{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_33743/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_33743","id":"gutenberg_33743","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33743","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Dorians -- History","Greece -- Antiquities, Dorian","Greece -- History -- Dorian Invasions, approximately 1125-1025 B.C."],"text":"The History and Antiquities\n\n                                  Of The\n\n                                Doric Race\n\n                          by Karl Otfried M\u00fcller\n\n                 Professor in the University of G\u00f6ttingen\n\n                      Translated From the German by\n\n                           Henry Tufnell, Esq.\n\n                                   And\n\n                    George Cornewall Lewis, Esq., A.M.\n\n                        Student of Christ Church.\n\n                         Second Edition, Revised.\n\n                                  Vol. I\n\n                                 London:\n\n                      John Murray, Albemarle Street.\n\n                                  1839.\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nExtract From The Translators\u2019 Preface To The First Edition.\nAdvertisement To The Second Edition.\nIntroduction.\nBook I. History Of The Doric Race, From The Earliest Times To The End Of\nThe Peloponnesian War.\n   Chapter I.\n   Chapter II.\n   Chapter III.\n   Chapter IV.\n   Chapter V.\n   Chapter VI.\n   Chapter VII.\n   Chapter VIII.\n   Chapter IX.\nBook II. Religion And Mythology Of The Dorians.\n   Chapter I.\n   Chapter II.\n   Chapter III.\n   Chapter IV.\n   Chapter V.\n   Chapter VI.\n   Chapter VII.\n   Chapter VIII.\n   Chapter IX.\n   Chapter X.\n   Chapter XI.\n   Chapter XII.\nAppendix I.\nAppendix II. Genealogy of Hellen.\nAppendix III. The migration of the Dorians to Crete.\nAppendix IV. History of the Greek congress or synedrion during the Persian\nwar.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEXTRACT FROM THE TRANSLATORS\u2019 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.\n\n\nThe History, of which an English translation is now offered to the public,\nforms the second and third volumes of a work by Professor C. O. M\u00fcller,\nentitled, \u201cHistories of Greek Tribes and Cities.\u201d The first volume of this\nseries was published separately under the name of \u201cOrchomenos and the\nMiny\u00e6;\u201d and contains a most learned examination of the mythology and early\nhistory of Orchomenos and other towns of B\u0153otia, and of the migrations of\nthe Miny\u00e6, together with other questions more or less connected with these\nsubjects. It is, in every respect, a distinct and separate work from the\nDorians, comprised in the second and third volumes; nor was it more\nincumbent on us to publish a translation of that first volume, because it\nis often referred to in the subsequent volumes, than of the many other\nadmirable works on Grecian history, equally referred to, which are\ninaccessible to persons not acquainted with the German language.\n\nAt a time when a large part of the present translation had been completed,\nthe translators communicated by letter to Professor M\u00fcller their intention\nwith regard to his work on the Dorians, and requested him to read the\nmanuscript of their translation before it was printed, in case they should\nhave anywhere committed any errors, or failed to catch the import of his\nwords. To this request Mr. M\u00fcller, though not personally known by either\nof the translators, not only acceded, but, with an unexpected, and indeed\nunhoped-for liberality, expressed his willingness to contribute to our\ntranslation all the alterations and additions which his reading had\nsuggested since the appearance of the original work. The manuscript was\naccordingly transmitted, and carefully revised, corrected, and enlarged by\nthe author. Of the value of these changes it would perhaps be improper\nthat we should speak in the terms which they seem to us to deserve: of\ntheir number, however, as this can be brought to a certain test, we will\nventure to assert, that few books undergo so great changes after their\nfirst publication; and that the present work may be in strictness\nconsidered, not only a translation, but a new edition of the original. In\nmaking these changes, it was also the author\u2019s wish to clear up\nambiguities or obscurity of meaning, either by a change in the expression,\nor a fuller development of the thought: and we cannot help hoping, that\neven to a person acquainted with German, our translation will thus be\nfound in many places more explicit and satisfactory than the original\ntext.\n\nBesides those alterations, which appear for the first time in the\nfollowing translation, the additions and corrections published by the\nauthor in his \u201cIntroduction to a scientific System of Mythology\u201d have been\nhere incorporated; and a Dissertation on the early history of the\nMacedonian nation, published separately by the author, some time after the\nappearance of the Dorians, has been inserted in the Appendix.\n\nNot only has the small map of Macedonia, appended to this Dissertation,\nbeen inserted in our translation, in addition to the map of the\nPeloponnese, which was alone contained in the original work, but also a\nmap of northern Greece, which, together with the explanatory article\ninserted in the Appendix, is now for the first time given to the public.\nThese three maps together furnish a complete geographical picture of\nancient Greece, from the promontory of T\u00e6narum to the north of Macedonia;\nand we may be allowed to say, that in accuracy and fulness of detail, they\nrival, if not excel, all other maps of the same regions(1).\n\nAfter the printing of the whole work (with the exception of the Appendix)\nhad been completed, the sheets were sent to Mr. M\u00fcller, by which means not\nonly the translation of the original, but also of the manuscript\nadditions, have received the approbation of the author. Any discrepancies,\ntherefore, which may appear between the translation and the original must\nbe considered as sanctioned by the author. The translators at the same\ntime think it right to state, in case Mr. M\u00fcller should be exposed to any\nmisrepresentations in his own country, that in making their translation\nthey did not consider themselves bound to follow the letter of the\noriginal, and have sometimes indulged in a free paraphrase: while in some\nplaces they suggested more considerable changes, on account of the\ndifference between the opinions on many important subjects which generally\nprevail in England and Germany.\n\n(1830.)\n\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT TO THE SECOND EDITION.\n\n\nThe First Edition of the present Translation has been revised by the\nAuthor; and he has supplied several corrections and additions, which have\nbeen inserted in their proper places.\n\nThe accounts of the geography of Peloponnesus and Northern Greece, which\nwere inserted in the Appendix to the First Edition of the Translation,\nhave been omitted in the present Edition.\n\nApril, 1839.\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Origin of the Dorians in the North of Greece. \u00a7 2. Northern\n    boundary of Greece. \u00a7 3. The Macedonians. \u00a7 4. The Thessalians. \u00a7\n    5. Diffusion of the Illyrians in Western Greece. \u00a7 6. The\n    Phrygians. \u00a7 7. The Thracians. \u00a7 8. The Hellenes, Ach\u00e6ans,\n    Minyans, Ionians, and Dorians. \u00a7 9. The Hylleans. \u00a7 10. Relation\n    of the above nations to the Pelasgians. \u00a7 11. Difference between\n    the Pelasgic and Hellenic religions. \u00a7 12. Early language of\n    Greece, and its chief dialects.\n\n\n1. The Dorians derived their origin from those districts in which the\nGrecian nation bordered towards the north upon numerous and dissimilar\nraces of barbarians. As to the tribes which dwelt beyond these boundaries\nwe are indeed wholly destitute of information; nor is there the slightest\ntrace of any memorial or tradition that the Greeks originally came from\nthose quarters. On these frontiers, however, the events took place which\neffected an entire alteration in the internal condition of the whole\nGrecian people, and here were given many of those impulses, of which the\neffects were so long and generally experienced. The prevailing character\nof the events in question, was a perpetual pressing forward of the\nbarbarous races, particularly of the Illyrians, into more southern\ndistricts; yet Greece, although harassed, confined, nay even compelled to\nabandon part of her territory, never attempted to make a united resistance\nto their encroachments. The cause of this negligence probably was, that\nall her views being turned to the south, no attention whatever was paid to\nthe above quarters.\n\n2. To begin then by laying down a boundary line (which may be afterwards\nmodified for the sake of greater accuracy), we shall suppose this to be\nthe mountain ridge, which stretches from Olympus to the west as far as the\nAcroceraunian mountains (comprehending the Cambunian ridge and mount\nLacmon), and in the middle comes in contact with the Pindus chain, which\nstretches in a direction from north to south. The western part of this\nchain separates the furthest Grecian tribes from the great Illyrian\nnation, which extended back as far as the Celts in the south of Germany.\nEvery clue respecting the connexion, peculiarities, and original language\nof this people must be interesting, and the dialects of the Albanians,\nespecially of those who inhabit the mountains where the original customs\nand language have been preserved in greater purity, will afford materials\nfor inquiry.(2) For our present purpose it will be sufficient to state,\nthat they formed the northern boundary of the Grecian nation, from which\nthey were distinguished both by their language and customs.\n\n3. In the fashion of wearing the mantle and dressing the hair,(3) and also\nin their dialect, the MACEDONIANS bore a great resemblance to the\nIllyrians; whence it is evident that the Macedonians belonged to the\nIllyrian nation.(4) Notwithstanding which, there can be no doubt that the\nGreeks were aboriginal(5) inhabitants of this district. The plains of\nEmathia, the most beautiful district of the country, were occupied by the\nPelasgians,(6) who, according to Herodotus, also possessed Creston above\nChalcidice, to which place they had come from Thessaliotis.(7) Hence the\nMacedonian dialect was full of Greek radical words. And that these had not\nbeen introduced by the royal family (which was Hellenic by descent or\nadoption of manners) is evident from the fact, that many signs of the most\nsimple ideas (which no language ever borrows from another) were the same\nin both, as well as from the circumstance that these words do not appear\nin their Greek form, but have been modified according to a native\ndialect.(8) In the Macedonian dialect there occur grammatical forms which\nare commonly called \u00c6olic,(9) together with many Arcadian(10) and\nThessalian(11) words: and what perhaps is still more decisive, several\nwords, which, though not to be found in the Greek, have been preserved in\nthe Latin language.(12) There does not appear to be any peculiar affinity\nwith the Doric dialect: hence we do not give much credit to the otherwise\nunsupported assertion of Herodotus, of an original identity of the Doric\nand Macednian (Macedonian) nations. In other authors Macednus is called\nthe son of Lycaon, from whom the Arcadians were said to be descended;(13)\nor Macedon is the brother of Magnes, or a son of \u00c6olus, according to\nHesiod and Hellanicus,(14) which are merely various attempts to form a\ngenealogical connexion between this semi-barbarian race, and the rest of\nthe Greek nation.(15)\n\n4. The THESSALIANS, as well as the Macedonians, were, as it appears, an\nIllyrian race, who subdued a native Greek population; but in this case the\nbody of the interlopers was smaller, while the numbers and civilization of\nthe aboriginal inhabitants were considerable. Hence the Thessalians\nresembled the Greeks more than any of the northern races with which they\nwere connected: hence their language in particular was almost purely\nGrecian, and indeed bore perhaps a greater affinity to the language of the\nancient epic poets than any other dialect.(16) But the chief peculiarities\nof this nation with which we are acquainted were not of a Grecian\ncharacter. Of this their national dress,(17) which consisted in part of\nthe flat and broad-brimmed hat \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 and the chlamys (which last was\ncommon to both nations, but was unknown to the Greeks of Homer\u2019s time, and\nindeed long afterwards,(18) until adopted as the costume of the equestrian\norder at Athens), is a sufficient example. The Thessalians, moreover, were\nbeyond a doubt the first to introduce into Greece the use of cavalry. More\nimportant distinctions however than that first alleged are perhaps to be\nfound in their impetuous and passionate character, and the low state of\ntheir intelligence. The taste for the arts shown by the wealthy house of\nthe Scopad\u00e6 proves no more that such was the disposition of the whole\npeople, than the existence of the same qualities in Archelaus argues their\nprevalence in Macedonia. This is sufficient to distinguish them from the\nrace of the Greeks, so highly endowed by nature. We are therefore induced\nto conjecture that this nation, which a short time before the expedition\nof the Heraclid\u00e6, migrated from Thesprotia, and indeed from the territory\nof Ephyra (Cichyrus) into the plain of the Peneus, had originally come\nfrom Illyria. On the other hand indeed, many points of similarity in the\ncustoms of the Thessalians and Dorians might be brought forward. Thus for\nexample, the love for the male sex (that usage peculiar to the Dorians)\nwas also common among the Illyrians, and the objects of affection were, as\nat Sparta, called \u1f00\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9;(19) the women also, as amongst the Dorians, were\naddressed by the title of _ladies_ (\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9), a title uncommon in\nGreece, and expressive of the estimation in which they were held.(20) A\ngreat freedom in the manners of the female sex was nevertheless customary\namong the Illyrians, who in this respect bore a nearer resemblance to the\nnorthern nations.(21) Upon the whole, however, these migrations from the\nnorth had the effect of disseminating among the Greeks manners and\ninstitutions which were entirely unknown to their ancestors, as\nrepresented by Homer.\n\n5. We will now proceed to inquire what was the extent of territory gained\nby the Illyrians in the west of Greece. Great part of Epirus had in early\ntimes been inhabited by Pelasgians,(22) to which race the inhabitants of\nDodona are likewise affirmed by the best authorities to have belonged, as\nwell as the whole nation of Thesprotians;(23) also the Chaonians at the\nfoot of the Acroceraunian mountains,(24) and the Chones, \u0152notrians, and\nPeucetians on the opposite coast of Italy, are said to have been of this\nrace.(25) The ancient buildings, institutions, and religious worship of\nthe Epirots, are also manifestly of Pelasgic origin. We suppose always\nthat the Pelasgians were Greeks, and spoke the Grecian language: an\nopinion in support of which we will on this occasion only adduce a few\narguments. It must then be borne in mind, that all the races whose\nmigrations took place at a late period, such as the Ach\u00e6ans, Ionians,\nDorians, were not (the last in particular) sufficiently powerful or\nnumerous to effect a complete change in the customs of a barbarous\npopulation;(26) that many districts, Arcadia and Perrh\u00e6bia, for instance,\nremained entirely Pelasgic, without being inhabited by any nation not of\nGrecian origin; that the most ancient names, either of Grecian places or\nmentioned in their traditions, belonged indeed to a different era of the\ndialect, but not to another language; that finally, the great similarity\nbetween the Latin and Greek can only be explained by supposing the\nPelasgic language to have formed the connecting link. Now the nations of\nEpirus were almost reduced to a complete state of barbarism by the\noperation of causes, which could only have had their origin in\nIllyria;(27) and in the historic age, the Ambracian bay was the boundary\nof Greece. In later times, more than half of \u00c6tolia ceased to be Grecian,\nand without doubt adopted the manners and language of the Illyrians;(28)\nfrom which point the Athamanes, an Epirot and Illyrian nation, pressed\ninto the south of Thessaly.(29) Migrations and predatory expeditions, such\nas the Encheleans had undertaken in the fabulous times, continued without\nintermission to repress and keep down the genuine population of Greece.\n\n6. The Illyrians were in these ancient times also bounded on the east by\nthe Phrygians and Thracians, as well as by the Pelasgians. The PHRYGIANS\nwere at this time the immediate neighbours of the Macedonians in Leb\u00e6a, by\nwhom they were called Brygians (\u0392\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2, \u0392\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9, \u0392\u03c1\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2);(30) they dwelt at\nthe foot of the snowy Bermius, where the fabulous rose-gardens of king\nMidas were situated, while walking in which the wise Silenus was said to\nhave been taken prisoner. They also fought from this place (as the\nTelegonia of Eugammon related)(31) with the Thesprotians of Epirus. At no\ngreat distance from hence were the Mygdonians, the people nearest related\nto the Phrygians. According to Xanthus, this nation did not migrate to\nAsia until after the Trojan war.(32) But, in the first place, the Cretan\ntraditions begin with religious rites and fables, which appear from the\nmost ancient testimonies to have been derived from Phrygians of Asia;(33)\nand, secondly, the Armenians, who were beyond a doubt of a kindred race to\nthe Phrygians,(34) were considered as an aboriginal nation in their own\nterritory.(35) It will therefore be sufficient to recognise the same race\nof men in Armenia, Asia Minor, and at the foot of mount Bermius, without\nsupposing that all the Armenians and Phrygians emigrated from the latter\nsettlement on the Macedonian coast. The intermediate space between Illyria\nand Asia, a district across which numerous nations migrated in ancient\ntimes, was peopled irregularly from so many sides, that the national\nuniformity which seems to have once existed in those parts was speedily\nderanged. The most important documents respecting the connexion between\nthe Phrygian and other nations are the traces that remain of its dialect.\nIt was well known in Plato\u2019s time that many primitive words of the Grecian\nlanguage were to be recognised with a slight alteration in the Phrygian,\nsuch as \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1, \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1, \u03c7\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd;(36) and the great similarity of grammatical\nstructure which the Armenian now displays with the Greek, must be referred\nto this original connexion.(37) The Phrygians in Asia must, however, have\nbeen intermixed with Syrians, who not only established themselves on the\nright bank of the Halys, but on the left also in Lycaonia,(38) and as far\nas Lycia,(39) and accordingly adopted much of the Syrian language and\nreligion.(40) Their enthusiastic and frantic ceremonies had doubtless\nalways formed part of their religion: these they had in common with their\nimmediate neighbours the Thracians: but the ancient Greeks appear to have\nbeen almost entirely unacquainted with such rites.\n\n7. The THRACIANS, who settled in Pieria at the foot of mount Olympus, and\nfrom thence came down to mount Helicon, as being the originators of the\nworship of Dionysus and the Muses, and the fathers of Grecian poetry,(41)\nare a nation of the highest importance in the history of civilization. We\ncannot but suppose that they spoke a dialect very similar to the Greek,\nsince otherwise they could not have had any considerable influence upon\nthe latter people. They were in all probability derived originally from\nthe country called Thrace in later times, where the Bessians, a tribe of\nthe nation of the Satr\u00e6,(42) at the foot of Mount Pang\u00e6um, presided over\nthe oracle of Dionysus. Whether the whole of the populous races of Edones,\nOdomantians, Odrysians, Treres, &c. are to be considered as identical with\nthe Thracians in Pieria, or whether it is not more probable that these\nbarbarous nations(43) received from the Greeks their general name of\nThracians, with which they had been familiar from early times, are\nquestions which I shall not attempt to determine. Into these nations,\nhowever, a large number of P\u00e6onians subsequently penetrated, who had\npassed over at the time of a very ancient migration of the Teucrians,\ntogether with the Mysians.(44) To this P\u00e6onian race the Pelagonians, on\nthe banks of the Axius, belonged; who also advanced into Thessaly, as will\nbe shown hereafter. Of the Teucrians, however, we know nothing, excepting\nthat in concert with (Pelasgic) Dardanians they founded the city of\nTroy,\u2014where the language in use was probably allied to the Grecian, and\ndistinct from the Phrygian.(45)\n\n8. Now it is within the mountainous barriers above described that we must\nlook for the origin of the nations which in the heroic mythology are\nalways represented as possessing dominion and power, and are always\ncontrasted with an aboriginal population. These, in my opinion, were\nnorthern branches of the Grecian nation, which had overrun and subdued the\nGreeks who dwelt further south. The most ancient abode of the HELLENES\nProper (who in mythology are merely a small nation in Phthia(46)) was\nsituated, according to Aristotle, in Epirus, near Dodona, to whose god\nAchilles(47) prays, as being the ancient protector of his family. In all\nprobability the ACH\u00c6ANS, the ruling nation both of Thessaly and of\nPeloponnesus, in the mythical times, were of the same race and origin as\nthe Hellenes. The MINYANS, Phlegyans, Lapith\u00e6, and \u00c6olians of Corinth and\nSalmone, came originally from the districts above Pieria, on the frontiers\nof Macedonia, where the very ancient Orchomenus, Minya, and Salmonia or\nHalmopia were situated.(48) Nor is there less obscurity with regard to the\nnorthern settlements of the IONIANS; they appear, as it were, to have\nfallen from heaven into Attica and \u00c6gialea: they were not, however, by any\nmeans identical with the aboriginal inhabitants of these districts, and\nhad, perhaps, detached themselves from some northern, probably Ach\u00e6an,\nrace.(49) Lastly, the DORIANS are mentioned in ancient legends and poems\nas established in one extremity of the great mountain-chain of Upper\nGreece, viz. at the foot of Olympus; there are, however, reasons for\nsupposing, that at an earlier period they had dwelt at its other northern\nextremity, at the furthest limit of the Grecian nation.\n\n9. We now turn our attention to the singular nation of the HYLLEANS\n(\u1f59\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f5d\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9), which is supposed to have dwelt in Illyria, but is in\nmany respects connected in a remarkable manner with the Dorians. The real\nplace of its abode can hardly be laid down; as the Hylleans are never\nmentioned in any historical narrative, but always in mythical legends; and\nthey appear to have been known to the geographers only from mythological\nwriters. Yet they are generally placed in the islands of Melita and\nBlack-Corcyra, to the south of Liburnia.(50) Now the name of the Hylleans\nagrees strikingly with that of the first and most noble tribe of the\nDorians. Besides which, it is stated, that, though dwelling among Illyrian\nraces, these Hylleans were nevertheless genuine _Greeks_. Moreover they,\nas well as the Doric Hylleans, were supposed to have sprung from Hyllus, a\nson of Hercules, whom that hero begot upon Melite, the daughter of\n\u00c6g\u00e6us:(51) here the name \u00c6g\u00e6us refers to a river in Corcyra, Melite to the\nisland just mentioned. Apollo was the chief god of the Dorians; and so\nlikewise these Hylleans were said to have concealed under the earth, as\nthe sign of inviolable sanctity, that instrument of such importance in the\nreligion of Apollo, a tripod.(52) The country of the Hylleans is described\nas a large peninsula, and compared to Peloponnesus: it is said to have\ncontained fifteen cities, which, however, had not a more real existence\nthan the peninsula as large as Peloponnesus on the Illyrian coast. How all\nthese statements are to be understood is hard to say. It appears, however,\nthat they can only be reconciled as follows: the Doric Hylleans had a\ntradition, that they came originally from these northern districts, which\nthen bordered on the Illyrians, and were afterwards occupied by that\npeople; and there still remained in those parts some members of their\ntribe, some other Hylleans. This notion of Greek Hylleans in the very\nnorth of Greece, who also were descended from Hercules, and also\nworshipped Apollo, was taken up and embellished by the poets; although it\nis not likely that any one had really ever seen these Hylleans and visited\ntheir country. Like the Hyperboreans, they existed merely in tradition and\nimagination. It is possible also that the Corcyr\u00e6ans, in whose island\nthere was an \u201c_Hyll\u00e6an_\u201d harbour,(53) may have contributed to the\nformation of these legends, as is shown by some circumstances pointed out\nabove; but it cannot be supposed that the whole tradition arose from\nCorcyr\u00e6an colonies.\n\n10. Here we might conclude our remarks on this subject, did not the\nfollowing important question deserve some consideration. What relation can\nwe suppose to have existed between the races which migrated into those\nnorthern districts, and the native tribes, and what between the different\nraces of Greece itself? All inquiries on this subject lead us back to the\nPelasgians, who although not found in every part of ancient Greece (for\ntradition makes so wide a distinction between them and many other nations,\nthat no confusion ever takes place),(54) yet occur almost universally\nwherever early civilization, ancient settlements, and worships of peculiar\nsanctity and importance existed. And in fact there is no doubt that most\nof the ancient religions of Greece owed their origin to this race. The\nZeus and Dione of Dodona; Zeus and Her\u00e9 of Argos; Heph\u00e6stus and Athen\u00e9 of\nAthens; Demeter and Cora of Eleusis; Hermes and Artemis of Arcadia,\ntogether with Cadmus and the Cabiri of Thebes, cannot properly be referred\nto any other origin. We must therefore attribute to that nation an\nexcessive readiness in creating and metamorphosing objects of religious\nworship, so that the same fundamental conceptions were variously developed\nin different places; a variety which was chiefly caused by the arbitrary\nneglect of, or adherence to, particular parts of the same legend. In many\nplaces also we may recognise the sameness of character which pervaded the\ndifferent worships of the above gods; everywhere we see manifested in\nsymbols, names, rites, and legends, a uniformity of ideas and feelings.\nThe religions introduced from Phrygia and Thrace, such as that of the\nCretan Zeus and Dionysus or Bacchus, may be easily distinguished by their\nmore enthusiastic character from the native Pelasgic worship. The\nPh\u0153nician and Egyptian religions lay at a great distance from the early\nGreeks, were almost unknown even where they existed in the immediate\nneighbourhood, were almost unintelligible when the Greeks attempted to\nlearn them, and repugnant to their nature when understood. On the whole,\nthe Pelasgic worship appears to form part of a simple elementary religion,\nwhich easily represented the various forms produced by the changes of\nnature in different climates and seasons, and which abounded in expressive\nsigns for all the shades of feeling which these phenomena awakened.\n\n11. On the other hand, the religion of the northern races (who as being of\nHellenic descent are put in contrast with the Pelasgians) had in early\ntimes taken a more moral turn, to which their political relations had\ndoubtless contributed. The heroic life (which is no fiction of the poets),\nthe fondness for vigorous and active exertion, the disinclination to the\nharmless occupations of husbandry, which is so remarkably seen in the\nconquering race of the Hellenes, necessarily awakened and cherished an\nentirely different train of religious feeling. Hence the Zeus Hellanius of\n\u00c6acus, the Zeus Laphystius of Athamas, and, finally, the Doric Zeus, whose\nson is Apollo, the prophet and warrior,(55) are rather representations of\nthe moral order and harmony of the universe, after the ancient method,\nthan of the creative powers of nature. I do not however deny, that there\nwas a time when these different views had not as yet taken a separate\ndirection. Thus it may be shown, that the Apollo Lyceus of the Dorians\nconveyed nearly the same notions as the Zeus Lyc\u00e6us of the Arcadians,\nalthough the worship of either deity was developed independently of that\nof the other. Thus also certain ancient Arcadian and Doric customs had, in\ntheir main features, a considerable affinity. The points of resemblance in\nthese different worships can be only perceived by comparison: tradition\npresents, at the very first outset, an innumerable collection of\ndiscordant forms of worship belonging to the several races, but without\nexplaining to us how they came to be thus separated. For these different\nrites were not united into a whole until they had been first divided; and\nboth by the connexion of worships and by the influence of poetry new\ncombinations were introduced, which differed essentially from those of an\nearlier date.\n\n12. The language of the ancient Grecian race (which, together with its\nreligion, forms the most ancient record of its history) must, if we may\njudge from the varieties of dialect and from a comparison with the Latin\nlanguage, have been very perfect in its structure, and rich and expressive\nin its flexions and formations; though much of this was polished off by\nthe Greeks of later ages: in early times, distinctness and precision in\nmarking the primitive words and the inflections being more attended to\nthan facility of utterance. Wherever the ancient forms had been preserved,\nthey sounded foreign and uncouth to more modern ears; and the language of\nlater times was greatly softened, in comparison with the Latin. But the\npeculiarities of the pure Doric dialect are (wherever they were not owing\nto a faithful preservation of archaic forms) actual deviations from the\noriginal dialect, and consequently they do not occur in Latin; they bear,\nif I may be allowed the expression, a _northern_ character. The use of the\narticle, which did not exist in the Latin language or in that of epic\npoetry, can be ascribed to no other cause than to immigrations of new\ntribes, and especially to that of the Dorians. Its introduction must, as\nin the Romance languages, be almost considered as the sign of a great\nrevolution. The peculiarities of the Doric dialect must have existed\nbefore the period of the migrations; since thus only can it be explained\nhow peculiar forms of the Doric dialect were common to Crete, Argos, and\nSparta: the same is also true of the dialects which are generally\nconsidered as subdivisions of the \u00c6olic; the only reason for the\nresemblance of the language of Lesbos to that of B\u0153otia being, that\nB\u0153otians migrated at that period to Lesbos. The peculiarities of the Ionic\ndialect may, on the other hand, be viewed in great part as deviations\ncaused by the genial climate of Asia;(56) for the language of the Attic\nrace, to which the Ionians were most nearly related, could hardly have\ndiffered so widely from that of the colonies of Athens, if the latter had\nnot been greatly changed.(57)\n\n\n\n\n\nBOOK I. HISTORY OF THE DORIC RACE, FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE END OF\nTHE PELOPONNESIAN WAR.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Earliest Settlement of the Dorians in Thessaly. \u00a7 2.\n    Description of the Vale of Tempe. \u00a7 3. Of the Passes of Olympus. \u00a7\n    4. And of Hesti\u00e6otis. \u00a7 5. The Perrh\u00e6bians. \u00a7 6. The Lapith\u00e6. \u00a7 7.\n    Limits of the Territory in Thessaly occupied by the Dorians. \u00a7 8.\n    Contents of the Epic Poem \u00c6gimius. \u00a7 9. Doric Migration from\n    Thessaly to Crete. \u00a7 10. Relation of the Dorians to the\n    Macedonians.\n\n\n1. \u201cFrom early times the Dorians and Ionians were the chief races of the\nGrecian nation; the latter of Pelasgic, the former of Hellenic origin; the\nlatter an aboriginal people, the former a people much addicted to\nwandering. For the former, when under the dominion of Deucalion, dwelt in\nPhthiotis; and in the time of Dorus, the son of Hellen, they inhabited the\ncountry at the foot of Ossa and Olympus, which was called Hesti\u00e6otis.\nAfterwards, however, being driven from Hesti\u00e6otis by the Cadmeans, they\ndwelt under mount Pindus, and were called the Macednian nation. From\nthence they again migrated to Dryopis; and having passed from Dryopis into\nPeloponnesus, they were called the Doric race.\u201d(58)\n\nThis connected account cannot be considered as derived immediately from\nancient tradition; but can only be viewed as an attempt of the father of\nhistory to arrange and reconcile various legends. Nor indeed is it\ndifficult to discover and examine the steps of the argument which led him\nto this conclusion. It is clear that he considers the genealogy of\nHellen,(59) viz. that he was the son of Deucalion and father of Dorus,\nXuthus, and \u00c6olus, as an historical fact; although it is at least more\nrecent than the poems of Homer, where the name of Hellenes does not\ninclude these races, but is the appellation of a single nation in\nPhthiotis: and that his object is to establish the position, that the\nDorians were the genuine Hellenes. Now since Deucalion, the father of\nHellen and grandfather of Dorus, was supposed to have dwelt in\nPhthiotis,(60) Herodotus represents the Dorians as also coming from\nPhthiotis; although the people meant in these legends by the names of\nDeucalion and Hellen were the real ancient Hellenes, the Myrmidons,(61)\nwho were afterwards under the dominion of the \u00c6acid\u00e6,(62) and are entirely\ndistinct from the Dorians. Dorus was next represented as succeeding Hellen\nas king of the same people; and then, since the name of Dorus was in these\nfabulous accounts connected with Hesti\u00e6otis, he infers that the Dorians\nwent thither from Phthiotis. But the modern mythologist must of course\nabandon this whole deduction as unfounded; and he can only adopt the datum\nfrom which the historian started; namely, that, according to ancient\ntradition, \u201cDorus dwelt at the foot of Olympus and Ossa.\u201d Here then the\nreal fact presents itself to us. The chain of Olympus, the divider of\nnations, whose lofty summit is still called by the inhabitants the\n_celestial mansion_, is the place in which the Dorians first appear in the\nhistory of Greece.\n\n2. The mountain-valley, which in later times bore the name of Thessaly,\nwas bounded to the west by Pindus, to the south by Othrys, to the east by\nPelion and Ossa, and to the north by Olympus, under which name the ancient\nwriters, for example Herodotus, also include the chain which in\nafter-times (probably from an Illyrian word)(63) was called the Cambunian\nmount. The course of the Peneus is so situated as to divide the open plain\nto the south, the ancient Pelasgic Argos, from the mountainous district to\nthe north; towards the north-east it breaks through the mountain-ridge,\ndividing Ossa from Olympus; here too the river creeps under the loftier\nheights of mount Olympus;(64) so that the path passes along the side of\nthe more rugged and precipitous Ossa. This ravine was known by the ancient\ngeneric name of _Tempea_ or _Tempe_ (the _cut_, from \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9), and has been\noften poetically described, but seldom sufficiently considered as bearing\nupon the history of Greece.(65)\n\nBefore entering the pass, the traveller crosses a small round valley,\nagreeably situated; at the end of which on the left hand, where the\nmountains approach one another on both sides, was the ancient fortress of\nGonnus (or Gonni), distant 160 stadia from Larissa, the chief city of the\nplain.(66) From this point the mountains close upon one another more\nrapidly, until they rise on both sides of the glen in two rocky parapets,\nforming a gully, where in many places a path has been hewn along the\nriver. About the middle of this path there stands now, upon a bold\nprojection of Ossa, a fortress of Roman construction called Hor\u00e6o-Castro,\ncovering also a cross glen of that mountain: it was there probably that\nthe strong-hold Gonnocondylum stood; which appears to have taken its name\nfrom the \u201cwindings\u201d of the valley.(67) Not far from this spot is the\nnarrowest part of the ravine, hardly 100 feet in width: which is stated in\nan inscription to have been fortified by L. Cassius Longinus, the\nproconsul and partisan of J. C\u00e6sar; but, without the aid of fortification,\na few armed men would probably have been able to stop the progress of a\nforce many times their number. The region has nothing beautiful or\nagreeable in its appearance, but presents rather a look of savage\nwildness: the perpendicular masses of rock of the same kind of stone\nappear, as it were, to have been rent asunder, and are without any\ncovering of trees or grass; the blackness of the shadows in the deep\nhollow, and the dull echoes, increase the gloominess of the impression:\nbeneath bubble the silver waters of the Peneus (\u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2).(68) Not far\nfrom this narrow passage the defile opens towards the sea, to which the\nPeneus flows through marshes; and from hence may be seen the smiling\ncountry of Pieria, on the eastern side of Olympus, particularly the plains\nof Phila, Heracleum, and Leibethrum, which lead onwards to the southern\nparts of Macedonia.\n\n3. This is the only road between Thessaly and the northern districts,\nwhich passes in its whole length along a valley; all the others are\nmountain-passes. Such was the other road to Macedonia, which crossed mount\nOlympus (\u1f10\u03c3\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74 \u1f48\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae).(69) This road, too, begins at the\nstrongly-fortified city of Gonnus, the key of the country towards the\nnorth; and it then goes along the southern side of Olympus, till it\nreaches the cities of Azorum and Doliche. Between these two towns is a\nplace where three ways met.(70) The chief road passes in a northerly\ndirection over the summit of the Cambunian chain to the Macedonian\nhighlands; and it was here that Xerxes set fire to the woods in order to\nopen a passage for his army, which the Greeks had expected along the more\npracticable way through Pieria and the valley of Tempe; and it was often\nin the Roman wars traversed by large armies.(71) From the south of Olympus\ntwo difficult mountain roads led over the heights of Olympus, connecting\nNorthern Thessaly with Pieria. The one avoided the valley of Tempe, as it\npassed by the fortress of Lapathus to the north of that defile,(72) then\nalong the small lake of Ascurias, whence there was a view of the town of\nDium on the sea-coast, at the distance of 96 stadia; after which it\ndescended into the plains of Pieria. We should, however, more particularly\nnotice the other road, taking a more northern direction, and passing over\nthe lofty sides of Olympus, where formerly there stood the castle of\nPetra, and the temple of the Pythian Apollo, commonly called Pythium,\ntogether with a village of the same name,(73) the height of which\nXenagoras, by a geometrical measurement, ascertained to be 6096 Grecian\nfeet.(74) From this point there was a mountain-pass leading down to the\ncoast to Heracleum and Phila in Pieria, and another way led along the\nridge of Olympus by difficult and dangerous passages, as far as Upper\nMacedonia.(75)\n\nThese mountain-passes and defiles have not been explored by any modern\ntraveller; but it was important for our subject to discover their position\nfrom the writings of the ancients. Not only did Perseus and \u00c6milius Paulus\nhere contend for the fate of Macedonia, but it was in this region that the\nGreek nations of the heroic age disputed the possession of the fertile\nThessaly. There was once a time when through these passes the nations\npressed down, to whose lot the finest parts of Greece were once to fall;\nhere every step was gained with labour, while the sons of the mountain\ninured themselves to hardships in their incessant wars. Of the numerous\ncitadels which in these districts cover every important point, the greater\nnumber were probably built at a very early period. Thus there were three\nfortresses(76) to defend the pass of Olympus, or the road from Gonnus to\nAzorum and Doliche, which two places, together with Pythium on the\nmountain, were comprehended under the name of the Pelagonian Tripolis.(77)\n\n4. The highlands which border on Macedonia are so rarely mentioned in\nGrecian history, that we find in them few names of places, while in the\nvalley of the Peneus there were always some traditional and historical\nmemorials extant. For although the northern mountains were not destitute\nof fountains, grassy slopes, and fertile pastures, still the nations\ncontinually pressed downward to the fertile lands of the valley. In this\nplain Gonnus and Elatea are succeeded by Mopsium upon the right, and\nGyrton and Phalanna on the left of the stream; and soon afterwards Larissa\nstood in the midst of the open country,(78) which had been once deposited\nfrom the stagnant waters of the Peneus, and being constantly irrigated,\nalways produced a plentiful crop. To the west of Larissa, in a narrower\npart of the valley, where the hills approach the river more from the north\nside, there stood, 40 stadia from Larissa, the town of Argura,(79) and at\nthe same distance again the fort of Atrax; on the northern bank of the\nriver were the celebrated city of Pelinna(80) and the castle of\nPharcedon;(81) higher up on the left bank, where the mountains on the\nnorth begin to recede and form another plain, was the ancient city of\nTricca.(82) Between Tricca and Pelinna stood, as it appears, the city of\n\u0152chalia, so celebrated in mythology; the ruins of which have been perhaps\ndiscovered by a traveller in some ancient walls of massive structure,(83)\nof which Pouqueville saw many in this district. If now we follow the\nPeneus, which runs from the north-west, higher up the stream than Tricca,\nwe come to the mountain district of Hesti\u00e6otis. At about three and a half\nhours from Tricca(84) is now situated the convent Meteora, whose name\nalludes to its singular situation upon lofty columns of rock:(85) from\nwhich place there were two ways, one leading higher up the Peneus in a\nwesterly direction to Epirus, and the other passing through Stymph\u00e6a to\nElimiotis in Macedonia,(86) This was about the situation of the ancient\nfortress of Gomphi, which was near Pindus, and not very far from the\nsources of the Peneus.(87) It is, indeed, probable that the name \u0393\u03cc\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\nexpresses the _wedge-shaped_ form of these rocks. According to Strabo,\nGomphi (in the north-west), Tricca (in the south-west), Pelinna (in the\nnorth-east), and the more recent city of Metropolis (in the south-east),\nformed a square of fortresses, in the middle of which was the ancient\nIthome; which Homer, from the steepness of the rock on which it stood,\ncalls the _precipitous_ (\u03ba\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 or \u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1).(88) From Meteora the\nPeneus may be followed in a northerly direction to its origin from two\nsmall streams; whence there was a path which wound over the high chain of\nPindus, and thus reached the country of Epirus. This was in ancient times\nthe road which connected the two countries, and there still remain on it\nseveral Cyclopian walls, the strongholds of former ages.\n\n5. There had dwelt in the valley of the Peneus from the earliest times a\nPelasgic nation, which offered up thanks to the gods for the possession of\nso fruitful a territory at the festival of Peloria.(89) Their habits were\ndoubtless adapted to the nature of the country, which has still the same\neffect on the modern inhabitants; those who dwell near the river being of\na soft and peaceable disposition, while the mountaineers are of a stronger\nand freer turn of mind.(90) Larissa was the ancient capital of this\nnation.(91) But at a very early time the primitive inhabitants were either\nexpelled or reduced to subjection, by more northern tribes.(92) Those who\nhad retired into the mountains became the PERRH\u00c6BIAN nation, and always\nretained a certain degree of independence. In the Homeric catalogue the\nPerrh\u00e6bians are mentioned as dwelling on the hill Cyphus under Olympus,\nand on the banks of the Titaresius, which, flowing along the western edge\nof Olympus, is distinguished by its clear and therefore dark-coloured\nstream, from the muddy and white waters of the Peneus.(93) At the present\nday the inhabitants of its banks are remarkable for their healthy\ncomplexion, while the Peneus is surrounded by a sickly population.(94) The\nancients however were reminded by the Titaresius of the Styx and of the\ninfernal regions, not from any natural circumstance, but because both\namong these Perrh\u00e6bians and the Hellopian Pelasgians the name and worship\nof Dodona had been established.(95) Accordingly there seems to have been\nin both places a \u03a8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, or oracle of the dead. The prince of these\nPerrh\u00e6bians was called Guneus. So much may be gathered from the passage in\nHomer. Afterwards, in historical times, we find the Perrh\u00e6bians having\nextended their limits to the Cambunian mountains, the pass of Tempe, and\nthe Peneus; and reaching to the west beyond the chain of Pindus.(96)\nGonnus and Atrax were likewise Perrh\u00e6bian towns.(97) The Perrh\u00e6bians\nmaintained themselves in the mountains, even when the Thessalians had\nseized upon the plain, not indeed as an independent, but still as a\nseparate, and, until the Macedonian supremacy, as an Amphictyonic nation.\n\n6. The plain on either side of the Peneus was however occupied by the\nLAPITH\u00c6, a race which derived its origin from Almopia in Macedonia, and\nwas at least very nearly connected with the Minyans and \u00c6olians of\nEphyra.(98) If it be allowed to speak of this heroic race, of superhuman\nstrength and courage, in the same terms as of a real nation, we should say\nthat the towns Elatea, Gyrton, Mopsium, Larissa, Atrax, \u0152chalia, Ithome,\nand Tricca, were under their dominion. Our reason is, that the Lapith\u00e6,\nElatus, C\u00e6neus, Mopsus, Coronus, Eurytus and Hippodameia, were considered\nby popular tradition as inhabitants of the above towns; a belief indicated\nby the names of several of these heroes. The two last of these towns were\nthe native places of the Asclepiad\u00e6, whom the genealogical and other\nlegends always represent as connected with the Lapith\u00e6. In Homer the\ninhabitants of Tricca, Ithome, and \u0152chalia are represented as following\nthe sons of \u00c6sculapius; those of Argissa, Gyrton, Orthe, Elone, and\nOloosson are headed by the descendants of the Lapith\u00e6. Now from the\nresearches mentioned by Strabo, it would seem that Orthe was the fortress\nof Phalanna, Argissa the town Argura, both on the river Peneus; Elone was\na small town on mount Olympus, as also Oloosson;(99) and it appears that\nthe Homeric catalogue agrees well enough with the other traditions, and\nsupposes the Lapith\u00e6 to have occupied the valley of the Peneus, with some\nparts of the mountainous country to the north.\n\n7. Thus much it was necessary to premise, in order to give a faithful\ndescription of the spot in which the Dorians first make their appearance\nin the traditions of Greece. They bordered on the Lapith\u00e6, but inhabited\nthe mountain district of Hesti\u00e6otis, according to Herodotus,(100) instead\nof the champaign country, like the latter race. Yet the same passage of\nthat author implies that Tempe was within the territory of Hesti\u00e6otis, and\nbelonged at that time to the Dorians; we shall see hereafter how much this\naccount is confirmed by the altar of the Pythian Apollo in this\nvalley.(101) It will moreover be rendered probable that the Pythium above\nmentioned was situated on the mountain heights. Hence we may well suppose\nthe whole Tripolis to have at one time belonged to the Dorians; since even\nAzorium was not always inhabited by Illyrian Pelagones, but had once been\nheld by the Hellenes.(102) It is also probable that Cyphus, a town said to\nhave belonged to the Perrh\u00e6bians, was under the dominion of the Dorians;\nsince this race possessed in their second settlement a town called\nAcyphas.(103) It is remarkable that no direct and positive account of any\nDoric town in this district has been preserved, a circumstance to be\nattributed to the loss of the epic poem of \u00c6gimius.\n\n8. This poem, written in the Hesiodean tone (although the author probably\nlived about the 30th Olympiad, 660 B.C. in the last period of epic\npoetry),(104) celebrated the most ancient exploits of the Doric race. Thus\nit sung how \u00c6gimius, the Doric prince, whilst engaged in a difficult and\ndangerous war with the Lapith\u00e6, called to his assistance the wandering\nHercules, and by the promise of a third part of the territory obtained his\nalliance; by which means the enemies were beaten, their prince slain, and\nthe disputed territory conquered.(105) The name of the poem is a\nsufficient proof that such would have been its contents.(106) Probably the\nheroes of Iolcus and the Phthiotans were also introduced as allies of the\nLapith\u00e6, and at least the adventures of Phrixus and Achilles.(107) The\nscene of the second book was Eub\u0153a, the name of which island was there\nderived from the cow Io;(108) the attack of Hercules upon the Eub\u0153an town\nof \u0152chalia also formed, as I conjecture, part of the subject. \u00c6gimius was,\nhowever, supposed to reign in Hesti\u00e6otis, merely because the Dorians\nbordered in this direction upon the Lapith\u00e6; he was easily carried over to\nthe second settlements of the race under mount \u0152ta.(109) This hero is in\ngeneral the mythical progenitor and hero of the Doric nation; hence Pindar\ncalled the customs and laws of that people \u201cthe ordinances of\n\u00c6gimius.\u201d(110) Nevertheless only two tribes of the Dorians are stated to\nbe descended from him, viz. the Dymanes and Pamphylians; the third and\nmost distinguished, viz. the Hylleans, was supposed to be descended from\nHyllus the son of Hercules, and adopted by \u00c6gimius. And as the land in the\nDoric states was equally divided between these three tribes, Hercules was\nfabled to have received for his descendants a third part of the territory,\nwhich belonged of right to the Hylleans. This triple division of the land\nwas expressly mentioned by the epic poet, who used the word \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03ac\u03ca\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 to\nexpress that the Dorians had obtained and shared among themselves, at a\ndistance from their native country (chiefly in Peloponnesus),(111) a\nterritory apportioned into three parts. An examination of the opinion,\nthat the first race was distinguished from the other two as of different\norigin, will be found in a following chapter.(112)\n\nWe must also refer our reader to the investigation of the worship of\nApollo, and the mythology of Hercules, in the second book, since from\nthese alone can be collected the internal history of the Doric race during\nits earliest period.\n\n9. One event which, even if it had not been noticed by tradition, would\nstill have been felt and recognised from the effects it produced, is the\nmigration of the Dorians from the district of Olympus to Crete. It is,\nindeed, a wonderful migration, being from one end of the Grecian world to\nthe other, and it presents a striking anomaly in the history of the\nancient colonies. We must suppose that the Dorians, whilst in their first\nsettlements, excluded from the plain, and pressed by want, or restless\nfrom inactivity, constructed piratical canoes, manned these frail and\nnarrow barks with soldiers, who themselves worked at the oars, and thus\nbeing changed from mountaineers into seamen\u2014the Normans of Greece\u2014set sail\nfor the distant island of Crete. The earliest trace of the migration in\nquestion is found in the Odyssey, in which poem it is mentioned that the\n_thrice-divided_ Dorians formed a part of the population of Crete.(113)\nAndron states, even with geographical accuracy, that these Dorians came to\nCrete from Hesti\u00e6otis, at that time called Doris, under Tectaphus, the son\nof Dorus, together with Ach\u00e6ans and some Pelasgians who had remained in\nThessaly.(114) According to Dic\u00e6archus, the Dorians migrated to Crete from\nPelasgiotis;(115) by which is meant the same district as that called by\nAndron Hesti\u00e6otis, since Pelasgiotis and Hesti\u00e6otis bordered on each other\nin the vicinity of Tempe. Again, Diodorus affirms that Asterius king of\nCrete, the adopted father of Minos, the legislator, was the son of\nTectamus (Teutamus).(116) The essential parts of these statements are\nrendered certain by two proofs: the first of these is, that the worship of\nApollo was practised in Crete with precisely the same ceremonies as at\nTempe, and connected with many of the same traditions; the second is, the\nvery remote period at which the principles of the Doric constitution were\nsystematized and established in Crete, so that they afterwards became a\nmodel and standard for other states of that race. This gives us the\nfullest right to consider Minos of Cnosus as a Dorian. We may assert, with\nstill more reason, that the name of Minos indicates a period in which the\nDoric invaders united a part of the island into one state, and, by\nextending their power over the Cyclades and many maritime districts,\nobtained, according to the expression of Herodotus, Thucydides, and\nAristotle, the dominion of the sea. To discredit this Doric migration\nwould be to reject the simple explanation of many facts recorded in later\nhistory. At the same time, however, we do not mean to throw any doubt upon\nthe later migrations from Peloponnesus, when it had already fallen under\nthe power of the Dorians.(117) We only assert that these took place at too\nlate a period to account for many unquestionable facts. The portion of\nCrete first occupied by the Dorians was, according to Staphylus, the\neastern coast;(118) or, to speak more accurately, the eastern side of the\nnorth coast. Here stood the Minoan town of Cnosus, with its harbour\nHeracleum and colony Apollonia. From this point the dominion, customs, and\nworship of the Dorians were at a very early period extended over the\ndistricts inhabited by the Eteocretans, Pelasgians, and Cydonians; and,\nwith the help of later migrations, pervaded the whole island.(119) And\nalthough the different dialects could still be distinguished at the time\nof Homer,(120) yet in later times the Doric appears to have been\nuniversally adopted.(121)\n\n10. We now return to the passage of Herodotus, of which a part has been\nalready quoted; \u201cWhen however the Dorians were driven out by the Cadmeans,\nthey dwelt under Mount Pindus, and were called the Macednian nation.\u201d In\nthis passage the author alludes to the legend, that the Cadmeans, being\nexpelled from Thebes by the Argives, fled to the Encheleans of Illyria,\nwhere they bordered upon Homol\u00e8, a Magnesian mountain near the valley of\nTempe. In this settlement they would certainly be in the neighbourhood of\nthe Dorians. But we should bear in mind how perplexed is the fable which\nwe have before us.(122) The predatory excursion of the Encheleans to\nPhocis and B\u0153otia appears to admit of no doubt, as it was noticed by a\nDelphian oracle of tolerable antiquity, and by the tradition of the\nThebans. The same horde may in its passage have also disturbed the Dorians\nin their settlements; but it is no less wonderful, that fugitive Thebans\nshould have voluntarily taken refuge with the Encheleans in Illyria, than\nthat this latter nation should have driven the Dorians from their\nsettlements. It may be true that some northern hordes expelled the Dorians\nfrom mount Olympus, since at a later period we find the P\u00e6onian (Teucrian)\nrace of the Pelagones, who had descended from the Axius,(123) and made\nthemselves masters of the Tripolis, Azorum, Doliche, and Pythium, in\npossession of their ancient settlements.\n\nAs to the statement of Herodotus, that the Macednians, or ancient\nMacedonians (who in his lifetime inhabited the territory between the\nrivers Haliacmon and Lydias, from the mountains to the coast),(124) were\nderived from the Dorians when dwelling under mount Pindus, he probably\nfollowed some accounts of the Macedonians, who, not satisfied with\nestablishing the Doric origin of their royal family, wished to claim the\nsame honour for the whole nation: but there does not appear to be any\nhistorical foundation for this statement. For the Macedonians, as was\nabove remarked, were indeed for the most part Greeks, but neither their\nlanguage or customs authorize us to consider them as Dorians.(125)\n\n\n\n\nChapter II.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Migration of the Dorians from Thessaly to the Valley of \u0152ta\n    and Parnassus. \u00a7 2. District of \u0152ta. \u00a7 3. Limits of Doris. \u00a7 4.\n    The Dryopians. \u00a7 5. The Malians.  \u00a7 6. The \u00c6nianes.\n\n\n1. \u201cFrom thence,\u201d Herodotus proceeds to relate, \u201cthe race of the Dorians\nmigrated to Dryopis, afterwards called Doris, or the Doric Tetrapolis.\u201d\nHere also it will be necessary to give some illustration of the geography\nof the country; beginning at Thermopyl\u00e6 (the point at which mount \u0152ta\ncomes in contact with the sea) to the broken ridge where it is swallowed\nup in Parnassus, and both ranges are lost in the mountains of Pindus, and\nwhere this latter, the grand chain of Greece, is separated and branches\noff in different directions.\n\nFollowing the plain of Phocis, which lies between mounts \u0152ta and\nParnassus, and is watered by the Cephisus, we presently find the mountains\napproaching each other from both sides, and contracting the valley of the\nriver. The last towns of Phocis in this direction are, Amphic\u00e6a,\nTithronium and Drym\u00e6a, still to be recognised in ruins, and places bearing\nthe name of _Pal\u00e6ocastro_.(126) Proceeding thence westward to the higher\ncountry, we soon arrive at the sources of the river Cephisus, which cannot\nbe mistaken, since it immediately forms a stream of considerable size. The\nCephisus indeed rises not in \u0152ta but in Parnassus, and runs first to the\nnorth-east, in order to make a bend afterwards to the south-east.(127) The\nsituation is particularly indicated by the ancient citadel of a town,\nsituated close to the source, upon a steep projection of Parnassus; this\nplace must be recognised as Lil\u00e6a. The scenery around is of a grand and\nbold description. Twenty stadia from hence was situated Charadra, where a\nmountain-torrent joined the Cephisus. But the river Pindus, which falls\ninto the Cephisus not far from Lil\u00e6a, comes down from a much greater\nelevation. These valleys, lying to the north-west of Lil\u00e6a,(128)\nconstitute the proper district of Doris, little described in detail by the\nancients, and never till a short time since visited by modern travellers.\nThe steep citadel, about an hour and a half\u2019s distance from Lil\u00e6a,\nsituated upon a projection of Parnassus near the village of Mariolatis, is\nperhaps B\u0153um. The ancient walls in the valley towards the west near Stagni\nmust be set down as the fortress of Cytinium.(129) Erineus should probably\nbe sought for in the defiles of \u0152ta, nearer the sources of the stream just\nmentioned.(130) Near \u0152ta was situated Acyphas,(131) probably the same as\nthe city of Pindus(132) above Erineus, and of the same name as the river;\nboth which names the Dorians had brought with them from their early\nsettlements. This corner of land, placed under the chief mountain-chain of\nGreece, and hanging over the plains which extend from thence, was bounded\nby the upper districts of \u00c6tolia, by the territory of the Ozolian\nLocrians, Phocis, and southern Thessaly.(133) From Cytinium a\nmountain-path led along the side of Parnassus to the country of the\nLocrians:(134) this also has been explored by modern travellers. This pass\nmade the small stronghold of Cytinium so important as a military post,\nthat Philip of Macedon, when he invaded Northern Greece before the battle\nof Ch\u00e6ronea, immediately occupied Elatea and Cytinium(135), evidently as a\nkey to the western districts. From Delphi another mountain-path (which was\nreckoned by an ancient traveller at 180 stadia(136)) crossed over in the\ndirection of Lil\u00e6a. The modern road to the north, from the valley of\nPindus, likewise goes along a mountain-pass through the defiles and\nravines of \u0152ta, to the opposite side of the valley of the Spercheus, now\ncalled Hellada.(137) If this was passable in ancient times, it formed the\ncommunication between Doris and the country of the Malians.\n\n2. Mount \u0152ta stretches in a westerly direction for the length of 200\nstadia towards the Malian bay, which it reaches at Thermopyl\u00e6. It\nseparates Doris, Phocis, and the Epicnemidian Locrians from the valley of\nthe Spercheus. The passes connected with it are, first, the one just\nmentioned: secondly, another from Phocis to the rocky glen of\nTrachinia;(138) and, lastly, that of Thermopyl\u00e6, together with the upper\npath, made famous by the battle with the Persians. The pass of Thermopyl\u00e6\nis formed on one side by the steep declivity of the mountain, and on the\nother by a deep and impassable salt-marsh: these in the narrowest part are\nonly 60 paces distant from each other:(139) in the middle arise the hot\nsulphurous springs, which gave the name to the defile. At no great\ndistance from these lies the little plain of Anthela, breaking into two\nnarrow parts of the pass. At the northern entrance of the passage there\nare still the ruins of a wall, which has perhaps served as a barrier\nagainst the invasions of Thessalian, Persian, and Roman armies. Near this\nspot the brook Asopus rises from the side of the mountain. At the southern\nend of the pass was the small town of Alpenus, its whole length being\nabout five miles. From Thermopyl\u00e6 the paved and raised military road leads\nnorthward over the Spercheus to Thessaly, southward by Alpenus, Scarpheia,\nand Thronium, and from thence to Elatea, and thus to the land of Phocis.\n\nAlthough the broken and precipitous form of both mountain and valley\nrendered the chain of \u0152ta little suited for human habitation, yet there\nwas in ancient times a considerable number of cities reaching in a line\nfrom the Doric Tetrapolis, as far as the sea. Amphan\u00e6a must have been\nbuilt upon mount \u0152ta, but in the direction of Trachinia; so that, with a\nlittle latitude of expression, it was considered as in Thessaly.(140)\nRhoduntia and Teichius were fortified heights on the road over mount\n\u0152ta.(141) Phricium was situated near Thermopyl\u00e6 on the Locrian side; from\nthis place some colonists went to the \u00c6olian Cume, and Larissa\nPhriconis.(142) On the other side, upon the slope of the mountain above\nthe valley of the small streams Melas and Dyras, lay Trachis. Heraclea was\nsituated six stadia from the ancient Trachis.(143) Not far from hence\n\u00c6goneia was probably situated.(144)\n\n3. Having now marked out the topography of this district by traces, which,\nalthough not as clear as could be wished, are yet perfectly accurate, we\nwill next proceed to inquire concerning the small native tribes which at\ndifferent periods settled in these parts, and particularly concerning the\nDorians themselves. Doris, in the limited meaning of the term, was the\nvalley of the river Pindus. Whenever the Doric _Tripolis_ is mentioned,\nthe three cities meant are B\u0153um, Cytinium, and Erineus;(145) which last\nplace, as being the most considerable, appears to have been also called\nDorium:(146) but when writers speak of a _Tetrapolis_, Acyphas (or Pindus)\nis added as a fourth town.(147) This is the country which Dorus the son of\nHellen is said to have inhabited, when he brought together his nation on\nthe side of Parnassus;(148) a tradition which totally loses sight of the\nmore ancient settlements of the Doric race. It appears, however, that the\nDorians, whilst confined within these limits, did not rest content with\nthe possession of this narrow valley, but occupied several places along\nmount \u0152ta, of which Amphan\u00e6a was one.(149) An unknown writer(150) named\nsix Doric towns,\u2014viz., Erineus, Cytinium, B\u0153um, Lil\u00e6um, Carph\u00e6a and\nDryope: of which, by Lil\u00e6um is meant the town of Lil\u00e6a, by Carph\u00e6a\nprobably Tarphe near Thermopyl\u00e6,(151) and by Dryope the country which had\nonce belonged to the Dryopians. There was therefore probably a time when\nthe heights near the sources of the Cephisus, and a narrow strip of land\nalong mount \u0152ta, as far as the sea, were in the possession of the Dorians.\nNay this was even partly the case in the Persian war; for even at that\ntime Doris stretched in a narrow tongue of land thirty stadia broad,\nbetween the Malians and Phoceans, nearly as far as Thermopyl\u00e6:(152) Scylax\nalso mentions the Dorians as inhabitants of the sea-coast.(153) This\ndistrict, however, near mount \u0152ta is that which the Dryopians had formerly\ninhabited (as may be shown from a passage of Herodotus)(154), before they\nwere entirely dispossessed by the Dorians, their neighbours in the\nTetrapolis. Thus, by means of this geographical investigation we have\narrived at an historical event. It seems probable that the Dorians, having\nmoved by slow degrees from Hesti\u00e6otis to mount \u0152ta, first gained\npossession of the furthest extremity of the mountain-valley, and thence\ngradually spread towards the coast over the land of the Dryopians. This\nrace indeed generally did not press all at once, but passed slowly into\ndistricts which had been seized by some part of them at an earlier\nperiod.(155)\n\n4. The DRYOPIANS (the fragments of whose history we here introduce) are an\naboriginal nation, which may be called Pelasgic, since Aristotle and\nothers assign to them an Arcadian origin.(156) Their affinity with the\nArcadians is confirmed by the worship paid by them to Demeter Chthonia, to\nCora Melib\u0153a, and Hades Clymenus: which bore a great resemblance to those\nof Phigaleia, Thelpusa, and other towns in Arcadia.(157) Their territory\nbordered upon that of the Malians, so that they extended into the valley\nof the Spercheus beyond \u0152ta, and in the other direction as far as\nParnassus;(158) to the east their settlements reached to Thermopyl\u00e6.(159)\nTheir expulsion is related in a manner entirely mythical, being connected\nwith the propagation of the worship of Apollo (which is intimately allied\nwith the migrations of the Dorians), and also with the adventures of\nHercules; but when a clue to this method of narration is once discovered,\nit will be found to be equally, or perhaps more, instructive, and to\nconvey much fuller information than a bare historical narrative. In the\npresent instance, the Pythian Apollo is represented as the god to whom the\nvanquished Dryopians are sent as slaves, and who despatches them to\nPeloponnesus;(160) and Hercules, in conjunction with the Trachinians,\nsubdues and consecrates them to Apollo, or assigns to them settlements in\nArgolis, but allots their land to the Dorians or Malians.(161)\n\nFrom this tradition we might perhaps infer that the Dryopians accompanied\nthe Dorians in their migration to Peloponnesus, and settled there with\nthem. But the situation of the places belonging to the Dryopians makes it\nnecessary to seek some other explanation; for the colonies of this race\nlie scattered over so many coasts and islands, that they can only have\nbeen planted by single expeditions over the sea. In Argolis, for instance,\nthey built Hermione, Asine, and Eion (Halieis), upon projecting headlands\nand promontories; in Eub\u0153a, Styra and Carystus belonged to them;(162)\namong the islands they had settlements in Cythnos(163) and perhaps\nMyconos; they had also penetrated as far as Ionia and Cyprus.(164) Hence\nit must be inferred that the Dryopians, harassed or dislodged by their\nneighbours, dispersed in various directions over the sea. It is, however,\n_historically_ certain that a great part of the Dryopians were consecrated\nas a subject people to the Pythian Apollo (an usage of ancient times, of\nwhich there are many instances), and that for a long time they served as\nsuch; for even in the fragmentary history of the destruction of Crissa\n(Olymp. 47, 590 B.C.), we find _Craugallid\u00e6_ mentioned together with the\nCriss\u00e6ans,(165) which was a name of the Dryopians derived from a fabulous\nancestor.(166) The condition of the subjects of temples, and consequently\nof these Craugallid\u00e6, will be treated of at large in another place.(167)\n\n5. But the Dorians, though hostile to their neighbours the Dryopians, were\non friendly terms with the MALIANS. This people dwelt in the valley of the\nSpercheus, enclosed on all sides by rocky mountains, and open only in the\ndirection of the sea; they were divided into the inhabitants of the coast,\nthe Sacerdotal, and the Trachinians.(168) The second of these classes\nprobably dwelt near to the Amphictyonic temple at Thermopyl\u00e6, the third on\nthe rocky declivities of mount \u0152ta. These are the people who were in such\nclose alliance with the Dorians, that Diodorus speaks of Trachis as the\nmother-town of Laced\u00e6mon.(169) The friendship between Ceyx and Hercules,\ntogether with that of his sons, is the mythical expression for this\nconnexion. The Malians were always a warlike people, those persons only\nwho had served as hoplites being admitted to a share in the\ngovernment.(170) Their country was however chiefly famous for its slingers\nand darters.(171)\n\n6. In after-times there came into these districts a nation which the\nancient traditions of the country do not recognise, viz. the Hellenic\n\u00c6NIANES or \u0152t\u00e6ans; the latter name denoting the region in which that\nnation was settled, the former their race;(172) although I do not assert\nthat the fourteen \u0152t\u00e6an communities(173) constituted the entire nation of\nthe \u00c6nianes. For they also dwelt on the banks of the Inachus, and about\nthe sources of the Spercheus, near the city of Hypata.(174) In early times\nthey had inhabited the inland parts of Thessaly, and about the end of the\nfabulous period they descended into those settlements, from which in later\ntimes they were dislodged by the Illyrian Athamanes.(175) Although the\n\u00c6nianes did not disavow a certain dependence on the Delphian oracle, and\nthough they adopted among their traditions the fables respecting Hercules,\nanciently prevalent in their new settlements,(176) yet on account of their\ngeographical position they lived in opposition and hostility to the\nMalians and Dorians;(177) who, as Strabo states, had been deprived by them\nof a part of their territory.(178) Nay more, it is probable that the\nemigration of the Dorians which conquered Peloponnesus, was in some way or\nother connected with the arrival of the \u00c6nianes in this region. There was\nan _ancient enmity_ between the Laced\u00e6monians and the \u0152t\u00e6ans.(179) It was\nchiefly on this account that Sparta founded the town of Heraclea in the\ncountry of Trachinia; which would doubtless have caused the revival of an\nimportant Doric power in this part of Greece, had not the jealousy of the\nThessalians and Dolopians, and even of the Malians themselves, been\nawakened at its first establishment.\n\nThus much concerning the situation of the Dorians in their settlements\nnear mount \u0152ta. The subject however is not yet exhausted; for we have\nstill to trace the origin of the great influence which the establishment\nof the Dorians at Lycorea upon Parnassus had on the religion of Delphi\n(for that Lycorea was a Doric town will be made probable hereafter), as\nwell as to treat of the Amphictyonic league, in the founding of which a\nvery large share doubtless belonged to the Dorians: but the discussion of\nboth these points must be deferred to the second book.(180)\n\nAs to the colonies of the Doric cities near mount Parnassus, Bulis on the\nfrontiers of Phocis and B\u0153otia, on the Criss\u00e6an gulf, was probably founded\nfrom thence at the time of the Doric migration.(181)\n\n\n\n\nChapter III.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Migration of the Dorians into Peloponnesus represented as the\n    return of the descendants of Hercules. \u00a7 2. Improbability of the\n    common account. \u00a7 3. Sources of the common account. \u00a7 4. Legends\n    inconsistent with the common account. \u00a7 5. Common account. The\n    Heraclid\u00e6 fly from Trachis to Attica, and are assisted by the\n    Athenians against Eurystheus. \u00a7 6. Expeditions of the Heraclid\u00e6\n    into Peloponnesus. \u00a7 7. Junction of the Heraclid\u00e6 with the\n    Dorians. \u00a7 8. The Heraclid\u00e6 pass into Peloponnesus by Rhium. \u00a7 9.\n    Connexion of the Dorians with the Locrians and \u00c6tolians. \u00a7 10.\n    Tisamenus and the Peloponnesians defeated by the Dorians. \u00a7 11.\n    Partition of Peloponnesus. \u00a7 12. Immediate consequences of the\n    immigration of the Dorians.\n\n\n1. The most important, and the most fertile in consequences, of all the\nmigrations of Grecian races, and which continued even to the latest\nperiods to exert its influence upon the Greek character, was the\nexpedition of the Dorians into Peloponnesus. It is however so completely\nenveloped in fables, and these were formed at a very early period in so\nconnected a manner, that it is useless to examine it in detail, without\nfirst endeavouring to separate the component parts.\n\nThe traditionary name of this expedition is \u201c_the Return of the\ndescendants of Hercules_.\u201d(182) Hercules, the son of Zeus is (even in the\nIliad), both by birth and destiny, the hereditary prince of Tiryns and\nMycen\u00e6, and ruler of the surrounding nations.(183) But through some evil\nchance Eurystheus obtained the precedency, and the son of Zeus was\ncompelled to serve him. Nevertheless he is represented as having\nbequeathed to his descendants his claims to the dominion of Peloponnesus,\nwhich they afterwards made good in conjunction with the Dorians; Hercules\nhaving also performed such actions in behalf of this race, that his\ndescendants were always entitled to the possession of one-third of the\nterritory. The heroic life of Hercules was therefore the mythical title,\nthrough which the Dorians were made to appear, not as unjustly invading,\nbut merely as reconquering, a country which had belonged to their princes\nin former times. Hence Hercules is reported to have made war with some\ndegree of propriety, and subdued the principal countries of the Doric race\n(except his native country Argos), Laced\u00e6mon and the Messenian Pylus, to\nhave established the national festival at Olympia, and even to have laid\nthe foundation of the most distant colonies. To esteem as real these\nconquests and settlements, these mythical forerunners of real history, is\nincompatible with a clear view of these matters; and we could scarce\nseriously ask even the most credulous, how, at a time when sieges were in\nthe highest degree tedious, Hercules could have stormed and taken so many\nfortresses, surrounded with almost impregnable walls?(184)\n\nA severer criticism enjoins us to trace the mythical narrative to its\ncentre, and attempt to ascertain whether the sovereign race of the Dorians\ndid really spring from the early sovereigns of Mycen\u00e6; such being not only\nthe epic account, but also the tradition countenanced in Sparta itself.\nTyrt\u00e6us said, in his poem called the Eunomia, \u201c_Zeus himself gave this\nterritory_ (Laconia) _to the race of Hercules; united with whom we_ (the\nDorians) _left the stormy Erineus, and reached the wide island of\nPelops_.\u201d(185) And a still more important proof is the reply of king\nCleomenes, mentioned by Herodotus, who, when forbidden by the priestess in\nthe Acropolis of Athens to enter the temple, as being a Dorian, answered,\n\u201cI am no Dorian, but an Ach\u00e6an,\u201d referring to his descent from\nHercules.(186) From this it would appear that there was amongst the\nDorians an Ach\u00e6an phratria, to which the kings of Argos, Sparta, and\nMessenia, and the founders and rulers of Corinth, Sicyon, Epidaurus,\n\u00c6gina, Rhodes, Cos, &c., belonged; and which, in conjunction with the\nDorians, only recovered by conquest its hereditary rights.(187)\n\n2. It is certainly hazardous at once to reject an extensive and connected\nsystem of heroic traditions, for the sake of establishing in its place a\nconjecture which sacrifices reports recognised by ages prior to historical\ninformation, and celebrated by the earliest poets, to a mere theory of\nhistorical probability. We must, however, recollect that mythical legends\npresent in general merely the views and opinions of nations on the origin\nof their actual condition; these opinions being at the same time more\noften directed and determined by religious and other notions, especially\nby a certain feeling of justice, than by real tradition, and therefore\nthey frequently conceal, rather than express, historical truth. The\nfollowing remarks, partly deduced from inquiries which will follow, may\nserve to contrast with each other the characteristics of history and\nmythology.\n\nIn the first place, if we consider the narrative in question as a plain\nhistorical statement, and consequently suppose the Heraclid\u00e6 to have been\nexpatriated Ach\u00e6ans, the same supposition must be extended to the whole\ntribe of Hylleans. For Hyllus, the representative of the Hylleans, is\ncalled the son of Hercules; and it was with reference to that tribe that\nthe third part of the territory was secured to the descendants of\nHercules: hence also Pindar calls the Dorians universally the _descendants\nof Hercules and \u00c6gimius_.(188) In this case, then, the Pamphylians and\nDymanes would alone remain as Dorians proper. It is, however, by no means\nprobable, that, if the most distinguished part of the Doric people had\nbeen of Ach\u00e6an descent, the difference between the language, religion, and\ncustoms of these two races would have been so strongly and precisely\nmarked.\n\nIn the second place, everything that is related concerning the exploits of\nHercules in the north of Greece refers exclusively to the history of the\nDorians; and conversely all the actions of the Doric race in their earlier\nsettlements are mythically represented under the person of Hercules. Now\nthis cannot be accounted for by supposing that there was only a temporary\nconnexion between this hero and the Doric race.\n\nLastly, if we compare as much of the fables concerning Hercules related\nbelow as refers to the Dorians, with those current among the ancient\nArgives, and if we separate in mind the links by which the epic poets gave\nthem an apparent historical connexion, we shall find no real resemblance\nbetween the two. The worship of Apollo, which can in almost every case be\nshown to have been the real motive which actuated the Dorians, was wholly\nforeign to the Argives. If then an Ach\u00e6an tribe did arrive amongst the\nDorians, bringing with it the story of Hercules, or a hero so called, this\nlatter people must have applied and developed his mythology in a manner\nwholly different from those to whom they owed it. And after all, we should\nbe obliged to suppose that long before their irruption into Peloponnesus,\nthese Heraclid\u00e6 had been so intermixed with the Dorians, that their\ntraditions were formed entirely according to the disposition of that race,\nsince Hercules in Thessaly is represented as a complete Dorian. Here,\nhowever, we are again at variance with the fable, which represents the\nHeraclid\u00e6 as having fled to the Dorians a short time only before their\nentry into Peloponnesus.\n\nThus we are continually met with contradictions, and never enabled to\nobtain a clear view of the question, unless we assent to the proposition\nthat Hercules, from a very remote period, was both a Dorian and\nPeloponnesian hero, and particularly the hero of the Hyllean tribe, which\nin the earliest settlements of the Dorians had probably united itself with\ntwo other small nations, the Heraclid\u00e6 being the hereditary princes of the\nDoric race. The story of the Heraclid\u00e6 being descended from the Argive\nHercules, who performed the commands of Eurystheus, was not invented till\nafter Peloponnesus had been introduced into the tradition.\n\n3. There is hardly any part of the traditional history of Greece whose\nreal sources are so little known to us as the expedition of the Heraclid\u00e6.\nNo one can fail to perceive that it possesses the same mythical character\nas the Trojan war; and yet we are deprived of that which renders the\nexamination of a mythical narrative so instructive, viz. the traditional\nlore scattered in such abundance throughout the ancient epic poems. This\nevent, however, early as it was, lay without the range of the epic poetry;\nand therefore, whenever circumstances connected with it were mentioned,\nthey must have been introduced either accidentally or in reference to some\nother subject. In no one large class of epic poems was this event treated\nat length, neither by the cyclic poets, nor the authors of the \u039d\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9. In\nthe \u1f28\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 attributed to Hesiod, it appears only to have been alluded to in\na few short passages.(189) Herodotus nevertheless mentions poets who\nrelated the migration of the Heraclid\u00e6 and Dorians into Laconia.(190)\nPerhaps these belonged to the class who carried on the mythical fables\ngenealogically, as Cin\u00e6thon the Laconian, and also Asius, who celebrated\nthe descent of Hercules, and appears, from the character of his poems, to\nhave also commemorated his descendants.(191) Or they may have been the\n_historical poets_, such as Eumelus the Corinthian, although those alluded\nto by Herodotus cannot have composed a separate poetical history (as the\nformer did of Corinth); since they would doubtless have followed the\nnational tradition of Sparta; and this, with respect to the first princes\nof the Heraclid\u00e6, differed from the accounts of all the poets with which\nHerodotus was acquainted, and was not the general tradition of\nGreece.(192) And doubtless many such local traditions were preserved\namongst particular nations, concerning an event which for a long time\ndetermined the condition of Peloponnesus. Thus the Tegeatans(193)\ncelebrated the combat of Echemus their general with Hyllus. Whether the\nearly historians collected these accounts from oral record, or whether\nthey derived them from the poets above mentioned (although the latter is\nmore in their manner), cannot be determined; for there are only extant two\nfragments of these writers concerning the Heraclid\u00e6, one of Hecat\u00e6us, the\nother of Pherecydes, which connect immediately with the death of Hercules,\nand therefore do not prove that these authors wrote any continuous account\nof the history of this migration. The early tradition received a fuller\ndevelopment in the Attic drama; but it was unavoidably represented in a\nvery partial view. The Heraclid\u00e6 of \u00c6schylus, and the Iolaus of Sophocles\nmight, like the Heraclid\u00e6 of Euripides, have had on the whole the tendency\nto celebrate those merits which the Athenians are made to commend in\nHerodotus,(194) even before the battle of Plat\u00e6a, viz., their good offices\ntowards the Heraclid\u00e6, at the time when they took refuge in Attica. The\nlast-named tragedian, in his Temenid\u00e6, Archelaus, and Cresphontes, went\nfurther into the history of the Doric states, and descended lower into the\nhistorical period, than any poet before his time; his reason having,\nperhaps, been, the exhaustion of the legitimate mythical materials.(195)\nNow these Attic tragedians manifestly took for their basis the narrative\ngiven by Apollodorus, himself an Athenian, as may be shown by some\nparticular circumstances. Perhaps Ephorus rested more upon the earlier\npoets and historians, as far as we are acquainted with their statements;\nbut his narrative, even if it were extant, could, no more than those of\nthe former, be considered as proceeding from a critical examination;\nsince, in the first place, from a total misapprehension of the character\nof tradition, he forced everything into history, and then endeavoured to\nrestore the deficiencies of oral narrative by probable reasoning; of the\nfallaciousness of which method we will bring forward some proofs.\n\n4. After what has been said, we will forbear to apologize for merely\noffering a few remarks on the origin and meaning of the traditions which\nconcern the Doric migration, instead of endeavouring to give a history of\nthat event. And, indeed, we might bring forward some most marvellous\nlegends, but on that very account the better fitted to convince every one\nwhat is the nature of the ground on which we stand.\n\nIn the \u1f28\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 attributed to Hesiod, it was stated that Polycaon the son of\nButes, whose name represents the ancient (_i.e._ Lelegean) population of\nMessene, married Eu\u00e6chme (\u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03af\u03c7\u03bc\u03b7, viz. _celebrated for the spear_) the\ndaughter of Hyllus, and grand-daughter of Hercules. In this simple and\nunpretending manner the early tradition conveyed the idea that the\nHylleans and Dorians had, by the power of the spear, made themselves\nmasters of Messene, and united themselves with the original\ninhabitants.(196)\n\nIn the Laconian village of Abia, there was a temple of Hercules, which was\nsaid to have been built by Abia the nurse of Glenus, the brother of\nHyllus.(197) It was, therefore, supposed that Hyllus and Glenus themselves\ncame to Laconia. Pausanias endeavours to reconcile the local tradition\nwith the received history, and assumes that Abia had fled hither after the\ndeath of Hyllus; which, however, is inconsistent with the common account\nthat Peloponnesus was in the hands of the enemy, and that the battle in\nwhich Hyllus fell was at the Isthmus. We come now to the common relation\nof the order of events.\n\n5. According to this account, the Heraclid\u00e6, after the death of their\nfather, were in Trachis with their host Ceyx, who generously protected\nthem for a time, but was afterwards forced, by the threats of Eurystheus,\nto refuse them any longer refuge; Ceyx, according to Hecat\u00e6us,(198) was\ncompelled to say to them, \u201cI have not the power to assist you; withdraw\ntherefore to another nation;\u201d and upon this they sought an asylum in\nAttica. Those early historians, however, who stated that Hercules died as\nking in Mycen\u00e6, gave an entirely different account of this circumstance,\nviz., that Eurystheus, after the death of Hercules, expelled his sons, and\nagain usurped the dominion,(199) and they fled in consequence to Attica.\n\nAt Athens they sat as suppliants at the altar of Pity, received the\nprotection of Theseus or Demophon, dwelt in the Tetrapolis,(200) and\nfought, together with the Athenians, under the command of Hyllus and\nIolaus (to whose prayers the gods had granted a second youth), at the pass\nof Sciron, a battle against Eurystheus; Macaria (probably an entirely\nsymbolical being, but here the daughter of Hercules) having previously\noffered herself as an expiatory sacrifice. In this action they conquered\nthe Argive king, whom Alcmene with womanish vengeance put to death, and\nwhose tomb the Athenians showed before the temple of the Pallenian\nMinerva.(201) This is the fable so much celebrated by the tragedians and\norators, a _locus communis_ as it were, which the Athenians sometimes even\nmentioned in their decrees,(202) or wherever it served to show how poorly\nthe Peloponnesians had requited their ancient benefactors. What credit a\nLaced\u00e6monian would have given to these stories, we know not; Pindar\ncertainly knew nothing of them, for he states that Iolaus had near\n_Thebes_ received a momentary renewal of youthful vigour for the purpose\nof putting to death Eurystheus, after which he immediately expired, and\nwas buried by the Thebans in the family tomb of Amphitryon.(203) In this\naccount Eurystheus is represented as having been conquered in the\nneighbourhood of Thebes, and in consequence by a Theban army. It is not\nhowever necessary to esteem the Athenian tradition as altogether\ngroundless, and purposely invented: it was probably founded on some actual\nevent, and afterwards modified and embellished. The connecting link was\nwithout doubt the temple of Hercules in Attica. It was natural that, if\nthe Athenians worshipped that hero, they should wish to have had the merit\nof protecting his descendants. Hence the sons of Hercules were said to\nhave dwelt in the Tetrapolis at Marathon, where was the chief temple of\nHercules in Attica, and in the neighbourhood of which flowed the fountain\nMacaria, represented as a daughter of that hero. It was on this account,\nas is reported, that the entire Tetrapolis was during the Peloponnesian\nwar spared by the Laced\u00e6monians. Many circumstances, which will hereafter\nbe brought forward, seem to show that an union and intercourse subsisted\nbetween the Dorians of Peloponnesus and some of the northern towns of\nAttica,(204) the foundation of which appears to have been laid in the\ntimes of the Doric migration, by a settlement of Dorians and B\u0153otians in\nthese towns. But this settlement had doubtless, when those fables were\ninvented, been already lost in the mass of the Athenian people.\n\n6. After this battle, won by the aid of the Athenians, the Heraclid\u00e6 are\nsaid (and with good reason, as they were assisted by the Athenians) to\nhave obtained possession of all Peloponnesus, and to have ruled\nundisturbed for one year (or some fixed period); at the expiration of\nwhich, a pestilence (like a tragical catastrophe) drove them back again to\nAttica. The mythologists make use of this time to send Tlepolemus the\nHeraclide to Rhodes, in order that he may arrive there before the Trojan\nwar. Of all this, however, Pherecydes could have known nothing, as he\nrelates that Hyllus, having conquered Eurystheus, went to Thebes,(205)\nwithout subduing Peloponnesus, and there with the other Heraclid\u00e6 formed a\nsettlement near the gate of Electra, a circumstance which we shall advert\nto hereafter.(206) In Peloponnesus, however, according to the traditions\nchronologically arranged, Eurystheus was succeeded by the Pelopid\u00e6, who\naccordingly appear as the expellers of the legitimate sovereigns of the\nrace of Perseus.(207) Whether any such circumstance was known to the early\npoets is very much to be doubted; but it is at least clear, that in this\ncase we are not in possession of the real tradition itself, but of\nscientific combinations of it. Against these new sovereigns were directed\nthe expeditions of the Heraclid\u00e6, of which it is generally stated that\nthere were three. The account given of them follows the general idea of an\nentire dependence of the Dorians on the Delphian oracle;(208) but the\nmisconception of its injunctions, which embarrasses and perplexes the\nwhole question, may, we think, be attributed entirely to the invention of\nthe Athenians. The oracle mentioned the _third fruit_, and the _narrow\npassage by sea_ (\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03c5\u03b3\u03c1\u1f70), as the time and way of the promised return,\nwhich the Athenians falsely interpreted to mean the third _year_, and the\n_Isthmus of Corinth_. But the account given in Apollodorus, nearly falling\ninto Iambic or Trochaic metre, leaves no doubt that he took his account of\nthe oracle from the Attic tragedians,(209) as was remarked above. Deceived\nby these predictions, Hyllus forced his way into Peloponnesus in the third\nyear, and found at the Isthmus the Arcadians, Ionians, and Ach\u00e6ans of the\npeninsula already assembled. In a single combat with Echemus the son of\nA\u00ebropus, the prince of Tegea, Hyllus fell, and was buried in Megara; upon\nwhich the Heraclid\u00e6 promised not to renew the attempt for fifty or one\nhundred years from that time.(210) Here every one will recognise the\nbattle of the Tegeate with the Hyllean as an ancient tradition. But in the\narrangement, by which it was contrived that the expeditions of the\nHeraclid\u00e6 should not be placed during the Trojan war and the youth of\nOrestes, we do not hesitate to suspect the industry of ancient systematic\nmythologists.\n\n7. When the Heraclid\u00e6 had been once separated from the Dorians as\nbelonging to a different race, and Hyllus set down as only the adopted son\nof the Doric king, it immediately became a matter of doubt at what time\nthe junction of the Dorians and Heraclid\u00e6 in one expedition should be\nfixed. Sometimes the Dorians are represented as joining the Heraclid\u00e6\nbefore the first, sometimes before the second, sometimes before the third\nexpedition; by one writer as setting out from Hesti\u00e6otis, and by another\nfrom Parnassus.(211) There were doubtless no real traditional grounds for\nany one report; and still less any sufficient to place the name Hyllus,\nand the events connected with it, at any fixed epoch. Hence also Hyllus is\nat one time called the contemporary of Atreus, and at another of\nOrestes;(212) Pamphylus and Dymas are stated to have lived from the time\nof Hercules to the conquest of Peloponnesus.(213) Nor is there any\nabsurdity in this, inasmuch as they are the collective names of races\nwhich existed throughout this whole period. The descendants of Hyllus,\nhowever, are no longer races, but, as it appears, real persons; viz., his\nson Cleod\u00e6us,(214) and his grandson Aristomachus. These names stood at the\nhead of the genealogy of the Heraclid\u00e6; as, for example, of the kings of\nSparta; and they can hardly have been mere creations of fancy. From their\nsuccession is probably calculated the celebrated epoch of the expedition\nof the Heraclid\u00e6, viz., 80 years after the Trojan war, which was without\ndoubt determined by the early historians, since Thucydides was acquainted\nwith it. The Alexandrine critics generally adopted it, as we know\nexpressly of Eratosthenes, Crates, and Apollodorus.(215) But all that is\nrecounted of the expeditions of these two princes, however small in\namount,(216) cannot have been acknowledged by those who, like Herodotus,\nand probably all the early writers, stated the armistice after the death\nof Hyllus as lasting 100 years.(217)\n\n8. At length Apollo himself opens the eyes of the Heraclid\u00e6 to the meaning\nof the oracle. It was not across the _Isthmus_, but over the _Straits of\nRhium_, that they were to cross into Peloponnesus, and after the third\n_generation_ had died away. They therefore first sailed from Naupactus, to\nthe Molycrian promontory (Antirrhium), and thence to Rhium in\nPeloponnesus, which was only five stadia distant.(218) That the Dorians\nactually came on that side into Peloponnesus, is a statement which may be\nlooked on as certain; agreeing (as it does) with the fact that the\ncountries near the Isthmus were the last to which the Dorians penetrated.\nThe name _Naupactus_ implies the existence of ship-building there in early\ntimes;(219) and there was a tradition that the Heraclid\u00e6 passed over on\nrafts, imitations of which were afterwards publicly exposed at a festival,\nand called \u03a3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1, _i.e._ _crowned with garlands_.(220) This festival\nwas doubtless the Carnea, since the Carnean Apollo was worshipped at\nSparta under the name of _Stemmatias_. Now it is also stated that the\nAcarnanian soothsayer Carnus (who was reported to have founded the worship\nof the Carnean Apollo) was killed at the time of this expedition by\nHippotes the son of Phylas, for which reason the Heraclid\u00e6 offered\nexpiatory sacrifices to his memory.(221) We see from this that some rites\nof a peculiar worship of Apollo were observed at this passage, which were\nprobably for the most part of an expiatory nature. Now I have shown\nelsewhere, that the Carnean or Hyacinthian worship of the \u00c6gid\u00e6 originated\nat Thebes, and prevailed in Peloponnesus before the arrival of the\nDorians, particularly at Amycl\u00e6:(222) consequently, that prevalent near\nthe straits of Naupactus might have been another, probably an\nAcarnanian(223) branch of the religion of Apollo, which was afterwards\nincorporated in the Carnean festival; a supposition which, if admitted,\nwould enable us to explain many statements of ancient authors. The\nreligious rites and festivals are in fact often so intermingled and\nconfused together, that it is necessary to trace their component parts to\nmany and distant sources.\n\n9. At their passage from Naupactus the Dorians stood in great need of the\nfriendship and assistance of the native races, the Ozolian Locrians and\n\u00c6tolians. The Locrians occupied Naupactus in early times;(224) the\n\u00c6tolians were their immediate neighbours, and their powerful city of\nCalydon was the mistress of the region. The Locrians are said to have\naided the Dorians in their passage, by deceiving the Peloponnesians with\nfalse beacons;(225) and we shall meet hereafter with traces of a lasting\namity between the Locrians and Sparta. A most singular, but, doubtless for\nthat very reason, a most ancient dress, has been given by mythology to the\nunion of the Dorians and \u00c6tolians. This connexion, which was indispensable\nfor the passage from Naupactus, is also found implied in other legends,\nthe general character of tradition being to express the same thing in\nvarious ways. Of these we may mention the marriage of Hercules with\nDeianira, the daughter of \u0152neus the Calydonian.(226) At this time the\nDorians were ordered by the oracle to seek a person with three eyes for a\nleader. This person they recognised in Oxylus the \u00c6tolian, who either sat\nupon a horse, himself having one eye, or rode upon a one-eyed mule.\nDifficult as it is to rest satisfied with this interpretation of the\noracle, so casual a circumstance having no connexion with the general\ncourse of events, yet it appears impossible to discover the true meaning\nof the word \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.(227) In all probability this expression for the\nwhole \u00c6tolian race was only delivered in a mythical shape, and the sorry\nexplanation was not invented until a late period.(228) The family of\nOxylus is stated to have come from Calydon; so that the \u00c6tolians (who in\nlater times made themselves masters of Elis) appear to have come for the\nmost part from that place.(229) There existed, however, an ancient\nalliance and affinity between the inhabitants of Elis, the Epeans, and the\n\u00c6tolians who dwelt on the farther side of the Corinthian gulf; and Oxylus\nhimself was said to have originally belonged to Elis;(230) hence it does\nnot appear that there was any actual war between these two states, but\nonly that the \u00c6tolians were received by the Eleans, and admitted to the\nrights of citizenship;(231) and at the same time the same honours were\npermitted to the heroes and heroines of the \u00c6tolians as to their own.(232)\n\n10. The systematised tradition next makes mention of a battle which took\nplace between the united force of Peloponnesus, under the command of\nTisamenus, the grandson of Agamemnon, and the sons of Aristomachus; in\nwhich the latter were victorious, and Peloponnesus fell into their\npossession. According as it suits the object of the narrator, this\nengagement is either represented to have been both by sea and land, and to\nhave taken place at the passage,(233) or after the march through Arcadia.\nWe may fairly suppose that it was inferred merely on probable grounds that\na battle _must_ have been fought by Tisamenus, whom the tradition\nrepresented as prince of the Ach\u00e6ans at the capture of \u00c6gialea.(234) Many\ntraditions agree in stating that the Heraclid\u00e6 at that time took the road\nthrough Arcadia; Oxylus is said to have led them by this way, that they\nmight not be envious of his fertile territory of Elis;(235) Cresphontes is\nmoreover stated to have been the brother-in-law of Cypselus king of\nArcadia, who had his royal seat at Basilis, on the Alpheus, in the country\nof the Parrhasians.(236)\n\n11. Next comes the division of Peloponnesus among the three brothers\nTemenus, Cresphontes, and Aristodamus, or his sons. We have to thank the\ntragedians alone for the invention and embellishment of this fable;(237)\nthat it contains little or no truth is at once evident; for it was not\ntill long after this time that the Dorians possessed the larger part of\nPeloponnesus;(238) and a division of lands not yet conquered is without\nexample in Grecian history. At the same time it is related that, upon the\naltars whereon the brothers sacrificed to their grandfather Zeus, there\nwas found a frog for Argos, a snake for Sparta, and a fox for Messenia. It\nseems however probable that these are mere symbols, by which the inventors\n(perhaps the hostile Athenians) attempted to represent the character of\nthose nations. For it cannot be supposed that national arms or ensigns are\nmeant; unless indeed we give credit to the pretended discovery of\nFourmont, who affirms that he found in the temple of the Amycl\u00e6an Apollo a\nshield with the inscription of Teleclus as general (\u03b2\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2), with a snake\nin the middle; and another of Anaxidamus, with a snake and two foxes.(239)\nBut he has represented the shield of so extraordinary a form, with sharp\nends, and indentures on the sides, that the fraud is at once open to\ndetection; and consequently the supposition that the snake was the\narmorial bearing of Sparta remains entirely unfounded.(240)\n\n12. Although we cannot here give a complete account of the great\nrevolution which the irruption of the Dorians universally produced in the\ncondition of the different races of Greece,(241) it may nevertheless be\nremarked, that a very large portion of the Ach\u00e6ans, who originally came\nfrom Phthia, retired to the northern coast of Peloponnesus, and compelled\nthe Ionians to pass over to Attica. The reduction of the principal\nfortress of this country, the Posidonian Helice, is ascribed to Tisamenus;\nand that Helice was in fact the abode of the most distinguished families\nof the Ach\u00e6an nation is evident from the legend, that Oxylus the \u00c6tolian,\nat the command of the oracle, shared the dominion with Agorius, a Pelopid,\nwho was descended from Penthilus the son of Orestes, and dwelt at\nHelice.(242) The chronological difficulty of Oxylus being called the\ncotemporary of a grandson of Penthilus is not of much importance. At\nHelice was also shown the tomb of Tisamenus, whose supposed ashes the\nSpartans (doubtless with the idea of thus making amends for the injustice\nof his expulsion) afterwards brought to their city, as they also did the\ncorpse of Orestes at Tegea.(243) But hereupon follows a series of\nmigrations to \u00c6olis in Asia, which was founded in later times, in which\nthe numbers of the Ach\u00e6an race predominated. Although Orestes is called a\nleader of the first expedition,(244) he probably is only put for his\ndescendants: Penthilus also is perhaps put only for that part of his\ndescendants who went with the colony to Lesbos and \u00c6olis. For all the\nPenthilid\u00e6 did not go; we find indeed Penthilid\u00e6 in Mitylene;(245) and\nothers at Helice, as we have just seen. Pisander, a Laconian Ach\u00e6an, is\nalso mentioned as having gone with the expedition of Orestes; and there\nwere men of his family in Tenedos at the time of Pindar.(246)\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Physical Structure of Greece and Peloponnesus. \u00a7 2. Physical\n    Structure of Arcadia. \u00a7 3. Of Laconia. \u00a7 4. Of Argolis. \u00a7 5. Of\n    Achaia and Elis. \u00a7 6. Improvement of the Soil by artificial means.\n    \u00a7 7. Early Cultivation of the Soil by the Pelasgians and Leleges.\n    \u00a7 8. Numbers of the Doric Invaders. \u00a7 9. Mode by which they\n    conquered Peloponnesus.\n\n\n1. So wonderful is the physical organization of Greece, that each of its\nparts has received its peculiar destination and a distinct character; it\nis like a body whose members are different in form, but between which a\nmutual connexion and dependence necessarily exists. The northern districts\nas far as Thessaly are the nutritive organs which from time to time\nintroduced fresh and vigorous supplies: as we approach the south, its\nstructure assumes a more marked and decided form, and is impressed with\nmore peculiar features. Attica and the islands may be considered as\nextremities, which, as it were, served as the active instruments for the\nbody of Greece, and by which it was kept in constant connexion with\nothers; while Peloponnesus, on the other hand, seems formed for a state of\nlife, occupied more with its own than external concerns, and whose\ninterests and feelings centred in itself. As it was the extremity of\nGreece, there also appeared to be an end set by nature to all change of\nplace and habitation; and hence the character of the Peloponnesians was\nfirm, steady, and exclusive. With good reason therefore was the region\nwhere these principles predominated considered by the Greeks as the centre\nand acropolis(247) of their countries; and those who possessed it were\nuniversally acknowledged to rank as first in Greece.\n\n2. This character of Peloponnesus will become more evident, if we examine\nthe peculiar nature of its mountain-chains. Though the Isthmus of Corinth\nconnected the peninsula with the continent by a narrow neck of land, yet\nit was not traversed in its whole length by any continuous chain of\nmountains; the \u0152nean hills being entirely separated from the mountains of\nPeloponnesus.(248) The principal elevations in Peloponnesus form very\nnearly a circle, the circumference of which passes over the mountains of\nPholo\u00eb, Lampe, Aroanius, Cyllene, Artemisium, Parthenium, and Parnon; then\nover Boreum, and from thence up to the northern rise of mount Taygetus,\nand finally over mount Lycaon along the river Alpheus. The highest ridge\nappears to be that part of Cyllene which looks to Parnon: the height of\nCyllene, according to the statement of Dic\u00e6archus,(249) was not quite 15\nstadia; according to another measurement, it was nine stadia wanting 80\nfeet;(250) a considerable height, when it is remembered that the sea is\nnear, and that Peloponnesus is the last link of the great chain, which\nruns down from the north of Macedonia. But the eastern plains also, for\ninstance that of Tegea, are at a great height above the sea, and are often\ncovered with snow late in the spring.(251) Now from the circle of\nmountains which has been pointed out, all the rivers of any note take\ntheir rise; and from it all the mountainous ranges diverge, which form the\nmany headlands and points of Peloponnesus. The interior part of the\ncountry however has only one opening towards the western sea, through\nwhich all its waters flow out united in the Alpheus. The peculiar\ncharacter of this inland tract is also increased by the circumstance of\nits being intersected by some lower secondary chains of hills, which\ncompel the waters of the valleys nearest to the great chains either to\nform lakes, or to seek a vent by subterraneous passages.(252) Hence it is\nthat in the mountainous district in the north-east of Peloponnesus many\nstreams disappear, and again emerge from the earth. This region is\nARCADIA; a country consisting of ridges of hills and elevated plains, and\nof deep and narrow valleys, with streams flowing through channels formed\nby precipitous rocks; a country so manifestly separated by nature from the\nrest of Peloponnesus, that, although not politically united, it was always\nconsidered in the light of a single community. Its climate was extremely\ncold; the atmosphere dense, particularly in the mountains to the\nnorth:(253) the effect which this had on the character and dispositions of\nthe inhabitants has been described in a masterly manner by Polybius,\nhimself a native of Arcadia.\n\n3. LACONIA is formed by two mountain-chains running immediately from\nArcadia, and enclosing the river Eurotas, whose source is separated from\nthat of an Arcadian stream by a very trifling elevation. The Eurotas is,\nfor some way below the city of Sparta, a rapid mountain-stream; then,\nafter forming a cascade, it stagnates into a morass; but lower down it\npasses over a firm soil in a gentle and direct course.(254) Near the town\nof Sparta rocks and hills approach the banks on both sides, and almost\nentirely shut in the river both above and below the town:(255) this\nenclosed plain is without doubt the \u201c_hollow_ Laced\u00e6mon\u201d of Homer.(256)\nHere the narrowness of the valley, and the heights of Taygetus, projecting\nabove in a lofty parapet, increase the heat of summer, both by\nconcentrating the sun-beams, as it were, into a focus, and by presenting a\nbarrier to the cool sea-breezes;(257) whilst in winter the cold is doubly\nviolent. The same natural circumstances produce violent storms of rain,\nand the numerous mountain-torrents frequently cause inundations in the\nnarrow valleys.(258) The mountains, although running in connected chains,\nare yet very much interrupted; their broken and rugged forms were by the\nancients attributed to earthquakes;(259) one of which caused so great\nconsternation at Sparta a short time before the war with the Helots. The\ncountry is not however destitute of plains; that indeed along the lower\npart of the Eurotas is one of the finest in Greece, stretching towards the\nsouth, and protected by mountains from the north wind: moreover, the\nmaritime district, surrounded by rocks, from Malea to Epidaurus Limera\n(Malvasia), is extremely fertile.(260) Nor are the valleys on the\nfrontiers of Messenia less productive; towards the promontory of T\u00e6narum\nhowever the soil continually becomes harder, drier, and more ferruginous.\nThe error of supposing that this country was nearly a desert appears from\nthe very large number of its vegetable productions mentioned by\nTheophrastus and others: Alcman and Theognis also celebrate its wines:\nvines were planted up to the very summit of mount Taygetus, and\nlaboriously watered from fountains in forests of plane-trees;(261) the\ncountry was in this respect able to provide for its own wants. But the\nmost valuable product, in the estimation of the new inhabitants, was\ndoubtless the iron of the mountains.(262) More fortunate still was the\nsituation of the country for purposes of defence, the interior of Laconia\nbeing only accessible from Arcadia, Argolis, and Messenia by narrow passes\nand mountain-roads; and the most fertile part is the least exposed to the\ninroads of enemies from those quarters: the want of harbours(263) likewise\ncontributes to the natural isolation of Laconia from other lands.\nEuripides has on the whole very successfully seized the peculiar character\nof the country in the following lines, and contrasted it with the more\nfavoured territory of Messenia:(264)\n\n\n    Far spreads Laconia\u2019s ample bound,\n    With high-heap\u2019d rocks encompass\u2019d round,\n        The invader\u2019s threat despising;\n    But ill its bare and rugged soil\n    Rewards the ploughman\u2019s painful toil;\n        Scant harvests there are rising.\n\n    While o\u2019er Messenia\u2019s beauteous land\n    Wide-watering streams their arms expand,\n        Of nature\u2019s gifts profuse;\n    Bright plenty crowns her smiling plain;\n    The fruitful tree, the full-ear\u2019d grain,\n        Their richest stores produce.\n\n    Large herds her spacious valleys fill,\n    On many a soft-descending hill\n        Her flocks unnumber\u2019d stray;\n    No fierce extreme her climate knows,\n    Nor chilling frost, nor wintry snows,\n        Nor dogstar\u2019s scorching ray.\n\n\nFor along the banks of the Pamisus (which, notwithstanding the shortness\nof its course, is one of the broadest rivers in Peloponnesus), down to the\nMessenian bay, there runs a large and beautiful valley, justly called\n_Macaria_, or \u201cThe Happy,\u201d and well worth the artifice by which\nCresphontes is said to have obtained it. To the north, more in the\ndirection of Arcadia, lies the plain of Stenyclarus, surrounded by a hilly\nbarrier. The western part of the country is more mountainous, though\nwithout any such heights as mount Taygetus; towards the river Neda, on the\nfrontiers of Arcadia, the country assumes a character of the wildest and\nmost romantic beauty.\n\n4. ARGOLIS is formed by a ridge of hills which branches from Mount Cyllene\nand Parthenium in Arcadia, and is connected with it by a mountain-chain,\nvery much broken, and abounding in ravines and caverns (hence called\n\u03a4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd);(265) through which runs the celebrated _Contoporia_,(266) a road\ncut out, as it were, between walls of rock, connecting Argos with Corinth.\nBy similar passes Cleon\u00e6, Nemea, and Phlius, more to the south, and\neastwards Mycen\u00e6, Tiryns, and Epidaurus, were connected; and this natural\ndivision into many small districts had a considerable effect upon the\npolitical state of Argos. The southern part of this chain ends in a plain,\nat the opening of which, and near the pass just alluded to, was situated\nMycen\u00e6, and in a wider part of it the city of Argos. The nature of this\nanciently cultivated plain is very remarkable; it was, as is evident,\ngradually formed by the torrents which constantly filled up the bay\nbetween the mountains; and hence it was originally little else than fen\nand morass.(267) Inachus, \u201c_the stream_,\u201d and Melia, the daughter of\nOceanus, \u201c_the damp valley_\u201d (where ash-trees, \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, grow), were called\nthe parents of the ancient Argives; and the epithet \u201cthirsty\u201d (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b4\u03af\u03c8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2), which is applied to Argos in ancient poems, refers only to the\nscarcity of spring-water in the neighbourhood of the town. Yet,\nnotwithstanding the rugged nature of the rest of Argolis, there are, both\nin the interior and near the sea, here and there, small plains, which by\nthe fertility of their soil attract and encourage the husbandman; the\nsouth-eastern coast slopes regularly down to the sea. To the north of the\nmountain-ridge which bounded Argolis, extending from the Isthmus as far as\na narrow pass on the boundaries of Achaia, there is a beautiful, and in\nancient times highly-celebrated plain, in which Corinth and Sicyon were\nsituated.(268) With respect to the progress of civilization at Argos, it\nis important to know that the mountains between that town and Corinth\ncontain copper:(269) accordingly, in the former town the forging of metals\nappears to have been early introduced; and hence arose the ancient\ncelebrity of the Argive shields.(270) But no precious metal has been ever\nfound in any part of Peloponnesus: a circumstance which greatly tended to\ndirect the attention of its inhabitants to agriculture and war, rather\nthan commerce and manufactures.\n\n5. That region which was in later times called ACHAIA, is only a narrow\ntract of land along the coast, lying upon the slope of the northern\nmountain-range of Arcadia. Hence most of the Ach\u00e6an cities are situated on\nhills above the sea, and some few in enclosed valleys. The sources of the\nnumerous streams by which the country is watered lie almost without\nexception in Arcadia, whose frontiers here reach beyond the water-line.\n\nBut the lowest slope of Peloponnesus, and the most gradual inclination to\nthe sea, is on the western side; and it is in this quarter that we find\nthe largest extent of champaign country in the peninsula, which, being\nsurrounded by the chain beginning from mounts Scollis and Pholo\u00eb, was\nhence called the HOLLOW ELIS. It was a most happy circumstance that these\nwide plains enjoyed an almost uninterrupted state of peace. Towards the\ncoast the soil becomes sandy; a broad line of sand stretches along the sea\nnearly as far as the Triphylian Pylos, which from this circumstance is so\nfrequently spoken of by Homer as \u201c_the sandy_.\u201d(271) As this tract of\ncountry is very little raised above the level of the sea, a number of\nsmall lakes or lagoons have been formed, which extend along the greatest\npart of the coast, and are sometimes connected with one another, sometimes\nwith the sea. Such being the nature of the country, the river Alpheus runs\ngently between low chains of hills and through small valleys into the sea.\nTowards the south the country becomes more mountainous, and approaches\nmore to the character of Arcadia.\n\n6. If now we picture to ourselves this singular country before the\nimprovements of art and agriculture, it presents to the mind a very\nextraordinary appearance. The waters of Arcadia are evidently more\ncalculated to fill up the deep ravines and hollows of that country, or to\nproduce irregular inundations, than to fertilise the soil by quiet and\ngentle streams. The valleys of Stymphalus, Pheneus, Orchomenus, and Caphy\u00e6\nin Arcadia required canals, dams, &c., before they could be used for the\npurposes of husbandry. One part of the plain of Argos was carefully\ndrained, in order to prevent it becoming a part of the marshes of Lerna.\nIn the lower part of the course of the Eurotas it was necessary to use\nsome artificial means for confining the river: and that this care was at\nsome time bestowed on it, is evident from the remains of quays,(272) which\ngive to the river the appearance of a canal. The ancient Nestorian Pylus\nwas situated on a river (Anigrus), which even now, when it overflows,\nmakes the country a very unhealthy place of residence; and no traveller\ncan pass a night at Lerna without danger. Thus in many parts of\nPeloponnesus it was necessary, not merely for the use of the soil, but\neven for the sake of health and safety, to regulate nature by the\nexertions of art. At the present time, from the inactivity of the natives,\nthe inevitable consequence of oppression, so bad an atmosphere prevails in\nsome parts of the country, that, instead of producing, as formerly, a\nvigorous and healthy race, one sickly generation follows another to the\ngrave. And that improvements of this kind were begun in the earliest\nperiods, is evident from the fact, that the traces of primitive cities are\ndiscovered in those very valleys which had most need of human labour.(273)\nThis induction is also confirmed by the evidence of many traditions. The\nscanty accounts respecting the earliest times of Sparta relate, that\nMyles, the son of the earth-born Lelex, built mills, and ground corn at\nAlesi\u00e6; and that he had a son named Eurotas, who conducted the water\nstagnating in the level plain into the sea by a canal, which was\nafterwards called by his name.(274) Indeed the situation of Sparta seems\nto imply that the standing water was first drained off:(275) nay, even in\nlater times, it was possible, by stopping the course of the river, to lay\nmost of the country between Sparta and the opposite heights under\nwater.(276)\n\n7. The consideration of these natural circumstances and traditions obliges\nus to suppose that the races which were looked on as the ancient\ninhabitants of Peloponnesus (the Pelasgians in the east and north, and the\nLeleges in the south and west) were the first who brought the land to that\nstate of cultivation in which it afterwards remained in this and other\nparts of Greece. And perhaps it was these two nations alone to whom the\ncare of husbandry, cattle, and everything connected with the products of\nthe soil, belonged through all times and changes. For, in the first place,\nthe numbers of the invading Ach\u00e6ans, Ionians, and afterwards of the\nDorians, were very inconsiderable, as compared with the whole population\nof Peloponnesus; and, secondly, these races conquered the _people_ as well\nas the _country_, and enjoyed an independent and easy life by retaining\nboth in their possession: so that, whatever tribe might obtain the\nsovereign power, the former nations always constituted the mass of the\npopulation. By means of these usurpations agriculture was kept in a\nconstant state of dependence and obscurity, so that we seldom hear of the\nimprovement of the country, which is a necessary part of the husbandman\u2019s\nbusiness. Agriculture was, however, always followed with great energy and\nsuccess. For in the time of the Peloponnesian war, when the population of\nPeloponnesus must have been very great, it produced more corn than it\nconsumed, and there was a constant export from Laconia and Arcadia\ndownwards to the coast of Corinth.(277)\n\n8. It is not with a view of founding any calculation upon them, but merely\nof giving a general idea of the numerical force of a Greek tribe (which\nmany would suppose to be a large nation), that I offer the following\nremarks. At the flourishing period of the Doric power, about the time of\nthe Persian war, Sparta, which had then conquered Messenia, contained 8000\nfamilies, Argos above 6000; while in Sicyon, Corinth, Phlius, Epidaurus,\nand \u00c6gina, the Dorians were not so numerous, the constitution being even\nmore oligarchical in those states. Although in the colonies, where they\nwere less confined by want of sufficient space, and by the severity of the\nlaws, the inhabitants multiplied very rapidly, yet the number of original\ncolonists, as many of them as were Dorians, was very small. Now since in\nthe states of Peloponnesus, even after they had been firmly established,\nthe number of inhabitants, particularly of Dorians, never, from several\ncauses, much increased,(278) it seems probable that at the time of their\nfirst irruption the whole number of their males was not above 20,000.(279)\nNor were the earlier settlements of Ach\u00e6ans and Ionians more considerable.\nFor the Ionians, as is evident from their traditions, appear as a military\nrace in Attica, and probably formed, though perhaps together with many\nfamilies of a different origin, one, and certainly the least, of four\ntribes (the \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2(280)). The arrival of the Ach\u00e6ans is represented in\nancient traditions in the following simple manner: \u201cArchander and\nArchiteles, the sons of Ach\u00e6us, having been driven from Phthiotis, came to\nArgos and Laced\u00e6mon.\u201d(281) Their names signify \u201cthe ruler,\u201d and \u201cthe chief\ngovernor.\u201d Certainly the Ach\u00e6ans did not come to till the ground; as is\nalso evident from the fact that, when dislodged by the Dorians, and driven\nto the northern coast, they took possession of Patr\u00e6, dwelt only in the\ntown, and did not disperse themselves into the smaller villages.(282)\n\nIt seems pretty certain that the Dorians migrated together with their\nwives and children. The Spartans would not have bestowed so much attention\nas they did on women of a different race; and all the domestic\ninstitutions of the Dorians would have been formed in a manner very unlike\nthat which really obtained. This circumstance alone completely\ndistinguishes the migration of the Dorians from that of the Ionians, who\nhaving, according to Herodotus, sailed from Attica without any women, took\nnative Carian women for wives, or rather for slaves, who, according to the\nsame writer, did not even dare to address their husbands by their proper\nnames. And this was probably the case with all the early settlements\nbeyond the sea, since the form of the ancient Greek galley hardly admitted\nof the transport of women.\n\n9. It would have been less difficult to explain by what superiority the\nDorians conquered Peloponnesus, had they gained it in open battle. For,\nsince it appears, that Homer describes the mode of combat in use among the\nancient Ach\u00e6ans, the method of fighting with lines of heavy armed men,\ndrawn up in close and regular order, must have been introduced into\nPeloponnesus by the Dorians; amongst whom Tyrt\u00e6us describes it as\nestablished. And it is evident that the chariots and darts of the Homeric\nheroes could never have prevailed against the charge of a deep and compact\nbody armed with long lances. But it is more difficult still to comprehend\nhow the Dorians could have entered those inaccessible fortifications, of\nwhich Peloponnesus was full; since their nation never was skilful in the\nart of besieging, and main force was here of no avail. How, I ask, did\nthey storm the citadel of Acro-Corinthus, that Gibraltar of\nPeloponnesus?(283) how the Argive Larissa, and similar fortresses? On\nthese points, however, some accounts have been preserved with regard to\nthe conquest of Argos and Corinth, which, from their agreement with each\nother, and with the circumstances of the places, must pass as credible\nhistorical memorials. From these we learn that the Dorians always\nendeavoured to fortify some post at a short distance from the ancient\nstronghold; and from thence ravaged the country by constant incursions,\nand, kept up this system of vexation and petty attack, until the defenders\neither hazarded a battle, or surrendered their city. Thus at a late period\nthe places were still shown from whence Temenus and Aletes had carried on\ncontests of this nature with success.(284) And even in historical times\nthis mode of waging war in an enemy\u2019s country (called \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc3\n\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u1fb3) was not unfrequently employed against places, which could not be\ndirectly attacked.(285)\n\n\n\n\nChapter V.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Reduction of Argos by the Dorians. \u00a7 2. Of Sicyon. \u00a7 3. Of\n    Phlius and Cleon\u00e6. \u00a7 4. Of the Act\u00e8, Epidaurus, \u00c6gina, and Tr\u0153zen.\n    \u00a7 5. Independence of Mycen\u00e6 and Tiryns. \u00a7 6. Ancient homage of the\n    towns of the Act\u00e8 to Argolis. \u00a7 7. Territory of the Dryopians in\n    Argolis. \u00a7 8. Reduction of Corinth by the Dorians. \u00a7 9. Ancient\n    inhabitants of Corinth. \u00a7 10. Reduction of Megara by the Dorians.\n    \u00a7 11. Reduction of Laconia by the Dorians under Aristodemus. \u00a7 12.\n    Resistance of Amycl\u00e6. Position of Sparta. \u00a7 13. Resistance of\n    other Laconian towns to the Dorians. \u00a7 14. Traditions respecting\n    Eurysthenes and Procles. \u00a7 15. Reduction of Messenia by the\n    Dorians. \u00a7 16. Political state of Messenia.\n\n\n1. Before the time of the Dorians, Mycen\u00e6, situated in the higher part of\nthe plain at the extremity of the mountain-chain, had doubtless been the\nmost important and distinguished place in Argolis; and Argos, although the\nseat of the earliest civilization was dependent upon and inferior to it.\nAt Mycen\u00e6 were the Cyclopian hall of Eurystheus,(286) and the sumptuous\npalace of Agamemnon; and though, as Thucydides correctly says, the\nfortified town was of inconsiderable extent, yet it abounded with\nstupendous and richly-carved monuments, whose semi-barbarous but\nartificial splendour formed a striking contrast with the unornamented and\nsimple style introduced after the Doric period.(287) The Doric conquerors,\non the other hand, did not commence their operations upon fortresses\nsecured alike by nature and art, but advanced into the interior from the\ncoast. For near the sea between Lerna and Nauplia, on the mouth of the\nPhrixus,(288) there was a fortified place named Temenium, from which\nTemenus the son of Aristomachus, together with the Dorians, carried on a\nwar with Tisamenus and the Ach\u00e6ans, and probably harassed them by repeated\nincursions, until they were obliged to hazard an open battle. From thence\nthe Dorians, after severe struggles, made themselves masters of the town\nof ARGOS.(289) It is related in an isolated tradition, that Ergi\u00e6us, a\ndescendant of Diomed, stole and gave to Temenus the Palladium brought by\nhis ancestor from Troy to Argos, which immediately occasioned the\nsurrender of the city.(290) Argos was therefore supposed to have been\ntaken by Temenus himself.\n\n2. The further extension of the Doric power is, however, attributed not to\nTemenus, but to his sons; for such the Doric tradition calls Ceisus,\nCerynes, Phalces, and Agr\u00e6us or Ag\u00e6us.(291) Of these, Ceisus is\nrepresented to have governed at Argos, and Phalces to have gone to SICYON.\nThe ancient Mecon\u00e8 or Sicyon had in early times been in the power of the\nIonians, and afterwards subject to the Ach\u00e6ans of Argos. The very copious\nmythology of this ancient city contains symbolical and historical elements\nof the most various nature: we will only touch upon a part of the story\nimmediately preceding the Doric invasion. Ph\u00e6stus, a son of Hercules, is\nstated to have been king of Argos before that event; and having gone to\nCrete, where he founded the town of his name,(292) to have been succeeded\nby his descendants Rhopalus, Hippolytus, and Lacestades, the last of whom\nlived on terms of friendship with Phalces. Between them, however,\nZeuxippus, a son of Apollo and of the nymph Hyllis,(293) is placed. We\nhere perceive the traces of a connexion between Ph\u00e6stus in Crete, and the\nintroduction of the worship of Apollo and Hercules; this tradition,\nhowever, cannot authorise us to draw any chronological inferences.\n\n3. Whether PHLIUS (situated in a corner of Arcadia, in a beautiful valley,\nwhence arise the four sources of the Asopus(294)) was founded from Sicyon\nor Argos, was a matter of contention between these two towns: the latter\nsimply called Phlias the son of Ceisus.(295) This _Phlias_, however, is\nnothing else than the country personified; the name being derived from\n\u03c6\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9 or \u03c6\u03bb\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c9, and signifying \u201cdamp,\u201d or \u201cabounding in springs,\u201d which\nappellation was fully merited by the nature of the spot. Hence Phlias was\nwith more reason called the son of Dionysus (\u03a6\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, \u03a6\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7c\u03bd), who loved to\ndwell in such valleys. There is, therefore, greater probability in the\naccount of the Sicyonians, that Phalces and Rhegnidas were the founders of\nthe Doric dominion;(296) it being moreover easier to force a way to\nPhliasia from Sicyon along the Asopus, than from Argos. It is known, that\nPythagoras the Samian derived his origin from a certain Hippasus, who had\nquitted Phlius on that occasion; and the Ionic town of Clazomen\u00e6 is said\nto have been partly founded by some inhabitants of Cleon\u00e6 and Phliasia,\nwho had been expelled by the Dorians;(297) from which two facts we are\njustified in inferring the existence of a connexion between the early\ninhabitants of these places and the Ionians. CLEON\u00c6, situated in a narrow\nvalley, where the mountains open towards Corinth, and bordering upon\nPhlius, appears from this account to have been colonised at the same time\nwith that town, but probably from Argos. For we find that the ruling power\nwas there in the hands of the same Heraclide family, of which a branch\nwent from Argos to Epidaurus.(298)\n\n4. The ACTE (as the northern coast of Argolis, over against Attica, was\ncalled)(299) was reduced, according to the account of Ephorus, by\nDeiphontes and Ag\u00e6us.(300) The former of these, who was called a\ndescendant of Ctesippus, and son-in-law of Temenus, and whose fortunes\nafforded materials for the tragic poets, made himself master of the town\nof EPIDAURUS, and dislodged the Ionians from thence: these latter, under\nthe command of their king Pityreus, crossed over to Attica, whence the\nking\u2019s son Procles went subsequently, at the general Ionic migration, to\nSamos.(301) Of the Dorians of Epidaurus, however, a part under the conduct\nof Triacon withdrew to \u00c6GINA,(302) in which place Hellenes of Thessaly had\nformerly ruled, and united the island and mother-state into one\ncommonwealth, with equal rights, and the same magistrates. Now since\nbesides Epidaurus, TR\u0152ZEN alone belonged to the Act\u00e8, and since both Ag\u00e6us\nand Deiphontes are mentioned as the Dorian colonisers of this coast, it\nwas probably this Ag\u00e6us who brought Tr\u0153zen under the rule of the\nDorians.(303) In this city, too, he must have encountered some Ionians;\nsince both the mythical genealogies and religious rites of the ancient\nTr\u0153zen attest a close connexion between its earlier inhabitants and the\nAthenians.(304) For Tr\u0153zen even shared with the Ionic cities in the\npeculiar worship of the Apaturian Athene, as the goddess of _phratri\u00e6_ and\n_gentes_;(305) as also in that of Poseidon and his son Theseus.\n\n5. The accounts already given show that Sicyon, Phlius, Cleon\u00e6, Epidaurus,\nTr\u0153zen, and \u00c6gina received their share of Doric inhabitants either\nmediately or immediately from Argos. We can only regret the want of any\naccurate accounts respecting Mycen\u00e6 and Tiryns; the conquest of which\ncities must have been most difficult; but, when accomplished, decisive for\nthe sovereignty of the Dorians. Pindar(306) considers the expulsion of the\nAch\u00e6an Danai from the gulf of Argos, and from Mycen\u00e6, as identical with\nthe expedition of the Heraclid\u00e6; and Strabo states that the Argives united\nMycen\u00e6 with themselves.(307) Nevertheless we find that in the Persian war\nMycen\u00e6 and Tiryns were still independent states, and it admits of a doubt\nwhether they had previously belonged for any length of time to Argos. That\nsome ancient inhabitants at least still maintained themselves in the\nmountains above Argos, is shown by the instance of the Orneat\u00e6. The\ninhabitants of Orne\u00e6, a town on the mountainous frontier of Mantinea,\nhaving long been hostile to the Dorians, and at war with the\nSicyonians,(308) were at length overpowered by Argos, and degraded to the\nstate of peri\u0153ci.(309) Now, since it is more probable that such a\nproceeding took place against the people of a different race, than against\na colony of Argos, and also as there is nowhere any mention of a Doric\nsettlement at Orne\u00e6, it is evident that the inhabitants of Orne\u00e6 had up to\nthat time been either Ach\u00e6ans or Arcadians.\n\n6. Although from the foregoing accounts it appears that Argos almost\nentirely lost its power over the towns which it had been the means of\nbringing under the rule of the Dorians, yet in early times there existed\ncertain obligations on the part of these cities towards Argos, which at a\nlater period became mere forms. There was in Argos, upon the Larissa, a\ntemple of Apollo Pytha\u00ebus, which had probably been erected soon after the\ninvasion of the Dorians, as a sanctuary of the national deity who had led\nthem into the country. It was a temple common to all the surrounding\ndistrict, though belonging more particularly to the Argives.(310) The\nEpidaurians were bound at certain seasons to send sacrifices to it.(311)\nThe Dryopians in early times, and afterwards also, in their character of\nCraugallid\u00e6, or servants of the Delphian god, had at Asine and Hermione\nerected temples to Apollo Pytha\u00ebus, in acknowledgment of a similar\ndependence; and this was the only one spared by the Argives at the\ndestruction of the former town.(312)\n\n7. The fragments preserved respecting the ancient history of the DRYOPIANS\nhaving been collected in a previous chapter,(313) we shall here only\nremark that this people possessed a considerable district in the most\nsouthern part of Argolis, the boundaries of which, so long as they\nremained inviolate, were defined by two points, viz. the temple of Demeter\nThermesia on the frontier between Hermione and Tr\u0153zen, eighty stadia from\nCape Scyll\u00e6um, and a hill between Asine, Epidaurus, and Tr\u0153zen,(314) and\nthey may still be pointed out with tolerable certainty. Hercules, who,\naccording to the Doric tradition, brought the Dryopians hither, had\naccurately marked out these boundaries. It is, however, also related that\nthe Dryopians established themselves beyond these limits at Nemea(315) in\nArgolis: this, however, as well as Olympia, was not any particular town,\nbut merely the name of a valley, and particularly of a temple of Zeus\nthere situated.\n\n8. The history of the establishment of CORINTH, though marvellous and\nobscure, contains nevertheless some historical traces by no means unworthy\nof remark. In the first place, it is stated that this town did _not_\nreceive its inhabitants from Argos. The purport of the tradition is as\nfollows: \u201cWhen Hippotes at the time of the passage of the Dorians from\nNaupactus slew the soothsayer, he was banished (according to Apollodorus\nfor ten years),(316) during which time he led a roaming and predatory\nlife;\u201d(317) whence his son was called \u1f08\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, or the _Wanderer_.(318) It\nis also recorded in the fragment of a tradition(319) that Hippotes, when\ncrossing the Melian gulf, imprecated against those who wished to remain\nbehind, \u201c_That their vessels might be leaky, and themselves the slaves of\ntheir wives._\u201d In like manner his son Aletes passed through the territory\nat that time called Ephyra, where he received from scorn a clod of\nearth;(320) which in the ancient oracular language was a symbol of\nsovereignty.(321) We might almost guess from these traditions that the\nDorian warriors had harassed, and at length subdued the ancient Ephyreans,\nby ravaging their lands, and by repeated invasions. This is confirmed by\nthe very credible account of Thucydides relating to this point.(322) There\nwas in the mountainous country, about sixty stadia from Corinth, and\ntwelve from the Saronic gulf, a hill called Solygius, of which the Dorians\nhad once taken possession for the purpose of making war against the \u00c6olian\ninhabitants of Corinth. This hill was, however (at least in the time of\nThucydides), entirely unfortified. Here we may recognise the very same\nmethod of waging war as in the account of Temenus given above, a method\nwhich in the Peloponnesian war was adopted by the Spartans at the\nfortifying of Decelea. Again, it is related in a tradition connected with\nthe Hellotian festival, that at the taking of Corinth the Dorians set fire\nto the town, and even to the temple of Athene, in which the women had\ntaken refuge.(323) In another it is stated that Aletes, being advised by\nan oracle to attack the city on a \u201ccrowned day,\u201d took it during a great\nfuneral solemnity by the treachery of the youngest daughter of Creon:\nthese, however, are for the most part mere attempts at an historical\ninterpretation of ancient festival ceremonies. As Aletes (according to his\ngenealogy) lived one generation after the conquerors of Peloponnesus, the\ncapture of Corinth was dated thirty years after the expedition of the\nHeraclid\u00e6;(324) whence probably also arose the error of supposing that\nthere had previously been Dorians at Corinth; as it was supposed that the\nDorians had obtained their whole dominion over Peloponnesus at _one_ time,\nby _one_ expedition. The city appears to have received the name of Corinth\nat this time, instead of its former one of Ephyra;(325) and it seems that\nthe Dorians called it with a certain preference \u201c_The Corinth of Zeus_;\u201d\nalthough ancient interpreters have in vain laboured to give a satisfactory\nexplanation of this name.\n\n9. The early inhabitants of Corinth were, according to the expression of\nThucydides,(326) \u00c6olians; and their traditions and religion show that they\nwere very nearly connected with the Minyans of Iolcus and Orchomenus.(327)\nTheir kings were the Sisyphid\u00e6, whose genealogy closes with Hyantidas and\nDoridas. We find in the last name the same confusion which has been\npointed out (amongst others) in the legend of Thessalus the son of\nJason,(328) viz., that the arrival of a different nation was expressed by\nconnecting the new comers genealogically with the heroes of the ruling\nrace. Thus Doridas, _i.e._ the Dorians in a patronymic form, is the\ndescendant of Sisyphus. Here begins the sovereignty of the Dorians; who,\nhowever, did not, as Pausanias(329) states, altogether expel the ancient\ninhabitants, but formed the aristocratic class of the new state. Pindar\nand Callimachus, indeed, call the whole Corinthian nation _Aletiad\u00e6_(330)\nbut merely by a poetical license; the only lineal descendants of Aletes\nbeing the ruling house, the Bacchiad\u00e6, from which for a long time were\ntaken the kings and Prytanes of Corinth and all its colonies. There were,\nhowever, at Corinth distinguished families of a different origin. The\nfamily of Cypselus, which afterwards obtained possession of the tyranny,\nwas, according to Herodotus, of the blood of the Lapith\u00e6, and descended\nfrom C\u00e6neus.(331) They came, according to Pausanias, from Gonusa, near\nSicyon, to assist the Dorians against Corinth:(332) Aletes, however, at\nthe advice of an oracle, at first refused to receive them, but presently\nadmitted them into the city, where they afterwards overthrew his own\ndescendants. We shall allow this narrative, which contains a _post\neventum_ prophecy of the tyranny of the Cypselid\u00e6, to rest on its own\nmerits, remarking only that the C\u00e6nid\u00e6 had more reason to assist the\nancient \u00c6olians than the Dorians; and shall merely infer from it the\nexistence of distinguished families in Corinth not of Doric descent.\n\n10. As in this chapter we have hitherto rather followed a geographical\nthan a chronological arrangement, we will now pass to the founding of\nMEGARA.(333) That event is represented by the ancient tradition as\nconnected with the expedition of the Peloponnesians against Athens;(334)\nwhich is doubtless a correct statement, since Megara had before that epoch\nbeen closely united with Attica, and comprehended in Ionia. This\nexpedition was, according to most authors, undertaken by the whole\nPeloponnesus; by some, however, the Corinthians are called the real\nauthors of it, and Aletes the leader, Alth\u00e6menes of Argos, the son of\nCeisus, being nevertheless joined with him. The defeat of the Doric\ninvaders, by the voluntary sacrifice of Codrus, has been a favourite\nsubject both with poets and rhetoricians.(335) It is sufficient for our\npurpose to oppose to this celebrated legend an obscure tradition that some\nAthenians, whom Lycophron calls Codri, had a share in the expedition of\nthe Heraclid\u00e6.(336) Whether or not the Ionians and Dorians met at the\nborders on this occasion, thus much is certain, that Megara in consequence\nof this invasion became a Doric town, and indeed soon afterwards a\nCorinthian colony.(337) It also remained for some time in complete\ndependence on Corinth, as \u00c6gina upon Epidaurus; in proof of which it is\nmentioned that the Megarians were bound to mourn for every death that\noccurred in the family of the Bacchiad\u00e6 at Corinth.(338) When, however,\nthe internal strength of Megara increased, it ventured to dissolve this\nconnexion, and, in defiance of the Corinth of Zeus, to rout the\nCorinthians in the field.(339) The border-wars of the Megarians and\nCorinthians were carried on without intermission.(340) Megara appears not\nto have raised itself to the situation of a ruling city till after it had\nobtained its independence; since in earlier times it had been one of the\nfive hamlets (\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9) into which the country was divided, viz. the Her\u00e6ans,\nPir\u00e6ans, Megarians, Cynosyrians, and Tripodiscians.(341) These small\ncommunities also waged war with each other, but with a singular lenity, of\nwhich some almost marvellous accounts have been preserved; the conquerors\ncarried their prisoners home, treated them as guests and companions, who\nwere hence called \u03b4\u03bf\u03c1\u03cd\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, in opposition to \u03b4\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n11. We now turn to LACONIA, which, according to the above-mentioned legend\nconcerning the division of Peloponnesus, fell to the share of Aristodemus\nor his sons.(342) According to the common tradition (which was derived\nfrom the epic poets(343)) the twin brothers Eurysthenes and Procles(344)\ntook possession of Sparta after the death of their father; whereas the\nnational tradition of Sparta, as Herodotus informs us, represented\nAristodemus himself as having been the first ruler,(345) and the double\ndominion of his children as not having been settled till after his death;\nthe first-born, however, enjoying a certain degree of precedence.(346)\nThis is, indeed, contradicted by the account of Thucydides,(347) who\nmentions as a Laced\u00e6monian tradition, that the kings who first took\npossession of Laced\u00e6mon (_i.e._ Eurysthenes and Procles) were conducted\nthither with dances and sacrifices, an honour which at the command of the\nDelphian oracle was afterwards given to Pleistoanax at his restoration.\nThis variation, however, is perhaps merely the effect of a pardonable\nnegligence in the author.\n\n12. It is, however, far more difficult to ascertain what was the condition\nof Laconia immediately after the invasion of the Dorians. For it is plain\nthat the history, as it was arranged by Ephorus, and derived from him to\nother authors, is in contradiction with many isolated traditions, but\nwhich for that very reason are of the greater importance. So far, indeed,\nfrom the whole of the Laconian territory immediately falling into the\nhands of the Dorians,(348) it is certain that a powerful fortress of the\nancient Ach\u00e6ans, at a short distance from Sparta itself, held out for\nnearly three centuries after the Doric invasion.\n\nThere was a saying, well known in antiquity, of the \u201csilent Amycl\u00e6;\u201d thus\ncalled because its citizens had been so often alarmed by the report of the\nenemy coming, that they at last made a law that no one should give tidings\nof the enemy\u2019s approach; in consequence of which the town was at length\ntaken.(349) This proverb, and the story on which it was founded, prove the\nexistence of a long and determined contest between the two neighbouring\ncities. They also confirm the account of Pausanias, that the Dorians in\nthe reign of Teleclus built a temple(350) to Zeus Trop\u00e6us, because they\nhad at length, after a tedious and severe struggle, overcome the Ach\u00e6ans\nof Amycl\u00e6 and taken their city. This city of Amycl\u00e6, one of the most\nancient and considerable in Peloponnesus, of which there still remains a\nfort situated upon a rock on the side of mount Taygetus, was therefore so\nfar from being reduced by the Spartans immediately, that it held out until\nthe reign of Teleclus, 278 years after the invasion, a short time before\nthe first Messenian war; and then was only taken after a tedious contest,\nwhich, from the proximity of Amycl\u00e6 and Sparta, must have been very\ndangerous to the latter city. Now it is not possible that before this\nvictory Amycl\u00e6 and Sparta, distant only 20 stadia (2-1/2 miles) from each\nother, should have been engaged in constant war, as it must have soon\nended in the destruction of one or the other city: their truces and\narmistices were, however, doubtless interrupted frequently by sudden\nincursions. The important territory near mount Taygetus belonged at that\ntime to Amycl\u00e6, and all this country was still in the possession of the\nAch\u00e6ans, with whom some Minyans from Lemnos, and Cadmean Greeks, known by\nthe name of \u00c6gid\u00e6, had united themselves. This is the territory from which\nthe colonies of Thera, Melos, and Gortyna proceeded; so, according to\nPindar, Amycl\u00e6 was the point from which the first colonies to Lesbos and\nTenedos set out, and also (as may be inferred from other notices) those\nAch\u00e6ans who took possession of Patr\u00e6.(351)\n\nSparta, on the other hand, must have been of very slight importance before\nthe Doric migration; by which event alone it was enabled to become the\nruler of all the surrounding states. For, in the first place, Sparta was\nnot built in the same manner as Mycen\u00e6, Tiryns, and other ruling cities\nfounded before the Doric invasion; the Acropolis is a hill of\ninconsiderable height, and easy of ascent, without any trace of ancient\nfortifications or walls. Secondly, it is remarkably deficient in monuments\nand local memorials of the times of the Pelopid\u00e6 and other mythical\nprinces; much as the Spartans in other instances clung to traditions and\nrecords of this kind: while Amycl\u00e6 and Therapne had these in great\nabundance. Amycl\u00e6, in a beautiful and well-wooded country,(352) was the\nabode of Tyndareus and his family; here were the tombs of Cassandra and\nAgamemnon, who, according to a native tradition (preserved by Stesichorus\nand Simonides),(353) ruled in this city. At no great distance was situated\nthe town of Therapne. Alcman calls it the \u201cwell-fortified Therapne;\u201d(354)\nPindar mentions its high situation;(355) by which they clearly imply a\nposition and fortification similar to that of Tiryns. The latter also\ncalls it the ancient metropolis of the Ach\u00e6ans, amongst whom the Dioscuri\nlived; here were the subterraneous cemeteries of Castor and Pollux,(356)\nvaulted, perhaps, in the ancient manner; here also the temples of the\nBrothers and of Helen in the Ph\u0153b\u00e6um, and many remains of the ancient\nsymbolical religion.(357) It is also very remarkable, that on the banks of\nthe Eurotas, in the district between Therapne and Amycl\u00e6, there should\nhave been discovered a building(358) which resembles the well-known\ntreasury at Mycen\u00e6, and which affords a certain proof that the dominion of\nthe Pelopid\u00e6 extended to this district.\n\nBut although the local traditions make it probable that the ante-Doric\nrulers of the country dwelt in Amycl\u00e6 and Therapne, yet Homer describes\nSparta as the residence of the Pelopid\u00e6, transferring, apparently, the\ncircumstances of his own time to an earlier period. Homer sometimes calls\nLaced\u00e6mon the abode of Menelaus; by Laced\u00e6mon meaning the entire country,\nand especially the valley round Sparta, which agrees far better with the\nepithet of \u201c_hollow_ Laced\u00e6mon,\u201d than the district of Amycl\u00e6, which opens\ndown to the sea.(359) Sometimes he expressly mentions Sparta as the city\nin which Menelaus has fixed his abode.(360)\n\n13. Amycl\u00e6, however, is not the only Ach\u00e6an city which was not reduced by\nthe Dorians till a late period. \u00c6gys, on the frontiers of Arcadia, is said\nto have been taken from the Ach\u00e6ans by Archelaus and Charilaus a short\ntime before Lycurgus; Pharis, together with Geronthr\u00e6, by Teleclus;(361)\nand Helos in the plains, near the mouth of the Eurotas, by Alcamenes, the\nson of Teleclus.(362) So long as these places belonged to the Ach\u00e6ans, the\nSpartans were shut out from the sea, and surrounded on all sides by the\npossessions of a different race. It appears, however, that other places\nbesides Sparta were held by the Dorians themselves previously to their\nobtaining possession of the whole of Laconia; such were, for instance, B\u0153\u00e6\nnear Malea,(363) and perhaps also Abia on the confines of Messenia.(364)\nBut of the numerous contests which doubtless took place at this period,\nlittle information has come down to us, as they just lie between the\nprovinces of mythology and history.\n\nThus much, however, we may with safety say, that Ephorus is clearly in\nerror when he mentions a division of Laconia made by the Dorians,\nimmediately after their conquest, for the sake of an undisturbed dominion\nover the country.(365) The same historian further states that \u201cSparta was\nreserved by the Dorians as the seat of their own empire; that Amycl\u00e6(366)\nwas granted to Philonomus, who had delivered the country to them by\ntreachery, and that governors were sent into the other four divisions.\u201d\nAlso, that \u201cthe principal towns of these four provinces were Las,\nEpidaurus Limera (or Gytheium), \u00c6gys, and Pharis; of which the first\nserved as the citadel of Laconia,(367) the second as an excellent harbour,\nthe third as a convenient arsenal for the wars with Arcadia, and the\nfourth as an internal point of union. That the peri\u0153ci dwelt in these\ntowns, and were dependent upon the Spartans, though without losing their\nfreedom.\u201d This account doubtless suited the historical style of Ephorus;\nbut it does not agree with the isolated but genuine traditions already\nmentioned.\n\nThe division into six provinces is nevertheless, in my opinion, to be\nconsidered as an historical fact; only the arrangement could not have been\nmade till a much later period. Of these provinces, the first comprehended\nthe district of the city; the second, the mountain-chain of Taygetus, with\nthe western coast; the third, the Laconian gulf; the fourth, perhaps the\nmodern Zaconia, on the eastern side of the Eurotas; the fifth, the\nnorthern frontier; and the sixth, the lower valley of the Eurotas. The\nreality of such a division is also confirmed by the existence of a similar\none in Messenia; which is spoken of by other writers besides Ephorus.(368)\nFor this country is also said to have been divided by Cresphontes, so that\nStenyclarus was the habitation of the Dorians and their king, under whose\nauthority were placed the Messenian districts of Pylos, Rhium, Mesola, and\nHyamia; of these, Pylos apparently comprehended the whole western coast;\nRhium is the promontory of Methone and the neighbouring southern coast;\nHyamia may perhaps be the shore of the Messenian bay nearest to the\nfrontiers of Laconia; Mesola signifies the midland district(369) near the\nPamisus; and Stenyclarus is the northern plain of Messenia.\n\n14. We have now another instance of the arbitrary manner in which Ephorus\ncomposed his history by probable arguments. He proceeds upon the fact that\nEurysthenes and Procles, although the founders of Sparta, were not\nhonoured as such (as \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9), that they did not enjoy any divine\nhonour, did not give their name to any tribe, &c. (Now the very first of\nthese statements is false; for Eurysthenes and Procles, according to the\nnative tradition, were _not_ the founders of Sparta, as was shown above.)\nHence Ephorus infers that they must have offended the Dorians; and he\nfinds the cause of this offence in the adoption of foreign citizens,\nthrough whose assistance they had extended their power. This instance is a\nsufficient justification for our rejecting the historical system of\nEphorus, and neglecting the results which he obtained by it.\n\nThere must have been many stories concerning Eurysthenes and Procles\ncurrent in ancient times which have not come down to us. There was a\ngeneral tradition of their continual discord; and we know that the\nmilitary fame of Procles was as great as that of Eurysthenes was\ninsignificant.(370) There is, however, something peculiarly worthy of\nnotice in an incidental remark of Cicero,(371) that Procles died a year\nbefore Eurysthenes. Could there have been chronicles of so early a period,\nor is it possible that tradition should preserve such precise dates? It is\nalso a remarkable statement that the wives of both kings were likewise\ntwin sisters, Lathria and Anaxandra by name, daughters of Thersander king\nof the Cleon\u00e6ans, whose descent we mentioned above.(372) Some great heroic\nactions of So\u00fcs(373) (the \u201cviolent\u201d), the son of Procles, were also\ncelebrated in Sparta.(374) It was even said that he had carried on war\nagainst the Cleitorians; and it was related, that in the narrow valley of\nCleitor, when surrounded by enemies, and oppressed by intolerable thirst,\nhe promised to give up all his conquests, on the condition of himself and\nhis army being allowed to drink from the fountain: that upon this he\noffered the crown to any one who would abstain from drinking, but, no one\nbeing willing to gain it at this price, he moistened himself with water\nfrom the fountain, and departed without drinking.(375) But a Spartan king\nwould hardly have ventured, even some centuries afterwards, to lead an\narmy through the hostile territory of Arcadia, to a place at so\nconsiderable a distance as Cleitor, leaving behind so many hollow defiles,\nravines, and mountains.\n\n15. In the country which from this time forth obtained the name of\nMESSENIA,(376) Pylos was before the Doric migration the most important\ntown, whither the family of the Nelid\u00e6 had retired from the Triphylian\nterritory.(377) The Dorians under Cresphontes(378) at first seated\nthemselves in the opposite part of the country, at Stenyclarus, in the\nmidland region; they must however have soon pressed so closely upon Pylos,\nthat part of the inhabitants was forced to emigrate. For that many of the\nnoble families, both at Athens and in Asia Minor, came originally from\nPylos, is placed out of doubt by the agreement of many national and family\ntraditions; and it is equally certain that they did not leave Peloponnesus\nlong before the Ionic migration. Mimnermus, the most ancient witness to\nthis fact, says that the founders of his native city Colophon came from\nthe Nelean Pylos;(379) _i.e._, he calls Andr\u00e6mon, the founder of Colophon,\na Pylian; where it almost seems that the poet meant a direct migration\nfrom that place. Pylos however (though it is generally considered to have\nbeen in the possession of the Dorians from this epoch) probably remained\nfor some time an independent town, with a limited territory; even in the\nsecond Messenian war some Nestorid\u00e6 went as allies to the Messenians;(380)\nand, after the defeat of the Messenians, the Pylians and the Methon\u00e6ans\nwere able to harbour them for a considerable time.(381)\n\n16. Of the internal condition of Messenia we cannot even know so much as\nof that of Laconia, since, at the cessation of its political existence,\nits monuments, and even its inhabitants, perished; and thus all means of\nperpetuating a knowledge of its former state were entirely lost. Yet,\nsetting aside the accounts of Ephorus, there remain some very simple\ncircumstances from which we may form an idea of the condition of the\ncountry. It is related, that when Cresphontes was treacherously\nassassinated, the Arcadians, in conjunction with the kings of Sparta and\nCeisus king of Argos, re-established in his place his son \u00c6pytus,(382) who\nhad been brought up with Cypselus the Arcadian, the father of his mother\nMerope,(383) and who rendered himself so celebrated, that all his\ndescendants were called \u00c6pytid\u00e6. The name of \u00c6pytus is evidently connected\nwith \u00c6pytis, a district on the frontiers of Arcadia and Messenia, near the\nancient Andania, the earliest seat of civilization and religious worship\nin the country. The names of his descendants, Glaucus, Isthmius, Dotades,\nSybotas (swine-herd), Phintas (or \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2), are in remarkable contrast\nwith those of the Laced\u00e6monian kings, as Eurysthenes (widely-ruling),\nProcles (the renowned), Agis (the general), So\u00fcs (the violent),\nEchestratus (the general), Eurypon (the widely-reigning), Labotas\n(shepherd of the people), and so forth; for, whilst the latter signify\npowerful warrior princes, there sounds in the former something peaceable\nand pastoral. What Pausanias relates of these Messenian princes refers\nalmost exclusively to a peaceful office\u2014viz., the establishment of\nfestivals; the gods also to whom they were consecrated agree with the same\ngeneral character. Glaucus and Isthmius, we are told, established or\npromoted the worship of \u00c6sculapius at Gerenia and Phar\u00e6: Sybotas joined to\nthe ancient worship of the great gods at Andania the funeral sacrifices of\nthe hero Eurytus, brought over from the Thessalian to the Messenian\n\u0152chalia; and others in the same manner. In fact this Cabirian worship of\nDemeter at Andania, allied to that prevalent in Attica at Eleusis and\nPhyla, was one of the most ancient in Peloponnesus, and at that time\nflourished in Messenia;(384) whereas, according to Herodotus, the Dorians\neverywhere exterminated the ancient rites of Demeter.(385) Hence also the\nmystical consecration of Andania was discontinued as long as Messenia was\ngoverned by the Spartans, and it fell into oblivion, until many centuries\nafterwards Epaminondas solemnly re-established it, either from the mere\nrecollection of the inhabitants, or, if the account be true, upon the\nauthority of an inscription on a tin plate found in a brazen urn,\ncontaining some obscure words referring to ancient mystic ceremonies.(386)\n\nThe re-establishment of \u00c6pytus may, however, have been effected by the\nthreefold alliance of both the princes and nations of Argos, Sparta, and\nMessenia, by which they guaranteed their respective rights, an alliance of\nwhich Plato has preserved a faint, though undoubted trace, marked out in\nthe spirit of his political philosophy.(387)\n\nFrom the settlements of the Dorians _within_ Peloponnesus, we now turn to\nthose _without_ that peninsula.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Doric colonies of Argos, Epidaurus, and Tr\u0153zen. \u00a7 2. Doric\n    league of Asia Minor. \u00a7 3. Mythical accounts of the colonization\n    of Halicarnassus, Rhodes, Cos, Nisyrus, Carpathos, and Casos. \u00a7 4.\n    Rhodian colonies. \u00a7 5 and 6. Legends respecting the foundation of\n    Mallus, Mopsuestia, Mopsucrene, and Phaselis. \u00a7 7 and 8. Colonies\n    of Corinth. \u00a7 9 and 10. Colonies of Megara. \u00a7 11 and 12. Colonies\n    of Sparta.\n\n\n1. On account of the multiplicity of subjects which it will be now\nnecessary to consider, we shall be compelled to shorten the discussion of\nseveral points, and to take for granted many collateral questions, except\nwhere we may be encouraged to enter into greater detail by the hope of\ndisclosing fresh fields for the inquiries of others.\n\nIt will be the most convenient method to make the mother-states the basis\nof our arrangement, as these are known with far greater certainty than the\ndates of the foundation of their respective colonies; by which means we\nshall also be enabled to take in a regular order those settlements which\nlie near to, and were connected with, one another.\n\nFirst, the colonies of ARGOS, EPIDAURUS, and TR\u0152ZEN. We will treat of\nthese together, as they all lie in the same direction, and as the colonies\nof the two last states more or less recognised the supremacy of Argos, and\nnot unfrequently followed a common leader. These extend as far as the\nsouthern extremity of Asia Minor.\n\nThe Dorians on the south-western coast of Asia Minor derived their origin,\naccording to Herodotus,(388) from Peloponnesus. And indeed they were\ngenerally considered a colony of Argos(389) (from which state Strabo\nderives Rhodes, Halicarnassus, Cnidus, and Cos), led by princes of the\nHeraclid\u00e6, from whom the noble families of Rhodes\u2014for example, the Eratid\u00e6\nor Diagorid\u00e6 at Ialysus\u2014claimed to be descended.(390) This emigration was\nconsidered contemporary, and as having some connexion with the expedition\nof Alth\u00e6menes, the son of Ceisus, from Argos to Crete.(391) Now we know\nfrom Herodotus(392) that the Coans, Calydnians, and Nisyrians came from\nEpidaurus; yet, as is evident from arguments already brought forward, two\ndifferent expeditions cannot be understood to have taken place. Thus also\n\u00c6gina was called a colony of Argos as well as of Epidaurus. The account of\nHerodotus is confirmed by the similarity of the worship of \u00c6sculapius at\nCos and at Epidaurus, which was sufficiently great to prove a colonial\nconnexion.(393) We have also a tradition of some sacred missions between\nCos and Epidaurus; a ship of the latter is said to have brought a serpent\nof \u00c6sculapius to the former state.(394) If this is considered as an\nhistorical fact, we may, as it appears, deduce more from it than is\ncommonly inferred\u2014viz. that the Doric colonists of Cos, Calydna, &c.\nremained in Epidaurus a sufficient time before their passage into Asia\nMinor to adopt the worship of \u00c6sculapius. And since we find that the\nworship of \u00c6sculapius also prevailed in Cnidos and Rhodes,(395) it may be\nfairly inferred, that of the inhabitants of these islands a part at least\npassed through Epidaurus. This is further confirmed by the orator\nAristides, who, on the authority of the national tradition, states of the\nRhodians, \u201cthat from ancient times they had been Dorians, and had had\nHeraclid\u00e6 and Asclepiad\u00e6 for their princes.\u201d(396) Thus also there were\nfamilies of the Asclepiad\u00e6 and Heraclid\u00e6 at Cos, to the former of which\nHippocrates was related on his father\u2019s side, to the latter on his\nmother\u2019s.(397) Contemporaneous with this migration from Argos and\nEpidaurus was that from Tr\u0153zen,(398) in which Halicarnassus, _the citadel\nupon the sea_ (\u1f01\u03bb\u03b9-\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd), was founded; which fact also receives\nconfirmation from the similarity of religious worship.(399) And indeed\nthere is reason for believing that it was only one Doric tribe, the\nDymanes, which colonized this city,(400) who strengthened themselves by\ncollecting together the earlier inhabitants, the Leleges and Carians.(401)\n\n2. Those towns, however, only which composed the Doric Tripolis of Rhodes\n(a number which probably originated from the division of the tribes),\ntogether with Cnidos, Cos, and Halicarnassus, formed the regular Doric\nleague (before the separation of Halicarnassus called the Hexapolis,\nafterwards the Pentapolis). The members of this alliance met on the\nTriopian promontory to celebrate in public national festivals the rites of\nApollo and Demeter, which last were of extreme antiquity;(402) its\ninfluence in political affairs was however probably very\ninconsiderable.(403) But, besides those already mentioned, many towns and\nislands in this district were peopled by Dorians.(404) The small island of\nTelos, near Triopium, was probably dependent upon Lindos:(405) Nisyrus and\nCalydna (or Calymna) have been already mentioned; the inhabitants were\nEpidaurian Dorians, who belonged to the colony of Cos:(406) Carpathus also\nreceived some Argive colonists. It is said to have been taken by Ioclus,\nthe son of Demoleon, an Argive by descent.(407) Syme also was colonised\nfrom Cnidos: of this town we shall make further mention when speaking of\nthe Laconian settlements. The inhabitants of Astypal\u00e6a were partly derived\nfrom Megara;(408) their Doric origin is attested by the dialect of decrees\nnow extant;(409) and by the same circumstance we are enabled to recognise\nas a Doric colony Anaphe,(410) which is situated near the Doric islands of\nThera, Pholegandros,(411) and Melos; the position of these islands,\ntogether forming a chain across the southern part of the \u00c6g\u00e6an sea, shows\nthat they were colonized in a connected and regular succession. Myndus,\nhowever, upon the mainland had received inhabitants from the same town as\nHalicarnassus;(412) perhaps Mylasa had also had some connexion with the\nDorians.(413) Cryassa in Caria was colonised by inhabitants of the Doric\nisland of Melos.(414) Even Synnada and Noricum, further to the interior in\nPhrygia, had inhabitants of Doric origin;(415) yet the Spartan settlement\nin Noricum is a fact which it is difficult to understand; and with regard\nto the former we are wholly unable to state how the Dorians could have\npenetrated thus far.\n\nI have now, though not without in some measure forestalling the regular\ncourse of these investigations, given an account of all the known cities\nin this territory which were founded by Dorians of Peloponnesus; and if to\nthese we add the colonies from Rhodes upon the opposite coast of Asia, and\nthe cities of Lycia founded from the island of Crete, in which the Doric\ndialect was doubtless spoken, we shall have before us a very extensive\nrange of colonies belonging to that race. Some of these were probably\ndependent upon the more considerable; many on the contrary stood entirely\nalone, some very early disagreements having, as it appears, separated and\nestranged them from the league of the six towns.(416) Hence the Calymnians\n(or Calydnians) at a later period, on the occasion of embarrassing\nlawsuits, had recourse not to the larger states of the same race, but to\nthe Iasians (who, though a colony from Argos, had afterwards learned the\nhabits and character of the Ionic race by a settlement from Miletus),(417)\nwhich nation sent them five judges. This circumstance, however, may be\naccounted for by a temporary resemblance of their constitutions.(418)\n\n3. Having thus put together the most simple historical accounts respecting\nthe foundation of these Doric cities, we have still to examine the\nmythical narrations with which they are accompanied, and which were\ninvented by representing the same colonies under different names, and\nattributing a false antiquity to their establishment. That this was in\nfact the case is evident from the mythical account which is connected with\nthe colony of Tr\u0153zen, viz. \u201cthat Anthes and his son A\u00ebtius, ancient\nprinces of the Tr\u0153zenians, had in early times founded Halicarnassus.\u201d(419)\nThis tradition, however, contradicts itself, when compared with the\nadditional account in Callimachus,(420) \u201cthat Anthes had taken out Dymanes\nwith him;\u201d which was _exclusively_ a civil division of the Dorians. It is\ntherefore far preferable to follow the statement of Pausanias,(421) that\nthe descendants of A\u00ebtius passed over to Halicarnassus and Myndus long\nafter his death. It must not, however, from this circumstance be inferred\nthat these descendants of A\u00ebtius were leaders of the colony, since it was\nnecessary that these should be Doric Heraclid\u00e6. But they were in all\nprobability a family which cultivated the worship of Poseidon in\npreference to any other, and carried it over with them to the colony. But\nthat a family of this kind, and with it the tradition and name of Anthes,\nactually prevailed in Halicarnassus, is seen also from the poetical name\nof the Halicarnassians (Anthead\u00e6.)(422)\n\nThere is also a great similarity in the part which Tlepolemus bears in the\nhistory of the colonisation of Rhodes. In this case also the mythical hero\nis represented as coming from Argos,(423) as well as the historical\ncolony, only at an earlier period. But, it may be objected, the colony is\nrelated to have come immediately from Epidaurus, and not the hero. We\nhave, however, still an evident trace of mythical genealogies of Rhodes,\nin which Tlepolemus was represented as immediately connected with the\nHeraclid\u00e6 of Epidaurus. For Pindar celebrates the Diagorid\u00e6 as descended\non the father\u2019s side from Zeus, from Amyntor on the mother\u2019s, because both\nthese were the grandfathers of Tlepolemus.(424) Now Deiphontes of\nEpidaurus was also descended on his mother\u2019s side from Amyntor, and was\ntherefore very nearly related to Tlepolemus. We may also probably suppose\nthat there was in this Argive and Epidaurian colony a family which derived\nitself from Tlepolemus the son of Hercules, by which means the traditions\nconcerning him were connected with this migration.(425) The same want of\nconsistency which we observed above, may here also be perceived in the\nstatement of Homer, that the colony of Tlepolemus was divided into three\nparts, according to the different races of the settlers;(426) whence it is\nevident that he was always considered as a Doric prince.\n\nThirdly, the colony of Cos, Nisyrus, Carpathus, and Casos also possessed\nleaders or heroic founders, whose expedition is reported to have taken\nplace at a time different from that at which the colony was founded, and\nis placed back in a remote period, viz. Phidippus and Antiphus, sons of\nThessalus the Heraclide, or of Hercules himself. Their origin is derived\nby the fable from the irruption of Hercules into Cos, where he made\npregnant the daughter of Euryphylus; afterwards they are said to have\nmigrated to Ephyra in Thesprotia, and their descendants to have gone from\nthence to Thessaly, where the Aleuad\u00e6, the most distinguished and the\nwealthiest family of Larissa, claimed them as ancestors.(427) Again, I do\nnot deny that Heraclide families in exile at Cos derived their origin from\nboth these heroes (it was indeed by this means that the name of Thessalus\nfound its way into the Asclepiad family of Hippocrates); but that these\nfamilies were born in the island of Cos itself, is evidently a patriotic\ninvention of the Coans. There were, as we have seen, traditions respecting\nPhidippus and Antiphus in Cos, and also at Ephyra in Thesprotia; which\ntraditions the fables and poems respecting the returns of the heroes from\nTroy, endeavoured to reconcile, by making Antiphus reach Ephyra, after a\nseries of wanderings, instead of going directly to Cos; a supposition\nwhich will not gain many believers. It is also plain from the epigram of\nAristotle,(428) that, according to the traditions of Ephyra, that city was\nconsidered as the _native country_, and the domicile of the two heroes;\nand therefore was in direct opposition to the Coan tradition. Now that a\nHeraclide family should have gone from Cos to Ephyra in Epirus, is\ncontrary to all other examples of the migrations of Greek races and\ncolonies, and all that we know of the dispersion of Heraclide clans or\nfamilies. On the other hand, a part of the mythology of Hercules, which\nappears to be of great antiquity,(429) refers to this Ephyra in Epirus;\nand it was then quite natural, that with the conquest of Ephyra (a\nfabulous exploit of Hercules) the origin of a branch of the Heraclid\u00e6\nshould be connected, who then came with the Dorians into Peloponnesus, and\nby means of the Epidaurian colony to the island of Cos.\n\n4. The favourable situations of these Doric cities on islands and\npromontories, possessing roadsteads and harbours convenient for maritime\nintercourse, attracted in early times a considerable number of colonies.\nIt is remarkable that the RHODIANS should have founded fewer and less\nconsiderable colonies on the coast of Asia Minor than in the countries to\nthe west: for, with the exception of Per\u00e6a, which was not till later times\ndependent on this island, the only Rhodian towns in Asia Minor were\nGag\u00e6(430) and Corydalla(431) in Lycia, Phaselis,(432) on the confines of\nLycia and Pamphylia, and Soli in Cilicia.(433) On the other hand, in\nOlymp. 16. 4. 713 B.C., according to Thucydides, about the time of their\ncolonising Phaselis, they founded in Sicily the splendid city of Gela, the\nmother-town of Agrigentum. This colony was sent from Lindus, which\nfurnished its leader Antiphemus (or Deinomenes.)(434) It was accompanied\nby inhabitants of the small island of Telos;(435) and was at the same time\njoined by some Cretan emigrants. That however the numbers of those who\ncame from the first-mentioned town predominated, is shown by the original\nname of the settlement, \u039b\u03af\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, and by the religion there established.\nDoric institutions were common to all the founders above mentioned, and\nwere consequently established in their settlements.(436) The connexion and\nintercourse with those islands continued without interruption; hence it\nwas that, in later times, the family of Phalaris, coming from Astypal\u00e6a,\nfound a welcome reception at Agrigentum;(437) and the family of the\nEmmenid\u00e6, which overthrew Phalaris, had come from the same region, viz.\nfrom Thera.(438) Moreover, Parthenope, in the country of the Osci, and\nElpi\u00e6, or Salapi\u00e6, in the territory of the Daunians (in the founding of\nwhich the inhabitants of Cos had a share), were beyond a doubt settlements\nof the Rhodians; and indeed this same people penetrated even to Iberia at\nan early period, and there founded Rhode; and we have also traces of their\npresence at the mouth of the Rhone.(439) Hence also, perhaps, arose the\naccount of the expedition of Tlepolemus to the Balearic islands; which\naccount, and the statement that Sybaris was founded by him, may be\nunderstood merely as mythical expressions for the voyages undertaken by\nthe Rhodians in the western sea.\n\n5. It is, however, a matter even of still greater difficulty to determine\nthe true history of several cities in Asia Minor, which are reported by\ntradition to have been colonies of Argos, and generally of the greatest\nantiquity. But it requires nothing short of absolute superstition to\nbelieve that Tarsus was founded by Io, or Perseus the Argive,(440) who,\nwith his descendant Hercules, was worshipped in this place as a tutelar\ndeity;(441) or that Mallus, Mopsuestia, Mopsucrene, and Phaselis were\nfounded by Argive soothsayers at the time of the Trojan war.(442) To these\nmay be added Aspendus in Pamphylia, Curium in Cyprus, and even Ione, near\nAntiochia, in Syria,(443) the founding of which place is attributed to the\nArgives. For, without considering the period at which the ancient\nPeloponnesians are represented to have undertaken such distant (and at\nthat time impossible) voyages round the Chelidonian islands, it is most\nsingular that Argos, which is at no time mentioned among the maritime\nnations of Greece, should have planted upon that one line of coast a\nseries of colonies in so connected an order, and so completely useless to\nherself. We will therefore venture to advance an hypothesis, to which,\nthough perhaps no complete proofs of it can be adduced, we have still\nsufficient traces to lead us, viz. that all these towns were colonised\nfrom Rhodes; but that, by a form frequently in use, they were led out in\nthe name of Argos, the mother-country of Rhodes, and under the auspices of\nArgive gods and heroes.(444) In the first place, Argives and Rhodians are\nmentioned together as founders; as in the instance of Soli, which\nnevertheless only defended the Rhodians as a sister state before the Roman\nsenate.(445) Of the manner in which heroes were adopted as founders, the\ncity just mentioned furnishes a good instance. For the Argive soothsayer\nAmphilochus is said to have come hither, who, according to poems that went\nunder the name of Hesiod, had been put to death by Apollo at Soli.(446)\nThe following example gives a still clearer notion of the manner in which\nthese fables were formed. The Rhodians built Phaselis at the same time\nwith Gela (Olymp. 16. 713 B.C.); the founder is called Lacius, whom the\nDelphian oracle had sent to the east, as it had Antiphemus to the\nwest.(447) Now it is shown in another part of this work(448) that Lacius\nis a Cretan form for Rhacius; and this was the name of the husband of\nManto, and father of Mopsus, the ancient mythical prophet of the temple at\nClaros. For, leaving no doubt that this person is intended, the tradition\nalso says, that this Mopsus, the son of Rhacius, founded Phaselis:(449)\nPamphylia itself is called the daughter of Rhacius and of Manto;(450) and\nlastly, the same Lacius is represented as a contemporary of Mopsus, and as\nhaving been sent out by Manto as a founder at the same time with the\nlatter.(451) The inference that we must draw is, that there was no such\nindividual as Lacius who led the Lindians in person to Phaselis, but that\nhe was merely a mythical being, and represents the Clarian oracle, which\nseems to have co-operated on this occasion.(452) Those who are versed in\nthe interpretation of mythical narratives will also hence infer, that the\nsame was the case with his contrary, \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. In order, however, to\ngive the mother-state, Argos, a share in the mythical account of the\nfoundation of the Pamphylian colonies, it was necessary that Amphilochus,\nwho belonged to the family of the Amythaonid\u00e6, should, together with\nCalchas, have some connexion with them all; and, in fact, it is not\nimpossible that soothsayers from Argos, who called themselves descendants\nof this prophet and hero, were procured by the Rhodians for this service.\n\n6. We may now penetrate somewhat deeper into the obscure traditions of the\nCilician cities Mallus, Mopsuestia, and Mopsucrene. In the fables\nconcerning the founding of these towns, Amphilochus and Mopsus are always\nmentioned together; at the same time that the account of their Argive\norigin is very much brought into notice. Cicero calls both these prophets\non this occasion kings of Argos.(453) Here then we may also assume that\nsoothsayers were brought from the mother-country, and suppose that the\nprophets of the Amphilochian oracle of Mallus were actually natives of\nArgos; and although, as will be shown below, the influence of the Clarian\nworship was also felt,(454) yet the persons who were the real colonisers\ncould only have been a sea-faring people, such as the Rhodians. In\nconsequence, however, of these settlements having been founded at a very\nearly period, when all colonies were as yet entirely dependent upon the\noracles, and therefore were always under the direction of prophets, and as\nan inventive and imaginative spirit was then in full vigour, their true\nhistory has been enveloped in a thick cloud of mythological fiction, which\nwe have at least begun to remove.\n\n7. We next proceed to the CORINTHIAN colonies, the geographical situation\nof which alone affords a remarkable result with regard to the maritime\nexpeditions undertaken by the mother-country. For although Corinth had two\nharbours, Lech\u00e6um in the Cris\u00e6an, and Cenchre\u00e6 in the Saronic gulf, it it\nevident that all its colonies were sent out from the western port. They\nwere founded, almost without exception, on the coasts of the Ionian sea;\nat the entrance of which the Corinthians had, perhaps at a very early\nperiod, founded the city of Molycreium.(455) Notwithstanding this, the\nvery first colony from Corinth, the date of which is known within a few\nyears (Olymp. 5. 760-757 B.C.),(456) ventured to cross the Ionian sea, and\nto found in the most beautiful part of Sicily the renowned city of\nSyracuse. The founder was Archias a Heraclide, and probably also of the\nfamily of the Bacchiad\u00e6;(457) he was followed by Corinthians, chiefly from\nthe borough of Tenea;(458) and on the road was joined by some Dorians from\nMegara;(459) the expedition was also accompanied by a prophet of the\nsacred family of Olympia, the Iamid\u00e6, whose descendants flourished at\nSyracuse in the time of Pindar.(460) It appears, however, that Syracuse at\nthat time borrowed many religious institutions from Olympia, as is proved\nby the worship of Arethusa, of Artemis Ortygia, and of the Olympian\nZeus.(461) These original founders built a town in the island of Ortygia,\nthe name of which can be explained only from the worship of the goddess\njust mentioned. The lands taken from the aboriginal Sicilians they divided\ninto lots, according to the number of the colonists. For the method\nuniversally observed in founding these colonies was, that the adventurers\nreceived before-hand a promise of a share in the territory\u2014which also was\ncalled a lot. On the occasion of this very settlement, \u00c6thiops, a\nCorinthian glutton, is said to have sold a promise of this kind to a\ncompanion for one honey-cake.(462) Eumelus the Bacchiad, the celebrated\npoet of Corinth, seems to have been one of these colonists,(463) as he is\nmentioned in connexion with Archias. Although the _demus_, or populace of\nthe city, chiefly perhaps consisted of inhabitants of various nations, who\nput themselves under the protection of this colony, and although the\nterritory around was peopled by Sicilian bondsmen, yet in its dialect, and\nprobably for a considerable period in its customs also, Syracuse remained\na purely Doric state: as the women in Theocritus say,(464) \u201c_Our origin is\nCorinthian, and therefore we speak the language of Peloponnesus. For it is\npermitted, I suppose, to the Dorians to speak Doric._\u201d Hence the\nSyracusans were so greatly pleased with an ambassador from Lucania, who\nhad learnt to speak Doric in order to address them in their native\ntongue.(465) Syracuse increased so rapidly in population and power, that\nseventy years after its foundation it colonized Acr\u00e6, and also Enna,\nsituated in the centre of the island; twenty years after this, the town of\nCasmen\u00e6; and in forty-five more, Camarina. Also some Syracusan(466)\nfugitives named Myletid\u00e6, together with Chalcideans from Zancle, are said\nto have founded Himera: hence the dialect there in use was a mixture of\nChalcidean and Doric; but the institutions were entirely Chalcidean.\n\n8. The other Corinthian colonies, as has been already remarked, were all\nsituated to the east of the Ionian sea. The nearest of these are, besides\ntheir colony of Molycreium, Chalcis in \u00c6tolia,(467) and Solium in\nAcarnania;(468) further on, we find that Ambracia was in very early times\nfounded by Corinth,(469) and accordingly was governed by a brother of\nPeriander;(470) by the influence of this settlement Amphilochian Argos\nchanged its language and customs for those of the Greeks.(471) Anactorium\nwas founded by the Corinthians, under the command of Periander, in\nconjunction with the Corcyr\u00e6ans. At the same time, and in connexion with\nthe same persons, they occupied the island of Leucadia;(472) to the\npossession of which, however, the Corcyr\u00e6ans, as they were at that time\nsubject to Corinth, had no just claim; and Themistocles unquestionably did\nwrong in attributing any such right to them;(473) the Leucadians also\nalways remained firm to their real parent-state. Next comes Corcyra\nitself, the founding of which by Chersicrates the Bacchiad(474) is\nrepresented as having been a secondary branch of the colony sent to\nSyracuse;(475) but it had at a very early period set itself up as a rival\nto the mother-state in the Ionian sea, whose ancient power had been\nprobably broken before the Persian war. On the opposite coast lay\nEpidamnus, which city was chiefly founded by Corcyr\u00e6ans, but under the\ncommand of Phalius, the son of Eratocleides, a Corinthian Heraclide, whom\nthe Corcyr\u00e6ans, according to the ancient colonial law, had sent for,\ntogether with some of his countrymen (in Olymp. 38. 2. 629 B.C. according\nto Eusebius), and were afterwards strengthened by emigrants from\nDyspontium in Pisatis.\u2014Lastly, Gylax, a Corinthian, together with 200 of\nhis own countrymen, and a greater number of Corcyr\u00e6ans, founded Apollonia\nin the time of Periander. Here ends the list of Corinthian colonies, which\nformed a strong and continuous chain along the coast; and thus even the\nbarbarians of the interior, especially the Epirots of Thesprotia, were\nforced to maintain a perpetual connexion with Corinth:(476) hence also the\nkings of the Lyncest\u00e6 in Macedonia esteemed it an honour to derive their\norigin from the Bacchiad\u00e6.(477) At a still further distance lay the island\nof Issa, which was colonized from Syracuse.(478) Corcyra, however,\npossessed settlements as far as the Flanatian gulf.(479) From these facts\nit is evident that there was a time when Corinth predominated in these\nseas; and by means of Corcyra and Ambracia, and other towns, ruled over\nmany nations of barbarians. But the loss of Corcyra, which had been at war\nwith its mother-state in the 28th Olympiad (about 668 B.C.),(480) even\nbefore the time of Periander (though it was for a short time again reduced\nto subjection by the enterprising Cypselid\u00e6), was an incurable wound for\nCorinth. The other colonies, however, showed a remarkable obedience to\nher.(481) It was not till after the loss of their maritime dominion in\nthese quarters (an event which had nevertheless taken place before the\nPersian war) that the Corinthians appear to have founded Potid\u00e6a on the\nopposite side of Greece in Chalcidice, which colony they sought to retain\nin their power by continually interfering in its internal administration,\nand for this purpose sent thither every year magistrates named\nEpidemiurgi.(482)\n\n9. MEGARA, on the other hand, was induced by its situation to send even\nits first colonies to the opposite side of Greece on the Thracian coast.\nThus in Olymp. 17. 3. 710 B.C. it founded Ast\u00e6us in Bithynia;(483)\nafterwards Chalcedon, on the entrance of the Bosporus(484) in Olymp. 26.\n2. 675 B.C. (according to Eusebius); and 17 years later (Olymp. 30. 3. 658\nB.C.) Byzantium in a more favoured spot, opposite to Chalcedon.(485) The\nArgives also had a share in the foundation of this town; for which fact we\nmay trust the general assertion of Hesychius of Miletus, that his\ncircumstantial and fabulous history of the early times of this city was\nderived from ancient poets and historians. For the transmission of the\nworship of Here (whose temple both at Byzantium and Argos was on the\ncitadel),(486) and the traditions concerning Io, the attendant of the\nArgive Here, confirm in a manner which does not admit of a doubt, the\npretensions of Argos to a share in this colony. Io, who was represented\nwith horns on her forehead, is said to have here produced to Zeus a\ndaughter, Cero\u00ebssa the \u201cHorned\u201d by name (which is, however, only a\ndifferent name for Io herself), who being suckled by the nymph Semestra,\nafterwards brought forth Byzas.(487) Thence the fable of the cow swimming\nover the sea became peculiar to this place.(488) In other respects the\ncombinations of religious ceremonies as found at Byzantium, almost exactly\nresembled that which existed in Megara. Nay, so carefully did the\nByzantians, though far removed from their mother-state, preserve the\nremembrance of it, that they carried over almost all the names of their\nnative country and the neighbouring region. We find on the coast a temple\nof Poseidon, whose son was named Byzas; also of Demeter and Cora; the\nScironian rocks, an Isthmian promontory, with the tomb of Hipposthenes a\nMegarean hero, the temple of Apollo on the high promontory of Metopum;\nalso an altar of Saron, a pretended hero, whose name referred to the\nSaronic gulf.(489) Thus Byzantium was never estranged from its\nPeloponnesian ancestors, although it adopted a large number of additional\ncolonists,(490) and ruled over Thracian subjects. Moreover, the prevailing\ndialect, which occurs in some public decrees still extant, remained for a\nlong time Doric.(491) The Byzantians, together with the Chalcedonians,\neither at the time of the expedition of Darius against the Scythians, or\nof the Ionic revolt, founded Mesambria on the Pontus,(492) which some\nconsider as a colony of Megara. The Megareans had also founded Selymbria\neven before the settlement of Byzantium,(493) and probably carried on from\nthis place a war with the Samians at Perinthus,(494) when that island was\nstill governed by Geomori, before the time of Polycrates. Moreover, the\nMegareans had a large share in the founding of Heraclea on the Pontus; for\nalthough they were strengthened by some Tanagr\u00e6ans from B\u0153otia, their\nnumbers so predominated that this city was in general considered as\nDoric.(495)\n\n10. Megara, however, at the same time founded some very considerable\ncolonies to the west, viz., in Sicily. It will be sufficient to state in\ngeneral terms that Hybla in Sicily was a Megarean colony, established in\nthe 13th Olympiad (about 728 B.C.), and was even called Megara.(496) It\nprobably kept up a constant intercourse with the mother-state; since\nTheognis, who was a Megarean from Sicily, according to Plato, dwelt\nnevertheless for a long time in the Megara near Athens, to which state\nmany of his poems refer.(497) The founding of the small town of Trogilus,\nand of the more important city of Thapsos, preceded the building of\nMegara. A century later, some inhabitants of Megara founded Selinus in the\nneighbourhood of that part of the island, which town was in early times\nheld by the Ph\u0153nicians, in later times by the Carthaginians.\n\n11. The colonies of SPARTA, which still remain to be considered, were more\nnumerous than would be expected of a state so averse to maritime affairs.\nIn the history of the migrations of the Heraclid\u00e6, we find introduced the\ncolonies of Thera, Melos, Gortyna, and Cyrene; which, although for the\nsake of honour they recognised Sparta as their mother-state, had been in\nfact founded by Ach\u00e6ans, Minyans, and \u00c6gid\u00e6, who dwelt at that time in a\nstate of almost entire independence in a district of Laconia.(498) All\nthese states, however, retained the Doric name; and Cyrene, though even\nthe founders married Libyan women,(499) always preserved to the utmost of\nits power the institutions, customs, and language of its\nmother-country.(500) The founding of Cnidos also took place at an early\nperiod, and was generally ascribed to the Laced\u00e6monians.(501) The leader\nof the colony was, according to Diodorus, one Hippotes.(502) Syme also was\nat that time peopled from Cnidos.(503) The principal religion of this\ncity, that of Aphrodite(504) (who was here worshipped in a three-fold\ncapacity), was without doubt the same as that which existed at Cythera,\nhaving been carried over by the Laced\u00e6monian colonists. The splendid city\nof Cnidos, protected toward the east by an Acropolis, which both its\nCyclopian architecture(505) and fabulous history prove to have existed\nbefore the time of the Dorians, was situated on a neck of land, with a\nharbour on each side, one of which was among the largest in Greece. Thus\nfitted by nature for commerce, Cnidos also founded colonies of its own,\namong which Lipara, established (in Olymp. 50, about 580 B.C.) upon one of\nthe \u00c6olian islands under the direction of descendants of Hippotes,(506)\novercame the Etruscans in several wars, and adorned Delphi with offerings\nof victory.(507) Another colony from Cnidos, remarkable chiefly for its\ndistance from the mother-country, is Black-Corcyra, on the coast of\nIllyria. Laced\u00e6mon herself, however, is said to have sent out colonies to\nPhrygia, Pisidia, and Cyprus. In the former country, Pisistratus, a\nSpartan, is said to have founded Noricum near Cel\u00e6n\u00e6 on the river\nMarsyas.(508) Selge in Pisidia is generally considered by the ancients to\nhave been a Laced\u00e6monian colony, and we frequently find on coins of a late\ndate this origin recognised. The representative of the state is Hercules\nthe Doric hero: moreover, the free spirit, the bravery, and the good laws\nof the Selg\u00e6ans (although the reverse is sometimes attributed to them)\nwere derived from their mother-state.(509) The wrestling youths in the act\nof grasping one another (\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9) represented on their coins,\nbespeak a love for gymnastic exercises. It should, however, be remembered,\nthat the founders of this colony were, according to a more exact\nstatement, Amycl\u00e6ans,(510) _i.e._ fugitive Peri\u0153ci, who perhaps had passed\nthrough Cnidos in their way to these districts. It appears that the\nSelg\u00e6ans founded Sagalassus,(511) which city is styled on its coins _The\nLaced\u00e6monian_. Perhaps Praxander went at the same time from Therapne in\nLaconia, with Cephas of Olenus (both Ach\u00e6ans by birth) to the island of\nCyprus, where they founded Lapathus and Ceronia.(512)\n\n12. But the most celebrated of all the Laced\u00e6monian colonies, and which\nreally proceeded from Sparta, was Tarentum. The history of its origin is\nburied in fable, in the accounts of the first Messenian war; the\naccompanying circumstances will be mentioned below. The leader of this\ncolony was Phalanthus, son of Aratus, a Heraclide.(513) Taras, on the\nother hand, is called the son of Poseidon, because this colony carried\nover the worship of that deity from T\u00e6narum to Italy. These emigrants also\nbrought with them other religious rites, as for instance the worship of\nHyacinthus;(514) likewise many names from their native country, as that of\nthe Eurotas, which they gave to the river Gal\u00e6sus.(515) But the fruitful\nand luxuriant territory to which they had moved, its soft and voluptuous\nclimate, and the commerce, for which Tarentum was well situated,(516) and\nalways open (although it never carried it on in an active manner), helped\nto engender that effeminacy of character, which gave countenance to the\nfable of the founders having been the sons of unmarried women (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03b9).\nStill, amidst all its degeneracy, Tarentum retained a certain degree of\ndependence on its mother-country: at the foundation of Heraclea the\nTarentines allowed Cleandridas a Spartan to be one of the original\ncolonists.(517) The friendship, moreover, of the Cnidians with the\nTarentines,(518) as well as that with the Cyreneans, was founded on the\nrecognition of a common origin. The colony of Croton (Olymp. 19. 2. 703\nB.C., according to Eusebius) consisted indeed of Ach\u00e6ans, who came partly\nfrom the maritime town of Rhyp\u00e6,(519) and partly from Laconia:(520) it\nmust, however, have been established under the authority of the Doric\nstate of Sparta, since Apollo and Hercules, the Doric god and hero, were\nhere worshipped with especial honour;(521) the early constitution was also\nDoric; and although in general we are not to look for truth in the poetry\nof Ovid, yet in this instance we may credit his statement that Myscellus\nthe founder was a Heraclide.(522) In like manner the Locrians, who (in\nOlymp. 24. 2. 683 B.C.) founded Locri, must have procured Spartans as\nleaders,(523) since (as their coins also show) they paid particular\nhonours to the Dioscuri, in time of distress in war the statues of these\ngods having been sent to them from Sparta, as being a people of the same\norigin;(524) and even in the Peloponnesian war they still adhered to the\ncause of Sparta.(525) Of a nature wholly different were the rapid and\ntransitory settlements of Dorieus the son of Anaxandrides, king of Sparta,\nwhich this noble adventurer founded in Sicily and Libya; when, scorning to\nsubmit to a worthless brother, and confiding in his own strength, he hoped\nto obtain by conquest a kingdom in a distant country.(526) Finally, the\nLyctians of Crete and other inhabitants of this island called themselves\ncolonists of Sparta. In all probability many of the ancient Doric cities\nof this country received fresh settlers from Laced\u00e6mon; which state, at\nthe beginning of the Olympiads(527) in the time of Alcamenes, and even\nduring the life of Lycurgus,(528) exercised a very considerable influence\nupon the internal affairs of Crete.\n\nHaving taken a view of the Doric settlements without Peloponnesus, we now\nreturn to the history of that peninsula, which we will divide into two\nperiods, namely, before and after the 40th Olympiad, or the year 620 B.C.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VII.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Sources of the early history of Peloponnesus. \u00a7 2. Quoit of\n    Iphitus, Registers of Victors at the Olympic and Carnean Games,\n    Registers at Sicyon and Argos. \u00a7 3. Registers of the Spartan\n    Kings. \u00a7 4. Spartan Rhetras, Land-marks. \u00a7 5. Lyric Poets, Oral\n    Tradition, and Political Institutions. \u00a7 6. Mythical character of\n    Lycurgus. \u00a7 7. Lycurgus founder of the sacred armistice of\n    Olympia. \u00a7 \u00a7 8. and 9. Messenian wars: sources of the history of\n    them. \u00a7 10. First Messenian war. \u00a7 11. Second Messenian war. \u00a7 12.\n    Influence in Arcadia obtained by the Spartans. \u00a7 13. Limited\n    ascendancy of Argos in Argolis. \u00a7 14. Disputes between Argos and\n    Sparta. \u00a7 15. Pheidon of Argos. \u00a7 16. Further struggles between\n    Argos and Sparta.\n\n\n1. Before we begin to collect and arrange the accounts extant concerning\nthe early history of Peloponnesus, it will be first necessary to ascertain\nwhat are our sources of information respecting the events of this period.\nFor the epic poets, who carried on an uninterrupted series of traditions\non the events of the mythical ages, and have thus thrown over this dark\nperiod some faint glimmerings which may in many places be condensed into a\ndistinct and useful light, only touch on a few points of the period whose\nhistory we are about to examine. On the other hand, indeed, the art of\nwriting was during this time introduced among the Greeks through their\nintercourse with Asia; but that a long time elapsed before it came into\ngeneral use, is evident from the almost surprising imperfection of those\nwritten documents which have been preserved to us of a date anterior to\nthe 60th Olympiad, in comparison with the great perfection of the works of\nGrecian art. For this reason, writing was long regarded in Greece as a\nforeign craft, and letters were considered (for example in the Tean\ncurses) as Ph\u0153nician symbols. Nevertheless, these few and scanty registers\nare the first materials for real history and chronology now extant. As\nsuch, the following have been made known to us from Peloponnesus.\n\n2. The _Quoit of Iphitus_, upon which was inscribed in a circle the\nformula for proclaiming the sacred armistice of Elis, and in which Iphitus\nand Lycurgus were mentioned as the founders of it.(529) There is no reason\nfor doubting its genuineness, which was recognised by Aristotle, and the\ninstitution which it mentioned was considered by all ancient writers as a\nreal fact.(530) Secondly, the _lists of the conquerors at the Olympic\ngames_ brought down uninterruptedly from the victory of Chor\u0153bus,(531)\nwhich always recorded the conquerors in the foot-race, and in later times\nat least those in the other games.(532) It is probable that they were\noriginally engraved on single pillars, and afterwards collected under the\ninspection of the Hellanodic\u00e6.(533) Similar catalogues of conquerors in\nother games, besides the four great ones, were also probably not uncommon,\nbut they were generally inscribed on separate pillars, and were therefore\nof little use to the historian.(534) The names of the _conquerors at the\nCarnean games_ at Sparta were also registered, so that Hellanicus was\nenabled to compose from them a work called \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9. The _register at\nSicyon_ contained a list of the priestesses of Here at Argos, and the\npoets and musicians of the games.(535) But this also contained fabulous\naccounts: for example, the invention of playing and singing on the harp by\nAmphion. Nor were the _catalogues of the priestesses of Here_, which were\nprobably kept at Argos, altogether free from fable, as may be perceived\nfrom the fragments of Hellanicus\u2019s chronological work on these\npriestesses, which was probably founded on the official catalogues.(536)\n\n3. There were also at Laced\u00e6mon public registers, in which Plutarch found\nmention of the daughters of Agesilaus;(537) and in those of the earliest\ntimes the same author discovered the Pythian oracle concerning\nLycurgus,(538) the same that Herodotus refers to in his first book. These\ndoubtless contained the names of all the kings, and probably also the\nyears of their reigns, as far back as Procles, who, according to a\nstatement noticed above, died one year before his brother\nEurysthenes.(539) This fact could hardly have been derived from any other\nsource than some national annals, though it is not impossible that it was\nfirst transferred to them from oral narrative; in which case, however, it\nis difficult to understand how tradition, contrary to its general\ncharacter, preserved dates. It was without doubt from these registers that\nCharon of Lampsacus, before the time of Herodotus, composed his work\nentitled, \u201c_The Prytanes, or Rulers, of Laced\u00e6mon_;\u201d(540) in which he also\nnoticed the sacred offerings and monuments of ancient times.(541) With\nrespect to the chronological labours of Tim\u00e6us, Polybius(542) says that\n\u201cthis writer compared the ephors with the kings of Laced\u00e6mon from the\nbeginning, and the archons at Athens and priestesses at Argos with the\nconquerors at the Olympic games, and noted the errors which the cities had\nmade in the registration, even when they only differed by three months.\u201d\nEratosthenes and Apollodorus founded their chronology, especially before\nthe Olympiads, upon the same list of the kings;(543) they both nearly\nagreed in reckoning 327 or 328 years from the expedition of the Heraclid\u00e6\nto the first Olympiad (776 B.C.),(544) which calculation would have been\nimpossible if the duration of each king\u2019s reign had not been known; for if\nthis computation is made by generations, reckoning about three to a\ncentury, quite a different number comes out.(545) Lycurgus, however, was\nplaced by Eratosthenes 108 years before the first Olympiad;(546) in which\ncomputation he certainly went on the authority of the Quoit of Iphitus;\nwhich agrees with the statement of Apollodorus, that Homer, who according\nto this chronologist flourished 148 years before the first Olympiad, was a\ncontemporary of Lycurgus when the latter was a young man.(547)\u2014It appears,\nhowever, that the name of Lycurgus was not preserved in any register of\nthe kings, since in that case it would have been impossible that he should\nhave been called by Herodotus the guardian of his nephew Labotas the\nEurysthenid,(548) by Simonides (who lived in great intimacy with king\nPausanias)(549) the son of Prytanis and brother of Eunomus the Proclid,\nand by others the son of Eunomus and guardian of his nephew\nCharilaus,(550) had there existed any genealogy of him which was\nsufficiently accredited. Hence we must infer that these catalogues only\ncontained the names of the kings, and not even of the royal guardians or\nprotectors, such as Lycurgus. On the other hand, the variations in the\nenumeration of the kings are unimportant, being confined to this, that in\nthe pedigree of the Proclid\u00e6 Herodotus(551) (or his transcribers) leaves\nout the name of So\u00fcs, which occurs in all the rest, and, contrary to\nPausanias, changes the order of Eunomus and Polydectes. Since the name of\nPolydectes is entirely wanting in Simonides and Eusebius, it is probable\nthat Polydectes and Eunomus are only different names of the same king; and\nthat Polydectes was the proper name, and Eunomus a title of honour.(552)\nUpon this hypothesis we obtain the following series of kings of the\nProclid line\u2014Prytanis, Polydectes, Charilaus, with tolerable certainty.\nThere must also have been registers of the names and years of the princes\nof Corinth, and the family of the Bacchiad\u00e6, since no one could have had\nthe boldness to invent them.(553) Indeed there were altogether many\npedigrees, particularly of the Heraclid\u00e6: as, for example, of families at\nCyrene,(554) and the Ptolemies;(555) their authority, however, could not\nhave been very great; in the latter, indeed, we cannot fail to recognise\nthe unscrupulous hand of Alexandrine flatterers. The ancient chronicles of\nElis, which Pausanias saw, appear to have contained complete pedigrees\nfrom Oxylus down to Iphitus;(556) although the descendants of the former\nwere not kings. The father of Iphitus was there stated to have been also\nnamed Iphitus, in contradiction to the common account.(557)\n\n4. None of these registers appear to have contained anything beyond the\nnames of conquerors at the games (which have seldom any reference to\nhistory), and princes with the years of their reigns. If anything more was\nnoted down, it was perhaps here and there an oracle, as those belonging to\nthe history of Sparta in Herodotus,(558) which were without doubt brought\nby the Pythians to Sparta in writing, at a very early period. To these may\nbe perhaps added some ancient _rhetras_;(559) under which term the ancient\nDorians included all political documents, laws, and treaties. The most\nancient instance of the last kind is the treaty between the Eleans and the\ninhabitants of Her\u00e6a, discovered by sir William Gell,(560) the writing of\nwhich is so extremely rude as to prove that they were little practised in\nthat art when it was engraved. It is however very doubtful how the Spartan\nrhetras of Lycurgus were drawn up. By some it has been supposed that they\nwere originally composed in metre, in order to be chanted by the youth of\nSparta;(561) but this is contradicted by the certain testimony(562) that\nTerpander of Antissa, whom the Spartans so highly esteemed, was the first\nwho set these laws to music, and first gave them a metrical and poetical\nform; and Terpander did not live till after the 26th Olympiad, or 672\nB.C.(563) But the rhetra which Plutarch has preserved as the genuine\nconstitutional formula bears a truly archaic character, since it contains\na command of the Pythian Apollo to the lawgiver in the infinitive mood,\nand does not fall into verse. I do not perceive why it might not have been\nwritten, as well as the contemporaneous inscription on the Quoit of\nIphitus, and the ancient oracles cited by Herodotus; at least we cannot in\nany other way account for the preservation of the words. The original\nrhetras, however, were very few, and formed merely the nucleus of a system\nof laws, more as a help to the memory than as a perfect code; hence the\nancients could with propriety say, that Zaleucus was the first who\ncommitted laws to writing.(564) The three rhetras, which were preserved\nbesides the former one, were merely certain general formulas, and by no\nmeans explicit laws; they had the form of an oracle, as having proceeded\nfrom the Pythian god,(565) but were written entirely in prose.(566)\n\nNext in the list of public monuments come the \u1f45\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, or landmarks of\nterritory. It is well known that we are in possession of such records of a\nlater period, belonging to the sacred territory of the Pythian Apollo (in\nwhich earlier surveys of the Amphictyonic Hieromnemons, and ancient\ninscriptions on boundary-stones are appealed to), belonging to Cretan\ntowns, and likewise to Samos and Priene, in which the inhabitants of\nPriene cite ancient records, preserved from the time of Bias in the temple\nof Athene.(567) Historical works were also composed from these\nmemorials.(568) Now there must also have been records of this kind in\nPeloponnesus, although the inscriptions, by which the Messenians wished to\nprove to the Romans their original boundary towards Laconia, were\nevidently not made till after their re-establishment by Epaminondas.(569)\n\n5. These documents, if we were in possession of them, would afford a\nvaluable foundation for an account of the three centuries before regular\nhistory begins; but merely an outline, which would require to be filled up\nfrom other sources. This might partly be done from the writings of the\n_Lyric poets_, who flourished at that time, as Eumelus, Thaletas, Tyrt\u00e6us,\nAlcman, and Terpander;(570) which writers had frequent intercourse with\nthe Spartans, and introduced the events of the time into their poetry to a\nmuch greater degree than the epic poets. And in fact we find in the\nfragments of Tyrt\u00e6us and Alcman a lively representation of the feelings\nand manners of the period. The next source of information is _oral\ntradition_, which, though erring continually with regard to names and\nnumbers, yet always relates something essential; and, finally, the\n_political institutions_ continuing to exist in later times, which had\ntheir origin in this period.\n\nThese, and no other than these, can have been the means employed by the\nauthors who wrote on the affairs of Laconia, in the century when history\nwas approaching to maturity, such as Hellanicus, Charon, and Herodotus;\nand either directly or indirectly must have afforded materials to those\nwho treated of the times of Lycurgus during the later age of Greek\nlearning. But how little do we recognise the ancient simplicity and\nliveliness which characterise all the genuine remains of that time, in the\nhistorical style of Ephorus and Hermippus,(571) and their followers. The\nobject of these writers was to assimilate, as much as possible, the\nnotions of antiquity to those of their own time, and to attempt in some\nway or other to represent every act as proceeding from such motives as\nwould have actuated their own contemporaries. They have with a truly\nunsparing hand rubbed off the venerable rust of ancient tradition, and,\ntotally mistaking the most powerful springs of action then prevalent,\nmoulded all events of which any records had been preserved, into a\nconnected form more suited to a modern history. It is almost impossible to\ndescribe with what unlucky zeal Plutarch, where Lycurgus only embodied in\nlaws the political feelings of his race and nation, ascribes to that\nlegislator plans and views generally unsatisfactory, and often absolutely\nchildish.\n\n6. If now we apply the method above stated to the history of Lycurgus, we\nshall find that we have absolutely no account of him as an _individual\nperson_. Tradition very properly represents him as intimately connected\nwith the temple of Delphi (by which the Dorians, and especially the state\nof Sparta, were at that time entirely led), and with Crete, the earliest\ncivilized state of the Doric race. This connexion was generally\nrepresented under the form of a journey to both places; his tomb was also\nshown both at Cirrha and at Pergamia in Crete. It was easy to imagine that\nthe reforms of Lycurgus were violently opposed, and produced tumults and\ndisturbances.(572) But the story of Alcander putting out one of Lycurgus\u2019s\neyes (probably a popular tale) is founded on a false explanation of the\ntitle of Pallas Optiletis.(573) It was indeed an ancient tradition that he\nwas guardian of a Spartan king; but the common report of this being\nCharilaus(574) is not quite certain, as we have seen above; and in order\nto account for both his travels and regency, he was reported to have\nabdicated the latter in order to avoid suspicion.(575) If we set aside all\nfictions of this description, which have almost the spirit of a moral\ntale, like the Cyrop\u00e6dia of Xenophon, there remains very little\ntraditional lore. Of his legislation we will treat hereafter.(576)\n\n7. It is very singular that historians should have mentioned so little of\nthe action of Lycurgus, which comes next in importance to that which has\nbeen just discussed;(577) I mean the share that he had in founding the\nsacred armistice and games at Olympia, which event was without doubt the\ncommencement of a more tranquil state of affairs in Peloponnesus.\nLycurgus, as the representative of the Doric race, Iphitus, of the\n\u00c6tolians and Eleans, and Cleosthenes,(578) the son of Cleonicus of Pisa,\nthe city to which the temple of Olympia properly belonged, and which had\nnot then lost the management of it, in conjunction perhaps with several\nothers, drew up the fundamental law of the Peloponnesian armistice. This\ncontained two heads. First, that the whole territory of the Eleans (who\nacted as masters of the games, after the expulsion of the Pisatans, every\nyear with more exclusive power) should remain for ever free from hostile\ninroads and ravages, insomuch that even armed troops were only to be\nallowed a passage on condition of first laying down their arms;(579)\nsecondly, that during the time of the festival a cessation of arms should\nalso be proclaimed throughout the rest of Peloponnesus. But, since there\nwas little agreement among the individual states in the computation of\ntime, and as the Eleans alone were acquainted with the exact time at which\nthe quadrennial festival came round, and perhaps also in order to make the\ninjunction of the god more impressive, the Eleans always sent _feciales_\nround to the different states, \u201c_heralds of the season, the Elean\ntruce-bearers of Zeus_;\u201d(580) these persons proclaimed the Olympic\narmistice, first to their own countrymen, and then to the other\nPeloponnesians: after which time no army was to invade another\u2019s\nterritory.(581) The fine which was to have been paid by the Spartans in\nthe Peloponnesian war for having sent out soldiers after this period was\ntwo minas for each hoplite, the very sum which by the agreement of the\nPeloponnesians was required for the ransom of prisoners of war;(582)\nwhence it is evident that the transgressors of the truce were considered\nas becoming slaves of the god, and were to be ransomed again from him. The\ndecree was pronounced by the tribunal of the temple at Elis, according to\nthe \u201cOlympian law.\u201d(583) The fine was divided between the Eleans and the\ntreasury at the temple of Olympia. To this temple also were paid all\npenalties incurred by the infraction of treaties;(584) nay, sometimes\nwhole cities were bound to pay a fixed tribute every year to the god.(585)\nBy these and similar laws was the armistice protected, which doubtless was\nnot intended merely to secure the celebration of the games from\ndisturbance, but also to effect a peaceable meeting of the Peloponnesians,\nand thus to give occasion for the settling of disputes, and the conclusion\nof alliances. Even in the Peloponnesian war public business was transacted\nat this assembly.(586) But one chief effect of the Olympian festival\nappears to have been the production of a more friendly connexion between\nthe \u00c6tolian and Doric races. This fact appears to be established by the\ntradition that Iphitus introduced the worship of Hercules at Elis, which\ntherefore had previously been peculiar to the Dorians.(587) Apollo, the\nDoric god, was also at this time regarded as the protector of the sacred\narmistice of Olympia, as we shall see hereafter.(588)\n\n8. We now proceed immediately to the _Messenian wars_, since it is hardly\npossible to find one independent event between the commencement of them\nand the time of Iphitus. These however are really historical, since we\nhave in Tyrt\u00e6us a nearly contemporaneous account of the first, and one\nactually so of the second. The fragments and accounts of his poems are our\nprincipal guides for obtaining a correct knowledge of these transactions.\nAnd in these alone many circumstances appear in quite a different light\nfrom that in which they are represented in the romance of Pausanias. In\nthe latter, the Spartans only are the aggressors, the Messenians only the\nsubjects of attack; but, if we listen to Tyrt\u00e6us, the former also had to\nfight for their own country. But, since even the ancients possessed few\nremains of Tyrt\u00e6us, and as nearly all the historical part of his poems\nappears to have come down to us, whence did Pausanias derive his copious\nnarrative, and the details with which he has adorned it? Was it from\nancient epic poets? Yet of these there is nowhere any mention: and in\ngeneral an historical event, if it could not be put into an entirely\nfabulous shape, like the stories of the origin and foundation of many\ncolonies, lay altogether without the province of the early poetry. It is\nindeed possible that in the Naupactia, which are referred to for the\nmythical history of Messenia,(589) some historical notices may have\noccasionally occurred, perhaps too in the works of Cin\u00e6thon and Eumelus:\nbut the ancients, who disliked the labour of compiling a history from\nscattered fragments, probably gave themselves very little trouble to\ndiscover them. On the other hand, there existed a series of traditional\nlegends, whose character announces their high antiquity; thus, that of the\nMessenians, that Aristomenes had _thrice_ offered a _hecatomphonion_, or\nsacrifice for a hundred enemies slain in battle;(590) whether or no of\nhuman victims is doubtful.(591) A share in this sacrifice was also\nperformed by Theoclus, who is called an Elean, because he belonged to a\nfamily of the Iamid\u00e6, which, as it appears, was settled in Messenia; but\nthis clan, though scattered about in different places, yet always retained\ntheir rights at Olympia.(592) The same character may also be perceived in\nthe legend of Aristomenes thrice incurring the danger of death. On the\nfirst of these occasions, when thrown into the Ceadas, he was preserved by\na fox, the symbol of Messenia; on the second, whilst his guards were\nasleep, he turned to the fire and burnt in two the cords that bound his\nlimbs,(593) a story more certainly derived from tradition than the\nlove-adventure which supplies its place in Pausanias: the third time\nhowever that he fell into the hands of his enemies, they cut open his\nbreast, and found a hairy heart.(594)\n\n9. Traditions of this kind were probably circulating in different forms\namong the victorious Laced\u00e6monians,(595) amongst the refugee Messenians in\nItaly and Naupactus, the subject Messenians who remained in the country,\nand the other Peloponnesians, when they were recalled into existence by\nthe re-establishment of the Messenian state by Epaminondas. Even before\nthe battle of Leuctra, the B\u0153otians, on the advice of an oracle, hung up\nas a trophy the shield of Aristomenes,(596) the device of which was a\nspread eagle:(597) and when Epaminondas recalled the Messenian fugitives\nfrom Italy, Sicily, and even from Libya, and had erected them, with\nnumerous Helots and people collected from various quarters, into a new\nstate,(598) Aristomenes was especially invoked before the foundation of\nthe city.(599) In this manner the ancient traditions were enabled to gain\na new footing, and to be developed in a connected form. Several writers\nnow seized upon a subject which had begun to excite so great interest, of\nwhom Rhianus the poet and Myron the prose-writer are known to us.(600)\nMyron gave an account of the first Messenian war down to the death of\nAristodemus; but, in the opinion of Pausanias, utterly regardless whether\nor no he related falsehood and incredibilities; thus, in the teeth of all\ntradition, he introduced Aristomenes, the hero of the second war, into the\nfirst; and he wrote with an evident bias _against_ Sparta.(601) Rhianus,\nhowever, a native of Bena in Crete, celebrated the actions of Aristomenes,\nin the second war, from the battle near the Great Trench (\u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 \u03a4\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2),\nuntil the end of the war, as Homer had done those of Achilles; and\nalthough Pausanias has disproved some of his statements of particular\nfacts from Tyrt\u00e6us,(602) yet he has frequently followed him, and\nespecially in the poetical embellishments of his narrative.(603) He never\nmentions any historians, such as Ephorus, Theopompus, Antiochus, or\nCallisthenes.(604) Rhianus, however, though he might not have exclusively\nadopted the Messenian account,(605) yet, as far as we can judge from\nPausanias, gave the reins to his fancy, and mixed up many circumstances\nand usages of later times with the ancient tradition.(606) It is not\ntherefore our intention either to divert the reader with a continued\nnarration of these fictions, at the expense of truth, or fatigue him by a\ndetailed criticism of them, but merely to lay before him the chief\ncircumstances, as they are known with historical certainty.\n\n10. The first war is distinctly stated by Tyrt\u00e6us to have lasted nineteen\nyears, and in the twentieth the enemy left their country, and fled from\nthe mountain Ithome.(607) The same authority also gives the time which\nelapsed between the first and second wars, viz., that the grandfathers\nwere engaged in the first, the grandchildren in the second.(608) The date\nof the first war is fixed by Polychares, who is stated to have been the\nauthor of it,(609) having been conqueror in the race at the 4th\nOlympiad(610) (764 B.C.); and it agrees well with this date that Eumelus,\nwho was contemporary with Archias the founder of Syracuse (in the 5th\nOlympiad), composed a poem for _free_ Messenia. Pausanias places the\ncommencement (we know not on what grounds) at Olymp. 9. 2, (743 B.C.) the\ntermination nineteen years later, Olymp. 14. 1. (724 B.C.) The interval\nbetween the two wars he states (though on what authority we know not, and\ncontrary to Tyrt\u00e6us) to have been thirty-nine years;(611) so that the\nsecond would have lasted from Olymp. 23. 4. to Olymp. 28. 1. (or from 685\nto 668 B.C.)(612) We shall, however, find hereafter that the date of this\nwar was probably later by several years, though not so late as Diodorus\nfixed it, according to whom the war began in Olymp. 35. 3.(613) We also\nknow from Tyrt\u00e6us that the Spartan king who completed the subjugation of\nMessenia was Theopompus.(614) Now, with respect to the origin of this war,\nit may be first traced in the increase of power, which Sparta, before the\nbeginning of the Olympiads, owed to the exertions of its king Teleclus;\nthis prince having succeeded in subduing the neighbouring city of Amycl\u00e6,\nand in reducing several other Ach\u00e6an towns to a state of dependence on\nSparta.(615) Indeed, if we correctly understand an insulated notice,(616)\nTeleclus razed the town of Nedon, on the frontiers of Messenia and\nLaconia,(617) and transplanted its inhabitants to the towns of P\u0153essa,\nEchei\u00e6, and Tragis. Hence arose border wars between the Dorians at Sparta\nand those at Stenyclarus. The temple of Artemis Limnatis,(618) the\npossession of which was disputed between the two nations (though its\nfestival was common to both), afforded, as may be discovered from the\nromance of Pausanias,(619) the immediate ground for the war. For even in\nthe reign of Tiberius the Laced\u00e6monians supported their claim to this\ntemple by ancient annals and oracles;(620) while the Messenians, on the\nother hand, brought forward the document already quoted, according to\nwhich this temple, together with the whole territory of Dentheleatis, in\nwhich it was situated, belonged to them. Dissensions in Messenia must have\nhastened the breaking out of the war, since it is certain that Hyamia, one\nof the five provinces of Messenia, was given by the Spartans to the\nAndroclid\u00e6, a branch of the family of the \u00c6pytid\u00e6.(621) The history of the\nfirst war contains traces of a lofty and sublime poetical tradition: for\nexample, that Aristodemus, though ready to appease the wrath of the gods\nby the blood of his own daughter,(622) yet was unable to effect his\npurpose; that the damsel was put to death in vain; and upon this,\nrecognising the will of the gods that Messenia should fall, and being\nterrified by portentous omens, he slaughtered himself upon the tomb of his\nmurdered child.(623) The war seems to have been confined chiefly to the\nvicinity of Ithome, which stronghold, situated in the midst of the\ncountry, commanded both the plain of Stenyclarus and that of the Pamisus.\nThe reduction of this fortress necessarily entailed the subjugation of the\nwhole country, and many of the Messenians began to emigrate. With this\nevent the Doric colony of Rhegium is connected. Heraclides of Pontus(624)\nmerely relates, that some Messenians (who happened to be at this time at\nMacistus in Triphylia, in consequence of the violation of some Spartan\nvirgins) united themselves to the Chalcidian founders of this town (who\nhad been sent out from Delphi). He probably means those Messenians who\nwished to make a reparation for the violation of the Spartan virgins in\nthe temple of Artemis Limnatis, and were in consequence expelled by their\nown countrymen.(625) But, according to Pausanias,(626) even this body of\nMessenians received the district of Hyamia; and the Messenians did not\nmigrate to Rhegium until after the taking of Ithome under Alcidamidas, and\nagain after the second Messenian war under Gorgus and Manticlus, son of\nTheoclus, one of the Iamid\u00e6.(627) Anaxilas the tyrant (who lived after\nOlymp. 70) afterwards derived his family from the Messenians,(628) who\nconstituted in general the first nobility of the town of Rhegium.(629)\n\nThe establishment of Tarentum is connected with the history of the first\nMessenian war; but it is wrapped up in such unintelligible fables (chiefly\nowing perhaps to an ignorance of Laced\u00e6monian institutions), that all we\ncan learn from them is, that Tarentum was at that time founded from\nSparta.(630)\n\n11. In a fragment of Tyrt\u00e6us we find some very distinct traces of the\ncondition of the subject Messenians after the first war, which will be\nseparately considered hereafter. The second war clearly broke out in the\nnorth-eastern part of the country, on the frontier towards Arcadia, where\nthe ancient towns of Andania and \u0152chalia were situated. In all probability\nthis tract of country had never been subjugated by the Spartans.\nAristomenes, the hero of this war, was born at Andania,(631) from which\ntown he harassed the Spartans by repeated inroads and attacks. In his\nfirst march he advanced as far as the plain of Stenyclarus; but after the\nvictory at the Boar\u2019s Grave he returned to Andania. But this attempt of\nthe Messenians to recover their independence became of serious importance\nby the share which the greater part of the states in Peloponnesus took in\nit. For Strabo,(632) quoting Tyrt\u00e6us, states, that the Eleans, Argives,\nArcadians, and Pisatans(633) assisted the Messenians in this struggle. The\nPisatans were led by Pantaleon the son of Omphalion, who celebrated the\n34th Olympiad in the place of the Eleans;(634) which fact enables us\naccurately to fix the time (644 B.C.).\u2014At the head of the Arcadians was\nAristocrates, whom Pausanias calls a Trapezuntian, the son of Hicetas, and\nmentions his treachery at the battle near the Trench, on the subsequent\ndiscovery of which the Arcadians deprived his family of the sovereignty of\nArcadia.(635) The same account is also given by Callisthenes,(636) and\nboth writers quote the inscription on a pillar erected near the\nmountain-altar of Zeus Lyc\u00e6us in memory of the traitor\u2019s detection. Now we\nknow from good authority(637) that Aristocrates was in fact king only of\nOrchomenus in Arcadia,(638) of which his family was so far from losing the\nsovereignty, that his son Aristodamus ruled over it, and also over a great\npart of Arcadia. The date of Aristocrates(639) appears to have been about\n680-640 B.C.(640)\n\nThe Laced\u00e6monians were therefore in this war really pressed by an enemy of\nsuperior force, a fact alluded to by Tyrt\u00e6us. Meanwhile Sparta was\nassisted by the Corinthians,(641) perhaps by the Lepreatans,(642) and even\nby some ships of the Samians;(643) but chiefly by Tyrt\u00e6us of Aphidn\u00e6, whom\nan absurd and distorted fable has turned into a lame Athenian\nschoolmaster. The fact of Sparta seeking a warlike minstrel in Aphidn\u00e6,\nmay be accounted for from its ancient connexions with this borough in\nAttica, which is said to have been in the hands of the Dioscuri. Whether\nor not Aphidn\u00e6 at that time belonged to Attica, and was subject to Athens,\nis a question we shall leave undecided; but there does not seem to be any\nreason for inferring with Strabo, from the passage of Tyrt\u00e6us itself, that\nthe whole tradition was false, and that Tyrt\u00e6us was a Laced\u00e6monian by\nbirth,(644) though he doubtless became so by adoption. It is to be\nregretted that we have very little information concerning the war carried\non by Sparta with the rest of the Peloponnesians;(645) but the Messenians\nat a later period withdrew from Andania towards Eira, which is a\nmountain-fortress on the Neda, the border-stream towards Arcadia, near the\nsea-coast. When obliged to retire from this stronghold, they were received\nfirst by the Arcadians, their ancient and faithful allies (who, according\nto the tradition, gave them their daughters in marriage(646)); afterwards\nthe exiles sought an asylum with their kinsmen at Rhegium. Aristomenes\nhimself (if he was not put to death by the Spartans) is said to have died\nat Rhodes, in the house of the noble family of the Eratid\u00e6.(647)\n\n12. Besides the possession of Messenia, nothing was of such importance to\nthe Spartans as the influence which they gained over the towns of Arcadia.\nBut in what manner these came into their hands is very little known.(648)\nDuring the Messenian war Arcadia was always opposed to Sparta. Hence, in\nthe year 659 B.C., the Spartans suddenly attacked and took the town of\nPhigalea, in a corner of Messenia and Triphylia; but were soon driven out\nagain by the neighbouring Oresthasians.(649) But the place chiefly dreaded\nby Sparta, as being one of the most powerful cantons in Arcadia, and\ncommanding the principal entrance to Laconia, was Tegea. Charilaus, one of\nthe early kings of Sparta, is said to have been compelled, by the valour\nof the Tegeate women, to submit to a disgraceful treaty.(650) At a later\nperiod also, in the reigns of Eurycrates and Leon the Eurysthenid,(651)\nSparta suffered injury from the same state,(652) until it at last obtained\nthe superiority under the next king, Anaxandridas. It was not, however,\nmerely the ingenuity of a mountain-tribe, in protecting and fortifying its\ndefiles, that made victory so difficult to the Spartans; but, although the\npass which separates Tegea from Laconia, and even at the present time\nretains the vestiges of defensive walls, was of great service in repelling\ninvasions from Laconia,(653) yet Tegea was also formidable in the open\nfield from her heavy-armed troops, which in later times always maintained\nthe second place in the allied army of Peloponnesus.(654)\n\n13. Argos never obtained so great authority in Argolis as Sparta did in\nLaconia, since, in the former country, the Dorians divided themselves into\nseveral ancient and considerable towns;(655) and to deprive Dorians of\ntheir independence seems to have been more contrary to the principles of\nthat race, than to expel them, as the Spartans did the Messenians. Argos\nwas thus forced to content itself with forming, and being at the head of a\nleague, which was to unite the forces of the country for common defence,\nand to regulate all internal affairs. An union of this kind really\nexisted, although it never entirely attained its end. It was probably\nconnected with the temple of Apollo Pytha\u00ebus, which, as we remarked above,\nwas considered as common to the Epidaurians and Dryopians. An Argive\nAmphictyonic council is mentioned in the account of the Messenian\nwar,(656) and is evidently not a fiction, although erroneously there\nintroduced. That it still continued to exist in the 66th Olympiad is clear\nfrom the fact, that, when the inhabitants of Sicyon and \u00c6gina furnished\nCleomenes with ships to be employed against Argos, each town was condemned\nto pay a fine of 500 talents.(657) These penalties could not have been\nimposed by Argos as a single town, but in the name of a confederacy, which\nwas weakened and injured by this act. We find that the Eleans could impose\nsimilar penalties in the name of the Olympian Zeus.(658) But the very case\nhere adduced shows how refractory was the conduct of the members of this\nalliance with regard to the measures taken by the chief confederate.\n\n14. To this internal discord were added the continual disputes with\nLaced\u00e6mon. Herodotus states, that in ancient times (_i.e._ about the 50th\nOlympiad, or 580 B.C.) the whole eastern coast of Peloponnesus as far as\nMalea (comprising the towns of Prasi\u00e6, Cyphanta, Epidaurus Limera, and\nEpidelium), together with Cythera, and the other islands, belonged to the\nArgives.(659) According to the account of Pausanias the territory of\nCynuria, a valley between two ranges of mountains, on the frontiers of\nLaconia and Argos, inhabited by a native Peloponnesian race, had been from\nearly times a perpetual subject of contention between the two states. The\nLaced\u00e6monians had subdued this district in the reigns of Echestratus and\nEurypon.(660) During the reigns of Labotas and Prytanis, the Spartans\ncomplained of an attempt of the Argives to alienate the affections of\ntheir Peri\u0153ci in Cynuria:(661) as, however, we know not by what authority\nthis statement is supported, we shall allow it to rest on its own merits.\nIn the reign of Charilaus the Laced\u00e6monians wasted the territory of\nArgos.(662) His son Nicander made an alliance with the Dryopians of Asine\nagainst Argos. Accordingly this people were expelled by Eratus, the Argive\nking, from their town,(663) and fled to their allies in Laconia; from whom\nthey obtained, after the end of the first Messenian war, a maritime\ndistrict, where they built a new Asine, and for a long time preserved\ntheir national manners,(664) as well as their connexion with the ancient\nreligious worship of their kinsmen, the inhabitants of Hermione.(665)\n\n15. A clearer point in the Argive and Peloponnesian history is the reign\nof Pheidon. The accounts respecting this prince having been collected and\nexamined in another work, it is merely necessary to repeat the\nresult.(666) Pheidon the Argive, the son of Aristodamidas, was descended\nfrom the royal family of Temenus, the power of which had indeed since the\ntime of Medon, the son of Ceisus, been much diminished, but yet remained\nin existence for a long time. Pheidon broke through the restrictions that\nlimited his power, and hence, contrary however to the ancient usage of the\nterm, was called a _tyrant_. His views were at first directed towards\nmaking the independent towns of Argolis dependent upon Argos. He undertook\na war against Corinth, which he afterwards succeeded in reducing. In all\nprobability Epidaurus, and certainly \u00c6gina, belonged to him; none of the\nother towns in the neighbourhood were able to withstand the bold and\ndetermined conqueror.(667) The finishing stroke of his achievements was\nmanifestly the celebration of the Olympic games, over which he, as\ndescendant of Hercules (the first conqueror at Olympia), after having\nabolished the \u00c6tolian-Elean Hellanodic\u00e6, presided, in conjunction with the\ninhabitants of Pisa, the ancient town of Pelops, which at this time, and\nmany centuries after this time, had not relinquished its claims to the\nmanagement of the festival. This circumstance also enables us to fix with\ncertainty the period of his reign, since, in the Elean registers, the 8th\nOlympiad was marked as having been celebrated by him (747 B.C.). But it\nwas this usurpation that united the Eleans and Laced\u00e6monians against him,\nand thus caused his overthrow. While the undertakings of Pheidon thus\nremained without benefit to his successors, he has been denounced by\nposterity as the most rapacious of tyrants in Greece; but, had he\nsucceeded in establishing a permanent state of affairs, he would have\nreceived equal honours with Lycurgus. Yet, notwithstanding his failure,\nsome of his institutions survived him, which adorn his memory. He is known\nto have equalized all weights and measures in Peloponnesus, which before\nhis time were different in each state; he was also the first who coined\nmoney. He was enabled to undertake both with the greater success, since\nthe only two commercial towns at that time belonging to Peloponnesus lay\nin his dominions, viz. Corinth (whence he is sometimes called a\nCorinthian) and \u00c6gina. According to the most accurate accounts he first\nstamped silver-money(668) in \u00c6gina (where at that time forges doubtless\nexisted), and, after having circulated these, he consecrated the ancient\nand then useless bars of metal to Here of Argos, where they were exhibited\nin later times to strangers.(669)\u2014Many of the most ancient drachmas of\n\u00c6gina, with the device of a tortoise, perhaps belong to this period, since\nthe Greek coins struck before the Peloponnesian war appear to indicate a\nprogress of many centuries in the art of stamping money. Those however\nwhich we have are sufficient to show that the same standard was prevalent\nthroughout Peloponnesus,(670) a difference in weight, measure, and\nstandard not having been introduced till after the Peloponnesian war. This\nagain was a second time abolished by the Ach\u00e6an league, and an equality of\nmeasures restored.(671)\n\n16. After the fall of Pheidon the old dispute with Laced\u00e6mon still\ncontinued.(672) In the 15th Olympiad (720 B.C.) the war concerning the\nfrontier territory of Cynuria broke out afresh;(673) the Argives now\nmaintained it for some time,(674) and secured the possession of this\ndistrict chiefly by the victory at Hysi\u00e6 in Olymp. 27. 4. (669 B.C.(675))\nAnd they kept it until the time of Cr\u0153sus (Olymp. 58.), when they lost it\nby the famous battle of the three hundred, in which Othryadas, though\nfaint with his wounds, erected the trophy of victory for Sparta:(676) a\nhistory the more fabulous, since it was celebrated by sacred songs at the\nGymnop\u00e6dia.(677) Inconsiderable in extent as was the territory(678) for\nwhich so much blood was shed, yet its possession decided which should be\nthe leading power in Peloponnesus. It was not till after this had taken\nplace that Cleomenes, in whose reign the boundary of Laced\u00e6mon ran near\nthe little river Erasinus, was enabled to attack Argos with success.\n\nThe power of Argos in the neighbourhood of the city was very insecure and\nfluctuating. Towards the end of the second Messenian war Argos had\nconquered the neighbouring town of Nauplia; the Laced\u00e6monians gave Methone\nin Messenia to the expelled inhabitants.(679) The temple of Nemea, in the\nmountains towards Corinth, was, from its situation, the property of the\nindependent Doric town Cleon\u00e6; the Argives took it from them before Olymp.\n53. 1. 568 B.C.,(680) and henceforth celebrated the games of Zeus. The\nArgives however again lost it; and some time before the 80th Olympiad the\nCleon\u00e6ans again regulated the festival,(681) a privilege which they\nprobably did not long retain. It is likely that about 580 B.C. the town of\nOrne\u00e6, between Argos and Sicyon, which had anciently carried on wars with\nthe latter city, was rendered subject to the former, from which\ncircumstance the Peri\u0153ci of Argos obtained the general name of\n_Orneatans_; to which class the Cynurians also belonged before the battle\nof Thyrea.(682) But these events properly belong to the period, on the\nhistory of which we are now about to enter, and which we will designate in\ngeneral as _the time of the tyrants_.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VIII.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. The Doric principles of government opposed to despotic (or\n    tyrannical) power. \u00a7 2. Tyrants of Sicyon. \u00a7 3. Of Corinth. \u00a7 4.\n    Of Epidaurus and of Megara overthrown by Sparta. \u00a7 5. Other\n    tyrants overthrown by Sparta. \u00a7 6. Expedition of Cleomenes against\n    Argos. \u00a7 7. Internal history of Argos. \u00a7 8. Contests between\n    Megara and Athens.\n\n\n1. The subject of this chapter may be best expressed in the words of\nThucydides:(683) \u201cThe tyrants of Athens, and of the rest of Greece, of\nwhich many states had been governed by tyrants before the Athenians, were,\nwith the exception of those in Sicily, in most instances, and especially\nin later times, overthrown by the Laced\u00e6monians, whose state was never\nunder a despotic government, and who, having become powerful through the\nearly establishment of their own constitution, were enabled to arrange to\ntheir own liking the governments of other states.\u201d It is a remarkable\ncircumstance in the history of Greece, that at the same period of time\ntyrants everywhere obtained the supreme authority in Doric, Ionic, and\n\u00c6olic cities; a proof that, although these nations were derived from\ndifferent races, the same stage in the progress of social life was every\nwhere attended with the same phenomena. Those states alone in which the\nfeatures of the Doric character were most strongly marked, viz., Sparta\nand Argos, resisted this influence; and we shall in general find that it\nwas by a subversion of the Doric principles that the tyrants obtained\ntheir power. This will be made evident by a consideration of the absolute\nmonarchies in the Doric states of Peloponnesus.\n\n2. The inhabitants of SICYON appear in ancient times to have been\ndistinguished from other Dorians by a lively and excitable temperament,\nand by a disposition which they had at an early period transferred to\ntheir mythical hero Adrastus, whose \u201ctongue was softly persuasive.\u201d(684)\nThis very disposition, however, under the actual state of circumstances,\nopened the way to tyranny. In this instance of Sicyon, as in many others,\nthe tyrant was the leader of the lower classes, who were opposed to the\naristocracy. It was in this character that Orthagoras came forward, who,\nnot being of an ancient family, was called by the nobles a cook.(685) But,\nnotwithstanding its low origin, the family of this person maintained the\nsupremacy for a longer period than any other, according to Aristotle(686)\nfor a century, as they did not maltreat the citizens, and upon the whole\nrespected the laws. Their succession is Orthagoras, Andreas, Myron,\nAristonymus, and Cleisthenes,(687) of whom, however, the second and fourth\nnever ascended the throne, or only reigned for a short time. Myron was\nconqueror at Olympia in the chariot-race in the 33d Olympiad (648 B. C),\nand afterwards built a treasury, in which two apartments were inlaid with\nTartessian brass, and adorned with Doric and Ionic columns.(688) Both the\narchitectural orders employed in this building, and the Tartessian brass,\nwhich the Phoc\u00e6ans had then brought to Greece in large quantities from the\nhospitable king Arganthonius,(689) attest the intercourse of Myron with\nthe Asiatics; we shall presently see that this same correspondence was of\nconsiderable importance for the measures of other tyrants. Cleisthenes\nappears to have employed violence in obtaining the sovereignty,(690) which\nhe held undisturbed, partly by creating terror through his military fame\nand exploits in arms, and partly by gaining the support of the people by\nthe introduction of some democratic elements into the constitution. With\nregard to the latter measure, the singular alterations which he made in\nthe tribes of Sicyon will be explained hereafter.(691) We will here only\nremark that Cleisthenes himself belonged to the subject tribe, which was\nnot of Doric origin; and while he endeavoured to raise the latter, at the\nsame time he sought to depress, and even to dishonour the Doric tribes, so\nthat he entirely destroyed and reversed the whole state of things which\nhad previously existed. For this reason Cleisthenes was at enmity with\nArgos, the chief Doric city of this district.(692) For the same reason he\nproscribed the worship of the Argive hero Adrastus, and favoured in its\nplace the worship of Dionysus, a deity foreign to the Doric character; and\nlastly, prohibited the Homeric rhapsodists from entering the town, because\nHomer had celebrated Argos, and, we may add, an aristocratic form of\ngovernment. These characteristic traits of a bold and comprehensive mind\nare gathered from the lively narrative of Herodotus. The same political\ntendency was inherited by his son-in-law Megacles, the husband of the\nbeautiful Agariste, to obtain whose hand many rival youths had assembled\nin the palace of Cleisthenes, like the suitors of old, for that of\nHelen;(693) and it was particularly manifested in Cleisthenes of Athens,\nwho changed the Athenian constitution by abolishing the last traces of\nseparate ranks. With regard, however, to the warlike actions of\nCleisthenes, he must have been very celebrated for his prowess; since in\nthe war of the Amphictyons against Cirrha, although denounced as a\nstone-slinger (that is, a man of the lowest rank),(694) by the Pythian\npriestess, he shared the chief command of the army with the Thessalian\nHeraclid, Eurylochus, and helped to conquer the city.(695) This took place\nin the third year of the 47th Olympiad, or 592 B.C.(696) Out of the\nplunder of the town Cleisthenes built a portico for the embellishment of\nSicyon;(697) he was also conqueror in the chariot-race at the second\nPythiad (Olymp. 49. 3. 584 B.C.)(698) It may perhaps be possible from the\nscattered accounts concerning this prince to form a notion of his\ncharacter. Cleisthenes was undoubtedly a man who was able to seize the\nspirit of the time, which aimed at great liberty and excitement\u2014the very\ncontrary of the settled composure of the Dorians; and, combining talents\nand versatility with the love of splendour and pageantry, ridiculed many\nthings hitherto looked upon with awe, and set no limits to his love of\nchange. Notwithstanding these qualities, he was, as is probable from the\ngeneral testimony of Thucydides, overthrown by Sparta, perhaps soon after\n580 B.C.;(699) nor was the ancient state of things restored at Sicyon till\n60 years afterwards,(700) during which interval another tyrant named\n\u00c6schines reigned, belonging however to a different family.\n\n3. The CORINTHIAN tyrants(701) were nearly allied with those of Sicyon;\nsince the former, not belonging to the Doric nobility, were placed in the\nsame situation as the latter with regard to this class. In Corinth, before\nthe commencement of the dynasty of tyrants, the ruling power was held by\nthe numerous(702) Heraclide clan of the Bacchiad\u00e6, which had changed the\noriginal constitution into an oligarchy, by keeping itself distinct, in\nthe manner of a caste, from all other families, and alone furnished the\ncity with the annual prytanes, the chief magistrates. Cypselus the son of\nA\u00ebtion, the grandson of Echecrates, from a Corinthian borough named\nPetra,(703) and not of Doric descent, although connected on his mother\u2019s\nside with the Bacchiad\u00e6, overcame, with the assistance again of the lower\nclasses,(704) the oligarchs, now become odious through their luxury(705)\nand insolence, the larger part of whom, either voluntarily or by\ncompulsion, quitted Corinth;(706) and Cypselus became tyrant about the\n30th Olympiad (660 B.C.),(707) from the inability of the people to govern\nitself independently. However violently the Corinthian orator in Herodotus\naccuses this prince, the judgment of antiquity in general was widely\ndifferent. Cypselus was of a peaceable disposition, reigned without a\nbody-guard,(708) and never forgot that he rose from a demagogue to the\nthrone. He also undertook works of building, either from a taste for the\narts, or for the purpose of employing the people. The treasury at Delphi,\ntogether with the plane-tree, was his work.(709) To him succeeded his son\nPeriander, who was at first equally or more mild than his father.(710)\nSoon, however, his conduct became sensibly more violent, and, according to\nHerodotus, he was instigated by his correspondence with Thrasybulus, the\ntyrant of Miletus, who counselled him by every method to weaken, or even\nto exterminate, the nobility of his city.(711) Many of his actions were\nevidently prompted by the wish of utterly eradicating the peculiarities of\nthe Doric race, which were closely connected with an aristocratic spirit.\nFor this reason he abolished the public tables, and prohibited the ancient\neducation.(712) He awed the people by his military splendour, and\nmaintained triremes on both coasts of the Isthmus;(713) his person he\nprotected by three hundred body-guards.(714) To maintain the city at\npeace, and to avoid all violent commotions, was a principle, on the\nobservance of which the security of his dominion depended, and upon which\na complete system of regulations was founded. With this view he abolished\na criminal court(715) for the condemnation of such as wasted their\npatrimony, inasmuch as persons in this situation were likely to become\ninnovators. He interdicted immoderate luxury, and an extravagant number of\nslaves. Idleness he considered as especially dangerous. So little true did\nhe remain to the democratic principles of his father, that he expelled the\npeople from the city;(716) and in order the more readily to accustom them\nto agricultural and mechanical labour, only permitted them to wear the\ndress of peasants.(717) His own expenses were trifling, and therefore he\nrequired no other taxes than harbour-dues and market-tolls. He also\navoided, where his projects did not require it, all violence and open\ninjustice; and was even at times so strict a maintainer of public\nmorality, that the numerous procuresses of the luxurious Corinth were by\nhis orders thrown into the sea;(718) the hospitable damsels of\nAphrodite(719) being protected by religion. He, as well as his father,\nmade the construction of splendid monuments of art(720) a means of taxing\nthe property of the rich, and of employing the body of the people; though\nindeed his own refined taste took pleasure in such works. And in general,\nif considered in reference to the cultivation of taste and intellect, and\nthe interests of agriculture and trade, the age of the tyrants was\nproductive of a very great advancement in the Grecian states. The unpliant\ndisposition, strict in the observance of all ancient customs and usages,\nwas then first bent and subdued, and more liberal and extended views\nbecame prevalent. The tyrants were frequently in intimate connexion with\nthe inhabitants of Asia Minor, whom Sparta despised for their luxury and\neffeminacy; and from the Lydian sultan in his harem at Sardes, a chain of\ncommunication, most important in its consequences, was established through\nthe princes of Miletus and Samos with the countries in the immediate\nneighbourhood of Sparta. Periander was in correspondence not only with\nThrasybulus, but also with Halyattes, the king of Lydia, and sent to the\nlatter prince some Corcyr\u00e6an youths to be castrated according to the\noriental custom.(721) The names of his kinsmen, Psammetichus and Gordias,\nthe latter Phrygian, the former Egyptian, are proofs of an hospitable\nintercourse with those countries. On the other side of Greece, the policy\nof the Cypselid\u00e6 led them to attempt the occupation of the coast of the\nIonian sea as far as Illyria, and to establish a connexion with the\nbarbarous nations of the interior.(722) Periander was of a daring and\ncomprehensive spirit, and rivalled by few of his contemporaries, bold in\nthe field, politic in council, though misled by continual distrust to\nundertake unworthy measures, and having too little regard for the good of\nthe people when it interfered with his own designs; a friend of the arts,\nof an enlightened mind, but at the same time overcome by the strength of\nhis passions; and, although devoid of awe for all sacred things, yet at\ntimes a prey to the most grovelling superstition. After the death of\nPeriander, Psammetichus(723) the son of Gordias, of the same family,\nsucceeded to the sovereignty, but only reigned three years, having been,\nwithout doubt, overthrown by the Spartans in Olymp. 49. 3. 582 B.C.(724)\n\n4. Periander was married to the fair Melissa, whose beauty had captivated\nhim in the house of her father, the tyrant Procles, while she was\ndistributing wine to the labourers in a thin Doric dress.(725) Procles was\nruler of EPIDAURUS and the island of \u00c6gina, which were at that time still\nclosely united; he himself was related by marriage to the princes of\nOrchomenus, and appears from this circumstance, and from his connexion\nwith the family of Cypselus, to belong to the number of tyrants, who,\nbeing hostile to the Dorian aristocracy, obtained their power by the\nassistance of the lower ranks.\n\nAnd when we also add that Theagenes of MEGARA, the father-in-law of Cylon\nthe Athenian,(726) precisely resembled the princes already mentioned in\nhis conduct (since he likewise obtained his power by attacking the rich\nlanded proprietors, and had killed their flocks upon the pastures of the\nriver),(727) and that like the others he endeavoured to please the people\nby embellishing the city, by the construction of an aqueduct, and of a\nbeautiful fountain;(728) it is easy to perceive in the dynasties of the\nSicyonian, Corinthian, Epidaurian, and Megarian tyrants, a powerful\ncoalition against the supremacy of the Dorians, and the ancient principles\nof that race, the more powerful, as they knew how to render subservient to\ntheir own ends the opinions which had lately arisen; and it is a matter of\nwonder that Sparta should have succeeded in overthrowing this combination.\n\n5. If, indeed, it is also borne in mind that the Ionic, as well as the\n\u00c6olic and Doric(729) islands and cities of Asia, and also Athens, together\nwith Phocis, Thessaly, and the colonies in Sicily and Italy, were all in\nthe hands of tyrants, who doubtless assisted one another, and knew their\ncommon interest; and that Sparta alone, in most instances at the\ninstigation of the Delphian oracle, declared against all these rulers a\nlasting war, and in fact overthrew them all, with the exception of the\nSicilian tyrants; it must be confessed, that in this period of Grecian\nhistory no contest took place either greater, or, by its extent as well as\nits principles, of more important political and moral consequences. The\nfollowing tyrants are stated by ancient historians to have been deposed by\nthe Spartans:(730) the Cypselid\u00e6 of Corinth and Ambracia, the former in\nOlymp. 49. 3. (584 B.C.), the latter probably somewhat later; the\nPisistratid\u00e6 of Athens, who were allied with the Thessalians, in Olymp.\n67. 3. (510 B.C.);(731) their adherent Lygdamis of Naxos,(732) probably\nabout the same time: \u00c6schines of Sicyon, about the 65th Olympiad(733) (520\nB.C.); Symmachus of Thasos; Aulis of Phocis; and Aristogenes of Miletus,\nof whom we know only the names;(734) the larger number were dethroned\nunder the kings Anaxandridas and Ariston, Cleomenes and Demaratus. Of\nthese tyrants, some they deposed by a military force, as the Pisistratid\u00e6;\nbut frequently, as Plutarch says, they overthrew the despotism without\n\u201cmoving a shield,\u201d by despatching a herald, whom all immediately obeyed,\n\u201cas, when the queen bee appears, the rest arrange themselves in\norder.\u201d(735) In the time of Cleomenes also (525 B.C.) Sparta sent out a\ngreat armament, together with Corinthian and other allies, against\nPolycrates of Samos, the first Doric expedition against Asia, not, as is\nevident from the trivial reason stated by Herodotus, (viz. in order to\nrevenge the plunder of a cauldron and a breastplate,) but with the intent\nof following up their principle of deposing all tyrants.(736) But the\nbesieging of a fortified town, situated upon the sea, and at so great a\ndistance, was beyond the strength of Peloponnesus. The last expedition of\nSparta against the tyrants falls after the Persian war, when king\nLeotychidas, the conqueror at Mycale, was sent for the purpose of ejecting\nthe Aleuad\u00e6 of Thessaly, who had delivered up the country to the Persians\nin 470 B.C. or somewhat later. Aristomedes and Angelus were actually\ndethroned, but the king suffering himself to be bribed by others, the\nexpedition did not completely succeed.(737)\n\nWe may suppose with what pride the ambassador of Sparta answered Gelon the\ntyrant of Syracuse (however brilliant and beneficial his reign may have\nbeen), when he required the command in the Persian war: \u201cTruly the Pelopid\nAgamemnon would lament, if he heard that the supremacy was taken from the\nSpartans by Gelon and the Syracusans!\u201d(738)\n\n6. To these important changes in the political history of that time we may\nannex the subordinate events in the interior of Peloponnesus.\n\nSparta, by the conquest of Cynuria, had obtained the key of the Argive\nterritory. Soon after this, Cleomenes, the eldest son of Anaxandridas the\nEurysthenid, succeeded to the throne, a man of great boldness and strength\nof mind, sagacious, enterprising, accustomed, after the manner of his age\nand country, to express himself in a concise and emphatic language, only\ntoo much inflated by family and personal pride, and in disposition more\nnearly resembling his contemporaries the tyrants than beseemed a king of\nSparta. The first exploit of this prince(739) was the expedition against\nArgos. He landed in some vessels of Sicyon and \u00c6gina on the coast of\nTiryns, overcame the Argives at the wood of Argos,(740) slew the greater\npart of the men able to bear arms, and would have succeeded in capturing\ntheir city, had he not, from an inconceivable superstition, dismissed the\nallied army without making any further use of the victory, and contented\nhimself with sacrificing in the temple of Here.(741) At the same time\nArgos, in consequence of this defeat, remained for a long time crippled,\nand it was even necessary that a complete change in her political\ncondition should take place, in order to renovate the feeble and\ndisordered state into which she had fallen.\n\n7. For after the bond-slaves or _gymnesii_(742) of Argos had for a time\ngoverned the state thus deprived of its free inhabitants, until the young\nmen who had in the mean time arisen to manhood overcame and expelled them,\nthe Argives, as Aristotle(743) relates, saw themselves compelled, in order\nto restore the numbers of their free population, to collect about them the\nsurrounding subjects of their city, the Peri\u0153ci, and to distribute them in\nthe immediate neighbourhood.(744) The completion of this plan took place\none generation after the fatal battle with Cleomenes, at the time of the\nPersian war, in which Argos, whose attention was wholly occupied with\nstrengthening her affairs at home, took no part. At that time the Argives,\nin order to increase their own numbers, dispeopled nearly all the large\ncities in the surrounding country, and transplanted the inhabitants to\nArgos;(745) particularly Tiryns, Mycen\u00e6, Hyse\u00e6, Orne\u00e6, and Midea.(746)\nTiryns and Mycen\u00e6 were in the time of the Persian war free, and even\nindependent communities, which followed the command of Sparta without the\nconsent of Argos; the latter town indeed contested with Argos the right to\nthe administration of the temple of Here, and the presidency at the Nemean\ngames.(747) The destruction of their city, which the Argives undertook in\nconcert with the Cleon\u00e6ans and Tegeates,(748) was effected in the year 464\nB.C. (Olymp. 79. 1). But of the Mycen\u00e6ans, a few only followed the\nArgives, as the larger number either took refuge at Cleon\u00e6 (which city was\nat that time independent, and had for some time the management of the\nNemean games)(749), at Ceryneia in Achaia, and even in Macedonia.(750) Of\nthe Tirynthians also some fled to Epidaurus, and some to Halieis in the\nterritory of the Dryopians, in which place the expelled Hermioneans also\nfound an asylum.(751) For Hermione, which Herodotus during the time of the\nPersian war considers as a Dryopian city,(752) was subsequently taken by\nthe Argives.(753) The other cities which have been mentioned, had however,\nas we know of Orne\u00e6 and also Hysi\u00e6, previously belonged to Peri\u0153ci, being\nsubjects of Argos, and were only then incorporated for the purpose of\nenlarging the metropolis.(754) The Argives, by these arbitrary\nproceedings, secured themselves as well against external foes as against\ntheir former enemies the bond-slaves, and also acquired a large number of\nlaborious and industrious inhabitants, who, by the continuance of peace,\nsoon re-established the prosperity and wealth of Argos.(755) The oracle\nhas well marked out the principles which were then expedient for the\nwelfare of that state, when it recommended it, as \u201c_the enemy of its\nneighbours, and friend of the gods, to draw in its arms, and __ remain in\nwatchful quiet, guarding its head; for that the head would save the\nbody_.\u201d(756) At the same time, however, by these proceedings, a complete\nchange in the constitution was brought about, and Argos, as we shall see\nhereafter, gradually lost the peculiar features of the Doric character.\n\nThe other actions of Cleomenes of which we have any knowledge refer to the\npolitical changes at Athens, and could only be connectedly related in a\nhistory of the Athenian constitution, or in reference to the events in\n\u00c6gina, which we have narrated elsewhere.\n\n8. It is remarkable that during this whole time, in which Sparta founded\nher empire, we read of no serious contest between Dorians and Ionians. For\nalthough the border-states, Megara and \u00c6gina (the latter after its revolt\nfrom Epidaurus), carried on a continued war with Athens, the whole race\ntook no part in the contest, and Sparta herself fulfilled the office of an\nimpartial arbitrator between Athens and Megara. Even before the time of\nSolon, the Athenians and Megarians fought in the territory of\nEleusis.(757) The chief struggle was for the island of Salamis, which\nSolon is supposed to have gained by the well known stratagem,(758) a fact\nhowever which was denied by Daimachus of Plat\u00e6a.(759) According to the\nMegarian account, some refugees from their own city (named \u0394\u03bf\u03c1\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9)\nbetrayed the island to the Athenians.(760) So much is certain, that five\nSpartan arbitrators (Critolaidas, Amompharetus, Hypsechidas, Anaxilas, and\nCleomenes), in obedience to ancient traditions and fables respecting the\noriginal owners of Salamis, adjudged the possession of Salamis to the\nAthenians. Yet in the troubles which succeeded the banishment of Megacles,\nthis island was again lost, as well as the harbour Nis\u00e6a, which had been\nbefore conquered.(761) They soon however regained it, and Megara appears\nfrom that time forth to have given up all hopes of recovery: as in this\nage the power of Athens increased so rapidly, that Megara could no longer\nthink of renewing her ancient contests.\n\nSince it is not my object to give a continuous and general narration of\nfacts, but only to extract what is most instructive for the condition of\nthe Doric race, I shall not carry on the history of the Dorians out of\nPeloponnesus to a lower point, as their local connexions would lead us far\nastray into other regions. For the same reason I will only touch upon a\nfew events of the Persian wars, confining myself to the internal affairs\nof Peloponnesus during that period, among which the supremacy of Sparta is\nthe most important and remarkable.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IX.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Sparta the head of the Peloponnesian confederacy. Its members\n    and their order of precedence. \u00a7 2. Mode in which the supremacy of\n    Sparta was exercised. \u00a7 3. Congress of the confederacy. \u00a7 4.\n    Non-interference of the confederacy with the internal affairs of\n    the confederate States. \u00a7 5. Sparta the head of the confederacy by\n    general acknowledgment. \u00a7 6. Hellenic league during the\n    Peloponnesian war. \u00a7 7. Sparta withdraws from the command of the\n    Allied Army. \u00a7 8. Ionia never completely liberated by Athens from\n    the power of Persia. \u00a7 9. War between Sparta and Arcadia. \u00a7 10.\n    Revolt of the Helots; third Messenian war. \u00a7 11. Dissolution of\n    the alliance between Sparta and Athens. Battles of Tanagra and\n    \u0152nophyta. Five years\u2019 truce. Thirty years\u2019 truce. \u00a7 12. Origin of\n    the Peloponnesian war. \u00a7 13. Opposite principles of the contending\n    parties in the Peloponnesian war. \u00a7 14. Its influence upon Sparta.\n\n\n1. Sparta, by the conquest of Messenia and Tegea, had obtained the first\nrank in Peloponnesus, which character she confirmed by the expulsion of\nthe tyrants, and the overthrow of Argos. From about the year 580 B.C. she\nacted as the recognised commander, not only of Peloponnesus, but of the\nwhole Greek name. The _confederacy_ itself however was formed by the\ninhabitants of that peninsula alone, on fixed and regular laws; whereas\nthe other Greeks only annexed themselves to it temporarily. The order of\nprecedence observed by the members of this league may be taken from the\ninscription on the footstool of the statue of Zeus, which was dedicated at\nOlympia after the Persian war, the Ionians, who were only allied for a\ntime, being omitted.(762) It is as follows: Laced\u00e6mon, Corinth, Sicyon,\n\u00c6gina, Megara, Epidaurus,(763) Tegea, Orchomenus, Phlius, Tr\u0153zen,\nHermione, Tiryns, Mycen\u00e6, Lepreum, and Elis; which state was contented\nwith the last place, on account of the small share which it had taken in\nthe war. The defenders of the Isthmus are enumerated in the following\norder;(764) Laced\u00e6monians, Arcadians, Eleans, Corinthians, Sicyonians,\nEpidaurians, Phliasians, Tr\u0153zenians, and Hermionians, nearly agreeing with\nthe other list, only that the Arcadians, having been present with their\nwhole force, and also the Eleans, occupy an earlier place; and the\nMegarians and \u00c6ginetans are omitted, as having had no share in the\ndefence. This regular order of precedence is alone a proof of a firm\nunion. The Tegeates, since they had joined the side of Laced\u00e6mon, enjoyed\nseveral privileges, and especially the place of honour at the left wing of\nthe allied army.(765) Argos remained excluded from the nations of\nPeloponnesus, as it never would submit to the command of Sparta; the\nAch\u00e6ans, indifferent to external affairs, only joined themselves\nmomentarily to the alliance:(766) but the Mantineans, though latterly they\nfollowed the policy of Argos,(767) were long attached to the Peloponnesian\nleague; for at the end of the Persian war they sent an army, which arrived\ntoo late for the battle of Plat\u00e6a;(768) having before, together with the\nother Arcadians, helped to defend the Isthmus;(769) they had also been\nengaged in the first days of the action at Thermopylae;(770) and they were\nat this time still the faithful allies of the Laced\u00e6monians.(771) Their\nsubsequent defection from Sparta may be attributed partly to their\nendeavours to obtain the dominion of Parrhasia, which was protected by\nLaced\u00e6mon;(772) to their hostility with Tegea,(773) which remained true to\nSparta after the great war with Arcadia, which began about 470 B.C. and to\nthe strengthening of their city (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2), and the establishment of a\ndemocratic government, through the influence of Argos.(774)\n\n2. The supremacy of Sparta(775) was exercised in the expeditions of the\nwhole confederacy, and in transactions of the same nature. In the first, a\nSpartan king\u2014after it had been thought proper never to send out two\ntogether\u2014was commander-in-chief, in whose powers there were many remains\nof the authority of the ancient Homeric princes. Occasionally, however,\nSparta was compelled to give up her privilege to other commanders,\nespecially at sea, as, for instance, the fleet at Salamis to Eurybiades.\nWhen any expedition was contemplated, the Spartans sent round to the\nconfederate states,(776) to desire them to have men and stores in\nreadiness.(777) The highest amount which each state could be called on to\nsupply was fixed once for all, and it was only on each particular occasion\nto be determined what part of that was required.(778) In like manner, the\nsupplies in money and stores were regularly appointed;(779) so that an\narmy, with all its equipment, could be collected by a simple summons. But\nagricultural labour, festivals, and the natural slowness of the Doric\nrace, often very much retarded the assembling of this army. The\ncontributions, chiefly perhaps voluntary, both of states and individuals,\nwere registered on stone: and there is still extant an inscription found\nat Tegea, in which the war supplies of the Ephesians, Melians, &c, in\nmoney and in corn, are recorded.(780) But the Laced\u00e6monians never exacted\nfrom the Peloponnesian confederacy a regular annual contribution,\nindependent of circumstances; which would have been in fact a tribute: a\nmeasure of this kind being once proposed to king Archidamus, he answered,\n\u201cthat war did not consume according to rule.(781)\u201d Pericles, however,\nproperly considers it as a disadvantage to the Peloponnesians that they\nhad no paid troops, and that neither in common nor in the several states\nthey had amassed any treasure.(782) The object of an expedition was\npublicly declared: occasionally however, when secrecy was required, it was\nknown neither to the states nor to their army.(783) The single allied\nstates, if necessity demanded it, could also immediately summon the army\nof the others;(784) but it is not clear to what extent this call was\nbinding upon them. The Spartan military constitution, which we will\nexplain hereafter, extended to the whole allied army; but it was doubtless\nvariously combined with the tactics of the several nations.(785) To the\ncouncil of war, which moreover only debated, and did not decide, the\nSpartan king summoned the leaders of the several states, together with\nother commanders, and generally the most distinguished persons in the\narmy.(786)\n\n3. According to the constitution of the Peloponnesian league, every common\naction, such as a declaration of war, or the conclusion of a peace or\ntreaty, was agreed on at a congress of the confederates. But, as there was\nno regular assembly of this kind, the several states sent envoys\n(\u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9), like the deputies (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9) of the Ionians, who generally\nremained together only for a short time.(787) All the members had legally\nequal votes;(788) and the majority sometimes decided against a strong\nopposition;(789) Sparta was often outvoted, Corinth being at all times\nwilling to raise an opposition.(790) We have however little information\nrespecting the exact state of the confederacy; it is probable indeed, from\nthe aristocratic feelings of the Peloponnesians, that, upon the whole,\nauthority had more weight than numbers; and for great undertakings, such\nas the Peloponnesian war, the assent of the chief state was necessary, in\naddition to the agreement of the other confederates.(791) When the\ncongress was summoned to Sparta, the envoys often treated with a public\nassembly (\u1f14\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9)(792) of the Spartans; although they naturally withdrew\nduring the division. Of these envoys, besides Sosicles the Corinthian, we\nalso know the name of Chileus of Tegea, who prevailed upon the ephors,\nafter a long delay, to send the army to Plat\u00e6a, and who did much to allay\nthe differences existing between the members of the then numerous\nconfederacy.(793)\n\n4. But upon the _internal_ affairs, laws, and institutions of the allied\nstates, the confederacy had legally no influence. It was a fundamental law\nthat every state (\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2) should, according to its ancient customs (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1), be independent and sovereign (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2);(794) and\nit is much to the credit of Sparta, that, so long as the league was in\nexistence, she never, not even when a favourable opportunity offered,\ndeprived any Peloponnesian state of this independence. Nor were disputes\nbetween individual states brought before the congress of the allies,\nwhich, on account of the preponderance of Sparta, would have endangered\ntheir liberty; but they were commonly either referred to the Delphian\noracle, or to arbitrators chosen by both states.(795) When Elis claimed an\nancient tribute from Lepreum, both states agreed to make Sparta their\narbitrator by a special reference. In this character Sparta declared that\nLepreum, being an independent member of the confederacy, was not bound to\npay the tribute: and Elis acted unjustly in refusing to abide by her\nagreement, on the plea that she had not expected the decision.(796) For\ndisputes between citizens of different states there was an entirely free\nand equal intercourse of justice (_commercium juris dandi\nrepetendique_).(797) The jurisdiction of the states was also absolutely\nexempt from foreign interference (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9).(798) These are the chief\nfeatures of the constitution of the Peloponnesian confederacy; the only\none which in the flourishing times of Greece combined extensive powers\nwith justice, and a respect for the independence of its weaker members.\n\n5. Sparta had not become the head of this league by agreement, and still\nless by usurpation; but by tacit acknowledgment she was the leader, not\nonly of this, but of the whole of Greece; and she acted as such in all\nforeign relations from about the year 580 B.C. Her alliance was courted by\nCr\u0153sus: and the Ionians, when pressed by Cyrus, had recourse to the\nSpartans, who, with an amusing ignorance of the state of affairs beyond\nthe sea, thought to terrify the king of Persia by the threat of\nhostilities. It is a remarkable fact, that there were at that time\nScythian envoys in Sparta, with whom a great plan of operations against\nPersia is said to have been concerted; which it is not easy to\nbelieve.(799) In the year 520 B.C. the Plat\u00e6ans put themselves under the\nprotection of Cleomenes,(800) who referred them to Athens; a herald from\nSparta drove the Alcm\u00e6onid\u00e6 from their city:(801) afterwards Aristagoras\nsought from the protector of Greece(802) aid against the national enemy:\nand when the \u00c6ginetans gave the Persians earth and water, the Athenians\naccused them of treachery before the Spartans: and lastly, during the\nPersian war, Greece found in the high character of that state the only\nmeans of effecting the union so necessary for her safety and success.(803)\n\n6. In this war a new confederacy was formed, which was extended beyond\nPeloponnesus; the community of danger and of victory having, besides a\nmomentary combination, also produced an union destined for some duration.\nIt was the assembly of this league\u2014a fixed congress at Corinth during, and\nat Sparta after, the war\u2014that settled the internal differences of Greece,\nthat invited Argos, Corcyra, and Gelon to join the league, and afterwards\ncalled upon Themistocles to answer for his proceedings.(804) So much it\ndid for the present emergency. But at the same time Pausanias, the regent\nof Sparta, after the great victory of Plat\u00e6a (at which, according to\n\u00c6schylus, the power of Persia fell by the Doric spear),(805) prevailed\nupon the allies to conclude a further treaty. Under the auspices of the\ngods of the confederacy, particularly of the Eleutherian (or Grecian)\nZeus, they pledged themselves mutually to maintain the independence of all\nstates, and to many other conditions, of which the memory has been lost.\nTo the Plat\u00e6ans in particular security from danger was promised.(806) The\nIonians also, after the battle of Mycale, were received into this\nconfederacy.(807)\n\n7. The splendid victories over the Persians had for some time taken\nSparta, which was fitted for a quiet and passive existence, out of her\nnatural sphere; and her king Pausanias had wished to betray his country\nfor the glitter of an Asiatic prince. But this state soon perceived her\ntrue interest, and sent no more commanders to Asia, \u201cthat her generals\nmight not be made worse:\u201d she likewise decided to avoid any further war\nwith the Persians, thinking that Athens was better fitted to carry it on\nthan herself.(808) The decision of the Spartans was doubtless influenced\nby the defection of the Ionians from Pausanias, and their refusal to obey\nDorcis, whom the Spartans had sent with a small body of men in his place.\nNevertheless, the chief motives which determined them must have lain\ndeeper; for without the Greeks of Asia Minor, they could, by the\nassistance of the naval powers of Peloponnesus, Corinth, \u00c6gina, &c, have\ncontinued a war which promised more gain and plunder than trouble and\ndanger. If the speech were now extant in which Heto\u00ebmaridas the Heraclid\nproved to the councillors that it was not expedient for Sparta to aim at\nthe mastery of the sea,(809) we should doubtless possess a profound view,\non the Spartan side, of those things which we are now accustomed to look\non with Athenian eyes. Nor is it true that the supremacy over the Greeks\nwas in fact transferred at all from Sparta to Athens, if we consider the\nmatter as Sparta considered it, however great the influence of this change\nmay have been on the power of Athens. But Sparta continued to hold her\npre-eminence in Peloponnesus, and most of the nations of the\nmother-country joined themselves to her: while none but the Greeks of Asia\nMinor and the islands, who had previously been subjects of Persia, and\nwere then only partially liberated, perhaps too much despised by Sparta,\nput themselves under the command of Athens.(810)\n\n8. But the _complete_ liberation of Asia Minor from the Persian yoke,\nwhich has been considered one of the chief exploits of Athens, was in fact\nnever effected. Without entering into the discussion respecting the\nproblematical treaty of Cimon,(811) we will merely seek to ascertain the\nactual state of the Asiatic Greeks at this period. Herodotus states, that\nArtaphernes, the satrap at Sardes under Darius, fixed the tribute to be\npaid by the Ionians as it remained until the time of the writer,(812)\n_i.e._ about the end of the Peloponnesian war. It is evident that this was\na tribute to be paid to the king of Persia: the exactions of the Athenians\nwere clearly not regulated by any Persian register of property. Again, in\nthe nineteenth year of the war, Tissaphernes sought for assistance against\nAthens, that he might be able to pay to the king of Persia the tribute due\nfrom the Grecian maritime towns, which the Athenians had prevented him\nfrom collecting.(813) From this it is plain that the shah of Susa was\nignorant that the majority of those cities had for more than sixty years\npaid to the Athenians and not to him, and attributed the arrears only to\nthe negligence of his viceroys. I say only the majority; for the Athenians\nhad been far from completing the glorious work of the great Cimon; and\nafter the war-contributions had become a most oppressive tribute, these\ncities might not themselves be very desirous to change their master. Hence\nThemistocles, as a vassal of Persia, possessed undisturbed, at the\naccession of Artaxerxes, the beautiful towns of Magnesia on the M\u00e6ander,\nLampsacus, Myus, Percote, and ancient Scepsis.(814) At a still later\nperiod the descendants of king Demaratus, Eurysthenes, and Procles, ruled\nby the same title over Halisarna in Mysia.(815) The neighbouring towns of\nGambrium, Pal\u00e6gambrium, Myrina, and Grynium had been given by Darius to\nGongylus, and his descendants still dwelt there after the Peloponnesian\nwar.(816) When Athens unjustly expelled the Delians from their island,\nthey found a place of refuge at Adramytteum, on the coast of \u00c6olis, which\nwas granted them by the satrap Pharnaces.(817) Thus the Athenian empire\ndid not prevent the vassals and subjects of the king of Persia from ruling\nover the Greeks of Asia Minor, even down to the very coast. We need not go\nany further to prove the entire falsehood of the account commonly given by\nthe panegyrical rhetoricians of Athens.\n\n9. Peloponnesus took the less concern in these proceedings, as internal\ndifferences had arisen from some unknown cause, which led to an open war\nbetween Sparta and Arcadia. We only know, that, between the battle of\nPlat\u00e6a (in which Tegea, as also later still, showed great fidelity towards\nSparta) and the war with the Helots (_i.e._ between 479 and 465 B.C.), the\nLaced\u00e6monians fought two great battles, the one against the Tegeates and\nArgives at Tegea, the other against all the Arcadians, with the exception\nof the Mantineans, at Dip\u00e6a in the M\u00e6nalian territory. Tisamenus, an\nElean, of the family of the Iamid\u00e6, was in both battles in the Spartan\narmy; and in both Sparta was victorious.(818) Yet, in an epigram of\nSimonides, the valour of the Tegeates is praised, who by their death had\nsaved their city from destruction;(819) probably after the loss of the\nfirst battle. As we find that Argos had a share in this war,(820) it is\npossible that the views of that state were directed against the ascendancy\nof Sparta; perhaps also the independence of the M\u00e6nalians, Parrhasians,\n&c. had been, as was so often the case, attacked by the more powerful\nstates of Arcadia, and was defended by the head of the Peloponnesian\nconfederacy.\n\n10. This war had not been brought to a termination, when, in the year 465\nB.C., in the reign of Archidamus(821) and Pleistoanax, a tremendous\nearthquake (which is said to have been predicted by Anaximander(822))\ndestroyed Sparta, and a sudden ruin threatened to overwhelm the state of\nGreece. For, in the hope of utterly annihilating their rulers, many Helots\n(perhaps doubly excited by the late outrage on the suppliants at the altar\nof the T\u00e6narian god),(823) especially the ancient inhabitants of Messenia,\nand two cities of the Peri\u0153ci, revolted from Sparta; these rebels were all\nnamed Messenians, and the war was called the third Messenian war.(824) The\ncircumstances of this terrible contest are almost unknown to us; and we\ncan only collect the few fragments extant of its history. A\u00ebimnestus the\nSpartan, who had killed Mardonius, fought with 300 men at Stenyclarus\nagainst a body of Messenians, and was slain with all his men.(825) This\nwas followed by a great battle with the same enemy at Ithome,(826) in\nwhich the Spartans were victorious. Most of the conquered Messenians then\nintrenched themselves on the steep summit of Ithome, which was even then\nsacred to Zeus Ithomatas; and they probably restored the ancient walls and\ndefences which had fallen down. Upon this the Laced\u00e6monians, foreseeing a\ntedious siege, called in the aid of their allies; and this call was\nanswered among others by the \u00c6ginetans,(827) the Mantineans,(828) the\nPlat\u00e6ans,(829) and the Athenians, who, at the request of the Spartan envoy\nPericlides, sent 4000 hoplites(830) under the command of Cimon; the\nSpartans, however, dismissed them before the fortress was taken, in which\nthey expected to be aided by the superiority of the Athenians in the art\nof besieging, not without showing their suspicion of the innovating spirit\nof their ally.(831) In the tenth year of the siege, 455 B.C., Ithome\nsurrendered on terms; and the Messenians, together with their wives and\nchildren, quitted Peloponnesus, under a promise of never again entering\nit. It appears that the war between Laced\u00e6mon and Arcadia was concluded\nupon conditions, of which one was, that no person should be put to death\nfor the sake of the Laced\u00e6monian party at Tegea; and another, that Sparta\nwas to expel the Messenians from the country, but not kill them\u2014which were\ninscribed on a pillar on the banks of the Alpheus.(832) The Athenians,\nhowever, gave the fugitives the town of Naupactus, which they had shortly\nbefore conquered, and which was conveniently situated for tempting them,\nagainst their promise, to make inroads and forays in Peloponnesus. The\nMessenians still continued, in the Peloponnesian war, to be distinguished\nfrom the neighbouring people by their Doric dialect.(833)\n\n11. Immediately after the dismission of the Athenians from Ithome, the\npeople of Athens, in order to resent the affront, annulled the alliance\nwith Sparta, which had subsisted since the Persian war;(834) entered into\na treaty with Argos, the enemy of Sparta, and also with the Thessalians;\nand even joined to itself Megara, which was dependent on its commercial\nintercourse. Then followed the war with the maritime towns of Argolis, in\nwhich Athens, after many reverses, at length succeeded in destroying the\nfleet of \u00c6gina, and subjugating that island (457 B.C.).(835) Sparta was\ncompelled to be a quiet spectator of the subjection of so important a\nmember of her confederacy, as she was still occupied with the siege of\nIthome, and in the same year had sent out an army to liberate her mother\ncountry, Doris, from the yoke of the Phocians. But when, after the\nexecution of this object, the Spartans were hastening back to\nPeloponnesus, they were compelled to force their passage home by the\nbattle of Tanagra, which, with the assistance of the Thebans, they gained\nover an army composed of Athenians, Ionians, Argives, and Thessalians.\nThis aid was afforded to them on the condition that they would help the\nThebans to regain their supremacy in B\u0153otia, which the Thebans had lost by\ntheir defection from the Grecian cause in the Persian war.(836) Sparta,\nhowever, after so decisive a victory, concluded a four months\u2019 armistice\nwith Athens, during which that state conquered the Thebans at \u0152nophyta,\nfinished the blockade of \u00c6gina, subdued all B\u0153otia with the exception of\nThebes, and Phocis, and extended its democratical constitution, which\nafter the battle of Tanagra was nearly threatened with destruction,(837)\neven to the city of Thebes. The inactivity of Sparta during these\nastonishing successes of her enemy (for when she concluded the armistice\nwith Athens she must have partly foreseen its consequences) seems to prove\nthat she was entirely occupied with the final capture of Ithome, and the\nsettlement of her interests in Arcadia.(838) But that the war, which was\nnow renewed by Athens, nevertheless extended to the whole Peloponnesian\nleague, is shown by the connected attacks of Tolmides on the Spartan\nharbour Gytheium, and the cities of Sicyon and Corinth, and also by the\nexpedition of Pericles in the Corinthian gulf. The five years\u2019 truce in\n451 B.C. was only an armistice between Athens and the Peloponnesian\nconfederacy, which left B\u0153otia to shake off the Athenian yoke by its own\nexertions. This was also the time of the Sacred war, in which a Spartan\nand an Athenian army, one coming after the other, the first gave the\nmanagement of the temple to the Delphians, and the second, against all\nancient right,(839) to the Phocians. At the end of these five years Megara\nrevolted from the Athenians, and in consequence an invasion of Attica by\nthe Peloponnesians took place, which, though it did not produce any\nimmediate result, was soon followed by the thirty years\u2019 truce, in which\nAthens ceded her conquests in Megaris and Peloponnesus,(840) and on the\nmainland returned within her ancient boundaries; but she preserved the\nsame power over her other confederates. For when the Athenians soon\nafterwards attacked the revolted island of Samos, the Peloponnesians\nindeed debated whether they should protect it, but the proposal of Corinth\nwas adopted, that Athens should be allowed to deal with her allies as she\npleased.(841)\n\n12. If now we consider the events which have been briefly traced in the\nforegoing pages, it will be perceived, that the principle on which the\nLaced\u00e6monians constantly acted was one of self-defence, of restoring what\nhad been lost, or preserving what was threatened with danger; whereas the\nAthenians were always aiming at attack or conquest, or the change of\nexisting institutions. While the Spartans during this period, even after\nthe greatest victories, did not conquer a foot of land, subjugate one\nindependent state, or destroy one existing institution; the Athenians, for\na longer or for a shorter time, reduced large tracts of country under\ntheir dominion, extended their alliance (as it was called) on all sides,\nand respected no connexion sanctioned by nature, descent, or antiquity,\nwhen it came in conflict with their plans of empire. But the astonishing\nenergy of the Athenian people, which from one point kept the whole of\nGreece in constant vibration, almost paralysed Sparta; the natural\nslowness of that state became more and more apparent: which having been,\nas it were, violently transplanted into a strange region, only began by\ndegrees to comprehend the policy of Athens.\n\nBut when Athens saw the Peloponnesian confederacy again established, and\nas she could not, on account of the truce, attack it directly, she looked\nto the colonial law, which rested rather on hereditary feelings than on\npositive institution, for an opportunity of an indirect attack. This was\nsoon found in the defensive treaty with Corcyra, which state was engaged\nwith its mother country Corinth in a war, according to ancient Greek\nprinciples, wholly unlawful and unjust. Besides this, however, it was an\nactual breach of the thirty years\u2019 truce.(842) And the same principles\nwere expressed in the demand that Potid\u00e6a should, for the sake of the\nAthenian confederacy, give up its original connexion with the parent\nstate. In both these cases it is manifest that the maxims of the Athenian\npolicy were directly at variance with the general feeling of justice\nentertained by the Greeks, and especially with the respect for affinity of\nblood; and this fundamental difference was the true cause of the\nPeloponnesian war.\n\n13. As it would not be consistent with the plan of this work to give a\ndetailed account of the influence of the Peloponnesian war upon the\npolitical and private character of the Greeks, we must be content to point\nout the following obvious points of opposition between the contending\nparties. In the first place, then, _Dorians were opposed to Ionians_; and\nhence in the well-known oracle it was called the Doric war.(843) The\nindividual exceptions are for the most part merely apparent;(844) also\nwhen the Athenians attacked Sicily, all the Doric cities were opposed to\nthem.(845) On the side of Athens were ranged all the Ionians of Europe, of\nthe islands, and of Asia, not indeed voluntarily, but still not altogether\nagainst their inclination. _The union of the free Greeks against the evil\nambition of one state._ At the beginning of the war the general voice of\nGreece was in favour of Sparta(846) (which was heard through the Delphian\noracle, when it promised that state assistance);(847) nor did she compel\nany one to join in it. The allies of Athens, having previously been\nPersian subjects, were accustomed to obey; and on the present occasion\nforced to submit; the public assembly of Athens was the only free voice in\nso large a combination. _Land-forces against sea-forces._ According to the\nspeech of Pericles, Peloponnesus was able, in an action with heavy-armed\ntroops, to resist all the rest of Greece together; and Athens avoided\ncoming to this mode of engagement with singular ingenuity. The fleet of\nthe Peloponnesians, on the other hand, was at the beginning of the war\nvery inconsiderable.(848) Hence it was some time before the belligerent\nparties even so much as encountered one another. The land was the means of\ncommunication for one party, the sea for the other: hence the states\nfriendly to Athens were immediately compelled to build _long walls_ for\nthe purpose of connecting the chief city with the sea, and isolating it\nfrom the land; as Megara before, and Argos and Patr\u00e6 during the war.(849)\n_Large bodies of men practised in war against wealth._ The Peloponnesians\ncarried on the war with natives: whereas Athens manned her fleet\u2014the basis\nof her power\u2014chiefly with foreign seamen; so that the Corinthians said\njustly that the power of Athens was rather purchased than native.(850) It\nwas the main principle of Pericles\u2019 policy, and it is also adopted by\nThucydides in the famous introduction to his History, that it is not the\ncountry and people, but moveable property, (\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, in the proper sense\nof the word,) which makes states great and powerful. _Slow and deliberate\nconviction against determined rashness._ This is evident both from the\ndifferent direction taken by the alliances of the two parties, and from\ntheir national character. It was with good reason that the oracle\nadmonished Sparta to carry on the war with decision and firmness; for that\nstate was always cautious of undertaking a war, and ready for peace.(851)\n_Maintenance of ancient custom as opposed to the desire of novelty._ The\nformer was the chief feature of the Doric, the latter of the Ionic race.\nThe Dorians wished to preserve their ancient dignity and power, as well as\ntheir customs and religious feelings: the Ionians were commonly in pursuit\nof something new, frequently, as in the case of the Sicilian expedition,\nbut obscurely seen and conceived. _Union of nations and races against one\narbitrarily formed._ As has been already shown, this difference was the\ncause of the war; and indeed Athens in the course of it hardly recognised\nany duty in small states to remain faithful to cities of the same race,\nand to their mother countries; otherwise, why was Melos so barbarously\npunished, for remembering rather that it was a colony of Sparta than an\nisland? Thus also in the interior of states the Athenians encouraged\npolitical associations or clubs (\u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9), while the Spartans trusted to\nthe ties of relationship.(852) _Aristocracy against democracy._(853) This\ndifference was manifested in the first half of the war by Athens changing,\nwhile Sparta only restored governments; for in this instance also the\npower of Sparta was in strictness only employed in upholding ancient\nestablishments, as an aristocracy may indeed be overthrown, but cannot be\nformed in a moment.\n\n14. These obvious points of difference are sufficient to substantiate the\nresult which we wish to arrive at. It is manifest that the second of the\ntwo forces, which in each of these instances came into collision, must\nnecessarily have always overcome the first. The slow, cumbrous, unwieldy\nbody of the Spartan confederacy was sure to suffer under the blows of its\nskilful, forward, and enterprising antagonist. The maxims which, according\nto Thucydides, were current at this time,(854) that rashness was to be\ncalled courage in a friend\u2019s cause, provident foresight hidden cowardice,\nmoderation a cloak for pusillanimity, and that to be prudent in every\nthing was to be active in nothing, necessarily impeded and shackled the\nbeneficial effects of the measures of the Doric party. The \u201chonesty and\nopenness\u201d of the Doric character, the noble simplicity of the ancient\ntimes of Greece, soon disappeared in this tumultuous age.(855) Sparta\ntherefore and the Peloponnesians emerge from the contest, altered, and as\nit were reversed; and even before its termination appear in a character of\nwhich they had before probably contained only the first seeds.\n\nBut in the second half of the war, when the Spartans gave up their great\narmaments by land, and began to equip fleets with hired seamen; when they\nhad learnt to consider money as the chief instrument of warfare, and\nbegged it at the court of Persia; when they sought less to protect the\nstates joined to them by affinity and alliance, than to dissolve the\nAthenian confederacy; when they began to secure conquered states by\nharmosts of their own, and by oligarchs forced upon the people, and found\nthat the secret management of the political clubs was more to their\ninterest than open negotiation with the government; we see developed on\nthe one hand an energy and address, which was first manifested in the\nenterprises of the great Brasidas, and on the other a worldly policy, as\nwas shown in Gylippus, and afterwards more strongly in Lysander; when the\ndescendants of Hercules found it advisable to exchange the lion\u2019s for the\nfox\u2019s skin.(856) And, since the enterprises conducted in the spirit of\nearlier times either wholly failed or else remained fruitless, this new\nsystem, though the state had inwardly declined, brought with it, by the\nmockery of fate, external fame and victory.(857)\n\n\n\n\n\nBOOK II. RELIGION AND MYTHOLOGY OF THE DORIANS.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Apollo and Artemis the principal deities of the Doric race. \u00a7\n    2. Traces of the worship of Apollo in Tempe. \u00a7 3. Route of the\n    Theoria from Tempe to Delphi. \u00a7 4. Establishment of the worship of\n    Apollo at Delphi; \u00a7 5. Crete; \u00a7 6. And Delos. \u00a7 7. Early history\n    of Crissa. \u00a7 8. Doric population of Delphi. \u00a7 9. Opposition to the\n    worship of the Delphian Apollo.\n\n\n1. In turning from the history of the external affairs of the Dorians to\nthe consideration of their intellectual existence, our first step must be\nto enquire into their religion; and for this purpose we will proceed to\nanalyse and resolve it into the various worships and ceremonies of which\nit was composed, and to trace the origin and connexion of these as they\nsuccessively arose.\n\nNow it may with safety be asserted, that the principal deities of the\nDorians were Apollo and Artemis, since their worship is found to have\npredominated in all the settlements of that race; and conversely the Doric\norigin can be either proximately or remotely traced wherever there were\nany considerable institutions dedicated to the worship of Apollo; insomuch\nthat the adoration of this god may be shown from the most ancient\ntestimonies of mythology to have gradually advanced with the extension of\nthe Doric nation. Yet we are not to understand that the worship of Apollo\nand the Doric race were so exactly co-extensive that the presence of the\nlatter always proves either the previous or actual existence of the\nformer. Indeed it is certain that in ancient as well as in modern times\nthe worship of particular gods was not only propagated by migration and\nconquest, but that religious belief was also extended by peaceful\nintercourse, and, as it were, by moral contact.\n\nIn order to rest the claims of the Doric race to the worship of Apollo on\na secure foundation, it is necessary first to give a direct contradiction\nto all those statements which assert its connexion with any race not of\nHellenic descent. In the first place, then, Apollo was not a national\ndeity of the aboriginal _Pelasgic_ nations of Greece.(858) Had this been\nthe case, he would certainly have enjoyed frequent and distinguished\nhonours in those countries where the numbers of that race remained\nundiminished; for example, in Arcadia. Now there were very few temples of\nApollo in Arcadia; and moreover, the founding of most of these was either\nconnected with a foreign hero, or else attributed to some external\ninfluence.(859) Secondly, it has been supposed that the worship of this\ngod was introduced from the _East_ (an opinion founded chiefly on the\nestablishments of his religion in Lycia); but we shall presently show that\nits institution in this quarter was in fact derived from the Dorians. To\nthis we may add, that amongst none of the _half-Grecian_ nations, for\nexample, the Leleges, Carians, \u00c6tolians, Phrygians, and Thracians, the\nworship of this god can be proved to have been national. The same may be\naffirmed of the _Italian_ nations. Apollo never occurs in the ancient\n_Etruscan_ religion. Nor was _Rome_ acquainted with this worship, until it\nwas introduced by the Sibylline oracles; a sacred spot was then allotted\non the Flaminian meadow; and the temple erected there (324 A.U.C.) was, up\nto the time of Cicero, the only one in Rome.(860) Nay, that the Italians\nadopted Apollo altogether as a foreign deity is proved by the circumstance\nof their not having united him with their native Jupiter, or Mercury, as\nthey did the Grecian Zeus, Hermes, &c. In our inquiries therefore into the\norigin of the worship of Apollo, we are limited to the races of purely\nGreek offspring. It remains only to be shown why we have selected the\n_Dorians_ in particular from all these different tribes. And we merely\nmake this preliminary remark, that the mythical genealogy, in which Dorus\nis called the son of Apollo,(861) was a simple expression for this fact.\n\n2. The most ancient settlements of the Doric race, of which any historical\naccounts are extant, were, as we before ascertained,(862) the country at\nthe foot of Olympus and Ossa, near the valley of TEMPE. In this district\nthere were two sanctuaries, bearing the character of the highest\nantiquity, viz., the Pythium, on the ridge of Olympus, near a steep\nmountain-pass leading to Macedonia; and the altar in the ravine of the\nPeneus,(863) from which the god himself was called \u03a4\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2; and in an\ninscription discovered near this spot, on the banks of the river between\nTempe and Larissa, are the words \u0391\u03a0\u039b\u039f\u03a5\u039d\u0399 \u03a4\u0395\u039c\u03a0\u0395\u0399\u03a4\u0391, \u201cTo Apollo of\nTempe.\u201d(864) From another inscription found in this district we gather an\naccount of certain native Thessalian festivals, at which branches of\nlaurel were carried round, that were doubtless procured from the groves in\nthe valley of Tempe; whither also the Delphians every eight years, at the\nexpiration of the sacred period, sent the Pythian theori, who, after the\nperformance of a sacrifice, broke the expiatory branch from the sacred\nlaurel-tree.(865) According also to the admission of the Delphians\nthemselves, the temple of Apollo at Tempe was more ancient than their own,\nsince a perfect expiation could only be performed in that sanctuary. In\naccordance with the tradition that Apollo himself, after having slain the\nPython, fled to the altar at Tempe to be purified from the pollution, the\nsacred boy, at each return of the appointed day, went to Tempe by a\ncertain path,(866) in imitation of the god whom he honoured, in order to\nreturn home amidst the joyful songs of the choruses of virgins, as\n\u03b4\u03b1\u03c6\u03bd\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, or _laurel-bearer_. The religious usages at this festival will\nbe investigated hereafter; here we will only consider the route which the\nprocession took. It led through Thessaly and Pelasgia (that is, through\nthe plain of the Peneus, which stretches to the south as far as Pher\u00e6);\nthen through the country of the Malians and \u00c6nianes, over mount \u0152ta,\nthrough Doris and the western part of Locris;(867) avoiding in a\nremarkable manner the shorter and more frequented road from Thessaly\nthrough Thermopyl\u00e6, over Phocis, and through the pass of Panopeus and\nDaulis to Delphi. The reasons of this deviation may have been the\nopposition offered in early times by hostile tribes from the eastern side\nof Delphi to the peaceable march of sacred processions; and also that the\ntheoria might in its progress pass through the second settlements of the\nDorians, between \u0152ta and Parnassus, where doubtless the worship of Apollo\nhad likewise prevailed.(868)\n\n3. The first half of the Pythian road, which goes through Thessaly, is\nvery accurately determined by a combination of different testimonies. Its\nfirst stage was from Tempe to Larissa. Near this place was a village named\nDeipnias, where the boy who carried the laurel-branch first broke his long\nfast;(869) as Apollo himself was reported also to have done. That the\nplace received its name from this circumstance is a sufficient proof of\nthe antiquity of the usage. The theoria next proceeded to Pher\u00e6, where the\nboy, on his way to Tempe, and before his purification, represented the\nservitude of Apollo when a refugee at the palace of Admetus. This use of\nslavery as a preparative for the expiation of guilt, is doubtless taken\nfrom some very ancient tradition; and it is alluded to by the earliest\nepic poets; in the Iliad the horses of Eumelus, the son of Admetus, are\nstated to have derived their excellence from having been under the care of\nApollo at Pher\u00e6.(870) The harbour of Pher\u00e6 was Pagas\u00e6, in the furthest\nrecess of the Pagas\u00e6an bay, in which place there was a celebrated altar of\nthe Pagas\u00e6an Apollo, situated in an extensive grove,(871) where there were\nlarge numbers of sacred ravens.(872) This sanctuary is the theatre of\nHesiod\u2019s poem of the Shield of Hercules; and at no great distance the\nriver Anaurus runs into the sea,(873) which stream, swollen by violent\nstorms of rain carried away the tomb of Cycnus, the son of Mars; \u201c_for\nthus Apollo, the son of Latona, willed it, because Cycnus had plundered\nthe hecatombs which the nations brought to the temple of Pytho._\u201d(874)\nHence it is evident that the Pagas\u00e6an sanctuary was situated on the road\nconsecrated by the processions to and from Delphi; and we may perceive\nalso in these words of Hesiod an allusion to a fable perhaps much\ncelebrated by early poets, viz., that Cycnus was slain for having profaned\nthe temple of Apollo.(875) Moreover, the legend related by Heraclides\nPonticus, that Trophonius founded the temple of Apollo at Pagas\u00e6,(876)\npoints to the connexion with Delphi; the same Trophonius, a renowned\narchitect of the mythical age, is also said to have built the most ancient\ntemple of Pytho.\n\n4. We thus arrive at DELPHI, the second grand station of the worship of\nApollo, and, as it were, a focus, from which it diverged in numberless\ndirections, and to which it was again partially reflected. Now although\nfrom early times the singular and striking character of the place might\noften have raised the feelings to ecstasy, and excited in the spectator\ndim and shadowy forebodings of the future; yet the establishment of a\n_fixed_ institution, with its sacred regulations and rights, was\nintimately connected with the introduction of the worship of Apollo. At\nwhat time, however, did this first obtain a footing at Delphi? Probably\nwhen the Doric race came from Hesti\u00e6otis to Parnassus, and settled above\nDelphi, which event took place at a very early period. This supposition,\nto which we are led by the preceding inquiry, is not inconsistent with the\ncelebrated tradition that Cretan navigators landed on this coast in the\ntime of Minos, and there introduced the worship of Apollo. In order,\nhowever, to reconcile these two accounts, we must first examine the Cretan\nworship of that god.\n\n5. The population of CRETE having been in early times composed of a\nheterogeneous mixture of different nations, it was natural that the\nworships of many different gods should prevail there; yet in many cases it\nis possible to ascertain the nation from which they severally originated.\nAmongst these, the Dorians, whose chief settlement was on the\nnorth-eastern coast near Cnosus (from which point, however, they very soon\nspread over other parts of the island), had brought over the worship of\nApollo from their settlements under Olympus. According to a tradition\npreserved in the Homeric hymn to Apollo, the ship, which Apollo in the\nshape of a dolphin conducted to Delphi, set out from the city of Cnosus.\nOf this city the chief temple was that of Apollo Delphinius.(877) In its\nterritory was situated a place called Apollonia; and the remarkable town\nof Amnisus, with the grotto of Eileithyia, where it was supposed that this\ngoddess, who assisted at the birth of Apollo, was herself born.(878) On\nthe same coast are Miletus, where (as will be mentioned hereafter) the\nworship of Apollo prevailed, and Lato (Camira), whose name reminds us of\nthe goddess Latona. It cannot be doubted that the same worship also\nprevailed in the ancient Doric town of Lyctus, in the interior of the\nisland.(879) Nearer to the southern coast was Gortyna, which, though\nfounded by a different race, yet in later times recognised the dominion\nand worship of the same nation as Cnosus: accordingly, the most central\npoint of this city was called _Pythium_.(880) Immediately bordering on it\nwas Ph\u00e6stus, the birthplace of Epimenides, which town was said to have\nderived its origin and name from a Heraclid of Sicyon.(881) Here, together\nwith Hercules, Apollo and Latona received particular honours.(882) Further\non towards the west, in the mountains, was Tarrha, one of the most ancient\nand considerable temples of Apollo.(883) Here, according to the Cretan\ntradition, dwelt Carmanor the father of the minstrel Chrysothemis, a\npriest who was said to have purified Apollo himself from the blood of the\nPython;(884) which legend, when compared with the account of his expiation\nat the altar in the valley of Tempe, shows how the legends connected with\nthe worship of Apollo crossed over to Crete, and there again took root.\nWith the residence of Apollo when a refugee in the house of Carmanor,\nthere is connected a tradition of his amour with Acacallis, who bore him\nNaxos,(885) or Miletus,(886) or Phylander and Phylacis, who, in a sacred\noffering of the Elyrians at Delphi, were represented as sucking the teat\nof a she-goat.(887) This Elyrus, like most of the ancient towns of Crete,\nwas situated in the mountains of the interior, probably not far from\nTarrha.(888) Although there have not been preserved accounts sufficient to\nlead to any general conclusion, yet those which we have adduced establish\nthe position that it was not the original inhabitants of mount Ida or any\nsupposed colonists from Ph\u0153nicia, but the Dorian invaders alone who made\nCrete the head-quarters of the worship of Apollo: we therefore assert that\nthis worship (as originally founded in Crete), had not the slightest\nconnexion with the enthusiastic (and probably Phrygian) orgies of the\nId\u00e6an Zeus, with the Corybantes, &c. Yet from these ceremonies being\ncelebrated at so short a distance from each other, confusions soon arose;\nso that in later times the Curetes were called the sons of Apollo.(889)\nAccording to some writers, Corybas was the father of Apollo, and he was\nreported to have disputed the sovereignty of Crete with Zeus.(890)\n\n6. From Crete, we will now proceed to DELOS. Virgil, on the authority (as\nit appears) of some ancient epic poet, calls the Cretans ministers of the\nDelian altars.(891) The voyages of Theseus from Cnosus to Delos is also\nfounded on the same connexion, as will be more fully explained\nhereafter.(892) We must not, however, too hastily conclude, that in the\nage of Minos, when the Cretans were the dominant nation in the Greek\nArchipelago, Delos received the worship of Apollo from a Cretan\ncolony.(893) It may with greater probability be conjectured, that the\nDorians in their first expedition to Crete (which could hardly have\ntraversed so great a distance without leaving behind some traces of its\nexistence) had founded the sanctuary at Delos; since the tradition of the\ntransmission of sacred presents from the country of the Hyperboreans to\nthat island, is most simply explained as a memorial of a religious\nconnexion, which had once been long maintained, by means of sacred\nprocessions, with the northern settlements of the Dorians.\n\n7. Now respecting the presence of Cretans at Delphi, it was nothing more\nthan an attempt of these islanders, who dwelt on the very verge of the\nGrecian territory, to gain for themselves the credit of a reciprocal\ninfluence upon the early settlements of their own race and religion. We\nfind in the Hymn of Homer, that Apollo, descending from Olympus, himself\nfounded his temple at Pytho, and afterwards obtained experienced priests,\nminstrels, and prophets(894) from Cnosus; for which purpose he, in the\nshape of a dolphin, conducted a Cretan vessel to Crissa. Crissa, or Cirrha\n(for that the same place was originally signified by both names I consider\nas certain(895)), a fortified town in the inmost recess of the Criss\u00e6an\nbay, was probably a settlement of this Cretan colony, as the name \u039a\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\nseems to signify nothing else than a _Cretan_ city (\u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2).(896)\nAlthough the Pythian sanctuary itself was situated in the territory of\nCrissa,(897) yet the town of Crissa possessed, besides an altar of Apollo\nDelphinius on the shore, in early times one of the chief temples of\nApollo:(898) hence in Homer\u2019s Catalogue the _sacred_ Crissa is mentioned,\ntogether with the rocky Pytho; and the Pythian sanctuary is called\n_Criss\u00e6a templa_, on the faith of some ancient tradition, by a Roman poet.\nThis expression must have been borrowed from poems anterior to the\ndestruction of Cirrha (about 585 B.C.) before this town had by its\nextortions and oppression of pilgrims deserved the wrath of the\nAmphictyonic confederacy; nor is it probable that it retained a share in\nthe management of the Delphian temple up to the very last moment of its\npolitical existence, when it was visited with a destruction so complete,\nas nearly to deprive us of all knowledge of its previous history. The\nunfortified town of Delphi, which, with the Amphictyons, obtained after\nthat war the sole management of the temple, previously perhaps had not\nbeen a place of any importance; at least it is not mentioned in any\nearlier writings than one of the most recent hymns of Homer, and by\nHeraclitus of Ephesus.(899)\n\n8. In ancient times the service of the temple, as appears from the Homeric\nHymn, was performed both at Delos and Delphi by Cretans; but it is\nscarcely possible that they should have constituted the whole population\nof the country. For, in the first place, the extensive territory of the\ntemple was cultivated by a subject people, of whom we shall speak\nhereafter, and who were certainly not of Doric, and probably in few cases\nof Cretan descent;(900) besides whom there was a native nobility, whose\ninfluence over the temple was very considerable. These are the persons\nwho, according to Euripides, \u201c_sat near the tripod, the Delphian nobles,\nchosen by lot_;\u201d(901) called also \u201c_the lords and princes of the\nDelphians_.\u201d They also formed a criminal court, which, by the Pythian\nvote, sentenced all offenders against the temple to be hurled from a\nprecipice.(902) To the same persons also doubtless belonged the permission\nand superintendence of the ancient rite of expiation; and it was their\nduty (as it was that of the court of the Samothracian priests) to\ndetermine whether a homicide was expiable or not. Their influence over the\noracle was so great, that they may be considered to have been the actual\nmanagers of it. Their political bias may be inferred from the fact, that\nTimasitheus the Delphian distinguished himself by his boldness and\nresolution among the aristocratical party of Isagoras at Athens.(903) It\nappears that these families originally came to Delphi from the mountainous\ncountry in the interior. Thus the chief-priests of the god, the five\n\u1f4d\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, were chosen by lot from a number of families who derived their\ndescent from Deucalion,(904) by which they probably meant to denote their\norigin from Lycoreia on the heights of Parnassus, founded (as was\nsupposed) by Deucalion, the father of Hellen;(905) from which town it is\nknown that great part of the population of Delphi had proceeded.(906) Now\nthis place, of which traces still remain in the village of _Liacura_ (now\nonly inhabited in summer by mountain shepherds)(907) was in all\nprobability of Doric origin, since it formed the communication between the\nTetrapolis and Delphi.(908) The language spoken at Delphi was likewise a\nDoric dialect.(909)\n\nIf then this was the case, Doric mountaineers from the heights of\nParnassus, and Cretan colonists on the sea-coast, met together (according\nto a very uncertain computation about 200 years before the Doric migration\ninto Peloponnesus), in order to establish the Delphian worship. The Doric\ndialect, it may be observed, which prevailed at Delphi, was common to both\nparties. It is known from many traditions and historical traces, that the\nconnexion established by the Cretans continued for a long time.(910) The\nancient tents made of feathers, and a wooden statue of Apollo, perhaps one\nof the most ancient specimens of rude carving, were also reported to have\nbeen brought from Crete. The fabulous series of Delphic minstrels began\nwith Chrysothemis, the son of Carmanor, the above-mentioned priest of\nTarrha.(911) Crete, however, did not merely send works of sculpture and\nhymns to Delphi, but sometimes even men,(912) for the service of the\nPythian Apollo.\n\n9. I know not whether these accounts are sufficient to afford an\nintelligible description of a time when the worship of Apollo, being\nestablished at the foot of Olympus, Parnassus, and in the distant island\nof Crete, and producing a certain degree of communication between these\npoints, had not as yet penetrated to any part of Greece which lay to the\nsouth of \u0152ta and Parnassus.\n\nIt is evident, moreover, that the extension of this worship met with a\nlong opposition. Apollo is in ancient traditions represented as himself\nprotecting his own temple.(913) The Phlegyans to the east, and the\n\u00c6tolians to the west, appear to have been particularly adverse to the\nworship of the Delphian Apollo. That there was a national opposition\ncaused by the Phlegyans possessing the stronghold of Panopeus in the\nmountain-passes towards B\u0153otia, is shown by the legends, that Phorbas\ntheir leader wrestled there with Apollo; that Phlegyas burned the temple\nto the ground; and lastly, that Apollo exterminated their whole race with\nthunder and lightning.(914) The same people is here represented as waging\nwar with the great deity of the Dorians, which, under the name of Lapith\u00e6,\nopposed the Dorians themselves in Thessaly. And on the other side, Apollo\nwas related in the Poems of Hesiod, and the Minyad, to have assisted the\nLocrian Curetes against the \u00c6tolians, and slain their prince\nMeleager.(915)\n\n\n\n\nChapter II.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Propagation of the worship of Apollo from Crete. \u00a7 2. in\n    Lycia. \u00a7 3 and 4. in the Troad. \u00a7 5. in Thrace. \u00a7 6 and 7. on the\n    Coast of Asia Minor. \u00a7 8. at Tr\u0153zen, T\u00e6narum, Megara. \u00a7 9.\n    Thoricus. \u00a7 10. and Leucatas. \u00a7 11 and 12. in B\u0153otia. \u00a7 13. 14.\n    and 15. and in Attica.\n\n\n1. But whilst the worship of Apollo was experiencing so much opposition in\nthe north of Greece, the sea, with the neighbouring coasts and islands\nafforded ample opportunities for its propagation from the shores of Crete.\nThis serves to account for the singular fact, that the most ancient\ntemples of Apollo throughout the south of Greece, are found in maritime\ndistricts, and generally on promontories and headlands.\n\nThe colonies of Apollo branched out in various directions from the\nnorthern coast of Crete, carrying every where with them the expiatory and\noracular ceremonies of his worship.(916) The remarkable regularity with\nwhich these settlements were established cannot, however, be regarded as\nthe work of missions systematically carried on, or as part of the policy\nof Minos.(917) They are to be accounted for by the natural desire of the\ntribes of Crete, whilst migrating along the coast of the \u00c6gean sea, to\nerect, wherever they touched, temples to that god, whose worship was\nblended with their spiritual existence.\n\nWe shall first advert to those settlements which (taking the coast of\nCrete as our centre) were founded in the direction of LYCIA, MILETUS,\nCLAROS, and the TROAD; the first and last of which were the most ancient,\nthe others being perhaps a century later.(918)\n\n2. It is stated by Herodotus that Sarpedon migrated with some _barbarous_\nnations from Crete to Lycia or Milyas.(919) This unsupported and singular\naccount is however probably not founded on tradition, the popular idea\nbeing that he was a brother of Minos the Cnosian, whom it represented as a\nprince of purely Hellenic blood. By these means the Cretan laws (that is,\nthe Doric customs, which had been first fully developed in Crete), and\nalso the Doric worship of Apollo, were spread over Lycia. For the\nsituation of the chief temples is a sufficient proof that the settlers of\nLycia came, not from the inland countries of Asia, but over the sea to the\ncoast. Xanthus, a city renowned for the valour of its inhabitants,(920)\nand situated on the river of the same name, was a Cretan settlement.(921)\nIt seems to have been a Lycian tradition, that Xanthus was the father of\nMinos, Rhadamanthus, and Sarpedon:(922) in this town was a temple sacred\nto Sarpedon;(923) but it is uncertain whether to the elder Sarpedon, the\nbrother of Minos, or to the younger, a hero of the same family mentioned\nin Homer, whose corpse Apollo rescued from the Greeks, and conveyed to his\nnative country.(924) Apollo was also worshipped under the title of\nSarpedonius.(925) Sixty stadia below the town, and ten from the mouth of\nthe river Xanthus, was a grove sacred to Latona, near an ancient temple of\nthe Lycian Apollo.(926) To this spot the goddess had been conducted by\nwolves; here also she had bathed her new-born babes in the river,(927) and\nbeen hospitably received by an old woman in a wretched hovel.(928) These\nare the only remains of the national tradition, which in its general\ncharacter was perhaps only another version of that prevalent at Delos. But\nthe chief temple was one at Patara, in the southern extremity of\nLycia,(929) the winter habitation of the god, where he also gave out\noracles through the mouth of a priestess.(930) The oblations of cakes in\nthe shape of lyres, bows and arrows, which were made to Apollo at Patara,\nremind us of similar customs at Delos, and furnish a fresh proof of the\nclose connexion between the worships of these two countries.(931)\n\nFurther to the east was the oracle of Apollo Thyrxeus, near the Cyanean\nislands;(932) to the west lay Telmissus, with its interpreters of dreams,\nwho attributed their origin to Apollo.(933) Not only the towns just\nmentioned, but almost every other on the coast of Lycia, honoured the god,\nfrom whom even the name of the country was derived.(934)\n\nAmongst these settlements we must probably also reckon that on the\npromontory of Corycus in Cilicia, since we find in its vicinity the temple\nof Zeus Sarpedon. The name of the place, if compared with that of the\nCorycian grotto on Parnassus, is of itself sufficient evidence that the\nworship of Apollo prevailed there, which is still further proved by the\ntradition that stags swam over from thence to Curium in Cyprus.(935) Here\nalso stood an altar of Apollo, of particular sanctity, which no one was\nallowed to touch on pain of being thrown from the rocks of the\nneighbouring promontory. In this punishment we shall presently recognise\none form of the expiatory rites, which every where accompanied the worship\nof Apollo.\n\n3. No place contained so many temples of Apollo within so small a space as\nthe coast of Troy; Cilia, in the recess of the Adramyttian gulf; Chryse,\nin the territory of the Hypoplacian Thebes;(936) the Smintheum, in its\nimmediate neighbourhood;(937) the island of Tenedos (whose religious\nceremonies were by some unaccountable means transplanted to Corinth and\nSyracuse),(938) are all mentioned in a few verses of the Iliad.(939) No\nless celebrated was Thymbra, situated at the confluence of the Thymbrius\nand Scamander, where Cassandra was reported to have been brought up in the\ntemple of Apollo, and thus to have learnt the art of prophecy.(940) On the\nTrojan citadel of Pergamus itself was a temple of Apollo, with Artemis and\nLatona; and hence Homer represents these three deities as protecting the\nfalling city.(941) It is however important to remark, that the inhabitants\nof Zelea, a town on the northern foot of mount Ida, and the native place\nof the archer Pandarus, the son of Lycaon, worshipped Apollo under the\ntitle of Lycius, or Lycegenes; and that Zelea was also called Lycia;(942)\nfor these facts show that there was a real connexion between the name of\nLycia and the worship of Apollo, and that it was the worship of Apollo\nwhich gave the name to this district of Troy, as it had done to the\ncountry of the Solymi. In Chryse also Apollo was called Lyc\u00e6us.(943) The\norigin of this worship can neither be attributed to the native Trojan and\nDardan race, nor yet to the later \u00c6olians, although these for the most\npart adopted it into their religious ceremonies.(944) It is however\ncertain, from an ancient tradition, that the Cretans also colonized this\ncoast; though we are not aware what was the precise account of Callinus,\nthe ancient elegiac poet,(945) who preserved it. It was however the\npopular belief that Apollo Smintheus, and indeed the whole Trojan nation,\nwere derived from Crete.(946) The last notion, that all the Trojans were\nof Cretan origin, is in the highest degree improbable; but it will hardly\nbe denied that there came to Troy a Cretan colony in connexion with Apollo\nSmintheus. Indeed the Cretans who inhabited the district of Troy must\noften have been mentioned in ancient traditions, as a strange account of\ntheir strict administration of justice has been preserved.(947) Could we\nbut obtain a more authentic source of traditions relating to the religious\nworship than the deceitful accounts of poets, we might perhaps discover in\nit many confirmations of the historical traces to which we have just\nadverted. Even now we may perceive that the servitude of Apollo under\nLaomedon(948) is the same fable as that of Admetus at Pher\u00e6, the locality\nalone being changed.\n\n4. By observing Homer\u2019s accounts of the worship of Apollo in different\nTrojan families, we may discover a remarkable consistency and connexion in\nthe ancient tradition.\n\nIn the first place he represents it as belonging chiefly to the family of\nthe Panthoid\u00e6. Panthus (from whom a tribe in modern Ilium derived its name\n\u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c9\u1fd2\u03c2)(949) was a priest of the god,(950) and hence his sons were\nprotected by Apollo in battle.(951) Hence also Euphorbus, the descendant\nof Panthus, is selected to kill Patroclus, who, as well as all the other\n\u00c6acid\u00e6, was in the heroic mythology represented as odious to Apollo.(952)\n\nThe other family, described in the Iliad as connected with Apollo, is that\nof \u00c6neas, whom, when wounded by Diomed, the god himself conducted to his\ntemple on the citadel of Troy, and delivered over to the care of Latona\nand Artemis.(953) Now that this history was not a mere arbitrary fiction\nof the poet may be distinctly proved. For we know that, after Troy had\nfallen, the remaining Trojans still maintained themselves in the\nmountains; they are mentioned by Herodotus as a separate state existing in\nthe stronghold of Gergis, in the defiles of Ida;(954) and, even after the\nPeloponnesian war, Dardan princes reigned here and at Scepsis.(955) It\ncan, we think, be shown that Homer\u2019s prophecy(956) respecting the future\ndominion of the descendants of \u00c6neas over the remnant of the Trojan\nnation, refers solely to the town of Gergis, and perhaps to the\nneighbouring valleys. Now the chief temple at Gergis was that of\nApollo,(957) and in the same town there was an ancient Sibylline oracle,\nknown by the name of the _Hellespontine_ or _Mermessian_. We now see that\nthe ancient poet, being well acquainted with the existence of the \u00c6nead\u00e6\nat Gergis, their festivals and sacrifices, felt himself bound, according\nto the spirit of mythology, to represent Apollo as the ancient guardian of\nthat family.\n\nWe shall seize this opportunity of briefly pointing out the results which\nmay be drawn from these facts, in illustration of the fable of \u00c6neas. We\nmust first assume that the above oracle of Apollo at Gergis announced to\nthe Trojan Gergithians the re-establishment of their nation under the\ndominion of the descendants of \u00c6neas. Such a prophecy, in fact, agrees so\nexactly with the spirit and system of the ancient oracles, that its\nexistence can scarcely be doubted. The hopes, the longing after a\nrestoration of their ancient power, must necessarily have assumed this\nform among the distressed and conquered Trojans. Now a colony of\nGergithians also inhabited the territory of the \u00c6olian Cume,(958) where\nApollo possessed a magnificent temple;(959) and if these oracles had been\nknown to the Cum\u00e6ans, they would readily have passed over to their kinsmen\nthe Cumans of Campania. At this last place there was, on the summit of a\nrock, a temple of Apollo (one of the most ancient in the whole settlement,\nand, as it was pretended, built by D\u00e6dalus);(960) underneath was the\ngrotto of the sibyl. Here it was said that \u00c6neas landed; and here,\naccording to Stesichorus, he remained, and never went further to the\nnorth.(961) Nothing was more probable than that these oracles should in\nboth cases have been applied locally, and that a new Troy should in\nconsequence have been founded both in Asia and Italy. Hence, when the\nGreek sibylline oracles, in connexion with the worship of Apollo, became\nthe state-oracles of Rome, all that had been prophesied of districts near\nthe Hellespont was, without scruple or ceremony (though not without the\ningenuity of commentators and interpreters), applied to Rome. It is\nevident that the origin of the strange fable of \u00c6neas, the father of\nRomulus, and all that was afterwards added to it, may be explained in this\nsimple manner.\n\n5. The most ancient temple of Apollo in THRACE was also founded by\nCretans, as well as that at Ismarus or Maroneia;(962) Maron its priest\nbeing, according to tradition, a Cretan adventurer.(963) With this\nsanctuary was probably connected the ancient oracular temple of Apollo at\nDer\u00e6a near Abdera,(964) alluded to in the device on the coins of Abdera;\non one side of which Apollo is seen with the arrow in his hand; and on the\nreverse is a griffin, a symbol which appears to have been adopted by the\nTeians in consequence of their having resided for some time in their\ncolony of Abdera.\n\n6. The Cretan worshippers of Apollo also established some considerable\ntemples on the Ionian coast. The principal of these was the Didym\u00e6um, in\nthe territory of Miletus. Before the Ionic migration, Miletus was a Cretan\nfortress, on the coast, in a country at that time called Caria.(965) The\ndisagreement of traditions as to whether Sarpedon or Miletus (the Cretan)\nwas the founder, confirms, rather than weakens, the principal fact of its\nsettlement from Crete, both traditions describing the same fact in a\ndifferent manner. With the founding of this stronghold was connected that\nof a temple, which is ascribed to Branchus, an expiatory priest(966) of\nDelphi, whose name (which was well fitted for a prophet),(967) moulded\ninto a patronymic form, was afterwards adopted by the priests of the\ntemple;(968) the temple itself, and even the place (which was also called\nDidyma). Thus we here again see a fresh connexion between the Delphians\nand Cretans, there being indeed hardly any distinction between them before\nthey were dispersed by the different migrations of the Doric race. The\nworship at Didyma was in fact the same with that of Crete and Delphi;\nexpiatory ceremonies and prophecies being united, and the latter delivered\nwith rites very similar to those observed at the Pythian oracle. Apollo\nwas here called _Philesius_ and _Delphinius_, which names were afterwards\nadopted by other Ionians;(969) with him was connected Zeus, both,\naccording to Callimachus, being the ancestors of Didyma; and also Artemis,\nwho, in an ancient hymn ascribed to Branchus, is with Apollo addressed\nunder the titles of \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7.(970) The ruins of this temple,\nso highly honoured in Asia, still bear witness to its ancient fame and\nsplendour. From the temple to the harbour(971) Panormus there was a sacred\nroad adorned on both sides with more than sixty statues in a very ancient\nstyle of workmanship: amongst these, an Egyptian lion attests the\nconnexion of king Necho with the oracle.(972) The Ionians of Miletus,\nhowever, acknowledged the god of Branchid\u00e6 as the principal deity in their\ntown, and introduced him into their numerous colonies, from Naucratis(973)\nto Cyzicus,(974) Parium,(975) Apollonia Pontica,(976) and the distant\nTaurica: the coins and inscriptions of which place agree in representing\nhim as the guardian deity (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2).(977)\n\n7. The twin brother of the Didym\u00e6an god, both in origin and in the\nsimilarity of worship, is the Clarian Apollo. However fabulous the\nparticular circumstances of its foundation, still it was impossible in\nancient times to invent a religious colonial connexion where none in fact\nexisted. The traditions manifestly imply a double dependence of the\nestablishment at Claros: viz., upon Delphi and Crete. Manto, the daughter\nof Teiresias the Theban soothsayer, was, according to the epic poets,\nconsecrated by the Epigoni to the Delphian Apollo after the taking of\nThebes,(978) and she was afterwards sent by Apollo to the spot on which\nthe Ionians at a later period founded the city of Colophon; having, in\nobedience to the commands of the oracle, married on her way Rhacius the\nCretan, whose name, according to the dialect of Crete, had the double form\nRhacius and Lacius.(979) Augias, the Cyclic poet, mentioned the tomb of\nher father Teiresias at Colophon,(980) which was generally supposed to be\nin B\u0153otia. The offspring of this marriage was Mopsus, who was probably\ncalled the progenitor of the family from which, even in the Roman time,\nthe priests of the oracle were selected.(981) The forms of prophecy were\nin this temple also similar to those at Delphi.\n\nThe other temples of Apollo on the coast of Asia Minor were generally\nconnected with some one of the four already mentioned. The temple of\nLeuc\u00e6, between Smyrna and Phoc\u00e6a (where the Cum\u00e6ans celebrated a\nfestival),(982) was probably a member of the Trojan family, to which the\nGrynean Apollo, in the territory of Myrina near Cume (where there was also\nan oracle), appears to be related.(983) Apollo Malloeis, in the territory\nof Mytilene, in Lesbos, was an off-shoot of the Clarian worship:(984) to\nthe same branch also belonged the oracle of Apollo at Mallus in\nCilicia,(985) inasmuch as it was said to have been founded by Mopsus the\nson of Manto.\n\n8. The worship of Apollo also penetrated to several parts of European\nGreece, where it was established by Cretan adventurers on capes and\nheadlands\u2014particularly at Tr\u0153zen, T\u00e6narum, Megara, and Thoricus.\n\nTR\u0152ZEN, as has been above remarked,(986) shared with Athens both the race\nof her inhabitants and her worship, together with the connexion between\nAthens and Crete; the meaning of which will be explained hereafter.(987)\nHence we may conjecture the Cretan origin of the nine families, which were\nin existence at a late date at Tr\u0153zen, and in early times performed the\nrites of atonement and purification (of which Orestes was said to have\nbeen the first subject) near a laurel-tree in front of the temple of\nApollo, and a sacred stone in front of the temple of the Lycean\nArtemis.(988)\n\nThe expiatory establishment(989) on the promontory of T\u00c6NARUM was also\nsaid to have been founded by Tettix, a Cretan,(990) who is merely a\npersonified symbol of Apollo, like Lycus, Corax, Cycnus, &c, in other\nplaces. Callondas is said to have purified the soul of the murdered\nArchilochus at this gate of the infernal regions. Considering the\nproximity of Delium in Laconia(991) and of the little island of Minoa to\nthis temple, we may conclude that the origin of the above sanctuary was\nconnected with these places.\n\nIn front of the harbour of MEGARA was another island called Minoa, and\nnumerous legends had been there preserved in which the Cretans of Minoa\n(though probably only by a corruption of the original tradition) were\nrepresented as enemies and plunderers. Megara had two citadels: the Carian\nwith the temple of Demeter, and a more modern one towards the sea,\nsurmounted by temples of Apollo. This is said to have been built by\nAlcathous the son of Pelops, while Apollo stood by and played upon his\nlyre. A sounding-block of stone was exhibited at the place where the god\nlay down his lyre.(992) The same fable is also alluded to by Theognis of\nMegara.(993) Here then there is a worship and temples of an earlier date\nthan the Doric migration, and which certainly proceeded from Crete. On the\nformer citadel stood a statue of Apollo Decatephorus,(994) \u201cthe receiver\nof tithes,\u201d whose name is explained by the fable that the daughter of\nAlcathous was once sent as a tribute to Crete, like the Athenian youths\nand maidens. Thus a fact which will be soon proved with respect to Athens,\nis also true of Megara\u2014viz., that these missions always conveyed a sacred\ntithe.(995)\n\n9. The process of our investigation will shortly lead us to examine the\nAttic legends, consisting of a confused mass of tradition, with which the\nworship of all the gods, including that of Apollo, was in that country\nperplexed.\n\nTo commence then with the legends which are connected with the temple of\nApollo at THORICUS. Thoricus, situated on the south-eastern coast of\nAttica, was one of the ancient twelve towns of that country, and always\nremained a place of consequence, of which there are still extant\nconsiderable remains. Favoured by its situation, it soon became a\ncommercial station; Cretan vessels were accustomed in ancient times to\nanchor in its harbour.(996) The fable of Cephalus and Procris appears,\nfrom some poetical and mythological accounts, to have been connected with\nCrete and the worship of Apollo.(997) We know for certain that the\nCephalid\u00e6, who existed at a still later period in Attica,(998) preserved\nsome hereditary rites of Apollo: for when in the tenth generation\nChalcinus and D\u00e6tus, the descendants of the hero, returned to the country\nwhich their ancestor had quitted in consequence of murder, they\nimmediately built a temple to that god on the road to Eleusis.(999)\n\n10. But the fable of Cephalus was also connected with another great temple\nof Apollo, which in the west of Greece looked down from the chalky cliffs\nof the promontory of Leucatas over the Ionian sea, and of which there are\nruins still extant.(1000) Now Cephalus, the hero of Thoricus, is said to\nhave gained these regions in company with Amphitryon:(1001) he is also\nsaid to have first made the celebrated leap from the rock of\nLeucatas.(1002) This leap, doubtless, had originally a religious meaning,\nand was an expiatory rite. At the Athenian festival of Thargelia, a\nfestival sacred to Apollo, criminals, crowned as victims, were led to the\nedge of a rock, and thrown down to the bottom; and the same ceremony\nappears to have been performed on certain sacred occasions at\nLeucatas.(1003) Here, however, the fall of the criminal was broken by\ntying feathers, and even birds, to his body; below, he was taken up, and\nconveyed to a distance, that he might carry away with him every particle\nof guilt. This was without doubt the original meaning of the leap of\nCephalus, who was stained with the guilt of homicide, and on that very\naccount a fugitive from his country. According to a legend noticed in an\nancient epic poem, his purification took place at Thebes;(1004) whereas\nthe Leucadian tradition doubtless represented his leap from the rock as\nthe act of atonement.\n\nIn later times, indeed, the object of this leap was totally altered; it\nwas supposed to be a specific for disappointed love.(1005) This singular\napplication of the ancient custom gave a romantic colour to the legend\nconnected with it. Cephalus and Procris were also represented in\nafter-times as tormented by love and jealousy. Probably the story partly\nobtained this form in Cyprus, the island of Aphrodite, whither the fable\nof Cephalus(1006) was early carried by Attic settlers. But in whatever\nmanner it was perverted, we cannot doubt that the leap of Cephalus from\nthe Leucadian rock was a part of the expiatory worship of Apollo.\n\nThese considerations refer to the Cretan rites solemnized at Thoricus. In\nAthens itself, the traditions of Crete and Delphi being found united\ntogether, it is necessary that we should first return to the latter place,\nand follow the Pythian worship through B\u0152OTIA.\n\n11. This indeed is neither the time nor place to relate how the Pythian\nworship, in spite of the opposition of hostile races, traced the route of\nthe procession through the passes of Parnassus. The fact is indeed evident\nfrom an almost unbroken chain of temples and oracles, the links of which,\nviz., Thurium, Tilphossium, the temple of Galaxius, the oracle of\nEutresis, the Ismenium, Tenerium, Ptoum, and Tegyra, are all connected\neither by tradition or religious rites with Delphi. Delium is probably the\nonly place on the eastern coast founded from Delos. Pindar represents the\nestablishment of several such temples under the form of a migration of the\ngod himself.(1007)\n\nI shall content myself with noticing a few of the temples above-mentioned.\n\nThe first in order is the oracle at the fountain of Tilphossa under Mount\nHelicon, famous for the grave of Tiresias and the monument of\nRhadamanthus, who is said to have dwelt here with Alcmena the mother of\nHercules.(1008) To this spot were attached some remarkable traditions of\nthe Cretan worshippers of Apollo, forming a branch of the colonization of\nCirrha; which is alluded to in Homer\u2019s account of the Thracians\u2019 bringing\nRhadamanthus to Eub\u0153a for the purpose of seeing Tityus;(1009)\u2014a remarkable\npassage, which I can only understand to mean that the Cretan hero was\ndesirous to see Tityus, who was vanquished by Apollo.\n\nTegyra was a place of great importance in the B\u0153otian tradition, as being\nthe birthplace of Apollo.(1010) The Delphian oracle was more favourable to\nthis tradition than to that of Delos. Pindar(1011) represents the youthful\ngod as coming to take possession of Pytho from Tegyra, not, as the Attic\npoets, from Delos.\n\n12. The identity of the B\u0153otian with the Delphian worship of Apollo was\nparticularly striking in the temple of Ismene at Thebes. As at Delphi the\nPython was slain and the laurel broken anew every eight years, so at\nThebes a procession of laurel-bearers took place at the same periods, the\nuse of which, as a measure of time, is evident.(1012) Here also, as at\nDelphi, the statue of Athene was placed in front of the temple\n(\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2).(1013) Tripods were the sacred vessels in both temples, though\nnever employed in the latter for the purpose of prophecy. In later times\nthe priests were contented with observing omens from the flame and ashes\nof sacrifices,(1014) like the \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bf\u03b9 of Delphi;(1015) although the mode\nof delivering oracles, from a mental enthusiasm, was prevalent also in\nThebes at an earlier period; at least Tiresias (whom we may consider as a\nprophet of the temple of Ismene)(1016) does not, either in Homer or the\ntragedians, appear as a diviner from fire.\n\nThat, however, the whole worship of Apollo was not one of those originally\ninstituted at Thebes, will be evident from the following observations. In\nthe ancient legends respecting Cadmus, in which Demeter, Cora, Cadmus, and\nafterwards Bacchus, predominate in succession, Apollo never appears in a\nconspicuous character. For particular additions of the poets may be easily\ndistinguished from the genuine popular tradition. The fable, that Cadmus,\nafter the slaughter of the serpent, was, like Apollo, compelled to live\n_eight_ years in slavery,(1017) must be considered as a poetical\ntransposition. Cadmus and Apollo had originally no points of resemblance\nto each other. The situation of the temple of Apollo at Thebes is a most\nconvincing proof that his worship was totally distinct from any other.\nThose of the ancient national gods were built on the citadel of Cadmeia,\nwhilst Apollo was not only not worshipped in the citadel, but even without\nthe gates, in the temple of Ismene,(1018) which, according to Pausanias,\nmust have been situated opposite to the temple of Hercules and the house\nof Amphitryon. This proximity of the hero and god, as well as all other\npoints of union between the two at Thebes, will be employed for the\npurpose of establishing further conclusions, when we explain the legend of\nHercules.(1019)\n\nTo settle with any accuracy, from the traditions concerning Tiresias and\nHercules, the time at which the B\u0153otian temples of Apollo were founded,\nseems hardly possible, since the former contain no chronological\ninformation, and the latter are entirely unconnected with the rest of the\nTheban mythology. A tradition respecting the establishment of the festival\nof the Daphnephoria places it at the time of the \u00c6olian migration,(1020)\nwhence it might perhaps be inferred that the \u00c6olians introduced the\nworship of Apollo into B\u0153otia. This hypothesis would however involve us in\nendless perplexities; and it is most probable that its diffusion was\ngradually effected, soon after the settlement at Cirrha, about the time at\nwhich the worship of Apollo rose to importance at Athens.\n\n13. The introduction of this worship into ATTICA coincides exactly with\nthe passage of the Ionians into that country. The traditions respecting\nthe most ancient kings, Cecrops, Erichthonius, and Erechtheus, chiefly\nrefer to the temples, symbols, and festival rites of Athene; and this\ngoddess, together with the other deities of the Acropolis, plays the\nprincipal part in them, particularly in her connexion with the blessings\nof husbandry. But with the reign of Ion the Attic mythology assumes quite\na different character.(1021) This seems to me a complete refutation of the\nassertion of the Ionians as to their identity with the aboriginal nation\nof the Pelasgians.(1022) Still more evident is it then, that in proportion\nas the Ionians, being a warlike nation,(1023) separated themselves from\nthe original inhabitants, whose employment was agriculture and pasturing,\ntheir Hellenic worship deviated from the ancient one of the country.\nAristotle indeed speaks of the paternal Apollo (\u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03c2) as being\na son of Athene and Heph\u00e6stus;(1024) but this is nothing more than an\nendeavour to create a family connexion between the principal gods of the\nsame town: for where do we ever find a temple dedicated conjointly to\nAthene and Apollo? what ceremonies and sacrifices were offered to them in\ncommon? and in what legends are they found connected? Till such an union\nof the two deities is discovered, we must consider Athene as an ancient\nand native deity, Apollo as one of much later introduction. The Athenians,\nindeed, maintained that an ancient hero of their country, Erysichthon, a\nson of Cecrops himself, erected the first statue of Apollo at Delos:(1025)\nbut it is easy to recognise in this account the attempt of the Athenians\nto fortify their claims to the dominion of the Delian temple, and to\nrepresent their rights as prior to all others. In all that is related of\nthe Ionian princes (to whom \u00c6geus(1026) and Theseus belong) with reference\nto religious institutions, mention is seldom made of the ancient Athenian\ndeities, Athene and Heph\u00e6stus. The whole is taken up with accounts either\nof the establishment of the worship of Poseidon (which prevailed in the\nIonian cities and in the places of their national assemblies), or the\nestablishment and maintenance of an intercourse with the temples of Apollo\nat Delos, Delphi, and Cnosus.\n\n14. In the second place, the fabulous history of these heroes also\nconcerns the worship of Apollo, in so far as the origin of the Pythian\nTheorias is contained in it. Ion is even a real son or adopted disciple of\nthe Pythian god; and in all probability there was no more difference\noriginally between his two fathers, Apollo and Xuthus,(1027) than between\nthe two fathers of Theseus, \u00c6geus and Poseidon. Theseus consecrated his\nhair to the same god; a place at Delphi was called Thesea.(1028) It is\nalso related of \u00c6geus, that his kingdom, embracing the plain of Attica,\nstretched as far as Pythium, where it bordered on Megaris.(1029) This\nPythium was situated in the \u201csacred \u0152no\u00eb,\u201d(1030) a fortified borough town\nof the tribe Hippothoontis, on the frontiers of Megaris, B\u0153otia, and\nAttica,(1031) to the north of the plain of Eleusis, and in a district of\nremarkable fertility.(1032)\n\nThis temple was manifestly built on the frontiers in order to afford a\nresting-place to the sacred procession, which in the beginning of the\nspring went from Athens to Pytho. For if favourable omens had been\nobserved in the town itself, and it was intended to despatch the\nprocession, the prophet in the Pythium at \u0152no\u00eb performed sacrifices every\nday, in order to procure a favourable journey, just as the Delian\nprocession was regulated by omens observed in the Delium at\nMarathon.(1033) The families charged with the preparations for sending the\nprocession (probably all of ancient Ionian extraction) were called\nPythaist\u00e6 and Deliast\u00e6.(1034) The omens looked for were the _Pythian\nlightnings_, a very unusual mode of divination in Greece. The Pythaist\u00e6\ntook their station in the town, near the altar of Zeus Astrap\u00e6us, between\nthe Olympieium and Pythium, both of which were among the earliest\nsanctuaries, although they first owed their magnificence to\nPisistratus.(1035) From this spot it was the custom to watch for nine\nnights, during three months, a lofty peak of mount Parnes,(1036) called\nHarma; and it was only in case the wished-for lightnings flashed\nfavourably over the heights that the embassy could proceed along the\nPythian road. This road led from Athens, near mount Corydallus (on which\nthere was a temple of Apollo),(1037) through the Eleusinian plain to \u0152no\u00eb;\nfrom thence through the pass of Dryoscephal\u00e6 to B\u0153otia, where it touched\neither Thespi\u00e6 or Thebes, then Lebadeia and Ch\u00e6ronea, and then passed on\nby Panopeus and Daulis through the defile between Parnassus and Cirphis to\nDelphi: a mountain road which the Athenians declared that they had\nthemselves opened,(1038) and which Theseus is said to have freed from\nrobbers,(1039) in the same manner that he purified the road to the Isthmus\nfrom monsters. This was also the sacred road for the Peloponnesians, if we\nexcept that part of it which traversed Attica.(1040)\n\nThere still remains to be mentioned a remarkable fact respecting \u0152no\u00eb,\nwhich will greatly assist us in explaining the fable of the voyage of\nTheseus to Crete: I allude to the existence of a tomb of Androgeus, the\nson of Minos, whom the natives had put to death as he was passing on the\nPythian road.(1041) A Cretan was murdered in the sacred way of the Cretan\nworship; Minos came to take vengeance for the violation of the sacred\narmistice; and hence Athens was obliged to send a tribute to Cnosus. Now\nthe nature of this tribute may be perceived from a tradition preserved by\nAristotle,(1042) that the boys who were sent to Crete by the Athenians\nlived at Cnosus as slaves; and that afterwards, when the Cretans, in\nconsequence of an ancient vow, sent a tithe of men to Delphi, the\ndescendants of these slaves went with them, and subsequently passed from\nthence to Italy. From this it appears that the Athenians were compelled to\nsend sacred slaves to the chief temple at Cnosus, viz., that of Apollo.\nFor this reason these missions took place every eight years (\u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\n\u1f10\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd);(1043) that is, probably at every Enna\u00ebteris of the Cretan and\nDelphic festival; and for the same reason they consisted of seven young\nmen and women, as this number was especially sacred to Apollo.(1044)\n\nIt is well known how much this tradition was disfigured by the Athenians\n(originally perhaps in their popular legends, and afterwards by the\npoets), in what an odious light it was represented, and so mixed up with\nextraneous matter, that we should only render the problem too difficult if\nwe attempted to investigate the whole of its component parts.\n\nWe may however affirm with certainty that the voyage of Theseus to Crete\nhad originally no other meaning than the landings at Naxos(1045) and\nDelos, which were connected with it\u2014viz., a propagation of religious\nworship.\n\nThe landing at Delos is a mythical type of the theorias, which the\nAthenians, in common with all the Ionian islands, had from early times\nsent to this place;(1046) moreover, the ship which conveyed Theseus home\nwas always regarded as a sacred vessel. It was sent out at the Thargelia,\nafter the priest, on the sixth day of Thargelion, had crowned the\npoop.(1047)\n\nAmongst other Delian rites the worship of Eilithyia was also at that time\nbrought over to Athens, probably from the island of Crete, where an\nancient cavern of the goddess, near Amnisus, has been already\nmentioned.(1048) One point at which the procession from Attica to Crete\ntouched was the borough town and harbour of Prasi\u00e6, on the eastern coast\nof Attica, where, besides the temple of Apollo, was the tomb of\nErysichthon, the Delian and Athenian hero; and tradition represented the\ngifts of the Hyperboreans to have been transported from this port to that\nsacred island.(1049)\n\nLastly, the origin of the Delphinian expiatory festival from Delphi and\nCrete is as evident as its introduction by the Ionian princes; for \u00c6geus\ndwelt in the Delphinium, and was there buried. To him was also ascribed\nthe establishment of the Delphinian tribunal. Theseus, previously to his\nexpedition to Crete, here placed the olive-branch, bound with wool, on the\nsixth day of Munychion,(1050) and purified himself from the murder of the\nPallantid\u00e6.(1051)\n\n15. The political situation of the worship of Apollo at Athens still\nrequires to be noticed. From our previous observations it is clear that\nthe Ionians had adopted it from the Dorians; hence Ion himself is called\nthe son of the Pythian god. The paternal deity of Athens was, as\nDemosthenes says, no other than the Pythian Apollo.(1052) We may then\nassert, without hesitation, that the Ionians were the only race who had\ngentilitious rites of Apollo, and that they alone could properly be called\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff4\u03bf\u03c5. Thus, when the archons at the scrutiny swore,\nthat besides Zeus Herceus, the household god, they worshipped also Apollo\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03c2;(1053) this form of oath originated at a time when the Eupatrid\u00e6,\nthat is, the noble Ionic and Hellenic families, were alone eligible to the\ndignity of the archonship. Nor was it till, by the timocracy of Solon and\ndemocracy of Aristides, the richer class in general and the whole people\nwere admitted to this office, that Apollo \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03c2 was considered as a\ndeity common to all families.(1054) The democratical judges of Athens also\nyearly took an oath before this deity:(1055) this ceremony was at first\nperhaps only required of the criminal judges of aristocratical descent,\nviz., the Ephet\u00e6. It is however clear that originally the religion of\nApollo was adapted for the military caste alone, the ancient Hopletes;\nhence he was not a god of artisans and husbandmen, but of warriors. Hence\nalso Ion or Xuthus adopted him as the Athenian god of war (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2) at\nthe festival of Boedromia,(1056) the name of which is derived from the\nonset of armed troops in battle.\n\nAs originally the Eupatrid\u00e6 alone cultivated the worship of Apollo, they\nalone possessed the ceremony of purification, which is here, as elsewhere,\nmixed up with the rites of the Cretan worship. According to\nPlutarch,(1057) Ion had instructed the Athenians in religion, _i.e._, in\nthat of Apollo; and the same author relates,(1058) that Theseus\nestablished the Eupatrid\u00e6 as administrators of the government, judges, and\ninterpreters of the sacred rites (\u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd).\n\nBy this we are to understand that it was their duty to give information\nrespecting every thing which regarded the _jus sacrum_; which in ancient\ntimes especially comprehended expiations and excommunications for\nhomicide. The rites necessary at purification were also entirely in the\nhands of the Eupatrid\u00e6, (\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1);(1059) and this is the reason why in old\ntimes they took cognizance of every homicide, and in later times of\nmanslaughter, the connexion of which duties with the worship of Apollo\nwill be shown hereafter.(1060)\n\nI have been induced to place these points in as strong a light as\npossible, from the democratical tendency of Athenian poetry, which\nendeavoured to obliterate all traces of the forcible occupation of Attica,\nand of the foreign extraction of the families of the Eupatrid\u00e6. On this\naccount the vacant period between the times of the Erecthid\u00e6 and \u00c6gid\u00e6 was\nnotoriously supplied by arbitrary insertions, and the fable of Ion\nrepresented in a thousand various ways. This tendency is also recognised\nin the tragedy of Ion by Euripides, the artful and ingenious plan of which\ncannot be sufficiently admired. According to the ancient tradition, Ion\nwas the son of the hero Xuthus, or of the Pythian Apollo (who were\noriginally considered as identical), and probably of Creusa, a native of\nAttica, which was a mode of expressing his new settlement there.\nEuripides, on the other hand, separates Ion from Xuthus,(1061) who is\nalways represented as somewhat rude and coarse, and even tyrannical,(1062)\nand so alters the whole story, that the hero does not appear as a\nnewcomer, but as the legitimate offspring of the female line of the race\nof the Erecthid\u00e6. By this device the poet preserved the idea that the\nAthenians were an aboriginal nation, on which they so prided\nthemselves,(1063) and set aside, in a manner most agreeable to their\nfeelings, the fable which contradicted this claim to antiquity. Ion\nhimself in the tragedy gives utterance to some very popular sentiments;\nand of the power of aristocracy, once so firmly established, the last\nfaint memorial is almost buried in oblivion.(1064)\n\n\n\n\nChapter III.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Diffusion of the worship of Apollo in Peloponnesus by the\n    Dorians. \u00a7 2. His Introduction by the Dorians at the Olympic\n    festival. \u00a7 3. Influence of the Delphian oracle of Apollo.\n    Subjects of the oracle. \u00a7 4. Migrations caused by the oracle. \u00a7 5.\n    Connexion of the temple of Delphi with the Amphictyons of\n    Thermopyl\u00e6. \u00a7 6. Worship of Apollo in Asia Minor and the islands.\n    \u00a7 7. In Italy and Sicily, in Apollonia and Cyrene.\n\n\n1. We now come to the _third_ epoch of the propagation of the worship of\nApollo. The first embraced the earliest migrations of the Doric nation,\nwhen the great temples at Delphi, Cnosus, and Delos were founded from\nTempe. The second period is that of the maritime supremacy of Minos, when\nthe coasts of Asia and Greece were covered with groves and expiatory\naltars of this god. The third comprehends the chief migration of the\nDorians, and others occasioned by it. Through these means Apollo became\nthe principal deity in Peloponnesus, where, in early times, we find few\ntraces of his existence. That the Carnean Apollo of the Laced\u00e6monians, and\nthe Apollo Nomius of the Arcadians, form no exceptions to our assertion,\nwill be proved in a subsequent inquiry into the nature and origin of these\nworships.(1065)\n\nAfter the Doric conquest of Peloponnesus, the chief temples were every\nwhere consecrated to Apollo. We have already spoken of the sanctuary of\nApollo Pytha\u00ebus, in which the Argive confederacy held their\nmeetings;(1066) nor was the temple of Apollo Lyceus in the market-place\nless celebrated.(1067) The Spartans also worshipped this deity under the\nformer name,(1068) and the inhabitants of Sicyon under the latter.(1069)\nHecatus, it is pretended, was a soothsayer, who came with the sons of\nAristodemus to Sparta; and his descendant, in the second Messenian war,\nheld the same office:(1070) the name of this family refers to the worship\nof Apollo Hecatus (the far-darting god). At Sparta Apollo was the national\ndeity; the kings sacrificed to him on the first and seventh days of every\nmonth;(1071) the influence of the capital city had also caused its general\nextension throughout the country.(1072) Corinth,(1073) Epidaurus,(1074)\n\u00c6gina,(1075) and Tr\u0153zen(1076) followed the same example.\n\nThe name of the Delphian god had now attained throughout Peloponnesus the\nuniversal respect which it so long enjoyed: it had even led the way to the\nsettlement and conquest of that peninsula, and hence Apollo was called by\nthe Dorians their _leader_ and _founder_.(1077) It was not till a later\nperiod that the kings of Messenia (who upon the whole adhered less\nstrictly to the Doric customs than the Spartans) entered into a connexion\nwith the sanctuary at Delos, which had then already fallen into the power\nof the Ionians. About the fifth Olympiad (760 B.C.) Eumelus, the\nCorinthian poet, composed an ode for a Messenian chorus to that holy\nisland.(1078) On the other hand, it was owing to the Dorians (particularly\nto the Spartans) that the Pythian sanctuary remained independent, in the\nhands of the Delphians; to preserve it in this state was one of the duties\nwhich they inherited from their fathers;(1079) and they protected it more\nthan once, particularly against the Athenians.\n\n2. The political power of the Dorians over the whole of Peloponnesus\nnecessarily ensured the preponderance of their religious institutions;\nnevertheless we find that the Ach\u00e6ans and Arcadians possessed few temples\nof Apollo, and those not the principal ones in their cities.(1080) The\nworship of Apollo was however, through Spartan influence, held in great\nrespect at Tegea (the customs of which town had indeed become almost\nentirely Doric), where there was also a tribe called Apolloneatis.(1081)\nThe country moreover being intersected in every direction by roads to\nOlympia and Delphi (to which place Peloponnesus despatched her hecatombs\nin the beginning of the spring),(1082) must have been by this very\ncircumstance induced to establish temples in honour of Apollo, an instance\nof which appears in that at Onceum.\n\nThe principal deity of the Doric name soon obtained a conspicuous place in\nthe national festival, held equally sacred by all Peloponnesians; I mean\nthat of Olympia. The establishment of this festival is probably of early\ndate; perhaps it took place during the time when the dominion of the\nPelopid\u00e6 spread from Pisa and Olympia over most parts of the peninsula.\nHence the Elean \u00c6tolians, when they seized upon the presidency of these\ngames, were, by the command of the oracle, at the same time obliged to\ntake one of the Pelopid\u00e6 from the Ach\u00e6an town of Helice for their\nprince.(1083) Moreover, the ancient rivalry between the Olympian and\nIsthmian worship, which occasioned the prohibition against any Elean\ncontending at the Isthmus,(1084) can hardly have arisen at any other time\nthan when (previously to the Doric usurpation) the Olympian Zeus was the\nchief god of the Ach\u00e6ans,(1085) the Isthmian Poseidon of the Ionians.\n\nBut it was not till the Dorians, for the purpose of assembling all the\nPeloponnesians, at least every four years, under the protection of their\ngod, had taken possession of the temple at Olympia; nor till Iphitus the\n\u00c6tolian, and Lycurgus the Dorian, had renewed these contests, or given\nthem a greater degree of importance, that Apollo and Zeus are found in\nconnexion with each other, and even contending in the course at Olympia.\nAnd as a further instance of change, the sacred armistice of Olympia went\nby the local name of Therma;(1086) and hence Apollo, as the patron and\nguardian deity of the institution, was called Thermius, and worshipped\nunder that title in the grove of Altis.(1087) At this time Hercules (whose\nworship, once entirely unknown in Elis, was introduced by Iphitus)(1088)\nis also reported to have brought the wild olive-tree from the Hyperboreans\nto the Alpheus, and planted the sacred grove of Altis with it.(1089) The\nimportant influence of the Delphian oracle on the Olympian games also\noccasioned the time of their celebration to be regulated by the Pythian\ncycle of eight years.(1090) For whereas the whole cycle of eight years\nconsisted of ninety-nine lunar months, at the expiration of which time the\nrevolutions of the moon and sun again nearly coincided; this period was at\nOlympia divided into two unequal parts of fifty and forty-nine months, so\nthat the festival took place sometimes in the month of Apollonius,\nsometimes in Parthenius.\n\nThe introduction of the worship of Apollo must have had no less influence\non the families of the soothsayers, who ministered at the altars of the\nOlympic deities. These were the Clytiad\u00e6, Iamid\u00e6, and Telliad\u00e6;(1091) of\nwhich the Clytiad\u00e6 considered themselves as belonging to a clan, which\nproduced very many soothsayers, viz., the Melampodid\u00e6.(1092) This explains\nthe fable that Melampus received the gift of prophecy from Apollo on the\nbanks of the Alpheus,(1093) in the place where it was exercised by his\ndescendants the Clytiad\u00e6.\n\n3. The Doric migration gave rise to many others, which spread the worship\nof Apollo in various directions; no longer, however, as a peculiar deity\nof the Dorians and Cretans, but, in a more extended sense, as the national\ngod of the Greeks. This was chiefly occasioned by the influence of Delphi,\nwhich seems to have given the chief stimulus to that great migration. In\nfact, it became from this time invested with a power which hardly belonged\nto any subsequent institution. Apollo is represented as governing nations\nwith an arbitrary power, compelling them, however unwilling, to undertake\ndistant expeditions, and pointing out the settlements which they are to\noccupy. In order to convey a more distinct idea of this singular\nphenomenon, it is necessary that the condition of the immediate subjects\nof the Pythian temple should be more closely examined.\n\nWhen the district of the Cirrh\u00e6ans had, by the Amphictyonic war, become\nforfeited to the temple of Delphi, the sacred lands belonging to it formed\na very considerable territory. Two inscriptions contain surveys of the\nHieromnemons respecting its boundaries: one relating to those towards\nAnticirrha in the east, the other to those in the direction of Amphissa to\nthe west.(1094) Now it certainly appears that in ancient times, when\nCirrha was in existence, none of these lands belonged to the temple, which\nmust therefore have possessed little or no territory. But in spite of the\ngenerally received accounts of the Amphictyonic war, it can be\nsatisfactorily proved, that in earlier times Cirrha and the temple, with\nits appendages, formed one state.(1095) Their territory indeed consisted\nfor the most part of rock, mountain, and narrow glens;(1096) yet towards\nthe south it embraced the spacious plain of Crissa, and in the north at\nleast the luxuriant vineyards of Parnassus. By whom then was this\nterritory cultivated? certainly neither by the Doric nobles nor the Cretan\ncolonists, who in the Homeric hymn are derided by the god for thinking of\nthe labours of agriculture, and commanded to employ themselves merely in\nsacrificing victims.(1097) Thus it is evident, that there were subjects of\nthe temple, who, besides the humble employment of cultivating the soil,\nwere also obliged to tend the herds belonging to the temple. These were\nthe servants of the temple whom we so frequently find mentioned.(1098) The\nsame class also existed in Crete, as we have before proved from the\ntribute sent by Athens; and Crete, in its turn, as well as Eretria and\nMagnesia,(1099) sent such \u201chuman firstlings\u201d to the temple of Pytho.\nMention is also made of a town in Crete composed of a thousand men, all\nsacred slaves.(1100) Now these slaves of Delphi may have been procured in\ndifferent ways, either as tribute (and that either of a city or of\nindividuals), as voluntary bondsmen, or by purchase:(1101) the latter mode\nwas probably of rare occurrence in early times. There still remain a\nconsiderable number of Delphian monuments, in which private individuals\npresent or sell to the god those slaves whom they wish to favour.(1102)\nThe condition of these vassals corresponds to that of the Doric\nbondsmen;(1103) but their servitude was probably of a milder nature; for\nwe find it frequently stated that the sacred slaves lived inviolate under\nthe protection of the god, although (at least in early times) they were\nentirely dependent on the sacred council of the temple. Originally, a\ngreat part consisted of prisoners taken in war. We collect from ancient\nepic poems that Manto the daughter of Tiresias was, after the war of the\nEpigoni, sent to the Pythian god as a share of the spoil(1104)\n(\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd): one individual, as is usual in the language of mythology,\nstanding for many. The Gephyr\u00e6ans also are said to have been at that time\ndecimated, sent from Thebes to Delphi, and thus to have arrived at\nAthens.(1105) After the Persian war, an idea was actually entertained of\nreviving this punishment against the Thebans, whose enemies considered\nthem, at a still later period, as in the eye of justice decimated, and\ngiven as slaves to Apollo.(1106)\n\n4. When the Pythian god was either unwilling or unable to retain within\nhis territory the crowds who had been collected in this manner, he sent\nthem out as colonists; without, however, entirely giving up all claim to\ntheir obedience. The early Grecian history affords several examples of\nthis proceeding: the earliest is a Doric tradition respecting the Dryopes,\nwhich differs in some respect from their own account. Hercules, here\nrepresented as a Doric hero, had subjugated the Dryopes, and brought them\nto Delphi as an offering to Apollo, by whom he was commanded to settle\nthem on the southern coast of Argolis.(1107) That this nation, probably of\nPelasgic origin, did not in early times worship the Doric god, is evident\nfrom the tradition that Leogoras the Dryopian violated the temple of\nApollo.(1108) But it is equally certain that they were henceforth\ncompelled to serve Apollo as their chief deity, especially in his\ncharacter of Apollo Pytha\u00ebus at Argos.(1109) A part of this nation however\nremained at Delphi, where it is frequently mentioned in later times under\nthe name of Craugallid\u00e6, who, together with the Cirrh\u00e6ans, appear as\nenemies to the temple;(1110) from which circumstance it may be inferred\nthat most of these Cirrh\u00e6ans were revolted subjects of the temple.\n\nThe migration of the Magnesians approaches rather nearer to the historical\nage. This race, dwelling under mount Pelion, felt itself, about the time\nof the Thessalian migration, so pressed for want of territory, that it had\nrecourse to the Delphian oracle, by whose advice it decimated its numbers;\nthat is, it sent off a tenth part of the young male population, who (like\na _ver sacrum_ in Italy)(1111) renounced their native land.(1112) These\nyoung colonists were mostly despatched to the worshippers of Apollo in\nCrete, where they founded the town of Magnesia, which Plato speaks of as a\nplace that had been destroyed, and considers as a prototype of his ideal\nstate, Apollo having been its only legislator.(1113) The intercourse of\nCrete with the coast of Asia Minor soon carried over these sojourners to\nthe banks of the M\u00e6ander and the Leth\u00e6us, at the confluence of which\nrivers they had been settled some time before the Ionic migration;(1114)\nbeing, as was afterwards declared by a Panhellenic decree, the first\nGreeks who settled in Asia Minor.(1115) Still, although thus separated\nfrom their mother country, they maintained, as sacred colonists (\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76\n\u1f04\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9), a perpetual connexion with Delphi, and were bound, in ancient\ntimes, to provide all travellers with food and lodging.(1116) The\nDelphians could expect a similar reception at Delos:(1117) and indeed an\nextended exercise of the duties of hospitality formed one of the principal\nobjects of this worship. Pausanias(1118) gives an account of this very\nimportant worship of Apollo in Magnesia as follows:(1119) \u201cAt Hyl\u00e6, a\nplace in the territory of the Magnesians,(1120) is a cavern consecrated to\nApollo; not, indeed, remarkable for its size; but it contains a statue of\nApollo of great antiquity, and which confers strength for every kind of\nwork. Certain devotees throw themselves, by the assistance of this image,\nfrom steep and lofty precipices; or tearing large trees up by the roots,\nwalk with their burden down the steepest paths.\u201d We would attempt to trace\nmore minutely the connexion of Magnesia with Crete and Delphi, had not all\nclue to history been necessarily broken off by the conquest of this proud\nand prosperous city by the Ephesians, and its complete destruction by the\nTreres, a Cimmerian tribe, in the time of the Lydian monarch Ardys.(1121)\n\nWe have only time to notice some few other events of a similar nature.\nThus the \u00c6nianes came to the oracle about the same time, and on a similar\nemergency as the Magnesians; dwelt for some years in the territory of\nCirrha, and were afterwards sent to the banks of the Inachus in southern\nThessaly.(1122) An example of historical authority is furnished by the\nChalcideans in Eub\u0153a, the youthful part of whose population was despatched\nby Apollo to Rhegium in Italy;(1123) hence this town also celebrated the\nworship of the god with expiatory rites and festivals,(1124) to which the\nMessenians of Sicily sent choruses of thirty-five boys across the\nstraits.(1125)\n\n5. These events, which from their connected form cannot be poetical\nfictions, give some idea of the extensive influence of the temple of\nDelphi, the power of which was probably at its highest pitch in the time\nimmediately succeeding the Doric migrations. Hence also this was the epoch\nof the greatest influence of the Amphictyons of Thermopyl\u00e6;(1126) which\nconfederation of Thessalian tribes, and of tribes derived from Thessaly,\nunited the worship of the Doric temple of Apollo with that of Demeter at\nThermopyl\u00e6, and thus an Hellenic and ancient Pelasgic worship were\ncombined together,(1127) probably not without a view of forming a more\nintimate union between the different races of Greece. The assembling in\nthe spring of the year at Delphi was probably copied from the meeting of\nthe neighbouring towns, in the spring festival, at Tempe, at which\nbusiness of a political kind was sometimes transacted.(1128) The power,\nhowever, of the Amphictyons of Thermopyl\u00e6 was at no time actually\npolitical, and, with a very few exceptions, all their regulations and\nundertakings concerned the protection of the two temples in their rights\nand possessions, the rights of other temples in Greece, and the\nmaintenance of some principles of international law (\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76),\nfounded upon religious notions.\n\n6. The Dorian colonies introduced Apollo into Asia Minor as the principal\ndeity of their national and federal festival on the promontory of\nTriopium,(1129) where they probably first planted his worship, without,\nhowever, excluding the more ancient Pelasgic rites of Demeter and the\ninfernal gods, which, although of a different nature, were united in the\nceremonies at Triopium with those of Apollo.(1130) In the same manner the\ntwelve towns of the \u00c6olians, with whom Apollo was by no means so nearly\nconnected, celebrated in his honour, as it seems, their federal festival\nin the grove of Gryneum near Myrina.(1131) And though when the Ionians\ncrossed over from Athens to Asia Minor they remained so constant to the\nworship of Poseidon that they consecrated to him their national festival\nat Mycale, and also built in the island of Tenos a splendid temple of\nPoseidon and Amphitrite, honoured with festivals and sacred\nembassies;(1132) yet the Cretan worship was so prevalent at Delos, when\nfirst overrun by the Ionians, that this island was itself the religious\nmetropolis of the Cyclades,(1133) at whose festivals and contests the\nhigher classes of the islanders attended with their families, even in\nancient times; which naturally gave rise to the establishment of temples\nto Apollo, the principal deity, in the rest of the Cyclades; as\nCythnus,(1134) Siphnus,(1135) Ceos,(1136) Naxos,(1137) &c.\n\n7. The principal places to be mentioned in Italy besides Rhegium are\nCroton and Metapontum. The former was an Ach\u00e6an and Laced\u00e6monian colony;\nin the founding of which, according to tradition, the oracle had an\nimportant share;(1138) the memory of which is preserved by temples of\nApollo Pythius, Hyperboreus,(1139) and Al\u00e6us,(1140) within, and close to\nthe town. Croton was peculiarly subject to the influence of Apollo, whose\nworship operated to an unusual extent on the character and customs of its\ninhabitants. On the founding of Metapontum our information is scanty. The\ninhabitants generally supposed themselves to be of Ach\u00e6an origin; yet\nEphorus has preserved a remarkable, though confused tradition, that\nDaulius the tyrant of Crissa was the founder of that town.(1141) It seems,\nthen, that inhabitants of Daulis, in the narrow valley of Parnassus, and\nCriss\u00e6ans, from the coast, had passed over to Italy in very early times.\nThe inhabitants of Metapontum, as ancient subjects of Apollo, sent him\ngolden ears of corn (\u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2) as a tithe of their harvest; we find\non their coins the full ears of barley, which were paid as tribute, and on\nthe reverse the god himself, armed with his helmet, arrow and bow, as a\nconqueror, and holding a branch of laurel; exactly coinciding with the\nsymbols used in the temple of Delphi.(1142) Thus historical tradition and\nreligious symbols both point to the same conclusion.(1143)\n\nDuring the period of which we are treating, the regulation of colonies by\nthe Delphian oracle was the chief instrument which extended the worship of\nApollo on the coast of the Mediterranean. In honour of this deity the\nChalcideans who founded Naxos, the first Greek colony in Sicily (Olymp. 5.\n2. 759 B.C.), erected on the coast an altar of Apollo Archegetas, upon\nwhich the Sicilian Theori always sacrificed when they sailed to the temple\nof Apollo in their mother-country.(1144)\n\nApollonia, the Corinthian settlement on the Ionian sea, was also supposed\nto have been founded by Apollo;(1145) hence the above-mentioned custom of\nsending \u201c_the golden summer_\u201d to Delphi prevailed in this town.(1146) We\nhave in a former work(1147) shown that the worship at Thera and Cyrene was\npaid to the deity of the Theban \u00c6gid\u00e6, viz., the Carnean Apollo; who,\nhowever, at the founding of the colony (Olymp. 37), was already considered\nas the same with the Dorian god; hence the fountain of Apollo at Cyrene,\nits colony of Apollonia, &c. Mythology, which often first clothes the\nevents of history in a fabulous garb, and then refers them to an early and\nunknown time, expressed the founding of Cyrene, under the guidance of the\ntemple of Apollo, in the following elegant personification\u2014That Cyrene, a\nThessalian nymph, the favourite of Apollo, was carried by her divine lover\nto Africa, in his chariot drawn by swans.(1148)\n\nWe shall abstain from bringing down the colonization of this religion to a\nlater period, since in after-times the lively principle which at first\nactuated the worshippers of Apollo was lost; and, instead of considering\ntheir actions as the effect of supernatural compulsion, men were rather\ndisposed to regulate their conduct according to the dictates of reason and\nfree-will.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Connexion of the fable of the Hyperboreans with the worship\n    of Apollo. \u00a7 2. Its connexion with the temples at Delphi; \u00a7 3. and\n    Delos. \u00a7 4. Original locality of the Hyperboreans. \u00a7 5. Localities\n    subsequently assigned by Poets and Geographers. \u00a7 6. The\n    Hyperboreans considered a sacred people.\n\n\n1. Wearisome as it is to follow up the chain of remote events which gave\nrise to the wide diffusion of the worship of Apollo, nevertheless the\nfable of the Hyperboreans, by referring a number of particular\ncircumstances to one head, is very well qualified to arrest and fix our\nattention.\n\nWe assert, then, the connexion of this tradition with the original worship\nof Apollo. No argument to the contrary can be drawn from its not being\nmentioned either in the Iliad or Odyssey; these poems not affording any\nopportunity for its introduction. Moreover, the Hyperboreans were spoken\nof in the poem of the Epigoni, and by Hesiod.(1149) The fable, indeed, may\nnot have come till late within the province of poetical mythology; as a\nlocal tradition, it must have arisen whilst that primitive connexion\nbetween the temples of Tempe, Delphi, and Delos (which was afterwards\nentirely dissolved) still existed in full vigour.\n\n2. According to a Doric hymn of B\u0153o, a poetess of Delphi, quoted by\nPausanias,(1150) Pagasus, and the godlike Agyieus, the sons of the\nHyperboreans, founded the celebrated oracle at Delphi. Agyieus is merely\nanother name for Apollo himself. Pagasus refers to the Pagas\u00e6an temple on\nthe sacred road.(1151) With them came Olen, the first prophet and bard of\nApollo. Two other Hyperborean heroes, Hyperochus and Laodicus, assisted in\nthe slaughter of the Gauls at Delphi;(1152) and, in accordance with\nsimilar traditions, Mnaseas of Patara called all the inhabitants of Delphi\ndescendants of the Hyperboreans.(1153)\n\nAlc\u00e6us,(1154) in a hymn to Apollo, related how \u201cZeus adorned the new-born\ngod with a golden fillet and lyre, and sent him, in a chariot drawn by\nswans, to Delphi, in order to introduce justice and law amongst the\nGreeks. Apollo, however, ordered the swans first to fly to the\nHyperboreans. The Delphians, missing the god, instituted a p\u00e6an and song,\nranged choruses of young men around the tripod, and invoked him to come\nfrom the Hyperboreans. The god remained an entire year with that nation,\nand at the appointed time, when the tripods of Delphi were destined to\nsound, he ordered the swans to resume their flight. The return of Apollo\ntakes place exactly in the middle of summer; nightingales, swallows, and\ngrasshoppers sing in honour of the god; and even Castalia and\nCephisus(1155) heave their waves to salute him.\u201d\n\nIf Alc\u00e6us consecrated this p\u00e6an, as Pindar did his p\u00e6an, to the worship of\nthe Delphian god, he would hardly have dared to do more than embellish the\nlocal traditions. Supposing, however, that this was not the case, he would\nstill have taken the principal event (viz., the arrival of Apollo from the\nHyperboreans) rather from a fable universally acknowledged, than the\nunauthorized fictions of poetry. The whole account, and even the time, are\nclearly drawn from the mysteries of the worship. According to the\ntradition of Delphi, Apollo, at the expiration of the great period,\nvisited the beloved nation of the Hyperboreans, and danced and played with\nthem from the vernal equinox to the early setting of the Pleiades; and\nwhen the first corn was cut in Greece, he returned to Delphi, as I\nsuppose, with the full ripe ears, the offerings of the Hyperboreans.(1156)\nEven the story of the swans was no addition of Alc\u00e6us; for the painted\nvases in the south of Italy (the extremity of the Grecian world) represent\nthe same fiction as the Lesbian poet; nay, so exactly do they correspond,\nthat we do not indeed recognise Alc\u00e6us, but the traditions upon which the\naccount was founded, as they were perhaps related at Metapontum and\nCroton. The boy Apollo, the sceptre and goblet in one hand, and full ears\nof barley in the other (which allude to the offerings of the Hyperboreans,\nand the \u201cgolden summer\u201d), is seated, with a mild aspect, on a car, the\naxles of which are bound with swans\u2019 feathers. Hyperborean women, with\ntorches, and pitchers for sacred libations, conduct him.(1157) The swans,\nwith which Apollo here comes, occur elsewhere in the legends of Delphi,\nwhich refer to the Hyperboreans. The most ancient temple of Delphi,\naccording to the assertion of the priests, was merely a low hut, built\nwith branches of the sacred laurel of Tempe; the second was a tent, which\neither the Hyperboreans or Pteras of Crete formed of swans\u2019 feathers and\nwax.(1158) The Peneus flowed by the altar of Tempe; the notes of the swans\non the banks of this river are mentioned in a short hymn attributed to\nHomer.(1159) And allowing that these birds were here particularly\nnumerous, it is evident that their brilliant colour and majestic motion\npeculiarly adapted them for symbols of Apollo.\n\n3. We find the same tradition, with merely a few local alterations, at\nDelos.(1160) Latona, in the first place, is said to have arrived in that\nisland from the country of the Hyperboreans as a she-wolf, having\ncompleted the whole journey, pursued by Here, in twelve days and\nnights.(1161) Afterwards the young virgins, Arge and Opis, came with\nApollo and Artemis; a lofty tomb was erected to their memory at Delos,\nupon which sacrifices were offered; an ancient hymn, which was attributed\nto the ancient minstrel Olen, celebrated their appearance.(1162)\nAfterwards the Hyperboreans sent two other virgins, Hyperoche and Laodice,\nthe same names as occur above, and with them five men, who are called\n_perpherees_(1163) (from their bringing the sacred gifts enveloped in\nwheaten straw): this exactly corresponds with \u201cthe golden summer\u201d of the\nDelphians. The perpherees received great honours at Delos; and the Delian\nmaidens before marriage laid on the tomb of the two Hyperborean virgins a\nspindle, the young men a branch, both entwined with locks of hair. The\noffering, however, of the Hyperborean women was, it was said, really\nintended for Ilithyia, the protectress of women in labour, in order to\nfulfil a vow made to that goddess for the birth of Apollo and Artemis. Now\nthese missions, according to Delian traditions, always continued to be\ncarried on. The Hyperboreans were supposed to pass them on to their\nneighbours the Scythians; from them they were transmitted through a chain\nof nations on the coast of the Adriatic, by Dodona,(1164) through\nThessaly, Eub\u0153a, and the island of Tenos, and came accompanied with flutes\nand pipes,(1165) to Delos.(1166) This story cannot have been a mere\npoetical fiction; it doubtless originated in the active connexion kept up\nby means of sacred missions with the ancient settlements of the worship of\nApollo in the north of Thessaly.(1167) In Delos also, as at Delphi, there\nwas a story of the god resting for some time amongst the Hyperboreans;\nthough the scene was generally changed to Lycia.(1168) A painted vase\nexhibits the god with a lyre in his hand, alighting near the palm-tree of\nDelos: a young woman, representing a whole chorus, receives him, playing\nupon a stringed instrument.(1169)\n\nAs the temple at Olympia was connected with Delphi, we find also here some\ntraditions respecting the country of the Hyperboreans, as the native land\nof the wild olive-tree which flourished in the grove of Zeus.\n\n4. Thus much concerning the places where the fable of the Hyperboreans\nreally existed; we must next notice the situation generally assigned to\nthat sacred nation. In this the name is our chief guide. In the first\nplace it indicates a _northern_ nation; which idea is sufficiently\naccounted for by the fact that the worship of Apollo came from the most\nnorthern part of Greece, from the district of Tempe;(1170) and although\nthe actual distance was not great, yet the imagination might have been\nmoved by this circumstance to conceive Apollo as coming from the most\nremote regions of the north. But, in the second place, the Hyperboreans\nare said to dwell _beyond_ Boreas; so that this happy nation never felt\nthe cold north wind: in the same manner that Homer represents the summit\nof Olympus as rising above the storms, nor ever covered with snow, but\nsurrounded by an atmosphere of cloudless and undisturbed serenity.\n\n5. This is nearly the whole of our information on the origin of this\nfabulous people. Poets, however, and geographers, dissatisfied with such\naccounts, attempted to assign to it a fixed habitation in the catalogue of\nnations: and for this purpose connected multifarious and foreign accounts\nof the northern regions of the world with the religious fable of the\nHyperboreans, and moulded the whole into an imaginary picture of a\nsupposed real people.\n\nAmong these stories the most remarkable is that which connects the\nHyperboreans with the Scythians. Herodotus found them mentioned in the\nArimaspea of Aristeas the Proconnesian, in which poem his ideas of the\nworship of Apollo were interspersed with obscure accounts of the northern\nregions.(1171) He came, led by the spirit of Apollo, through Scythia to\nthe Issedones,(1172) the one-eyed Arimaspians, the Griffins that kept\nwatch over the gold, and thus at last reached the Hyperboreans who\ninhabited the shores on the further side of the ocean. Now Aristeas must\nhave collected the tradition concerning these nations and monsters from\nthe same sources as Herodotus; viz., from the Greeks dwelling on the\nPontus and Borysthenes, and through these from the Scythians.\n\nIn the list of the fabulous nations of the north, the ancient Damastes\nexactly agrees with the Arimaspea of Aristeas.(1173) Beyond the Scythians\nhe places the Issedones, then the Arimaspians, then the Rhip\u00e6an mountains,\nfrom which the north wind blows, and on the other side of these, on the\nsea-coast, the Hyperboreans.(1174) Without doubt this geographer placed\nthe Issedones in the districts to the north of the Euxine sea, and rather\nto the east of Greece.(1175) And indeed neither Issedones, Arimaspians,\nnor Griffins could be placed in any other region than that which lies to\nthe north of the Euxine sea, as all this tract had become known to the\nGreeks by means of the Scythians, who dwelt in these parts; it was only in\nthis district that the Greeks heard of Arimaspians. The case is entirely\ndifferent with respect to the Hyperboreans and Rhip\u00e6ans. Of the former the\nScythians, as Herodotus tells us, knew nothing; and the latter are a mere\npolitical fiction of Greece, since they derived their names from\n_hurricanes_ (\u1fe5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u1f76), issuing from a cavern, which they warded off from\nthe Hyperboreans, and sent to more southern nations. For this reason the\nHyperboreans could also be placed in another part, remote from Scythia;\nstill however they kept their original position in the _north_. Thus\nPindar,(1176) and also \u00c6schylus in the Prometheus Unbound,(1177) place the\nHyperboreans at the source of the Ister. Now, if, with Herodotus, the\nIster is conceived to be a river which runs through all Europe from its\n_western_ extremity, the Hyperboreans, in spite of their name, must be\nplaced in the regions of the _west_.(1178) But there was in ancient times\nalso an idea that the Ister was a vast stream descending from the extreme\n_north_;(1179) and this notion was evidently entertained by the two poets\njust mentioned; thus \u00c6schylus, in the Prometheus Unbound, represented\nHercules as penetrating to the place where Boreas rushes from the\nmountains; and with this the Rhip\u00e6an mountains, the Hyperboreans, and the\nIster were doubtless mentioned. Sophocles also placed the \u201c_ancient garden\nof Ph\u0153bus_\u201d _i.e._, the country of the Hyperboreans, at the extremity of\nthe earth, and near the dwelling of Boreas.(1180) This natural conception\nof the Hyperboreans, and agreeing so well with the origin of the legend,\nis universal among the early poets; it is only in the works of later\nwriters that we find certain traces of a translation of the Hyperboreans\nto Italy and other western countries, and of a confusion of the Rhip\u00e6ans\nwith the Alps and Pyrenees.\n\n6. We see then that notwithstanding the arbitrary license assumed by\npoets, the religious ideas respecting the Hyperboreans were every where\npreserved without the slightest variation. They were represented as a\npious nation, abstaining from the flesh of animals, and living in\nperpetual serenity, in the service of their god, for a thousand\nyears.(1181) \u201cThe muse,\u201d says Pindar, \u201cis not estranged from their\nmanners. The choruses of virgins and sweet melody of the lyre or pipe\nresound on every side; and, twining their hair with the glittering laurel,\nthey feast joyfully. Neither disease nor old age is the lot of this sacred\nrace; while they live apart from toil and battles, undisturbed by the\nrevengeful Nemesis.\u201d(1182)\n\nRespecting their festivals, which were supposed to take place in the open\nair,(1183) it was related by Hecat\u00e6us the younger, of Abdera, that these\nwere celebrated by three gigantic Boread\u00e6, whose songs and dances were\naccompanied by innumerable flocks of swans.(1184) But the strangest\naccount is that of Pindar, that whole hecatombs of asses were sacrificed\nat these festivals:(1185) this however is borrowed from the real worship,\nfrom one of the sacred rites of Delphi, where asses were sacrificed at the\nPythian festival.(1186) Lastly, the account given of the death of the\nHyperboreans strongly reminds us of the rites of the Thargelia, and the\nleap at Leucate; we are told that, tired of a long existence, they leapt,\ncrowned with garlands, from a rock into the sea.(1187)\n\n\n\n\nChapter V.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. The Apollo of Tempe, Delphi, Delos, Crete, Lycia, Troy,\n    Athens, and Peloponnesus, the same deity. \u00a7 2. Apollo Nomius of\n    Arcadia rightly distinguished from the preceding. \u00a7 3. Apollo the\n    father of \u00c6sculapius likewise a distinct deity. \u00a7 4 and 5. Apollo\n    not originally an elementary deity, or god of the sun. \u00a7 6. Origin\n    of this idea. \u00a7 7. Rites of Apollo unlike those of the elementary\n    deities.\n\n\n1. Having treated of the extension and propagation of the worship of\nApollo, and some of the most remarkable legends and fables connected with\nit, we next turn our attention to the nature and character of the religion\nitself.\n\nIn the first place, then, we shall remind the reader of a position\nsufficiently established by the foregoing inquiries; that the Apollo of\nTempe, Delphi, Delos, Crete, Lycia, Troy, Athens, and Peloponnesus, is the\nsame god, and not, as was very frequently the case in the religions of\nGreece, a combination of several deities under one name. This conclusion\nwe supported as well by historical accounts respecting the foundation of\nhis numerous temples, as by the evidence derived from a recurrence of the\nsame names, rites, and symbols; such, for example, as the titles of Lycius\nand Lycia, Delphinius and Pythius; the oracles and sibyls; the\npurifications and expiations; the custom of leaping from rocks;\ndecimations; the golden summer, and bloodless oblations; the\nlaurel-berries; the legend of the Hyperboreans, and the cycle of eight\nyears. Hence the theologians mentioned by Cicero(1188) were wrong in\nendeavouring without any authority to distinguish between the Athenian,\nCretan, and Hyperborean Apollo.\n\n2. It appears, however, that they were warranted in distinguishing from\nthe rest the Apollo Nomius of Arcadia; although in their etymology of the\nname,(1189) which made him a divine _lawgiver_, they by no means followed\nthe most authentic sources of religious history. The correct account is\nwithout doubt that given by Pindar,(1190) who calls Arist\u00e6us, conjointly\nwith Zeus and Apollo, a protector of flocks, and guardian of huntsmen. In\nfact, Arist\u00e6us and his son Act\u00e6on were ancient deities of the early\nPelasgic inhabitants of Greece.(1191) That god also protected agriculture\nand pasturing, warded off the scorching heat of summer, charmed by\nincantations the mild Etesian winds, and loved hunting and the care of\nbees. His chief haunts were the plains under mount Pelion and Iolcus\u2014from\nwhich place his worship was introduced into Cyrene\u2014the fertile valley of\nThebes, Parrhasia in Arcadia,(1192) and the Parrhasian island of\nCeos;(1193) at Cyrene, Apollo and Cyrene were called his parents.(1194)\nThe genealogy attributed to Arist\u00e6us varied considerably in different\nplaces; through the prevalence of Greek worship in Arcadia he was\nconsidered identical with Apollo. It was remembered that the Delphian god\nhad also tended the herds of Admetus; and perhaps the national worship of\nArist\u00e6us at Pher\u00e6 had partly contributed to the formation of this\nfable.(1195) Deities, whose worship at an early period fell into disuse,\nwere adapted and modified in various ways to suit the ruling powers: and\neven if a complete and consistent system of mythology was eradicated and\ndestroyed as a whole, yet particular portions of it would combine\nthemselves with the prevailing religion, and thus obtain a new existence.\nThus also the ancient elementary deity, which had received the name of\nApollo Nomius, was called the son of the ancient Silenus,(1196) because\nhis attributes seemed to resemble those of the attendants of\nBacchus.(1197) I shall take occasion hereafter to explain the connexion\nbetween the Carnean Apollo and this deity.(1198)\n\n3. It should also be observed that Apollo and \u00c6sculapius were connected in\nfable and mythology; and this at an early period, for Hesiod called\n\u00c6sculapius the son of Apollo;(1199) but, as it appears, only in mythology,\nand not in any religious worship. Thus neither at Tricca, Lebadea,\nEpidaurus, nor Cos, were Apollo P\u00e6an and \u00c6sculapius intimately connected;\nnor do we ever find that they had altars, festivals, or sacrifices in\ncommon, except perhaps in a temple at the modern town of\nMegalopolis.(1200) This practical difference may be accounted for by the\nnational origin of the two worships. For Phlegyas, the ancestor of\n\u00c6sculapius, and the sons of \u00c6sculapius mentioned in the Homeric Catalogue,\nbelonged to races which were hostile both to the Dorians and the temple of\nDelphi; and the dispersion of the schools of the Asclepiad\u00e6 through Greece\nhad nothing in common with the foundation of the temples of Apollo.\n\n4. Having made these distinctions, we now return to the principal position\nestablished by the preceding inquiries; viz., that it was the Dorians\namong whom the religion of Apollo was the most ancient, important, and\ntruly national worship.\n\nThe Dorians being an active and heroic people, it is natural that their\npeculiar religious feelings should have had a like tendency. Hence, as\nthey displayed a perpetual aversion to the innocent employments of\nhusbandry, and a love for active and military exertion, their national god\nwas exactly the reverse of the elementary deities worshipped by the\nagricultural races.\n\nBut this inference seems to be invalidated by an opinion entertained by\nmany at least of the later Greeks, and by most modern writers on\nmythology, that Apollo was an elementary deity, the deified\npersonification of the sun. On the whole of this difficult and doubtful\nsubject it is not my intention now to enter; but I shall be satisfied with\nlaying before the reader the principal arguments on both sides, and\nafterwards stating my own views on the subject.\n\n5. In the first place, then, the accounts above given of Apollo returning\nfrom the Hyperboreans with the ripe ears of corn, and the tribute of the\ngolden ears, certainly suggest the idea of a guardian of\nagriculture.(1201) On the coins of Metapontum we frequently see these ears\nof corn, with the grasshopper, or mouse both in the act of creeping, upon\nthe reverse. The same explanation is applicable to both symbols. The mouse\nand grasshopper are animals hurtful to the corn, which the god was\nsupplicated to protect from their attacks. In like manner the Cretan\nApollo \u03a3\u03bc\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 was doubtless a destroyer of field mice (\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9);(1202)\nand his statue was represented with one foot upon a mouse.(1203)\n\nAgain, in Rhodes he was called \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cthe averter of mildew;\u201d(1204)\nwhich attribute was peculiarly suitable to him, as being one of the\nTriopian deities, one of whom was Demeter, the destroyer of Erysichthon.\nThese are probably the chief reasons which can be adduced in favour of the\nposition that Apollo was an elementary deity; reasons which are founded on\nthe symbols and ceremonies of the real worship, and not on the opinions of\nlater philosophers. But, first, the argument that Apollo was an elementary\ngod, because he was a patron and protector of agriculture, is\ninconclusive; for he performs this office in his character of guardian and\naverter of misfortune generally. The case indeed would be otherwise, had\nApollo been supposed either to call forth the seed from the earth or bring\nit to maturity; no trace however of these functions being attributed to\nhim ever occurs. It is therefore unnecessary on this account to identify\nhim with the sun. And it may be remarked likewise, that the chief\nfestivals of Apollo were not connected with any remarkable epochs of the\nsun\u2019s course, but rather with the rising of the stars, particularly of the\npleiads, and with the phases of the moon. Thus the new moon was sacred to\nApollo, who hence received the name of \u039d\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2;(1205) and so likewise\nthe first quarter, or the seventh day; and, finally, the full moon\n(\u03b4\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1), particularly in the island of Zacynthus.(1206) From these\ncircumstances, however, no one will infer that Apollo was a god of the\nmoon.\n\nWe do not, however, deny that Apollo and the god of the sun admitted in\nparticular points of a comparison and parallel with each other; the source\nof external light might be a symbol of the \u201cbright and pure\u201d god; and\nindeed the Platonists favoured this supposition,(1207) which is not,\nhowever, supported by any historical authority. The worship of the sun was\npractised in the Acropolis of Corinth, at Rhodes, Athens, and in earlier\ntimes also at Calauria and T\u00e6narum; but in none of these places was it\nconnected with the rites of Apollo.(1208)\n\n6. This naturally leads us to inquire how any ideal connexion between\nApollo and the sun, if it really existed, should have been entirely\noverlooked for so many centuries; how was it that these deities were not\nidentified till the Grecian mythology had ceased to have any influence\nupon the ideas and feelings of mankind? Even when the Egyptian\ninterpreters identified Horus with Apollo, they were in all probability\nguided only by the resemblance between the destroyer of the Python and the\nvanquisher of Baby (Typhon in Greek).(1209) The Persian magi, however, in\ndiscovering a connexion between the worship of Apollo and their religion\n(on which account Xerxes preserved from injury the island where Apollo and\nArtemis were born),(1210) were influenced by a well-grounded comparison,\nwhich we shall find occasion to confirm in a subsequent chapter;(1211)\nyet, in all probability, it was not the sun, but Ormuzd, whom they\nsupposed to be Apollo. It was not until the philosophers of the Ionic\nschool identified the deities of the popular creed partly with material\npowers and objects, and partly with the attributes of the universal\nintellect (\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2), that the doctrine was advanced of Apollo being the sun.\nFrom them Euripides, who called Zeus the air, and Vesta the earth, was\nnaturally among the first to receive it. In the tragedy of Phaethon, the\nmother of the unfortunate youth complained against his father Helius as\nfollows; \u201c_Rightly does he who knows the secret names of the gods call\nthee Apollo_\u201d (the destroyer);(1212) referring, without doubt, not to any\ndoctrine connected with, or revealed in the mysteries, but to a\nphilosophical interpretation. This opinion, thus adopted by Euripides,\nbecame still more general at Alexandria; and Callimachus blames those \u201cwho\nseparate Apollo from the sun, and Artemis from the moon.\u201d(1213) Soon\nafterwards it was said to have originated in very early times; and the\nauthor of the astronomical treatise attributed to Eratosthenes(1214)\nrelates, that Orpheus the Thracian had from the top of a mountain, at\nbreak of day, prayed to the sun, whom he also called Apollo, as the\ngreatest of all the deities.(1215) Nevertheless, this statement does not\nauthorize us to infer, that in the ancient Orphic Hymns, previous to\nHerodotus, Apollo and the sun were identified. For this system of\nreligious speculation was chiefly concerned about Bacchus; and in all the\nOrphic fragments of any antiquity Apollo is hardly ever noticed.(1216)\n\n7. It seems, therefore, that whatever might have been the poetical\nattributes of Apollo in late times, in his religious character he was\nnever an elementary deity, the essence of whose godhead is a\npersonification of the creative powers of nature. None of the\ncharacteristic marks of such a religion are discoverable in his worship.\nSo far from being a god of generation(1217) and production, he remains\nunmarried and youthful; for it is easy to see that his poetical amour with\nthe nymph Daphne, and his sons, mentioned in poetry and prophecy, have no\nconnexion with his worship. In his sacred rites and symbols there is no\ntrace of the adoration of the generative powers, like those occurring in\nthe ancient Arcadian worship of Hermes, the Argive fables of Here, or the\nAttic legends of Heph\u00e6stus and Athene. The worship of Apollo is even still\nmore widely removed from the boisterous and frantic orgies so conspicuous\nin the Thracian rites of Dionysus. And although this latter worship\nflourished by the side of Helicon and Parnassus, near the Pythian temple,\nand both kinds of religious worship were practised in the immediate\nneighbourhood of each other,(1218) yet the religious feelings and rites\nwhich distinguished the services of the two gods always remained\ndissimilar.\n\nIn the subsequent discussion we shall accordingly take for granted the\noriginal diversity of Apollo and the sun; and though the rites of the\nworship of Apollo, as preserved and recorded in later times, are doubtless\nof greater antiquity than any written documents which either we or the\nGreeks possessed, it will be convenient first to state the clearer and\nmore intelligible accounts of Homer on the subject of Apollo, his divine\ncharacter and worship.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Homer\u2019s Conception of Apollo. \u00a7 2. Apollo as a punishing\n    deity. \u00a7 3. Apollo as a beneficent deity. \u00a7 4. Explanation of the\n    name P\u00e6an. \u00a7 5. Of the name Agyieus. \u00a7 6. Of the name Apollo. \u00a7 7.\n    Of the name Ph\u0153bus. \u00a7 8. Of the name Lyceus. \u00a7 9. Religious\n    Attributes of Apollo.\n\n\n1. Homer, as we have already seen, had, both from hearsay and personal\nobservation, acquired a very accurate knowledge of the Cretan worship of\nApollo in the Smintheum, in the citadel of Troy, in Lycia near mounts Ida\nand Cragus, as well as of Pytho and the Delian palm-tree. His picture of\nApollo is, however, considerably changed by the circumstance of the god\nacting as a friend to the Trojans and an enemy to the Greeks, although\nboth equally honour him with sacrifices and p\u00e6ans. Yet he generally\nappears to the Greeks in a darker and more unfavourable view. \u201c_Dread the\nson of Zeus_,\u201d says the priest of Chryse to the Greeks, \u201c_he walks dark as\nnight; the sure and deadly arrows rattle on his shoulders_.\u201d His\npunishments are sudden sickness, rapid pestilence, and death, the cause\nand occasion of which is generally unseen; yet sometimes he grants death\nas a blessing.(1219) His arrows are said to wound from afar, because they\nare unforeseen and unexpected. He is called the far-darting god;(1220) his\ndivine vengeance never misses its aim. He appears in the terror of his\nmight when from the heights of the citadel he stimulates the Trojans with\na loud war-cry to the combat;(1221) and leads them on, a cloud around his\nshoulders, and the \u00e6gis in his hand, into the thick of the battle,(1222)\nlike Ares himself,(1223) though far from showing the boisterous confidence\nof that deity. Achilles, to whom he is indeed particularly hostile, calls\nhim the most pernicious of all the gods. Even when he appears amongst the\ngods, \u201c_all tremble before him in the palace of Zeus, and rise from their\nseats; while Latona alone rejoices that she has produced so strong a son\nand so powerful an archer_.\u201d(1224)\n\nIt is remarkable how seriously Homer (who otherwise speaks of the gods,\nand particularly of those friendly to Troy, with some levity of\nexpression)(1225) describes the character of Apollo. He is never\nrepresented as hurried on by blind fury. He never opposes the Greeks\nwithout reason, or through caprice, but only when they disregard the\nsacred rights of priests and suppliants, or assume an unusual degree of\narrogance. But when the gods separate into two bodies, and descend to the\ncontest, he, unmoved by passion, shuns the combat, and speaks of the quick\nsuccession of the race of man in a manner which betokens the oracular\ndeity of Pytho.(1226) A similar spirit is perceivable in his address to\nthe daring Diomed: \u201c_The race of the immortal gods resembles not that of\nmortals._\u201d Thus Apollo appears as the minister of vengeance, the chastiser\nof arrogance. Consistently with this character he destroys the proud\nNiobe,(1227) the unruly Aloid\u00e6,(1228) Tityus and the Python, the enemies\nof the gods. His contests with Eurytus of \u0152chalia, and with Phorbas the\nPhlegyan, were grounded on historical facts; the former alluded to the\nenmity between the Dorians and \u0152chalians, the latter to that between the\nPythian sanctuary and the Phlegyans.(1229)\n\n2. We will now examine the notions of other poets on the character of\nApollo as a revenging and punishing deity, in which light he is introduced\nby Homer. Archilochus calls upon Apollo to \u201c_punish and destroy the guilty\nas he is wont to destroy them_.\u201d(1230) Hipponax, the successor of\nArchilochus in vituperative satiric poetry, prays that \u201cArtemis and Apollo\nmay destroy thee;\u201d(1231) and \u00c6schylus, with manifest allusion to the name,\nsays, \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2;(1232) which, however, can hardly entitle us to\ninfer that the name of Apollo was really derived from \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd;(1233) for\nwe should lose sight of one main point, viz., the object against which his\ndestructive powers were directed, or be reduced to consider him an\nuniversal destroyer, a character which is ill adapted to mark the nature\nof a divine being of any kind whatsoever. Apollo slays, indeed, but only\nto inflict deserved punishment. At Megara was exhibited the tomb of\nCor\u0153bus, who had slain the Fury sent by Apollo against that town, to\npunish the crimes of the fathers by destroying their children.(1234) After\nthis action, Cor\u0153bus was ordered to carry in his arms a tripod from Pytho,\nand erect on the spot where he should fall down from exhaustion, a town\n(Tripodiscus) and a temple to the god. This explains why many sacred fines\nwere at Corinth, Patara, and Amphipolis,(1235) paid into the temple of\nApollo, who thus appears, in some measure, as enforcing his own judgments.\n\u00c6schylus refers to his office of avenging murder, where he speaks of\nApollo, Pan, and Zeus, as the gods who send the Furies;(1236) Zeus as\nruler of the world, Pan as the d\u00e6mon that disorders the intellect, Apollo\nas the god of punishment. Hence it was not without reason that the Romans\nbelieved Apollo to be represented in a statue of the god Vejovis, a\nterrible god, equipped with arrows.(1237) At least there is some connexion\nbetween him and Apollo \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cwho darts down in the lightning;\u201d to\nwhom the Thessalians vowed every year a hecatomb of men.(1238) At Argos it\nwas the custom immediately after death for the relations to sacrifice to\nApollo as a god of death; the priest of Apollo (the amphipolus) offered up\nthe victim, and for consuming the fragments of the sacrifice a new fire\nwas always kindled. On the thirtieth day afterwards a sacrifice was\noffered to Hermes as the conductor of souls.(1239)\n\n3. Although we have thus dwelt upon the gloomy side of Apollo\u2019s character,\nit must not be supposed that he was considered in the light of a\nmalevolent and destroying power. Thus Pindar declares that of all the gods\n\u201che is the most friendly to men.\u201d(1240) His titles, also, as connected\nwith different temples, serve to remove that impression. Thus he was\ncalled the Healer at Elis,(1241) the Assister at Phigaleia,(1242) the\nDefender, the Averter of Evil,(1243) at Athens, and in many oracles.(1244)\nAlthough some of these names were perhaps not introduced until the\nPeloponnesian war, and the restriction of his avenging power to physical\nevil is first perceptible in Pindar and the tragedians,(1245) yet the idea\nof the healing and protecting power of Apollo must have been of remote\nantiquity. Under all these names Apollo does not so much appear bestowing\npositive good as assuaging and warding off evil; and in this character he\nwas invoked (according to an oracle) to send health and good\nfortune.(1246)\n\n4. The preceding arguments may perhaps receive confirmation from a\ndescription of the god P\u00c6AN (\u03a0\u03b1\u03b9\u03ae\u03c9\u03bd) in Homer. The name clearly betokens a\nhealing deity, and though the poet indeed speaks of him as a separate\nindividual, and the physician of Olympus,(1247) yet this division appears\nto have been merely poetical, without any reference to actual worship;\nsince from very early times the p\u00e6an had, in the Pythian temple,(1248)\nbeen appointed to be sung in honour of Apollo.(1249) The song, like other\nhymns, derived its name from that of the god to whom it was sung. The god\nwas first called p\u00e6an, then the hymn, and lastly the singers\nthemselves.(1250) Now we know that the p\u00e6an was originally sung at the\ncessation of a plague, and after a victory, and generally, when any evil\nwas averted, it was performed as a purification from the pollution.(1251)\nThe chant was loud and joyous, as celebrating the victory of the\npreserving and healing deity.(1252) Besides the p\u00e6ans of victory,(1253)\nhowever, there were others which were sung at the beginning of\nbattle;(1254) and there was a tradition that the chorus of Delphian\nvirgins had chanted \u201c_Io P\u00e6an_\u201d at the contest of Apollo with the\nPython.(1255) The p\u00e6an of victory varied according to the different\ntribes; all Dorians, viz., Spartans, Argives, Corinthians, and Syracusans,\nhad the same.(1256) This use of the p\u00e6an, as a song of rejoicing for\nvictory, sufficiently explains its double meaning; it bore a mournful\nsense in reference to the battle, and a joyous sense in reference to the\nvictory. Apollo, under this name, was therefore either considered as a\ndestroying (from \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03c9), or as a protecting and healing deity, who frees\nthe mind from care and sorrow;(1257) and accordingly the tragedians, by an\nanalogical application of the word, also called Death, to whom both these\nattributes belonged, by the title of P\u00e6an.(1258) And thus this double\ncharacter of Apollo, by virtue of which he was equally formidable as a\nfoe, and welcome as an ally,(1259) was authorized by the ambiguity of his\nname.\n\n5. On the other hand, the title AGYIEUS had a single signification.(1260)\nThis appellation of Apollo was peculiar to the Dorians,(1261) and\nconsequently of great antiquity at Delphi;(1262) from which place,\nhowever, it was brought over to Athens at a very early period, and indeed\npartly at the command of an oracle.(1263) His statue was erected in\ncourt-yards, and before the doors of houses; that is, at the boundary of\nprivate and public property, in order to admit the god as a tutelary\ndeity, and to avert evil. The symbol or image of the god was most simple,\nbeing a conical block of stone. The ancients knew not whether to consider\nit as an altar or statue.(1264) The worship consisted of a constant\nsuccession of trifling services and marks of adoration.(1265) Frankincense\nwas burnt before the pillar;(1266) it was bedecked with wreaths of myrtle,\ngarlands, &c. This was sufficient to remind, and at the same time to\nassure, the ancient Dorians of the protecting presence of their deity. The\nAthenians represented their Hermes in a similar manner. This god, although\nfundamentally distinct from Apollo, was invested by them with the same\noffices: thus the statues of both gods were placed, as protecting powers,\nin front of the houses: both gods were supposed to confer blessings on\nthose who either entered or left the house: both were represented by\nsimple columnar statues. With Apollo, however, this protection was rather\nof a spiritual and inward nature: while the phallic form, which always\ndistinguished the Herm\u00e6 of Athens, shows that this god was considered to\nafford, by increasing the fruitfulness of the fields and cattle, and\ngenerally all the products of nature, a more external and physical\nassistance.\n\n6. To these titles may perhaps be added the name of APOLLO itself. That we\nmust search for its etymology in the Greek language alone, and that it\ncould have been derived from no other source, is evident from the\npreceding investigations. In the first place, then, we cannot derive it\nfrom the sun, \u0391\u03dc\u0395\u039b\u0399\u039f\u03a3,(1267) since the digamma is never changed into \u03a0.\nThe derivation from \u039f\u039b\u03a9 we have already rejected, as being founded on a\npartial and occasional attribute of the god.(1268) On the other hand, we\nmay observe that the ancient Doric \u00c6olian form of the name was not \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\nbut \u1f08\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd,(1269) which also obtained amongst the ancient Latins,(1270)\nand from which the Macedonian and Delphian month _Apell\u00e6us_ evidently\nderived its name. Now if this is admitted to be the original form, \u1f08\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\nsimply means the _averter_ or _defender_,(1271) and belongs to the same\nclass as \u1f08\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, and other names mentioned above.\n\n7. All these names, however, only indicate the attributes and actions of\nthe deity; but the name PH\u0152BUS expresses more nearly his peculiar nature.\nFrom its original sense of \u201c_bright_,\u201d \u201c_clear_,\u201d its secondary sense of\n\u201c_pure_,\u201d \u201c_unstained_,\u201d is easily derived;(1272) and hence the term\n\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (which perhaps is connected with the Latin _februare_), \u201cto\nexpiate.\u201d Phoebus therefore is the clear and spotless god, often\nemphatically called the \u201cpure and holy\u201d (\u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2).(1273) This name is\nparticularly applied to him when he returns purified from Tempe.(1274) The\nsame meaning is implied in the epithet \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2, which also signifies\n\u201cpure,\u201d and \u201cclear;\u201d(1275) hence the streams near the temples of Apollo in\nTroy and Lycia were called Xanthus,(1276) and amongst the Macedonians the\nexpiatory festival of the army bore the title of _Xanthica_.(1277) In\nallusion to Apollo as a god of joy and gladness, Aeschylus frequently\nforbids that he should be invoked in sorrow.(1278) Several other passages\nfrom poets and grammarians might be adduced to support this idea.(1279)\n\n8. We now come to the most enigmatical of all the titles of Apollo, viz.,\n\u201cLYCEUS.\u201d It was shown above, that Apollo Lycius was worshipped at Lycorea\non mount Parnassus, in Lycia at the foot of mount Cragus, in Lycia under\nmount Ida, at Athens, Argos, Sparta, and Sicyon. This religion must have\nbeen of greater antiquity than the Greek colonies in Asia Minor, having\nbeen carried over thither at the time of their establishment. Homer was\nalso acquainted with this title of Apollo.\n\nIn explanation of this epithet we every where find traditions concerning\nwolves. The descendants of Deucalion, who survived the deluge, following a\nwolf\u2019s roar, founded Lycorea on a ridge of mount Parnassus. Latona came as\na she-wolf from the Hyperboreans to Delos: she was conducted by wolves to\nthe river Xanthus. Wolves protected the treasures of Apollo; and near the\ngreat altar at Delphi there stood an iron wolf with ancient\ninscriptions.(1280) The attack of a wolf upon a herd of cattle occasioned\nthe worship of Apollo Lyceus at Argos, where a brazen group of figures,\ncommemorating the circumstance, was erected in the market-place.(1281) The\nSicyonian tradition of Apollo \u201cthe destroyer of wolves\u201d is certainly of\nless antiquity, as also the epithet \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (_Lupercus_), which occurs\nin Sophocles and other authors.(1282)\n\nNow in inquiring into the meaning of the symbol of the wolf in this\nsignification, it may be first remarked that it is a beast of prey. In\nthis point of view it cannot but appear a remarkable coincidence that\nApollo should in the Iliad assume the form of a hawk,(1283) and a species\nof falcon should be called his swift messenger.(1284) Thus also the\ntragedians frequently represented Apollo, in his character of a destroyer,\nunder the title of Lyceus.(1285) We are not, however, to suppose that it\nwas this character of Apollo as a destroying power which gave a name, not\nonly to innumerable temples, but even to whole countries; such a\nsupposition would, contrary to history and analogy, make the early state\nof this religion to have been one of the grossest barbarism and\nsuperstition. It is far more probable that the name Lyceus is connected\nwith the ancient primitive word _lux_ (whence \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2). The Greek word \u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u03b7\nis preserved most distinctly in \u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2, _i.e._ _course of the\nlight_;(1286) and by the epithet \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, applied to Apollo by\nHomer,(1287) and probably taken from some ancient hymns, we should (from\nthe idiom of the Greek language) rather understand _one born of light_,\nthan _the Lycian god_. That light and splendour are frequently employed,\nboth in the symbols of worship and language of the poets, to express the\nattributes of Apollo, cannot be denied;(1288) and we only remind the\nreader of the belief that the fire which burnt on the altar of Apollo\nLyceus at Argos had originally fallen from heaven:(1289) and thus the\nepithet Lyceus would seem to belong to the same class as _\u00c6gletes_,\n_Ph\u0153bus_, and _Xanthus_.(1290)\n\nIt is not to be supposed that the wolf was made use of as a symbol of\nApollo merely from an accidental similarity of name; but it is difficult\nto discover what analogy even the lively imagination of the Greeks could\nhave found between the wolf and light. At a later period it was attempted\nto explain this symbol by the circumstance that all wolves produced their\nyoung within twelve days in the year, the precise time during which Latona\nwas wandering as a she-wolf from the Hyperboreans to Delos.(1291) This\nphysical interpretation was, however, grounded on the fable, and not the\nfable on it. Perhaps the sharp sight of the wolf(1292) (if we can trust\nthe accounts of the ancients), or even the bright colour of the animal,\nmay afford a better explanation.(1293)\n\nIn the ancient Grecian worship, however, there is another example, and one\nin the highest degree remarkable, of the connexion between light and the\nwolf. On the lofty peak of Lyc\u00e6um, a mountain of Arcadia, above the\nancient Lycosura, there stood (as Pindar says) a lofty and splendid altar\nof Zeus Lyc\u00e6us, with which were in some way connected all the traditions\nconcerning Lycaon, who sacrificed his child to Zeus, and was in\nconsequence transformed into a wolf. Now not only does the symbol of the\nwolf occur in this place,(1294) but there is also a reference to light.\nThere stood here a sacred shrine or _adytum_, supposed to be inaccessible;\nand the popular belief was, that whoever entered it cast no shadow; and in\norder to escape being sacrificed, the aggressor was obliged to escape as a\ndeer: hence the pursuing god naturally appeared to the imagination as a\nwolf.(1295) We perceive that light was supposed to dwell within the\nsanctuary. Thus in this very ancient worship of the Parrhasians, which in\nother respects has little in common with the Doric worship of Apollo, we\ndiscover the same combination of ideas and symbols that exists in the\nlatter, and cannot but consider it a vestige of some very ancient\nsymbolical idea peculiar and general among the Greeks.\n\n9. Having proceeded so far, we shall endeavour to unite and harmonize the\ndifferent facts already collected. Apollo, as he is represented by Homer,\nexhibits the character of a destroying and avenging, as well as a\ndelivering and protecting power. But he is the avenger of impiety and\narrogance, and the punisher of injustice and sin, and not the author of\nevil to mankind for evil\u2019s sake. He was therefore always considered as\nattended with certain beings whose nature was contrary to his own; his\ncharacter could only be shown in opposition with a system of hostile\nattributes and powers. As the _warring_ and _victorious_ god, he required\nenemies to combat and conquer: as the _pure_ and _bright_ god, he implies\nthe existence of a dark and impure side of nature. In this manner the\nworship of Apollo resembled those religions, such as the ancient Persian,\nwhich were founded on the doctrine of _two principles_, one of good, the\nother of evil. At the same time he is no deified personification of the\ncreative or generative powers of nature, nor of any natural object or\nphenomenon; and he has therefore nothing in common with the deities of the\nelementary religions.\n\nThese ideas, which seem to be expressed with tolerable distinctness, in\nthe most ancient epithets and symbols connected with the worship of\nApollo, as well as in the images and fictions of poets down to the time of\nEuripides, we will first examine with reference to the mythical history\nand adventures of Apollo, and secondly we will endeavour to point out the\ninfluence which these notions exercised upon the worship itself.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VII.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Zeus and Apollo originally the only two male deities of the\n    Dorians. \u00a7 2. Birth of Apollo. \u00a7 3. Sanctity of the island of\n    Delos. \u00a7 4. Pains of Latona. \u00a7 5. Spot of Apollo\u2019s birth. \u00a7 6.\n    Battle with the Python. \u00a7 7. Apollo sings the Pythian strain. \u00a7 8.\n    Bondage of Apollo. \u00a7 9. Combat with Tityus. \u00a7 10. Apollo\u2019s\n    assumption of the oracular power.\n\n\n1. Our present investigation renders it necessary to ascend to a period in\nwhich the primitive religion of the Dorians exhibited a distinct and\noriginal character, before it had been combined with the worship of other\ndeities. At that time this nation had only two male deities, Zeus and\nApollo: for the existence of the latter everywhere supposes that of the\nformer, and both were intimately connected in Crete, Delphi, and\nelsewhere; though the Doric Zeus did not receive great religious honours.\nIn the temple of Delphi, Zeus and Apollo were represented as Moiraget\u00e6,\naccompanied by two Fates.(1296) The supreme deity, however, when connected\nwith Apollo, was neither born, nor visible on earth, and perhaps never\nconsidered as having any immediate influence upon men. But Apollo, who is\noften emphatically called the son of Zeus,(1297) acts as his intercessor,\nambassador, and prophet with mankind.(1298) And whilst the father of the\ngods appears, indistinctly and at a distance, dwelling in ether, and\nenthroned in the highest heavens, Apollo is described as a divine hero,\nwhose office is to ward off evils and dangers, establish rights of\nexpiation, and announce the ordinances of Fate. It is our purpose to\ninvestigate these latter attributes, more especially in the mythology of\nDelos and Delphi.\n\n2. The legend of the birth of Apollo at Delos was indeed recognised by the\nIonians and Athenians, but neither by the Delphians, B\u0153otians, nor\nPeloponnesians;(1299) as is plain from the indifference which they\ngenerally showed for the temple in that island. We also know that the\nB\u0153otians represented Tegyra as the birthplace of Apollo.\n\nApollo, says Pindar, was born with time;(1300)\u2014alluding to the many\nobstacles and delays experienced at his birth. These had been occasioned\nby the influence of an hostile power, the same which produced Typhaon from\nthe depths of Tartarus,(1301) called by the poets Here.\n\nThis power refused its assistance at the birth of Apollo, and compelled\nLatona to wander in the pains of childbirth over earth and sea until she\narrived at the rocky island of Delos.\n\n3. Hence the island of Delos itself became one of the subjects of\nmythology. Pindar, in an ode to Delos, addresses it as \u201c_the daughter of\nthe sea, the unshaken prodigy of the earth, which mortals call Delos, but\nthe gods in Olympus the far-famed star of the dark earth_;\u201d(1302) and\nrelated how \u201c_the island, driven about by the winds and waves, as soon as\nLatona had placed her foot on its shore, became fast bound to the roots of\nthe earth by four columns_.\u201d(1303) The fable of the floating island(1304)\n(which is, however, of a more recent date than the Homeric hymn to Apollo)\nindicated merely the restless condition which preceded the tranquillity\nand brightness introduced by the manifestation of the god. Henceforth\nDelos remained fixed and unshaken, immoveable, according to the belief of\nthe Greeks, even by earthquakes; for which reason, the whole of Greece was\nalarmed when this phenomenon happened before the Persian war.(1305) By the\nwords \u201c_the star of the dark earth_,\u201d Pindar alludes to the idea that\nDelos (as the name shows) was considered as a pure and bright island,\nwhose shores, too holy for pollution, were ever kept free from corpses,\nthe sight of which is odious to the god. Hence also the tradition that\nAsteria, whose name is derived from \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1, the offspring of the Titans,\nhad cast herself into the sea, and been petrified on the shore.\n\n4. The birth of Apollo, being an epoch in mythology, was without doubt\ncelebrated in ancient hymns, whose simplicity presented a striking\ncontrast to the higher polish of the Homeric poems. A hymn of this\ndescription, ascribed to Olen, was addressed to Eileithyia, the worship of\nwhich goddess, together with other religious ceremonies, was brought over\n(as has been above remarked)(1306) from Cnosus to Delos, and from thence\nto Athens.(1307) In calling Eileithyia the mother of the god of\nlove,(1308) Olen exceeded the regular bounds of tradition respecting\nApollo, by confusing the worship of a strange god with that deity, and\nprobably identified her with the ancient Aphrodite (\u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03b1),\nwhose altar Theseus is said to have erected at Delos.(1309) In either\ncase, the establishment of this ancient Attic worship on the sacred\nisland, and its connexion with the Delian rites, illustrate the mention of\nEros in the Delian hymn.\n\n_Nine days and nine nights Latona writhed in hopeless pains of childbirth,\nsurrounded by the benevolent Titanid\u00e6, Dione, Rhea, Themis, and\nAmphitrite, who finally_ (according to the hymn of Homer) _prevailed upon\nEileithyia by the promise of a golden necklace. Then the pains seized\nLatona; she cast her arms around the palm-tree, and brought forth her\ndivine son._ The explanations of the bribe offered to Eileithyia are all\ntoo far-fetched: probably pregnant women at Delos consecrated their\nnecklaces to that goddess.\n\n5. The exact spot where the birth of Apollo took place was shown in Delos,\nsince the least circumstance connected with so important an event could\nnot fail to excite interest. It must be looked for in the place where the\ntorrent Inopus flows from mount Cynthus.(1310) Here there was a circular\npool (the \u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03cc\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1), the form of which is often carefully\nmentioned.(1311) By its side grew two sacred trees, the palm and the\nolive, which are not elsewhere reckoned among those sacred to Apollo; as\nin Greece Proper the first does not grow at all, and the second not\nwithout great care. The Delian temple alone could boast of the palm, the\nuse of palm-branches at the games having also originated in Delos.(1312)\n\nThis island acquired so much sanctity by the birth of Apollo, that no\nliving being was permitted either to be born or die within its\nboundary.(1313) Every pregnant woman was obliged to go over to the\nneighbouring island of Rheneia, in order to be delivered. One of the ideas\nof the Greeks respecting religious purity (which may in general be traced\nto the worship of Apollo) was, that all intercourse with pregnant women\npolluted in the same manner as the touch of a corpse. The prohibition\nagainst keeping dogs had the same origin.(1314) On the whole, the Delian\ntraditions are not to be considered as of very great antiquity or credit;\nthey contain, indeed, hardly any original source of information respecting\nApollo, being generally composed of descriptions of the sanctity of the\nisland itself; several legends, as that of its having once floated on the\nocean, &c., appear to have been the invention of the Ionians; this race,\neven in fiction, allowing itself far greater latitude than the Dorians.\n\n6. Apollo, according to the Attic legend, passed to Delphi from Delos\nthrough Attica and B\u0153otia; the Homeric Hymn to Apollo makes him come from\nthe northern districts, but likewise through B\u0153otia: according to other\ntraditions he came from the Hyperboreans. According to another, Latona was\ncarrying the two babes, Apollo and Artemis, in her arms, when assailed by\nthe Python,(1315) the mother seeking refuge on a sacred stone near the\nplane-tree at Delphi:(1316) in another, Apollo was a child at the time of\nthis event;(1317) and, accordingly, a Delphian boy, both whose parents\nwere alive, represented the actions of the deity at the great festival.\nThe destruction of the Python, however, always formed the chief event of\nthe sacred fable. It was by this feat that Apollo gained possession of the\noracular chasm, from which the goddess Earth had once spoken. It was not,\nhowever, without some resistance that she gave way to the claims of the\nyouthful god, whom, according to Pindar, she even attempted to hurl down\nto Tartarus.(1318) The serpent Python is represented as the guardian of\nthe ancient oracle of the Earth,(1319) and a son of the Earth itself,\nsprung from the warm clay that remained after the general deluge, and\ndwelling in a dark defile near a fountain, which was said to be supplied\nfrom the Styx.(1320) The serpent, as usual, represents an earthly being,\nby which is personified the rough and shapeless offspring of nature. It\nwas supposed to be connected with the nature of water and the sea; and\nhence was called _Delphin_, or _Delphine_,(1321) like the fish of the same\nname, which was particularly sacred to Apollo, and in all probability was\nalso conceived to have been subdued by him. After this, the serpent that\nwatched the oracle remained, although conquered, as a memorial of the\nancient struggle, and of the victory of the god, and was placed near the\nrocky chasm at the foot of the tripod, in the inner sanctuary.(1322)\n\n7. The battle with the Python being finished,(1323) Apollo himself breaks\nthe laurel, to weave a crown of victory.(1324) Here too he was said first\nto have sung the p\u00e6an, as a strain of triumph. In the dramatic exhibition,\nby which the Delphians represented the adventures of Apollo, the Pythian\nstrain (\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) was here introduced. This air, which was originally\nnothing more than a simple melody, soon received all the embellishment of\nart; and, being raised by Timosthenes to the dignity of a great musical\ncomposition,(1325) was (contrary to the ancient custom) performed with\nflutes, lyres, and trumpets, without the accompaniment of the voice. The\naccounts concerning this festival are indeed copious, but unluckily of too\nlate a date to give us an idea of its ancient and genuine character. In\nPlutarch\u2019s time(1326) it was not a hollow serpent\u2019s den, but an imitation\nof a princely house (\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2), that was erected in a court (\u1f05\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2), at every\noctennial festival.(1327) Into this building the women of a Delphian\nfamily(1328) led the boy by a secret passage (\u03b4\u03bf\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1) with lighted\ntorches, and fled away through the door, overturning the table, and\nsetting fire to the house.\n\n8. Although the destruction of the Python is characterized as a triumph of\nthe higher and divine power of the deity, yet the victorious god was\nconsidered as polluted by the blood of the monster, and obliged to undergo\na series of afflictions and woes. Tradition represented him as going\nimmediately after the battle by the sacred road to Tempe; which the boy,\nwho personified Apollo, afterwards took as leader of the religious\nprocession.(1329) The direction of this road has been accurately stated\nabove. The chief circumstance in this wandering was the bondage \u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\nof Apollo under Admetus the Pher\u00e6an, to which the god subjected himself in\norder to expiate his guilt. This too was represented by the boy, who\nprobably imitated the manner in which the god, as a herdsman and slave,\nsubmitted to the most degrading services.(1330) Perhaps it was the piety\nof Admetus, celebrated in tradition, which entitled him to the privilege\nof possessing such a slave; yet it must be doubted, whether, conformably\nto the spirit of the ancient mythology, an ideal being, and not a mortal\nhero, was not originally intended to be represented under this name.\n\u1f0c\u03b4\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is an usual name for the god of the infernal regions; to whom,\naccording to the original idea, Apollo became enslaved. The worship of\nthis deity is connected with that of Hecate, who was called \u03b8\u03b5\u1f70 \u03a6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03b1,\nand the daughter of Admetus.(1331) Cannot we, in the rescuing of Alcestis\nfrom the infernal regions by Apollo(1332) and Hercules, find some clue\nwhich may lead us to suppose that the fable of Admetus refers to a worship\nof the infernal deities? An ancient dirge, called the song of Admetus, was\nchanted in Greece, having, as was pretended, been first sung by Admetus at\nthe death of his wife, originally perhaps addressed to \u0391\u1f35\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f04\u03b4\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.(1333) How well does it suit the sublime character of the\nreligious poetry in question, that the god, who had been polluted by the\ncombat with the impure being, should be obliged, in order to complete his\npenance, to descend into the infernal regions. In confirmation of this,\nthere have been preserved some obscure traditions, which represent Apollo\nas actually dying, that is, descending into the infernal regions.(1334)\nHowever, after eight years, the appointed time of bondage, the god wanders\nto the ancient altar of Tempe, where, sprinkling with laurel-branches, and\nother expiatory rites, symbolically restore his purity,(1335) After this,\nthe purified deity returns by the same road to Deipnias, near Larissa, and\nthere breaks his long fast.\n\n9. These Delphian traditions in very early times became the theme of epic\npoetry, in which however another cause was assigned for the slavery of\nApollo; it was represented as a punishment inflicted by Zeus for slaying\nthe Cyclops, who forged the lightning with which Zeus struck his son\n\u00c6sculapius, because, not satisfied with recovering the sick, he even\nrecalled the dead to life.(1336) Yet some of the poets also state that\nPher\u00e6 was the place of his servitude, alluding to the Pythian road, and\nmention a _great year_ (\u03bc\u1f72\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd) as the time of his bondage;(1337)\nby which they mean the Delphian period. We may perhaps find a trace of a\nmore ancient tradition in the story of amber being a petrified tear, which\nApollo shed during the time of his slavery in his ancient abode amongst\nthe Hyperboreans, in the land of the Celts.(1338)\n\nThe combat with Tityus is nearly allied to that with the Python. This\nearth-born monster, dwelling at Panopea, a town situated on the sacred\nroad, and hostile to the Delphians, laid hands upon Latona when passing\nthrough that place: but her children soon overcome the ravisher, and send\nhim to the shades below; where a vulture incessantly preys upon his\nliver,(1339) the seat of inordinate desire.\n\n10. The hostile part of nature now lying vanquished, and quiet having\ngained the victory over disturbance, Apollo begins to exercise the other\noffice for which he was sent into the world. He mounts the tripod of the\nDelphian oracle, no longer to give utterance to the dark responses of the\nearth, but to proclaim the \u201cunerring decree of Zeus.\u201d(1340) For it is\nevident that, in the language of this religion, fate was considered as the\nwill of Zeus (\u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u1f78\u03c2, \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b1), who was at Delphi called \u039c\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2,\n\u201cleader of fate;\u201d whilst the epic poets, from their custom of making each\ngod a separate individual, generally (though the glimmering of a more\nexalted idea may be sometimes traced) made Zeus, like all other\nindividuals, subject to fate. The prophetic powers of Apollo will be more\nfully treated of in the following chapter.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VIII.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Ritual worship of Apollo. Bloodless offerings. \u00a7 2. Expiatory\n    rites. \u00a7 3. Peace offerings. \u00a7 4. Festivals of Apollo. \u00a7 5. Traces\n    of a festival calendar. \u00a7 6. Expiations for homicide. \u00a7 7. Rites\n    of purification\u2014use of the laurel therein. \u00a7 8. Prophetic\n    character of Apollo. \u00a7 9. His modes of divination. \u00a7 10. Use of\n    music in the worship of Apollo. \u00a7 11. Apollo represented as\n    playing on the cithara. \u00a7 12. Contest of Apollo and Linus. Ancient\n    plaintive songs. \u00a7 13. Ancient hymns to Apollo. \u00a7 14. The p\u00e6an and\n    hyporcheme. \u00a7 15. The Hyacinthian and Carnean festivals. \u00a7 16.\n    Apollo as represented by the sculptors. \u00a7 17. Ancient statues of\n    Apollo. \u00a7 18. Apollo as represented by successive schools of\n    sculptors. \u00a7 19. Political influence of the worship of Apollo. \u00a7\n    20. Its connexion with the Pythagorean philosophy.\n\n\n1. Our intention in this chapter is to show that, besides the mythology,\nthe ceremonies also of the worship of Apollo so agree and harmonize\ntogether, as to furnish a decisive proof of its regular and systematic\ndevelopment; after which we will endeavour to point out this agreement,\nand elucidate its relative bearings; although an attempt of this kind must\nnecessarily be very imperfect, since the religion, which, in order to\ncomprehend, we should regard with the ardour of devotion, is now merely\nthe subject of cold and heartless speculation.\n\nFirst, with regard to the sacrifices, it is remarkable, that in many of\nthe principal temples a particular sanctity and importance was attributed\nto _bloodless_ offerings. At Delphi cakes and frankincense were\nconsecrated in holy baskets;(1341) at Patara, cakes in the form of bows,\narrows, and lyres, emblems both of the wrath and placability of the\ndeity.(1342) At Delos, an altar, called the altar of the pious, stood\nbehind the altar built of horns, on which were deposited only cakes of\nwheat and barley; this, according to tradition, was the only one on which\nPythagoras sacrificed.(1343) In this island also at festivals were offered\nmallows and ears of corn;(1344) the simplest food of man, in remembrance\nof primitive simplicity and temperance. At Delphi the young women of\nParnassus are said to have brought the first-fruits of the year to Apollo,\nimmediately after the destruction of the Python.(1345) The pious offerings\nof the Hyperboreans, as has been remarked above, were the same as those\nlast enumerated. And perhaps we may add to our list the custom, at the\nAttic autumnal festival of the Pyanepsia, of hanging grapes, fruits, and\nsmall jars of honey and oil, to branches of olive or laurel bound with\nwool, and carrying them to the doors of a temple of Apollo;(1346) though\nperhaps this rite belonged rather to Bacchus, the Sun, and the\nHours,(1347) who shared the honour of this festival with Apollo.\n\n2. The above offerings doubtless express the existence of a pure and\nfilial relation, like that in which the Hyperboreans stood to Apollo; it\nbeing quite sufficient for persons in so innocent a state to give a\nconstant acknowledgment of the benevolence and power with which the god\ndefends and preserves them. But as the pure deity was himself supposed to\nbe stained with blood, so might the minds of his worshippers become\ntainted with sin, and lose their internal quiet. When in this state, being\nas it were under the influence of a fiendlike and corrupting power (\u1f0c\u03c4\u03b7),\nthe mind naturally wishes to put an end to its unhappy condition by some\nspecific and definite act. This is effected by the solemn expiation and\npurification of the religion of Apollo. Expiatory rites were thus\nintroduced into the regular system of worship, and formed a part of the\nancient _jus sacrum._ It was soon however perceived that the usual routine\nof life sometimes needed the same ceremony, and hence expiatory\n_festivals_ were connected with the public worship of the god; by which\nnot only individuals, but whole cities were purified. These festivals were\nnaturally celebrated in the spring, when the storms of winter disappear,\nand nature bursts into fresh life.(1348) But in these the pious gifts of\nindividuals no longer sufficed, nor even the sacrifice of animals; and the\ntroubled mind seemed to require for its purification a greater sacrifice.\nAt Athens, during the Thargelia, two men (or a man and a woman), adorned\nwith flowers and fruits, having been rubbed over with fragrant herbs, were\nled in the most solemn manner, like victims, before the gate, and thrown\nwith imprecations from the rock; but were in all probability taken up\nbelow, and carried beyond the borders. The persons used for these\nexpiations (\u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76) were condemned criminals, whom the city provided for\nthe purpose.(1349) This festival was common to all Ionians; it is\nparticularly mentioned at Miletus(1350) and Paros;(1351) and the same\nrites were also practised in the Phoc\u00e6an colony of Massalia.(1352) In\nIonia the victims were beaten with branches of the fig-tree and with\nsea-onions; at the same time there was played on the flute a strain\n(called \u03c7\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7\u03c2), which, according to the testimony of Hipponax, was\nreduced by Mimnermus into elegiac measure.(1353) At Athens also the\nvictims were crowned with figs and fig-branches, being probably the symbol\nof utter worthlessness. The antiquity of this manner of purification has\nbeen shown above, in our remarks upon the religious ceremonies of\nLeucadia.(1354)\n\n3. The _peace-offerings_ (\u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76), by which Apollo was first appeased,\nand his wrath averted, should, as it appears, be distinguished from the\n_purifications_ (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76), by which he was supposed to restore the mind\nto purity and tranquillity. At Sicyon (where the religion of Apollo\nflourished at a very early period) it was related, that Apollo and Artemis\nhad, after the destruction of the Python, wished to be there purified, but\nthat, being driven away by a phantom (whence in after-times a certain spot\nin the town was called \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2), they proceeded to some other place. Upon\nthis the inhabitants were attacked by a pestilence; and the seers ordered\nthem to appease the deities. Seven boys and the same number of girls were\nordered to go to the river Sythas and bathe in its waters, then to carry\nthe statues of the two deities into the temple of Peitho, and from thence\nback to that of Apollo.(1355) The Attic festival of Delphinia (on the\nsixth of Munychion) had evidently the same meaning; in this seven boys and\ngirls reverently conveyed the \u1f31\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, an olive-branch bound with white\nfillets of wool, into the Delphinium.(1356) This took place exactly one\nmonth before the Thargelia; and in all probability the peace-offerings and\npurifications (\u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 and \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76) were celebrated at the same period\nthroughout the whole of Greece.\n\n4. By comparing and arranging the scattered fragments of information\nrespecting the time of the festivals belonging to these two classes, we\nshall obtain the following clear and simple account.(1357)\n\nIn the commencement of the Apollinian year, in the first month of spring,\ncalled Bysius (_i.e._ \u03a0\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) at Delphi, Munychion at Athens, Apollo was\nsupposed to come through the defile of Parnassus to Delphi, and begin the\nbattle with the Delphin\u00e8. He next assumes the character of the wrathful\ngod, whom it was necessary to appease; and hence, on the sixth day of the\nmonth, the expiatory festival of Delphinia took place at Athens, and\nprobably also at Miletus and Massalia; we may likewise suppose that it was\nthe same month which in \u00c6gina and Thera went under the name of\nDelphinius:(1358) on the seventh Apollo destroyed the Python.(1359) The\np\u00e6an was now sung. This too was the day on which, according to immemorial\ncustom, the oracle first broke silence; at a late period it was also\nesteemed at Delphi as the birthday of Apollo.(1360) Immediately after, the\nDelphian procession moved on to Tempe; and at the same time the tithes of\nmen were once despatched to Apollo in Crete.(1361)\n\nIn the second month of spring, called by the Ionians Thargelion, Apollo\nwas purified at the altar at Tempe, and probably on the seventh day of the\nmonth; for the great expiatory festival of both deities, Apollo and\nArtemis, was at Athens celebrated on the sixth and seventh days; and Delos\nwas at the same time purified; this ceremony was immediately followed by a\nfeast of thanksgiving in honour of the god of light. According to Delian\ntradition, Artemis and Apollo (\u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2)(1362) were born on the sixth\nand seventh days of this month.(1363) On the same day however on which the\nDelphian boy broke the laurel and turned homewards, the purifying\nlaurel-boughs (from which the festival of the Daphnephoria derived its\nname)(1364) were probably also carried round in B\u0153otia, and throughout the\nrest of Greece.(1365) Soon after this, the setting of the Pleiades took\nplace (the day before the ides of May, according to the statement of\nEudoxus);(1366) at which time Hesiod makes the harvest begin; then, as has\nbeen above remarked, on the testimony of Diodorus and ancient works of\nart,(1367) Apollo, having been presented with the first ears of corn,\nleaves the Hyperboreans, and appears in a milder and more noble character\nat Delphi.\n\nIf it was wished that the setting of the Pleiades should occur at a\nregular interval from the preceding festival, this could have been\neffected only by cycles, by which the lunar and sidereal years were made\nto agree. Now it was not difficult to observe, that, after ninety-nine\nlunar months, the setting of the Pleiades coincided pretty exactly with\nthe same phase of the moon. From this circumstance arose the period of\n_eight years_, called by the Greeks \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2, in conformity with which\nthe great festivals of Apollo at Delphi, Crete, and Thebes were from the\nearliest times arranged.(1368)\n\n5. These data afford a sufficient proof of a remarkable and by no means\nfortuitous connexion between the expiatory festivals of Apollo: we may\ndiscover the vestiges of a sacred calendar, once, without doubt, preserved\nentire, but which, through the various combinations introduced into the\nGrecian worship, became disjointed and broken. This was particularly the\ncase in the Attic festivals, where the same festival is frequently, as it\nwere, doubled, and placed in different portions of the year. A remarkable\ninstance, illustrative of the above remark, immediately occurs to us. As\nthe months Munychion and Thargelion succeeded each other in the _second_\nhalf of the year, so did Bo\u00ebdromion and Pyanepsion in the _first_. The\nsixth of Bo\u00ebdromion was sacred to Artemis; the seventh, without doubt, to\nApollo Bo\u00ebdromius, _the martial god_; who therefore corresponds with the\nDelphinian Apollo, and the festival with the Delphinia. The Pyanepsia,\nhowever, were very similar to the Thargelia; the laurel-boughs wrapt with\nwool, carried round at the celebration of both, remind us of the\nDaphnephoria;(1369) only, as was above remarked, the worship of Bacchus,\nwhich Theseus is said to have established at Naxos, after his return from\nthe islands, was mixed up with it, and is to be recognised in the carrying\nof boughs (\u1f40\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1), which was introduced into this festival. Thus these\nfour seventh days (\u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9) correspond with each other as follows:\n\n7th Munychion.\n7th Thargelion.\n7th Bo\u00ebdromion.\n7th Pyanepsion.\n\n6. We turn from these expiatory festivals of universal occurrence to the\nexpiations which the religion of Apollo enjoined for those who had\nincurred the guilt of homicide.(1370) We previously noticed some\nestablishments of this nature connected with the temples at T\u00e6narum, at\nTr\u0153zen, and of Branchid\u00e6: a similar one also existed at Delphi, as may be\ngathered from the fable of Orestes, related by \u00c6schylus, in which Apollo\nappears at the same time as leader of the avenging Furies, and as purifier\nof the murderer. Immediately after this deed, the matricide takes an\nolive-branch bound with woollen fillets,(1371) and flies _like a\nfrightened stag_(1372) to Delphi, where Apollo himself purifies his\nblood-stained hands by the sacrifice of swine and ablutions;(1373) and\nthus liberates him from the Furies, as a defence against whom he had\n(according to Stesichorus) also given him a bow and arrows.(1374) After\nthe purification of Orestes at Delphi, the Athenian poets affirm that he\nwent to Athens, and, under the protection of the god, placed himself\nbefore the Areopagus, where Cephalus had also stood in a similar\nsituation.(1375)\n\nAt Athens likewise, as was remarked above, the expiatory rites of the\nworship of Apollo were connected with the criminal courts of justice, the\naristocratic ephet\u00e6 being intrusted both with the ceremony of purification\nand the duties of judges. These were fifty-one men, of noble birth,(1376)\nwho in early times had jurisdiction in five courts of justice (amongst\nwhich the Areopagus was of course included) over every description of\nhomicide.(1377) Solon probably first separated the Areopagus from the\nother four courts; and in order to make it a timocratic tribunal, with\ncognizance over cases of wilful murder, he gave it great political, though\nnot religious power; the latter he was not able to bestow. The\njurisdiction of the ephet\u00e6 was now confined to cases of unintentional or\njustifiable homicide, and some others of no importance; thus remaining a\nsingular remnant of the ancient judicial forms, in the midst of an\nuniversal change. We shall now describe the ceremonies in use at the\nexpiation of homicides. It is necessary, however, in the first place, to\ndistinguish the wilful murderer, who either left for ever his native land,\nlosing all privileges and property therein, or who suffered the penalty of\nthe laws, from the man who killed another without design, or with some\ngood cause, to be approved by the sentence of the ephet\u00e6. A person in the\nlatter situation left his country by a particular road for a certain time;\nduring which he also kept at a distance from places of public resort\n(\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2).(1378) Afterwards, the reconciliation took place either\nwith the kindred or certain chosen phratores; but only in case they were\nwilling,(1379) and that it was only a homicide of the second\ndescription.(1380) The term used was \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, because an offender of\nthis kind was an unfortunate person, and therefore, according to the\nopinion of the ancient Greeks, worthy of respect. Afterwards, the\nperpetrator was purified from all guilt by sacrifices and expiatory rites.\nIn early times the purification probably always took place abroad,\nfrequently in the ancient settlements of the injured family. At Athens it\nwas performed after the return of the criminal; and there the cases of\natoneable murders were of course less frequent than in the heroic age;\nsince, under a less regular government, and with closer family ties, there\nwere more incitements and excuses for that crime. Hence at that time those\ninstitutions must have been of double importance, which checked the\nfearful consequences of an unlucky act, quieted the workings of an uneasy\nconscience, and moderated the too eager thirst for revenge.(1381)\n\nFrom this ancient connexion of the religious expiations and criminal\njurisdiction, we easily perceive why at Athens Apollo should have presided\nover all the courts of justice;(1382) and why he was also represented at\nTenedos as armed with a double hatchet,(1383) the instrument used in that\nisland for the execution of adulterers.(1384)\n\n7. Apollo was likewise supposed to preside over purifications of houses,\ntowns, and districts;(1385) and accordingly they were performed by\nTiresias, the prophet of the Ismenium, at Thebes;(1386) as also in later\ntimes by Epimenides, in his character of a Cretan worshipper of Apollo, at\nAthens (after Olymp. 46. 1.), and at Delos at a still earlier\nperiod.(1387) This is the first purification of Delos of which we have any\naccount; the second is that instituted by Pisistratus (about the 60th\nOlympiad); the third, that set on foot by Athens (Olymp. 88. 3. 426 B.C.),\nwhen the island was entirely freed from the corpses so odious to\nApollo.(1388)\n\nIn all these rites we find frequent use of the _laurel_ (the \u03b4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bd\u03b7\n\u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2),(1389) to which a power of warding off evil was ascribed, both\nwhen employed in sprinkling, and when merely carried round in\nprocession.(1390) This tree also served several purposes in the delivery\nof oracles; a branch of it in ancient times distinguished the\nprophets,(1391) and even the god himself as such;(1392) hence his nurses\nwere said by some to have been \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1,(1393) _i.e._ \u201c_the laurel\nitself_;\u201d and \u1f08\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, or \u201c_the fulfilment of oracles_.\u201d(1394) The reason\nwhy the laurel was supposed to have these powers is as obscure as the\norigin of the ancient symbolical language in general. Perhaps it was\nmerely the appearance of the evergreen-tree, with its slender form and\nglittering leaves, that made it a symbol of Apollo. The laurel will bear a\ntolerably severe winter,(1395) and therefore nourished in the north of\nGreece; while the olive, the tree of Athene, belongs to its more southern\nregions. But, be this as it may, the situation of Tempe, where this shrub\nstill grows with great luxuriance, certainly added much to the sanctity of\nthe symbol:(1396) and for this reason the amour of the god with Daphne is\noften placed on the banks of the Peneus.(1397) Indeed Apollo was supposed\nto love all groves, particularly of forest-trees, laurels, wild-olives,\n&c. The freshening coolness and holy silence of such places were thought\nto be proper preparatives for entering the sanctuary.(1398)\n\n8. It has appeared incomprehensible to many, why Apollo should be a god of\nprophecy, and how this office can be reconciled with his other attributes.\nMany have been satisfied with supposing an accidental association of\nmusic, prophecy, and archery, without being able to discover any principle\nof union. In the following pages we shall endeavour to account for the\ncombination in the same deity of attributes apparently so unconnected.\n\nProphecy, according to the ideas of the ancients, is the announcement of\nfate (of \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1, \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1). Now fate was considered to be the right order of\nthings, the established physical and moral harmony of the world, in which\nevery thing occupies the place fitted for its capacities and function.\nFate therefore coincides with supreme Justice (\u0398\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2); which notion Hesiod\nexpressed by saying that Zeus married Themis, who produced to him the\nFates. The pious, religious mind could not separate Zeus and Destiny: Fate\nwas the will and thought of the highest of the gods. A man whose actions\nagreed with this established harmony, and who followed the appointed\ncourse of things, acted _justly_ (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f36\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1); the violent and\narrogant man endeavoured at least to break through the laws of Fate. Now\nit was this right order of events which the ancient oracles were supposed\nto proclaim; and hence they were called \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, ordinances or laws of\n_justice_.(1399) They were not imagined to be derived from a foreknowledge\nof futurity; but merely to declare that which, according to the necessary\ncourse of events, must come to pass. It cannot indeed fail to surprise us\nthat the oracle was delivered by a woman in a state of ecstasy, and not as\nthe result of serious reflection. But do we not find in the earlier period\nof Grecian philosophy (especially in the Ionic school) every new and\nprofound discovery appearing as the work of sudden illumination and\necstasy, and indeed often accompanied with miraculous circumstances? And\nwould not the mind in that age have naturally been raised to such an\nexcited and rapturous state, when, endeavouring to escape from the narrow\nbounds of daily life, it recognised in the general course of events the\ninfluence of the gods? The means adopted to promote this inspiration, the\nvapour of the chasm, the chewing of the laurel-leaves, the drinking of the\nwater of the well, are of the most innocent description. We do not however\nmean to deny that these ceremonies soon became an unmeaning form, the\noracle being made subservient to political purposes.\n\nThe custom of a woman giving utterance to the decrees of the god\noriginated partly from the peculiar estimation in which women were held by\nthe Dorians, and partly from the natural tendency of the female sex (so\noften remarked by the ancients) to fits of ecstasy. Prophetesses were\nelsewhere also frequently connected with temples of Apollo; as, for\ninstance, Manto, during the fabulous age, with the Ismenian and Clarian\ntemples, and Cassandra with that of Thymbra, whose nature was nearly\nallied to that of the sibyls, who likewise were always connected with\ntemples of the same god. As to the manner in which the responses of the\nPythian priestess were delivered, Heracleitus of Ephesus says, that \u201c_the\ngod, whose oracle is at Delphi, neither utters nor conceals any thing, but\ngives signs_;\u201d(1400) which at least serves to contradict the common idea\nof the designed ambiguity of this oracle.\n\nThis temple must however have lost much of its dignity, when it\ncondescended, for the sake of rich offerings from the Lydian monarch, to\nanswer enigmatically the insidious questions which Cr\u0153sus put to the\nGrecian oracles. In earlier times a Greek would not have dared, without\nthe greatest faith in its responses, to approach the temple, which had\nregulated almost the whole political state of Greece, conducted its\ncolonies, instituted the sacred armistices, and established by its\nauthority the legislation of Lycurgus. For in general the god had not to\nannounce what _would_, but what _should_ take place; and he frequently\ndeclared events not as to happen independently of his injunction, but as\nthe consequence of his answers. All Dorians were in a certain state of\ndependence on the Pythian temple; and as long as that race possessed the\nascendency in Greece, the hearth in the centre of the earth (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1), with its eternal fire, at Pytho,(1401) was considered as the\nPrytaneum and religious centre of the whole of Greece.(1402)\n\n9. In ancient Greece, however, prophecy was by no means derived altogether\nfrom Apollo, but merely that species of it which proceeded from a\nrapturous and entranced state of the soul. Nevertheless, the enthusiastic\nand imaginative frame of mind, in which cool grottos, with their flowing\nwaters and hollow echoes, seemed to transport the votary into a former\nworld, was derived from the Nymphs: and the Bacid\u00e6, who were considered as\nunder the influence of the Nymphs (\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03cc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9), have no more to do with\nApollo than the \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76, among whom Mus\u00e6us is reckoned.\n\nOf the various modes of divination from omens,(1403) only two or three\nwere referred to this god, and that rather accidentally than in accordance\nwith any fixed principle:(1404) for example, divination from\nlightning,(1405) from birds,(1406) from sacrifices,(1407) and from the\ndrawing of lots, which, however, was either disdained by him, as below his\ndignity, or transferred to Hermes.(1408)\n\nConnecting the idea of Apollo, which we have now acquired, with our\npreceding inquiries, we find the whole combine in an easy and natural\nmanner. Apollo, as a divine hero, overcomes every obstacle to the order\nand laws of heaven; and those are heavenly regulations and laws which he\nproclaims as the prophet of Zeus. By these, also, tranquillity,\nbrightness, and harmony, are every where established, and every thing\ndestructive of them is removed. The belief in a fixed system of laws, of\nwhich Apollo was the executor, formed the foundation of all prophecy in\nhis worship.\n\n10. We have next to consider for what reason and to what extent _music_\nwas included among the solemnities (\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u1f76) in honour of Apollo. On this\npoint, however, we must guard against inferring too much from the poets.\nBy the ancients he was represented as playing on the cithara (\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03be),\nfrequently in the midst of a chorus of Muses, singing and dancing;(1409)\nwhose place in the Hymn to the Pythian Apollo is filled by ten goddesses,\namong whom \u201c_Ares and Hermes vault and spring_\u201d (perhaps like Cretan\ntumblers or \u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2), \u201c_whilst Apollo, in a beautifully woven\ngarment, plays, and at the same time dances with quick motion of the\nfeet_;\u201d for Apollo was not considered as merely a god of music; thus\nPindar addresses him as the god of dance.(1410) But we are not warranted\nfrom this _poetical_ fiction to infer a _religious_ union of the Muses and\nApollo, nor can such a connexion be any where traced; indeed the worship\nof these goddesses was, both in origin and locality,(1411) entirely\ndifferent from that of Apollo. Besides, amongst the early writers, Apollo\nis never considered as the patron of poets, or invoked, as the Muses are,\nto grant poetical inspiration: players on the cithara alone were under his\nprotection. The cithara was his attribute, both in many ancient\nstatues(1412) and also on the coins of Delphi; it is his ancient and\nappropriate instrument; the deeper-toned lyre, with its arched\nsounding-board, Apollo received from Hermes:(1413) the instances in which\nhe is represented as bearing it are very rare.\n\n11. But for what reason is Apollo described as playing upon the cithara?\nfor no other, assuredly, than that the music of the cithara was from times\nof remote antiquity connected with his worship; and that, because it\nappears best fitted to express a tranquil and simple harmony; the worship\nof Apollo, as we have frequently remarked, always endeavouring to produce\na solemn quiet and stillness of the soul. Pindar beautifully says of this\ngod that he \u201c_invented the citharis and bestows the muse on whom he wills,\nin order to introduce peaceful law into the heart_.\u201d(1414) To this also\nrefer the golden \u03ba\u03b7\u03bb\u03b7\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, which, according to the account of the same\npoet,(1415) were suspended from the roof of the brazen temple at Delphi;\nand they were without doubt intended as emblems of the mild and soothing\ninfluence of the god. This was naturally the chief object of music when\nused in purifications, and as an incantation (\u1f10\u03c0\u1ff3\u03b4\u1f74); when passions were\nto be overcome, and pain soothed; and in ancient times this was one of its\nmost important applications.(1416) Chrysothemis, an ancient Pythian\nminstrel of mythology, was hence called the son of Carmanor, the expiatory\npriest of Tarrha;(1417) as also Thaletas, the Cretan poet, purified Sparta\nby music, when attacked with the plague.(1418) The Pythagoreans, who paid\nan especial honour to Apollo, went still further, and employed music as a\ncharm to soothe the passions, attune the spirit to harmony, and cure both\nbody and mind. Hence they much preferred the cithara to the flute,(1419)\nas, according to Grecian ideas, there was something in the sound of the\nflute wild, and at the same time gloomy; this, too, is the reason why\nApollo disliked the music of that instrument.(1420) This also explains his\ncontest with Marsyas, the Phrygian Silenus and flute-player, whose tough\nskin, having been stript off by the conqueror, always moved (according to\nthe report of the inhabitants of Cel\u00e6n\u00e6), with joy, as was believed, at\nthe sound of flutes.(1421)\n\nThe flute was not an instrument of much antiquity among the Greeks; Homer\nonly mentions it as used by the Trojans.(1422) In the time of Hesiod it\nhad been introduced at the _comus_, the band of noisy revellers.(1423) But\nthe cithara alone for a long time kept its place as the instrument for the\nchorus: even in the time of Alcman flute-players came mostly from Asia\nMinor; and their names (Sambas, Adon, Telos(1424)) frequently had, from\nthis circumstance, a barbarous sound. This kind of music was principally\nadopted in places where Dionysus was worshipped; for instance, in B\u0153otia.\nIt was of course also much used in the rites of the Phrygian Magna Mater,\nand of the Phrygian Pan:(1425) hence Pindar, who inherited the character\nof a flute-player from his father, dedicated a shrine to the mother of the\ngods, and to Pan.(1426) When, however, it had become common throughout\nGreece, it could not be excluded from a place so celebrated for music as\nDelphi, and Apollo\u2019s ear became less fastidious. Alcman and Corinna,\nindeed, were too partial to that art (the former as being a Lydian, the\nlatter a B\u0153otian), when they represented Apollo himself playing on the\nflute.(1427) This instrument, however, had at that time been adopted even\nin the sacred exhibition of the Delphian worship: a dirge on the death of\nthe Python(1428) (nominally the production of Olympus a Phrygian musician,\ncontemporary with, or somewhat later than, Terpander),(1429) was played on\nthe flute in the Lydian strain, and probably formed a part of that\ndramatic representation. Moreover, this instrument was used to accompany\nProsodia (songs which were sung on the way to a temple) in the procession\nto Tempe, and in the Pentathlon at the gymnastic contests.(1430) A\npeculiar species of flute, from being used in p\u00e6ans, obtained the name of\nthe _Pythian_:(1431) yet the music of the flute, combined with singing\n(\u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1), in lyric and elegiac measures, was excluded from the Pythian\ngames, after it had once been heard, as making too gloomy an\nimpression:(1432) for all sadness, and therefore all plaintive strains,\nwere every where excluded from the worship of Apollo; and the music in his\ntemples was always intended to have an enlivening and tranquillizing\neffect upon the mind.\n\n12. From this view of the subject we may explain the singular story of the\ncontest of Apollo with Linus, and of the defeat and consequent death of\nthe latter.(1433) For this purpose it will be necessary to state shortly\nmy ideas respecting the real character of Linus. Linus, then, the subject\nof the song called by his name, was originally a god of an elementary\nreligion (in which there were numerous symbols to signify the death of all\nanimated life): he was nearly connected with Narcissus (_i.e._, _the\nTorpid_), whose tomb was shown at Thebes and Argos, at which last place\nmatrons and maidens bewailed him in the month Arneius, as a boy brought up\namong lambs and torn in pieces by dogs.(1434) The song of lamentation for\nthe untimely death of Linus, the much-loved boy,(1435) was sung to the\nharp in a low and subdued voice, and listened to with pleasure in the\ntimes of Homer and Hesiod,(1436) although then, perhaps, the air was not\nalways very melancholy. But in after times this was its predominant\ncharacter, as is proved by the names \u0391\u1f34\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u039f\u1f30\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.(1437) It was a\ngreat favourite with the husbandmen,(1438) who were generally aboriginal\ninhabitants. In this point there was a resemblance between the usages of\nancient Greece and Asia Minor, where religious dirges of this description,\ndifferent, indeed, in different districts, but having every where the same\nmournful tune, were customary.(1439) Such were, for instance, the lament\nof the tribe of Doliones;(1440) the Hylas, sung at fountains in the\ncountry of the Mysians and Bithynians(1441) (probably the same as the\nMysian song);(1442) the song of the beautiful Bormus, whose watery death\nwas deplored by the husbandmen of Mariandyne on the flute in the middle of\nsummer;(1443) of Lityerses, whom the Phrygians bewailed yearly during the\ntime of harvest at Cel\u00e6n\u00e6, the native place of Marsyas;(1444) and which,\nwith the melancholy Carian strain, was played to the Phrygian flute.(1445)\nBesides these there were the Gingras, or song of Adonis, and the Maneros,\nthe rustic song of Pelusium in Egypt, which Herodotus compares with the\nLinus.(1446) And even at Cyprus the contest of the two opposite kinds of\nmusic was in some measure renewed; there being a tradition that Cinyras,\nthe priest of Aphrodite, and composer of the mournful strains in honour of\nAdonis, had, like Marsyas and Linus, been overcome and put to death by\nApollo.(1447)\n\nThus we behold Apollo the representative of the severe, even, and simple\nmusic of the Greeks, in contest with that impassioned spirit, alternating\nbetween the extremes of fury and apathy, which the professors of an\nelementary religion sought to represent even in their music; and\nconsequently this fable also harmonizes with the fundamental principles of\nthe religion of Apollo.\n\n13. Having now ascertained the general character of the music employed in\nthe worship of Apollo, we shall endeavour to obtain a more accurate\nknowledge of its varieties.\n\nOne of the most ancient species of composition (in which Chrysothemis the\nCretan and Philammon were said to have contended at Delphi) was a hymn to\nApollo;(1448) which we must suppose to have been composed in the ancient\nDoric dialect, and sung simply to the cithara. In reference to its musical\nexecution, this hymn was also called a _nome_,(1449) the invention of\nwhich was ascribed to Apollo himself.(1450) At Delos also there were\nnomes, which were sung at the cyclic choral dances, and were attributed to\nOlen, another representative of the ancient poetry of hymns.(1451) The\ngeneral character of these was composure and regularity;(1452) the measure\nwas anciently (as we know from certain testimony) only hexameter:(1453)\nwhich agrees well with the fact that the origin of the hexameter was\nderived from Pytho.(1454) In the account that Philammon, the ancient\ncomposer of hymns, had placed choruses of young women round the altar, who\nsang the birth of Latona and her children in lyric measures (\u1f10\u03bd\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9),(1455) the nomes of Philammon,(1456) as improved by Terpander the\nancient lyric poet, appear to be confounded with the original ones; since\nthese, after the fashion of the most ancient composers, contained only\nhexameters.(1457) The ancient religious poets mentioned in these accounts,\nChrysothemis, Philammon, and Olen, may be looked on as Dorians with the\nsame certainty as the founders of the temples of Tarrha, Delphi, and\nPatara, to which they particularly belonged.(1458) The language also of\nthe poems ascribed to them must have been Doric; though indeed the fact of\na poetical use of this dialect before the historic times will not agree\nwith the predominant, though perhaps not well-grounded notions respecting\nthe progress of poetry in Greece.\n\n14. That the _p\u00e6an_ was a song of thanksgiving for deliverance has been\nmentioned above. With respect, however, to the manner in which it was\nperformed, we learn from Homer that it was sung after the sacrificial\nfeast,(1459) when the goblets were carried round after the sacred\nlibation; and this was also the case at Sparta and Athens.(1460) It was\ngenerally sung in a sitting posture, although in the Homeric Hymn to\nApollo that god is represented as accompanying the Cretans who sing in a\nmeasured step.(1461) At Sparta it was danced in choruses.(1462) On the\nwhole it required a regular and sedate measure,(1463) even when it assumed\na more lively air, as for the nome, and the solemn \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd, sung at\nlibations.(1464)\n\nBut the most lively dance which accompanied the songs used in the worship\nof Apollo, was that termed the _hyporcheme_.(1465) In this, besides the\nchorus of singers who usually danced around the blazing altar, several\npersons were appointed to accompany the action of the poem with an\nappropriate pantomimic display (\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9). Homer himself bears witness\nto the Cretan origin of this custom, since the Cnosian dance, represented\nby Heph\u00e6stus on the shield of Achilles, appears from the description to\nhave been a kind of hyporcheme,(1466) and hence all dances of this\ndescription were called Cretan.(1467) From that island they passed at an\nearly period over to Delos, where, even in Lucian\u2019s time, the wanderings\nof Latona and her island, with their final repose, were represented in the\nabove manner.(1468) At the same time also probably took place the custom\nmentioned in the hymn to the Delian Apollo as characterizing the songs of\nthe young women of that island; viz., that they represented the voices and\ngestures of every nation:(1469) perhaps they introduced the peculiar\ndances of the various countries which Latona visited in her wanderings.\nThe ludicrous, and at the same time complicated dance (\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) which\nTheseus is said first to have danced with his crew round the altar at\nDelos,(1470) was probably of the same description. All that can be clearly\nascertained respecting the rhythm of these compositions is that the\nhexameter was altogether unfitted to their playful and joyous\ncharacter.(1471) But both the hyporcheme and p\u00e6an were first indebted for\ntheir systematic improvement to the Doric musicians, Xenodamus of Sparta,\nand Thaletas of Elyrus in Crete (about 620 B.C.),(1472) who first brought\nthe Cretic or P\u00e6onic metre into general use; which names point out beyond\ndoubt its Cretan origin, and its use in p\u00e6ans.(1473) Cretics form a quick\nand lively, though a pleasing and by no means inharmonious(1474) rhythm,\nbeing particularly adapted to rapid motion. Thus a joyous and agreeable\nharmony was added, at the festivals of Apollo, to the serious and solemn\nmusic, although the softness and insipidity of several Ionian and Asiatic\ntunes were, without doubt, always rejected.\n\nThus, if we except the purifying and propitiatory rites, the festivals of\nApollo bore the character of a serene and joyful mind, every other\nattribute of the deity being lost in those of victory and mercy. Hence in\nhis statues at Delphi(1475) and Delos(1476) he was represented as bearing\nin his hand the Graces, who gave additional splendour and elegance to his\nfestivals by the dance, music, and banquet.(1477)\n\n15. We have as yet omitted the mention of two great national festivals\ncelebrated at Amycl\u00e6 by the Spartans in honour of the chief deity of their\nrace,(1478) viz., the _Hyacinthia_ and the _Carnea_, from a belief that\nthey do not properly belong to Apollo. That the worship of the Carnean\nApollo, in which both were included, was derived from Thebes, whence it\nwas brought over by the \u00c6gid\u00e6 to Amycl\u00e6, has been proved in a former\nwork;(1479) our present object is to show, from the symbols and rites of\nthis worship, that it was originally derived more from the ancient\nreligion of Demeter than from that of Apollo. The youth Hyacinthus, whom\nthe Carnean Apollo accidentally struck with a quoit,(1480) evidently took\nhis name from the flower (a dark-coloured species of iris), which in the\nancient symbolical language was an emblem of death; and the fable of his\ndeath is clearly a relic of an ancient elementary religion. Now the\nhyacinth most frequently occurs, in this sense, in the worship of Demeter;\nthus, for example, it was under the name \u039a\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 sacred to Demeter\nChthonia at Hermione.(1481) We find further proof of this in the ancient\nsculptures with which the grave, and at the same time the altar of\nHyacinthus, was adorned: the artists indeed appear to have completely\ncomprehended the spirit of the worship. We find Demeter, Cora, Pluto, and\nthe Cadmean Dionysus, with Ino and Semele, and Hyacinthus himself,\ntogether with a sister named Polyb\u0153a.(1482) Polyb\u0153a is hardly, if at all,\ndistinct from Cora,(1483) whom Lasus of Hermione called Melib\u0153a. To this\nmay be added the sacrifices to the dead, and lamentations customary on the\nfirst day(1484) (which were forbidden at all other festivals of Apollo);\nnightly processions,(1485) and several other detached traces of the\nsymbols of Demeter and Dionysus,(1486) which, by an attentive observer,\nmay be easily distinguished from those of Apollo. The time of the festival\nwas also different: it took place on the longest day of the Spartan month\nHecatombeus, which corresponds to the Attic Hecatomb\u00e6on,(1487) at the time\nwhen Hylas was invoked on the mountains of Bithynia, and the tender\nproductions of nature droop their languid heads.\n\nThe Carnean festival took place, as it appears, in the following month to\nthe Hyacinthian, equally in honour of Apollo of Amycl\u00e6. But the Doric\nreligion seems here to have preponderated, and to have supplanted the\nelementary symbols so evident in the Hyacinthia. The Carnea was, as far as\nwe know, altogether a warlike festival, similar to the Attic Bo\u00ebdromia. It\nlasted nine days, during which time nine tents were pitched near the city,\nin each of which nine men lived, for the time of the festival, in the\nmanner of a military camp. There is no reference to an elementary religion\nexcept some obscure ceremonies of the priest Agetes and the\nCarneat\u00e6.(1488) This leads us to suppose that at the union of the Amycl\u00e6an\nworship, introduced by the \u00c6gid\u00e6, with the Doric worship of Apollo at\nSparta, the Hyacinthia preserved more of the peculiarities of the former,\nthe Carnea of the latter, although the sacred rites of both were\ncompletely united. At the same time we do not deny the difficulty of\ninquiring into the origin and primitive form of ceremonies the history of\nwhich is so complicated; and this alone must excuse the shortness of our\naccount respecting these two festivals.\n\n16. Finally, the manner in which Apollo is represented in _sculpture_,\nparticularly by the ancient artists, may assist our investigation into the\nideas and sentiments on which his worship was founded. Apollo was a\nsubject peculiarly adapted for sculpture. Since his connexion with\nelementary religion was slight, and there was nothing mystic in his\ncharacter, the sculptors were soon able to fix upon a regular cast of\nfeatures, to distinguish him from other deities: for Apollo, not only in\npoetry, but in the fables most nearly connected with his worship, is\ngenerally represented as a human god, and in all his actions and\nsufferings more nearly connected with the heroes than any other divinity.\nBut before this perfection and conventional uniformity of the art, the\nearly sculptors were much assisted in characterizing the statues of Apollo\nby his numerous and significant symbols, such as the bow, the cithara, the\nlaurel, &c.: and thus they were able, in some measure, to give an idea of\nthe power and properties of Apollo, though merely in stiff and rude images\nof wood and stone.\n\n17. The simple Cippus of Apollo Agyieus did not represent any particular\nattribute, but was merely intended as a memorial of the presence of the\nprotecting god.(1489) In endeavouring more fully to express his character,\nthe symbols of power would naturally come next. His attributes of\nvengeance doubtless preceded those of mercy, although both, in fact,\nharmonized together: it must, however, have been long, before the\nsurpassing beauty of the god (celebrated even in the Theogony of Hesiod)\ncould be the subject of sculpture. The attribute, then, of strength, as\nalso that of omniscience, the ancient Laced\u00e6monians wished to represent by\nthe Apollo with four hands and four ears at Amycl\u00e6.(1490) But the chief\nstatue on the above spot was an image, which, besides the bow, bore a\nhelmet and lance: of the same nature was also the statue on mount Thornax,\nthe face of which had been gilded by the Laced\u00e6monians.(1491) The\nMegarians also consecrated at Delphi a statue of Apollo bearing a\nlance;(1492) and at Tenedos he was armed with the double hatchet,(1493)\nlike the Labrandenian Zeus of the Carians.(1494) In a very ancient\nbas-relief, discovered by Dodwell on the mouth of a well at Corinth, and\nwhich we shall hereafter examine further, Apollo holds the cithara in his\nhand;(1495) his whole form too, as in all the ancient sculptures, is\nstouter and more manly than usual.\n\n18. On inquiring concerning the artists of the most ancient symbolical\nstatues of Apollo, we find that the Cretans were the first sculptors, as\nwell as musicians, of that worship. From Crete, an ancient wooden statue\nof Apollo, of the rudest style of workmanship, was brought to\nDelphi:(1496) from hence, too (about Olymp. 50, 580 B.C.), there came\nDip\u0153nus and Scyllis the D\u00e6dalid\u00e6, who made for the Sicyonians statues of\nApollo, Artemis, Hercules, and Athene, of which we will speak hereafter.\nThe Pythian oracle greatly interested itself in the labours of these\nartists; for when the envy of the native artists had driven them from\nSicyon, it compelled the inhabitants to recall them. The managers of the\ntemple of Delphi appear indeed to have been, from very early times, great\npatrons of the art of sculpture, particularly in brass. The subterranean\ntemple at Pytho (the existence of which has been doubted, but, in my\nopinion, without sufficient grounds) was covered with brass, as were\nseveral treasuries of the ancient princes of Greece. The temples and\ncourts were fitted with numerous tripods; caldrons, goblets, and arms of\nbrass were there arranged promiscuously, from periods of the highest\nantiquity. There was also a knife used in sacrifice called the _Delphian\nknife_,(1497) nor do the singing golden \u039a\u03b7\u03bb\u03b7\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, which Pindar represents\nas suspended from the roof of the brazen temple, seem to be a mere\npoetical fiction.\n\nBut the Cretan school of sculpture produced Tect\u00e6us and Angelion, who\nerected the celebrated, and probably colossal statue of Apollo at Delos,\nwhich (as was before mentioned) held the Graces in one hand and a bow in\nthe other. With the same school also, though in a more distant degree, was\nconnected Canachus of Sicyon, who, about the seventy-third Olympiad, made\na famous bronze statue for the Didym\u00e6um,(1498) and one of wood for the\nIsmenium. From the accounts and various imitations of this work of art we\nare enabled to form some idea of its character. The god was represented\nwith a manly form, his breast broad and prominent, the trunk square, the\nlegs almost like pillars, and in a firm position, the left leg being a\nlittle advanced. The hair, encircled with a fillet, lay in slender twisted\ncurls over the forehead; over each shoulder were three platted tresses,\nand behind the hair fell in a broad cluster down the back. The countenance\nnearly resembled those in the marbles of \u00c6gina. In the right hand, which\nwas stretched straight forward, was a fawn (an obscure symbol which we\nshall not here attempt to explain); the left, not quite so much elevated,\ngrasped a bow. The whole must have had an awful and imposing appearance,\nconveying the idea of sublimity and dignity far more than of grace or\nloveliness.(1499) We cannot suppose the style of the colossal statue of\nApollo to have been very different which, several Olympiads later, was\nmodelled in brass by Calamis for Apollonia on the Pontus, and which was\nafterwards brought to Rome by Lucullus:(1500) nor that of Apollo\nAlexicacus, erected at Athens by the same artist at the beginning of the\nPeloponnesian war.(1501) The Apollo which Onatas of \u00c6gina, the\ncontemporary of Calamis, executed for the inhabitants of Pergamus, was a\ncolossal statue displaying great beauty of form, and, as it appears, of a\nmore youthful appearance than was common for statues of Apollo at that\ntime.(1502) In this, Apollo was represented as \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, as the\nbeautiful son of Latona; under which name he was worshipped at\nPergamus.(1503) It is not improbable that the union of strength and beauty\nso conspicuously exhibited in the ideal forms of the two children of\nLatona was suggested by the peculiar character of the Doric education; and\nthat the artist represented the god as an Ephebus, whose skill in the\nchorus and on the field of battle was exactly equal.\n\nBut the figure which we are accustomed to consider as properly belonging\nto Apollo did not originate even in the school of Polycletus and\nMyron,(1504) but was the creation of a later period; since both the coins\nof a date prior to the time of Alexander,(1505) and single heads, which\nmust be referred to the same period,(1506) do not indeed preserve the\nfeatures ascribed to the work of Canachus, but still are quite different\nfrom the most celebrated of the statues now extant, having broader cheeks,\na shorter and thicker nose; in a word, the proportions are what the\nancients termed _quadrate_, or square. It was not till the times of\nScopas, Leochares, Praxiteles, and Timarchides, that the Apollo appeared\nwhom we may call the twin-brother of Venus, so similar are the forms of\nboth deities. The expression of inspiration and ecstasy, which several of\nthe best statues exhibit, may also be shown to have first originated in\nthe school of Scopas, since the earlier artists aimed rather at producing\nthe appearance of tranquillity and composure than of transient excitement;\nand the exquisite taste with which these sculptors were able to express\ninspiration without extravagance, deserves the highest praise. Without\ndetailing the particular productions of these and later artists, we shall\nonly show how they may be best classified. The Apollo Callinicus of\nBelvedere stands by itself, swelling with the pride of victory:(1507) next\ncomes the Apollo resting from the fight, with the right arm bent over the\nhead, the left leaning on a pillar, holding the bow, which has evidently\nbeen used, or a cithara: being evidently a statue of the _resting Apollo_\n(\u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2); but from the circumstance that a statue of this\nkind stood in the Lyceum at Athens(1508) it is usually called the \u201cApollo\nof the Lyceum:\u201d then follows the Apollo Cithar\u0153dus (playing on the harp),\neither naked, in different positions, or covered with the Pythian stola,\nand in an almost theatrical attitude.(1509) It would be foreign to our\nsubject to enter into details respecting this class of statues, and those\nderived from them, as the Sauroctonus, Nomius, &c.\n\n19. Finally, we would endeavour to trace the influence of the worship of\nApollo on the policy and philosophy of Greece, if the question did not\nembrace so wide a field, lying, as it does in great measure, beyond the\nconfines of history. We may, however, select, from what has been already\nsaid, as proofs of the influence of this worship on political concerns,\nthe armistice connected with the festivals of Apollo, the truce observed\nin the sacred places and roads, the soothing influence of the\npurifications for homicide, together with the idea of the punishing and\navenging god, and the great influence of the oracles in the regulation of\npublic affairs.(1510) It has, moreover, been frequently remarked how by\nits sanctity, by the dignified and severe character of its music, by all\nits symbols and rites, this worship endeavoured to lull the minds of\nindividuals into a state of composure and security, consistently, however,\nwith an occasional elevation to a state of ecstatic delight.\n\n20. Lastly, the worship of Apollo was so nearly connected with a branch of\nGrecian philosophy that the one frequently established and explained\nscientifically that which the other left merely to the feeling; I mean the\n_Pythagorean system_. Pythagoras possessed hereditary rites of Apollo; he\ndwelt at Croton, where that god received such various honours;(1511) he\nlived mostly among Dorians, who were everywhere partial to that worship;\nand a Delphian priestess, by name Aristocleia, is mentioned among his\nfollowers.(1512) Thus it is not without reason that the Pythagorean\nphilosophy has in modern times been considered as Doric: in its political\ndoctrines it followed Doric principles, and with the Doric religion it was\nunited both externally and internally: besides which, the attempt to\nrealize and disseminate national ideas and opinions may perhaps illustrate\nthe rapid growth of the power of the Pythagorean league. The recondite\nprinciple of this philosophy always is, that the essence of things lies in\ntheir due measure and proportion, their system and regularity; that\neverything exists by harmony and symmetry alone; and that the world itself\nis an union of all these proportions (\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, or order). The same\nabstraction from materiality also belonged to the religion of Apollo; for\nthis too suggests the idea of order, harmony, and regularity, and in these\nit makes the nature and actions of the Deity to consist. Hence, too, music\nwas one chief ingredient of the Pythagorean philosophy, as well as a\nnecessary element of the worship of Apollo, as best expressing the harmony\non which both were founded. In both the soothing and appeasing of the\npassions was aimed at and effected, that the mind might be quieted and\nstrengthened at the same time.(1513) But we must leave the full\ninvestigation of this subject to those who have acquired a profounder\nknowledge of the philosophy of Pythagoras.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IX.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Worship of Artemis. \u00a7 2. The Artemis connected with Apollo\n    distinct from the other goddesses of that name. Her attributes. \u00a7\n    3. The Arcadian Artemis. \u00a7 4. Fable of Alpheus and Arethusa. The\n    Peloponnesian Artemis. \u00a7 5. The Attic Artemis. \u00a7 6. Artemis\n    Orthia, or Iphigenia. \u00a7 7. Rites of the worship of Artemis Tauria.\n    \u00a7 8. The Artemis of Asia Minor. \u00a7 9. Her connexion with the\n    Amazons.\n\n\n1. We now proceed to consider the worship of Artemis; a subject which need\nnot be so fully examined as that of Apollo, as it does not, like the\nworship of that god, everywhere present the same fundamental notions, and\ntherefore cannot, in all its first beginnings, be derived from the\nreligion of the Dorians. But as in general the Grecian mythology adopted\nthe most various and inconsistent religious views and ideas, so in the\nname of the single goddess Artemis were united almost opposite branches of\nancient worship, which we must attempt to separate. Lest, however, it\nshould be supposed that we are unable to trace the association of ideas,\nwhich saw a simple character in the \u201cvarious forms of that great goddess,\nwho, having her origin in the interior of Asia, passed from thence into\nGreece, and was worshipped as the moon, the goddess of the woods, the\nhuntress, the nurse of children, and a nurse of the universe, as well by\nthe choruses of the virgins of Cary\u00e6, as in the dances of the\ntemples;\u201d(1514) we will endeavour to ascertain some historical criterion,\nwhich may distinguish the worship of Artemis from that of any other deity,\nand which must not be one of the ideas or symbols of the worship itself,\nsince it is concerning the possibility or impossibility of their connexion\nthat we are to inquire.\n\n2. For this purpose it may be assumed, that the Artemis connected with\nApollo belongs alone to the same system of religious notions: and\nconsequently, the Artemis of Ephesus, Artemis Orthia, and Artemis\nTauropolus, are of a different nature, as Apollo is never represented as\ntheir brother: of this, however, more hereafter. Here we will first show,\nthat in all the chief temples of Apollo, Artemis was worshipped as his\nsister, as the partner of his nature and of his actions, and, as it were,\na part of the same deity. Thus both were children of Latona, and were\nequally the rulers of the temple of Delphi;(1515) the victory over the\nPython, the flight, and the expiation, concern both;(1516) both were\nhonoured at the Pythian games of Sicyon, together with Latona;(1517) as\nalso in Crete,(1518) Delos, Lesbos,(1519) at Carth\u00e6a,(1520) in the\nDidym\u00e6um,(1521) on the citadel of Troy,(1522) in the worship of\nLycia,(1523) as well as in that of Metapontum.(1524) The worship both of\nApollo and Artemis is said to have been derived from the\nHyperboreans;(1525) and the names of the Hyperborean priestesses, who\nbrought the rites to Delos, _Arge_ and _Opis_, according to others\n_Hecaerge_ and _Loxo_, are only epithets of Artemis. Arge probably means\n\u201cthe rapid;\u201d Opis(1526) (\u1f6e\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, _Ionice_ \u039f\u1f56\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, the same as \u1f44\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2) well\ncharacterises the spirit of this religion, as it signifies the constant\nwatch and care of the goddess over human actions,(1527) while at the same\ntime she inspires fear and veneration of herself.(1528) She was known also\nby the same name among the Dorians of Sparta,(1529) and celebrated as such\nin sacred chants:(1530) thus almost all the attributes and actions of\nApollo are referred also to Artemis. She is also the goddess of sudden\ndeath;(1531) which she sometimes inflicts in wrath, but sometimes without\nanger;(1532) and hence she is represented as armed, not only with bow and\narrows, but in the Doric states with a complete panoply.(1533) In ancient\npoets she is not only the destroyer of wild beasts, but also, like her\nbrother, of sacrilegious men.(1534) Thus, with Apollo, she killed Tityus,\nand, by herself, the Aloid\u00e6,(1535) and Orion, who dared to violate Opis\nwhen bringing the ears of corn to Delos.(1536) Hence she was to be\nappeased by expiatory rites; and had an equal share in Thargelia, and\nsimilar festivals.(1537) And for the same reason the laurel was likewise\nsacred to Artemis.(1538) She was honoured with the song of the p\u00e6an.(1539)\nShe is at the same time the destroyer and the preserver (\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03b1(1540) and\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03bb\u03af\u03b1).(1541) And even her name \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2(1542) clearly corresponds with\nthat of the protecting Apollo, since it signifies the \u201chealthy,\u201d the\n\u201cuninjured.\u201d(1543) Whether the art of music belonged to Apollo alone is\nnot certain; at least the Laced\u00e6monians celebrated in honour of Artemis a\nmusical contest called \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03dd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b1;(1544) and her singing is represented in\nthe Iliad as delighting both gods and men.(1545) On reliefs which\nrepresent the victors in musical contests, Apollo is always accompanied by\nhis mother and sister.(1546) Artemis had also a claim to the gift of\nprophecy, at least if we can attribute any antiquity to the tradition of\nher being a sibyl.(1547) Like Apollo, she is always represented as\nunmarried; and therefore not as the deity of an elementary religion, and\noriginally not as goddess of the moon, although it cannot be denied that\nthe worship of the moon was very nearly connected with other branches of\nthe worship of Artemis.\n\nBut, it may be asked, if this Artemis always has the same characteristics\nas Apollo, and has none that are peculiar to herself, why should there be\ntwo deities to express one idea? Wherefore both a male and female, if\nneither have any relation to sex? It is difficult to give a satisfactory\nanswer to these questions.\n\nThis consideration may, however, in some measure assist; namely, that as\nsoon as Apollo was once supposed to be as an earthly god, as the ideal of\nall human strength, it was necessary to add also a female being. And the\nnear approximation of the male to the female deity may be accounted for by\nthe condition of the Doric women, who were much more considered as\nindependent beings, and possessed a capability for all those other things\nwhich adorn the other sex.\n\n3. But the most difficult part of our problem still remains unsolved; viz.\nto ascertain what was the worship of Artemis, which had not the same\norigin and nature with that of Apollo. First of all we should mention the\nArcadian. That goddess has nowhere so many temples as in Arcadia; she was\nthere the national deity, and had been long revered, under the title of\n\u201c_Hymnia_\u201d, by all the races of that people.(1548) She was also introduced\nunder the name of Callisto into the national genealogies, and called the\ndaughter of Lycaon(1549) (_i.e._ of the Lyc\u00e6an Zeus), and mother of Arcas\n(_i.e._ of the Arcadian people). For that Callisto is only another form of\nthe name of Artemis Calliste, which is a common epithet of Artemis, is\nplain from the fact that the tomb of that heroine was shown in the temple\nof the goddess,(1550) and that Callisto was said to be changed into a\nbear, which was the symbol of the Arcadian Artemis.(1551) Afterwards,\nindeed, the fable was much altered; and it was related that Artemis\nchanged Callisto into a bear merely from anger.(1552) But that this\nancient Arcadian deity was not the Doric Artemis is proved by the\nabove-mentioned criterion; viz. that she has no connexion with Apollo.\n\nAnother circumstance, however, speaks even still plainer. Apollo and his\nsister seldom received any particular surnames from places where they were\nworshipped;(1553) whereas the other Artemis has almost innumerable names\nfrom the mountains, hills, fountains, and waters of Arcadia, and the other\nregions of Peloponnesus. Hence Alcman remarks that the goddess bears the\nnames of thousands of hills, cities, and rivers.(1554) There must have\nbeen, therefore, something in the attributes of this Arcadian Artemis\nwhich produced such a number of local names; she must have been considered\nas united and connected with the country in which she was worshipped. This\nleads to the notion of an elementary goddess, of a similar, though more\nuniversal nature than nymphs of the mountains, rivers, and brooks.\nAccordingly we find that this ancient Peloponnesian Artemis was nearly\nconnected with lakes, fountains, and rivers. She was worshipped in several\nplaces under the titles of Limnatis and Heleia.(1555) There were\nfrequently also fountains in the temples of Artemis: viz., at Corinth,\nMarius, Mothone,(1556) and near the district of Derrhiatis in\nLaconia.(1557) She likewise received great honours at the Clitorian\nfountain of Lusi.(1558) Among rivers, those she was most connected with\nare the Cladeus and the Alpheus.(1559) The moist and watery district,\nthrough which this latter stream flows into the sea, was filled with\ntemples of the nymphs of Aphrodite and Artemis, among which the sanctuary\nof the Alphean Artemis(1560) is most remarkable. There were in that temple\npaintings of Cleanthus and Aregon of Corinth, which were chiefly on\nsubjects relating to religion; as, for instance, that of Poseidon\npresenting a thunny-fish to Zeus while in the act of producing\nAthene.(1561) All this naturally suggests the idea of a goddess who\nproduced a flourishing and vigorous life from the element of water; and\nhence we would not entirely reject the popular faith of the Phigaleans,\nthat Eurynome, the goddess of fish, and herself represented as half a\nfish, was an Artemis.(1562)\n\n4. The mention of the river Alpheus reminds us of Sicily, whither, in\norder to catch the fountain Arethusa, which was swallowed up in the land\nof Elis, he is said to have followed her under the sea, and to have first\nreached her in the island of Ortygia, near Syracuse.(1563) This singular\nfable may perhaps be explained by the following considerations. Syracuse\nwas founded in the 5th Olympiad by Corinthians, with whom were some\nsettlers from the district of Olympia, and particularly some members of\nthe family of the Iamid\u00e6, who held a sacred office at the altar of the\nOlympian Zeus.(1564) These joint colonists (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 according to the\nexpression of Pindar) appear to have had sufficient weight in the new city\nto introduce their own religion and mythology. For, as we have seen above,\nArtemis was worshipped at Olympia as the goddess of the Alpheus, being\ngenerally considered in that country as presiding over lakes and rivers.\nShe had in the grove of Altis an altar, together with Alpheus;(1565) and\nthere was there a popular legend, that Alpheus had once loved Artemis. Now\nthe settlers that went from this district to Syracuse, in their first\nexpedition, confined themselves to the island of Ortygia. Here they built\na temple to the river-goddess Artemis; a sanctuary of so great fame, that\nPindar calls the whole island \u201cthe seat of Artemis, the\nriver-goddess.(1566)\u201d There was, however, no river in Ortygia, and\ntherefore Artemis was supposed to regret her beloved Alpheus. Hence arose\nthe belief that Arethusa, a fountain near the temple, contained the sacred\nwater of the Alpheus;(1567) a belief which was strengthened by the\ncircumstance that large fish were found in the spring;(1568) and from this\narose the fable that Alpheus had followed the goddess to Sicily. But\nArtemis was supposed to fly from the pursuit of Alpheus.(1569) This at\nleast was the fiction followed by Telesilla, a poetess who lived in the\n64th Olympiad;(1570) and the same fable was perhaps adopted by\nPindar.(1571) Afterwards, however, the precise meaning and origin of this\nfable were forgotten; and the fountain-nymph Arethusa took the place of\nArtemis, and became the object of the pursuit of the river-god.(1572) Such\nappears to have been the origin of the elegant fable of Alpheus and\nArethusa.\n\nWe now return to the Peloponnesian Artemis, and will mention some of her\nother symbols and attributes. Her statue stood next to that of Demeter, at\nMegalopolis, dressed in the skin of a deer, with a quiver on her back,\nholding a torch in one hand, and two serpents in the other, with a dog by\nher side.(1573) The connexion which existed between her and the Arcadian\nDemeter is probably more ancient than this statue; and indeed the symbol\nof the deer seems to have been common in Arcadia to both Artemis and Cora,\ncalled in Arcadia _desp\u0153na_.(1574) She was also worshipped with\nBacchus;(1575) and, like him, had phallic festivals.(1576) From her\nconnexion with fountains and rivers, and other rural objects, it was\nnatural that this Artemis should be considered as the patron of wild\nanimals. Thus \u00c6schylus calls her \u201cthe protectress of young lions, and the\nwhelps of other wild beasts.\u201d(1577) In like manner she was supposed to\npreside over the breeding of horses,(1578) and generally over the nurture\nof infants and children;(1579) it was therefore by a perversion of the\noriginal idea that she took the character of a huntress, the enemy and\ndestroyer of wild animals. An analogous inconsistency to that before\npointed out in the attributes of the _Doric_ Apollo and Artemis, who were\nrepresented as both protecting and destroying.(1580)\n\n5. By the mythological symbol of Artemis Callisto, the bear, we are\nreminded of some ceremonies at Athens, where young girls, between the ages\nof five and ten years (who were consecrated to the Munychian and\nBrauronian Artemis), were called _bears_;(1581) and the goddess herself,\nin some singular traditions, is represented as a bear calling for human\nblood.(1582) When the Ionians went from Athens to Asia, they carried the\nworship of the Munychian goddess to Miletus and Cyzicus;(1583) and to the\nformer city the kindred worship of Artemis Chitone, as the goddess\npresiding over birth, whose wooden statues were made of fructiferous\nwood.(1584)\n\n6. The consideration of the Attic festival of Artemis leads again to\nanother variety of the worship of Artemis; viz., to that of Artemis\nOrthosia, Orthia, or Iphigenia. We will first give the traditions and\nfacts as we find them. Iphigenia, coming from Tauria to Attica, was\nsupposed to have landed at Brauron, and at the neighbouring Hal\u00e6\nAraphenides, and left behind her the ancient wooden image of\nArtemis.(1585) Here she was immediately interwoven with the heroic\ngenealogy, and called the daughter of Theseus.(1586) In Sparta there was a\ntemple of Artemis Orthia in a damp part of the city, called Limn\u00e6um, where\nwas also shown a wooden statue, which had come from Tauria.(1587) As to\nthe introduction of the worship, it is said that Astrabacus and Alopecus\n(the ass and fox), the sons of Irbus, descendants of Agis in the fourth\ngeneration (about 900 B.C.), had found the image in a bush, and had been\nstruck mad by the sight of it; that the Limnat\u00e6, and other villages of\nSparta, had upon this offered sacrifices to them, when a quarrel arose,\nand murder ensued. A number of men were killed at the altar; and\naccordingly the goddess called for victims to atone for the pollution;\ninstead of which, in later times, the scourging of boys was instituted,\nover the severity of which the priestess presided.(1588) It is remarkable\nthat this was immediately followed by a \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u1f74 \u039b\u03c5\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd, a Lydian\nprocession.(1589)\n\nFrom this narration it follows that the scourging was considered as a\nsubstitute for human sacrifice; and further, that the worship was looked\nupon as of a foreign origin: notwithstanding this, it was completely\ninterwoven into the Laced\u00e6monian mythology. For it can be shown that the\npretended daughter of Agamemnon, Iphigenia, is no other than the Taurian\ngoddess, who was actually worshipped in several cities of Greece under the\nname of \u1f38\u03c6\u03b9\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1. Considered as a heroine, indeed, she became first,\ninstead of the goddess thirsting for human sacrifice, the virgin\nsacrificed to her; and, secondly, her sacrificing priestess.(1590)\nAccording to the Cyprian poems (for Homer knew nothing of her) Iphigenia\nwas sacrificed to Artemis; but was by her brought to Tauria, and made\nimmortal, a deer (or, according to others, a bear, and also a bull) having\nbeen left in her place;(1591) Hesiod also represented her as immortal,\nviz., as Hecate.(1592) The sacrifice was supposed to have taken place at\nAulis, because there was a temple (probably of the Orthosian Artemis) near\nthe port, to whom sacrifices were made at the passage.(1593)\n\nThis worship probably came to Laconia from Lemnos,(1594) one of its\nprincipal seats. In early tradition Lemnos was probably identical with\nTauria,(1595) and the latter country derived its poetical name from the\nsymbol of the bull, in the same manner as Lycia in later times took its\nname from the symbol of the wolf. In Lemnos also a great goddess was\nanciently worshipped with sacrifices of virgins; to which place the wooden\nimage is said to have been brought from Brauron. This opinion becomes more\nevident by a comparison with the worship of Chryse. Agamemnon is said to\nhave been the father of Chryse as well as of Iphigenia,(1596) and also,\naccording to others, of a son Chryses, who went to Tauria with\nOrestes.(1597) Now it is certain that Chryse was a goddess, who had from\nearly times been worshipped both at Lemnos and Samothrace. The Argonauts\nunder Hercules and Jason were said to have sacrificed to her; and her\nancient wooden image, raised over an hearth of unhewn stones, is often\nrepresented on ancient vases.(1598) Philoctetes is said to have been\nbitten by the viper(1599) when he discovered this altar.(1600) This\ngoddess Chryse, who is also called Athene, was probably only a different\nform of her sister Iphigenia.\n\nThe worship of both these goddesses spread to other places, to the north\nof the \u00c6gean sea. Thus on the coast of Byzantium there was an altar of\nArtemis Orthosia;(1601) and opposite to it, at Chrysopolis, was the tomb\nof Chryses, the son of Agamemnon, who, in his search after Iphigenia, was\nsaid to have died there.(1602) It is evident that this system of religious\nnames was arbitrarily transferred to the genealogy of the Laced\u00e6monian\nkings, and most curiously interwoven with the Trojan mythology. The Greeks\nfirst became acquainted with Tauria by their voyages to Miletus; and they\ngave it a name already celebrated in their mythology. They found there\nsome sanguinary rites of a goddess, which, by partly softening the name,\nthey called _Oreiloche_;(1603) they also found human sacrifices, which\nthey supposed to be offered to Iphigenia;(1604) their own worship of that\ndeity bore so many marks of ancient barbarism, that they were willing to\nconsider the northern barbarians as its authors. Yet it is certain that\nthe Tauric Artemis was no more derived from the Taurians, than the\n\u00c6thiopian Artemis from the \u00c6thiopians,(1605) &c. In Asia Minor(1606) also\nthere were modes of worship, which the Greeks compared with the rites of\nthe Orthosian Artemis, of the similarity of which we shall presently\ntreat.\n\n7. Hitherto we have merely collected the fabulous narrations of the\nancients, and attempted to show their connexion; we shall next speak of\nthe ceremonies which attended the worship of this goddess or goddesses.\n\nIn the first place we will treat of the meaning and character of this\ntruly mystical worship.(1607) We have a goddess adored with frantic and\nenthusiastic orgies, certain signs of an elementary religion, as well as\nwith human sacrifices, which the character of the Greeks endeavoured only\nto moderate and to ennoble; it appears to have originally resembled the\nArcadian worship of Callisto; but that it acquired at Lemnos, from the\nproximity of the Asiatic religion, a wilder and more extravagant form,\nwhich it retained after its return to Attica and Laconia. It cannot be a\nmatter of doubt that Artemis Tauropolus is nearly identical with the\nTaurian goddess; this name of the goddess was established in Samos (where\ncakes of sesamy and honey were offered to her on solemn festivals),(1608)\nin the neighbouring island of Icarus,(1609) and at Amphipolis.(1610) The\nceremonies were undoubtedly enthusiastic, as the goddess herself was\nconsidered as striking the mind with madness;(1611) and bloody, because\nthe worship at Aricia was considered like it.(1612)\n\n8. We are now to consider those temples of Artemis which had a purely\nAsiatic, and not a Grecian origin, and are wholly distinct, not only from\nthe Doric, but also from the Arcadian worship of Artemis.\n\nThe Ephesian Artemis was doubtless found by the Ionians, when they settled\non that coast, as already an object of worship, in her temple,(1613)\nsituated in a marshy valley of the Cayster.(1614) From some real or\naccidental resemblance in the attributes of the Munychian and Ephesian\ngoddesses, they called the latter \u201cArtemis;\u201d yet, wherever her worship\nspread, she was always distinguished by the additional title of\n\u201cEphesian.\u201d(1615) Every thing that is related of the worship of this deity\nis singular and foreign to the Greeks. Her constant symbol is the bee,\nwhich is not otherwise attributed to Artemis; the other attributes, which\nadorned her statues in later times, are too far-fetched to admit of any\nconclusion being drawn from them. The bee, however, appears originally to\nhave been the symbol of nourishment;(1616) the chief priest himself was\ncalled \u1f10\u03c3\u03c3\u1f74\u03bd, or the king-bee: some of the other sacerdotal names are of\nbarbarous, and not Greek derivation.(1617) The gods, by whom this great\ngoddess(1618) was surrounded, must also have been of a peculiar\ndescription. It is not probable that Latona was _originally_ called her\nmother,(1619) as Apollo is never joined with her.(1620) Her nurse appears\nto have been called _Ammas_.(1621) Hercules is said to have proclaimed her\nbirth from mount Ceryceum.(1622) This Hercules may perhaps be some native\ndemigod, possibly one of the Id\u00e6an Dactyli, whose names were, according to\nsome, contained in Ephesian incantations, which were inscribed at the foot\nof her statues.(1623)\n\n9. Thus much concerns the character of this worship, which appears, like\nan isolated point, projecting from a religious system, otherwise confined\nto the western parts of Greece.\n\nAs to its origin, the unanimous tradition of antiquity is that it was\nfounded by the Amazons, This legend had probably been mentioned in some of\nthe ancient epic poems before it was alluded to by Pindar;(1624) and that\nit was also preserved on the spot appears from the celebrated contest of\nPhidias, Polycleitus, and other artists, to make statues of Amazons for\nthe Ephesian temple: lately also a sarcophagus was found near Ephesus\nrepresenting the battle of the Amazons.(1625) The traditions respecting\nthe foundation of the cities of Smyrna, Cume, Myrlea, Myrina, \u00c6olis,\nPriene, Mytilene, and Pitane also make mention of the Amazons.(1626) With\nrespect to the meaning of Amazons, it has rightly (in my opinion) been\nsupposed that the idea of them was suggested by the sight of the\ninnumerable female slaves (\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9) who were employed about the temples\nof Asia Minor.(1627) According to Callimachus also the Amazons danced to\nthe sound of the pipe round the statue which had been newly raised on the\ntrunk of an elm-tree. It is also stated as an historical fact, that, even\nin the times of the Ionians, women of the Amazon race dwelt round the\ntemple;(1628) although virgins only were permitted to enter the sanctuary\nitself.(1629) It appears therefore that the goddess upon whom these\nAmazons attended, being represented as a beneficent and nourishing deity,\nwas likewise supposed to have the attributes of war and destruction; a\ndouble and opposite character, which we have traced in other branches of\nthe worship of Artemis. As to the native country of the Amazons, who were\nsupposed to have founded this worship, it does not seem to have been\nPhrygia, as they are stated in the Iliad to have come from the east of the\nSangarius, and to have fought with the Phrygians.(1630) The Syrians,\nhowever, bordered on that people: and Pindar, who says that the Amazons\nled the Syrian army,(1631) fully coincides with those who fix their origin\non the banks of the Thermodon, Chadesius and Lycastus along the coast of\nThemiscyra.(1632) The striking agreement of several authors in this\nstatement, and its singular precision, render it of double importance. And\nwhat country could have been more probably the native place of the\nEphesian Artemis, as well as of the warlike Hierodul\u00e6, than Cappadocia;\nwhere there were, in the historical age, large numbers of sacred slaves,\nboth male and female; where also there was an elementary religion, with\nfrantic rites, and the principal divinity was at the same time a _Bellona_\nand a _Magna Mater_?\n\nThis same oriental worship had also been in other places adopted by the\nGreeks of Asia Minor. Among these are _Leucophryne_, who was worshipped in\nPhrygia, near a warm spring,(1633) and thence particularly honoured along\nthe banks of the M\u00e6ander in Magnesia; and therefore also by\nThemistocles.(1634) She was represented in the same form as the Ephesian\ngoddess.(1635) Her sacred animal was the buffalo.(1636) The Artemis of\n_Sipylus_ was worshipped with wanton games, from which she was also called\nat Olympia (according to Pausanias) Cordaca.(1637) The _Perg\u00e6an_ Artemis\nknown all over Greece by her itinerant priests,(1638) and of the same form\nas the Artemis Leucophryne;(1639) with many others.(1640) It was in the\ntrue spirit of this worship that the musician Timotheus called Artemis\n\u201cthe raging and foaming, like a Bacchanalian;\u201d(1641) and the tragic poet\nDiogenes in a beautiful though not a very accurate passage of his Semele\nspeaks of the Lydian and Bactrian virgins, who with soft strains\nworshipped the Tmolian Artemis on the banks of the Halys.(1642)\n\nI have now endeavoured to give the reader a general view of the different\nbranches and forms of the worship of Artemis; in which some difficult and\ndoubtful questions have of necessity been passed over: but I have\npreferred rather to reckon on the acquiescence of the reader in some\nuncertain propositions than to weary his patience by a detailed\nexamination of all the debatable points.\n\n\n\n\nChapter X.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. On the worship of deities other than Apollo and Artemis in\n    Doric states. Worship of Zeus and Here. \u00a7 2. Of Athene. \u00a7 3 and 4.\n    Of Demeter. \u00a7 5. Of Poseidon. \u00a7 6. Of Dionysus. \u00a7 7. Of Aphrodite,\n    Hermes, Heph\u00e6stus, Ares, and \u00c6sculapius. \u00a7 8. Of the Charites,\n    Eros, and the Dioscuri. \u00a7 9. General character of the Doric\n    religion.\n\n\n1. Having considered the worship of those deities which either wholly or\npartially owed their origin to the Dorians, we must now, in order to\ncomplete our account of the religion of that race, point out the various\nworships which they adopted from other nations.\n\nThis inquiry will be of value in two other respects than the plain and\nimmediate result to which it leads; viz., from the light it throws on the\nhistory of the Doric colonies, and likewise on the Doric character upon\nwhich the mode of worship had a most powerful influence.\n\nBut since the subject embraced in its full extent would be almost endless\n(there being no part of ancient history on which there are such ample\naccounts as on the local worships), we must give up all attempt at\ncompleteness, and rest satisfied with a narrower view.\n\nTo begin then with ZEUS. It is remarkable that there was no great\nestablishment of the worship of this god (except the Phrygian in Crete) in\nany Doric country, but wherever it occurred was connected with and\nsubordinate to that of some other deity. The worship at Olympia(1643)\nappears to have been established by the Ach\u00e6ans, who in other places\n(_e.g._, at \u00c6gium) consecrated temples to Zeus alone: the worship of Zeus\nHellanius at \u00c6gina was introduced by the Hellenes of Thessaly. But the\nwhole of Argolis and also Corinth were, from early times, under the\nprotection of HERE, the character of whose worship resembled that of Zeus,\nalthough it was more pronounced. The chief temple was twelve stadia from\nMycen\u00e6, and forty from Argos, beyond the district of Prosymna;(1644) its\nservice was performed by the most distinguished priestesses, and\ncelebrated by the first festivals and games, being also one of the\nearliest nurseries of the art of sculpture. It appears that Argos was the\noriginal seat of the worship of Here, and that there it first received its\npeculiar form and character: for the worship of the Samian Here, as well\nas that at Sparta,(1645) was supposed to have been derived from Argos,\nwhich statement is confirmed by the resemblance in the ceremonies; and the\nsame is true of the worship of the same goddess at Epidaurus,(1646) \u00c6gina,\nand Byzantium. In the early mythology of Argos her name constantly occurs;\nand the traditions concerning Io, so far as they were native, are only\nfabulous expressions for the ideas and feelings excited by this religion.\nThus also the Corinthian fables of Medea refer to the indigenous worship\nof Here Acr\u00e6a.(1647) Hence the Corinthians introduced into their colony of\nCorcyra, together with the religion of Here,(1648) the mythology and\nworship of Medea.(1649) The peculiarities of the worship of Here must\npartly be looked for in the symbolical traditions respecting Io and Medea,\nand other mythological personages of the same description, and partly in\nthe various rites of the Samian festival. It was doubtless founded on some\nelementary religion, as may be plainly seen from the tradition that Zeus\nhad on mount Thornax in southern Argolis seduced Here in the shape of a\ncuckoo (whose song was considered in Greece as the prognostic of fertile\nrains in the spring). The marriage with Zeus (called \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) is\nalways a prominent feature in the worship of Here; she was represented\nveiled, like a bride; and was carried, like a bride, on a car, with other\nsimilar allusions.(1650) At Samos it was related that the statue of the\ngoddess had been once entirely covered with branches; and this, as it\nappears, was also represented at festivals.(1651) The Argive festival of\n\u039b\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1, _i.e._, of the \u201cbed of twigs,\u201d had the same meaning.(1652)\n\n2. In Argolis also the worship of ATHENE was of great antiquity, and\nenjoyed almost equal honours with that of Here; her temple was on the\nheight of Larissa: and doubtless she had the same character and origin as\nthe Athene Chalci\u0153cus of Sparta.(1653) Their names were in both places\nnearly the same, as at Sparta she was called \u1f48\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2,(1654) and in\nArgolis \u1f48\u03be\u03c5\u03b4\u03ad\u03c1\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2, _the quick-sighted_;(1655) and though in both places\nthe names were explained from historical events, it seems more accurate to\ncompare them with the title of Athene at Athens and Sigeum, \u0393\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, and\nothers of the same kind. At Argos a large part of the heroic mythology is\nassociated with the worship of Athene: for Acrisius was fabled to have\nbeen buried in her temple on the citadel;(1656) and since \u1f08\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 was a\ntitle of the goddess herself,(1657) it appears to me that the name\n\u1f08\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 may be satisfactorily explained in this manner: especially as it\nis plain from an analysis of the mythology of Acrisius, Perseus, and the\nGorgons, that it is entirely founded on symbols of Athene. Corinth also\nhad a part in these fables, as is clearly shown by the figures of Pegasus,\nof the head of Medusa and Athene herself upon the coins of this state and\nof its colonies Leucadia, Anactorium, and Amphilochian Argos.(1658)\n\nThere is also another branch of the worship of Athene in the Doric states,\nviz., that which extended from Lindus in Rhodes to Gela in Sicily, and\nfrom thence to Agrigentum and Camarina.(1659) In all these places Athene\nwas the protectress of the citadel and the town, and was associated with\nZeus Polieus (also with Zeus Atabyrius.(1660)) As to the ceremonies with\nwhich she was honoured, we only know from Pindar that at Rhodes they\noffered fireless sacrifices to her, and that the ancient sculpture of\nRhodes was connected with her worship. That of Hierapytna in Crete (the\ncoins of which city have the Athenian symbols of Athene) more resembled\nthe Rhodian worship, if what the envoys from Pr\u00e6sus stated at Rhodes was\ncorrect, viz., that at Hierapytna the Corybantes were called the offspring\nof the sun and of Athene.(1661)\n\n3. Although the worship of these deities, and of Here in particular, had\nprobably been more prevalent before than after the Doric invasion, the\nreligion of DEMETER was still more depressed. This worship was nearly\nextirpated by the Dorians, a fact which we know from Herodotus, who, in\nspeaking of some rites of Demeter Thesmophoria which were supposed to have\nbeen founded by the daughters of Danaus, states that when the\nPeloponnesians were driven out by the Dorians, these rites were\ndiscontinued, and were only kept up by those Peloponnesians who remained\nbehind, and by the Arcadians.(1662) Consequently we meet with few traces\nof the worship of Demeter in the chief cities of the Doric name.(1663)\nThus it appears that in Argos the ceremonies in honour of this goddess\nwere on one side driven into the marshes of Lerna, and on the other to the\neastern extremity of the peninsula, inhabited by the Dryopes. In the\nformer of these two places some mystical rites were long performed, and in\nthe latter the chief worship was that of the deities of the earth and the\ninfernal regions (\u03c7\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af). Some inscriptions found at Hermione,\nwhich besides Demeter and Cora mention the name of Clymenus,(1664) an\nepithet of Pluto, agree well with the beginning of the hymn which Lasus\nthe Hermionean addressed to the deities of his native city: \u201cI sing of\nDemeter and the Melib\u0153an Cora, the wife of Clymenus, sounding the\ndeep-toned \u00c6olic harmony of hymns.\u201d(1665) And that the Hermioneans\nconsidered the temple of the earthly Demeter (which was connected with the\nentrance of the infernal regions supposed to be at Hermione) as the first\nin the city, is also evident from the fact that the Asin\u00e6ans, expelled\nfrom Argolis and resident in Messenia, sent sacrifices and sacred missions\nfrom thence to their national goddess at Hermione.(1666)\n\nIn ancient times also a worship was prevalent at Argos which we will\ndesignate by the name of the Triopian Demeter.(1667) All the fables\nconcerning Triopas and his son Erysichthon (from \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b2\u03b7, _robigo_) belong\nto an agricultural religion, which at the same time refers to the infernal\nregions. The places where this religion existed in ancient times are the\nThessalian plains of Dotium, Argos, and likewise Attica;(1668) and from\nthe first-mentioned place it was transmitted to the south-western coast of\nAsia Minor by an early national connexion which is indicated in the\naccount of an ancient Pelasgic colony from Dotium to Cnidos, Rhodes, and\nSyme;(1669) and here it formed the basis of the Triopian worship, on which\nwere afterwards founded the federative festivals of the six Doric cities.\nIn front of Triopium is the small island of Telos, whence a single family\njoined the Lindian colony that founded Gela in Sicily, and earned with it\nthe _sacra Triopia_. A member of this family named Telines advanced this\nprivate worship of the infernal gods so greatly that it was incorporated\nin the national religion, and he was appointed to administer it as\nHierophant; it was from this person that Hiero the king of Syracuse was\ndescended.(1670)\n\n4. By this history of the colonial connexions, well attested from without,\nand having great internal probability, we have ascertained the origin of\none of the branches of the worship of Demeter in Sicily. Another was\nprobably introduced by the clan of the Emmenid\u00e6,(1671) which being\noriginally of Theban origin came into Sicily with the colony of Gela: for\nit was probably owing to the traditions of this family alone that\nAgrigentum, as well as ancient Thebes, was called \u201ca gift from Zeus to\nPersephone at their nuptial festival.\u201d(1672)\n\nBut from neither of these two sources can the celebrated worship of\nDemeter at Syracuse and its colony Enna (which in the eyes both of the\ninhabitants and of the Romans had made Sicily the native country of Ceres)\nbe derived, since it differed in certain respects from both the\nabove-named worships.(1673) From its importance we may infer that it was\none of the most ancient religions of Syracuse, and established at the\nfirst foundation of that town; and since of these some came from\nOlympia,(1674) but the larger part from Corinth, and there is no reason\nfor supposing that it was derived from the former place, it must have been\nbrought over from the parent state. Now it is true that there was at\nCorinth a temple of Demeter and Cora, the priestesses of which also\nprophesied by means of dreams;(1675) but the worship of those goddesses\nwas there of far less importance than in Sicily, where its preponderance\nmay perhaps be accounted for by the fertility of the soil, which enabled\nit to produce wheat, while the Greeks had in their own country been\naccustomed to eat barley, and therefore stimulated the colonists to be\nespecially thankful to the goddess of corn. When, however, it is\nremembered that Megara also had a large share in the colonising of\nSyracuse, it will hardly be doubted that this state was the real source\nfrom which the worship in question originated, since Demeter was there an\nancient national deity, and was not disturbed in her sanctuary on the\ncitadel of Caria even by the Doric invaders.(1676)\n\nIn Laconia also the worship of Demeter had been preserved from ancient\ntimes, although it could not have been much respected by the Dorians in\nSparta. For the Eleusinia of that country were chiefly celebrated by the\ninhabitants of the ancient town of Helos, who on certain days carried a\nwooden statue of Cora to the Eleusinium on the heights of Taygetus.(1677)\nThe Laced\u00e6monians had also adopted the worship of Demeter under the title\nof \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, or earthly, from the Hermioneans, some of whose kinsmen had\nsettled in Messenia.(1678)\n\n5. POSEIDON was not originally a god of the Doric race, but was suited\nrather to the character of the Ionians, who, from dwelling near the sea,\nhad acquired a love for foreign communication and a great spirit of\nenterprise. We therefore find it only in a few places, for example, at\nT\u00e6narum(1679) (whence it was carried to Tarentum), at Cyrene,(1680) in\n\u00c6gina,(1681) and particularly on the Corinthian isthmus; also at Tr\u0153zen\nand Calauria, which places (as has been already shown) were among the\nancient settlements of the Ionians on the Saronic gulf,(1682) to which the\nlegends concerning Theseus chiefly refer.(1683) From Tr\u0153zen the worship of\nPoseidon was transmitted to Posidonia in Magna Gr\u00e6cia, and also to\nHalicarnassus, chiefly by the family of the Anthead\u00e6.\n\n6. The worship of DIONYSUS did not enjoy equal honours among all the\nDorians. It had indeed penetrated as far as Sparta, where it had driven\neven the Laced\u00e6monian women to phrensy;(1684) and the Delphic oracle\nitself had ordered the institution of a race of Bacchanalian\nvirgins.(1685) But nothing is known of any sumptuous or regular ceremonies\nin honour of Dionysus; and we might indeed have supposed _\u00e0 priori_ that\nthe austere and rigid notions of the Spartans would have been very averse\nto that deity. The same is probably true of Argos, which had for a long\ntime wholly abstained from the worship of Dionysus, but afterwards\ndedicated to him a festival called \u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b2\u03b7 (_turba_).(1686) The conduct of\nCorinth and Sicyon was in this respect altogether different. The former\ncity had received from Phlius(1687) the worship of this god under the\ntitle of \u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, _i.e._, \u201c_exciting to phrensy_;\u201d and also under that of\n\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, the \u201c_appeasing_\u201d or \u201c_soothing_,\u201d from Thebes, whence it was said\nto have come at the time of the Doric invasion,(1688) and where it was\ncelebrated with festivals, of which we have very ample accounts.(1689) In\nearly times some rude beginnings of tragedy had been formed from the\ndithyrambic choruses(1690) there performed, as the tradition of Epigenes\ninforms us; though these were not regular dramas; there were likewise the\ntragic choruses transferred from Bacchus to some of the heroes, and\nAdrastus had been made the subject of these songs before the tyranny of\nCleisthenes.(1691) The worship of this god had also produced a native kind\nof comic and ludicrous entertainment, the Phallophori.(1692) In the\nneighbouring city of Corinth, the same worship, with its musical and\npoetical accompaniments, prevailed;(1693) and it was in this town that,\naccording to Pindar,(1694) the dithyramb was first established, although\nindeed under the direction of a foreigner (Arion). In the Doric colonies\nof Magna Gr\u00e6cia this worship preserved the same character of irregularity\nand excess; the whole town of Tarentum was (as Plato says) drunk at the\nfestival of Bacchus. The painted vases give a perfect representation of\nthe antics and masques of this ancient carnival.\n\n7. In Corinth, however, and Sicyon, the worship of APHRODITE as well as of\nDionysus was established. It seems probable that the worship of that deity\nhad indeed a native origin in Greece, but that it had been extended and\nmodified by Ph\u0153nician settlers in some of the maritime towns. The\ninstitution of the \u201chospitable damsels,\u201d(1695) whom the goddess their\nmistress herself ordered to be at the disposal of strangers,(1696) was\nundoubtedly of Asiatic origin, and unknown to the ancient Greeks.(1697)\nSicyon, however, appears to have derived the worship of these two deities\nfrom Corinth, the coins of which city generally have a dove,(1698) and\nfrequently also a head of Aphrodite of ancient workmanship; and the native\npoetess Praxilla (452 B.C.) addressed Aphrodite as the mother of\nDionysus,(1699) and sang of the joys and woes of the Ph\u0153nician\nAdonis.(1700) While again the Dorians of these maritime cities had a\ncertain susceptibility, flexibleness, and softness of character, the very\ncontrary of all these qualities distinguished the Spartans. For although\nthat state came into connexion with a Ph\u0153nician establishment of the\nworship of Aphrodite in the island of Cythera, they transformed it while\nthey adopted it, and had their own armed Aphrodite, and the chained and\nveiled goddess of marriage.(1701) From the same island also they received\nthe god Adonis under the name of Ciris.(1702) Aphrodite, however, enjoyed\ngreater honours in the Spartan colony of Cnidos, whence she went to\nHalicarnassus under the title of Acr\u00e6a, and from thence to the mother city\nTr\u0153zen.(1703) The worship of Aphrodite at Selinus in the west of\nSicily(1704) was doubtless derived from the neighbouring town of Eryx, and\nwas consequently also Ph\u0153nician; and the temple was probably one of the\nwealthiest of that once flourishing city.(1705)\n\nThe worship of HERMES does not appear to have prevailed in any Doric\nstate; in one respect he was superseded by Apollo Agyieus. The same may\nnearly be said of HEPH\u00c6STUS and ARES, the latter of whom was worshipped by\nthe Spartans under the names of Theritas and Enyalius. Of the worship of\n\u00c6SCULAPIUS it has been already(1706) mentioned that it was derived to Cos,\nCnidos, and Rhodes, from Epidaurus, which state again had in ancient times\nreceived it through the Phlegyans from Tricca.(1707) From Epidaurus,\naccording to Pausanias,(1708) also came the worship of Sicyon, and the\nCyren\u00e6an at Balagr\u00e6,(1709) with which, as at Cos, an ancient school of\nphysicians was connected.(1710)\n\n8. We will just notice the worship of the CHARITES established in Crete\nand Sparta; first, as a fresh proof of the early religious connexion\nbetween those two countries,(1711) and as a sign of that hilarity and\ngladness which was the most beautiful feature of the religion of the\nGreeks. These goddesses were at Sparta called Cleta and Pha\u00ebnna; their\ntemple was on the road from the city to Amycl\u00e6, on the river Tiasa.(1712)\nAllied to this was the worship of EROS, as practised by the Cretans and\nSpartans, with whom, before every battle, the most beautiful men assembled\nand sacrificed to that god:(1713) not as the great uniter of heaven and\nearth, but as awaking mutual esteem and affection, which produce that fear\nof the disapprobation of friends which is the noblest source of\nvalour.(1714)\n\nThe most obscure, perhaps, of all the branches of religion whose origin we\nhave to investigate is the worship of the DIOSCURI, or the sons of Zeus.\nIt appears probable that it had a double source, viz., the heroic honours\nof the human Tyndarid\u00e6, and the ancient Peloponnesian worship of the great\ngods or Cabiri; and in process of time the attributes of the latter seem\nby poetry and tradition to have been transferred to the former, viz., the\nname of the sons of Zeus, the birth from an egg, and the egg-shaped caps,\nthe alternation of life and death, the dominion over the winds and the\nwaves. As belonging to their worship at Sparta I may mention the ancient\nimages called \u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1, two upright beams with two others laid across them\ntransversely;(1715) the custom in military expeditions of taking either\none or both of the statues of the Dioscuri according as one or both kings\nwent with the army;(1716) which places the Tyndarid\u00e6 in the light of gods\nof war; and the belief that they often appeared as assistants in time of\nneed, or even merely as friendly guests,(1717) which distinguishes them\nfrom most other heroes. Upon the whole we know that the Dorians found the\nworship and mythology of the Tyndarid\u00e6 established at Amycl\u00e6, Therapne,\nPephnos, and other places; and they adopted it, without caring to preserve\nits original form and meaning; rather, indeed, attempting to give to the\nworship of the sons of Tyndareus a _military_ and _political_ reference.\n\n9. Before we proceed to consider the heroic mythology of the Dorians,\nwhich is chiefly confined to Hercules, we will first attempt to sketch the\nprincipal features of the religious character of the Dorians, as seen in\nthe several worships already enumerated. Both in the development of modes\nof religion peculiar to that race, and in the adoption and alteration of\nthose of other nations, an ideal tendency may be perceived, which\nconsidered the deity not so much in reference to the works or objects of\nnature, as of the actions and thoughts of men. Consequently their religion\nhad little of mysticism, which belongs rather to elementary worships; but\nthe gods assume a more human and heroic form, although not so much as in\nthe epic poetry. Hence the piety of the Doric race had a peculiarly\nenergetic character, as their notions of the gods were clear, distinct,\nand personal; and it was probably connected with a certain degree of\ncheerfulness and confidence, equally removed from the exuberance of\nenthusiasm and the gloominess of superstition. Funeral ceremonies and\nfestivals with violent lamentations, as well as enthusiastic orgies, were\nnot suited to the character of the Dorians; although their reverence for\nantiquity often induced them to adopt such rites when already established.\nOn the other hand, we see displayed in their festivals and religious\nusages a brightness and hilarity, which made them think that the most\npleasing sacrifice which they could offer to their gods was to rejoice in\ntheir sight, and use the various methods which the arts afforded them of\nexpressing their joy. With all this, their worship bears the stamp of the\ngreatest simplicity, and at the same time of warmth of heart. The Spartans\nprayed the gods \u201cto give them what was honourable and good;\u201d(1718) and\nalthough they did not lead out any splendid processions, and were even\naccused of offering scanty sacrifices, still Zeus Ammon declared that the\n\u201ccalm solemnity of the prayers of the Spartans was dearer to him than all\nthe sacrifices of the Greeks.\u201d(1719) They likewise showed the most\nfaithful adherence to the usages handed down to them from their ancestors,\nand hence they were little inclined to the adoption of foreign\nceremonies;(1720) although in commercial towns, as, for instance, at\nCorinth, such rites were willingly admitted, from a regard for strangers\nof other races and nations.(1721)\n\n\n\n\nChapter XI.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Legends respecting Hercules in the earliest settlements of\n    the Dorians. \u00a7 2. Servitude of Hercules. \u00a7 3. Legends respecting\n    Hercules in the second settlements of the Dorians. \u00a7 4. Legends\n    respecting Tlepolemus, Antiphus, and Phidippus. \u00a7 5. Legend of\n    Geryoneus. \u00a7 6. Legends respecting Hercules in the neighbourhood\n    of Thermopyl\u00e6. \u00a7 7, 8, and 9. B\u0153otian legends respecting Hercules.\n    \u00a7 10. Attic legends respecting Hercules.\n\n\n1. In the following attempt to unravel the complicated mythology of\nHercules, we will begin with those fables in which this hero appears\nevidently as the progenitor of the Doric Heraclid\u00e6,(1722) as\nrepresentative of the heroes of the Hyllean tribe, the highest order in\nthe Doric nation.\n\nWe will first direct our attention to the locality described in the\nbeginning of the first book, the ancient country of the Dorians in the\nmost mountainous part of Thessaly, where this nation was continually at\nenmity with its immediate neighbours, the Lapith\u00e6. In this war Hercules\nappears as the hero of the Hyllean tribe, according to the epic poem\n\u00c6gimius, and gained for them a third part of the conquered territory. With\nthis contest is, as it appears, also connected the celebrated conquest of\n\u0152chalia, the subject of an epic poem called \u039f\u1f30\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f05\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, which was\nascribed to Homer or Creophylus.(1723) In this poem it was related how\nEurytus of \u0152chalia, the skilful archer, who was said to have surpassed\nHercules himself in this mode of fighting, and who dared to engage with\nApollo,(1724) promised his daughter Iole as a prize to the person who\nshould excel himself and his sons in archery; but Hercules having accepted\nthe challenge, Eurytus refused to perform his engagement: upon which\nHercules collected an army, conquered \u0152chalia, killed Eurytus and his\nsons, carried away Iole prisoner, and gave her in marriage to his son\nHyllus.(1725)\n\nThe situation of this \u201cwell-fortified\u201d(1726) \u0152chalia is an ancient subject\nof controversy. There were three places of this name; one on the banks of\nthe Peneus in Thessaly, in the ancient country of the Lapith\u00e6, between\nPelinna to the east and Tricca to the west, not far from Ithome:(1727)\nanother in the island of Eub\u0153a, in the district of Eretria.(1728) The\nthird was a town in Messenia, which in latter times was called Carnasium,\nupon the boundary of Arcadia;(1729) in which region there was also a town\nnamed Ithome; and, as it is stated, another named Tricca; so that we must\nsuppose that there was some early connexion between the inhabitants of\nthis district and the tribes near the Peneus. Now it may be presumed that\neach of these \u0152chalias was considered by the respective inhabitants as the\ncelebrated town of the great Eurytus; whence among the early poets there\nwas a difference of statement on the subject. For the Messenian \u0152chalia is\ncalled the city of Eurytus in the Homeric catalogue,(1730) and in the\nOdyssey,(1731) which statement was followed by Pherecydes;(1732) the\nEub\u0153an city was selected by the writer of the poem called the Taking of\n\u0152chalia;(1733) as also probably in the \u00c6gimius,(1734) and afterwards by\nHecat\u00e6us of Miletus;(1735) the Thessalian, in another passage in the\ncatalogue of the ships, apparently of considerable antiquity.(1736) Since,\nthen, this question cannot be settled by authority, we can only infer (but\nwith great probability) from the connexion of the traditions that the\nlast-mentioned \u0152chalia was the city of the original fable. The contest for\nthis city is evidently closely connected with the war with the Lapith\u00e6;\nEurytus, as well as the Lapith\u00e6, was hated by Apollo. If \u0152chalia is placed\non the banks of the Peneus, the conquest of it naturally falls in with the\nother tradition; if not, it stands isolated and unconnected. Again;\nHercules, according to all traditions, conquers Iole for his son Hyllus;\nnow Hyllus never occurs in mythology except in connexion with the Dorians;\nconsequently the place of the battle must be looked for in the vicinity of\nthe Doric territory.\n\nEven before the time of this war (according to the common narration)\nHercules had embroiled himself with the \u0152chalians by killing Iphitus, the\nson of Eurytus, who demanded of him the restitution of some plundered\ncattle or horses. In the common version of this story, Peloponnesus was\nthe scene of the encounter; for Hercules is said to have hurled him from\nthe walls of Tiryns.(1737) But to expiate this murder, and the violation\nof the rights of hospitality, Hercules became a slave; and, in order to\nrelease himself from the guilt, he was compelled to pay to the father of\nIphitus his own ransom.\n\n2. The meaning of this servitude cannot be rightly explained without\nobserving the remarkable coincidence between some parts of the mythology\nof Hercules and Apollo, which we will here shortly elucidate. As Eurytus\nis represented sometimes as killed by Apollo, sometimes by Hercules, so in\nthe poem of the Shield of Hercules(1738) this hero punishes Cycnus for\nprofaning the Pagas\u00e6an temple; thus, in another tradition, he slays Phylas\nand Laogoras, princes of the Dryopes, for violating the shrine of Delphi\nand other temples;(1739) and consecrates the whole nation to the Pythian\nApollo.(1740) Nor do I believe that Euripides invented the fable of the\nrestoration of Alcestis, and the contest between Hercules and death.(1741)\nIt is also perhaps fair to infer, from the legends of epic poets, in which\nHercules is represented as a hero in brazen armour, who defended the\nsacred roads with his sword, and overthrew the violent sons of Ares that\nwaylaid the sacrificial processions in the narrow passes and defiles, that\nin ancient fables he was considered not only as the defender of the Doric\nrace, but also of the Doric worship.\n\nWe may now proceed to consider the sale and servitude of Hercules; a point\nof primary importance in the various forms which the legends concerning\nthis hero assume. In the present instance this degradation originated from\nthe killing of Iphitus. Here also the parallel with the servitude of\nApollo at Pher\u00e6 cannot fail to strike every one. The god and the hero were\nchosen, as examples, to impress the people in early times with a strong\nsense of the sacred character, and necessity of expiation for\nhomicide.(1742) By whom Hercules was supposed to have been purchased in\nthe original legend of northern Thessaly we know not; at a later period\nOmphale was called his mistress, who (according to Pherecydes)(1743)\nbought him for three talents.\n\n3. We will now proceed to the second settlements of the Dorians, which\ncomprehend the towns between the ridges of \u0152ta and Parnassus; viz.,\nErineus, Cytinium, B\u0153um, and Pindus.(1744)\n\nThe neighbours of the Dorians in these settlements were, as has been\nalready stated, the Dryopes, the Melians of Trachis, and the \u00c6tolians. The\nfirst were hostile to the Dorians; the other two were for the most part\nfriendly to them. These facts again are expressed with much clearness in\nthe mythology of Hercules. Of the relation between the Dorians and\nDryopians, and the manner in which it is expressed in the fables of\nHercules, we have already given an account.(1745) Ceyx, the Trachinian,\nwas a faithful friend of Hercules, and of his descendants; in one account,\nindeed, he is called the nephew of Hercules,(1746) who is said to have\nfounded for him his town of Trachis.(1747) In this place was shown a grave\nof Deianira,(1748) the daughter of \u0152neus, whose marriage with Hercules is\nevidently a mythological expression for the league which existed between\nthe \u00c6tolian and Dorian nations before the invasion of Peloponnesus.(1749)\nFor Deianira was an inhabitant of Calydon;(1750) and the Calydonians had\nthe principal share in this expedition. To this marriage is annexed a\nseries of connected \u00c6tolian fables concerning Hercules. For the\npeculiarity of this part of the heroic mythology is, that they readily\npassed from one nation to another; and wherever they obtained a firm\nground, formed a large mass of traditions. Among these is the conquest of\nthe bull Achelous,(1751) and the adventure at the ford of the\nEuenus,(1752) which afterwards occasioned the death of Hercules. It is\nalso probable that the residence of Hercules at Olenus, in the house of\nDexamenus, was connected with the \u00c6tolian adventures; although even Hesiod\ndoes not in this legend mention the ancient \u00c6tolian town Olenus in the\nneighbourhood of Calydon, but the Ach\u00e6an city of the same name on the\nbanks of the Pirus.(1753) Now Dexamenus is frequently placed in connexion\nwith the Calydonian family of \u0152neus;(1754) the wife of \u0152neus came from\nOlenus, and was of the same family. The ancient legend represented him as\na hospitable hero: which quality is also expressed in his name (\u0394\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2,\nfrom \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2); in return for which, Hercules released him from his\nbrutal guests, the Centaurs;(1755) to which fable the ancient battle of\nthe Centaurs in the mythology of Hercules probably annexed itself. Lastly,\nHercules is said to have led the \u00c6tolians against the Thesprotians of\nEphyra. This expedition was perhaps as much celebrated in ancient lays as\nthe taking of \u0152chalia. Ephyra, which is here spoken of, is an ancient city\nof Thesprotia,(1756) situated on the spot where the Acherusian lake flows\ninto the sea through the river Selleeis (Acheron). In later times the name\nof this city was Cichyrus; but even at the present day remains of the\noriginal Cyclopian style of building, not unlike those of Tiryns, are\nextant.(1757) The whole district is celebrated in fables as the\ndwelling-place of Aidoneus: as the seat of an oracle where departed\nspirits were questioned, it was always regarded by the inhabitants with an\nawe, which was further increased by a belief that the natives were very\nskilful in the preparation of poison.(1758) This city Hercules is said to\nhave attacked as an ally of the \u00c6tolians; whence it appears probable that\nthis circumstance gave occasion for introducing his contest with Hades,\nand his adventures in the infernal regions, such as the carrying away of\nCerberus, the liberation of other heroes,(1759) &c. It must not, however,\nbe thought, that in the style of Euhemerus, I suppose a king Aidoneus to\nhave really once reigned in this district, who had a dog, or rather a\ngeneral, named Cerberus, whom Hercules overcame in a battle, &c. The\nfollowing appears to be a more probable method of accounting for the\norigin of this fable. The gloomy religious rites on the banks of the\nAcheron, which had always deterred the neighbouring nations from a\nparticipation in them, were at an early period contrasted with the free\nand active habits of the heroic tribes; the awe inspired by the presence\nof the unearthly spectres with the proud spirit and bold thoughts of a\nmilitary life. If now the people themselves came into collision with each\nother, their gods necessarily did the same; the result of which was\ntraditions of contest and war between themselves. On the other hand, it\nmust not be thought that the fable has a purely symbolical meaning; and\nthat Hercules was worshipped, together with Hades, merely as an enemy of\nDeath, as a deity alleviating and removing the terrors of the infernal\nregions.\n\n4. The rest of this fable, however, entirely loses its symbolical\ncharacter; viz., the manner in which the birth of several Doric heroes is\nconnected with the taking of Ephyra; who, though out of the confines of\nhistory, are nevertheless to be considered as real individuals. In the\nfirst place, Hercules is stated to have begotten Tlepolemus on Astyocheia,\nwhom, according to Homer, he carried away from Ephyra, on the river\nSellecis, after having destroyed many cities;(1760) Antiphus and\nPheidippus also were said to have come from Ephyra in Thesprotia, the sons\nof Thessalus, and grandsons of Hercules, to whom the noblest families of\nThessaly, as well as the Heraclid\u00e6 of Cos, referred their origin;(1761)\nthe latter, however, according to another and later tradition, sprang from\nthe union of Hercules and the daughter of Eurypylus in Cos itself.(1762)\nThe origin of this intricate fable appears to be as follows: There were in\nthe ancient country of the Dorians some noble families which referred\ntheir origin to the conquest of Ephyra; and these were designated by the\nnames of Tlepolemus, Antiphus, and Pheidippus; those families went with\nthe other Dorians to Peloponnesus, and passed through Argos and Epidaurus\nto Rhodes and Cos, where they partly new-modelled their original family\nlegends. Now it was always admitted that the Thessalian people came also\nfrom Ephyra and Thesprotia; and when it settled among the Greeks, and\nsought to participate in their traditions, it was natural that Hercules,\nthe conqueror of Ephyra, should be placed at the head of its genealogies.\n\n5. To the combat of Hercules and Pluto at Ephyra we will now annex the\nlegend of Geryoneus. The cattle of Geryoneus and Pluto grazed together in\nthe island of Erytheia;(1763) but they were supposed to belong to the\nSun,(1764) and therefore were of a bright red colour. Now Erytheia was\nanciently believed to be near the kingdom of Hades. For the statement of\nHecat\u00e6us, that Erytheia and Geryoneus belonged to Epirus and the region of\nAmbracia,(1765) could not have been owing to an attempt to give to\nmythology an appearance of reality: but he seems to have availed himself\nof some real tradition. This is certain, from the datum of Scylax, who\nwould never have laid down Erytheia in his Periplus(1766) on the authority\nof a logographer. According to this writer it is situated between the\nterritory of the Atintanes and the Ceraunian mountains, north of Epirus,\non the borders of Greece, at no great distance from the earliest seats of\nthe Dorians. Now it is a remarkable fact, that, even in historical times,\nthere were in the same country, viz., near the Aous, a river running from\nmount Lacmon, herds sacred to the Sun, which were guarded in the daytime\non the banks of that river, and in the night in a cave of the mountain, by\nmen whom the inhabitants of the Greek city of Apollonia intrusted with\nthis office as a particular honour.(1767) It is not probable that the\nCorinthians, who founded Apollonia, should have been the first to\nintroduce this usage, although there are traces of an ancient worship of\nthe Sun in the territory of Corinth;(1768) but we may fairly assume that\nthe colonists merely retained a native custom. This hypothesis clears away\nall difficulty. The empire of Hades on this earth was conterminous with a\ndistrict in which the worship of the Sun prevailed, and which contained\ninnumerable herds of cattle, under the protection of the god; but the\nGreek hero, little caring for their sanctity, had driven them away, and\ndevoted them to _his own_ gods. Epirus was always distinguished for its\nexcellent breed of cattle, which were said to have sprung from the herds\nof Geryoneus, which Hercules offered to the Dodon\u00e6an Zeus.(1769)\n\n6. We were led to these considerations by the \u00c6tolian legends respecting\nHercules, from which we will now return to the Dorians, who possessed the\nmountainous tract along mount \u0152ta towards Thermopyl\u00e6. There was perhaps no\nregion in the whole of Greece which abounded more in local fables of\nHercules. It was in the pass of Thermopyl\u00e6 that he caught those strange\nmonsters the Cercopes;(1770) here it was that Athene caused a hot spring\nto issue for him from the ground;(1771) on the top of mount \u0152ta, on the\nPhrygian rock,(1772) was raised the fatal pile, which the brook of Dyras\nin vain strove to extinguish;(1773) and many adjacent cities claimed a\nconnexion with his exploits:(1774) even the \u00c6nianes (who at a later period\nsettled in this district) attempted to appropriate to themselves these\ntraditions;(1775) and Heraclea Trachinia, not founded till the\nPeloponnesian war, and the neighbouring Cylicrani, were referred to the\nmythology of Hercules.(1776) It is certain that local traditions of this\nkind must have originated with the inhabitants of this district. Is it at\nleast probable that the natives of Argos would have placed the death of\ntheir deified hero in a foreign region, if they had been the original\ninventors of this fiction? The career of the Doric hero doubtless closed\non the funeral pile of \u0152ta; and this adventure ended a series of fables,\nof which there are now extant only some fragments. In this point of view\nwe may perceive a connexion between many of the legends detailed above.\n\nThe general tendency and spirit of these legends may be described in the\nfollowing proposition: The national hero is represented as everywhere\npreparing the way for his people and their worship; and as protecting them\nfrom other races. Thus he opens a communication between Tempe and Delphi,\nbetween the fabulous worshippers of Apollo, the Hyperboreans, and the\nworshippers of his own age. At the same time his own person is an outward\nsymbol of the national worship; he complies with its rites of expiation\nfor homicide, being himself both the victim and the sacrificer.\n\n7. We will next consider the Theban legends of Hercules; and will, for the\nsake of clearness, first state the propositions which the following\ndiscussion is intended to establish.\n\nHercules at Thebes is not to be considered as a Cadmean; and has no\nconnexion with the ancient gods, and traditions of the Cadmeans; but his\nmythology was introduced into B\u0153otia partly by the Doric Heraclid\u00e6, and\npartly from Delphi, together with the worship of Apollo.\n\nTo prove that Hercules has no connexion with the Cadmean gods, temples,\nand princes, it is only necessary to refer to a genealogical table of the\nTheban mythology, and a plan of Thebes sketched after Pausanias. From the\nformer we perceive that Hercules (whose father is represented as having\narrived as a fugitive from Mycen\u00e6) is not made the relation either by\nblood or marriage of the Cadmeans, Creon (\u03ba\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, the ruler), his supposed\nfather-in-law, being only a fictitious personage, invented to fill up a\nchasm in the pedigree;(1777) from the latter, that the temples of Hercules\nwere not only not in the citadel (like those of Cadmus, Harmonia, and\nSemele), or within the walls of the city, but were all without the gates.\nThis fact is of great importance as to the antiquity of any worship in a\ncity. The ancient and original deities, which enjoyed the honours of\nfounders, possessed the citadel as their birthright; while all gods\nafterwards introduced enjoyed a less honourable abode in the suburbs of\nthe town. Now it is known that the house of Amphitryon and the Gymnasium\nof Hercules stood in front of the gate of Electra, opposite the\nIsmenium;(1778) and to this we may add the account of Pherecydes(1779)\nrespecting a village near that same gate, which the Heraclid\u00e6 had founded\nbefore their invasion of Peloponnesus, and where there was a statue of\nHercules in the market-place. What can be clearer than that these\nHeraclid\u00e6 established the worship of their hero at Thebes? Near this place\n(it should be observed) was the Ismenian sanctuary of Apollo. Opposite to\nthis temple Hercules was said to have been educated; and at a festival of\nApollo to have carried the laurel before the chorus of virgins; and\nafterwards to have consecrated a tripod in the temple, as was the general\ncustom in later times. This tripod is represented on the famous relief of\nthe Argive apotheosis of Hercules, with the inscription \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1\n\u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9.(1780)\n\nWith this is evidently connected the story of the robbery of the Delphian\ntripod, of which the common version is as follows: Hercules was visited\nwith a severe illness, as a punishment for the murder of Iphitus; and, in\nconsequence, he had recourse for relief to Delphi; but as the Pythian\npriestess refused to answer the questions of one guilty of homicide, he\nthreatened to plunder the temple, and carry off the tripod. Apollo\naccordingly pursued him, till Zeus separated the combat of his two sons by\nlightning.(1781) The fable went on to say that a new consecration of the\nDelphian tripod took place, and a reconciliation of the god and hero: of\nthis part we are only informed by works of art, these being indeed of\ntolerable antiquity.(1782) But it is manifest that this is not the\ngenuine, ancient, and sacred tradition. How could this hero, who in other\nrespects was entirely dependent on the mandates of the oracle, and who in\nso many ways protected and promoted the worship of Apollo,(1783) suddenly\nbecome a sacrilegious violator of his most holy and ancient temple? This\ncarrying away of the tripod appears from other traditions to signify\nnothing else than a propagation of the worship of Apollo.(1784) Whither,\nthen, is this tripod stated to have been first moved? By the Arcadians\nHercules was said to have brought it to Pheneus, but was compelled again\nto restore it to Apollo.(1785) The hero, on his journey to Elis, is said\nto have built a temple to the Pythian Apollo;(1786) which, however, can\nscarcely be more ancient than the Doric migration. The foundation of this\ntemple, as dependent on the Delphic oracle, was therefore by the tradition\nexpressed under this image of the transportation of the tripod, the bearer\nof it being Hercules. But it is more important to our present purpose\nthat, according to the B\u0153otian account,(1787) Hercules was supposed to\nhave brought the tripod to Thebes, that is probably to the Ismenium. This\nfable therefore shows the connexion between the Ismenium and the great\nsanctuary of Apollo; and represents Hercules as the intermediate link\nbetween these two temples.\n\n8. Several other traditions current in B\u0153otia are connected with the above\nexplanation of this tradition. The Cretan colony, which, setting out from\nCirrha, established the Tilphosian temple at Ocalea in B\u0153otia, was\nrepresented under the person of Rhadamanthus.(1788) Rhadamanthus is said\nto have there dwelt with Alcmene, and to have instructed the youthful hero\nin the Cretan art of archery.(1789) For this reason also Zeus raised\nAlcmene from the dead, and conducted her to the islands of the blest as\nthe wife of Rhadamanthus. A stone remained in her tomb, which was set up\nin her sacred grove at Thebes.(1790)\n\n9. The Theban traditions of Hercules are not all equally significant; but\nsome, such as those just mentioned, had a religious, some a\npolitical(1791) import, and others only express the bodily strength of\nthat hero. The education of Hercules is confided to certain fabulous\npersonages, most of whom were supposed to reside in B\u0153otia.(1792) His most\nremarkable instructor is the minstrel Linus, whom (probably in execution\nof the will of Apollo) he put to death,(1793) justifying himself by the\nlaw of Rhadamanthus. The destruction of the lion of Cith\u00e6ron is an\nimitation of the legend of Nemea, of which we shall speak hereafter.(1794)\nAfter this adventure he went to Thespi\u00e6, to the house of Thestius, where\nhe deflowers in one or in fifty-seven nights the fifty daughters of his\nhost, a fable which has perhaps an astronomical reference.(1795)\n\nWith respect to the singular legend of Hercules murdering his children by\nMegara by throwing them into the fire,(1796) it cannot be denied that this\nhad some symbolical meaning, derived from an ancient elementary religion.\nIn general, however, this temporary fury is merely an exaggerated picture\nof that heroic mind whose courage and endurance had carried Hercules\nthrough so many dangers and difficulties for the good of mankind.(1797)\nAccording to the B\u0153otian version, it was a melancholy madness, in which\nHercules, regardless even of all that was most dear to him, murdered his\nchildren, and was even on the point of slaying his father.(1798) Upon this\nthe hero, oppressed with a deep melancholy, turned for relief to the\natoning Apollo; and either to the god of the Ismenium(1799) or of\nPytho.(1800) The oracle commands him to serve as a slave, in the same\nmanner as Apollo himself had served after the destruction of the Python.\nIn the broken narrative of Apollodorus a remarkable trace has been\npreserved as to the time during which, according to the B\u0153otian tradition,\nthe slavery of Hercules lasted, viz., eight years and one month.(1801)\nThis cannot be considered as an accidental number; but it is probable that\nthe Enna\u00ebteris is signified, which was a period of eight years and three\nintercalary months; of which only the last month is here mentioned,\nbecause the two inserted in the middle were less conspicuous. Hercules,\ntherefore, like Apollo at Pher\u00e6, was supposed to have served for an \u1f00\u0390\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2, for the octennial period of mythology and ancient\nastronomy.(1802)\n\n10. We will here add some observations on the Attic worship of Hercules,\nwhich was celebrated chiefly at Marathon in the Tetrapolis,(1803) in the\nthree villages of Melite, Diomea, and Collytus,(1804) which lay close to\none another in the vicinity of Athens; at Cynosarges(1805) in particular,\nwhich belonged to the demus of Diomea; at Acharn\u00e6(1806) and\nHeph\u00e6stia,(1807) and in the city itself; and likewise near the sea in the\nTetracom\u00e6, or \u201cFour Hamlets.\u201d(1808) The circumstance that those temples\nwhich were not situated in the vicinity of the city were all in the\nnorthern part of Attica, seems to prove that the worship was derived from\nthe northern frontiers; and it was attributed to the presence of the\nHeraclid\u00e6 in Attica, though the fable of the great assistance which Athens\nlent to the Heraclid\u00e6 was peculiar to the Athenians.(1809) It is probable,\nhowever, that at some early period a division of the Doric people passed\nthrough Attica, and there founded that worship which, by the supremacy of\nthe Dorians and their various connexions with other nations, increased in\ncharacter and importance. If the Laced\u00e6monians really spared the\nTetrapolis in the Peloponnesian war,(1810) their forbearance must be\nattributed to the respect which they showed to their national hero. There\nis a tradition worthy of notice, that Theseus consecrated to Hercules all\nthe temples which had been dedicated to himself;(1811) whence it may be\ninferred that the worship of the former demigod was thus transferred at\nsome early period; only not, it should be observed, at the time of Theseus\nhimself. That the worship of Hercules was only half-nationalized may (as\nit appears) be inferred from the custom of the Parasiti of that hero at\nCynosarges being always Athenians, of whose parents one only was a\ncitizen; a symbolical allusion to the half-foreign origin of their\nworship.\n\nOf the same description are the traditions which were peculiar to the\nvillages of Aphidna, Decelea, and Titacid\u00e6 (likewise situated in the north\nof Attica), respecting the expedition of the Tyndarid\u00e6; who were said to\nhave conquered Aphidna with the aid of Decelus and Titacus.(1812) From\nthis plunder, according to a Spartan legend, the very ancient temple of\nPallas Chalci\u0153cus at Sparta was built. In this instance, likewise, the\ntradition was recognised as real history; for the Laced\u00e6monians always\nkept up a friendly intercourse with Decelea; nor was it, we may be\nassured, without some particular reason that in the Messenian war at the\ncommand of the oracle they called to their aid Tyrt\u00e6us, the man of\nAphidna. But as the Tyndarid\u00e6, _i.e._, their images (as was mentioned\nabove),(1813) accompanied every Spartan army on its marches, it is\nprobable that these stories originated in some Doric expedition into the\nnorthern parts of Attica, which left behind it these permanent traces and\nrecollections.\n\n\n\n\nChapter XII.\n\n\n    \u00a7 1. Peloponnesian mythology of Hercules. Adventures of Hercules:\n    his combats with wild beasts. \u00a7 2. His martial exploits. \u00a7 3. His\n    establishment of the Olympic games. \u00a7 4. Complexity of the\n    mythology of Hercules. \u00a7 5. Worship of Hercules carried from\n    Sparta to Tarentum and Croton. \u00a7 6. Coan fable of Hercules. \u00a7 7.\n    Hercules and Hylas. \u00a7 8. Identification of Hercules and Melcart. \u00a7\n    9. Human character of Hercules. \u00a7 10. His joviality and love of\n    mirth.\n\n\n1. We must now entreat the indulgence of our readers when we enter upon an\nobscure and difficult part of our subject, and one lying beyond the limits\nof historical record. We allude to the Peloponnesian mythology of\nHercules; a collection of legends doubtless for the most part invented\nsubsequently to the Doric invasion, and intended by that nation in great\nmeasure to justify their conquest of the peninsula, and to make their\nexpedition appear, not as an act of wrongful aggression, but as a\nre-assertion of ancient right. Some hero (perhaps even of the same name)\nmust have existed in the Argive traditions in the time of the Persid\u00e6, and\nthe resemblance may have been sufficiently striking to identify him with\nthe father of the Doric Hyllus. We shall therefore consider the destroyer\nof the Nemean lion as a native Argive hero; but the delay experienced at\nhis birth, and his consequent exposure to want and toil, evidently belong\nto the Doric tradition, as well as the enmity of Here; fables which were\npartly borrowed from the worship of Apollo, and may partly have been\nintended to indicate the contrast between the ancient worship of Argos and\nthat of the invading race.(1814)\n\nWe shall now proceed without further preface to consider the different\nadventures of Hercules, which may be divided into two classes; the first\nconsisting of his warlike exploits, the second of his combats with wild\nbeasts. We shall commence with the examination of the latter.(1815)\n\nNemea was separated from the Argive temple of Here, the most ancient one\nin the country, by a chain of mountains and a long rocky ravine. It cannot\nbe denied that the moon was often invoked in this worship, although it\nwould not be safe to consider Here as the goddess of the moon. Now Nemea\nis called the daughter of the moon,(1816) from which deity the Nemean lion\nis also said to have sprung; the antiquity of which fable may be inferred\nfrom the circumstance that Anaxagoras availed himself of it, as being\ngenerally received, to account for the physical hypothesis of the\nAntichthon.(1817) Connected with this is Hesiod\u2019s tradition that the\ngoddess Here had herself brought up the lion, which she is by that poet\nrepresented as having done out of enmity to Hercules. Hence we detect the\nsymbolical character of the fable, which resembles that of Perseus and\nGorgo, &c.; although we can scarcely attempt to explain the whole legend\nin a similar manner. The combat with the Lern\u00e6an hydra may also be thus\nexplained. Hercules is represented as employing in this contest the same\nsickle with which Perseus beheaded Medusa.(1818)\n\nWhatever meaning we may attach to these combats, whether we consider them\nas symbolical, or as memorials of a remote antiquity, in which it was the\nhero\u2019s principal occupation to free Greece from monsters and wild beasts,\nit is nevertheless evident that they are as little adapted to the time\nassigned to them (shortly previous to the Pelopid\u00e6) as to the character of\nthe other parts of the fable. A mere consideration of Hercules\u2019 costume\nwill sufficiently convince us of this fact. It is certain that the\nHercules of the early poets was either a hero armed with a spear and\nbuckler, as in the poem attributed to Hesiod,(1819) or with a bow and\nsword, as in the Odyssey.(1820) The latter description occurs particularly\nin the battle of the giants; the former is founded on all the traditions\nwhich represent Hercules as the first of warriors and conquerors. Pisander\nand Stesichorus were the first who introduced him as a half-naked savage,\nwith the lion\u2019s skin round his loins, the jaws covering his head instead\nof a helmet, and merely a club in his hand.(1821) There were extant so\nlate as the time of Strabo some ancient wooden statues of Hercules very\ndifferent from this description. Pisander, too, was (as far as we know)\nthe first who represented in detail the combats of Hercules with wild\nbeasts, collected from scattered accounts in the Theogony, and who\ncomposed the \u201cLabours of Hercules;\u201d for which he perhaps availed himself\nof different local traditions.\n\n2. We now come to the martial exploits of Hercules, which, as it appears,\nwere intended to represent the conquests of the Dorians in Peloponnesus.\nWe have only to direct our attention to the account that Hercules, towards\nthe close of his life, being prince of Mycen\u00e6,(1822) delivered Sparta from\nthe Hippocontid\u00e6 into the hands of Tyndareus, and, after conquering Pylos\nfrom Neleus, transferred, it to Nestor,(1823) in order to perceive the\ncoincidence of tradition and history. The circumstances which have chiefly\ncontributed to the formation of these traditions may best be traced in the\ncombat at Pylos. The share which Hades had in this adventure, when that\ngod was himself wounded by the bold son of Zeus,(1824) may be considered,\naccording to the connexion established above, as having been transferred\nfrom Ephyra, where Hades had a greater inducement to the protection of\noppressed cities than at Pylos.(1825) But Hercules is said to have\ndestroyed Pylos because Neleus would not purify him from the murder of\nIphitus;(1826) an act which Deiphobus afterwards performed in the temple\nof Apollo at Amycl\u00e6.(1827) Here it seems to be assumed that \u0152chalia, the\nnative city of Iphitus, was situated in Messenia, which, as we have shown\nabove,(1828) was not the original tradition.\n\n3. The influence of historical facts upon mythology is most clearly\nperceivable in the legend of Hercules having founded the Olympic games\nwhen he returned victorious from his expedition against Augeas of\nElis.(1829) Afterwards the same hero celebrates the first Olympiad as a\nfestival of all Peloponnesus, with various combats, in which heroes from\nTiryns, Tegea, Mantinea, and Sparta were victorious.(1830) It was also\nHercules who fixed the quinquennial period, and established the sacred\narmistice.(1831) His bringing the wild olive-tree from the Hyperboreans,\nand planting it in the grove of Altis, was probably derived from the\ntraditions of Northern Greece;(1832) in which Hercules was represented as\nmore closely connected with Apollo than in the common Peloponnesian\nlegends. It should, moreover, be remarked that Hercules in his expedition\nagainst Elis is reported to have founded or visited several temples of\nApollo at Pheneus and Thelpusa;(1833) both lying on the road which\nconnected the isthmus and the north of Greece with Olympia.(1834) It\nwould, however, involve us in no slight difficulties to date the tradition\nof Hercules founding the Olympic games later than the Olympiad of Iphitus;\nfor as since that period the Eleans conducted the festival, and therefore\nshowed a particular veneration for Hercules, it is scarcely probable that\na war _against Elis_ should have been considered as the cause of the\nestablishment of this festival, had not the report been handed down from\nan earlier period. The continual claim of Pisa, that the presidency of the\ngames should be restored to her as an ancient right, is, however, one of\nseveral circumstances which render it probable that she had once enjoyed\nthis privilege before the festival had acquired its subsequent celebrity;\nand that Hercules, to whom a very ancient wooden statue had been erected\nat Pisa,(1835) was, even at this early period, regarded as the founder: to\nwhich facts the story of a war against Elis was easily subjoined. The\ncombat with Augeas, a son of Helius, seems to have been in great part\nborrowed from some Epirotan fable respecting Geryon.\n\n4. In tracing the various steps which led to the formation of the\nPeloponnesian mythology of Hercules, it has by no means been our aim to\nenter minutely into the details of the subject, which would carry us far\nbeyond the limits of the present inquiry; the distinction between the\nancient and recent parts of the tradition being so undefined that an\naccurate separation of the two is almost impossible. Enough has been said\nto show how frequently the same legend reappears in different shapes; and\nconsequently that some original version was variously modified in\ndifferent places. We shall once for all remind those who imagine the\nnorthern legend of Hercules to have been of later date than the\nPeloponnesian because the latter is mentioned by the early epic poets,\nthat some higher source must be sought for than a few passages of those\npoets which have been accidentally preserved: that it should be looked for\n(if anywhere) in some connected mythological tradition, to which the\nparticular fables owed their rise and development.\n\nThe task is comparatively easy to examine the history of fables, the scene\nof which lies in colonies or countries with which the Greeks did not\nbecome acquainted till a late period, as the events on which they are\nfounded took place within the era of our historical knowledge. At the same\ntime the analogy of these facts, sufficiently ascertained, enables us to\nconjecture as to those which are enveloped in fabulous obscurity; we can\nreason from what we know to what we do not know.\n\n5. From Sparta the worship of Hercules spread to her colonies,\nparticularly Tarentum(1836) and Croton. In the latter city Hercules\nenjoyed the honours of a founder,(1837) being reported to have established\nit on his return from Erythea.(1838) Afterwards the tradition of his\npurification and atonement was transferred from Amycl\u00e6 in Laconia to\nCroton, an event to which the high reputation enjoyed by the worship of\nApollo in the latter town greatly contributed. Hence we perceive on the\ncoins of this place the youthful hero sitting with a bow, quiver, and\narrows before a blazing altar, on which he scorches a branch of\nlaurel.(1839) Connected with the above is the tradition of Philoctetes\nhaving deposited the arrows of Hercules in the temple of Apollo Al\u00e6us at\nCroton, from whence they were said to have been brought by the Crotoniats\ninto the temple of Apollo within the precincts of their town.(1840) On the\ncoins of that city Hercules is frequently seen with a goblet in his hand,\neither in a recumbent or erect posture. The allusion is explained by the\nfollowing story: Hercules, who was always thirsty, had asked for some wine\nat Croton; but the woman of the house dissuaded her husband from tapping\nthe cask for a stranger; on which account the women of that country never\ndrank wine.(1841)\n\n6. Our readers are, we take for granted, well acquainted with the fable of\nHercules in the island of Cos, as related by Homer.(1842) The events which\ncontributed to its formation are, in the first place, the existence of\nseveral noble families of Heraclide descent, whose origin, according to\nancient traditions, was connected with the conquest of Ephyra, though they\nwere afterwards said to have sprung from the supposed residence of\nHercules in the island itself, where the ancestor of these families sprang\nfrom his connexion with a daughter of the king of the Meropians. This\nfiction of his abode in Cos took its rise in a mistaken view of certain\nceremonies there practised: for the peculiarity of the worship in\nquestion, in which the priest at the festival \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1, celebrated in the\nspring, put on a female dress (as Hercules is said to have disguised\nhimself in woman\u2019s clothes,)(1843) betrays an Asiatic origin; which\ninduced the poets of ancient times to consider Hercules of Cos as\nidentified with the Id\u00e6an Dactyli.(1844) This dress was also probably worn\nin the Lydian worship of Sandon(1845) (who was called Hercules by the\nGreeks); for Omphale is said to have attired the effeminate hero in a\ntransparent garment dyed with sandyx, a custom which evidently originated\nin the practice of some festival. The man described as the slave of a\nlascivious woman was a symbolical representation of a soft and voluptuous\nelementary religion; while the same allegory was by the Greeks referred to\nthe servitude of Hercules in the house of Eurystheus. This legend is first\nmentioned by Pherecydes, then by Hellanicus of Lesbos (who refers to the\ntraditions current in the city of Acele),(1846) and also in Herodotus,\nwhose genealogy of the ancient kings of Lydia\u2014Hercules, Alc\u00e6us (from the\nGreek mythology, Belus, the god of Babylon), Ninus (Nineveh), Agron, &c.,\nrefers to the Assyrian origin of the ancient Lydian kings, and agrees\nremarkably with the statement that Hercules-Sandon or Sandes, was\noriginally an Assyrian deity belonging to the same religious system as\nBelus.(1847)\n\n7. We now come to a fable of kindred origin, the fable of Hylas. Hylas was\ninvoked during midsummer at the sides of fountains by the aboriginal\ninhabitants of Bithynia,(1848) long before the Greeks founded their city\nof Cios; but the latter adopted the story of the boy falling into the\nwater, connecting it (as they worshipped Hercules as their founder)(1849)\nwith the fable of that hero. Indeed a legend very similar had previously\nexisted, the minion of Hercules being (according to Hellanicus)\nTheiomenes, the son of Theiodamas the king of the Dryopes.(1850) The death\nof Lityerses was in Phrygia the subject of an ancient song; and who else\nshould have slain him, according to the tradition of the Greeks, than he\nwhose power was dreaded throughout the countries of the barbarians?(1851)\nThe Greeks introduced such heterogeneous matter without hesitation into\ntheir mythology. Hercules, even in the spot where his worship originated,\nwas represented as a hero of great power abroad: he was the protector of\nboundaries and (if I may be allowed the expression) of marches:\nafterwards, when his worship was adopted by the whole of Greece, he was\nconsidered as the general guardian of the Grecian colonists. Thus he is\nrepresented as contending for the territory of Heraclea on the Pontus,\nagainst the aboriginal Bebryces, and in defence of Cyrene against the\nnative Libyans. For it seems very probable that the combat with\nAnt\u00e6us,(1852) who derived new vigour from touching the earth, was merely\nemblematical of the contests sustained by the Greek colonists against the\nLibyan hordes, which, though often conquered, always sallied forth from\nthe deserts in increased numbers. Thus the fable of Hercules and Busiris\nwas invented at a time when the Greeks first became known in Egypt, and\nhad as yet only an imperfect acquaintance with that country; for which\nreason Herodotus ridicules it as a silly invention of the Ionians. Busiris\nappears to me to have been the name of the principal deity with the\naddition of the article. In this story he is described as a ferocious\ntyrant, who orders Hercules to be sacrificed, until the latter, recovering\nhimself suddenly, slays the tyrant and his cowardly retinue.\n\n8. While attempting to reconcile these discordant traditions, and mould\nthem into one connected story, it was natural that the Greeks should find\nsome affinity of character between Hercules and the Ph\u0153nician god Melcart,\nthe son of Baal and Astarte (\u1f08\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1). It was to the existence of a temple\nof Hercules at Gadira that the fable of this hero having there terminated\nhis voyage after the battle of Geryon, owed its origin; and the\nneighbouring pillars of Hercules or Briareus(1853) were originally\nconsidered as the work of Melcart. The Hercules of the Carthaginians was\nalso represented as a wanderer and conqueror;(1854) his particular\nprovince was the island of Sardinia;(1855) which island became also\nincluded in the Grecian mythology: he is likewise said to have passed\nthrough Spain.(1856) The discoverer of the purple dye, in the Tyrian\ntradition, is the same personage;(1857) the quail was sacred to him, the\nsmell of that bird having resuscitated him from death.(1858) Great as the\nconfusion soon became between the Doric and Ph\u0153nician traditions\nrespecting Hercules, they may still be easily distinguished from each\nother; and the first effect of their union may perhaps be traced in the\nwish of Dorieus, the son of Anaxandridas, to found a kingdom near mount\nEryx, because Hercules had formerly conquered that country;(1859) now the\nworship and name of the Ph\u0153nician Aphrodite (Astarte) existed on mount\nEryx, and probably also that of her son Melcart.\n\n9. Notwithstanding the long digression into which the examination of our\nsubject has led us, we are afraid that the following positions, attempted\nto be established as the result of the preceding investigation, will by no\nmeans carry with them conviction to all readers. We may, however, rest\nassured, that whatever traces of an elementary religion can be discovered\nin this fable, they were additions totally at variance with its original\nstructure. The fundamental idea of all the heroic mythology may be\npronounced to be a proud consciousness of power innate in man, by which he\nendeavours to place himself on a level with the gods, not through the\ninfluence of a mild and benign destiny, but by labour, misery, and\ncombats. The highest degree of human suffering and courage is attributed\nto Hercules: his character is as noble as could be conceived in those rude\nand early times; but he is by no means represented as free from the\nblemishes of human nature; on the contrary, he is frequently subject to\nwild, ungovernable passions, when the noble indignation and anger of the\nsuffering hero degenerate into phrensy.(1860) Every crime, however, is\natoned for by some new suffering; but nothing breaks his invincible\ncourage, until, purified from earthly corruption, he ascends mount\nOlympus, and there receives the beauteous Hebe for his bride, while his\nshade threatens the frightened ghosts in Hades.(1861) As in the fable of\nApollo, the godhead descends into the circle of human life, so in Hercules\na purely human power is elevated to the gods. Hercules also corresponds to\nthe last-mentioned deity, in his divine attributes, as an averter of evil\n(\u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1);(1862) which the \u0152t\u00e6ans carried so far as to\nworship him as the destroyer of grasshoppers (\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03c9\u03bd), and the\nErythr\u00e6ans as the killer of the vine-worm (\u1f30\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2).(1863) We cannot,\nhowever, agree with Herodotus, who derives the deification of Hercules\nfrom a combination of the Ph\u0153nician or Id\u00e6an god, and the hero of Thebes,\nsince Hercules also enjoyed divine honours at places (as Messene and\nMarathon(1864)) where such an amalgamation can scarcely be imagined. But\nhe is a deity representing the highest perfection of humanity, and\ntherefore the model and aim of human imitation; and the summit of heroic\nenergy was seen where the human passed into the divine nature. His life\nand actions on earth are in ancient mythology perfectly human; and those\nfables, which raise him above humanity, for instance, those alluding to\nthe combat with the giants,(1865) betray a later origin.\n\n10. How little the ancient mythology was desirous of divesting Hercules of\nany feelings of humanity may be collected from various features in his\ncharacter. Hercules, whether invited or not invited, is a jovial guest,\nand not backward in enjoying himself. This explains the frequent allusions\nto him as a great eater (\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2) and tippler, and also the Herculean\ngoblets and couches. The original source of all these fictions was the\nancient tradition of the residence of Hercules with Ceyx and Dexamenus:\nnay, they may be traced to the ceremonies observed at his worship and\nfestivals.(1866) The Doric,(1867) like the Athenian comic poets and\nsatirists, merely adopted the general outline of the story, filling up the\ndetails to suit their own fancy and humour: the latter adding some jokes\nupon the gluttony of their B\u0153otian neighbours.(1868) It was Hercules,\nabove all other heroes, whom mythology endeavoured to place in ludicrous\nsituations; and sometimes made the butt of the buffoonery of others. This\nwas the case in the fable of the Cercopes (treated of in a ludicrous epic\npoem ascribed to Homer),(1869) who are represented as alternately amusing\nand annoying the hero. In works of art they are often represented as\nsatyrs, who rob the hero of his quiver, bow, and club.(1870) Hercules,\nannoyed at their insults, binds two of them to a pole, in the manner\nrepresented on the bas-relief of Selinus,(1871) and marches off with his\nprize. Happily for the offenders, the hinder parts of Hercules had become\ntanned by continued labours and exposure to the atmosphere: which reminded\nthem of an old prophecy, warning them to beware of a person of this\ncomplexion;(1872) and the coincidence caused them to burst out into an\nimmoderate fit of laughter. This surprised Hercules, who inquired the\nreason, and was himself so diverted by it, that he set both his prisoners\nat liberty. And in general no company better agrees with the character of\nHercules, even in his deified state, than that of satyrs and other\nfollowers of Bacchus, as might easily be proved by many works of Grecian\nart. It also seems that mirth and buffoonery were often combined with the\nfestivals of Hercules: thus there was at Athens a society of sixty men,\nwho, on the festival of the Diomean Hercules, attacked and amused\nthemselves and others with sallies of wit.(1873) We shall hereafter show\nhow these exhibitions originated in the propensity of the Doric race to\nthe burlesque and comic.(1874)\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX I.\n\n\n_On the settlements, origin, and early history of the Macedonian nation._\n\n_General outline of the country._(1875)\n\n1. In the Thermaic bay, the modern _gulf of Salonichi_, three rivers of\nconsiderable size fall into the sea at very short distances from one\nanother, but which meet in this place in very different directions. The\nlargest of the three comes from the north-west, and is now called (as\nindeed it was in the time of Tzetzes and Anna Comnena) the _Bardares_ (or\n_Vardar_), and was in ancient days celebrated under the name of Axius. Its\nstream is increased by large tributary branches on both sides, and chiefly\nby the Erigon, which flows from the mountains of Illyria.(1876) The river\nnext in order runs from the west; it is now called in the interior of the\ncountry _Potova_, and on the coast _Carasmac_: its ancient name, as is\nevident from passages in Herodotus and Strabo, was Lydias, or\nLudias.(1877) And, lastly, after many turnings and windings, the\nHaliacmon, now called _Bichlista_, flows from the south-west; in the time\nof Herodotus it fell into the sea through the same mouth as the Lydias,\nprobably being widened by marshes; and in modern maps the interval between\nthe two rivers is represented as very small.(1878) It may be easily\nconceived that this whole maritime district must have been low and marshy;\nand by this means Pella, as Livy remarks, was of all towns in the country\nbest fitted for being the fortress of the Macedonian kings, and the place\nof deposit for their treasure, since it lay, like an island, in the\nmorasses and swamps formed by the neighbouring lakes and rivers. These\nmarshes were called by the expressive name of \u03b2\u03cc\u03c1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, or _mud_.(1879)\n\n2. Although the mouths of these rivers were so near together, the extent\nof mountains, valleys, and plains which they encompassed in their course\nwas very considerable, amounting, according to modern maps, to 140\ngeographical miles from north and south, and more than 60 from east to\nwest. The Axius, together with its minor branches, runs from the great\nScardian chain, which further on receives the names of Orbelus, Scomius,\nand H\u00e6mus; while the course of the Haliacmon is close to the heights of\nmount Olympus (part of which ridge in later times was called the Cambunian\nmountains), and therefore to the borders of Thessaly. Both ridges run at\nright angles from the great mountain-chain which cuts the upper part of\nGreece in a direction from north-west to south-east, its southern parts\nbearing the name of Pindus, the ridge towards Thessaly and Epirus of\nLacmon,(1880) and further to the north-west it is called the Candavian\nchain(1881) and mount Barnus.(1882) It stretches behind the whole of the\ndistrict just named, and forms, as it were, the spine, to which the\nmountains of Illyria, Epirus, Macedonia, and Thessaly are attached like\nribs. From this chain the two lines of mountains proceed, which separate\nthe valleys of the Haliacmon and the Axius. The name of the ridge between\nthe Haliacmon and the Lydias is known by the mention of mount Bermius\nabove Ber\u0153a;(1883) and Ber\u0153a is certainly the modern Veria, or Cara\nVeria,(1884) near the northern bank of the Haliacmon. It will be shown\npresently that Dysorum was the name of the mountain which divided the\nLydias and the Axius.(1885) And the ridge, which, stretching southward\nfrom the Scardian chain, parted the valley of the Axius from the plains to\nthe east, was called (in one point at least), as we know from\nThucydides\u2019(1886) account of the Odrysian king\u2019s march, Cercine.\n\n3. The valleys beyond the last-mentioned ridge are those of the Strymon\nand the Angites. As the Axius falls into the sea in a gulf to the west, so\ndoes the Strymon join the sea to the east of the Chalcidian peninsula. Not\nfar from its mouth the Strymon forms a lake, into which the Angites runs;\na stream of considerable size, its course lying westward of the Strymon.\nFor that the eastern stream is the ancient Strymon (notwithstanding the\nopinion of most modern geographers) is, in the first place, evident from\nits size; secondly, from the name _Struma_, which it now bears; and,\nthirdly, from the statement of Herodotus,(1887) that the district of\nPhyllis reached southwards to the Strymon, and westward to the Angites; it\nlay, therefore, above the confluence of the two rivers and the lake which\nthey formed by their junction. The ridge which lies to the east of the\nStrymon was called, at least where it widens along the coast,\nPang\u00e6um.(1888)\n\nThus much is sufficient to give a general notion of the geographical\nstructure of the region, the ancient inhabitants of which form the subject\nof the present inquiry.\n\n_Ancient names of the several districts._\n\n4. We will now chiefly follow the full and accurate accounts of Herodotus\nrespecting the districts situated near the mouths of the three rivers just\nmentioned. First, MYGDONIA, on the Thermaic bay, and round the ancient\ncity of Therma, extended, according to Herodotus, to the Axius, which\ndivided this district from Bottia\u00efs;(1889) and it agrees with this\nstatement that the small river Echeidorus (probably the modern _Gallico_),\nwhich fell into the sea at the marshes near the Axius, in the lower part\nof its course passed through Mygdonia.(1890) To the east this district\nextended still further; lake Bolbe, beyond Chalcidice, was either in or\nnear Mygdonia.(1891) Thucydides, indeed, makes Mygdonia reach as far as\nthe Strymon;(1892) but this cannot be reconciled with the account of\nHerodotus (who appears to have possessed a very accurate knowledge of this\nregion), that both the maritime district, west from the Strymon, in which\nwas the Greek city of Argilus, and the land further to the interior, was\ncalled BISALTIA.(1893) On the other side, above Mygdonia, was situated\n(according to Herodotus) the district of CRESTONICA, from which the river\nEcheidorus flowed down to the coast.(1894)\n\n5. Beyond the Axius, to the west of the stream, immediately after\nMygdonia, came BOTTIAIS, which district was on the other side bounded by\nthe united mouth of the Haliacmon and the Lydias;(1895) and thus towards\nthe sea it terminated in a narrow wedge-shaped strip. On this tongue of\nland were the cities of Ichn\u00e6 and Pella,(1896) the first of which was\ncelebrated for an ancient temple;(1897) while Pella became afterwards the\nroyal residence, situated on the lake of the Lydias, at the distance of\n120 stadia from the river\u2019s mouth,(1898) and may now be recognised by\nthese marks of its position and some ruins. According to Strabo,(1899)\nalso, the river Axius made the boundary of Botti\u00e6a, and divided it from\nthe district of Amphaxitis, which was the name of the opposite and more\nelevated side of the Axius.(1900) Thucydides also calls this tract of\ncountry Botti\u00e6a;(1901) and distinguishes it from the more recent\nsettlements of the Botti\u00e6ans, near Olynthus, in Chalcidice,(1902) which he\ncalls _Bottica_.(1903)\n\n6. The united mouth of the Lydias and Haliacmon, according to\nHerodotus,(1904) divided Bottia\u00efs from MACEDONIS; for he can only mean\nthis common mouth when he says that \u201cthe rivers Lydias and Haliacmon\ndivide the districts of Bottia\u00efs and Macedonis, uniting their waters in\nthe same channel.\u201d Further on in the interior the Lydias alone must have\nbeen the boundary of Bottia\u00efs, since otherwise this district would not end\nin a narrow strip of land; Macedonis, therefore, began on the western bank\nof the Lydias. In this place nothing more can be said as to the meaning of\nthe word _Macedonis_, before the precise signification of some other names\nhas been determined.\n\n7. Proceeding along the coast, PIERIA borders upon Macedonis, the district\nunder Mount Olympus,(1905) which ridge, where it approaches this coast,\nsplits into two branches, the one stretching towards the mouth of the\nPeneus, the other towards those of the three rivers. Herodotus cannot make\nPieria reach as far as the Haliacmon,(1906) as they are here separated by\nMacedonis Proper;(1907) he probably supposes it to begin just at the rise\nof mount Olympus, and divides the narrow plain on the sea-coast from the\ntracts to the interior. The southern boundary of Pieria is stated by\nStrabo(1908) and Livy(1909) to have been the district of Dium;(1910) so\nthat these writers leave a narrow and mountainous strip of land,\nstretching towards Tempe, which belonged neither to Pieria nor Thessaly.\nThe chief place in Pieria was Pydna, also called Cydna (according to\nStephanus Byz.), and in later times Citron (according to the epitomizer of\nStrabo),(1911) which name still remains in the same place.\n\n8. Now that we proceed from the divisions of the coast to the interior, we\nare deserted, indeed, by the excellent account of Herodotus; but there are\nnevertheless statements sufficiently accurate to determine the ancient\nname of each district. The high and mountainous valley of the Haliacmon\nwas, according to Livy,(1912) called ELIMEIA; the inhabitants Elimiots,\nwho are included by Thucydides(1913) among the Macedonians: the district\nis also called after their name Elimiotis.(1914) From thence proceeds the\nroad to Thessaly over the Cambunian mountains;(1915) and another almost\nimpracticable road to \u00c6tolia over the mountainous country to the south of\nElimeia.(1916) To Elimeia succeeded PARAU\u00c6A, a fertile district, near the\nsources of the river called Aous, \u00c6as, or Auus;(1917) and to the south\nagain lay PAROR\u00c6A, which was crossed by the river Arachthus at the\nbeginning of its course from under mount Stympha:(1918) the country near\nthis mountain was called STYMPH\u00c6A (or Tymph\u00e6a), extending to the sources\nof the Peneus and the land of the \u00c6thicians.(1919) The ATINTANIANS reached\nbeyond the country of the Parau\u00e6ans, and within that of the Chaonians as\nfar as Illyria.(1920) All these districts are indeed divided from Elimeia\nby the great chain of Pindus; but, from their connexion with that region,\nsome account of them in this place was indispensable.\n\n9. A small valley in the district of Elimeia, which lay to the north\ntowards the Illyrian Dassaretians,(1921) was inhabited by the Orestian\nMacedonians,(1922) who doubtless were so called from the _mountains_ (\u1f44\u03c1\u03b7)\nin which they dwelt, and not from _Orestes_, the son of Agamemnon. The\nvalley of Orestis(1923) contained a lake, in which was the town Celetrum,\nsituated on a peninsula.(1924) Its position coincides with that of the\nmodern Castoria;(1925) and it cannot be doubted that the wild\nmountain-valley near the source of the Haliacmon was the ancient Orestis.\nAnother valley in Elimeia was called ALMOPIA, or Almonia, an ancient\nsettlement of the Minyans, situated on the confines of Macedonia and\nThessaly, apparently not far from Pieria.(1926)\n\n10. Elimeia, together with the surrounding highlands, was cold and rugged,\nand difficult of cultivation.(1927) The same was the case with the\nneighbouring district of LYNCESTIS, the country of the Lyncest\u00e6, who had\nreceived their name, according to a Macedonian inflexion,(1928) from\nLyncus.(1929) Lyncus was the name of the whole district, and not of any\none city, as in early times there were only unfortified villages in this\npart.(1930) It was surrounded on all sides by mountains; a narrow pass\nbetween two heights being the chief road to the coast.(1931) The position\nof Lyncus is accurately determined by the course of the Egnatian Roman\nroad from Dyrrachium, which, after crossing the Illyrian mountains at\nPylon (or the gateway), led by Heraclea Lyncestis, and through the country\nof the Lyncest\u00e6 and Eordians, to Edessa and Pella;(1932) as well as by the\nfact that the _mons Bora_ of Livy, _i.e._ the Bermius, lay to the south of\nit.(1933) Consequently the Lyncest\u00e6 must have inhabited the mountains\nsouth of the Erigon, and a part of the valley in which that river flowed;\nwhich is confirmed by other accounts of ancient writers.(1934) The country\nof the EORDIANS is also determined by the direction of the Egnatian way;\nviz., to the east of Lyncus and west of Edessa, and therefore in the\nvalley of the Lydias, to the north of Elimea(1935) and the Bermius.(1936)\nIn order to go from the valley of the Erigon to Thessaly, the way passed\nfirst through Eord\u00e6a and then through Elimiotis.(1937)\n\n11. DEURIOPUS (\u1f21 \u0394\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2) was the name of a tract of country along the\nErigon,(1938) which was considered as belonging to P\u00e6onia,(1939) and\nprobably lay to the east of Lyncestis and north of Eord\u00e6a.(1940) In P\u00e6onia\nalso was situated the rugged district of PELAGONIA, to the north of\nLyncestis,(1941) having on its northern frontiers narrow passes, which\nprotected it from the incursions of the Dardanians.(1942) As to other\nparts of the extensive territory of P\u00c6ONIA (in comparison with which\nMacedonia was originally very inconsiderable in size), it is only\nnecessary to observe, that, beginning near the source of the Axius, the\nbanks of which river had from early times been occupied by P\u00e6onian tribes,\na narrow strip of land extended down to Pella and the coast;(1943) though,\naccording to Herodotus, it could not have actually reached the edge of the\nsea, as the frontiers of Bottia\u00efs and Mygdonia at this point came into\ncontact with one another.(1944) Immediately to the north of Lower\nMacedonia, _i.e._, to the north of Macedonian P\u00e6onia, Bottia\u00efs, and\nMygdonia, but without the confines of these provinces, was situated, as we\nlearn from Thucydides,(1945) the P\u00e6onian city of DOBERUS.(1946) The king\nof the Odrysians arrived, according to the same writer,(1947) at this\nplace after having come from his dominions, which were bounded by the\nStrymon, over mount Cercine; in which passage he left the P\u00e6onians to the\nright, and to the left the Sintes and M\u00e6di (Thracian races, supposed by\nGatterer to have penetrated hither when the Sirop\u00e6onians and others\ncrossed over to Asia).(1948) From which notices I have ventured to set\ndown the mountain, the city, and nations just mentioned, as may be seen in\nthe accompanying map.(1949)\n\n_Early history of the kingdom of Macedonia._\n\n12. The subject of this dissertation made it necessary for us to enter\ninto the above detail as to the several provinces and divisions of Upper\nand Lower Macedonia. We must now proceed to inquire into the gradual\nextension of the kingdom of Macedon; an investigation in which we are\nfortunately assisted by the clear and accurate account of Thucydides, who\nlived at no great distance from the country which he describes; and whose\nwords I now transcribe as follows (II. 99.):\n\n\u201cAccordingly, the subjects of Sitalces mustered at Doberus, and prepared\nfor a descent into Lower Macedonia, which country was under the rule of\nPerdiccas. For to the Macedonians belong(1950) the Lyncest\u00e6 and the\nElimiots, and other nations in the upper parts of the country, which are\nthe allies and subjects(1951) of these Macedonians,(1952) but have\nnevertheless princes of their own. The present kingdom of Macedonia,\nextending along the sea,(1953) was first occupied by Alexander the father\nof Perdiccas, and his ancestors of the family of Temenus, who came\noriginally from Argos; and ruled over it, having by force of arms expelled\nthe Pierians from Pieria,(1954) and the Botti\u00e6ans from the district called\nBotti\u00e6a. They also obtained in P\u00e6onia a narrow tongue of land, extending\nalong the river Axius down to Pella and the sea: and on the further side\nof the Axius they possess the district called Mygdonia, as far as the\nStrymon, of which they dispossessed the Edones. They also dislodged the\nEordians from the country still called Eordia, and from Almopia the\nAlmopians. These Macedonians also subdued those other nations which they\nnow possess; viz., Anthemus, together with Crestonia and Bisaltia, and a\nlarge part of the Macedonians themselves. The whole of this country\ntogether is called Macedonia; and Perdiccas, the son of Alexander, was\nking of it when Sitalces made his invasion.\u201d\n\n13. This chapter has not by any means been exhausted by those who have\nwritten on the growth and size of Macedonia; and therefore it will be\nconvenient to set down some of the chief inferences which may be drawn\nfrom it.\n\nIn the first place, it is plain that the Macedonians, who made the\nconquest, and founded the kingdom of Macedon, were _not the whole\nMacedonian nation_, but only a part of it. There were in the mountainous\ndistricts Macedonian tribes, which had their own kings, and originally\nwere not subject to the Temenid\u00e6. These are the Macedonian highlanders of\nHerodotus,(1955) from whose district the road passed over mount Olympus\n(the Cambunian chain) into the country of the Perrh\u00e6bians;(1956) and it\nbegan, as has been already remarked, in Elimeia.(1957) The Elimiots were,\naccording to Thucydides, one portion of these Macedonians, the Lyncest\u00e6\nanother; both which appellations were merely local, and the full title was\n\u201c_the Macedonians in Lyncus_,\u201d or \u201cthe Macedonian Lyncest\u00e6.\u201d(1958) Of the\n_remaining_ Macedonian nations in the mountain-districts we only know the\nname of the Orest\u00e6;(1959) at least there are no others who can with any\ncertainty be considered as Macedonians.\n\n14. The name of Macedonia was not therefore, as some have supposed,\nconfined to the royal dynasty of Edessa, but was a _national appellation_;\nso much so, that it is even stated that those very kings subdued, among\nother nations, a large portion of the Macedonians. The tribes of Upper\nMacedonia were long governed by their own princes; thus Antiochus was king\nof the Orest\u00e6 at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war;(1960) the\nLyncest\u00e6 were under the rule of Arrhib\u00e6us, the son of Bromerus,(1961) the\ngreat grandfather, by the mother\u2019s side, of Philip of Macedon, who derived\nhis descent (not altogether without probability) from the Bacchiad\u00e6, the\nancient rulers of Corinth;(1962) and these kings, though properly\nrecognising the supremacy of the Temenid\u00e6, were nevertheless at times\ntheir nearest, and therefore most dangerous, enemies.(1963)\n\n15. The Macedonian kingdom of the Temenid\u00e6, on the other hand, began from\na single point of the Macedonian territory, concerning the position of\nwhich there are various traditions. According to Herodotus, three brothers\nof the family of Temenus, Gauanes, A\u00ebropus, and Perdiccas, fled from Argos\nto Illyria, from thence passed on to _Leb\u00e6a_ in Upper Macedonia, and\nserved the king of the country (who was therefore a Macedonian) as\nshepherds. From this place they again fled, and dwelt in another part of\nMacedonia, near the gardens of Midas, in mount Bermius (near _Ber\u0153a_),\nfrom which place they subdued the neighbouring country.(1964) Thucydides\nso far recognises this tradition, that he likewise considers Perdiccas as\nthe founder of the kingdom, reckoning eight kings down to Archelaus.(1965)\nThe other account, however, that there were three kings before Perdiccas,\nis unquestionably not the mere invention of later historians, but was\nderived, as well as the other, from some local tradition. According to\nthis account the Macedonian kingdom began at _Edessa_,(1966) which had\nbeen taken by Caranus, of the family of the Temenid\u00e6, and by him named\nafter a goatherd, who rendered him assistance, \u00c6g\u00e6 (or \u00c6ge\u00e6).(1967) Both\nnarrations have equally a traditional character, and were doubtless of\nMacedonian origin, only that the latter appears to have been combined with\nan Argive legend of a brother of the powerful Phido having gone to the\nnorth. The claim of Edessa is also confirmed by the fact, that, even when\nit had long ceased to be the royal residence, it still continued the\nburial-place of the kings of Temenus\u2019 race, and, as Diodorus says, the\n_hearth_ of their empire.(1968)\n\n16. Edessa and the gardens of Midas were both situated between the Lydias\nand the Haliacmon, in the original and proper country of Macedonia,\naccording to the account of Herodotus.(1969) The manner in which the\ndominions of the Temenid\u00e6 were extended along the sea-coast, and towards\nthe interior, we learn from Thucydides, who comprises in one general view\nall the conquests of these princes until the reign of Alexander. For to\nsuppose that Alexander, the son of Amyntas, made _all_ these conquests, is\nan error which is even refuted by the words of Thucydides; although it is\nvery possible that this prince, who began his reign about 488 B.C., at the\ntime of the Persian power, and was the brother-in-law of a Persian\ngeneral,(1970) added considerably to the territory which he had\ninherited.(1971) But when Xerxes undertook his great expedition against\nGreece, the power of Macedon was as great as it is described by\nThucydides; nor was its territory much enlarged during the interval\nbetween the Persian and Peloponnesian wars.(1972) For at the time of the\nPersian war (481 B.C.) the Pierians were already settled in New Pieria,\nespecially in the fortified towns of Phagres and Pergamus, at the foot of\nmount Pang\u00e6um,(1973) whither they retired, after having been driven out of\nOld Pieria by the Macedonian kings;(1974) in fact, this extension of the\nterritory of Macedon must have taken place at an early period.(1975)\nMoreover, Olynthus was, according to Herodotus,(1976) at least _before_\n480 B.C., in the hands of the Botti\u00e6ans, who had, as we learn from both\nHerodotus and Thucydides, expelled the Macedonians from the ancient\nBottia\u00efs; consequently this district had been under the rule of the\nMacedonians _before_ the expedition of Xerxes. Thirdly, Amyntas the\nMacedonian, in 510 B.C., offered Anthemus in Chalcidice to the\nPisistratid\u00e6;(1977) the same argument therefore applies in this case also.\nAnthemus, however, could hardly have been obtained without Mygdonia: and\nthat this district was then a part of the Macedonian dominions is probable\nalso from the following reasons.(1978) According to Thucydides, the\nMacedonians drove out the nation of the Edonians(1979) from Mygdonia,\nbetween the rivers Axius and Strymon; and accordingly we find the Edonians\nalways mentioned as dwelling to the east of the Strymon, at the foot of\nmount Pang\u00e6um. Now Ennea Hodoi, situated on the eastern bank of the\nStrymon, was, according to Herodotus,(1980) in the possession of the\nEdonians in the year 481 B.C.; and Myrcinus, in the same region, was found\nby Histi\u00e6us, when he visited it, to be an Edonian district,(1981) as it\nwas at a later period by Brasidas.(1982) The latter argument is not indeed\nof itself decisive, as it might be said that the Edonians were only driven\ntogether by the conquests of the Macedonians, and had _previously_ been in\npossession of the further side of the Strymon; but when combined with the\nformer facts, it offers an almost certain proof that the whole country,\nfrom lake Bolb\u00e8 to within a short distance from the Peneus, was subject to\nthe Macedonians before the expedition of Xerxes.(1983) Methone(1984) was\non this coast the only interruption to the series of Macedonian\npossessions; this Eretrian colony had been, about 746 B.C.,(1985) together\nwith the numerous Eub\u0153an settlements in Chalcidice,(1986) at a period when\nthe power of the Macedonians on this line of coast was very insignificant;\nand it preserved its independence until the reign of Philip the son of\nAmyntas.(1987)\n\n17. From the facts now ascertained, we may deduce a result of some\nimportance with regard to the language of Herodotus. This historian\nclearly and precisely distinguishes between Bottia\u00efs and Macedonia in the\ntime of Xerxes,(1988) although it is certain that Bottia\u00efs was then in the\npower of the Macedonians;(1989) Macedonia he classes as a district with\nBottia\u00efs, Mygdonia, and Pieria. He uses the word, therefore, not in a\n_political_, but in a _national_ sense; _i.e._, he restricts it to the\nterritory originally possessed by the Macedonian nation, not applying it\nto countries which had been obtained by conquest or political\npreponderance. The Macedonia of Herodotus is consequently the territory of\nthe Macedonians _before_ all the conquests of the Temenid\u00e6. It extended,\naccording to Herodotus, in a narrow tongue down to the sea;(1990) a fact\ndisregarded by Thucydides, when he states that the coast of Lower\nMacedonia was first reduced by the Temenid\u00e6.(1991) Further from the sea,\nhowever, the ancient Macedonia had a much wider extent, and included the\ndistricts of Edessa and Ber\u0153a, Lyncestis, Orestis, and Elimeia: for\nMacedonia is stated by Herodotus to have been on the one side bounded by\nmount Olympus (which ridge, where it borders on Pieria,(1992) was called\nthe Macedonian mountains),(1993) and on the other by mount Dysorum. This\nlast fact is evident from the statement of the same writer, that a very\nshort way led from the Prasian lake to Macedonia, passing first to the\nmine from which Alexander obtained an immense supply of precious metal;\nand then, that having crossed mount Dysorum, you were in Macedonia;(1994)\n_i.e._, evidently in the _original_ Macedonia, since he expressly excludes\nfrom it the mine which had been a subsequent accession. The Prasian lake\nwas in P\u00e6onia;(1995) but in what district of it is not known;(1996) mount\nDysorum, however, can only be looked for to the north of Edessa and to the\nwest of the Axius, Macedonia Proper not extending so far as that river. In\nthis manner it is placed in the accompanying map; in which also the\nancient boundaries of the Macedonian race are laid down according to the\nresults obtained by these researches.\n\n18. On the other conquests of the Macedonians little need be said. The\noccupation of Bisaltia and Crestonica was subsequent to the expedition of\nXerxes. The Thracian king of these districts fled away,(1997) and left his\nkingdom a prey to the ambition of Alexander, who thus extended his empire\nto the mouth of the Strymon, which was the boundary of Macedonia in the\ndays of Thucydides and of Scylax, and remained so until the time of\nPhilip. At what time the Macedonian kings reduced that part of P\u00e6onia\nwhich stretched along the Axius, Eord\u00e6a, Almopia, and a large part of the\nMacedonians themselves, we are nowhere informed; and to infer from\nThucydides that these conquests succeeded that of Mygdonia and preceded\nthat of Anthemus, would be laying too much weight upon the order in which\nhe arranges the events; in which, although he doubtless paid some regard\nto chronology, the context required that the conquests on the coast should\nbe mentioned before those of the interior. Eord\u00e6a was probably subjugated\nat a very early period, since it lay, as it were, in a bay of the\nMacedonian territory; and a very credible tradition has been preserved by\nDexippus,(1998) that Caranus had in early times made an alliance with the\nOrest\u00e6 against the Eordians, and founded his kingdom by the subjugation of\nthat nation. In fact, the first nation with whom the king of Edessa had to\ncontend was these Eordians. They were, according to Thucydides, nearly\nannihilated by a war of extermination; a small number of them escaped to\nPhysca in Mygdonia;(1999) which district therefore was not as yet under\nthe power of the Macedonians.\n\n19. Among those parts of Macedonia Proper which were reduced by the\nTemenid\u00e6, Elimeia may be particularly mentioned, as is evident from the\nfollowing circumstances. Perdiccas, the son of Alexander, was at war with\nhis brother Philip, with whom he was to have divided his kingdom,(2000)\nand also with Derdas.(2001) The brothers of Derdas, before the beginning\nof the Peloponnesian war, in alliance with the Athenians, made a descent\nfrom the highlands, that is, from one of the districts Elimeia, Orestis,\nor Lyncus, into the dominions of Perdiccas.(2002) Now Derdas(2003) was the\nson of Arrhib\u00e6us, and cousin of Perdiccas; and it is plain that the\nTemenid\u00e6 reduced Elimeia; and a branch of the same family received this\ndistrict as their peculiar possession.(2004) A separate king of Elimeia\nalso existed in the time of Archelaus,(2005) who doubtless belonged to the\nsame family. For a later Derdas occurs as prince of the Elimiots in the\ntime of Agesilaus,(2006) who perhaps was the same as, or rather was the\nfather of, the Derdas, whose sister Phila Philip married.(2007) In like\nmanner, there was a separate sovereignty in Stymph\u00e6a and the neighbouring\n\u00c6thicia, which was held by the family of Polysperchon, the general and\nguardian of the kingdom.(2008) Although in later times all these separate\nsovereignties, both of the Temenid\u00e6 and of other princes, were suppressed,\nand Upper and Lower Macedonia were equally ruled from the city of Pella;\nyet the tribes of the highlands still remained to a certain degree\ndistinct. Even at the battle of Arbela, the Elimiots, Lyncest\u00e6, Orest\u00e6,\nand Tymph\u00e6ans fought in separate bodies;(2009) and several persons are\ndenoted in the history of Macedon by the surname of Lyncestes. Perdiccas\ncame from Orestis, Ptolemy from Eord\u00e6a.(2010) Those in the lowlands, on\nthe other hand, were known by the general name of Macedonians; and it\nshould be observed, that there were also Macedonians dwelling in Pieria,\nBottia\u00efs, Mygdonia, Eord\u00e6a, and Almopia,(2011) who had, according to\nThucydides, driven out the native inhabitants; while P\u00e6onia and Bisaltia,\ntogether with Anthemus and Crestonica, remained in the possession of those\ntribes which had been settled there before the conquest of\nMacedonia.(2012)\n\n_On the national affinity of the original Macedonians._\n\n20. From what has been already said it is plain that there was,\nindependently of the extension of the empire of the Temenid\u00e6, a Macedonian\nnation possessing from early times a territory of considerable size, viz.,\nthe Macedonia of Herodotus; the area of which in the accompanying map\namounts to 2400 geographical square miles.\n\nWe now proceed to the most important question to be considered in this\ntreatise, viz., to what national family these Macedonians belonged.\n\n21. The ancient writers distinguish in these regions the following\nnations; and in so marked a manner that it is evident that they differed\nfrom one another in their costume, language, and mode of living.(2013)\n\nFirst, the THRACIANS. This great nation extended to the north as far as\nthe Danube, where it included the Get\u00e6;(2014) to the east beyond the sea,\nsince the Thynians and Bithynians were Thracians;(2015) to the west within\nmount H\u00e6mus as far as the Strymon, where it bordered on the P\u00e6onians,\nwidening still more as it receded from the coast, since it also included\nthe Triballians.(2016) On the west bank of the Strymon the Sintians and\nM\u00e6dians were of Thracian origin;(2017) to which nation the Bisalt\u00e6 and\nEdones must also be referred.(2018) Thrace is often represented as having\nin early times extended to Thessaly and B\u0153otia(2019) but merely in\nreference to the settlements of the Pierians at the foot of Olympus and\nHelicon; and there are many reasons against considering these Pierians as\nof the same race as the _other_ Thracians,(2020) although they were called\nThracians at an early period.(2021) Homer at least distinguishes between\nthese two nations when he makes Here go from Olympus to Pieria, then to\nEmathia, and afterwards to the snowy mountains of the Thracians;(2022) by\nwhich he must mean the mountains of the Bisalt\u00e6 to the north of Edessa,\nsince the goddess next rests her foot on mount Athos and the island of\nLemnos.\n\nSecondly, the P\u00c6ONIANS. A numerous race divided into several small\nnations,(2023) inhabiting the districts on the rivers Strymon and Axius\nand the countries to the north of Macedonia,(2024) together with Pannonia,\naccording to the Greeks.(2025) This race, according to _their own\ntradition_ (if Herodotus\u2019s account is correct),(2026) derived their origin\nfrom the ancient Teucrians in the Troad; in their passage from which\ncountry they had been accompanied, according to Herodotus, by the Mysians,\nthe same people that afterwards gave their name of M\u0153sians to a great\nprovince.(2027)\n\nThirdly, the ILLYRIANS extended southward as far as the Acroceraunian\nmountains, eastward to the mountain-chain known in its southern parts by\nthe name of Pindus, and northward as far as the Save and the Alps, if\nHerodotus is correct in considering the Venetians as of Illyrian\norigin.(2028)\n\nFourthly, _Nations of Grecian descent_.\n\n22. Since the Macedonians evidently belonged to some one of these four\nraces, our present object is to ascertain _which_. Now in the first place\nthe _Greeks_ may be excluded, since, although it is certain that a large\nportion of the Macedonian nation was of Grecian origin, the Macedonians\nwere always considered by the Greeks as barbarians.\u2014Alexander the\nPhilhellene,(2029) the father of Perdiccas, represented himself to the\nPersians (according to Herodotus)(2030) as a Greek, and satrap over\nMacedonians; the same person who was driven off the course at Olympia for\nbeing a barbarian, until he proved his Argive descent.(2031) The mouth of\nthe Peneus, or the Magnesian mountain of Homol\u00e8, was on the eastern side\nconsidered as the boundary of Greece,(2032) unless Magnesia also was\nexcluded. Fabulous genealogies, representing Macedon as the son of Zeus\nand Thyia the daughter of Deucalion, or of a descendant of \u00c6olus, are of\nno weight against the prevailing opinion of the Greeks; nor are they\nnecessarily of greater antiquity than the fortieth Olympiad (620\nB.C.),(2033) at which time Danaus and \u00c6gyptus, and other races equally\nunconnected, were made the members of the same family, when the Scythians\nwere derived from Hercules,(2034) and even the whole known world was\ncomprised in extensive genealogies. It would be unreasonable to suppose,\non the credit of these genealogies, that there was any other migration of\nGreeks into Macedonia except that of the Temenid\u00e6.\n\n23. Secondly, with regard to the P\u00c6ONIANS: it may be shown that the\nMacedonians did not belong to that nation.(2035) The possessions of the\nMacedonians in P\u00e6onia are accurately described by ancient writers; these\nwere, until the time of Perdiccas, only a narrow strip of land;(2036)\nPelagonia and P\u00e6onia on the Axius were subdued at a later date. As the\nP\u00e6onian race was not aboriginal in this district, its peculiarities were\nprobably easy to be recognised in the time of Thucydides, and hence this\nnational name occurs more frequently than those of the separate provinces.\nFor this reason great importance should be attached to the circumstance\nthat the ancients never refer the Macedonians themselves to the P\u00e6onian\nrace; and it should perhaps be considered as decisive. On the other hand,\nwith aboriginal races having a large territory and numerous connexions,\nsuch a separation hardly warrants this inference, since otherwise the\nMacedonians, whom both Herodotus and Thucydides mention _together with_\nThracians and Illyrians,(2037) could not have belonged to either of those\ntwo tribes, and therefore to no great national division of the human race.\nIt is, however, plain that the ancients frequently used the national name\nin a limited sense, merely for the chief mass of the people, and did not\napply it to particular _portions of it_ which had acquired a character\ndifferent from that of the rest of their nation,(2038) without by this\nmeaning to express a diversity of origin. We have therefore now only to\nascertain whether the Macedonians were of _Thracian_ or _Illyrian_\ndescent.\n\n24. We shall gain one step towards a conclusion by inquiring in what\nregion were the original settlements of the Macedonians; a question which\nshould carefully be distinguished from the former investigation as to the\nfirst station of the Temenid\u00e6. Now in pursuing this inquiry, we soon\nperceive that even of Macedonia Proper, from which Botti\u00e6a, Pieria, and\nEord\u00e6a were conquered, a large part was not always in the possession of\nthe Macedonians. Homer, for example, places Emathia, not Macedonia,\nbetween Pieria and Chalcidice.(2039) Several writers state in general that\nMacedonia had anciently been called Emathia;(2040) but, as will be\npresently shown, they do not so much mean the highlands as the country\nabout the mouths of the three rivers and near Edessa.(2041) The fabulous\nname was renewed in later times; and Ptolemy(2042) even mentions the\ndistrict of Emathia, in which were the towns of Cyrrhus,(2043) Eidomen\u00e6,\nGordynia, Edessa, Berrh\u0153a, and Pella. According to Thucydides(2044) and\nothers, Eidomen\u00e6 and Gordynia must have been situated in the region near\nthe Axius, in the early subdued country of P\u00e6onia;(2045) whence it may be\nunderstood how Polybius(2046) could say that Emathia, at a distance from\nthe coast, had in early times been called P\u00e6onia. For the ancient name of\nEmathia had evidently been extended to a tract of land belonging to\nP\u00e6onia, which had, perhaps, previously to the P\u00e6onian conquests, once\nborne the name of Emathia.\n\n25. Now although the country round Edessa, and nearer to the sea, was not\noriginally called Macedonia, yet we find traces of the existence of the\nname of the Macedonians under its ancient forms of \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 and \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76,\nin the hill-country near the ridge of Pindus. Herodotus says that the\nDoric race, having been driven from Hesti\u00e6otis, and dwelling under mount\nPindus, was called the _Macedonian nation_.(2047) By this statement he\nplainly means that the Dorians were first known by that name in\nPeloponnesus;(2048) and indeed his other notions on the progress of this\npeople are only suited to the childhood of history. But notwithstanding\nthe erroneous conclusions of the narrator, it is allowable to infer from\nhis statement that the Macedonians had once dwelt at the foot of\nPindus\u2014_i.e._, probably in one of the districts of Upper Macedonia; of\nwhich provinces Orestis may be considered (on the faith of a conjectural\nemendation) as the ancient Maceta.(2049) For it cannot be a Thessalian\ndistrict that is alluded to, since Maceta was, as we know from certain\ntestimony, in fact a part of Macedonia. This hypothesis is also supported\nby the ancient patronymic surname of the Macedonian kings, \u201cArgead\u00e6;\u201d if\nit is rightly derived by Appian from Argos in Orestis.(2050)\n\nThe fact that the ancient country of the Macedonians was near the ridge of\nmountains on the confines of Illyria, and was at a considerable distance\nfrom Thrace, renders it probable that the Macet\u00e6 were of Illyrian blood;\nbut this probability would yield to arguments drawn from the language,\ncostume, and manners of the three nations. The question therefore is, whom\ndid the Macedonians in the points most resemble, the _Illyrians_ or the\n_Thracians_?\n\n26. There is a passage in Strabo(2051) which, on account of its\nimportance, I will give nearly at full length, omitting only those parts\nwhich are not necessary to the context. It contains an account of the\npopulation of Epirus.\n\n\u201cOf the nations of Epirus the Chaonians and Thesprotians inhabit the coast\nfrom the Ceraunian mountains to the Ambracian gulf; behind Ambracia is\nAmphilochian Argos. The Amphilochians also are Epirots, together with the\ntribes lying more in the interior, and joining the mountains of\nIllyria\u2014viz., the Molotti, the Athamanes, the \u00c6thices, the Tymph\u00e6i, the\nOrest\u00e6, the Paror\u00e6i, and the Atintanes, some dwelling nearer to the\nMacedonians, and others to the Ionian sea. With these the Illyrian nations\nwere mixed which dwelt to the south of the hill-country, as well as those\nbeyond the Ionian sea. For between Epidamnus and Apollonia and the\nCeraunian mountains there are the Bylliones,(2052) the Taulantii,(2053)\nthe Parthini,(2054) and the Brygi,(2055) and at a short distance, about\nthe silver mines(2056) of Damastium,(2057) the Perisadies have established\ntheir dominion; the Enchelii(2058) and Sesarasii(2059) are also named as\ndwelling in these parts; and besides these, the Lyncest\u00e6, the land of\nDeuriopus, the Pelagonian Tripolis,(2060) the Eordi, Elimea, and\nEratyra.(2061) Now in early times these tribes had severally rulers of\ntheir own; the Enchelians were governed by the descendants of Cadmus, the\nLyncest\u00e6 were under Arrhib\u00e6us, and of the Epirots the Molotti were ruled\nby Pyrrhus and his descendants, while all the other nations of that tribe\nwere governed by native princes. In process of time, however, as one\nnation obtained the dominion over others, the whole fell into the\nMacedonian empire, except a small tract beyond the Ionian sea. Also the\ncountry about Lyncestus, Pelagonia, Orestias and Elimea was once called\nUpper Macedonia, and at a later period the Independent. Some persons,\nmoreover, give to the whole country as far as Corcyra the name of\nMacedonia, assigning, as their reason, that the inhabitants nearly\nresemble one another in the mode of wearing the hair, in their dialect, in\nthe use of the chlamys, and in other points of this kind: some of them\nlikewise speak two languages.\u201d\n\n27. Now, although the historical accounts of Strabo, collected at a time\nwhen these regions had been ravaged by conquest, and had undergone\nmanifold changes, have not the value which the statements of Herodotus and\nThucydides possess, yet it is possible to extract from them much\ninformation. In the first place it should be observed that the Epirots and\nthe Illyrians are not considered as two wholly distinct nations. The\nEpirots, although in early times allied by blood with the Greeks, were\nalways considered as barbarians,(2062) and Ambracia as the last city in\nGreece;(2063) which fact, since the original inhabitants were the same as\nin Arcadia, that is, Pelasgians, can only be explained by supposing that\nthere had been a mixture of Illyrians. Hence it might be at that late time\ndifficult to distinguish between the Epirots and the Illyrians; and thus\nStrabo includes the Atintanes, who according to Scylax(2064) and\nAppian(2065) were Illyrians, among the Epirot nations. It is more singular\nthat he should consider the Orest\u00e6, whom Polybius(2066) recognises as a\nMacedonian people, as Epirots; but it may be probably accounted for by the\ncircumstance of their separation from the cause of the Macedonian kings,\nwhich procured them their independence in the year of the city 556.(2067)\nBut the other inhabitants of Upper Macedonia, the genuine Macedonians,\nsuch as the Lyncest\u00e6 and Elimiots (who probably, from being mountaineers,\nhad preserved their national distinctions more than the civilised tribes\nof the lowlands), were considered by Strabo, as the context plainly shows,\nas original Illyrians; and it can hardly be doubted that they still bore\nthe characteristic marks of that nation.\n\n28. \u201cSome again,\u201d as Strabo says, \u201cgive to the whole country as far as\nCorcyra the name of Macedonia.\u201d What country this is, is accurately known\nboth from the testimony of other writers, and even of Strabo himself. The\nRomans called the whole region which opened to them the way to\nMacedonia(2068) by the name of Macedonia; and made it reach from Lissus\n(now _Alessio_) on the river Drilon (now the _Drin_) either to the\nEgnatian road,(2069) which begins between Dyrrhachium (or Epidamnus) and\nApollonia, or, as Strabo states in the passage quoted in the text, for a\nshort distance beyond.(2070) The inhabitants of this tract of country were\nbeyond all question Illyrians (Taulantii, Parthini, Dassaretii,\n&c.(2071)); and it is of _their_ dress and language that Strabo here\nspeaks. The importance of these points for the discovery of national\naffinity is easily perceived. Indeed, many Grecian tribes might be\ndistinguished merely by their mode of wearing the hair.(2072) The chlamys\nhad come to the Greeks from the Thessalians, and Sappho was the first\nGrecian writer who mentioned it:(2073) afterwards it became a military\ndress, and supplanted the \u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, as in Italy the _sagum_ took the place\nof the _toga_, which was originally girt up for military use.(2074) From\nthis passage of Strabo we learn that it was the national habit of the\nIllyrian tribes above Epirus. In like manner the broad-brimmed, low, flat\nfur-cap, known by the name of _causia_, which was equally unlike the\nconical(2075) \u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b7 of the B\u0153otians and the low, tapering(2076) \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2,\nwas worn by these northern nations; it was the ancient dress of state\namong the Macedonians, and worn by their kings;(2077) and it was likewise\nthe dress of the \u00c6tolians(2078) and Molossians.(2079) But the most\nremarkable circumstance is, that the same cap which is borne by the riders\non the tetradrachms of the first Alexander also adorns the head of the\nIllyrian king Gentius.(2080) Lastly, the similarity of dialect is a\ndecisive proof. Now that all these things should have been introduced by\nthe Macedonian kings seems highly improbable, when it is remembered that\ntheir rule did not even extend over the whole of this tract, that it was\nalso often interrupted, and in general not of a nature to alter the\ncharacter, language, and costume of the natives.(2081)\n\nFrom these facts it may, I think, be safely inferred that the Macedonians,\nviz., the people originally and properly so called, belonged to the\nILLYRIAN race.\n\n_On the mixture of the Macedonians with other, particularly Greek, races._\n\n29. It is, however, certain, notwithstanding the result which has been\nestablished, that the Macedonians in their advance from the highlands\ndislodged, and partly incorporated other, and particularly Grecian,\ntribes.\n\nThe first to fall in their hands was the ancient Emathia, near Edessa, and\ndownwards to the sea, which Herodotus includes in _his_ Macedonia. The\nname of the country appears to be Grecian;(2082) and since Justin(2083)\ndistinctly affirms that the ancient inhabitants of Emathia were\nPelasgians, and as \u00c6schylus, a poet greatly versed in traditional lore,\nalso makes the kingdom of the Pelasgians extend through Macedonia as far\nas the Strymon,(2084) it must be considered that, according to ancient\ntradition, the early inhabitants of this country were of the Pelasgic\nrace. It is likewise fair, by the guidance of several parallel cases in\nthe Greek mythology, to interpret the legend that Lycaon the Arcadian hero\nhad once ruled in Emathia, and was the father of Macedon,(2085) as\nsignifying merely the succession, _according to order of time_, of the\nPelasgians and Macedonians in the occupation of this country; which the\nlanguage of mythology expressed by placing the respective races in a\n_genealogical_ connexion. So Thessalus is called a son of Jason, although\nthe Thessalians belonged to a different race from the early rulers of the\ncountry, the Miny\u00e6 of Iolcus, of whom Jason was one. Hence it is highly\nprobable that at the first conquest of this tract of land, viz., of\nMacedonia Proper, nations akin to the Greeks were mixed with the\nIllyrians.\n\n30. One of the earliest conquests of the Macedonians was the country of\ntheir neighbours(2086) the Phrygians; _i.e._, according to the most exact\nstatements, the district about mount Bermius, where in the ancient gardens\nof king Midas, the son of Gordias (in which Silenus had been once taken\nprisoner), the hundred-leaved rose still flourished at the time of\nHerodotus.(2087) It is exceedingly probable that, as Herodotus states,\nthis district had been occupied by the Macedonians before the arrival of\nthe Temenid\u00e6;(2088) with which the tradition of an ancient migration of\nthe Phrygians coincides:(2089) yet it is also stated that Caranus the\nTemenid expelled Midas.(2090) That the Phrygians or Brygians were entirely\nincorporated in the Macedonian nation cannot be supposed, as we hear quite\nin late times of a tribe of Brygians (\u0392\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9) in these regions, who then\ndwelt near the Illyrian mountains beyond Lychnidus, not far from the\nErigon, together with the Dassaretians.(2091) The tribe of Mygdonians,\nwhich was allied to the Phrygians,(2092) must have been lost in other\nnations at an early period, since their territory had been occupied by the\nEdones before it became a part of the Macedonian empire.\n\n31. In their further extension the Macedonians fell in with Grecian, with\nP\u00e6onian, and with Thracian tribes, which they either subdued or dislodged;\nbut no expulsion was probably so complete that some part of the former\npopulation was not left behind. Among the tribes thus driven out were the\nBotti\u00e6ans, who were reported to have come from Athens and Crete;(2093) a\ntradition which could hardly have arisen, if they had not been a Grecian\npeople. Notice should also be taken of the Grecian and Pelasgic names of\nthe cities on the Axius, viz., Ichn\u00e6, Eidomen\u00e6, Gortynia, Atalante, and\nEuropus,(2094) which cannot have been given by the P\u00e6onians, and therefore\nmust be referred to the ancient Greek population of this region. Beyond\nthe Axius, according to Herodotus,(2095) was Creston, a settlement of\nThessalian Pelasgians, whence they do not appear to have been expelled by\nthe victorious Macedonians; which fate befell the Almopians, an ancient\nbranch of the Miny\u00e6.(2096) It has been already shown that the common\npopulation of Leibethrum and Pieria was at least nearly related to the\nGreeks: the names of \u039b\u03b5\u03af\u03b2\u03b7\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1, for a well-watered valley, \u03a0\u03af\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7 for a\nfull fountain, and of \u1f19\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd for a winding stream, are evidently\nGrecian.(2097)\n\nAs to the Eordians, the ancient foes of Macedon, it is uncertain whether\nthey should be considered as belonging to the Illyrian or the P\u00e6onian\nrace;(2098) of this latter tribe, in earlier times, a small, and, in\nlater, a considerable portion obeyed the Macedonian kings. And, lastly,\nthe subjection of the Bisalt\u00e6, who even in the time of Perseus formed one\nof the chief parts of the kingdom of Macedon,(2099) joined to that nation\na people of purely Thracian descent; and the Macedonians, in the political\nmeaning of the word, ceased more and more to be a regular nation, or a\nbody of men of the same origin and language.(2100)\n\n_On the customs and language of the Macedonians._\n\n32. In order to trace the national character and origin of the\nMacedonians, it is necessary to distinguish three things; first, their\nIllyrian descent; secondly, their extension over other, for the most part\nGrecian countries; and thirdly, the introduction by the ruling family, of\nthe civilisation and refinements of the Greeks; which must have gained\ngreat ground when Alexander the Philhellene offered himself as a combatant\nat the Olympic games, and honoured the poetry of Pindar;(2101) and when\nArchelaus, the son of Perdiccas,\u2014the same person who first established\nmany fortresses and roads in his dominions, and formed a Macedonian\narmy,(2102) nay, even had it in view to procure a navy,(2103)\u2014had\ntragedies of Euripides acted at his court under the direction of that\npoet. These changes must have chiefly affected the regions near the sea;\nfor they could not have equally extended to the Macedonians of Lyncus,\n&c., who, even in the time of Strabo, had the greatest resemblance to the\nDassaretians, Taulantians, &c., and, until the overthrow of the Macedonian\nmonarchy, preserved their ancient savage habits; which Livy only partially\naccounts for by their intercourse with neighbouring barbarians.(2104)\n\n33. Since the Illyrian tribes were never distinguished for that original\ninvention which imagined new gods and established new modes of worship;\nwhile, on the other hand, they readily adopted strange deities;(2105) we\nfind among the Macedonians more traces of foreign than native religion.\nCertain deities which the Greeks compared with the Sileni they called\nSauad\u00e6,(2106) as the Illyrians called them Deuad\u00e6;(2107) a native\nMacedonian god of health was named Darrhon;(2108) there was also a god\ncalled Deipatyrus among the neighbouring Stymph\u00e6ans.(2109) The wide\nextension of the worship of Bacchus must be ascribed to the vicinity of,\nand early intercourse with Pieria: the Macetian women were celebrated as\nwild and raging Bacchantes.(2110) The worship of Zeus appears to have been\nearly introduced among the Macedonians from mount Olympus.(2111) Hercules,\nthe heroic progenitor of the royal family, was worshipped in their first\nresidence at Edessa:(2112) he was called in Macedonia Aretus.(2113) The\nworship of Apollo, which was prevalent in Macedonia at an early\nperiod,(2114) probably was introduced from Pythium on mount Olympus:(2115)\nthat of Pan, at Pella, was perhaps derived from the Pelasgians.(2116)\n\n34. Many barbarous customs of the northern nations, as, for example, that\nof tattooing, which prevailed among the Illyrians and Thracians,(2117)\nmust have fallen into disuse in Macedonia at a very early date: for the\nGreeks would not have forgotten to mention such evident proofs of\nbarbarian descent. Even the usage of the ancient Macedonians, that every\nperson who had not killed an enemy should wear some disgraceful badge, had\nbeen discontinued in the time of Aristotle.(2118) Yet at a very late date\nno one was permitted to lie down at table who had not slain a wild boar\nwithout the nets.(2119) It is greatly to be lamented that we know much\nless of the ancient customs of the Illyrians than of the Thracians, of\nwhose singular and almost Asiatic usages we are sufficiently well\ninformed. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul in the worship of\nZalmoxis, the lamentations of the Trausi at the birth of a man,(2120) and\nthe slaughter of the dearest wife on the grave of her husband among the\nSintes and M\u00e6di,(2121) point to a particular view of human life, foreign\nto the Grecian character, but familiar to many eastern nations.(2122) The\nprevailing custom of polygamy,(2123) the buying and inheriting of women,\nthe selling of children as slaves,(2124) and the delight in\nintoxication,(2125) are traces of a genuine barbarian character; no one of\nwhich, as far as I am aware, can be discovered among the Macedonians: with\nwhom, moreover, the Thracian names (_e.g._, Cotys, and those ending in\n_cetes_ and _sades_) never occur.\n\n35. On the other hand, a military disposition, which still distinguished\nthe Macedonians in the time of Polybius, personal valour, and a certain\nfreedom of spirit, were the national characteristics of this people. Long\nbefore Philip organised his phalanx, the cavalry of Macedon was greatly\ncelebrated, especially that of the highlands, as is shown by the\ntetradrachms of Alexander the First. In smaller numbers they attacked the\nclose array of the Thracians of Sitalces, relying on their skill in\nhorsemanship and on their defensive armour.(2126) Teleutias the Spartan\nalso admired the cavalry of Elimea;(2127) and in the days of the conquest\nof Asia the custom still remained that the king could not condemn any\nperson without having first taken the voice of the people or of the\narmy.(2128)\n\n36. It is difficult to treat of the Macedonian language, as not only the\n_ancient_ period of the native dialect must be distinguished from the\n_second_, in which the Grecian language was partially introduced, after\nArchelaus, Philip, and Alexander made their people acquainted with\nAthenian civilisation, but also from a _third_, in which many barbarous\nwords were adopted from the mixture of the Macedonians with Indians,\nPersians, and Egyptians.(2129) Nevertheless it is possible to form a\nwell-grounded opinion as to the form of the Macedonian language in the\nfirst period. In the first place, they had many barbarous words for very\nsimple and common objects,(2130) which may be certainly considered as\nIllyrian, since among the _very scanty_ relics of the Illyrian and\nAthamanian dialects(2131) there are some words which are also mentioned as\nMacedonian.(2132) Indeed, without supposing some barbarous foundation of\nthis kind, we could hardly account for the Macedonian language being still\nunintelligible to the Greeks in the time of Alexander the Great.(2133) Yet\nit cannot be doubted that the Greek had passed into the Illyrian dialect\n_before_ the introduction of Athenian literature, and that their\ncombination produced the mongrel language which was afterwards called\nMacedonian. The nominatives in \u03b1, such as \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1, &c., could not\nhave been derived from the Athenians; but the Thessalians, the Dryopians,\nand probably all the Pelasgians, used that form.(2134) That some mixture\nof Greek had taken place at an early period seems also to be proved by the\ngreat and almost inexplicable change which the Grecian words experienced\nin the mouth of the Macedonians, who appear to have been unable to\npronounce the letters \u03a6 and \u0398, and hence they always substituted \u0392 for the\nformer, and \u0394 for the latter,(2135) perhaps from a peculiarity of the\nIllyrian nation. On the other hand, the Macedonian language had a\nconsonant \u039f\u03a5 or V, as _Volustana_, the name of the country round\nOlympus,(2136) the _Candavian_ mountains,(2137) &c., prove; and thus both\nin this and the former respect it approximated to the vocal system of the\nLatin.\n\n_Note on the Map of Macedonia._\n\nSince the annexed Map is entirely copied from that of Barbi\u00e9 du Bocage, as\nfar as the country is concerned, I will only remark some important points\nin which Arrowsmith\u2019s great Map of Turkey, which is in part founded on\nquite different authorities, differs from it. In this Map the small lake\nto the east of Lychnis, or Lychnitis (the lake of Ochrida), is not\nconnected with any river running to the coast, and the mountains to the\nwest of it stretch uninterruptedly to the south. (Perhaps this is correct:\nsee p. 453, note g. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to\n\u201cCandavian chain,\u201d starting \u201cPtolemy.\u201d]) The Haliacmon rises rather more\nto the north than in Barbi\u00e9 du Bocage\u2019s Map. The Cara-Sou, which is\ncertainly the Erigon, runs into the lake of the Lydias. (Incorrect,\naccording to Strabo, quoted in p. 451, note b. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This\nis the footnote to \u201cmountains of Illyria,\u201d starting \u201cIts rise in these\nmountains.\u201d]) The Lydias has a longer course, and rises in the Illyrian\nmountains. The modern river Gallico, which I make the Echeidorus, flows at\nsome distance from the sea through a lake into the Axius. The tributary\nbranch of the Achelous, called by the ancients the Inachus, rises further\nto the south, under the Pindus-chain (contrary to the authors quoted in p.\n452, note f. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201cEpirus of\nLacmon,\u201d starting \u201cOr Lacmus.\u201d]). Upon the whole, Barbi\u00e9 du Bocage\u2019s Map\nis without doubt the more accurate.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX II. GENEALOGY OF HELLEN.\n\n\nThere is a particular tendency which may be traced throughout all the\naccounts that have come down to us of early Grecian history, viz., of\nreducing everything to a _genealogical_ form. It was much encouraged by\nthe opinion of the later historians, that every town and valley had\nreceived its name from some ancient prince or hero; thus even Pausanias\nmeets with persons who explained everything by means of genealogies;(2138)\nwho, for example, out of the Pythian temple at Delphi made a son of\nDelphus Pythis, a prince of early times. This tendency, however, is\nmanifestly founded on the genuine ancient language of mythology. With the\ninventors of these fabulous narratives, nations, cities, mountains,\nrivers, and gods became real _persons_, who stood to one another in the\nrelation of human beings, were arranged in families, and joined to one\nanother in marriage. Now although such fictions are in many cases easily\nseen through, and the meaning of the connexion may be readily deciphered,\nyet these genealogies, as there was nothing of arbitrary and fanciful\ninvention in them, in after-times passed for real history; and were, both\nby early and late historians, with full confidence in their general\naccuracy, made use of for the establishment of a sort of chronology. On\nthese principles, then, the genealogies which were formed in the age of\nthe later epic poets, and perhaps even of the early historians, cannot be\nconsidered as pure invention; these too must have been founded on certain\narguments and facts, which were generally believed at that time. We will\nendeavour to point this out in the famous genealogy of the chief races of\nthe Greeks, which was taken from the \u1f28\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 of Hesiod.(2139)\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: Here are the relationships shown in the table:\n\nPrometheus and Pandora had Deucalion.\n\nDeucalion and Pyrrha had Hellen.\n\nHellen had Dorus, Xuthus, and \u00c6olus.\n\nXuthus had Ach\u00e6us and Ion.]\n\nNow the passage of Hesiod only mentions the three brothers, Dorus, Xuthus,\nand \u00c6olus, without naming the sons of Xuthus; but it is evident that in\nthis series Xuthus must also represent some race or races; and since no\ntribe ever bore the title of _Xuthi_, this name must have been used by\nHesiod to signify the Ionians and Acha\u00e6ns, as in Apollodorus, and other\nwriters.(2140) According to another tradition, perhaps of equal antiquity,\nZeus, the father of gods and men, was, instead of Deucalion, the husband\nof Pyrrha.(2141)\n\nIt is evident that the above genealogy was intended to represent the chief\nraces of the Hellenes, or Greeks, as belonging to one nation; and\nconsequently could not have been made before the name Hellenes was applied\nto the whole nation; which in the Iliad(2142) is only the name of a small\ntribe in Phthia.(2143) The more extended use of the name falls in the\nperiod of the poems which went under the name of Hesiod:(2144) it is first\nthus used in the \u201cWorks and Days\u201d of the real Hesiod,(2145) before which\ntime, therefore, the above genealogy cannot have been formed. But that the\nauthor of it did not make an arbitrary fiction is evident from the\ncircumstance that he put Xuthus instead of Ach\u00e6us and Ion; by which he\ngreatly deranged the symmetry of his genealogy. It is clear that he\nthought himself bound to respect the tradition, that Ach\u00e6us and Ion were\nthe sons of Xuthus; which prevented him from making Hellen their father.\nAs yet, therefore, the other brothers were not recognised in tradition as\nhaving any fathers; and some obscure legends, such as that of Dorus, the\nson of Apollo,(2146) had not obtained a general belief. There can be no\ndoubt that Hellen was recognised in the most ancient tradition. Now in the\nfictions of mythology the invention was bound by a sort of fanciful\nregularity; and in a fabulous genealogy the part was deduced from the\nwhole, the species from the genus, as an inferior and subordinate being:\nthus in the Theogony the hills are the children of the earth, and the sun\nand the moon of light.(2147) Accordingly the poet (or whoever was his\nauthority) sang of \u00c6olus, Dorus, and Xuthus, the progenitors of nations,\nbeing the sons of Hellen, the son of Zeus, or grandson of Prometheus. It\nis possible that before this entire genealogy others had been invented,\n_e.g._, that _Dorus_ was a son of Hellen; since, as early as the time of\nLycurgus, the Spartans were commanded by the Pythian oracle to worship\nZeus Hellanius and Athene Hellania;(2148) and since both the judges in the\nSpartan army(2149) and the judges of the Olympic games were called\nHellanodic\u00e6. And when I consider the celebrated oracle just quoted, and\nthe close connexion of Sparta and Olympia with Delphi, the sacred families\nof the Delphians (the \u1f45\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9), who referred their origin to\nDeucalion,(2150) and on the other hand remember that a B\u0153otian poem,\ncomposed in the neighbourhood of the Pythian oracle, first uses the word\n\u201cHellenes\u201d in this extended sense; I cannot help conjecturing that this\nnational sanctuary of the Hellenic name had a large share in the formation\nof that really beautiful legend; by which all the different races of\nGreece, separated for so many centuries by violent and unceasing\ncontention, were united into the peaceable fellowship of brotherly\naffection and concord.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX III. THE MIGRATION OF THE DORIANS TO CRETE.\n\n\nCnosus,(2151) the Minoian Cnosus, was, even so late as the time of Plato,\nthe first city in Crete, and the chief domicile of the Cretan laws and\ncustoms: and Plato, in his Treatise on Laws, takes a Cnosian as the\nrepresentative and defender of the Cretan laws in general;(2152) although\nCnosus about his time had declined from internal corruption, and the fame\nof having preserved the good laws of ancient Crete soon passed from her to\nGortyna and Lyctus.(2153) In earlier times, however, the Cretan laws\n(\u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9), which Archilochus even mentions as being of a distinct\ncharacter,(2154) were preserved in the greatest purity at Cnosus. Now when\nmodern writers admit indeed that the Cretan laws were founded upon the\ncustoms of the Doric race, but affirm that this race did not penetrate\ninto Crete before the expedition of the Heraclid\u00e6, and that migrations\nsubsequently took place from Peloponnesus; it is necessary for them first\nof all to show that _Cnosus_ received its Doric inhabitants from that\ncountry, that is, probably either from Argos or Sparta. But had such been\nthe case, the memory of these migrations would assuredly never have been\nlost: Argos and Sparta would have been too proud to possess such a colony.\nCnosus must therefore have received its Doric inhabitants at an earlier\ndate, in the dark ages of mythology; and the subsequent colonies from\nPeloponnesus to Lyctus, Gortyna, and other places, helped to increase the\nDoric population, which in Homer\u2019s time(2155) was confined to a _part_ of\nthe island, over the _whole_ of Crete; as was the case in late ages. And\nat the time which Homer describes, not only the language, but the customs\nand laws were probably also different; whereas Archilochus appears to\nmention the Cretan laws as prevalent over the whole island. Upon the\nwhole, the Dorians in Crete\u2014and this is a fact of great importance\u2014never\nseem to stand, with regard to the Dorians of Peloponnesus, in the relation\nof a colony to its mother country. In Greece, the parent state\u2014so great\nwas the pride of higher antiquity\u2014never condescended to take the\ninstitutions of a colony as models for its own, as was the case with\nSparta and Crete; nor did the mother country ever procure priests from its\ncolony, as was the case when the Pythian Apollo sent Cretan priests to\nSparta.(2156) In short, everything seems to prove that the Doric\ninstitutions were of great antiquity in Crete, and that the distinction\nwhich has lately been taken between the laws of Minos and the Doric\ninstitutions and customs of Crete\u2014a distinction directly opposed to the\nunanimous testimony of antiquity\u2014is false and untenable.\n\nBut in retaining his conviction respecting a Doric settlement in Crete\nbefore the migration of the Heraclid\u00e6, and in viewing it as the only means\nof explaining many facts in the religious and political history of the\nGreeks, the Author does not imply that this Doric colony was exactly\nsimilar to a later migration of Dorians from Argos and Sparta. The\ncondition of the Dorians in Hesti\u00e6otis must have been very different from\nthat to which the same race attained in Peloponnesus. The mixture with\nother races, which had gone so far, that the head of the mythical\nsettlement bears a Pelasgic name (Teutamus), does not agree with the\ncharacter of the later Dorians. At that time no line of princes, calling\nthemselves Heraclid\u00e6, could have stood at the head of the Dorians; for in\nCrete, Heraclid\u00e6 only occur in cities which were colonised from\nPeloponnesus; for example, they do not occur in Cnosus. Moreover, a\nmaritime, and especially a piratical life (upon which the maritime\nsupremacy of Minos was founded) does not agree with the principles\nfollowed by the Dorians in Peloponnesus, where they relied upon a tranquil\nand secure possession of land. These principles, however, could not be\ndeveloped so long as the Dorians were excluded from the rich plain of\nThessaly, and were forced to eke out their scanty means by hunting and\npiracy. How different was the rough and perilous life of the ancient\nsea-kings of the Normans from the proud and secure existence of the barons\nin Normandy! Yet the eye of the observant historian can trace a unity of\nnational character even in the most different circumstances. By a similar\nanalogy, this remarkable expedition of Doric adventurers from Hesti\u00e6otis\nto Crete will explain the zeal of the Cretans for the worship of Apollo,\nthe ancient connexion of Crete and Delphi, and the early existence in\nCrete of notions respecting a strict regulation of public life (\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2).\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX IV. HISTORY OF THE GREEK CONGRESS OR SYNEDRION DURING THE PERSIAN\nWAR.\n\n\n1. In the present article it will be my object to trace the foreign\ninfluence which Sparta possessed at the time of the Persian war, and for\nwhat length of time her supremacy in Greece remained uncontested and\nunshaken. This is chiefly seen in the proceedings of the congress of the\nallied Greek states: to ascertain which with precision, it will be first\nnecessary to fix the chronology of the successive stages of the Persian\nwar.\n\nIn the course of the year 481 B.C. (Olymp. 74. 3/4) Xerxes set out from\nhis residence at Susa (Herod. VII. 20), found the great army assembled in\nCappadocia, and marched to Sardis, from which town he sent ambassadors to\nthe Greek cities (ib. 32). Having wintered here, the army marched in the\nspring of 480 B.C. (Olymp. 74. 4) to Abydos;(2157) when it had reached the\npasses of Pieria, the Persian envoys returned (ib. 131). Soon after this\nthey met at Thermopyl\u00e6 the Greek forces, which had set out before the 75th\nOlympiad and the Carnean games, about June 480 B.C. Battles of Thermopyl\u00e6\nand Artemisium in \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (VIII. 12.) both perhaps a short time before\nthe Olympic festival (VIII. 26). Conquest of Attica, four months after the\nbeginning of the \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 (VIII. 51). Battle of Salamis, a\nlittle after the time of the \u0399\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, after the \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 of Bo\u00ebdromion Olymp.\n75. 1., as the Etesian winds were either blowing or had ceased to blow\n(they last from the summer solstice to the rising of the dog-star), VII.\n168. Mardonius winters in Thessaly and Macedonia, the Persian fleet at\nCume and Samos. Battle of Plat\u00e6a on the 26th or 27th of Panemus\n(Metagitnion), Olymp. 75. 2. 479 B.C. at the same time as that of Mycale.\nThe year ends with the taking of Sestos.\n\n2. The Greeks certainly received early intelligence of the preparations in\nPersia (VII. 138), even if the story related by Herodotus (VII. 239.)\nabout the secret message of Demaratus is not true. They either refused or\ngave earth and water to the envoys late in the year 481 B.C. (VII. 138.).\nThe states which refused to submit held a congress;(2158) and they are now\ncalled by Herodotus, \u201cthe Greeks allied against the Persians,\u201d (\u03bf\u1f31\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c3\u1fc3, VII. 148.). This assembly of course was\nformed by deputies from the different cities: the manner of its formation\nmay be inferred from the place at which it sat; and it will be shown\npresently that it first assembled at Corinth, which city belonged to the\nPeloponnesian confederacy. It appears therefore that Sparta must have\nconvened an assembly at Corinth, to which the extra-Peloponnesian states,\nwhich had refused earth and water, sent envoys. This congress first put an\nend to the internal dissensions of Greece (VII. 145.), in which good\nservice Chileus of Tegea and Themistocles are said to have earned the\ngratitude of their countrymen (Plutarch Themist. 6.). Secondly, when they\nheard that Xerxes was at Sardis, they despatched spies thither, and at the\nsame time envoys to Argos, Sicily, Corcyra, and Crete. (VII. 145. 199.)\nThe envoys are stated by Herodotus to have been sent by the Laced\u00e6monians\nand their allies.(2159) They also made a vow to decimate to the Delphian\nGod all those Greeks who had unnecessarily given earth and water to the\nPersians (VII. 132.); the persons who made this vow are called by Diodorus\nXI. 3. \u201cthe Greeks assembled in congress at the Isthmus,\u201d \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f38\u03c3\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff7\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n3. In this narrative taken from Herodotus there still remains one\ncontradiction, viz., that if the Greeks did not assemble till after they\nhad refused earth and water (as appears from VII. 138. cf. 145.), the\nArgives had no longer any option whether they would join the league or\nnot. Likewise the dismission of the Greek envoys would fall too late in\nthe unfavourable season for sailing, and there would scarcely be time for\nthe messages to the oracles (c. 148, 169.), and the other proceedings. It\nis therefore probable that this congress was formed _before_ the arrival\nof the Persian envoys, which was late in 481 B.C.: and Diodorus seems to\nbe correct in stating that of the nations some gave earth and water, while\nthe Persian army was in the valley of Tempe, and others after its\ndeparture (XI. 3.); and therefore none till early in 480 B.C.: previously\nthe ambassadors were probably in the north; Herodotus in VII. 138. appears\nto mean only the ambassadors of Darius. With this the following statements\nagree, which he adds in VII. 172. \u201c_As soon as_ the Thessalians had heard\nthat the Persians wished to invade Europe\u201d\u2014which they must have known in\nthe winter of 481-80 B.C.\u2014\u201cthey sent envoys to the Isthmus.\u201d \u1f18\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u1f38\u03c3\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff7 (_i.e._, in the village which had grown up about the temple of\nNeptune), \u1f14\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f01\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 (plenipotentiaries, VI. 7.) \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1. Now this assembly, while the Persian king was at Abydos, and\ntherefore very early in 480 B.C., sent the army to Tempe, which soon\nreturned (VII. 173.), and indeed returned to the Isthmus, which must\ntherefore have been the head-quarters of the allied army. When it\nreturned, the congress was still sitting at the Isthmus.(2160) This\nsynedrion or assembly (which is again mentioned in this place by Diodorus\nXI. 4.) now resolved to defend the passes of Thermopyl\u00e6 and Artemisium:\nand when the intelligence arrived that the Persians were in Pieria,\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03c3\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 (_i.e._, departing from the Isthmus)\n\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u1fc7, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd\n\u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. But that the Isthmus was still the place in which the congress\nsat, is evident from the fact, that Sandoces, Aridolis, and Penthylus, who\nfell into the hands of the Greeks before the battle of Artemisium, were\nsent thither (VII. 195.). At this time indeed the Peloponnesians were\ncelebrating the Olympiad, and the Spartans the Carnea, at their respective\nhomes,(2161) after which, as had been previously arranged, they were to\ntake the field with all their forces (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1f76, VII. 206. VIII. 26.).\nNevertheless, the decree that the ships which came too late for Artemisium\nshould assemble in the Tr\u0153zenian Pogon (VIII. 42.), as well as the other,\nthat the Isthmus should be fortified (VIII. 40, 71.), which measure was\nnot thought of before the battle of Thermopyl\u00e6, must have been passed in\nthis interval. Diodorus (XI. 16.) mentions the synedrion in connexion with\nthis decree. The fortification began after the Carnea (VIII. 72.). The\nfleet was commanded (as is evident from VIII. 2, 9, 56, 58, 74, 108, 111.\nIX. 90.) by the Spartan admiral and a council, a \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd of the\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76 or \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (IX. 106.), in which the admiral \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9 (VIII. 59.) put the question to the vote (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c8\u03ae\u03c6\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5, c. 61.),\nand gave out the decree. This commander was armed with very large powers,\nand Leotychidas concluded an alliance with the Samians (IX. 92.), and even\nthe captains of the fleet debated on the projected migration of the\nIonians (IX. 106.). Nor is it ever mentioned that the fleet received\norders from the Isthmus. But the circumstance of the fleet\u2019s sailing to\nthe Isthmus, after the battle of Salamis, for the decree on the \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\n(VIII. 123.), is a proof that the Isthmus was still the seat of the\nconfederate assembly. Diodorus likewise represents this decree as\nproceeding from the \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (XI. 55.); probably the \u201cGreeks,\u201d who\nrefused to confirm the vote of the commanders (VIII. 124.), were the\nmembers of the league. The ships which had been engaged in the battle\nreturned home without any decision. Late in the year, after the eclipse of\nthe sun on the 2nd of October, Cleombrotus had led the great allied army\nfrom the Isthmus, and soon afterwards died (IX. 10.). The decree for the\nfollowing year, that the fleet should go to \u00c6gina (VIII. 131.), may have\nproceeded either from the synedrium of the preceding year, or from\n_Sparta_. For that there were no longer any deputies assembled at Corinth\nis evident from the circumstance that the Ionian envoys only went to\nSparta and \u00c6gina (VIII. 132.); nor is the Isthmus afterwards mentioned as\nthe seat of an assembly, although it was fortified until the middle of\nsummer, till the time of the Hyacinthia (IX. 7.). After this time, Athens,\nPlat\u00e6a, and Megara sent their envoys to Sparta, where there were also\nPeloponnesian envoys, as for instance Chileus of Tegea (IX. 9.), who was\nmentioned above among the \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9; and all these, together with the\nambassadors of the three states just mentioned, are, as it appears, called\nby Herodotus \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, IX. 10. There must\nprobably have been some joint act of the allies,(2162) by virtue of which\nPausanias was able to collect the great Peloponnesian army. After the\nbattle of Plat\u00e6a there was in the army a kind of council of war, doubtless\na \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, which regulated the number of the sacred\nofferings, divided the booty (IX. 81, 85.), and determined on the\nexpedition against Thebes (c. 86.): the persons who were given up,\nPausanias seems at Corinth to have ordered to execution on his own\nauthority (c. 88.).\n\n4. Such is the substance of the narrative of Herodotus; in which we can\nonly be surprised, that of the most remarkable event, viz., the treaty of\nPausanias, he should say not a word: a silence which can only be explained\nby supposing that he had intended to mention it in another passage of his\nunfinished work. When Pausanias, with the assistance of the allies, had\nwon the battle of Plat\u00e6a, he sacrificed in the market-place of Plat\u00e6a to\nZeus Eleutherius, and convened an assembly of all the Greeks, in which the\nPlat\u00e6ans (who annually performed certain honorary rites to those who had\nfallen in the battle, Thuc. III. 58.) were promised that their country and\ncity should remain independent, and that no one should attack them without\nlawful reason, or with intention to reduce them to subjection: and that,\nin case these conditions were not observed, all the allies then present\nwould protect them (Thuc. VI. 71. cf. III. 56, 59.); an engagement which\nthe Spartans themselves afterwards broke, on the ground that the Plat\u00e6ans\nhad first unjustly given up \u03c4\u1f78 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (II. 74.). For in \u201cthe ancient\ntreaty of Pausanias after the Persian war,\u201d it was ordered that the allies\nin general, and the Plat\u00e6ans among them, should remain at peace with each\nother (Thuc. III. 68. cf. II. 72.). The further conditions of this treaty\nmay be collected from Thucyd. I. 67, (for it is evidently this treaty\nwhich is in question,) where the \u00c6ginetans complain that they are not\nindependent, \u201caccording to the treaty;\u201d for the thirty years\u2019 truce (I.\n115.) cannot be meant, as it was not concluded till after the subjection\nof \u00c6gina (the former in Olymp. 83. 3. the latter in Olymp. 80. 4.); whence\nit is likewise evident that the treaty, which was violated by the siege of\nPotid\u00e6a, and the exclusion of the Megarians from the market of Attica, (I.\n67, 87. cf. c. 144.) was the same ancient act, only renewed by later\ntreaties. Thus Plutarch states that the latter prohibition was \u201ccontrary\nto the common principles of justice, and the solemn oaths of _the\nGreeks_.\u201d(2163) And in another place he mentions that, in a general\nassembly of the Greeks after the battle of Plat\u00e6a, Aristides proposed a\ndecree that the Greeks should annually send deputies and sacred messengers\nto Plat\u00e6a, and that the Eleutheria should be solemnised every five\nyears.(2164) Also, that it was agreed that an allied Greek armament should\nbe organised against the Persians, consisting of 10,000 heavy-armed\ninfantry, 1000 cavalry, and 100 ships: and that the Plat\u00e6ans should be\nconsidered sacred and inviolable. From what has been stated above, it is\nclear how much of this account is true, and how much added by Athenian\npartiality.\n\n5. In the following years, when Sparta still continued the war against the\nPersians and their allies by means of Pausanias and Leotychidas, there\nmust have been a congress, though not constantly sitting; since the\nSpartans would not have determined the amount of \u201cthe war\ncontribution\u201d(2165) on their own authority; and there is much probability\nin the account of Diodorus (XI. 55.), that the Spartans summoned\nThemistocles for his share in the treason of Pausanias before the\ncommon-council of the Greeks, which used at this time to assemble at\nSparta. At least it is not contradicted by Thucydides; indeed his\nnarrative (I. 135.) perfectly agrees in this point with that of Diodorus.\nThe words \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03a3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc3, which are omitted in some MSS. of Diodorus, and\nsuspected by Wesseling (yet, it should be observed, _only_ these words),\ncannot be well spared; and, even if they were expunged, the whole chapter\nwould show that the congress was sitting at Sparta; for it was evidently\nunder Laced\u00e6monian influence, and therefore met in the Peloponnese; and,\nsince the instance mentioned above, it does not appear that any of its\nmeetings were held at the Isthmus.\n\nThis account likewise proves that, after Pausanias had occasioned the\ndefection of the Ionians and \u00c6olians from Sparta, who were now considered\nas the separate allies of Athens, a confederate council, which included\nother states besides the Peloponnesians, continued to sit at Sparta; and\naffords fresh grounds for supposing that this abandonment of the Spartan\nalliance was not considered as a transfer of the chief command to Athens,\nbut that Sparta only intrusted the Athenians, together with those Greeks\nwho dwelt in the territory of the Persian king, with the continuation of\nthe war in Asia, and the management of all affairs connected with it; and\nstill considered Athens as under her command, until that state revolted in\nOlymp. 79. At last the internal wars of Peloponnesus, Olymp. 79-81,\nsubverted all the relations of Athens and Sparta.\n\nEnd Of Vol. I.\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: The following images are sections of the large map\nattached to the binding of the book.  To allow it to be represented in\nthis e-book, it has been divided into 16 sections. They are laid out in\nthis manner:]\n\nA1      A2      A3      A4\nB1      B2      B3      B4\nC1      C2      C3      C4\nD1      D2      D3      D4\n\n                            [Map section A1.]\n\n                             Map section A1.\n\n\n                            [Map section A2.]\n\n                             Map section A2.\n\n\n                            [Map section A3.]\n\n                             Map section A3.\n\n\n                            [Map section A4.]\n\n                             Map section A4.\n\n\n                            [Map section B1.]\n\n                             Map section B1.\n\n\n                            [Map section B2.]\n\n                             Map section B2.\n\n\n                            [Map section B3.]\n\n                             Map section B3.\n\n\n                            [Map section B4.]\n\n                             Map section B4.\n\n\n                            [Map section C1.]\n\n                             Map section C1.\n\n\n                            [Map section C2.]\n\n                             Map section C2.\n\n\n                            [Map section C3.]\n\n                             Map section C3.\n\n\n                            [Map section C4.]\n\n                             Map section C4.\n\n\n                            [Map section D1.]\n\n                             Map section D1.\n\n\n                            [Map section D2.]\n\n                             Map section D2.\n\n\n                            [Map section D3.]\n\n                             Map section D3.\n\n\n                            [Map section D4.]\n\n                             Map section D4.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 The map of Northern Greece was not received until that of the\n      Peloponnese had been engraved; and being intended by the author for\n      circulation in Germany, as well as in England, the names are given\n      in Latin. This must serve as an apology for this want of uniformity\n      in the two maps.\n\n    2 See particularly Pouqueville\u2019s list of Albanian words. Compare\n      Thunmann\u2019s Geschichte der Europ\u00e4ischen V\u00f6lker, p. 250. Concerning\n      the Illyrians, see App. 1, \u00a7 21, 28.\n\n    3 Strabo VII. p. 321 A.\n\n    4 Illyrian words in use among the Macedonians: \u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9 (_Sileni_) in\n      Macedonian, \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9 in Illyrian; \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, _bread_, in Macedonian,\n      \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 among the Athamanes. _Orchomenos_, p. 254. Compare\n      Hesychius in \u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1. See the copious collection in Sturz de Dialecto\n      Macedonica.\n\n    5 As this expression is often used in the following pages, I take this\n      opportunity of stating, that by _an aboriginal people_, I mean one\n      which, as far as our knowledge extends, first dwelt in a country,\n      _before_ which we know of no other inhabitants of that country.\n\n    6 Justin, VII. 1. Compare \u00c6sch. Suppl. 261.\n\n    7 Herod. I. 57. See _Orchomenos_, p. 444.\n\n    8 Compare, for example, \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd _to kill_, \u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 _death_, with \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd,\n      \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2; \u1f10\u03ad\u03bb\u03b4\u03c9 (\u1f10\u03ad\u03bb\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 in Homer) with \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9; \u1f00\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 for \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, in\n      which \u03b8 loses its aspiration, as \u03c6 does in \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74 (so in German\n      _haubet_ for _haupt_), \u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 for \u1f40\u03c6\u03c1\u1f7a\u03c2 (_brow_), \u0392\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2,\n      \u0392\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b7, \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, &c. The aspirate is also frequently lost;\n      \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 or \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1, _furniture_ (in Polybius), with a change of\n      \u03c5 and \u03bf.\n\n_    9 E.g._ the nominatives \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1, &c., which are also called\n      \u00c6olico-B\u0153otic, Doric, and Thessalian. Sturz _ut sup._ p. 28.\n\n_   10 E.g._ \u03b6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1 for \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1.\n\n_   11 E.g._ \u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u1f70, _the leading of the Tagus_, as in Thessaly;\n      \u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03cd\u03b1, _dainties_, a Thessalian, Macedonian, and also Spartan word.\n\n_   12 E.g._ \u03b2\u03af\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u03be, _hirsutus_, _hirtus_; \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd, _virgam_; \u1f34\u03bb\u03b5\u03be, _ilex_.\n      The want of aspirates also forms a point of comparison.\n\n   13 Apollodorus, III. 8, 1.\n\n   14 Ap. Constant. Porph. de Themat. II. 2, p. 1453. Sturz Hellan. Fragm.\n      p. 79. The passage of Hesiod is probably from the \u1f28\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9, and there\n      is no reason for supposing it spurious. The second verse should be\n      read, \u03c5\u1f36\u03b5 \u03b4\u03cd\u03c9 \u039c\u03ac\u03b3\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u039c\u03ac\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd \u03b8\u1fbd \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd.\n\n   15 Concerning the Macedonians, see Appendix I.\n\n   16 I allude here particularly to the ending of the genitive case of the\n      second declension in \u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, which the grammarians quote as Thessalian.\n\n   17 See Appendix I. \u00a7 28. The ancient Macedonian coins represent\n      precisely the same dress as the Thessalian.\n\n   18 Compare \u0398\u03b5\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 in several grammarians, with Didymus in\n      Ammonius in \u03c7\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03cd\u03c2. More will be found on this subject in book IV.\n      c. 2, \u00a7 4.\n\n   19 Compare Theocritus XII. 14, with Alcman quoted in the Scholia, and\n      b. IV. c. 4, \u00a7 6.\n\n   20 Hesychius in \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2. See book IV. c. 4, \u00a7 4.\n\n   21 According to \u00c6lian, V. H. III. 15, the women of Illyria were present\n      at banquets and wine-parties; Herod. V. 18, says the contrary of the\n      Macedonians.\n\n   22 Strabo, V. p. 221.\n\n   23 See particularly Stephan. Byzant. in \u1f1c\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1.\n\n   24 Alexander Ephesius ap. Stephan. Byz. in \u03a7\u03b1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1.\n\n   25 Niebuhr\u2019s Roman History, vol. i. p. 46, ed. 2, English tr. Hence\n      many names were the same in both countries; as, _e.g._, Pandosia\n      (Justin, XII. 2), Acheron, Acherontia, &c.\n\n   26 Herodotus also says, that the Ionians and \u00c6olians had formerly been\n      Pelasgians, having, as it were, swallowed up that nation; he must\n      however assume that they changed their language (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n      \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd), as the language of the Pelasgi who dwelt near Creston and\n      Placia (which was probably nothing more than an ancient dialect)\n      appeared to him barbarous. \u00c6schylus (Suppl. 911) opposes them, as\n      genuine Greeks, to the \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, or barbarians.\n\n   27 Thus, _e.g._, the Amphilochians and Chaonians, according to Thucyd.\n      II. 68, 80. The following ancient Greek forms occur in the Epirot\n      dialect: \u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3 for \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3 (Maittaire, p. 141), \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9, nosco,\n      Orion p. 42, 17. \u1f0c\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 Achilles, Plut. Pyrrh. 1. (\u03b1-\u1f15\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.)\u2014The\n      account in Strabo VII. p. 327, of two languages being spoken in some\n      districts, doubtless refers to the coexistence of Grecian and\n      Illyrian dialects.\n\n   28 Polyb. XVII. 5, 8.\n\n_   29 Orchomenos_, p. 253.\n\n   30 According to Hesychius, \u0392\u03c1\u03ad\u03ba\u03c5\u03c2 (\u0392\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) is the same word as\n      \u0392\u03c1\u03cd\u03be. _Bruges_ was also used by Ennius, and, as it appears, by\n      Marcus Brutus (Plutarch, Brut. 45).\n\n   31 See the Chrestomathia of Proclus. _Briges_, or _Phryges_, in the\n      region of Dyrrachium, Appian, Bell. Civ. II., 39.\n\n   32 Creuzer Fragment. Histor. p. 171. Strabo XIV. p. 680. Compare Conon\n      in Photius I.\n\n   33 Concerning this point, see Hoeck\u2019s History of Crete, vol. I. p. 109,\n      sqq.\n\n   34 According to the opinion of their colonists, Herod. VII. 73. Eudoxus\n      ap. Steph. in \u1f08\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1. Compare Heeren _De Linguarum Asiaticarum in\n      Persarum Imperio Cognatione_, Comment. Gotting. vol. XIII.\n\n   35 The Armenians frequently occur in the ancient traditional history of\n      the oriental kingdoms; _e.g._, in Diod. II. 1 as conquered by Ninus.\n      They are likewise represented as the original inhabitants in the\n      native legends collected by Moses of Chorene.\n\n   36 Plato, Cratyl. p. 410 A. It is remarkable that these words are also\n      in the German language. \u03a0\u1fe6\u03c1 (see Grimm\u2019s Deutsche Grammatik, vol. I.\n      p. 584, 2d ed.) in ancient High German was _viuri_, in Low German\n      _f\u00fcr_. \u039a\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd, _canis_, _hund_ (_d_ added as in \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd, \u03bc\u1f70\u03bd\u2014Phrygian for\n      _moon_\u2014and _mahnd_, _mond_). \u1f5d\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1, in High German _wazar_, in Low\n      German _water_; the digamma is present the genuine Phrygian form\n      \u03b2\u00e9\u03b4\u03c5, which, on account of ancient vicinity, was also a Macedonian\n      and _Orphic_ word (see Neanth. Cyzicen. ap. Clem. Alexand. Strom. V.\n      p. 673. Jablonsky de Lingua Phrygia, p. 76), and is sometimes\n      translated _water_, and sometimes _air_.\n\n      Lastly, the Phrygian inscription in Walpole\u2019s Memoirs, especially\n      the words \u039c\u0399\u0394\u0391\u0399 \u039b\u0391\u03dc\u0391\u0393\u03a4\u0391\u0395\u0399 \u03dc\u0391\u039d\u0391\u039a\u03a4\u0395\u0399, prove that it had a great\n      resemblance, both in radical forms and inflexion, with the Greek.\n\n   37 Thus the verb _sum_ keeps in the Armenian or Haicanian the same\n      fundamental form which it has in all the languages allied to the\n      Greek (_yem_, _yes_, _e_\u2014_sum_, _es_, _est_). And it is remarkable,\n      that the three Phrygian Greek words noticed in the text have been\n      likewise preserved in the Haicanian: \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 is _hur_ (as \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 _hair_,\n      \u03c0\u00e9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 _hink_); \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1, _tschur_ (as \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 tscherm); \u03ba\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd is _shun_.\n      See Klaproth, Asia Polyglotta, p. 99.\n\n   38 See Jablonsky de Lingua Lycaon. Opusc. vol. III. p. 119.\n\n   39 That is, if the epic poet Ch\u0153rilus spoke of Lyctian Solymi in the\n      well-known passage preserved in Josephus cont. Apion. vol. II. p.\n      454, ed. Haverc. &c. See Naeke\u2019s Ch\u0153rilus, p. 130, sq.\n\n_   40 E.g._ \u1f00\u03b4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, an androgynous deity (Hesych. in v.), from _Dagon_;\n      the name _Adon_ (Athen. XIV. p. 624); \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd _king_, (Hesych. in v.\n      Eustath. ad Od. \u03c4. p. 680. Bas.) from _Baal_, &c. See Blomf. ad\n      \u00c6sch. Pers. 663.\n\n   41 See _Orchomenos_, p. 379-390.\n\n   42 Herod. VII. 111.\n\n   43 All their words with which we are acquainted are very unlike the\n      Greek; _e.g._ the word \u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 and \u03b2\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1 for _city_, which frequently\n      occurs, \u03b6\u03af\u03bb\u03b1 _wine_, \u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u1fe6\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2 _treasure_, Schol. Apollon. Rhod. I.\n      933, &c.\n\n   44 Herod. V. 13. VII, 20, 75. Compare Hellanicus _ut sup._; where read,\n      \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f56 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03c5\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. This\n      at the same time probably refers to the tradition, that the Mysians\n      (as well as the Thynians and others) came from Thrace to Asia,\n      according to Strabo, and Pliny H. N. V. 32, 41. VII. 57.\n\n   45 Homer, Hymn. Ven. 113.\n\n   46 \u00c6ginetica, pp. 12, 155. Compare also Phavorinus in \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03be\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n      In the later times they were probably still in the territory of the\n      Molossians, who were considered as Greeks, Herod. VI. 127.\n\n   47 Il. XVI. 233.\n\n   48 See _Orchomenos_, pp. 139, 248, sqq. Buttmann, indeed, in his Memoir\n      on the Miny\u00e6 (Berlin Transactions for 1820, p. 13), denies the\n      existence of these places; but several of the passages which I have\n      quoted are decisive.\n\n   49 According to the genealogy from the \u1f28\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9\u2014Dorus, Xuthus (from whom\n      Ach\u00e6us and Ion), and \u00c6olus; see Appendix II. The genealogy in\n      Euripides, Ion 1608. viz. Xuthus, father of Ion, Dorus, and Ach\u00e6us,\n      is distorted to suit the national feelings of the Athenians. The\n      passage from the \u1f28\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9, however, although in a poetical garb, is\n      more credible than the testimony of Herodotus, who considers the\n      Ionians as _aborigines_.\n\n   50 Concerning what follows, see Apollonius Rhod. IV. 521, sqq. Schol.\n      ad 1. et ad IV. 1125, 1149. Apollodorus ap. Stephan. Byzant. in\n      \u1f59\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 (p. 434, ed. Heyn.) Scylax, p. 7. ed. Voss. Scymnus Chius\n      404, from Tim\u00e6us (Fragm. 121. ed. Goeller) and Eratosthenes. Dionys.\n      Perieg. 386, with Eustathius and the Scholia. Etymol. Magn. p. 776.\n      39, where they are called a Celtic nation (\u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u039a\u03b5\u03bb\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd). Compare\n      Schoenemann Geograph. Argonaut. p. 53, and book III. c. 5.\n\n   51 Apollon. Rh. IV. 538, and others. Panyasis appears from the\n      Scholiast to Apollonius Rhod. IV. 1149, to have mentioned two\n      Hylluses, viz. the son of Melite and the son of Deianira. Compare\n      Schol. Soph. Trachin. 53. Vales, ad Harpocrat. p. 126. In the\n      Scholiast to Pindar Pyth. I. 120, \u1f5d\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f44\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n      \u1f38\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, where Hemsterhuis reads \u039f\u1f30\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, Raoul-Rochette\n      (Histoire de l\u2019Etablissement des Colonies Grecques, tom. II. p. 280)\n      proposes, not without some probability, \u1f38\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n   52 Apollon. Rh. IV. 528.\n\n   53 Thucyd. III. 81.\n\n   54 Especially the connected chain of \u00c6tolians, Epeans, Locrians\n      (concerning whose affinity see Boeckh ad Pind. Olymp. IX. 61. p.\n      191), and Lelegians (Hesiod ap. Strab. VII. p. 322); and if these,\n      as some say, are the same as the Carian nation, to which the Lydians\n      and a part of the Mysians belonged, they would seem to compose a\n      very numerous race.\n\n   55 See book II. ch. 7.\n\n   56 The ancients frequently say, that the Ionians in Asia \u1f10\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. Photius in v. \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n   57 Concerning the Doric dialect, see Appendix VI.\n\n   58 Herod. I. 56; concerning which passage see Salmasius, de Lingua\n      Hellenica, p. 276, and M\u00e9moires de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions, tom.\n      XXV. p. 11-28. Compare VIII. 43. \u1f18\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd\n      \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03af\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0394\u03c1\u03c5\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n   59 See, on the subject of this genealogy, Appendix II.\n\n   60 Apollod. I. 7, 2.\n\n   61 Thus Pindar, Olymp. VIII. 30, calls the Myrmidons \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2, in\n      order, as I conceive, to oppose them as genuine Greeks to nations of\n      a different origin.\n\n   62 From the circumstance that, in Homer, Achilles the \u00c6acides is\n      represented as chief of the Hellenes, and that the \u00c6acid\u00e6 were also\n      ancient princes of \u00c6gina, the author has in a former work\n      (\u00c6ginetica, p. 18) explained the name of the temple of Zeus in\n      \u00c6gina, \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, in later times called \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. For this temple\n      is assuredly more ancient than the time when all the Greeks were\n      called Hellenes; and it must therefore be considered as a sanctuary\n      of the original Hellenes, who also dwelt in Phthia, as an ancient\n      national temple of the Myrmidons.\n\n   63 Appendix I., last note.\n\n   64 The height of mount Olympus, according to Bernouille, is 1017\n      toises, or 6501 English feet; of Ossa, according to Dodwell, about\n      5000 feet.\n\n   65 A more accurate description of this valley than those of \u00c6lian and\n      Barth\u00e9lemy is given by Bartholdy, Bruchst\u00fccke zur Kentniss\n      Griechenlands, p. 112; Clarke, Travels, part II. sect. iii. p. 273;\n      Hawkins, in Walpole\u2019s Memoirs relating to European Turkey, p. 528;\n      Holland, Albania, p. 291; Dodwell, Travels, vol. I. p. 103; and\n      Pouqueville, tom. III. c. 73. Among the ancients, Theopompus, in his\n      \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70, gave an accurate description of Tempe. See Theo. Sophist.\n      Progymn. II. p. 19; Frommel, in Creuzer\u2019s Meletemata, III. p. 141,\n      6.\n\n   66 XX. _m. p. in ipsis faucibus saltus_, Livy from Polyb. XVIII. 10, 2,\n      on the side of Olympus. Meletius mentions here a place called\n      Goniga.\n\n   67 Liv. XXXIX. 25.\n\n   68 Il. B. 753.\n\n   69 Herod. VII. 128, 173.\n\n   70 Liv. XLIV. 6. Polyb. XXVIII. 11. 1. \u1f08\u03b6\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n   71 See, besides Herodotus, Liv. XLIV. 2, and Plutarch, \u00c6mil. 9.\n\n   72 Concerning the situation of this place see Liv. XLIV. 2 and 6.\n\n   73 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd Plutarch. \u00c6mil. 15.\n      _Pythoum_ (\u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd) _et Petra_ Liv. XLIV. 2, 32, 35. XLII. 53. That\n      there was only _one_ Pythium in this district is evident from an\n      accurate examination of the marches. Mannert (vol. VII. p. 520, 563)\n      has placed Pythium on the pass through the Cambunian mountains\n      (above the modern Alesson and Sarviza), of which it lay far to the\n      right. His opinion is contradicted by Liv. XLIV. 2. and Plutarch,\n      ubi sup. Compare Stephanus in \u03a0\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u1ff7 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, and in \u0392\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1.\n\n   74 960 toises. See above.\n\n   75 See Plutarch ubi sup. Liv. ubi sup. and XLIV. 7. comp. Polyb.\n      XXVIII. 11.\n\n   76 Liv. XXXI. 41. XXXVI. 10, 13. XLII. 67. XLIV. 2.\n\n   77 Ptolemy includes it in Pelasgiotis. Unfortunately we have not the\n      Greek original of the passage in Livy concerning the Tripolis, XLII.\n      53.\n\n_   78 Orchomenos_, p. 126.\n\n   79 Liv. XXXII. 15. Strabo IX. p. 438, 440.\n\n   80 Concerning Pelinna, see, besides Cellarius, Spanheim de Usu Numm.\n      IX. p. 902. Salmasius ad Solin. p. 687. Wesseling ad Diodor. XVIII.\n      11. and Boeckh Comment. ad Pind. Pyth. X. p. 335.\n\n   81 Besides Strabo, see Diodorus XVIII. 56. In Poly\u00e6nus IV. 2, 18,\n      should be written, \u03a6\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03cc\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03a6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b7\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u00f3\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n   82 Concerning Tricca (Tricala 12-3/4 leagues from Larissa, according to\n      Pouqueville) see Mannert, p. 569, and also Eustathius, vol. II. p.\n      250. ed. Basil. Tzetzes Chil. IX. 28.\n\n   83 See II. B. 370, with the Scholia, and Eustathius. Pelinnus, a son of\n      \u0152chalieus, Steph. Byzant. in \u03a0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n   84 Thus Pouqueville: according to Holland twelve miles, according to\n      Vaudoncourt four hours.\n\n   85 See Meletius, Pouqueville, Holland, Cockerell in Hughes\u2019 Travels,\n      vol. I. p. 504.\n\n   86 The latter according to Arrian I. 7; the former according to Liv.\n      XXXI. 41. XXXII. 15. XXXVIII. 2. Compare C\u00e6sar B.C. III. 80.\n\n   87 Tempe was about 500 stadia from Gomphi, Plin. H. N. IV. 8, which\n      distance should be thus divided: the length of Tempe 40 stadia, then\n      to Larissa 160, to Tricca about 240, and to Gomphi 60.\n\n   88 Strabo IX. p. 437. II. B. 729. Pausan. IV. 9, 1. Meteora cannot be\n      Ithome; more probably the ruins of Kastraki. But the passage\n      concerning Curalius and the temple of the Itonian Minerva, is a\n      confusion of the geographer. Otherwise de la Porte du Theil\n      Eclaircissemens sur Strabon I. 76, p. 248.\n\n   89 Athen. XIV. p. 639, 640.\n\n   90 Pouqueville, p. 37.\n\n_   91 Orchomenos_, p. 126. Here also Acrisius of Argos dwelt. That it is\n      this Larissa is plain from Schol. Apoll. Rhod. I. 40, compare\n      Hellanicus fragm. 116. Pausan. II. 16. Tzetzes ad Lycoph. 836.\n\n   92 Strabo, IX. p. 439.\n\n   93 According to modern travellers. The ancients frequently\n      misinterpreted Homer. In later times Eurotas, or Europus, as in the\n      Excerpta of Strabo, _i.e._ the _dark-coloured_.\n\n   94 Pouqueville.\n\n   95 Thus the writers in Strabo VII. p. 328. Steph. Byzant. in \u0394\u03c9\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7.\n      See book II. ch. 11, \u00a7 3.\n\n   96 Hieronymus, ap. Strab. IX. p. 443.\n\n   97 Steph. Byzant. in \u0393\u03cc\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 Liv. XXXII. 15.\n\n_   98 Orchomenos_, pp. 248 sqq.\n\n   99 If _Oloosson_ is the modern _Alassona_ on the road from Larissa to\n      Macedonia, according to the opinion of the bishop of Thessalonica on\n      Il. B. p. 333. ed. Rom. \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2, \u1f34\u03c3\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f54\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\n      \u1f18\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03ce\u03bd.\n\n  100 See above, \u00a7 1. Andron ap. Strab. X. p. 475 E. \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd,\n      \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f19\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2. The Dorians also dwelt in Hesti\u00e6otis\n      to the west of Pindus, according to Charax ap. Steph. Byzant. in\n      \u0394\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. According to Schol. Pind. Pyth. I. 124, and Schol. Aristoph.\n      Plut. 385 (as emended by Hemsterhuis, p. 115), they dwelt in\n      Perrh\u00e6bia; and Perrh\u00e6bia nearly coincides with Hesti\u00e6otis.\n\n  101 See book II. ch. I, \u00a7 2.\n\n  102 There was a hero named Azorus, Hesychius in \u1f0c\u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  103 Hemsterhuis incorrectly considers them as identical, ubi sup. p.\n      116.\n\n  104 Athen. XI. p. 503 D. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f34\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f29\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\n      \u1f22 \u039a\u03ad\u03c1\u03ba\u03c9\u03c8 \u1f41 \u039c\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. The confusion of the names of Hesiod and\n      Cercops may, as it appears to me, be accounted for as follows. A\n      verse concerning the desertion of Ariadne by Theseus for the sake of\n      \u00c6gle, is ascribed by Plutarch (vit. Thes. 20) to Hesiod, and by\n      Athen\u00e6us (XIII. p. 557 A.) to Cercops; it is evidently from the\n      \u00c6gimius which was attributed to both these names. This verse was\n      expunged from the poem by Pisistratus, as we learn from Hereas,\n      quoted by Plutarch. The \u00c6gimius therefore was at that time arranged\n      and set down in writing, together with other epic poems.\n      Consequently Cercops, an Orphic Pythagorean, who lived about the\n      time of Pisistratus, cannot have been the author of it, though he\n      might have been the \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 who arranged it in the same manner\n      that Onomacritus did the other poems. Now it might easily happen,\n      especially if his interpolations could be now and then discerned,\n      that the _whole_ poem should be attributed to him.\n\n  105 Wesseling. ad Diod. IV. 37, p. 282.\n\n  106 See Valckenaer ad Eurip. Ph\u0153n. p. 735.\n\n  107 Schol. Apoll. Rhod. III. 584. IV. 816. The character of the ancient\n      epic poetry, which never admitted of history arranged in a\n      chronological order, cannot allow us to suppose that the \u00c6gimius\n      contained an account of the expedition of the Dorians, and of their\n      colonies, down to the founding of Cyrene.\n\n  108 This is the meaning of the passage in Steph. Byzant. \u1f08\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c2,\u2014\u1f61\u03c2\n      \u1f29\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2;\n\n      \u2014\u039d\u03ae\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f08\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03af\u1fc3,\n      \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f08\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n      \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u0395\u1f54\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f60\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5 \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2.\n\n      These are followed by the four verses concerning Argos and Io quoted\n      by Schol. Eurip. Ph\u0153n. 1151. Apollodorus II. 1, 3, alludes to this\n      passage. Also what he mentions from this poem in II. 1, 5, belongs\n      to the Eub\u0153an fables. Apollodorus, in both passages, quotes the\n      \u00c6gimius under the name of Cercops. Compare Fabric. Bibliothec. vol.\n      I. p. 592. ed. Harles.\n\n  109 See Ephorus ap. Steph. Byzant. in \u0394\u03c5\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 (p. 96. ed. Marx.),\n      followed by Strabo IX. p. 427.\n\n  110 Book III. ch. 1, \u00a7 7.\n\n  111 Etymol. Magn. \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03ac\u03ca\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2.\u2014\u1f28\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u1fc7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd;\n      \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c7\u03ac\u03ca\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u039f\u1f54\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf. \u03a4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039a\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03c0\u1ff4\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76,\n      \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76, \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2. The last words must be considered as a mere\n      ignorant addition; for the Dorians did not divide _their_ territory\n      into three parts, _because_ two _other_ Greek races went to Crete.\n      It is, indeed, evident that a threefold division of the land\n      conquered by the Dorians is here spoken of, which, as is plain from\n      the fables concerning \u00c6gimius and Hercules, took place according to\n      the three tribes. According to the present reading, this division\n      took place at a distance from the native country of the Dorians.\n      There might seem some difficulty in this, since Hercules is said to\n      have given \u00c6gimius the third part of the territory as a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7\n      in Hesti\u00e6otis, the most ancient habitation of the Dorians (Diod. IV.\n      37, compare Apollodorus II. 7, 3). Hence \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u1fc3\u03c2 for \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 might be\n      read in this sense: \u201cThe Dorians divided their territory into three\n      parts _for the families_ (of which the \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 or tribes consisted),\u201d\n      so that they then dwelt separately from one another (similarly\n      Pindar Olym. p. VII. 74). This alteration, however, appears to be\n      unnecessary; and the old reading is defended by the following\n      explanation, viz., that according to the ancient fable Hyllus and\n      his descendants did not _dwell_ either near mount \u0152ta, or in\n      Hesti\u00e6otis _together_ with the Dorians, but that they first received\n      in the Peloponnese the third part of the territory, whither they\n      came as colonists at a distance from their more ancient abodes (\u1f14\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2).\n\n  112 Below, ch. 3, \u00a7 1.\n\n  113 Hom. Od. XIX. 174.\n\n  114 Ap. Strab. X. p. 475 D. and Stephan. Byzant. in \u0394\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. Diodorus IV.\n      60. V. 80, gives nearly the same account, on the authority of Cretan\n      historians, whom he mentions in V. 80.\n\n  115 This may be collected from the passage of Dic\u00e6archus (which, indeed,\n      is much mutilated) cited in Steph. Byz. in \u0394\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. It is given most\n      faithfully in Montfaucon\u2019s Biblioth. Coislin. p. 286, 59.\n\n  116 \u03a4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 appears to be the correct name, the same as that of an\n      ancient prince of Larissa, on which the ancient Dorians bordered.\n      The princes of the allied nations were doubtless confounded in\n      tradition. See the author\u2019s _Etrusker_, vol. I. p. 94.\n\n  117 The settlements which here come into consideration are, 1. the\n      immigration, after the death of Minos (in the third generation\n      before the siege of Troy), of various races, chiefly Hellenes,\n      according to Herod. VII. 170; this is a mere tradition of the towns\n      of Polichna and Pr\u00e6sus, and not a very credible one. 2. The colony\n      of Alth\u00e6menes after the expedition of the Heraclid\u00e6 from Argos and\n      Megara, and in connexion with Rhodes. 3. Dorians from Peloponnesus,\n      Lyctus, Lampe, and other places settled from Sparta; Phar\u00e6 a colony\n      of the Messenians; Gortyna of Amycl\u00e6ans (Minyans); Ph\u00e6stus colonized\n      from Sicyon; other towns from Argos (Scylax, p. 18, Diod. V. 80). 4.\n      \u00c6ginetans in Cydonia.\n\n  118 Strabo X. p. 475 C.\n\n  119 The Cretan cities were generally considered as Doric; Menander de\n      Encom. XXXII. 1, p. 81, ed. Heeren. and others.\n\n  120 Od. XIX. 175. \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7.\n\n  121 On this migration of the Dorians from their early settlements in the\n      north of Greece to Crete, see Appendix III.\n\n_  122 Orchomenos_, pp. 233, 234. According to Andron (Strabo X. p. 475)\n      they came directly from Hesti\u00e6otis under mount Parnassus. According\n      to Diodorus IV. 67, the Cadmeans drove out the Dorians, who then\n      _returned_ to Doris (Erineus, Cytinium, Boeum). Lycophron v. 1388,\n      might be quoted in confirmation of Herodotus, since he calls the\n      Dorians \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 (\u039b\u03ac\u03ba\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03b2\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u1ff4\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2),\n      Lacmon being the name of the ridge of Pindus and the Cambunian\n      mountains. But Lycophron only alludes to their settlements in\n      Hesti\u00e6otis.\n\n  123 Il. II. 849, XXI. 159. It is to this that Herodotus alludes, when he\n      says that the Teucrians, to which race he refers the P\u00e6onians, had\n      penetrated as far as the Peneus (see the Introduction, and Appendix\n      I. \u00a7 4).\n\n  124 See Appendix I. \u00a7 17.\n\n  125 Introduction, \u00a7 3; Appendix I. \u00a7 25.\n\n  126 Amphic\u00e6a near Dadja. See Leake in Walpole\u2019s Travels, p. 509. Clarke,\n      p. 227. Gell, Itinerary, p. 210.\n\n  127 I here chiefly follow Dodwell, vol. II. p. 133, and Gell: compare\n      _Orchomenos_, p. 41. Pouqueville is completely in error. According\n      to him the Cephisus rises 11-1/2 hours N.E. of Artotina, which he\n      supposes to be Erineus, and flows from the north into the Pindus,\n      which river (he says) runs into the Gulph of Corinth, contrary to\n      all accounts of ancient writers.\n\n  128 The old maps are all incorrect; see now Gell\u2019s map to his Itinerary.\n      According to Strabo the Tetrapolis lay chiefly to the east of\n      Parnassus, but it extended also round to the west, IX. p. 417. The\n      river Pindus is now, according to Dodwell, the _Aniani_.\n\n  129 See p. 40, note i. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote below\n      to \u201cthe Locrians,\u201d that starts with \u201cThucyd. III. 95\u201d.]\n\n  130 See Strabo IX. p. 427. X. p. 476 A. Strabo distinguishes Erineus in\n      Phthiotis from this town, IX. p. 434. Etymol. Mag. p. 373, 56, \u1f41\n      \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 is the correct form. Mela however, and the scholiasts to\n      Pindar and Aristophanes quoted below, call it _Erineum_.\n\n  131 Strabo IX. p. 427 B. p. 434. Steph. Byz. \u1f08\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\u2014\u1f49 \u1f08\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03b1\u03c2, Gen. \u1f08\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03b1, _Dorice_, see Bekker\u2019s Anecdota,\n      vol. III. p. 1313.\n\n  132 Scymnus Chius v. 591. \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd, \u0392\u03bf\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd, \u039a\u03c5\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03a0\u03af\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. Comp. Conon. hist. 27. In answer to\n      those who deny that Pindus was situated in this Tetrapolis, it is\n      sufficient to quote Herod. VIII. 43. Comp. du Theil Eclairc. sur\n      Strabon IX. tom. III. p. 118. Raoul-Rochette, tom. II. p. 252, IV.\n      p. 392.\n\n  133 Strabo IX. p. 427 C. arranges them in this manner: \u00c6tolians, Locri\n      Hesperii, Dorians, \u00c6nianes, Locri Epicnemidii; compare pp. 425, 430\n      B.\n\n  134 Thucyd. III. 95, 102. It is the Kakiscala between Stagni and Salona.\n      Dodwell, vol. I. p. 149, and Gell, p. 206.\n\n  135 See Philochorus ap. Dionys. ad Amm\u00e6um c. 11. Philoch. Fragm. ed.\n      Siebelis p. 76.\n\n  136 Pausan. X. 33, 2.\n\n  137 This road through Camara, Pal\u00e6ochori, and Neuropoli, is described by\n      Dodwell, vol. II. p. 126. Gell, p. 241.\n\n  138 Holland went over this road near Eleutherochori, p. 383, comp.\n      Dodwell, p. 74. It is also the way alluded to by Procopius de \u00c6dif.\n      IV. 2.\n\n  139 Liv. XXXVI. 15. For a description of Thermopyl\u00e6 see _Orchomenos_, p.\n      486. Clarke, ch. 8, p. 240. Holland, ch. 18, p. 315. Gell,\n      Itinerary, p. 239.\n\n  140 See Stephan. Byz. in \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 from Theopompus. Eurip. Herc. Fur. 386.\n\n  141 Strabo IX. p. 428. Liv. XXXVI. 16.\n\n  142 Steph. Byz. in \u03a6\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, and Hellanicus, ibid.\n\n  143 Strabo ubi sup.\n\n  144 See Lycophron, Hecat\u00e6us, Rhianus quoted by Stephanus.\n\n  145 Thus Andron in Strabo X. p. 476. Thucyd. I. 107.\n\n  146 \u00c6schin. de Fals. Leg. p. 43, 24, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f24\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\n      [Dr. Cramer, Description of Ancient Greece, vol. II. p. 103,\n      corrects \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 in \u00c6schines, after Thucydides, who in III.\n      95, speaks of \u039a\u03c5\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd. Transl.]\n\n  147 Theopompus ap. Steph. \u1f08\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03b1\u03c2. Scymnus Chius ubi sup.\n\n  148 Strabo VIII. p. 383. Conon. 27. Scymnus. To this also refers the\n      statement in Apollodorus I. 7, 3. that Dorus the son of Hellen \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n      \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd. Vitruvius IV. 1, however, gives a\n      different account, _Achaia Peloponnesoque tota Dorus Hellenis et\n      Orseidis nymph\u00e6_ (a mountain nymph) _filius regnavit_.\n\n  149 Hecat\u00e6us ap. Stephan.\n\n  150 In the scholia to Pindar, Pyth. I. 121, in which, however, there is\n      some transposition and confusion. There is nowhere else any mention\n      of a city in Perrh\u00e6bia named Pindus. In Pindar \u03a0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd is used\n      generally for the earlier settlements; for Hesti\u00e6otis and Doris both\n      touch on the chain of Pindus. See Boeckh. Explic. p. 235. These\n      scholia are probably followed by the scholiast on Aristoph. Plut.\n      385, and by Tzetzes ad Lycophr. v. 980. comp. v. 741; but without\n      separating the erroneous parts.\n\n  151 Tarphe was near the Doric Tetrapolis between \u0152ta and Parnassus. It\n      is mentioned in Iliad II. 533, as a Locrian town; according to\n      Strabo IX. p. 426, it was afterwards called Pharyg\u00e6, which Plutarch,\n      Phocion 33, includes in Phocis, and names near it a hill called\n      Acrurion. Tarphe and Carph\u00e6a may be considered as different forms of\n      the same name, _t_ and _k_ being often interchanged. Thus the\n      mythological hero Talaus is sometimes Calaus. (Schol. Soph. \u0152d. Col.\n      1320.)\n\n  152 Herod. VIII. 31, comp. Plutarch. Themistocl. 9.\n\n  153 P. 24. \u0394\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n  154 Herod. VIII. 31 and 43. \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\n      \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03af\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0394\u03c1\u03c5\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. According\n      to this passage, therefore, Cytinium and Boeum may both have been\n      inhabited by the Dryopians.\n\n  155 According to Strabo IX. p. 434, there was a Dryopian Tetrapolis as\n      well as a Dorian.\n\n  156 Ap. Strab. p. 373. The scholia to Apollon. Rhod. I. 1283, furnish a\n      genealogy, viz. Lycaon, Dia, Dryops. Followed by Tzetzes ad Lyc.\n      480, and Etymol. Mag. p. 288, 32. Pherecydes, however, quoted in the\n      scholia to Apollonius, gives a different account.\n\n  157 See book II. ch. 11, \u00a7 3.\n\n  158 In the neighbourhood of the Malians and Myrmidonian Ach\u00e6ans,\n      Pherecydes ap. Schol. Apoll. Rh. I. 1823, pp. 93, 107, ed. Sturz.\n      Aristotle ubi sup. At the foot of Mount Parnassus, Aristotle and\n      Pausan. IV. 34, 6. \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9. The \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 from the\n      Spercheus to Trachis is merely a confusion of the scholiast to\n      Apollonius. Callimachus had only mentioned the migration to\n      Peloponnesus, Schol. Paris. Clavier\u2019s remarks (ad Apollod. p. 323)\n      are very inaccurate. Dryops, the son of Spercheus, dwelt at the foot\n      of mount \u0152ta, according to Antoninus Liberalis, 32.\n\n  159 Ibid. 4. \u039a\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0394\u03c1\u03cd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1fa2\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0394\u03c1\u03c5\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u1f70\n      \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. In this strange account Melaneus, the son of Apollo, a\n      king of the Dryopes, is represented as taking Epirus and Ambracia.\n      It is a part of the same history as the migration of the \u00c6nianes and\n      Neoptolemus to Molossis, _\u00c6ginetica_, p. 18.\n\n  160 Book II. ch. 3, \u00a7 3.\n\n  161 Aristot. ap. Strab. ubi sup. Apollod. II. 7, 7. Diod. IV. 37.\n      Pausan. IV. 34, 6. Servius ad \u00c6n. IV. 146. \u03a0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, p.\n      152. Marini Ville Albani. comp. _\u00c6ginetica_, p. 33. Heyne Exc. ad\n      \u00c6n. IV. 2, p. 610. Raoul-Rochette, tom. I. p. 434. Herod. VIII. 43,\n      \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u0394\u03c1\u03cd\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd\n      \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. A peculiar application of the\n      tradition in Suidas in \u0394\u03c1\u03cd\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \u039a\u03ac\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. The verse of Callimachus\n      preserved in Etymol. Magn. p. 154, 7, should apparently be thus\n      written, \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, the explanation\n      is given by the etymologist himself. See above, p. 45, note k.\n      [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201cParnassus,\u201d starting\n      \u201cIn the neighbourhood of the Malians.\u201d]\n\n  162 Herodot. VIII. 46. Diodor. IV. 57. Thucydides VII. 57, however,\n      considers the Styrians as Ionians.\n\n  163 Herodot. ubi sup. Diodor. ubi sup. The fabulous war of Amphitryon\n      against Cythnus is probably connected with it.\n\n  164 Herodot. VII. 90. Diodor. ubi sup. Asine in Cyprus, Stephan. Byz.\n      Also in Cyzicus, according to Strabo XIII. p. 586.\n\n  165 See _Orchomenos_, p. 496. In \u00c6schines adv. Ctesiph. p. 68, 40,\n      according to Didymus and Xenagoras in Harpocration, \u039a\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\n      should be written.\n\n  166 Antonin. Liberal. 4.\n\n  167 Book II. ch. 3, \u00a7 3.\n\n  168 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03a4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 Thucyd. III. 92. comp. Dodwell, II. p.\n      71. I may also remark that Scylax and Diodorus, XVIII. 11, appear to\n      make a distinction between Melians and Malians; but in both places\n      \u039b\u0391\u039c\u0399\u0395\u0399\u03a3 should be written for \u039c\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 and \u039c\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2. Wesseling\u2019s\n      opinion concerning the last passage is untenable, since there never\n      was a town of the name of Malea. Diodorus is not quite accurate.\n\n  169 Diodor. XII. 59.\n\n  170 Aristot. Polit. IV. 13.\n\n  171 Thucyd. IV. 100.\n\n  172 See Tittmann\u2019s Amphiktyonenbund, p. 41.\n\n  173 Strabo IX. p. 434.\n\n_  174 \u00c6ginetica_, p. 17.\n\n_  175 Orchomenos_, p. 253.\n\n  176 Book II. ch. 3, \u00a7 12.\n\n  177 Thucyd. III. 92.\n\n  178 Strab. IX. p. 442.\n\n  179 Thucyd. VIII. 3. Concerning the founding of Heraclea, see also\n      Stephan. Byz. in v. \u0394\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, after the hiatus.\n\n  180 Book II. ch. 1. \u00a7 8, ch. 3. \u00a7 5.\n\n_  181 Orchomenos_, p. 238. Compare in general with this chapter,\n      Raoul-Rochette, tom. II. p. 249.\n\n  182 \u1f21 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03d1\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2. Thucydides I. 12, says \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03be\u1f7a\u03bd\n      \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u00ed\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2. Isocrates Archidam. p. 119 C. mentions an oracle\n      enjoining them \u1f10\u03c0\u00ec \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f30\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n  183 XIX. 105.\n\n  184 See Pausan. VII. 25. 3.\n\n  185 \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2,\n      \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd.\n      \u039f\u1f37\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f20\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1,\n      \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u03a0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1.\n\n      \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd is Laconia. _We_ mean the Dorians: Erineus the\n      Tetrapolis. Strabo VIII. p. 362 has not correctly understood and\n      applied these verses. (See below, note to ch. 7. \u00a7 10.) Tyrt\u00e6us also\n      calls the Dorians generally \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u2014whence Plutarch de Nobil.\n      2. p. 388.\n\n  186 Herodot. V. 72. According to VI. 53, he might also have said, \u201cI am\n      an Egyptian.\u201d\n\n  187 A similar idea is entertained by Plato in his Laws, III. p.\n      682\u2014viz., that the Dorians were properly Ach\u00e6ans, expelled from\n      their own country after the Trojan war, and afterwards collected and\n      brought back by one Dorieus.\n\n  188 Pind. Pyth. V. 70. In Pyth. I. 61, he calls them descendants of\n      Pamphylus and the Heraclid\u00e6, not mentioning Dymas. Compare the\n      fragment of the Isthmians, \u1f5d\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2.\n\n  189 See Pausan. IV. 2. 1. There are two other passages of Hesiod\n      referring to the expedition of the Heraclid\u00e6. Schol. Apollon I. 824.\n\n      \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f74\u03bd \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf,\n\n      the connexion of which is very obscure (see Bentley ad Callim. Cer.\n      Calath. 48); and Schol. Pind. Olymp. XI. 79. _e cod. Vratisl_.\n\n      \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f1c\u03c7\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f04\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n      From this passage Apollod. III. 10. 6. Pausan. VIII. 5. 1. draw\n      their materials. This, however, might also occur among the actions\n      of Hercules, particularly at the first Olympian festival, as may be\n      seen from Pindar.\n\n  190 VI. 52.\n\n  191 Compare Pausan. IV. 2. 1. with V. 17. 4. and Valckenar. Diatrib.\n      Eurip. pp. 58, 59.\n\n  192 Herod. ubi sup. et c. 51. Wesseling misinterprets the first passage;\n      its purport is, \u201c_The Laced\u00e6monians give a different account from\n      all the poets, who make Eurysthenes and Procles first come to\n      Sparta._\u201d Schweigh\u00e6user does not see the exact meaning of the\n      second; the sense is, \u201c_So far is the national tradition of the\n      Laced\u00e6monians; in what follows, I relate the common tradition of\n      Greece._\u201d\n\n  193 Herodot. IX. 26.\n\n  194 IX. 26.\n\n  195 In general the tragic poets successively descend, according to their\n      age, to a later date of mythological history.\n\n  196 Pausan. IV. 2. 1.\n\n  197 I take this opportunity of renewing the memory of one of these\n      Doric-Heraclide leaders, who has been so far forgotten, that in the\n      passage of Pausanias IV. 30. 1. his name has been driven from the\n      text. It should be thus written from the MSS.: \u1f5d\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\n      \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f08\u03b2\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u0393\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n      \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, &c. This Glenus occurs as the son of\n      Deianira in Apollod. II. 7. 8. and Schol. Soph. Trachin. 53.\n      Diodorus IV. 37. calls him Gleneus. Pherecydes ap. Schol. Pind.\n      Isth. IV. 104. reckons him among the children of Megara by Hercules.\n\n  198 Ap. Longin. 27. Creuzer. Fragment. p. 54. Apollodorus II. 8. 1.\n      almost makes it appear that the Heraclid\u00e6 had been entertained by\n      Eurystheus; but this does not agree with what precedes. Euripides\n      Heraclid. 13. 195. represents them as flying first from Argos to\n      Trachis, and to Achaia in Thessaly, and then to Athens.\n\n  199 Thus Pherecydes in Antonin. Liber. 33. Sturz (Fragm. 50. p. 196.)\n      does not quite understand this passage.\n\n  200 At Marathon, according to most authors. Diodorus IV. 57. mentions\n      Tricorythus; Compare XII. 45.\n\n  201 The outline of the narrative is furnished by Pherecydes and Herod.\n      IX. 27. the details by Euripides in the Heraclid\u00e6, whose account was\n      influenced by the circumstances of the time (Boeckh. trag. Gr.\n      princ. p. 190). Whether the Heraclid\u00e6 of Pamphilus (Aristoph. Plut.\n      385. Schol. ad I. p. 112, Hemsterh.) was a _tragedy_ or a _picture_,\n      was frequently contested by the ancients. The latter appears to be\n      most probable: see Winckelmann and Meyer Kunstgeschichte, p. 166.\n      Pamphilus painted the battle of Phlius, one of those which took\n      place in the 102nd or 103rd Olympiad; and it may be fairly supposed\n      that he flourished about Olymp. 97, 4, the year in which the second\n      edition of the Plutus was brought forward, and he might have lived\n      to be the master of Apelles, who had obtained great celebrity in the\n      reign of Philip.\u2014Concerning the battle, see Elmsley ad Eur.\n      Heraclid. 860; concerning the death of Eurystheus, Wesseling. ad\n      Diod. IV. 57. and Staveren. Misc. Obs. vol. X. p. 383. Pallene is\n      between Marathon and Athens;\u2014according to Strabo VIII. p. 377. the\n      tomb was at Gargettus on the western coast; according to Pausanias\n      I. 40. in Megaris. Concerning Macaria, see Pausan. I. 32. Schol.\n      Aristoph. Eq. 1148. Zenob II. 61. and other grammarians in v. \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd\n      \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u00ed\u03b1\u03bd. A totally different tradition is preserved by Duris\n      ap. Schol. Plat. p. 134, Ruhnk. In the above quoted passage of\n      Strabo, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c3 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a4\u0397\u0399 \u039a\u039f\u03a1\u0399\u039d\u0398\u03a9\u0399, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n      \u1f38\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd should probably be written \u1f10\u03bd\n      \u03a4\u03a1\u0399\u039a\u039f\u03a1\u03a5\u0398\u03a9\u0399; thus in VIII. p. 383. one MS. has \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2. (In this\n      correction I now find that I was anticipated by Elmsley ad Eurip.\n      Heracl. 103.) Heyne indeed (_ad Apollod._ II. 8. 1.) explains \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n      \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u1ff3 of the tomb of Eurystheus in Pausan. I. 44. 14.; but this\n      was in Megaris, and there never was any change in the boundaries of\n      Corinth and Megaris. Heyne also considers the tomb near the temple\n      of the Pallenian Minerva and that at Gargettus as identical; but\n      this is not possible, on account of the situation of the two\n      places.\u2014Concerning Gargettus see the article _Attika_ in Ersch\u2019s\n      Encyclop\u00e6dia, p. 222.\n\n  202 Demosth. de Corona, p. 147.\n\n  203 It does not follow from Pindar Pyth. IX. 82. that Iolaus was\n      restored to life, which must have been alluded to elsewhere. I\n      follow the second Scholiast, \u03b7\u1f54\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0394\u03b9\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f64\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f21\u03b2\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9,\n      &c. Compare Ovid. Met. IX. 408.\n\n  204 See book II. ch. 11. \u00a7 10.\n\n  205 Ap. Antonin. Lib. 33.\u2014There is also a trace of another tradition in\n      Apostolius XVIII. 7.\n\n  206 See book II. ch. 11. \u00a7 7.\n\n  207 Thus also Thucyd. I. 9. Plat. Leg. III. p. 686. In Schol. Eurip.\n      Orest. 5. write \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd (the Atrid\u00e6) \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n      \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. Poly\u00e6nus I. 10. is singular in mentioning\n      Eurysthid\u00e6 in Sparta at the time of the migration; but by Eurysthid\u00e6\n      must be meant \u201c_descendants_ of Eurysthenes,\u201d not \u201cEurysthenes and\n      his party.\u201d See Clinton F. H. vol. I. p. 333.\n\n  208 See particularly Plato ubi sup.\n\n  209 Apollod. II. 8. 2. \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n      \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n      \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03c5\u03b3\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1, \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n      \u1f38\u03c3\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. With the word \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 compare \u03ba\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n      \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u00c6schyl. Theb. 478. and 1026. In later times, however,\n      these oracles were put into an epic form, as may be seen from\n      \u0152nomaus ap. Euseb. Pr\u00e6p. Ev. V. 20.\n\n  210 See Herod. IX. 26. Pausan. I. 41. 3. I. 44. VIII. 5. 1. VIII. 45. 2.\n      Diod. IV. 58. Schol. Pind. Olymp. N. 80. Van Staveren Misc. Observ.\n      X. 3. p. 385.\n\n  211 Pausan. VIII. 5. Apollod. II. 7. 7. Diod. IV. 58. Strabo IV. p. 427\n      C. Isocrat. Archidam. p. 119 B. \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n  212 Manso, Sparta, vol. I. p. 61.\n\n  213 Apollod. II. 8. 3. In Pausan. II. 28. 3. Orsobia, a daughter of\n      Deiphontes of Epidaurus, is the wife of Pamphylus.\n\n  214 He was mentioned by Hesiod; see above, p. 55. note k. [Transcriber\u2019s\n      Note: No such note on that page, nor any reference to Cleod\u00e6us.] A\n      different genealogy is given by Tzetzes ad Lycophr. 804, viz., that\n      Cleod\u00e6us was the son of Hyllus, the brother of Lichas and Ceyx, the\n      husband of a certain Peridea, and the father of Temenus.\n\n  215 See Crates ap. Tatian. cont. Gr\u00e6cos, p. 107. ed. Oxf. Interpret. ad\n      Vellei. I. 1.\n\n  216 See particularly \u0152nomaus ap. Euseb. Pr\u00e6p. Ev. V. 20.; and concerning\n      the second see Apollod. II. 8. 2. Pausan. II. 7.\n\n  217 Isocrates Archidam, p. 119, only supposes one expedition.\n\n  218 Pausan. V. 3. Eusebius ubi sup. Poly\u00e6n. I. 9. Compare Heyne ad\n      Apollod. p. 208.\n\n  219 See Strab. IX. p. 427. Ephorus, p. 105. ed. Marx. Compare Stephanus\n      and Suidas in Na\u03cdpakto\u03c2.\n\n  220 Bekk. Anecd. Gr\u00e6c. p. 305. 31. \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. \u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f37\u03c2\n      \u1f14\u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1fec\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd. Hesychius,\n      \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd (as should be\n      read for \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, rather than \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 for \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd with Siebelis ad\n      Pausan. III. 20. 9). \u0394\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd is explained by Hesychius to be a\n      Laced\u00e6monian word for \u201cstatue.\u201d These \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, the\n      \u201cconducting deities,\u201d were probably Zeus Agetor (book III. ch. 12. \u00a7\n      5.) and the Carnean Apollo: and their festival doubtless was\n      connected with the Carnea. At this solemnity then (as it seems) a\n      boat was carried round, and upon it a statue of the Carnean Apollo\n      (\u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2), both adorned with lustratory garlands, called\n      \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, in allusion to the passage from Naupactus.\n      Compare book II. ch. 3. \u00a7 1. ch. 8. \u00a7 15.\n\n  221 Paus. III. 20. 9.\n\n  222 See _Orchomenos_, p. 333. To the passages there quoted may be added\n      Etymol. in v. \u1f08\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. And see book II. ch. 8. \u00a7 15.\n\n  223 There were in later times Acarnanian soothsayers at Thermopyl\u00e6,\n      Herod. VIII. 221. in the case of Pisistratus, and elsewhere.\n\n  224 Thucyd. I. 103. The city was afterwards \u00c6tolian: Boeckh. Corp.\n      Inscript. Gr. No. 1756.\n\n  225 Polyb. Excerpt. lib. XII. ap. Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vol. II.\n      p. 386.\n\n  226 And of Pleuron with Xanthippe the daughter of Dorus, Apollod. I. 7.\n      7, although \u00c6tolus is also represented as killing Dorus the son of\n      Apollo.\n\n  227 Perhaps the \u00c6tolians had from early times worshipped the three-eyed\n      Zeus (\u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2), which Sthenelus the \u00c6tolian brought from\n      Troy, according to Pausanias II. 24. 5.\n\n  228 Oxylus is said to have contracted an alliance with the Heraclid\u00e6 in\n      the island of Sphacteria (Steph. Byzant.); but this story is\n      probably founded merely on the etymology of the name Sphacteria.\n\n  229 As also Pausanias, V. 1. says.\n\n  230 Pausan. ubi sup. Strabo X. p. 463. Compare Il. \u03c8. 630.\n\n  231 This is the representation given by Pausanias V. 4. 1. \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7\n      \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n  232 Pausan. V. 15. 7. Concerning the Tyrrhenians who accompanied them,\n      see _Orchomenos_, p. 443. note 3, together with Pausan. II. 31. 3.\n      Of the Thebans, who are said to have joined under Autesion, see a\n      detailed account in the same place.\n\n  233 As, _e.g._, Apollodorus evidently.\n\n  234 The name of Tisamenus, as an epithet of his father (\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2),\n      corresponds to Eurysaces the son of Ajax, Telemachus and\n      Ptoliporthus of Ulysses, Astyanax of Hector, Nicostratus the\n      youngest son of Menelaus according to Hesiod, Gorgophone the\n      daughter of Perseus, Metanastes the son of Archander, Aletes of\n      Hippotes; but it cannot be inferred from this that it was mere\n      fiction, since this method of giving names existed in historic times\n      (Poly\u00e6n. VI. 1, 6) even in the royal family of Macedon. See also\n      what Plutarch de Malignit. Herodot. 39, says on the names of the\n      children of Adeimantus the Corinthian. Names derived from a\n      characteristic of the parent (an example of which occurs in Iliad\n      IX. 562) were called \u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1, according to Schol. Steph. in Dionys.\n      Gramm. ap. Bekker Anecd. Gr. vol. II. p. 868.\n\n  235 Pausan. V. 4, 1. See below, ch. 7, \u00a7 6, note.\n\n  236 Pausan. VIII. 29, 4. It is related as a stratagem of Cypselus by\n      Poly\u00e6nus I. 7. Perhaps _Cypsela_, a fort in Parrhasia, near Sciritis\n      in Laconia, is the same as Basilis, Thucyd. V. 33. It would not\n      however be very accurate to say of Basilis that it lies \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7\n      \u03a3\u03ba\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9. An oracle referring to the amity with the Arcadians is\n      preserved in Schol. Aristid. Panathen. p. 191, ed. Steph.; p. 33,\n      ed. Frommel.\n\n  237 See _\u00c6ginetica_, p. 39, note e, and Euripides ap. Strab. VIII. p.\n      366. Sophocl. Aj. 1287. (comp. Suidas in v. \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), Hesychius in\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd and \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae.\u2014Plato Leg. III. p. 686. Apollodorus, Poly\u00e6n.\n      I. 6. The vase in Tischbein I. 7, represents an \u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2,\n      and not this casting of lots, as Italinsky supposes. The same group\n      indeed sometimes occurs on gems _armed_ (Gemm\u00e6 Florentin\u00e6, tom. II.\n      tab. 29; compare Winckelmann Monum. ined. n. 164, vol. III. of his\n      works, p. xxvii.); but I believe that an \u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 is equally\n      meant, as, _e.g._, that of the Argonauts in Apollon. Rhod. IV. 1767,\n      since the expedition of the Heraclid\u00e6, early as it was, was not one\n      of the usual subjects of art.\n\n  238 See below, ch. 5.\n\n  239 Boeckh Inscr. I. p. 81, 82.\n\n  240 In an oracle preserved by Plutarch de Pyth. Orac. 24, p. 289, the\n      Spartans are called \u1f40\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03b2\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9. The word of the oracle itself\n      doubtless was \u1f40\u03c6\u03b9\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 (\u1f40\u03c0\u03c6\u03b9\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9), as in Aristot. Mirab.\n      Auscult. 23, which however might have been explained to have the\n      same meaning as the former word, viz. \u201c_drawing back the skin of\n      serpents in order to eat them_.\u201d The frog was the emblem of the\n      Argives, as never coming out of their hole; compare ch. 8, \u00a7 7.\n\n  241 Isocrates, Panath. p. 286 A., says far too generally, \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u1fc3 \u03b4\u1f72\n      \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f21\u03c4\u03c4\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03ba \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, which he afterwards modifies considerably.\n\n  242 V. 4, 2. An _Ach\u00e6an_ from Helice occurs as the cotemporary of\n      Hercules in Theocrit. XXV. 165; a greater inconsistency with the\n      received chronology than poets usually permit themselves.\n\n  243 Pausan. VII. 1.\n\n_  244 Orchomenos_, pp. 398, 477.\n\n  245 Aristot. Pol. V. 8, according to the most probable reading.\n\n  246 Pind. Nem. XI. 32.\n\n  247 Peloponnesus is called the \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 in Phlegon de Olymp. p.\n      129, in Meurs. Op. vol. VII.\n\n  248 As Pouqueville several times remarks. The mountain-chains are more\n      connected by the \u0152nean promontory, and the mountains running\n      westward from Sicyon and joining mount Cyllene.\n\n  249 Ap. Gemin. Elem. Astron. XIV. p. 55, in Petavius Uranolog. The\n      passage is from the work of Dic\u00e6archus, entitled \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u1f10\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u1ff3 \u1f40\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, concerning which see Pliny N. H. II. 65, and\n      Suidas in \u0394\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  250 Apollodorus ap. Steph. Byz. (p. 400, ed. Heyne.) Eustath. ad Hom. p.\n      1951, 15. According to Capt. Peytier Cyllene is 7266 Paris feet in\n      height, Taygetus 7434, Parthenion (Zagura) 6095. These measurements\n      make Taygetus somewhat higher than Cyllene.\n\n  251 Holland in Walpole\u2019s Travels, p. 426.\n\n  252 Aristot. Meteorol. I. 13.\n\n  253 See Polybius IV. 21, 1, who particularly mentions Cyn\u00e6tha. Close by\n      was the cold spring of \u039b\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, or \u039b\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1; and Sprengel in his\n      translation of Theophrastus, vol. II. p. 383, well corrects in\n      Theophrast. IX. 15, 8, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03ce\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u039b\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n  254 From the Journal of Fourmont the younger.\n\n  255 Polyb. V. 22.\n\n  256 According to the interpretation of the Venetian Scholiast and\n      others.\n\n  257 Abaris is said to have appeased a pestilence, which had been\n      occasioned by this heat; Jamblich. in Vit. Pythagor. 19. Compare\n      Apollon. Dyscol. Hist. Mirab. c. 4, p. 9, ed. Meurs.\n\n  258 Theophrastus calls Laconia \u1fe5\u03bf\u03ce\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f14\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (de causis\n      pluvi\u00e6 III. 3, 4).\n\n  259 \u1fe5\u03c9\u03c7\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1, Eustath. ad Hom. p. 294, 10, p. 1478,\n      43, ed. Rom.\n\n  260 See Des Monceaux in Corneille le Bruyn, tom. V. p. 465.\n\n  261 Alcman ap. Athen. I. p. 31 C. Theognis, v. 879 sq. ed. Bekker.\n\n  262 Book III. ch. 2, \u00a7 3. Boeckh\u2019s Economy of Athens, book IV. ch. 19.\n\n  263 \u1f08\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, Xenoph. Hell. IV. 8, 7.\n\n  264 In Strabo VIII. p. 366. See Cresphont. fr. 1, ed. Dindorf.\n\n  265 It has been beautifully said of this district that \u1f40\u03c6\u03c1\u03c5\u1fb7 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, Strabo VIII. p. 381.\n\n  266 Polybius XVI. 16. 4. places it about west-south-west from Corinth.\n      Comp. Athen\u00e6us II. p. 43 E. Pindar Olymp. XI. 30. means the same\n      place.\n\n  267 Aristot. Meteor. I. 14. p. 755 C, and Aristides, \u00c6gypt. vol. II. p.\n      351, ed. Jebb.\n\n  268 Athen. V. p. 219 A. Lucian. Icaromenipp. 18. Nav. 20. Liv. XXVII.\n      31. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 969. Zenobius III. 57.\n\n  269 According to Fourmont\u2019s Journal and Gell\u2019s Argolis.\n\n  270 See Schol. Pind. Olymp. VII. 152. Boeckh Comment. Pind. p. 175.\n      Siebelis ad Pausan. II. 25, 6.\n\n  271 Elis in general is a \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, according to Theophrastus, Hist.\n      Plant. I. 6.\n\n  272 I here follow the Journal of the younger Fourmont, which appears\n      deserving of credit: he also states that he saw iron rings on the\n      blocks of stone.\n\n  273 Compare with this _Orchomenos_, chap. 2.\n\n  274 See Schol. Eurip. Orest. 626. comp. Manso, Sparta, vol. I. p. 11.\n\n  275 Strabo VIII. p. 363 A.\n\n  276 Polyb. V. 22. 6.\n\n  277 Thucyd. I. 120. \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f61\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n  278 See book III. ch. 10. \u00a7 2, 5.\n\n  279 Isocrates Panath. p. 286 C, says, that in the most ancient times\n      there were only 2000 Dorians in Sparta; but his statement is too\n      uncertain to found any calculation upon.\n\n  280 See Boeckh on the four ancient tribes of Attica, Museum Criticum,\n      vol. II. p. 608.\n\n  281 Pausan. VII. 1. 6, 7.\n\n  282 Pausan. VII. 18. 3, book III. ch. 4, \u00a7 8.\n\n  283 Clarke\u2019s Travels, II. 2. p. 646, &c.\n\n  284 Below, ch. 5. \u00a7 1 and 8.\n\n  285 See Thucyd. I. 122. III. 85, and the example of Decelea.\n\n  286 \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u039a\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1, Pindar. Fragment. Incert. 48, ed.\n      Boeckh.\n\n  287 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf \u039c\u03c5\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, Homer. Compare book IV. ch. 1.\n\n  288 Fourmont supposes that he has recognised Temenium in a citadel to\n      the south of Lerna, but it must lie to the north.\n\n  289 See Callimach. Fragm. 108. ed. Bentl. from Schol. Pind. Nem. X. 1.\n      Concerning the taking of Argos see Poly\u00e6n. II. 12.\n\n  290 Plutarch. Qu. Gr. 48. p. 404. Cf. Schol. Callim. Pall. 37.\n\n  291 Pausan. II. 28. 3. The names given by Apollodorus II. 7. 6., viz.\n      Agelaus, Euryphylus, and Callias, are probably from the Temenid\u00e6 of\n      Euripides. Ceisus and Phalces are mentioned by Ephorus ap. Strab.\n      VIII. p. 389. Scymn. Chi. V. 525 sq. Pausan. II. 6. 4. II. 12. 6.\n      II. 13. 1. Ceisus is also mentioned by Hyginus, Fab. 124 (where read\n      _Cisus_ Temeni filius); but his account is very confused. See\n      _\u00c6ginetica_, p. 40.\n\n  292 Pausan. II. 6. 3. Eustath. ad Il. V. p. 520. Stephanus Byzant. says\n      \u03a6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1fec\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n  293 \u039d\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b7\u03c2 \u03a3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2; I conjecture \u1f59\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  294 Fourmont\u2019s Journal contains a detailed and accurate account of this\n      river.\n\n  295 Pausan. II. 11. 2.\n\n  296 Pausan. II. 13. 1. \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03b3\u1fc6s.\n\n  297 Pausan. ubi sup. and VII. 3. 5.\n\n  298 Pausan. III. 16. 5. \u0398\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n      \u039a\u039b\u0395\u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u03a9\u039d\u0391\u0399\u03a9\u039d, \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u039a\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. Since\n      some Doric state must be here meant, \u039a\u039b\u0395\u03a9\u039d\u0391\u0399\u03a9\u039d, the conjecture of\n      K\u00fchn, seems most probable; and all doubt is removed by a comparison\n      of \u00c6lian N.A. XII. 31., where, however, Thersander is called the son\n      of Cleonymus, not of Agamedidas. Perhaps Pausanias means\n      \u201cThersander, the son of the son of Agamedes.\u201d\n\n  299 Sophocl. Acris. ap. Hesych. in \u1f00\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03b7\u03c2. Scymnus Chius 526. from\n      Ephorus, Polyb. V. 91. 8. Conon. 7. Diodor. XII. 43. XV. 32. XVIII.\n      11. Strab. VIII. p. 389. \u00c6lian. V. H. VI. 1. Plutarch. Demetr. 25.\n      Pausan. II. 8. 4. \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b6\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f41\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n      \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. It is different from the \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, which is the\n      south coast.\n\n  300 Concerning these doubtful names (\u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f08\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2), see _\u00c6ginet_. p.\n      40. The name was common in Macedonia in later times; see Harpocrat.\n      in \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  301 This is stated by Pausanias. See also Jamblichus Pythagor. 2.\n      concerning the Epidaurian colony in Samos. Aristotle ap. Strab.\n      VIII. p. 314, states that the Ionians came _together with_ the\n      Heraclid\u00e6 from the Attic Tetrapolis to Epidaurus. The former account\n      is by far the most probable.\n\n_  302 \u00c6ginet_. p. 43.\n\n  303 Pausan. II. 30. 9.\n\n  304 Book II. ch. 2, \u00a7 8. According to Pausanias II. 30. 9. Anaphlystus\n      and Sphettus, the sons of Tr\u0153zen, passed over to Attica, and gave\n      their names to the two boroughs so called. See Appendix II.\n\n  305 Pausan. II. 33. 1.\n\n  306 Pyth. IV. 49.\n\n  307 Strab. VIII. p. 312. 377.\n\n  308 Plutarch. de Def. Orac. p. 620. Paus. X. 18. 4.\n\n  309 See book III. ch. 4, \u00a7 2.\n\n  310 This is evident from Thucyd. V. 53. \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n      \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n  311 Ibid. According to Diodorus XII. 18. the Laced\u00e6monians were bound to\n      send sacrifices to Apollo Pytha\u00ebus (\u03a0\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2); but his account is\n      confused.\n\n  312 Pausan. II. 35. 2. 36. 5. Compare book II. ch. 3. \u00a7 4.\n\n  313 Above, ch. 2, \u00a7 4.\n\n  314 Pausan. II. 28. 2. 34. 6.\n\n  315 Steph. Byz. in \u039d\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03b1, where, from the context, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 should\n      be written for \u1f28\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  316 II. 8.\n\n  317 Conon. 26. Etymol. Mag. in \u1f08\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n  318 Compare p. 72, note f.\n\n  319 Aristot. ap. Proverb. Vatic. IV. 4. \u039c\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. Compare\n      Apostol. XIX. 89, and Suidas, Diogenianus VII. 31, explains it\n      differently.\n\n  320 \u0394\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u1ff6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f08\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. See Duris in Plutarch. Prov. Alex. 48. p.\n      593. Diogenian IV. 27. Zenobius III. 22. Suidas in \u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, Schol.\n      Pind. Nem. VII. 155. Perhaps Suidas in \u1f00\u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 refers to this\n      story.\n\n_  321 Orchomenos_, p. 352. See also Plutarch. Qu. Gr. 13. The delivery of\n      a clod of earth (a common symbol of transfer of possession of land,\n      Grimm Rechtsalterth\u00fcmer, p. 110-21) also occurs in the history of\n      the Ionic colony, Lycophron 1378. and Tzetzes Chil. XIII. p. 468. v.\n      112.\n\n  322 Thucyd. IV. 42. Compare Poly\u00e6n. I. 39.\n\n  323 Schol. Pind. Olymp. XIII. 56.\n\n  324 Didymus Schol. Pind. Olymp. XIII. 17. Conon ubi sup. Compare\n      Diodorus in Euseb. Chronic. p. 35. (Fragment. 6. p. 635. Wessel.)\n      Ephorus in Strab. VIII. p. 389 D, and Scymnus Chius, 526.\n\n  325 According to Velleius Paterc.\n\n  326 IV. 42.\n\n_  327 Orchomenos_, p. 140. According to Conon ubi sup. Aletes found\n      Sisyphid\u00e6 and Ionians mixed with them.\n\n_  328 Orchomenos_, p. 257.\n\n  329 II. 4. 3.\n\n  330 Pindar. Olymp. XIII. 11. Compare Boeckh\u2019s Commentary, p. 213.\n      Callimachus ap. Plutarch. Symp. Qu. V. 3. p. 213. \u1f08\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd\n      \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u0398\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03c3\u03b8\u03bc\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0396\u03ae\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039d\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5.\n\n  331 Herodot. V. 92. 2. This perhaps may afford some explanation of the\n      ancient affinity between the Cypselid\u00e6 and Philaidae (see Herodot.\n      VI. 128.), by a comparison of the table, _Orchomenos_, p. 465.\n\n  332 II. 4. 4. compare V. 18. 2.\n\n  333 See Blanchard Recherches sur la ville de M\u00e9gare, M\u00e9m. de l\u2019Acad. des\n      Inscr. tom. XVI. p. 121.\n\n  334 Herodot. V. 76. Lycurg. in Leocrat. p. 196. Strabo IX. p. 293. XIV.\n      p. 653. Conon 26. Scymnus Chius, 503.\n\n  335 See Raoul-Rochette III p. 56. who has omitted the remarkable passage\n      of Pausan. VII. 25. according to which the Laced\u00e6monians had partly\n      taken Athens. There was at Athens a Delphian _gens_ named\n      Cleomantid\u00e6, whose ancestor was said to have communicated to the\n      Athenians the prophecy concerning the king\u2019s death, Lycurgus in\n      Leocrat. p. 196.\n\n  336 Lycophr. 1388. and Tzetzes\u2019 note.\n\n  337 See particularly Schol. Pind. Nem. VII. 155. Schol. Aristoph. Ran.\n      440. Pausan. I. 39. 4.\n\n  338 Schol. Pind. et Aristoph. ubi sup. According to Zenobius V. 8. the\n      Megarians mourned for a daughter of their own king Clytius, and of\n      Bacchius the Corinthian.\n\n  339 This event is always narrated in explanation of the proverb; see\n      Schol. Pind. ubi sup. Schol. Plat. Euthydem. pag. 97. edit. Ruhnken.\n      and Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 440 (from Demon). Compare Aristoph.\n      Eccles. 828. Zenob. III. 21. Vatic. Prov. III. 13. Apostolius VII.\n      17. XIV. 97. Suidas, Hesychius, Dissen ad Pind. ubi sup. It is\n      probably of this victory of the Megarians that Pausanias (VI. 19.\n      9.) had read in some document that it took place before the\n      commencement of the Olympiads, when Phorbas was archon for life at\n      Athens; but in my opinion he is incorrect in referring it to a\n      treasury of Dontas the Laced\u00e6monian (Olymp. 60.), the inscription of\n      which spoke indefinitely of a victory of the Megarians over the\n      Corinthians, in which the Argives were supposed to have had a share.\n      Phorbas was archon from the 173rd to the 148th year before the first\n      Olympiad, according to Eusebius.\n\n  340 Thucyd. I. 103. Diod. XI. 79. Plutarch Cimon. 17. It was probably in\n      some war of this kind that Orsippus of Megara enlarged the territory\n      of his native city, according to Etymol. M. p. 242; he was conqueror\n      in the 15th Olympiad, see book IV. ch. 2. note. Pausan. I. 44. 1.\n      and the epigram in Anthol. Pal. II. App. 272. See Siebelis ad\n      Pausan. ubi sup.\n\n  341 See the account in Plutarch. Qu. Gr. 17. p. 387.\n\n  342 Above, ch. 3. \u00a7 11.\n\n  343 See above, ch. 3. \u00a7 3.\n\n  344 Called in the Doric dialect \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2, K\u00fchn ad Pausan. III. 1.\n      According to Poly\u00e6nus I. 10. Procles and Temenus together conquered\n      Laced\u00e6mon.\n\n  345 Herod. VI. 52. and it is followed by Xen. Agesil. 8. Plutarch.\n      Agesil. 19. [The same is preserved in a fragment of Alc\u00e6us (Mus.\n      Crit. I. p. 432) \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03ae \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03a3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u1fb3 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, as Niebuhr has remarked. History of Rome, vol.\n      I. note 94. ed. 2.]\n\n  346 The words of the oracle, which Herodotus paraphrases, probably were\n      \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n  347 V. 16. Also in Plato Leg. III. p. 683. Megillus the Spartan, to the\n      question \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\u2014\u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2;\n      answers, \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50, against his national tradition.\n\n  348 Pindar Pyth. I. 65. says that the Dorians, \u201ccoming down from Pindus,\n      immediately took Amycl\u00e6.\u201d Compare Boeckh Comment, p. 479. This is\n      equally fallacious with his other statement, that Pylos fell at the\n      invasion, see below, \u00a7 15. According to Ephorus ap. Strab. p. 364\n      D., Philonomus the Ach\u00e6an, who had betrayed Laced\u00e6mon to the\n      Dorians, received Amycl\u00e6 from them as a reward for his treachery,\n      and held the \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bc\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 (to which his name seems to allude) as\n      a vassal. Compare Conon Narr. 36. Nicol. Damasc. p. 445. Vales.\n\n  349 Servius ad \u00c6n. X. 564. and Lucilius, ibid, compare Heyne Excurs. II.\n      ad \u00c6n. X. Sosibius ap. Zenob. Prov. I. 54.\n\n  350 Pausan. III. 2. 6. ib. 12. 7. ib. 19. 5. The temple was still\n      standing in his time. Compare _Orchomenos_, p. 313-321.\n\n  351 Pausan. VII. 6. 2. where Preugenes, their leader, is stated to have\n      been descended from Amyclas.\n\n  352 Polyb. V. 19. 2.\n\n  353 Ap. Schol. Eurip. Orest. 46. Simonides fragm. 177. ed. Gaisford.\n\n  354 \u0395\u1f54\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b9\u03b1, ap. Priscian. p. 1328. Fragm. 1. ed. Welcker.\n\n  355 Isthm. I. 31.\n\n  356 \u1f18\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 Pindar Nem. X. 55. The \u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1 were, according to\n      some, tombs of this description.\n\n  357 See Dissen\u2019s Commentary to Pindar ubi sup. p. 471.\u2014Concerning Helen\n      at Therapne, see Euripid. Hel. 211. and Tryphiod. 520. Schol.\n      Lycophr. 143. Isocrat. Encom. Hel. p. 218 D. \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n      \u0398\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 (\u039c\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f19\u03bb\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3) \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n      \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f24\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f61\u03c3 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2. Concerning the Menelaia, see\n      Athenagoras Leg. p. 14. A. \u0398\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd Apollon. Rhod. II.\n      162. Therapne, according to some, was \u1f10\u03bd \u03a3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc3, Schol. Apollon. et\n      Pind. ubi sup.; according to other authors, referred to by Steph.\n      Byz., it was Sparta itself. Both are in the wrong.\n\n  358 It was first discovered by Gropius.\n\n  359 Polyb. ubi sup. See ch. 4. \u00a7 3.\n\n  360 Od. B. 327. 359. A. 459. N. 412. 414. The passage in Od. A. 10. is\n      also to be explained in this manner.\n\n  361 Pausan. III. 2. 6.\n\n  362 Pausan. III. 2. 7. Phlegon Trallianus ap. Euseb. Arm. p. 130.\n      According to Strabo VIII. p. 365 A. however it was conquered by\n      Agis. Concerning a war between Sparta and its peri\u0153ci in the time of\n      Lycurgus, see Nicol. Damas. fragm.\n\n  363 Pausan. III. 22. 9.\n\n  364 See above, ch. 3. \u00a7 4.\n\n  365 This is now evident from the restoration of the fragment of Ephorus\n      in Strabo VIII. p. 364 D. \u03a7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039b\u0391\u0399 \u039c\u0395\u039d \u1f40[\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c1\u1ff3\n      (or \u0393\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3) \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78] \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u0391\u0399\u0393\u03a5\u0399 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n      \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 [\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff7, \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd] \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u1ff3 [\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2],\n      \u03a6\u0391\u03a1\u0399\u0394\u0399 \u03b4\u1f72 [\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2] \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c7\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3. Polybius\n      II. 54. 3. calls \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 a boundary-district of Sparta, where no\n      alteration is required. See Meursius ad Lycophr. 831.\n\n  366 The \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bc\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 according to Nicol. Damasc.\n\n  367 See Steph. Byz. and Pausanias. The \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u039b\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 are derived\n      from this town.\n\n  368 \u1f59\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5, Stephanus Byz. Compare Pausan. IV.\n      14. 3. \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5. \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u1ff3,\n      Stephanus. From this Ephorus in Strabo VIII. p. 361 C. should be\n      thus restored, \u1f64\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n      \u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03a0\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fec\u03af\u03bf\u03bd [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76] \u1f59\u03b1\u03bc\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. Compare \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n      \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a4\u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, Strab. VIII. p. 360;\n      \u1fec\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03a4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, ibid.\n\n  369 The same termination may be observed in the name of the ancient\n      Laconian city \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc-\u03bb\u03b1, Pausan. III. 26. 6. Steph. Byz.; and in the\n      ancient gentile name of Argos, \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc-\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n  370 See Herodotus, Pausanias, Cicero de Divin. II. 43.\n\n  371 Cicero ut sup.\n\n  372 See above, p. 90. note n. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote\n      to \u201cEpidaurus,\u201d starting \u201cPausan. III. 16. 5.]\u201d\n\n  373 See Valckenaer. ad Theocrit. Adoniaz. p. 266.\n\n  374 Plutarch. Lycurg. 2, 3.\n\n  375 Plutarch. Lycurg. 2. Lac. Apophth. p. 234.\n\n  376 From what is not clear, though probably from the \u039c\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7 of the\n      Homeric Catalogue, the position of which is however quite uncertain,\n      since it is not connected with the _city_ of Messene.\n\n_  377 Orchomenos_, p. 366. The territory of Pylos had, according to the\n      tradition in Pausan. IV. 15. 4. once extended as far as \u039a\u03b1\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1,\n      near Stenyclarus.\n\n  378 Cresphontes, as well as Aristomenes, were names in Messenia in late\n      days, Boeckh Inscript. No. 1291.\n\n  379 Ap. Strab. p. 633 B. He was one of the Colophonians who had settled\n      in Smyrna.\n\n  380 Strabo, p. 355 D. Pausanias IV. 3. 3. and others speak too generally\n      of the expulsion of the Nestorid\u00e6.\n\n  381 Pausan. IV. 18. 1. IV. 23. 1. Pindar Pyth. V. 70. is not so\n      accurate; \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u1fb3 \u03a0\u03cd\u03bb\u1ff3 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ba\u1fb6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f08\u1f30\u03b3\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5 (\u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd).\n\n  382 Apollod. II. 8. 5. Pausan. IV. 3. VIII. 5. 5. Isocrates Archidam. p.\n      120. represents the Laced\u00e6monians as having long governed Messenia,\n      which had been given them by the sons of Cresphontes. Euripides in\n      the Merope told the story as follows:\u2014viz. that Polyphontes killed\n      Cresphontes, and obtained possession of his queen Merope and of his\n      empire: that on this her son Telephon, whom Merope had sent to a\n      friend in \u00c6tolia, returned, and, after various tragic scenes, slew\n      the usurper by stratagem. See the fragments of the Merope, and\n      Hyginus, Fab. 137, with the continuation in Fab. 184. The narrative\n      of Apollodorus is made to coincide more with the national tradition.\n\n  383 The pedigree is, \u00c6pytus\u2014Cypselus\u2014Merope\u2014\u00c6pytus\u2014\u00c6pytid\u00e6.\n\n  384 As it is evident from several passages in the 4th book of Pausanias.\n\n  385 II. 171.\n\n  386 Pausan. IV. 20. 2. 26. 5, 6. 27. 4. 33. 5. It is to this time\n      probably that Methapus the Athenian belongs, who restored the\n      ancient worship of Andania, with some few changes, Pausan. IV. 1. 5.\n\n  387 Leg. III. p. 684.\n\n  388 In the following discussion, although beginning somewhat in advance,\n      I still take for granted what is stated in my _\u00c6ginetica_, p. 42.\n      The ancient expression \u039b\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 was referred to this migration.\n      See Hesychius, Plutarch, Prov. 34. p. 590. Yet Didymus in Hesychius\n      calls the Dorians who dwelt under mount \u0152ta \u039b\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2. See above,\n      page 44. note e. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to\n      \u201cDorians as inhabitants of the sea-coast.\u201d]\n\n  389 The Rhodians came from Argos, according to Thucyd. VII. 57. The\n      Coans were also of Argive origin, according to Tacit. Ann. XII. 61.\n\n  390 The Eratid\u00e6 refer to Argos, according to the note of Boeckh, Explic.\n      ad Pind. Olymp. VII. p. 165. Cleobulus also was a Heraclide,\n      according to Diog. Laert. I. 6. \u00a7 89.\n\n  391 There were different ways of making the 100 towns of Crete mentioned\n      in the Iliad agree with the 90 in the Odyssey, as may be seen from\n      Schol. Venet. Catal. 156.\u2014According to Ephorus, Alth\u00e6menes founded\n      10 cities in Crete, so that in the time of Ulysses there were only\n      90, but in Homer\u2019s time 100. Strabo X. p. 479. This was the manner\n      in which Ephorus wrote history. \u201cPyl\u00e6menes the Laced\u00e6monian\u201d in the\n      Venetian Scholiast is probably only a corruption of the name. Conon\n      47. derives the Tripolis of Rhodes from Alth\u00e6menes.\n\n  392 VII. 99.\n\n  393 We find in both the worship of serpents, incubation, the custom of\n      votive tablets, &c.\n\n  394 Pausan. III. 23. 4.\n\n  395 Sprengel\u2019s Geschichte der Medicin, vol. I. pp. 343. 326. new edit.\n\n  396 Rhod. Orat. II. p. 396.\u2014Concerning the Asclepiad\u00e6 in Cnidos, see\n      particularly Theopompus in Phot. cod. 176.\n\n  397 Sprengel, ibid. p. 554.\n\n  398 Vitruvius II. 8. 12. _Cum Melas et Areuanius ab Argis et Tr\u0153zene\n      coloniam communem eo loco induxerunt, barbaros Caras et Lelegas\n      ejecerunt_.\u2014The 1200 years, mentioned by Tacitus, from the time of\n      its founding to Tiberius, must be taken as a round number.\n\n  399 The religious ceremonies of Halicarnassus, as shown on its coins,\n      can be completely traced up to their origin. The head of Medusa, and\n      of Athene, the trident, and head of Heph\u00e6stus, belong to the worship\n      of Athene and Heph\u00e6stus at Tr\u0153zen and Athens: the tripod, lyre, and\n      heads of Apollo and Demeter to the _sacra Triopia_. At _Cos_ the\n      insignia of \u00c6sculapius predominated, besides those of Hercules as\n      father of Pheidippus.\n\n  400 Callimach. ap. Steph. in v. \u1f09\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2. compare _\u00c6ginetica_, p.\n      140.\n\n  401 Vitruvius, ubi sup.\n\n  402 See book II. ch. 3. \u00a7 5.\n\n  403 Dionys. Hal. Rom. Hist. IV. 25. probably ascribes to it too much\n      influence.\n\n  404 Herodot. I. 144.\n\n  405 According to the account of Gelon\u2019s ancestors in Herodot. VII. 153.\n\n  406 Compare Herodotus with Diod. V. 54.\n\n  407 Diod. ubi sup.\n\n  408 Scymnus Chius, 549. Probably with the colony of Alth\u00e6menes.\n\n_  409 E.g._ \u03b5 [\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b5] \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03c9\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb ... \u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\n      \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c5 [\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd], &c. from Villoison\u2019s papers.\n\n  410 See the quotations in Villoison in the M\u00e9m. de l\u2019Acad. des Inscr.\n      tom. XLVII. p. 287. An inscription among his papers refers to the\n      building of the temple of Apollo and Aphrodite at that place. The\n      worship of Aphrodite appears to indicate a Laconian colony.\n\n  411 Concerning Pholegandrus, see M\u00e9m. de l\u2019Acad. tom. XLVII. p. 307.\n      339.\n\n  412 Paus. II. 30. 8. Raoul-Rochette is wrong in stating that Scylax\n      declares Caryanda to have been Doric.\n\n  413 Herodot. V. 121. \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u039c\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 as leader of\n      the Carians.\n\n  414 Plut. de Mul. Virt. p. 271. 4. Poly\u00e6n. VIII. 56. According to\n      Lycophron, v. 1388. the Doric colony also possessed Thingrus and\n      Satnium, which were places in Caria, according to Tzetzes, in whose\n      notes \u1f38\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 should be twice altered into \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n  415 Concerning Noricum, see below, \u00a7 11. The coins of Synnada have\n      \u03a3\u03a5\u039d\u039d\u0391\u0394\u0395\u03a9\u039d \u0394\u03a9\u03a1\u0399\u0395\u03a9\u039d; also \u03a3\u03a5\u039d\u039d. \u0399\u03a9\u039d\u03a9\u039d, and both together; also the\n      expression \u039a\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 (better \u039a\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6) \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03ce\u03bd, Stephan. Byz.\n      Xenophon mentions it twice in the Anabasis, without precisely\n      stating its position.\n\n  416 Compare Steph. Byz. in \u1f08\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76, \u1f38\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (this is false. They were\n      situated between Syme and Cnidos, Athen\u00e6us VI. p. 262.) \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u03bf\u1f45\u03c4\u03c9 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2, \u1f05\u03c2 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n      \u03a0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2. According to Dieuchidas in Athen\u00e6us,\n      the curse was in the time of Triopas and Phorbas.\n\n  417 Polyb. XVI. 12. 1.\n\n  418 See the decree of the Jasians, which includes that of the\n      Calymnians, in the Doric dialect: Boeckh. Corp. Ins. Gr. No. 2671.\n\n  419 Strabo VIII. p. 374, endeavours to give the tradition an historical\n      colouring by supposing that Pelops drove away _Anthes_. compare XIV.\n      p. 656. Apollod. ap. Steph. in \u1f09\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  420 Ap. Steph. Raoul-Rochette also perceives this, tom. III. p. 31.\n\n  421 II. 30. 8.\n\n  422 Steph. Byz. in \u1f08\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. Hence Athens is called the son of Poseidon,\n      Paus. II. 30, &c. Concerning the Anthead\u00e6 as priests of Poseidon see\n      an Halicarnassian inscription in Corp. Inscript. No. 2655, and\n      Boeckh\u2019s Commentary. It is well known that Posidonia in the south of\n      Italy received the worship of Poseidon and also its name, from a\n      Tr\u0153zenian colony.\n\n  423 Indeed Pindar appears to represent him as dwelling at Argos, the\n      native place of the descendants of Hercules, at a time when all the\n      Heraclid\u00e6 were there living together undisturbed; and from Argos he\n      sails to Rhodes.\n\n  424 Olymp. VII. 24. Concerning the mother of Tlepolemus, see the\n      epigram, quoted below, p. 121 note s. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is\n      the footnote to \u201cepigram of Aristotle,\u201d starting \u201cPeplus Troj.\u201d.]\n\n  425 In Iliad E. 628 sqq. there is no necessity for assuming that the\n      poet intended to represent Tlepolemus as a Rhodian. In the\n      catalogue, indeed, four insular Greeks are mentioned, Nireus of\n      Syme, Antiphus and Phidippus of Cos, and Tlepolemus of Rhodes (Il.\n      B. 653-680). But of these the three first are not elsewhere\n      mentioned. Tlepolemus therefore remains the only Greek, of the\n      Asiatic colonies, on the Ach\u00e6an side, in the Iliad; and the\n      connexion of the catalogue with the other parts of the poem does not\n      seem to intimate as to prove this exception to have been intended by\n      the writer of the fifth book. Tlepolemus must therefore be\n      considered as a Grecian of the mother country. I feel convinced,\n      that, according to Homer, no enemy of Troy comes from the eastern\n      side of the \u00c6g\u00e6an sea. Concerning the numerous differences between\n      the catalogue and the genuine Homeric traditions, see the author\u2019s\n      History of the Literature of ancient Greece, ch. 2, \u00a7 9.\n\n  426 Il. B. 668. When Strabo XIV. p. 653, states that Tlepolemus did not\n      lead out Dorians, but Ach\u00e6ans and B\u0153otians (as a Heraclide of\n      Thebes), he does not follow any ancient tradition, but the\n      chronological system of his times. The ancestors of Theron of Rhodes\n      (Schol. Pind. Olymp. II. 14.) have no reference to this: and\n      Raoul-Rochette, tom. II. p. 272, mixes various accounts.\n\n  427 See book II. ch. 12. \u00a7 6.\n\n  428 Peplus Troj. Her. Epig. 27.\n\n  429 Book II. ch. 11. \u00a7 4.\n\n  430 See particularly Etymol. Mag. p. 219. 8. also Raoul-Rochette, tom.\n      III. p. 157.\n\n  431 Hecat\u00e6us ap. Stephan. Byz.\n\n  432 As Raoul-Rochette, tom. III. p. 251. clearly shews from Herodotus\n      and Arist\u00e6netus \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03a6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b7\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 ap. Steph. Byz. in \u0393\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1 and other\n      words.\n\n  433 Eckhel D. N. III. p. 68. According to Strab. XIV. p. 671 D. \u1fec\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, which Raoul-Rochette, tom. III. p. 379, proposes to\n      refer to Ach\u00e6a in Rhodes, and leave out \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76, but the Gentile name\n      would be rather \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 than \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2. Solon, the Lindian, of Rhodes,\n      is called the founder of this Soli in Cilicia, Vita Arati, vol. I.\n      p. 3. vol. II. p. 444. Buhle.\n\n  434 Both names in Etymol. Magn. in v. \u0393\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1.\n\n  435 Herodot. VII. 153. The coins of Telos have the head of Jupiter and\n      the _Crab_, like those of Agrigentum; the last symbol is also on\n      those of Cos and Lindus.\n\n  436 Thucyd. VI. 4.\n\n  437 According to the spurious letters, which are correctly treated of by\n      Bentley in several passages of his Dissertation (without, however,\n      noticing the historical connexion), and also by Lennep in the notes.\n\n  438 According to Hippostratus ad Pind. Pyth. VI. 4.\n\n  439 Compare, besides Meursius, Heyne, Nov. Comment. Gotting. II. cl.\n      philol. p. 40 sqq. That Lyons was a Rhodian colony, has, though\n      without any grounds, been lately maintained, after Father Colonia,\n      by count Wilgrin de Tailefer, Antiquit\u00e9s de V\u00e9sone.\n\n  440 See Raoul-Rochette, tom. II. p. 124. who also believes in the\n      victory of Perseus over Sardanapalus.\n\n  441 See particularly Dio Chrysost. Orat. Tars. 33, pp. 394, 406, 408.\n      Hercules was called \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2, and on the day of his festival a\n      funeral pile was built to his honour; compare Athen\u00e6us V. p. 215 B.\n      on the Stephanephorus or priest of Hercules at Tarsus.\n\n  442 Raoul-Rochette, tom. II. p. 403 sqq.\n\n  443 Steph. Byz. in \u1f38\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7.\n\n  444 The arrival of Diomede the Argive among the Daunians may likewise\n      refer to the founding of Elpi\u00e6. He is said to have come with\n      _Dorians_. Antonin. Liber. 37.\n\n  445 Polyb. Exc. Leg. XX. 7. Il. Liv. XXXVII. 56.\n\n  446 Ap. Strab. XIV. p. 676.\n\n  447 Steph. Byz. in \u0393\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1. Compare Athen. VII. p. 297, from the \u1f6e\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\n      \u039a\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd of Heropythus, and Philostephanus \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f08\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3\n      \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n  448 Book II. ch. 2, \u00a7 7.\n\n  449 Pompon. Mela I. 14. The tradition is very ancient. Strab. XIV. p.\n      668. from Callinus. \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03cc\u03c8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n      \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3,\n      \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a6\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2. Concerning Mopsus in Pamphylia, see also Clem.\n      Alex. Strom. I. p. 334.\n\n  450 Strab. XIV. p. 675, and others.\n\n  451 Philosteph. ubi sup.\n\n  452 Rhodia, near Phaselis, is also without doubt a Rhodian colony; and\n      Mopsus (Theopompus ap. Phot. cod. 176) was the founder merely in the\n      above sense. In the same manner probably Lyrnessus; compare\n      Raoul-Rochette, tom. II. p. 404 sqq., who, however, has not\n      perceived any thing of all this.\n\n  453 De Div. I. 40.\n\n  454 Book II. ch. 2. \u00a7 7.\n\n  455 Thucyd. III. 102.\n\n  456 See \u00a7 10.\n\n  457 For what Plutarch. Amator. and Diodor. Exc. II. 228. p. 548. Wess.\n      relate of the expulsion of Archias, is stated by the Scholiast to\n      Apollonius IV. 1211, of the family of the Bacchiad\u00e6. The former\n      affirm the accidental murder of the son of Melissus to have been the\n      cause of the founding of Syracuse, the latter of that of Corcyra.\n      Yet this is contradicted by the Parian Marble, I. 47. Archias\n      \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03a4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, since the Bacchiad\u00e6 derived themselves from\n      Aletes, not Temenus. In either case Archias is an Heraclide. See\n      Boeckh. Explic. ad Pind. Olymp. 6. p. 153. Compare G\u00f6ller de situ\n      Syracusarum, p. 5. sq.\n\n  458 Strab. VII. p. 380 D.\n\n  459 Strab. VI. p. 269. Compare Scymnus Chius, v. 274.\n\n  460 See Boeckh\u2019s Introduction to the sixth Olympiad.\n\n  461 Book II. ch. 9. \u00a7 4. ch. 10. \u00a7 1.\n\n  462 Athen. IV. p. 167. from Demetrius Scepsius. Archilochus made mention\n      of this \u00c6thiops (Siebel. Fragm. p. 233).\n\n  463 Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 298. His \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd was composed before the\n      Messenian wars, about the same time.\n\n  464 Adoniaz. 53. compare Thucyd. VI. 77. \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f3c\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd,\u2014\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n      \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n      \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n  465 Dio Chrys. Or. XXXVIII. 4.\n\n  466 According to Thucyd. VI. 5. Raoul-Rochette, III. p. 319. supports\n      the contrary opinion.\n\n  467 Thucyd. I. 108. where this Chalcis is evidently intended.\n\n  468 Raoul-Rochette, ib. p. 290. The coins of Alyzia do not necessarily\n      prove it to be of Corinthian origin, since barbarous towns\n      frequently adopted the devices of the neighbouring Greek cities.\n      Herodotus IX. 28. does not afford any reason for supposing that Pale\n      was a Corinthian colony; yet both here and in Thucyd. I. 27. it\n      appears as closely united with Corinth.\n\n  469 This I believe, because it was founded by Heraclid\u00e6, _i.e._ by\n      Bacchiad\u00e6, according to Anton. Lib. 4; hence also the worship of\n      Hercules existed there. Compare also concerning the Doric migration\n      to Ambracia, the Epigram of Damagetus in the Palat. Anthol. VII.\n      231.\n\n  470 \u0393\u03cc\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 is probably the most correct form of those in Plut. Conv.\n      VII. Sap. 17. p. 42. Strab. X. p. 452, 7. p. 325. Scymn. Ch. 427.\n      Antonin. Lib. I. 4. p. 23. Teuchn., who alone considers him as the\n      brother of Cypselus. See book III. ch. 9. \u00a7 6. note. The form \u0393\u039f\u03a1\u0393\u039f\u03a3\n      is also confirmed by a coin of Ambracia. See Raoul-Rochette, Annali\n      dell\u2019 Instituto di corrisp. archeol. 1829, p. 316.\n\n  471 Thucyd. II. 68.\n\n  472 See Boeckh. Corp. Inscript. No. 43.\n\n  473 Plutarch. Themist. 24.; but the whole history is inaccurately\n      related.\n\n  474 Thus Schol. Apollon. IV. 1212., and from Tim\u00e6us at V. 1216.\n\n  475 Yet Tim\u00e6us ubi sup. places Chersicrates 600 years after the Trojan\n      war, the date of which he fixed (according to Censorinus de Die Nat.\n      21.) 417 years before the first Olympiad; consequently the date\n      which he gives to Chersicrates is Olymp. 46. 3. 594. B.C. in the\n      time of the Cypselid\u00e6. But since it is scarcely credible that Tim\u00e6us\n      could place the foundation of Corcyra so low down, it is probable\n      that he fixed an earlier date for the Trojan war, according to\n      Clinton F. H. vol. I. p. 135. \u03c9. III. p. 490. Compare Mustoxidi\n      Illustrazioni Corciresi, I. 5. p. 65.\n\n  476 Thucyd. I. 47.\n\n  477 Strab. VII. p. 326. Scymn. Ch. 620.\n\n  478 Scymn. Ch. 412. According to Raoul-Rochette, IV. p. 86. it was\n      founded at the same time that Dionysius founded Lissus.\n\n_  479 Orchomenos_, p. 297.\n\n  480 Thucyd. I. 13.\n\n  481 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, the words of the Corinthians in\n      Thucyd. I. 38. compare I. 26. Plutarch Timol. 3.\n\n  482 I. 56. See book III. ch. 8. \u00a7 5.\n\n  483 According to Eusebius. See Raoul-Rochette, III. p. 233.\n\n  484 According to Hesychius Milesius de Constant, p. 48. the founder\u2019s\n      name was Dineus.\n\n  485 The situation of Byzantium, in a political and commercial point of\n      view, is well described by Polybius IV. 44.\n\n  486 Dionys. Byzant. de Thracio Bosporo in Hudson\u2019s Geogr. Min. vol. III.\n      sacrifices were offered to her on the first day of the year. Heyne\n      Comment. Rec. Gotting. tom. I. p. 62. has treated of the fables of\n      Io at Byzantium with sufficient fulness, but without tracing the\n      origin of the traditions.\n\n  487 Ibid.\n\n  488 See, besides others, Palat. Anthol. VII. 169. Why does not\n      Raoul-Rochette admit here as elsewhere, the supposition of an\n      ancient colony under the guidance of Io, an Argive princess?\n\n  489 See Dionysius. There is something on this head also in Hesychius.\n      Besides the names in the text, there are Athene Ecbasia\u2014Artemis\n      Dictynna (also _Lucifera in piscinis_), Ajax Telamonius, and\n      Achilles\u2014Rhea\u2014Hecate and Fortune\u2014The Dioscuri\u2014Amphiaraus \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2,\n      Aphrodite the preserver of peace, and Aphrodite \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  490 With whom there were at times dissensions. See Aristot. Pol. V. 2.\n      10.\n\n  491 See, besides the decrees in Demosthenes, Constantin. Porph. Them. I.\n      p. 1452. in Meursii Opp.\n\n  492 \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd and \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd on coins.\n\n  493 According to Scymnus Chius, v. 714.\n\n  494 Plut. Qu. Gr. 57. _\u00c6ginetica_, p. 67. It is probable that Perinthus\n      also at that time received a party of Doric colonists, as it is\n      called an allied town by the Byzantians (Demosth. de Corona, p.\n      255), and the worship of Hercules was prevalent there. Compare\n      Panofka Res Samiorum, p. 22, where, however, several passages are\n      incorrectly applied.\n\n  495 Arrian, Periplus of the Pontus Euxinus, p. 14. Hudson. Compare\n      Orelli Heracleot. p. 115. Raoul-Rochette places it as far back as\n      the 30th Olympiad, but according to Scymnus Chius, 231, the founding\n      took place in the time of Cyrus.\n\n  496 Megara was founded in the same year as Naxus, Olymp. 11. 3,\n      according to Ephorus (in Strabo and Scymnus); according to the more\n      exact Thucydides some time after, 245 years before its destruction\n      by Gelon. Gelon reigned from Olymp. 72. 2, in Gela, from Olymp. 73.\n      4, till 75. 3, in Syracuse (Boeckh ad Pind. Olymp. I. Explic. p.\n      100). From the narrative of Herodotus VII. 156, it appears that he\n      conquered Megara in the interval of Olymp. 74. 1-3; in which case\n      the foundation would fall about Olymp. 13. 1, 728 B.C. According\n      then to the account of Thucydides, the arrival of Lamis the Megarean\n      must have been some years before. This event was contemporary with\n      the founding of Leontini, which was five years after that of\n      Syracuse: this cannot, therefore, be reconciled with the account of\n      Eusebius, who dates the building of Syracuse Olymp. 11. 4. (Hieron.\n      Scal.) The statement of the Parian Marble agrees better, viz. Olymp.\n      5. 3. Raoul-Rochette, III. p. 214, reckons on false suppositions.\n      Compare Heyne Opusc. Academ. tom. II. pp. 259. sq.\n\n  497 See Passow ad Theogn. 773. Welcker ad Alcman. p. 85, adds Schol.\n      Platon. p. 220. See also Welcker\u2019s Theognis, p. 14. In literary\n      history many instances occur of the same persons being called\n      citizens of the mother-state, and of the colony; _e.g._, Archilochus\n      was a Parian and Thasian; Protagoras and Hecat\u00e6us the younger were\n      citizens both of Teos and Abdera; Terpander belonged to Arne in\n      B\u0153otia and Lesbos at the same time; Mimnermus was both a Colophonian\n      and citizen of Smyrna, &c.\n\n  498 See _Orchomenos_, pp. 313-359. Thrige\u2019s _Res Cyrenensium_ (1828),\n      pp. 23-35. Concerning a family of the Heraclid\u00e6, see the interesting\n      passages of Synesius, \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4. (p. 10. Morell.) and of Theodorus\n      Metochita in the Supplem. ad Nicol. Damasc. Orellii. The account of\n      the latter is very confused.\n\n  499 Pind. Pyth. IX. Boeckh Explic. p. 325. Thrige ibid, 121 sq.\n\n  500 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9, Synesius, ubi sup.\n\n  501 Herodot. I. 174. Diodorus V. 53. speaks of an Argive-Laced\u00e6monian\n      colony in this district.\n\n  502 V. 9. 53. Tzetzes ad Lycophr. 1388, calls him \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f08\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, but\n      I can hardly think that he is the same as the ancestor of the\n      Corinthian Heraclid\u00e6.\n\n  503 Diodor. V. 53.\n\n  504 Also at Nisyrus, according to its coins.\n\n  505 I here speak on the authority of some beautiful drawings by M.\n      Huyot, amongst which is a plan of Cnidos; an accurate plan of the\n      harbour was shown me by Captain Beaufort. Compare Clarke, part II. \u00a7\n      1, plate 13.\n\n  506 It is stated by Diodorus V. 9, that the Cnidians in the 50th\n      Olympiad (580 B.C.) sent a colony to Lipara under the guidance of\n      three descendants of their countryman Hippotes, Gorgus, Thestor, and\n      Epithersidas, who, in conjunction with 500 of the former\n      inhabitants, founded a state. Now it was natural to call \u00c6olus the\n      god of the winds, who was supposed to reside on these islands, a son\n      of the new national hero, Hippotes; and hence he became \u0391\u1f34\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2. If this is true, then the name \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 in the Odyssey\n      (K. 2. 36.) is certainly _later_ than the Homeric age; which might\n      be almost supposed from the statement of the learned Asclepiades,\n      that the \u00c6olus of Homer was the son of Poseidon (not of Hippotes),\n      which he could hardly have said, if all the copies of the Odyssey\n      had \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n  507 See particularly Pausan. X. 11. 3, from Antiochus, and Diodorus V.\n      9, probably from the same author.\n\n  508 Pseud-Plutarch, de fluv. Mars. Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieg. 321.\n\n  509 See Strab. XII. p. 570. The inscription on their coins is \u03a3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b3\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\n      \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1. Compare Mionnet Descript. III. p. 525.\n      Raoul-Rochette, tom. II. p. 427, with whom I do not entirely agree.\n      See also Nicephorus Blemmidas, ed. Spohn. p. 13.\n\n  510 Dionys. Perieg. 860, where I consider that \u201cthe Amycl\u00e6ans\u201d is not a\n      mere poetical ornament, although the testimony is not to be much\n      depended upon. Compare Eustathius ad 1.\n\n  511 See Raoul-Rochette\u2019s argument, tom. II. p. 428.\n\n  512 Lycophr. vv. 452, 593. Strab. XIV. p. 682. \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u1ff3\n      Eustath. ad Homer. p. 293. 45. ed. Rom. Golgi in Cyprus was founded\n      by _Sicyonians_ (Steph. Byz. in \u0393\u03cc\u03bb\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9), and it was the _only_\n      colony sent out by that state, with the exception of Ph\u00e6stus in\n      Crete, whither a Heraclide of Sicyon is said to have gone; see ch.\n      5. \u00a7 2.\n\n_  513 Ut fertur, octavus ab Hercule_, Schol. Vetust. ad Hor. Carm. II. 6.\n      12; and so likewise Servius ad Virgil. Georg. IV. 125. \u00c6n. III. 551.\n      Compare, concerning the Phalantiad\u00e6, Steph. Byz. in \u1f08\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n      Callimachus is referred to in a verse quoted by Schol. ined. ad\n      Dionys. Perieg. (Spohn. Opusc. Niceph. Blemm. 29.) \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd\n      \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c4\u03ae\u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u039b\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 according to Goettling\u2019s conjecture.\n\n  514 \u1f59\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 or \u1f09\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f59\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, Polyb. VIII. 30. 2.\n\n  515 Ib. VIII. 35. 8.\n\n  516 Scymn. Ch. 330.\n\n  517 Strabo VI. p. 264, from Antiochus.\n\n  518 Herodot. III. 138. IV. 164.\n\n  519 Strabo VIII. p. 387.\n\n  520 Pausan. III. 3. 1. Jamblichus Vit. Pythag. 10. Raoul-Rochette, III.\n      p. 187.\n\n  521 See book II. ch. 3.\n\n  522 Metam. XV. 15. _Grates agit ille parenti Amphitryoniad\u00e6._\n\n  523 See Pausan. ubi sup. The newly discovered fragments of Polybius\n      confirm the participation of Sparta in the colonization of Locri, p.\n      384. Mai, inasmuch as they mention the sending of Locrian\n      auxiliaries to the Spartans as the cause of the foundation of Locri\n      in Italy.\n\n  524 Justin XX. 2.\n\n  525 Thucyd. VI. 44. Raoul-Rochette, p. 194, derives it from Dorians, who\n      had previously settled at Cape Zephyrium: but even if there were\n      Dorians there, they must have been Megareans.\n\n  526 It would lead us too far from our subject to explain the tradition\n      concerning the Laced\u00e6monians among the Sabines and Samnites. It is\n      remarkable that, according to Silius Italicus, these Laced\u00e6monians\n      came from Amycl\u00e6 and Therapne, the ancient settlements of the\n      Ach\u00e6ans. I must also pass over the Cretan colonies, for many\n      reasons.\n\n  527 Paus. III. 2. 7.\n\n  528 A war with Cnosus is very improbable and almost impossible; Paus.\n      II. 21. III. 11. Vell. Paterc. I. 4. (_Laced\u00e6monii in Asia\n      Magnesiam_), had probably some account of the share of the Spartans\n      in these Cretan colonies, which will be discussed book II. ch. 3.\n\n  529 Pausan. V. 20. I, according to Clavier, Plutarch. Lycurg. I.\n\n  530 \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03c6\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f28\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n      \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f48\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, Athen. XIV. p.\n      635 F.\n\n  531 Pausan. V. 8. 3. \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u1f72\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u1f48\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u2014\n\n  532 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f29\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f48\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2, Pausan. V. 21. 5. VI. 2. 1.\n\n  533 See Aristodemus ap. Syncell. Chron. p. 196 C. Compare Goeller de\n      Situ Syracusarum, p. 198.\n\n  534 Pind. Olymp. VII. 86. \u1f10\u03bd \u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u03c4\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c8\u1fb6\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\n      \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd. Compare Boeckh Explic.\n\n  535 Plutarch de Musica, 3. 8.\n\n  536 Sturz. Hellanici fragment. p. 79 sqq. ed. 2.\n\n  537 Agesil. 19.\n\n  538 In Colot. 17. p. 268. \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. Concerning this oracle see\n      Theodoret Gr\u00e6c. Affect. 9. 10. Max. Tyr. Diss. XXIX. p. 72. The\n      oracle in \u0152nomaus (Euseb. Pr\u00e6p. Ev. V. p. 113.) is evidently a\n      modern forgery.\n\n  539 Above ch. 5. \u00a7 14. Eurysthenes, according to Eusebius, reigned 42\n      years.\n\n  540 Suidas in \u03a7\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n  541 Athen. XI. p. 475 B. concerning the \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n  542 XII. 12. 1.\n\n  543 Plutarch. Lycurg. I. Diod. I. 5. who calls the \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74 of the kings\n      a \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1. Eusebius says that at the beginning of the Olympiads\n      _Laced\u00e6moniorum reges defecerunt_, which error arose from the lists\n      ending here, which had been made for computing the preceding\n      periods.\n\n  544 Apollod. ap. Diod. ubi sup. Eratosthenes ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. I.\n      p. 336. ed. Colon. Compare Tatian. adv. Gr\u00e6cos, p. 174. Censorinus\n      de Die Natali 21. Euseb. Scalig. p. 23. Cicer. de Rep. II. 10. who\n      also followed the \u03a7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 of Apollodorus.\n\n  545 I do not contend that the chronological statements in the Spartan\n      lists form an _authentic document_, more than those in the\n      catalogues of the priestesses of Here and in the list of\n      Halicarnassian priests (Boeckh Corp. Ins. Gr. No. 2655). The\n      chronological statements in the Spartan lists may have been formed\n      from imperfect memorials; but the Alexandrine chronologists must\n      have found such tables in existence, since they could not have been\n      produced by mere computation; and yet the date of 328 years before\n      the 1st Olympiad was entirely founded upon them.\n\n  546 Ap. Clem. comp. Diod. de Virt. et Vit. p. 547, ed. Vales.\n\n  547 P. 411. Fragm. ed. Heyn. from Tatian and Clemens I. p. 327. comp. p.\n      309. Pausan. III. 2. 4. Eusebius\u2019s quotation of Apollodorus at the\n      18th year of Alcamenes is incorrect, as may be seen from Plutarch.\n      Lycurg. I.\n\n  548 I. 65. Pausan. III. 2. 3.\n\n  549 \u00c6lian. V. H. IX. 41.\n\n  550 Simonid. ap. Plutarch. Lyc. 2. and compare Schol. Plat. Rep. X. p.\n      474. 21 Bekker. The latter, also, according to Aristot. Polit. II.\n      7. 1. Ephorus ap. Strab. X. p. 482. Compare Dieuchidas, ap.\n      Plutarch. Lycurg. 2. et Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 328. ed. Colon, (p.\n      390 Potter). cf. Strab. X. p. 481. He took Lycurgus for a son of\n      Polydectes and a younger brother of Eunomus, and placed him 290\n      years after the taking of Troy. Dionys. Hal. Arch. Rom. II. 49.\n      calls Lycurgus the uncle of Eunomus, whom he probably places with\n      Herodotus (VIII. 131.) _after_ Polydectes. Thucydides I. 18. places\n      Lycurgus not long before 800 B.C. Tim\u00e6us escaped the difficulty by\n      supposing that there were two Lycurguses. Xenophon disagrees the\n      most (Rep. Lac. 10. quoted by Plutarch. Lyc. I.), as he says that\n      Lycurgus lived \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2, _i.e._ \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n  551 VIII. 131.\n\n  552 See Clinton, F. H. vol. I. p. 144. The same explanation also\n      diminishes the difficulty about the relationship of Lycurgus; yet\n      there still remains the great discrepancy between Herodotus (where\n      the emendation proposed by Marsham does not suit the context) and\n      Xenophon.\n\n  553 The dates of these are given, doubtless from Alexandrine\n      chronologists, by Diodorus, fragm. 6 p. 635, where (with Wesseling\n      after Didymus) 30 years must be assumed from the return of the\n      Heraclid\u00e6 to the reign of Aletes, by which the computation comes out\n      right. This has been overlooked by Eusehius, since he makes Aletes\n      contemporary with Eurysthenes. See the Armenian Eusebius, p. 16.\n      Mai.\n\n  554 See above, p. 136. note t. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote\n      to \u201cdistrict of Laconia.\u201d]\n\n_  555 \u00c6ginetica_, p. 62. Comp. Theocritus XVII. 27.\n\n  556 As may fairly be inferred from V. 4. 3.\n\n  557 V. 4. 4 In an inscription at Olympia (Brunck. Anal. II. p. 193.) he\n      was called the son of H\u00e6mon; according to common tradition, he was\n      the son of Praxonides. In Eusebius (Hieronym.) should be written,\n      _Iphitus Praxonidis vel \u00c6monis f_.\n\n  558 I. 66, 67.\n\n  559 Concerning this word see Boissonade, Classical Journal, vol. XX. p.\n      289.\n\n  560 Boeckh Inscript. No. 11.\n\n_  561 E.g._ by Wolf Proleg. Homer. p. 67.\n\n  562 Of Clem. Alexand. Strom. I. p. 308.\n\n  563 For the date of Terpander, see book IV. ch. 6. \u00a7 1. note.\n\n  564 Scymnus Chius, v. 313. Strabo VI. p. 259.\n\n  565 Plutarch. Lyc. 13. whose words should be thus understood, \u201c_Lycurgus\n      did not enact any written laws, but merely sanctioned existing\n      customs._\u201d The \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 however were evidently not mere \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7, but\n      oracular dicta, expressed in definite words, which had been\n      preserved from ancient times. Plutarch. Agesil. 26. calls them \u0391\u1f30\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, and also de Esu Carn. II. 1. \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2; consequently this was in a certain\n      degree a fixed number.\u2014One of these very regulations was \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n      \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n  566 Plutarch, de Pyth. Orac. 19. \u03b1\u1f31 \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u1f67\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n      \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03b4\u03cc\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd.\n\n  567 The Delphian Inscription in Boeckh Corp. Inscript. n. 1711. The\n      Cretan in Chishull Ant. Asiat. p. 135. The Samian and Prienian in\n      Chandler Inscript. p. 1. 38. 1, 2, 3. Marm. Oxon. p. 25.\n\n  568 I agree with Creuzer Histor. Ant. Fragm. p. 122. that it is\n      unnecessary _always_ to alter writers concerning \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 into\n      \u1f61\u03c1\u03cc\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9, _i.e._ chronologists. The above Samian inscriptions\n      expressly refer to historical works; and are we then to alter in\n      Herodian p. 7. (where see the passages quoted), and in p. 39. \u1f10\u03bd\n      \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2?\n\n_  569 Monumenta saxis sculpta et \u00e6re prisco_, Tacitus Annal. IV. 44.\n\n  570 I mention Eumelus in this place, as being a Lyric poet in the modern\n      sense of the word, on account of his \u1f86\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd for the\n      Messenian Theoria to Delos, Pausan. IV. 4. 1.\n\n  571 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. He must however have either invented himself, or\n      adopted the inventions of others, if he mentioned the _names_ of the\n      twenty assistants and friends of Lycurgus, Plutarch. Lyc. 5.\n\n  572 Plutarch. Lyc. 31. and 11.\n\n  573 See book II. ch. 10. \u00a7 2.\n\n  574 He was anciently celebrated for his mildness. Plutarch in the Life\n      of Lycurgus, and de Adul. 16. On the other hand, Heraclides Ponticus\n      2. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd (\u03a7\u0391\u03a1\u0399\u039b\u0391\u039f\u039d) \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5.\n\n  575 Plutarch. Lyc.\n\n  576 Book III. ch. 1. The names of _Eunomus_ as the father and of\n      _Eucosmus_ as the son of Lycurgus (Pausan. III. 16. 5.) belong to\n      the class pointed out above, p. 69. note g. [Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n      This is the footnote to \u201ccapture of \u00c6gialea,\u201d starting \u201cThe name of\n      Tisamenus.\u201d]\n\n  577 Only Plutarch. Lycurg. 23. and Heraclid. Pont. 2. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 (the Pythian are probably meant) \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5. The\n      account of Hermippus is evidently, in part at least, invented.\n\n  578 This Cleosthenes is mentioned in Phlegon Trallianus ap. Meurs.\n      Opera, vol. VII. p. 128. and Schol. Plat. Rep. V. p. 246, 7. Bekker.\n\n  579 \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f28\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, Polyb. IV. 73.\n      who calls the peaceable existence of the Eleans in early times a\n      \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c2; Strab. VIII. p. 357. Diod. Excerpt, p. 547. Wessel.,\n      where very absurd motives are attributed to the Laced\u00e6monians.\n\n  580 Isthm. II. 23. Boeckh Explic. p. 494. Schneider Lexicon in v. et ad\n      Xen. Hell. IV. 7. 2.\n\n  581 The determination of this time was somewhat ambiguous. See Thuc. V.\n      49. \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is the proper word for the announcement.\n\n  582 Herod. VI. 19. see also V. 77.\n\n  583 Thucyd. V. 49. comp. Pausan. V. 6, 4. VI. 3, 3.\n\n  584 As in the well-known treaty between the Eleans and Her\u00e6ans, \u03b1\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ac\n      \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd, \u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03ba\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0394\u1f76 \u039f\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03af\u1ff3.\n\n  585 Thuc. V. 31.\n\n  586 Thuc. III. 8, 14.\n\n  587 Pausan. IV. 4.\n\n  588 Book II. ch. 3, \u00a7 2.\n\n  589 Pausan. IV. 2. 1.\n\n  590 Plutarch Romul. 25. Sympos. Qu. IV. 1. 1. Sept. Sap. Conviv. 16.\n      Poly\u00e6n. II. 31. 2. Plin. H. N. XI. 70.\n\n  591 See Fulgentius in Staveren Mythograph. Latin, p. 770. _Si quis enim\n      centum hostes interfecisset, Marti de homine sacrificabat apud\n      insulam Lemnum, quod sacrificatum est a duobus, Aristomene\n      Gortynensi et Theoclo Eleo, sicut Sosicrates scribit._ Apollodorus\n      ap. Porphyr. de Abstin. II. 55. p. 396. (comp. Meursius, Misc. Lac.\n      II. 14.) says that the Laced\u00e6monians also had sacrificed a man to\n      Mars.\n\n  592 Paus. IV. 15. 5.\n\n  593 Poly\u00e6n. II. 31. 3. Plin. XI. 70. Valer. Maxim. I. 8. ext., 15.\n\n  594 Stephanus Byz., who quotes Herodotus, Rhianus, and Plutarch.\n      Herodotus, however, does not mention the subject. What Stephanus\n      says is taken from Plutarch de Herodot. Maled. 2. p. 291. where\n      however for \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 should probably be written \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n  595 Isocrates (Archidam. 11.) connects the Messenian war with the\n      assassination of Cresphontes; and relates that the Spartans were\n      much encouraged by the oracle: the narrative evidently had not at\n      this time received the form in which it was afterwards represented.\n      Yet he mentions the twenty years\u2019 siege (on the authority of\n      Tyrt\u00e6us), \u00a7 66.\n\n  596 See Antip. Sidon. VII. 161. Anthol. Palat.\n\n  597 Pausan. IV. 16. 4. VI. 32. 5. IX. 39. 5.\n\n  598 Lycurgus in Leocrat. 15. p. 155. comp. Isocrates Archidam. 10.\n\n  599 Pausan. IV. 27. 4.\n\n  600 Also \u00c6schylus of Alexandria wrote Messeniaca, Athen. XIII. p. 599 E.\n\n  601 See Athen. XIV. p. 857 D. Diodorus probably follows him, since he\n      represents Cleonnis in the first war and Aristomenes as fighting\n      together, Fragm. N. p. 637, Wessel. In XV. 66. he means him among\n      the \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9. Boivin and Wesseling endeavour in vain to reconcile the\n      contradictions. The genuineness of the fragment of Diodorus is\n      however doubtful.\n\n  602 IV. 15. 1.\n\n  603 Concerning Rhianus see Jacobs in the Index Auctorum to the\n      Anthology.\n\n  604 See Strabo, VIII. p. 362.\n\n_  605 E.g._ it was a _Messenian_ account which Myron followed (Pausan.\n      IV. 6. 2), that Aristomenes killed the king Theopompus (contrary to\n      Tyrt\u00e6us, as may be seen from Plutarch Agid. 21.).\n\n  606 I will now point out some instances of modern fiction in the\n      narrative of Pausanias. The account of Polychares and Eu\u00e6phnus\n      supposes a greater power in the Areopagus than it ever possessed;\n      nor did the quarrel come at all within the province of the Argive\n      Amphictyons. Besides Pausanias, see Diodorus Excerpt, p. 547, who\n      generally follows the same authorities. The Cretan bowmen must have\n      been introduced by Rhianus from his own country; it is certain that\n      there were no mercenaries at so early a period. How could the\n      Corinthians have gone to Laconia without passing through an enemy\u2019s\n      country, and who would have allowed them a free passage? The flight\n      of the initiated to Eleusis is contrary to all probability; and this\n      the more, as in the second war they were quiet spectators, Pausan.\n      IV. 16. 1. Yet we are told the sacred torchbearers (\u03b4\u1fb3\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9) fought\n      at Athens in military array. The disposition of the light-armed\n      troops in separate bodies (IV. 7. 2.) is contrary to the account of\n      Tyrt\u00e6us and to ancient usage, compare IV. 8. 4. \u039f\u1f31 \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3\n      \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf (IV. 18. 1.) is contrary to Herodotus\n      (VI. 112). Many events are attributed to very improbable causes,\n      _e.g._ that they left the fortified cities (IV. 9. 1.) from want of\n      money. There is absolutely no reason given for the subjection of\n      Messenia. That the Argives came in a private capacity, and not at\n      the command of the state, appears from Herodot. VI. 92. The oracle\n      in IV. 9. 2. in iambic verses is of a late date, but nevertheless\n      _more_ ancient than the corresponding one in hexameters preserved by\n      Eusebius Pr\u00e6p. Ev. V. 27. p. 130. ed. Steph. The verse in Pausan.\n      IV. 12. 1. \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2, refers to the\n      fraud of Cresphontes at the original division. In the oracle in\n      Pausan. IV. 12. 3. and Eusebius ubi sup. should be written, \u1f26 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n      \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03c7\u03b7, \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u1f15\u03be\u03b5\u03b9. Whence these oracles were derived does not appear: nor is it\n      easy to decide concerning the date of such short pieces. (The above\n      oracle is differently, and perhaps more correctly, emended by Lobeck\n      ad Phrynich. Par. p. 621.)\n\n  607 See the Fragments as arranged by Frank, _Callinus_, p. 168.\n\n  608 Ap. Strab. VIII. p. 362.\n\n  609 By Pausauias and Diodorus de Virt. et Vit. p. 540.\n\n  610 Pausan. IV. 4. 4.\n\n  611 Justin. III. 5. says eighty years. Thirty-nine years are probably\n      too short a period; for, as the Spartans did not marry before the\n      age of thirty (book IV. ch. 4. \u00a7 3.), the difference between\n      grandfathers and grandchildren must have been on an average sixty\n      years. If the interval had been only thirty-nine years, most of\n      those engaged in the second war would have been the _sons_ of the\n      conquerors of Ithome.\n\n  612 The same date is in the Parian Marble, Ep. 34. But Pausanias IV. 15.\n      1. proves _only from Tyrt\u00e6us_ that Rhianus was incorrect in calling\n      Leotychides a contemporary of the _second_ war; consequently the\n      numbers cannot have much authority. Pausanias had however various\n      means of judging: _e.g._ after the expulsion and subjugation of the\n      inhabitants no Messenian occurred in the \u1f48\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9, Pausan. VI.\n      2. 5. Different writers however vary remarkably. Dinarchus in\n      Demosth. p. 99. 29. places the subjection of the Messenians 400\n      years before their restoration (370 B.C.); Lycurgus in Leocrat. p.\n      155. 500; Isocrates Archidam. p. 121 B. only 300; but Bekker reads\n      400 from a manuscript, which agrees better with the early date of\n      Isocrates for the subjection of the Messenians. Plutarch Reg. Apoph.\n      p. 126. only 230 years before the liberation by Epaminondas.\n\n  613 It has been proved by the succession of the excerpts of Diodorus\n      that he placed the second Messenian war at the same time as\n      Eusebius: Krebs Lectiones Diodore\u00e6, Epimetrum. Now Eusebius places\n      the beginning of the second war at Olymp. 35. 3. (638 B.C.), and\n      Tyrt\u00e6us at Ol. 36. 3. (636).\n\n  614 Pausan. IV. 6. 2. (comp. Frank, _Callinus_, pp. 172, 196. who\n      proposes Polyd\u00f4r\u00f4 without any reason); see Poly\u00e6n. I. 15.\n\n  615 See above, ch. 5. \u00a7 12, 13.\n\n  616 Strabo VIII. p. 360.\n\n  617 In the time of Augustus it was in Messenia. The name Nedon was only\n      preserved in that of \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u1fb6 \u039d\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1.\n\n  618 IV. 4. 2.\n\n  619 Strabo V. p. 257. has nearly the same account as that of the\n      _Laced\u00e6monians_ in Pausanias; and so also Heraclides Ponticus, and\n      Justin. III. 4.\n\n_  620 Annalium memoria vatumque carminibus_, Tacit. Annal. IV. 43.\n\n  621 Pausan. IV. 14. 2. See above, ch. 5. \u00a7 13.\n\n  622 Probably tradition had preserved some report of a sacrifice to\n      Artemis Orthia (Iphigenia), concerning which see book II. ch. 9.\n\n  623 Plutarch also mentions the same expedition, de Superstit. 7. p. 71,\n      Hutten.\n\n  624 Fragm. 25.\n\n  625 Pausan. IV. 4. Strabo VI. p. 257.\n\n  626 IV. 14. 2. 23. 3.\n\n  627 Hence Hercules Manticlus was worshipped at Messana, Pausan. IV. 23.\n      5. IV. 26. 3.\n\n  628 See particularly Thucyd. VI. 5.\n\n  629 Strabo ubi sup. The Rhegini considered the Messenians of Naupactus\n      as kinsmen, Pausan. IV. 26. We may pass over the often corrected\n      error of Pausanias concerning Anaxilas (last by Jacobs, Amalthea, I.\n      p. 199. where Bentley is forgotten).\n\n  630 Yet it should be observed that Dionysius Perieg. 376. mentions\n      Amycl\u00e6ans as colonists in Tarentum, which is probably not a mere\n      poetical embellishment.\n\n  631 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1.\u2014\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, Steph. Byz. The words \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\n      \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f25\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n      \u039a\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, &c. contain two errors; comp. Pausan.\n      IV. 26. 5.\n\n  632 The whole of the following passage is evidently taken from Tyrt\u00e6us,\n      VIII. p. 362. \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4. \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76 \u03a4\u03c5\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2\u2014\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n      \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f25\u03bd \u1f11\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f28\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 addendum] \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f48\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd, \u03a0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n      \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f48\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. It is stated by Strabo, p. 355 C. that at the \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd the Eleans assisted the Spartans. They must\n      therefore have espoused the cause of the latter out of hatred\n      towards Pisa. With Strabo agrees the article of Phavorinus in v.\n      \u0391\u1f50\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, p. 134. viz. that \u201cthe Laced\u00e6monians deprived the Pisatans\n      of this privilege for siding with Messenia, and gave it to the\n      Eleans, who took their part.\u201d But if Elis was friendly and Pisa\n      hostile to the Spartans, Pantaleon can hardly have obtained the\n      agonothesia, when Sparta had overcome all her enemies, and had ended\n      the war victoriously. Accordingly, the 34th Olympiad, which\n      Pantaleon celebrated without the Eleans, probably fell in the period\n      of the second war.\n\n  633 According to Pausanias also the _Sicyonians_.\n\n  634 Pausan. VI. 22. 2.\n\n  635 Plutarch de sera Num. Vind. 2. p. 216. agrees with Pausanias, and\n      states that the war lasted for more than twenty years.\n\n  636 Ap. Polyb. IV. 33. 2. The words of the inscription are as follows:\u2014\n\n      \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f56\u03c1\u03b5 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u1ff3 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b9,\n      \u03b5\u1f56\u03c1\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n      \u1fe5\u03b7\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2. \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd.\n      \u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5 \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c9 \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n  637 See _\u00c6ginetica_, p. 65.\n\n  638 Which city was still governed by kings in the Peloponnesian war,\n      Plutarch Parallel. 32. p. 430. In this strange composition,\n      arbitrary fictions are curiously mixed with learned notices.\n\n  639 See the genealogy of the Orchomenian, Epidaurian, and Corinthian\n      princes below, ch. 8. \u00a7 3. note.\n\n  640 The battle \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u1fc3 \u03a4\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u1ff3, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03a4\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd (Polyb. IV. 33. Pausan.\n      IV. 6. 1. 17. 2.), in which Aristocrates is supposed to have\n      betrayed the Messenians, was also mentioned by Tyrt\u00e6us; but the\n      account which he gave of it quite differs from that in Pausanias,\n      viz. that the Spartans were intentionally posted in front of a\n      trench, that they might not be able to run away. Eustratius ad\n      Aristot. Eth. Nic. III. 8. 5. fol. 46. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd; \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n      \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f44\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd, \u1f27\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03a4\u03c5\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n  641 According to Pausanias.\n\n  642 Pausan. IV 15. 4. What he says in IV. 24. 1. does not, however,\n      agree well with this.\n\n  643 Herod. III. 41. That the Laced\u00e6monians, at the beginning of the\n      second war, dedicated a statue of Jupiter, twelve feet in height, at\n      Olympia, with the inscription in Pausan. V. 24. 1. is merely a\n      conjecture of the \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03af.\n\n  644 The passage of Strabo VIII. p. 362. should be arranged thus:\n      \u201cTyrt\u00e6us says that the second conquest of Messenia took place,\u201d\n      \u1f21\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f25\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd;\n      \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u2014\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1. \u1f6c\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f24 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f08\u039a\u03a5\u03a1\u03a9\u03a4\u0395\u039f\u039d \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\n      (for \u1f20\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bb. some MSS. have \u0397\u039a\u03a5\u03a1\u03a9\u03a4\u0391\u0399\u039f\u039d\u03a4\u0391), \u1f22 \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u1ff3\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c6\u03b9\u03b4\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. Comp. p. 52. n. d., and Porson\u2019s Adversaria,\n      p. 39. But there is nothing surprising in Tyrt\u00e6us, who lived among\n      the Dorians, speaking of the whole nation in the first person\n      plural, without mentioning his own different origin. In the same\n      manner Tyrt\u00e6us says of the Spartan nation as of a whole, \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\n      \u03b5\u1f35\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, Pausan. IV. 6. 2. Compare the verses of Mimnermus\n      in Strab. XIV. p. 634. The Laconian town of Aphidn\u00e6, from which the\n      Leucippid\u00e6 are supposed to have come, has probably arisen from some\n      misunderstanding. (Steph. Byz. in v.) Archimbrotus also, the father\n      of Tyrt\u00e6us (Suidas in v.), looks like an etymological invention;\n      \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cthe ruler of men.\u201d\n\n  645 Concerning a defeat of the Spartans by the Argives, see below, \u00a7 13.\n\n  646 Callisthenes ap. Polyb. IV. 33. 2. Aristomenes, according to Pausan.\n      IV. 24. married his sister and daughters to persons at Phigalea,\n      Lepreum, and Her\u00e6a. This is alluded to in a verse from the fifth\n      book of Rhianus in Steph. Byz. in v. \u03a6\u03b9\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd\n      \u1f04\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u1f74\u03bd \u03a6\u03b9\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, viz. Tharyx.\n\n  647 This circumstance was narrated by Rhianus in the sixth (probably the\n      last) book, in which Atabyrum, a town in Rhodes, was mentioned,\n      Steph. Byz. in v. \u1f08\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n  648 Aristotle Polit. II. 6. 8. speaks of wars with Argos, Arcadia, and\n      Messenia, before the time of Lycurgus; but probably he is incorrect.\n      According to Poly\u00e6n. VIII. 34. the Tegeatans took king Theopompus\n      prisoner (provided the _king_ is meant): and the same authority\n      states II. 13. that Mantinea was taken by Eurypon.\n\n  649 Pausan. VIII. 39. 2.\n\n  650 Pausan. VIII. 48. 3. concerning \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b8\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, compare III. 7.\n      3.\n\n  651 Herod. I. 67. Pausan. III. 3. 5. comp. Dio Chrys. Orat. XVII. p.\n      251. C. the speech of the Tegeatans in Herodotus IX. 26. Poly\u00e6nus I.\n      11.\n\n  652 At this time probably the oracle was delivered, which held out such\n      deceitful promises to the Spartans, \u0394\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03a4\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b7\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u1f40\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Herod. I. 66.\n      The ambiguity lies in the word \u1f40\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, which may be derived from\n      \u1f44\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2. Also \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 signifies the condition of a Helot, or a\n      Clarotes, who receives a measured-out piece of land to cultivate.\n\n  653 See the stratagem of king \u1f0c\u03bb\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 (\u1f0c\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 Casaubon) in Poly\u00e6n. I. 8.\n\n  654 See below, ch. 9. \u00a7 1.\n\n  655 Above, ch. 5. \u00a7 1, 4, 5.\n\n  656 Pausan. IV. 5. 1. The Amphictyons decided concerning Thyrea,\n      Plutarch Parallel. Hist. Gr. et Rom. 3.\n\n  657 Herod. VI. 92. sqq.\n\n  658 Concerning these Amphictyons, see Ste Croix _Governemens f\u00e9d\u00e9ratifs\n      anciens_, p. 100. who, however, treats the subject with his usual\n      carelessness. See Boeckh Corp. Inscript. n. 1121. cf. n. 1124.\n      Maffei in Muratori, 561.\n\n  659 I should not now venture to make such positive assertions as those\n      made in my _\u00c6ginetica_, p. 54.\n\n  660 III. 2. 2. III. 7. 1.\n\n  661 Paus. III. 2. 2. III. 7.1.\n\n  662 III. 7. 3. and hence perhaps \u0152nomaus ap. Euseb. Pr\u00e6p. Ev. p. 133.\n      Steph.\n\n  663 II. 26. 5. III. 7. 5. IV. 8. 1. IV. 14. 2. IV. 43. 6.\n\n  664 Thus, according to Herodotus, Hermione and Asine \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03cd\u03bb\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7\n      \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc7, which then probably was the nearest place of importance,\n      belonged to the Dryopians; comp. Theopompus ap. Strab. p. 373.\n\n  665 See Boeckh. Inscript. n. 1193.\n\n  666 \u00c6ginetica, pp. 51-63.\n\n  667 With regard to the dominion of his brother in Macedonia, the\n      relation of this narrative to that in Herodotus VIII. 137. appears\n      to me to be as follows. Both describe the same event; but the latter\n      is the rude native tradition of Macedon, formed among a people which\n      had few historical memorials; the former is derived from an Argive\n      tradition, and, though as well as the other not purely historical,\n      is yet connected together in a more probable manner. \u039a\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 is\n      perhaps only another form of \u039a\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; see Hesychius in \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n      The account of Euripides, that Archelaus, the son of Temenus, took\n      the city of \u00c6g\u00e6 in Macedonia, whither he had come as a goatherd in\n      great distress (Hyginus Fab. 219; Dio Chrysost. p. 70.), is the most\n      unfounded. Whether Isocrates (ad Philipp. p. 88. D.) was acquainted\n      with the tradition concerning Caranus, or followed the account of\n      Herodotus, does not appear. There is also a discrepancy in the\n      account of Constant. Porphyr. Them. I. p. 1453. See Appendix I. \u00a7\n      15.\n\n  668 \u00c6ginetica, p. 57. cf. Addenda, p. 199.\n\n  669 And _only_ silver (not \u03c4\u03cc \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, as Strabo says),\n      since copper was not coined till a much later period, and gold was\n      first coined in Asia. In the Etymologicum Gudianum, p. 549. 58. it\n      is stated inaccurately that Phido reduced the measures.\n\n  670 See book III. c. 10. \u00a7 12. The ancient Macedonian coins were struck\n      according to the same standard.\n\n  671 Polyb. II. 37. 10.\n\n  672 See in general Julian. Epist. ad Arg. 35. p. 407.\n\n  673 According to Eusebius, p. 1297. ed. Pont. Pausanias places \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n      \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0398\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 at the end of the reign of Theopompus, at the\n      same date; Solinus, c. 13. in the seventeenth year of Romulus.\n\n  674 Otherwise Herodotus could not have said of the Cynurians,\n      \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b5\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. Compare\n      \u00c6ginetica, p. 47.\n\n  675 Pausan. II. 24. 8.\n\n  676 In addition to the passages in \u00c6ginetica ubi sup. see the Epigrams\n      of Simonides VIII. 431. of Dioscorides VII. 430. Damagetus 432.\n      Nicander 526. Ch\u00e6remon 720. G\u00e6tulicus 244. in the Palatine\n      Anthology. According to Isocrates Archid. p. 136. D. 300 Spartans\n      destroyed all the Argives. It is a remarkable continuation of the\n      legend, that Perilaus, the son of Alcenor, who went away too soon\n      (Herod. I. 82.), a conqueror at the Nemean games, slew Othryadas,\n      Pausan. II. 20. 6.\u2014The offerings of the Argives for the battle of\n      Thyrea, as well as those of the Tegeatans for a victory over Sparta,\n      at Delphi (Pausan. X. 9. 3, 6.), cannot, from the dates of the\n      artificers, have been made before the 100th Olympiad (380 B.C.).\n\n  677 Hence their institution (according to Eusebius, Olymp. 27. 3. 678\n      B.C.) is derived from that event. See Athen. XIV. p. 631. Ruhnken ad\n      Tim. p. 54. Hesychius in \u0398\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. Apostolius VI.\n      56.\u2014Compare Manso, Sparta, I. 2. p. 211.\n\n  678 Lucian Icaromenipp. c. 18. calls Cynuria, taking indeed a bird\u2019s-eye\n      view, a \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cnot wider\n      than a bean.\u201d\n\n  679 Pausan. IV. 24. 1. IV. 35. 2.\n\n  680 According to Eusebius in Olymp. 51. 6. ed. Pontac. comp. Corsini\n      Dissert. Agon. p. 51.\n\n  681 As Dissen has shown, ad Pind. Nem. IV. p. 381.\n\n  682 From this I have explained Herod. VIII. 73. in my \u00c6ginetica, p. 47,\n      where however the \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 after the Persian war are not different\n      from the former Peri\u0153ci.\n\n  683 I. 18. and compare I. 76. and I. 122. See also Herodotus V. 92. 1.\n      \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03a3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u1f74\n      \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Sosicles the Corinthian says to the Spartans, \u201cHeaven and\n      earth will be changed, before you abolish free governments\n      (\u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03b9) in order to introduce tyrannies.\u201d See also Dionys.\n      Halicarn. Lys. 30. p. 523. The Syracusans also overthrew many\n      tyrants, before they had one of their own, Aristot. Polit. V. 8. 18.\n\n  684 Tyrt\u00e6us Fragm. 3. v. 8. Gaisford.\n\n  685 Libanius in Sever, vol. III. p. 251. Reisk.\n\n  686 Polit. V. 9. 21.\n\n  687 The series is not, however, quite certain, as Herodotus VI. 126.\n      only goes down as far as Andreas. Aristotle merely says, \u1f48\u03c1\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f48\u03c1\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, and Plutarch, de sera Num. Vind. 7 (see\n      Wyttenbach. p. 44). \u1f48\u03c1\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u039c\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. From the new Excerpta of Diodorus, VII-X. 14. Script.\n      Vet. Nov. Coll. vol. II. p. 11. Mai, it appears that Andreas and\n      Orthagoras are probably the same person: for Andreas is stated also\n      to have been a cook, by whom the dynasty was first raised.\n\n  688 Pausan. VI. 19. 2. II. 8. 1. where for \u03a0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd write \u039c\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n  689 Herod. I. 163. and others.\n\n  690 Aristot. Pol. V. 10. 3. For what Aristotle says, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n      \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u1f76\u03c2, \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f21 \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03c5\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039c\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n      \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, implies that the tyranny did not pass quietly from\n      Myron to Cleisthenes, but that the latter re-acquired it by force.\n\n  691 Book III. ch. 4. \u00a7 3.\n\n  692 Herod. V. 67. \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n  693 See, besides Herodotus, Diodor. Exc. 2. p. 550. with Wesseling\u2019s\n      Notes.\n\n  694 Herodotus, followed by Dio Chrysost. III. p. 43 B. I would now in\n      this passage of Herodotus (V. 67.) retain \u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1, where Casaubon\n      proposed \u03bb\u03b7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1; not, however, in a passive sense, but according\n      to its grammatical form, for a stone-slinger, _i.e._ a \u03b3\u03cd\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 or\n      \u03c8\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u1f78\u03c2, the great mass of light-armed soldiers being furnished with\n      slings. Compare _e.g._ Thuc. I. 106. \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c8\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\u2014\u201cAdrastus\n      is king of the Argives, but thou art a common bond-slave,\u201d says the\n      oracle to Cleisthenes.\n\n  695 Pausan. II. 9. 6. X. 37. 4. Schol. Pindar. Nem. IX. 2. Poly\u00e6n. III.\n      5. It is remarkable that Sparta took no part in this war.\n\n  696 See Boeckh Explic. Pindar. Olymp. XII. p. 206.\n\n  697 Pausan. II. 9. 6.\n\n  698 Pausan. X. 7. 5.\n\n  699 For the tyranny lasted, according to Aristotle and Diodorus, p. 11.\n      Mai, 100 years, _i.e._ from about the 26th to the 51st Olympiad,\n      676-576 B.C.\n\n  700 Herod. V. 68.\n\n  701 Herod. VI. 128.\n\n  702 Strab. p. 378. About 200 men according to Diodorus ap. Syncell.\n      Cronograph. p. 178. Par.\n\n  703 Herod. V. 92. 2.\n\n  704 Aristot. Pol. V. 8. 4. V. 9. 22.\n\n  705 \u00c6lian. V. II. I. 19.\n\n  706 Concerning a stratagem of Cypselus on this occasion, see Poly\u00e6nus V.\n      31. 1. That a Bacchiad, Demaratus, should have gone at this time to\n      Italy, is very probable; but that the Tarquins were descended from\n      him is a fiction. See Niebuhr\u2019s History of Rome, vol. I. p. 215.\n\n  707 According to Eusebius, which agrees with the 447 years in Diodorus\n      (Fragm. 6. p. 635. Wessel.), from the return of the Heraclid\u00e6 until\n      Cypselus. It is not easy to see what were Strabo\u2019s grounds for\n      reckoning the dominion of the Bacchiad\u00e6 at 200 years, VIII. p. 378.\n      According to Diodorus they were Prytanes for only 90 years.\n\n  708 Aristot. ubi sup.\n\n  709 Plutarch. Sept. Sapient. 21. cf. Sympos. Qu. VIII. 4. 4. p. 361.\n\n  710 Herod. V. 92. 6. according to Schol. Plat. Hipp. Maj. p. 135 Ruhnk.\n      he was \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, as should be read in Apostol. XX. 47.\n\n  711 Herod, ubi sup. Aristot. Pol. III. 8. 3. V. 8. 7. V. 9. 2.\n\n  712 Aristot. Pol. V. 9. 2.\n\n  713 Nicolaus Damascenus.\n\n  714 Aristot. Pol. V. 9. 22. Heraclid. Pont. 5. Nicol. Damasc.\n\n  715 \u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, Heraclides. Compare Aristot. Pol. V. 6.\n      \u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1,\n      \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b3\u1ff6\u03c2. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f22\n      \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76, \u1f22 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n  716 Ibid.\n\n  717 Book III. ch. 3. \u00a7 3.\n\n  718 Heraclides. Perhaps for \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76 should be written \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76 (like\n      the \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 of Sicily, book III. ch. 9. \u00a7 7. note).\n\n  719 See Book II. ch. 10. \u00a7 7.\n\n  720 Concerning the Colossi and offerings of the Cypselid\u00e6, see Aristot.\n      Polit. V. 9. 2. Theophrast. ap. Phot, in \u039a\u03c5\u03c8\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1. Ephorus\n      ap. Diog. La\u00ebrt. I. 96. Pausan. V. 2. 4. Plato Ph\u00e6dr. p. 236 et\n      Schol. p. 313. ed. Bekker. Strabo VIII. p. 353. 378. Plutarch de\n      Pyth. orac. 13. See book III. ch. 10. \u00a7 12.\n\n  721 Herodotus. Compare Antenor and Dionysius of Chalcedon, in Plutarch,\n      de Malign. Herod. 22. p. 302. and the elegant legend in Pliny H. N.\n      IX. 41.\n\n  722 See above, ch. 6. \u00a7 8. Besides Gorgus, there was also at Ambracia a\n      tyrant named Periander, Aristot. Polit. V. 8. 9. Plutarch. Amator.\n      23. p. 60. perhaps the son of Gorgus.\n\n  723 Either to this person, or to Periander, or to Cypselus, the\n      beautiful Rhadina of Samos was, according to Stesichorus (ap. Strab.\n      VIII. p. 347.) sent as a bride, but she was killed out of jealousy.\n      That it was the Ionic Samos is proved against Strabo by Pausan. VII.\n      5. 6.\n\n  724 There is some difficulty in the chronology of this family; the\n      following is a genealogical table:\u2014\n\n      [Transcriber\u2019s Note: Here are the relationships shown in the table:\n\n      Aristocrates of Orchomenus: Father of Aristodemus and Eristhenea.\n\n      Eristhenea married Procles of Epidaurus, and bore Melissa.\n\n      A\u00ebtion fathered Cypselus, who fathered Gorgus and Periander, who\n      married Melissa.\n\n      Melissa and Periander parented Cypselus and Lycophron.]\n\n      There are also Gordias and Psammetichus, as to whom nothing is\n      known. See \u00c6ginetica, p. 64. sqq. Periander ruled from Olymp. 38. 1.\n      (Eusebius) to Olymp. 48. 4. (Sosicrates ap. Diog. La\u00ebrt. I. 74.), 44\n      years according to Aristotle. This is not inconsistent with the fact\n      mentioned by Herodotus V. 95 and Apollodorus (p. 411. Heyn. comp.\n      Tim\u00e6us ap. Strab. 13. p. 600. A. Aristot. Rhet. I. 15. 14.) that he\n      decided between Athens and Mytilene concerning Sigeum, since Phrynon\n      of Athens (victor in the 36th Olympiad, Afric.) had contended on\n      this same point with Pittacus in Olym. 43. 1. (Eusebius), before the\n      time of Pisistratus. Compare Poly\u00e6nus I. 25. Plutarch de Herod.\n      Malign. 15. Diog. Laert. i. 74. Festus in Retiarii. Schol. \u00c6sch.\n      Eumen. 401. The narrative of Herodotus is not arranged _entirely_ in\n      a chronological order. Periander, however, was reigning, according\n      to Herodotus I. 20. in the fifth year of the reign of Halyattes\n      (Olymp. 41), and before his death sent him a present of Corcyr\u00e6an\n      boys, in the third generation (_i.e._ in the 16th Olympiad), before\n      the siege of Samos by the Laced\u00e6monians (Olymp. 63.), as Panofka\n      (_Res Samiorum_, p. 30.) has rightly corrected in Herod. III. 48.\n      (\u03b3\u1fbd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) from Plutarch, de Malign. Herod. 22. Cypselus,\n      according to Herodotus, reigned thirty years, and therefore ascended\n      the throne in Olymp. 30. 3.; the Cypselid\u00e6 ruled altogether 76-1/2\n      years (according to my emendation of Aristot. Pol. V. 9. 22);\n      Procles reigned from about the 35th to the 49th Olympiad;\n      Aristocrates goes as far back as the 25th Olympiad.\n\n  725 \u00c6ginetica, p. 64.\n\n  726 Who himself had aimed at the tyranny of Athens so early as the 42d\n      Olympiad. Thucyd. I. 126. Heinrich, Epimenides, p. 83.\n\n  727 Aristot. Rhet. I. 2. 19. Polit. V. 4. 4.\n\n  728 Like the Enneacrunus of the Pisistratid\u00e6. Pausan. I. 40. 1. I. 41.\n      2. Theognis v. 894. \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 cannot well\n      refer to a _factio Cypselidarum_, especially if it has any connexion\n      with what precedes, concerning the Persian war; but \u03ba\u03c5\u03c8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd must\n      mean \u201cto be deaf,\u201d \u201cto have the ears closed,\u201d from \u03ba\u03c5\u03c8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7.\n\n  729 I will only mention the tyrants in Doric states.\u2014Cleobulus at\n      Lindos, who was similar to Periander, Plutarch, de EI 3. p. 118.\n      comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. p. 523 B. (the Diagorid\u00e6 however still\n      continued at Ialysus). Cadmus in the island of Cos, whose history\n      must, from Herod. VI. 23. and VII. 164. be as follows. Scythes, the\n      tyrant of Zancle, being driven out by the Samians (Olymp. 70. 4. 497\n      B.C.), fled to the king of Persia, and remained chiefly at his\n      court. To Scythes\u2019 son, Cadmus, the king of Persia probably gave the\n      island of Cos. For though it might be objected that Cadmus could not\n      have been the son of Scythes _of Zancle_, since the latter,\n      according to Herodotus, died in Persia (\u1f10\u03bd \u03a0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9), whereas Cadmus\n      inherited the tyranny from his father (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2); it may be\n      answered that Scythes, _notwithstanding_ that the king had given him\n      the government of Cos, yet did not reside there, but at the Persian\n      court, as we know to have been the case with Histi\u00e6us. Afterwards,\n      however, before the 75th Olympiad (480 B.C.), having made a treaty\n      with the Samians, he returned to his ancient country. He was\n      followed by Epicharmus the comic poet, Suidas, in v. \u1f18\u03c0\u03af\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. At\n      his departure from Cos he gave the state its liberty, and instituted\n      a senate (\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae). He was a contemporary of Hippolochus the\n      Asclepiad, and the ancestor by the mother\u2019s side of Thessalus. See\n      the 7th Epistle of Hippocrates. In Sicily, Oleander and the family\n      of Hippocrates, Gelon and Hieron, at Gela and then at Syracuse;\n      Phalaris, and afterwards Theron, and Thrasid\u00e6us at Agrigentum;\n      Anaxilas at Rhegium and Zancle; Pan\u00e6tius (Olymp. 41. 3. 614 B.C.) at\n      Leontini. See Aristot. Pol. V. 8. 1. V. 10. 4. Perhaps also\n      Aristophilidas of Tarentum (Herod. III. 136.) was a tyrant. Tyrants\n      also existed in Italy, in Croton, Sybaris, and Cyme.\n\n  730 Ap. Plutarch, de Herod. Malign. 21. p. 308. Compare Manso, Sparta,\n      I. 2. p. 308.\n\n  731 Although they were the guests of Sparta, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\n      \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u1f22 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, Herod. V. 63. 90. Thuc. VI. 53. Aristoph.\n      Lysist. 1150, &c.\n\n  732 See Aristot. Pol. V. 5. 1. and his \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u039d\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03c9\u03bd in Athen\u00e6us VIII.\n      p. 348. According to Herod. I. 61. 64. Lygdamis was established in\n      his government by Pisistratus, about the 60th Olympiad (540 B.C.).\n      Comp. Heyne Nov. Comment. Gott. II. Class. Phil. p. 65.\n\n  733 See above, \u00a7 2. Sicyon gave ships to Cleomenes about the 65th\n      Olympiad, or 520 B.C.\n\n  734 Before the time of Histi\u00e6us.\n\n  735 Lycurg. 30.\n\n  736 Herod. III. 54. Plutarch. de Herod. Malign. 21.\n\n  737 This follows from Plutarch ubi sup. and Cimon c. 16. Herod. VI. 12.\n      Pausan. III. 7, 8.\n\n  738 Herod. VII. 159.\n\n  739 According to Pausan. III. 4. 1. Therefore _before_ Olymp. 65. 1. or\n      520 B.C. for Cleomenes was then king, as is evident from a\n      comparison of Herod. VI. 108. with Thucyd. III. 68. He was in that\n      year in the neighbourhood of Plat\u00e6a. According to Plutarch. Lacon.\n      Apophth. p. 212. Cleomenes was regent in the 63rd Olympiad (525 B.\n      C), when the Samians came to Sparta: this however would give too\n      great a length to his reign, (which Herodotus states to have been of\n      _short_ duration,) viz., from about 525 to 491 B.C.\n\n  740 It appears that this wood was near Sepea in the territory of Tiryns.\n      Apostolius IV. 27. states that the battle took place on the \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n      \u03bb\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2. The stratagem of Cleomenes is narrated after Herodotus by\n      Poly\u00e6nus I. 14.\n\n  741 The marvellous narrative of Herodotus VI. 77 sqq. is also\n      unconnected, from there being no explanation of the two first verses\n      of the oracle, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b8\u03ae\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, which however must have referred\n      to some real event. Or does Herodotus refer \u03b8\u03ae\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 to Juno?\n      Pausanias II. 20. doubts whether Herodotus understands it. But the\n      story of Telesilla in Pausanias, Plutarch. de Mul. Virt. 5. p. 269.\n      and Poly\u00e6nus VIII. 33. is very fabulous. The festival \u1f5d\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70\n      could not have had this historical origin, but must have belonged to\n      the mystical rites of some elementary deities. The number of the\n      Argives who were slain is stated by Plutarch and Poly\u00e6nus to have\n      been 7777; by others 6000 (also a tradition of a seven days\u2019\n      armistice in Plut. Lac. Apoph. p. 211.). This is the battle \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7\n      \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u1fc3 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, but of _what_ month we are ignorant, Pol. V. 2. 8.\n      Plut. Mul. Virt. ubi sup. Others placed it at the \u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 of the\n      fourth month, anciently Herm\u00e6us, but only because the \u1f5d\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 were\n      then celebrated. See Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. p. 522. ed. Sylb. Suidas\n      in v. \u03a4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1.\n\n  742 Concerning these slaves, see book III. ch. 3. \u00a7 2.\n\n  743 Polit. V. 2. 8. Plutarch confounds bond-slaves and Peri\u0153ci.\n\n  744 See Schol. Ven. ad Il. B. 108. concerning the nine hamlets (islands)\n      near Argos.\n\n  745 Pausan. VIII. 27. 1.\n\n  746 Strabo VIII. p. 376. distinguishes Orne\u00e6 \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 from the\n      city near Sicyon, as also in the same place a \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7 named Asine, p.\n      373 B.\n\n  747 Diod. XI. 65.\n\n  748 Strabo p. 377. Yet Cleon\u00e6 soon occurs again as a friendly state.\n\n  749 Ch. 7. \u00a7 15. Cleon\u00e6 was at that time engaged in a war with Corinth,\n      Plutarch. Cimon. 17.\n\n  750 Pausan. VII. 25. 3. Comp. Diodorus XI. 65. It is remarkable how\n      rapidly Mycen\u00e6 fell into oblivion among the Athenians. \u00c6schylus does\n      not once mention it; succeeding poets frequently confound it with\n      Argos. In the Electra of Sophocles there is throughout the play the\n      most confused notion of the locality; compare Elmsley ad Eurip.\n      Heraclid. 188. Concerning the destruction of Mycen\u00e6, see Brunck\n      Analect. tom. II. p. 105. n. 248.\n\n  751 Pausan. II. 25. 7. cf. II. 17. 5. VIII. 46. 2. Concerning the\n      emigration, see Strabo VIII. p. 373 B. and Ephorus lib. VI. ap.\n      Steph. Byz. in v. \u1f09\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2. \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03a4\u03b9\u03c1\u03cd\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, &c. In\n      Stephanus in v. \u03a4\u03af\u03c1\u03c5\u03bd\u03c2, as well as in Strabo ubi sup. the\n      Hermioneans in Halieis are spoken of. There is much that is very\n      singular in the oracle, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f7a \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f7a \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03be\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f7a\n      \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b9\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. See App. V. \u00a7 11.\n\n  752 Herod. VIII. 43. The Hermioneans however maintained their ancient\n      connexions at a later period; see above, ch. 7. \u00a7 13.\n\n  753 Pausan. II. 34. 5. Strabo adds the destruction of Asine; but this\n      took place at a much earlier period. The statement of Strabo (p. 373\n      D.) that the Mycen\u00e6ans used Eiones as their \u03bd\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, must, if it\n      is correct, refer to some time before the 75th Olympiad, or 480 B.C.\n\n  754 Pausan. II. 25. 1.\n\n  755 Diod. XII. 75.\n\n  756 Herod. VII. 148.\n\n  757 Herod. I. 30. where the \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 are the Megarians, not the\n      Eleusinians.\n\n  758 Pausan. I. 40, 45. Strabo IX. p. 271. Herod. Vit. Homer. c. 28.\n      Poly\u00e6n. Strateg. I. 20. 1, 2. Diogen. La\u00ebrt. I. 48. Quinctil. V. 11.\n\n  759 Plutarch. Comp. Solon, et Public. 4.\n\n  760 Pausan. I. 40. 4.\n\n  761 Plutarch. Solon. 10. 12. confirmed by \u00c6lian. V. H. VII. 19. There\n      was at Delphi a statue of Apollo armed with a lance, mentioned by\n      Plutarch Pyth. Orac. 16. p. 273. and Pausan. X. 15. 1. which was\n      offered up by the Megarians after a victory over Athens, _i.e._\n      after that gained in Olymp. 83. 3. see book III. ch. 9, \u00a7 10.\n\n  762 Pausan. V. 23. 1. compare _\u00c6ginetica_, p. 126.\n\n  763 They occur in the following order; Corinth, Sicyon, Megara, and\n      Epidaurus, at a later period, after the destruction of \u00c6gina.\n\n  764 Herod. VIII. 72.\n\n  765 \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\u2014IX. 26. Thucyd. V. 67. Concerning the\n      fidelity of Phlius towards Sparta, see Theodoret. Gr\u00e6c. Affin. IX.\n      16.\n\n  766 Thuc. II. 9.\n\n  767 Thuc. V. 29.\n\n  768 Herod. IX. 77.\n\n  769 Herod. VIII. 72.\n\n  770 Herod. VII. 202.\n\n  771 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, Diod. XV. 12. See also Xen. Hell. V. 2. 3.\n\n  772 Thuc. V. 29. 33.\n\n  773 Thuc. IV. 134. Concerning this internal war, see below, \u00a7 9.\n\n  774 Thuc. V. 29. See book III. ch. 4, \u00a7 7.\n\n  775 \u1f29\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, Thuc. I. 71. The Corinthian orator says to\n      the Spartans, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9 \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 (_ad\n      finem_) \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n  776 Thuc. II. 10. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ae\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n  777 Likewise ships, implements for sieges, &c. Thucyd. III. 16. VII. 18.\n\n  778 For expeditious without Peloponnesus \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7, _i.e._ two thirds\n      of the whole, appear to have been the common proportion, Thuc. III.\n      15. Demosth. in Ne\u00e6r. p. 1379.\n\n  779 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. Thuc. II. 7.\n\n  780 Boeckh Inscript. No. 1511. It is probably of the time of Lysander.\n\n  781 \u1f69\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, Plutarch. Cleomen. 27. (\u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2, _i.e._ the second, \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5.) Compare Plutarch. Demosth. 17. Crassus 17. Reg. Apophth.\n      p. 126. and Lacon. Apophth. p. 202. Hutten. In this passage the\n      apophthegm is incorrectly attributed to Archidamus the Third,\n      although the Peloponnesian war is mentioned in connexion with it.\n\n  782 Thuc. I. 141.\n\n  783 Thuc. V. 54. Cleomenes also, Herod. V. 14. conceals the real object;\n      but the army is soon separated.\n\n  784 Thuc. ubi sup.\n\n  785 See book III. ch. 12. The army of the 10,000, although composed\n      entirely of mercenaries, was in many respects like an allied army,\n      and was under Spartan discipline.\n\n  786 Thucyd. II. 10.\n\n  787 I. 141.\n\n  788 Ibid.\n\n  789 Thucyd. I. 125. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c8\u03b7\u03c6\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf. V. 30. \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f02\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c3 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03be\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c8\u03b7\u03c6\u03af\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f22\u03bd \u03bc\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f21\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03ce\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f96. V.\n      17. the Megarians, Eleans, Corinthians, and B\u0153otians are outvoted.\n      But, according to I. 40, 41, the vote of the Corinthians _alone_\n      prevented the Peloponnesians from succouring the Samians, _i.e._\n      they gave the preponderance to the party opposed to war.\n\n  790 Besides Herodotus V. 93. see Dio Chrys. Orat. XXXVII. p. 459. 15.\n\n  791 Thucyd. I. 67.\n\n  792 Thuc. ubi sup. Xenoph. Hell. V. 2. 11. 20.\n\n  793 Herod. IX. 9. where however he is distinguished from the \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9.\n      Compare Plutarch de Malign. Herod. 41. Poly\u00e6n. V. 30. 1. Plutarch\n      Themistocl. 6.\n\n  794 See the treaty in Thucyd. V. 77, 79.\n\n  795 Thucyd. I. 28. cf. V. 79.\n\n  796 V. 31.\n\n  797 V. 7, 9. \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. The\n      expression \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 does not at all refer to ancient treaties of\n      the Dorians. The \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u1f76 in Pausan. III. 5. 8. probably\n      refer to the tradition mentioned above, ch. 5. \u00a7 16.\n\n  798 Thucyd. ubi sup. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n  799 Herod. VI. 84.\n\n  800 VI. 108. \u1f10\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.\n\n  801 V. 70.\n\n  802 V. 49. 70.\n\n  803 According to Justin XIX. 1. the Sicilian states also applied to\n      Leonidas for assistance against Carthage. How general the respect\n      for Sparta was at that time in Greece, is shown by several passages\n      in Pindar, which are not otherwise intelligible, _e.g._ Pyth. V. 73.\n\n  804 See Appendix IV.\n\n  805 Pers. 819.\n\n  806 Thuc. II. 71. III. 58. 68.\n\n  807 Herod. IX. 106.\u2014These \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u1f76 are also probably the \u03b6\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9,\n      according to which the Athenians wished \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 at the\n      beginning of the war, Thuc. I. 144, 145.\n\n  808 Thuc. I. 95.\n\n  809 Diod. XI. 50.\n\n  810 Thuc. VI. 82. \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n  811 Of this Eichst\u00e4dt has treated in his Notes to the translation of\n      Mitford\u2019s History of Greece; also Mosche in a Dissertation _De eo\n      quod in Cornelii Vitis faciendum restat_. Francof. 1802; and lastly,\n      Dahlmann in his _Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Geschichte_, vol. I.\n      p. 1-148. with great clearness and accuracy.\n\n  812 Herod. VI. 42. See my Review of a work of Kort\u00fcm\u2019s, _G\u00f6ttingische\n      Anzeigen_, 1822. p. 117.\n\n  813 Thuc. VIII. 5. cf. 46. \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9, an\n      official expression of frequent occurrence.\n\n  814 Plutarch. Themist. 29. Thucyd. I. 138. Diod. XI. 57. His sons also\n      appear to have possessed them, according to Pausan. I. 26. 4.\n\n  815 Xenoph. Hell. III. 1. 6. To this family Procles also belongs, who\n      married the daughter of Aristotle (when the latter was at Atarneus),\n      and had by her two sons, Procles and Demaratus, Sextus Empiricus\n      adv. Mathem. p. 51 B. ed. Col.\n\n  816 Xenoph. ubi sup.\n\n  817 Thucyd. V. 1.\n\n  818 Herod. IX. 35. Pausan. III. 11. Isocrat. Archid. p. 136 A. Hence\n      also Leotychides in 469 B.C. went to _Tegea_ in exile, Herod. VI.\n      72. Herodotus IX. 37. also mentions a dissension between Tegea and\n      Sparta before the Persian war.\n\n  819 Fragm. 21. Gaisford.\n\n  820 At that time also Tegea assisted Argos against Mycen\u00e6; above, ch. 8.\n      \u00a7 7.\n\n  821 Poly\u00e6nus I. 41. 5. confounds Archidamus III. and II. Plato Leg. III.\n      p. 692. has not an accurate idea of the time of this war, of which\n      Diodorus XI. 64, has given altogether an incorrect and inconsistent\n      representation.\n\n  822 Plin. H. N. II. 79, 81. Cicero de Divin. I. 50.\n\n  823 The \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. See Thucyd. I. 128. \u00c6lian. V. H. VI. 7. Suidas\n      in \u03a4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd. Apostolius XVIII. 92. Prov. Vat. IV. 12.\n      Plutarch. Prov. Al. 54. Pausan. IV. 24. 2. who mentions\n      Laced\u00e6monians instead of Helots.\n\n  824 Thucyd. I. 101. \u1f97 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n  825 Herod. IX. 64.\n\n  826 If in Herod. IX. 35. the alteration \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b8\u03ce\u03bc\u1fc3 may be ventured. The\n      expression of Pausanias III. 11. \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f38\u03c3\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b8\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 is compounded of the passage of Herodotus, which he\n      reads as we now have it, and Thucyd. I. 101. \u03bf\u1f31 \u0395\u1f35\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\u2014\u1f10\u03c2 \u1f38\u03b8\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\n      \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n  827 Thucyd. II. 27. IV. 56.\n\n  828 Xenoph. Hell. V. 2. 3.\n\n  829 Thucyd. III. 54.\n\n  830 Aristoph. Lysistr. 1138. The 4000 hoplit\u00e6, here mentioned by\n      Aristophanes, were about the third part of the disposable forces of\n      Athens (Thuc. II. 13); and since the Plat\u00e6ans likewise sent \u03c4\u1f78\n      \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 of their numbers to the assistance of the Spartans (ib.\n      III. 54. \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u1fb3 as opposed to the rest of B\u0153otia), this was probably a\n      contingent fixed for such cases. Plat\u00e6a, it should be observed, had\n      been on friendly terms with Sparta after the time of Pausanias, and\n      been connected with that state by \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, to which the son of the\n      Plat\u00e6an general Arimnestus owed his name of Lacon, Thuc. III. 52,\n      where we should read \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, or _vice vers\u00e2_ in Plutarch\n      Aristid. 11. and 19. \u1f08\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 should be read for \u1f08\u03c1\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  831 Thucyd. Compare Manso, Sparta, vol. I. p. 377. They must also at\n      that time have been angry with the Athenians on account of Thasos.\n\n  832 These \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 may, I believe, be safely referred to this time; from\n      which Aristotle, quoted in Plutarch, Qu. Rom. 52. p. 343. and Qu.\n      Gr. 5. p. 380. cites the passages in the text on account of the\n      expression \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, for \u201cto kill.\u201d Compare Hesychius: \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76\n      \u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. That the Arcadians in a certain manner carried\n      on war for the Helots is also implied in Zenobius Prov. I. 59.\n\n  833 Thucyd. III. 112. IV. 3. cf. VII. 57. \u03bf\u1f31 \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n  834 Thucyd. I. 102. The \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 still, however, remained in\n      force (the \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u1fc6\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 in cap. 144).\n\n  835 \u00c6ginetica, p. 179. and see Boeckh ad Pind. Pyth. VIII. Dissen ad\n      Nem. VIII. 15.\n\n  836 See the excellent explanation of Boeckh ad Pind. Isthm. VI. p. 532.\n\n  837 On the oligarchical troubles in Olymp. 80. 4. (457 B.C.) and the\n      probable share of Cimon in them, see the accurate discussion in\n      Meier\u2019s Historia Juris Attici de Bonis damnatis, p. 4. n. 11.\n\n  838 Thuc. I. 118. \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n  839 See Boeckh\u2019s Public Economy of Athens, vol. II. p. 396, note.\n\n  840 Thucyd. I. 115. \u039d\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b7\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b6\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u0390\u03b1\u03bd; for in\n      this order the words should be read. Achaia therefore is the\n      district on the north of Peloponnesus, which indeed did not _belong_\n      to Athens, but was enumerated in the lists of the contending parties\n      as belonging to the Athenian side (concerning these lists see\n      Thucyd. I. 31, 40.), and at this time passed over to that of the\n      Laced\u00e6monians. See Thucyd. IV. 21. Compare the very confused account\n      in Andocides \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, and that of \u00c6schines borrowed from it.\n\n  841 Thucyd. I. 40. See above, p. 200. note e. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This\n      is the footnote to \u201cstrong opposition,\u201d starting \u201cThucyd. I. 125.\u201d]\n\n  842 The meaning of the article in the thirty years\u2019 truce, Thucyd. I.\n      35. can only be, States not included in the alliance may join\n      whichever side they please, by which means they come within the\n      treaty, and the alliance guarantees their safety. But if a state\n      already at war with another state party to the treaty (\u1f14\u03bd\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2) is\n      assisted, a war of this description is like one undertaken by the\n      confederacy of the assisting state.\n\n  843 Thucyd. II. 54.\n\n  844 The Asiatic cities are not exceptions; in Rhodes also the Doric\n      spirit rose against Athens in the person of the noble Dorieus.\n\n  845 Thucyd. III. 86. with the exception of Camarina.\n\n  846 Thucyd. II. 8. cf. 11.\n\n  847 Thucyd. I. 118. 123. Plutarch. Pyth. Or. 19. p. 276.\n\n  848 The Spartans were at first quite contemptible by sea; Alcidas in\n      particular was destitute of all talent, Thucyd. III. 30, 31. sq.\n\n  849 Thucyd. I. 103. V. 82.\n\n  850 I. 121. cf. Isocrat. de Pace, p. 174, E. \u03bf\u1f30 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u2014\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n  851 See particularly Thucyd. II. 11. V. 6.\n\n  852 Thucydides has with great ingenuity, but with the most bitter\n      coldness, laid down the principles of the Athenian policy in the\n      Melian conference.\n\n  853 According to Thucyd. III. 82. \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 and\n      \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 are \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u1fc6 as at that time they truly were;\n      but not \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n  854 Ubi sup.\n\n  855 \u03a4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f54\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, is the beautiful\n      expression of Thucydides, ib. 83.\n\n  856 Plutarch, Reg. Apophth. p. 127.\n\n  857 In conclusion, I remark, that the possessions of the Peloponnesian\n      states in this war, as they had agreed with one another at the\n      commencement of it, and as Sparta maintained them (Thucyd. V. 31.\n      cf. V. 29.), are represented in the accompanying map of\n      Peloponnesus.\n\n  858 Against Myrtilus in Dionysius Halic. I. 23. who however was probably\n      deceived by confounding a Cabirus with Apollo (see _Orchomenos_, p.\n      455).\n\n  859 The temples are, first, that of Apollo Onc\u00e6us at Thelpusa, in\n      connexion with Hercules, Pausan. VIII. 25. 3. Antimach. p. 65. ed.\n      Schellenberg. The native gods are in this case Demeter, Erinys, and\n      Poseidon. Secondly, to the north of Pheneus the temples of Apollo\n      Pythius and Artemis; they were said to have been built by Hercules\n      after the conquest of Elis, Pausan. VIII. 15. 2.: compare Aristot.\n      Mirab. Auscult. 59. and below, ch. 12. \u00a7 3. Thirdly, in Tegea the\n      temple of Apollo Agyieus, in connexion with Crete, Pausan. VIII. 53.\n      1. Fourthly, the temple of Apollo Epicurius at Phigalea, built at\n      the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, Pausan. VIII. 41. 5.\n      Fifthly, the Pythian or Parrhasian Apollo, near mount Lyc\u00e6um, Paus.\n      VIII. 38. 6. (the temple \u03a0\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd in Paus. ibid. \u03a0\u03cd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd in an Arcadian\n      inscription, Boeckh, No. 1534.) would doubtless more properly be\n      called Arist\u00e6us. Sixthly, Apollo Cereatas in \u00c6pytis, near Carnium,\n      probably came from Messenia, Paus. VIII. 34. 3.\n\n  860 Liv. III. 63. IV. 25, 29. Asconius in Cicer. Orat. in toga cand.\n      vol. II. p. 1. p. 525. ed. Orelli. The _sacra_ of the Falisci on\n      mount Soracte were, as well as others of that city, half Grecian,\n      Virg. \u00c6n. XI. 785. Plin. H.N. VII. 2. compare Spangenberg de Rel.\n      Latin. p. 38. The Salian priests did not mention the name of Apollo,\n      Arnobius adv. Gent. II. 13. _Aplu_ upon Etruscan Pateras (Demster\n      Etrusc. Reg. tab. 3. 4. Gori II. p. 93.) is the Thessalian name.\n\n  861 Apollodorus I. 7. 6.\n\n  862 Book I. ch. 1.\n\n  863 The valley of Tempe was a favourite place of Apollo; see Callimachus\n      Hymn. in Del. 152. Horat. Carm. I. 21. 9. Melisseus also, in his\n      historical work on Delphi, appears to have derived the worship of\n      Apollo from the borders of Macedonia, as may be conjectured from the\n      fragment cited by Tzetzes ad Hesiod. Op. 1. p. 29. ed. Gaisford. On\n      account of the vicinity of this great temple, the worship of Apollo\n      was very prevalent in Macedonia, on the coins of which country his\n      symbols frequently occur.\n\n  864 Boeckh. Corp. Inscript. No. 1767. The other inscription, found near\n      the ancient Atrax (_Turnovo_) may be thus written in the common\n      dialect: \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u039a\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4.... \u03a3\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\n      \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c6\u03bd\u03b7\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. See Boeckh. Corp. Inscript. No.\n      1766. and Expl. Pind. p. 336. Classical Journal, vol. XXVI. p. 393.\n\n  865 \u0394\u03c5\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a4\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bd\u03b7. \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b7\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, Hesychius p.\n      1040. ed. Alberti. _Laurus Penei filius_, Fulgent. 13.\n\n  866 \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f23\u03bd \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, Plut. Qu\u00e6st. Gr\u00e6c. 12.\n\n  867 \u00c6lian V. H. III. 1. mistakes the succession of the districts.\n\n  868 A temple of Apollo and Diana at Lib\u00e6a, Pausan. X. 33. 2.\n\n  869 Steph. Byz. in \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03bd\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2, with a fragment of Callimachus. The\n      connexion of Larissa and Delphi is proved by the ancient offering\n      mentioned by Pausan. X. 16. 4. It is not known whether Phyllus, with\n      its temple of Apollo Phyll\u00e6us, and Ichne, with a temple of Themis,\n      both towns in Thessaliotis, were situated on this road, Strabo IX.\n      p. 435.\n\n  870 Iliad. II. 766. cf. XXIII. 383 sqq. \u03a0\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b7 is mentioned as a place\n      of pasturage; and is cited by the Scholia to this passage, Stephanus\n      Byz. and Hesychius, as a place in Thessaly, but probably only from\n      this passage. In the Orphic Argonautics the pastures are placed on\n      the banks of the Amphryssus, which is near Pher\u00e6.\n\n  871 Hesiod, Scut. 17, 58. \u03a0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, Hesychius. In Apollon. Rhod. I. 404, 411. the\n      Argonauts are represented as building a temple of Apollo Actius and\n      Embasius at Pagas\u00e6.\n\n  872 Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 133. where for \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 write \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, a common\n      corruption, as both words were denoted by the same abbreviation. See\n      Gaisford ad Hesiod. Theog. 709.\n\n  873 Scut. 477. Eurip. Herc. Fur. 389. Compare _Orchomenos_, p. 251.\n      Cycnus dwelt \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03b4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, according to Stesichorus ap.\n      Schol. Pind. Olymp. X. 19. (Mus. Crit. vol. II. p. 266.) Schol. Il.\n      \u03a8. 346. from the Cyclic poets, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff7, \u1f45\n      \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b6\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b9, (read with Heinrich \u03a4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9, see Scut. 469).\n      Pausanias places the battle on the Peneus, I. 27. 7. See also\n      Schellenberg\u2019s Antimachus, p. 67.\n\n  874 Scut. Herc. ad fin.\n\n  875 It is fair to suppose that Stesichorus so far altered the fable as\n      to make Cycnus build _Apollo_ a temple of sculls; and it is not\n      necessary with Heyne ubi sup. to substitute Mars for Apollo. See\n      also Sturz ad Hellanic. Fragm. 121. p. 137.\n\n  876 Tzetzes ad Hesiod. Scut. p. 194. ed. Heins.\n\n  877 Chishull Antiq. Asiat. p. 134. \u00c6ginetica, p. 154. The coins of\n      Cnosus have the head of Apollo. The Omphalian plain near Cnosus\n      (Callim. Hymn. Jov. 45.) is connected with the stone of the Omphalos\n      at Delphi, but _both_ belong to the worship of Zeus.\n\n  878 Odyss. XIX. 188. Pausan. I. 18, 5. Strabo X. p. 476. See Boettiger\u2019s\n      Ilithyia, p. 18. Einatus, whence Ilithyia Einatin\u00e8, was probably in\n      the neighbourhood.\n\n  879 Callim. Hymn. Apoll. 33. The geographical position of the places is\n      partly founded on the investigation in Hoeck\u2019s Kreta, vol. I. ch. 1.\n\n  880 Steph. Byz. in \u03a0\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. Its coins have on them the head of Apollo.\n\n  881 See book I. ch. 5. \u00a7 2.\n\n  882 The latter under the title of \u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03af\u03b1, with a festival named \u1f18\u03ba\u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1,\n      Antonin. Liberal. 17. The wolf on its coins also refers to Apollo.\n\n  883 Steph. Byz. in \u03a4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1. Compare Theophrast. Hist. Plant. II. 2. An\n      oracle (preserved by \u0152nomaus, Euseb. Pr\u00e6p. Evang. p. 133 ed. Steph.)\n      calls upon the inhabitants of Ph\u00e6stus, Tarrha, and Polyrrhum, to\n      make expiations (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76) to the Pythian Apollo.\n\n  884 Pausan. II. 7. 7. X. 16. 3. comp. Tibullus IV. 1, 8.\n\n  885 Alexander\u2019s \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70, lib. I. ap. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. IV. 1492. comp.\n      Pausan. VIII. 53. 2.\n\n  886 Antonin. Liber. 30. comp. Verheyk.\n\n  887 Pausan. X. 16. 3. Hence the goat upon the coins of Elyrus. Also a\n      she-wolf upon the coins of Cydonia, suckling the little Cydon.\n\n  888 Tarrha is the parent state of _Zappa_, the coins of which city have\n      therefore Apollo or a lyre. Perhaps this place derived from this\n      worship the right of asylum: see Spanheim de Pr\u00e6st. Num. p. 342.\n      There are also other traces of the worship of Apollo in Crete,\n      _e.g._ the temple of Allaria. Chishull. Ant. Asiat. p. 137. Oaxus\n      was called the son of Apollo, Servius ad Virg. Ecl. I. 66. Upon the\n      ancient coins of Eleutherna Apollo is holding in his right hand a\n      ball (viz. an apple, \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b1 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, Luc. Anach. 9), and in the\n      left a bow. Also the coins of Rhitymna. On those of Tylissus is a\n      youth with a goat\u2019s head in the right, and a bow in the left hand;\n      which is certainly an Apollo. The same god is also on the coins of\n      Pr\u00e6sus, Aptera, Chersonesus, and Rhaucus.\n\n  889 According to Apollodorus I. 3. 4, by Thalia; according to Strabo X.\n      p. 473. by Rhytia (which refers to the city of Rhytium under mount\n      Ida).\n\n  890 The statement of the _Theologi_ in Cicero de Nat. Deor. III. 23. p.\n      616. ed. Creuzer.\n\n  891 \u00c6n. IV. 146. compare Heyne, vol. II. p. 736.\n\n  892 Ch. 2. \u00a7 14.\n\n  893 Anius, the son and priest of Apollo, is called the viceroy of\n      Rhadamanthus at Delos. Diod. V. 62. 79. Comp. Pherecydes Fragm. 74.\n      ed Sturz.\n\n  894 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f33 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u1fd6 \u1f10\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc3, \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u1fe5\u03ad\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n  895 See _Orchomenos_, p. 493.\n\n  896 This etymology was known to ancient mythologers, Cornuficius Longus\n      ap. Serv. ad \u00c6n. III. 332. _In memoriam gentis ex qua profectus\n      erat_ (Cret\u00e6,) _subjacentes campos Cris\u00e6os vel Cret\u00e6os appellasse_.\n\n  897 In the Homeric Hymn to the Pythian Apollo, in vv. 90. 103. and other\n      passages, Pytho is stated to be \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc3, that is, \u201cin the\n      territory of Crissa, within the Criss\u00e6an boundaries.\u201d\n\n  898 It is to this that verse 265 of the hymn probably refers. Concerning\n      the tripod in the adytum at Crissa, see Epist. Hippocrat. VIII.\n      There were statues of Latona, Artemis, and Apollo remaining in the\n      time of Pausanias, X. 37. 6.\n\n  899 Hymn. XXVII. 14. Heraclitus ap. Plutarch. Pyth. Orac. p. 404.\n\n  900 Below, ch. 3. \u00a7 3.\n\n  901 Ion v. 418. (Matthi\u00e6). \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  902 \u039a\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9, v. 1219. \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, v. 1222. \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1 \u03c8\u1fc6\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, v.\n      1250. cf. v. 1111. \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n  903 Herod. V. 72. Compare VI. 66. \u039a\u03cc\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\n      \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. \u0394\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is also used by\n      Herodotus of the Attic Eupatrid\u00e6 (VI. 35.); compare VII. 141.\n\n  904 Plutarch. Qu\u00e6st. Gr\u00e6c. 9. p. 380.\n\n  905 Pausan. X. 6. 2.\n\n  906 Strabo IX. p. 418. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. II. 711. Compare Callimachus\n      ap. Steph. Byz.\n\n  907 Dodwell\u2019s Travels, vol. I. p. 189.\n\n  908 Lycorea appears to have taken its name from the worship of Apollo\n      Lyceius, or Lycoreus; see Callimach. Hymn. Apoll. 19. \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03c9\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b1\n      \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5, frequently in the Anthology, Suidas, &c.\n\n  909 See Appendix V. ad fin.\n\n  910 Concerning this connexion see Zo\u00ebga, Bassirilievi, tom. I. on tav.\n      81. \u00c6ginetica, p. 154. Raoul-Rochette, Etablissement des Colonies\n      Grecques, tom. II. p. 164. The name of Coretas also, the supposed\n      discoverer of the oracle (\u03ba\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 for \u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 _Dorice_) is Cretan,\n      Plutarch, de Defect. Orac. 21. 46. It appears that the names \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2\n      (otherwise \u039a\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2, \u039a\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2,) \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c3\u1f78\u03c2 in Ceos, with a temple of Apollo\n      Smintheius, \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7, in Crete (Steph. Byz.), \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c3\u1f78\u03c2, a\n      sacred hill near Ephesus, \u039a\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, an Ephesian hero (Paus. VII. 2.\n      4.), and the name of Crete itself, are all etymologically connected.\n\n  911 Pausan. X. 7. 2.\n\n  912 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74, Plutarch, Thes. 16.\n\n  913 Orac. ap. Pausan. X. 6. 6.\n\n  914 According to the Cyclic poets, see _Orchomenos_, pp. 188. sqq.\n\n  915 Cited by Pausan. X. 31. 2.\n\n  916 \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9: \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039a\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, Photius.\n\n  917 As Raoul-Rochette supposes, although his work contains very valuable\n      materials for this inquiry, Histoire de l\u2019Etabl. des col. Grecques,\n      tom. II. p. 137-173.\n\n  918 On the connexion of Crete and Asia, see Heyne, Excurs. ad \u00c6n. III.\n      102.\n\n  919 I. 173. cf. VII. 92. According to Herodotus, Europa also came to\n      Lycia (IV. 45.), _i.e._ the tradition.\n\n  920 Herod. I. 173. Comp. Boeckh ad Platon. Min. p. 55. Heraclid. Pont.\n      15.\n\n  921 See Steph. Byz. in v. cf. Herod. I. 176.\n\n  922 Augustinus de Civ. Dei XVIII. 12.\n\n  923 Appian, Bell. Civ. IV. 78.\n\n  924 II. XVI. 666.\n\n  925 Transplanted to Cilicia, Zosimus I. 57. Diodorus ap. Phot. Biblioth.\n      cod. 244. p. 377. ed. Bekker.\n\n  926 On the former see Strabo XIV. p. 666. cf. p. 651., on the latter\n      Diod. V. 56.\n\n  927 Menecrates in Lyciacis ap. Antonin. Liber, c. 35.\n\n  928 \u03a3\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03b2\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03af\u1fb3 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03a3\u03c5\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n      \u039b\u03b7\u03c4\u03ce. Steph. Byz.\n\n  929 Both the derivations of the name _Patara_, the one from a son of\n      Apollo (Hecat\u00e6us ap. Steph. Byz. in v. Cf. Eustath. ad Dionys.\n      Perieg. 129. Tzetz. ad Lycophr. 920.), and the other from \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1,\n      \u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03c2, refer to the worship of Apollo.\n\n  930 Callim. Hymn. Del. 1. and Spanheim\u2019s note. Herodotus says\n      indefinitely, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f70\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, I. 182. Cf. Serv. ad \u00c6n. IV. 143.\n\n  931 Alexander ap. Steph. Byz. in v. Eustath. ubi sup. On the temple, see\n      the inscriptions in Walpole\u2019s Travels, p. 541. and Beaufort\u2019s\n      Caramania.\n\n  932 Pausan. VII. 21.3.\n\n  933 Herod. I. 78. Apostolius XVIII. 25. from Dionysius \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd,\n      Herodian. ap. Eustath. ad Dion. Perieg. 860.\n\n  934 The coins of Patara, Phaselis, Xanthus, Cydna, Cragus, Apollonia,\n      Corydalla, Limyra, and Olympus, have a head of Apollo, the tripod,\n      lyre, the deer, and similar symbols. Cf. Steph. Byz, \u0394\u03ac\u03c6\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f72\u03bd \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03af\u1fb3.\n      Apollo \u1f18\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 among the Lycians, Hesych. in v. Perhaps this is a\n      corruption of \u1f18\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, as Apollo was called in Rhodes, Strabo\n      XIII. p. 613. See below, ch. 5. \u00a7 4.\n\n  935 See Strabo XIV. p. 683. from Hedylus, or some other poet. On the\n      sacred deer of Apollo at Curium, see \u00c6lian. Nat. Anim. XI. 7.\n\n  936 Strabo XIII. p. 611. Scylax, p. 26. Compare the obscure gloss of\n      Hesychius in \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n  937 On this temple, see Heyne ad Il. A. 39. According to Strabo XIII. p.\n      604. there were Sminthea near Hamaxitus in \u00c6olis, near Parium, at\n      Lindus in Rhodes, and elsewhere. A certain Philodemus, or\n      Philomnestus, wrote a treatise on the \u03a3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 in Rhodes, Athen.\n      III. p. 74 F. 445 A.\n\n  938 The inhabitants of Tenea, a village near Corinth, were said to have\n      been transplanted by Agamemnon from Tenedos. That they really\n      worshipped Apollo _in the same manner_ as the Tenedians, is\n      testified by Aristotle ap. Strab. p. 380. Paus. II. 5. 3. And the\n      worship of Apollo was carried by means of Archias from Tenea to\n      Syracuse, Strabo, ibid. See book I. ch. 6. \u00a7 7.\n\n  939 A. 37-39.\n\n  940 Strabo XIII. p. 591. Hesych. in \u0398\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1. Schol. Il. X. 430. Servius\n      ad \u00c6n. III. 85. compare Choiseul Gouffier, Voyage Pittoresque, tom.\n      III. to pl. 25. Walpole\u2019s Memoirs, p. 609. The fable of Pan, the son\n      of Thymbris, and teacher of Apollo in divination (Apollodor. I. 4.\n      1.), has also reference to this story.\n\n  941 Il. V. 446. VII. 83.\n\n  942 Il. II. 827. IV. 119. V. 105. with the Schol. Min.\n\n  943 Hesychius in \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. There are likewise many other signs of the\n      worship of Apollo on this coast, Strabo XIII. p. 618; in Priapus,\n      Schol. Lycophr. 29; Apollo \u03a0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in Parium and Pergamum (Hesych.\n      in v.); on the coins of Gargara, Germe, Lampsacus, Atarneus,\n      Neandria, Abydos, and New Troy.\n\n  944 The \u00c6olians built a temple to the _Cill\u00e6an_ Apollo at Colon\u00e6, Strabo\n      XIII. p. 613. from Daes of Colon\u00e6.\n\n  945 Strabo XIII. p 604. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039a\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, &c. It does not appear that this can, with\n      Frank, Callinus, p. 31, he understood only of a mention of the\n      _name_ of the Teucrians.\n\n  946 The latter fact is supported by the ancient name of Cephalion, an\n      inhabitant of the Teucrian city of Gergis (ap. Steph. Byz. in\n      \u1f08\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b2\u03b7. Eustath. ad Il. p. 894.): but his \u03a4\u03c1\u03c9\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 was the forgery of\n      an Alexandrine writer named Hegesianax (Athen. IX. p. 393 B).\n      Lycophron, v. 1302. calls Teucer, Scamander, and Arisbe, Cretans.\n\n  947 In the fragments of Nicolaus Damascenus, p. 442. ed. Vales.\n\n  948 Iliad. VII. 452. XXI. 442. which passages do not agree. Hesiod in\n      Her. Geneal. ap. Schol. Lycophr. 393. Hellanicus ap. Schol. Il. XX.\n      145. Coluthus v. 309.\n\n  949 Inscription in Walpole\u2019s Memoirs, p. 104.\n\n  950 \u00c6neid. II. 318. 430.\n\n  951 Iliad. XV. 522.\n\n  952 Achilles was slain by Apollo, according to Homer; Aretinus and\n      \u00c6schylus in the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 (Heyne ad Il. XXII. 359. Tychsen ad\n      Quint. Smyrn. Comment. p. 61); Neoptolemus was killed at Pytho. For\n      the same reason Achilles slays Tennes, the son of Apollo (Tzetzes ad\n      Lycophr. 232.), in whose temple it was forbidden to pronounce the\n      name of the Phthian hero (Plutarch Qu\u00e6st. Gr. 28. p. 933).\n\n  953 Iliad. V. 446.\n\n  954 Herod. V. 122. VII. 43. It was situated in the territory of\n      Lampsacus (Strabo XIII. p. 589.), in mount Ida (Athen. VI. p. 256\n      C.), opposite Dardanus (Herod.); the village of Mermessus, 240\n      stadia from Alexandria Troas (Pausan. X. 12. 2), was a \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\n      \u0393\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b8\u03af\u03b1, Suidas in v. Also in Schol. Plat. Ph\u00e6dr. p. 61. Ruhnken.\n      p. 315. Bekker. write, \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7 \u039c\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03c3\u1ff3\u2014\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u0393\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\n      or \u0393\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd for \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u1ff7 and \u0393\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n  955 Xenoph. Hell. III. 1. 10.\n\n  956 Iliad. XX. 307. Compare the remarks of A. W. Schlegel on this point\n      in his celebrated Review of Niebuhr\u2019s Roman History.\n\n  957 Steph. Byz. in \u0393\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c2, from Phlegon.\n\n  958 This may be collected from the confused account of Clearchus of Soli\n      \u1f10\u03bd \u0393\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b8\u03af\u1ff3, in Athen. VI. p. 256. cf. XII. p. 524 A. Strab. XIII.\n      p. 589 D.\n\n  959 Plin. H. N. XXXIV. 8.\n\n  960 Heyne Exc. ad \u00c6n. VI. 3. The rock was called \u0396\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u1f7a\u03c2\n      (Lycoph. 1278), as the Attic promontory with the temple of Apollo.\n\n  961 See the _tabula Iliaca_, \u039c\u0399\u03a3\u0397\u039d\u039f\u03a3.\n\n  962 Od. IX. 197.\n\n  963 Diod. V. 79. compare Raoul-Rochette, tom. II. p. 160.\n\n  964 Pindar, in P\u00e6an. ap. Tzetz. ad Lycophr. 445.\n\n  965 Ephorus ap. Strab. XIV. p. 634 D.\n\n  966 Callimachus apud Clem. Alex. Strom. V. p. 570. Strab. IX. p. 421.\n      Conon Narr. c 33, 44. Stat. Theb. VIII. 198. Gesner Comment. Soc.\n      Gotting. vol. IV. p. 121. Ionian Antiquities, vol. II. new ed.\n\n  967 Quintilian. Inst. Orat. XI. 3. p. 305. Bipont. _Est interim et\n      longus et plenus et clarus salis spiritus, non tamen firm\u00e6\n      intentionis, idemque tremulus. Id_ \u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd _Gr\u00e6ci vocant_. This is\n      exactly the voice of enthusiastic priests and prophets.\n\n  968 There was likewise a family of diviners named \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9, Conon\n      Narr. c. 44.\n\n  969 Strabo IV. p. 139 B. \u00c6ginetica, p. 151.\n\n  970 Clem. Alex. Strom. V. 8.\n\n  971 On this see D\u2019Orville ad Chariton. p. 349. and Quintus Smyrn\u00e6us I.\n      283.\n\n  972 Herod. II. 159.\n\n  973 Pythius and Com\u00e6us. Athen. IV. p. 149 E. Ammian. Marcellin XXIII. 6.\n\n  974 Schol. Apoll. Rh. I. 966. Hence the offerings of the Cyzicenians in\n      the Didym\u00e6um, Chishull Ant. Asiat. p. 67. In the character of\n      \u1f18\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Apollo has on coins his foot resting on a _fish_.\n\n  975 A coin of Parium, in the cabinet of M. Allier de Hauteroche, shows\n      the statue of Apollo on the seashore, with the circumscription,\n      \u0391\u03a0\u039f\u039b\u039b\u03a9\u039d\u039f\u03a3 \u0391\u039a\u03a4\u0391\u0399\u039f\u03a5 \u03a0\u0391\u03a1\u0399\u0391\u039d\u03a9\u039d, agreeing with Strabo XIII. p. 588.\n\n  976 Strabo VII. p. 319 B. Apollo \u1f28\u1ff7\u03bf\u03c2 on the island of Thynias\n      (Apollonia, Daphnusa). Apoll. Rhod. II. 686. Schol. ad 1. Plin.\n      Hist. Nat. VI. 12. is probably Milesian: also Apollo \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 at\n      Trapezus on the Euxine sea, Arrian. Peripl. p. 2.\n\n  977 Collected in Raoul-Rochette\u2019s Antiquit\u00e9s Grecques du Bosphore\n      Cimm\u00e9rien, pl. 5, 7, 8.\n\n  978 The Cyclic Thebaid in Schol. Apoll. Rh. IV. 308. Apollod. III. 7. 4.\n      Diod. IV. 66. Pausan. VII. 3. 1. IX. 33. 1.\n\n  979 He was called both \u1fec\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and \u039b\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, because in the Cretan dialect\n      \u1fe5\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 were exchangeable forms, Schneider ad Nicand.\n      Alexipharm. 11. p. 83. Compare book I. ch. 6. \u00a7 5.\n\n  980 Proclus Chrestomath.\n\n  981 Strabo XIV. p. 675. Conon Narr. 6. Tacit. Ann. II. 54. On the temple\n      see Locella ad Xenoph. Ephes. p. 128. ed. Peerlkamp.\n\n  982 Diod. XV. 18. Strabo ubi sup.\n\n  983 Hecat\u00e6us ap. Steph. Byz. in \u0393\u03c1\u1fe6\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. Strabo XIII. p. 622. Hermeias of\n      Methymna wrote a treatise on the Grynean Apollo, Athen. IV. p. 149.\n      E. Hence the temple of Apollo, the sibyl, and the Apollo \u03b4\u03b1\u03c6\u03bd\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\n      on the coins of Myrina, which city also sent \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u1fb6 \u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 to Delphi,\n      Plutarch. de Pyth. Orac. 16. p. 273.\n\n  984 Malus the son of Manto, Hellanicus \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 apud Steph. Byz. in\n      \u039c\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. Thucyd. III. 3. Likewise in Lesbos, Apollo \u039d\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2\n      (Hellanicus ap. Steph. Byz. in \u039d\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7. cf. Strab. IX. p. 429. Suid. in\n      \u039d\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2. Macrob. Sat. I. 17. coins of Nape with the image of Apollo\n      in Mionnet\u2019s work), \u039b\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Antigon. Caryst. 17. and \u1f18\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\n      Hesych. in v. In Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 144. for \u0393\u039f\u039d\u039d\u0391\u03a0\u0391\u0399\u039f\u03a5 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n      write \u03a4\u039f\u03a5 \u039d\u0391\u03a0\u0391\u0399\u039f\u03a5 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  985 Strabo XIV. p. 675 C. Arrian. II. 5. Hence perhaps the worship of\n      Apollo came to Tarsus, Osann. Syllog. Inscr. p. 141.\n\n  986 Book I. ch. 5. \u00a7 4.\n\n  987 Pausan. II. 32. 2. \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1, brought from Crete to Tr\u0153zen,\n      ib. 31. 1.\n\n  988 Paus. II. 31. 7. 11. The temple of Apollo Thearius at Tr\u0153zen was,\n      according to Pausan. ib. 31. 9. the most ancient in Greece. Apollo\n      joined with Leucothea, \u00c6lian. V. H. I. 18.\n\n  989 Called \u03a8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, like the institutions in Thesprotia, at\n      Phigalea and Heraclea Pontica. See book I. ch. 1. \u00a7 6.\n\n  990 Plutarch, de sera Num. Vind. 17. p. 256. Hesych. in \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u1f14\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n  991 Thus Strabo VIII. p. 368. the name being derived from Delos. Also\n      called \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n  992 Pausan. I. 42. 1. 2. conf. Epigram. Adespot. 3. p. 193. Brunck.\n      Analect. Meziriac ad Ovid. Epist. vol. I. p. 448.\u2014Also, Megareus the\n      son of Apollo, in Steph. Byz. in \u039c\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1. comp. Dieuchidas of Megara\n      in Schol. Apoll. Rhod. I. 517.\n\n  993 V. 773. \u03a6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b2\u03b5 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u1ff3 \u03a0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n  994 \u0394\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9, _i.e._ here, \u201che who _receives_ it,\u201d\n      Paus. I. 42. 1. 5. Compare an Argive inscription (Boeckh No. 1142.\n      \u0394\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0391\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0. \u0391\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2014.) Apollo was likewise worshipped\n      at Megara under the titles of Pythius (Schol. Pind. Nem. V. 84.\n      Philostrat. Vit. Soph. I. 24. 3.), Archagetas, Prostaterius, Carnius\n      and Agr\u00e6us. The tripod and the Delphine on the coins of Megara see\n      Pouqueville, tom. IV. p. 131. against Clarke, vol. II. sect II. p.\n      768.\n\n  995 From Megara _Calchedon_ (see the coins) derived its worship and\n      oracle of Apollo (Dionys. Byz. p. 23.) Not far off was Demonesus;\n      and an Apollo of Demonesian brass is mentioned in Pseud. Aristot. de\n      Mirab. 59. Jungermann ad Poll. V. 5. 39. _Byzantium_ likewise, a\n      Megarian colony, had a temple of Apollo on the promontory of\n      Metopon, according to Dionysius de Bosp. Thrac. Byzantium, moreover,\n      had evidently derived from its parent city, but in an exaggerated\n      form, the tradition of the foundation of the city by Apollo, and\n      that this god placed his lyre upon a tower. Hence the seven\n      resounding towers (Hesych. Miles, ap. Codin. p. 2. 3. Dionys. Byz.\n      p. 6. Dio Cass. LXXIV. 14): also the fable of the dolphin charmed by\n      the sound of the lyre (Dionysius pag. 9. Gyllius de Constantinop.\n      pag. 285.) evidently belongs to the Megarian worship.\n\n  996 Homer. Hymn. Cer. 126.\n\n  997 See Pherecydes ap. Schol. Od. XI. 320. Apollod. II. 4. 7. Observ. ad\n      Apollod. p. 333.\n\n  998 \u039a\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, Hesychius.\n\n  999 Paus. I. 37. 4.\n\n 1000 See Strabo X. p. 452. Thuc. III. 94. Propert. III. 9. ad fin.\n      Servius ad \u00c6n. III. 271. Dodwell, vol. I. p. 53. Hughes, vol. I. p.\n      402. has a Leucadian inscription, \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1fa0\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n 1001 Aristot. in Ithac. Rep. ap. Etymol. M. in \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Heraclid. Pont.\n      17 and 37. ed. Koehler. Heyne ad Apollod. II. 4. 7.\n\n 1002 Apollod. III. 15. 1. According to the ancient Charon of Lampsacus,\n      Phobus of Phoc\u00e6a was the first who took this leap, Plutarch. Virt.\n      Mul. p. 289.\n\n 1003 \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, Strabo X. p. 452. Ovid. Fast V. 630. Tristia\n      _Leucadio_ sacra peracta _modo_. Photius Lex. \u039b\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u1f20\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f57 \u1fe5\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\n 1004 Photius in \u03a4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, from the \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 1005 Stesichorus apud Athen. XIV. p. 619. D. and Sappho. Compare Hardion.\n      _Sur le sault de Leucade_, M\u00e9m. de l\u2019Acad. des Inscript. tom. VII.\n      p. 245.\n\n 1006 See Hesych. in \u03b8\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2. Ptolem. Heph\u00e6st. 7.\n\n 1007 Fragment of the \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1, p. 595. ed. Boeckh.\n\n 1008 See below, ch. 11. \u00a7 8.\n\n 1009 Od. VII. 322.\n\n 1010 Plutarch, de Def. Orac. 5.\n\n 1011 According to the emendation \u03a4\u03b5\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 for \u03a4\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 in fragm. incert.\n      14. Boeckh.\n\n 1012 See _Orchomenos_, p. 220. Boeckh in the Berlin Transactions on the\n      Oration against Midias, below, ch. 8. \u00a7 4.\n\n 1013 Pausan. IX. 10. See Stanley ad \u00c6sch. Eum. 21.\n\n 1014 Herod. VIII. 134. Soph. \u0152d. T. 21. \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u1ff7, Philochorus ap.\n      Schol. ad 1.\n\n 1015 Hesych. in v. Also the lots burnt in the sacred fire, according to\n      the same grammarian, \u03c6\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c3 \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. Compare Boeckh Explic.\n      Pind. Ol. VIII. 2. and Plutarch de Frat. Am. 20. To this custom\n      likewise refer the \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 in Eurip. Ph\u0153n 292, and the name\n      of the ancient priest of the Delphic oracle \u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd. See the\n      Eumolpia in Paus. X. 5. 3.\n\n 1016 The stone of Manto in front of the temple, Paus. IX. 10. \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n      \u03b8\u1ff6\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2. Pind. Pyth. XI. 6.\n\n 1017 The serpent of Cadmus is also by later writers called Castalius and\n      \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Creuzer ad Nonni Narr. in Melet. vol. I. p. 93.\n\n 1018 Apollo Polius was also without the gates at Thebes, Paus. IX. 12. 1.\n      Apollo was likewise worshipped in the village of Calydna near\n      Thebes, Androtion ap. Steph. Byz. in \u039a\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03b4\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n 1019 Below, ch. 11. \u00a7 7.\n\n 1020 See _Orchomenos_, pp. 234, 393.\n\n 1021 See the author\u2019s work _De Minerva Poliade_, p. 2.\n\n 1022 Herodot. I. 56. VII. 94. VIII. 44.\n\n 1023 Hence Ion is called the \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 of the Athenians,\n      Herod. VIII. 44. Paus. I. 31. 2. II. 14. 2. VII. 1. 2. &c. hence\n      also Euripides says (Ion 1319) that \u201cthe shield and spear was the\n      whole patrimony of Xuthus.\u201d\n\n 1024 Cicero de Nat. Deor. III. 22. 23. Lydus de Mens. p. 105.\n\n 1025 See Phanodemus ap. Athen. IX. p. 392. Plutarch, ap. Euseb. pr\u00e6p. ev.\n      II. p. 99. fragm. 10. p. 291. ed. Hutten. Euseb. Canon. 497. comp.\n      Paus. I. 18. 5. Legends of this kind were greatly amplified by Attic\n      orators, who, like Hyperides before the Amphictyons, had to defend\n      the claims of Athens upon Delos.\n\n 1026 \u039c\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u1f18\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, Plutarch Thes. 13.\n\n 1027 \u039e\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 is the \u201cbright\u201d \u201cshining\u201d god, another form of \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2. See\n      below, ch. 6. \u00a7 7. \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, from \u03b1\u1f36\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2, \u201cthe waves of the sea\u201d is\n      equivalent to \u03a0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 1028 Plutarch Thes. 5.\n\n 1029 Strabo IX. p. 392. after Sophocles and Philochorus. Cf. Schol.\n      Aristoph. Lys. 58. Vesp. 1218. Schol. Eurip. Hipp. 35.\n\n 1030 Philochorus apud Schol. Soph. \u0152d. Col. 1047. ed. Elmsl.\n\n 1031 Compare Barbi\u00e9 du Bocage\u2019s _Histoire de la bourgade d\u2019\u0152no\u00eb la\n      sacr\u00e9e_ at the end of Stanhope\u2019s Plan of Plat\u00e6a.\n\n 1032 Hence Sophocles ubi sup, calls the district of Eleusis \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2.\n      The Scholiast confounds the \u0152no\u00eb of the tribe Hippothoontis with\n      that of the tribe Aiantis. The situation of the Pythium is correctly\n      treated by Reisig Enarr. \u0152d. Col. p. 134.\n\n 1033 In the passage of Philochorus ubi sup. read \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1, for \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0394\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n 1034 The \u0394\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 occurred in the laws of Solon, Athen. VI. p. 234 E.\n      the \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03ca\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 are mentioned in Steph. Byz. in \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03ce.\n\n 1035 Strabo IX. p. 404 C. Eurip. Ion. 285. On the Pythium, see Thuc. II.\n      15. VI. 54. Is\u00e6us p. 113. 187. Suidas in \u03a0\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. Suidas, Hesychius,\n      Prov. \u1f10\u03bd \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u1ff3.\n\n 1036 Strabo IX. p. 404. Steph. Byz. in \u1f05\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1. Eustath. ad Il. \u03b2\u2019 499.\n      Hesych. in \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9. Prov. in \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u1f0c\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 1037 Pausan. Dodwell vol. II. p. 170.\n\n 1038 See \u00c6sch. Eum. 12. \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\n      \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. Compare Ephorus ap. Strab. IX. p. 422\n      D. Aristid. Panath. vol. I. p. 329. _Orchomenos_ p. 36. 188.\n\n 1039 This rare tradition is preserved in the Schol. \u00c6sch. Eum. 13. Schol.\n      Aristid. p. 107. ed. Frommel.\n\n 1040 This explains Herod. VI. 34. \u1f30\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f31 \u0394\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f31\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n      \u03a6\u03c9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0392\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f24\u03ca\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03c6\u03b5\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b5, \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n      \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n 1041 There is a trace of the correct tradition in Diod. IV. 60. cf. Serv.\n      ad \u00c6n. VI. 14. The funeral games of Laius were made by the poets the\n      motive for this journey.\n\n 1042 \u1f18\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd ap. Plutarch. Thes. 16. cf. Qu. Gr. 35. Conon.\n      Narr. c. 25.\n\n 1043 Plutarch Thes. 15. Diod. IV. 61. Ovid. Metaph. VIII. 171.\n\n 1044 The chief passage on the septenary number of the boys and girls sent\n      to Crete is Servius ad. \u00c6n. VI. 21. _Septena quotannis_ (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd\n      \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd) _quidam septem pueros et septem puellas accipi volunt,\n      quod et Plato dixit in Ph\u00e6done_ (p. 58.) _et Sappho in Lyricis_ (p.\n      255. in Wolf\u2019s Poetr. Gr.) _et Bacchylides in Dithyramhis_ (p. 17.\n      ed. Neue.) _et Euripides in Hercule_ (v. 1331.), _quos liberavit\n      secum Theseus_.\n\n 1045 The visit to Naxos originally signified a transmission of the\n      worship of Dionysus and Ariadne to that island, which rites had been\n      kept up at the festival of the \u1f48\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, though confounded with the\n      laurel-bearing procession of Apollo.\n\n 1046 Boeckh Economy of Athens, vol. II. p. 150. Erysichthon is said to\n      have sent the \u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd with theorias to Delos, Plutarch Fragm. 10. p.\n      291. ed. Hutten.\n\n 1047 This confirms a fact which we collected from other sources, viz.,\n      that the Thargelian Apollo was the same god as that worshipped at\n      Delos and Crete.\u2014There was an ancient writing on this subject\n      preserved in the Daphnephoreum at Phyle in Attica, Theophrastus ap.\n      Athen. X. p. 424 F. The origin of the Thargelia is also referred to\n      Crete by a tradition, that this festival arose from the expiatory\n      rites for the murder of Androgeus, Helladius ap. Phot. in Gronov.\n      Thes. Ant. Gr. vol. X. p. 978.\n\n 1048 Paus. I. 18. 5. \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac. See above, ch. 1.\n      \u00a7 5.\n\n 1049 Pyth. I. 31. Compare Dodwell, vol. I. p. 532.\n\n 1050 Plutarch Thes. 12. 14. 18. cf. Paus. I. 19. 1. On his return Theseus\n      sacrifices to Apollo and Diana as \u03bf\u1f54\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76, Pherecydes ap.\n      Macrob. Sat. I. 17. frag. 59. ed. Sturz. comp. Spanheim ad Callim.\n      Hymn. Apoll. 40. 46.\n\n 1051 See Pollux VIII. 10. 119.\n\n 1052 Demosth de Coron. p. 274. cf. Aristot. ap. Harpocrat. in \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03c2. The Achenians had \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 at Delphi, Demosth. Epist.\n      p. 1481. Apollo\u2019s Attic title of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03c2 is explained from his being\n      the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 of Ion; it is possible, however, that he was so called as\n      being the god of the \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 of the Ionians. Apollo was also called\n      \u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 at Athens (Plutarch \u0395\u1f30 2. p. 217. Suidas in v.); perhaps\n      as being the titular deity of the 360 \u0394\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9 of the 360 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 at\n      Athens, Proclus ad Hesiod. Op. et Di. p. 116. Heins. Cleanthus ap\n      Harpocrat. in \u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9, Meursius ad Lycophr. 543.\n\n 1053 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, Demosth. adv. Eubulid.\n      p. 1315. 15. Pollux VIII. 85.\n\n 1054 As appears from Plato, Euthyd. p. 302 B. cf. Schol. et Heindorf. p.\n      404.\n\n 1055 Pollux VIII. 122.\n\n 1056 Callim. Hymn. Apoll. 69. with the Schol. and Spanheim. Harpocrat. in\n      \u0392\u03bf\u03b7\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1. Suidas and Etym. M. in \u0392\u03bf\u03b7\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. Hence the archon\n      Polemarchus administered justice in the Lyceum, the temple of Apollo\n      Lyceus, near the statue of a wolf, Suidas in \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd. Bekker Anecd.\n      vol. I. p. 449. Hesych. in \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 of the\n      polemarch, according to Cratinus, Hesych. in v. And in general all\n      the courts at Athens were under the protection of the wolf, viz.,\n      Apollo, Eratosth. ap. Harpocrat. in \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd, Lexic. and Par\u0153miogr.\n      in \u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2. Etymol. M. in \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n 1057 In Colot. p. 31.\n\n 1058 Thes. 25. According to Plato Rep. IV. p. 427. Apollo is the \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 of the Athenians.\n\n 1059 Hence Dorotheus (ap. Athen. IX. p. 410 A.) \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      (not \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd) \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 treated of the purification of\n      suppliants.\n\n 1060 Below, ch. 8. \u00a7 6.\n\n 1061 By representing the notion that Xuthus was the father of Ion as a\n      mere deceit of Xuthus.\n\n 1062 For example v. 668. \u1f59\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u1fb6\u03bd, \u03b4\u03bc\u03c9\u0390\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 \u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5, \u1f2a \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd.\n\n 1063 V. 591. \u0395\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u039a\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, &c.\n\n 1064 The view taken in the text on the Ion of Euripides has been\n      approved, since the first publication of this work, by Hermann, in\n      the preface to his edition of that tragedy, p. 32.\n\n 1065 Below, ch. 5, \u00a7 2. ch. 8. \u00a7 15.\n\n 1066 Book I. ch. 5, \u00a7 3. comp. Pausan. II. 24. 1. He was also called\n      \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, from the height. There was likewise divination there,\n      Telesilla ap. Pausan. II. 35. 2-36. 5. \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 and \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 are\n      Doric forms; the hero Pytha\u00ebus cannot be separated from the god.\n      Zeus, Apollo, and Hercules, were the deities of the city of Argos,\n      Liv. XXXII. 33.\n\n 1067 Thucyd. II. 47. Sophocl. Electr. 7. Hence \u039b\u03cd\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1, Sophocles,\n      Hesych. in v. The Argive coins with the wolf refer to this statue,\n      comp. Pausan. VIII. 40. 3. Here was also an oracle, Plut. Pyrrh. 31.\n      31. where write, \u1f21 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. At Argos also\n      stood the statue of Apollo \u0396\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, Hesych. in v. A temple of\n      Latona, Pausan. II. 21.\n\n 1068 Alcman Fragm. 35, 36. ed. Welcker. Herod. I. 69. comp. Bast. ad\n      Gregor. Corinth, p. 187. At Sparta, according to Hesychius, \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2\n      \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u039b\u03cd\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (a\n      kind of Hydrophoria).\n\n 1069 Pausan. II. 9. 7. Respecting the ancient temple of Apollo there, and\n      a brass statue, see Pseud.-Aristot. Mirab. Auscult. p. 59. Pausan.\n      II. 11. 2. Polyb. XVII. 16. 2. The tradition respecting its\n      foundation by Epopeus is not worth notice. Cleisthenes was the\n      person who instituted the Pythian games, Schol. Pind. Nem. IX. 49,\n      76. comp. Boeckh and Dissen Explic. p. 451. Apollo had there an \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70\n      \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1; Polyb. ubi sup. Liv. XXXII. 40.\n\n 1070 Pausan. IV. 15. 5. The Messenians at Naupactus had also a temple of\n      Apollo (Thucyd. II. 91.); and the coins of the Messenians of Sicily\n      afford proof of the same worship. Concerning the ancient temple at\n      \u00c6pea, Pausan. IV. 34. 4.\n\n 1071 Herod. VI. 57.\n\n 1072 Apollo Acreitas, Pausan. III. 12. 7. At Thornax Apollo Pytha\u00ebus,\n      III. 11. 2. Hesych. in \u0398\u03cc\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03be, cf. in \u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. Apollo Maleates,\n      Pausan. III. 12. 8. Thucyd. VII. 26. Apollo \u039b\u03b9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Steph. Byz.\n      Suid. in v. comp. Pausan. II. 27. 8. Apollo at Geronthr\u00e6, Boeckh\n      Inscript. No. 1334.\n\n 1073 Herod. II. 32. Plutarch Arat. 40. Pausan. II. 5. 4. Hesych. in\n      \u0396\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2. At Corinth, Apollo, as at Argos, was \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2, Simonides in Palat. Anthol. VI. 212. On the temple of\n      Apollo at Sicyon, likewise in the market-place, Ampel. Liber. Memor.\n      8.\n\n 1074 Pausan. II. 26. 3. comp. the inscriptions of the temple of\n      \u00c6sculapius, Boeckh. Inscript. Nos. 1175, 1176. The temple of Apollo\n      \u00c6gyptius belongs to the time of the Antonines.\n\n 1075 In this island a temple of Apollo was connected with the Thearion\n      (see Dissen ad Pind. Nem. III. p. 376.), with the worship of Apollo\n      \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u039f\u1f30\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2, and \u0394\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, and the festival of the\n      Hydrophoria. \u00c6ginetica, p. 150. cf. 135.\n\n 1076 Above, ch. 2. \u00a7 8. The Pythian games, according to Pausan. II. 32.\n      2. founded by Diomed, are probably of a later date.\n\n 1077 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 (\u00c6ginetica, p. 150, note k); for, as\n      Callimachus says (Hymn. Apoll. 55.), \u03a6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\n      \u039a\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3\u03c2.\n\n 1078 Pausan. IV. 4. 1. 33. 3. cf. V. 25. 1.\n\n 1079 Thucyd. V. 18. IV. 118.\n\n 1080 Among the Ach\u00e6ans of Patr\u00e6. Pausan. VII. 21. 4.\u2014of \u00c6gira. id. VII.\n      26. 3. comp. the tradition respecting Bolina, id. VII. 23. 3.\n\n 1081 Pausan. VIII. 53. 1.\n\n 1082 \u1f26\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. Theognis of Megara, v. 777.\n\n 1083 Pausan. V. 4. 2.\n\n 1084 On this enmity, to which so many legends refer, see Pausan. V. 2. 4.\n      VI. 16. 2.\n\n 1085 That Zeus was the chief god of the Eleans is evident from the\n      confederate temple at \u00c6gium and elsewhere.\n\n 1086 Hesychius in v.\n\n 1087 Pausan. V. 15. 4.\u2014\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f28\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f08\u03c4\u03b8\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; for the last\n      \u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd Buttmann corrects \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; and it is evident that \u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1 was\n      Elean for \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u201csacred ordinance or armistice.\u201d See Appendix V. \u00a7\n      2. Also Therma, the place of the Pan\u00e6tolia, derived its name from\n      this word, which is probably of \u00c6tolian-Elean origin. On its temple\n      of Apollo, see Polyb. XI. 4. 2.\n\n 1088 Pausan. IV. 4. 4.\n\n 1089 Perhaps this was the beginning of the connexion with Crete, to which\n      the name of the \u1f38\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd at Olympia (Pind. Olymp. V. 42.\n      Demetrius \u1f10\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff3 in the Scholia. Boeckh ad Schol. and\n      Explic. p. 150.), and the tradition that Clymenus, a descendant of\n      the Id\u00e6an Hercules, came to Pisa soon after the flood of Deucalion,\n      and there founded a temple, refer; comp. Pausan. V. 8. 1. VI. 21. 5.\n      V. 14. 6.\n\n 1090 Boeckh ad Pind. Olymp. III. 18. p. 138. Explic. Tzetzes ad Lycophr.\n      41. does not speak of this event with the same exactness as the\n      Schol. Pind. Olymp. III. 39. Comp. also Wurm de Ponderum, etc. \u00a7 90.\n      p. 174.\n\n 1091 See particularly Philostratus Vit. Apollon. V. 25. p. 208. Cic. de\n      Divin. I. 41. concerning the Telliad\u00e6, Herod. IX. 37. VIII. 27.\n      These diviners are called the \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f28\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 at the altar\n      of Olympia in the oracle in Phlegon p. 129. in Meursii Op. vol. VII.\n\n 1092 Pausan. VI. 17. 4.\n\n 1093 Pausan. V. 8. 1.\n\n 1094 Boeckh Corp. Inscript. No. 1711.\n\n 1095 As appears from the Homeric Hymn to Apollo.\n\n 1096 See Porphyr. de Abstin. II. 17. comp. Apostol. VI. 93. and the story\n      of \u00c6sop; also the proverb, \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b4\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1fbd\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n 1097 Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 535.\n\n 1098 The \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, Eur. Androm. 1092.\n\n 1099 Plutarch, de Pyth. Orac. 16. p. 273. The Thessalians vowed at least\n      every year a hecatomb of men to Apollo \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. Schol. Eur. Ph\u0153n.\n      1416. Zenobius in \u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n 1100 Sosicrates ap. Suid. vol. I. p. 621. Hesych. p. 1026. Apostol. VII.\n      37. Prov. Vat. App. II. 94. and Steph. Byz. in \u0394\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, with\n      which he mentions the \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9. We may probably discern a similar\n      servitude in the gift of the golden tripods which the \u0398\u03b7\u03b2\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n      were bound to bring at certain times to the Ismenian temple of\n      Apollo, _Orchomenos_, p. 397. Apollo Nesiotes at Chalia in B\u0153otia\n      also possessed Hieroduli, Boeckh. Inscript. No. 1607. The Delian\n      \u1f19\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 (Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 157) were of the same\n      description as the chorus in the Ph\u0153niss\u00e6. In the Didym\u00e6um\n      (Inscript. in Walpole\u2019s Travels, p. 582) there were \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\n      \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, boys\n      sent thither as the spoil of war, Conon. Narr. c. 44.\n\n 1101 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f55\u03c0\u03bf.\n\n      Eurip. Ion. 322.\n\n      \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u1fbd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n      Ver. 1299.\n\n 1102 Boeckh in Hirt _Ueber die Hierodulen_, p. 48.\n\n 1103 See book III. ch. 4.\n\n 1104 Diod. IV. 66. Pausan. VII. 3. 1. see above, ch. 2. \u00a7 7.\n\n 1105 Apostol. VII. 34. where for \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd read \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd. Suidas in \u03b4\u03cc\u03c1\u03c5\n      \u03ba\u03b7\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. _Orchomenos_, p. 118.\n\n 1106 Herod. VII. 132. Xenoph. Hell. VI. 3. and 5. \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\n      \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u0398\u03b7\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. Not the land, but the people themselves\n      were to be decimated.\n\n 1107 See above, p. 46, note n. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote\n      to \u201cthe Dorians or Malians,\u201d starting \u201cAristot. ap. Strab.\u201d] Etymol.\n      M. p. 154. 7.\n\n 1108 Apollod. II. 7. 7. cf. Diod. IV. 37.\n\n 1109 Pausan. II. 35. 2. Apollo was also worshipped under the titles of\n      \u1f4c\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. Concerning the Dryopes as worshippers of\n      Apollo see Pausan. IV. 34. 6. Tzetz. ad Lycoph. 480. Prob. ad\n      Virgil. Georg. III. 7. Anton. Liberal. c. 32. Etymol. M. p. 288. 32.\n      Heyne ad \u00c6n. IV. 143. vol. II. p. 736. ed. 3. According to Pausanias\n      they also retained this worship in the Messenian settlements.\n      According to Conon, c. 29. upon the occasion of the return from Troy\n      they sent a tithe (\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7).\n\n 1110 See above, b. I. ch. 2. \u00a7 4.\n\n_ 1111 Ver sacrum vovere, i.e. qu\u00e6cunque vere proximo nata essent\n      immolaturos_, Festus in v. Mamertin. _Trecenta millia hominum, velut\n      ver sacrum, miserunt_, Justin. XXIV. 4.\n\n 1112 According to the remarkable account of Parthen. Erot. 5. they were\n      \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03a6\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f08\u03b4\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, and were conducted by Leucippus\n      a Lycian. Strab. XIV. 647. reverses the story: \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u0394\u03af\u03b4\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b7 (near Pher\u00e6, _Orchomenos_, p. 192.) \u1f10\u03bd\n      \u0398\u03b5\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u1fb3.\n\n 1113 Plato Leg. XI. p. 919 D. comp. Boeckh In Minoem et Leges, pag. 68.\n      Magnesia, re-established according to Plato\u2019s fiction, consecrates\n      to Apollo and Helius, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, three men as an\n      \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, ibid. XII. p. 945. See also Apollod. Fragm. p. 386.\n      Conon Narr. c. 29. Varro 3. Rer. Human. apud Prob. ad Virg. Ecl. VI.\n      Cretans in the Asiatic Magnesia, Strab. XIV. p. 636. Schol. Apollon.\n      Rhod. I. 584.\n\n 1114 Parthenius mentions \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd and Leucophryne instead of Magnesia.\n\n 1115 Boeckh Corp. Inscript. 2910; and see particularly Conon ubi sup.\n\n 1116 Aristot. and Theophrast. ap. Athen. p. 173 F.\n\n 1117 Semus \u1f10\u03bd \u0394\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 ap. Athen. ubi sup.\n\n 1118 It is to this that the Homeric hymn to the Pythian Apollo, v. 1.\n      refers; also the coins of Magnesia (_Apollo supra M\u00e6andrum stans_).\n      There was also a place near Magnesia called Apollonia.\n\n 1119 X. 32. 4.\n\n 1120 Hence the name of Apollo Hylates in Lycoph. 447; where Tzetzes is\n      confused. Apollo Hylates at Amamassus in Cyprus, Steph. Byz. in v.\n      In Athen. XV. p. 672 E. for \u1f59\u0392\u039b\u0391 \u1f59\u039b\u0391\u0399. Query, whether Hiera. Come,\n      Liv. XXXVIII. 12, 13. is the same place? Magnesia on the Sipylus\n      also worshipped Apollo, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, Marm. Oxon. 26. 85.\n\n 1121 See Frank Callinus, p. 89. Liebel Archil. p. 202. Concerning the\n      founding of Magnesia see Ruhnken on Velleius I. 4. Kanne on Conon,\n      c. 29. Raoul-Rochette, tom. II. p. 387.\n\n 1122 Plut. Qu\u00e6st. Gr\u00e6c. 13. 26.\n\n 1123 A Rhegian in Tim\u00e6us (Strab. p. 260 C. Antig. Caryst. 1), \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n      \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\n      \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. cf. VI. p. 257 D. Creuzer Fragm. Xanth. p. 373. cf. p.\n      178.\n\n 1124 Respecting the ablutions in the seven rivers, the sacred\n      laurel-tree, &c., see Varro ap. Prob. Pr\u00e6f. ad Virg. Ecl. and\n      compare Hermann\u2019s excellent dissertation on the Glauci of \u00c6schylus,\n      Opuscula, vol. II. p. 59.\n\n 1125 Pausan. V. 25. 1. The coins of Rhegium have the head of Apollo, a\n      lyre, a tripod, and cortina.\n\n 1126 See particularly Tacit. Annal. IV. 14.\n\n 1127 Founded, according to Callim. Epigr. XLI. 2. by Acrisius the\n      Pelasgian, to whom the establishment of the Amphictyonic council was\n      _for that reason_ attributed.\n\n 1128 \u00c6lian. V. H. III. 1. Liv. XXXIX. 24. comp. Plutarch de Def. Orac.\n      14.\n\n 1129 On the towns included in the league see above, book I. ch. 6. \u00a7 2.\n      On the games at the festival, Herod. I. 144.\n\n 1130 Neptune and the nymphs were also of the number of the Triopian\n      deities, Schol. Theocr. XVII. 69. Comp. Boeckh ad Schol. Pind. Pyth.\n      II. 27. p. 314. Concerning the worship of Apollo at Halicarnassus,\n      see Inscript. in Walpole\u2019s Travels, p. 576. Apollo Telchinius at\n      Lindus (see Meurs. Rhod.), at Cameirus \u1f10\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n      Macr. Sat. I. 17. at Anaphe, Apollo \u00c6gletes, \u00c6ginetica, p. 170. note\n      a; comp. above, p. 116. note z.\n\n 1131 I have adopted the opinion of Ste. Croix, Gouvernemens f\u00e9d\u00e9ratifs,\n      p. 156. that the federal festival of the twelve \u00c6olian cities was at\n      Gryneum, chiefly on account of the altars of the twelve gods, and\n      the \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd at that place, and the statements of Scylax.\n\n 1132 According to Strabo X. p. 487. there were here \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, as at\n      Delos, for the assembly; and in a Tenian inscription (Boeckh Corp.\n      Ins. Gr. No. 2329), a citizen is eulogized for having undertaken a\n      \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 for the Delians, the office of receiving the \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76, a\n      species of \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1. Spanheim ad Callim. Hymn. Del. 325.\n\n 1133 \u1f39\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b7 \u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd, Callim. Hymn. Del. 325. et Spanheim ad 1.\n\n 1134 Hom. Hymn. ad Apoll. Del. 141. The coins like those of Delos: the\n      name also reminds us of mount Cynthus. (Hemsterh. ad Aristoph. Plut.\n      p. 311.)\n\n 1135 An Apollonia in this island, Steph. Byz. Compare the coins.\n\n 1136 Particularly at Carth\u00e6a, Pind. Isthm. I. 6. Athen. X. p. 456 E.\n      Probably a \u0394\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, according to Dissen. Explic. p. 484. \u03a0\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03b1 at the\n      same place, Anton. Lib. c. 1. Concerning the choruses of Apollo at\n      Carth\u00e6a see Boeckh Corp. Insc. Gr. Nos. 2361-3. A Smintheum at\n      Coressus and P\u0153essa, Strabo X. p. 486.\n\n 1137 Apollo Tragius, Steph. in \u03a4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u03b1. Apollo \u03a0\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Macr. Sat. I.\n      17. Hipponax ap. Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 658. A \u0394\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd at Naxos.\n      Aristot. Plut. Virt. Mul. p. 289. ed. Hutten. Parthen. Erot. 9.\n      comp. Obs. Misc. Bat. vol. VII. p. 24. Besides these, there were\n      many other Ionic temples of Apollo, in Samos, Eub\u0153a, &c.\n\n 1138 See above, book I. ch. 6. \u00a7 12.\n\n 1139 \u00c6lian. V. H. II. 26. Tzetzes ad Lycoph. 911. Wesseling corrects\n      \u1f08\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 for \u1f0d\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in Aristot. ubi sup. comp. Heyne Opusc. Acad. vol.\n      II. p. 178. with Creuzer Symbolik. II. p. 200. The bird on the coins\n      is not an eagle but a raven (Mionnet Descr. planche 60), the _comes\n      iripodum_.\n\n 1140 One hundred and twenty stadia from Croton, Aristot. Mirab. Ausc. p.\n      1098 C. Justin. XX. 1. Etym. Mag. in \u1f08\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 1141 Ap. Strab. VI. p. 265 C.\n\n 1142 On the statue of Aristeas in the market-place of Metapontum, by the\n      side of the statue of Apollo, see Herod. IV. 15. and on a brass\n      laurel-tree in the same place, Athen. XIII. p. 605 C. In the temple\n      of Apollo, Plutarch \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c7\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd 8.\n\n_ 1143 Caulonia_ in Italy is also remarkable for this worship, the ancient\n      coins of which town exhibit Apollo bearing a laurel, or a bow, with\n      a stag.\n\n 1144 Thucyd. VI. 3. \u0391\u03a1\u03a7\u0391\u0393\u0395\u03a4\u0391 \u03a0\u039f\u039b\u039b\u03a9\u039d\u039f\u03a3, on the coins of Tauromenium and\n      Enna. As to _Sicily_, there was a temple of Apollo Temenites Pythius\n      at Syracuse, Cic. Verr. IV. 53. Steph. Byz. in \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. comp.\n      \u00c6lian. V. H. I. 18. Letronne Topographie de Syracuse, p. 26. G\u00f6ller\n      de Situ Syrac. p. 59. also of Apollo \u0394\u03b1\u03c6\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, Etymol. p. 250. 38.\n      At Gela there was a colossal statue of Apollo in front of the town,\n      Tim\u00e6us apud Diod. XIII. 107. Apollinarian rites of the Erbit\u00e6ans and\n      their colony Al\u00e6sa, Diod. XIV. 16. Inscript. ap. Castelli, p. 109\n      sqq. At Lilyb\u00e6um, according to the coins, Apollo Libyrtius near\n      Pachynum. Macr. Sat. I. 17. The month Dalius in Sicily, Castelli\n      Prol. 73.\n\n 1145 Inscription at Olympia, ap. Pausan. V. 22. 2.\n\n 1146 Plut. de Pyth. Orac. 16. p. 273. Also at Myrina in \u00c6olis. Comp. ch.\n      2. \u00a7 7.\n\n_ 1147 Orchomenos_, p. 327 sqq.\n\n 1148 A similar tradition in Sinope, Philostephanus ap. Schol. Apoll. Rh.\n      II. 953. Diod. IV. 71.\n\n 1149 Herod. IV. 32. See also Homer. Hymn. VII. 29.\n\n 1150 X. 5. 4.\n\n 1151 See above, ch. 1. \u00a7 3.\n\n 1152 Thus I write for \u1f08\u03bc\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 in Paus. I. 4. 4. and \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, ib. X. 23.\n      3. on account of the _Laodice_ of Herodotus. Herodotus VIII. 39.\n      mentions, on a similar occasion, the native heroes Phylacus and\n      Autonous.\n\n 1153 Scholl. Apoll. Rh. II. 675. unless Cluver. Germ. Ant. I. p. 16, is\n      right in correcting \u039a\u03b5\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 for \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.\n\n 1154 See the beautiful fragment in prose in Himerius Orat. XIV. 10. with\n      which Cicero de N. D. III. 23. agrees; see Heindorf\u2019s note. It is to\n      this ode, perhaps, that the words of Plutarch refer, De Mus. 14.\n      \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f03\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u1fc6\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7,\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6.\n\n 1155 In this part occurred what Pausanias X. 8, 5. cites from the\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1 of Alc\u00e6us, that the water of Castalia came\n      from the Cephisus.\n\n 1156 Diod. II. 47. where the period is alone falsely stated. That the\n      harvest begins at the rising of the Pleiades, is stated by Hesiod.\n      Op. et D. 381. Compare the story in Eratosth. Catast. 29.\n\n 1157 Tischbein I. 8. 9. with the correct explanation of Italinsky. As in\n      the vase in Tischbien IV. 8. the tripod is represented as standing\n      beside the figure, which is a certain proof that Apollo is in\n      question.\u2014Nevertheless, some very distinguished antiquarians are\n      still of opinion that the figure is _Triptolemus_, and not Apollo;\n      indeed the _Instituto di corrispondenza Archeologica_ at Rome has\n      lately published a painted vase (I. Distrib. pl. 4.), in which\n      \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 is written by this figure in the same position, and with\n      the same accompaniments; whence it seems to me probable that, in\n      antiquity, the ideas attached to this composition were not fixed. A\n      vase in Millin I. 46. represents Apollo Daphnephorus attended by a\n      Hyperborean in the Arimaspian costume.\n\n 1158 Paus. X. 5. 5.\n\n 1159 XXI. 3.\n\n 1160 \u0152nomaus ap. Euseb. Pr\u00e6p. Evang. p. 133. Steph. quotes from a\n      supposed oracle of a prophetess named Asteria, that the inhabitants\n      and priests of Delos came from the Hyperboreans.\n\n 1161 Aristot. Hist. An. VI. 35. Antig. Caryst. 61. p. 111. ed. Beckmann.\n      Schol. Apoll. Rh. II. 124.\n\n 1162 Herod. IV. 35. Opis and Heca\u00ebrgus, according to Pseudo-Plato Axioch.\n      pag. 371. A. Servius ad \u00c6n. XI. 858. The circumstance of the \u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 of\n      these virgins being turned to the east shows that it was of the\n      Cretan time, since the Dorians laid their dead to the east, the\n      Ionians to the west. See book IV. ch. 1. \u00a7 2.\n\n 1163 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b5\u03c2, also \u1f00\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 and \u1f51\u03bb\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9. See Porphyr. de Abstin.\n      II. 19. Rhoer ad 1 and Spanheim ad Callim. Hymn. Del. 283.\n\n 1164 Dodona was Hyperborean, according to Etymol. M. in \u0394\u03c9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 1165 Plutarch de Musica 14.\n\n 1166 According to Herodotus and Callim. ad Del. 281. cf. Plin. H. N. IV.\n      26. Mela III. 5. Salmasius considers the gifts as \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76,\n      _prosici\u00e6 hostiarum_, with Mela; but they were doubtless _primiti\u00e6\n      frugum_, Exerc. Plin. p. 147.\n\n 1167 No weight can be laid on the particular road, as Pausanias I. 31. 2.\n      mentions one which touches Attica, where also there were rites or\n      sanctuaries, \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03be \u1f5d\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, Chrysost. Epist. ad Tit. Rom. 3. vol.\n      XI. p. 744 E. ed. Montfaucon. See below, \u00a7 6.\n\n 1168 Heyne Excurs. ad \u00c6n. IV. 2. He also comes to Delos in the spring.\n\n 1169 Tischbein II. 12. Compare the coins of Chalcedon ap. Valliant. et\n      Theupoli. A commentary is furnished by the beginning of Callimachus\u2019\n      hymn to Apollo.\n\n 1170 Above, ch. 1. \u00a7 2.\n\n 1171 Herod. IV. 13. The statement of Herodotus is exactly confirmed by a\n      fragment of Aristeas in Tzetz. Chiliad. VII. 144. which may be\n      genuine. In v. 688. for \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c6\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 should be written \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03c6\u1fb6\u03c2\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af).\n\n 1172 \u03a6\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The Issedones were first mentioned by Alcman, who\n      called them \u1f08\u03c3\u03c3\u03ad\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, Steph. Byz. in \u1f38\u03c3\u03c3\u03ae\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2. He also mentioned\n      the Rhip\u00e6ans, Schol. Soph. \u0152d. Col. 1312.\n\n 1173 Ap. Steph. Byz. in \u1f5d\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n 1174 The two last points are likewise mentioned by Hellanicus ap. Clem.\n      Alex. Strom. I. p. 305. Later authorities on this point I pass over.\n\n 1175 Herod. IV. 25.\n\n 1176 Olymp. III. 14. cf. Olymp. VIII. 41. Pyth. X. 31. Isthm. V. 22.\n\n 1177 Ap. Schol. Apoll. Rh. IV. 284.\n\n 1178 This is considered by Voss as the original notion, who supposes the\n      whole fable of the happy Hyperboreans to be an invention of Spanish\n      sailors, Ad Virg. Georg. II. p. 381. _Weltkunde_, Jena Journal\n      Quart. II. p. 20, 29. sqq.: on the Griffins ib. Quart. IV. His\n      opinions have been implicitly followed by Uckert, G\u00e9ographie, vol.\n      II. p. 237.\n\n 1179 See particularly Apollon. Rh. IV. 284. who, according to the\n      Scholia, follows \u00c6schylus.\n\n 1180 Boreas, according to Sophocles ap. Strab. VII. p. 204. carried\n      Orithyia.\n\n      \u1f5d\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u1fbd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2,\n      \u039d\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2,\n      \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n 1181 Hellanicus ubi sup. Simonides and Pindar ap. Strab. XV. p. 1038 B.\n      \u00c6schyl. Cho\u00ebph. 371.\n\n 1182 Pyth. X. 56.\n\n 1183 Compare the \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b7, Suidas in \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2\u2014\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03be \u1f5d\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\n      \u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b8\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1. Cratinus ap. Hesych. in v.\n      Bekker. Anecd. p. 355. 30. Classical Journal vol. VI. p. 369.\n\n 1184 Ap. \u00c6lian. N. A. XI. 1. compare Creuzer Vet. Historic. fragm. p. 85.\n      This Hecat\u00e6us still believed in the real existence of the\n      Hyperboreans, Schol. Apoll. Rh. II. 615. Steph. Byz. in \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03cd\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n 1185 Comp. Callim. fragm. 187. B\u0153us and Simmias \u1f10\u03bd \u0391\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 ap. Anton.\n      Liber, c. 20. Tzet. zes Chil. VII. 144. v. 677. (compare Brunck\n      Anal. vol. II. p. 525.) Gesner comment. Soc. Gotting. vol. II. p.\n      33.\n\n 1186 Boeckh. Corp. Inscript. No. 1688. lin. 14.\n\n 1187 Mela and Plin. ubi sup. cf. Hellanic. ubi sup. It is remarkable that\n      this custom of leaping from high rocks occurs, in precisely the same\n      manner as among the Hyperboreans, in Scandinavian legends. See\n      Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterth\u00fcmer, p. 486.\n\n 1188 De Nat. Deor. III. 23.\n\n 1189 So also Etymol. M. in \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1. p. 607. Referred to _music_ (from\n      \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, a strain) by Schol. Pind. Nem. V. 42. Procl. Chrestom. p.\n      282. 13. in Gaisford\u2019s Heph\u00e6stion.\n\n 1190 Pyth. IX. 64. Boeckh. Explic. p. 324.\n\n_ 1191 Orchomenos_, p. 348.\n\n 1192 The Parrhasian Apollo on mount Lyc\u00e6um (Paus. VIII. 38. 2.) was\n      originally the Apollo Nomius.\n\n 1193 Cicero de Div. I. 57. 130. from Heraclides Ponticus.\n\n 1194 Schol. Apoll. Rh. II. 500. partly from Bacchylides, Pherecydes\n      fragm. 42. ed. Sturz.\n\n 1195 Schol. Apoll. Rh. II. 514. cf. Schol. II. \u03b1. 766.\n\n 1196 Clem. Alex. Protrept. p. 8. cf. Porphyr. Vit. Pythag. \u00a7 16. Cyrill.\n      adv. Julian, p. 542.\n\n 1197 The statement that Pythagoras placed at Delphi on a grave an\n      inscription of these words, \u201cApollo the son of Silenus,\u201d is a\n      confused and fabulous story of late times, Porphr. ubi sup. The wild\n      olive was sacred to Apollo Nomius, according to Theocritus XXV. 20;\n      and he was considered the author of a kind of epilepsy, Hippocrat.\n      de Morbo Sacro, p. 303.\n\n 1198 Below, ch. 8. \u00a7 15.\n\n 1199 Hesiod. fragm. 21. ed. Gaisford.\n\n 1200 Paus. VIII. 30.\n\n 1201 Apollo is represented with a crown of ears on his head, in a gem in\n      Lippert\u2019s Dactyliothek I. p. 62. No. 145. Sometimes also on coins\n      there is only a grain of corn with symbols of Apollo, _e.g._, on\n      those of Heph\u00e6stia and Abdera.\n\n 1202 \u03a3\u03bc\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, \u00c6schylus ap. \u00c6lian. Hist. An. XII. 15.\n\n 1203 Strabo XIII. p. 604. Schol. II. \u03b1. 89. \u00c6lian ubi sup. Tzetz. ad\n      Lycoph. 1302. Apollo bears a mouse in his hand on a coin of Hadrian,\n      belonging to Alexandria Troas Mionnet. tom. II. p. 644. A painted\n      vase in Tischbein II. 17. probably refers to the sacred mice of a\n      Smintheum; concerning which see Heraclid. Pont. ap. Strab. ubi sup.\n      According to Pollux IX. 6. 84. the Argives had a mouse on their\n      coins (as an emblem of Apollo); Eckhel has none of this kind; Mr.\n      Payne Knight\u2019s collection contains a very small ancient gold coin\n      with this type. See Knight on the Symbolical Language of Mythology,\n      \u00a7 128. note.\n\n 1204 Strabo XIII. p. 613.\n\n 1205 Philochorus ap. Schol. Vulg. ad Od. XX. 155. cf. ad XXI. 258.\n\n 1206 Plutarch Dion. 23.\n\n 1207 Plutarch de Defect. Orac. 7, 12. de Pyth. Orac. 12. Symp. Qu\u00e6st.\n      III. 10.\n\n 1208 \u00c6ginetica, p. 27. The Apollo \u1f28\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 at Argos (Paus. VIII. 46. 2.) is\n      hardly a \u1f2c\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 1209 The Tr\u0153zenian \u1f6e\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (Paus. II. 30. 6.) was probably a god of the\n      seasons, and afterwards the sun; but \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1 and the \u00c6gyptian Horus\n      cannot surely have any etymological connexion.\n\n 1210 Herod. VI. 97. Pseudo-Plat. Axioch. p. 371 A. comp. \u00c6sch. Pers. 206.\n\n 1211 See below, ch. 6. \u00a7 10. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: There is no such\n      section in that chapter.]\n\n 1212 Eurip. Phaeth. fr. 2. Matthi\u00e6. \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u1fbd \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\n      \u1f4d\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n 1213 Fragm. 48. The same doctrine was followed by Apollodorus (Macrob.\n      Sat. I. 17.) and Philochorus, according to whom there was a\n      Helius-Apollo among the Tritopatores, ap. Strab. XIV. p. 655.\n\n 1214 C. 24. It is only the following narration which is taken from the\n      Bassarides of \u00c6schylus; comp. Timotheus \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03b1\u03c2 ap. Euseb.\n      Scalig. p. 4.\n\n 1215 This fact refers to the actual worship of the sun in Thrace,\n      Sophocles in Tereo ap. Schol. Il. XV. 705.\n\n 1216 The passages in which he is considered as the god of the sun, a\n      fragment in J. Diaconus, and a hymn, are of the latest date. The\n      Sibylline oracle in Zosimus II. 6. where Apollo is called Helius, is\n      of the Alexandrine age; likewise the strange hymn in Brunck\u2019s\n      Analecta, vol. II. p. 518. is of very late date. Moreover, the\n      coins, in which Apollo is represented with rays round his head, are,\n      as far as I can discover, all of the age of the emperors.\n\n 1217 The Apollo \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 of Delos was probably so called with a fixed\n      though obscure reference, like the Apollo \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03c2, which the Orphic\n      philosophers in Macrob. Sat. I. 17. also explained to be\n      _progenitor_ in general. See above, ch. 2. \u00a7 15.\n\n_ 1218 Orchomenos_, p. 383. compare Schwarz Miscell. Polit. hum. p. 89.\n      Creuzer Symbolik, vol. III. p. 166.\n\n 1219 Od. XV. 402. cf. III. 280. XI. 171. Il. XXIV. 759. Artemis kills\n      women for him, as in Pindar Pyth. V. 10. On Artemis and Apollo, as\n      gods of death, see Nast\u2019s Opusc. Lat. P. 11. n. 12. p. 293 sqq.\n\n 1220 \u1f1d\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f11\u03ba\u03b7\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1.\n\n 1221 Il. IV. 508. VII. 21.\n\n 1222 XV. 308. XVI. 703.\n\n 1223 See Pind. Pyth. IV. 86.\n\n 1224 Hom. Hymn. Apoll. Del. 13.\n\n 1225 Homer represents Aphrodite as the protector of \u00c6neas and antagonist\n      of Diomed, and Ares in battle for the Trojans, in a disadvantageous\n      light; and describes, with evident irony, the weakness of the\n      goddess, and the brutal confidence of the god. In like manner, Diana\n      and the river-god Scamander sometimes play a very undignified part.\n      Apollo, alone, always maintains his dignity.\n\n 1226 Il. XXI. 464. cf. XXIV. 40. \u1fa7 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f02\u03c1 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n 1227 Il. XXIV. 606.\n\n 1228 Od. XI. 517.\n\n 1229 Il. VIII. 227. He overcomes Phorbas in a boxing-match, Eurytus in a\n      contest of archery, to which the latter had challenged all the gods;\n      hence he is in general supposed to preside over contests with the\n      c\u00e6stus (Il. XXIII. 660. Plutarch. Qu\u00e6st. Symp. VIII. 4); and amongst\n      the Dorians, who loved the sports of the field, was particularly\n      considered as a patron of archery and huntsmen. Il. XXIII. 872.\n      Soph. \u0152d. C. 1091. Pollux V. 5. 39.\n\n 1230 \u1f6e\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u1f0c\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03a0\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c6\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u1fbd \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n      \u1f40\u03bb\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. Fragm. 79. ed. Gaisfoid. Compare Blomfield ad \u00c6sch. Agam.\n      66. Gloss.\n\n 1231 \u1f08\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u1fbd \u1f40\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c7\u1f60\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, Fragm. 16. ed. Welcker.\n\n 1232 \u00c6schyl. Agam. 1091. Plato Cratyl. p. 405. and Eurip. Phaeth. (above,\n      p. 306. note m. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201cwont\n      to destroy them,\u201d starting \u201c\u1f6e\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u1f0c\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\u201d]) allude to the same\n      derivation.\n\n 1233 Hermann _Ueber das Wesen der Mythologie_, p. 107.\n\n 1234 Pausan. I. 43. 7. Anthol. Palat. VII. 154. On a coin of Prusia\n      Apollo is represented with a scourge in his hand, Mionnet Descript.\n      tom. II. p. 482.\n\n 1235 Herod. III. 52. Walpole\u2019s Travels, p. 541. In an Asiatic inscription\n      of the cod. Sherard. these fines are called \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u03b1\u03af.\n\n 1236 Agamem. 55.\n\n 1237 Gellius N. A. V. 12.\n\n 1238 Schol. Eurip. Ph\u0153n. 1446.\n\n 1239 Plut. Qu\u00e6st. Gr\u00e6c. 24.\n\n 1240 Plut. de \u0395\u03b9 21. p. 246. de Defect, Orac. 7. p. 309. non posse suav.\n      vivi sec. Epicur. 23. p. 124. Perhaps, likewise, the Apollo\n      Philesius should be referred to this head.\n\n 1241 \u1f08\u03ba\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. Paus. VI. 24, 5. \u1f00\u03ba\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, Eurip. Androm. 900.\n\n 1242 \u1f18\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Paus. VIII. 32-41. 5.\n\n 1243 \u1f08\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, ibid. I. 3. 3. Aristoph. Pac. 420. Compare Visconti,\n      Museo Pio-Clement. I. p. 27.\n\n 1244 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, Orac. ap. Demosth. in Mid. p. 331. 27. Inscript. in\n      Walpole\u2019s Travels, p. 547. No. 38. Stuart\u2019s Antiquities of Athens,\n      vol. I. p. 25. called \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, in the colonies on the Pontus,\n      above, ch. 2. \u00a7 6. comp. Soph. Trach. 208. with Hermann\u2019s note. He\n      is invoked in his character of \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 to avert nightly\n      terrors, in Soph. Elec. 638; in Aj. 187 he keeps off madness; in\n      Eurip. Herc. Fur. 821, the fury. \u03a0\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9. Boeckh\n      Corp. Inscript. No. 1693.\n\n 1245 Pind. Pyth. v. 63. cf. IV. 270. Aristoph. Plut. 8. Soph. \u0152d. T. 149.\n      Callim. Hymn. Apoll. 72. See, however, Il. XVI. 527. He was called\n      \u039b\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 at Lindus, Macrob. Sat. I. 17. _Medicus_ at Rome about 416\n      A.U.C. \u1f38\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, Tzetzes ad Lycophr. 1206.\n\n 1246 Demosth. in Mid. ubi sup.\n\n 1247 Il. v. 401, 899. with Schol. Venet. cf. Od. IV. 232. Aristarchus\n      considered Apollo and P\u00e6on in Homer as identical, yet Hesiod\n      distinguishes them in the fragment in Eustath. ad Od. p. 1493.\n      Schol. Min. ad 1. (cf. Hemsterhuis in Gaisford\u2019s Poet\u00e6 Min. p. 551),\n      and perhaps also in Brunck\u2019s Analecta, vol. I. p. 67.\n\n 1248 Hom. Hymn, ad Apoll. Pyth. Eurip. Ion 128, 140. Pindar\u2019s P\u00e6an in the\n      Fragments.\n\n 1249 Proclus apud Phot. \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9.\n\n 1250 Hom. Hymn. 272, 320.\n\n 1251 Proclus ubi sup. Hesych. In Soph. \u0152d. T. 152. a song of a chorus\n      resembling a p\u00e6an has these words; \u03a6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2\u2014\u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 \u03b8\u1fbd \u1f35\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. cf. Schol. ad v. 114. et Suid. in \u1f30\u03b7\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n 1252 Callim. Hymn. Apoll. 21. N\u00e6ni\u00e6 and p\u00e6ans opposed to one another.\n      Eurip. Iph. T. 183. The god of death was honoured with no p\u00e6an.\n      \u00c6sch. Niob. Frag. 5. P\u00e6ans to Hades, the Furies, &c. are an\n      oxymoron; see Monk ad Eurip. Alc. 431.\n\n 1253 Comp. the p\u00e6ans of the Spartans at the Gymnop\u00e6dia for the battle of\n      Thermopyl\u00e6. Etymolog. Mag. p. 243, 4. Apollo and Artemis, gods of\n      victory, Soph. Trach. 207.\n\n 1254 See \u00c6schyl. Theb. 250. The \u1f40\u03bb\u03c5\u03bb\u03c5\u03b3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 (_ululatus_) which is here\n      mentioned was in part the \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6, which according to Plutarch Thes.\n      22. occurred in singing the p\u00e6an and at the libation (in this\n      passage \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 is evidently the right meaning). Hence Apollo is\n      called \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 in Macrob. Sat. I. 17. From this also comes the\n      \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd which Xenophon often mentions, but distinguishes it from\n      the p\u00e6an, and represents it as performed to Enyalius or Ares, Anab.\n      I. 8. 18. cf. V. 2. 14. Hell. II. 4, 17.\n\n 1255 Callim. Apoll. 113. Apoll. Rhod. II. 710. cf. Athen. XV. p. 701 C.\n      Duris ap. Etym. Mag. in \u1f30\u03b7\u03af\u03b5.\n\n 1256 Thuc. VII. 44. cf. IV. 43.\n\n 1257 \u00c6sch. Again. 99.\n\n 1258 Eurip. Hippol. 1373. \u00c6sch. ap. Stob. Serm. p. 121.\n\n 1259 \u00c6sch. Agam. 518.\n\n 1260 Tzetz. ad Lycoph. 352.\n\n 1261 Dieuchidas in Megaricis ap. Schol. Aristophan. Vesp. 870. Harpocrat.\n      In Tegea (derived from Sparta) Paus. VIII. 53. I. 2.\n\n 1262 Above, ch. 4. \u00a7 2.\n\n 1263 Demosth. in Mid. p. 331. comp. Varro ap. Porphyr. ad Horat. Carm.\n      IV. 6. 28. _ex responso sui (Pythii) oraculi in viis publicis urbis\n      su\u00e6 Athenienses statutis altaribus sacrificare Apollini instituerunt\n      et Agyeum appellare_. Also Eurip. Ion 186. to which Eustath. ad Il.\n      p. 166. Rom. refers. Varro is probably followed by Euanthius De\n      Trag\u0153dia et Com\u0153dia: _Athenienses cum Apollini Nomio vel_ \u1f08\u03b3\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u1ff3\n      (as Osann. Auctar. Lex. p. 82. corrects), _i.e._ _pastorum\n      vicinorumque_ (read _vicorumque_) _pr\u00e6sidi deo constructis aris\n      festum carmen solenniter cantarent_.\n\n 1264 Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 870. Thesm. 496. Eq. 1317. Schol. Eurip.\n      Ph\u0153n. 634. Harpocrat. Hesych. Helladius ap. Phot. cod. 279. p. 1596.\n      Plautus Mercat. IV. 1. 9. Steph. Byz. in \u1f00\u03b3\u03c5\u03b9\u1f70, also Otto de Diis\n      Vialibus, et Zo\u00ebga De Obeliscis p. 210. The Agyieus often occurs on\n      coins, instead of other emblems of Apollo, where numismatic writers\n      have not recognised the symbol. See the coins of Apollonia in\n      Epirus, Aptera in Crete, Megara, Byzantium, Oricus, Ambracia, where\n      the statue is surrounded with fillets.\n\n 1265 Eurip. Ion. ubi sup.\n\n 1266 \u03ba\u03c5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03c5\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2, Demosth. ubi sup. and Stephens\u2019s Thesaurus, ed.\n      Lond. vol. I. p. 1048.\n\n 1267 \u1f08\u03b2\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, the Cretans and Pamphylians, Hesych. in v. Comp.\n      Hemsterhuis ad Hesych. in \u03b8\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, Koen ad Greg. Corinth. p. 354.\n      ed. Sch\u00e6fer. \u03b2\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1 \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u1f74, a Laconism according to Hesychius.\n\n 1268 The jocular etymology of Plato from \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, and the absurd one from\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03c2, mentioned by Cicero de Nat. Deor. II. 27. Plutarch, de \u0395\u03b9 9.\n      p. 228 (because Apollo was \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f13\u03bd, De Iside 76. p. 207). cf. Macrob.\n      Sat. I. 17. and others in the Etymol. M., I may be excused from\n      examining.\n\n 1269 Maittaire, p. 152, 264.\n\n 1270 Festus in v. Comp. Schneider, Lat. Gram. vol. I. 1. p. 12.\n\n 1271 There appear to be two radical forms, having nearly the same\n      meaning, from which the word \u0391\u03a0\u0395\u039b\u039b\u03a9\u039d might be derived. First \u03dc\u0395\u039b or\n      \u03dc\u0395\u039b\u03dc, VOLVO, \u201cto roll,\u201d \u201cto press together,\u201d and \u0395\u039b, \u201cto push,\n      strike, drive,\u201d &c. \u1f18\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, &c., are evidently derivatives\n      of this \u0395\u039b; from which it is probable that \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd or \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd is\n      derived, as Homer constantly uses \u03dd\u03ad\u03bb\u03dd\u03c9, but \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, &c., as well as\n      \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, without the digamma.\n\n 1272 See Apollon. Lex. Hom. p. 833. ed. Villoison. Schol. Apoll. Rh. II.\n      301.\n\n 1273 Aesch. Suppl. 222. Pindar Pyth. IX. 66. Plutarch, de \u0395\u03b9 20. p. 243.\n      De Exilio 17. p. 386. _Apollo sanctus_, Cicero Tusc. Quaest. IV. 34.\n      Montfaucon Inscript. vol. I. pl. 52. No. 10. The term \u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n      was used of the Thessalian diviners, when they lived apart on the\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, Plutarch, de \u0395\u03b9.\n\n 1274 Plutarch. de Def. Orac. 2.\n\n 1275 Theophrast. de Lapid. 37.\n\n 1276 Compare \u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 Apollon. Lex. in v. Lycophr. v. 1009.\n\n 1277 Sturz. de Lingua Macedonica.\n\n 1278 Agamemn. 1084, 1088. cf. Eurip. Alcest. 22.\n\n 1279 Aesch. Theb. 696, 865. Eurip. ap. Plutarch, de \u0395\u03b9 20. p. 246. \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f03\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, which\n      Hermann has received in Eurip. Suppl. 999. Hesych. in \u1f00\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2.\n      Creuzer Meletem. vol. I. p. 31.\n\n 1280 Paus. X. 14. 4. The names of the chief priestesses were here\n      registered, Plutarch. Pericl. 21.\n\n 1281 Plutarch. Pyrrh. 32. For Athens see above, p. 264. note c.\n      [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201cfestival of\n      Boedromia,\u201d starting \u201cCallim. Hymn.\u201d] On the sanctity of the wolf\n      there, Schol. Apoll. Rh. II. 124.\n\n 1282 Elect. 6. cf. Schol. ad 1. et ad \u00c6sch. Theb. 147. Plutarch. de Sol.\n      Anim. 9. p. 155. Hesych. in \u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Paus. II. 9. 7.\n\n 1283 Il. XV. 239. cf. Antonin. Liber. c. 28. \u00c6lian. H. A. X. 14.\n      Aristoph. Av. 516. [The translators conceive that nothing more is\n      meant in the passage of Homer than that Apollo flew swiftly as a\n      hawk flies swiftly.]\n\n 1284 Od. XV. 525. Apollo \u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2, \u201cthe god of vultures,\u201d was worshipped\n      on the top of a hill near Ephesus, Conon, Narr. c. 35. There was\n      also a kind of wolf called \u03ba\u03af\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, Oppian. Cyneg. III. 304.\n\n 1285 \u00c6sch. Theb. 147. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f7a, \u039b\u03cd\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u1fbd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be, \u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b1\u0390\u1ff4,\n      where see Blomfield. Comp. Agam. 1266, and Soph. \u0152d. T. 203. \u039b\u03cd\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u1fbd\n      \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u1f70 \u03b2\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b1. In a milder sense in \u00c6sch. Suppl. 694. Soph. \u0152d.\n      T. 920. Elect. 656. in which last tragedy Apollo throughout appears\n      as armed with his highest and noblest attributes. See particularly\n      v. 1379.\n\n 1286 See Voss on Virgil\u2019s Georg. p. 408. Creuzer Comment. Herod. vol. I.\n      p. 417.\n\n 1287 Il. IV. 101, 119. cf. Heyne.\n\n 1288 See Hom. Hymn. ad Apoll. Pyth. 266.\n\n 1289 Schol. Soph. Elect. 6.\n\n 1290 Perhaps the Apollo \u1f14\u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 in Hesych. in v. belongs to this class of\n      attributes. Also there were temples of Apollo on the promontories of\n      _Leuc\u00e6_, _Leucatas_.\n\n 1291 Aristot. H. A. VI. 29 Otherwise \u00c6lian. H. A. IV. 4. Apostol. XII.\n      18. comp. above, p. 287. note n. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the\n      footnote to \u201ctwelve days and nights,\u201d starting \u201cAristot. Hist. An.\n      VI. 35.\u201d]\n\n 1292 Apostol. XII. 21.\n\n 1293 Among the moderns see Payne Knight, Symbol. Lang. \u00a7 124. Gail\n      Philologue, tom. I. p. 300, (comp. Boissonade in Millin\u2019s Magasin\n      Encyclop\u00e9dique, tom. 118. p. 346.) where \u039b\u03bf\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 is brought into\n      connexion with \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2. It seems to me probable that the word \u039b\u03bf\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n      first expressed the oblique position of the archer, who always has\n      \u1f44\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03bf\u03be\u03ac.\n\n 1294 Comp. Paus. VI. 8. 2.\n\n 1295 Theopompus apud Polyb. XVI. 12. 7. Plutarch. Qu\u00e6st. Gr. 39. p. 398.\n      Paus. VIII. 38. 5. On the \u1f04\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd see Amphis ap. Hygin. Poet. Astron.\n      II. 1 p. 35. cf. IV. p. 362. ed. Muncker.\n\n 1296 Pausan. X. 24. 4. Comp. Pindar Pyth. IV. 4. \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 was\n      worshipped at Delphi, Xenoph. Anab. V. 9. 22. and also \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f54\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\n      Hesych. in v. Perhaps, too, the god \u1f18\u03bb\u03c9\u1f78\u03c2, whom Hesychius (in v.)\n      calls the Doric Heph\u00e6stus, may be the real Zeus; a conjecture which\n      is confirmed by the circumstance that the temples of Zeus at Dodona\n      and in Laconia were called \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70, Hesych. in v. cf. in \u1f1c\u03bb\u03b1. That this\n      Elous might have been originally derived from the El or Eloha of the\n      people of Israel, I do not deny; but it is an etymology which leads\n      to nothing but hopeless and uncertain conjecture.\n\n 1297 \u1f1d\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2, Aleman ap. Heph\u00e6st. p. 66. ed. Gaisf.\n\n 1298 \u00c6sch. Eumen. 19. 616. compare the \u1f31\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 in Macrobius Sat. V. 22.\n      Schol. Soph. \u0152d. Col. 791. Soph. El. 660.\n\n 1299 Concerning the exception of the Messenians see above, p. 151. note\n      t, [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201cTerpander,\u201d\n      starting \u201cI mention Eumelus.\u201d] and for his birthplace at Tegyra\n      above, ch. 2. \u00a7 11. Apollo was also said to have been born at\n      Amphigenia in Triphylia, Steph. Byz. in v. and there was a temple of\n      Latona, Strab. VIII. p. 349. Antimachus Fragm. 78. p. 111. ed.\n      Schellenberg.\n\n 1300 \u1f18\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3, _i.e._ \u201ctime was requisite for his birth;\u201d \u201csome time\n      elapsed before Apollo could be born,\u201d Pindar ap. Clem. Alex. Strom.\n      I. p. 383. ed. Potter.\n\n 1301 Homer, Hymn. Apoll. 305. comp. Hygin. Fab. 54.\n\n 1302 Fragm. Prosod. I. p. 587. ed. Boeckh.\n\n 1303 Pindar ibid.\n\n 1304 Comp. Spanheim ad Callim. Hymn. Del. 36. 273.\n\n 1305 Pindar Fragm. Prosod. 1. Boeckh. This ode must then have been\n      written before the earthquake in Olymp. 72. 3. see Herod. VI. 98.\n      which confirms the assertion of Dissen that Isthm. I. 4. is not\n      alluded to, since this poem, as the same critic shows, was written\n      after Olymp. 80. 3. Herodotus, again, had no knowledge of the\n      earthquake which took place at the breaking out of the Peloponnesian\n      war (Thucyd. II. 8.), and Thucydides had never heard of the other,\n      which occurred before his time, nor read the statement of Herodotus.\n      Comp. Mucian. apud Plin. H. N. IV. 12. Aristid. Orat. VI. p. 77. 78.\n      Spanheim ad Callim. Del. 11. &c.\n\n 1306 Above, ch. 2. \u00a7 13.\n\n 1307 Pausan. I. 18. 5. VIII. 21. 2. IX. 27. 2. Comp. Herod. IV. 35. The\n      confusion of Eileithyia and Fate, by Olen, is only a supposition of\n      Pausanias.\n\n 1308 Pausan. IX. 27. 2.\n\n 1309 Spanheim ad Callim. Del. 308.\n\n 1310 Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 16. 19. Callim. Del. 206. compare the map of the\n      island in Choiseul Gouffier, Voyage Pittoresque, tom. I. pl. 31.\n\n 1311 See \u00c6schyl. Eumen. 9. Theognis v. 7. Herod. II. 170. Eurip. Ion 169.\n      Iphigen. Taur. 1105. Call. Apoll. 59. Del. 261.\n\n 1312 Pausan. VIII. 48. 2. conf. Hom. Odyss. VI. 167. Schol. ad Eurip.\n      Ion. 932. \u00c6lian. V. H. v. 4. Hygin. Fab. 53. 140. Catull. XXXIV. 8.\n      For the palm as an emblem of Delos on Greek vases, see Tischbein I.\n      24. Il. 12.\n\n 1313 Strabo X. p. 486, &c.\n\n 1314 A fabulous reason is given by Callimachus, Fragm. 9. Hygin. fab.\n      247.\n\n 1315 When four days old, according to Hygin. fab. 140. cf. Eurip. Iphig.\n      Taur. 1252. Macrob. Sat. 1. 17.\n\n 1316 Clearchus of Soli in Athen. XV. p. 701 C. Duris ap. Etymol. Mag. in\n      \u1f38\u03ae\u03ca\u03b5, where for \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd read \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1. comp. Bast ad Greg. Corinth, p.\n      834. This legend agrees with the compositions on the Greek vase in\n      Tischbein III. 4. The plane-tree occurs also in Theophrast. Hist.\n      Plant. IV. 13. Plin. H.N. XVI. 44. and in a bas-relief at the Villa\n      Albani, Zo\u00ebga de Obeliscis, p. 212.\n\n 1317 Apoll. Rh. II. 707. comp. Jamblich. Vit. Pythag. 10.\n\n 1318 Schol. \u00c6sch. Eumen. 2.\n\n 1319 Comp. Hygin. fab. 140.\n\n 1320 Plutarch de Pyth. Orac. 17. The fountain there spoken of, and not\n      that of Castalia, is the one which the serpent was supposed to\n      haunt. Comp. Hesych. in \u03a4\u03bf\u03be\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; a mound erected over the\n      Python, in a ravine near Delphi, which is sometimes placed at\n      Sicyon, Paus. II. 7. 7.\n\n 1321 Apoll. Rhod. II. 706. Schol. (where also \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 is in the MS.)\n      Dionys. Perieg. 441. Tzetz. ad Lycophr. 208. An \u1f21\u03bc\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7,\n      according to later writers, in Apollod. I. 6. 3.\n\n 1322 Lucian de Astrol. 23. The symbol of the goat is connected with the\n      Python (since \u0391\u1f34\u03be is called a child of the Python, Plutarch. Qu\u00e6st.\n      Gr\u00e6c. 12.), also a river \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u1fb6\u03c2, and the \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd at Delphi\n      (Hesiod ap. Steph. Byz.), and the \u1f40\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, Hesych. in v. cf.\n      Pausan. X. 11. 4. and Diod. XV. 26. The same animal was likewise\n      sacred to Apollo at Elyrus in Crete (above, ch. 1. \u00a7 5.) and\n      Tylissus; in the coins of which town Apollo is represented with a\n      goat\u2019s head in his hand. At Delos the altar \u039a\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1f7c\u03bd, or \u039a\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\n      was made of goat\u2019s horns by Apollo while a boy, Plutarch. Thes. 21.\n      de Solert. Animal. 35. p. 201. Callim. Hymn. Apoll. 51. The same\n      story was told of the \u039a\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 at Miletus (Callim. ap. Etym.\n      Mag. 584. 10.), where there was a strange story of a he-goat which\n      gave milk. It cannot be doubted that the goat was originally one of\n      the unclean animals of the worship of Apollo.\n\n 1323 Apollo, according to Simonides (ap. Eustath. ad Il. p. 52. 39.),\n      slew the monster with an hundred arrows (as an explanation of\n      \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2). The battle is represented on the coins of Croton; see\n      Eckhel Num. Anecdot. plate I. No. 13.\n\n 1324 Callim. ap. Tertull. de Cor. 7.\n\n 1325 See in particular Boeckh de Metr. Pind. III. 4. p. 182. Pollux IV.\n      10. 81. calls the performance \u1f04\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f54\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03a0\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n 1326 Plutarch. Qu\u00e6st. Gr. 12. p. 383. de Def. Or. 14. 21. Ephorus ap.\n      Strab. IX. p. 422. also alludes to the burning of the \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2, which\n      he calls \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03ae.\n\n_ 1327 Orchomenos_, p. 220.\n\n 1328 In Plutarch de Def. Orat. 14. read \u1f14\u03c6\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f97 \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f48\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 (also in\n      Hesych. in \u03b1\u1f30\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1) \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fb3\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd for\n      \u1f14\u03c6\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f30\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, the women having the same name as those of\n      Orchomenus, Plutarch. Qu\u00e6st. Gr\u00e6c. 38. Compare _Orchomenos_, p. 166.\n\n 1329 Above, ch. 1. \u00a7 2; and on the different tradition of Tarrha, ib. \u00a7\n      5.\n\n 1330 In a verse of Sophocles, cited by Plutarch de Def. Orac. 14.\n      Alcestis said of Apollo, \u03bf\u1f51\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f26\u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd, \u201c_My\n      husband led him to the mill._\u201d The name of the tragedy seems to have\n      been \u1f0c\u03b4\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2; see the words of Plutarch ubi sup. A tragedy, I say;\n      for, although Hermann (Pr\u00e6f. ad Eurip. Alcest. p. xv.) thinks that\n      the line is from a satiric drama, the verses quoted in Schol. Pind.\n      Pyth. IV. 221. which appear to be from the same play, are evidently\n      of a tragic complexion. On the imitation of the servitude of Apollo,\n      see also the words of Plutarch ib. 15. \u03b1\u1f35 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f35 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03a4\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03af.\n\n 1331 Hesych. in \u1f08\u03b4\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7.\n\n 1332 See particularly \u00c6schyl. Eumen. 726. Eurip. Alcest. 10. Apollod. I.\n      9.\n\n 1333 See Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 1231. (but the Scholion \u1f08\u03b4\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd,\n      &c. has nothing to do with this point), and Zenob. Prov. \u1f08\u03b4\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n      \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 1334 Eubemerus ap. Minut. Felic. c. 21. 2. Fulgent. Expos. Germ. Ant. p.\n      168. Porphyr. Vit. Pyth. 16.\n\n 1335 Several coins appear to represent this lustration; _e.g._, one of\n      Chalcedon, in Mionnet, No. 88; one of Perinthus, ibid. No. 329; see\n      also those of Alexandria Troas in Mionnet, Nos. 109, 115, 116.\n\n 1336 Thus Pherecydes ap. Schol. Eur. Alcest. 2. (cf. ap. Schol. Pind.\n      Pyth. III. 96.) who drew his information from Hesiod. Hesiod related\n      this tradition in the part of the \u1f28\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 or catalogue which treated\n      of the daughters of Leucippus, one of whom is said to have been the\n      mother of \u00c6sculapius. Tzetzes ad Hes. Theogon. 142. Compare\n      Athenagoras Legat. p. 134. and Schol. Eurip. ubi sup. Apollod. III.\n      10. 4. I. 9. 15. Diod. IV. 71. Excerpt. p. 546. ed. Wesseling. Orph.\n      Argon. 176, also Eurip. Alcestis, and Asclepiades in the Scholia.\n      The _religious_ tradition is given by Anaxandridas the Delphian in\n      Schol. Eurip. Alcest. 2. (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\n      Vatic. Prov. I. 5.) and Plutarch, perhaps from the same authority.\n      Those who in Iliad I. 399. wrote \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, attributed his\n      banishment to a rebellion against Zeus. See also \u00c6schylus ap.\n      Plutarch de Exilio 17.\n\n 1337 Il. XXI. 443. \u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. Thus also Pherecydes and the\n      others. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 323. \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, from an\n      epic poet. Plutarch. Amator. 17. gives the whole verse; \u1f08\u03b4\u03bc\u1f74\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\n      \u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n 1338 Schol. Apoll. Rhod. IV. 611; see the very confused account in\n      Eratosth. Catast. 29. with Schaubach\u2019s note. p. 110.\n\n 1339 Odyss. XI. 580 Pausan. III. 18. 7. (on the Amycl\u00e6an throne) X. 11.\n      1. Pind. Pyth. IV. 90.\n\n 1340 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b1 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd, Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 132. comp. Hymn. Merc. 471,\n      533.\n\n 1341 \u00c6lian. V. H. XI. 5. Also sacrifices of cakes at Athens, Harpocration\n      and Hesychius in \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1, Suidas in \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd. comp.\n      Hemsterhuis ad Lucian. vol. II. p. 411. ed. Bipont.\n\n 1342 See above, ch. 2. \u00a7 2.\n\n 1343 Aristot. in \u0394\u03b7\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 ap. Diog. Laert. VIII. 13. Tim\u00e6us ap.\n      Censorin. de die nat. 2. (Tim. fragm. 62. ed. Goeller). Compare\n      Macrobius Sat. III. 6. Clem. Alex. Strom. VII. p. 717. Porphyr. de\n      Abstinent. II. 28. (see Rhoerp. 153.) Jamblichus Vit. Pythagor. 5.\n      7. Cyrillus in Julian. IX. p. 307 B. Concerning the horn altar, see\n      above, p. 325, note d. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to\n      \u201cinner sanctuary,\u201d starting \u201cLucian de Astrol. 23.\u201d]\n\n 1344 Plutarch. Sept. Sapient. 14. The first-fruits of the year were also\n      carried round at the Attic Thargelia, Hesychius in \u0398\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n 1345 Schol. Pindar. Argum. p. 298. ed. Boeckh.\n\n 1346 See particularly Crates ap. Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 725. Suidas in\n      \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7. Menecles ap. Suid. in \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. cf. in \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b7\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03b1. Thes.\n      22. Apostal. Prov. XXI. 24.\n\n 1347 Also the \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c4\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, which was used at this festival,\n      referred more to the gods of husbandry.\n\n 1348 The ancient Greeks considered the winter as the season when the gods\n      of the infernal regions were predominant, and a state of impurity\n      existed; while they looked on spring and summer as a pure and sacred\n      season.\n\n 1349 Meursii Gr\u00e6cia Feriata in \u0398\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1. Compare _Orchomenos_, p. 106. An\n      historical tradition respecting the first \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2, from a work of\n      Istrus \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, is preserved in Harpocration\n      and Etymol. Magn. in v.\n\n 1350 Parthen. Erot. 9. Hesychius in \u0398\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 ad fin. where the correction\n      of Hemsterhuis is disapproved by Welcker on Schwenck\u2019s Mythologische\n      Andeutungen, p. 341.\n\n 1351 Archilochus fragm. 46. ed. Gaisford.\n\n 1352 Servius ad \u00c6n. III. 57. from Petronius. Apollo Delphinius was\n      worshipped there, Strabo IV. p. 179 B.\n\n 1353 See the verses of Hipponax in Tzetzes Chil. V. 743. also in Athen.\n      IX. p. 370 A. and his testimony in Plutarch de Musica 8. comp.\n      Hesychius in \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n 1354 Above, ch. 2. \u00a7 10.\n\n 1355 Pausan. II. 7. 7. Perhaps there was a local tradition that the\n      Python was killed in Sicyon; see above, p. 324, note b.\n      [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201csupplied from the\n      Styx,\u201d starting \u201cPlutarch de Pyth. Orac. 17.\u201d]\n\n 1356 Plutarch. Thes. 18. The number is evident from the context.\n\n 1357 In order to show the correspondence between the sacred seasons at\n      Athens and Delphi, it should be remarked that at the latter place\n      the nine months of spring, summer, and autumn were sacred to Apollo,\n      and during them the sacrifice was accompanied by the p\u00e6an; while the\n      three winter months were sacred to Bacchus, and hence in them the\n      dithyramb was played at the sacrifices (Plutarch. de Ei 9. p. 229.);\n      and that in Athens also the festivals of Bacchus were celebrated\n      between Poseideon and Elaphebolion, and those of Apollo during the\n      other months.\n\n 1358 See \u00c6ginetica, page 152. That the _testamentum Epictet\u00e6_ belongs to\n      Thera, is proved by Boeckh Corp. Inscript. Gr. No. 2448.\n\n 1359 Schol. Pind. Pyth. Argument.\n\n 1360 See particularly Callisthenes and Anaxandridas (the same person who\n      is mentioned above) in Plutarch. Qu\u00e6st. Gr\u00e6c. 9. Thucydides V. 1.\n      cf. 18. 24. also places the Pythian festival at the end of\n      Elaphebolion. The first passage has been often misunderstood (_e.g._\n      by Manso, Sparta, vol. III. part II. p. 193.): its meaning is, \u201c_The\n      annual armistice remained suspended; there was again war, until the\n      Pythian games._\u201d Without going further into the complicated inquiry\n      concerning the time of the Pythia, and without denying that in later\n      ages the festival was transferred to autumn, I think that the\n      arguments in the text fully justify me in assuming that the\n      celebration of the victory over the Python (which celebration was\n      the chief subject of the Pythia) took place in spring.\n\n 1361 This is plain from the fable of Theseus, above, ch. 3. \u00a7 14.\n      [Transcriber\u2019s Note: There is no such section in that chapter.]\n\n 1362 Plutarch. Sympos. VIII. 1. 2. p. 342. de Ei 17. p. 238. Proclus ad\n      Hesiod. Op. 767. Dionys. Hal. de Art. Rhet. 3. p. 243. ed. Reisk.\n      comp. Valckenaer de Aristobulo Jud\u00e6o \u00a7 37. p. 13.\n\n 1363 Diog. Laert. III. 2. II. 24. Apollod. fragm. p. 413. 415. ed. Heyn.\n      It is probably a fiction that Socrates was born on the former, Plato\n      on the latter day.\n\n 1364 The \u03ba\u03c9\u03c0\u1f7c of the Daphnephoria (Proclus ap. Phot. p. 987.) has some\n      resemblance to the \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7, or olive-branch, which was also\n      carried round at the Thargelia (Suidas in v.), and is also called a\n      \u1f31\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 725.\n\n 1365 The Athenians, according to Proclus as above, honoured the seventh\n      day as \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74, \u03b4\u03b1\u03c6\u03bd\u03b7\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n      (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 Scalig.) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n 1366 Pontedera Antiq. p. 208. According to Scaliger Emend. Temp. vol. I.\n      p. 54, this was anciently the beginning of the year; which is denied\n      by Petavius Doctrin. Temp. I. 34. p. 42. compare Dodwell de Cyclis\n      V. 12. p. 256.\n\n 1367 Above, ch. 4. \u00a7 2. It was then probably that the festival of the\n      Theophania was celebrated, Herod. I. 51.\n\n 1368 Concerning which see above, ch. 1. \u00a7 2. ch. 2. \u00a7 12. 14. ch. 3. \u00a7 1.\n      And for the ancient octennial Pythian games see Demetrius of\n      Phalerum in Eustathius ad Od. \u03b3\u2019. p. 1466. ed. Rom. Schol. Med. ad\n      Od. \u03b3\u2019. p. 267.\n\n 1369 This too, as well as the olive-branch, was always borne by a \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03c2, a boy who had both parents alive.\n\n 1370 See a verse from an epic poet quoted by Plutarch, Pr\u00e6c. Reip. ger.\n      19. p. 178. \u1f2d\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f0c\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n 1371 \u00c6sch. Choeph. 1035. Eumen. 43. \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac. Suidas in\n      \u1f18\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n 1372 Eumen. 326.\n\n 1373 Ibid. 238, 280, 446, 581. This expiation is also represented on\n      several vases; see Tischbein II. 16. and more completely in Millin\n      Vases II. 68. Monumens in\u00e9dits I. 29. where see the accurate\n      explanation. Orestes sits, half kneeling, on the \u1f44\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, covered\n      with a net, exactly as \u00c6schylus describes it: by his side are Athene\n      and the Furies; next the tripod is the sacred laurel, with fillets,\n      and votive tablets; and by it is Apollo, standing, with a laurel\n      chaplet, and his mantle thrown back; the spirit of Clyt\u00e6mnestra and\n      Pylades in the background. On a vase in the British Museum (No.\n      102), Orestes is represented as kneeling, with a sword in his hand,\n      and a travelling cap thrown from his head, before an altar; woollen\n      fillets, in the form of a chain, fall from one arm; Apollo, with a\n      branch of laurel and a patera in one hand, stands by him; and in the\n      other, as it appears, a pair of shears, with which he is going to\n      cut off a lock of his hair. See also Museo Pio Clementino, V. pi.\n      22.\n\n 1374 Ap. Schol. Eurip. Orest. 268. The purification of Orestes was\n      likewise referred to the very ancient temple of Apollo at Tr\u0153zen; in\n      front of which there was a building called the _tent of Orestes_\n      (\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f48\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5); where he lived secluded from the world, until he\n      was purified, And from the materials used in the purification (what\n      Homer calls \u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1), which were buried close by, a laurel was said\n      to have sprung, Pausan. II. 31. 11. comp. I. 22. 2. and above, ch.\n      2. \u00a7 8. It was also supposed to have been performed at Rhegium; see\n      the passages quoted above, p. 278, note o. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This\n      is the footnote to \u201crites and festivals,\u201d starting \u201cRespecting the\n      ablutions.\u201d] The \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2, or seclusion of Orestes, took place in\n      Parrhasia, according to Schol. Eurip. Orest. 1678.\n\n 1375 Hellanic. fragm. 98. ed. Sturz.\n\n 1376 In later times the ephet\u00e6 decided cases of unpremeditated and\n      justifiable homicide in the Palladium, Delphinium, Prytaneum, and\n      Phreattys: while the Areopagus, the court for murder, was separate:\n      but in early times these aristocratic judges appear to have sat in\n      _all_ the five courts, each armed with _full_ jurisdiction. Demosth.\n      in Macart. p. 1069. 7. They were \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, according to\n      Pollux VIII. 125. Philochorus (ap. Maxim. Pro\u0153m. ad S. Dionys.\n      Areop. p. 19. fragm. ed. Siebel.) gives the same number for the\n      Areopagites, _i.e._, as they were before the time of Solon.\n\n 1377 Pollux ubi sup. This explains how the Areopagus might be of great\n      antiquity (Aristot. Polit. II. 8. 2. &c), and yet _never_ have been\n      mentioned by Draco, who only spoke of the ephet\u00e6, Plutarch, Solon.\n      29.\n\n 1378 Suidas in \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9. Hesychius in \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2. Schol. Eurip.\n      Hippol. 35. and see Barnes\u2019s note. The term of banishment was always\n      called \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 (Apollod. II. 8. 3. cf. III. 4. 2.), and was\n      generally eight years (an \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2) in ancient times (see below,\n      ch. 11. \u00a7 9.); but at Athens it was probably undetermined.\n\n 1379 \u1f18\u1f70\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 Demosth. ubi sup.\n\n 1380 \u1f18\u1f70\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f04\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 ibid. cf. Pant\u00e6net.\n      p. 983. 15. in Nausimach. p. 991. 3. where Reiske\u2019s alteration is\n      wrong. See also particularly the \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af in the speech of Demosthenes\n      against Aristocrates. Plato, too, would have expiation and\n      purification only in the case of involuntary homicide, de Leg. IX.\n      p. 869. It was against every principle of law for the relations to\n      compound for a wilful murder (see Pseudo-Demosth. in Theocrin. p.\n      1330. extr.); and thus, too, the case in Il. VI. 632. is mentioned\n      as an exception. See, however, Apollod. II. 7. 6.\n\n 1381 On this point more will be found below, in ch. 11. \u00a7 9. In this\n      place I only observe, with reference to the assertion of Lobeck (de\n      Pr\u00e6c. Myst. II. p. 6.), \u201cthat all expiations in the heroic mythology\n      were invented by the historians,\u201d that, according to _Arctinus_\n      (\u00c6thiopis ap. Prod. Chrestom. comp. Tychsen de Quinto Smyrn\u00e6o p.\n      61.), Achilles, after the murder of Thersites, fled to Lesbos, to be\n      there expiated by Ulysses, after sacrifices to Apollo and Diana. It\n      may indeed be shown from the Scholia to Il. XXIV. 484. that the\n      original reading in this passage was not \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6, but\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9, \u201c_in the house of the expiator, or purifier_.\u201d\n      See Lobeck\u2019s Aglaophamus, vol. I. p. 300. vol. II. p. 1351.\n\n 1382 Above, p. 264. note c. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to\n      \u201cfestival of Boedromia,\u201d starting \u201cCallim. Hymn.\u201d]\n\n 1383 Below, \u00a7 17.\n\n 1384 See Book III. ch. 11. \u00a7 4.\n\n 1385 \u00c6schyl. Eum. 62.\n\n 1386 Theocrit. Id. XXIV.\n\n 1387 Plutarch. Conviv. Sept. Sapient. 14.\n\n 1388 Boeckh\u2019s Economy of Athens, vol. II. p. 150. Compare also the fact\n      mentioned in the first spurious Epistle of \u00c6schines, p. 658. ed.\n      Reisk.\n\n 1389 Hesych. in v.\n\n 1390 See Casaubon ad Theophrast. Char. 16.\n\n 1391 Hence Manto is also called Daphne; and one of the sons of Priam, a\n      prophet, was named \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, _i.e._ a laurel-bough, Apollod. III. 12.\n      5. cf. Hesych. in v.\n\n 1392 Tischbein I. 33. Millin. Vases, tom. I. pl. 6.\n\n 1393 Plutarch, Sympos. III. 9. 2. p. 148. ed. Hutten. Schol. Od. XIX. 86.\n      \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Compare Eustathius p. 683. 40. ed.\n      Bas. Hesych. in \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, where the olive-branch is so called. See\n      also Creuzer\u2019s Symbolik, vol. II. p. 161.\n\n 1394 \u1f08\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 is often used in oracles to signify the confirmation by\n      events of the prediction; thus Antiphon wrote a treatise \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, _i.e._ on the fulfilment of oracles. Apollo is called\n      \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1f74\u03c2 by Tryphiodorus v. 641. where see Wernicke\u2019s note. Diviners\n      were called by the Spartans \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, Hemsterhuis ad Tim. p.\n      113.\n\n 1395 See particularly Plin. jun. Epist. V. 6.\n\n 1396 Above, ch. 1. \u00a7 2.\n\n 1397 Ovid\u2019s Metamorphoses and Hyginus fab. 203. where see Muncker\u2019s note.\n      It is also related to have taken place at Amycl\u00e6, at Claros, and\n      also on the banks of the Ladon; the latter on account of Apollo\n      Onc\u00e6us. In several coins of Metapontum, _e.g._, on two in the Paris\n      cabinet, Apollo is represented as placing or planting a laurel on a\n      low altar; and he is frequently drawn with a laurel in his hand,\n      sometimes bound with woollen fillets.\n\n 1398 See Od. IX. 200. XX. 278. Pausan. I. 21. 9.\n\n 1399 See particularly Od. XVI. 403. and Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 394. compare\n      \u00c6lian V. H. III. 43, 44. Diod. V. 67. Harpocration in \u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\n      &c. Themis was worshipped, together with Apollo, at Delphi (which\n      also seems to be stated in the corrupt gloss of Hesychius in \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2),\n      and in the Didym\u00e6um, Chishull Ant. Asiat. p. 67.\n\n 1400 Ap. Plutarch, de Pyth. Orac. 21. p. 282. (p. 333. ed.\n      Schleiermacher.) Herod. VII. 111. also appears to a certain degree\n      to praise the simplicity of the Delphic oracles, as also\n      Philostratus Vit. Apollon. VI. 11.\n\n 1401 Hom. Hymn. 24. \u00c6sch. Cho\u00ebph. 1037. Eurip. Ion 474. Plutarch. Num. 9.\n\n 1402 See Plato de Rep. IV. p. 179. 7. Leg. VI. p. 428. 12. ed. Bekker.\n\n 1403 The divination from dreams is also opposed by Euripides (Iphig.\n      Taur. 1264) to the prophecies of Apollo; and he also refers to it\n      the combat between the goddess \u0393\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1 and Ph\u0153bus.\n\n 1404 All regular divination was of an early date, according to Pausan. I.\n      43. 3.\n\n 1405 Above, ch. 2. \u00a7 14.\n\n 1406 Hymn. Hom. III. 213, 544. Sophocl. Ed. T. 965. Alexander\u2019s \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70.\n      ap. Steph. Byz. in \u03a0\u03ac\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, Paus. X. 6. 1. comp. Plin. H. N. VII.\n      57.\n\n 1407 \u039c\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 at the sacrifice, Eurip. Androm. 1107, 1116. see\n      above, ch. 2. \u00a7 12. ch. 3. \u00a7 2.\n\n 1408 Hom. Hymn. III. 552. Callim. Hymn. Apoll. 45, and Schol. Etym. Magn.\n      p. 455. 51. Anecd. Bekk. p. 265. Zenobius V. 75. Steph. Byz. in\n      \u0398\u03c1\u03af\u03b1. compare Hesychius in the obscure gloss \u0398\u03c1\u03b9\u1f7c, and the vase in\n      Millingen\u2019s Diverses Peintures 29. \u039a\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 at Delphi are also\n      mentioned by Plutarch de \u0395\u03b9 16.\n\n 1409 Il. I. 602. Hesiod. Scut. 200; and see Heinrich\u2019s note. So also on\n      the chest of Cypselus, with the verses in Paus. V. 18. 1, and Pindar\n      Nem. V. 24.\n\n 1410 Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 200. Pindar Fragm. 115. ed. Boeckh. Apollo\n      himself, as a boy, is represented dancing on a tripod in a coin of\n      Cos (Mionnet tom. III. p. 401).\n\n_ 1411 Orchomenos_, p. 381.\n\n 1412 See, _e.g._ Athen. XIV. p. 636 E. Hence the \u03ba\u03af\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 was a fish\n      sacred to Apollo, Apollod. Fragm. p. 395. ed. Heyn.\n\n 1413 See the Homeric Hymn to Hermes. But even there the lyre is\n      frequently confounded with the cithara (the _seven-stringed_ in v.\n      51, which proves that this hymn is later than the time of\n      Terpander). Comp. Apollod. III. 10. 2, where Apollod. is said to\n      receive the pipe (\u03c3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03be) also from Mercury, and Eratosth. Catast.\n      24. The \u00c6olian lyric poets made frequent mention of this fable, and\n      hence it frequently occurs in Horace.\n\n 1414 Pyth. V. 63.\n\n 1415 Fragm. P\u00e6an. 2. ed. Boeckh.\n\n 1416 The frequent use of music in medicine in the most ancient times is\n      certainly not a fiction; thus Apollo, when a player on the cithara\n      and an \u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, has offices nearly allied to one another, \u00c6sch.\n      Suppl. 261. Eumen. 62.\n\n 1417 Paus. X. 7. 2. According to Schol. Pind. Pyth. Argum. 3. he was\n      himself the \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2.\n\n 1418 Plutarch de Music. 42.\n\n 1419 Diog. Laert. VIII. 24. Jamblichus Vit. Pythag. 26, &c.\n\n 1420 Hence no flute-player was allowed to enter the temple of Tennes the\n      son of Apollo, Diod. V. 83.\n\n 1421 This fable, and the various representations of it in ancient art,\n      are well known. See B\u0153ttiger in Wieland\u2019s Attisches Museum, vol. I.\n      p. 285. Visconti Museo Pio-Clementino V. 4. Millin. Vases vol. I.\n      pl. 6. The accompaniments in the plate given by Tischbein IV. 6.\n      show that Phrygia, those in I. 33. and Millingen pl. 6. that Delphi\n      is meant.\n\n 1422 Il. X. 13. The passage XVIII. 495. cannot be considered as equally\n      ancient, see Eustathius and the Venetian Scholiast.\n\n 1423 Hesiod. Scut. 281.\n\n 1424 Athen. XIV. p. 624 B. Welcker ad Alcman. p. 6. Fragm. 86.\n\n 1425 See Marm. Par. Ep. 10. and the commentators.\n\n 1426 Boeckh ad Pindar. Fragm. p. 292.\n\n 1427 Alcman. Fragm. 38. ed. Welcker. Plutarch de Mus. 14.\n\n 1428 Aristoxenus ap. Plutarch. de Mus. 15. The same musician also\n      composed the \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 in honour of Apollo, Plut. ib. 7.\n      Boeckh ad Pind. Pyth. XII. p. 345.\n\n 1429 See the author\u2019s History of Greek Literature, ch. 12. \u00a7 6.\n\n 1430 Plutarch de Mus. 14. Paus. V. 7. 4. V. 14. 4. \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, Athen. XII.\n      p. 538 F.\n\n 1431 Or _perfect_ (\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76), Aristides de Music. 2. p. 101. ed.\n      Meibom.\n\n 1432 Paus. II. 22. 9. X. 9. 3.\n\n 1433 Paus. IX. 29. 3. Philochorus ap. Eustath. ad Il. p. 1163. 57. ed.\n      Rom.\n\n 1434 Conon Narr. c. 19. Paus. II. 19, 1 (his tomb was in the temple of\n      Apollo). comp. Propertius II. 10. 8. A \u03b8\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 is mentioned\n      by Aristides Eleus. p. 259. Apollo is only his poetical father\n      (Apollod. I. 3. 2. Theocritus, Eustathius); but his mother Psamathe\n      and his brother Psamathus must have some meaning. With the ceremony\n      mentioned in the text was connected a festival called _Arnis_ or\n      _Cynophontis_, at which a number of dogs were publicly slaughtered.\n      \u00c6lian. N. A. XII. 34. Statius Theb. VI. 65. Conon ubi sup. Athen.\n      III. p. 99 F. The dog, as was frequently the case in ancient\n      mythology, evidently represents Sirius, and generally the scorching\n      heat of summer, so fatal to all vegetation. It appears, therefore,\n      that they destroyed the emblem of that power by which the death of\n      Narcissus was occasioned.\n\n 1435 Hesiod ap. Eustath. ubi sup.\n\n 1436 Hom. Il. XVIII. 569. Hesiod ubi sup. Euripides ap. Athen. XIV. p.\n      619 C.\n\n 1437 See Stanley ad \u00c6sch. Agam. 123. The proper name was perhaps \u03bf\u1f36\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u039b\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, and the first words \u03b1\u1f36 \u039b\u03af\u03bd\u03b5.\n\n 1438 Pollux I. 1. 38. cf. Il. ubi sup.\n\n 1439 Barbarian \u0391\u1f34\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 in Eurip. Orest. 1402.\n\n 1440 Schol. Apoll. I. 1135.\n\n_ 1441 Orchomenos_, p. 293.\n\n 1442 \u00c6sch. Pers. 1059 (where it is a melancholy tune to the lamentations\n      of the chorus) and Schol. Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieg. 791.\n\n 1443 \u00c6sch. Pers. 941. and Schol. Eustath. ubi sup. Pollux IV. 7. 54.\n\n 1444 Schol. Theocrit. X. 41. Apostol. XII. 7. Hesychius in \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u03b8\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 1445 Pollux IV. 10. 76.\n\n 1446 II. 79. comp. Clearchus ap. Hesych. Pollux ubi sup.\n\n 1447 Eustath. ad Il. A. 20. The name Cinyras was changed so as to\n      resemble \u039a\u03b9\u03bd\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2. The love which Apollo bore him (Pind. Pyth. II.\n      16. cf. Schol. Theocrit. I. 109) merely signifies that he was fond\n      of music.\n\n 1448 Paus. X. 7. 2. Concerning the antiquity of the musical contests at\n      Delphi see Plutarch Sympos. II. 4. 1. p. 83. Demetrius Phalereus\n      quoted above, p. 338, note e. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the\n      footnote on page 337 to \u201cearliest times arranged,\u201d starting\n      \u201cConcerning which see above.\u201d] Philostrat. Vit. Apollon. Tyan. VI.\n      10.\n\n 1449 Proclus ap. Phot. \u03a7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41 \u039a\u03c1\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc7 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b9\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f96\u03c3\u03b5\n      \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n 1450 Suidas in \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff3\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n 1451 Callim. Hymn. Del. 304. comp. Apoll. Rhod. I. 537.\n\n 1452 Proclus ubi sup.\n\n 1453 Plutarch de Music. 4. from Timotheus.\n\n 1454 See the passages quoted by Fabricius vol. I. p. 207. 210. ed. Harl.\n      It was also called _versus Deliacus_, if the reading in Atilius\n      Fortunatus, p. 2690. ed. Putsch. is correct. At _Miletus_ also there\n      were ancient hexameter hymns to Apollo and Zeus, which were\n      attributed to Branchus, Terent. de Metris 5, 165. comp. Clem. Alex.\n      Strom. p. 647.\n\n 1455 Heraclid. Pont. ap. Plutarch de Music. 3. comp. Schol. Od. XVI. 432.\n      Syncellus Chronogr. p. 162. Fabricius vol. I. p. 214. ed. Harles.\n\n 1456 Plutarch de Music. 5.\n\n 1457 The hymns of Terpander were, like the most ancient songs, partly in\n      hexameter metre, \u1f14\u03c0\u03b7 (Plutarch Symp. III. 4. Proclus ubi sup.): yet\n      Terpander was the first to introduce a great variety of metre.\n\n 1458 The reason of Thamyris the Thracian being called the son of\n      Philammon (Paus. IV. 33), is probably the near neighbourhood of the\n      Delphians and Thracians of Parnassus.\n\n 1459 Il. I. 473. cf. XXII. 391.\n\n 1460 Plat. Symp. 4. Philochorus ap. Athen. XIV. p. 630 sq. cf. IV. p.\n      179. XI. p. 503 E. from Antiphanes, Xenoph. Symp. 2. 1. Hence\n      \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, Hesych. in v.\n\n 1461 Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 514 sqq. In Delos also p\u00e6ans were sung round the\n      altars, Eurip. Herc. Fur. 690.\n\n 1462 Xenoph. Ages. 2. 17. The passage of Athen\u00e6us XIV. p. 631 C. if\n      properly written, does not refer to that point. There was always a\n      person named \u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd who accompanied the song on an instrument. Thus\n      Archilochus Fragm. 50. ed. Gaisford. \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\n      \u039b\u03ad\u03c3\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03ae\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 (_after_ the time of Terpander), Vit. Sophocl. \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n      \u03bb\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5. Compare the verses on the chest of\n      Cypselus quoted above, p. 349. note 2.\n\n 1463 Plutarch de \u0395\u03b9 16.\n\n 1464 Jamblich. Vit. Pythag. 25.\n\n 1465 See Menander de Encom. p. 27. ed. Heeren.\n\n 1466 Il. XVIII. 590. cf. Od. IV. 18.\n\n 1467 Sosibius ap. Schol. Pind. Pyth. II. 127. and Simonides ap. Athen. V.\n      p. 181 B. Plutarch Sympos. IX. 15. explained by Boeckh ad Pind.\n      Fragm. p. 597.\n\n 1468 Lucian. de Saltat. 16.\n\n 1469 Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 162. \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f7a\u03bd\n      \u039c\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f34\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u039a\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f7a\u03c2 means extravagant gestures, such as\n      clapping of hands, striking of castanets, &c.\n\n 1470 See Plut. Thes. 21. Callim. Hymn. Del. 317. with Spanheim\u2019s note.\n      The leader of the dance was called \u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 (Hesych. in v.) Blows\n      also were given, and hence the expression \u0394\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 (Hesych.\n      in v.); and there were also various turnings and windings,\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 (Dic\u00e6archus apud Plut. ubi sup.): when at\n      rest, the chorus stood in a semicircle, with leaders at the two\n      wings, Pollux IV. 4. 101.\n\n 1471 Athen. XIV. p. 630. Compare the extant fragments of the p\u00e6ans of\n      Pindar.\n\n 1472 Plutarch de Music. 9, 10. Schol. Pind. Pyth. II. 127. That the\n      hyporcheme was native in Sparta may be seen from Pindar Fragm. 8. p.\n      603. ed. Boeckh.\n\n 1473 Plutarch de Music. 10. where for \u039c\u0391\u03a1\u03a9\u039d\u0391 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1fe5\u03c5\u03b8\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd should\n      probably be written \u03a0\u0391\u0399\u03a9\u039d\u0391. A fragment of a p\u00e6an in p\u00e6ons in\n      Aristot. Rh. III. 7. 6.\n\n 1474 It is called \u1f01\u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 by Bacchylides.\n\n 1475 Pind. Olymp. XIV. 12. and the Schol.\n\n 1476 There was at Delos an ancient statue, according to Plutarch de\n      Music. 14. which Tect\u00e6us and Angelion appear to have imitated\n      (Pausan. IX. 35. I.); whose work is perhaps copied in the Gem in\n      Millin\u2019s Galerie Mythologique, p. 33. No. 474. Comp. Macrob. Sat. I.\n      17. The Graces had a flute, a lyre, and a pipe in their hands. There\n      was another ancient statue (\u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd) at Delos, which was referred to\n      Erysichthon, Plutarch, Fragm. 10. p. 291. ed. Hutten.\n\n_ 1477 Orchomenos_, p. 182. and see Panyasis Fragm. I. 14. 18. ed. Brunck.\n\n 1478 Also the Hyacinthia in the Amycl\u00e6um, Strab. VI. p. 278. Hyacinthus\n      was the son of Amyclas and of Diomede the daughter of Lapithas (so\n      named from the Lapith\u00e6um in the neighbourhood), according to\n      Apollod. III. 10. 2. Amyclas is mentioned, instead of Hyacinthus, by\n      Simmias \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, ap. Steph. Byz. in \u1f08\u03bc\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1.\n\n_ 1479 Orchomenos_, p. 327. The month Hyacinthus was also introduced into\n      Sicily by the \u00c6gid\u00e6, Castelli Prol. XII. p. 74.\n\n 1480 Hyacinthus is himself called \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 in Coluthus Rapt. Hel. 237.\n\n 1481 Paus. II. 35. 4.\n\n 1482 Paus. III. 19. cf. IV. 33. 5.\n\n 1483 Hesychius in \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1; and see below, ch. 10. \u00a7 3.\n\n 1484 A worship of the dead was also offered to the \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f5d\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 of\n      Athea.\n\n 1485 Eurip. Hel. 1490.\n\n 1486 Crowns of ivy were given at the Hyacinthia, according to Aristot.\n      ap. Macrob. Sat. I. 18. Hence perhaps the \u039a\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd of\n      \u00c6schylus ap. Macrob. ibid. with Lobeck\u2019s correction ad Soph. Aj.\n      814. See Classical Journal XIX. p. 111.\n\n 1487 Manso, Sparta, vol. III. part II. p. 201. has properly followed\n      Dodwell on this point, whose arguments also convince me.\n\n 1488 Hesych. \u03a3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n      \u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u1fc3. A different account is given in Bekker\u2019s Anecd. p. 305.\n\n 1489 Clemens of Alexand. (Str. I. p. 349.) infers from two verses of the\n      ancient poem Europia that Apollo was also represented at Delphi as a\n      \u03ba\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2; but they prove nothing; for the high column, on which\n      arms and trophies were hung, was certainly not the god himself.\n\n 1490 Called \u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Hesych. in v. Sosibius ap. Zenob. Prov. I. 54.\n      Apostol. II. 54.\n\n 1491 Paus. III. 11. Perhaps this was the regular form of the Carnean\n      Apollo, Paus. III. 26. 5.\n\n 1492 Above, p. 195. note k. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to\n      \u201cbefore conquered,\u201d starting \u201cPlutarch. Solon. 10. 12.\u201d]\n\n 1493 Aristides ap. Steph. Byz. comp. Plutarch Pyth. Orac. 12. p. 266.\n      Apostol. XVIII. 28. and the coins of Tenedos (Mionnet tom. II. p.\n      671.); those of Pitana (tom. II. p. 627. No. 722.) of Iasos (tom.\n      III. p. 352.), and particularly those of Thyateira (Buonarotti\n      Medaglie Antiche IX. 9.), in which the symbol of the axe is\n      variously combined with Apollo.\n\n 1494 The latter god was called by the title of \u03a7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 (Strab. XIV. p.\n      660.); and consequently the epithet \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03c9\u03c1, as applied to Apollo,\n      originally (_e.g._ in Il. V. 509. see Heyne\u2019s note, and ad Apollod.\n      p. 274.) signified his golden armour, although Pindar (Pyth. V.\n      104.) uses it for the golden ornaments of his cithara; but in an\n      oracle of Bacis it is again applied to Artemis, _i.e._ to the\n      _armed_ goddess (Herod. VIII. 77. compare Mitscherlisch and Ilgen ad\n      Hom. Hymn. Cer. 4. Boeckh Explic. Pind. p. 293.)\n\n 1495 Travels in Greece, vol. II. p. 200. pi. 7. Alcuni bassi-relievi\n      della Grecia, Roma 1812. The Apollo upon the Capitoline Puteal\n      appears to be a copy, but a far more modern copy, of the same\n      original. The same shape of Apollo may be also observed in the\n      reliefs with the carrying off of the tripod.\n\n 1496 Pind. Pyth. V. 42. There was also shown at Tegea a gilt Apollo by\n      Cheirisophus a Cretan, see Thiersch, Ueber die Kunstepochen, vol.\n      II. p. 25.\n\n 1497 Tryphiodor. 643. and see book IV. ch. 1. \u00a7 3. Concerning the \u0394\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\n      \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 see Aristotle Polit. I. 1. 5. and Hesychius in v. Compare\n      Hom. Hymn. Apoll. 535. At Tarsos also they used a sacred \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1,\n      tempered in the water of Cydnus, Plutarch de Defect. Orac. 41. p.\n      368.\n\n 1498 In this temple also there was a wooden statue of Apollo, \u03b8\u03cd\u03ca\u03bf\u03c2\n      (probably \u03b8\u03cd\u03ca\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, Hesychius.\n\n 1499 For this account see a paper _Ueber den Apollon des Kanachos_, in\n      the Kunstblatt for 1821, No. 16. This also serves to confirm the\n      conjecture of Visconti that the bas-relief of the Museo\n      Pio-Clementino V. 23. represents Menelaus dedicating the arms of\n      Euphorbus to the Didym\u00e6an Apollo; for the god upon the pillar has\n      nearly the form in question. To the copies of this Apollo many might\n      now be added.\n\n 1500 Strab. VII. p. 319 B. comp. Pliny N. H. IV. 27. XXXIV. 18.\n\n 1501 Pausan. I. 4. 3. The reader should guard against supposing with\n      Visconti (Museo Pio-Clementino tav. I. p. 26. tav. 7. p. 93.) that\n      these statues of Apollo in temples had the elegant proportions and\n      light character of the later works of art.\n\n 1502 \u00c6ginetica, p. 106. Concerning the ancient statues of Apollo see also\n      Winckelmann\u2019s Kunstgeschichte vol. I. p. 191. note. vol. III. p.\n      548.\n\n 1503 This important statement is given in Aristides Fragm. ap. Mai. Vet.\n      Script. Nov. Syll. I. 3. p. 41. It has first explained fully the\n      epigram of Antipater to the Apollo of Onatas, Brunck Analect. vol.\n      II. p. 14. No. 30.\n\n 1504 A statue of Apollo by Myron is mentioned by Cicero in Verr. II. 4.\n      43.\n\n_ 1505 E.g._ those of Mytilene, Croton, and also those of Philip the\n      First.\n\n_ 1506 E.g._ the head in the Louvre, No. 133. Catalogue de Clarac.\n\n 1507 A bronze found at Argos, of the same character, is mentioned by\n      Pouqueville, Voyage en Gr\u00e8ce, tom. IV. p. 161. Heads having a great\n      resemblance to the Belvedere Apollo occur in many collections, some\n      of which have even more heroic forms.\n\n 1508 Lucian. Anachars. c. 7. In a coin of Thessalonica the Pythian Apollo\n      is represented in this position, with the laurel in his right hand,\n      the cithara beside him, and the bow at his feet (Mionnet No. 396.);\n      similar to those of Germe, Apollonia in Mysia, Chalcedon, and Cos.\n\n 1509 The statue of this class in the Museo Pio-Clementino I. tav. 13. is,\n      according to Vis conti\u2019s conjecture, a copy of the Palatine Apollo\n      of Scopas, Plin. N. H. XXXVI. 4. 7. This form of the Apollo\n      Musagetes was most in vogue in the time of Nero. There is a\n      remarkable statue of this god described and figured by Raffei in his\n      _Ricerche sopra un Apolline delta villa Albani_. He is represented\n      as sitting, half-clothed, on a tripod covered with a skin, with his\n      right hand on his knees (to be kissed, as was the custom in\n      temples); in his left hand is a serpent; and his feet rest upon a\n      _cortina_, also covered with a skin: by the side of this is a lion\u2019s\n      skin; the hair is interwoven with laurel leaves, and falls in a\n      broad cluster over the back. The style is neither very ancient nor\n      good, but the symbols and position are singular in many respects.\n\n 1510 See Ephorus ap. Strab. IX. p. 423. and Julian (ap. Cyrill. p. 153.)\n      on this subject.\n\n 1511 Above, ch. 3. \u00a7 7. and book III. ch. 9. \u00a7 16.\n\n 1512 Porph. Vit. Pythag. 41. According to Aristoxenus apud Diog. Laert.\n      VIII. 21. he received the fundamental doctrines of his philosophy\n      from Themistocleia, a Pythian priestess. See Fabric. Bibl. Gr\u00e6c.\n      vol. I. p. 881. ed. Harles. and Apostol. Prov. XVII. 86.\n\n 1513 One of the important parts of the Pythagorean worship was the\n      _p\u00e6an_, which was sung to the lyre, in spring-time, by a person\n      sitting in the midst of a circle of listeners: this was called the\n      \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, or purification. See Schol. Ven. Il. XXII. 391. Jamblich.\n      Vit. Pythag. 25. Porphyr. Vit. Pythag. 32. This is evidently an\n      application of ancient rites of the worship of Apollo. The Pythian\n      oracle likewise commanded the Greeks of Lower Italy to sing p\u00e6ans in\n      the spring as a means of atonement. Aristoxenus p. 93. ed. Mahn.\n      apud Apollon. Hist. Mir. 40.\n\n 1514 See Creuzer\u2019s _Symbolik_.\n\n 1515 Pindar. Nem. VI. 42. IX. 4. Compare Hymn. Homer. XXVII. 14. and the\n      \u1f00\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd in \u00c6schin. Ctesiph. p. 70. 36. \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fb6\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9[\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2] in the great Delphian inscription\n      in Boeckh No. 1688. The whole family was also in the temple at\n      Cirrha, Pausan. X. 36. 7.\n\n 1516 See above, ch. 7. \u00a7 6.\n\n 1517 Pindar. Nem. IX. 4. At Sparta also Apollo Pytha\u00ebus was joined with\n      Latona and Artemis, Pausan. III. 11.\n\n 1518 Chishull\u2019s Antiq. Asiat. p. 133. The Artemis Cnagia at Sparta came\n      from Crete, according to Pausan. III. 18. 3. Amnisian nymphs of\n      Artemis, Callim. Hymn. Dian. 15. See above, ch. 1. \u00a7 5.\n\n 1519 Above, p. 342, note s. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to\n      \u201cthirst for revenge,\u201d starting \u201cOn this point.\u201d]\n\n 1520 Antonin. Liberal. c. 1.\n\n 1521 Inscription in Walpole\u2019s Travels, p. 578. \u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n 1522 Above, ch. 2. \u00a7 3.\n\n 1523 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03b7\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 in Cilicia, Strab. XIV. p. 676.\n\n 1524 Hyginus fab. 186. Whether the Artemis of Rhegium (Thuc. VI. 44.)\n      came from Delphi (above, ch. 3. \u00a7 5.) or from Eub\u0153a (where she was\n      worshipped under the name of \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03ce\u03b1 at Artemisium, of Amarynthia,\n      near Eretria, on mount Cotyl\u00e6um, and all along the Euripus, Callim.\n      Hymn. Dian. 188.) is uncertain.\n\n 1525 Herod. IV. 33. where the worship of the Hyperborean Artemis is also\n      ascribed to the Thracian and P\u00e6onian women. Compare Tzetzes ad\n      Lycophr. 936. The Hymn of Olen, Pausan. V. 1.4. represented Demeter\n      \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03af\u03b1 as coming from the land of the Hyperboreans to Delos; but the\n      Ach\u00e6an Demeter cannot be meant; and therefore I would write \u0391\u03a6\u0391\u0399\u0391,\n      as Artemis was called in \u00c6gina. The \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 of Artemis in the\n      Argive legend (Menander de Encom. 4. p. 38. ed. Heeren) perhaps\n      referred to this.\n\n 1526 See Callim. Hymn. Del. 292. Melanopus of Cume ap. Pausan. ubi sup.\n      cf. I. 43. 4. Etymol. Mag. p. 641. 56. Concerning \u039f\u1f56\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, see the\n      English edition of Stephens\u2019 Thesaurus, vol. I. part 4. p. 551.\n\n 1527 Thus Apollo was called \u1f18\u03c0\u03cc\u03c8\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Hesychius.\n\n 1528 Thus Nemesis was also called \u039f\u1f56\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, as in the inscription of Herodes\n      Atticus.\n\n 1529 Pal\u00e6phat. 52. Apostolius VI. 44.\n\n 1530 Sung among the Tr\u0153zenians, by whom Lyceia was worshipped, Schol.\n      Apoll. Rhod. I. 972.\n\n 1531 Od. XI. 171. Compare Il. VI. 428. Od. XX. 60. The reason why she\n      kills Ariadne (Od. XI. 324.) is explained by Pherecydes in the\n      Scholia. \u039b\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03be\u1f76 (Il. XXI. 483.) probably only as a goddess of\n      death, and not as Pausanias IV. 30. 3. and Eustathius explain it. \u1f0b\n      \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u1fbd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in the Attic Scolion is ambiguous.\n\n 1532 Artemis in Homer is, in the first place, the complete image of her\n      brother, as armed with a bow (\u1f30\u03bf\u03c7\u03ad\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1, \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u03be\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 Il.\n      XX. 39, 71. XXI. 483. Od. IV. 122. VI. 102, &c.); as a beautiful and\n      strong maiden (Od. IV. 122. VI. 151. XVII. 37. XIX. 54.); as killing\n      women suddenly and without sickness (Il. VI. 428. XIX. 59. Od. XI.\n      171, 323. XV. 476. XX. 61, 80.), sometimes mildly (Od. XV. 409.\n      XVIII. 201.), at another time in anger (Il. VI. 205.); as punishing\n      with death the children of Niobe (Il. XXIV. 606.) and Orion (Od. V.\n      123.); as \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, and therefore giving height to virgins (Od.\n      XX. 71. cf. VI. 107.); as occasionally healing (Il. V. 447.); as\n      honoured by choruses of singers, and herself leading the chorus (Il.\n      XVI. 183. cf. Hymn. XXVII. 18.). Now, besides this, there is also\n      the Arcadian notion of Artemis, the wood-nymph;, her chorus plays in\n      the woods (Od. VI. 106.); she rejoices in wild boars and stags (VI.\n      104.); and thus, being armed with a bow, becomes a _huntress_ (Il.\n      V. 51. XXI. 485.). The \u00c6tolian Artemis, who requires \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 (Il.\n      IX. 533.), is again of a different kind.\n\n 1533 Pausan. IV. 13. 1.\n\n 1534 Callim. Hymn. Dian. 124.\n\n 1535 Apollod. I. 7. 4.\n\n 1536 Pausan. I. 4. 5. Euphorion ap. Schol. Od. V. 120. Fragm. 108. ed.\n      Meineke, &c.\n\n 1537 Etym. Mag. p. 443. 20. At Melite in Phthia Artemis was, in some\n      particular worship, called \u1f0c\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f08\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7, \u1f19\u03ba\u03b1\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7, Antonin.\n      Liberal. 13.\n\n 1538 She was worshipped under the title of \u0394\u03b1\u03c6\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 at Las, Pausan. III.\n      24. 6. and of \u0394\u03b1\u03c6\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 at Olympia, Strab. VIII. p. 343.\n\n 1539 Etymol. M. p. 657. 6. Sophocl. Trach. 210. according to Seidler\u2019s\n      punctuation; above, p. 309, note h. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the\n      footnote to \u201cin honour of Apollo,\u201d starting \u201cProclus apud Phot.\u201d]\n\n 1540 At Tr\u0153zen, Pausan. II. 31. 6.\n\n 1541 Above, ch. 6. \u00a7 3. Also \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 and \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1, Spanheim ad Callim.\n      Dian. 38.\n\n 1542 Etym. Mag. p. 356. 10. Gudian. p. 17. 23. Compare above, p. 312,\n      note b. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is no such footnote number on that\n      page.] Alcman used the form \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Eustath. p. 1618. 29. A month\n      \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in Crete, Chishull\u2019s Antiq. Asiat. p. 126; and in Sicily,\n      see Castelli Proleg. ad Inscript. Sic. p. 69. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in Corcyra,\n      according to inscriptions; \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 in Cyrene, Thrige Hist. Cyren.\n      p. 218. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 in a Corcyr\u00e6an inscription, Mustoxidi,\n      Illustrazioni Corciresi, vol. II. p. 88. comp. Chandler. Inscript.\n      p. 82. No. 145. Koen. ad Greg. p. 305. Steph. Byz. in \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n 1543 See Plato de Rep. p. 406. Strab. XIV. p. 635.\n\n 1544 Hesychius in \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n 1545 II. XVI. 183.\n\n 1546 Welcker ap. Dissen. Explic. Pind. p. 453.\n\n 1547 See the verses in Clem. Alexand. Strom. I. p. 523. cf. Pausan. X.\n      12. 1.\n\n 1548 Pausan. VIII. 5. 8. cf. 13. 1, 4. The temple was on the confines of\n      Mantinca and Orchomenos 12. 3. It may be also seen from Poly\u00e6n.\n      VIII. 34. that the Tegeates sent sacred processions to Artemis of\n      Pheneus.\n\n 1549 Eumelus ap. Apollod. III. 8. 2. Asius and Pherecydes give a\n      different account.\n\n 1550 Pausan. VIII. 35. 7. Compare Sappho in Pausan. I. 29. 2.\n      _\u00c6ginetica_, p. 31. Artemis was called, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd, the beautiful,\n      \u1f01 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70, Feder ad \u00c6sch. Agam. p. 9.\n\n 1551 Callisto was called even by Hesiod the constellation of the Bear,\n      Hygin. Po\u00ebt. Astron. I. p. 356. Lactant. 6.\n\n 1552 It is easy to conceive that, as Apollo Lyceus was at Delphi\n      represented in the form of a wolf, so likewise the bear was made the\n      symbol of Artemis by the Arcadians.\n\n 1553 The exceptions are few; for instance, perhaps, Apollo Cereatas in\n      \u00c6pytis, Pausan. VIII. 34. 3.\n\n 1554 Ap. Menand. de Encom. 3. p. 33. frag. 33. ed. Welcker. She was\n      called \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 on mount M\u00e6nalum, Paus. VIII. 36. 5. \u039a\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 near\n      Tegea, ib. 53, 5; \u039a\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 at Orchomenos, ib. 13. 2. (so named from\n      a cedar on which the statue stood); \u03a3\u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 at Stymphalus, ib. 22.\n      5. comp. Eustath. ad Il. II. p. 228. ed. Basil; \u03a3\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 at Scia,\n      near Megalopolis, Paus. VIII. 35. 5; \u039a\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 and \u039a\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 at\n      Caphy\u00e6, ib. 23. 3; \u039d\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 at Teuthea, Strabo VIII. p. 342; in\n      Laconia \u0394\u03b5\u03c1\u03c1\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, Paus. III. 20. 7. Steph. Byz. in \u0394\u03ad\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1. The hymn\n      to Artemis Derrhiatis, or \u0394\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, was called \u039a\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b9\u03c2; there was\n      also an indecent dance, Eupolis, ap. Athen. XIV. p. 619. Hesychius.\n      \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 at Cary\u00e6, Paus. III. 10. 8. Hesychius in \u039a\u03b1\u03c1\u03cd\u03b1\u03b9. \u1f38\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\n      near Pitana, Paus. III. 14. 2. Poly\u00e6n. II. 1. 14. Callim. Hymn.\n      Dian. 172. Plutarch Ages. 32. and Hesychius (according to Pausanias\n      the Artemis Issoria or Limn\u00e6a was not properly an Artemis, but\n      Britomartis); \u039f\u1f30\u03bd\u03c9\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 near Argos, Steph. Byz. in \u039f\u1f34\u03bd\u03b7, Hesychius in\n      \u039f\u1f30\u03bd\u03c9\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2. \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u1f76\u03c2 near Tr\u0153zen, Paus. II. 30. 7. Ach\u00e6us tragicus ap.\n      Hesych. in \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03c2; \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 at Epidaurus, Paus. II. 28. 2. Steph.\n      Byz. in \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd (Clarke, Travels, vol. II. part II. p. 603. found,\n      by means of an inscription, what are probably the ruins of the\n      temple upon mount Coryph\u00e6um);\u2014\u1f08\u03bb\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 at Letrini, Paus. VII. 22. 5;\n      \u039a\u03bf\u03ba\u03ba\u03cc\u03ba\u03b1 at Olympia, ib. V. 15. 4; \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 at Patr\u00e6, ib. VII. 19.\n      1. (an united temple of three ancient \u03ba\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9); \u1f08\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 at Pellene,\n      Plutarch. Arat. 32.\n\n 1555 As \u039b\u03b9\u03bc\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 at Tegea, Paus. VIII. 53. 5; at Epidaurus Limera, ib.\n      III. 23. 6.; at Pitana, near Sparta, ib. 14. 2; at \u039b\u03b9\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 at\n      Corinth, ib. II. 7. 6; and particularly in the celebrated \u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd,\n      on the frontier of Laconia and Messenia, Paus. IV. 4. 31. Tacit.\n      Ann. IV. 43. Hence, according to Strabo p. 362. the Limn\u00e6um in\n      Laconia was derived. At Tr\u0153zen she was \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 and of the\n      hippodrome, Eurip. Hippol. 230. As \u1f19\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 in Messene, Hesych. in\n      \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, probably \u1f11\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1; and at Alorium, on the borders of Arcadia,\n      Strabo VIII. p. 350. where for \u1f28\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 should probably be written\n      \u1f19\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n 1556 Paus. II. 3. 5. III. 22. 6. IV. 35. 6.\n\n 1557 Paus. III. 29. 7.\n\n 1558 Under the title of \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, Paus. VIII. 18. 8. Pherecydes p. 132.\n      ed. Sturz. Callim. Hymn. Dian. 235. Poly\u00e6n. IX. 34. 6. Concerning\n      this fountain, see Callim. fragm. 75. Aristot. Mir. Auscult. p. 1102\n      B.\n\n 1559 Paus. V. 15. 4. At Byzantium also there was _in piscina templum\n      Dian\u00e6 Lucifer\u00e6 et Veneris Placid\u00e6_, Dionys. de Thrac. Bosporo. In\n      Samos also there was Artemis \u03a7\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2 and \u1f38\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b7, Callim. Hymn.\n      Dian. 228. Catullus calls her _amnium domina_, XXX. 12; Horace,\n      _l\u00e6tam foliis et nemorum coma_, Carm. I. 21. 5.\u2014Apollonius Rhodius\n      also calls her \u03bd\u03b7\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2, I. 569; Callimachus, \u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2,\n      Hymn. Dian. 39.\n\n 1560 Strab. VIII. p. 343. Paus. VI. 22. 5. Herodotus ap. Schol. Pind.\n      Olymp. V. 10. Dissen ad Nem. I. p. 350. Another temple of Artemis in\n      this region is mentioned in Polybius IV. 73. 4.\n\n 1561 As is shown by Strabo, ubi sup. Comp. Demetrius Scepsius ap. Athen.\n      VIII. p. 376 B.\n\n 1562 Paus. VIII. 41. 4.\n\n 1563 Strab. VI. p. 270. Creuzer\u2019s Meletemata, vol. I. p. 78, &c.\n\n 1564 Pind. Olymp. VI. 5. 6. See Boeckh Exp. Pind. p. 152. sq.\n\n 1565 Paus. V. 14. 5. Schol. Pind. Nem. I. 3. Olymp. V. 10.\n\n 1566 Paus. VI. 22. 5.\n\n 1567 Pind. Pyth. II. 7. comp. Boeckh Exp. p. 244. Concerning the temple\n      at Ortygia, see D\u2019Orville\u2019s Siculis, p. 196. and Boeckh, ibid. p.\n      243. The beautiful female heads on the tetradrachms of Syracuse,\n      with the hair entwined with reeds, surrounded by four fishes,\n      probably represent the river Artemis.\n\n 1568 Ibycus ap. Schol. Theocrit. I. 117.\n\n 1569 Diod. V. 3. Schol. Pind. Nem. I. 2.\n\n 1570 Ap. Hesych. p. 36. 18.\n\n 1571 Pindar Nem. I. 1. calls Ortygia the resting-place of the Alpheus;\n      and he too, perhaps, considers Artemis as the object of pursuit.\n\n 1572 See the excellent note of Dissen ad Pind. Nem. I. p. 350.\n\n 1573 Paus. VIII. 37. 2.\n\n 1574 See Paus. VIII. 10. 4. Callim. Hym. Dian. 107. She had the name of\n      \u1f18\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 in Elis, Paus. VI. 225. Hence the \u1f18\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03b7\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 (Anecd. Bekk.\n      p. 249.), a festival widely extended (_e.g._ Plutarch. Virt. Mul. p.\n      267.) The symbol of the deer, however, appears to have been common\n      to all the different branches of the worship of Artemis; thus there\n      is in Mr. Payne Knight\u2019s collection a coin in which she is\n      represented bearing a stag\u2019s horns, which he ascribes to Delos.\n\n 1575 Concerning human sacrifices to Artemis on the river Ameilichus,\n      which were abolished by the worship of Dionysus \u00c6symnetes, at Patr\u00e6,\n      see the description in Paus. V. 19. 1. Human sacrifices were also\n      offered to the same goddess near Megalopolis, Tatian adv. Gr\u00e6cos I.\n      p. 165 A. Compare Knight on the Symbolical Language of Mythology, \u00a7\n      143.\n\n 1576 \u039b\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9. \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd\n      \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Hesychius.\n\n 1577 Agam. 144.\n\n 1578 \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03b1 at Pheneus, Paus. VIII. 14. 4. \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03b1, Pind. Olymp. III.\n      27. comp. Boeckh Expl. Pyth. II. 8. p. 244. Hence Artemis\n      (\u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) is frequently represented on vases in a chariot with\n      horses; in Callimach. Hymn. Dian. 110. and in the bas reliefs of\n      Phigaleia, she is attended by goats.\n\n 1579 Under the title of \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 at the Tiassa, near Sparta, near the\n      Cleta, Athen. IV. p. 139; also \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03be, Diod. V. 73.\n      (and see Wesseling\u2019s note.) Paus. IV. 34. Hymn. Orph. XXXVI. 8.\n      comp, Spanheim ad Callim. Dian. 6. These names may, however, be\n      referred to the worship of Apollo; above ch. 8. \u00a7 7. She was\n      worshipped under the general epithet of \u03c3\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 at Peg\u00e6 (Paus. I.\n      44. 7.), Megara (I. 40. 2.), B\u0153\u00e6 (III. 22. 9.), Pellene (VII. 27.\n      1.), Phigaleia (VIII. 39. 3.), and at Syracuse, as we know from its\n      coins. Comp. Dorville\u2019s Sicula, p. 327. sq.\n\n 1580 Above, ch. 6. \u00a7 2, 3. ch. 9. \u00a7 2.\n\n 1581 Eurip. Hypsipyl. and Aristoph. Lemn. ap. Harpocrat. in \u1f00\u03c1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9.\n      See _Orchomenos_, p. 309.\n\n 1582 Apostolius VIII. 19.\n\n 1583 Boeckh not. Crit. ad Pind. Olymp. XIII. 109. There was also at\n      Miletus a festival of Artemis called \u039d\u03b7\u03bb\u03b7\u1f76\u03c2, Plutarch Mul. Virt. p.\n      287. ed. Hutten. There was also a temple of Artemis at Pygela, near\n      Ephesus, which was said to have been built by Agamemnon, Strab. XIV.\n      p. 639. Also on coins of Miletus, Mionnet Description, &c. tom. III.\n      p. 186.\n\n 1584 Callim. Hymn. Dian. 225. Schol. ad Callim. Hymn. Jov. 77. \u03a7\u03b9\u03c4\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\n      \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, Steph. Byz. in v.; among the Ionians \u03ba\u03b9\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1 (probably\n      \u03ba\u03b9\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd\u03ad\u03b7) \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 Hesych. in v. Also Artemis \u03a7\u03b9\u03c4\u03ce\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1 at Syracuse,\n      Athen. XIV. p. 629 E.\n\n 1585 Paus. I. 23. 9. I. 33. 1. cf. III. 17. 6. Eurip. Troad. 1462. sqq.\n      Callim. Hymn. Dian. 173. Euphorion also placed the sacrifice of\n      Iphigenia at Brauron, fragm. 81. ed. Meineke.\n\n 1586 The Argives, Stesichorus, and Euphorion, according to Paus. II. 22.\n      7. Antonin. Liber. 27. Tzetzes ad Lycophr. 183.\n\n 1587 Paus. III. 16. 6. Hygin. fab. 261. Comp. Creuzer\u2019s Comment. Herod.\n      p. 244. From this temple Helen was carried away, according to\n      Plutarch Thes. 31. cf. Hygin. fab. 79; whose name reminds us of the\n      \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 of Artemis of Brauron.\n\n 1588 The \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 was preceded by the \u03c6\u03bf\u03cd\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03c1, \u1f21 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Hesychius. The word \u03c6\u03bf\u03cd\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03c1\n      appears to be derived from \u03c6\u03bf\u03cd\u03b1, Laconian for \u03c6\u03cd\u03b1, and \u1f04\u03be\u03b9\u03c1 or \u1f04\u03be\u03b9\u03c2\n      contracted from \u1f04\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. See App. V. \u00a7 4. Comp. Hemsterhuis and\n      Valcknaer ad Adoniaz. p. 277. There were also other games at this\n      festival, Boeckh. Inscript. No. 1416. \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f48\u03c1\u03b8\u03af\u1fb3.\n\n 1589 Plutarch. Arist. 17.\n\n 1590 Prod. Chrestomath. ap. Heph\u00e6st. Gaisford.\n\n 1591 Ap. Etym. Mag. in \u03a4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n 1592 Paus. I. 43. 1.\n\n 1593 Theognis Par\u00e6n. 11. Dic\u00e6arch. Anagr. 88. Plutarch. Ages. 6. Etymol.\n      Magn. p. 747. Tzetzes ad Lycophr. 183. Siebelis ad Phanod. pp. 6. 9.\n\n 1594 See the confused account in Plutarch. Mulier. Virt. 7. Qu\u00e6st. Gr\u00e6c.\n      21. Poly\u00e6n. VII. 49.\n\n_ 1595 Orchomenos_, p. 311.\n\n 1596 Etym. Magn. p. 815, sq.\n\n 1597 Hygin. fab. 121. on the two Chryses.\n\n 1598 Uhden, Berlin Transactions for 1815, p. 63. Millingen Diverses\n      Peintures, planche 51. Welcker ap. Dissen. Expl. Pind. p. 512.\n      Compare Buttmann ad Sophod. Philoct. ad Argum. Metr. p. 57.\n\n 1599 The subject of a picture mentioned by Philostrat. Icon. 17. Dio\n      Chrysost. Or. LIX. p. 577. 21.\n\n 1600 Millingen ibid, planche 50.\n\n 1601 Herod. IV. 87.\n\n 1602 Etym. Magn. ubi sup. Dionysius de Bosporo Thracio p. 22. ed. Hudson.\n      Hesychius Milesius de Constantinopoli.\n\n 1603 Ammianus XXII. 8. Antonin. Liberal. 27. Perizonius ad \u00c6lian. V. H.\n      II. 25. Hemsterhuis ad Poll. IX. 12. p. 982.\n\n 1604 Herod. IV. 103. Comp. Scymnus Chius v. 88. Strab. VII. p. 508. XII.\n      p. 535. Mannert\u2019s G\u00e9ographie, vol. IV. p. 279. (ed. 1820).\n\n 1605 See Callim. (fr. 417.) and Eratosthenes ap. Steph. Byz. in \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b1,\n      Hesychius in \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1.\n\n 1606 A temple of Artemis Orthosia at Teuthrania on the Caicus, Plutarch,\n      de Fluv.; of the Tauric Artemis at Tmolia on the Pactolus, ibid.; of\n      Artemis Orthia in Cappadocia, Paus. III. 16. 6.; and of Iphigenia at\n      Comana, Dion Cassius XXXV. 11. Comp. Steph. Byz. in \u1f0c\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, Plutarch\n      de Fluv.; and particularly Strab. XII. p. 537. concerning Artemis\n      Perasia at Castabala.\n\n 1607 \u00c6schylus had divulged something relating to the mysteries in the\n      Iphigenia, Eustratius ad Aristot Eth. Nic. III. 1. See above, \u00a7 4.\n\n 1608 Herod. III. 48. Steph. Byz. in \u03a4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. She was also there\n      called \u039a\u03b1\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, Hesychius in v. Compare Panofka Res Samiorum, p.\n      63.\n\n 1609 Strab. XIV. p. 639. Callim. Hymn. Dian. 187. The Tauropolium in the\n      island of Icaria in the Persian bay (where Apollo Tauropolus was\n      also worshipped) was probably not established till after the time of\n      Alexander, \u00c6lian. N. A. II. 9. Dionys. Perieg. 611.\n\n 1610 Liv. XLIV. 44. and coins. Also in the neighbourhood of Magnesia on\n      the Sipylus, Marm. Oxon. XXVI. 1. 60.\n\n 1611 Sophod. Aj. 174.\n\n 1612 See particularly Strab. V. p. 239. She is represented on coins\n      sitting on an ox running, which Apollodorus explained of the\n      periodic course of the goddess, with reference to the moon, p. 402.\n      ed. Heyne. Comp. Etymol. M. in \u03a4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd. Apostolius XVIII. 23. See\n      also Spanheim ad Callim. Hymn. Dian. 174, 187.\n\n 1613 Concerning the situation of which see Locella ad Xenoph. Ephes. p.\n      87. Compare Caylus M\u00e9m. de l\u2019Acad. tom. XX. pp. 428-441. Choiseul\n      Gouffier Voyage pittoresque, tom. I. p. 191.\n\n 1614 Herod. II. 10. Artemis visited the son of the Cayster according to\n      Callimachus fragm. 102. ed. Bentl.\n\n 1615 At Corinth, Paus. II. 2. 5. Alea, id. VIII. 23. 1. An Ephesium at\n      Massilia, Strabo IV. pp. 179, 184. at the founding of which there\n      was a priestess named Aristarche (compare the \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd of\n      Artemis at Elis, Plutarch. Qu\u00e6st. Gr\u00e6c. 47).\n\n 1616 Of a peculiar character also were the sacrifices of parsley and salt\n      at D\u00e6tis in Ephesus, Etym. Mag. in \u0394\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03c2.\n\n 1617 The Megabyzi, so called as early as the time of Xenophon. Also \u039c\u03cd\u03be\u03bf\u03c2\n      was a priest\u2019s name, Apostol. V. 44. The servants of the goddess\n      were, according to their different grades, called \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c2, \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c2,\n      and \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c2, according to Plutarch An Seni sit ger. Resp. 24. p.\n      130. ed. Hutten.\n\n 1618 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b7 , Paus. X. 38. 3.\n\n 1619 Latona is said to have given birth to her at Corissus in the\n      Ephesia, Steph. Byz. in \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 1620 The union of Apollo of Colophon, of the Ephesian Diana, and of the\n      Nemesis of Smyrna on coins of these cities in the time of the\n      emperors is only a mutual compliment. In the speech of the Ephesians\n      in Tacitus Annal. III. 61. there is evidently much inaccuracy. The\n      \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f08\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in Paus. III. 25. 2. is a singular curiosity.\n\n 1621 \u1f08\u03bc\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2, \u1f21 \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u1fec\u03ad\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1,\n      Hesychius.\n\n 1622 Etymol. Mag. p. 511. 56. Gudian. p. 320. 26.\n\n 1623 See Lobeck, Aglaophamus, vol. II. p. 1166.\n\n 1624 Ap. Paus. VII. 2. 4. Fragm. Incert. 56. ed. Boeckh. See Callim.\n      Hymn. Dian. 240. sqq. Paus. IV. 31. 6. Steph. Byz. in \u1f1c\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2. cf. in\n      \u03a3\u03af\u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1, \u039a\u03cd\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1. Etym. Mag. in \u1f1c\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2. Plutarch Qu\u00e6st. Gr\u00e6c. 56. p.\n      407. ed. Hutten. Hyginus fab. 223, 225. The contrary is stated in\n      Eusebius Chron. n. 870. \u1f08\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c6\u03ad\u03c3\u1ff3 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n 1625 Moses\u2019 Vases, plate 133.\n\n 1626 Hecat\u00e6us ap. Steph. Byz. in \u1f08\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6. According to Heraclides Ponticus\n      33. their settlements reached from Mycale to Pitane, Diod. III. 55.\n      from Dionysius of Samos, Ephorus ap. Strab. XII. p. 550. cf. XIII.\n      p. 623, &c. See Steph. Byz. in \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 of a place called An\u00e6a opposite\n      Samos, where an Amazon of that name was buried. The inhabitants were\n      called \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u0390\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Perhaps an Artemis Anaitis was here worshipped.\n\n 1627 Proposed by T\u00f6lken, Ueber das Bas-relief, &c. p. 210. and approved\n      by Boeckh in Hirt Ueber die Hierodulen, p. 55.\n\n 1628 Paus. VII. 2. 5.\n\n 1629 Achill. Tat. Clitoph. VII. p. 431.\n\n 1630 Il. III. 185.\n\n 1631 Ap. Strab. XII. p. 819 C. fragm. incert. 57. p. 645. ed. Boeckh.\n\n 1632 \u00c6schyl. Prometh. 723. Pherecydes ap. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. II. 370.\n      Herod. IV. 110. Arrian Peripl. p. 16. Scymnus Chius v. 229. Creuzer\n      Vet. Histor. Gr\u00e6c. p. 80. According to Schol. Apoll. ubi sup. (cf.\n      990.) there were in the \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u0394\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 in Phrygia (in the\n      neighbourhood of Thermodon) three cities of the Amazons; not far off\n      was Alcmonia (Acmonia Steph. Byz), where Harmonia produced the\n      Amazons to Mars.\n\n 1633 Xenoph. Hell. III. 2. 19.\n\n 1634 Marm. Oxon. XXVI. 1. 84. Paus. I. 26. 4. III. 18. 6.\n\n 1635 Heyne Antiquarische Aufs\u00e4tze, vol. I. p. 109. Compare Paciaudi\n      Monum. Pelop. vol. II. p. 13.\n\n 1636 See the coins in Mionnet tom. III. p. 137.\n\n 1637 VI. 22. 1. The Sicilian Greeks also celebrated to Artemis the\n      effeminate Ionian dance. Pollux IV. 14, 104.\n\n 1638 Scylax, p. 39. Strab. XIV. p. 667. Callim. Hymn. Dian. 187. Cicero\n      in Verr. I. 20. III. 21. Hesychius, Suidas, Photius, &c. in \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\n      \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. Apostolius IX. 91. where for \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1 read \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u03b1. At Perge\n      also the Syrian Adonis was worshipped under the name of Aboba,\n      Hesychius in \u1f08\u03b2\u03c9\u03b2\u03b1.\n\n 1639 Represented on coins as a _signum informe_.\n\n 1640 For example, Artemis \u039a\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u1f70\u03c2 of Bargyli\u00e6, Polyb. XVI. 12. 3; Artemis\n      \u1f19\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2; of Iasbus, ibid. \u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0399\u0391\u03a3 Inscript. Chandler, p. 19. n. 57;\n      the goddess of \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7; at Thyateira, called \u1f48\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, Polyb.\n      XXXII. 25. 11. Inscript. in Walpole\u2019s Travels, p. 575; the Mysian\n      Artemis, Paus. III. 20. 8. cf. Callim. Hymn. Dian. 116; the Astyrene\n      Artemis under mount Ida, Strab. XIII. p. 606, 613; the Boritine\n      Artemis of Lydia, Eckhel Doct. Num. vol. III. p. 121; Artemis\n      Adrasteia in Lesser Phrygia, Harpocration in \u1f08\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, &c.\n\n 1641 \u0398\u03c5\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1, \u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1, \u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1, \u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1, Plut. de Superst. 9. p. 75.\n\n 1642 Athen. XIV. p. 636 A.\n\n 1643 From this temple was derived the Olympicum at Syracuse (see above,\n      book I. ch. 6. \u00a7 7.), the priest of which, called \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, was the\n      highest annual officer, Thucyd. VII. 65, 70. Diod. XVI. 70. Exc.\n      Virt. et Vit. p. 558. Cic. Verr. II. 51.\n\n 1644 Creuzer Symbolik, vol. II. p. 575. \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd,\n      Pseudo-Plutarch de Fluv. Strab. p. 573, is probably not correct in\n      distinguishing the temple of Here at Prosymna from the celebrated\n      one. The names _Prosymna_ and _Prosymnus_ also occur at Lerna and at\n      Gortyna in Arcadia. Inscription of Gortyna in Boeckh No. 1535, \u1f01\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fb3\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c7\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n 1645 Pausanias III. 13. Sturz Pherecydes, p. 79. See particularly Heyne\n      ad Il. \u0394. 52. Eurydice the daughter of Acrisius was said to have\n      built the temple. To the statement of Pausanias III. 15. 7. \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n      \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b3\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03b1\u1f36\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (compare Hesych. in \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a7\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc3 with\n      Welcker on Schwenck\u2019s Etymologische Andeutungen, p. 294.), it may be\n      objected that the same custom prevailed in Corinth; see Photius Lex.\n      in \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f36\u03be \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, p. 613. Zenob. Proverb. I. 27. Diogen.\n      Prov. I. 52.\n\n 1646 Thucyd. V. 75.\n\n 1647 See _Orchomenos_, p. 267.\n\n 1648 The chief temple at Corcyra was that of Here, Thucyd. I. 24. III.\n      75, 79. Also at Syracuse, \u00c6lian. V.H. VI. 11, &c.\n\n_ 1649 Orchomenos_, p. 297. The divinity of Medea there asserted is\n      completely proved by the testimony of Athenagoras Legat. p. 14. that\n      Hesiod and Alcman called her _goddess_.\n\n 1650 She was worshipped under the titles of \u0395\u1f30\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1 and \u0393\u03b1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bb\u1f74,\n      Hesychius in \u0395\u1f30\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1, Eustath. ad Hom. p. 1156.\n\n 1651 Athen. XV. p. 672.\n\n 1652 Hesychius in v. See also Creuzer\u2019s Symbolik, whose chapter upon Here\n      contains much in the spirit of the ancient religion, and Welcker on\n      Schwenck, p. 268.\n\n 1653 At Sparta there was also the Arcadian worship of Athene Alea,\n      Xenoph. Hell. VI. 5. 27.\n\n 1654 Pausan. III. 18.1. Plutarch Lycurg. 11.\n\n 1655 Pausan. II. 24.\n\n 1656 Clem. Alexand. Protrept. p. 29. ed. Sylburg.\n\n 1657 \u1f08\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u1fb6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9. Also Here, Artemis, and Aphrodite, see Hesych.\n      in \u1f08\u03ba\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1.\n\n 1658 But with a particular reference to Bellerophon. From Pegasus was\n      derived the goddess Hippia, Pind. Olymp. XIII. 97, whose altar was\n      chiefly remarkable for the rite of incubation. \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 is, as we\n      also learn from the Scholiast of Pindar, like \u1f08\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1, the goddess of\n      light. There was also the worship of Athene at Syracuse, Diod. de\n      Virt. et Vit. p. 549. ed. Wesseling.\n\n 1659 Boeckh Explic. ad Pind. Olymp. II. 1. p. 123. V. 9. p. 148, and\n      particularly Polyb. IX. 27. 7. with Tim\u00e6us in Steph. Byz. in\n      \u1f08\u03c4\u03ac\u03b2\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. The Athene Polias of Tr\u0153zen was introduced by the Ionians,\n      as the other worships of that city show.\n\n 1660 She was always called \u201cthe Lindian\u201d even in the city of Rhodes,\n      Meurs. Rhod. I. 6. Compare Apostolius XVII. 17.\n\n 1661 Strabo X. pag. 472. \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b5\u03bd \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u1f29\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2. This is the proper way of pointing these words.\n\n 1662 II. 171.\n\n 1663 The Messenians alone made Demeter of Andania the chief goddess of\n      the state; see book I. ch. 5. \u00a7 16.\n\n 1664 Boeckh Corp. Inscript. Nos. 1197, 1198, 1199. Comp. Paus. II. 35. 3.\n      Perhaps the name of Hermione also refers to the worship of the\n      \u03c7\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af, see Hesych. in \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7.\n\n 1665 Athen. XIV. pag. 624 E. Compare the hymn of Philicus of Corcyra,\n      Heph\u00e6st. p. 53. ed. Gaisford. and the verses of Aristocles ap.\n      \u00c6lian, de N. A. XI. 4.\n\n 1666 Boeckh Inscript. No. 1193.\n\n 1667 Pausan. II. 22. 2. \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u1f31\u03b4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1.\n\n 1668 Hellanicus ap. Athen. X. p. 416 A. et Steph. Byz. in v. \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n      Callimachus Hymn. Cer. 24. Inscript. Herod. Attici; and compare the\n      excellent explanation of Boeckh ad Schol. Pind. Pyth. II. 27. pag.\n      315.\n\n 1669 See _Orchomenos_, p. 195.\n\n 1670 Herod. VII. 153. Schol. Pind. ubi sup.\n\n_ 1671 Orchomenos_, p. 337.\n\n 1672 Ibid. pag. 257. afterwards extended over the whole of Sicily. Boeckh\n      Explic. Pind. Olymp. II. p. 123. \u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u1f08\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, Pollux I. 37. The \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1 were probably connected with\n      the festival \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 (Schol. rec. ad Olymp. VI. 160), and this\n      festival was derived from Thebes. Cyzicus also, founded by\n      Tyrrhenian Pelasgi (from B\u0153otia), was considered as an \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd of\n      Zeus for Proserpine, Appian. Bell. Mithridat. 75. comp. Steph. Byz.\n      in v. \u0392\u03ad\u03c3\u03b2\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 1673 A festival \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 at Syracuse (Athen. XIV. p. 647 A. \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Plutarch Dio 56. a month Thesmophorius, see Castelli),\n      \u039a\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 Plutarch ubi sup. comp. Diod. V. 4. sqq.\n\n 1674 See book I. ch. 6. \u00a7 7. and above, \u00a7 1.\n\n 1675 Plut. Timoleon 8. Diod. XVI. 66. Demeter \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b7 in Corinth\n      according to Hesychius.\n\n 1676 Pausan. The mystical worship of _Damia_ and _Auxesia_ at Epidaurus\n      and Tr\u0153zen was also connected with that of Demeter, as the\n      manuscript Scholiast ap. Mitscherlisch ad Hymn. in Cerer. 122.\n      declares. But \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u1f08\u03b6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 (Sophocl. ap. Hesych. in v. comp.\n      Valcken. Adoniaz. p. 292) and \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u1f08\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 (Suidas in v.) must not\n      be confounded with those goddesses.\n\n 1677 Pausan. III. 20. 5. 6. compare Hesychius, \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2\n      \u1f00\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u039b\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n 1678 III. 14. 5. Compare Hesychius in \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 and \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n 1679 The priests were probably called \u03a4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, see Hesych. in v.\n      \u03a4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n 1680 \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, _i.e._ \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u2014\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, Boeckh Explic. Pind. Pyth. IV. p. 268.\n      also \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 according to Hesychius.\n\n 1681 \u00c6ginetica, p. 148. and see Plat. Sympos. IX. 6. p. 410.\n\n 1682 Hence also the sacred month Ger\u00e6stius at Tr\u0153zen (Athen. XIV. p.\n      639), which points to Eub\u0153a.\n\n 1683 See above, ch. 3. \u00a7 2. on the ancient difference between the\n      Isthmian and Olympic games.\n\n 1684 \u00c6lian V. H. III. 42. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 963. Pac. 1071.\n\n 1685 Pausan. III. 13. 4. Here, too, as well as at Athens, there was\n      \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, Strab. VIII. p. 363. See above, ch. 9. \u00a7 3.\n      concerning the Dym\u00e6n\u00e6.\n\n 1686 Pausan. II. 23, 24. 37. Compare Hesychius in \u1f59\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n 1687 See above, book I. ch. 5. \u00a7 3. Phlius, on account of this worship,\n      was the birthplace of the \u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 Aristeas and Pratinas.\n\n 1688 Pausan. II. 7. 6. Also \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 in that town, Clem. Alex.\n      Protrept. p. 25.\n\n 1689 Concerning the crown \u1f30\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03b1 see Athen. XV. p. 678. Compare Hesychius\n      in \u03b8\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u1f70 and \u1f30\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03b1.\n\n 1690 The celebration of which appears to be referred to in the ancient\n      epigram in Athen. XIV. p. 629 A.\n\n 1691 Herod. V. 67. The word \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 proves that the tragic choruses were\n      originally celebrated to Bacchus. Perhaps the Adrastea were\n      engrafted upon the Dionysia.\n\n 1692 Athen. XIV. p. 21, 622. It is to these that the Epigr. Onest\u00e6 2.\n      refers. Comp. Hermann ad Aristot. Poet. 3. p. 104.\n\n 1693 Worshipped under the titles of \u0392\u03b1\u03ba\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 and \u039b\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in that town,\n      Pausan. II. 2. 5.\n\n 1694 Olymp. XIII. 18. and see Boeckh\u2019s Explic.\n\n 1695 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, Pindar Schol. Fragm. 1.\n\n 1696 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u1fb3 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd, Pindar ibid. Concerning the \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 see\n      Hirt _Ueber die Hierodulen_ and others. I only add that some of them\n      were called \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, _i.e._, shut up in single cells (Hesychius\n      in v.); but the reason of this name is not evident.\n\n 1697 Aphrodite \u0395\u1f50\u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u1f7c (Hesych. in v.) and Aphrodite \u0392\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 (ibid.) at\n      Syracuse came from Corinth; see Clem. Alex. p. 25.\n\n 1698 That is, on those which are falsely ascribed to the Siphnians and\n      Seriphians (\u03a3\u0395 or \u03a3\u0399), but are found in great numbers in the\n      district of Sicyon.\n\n 1699 Hesych. in \u0392\u03ac\u03ba\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 \u0394\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n 1700 Zenob. Prov. IV. 21. Diogen. V. 21.\n\n 1701 Pausan. III. 15. 8. III. 23. 1. Plutarch Instit. Lac. p. 253.\n      Tzetzes ad Lycophr. 449. She was, however, also represented armed at\n      Corinth, Pausan. II. 4. 7.\n\n 1702 Hesychius in v. According to the great etymologist \u039a\u03af\u03c1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 is merely\n      Cyprian. Compare Meurs. Miscell. Lacon. I. 3.\n\n 1703 Pausan. II. 32. 6. and concerning the Tr\u0153zenian worship of Aphrodite\n      see Valckenaer ad Euripid. Hippolyt. 32. Concerning the sacrifices\n      of a sow to Aphrodite in _Argos_ at the \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 see Athen. III. p.\n      96 A. Callimach. Fragm. 102 ed. Bentl. Aphrodite was worshipped\n      there with the title \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, Clem. Alex. Protrept. p. 24. ed.\n      Sylburg.\n\n 1704 See Tim\u00e6us apud Zenob. Prov. I. 31.\n\n 1705 Thuc. VI. 20.\n\n 1706 Book I. ch. 6. \u00a7 1.\n\n_ 1707 Orchomenos_, p. 199.\n\n 1708 Pausan. II. 10. 3.\n\n 1709 Paus. II. 26. 7. Tacit. Annal. XIV. 18. comp. Callimach. Epigr. 58.\n\n 1710 Compare the somewhat different opinion of Boeckh Expl. Pind. p. 288.\n\n 1711 See Heyne ad Apollod. III. 15. 7.\n\n 1712 Paus. III. 18. 4. ib. 9. 35.\n\n 1713 Athen. XIII. p. 361.\n\n 1714 In an inscription found at Sparta Eleutheria, Poseid\u00e6a, and Erotid\u00e6a\n      occur as festivals, Corp. Inscript. 1430. and see Boeckh\u2019s note.\n\n 1715 Plutarch de Amore Pat. I. p. 36. comp. Zo\u00ebga de Obeliscis, p. 225.\n      above, p. 103. note a. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to\n      \u201cCastor and Pollux,\u201d starting \u201c\u1f18\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2.\u201d] In Argos there\n      were ancient figures of the \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 by Dip\u0153nus and Scyllis, Paus.\n      Clem. Alex. Protrept. p. 31 A.\n\n 1716 As \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 in Herod. V. 35. so likewise the Laced\u00e6monians probably\n      sent the statues of the Tyndarid\u00e6 (\u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03a3\u03ac\u03b3\u03c1\u1fb3) to the assistance\n      of the Dorians, as the \u00c6ginetans sent the \u00c6acid\u00e6 to Salamis,\n      \u00c6ginetica, p. 163. The \u039a\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u039c\u03b9\u03be\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 of the Argives (Plutarch\n      Qu\u00e6st. Gr. 23. p. 393.) is very obscure.\n\n 1717 So among the Spartans Phormion, Paus. III. 16. 3. at the house of an\n      Azanian of Pagupolis, Herod. VI. 127. Hence also the \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 of the\n      \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 at Agrigentum, Boeckh Expl. Pind. Olymp. III. p. 135.\n\n 1718 Pseudo-Plat. Alcib. II. p. 148. Plutarch. Inst. Lac. p. 253.\n\n 1719 Plat. ubi sup. cf. Plutarch, Lycurg. 19. Compare the corresponding\n      expression of the Delphian oracle, Porphyr. de Abstin. II. 15.\n\n 1720 The worship of Ammon makes an exception, which was brought into\n      repute in Sparta by Lysander, _Orchomenos_, p. 359.\n\n 1721 Hence the Thracian Cotytto, Eupolis ap. Hesych. Suid. in \u0398\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2,\n      \u039a\u03cc\u03c4\u03c5\u03c2.\n\n 1722 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c2 in a Spartan inscription, Boeckh, No. 1446.\n\n 1723 See Bentley Epistol. ad Mill. p. 503. Jacobs Animadv. ad Anthol. Gr.\n      vol. I. 2. p. 286. Weichert _Ueber Apollonios_, p. 246. The poem is\n      called a \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 in Paus. IV. 2. 2.\n\n 1724 Od. VIII. 228. Theocrit. XXIV. 105. Apollod. II. 4. 9. cf. II. 4.\n      11.\n\n 1725 The subject of the poem, the misfortunes of Iole, is given in\n      general by Callimachus Epig. (Strab. XIV. p. 638). The detail is\n      given by Apollodorus II. 6. 1. II. 7. 7, who agrees with Herodotus\n      ap. Schol. Eurip. Hipp. 550. where likewise the \u0398\u03b7\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1 of\n      Lysimachus are cited, Soph. Trach. 205. Schol. ad v. 358. which\n      follow Pherecydes and Menecrates, Diod. IV. 31, 37. Schol. Il. V.\n      392. where for \u0392\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 write \u0395\u1f50\u03b2\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. comp. Scythinus ap. Athen.\n      XI. p. 461 F. Hyginus Fab. 29, 35. Plutarch de Def. Orac. 13. p.\n      322. The names of Iole\u2019s relations vary. See Hesiod ap. Schol.\n      Trach. 266. as emended by Bentley, Creophylus cited by Bentley and\n      Diod. ubi sup.\n\n 1726 Soph. Trach. 354, 858. comp. Hermann ad v. 326.\n\n 1727 Book I. ch. 1. \u00a7 4.\n\n 1728 Hecat\u00e6us ap. Paus. IV. 2. 2. Strabo X. p. 448.\n\n 1729 Hence Pherecydes ap. Schol. Soph. Trach. 354. places it in Arcadia,\n      \u1f10\u03bd \u0398\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u1fc3 \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, perhaps \u1f10\u03bd \u0398\u03a9\u039c\u0397\u0399, _i.e._ \u1f38\u03b8\u03ce\u03bc\u1fc3. Demetrius of\n      Scepsis in Strabo VIII. p. 339. identifies \u0152chalia and Andamia, cf.\n      X. p. 448. Strabo in this passage also mentions an \u0152chalia in\n      Trachinia, and another in \u00c6tolia, comp. Eustath. ad Il. p. 298. ed.\n      Rom.\n\n 1730 II. 594.\n\n 1731 XXI. 13.\n\n 1732 Ubi sup. Pausanias likewise follows the local tradition, IV. 33. 5.\n      cf. 27. 4.\n\n 1733 Schol. Soph. ubi sup.\n\n 1734 Book I. ch. 1. \u00a7 8.\n\n 1735 Ubi sup. Also Scythinus, Sophocles and Apollodorus ubi sup.\n      According to Schol. Apoll. Rh. I. 87. and Schol. Ven. ad Catal. 103.\n      the \u03bd\u03b5\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 in general. Probably all these placed this exploit\n      after the adventures in Trachinia, and immediately before his death,\n      cf. Tzetz. ad Lycoph. 50.\n\n 1736 Il. B. 730. comp. Steph. Byz. in \u039f\u1f30\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1. Eustath. ad Il. p. 330. ad\n      Od. p. 1899. ed. Rom. and see the local tradition in Paus. IV. 2. 2.\n\n 1737 Odyss. and Pherecyd. ubi sup. cf. Soph. Trach. 38. The Odyssey has,\n      however, quite a different story; viz., that the death of Iphitus\n      (which was, moreover, a peaceable death, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, XXI. 33. but\n      inflicted by Apollo VIII. 227.) _preceded_ the slaughter of Iphitus.\n\n 1738 Above, ch. 1. \u00a7 3.\n\n 1739 Apollod. II. 7. 7. Diod. IV. 37.\n\n 1740 Above, ch. 3. \u00a7 3.\n\n 1741 Perhaps the \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c0\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bd\u03af\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd (the nightmare) of Sophron was a\n      parody of this fable, Eustath. ad Il. p. 571. ed. Rom.\n\n 1742 \u00c6sch. Agam. 1038. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n      \u03c4\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03cd\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b2\u03af\u1fb3. Comp. below, \u00a7 8.\n\n 1743 Schol. Od. XXI. 23. cf. Apollod. II. 6. 2.\n\n 1744 Erineus was, according to a fable preserved in a strange and\n      apocryphal inscription, the place of a combat between Hercules and\n      Calchas Mopsus. Boeckh, No. 1759. \u039a\u03ac\u03bb\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u039c\u03cc\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u03c7\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (_i.e._ \u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03c6\u1ff3\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u1ff7. The transcript has \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and\n      \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd; for which Hermann has emended as above. The inscription\n      itself is a fabrication either of the latest period of antiquity, or\n      of the middle ages. The same legend is told, with additional\n      circumstances, and a different locality, by Tzetzes ad Lycoph. 980.\n      According to Hesiod, the contest was between the two prophets,\n      Calchas and Mopsus, fragm. 14. ed. Gaisford.\n\n 1745 . I. ch. 2. \u00a7 4. B. II. ch. 3. \u00a7 3.\n\n 1746 Schol. Soph. Trach. 40.\n\n 1747 Steph. Byz. in \u03a4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03c2. Marm. Farnes. 1. 66. emended by Heyne ad\n      Apollod. p. 191.\n\n 1748 Paus. II. 23. 5.\n\n 1749 B. I. ch. 3. \u00a7 9.\n\n 1750 Apollod. Diod. &c. Sophocles, however, calls her a native of\n      Pleuron, Trach. 7.\n\n 1751 Described by Archilochus, according to Schol. Ven. ad Il. XXI. 237.\n\n 1752 Archilochus ap. Schol. Apoll. Rh. I. 1213. This scene is very\n      coarsely represented on an ancient vase (Hancarville IV. 31.), with\n      the inscription \u0394\u0391\u0399\u0391\u039d\u0395\u0399\u03a1\u0391 \u039d\u0395\u03a3\u03a3\u039f\u03a3, as should be read.\n\n 1753 See the verse in Strabo VIII. p. 342. Steph. Byz. in \u1f6c\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, which,\n      however, probably belongs to the story in Apollod. I. 8. 4.\n\n 1754 According to Hyginus Fab. 31, 33. Deianira is the daughter of\n      Dexamenus. The Schol. Callim. Hymn. Del. 102. call Dexamenus himself\n      a Centaur; and thus on a vase of the best age Hercules is\n      represented as wrestling with him for Deianira, with the inscription\n      \u039f\u0399\u039d\u0395\u03a5\u03a3 \u0394\u0395\u039e\u0391\u039c\u0395\u039d\u039f\u03a3 \u0394\u0395\u0399\u0391\u039d\u0395\u0399\u03a1\u0391 from left to right, Millingen Diverses\n      Peintures 33.\n\n 1755 Bacchylides ap. Schol. Od. XXI. 295. with Buttmann\u2019s note.\n\n 1756 Raoul-Rochette, Etabliss. des Col. Grecques, tom. I. p. 219.\n\n 1757 Hughes\u2019 Travels, vol. II. p. 313. Pouqueville, vol. I. p. 471.\n\n 1758 Heyne ad Il. II. 659. Strabo\u2019s opinion, that in Homer, and the fable\n      of Hercules, Ephyra in Elis is meant (VII. p. 328. VIII. 338.), is\n      refuted by the passages of Homer himself.\n\n 1759 Some of these fables were mixed up with the war against Pylos, and\n      some (_e.g._, the abduction of Cerberus) taken over to T\u00e6narum and\n      Heraclea Pontica; the latter probably first by Herodorus, who was a\n      native of that Heraclea, see Heeren de fontibus Plutarchi, p. 17.\n      Compare the coin of Heraclea in Mionnet, No. 160, in which Hercules\n      is represented as bringing Cerberus to the statue of Demeter.\n\n 1760 Iliad. II. 657.\n\n 1761 Strabo IX. p. 443. Poly\u00e6n. Strateg. VII. 44. Veil. Paterc. I. 3. 2.\n      Schol. Apoll. Rh. III. 1089. See Boeckh Expl. Pind. Pyth. X. p. 332.\n      The kings of the Molossi likewise supposed themselves descended from\n      a certain Lanassa, the daughter of Cleod\u00e6us, of the Hyllean tribe,\n      Plutarch Pyrrh. 1. Justin. XVII. 3.\n\n 1762 Iliad. II. 678. Compare b. I. ch. 6. \u00a7 3.\n\n 1763 Apollod. II. 5. 10.\n\n 1764 Ib. I. 6. 4. where it is incidentally mentioned from an earlier\n      tradition.\n\n 1765 Ap. Arrian. II. 16. frag. p. 50. ed. Creuzer.\n\n 1766 P. 23. ed. Gronov. The mountain _Abas_ and river _Anthemoeis_ in\n      Erythea, according to Apollodorus, should probably also be referred\n      to this district. At least there were Abantes in the exact spot\n      where Erythea is placed, on the Aous, near Oricum. According to\n      Aristot. Mirab. \u00a7 145. Erythea was in the territory of the \u00c6nianes.\n      Hercules stole the oxen there from Cythera Persephassa. Compare\n      Antonin. Liberal, c. 4. \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03b5\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a7\u03ac\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f28\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n      \u0393\u03b7\u03c1\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (\u1f24\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd) \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. The _Celts_ are\n      introduced from some Geryonis; see Diod. V. 24. Etymol. M. p. 502.\n      50. See also Appian, Bell. Civ. II. 29.\n\n 1767 Herod. IX. 93. Conon, Narr. c. 30. Two legends connected with this\n      fable are remarkable; first, the punishment of blindness for any one\n      who had neglected the worship of the Sun; secondly, the tale that\n      the Greek gods themselves had sent wolves against their herds. The\n      cattle of the Sun in the Odyssey are only those of T\u00e6narum and\n      Epirus transferred to a greater distance: there was likewise a\n      fabulous reason for the \u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 of the Sun, as they were\n      performed in many cities of Greece, Od. XII. 363.\n\n 1768 Paus. II. 1. 6, &c.\n\n 1769 Proxenus \u1f10\u03bd \u1f29\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 ap. Suid. et Apostol. in \u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b2\u03cc\u03b5\u03c2.\n      Compare Lycus of Rhegion ibid. \u00c6lian, N. H. XII., 11. III. 33.\n\n 1770 Herod. VII. 216.\n\n 1771 Peisander ap. Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 1047. \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f70\n      \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u03a0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u1f70 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1fe5\u03b7\u03b3\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, which\n      verses are referred to by Zenobius Prov. VI. 49. Compare Ruhnken ap.\n      Heyn. ad \u00c6n. II. Exc. I. p. 287. Wesseling ad Diod. IV. 23. Herod.\n      VII. 176. Phileas ap. Harpocrat. in \u0398\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9. The fable was\n      carried over to the hot spring near Himera in Sicily, Boeckh Explic.\n      Pind. Olymp. XII. p. 210.\n\n 1772 Callim. Hymn. Dian. 159. Schol. ad 1. Arrian ap. Eustath. ad Dionys.\n      Perieg. p. 107. The \u03a6\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 should be distinguished from the\n      place where Hercules slew a Centaur, Steph. Byz. in \u03a6\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n 1773 Strabo IX. p. 428. The part of \u0152ta, where the funeral pile is said\n      to have stood, was called _Pyra_; Theophrast. Hist. Plant. IX. 10.\n      Livy XXXVI. 30.\n\n 1774 Steph. Byz. in \u03a4\u03cd\u03c6\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The \u1f00\u03c3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b7 of Trachis were mentioned\n      in the fourteenth book of the Heraclea of Rhianus, Etymol. M. in v.\n      Suidas in \u1fec\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 1775 Strabo XIII. p. 613. Diod. XII. 59. the coins in Eckhel Num. Anecd.\n      tab. 6. p. 89. Dodwell\u2019s Travels vol. I. p. 76. Clarke\u2019s Travels\n      vol. IV. p. 197.\n\n 1776 Scythinus and Polemon ap. Athen. XI. p. 461.\n\n 1777 Heyne ad Apollod. II. 4. 6. remarks with judgment, \u201c_Herculis\n      Thebani facta et fata ad Thebanas historias accommodare difficile\n      est._\u201d\n\n 1778 Annual sacrifices were here offered to the eight children of\n      Hercules. See Pausan. Pind. Isthm. III. 79. and Chrysippus in the\n      Scholia. The graves of Amphitryon, Iolaus, and Alcmena, and the\n      Gymnasium for the Iola\u00e4n or Heraclean games, were in front of the\n      gate of Pr\u0153tid\u00e6, Pind. Pyth. IX. 82. Nem. IV. 20. Schol. et Dissen.\n      Explic. p. 382. where the subject is very clearly explained.\n\n 1779 Ap. Antonin. Liberal. c. 33.\n\n 1780 Marini Ville Alban. p. 150. Compare B\u0153ttiger\u2019s Amalthea, vol. I. p.\n      130.\n\n 1781 Other versions of this story may be seen in Cicero De Nat. D. III.\n      16. where see Creuzer\u2019s note, and in Paus. X. 13. 4. See also\n      Visconti, Museo Pio-Clementino, II. 5. Zo\u00ebga, Bassirilievi, vol. II.\n      p. 98.\n\n 1782 The reconsecration on the foot of a candelabrum at Dresden. The\n      atonement, on a Corinthian _puteal_, in the genuine archaic style,\n      published by Dodwell in his Travels and his collection of\n      Bas-reliefs, Rome, 1820. It afterwards came into the possession of\n      the late lord Guilford. In this Apollo, Artemis, and Latona are met\n      by Pallas, Hercules, and Alcmena, or some other woman: the Graces\n      follow behind. Perhaps this is a copy of the Sicyonian group of\n      Dip\u0153nus and Scyllis (Plin. H. N. XXXVI. 4.) unless this also\n      represented the contest, as the one in Paus. ubi sup. There is a\n      similar composition on a vase in Millingen\u2019s Vases de Coghill, pl.\n      11. Apollo \u03b4\u03b1\u03c6\u03bd\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, sitting by the tripod with Artemis and\n      Latona, receives Hercules; a goddess with a sceptre (Vesta,\n      according to Zoega), and Hermes, are standing by. Hercules is always\n      drawn as a youth in this subject.\n\n 1783 Hence also his labours were represented on the metopes of the\n      Delphian temple, Eurip. Ion. 196, 239.\n\n 1784 See the legend of Tripodiscus in Paus. I. 43. 7. comp. above, p. 14.\n\n 1785 Plutarch de sera Num. Vind. 12. p. 245.\n\n 1786 He erected three statues of Demonesian brass; above, p. 250. note l.\n      [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201csacred tithe,\u201d\n      starting \u201cFrom Megara.\u201d] Comp. Callim. fragm. 75. v. 5.\n\n 1787 It can indeed be only collected from coins. See Visconti, Mus.\n      Pio-Clement. tom. VII. 4. b. No. 11. Mionnet Descript. tom. II. p.\n      109. No. 94. and Planches LIII. 4. Pouqueville, Voyage, tom. IV. p.\n      208. I likewise saw a similar coin in lord Northwick\u2019s collection.\n\n 1788 Above, ch. 2. \u00a7 11. Hence the scene of the Rhadamanthus of Euripides\n      was laid in B\u0153otia, fragm. 1.\n\n 1789 Plutarch, Lysand. 18. De Socrat. Genio 5. Tzetzes ad Lycoph. 50.\n      Apollod. II. 4. 11. Pherecydes ap. Antonin. Liberal, c. 32. fragm.\n      50. ed. Sturz. comp. Visconti ad Herod. Att. Inscript. Triop. fin.\n\n 1790 Pherecydes ubi sup. Paus. IX. 16. 4.\n\n_ 1791 Orchomenos_, pp. 84. 208. On Hercules \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 see the story in\n      Plutarch, Parallel, p. 416.\n\n 1792 The passage most in point is in the Theocritean poem XXIV. 100.\n      where, however, much Alexandrine fiction may be discerned.\n\n 1793 See, among other writers, Alcidamas Rhetor adv. Palamed. \u00a7 25. ed.\n      Bekker. where for \u03a4\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 write \u039b\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, with two manuscripts.\n\n 1794 Below, ch. 12. \u00a7 1.\n\n 1795 See Boeckh Explic. Pind. Olymp. III. 18. above, ch. 3. \u00a7 2. At Nemea\n      honours were paid to the 360 supposed companions of Hercules, \u00c6lian,\n      V. H. IV. 5; evidently referring to the year of 360 days.\n\n 1796 Heyne ad Apollod. Dissen. Expl. Pind. p. 509.\n\n 1797 The madness of Hercules also occurred in the \u039a\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b7, as appears\n      from the extract of Proclus (at the end of Gaisford\u2019s Heph\u00e6stion);\n      but in that poem it was, if I rightly apprehend the context,\n      represented as caused by the love and seduction of Hercules.\n\n 1798 Eurip. Herc. Fur. Paus. IX. 11. 1.\n\n 1799 In this temple a \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2, which had restored him to his\n      senses, was shown under the altar, Paus. IX. 11. 5.\n\n 1800 It is to this that the verses of Panyasis refer, in which Hercules\n      is described as coming over Parnassus to Castalia (fragm. 7. ed.\n      Gaisford).\n\n 1801 Apollod. II. 5. 11. conf. Heyn. According to Herodorus apud Schol.\n      Soph. Trach. 253. Hercules afterwards serves an \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 of three\n      years; and so also Apollod. II. 6. 4. See above, ch. 11, \u00a7 2.\n\n 1802 Above, ch. 7. \u00a7 9. ch. 8. \u00a7 4. The verses from the Heraclea of\n      Panyasis, Fragm. 4. ed. Gaisford, appear to have been spoken by\n      Hercules as a consolation for his slavery. Comp. Iliad XXI. 443.\n      They seem to be incorrectly applied by Heyne ad Apollod. II. 7. 3.\n      p. 188.\n\n 1803 Herod. VI. 116. Paus. I. 15. 4. 32. 4. Harpocrat. in \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2. Schol.\n      Pind. OI. IX. 92. XIII. 184. cf. Boeckh Explic. p. 193. Elmsley ad\n      Eurip. Heraclid. 32.\n\n 1804 Aristoph. Ran. 504. Schol. ad 1. et ad 664. Schol. Apoll. Rh. I.\n      1209. Harpocrat. in \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b7, Hesych. in \u1f10\u03ba \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u039c\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd et \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b1,\n      Suidas in \u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b1. Tzetzes Chil. VIII. 192. Comp. Corsini Fast. Att.\n      II. p. 335. where, however, there are some inaccuracies.\n\n 1805 Together with Hebe, Alcmene, and Iolaus, Paus. I. 19. 3. This temple\n      is frequently mentioned.\n\n 1806 Paus. I. 31.\n\n 1807 Diog. Laert. III. 41.\n\n 1808 Steph. Byz. in \u1f18\u03c7\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9. Hence, according to some writers, a dance\n      called \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 derived its name, Pollux IV. 14. 99. 105. Athen.\n      XIV. p. 618. Hesych. in \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. There was a temple of Hercules,\n      not far off, on the road to Salamis, Plutarch Themist. 13.\n\n 1809 Book I. ch. 3. \u00a7 5.\n\n 1810 Diod. XII. 45. Schol. Soph. \u0152d. T. 701.\n\n 1811 Plutarch, Thes. 35. Eurip. Herc. Fur. 1333.\n\n 1812 See the \u039a\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 in Schol. II. T. 242. Herod. IX. 73. Paus. I. 41.\n      4. III. 18. 3. Isocrat. Encom. Helen, p. 211 E. Plutarch, Thes. 32.\n      Steph. Byz. and Harpocrat. in \u03a4\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9. To this also the verse of\n      Callimachus refers, Frag. 234. \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1fbd \u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 (write \u1f1c\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03bd)\n      \u0394\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u201c_dragging Elatus from Decelea_,\u201d _i.e._,\n      as a guide to Aphidna. According to Alcman (Fragm. 3. ed. Welcker)\n      and the inscription on the chest of Cypselus (Paus. V. 19. 1.) they\n      even conquered Athens. How this is connected with the gloss in\n      Hesychius, \u1f08\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c6\u03af\u03b4\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, which probably refers to\n      Alcman, does not appear.\n\n 1813 Above, ch. 10, \u00a7 8.\n\n 1814 See book I. ch. 3. \u00a7 2.\n\n 1815 The striking difference between the two has been remarked, amongst\n      others, by Dio Chrysost. Orat. 47. p. 523. B.C. The Alexandrine\n      fiction of the _twelve_ labours is satisfactorily treated of by\n      Zoega (Bassiril. II. p. 46.) and also by Ouwaroff, Examen critique\n      de la Fable d\u2019Hercule.\n\n 1816 Schol. Pind. Nem. Arg. p. 425. ed. Boeckh. Argus was also fabled to\n      have there pastured the sacred cows of Here.\n\n 1817 Ap. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. I. 498. comp. Orph. Fragm. 9. A fragment of\n      Epimenides ap. \u00c6lian. Nat. Anim. XII. 7. also mentions this fable,\n      and Herodorus apud Tatian. I. p. 164. (ap. Justin. Martyr, ed.\n      Col.), where for \u1f29\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 we should read \u1f29\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, and again by\n      Euphorion Fragm. 47. p. 111. ed. Meineke. To the passages there\n      collected add Hesiod. Theog. 331. Pindar Fragm. inc. 100. p. 660.\n      ed. Boeckh. Callim. Fragm. 82. Plutarch de Facie in Orbe Lun\u00e6 24. de\n      Fluv. 18. 4. Steph. Byz. in \u1f08\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2. comp. Hygin. Fab. 30.\n\n 1818 Compare the vase published by Millin. II. tab. 75. with the\n      description of the metopes on the temple at Delphi in Eurip. Ion.\n      196. On the chest of Cypselus, however, he is represented as slaying\n      them with arrows.\n\n 1819 Heinrich Proleg. in Hesiod. Scut. pag. 69. Dissen. Explic. Pind.\n      Isthm. V. p. 525. Buttmann ad Soph. Philoct. 726. On the chest of\n      Cypselus Hercules was represented with arrows, and also with a\n      sword: he is called \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 in Archilochus Frag. 60. ed. Gaisford.\n\n 1820 Odyss. XI. 600. cf. VIII. 224. II. V. 393.\n\n 1821 Athen. XII. p. 512 F. Strab. XV. p. 688. Eratosth. Cataster. 12.\n      Suid. in \u03a0\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 comp. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. II. 1197. concerning\n      the brazen club of Hercules mentioned by Peisander.\n\n 1822 See above, b. I. ch. 3. \u00a7 5.\n\n 1823 Comp. Isocr. Archid. p. 119 D. Marm. Farnes. p. 152. in Marini and\n      others.\n\n 1824 I understand \u1f10\u03bd \u03a0\u03cd\u03bb\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9, Il. III. 395 in the same manner as\n      Pausanias does VI. 25. 3. Apollod. II. 7. 3. The wounding of Hades\n      was also mentioned by Panyasis, Arnob. adv. Gent. IV. 25. According\n      to the same author (ap. Clem. Alex. Protr. p. 25. ed. Sylb.) Here\n      was also wounded at Pylus. The passage in the Iliad V. 392. leaves\n      this undecided. Comp. Schol. Venet. ad Il. XI. 689. Lycophr. 39.\n      with the Commentary of Tzetzes. The wounding of Ares is connected\n      with the above by Hesiod Scut. 368. the battle with Apollo and\n      Poseidon by Pindar Olymp. IX. 33. Boeckh Expl. p. 189.\n\n 1825 Nevertheless there was also near Pylos Triphyliacus a sanctuary of\n      Hades on mount Minthe.\n\n 1826 Schol. Il. V. 392. Venet. II. 336. from the \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 of Hesiod.\n      Diod. IV. 31.\n\n 1827 Apollod. II. 6. 2. Schol. Venet. Il. II. 88. Marm. Farnes. p. 151.\n\n 1828 Ch. 11. \u00a7 1.\n\n 1829 Olymp. XI. 57. The names of the conquerors were perhaps taken from\n      public registers, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u1f76, which usually went back to the mythical\n      period, like those of the priestesses of Here at Argos (see book I.\n      ch. 7. \u00a7 2). Comp. with ibid. v. 59. Etym. Mag. \u0394\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f38\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9,\n      read \u0397\u039b\u0395\u0399\u0391\u0399; the spot where Hercules distributed the booty of the\n      Elean war.\n\n 1830 Provided that Doryclus is the \u0394\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u1f72\u03c5\u03c2 mentioned in Apollod. III.\n      10. 5.\n\n 1831 Polyb. XII. 26. 2 comp. above, ch. 3. \u00a7 2.\n\n 1832 See Pind. Olymp. III. 14. where the connexion seems to be as\n      follows: Hercules, while chasing the hind of Artemis, arrives at the\n      country of the Hyperboreans, at the source of the Ister, and there\n      sees the beautiful olive-trees. Afterwards, when about to found the\n      Olympic games, he remembers these trees, and procures some young\n      shoots to plant the bare and sunny plains of Elis. On the \u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 of\n      Olympia see Schneider Index Theophrast. vol. V. p. 424.\n\n 1833 Pausan. VIII. 25. 5. 15. 2. comp. above, p. 220, note b.\n      [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201csome external\n      influence,\u201d starting \u201cThe temples are.\u201d]\n\n 1834 See the map of Peloponnesus.\n\n 1835 Apollod. II. 6. 3.\n\n 1836 See Heyne Excurs. 14. ad \u00c6n. III. From hence the colony of Heraclea\n      was sent.\n\n 1837 \u039f\u0399\u039a\u0399\u039c\u03a4\u0391\u039c on coins, _i.e._ \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2.\n\n 1838 Jamblich. Vit. Pythag. 10.\n\n 1839 Mus. Pembrock. P. II. tab. 16. Eckhel N. Anecd. tab. I. No. 13, from\n      whose explanation mine differs in some respects.\n\n 1840 Aristot. Mirab. Ausc. \u00a7 115.\n\n 1841 Athen. X. p. 441 A. from the \u1f38\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 of Alcimus.\n\n 1842 See book I. ch. 6. \u00a7 3.\n\n 1843 Plutarch. Qu\u00e6st. Gr\u00e6c. 58. p. 409. Nicomachus ap. Lyd. de Mensibus,\n      p. 93.\n\n 1844 Dissen. Expl. Pind. Isthm. V. p. 525. It may, perhaps, be collected\n      from Ovid. Metam. VII. 369. that at this festival the women were\n      disguised as cows. Perhaps the festival of Hercules was connected\n      with that of Here, concerning which see Athen. VI. p. 262.\n\n 1845 Laur. Lydus de Magistr. III. 64. p. 268. On the connexion between\n      the Lydian worship of Sandon or Sandes and the Hellenic worship of\n      Hercules see a paper by the author in the _Rheinisches Museum_, vol.\n      III. p. 22-39.\n\n 1846 Steph. Byz. in \u1f08\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7.\n\n 1847 Berosus ap. Agath. Hist. Justin. II. p. 62. ed. Vulcan.\n\n 1848 Strabo XII. p. 564 B. Solinus 42, &c. comp. _Orchomenos_, p. 293.\n\n 1849 \u039a\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 on the coins.\n\n 1850 Ap. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. I. 131. Hence this genealogy was afterwards\n      transferred to Hylas. In the Spartan fable, Elacatus was represented\n      as the \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 of Hercules (Sosibius ap. Hesych. in \u1f28\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1).\n\n 1851 See the fragments of the Lytierses of Sositheus, Hermann, Opuscula,\n      vol. I. p. 54. and above, ch. 8. \u00a7 12.\n\n 1852 Amongst the passages quoted in Creuzer\u2019s Symbolik, vol. I. p. 326.\n      those of Pherecydes, Pindar, and Apollodorus should be particularly\n      noticed.\n\n 1853 Aristot. ap. \u00c6lian Var. Hist. V. 3. comp. Schwarz de Columnis\n      Herculis, Opuscula, vol. II. p. 205. Peringer de Templo Herculis\n      Gaditani. Concerning Hercules-Briareus, see also Zenob. Prov. \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\n 1854 The African Hercules Maceris, according to Pausan. X. 17. 2; the\n      Ph\u0153nician \u0394\u03b9\u03c9\u03b4\u1fb6\u03c2, according to Euseb. Scal. p. 26. in the Greek\n      text. Islands of Hercules near New Carthage in Spain, Athen. III. p.\n      121 A. We find also an Iolaus connected with the Carthaginian\n      Hercules, Polyb. VII. 9. 2. Eudoxus ap. Athen. IX. p. 392 D.\n\n 1855 Pausan. ubi sup.\n\n 1856 Sallust. Bell. Jugurth. 21. which passage also mentions his death in\n      Spain. Comp. Strabo XVII. p. 828.\n\n 1857 Pollux I. 4. 45.\n\n 1858 Eudoxus ubi sup. Eustath. ad Il. p. 1702. 50. Zenobius in \u1f44\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03be\n      \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. Compare with these passages the very ingenious explanation\n      of this fable in Heeren\u2019s Ideen, vol. I. part 2. p. 129.\n\n 1859 Herod. V. 43. Paus. III. 16. 4.\n\n 1860 Hence also the legend that Hercules was subject to epilepsy.\n\n 1861 Od. XI. 605.\n\n 1862 This worship certainly originated at Delphi, since the Delphic\n      oracle in Demosth. in. Mid. p. 531. 7. orders the Athenians to offer\n      sacrifices \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03b3\u03b9\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 to the supreme Zeus, Hercules, and Apollo\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. Concerning Hercules \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 see Libanius Ep. 12.\n      Dio Chrysost. Orat. I. p. 17. Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 1375. and Schol.\n      Apoll. Rh. I. 1218. comp. Marini Ville Alban. p. 141. No. 152. This\n      character of the hero is generally alluded to in the exclamations\n      \u1f29\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, Me Hercules; and as such, representations of sheep were\n      offered to him (otherwise the usual sacrifices were swine); and he\n      was called \u039c\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd at Thebes, Pollux I. 1. 27. 30. and at Melite in\n      Attica.\u2014See Apollod. ap. Zenob. V. 12. Hesych. in \u039c\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd. Schol.\n      Aristoph. Pac. 42. cf. 740. Suidas in \u039c\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 1863 Strab. XIII. p. 613. This, however, was not the original Grecian\n      Hercules; above, \u00a7 8. Hercules \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (the averter of flies) was\n      worshipped at Rome, according to Clemens Alexand. Protrept. I. p.\n      24. ed. Sylb. a title of Zeus at Olympia.\n\n 1864 According to Pausanias, who also gives an account of several\n      D\u00e6dalian wooden images of Hercules. The divine worship at Sicyon\n      (Paus. II. 10. 1.) may, however, be referred to the Id\u00e6an Dactylus,\n      since this town was anciently connected with Ph\u00e6stus.\n\n 1865 Pind. Nem. I. 67. (cf. VII. 90) represents Hercules as engaged in\n      this contest with the gods, probably a short time before his\n      deification. The first representations of Hercules the\n      giant-destroyer occur on the throne of the Amycl\u00e6an Apollo. Pausan.\n      III. 18. 7. and some very ancient vases.\n\n 1866 In making libations to Hercules not a drop was left in the goblet,\n      Athen. XII. p. 1512 F. Those who wished to make libations brought\n      him a measure of wine, Hesych. in \u039f\u1f30\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n 1867 For instance, Epicharmus in the Busiris, and The Marriage of Hebe\n      (frequently quoted in Athen\u00e6us), and Rhinthon in the Hercules. See\n      Athen. XI. p. 500 F.\n\n 1868 See _e.g._, Eubulus ap. Athen. XIII. p. 567.\n\n 1869 On this poem see Fabric. Biblioth. Gr. vol. I. p. 378. ed. Harles.\n      Thermopyl\u00e6 appears to have been the earliest locality of this fable\n      (Herod. VII. 216. above, ch. 11. \u00a7 5.), but in this poem the scene\n      was perhaps laid in \u0152chalia in Eub\u0153a; at least Tzetzes, enumerating\n      the poems attributed to Homer, mentions the \u039a\u03ad\u03c1\u03ba\u03c9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2 next to the\n      \u039f\u1f30\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f05\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (ap. Bentl. Epist. ad Mill. p. 505, ed.\n      Lips.).\u2014Hence Diotimus, in his poem on the labours of Hercules,\n      called the Cercopes \u0152chalians, viz., in Eub\u0153a, whence they ravaged\n      the territory of B\u0153otia (Suidas in \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Apostol. IX. 33.\n      Schol. Lucian. Alexand. 4. 71.): \u00c6schrion of Sardis, in his Ephesis,\n      was probably the first who transplanted them to Lydia (Lobeck _de\n      Cercopibus el Cobalis_ p. 7.), and Xenagoras to the Pithecus\u00e6\n      (apparently in his treatise \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u039d\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd, ap. Harpocrat. in \u039a\u03ad\u03c1\u03ba\u03c9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2.\n      Lactant. Fab. XIV. 3. Zenobius, Apostol. XI. 24.). Among the\n      Athenian comic poets Hermippus and Plato treated this fable; but the\n      composition in Hancarville III. 88. in which Hercules reaches two\n      monkey-shaped Cercopes in nets or cages to Eurystheus sitting on a\n      throne, seems to be a representation of an Italian farce.\n\n 1870 Millingen Peintures In\u00e9dites pl. 35. Tischbein III. 37. See Tzetz.\n      ad Lycophr. 691.\n\n 1871 See Reinganum\u2019s Selinus, plate 3. (Leipsig. 1827).\n\n 1872 \u039c\u03ae \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. See the Par\u0153miographers, Photius, Suidas,\n      &c., in this expression, Diod. IV. 31. and others. The proverb\n      occurred in Archilochus, fragm. 106. ed. Gaisford.\n\n 1873 Athen. VI. p. 260. from Hegesander, ibid. XIV. p. 615 D. from\n      Telephanes. Perhaps Hercules had \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 here as well as at\n      Cynosarges and other demi. See Diodorus of Sinope in Athen. VI. p.\n      239 E.\n\n 1874 Book IV. ch. 6. \u00a7 9. 10. ch. 7.\n\n 1875 Our knowledge of Macedonia has been much increased by the Travels of\n      F. C. H. L. Pouqueville from Janina to Greveno and Castoria, of H.\n      Pouqueville from Guilan to Mezzovo, and Barbi\u00e9 du Bocage\u2019s (the\n      younger) Examination of the Ruins of Pella; although in the _Voyage\n      dans la Gr\u00e8ce_ (tom. II.) of the first-named writer some singular\n      notions, arising from an imperfect knowledge of ancient geography\n      (_e.g._, of _Haliacmonts_), somewhat confuse the description. But\n      the _Carte de la Gr\u00e8ce Moderne_, by J D. Barbi\u00e9 du Bocage, is a work\n      of great accuracy, and it has been implicitly followed in the\n      annexed Map.\n\n 1876 Its rise in these mountains, and course through P\u00e6onia (Liv. XXXIX.\n      53. Strabo VII. p. 327. cf. Exc. 9. p. 330. ed. Casaub. Ptolem. p.\n      82. ed. Montan.). prove that it is the modern Cara-Sou.\n\n 1877 Strabo VII. 9. p. 330. states that the Ludias runs out of the lake\n      on which Pella is situated; which is now the lake of Jenidge.\n      (According to modern maps it is not true that the lake is formed by\n      an \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 of the Axius; but in ancient times also the marshes\n      reached to the east of Pella, Liv. XLIV. 46.) Compare Strabo VII. 8.\n      p. 330. It is evident from Herodotus VII. 127. that the Lydias was\n      next to the Axius. \u039b\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 was the reading found by Harpocration in\n      \u00c6schines de Fals. Leg. p. 44.\n\n 1878 Herod. VII. 127. Scylax agrees with Herodotus, p. 26. ed. Hudson,\n      where the places come in the following order: \u201cPydna, Methone, the\n      mouth of the Haliacmon, Alorus, the Lydias, then Pella, the Axius,\n      the Echeidorus, and Therma.\u201d On the other hand, Strabo, who\n      represents the Haliacmon as falling into the sea near Dium (VII. 8.\n      p. 330.), perhaps confounding it with the Helicon, (Pausan. IX. 30.\n      4.) is supported by Ptolemy, p. 82. \u201cThessalonice, the Echeidorus,\n      the Axius, the Lydias, Pydna, the Haliacmon, Dion, Pharybas (read\n      Baphyras), the Peneus.\u201d\n\n 1879 Plutarch de Exilio 10.\n\n 1880 Or Lacmus, in which mountain the Aous and the Inachus, a branch of\n      the Achelous, have their source, Hecat\u00e6us ap. Strab. VI. p. 271.\n      VII. p. 316. Steph. Byz. in v. \u039b\u03ac\u03ba\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd. Sophocles ap. Strab. VI. p.\n      271. Herod. IX. 93. The _Lingus_ of Livy XXXII. 13. is nearly the\n      same mountain.\n\n 1881 Ptolemy. It seems plain that the \u039a\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03bf\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b7 of Ptolemy, in which\n      the Haliacmon rises, and the \u039a\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf\u03c5\u03af\u03b1 \u1f44\u03c1\u03b7 before Lychnidus, in\n      Strabo, C\u00e6sar, Cicero, and the Tab. Peuting. are the _same_ name,\n      and that the passage of Ptolemy is corrupt. The ridge is, indeed,\n      broken by the Genusus.\n\n 1882 See next note.\n\n 1883 Strabo VII. Exc. 11. p. 330. This _Bermius_ is a continuation of\n      mount _Barnus_, at the foot of which the Via Egnatia passes (Strab.\n      VII. p. 323.), and the same as the _Bernus_ of Diodorus, fragm. 27.\n      p. 229. ed. Bipont, or the _Bora_ of Livy XLV. 29. 30. where it must\n      be distinguished between what properly belongs to a _regio_ and what\n      _adjicitur_. See below, p. 459, note n. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: There\n      is no such footnote number on that page.]\n\n 1884 Mannert\u2019s Geographie, VII. p. 516.\n\n 1885 Below, \u00a7 17.\n\n 1886 Below. \u00a7 11.\n\n 1887 VII. 113.\n\n 1888 Herodotus (ubi sup.) appears also to call the mountain between the\n      Strymon and Angites, Pang\u00e6um.\n\n 1889 Herod. VII. 123. cf. 127.\n\n 1890 Herod. VII. 124.\n\n 1891 Thuc. I. 58.\n\n 1892 Il. 99.\n\n 1893 Herod. VII. 115. Diodonis XXVII. p. 229. also places the Bisalt\u00e6 to\n      the west of the Strymon; somewhat differently Liv. XLV. 29, 30.\n      Compare Gatterer\u2019s excellent Dissertations _de Herodoti et\n      Thucydidis Thracia_, and Commentat. Gotting. vol. 5. p. 33.\n\n 1894 Herod. VII. 124. cf. 127. It is, however, singular that Xerxes\n      should go from Acanthus to Therma in Mygdonia, beyond P\u00e6onia (on the\n      Axius?) and Crestonica. This Crestonica is probably quite different\n      from the Creston\u00e6i at the source of the Echeidorus, and is a\n      district of Chalcidice. See the author\u2019s _Etrusker_, vol. I. p. 96.\n      \u1f18\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0392\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, Pseud-Aristot. Mirab.\n      Auscult. p. 710. ed. Casaubon.\n\n 1895 Herod. VII. 127.\n\n 1896 VII. 123. \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u0390\u03b4\u03b1, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f3c\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1. It does not follow that Pella was, in the\n      opinion of Herodotus, a coast-town.\n\n 1897 Of Apollo, according to Hesychius in \u1f38\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\u03bd. Macedonia had been\n      called from it \u1f38\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b7 by some poet, Hesychius and Suidas in v. The\n      city is mentioned by Eratosthenes ap. Steph. Byz. Plin. H. N. IV.\n      17. and Mela II. 3. Stephanus Byz. confounds with this town that in\n      Thessaly. Themis was worshipped at Ichn\u00e6, according to Strabo IX. p.\n      435.\n\n 1898 Strab. VII. 8. p. 330. compare Scylax and \u00c6schines above, in notes c\n      and d.\n\n 1899 Strab. VII. 9. p. 330.\n\n 1900 In Polybius V. 97. 4. Bottia and Amphaxitis are also mentioned\n      together.\n\n 1901 \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 in II. 99. should probably be written \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03b1, as in II.\n      100. (or the reverse; see notes c and f in this page, and Etym. Mag.\n      in v.) [Transcriber\u2019s Note: Note c begins \u201cIn Polybius V. 97. 4.\u201d\n      and note f begins \u201cThucyd. I. 65.\u201d]\n\n 1902 See below, p. 465, note k. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote\n      to \u201caccording to Herodotus,\u201d starting \u201cVIII. 127.\u201d]\n\n 1903 Thucyd. I. 65, II. 79, 101. The passage of Theopompus ap. Steph.\n      Byz. in v. \u0391\u1f30\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd should be thus written: \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 (vulg. \u1f08\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2) \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd. The inhabitants, however, are always called \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 in\n      Thucydides. \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 for \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74, Dionysius ad Amm. I. 9. The great\n      etymologist in \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 also notices the distinction between \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\n      and \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03b1; where write \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f21 \u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03b3\u1fc6 (\u03a7\u0391\u039b\u039a\u0399\u0394\u0399\u039a\u0397 for\n      \u03a7\u0391\u039b\u0394\u0391\u0399\u039a\u0397).\n\n 1904 VII. 127. Compare the expression \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u0390\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1, with VII. 123. \u1f45\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u039c\u03c5\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u0390\u03b4\u03b1.\n\n 1905 Pausan. IX. 30. 3. \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a0\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. Livy XLIV. 43.\n      calls the mountain-forest above Pydna _Pieria sylva_.\n\n 1906 With Strabo VII. 8. p. 330. who makes P\u00e6onia extend to the Axius\n      (and so Ptolemy, p. 82.); though he afterwards places Alorus to the\n      south of the Lydias, and yet in Botti\u00e6a. There is, however, much\n      confusion in this passage.\n\n 1907 See below, \u00a7 17.\n\n 1908 VIII. 8. p. 330.\n\n 1909 Liv. XLIV. 9, 20. Hence also Pausanias (IX. 30. 3. X. 13. 3.)\n      appears to distinguish Dium (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03a0\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3), and Strabo (IX. p.\n      410. X. p. 471.) Leibethrum, from Pieria. On the other hand, Arrian.\n      Anab. I. 11. places the \u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd of Orpheus at Leibethra (Plutarch\n      Alexand. 14.) in Pieria.\n\n 1910 I have placed Dium at the _ruines_ in B. du Bocage; Platamona is\n      perhaps the ancient temple of Hercules.\n\n 1911 VII. 8. p. 330. comp. Wesseling ad Anton. Itin. p. 328. and Drakenb.\n      ad Liv. XLII. 51. The _Citium_ of Livy must be sought for near\n      Edessa.\n\n 1912 XLII. 53.\n\n 1913 Il. 99.\n\n 1914 Liv. XLV. 30.\n\n 1915 Liv. XLII. 53. Compare Plutarch. \u00c6mil. 9. \u03b2\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n      \u1f18\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (the passes of Elimea?).\n\n 1916 Liv. XLIII. 21. see above, \u00a7 2.\n\n 1917 Steph. Byz. in \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9. According to Arrian I. 7. the \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\n      \u03a4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 and \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, between Elimea and Thessaly. Plutarch Qu.\n      Gr. 13. cf. 26. places Parau\u00e6a in Molossis, Stephanus in Thesprotis,\n      as well as Tymphe. Comp. Thuc. II. 80. It is now called _Zagori_.\n      See _Geographische Ephemeriden_, vol. XVII. p. 429.\n\n 1918 Strab. VII. p. 325. cf. 326. The Paror\u00e6a in P\u00e6onia, Liv. XLII. 51.\n      Plin. IV. 17. should be distinguished from it.\n\n 1919 Strab. VII. p. 327. cf. 326. Liv. XLV. 30. According to Marsyas in\n      Steph. Byz. in v. \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1, \u00c6thicia lay between Tymph\u00e6a and\n      Athamania. In Liv. XXXII. 13. should probably be written, _in\n      Tymph\u00e6a terra Molottidis,_ where you would arrive by mounting the\n      course of the Aous. Plutarch Pyrrh. 6. connects Stymph\u00e6a and\n      Parau\u00e6a: \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03a3\u03c4\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Comp.\n      Niebuhr\u2019s R\u00f6mische Geschichte, vol. III. p. 536.\n\n 1920 See particularly Polyb. II. 5. Scylax, p. 10. Comp. Thucydides,\n      Livy, and Strabo as above. In Proxenus ap. Steph. Byz. in v. \u03a7\u03b1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1,\n      for \u03a4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f08\u03bc\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 read \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f08\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2. It is mentioned\n      in Pseud-Aristot. Mirab. Auscult. p. 704. ed. Casaub. that Atintania\n      borders on Apolloniatis; and hence in p. 710. for \u1f08\u03c4\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd read\n      \u1f08\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, or \u1f08\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n 1921 In Liv. XXXI. 40. Sulpicius goes from Elimea to Orestis, and from\n      thence to Dassaretis (on the lake Lychnidus, XXVII. 32. near\n      Lyncestis, XXXI. 33. XXXII. 9. cf. Polyb. V. 108. Ptolem. p. 83,),\n      and conquers Pelion on the Erigon (see Arrian I. 5.).\n\n 1922 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f48\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, Polyb. XVIII. 30. Liv. XXXIII. 34. cf. XLII.\n      38.\n\n 1923 Or \u1f48\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2, Strab. VII. p. 326.\n\n 1924 Liv. XXXI. 40.\n\n 1925 Mannert denies this (VII. p. 519.); but without the authority of any\n      good map. See Pouqueville tom. II. p. 322. Orestia was beyond\n      Macedonia, according to Steph. Byz.\n\n 1926 This is evident from the following passages, Plin. H. N. IV. 15. _In\n      Thessalia autem Orchomenos Minyeus ante dictus, et oppidum Almon ab\n      aliis Salmon._ Schol. Apollon. II. 1186. \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f48\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Steph. Byz. \u039c\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b1\n      \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f09\u03bb\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1; Diod. XX. 110. where Orchomenus\n      and Dium are mentioned together as cities in existence in Olymp.\n      119. 3; Eustath. ad Il. IX. p. 661. 4. ed. Bas. (cf. II. p. 206.\n      22.) who states that the Thessalian _or_ Macedonian Orchomenus was\n      in his time called Charmenas. See _Orchomenos_, pp. 139, 249. where\n      it is also shown that the Halmopians, or Salmonians, were an ancient\n      tribe of the Miny\u00e6.\n\n 1927 Livy XLV. 30. says of Eord\u00e6a, Lyncestis, Pelagonia, Atintania,\n      Tymph\u00e6a, and Elimiotis, _frigida h\u00e6c omnis duraque cultu et aspera\n      plaga est_.\n\n 1928 Among the Macedonian gentile-names, such as Lyncest\u00e6, Orest\u00e6, Diast\u00e6\n      (Steph. Byz. in \u0394\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd), may also be included the Cyrrhest\u00e6 (Plin. H.\n      N. IV. 17.) of the region Cyrrhus (Thuc. II. 100. Diod. XVIII. 4.\n      Steph. Byz. in \u039c\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03af).\n\n 1929 Thuc. IV. 83. 124, 129. Liv. XXVI. 25. XXXI. 33. see p. 459, note m,\n      [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201cEdessa and Pella,\u201d\n      starting \u201cStrab. VII. p. 323.\u201d] p. 460, note x, [Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n      This is the footnote to \u201cLyncestis,\u201d starting \u201cBy the road.\u201d] and \u00a7\n      27.\n\n 1930 Thuc. IV. 124. \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2. Heraclea Lyncestis appears\n      to have been a late settlement.\n\n 1931 Thuc. IV. 127.\n\n 1932 Strab. VII. p. 323. This road, which, according to the tab.\n      Peutinger. and the Itin. Anton. p. 318, 329, passes through\n      Lychnidus, Heraclea Lyncestis, Cell\u00e6, Edessa, Pella, and Therma,\n      evidently in the higher parts followed the direction of an _ancient\n      pass_, the \u03b5\u1f54\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 (see p. 458, note a\n      [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201cIllyrian\n      Dassaretians,\u201d starting \u201cIn Liv. XXXI. 40.\u201d]) \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039b\u03cd\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, Plut.\n      Flamin. 4. and also Liv. XXXII. 9. where for _Lychnidum_ read\n      _Lyncum_.\n\n 1933 This follows from Liv. XLV. 29. _Quarta regio trans Boram montem_\n      (with respect to which the _tertia regio_ was _versus\n      septentrionem_, and therefore _versus meridiem_ of this), and XLV.\n      30. _Quartam regionem Eord\u00e6i et Lyncest\u00e6 et Pelagones incolunt._\n\n 1934 For example, the way in Livy XXVI. 25. cf. XXXI. 33. where the river\n      _Bevus_ is also mentioned, probably one of the branches, which,\n      according to Strabo VII. p. 327, fall into the Erigon \u1f10\u03ba \u039b\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n 1935 In Liv. XLII. 53. Perseus goes from Pella through Eord\u00e6a to Elimea.\n      The _lacus Begorrites_ appears to be the lake Citrini.\n\n 1936 See above, note n. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to\n      \u201csouth of it,\u201d starting \u201cThis follows from Liv.\u201d]\n\n 1937 Arrian I. 7. The river Eordaicus, ibid. I. 5, probably runs from\n      Eord\u00e6a into the Erigon.\n\n 1938 Liv. XXXIX. 53. Strab. VII. p. 327. Places, Bryanium, Alcomen\u00e6,\n      Stymbara (_Stubera_ Livy, \u03a3\u03c4\u03cd\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1 Polybius). In Livy XXXI. 39, 40.\n      Sulpicius follows a mountain-road from Stubera to Eord\u00e6a, and then\n      to Elimea; compare Polyb. XVIII. 6. 3.\n\n 1939 Liv. XXXIX. 53.\n\n 1940 See above, p. 459, note s. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote\n      to \u201calong the Erigon,\u201d starting \u201cLiv. XXXIX. 53.\u201d]\n\n 1941 By the road _per Pelagoniam et Lyncum et Botti\u00e6am in Thessaliam_,\n      Liv. XXVI. 25. That it borders on Deuriopus is shown by Liv. XXXI.\n      39.\n\n 1942 Liv. XXXI. 28, 33. comp. Gatterer Commentat. tom. VI. p. 67.\n\n 1943 Thucyd. II. 99. \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f08\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03a0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2. The same strip of land\n      was included by \u00c6milius Paulus in his _tertia regio_, according to\n      Livy XLV. 29. _Adjecta huic parti regio P\u00e6oni\u00e6, qua ab occasu pr\u00e6ter\n      Axium amnem porrigitur._\n\n 1944 See above, p. 454, note p. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote\n      to \u201cfrom Bottia\u00efs,\u201d starting \u201cHerod. VII. 123.\u201d]\n\n 1945 II. 99. where Sitalces is going to make a descent into Lower\n      Macedonia, the country of Perdiccas, from Doberus \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03ae\u03bd. He\n      then invades (II. 100.) Eidomene, Gortynia, Atalante, and Europus\n      (_Europos ad Axium amnem_, Plin. IV. 17.), probably places in\n      P\u00e6onia, but certainly not Botti\u00e6a or Mygdonia.\n\n 1946 II. 98. \u03a0\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u0394\u03cc\u03b2\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, Herod. VII. 113.\n\n 1947 II. 98.\n\n 1948 Herod. V. 15. Concerning the settlements of the Sintians, see\n      Mannert. vol. VII. p. 502.\n\n 1949 Doberus coincides with the modern _Doiran_. The \u039a\u03b5\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7,\n      Arrian I. 11, is probably the lake near Doiran.\n\n 1950 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03af.\n\n 1951 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03b1, as the Magnetes to the Thessalians.\n\n 1952 Those of Perdiccas.\n\n 1953 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 (according to Bekker) \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n 1954 The substance of the clauses omitted is given below.\n\n 1955 VII. 128. cf. 131, 173.\n\n 1956 See book I. ch. 1. \u00a7 3.\n\n 1957 Above, p. 457, note s. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to\n      \u201cCambunian mountains,\u201d starting with \u201cLiv. XLII. 53.\u201d]\n\n 1958 Thus Thuc. IV. 83. comp. Xenoph. Hell. V. 2. 38.\n\n 1959 Above, p. 458, note b. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to\n      \u201cOrestian Macedonians,\u201d starting \u201c\u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f48\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\u201d] Thucydides\n      II. 80. distinguishes the Orest\u00e6 from the Macedonians, viz., from\n      those of Perdiccas.\n\n 1960 Thuc. II. 80. Perhaps from his name he was of the family of the\n      Aleuad\u00e6.\n\n 1961 Thuc. IV. 79. 83.\n\n 1962 Strab. VII. p. 326. Comp. book I. ch. 7. \u00a7 15.\n\n 1963 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f26\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f67\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd against Arrhib\u00e6us,\n      Thuc. IV. 124.\n\n 1964 Herod. VIII. 137, 138.\n\n 1965 II. 100. These were, according to Herodotus, Perdiccas, Arg\u00e6us,\n      Philip, Aeropus, Alcetas, Amyntas, Alexander, and Perdiccas.\n\n 1966 Edessa on the Via Egnatia, 28. m. p. from Pella, 62-66. from\n      Heraclea Lyncestis (Antonin. Itinerar. pp. 319, 330; the tab.\n      Peuting. gives less accurately 45 and 77 m. p.) is probably the\n      modern _Vodina_.\n\n 1967 See Dexippus ap. Syncell. p. 262. Euseb. Scal. p. 47. cf. 37. Justin\n      VII. 1. Solin. IX. 14. Dexippus quotes Theopompus for Caranus.\n      Marsyas (perhaps the cotemporary of Alexander and Antigonus) related\n      a fable concerning C\u0153nus, the successor of Caranus, Etym. Mag. p.\n      523. 40. Etym. Gud. p. 332. 41.\n\n 1968 Diod. XIX. 52. XXII. p. 307. Bip. Plin. IV. 17. Solin. IX. 14. comp.\n      Justin. VII. 2.\n\n 1969 See below, \u00a7 17.\n\n 1970 Herod. V. 21. VIII. 136. Justin VII. 3.\n\n 1971 Consequently the story that Xerxes gave Alexander all the country\n      between mounts Olympus and H\u00e6mus (Justin VII. 4.) is not entirely\n      fabulous.\n\n 1972 Gatterer Commentat. vol. IV. p. 96. vol. VI. p. 15. is more accurate\n      on this point than Poppo Thucyd. vol. II. p. 421.\n\n 1973 Herod. VII. 112. Although \u1f28\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u0398\u03c1\u1fb4\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 in Thuc. IV. 7. cannot be\n      that on the Strymon, yet Eustathius ad Il. II. 566. p. 217. ed. Bas.\n      is incorrect in distinguishing \u1f28\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd in Pieria from that on the\n      Strymon (comp. Steph. Byz. in \u1f28\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd, Schol. Thuc. I. 98.); and\n      Raoul-Rochette, Histoire des Colonies Grecques, tom. III. p. 207,\n      should not have followed him, since Pieria, viz. New-Pieria, reaches\n      in this point to the Strymon. But the \u1f28\u03b9\u1f7c\u03bd of Thucydides is not in\n      Pieria, but in Chalcidice.\n\n 1974 Thuc. II. 99.\n\n 1975 The expression of Thucydides, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03a0\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, proves that the circumstance had taken place long before.\n      Hence arose the fabulous genealogies of Pierus and Emathius, the\n      sons of Macednus, &c; Marsyas ap. Schol. Il. XIV. 226. comp. Pausan.\n      IX. 29. 1.\n\n 1976 VIII. 127. Thucydides also includes the Botti\u00e6ans, I. 57. (cf. IV.\n      57.) among those \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u0398\u03c1\u1fb4\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2. \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u0398\u03c1\u1fb4\u03ba\u1fc3, Callimachus fragm.\n      75, 41.\n\n 1977 Herod. V. 94. Concerning the position of Anthemus, see Plin. H.N.\n      IV. 17. Hence the \u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 of the Macedonian army, Hesychius\n      in v. \u1f3c\u03bb\u03b7 \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f08\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, Arrian II. 9. [See Thirlwall\u2019s Hist.\n      of Greece, vol. V. p. 194. note.]\n\n 1978 An objection which might be derived from Thucyd. I. 58. where,\n      according to the old reading, Mygdonia is distinguished from the\n      kingdom of Perdiccas, is removed by omitting the \u03c4\u03b5 after \u039c\u03c5\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,\n      which Bekker and Poppo have expunged, with good MSS.\n\n 1979 The distinction taken by Tzetzes ad Lycoph. 419. between the \u1f2c\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n      and \u1f28\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76, viz., that the former dwelt on the coast, the latter\n      inland, cannot be supported. For instance, Thucyd. I. 100. calls\n      those by Amphipolis \u1f28\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03af.\n\n 1980 VII. 114.\n\n 1981 Herod. V. 11, 24.\n\n 1982 Thuc. IV. 107.\n\n 1983 But \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1, Herod. VI. 44, are not the nations in\n      Macedonia (Heyne Opuscul. Acad. IV. p. 164.), but those between\n      Macedonia and Persia. See Boeckh\u2019s Economy of Athens, vol. II. p.\n      483. note.\n\n 1984 Forty stadia beyond Pydna, Strabo.\n\n 1985 Plutarch Qu. Gr. 11.\n\n 1986 Aristot. ap. Strab. X. p. 447. Conon Narr. c. 20. Raoul-Rochette,\n      Histoire des Colonies Grecques, tom. III. pp. 198 sqq.\n\n_ 1987 Pydna_, however, early belonged to the Macedonians, Thucyd. I. 137.\n      Diod. XIII. 49. Scylax, p. 26. calls Pydna and Methone Greek cities;\n      but that proves nothing for their independence.\n\n 1988 Above, p. 455, note g. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to\n      \u201caccording to Herodotus,\u201d starting \u201cVII. 127.\u201d] No one surely will\n      distinguish between \u03b3\u1fc6 \u1f21 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1f76\u03c2 and \u1f21 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1.\n\n 1989 Above, \u00a7 16. Herodotus also mentions together, among the allies of\n      Xerxes, VII. 185, the Eordians (in Physca, see below, p. 468. note k\n      [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201cPhysca in Mygdonia,\u201d\n      starting \u201cAccording to Ptolemy, p. 83.\u201d]), the Botti\u00e6ans (near\n      Olynthus), and the Chalcideans. Concerning the Brygians, see below,\n      \u00a7 30.\n\n 1990 Besides VII. 127. see also VII. 173. concerning the road from _Lower\n      Macedonia_ to Thessaly.\n\n 1991 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 (\u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd Bekker) \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n 1992 Near the pass Volustana, Liv. XLIV. 2, which led to Elimea, p. 457,\n      note s. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201cCambunian\n      mountains,\u201d starting with \u201cLiv. XLII. 53.\u201d]\n\n 1993 VII. 131.\n\n 1994 V. 17.\n\n 1995 Herod. V. 15, 16.\n\n 1996 See Poppo Thucyd. vol. II. p. 434. Mannert, vol. VII. p. 495.\n\n 1997 Herod. VIII. 116.\n\n 1998 In Syncellus and Eusebius Scal. the reading is Dardanians for\n      Eordians; the latter, which is evidently the correct reading, is\n      preserved in the Armenian Eusebius, p. 168. ed. Mai. who follows\n      Diodorus.\n\n 1999 According to Ptolemy, p. 83. In Steph. Byz. it should probably be\n      written, \u1f18\u03bf\u03c1\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c7\u1ff6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03c5\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n 2000 Thuc. II. 100. cf. I. 57. VI. 7.\n\n 2001 Thuc. I. 57.\n\n 2002 I. 59.\n\n 2003 According to Schol. Thuc. I. 57.\n\n 2004 Hence perhaps we might separate \u03be\u03cd\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03b1 in the beginning\n      of the chapter, and refer the former rather to Lyncus, the latter to\n      Elimea.\n\n 2005 Aristot. Pol. V. 8.\n\n 2006 Xen. Hell. V. 2. 38.\n\n 2007 Athen. XIII. p. 557. C. cf. X. p. 436 C.\n\n 2008 To be inferred from Lycophron. Cass. 802. with Tzetzes.\n\n 2009 Diod. XVII. 7.\n\n 2010 Arrian VI. 28.\n\n 2011 Pliny H. N. IV. 17. mentions _Almopians_, together with Eordians, on\n      the banks of the Axius; and in Ptolemy p. 83. Almopia is the country\n      near Europus; it was to this place that the Almopians probably fled.\n      This also explains the genealogical connexion with P\u00e6on and Edonus.\n      _Orchamenos,_ p. 250, note 2.\n\n 2012 Of ancient wars of the Macedonians, not mentioned by Thucydides, I\n      may mention the fabulous battle between Caranus and _Cisseus_\n      (Pausan. IX. 40. 4.), probably a king of _Cissus_, near Therma,\n      which is the explanation given by Strabo VII. exc. 10. p. 330. of\n      Cisseus the Thracian in Il. XI. 221. Euripides transferred this war,\n      as well as the story of the goats, into his tragedy called\n      Archelaus, perhaps only written from flattery, fragm. 33. ed. Musgr.\n      Hyginus Fab. 219. See also Lycophr. 1237. Concerning the supposed\n      war with the Phrygians, see below, \u00a7 30.\n\n 2013 See Mannert, vol. VII. p. 281. In the catalogue of nations, however,\n      in Appian Illyr. 2. P\u00e6onian and Thracian (M\u00e6di, Triballi) are mixed\n      with Illyrian tribes.\n\n 2014 Herod. IV. 93. V. 3. Menander ap. Strab. VII. p. 297. The language\n      of the Get\u00e6 was Thracian, Strab. VII. p. 303.\n\n 2015 Herod. VII. 75, &c.\n\n 2016 According to Strabo VII. p. 305, 315. cf. VII. p. 323.\n\n 2017 Strab. VII. p. 316. According to which passage they extended more to\n      the north as far as the Illyrian Dardanians. The Thracians beyond\n      Crestona, mentioned by Herodotus V. 3. are probably the same people.\n\n 2018 Conon Narr. c. 20. calls the Bisalt\u00e6 Thracians (\u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 was also a\n      Thracian name according to Heraclid. Pont. 41); and the Pan\u00e6ans,\n      whom Thucydides II. 101. calls Thracians, were an Edonian nation\n      according to Stephanus Byz.\n\n 2019 Strabo X. p. 471. does not appear to make this supposition, but\n      perhaps in VII. p. 321.\n\n 2020 By Thucydides II. 29. and by earlier writers.\n\n 2021 See above, p. 11.\n\n 2022 Iliad XIV. 225. sqq.\n\n 2023 Gatterer Commentat. VI. p. 37. Mannert, vol. VII. p. 487.\n\n 2024 Solin. IX. 2, &c.\n\n 2025 See particularly Appian Illyr. I. But as in later times P\u00e6onians and\n      Illyrians were confounded (Appian Illyr. 14.) the Paunonians also\n      were called Illyrians.\n\n 2026 Herod. V. 13. comp. VII. 20, 75, and see _Prolegomena zur\n      Mythologie_, p. 351. The legend concerning the great expedition of\n      the Teucrians is well given in Lycophron v. 1341.\n\n 2027 Yet Strabo VII. p. 295. has the contrary tradition of the Mysians.\n\n 2028 I. 196.\n\n 2029 Gottleber ad Thucyd. I. 57.\n\n 2030 Herod. V. 20.\n\n 2031 Herodot. V. 22. and see Valckenaer\u2019s note. The Attic orators\n      evidently exaggerate; there is, however, perhaps a slight hyperbole\n      in what Weiske _de Hyperbole_, p. 19. says on the other side.\n\n 2032 See Scylax, p. 12. and the metrical Dic\u00e6archus, p. 3. Comp. Salmas.\n      Exercit. Plin. p. 100 A.\n\n 2033 The passage of Hesiod appears to be from the \u1f28\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 (above p. 4. note\n      n [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201cHesiod and\n      Hellanicus,\u201d starting \u201cAp. Constant.\u201d]), and these poems come down\n      as late as the 40th Olympiad (_Orchomenos_, p. 358). After Hesiod\n      Solinus IX. 13. calls _Macedo Deucalionis maternus nepos._ comp.\n      Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieg. 427.\n\n 2034 The account of the Greeks living on the Pontus, according to Herod.\n      IV. 8-10.\n\n 2035 Although Mannert, vol. VII. p. 492. considers the Macedonians to be\n      of Illyrian and P\u00e6onian descent, Comp. p. 421.\n\n 2036 See above, p. 460. note z. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote\n      to \u201cand the coast,\u201d starting \u201cThucyd. II. 99.\u201d] Pliny H. N. IV. 17.\n      appears to say that the Eordi were P\u00e6onians; and it is not\n      improbable that this was the fact, though the passage of Pliny is\n      corrupt. Herodotus VII. 185. mentions together Thracians, P\u00e6onians,\n      Eordians, Botti\u00e6ans, Chalcidians, Brygians, Pierians, Macedonians,\n      and Perrh\u00e6bians.\n\n_ 2037 E.g._ Thuc. IV. 124.\n\n_ 2038 E.g._ Thucydides II. 96. mentions Thracians between mounts H\u00e6mus\n      and Rhodope, Get\u00e6 and mountain Thracians together, as if the Get\u00e6\n      were not Thracians. Instances of this use are very common; _e.g._\n      the common case of Ionians _and_ Athenians.\n\n 2039 Il. XIV. 226. And hence in the Hymn to the Pythian Apollo, v. 39.\n      (according to Matthi\u00e4\u2019s and Ilgen\u2019s conjecture), although Emathia\n      does not suit very well there, and the preceding word (neither\n      \u039b\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd nor \u039b\u03af\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd is in its place) remains uncertain. The Roman\n      poets, as is well known, use the name in a very wide sense, Heyne ad\n      Virg. Georg. I. 492.\n\n 2040 Plin. H. N. IV. 17. Justin. VII. 1. Gell. XIV. 6. 4. Solinus IX. 1.\n      distinguishes between the Edonian, Mygdonian, Pierian, and Emathian\n      territory, and IX. 12. derives the name of Emathia, as being that of\n      the most ancient Macedonia, from an Autochthon _Emathius_. Tzetzes\n      ad Hesiod. Op. I. Chiliad. VI. 90. states, from the Delphica of\n      Melisseus, that A\u00ebropus, the eldest son of Emathion, had reigned\n      over Lyncus, which had previously been called Pieria,\u2014a very\n      confused account.\n\n 2041 See Justin VII. 1.\n\n 2042 Pag. 84.\n\n 2043 In Ptolemy the word is \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. See above, p. 458. note h.\n      [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201cMacedonian inflexion,\u201d\n      starting \u201cAmong the Macedonian.\u201d]\n\n 2044 II. 100. comp. Plin. H. N. IV. 17. The tabula Peuting. which places\n      Idomen\u00e6 53 m. p. from Therma, and 35 from Stoboi (Istip), agrees\n      very well with Thucydides, Ptolemy, and Pliny.\n\n 2045 Since he entirely separates Botti\u00e6a from Pieria.\n\n 2046 XXIV. 8. Liv. XV. 3. Justin VII. 1. says of Emathia, _Populus\n      Pelasgi, regio B\u0153otia dicebatur_, where _Botti\u00e6a_ is a more probable\n      correction than _P\u00e6onia_, and is confirmed by the Vatican fragments\n      of Diodorus, p. 4. Mai.\n\n 2047 I. 56. cf. VIII. 43. and see book I. ch. 1. \u00a7 10.\n\n 2048 I. 56. \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7. And yet, according to Herodotus himself, they\n      were governed by Dorus in Hesti\u00e6otis.\n\n 2049 Constantin. Porphyrog. II. 2. \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\n      \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f61\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03cd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u1ff3 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f48\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 (vulg.\n      \u1f28\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72) \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. See above, p. 458. note c.\n      [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to \u201cvalley of Orestis,\u201d\n      starting \u201cOr \u1f48\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2.\u201d] Scymnus calls the Macedonians \u03b3\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, and\n      makes them come from Macessa and Emathia, v. 657.\n\n 2050 Appian Syr. 63. \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f48\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 (\u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03ad\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2).\n      Concerning the name of the Argead\u00e6 see Pausan. VII. 8. 5. and the\n      note of Siebelis. Perhaps the entire legend of the Argive origin of\n      the Macedonian kings properly refers to this Argos Orestikon.\n\n 2051 VII. p. 324. sqq.\n\n 2052 Bulini, near the modern _Valona_, Mannert, vol. VII. p. 388.\n\n 2053 Near Epidamnus, according to Thuc. I. 24. Appian. Bell. Civ. II. 39.\n      and extending as far as the Dalmatians according to Appian Illyr.\n      24.\n\n 2054 Also near Epidamnus according to Liv. XXIX. 12. XLIII. 21. to the\n      south of the Taulantians according to Plin. H. N. III. 26. Mela. II.\n      3. The country of the Parthini was called \u1f21 \u03a0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, Polyb. XVIII.\n      30. 12. as \u1f21 \u039b\u03cd\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 (Thuc. IV. 83.) \u1f21 \u0394\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 above, \u00a7 11. \u1f21\n      \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 2055 See below, p. 481, note k. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote\n      to \u201cwith the Dassaretians,\u201d starting \u201cScymnus Chius.\u201d]\n\n 2056 Read \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 (vulg. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76) \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n 2057 Besides this passage Damastium is only known by its silver coins,\n      Eckhel D. N. I. II. p. 164. Mionnet Descript. tom. II. p. 54.\n\n 2058 Here those in the neighbourhood of Apollonia are meant, see below,\n      p. 483, note a. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to\n      \u201cstrange deities,\u201d starting \u201cAs the Encheleans.\u201d]\n\n 2059 Probably the Dassaretians (Sesarethians) near Lychnidus.\n\n 2060 In Northern Sicily.\n\n 2061 Not mentioned elsewhere.\n\n 2062 See particularly Thuc. II. 80. Scymn. 444. Concerning their\n      \u1f10\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 see Plutarch Pyrrh. 1.\n\n 2063 Scylax, p. 12. Dic\u00e6archus, p. 3.\n\n 2064 Pag. 10.\n\n 2065 Illyr. 7.\n\n 2066 See above, p. 458, note b. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote\n      to \u201cOrestian Macedonians,\u201d starting \u201c\u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f48\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\u201d]\n\n 2067 Polyb. XVIII. 30. Liv. XXXIII. 34. _Liberi Amantini et Orest\u00e6_,\n      Plin. H. N. IV. 17. Hence Steph. Byz. makes Orestis reach to\n      Molossia, in v. \u1f48\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. These have been generally followed by\n      modern geographers. Lyncus alone is mentioned by Steph. Byz. in v.\n      \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f28\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5.\n\n 2068 According to the probable supposition of Mannert, vol. VII. p. 390.\n\n 2069 Strab. VII. See Exc. 3. p. 329.\n\n 2070 This usage first occurs in C\u00e6sar Bell. Civ. III. 34. although there\n      it is not quite clear; on the other hand, Dio Cassius XLI. 49.\n      distinctly says, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f38\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd\n      \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b5 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3: the boundaries are given\n      by Pliny N. H. III. 26. (from Lissus to Oricum) and\n      Ptolemy.\u2014Dexippus also, quoted by Constantinus Porphyr. de Them. II.\n      9. includes Epidamnus in Macedonia, and the tabula Peuting, has only\n      Macedonia between Dalmatia and Epirus.\n\n 2071 See _e.g._ Thuc. I. 24. Liv. XLV. 26.\n\n 2072 It would lead me too far to treat here of the Thesean, Abantian,\n      Laconian, and ancient Ionian \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac.\n\n 2073 Book IV. ch. 2. \u00a7 4. The proper Thessalian appellation was,\n      according to the Great Etymologist, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03be, whence _allicula_.\n\n 2074 See _Etrusker_, vol. I. p. 265.\n\n 2075 Theophrast. Hist. Plant. III. 9.\n\n 2076 Schneider\u2019s Lexicon in \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 2077 Plutarch Amat. 16. Pyrrh. 11. Herodian. IV. 8. 5. Dio Chrysostom.\n      Or. 72. p. 628. ed. Reisk. Pollux X. 162. Valer. Max. V. 1. ext. 4.\n      Antipater Thessal. apud Brunck. n. 10. Suidas in \u039a\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03bd. Compare\n      Valcknaer ad Adoniaz. p. 345.\n\n 2078 Polyb. IV. 4. 5.\n\n 2079 Heracl. Pont. 17.\n\n 2080 Eckhel Doct. Num. I. 2. pp. 83. 155. 158. A clear notion of the\n      causia may be obtained from the representations of Macedonian coins\n      in Pellerin Recueil de M. de Rois Pl. 1. n. 1. of \u00c6tolian in Combe\n      Numi Mus. Britann. Pl. 5. 24. 25. and of Illyrian in Eckhel Numi.\n      Vet. Anecd. (1775.) Pl. I. tab. 6. 22. 23.\n\n 2081 Philip, the son of Amyntas, first conquered the country as far as\n      the lake Lychnitis, Diod. XVI. 8. The Taulantians in the time of\n      Alexander had their own king, Arrian I. 5. The Illyrian king Argon\n      ruled (about 240 B.C.) as far as Epirus, and the Atintanes were his\n      subjects, Appian Illyr. 7. 8. When the Romans first went to Illyria\n      they were joined by the Parthini and Atintanes, Polyb. II. 11.\n      Atintania was first conquered by Philip the son of Demetrius,\n      Schweigh\u00e6user ad Polyb. II. 5. p. 356. In the peace he only lost\n      Lychnidus (with Dassaretis, Polyb. V. 108.) and Parthus (_i.e._ the\n      Parthini), Polyb. XVIII. 30. 12. Liv. XXXIII. 34. The only countries\n      which even Perseus possessed beyond the mountains were Atintania and\n      Tymph\u00e6a, Liv. XLV. 30. See also Palmer Gr\u00e6c. Ant. I. 14. p. 78.\n\n 2082 From \u1f04\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, sea-sand.\n\n 2083 V. II. 1.\n\n 2084 Suppl. 257.\n\n 2085 Apollod. III. 8. 1. \u00c6lian de Nat. An. X. 48. Steph. Byz. in \u1f68\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n 2086 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9, Herod. VII. 73.\n\n 2087 Herod. VIII. 138. Conon Narr. I. Concerning these roses see also\n      Nicand. Fragm. 2. p. 278. ed. Schneider. Conon ibid. and Apollodorus\n      ap. Strab. XIV. p. 680. also speak of ancient mines near mount\n      Bermius.\n\n 2088 It might be inferred from Thuc. I. 61. that Ber\u0153a had not even\n      _then_ become a Macedonian possession; but it seems that\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 merely signifies \u201cthey prepare to leave Macedonia.\u201d\n\n 2089 In Herod. VII. 73. Conon ubi sup. Xanthus placed it after, but\n      probably _soon_ after the Trojan war.\n\n 2090 Justin VII. 1.\n\n 2091 Scymnus Chius v. 433. Strab. pp. 326, 327. There were \u0392\u03c1\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2 in\n      Dyrrhachium, according to Appian B.C. II. 39. who states that they\n      returned from Phrygia; comp. Steph. Byz. in \u0392\u03c1\u03cd\u03be. Herodotus indeed\n      plainly distinguishes from the \u0392\u03c1\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2 (VII. 73.) the \u0392\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\n      \u0398\u03c1\u03ae\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 (VI. 45. VII. 185.) in Macedonia, who revolted to Mardonius\n      and came with Xerxes; and Strabo also appears completely to separate\n      the \u0392\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 as an Illyrian people (in p. 327. write \u0392\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd) from the\n      Thracian \u0392\u03c1\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2, who are said to have entirely left Europe (VII. p.\n      295): still their names and settlements seem to establish a national\n      affinity.\n\n 2092 Mygdon, a prince of the Phrygians, is mentioned in Iliad III. 186.\n      Comp. Strabo VII. p. 295.\n\n 2093 Aristotle \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u0392\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 ap. Plutarch. Thes. 16. Qu. Gr.\n      35. A similar, though still stranger, legend concerning the\n      Botti\u00e6ans may be seen in Strabo VI. pp. 279. 282. Compare Etymol.\n      Magn. in \u0392\u03cc\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1. The Cretan traditions may perhaps have found a\n      resting-place in the temple at Ichn\u00e6.\n\n 2094 Thuc. II. 100. Plin. H. N. IV. 17. The name Europus (Justin. VII. 1.\n      speaks of an ancient king Europus in this country, and according to\n      Steph. Byz. \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2 and \u1f68\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2 were the sons of Macedon) reminds us\n      of Demeter Europa, the Hermionean Europs, and the Cretan Europa. The\n      Cretan \u1f38\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 implies the existence of a place named \u1f38\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7.\n\n 2095 I. 57. Compare _Orchomenos_, p. 444. note 1.\n\n 2096 See above, p. 458, note f. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote\n      to \u201cfar from Pieria,\u201d starting \u201cThis is evident.\u201d]\n\n 2097 \u03a0\u03cd\u03b4\u03bd\u03b1 occurs again in the sacred Pytna of Crete. The poetical\n      associations chiefly clung to the district above Dium, where Pimple\n      and Leibethrum were situated.\n\n 2098 See above, p. 472, note a. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote\n      to \u201cnarrow strip of land,\u201d starting \u201cSee above.\u201d] Strabo, who calls\n      the Eordi Illyrians (above, \u00a7 26.), yet speaks only of the\n      Macedonian inhabitants of Eordia. Hesychius and Tzetzes ad Lycophr.\n      1342. call the Eordi Macedonians. Stephanus Byz. in \u1f0c\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 has a\n      confused passage on the Amyri, who, according to Suidas, were Eordi.\n\n 2099 Liv. XLV. 30.\n\n 2100 Compare now Heyne Opusc. Acad. IV. p. 165. _Macedonas e multis\n      barbarorum populis, Thracum inprimis et Pelasgorum, quibus Gr\u00e6corum\n      exigua pars accesserat, coaluisse._ Schl\u00f6zer Weltgeschichte, vol. I.\n      pag. 290. _The Macedonians, brothers of the Thracians, and entirely\n      different from the Greeks, among whom they were long called\n      barbarians, wandered about their mountainous country, divided into\n      150 hordes, when a Heraclide, &c._\n\n 2101 Solinus, IX. 16.\n\n 2102 Thuc. II. 100.\n\n 2103 Solinus, IX. 17.\n\n 2104 XLV. 30. _ferociores eos et accol\u00e6 barbari faciunt, nunc bello\n      exercentes, nunc in pace miscentes ritus suos._ An intercourse in\n      peace, among free and hardy nations, presupposes a certain degree of\n      resemblance. At the present time the wild Orest\u00e6 are stated to be\n      very different from the mild and social Zagoriots (Parau\u00e6ans),\n      _Geographische Ephemeriden_, vol. XVII. p. 430.\n\n 2105 As the Encheleans appear to have carried from the B\u0153otian incursion\n      (_Orchomenos_, p. 231.) the worship of Cadmus and Harmonia both to\n      the region of Butho\u00eb (Scylax, p. 9. Steph. Byz. in \u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03cc\u03b7), and to\n      the Ceraunian mountains (Dionys. Perieg. v. 391. Apoll. Rh. IV. 517.\n      for there were Encheleans in both places). Compare Apollodorus III.\n      5. 4. Scymnus Chius v. 437. Eustathius ad Dionys. Perieg. v. 389.\n      Interpret. Virg. \u00c6n. I. 243. ed. Mai.\n\n 2106 Amerias ap. Hesych. in v.\n\n 2107 Hesychius in \u0394\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n 2108 Hesychius et Favorinus in v.\n\n 2109 Hesychius in v.\n\n 2110 Plutarch Alex. 2. Poly\u00e6n. Stratag. IV. 1. Compare Athen\u00e6us V. p. 198\n      E. Etym. Mag. et Suidas in \u039a\u03bb\u03ce\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, Lycoph. v. 1237. Conon Narr.\n      45. Creuzer\u2019s Symbolik, vol. III. p. 194. sq.\n\n_ 2111 Jovis templum, veterrim\u00e6 Macedonum religionis_, Justin XXIV. 2.\n      Archelaus established Olympic games (Arrian I. 11.), who had himself\n      been a conqueror at the Olympic games at Elis, Solin. IX. 18.\n      Perhaps also Musea in Macedonia, according to Arrian ubi sup.\n\n 2112 Hesych. in \u1f18\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 2113 Hesych. in \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 2114 See above, p. 455, note z. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote\n      to \u201can ancient temple,\u201d starting \u201cOf Apollo.\u201d]\n\n 2115 Book II. ch. 11. \u00a7 2.\n\n 2116 Eckhel D. N. I. 2. p. 74. The Macedonian Venus, Zeirene (Hesyvch. in\n      v.) was perhaps the Zerynthian. Mars, according to Hesychius, was in\n      Macedonia called Thaumus or Thaulus.\n\n 2117 Herod. V. 6. Strab. VII. p. 315. Comp. Salmas. Exerc. Plin. p. 169\n      A.\n\n 2118 Polit. VII. 2. 6.\n\n 2119 According to Hegesander ap. Athen. I. p. 18 A.\n\n 2120 Herod. V. 4; according to Solinus X. 2. _apud plurimos_.\n\n 2121 Herod. V. 5. comp. Solinus X. 3.\n\n 2122 Solinus X. 1. concludes _Thracibus barbaris inesse contemtum vit\u00e6 ex\n      quadam naturalis sapienti\u00e6 disciplina_.\n\n 2123 See besides Herod. V. 5. Heraclid. Pont. Polit. 27. Strab. VII. p.\n      297. Salmas. Exerc. Plin. p. 112 A.\n\n 2124 Herod. V. 6. Heraclid. ubi sup. Solin. X. 4.\n\n 2125 Solin. X. 5.\n\n 2126 Thuc. II. 100. The \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03be\u03cd\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 are the Lyncest\u00e6, &c.\n\n 2127 Xenoph. Hell. V. 2. 41. V. 3. 1. cf. Thuc. I. 61, 62.\n\n 2128 Polyb. V. 27. 6. Curtius VI. 8. 25. (with Freinsheim\u2019s note) VI. 9.\n      34. Crophius Antiq. Maced. I. 6. II. 4.\n\n 2129 Hence, for example, it cannot be inferred from the distinction\n      between the Illyrian and Macedonian languages in Polyb. XXVIII. 8.\n      9. that the nations were originally of a different descent. Sturz\n      _De Dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina_ has not sufficiently\n      distinguished the third period from the two first.\n\n 2130 For example, Steph. Byz. in v. \u0392\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\u2014\u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff4\u1fb3 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc7\n      \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2. The barbarous word \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2,\n      signifying a kind of steward, which was used by Alexander in\n      letters, and adopted by Menander (Photius, p. 523. 5.) can hardly be\n      oriental. See also the collection of Sturz in the words \u1f04\u03b2\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03b1,\n      \u1f04\u03b4\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03b4\u1fc6, \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03ad\u03b1, \u1f04\u03be\u03bf\u03c2, &c.\n\n 2131 The Athamanes were Epirots according to Strabo, Illyrians according\n      to Steph. Byz. in v. The words are not Grecian.\n\n 2132 See above, \u03a3\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9, and Athen\u00e6us III. p. 114 B. concerning the\n      Macedonian and Athamanian word \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 or \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03be.\n\n 2133 This fact may be believed on the testimony of Curtius VI. 9. 35.\n\n 2134 Apollonius de Construct. III. 7. calls it the Macedonian or\n      Thessalian usage. Sturz, p. 28. 5. infers chiefly from this that the\n      Macedonian language was originally nearly the same as the Dorian.\n      The coins, I may remark incidentally, prove nothing, as they were\n      struck for intercourse with the Greeks. Adelung, on the other hand,\n      considers the Macedonians as Thracians (to which nation he also\n      refers the Illyrians), with a tinge of Greek civilisation,\n      Mithridat, vol. II. p. 359.\n\n 2135 See above, p. 3. notes g and h. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: These are the\n      footnotes to \u201cnative dialect,\u201d starting \u201cCompare, for example,\u201d and\n      to \u201c\u00c6olic,\u201d starting \u201c_E.g._ the nominatives.\u201d]\n\n 2136 Above, p. 467. note c. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to\n      \u201con Pieria,\u201d starting \u201cNear the pass Volustana.\u201d] Hence the\n      Cambunian mountains are now called Volutza.\n\n 2137 Above, p. 453. note g. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: This is the footnote to\n      \u201cCandavian chain,\u201d starting \u201cPtolemy.\u201d] The first syllable of this\n      name appears to be the same as of _Cambunii montes_, in which the\n      second part is probably the word \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, which in modern Greek still\n      means \u201ca hill.\u201d In the names of Macedonian mountains, _Barnus_,\n      _Bermius_, and _Bertiscus_ (Ptolemy), there is probably the same\n      root.\n\n 2138 Pausan. X. 6. 5. \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, &c.\n\n 2139 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 \u0394\u1ff6\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u039e\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u0391\u1f34\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2. Tzetzes ad Lycoph. 284. and Schol. Apoll. Rh.\n      III. 1085. Other poems of Hesiod are made use of by Schol. Hom. Od.\n      \u03c7\u2019. 2.\n\n 2140 Apollodorus I. 7, 3. Pausan. V. 1, 2. &c. from the circumstance that\n      Ach\u00e6us and Ion are represented as the _only_ sons of Xuthus, I have\n      inferred above that the Ionians were probably of an Ach\u00e6an race.\n\n 2141 Schol. Hom. Od. \u03ba. 2. \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2,\n      \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u0394\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Compare Pindar Pyth. IV. 167. who alludes to\n      this fable, and Eurip Melan. IV. 2.\n\n 2142 Il. II. 684. and compare IX. 395, 474. XVI. 595. The verse \u1f10\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u1fc3 \u03b4\u1fbd\n      \u1f10\u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, II. 530, has been properly\n      condemned by the Alexandrine critics.\n\n 2143 Or rather \u201c_near_ Phthia.\u201d Homer distinguishes Hellas and Phthia\n      (Il. IX. 395, 478, 479. Od. XI. 495.); the tetrarchy of Phthiotis in\n      later times included both.\n\n 2144 \u00c6ginetica, p. 155.\n\n 2145 Hesiod. Op. et Di. 526. \u0392\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9. Compare\n      Strabo VIII. p. 370. It may be observed, that in the three most\n      ancient passages in which the collective name of the Greeks occurs,\n      viz., the verse in the Works and Days, the spurious line in the\n      Iliad, and the passage in the \u1f28\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 referred to by Strabo, they are\n      called, not \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, but \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n 2146 Apollodorus I. 7. 6.\n\n 2147 Hes. Theog. 129. 371.\n\n 2148 Ap. Plutarch. Lycurg. 6. according to a certain emendation. See book\n      III. ch. 5. \u00a7 8.\n\n 2149 Book III. ch. 12. \u00a7 5.\n\n 2150 Book II. ch. 1. \u00a7 8.\n\n 2151 See book I. ch. 1. \u00a7 9.\n\n 2152 See particularly Plato de Leg. I. p. 636. VI. p. 752. \u039a\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n      \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n 2153 See Strabo X. p. 476. compare p. 481. after Ephorus.\n\n 2154 Archilochus ap. Heraclid. Pont. \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4. \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. fragm. 86. Gaisford.\n\n 2155 Hom. Od. XIX. 175. sqq.\n\n 2156 See book III. ch. 1. \u00a7 8.\n\n 2157 The eclipse of the sun, however, mentioned by Herodotus, does not\n      agree, and must be an error. VII. 37.\n\n 2158 \u03a3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03cd\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03b1 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\n      \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u03af\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, Herod. VII. 145.\n\n 2159 VII. 157. \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03af [\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9] \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9. The words included in brackets are wanting in the\n      family of the Passioneus and Florence MSS., and appear to be\n      interpolated from c. 161.\n\n 2160 Herod. VII. 176. where the words \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 include both the troops\n      and the congress.\n\n 2161 The former in the first full-moon after the solstice, the latter\n      about the second, Corsini Fast. Att. I. 2. p. 453.\n\n 2162 Diodorus speaks of a decree of this nature, but the oath on the\n      Isthmus is a rhetorical invention, XI. 29.\n\n 2163 Pericl. 39. \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n      \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9.\n\n 2164 Aristid. 21. \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd\n      \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c8\u03ae\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f14\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, \u1f04\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72\n      \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n 2165 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, Plutarch. Aristid. 24.","title":"The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Vol. 1 of 2","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":166823}