but to Corcyra; and that Mermerus had perished in hunting on the opposite continent of Epirus. KinÆthÔn again, another ancient genealogical poet, called the children of MÊdea and JasÔn EriÔpis and MÊdos (Pausan. ii. 3, 7). DiodÔrus gives them different names (iv. 34). Hesiod, in the Theogony, speaks only of Medeius as the son of JasÔn. MÊdea does not appear either in the Iliad or Odyssey: in the former, we find AgamÊdÊ, daughter of Augeas, “who knows all the poisons (or medicines) which the earth nourishes” (Iliad, xi. 740); in the latter, we have CircÊ, sister of ÆÊtÊs, father of MÊdea, and living in the ÆÆan island (Odyss. x. 70). CircÊ is daughter of the god HÊlios, as MÊdea is his grand-daughter,—she is herself a goddess. She is in many points the parallel of MÊdea; she forewarns and preserves Odysseus throughout his dangers, as MÊdea aids JasÔn: according to the Hesiodic story, she has two children by Odysseus, Agrius and Latinus (Theogon. 1001). Odysseus goes to EphyrÊ to Ilos the son of Mermerus, to procure poison for his arrows: Eustathius treats this Mermerus as the son of MÊdea (see Odyss. i. 270, and Eust.). As EphyrÊ is the legendary name of Corinth, we may presume this to be a thread of the same mythical tissue. [260] See Euripid. Æol.—Fragm. 1, Dindorf; DikÆarch. Vit. GrÆc. p. 22. [261] Respecting Sisyphus, see ApollodÔr. i. 9, 3; iii. 12, 6. Pausan. ii. 5, 1. Schol. ad Iliad. i. 180. Another legend about the amour of Sisyphus with TyrÔ, is in Hygin. fab. 60, and about the manner in which he overreached even HadÊs (PherekydÊs ap. Schol. Iliad. vi. 153). The stone rolled by Sisyphus in the under-world appears in Odyss. xi. 592. The name of Sisyphus was given during the historical age to men of craft and stratagem, such as DerkyllidÊs (Xenoph. Hellenic. iii. 1, 8). He passed for the real father of Odysseus, though Heyne (ad ApollodÔr. i. 9, 3) treats this as another Sisyphus, whereby he destroys the suitableness of the predicate as regards Odysseus. The duplication and triplication of synonymous personages is an ordinary resource for the purpose of reducing the legends into a seeming chronological sequence. Even in the days of EumÊlus a religious mystery was observed respecting the tombs of Sisyphus and NÊleus,—the latter had also died at Corinth,—no one could say where they were buried (Pausan. ii. 2, 2). Sisyphus even overreached PersephonÊ, and made his escape from the under-world (Theognis, 702). [262] Pausan. ii. 1, 1; 3, 10. Schol. ad Pindar, Olymp. xiii. 74. Schol. Lycoph. 174-1024. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. iv. 1212. [263] Simonid. ap. Schol. ad Eurip. MÊd. 10-20; Theopompus, Fragm. 340, Didot; though Welcker (Der Episch. Cycl. p. 29) thinks that this does not belong to the historian Theopompus. EpimenidÊs also followed the story of EumÊlus in making ÆÊtÊs a Corinthian (Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod. iii. 242). [264] ?e?? d? t?? e?? ???????? et????se??, ?pp?? ??t??eta? ?a? ?????????? ?t? d? eas??e??e t?? ???????? ? ??de?a, ?????? ?st??e? ?a? S????d??? ?t? d? ?a? ????at?? ?? ? ??de?a, ???sa??? ?? t? pe?? ?s???? ?st??e?, ?a ?a? pe?? t?? t?? ???a?a? ??a? ???t?? ??t??e??. (Schol. Eurip. MÊd. 10). Compare also v. 1376 of the play itself, with the Scholia and Pausan. ii. 3, 6. Both Alkman and Hesiod represented MÊdea as a goddess (Athenagoras, Legatia pro Christianis, p. 54, ed. Oxon.). [265] Pausan. ii. 3, 10; Schol. Pindar. Olymp. xiii. 74. [266] Schol. Pindar. Olymp. xiii. 32-74; Plutarch, De Herodot. Malign. p. 871. [267] Pindar, Olymp. xiii. 98. and Schol. ad 1; Schol. ad Iliad, vi. 155; this seems to be the sense of Iliad, vi. 191. The lost drama called IobatÊs of SophoklÊs, and the two by EuripidÊs called Stheneboea and BellerophÔn, handled the adventures of this hero. See the collection of the few fragments remaining in Dindorf, Fragm. Sophok. 280; Fragm. Eurip. p. 87-108; and Hygin. fab. 67. Welcker (Griechische TragÖd. ii. p. 777-800) has ingeniously put together all that can be divined respecting the two plays of EuripidÊs. VÖlcker seeks to make out that BellerophÔn is identical with PoseidÔn Hippios,—a separate personification of one of the attributes of the god PoseidÔn. For this conjecture he gives some plausible grounds (Mythologie des Japetisch. Geschlechts, p. 129 seq.). [268] Iliad, vi. 155-210. [269] Hesiod, Theogon. 283. [270] Pausan. ii. 2, 4. See Pindar, Olymp. xiii. 90, addressed to XenophÔn the Corinthian, and the AdoniazusÆ of the Syracusan Theocritus, a poem in which common Syracusan life and feeling are so graphically depicted, Idyll xv. 91.— S??a??s?a?? ?p?t?sse??; ?? d? e?d?? ?a? t??t?, ???????a? e?e? ????e? ?? ?a? ? ?e??e??f??? ?e??p???as?st? ?a?e?e?. [271] Pausan. ii. 4, 3. [272] Eurip. MÊd. 1250, with the Scholia, according to which story InÔ killed both her children:— ??? a?e?sa? ?? ?e??, ??? ? ???? ??a? ??? ???pe?e d?at?? ???. Compare Valckenaer, Diatribe in Eurip.; ApollodÔr. i. 9, 1-2; Schol. ad Pindar. Argum. ad Isthm. p. 180. The many varieties of the fable of Athamas and his family may be seen in Hygin. fab. 1-5; Philostephanus ap. Schol. Iliad, vii. 86: it was a favorite subject with the tragedians, and was handled by Æschylus, SophoklÊs and EuripidÊs in more than one drama (see Welcker, Griechische TragÖd. vol. i. p. 312-332; vol. ii. p. 612). Heyne says that the proper reading of the name is Phrixus, not Phryxus,—incorrectly, I think: F????? connects the name both with the story of roasting the wheat (f???e??), and also with the country F????a, of which it was pretended that Phryxus was the Eponymus. InÔ, or Leukothea, was worshipped as a heroine at Megara as well as at Corinth (Pausan. i. 42, 3): the celebrity of the Isthmian games carried her worship, as well as that of PalÆmÔn, throughout most parts of Greece (Cicero, De Nat. Deor. iii. 16). She is the only personage of this family noticed either in the Iliad or Odyssey: in the latter poem she is a sea-goddess, who has once been a mortal, daughter of Kadmus; she saves Odysseus from imminent danger at sea by presenting to him her ???de??? (Odyss. v. 433; see the refinements of AristidÊs, Orat. iii. p. 27). The voyage of Phryxus and HellÊ to Kolchis was related in the Hesiodic Eoiai: we find the names of the children of Phryxus by the daughter of ÆÊtÊs quoted from that poem (Schol. ad ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 1123) both Hesiod and PherekydÊs mentioned the golden fleece of the ram (Eratosthen. Catasterism. 19; Pherekyd. Fragm. 53, Didot). HekatÆus preserved the romance of the speaking ram (Schol. Apoll. Rhod. i. 256) but Hellanikus dropped the story of HellÊ having fallen into the sea: according to him she died at PactyÊ in the Chersonesus (Schol. Apoll. Rhod. ii. 1144). The poet Asius seems to have given the genealogy of Athamas by ThemistÔ much in the same manner as we find it in ApollodÔrus (Pausan. ix. 23, 3). According to the ingenious refinements of Dionysius and PalÆphatus (Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod. ii. 1144; PalÆphat. de Incred. c. 31) the ram of Phryxus was after all a man named Krios, a faithful attendant who aided in his escape; others imagined a ship with a ram’s head at the bow. [273] Plutarch, QuÆst. GrÆc. c. 38. p. 299. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. ii. 655. [274] Of the Athamas of SophoklÊs, turning upon this intended, but not consummated sacrifice, little is known, except from a passage of AristophanÊs and the Scholia upon it (Nubes, 258).— ?p? t? st?fa???; ????, S???ate?, ?spe? e t?? ???a??? ?p?? ? ??sete. Athamas was introduced in this drama with a garland on his head, on the point of being sacrificed as an expiation for the death of his son Phryxus, when HÊraklÊs interposes and rescues him. [275] Herodot. vii. 197. Plato, MinÔs, p. 315. [276] Plato, MinÔs, c. 5. ?a? ?? t?? ???a?t?? ???????, ??a? ??s?a? ????s??, ?????e? ??te?. As a testimony to the fact still existing or believed to exist, this dialogue is quite sufficient, though not the work of Plato. ?????? d? ?st??e?, ?? t? t?? ?a?as??? s??a????, ?? ????? t?? Tetta??a? ??a??? ?????p?? ???e? ?a? ?e????? ?ata??es?a?. (Clemens Alexand. Admon. ad Gent. p. 27, Sylb.) Respecting the sacrifices at the temple of Zeus LykÆus in Arcadia, see Plato, Republ. viii. p. 565. Pausanias (viii. p. 38, 5) seems to have shrunk, when he was upon the spot, even from inquiring what they were—a striking proof of the fearful idea which he had conceived of them. Plutarch (De Defectu Oracul. c. 14) speaks of t?? p??a? p??????a? ?????p???s?a?. The Schol. ad Lycophron. 229, gives a story of children being sacrificed to MelikertÊs at Tenedos; and ApollodÔrus (ad Porphyr. de AbstinentiÂ, ii. 55, see Apollod. Fragm. 20, ed. Didot) said that the LacedÆmonians had sacrificed a man to ArÊs—?a? ?a?eda??????? f?s?? ? ?p????d???? t? ??e? ??e?? ?????p??. About Salamis in Cyprus, see Lactantius, De Fals Religione, i. c. 21. “Apud Cypri Salaminem, humanam hostiam Jovi Teucrus immolavit, idque sacrificium posteris tradidit: quod est nuper Hadriano imperante sublatum.” Respecting human sacrifices in historical Greece, consult a good section in K. F. Hermann’s Gottesdienstliche AlterthÜmer der Griechen (sect. 27). Such sacrifices had been a portion of primitive Grecian religion, but had gradually become obsolete everywhere—except in one or two solitary cases, which were spoken of with horror. Even in these cases, too, the reality of the fact, in later times, is not beyond suspicion. [277] Pausan. ix. 34, 4. [278] Pausan. ix. 34, 5. [279] Ephorus, Fragm. 68, Marx. [280] Pausan. ix. 36, 1-3. See also a legend, about the three daughters of Minyas, which was treated by the TanagrÆan poetess Korinna, the contemporary of Pindar (Antonin. Liberalis, Narr. x.). [281] This exile of HyÊttus was recounted in the Eoiai. Hesiod, Fragm. 148, Markt. [282] Pausan. ix. 37, 2. Apollod. ii. 4, 11. DiodÔr. iv. 10. The two latter tell us that Erginus was slain. KlymenÊ is among the wives and daughters of the heroes seen by Odysseus in HadÊs: she is termed by the Schol. daughter of Minyas (Odyss. xi. 325). [283] Pausan. ix. 37, 1-3. ???eta? d? ? ???f????? ?p??????? e??a?, ?a? ??? ???????? ?a? ??? te pe???a?, ?a? ?st?? pa?? ???f????? ???e d? a?te?s?e???. [284] Plutarch, De Defectu Oracul. c. 5, p. 411. Strabo, ix. p. 414. The mention of the honeyed cakes, both in AristophanÊs (Nub. 508) and Pausanias (ix. 39, 5), indicates that the curious preliminary ceremonies, for those who consulted the oracle of TrophÔnius, remained the same after a lapse of 550 years. Pausanias consulted it himself. There had been at one time an oracle of Teiresias at Orchomenos: but it had become silent at an early period (Plutarch. Defect. Oracul. c. 44, p. 434). [285] Homer. Hymn. Apoll. 296. Pausan. ix. 11, 1. [286] Pausan. ix. 37, 3. A similar story, but far more romantic and amplified, is told by Herodotus (ii. 121), respecting the treasury vault of Rhampsinitus, king of Egypt. Charax (ap. Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 508) gives the same tale, but places the scene in the treasury-vault of Augeas, king of Elis, which he says was built by TrophÔnius, to whom he assigns a totally different genealogy. The romantic adventures of the tale rendered it eminently fit to be interwoven at some point or another of legendary history, in any country. [287] Pausan. ix. 38, 6; 29, 1. [288] Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. i. 230. Compare Schol. ad Lycophron. 873. [289] Schol. Pindar, Olymp. xiv. 5. [290] Schol. Pindar, Isthm. i. 79. Other discrepancies in Schol. Vett. ad Iliad. ii. Catalog. 18. [291] Odyss. xi. 283. Pausan. ix. 36, 3. [292] Iliad, ii. 5, 11. Odyss. xi. 283. Hesiod, Fragm. Eoiai, 27, DÜntz. ??e? d? ????e??? ????????. Pindar, Olymp. xiv. 4. ?a?a?????? ?????? ?p?s??p??. Herodot. i. 146. Pausanias calls them MinyÆ even in their dealings with Sylla (ix. 30, 1). Buttmann, in his Dissertation (Über die MinyÆ der Ältesten Zeit, in the Mythologus, Diss. xxi. p. 218), doubts whether the name MinyÆ was ever a real name; but all the passages make against his opinion. [293] Schol. Apoll. Rhod. ii. 1186. i. 230. S?????? d? ???t??? f?s? t??? pe?? t?? ?????? ??????ta? ????a? ?a?e?s?a?; and i. 763. ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????a? ?????, ?? f?s? S????d?? ?? S???t???: also Eustath. ad Iliad. ii. 512. Steph. Byz. v. ????a. Orchomenos and Pylos run together in the mind of the poet of the Odyssey, xi. 458. [294] Pherekyd. Fragm. 56, Didot. We see by the 55th Fragment of the same author, that he extended the genealogy of Phryxos to PherÆ in Thessaly. [295] Herodot. iv. 145. Strabo, viii. 337-347. Hom. Iliad, xi. 721. Pausan. v. 1, 7. p?ta?? ????????, near Elis. [296] Iliad, ix. 381. [297] See the description of these channels or Katabothra in Colonel Leake’s Travels in Northern Greece, vol. ii. c. 15, p. 281-293, and still more elaborately in Fiedler, Reise durch alle Theile des KÖnigreichs Griechenlands, Leipzig, 1840. He traced fifteen perpendicular shafts sunk for the purpose of admitting air into the tunnel, the first separated from the last by about 5900 feet: they are now of course overgrown and stopped up (vol. i. p. 115). Forchhammer states the length of this tunnel as considerably greater than what is here stated. He also gives a plan of the Lake KÔpaÏs with the surrounding region, which I have placed at the end of the second volume of this History. See also infra, vol. ii. ch. iii. p. 391. [298] We owe this interesting fact to Strabo, who is however both concise and unsatisfactory, viii. p. 406-407. It was affirmed that there had been two ancient towns, named Eleusis and AthÊnÆ, originally founded by CecrÔps, situated on the lake, and thus overflowed (Steph. Byz. v. ????a? Diogen. LaËrt. iv. 23. Pausan. ix. 24, 2). For the plain or marsh near Orchomenos, see Plutarch, Sylla, c. 20-22. [299] DiodÔr. iv. 18. Pausan. ix. 38, 5. [300] Strabo, viii. p. 374. ?? d? ?a? ?f??t????a t?? pe?? t? ?e??? t??t?, ?pta p??e?? a? ete???? t?? ??s?a?? ?sa? d? ?????, ?p?da????, ?????a, ????a?, ??as?e??, ?a?p??e??, ????e??? ? ????e???. ?p?? ?? ??? t?? ?a?p????? ???e???, ?p?? ??as???? d? ?a?eda??????, ???et?????. [301] Pausan. ix. 17, 1; 26, 1. [302] See MÜller, Orchomenos und die Minyer, p. 214. Pausan. ix. 23, 3; 24, 3. The genealogy is as old as the poet Asios. [303] Herod. i. 146. Pausan. vii. 2, 2. [304] Theocrit. xvi. 104.— ? ??te???e??? ???at?e? ?ea?, a? ????e??? ?????e??? f?????sa?, ?pe???e??? p??a T?a??. The scholiast gives a sense to these words much narrower than they really bear. See DiodÔr. xv. 79; Pausan. ix. 15. In the oration which IsokratÊs places in the mouth of a PlatÆan, complaining of the oppressions of ThÊbes, the ancient servitude and tribute to Orchomenos is cast in the teeth of the ThÊbans (Isokrat. Orat. Plataic. vol. iii. p. 32, Auger). [305] Pausan. ix. 34, 5. See also the fourteenth Olympic Ode of Pindar, addressed to the Orchomenian Asopikus. The learned and instructive work of K. O. MÜller, Orchomenos und die Minyer, embodies everything which can be known respecting this once-memorable city; indeed the contents of the work extends much farther than its title promises. [306] ApollodÔr. i. 7, 4. A. KÊyx,—king of Trachin,—the friend of HÊraklÊs and protector of the HÊrakleids to the extent of his power (Hesiod, Scut. Hercul. 355-473: ApollodÔr. ii. 7, 5; HekatÆ. Fragm. 353, Didot.). [307] CanacÊ, daughter of Æolus, is a subject of deep tragical interest both in EuripidÊs and Ovid. The eleventh Heroic Epistle of the latter, founded mainly on the lost tragedy of the former called Æolus, purports to be from CanacÊ to Macareus, and contains a pathetic description of the ill-fated passion between a brother and sister: see the fragments of the Æolus in Dindorf’s collection. In the tale of Kaunos and Byblis, both children of MilÊtos, the results of an incestuous passion are different but hardly less melancholy (Parthenios, Narr. xi.). Makar, the son of Æolus, is the primitive settler of the island of Lesbos (Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 37): moreover in the Odyssey, Æolus son of HippotÊs, the dispenser of the winds, has six sons and six daughters, and marries the former to the latter (Odyss. x. 7). The two persons called Æolus are brought into connection genealogically (see Schol. ad Odyss. l. c., and DiodÔr. iv. 67), but it seems probable that EuripidÊs was the first to place the names of Macareus and CanacÊ in that relation which confers upon them their poetical celebrity. Sostratus (ap. StobÆum, t. 614, p. 404) can hardly be considered to have borrowed from any older source than EuripidÊs. Welcker (Griech. TragÖd. vol. ii. p. 860) puts together all that can be known respecting the structure of the lost drama of EuripidÊs. [308] Iliad, v. 386; Odyss. xi. 306; ApollodÔr. i. 7, 4. So TyphÔeus, in the Hesiodic Theogony, the last enemy of the gods, is killed before he comes to maturity (Theog. 837). For the different turns given to this ancient Homeric legend, see Heyne, ad ApollodÔr. l. c, and Hyginus, f. 28. The AlÔids were noticed in the Hesiodic poems (ap. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. i. 482). Odysseus does not see them in HadÊs, as Heyne by mistake says; he sees their mother IphimÊdea. Virgil (Æn. vi. 582) assigns to them a place among the sufferers of punishment in Tartarus. EumÊlus, the Corinthian poet, designated AlÔeus as son of the god HÊlios and brother of ÆÊtÊs, the father of MÊdea (EumÊl. Fragm. 2, Marktscheffel). The scene of their death was subsequently laid in Naxos (Pindar, Pyth. iv. 88): their tombs were seen at AnthÊdÔn in BoeÔtia (Pausan. ix. 22, 4). The very curious legend alluded to by Pausanias from Hegesinoos, the author of an Atthis,—to the effect that Otos and EphialtÊs were the first to establish the worship of the Muses in HelicÔn, and that they founded Ascra along with Œoklos, the son of PoseidÔn,—is one which we have no means of tracing farther (Pausan. ix. 29, I). The story of the AlÔids, as DiodÔrus gives it (v. 51, 52), diverges on almost every point: it is evidently borrowed from some Naxian archÆologist, and the only information which we collect from it is, that Otos and EphialtÊs received heroic honors at Naxos. The views of O. MÜller (Orchomenos, p. 387) appear to me unusually vague and fanciful. EphialtÊs takes part in the combat of the giants against the gods (ApollodÔr. t. 6, 2), where Heyne remarks, as in so many other cases, “EphialtÊs hic non confundendus cum altero AlÔei filio;” an observation just indeed, if we are supposed to be dealing with personages and adventures historically real, but altogether misleading in regard to these legendary characters; for here the general conception of EphialtÊs and his attributes is in both cases the same; but the particular adventures ascribed to him cannot be made to consist, as facts, one with the other. [309] Hesiod, Akusilaus and PherekydÊs, ap. Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. iv, 57. ?? d? a?t? ?a??t?? ta???. The Scholium is very full of matter, and exhibits many of the diversities in the tale of EndymiÔn: see also ApollodÔr i. 7, 5; Pausan. v. 1, 2; ConÔn. Narr. 14. [310] Theocrit. iii. 49; xx. 35; where, however, EndymiÔn is connected with Latmos in Caria (see Schol. ad loc.). [311] Pausan. v. 1. 3-6; ApollodÔr. i. 7, 6. [312] ApollodÔr. ii. 5, 5; Schol. Apoll. Rhod. i. 172. In all probability, the old legend made Augeas the son of the god HÊlios: HÊlios, Augeas and AgamÊdÊ are a triple series parallel to the Corinthian genealogy, HÊlios, ÆÊtÊs and MÊdia; not to mention that the etymology of Augeas connects him with HÊlios. Theocritus (xx. 55) designates him as the son of the god HÊlios, through whose favor his cattle are made to prosper and multiply with such astonishing success (xx. 117). [313] Iliad, xi. 670-760; Pherekyd. Fragm. 57, Didot. [314] DiodÔr. iv. 13. ??e?? ??e?e? ????s?e?? p??s?ta?e ?a???a?? ? d? ??a???? t? ?? t??? ???? ??e?e??e?? a?t?? ?ped???ase?, ???????? t?? ?? t?? ??e?? a?s?????, etc. (Pausan. v. 1. 7; ApollodÔr. ii. 5, 5). It may not be improper to remark that this fable indicates a purely pastoral condition, or at least a singularly rude state of agriculture; and the way in which Pausanias recounts it goes even beyond the genuine story: ?? ?a? t? p???? t?? ???a? a?t? ?d? d?ate?e?? ???? ??ta ?p? t?? ?s???t?? t?? ??p???. The slaves of Odysseus however know what use to make of the dung heaped before his outer fence (Odyss. xvii. 299); not so the purely carnivorous and pastoral CyclÔps (Odyss. ix. 329). The stabling into which the cattle go from their pasture, is called ??p??? in Homer,—?????sa? ?? ??p???, ?p?? ?ta??? ????s??ta? (Odyss. x. 411): compare Iliad, xviii. 575—?????? d? ?p? ??p??? ?pesse???t? p?d??de. The Augeas of Theocritus has abundance of wheat-land and vineyard, as well as cattle: he ploughs his land three or four times, and digs his vineyard diligently (xx. 20-32). [315] The wrath and retirement of Phyleus is mentioned in the Iliad (ii. 633), but not the cause of it. [316] These singular properties were ascribed to them both in the Hesiodic poems and by PherekydÊs (Schol. Ven. ad II. xi. 715-750, et ad II. xxiii. 638), but not in the Iliad. The poet Ibykus (Fragm. 11, Schneid. ap. AthenÆ. ii. 57) calls them ????a? ?s??ef?????, ?????????, ?f?t????? ?e?a?ta? ?? ??? ???????. There were temples and divine honors to Zeus MoliÔn (Lactantius. de Fals Religione, i. 22). [317] Pausan. v. 2, 4. The inscription cited by Pausanias proves that this was the reason assigned by the Eleian athlÊtes themselves for the exclusion; but there were several different stories. [318] ApollodÔr. ii. 7, 2. DiodÔr. iv. 33. Pausan. v. 2, 2; 3, 2. It seems evident from these accounts that the genuine legend represented HÊraklÊs as having been defeated by the Molionids: the unskilful evasions both of ApollodÔrus and DiodÔrus betray this. Pindar (Olymp. xi. 25-50) gives the story without any flattery to HÊraklÊs. [319] Pausan. v. 4, 1. [320] The Armenian copy of Eusebius gives a different genealogy respecting Elis and Pisa: AËthlius, Epeius, EndymiÔn, Alexinus; next Œnomaus and PÊlops, then HÊraklÊs. Some counted ten generations, others three, between HÊraklÊs and Iphitus, who renewed the discontinued Olympic games (see Armen. Euseb. copy c. xxxii. p. 140). [321] Iliad, ii. 615-630. [322] Pausan. v. 3, 4. [323] Schol. Pindar, Olymp. ix. 86. [324] Schol. Ven. ad II. xi. 687; ConÔn, Narrat. xv. ap. Scriptt. Mythogr. West p. 130. [325] Pindar, Olymp. ix. 62: Schol. ibid. 86. ?p???t?? ?? ????t?? ??e??? as?????, ?? ???st?t???? ?a?s?? ?a?e?. [326] ??ata??? d? ? ????s??? ?t????? ???e? t?? ??e??? t??? ?pe????? t? ???? ??a??e? s?st?ate?sa? t??? ?pe???? ?a? s??a?e?e?? a?t? t?? te ????a? ?a? t?? ???? (Hekat. ap. Strab. viii. p. 341). [327] Ephorus said that ÆtÔlus had been expelled by SalmÔneus king of the Epeians and PisatÆ (ap. Strabo. viii. p. 357): he must have had before him a different story and different genealogy from that which is given in the text. [328] ApollodÔr. i. 7, 6. DÔrus, son of Apollo and Phthia, killed by ÆtÔlus, after having hospitably received him, is here mentioned. Nothing at all is known of this; but the conjunction of names is such as to render it probable that there was some legend connected with them: possibly the assistance given by Apollo to the KurÊtes against the ÆtÔlians, and the death of Meleager by the hand of Apollo, related both in the Eoiai and the Minyas (Pausan. x. 31, 2), may have been grounded upon it. The story connects itself with what is stated by ApollodÔrus about DÔrus son of HellÊn (see supra, p. 136). [329] According to the ancient genealogical poet Asius, Thestius was son of AgÊnÔr the son of PleurÔn (Asii Fragm. 6, p. 413, ed. Marktsch.). Compare the genealogy of ÆtÔlia and the general remarks upon it, in BrandstÄter, Geschichte des Ætol. Landes, etc., Berlin, 1844, p. 23 seq. [330] Respecting LÊda, see the statements of Ibykus, PherekydÊs, Hellanikus, etc. (Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. i. 146). The reference to the Corinthiaca of EumÊlus is curious: it is a specimen of the matters upon which these old genealogical poems dwelt. [331] ApollodÔr. i. 8, 1; EuripidÊs, Meleager, Frag. 1. The three sons of Portheus are named in the Iliad (xiv. 116) as living at PleurÔn and KalydÔn. The name Œneus doubtless brings Dionysus into the legend. [332] ? ???et?, ? ??? ????se?? ??sat? d? ??a ???. (Iliad, ix. 533). The destructive influence of AtÊ is mentioned before, v. 502. The piety of XenophÔn reproduces this ancient circumstance,—???e?? d? ?? ???? ?p??a?????? t?? ?e??, etc. (De Venat. c. i.) [333] These priests formed the Chorus in the Meleager of SophoklÊs (Schol. ad Iliad. ib. 575). [334] Iliad, ix. 525-595. [335] Iliad, ii. 642. [336] Pausan. x. 31. 2. The ??e?????a?, a lost tragedy of Phrynichus. [337] Plin. H. N. xxxvii. 2, 11. [338] There was a tragedy of Æschylus called ?ta???t?, of which nothing remains (Bothe, Æschyli Fragm. ix. p. 18). Of the more recent dramatic writers, several selected Atalanta as their subject (See BrandstÄter, Geschichte Ætoliens, p. 65). [339] There was a poem of Stesichorus, S?????a? (Stesichor. Fragm. 15. p. 72). [340] The catalogue of these heroes is in ApollodÔr. i. 8, 2; Ovid, Metamor. viii. 300; Hygin. fab. 173. EuripidÊs, in his play of Meleager, gave an enumeration and description of the heroes (see Fragm. 6 of that play, ed. Matth.). NestÔr, in this picture of Ovid, however, does not appear quite so invincible as in his own speeches in the Iliad. The mythographers thought it necessary to assign a reason why HÊraklÊs was not present at the KalydÔnian adventure: he was just at that time in servitude with OmphalÊ in Lydia (Apollod. ii. 6, 3). This seems to have been the idea of Ephorus, and it is much in his style of interpretation (see Ephor. Fragm. 9. ed. Didot.). [341] Euripid. Meleag. Fragm. vi. Matt.— ??p??d?? d? ?s??, ????? ?ta???t?, ???a? ?a? t??? ????sa, etc. There was a drama “Meleager” both of SophoklÊs and EuripidÊs: of the former hardly any fragments remain,—a few more of the latter. [342] Hyginus, fab. 229. [343] DiodÔr, iv. 34. ApollÔdorus (i. 8; 2-4) gives first the usual narrative, including Atalanta; next, the Homeric narrative with some additional circumstances, but not including either Atalanta or the fire-brand on which Meleager’s life depended. He prefaces the latter with the words ?? d? fas?, etc. Antoninus Liberalis gives this second narrative only, without Atalanta, from Nicander (Narrat. 2). The Latin scenic poet, Attius, had devoted one of his tragedies to this subject, taking the general story as given by EuripidÊs: “Remanet gloria apud me: exuvias dignavi AtalantÆ dare,” seems to be the speech of Meleager. (Attii Fragm. 8, ap. Poet. Scen. Lat. ed. Bothe, p. 215). The readers of the Æneid will naturally think of the swift and warlike virgin Camilla, as the parallel of Atalanta. [344] The narrative of ApollodÔrus reads awkwardly—?e??a???? ???? ???a??a ??e?p?t?a?, ????e??? d? ?a? ?? ?ta???t?? te???p???sas?a?, etc. (i. 8, 2). [345] Kallimachus, Hymn. ad Dian. 217.— ?? ?? ?p????t?? ?a??d????? ???e?t??e? ??f??ta? ??p????? t? ??? s???a ????? ???ad??? e?s???e?, ??e? d? ?t? ????? ?d??ta?. [346] See Pherekyd. Frag. 81, ed. Didot. [347] Pausan. viii. 45, 4; 46, 1-3; 47, 2. Lucian, adv. Indoctum, c. 14. t. iii. p. 111, Reiz. The officers placed in charge of the public curiosities or wonders at Rome (?? ?p? t??? ?a?as??) affirmed that one of the tusks had been accidentally broken in the voyage from Greece: the other was kept in the temple of Bacchus in the Imperial Gardens. It is numbered among the memorable exploits of ThÊseus that he vanquished and killed a formidable and gigantic sow, in the territory of KrommyÔn near Corinth. According to some critics, this KrommyÔnian sow was the mother of the KalydÔnian boar (Strabo, viii. p. 380). [348] Strabo, x. p. 466. ?????? d? ?pes??t?? t??? Test??da?? p??? ????a ?a? ?e??a????, ? ?? ????t??, ?f? s??? ?efa?? ?a? d??at?, ?at? t?? pe?? t?? ??p??? ???????a?? ?? d? t? e????, pe?? ????? t?? ???a?, etc. This remark is also similar to Mr. Payne Knight’s criticism on the true causes of the Trojan war, which were (he tells us) of a political character, independent of Helen and her abduction (Prolegom. ad Homer. c. 53). [349] Compare ApollodÔr. iii. 9, 2, and Pausan. v. 17, 4. She is made to wrestle with PÊleus at these funeral games, which seems foreign to her character. [350] Pausan. viii. 35, 8. [351] Respecting the varieties in this interesting story, see Apollod. iii. 9, 2; Hygin. f. 185; Ovid, Metam. x. 560-700; Propert. i. 1, 20; Ælian, V. H. xiii. i. ?e??a?????? s?f????ste???. Aristophan. Lysistrat. 786 and Schol. In the ancient representation on the chest of Kypselus (Paus. v. 19, 1), MeilaniÔn was exhibited standing near Atalanta, who was holding a fawn: no match or competition in running was indicated. There is great discrepancy in the naming and patronymic description of the parties in the story. Three different persons are announced as fathers of Atalanta, Schoeneus, Jasus and MÆnalos; the successful lover in Ovid (and seemingly in EuripidÊs also) is called HippomenÊs, not MeilaniÔn. In the Hesiodic poems Atalanta was daughter of Schoeneus; Hellanikus called her daughter of Jasus. See ApollodÔr. l. c.; Kallimach. Hymn to Dian. 214, with the note of Spanheim; Schol. Eurip. Phoeniss. 150; Schol. Theocr. Idyll. iii. 40; also the ample commentary of Bachet de Meziriac, Sur les EpÎtres d’Ovide, vol. i. p. 366. Servius (ad Virg. Eclog. vi. 61; Æneid, iii. 113) calls Atalanta a native of Scyros. Both the ancient scholiasts (see Schol. Apoll. Rhod. i. 769) and the modern commentators, Spanheim and Heyne, seek to escape this difficulty by supposing two Atalantas,—an Arcadian and a BoeÔtian: assuming the principle of their conjecture to be admissible, they ought to suppose at least three. Certainly, if personages of the Grecian mythes are to be treated as historically real, and their adventures as so many exaggerated and miscolored facts, it will be necessary to repeat the process of multiplying entities to an infinite extent. And this is one among the many reasons for rejecting the fundamental supposition. But when we consider these personages as purely legendary, so that an historical basis can neither be affirmed nor denied respecting them, we escape the necessity of such inconvenient stratagems. The test of identity is then to be sought in the attributes, not in the legal description,—in the predicates, not in the subject. Atalanta, whether born of one father or another, whether belonging to one place or another, is beautiful, cold, repulsive, daring, swift of foot and skilful with the bow,—these attributes constitute her identity. The Scholiast on Theocritus (iii. 40), in vindicating his supposition that there were two Atalantas, draws a distinction founded upon this very principle: he says that the BoeÔtian Atalanta was t???t??, and the Arcadian Atalanta d??a?a. But this seems an over-refinement: both the shooting and the running go to constitute an accomplished huntress. In respect to ParthenopÆus, called by EuripidÊs and by so many others the son of Atalanta, it is of some importance to add, that ApollodÔrus, Aristarchus, and Antimachus, the author of the Thebaid, assigned to him a pedigree entirely different,—making him an Argeian, the son of Talaos and LysimachÊ, and brother of Adrastus. (ApollodÔr. i. 9, 13; Aristarch. ap. Schol. Soph. Œd. Col. 1320; Antimachus ap. Schol. Æschyl. Sep. Theb. 532; and Schol. Supplem. ad Eurip. Phoeniss. t. viii. p. 461, ed. Matth. ApollodÔrus is in fact inconsistent with himself in another passage). [352] Sophokl. Trachin. 7. The horn of Amaltheia was described by PherekydÊs (Apollod. ii. 7, 5); see also Strabo, x. p. 458 and DiodÔr. iv. 35, who cites an interpretation of the fables (?? e??????te? ?? a?t?? t??????) to the effect that it was symbolical of an embankment of the unruly river by HÊraklÊs, and consequent recovery of very fertile land. [353] Hellanikus (ap. Athen. ix. p. 410) mentioning this incident, in two different works, called the attendant by two different names. [354] The beautiful drama of the TrachiniÆ has rendered this story familiar: compare Apollod. ii. 7, 7. Hygin. f. 36. DiodÔr. iv. 36-37. The capture of Œchalia (???a??a? ???s??) was celebrated in a very ancient epic poem by Kreophylos, of the Homeric and not of the Hesiodic character: it passed with many as the work of Homer himself. (See DÜntzer, Fragm. Epic. GrÆcor. p. 8. Welcker, Der Epische Cyclus, p. 229). The same subject was also treated in the Hesiodic Catalogue, or in the Eoiai (see Hesiod, Fragm. 129, ed. Marktsch.): the number of the children of Eurytos was there enumerated. This exploit seems constantly mentioned as the last performed by HÊraklÊs, and as immediately preceding his death or apotheosis on Mount Œta: but whether the legend of Deianeira and the poisoned tunic be very old, we cannot tell. The tale of the death of Iphitos, son of Eurytos, by HÊraklÊs, is as ancient as the Odyssey (xxi. 19-40): but it is there stated, that Eurytos dying left his memorable bow to his son Iphitos (the bow is given afterwards by Iphitos to Odysseus, and is the weapon so fatal to the suitors),—a statement not very consistent with the story that Œchalia was taken and Eurytos slain by HÊraklÊs. It is plain that these were distinct and contradictory legends. Compare Soph. Trachin. 260-285 (where Iphitos dies before Eurytos), not only with the passage just cited from the Odyssey, but also with PherekydÊs, Fragm. 34, Didot. Hyginus (f. 33) differs altogether in the parentage of Deianeira: he calls her daughter of Dexamenos: his account of her marriage with HÊraklÊs is in every respect at variance with ApollodÔrus. In the latter, MnÊsimachÊ is the daughter of Dexamenos; HÊraklÊs rescues her from the importunities of the Centaur EurytiÔn (ii. 5, 5). [355] See the references in Apollod. i, 8, 4-5. Pindar, Isthm. iv. 32. ?e??ta? d? s?f?sta?? ???? ??at? p??sa??? se???e??? ?? ?? ??t???? ??s?a?s? fae??a?? ???e?da? ??ate???, etc. [356] Hekat. Fragm. 341, Didot. In this story Œneus is connected with the first discovery of the vine and the making of wine (?????): compare Hygin. f. 129, and Servius ad Virgil. Georgic. i. 9. [357] See Welcker (Griechisch. TragÖd. ii. p. 583) on the lost tragedy called Œneus. [358] TimoklÊs, Comic. ap. AthenÆ. vii. p. 223.— G???? t?? ?t??e?; ?at?a?e? t?? ????a. Ovid. Heroid. ix. 153.— “Heu! devota domus! Solio sedet Agrios alto Œnea desertum nuda senecta premit.” The account here given is in Hyginus (f. 175): but it is in many points different both from ApollodÔrus (i. 8, 6; Pausan. ii. 25) and PherekydÊs (Fragm. 83, Didot). It seems to be borrowed from the lost tragedy of EuripidÊs. Compare Schol. ad Aristoph. Acharn. 417. Antonin. Liberal. c. 37. In the Iliad, Œneus is dead before the Trojan war (ii. 641). The account of Ephorus again is different (ap. Strabo. x. p. 462); he joins AlkmÆÔn with DiomÊdÊs: but his narrative has the air of a tissue of quasi-historical conjectures, intended to explain the circumstance that the ÆtÔlian DiomÊdÊs is king of Argos during the Trojan war. Pausanias and ApollodÔrus affirm that Œneus was buried at ŒnoÊ between Argos and Mantineia, and they connect the name of this place with him. But it seems more reasonable to consider him as the eponymous hero of ŒniadÆ in ÆtÔlia. [359] Ephor. Fragm. 29. Didot ap. Strab. x. [360] Hesiod. ii. 117. Fragment. Epicc. GrÆc. DÜntzer, ix. ??p??a, 8.— ???a te ????e?? ?a??et?? p??s?a??e p?s?? ta??ess? pep?????, ????tat?? d? ??a?? d?ed???et? ??s?? ?pasa? ?a?ta??de? ????p??. Also the Homeric Hymn. Apoll. 419, 430, and TyrtÆus, Fragm. 1.— (?????a)—???e?a? ????p?? ??s?? ?f???e?a. The Schol. ad Iliad, ix. 246, intimates that the name ?e??p????s?? occurred in one or more of the Hesiodic epics. [361] Iliad, ix. 37. Compare ii. 580. DiomÊdÊs addresses AgamemnÔn— S?? d? d???d??a d??e ?????? pa?? ???????te?? S??pt?? ?? t?? d??e tet??s?a? pe?? p??t??? ????? d? ?? t?? d??e?, ?,te ???t?? ?st? ???st??. A similar contrast is drawn by NestÔr (Il. i. 280) between AgamemnÔn and Achilles. NestÔr says to AgamemnÔn (Il. ix. 69)— ?t?e?d?, s? ?? ???e? s? ??? as??e?tat?? ?ss?. And this attribute attaches to Menelaus as well as to his brother. For when DiomÊdÊs is about to choose his companion for the night expedition into the Trojan camp, AgamemnÔn thus addresses him (x. 232): ??? ?? d? ?ta??? ?? a???sea?, ?? ?? ?????s?a Fa??????? t?? ???st??, ?pe? e?as? ?e p?????? ??d? s? ?? a?d?e??? s?s? f?es?, t?? ?? ??e?? ?a??e?pe??, s? d? ?e????? ?p?ssea? a?d?? e???? ?? ?e?e?? ?????, e? ?a? as??e?te??? ?st??. ?? ?fat?, ?dde?se d? pe?? ?a??? ?e?e???. [362] Iliad, ii. 101. [363] Iliad, xiv. 491. Hesiod. Theog. 444. Homer, Hymn. Mercur. 526-568, ???? ?a? p???t?? d?s? pe??????ea ??d??. Compare Eustath. ad Iliad. xvi. 182. [364] Iliad, iii. 72; vii. 363. In the Hesiodic Eoiai was the following couplet (Fragm. 55. p. 43, DÜntzer):— ????? ?? ??? ?d??e? ???p??? ??a??d?s??, ???? d? ???a???da??, p???t?? d? ?p??? ?t?e?d?s?. Again, TyrtÆus, Fragm. 9, 4.— ??d? e? ?a?ta??de? ????p?? as??e?te??? e??, etc. [365] Odyss. iv. 45-71. [366] DiodÔr. iv. 77. Hom. Odyss. xi. 582. Pindar gives a different version of the punishment inflicted on Tantalus: a vast stone was perpetually impending over his head, and threatening to fall (Olymp. i. 56; Isthm. vii. 20). [367] Pindar, Olymp. i. 45. Compare the sentiment of Iphigeneia in EuripidÊs, Iph. Taur. 387. [368] SapphÔ (Fragm. 82, Schneidewin)— ?at? ?a? ???a ??a ?? f??a? ?sa? ?ta??a?. SapphÔ assigned to NiobÊ eighteen children (Aul. Gell. N. A. iv. ?. xx. 7); Hesiod gave twenty; Homer twelve (Apollod. iii. 5). The Lydian historian Xanthus gave a totally different version both of the genealogy and of the misfortunes of NiobÊ (Parthen. Narr. 33). [369] Ovid, Metam. vi. 164-311. Pausan. i. 21, 5; viii. 2, 3. [370] ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 358, and Schol.; Ister. Fragment. 59, Dindorf; DiodÔr. iv. 74. [371] DiodÔr. iv. 74. [372] Pausanias (vi. 21, 7) had read their names in the Hesiodic Eoiai. [373] Pindar, Olymp. i. 140. The chariot race of Pelops and Œnomaus was represented on the chest of Kypselus at Olympia: the horses of the former were given as having wings (Pausan. v. 17, 4). PherekydÊs gave the same story (ap. Schol. ad Soph. Elect. 504). [374] It is noted by Herodotus and others as a remarkable fact, that no mules were ever bred in the Eleian territory: an Eleian who wished to breed a mule sent his mare for the time out of the region. The Eleians themselves ascribed this phÆnomenon to a disability brought on the land by a curse from the lips of Œnomaus (Herod. iv. 30; Plutarch, QuÆst. GrÆc. p. 303). [375] Paus. v. 1, 1; Sophok. Elektr. 508; Eurip. Orest. 985, with Schol., Plato, Kratyl. p. 395. [376] Apollod. ii. 4, 5. Pausan. ii. 30, 8; 26, 3; v. 8, 1. Hesiod. ap. Schol. ad Iliad. xx. 116. [377] Thucyd. i. 5. [378] We find two distinct legends respecting Chrysippus: his abduction by Laius king of ThÊbes, on which the lost drama of EuripidÊs called Chrysippus turned (see Welcker, Griech. TragÖdien, ii. p. 536), and his death by the hands of his half-brothers. Hyginus (f. 85) blends the two together. [379] Thucyd. i. 9. ?????s? d? ?? t? ?e??p????s??? saf?stata ??? pa?? t?? p??te??? dede?????. According to Hellanikus, Atreus the elder son returns to Pisa after the death of Pelops with a great army, and makes himself master of his father’s principality (Hellanik. ap Schol. ad Iliad, ii. 105). Hellanikus does not seem to have been so solicitous as ThucydidÊs to bring the story into conformity with Homer. The circumstantial genealogy given in Schol. ad Eurip. Orest. 5. makes Atreus and ThyestÊs reside during their banishment at Makestus in Triphylia: it is given without any special authority, but may perhaps come from Hellanikus. [380] Æschyl. Agamem. 1204, 1253, 1608; Hygin. 86; Attii Fragm. 19. This was the story of the old poem entitled AlkmÆÔnis; seemingly also of PherekydÊs, though the latter rejected the story that HermÊs had produced the golden lamb with the special view of exciting discord between the two brothers, in order to avenge the death of Myrtilus by Pelops (see Schol. ad Eurip. Orest. 996). A different legend, alluded to in Soph. Aj. 1295 (see Schol. ad loc.), recounted that AeropÊ had been detected by her father Katreus in unchaste commerce with a low-born person; he entrusted her in his anger to Nauplius, with directions to throw her into the sea: Nauplius however not only spared her life, but betrothed her to PleisthenÊs, father of AgamemnÔn and son of Atreus. The tragedy entitled Atreus of the Latin poet Attius, seems to have brought out, with painful fidelity, the harsh and savage features of this family legend (see Aul. Gell. xiii. 2, and the fragments of Attius now remaining, together with the tragedy called ThyestÊs, of Seneca). [381] Hygin. fab. 87-88. [382] So we must say, in conformity to the ideas of antiquity: compare Homer, Iliad, xvi. 176 and Herodot. vi. 53. [383] Hom. Odyss. iii. 280-300; iv. 83-560. [384] Odyss. i. 38; iii. 310.—??????d?? ????s????. [385] Odyss. iii. 260-275; iv. 512-537; xi. 408. Deinias in his Argolica, and other historians of that territory, fixed the precise day of the murder of AgamemnÔn,—the thirteenth of the month GamÊliÔn (Schol. ad Sophokl. Elektr. 275). [386] Odyss. iii. 306; iv. 9 [387] Odyss. i. 299. [388] Hesiod. Fragm. 60. p. 44, ed. DÜntzer; Stesichor. Fragm. 44, Kleine. The Scholiast ad Soph. Elektr. 539, in reference to another discrepancy between Homer and the Hesiodic poems about the children of Helen, remarks that we ought not to divert our attention from that which is moral and salutary to ourselves in the poets (t? ????? ?a? ???s?a ??? t??? ??t???????s?), in order to cavil at their genealogical contradictions. Welcker in vain endeavors to show that PleisthenÊs was originally introduced as the father of Atreus, not as his son (Griech. TragÖd. p. 678). [389] Schol. ad Eurip. Orest. 46. ????? ?? ?????a?? f?s? t? as??e?a t?? ??a??????? St?s?????? d? ?a? S????d??, ?? ?a?eda?????. Pindar, Pyth. xi. 31; Nem. viii. 21. StÊsichorus had composed an ???ste?a, copied in many points from a still more ancient lyric Oresteia by Xanthus: compare Athen. xii. p. 513, and Ælian, V. H. iv. 26. [390] Hesiod, ap. Schol. ad Pindar, Nem. x. 150. [391] See the ode of Pindar addressed to Aristagoras of Tenedos (Nem. xi. 35; Strabo, xiii. p. 582). There were Penthilids at MitylÊnÊ, from Penthilus, son of OrestÊs (Aristot. Polit v. 8, 13, Schneid.). [392] Iliad, iv. 52. Compare Euripid. HÊrakleid. 350 [393] Iliad, iv. 31. Zeus says to HÊrÊ,— ?a?????, t? ?? se ???a??, ??????? te pa?de? ??ssa ?a?? ???es??? ?t? ?spe???? e?ea??e?? ????? ??a??pa?a? ???t?e??? pt???e????; ?? d? s? ??, e?se????sa p??a? ?a? te??ea a???, ??? e?????? ???a?? ??????? te pa?da?, ?????? te ???a?, t?te ?e? ????? ??a??sa??. Again, xviii. 358,— ? ?? ?? se?? ?? a?t?? ??????t? ?a???????te? ??a???. [394] See the preface of Dissen to the tenth Nem. of Pindar. [395] Clemens Alexandr. Admonit. ad Gent. p. 24. ??a????a ???? t??a ??a ?? Sp??t? t??s?a? St?f???? ?st??e?. See also Œnomaus ap. Euseb. PrÆparat. Evangel. v. 28. [396] Herodot. vii. 159. ? ?e ??? ????e?e? ? ?e??p?d?? ??a????, p???e??? Spa?t??ta? ?pa?a???s?a? t?? ??e???a? ?p? G?????? te ?a? t?? S??a???s???: compare Homer, Iliad, vii. 125. See what appears to be an imitation of the same passage in Josephus, De Bello Judaico, iii. 8, 4. ? e???a ?? ?? ste???e?a? ?? p?t???? ????, etc. [397] Pindar. Pyth. xi. 16. [398] Herodot. i 68. [399] Plutarch. ThÊseus, c. 36, CimÔn, c. 8; Pausan. iii. 3, 6. [400] Compare Apollod. iii. 10, 4. Pausan. iii. 1, 4. [401] Hesiod. ap Schol. Pindar, Olymp. xi. 79. [402] Hesiod. ap. Schol. Pindar, Nem. x. 150. Fragm. Hesiod. DÜntzer, 58. p. 44. Tyndareus was worshipped as a god at LacedÆmÔn (Varro ap. Serv. ad Virgil. Æneid. viii. 275). [403] ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 1-96. Apollod. i. 9, 20. Theocrit. xxii. 26-133. In the account of ApollÔnius and ApollÔdorus, Amykus is slain in the contest; in that of Theocritus he is only conquered and forced to give in, with a promise to renounce for the future his brutal conduct; there were several different narratives. See Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 106. [404] DiodÔr. ix. 63. Herod. iv. 73. ?e?e???? d? t?? t?te ???asa???? ????? ???s??? ?? t?? p??ta ??????, ?? a?t?? ????a??? ?????s?. According to other authors, it was AkadÊmus who made the revelation, and the spot called AkadÊmia, near Athens, which the LacedÆmÔnians spared in consideration of this service (Plutarch, ThÊseus, 31, 32, 33, where he gives several different versions of this tale by Attic writers, framed with the view of exonerating ThÊseus). The recovery of Helen and the captivity of Æthra were represented on the ancient chest of Kypselus, with the following curious inscription: ???da??da ????a? f??et??, ????a? d? ????a?e? ???et??. Pausan. v. 19, 1. [405] Cypria Carm. Fragm. 8. p. 13, DÜntzer. LycophrÔn, 538-566 with Schol. Apollod. iii. 11, 1. Pindar, Nem. x. 55-90. ?te??e??? ??a?as?a?: also Homer, Odyss. xi. 302, with the Commentary of Nitzsch, vol. iii. p. 245. The combat thus ends more favorably to the Tyndarids; but probably the account least favorable to them is the oldest, since their dignity went on continually increasing, until at last they became great deities. [406] Odyss. xxi. 15. DiodÔr. xv. 66. [407] Pausan. iv. 2, 1. [408] Iliad, ix. 553. SimonidÊs had handled this story in detail (Schol. Ven. II. ix. p. 553). BacchylidÊs (ap. Schol. Pindar. Isthm. iv. 92) celebrated in one of his poems the competition among many eager suitors for the hand of MarpÊssa, under circumstances similar to the competition for Hippodameia, daughter of Œnomaus. Many unsuccessful suitors perished by the hand of EuÊnus: their skulls were affixed to the wall of the temple of PoseidÔn. [409] Apollod. i. 7, 9. Pausan. iv. 2, 5. ApollÔnius Rhodius describes Idas as full of boast and self-confidence, heedless of the necessity of divine aid. Probably this was the character of the brothers in the old legend, as the enemies of the Dioskuri. The wrath of the Dioskuri against MessÊnia was treated, even in the historical times, as the grand cause of the subjection of the MessÊnians by the Spartans: that wrath had been appeased at the time when Epameinondas reconstituted MessÊnÊ (Pausan. iv. 27, 1). [410] ApollodÔr. iii. 8, 1. Hygin. fab. 176. Eratosthen. Catasterism. 8. Pausan. viii. 2, 2-3. A different story respecting the immolation of the child is in Nikolaus Damask. Frag. p. 41, Orelli. LykaÔn is mentioned as the first founder of the temple of Zeus LykÆus in Schol. Eurip. Orest. 1662; but nothing is there said about the human sacrifice or its consequences. In the historical times, the festival and solemnities of the LykÆa do not seem to have been distinguished materially from the other agÔnes of Greece (Pindar, Olymp. xiii. 104; Nem. x. 46): Xenias the Arcadian, one of the generals in the army of Cyrus the younger, celebrated the solemnity with great magnificence in the march through Asia Minor (Xen. Anab. i. 2, 10). But the fable of the human sacrifice, and the subsequent transmutation of the person who had eaten human food into a wolf, continued to be told in connection with them (Plato, de Republic. viii. c. 15. p. 417). Compare Pliny, H. N. viii. 34. This passage of Plato seems to afford distinct indication that the practice of offering human victims at the altar of the LykÆan Zeus was neither prevalent nor recent, but at most only traditional and antiquated; and it therefore limits the sense or invalidates the authority of the Pseudo-Platonic dialogue, Minos, c. 5. [411] Paus. viii. 3. Hygin. fab. 177. [412] Apollod. iii. 8, 2. [413] Pausan. viii. 3, 2. Apollod. iii. 8, 2. Hesiod. apud Eratosthen. Catasterism. 1. Fragm. 182, Marktsch. Hygin. f. 177. [414] Homer, Iliad, ii. 604. Pind. Olymp. vi. 44-63. The tomb of Æpytus, mentioned in the Iliad, was shown to Pausanias between Pheneus and Stymphalus (Pausan. viii. 16, 2). Æpytus was a cognomen of HermÊs (Pausan. viii. 47, 3). The hero Arkas was worshipped at Mantineia, under the special injunction of the Delphian oracle (Pausan. viii. 9, 2). [415] Pausan. viii. 4, 6. Apollod. iii. 9, 1. DiodÔr. iv. 33. A separate legend respecting AugÊ and the birth of TÊlephus was current at Tegea, attached to the temple, statue, and cognomen of Eileithyia in the Tegeatic agora (Pausan. viii. 48, 5). HekatÆus seems to have narrated in detail the adventures of AugÊ (Pausan. viii. 4, 4; 47, 3. HekatÆ. Fragm. 345, Didot.). EuripidÊs followed a different story about AugÊ and the birth of TÊlephus in his lost tragedy called AugÊ (See Strabo, xiii. p. 615). Respecting the ??s?? of Æschylus, and the two lost dramas, ??eada? and ??s?? of SophoklÊs, little can be made out. (See Welcker, Griechisch. TragÖd. p. 53, 408-414). [416] TÊlephus and his exploits were much dwelt upon in the lost old epic poem, the Cyprian Verses. See argument of that poem ap. DÜntzer, Ep. Fragm. p. 10. His exploits were also celebrated by Pindar (Olymp. ix. 70-79); he is enumerated along with HectÔr, Cycnus, MemnÔn, the most distinguished opponents of Achilles (Isthm. iv. 46). His birth, as well as his adventures, became subjects with most of the great Attic tragedians. [417] There were other local genealogies of Tegea deduced from Lykurgus: BÔtachus, eponym of the DÊme BÔtachidÆ at that place, was his grandson (Nicolaus ap. Steph. Byz. v. ??ta??da?). [418] Herodot. ix. 27. Echemus is described by Pindar (Ol. xi. 69) as gaining the prize of wrestling in the fabulous Olympic games, on their first establishment by HÊraklÊs. He also found a place in the Hesiodic Catalogue as husband of Timandra, the sister of Helen and KlytÆmnÊstra (Hesiod, Fragm. 105, p. 318, Marktscheff.). [419] ApollodÔr. iii. 10, 3; Hesiod, Fragm. 141-142, Marktscheff.; Strab. ix. p. 442; PherekydÊs, Fragm. 8; Akusilaus, Fragm. 25, Didot. ?? ?? ??? ???e??? ???e ???a?, ?e??? ?p? da?t?? ???? ?? ??a????, ?a? ?? ?f?ase? ???? ??d??a F??? ??e?se???, ?t? ?s??? ??e ??????? ???at?d??, F?e??a? d?????t??? ???at?a. (Hesiod, Fr.) The change of the color of the crow is noticed both in Ovid, Metamorph. ii. 632, in Antonin. Liberal. c. 20, and in Servius ad Virgil. Æneid. vii. 761, though the name “Corvo custode ejus” is there printed with a capital letter, as if it were a man named Corvus. [420] Schol. Eurip. AlkÊst. 1; DiodÔr. iv. 71; ApollodÔr. iii. 10, 3; Pindar, Pyth. iii. 59; Sextus Empiric. adv. Grammatic. i. 12. p. 271. Stesichorus named EriphylÊ—the Naupaktian verses, Hippolytus—(compare Servius ad Virgil. Æneid. vii. 761); Panyasis, Tyndareus; a proof of the popularity of this tale among the poets. Pindar says that Æsculapius was “tempted by gold” to raise a man from the dead, and Plato (Legg. iii. p. 408) copies him: this seems intended to afford some color for the subsequent punishment. “Mercede id captum (observes Boeckh. ad Pindar. l. c.) Æsculapium fecisse recentior est fictio; Pindari fortasse ipsius, quem tragici secuti sunt: haud dubie a medicorum avaris moribus profecta, qui GrÆcorum medicis nostrisque communes sunt.” The rapacity of the physicians (granting it to be ever so well-founded, both then and now) appears to me less likely to have operated upon the mind of Pindar, than the disposition to extenuate the cruelty of Zeus, by imputing guilty and sordid views to AsklÊpius. Compare the citation from DikÆarchus, infrÀ, p. 249, note 1. [421] Pausan. ii. 26, where several distinct stories are mentioned, each springing up at some one or other of the sanctuaries of the god: quite enough to justify the idea of these Æsculapii (Cicero, N. D. iii. 22). Homer, Hymn ad Æsculap. 2. The tale briefly alluded to in the Homeric Hymn. ad Apollin. 209. is evidently different: Ischys is there the companion of Apollo, and KorÔnis is an Arcadian damsel. AristidÊs, the fervent worshipper of AsklÊpius, adopted the story of KorÔnis, and composed hymns on the ???? ??????d?? ?a? ???es?? t?? ?e?? (Orat. 23. p. 463, Dind.). [422] See Pindar, Pyth. iii. The Scholiast puts a construction upon Pindar’s words which is at any rate far-fetched, if indeed it be at all admissible: he supposes that Apollo knew the fact from his own omniscience, without any informant, and he praises Pindar for having thus transformed the old fable. But the words ??d? ??a?e s??p?? seem certainly to imply some informant: to suppose that s??p?? means the god’s own mind, is a strained interpretation. [423] Iliad, ii. 730. The MessÊnians laid claim to the sons of AsklÊpius as their heroes, and tried to justify the pretension by a forced construction of Homer (Pausan. iii. 4, 2). [424] Arktinus, Epicc. GrÆc. Fragm. 2. p. 22, DÜntzer. The Ilias Minor mentioned the death of MachaÔn by Eurypylus, son of TÊlephus (Fragm. 5. p. 19, DÜntzer). [425] ?s???p??? ?? t?? ?a? ?????s??, e?t? ?????p?? p??te??? ?st?? e?te ?a? ?????e? ?e?? (Galen, Protreptic. 9. t. 1. p. 22, KÜhn.). Pausanias considers him as ?e?? ?? ????? (ii. 26, 7). In the important temple at Smyrna he was worshipped as ?e?? ?s???p??? (AristidÊs, Or. 6. p. 64; Or. 23. p. 456, Dind.). [426] ApollodÔr. ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 381; see Heyne, Fragment. ApollodÔr. p. 410. According to ApollodÔrus, the apotheosis of HÊraklÊs and of Æsculapius took place at the same time, thirty-eight years after HÊraklÊs began to reign at Argos. [427] About HekatÆus, Herodot. ii. 143; about SolÔn, Diogen. LaËrt. Vit. Platon. init. A curious fragment, preserved from the lost works of DikÆarchus, tells us of the descendants of the Centaur CheirÔn at the town of PÊlion, or perhaps at the neighboring town of DÊmÊtrias,—it is not quite certain which, perhaps at both (see DikÆarch. Fragment. ed. Fuhr, p. 408). ?a?t?? d? t?? d??a?? ?? t?? p???t?? ??de ?????, ? d? ???eta? ?e?????? ?p?????? e??a?? pa?ad?d?s? d? ?a? de????s? pat?? ???, ?a? ??t?? ? d??a?? f???sseta?, ?? ??de?? ????? ??de t?? p???t??? ??? ?s??? d? t??? ?p?sta????? t? f??a?a ?s??? t??? ?a???s? ???e??, ???? p????a. Plato, de Republ. iii. 4 (p. 391). ?????e?? ?p? t? s?f?t?t? ?e????? te??a????. Compare XenophÔn, De Venat. c. 1. [428] See the genealogy at length in Le Clerc, Historie de la MÉdecine, lib. ii. c. 2. p. 78, also p. 287; also LittrÉ, Introduction aux Œuvres ComplÈtes d’Hippocrate, t. i. p. 35. HippocratÊs was the seventeenth from Æsculapius. Theopompus the historian went at considerable length into the pedigree of the AsklÊpiads of KÔs and Knidus, tracing them up to Podaleirius and his first settlement at Syrnus in Karia (see Theopomp. Fragm. 111, Didot): Polyanthus of KyrÊnÊ composed a special treatise pe?? t?? t?? ?s???p?ad?? ?e??se?? (Sextus Empiric. adv. Grammat. i. 12. p. 271); see Stephan. Byz. v. ???, and especially AristidÊs, Orat. vii. AsclÊpiadÆ. The AsklÊpiads were even reckoned among the ??????ta? of Rhodes, jointly with the HÊrakleids (AristidÊs, Or. 44, ad Rhod. p. 839, Dind.). In the extensive sacred enclosure at Epidaurus stood the statues of AsklÊpius and his wife EpionÊ (Pausan. ii. 29, 1): two daughters are coupled with him by AristophanÊs, and he was considered especially e?pa?? (Plutus, 654); Jaso, Panakeia and Hygieia are named by AristidÊs. [429] Plato, Protagor. c. 6 (p. 311). ?pp????t? t?? ????, t?? t?? ?s???p?ad??; also PhÆdr. c. 121. (p. 270). About KtÊsias, Galen, Opp. t. v. p. 652, Basil.; and Bahrt, Fragm. KtÊsiÆ, p. 20. Aristotle (see Stahr. Aristotelia, i. p. 32) and XenophÔn, the physician of the emperor Claudius, were both AsklÊpiads (Tacit. Annal. xii. 61). Plato, de Republ. iii. 405, calls them t??? ?????? ?s???p??da?. Pausanias, a distinguished physician at Gela in Sicily, and contemporary of the philosopher EmpedoklÊs, was also an AsklÊpiad: see the verses of EmpedoklÊs upon him, Diogen. LaËrt. viii. 61. [430] Strabo, viii. p. 374; Aristophan. Vesp. 122; Plutus, 635-750; where the visit to the temple of Æsculapius is described in great detail, though with a broad farcical coloring. During the last illness of Alexander the Great, several of his principal officers slept in the temple of Serapis, in the hope that remedies would be suggested to them in their dreams (Arrian, vii. 26). Pausanias, in describing the various temples of AsklÊpius which he saw, announces as a fact quite notorious and well-understood, “Here cures are wrought by the god” (ii. 36, 1; iii. 26, 7; vii. 27, 4): see Suidas, v. ???sta????. The Orations of AristidÊs, especially the 6th and 7th, AsklÊpius and the AsklÊpiadÆ, are the most striking manifestations of faith and thanksgiving towards Æsculapius, as well as attestations of his extensive working throughout the Grecian world; also Orat. 23 and 25, ?e??? ?????, 1 and 3; and Or. 45 (De RhetoricÂ, p. 22. Dind.), a? t? ?? ?s???p??? t?? ?e? d?at????t?? ??e?a?, etc. [431] Pausan. ii. 27, 3; 36, 1. ?a?ta?? ???e??a??a ?st? ?a? ??d??? ?a? ???a???? ???ata ??es???t?? ?p? t?? ?s???p???, p??set? d? ?a? ??s?a, ?,t? ??ast?? ???s?se, ?a? ?p?? ????,—the cures are wrought by the god himself. [432] “ApollodÔrus Ætatem Herculis pro cardine chronologiÆ habuit” (Heyne, ad ApollodÔr. Fragm. p. 410). [433] Herodot. v. 81. [434] Nem. iv. 22. Isthm. vii. 16. [435] This tale, respecting the transformation of the ants into men, is as old as the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. See DÜntzer, Fragm. Epicc. 21. p. 34; evidently an etymological tale from the name Myrmidones. Pausanias throws aside both the etymology and the details of the miracle: he says that Zeus raised men from the earth, at the prayer of Æakus (ii. 29, 2): other authors retained the etymology of Myrmidons from ????e?, but gave a different explanation (Kallimachus, Fragm. 114, DÜntzer). ????d???? ?ss??a (Strabo, viii. p. 375). ?ss??, ? ????st?? (Hygin. fab. 52). According to the Thessalian legend, MyrmidÔn was the son of Zeus by Eurymedusa, daughter of Kletor; Zeus having assumed the disguise of an ant (Clemens Alex. Admon. ad Gent. p. 25. Sylb.). [436] Apollod. iii. 12, 6. Isokrat. Evagor. Encom. vol. ii. p. 278, Auger. Pausan. i. 45, 13; ii. 29, 6. Schol. Aristoph. Equit. 1253. So in the 106th Psalm, respecting the Israelites and Phinees, v. 29, “They provoked the Lord to anger by their inventions, and the plague was great among them;” “Then stood up Phinees and prayed, and so the plague ceased;” “And that was counted unto him for righteousness, among all posterities for evermore.” [437] Pindar, Olymp. viii. 41, with the Scholia. Didymus did not find this story in any other poet older than Pindar. [438] Apollod. iii. 12, 6, who relates the tale somewhat differently; but the old epic poem AlkmÆÔnis gave the details (ap. Schol. Eurip. Andromach. 685)— ???a ?? ??t??e?? ?e?a?? t????e?d?? d?s?? ????e ????? ???e?? d? ???? ??? ?e??a ta??ssa? ?????? ???a???? ?pep???e? et? ??ta. [439] Pindar, Nem. v. 15, with Scholia, and Kallimach. Frag. 136. ApollÔnius Rhodius represents the fratricide as inadvertent and unintentional (i. 92); one instance amongst many of the tendency to soften down and moralize the ancient tales. Pindar, however, seems to forget this incident when he speaks in other places of the general character of PÊleus (Olymp. ii. 75-86. Isthm. vii. 40). [440] Apollod. iii. 12, 7. EuphoriÔn, Fragm. 5, DÜntzer, p. 43, Epicc. GrÆc. There may have been a tutelary serpent in the temple at Eleusis, as there was in that of AthÊnÊ Polias at Athens (Herodot viii. 41. Photius, v. ???????? ?f??. Aristophan. Lysistr. 759, with the Schol.). [441] Apollod. iii. 12, 7. Hesiod. ap. Strab. ix. p. 393. The libation and prayer of HÊraklÊs, prior to the birth of Ajax, and his fixing the name of the yet unborn child, from an eagle (a?et??) which appeared in response to his words, was detailed in the Hesiodic Eoia, and is celebrated by Pindar (Isthm. v. 30-54). See also the Scholia. [442] ApollodÔr. iii. 13, 5. Homer, Iliad, xviii. 434; xxiv. 62. Pindar, Nem. iv. 50-68; Isthm. vii. 27-50. Herodot. vii. 192. Catullus, Carm. 64. Epithal. Pel. et Thetidos, with the prefatory remarks of Doering. The nuptials of PÊleus and Thetis were much celebrated in the Hesiodic Catalogue, or perhaps in the Eoiai (DÜntzer, Epic. GrÆc. Frag. 36. p. 39), and Ægimius—see Schol. ad ApollÔn. Rhod. iv. 869—where there is a curious attempt of Staphylus to rationalize the marriage of PÊleus and Thetis. There was a town, seemingly near Pharsalus in Thessaly, called Thetideium. Thetis is said to have been carried by PÊleus to both these places: probably it grew up round a temple and sanctuary of this goddess (Pherekyd. Frag. 16, Didot; Hellank. ap. Steph. Byz. Test?de???). [443] See the arguments of the lost poems, the Cypria and the Æthiopis, as given by Proclus, in DÜntzer, Fragm. Epic. Gr. p. 11-16; also Schol. ad Iliad. xvi. 140; and the extract from the lost ????stas?a of Æschylus, ap. Plato. de Republic. ii. c. 21 (p. 382, St.). [444] Eurip. Androm. 1242-1260; Pindar, Olymp. ii. 86. [445] Herodot. vii. 198. [446] Plutarch, Pyrrh. 1; Justin, xi. 3; Eurip. Androm. 1253; Arrian, Exp. Alexand. i. 11. [447] PherekydÊs and Hellanikus ap. Marcellin. Vit. Thucydid. init.; Pausan. ii. 29, 4; Plutarch, SolÔn, 10. According to ApollodÔrus, however, PherekydÊs said that TelamÔn was only the friend of PÊleus, not his brother,—not the son of Æakus (iii. 12, 7): this seems an inconsistency. There was however a warm dispute between the Athenians and the Megarians respecting the title to the hero Ajax, who was claimed by both (see Pausan. i. 42, 4; Plutarch, l. c.): the Megarians accused Peisistratus of having interpolated a line into the Catalogue in the Iliad (Strabo, ix. p. 394). [448] Herodot. vii. 90; Isokrat. Enc. Evag. ut sup.; Sophokl. Ajax, 984-995; Vellei. Patercul. i. 1; Æschyl. Pers. 891, and Schol. The return from Troy of Teukrus, his banishment by TelamÔn, and his settlement in Cyprus, formed the subject of the ?e????? of SophoklÊs, and of a tragedy under a similar title by Pacuvius (Cicero de Orat. i. 58; ii. 46); Sophokl. Ajax, 892; Pacuvii Fragm. Teucr. 15.— “Te repudio, nec recipio, natum abdico, Facesse.” The legend of Teukros was connected in Attic archÆology with the peculiar functions and formalities of the judicature, ?? F?eatt?? (Pausan. i. 28, 12; ii. 29, 7). [449] Hesiod, Fragm. DÜntz. Eoiai, 55, y. 43.— ????? ?? ??? ?d??e? ???p??? ??a??da?s?, ???? d? ???a???da??, p???t?? d? ?p??? ?t?e?d?s?. Polyb. v. 2.— ??a??da?, p???? ?e?a???ta? ??te da?t?. [450] See his Æginetica, p. 14, his earliest work. [451] Pindar, Olymp. ix. 74. The hero Ajax, son of OÏleus, was especially worshipped at Opus; solemn festivals and games were celebrated in his honor. [452] Iliad, ii. 546. Odyss. vii. 81.— ?? d? ??? ????a? e???? ... ???? ??e????? e?a??t????, ?? p?t? ????? T???e, ???? ????t??, t??e d? ?e?d???? ?????a, ??d d? ?? ?????s? e?se? ?? ??? p???? ???, ????de ?? ta????s? ?a? ???e???? ?????ta? ?????? ????a???, pe??te??????? ???a?t??. [453] See the Life of Lykurgus, in Plutarch’s (I call it by that name, as it is always printed with his works) Lives of the Ten Orators, tom. iv. p. 382-384, Wytt. ?at???? d? t? ????? ?p? t??t?? ?a? ??e????? t?? G?? ?a? ?fa?st?? ... ?a? ?st?? a?t? ? ?ata???? t?? ?????? t?? ?e?asa???? t?? ??se?d????, etc. ?? t?? ?e??s???? ??se?d???? ??e????? e??e (pp. 382, 383). Erechtheus ???ed??? of AthÊnÊ—AristidÊs, Panathenaic. p. 184, with the Scholia of Frommel. ButÊs, the eponymus of the ButadÆ, is the first priest of PoseidÔn Erichthonius: Apollod. iii. 15, 1. So Kallias (Xenoph. Sympos. viii. 40), ?e?e?? ?e?? t?? ?p? ??e?????. [454] Herodot. viii. 55. [455] Harpokration, v. ??t?????. ? d? ???da??? ?a? ? t?? ?a?a?da pep?????? fas??, ?????????? ?? ?fa?st?? ?a? G?? fa???a?. EuripidÊs, Ion. 21. Apollod. iii. 14, 6; 15, 1. Compare Plato, TimÆus, c. 6. [456] Schol. ad Iliad, ii. 546, where he cites also Kallimachus for the story of Erichthonius. Etymologicon Magn. ??e??e??. Plato (Kritias, c. 4) employs vague and general language to describe the agency of HÊphÆstos and AthÊnÊ, which the old fable in ApollodÔrus (iii. 14, 6) details in coarser terms. See Ovid, Metam. ii. 757. [457] Æthra, mother of Theseus, is also mentioned (Homer, Iliad, iii. 144). [458] Hellanikus, Fragm. 62; Philochor. Fragm. 8, ap. Euseb. PrÆp. Evang. x. 10. p. 489. Larcher (Chronologie d’HÉrodote, ch. ix. s. 1. p. 278) treats both the historical personality and the date of OgygÊs as perfectly well authenticated. It is not probable that Philochorus should have given any calculation of time having reference to Olympiads; and hardly conceivable that Hellanikus should have done so. Justin Martyr quotes Hellanikus and Philochorus as having mentioned Moses,—?? sf?d?a ???a??? ?a? pa?a??? t?? ???da??? ?????t?? ???s??? ????ta?—which is still more incredible even than the assertion of Eusebius about their having fixed the date of OgygÊs by Olympiads (see Philochor. Fragm. 9). [459] Apollod. iii. 14, 1; Herodot. viii. 55; Ovid. Metam. vi. 72. The story current among the Athenians represented Kekrops as the judge of this controversy (Xenoph. Memor. iii. 5, 10). The impressions of the trident of PoseidÔn were still shown upon the rock in the time of Pausanias (Pausan. i. 26, 4). For the sanctity of the ancient olive-tree, see the narrative of Herodotus (l. c.), relating what happened to it when Xerxes occupied the acropolis. As this tale seems to have attached itself specially to the local peculiarities of the Erechtheion, the part which PoseidÔn plays in it is somewhat mean: that god appears to greater advantage in the neighborhood of the ?pp?t?? ???????, as described in the beautiful Chorus of SophoklÊs (Œdip. Colon. 690-712). A curious rationalization of the monstrous form ascribed to Kekrops d?f??? in Plutarch (Sera Num. Vindict. p. 551). [460] Philochor. ap. Strabo. ix. p. 397. [461] The Parian chronological marble designates AktÆus as an autochthonous person. Marmor Parium, Epoch. 3. Pausan. i. 2, 5. Philochorus treated AktÆus as a fictitious name (Fragm. 8, ut sup.). [462] Pausan. viii. 2. 2. The three daughters of Kekrops were not unnoticed in the mythes (Ovid, Metam. ii. 739): the tale of Kephalus, son of HersÊ by HermÊs, who was stolen away by the goddess EÔs or HÊmera in consequence of his surpassing beauty, was told in more than one of the Hesiodic poems (Pausan. i. 3, 1; Hesiod. Theog. 986). See also Eurip. Ion. 269. [463] Jul. Africanus also (ap. Euseb. x. 9. p. 486-488) calls Kekrops ???e??? and a?t?????. [464] Herod. viii. 44. ??a?aa? ????a?, Pindar. [465] Apollod. iii. 14. Pausan. i. 26, 7. [466] Virgil, Georgic iii. 114. [467] The mythe of the visit of DÊmÊtÊr to Eleusis, on which occasion she vouchsafed to teach her holy rites to the leading Eleusinians, is more fully touched upon in a previous chapter (see ante, p. 50). [468] Apollod. iii. 14, 8; Æsch. Supplic. 61; Soph. Elektr. 107; Ovid, Metamorph. vi. 425-670. Hyginus gives the fable with some additional circumstances, fab. 45. Antoninus Liberalis (Narr. 11), or Boeus, from whom he copies, has composed a new narrative by combining together the names of Pandareos and AÊdÔn, as given in the Odyssey, xix. 523, and the adventures of the old Attic fable. The hoopoe still continued the habit of chasing the nightingale; it was to the Athenians a present fact. See Schol. Aristoph. Aves, 212. [469] Thucyd. ii. 29. He makes express mention of the nightingale in connection with the story, though not of the metamorphosis. See below, chap. xvi. p. 544, note 2. So also does Pausanias mention and reason upon it as a real incident: he founds upon it several moral reflections (i. 5, 4; x. 4, 5): the author of the ????? ?p?t?f???, ascribed to DemosthenÊs, treats it in the same manner, as a fact ennobling the tribe Pandionis, of which PandiÔn was the eponymus. The same author, in touching upon Kekrops, the eponymus of the Kekropis tribe, cannot believe literally the story of his being half man and half serpent: he rationalizes it by saying that Kekrops was so called because in wisdom he was like a man, in strength like a serpent (Demosth. p. 1397, 1398, Reiske). Hesiod glances at the fable (Opp. Di. 566), ??????? ?a?d????? ??t? ?e??d??; see also Ælian., V. H. xii. 20. The subject was handled by SophoklÊs in his lost TÊreus. [470] PoseidÔn is sometimes spoken of under the name of Erechtheus simply (LycophrÔn, 158). See Hesychius, v. ??e??e??. [471] PherekydÊs, Fragm. 77, Didot; ap. Schol. ad Odyss. xi. 320; Hellanikus Fr. 82; ap. Schol. Eurip. Orest. 1648. ApollodÔrus (iii. 15, 1) gives the story differently. [472] Upon this story of IÔn is founded the tragedy of EuripidÊs which bears that name. I conceive many of the points of that tragedy to be of the invention of EuripidÊs himself: but to represent IÔn as son of Apollo, not of Xuthus, seems a genuine Attic legend. Respecting this drama, see O. MÜller, Hist. of Dorians, ii. 2. 13-15. I doubt however the distinction which he draws between the Ionians and the other population of Attica. [473] ApollodÔr. iii. 15, 2; Plato, PhÆdr. c. 3; Sophok. Antig. 984; also the copious Scholion on ApollÔn. Rhod. i. 212. The tale of Phineus is told very differently in the Argonautic expedition as given by ApollÔnius Rhodius, ii. 180. From SophoklÊs we learn that this was the Attic version. The two winged sons of Boreas and their chase of the Harpies were noticed in the Hesiodic Catalogue (see Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 296). But whether the Attic legend of Oreithyia was recognized in the Hesiodic poems seems not certain. Both Æschylus and SophoklÊs composed dramas on the subject of Oreithyia (Longin. de Sublimit. c. 3). “Orithyia Atheniensis, filia TerrigenÆ, et a Borea in Thraciam rapta.” (Servius ad Virg. Æneid. xii. 83). TerrigenÆ is the ???e??? ??e??e??. Philochorus (Fragm. 30) rationalized the story, and said that it alluded to the effects of a violent wind. [474] Herodot. vii. 189. ?? d? ?? ????a??? sf? ?????s? ????sa?ta t?? ????? p??te???, ?a? t?te ??e??a ?ate???sas?a?? ?a? ???? ?pe????te? ????? ?d??sa?t? pa?? p?ta?? ???ss??. [475] Herodot. l. c. ????a??? t?? ????? ?? ?e?p??p??? ?pe?a??sa?t?, ?????t?? sf? ????? ???st?????, t?? ?a??? ?p??????? ?a??sas?a?. ????? d?, ?at? t?? ??????? ????? ??e? ???a??a ?tt????, ??e?????? t?? ??e?????. ?at? d? t? ??d?? t??t?, ?? ????a???, s?a??e?e??? sf? t?? ????? ?a??? e??a?, etc. [476] Suidas and Photius, v. ????e???: Protogeneia and PandÔra are given as the names of two of them. The sacrifice of PandÔra, in the Iambi of HippÔnax (HippÔnact. Fragm. xxi. Welck. ap. Athen. ix. p. 370), seems to allude to this daughter of Erechtheus. [477] ApollodÔr. iii. 15, 3; Thucyd. ii. 15; IsokratÊs (Panegyr. t. i. p. 206; Panathenaic. t. ii. p. 560, Auger), Lykurgus, cont. Leocrat. p. 201, Reiske, Pausan. i. 38, 3; Euripid. Erechth. Fragm. The Schol. ad. Soph. Œd. Col. 1048 gives valuable citations from Ister, AkestodÔrus and AndrotiÔn: we see that the inquirers of antiquity found it difficult to explain how the Eumolpids could have acquired their ascendant privileges in the management of the Eleusinia, seeing that Eumolpus himself was a foreigner.—??te?ta?, t? d?p?te ?? ????p?da? t?? te?et?? ???????s?, ????? ??te?. ThucydidÊs does not call Eumolpus a Thracian: Strabo’s language is very large and vague (vii. p. 321): IsokratÊs says that he assailed Athens in order to vindicate the rights of his father PoseidÔn to the sovereign patronage of the city. Hyginus copies this (fab. 46). [478] Pausan. i. 38. 3. ??e?s????? te ???a???, ?te ?? p??s??t?? sf?s? ?e?ea?????, ???a te p??sas?a? ded??as? ?a? ???sta ?? t? ???? t?? ?????. See Heyne ad ApollodÔr. iii. 15, 4. “Eumolpi nomen modo communicatum pluribus, modo plurium hominum res et facta cumulata in unum. Is ad quem Hercules venisse dicitur, serior Ætate fuit: antiquior est is de quo hoc loco agitur ... antecessisse tamen hunc debet alius, qui cum Triptolemo vixit,” etc. See the learned and valuable comments of Lobeck in his Aglaophamus, tom. i. p. 206-213: in regard to the discrepancies of this narrative he observes, I think, with great justice (p. 211), “quo uno exemplo ex innumerabilibus delecto, arguitur eorum temeritas, qui ex variis discordibusque poetarum et mythographorum narratiunculis, antiquÆ famÆ formam et quasi lineamenta recognosci posse sperant.” [479] Homer, Hymn, ad Cerer. 153-475.— ... ? d? ????sa ?e?st?p????? as??e?s? ?e??e? ???pt???? te, ?????e? te p????pp?, ????p?? te ??, ?e??? ?? ???t??? ?a??, ???s?s???? ?e???. Also v. 105. ??? d? ?d?? ?e????? ??e?s???da? ???at?e?. The hero Eleusis is mentioned in Pausanias, i. 38, 7: some said that he was the son of HermÊs, others that he was the son of Ogygus. Compare Hygin. f. 147. [480] Keleos and Metaneira were worshipped by the Athenians with divine honors (Athenagoras, Legat. p. 53, ed. Oxon.): perhaps he confounds divine and heroic honors, as the Christian controversialists against Paganism were disposed to do. Triptolemus had a temple at Eleusis (Pausan. i. 38, 6). [481] ApollodÔr. iii. 15, 4. Some said that Immaradus, son of Eumolpus, had been killed by Erechtheus (Pausan. i. 5, 2); others, that both Eumolpus and his son had experienced this fate (Schol. ad Eurip. Phoeniss. 854). But we learn from Pausanias himself what the story in the interior of the Erechtheion was,—that Erechtheus killed Eumolpus (i. 27, 3). [482] Cicero, Nat. Deor. iii. 19; Philochor. ap. Schol. Œdip. Col. 100. Three daughters of Erechtheus perished, and three daughters were worshipped (ApollodÔr. iii. 15, 4; Hesychius, ?e???? t??p???e???; Eurip. Erechtheus, Fragm. 3, Dindorf); but both EuripidÊs and ApollodÔrus said that Erechtheus was only required to sacrifice, and only did sacrifice, one,—the other two slew themselves voluntarily, from affection for their sister. I cannot but think (in spite of the opinion of Welcker to the contrary, Griechisch. TragÖd. ii. p. 722) that the genuine legend represented Erechtheus as having sacrificed all three, as appears in the IÔn of EuripidÊs (276):—
Compare with this passage, Demosthen. ????? ?p?taf. p. 1397, Reisk. Just before, the death of the three daughters of Kekrops, for infringing the commands of AthÊnÊ, had been mentioned. EuripidÊs modified this in his Erechtheus, for he there introduced the mother Praxithea consenting to the immolation of one daughter, for the rescue of the country from a foreign invader: to propose to a mother the immolation of three daughters at once, would have been too revolting. In most instances we find the strongly marked features, the distinct and glaring incidents as well as the dark contrasts, belong to the Hesiodic or old Post-Homeric legend; the changes made afterwards go to soften, dilute, and to complicate, in proportion as the feelings of the public become milder and more humane; sometimes however the later poets add new horrors. [483] See the striking evidence contained in the oration of Lykurgus against LeocratÊs (p. 201-204. Reiske; Demosthen. ???. ?p?taf. l. c.; and Xenophon, Memor. iii. 5, 9): from the two latter passages we see that the Athenian story represented the invasion under Eumolpus as a combined assault from the western continent. [484] ApollodÔr. iii. 15, 5; Eurip. IÔn, 282; Erechth. Fragm. 20, Dindorf. [485] Eurip. IÔn. 1570-1595. The KreÜsa of SophoklÊs, a lost tragedy, seems to have related to the same subject. Pausanias (vii. 1, 2) tells us that Xuthus was chosen to arbitrate between the contending claims of the sons of Erechtheus. [486] Philochor. ap. Harpocrat. v. ???d???a; Strabo, viii. p. 383. [487] Philochor. ap. Harpocrat. v. ???d???a. [488] Sophokl. ap. Strab. ix. p. 392; Herodot. i. 173; Strabo, xii. p. 573. [489] Plutarch, ThÊseus, c. 13. ???e?? ?et?? ?e??e??? ?a?d????, ?a? ?d?? t??? ??e??e?da?? p??s????. ApollodÔr. iii. 15, 6. [490] Ægeus had by MÊdea (who took refuge at Athens after her flight from Corinth) a son named MÊdus, who passed into Asia, and was considered as the eponymus and progenitor of the Median people. Datis, the general who commanded the invading Persian army at the battle of MarathÔn, sent a formal communication to the Athenians announcing himself as the descendant of MÊdus, and requiring to be admitted as king of Attica: such is the statement of DiodÔrus (Exc. Vatic. vii.-x. 48: see also Schol. Aristophan. Pac. 289). [491] Ovid, Metamorph. vii. 433.— ... “Te, maxime Theseu, Mirata est Marathon CretÆi sanguine Tauri: Quodque Suis securus arat Cromyona colonus, Munus opusque tuum est. Tellus Epidauria per te Clavigeram vidit Vulcani occumbere prolem: Vidit et immanem Cephisias ora Procrustem. Cercyonis letum vidit Cerealis Eleusin. Occidit ille Sinis,” etc. Respecting the amours of ThÊseus, Ister especially seems to have entered into great details; but some of them were noticed both in the Hesiodic poems and by Kekrops, not to mention PherekydÊs (Athen. xiii. p. 557). Peirithous, the intimate friend and companion of ThÊseus, is the eponymous hero of the Attic dÊme or gens PerithoidÆ (Ephorus ap. Photium, v. ?e?????da?). [492] Thuc. ii. 15. ?pe?d? d? T?se?? ?as??e?se, ?e??e??? et? t?? ???et?? ?a? d??at??, t? te ???a d?e??s?se t?? ???a?, ?a? ?at???sa? t?? ????? p??e?? t? te ???e?t???a ?a? t?? ?????, ?? t?? ??? p???? ... ??????se p??ta?. [493] Iliad, i. 265; Odyss. xi. 321. I do not notice the suspected line, Odyss. xi. 630. [494] DiodÔrus also, from his disposition to assimilate ThÊseus to HÊraklÊs, has given us his chivalrous as well as his political attributes (iv. 61). [495] Plutarch, ThÊseus, i. ??? ?? ??? ???, ???a?a???e??? ???? t? ???de? ?pa???sa? ?a? ?ae?? ?st???a? ????? ?p?? d? ?? a??ad?? t?? p??a??? pe??f????, ?a? ? d???ta? t?? p??? t? e???? ????, e???????? ????at?? de?s?e?a, ?a? p???? t?? ???a??????a? p??sde??????. [496] See IsokratÊs, Panathenaic. (t. ii. p. 510-512, Auger); Xenoph. Memor. iii. 5, 10. In the HelenÆ Encomium, IsokratÊs enlarges more upon the personal exploits of ThÊseus in conjunction with his great political merits (t. ii. p. 342-350, Auger). [497] Plutarch, ThÊseus, 20. [498] See the epigram of Krinagoras, Antholog. Pal. vol. ii. p. 144; ep. xv. ed. Brunck. and Kallimach. Frag. 40. ?e?de? d? (Kallimachus) ?????? te f????e????? ?a????, ?a? T?se? ?a?a??? ??? ?p????e p?????. Some beautiful lines are preserved by Suidas, v. ?pa???a, pe?? ?????? ?a???s?? (probably spoken by ThÊseus himself, see Plutarch, Theseus, c. 14). ???, p??e?a ???a????, ??? ?d??, ?? ???a? ??a???e? ?? pe???s??? ????a?? se??, ? a?a, f????e????? ?a???? ???s?e?a? ????? ??? ?pa????? ?s?e? ?pas?. [499] Virgil, Æneid, vi. 617. “Sedet Æternumque sedebit Infelix ThÊseus.” [500] Pherekyd. Fragm. 25, Didot. [501] Iliad, iii. 186; vi. 152. [502] See Proclus’s Argument of the lost Æthiopis (Fragm. Epicor. GrÆcor. ed. DÜntzer, p. 16). We are reduced to the first book of Quintus SmyrnÆus for some idea of the valor of Penthesileia; it is supposed to be copied more or less closely from the Æthiopis. See Tychsen’s Dissertation prefixed to his edition of Quintus, sections 5 and 12. Compare Dio. Chrysostom. Or. xi. p. 350, Reiske. Philostratus (Heroica, c. 19, p. 751) gives a strange transformation of this old epical narrative into a descent of Amazons upon the island sacred to Achilles. [503] ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 966, 1004; Apollod. ii. 5-9; DiodÔr. ii. 46; iv. 16. The Amazons were supposed to speak the Thracian language (Schol. Apoll Rhod. ii. 953), though some authors asserted them to be natives of Libyia, others of Æthiopia (ib. 965). Hellanikus (Frag. 33, ap. Schol. Pindar. Nem. iii. 65) said that all the Argonauts had assisted HÊraklÊs in this expedition: the fragment of the old epic poem (perhaps the ?a????a) there quoted mentions TelamÔn specially. [504] The many diversities in the story respecting ThÊseus and the Amazon AntiopÊ are well set forth in Bachet de Meziriac (Commentaires sur Ovide, t. i. p. 317). Welcker (Der Epische Cyclus, p. 313) supposes that the ancient epic poem called by Suidas ?a????a, related to the invasion of Attica by the Amazons, and that this poem is the same, under another title, as the ?t??? of Hegesinous cited by Pausanias: I cannot say that he establishes this conjecture satisfactorily, but the chapter is well worth consulting. The epic ThÊsÊis seems to have given a version of the Amazonian contest in many respects different from that which Plutarch has put together out of the logographers (see Plut. ThÊs. 28): it contained a narrative of many unconnected exploits belonging to ThÊseus, and Aristotle censures it on that account as ill-constructed (Poetic. c. 17). The ?a????? or ?a?????? of Onasus can hardly have been (as Heyne supposes, ad Apollod. ii. 5, 9) an epic poem: we may infer from the rationalizing tendency of the citation from it (Schol. ad Theocrit. xiii. 46, and Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. i. 1207) that it was a work in prose. There was an ?a????? by Possis of MagnÊsia (AthenÆus, vii. p. 296). [505] Plutarch, ThÊseus, 27. Pindar (Olymp. xiii. 84) represents the Amazons as having come from the extreme north, when BellerophÔn conquers them. [506] Plutarch, ThÊseus, 27-28; Pausan. i. 2, 4; Plato, Axiochus, c. 2; HarpocratiÔn, v. ?a???e???; Aristophan. Lysistrat. 678, with the Scholia. Æschyl. (Eumenid. 685) says that the Amazons assaulted the citadel from the Areiopagus:— ????? t? ??e??? t??d?, ?a????? ?d?a? S????? t?, ?t? ????? T?s??? ?at? f????? St?at??at??sa?, ?a? p???? ?e?pt???? ???d? ???p????? ??tep????s?? p?te. [507] Herodot. ix. 27, Lysias (Epitaph, c. 3) represents the Amazons as ?????sa? p????? ?????: the whole race, according to him, was nearly extinguished in their unsuccessful and calamitous invasion of Attica. IsokratÊs (Panegyric. t. i. p. 206, Auger) says the same; also PanathÊnaic. t. iii. p. 560, Auger; Demosth. Epitaph, p. 1391. Reisk. Pausanias quotes Pindar’s notice of the invasion, and with the fullest belief of its historical reality (vii. 2, 4) Plato mentions the invasion of Attica by the Amazons in the Menexenus (c. 9), but the passage in the treatise De Legg. c. ii. p. 804,—?????? ??? d? ????? pa?a???? p?pe?sa?, etc.—is even a stronger evidence of his own belief. And Xenophon in the Anabasis, when he compares the quiver and the hatchet of his barbarous enemies to “those which the Amazons carry,” evidently believed himself to be speaking of real persons, though he could have seen only the costumes and armature of those painted by MikÔn and others (Anabas. iv. 4, 10; compare Æschyl. Supplic. 293, and Aristophan. Lysistr. 678; Lucian. Anachars, c. 34. v. iii. p. 318). How copiously the tale was enlarged upon by the authors of the Atthides, we see in Plutarch, ThÊseus, 27-28. HekatÆus (ap. Steph. Byz. ?a???e???; also Fragm. 350, 351, 352, Didot) and Xanthus (ap. Hesychium, v. ????e???) both treated of the Amazons: the latter passage ought to be added to the collection of the Fragments of Xanthus by Didot. [508] Clemens Alexandr. Stromat, i. p. 336; Marmor Parium, Epoch. 21. [509] Plutarch, ThÊs. 27-28. Steph. Byz. v. ?a???e???. Pausan. ii. 32, 8; iii. 25, 2. [510] PherekydÊs ap. Schol. ApollÔn. Rh. ii. 373-992; Justin, ii. 4; Strabo, xii. p. 547, Te?s???a?, t? t?? ?a????? ????t?????; DiodÔr. ii. 45-46; Sallust ap. Serv. ad Virgil. Æneid. xi. 659; Pompon. Mela, i. 19; Plin. H. N. vi. 4. The geography of Quintus Curtius (vi. 4) and of Philostratus (Heroic c. 19) is on this point indefinite, and even inconsistent. [511] Ephor. Fragm. 87, Didot. Strabo, xi. p. 505; xiii p. 573; xiii. p. 622. Pausan. iv. 31, 6; vii. 2. 4. Tacit. Ann. iii. 61. Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 965. The derivation of the name SinopÊ from an Amazon was given by HekatÆus (Fragm. 352). Themiskyra also had one of the Amazons for its eponymus (Appian, Bell. Mithridat. 78). Some of the most venerated religious legends at SinopÊ were attached to the expedition of HÊraklÊs against the Amazons: Autolykus, the oracle-giving hero, worshipped with great solemnity even at the time when the town was besieged by Lucullus, was the companion of HÊraclÊs (Appian, ib. c. 83). Even a small mountain village in the territory of Ephesus, called Latoreia, derived its name from one of the Amazons (AthenÆ. i. p. 31). [512] Herodot. iv. 108-117, where he gives the long tale, imagined by the Pontic Greeks, of the origin of the Sarmatian nation. Compare HippokratÊs, De AËre, Locis et Aquis, c. 17; Ephorus, Fragm. 103; Skymn. Chius, v. 102; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 804; DiodÔr. ii. 34. The testimony of Hippokrates certifies the practice of the Sarmatian women to check the growth of the right breast: ??? d????? d? a??? ??? ????s??. ?a?d???s? ??? ???s?? ?t? ??p???s?? a? ?t??e? ?a??e??? tete???e??? ?p? a?t?? t??t? d??p???? p?????sa?, p??? t?? a??? t???as? t?? d?????? ?a? ?p??a?eta?, ?ste t?? a???s?? f?e??es?a?, ?? d? t?? d????? ??? ?a? ?a????a p?sa? t?? ?s??? ?a? t? p????? ??d?d??a?. KtÊsias also compares a warlike Sakian woman to the Amazons (Fragm. Persic. ii. pp. 221, 449, BÄhr). [513] Pausan. iv. 31, 6; vii. 2, 4. Dionys. PeriÊgÊt. 828. [514] Pausan. i. 15, 2. [515] Arrian, Exped. Alex. vii. 13; compare iv. 15; Quint. Curt. vi. 4; Justin, xlii. 4. The note of Freinshemius on the above passage of Quintus Curtius is full of valuable references on the subject of the Amazons. [516] Strabo, xi. p. 503-504; Appian, Bell. Mithridat. c. 103; Plutarch, Pompeius, c. 35. Plin. N. H. vi. 7. Plutarch still retains the old description of Amazons from the mountains near the ThermÔdÔn. Appian keeps clear of this geographical error, probably copying more exactly the language of TheophanÊs, who must have been well aware that when Lucullus besieged Themiskyra, he did not find it defended by the Amazons (see Appian, Bell. Mithridat. c. 78). Ptolemy (v. 9) places the Amazons in the imperfectly known regions of Asiatic Sarmatia, north of the Caspian and near the river Rha (Volga). “This fabulous community of women (observes Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geographie, ii. 77, p. 457) was a phÆnomenon much too interesting for the geographers easily to relinquish.” [517] Strabo, xi. p. 505. ?d??? d? t? s????e t? ???? t? pe?? t?? ?a?????. ?? ?? ??? ????? t? ???de? ?a? t? ?st?????? d????se??? ????s?? t? ??? pa?a?? ?a? ?e?d? ?a? te?at?d?, ???? ?a????ta?? [Note. Strabo does not always speak of the ???? in this disrespectful tone; he is sometimes much displeased with those who dispute the existence of an historical kernel in the inside, especially with regard to Homer.] ? d? ?st???a ???eta? t??????, ??te pa?a???, ??te ????? ?a? t? te?at?de? ? ??? ??e?, ? sp?????. ?e?? d? t?? ?a????? t? a?t? ???eta? ?a? ??? ?a? pa?a?, te?at?d? t? ??ta, ?a? p?ste?? p????. ??? ??? ?? p?ste?se?e?, ?? ???a???? st??t??, ? p????, ? ?????, s?sta?? ?? p?te ????? ??d???; ?a? ?? ???? s?sta??, ???? ?a? ?f?d??? p???sa?t? ?p? t?? ????t??a?, ?a? ??at?se?e? ?? t?? ????? ????, ?ste ?a? ???? t?? ??? ????a? p??e??e??, ???? ?a? d?ap??t??? ste??a?t? st?at?a? ???? t?? ?tt????; ???? ?? ta?t? ?e a?t? ?a? ??? ???eta? pe?? a?t??? ?p?te??e? d? t?? ?d??t?ta ?a? t? p?ste?es?a? t? pa?a?? ????? ? t? ???. There are however, other passages in which he speaks of the Amazons as realities. Justin (ii. 4) recognizes the great power and extensive conquests of the Amazons in very early times, but says that they gradually declined down to the reign of Alexander, in whose time there were just a few remaining; the queen with these few visited Alexander, but shortly afterwards the whole breed became extinct. This hypothesis has the merit of convenience, perhaps of ingenuity. [518] Suetonius, Jul. CÆsar, c. 22. “In Syri quoque regnasse Semiramin (Julius CÆsar said this), magnamque AsiÆ partem Amazonas tenuisse quondam.” In the splendid triumph of the emperor Aurelian at Rome after the defeat of Zenobia, a few Gothic women who had been taken in arms were exhibited among the prisoners; the official placard carried along with them announced them as Amazons (Vopiscus Aurel. in Histor. August. Scrip. p. 260, ed. Paris). [519] Arrian, Expedit. Alexand. vii. 13. [520] KtÊsias described as real animals, existing in wild and distant regions, the heterogeneous and fantastic combinations which he saw sculptured in the East (see this stated and illustrated in BÄhr, Preface to the Fragm. of KtÊsias, pp. 58, 59). [521] Heyne observes (ApollodÔr. ii. 5, 9) with respect to the fable of the Amazons, “In his historiarum fidem aut vestigia nemo quÆsiverit.” Admitting the wisdom of this counsel (and I think it indisputable), why are we required to presume, in the absence of all proof, an historical basis for each of those other narratives, such as the KalydÔnian boar-hunt, the Argonautic expedition, or the siege of Troy, which go to make up, along with the story of the Amazons, the aggregate matter of Grecian legendary faith? If the tale of the Amazons could gain currency without any such support, why not other portions of the ancient epic? An author of easy belief, Dr. F. Nagel, vindicates the historical reality of the Amazons (Geschichte der Amazonen, Stutgart, 1838). I subjoin here a different explanation of the Amazonian tale, proceeding from another author who rejects the historical basis, and contained in a work of learning and value (Guhl, Ephesiaca, Berlin, 1843. p. 132):— “Id tantum monendum videtur, Amazonas nequaquam historice accipiendas esse, sed e contrario totas ad mythologiam pertinere. Earum enim fabulas quum ex frequentium hierodularum gregibus in cultibus et sacris Asiaticis ortas esse ingeniose ostenderit Tolken, jam inter omnes mythologiÆ peritos constat, Amazonibus nihil fere nisi peregrini cujusdam cultus notionem expressum esse, ejusque cum GrÆcorum religione certamen frequentibus istis pugnis designatum esse, quas cum Amazonibus tot GrÆcorum heroes habuisse credebantur, Hercules, Bellerophon, Theseus, Achilles, et vel ipse, quem Ephesi cultum fuisse supra ostendimus, Dionysus. QuÆ Amazonum notio primaria, quum paulatim Euemeristic (ut ita dicam) ratione ita transformaretur, ut Amazones pro vero feminarum populo haberentur, necesse quoque erat, ut omnibus fere locis, ubi ejusmodi religionum certamina locum habuerunt, Amazones habitasse, vel eo usque processisse, crederentur. Quod cum nusquam manifestius fuerit, quam in Asi minore, et potissimum in e parte quÆ GrÆciam versus vergit, haud mirandum est omnes fere ejus orÆ urbes ab Amazonibus conditas putari.” I do not know the evidence upon which this conjectural interpretation rests, but the statement of it, though it boasts so many supporters among mythological critics, carries no appearance of probability to my mind. Priam fights against the Amazons as well as the Grecian heroes. [522] EuropÊ was worshipped with very peculiar solemnity in the island of KrÊte (see Dictys Cretensis, De Bello Trojano, i. c. 2). The venerable plane-tree, under which Zeus and EuropÊ had reposed, was still shown, hard by a fountain at Gortyn in KrÊte, in the time of Theophrastus: it was said to be the only plane-tree in the neighborhood which never cast its leaves (Theophrast. Hist. Plant. i. 9). [523] Homer, Iliad, xiii. 249, 450; xiv. 321. Odyss. xi. 322-568; xix. 179; iv. 564-vii. 321. The Homeric MinÔs in the under-world is not a judge of the previous lives of the dead, so as to determine whether they deserve reward or punishment for their conduct on earth: such functions are not assigned to him earlier than the time of Plato. He administers justice among the dead, who are conceived as a sort of society, requiring some presiding judge: ?e?ste???ta ?e??ess?, with regard to MinÔs, is said very much like (Odyss. xi. 484) ??? a?te ??a ??at?e?? ?e??ess? with regard to Achilles. See this matter partially illustrated in Heyne’s Excursus xi. to the sixth book of the Æneid of Virgil. [524] ApollodÔr. iii. 1, 2. ?a? a?t? d?d?s? ?e?? ?p? t?e?? ?e?e?? ???. This circumstance is evidently imagined by the logographers to account for the appearance of SarpÊdÔn in the Trojan war, fighting against Idomeneus, the grandson of MinÔs. Nisus is the eponymus of NisÆa, the port of the town of Megara: his tomb was shown at Athens (Pausan. i. 19, 5). MinÔs is the eponym of the island of Minoa (opposite the port of NisÆa), where it was affirmed that the fleet of MinÔs was stationed (Pausan. i. 44, 5). [525] ApollodÔr iii. 1, 2. [526] ApollodÔr. iii. 15, 8. See the Ciris of Virgil, a juvenile poem on the subject of this fable; also Hyginus, f. 198; Schol. Eurip. Hippol. 1200. Propertius (iii. 19, 21) gives the features of the story with tolerable fidelity; Ovid takes considerable liberties with it (Metam. viii. 5-150). [527] ApollodÔr. iii. 15, 8. [528] See, on the subject of ThÊseus and the MinÔtaur, Eckermann, Lehrbuch der Religions Geschichte und Mythologie, vol. ii. ch. xiii. p. 133. He maintains that the tribute of these human victims paid by Athens to MinÔs is an historical fact. Upon what this belief is grounded, I confess I do not see. [529] Plato, PhÆdon, c. 2, 3; Xenoph. Memor. iv. 8. 2. Plato especially noticed t??? d?? ?pta ??e?????, the seven youths and the seven maidens whom ThÊseus conveyed to KrÊte and brought back safely: this number seems an old and constant feature in the legend, maintained by Sappho and BacchylidÊs as well as by EuripidÊs (Herc. Fur. 1318). See Servius ad Virgil Æneid. vi. 21. [530] For the general narrative and its discrepancies, see Plutarch, ThÊs. c. 15-19; DiodÔr. iv. 60-62; Pausan. i. 17, 3; Ovid, Epist. Ariadn. ThÊs. 104. In that other portion of the work of DiodÔrus which relates more especially to KrÊte, and is borrowed from Kretan logographers and historians (v. 64-80), he mentions nothing at all respecting the war of MinÔs with Athens. In the drama of EuripidÊs called ThÊseus, the genuine story of the youths and maidens about to be offered as food to the Minotaur was introduced (Schol. ad Aristoph. Vesp. 312). AriadnÊ figures in the Odyssey along with ThÊseus: she is the daughter of MinÔs, carried off by ThÊseus from KrÊte, and killed by Artemis in the way home: there is no allusion to MinÔtaur, or tribute, or self-devotion of ThÊseus (Odyss. xi. 324). This is probably the oldest and simplest form of the legend—one of the many amorous (compare Theognis, 1232) adventures of ThÊseus: the rest is added by post-Homeric poets. The respect of Aristotle for MinÔs induces him to adopt the hypothesis that the Athenian youths and maidens were not put to death in KrÊte, but grew old in servitude (Aristot. Fragm. ??tt?a??? ????te?a, p. 106. ed. Neumann. of the Fragments of the treatise ?e?? ????te???, Plutarch, QuÆst. GrÆc. p. 298). [531] ApollodÔr. iii. cap. 2-3. [532] Pherekyd. Fragm. 105; Hellanik. Fragm. 82 (Didot); Pausan. vii. 4, 5. [533] DiodÔr. iv. 79; Ovid, Metamorph. viii. 181. Both Ephorus and Philistus mentioned the coming of DÆdalus to Kokalus in Sicily (Ephor. Fr. 99; Philist. Fragm. 1, Didot): probably Antiochus noticed it also (DiodÔr. xii. 71). Kokalus was the point of commencement for the Sicilian historians. [534] DiodÔr. iv. 80. [535] Pausan. vii. 4, 5; Schol. Pindar. Nem. iv. 95; Hygin. fab. 44; Conon, Narr. 25; Ovid, Ibis, 291.— “Vel tua maturet, sicut Minoia fata, Per caput infusÆ fervidus humor aquÆ.” This story formed the subject of a lost drama of SophoklÊs, ?a????? or ?????; it was also told by Kallimachus, ?? ??t????, as well as by Philostephanus (Schol. Iliad, ii. 145). [536] This curious and very characteristic narrative is given by Herodot. vii. 169-171. [537] Herodot. vii. 169. The answer ascribed to the Delphian oracle, on the question being put by the KrÊtan envoys whether it would be better for them to aid the Greeks against XerxÊs or not, is highly emphatic and poetical: ? ??p???, ?p??fes?e ?sa ??? ?? t?? ?e?e??? t?????t?? ????? ?pe?e ????? da???ata, ?t? ?? ?? ?? ???e?ep???a?t? a?t? t?? ?? ?a??? ???at?? ?e??e???, ?e?? d? ?e????s? t?? ?? Sp??t?? ??pas?e?sa? ?p? ??d??? a????? ???a??a. If such an answer was ever returned at all, I cannot but think that it must have been from some oracle in KrÊte itself, not from Delphi. The Delphian oracle could never have so far forgotten its obligations to the general cause of Greece, at that critical moment, which involved moreover the safety of all its own treasures, as to deter the KrÊtans from giving assistance. [538] Hesiod, Theogon. 949; Pausan. i. 1, 4. [539] Kallimach. Hymn. ad Dian. 189. Strabo (x. p. 476) dwells also upon the strange contradiction of the legends concerning MinÔs: I agree with Hoeckh (Kreta, ii. p. 93) that das?????? in this passage refers to the tribute exacted from Athens for the MinÔtaur. [540] Thucyd. i. 4. ????? ???, pa?a?tat?? ?? ???? ?se?, ?a?t???? ??t?sat?, ?a? t?? ??? ????????? ?a??ss?? ?p? p?e?st?? ????t?se, ?a? t?? ?????d?? ??s?? ???? te ?a? ????st?? a?t?? t?? p?e?st?? ????et?, ???a? ??e??sa? ?a? t??? ?a?t?? pa?da? ??e??a? ???atast?sa?? t? te ??st????, ?? e????, ?a???e? ?? t?? ?a??ss??, ?f? ?s?? ?d??at?, t?? t?? p??s?d??? ????? ???a? a?t?. See also c. 8. Aristot. Polit. ii. 7, 2, ???e? d? ? ??s?? ?a? p??? t?? ????? t?? ????????? pef????a? ?a? ?e?s?a? ?a??? ... d?? ?a? t?? t?? ?a??ss?? ????? ?at?s?e? ? ?????, ?a? t?? ??s??? t?? ?? ??e???sat?, t?? d? ???se? t???? d? ?p???e??? t? S??e??? t?? ??? ?te?e?t?se? ??e? pe?? ??????. Ephorus (ap. Skymn. Chi. 542) repeated the same statement: he mentioned also the autochthonous king KrÊs. [541] It is curious that Herodotus expressly denies this, and in language which shows that he had made special inquiries about it: he says that the Karians or Leleges in the islands (who were, according to ThucydidÊs, expelled by MinÔs) paid no tribute to MinÔs, but manned his navy, i. e. they stood to MinÔs much in the same relation as Chios and Lesbos stood to Athens (Herodot. i. 171). One may trace here the influence of those discussions which must have been prevalent at that time respecting the maritime empire of Athens. [542] Herodot. vii. 170. ???eta? ??? ???? ?at? ??t?s?? ?a?d???? ?p???e??? ?? S??a????, t?? ??? S??e???? ?a???????, ?p??a?e?? ?a?? ?a??t?. ??? d? ?????? ???ta?, ?e?? sf? ?p?t?????t??, etc. [543] Aristot. Polit. ii. 7, 1; vii. 9, 2. Ephorus, Fragm. 63, 64, 65. He set aside altogether the Homeric genealogy of MinÔs, which makes him brother of Rhadamanthus and born in KrÊte. Strabo, in pointing out the many contradictions respecting MinÔs, remarks, ?st? d? ?a? ????? ????? ??? ???????e???, t?? ?? ????? t?? ??s?? t?? ???? ?e???t??, t?? d? ?p???????.. By the former he doubtless means Ephorus, though he has not here specified him (x. p. 477). [544] Herodot. iii. 122. ???????t?? ??? ?st? p??t?? t?? ?e?? ?de? ???????, ?? ?a?ass???at?e?? ?pe?????, pa??? ?????? te t?? ???ss???, ?a? e? d? t?? ????? p??te??? t??t?? ???e t?? ?a??tt??? t?? d? ?????p???? ?e?????? ?e?e?? ???????t?? ?st? p??t?? ??p?da? p????? ???? ?????? te ?a? ??s?? ???e??. The expression exactly corresponds to that of Pausanias, ix. 5, 1, ?p? t?? ?a??????? ?????, for the age preceding the ?????p??? ?e???; also viii. 2. 1, ?? t? ???t??? t?? ?????p?? ??????. [545] Hoeckh, Kreta, vol. ii. pp. 56-67. K. O. MÜller also (Dorier. ii. 2, 14) puts a religious interpretation upon these Kreto-Attic legends, but he explains them in a manner totally different from Hoeckh. [546] Herodot. i. 173. [547] Odyss. xii. 69.— ??? d? ?e??? ?e pa??p?e? p??t?p???? ????, ???? pas?????sa, pa?? ???ta? p????sa? ?a? ?? ?e t?? ???? ??a ??e? e???a? p?t? p?t?a?, ???? ??? pa??pe?e?, ?pe? f???? ?e? ??s??. See also Iliad, vii. 470. [548] See Hesiod, Fragm. Catalog. Fr. 6. p. 33, DÜntz.; Eoiai, Frag. 36. p. 39; Frag. 72. p. 47. Compare Schol. ad ApollÔn. Rhod. i. 45; ii. 178-297, 1125; iv. 254-284. Other poetical sources— The old epic poem Ægimius, Frag. 5. p. 57, DÜntz. KinÆthÔn in the HÊraklÊia touched upon the death of Hylas near Kius in Mysia (Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. i. 1357). The epic poem Naupactia, Frag. 1 to 6, DÜntz. p. 61. EumÊlus, Frag. 2, 3, 5, p. 65, DÜntz. EpimenidÊs, the KrÊtan prophet and poet, composed a poem in 6500 lines, ?????? ?a?p???a? te, ?a? ??s???? e?? ??????? ?p?p???? (Diogen. LaËr. i. 10, 5), which is noticed more than once in the Scholia on ApollÔnius, on subjects connected with the poem (ii. 1125; iii. 42). See Mimnerm. Frag. 10, Schneidewin, p. 15. Antimachus, in his poem LydÊ, touched upon the Argonautic expedition, and has been partially copied by ApollÔnius Rhod. (Schol. Ap. Rh. i. 1290; ii. 296: iii. 410; iv. 1153). The logographers PherekydÊs and HekatÆus seem to have related the expedition at considerable length. The Bibliothek der alten Literatur und Kunst (GÖttingen, 1786, 2tes StÜck, p. 61) contains an instructive Dissertation by Groddeck, Ueber die Argonautika, a summary of the various authorities respecting this expedition. [549] ApollÔn. Rhod. i. 525; iv. 580. ApollodÔr. i. 9, 16. Valerius Flaccus (i. 300) softens down the speech of the ship ArgÔ into a dream of JasÔn. Alexander Polyhistor explained what wood was used (Plin. H. N. xiii. 22). [550] ApollÔnius Rhodius, ApollodÔrus, Valerius Flaccus, the Orphic Argonautica, and Hyginus, have all given Catalogues of the Argonautic heroes (there was one also in the lost tragedy called ????a? of SophoklÊs, see Welcker Gr. Trag. i. 327): the discrepancies among them are numerous and irreconcilable. Burmann, in the Catalogus Argonautarum, prefixed to his edition of Valerius Flaccus, has discussed them copiously. I transcribe one or two of the remarks of this conscientious and laborious critic, out of many of a similar tenor, on the impracticability of a fabulous chronology. Immediately before the first article, Acastus—“Neque enim in Ætatibus Argonautarum ullam rationem temporum constare, neque in stirpe et stemmate deducenda ordinem ipsum naturÆ congruere videbam. Nam et huic militiÆ adscribi videbam Heroas, qui per naturÆ leges et ordinem fati eo usque vitam extrahere non potuÊre, ut aliis ab hac expeditione remotis Heroum militiis nomina dedisse narrari deberent a Poetis et Mythologis. In idem etiam tempus avos et Nepotes conjici, consanguineos Ætate longe inferiores prioribus ut Æquales adjungi, concoquere vix posse videtur.”—Art. AncÆus: “Scio objici posse, si seriem illam majorem respiciamus, hunc AncÆum simul cum proavo suo Talao in eandem profectum fuisse expeditionem. Sed similia exempla in aliis occurrent, et in fabulis rationem temporum non semper accuratam licet deducere.”—Art. JasÔn: “Herculi enim jam provect Ætate adhÆsit Theseus juvenis, et in Amazoni expeditione socius fuit, interfuit huic expeditioni, venatui apri Calydonii, et rapuit Helenam, quÆ circa Trojanum bellum maxime floruit: quÆ omnia si Theseus tot temporum intervallis distincta egit, secula duo vel tria vixisse debuit. Certe Jason Hypsipylem neptem Ariadnes, nec videre, nec Lemni cognoscere potuit.”—Art. Meleager: “Unum est quod alicui longum ordinem majorum recensenti scrupulum movere possit: nimis longum intervallum inter Æolum et Meleagrum intercedere, ut potuerit interfuisse huic expeditioni: cum nonus fere numeretur ab Æolo, et plurimi ut Jason, Argus, et alii terti tantum ab Æolo generatione distent. Sed sÆpe jam notavimus, frustra temporum concordiam in fabulis quÆri.” Read also the articles CastÔr and Pollux, NestÔr PÊleus, Staphylus, etc. We may stand excused for keeping clear of a chronology which is fertile only in difficulties, and ends in nothing but illusions. [551] ApollodÔr. i. 9, 17; ApollÔn. Rhod. i. 609-915; Herodot. iv. 145. Theocritus (Idyll, xiii. 29) omits all mention of LÊmnos, and represents the ArgÔ as arriving on the third day from IÔlkos at the Hellespont. DiodÔrus (iv. 41) also leaves out LÊmnos. [552] ApollÔn. Rhod. 940-1020; ApollodÔr. i. 9, 18. [553] ApollodÔr. i. 9, 19. This was the religious legend, explanatory of a ceremony performed for many centuries by the people of Prusa: they ran round the lake Askanias shouting and clamoring for Hylas—“ut littus Hyla, Hyla omne sonaret.” (Virgil, Eclog.) ... “in cujus memoriam adhuc solemni cursatione lacum populus circuit et Hylam voce clamat.” Solinus, c. 42. There is endless discrepancy as to the concern of HÊraklÊs with the Argonautic expedition. A story is alluded to in Aristotle (Politic, iii. 9) that the ship ArgÔ herself refused to take him on board, because he was so much superior in stature and power to all the other heroes—?? ??? ????e?? a?t?? ??e?? t?? ???? et? t?? ?????, ?? ?pe??????ta p??? t?? p??t????. This was the story of PherekydÊs (Fr. 67, Didot) as well as of Antimachus (Schol. Apoll. Rhod. i. 1290): it is probably a very ancient portion of the legend, inasmuch as it ascribes to the ship sentient powers, in consonance with her other miraculous properties. The etymology of AphetÆ in Thessaly was connected with the tale of HÊraklÊs having there been put on shore from the ArgÔ (Herodot. vii. 193): Ephorus said that he staid away voluntarily from fondness for OmphalÊ (Frag. 9, Didot). The old epic poet KinÆthÔn said that HÊraklÊs had placed the Kian hostages at Trachin, and that the Kians ever afterwards maintained a respectful correspondence with that place (Schol. Ap. Rh. i. 1357). This is the explanatory legend connected with some existing custom, which we are unable further to unravel. [554] See above, chap. viii. p. 169. [555] Such was the old narrative of the Hesiodic Catalogue and Eoiai. See Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 181-296. [556] This again was the old Hesiodic story (Schol. Apoll. Rhod. ii. 296),— ???? ???? e??es??? ?????? ????d??t?. ApollodÔrus (i. 9, 21), ApollÔnius (178-300), and Valerius Flacc. (iv. 428-530) agree in most of the circumstances. [557] Such was the fate of the harpies as given in the old Naupaktian Verses (See Fragm. Ep. GrÆc. DÜntzer, Naupakt. Fr. 2. p. 61). The adventure of the Argonauts with Phineus is given by DiodÔrus in a manner totally different (DiodÔr. iv. 44): he seems to follow Dionysius of MitylÊnÊ (see Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 207). [558] ApollodÔr. i. 9, 22. ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 310-615. [559] ApollodÔr. i. 9, 23. ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 850-1257. [560] ApollÔn. Rhod. iii. 320-385. [561] ApollÔn. Rhod. iii. 410. ApollodÔr. i. 9, 23. [562] This was the story of the Naupaktian Verses (Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. iii. 515-525): ApollÔnius and others altered it. IdmÔn, according to them, died in the voyage before the arrival at Kolchis. [563] ApollÔn. Rhod. iii. 50-200. Valer. Flacc. vi. 440-480. Hygin. fab. 22. [564] ApollÔn. Rhod. iii. 835. ApollodÔr. i. 9, 23. Valer. Flacc vii. 356 Ovid, Epist. xii. 15. “Isset anhelatos non prÆmedicatus in ignes Immemor Æsonides, oraque adunca boum.” [565] ApollÔn. Rhod. iii. 1230-1400. [566] The Naupaktian Verses stated this (see the Fragm. 6, ed. DÜntzer, p. 61, ap. Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. iv. 59-86). [567] Such was the story of the Naupaktian Verses (See Fragm. 6. p 61 DÜntzer ap. Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. iv. 59, 86, 87). [568] ApollodÔr. i. 9, 23. ApollÔn. Rhod. iv. 220. PherekydÊs said that JasÔn killed the dragon (Fr. 74, Did.). [569] This is the story of ApollodÔrus (i. 9, 24), who seems to follow PherekydÊs (Fr. 73, Didot). ApollÔnius (iv. 225-480) and Valerius Flaccus (viii. 262 seq.) give totally different circumstances respecting the death of Apsyrtus; but the narrative of PherekydÊs seems the oldest: so revolting a story as that of the cutting up of the little boy cannot have been imagined in later times. SophoklÊs composed two tragedies on the adventures of JasÔn and MÊdea, both lost—the ?????de? and the S???a?. In the former he represented the murder of the child Apsyrtus as having taken place in the house of ÆÊtÊs: in the latter he introduced the mitigating circumstance, that Apsyrtus was the son of ÆÊtÊs by a different mother from MÊdea (Schol. ApollÔn Rhod. iv. 223). [570] ApollodÔr. i. 9, 24, t?? t?p?? p??s????e?se ?????. Ovid. Trist. iii. 9. The story that Apsyrtus was cut in pieces, is the etymological legend explanatory of the name Tomi. There was however a place called Apsarus, on the southern coast of the Euxine, west of Trapezus, where the tomb of Apsyrtus was shown, and where it was affirmed that he had been put to death. He was the eponymus of the town, which was said to have been once called Apsyrtus, and only corrupted by a barbarian pronunciation (Arrian. Periplus, Euxin. p. 6; Geogr. Min. v. 1). Compare Procop. Bell. Goth. iv. 2. Strabo connects the death of Apsyrtus with the Apsyrtides, islands off the coast of Illyria, in the Adriatic (vii p. 315). [571] The original narrative was, that the ArgÔ returned by navigating the circumfluous ocean. This would be almost certain, even without positive testimony, from the early ideas entertained by the Greeks respecting geography; but we know further that it was the representation of the Hesiodic poems, as well as of Mimnermus, HekatÆus and Pindar, and even of Antimachus. Schol. Parisina Ap. Rhod. iv. 254. ??ata??? d? ? ????s??? d?? t?? F?s?d?? ??e??e?? f?s?? a?t??? e?? t?? ??ea???? d?? d? t?? ??ea??? ?ate??e?? e?? t?? ?e????? ?? d? t?? ?e???? e?? t?? ?a?? ??? ???assa?. ?s??d?? d? ?a? ???da??? ?? ????????a?? ?a? ??t?a??? ?? ??d? d?? t?? ??ea??? fas?? ???e?? a?t??? e?? ?????? e?ta ast?sa?ta? t?? ???? e?? t? ??te??? ?f???s?a? p??a???. Compare the Schol. Edit. ad iv. 259. [572] See the fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar, and ApollÔn. Rhod. iv. 1551-1756. The tripod of JasÔn was preserved by the EuesperitÆ in Libya, Diod. iv. 56: but the legend, connecting the Argonauts with the lake TritÔnis in Libya, is given with some considerable differences in Herodotus, iv. 179. [573] ApollÔn. Rhod. iv. 1153-1217. TimÆus, Fr. 7-8, Didot. ??a??? ?? ?e????? ????? ?e??s?a? t??? ?????, ?a? pe?? t?? ??s?a? ?st??e?, ?t? ?a? ??? ????? ??es?a? a?t?? ?at? ???a?t??, ??de?a? p??t?? ??s?s?? ?? t? t?? ?p??????? ?e??. ?a? ????? d? f?s? ??e?a t?? ???? ?d??sas?a? s??e???? ?? t?? ?a??ss??, ?? a???? d? t?? p??e??. ???????s? d? t?? ??, ??f??? t?? d?, ?????d??. [574] ApollodÔr. i. 9, 25. ApollÔn. Rhod. iv. 1700-1725. [575] Some called TalÔs a remnant of the brazen race of men (Schol. Apoll. Rhod. iv. 1641). [576] ApollodÔr. i. 9, 26. ApollÔn. Rhod. iv. 1638. [577] DiodÔr. iv. 53. Eratosth. Catasterism. c. 35. [578] Strabo. xi. p. 526-531. [579] ApollÔn. Rhod. i. 955-960, and the Scholia. There was in Kyzikus a temple of Apollo under different ?p????se??; some called it the temple of the Jasonian Apollo. Another anchor however was preserved in the temple of Rhea on the banks of the Phasis, which was affirmed to be the anchor of the ship ArgÔ. Arrian saw it there, but seems to have doubted its authenticity (Periplus, Euxin. Pont. p. 9. Geogr. Min. v. 1). [580] NeanthÊs ap. Strabo. i. p. 45. ApollÔn. Rhod. i. 1125, and Schol. Steph. Byz. v. F?????. ApollÔnius mentions the fountain called JasoneÆ, on the hill of Dindymon. ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 532, and the citations from TimosthenÊs and HerodÔrus in the Scholia. See also Appian. Syriac. c. 63. [581] See the historians of HÊrakleia, Nymphis and Promathidas, Fragm. Orelli, pp. 99, 100-104. Schol. ad ApollÔn. Rhod. iv. 247. Strabo, xii. p. 546. Autolykus, whom he calls companion of JasÔn, was, according to another legend, comrade of HÊraklÊs in his expedition against the Amazons. [582] Stephan. Byz. v. ?a?t??apa???, Eustath. ad Dionys. PeriÊgÊt. 311. [583] XenophÔn, Anabas. vi. 2, 1; v. 7, 37. [584] Strabo, xi. p. 499. [585] Appian, Mithridatic. c. 101. [586] Strabo, xi. p. 499, 503, 526, 531; i. p. 45-48. Justin, xlii. 3, whose statements illustrate the way in which men found a present home and application for the old fables,—“Jason, primus humanorum post Herculem et Liberum, qui reges Orientis fuisse traduntur, eam coeli plagam domuisse dicitur. Cum Albanis foedus percussit, qui Herculem ex Itali ab Albano monte, cum, Geryone extincto, armenta ejus per Italiam duceret, secuti dicuntur; quique, memores ItalicÆ originis, exercitum Cn. Pompeii bello Mithridatico fratres consalutavÊre. Itaque Jasoni totus fere Oriens, ut conditori, divinos honores templaque constituit; quÆ Parmenio, dux Alexandri Magni, post multos annos dirui jussit, ne cujusquam nomen in Oriente venerabilius quam Alexandri esset.” The Thessalian companions of Alexander the Great, placed by his victories in possession of rich acquisitions in these regions, pleased themselves by vivifying and multiplying all these old fables, proving an ancient kindred between the Medes and Thessalians. See Strabo, xi. p. 530. The temples of JasÔn were t??e?a sf?d?a ?p? t?? a????? (ib. p. 526). The able and inquisitive geographer EratosthenÊs was among those who fully believed that JasÔn had left his ships in the Phasis, and had undertaken a land expedition into the interior country, in which he had conquered Media and Armenia (Strabo, i. p. 48). [587] Appian, Mithridatic. 103: t??? ??????? ?p?e?, ?a?? ?st???a? t?? ?????a?t?? ?a? ???s?????? ?a? ??a?????? ?p?d??a?, ?a? ???sta t? p???? ?de?? ??????, ? ?????e? fas? ?e??s?a? pe?? t? ?a??as?? ????. The lofty crag of Caucasus called Strobilus, to which PromÊtheus had been attached, was pointed out to Arrian himself in his Periplus (p. 12. Geogr. Minor vol. i.). [588] Strabo, i. pp. 21, 45, 46; v. 224-252. Pompon. Mel. ii. 3. DiodÔr. iv. 56. ApollÔn. Rhod. iv. 656. Lycophron, 1273.— ???s?? a?ed??? ?f? ????a??? ??pa? ?????? te ??e???? ???? ???t?? ??a?. [589] Heyne, Observ. ad ApollodÔr. i. 9, 16. p. 72. “Mirum in modum fallitur, qui in his commentis certum fundum historicum vel geographicum aut exquirere studet, aut se reperisse, atque historicam vel geographicam aliquam doctrinam, systema nos dicimus, inde procudi posse, putat,” etc. See also the observations interspersed in Burmann’s Catalogus Argonautarum, prefixed to his edition of Valerius Flaccus. The Persian antiquarians whom Herodotus cites at the beginning of his history (i. 2-4—it is much to be regretted that Herodotus did not inform us who they were, and whether they were the same as those who said that Perseus was an Assyrian by birth and had become a Greek, vi. 54), joined together the abductions of IÔ and of EurÔpÊ, of MÊdea and of Helen, as pairs of connected proceedings, the second injury being a retaliation for the first,—they drew up a debtor and creditor account of abductions between Asia and Europe. The Kolchian king (they said) had sent a herald to Greece to ask for his satisfaction for the wrong done to him by JasÔn and to re-demand his daughter MÊdea; but he was told in reply that the Greeks had received no satisfaction for the previous rape of IÔ. There was some ingenuity in thus binding together the old fables, so as to represent the invasions of Greece by Darius and XerxÊs as retaliations for the unexpiated destruction wrought by AgamemnÔn. [590] Sophokl. ap. Strabo. vii. p. 295.— ?p?? te p??t?? p??t? ?p? ?s?ata ??????, ???t?? te p???? ???a??? t? ??apt????, F???? te pa?a??? ??p??. [591] Odyss. iv. 562. The Islands of the Blessed, in Hesiod, are near the ocean (Opp. Di. 169). [592] Hesiod, Theogon. 275-290. Homer, Iliad, i. 423. Odyss. i. 23; ix 86-206; x 4-83; xii. 135. Mimnerm. Fragm. 13, Schneidewin. [593] Pindar, Pyth. x. 29.— ?a?s? d? ??te pe??? ??? ?? e????? ?? ?pe?????? ????a ?a?at?? ?d??. ?a?? ??? p?te ?e?se?? ?da?sat? ?a?et??, etc. Hesiod, and the old epic poem called the Epigoni, both mentioned the Hyperboreans (Herod. iv. 32-34). [594] This idea is well stated and sustained by VÖlcker (Mythische Geographie der Griechen und RÖmer, cap. i. p. 11), and by Nitzsch in his Comments on the Odyssey—Introduct. Remarks to b. ix. p. xii.-xxxiii. The twelfth and thirteenth chapters of the History of Orchomenos, by O. MÜller, are also full of good remarks on the geography of the Argonautic voyage (pp. 274-299). The most striking evidence of this disposition of the Greeks is to be found in the legendary discoveries of Alexander and his companions, when they marched over the untrodden regions in the east of the Persian empire (see Arrian, Hist. Al. v. 3: compare Lucian. Dialog. Mortuor. xiv. vol. i. p. 212. Tauch) because these ideas were first broached at a time when geographical science was sufficiently advanced to canvass and criticize them. The early settlers in Italy, Sicily and the Euxine, indulged their fanciful vision without the fear of any such monitor: there was no such thing as a map before the days of Anaximander, the disciple of ThalÊs. [595] See Mr. Payne Knight, Prolegg. ad Homer. c. 49. Compare Spohn—“de extrem OdysseÆ parte”—p. 97. [596] Strabo. xvii. p. 834. An altar of Odysseus was shown upon this island, as well as some other evidences (s???a) of his visit to the place. ApollÔnius Rhodius copies the Odyssey in speaking of the island of Thrinakia and the cattle of Helios (iv. 965, with Schol.). He conceives Sicily as Thrinakia, a name afterwards exchanged for Trinakria. The Scholiast ad Apoll. (1. c.) speaks of Trinax king of Sicily. Compare iv. 291 with the Scholia. [597] Thucyd. i. 25-vi. 2. These local legends appear in the eyes of Strabo convincing evidence (i. p. 23-26),—the tomb of the siren ParthenopÊ at Naples, the stories at CumÆ and DikÆarchia about the ?e???a?te??? of Avernus, and the existence of places named after Baius and MisÊnus, the companions of Odysseus, etc. [598] Strabo, iii. p. 150-157. ?? ??? ???? ?? ?at? t?? ?ta??a? ?a? S??e??a? t?p?? ?a? ????? t???? t?? t????t?? s?e?a ?p????f??s??, ???? ?a? ?? t? ????? ?d?sse?a p???? de????ta?, ?a? ?????? ?e???, ?a? ???a ???a ???? t?? te ??e???? p?????, ?a? ????? t?? ?? t?? ??????? p????? pe???e?????? (I adopt Grosskurd’s correction of the text from ?e?????? to pe???e??????, in the note to his German translation of Strabo). AsklepiadÊs (of Myrlea in Bithynia, about 170 B. C.) resided some time in Turditania, the south-western region of Spain along the Guadalquivir, as a teacher of Greek literature (pa?de?sa? t? ??aat???), and composed a periegesis of the Iberian tribes, which unfortunately has not been preserved. He made various discoveries in archÆology, and successfully connected his old legends with several portions of the territory before him. His discoveries were,—1. In the temple of AthÊnÊ, at this Iberian town of Odysseia, there were shields and beaks of ships affixed to the walls, monuments of the visit of Odysseus himself. 2. Among the KallÆki, in the northern part of Portugal, several of the companions of Teukros had settled and left descendants: there were in that region two Grecian cities, one called HellenÊs, the other called Amphilochi; for Amphilochus also, the son of Amphiaraus, had died in Iberia, and many of his soldiers had taken up their permanent residence in the interior. 3. Many new inhabitants had come into Iberia with the expedition of HÊraklÊs; some also after the conquest of MessÊnÊ by the LacedÆmonians. 4. In Cantabria, on the north. coast of Spain, there was a town and region of LacedÆmonian colonists. 5. In the same portion of the country there was the town of Opsikella, founded by Opsikellas, one of the companions of AntenÔr in his emigration from Troy (Strabo, iii. p. 157). This is a specimen of the manner in which the seeds of Grecian mythus came to be distributed over so large a surface. To an ordinary Greek reader, these legendary discoveries of AsklepiadÊs would probably be more interesting than the positive facts which he communicated respecting the Iberian tribes; and his Turditanian auditors would be delighted to hear—while he was reciting and explaining to them the animated passage of the Iliad, in which AgamemnÔn extols the inestimable value of the bow of Teukros (viii. 281)—that the heroic archer and his companions had actually set foot in the Iberian peninsula. [599] This was the opinion of KratÊs of Mallus, one of the most distinguished of the critics on Homer: it was the subject of an animated controversy between him and Aristarchus (Aulus Gellius, N. A. xiv. 6; Strabo, iii. p. 157). See the instructive treatise of Lehrs, De Aristarchi Studiis, c. v. § 4. p. 251. Much controversy also took place among the critics respecting the ground which Menelaus went over in his wanderings (Odyss. iv.). KratÊs affirmed that he had circumnavigated the southern extremity of Africa and gone to India: the critic Aristonikus, Strabo’s contemporary, enumerated all the different opinions (Strabo, i. p. 38). [600] Strabo, iii. p. 157. [601] Strabo, i. p. 22-44; vii. p. 299. [602] Stesichori Fragm. ed. Kleine; Geryonis, Fr. 5. p. 60; ap. Strabo. iii. p. 148; Herodot. iv. 8. It seems very doubtful whether Stesichorus meant to indicate any neighboring island as Erytheia, if we compare Fragm. 10. p. 67 of the Geryonis, and the passages of AthenÆus and Eustathius there cited. He seems to have adhered to the old fable, placing Erytheia on the opposite side of the ocean-stream, for HÊraklÊs crosses the ocean to get to it. HekatÆus, ap. Arrian. Histor. Alex. ii. 16. Skylax places Erytheia, “whither GeryÔn is said to have come to feed his oxen,” in the Kastid territory near the Greek city of ApollÔnia on the Ionic Gulf, northward of the Keraunian mountains. There were splendid cattle consecrated to HÊlios near ApollÔnia, watched by the citizens of the place with great care (Herodot. ix. 93; Skylax, c. 26). About Erytheia, Cellerius observes (Geogr. Ant. ii. 1, 227), “Insula Erytheia, quam veteres adjungunt Gadibus, vel demersa est, vel in scopulis quÆrenda, vel pars est ipsarum Gadium, neque hodie ejus formÆ aliqua, uti descripta est, fertur superesse.” To make the disjunctive catalogue complete, he ought to have added, “or it never really existed,”—not the least probable supposition of all. [603] Hesiod, Theogon. 956-992; Homer, Odyss. xii. 3-69.— ??s?? ?? ??a???, ??? t? ???? ????e?e??? ????a ?a? ????? e?s?, ?a? ??t??a? ?e?????. [604] Mimnerm. Fragm. 10-11, Schneidewin; AthenÆ. vii. p. 277.— ??d? ??t? ?? ??a ??a? ????a?e? a?t?? ??s?? ?? ???? te??sa? ??????essa? ?d??, ???st? ?e??? te???? ?a?ep??e? ?e????, ??d? ?? ?p? ??ea??? ?a??? ????t? ????. · · · · · ???ta? p????, t??? t? ????? ?e????? ??t??e? ???s?? ?e?ata? ?? ?a???, ??ea??? pa?? ?e??es?, ??? ??et? ?e??? ??s??. [605] Strabo, i. p. 45-46. ???t???? ? S?????? ... p??? ?e???? t?? ????????? f???t??t???? ??t??????, e?p??ta, ?t? ?? ?????a?ta? p????te? e?? F?s?? t?? ?f? ????? ?a? t?? ????? ???????e??? p????, ?d??sa?t? t? t?? ?da?a? ?t??? ?e?? ?p? ??????? ... ????? f?s? ?d? e?d??a? t?? e?? F?s?? ?p?d??a? t?? ??s???? ?????. Again, p. 46, pa?a?a?? ??t??a ???e???, ?? ?? t? ??ea?? p???sa? ????s?? ???t??, etc. The adverb f???t??t???? reveals to us the municipal rivalry and contention between the small town SkÊpsis and its powerful neighbor Kyzikus, respecting points of comparative archÆology. [606] EumÊlus, Fragm. ????p?a 7, ???????a?? 2-5. pp. 63-68, DÜntzer. [607] Arrian, Periplus Pont. Euxin. p. 12; ap. Geogr. Minor. vol. i. He saw the Caucasus from Dioskurias. [608] Herodot i. 2; vii. 193-197. Eurip. MÊd. 2. Valer. Flacc. v. 51. [609] Strabo, i. p. 23. VÖlcker (Ueber Homerische Geographie, v. 66) is instructive upon this point, as upon the geography of the Greek poets generally. He recognizes the purely mythical character of Æa in Homer and Hesiod, but he tries to prove—unsuccessfully, in my judgment—that Homer places ÆÊtÊs in the east, while CircÊ is in the west, and that Homer refers the Argonautic voyage to the Euxine Sea. [610] Strabo (or Polybius, whom he has just been citing) contends that Homer knew the existence of ÆÊtÊs in Kolchis, and of CircÊ at Circeium, as historical persons, as well as the voyage of JasÔn to Æa as an historical fact. Upon this he (Homer) built a superstructure of fiction (p??s??e?a): he invented the brotherhood between them, and he placed both the one and the other in the exterior ocean (s???e?e?a? te ?p?ase t?? ??t? d????s????, ?a? ????ea??s?? ?f???, i. p. 20); perhaps also JasÔn might have wandered as far as Italy, as evidences (s?e?? t??a) are shown that he did (ib.). But the idea that Homer conceived ÆÊtÊs in the extreme east and CircÊ in the extreme west, is not reconcilable with the Odyssey. The supposition of Strabo is alike violent and unsatisfactory. CircÊ was worshipped as a goddess at Circeii (Cicero, Nat. Deor. iii. 19). Hesiod, in the Theogony, represents the two sons of CircÊ by Odysseus as reigning over all the warlike Tyrrhenians (Theog. 1012), an undefined western sovereignty. The great Mamilian gens at Tusculum traced their descent to Odysseus and CircÊ (Dionys. Hal. iv. 45). [611] See above, p. 239. There is an opinion cited from HekatÆus in Schol. Apoll. Rhod. iv. 284. contrary to this, which is given by the same scholiast on iv. 259. But, in spite of the remarks of Klausen (ad. Fragment. HekatÆi, 187. p. 98), I think that the Schol. ad. iv. 284 has made a mistake in citing HekatÆus; the more so as the scholiast, as printed from the Codex Parisinus, cites the same opinion without mentioning HekatÆus. According to the old Homeric idea, the ocean stream flowed all round the earth, and was the source of all the principal rivers which flowed into the great internal sea, or Mediterranean (see HekatÆus, Fr. 349; Klausen, ap. Arrian. ii. 16, where he speaks of the Mediterranean as the e???? ???assa). Retaining this old idea of the ocean-stream, HekatÆus would naturally believe that the Phasis joined it: nor can I agree with Klausen (ad Fr. 187) that this implies a degree of ignorance too gross to impute to him. [612] ApollÔn. Rhod. iv. 287; Schol. ad iv. 284; Pindar, Pyth. iv. 447, with Schol.; Strabo, i. p. 46-57; Aristot. Mirabil. Auscult. c. 105. Altars were shown in the Adriatic, which had been erected both by JasÔn and by MÊdea (ib.). Aristotle believed in the forked course of the Ister, with one embouchure in the Euxine and another in the Adriatic: he notices certain fishes called t????a?, who entered the river (like the Argonauts) from the Euxine, went up it as far as the point of bifurcation and descended into the Adriatic (Histor. Animal. viii. 15). Compare Ukert, Geographie der Griech. und RÖmer, vol. iii. p. 145-147, about the supposed course of the Ister. [613] DiodÔr. iv. 56; TimÆus, Fragm. 53. GÖller. Skymnus the geographer also adopted this opinion (Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 284-287). The pseudo-Orpheus in the poem called Argonautica seems to give a jumble of all the different stories. [614] DiodÔr. iv. 49. This was the tale both of SophoklÊs and of Kallimachus (Schol. Apoll. Rhod. iv. 284). See the Dissertation of Ukert, Beylage iv. vol. i. part 2, p. 320 of his Geographie der Griechen und RÖmer, which treats of the Argonautic voyage at some length; also J. H. Voss, Alte Weltkunde Über die Gestalt der Erde, published in the second volume of the Kritische BlÄtter, pp. 162, 314-326; and Forbiger, Handbuch der Alten Geographie-Einleitung, p. 8. [615] Strabo, i. p. 45. He speaks here of the voyage of Phryxus, as well as that of JasÔn, as having been a military undertaking (st?ate?a): so again, iii. p. 149, he speaks of the military expedition of Odysseus—? t?? ?d?ss??? st?at?a, and ? ??a?????? st?at?a (ib.). Again xi. p. 498. ?? ????, a???tt?e??? t?? ??s???? st?ate?a? p??e????t?? ???? ?a? ??d?a?? ?t? d? p??te??? t?? F?????. Compare also Justin, xlii. 2-3; Tacit. Annal. vi. 34. Strabo cannot speak of the old fables with literal fidelity: he unconsciously transforms them into quasi-historical incidents of his own imagination. DiodÔrus gives a narrative of the same kind, with decent substitutes for the fabulous elements (iv. 40-47-56). [616] Strabo, i. p. 48. The far-extending expeditions undertaken in the eastern regions by Dionysus and HÊraklÊs were constantly present to the mind of Alexander the Great as subjects of comparison with himself: he imposed upon his followers perilous and trying marches, from anxiety to equal or surpass the alleged exploits of Semiramis, Cyrus, Perseus, and HÊraklÊs. (Arrian, v. 2, 3; vi. 24, 3; vii. 10, 12. Strabo, iii. p. 171; xv. p. 686; xvii. p. 81). [617] The eponym BoeÔtus is son of PoseidÔn and ArnÊ (Euphorion ap. Eustath. ad Iliad. ii. 507). It was from ArnÊ in Thessaly that the BoeÔtians were said to have come, when they invaded and occupied BoeÔtia. EuripidÊs made him son of PoseidÔn and MelanippÊ. Another legend recited BoeÔtus and HellÊn as sons of PoseidÔn and AntiopÊ (Hygin. f. 157-186). The TanagrÆan poetess Korinna (the rival of Pindar, whose compositions in the BoeÔtian dialect are unfortunately lost) appears to have dwelt upon this native BoeÔtian genealogy: she derived the Ogygian gates of ThÊbes from Ogygus, son of BoeÔtus (Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. iii. 1178), also the Fragments of Korinna in Schneidewin’s edition, fr. 2. p. 432. [618] Homer, Odyss. xi. 262, and Eustath. ad loc. Compare Schol. ad Iliad. xiii. 301. [619] Iliad, xiv. 321. IÔ is ?e??essa p???t?? of the ThÊbans. Eurip. Phoeniss. 247-676. [620] ApollodÔr. ii. 1, 3; iii. 1, 8. In the Hesiodic poems (ap. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. ii. 178), Phoenix was recognized as son of AgenÔr. PherekydÊs also described both Phoenix and Kadmus as sons of AgenÔr (Pherekyd. Fragm. 40, Didot). Compare Servius ad. Virgil. Æneid. 1. 338. PherekydÊs expressly mentioned Kilix (Apollod. ib.). Besides the ????pe?a of Stesichorus (see Stesichor. Fragm. xv. p. 73, ed. Kleine), there were several other ancient poems on the adventures of Europa; one in particular by EumÊlus (Schol. ad Iliad. vi. 138), which however can hardly be the same as the t? ?p? t? e?? ????p?? alluded to by Pausanias (ix. 5, 4). See WÜllner de Cyclo Epico, p. 57 (MÜnster 1825). [621] ConÔn, Narrat. 37. Perhaps the most remarkable thing of all is the tone of unbounded self-confidence with which ConÔn winds up this tissue of uncertified suppositions—pe?? ?? ??d?? ?a? T??? ????se?? ??t?? ? ?????? ?????? t? d? ???? ???? ?a? ???te?a ?????. [622] Stesichor. (Fragm. 16; Kleine) ap. Schol. Eurip. Phoeniss. 680. The place where the heifer had lain down was still shown in the time of Pausanias (ix. 12, 1). Lysimachus, a lost author who wrote ThebaÏca, mentioned EurÔpa as having come with Kadmus to ThÊbes, and told the story in many other respects very differently (Schol. Apoll. Rhod. iii. 1179). [623] ApollodÔr. iii. 4, 1-3. PherekydÊs gave this account of the necklace, which seems to imply that Kadmus must have found his sister EurÔpa. The narrative here given is from Hellanikus; that of PherekydÊs differed from it in some respects: compare Hellanik. Fragm. 8 and 9, and Pherekyd. Frag. 44. The resemblance of this story with that of JasÔn and ÆÊtÊs (see above, chap. xiii. p. 237) will strike everyone. It is curious to observe how the old logographer PherekydÊs explained this analogy in his narrative; he said that AthÊnÊ had given half the dragon’s teeth to Kadmus and half to ÆÊtÊs (see Schol. Pindar. Isthm. vi. 13). [624] Hesiod, Theogon. 976. Leukothea, the sea-goddess, daughter of Kadmus, is mentioned in the Odyssey, v. 334; DiodÔr. iv. 2. [625] Eurip. Phoeniss. 680, with the Scholia; PherekydÊs, Fragm. 44; AndrotiÔn, ap. Schol. Pindar. Isthm. vi. 13. Dionysius (?) called the Sparti an ????? ????t?a? (Schol. Phoeniss. 1. c). Even in the days of Plutarch, there were persons living who traced their descent to the Sparti of ThÊbes (Plutarch, Ser. Num. Vindict. p. 563). [626] ApollodÔr. iii. 4, 2-9; DiodÔr. iv. 2. [627] See ApollodÔr. iii. 4, 3; Stesichor. Fragm. xvii. Kleine; Pausan. ix. 2, 3; Eurip. Bacch. 337; DiodÔr. iv. 81. The old logographer Akusilaus copied Stesichorus. Upon this well-known story it is unnecessary to multiply references. I shall however briefly notice the remarks made upon it by DiodÔrus and by Pausanias, as an illustration of the manner in which the literary Greeks of a later day dealt with their old national legends. Both of them appear implicitly to believe the fact, that AktÆÔn was devoured by his own dogs, but they differ materially in the explanation of it. DiodÔrus accepts and vindicates the miraculous interposition of the displeased goddess to punish AktÆÔn, who, according to one story, had boasted of his superiority in the chase to Artemis,—according to another story, had presumed to solicit the goddess in marriage, emboldened by the great numbers of the feet of animals slain in the chase which he had hung up as offerings in her temple. “It is not improbable (observes DiodÔrus) that the goddess was angry on both these accounts. For whether AktÆÔn abused these hunting presents so far as to make them the means of gratifying his own desires towards one unapproachable in wedlock, or whether he presumed to call himself an abler hunter than her with whom the gods themselves will not compete in this department,—in either case the wrath of the goddess against him was just and legitimate (??????????? ?a? d??a?a? ????? ?s?e p??? a?t?? ? ?e??). With perfect propriety therefore (?a????? d? p??a???) was he transformed into an animal such as those he had hunted, and torn to pieces by the very dogs who had killed them.” (Didot. iv. 80.) Pausanias, a man of exemplary piety, and generally less inclined to scepticism than DiodÔrus, thinks the occasion unsuitable for a miracle or special interference. Having alluded to the two causes assigned for the displeasure of Artemis (they are the two first-mentioned in my text, and distinct from the two noticed by DiodÔrus), he proceeds to say, “But I believe that the dogs of AktÆÔn went mad, without the interference of the goddess: in this state of madness they would have torn in pieces without distinction any one whom they met (Paus. ix. 2, 3. ??? d? ??e? ?e?? pe???a? ??s?? ??ssa? ?p?a?e?? t?? ??ta????? t??? ???a?).” He retains the truth of the final catastrophe, but rationalizes it, excluding the special intervention of Artemis. [628] Apollod. iii. 5, 3-4; Theocrit. Idyll. xxvi. Eurip. Bacch. passim. Such is the tragical plot of this memorable drama. It is a striking proof of the deep-seated reverence of the people of Athens for the sanctity of the Bacchic ceremonies, that they could have borne the spectacle of AgavÊ on the stage with her dead son’s head, and the expressions of triumphant sympathy in her action on the part of the Chorus (1168), ???a??? ??a??! This drama, written near the close of the life of EuripidÊs, and exhibited by his son after his death (Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 67,), contains passages strongly inculcating the necessity of implicit deference to ancestorial authority in matters of religion, and favorably contrasting the uninquiring faith of the vulgar with the dissenting and inquisitive tendencies of superior minds: see v. 196; compare vv. 389 and 422.— ??d?? s?f???es?a t??s? da??s??. ?at????? pa?ad????, ?? ?? ?????a? ????? ?e?t?e??, ??de?? a?t? ?ataa?e? ?????, ??d? ?? d?? ????? t? s?f?? e???ta? f?????. Such reproofs “insanientis sapientiÆ” certainly do not fall in with the plot of the drama itself, in which Pentheus appears as a Conservative, resisting the introduction of the new religious rites. Taken in conjunction with the emphatic and submissive piety which reigns through the drama, they countenance the supposition of Tyrwhitt, that EuripidÊs was anxious to repel the imputations, so often made against him, of commerce with the philosophers and participation in sundry heretical opinions. Pacuvius in his Pentheus seems to have closely copied EuripidÊs; see Servius ad Virg. Æneid. iv. 469. The old Thespis had composed a tragedy on the subject of Pentheus: Suidas, T?sp??; also Æschylus; compare his EumenidÊs, 25. According to ApollodÔrus (iii. 5, 5), Labdakus also perished in a similar way to Pentheus, and from the like impiety,—??e??? f????? pa?ap??s?a. [629] Pausan. i. 38, 9. [630] For the adventures of AntiopÊ and her sons, see ApollodÔr. iii. 5; Pausan. ii. 6, 2; ix. 5, 2. The narrative given respecting EpÔpeus in the ancient Cyprian verses seems to have been very different from this, as far as we can judge from the brief notice in Proclus’s Argument,—?? ?p?pe?? f?e??a? t?? ????????? (?????) ???a??a ??ep??????: it approaches more nearly to the story given in the seventh fable of Hyginus, and followed by Propertius (iii. 15); the eighth fable of Hyginus contains the tale of AntiopÊ as given by EuripidÊs and Ennius. The story of Pausanias differs from both. The Scholiast ad ApollÔn. Rhod. i. 735. says that there were two persons named AntiopÊ; one, daughter of AsÔpus, the other, daughter of Nykteus. Pausanias is content with supposing one only, really the daughter of Nykteus, but there was a f?? that she was daughter of AsÔpus (ii. 6, 2). Asius made AntiopÊ daughter of AsÔpus, and mother (both by Zeus and by EpÔpeus: such a junction of divine and human paternity is of common occurrence in the Greek legends) of ZÊthus and AmphiÔn (ap. Paus. 1. c). The contradictory versions of the story are brought together, though not very perfectly, in Sterk’s Essay De Labdacidarum HistoriÂ, p. 38-43 (Leyden, 1829). [631] This story about the lyre of AmphiÔn is not noticed in Homer, but it was narrated in the ancient ?p? ?? ????p?? which Pausanias had read: the wild beasts as well as the stones were obedient to his strains (Paus. ix. 5, 4). PherekydÊs also recounted it (Pherekyd. Fragm. 102, Didot). The tablet of inscription (??a??af?) at SikyÔn recognized AmphiÔn as the first composer of poetry and harp-music (Plutarch, de MusicÂ, c. 3. p. 1132). [632] The tale of the wife and son of ZÊthus is as old as the Odyssey (xix. 525). Pausanias adds the statement that ZÊthus died of grief (ix. 5, 5; PherekydÊs, Fragm. 102, Did.). Pausanias, however, as well as ApollodÔrus, tells us that ZÊthus married ThÊbÊ, from whom the name ThÊbes was given to the city. To reconcile the conflicting pretensions of ZÊthus and AmphiÔn with those of Kadmus, as founders of ThÊbes, Pausanias supposes that the latter was the original settler of the hill of the Kadmeia, while the two former extended the settlement to the lower city (ix. 5, 1-3). [633] See Valckenaer. Diatribe in Eurip. Reliq. cap. 7, p. 58; Welcker, Griechisch. TragÖd. ii. p. 811. There is a striking resemblance between the AntiopÊ of EuripidÊs and the TyrÔ of SophoklÊs in many points. Plato in his Gorgias has preserved a few fragments, and a tolerably clear general idea of the characters of ZÊthus and AmphiÔn (Gorg. 90-92); see also Horat. Epist. i. 18, 42. Both Livius and Pacuvius had tragedies on the scheme of this of EuripidÊs, the former seemingly a translation. [634] See the description of the locality in K. O. MÜller (Orchomenos, c. i. p. 37). The tombs of Laius and his attendant were still seen there in the days of Pausanias (x. 5, 2). [635] ApollodÔr. iii. 5, 8. An author named Lykus, in his work entitled ThÊbaÏca, ascribed this visitation to the anger of Dionysus (Schol. Hesiod, Theogon. 326). The Sphinx (or Phix, from the BoeÔtian Mount Phikium) is as old as the Hesiodic Theogony,—F??? ????? t??e, ?ade???s?? ??e???? (Theog. 326). [636] Odyss. xi. 270. Odysseus, describing what he saw in the under-world, says,— ??t??a t? ??d?p?da? ?d??, ?a??? ?p???st??, ? ??a ????? ??e?e? a?d?e??s? ?????, G?a??? ? ??e?? ? d? ?? pat??? ??e?a???a? G?e?? ?fa? d? ???p?sta ?e?? ??sa? ?????p??s?. ???? ? ?? ?? T?? p??????t? ???ea p?s???, ?ade??? ??asse, ?e?? ????? d?? ?????? ? d? ?? e?? ??d?? p????ta? ??ate???? ??a??? ????? a?p?? ?f? ??????? e??????, ? ??e? s?????? t? d? ???ea ?????p? ?p?ss? ????? ???, ?ssa te ?t??? ??????e? ??te????s??. [637] Iliad, xxiii. 680, with the scholiast who cites Hesiod. Proclus, Argum. ad Cypria, ap. DÜntzer, Fragm. Epic. GrÆc. p. 10. ??st?? d? ?? pa?e??se? d???e?ta? ... ?a? t? pe?? ??d?p???, etc. [638] Pausan. ix. 5, 5. Compare the narrative from Peisander in Schol. ad Eurip. Phoeniss. 1773; where, however, the blindness of Œdipus seems to be unconsciously interpolated out of the tragedians. In the old narrative of the Cyclic ThÊbaÏs, Œdipus does not seem to be represented as blind (Leutsch, Thebaidis Cyclici ReliquiÆ, GÖtting. 1830, p. 42). PherekydÊs (ap. Schol. Eurip. Phoeniss. 52) tells us that Œdipus had three children by Jokasta, who were all killed by Erginus and the MinyÆ (this must refer to incidents in the old poems which we cannot now recover); then the four celebrated children by Euryganeia; lastly, that he married a third wife, Astymedusa. ApollodÔrus follows the narrative of the tragedians, but alludes to the different version about Euryganeia,—e?s? d? ?? fas??, etc. (iii. 5, 8). Hellanikus (ap. Schol. Eur. Phoeniss. 59) mentioned the self-inflicted blindness of Œdipus; but it seems doubtful whether this circumstance was included in the narrative of PherekydÊs. [639] Pausan. ix. 9. 3. ?p????? d? ?? t?? p??e?? t??t?? ?a? ?p?, T?a??? t? d? ?p? ta?ta ?a??????, ?f???e??? a?t?? ?? ????, ?f?se? ????? t?? p???sa?ta e??a?. ?a????? d? p????? te ?a? ????? ????? ?at? ta?ta ????sa?? ??? d? t?? p???s?? ta?t?? et? ?e ????da ?a? t? ?p? t? ?? ?d?ss?a ?pa??? ???sta. The name in the text of Pausanias stands ?a?a????, an unknown person: most of the critics recognize the propriety of substituting ?a??????, and Leutsch and Welcker have given very sufficient reasons for doing so. The ?f???e? ??e?as?a ?? T?a?, alluded to in the pseudo-Herodotean life of Homer, seems to be the description of a special passage in this ThÊbaÏs. [640] Hesiod, ap. Schol. Iliad. xxiii. 680, which passage does not seem to me so much at variance with the incidents stated in other poets as Leutsch imagines. [641] ????? ?e?de, ?e?, p???d?????, ???e? ??a?te? (see Leutsch, ib. c. 4. p. 29). [642] Fragm. of the ThÊbaÏs, ap. AthenÆ. xii. p. 465, ?t? a?t? pa?????a? ??p?ata ? ?p????e??e?, ????? ??t??? ??t?? ? d??????? ???? ?a???? ?????e???? ???ta ?? ??d?p?d? ?a??? pa?????e t??pe?a? ???????? ??d??? ?e?f?????? a?ta? ?pe?ta ???se?? ?p??se? ?a??? d?pa? ?de?? ?????? ??t?? ??? ?? f??s?? pa?a?e?e?a pat??? ???? ???e?ta ???a, ??a ?? ?a??? ?pese ???. ???a d? pa?s?? ???s? et? ?f?t????s?? ?pa??? ???a??a? ???t?? ?e?? d? ?? ????a?? ???????? ?? ?? ?? pat??a ?? ??? f???t?t? d?sa??t?, ??e? d? af?t????? a?e? p??e?? te ??a? te. See Leutsch, Thebaid. Cycl. Reliq. p. 38. The other fragment from the same ThÊbaÏs is cited by the Schol. ad Soph. Œdip. Colon. 1378.— ?s???? ?? ????se, ?aa? ??e?, e?p? te ????? ? ?? ???, pa?d?? ?? ??e?de???te? ?pe?a?. ???t? ??? as???? ?a? ?????? ??a??t??s?, ?e?s?? ?p? ??????? ?ata?e?a? ??d?? e?s?. ?? d? pa?ap??s?a t? ?p?p??? ?a? ??s????? ?? t??? ?pta ?p? T?a?. In spite of the protest of Schutz, in his note, I think that the scholiast has understood the words ?p???t?? t??f?? (Sept. ad Theb. 787) in their plain and just meaning. [643] The curses of Œdipus are very frequently and emphatically dwelt upon both by Æschylus and SophoklÊs (Sept. ad Theb. 70-586, 655-697, etc.; Œdip. Colon. 1293-1378). The former continues the same point of view as the ThÊbaÏs, when he mentions— ... ??? pe??????? ?at??a? ?a??f????? ??d?p?da (727); or, ????? t? ????a ?a? f?e??? ??????? (Soph. Antig. 584). The Scholiast on SophoklÊs (Œd. Col. 1378) treats the cause assigned by the ancient ThÊbaÏs for the curse vented by Œdipus as trivial and ludicrous. The Ægeids at Sparta, who traced their descent to Kadmus, suffered from terrible maladies which destroyed the lives of their children; an oracle directed them to appease the Erinnyes of Laius and Œdipus by erecting a temple, upon which the maladies speedily ceased (Herodot. iv.). [644] Hesiod. ap. Schol. Iliad. xxiii. 680. [645] ApollodÔr. iii. 5, 9; Hygin. f. 69; Æschyl. Sept. ad Theb. 573. Hyginus says that PolynikÊs came clothed in the skin of a lion, and Tydeus in that of a boar; perhaps after Antimachus, who said that Tydeus had been brought up by swineherds (Antimach. Fragm. 27, ed. DÜntzer; ap. Schol. Iliad. iv. 400). Very probably, however, the old ThÊbaÏs compared Tydeus and PolynikÊs to a lion and a boar, on account of their courage and fierceness; a simile quite in the Homeric character. Mnaseas gave the words of the oracle (ap. Schol. Eurip. Phoeniss. 411). [646] See Pindar, Nem. ix. 30, with the instructive Scholium. [647] ApollodÔr. iii. 6, 2. The treachery of “the hateful EriphylÊ” is noticed in the Odyssey, xi. 327: Odysseus sees her in the under-world along with the many wives and daughters of the heroes. [648] Pausan. ii. 20, 4; ix. 9, 1. His testimony to this, as he had read and admired the Cyclic ThÊbaÏs, seems quite sufficient, in spite of the opinion of Welcker to the contrary (Æschylische Trilogie. p. 375). [649] Iliad, iv. 376. [650] There are differences in respect to the names of the seven: Æschylus (Sept. ad Theb. 461) leaves out Adrastus as one of the seven, and includes Eteoklus instead of him; others left out Tydeus and PolynikÊs, and inserted Eteoklus and Mekisteus (ApollodÔr. iii. 6, 3). Antimachus, in his poetical ThÊbaÏs, called ParthenopÆus an Argeian, not an Arcadian (Schol. ad Æschyl. Sept. ad. Theb. 532). [651] Iliad, iv. 381-400, with the Schol. The first celebration of the Nemean games is connected with this march of the army of Adrastus against ThÊbes; they were celebrated in honor of Archemorus, the infant son of Lykurgus, who had been killed by a serpent while his nurse HypsipylÊ went to show the fountain to the thirsty Argeian chiefs (Apollod. iii. 6, 4; Schol. ad Pindar Nem. 1). [652] The story recounted that the head of Melanippus was brought to Tydeus as he was about to expire of his wound, and that he gnawed it with his teeth, a story touched upon by SophoklÊs (apud Herodian. in Rhetor. GrÆc. t. viii. p. 601, Walz.). The lyric poet BacchylidÊs (ap. Schol. Aristoph. Aves, 1535) seems to have handled the story even earlier than SophoklÊs. We find the same allegation embodied in charges against real historical men: the invective of Montanus against Aquilius Regulus, at the beginning of the reign of Vespasian, affirmed, “datam interfectori Pisonis pecuniam a Regulo, appetitumque morsu Pisonis caput” (Tacit. Hist. iv. 42). [653] ApollodÔr. iii. 6, 8. Pindar, Olymp. vi. 11; Nem. ix. 13-27. Pausan. ix. 8, 2; 18, 2-4. EuripidÊs, in the PhoenissÆ (1122 seqq.), describes the battle generally; see also Æsch. S. Th. 392. It appears by Pausanias that the ThÊbans had poems or legends of their own, relative to this war: they dissented in various points from the Cyclic ThÊbaÏs (ix. 18, 4). The ThÊbaÏs said that Periklymenus had killed ParthenopÆus; the ThÊbans assigned this exploit to Asphodikus, a warrior not commemorated by any of the poets known to us. The village of Harma, between Tanagra and MykalÊssus, was affirmed by some to have been the spot where AmphiarÄus closed his life (Strabo, ix. p. 404): SophoklÊs placed the scene at the AmphiarÆium near OrÔpus (ap Strabon. ix. p. 399). [654] Pindar, Olymp. vi. 16. ?pta d? ?pe?ta p???? ?????? te?es???t?? ?a?a????da? ??pe? ?? T?a?s? t????t?? t? ?p??? ????? st?at??? ?f?a??? ??? ?f?te???, ??t?? t? ??a??? ?a? d???? ??es?a?. The scholiast affirms that these last expressions are borrowed by Pindar from the Cyclic ThÊbaÏs. The temple of AmphiarÄus (Pausan. ii. 23, 2), his oracle, seems to have been inferior in estimation only to that of Delphi (Herodot. i. 52; Pausan. i. 34; Cicero, Divin. i. 40). Croesus sent a rich present to AmphiarÄus, p???e??? a?t?? t?? te ??et?? ?a? t?? p???? (Herod. l. c); a striking proof how these interesting legends were recounted and believed as genuine historical facts. Other adventures of AmphiarÄus in the expedition against ThÊbes were commemorated in the carvings on the Thronus at AmyklÆ (Pausan. iii. 18, 4). Æschylus (Sept. Theb. 611) seems to enter into the ThÊban view, doubtless highly respectful towards AmphiarÄus, when he places in the mouth of the Kadmeian king EteoklÊs such high encomiums on AmphiarÄus, and so marked a contrast with the other chiefs from Argos. [655] Pausan. viii. 25, 5, from the Cyclic ThÊbaÏs, ??ata ????? f???? s?? ??e???? ??a???a?t?; also ApollodÔr. iii. 6, 8. The celebrity of the horse AreiÔn was extolled in the Iliad (xxiii. 346), in the Cyclic ThÊbaÏs, and also in the ThÊbaÏs of Antimachus (Pausan. l. c.): by the Arcadians of Thelpusia he was said to be the offspring of DÊmÊtÊr by PoseidÔn,—he, and a daughter whose name Pausanias will not communicate to the uninitiated (?? t? ???a ?? ?te??st??? ???e?? ?? ??????s?, l. c.). A different story is in the Schol. Iliad, xxiii. 346; and in Antimachus, who affirmed that “GÆa herself had produced him, as a wonder to mortal men” (see Antimach. Frag. 16. p. 102; Epic. GrÆc. Frag. ed. DÜntzer). [656] Sophokl. Antigon. 581. ??? ??? ?s??ta? ?p?? ???a? ?t?tat? f??? ?? ??d?p?? d????, etc. The pathetic tale here briefly recounted forms the subject of this beautiful tragedy of SophoklÊs, the argument of which is supposed by Boeckh to have been borrowed in its primary rudiments from the Cyclic ThÊbaÏs or the Œdipodia (Boeckh, Dissertation appended to his translation of the AntigonÊ, c. x. p. 146); see ApollodÔr. iii. 7, 1. Æschylus also touches upon the heroism of AntigonÊ (Sep. Theb. 984). [657] ApollodÔr. iii. 7, 1; Eurip. Supp. passim; Herodot. ix. 27; Plato, Menexen. c. 9; Lysias, Epitaph. c. 4; Isokrat. Orat. Panegyr. p. 196, Auger. [658] Pausan. i. 39, 2. [659] Eurip. Supplic. 1004-1110. [660] Homer, Iliad, iv. 406. Sthenelus, the companion of DiomÊdÊs and one of the Epigoni, says to AgamemnÔn,— ?e?? t?? pat???? ??? ?e????e? e???e?? e??a?? ?e?? ?a? T??? ?d?? e???e? ?ptap?????, ?a???te??? ?a?? ??a????? ?p? te???? ??e???, ?e???e??? te??ess? ?e?? ?a? ????? ?????? ??t?? d? sfet???s?? ?tas?a???s?? ????t?. [661] ApollodÔr. iii. 7, 4. Herodot. v. 57-61. Pausan. ix. 5, 7; 9, 2. DiodÔr. iv. 65-66. Pindar represents Adrastus as concerned in the second expedition against ThÊbes (Pyth. viii. 40-58). [662] G??ssa? t? ?d??st?? e?????????? ???? (TyrtÆus, Eleg. 9, 7, Schneidewin); compare Plato, PhÆdr. c. 118. “Adrasti pallentis imago” meets the eye of Æneas in the under-world (Æneid, vi. 480). [663] About Melanippus, see Pindar, Nem. x. 36. His sepulchre was shown near the Proetid gates of ThÊbes (Pausan. ix. 18, 1). [664] This very carious and illustrative story is contained in Herodot. v. 67. ?pe? d? ? ?e?? t??t? ?? pa?ed?d??, ?pe???? ?p?s? (KleisthenÊs, returning from Delphi) ?f???t??e ??a??? t? a?t?? ? ?d??st?? ?pa????eta?. ?? d? ?? ??e???s?a? ?d??ee, p??a? ?? T?a? t?? ????t?a?, ?f? ???e?? ?pa?a??s?a? ?e????pp?? t?? ?sta???? ?? d? T?a??? ?d?sa?. ?p????et? d? t?? ?e????pp?? ? ??e?s?????, ?a? ??? t??t? de? ?p???sas?a?, ?? ????st?? ???ta ?d??st?? ?? t?? te ?d??fe?? ????st?a ?pe?t??ee, ?a? t?? ?a??? ??d?a. The Sikyonians (Herodotus says) t? te d? ???a ?t??? t?? ?d??st??, ?a? p??? t? p??ea a?t?? t?a?????s? ?????s? ????a????? t?? ?? ?????s?? ?? t????te?, t?? d? ?d??st??. Adrastus was worshipped as a hero at Megara as well as at SikyÔn: the Megarians affirmed that he had died there on his way back from ThÊbes (Pausan. i. 43, 1; Dieuchidas, ap. Schol. ad Pindar. Nem. ix. 31). His house at Argos was still shown when Pausanias visited the town (ii. 23, 2). [665] Pausan. ix. 18, 3. ?? ?p? a?t??? d??e?a ?? ?eas?e??? p?st? ??? ?pe???fa e??a?. Compare Hygin. f. 68. “Et nova fraterno veniet concordia fumo, Quem vetus accens separat ira pyrÂ.” (Ovid, Ibis, 35.) The tale was copied by Ovid from Kallimachus (Trist. v. 5, 38.) [666] ??d??d?a?t? ???f???? (Pindar, Nem. ix. 16). A poem EryphilÊ was included among the mythical compositions of Stesichorus: he mentioned in it that AsklÊpius had restored Kapaneus to life, and that he was for that reason struck dead by thunder from Zeus (Stesichor. Fragm. Kleine, 18, p. 74). Two tragedies of SophoklÊs once existed, Epigoni and AlkmÆÔn (Welcker, Griechisch. TragÖd. i. p. 269): a few fragments also remain of the Latin Epigoni and AlphesibÆa of Attius: Ennius and Attius both composed or translated from the Greek a Latin AlkmÆÔn (Poet. Scenic. Latin. ed. Both. pp. 33, 164, 198). [667] Hyginus gives the fable briefly (f. 73; see also AsclepiadÊs, ap. Schol. Odyss. xi. 326). In like manner, in the case of the matricide of OrestÊs, Apollo not only sanctions, but enjoins the deed; but his protection against the avenging ErinnyÊs is very tardy, not taking effect until after OrestÊs has been long persecuted and tormented by them (see Æschyl. Eumen. 76, 197 462). In the AlkmÆÔn of the later tragic writer ThodektÊs, a distinction was drawn: the gods had decreed that EriphylÊ should die, but not that AlkmÆÔn should kill her (Aristot. Rhetoric. ii. 24). Astydamas altered the story still more in his tragedy, and introduced AlkmÆÔn as killing his mother ignorantly and without being aware who she was (Aristot. Poetic. c. 27). The murder of EriphylÊ by her son was one of the pa?e???e??? ???? which could not be departed from; but interpretations and qualifications were resorted to, in order to prevent it from shocking the softened feelings of the spectators: see the criticism of Aristotle on the AlkmÆÔn of EuripidÊs (Ethic. Nicom. iii. 1, 8). [668] Ephorus ap. AthenÆ. vi. p. 232. [669] Thucyd. ii. 68-102. [670] AthenÆ. l. c. [671] ApollodÔr. iii. 7, 5-6; Pausan. viii. 24, 4. These two authors have preserved the story of the Akarnanians and the old form of the legend, representing AlkmÆÔn as having found shelter at the abode of the person or king AchelÔus, and married his daughter: ThucydidÊs omits the personality of AchelÔus, and merely announces the wanderer as having settled on certain new islands deposited by the river. I may remark that this is a singularly happy adaptation of a legend to an existing topographical fact. Generally speaking, before any such adaptation can be rendered plausible, the legend is of necessity much transformed; here it is taken exactly as it stands, and still fits on with great precision. Ephorus recounted the whole sequence of events as so much political history, divesting it altogether of the legendary character. AlkmÆÔn and DiomÊdÊs, after having taken ThÊbes with the other Epigoni, jointly undertook an expedition into ÆtÔlia and Akarnania: they first punished the enemies of the old Œneus, grandfather of DiomÊdÊs, and established the latter as king in KalydÔn: next they conquered Akarnania for AlkmÆÔn. AlkmÆÔn, though invited by AgamemnÔn to join in the Trojan war, would not consent to do so (Ephor. ap. Strabo. vii. p. 326; x. p. 462). [672] ApollodÔr. iii. 7, 7; Pausan. viii. 24, 3-4. His remarks upon the mischievous longing of KallirhoÊ for the necklace are curious: he ushers them in by saying, that “many men, and still more women, are given to fall into absurd desires,” etc. He recounts it with all the bonne foi which belongs to the most assured matter of fact. A short allusion is in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (ix. 412). [673] ThÊbaÏd, Cy. Reliqu. p. 70, Leutsch; Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. i. 408. The following lines cited in AthenÆus (vii. p. 317) are supposed by Boeckh, with probable reason, to be taken from the Cyclic ThÊbaÏs; a portion of the advice of AmphiarÄus to his sons at the time of setting out on his last expedition,— ?????p?d?? ??, t?????, ???? ????, ?f????? ????, ???s?? ?fa?????, t?? ?? ?at? d??? ???a?. There were two tragedies composed by EuripidÊs, under the title of ???a???, ? d?? ??f?d??, and ???a???, ? d?? ???????? (Dindorf, Fragm. Eurip. p. 77). [674] ApollodÔr. iii. 7, 7; Thucyd. ii. 68. [675] Iliad, xx. 215. [676] Hellanik. Fragm. 129, Didot; Dionys. Hal. i. 50-61; ApollodÔr. iii. 12, 1; Schol. Iliad. xviii. 486; Varro, ap. Servium ad Virgil. Æneid. iii. 167. KephalÔn. Gergithius ap. Steph. Byz. v. ???s?. [677] Iliad, v. 265; Hellanik. Fr. 146; Apollod. ii. 5, 9. [678] Iliad, xx. 236. [679] Iliad, vii. 451; xxi. 456. Hesiod. ap. Schol. Lycophr. 393. [680] Iliad, xx. 145; Dionys. Hal. i. 52. [681] Iliad, v. 640. MeneklÊs (ap. Schol. Venet. ad loc.) affirmed that this expedition of HÊraklÊs was a fiction; but DikÆarchus gave, besides, other exploits of the hero in the same neighborhood, at ThÊbÊ HypoplakiÊ (Schol. Iliad, vi. 396). [682] DiodÔr. iv. 32-49. Compare Venet. Schol. ad Iliad. viii. 284. [683] Strabo, xiii. p. 596. [684] As Dardanus, TrÔs and Ilus are respectively eponyms of Dardania, Troy and Ilium, so Priam is eponym of the acropolis Pergamum. ???a?? is in the Æolic dialect ????a?? (Hesychius): upon which Ahrens remarks, “CÆterum ex hac Æolic nominis form apparet, Priamum non minus arcis ?e????? eponymum esse, quam Ilum urbis, Troem populi: ????aa enim a ?e??aa natum est, ? in ? mutato.” (Ahrens, De Dialecto ÆolicÂ, 8, 7. p. 56: compare ibid. 28, 8. p. 150, pe??? ?p???). [685] Iliad, vi. 245; xxiv. 495. [686] HectÔr was affirmed, both by Stesichorus and Ibykus, to be the son of Apollo (Stesichorus, ap. Schol. Ven. ad Iliad. xxiv. 259; Ibyki Fragm. xiv. ed. Schneidewin): both EuphoriÔn (Fr. 125, Meineke) and Alexander ÆtÔlus follow the same idea. Stesichorus further stated, that after the siege Apollo had carried HekabÊ away into Lykia to rescue her from captivity (Pausanias, x. 27, 1): according to EuripidÊs, Apollo had promised that she should die in Troy (Troad. 427). By SapphÔ, HectÔr was given as a surname of Zeus, ?e?? ??t?? (Hesychius, v. ??t??e?); a prince belonging to the regal family of Chios, anterior to the Ionic settlement, as mentioned by the Chian poet IÔn (Pausan. vii. 3, 3), was so called. [687] Iliad, iii. 45-55; Schol. Iliad. iii. 325; Hygin. fab. 91; ApollodÔr. iii. 12, 5. [688] This was the motive assigned to Zeus by the old epic poem, the Cyprian Verses (Frag. 1. DÜntz. p. 12; ap. Schol. ad Iliad. i. 4):— ? d? ?st???a pa?? Stas??? t? t? ??p??a pep?????t? e?p??t? ??t??? ?? ?te ???a f??a ?at? ????a p?a??e?a ... ... a??st????? p??t?? a???. ?e?? d? ?d?? ????se, ?a? ?? p????a?? p?ap?dess? S???et? ???f?sa? ?????p?? pa?t??a ?a?a?, ??p?sa? p????? e????? ???? ???a????, ?f?a ?e??se?e? ???at? ????? ?? d? ??? ????? ???e? ?te????t?, ???? d? ?te?e?et? ????. The same motive is touched upon by Eurip. Orest, 1635; Helen. 38; and seriously maintained, as it seems, by Chrysippus, ap. Plutarch. Stoic. Rep. p. 1049: but the poets do not commonly go back farther than the passion of Paris for Helen (Theognis, 1232; Simonid. Amorg. Fragm. 6, 118). The judgment of Paris was one of the scenes represented on the ancient chest of Kypselus at Olympia (Pausan. v. 19, 1). [689] Argument of the ?p? ??p??a (ap. DÜntzer, p. 10). These warnings of Kassandra form the subject of the obscure and affected poem of LycophrÔn. [690] According to the Cyprian Verses, Helena was daughter of Zeus by Nemesis, who had in vain tried to evade the connection (AthenÆ. viii. 334). Hesiod (Schol. Pindar. Nem. x. 150) represented her as daughter of Oceanus and TÊthys, an oceanic nymph: SapphÔ (Fragm. 17, Schneidewin), Pausanias (i. 33, 7), ApollodÔrus (iii. 10, 7), and IsokratÊs (Encom. Helen. v. ii. p. 366, Auger) reconcile the pretensions of LÊda and Nemesis to a sort of joint maternity (see Heinrichsen, De Carminibus Cypriis, p. 45-46). [691] Herodot. ii. 117. He gives distinctly the assertion of the Cyprian Verses, which contradicts the argument of the poem as it appears in Proclus (Fragm. 1, 1), according to which latter, Paris is driven out of his course by a storm and captures the city of SidÔn. Homer (Iliad, vi. 293) seems however to countenance the statement in the argument. That Paris was guilty of robbery, as well as of the abduction of Helen, is several times mentioned in the Iliad (iii. 144; vii. 350-363), also in the argument of the Cyprian Verses (see Æschyl. Agam. 534). [692] The ancient epic (Schol. ad Il. ii. 286-339) does not recognize the story of the numerous suitors of Helen, and the oath by which Tyndareus bound them all before he made the selection among them, that each should swear not only to acquiesce, but even to aid in maintaining undisturbed possession to the husband whom she should choose. This story seems to have been first told by Stesichorus (see Fragm. 20. ed. Kleine; Apollod. iii. 10, 8). Yet it was evidently one of the prominent features of the current legend in the time of ThucydidÊs (i. 9; Euripid. Iphig. Aul. 51-80; Soph. Ajax, 1100). The exact spot in which Tyndareus exacted this oath from the suitors, near Sparta, was pointed out even in the time of Pausanias (iii. 20, 9). [693] Iliad, iv. 27-55; xxiv. 765. Argument. Carm. Cypri. The point is emphatically touched upon by Dio Chrysostom (Orat. xi. p. 335-336) in his assault upon the old legend. Two years’ preparation—in Dictys Cret. i. 16. [694] The Spartan king Agesilaus, when about to start from Greece on his expedition into Asia Minor (396 B. C.) went to Aulis personally, in order that he too might sacrifice on the spot where AgamemnÔn had sacrificed when he sailed for Troy (Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 4, 4). Skylax (c. 60) notices the ?e??? at Aulis, and nothing else: it seems to have been like the adjoining Delium, a temple with a small village grown up around it. Aulis is recognized as the port from which the expedition started, in the Hesiodic Works and Days (v. 650). [695] Iliad, ii. 128. Uschold (Geschichte des Trojanischen Kriegs, p. 9, Stutgart 1836) makes the total 135,000 men. [696] The Hesiodic Catalogue notices Oileus, or Ileus, with a singular etymology of his name (Fragm. 136, ed. Marktscheffel). [697] G???e?? is the Heros Eponymus of the town of Gonnus in Thessaly; the duplication of the consonant and shortening of the vowel belong to the Æolic dialect (Ahrens, De Dialect. Æolic. 50, 4. p. 220). [698] See the Catalogue in the second book of the Iliad. There must probably have been a Catalogue of the Greeks also in the Cyprian Verses; for a Catalogue of the allies of Troy is specially noticed in the Argument of Proclus (p. 12. DÜntzer). EuripidÊs (Iphig. Aul. 165-300) devotes one of the songs of the Chorus to a partial Catalogue of the chief heroes. According to Dictys Cretensis, all the principal heroes engaged in the expedition were kinsmen, all Pelopids (i. 14): they take an oath not to lay down their arms until Helen shall have been recovered, and they receive from AgamemnÔn a large sum of gold. [699] For the character of Odysseus, Iliad, iii. 202-220; x. 247. Odyss. xiii. 295. The PhiloktÊtÊs of SophoklÊs carries out very justly the character of the Homeric Odysseus (see v. 1035)—more exactly than the Ajax of the same poet depicts it. [700] Sophokl. PhiloktÊt. 417, and Schol.—also Schol. ad Soph. Ajac. 190. [701] Homer, Odyss. xxiv. 115; Æschyl. Agam. 841; Sophokl. PhiloktÊt. 1011, with the Schol. Argument of the Cypria in Heinrichsen, De Carmin. Cypr. p. 23 (the sentence is left out in DÜntzer, p. 11). A lost tragedy of SophoklÊs, ?d?sse?? ?a???e???, handled this subject. Other Greek chiefs were not less reluctant than Odysseus to take part in the expedition: see the tale of Poemandrus, forming a part of the temple-legend of the Achilleium at Tanagra in BoeÔtia (Plutarch, QuÆstion. GrÆc. p. 299). [702] Iliad, i. 352; ix. 411. [703] Iliad, xi. 782. [704] Telephus was the son of AugÊ, daughter of king Aleus of Tegea in Arcadia, by HÊraklÊs: respecting her romantic adventures, see the previous chapter on Arcadian legends—Strabo’s faith in the story (xii. p. 572). The spot called the Harbor of the AchÆans, near Gryneium, was stated to be the place where AgamemnÔn and the chiefs took counsel whether they should attack Telephus or not (Skylax, c. 97; compare Strabo, xiv. p. 622). [705] Iliad, xi. 664; Argum. Cypr. p. 11, DÜntzer; Diktys Cret. ii. 3-4. [706] Euripid. Telephus, Frag. 26, Dindorf; Hygin. f. 101; Diktys, ii. 10. EuripidÊs had treated the adventure of Telephus in this lost tragedy: he gave the miraculous cure with the dust of the spear, p??st??s? ?????? ????eta? ????as?. Diktys softens down the prodigy: “Achilles cum Machaone et Podalirio adhibeutes curam vulneri,” etc. Pliny (xxxiv. 15) gives to the rust of brass or iron a place in the list of genuine remedies. “Longe omnino a Tiberi ad Caicum: quo in loco etiam AgamemnÔn errasset, nisi ducem Telephum invenisset” (Cicero, Pro L. Flacco, c. 29). The portions of the Trojan legend treated in the lost epics and the tragedians, seem to have been just as familiar to Cicero as those noticed in the Iliad. Strabo pays comparatively little attention to any portion of the Trojan war except what appears in Homer. He even goes so far as to give a reason why the Amazons did not come to the aid of Priam: they were at enmity with him, because Priam had aided the Phrygians against them (Iliad, iii. 188: in Strabo, t??? ??s?? must be a mistake for t??? F?????). Strabo can hardly have read, and never alludes to, Arktinus; in whose poem the brave and beautiful Penthesileia, at the head of her Amazons, forms a marked epoch and incident of the war (Strabo, xii. 552). [707] Nothing occurs in Homer respecting the sacrifice of Iphigeneia (see Schol. Ven. ad Il. ix. 145). [708] No portion of the Homeric Catalogue gave more trouble to DÊmÊtrius of SkÊpsis and the other expositors than these Alizonians (Strabo, xii. p. 549; xiii. p. 603): a fictitious place called Alizonium, in the region of Ida, was got up to meet the difficulty (e?t? ?????????, t??t? ?d? pep?as???? p??? t?? t?? ???????? ?p??es??, etc., Strabo, l. c.). [709] See the Catalogue of the Trojans (Iliad, ii. 815-877). [710] Cycnus was said by later writers to be king of KolÔnÆ in the Troad (Strabo, xiii. p. 589-603; Aristotel. Rhetoric. ii. 23). Æschylus introduced upon the Attic stage both Cycnus and MemnÔn in terrific equipments (Aristophan. Ran. 957. ??d? ???p??tt?? a?t??? ??????? ???? ?a? ?????a? ??d???fa?a??p?????). Compare Welcker, Æschyl. Trilogie, p. 433. [711] Iliad, xxiv. 752; Argument of the Cypria, pp. 11, 12, DÜntzer. These desultory exploits of Achilles furnished much interesting romance to the later Greek poets (see ParthÊnius, Narrat. 21). See the neat summary of the principal events of the war in Quintus Smyrn. xiv. 125-140; Dio Chrysost. Or. xi. p. 338-342. TrÔilus is only once named in the Iliad (xxiv. 253); he was mentioned also in the Cypria; but his youth, beauty, and untimely end made him an object of great interest with the subsequent poets. SophoklÊs had a tragedy called TrÔilus (Welcker, Griechisch. TragÖd. i. p. 124); ??? ??d??pa?da desp?t?? ?p??esa, one of the Fragm. Even earlier than SophoklÊs, his beauty was celebrated by the tragedian Phrynichus (AthenÆ, xiii. p. 564; Virgil, Æneid, i. 474; LycophrÔn, 307). [712] Argument. Cypr. p. 11, DÜntz. ?a? et? ta?ta ?????e?? ?????? ?p???e? ?e?sas?a?, ?a? s????a??? a?t??? e?? t? a?t? ?f??d?t? ?a? T?t??. A scene which would have been highly interesting in the hands of Homer. [713] Argum. Cypr. 1. 1.; Pausan. x. 31. The concluding portion of the Cypria seems to have passed under the title of ?a?a?de?a (see Fragm. 16 and 18. p. 15, DÜntz.; Welcker, Der Episch. Cycl. p. 459; Eustath. ad Hom. Odyss. i. 107). The allusion of Quintus SmyrnÆus (v. 197) seems rather to point to the story in the Cypria, which Strabo (viii. p. 368) appears not to have read. [714] Pindar, Nem. vii. 21; AristidÊs, Orat. 46. p. 260. [715] See the Fragments of the three tragedians, ?a?a?d??—AristeidÊs, Or. xlvi. p. 260; Philostrat. Heroic. x.; Hygin. fab. 95-105. Discourses for and against PalamÊdÊs, one by Alkidamas, and one under the name of Gorgias, are printed in Reiske’s Orr. GrÆc. t. viii. pp. 64, 102; Virgil, Æneid, ii. 82, with the ample commentary of Servius—PolyÆn. Prooe. p. 6. Welcker (Griechisch. TragÖd. v. i. p. 130, vol. ii. p. 500) has evolved with ingenuity the remaining fragments of the lost tragedies. According to Diktys, Odysseus and DiomÊdÊs prevail upon PalamÊdÊs to be let down into a deep well, and then cast stones upon him (ii. 15). XenophÔn (De Venatione, c. 1) evidently recognizes the story in the Cypria, that Odysseus and DiomÊdÊs caused the death of PalamÊdÊs; but he cannot believe that two such exemplary men were really guilty of so iniquitous an act—?a??? d? ?p?a?a? t? ?????. One of the eminences near Napoli still bears the name of Palamidhi. [716] Plato, Apolog. Socr. c. 32; Xenoph. Apol. Socr. 26; Memor. iv. 2, 33; Liban. pro Socr. p. 242, ed. Morell.; Lucian, Dial. Mort 20. [717] Herodot. vii. 170. Ten years is a proper mythical period for a great war to last: the war between the Olympic gods and the Titan gods lasts ten years (Hesiod, Theogon. 636). Compare de??t? ???a?t? (Hom. Odyss. xvi. 17). [718] Thucyd. i. 11. [719] Homer, Iliad, i. 21. [720] Tychsen, Commentat. de Quinto SmyrnÆo, § iii. c. 5-7. The ????? ???s?? was treated both by Arktinus and by LeschÊs: with the latter it formed a part of the Ilias Minor. [721] Argument of the Æthiopis, p. 16, DÜntzer; Quint. Smyrn. lib. i.; Diktys Cret. iv. 2-3. In the PhiloktÊtÊs, of SophoklÊs, ThersitÊs survives Achilles (Soph. Phil. 358-445). [722] Odyss. xi. 522. ?e???? d? ?????st?? ?d??, et? ?????a d???: see also Odyss. iv. 187; Pindar, Pyth. vi. 31. Æschylus (ap. Strabo. xv. p. 728) conceives MemnÔn as a Persian starting from Susa. KtÊsias gave in his history full details respecting the expedition of MemnÔn, sent by the king of Assyria to the relief of his dependent, Priam of Troy; all this was said to be recorded in the royal archives. The Egyptians affirmed that MemnÔn had come from Egypt (DiodÔr. ii. 22; compare iv. 77): the two stories are blended together in Pausanias, x. 31, 2. The Phrygians pointed out the road along which he had marched. [723] Argum. Æth. ut sup.; Quint. Smyrn. ii. 396-550; Pausan. x. 31, 1. Pindar, in praising Achilles, dwells much on his triumphs over HectÔr, TÊlephus, MemnÔn, and Cycnus, but never notices Penthesileia (Olymp. ii. 90; Nem. iii. 60; vi. 52. Isthm. v. 43). Æschylus, in the ????stas?a, introduced Thetis and EÔs, each in an attitude of supplication for her son, and Zeus weighing in his golden scales the souls of Achilles and MemnÔn (Schol. Ven. ad Iliad, viii. 70: Pollux, iv. 130; Plutarch, De Audiend. Poet. p. 17). In the combat between Achilles and MemnÔn, represented on the chest of Kypselus at Olympia, Thetis and EÔs were given each as aiding her son (Pausan. v. 19, 1). [724] Iliad, xxii. 360; Sophokl. Philokt. 334; Virgil, Æneid, vi. 56. [725] Argum. Æthiop. ut sup.; Quint. Smyrn. 151-583; Homer, Odyss. v. 310; Ovid, Metam. xiii. 284; Eurip. Androm. 1262; Pausan. iii. 19, 13. According to Diktys (iv. 11), Paris and Deiphobus entrap Achilles by the promise of an interview with Polyxena and kill him. A minute and curious description of the island LeukÊ, or ???????? ??s??, is given in Arrian (Periplus, Pont. Euxin. p. 21; ap. Geogr. Min. t. 1). The heroic or divine empire of Achilles in Scythia was recognized by AlkÆus the poet (AlkÆi Fragm. Schneidew. Fr. 46), ?????e?, ?? ??? S??????? ?de??. Eustathius (ad Dionys. PeriÊgÊt. 307) gives the story of his having followed Iphigeneia thither: compare Antonin. Liberal. 27. Ibykus represented Achilles as having espoused MÊdea in the Elysian Field (Idyk. Fragm. 18. Schneidewin). SimonidÊs followed this story (ap. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. iv. 815). [726] Argument of Æthiopis and Ilias Minor, and Fragm. 2 of the latter, pp. 17, 18, DÜntz.; Quint. Smyrn. v. 120-482; Hom. Odyss. xi. 550; Pindar, Nem. vii. 26. The Ajax of SophoklÊs, and the contending speeches between Ajax and Ulysses in the beginning of the thirteenth book of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, are too well known to need special reference. The suicide of Ajax seems to have been described in detail in the Æthiopis: compare Pindar. Isthm. iii. 51, and the Scholia ad loc., which show the attention paid by Pindar to the minute circumstances of the old epic. See Fragm. 2 of the ????? ???s?? of Arktinus, in DÜntz. p. 22, which would seem more properly to belong to the Æthiopis. Diktys relates the suicide of Ajax, as a consequence of his unsuccessful competition with Odysseus, not about the arms of Achilles, but about the Palladium, after the taking of the city (v. 14). There were, however, many different accounts of the manner in which Ajax had died, some of which are enumerated in the argument to the drama of SophoklÊs. Ajax is never wounded in the Iliad: Æschylus made him invulnerable except under the armpits (see Schol. ad Sophok. Ajac. 833); the Trojans pelted him with mud—e? p?? a???e?? ?p? t?? p???? (Schol. Iliad. xiv. 404). [727] Soph. Philokt. 604. [728] Soph. Philokt. 703. ? e??a ????, ?? ?d? ??????t?? p?at?? ?s?? de?et? ??????, etc. In the narrative of Diktys (ii. 47), PhiloktÊtÊs returns from Lemnus to Troy much earlier in the war before the death of Achilles, and without any assigned cause. [729] According to SophoklÊs, HÊraklÊs sends AsklÊpius to Troy to heal PhiloktÊtÊs (Soph. Philokt. 1415). The subject of PhiloktÊtÊs formed the subject of a tragedy both by Æschylus and by EuripidÊs (both lost) as well as by SophoklÊs. [730] Argument. Iliad. Minor. DÜntz. l. c. ?a? t?? ?e???? ?p? ?e?e???? ?ata???s???ta ??e??e??? ??pt??s?? ?? ???e?. See Quint. Smyrn. x. 240: he differs here in many respects from the arguments of the old poems as given by Proclus, both as to the incidents and as to their order in time (Diktys, iv. 20). The wounded Paris flees to ŒnÔnÊ, whom he had deserted in order to follow Helen, and entreats her to cure him by her skill in simples: she refuses, and permits him to die; she is afterwards stung with remorse, and hangs herself (Quint. Smyrn. x. 285-331; ApollodÔr. iii. 12, 6; ConÔn. Narrat. 23; see Bachet de Meziriac, Comment. sur les EpÎtres d’Ovide, t. i. p. 456). The story of ŒnÔnÊ is as old as Hellanikus and KephalÔn of Gergis (see Hellan. Fragm. 126, Didot). [731] To mark the way in which these legendary events pervaded and became embodied in the local worship, I may mention the received practice in the great temple of AsklÊpius (father of MachaÔn) at Pergamus, even in the time of Pausanias. TÊlephus, father of Eurypylus, was the local hero and mythical king of Teuthrania, in which Pergamus was situated. In the hymns there sung, the poem and the invocation were addressed to TÊlephus; but nothing was said in them about Eurypylus, nor was it permitted even to mention his name in the temple,—“they knew him to be the slayer of MachaÔn:” ?????ta? ?? ?p? ????f?? t?? ????, p??s?d??s? d? ??d?? ?? t?? ????p????, ??d? ????? ?? t? ?a? ?????s?? ?????e?? a?t??, ??a ?p?st?e??? f???a ??ta ?a?????? (Pausan. iii. 26, 7). The combination of these qualities in other Homeric chiefs is noted in a subsequent chapter of his work, ch. xx. vol. ii. [732] Argument. Iliad. Minor. p. 17, DÜntzer. Homer, Odyss. xi. 510-520. Pausan. iii. 26, 7. Quint. Smyrn. vii. 553; viii. 201. [733] Argument. Iliad. Minor, p. 18, DÜntz.; Arktinus ap. Dionys. Hal. i. 69; Homer, Odyss. iv. 246; Quint. Smyrn. x. 354: Virgil, Æneid, ii. 164, and the 9th Excursus of Heyne on that book. Compare with this legend about the Palladium, the Roman legend respecting the Ancylia (Ovid, Fasti, III. 381). [734] Odyss. iv. 275; Virgil, Æneid, ii. 14; Heyne, Excurs. 3. ad Æneid. ii. Stesichorus, in his ????? ???s??, gave the number of heroes in the wooden horse as one hundred (Stesichor. Fragm. 26, ed. Kleine; compare AthenÆ. xiii. p. 610). [735] Odyss. viii. 492; xi. 522. Argument of the ????? ???s?? of Arktinus, p. 21. DÜntz. Hydin. f. 108-135. BacchylidÊs and Euphorion ap. Servium ad Virgil. Æneid. ii. 201. Both Sinon and LaocoÔn came originally from the old epic poem of Arktinus, though Virgil may perhaps have immediately borrowed both them, and other matters in his second book, from a poem passing under the name of Pisander (see Macrob. Satur. v. 2; Heyne, Excurs. 1. ad Æn. ii.; Welcker, Der Episch. Kyklus, v. 97). We cannot give credit either to Arktinus or Pisander for the masterly specimen of oratory which is put into the mouth of Sinon in the Æneid. In Quintus SmyrnÆus (xii. 366), the Trojans torture and mutilate Sinon to extort from him the truth: his endurance, sustained by the inspiration of HÊrÊ, is proof against the extremity of suffering, and he adheres to his false tale. This is probably an incident of the old epic, though the delicate taste of Virgil, and his sympathy with the Trojans, has induced him to omit it. Euphorion ascribed the proceedings of Sinon to Odysseus: he also gave a different cause for the death of LaocoÔn (Fr. 33-36. p. 55, ed. DÜntz., in the Fragments of Epic Poets after Alexander the Great). Sinon is ?ta???? ?d?ss??? in Pausan. x. 27, 1. [736] Odyss. viii. 515; Argument of Arktinas, ut sup.; Euripid. Hecub. 903; Virg. Æn. vi. 497; Quint. Smyrn. xiii. 35-229; LeschÊs ap. Pausan. x. 27, 2; Diktys, v. 12. Ibykus and SimonidÊs also represented Deiphobus as the ??te??st?? ?????? (Schol. Hom. Iliad. xiii. 517). The night-battle in the interior of Troy was described with all its fearful details both by LeschÊs and Arktinus: the ????? ???s?? of the latter seems to have been a separate poem, that of the former constituted a portion of the Ilias Minor (see Welcker, Der Epische Kyklus, p. 215): the ????? ???s?? by the lyric poets Sakadas and Stesichorus probably added many new incidents. PolygnÔtus had painted a succession of the various calamitous scenes, drawn from the poem of LeschÊs, on the walls of the leschÊ at Delphi, with the name written over each figure (Pausan. x. 25-26). Hellanikus fixed the precise day of the month on which the capture took place (Hellan. Fr. 143-144), the twelfth day of ThargeliÔn. [737] Æschyl. Agamemn. 527.— ???? d? ??st?? ?a? ?e?? ?d??ata, ?a? sp??a p?s?? ??ap????ta? ??????. [738] This symbol of treachery also figured in the picture of PolygnÔtus. A different story appears in Schol. Iliad. iii. 206. [739] Euripid. Hecub. 38-114, and Troad. 716; LeschÊs ap. Pausan. x. 25, 9; Virgil, Æneid, iii. 322, and Servius ad loc. A romantic tale is found in Diktys respecting the passion of Achilles for Polyxena (iii. 2). [740] Odyss. xi. 422. Arktinus, Argum. p. 21, DÜntz. Theognis, 1232. Pausan. i. 15, 2; x. 26, 3; 31, 1. As an expiation of this sin of their national hero, the Lokrians sent to Ilium periodically some of their maidens, to do menial service in the temple of AthÊnÊ (Plutarch. Ser. Numin. Vindict. p. 557, with the citation from Euphorion or Kallimachus, DÜntzer, Epicc. Vet. p. 118). [741] LeschÊs, Fr. 7, DÜntz.; ap. Schol. Lycophr. 1263. Compare Schol. ad. 1232, for the respectful recollection of AndromachÊ, among the traditions of the Molossian kings, as their heroic mother, and Strabo, xiii. p. 594. [742] Such is the story of the old epic (see Odyss. iv. 260, and the fourth book generally; Argument of Ilias Minor, p. 20. DÜntz.). PolygnÔtus, in the paintings above alluded to, followed the same tale (Pausan. x. 25, 3). The anger of the Greeks against Helen, and the statement that Menelaus after the capture of Troy approached her with revengeful purposes, but was so mollified by her surpassing beauty as to cast away his uplifted sword, belongs to the age of the tragedians (Æschyl. Agamem. 685-1455: Eurip. Androm. 600-629; Helen. 75-120; Troad. 890-1057; compare also the fine lines in the Æneid, ii. 567-588). [743] See the description in Herodot. vi. 61, of the prayers offered to her, and of the miracle which she wrought, to remove the repulsive ugliness of a little Spartan girl of high family. Compare also Pindar, Olymp. iii. 2, and the Scholia at the beginning of the ode; Eurip. Helen. 1662, and Orest. 1652-1706; Isokrat. Encom. Helen. ii. p. 368, Auger; Dio Chrysost. Or. xi. p. 311. ?e?? ????s?? pa?? t??? ????s?; TheodectÊs ap. Aristot. Pol. i. 2, 19. Te??? ?p? ?f??? ??????? ?????t??. [744] Euripid. Troad. 982 seq.; LycophrÔn ap. Steph. Byz. v. ?????; Stesichorus ap. Schol. Eurip. Orest. 239; Fragm. 9 and 10 of the ????? ???s??, Schneidewin:— ???e?a ???d??e?? ????? ?p?s? ?e??? ??? ?a?et? ?p??d???? ??p??d??? ?e??a d? ???d??e? ????a?s? ????sa??a ??????? t??????? t???s? ?a? ??pes????a? ... Further ... ????? ????s? ?p??e, etc. He had probably contrasted her with other females carried away by force. Stesichorus also affirmed that Iphigeneia was the daughter of Helen, by ThÊseus, born at Argos before her marriage with Menelaus and made over to KlytÆmnÊstra: this tale was perpetuated by the temple of Eileithyia at Argos, which the Argeians affirmed to have been erected by Helen (Pausan. ii. 22, 7). The ages ascribed by Hellanikus and other logographers (Hellan. Fr. 74) to ThÊseus and Helen—he fifty years of age and she a child of seven—when he carried her off to AphidnÆ, can never have been the original form of any poetical legend: these ages were probably imagined in order to make the mythical chronology run smoothly; for ThÊseus belongs to the generation before the Trojan war. But we ought always to recollect that Helen never grows old (t?? ??? f?t?? ?e?? ?????—Quint. Smyrn. x. 312), and that her chronology consists only with an immortal being. Servius observes (ad Æneid. ii. 601)—“Helenam immortalem fuisse indicat tempus. Nam constat fratres ejus cum Argonautis fuisse. Argonautarum filii cum Thebanis (Thebano Eteoclis et Polynicis bello) dimicaverunt. Item illorum filii contra Trojam bella gesserunt. Ergo, si immortalis Helena non fuisset, tot sine dubio seculis durare non posset.” So Xenophon, after enumerating many heroes of different ages, all pupils of CheirÔn, says that the life of CheirÔn suffices for all, he being brother of Zeus (De Venatione, c. 1). The daughters of Tyndareus are KlytÆmnÊstra, Helen, and Timandra, all open to the charge advanced by Stesichorus: see about Timandra, wife of the Tegeate Echemus, the new fragment of the Hesiodic Catalogue, recently restored by Geel (GÖttling, Pref. Hesiod. p. lxi.). It is curious to read, in Bayle’s article HÉlÈne, his critical discussion of the adventures ascribed to her—as if they were genuine matter of history, more or less correctly reported. [745] Plato, Republic. ix. p. 587. c. 10. ?spe? t? t?? ?????? e?d???? St?s?????? f?s? pe?????t?? ?e??s?a? ?? ?????, ?????? t?? ???????. Isokrat. Encom. Helen. t. ii. p. 370, Auger; Plato, PhÆdr. c. 44. p. 243-244; Max. Tyr. Diss. xi. p. 320, Davis; ConÔn, Narr. 18; Dio Chrysost. Or. xi. p. 323. ??? ?? St?s?????? ?? t? ?ste??? ?d? ???e??, ?? t? pa??pa? ??d? p?e?se?e? ? ????? ??d??se. Horace, Od. i. 17, Epod. xvii. 42.— “Infamis HelenÆ Castor offensus vice, Fraterque magni Castoris, victi prece, Adempta vati reddidere lumina.” Pausan. iii. 19, 5. Virgil, surveying the war from the point of view of the Trojans, had no motive to look upon Helen with particular tenderness: Deiphobus imputes to her the basest treachery (Æneid, vi. 511. “scelus exitiale LacÆnÆ;” compare ii. 567). [746] Herodot. ii. 120. ?? ??? d? ??t? ?e f?e???a?? ?? ? ???a??, ??d? ?? ????? ?? p??s????te? a?t?, etc. The passage is too long to cite, but is highly curious: not the least remarkable part is the religious coloring which he gives to the new version of the story which he is adopting,—“the Trojans, though they had not got Helen, yet could not persuade the Greeks that this was the fact; for it was the divine will that they should be destroyed root and branch, in order to make it plain to mankind that upon great crimes the gods inflict great punishments.” Dio Chrysostom (Or. xi. p. 333) reasons in the same way as Herodotus against the credibility of the received narrative. On the other hand, IsokratÊs, in extolling Helen, dwells on the calamities of the Trojan war as a test of the peerless value of the prize (Encom. Hel. p. 360, Aug.): in the view of Pindar (Olymp. xiii. 56), as well as in that of Hesiod (Opp. Di. 165), Helen is the one prize contended for. EuripidÊs, in his tragedy of Helen, recognizes the detention of Helen in Egypt and the presence of her e?d???? at Troy, but he follows Stesichorus in denying her elopement altogether,—HermÊs had carried her to Egypt in a cloud (Helen. 35-45, 706): compare Von Hoff, De Mytho HelenÆ EuripideÆ, cap. 2. p. 35 (Leyden, 1843). [747] Pausan. i. 23, 8; Payne Knight, Prolegg. ad Homer. c. 53. Euphorion construed the wooden horse into a Grecian ship called ?pp??, “The Horse” (Euphorion, Fragm. 34. ap. DÜntzer, Fragm. Epicc. GrÆc. p. 55). See Thucyd. i. 12; vi. 2. [748] Suidas, v. ??st??. WÜllner, De Cyclo Epico, p. 93. Also a poem ?t?e?d?? ????d?? (AthenÆ. vii. p. 281). [749] Upon this the turn of fortune in Grecian affairs depends (Æschyl. Agamemn. 338; Odyss. iii. 130; Eurip. Troad. 69-95). [750] Odyss. iii. 130-161; Æschyl. Agamemn. 650-662. [751] Odyss. iii. 188-196; iv. 5-87. The Egyptian city of Kanopus, at the mouth of the Nile, was believed to have taken its name from the pilot of Menelaus, who had died and was buried there (Strabo, xvii. p. 801; Tacit. Ann. ii. 60). ?e?e????? ????, so called after Menelaus (Dio Chrysost. xi p. 361). [752] Odyss. iv. 500. The epic ??st?? of Hagias placed this adventure of Ajax on the rocks of Kaphareus, a southern promontory of Euboea (Argum. ??st??, p. 23, DÜntzer). Deceptive lights were kindled on the dangerous rocks by Nauplius, the father of PalamÊdÊs, in revenge for the death of his son (SophoklÊs, ?a?p??? ????ae??, a lost tragedy; Hygin. f. 116; Senec. Agamemn. 567). [753] Argument. ??st?? ut sup. There were monuments of Kalchas near Sipontum in Italy also (Strabo, vi. p. 284), as well as at SelgÊ in Pisidia (Strabo, xii. p. 570). [754] Strabo, v. p. 222; vi. p. 264. Vellei. Paterc. i. 1; Servius ad Æn. x. 179. He had built a temple to AthÊnÊ in the island of KeÔs (Strabo, x. p. 487). [755] Strabo, vi. pp. 254, 272; Virgil, Æn. iii. 401, and Servius ad loc.; LycophrÔn, 912. Both the tomb of PhiloktÊtÊs and the arrows of HÊraklÊs which he had used against Troy, were for a long time shown at Thurium (Justin, xx. 1). [756] Argument. ??st??, p. 23, DÜntz.; Pindar, Nem. iv. 51. According to Pindar, however, Neoptolemus comes from Troy by sea, misses the island of Skyrus, and sails round to the Epeirotic Ephyra (Nem. vii. 37). [757] Pindar, Nem. x. 7, with the Scholia. Strabo, iii. p. 150; v. p. 214-215; vi, p. 284. Stephan. Byz. ??????ppa, ????de?a. Aristotle recognizes him as buried in the Diomedean islands in the Adriatic (Anthol. Gr. Brunck. i. p. 178). The identical tripod which had been gained by DiomÊdÊs, as victor in the chariot-race at the funeral games of Patroclus, was shown at Delphi in the time of Phanias, attested by an inscription, as well as the dagger which had been worn by HelikaÔn, son of AntenÔr (AthenÆ. vi. p. 232). [758] Virgil, Æneid, iii. 399.; xi. 265; and Servius, ibid. Ajax, the son of OÏleus, was worshipped there as a hero (ConÔn, Narr. 18). [759] Strabo, iii. p. 257; IsokratÊs, Evagor. Encom. p. 192; Justin, xliv. 3. Ajax, the son of Teukros, established a temple of Zeus, and an hereditary priesthood always held by his descendants (who mostly bore the name of Ajax or Teukros), at OlbÊ in Kilikia (Strabo, xiv. p. 672). Teukros carried with him his Trojan captives to Cyprus (AthenÆ. vi. p. 256). [760] Strabo, iii. p. 140-150; vi. p. 261; xiii. p. 622. See the epitaphs on Teukros and AgapenÔr by Aristotle (Antholog. Gr. ed. Brunck. i. p. 179-180). [761] Strabo, xiv. p. 683; Pausan. viii. 5, 2. [762] Strabo, vi. p. 263; Justin, xx. 2; Aristot. Mirab. Ausc. c. 108. Also the epigram of the Rhodian Simmias called ?e?e??? (Antholog. Gr. Brunck. i. p. 210). [763] Vellei. Patercul. i. 1. Stephan. Byz. v. ??p?. Strabo, xiii. p. 605; xiv p. 639. Theopompus (Fragm. III, Didot) recounted that AgamemnÔn and his followers had possessed themselves of the larger portion of Cyprus. [764] Thucydid. iv. 120. [765] Herodot. vii. 91; Thucyd. ii. 68. According to the old elegiac poet Kallinos, Kalchas himself had died at Klarus near KolophÔn after his march from Troy, but Mopsus, his rival in the prophetic function, had conducted his followers into Pamphylia and Kilikia (Strabo, xii. p. 570; xiv.p. 668). The oracle of Amphilochus at Mallus in Kilikia bore the highest character for exactness and truth-telling in the time of Pausanias, a?te??? ??e?d?stat?? t?? ?p? ???. (Paus. i. 34, 2). Another story recognized Leonteus and PolypÆtÊs as the founders of Aspendus in Kilikia (Eustath. ad Iliad. ii. 138). [766] Strabo, ix. p. 416. [767] DiodÔr. iv. 79; Thucyd. vi. 2. [768] Stephan, Byz. v. S???a; LycophrÔn, 1047. [769] Æschines, De Fals Legat. c. 14; Strabo, xiv. p. 683; Stephan. Byz. v. S???ada. [770] LycophrÔn, 877-902, with Scholia; ApollodÔr. Fragm. p. 386, Heyne. There is also a long enumeration of these returning wanderers and founders of new settlements in Solinus (Polyhist. c. 2). [771] Strabo, iii. p. 150. [772] Aristot. Mirabil. Auscult. 79, 106, 107, 109, 111. [773] Strabo, i. p. 48. After dwelling emphatically on the long voyages of Dionysus, HÊraklÊs, JasÔn, Odysseus, and Menelaus, he says, ???e?a? d? ?a? ??t????a ?a? ??et???, ?a? ?p??? t??? ?? t?? ??????? p????? p?a?????ta? e?? p?sa? t?? ?????????, ????? ? t?? pa?a??? ?????p?? ???sa?; S???? ??? d? t??? t?te ????s??, ????? ?a? t??? a??????, d?? t?? t?? st?ate?a? ??????, ?p?a?e?? t? te ?? ???? ?a? t? st?ate?? p???s???ta? ?ste et? t?? t?? ????? ?atast??f?? t??? te ????sa?ta? ?p? ??ste?a? t?ap?s?a? d?? t?? ?p???a?, ?a? p???? ????? t??? ?tt????ta? ?a? pe???e??????? ?? t?? p?????. ?a? d? ?a? p??e?? ?p? t??t?? ?t?s???a? ?????ta? ?at? p?sa? t?? ??? t?? ????d?? pa?a??a?, ?st? d? ?p?? ?a? t?? es??a?a?. [774] The Telegonia, composed by EugammÔn of KyrÊnÊ, is lost, but the Argument of it has been preserved by Proclus (p. 25, DÜntzer; Dictys, vi. 15). Pausanias quotes a statement from the poem called ThesprÔtis, respecting a son of Odysseus and PenelopÊ, called Ptoliporthus, born after his return from Troy (viii. 12, 3). Nitzsch (Hist. Homer. p. 97) as well as Lobeck seem to imagine that this is the same poem as the Telegonia, under another title. Aristotle notices an oracle of Odysseus among the Eurytanes, a branch of the ÆtÔlian nation: there were also places in Epirus which boasted of Odysseus as their founder (Schol. ad LycophrÔn. 800; Stephan. Byz. v. ????e?a; Etymolog. Mag. ???e?s???; Plutarch, QuÆst. Gr. c. 14). [775] Dionys. Hal. i. 46-48; Sophokl. ap. Strab. xiii. p. 608; Livy, i. 1; Xenophon, Venat. i. 15. [776] Æn. ii. 433. [777] Argument of ????? ???s??; Fragm. 7. of LeschÊs, in DÜntzer’s Collection, p. 19-21. Hellanikus seems to have adopted this retirement of Æneas to the strongest parts of Mount Ida, but to have reconciled it with the stories of the migration of Æneas, by saying that he only remained in Ida a little time, and then quitted the country altogether by virtue of a convention concluded with the Greeks (Dionys. Hal. i. 47-48). Among the infinite variety of stories respecting this hero, one was, that after having effected his settlement in Italy, he had returned to Troy and resumed the sceptre, bequeathing it at his death to Ascanius (Dionys. Hal. i. 53): this was a comprehensive scheme for apparently reconciling all the legends. [778] Iliad, xx. 300. PoseidÔn speaks, respecting Æneas— ???? ??e?? ?e?? p?? ?? ?p? ?? ?a??t?? ?????e?, ??p?? ?a? ?????d?? ?e????seta?, a??e? ?????e?? ???de ?ata?te???? ????? d? ?? ?st? ???as?a?, ?f?a ? ?spe??? ?e?e? ?a? ?fa?t?? ???ta? ?a?d????, ?? ?????d?? pe?? p??t?? f??at? pa?d??, ?? ??e? ??e?????t?, ???a???? te ???t???. ?d? ??? ?????? ?e?e?? ?????e ???????? ??? d? d? ???e?a? ?? ???ess?? ????e?, ?a? pa?d?? pa?de?, t?? ?e? et?p?s?e ?????ta?. Again, v. 339, PoseidÔn tells Æneas that he has nothing to dread from any other Greek than Achilles. [779] See O. MÜller, on the causes of the mythe of Æneas and his voyage to Italy, in Classical Journal, vol. xxvi. p. 308; Klausen, Æneas und die Penaten, vol. i. p. 43-52. DÊmÊtrius SkÊps. ab. Strab. xiii. p. 607; Nicolaus ap. Steph. Byz. v. ?s?a??a. DÊmÊtrius conjectured that SkÊpsis had been the regal seat of Æneas: there was a village called Æneia near to it (Strabo, xiii. p. 603). [780] Steph. Byz. v. ???s?, Ge?t????. Ascanius is king of Ida after the departure of the Greeks (ConÔn, Narr. 41; Mela, i. 18). Ascanius portus between PhokÆ and KymÊ. [781] Strabo, xiii. p. 595; LycophrÔn, 1208, and Sch.; Athenagoras, Legat. 1. Inscription in Clarke’s Travels, vol. ii. p. 86, ?? ???e?? t?? p?t???? ?e?? ???e?a?. Lucian, Deor. Concil. c. 12. i. 111. p. 534, Hemst. [782] Menekrat. ap. Dionys. Hal. i. 48. ??a???? d? ???? e??e (after the burial) ?a? ?d??e?? t?? st?at??? t?? ?efa??? ?p?????a?. ??? d? t?f?? a?t? da?sa?te?, ?p???e?? ?? p?s?, ????? ????? ???? ???e?e? ??d??t??. ???e??? ??? ?t?t?? ??? ?p? ??e???d???, ?a? ?p? ?e???? ?e??? ??e????e???, ???t?e?e ???a??, ???as?e??? d? ta?ta, e?? ??a??? ??e???e?. Abas, in his Troica, gave a narrative different from any other preserved: “Quidam ab Abante, qui Troica scripsit, relatum ferunt, post discessum a Troj GrÆcorum Astyanacti ibi datum regnum, hunc ab Antenore expulsum sociatis sibi finitimis civitatibus, inter quas et Arisba fuit: Ænean hoc Ægre tulisse, et pro Astyanacte arma cepisse ac prospere gest re Astyanact restituisse regnum” (Servius ad Virg. Æneid. ix. 264). According to Diktys, AntenÔr remains king and Æneas goes away (Dikt. v. 17): AntenÔr brings the Palladium to the Greeks (Dikt. v. 8). Syncellus, on the contrary, tells us that the sons of HectÔr recovered Ilium by the suggestions of Helenus, expelling the Atenorids (Syncell. p. 322, ed. Bonn). [783] Dionys. Halic. A. R. i. 48-54; Heyne, Excurs. 1 ad Æneid. iii.; De ÆneÆ Erroribus, and Excurs. 1 ad Æn. v.; ConÔn. Narr. 46; Livy, xl. 4; Stephan. Byz. ???e?a. The inhabitants of Æneia in the Thermaic Gulf worshipped him with great solemnity as their heroic founder (Pausan. iii. 22, 4; viii. 12, 4). The tomb of AnchisÊs was shown on the confines of the Arcadian Orchomenus and Mantineia (compare Steph. Byz. v. ??f?a?), under the mountain called Anchisia, near a temple of AphroditÊ: on the discrepancies respecting the death of AnchisÊs (Heyne. Excurs. 17 ad Æn. iii.): Segesta in Sicily founded by Æneas (Cicero, Verr. iv. 33). [784] ??? d? ???t? p??s?t??? t?? ????p?? p?e?sa? t?? ??????? st????, ?? te ???s?? ??????t? a?t???, etc. (Dionys. Hal. i. 55). [785] Dionys. Hal. i. 54. Among other places, his tomb was shown at Berecynthia, in Phrygia (Festus, v. Romam, p. 224, ed. MÜller): a curious article, which contains an assemblage of the most contradictory statements respecting both Æneas and Latinus. [786] Pindar, Pyth. v., and the citation from the ??st?? of Lysimachus in the Scholia; given still more fully in the Scholia ad LycophrÔn. 875. There was a ??f?? ??t?????d?? at KyrÊnÊ. [787] Livy, i. 1. Servius ad Æneid. i. 242. Strabo, i. 48; v. 212. Ovid, Fasti, iv. 75. [788] Strabo, iii. p. 157. [789] These diversities are well set forth in the useful Dissertation of Fuchs De Varietate Fabularum Troicarum (Cologne, 1830). Of the number of romantic statements put forth respecting Helen and Achilles especially, some idea may be formed from the fourth, fifth and sixth chapters of Ptolemy HÊphÆstion (apud Westermann, Scriptt. Mythograph. p. 188, etc.). [790] Dio Chrysost. Or. xi. p. 310-322. [791] Herodot. v. 122. Pausan. v. 8, 3: viii. 12, 4. ????e?? ?? p??e?? ???ad??, the title proclaimed at the Olympic games; like ????e?? ?p? ??????a?, from Myrina in the more southerly region of Æolis, as we find in the list of visitors at the CharitÊsia, at Orchomenos in BoeÔtia (Corp. Inscrip. Boeckh. No. 1583). [792] See Pausanias, i. 35, 3, for the legends current at Ilium respecting the vast size of the bones of Ajax in his tomb. The inhabitants affirmed that after the shipwreck of Odysseus, the arms of Achilles, which he was carrying away with him, were washed up by the sea against the tomb of Ajax. Pliny gives the distance at thirty stadia: modern travellers make it some thing more than Pliny, but considerably less than Strabo. [793] Strabo, xiii. p. 596-598. Strabo distinguishes the ??a??? ?a?sta???, which was near to Sigeium, from the ??a??? ????, which was more towards the middle of the bay between Sigeium and Rhoeteium; but we gather from his language that this distinction was not universally recognized. Alexander landed at the ??a??? ???? (Arrian, i. 11). [794] Strabo, xiii. p. 593. [795] Herodot. v. 95 (his account of the war between the Athenians and MitylenÆans about Sigeium and Achilleium); Strabo, xiii. p. 593. ??? d? t?? ?????? p???? t?? ??? t??? ?? ???p???? e??a? fas?, t? ?e??? ????sa? t?? ?????? ????? ?a? e?te???. ????a?d??? d? ??a??ta et? t?? ?p? G?a???? ?????, ??a??as? te ??s?sa? t? ?e??? ?a? p??sa???e?sa? p????, etc. Again, ?a? t? ?????, ? ??? ?st?, ???p???? t?? ?? ?te p??t?? ??a??? t?? ?s?a? ?p??sa?. [796] Besides AthÊnÊ, the Inscriptions authenticate ?e?? ????e?? at Ilium (Corp. Inscrip. Boeckh. No. 3599). [797] Strabo, xiii. p. 600. ?????s? d? ?? ??? ???e?? ?a? t??t?, ?? ??d? t??e?? s???a??e? ?fa??s?a? t?? p???? ?at? t?? ???s?? ?p? t?? ??a???, ??d? ????e?f?? ??d?p?te. The situation of Ilium (or as it is commonly, but erroneously, termed, New Ilium) appears to be pretty well ascertained, about two miles from the sea (Rennell, On the Topography of Troy, p. 41-71; Dr. Clarke’s Travels, vol. ii. p. 102). [798] XerxÊs passing by Adramyttium, and leaving the range of Mount Ida on his left hand, ??e ?? t?? ????da ???.... ?p??????? d? t?? st?at?? ?p? t?? S??a?d??? ... ?? t? ?????? ????a?? ????, ?e??? ???? ?e?sas?a?. Te?s?e??? d?, ?a? p???e??? ?e???? ??asta, t? ????a?? t? ????d? ???se ??? ????a?? ???? d? ?? ???? t??s?? ???s?? ???a?t?.... ?a ???? d? ?p??e?et?, ?? ???ste?? ?? ?p????? ???te??? p???? ?a? ?f???e??? ?a? ???da???, ?pe? d? ??d? ?????? ?st??? ?? de??? d?, G?????a? ?e?????? (Herod. vii. 43). Respecting Alexander (Arrian, i. 11), ??e????ta d? ?? ?????, t? ????? ??sa? t? ????d?, ?a? t?? pa??p??a? t?? a?t?? ??a?e??a? ?? t?? ?a??, ?a? ?a?e?e?? ??t? ta?t?? t?? ?e??? t??a ?p??? ?t? ?? t?? ??????? ????? s???e?a? ?a? ta?ta ?????s?? ?t? ?? ?pasp?sta? ?fe??? p?? a?t?? ?? t?? ??a?. T?sa? d? a?t?? ?p? t?? ??? t?? ???? t?? ???e??? ????? ?at??e?, ???? ?????? pa?a?t??e??? t? ?e?pt????? ???e?, ? d? ?? a?t?? ?a???e. The inhabitants of Ilium also showed the lyre which had belonged to Paris (Plutarch, Alexand. c. 15). Chandler, in his History of Ilium, chap. xxii. p. 89, seems to think that the place called by Herodotus the Pergamum of Priam is different from the historical Ilium. But the mention of the Iliean AthÊnÊ identifies them as the same. [799] Strabo, xiii. p. 602. ????????? d? ?a????e??? t??? ???e?s??, ???? ? ??e???? ????, s??????e? t? t?? a?t?? e??a? p???? t?? ??? t? t?te. Hellanikus had written a work called ??????. [800] Xenoph. Hellen. i. 1, 10. Skylax places Ilium twenty-five stadia, or about three miles, from the sea (c. 94). But I do not understand how he can call SkÊpsis and KebrÊn p??e?? ?p? ?a??ss?. [801] See Xenoph. Hellen. iii. i. 16; and the description of the seizure of Ilium, along with SkÊpsis and KebrÊn, by the chief of mercenaries, CharidÊmus, in Demosthen. cont. Aristocrat. c. 38. p. 671: compare Æneas Poliorcetic. c. 24, and PolyÆn. iii. 14. [802] Arrian, l. c. DikÆarchus composed a separate work respecting this sacrifice of Alexander, pe?? t?? ?? ???? ??s?a? (AthenÆ. xiii. p. 603; DikÆarch. Fragm. p. 114, ed. Fuhr). Theophrastus, in noticing old and venerable trees, mentions the f???? (Quercus Æsculus) on the tomb of Ilus at Ilium, without any doubt of the authenticity of the place (De Plant. iv. 14); and his contemporary, the harper Stratonikos, intimates the same feeling, in his jest on the visit of a bad sophist to Ilium during the festival of the Ilieia (AthenÆ. viii. p. 351). The same may be said respecting the author of the tenth epistle ascribed to the orator ÆschinÊs (p. 737), in which his visit of curiosity to Ilium is described—as well as about ApollÔnius of Tyana, or the writer who describes his life and his visit to the TrÔad; it is evident that he did not distrust the ???a??????a of the Ilieans, who affirmed their town to be the real Troy (Philostrat. Vit. ApollÔn. Tyan. iv. 11). The goddess AthÊnÊ of Ilium was reported to have rendered valuable assistance to the inhabitants of Kyzikus, when they were besieged by MithridatÊs, commemorated by inscriptions set up in Ilium (Plutarch, Lucull. 10). [803] Strabo, xiii. p. 603-607. [804] Livy, xxxv. 43; xxxvii. 9. Polyb. v. 78-111 (passages which prove that Ilium was fortified and defensible about B. C. 218). Strabo, xiii. p. 594. ?a? t? ????? d?, ? ??? ?st?, ???p???? t?? ??, ?te p??t?? ??a??? t?? ?s?a? ?p??sa? ?a? ???a??? ??t????? t?? ??a? ?? t?? ??t?? t?? ?a????. F?s? ???? ???t???? ? S??????, e??????? ?p?d??sa? e?? t?? p???? ?at? ??e????? t??? ?a?????, ??t?? ??????????? ?de?? t?? ?at????a?, ?ste ?d? ?e?a?t?? ??e?? t?? st??a?. ???s???a? d?, t??? Ga??ta? pe?a?????ta? ?? t?? ????p??, ??a??a? ?? e?? t?? p???? de?????? ???at??, pa?a???a d? ????pe?? d?? t? ?te???st??? ?ste??? d? ?pa?????s?? ?s?e p?????. ??t? ?????sa? a?t?? p???? ?? et? F?????, etc. This is a very clear and precise statement, attested by an eye-witness. But it is thoroughly inconsistent with the statement made by Strabo in the previous chapter, a dozen lines before, as the text now stands; for he there informs us that Lysimachus, after the death of Alexander, paid great attention to Ilium, surrounded it with a wall of forty stadia in circumference, erected a temple, and aggregated to Ilium the ancient cities around, which were in a state of decay. We know from Livy that the aggregation of Gergis and Rhoeteium to Ilium was effected, not by Lysimachus, but by the Romans (Livy, xxxviii. 37); so that the first statement of Strabo is not only inconsistent with his second, but is contradicted by an independent authority. I cannot but think that this contradiction arises from a confusion of the text in Strabo’s first passage, and that in that passage Strabo really meant to speak only of the improvements brought about by Lysimachus in Alexandreia TrÔas; that he never meant to ascribe to Lysimachus any improvements in Ilium, but, on the contrary, to assign the remarkable attention paid by Lysimachus to Alexandreia TrÔas, as the reason why he had neglected to fulfil the promises held out by Alexander to Ilium. The series of facts runs thus:—1. Ilium is nothing better than a ???; at the landing of Alexander; 2. Alexander promises great additions, but never returns from Persia to accomplish them; 3. Lysimachus is absorbed in Alexandreia TrÔas, into which he aggregates several of the adjoining old towns, and which flourishes under his hands; 4. Hence Ilium remained a ??? when the Romans entered Asia, as it had been when Alexander entered. This alteration in the text of Strabo might be effected by the simple transposition of the words as they now stand, and by omitting ?te ?a?, ?d? ?pee????, without introducing a single new or conjectural word, so that the passage would read thus: ?et? d? t?? ??e???? (Alexander’s) te?e?t?? ??s?a??? ???sta t?? ??e?a?d?e?a? ?pee????, s?????s???? ?? ?d? ?p? ??t??????, ?a? p??s????e????? ??t?????a?, etaa???s?? d? t????a? (?d??e ??? e?se?? e??a? t??? ??e???d??? d?ade?a????? ??e???? p??te??? ?t??e?? ?p?????? p??e??, e??? ?a?t??) ?a? ???? ?ates?e?ase ?a? te???? pe??e??et? ?s?? 40 stad???? s?????se d? e?? a?t?? t?? ????? p??e?? ???a?a?, ?d? ?e?a????a?. ?a? d? ?a? s???e??e ... p??e??. If this reading be adopted, the words beginning that which stands in Tzschucke’s edition as sect. 27, and which immediately follow the last word p??e??, will read quite suitably and coherently,—?a? t? ????? d?, ? ??? ?st?, ???p???? t?? ??, ?te p??t?? ??a??? t?? ?s?a? ?p??sa?, etc., whereas with the present reading of the passage they show a contradiction, and the whole passage is entirely confused. [805] Livy, xxxviii. 39; Strabo, xiii. p. 600. ?at?s?apta? d? ?a? t? S??e??? ?p? t?? ?????? d?? t?? ?pe??e?a?? ?p? ??e????? ??? ?? ?ste??? ? pa?a??a p?sa ? ???? ?a?d????, ?a? ??? ?p? ??e????? ?st?. [806] Strabo, xiii. 599. ?a?at???s? d? ? ???t???? ?a? t?? ??e?a?d????? ?st?a?a? ??t??a, t?? s??????asa? pe?? t?? ????? ????d??, p???a??????, e? pe?? t?? ??? p???? ? p??e?? s???st?, ?a? t? ??????? ped??? p?? ?st??, ? ?ta?? t?? p??e?? ?a? t?? ?a??ss?? ? p???t?? f???e?? t? ?? ??? p?? t?? ??? p??e?? ???e???, p????a e??a? t?? p?ta??, ?ste??? ?e?????. The words p?? ?st?? are introduced conjecturally by Grosskurd, the excellent German translator of Strabo, but they seem to me necessary to make the sense complete. HesitÆa is cited more than once in the Homeric Scholia (Schol. Venet. ad Iliad, iii. 64; Enstath. ad Iliad, ii. 538). [807] Strabo, xiii. p. 599. ??d?? d? ????? s??eta? t?? ???a?a? p??e??—e???t??? ?te ??? ??pep???????? t?? ????? p??e??, ?? te???? d? ?atespas????, ?? ????? p??te? e?? t?? ??e???? ???????? et??????sa?. [808] Appian, Mithridat. c. 53; Strabo, xiii. p. 594; Plutarch, Sertorius, c. 1; Velleius Paterc. ii. 23. The inscriptions attest Panathenaic games celebrated at Ilium in honor of AthÊnÊ by the Ilieans conjointly with various other neighboring cities (see Corp. Inscr. Boeckh. No. 3601-3602, with Boeckh’s observations). The valuable inscription No. 3595 attests the liberality of Antiochus Soter towards the Iliean AthÊnÊ as early as 278 B. C. [809] Arrian, i. 11; Appian ut sup.; also AristidÊs, Or. 43, Rhodiaca, p. 820 (Dindorf p. 369). The curious Oratio xi. of Dio Chrysostom, in which he writes his new version of the Trojan war, is addressed to the inhabitants of Ilium. [810] The controversy, now half a century old, respecting Troy and the Trojan war—between Bryant and his various opponents, Morritt, Gilbert Wakefield, the British Critic, etc., seems now nearly forgotten, and I cannot think that the pamphlets on either side would be considered as displaying much ability, if published at the present day. The discussion was first raised by the publication of Le Chevalier’s account of the plain of Troy, in which the author professed to have discovered the true site of Old Ilium (the supposed Homeric Troy), about twelve miles from the sea near Bounarbashi. Upon this account Bryant published some animadversions, followed up by a second treatise, in which he denied the historical reality of the Trojan war, and advanced the hypothesis that the tale was of Egyptian origin (Dissertation on the War of Troy, and the Expedition of the Grecians as described by Homer, showing that no such Expedition was ever undertaken, and that no such city of Phrygia existed, by Jacob Bryant; seemingly 1797, though there is no date in the title-page: Morritt’s reply was published in 1798). A reply from Mr. Bryant and a rejoinder from Mr. Morritt, as well as a pamphlet from G. Wakefield, appeared in 1799 and 1800, besides an Expostulation by the former addressed to the British Critic. Bryant, having dwelt both on the incredibilities and the inconsistencies of the Trojan war, as it is recounted in Grecian legend generally, nevertheless admitted that Homer had a groundwork for his story, and maintained that that groundwork was Egyptian. Homer (he thinks) was an Ithacan, descended from a family originally emigrant from Egypt: the war of Troy was originally an Egyptian war, which explains how MemnÔn the Ethiopian came to take part in it: “upon this history, which was originally Egyptian, Homer founded the scheme of his two principal poems, adapting things to Greece and Phrygia by an ingenious transposition:” he derived information from priests of Memphis or ThÊbes (Bryant, pp. 102, 108, 126). The ???? ????pt???, mentioned in the second book of the Odyssey (15), is the Egyptian hero, who affords, in his view, an evidence that the population of that island was in part derived from Egypt. No one since Mr. Bryant, I apprehend, has ever construed the passage in the same sense. Bryant’s Egyptian hypothesis is of no value; but the negative portion of his argument, summing up the particulars of the Trojan legend, and contending against its historical credibility, is not so easily put aside. Few persons will share in the zealous conviction by which Morritt tries to make it appear that the 1100 ships, the ten years of war, the large confederacy of princes from all parts of Greece, etc., have nothing but what is consonant with historical probability; difficulties being occasionally eliminated by the plea of our ignorance of the time and of the subject (Morritt, p. 7-21). Gilbert Wakefield, who maintains the historical reality of the siege with the utmost intensity, and even compares Bryant to Tom Paine (W. p. 17), is still more displeased with those who propound doubts, and tells us that “grave disputation in the midst of such darkness and uncertainty is a conflict with chimÆras” (W. p. 14). The most plausible line of argument taken by Morritt and Wakefield is, where they enforce the positions taken by Strabo and so many other authors, ancient as well as modern, that a superstructure of fiction is to be distinguished from a basis of truth, and that the latter is to be maintained while the former is rejected (Morritt, p. 5; Wake. p. 7-8). To this Bryant replies, that “if we leave out every absurdity, we can make anything plausible; that a fable may be made consistent, and we have many romances that are very regular in the assortment of characters and circumstances: this may be seen in plays, memoirs, and novels. But this regularity and correspondence alone will not ascertain the truth” (Expostulation, pp. 8, 12, 13). “That there are a great many other fables besides that of Troy, regular and consistent among themselves, believed and chronologized by the Greeks, and even looked up to by them in a religious view (p. 13), which yet no one now thinks of admitting as history.” Morritt, having urged the universal belief of antiquity as evidence that the Trojan war was historically real, is met by Bryant, who reminds him that the same persons believed in centaurs, satyrs, nymphs, augury, aruspicy; Homer maintaining that horses could speak, etc. To which Morritt replies, “What has religious belief to do with historical facts? Is not the evidence on which our faith rests in matters of religion totally different in all its parts from that on which we ground our belief in history?” (Addit. Remarks, p. 47). The separation between the grounds of religious and historical belief is by no means so complete as Mr. Morritt supposes, even in regard to modern times; and when we apply his position to the ancient Greeks, it will be found completely the reverse of the truth. The contemporaries of Herodotus and ThucydidÊs conceived their early history in the most intimate conjunction with their religion. [811] For example, adopting his own line of argument (not to mention those battles in which the pursuit and the flight reaches from the city to the ships and back again), it might have been urged to him, that by supposing the Homeric Troy to be four miles farther off from the sea, he aggravated the difficulty of rolling the Trojan horse into the town: it was already sufficiently hard to propel this vast wooden animal full of heroes from the Greek Naustathmon to the town of Ilium. The Trojan horse, with its accompaniments Sinon and LaocoÔn, is one of the capital and indispensable events in the epic: Homer, Arktinus, LeschÊs, Virgil, and Quintus SmyrnÆus, all dwell upon it emphatically as the proximate cause of the capture. The difficulties and inconsistencies of the movements ascribed to Greeks and Trojans in the Iliad, when applied to real topography, are well set forth in Spohn, De Agro Trojano, Leipsic, 1814; and Mr. Maclaren has shown (Dissertation on the Topography of the Trojan War, Edinburgh, 1822) that these difficulties are nowise obviated by removing Ilium a few miles further from the sea. [812] Major Rennell argues differently from the visit of Alexander, employing it to confute the hypothesis of Chevalier, who had placed the Homeric Troy at Bounarbashi, the site supposed to have been indicated by DÊmÊtrius and Strabo:— “Alexander is said to have been a passionate admirer of the Iliad, and he had an opportunity of deciding on the spot how far the topography was consistent with the narrative. Had he been shown the site of Bounarbashi for that of Troy, he would probably have questioned the fidelity either of the historical part of the poem or his guides. It is not within credibility, that a person of so correct a judgment as Alexander could have admired a poem, which contained a long history of military details, and other transactions that could not physically have had an existence. What pleasure could he receive, in contemplating as subjects of history, events which could not have happened? Yet he did admire the poem, and therefore must have found the topography consistent: that is, Bounarbashi, surely, was not shown to him for Troy.” (Rennell, Observations on the Plain of Troy, p. 128). Major Rennell here supposes in Alexander a spirit of topographical criticism quite foreign to his real character. We have no reason to believe that the site of Bounarbashi was shown to Alexander as the Homeric Troy, or that any site was shown to him except Ilium, or what Strabo calls New Ilium. Still less reason have we to believe that any scepticism crossed his mind, or that his deep-seated faith required to be confirmed by measurement of distances. [813] Strabo, xiii. p. 599. ??d? ? t?? ??t???? d? pe??d??? ? pe?? t?? p???? ??e? t? e??????? ?? ??? ?st? pe??d???? ? ???, d?? t?? s??e?? ?????? ? d? pa?a?? ??e? pe??d????. [814] Mannert (Geographie der Griechen und RÖmer, th. 6. heft 3. b. 8. cap. 8) is confused in his account of Old and New Ilium: he represents that Alexander raised up a new spot to the dignity of having been the Homeric Ilium, which is not the fact: Alexander adhered to the received local belief. Indeed, as far as our evidence goes, no one but DÊmÊtrius, HestiÆa, and Strabo appears ever to have departed from it. [815] There can hardly be a more singular example of this same confusion, than to find elaborate military criticisms from the Emperor Napoleon, upon the description of the taking of Troy in the second book of the Æneid. He shows that gross faults are committed in it, when looked at from the point of view of a general (see an interesting article by Mr. G. C. Lewis, in the Classical Museum, vol. i. p. 205, “Napoleon on the Capture of Troy”). Having cited this criticism from the highest authority on the art of war, we may find a suitable parallel in the works of distinguished publicists. The attack of Odysseus on the Ciconians (described in Homer, Odyss. ix. 39-61) is cited both by Grotius (De Jure Bell. et Pac. iii. 3, 10) and by Vattel (Droit des Gens, iii. 202) as a case in point in international law. Odysseus is considered to have sinned against the rules of international law by attacking them as allies of the Trojans, without a formal declaration of war. [816] Compare Herodot. v. 24-122; Thucyd. i. 131. The ????? ?? is a part of the TrÔad. [817] Herodot. vii. 43. [818] Herodot. v. 122. e??e ?? ?????a? p??ta?, ?s?? t?? ????da ??? ????ta?, e??e d? G?????a?, t??? ?p??e?f???ta? t?? ???a??? ?e?????. For the migration of the Teukrians and Mysians into Europe, see Herodot. vii. 20; the PÆonians, on the StrymÔn, called themselves their descendants. [819] Herodot. ii. 118; v. 13. [820] Strabo, xiii. p. 604; ApollodÔr. iii. 12, 4. KephalÔn of Gergis called Teukrus a KrÊtan (Stephan. Byz. v. ???s?). [821] Clearchus ap. AthÆne. vi. p. 256; Strabo, xiii. p. 589-616. [822] Homer, Hymn. in Vener. 116. [823] Iliad, ii. 863. Asius, the brother of HecabÊ, lives in Phrygia on the banks of the Sangarius (Iliad, xvi. 717). [824] See Hellanik. Fragm. 129, 130. ed. Didot; and KephalÔn Gergithius ap. Steph. Byz. v. ???s?. [825] SkÊpsis received some colonists from the Ionic Miletus (AnaximenÊs apud Strabo, xiv. p. 635); but the coins of the place prove that its dialect was Æolic. See Klausen, Æneas und die Penaten, tom. i. note 180. ArisbÊ also, near Abydus, seems to have been settled from MitylÊnÊ (Eustath. ad Iliad. xii. 97). The extraordinary fertility and rich black mould of the plain around Ilium is noticed by modern travellers (see Franklin, Remarks and Observations on the Plain of Troy, London, 1800, p. 44): it is also easily worked: “a couple of buffaloes or oxen were sufficient to draw the plough, whereas near Constantinople it takes twelve or fourteen.” [826] EphÔrus ap. Harpocrat. v. ?e???a. [827] Xenoph. Hellen. i. 1, 10; iii. 1, 10-15. One of the great motives of Dio in setting aside the Homeric narrative of the Trojan war, is to vindicate AthÊnÊ from the charge of having unjustly destroyed her own city of Ilium (Orat. xi. p. 310: ???sta d?? t?? ?????? ?p?? ? d??? ?d???? d?af?e??a? t?? ?a?t?? p????). [828] Strabo, x. p. 473; xiii. p. 604-605. Polemon. Fragm. 31. p. 63, ed. Preller. Polemon was a native of Ilium, and had written a periegesis of the place (about 200 B. C., therefore earlier than DÊmÊtrius of SkÊpsis): he may have witnessed the improvement in its position effected by the Romans. He noticed the identical stone upon which PalamÊdÊs had taught the Greeks to play at dice. The Sminthian Apollo appears inscribed on the coins of Alexandreia TrÔas; and the temple of the god was memorable even down to the time of the emperor Julian (Ammian. Marcellin. xxii. 8). Compare Menander (the Rhetor) pe?? ?p?de??t????, iv. 14; apud Walz. Collect. Rhetor. t. ix. p. 304; also pe?? S????a???, iv. 17. S?????, both in the KrÊtan and the Æolic dialect, meant a field-mouse: the region seems to have been greatly plagued by these little animals. Polemon could not have accepted the theory of DÊmÊtrius, that Ilium was not the genuine Troy: his Periegesis, describing the localities and relics of Ilium, implied the legitimacy of the place as a matter of course. [829] Virgil, Æneid, vi. 42:— Excisum EuboicÆ latus ingens rupis in antrum, Quo lati ducunt aditus centum, ostia centum; Unde ruunt totidem voces, responsa SibyllÆ. [830] Pausanias, x. 12, 8; Lactantius, i. 6, 12; Steph. Byz. v. ????ss??; Schol. Plat. PhÆdr. p. 315, Bekker. The date of this Gergithian Sibyll, or of the prophecies passing under her name, is stated by HÊrakleidÊs of Pontus, and there seems no reason for calling it in question. Klausen (Æneas und die Penaten, book ii. p. 205) has worked out copiously the circulation and legendary import of the Sibylline prophecies. [831] Herodot. v. 94. S??e??? ... t? e??e ?e?s?st?at?? a??? pa?? ??t????a??? ... ????a???, ?p?de?????te? ???? ??d?? ????? ????e?s? ete?? t?? ????d?? ?????, ? ?? ?a? sf? ?a? t??s? ?????s?, ?s?? ??????? s??e?ep???a?t? ?e???e? t?? ?????? ??pa???. In Æschylus (Eumenid. 402) the goddess AthÊnÊ claims the land about the Skamander, as having been presented to the sons of ThÊseus by the general vote of the Grecian chiefs:— ?p? S?a??d??? ??? ?ataf?at?????, ?? d? t? ??a??? ??t???? te ?a? p???? ??? a??a??t?? ????t?? ????? ??a, ??e?a? a?t?p?e??? e?? t? p?? ???, ??a??et?? d???a T?s??? t?????. In the days of Peisistratus, it seems Athens was not bold enough or powerful enough to advance this vast pretension. [832] CharÔn of Lampsacus ap. Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 2; Bernhardy ad Dionys. PeriÊgÊt. 805. p. 747. [833] Such at least is the statement of Strabo (xii. p. 590); though such an extent of Lydian role at that time seems not easy to reconcile with the proceedings of the subsequent Lydian kings. [834] Homer, Iliad, i. 603; xx. 7. Hesiod, Theogon. 802. [835] We read in the Iliad that AsteropÆus was grandson of the beautiful river Axius, and Achilles, after having slain him, admits the dignity of this parentage, but boasts that his own descent from Zeus was much greater, since even the great river AchelÔus and Oceanus himself is inferior to Zeus (xxi. 157-191). Skamander fights with Achilles, calling his brother SimoÏs to his aid (213-308). TyrÔ, the daughter of SalmÔneus, falls in love with Enipeus, the most beautiful of rivers (Odyss. xi. 237). AchelÔus appears as a suitor of Deianira (Sophokl. Trach. 9). There cannot be a better illustration of this feeling than what is told of the New Zealanders at the present time. The chief Heu-Heu appeals to his ancestor, the great mountain Tonga Riro: “I am the Heu-Heu, and rule over you all, just as my ancestor Tonga Riro, the mountain of snow, stands above all this land.” (E. J. Wakefield, Adventures in New Zealand, vol. i. ch. 17. p. 465). Heu-Heu refused permission to any one to ascend the mountain, on the ground that it was his tipuna or ancestor: “he constantly identified himself with the mountain and called it his sacred ancestor” (vol. ii. c. 4. p. 113). The mountains in New Zealand are accounted by the natives masculine and feminine: Tonga Riro, and Taranaki, two male mountains, quarrelled about the affections of a small volcanic female mountain in the neighborhood (ibid. ii. c. 4. p. 97). The religious imagination of the Hindoos also (as described by Colonel Sleeman in his excellent work, Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official), affords a remarkable parallel to that of the early Greeks. Colonel Sleeman says,— “I asked some of the Hindoos about us why they called the river Mother Nerbudda, if she was really never married. Her Majesty (said they with great respect) would really never consent to be married after the indignity she suffered from her affianced bridegroom the Sohun: and we call her mother because she blesses us all, and we are anxious to accost her by the name which we consider to be the most respectful and endearing. “Any Englishman can easily conceive a poet in his highest calenture of the brain, addressing the Ocean as a steed that knows his rider, and patting the crested billow as his flowing mane. But he must come to India to understand how every individual of a whole community of many millions can address a fine river as a living being—a sovereign princess who hears and understands all they say, and exercises a kind of local superintendence over their affairs, without a single temple in which her image is worshipped, or a single priest to profit by the delusion. As in the case of the Ganges, it is the river itself to whom they address themselves, and not to any deity residing in it, or presiding over it—the stream itself is the deity which fills their imaginations, and receives their homage” (Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official, ch. iii. p. 20). Compare also the remarks in the same work on the sanctity of Mother Nerbudda (chapter xxvii. p. 261); also of the holy personality of the earth. “The land is considered as the MOTHER of the prince or chief who holds it, the great parent from whom he derives all that maintains him, his family, and his establishments. If well-treated, she yields this in abundance to her son; but if he presumes to look upon her with the eye of desire, she ceases to be fruitful; or the Deity sends down hail or blight to destroy all that she yields. The measuring the surface of the fields, and the frequently inspecting the crops by the chief himself or his immediate agents, were considered by the people in this light—either it should not be done at all, or the duty should be delegated to inferior agents, whose close inspection of the great parent could not be so displeasing to the Deity” (Ch. xxvii. p. 248). See also about the gods who are believed to reside in trees—the Peepultree, the cotton-tree, etc. (ch. ix. p. 112), and the description of the annual marriage celebrated between the sacred pebble, or pebble-god, Saligram, and the sacred shrub Toolsea, celebrated at great expense and with a numerous procession (chap. xix. p. 158; xxiii. p. 185). [836] See the song to the potters, in the Homeric Epigrams (14):— ?? ?? d?sete ?s???, ?e?s?, ? ?e?a?e?? ?e??? ??? ????a??, ?a? ?pe??e?e ?e??a ?a????. ?? d? e?a??e?e? ??t????, ?a? p??ta ???ast?a F??????a? te ?a???, ?a? t??? ???? ???s?a?. ... ?? d? ?p? ??a?de??? t?ef???te? ?e?d? ???s?e, S???a??? d? ?pe?ta ?a??? d???t??a?? S??t??? ???, S??a??? te, ?a? ?set??, ?d? Sa??t??, ??da?? ??, ?? t?de t???? ?a?? p???? p????e?, etc. A certain kindred between men and serpents (s?????e??? t??a p??? t??? ?fe??) was recognized in the peculiar gens of the ?f???e?e?? near Parion, who possessed the gift of healing by their touches the bite of the serpent: the original hero of this gens was said to have been transformed from a serpent into a man (Strabo, xiii. p. 588). [837] Odyss. ii. 388; viii. 270; xii. 4, 128, 416; xxiii. 362. Iliad, xiv. 344. The Homeric Hymn to DÊmÊtÊr expresses it neatly (63)— ?????? d? ????t?, ?e?? s??p?? ?d? ?a? ??d???. Also the remarkable story of EuÊnius of ApollÔnia, his neglect of the sacred cattle of HÊlios, and the awful consequences of it (Herodot. ix. 93: compare Theocr. Idyll, xxv. 130). I know no passage in which this conception of the heavenly bodies as Persons is more strikingly set forth than in the words of the German chief Boiocalus, pleading the cause of himself and his tribe the Ansibarii before the Roman legate Avitus. This tribe, expelled by other tribes from its native possessions, had sat down upon some of that wide extent of lands on the Lower Rhine which the Roman government reserved for the use of its soldiers, but which remained desert, because the soldiers had neither the means nor the inclination to occupy them. The old chief, pleading his cause before Avitus, who had issued an order to him to evacuate the lands, first dwelt upon his fidelity of fifty years to the Roman cause, and next touched upon the enormity of retaining so large an area in a state of waste (Tacit. Ann. xiii. 55): “Quotam partem campi jacere, in quam pecora et armenta militum aliquando transmitterentur? Servarent sane receptos gregibus, inter hominum famam: modo ne vastitatem et solitudinem mallent, quam amicos populos Chamavorum quondam ea arva, mox Tubantum, et post Usipiorum fuisse. Sicuti coelum Diis, ita terras generi mortalium datas: quÆque vacuÆ, eas publicas esse. Solem deinde respiciens, et coetera sidera vocans, quasi coram interrogabat—vellentne contueri inane solum? potius mare superfunderent adversus terrarum ereptores. Commotus his Avitus,” etc. The legate refused the request, but privately offered to Boiocalus lands for himself apart from the tribe, which that chief indignantly spurned. He tried to maintain himself in the lands, but was expelled by the Roman arms, and forced to seek a home among the other German tribes, all of whom refused it. After much wandering and privation, the whole tribe of the Ansibarii was annihilated: its warriors were all slain, its women and children sold as slaves. I notice this afflicting sequel, in order to show that the brave old chief was pleading before Avitus a matter of life and death both to himself and his tribe, and that the occasion was one least of all suited for a mere rhetorical prosopopoeia. His appeal is one sincere and heartfelt to the personal feelings and sympathies of HÊlios. Tacitus, in reporting the speech, accompanies it with the gloss “quasi coram,” to mark that the speaker here passes into a different order of ideas from that to which himself or his readers were accustomed. If Boiocalus could have heard, and reported to his tribe, an astronomical lecture, he would have introduced some explanation, in order to facilitate to his tribe the comprehension of HÊlios under a point of view so new to them. While Tacitus finds it necessary to illustrate by a comment the personification of the sun, Boiocalus would have had some trouble to make his tribe comprehend the re-ification of the god HÊlios. [838] Physical astronomy was both new and accounted impious in the time of the Peloponnesian war: see Plutarch, in his reference to that eclipse which proved so fatal to the Athenian army at Syracuse, in consequence of the religious feelings of Nikias: ?? ??? ??e????t? t??? f?s????? ?a? ete?????s?a? t?te ?a???????? ??, e?? a?t?a? ??????? ?a? d???e?? ?p?????t??? ?a? ?at??a??as??a p??? d?at????ta? t? ?e??? (Plutarch, Nikias, c. 23, and PeriklÊs, c. 32; DiodÔr. xii. 39; DÊmÊtr. Phaler. ap. Diogen. LaËrt, ix. 9, 1). “You strange man, MelÊtus,” said SocratÊs, on his trial, to his accuser, “are you seriously affirming that I do not think HÊlios and SelÊnÊ to be gods, as the rest of mankind think?” “Certainly not, gentlemen of the Dikastery (this is the reply of MelÊtus), SocratÊs says that the sun is a stone, and the moon earth.” “Why, my dear MelÊtus, you think you are preferring an accusation against Anaxagoras! You account these Dikasts so contemptibly ignorant, as not to know that the books of Anaxagoras are full of such doctrines! Is it from me that the youth acquire such teaching, when they may buy the books for a drachma in the theatre, and may thus laugh me to scorn if I pretended to announce such views as my own—not to mention their extreme absurdity?” (????? te ?a? ??t?? ?t?pa ??ta, Plato, Apolog. Socrat. c. 14. p. 26). The divinity of HÊlios and SelÊnÊ is emphatically set forth by Plato, Legg. x. p. 886-889. He permits physical astronomy only under great restrictions and to a limited extent. Compare Xenoph. Memor. iv. 7, 7; Diogen. LaËrt. ii. 8; Plutarch, De Stoicor. Repugnant. c. 40. p. 1053; and Schaubach ad AnaxagorÆ Fragmenta, p. 6. [839] Hesiod, Catalog. Fragm. 76. p. 48, ed. DÜntzer:— ???a? ??? t?te da?te? ?sa? ????? te ????e?, ??a??t??? te ???s? ?ata???t??? t? ?????p???. Both the Theogonia and the Works and Days bear testimony to the same general feeling. Even the heroes of Homer suppose a preceding age, the inmates of which were in nearer contact with the gods than they themselves (Odyss. viii. 223; Iliad, v. 304; xii. 382). Compare Catullus, Carm. 64; Epithalam. PeleÔs et Thetidos, v. 382-408. Menander the Rhetor (following generally the steps of Dionys. Hal. Art Rhetor. cap. 1-8) suggests to his fellow-citizens at Alexandria TrÔas, proper and complimentary forms to invite a great man to visit their festival of the Sminthia:—?spe? ??? ?p?????a p??????? ?d??et? ? p???? t??? S???????, ????a ???? ?e??? p??fa??? ?p?d?e?? t??? ?????p???, ??t? ?a? s? ? p???? ??? p??sd??eta? (pe?? ?p?de??t??. s. iv. c. 14. ap. Walz. Coll. Rhetor, t. ix. p. 304). Menander seems to have been a native of Alexandria TrÔas, though Suidas calls him a Laodicean (see Walz. PrÆf. ad t. ix. p. xv.-xx.; and pe?? S????a???, sect. iv. c. 17). The festival of the Sminthia lasted down to his time, embracing the whole duration of paganism from Homer downwards. [840] P. A. MÜller observes justly, in his Saga-Bibliothek, in reference to the Icelandic mythes, “In dem Mythischen wird das Leben der Vorzeit dargestellt, wie es wirklich dem kindlichen Verstande, der jugendlichen Einbildungskraft, und dem vollen Herzen, erscheint.” (Lange’s Untersuchungen Über die Nordische und Deutsche Heldensage, translated from P. A. MÜller, Introd. p. 1.) [841] Titus visited the temple of the Paphian Venus in Cyprus, “spectat opulenti donisque regum, quÆque alia lÆtum antiquitatibus GrÆcorum genus incertÆ vetustati adfingit, de navigatione primum consuluit” (Tacit. Hist. ii. 4-5). [842] Aristotel. Problem. xix. 48. ?? d? ??e??e? t?? ???a??? ???? ?sa? ???e?? ?? d? ?a?? ?????p??. Istros followed this opinion also: but the more common view seems to have considered all who combated at Troy as heroes (see Schol. Iliad, ii. 110; xv. 231), and so Hesiod treats them (Opp. Di. 158). In reference to the Trojan war, Aristotle says—?a??pe? ?? t??? ???????? pe?? ?????? ??e?eta? (Ethic. Nicom. i. 9; compare vii. 1). [843] Generation by a god is treated in the old poems as an act entirely human and physical (????—pa?e???at?); and this was the common opinion in the days of Plato (Plato, Apolog. Socrat. c. 15. p. 15); the hero Astrabakus is father of the LacedÆmonian king Demaratus (Herod. vi. 66). [Herodotus does not believe the story told him at Babylon respecting Belus (i. 182).] EuripidÊs sometimes expresses disapprobation of the idea (Ion. 350), but Plato passed among a large portion of his admirers for the actual son of Apollo, and his reputed father Aristo on marrying was admonished in a dream to respect the person of his wife PeriktionÊ, then pregnant by Apollo, until after the birth of the child Plato (Plutarch, QuÆst. Sympos. p. 717. viii. 1; Diogen. LaËrt. iii. 2; Origen, cont. Cels. i. p. 29). Plutarch (in Life of Numa, c. 4; compare Life of ThÊseus, 2) discusses the subject, and is inclined to disallow everything beyond mental sympathy and tenderness in a god: Pausanias deals timidly with it, and is not always consistent with himself; while the later rhetors spiritualize it altogether. Meander, pe?? ?p?de??t????, (towards the end of the third century B. C.) prescribes rules for praising a king: you are to praise him for the gens to which he belongs: perhaps you may be able to make out that he really is the son of some god; for many who seem to be from men, are really sent down by God and are emanations from the Supreme Potency—p????? t? ?? d??e?? ?? ?????p?? e?s?, t? d? ????e?? pa?? t?? ?e?? ?atap?p??ta? ?a? e?s?? ?p?????a? ??t?? t?? ??e?tt????? ?a? ??? ??a???? ?????et? ?? ?f?t??????, t? d? ????e?? ?? ????. ??t? ?a? as??e?? ? ??te??? t? ?? d??e?? ?? ?????p??, t? d? ????e?? t?? ?ata???? ???????e? ??e?, etc. (Menander ap. Walz. Collect. Rhetor. t. ix. c. i. p. 218). Again—pe?? S????a???—?e?? ???es?? pa?d?? d??????e?? ??e???se—?p????? t?? ?s???p??? ???es?? ?d???????se, p. 322-327; compare HermogenÊs, about the story of Apollo and DaphnÊ, Progymnasm. c. 4; and Julian. Orat. vii. p. 220. The contrast of the pagan phraseology of this age (Menander had himself composed a hymn of invocation to Apollo—pe?? ???????, c. 3. t. ix. p. 136, Walz.) with that of Homer is very worthy of notice. In the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women much was said respecting the marriages and amours of the gods, so as to furnish many suggestions, like the love-songs of SapphÔ, to the composers of Epithalamic Odes (Menand. ib. sect. iv. c. 6. p. 268). Menander gives a specimen of a prose hymn fit to be addressed to the Sminthian Apollo (p. 320); the spiritual character of which hymn forms the most pointed contrast with the Homeric hymn to the same god. We may remark an analogous case in which the Homeric hymn to Apollo is modified by Plutarch. To provide for the establishment of his temple at Delphi, Apollo was described as having himself, in the shape of a dolphin, swam before a KrÊtan vessel and guided it to Krissa, where he directed the terrified crew to open the Delphian temple. But Plutarch says that this old statement was not correct: the god had not himself appeared in the shape of a dolphin—he had sent a dolphin expressly to guide the vessel (Plutarch. de Solerti Animal. p. 983). See also a contrast between the Homeric Zeus, and the genuine Zeus, (????????) brought out in Plutarch, Defect. Oracul. c 30. p. 426. Illicit amours seem in these later times to be ascribed to the da???e?: see the singular controversy started among the fictitious pleadings of the ancient rhetors—???? ??t??, pa??????? ?a? ?a?a??? e??a? t?? ?e?e?a?, ?e?e?a t?? e????? ?t????? f????sa, ?a? ????eta?.... ???? ??e?, fas?, d?? t?? t?? da????? ?p?f??t?se?? ?a? ?p?????? pe??te?e?s?a?. ?a? p?? ??? ????t?? ???d? t? t????t??; ?de? ??? p??? t? ? ?fa??e???a? t?? pa??e??a? f??e?? t? ?p?t??pa???, ?? ?? p??? t? te?e?? (Anonymi Scholia ad Hermogen. St?se??, ap. Walz. Coll. Rh. t. vii. p. 162). ApsinÊs of Gadara, a sophist of the time of Diocletian, pretended to be a son of Pan (see Suidas, v. ??????). The anecdote respecting the rivers Skamander and MÆander, in the tenth epistle ascribed to the orator Æschines (p. 737), is curious, but we do not know the date of that epistle. [844] The mental analogy between the early stages of human civilization and the childhood of the individual is forcibly and frequently set forth in the works of Vico. That eminently original thinker dwells upon the poetical and religious susceptibilities as the first to develop themselves in the human mind, and as furnishing not merely connecting threads for the explanation of sensible phÆnomena, but also aliment for the hopes and fears, and means of socializing influence to men of genius, at a time when reason was yet asleep. He points out the personifying instinct (“istinto d’ animazione”) as the spontaneous philosophy of man, “to make himself the rule of the universe,” and to suppose everywhere a quasi-human agency as the determining cause. He remarks that in an age of fancy and feeling, the conceptions and language of poetry coincide with those of reality and common life, instead of standing apart as a separate vein. These views are repeated frequently (and with some variations of opinion as he grew older) in his Latin work De Uno Universi Juris Principio, as well as in the two successive rÉdactions of his great Italian work, Scienza Nuova (it must be added that Vico as an expositor is prolix, and does not do justice to his own powers of original thought): I select the following from the second edition of the latter treatise, published by himself in 1744, Della Metafisica Poetica (see vol. v. p. 189 of Ferrari’s edition of his Works, Milan, 1836): “Adunque la sapienza poetica, che fu la prima sapienza della GentilitÀ, dovette incominciare da una Metafisica, non ragionata ed astratta, qual È questa or degli addottrinati, ma sentita ed immaginata, quale dovett’ essere di tai primi uomini, siccome quelli ch’ erano di niun raziocinio, e tutti robusti sensi e vigorosissime fantasie, come È stato nelle degnitÀ (the Axioms) stabilito. Questa fu la loro propria poesia, la qual in essi fu una facultÀ loro connaturale, perchÈ erano di tali sensi e di si fatte fantasie naturalmente forniti, nata da ignoranza di cagioni—la qual fu loro madre di maraviglia di tutte le cose, che quelli ignoranti di tutte le cose fortemente ammiravano. Tal poesia incominciÒ in essi divina: perchÈ nello stesso tempo ch’essi immaginavano le cagioni delle cose, che sentivano ed ammiravano, essere Dei, come ora il confermiamo con gli Americani, i quali tutte le cose che superano la loro picciol capacitÀ, dicono esser Dei ... nello stesso tempo, diciamo, alle cose ammirate davano l’essere di sostanze dalla propria lor idea: ch’È appunto la natura dei fanciulli, che osserviamo prendere tra mani cose inanimate, e transtullarsi e favellarvi, come fussero quelle persone vive. In cotal guisa i primi uomini delle nazioni gentili, come fanciulli del nascente gener umano, dalla lor idea creavan essi le cose ... per la loro robusta ignoranza, il facevano in forza d’una corpolentissima fantasia, e perch’ era corpolentissima, il facevano con una maravigliosa sublimitÀ, tal e tanta, che perturbava all’eccesso essi medesimi, che fingendo le si creavano.... Di questa natura di cose umane restÒ eterna proprietÀ spiegata con nobil espressione da Tacito, che vanamente gli uomini spaventati fingunt simul creduntque.” After describing the condition of rude men, terrified with thunder and other vast atmospheric phÆnomena, Vico proceeds (ib. p. 172)—“In tal caso la natura della mente umana porta ch’ella attribuisca all’effetto la sua natura: e la natura loro era in tale stato d’uomini tutti robuste forze di corpo, che urlando, brontolando, spiegavano le loro violentissime passioni, si finsero il cielo esser un gran corpo animato, che per tal aspetto chiamavano Giove, che col fischio dei fulmini e col fragore dei tuoni volesse lor dire qualche cosa.... E si fanno di tutta la natura un vasto corpo animato, che senta passioni ed affetti.” Now the contrast with modern habits of thought:— “Ma siccome ora per la natura delle nostre umane menti troppo ritirata dai sensi nel medesimo volgo—con le tante astrazioni, di quante sono piene le lingue—con tanti vocaboli astratti—e di troppo assottigliata con l’arti dello scrivere, e quasi spiritualezzata con la practica dei numeri—ci e naturalmente niegato di poter formare la vasta imagine di cotal donna che dicono Natura simpatetica, che mentre con la bocca dicono, non hanno nulla in lor mente, perocchÈ la lor mente È dentro il falso, che È nulla; nÈ sono soccorsi dalla fantasia a poterne formare una falsa vastissima imagine. CosÌ ora ci È naturalmente niegato di poter entrare nella vasta immaginativa di quei primi uomini, le menti dei quali di nulla erano assottigliate, di nulla astratte, di nulla spiritualezzate.... Onde dicemmo sopra ch’ora appena intender si puÒ, affatto immaginar non sÌ puÒ, come pensassero i primi uomini che fondarono la umanitÀ gentilesca.” In this citation (already almost too long for a note) I have omitted several sentences not essential to the general meaning. It places these early divine fables and theological poets (so Vico calls them) in their true point of view, and assigns to them their proper place in the ascending movement of human society: it refers the mythes to an early religious and poetical age, in which feeling and fancy composed the whole fund of the human mind, over and above the powers of sense: the great mental change which has since taken place has robbed us of the power, not merely of believing them as they were originally believed, but even of conceiving completely that which their first inventors intended to express. The views here given from this distinguished Italian (the precursor of F. A. Wolf in regard to the Homeric poems, as well as of Niebuhr in regard to the Roman history) appear to me no less correct than profound; and the obvious inference from them is, that attempts to explain (as it is commonly called) the mythes (i. e. to translate them into some physical, moral or historical statements, suitable to our order of thought) are, even as guesses, essentially unpromising. Nevertheless Vico, inconsistently with his own general view, bestows great labor and ingenuity in attempting to discover internal meaning symbolized under many of the mythes; and even lays down the position, “che i primi uomini della GentilitÀ essendo stati semplicissimi, quanto i fanciulli, i quali per natura son veritieri: le prime favole non poterono finger nulla di falso: per lo che dovettero necessariamente essere vere narrazioni.” (See vol. v. p. 194; compare also p. 99, Axiom xvi.) If this position be meant simply to exclude the idea of designed imposture, it may for the most part be admitted; but Vico evidently intends something more. He thinks that there lies hid under the fables a basis of matter of fact—not literal but symbolized—which he draws out and exhibits under the form of a civil history of the divine and heroic times: a confusion of doctrine the more remarkable, since he distinctly tells us (in perfect conformity with the long passage above transcribed from him) that the special matter of these early mythes is “impossibility accredited as truth,”—“che la di lei propria materia È l’impossibile credibile” (p. 176, and still more fully in the first rÉdaction of the Scienza Nuova, b. iii. c. 4; vol. iv. p. 187 of his Works). When we read the Canones Mythologici of Vico (De Constantia PhilologiÆ, Pars Posterior, c. xxx.; vol. iii. p. 363), and his explanation of the legends of the Olympic gods, Hercules, ThÊseus, Kadmus, etc., we see clearly that the meaning which he professes to bring out is one previously put in by himself. There are some just remarks to the same purpose in Karl Ritter’s Vorhalle EuropÄischer Volkergeschichten, Abschn. ii. p. 150 seq. (Berlin, 1820). He too points out how much the faith of the old world (der Glaube der Vorwelt) has become foreign to our minds, since the recent advances of “Politik und Kritik,” and how impossible it is for us to elicit history from their conceptions by our analysis, in cases where they have not distinctly laid it out for us. The great length of this note prevents me from citing the passage: and he seems to me also (like Vico) to pursue his own particular investigations in forgetfulness of the principle laid down by himself. [845] O. MÜller, in his Prolegomena zu einer wissenschaftlichen Mythologie (cap. iv. p. 108), has pointed out the mistake of supposing that there existed originally some nucleus of pure reality as the starting-point of the mythes, and that upon this nucleus fiction was superinduced afterwards: he maintains that the real and the ideal were blended together in the primitive conception of the mythes. Respecting the general state of mind out of which the mythes grew, see especially pages 78 and 110 of that work, which is everywhere full of instruction on the subject of the Grecian mythes, and is eminently suggestive, even where the positions of the author are not completely made out. The short Heldensage der Griechen by Nitzsch (Kiel, 1842, t. v.) contains more of just and original thought on the subject of the Grecian mythes than any work with which I am acquainted. I embrace completely the subjective point of view in which he regards them; and although I have profited much from reading his short tract, I may mention that before I ever saw it, I had enforced the same reasonings on the subject in an article in the Westminster Review, May 1843, on the Heroen-Geschichten of Niebuhr. Jacob Grimm, in the preface to his Deutsche Mythologie (p. 1, 1st edit. GÖtt. 1835), pointedly insists on the distinction between “Sage” and history, as well as upon the fact that the former has its chief root in religious belief “Legend and history (he says) are powers each by itself, adjoining indeed on the confines, but having each its own separate and exclusive ground;” also p. xxvii. of the same introduction. A view substantially similar is adopted by William Grimm, the other of the two distinguished brothers whose labors have so much elucidated Teutonic philology and antiquities. He examines the extent to which either historical matter of fact or historical names can be traced in the Deutsche Heldensage; and he comes to the conclusion that the former is next to nothing, the latter not considerable. He draws particular attention to the fact, that the audience for whom these poems were intended had not learned to distinguish history from poetry (W. Grimm, Deutsche Heldensage, pp. 8, 337, 342, 345, 399, GÖtt. 1829). [846] Hesiod, Theogon. 32.— ... ???p?e?sa? d? (the Muses) ?? a?d?? Te???, ?? ??e???? t? t? ?ss?e?a, p?? t? ???ta, ?a? e ??????? ??e?? a????? ????? a??? ???t??, etc. Odyss. xxii. 347; viii. 63, 73, 481, 489. ???d??? ... ? s? ?e ???s? ?d?da?e, ???? pa??, ? s??? ?p?????: that is, Demodocus has either been inspired as a poet by the Muse, or as a prophet by Apollo: for the Homeric Apollo is not the god of song. Kalchas the prophet receives his inspiration from Apollo, who confers upon him the same knowledge both of past and future as the Muses give to Hesiod (Iliad, i. 69):— ????a? Test???d??, ?????p???? ??? ???st?? ?? ?d? t? t? ???ta, t? t? ?ss?e?a, p?? t? ???ta ?? d?? a?t?s????, t?? ?? p??e F???? ?p?????. Also Iliad, ii. 485. Both the ??t?? and the ???d?? are standing, recognized professions (Odyss. xvii. 383), like the physician and the carpenter, d???e????. [847] Iliad, ii. 599. [848] In this later sense it stands pointedly opposed to ?st???a, history, which seems originally to have designated matter of fact, present and seen by the describer, or the result of his personal inquiries (see Herodot. i. 1; Verrius Flacc. ap. Aul. Gell. v. 18; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 12; and the observations of Dr. Jortin, Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 59). The original use of the word ????? was the same as that of ????—a current tale, true or false, as the case might be; and the term designating a person much conversant with the old legends (??????) is derived from it (Herod. i. 1; ii. 3). HekatÆus and Herodotus both use ????? in this sense. Herodotus calls both Æsop and HekatÆus ????p???? (ii. 134-143). Aristotle (Metaphys. i. p. 8, ed. Brandis) seems to use ???? in this sense, where he says—d?? ?a? f??????? ? f???s?f?? p?? ?st??? ? ??? ???? s???e?ta? ?? ?a?as???, etc. In the same treatise (xi. p. 254), he uses it to signify fabulous amplification and transformation of a doctrine true in the main. [849] M. AmpÈre, in his Histoire LittÉraire de la France (ch. viii. v. i. p. 310) distinguishes the Saga (which corresponds as nearly as possible with the Greek ????, ?????, ?p??????? ?????), as a special product of the intellect, not capable of being correctly designated either as history, or as fiction, or as philosophy:— “Il est un pays, la Scandinavie, oÙ la tradition racontÉe s’est dÉveloppÉe plus complÈtement qu’ailleurs, oÙ ses produits ont ÉtÉ plus soigneusement recueillis et mieux conservÉs: dans ce pays, ils ont reÇu un nom particulier, dont l’Équivalent exact ne se trouve pas hors des langues Germaniques: c’est le mot Saga, Sage, ce qu’on dit, ce qu’on raconte,—la tradition orale. Si l’on prend ce mot non dans une acception restreinte, mais dans le sens gÉnÉral oÙ le prenait Niebuhr quand il l’appliquoit, par exemple, aux traditions populaires qui ont pu fournir À Tite Live une portion de son histoire, la Saga doit Être comptÉe parmi les produits spontanÉs de l’imagination humaine. La Saga a son existence propre comme la poËsie, comme l’histoire, comme le roman. Elle n’est pas la poËsie, parcequ’elle n’est pas chantÉe, mais parlÉe; elle n’est pas l’histoire, parcequ’elle est denuÉe de critique; elle n’est pas le roman, parcequ’elle est sincÈre, parcequ’elle a foi À ce qu’elle raconte. Elle n’invente pas, mais rÉpÈte: elle peut se tromper, mais elle ne ment jamais. Ce rÉcit souvent merveilleux, que personne ne fabrique sciemment, et que tout le monde altÈre et falsifie sans le vouloir, qui se perpÉtue À la maniÈre des chants primitifs et populaires,—ce rÉcit, quand il se rapporte non À un hÉros, mais À un saint, s’appelle une lÉgende.” [850] Herodot. ii. 53. [851] See Plutarch, Perikl. capp. 5, 32, 38; Cicero, De Republ. i. 15-16, ed. Maii. The phytologist Theophrastus, in his valuable collection of facts respecting vegetable organization, is often under the necessity of opposing his scientific interpretation of curious incidents in the vegetable world to the religious interpretation of them which he found current. Anomalous phÆnomena in the growth or decay of trees were construed as signs from the gods, and submitted to a prophet for explanation (see Histor. Plantar. ii. 3, iv. 16; v. 3). We may remark, however, that the old faith had still a certain hold over his mind. In commenting on the story of the willow-tree at Philippi, and the venerable old plane-tree at Antandros (more than sixty feet high, and requiring four men to grasp it round in the girth), having been blown down by a high wind, and afterwards spontaneously resuming their erect posture, he offers some explanations how such a phÆnomenon might have happened, but he admits, at the end, that there may be something extra-natural in the case, ???? ta?ta ?? ?s?? ??? f?s???? a?t?a? ?st??, etc. (De Caus. Plant. v. 4): see a similar miracle in reference to the cedar-tree of Vespasian (Tacit. Hist. ii. 78). EuripidÊs, in his lost tragedy called ?e?a??pp? S?f?, placed in the month of MelanippÊ a formal discussion and confutation of the whole doctrine of t??ata, or supernatural indications (Dionys. Halicar. Ars Rhetoric. p. 300-356, Reisk). Compare the Fables of PhÆdrus, iii. 3; Plutarch, Sept. Sap. Conviv. ch. 3. p. 149; and the curious philosophical explanation by which the learned men of Alexandria tranquillized the alarms of the vulgar, on occasion of the serpent said to have been seen entwined round the head of the crucified KleomenÊs (Plutarch, Kleomen. c. 39). It is one part of the duty of an able physician, according to the Hippocratic treatise called Prognosticon (c. 1. t. ii. p. 112, ed. LittrÉ), when he visits his patient, to examine whether there is anything divine in the malady, ?a d? ?a? e? t? ?e??? ??est?? ?? t?s? ???s??s?: this, however, does not agree with the memorable doctrine laid down in the treatise, De AËre, Locis et Aquis (c. 22. p. 78, ed. LittrÉ), and cited hereafter, in this chapter. Nor does Galen seem to have regarded it as harmonizing with the general views of HippocratÊs. In the excellent Prolegomena of M. LittrÉ to his edition of HippocratÊs (t. i. p. 76) will be found an inedited scholium, wherein the opinion of Baccheius and other physicians is given, that the affections of the plague were to be looked upon as divine, inasmuch as the disease came from God; and also the opinion of XenophÔn, the friend of Praxagoras, that the “genus of days of crisis” in fever was divine; “For (said XenophÔn) just as the Dioskuri, being gods, appear to the mariner in the storm and bring him salvation, so also do the days of crisis, when they arrive, in fever.” Galen, in commenting upon this doctrine of XenophÔn, says that the author “has expressed his own individual feeling, but has no way set forth the opinion of HippocratÊs:” ? d? t?? ???s??? ????? ?e??? e?p?? e??a? ?e???, ?a?t?? t? p???? ??????se?? ?? ?? ?pp????t??? ?e t?? ????? ?de??e? (Galen, Opp. t. v. p. 120, ed. Basil). The comparison of the Dioskuri appealed to by XenophÔn is a precise reproduction of their function as described in the Homeric Hymn (Hymn xxxiii. 10): his personification of the “days of crisis” introduces the old religious agency to fill up a gap in his medical science. I annex an illustration from the Hindoo vein of thought:—“It is a rule with the Hindoos to bury, and not to burn, the bodies of those who die of the small pox: for (say they) the small pox is not only caused by the goddess Davey, but is, in fact, Davey herself; and to burn the body of a person affected with this disease, is, in reality, neither more nor less than to burn the goddess.” (Sleeman, Rambles and Recollections, etc., vol. i. ch. xxv. p. 221.) [852] Horat. de Art. Poet. 79:— “Archilochum proprio rabies armavit Iambo,” etc. Compare Epist. i. 19, 23, and Epod. vi. 12; Aristot. Rhetor. iii. 8, 7, and Poetic. c. 4—also Synesius de Somniis—?spe? ???a??? ?a? ?????????, ?? dedapa???as? t?? e?st??a? e?? t?? ???e??? ??? ???te??? (AlcÆi Fragment. Halle, 1810, p. 205). Quintilian speaks in striking language of the power of expression manifested by Archilochus (x. 1, 60). [853] SimonidÊs of Amorgus touches briefly, but in a tone of contempt upon the Trojan war—???a???? ???e?? ?f?d????????? (Simonid. Fragm. 8. p. 36. v. 118); he seems to think it absurd that so destructive a struggle should have taken place “pro un mulierculÂ,” to use the phrase of Mr. Payne Knight. [854] See Quintilian, x. 1, 63. Horat. Od. i. 32; ii. 13. Aristot. Polit. iii. 10, 4. Dionys. Halic. observes (Vett. Scriptt. Censur. v. p. 421) respecting AlkÆus—p???a??? ???? t? ?t??? e? t?? pe??????, ??t?????? ?? e???? p???te?a?; and Strabo (xiii. p. 617), t? stas??t??? ?a???e?a t?? ???a??? p???ata. There was a large dash of sarcasm and homely banter aimed at neighbors and contemporaries in the poetry of SapphÔ, apart from her impassioned love-songs—????? s??pte? t?? ???????? ??f??? ?a? t?? ??????? t?? ?? t??? ?????, e?te??stata ?a? ?? p????? ???as? ????? ? ?? p???t?????. ?ste a?t?? ????? ?st? t? p???ata ta?ta d?a???es?a? ? ?de??? ??d? ?? ???sa? p??? t?? ????? ? p??? t?? ???a?, e? ? t?? e?? ????? d?a?e?t???? (DÊmÊtr. Phaler, De Interpret. c. 167). Compare also Herodot. ii. 135, who mentions the satirical talent of SapphÔ, employed against her brother for an extravagance about the courtezan RhodÔpis. [855] SolÔn, Fragm. iv. 1, ed. Schneidewin:— ??t?? ????? ????? ?f? ?e?t?? Sa?a???? ??s?? ?p??? ?d?? ??t? ?????? ??e???, etc. See Brandis, Handbuch der Griechischen Philosophie, sect. xxiv.-xxv. Plato states that SolÔn, in his old age, engaged in the composition of an epic poem, which he left unfinished, on the subject of the supposed island of Atlantis and Attica (Plato, TimÆus, p. 21, and Kritias, p. 113). Plutarch, SolÔn, c. 31. [856] Homer, Hymn. ad Apollin. 155; Thucydid. iii. 104. [857] Herodot. i. 163. [858] Herodot. iv. 36. ?e?? d? ????? G?? pe???d??? ????a?ta? p?????? ?d?, ?a? ??d??a ???? ????ta? ?????s?e???? ?? ???a??? te ????ta ???f??s? p???? t?? ???, ???sa? ?????te??a ?? ?p? t?????, etc., a remark probably directed against HekatÆus. Respecting the map of Anaximander, Strabo, i. p. 7; Diogen. LaËrt. ii. 1; Agathemer ap. Geograph. Minor. i. 1. p??t?? ?t???se t?? ????????? ?? p??a?? ????a?. Aristagoras of MilÊtus, who visited Sparta to solicit aid for the revolted Ionians against Darius, brought with him a brazen tablet or map, by means of which he exhibited the relative position of places in the Persian empire (Herodot. v. 49). [859] Xanthus ap. Strabo. i. p. 50; xii. p. 579. Compare Creuzer, Fragmenta Xanthi, p. 162. [860] Xenophan. ap. Sext. Empiric. adv. Mathemat. ix. 193. Fragm. 1. Poet. GrÆc. ed. Schneidewin. Diogen. LaËrt. ix. 18. [861] Hesiod, Opp. Di. 122; Homer, Hymn. ad Vener. 260. [862] A defence of the primitive faith, on this ground, is found in Plutarch, QuÆstion. Sympos. vii. 4, 4, p. 703. [863] Aristotel. Metaphys. i. 3. [864] Plutarch, Placit. Philos. ii. 1; also StobÆus, Eclog. Physic. i. 22, where the difference between the Homeric expressions and those of the subsequent philosophers is seen. Damm, Lexic. Homeric. v. F?s??; Alexander von Humboldt, Kosmos, p. 76, the note 9 on page 62 of that admirable work. The title of the treatises of the early philosophers (Melissus, DÊmokritus, ParmenidÊs, EmpedoclÊs, AlkmÆÔn, etc.) was frequently ?e?? F?se?? (Galen. Opp. tom. i. p. 56, ed. Basil). [865] Xenophan. ap. Sext. Empiric. vii. 50; viii. 326.— ?a? t? ?? ??? saf?? ??t?? ???? ?de?, ??te t?? ?st?? ??d?? ?f? ?e?? te ?a? ?ssa ???? pe?? p??t??? ?? ??? ?a? t? ???sta t???? tete?es???? e?p??, ??t?? ??? ??? ??de, d???? d? ?p? p?s? t?t??ta?. Compare Aristotel. De Xenophane, Zenone, et GeorgiÂ, capp. 1-2. [866] See the treatise of M. Auguste Comte (Cours de Philosophie Positive), and his doctrine of the three successive stages of the human mind in reference to scientific study—the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive;—a doctrine laid down generally in his first lecture (vol. i. p. 4-12), and largely applied and illustrated throughout his instructive work. It is also re-stated and elucidated by Mr. John Stuart Mill, in his System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, vol. ii. p. 610. [867] “Human wisdom (?????p??? s?f?a), as contrasted with the primitive theology (?? ???a??? ?a? d?at????te? pe?? t?? ?e?????a?),” to take the words of Aristotle (Meteorolog. ii. 1. pp. 41-42, ed. Tauchnitz). [868] Xenoph. Memor. i. 1, 6-9. ?? ?? ??a??a?a (S????t??) s??e???e?e ?a? p??tte??, ?? ?????e? ???st? ?? p?a????a?? pe?? d? t?? ?d???? ?p?? ?p??s??t?, a?te?s?????? ?pepe?, e? p???t?a. ?a? t??? ?????ta? ?????? te ?a? p??e?? ?a??? ????se?? a?t???? ?f? p??sde?s?a?? te?t?????? ?? ??? ? ?a??e?t???? ? ?e??????? ? ?????p?? ???????, ? t?? t????t?? ????? ??etast????, ? ????st????, ? ??????????, ? st?at?????? ?e??s?a?, p??ta t? t??a?ta, a??ata ?a? ?????p?? ???? a??et?a, ?????e? e??a?? t? d? ???sta t?? ?? t??t??? ?f? t??? ?e??? ?a?t??? ?ata?e?pes?a?, ?? ??d?? d???? e??a? t??? ?????p???.... ???? d? ?d?? t?? t????t?? ???????? e??a? da??????, ???? p??ta t?? ?????p???? ?????, da????? ?f?? da????? d? ?a? t??? a?te??????? ? t??? ?????p??? ?d??a? ?? ?e?? a???s? d?a????e??.... ?f? d? de??, ? ?? a???ta? p??e?? ?d??a? ?? ?e??, a????e??? ? d? ? d??a t??? ?????p??? ?st?, pe???s?a? d?? a?t???? pa?? t?? ?e?? p?????es?a?? t??? ?e??? ???, ??? ?? ?s?? ??e?, s?a??e??. Compare also Memorab. iv. 7. 7; and CyropÆd. i. 6, 3, 23-46. Physical and astronomical phÆnomena are classified by SocratÊs among the divine class, interdicted to human study (Memor. i. 1,13): t? ?e?a or da????a as supposed to t?????pe?a. Plato (Phileb. c. 16; Legg. x. p. 886-889; xii. p. 967) held the sun and stars to be gods, each animated with its special soul: he allowed astronomical investigation to the extent necessary for avoiding blasphemy respecting these beings—???? t?? ? ?asf?e?? pe?? a?t? (vii. 821). [869] HippocratÊs, De AËre, Locis et Aquis, c. 22 (p. 78, ed. LittrÉ, sect. 106 ed. Petersen): ?t? te p??? t??t???s? e??????a? ??????ta? ?? p?e?st?? ?? S????s?, ?a? ???a????a ???????ta? ?a? ?? a? ???a??e? d?a?????ta? te ?????? ?a?e??ta? te ?? t????t?? ??a?d??e??. ?? ?? ??? ?p??????? t?? a?t??? p??st???as? ?e? ?a? s???ta? t??t???? t??? ?????p??? ?a? p??s??????s?, ded????te? pe?? ???t??? ??ast??. ??? d? ?a? a?t?? d???e? ta?ta t? p??ea ?e?a e??a?, ?a? t???a p??ta, ?a? ??d?? ?te??? ?t???? ?e??te??? ??d? ?????p???te???, ???? p??ta ?e?a? ??ast?? d? ??e? f?s?? t?? t????t???, ?a? ??d?? ??e? f?s??? ????eta?. ?a? t??t? t? p????, ?? ?? d???e? ????es?a?, f??s?, etc. Again, sect. 112. ???? ???, ?spe? ?a? p??te??? ??e?a, ?e?a ?? ?a? ta?t? ?st? ????? t??s? ?????s?, ????eta? d? ?at? f?s?? ??asta. Compare the remarkable treatise of HippocratÊs, De Morbo Sacro, capp. 1 and 18, vol. vi. p. 352-394, ed. LittrÉ. See this opinion of HippocratÊs illustrated by the doctrines of some physical philosophers stated in Aristotle, Physic. ii. 8. ?spe? ?e? ? ?e??, ??? ?p?? t?? s?t?? a???s?, ???? ?? ???????, etc. Some valuable observations on the method of HippocratÊs are also found in Plato, PhÆdr. p. 270. [870] See the graphic picture in Plato, PhÆdon. p. 97-98 (cap. 46-47): compare Plato, Legg. xii. p. 967; Aristotel. Metaphysic. i. p. 13-14 (ed. Brandis); Plutarch, Defect. Oracul. p. 435. Simplicius, Commentar. in Aristotel. Physic. p. 38. ?a? ?pe? d? ? ?? Fa?d??? S????t?? ???a?e? t? ??a?a????, t? ?? ta?? t?? ?at? ???? a?t??????a?? ? t? ?? ?e???s?a?, ???? ta?? ????a?? ?p?d?ses??, ???e??? ?? t? f?s???????. Anaxagoras thought that the superior intelligence of men, as compared with other animals, arose from his possession of hands (Aristot. de Part. Animal. iv. 10. p. 687, ed. Bekk.). [871] XenophÔn, Memorab. iv. 7. SocratÊs said, ?a? pa?af????sa? t?? ta?ta e?????ta ??d?? ?tt?? ? ??a?a???a? pa?ef????se?, ? ???st?? f????sa? ?p? t? t?? t?? ?e?? ??a??? ????e?s?a?, etc. Compare Schaubach, AnaxagorÆ Fragment. p. 50-141; Plutarch, Nikias, 23, and PeriklÊs, 6-32; Diogen. LaËrt. ii. 10-14. The Ionic philosophy, from which Anaxagoras receded more in language than in spirit, seems to have been the least popular of all the schools, though some of the commentators treat it as conformable to vulgar opinion, because it confined itself for the most part to phÆnomenal explanations, and did not recognize the noumena of Plato, or the t? ?? ???t?? of ParmenidÊs,—“qualis fuit Ionicorum, quÆ tum dominabatur, ratio, vulgari opinione et communi sensu comprobata” (Karsten, Parmenidis Fragment, De Parmenidis PhilosophiÂ, p. 154). This is a mistake: the Ionic philosophers, who constantly searched for and insisted upon physical laws, came more directly into conflict with the sentiment of the multitude than the Eleatic school. The larger atmospheric phÆnomena were connected in the most intimate manner with Grecian religious feeling and uneasiness (see Demokritus ap. Sect. Empiric. ix. sect. 19-24. p. 552-554, Fabric.): the attempts of Anaxagoras and Demokritus to explain them were more displeasing to the public than the Platonic speculations (Demokritus ap. Aristot. Meteorol. ii. 7; StobÆus, Eclog. Physic. p. 594: compare Mullach, Democriti Fragmenta, lib. iv. p. 394). [872] XenophÔn, Memorab. i. 1. [873] It is curious to see that some of the most recondite doctrines of the Pythagorean philosophy were actually brought before the general Syracusan public in the comedies of Epicharmus: “In comoediis suis personas sÆpe ita colloqui fecit, ut sententias Pythagoricas et in universum sublimia vitÆ prÆcepta immisceret” (Grysar, De Doriensium ComoediÂ, p. 111, Col. 1828). The fragments preserved in Diogen. LaËrt. (iii. 9-17) present both criticisms upon the Hesiodic doctrine of a primÆval chaos, and an exposition of the archetypal and immutable ideas (as opposed to the fluctuating phÆnomena of sense) which Plato afterwards adopted and systematized. Epicharmus seems to have combined with this abstruse philosophy a strong vein of comic shrewdness and some turn to scepticism (Cicero, Epistol. ad Attic. i. 19): “ut crebro mihi vafer ille Siculus Epicharmus insusurret cantilenam suam.” Clemens Alex. Strom. v. p. 258. ??fe ?a? ??as? ?p?ste??? ????a ta?ta t?? f?e???. ??e? ????? ?a? ????s?? ta?ta ??? s??e? ??t???. Also his contemptuous ridicule of the prophetesses of his time who cheated foolish women out of their money, pretending to universal knowledge, ?a? p??ta ?????s???t? t? t???? ???? (ap Polluc. ix. 81). See, about Epicharmus. O. MÜller, Dorians, iv. 7, 4. These dramas seem to have been exhibited at Syracuse between 480-460 B. C., anterior even to ChionidÊs and MagnÊs at Athens (Aristot. Poet. c. 3): he says p???? p??te???, which can hardly be literally exact. The critics of the Horatian age looked upon Epicharmus as the prototype of Plautus (Hor. Epistol. ii. 1. 58). [874] The third book of the republic of Plato is particularly striking in reference to the use of the poets in education: see also his treatise De Legg. vii. p. 810-811. Some teachers made their pupils learn whole poets by heart (????? p???t?? ??a??????), others preferred extracts and selections. [875] Pindar, Nem. vi. 1. Compare SimonidÊs, Fragm. 1 (Gaisford). [876] Pindar, Olymp. i. 30-55; ix. 32-45. [877] Pyth. iii. 25. See the allusions to SemelÊ, AlkmÊna, and DanaÊ, Pyth. iii. 98; Nem. x. 10. Compare also supra, chap. ix. p. 245. [878] Pindar, Nem. vii. 20-30; viii. 23-31. Isthm. iii. 50-60. It seems to be sympathy for Ajax, in odes addressed to noble Æginetan victors, which induces him thus to depreciate Odysseus; for he eulogizes Sisyphus, specially on account of his cunning and resources (Olymp. xiii. 50) in the ode addressed to XenophÔn the Corinthian. [879] Olymp. i. 28; Nem. viii. 20; Pyth. i. 93; Olymp. vii. 55; Nem. vi. 43. f??t? d? ?????p?? pa?a?a? ??s?e?, etc. [880] Pyth. x. 49. Compare Pyth. xii. 11-22. [881] Pyth. i. 17; iii. 4-7; iv. 12; viii. 16. Nem. iv. 27-32; v. 89. Isthm. v. 31; vi. 44-48. Olymp. iii. 17; viii. 63; xiii. 61-87. [882] Nem. iii. 39; v. 40. s???e??? e?d???a—p?t?? s???e???; v. 8. Olymp. ix. 103. Pindar seems to introduce f?? in cases where Homer would have mentioned the divine assistance. [883] Nem. x. 37-51. Compare the family legend of the Athenian DÊmocrates, in Plato, Lysis, p. 295. [884] Nem. v. 12-16. [886] The curse of Œdipus is the determining force in the Sept. ad ThÊb., ??? t?, ??????? pat??? ? e?as?e??? (v. 70); it reappears several times in the course of the drama, with particular solemnity in the mouth of EteoklÊs (695-709, 725, 785, etc.); he yields to it as an irresistible force, as carrying the family to ruin:— ?pe? t? p???a ???t? ?p?sp???e? ?e??, ?t? ?at? ?????, ??a ????t?? ?a???, F??? st?????? p?? t? ?a??? ?????. · · · · · F???? ??? ????? ?? pat??? t??e?? ??a ?????? ???a?st??? ?as?? p??s????e?, etc. So again at the opening of the AgamemnÔn, the ???? ???? te???p????? (v. 155) and the sacrifice of Iphigeneia are dwelt upon as leaving behind them an avenging doom upon AgamemnÔn, though he took precautions for gagging her mouth during the sacrifice and thus preventing her from giving utterance to imprecations—F?????? ??a??? ??????, ??? ?a????? t? ??a?d? ??e? (?atas?e??), v. 346. The Erinnys awaits AgamemnÔn even at the moment of his victorious consummation at Troy (467; compare 762-990, 1336-1433): she is most to be dreaded after great good fortune: she enforces the curse which ancestral crimes have brought upon the house of Atreus—p??ta???? ?t?—pa?a?a? ?a?t?a? d??? (1185-1197, ChoËph. 692)—the curse imprecated by the outraged ThyestÊs (1601). In the ChoËphorÆ, Apollo menaces OrestÊs with the wrath of his deceased father, and all the direful visitations of the Erinnyes, unless he undertakes to revenge the murder (271-296). ??sa and ??????? bring on blood for blood (647). But the moment that OrestÊs, placed between these conflicting obligations (925), has achieved it, he becomes himself the victim of the Erinnyes, who drive him mad even at the end of the ChoËphorÆ (??? d? ?t? ?f??? e??, 1026), and who make their appearance bodily, and pursue him throughout the third drama of this fearful trilogy. The EidÔlon of KlytÆmnÊstra impels them to vengeance (Eumenid. 96) and even spurs them on when they appear to relax. Apollo conveys OrestÊs to Athens, whither the Erinnyes pursue him, and prosecute him before the judgment-seat of the goddess AthÊnÊ, to whom they submit the award; Apollo appearing as his defender. The debate between “the daughters of Night” and the god, accusing and defending, is eminently curious (576-730): the Erinnyes are deeply mortified at the humiliation put upon them when OrestÊs is acquitted, but AthÊnÊ at length reconciles them, and a covenant is made whereby they become protectresses of Attica, accepting of a permanent abode and solemn worship (1006): OrestÊs returns to Argos, and promises that even in his tomb he will watch that none of his descendants shall ever injure the land of Attica (770). The solemn trial and acquittal of OrestÊs formed the consecrating legend of the Hill and Judicature of Areiopagus. This is the only complete trilogy of Æschylus which we possess, and the avenging Erinnyes (416) are the movers throughout the whole—unseen in the first two dramas, visible and appalling in the third. And the appearance of Cassandra under the actual prophetic fever in the first, contributes still farther to impart to it a coloring different from common humanity. The general view of the movement of the Oresteia given in Welcker (Æschyl. Trilogie, p. 445) appears to me more conformable to Hellenic ideas than that of Klausen (Theologumena Æschyli, pp. 157-169), whose valuable collection and comparison of passages is too much affected, both here and elsewhere, by the desire to bring the agencies of the Greek mythical world into harmony with what a religious mind of the present day would approve. Moreover, he sinks the personality of AthÊnÊ too much in the supreme authority of Zeus (p. 158-168). [887] EumenidÊs, 150.— ?? pa? ????, ?p????p?? p??e?, ???? d? ??a?a? da???a? ?a??pp?s?, etc. The same metaphor again, v. 731. Æschylus seems to delight in contrasting the young and the old gods: compare 70-162, 882. The Erinnyes tell Apollo that he assumes functions which do not belong to him, and will thus desecrate those which do belong to him (715-754):— ???? a?at??? p???at?, ?? ?a???, s?e??, ?a?te?a d? ??? ??? ???? a?te?se? ????. The refusal of the king Pelasgos, in the Supplices, to undertake what he feels to be the sacred duty of protecting the suppliant DanaÏdes, without first submitting the matter to his people and obtaining their expressed consent, and the fear which he expresses of their blame (?at? ????? ??? f??a?t??? ????), are more forcibly set forth than an old epic poet would probably have thought necessary (see Supplices, 369, 397, 485, 519). The solemn wish to exclude both anarchy and despotism from Athens bears still more the mark of political feeling of the time—?t? ??a???? ?te desp?t?????? (Eumenid. 527-696). [888] PromÊtheus, 35, 151, 170, 309, 524, 910, 940, 956. [889] Plato, Republ. ii. 381-383; compare Æschyl. Fragment. 159, ed. Dindorf. He was charged also with having divulged in some of his plays secret matters of the mysteries of DÊmÊtÊr, but is said to have excused himself by alleging ignorance: he was not aware that what he had said was comprised in the mysteries (Aristot. Ethic. Nicom. iii. 2; Clemens Alex. Strom. ii. p. 387); the story is different again in Ælian, V. H. v. 19. How little can be made out distinctly respecting this last accusation may be seen in Lobeck, Aglaopham. p. 81. Cicero (Tusc. Dis. ii. 10) calls Æschylus “almost a Pythagorean:” upon what the epithet is founded we do not know. There is no evidence to prove to us that the PromÊtheus Vinctus was considered as impious by the public before whom it was represented; but its obvious meaning has been so regarded by modern critics, who resort to many different explanations of it, in order to prove that when properly construed it is not impious. But if we wish to ascertain what Æschylus really meant, we ought not to consult the religious ideas of modern times; we have no test except what we know of the poet’s own time and that which had preceded him. The explanations given by the ablest critics seem generally to exhibit a predetermination to bring out Zeus as a just, wise, merciful, and all-powerful Being; and all, in one way or another, distort the figures, alter the perspective, and give far-fetched interpretations of the meaning, of this striking drama, which conveys an impression directly contrary (see Welcker, Trilogie, Æsch. p. 90-117, with the explanation of Dissen there given; Klausen, Theologum. Æsch. p. 140-154; SchÖmann, in his recent translation of the play, and the criticism on that Translation in the Wiener JahrbÜcher, vol. cix. 1845, p. 245, by F. Ritter). On the other hand, Schutz (Excurs. ad Prom. Vinct. p. 149) thinks that Æschylus wished by means of this drama to enforce upon his countrymen the hatred of a despot. Though I do not agree in this interpretation, it appears to me less wide of the truth than the forcible methods employed by others to bring the poet into harmony with their own religious ideas. Without presuming to determine whether Æschylus proposed to himself any special purpose, if we look at the Æschylean PromÊtheus in reference only to ancient ideas, it will be found to borrow both its characters and all its main circumstances from the legend in the Hesiodic Theogony. Zeus acquires his supremacy only by overthrowing Kronos and the Titans; the Titan god PromÊtheus is the pronounced champion of helpless man, and negotiates with Zeus on their behalf: Zeus wishes to withhold from them the most essential blessings, which PromÊtheus employs deceit and theft to procure for them, and ultimately with success; undergoing, however, severe punishment for so doing from the superior force of Zeus. These are the main features of the Æschylean PromÊtheus, and they are all derived from the legend as it stands in the Theogony. As for the human race, they are depicted as abject and helpless in an extreme degree, in Æschylus even more than in Hesiod: they appear as a race of aboriginal savages, having the god PromÊtheus for their protector. Æschylus has worked up the old legend, homely and unimpressive as we read it in Hesiod, into a sublime ideal. We are not to forget that PromÊtheus is not a man, but a god,—the equal of Zeus in race, though his inferior in power, and belonging to a family of gods who were once superior to Zeus: he has moreover deserted his own kindred, and lent all his aid and superior sagacity to Zeus, whereby chiefly the latter was able to acquire supremacy (this last circumstance is an addition by Æschylus himself to the Hesiodic legend). In spite of such essential service, Zeus had doomed him to cruel punishment, for no other reason than because he conferred upon helpless man the prime means of continuance and improvement, thus thwarting the intention of Zeus to extinguish the race. Now Zeus, though superior to all the other gods and exercising general control, was never considered, either in Grecian legend or in Grecian religious belief, to be superior in so immeasurable a degree as to supersede all free action and sentiment on the part of gods less powerful. There were many old legends of dissension among the gods, and several of disobedience against Zeus: when a poet chose to dramatize one of these, he might so turn his composition as to sympathize either with Zeus or with the inferior god, without in either case shocking the general religious feeling of the country. And if there ever was an instance in which preference of the inferior god would be admissible, it is that of PromÊtheus, whose proceedings are such as to call forth the maximum of human sympathy,—superior intelligence pitted against superior force, and resolutely encountering foreknown suffering, for the sole purpose of rendering inestimable and gratuitous service to mortals. Of the PromÊtheus Solutus, which formed a sequel to the PromÊtheus Vinctus (the entire trilogy is not certainly known), the fragments preserved are very scanty, and the guesses of critics as to its plot have little base to proceed upon. They contend that, in one way or other, the apparent objections which the PromÊth. Vinctus presents against the justice of Zeus were in the PromÊth. Solutus removed. Hermann, in his Dissertatio de Æschyli Prometheo Soluto (Opuscula, vol. iv. p. 256), calls this position in question: I transcribe from his Dissertation one passage, because it contains an important remark in reference to the manner in which the Greek poets handled their religious legends: “while they recounted and believed many enormities respecting individual gods, they always described the Godhead in the abstract as holy and faultless.” ... “Immo illud admirari oportet, quod quum de singulis Diis indignissima quÆque crederent, tamen ubi sine certo nomine Deum dicebant, immunem ab omni vitio, summÂque sanctitate prÆditum intelligebant. Illam igitur Jovis sÆvitiam ut excusent defensores TrilogiÆ, et jure punitum volunt Prometheum—et in sequente fabul reconciliato Jove, restitutam arbitrantur divinam justitiam. Quo invento, vereor ne non optime dignitati consuluerint supremi Deorum, quem decuerat potius non sÆvire omnino, quam placari e lege, ut alius Promethei vice lueret.” [890] Æschyl. Fragment. 146, Dindorf; ap. Plato. Repub. iii. p. 391; compare Strabo, xii. p. 580.— ... ?? ?e?? ????sp???? ?? ????? ?????, ??? ?? ?da?? p??? ???? pat???? ??? ?st? ?? a?????, ???p? sf?? ???t???? a?a da?????. There is one real exception to this statement—the PersÆ—which is founded upon an event of recent occurrence; and one apparent exception—the PromÊtheus Vinctus. But in that drama no individual mortal is made to appear; we can hardly consider IÔ as an ?f?e??? (253). [891] For the characteristics of Æschylus see Aristophan. Ran. 755, ad fin. passim. The competition between Æschylus and EuripidÊs turns upon ???a? ??a?a?, 1497; the weight and majesty of the words, 1362; p??t?? t?? ??????? p????sa? ??ata se??, 1001, 921, 930 (“sublimis et gravis et grandiloquus sÆpe usque ad vitium,” Quintil. x. 1); the imposing appearance of his heroes, such as MemnÔn and Cycnus, 961; their reserve in speech, 908; his dramas “full of ArÊs” and his lion-hearted chiefs, inspiring the auditors with fearless spirit in defence of their country,—1014, 1019, 1040; his contempt of feminine tenderness, 1042.—
To the same general purpose Nubes (1347-1356), composed so many years earlier. The weight and majesty of the Æschylean heroes (????, t? e?a??p?ep??) is dwelt upon in the life of Æschylus, and SophoklÊs is said to have derided it—?spe? ??? ? S?f????? ??e?e, t?? ??s????? d?apepa???? ?????, etc. (Plutarch, De Profect. in Virt. Sent. c. 7), unless we are to understand this as a mistake of Plutarch quoting SophoklÊs instead of EuripidÊs, as he speaks in the Frogs of AristophanÊs, which is the opinion both of Lessing in his Life of SophoklÊs and of Welcker (Æschyl. Trilogie, p. 525). [892] See above, Chapters xiv. and xv. Æschylus seems to have been a greater innovator as to the matter of the mythes than either SophoklÊs or EuripidÊs (Dionys. Halic. Judic. de Vett. Script. p. 422, Reisk.). For the close adherence of SophoklÊs to the Homeric epic, see Athena, vii. p. 277; Diogen. LaËrt. iv. 20; Suidas, v. ??????. Æschylus puts into the mouth of the EumenidÊs a serious argument derived from the behavior of Zeus in chaining his father Kronos (Eumen. 640). [893] See Valckenaer, Diatribe in Euripid. Fragm. capp. 5 and 6. The fourth and fifth lectures among the Dramatische Vorlesungen of August Wilhelm Schlegel depict both justly and eloquently the difference between Æschylus, SophoklÊs and EuripidÊs, especially on this point of the gradual sinking of the mythical colossus into an ordinary man; about EuripidÊs especially in lecture 5, vol. i. p. 206, ed. Heidelberg 1809. [894] Aristot. Poetic. c. 46. ???? ?a? S?f????? ?f?, a?t?? ?? ????? de? p??e??, ????p?d?? d?, ???? e?s?. The RanÆ and Acharneis of AristophanÊs exhibit fully the reproaches urged against EuripidÊs: the language put into the mouth of EuripidÊs in the former play (vv. 935-977) illustrates specially the point here laid down. Plutarch (De Glori Atheniens. c. 5) contrasts ? ????p?d?? s?f?a ?a? ? S?f???e??? ?????t??. SophoklÊs either adhered to the old mythes or introduced alterations into them in a spirit comformable to their original character, while EuripidÊs refined upon them. The comment of DÊmÊtrius Phalereus connects t? ?????? expressly with the maintenance of the dignity of the tales. ????a? d? ?p? t?? e?a??p?ep???, ?pe? ??? ?????? ???????s?? (c. 38). [895] Aristophan. Ran. 770, 887, 1066. EuripidÊs says to Æschylus, in regard to the language employed by both of them,—
Æschylus replies,—
For the character of the language and measures of EuripidÊs, as represented by Æschylus, see also v. 1297, and Pac. 527. Philosophical discussion was introduced by EuripidÊs (Dionys. Hal. Ars Rhetor. viii. 10-ix. 11) about the MelanippÊ, where the doctrine of prodigies (t??a?) appears to have been argued. Quintilian (x. 1) remarks that to young beginners in judicial pleading, the study of EuripidÊs was much more specially profitable than that of SophoklÊs: compare Dio Chrysostom, Orat. xviii. vol. i. p. 477, Reisk. In EuripidÊs the heroes themselves sometimes delivered moralizing discourses:—e?s???? t?? ?e??e??f??t?? ??????????ta (Welcker, Griechisch. TragÖd. Eurip. Stheneb. p. 782). Compare the fragments of his BellerophÔn (15-25, MatthiÆ), and of his Chrysippus (7, ib.). A striking story is found in Seneca, Epistol. 115; and Plutarch, de Audiend. Poetis, c. 4. t. i. p. 70, Wytt. [896] Aristophan. Ran. 840.— ? st?????s???e?t?d? ?a? pt???p??? ?a? ?a???s???apt?d?? See also Aristophan. Acharn. 385-422. For an unfavorable criticism upon such proceeding, see Aristot. Poet. 27. [897] Aristophan. Ran. 1050.—
In the Hercules Furens, EuripidÊs puts in relief and even exaggerates the worst elements of the ancient mythes: the implacable hatred of HÊrÊ towards HÊraklÊs is pushed so far as to deprive him of his reason (by sending down Iris and the unwilling ??ssa), and thus intentionally to drive him to slay his wife and children with his own hands. [898] Aristoph. Ran. 849, 1041, 1080; Thesmophor. 547; Nubes, 1354. Grauert, De Medi GrÆcorum Comoedi in Rheinisch. Museum, 2nd Jahrs. 1 Heft, p. 51. It suited the plan of the drama of Æolus, as composed by EuripidÊs, to place in the mouth of Macareus a formal recommendation of incestuous marriages: probably this contributed much to offend the Athenian public. See Dionys. Hal. Rhetor. ix. p. 355. About the liberty of intermarriage among relatives, indicated in Homer, parents and children being alone excepted, see Terpstra, Antiquitas Homerica, cap. xiii. p. 104. Ovid, whose poetical tendencies led him chiefly to copy EuripidÊs, observes (Trist. ii. 1, 380)— “Omne genus scripti gravitate Tragoedia vincit, HÆc quoque materiam semper amoris habet. Nam quid in Hippolyto nisi cÆcÆ flamma novercÆ? Nobilis est Canace fratris amore sui.” This is the reverse of the truth in regard to Æschylus and SophoklÊs, and only very partially true in respect to EuripidÊs. [899] Aristot. Ethic. Nicom. iii. 1, 8. ?a? ??? t?? ????p?d?? ???a???a ?e???a fa??eta? t? ??a???sa?ta ?t???t???sa? (In the lost tragedy called ???a??? ? d?? ??f?d??). [900] Aristot. Poetic. 26-27. And in his Problemata also, in giving the reason why the Hypo-Dorian and Hypo-Phrygian musical modes were never assigned to the Chorus, he says— ?a?ta d? ?f? ???? ?? ??a??st?, t??? d? ?p? s????? ???e??te?a. ??e???? ?? ??? ????? ??ta?? ?? d? ??e??e? t?? ???a??? ???? ?sa? ???e?, ?? d? ?a?? ?????p??, ?? ?st?? ? ?????. ??? ?a? ????e? a?t? t? ??e??? ?a? ?s????? ???? ?a? ????? ?????p??? ???. [901] See MÜller, Prolegom. zu einer wissenschaftlichen Mythologie, c. iii. p. 93. [902] Hellanic. Fragment. 143, ed. Didot. [903] HekatÆi Fragm. ed. Didot. 332, 346, 349; Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. 1. 256; AthenÆ. ii. p. 133; Skylax, c. 26. Perhaps HekatÆus was induced to look for Erytheia in Epirus by the brick-red color of the earth there in many places, noticed by Pouqueville and other travellers (Voyage dans la GrÈce, vol. ii. 248: see Klausen, Æneas und die Penaten, vol. i. p. 222). ??ata??? ? ????s???—????? e??e? e???ta, Pausan. iii. 25, 4. He seems to have written expressly concerning the fabulous Hyperboreans, and to have upheld the common faith against doubts which had begun to rise in his time: the derisory notice of Hyperboreans in Herodotus is probably directed against HekatÆus, iv. 36; Schol. ApollÔn. Rhod. ii. 675; DiodÔr. ii. 47. It is maintained by Mr. Clinton (Fast. Hell. ii. p. 480) and others (see not. ad Fragment. HecatÆi, p. 30, ed. Didot), that the work on the Hyperboreans was written by HekatÆus of AbdÊra, a literary Greek of the age of Ptolemy Philadelphus—not by HekatÆus of MilÊtus. I do not concur in this opinion. I think it much more probable that the earlier HekatÆus was the author spoken of. The distinguished position held by HekatÆus at MilÊtus is marked not only by the notice which Herodotus takes of his opinions on public matters, but also by his negotiation with the Persian satrap Artaphernes on behalf of his countrymen (DiodÔr. Excerpt. xlvii. p. 41, ed. Dindorf). [904] Herodot. ii. 143. [905] Marcellin. Vit. Thucyd. init. [906] Herodot. ii. 143. [907] Herodot. ii. 3, 51, 61, 65, 170. He alludes briefly (c. 51) to an ???? ????? which was communicated in the Samothracian mysteries, but he does not mention what it was: also about the Thesmophoria, or te?et? of DÊmÊtÊr (c. 171). ?a? pe?? ?? t??t?? t?sa?ta ??? e?p??s?, ?a? pa?? t?? ?e?? ?a? ????? e???e?a e?? (c. 45). Compare similar scruples on the part of Pausanias (viii. 25 and 37). The passage of Herodotus (ii. 3) is equivocal, and has been understood in more ways than one (see Lobeck, Aglaopham. p. 1287). The aversion of Dionysius of Halikarnassus to reveal the divine secrets is not less powerful (see A. R. i. 67, 68), and Pausanias passim. [908] Herod. iii. 122. [909] Herod. ii. 145. [910] Herodot. ii. 43-145. ?a? ta?ta ????pt??? ?t?e???? fas? ?p?stas?a?, ?e? te ??????e??? ?a? ?e? ?p???af?e??? t? ?tea. [911] Herodot, ii. 53. ???? ?? p???? te ?a? ????, ?? e?pe?? ????. ?s??d?? ??? ?a? ????? ??????? tet?a??s???s? ?tes? d???? e? p?es?t????? ?e??s?a?, ?a? ?? p???s?. [912] Herodot. ii. 146. [913] Herod. i. 56. [914] Herod. v. 66. [915] Herod. ix. 73. [916] Herod. ii, 43-44, 91-98, 171-182 (the Egyptians admitted the truth of the Greek legend, that Perseus had come to Libya to fetch the Gorgon’s head). [917] Herod. ii. 113-120; iv. 145; vii. 134. [918] Herod. i. 67-68; ii. 113. vii. 159. [919] Herod. i. 1, 2, 4; v. 81, 65. [920] Herod. i. 52; iv. 145; v. 67; vii. 193. [921] Herod. vi. 52-53. [922] Herod. iv. 147; v. 59-61. [923] Herod. v. 61; ix. 27-28. [924] Herod. i. 52; iv. 145; v. 67. [925] Herod. i. 1-4; ii. 49, 113: iv. 147; v. 94. [926] Herod. ii. 45. ?????s? d? p???? ?a? ???a ??ep?s??pt?? ?? ?????e?? e????? d? a?t??? ?a? ?de ? ???? ?st?, t?? pe?? t?? ??a????? ?????s?.... ?t? d? ??a ???ta t?? ??a???a, ?a? ?t? ?????p?? ?? d? fas?, ??? f?s?? ??e? p????? ????da? f??e?sa?; ?a? pe?? ?? t??t?? t?sa?ta ??? e?p??s?, ?a? pa?? t?? ?e?? ?a? pa?? t?? ????? e???e?a e??. We may also notice the manner in which the historian criticizes the stratagem whereby Peisistratus established himself as despot at Athens—by dressing up the stately Athenian woman PhyÊ in the costume of the goddess AthÊnÊ, and passing off her injunctions as the commands of the goddess; the Athenians accepted her with unsuspecting faith, and received Peisistratus at her command. Herodotus treats the whole affair as a piece of extravagant silliness, p???a e????stat?? a??? (i. 60). [927] Herod. ii. 55. ??d??a??? d? a? ????a? ... ??e??? ta?ta, s???????e?? d? sf? ?a? ?? ????? ??d??a??? ?? pe?? t? ????. The miracle sometimes takes another form; the oak at DÔdÔna was itself once endued with speech (Dionys. Hal. Ars. Rhetoric. i. 6; Strabo). [928] Herod. ii. 54. [929] Herod. ii. 57. ?pe? t?? ?? t??p? pe?e??? ?e ?????p??? f??? f????a?t?; According to one statement, the word ?e?e??? in the Thessalian dialect meant both a dove and a prophetess (Scriptor. Rer. Mythicarum, ed. Bode, i. 96). Had there been any truth in this, Herodotus could hardly have failed to notice it, inasmuch as it would exactly have helped him out of the difficulty which he felt. [930] Herod. ii. 49. ??? ?? ??? f?? ?e??p?da ?e??e??? ??d?a s?f??, a?t???? te ???t? s?st?sa?, ?a? p???e??? ?p? ????pt??, ???a te p???? ?s???sas?a? ????s?, ?a? t? pe?? t?? ?????s??, ????a a?t?? pa?a????a?ta. [931] Herod. ii. 49. ?t?e???? ?? ?? p??ta s???a?? t?? ????? ?f??e? (Melampus) ???? ?? ?p??e??e??? t??t? s?f?sta? e????? ???f??a?. [932] Compare Herod. iv. 95; ii. 81. ??????? ?? t? ?s?e?est?t? s?f?st? ???a????. [933] Homer, Odyss. xi. 290; xv. 225. ApollodÔr. i. 9, 11-12. Hesiod, Eoiai, Fragm. 55, ed. DÜntzer (p. 43)— ????? ?? ??? ?d??e? ???p??? ??a??d?s?, ???? d? ???a???da??, p???t?? d? ?p??? ?t?e?d?s?. also Frag. 34 (p. 38), and Frag. 65 (p. 45); Schol. Apoll. Rhod. i. 118. Herodotus notices the celebrated mythical narrative of Melampus healing the deranged Argive women (ix. 34); according to the original legend, the daughters of Proetus. In the Hesiodic Eoiai (Fr. 16, DÜntz.; Apollod. ii. 2) the distemper of the Proetid females was ascribed to their having repudiated the rites and worship of Dionysus (Akusilaus, indeed, assigned a different cause), which shows that the old fable recognized a connection between Melampus and these rites. [934] Homer, Iliad, i. 72-87; xv. 412. Odyss. xv. 245-252; iv. 233. Some times the gods inspired prophecy for the special occasion, without conferring upon the party the permanent gift and status of a prophet (compare Odyss. i. 202; xvii. 383). SolÔn, Fragm. xi. 48-53, Schneidewin:— ????? ??t?? ????e? ??a? ???e???? ?p?????, ???? d? ??d?? ?a??? t????e? ????e???, ?? s???a?t?s?s? ?e??.... Herodotus himself reproduces the old belief in the special gift of prophetic power by Zeus and Apollo, in the story of Euenius of ApollÔnia (ix. 94). See the fine ode of Pindar, describing the birth and inspiration of Jamus, eponymous father of the great prophetic family in Elis called the Jamids (Herodot. ix. 33), Pindar, Olymp. vi. 40-75. About Teiresias, Sophoc. Œd. Tyr. 283-410. Neither NestÔr nor Odysseus possesses the gift of prophecy. [935] More than one tale is found elsewhere, similar to this, about the defile of TempÊ:— “A tradition exists that this part of the country was once a lake, and that Solomon commanded two deeves, or genii, named Ard and Beel, to turn off the water into the Caspian, which they effected by cutting a passage through the mountains; and a city, erected in the newly-formed plain, was named after them Ard-u-beel.” (Sketches on the Shores of the Caspian, by W. R. Holmes.) Also about the plain of Santa Fe di Bogota, in South America, that it was once under water, until Bochica cleft the mountains and opened a channel of egress (Humboldt, Vues des CordillÈres, p. 87-88); and about the plateau of Kashmir (Humboldt, Asie Centrale, vol. i. p. 102), drained in a like miraculous manner by the saint KÂsyapa. The manner in which conjectures, derived from local configuration or peculiarities, are often made to assume the form of traditions, is well remarked by the same illustrious traveller: “Ce qui se prÉsente comme une tradition, n’est souvent que le reflet de l’impression que laisse l’aspect des lieux. Des bancs de coquilles À demi-fossiles, rÉpandues dans les isthmes ou sur des plateaux, font naÎtre mÊme chez les hommes les moins avancÉs dans la culture intellectuelle, l’idÉe de grandes inondations, d’anciennes communications entre des bassins limitrophes. Des opinions, que l’on pourroit appeler systÉmatiques, se trouvent dans les forÊts de l’OrÉnoque comme dans les Îles de la Mer du Sud. Dans l’une et dans l’autre de ces contrÉes, elles ont pris la forme des traditions.” (A. von Humboldt, Asie Centrale, vol. ii. p. 147.) Compare a similar remark in the same work and volume, p. 286-294. [936] Herodot. vii. 129. (PoseidÔn was worshipped as ?et?a??? in Thessaly, in commemoration of this geological interference: Schol. Pindar. Pyth. iv. 245.) ?? d? pa?a??? ???eta?, ??? ???t?? ?? t?? a?????? ?a? d?e????? t??t??, t??? p?t???? t??t??? ... ????ta? p??e?? t?? Tessa???? p?sa? p??a???. ??t?? ?? ??? T?ssa??? ?????s? ??se?d???a p???sa? t?? a????a, d?? ?? ??e? ? ???e???, ????ta ?????te?. ?st?? ??? ????e? ??se?d???a t?? ??? se?e??, ?a? t? d?este?ta ?p? se?s?? t?? ?e?? t??t?? ???a e??a?, ?a? ?? ??e??? ?d?? fa?? ??se?d???a p???sa?. ?st? ??? se?s?? ?????, ?? ??? ?fa??et? e??a?, ? d??stas?? t?? ??????. In another case (viii. 129), Herodotus believes that PoseidÔn produced a preternaturally high tide, in order to punish the Persians, who had insulted his temple near PotidÆa: here was a special motive for the god to exert his power. This remark of Herodotus illustrates the hostile ridicule cast by AristophanÊs (in the Nubes) upon SocratÊs, on the score of alleged impiety, because he belonged to a school of philosophers (though in point of fact he discountenanced that line of study) who introduced physical laws and forces in place of the personal agency of the gods. The old man Strepsiades inquires from SocratÊs, Who rains? Who thunders? To which SocratÊs replies, “Not Zeus, but the NephelÆ, i. e. the clouds: you never saw rain without clouds.” Strepsiades then proceeds to inquire—“But who is it that compels the clouds to move onward? is it not Zeus?” SocratÊs—“Not at all; it is Æthereal rotation.” Strepsiades—“Rotation? that had escaped me: Zeus then no longer exists, and Rotation reigns in his place.”
To the same effect v. 1454, ????? as??e?e? t?? ??? ??e???a???—“Rotation has driven out Zeus, and reigns in his place.” If AristophanÊs had had as strong a wish to turn the public antipathies against Herodotus as against SocratÊs and EuripidÊs, the explanation here given would have afforded him a plausible show of truth for doing so; and it is highly probable that the Thessalians would have been sufficiently displeased with the view of Herodotus to sympathize in the poet’s attack upon him. The point would have been made (waiving metrical considerations)— Se?s?? as??e?e?, t?? ??se?d??? ??e???a???. The comment of Herodotus upon the Thessalian view seems almost as if it were intended to guard against this very inference. Other accounts ascribed the cutting of the defile of TempÊ to HÊraklÊs (DiodÔr. iv. 18). Respecting the ancient Grecian faith, which recognized the displeasure of PoseidÔn as the cause of earthquakes, see Xenoph. Hellen. iii. 3, 2; Thucydid. i. 127; Strabo, xii. p. 579; DiodÔr. xv. 48-49. It ceased to give universal satisfaction even so early as the time of ThalÊs and AnaximenÊs (see Aristot. Meteorolog. ii. 7-8; Plutarch, Placit. Philos. iii. 15; Seneca, Natural. QuÆst. vi. 6-23); and that philosopher, as well as Anaxagoras, Democritus and others, suggested different physical explanations of the fact. Notwithstanding a dissentient minority, however, the old doctrine still continued to be generally received: and DiodÔrus, in describing the terrible earthquake in 373 B. C., by which HelikÊ and Bura were destroyed, while he notices those philosophers (probably KallisthenÊs, Senec. Nat. QuÆst. vi. 23) who substituted physical causes and laws in place of the divine agency, rejects their views, and ranks himself with the religious public, who traced this formidable phÆnomenon to the wrath of PoseidÔn (xv. 48-49). The Romans recognized many different gods as producers of earthquakes; an unfortunate creed, since it exposed them to the danger of addressing their prayers to the wrong god: “Unde in ritualibus et pontificiis observatur, obtemperantibus sacerdotiis caute, ne alio Deo pro alio nominato, cum quis eorum terram concutiat, piacula committantur.” (Ammian. Marcell. xvii. 7.) [937] Herod. ii. 116. d???e? d? ?? ?a? ????? t?? ????? t??t?? p???s?a?? ???? ?? ??? ????? e?p?ep?? ?? t?? ?p?p????? ?? t? ?t??? t? pe? ????sat?? ?? ? et??e a?t??, d???sa? ?? ?a? t??t?? ?p?sta?t? t?? ?????. Herodotus then produces a passage from the Iliad, with a view to prove that Homer knew of the voyage of Paris and Helen to Egypt; but the passage proves nothing at all to the point. Again (c. 120), his slender confidence in the epic poets breaks out—e? ??? t? t??s? ?p?p????s? ??e?e??? ???e??. It is remarkable that Herodotus is disposed to identify Helen with the ?e??? ?f??d?t? whose temple he saw at Memphis (c. 112). [938] “Ut conquirere fabulosa (says Tacitus, Hist. ii. 50, a worthy parallel of ThucydidÊs) et fictis oblectare legentium animos, procul gravitate coepti operis crediderim, ita vulgatis traditisque demere fidem non ausim. Die, quo Bebriaci certabatur, avem inusitat specie, apud Regium Lepidum celebri vico consedisse, incolÆ memorant; nec deinde coetu hominum aut circumvolitantium alitum, territam pulsamque, donec Otho se ipse interficeret: tum ablatam ex oculis: et tempora reputantibus, initium finemque miraculi cum Othonis exitu competisse.” Suetonius (Vesp. 5) recounts a different miracle, in which three eagles appear. This passage of Tacitus occurs immediately after his magnificent description of the suicide of the emperor Otho, a deed which he contemplates with the most fervent admiration. His feelings were evidently so wrought up that he was content to relax the canons of historical credibility. [939] Thucyd. i. 9-12. [940] Thucyd. i. 25. [941] Thucyd. ii. 29. ?a? t? ????? t? pe?? t?? ?t?? a? ???a??e? ?? t? ?? ta?t? ?p?a?a?? p?????? d? ?a? t?? p???t?? ?? ??d???? ??? ?a????? ? ????? ?p???asta?. ????? te ?a? t? ??d?? ?a?d???a ?????as?a? t?? ???at??? d?? t?s??t??, ?p? ?fe?e?? t? p??? ????????, ????? ? d?? p????? ?e??? ?? ?d??sa? ?d??. The first of these sentences would lead us to infer, if it came from any other pen than that of ThucydidÊs, that the writer believed the metamorphosis of PhilomÊla into a nightingale: see above, ch. xi. p. 270. The observation respecting the convenience of neighborhood for the marriage is remarkable, and shows how completely ThucydidÊs regarded the event as historical. What would he have said respecting the marriage of Oreithyia, daughter of Erechtheus, with Boreas, and the prodigious distance which she is reported to have been carried by her husband? ?p?? te p??t?? p??t?, ?p? ?s?ata ??????, etc. (SophoklÊs ap. Strabo. vii. p. 295.) From the way in which ThucydidÊs introduces the mention of this event, we see that he intended to correct the misapprehension of his countrymen, who having just made an alliance with the Odrysian TÊrÊs, were led by that circumstance to think of the old mythical TÊreus, and to regard him as the ancestor of TÊrÊs. [942] Thucyd. iv. 24. [943] Thucyd. vi. 2. [944] Thucyd. ii. 68-102; iv. 120; vi. 2. Antiochus of Syracuse, the contemporary of ThucydidÊs, also mentioned Italus as the eponymous king of Italy: he farther named Sikelus, who came to Morgos, son of Italus, after having been banished from Rome. He talks about Italus, just as ThucydidÊs talks about ThÊseus, as a wise and powerful king, who first acquired a great dominion (Dionys. H. A. R. i. 12, 35, 73). Aristotle also mentioned Italus in the same general terms (Polit. vii. 9, 2). [945] We may here notice some particulars respecting IsokratÊs. He manifests entire confidence in the authenticity of the mythical genealogies and chronology; but while he treats the mythical personages as historically real, he regards them at the same time not as human, but as half-gods, superior to humanity. About Helena, ThÊseus, SarpÊdÔn, Cycnus, MemnÔn, Achilles, etc., see Encom. Helen. Or. x. pp. 282, 292, 295. Bek. Helena was worshipped in his time as a goddess at TherapnÆ (ib. p. 295). He recites the settlements of Danaus, Kadmus, and Pelops in Greece, as undoubted historical facts (p. 297). In his discourse called Busiris, he accuses PolykratÊs, the sophist, of a gross anachronism, in having placed Busiris subsequent in point of date to Orpheus and Æolus (Or. xi. p. 301, Bek.), and he adds that the tale of Busiris having been slain by HÊraklÊs was chronologically impossible (p. 309). Of the long Athenian genealogy from Kekrops to ThÊseus, he speaks with perfect historical confidence (Panathenaic. p. 349, Bek.); not less so of the adventures of HÊraklÊs and his mythical contemporaries, which he places in the mouth of Archidamus as a justification of the Spartan title to Messenia (Or. vi. Archidamus, p. 156, Bek.; compare Or. v. Philippus, pp. 114, 138), f?s??, ??? pe?? t?? pa?a??? p?ste??e?, etc. He condemns the poets in strong language for the wicked and dissolute tales which they circulated respecting the gods: many of them (he says) had been punished for such blasphemies by blindness, poverty, exile, and other misfortunes (Or. xi. p. 309, Bek.). In general, it may be said that IsokratÊs applies no principles of historical criticism to the mythes; he rejects such as appear to him discreditable or unworthy, and believes the rest. [946] Thucyd. i. 21-22. The first two volumes of this history have been noticed in an able article of the Quarterly Review, for October, 1846; as well as in the Heidelberger JahrbÜcher der Literatur (1846. No. 41. pp. 641-655), by Professor KortÜm. While expressing, on several points, approbation of my work, by which I feel much flattered—both my English and my German critic take partial objection to the views respecting Grecian legend. While the Quarterly Reviewer contends that the mythopoeic faculty of the human mind, though essentially loose and untrustworthy, is never creative, but requires some basis of fact to work upon—KortÜm thinks that I have not done justice to ThucydidÊs, as regards his way of dealing with legend; that I do not allow sufficient weight to the authority of an historian so circumspect and so cold-blooded (den kalt-blÜthigsten und besonnensten Historiker des Alterthums, p. 653) as a satisfactory voucher for the early facts of Grecian history in his preface (Herr G. fehlt also, wenn er das anerkannt kritische Prooemium als GewÄhrsmann verschmÄht, p. 654). No man feels more powerfully than I do the merits of ThucydidÊs as an historian, or the value of the example which he set in multiplying critical inquiries respecting matters recent and verifiable. But the ablest judge or advocate, in investigating specific facts, can proceed no further than he finds witnesses having the means of knowledge, and willing more or less to tell truth. In reference to facts prior to 776 B. C., ThucydidÊs had nothing before him except the legendary poets, whose credibility is not at all enhanced by the circumstance that he accepted them as witnesses, applying himself only to cut down and modify their allegations. His credibility in regard to the specific facts of these early times depends altogether upon theirs. Now we in our day are in a better position for appreciating their credibility than he was in his, since the foundations of historical evidence are so much more fully understood, and good or bad materials for history are open to comparison in such large extent and variety. Instead of wondering that he shared the general faith in such delusive guides—we ought rather to give him credit for the reserve with which he qualified that faith, and for the sound idea of historical possibility to which he held fast as the limit of his confidence. But it is impossible to consider ThucydidÊs as a satisfactory guarantee (GewÄhrsmann) for matters of fact which he derives only from such sources. Professor KortÜm considers that I am inconsistent with myself in refusing to discriminate particular matters of historical fact among the legends—and yet in accepting these legends (in my chap. xx.) as giving a faithful mirror of the general state of early Grecian society (p. 653). It appears to me that this is no inconsistency, but a real and important distinction. Whether HÊraklÊs, AgamemnÔn, Odysseus, etc. were real persons, and performed all, or a part, of the possible actions ascribed to them—I profess myself unable to determine. But even assuming both the persons and their exploits to be fictions, these very fictions will have been conceived and put together in conformity to the general social phÆnomena among which the describer and his hearers lived—and will thus serve as illustrations of the manners then prevalent. In fact, the real value of the Preface of ThucydidÊs, upon which Professor KortÜm bestows such just praise, consists, not in the particular facts which he brings out by altering the legends, but in the rational general views which he sets forth respecting early Grecian society, and respecting the steps as well as the causes whereby it attained its actual position as he saw it. Professor KortÜm also affirms that the mythes contain “real matter of fact along with mere conceptions:” which affirmation is the same as that of the Quarterly Reviewer, when he says that the mythopoeic faculty is not creative. Taking the mythes in the mass, I doubt not that this is true, nor have I anywhere denied it. Taking them one by one, I neither affirm nor deny it. My position is, that, whether there be matter of fact or not, we have no test whereby it can be singled out, identified, and severed from the accompanying fiction. And it lies upon those, who proclaim the practicability of such severance, to exhibit some means of verification better than any which has been yet pointed out. If ThucydidÊs has failed in doing this, it is certain that none of the many authors who have made the same attempt after him have been more successful. It cannot surely be denied that the mythopoeic faculty is creative, when we have before us so many divine legends, not merely in Greece, but in other countries also. To suppose that these religious legends are mere exaggerations, etc. of some basis of actual fact—that the gods of polytheism were merely divinized men, with qualities distorted or feigned—would be to embrace in substance the theory of EuÊmerus. [947] DiodÔr. xv. 89. He was a contemporary of Alexander the Great. [948] DiodÔr. iv. 1. Strabo, ix. p. 422, ?p?t??sa? t??? f???????s?? ?? t? t?? ?st???a? ??af?. [949] Ephorus recounted the principal adventures of HÊraklÊs (Fragm. 8, 9, ed. Marx.), the tales of Kadmus and Harmonia (Fragm. 12), the banishment of ÆtÔlus from Elis (Fragm. 15; Strabo, viii. p. 357); he drew inferences from the chronology of the Trojan and Theban wars (Fragm. 28); he related the coming of DÆdalus to the Sikan king Kokalus, and the expedition of the Amazons (Fragm. 99-103). He was particularly copious in his information about ?t?se??, ?p????a? and s???e?e?a? (Polyb. ix. 1). [950] Strabo, i. p. 74. [951] Dionys. Halic. De Vett. Scriptt. Judic. p. 428, Reisk; Ælian, V. H. iii. 18, Te?p?p?? ... de???? ????????. Theopompus affirmed, that the bodies of those who went into the forbidden precinct (t? ?at??) of Zeus, in Arcadia, gave no shadow (Polyb. xvi. 12). He recounted the story of Midas and SilÊnus (Fragm. 74, 75, 76, ed. Wichers); he said a good deal about the heroes of Troy; and he seems to have assigned the misfortunes of the ??st?? to an historical cause—the rottenness of the Grecian ships, from the length of the siege, while the genuine epic ascribes it to the anger of AthÊnÊ (Fragm. 112, 113, 114; Schol. Homer. Iliad, ii. 135); he narrated an alleged expulsion of Kinyras from Cyprus by AgamemnÔn (Fragm. 111); he gave the genealogy of the Macedonian queen Olympias up to Achilles and Æakus (Fragm. 232). [952] Cicero, Epist. ad Familiar. v. 12; XenophÔn de Venation. c. 1. [953] Philistus, Fragm. 1 (GÖller), DÆdalus, and Kokalus; about Liber and Juno (Fragm. 57); about the migration of the Sikels into Sicily, eighty years after the Trojan war (ap. Dionys. Hal. i. 3). TimÆus (Fragm. 50, 51, 52, 53, GÖller) related many fables respecting JasÔn, MÊdea, and the Argonauts generally. The miscarriage of the Athenian armament under Nikias, before Syracuse, is imputed to the anger of HÊraklÊs against the Athenians because they came to assist the Egestans, descendants of Troy (Plutarch, Nikias, 1),—a naked reproduction of genuine epical agencies by an historian; also about DiomÊdÊs and the Daunians; PhaËthÔn and the river Eridanus; the combats of the Gigantes in the PhlegrÆan plains (Fragm. 97, 99, 102). [954] Strabo, ix. p. 422. [955] Compare DiodÔr. v. 44-46; and Lactantius, De Fals Relig. i. 11. [956] Cicero, De Natur Deor. i. 42; Varro, De Re Rust. i. 48. [957] Strabo, ii. p. 102. ?? p??? ??? ?e?peta? ta?ta t?? ???e? ?a? ??????? ?a? ??t?f????? ?e?s?t??; compare also i. p. 47, and ii. p. 104. St. Augustin, on the contrary, tells us (Civitat. Dei, vi. 7), “Quid de ipse Jove senserunt, qui nutricem ejus in Capitolio posuerunt? Nonne attestati sunt omnes Euemero, qui non fabulos garrulitate, sed historic diligentiÂ, homines fuisse mortalesque conscripsit?” And Minucius Felix (Octav. 20-21), “Euemerus exequitur Deorum natales: patrias, sepulcra dinumerat, et per provincias monstrat, DictÆi Jovis, et Apollinis Delphici, et PhariÆ Isidis, et Cereris EleusiniÆ.” Compare Augustin, Civit. Dei, xviii. 8-14; and Clemens Alexand. Cohort. ad Gent. pp. 15-18, Sylb. Lactantius (De Fals Relig. c. 13, 14, 16) gives copious citations from Ennius’s translation of the Historia Sacra of EuÊmerus. ???e???, ? ?p?????e?? ??e??, Sextus Empiricus, adv. Physicos, ix. § 17-51. Compare Cicero, De Nat. Deor. i. 42; Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, c. 23. tom. ii. p. 475, ed. Wytt. Nitzsch assumes (Helden Sage der Griechen, sect. 7. p. 84) that the voyage of EuÊmerus to Panchaia was intended only as an amusing romance, and that Strabo, Polybius, EratosthenÊs and Plutarch were mistaken in construing it as a serious recital. BÖttiger, in his Kunst-Mythologie der Griechen (Absch. ii. s. 6. p. 190), takes the same view. But not the least reason is given for adopting this opinion, and it seems to me far-fetched and improbable; Lobeck (Aglaopham. p. 989), though Nitzsch alludes to him as holding it, manifests no such tendency, as far as I can observe. [958] DiodÔr. iv. 1-8. ????? ??? t?? ??a????s???t??, ?? d??a?? ???e??? ???se?, t?????? ?p???t??s?? ?? ta?? ???a?a?? ???????a??, ?p?s?? t??? p?att?????? ?? t? ?a?? ??? ?????, ?a? t? d?sta??e?a t?? ????? d?? t? ??e???, ?? t?? ?a?? a?t??? ??? te?a???e???, t?? ??a?????? d??a?? ?? t?? ?s?e?e?a? t?? ??? ?????p?? ?e????s??, ?ste d?? t?? ?pe????? t?? e?????? t?? ????? ?p?ste?s?a? t?? ??af??. ?a????? ??? ?? ta?? ???a?a?? ???????a?? ??? ?? pa?t?? t??p?? p????? t?? ????e?a? ??etast???. ?a? ??? ?? t??? ?e?t???? pepe?s???? ?te ?e?ta????? d?f?e?? ?? ?te???e??? s??t?? ?p???a?, ?te G??????? t??s?at??, ??? p??sde??e?a t?? t??a?ta? ???????a?, ?a? ta?? ?p?s?as?a?? s??a???e? t?? t?? ?e?? t???. ?a? ??? ?t?p??, ??a???a ?? ?t? ?at? ?????p??? ??ta t??? ?d???? p????? ???e??sa? t?? ?????????, t??? d? ?????p???, ?p??a??????? t?? ?????? e?e??es?a?, s???fa?te?? t?? ?p? t??? ?a???st??? ?????? ?pa????, etc. This is a remarkable passage: first, inasmuch as it sets forth the total inapplicability of analogies drawn from the historical past as narratives about HÊraklÊs; next, inasmuch as it suspends the employment of critical and scientific tests, and invokes an acquiescence interwoven and identified with the feelings, as the proper mode of evincing pious reverence for the god HÊraklÊs. It aims at reproducing exactly that state of mind to which the mythes were addressed, and with which alone they could ever be in thorough harmony. [959] DiodÔr. iii. 45-60; v. 44-46. [960] The work of PalÆphatus, probably this original, is alluded to in the Ciris of Virgil (88):— “Docta PalÆphati testatur voce papyrus.” The date of PalÆphatus is unknown—indeed this passage of the Ciris seems the only ground that there is for inference respecting it. That which we now possess is probably an extract from a larger work—made by another person at some later time: see Vossius de Historicis GrÆcis, p. 478, ed. Westermann. [961] PalÆphat. init. ap. Script. Mythogr. ed. Westermann, p. 268. ??? ?????p?? ?? ?? pe????ta? p?s? t??? ?e???????, ?? ??????t?? s?f?a? ?a? ?p?st???—?? d? p????te??? t?? f?s?? ?a? p???p?????e? ?p?st??s? t? pa??pa? ?d?? ?e??s?a? t??t??. ??? d? d??e? ?e??s?a? p??ta t? ?e??e?a? ... ?e??e?a d? t??a ?? p???ta? ?a? ???????f?? pa??t?e?a? e?? t? ?p?st?te??? ?a? ?a?as??te??? t?? ?a???e?? ??e?a t??? ?????p???. ??? d? ????s??, ?t? ?? d??ata? t? t??a?ta e??a? ??a ?a? ???eta?? t??t? d? ?a? d?e???fa, ?t? e? ? ????et?, ??? ?? ????et?. The main assumption of the semi-historical theory is here shortly and clearly stated. One of the early Christian writers, Minucius Felix, is astonished at the easy belief of his pagan forefathers in miracles. If ever such things had been done in former times (he affirms), they would continue to be done now; as they cannot be done now, we may be sure that they never were really done formerly (Minucius Felix, Octav. c. 20): “Majoribus enim nostris tam facilis in mendaciis fides fuit, ut temerÈ crediderint etiam alia monstruosa mira miracula, Scyllam multiplicem, ChimÆram multiformem, Hydram, et Centauros. Quid illas aniles fabulas—de hominibus aves, et feras homines, et de hominibus arbores atque flores? QuÆ, si essent facta, fierent; quia fieri non possunt, ideo nec facta sunt.” [962] PalÆphat. Narrat. 1, 3, 6, 13, 20, 21, 29. Two short treatises on the same subject as this of PalÆphatus, are printed along with it, both in the collection of Gale and of Westermann; the one, Heracliti de Incredibilibus, the other Anonymi de Incredibilibus. They both profess to interpret some of the extraordinary or miraculous mythes, and proceed in a track not unlike that of PalÆphatus. Scylla was a beautiful courtezan, surrounded with abominable parasites: she ensnared and ruined the companions of Odysseus, though he himself was prudent enough to escape her (Heraclit. c. 2. p. 313, West.) Atlas was a great astronomer: PasiphaÊ fell in love with a youth named Taurus; the monster called the ChimÆra was in reality a ferocious queen, who had two brothers called Leo and Drako; the ram which carried Phryxus and HellÊ across the Ægean was a boatman named Krias (Heraclit. c. 2, 6, 15, 24). A great number of similar explanations are scattered throughout the Scholia on Homer and the Commentary of Eustathius, without specification of their authors. TheÔn considers such resolution of fable into plausible history as a proof of surpassing ingenuity (Progymnasmata, cap. 6, ap. Walz. Coll. Rhett. GrÆc. i. p. 219). Others among the Rhetors, too, exercised their talents sometimes in vindicating, sometimes in controverting, the probability of the ancient mythes. See the Progymnasmata of Nicolaus—?atas?e?? ?t? e???ta t? ?at? ?????, ??as?e?? ?t? ??? e???ta t? ?at? ????? (ap. Walz. Coll. Rhetor. i. p. 284-318), where there are many specimens of this fanciful mode of handling. Plutarch, however, in one of his treatises, accepts Minotaurs, Sphinxes, Centaurs, etc. as realities; he treats them as products of the monstrous, incestuous, and ungovernable lusts of man, which he contrasts with the simple and moderate passions of animals (Plutarch, Gryllus, p. 990). [963] The learned Mr. Jacob Bryant regards the explanations of PalÆphatus as if they were founded upon real fact. He admits, for example, the city NephelÊ alleged by that author in his exposition of the fable of the Centaurs. Moreover, he speaks with much commendation of PalÆphatus generally: “He (PalÆphatus) wrote early, and seems to have been a serious and sensible person; one who saw the absurdity of the fables upon which the theology of his country was founded.” (Ancient Mythology, vol. i. p. 411-435.) So also Sir Thomas Brown (Enquiry into Vulgar Errors, Book I. chap. vi. p. 221, ed. 1835) alludes to PalÆphatus as having incontestably pointed out the real basis of the fables. “And surely the fabulous inclination of those days was greater than any since; which swarmed so with fables, and from such slender grounds took hints for fictions, poisoning the world ever after: wherein how far they succeeded, may be exemplified from PalÆphatus, in his Book of Fabulous Narrations.” [964] Xenophan. ap. Sext. Empir. adv. Mathemat. ix. 193. He also disapproved of the rites, accompanied by mourning and wailing, with which the EleatÊs worshipped Leukothea: he told them, e? ?? ?e?? ?p??a????s?, ? ????e??? e? d? ?????p??, ? ??e?? (Aristotel. Rhet. ii. 23). XenophanÊs pronounced the battles of the Titans, Gigantes, and Centaurs to be “fictions of our predecessors,” p??sata t?? p??t???? (Xenophan. Fragm. 1. p. 42, ed. Schneidewin). See a curious comparison of the Grecian and Roman theology in Dionys. Halicarn. Ant. Rom. ii. 20. [965] Schol. Iliad. xx. 67: Tatian. adv. GrÆc. c. 48. HÊrakleitus indignantly repelled the impudent atheists who found fault with the divine mythes of the Iliad, ignorant of their true allegorical meaning: ? t?? ?p?f?????? t? ???? t??a t??? ??a? des??? a?t??ta?, ?a? ??????s?? ???? t??a da???? t?? ????? p??? ????? ??e?? a??a? ta?ta—? ?? ??? ?t? t? ????? ????e?, etc. ?????e d? a?t??? ?t? t??t??? t??? ?pes?? ??te?e?????ta? ? t?? pa?t?? ???es??, ?a? t? s??e??? ?d?e?a t?ssa?a st???e?a t??t?? t?? st???? ?st? t???? (Schol. ad Hom. Iliad. xv. 18). [966] Diogen. LaËrt. ii. 11; Tatian. adv. GrÆc. c. 37; Hesychius, v. ??a????a. See the ethical turn given to the stories of CircÊ, the Sirens, and Scylla, in Xenoph. Memorab. i. 3, 7; ii. 6, 11-31. Syncellus, Chronic. p. 149. ????e???s? d? ?? ??a?a???e??? t??? ???de?? ?e???, ???? ?? t?? ??a, t?? d? ?????? t?????, etc. Uschold and other modern German authors seem to have adopted in its full extent the principle of interpretation proposed by Metrodorus—treating Odysseus and PenelopÊ as personifications of the Sun and Moon, etc. See Helbig, Die Sittlichen ZustÄnde des Griechischen Helden Alters, Einleitung, p. xxix. (Leipzig, 1839.) Corrections of the Homeric text were also resorted to, in order to escape the necessity of imputing falsehood to Zeus (Aristotel. De Sophist. Elench. c. 4). [967] Sextus Empiric. ix. 18; Diogen. viii. 76; Plutarch, De Placit. Philosoph. i. 3-6; De Poesi HomericÂ, 92-126; De Stoicor. Repugn. p. 1050, Menander, De Encomiis, c. 5. Cicero, De Nat. Deor. i. 14, 15, 16, 41; ii. 24-25. “Physica ratio non inelegans inclusa in impias fabulas.” In the BacchÆ of EuripidÊs, Pentheus is made to deride the tale of the motherless infant Dionysus having been sewn into the thigh of Zeus. Teiresias, while reproving him for his impiety, explains the story away in a sort of allegory: the ???? ???? (he says) was a mistaken statement in place of the a???? ????a ???????e??? (Bacch. 235-290). Lucretius (iii. 995-1036) allegorizes the conspicuous sufferers in HadÊs,—Tantalus, Sisyphus, Tityus, and the DanaÏds, as well as the ministers of penal infliction, Cerberus and the Furies. The first four are emblematic descriptions of various defective or vicious characters in human nature,—the deisidÆmonic, the ambitious, the amorous, or the insatiate and querulous man; the last two represent the mental terrors of the wicked. [968] ?? ??? pe?? ????? de????—so Plato calls these interpreters (Kratylus, p. 407); see also Xenoph. Sympos. iii. 6; Plato, Ion. p. 530; Plutarch, De Audiend. Poet. p. 19. ?p????a was the original word, afterwards succeeded by ????????a. ??a? d? des??? ?a? ?fa?st?? ???e?? ?p? pat???, ?????t?? t? ?t?? t?pt???? ???e??, ?a? ?e?a??a? ?sa? ????? pep????e?, ?? pa?ade?t??? e?? t?? p????, ??t? ?? ?p????a?? pep?????a?, ??t? ??e? ?p??????. ? ??? ???? ??? ???? te ????e?? ?,t? te ?p????a ?a? ? ?, ???? ? ?? t??????t?? ?? ??? ?? ta?? d??a??, d?s????pt? te ?a? ?et?stata f??e? ????es?a? (Plato, Republ. ii. 17. p. 378). The idea of an interior sense and concealed purpose in the ancient poets occurs several times in Plato (TheÆtet. c. 93. p. 180): pa?? ?? t?? ???a???, et? p???se?? ?p????pt????? t??? p??????, etc.; also Protagor. c. 20. p. 316. “Modo Stoicum Homerum faciunt,—modo Epicureum,—modo Peripateticum,—modo Academicum. Apparet nihil horum esse in illo, quia omnia sunt.” (Seneca, Ep. 88.) Compare Plutarch, De Defectu Oracul. c. 11-12. t. ii. p. 702, Wytt., and Julian, Orat. vii. p. 216. [969] Pausan. viii. 8, 2. To the same purpose (Strabo, x. p. 474), allegory is admitted to a certain extent in the fables by Dionys. Halic. Ant. Rom. ii. 20. The fragment of the lost treatise of Plutarch, on the PlatÆan festival of the DÆdala, is very instructive respecting Grecian allegory (Fragm. ix. t. 5. p. 754-763, ed. Wyt.; ap. Euseb. PrÆpar. Evang. iii. 1). [970] This doctrine is set forth in Macrobius (i. 2). He distinguishes between fabula and fabulosa narratio: the former is fiction pure, intended either to amuse or to instruct—the latter is founded upon truth, either respecting human or respecting divine agency. The gods did not like to be publicly talked of (according to his view) except under the respectful veil of a fable (the same feeling as that of Herodotus, which led him to refrain from inserting the ?e??? ????? in his history). The supreme god, the t??a???, the p??t?? a?t???, could not be talked of in fables: but the other gods, the aËrial or Æthereal powers and the soul, might be, and ought to be, talked of in that manner alone. Only superior intellects ought to be admitted to a knowledge of the secret reality. “De Diis cÆteris, et de animÂ, non frustra se, nec ut oblectent, ad fabulosa convertunt; sed quia sciunt inimicam esse naturÆ apertam nudamque expositionem sui: quÆ sicut vulgaribus sensibus hominum intellectum sui, vario rerum tegmine operimentoque, subtraxit; ita À prudentibus arcana sua voluit per fabulosa tractari.... Adeo semper ita se et sciri et coli numina maluerunt, qualiter in vulgus antiquitus fabulata est.... Secundum hÆc Pythagoras ipse atque Empedocles, Parmenides quoque et Heraclides, de Diis fabulati sunt: nec secus TimÆus.” Compare also Maximus Tyrius, Dissert. x. and xxxii. Arnobius exposes the allegorical interpretation as mere evasion, and holds the Pagans to literal historical fact (Adv. Gentes, v. p. 185, ed. Elm.). Respecting the allegorical interpretation applied to the Greek fables, BÖttiger (Die Kunst—Mythologie der Griechen, Abschn. ii. p. 176); Nitzsch (Heldensage der Griech. sect. 6. p. 78); Lobeck (Aglaopham. p. 133-155). [971] According to the anonymous writer ap. Westermann (Script. Myth. p. 328), every personal or denominated god may be construed in three different ways: either p?a?at???? (historically, as having been a king or a man)—or ???????, in which theory HÊrÊ signifies the soul; AthÊnÊ, prudence; AphroditÊ, desire; Zeus, mind, etc.—or st???e?a???, in which system Apollo signifies the sun; PoseidÔn, the sea; HÊrÊ, the upper stratum of the air, or Æther; AthÊnÊ, the lower or denser stratum; Zeus, the upper hemisphere; Kronus, the lower, etc. This writer thinks that all the three principles of construction may be resorted to, each on its proper occasion, and that neither of them excludes the others. It will be seen that the first is pure EuÊmerism; the two latter are modes of allegory. The allegorical construction of the gods and of the divine mythes is copiously applied in the treatises, both of Phurnutus and Sallustius, in Gale’s collection of mythological writers. Sallustius treats the mythes as of divine origin, and the chief poets as inspired (?e???pt??): the gods were propitious to those who recounted worthy and creditable mythes respecting them, and Sallustius prays that they will accept with favor his own remarks (cap. 3 and 4. pp. 245-251, Gale). He distributes mythes into five classes; theological, physical, spiritual, material, and mixed. He defends the practice of speaking of the gods under the veil of allegory, much in the same way as Macrobius (in the preceding note): he finds, moreover, a good excuse even for those mythes which imputed to the gods theft, adultery, outrages towards a father, and other enormities: such tales (he says) were eminently suitable, since the mind must at once see that the facts as told are not to be taken as being themselves the real truth, but simply as a veil, disguising some interior truth (p. 247). Besides the Life of Homer ascribed to Plutarch (see Gale, p. 325-332), HÊraclidÊs (not HÊraclidÊs of Pontus) carries out the process of allegorizing the Homeric mythes most earnestly and most systematically. The application of the allegorizing theory is, in his view, the only way of rescuing Homer from the charge of scandalous impiety—p??t? ??? ?s??se?, e? ?d?? ????????se? (HÊrac. in init. p. 407, Gale). He proves at length, that the destructive arrows of Apollo, in the first book of the Iliad, mean nothing at the bottom except a contagious plague, caused by the heat of the summer sun in marshy ground (pp. 416-424). AthÊnÊ, who darts down from Olympus at the moment when Achilles is about to draw his sword on AgamemnÔn, and seizes him by the hair, is a personification of repentant prudence (p. 435). The conspiracy against Zeus, which Homer (Iliad, i. 400) relates to have been formed by the Olympic gods, and defeated by the timely aid of Thetis and Briareus—the chains and suspension imposed upon HÊrÊ—the casting of HÊphÆstos by Zeus out of Olympus, and his fall in LÊmnus—the destruction of the Grecian wall by PoseidÔn, after the departure of the Greeks—the amorous scene between Zeus and HÊrÊ on Mount Gargarus—the distribution of the universe between Zeus, PoseidÔn, and HadÊs—all these he resolves into peculiar manifestations and conflicts of the elemental substances in nature. To the much-decried battle of the gods, he gives a turn partly physical, partly ethical (p. 481). In like manner, he transforms and vindicates the adventures of the gods in the Odyssey: the wanderings of Odysseus, together with the Lotophagi, the CyclÔps, CircÊ, the Sirens, Æolus, Scylla, etc., he resolves into a series of temptations, imposed as a trial upon a man of wisdom and virtue, and emblematic of human life (p. 496). The story of ArÊs, AphroditÊ, and HÊphÆstos, in the eighth book of the Odyssey, seems to perplex him more than any other: he offers two explanations, neither of which seems satisfactory even to himself (p. 494). An anonymous writer in the collection of Westermann (pp. 329-344) has discussed the wanderings of Odysseus upon the same ethical scheme of interpretation as HÊraclidÊs: he entitles his treatise “A short essay on the Wanderings of Odysseus in Homer, worked out in conjunction with ethical reflections, and rectifying what is rotten in the story, as well as may be, for the benefit of readers.” (t? ???? sa???? ?e?ape???sa.) The author resolves the adventures of Odysseus into narratives emblematic of different situations and trials of human life. Scylla and Charybdis, for example (c. 8. p. 338), represent, the one, the infirmities and temptations arising out of the body, the other, those springing from the mind, between which man is called upon to steer. The adventure of Odysseus with Æolus, shows how little good a virtuous man does himself by seeking, in case of distress, aid from conjurors and evil enchanters; the assistance of such allies, however it may at first promise well, ultimately deceives the person who accepts it, and renders him worse off than he was before (c. 3. p. 332). By such illustrations does the author sustain his general position, that there is a great body of valuable ethical teaching wrapped up in the poetry of Homer. Proclus is full of similar allegorization, both of Homer and Hesiod: the third Excursus of Heyne ad Iliad. xxiii. (vol. viii. p. 563), De Allegori HomericÂ, contains a valuable summary of the general subject. The treatise De AstrologiÂ, printed among the works of Lucian, contains specimens of astrological explanations applied to many of the Grecian ????, which the author as a pious man cannot accept in their literal meaning. “How does it consist with holiness (he asks) to believe that Æneas was son of AphroditÊ, MinÔs of Zeus, or Askalaphus of Mars? No; these were men born under the favorable influences of the planets Venus, Jupiter, and Mars.” He considers the principle of astrological explanation peculiarly fit to be applied to the mythes of Homer and Hesiod (Lucian, De AstrologiÂ, c. 21-22). [972] See Ritter, Geschichte der Philosophie, 2nd edit. part 3. book 11. chap. 4. p. 592; Varro ap. Augustin. Civitat. Dei, vi. 5, ix. 6; Cicero, Nat. Deor. ii. 24-28. Chrysippus admitted the most important distinction between Zeus and the other gods (Plutarch. de Stoicor. Repugnant. p. 1052.) [973] Plutarch. de Isid. et Osirid. c. 66. p. 377; c. 70. p. 379. Compare on this subject O. MÜller, Prolegom. Mythol. p. 59 seq., and Eckermann, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, vol. i. sect. ii. p. 46. [974] Hesiod, Opp. et Di. 122: to the same effect Pythagoras and ThalÊs (Diogen. LaËr. viii. 32; and Plutarch, Placit. Philos. i. 8). The Hesiodic dÆmons are all good: Athenagoras (Legat. Chr. p. 8) says that ThalÊs admitted a distinction between good and bad dÆmons, which seems very doubtful. [975] The distinction between Te?? and ?a???e? is especially set forth in the treatise of Plutarch, De Defectu Oraculorum, capp. 10, 12, 13, 15, etc. He seems to suppose it traceable to the doctrine of Zoroaster or the Orphic mysteries, and he represents it as relieving the philosopher from great perplexities: for it was difficult to know where to draw the line in admitting or rejecting divine Providence: errors were committed sometimes in affirming God to be the cause of everything, at other times in supposing him to be the cause of nothing. ?pe? t? d????sa? p?? ???st??? ?a? ???? t???? t? p??????, ?a?ep??, ?? ?? ??de??? ?p??? t?? ?e??, ?? d? ??? t? p??t?? a?t??? p?????te?, ?st????s? t?? et???? ?a? p??p??t??. ?? ?? ??? ?????s?? ?a? ?? ?????te?, ?t? ???t?? t? ta?? ?e?????a?? p???t?s?? ?p??e?e??? st???e??? ??e????, ? ??? ???? ?a? f?s?? ?a???s??, p????? ?p???a?e ?a? e????? ?p????? t??? f???s?f???? ??? d? d????s? p?e???a? ??sa? ?a? e????a? ?p???a? ?? t? t?? da????? ????? ?? ?s? ?e?? ?a? ?????p??, ?a? t??p?? t??? t?? ???????a? ??? s??a??? e?? ta?t? ?a? s??apt??, ??e????te? (c. 10). ? da????? f?s?? ????sa ?a? p???? ???t?? ?a? ?e?? d??a?? (c. 13). ??s? ???, ?? ?? ?????p???, ?a? da??s?? ??et?? d??f??a?, ?a? t?? pa??t???? ?a? ?????? t??? ?? ?s?e??? ?a? ?a???? ?t? ?e??a???, ?spe? pe??tt?a, t??? d? p??? ?a? d?s?at?sest?? ??est??, ?? ???? ?a? s???a p???a??? ??s?a? ?a? te?eta? ?a? ???????a? s????s? ?a? d?af???tt??s?? ??d?espa???a (ib.): compare Plutarch. de Isid. et Osir. 25. p. 360. ?a? ?? ?sa? ?? te ????? ?a? ????? ?????s? ?a? ?d??s?, t??t? ?? ??pa???, t??t? d? p???a? ?e??, ????e?? te ?a? f???? ?a? ?at?e?a?, ?? ?e?? e?s?? ???? da????? pa??ata, etc. (c. 15): also c. 23; also De Isid. et Osir. c. 25. p. 366. Human sacrifices and other objectionable rites are excused, as necessary for the purpose of averting the anger of bad dÆmons (c. 14-15). EmpedoklÊs is represented as the first author of the doctrine which imputed vicious and abominable dispositions to many of the dÆmons (c. 15, 16, 17, 20), t??? e?sa??????? ?p? ?ped??????? da???a?; expelled from heaven by the gods, ?e??at?? ?a? ???a??pete?? (Plutarch, De Vitand. AËr. Alien. p. 830); followed by Plato, XenokratÊs, and Chrysippus, c. 17: compare Plato (Apolog. Socrat. p. 27; Politic. p. 271; Symposion, c. 28. p. 203), though he seems to treat the da???e? as defective and mutable beings, rather than actively maleficent. XenokratÊs represents some of them both as wicked and powerful in a high degree:—?e?????t?? ?a? t?? ?e??? t?? ?p?f??da?, ?a? t?? ???t?? ?sa? p????? t??a? ? ??pet???, ? ??ste?a?, ? d?sf??a?, ? a?s???????a? ????s??, ??te ?e?? t?a?? ??te da????? ??eta? p??s??e?? ???st??, ???? e??a? f?se?? ?? t? pe??????t? e???a? ?? ?a? ?s?????, d?st??p??? d? ?a? s?????p??, a? ?a????s? t??? t????t???, ?a? t???????sa? p??? ????? ???? ?e???? t??p??ta? (Plutarch, De Isid. ut Osir. c. 26. p. 361; QuÆstion. Rom. p. 283): compare StobÆus, Eclog. Phys. i. p. 62. [976] Plutarch, De Defect. Orac. c. 15. p. 418. Chrysippus admitted, among the various conceivable causes to account for the existence of evil, the supposition of some negligent and reckless dÆmons, da????a fa??? ?? ??? t? ??t? ?????ta? ?a? ?????t?a? ???e?a? (Plutarch, De Stoicor. Repugnant. p. 1051). A distinction, which I do not fully understand, between ?e?? and da???e?, was also adopted among the Locrians at Opus: da??? with them seems to have been equivalent to ???? (Plutarch, QuÆstion. GrÆc. c. 6. p. 292): see the note above, pp. 350-351. [977] Tatian. adv. GrÆcos, c. 20; Clemens Alexandrin. Admonit. ad Gentes, pp. 26-29, Sylb.; Minuc. Felix, Octav. c. 26. “Isti igitur impuri spiritus, ut ostensum a Magis, a philosophis, a Platone, sub statuis et imaginibus consecrati delitescunt, et afflatu suo quasi auctoritatem prÆsentis numinis consequuntur,” etc. This, like so many other of the aggressive arguments of the Christians against paganism, was taken from the pagan philosophers themselves. Lactantius, De Ver PhilosophiÂ, iv. 28. “Ergo iidem sunt DÆmones, quos fatentur execrandos esse: iidem Dii, quibus supplicant. Si nobis credendum esse non putant, credant Homero; qui summum illum Jovem DÆmonibus aggregavit,” etc. [979] A destructive inundation took place at Pheneus in Arcadia, seemingly in the time of Plutarch: the subterranean outlet (??a????) of the river had become blocked up, and the inhabitants ascribed the stoppage to the anger of Apollo, who had been provoked by the stealing of the Pythian tripod by HÊraklÊs: the latter had carried the tripod to Pheneus and deposited it there. ??? ??? ??? ?t?p?te??? t??t?? ? ?p?????, e? Fe?e?ta? ?p????s? t??? ???, ?f???a? t? ??a????, ?a? ?ata???sa? t?? ???a? ?pasa? a?t??, ?t? p?? ?????? ?t??, ?? fas??, ? ??a???? ??asp?sa? t?? t??p?da t?? a?t???? e?? Fe?e?? ?p??e??e; (Plutarch. de Ser Numin. VindictÂ, p. 577; compare Pausan. viii. 14, 1.) The expression of Plutarch, that the abstraction of the tripod by HÊraklÊs had taken place 1000 years before, is that of the critic, who thinks it needful to historicize and chronologize the genuine legend; which, to an inhabitant of Pheneus, at the time of the inundation, was doubtless as little questioned as if the theft of HÊraklÊs had been laid in the preceding generation. AgathoclÊs of Syracuse committed depredations on the coasts of Ithaca and Korkyra: the excuse which he offered was, that Odysseus had come to Sicily and blinded PolyphÊmus, and that on his return he had been kindly received by the PhÆakians (Plutarch, ib.). This is doubtless a jest, either made by AgathoclÊs, or more probably invented for him; but it is founded upon a popular belief. [980] “Sanctiusque et reverentius visum, de actis Deorum credere quam scire.” (Tacit. German. c. 34.) AristidÊs, however, represents the Homeric theology (whether he would have included the Hesiodic we do not know) as believed quite literally among the multitude in his time, the second century after Christianity (Aristid. Orat. iii. p. 25). ?p???, ?p? p?te ??? e d?a??s?a? e?? ???, p?te?a ?? t??? p?????? d??e? ?a? ???? d? s??d??e?, ?e?? pa??ata s?pe?s???a? ?a? ???, ???? ????? d?sa ?a? ?p??????? ??te?a? ?a? ?fa?st?? ???e?? e?? ???assa?, ??t? d? ?a? ????? ??? ?a? f???? t??a?. Compare Lucian, ?e?? ??a??d??, c. 20, and De Luctu, c. 2; Dionys. Halicar. A. R. ii. p. 90, Sylb. Kallimachus (Hymn. ad Jov. 9) distinctly denied the statement of the Kretans that they possessed in KrÊte the tomb of Zeus, and treated it as an instance of Kretan mendacity; while Celsus did not deny it, but explained it in some figurative manner—a???tt?e??? t??p???? ?p????a? (Origen. cont. Celsum, iii. p. 137). [981] There is here a change as compared with my first edition; I had inserted here some remarks on the allegorical theory of interpretation, as compared with the semi-historical. An able article on my work (in the Edinburgh Review, October 1846), pointed out that those remarks required modification, and that the idea of allegory in reference to the construction of the mythes was altogether inadmissible. [982] Juvenal, Sat. x. 174:— “Creditur olim Velificatus Athos, et quantum GrÆcia mendax Audet in historiÂ,” etc. [983] Colonel Sleeman observes, respecting the Hindoo historical mind—“History to this people is all a fairy tale.” (Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official, vol. i. ch. ix. p. 70.) And again, “The popular poem of the Ramaen describes the abduction of the heroine by the monster king of Ceylon, Rawun; and her recovery by means of the monkey general, Hunnooman. Every word of this poem, the people assured me was written, if not by the hand of the Deity himself, at least by his inspiration, which was the same thing—and it must consequently be true. Ninety-nine out of a hundred, among the Hindoos, implicitly believe, not only every word of the poem, but every word of every poem that has ever been written in Sanscrit. If you ask a man whether he really believes any very egregious absurdity quoted from these books, he replies, with the greatest naÏvetÉ in the world, Is it not written in the book; and how should it be there written, if not true? The Hindoo religion reposes upon an entire prostration of mind,—that continual and habitual surrender of the reasoning faculties, which we are accustomed to make occasionally, while engaged at the theatre, or in the perusal of works of fiction. We allow the scenes, characters, and incidents, to pass before our mind’s eye, and move our feelings—without stopping a moment to ask whether they are real or true. There is only this difference—that with people of education among us, even in such short intervals of illusion or abandon, any extravagance in the acting, or flagrant improbability in the fiction, destroys the charm, breaks the spell by which we have been so mysteriously bound, and restores us to reason and the realities of ordinary life. With the Hindoos, on the contrary, the greater the improbability, the more monstrous and preposterous the fiction—the greater is the charm it has over their minds; and the greater their learning in the Sanscrit, the more are they under the influence of this charm. Believing all to be written by the Deity, or under his inspirations, and the men and things of former days to have been very different from men and things of the present day, and the heroes of these fables to have been demigods, or people endowed with powers far superior to those of the ordinary men of their own day—the analogies of nature are never for a moment considered; nor do questions of probability, or possibility, according to those analogies, ever obtrude to dispel the charm with which they are so pleasingly bound. They go on through life reading and talking of these monstrous fictions, which shock the taste and understanding of other nations, without ever questioning the truth of one single incident, or hearing it questioned. There was a time, and that not far distant, when it was the same in England, and in every other European nation; and there are, I am afraid, some parts of Europe where it is so still. But the Hindoo faith, so far as religious questions are concerned, is not more capacious or absurd than that of the Greeks or Romans in the days of Socrates or Cicero: the only difference is, that among the Hindoos a greater number of the questions which interest mankind are brought under the head of religion.” (Sleeman, Rambles, etc., vol. i. ch. xxvi. p. 227: compare vol. ii. ch. v. p. 51; viii. p. 97.) [984] Lord Lyttleton, in commenting on the tales of the Irish bards, in his History of Henry II., has the following just remarks (book iv. vol. iii. p. 13, quarto): “One may reasonably suppose that in MSS. written since the Irish received the Roman letters from St. Patrick, some traditional truths recorded before by the bards in their unwritten poems may have been preserved to our times. Yet these cannot be so separated from many fabulous stories derived from the same sources, as to obtain a firm credit; it not being sufficient to establish the authority of suspected traditions, that they can be shown not to be so improbable or absurd as others with which they are mixed—since there may be specious as well as senseless fictions. Nor can a poet or bard, who lived in the sixth or seventh century after Christ, if his poem is still extant, be any voucher for facts supposed to have happened before the incarnation; though his evidence (allowing for poetical license) may be received on such matters as come within his own time, or the remembrance of old men with whom he conversed. The most judicious historians pay no regard to the Welsh or British traditions delivered by Geoffrey of Monmouth, though it is not impossible but that some of these may be true.” One definition of a mythe given by Plutarch coincides exactly with a specious fiction: ? ???? e??a? ???eta? ????? ?e?d?? ?????? ??????? (Plutarch, Bellone an pace clariores fuerunt Athenienses, p. 348). “Der Grund-Trieb des Mythus (Creuzer justly expresses it) das Gedachte in ein Geschehenes umzusetzen.” (Symbolik der Alten Welt, sect. 43. p. 99.) [985] In reference to the loose statements of the Highlanders, Dr. Johnson observes, “He that goes into the Highlands with a mind naturally acquiescent, and a credulity eager for wonders, may perhaps come back with an opinion very different from mine; for the inhabitants, knowing the ignorance of all strangers in their language and antiquities, are perhaps not very scrupulous adherents to truth; yet I do not say that they deliberately speak studied falsehood, or have a settled purpose to deceive. They have acquired and considered little, and do not always feel their own ignorance. They are not much accustomed to be interrogated by others, and seem never to have thought of interrogating themselves; so that if they do not know what they tell to be true, they likewise do not distinctly perceive it to be false. Mr. Boswell was very diligent in his inquiries, and the result of his investigations was, that the answer to the second question was commonly such as nullified the answer to the first.” (Journey to the Western Islands, p. 272, 1st edit., 1775). [986] I considered this position more at large in an article in the “Westminster Review” for May, 1843, on Niebuhr’s Greek Legends, with which article much in the present chapter will be found to coincide. [987] For this general character of the Grecian mysteries, with their concealed treasure of doctrine, see Warburton, Divine Legation of Moses, book ii. sect. 4. Payne Knight, On the Symbolical Language of ancient Art and Mythology, sect. 6, 10, 11, 40, etc. Saint Croix, Recherches sur les MystÈres du Paganisme, sect. 3, p. 106; sect. 4, p. 404, etc. Creuzer, Symbolik und Mythologie der Alten VÖlker, sect. 2, 3, 23, 39, 42, etc. Meiners and Heeren adopt generally the same view, though there are many divergences of opinion between these different authors, on a subject essentially obscure. Warburton maintained that the interior doctrine communicated in the mysteries was the existence of one Supreme Divinity, combined with the Euemeristic creed, that the pagan gods had been mere men. See Clemens Alex. Strom. v. p. 582, Sylb. The view taken by Hermann of the ancient Greek mythology is in many points similar to that of Creuzer, though with some considerable difference. He thinks that it is an aggregate of doctrine—philosophical, theological, physical, and moral—expressed under a scheme of systematic personifications, each person being called by a name significant of the function personified: this doctrine was imported from the East into Greece, where the poets, retaining or translating the names, but forgetting their meaning and connection, distorted the primitive stories, the sense of which came to be retained only in the ancient mysteries. That true sense, however, (he thinks,) may be recovered by a careful analysis of the significant names: and his two dissertations (De Mythologi GrÆcorum AntiquissimÂ, in the Opuscula, vol. ii.) exhibit a specimen of this systematic expansion of etymology into narrative. The dissent from Creuzer is set forth in their published correspondence, especially in his concluding “Brief an Creuzer Über das Wesen und die Behandlung der Mythologie,” Leipzig, 1819. The following citation from his Latin dissertation sets forth his general doctrine:— Hermann, De Mythologi GrÆcorum AntiquissimÂ, p. 4 (Opuscula, vol. ii. p. 171): “Videmus rerum divinarum humanarumque scientiam ex Asi per Lyciam migrantem in Europam: videmus fabulosos poËtas peregrinam doctrinam, monstruoso tumore orientis sive exutam, sive nondum indutam, quasi de integro GrÆc specie procreantes; videmus poËtas, illos, quorum omnium vera nomina nominibus—ab arte, qu clarebant, petitis—obliterata sunt, diu in Thraci hÆrentes, raroque tandem etiam cum aliis GrÆciÆ partibus commercio junctos: qualis Pamphus, non ipse Atheniensis, Atheniensibus hymnos Deorum fecit. Videmus denique retrusam paulatim in mysteriorum secretam illam sapientum doctrinam, vitiatam religionum perturbatione, corruptam insciti interpretum, obscuratam levitate amoeniora sectantium—adeo ut eam ne illi quidem intelligerent, qui hÆreditariam a prioribus poËsin colentes, quum ingenii prÆstanti omnes prÆstinguerent, tant illos oblivione merserunt, ut ipsi sint primi auctores omnis eruditionis habiti.” Hermann thinks, however, that by pursuing the suggestions of etymology, vestiges may still be discovered, and something like a history compiled, of Grecian belief as it stood anterior to Homer and Hesiod: “Est autem in hac omni ratione judicio maxime opus, quia non testibus res agitur, sed ad interpretandi solertiam omnia revocanda sunt” (p. 172). To the same general purpose the French work of M. EmÉrie David, Recherches sur le Dieu Jupiter—reviewed by O. MÜller: see the Kleine Schriften of the latter, vol. ii. p. 82. Mr. Bryant has also employed a profusion of learning, and numerous etymological conjectures, to resolve the Greek mythes into mistakes, perversions, and mutilations, of the exploits and doctrines of oriental tribes long-lost and by-gone,—Amonians, Cuthites, Arkites, etc. “It was Noah (he thinks) who was represented under the different names of Thoth, HermÊs, MenÊs, Osiris, Zeuth, Atlas, PhorÔneus, PromÊtheus, to which list a farther number of great extent might be added: the ???? of Anaxagoras was in reality the patriarch Noah” (Ant. Mythol. vol. ii. pp. 253, 272). “The Cuthites or Amonians, descendants of Noah, settled in Greece from the east, celebrated for their skill in building and the arts” (ib. i. p. 502; ii. p. 187). “The greatest part of the Grecian theology arose from misconception and blunders, the stories concerning their gods and heroes were founded on terms misinterpreted or abused” (ib. i. p. 452). “The number of different actions ascribed to the various Grecian gods or heroes all relate to one people or family, and are at bottom one and the same history” (ib. ii. p. 57). “The fables of PromÊtheus and Tityus were taken from ancient Amonian temples, from hieroglyphics misunderstood and badly explained” (i. p. 426): see especially vol. ii. p. 160. [988] The Anti-Symbolik of Voss, and still more the Aglaophamus of Lobeck, are full of instruction on the subject of this supposed interior doctrine, and on the ancient mysteries in general: the latter treatise, especially, is not less distinguished for its judicious and circumspect criticism than for its copious learning. Mr. Halhed (Preface to the Gentoo Code of Laws, pp. xiii.-xiv.) has good observations on the vanity of all attempts to allegorize the Hindu mythology: he observes, with perfect truth, “The vulgar and illiterate have always understood the mythology of their country in its literal sense; and there was a time to every nation, when the highest rank in it was equally vulgar and illiterate with the lowest.... A Hindu esteems the astonishing miracles attributed to a Brima, or a Kishen, as facts of the most indubitable authenticity, and the relation of them as most strictly historical.” Compare also Gibbon’s remarks on the allegorizing tendencies of the later Platonists (Hist. Decl. and Fall, vol. iv. p. 71). [989] Varro, ap. Augustin. De Civ. Dei, iv. 27; vi. 5-6. “Dicis fabulosos Deos accommodatos esse ad theatrum, naturales ad mundum, civiles ad urbem.” “Varro, de religionibus loquens, multa esse vera dixit, quÆ non modo vulgo scire non sit utile, sed etiam tametsi falsa sint, aliter existimare populum expediat: et ideo GrÆcos teletas et mysteria taciturnitate parietibusque clausisse” (ibid. iv. 31). See Villoison, De Triplici Theologi Commentatio, p. 8; and Lactantius, De Origin. Error. ii. 3. The doctrine of the Stoic Chrysippus, ap. Etymologicon Magn. v. ?e?eta?—???s?pp?? d? f?s?, t??? pe?? t?? ?e??? ?????? e???t?? ?a?e?s?a? te?et??, ????a? ??? t??t??? te?e?ta???? ?a? ?p? p?s? d?d?s?es?a?, t?? ????? ????s?? ??a ?a? ?e??at?????, ?a? p??? t??? ???t??? s??p?? d??a????? ??a ??? e??a? t? ????? ?p?? ?e?? ????sa? te ????, ?a? ????ate?? ?e??s?a? a?t??. The triple division of Varro is reproduced in Plutarch, Amatorius, p. 763. t? ?? ???, t? d? ???, t? d? ????, p?st?? ?? ????? ?s???e? t?? d? ??? pe?? ?e?? d???? ?a? pa?t?pas?? ??e??e? ?a? d?d?s?a??? ?e???as?? ??? ?? te p???ta?, ?a? ?? ?????ta?, ?a? t??t??, ?? f???s?f??. [990] Plato, PhÆdr. c. 7. p. 229:— PhÆdrus. ??p? ??, ? S???ate?, s? t??t? t? ???????a pe??e? ?????? e??a?; Socrates. ???? e? ?p?st????, ?spe? ?? s?f??, ??? ?? ?t?p?? e???, e?ta s?f???e??? fa??? a?t?? p?e?a ?????? ?at? t?? p??s??? pet??? s?? fa?a?e?? pa????sa? ?sa?, ?a? ??t? d? te?e?t?sasa? ?e????a? ?p? t?? ?????? ??a?past?? ?e?????a?.... ??? d?, ? Fa?d?e, ????? ?? t? t??a?ta ?a??e?ta ????a?, ??a? d? de???? ?a? ?p?p???? ?a? ?? p??? e?t????? ??d???, ?at? ???? ?? ??d??, ?t? d? a?t? ?????? et? t??t? t? t?? ?pp??e?ta???? e?d?? ?pa??????s?a?, ?a? a???? t? t?? ??a??a?. ?a? ?p???e? d? ????? t????t?? G??????? ?a? ????s??, ?a? ????? ??????? p???? te ?a? ?t?p?a? te?at?????? t???? f?se??? a?? e? t?? ?p?st?? p??s?? ?at? t? e???? ??ast??, ?te ??????? t??? s?f?? ???e???, p????? a?t? s????? de?se?. ??? d? p??? ta?ta ??da?? ?st? s????.... ??e? d? ?a??e?? ??sa? ta?ta, pe???e??? d? t? ???????? pe?? a?t??, ? ??? d? ??e???, s??p? ?? ta?ta ???? ?a?t??, etc. [991] Plato, Repub. iii. 5. p. 391. The perfect ignorance of all men respecting the gods, rendered the task of fiction easy (Plato, Kritias, p. 107). [992] Plato, Repub. ii. 16. p. 377. ????? d? d?tt?? e?d??, t? ?? ??????, ?e?d?? d? ?te???; ?a?. ?a?de?t??? d? ?? ?f?t?????, p??te??? d? ?? t??? ?e?des??? ... ?? a????e??, ?t? p??t?? t??? pa?d???? ????? ????e?? t??t? d? p?? ?? t? ???? e?pe?? ?e?d??, ??? d? ?a? ?????.... ???t?? ??? ?p?stat?t??? t??? ???p?????, ?a? ?? ?? ?? ?a??? ???? p???s?s??, ?????t???, ?? d? ?? ?, ?p????t??? ... ?? d? ??? ?????s?, t??? p?????? ????t??? ... ??? ?s??d?? ?a? ????? ??? ??e??t??, ?a? ?? ????? p???ta?. ??t?? ??? p?? ????? t??? ?????p??? ?e?de?? s??t????te? ??e??? te ?a? ?????s?. ?????? d?, ? d? ??, ?a? t? a?t?? ef?e??? ???e??; ?pe?, ?? d? ???, ??? ?a? p??t?? ?a? ???sta ?fes?a?, ????? te ?a? ??? t?? ? ?a??? ?e?d?ta?. ?? t??t?; ?ta? t?? e????? ?a??? t? ???? pe?? ?e?? te ?a? ?????, ???? e?s??, ?spe? ??afe?? ?d?? ?????ta ???f?? ??? ?? ???a ?????? ????a?. The same train of thought, and the precepts founded upon it, are followed up through chaps. 17, 18, and 19; compare De Legg. xii. p. 941. Instead of recognizing the popular or dramatic theology as something distinct from the civil (as Varro did), Plato suppresses the former as a separate department and merges it in the latter. [993] Plato, Repub. ii. c. 21. p. 382. ?? ?? t??? ?????? ?e?d?? p?te ?a? t? ???s???, ?ste ? ????? e??a? ?s???; ??? ?? p??? te t??? p??e???? ?a? t?? ?a??????? f????, ?ta? d?? a??a? ? t??a ????a? ?a??? t? ?p??e???s? p??tte??, t?te ?p?t??p?? ??e?a ?? f??a??? ???s??? ????eta?; ?a? ?? a?? ??? d? ?????e? ta?? ???????a??, d?? t? ? e?d??a? ?p? t?????? ??e? pe?? t?? pa?a???, ?f??????te? t? ????e? t? ?e?d??, ?t? ???sta, ??t? ???s??? p????e?; [994] The censure which XenophanÊs pronounced upon the Homeric legends has already been noticed: Herakleitus (Diogen. LaËrt. ix. 1) and MetrodÔrus, the companion and follower of Epicurus, were not less profuse in their invectives, ?? ???as? t?s??t??? t? p???t? ?e???d???ta? (Plutarch, Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum, p. 1086). He even advised persons not to be ashamed to confess their utter ignorance of Homer, to the extent of not knowing whether HectÔr was a Greek or a Trojan (Plut. ib. p. 1094). [995] Plato, Republic iii. 4-5. p. 391; De Legg. iii. 1. p. 677. [996] For a description of similar tendencies in the Asiatic religions, see MÖvers, Die PhÖnizier, ch. v. p. 153 (Bonn, 1841): he points out the same phÆnomena as in the Greek,—coalescence between the ideas of ancestry and worship,—confusion between gods and men in the past,—increasing tendency to EuÊmerize (pp. 156-157). [997] According to that which Aristotle seems to recognize (Histor. Animal. vii. 6), HÊraklÊs was father of seventy-two sons, but of only one daughter—he was essentially ???e???????, illustrating one of the physical peculiarities noticed by Aristotle. EuripidÊs, however, mentions daughters of HÊraklÊs in the plural number (Euripid. Herakleid. 45). [998] HippocratÊs was twentieth in descent from HÊraklÊs, and nineteenth from AsklÊpius (Vita Hippocr. by Soranus, ap. Westermann, Scriptor. Biographic. viii. 1); about Aristotle, see Diogen. LaËrt. v. 1. XenophÔn, the physician of the emperor Claudius, was also an AsklÊpiad (Tacit. Ann. xii. 61). In Rhodes, the neighboring island to KÔs, was the gens ????da?, or sons of HÊlios, specially distinguished from the ???asta? of mere associated worshippers of HÊlios, t? ?????? t?? ???ad?? ?a? t?? ???ast?? (see the Inscription in Boeckh’s Collection, No. 2525, with Boeckh’s comment). [999] Herodot. ii. 144. ??ata?? d? ?e?e?????sa?t? ???t??, ?a? ??ad?sa?t? ?? ???a?d??at?? ?e??, ??te?e?e?????sa? ?p? t? ?????se?, ?? de??e??? pa?? a?t??, ?p? ?e?? ???es?a? ?????p??? ??te?e?e?????sa? d? ?de, etc. [1000] Herod. ii. 143-145. ?a? ta?ta ????pt??? ?t?e???? fas?? ?p?stas?a?, a?e? te ??????e??? ?a? a?e? ?p???af?e??? t? ?tea. [1001] Herod. iv. 94-96. After having related the Euemeristic version given by the Hellespontic Greeks, he concludes with his characteristic frankness and simplicity—??? d?, pe?? ?? t??t?? ?a? t?? ?ata?a??? ????at??, ??te ?p?st??, ??te ?? p?ste?? t? ????, d???? d? p?????s? ?tes? p??te??? t?? ??????? t??t?? ?e??s?a? ???a???e?. ??te d? ????et? t?? ??????? ?????p??, e?t? ?st? da??? t?? G?t?s? ??t?? ?p???????, ?a???t?. So Plutarch (Numa c. 19) will not undertake to determine whether Janus was a god or a king e?te da???, e?te as??e?? ?e??e???, etc. Herakleitus the philosopher said that men were ?e?? ???t??, and the gods were ?????p?? ????at?? (Lucian, Vitar. Auctio. c. 13. vol. i. p. 303, Tauch.: compare the same author, Dialog. Mortuor. iii. vol. i. p. 182, ed. Tauchn). [1002] Iliad, v. 127:— ????? d? a? t?? ?p? ?f?a??? ????, ? p??? ?p?e?, ?f?? e? ?????s??? ??? ?e??, ?d? ?a? ??d?a. Of this undistinguishable confusion between gods and men, striking illustrations are to be found both in the third book of Cicero de Natur Deorum (16-21), and in the long disquisition of Strabo (x. pp. 467-474) respecting the Kabeiri, the Korybantes, the Dactyls of Ida; the more so, as he cites the statements of PherekydÊs, Akusilaus, DÊmÊtrius of SkÊpsis, and others. Under the Roman empire, the lands in Greece belonging to the immortal gods were exempted from tribute. The Roman tax-collectors refused to recognize as immortal gods any persons who had once been men; but this rule could not be clearly applied (Cicero, Nat. Deor. iii. 20). See the remarks of Pausanias (ii. 26, 7) about AsklÊpius: Galen, too, is doubtful about AsklÊpius and Dionysus—?s???p??? ?? t?? ?a? ?????s??, e?t? ?????p?? p??te??? ?st??, e?te ?a? ?????e? ?e?? (Galen in Protreptic. 9. tom. i. p. 22, ed. KÜhn). XenophÔn (De Venat. c. i.) considers CheirÔn as the brother of Zeus. The ridicule of Lucian (Deorum Concilium, t. iii. p 527-538, Hems.) brings out still more forcibly the confusion here indicated. [1003] Ovid, Fasti, vi. 6-20:— “Fas mihi prÆcipue vultus vidisse Deorum, Vel quia sum vates, vel quia sacra cano ... ... Ecce Deas vidi.... Horrueram, tacitoque animum pallore fatebar: Cum Dea, quos fecit, sustulit ipsa metus. Namque ait—O vates, Romani conditor anni, Ause per exiguos magna referre modos; Jus tibi fecisti numen coeleste videndi, Cum placuit numeris condere festa tuis.” [1004] The fourth Eclogue of Virgil, under the form of a prophecy, gives a faithful picture of the heroic and divine past, to which the legends of Troy and the Argonauts belonged:— “Ille DeÛm vitam accipiet, Divisque videbit Permixtos heroas,” etc. “Alter erit tum Tiphys et altera quÆ vehat Argo Delectos heroas: erunt etiam altera bella, Atque iterum ad Trojam magnus mittetur Achilles.” [1005] Lucian, Pseudol. c. 4. ?a?a???t??? ??? t?? ?e???d??? p??????? e??, ? ??e????, f???? ????e?? ?a? pa???s?? ?e??, ??? ? ?s??tat?? t?? ?p? t?? s????? ??aa????t??. (See Meineke ad Menandr. p. 284.) [1006] The following passage from Dr. Ferguson’s Essay on Civil Society (part ii. sect. i. p. 126) bears well on the subject before us:— “If conjectures and opinions formed at a distance have not a sufficient authority in the history of mankind, the domestic antiquities of every nation must for this very reason be received with caution. They are, for the most part, the mere conjectures or the fictions of subsequent ages; and even where at first they contained some resemblance of truth, they still vary with the imagination of those by whom they were transmitted, and in every generation receive a different form. They are made to bear the stamp of the times through which they have passed in the form of tradition, not of the ages to which their pretended descriptions relate.... When traditionary fables are rehearsed by the vulgar, they bear the marks of a national character, and though mixed with absurdities, often raise the imagination and move the heart: when made the materials of poetry, and adorned by the skill and the eloquence of an ardent and superior mind, they instruct the understanding as well as engage the passions. It is only in the management of mere antiquaries, or stript of the ornaments which the laws of history forbid them to wear, that they become unfit even to amuse the fancy or to serve any purpose whatever. “It were absurd to quote the fable of the Iliad or the Odyssey, the legend of Hercules, Theseus, and Œdipus, as authorities in matters of fact relating to the history of mankind; but they may, with great justice, be cited to ascertain what were the conceptions and sentiments of the age in which they were composed, or to characterize the genius of that people with whose imaginations they were blended, and by whom they were fondly rehearsed and admired. In this manner, fiction may be admitted to vouch for the genius of nations, while history has nothing to offer worthy of credit.” To the same purpose, M. Paulin Paris (in his Lettre À M. H. de MonmerquÉ, prefixed to the Roman de Berte aux Grans PiÉs, Paris, 1836), respecting the “romans” of the Middle Ages: “Pour bien connaÎtre l’histoire du moyen Âge, non pas celle des faits, mais celle des moeurs qui rendent les faits vraisemblables, il faut l’avoir ÉtudiÉe dans les romans, et voilÀ pourquoi l’Histoire de France n’est pas encore faite.” (p. xxi.) [1007] A curious evidence of the undiminished popularity of the Grecian mythes to the exclusion even of recent history, is preserved by Vopiscus at the beginning of his Life of Aurelian. The prÆfect of the city of Rome, Junius Tiberianus, took Vopiscus into his carriage on the festival-day of the Hilaria; he was connected by the ties of relationship with Aurelian, who had died about a generation before—and as the carriage passed by the splendid Temple of the Sun, which Aurelian had consecrated, he asked Vopiscus, what author had written the life of that emperor? To which Vopiscus replied, that he had read some Greek works which touched upon Aurelian, but nothing in Latin. Whereat the venerable prÆfect was profoundly grieved: “Dolorem gemitÛs sui vir sanctus per hÆc verba profudit: Ergo Thersitem, Sinonem, cÆteraque illa prodigia vetustatis, et nos bene scimus, et posteri frequentabunt: divum Aurelianum, clarissimum principem, severissimum Imperatorem, per quem totus Romano nomini orbis est restitutus, posteri nescient? Deus avertat hanc amentiam! Et tamen, si bene memini, ephemeridas illius viri scriptas habemus,” etc. (HistoriÆ August. Scriptt. p. 209, ed. Salmas.) This impressive remonstrance produced the Life of Aurelian by Vopiscus. The materials seem to have been ample and authentic; it is to be regretted that they did not fall into the hands of an author qualified to turn them to better account. [1008] Thucyd. vi. 56. [1009] Pausan. i. 3, 3. ???eta? ?? d? ?a? ???a ??? ????? pa?? t??? p??????, ??a ?st???a? ???????? ??s?, ?a? ?p?sa ?????? e???? ?? pa?d?? ?? te ?????? ?a? t?a??d?a?? p?st? ?????????, etc. The treatise of Lucian, De Saltatione, is a curious proof how much these mythes were in every one’s memory, and how large the range of knowledge of them was which a good dancer possessed (see particularly c. 76-79. t. ii. p. 308-310, Hemst). AntiphanÊs ap. AthenÆ. vi. p. 223:— ?a?????? ?st?? ? t?a??d?a p???a ?at? p??t?, e? ?e p??t?? ?? ????? ?p? t?? ?eat?? e?s?? ??????se??? p??? ?a? t??? e?pe??? ?? ?p???sa? ???? de? t?? p???t??. ??d?p??? ??? ?? ?e f?, t? d? ???a p??t? ?sas??? ? pat?? ?????, ?t?? ????st?, ???at??e?, pa?de? t??e?? t? pe?se?? ??t??, t? pep????e?. ?? p???? e?p? t?? ???a???a, ?a? t? pa?d?a p??t? e???? e?????, ?t? a?e?? ?p??t??e t?? ?te??? ??a?a?t?? d? ?d?ast?? e????? ??e?, p???? d? ?pe?s??, etc. The first pages of the eleventh Oration of Dio Chrysostom contain some striking passages both as to the universal acquaintance with the mythes, and as to their extreme popularity (Or. xi. p. 307-312, Reisk). See also the commencement of HeraklidÊs, De Allegori Homeric (ap. Scriptt. Myth. ed. Gale, p. 408), about the familiarity with Homer. The LydÊ of the poet Antimachus was composed for his own consolation under sorrow, by enumerating the ??????? s?f???? (Plutarch, Consolat. ad ApollÔn. c. 9. p. 106: compare Æschines cont. Ktesiph. c. 48): a sepulchral inscription in ThÊra, on the untimely death of AdmÊtus, a youth of the heroic gens Ægidae, makes a touching allusion to his ancestors PÊleus and PherÊs (Boeckh, C. I. t. ii. p. 1087). A curious passage of Aristotle is preserved by DÊmÊtrius Phalereus (?e?? ????e?a?, c. 144),—?s? ??? a?t?t?? ?a? ???t?? e??, f??????te??? ?????a (compare the passage in the Nikomachean Ethics, i. 9, ???t?? ?a? ?te????). Stahr refers this to a letter of Aristotle written in his old age, the mythes being the consolation of his solitude (Aristotelia, i. p. 201). For the employment of the mythical names and incidents as topics of pleasing and familiar comparison, see Menander, ?e?? ?p?de??t??. § iv. capp. 9 and 11, ap. Walz. Coll. Rhett. t. ix. pp. 283-294. The degree in which they passed into the ordinary songs of women is illustrated by a touching epigram contained among the Chian Inscriptions published in Boeckh’s Collection (No. 2236):— ??tt? ?a? Fa????, f??? ???? (?), a? s????????, ?? pe????a?, ??a?a?, t?d? ??????e? ???. ?f?te?a? ??a?, p??ta? ?????—? ?????? ??????, ???? ?????? ? ????? ?d?e? ??????. These two poor women were not afraid to boast of their family descent. They probably belonged to some noble gens which traced its origin to a god or a hero. About the songs of women, see also Agathias, i. 7. p. 29, ed. Bonn. In the family of the wealthy Athenian DÊmocratÊs was a legend, that his primitive ancestor (son of Zeus by the daughter of the ArchÊgetÊs of the dÊme AixÔneis, to which he belonged) had received HÊraklÊs at his table: this legend was so rife that the old women sung it,—?pe? a? ??a?a? ?d??s? (Plato, Lysis, p. 205). Compare also a legend of the dÊme ??a??????, mentioned in Suidas ad voc. “Who is this virgin?” asks OrestÊs from PyladÊs in the Iphigeneia in Tauris of EuripidÊs (662), respecting his sister Iphigeneia, whom he does not know as priestess of Artemis in a foreign land:— ??? ?st?? ? ?e????; ?? ????????? ????e?? ??? t??? t? ?? ???? p????? ??st?? t? ??a??? t?? t? ?? ??????? s?f?? ????a?t?, ???????? t? ?????, etc. ... ?st?? ? ???? ????? ??e??e?. ???e?a t??, etc. [1010] Plato, PhÆdo, c. 2. [1011] The Philopseudes of Lucian (t. iii. p. 31, Hemst. cap. 2, 3, 4) shows not only the pride which the general public of Athens and ThÊbes took in their old mythes (Triptolemus, Boreas, and Oreithyia, the Sparti, etc.), but the way in which they treated every man who called the stories in question as a fool or as an atheist. He remarks, that if the guides who showed the antiquities had been restrained to tell nothing but what was true, they would have died of hunger; for the visiting strangers would not care to hear plain truth, even if they could have got it for nothing (?d? ??s?? t?? ????? ?????? ????e?? ??e??s??t??). [1012] Herodot. viii. 134. [1013] Herodot. v. 67. [1014] Euripid. Hippolyt. 1424; Pausan. ii. 32, 1; Lucian, De De SyriÂ, c. 60. vol. iv. p. 287, Tauch. It is curious to see in the account of Pausanias how all the petty peculiarities of the objects around became connected with explanatory details growing out of this affecting legend. Compare Pausan. i. 22, 2. [1015] Pausan. ix. 40, 6. [1016] Plutarch, Marcell. c. 20; Pausan. iii. 3, 6. [1017] Pausan. viii. 46, 1; Diogen. LaËr. viii. 5; Strabo, vi. p. 263; Appian, Bell. Mithridat. c. 77; Æschyl. Eumen. 380. Wachsmuth has collected the numerous citations out of Pausanias on this subject (Hellenische Alterthumskunde, part ii. sect. 115. p. 111). [1018] Herodot. ii. 182; Plutarch, Pyrrh. c. 32; Schol. Apoll. Rhod iv. 1217; DiodÔr. iv. 56. [1019] ?????? ??eta??, the subjects of the works of Polygnotus at Athens (Melanthius ap. Plutarch. CimÔn. c. 4): compare Theocrit. xv. 138. [1020] The Centauromachia and the Amazonomachia are constantly associated together in the ancient Grecian reliefs (see the Expedition Scientifique de MorÉe, t. ii. p. 16, in the explanation of the temple of Apollo Epikureius at Phigaleia). [1021] Pausan. ii. 29, 6. [1022] Ernst Curtius, Die Akropolis von Athen, Berlin, 1844, p. 18. Arnobius adv. Gentes, vi. p. 203, ed. Elmenhorst. [1023] See the case of the ÆginÊtans lending the Æakids for a time to the Thebans (Herodot. v. 80), who soon, however, returned them: likewise sending the Æakids to the battle of Salamis (viii. 64-80). The Spartans, when they decreed that only one of their two kings should be out on military service, decreed at the same time that only one of the Tyndarids should go out with them (v. 75): they once lent the Tyndarids as aids to the envoys of Epizephyrian Locri, who prepared for them a couch on board their ship (DiodÔr. Excerpt. xvi. p. 15, Dindorf). The Thebans grant their hero Melanippus to KleisthenÊs of SikyÔn (v. 68). What was sent, must probably have been a consecrated copy of the genuine statue. Respecting the solemnities practised towards the statues, see Plutarch, Alkibiad. 34; Kallimach. Hymn. ad Lavacr. Palladis, init. with the note of Spanheim; K. O. MÜller, ArchÆologie der Kunst, § 69; compare Plutarch, QuÆstion. Romaic. § 61. p. 279; and Tacit. Mor. Germ. c. 40; DiodÔr. xvii. 49. The manner in which the real presence of a hero was identified with his statue (t?? d??a??? de? ?e?? ????? ??e?? s????ta ???? ?d???????.—Menander, Fragm. ???????, p. 71, Meineke), consecrated ground, and oracle, is nowhere more powerfully attested than in the HeroÏca of Philostratus (capp. 2-20. pp. 674-692; also De Vit ApollÔn. Tyan. iv. 11), respecting PrÔtesilaus at ElÆus, Ajax at the Aianteium, and HectÔr at Ilium: PrÔtesilaus appeared exactly in the equipment of his statue,—??a?da ???pta?, ???e, t?? Tetta????? t??p??, ?spe? ?a? t? ??a?a t??t? (p. 674). The presence and sympathy of the hero Lykus is essential to the satisfaction of the Athenian dikasts (Aristophan. Vesp. 389-820): the fragment of Lucilius, quoted by Lactantius, De Fals Religione (i. 22), is curious.—???? ???s? t??? ?at? t?? p???? ?a? t?? ???a? ?d??????? (Lycurgus cont. Leocrat. c. 1). [1024] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 12; Strabo, vi. p. 264. Theophrastus treats the perspiration as a natural phÆnomenon in the statues made of cedar-wood (Histor. Plant. v. 10). Plutarch discusses the credibility of this sort of miracles in his Life of Coriolanus, c. 37-38. [1025] Herodot. vii. 189. Compare the gratitude of the Megalopolitans to Boreas for having preserved them from the attack of the LacedÆmonian king Agis (Pausan. viii. 27, 4.—viii. 36, 4). When the Ten Thousand Greeks were on their retreat through the cold mountains of Armenia, Boreas blew in their faces, “parching and freezing intolerably.” One of the prophets recommended that a sacrifice should be offered to him, which was done, “and the painful effect of the wind appeared to every one forthwith to cease in a marked manner;” (?a? p?s? d? pe??fa??? ?d??e ???a? t? ?a?ep?? t?? p?e?at??.—Xenoph. Anab. iv. 5, 3.) [1026] Jornandes, De Reb. Geticis, capp. 4-6. [1027] Tacit. Mor. German. c. 2. “Celebrant carminibus antiquis, quod unum apud eos memoriÆ et annalium genus est, Tuistonem Deum terr editum, et filium Mannum, originem gentis conditoresque. Quidam licenti vetustatis, plures Deo ortos, pluresque gentis appellationes, Marsos, Gambrivios, Suevos, Vandaliosque affirmant: eaque vera et antiqua nomina.” [1028] On the hostile influence exercised by the change of religion on the old Scandinavian poetry, see an interesting article of Jacob Grimm in the GÖttingen Gelehrte Anzeigen, Feb. 1830, pp. 268-273; a review of Olaf Tryggvson’s Saga. The article Helden, in his Deutsche Mythologie, is also full of instruction on the same subject: see also the Einleitung to the book, p. 11, 2nd edition. A similar observation has been made with respect to the old mythes of the pagan Russians by Eichhoff: “L’Établissement du Christianisme, ce gage du bonheur des nations, fut vivement apprÉciÉ par les Russes, qui dans leur juste reconnaissance, le personnifiÈrent dans un hÉros. Vladimir le Grand, ami des arts, protecteur de la religion qu’il protÉgea, et dont les fruits firent oublier les fautes, devint l’Arthus et le Charlemagne de la Russie, et ses hauts faits furent un mythe national qui domina tous ceux du paganisme. Autour de lui se groupÈrent ces guerriers aux formes athlÉtiques, au coeur gÉnÉreux, dont la poÉsie aime À entourer le berceau mystÉrieux des peuples: et les exploits du vaillant Dobrinia, de Rogdai, d’Ilia, de Curilo, animÈrent les ballades nationales, et vivent encore dans de naÏfs rÉcits.” (Eichhoff, Histoire de la Langue et LittÉrature des Slaves, Paris, 1839, part iii. ch. 2. p. 190.) [1029] This distinction is curiously brought to view by Saxo Grammaticus, where he says of an Englishman named Lucas, that he was “literis quidem tenuiter instructus, sed historiarum scienti apprime eruditus” (p. 330, apud Dahlmann’s Historische Forschungen, vol. i. p. 176). [1030] “Barbara et antiquissima carmina (says Eginhart, in his Life of Charlemagne), quibus veterum regum actus et bella canebantur, conscripsit.” Theganus says of Louis le Debonnaire, “Poetica carmina gentilia, quÆ in juventute didicerat, respuit, nec legere, nec audire, nec docere, voluit.” (De Gestis Ludovici Imperatoris ap. Pithoeum, p. 304, c. xix.) [1031] See Grimm’s Deutsche Mythologie, art. Helden, p. 356, 2nd edit. Hengist and Horsa were fourth in descent from Odin (Venerable Bede, Hist. i. 15). Thiodolff, the Scald of Harold Haarfager king of Norway, traced the pedigree of his sovereign through thirty generations to Yngarfrey, the son of Niord, companion of Odin at Upsal; the kings of Upsal were called Ynglinger, and the song of Thiodolff, Ynglingatal (Dahlmann, Histor. Forschung. i. p. 379). Eyvind, another Scald, a century afterwards, deduced the pedigree of Jarl Hacon from Saming, son of Yngwifrey (p. 381). Are Frode, the Icelandic historian, carried up his own genealogy through thirty-six generations to Yngwe; a genealogy which TorfÆus accepts as trustworthy, opposing it to the line of kings given by Saxo Grammaticus (p. 352). TorfÆus makes Harold Haarfager a descendant from Odin through twenty-seven generations; Alfred of England through twenty-three generations; Offa of Mercia through fifteen (p. 362). See also the translation by Lange of P. A. MÜller’s Saga Bibliothek, Introd. p. xxviii. and the genealogical tables prefixed to Snorro Sturleson’s Edda. Mr. Sharon Turner conceives the human existence of Odin to be distinctly proved, seemingly upon the same evidence as EuÊmerus believed in the human existence of Zeus (History of the Anglo-Saxons, Appendix to b. ii. ch. 3. p. 219, 5th edit.). [1032] Dahlmann, Histor. Forschung. t. i. p. 220. There is a valuable article on this subject in the Zeitschrift fÜr Geschichts Wissenschaft (Berlin, vol. i. pp. 237-282) by Stuhr, “Über einige Hauptfragen des Nordischen Alterthums,” wherein the writer illustrates both the strong motive and the effective tendency, on the part of the Christian clergy who had to deal with these newly-converted Teutonic pagans, to EuÊmerize the old gods, and to represent a genealogy, which they were unable to efface from men’s minds, as if it consisted only of mere men. Mr. John Kemble (Über die Stammtafel der Westsachsen, ap. Stuhr, p. 254) remarks, that “nobilitas,” among that people, consisted in descent from Odin and the other gods. Colonel Sleeman also deals in the same manner with the religious legends of the Hindoos,—so natural is the proceeding of EuÊmerus, towards any religion in which a critic does not believe:— “They (the Hindoos) of course think that the incarnation of their three great divinities were beings infinitely superior to prophets, being in all their attributes and prerogatives equal to the divinities themselves. But we are disposed to think that these incarnations were nothing more than great men whom their flatterers and poets have exalted into gods,—this was the way in which men made their gods in ancient Greece and Egypt.—All that the poets have sung of the actions of these men is now received as revelation from heaven: though nothing can be more monstrous than the actions ascribed to the best incarnation, Krishna, of the best of the gods, Vishnoo.” (Sleeman, Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official, vol. i. ch. viii. 61.) [1033] See P. E. MÜller, Über den Ursprung und Verfall der IslÄndischen Historiographie, p. 63. In the Leitfaden zur Nordischen Alterthumskunde, pp. 4-5 (Copenhagen, 1837), is an instructive summary of the different schemes of interpretation applied to the northern mythes: 1, the historical; 2, the geographical; 3, the astronomical; 4, the physical; 5, the allegorical. [1034] “Interea tamen homines Christiani in numina non credant ethnica, nec aliter fidem narrationibus hisce adstruere vel adhibere debent, quam in libri hujus prooemio monitum est de causis et occasionibus cur et quomodo genus humanum a ver fide aberraverit.” (Extract from the Prose Edda, p. 75, in the Lexicon Mythologicum ad calcem EddÆ SÆmund. vol. iii. p. 357, Copenhag. edit.) A similar warning is to be found in another passage cited by P. E. MÜller, Über den Ursprung und Verfall der IslÄndischen Historiographie, p. 138, Copenhagen, 1813; compare the Prologue to the Prose Edda, p. 6, and Mallet, Introduction À l’Histoire de Dannemarc, ch. vii. pp. 114-132. Saxo Grammaticus represents Odin sometimes as a magician, sometimes as an evil dÆmon, sometimes as a high priest or pontiff of heathenism, who imposed so powerfully upon the people around him as to receive divine honors. Thor also is treated as having been an evil dÆmon. (See Lexicon Mythologic. ut supra, pp. 567, 915.) Respecting the function of Snorro as logographer, see PrÆfat. ad Eddam, ut supra, p. xi. He is much more faithful, and less unfriendly to the old religion, than the other logographers of the ancient Scandinavian Sagas. (Leitfaden der Nordischen AlterthÜmer, p. 14, by the Antiquarian Society of Copenhagen, 1837.) By a singular transformation, dependent upon the same tone of mind, the authors of the French Chansons de Geste, in the twelfth century, turned Apollo into an evil dÆmon, patron of the Mussulmans (see the Roman of Garin le Loherain, par M. Paulin Paris, 1833, p. 31): “Car mieux vaut Dieux que ne fait Apollis.” M. Paris observes, “Cet ancien Dieu des beaux arts est l’un des dÉmons le plus souvent dÉsignÉs dans nos poËmes, comme patron des Musulmans.” The prophet Mahomet, too, anathematized the old Persian epic anterior to his religion. “C’est À l’occasion de Naser Ibn al-Hareth, qui avait apportÉ de Perse l’Histoire de Rustem et d’Isfendiar, et la faisait rÉciter par des chanteuses dans les assemblÉes des Koreischites, que Mahomet prononÇa le vers suivant (of the Koran): Il y a des hommes qui achÈtent des contes frivoles, pour dÉtourner par-lÀ les hommes de la voie de Dieu, d’une maniÈre insensÉe, et pour la livrer À la risÉe: mais leur punition les couvrira de honte.” (Mohl, PrÉface au Livre des Rois de Ferdousi, p. xiii.) [1035] The legends of the Saints have been touched upon by M. Guizot (Cours d’Histoire Moderne, leÇon xvii.) and by M. AmpÈre (Histoire LittÉraire de la France, t. ii. cap. 14, 15, 16); but a far more copious and elaborate account of them, coupled with much just criticism, is to be found in the valuable Essai sur les LÉgendes Pieuses du Moyen Age, par L. F. Alfred Maury, Paris, 1843. M. Guizot scarcely adverts at all to the more or less of matter of fact contained in these biographies: he regards them altogether as they grew out of and answered to the predominant emotions and mental exigences of the age: “Au milieu d’un dÉluge de fables absurdes, la morale Éclate avec un grand empire” (p. 159, ed. 1829). “Les lÉgendes ont ÉtÉ pour les ChrÉtiens de ce temps (qu’on me permette cette comparaison purement littÉraire) ce que sont pour les Orientaux ces longs rÉcits, ces histoires si brillantes et si variÉes, dont les Mille et une Nuits nous donnent un Échantillon. C’Était lÀ que l’imagination populaire errait librement dans un monde inconnu, merveilleux, plein de mouvement et de poÉsie” (p. 175, ibid.). M. Guizot takes his comparison with the tales of the Arabian Nights, as heard by an Oriental with uninquiring and unsuspicious credence. Viewed with reference to an instructed European, who reads these narratives as pleasing but recognized fiction, the comparison would not be just; for no one in that age dreamed of questioning the truth of the biographies. All the remarks of M. Guizot assume this implicit faith in them as literal histories: perhaps, in estimating the feelings to which they owed their extraordinary popularity, he allows too little predominance to the religious feeling, and too much influence to other mental exigences which then went along with it; more especially as he remarks, in the preceding lecture (p. 116), “Le caractÈre gÉnÉral de l’Époque est la concentration du dÉveloppement intellectuel dans la sphÈre religieuse.” How this absorbing religious sentiment operated in generating and accrediting new matter of narrative, is shown with great fulness of detail in the work of M. Maury: “Tous les Écrits du moyen Âge nous apportent la preuve de cette prÉoccupation exclusive des esprits vers l’Histoire Sainte et les prodiges qui avaient signalÉ l’avÈnement du Christianisme. Tous nous montrent la pensÉe de Dieu et du Ciel, dominant les moindres oeuvres de cette Époque de naÏve et de crÉdule simplicitÉ. D’ailleurs, n’Était-ce pas le moine, le clerc, qui constituaient alors les seuls Écrivains? Qu’y a-t-il d’Étonnant que le sujet habituel de leurs mÉditations, de leurs Études, se reflÉtÂt sans cesse dans leurs ouvrages? Partout reparaissait À l’imagination JÉsus et ses Saints: cette image, l’esprit l’accueillait avec soumission et obÉissance: il n’osait pas encore envisager ces cÉlestes pensÉes avec l’oeil de la critique, armÉ de dÉfiance et de doute; au contraire, l’intelligence les acceptait toutes indistinctement et s’en nourrissait avec aviditÉ. Ainsi s’accrÉditaient tous les jours de nouvelles fables. Une foi vive veut sans cesse de nouveaux faits qu’elle puisse croire, comme la charitÉ veut de nouveaux bienfaits pour s’exercer” (p. 43). The remarks on the History of St. Christopher, whose personality was allegorized by Luther and Melancthon, are curious (p. 57). [1036] “Dans les prodiges que l’on admettait avoir dÛ nÉcessairement s’opÉrer au tombeau du saint nouvellement canonisÉ, l’expression, ‘CÆci visum, claudi gressum, muti loquelam, surdi auditum, paralytici debitum membrorum officium, recuperabant,’ Était devenue plÛtot une formule d’usage que la rÉlation littÉrale du fait.” (Maury, Essai sur les LÉgendes Pieuses du Moyen Age, p. 5.) To the same purpose M. AmpÈre, ch. 14. p. 361: “Il y a un certain nombre de faits que l’agiographie reproduit constamment, quelque soit son hÉros: ordinairement ce personnage a eu dans sa jeunesse une vision qui lui a rÉvÉlÉ son avenir: ou bien, une prophÉtie lui a annoncÉ ce qu’il serait un jour. Plus tard, il opÈre un certain nombre de miracles, toujours les mÊmes; il exorcise des possÉdÉs, ressuscite des morts, il est averti de sa fin par un songe. Puis sur son tombeau s’accomplissent d’autres merveilles À-peu-prÈs semblables.” [1037] A few words from M. AmpÈre to illustrate this: “C’est donc au sixiÈme siÈcle que la lÉgende se constitue: c’est alors qu’elle prend complÈtement le caractÈre naÏf qui lui appartient: qu’elle est elle-mÊme, qu’elle se sÉpare de toute influence ÉtrangÈre. En mÊme temps, l’ignorance devient de plus en plus grossiÈre, et par suite la crÉdulitÉ s’accroit: les calamitÉs du temps sont plus lourdes, et l’on a un plus grand besoin de remÈde et de consolation.... Les rÉcits miraculeux se substituent aux argumens de la thÉologie. Les miracles sont devenus la meilleure dÉmonstration du Christianisme: c’est la seule que puissent comprendre les esprits grossiers des barbares” (c. 15. p. 373). Again, c. 17. p. 401: “Un des caractÈres de la lÉgende est de mÊler constamment le puÉril au grand: il faut l’avouer, elle dÉfigure parfois un peu ces hommes d’une trempe si forte, en mettant sur leur compte des anecdotes dont le caractÈre n’est pas toujours sÉrieux; elle en a usÉ ainsi pour St. Columban, dont nous verrons tout À l’heure le rÔle vis-À-vis de Brunehaut et des chefs MÉrovingiens. La lÉgende auroit pu se dispenser de nous apprendre, comment un jour, il se fit rapporter par un corbeau les gants qu’il avait perdus: comment, un autre jour, il empÊcha la biÈre de couler d’un tonneau percÉ, et diverses merveilles, certainement indignes de sa mÉmoire.” The miracle by which St. Columban employed the raven to fetch back his lost gloves, is exactly in the character of the Homeric and Hesiodic age: the earnest faith, as well as the reverential sympathy, between the Homeric man and Zeus or AthÊnÊ, is indicated by the invocation of their aid for his own sufferings of detail, and in his own need and danger. The criticism of M. AmpÈre, on the other hand, is analogous to that of the later pagans, after the conception of a course of nature had become established in men’s minds, so far as that exceptional interference by the gods was understood to be, comparatively speaking, rare, and only supposable upon what were called great emergences. In the old Hesiodic legend (see above, ch. ix. p. 245), Apollo is apprized by a raven of the infidelity of the nymph KorÔnis to him—t? ?? ??? ???e??? ???e ???a?, etc. (the raven appears elsewhere as companion of Apollo, Plutarch, de Isid. et Os. p. 379, Herod. iv. 5.) Pindar, in his version of the legend, eliminated the raven, without specifying how Apollo got his knowledge of the circumstance. The Scholiasts praise Pindar much for having rejected the puerile version of the story—?pa??e? t?? ???da??? ? ??t??? ?t? pa?a????s?e??? t?? pe?? t?? ???a?a ?st???a?, a?t?? d?? ?a?t?? ???????a? f?s? t?? ?p???? ... ?a??e?? ??? ??sa? t? t????t? ??? t??e?? ??t? ????de?, etc.—compare also the criticisms of the Schol. ad Soph. Œdip. Kol. 1378, on the old epic ThebaÏs; and the remarks of Arrian (Exp. Al. iii. 4) on the divine interference by which Alexander and his army were enabled to find their way across the sand of the desert to the temple of Ammon. In the eyes of M. AmpÈre, the recital of the biographer of St. Columban appears puerile (??p? ?d?? ?de ?e??? ???fa?d?a f??e??ta?, Odyss. iii. 221); in the eyes of that biographer, the criticism of M. AmpÈre would have appeared impious. When it is once conceded that phÆnomena are distributable under two denominations, the natural and the miraculous, it must be left to the feelings of each individual to determine what is and what is not, a suitable occasion for a miracle. DiodÔrus and Pausanias differed in opinion (as stated in a previous chapter) about the death of ActÆÔn by his own hounds,—the former maintaining that the case was one fit for the special intervention of the goddess Artemis; the latter, that it was not so. The question is one determinable only by the religious feelings and conscience of the two dissentients: no common standard of judgment can be imposed upon them; for no reasonings derived from science or philosophy are available, inasmuch as in this case the very point in dispute is, whether the scientific point of view be admissible. Those who are disposed to adopt the supernatural belief, will find in every case the language open to them wherewith Dionysius of Halicarnassus (in recounting a miracle wrought by Vesta, in the early times of Roman history, for the purpose of rescuing an unjustly accused virgin) reproves the sceptics of his time: “It is well worth while (he observes) to recount the special manifestation (?p?f??e?a?) which the goddess showed to these unjustly accused virgins. For these circumstances, extraordinary as they are, have been held worthy of belief by the Romans, and historians have talked much about them. Those persons, indeed, who adopt the atheistical schemes of philosophy (if, indeed, we must call them philosophy), pulling in pieces as they do all the special manifestations (?p?sa? d?as????te? t?? ?p?fa?e?a? t?? ?e??) of the gods which have taken place among Greeks or barbarians, will of course turn these stories also into ridicule, ascribing them to the vain talk of men, as if none of the gods cared at all for mankind. But those who, having pushed their researches farther, believe the gods not to be indifferent to human affairs, but favorable to good men and hostile to bad—will not treat these special manifestations as more incredible than others.” (Dionys. Halic. ii. 68-69.) Plutarch, after noticing the great number of miraculous statements in circulation, expresses his anxiety to draw a line between the true and the false, but cannot find where: “excess, both of credulity and of incredulity (he tells us) in such matters is dangerous; caution, and nothing too much, is the best course.” (Camillus, c. 6.) Polybius is for granting permission to historians to recount a sufficient number of miracles to keep up a feeling of piety in the multitude, but not more: to measure out the proper quantity (he observes) is difficult, but not impossible (d?spa????af?? ?st? ? p?s?t??, ?? ?? ?pa????af?? ?e, xvi. 12). [1038] The great Bollandist collection of the Lives of the Saints, intended to comprise the whole year, did not extend beyond the nine months from January to October, which occupy fifty-three large volumes. The month of April fills three of those volumes, and exhibits the lives of 1472 saints. Had the collection run over the entire year, the total number of such biographies could hardly have been less than 25,000, and might have been even greater (see Guizot, Cours d’Histoire Moderne, leÇon xvii. p. 157). [1039] See Warton’s History of English Poetry, vol. i. dissert. i. p. xvii. Again, in sect. iii. p. 140: “Vincent de Beauvais, who lived under Louis IX. of France (about 1260), and who, on account of his extraordinary erudition, was appointed preceptor to that king’s sons, very gravely classes Archbishop Turpin’s Charlemagne among the real histories, and places it on a level with Suetonius and CÆsar. He was himself an historian, and has left a large history of the world, fraught with a variety of reading, and of high repute in the Middle Ages; but edifying and entertaining as this work might have been to his contemporaries, at present it serves only to record their prejudices and to characterize their credulity.” About the full belief in Arthur and the Tales of the Round Table during the fourteenth century, and about the strange historical mistakes of the poet Gower in the fifteenth, see the same work, sect. 7. vol. ii. p. 33; sect. 19. vol. ii. p. 239. “L’auteur de la Chronique de Turpin (says M. Sismondi, LittÉrature du Midi, vol. i. ch. 7. p. 289) n’avait point l’intention de briller aux yeux du public par une invention heureuse, ni d’amuser les oisifs par des contes merveilleux qu’ils reconnoitroient pour tels: il prÉsentait aux FranÇais tous ces faits Étranges comme de l’histoire, et la lecture des lÉgendes fabuleuses avait accoutumÉ À croire À de plus grandes merveilles encore; aussi plusieurs de ces fables furent-elles reproduites dans la Chronique de St. Denis.” Again, ib. p. 290: “Souvent les anciens romanciers, lorsqu’ils entreprennent un rÉcit de la cour de Charlemagne, prennent un ton plus ÉlevÉ: ce ne sont point des fables qu’ils vont conter, c’est de l’histoire nationale,—c’est la gloire de leurs ancÊtres qu’ils veulent cÉlÉbrer, et ils ont droit alors À demander qu’on les Écoute avec respect.” The Chronicle of Turpin was inserted, even so late as the year 1566, in the collection printed by Scardius at Frankfort of early German historians (GinguenÉ, Histoire LittÉraire d’Italie, vol. iv. part ii. ch. 3. p. 157). To the same point—that these romances were listened to as real stories—see Sir Walter Scott’s Preface to Sir Tristram, p. lxvii. The authors of the Legends of the Saints are not less explicit in their assertions that everything which they recount is true and well-attested (AmpÈre, c. 14. p. 358). [1040] The series of articles by M. Fauriel, published in the Revue des Deux Mondes, vol. xiii. are full of instruction respecting the origin, tenor, and influence of the Romances of Chivalry. Though the name of Charlemagne appears, the romancers are really unable to distinguish him from Charles Martel or from Charles the Bald (pp. 537-539). They ascribe to him an expedition to the Holy Land, in which he conquered Jerusalem from the Saracens, obtained possession of the relics of the passion of Christ, the crown of thorns, etc. These precious relics he carried to Rome, from whence they were taken to Spain by a Saracen emir, named Balan, at the head of an army. The expedition of Charlemagne against the Saracens in Spain was undertaken for the purpose of recovering the relics: “Ces divers romans peuvent Être regardÉs comme la suite, comme le dÉveloppement, de la fiction de la conquÊte de JÉrusalem par Charlemagne.” Respecting the Romance of Rinaldo of Montauban (describing the struggles of a feudal lord against the emperor) M. Fauriel observes, “Il n’y a, je crois, aucun fondement historique: c’est selon toute apparence, la pure expression poÉtique du fait gÉnÉral,” etc. (p. 542.) [1041] Among the “formules consacrÉes” (observes M. Fauriel) of the romancers of the Carlovingian epic, are asseverations of their own veracity, and of the accuracy of what they are about to relate—specification of witnesses whom they have consulted—appeals to pretended chronicles: “Que ces citations, ces indications, soient parfois sÉrieuses et sincÈres, cela peut Être; mais c’est une exception et une exception rare. De telles allÉgations de la part des romanciers, sont en gÉnÉral un pur et simple mensonge, mais non toutefois un mensonge gratuit. C’est un mensonge qui a sa raison et sa convenance: il tient au dÉsir et au besoin de satisfaire une opinion accoutumÉe À supposer et À chercher du vrai dans les fictions du genre de celles oÙ l’on allÈgue ces prÉtendues autoritÉs. La maniÈre dont les auteurs de ces fictions les qualifient souvent eux-mÊmes, est une consÉquence naturelle de leur prÉtention d’y avoir suivi des documens vÉnÉrables. Ils les qualifient de chansons de vieille histoire, de haute histoire, de bonne geste, de grande baronnie: et ce n’est pas pour se vanter qu’ils parlent ainsi: la vanitÉ d’auteur n’est rien chez eux, en comparaison du besoin qu’ils ont d’Être crus, de passer pour de simples traducteurs, de simples rÉpÉtiteurs de lÉgendes ou d’histoire consacrÉe. Ces protestations de vÉracitÉ, qui, plus ou moins expresses, sont de rigueur dans les romans Carlovingiens, y sont aussi frÉquemment accompagnÉes de protestations accessoires contre les romanciers, qui, ayant dÉjÀ traitÉ un sujet donnÉ, sont accusÉs d’y avoir faussÉ la vÉritÉ.” (Fauriel, Orig. de l’EpopÉe Chevaleresque, in the Revue des Deux Mondes, vol. xiii. p. 554.) About the Cycle of the Round Table, see the same series of articles (Rev. D. M. t. xiv. pp. 170-184). The Chevaliers of the Saint Graal were a sort of idÉal of the Knights Templars: “Une race de princes hÉroÏques, originaires de l’Asie, fut prÉdestinÉe par le ciel mÊme À la garde du Saint Graal. Perille fut le premier de cette race, qui s’Étant converti au Christianisme, passa en Europe sous l’Empereur Vespasien,” etc.; then follows a string of fabulous incidents: the epical agency is similar to that of Homer—???? d? ?te?e?et? ????. M. Paulin Paris, in his Prefaces to the Romans des Douze Pairs de France, has controverted many of the positions of M. Fauriel, and with success, so far as regards the ProvenÇal origin of the Chansons de Geste, asserted by the latter. In regard to the Romances of the Round Table, he agrees substantially with M. Fauriel; but he tries to assign a greater historical value to the poems of the Carlovingian epic,—very unsuccessfully, in my opinion. But his own analysis of the old poem of Garin de Loherain bears out the very opinion which he is confuting: “Nous sommes au rÈgne de Charles Martel, et nous reconnaissons sous d’autres noms les dÉtails exacts de la fameuse dÉfaite d’Attila dans les champs Catalauniques. Saint Loup et Saint Nicaise, glorieux prÉlats du quatriÈme siÈcle, reviennent figurer autour du pÈre de PÉpin le Bref: enfin pour complÉter la confusion, Charles Martel meurt sur le champ de bataille, À la place du roi des Visigoths, Theodoric.... Toutes les parties de la narration sont vraies: seulement toutes s’y trouvent dÉplacÉes. En gÉnÉral, les peuples n’entendent rien À la chronologie: les evÈnemens restent: les individus, les lieux et les Époques, ne laissent aucune trace: c’est pour ainsi dire, une dÉcoration scÉnique que l’on applique indiffÉremment À des rÉcits souvent contraires.” (Preface to the Roman de Garin le Loherain, pp. xvi.-xx.: Paris, 1833.) Compare also his Lettre À M. MonmerquÉ, prefixed to the Roman de Berthe aux Grans PiÉs, Paris, 1836. To say that all the parts of the narrative are true, is contrary to M. Paris’s own showing: some parts may be true, separately taken, but these fragments of truth are melted down with a large mass of fiction, and cannot be discriminated unless we possess some independent test. The poet who picks out one incident from the fourth century, another from the fifth, and a few more from the eighth, and then blends them all into a continuous tale along with many additions of his own, shows that he takes the items of fact because they suit the purposes of his narrative, not because they happen to be attested by historical evidence. His hearers are not critical: they desire to have their imaginations and feelings affected, and they are content to accept without question whatever accomplishes this end. [1042] Hesiod, Theogon. 100—???a p??t???? ?????p??. Puttenham talks of the remnant of bards existing in his time (1589): “Blind Harpers, or such like Taverne Minstrels, whose matters are for the most part stories of old time, as the Tale of Sir Topaze, the Reportes of Bevis of Southampton, Adam Bell, Clymme of the Clough, and such other old Romances or Historical Rhymes.” (Arte of English Poesie, book ii. cap. 9.) [1043] Respecting the Volsunga Saga and the Niebelungen Lied, the work of Lange—Untersuchungen Über die Geschichte und das VerhÄltniss der Nordischen und Deutschen Heldensage—is a valuable translation from the Danish Saga-Bibliothek of P. E. MÜller. P. E. MÜller maintains, indeed, the historical basis of the tales respecting the Volsungs (see pp. 102-107)—upon arguments very unsatisfactory; though the genuine Scandinavian origin of the tale is perfectly made out. The chapter added by Lange himself, at the close (see p. 432, etc.), contains juster views as to the character of the primitive mythology, though he too advances some positions respecting a something “reinsymbolisches” in the background, which I find it difficult to follow (see p. 477, etc.).—There are very ancient epical ballads still sung by the people in the Faro Islands, many of them relating to Sigurd and his adventures (p. 412). Jacob Grimm, in his Deutsche Mythologie, maintains the purely mythical character, as opposed to the historical, of Siegfried and Dieterich (Art. Helden, pp. 344-346). So, too, in the great Persian epic of Ferdousi, the principal characters are religious and mythical. M. Mohl observes,—“Les caractÈres des personnages principaux de l’ancienne histoire de Perse se retrouvent dans le livre des Rois (de Ferdousi) tels que les indiquent les parties des livres de Zoroaster que nous possÉdons encore. Kaioumors, Djemschid, Feridoun, Gushtasp, Isfendiar, etc. jouent dans le poÈme Épique le mÊme rÔle que dans les Livres sacrÉs: À cela prÈs, que dans les derniers ils nous apparaissent À travers une atmosphere mythologique qui grandit tous leurs traits: mais cette difference est prÉcisÉment celle qu’on devait s’attendre À trouver entre la tradition religieuse et la tradition Épique.” (Mohl, Livre des Rois par Ferdousi, Preface, p. 1.) The Persian historians subsequent to Ferdousi have all taken his poem as the basis of their histories, and have even copied him faithfully and literally (Mohl, p. 53). Many of his heroes became the subjects of long epical biographies, written and recited without any art or grace, often by writers whose names are unknown (ib. pp. 54-70). Mr. Morier tells us that “the Shah Nameh is still believed by the present Persians to contain their ancient history” (Adventures of Hadgi Baba, c. 32). As the Christian romancers transformed Apollo into the patron of Mussulmans, so Ferdousi makes Alexander the Great a Christian: “La critique historique (observes M. Mohl) Était du temps de Ferdousi chose presqu’inconnue.” (ib. p. xlviii.) About the absence not only of all historiography, but also of all idea of it, or taste for it among the early Indians, Persians, Arabians, etc., see the learned book of Nork, Die GÖtter Syriens, Preface, p. viii. seqq. (Stuttgart, 1842.) [1044] Several of the heroes of the ancient world were indeed themselves popular subjects with the romancers of the middle ages, ThÊseus, JasÔn, etc.; Alexander the Great, more so than any of them. Dr. Warton observes, respecting the Argonautic expedition, “Few stories of antiquity have more the cast of one of the old romances than this of JasÔn. An expedition of a new kind is made into a strange and distant country, attended with infinite dangers and difficulties. The king’s daughter of the new country is an enchantress; she falls in love with the young prince, who is the chief adventurer. The prize which he seeks is guarded by brazen-footed bulls, who breathe fire, and by a hideous dragon, who never sleeps. The princess lends him the assistance of her charms and incantations to conquer these obstacles; she gives him possession of the prize, leaves her father’s court, and follows him into his native country.” (Warton, Observations on Spenser, vol. i. p. 178.) To the same purpose M. GinguenÉ: “Le premier modÈle des FÉes n’est-il pas dans CircÉ, dans Calypso, dans MÉdÉe? Celui des gÉans, dans PolyphÈme, dans Cacus, et dans les gÉans, ou les Titans, cette race ennemie de Jupiter? Les serpens et les dragons des romans ne sont-ils pas des successeurs du dragon des Hesperides et de celui de la Toison d’or? Les Magiciens! la Thessalie en Étoit pleine. Les armes enchantÉes impÉnÉtrables! elles sont de la mÊme trempe, et l’on peut les croire forgÉes au mÊme fourneau que celles d’Achille et d’EnÉe.” (GinguenÉ, Histoire LittÉraire d’Italie, vol. iv. part ii. ch. 3, p. 151.) [1045] See Warton’s History of English Poetry, sect. iii. p. 131, note. “No man before the sixteenth century presumed to doubt that the Francs derived their origin from Francus son of Hector; that the Spaniards were descended from Japhet, the Britons from Brutus, and the Scotch from Fergus.” (Ibid. p. 140.) According to the Prologue of the prose Edda, Odin was the supreme king of Troy in Asia, “in e terr quam nos Turciam appellamus.... Hinc omnes Borealis plagÆ magnates vel primores genealogias suas referunt, atque principes illius urbis inter numina locant: sed in primis ipsum Priamum pro Odeno ponunt,” etc. They also identified Tros with Thor. (See Lexicon Mythologicum ad calcem EddÆ SÆmund, p. 552. vol. iii.) [1046] See above, ch. xv. p. 458; also ÆschinÊs, De Fals Legatione, c. 14, Herodot. v. 94. The Herakleids pretended a right to the territory in Sicily near Mount Eryx, in consequence of the victory gained by their progenitor HÊraklÊs over Eryx, the eponymous hero of the place. (Herodot. v. 43.) [1047] The remarks in Speed’s Chronicle (book v. c. 3. sect. 11-12), and the preface to Howes’s Continuation of Stow’s Chronicle, published in 1631, are curious as illustrating this earnest feeling. The Chancellor Fortescue, in impressing upon his royal pupil, the son of Henry VI., the limited character of English monarchy, deduces it from Brute the Trojan: “Concerning the different powers which kings claim over their subjects, I am firmly of opinion that it arises solely from the different nature of their original institution. So the kingdom of England had its original from Brute and the Trojans, who attended him from Italy and Greece, and became a mixed kind of government, compounded of the regal and the political.” (Hallam, Hist. Mid. Ages, ch. viii. P. 3, page 230.) [1048] “Antiquitas enim recepit fabulas fictas etiam nonnunquam incondite: hÆc Ætas autem jam exculta, prÆsertim eludens omne quod fieri non potest, respuit,” etc. (Cicero, De RepublicÂ, ii. 10, p. 147, ed. Maii.) [1049] Dr. Zachary Grey has the following observations in his Notes on Shakspeare (London, 1754, vol. i. p. 112). In commenting on the passage in King Lear, Nero is an angler in the lake of darkness, he says, “This is one of Shakspeare’s most remarkable anachronisms. King Lear succeeded his father Bladud anno mundi 3105; and Nero, anno mundi 4017, was sixteen years old, when he married Octavia, CÆsar’s daughter. See Funcii Chronologia, p. 94.” Such a supposed chronological discrepancy would hardly be pointed out in any commentary now written. The introduction prefixed by Mr. Giles, to his recent translation of Geoffrey of Monmouth (1842), gives a just view both of the use which our old poets made of his tales, and of the general credence so long and so unsuspectingly accorded to them. The list of old British kings given by Mr. Giles also deserves attention, as a parallel to the Grecian genealogies anterior to the Olympiads. [1050] The following passage, from the Preface of Mr. Price to Warton’s History of English Poetry, is alike just and forcibly characterized; the whole Preface is, indeed, full of philosophical reflection on popular fables generally. Mr. Price observes (p. 79):— “The great evil with which this long-contested question appears to be threatened at the present day, is an extreme equally dangerous with the incredulity of Mr. Ritson,—a disposition to receive as authentic history, under a slightly fabulous coloring, every incident recorded in the British Chronicle. An allegorical interpretation is now inflicted upon all the marvellous circumstances; a forced construction imposed upon the less glaring deviations from probability; and the usual subterfuge of baffled research,—erroneous readings and etymological sophistry,—is made to reduce every stubborn and intractable text to something like the consistency required. It might have been expected that the notorious failures of Dionysius and Plutarch, in Roman history, would have prevented the repetition of an error, which neither learning nor ingenuity can render palatable; and that the havoc and deadly ruin effected by these ancient writers (in other respects so valuable) in one of the most beautiful and interesting monuments of traditional story, would have acted as sufficient corrective on all future aspirants. The favorers of this system might at least have been instructed by the philosophic example of Livy,—if it be lawful to ascribe to philosophy a line of conduct which perhaps was prompted by a powerful sense of poetic beauty,—that traditional record can only gain in the hands of the future historian by one attractive aid,—the grandeur and lofty graces of that incomparable style in which the first decade is written; and that the best duty towards antiquity, and the most agreeable one towards posterity, is to transmit the narrative received as an unsophisticated tradition, in all the plenitude of its marvels and the awful dignity of its supernatural agency. For, however largely we may concede that real events have supplied the substance of any traditive story, yet the amount of absolute facts, and the manner of those facts, the period of their occurrence, the names of the agents, and the locality given to the scene, are all combined upon principles so wholly beyond our knowledge, that it becomes impossible to fix with certainty upon any single point better authenticated than its fellow. Probability in such decisions will often prove the most fallacious guide we can follow; for, independently of the acknowledged historical axiom, that ‘le vrai n’est pas toujours le vraisemblable,’ innumerable instances might be adduced, where tradition has had recourse to this very probability to confer a plausible sanction upon her most fictitious and romantic incidents. It will be a much more useful labor, wherever it can be effected, to trace the progress of this traditional story in the country where it has become located, by a reference to those natural or artificial monuments which are the unvarying sources of fictitious events; and, by a strict comparison of its details with the analogous memorials of other nations, to separate those elements which are obviously of a native growth, from the occurrences bearing the impress of a foreign origin. We shall gain little, perhaps, by such a course for the history of human events; but it will be an important accession to our stock of knowledge on the history of the human mind. It will infallibly display, as in the analysis of every similar record, the operations of that refining principle which is ever obliterating the monotonous deeds of violence that fill the chronicle of a nation’s early career, and exhibit the brightest attribute in the catalogue of man’s intellectual endowments,—a glowing and vigorous imagination,—bestowing upon all the impulses of the mind a splendor and virtuous dignity, which, however fallacious historically considered, are never without a powerfully redeeming good, the ethical tendency of all their lessons.” [1051] Varro ap. Censorin. de Die Natali; Varronis Fragm. p. 219, ed. Scaliger, 1623. “Varro tria discrimina temporum esse tradit. Primum ab hominum principio usque ad cataclysmum priorem, quod propter ignorantiam vocatur ?d????. Secundum, a cataclysmo priore ad Olympiadem primam, quod quia in eo multa fabulosa referuntur, Mythicon nominatur. Tertium a prim Olympiade ad nos; quod dicitur Historicon, quia res in eo gestÆ veris historiis continentur.” To the same purpose Africanus, ap. Eusebium, PrÆp. Ev. xx. p. 487: ????? ?? ???p??d??, ??d?? ?????? ?st???ta? t??? ????s?, p??t?? s???e??????, ?a? ?at? ?d?? a?t??? t?? p?? t?? s?f?????t??, etc. Transcriber's note
|
|
