CHAPTER III
[1\3: Pi., _N._ ix, 24 ff., x, 8 f., [Apollod.] iii, 6, 8, 4 (~su\n tô=| ha/rmati kai\ tô=| hênio/chô| Ba/tôni . . . _ekru/phthê_ kai\ Zeu\s _atha/naton_ auto\n epoi/êsen~) etc. The expressions used to describe the translation and continued conscious existence of A. are noteworthy: ~kata\ gai=' auto/n te/ nin kai\ phaidi/mous hi/ppous _e/marpsen_~, Pi., _O._ vi, 14. ~Zeu\s _kru/psen_ ha/m' hi/ppois~, _N._ ix, 25. ~gai=a _hupe/dekto_ ma/ntin Oiklei/dan~, x, 8. ~ma/ntis _kekeuthô\s_ polemi/as hupo chthono/s~, A., _Th._, 588. ~ede/xato rhagei=sa Thêbai/a ko/nis~, S. _fr._, 873 (= 958 P.). ~theoi\ _zô=nt' anarpa/santes_ es mu/chous chthono\s autoi=s tethri/ppois eulogou=sin emphanô=s~, E. _Supp._, 928 f. ~_hê/rpasen_ cha/rubdis oiônosko/pon, te/thrippon ha/rma peribalou=sa cha/smati~, 501 f. (Eriphyle ~Amphia/raon _e/krups'_ hupo\ gê=n autoi=si su\n hi/ppois~, Oracle in Ephorus ap. Ath., 232 F. ~Amphiara/ou _zô=ntos_ to\ sô=ma katade/xasthai tê\n gê=n~, Agatharch., p. 115, 21 Mü. ~_epespa/sato_ hê gê= _zô=nta_~, Philostr., _V. Ap._, 2, 37, p. 79, 18 Kays. ~_aphanismo/s_~ of A., St. Byz. s. ~Ha/rpuia.--_pa/mpsuchos_ ana/ssei~, S., _El._, 841; ~_aei\_ zô=n tima=tai~, Xen., _Cyn._ i, 8.]
[2\3: That the translation of Amphiaraos in the form so frequently repeated by later authors (clearly following an important and influential original) appeared already in the Thebaïs of the epic cycle is taken by Welcker for granted, _Ep. Cykl._ ii, 362, 66. The view is intrinsically probable: but it can claim more definite grounds. Pi., _O._ vi, 12-17, tells us that after Amphiaraos and his team had been swallowed up by the earth, Adrastos, over the seven funeral-pyres (which consumed the bodies of the Argives who had fallen in battle, said ~pothe/ô stratia=s ophthalmo\n ema=s, ampho/teron, ma/ntin t' agatho\n kai\ douri\ ma/rnasthai~. That this famous lament was taken ~ek tê=s kuklikê=s Thêbaï/dos~, _fr._ 5 Kinkel, p. 12, is proved by the testimony of the ancient scholia on ~pothe/ô ktl.~, quoting Asklepiades. This means that in the Thebaïs too, after the battle was over Amphiaraos was not to be found either among the fallen or the survivors--was in fact translated. Pindar must have taken not merely the words of the lament of Adrastos but the whole situation that led up to these words, as he described it, from the Thebaïs. (Bethe, _Theb. Held._ [1891], p. 58 f., 94 ff., claims to prove that Pindar took nothing but the words ~ampho/teron ktl.~ from the Thebaïs which said nothing of the burial of these who had fallen before Thebes, and that Pindar added this last on his own account, _O._ vi, as well as _N._ ix, 25. But the "proofs" of this view, in itself highly improbable, on closer examination come to nothing.)--In the Odyssey it is said of Amph. ~_o/let'_ en Thê/bê|si~ ~o~ 247; ~_tha/nen_ Amphia/raos~ 253. The expression "is naturally to be understood as merely implying _disappearance_ from the earth" says Welcker, _Ep. C._ ii, 366. All we can claim is that the expression does not indeed _prevent_ us from assuming that the story of the "disappearance" of Amph. was known also to the poet of these lines. Thus in the _OC._ of Soph. Antigone says twice over (ll. 1706, 1714) that Oedipus ~_e/thane_~, whereas he really was like Amphiaraos translated alive (~a/skopoi pla/kes _e/marpsan_~ 1681).]
[3\3: Pi., _fr._ 167, A.R. i, 57-64 (~zôo/s per e/ti . . . edu/seto neio/thi gai/ês~). Orph., _Arg._, 171-5 (~phasi\n . . . zôo/n t' en phthime/noisi molei=n hupo\ keu/thesi gai/ês~). Agatharch., p. 114, 39-43 Mü. (~eis tê\n gê=n katadu=nai ortho/n te kai\ zô=nta~). Schol. and Eust. on ~A~ 264, p. 1001.--In Ovid, _M._ xii, 514 ff., the translation becomes a metamorphosis (into a bird); and {104} often an ancient translation myth has thus been replaced by a metamorphosis in later mythology. The connected story of Kaineus has been lost, and only a few fragments survive in Sch., A.R. i, 57; Sch., ~A~ 264 (the best known being the change of sex [cf. also Meineke, _h. crit. com._, 345], the meaning of which is very dubious. Similar stories are told of Teiresias, Sithon (Ov., _M._ iv, 280), Iphis, and Ianthe, this last reminding us strikingly of a narrative in the Mahâbhârata. Then frequently in many miracle tales, both heathen and Christian, to which far too much respect is paid by those who seek to find in them dark reminiscences of bisexual gods). No traces of a _cult_ of Kaineus can be found.]
[4\3: Althaimenes, son of Katreus (cf. _Rh. Mus._ 36, 432 f.), ~euxa/menos hupo\ cha/smatos ekru/bê~ [Apollod.], iii, 2, 2, 3. Rationalistic version of Zeno of Rhodos ap. D.S., 5, 59, 4, who says, however, ~hu/steron kata\ chrêsmo/n tina tima\s e/sche para\ Rhodi/ois hêrôïka/s~, and, in fact, we learn from an insc. in Newton, _Gr. Insc. in B.M._ ii, 352, that a political division (Ktoina?) of the people of Rhodos was called ~Althaimeni/s~, whose ~hê/rôs epô/numos~ must have been Althaimenes.]
[5\3: Amphilochos appeared in person to sleepers at his dream-oracle at Mallos in Cilicia (Luc., _Philops._, 38)--so also did his rival Mopsos, Plut., _DO._ 45, 434 D--as well as at his oracle in Akarnania, Aristid. i, p. 78 D. [38, 21 Keil]. Mopsos in Cilicia and Amphilochos in Akarnania are alike in being among those ~daimo/nia~ which ~hidrume/na e/n tini to/pô| tou=ton oikou=sin~, Orig., _c. Cels._ iii, 34, pp. 293-4 L. The same author says of Amph. Mopsos and others, ~anthrôpoeidei=s theôrei=sthai theou/s~, vii, 35, p. 53.]
[6\3: Laodike, daughter of Priam [Apollod.], _Epit._ v, 25; Nicol. _Prog._ ii, 1.--Aristaios, who ~a/phantos gi/gnetai~ in M. Haemus and is now honoured ~athana/tois timai=s~, D.S. iv, 82, 6. (Cf. Hiller v. Gärtr., Pauly-Wiss. ii, 855, 23 ff.)]
[7\3: The regular expression for these subterranean dwelling-places is ~me/gara~. Lex. rhet. ap. Eust., _Od._, 1387, 17 f. Hence also the sacrificial pits into which men lowered the offerings made to the deities of the lower world are called ~me/gara~ (Lob., _Agl._, 830; ~me/gara = cha/smata~, Schol. Luc., _D. Mer._ 2, pp. 275 ff. Rabe. It was thought that by sinking the gifts in the ground they would immediately reach the dwelling-place of the spirit who lived there. The sacrificial chasm is itself the "chamber", ~me/garon~, in which the spirit lives (in the form of a snake) and dwells.]
[8\3: ~k~ 492 ff., ~psuchê=| chrêsome/nous Thêbai/ou Teiresi/ao, ma/ntêos alaou= tou= te phre/nes e/mpedoi/ eisin; tô=| kai\ tethnêô=ti no/on po/re Persepho/neia, oi/ô| pepnu=sthai; toi\ de\ skiai\ aï/sousin~. His ~phre/nes~ being undestroyed the most important and distinguishing feature of death is absent. His body, indeed, is destroyed and hence he is called ~tethnêô/s~ like all the other dwellers in Hades, though it is still difficult to see how the ~phre/nes~ could remain without a body. It is highly probable that the idea of the continued existence of the consciousness of the famous seer renowned in Theban legend was derived by the poet from a popular tradition according to which Teiresias still gave proof of the clearness of his wits by the oracles which he sent up from below the earth. In Orchomenos there was a ~chrêstê/rion Teiresi/ou~, Plu., _DO._ 44, p. 434 C (as Nitzsch, _Anm. Od._ iii, p. 151. also reminds us). If we may argue from the context in which Plutarch speaks of him, this must have been an earth-oracle, i.e. an _incubation-oracle_. There stories like those told at Thebes of Amphiaraos may have been related of Teiresias and his survival after death. Some such information the poet of {105} the Nekyia may then have transformed and made use of for his own purposes. Str. 762 not without good ground connects these verses about Teiresias with the stories of Amphiaraos and Trophonios.]
[9\3: The ancient site of the Oracle of Amphiaraos was near Thebes at the place (Knopia where according to the epic story he sank into the earth. Paus. 9, 8, 3, Str. 404. Even at the time of the Persian war the envoy of Mardonios inquired of him there, near Thebes, as Hdt. viii, 134, unmistakably says. (That the oracle lay in Theban territory is shown also by the addition of the words, otherwise pointless, ~Thêbai/ôn oudeni\ e/xesti manteu/esthai autothi/~. A similar rule is found at the temple of Herakles in Erythrai which may be approached by Thracian women but not by Erythræan women [Paus. 7, 5, 7-8]; and in the same way the Lampsakenoi were excluded from the funeral games of Miltiades on the Chersonnese: Hdt. vi, 38.) Oropos also claimed to harbour Amphiaraos under its soil; Sch. Pi., _O._ vi, 18, 21-3; differently in Paus. 1, 34, 2-4. But the oracle must have been moved there afterwards--hardly before the end of the fifth century (~methidru/thê~, Str. 404); to suppose that it had always been confined to Oropos is contrary to all the traditional evidence.]
[10\3: Those who wished to inquire of his oracle offered by night to Trophonios, before going down into the cave, a ram, sacrificing it in a pit (~bo/thros~): Paus. 9, 39, 6; to Amphiaraos, after a considerable fast (Philos., _VA._, 2, 37, pp. 79, 19 ff. K.) and the provision of a ~katha/rsion~, the inquirer offered a ram upon the fleece of which he lay down to sleep (Paus. 1, 34, 5).--Cleanthem cum _pede terram percussisset_ versum ex Epigonis (prob. of Soph.) ferunt dixisse: audisne haec, Amphiaraë, sub terram abdite? Cic., _TD._ ii, 60. The gesture also must have been borrowed from the same
## scene in the ~Epi/gonoi~. It was thus customary to knock on the
ground in calling upon A., as in the case of other ~katachtho/nioi (Amphia/rae chtho/nie~ occurs as late as _P. Mag. Par._ 1446 f. W .): ~I~ 568; cf. Paus. 8, 15, 3. Cf. also Nägelsb., _Nachh. Theol._, 102, 214. Skedasos in Sparta ~gê=n tu/ptôn anekalei=to ta\s Erinu/as~, Plu., _AN._ 3, p. 774 B. In his grief for the loss of his daughter Herodes Atticus threw himself on the ground ~tê\n gê=n pai/ôn kai\ boô=n; ti/ soi, thu/gater, kathagi/sô? ti/ soi xuntha/psô?~ Philostr., _VS._ 2, 1, 10. Pythagoras ~ho/tan brontê/sê| tê=s gê=s ha/psasthai parê/ggeilen~, Iamb., _VP._ 156.]
[11\3: That the dream-oracle of Trophonios had a much older influence is implied by the story of the inquiry made of it by the ~Boiôtoi\ halo/ntes hupo\ Thra|kô=n~ in Phot. (Suid.) ~lu/sioi teletai/~.]
[12\3: Trophonios himself was supposed to appear in the cave at Lebadeia. The inquirer goes down to it ~deo/menos _suggene/sthai_ tô=| daimoni/ô|~ (Max. Tyr. 14, 2, p. 249 R.); indications were sought from sacrifice ~ei dê\ to\n katio/nta eumenê\s kai\ hi/leôs _de/xetai~_ (Trophonios), Paus. 9, 36, 6. Saon, the discoverer of the oracle and founder of the cult, had after entering the ~mantei=on~ met Trophonios himself in person, ~tê\n hierourgi/an . . . didachthê=nai para\ tou= Trophôni/ou phasi/~ (Paus. 9, 40, 2). He dwells and is visible in the oracular cavern: Orig., _Cels._ iii, 34, pp. 293-4 L.; vii, 35, p. 53; Aristid. i, p. 78 D. [38, 21 Keil]. Even the stupidly rationalising account of Troph. in Schol. Ar., _Nub._ 508, p. 190 Ruth., Sch. Luc., _DM._ iii, Cosm. ad Greg. Naz. p. 184 [Clarke, p. 52] (Eudoc., _Viol._, p. 682, 8)--implies the bodily presence of an ~egkatoikê=san daimo/nion~ in the cave of Trophonios. Lucian, too, shows that this was the popular impression (_DM._ iii, 2) by his curious satiric fiction that whereas Troph. himself was in Hades (to which acc. to _Necyom._ 22 the cave of Trophonios was only an {106} entrance ~to\ thei=on hêmi/tomon~ of Trophonios ~chra=| en Boiôti/a|~. Thus the visitor expected to meet Trophonios there in his divine shape, as Ampelius puts it in a similar case with great simplicity and directness, 8, 3: ibi (Argis in Epiro Iovis templum hyphonis (irretrievably corrupt: _Trophonii_ absurdly Duker; _Typhonis_, _Tychonis_ others not much better) unde est ad inferos descensus ad tollendas sortes: in quo loco dicuntur ii qui descenderunt Iovem ipsum videre. Otherwise, Tr. was said to inhabit the cave in the shape of a snake as is so frequently the case with earth-deities. Not only are snakes sacred to him as to Asklepios (Paus. 9, 39, 3) and live in his cave (to propitiate them people take honey-cakes down with them) but he himself is present in the form of a snake: ~o/phis ê=n ho manteuo/menos~, Schol. Ar., _Nub._ 508: cf. Suidas ~Trophô/nios~. It was this personal contact between the god and the inquirer which specially distinguished the oracle of Tr. ~mo/non ekei=no (to\ mantei=on) di' autou= chra=| tou= chrôme/nou~. Philostr., _VA._ 8, 19, p. 335, 30 K. Of course, many only _heard_ without seeing: ~tis kai\ ei=den kai\ a/llos ê/kousen~, Paus. 9, 39, 11. But it was the god they heard.]
[13\3: Speaking of Zalmoxis among the Getae (cf. Str. 297 f.; 762; Hdt. iv, 95-6. _EM._ ~Za/lm.~), Mopsos in Cilicia, Amphilochos in Akarnania, Amphiaraos and Trophonios--in fact, all of them daimones who had oracles of Incubation--Or. (_Cels._ iii, 34, p. 293-4 L.) says: they have temples and ~aga/lmata~ as ~daimoni/ois ouk oi=d' ho/pôs _hidrume/nois_ e/n tini to/pô|, ho\n . . . _oikou=sin_~. They dwell within this ~he/na keklêrôme/non to/pon~, vii, 35 (pp. 53-4 L.), cf. iii, 35 fin. In that place and only there are such daimones visible. _Cels._ vii, 35 (p. 53 L.), of the temples of Amph., Troph., Mops.: ~e/ntha phêsi\n anthrôpoeidei=s theôrei=sthai theou\s kai\ ou pseudome/nous alla\ kai\ enargei=s. . . . o/psetai/ tis autou\s ouch ha/pax pararrue/ntas . . . all' _a/ei_ toi=s boulome/nois homilou=ntas~ (and so ever present there. Aristid. i, p. 78 Di. [38, 21 K.], ~Amphia/raos kai\ Trophô/nios en Boiôti/a| kai\ Amphi/lochos en Aitôli/a| chrêsmô|dou=si kai\ _phai/nontai_~. On the extension beyond its original home of the cult of such an Incubation-deity localization in a single spot was of course relaxed. It was either disputed where his permanent habitation really was (as in the case of Amph.), or else the god gradually ceased to be bound to any one place, though still bound to certain places in the sense that he could appear only there, and not anywhere he chose. Such is the case with Asklepios and with various other daimones equally bound originally to a single spot, who then ~epiphai/nontai, epiphoitô=sin~, in certain other temples as well (cf. for example, the account of the ~epipha/neiai~ of Machaon and Podaleirios in Adrotta given by Marin., _V. Procli_, 32; cf. Suid. ~Euste/phios~, from Damascius, _V. Isid._). But when inquiries are made of a god by _Incubation_ the god must always appear in person; if he is absent no oracle can be given. See the story of Amphiaraos in Plu., _DO._ 5, p. 412 A. In the records of miracles of healing found in Epidauros the god himself regularly comes to the sleeper in the ~a/duton~ (or else in the form of a snake ~Eph. Arch.~ '83, p. 215 f., ll. 113-19), sometimes accompanied by his ~hupê/retai~ (the Asklepiadai), cf. ~Eph. Arch.~ '85, p. 17 ff. ll. 38 ff., 111 f. In the old miracle of Aristagora of Troezen (~Eph. Arch.~ '85, p. 15, l. 10 ff.) reported already by Hippys of Rhegion (which there is no reason to doubt) at first only "the sons of the god" appeared to the sick woman ~ouk epidamou=ntos autou= all' en Epidau/rô| eo/ntos~. Only in the following night did Asklepios himself appear to her ~hikô\n ex Epidau/rou~. Everywhere it is implied that dream-healing can only take place through personal action of the god (cf. Ar., _Plut._); {107} later by the advice, at least, of the god, personally appearing to the patient (see Zacher, _Hermes_, xxi, 472 f.); and this presumption is explained by the fact that originally Incubation could only take place at the actual spot where the god (or Hero) had his permanent abode.]
[14\3: The ~hupophê=tai~ of the Dodonian Zeus the ~Selloi/, anipto/podes chamaieu=nai~, ~P~ 234 f., were explained by some already in antiquity as priests of an Incubation oracle (Eust., _Il._, p. 1057, 64 ff.), Welcker agreeing with them, _Kl. Schr._ iii, 90 f. This view is founded solely on the adj. ~chamaieu=nai~, which is not, however, to be separated from ~anipto/podes~. But since ~anipto/podes~ can have no connexion with Incubation neither then can ~chamaieu=nai~. Both epithets refer obviously to the special severity and simplicity of the life of the ~Selloi/~, the (ritual) reason for which it is true we do not know and have no means of guessing.]
[15\3: It remains indeed impossible to determine what moved the epic to recognize in the Boeotian cave-daimon the _Argive_ seer Amphiaraos (even during his life-time an adept in the incubation-mantic art acc. to Paus. 2, 13, 7; cf. Did. in _Gp._ 2, 35, 8, p. 73, 14 ff. Beckh), or why the heroized god Amphiaraos was turned into an Argive and made a member of the prophetic family of Melampous otherwise the foes of the Boeotian seers; or, finally, why he was brought to Boeotia as an enemy and then made to dwell for ever in that hostile and alien land.]
[16\3: Henry the Fowler in Sudemerberg: Kuhn and Schwartz, _Nordd. Sag._, p. 185. The other examples in Grimm, ch. xxxii.--G. Voigt in Sybel's _hist. Zeits._ xxvi (1871), pp. 131-87, shows in his most lucid account that it was not originally Frederick Barbarossa but Frederick II whom the legend represented as not dead but "lost" and to whom the expectation referred that he would come again some day. From the fifteenth century the story begins to appear that he was dwelling in Kyffhäuser (or in a cave in the rocks near Kaiserslautern); the name of Barbarossa does not appear till the sixteenth century, and then gradually predominates. But how it came about that from a definite moment onwards the translated emperor was thought of as living on in a hollow mountain is by no means clear from the written documents alone or from the critical study of the evolution of the legend. Suddenly and without intermediate steps the story assumes this shape, and it can hardly be accounted for except on the view that it arose from the combination of the Frederick legend with already existing Saga-stories of translated Heroes or gods (as Voigt also suggests, p. 160).]
[17\3: Grimm, pp. 959-61. Simrock, _D. Myth._^3, p. 144.--How easily similar legends can appear spontaneously among different peoples without interconnexion appears from the fact that translation legends are also found not only in Greece but in distant Mexico; see Müller, _Gesch. am. Urrel._ 582. Holy men who have "vanished" and are not dead but live on in the depths of mountain caves, and are expected one day to reappear on earth, occur in the legends of Mohammedan peoples of the East: A. v. Kremer, _Culturg. Streifz. Geb. Islam_, 50; _Gesch. Ideen Islam_, 375 f., 378.]
[18\3: ~Dii\ Trephôni/oi~ Insc. from Lebadeia, Meister, _Böot. Insc._ 423 (_GDI._ i, p. 163); otherwise only ~Trephôni/oi~ (n. 407, 414, ~kataba\s en Trephô/nion~ _BCH._ 1890, p. 21), ~Trophôni/ô|~ (n. 413); and side by side occur ~tu= Di\ tu= Basilei=i kê\ tu= Trephôni/u~, etc. (n. 425, 429, 430). ~Dionu/sô eustaphu/lô kata\ chrêsmo\n Dio\s Trophôni/ou~ Insc. from Labadeia in Stephani _Reise d. Geg. nörd. Griechen_, No. 47. Ins. from Leb. _IGSept._ i, 3077 (1st-2nd cent. A.D.)--Str. 414: ~Leba/deia ho/pou Dio\s Trophôni/ou mantei=on hi/drutai~. {108} Liv. 45, 27, 8, Labadiae templum Iovis Trophonii adiit. Obs. 50 (= 110) Lebadiae Eutychides in templum Iovis Trophonii degressus--. ~Dio\s mantei=on~ is the name given to the oracle of Tr. in Phot. also and Hesych. ~Leba/deia~.]
[19\3: ~Dio\s Amphiara/ou hiero/n~ (at Oropos): [Dicaearch.] _Descr. Gr._ i, § 6 (i, 100 Mü.). Even Hyperides in the speech for Euxenippos refers throughout to Amph. at Oropos as a god. Amph. in Or. ~ho theo/s~ (1st-2nd cent. B.C.): _IGS._ i, 3498; 412; _CIG._ 1570a, 25, 30, 52. Liv. 45, 27, 10 (in Oropos) pro deo vates antiquus colitur. Cic. _Div._ i, 88: Amphiaraum sic honoravit fama Græciæ, deus ut haberetur. Plutarch also, speaking of the embassy sent by Mardonios to the ancient Theban oracle, calls Amph. ~theo/s~: _DO._ 5, p. 412 A. Acc. to Paus. 1, 34, 2, however, Amph. was first honoured as a god in Oropos.]
[20\3: Origen is expressing it in his own way, but he is quite right in principle when he distinguishes the local gods remaining in the countryside from the gods of Olympos, _Cels._ iii, 35 fin.: ~mochthêrô=n daimo/nôn kai\ to/pous epi\ gê=s prokateilêpho/tôn, epei\ tê=s katharôte/ras ou du/nantai epha/psasthai chô/ras kai\ theiote/ras~. He says of Asklepios, 5, 2 (p. 169 L.), ~theo\s me\n a\n ei/ê aei\ de\ lachô\n oikei=n tê\n gê=n kai\ hôsperei\ phuga\s tou= to/pou tô=n theô=n~.]
[21\3: ~Dio\s mega/lou oaristê/s~. The word implies quite as much familiar conversation as well as general intimacy with Zeus. The obscure ~enne/ôros~ need not be considered here. In any case it is to be taken closely with ~basi/leue~, next to which it stands, and not with ~Dio\s m. oaristê/s~ (as many even ancient writers have done.]
[22\3: Intercourse of Minos with Zeus in the cave: [Pl.] _Min._ 319 E. (whence Str. 762), Ephorus ap. Str. 476; (from Eph. also Nic. Dam. ap. Stob. _Fl._ iv, 2, 25, p. 161 H.). V.M. i, 2, ext. 1. Here the position of the cave is as a rule not precisely stated. But the Idaian cave is generally meant and Max. Tyr. definitely refers to this one as the place where Minos met Zeus, 38, 2 (p. 221 R.).]
[23\3: Birth of Zeus in the cave: ~Aigai/ô| en o/rei~ Hes., _Th._ 481 ff. Thence his mother bore him ~es Lu/kton~ 482 (cf. 477), which would be near Ida:--~es Di/ktên~ Schömann. And, at any rate, the cave on Mt. Dicte was the generally reputed place of Zeus' _birth_: [Apoll.] 1, 1, 6. D.S. 5, 70, 6; Mela 2, 113; D.H. 2, 61 (who also makes Minos visit Zeus there). At Praisos ~to\ tou= Diktai/ou Dio\s hiero/n~: Str. 475-8. Others, indeed, mention Ida as the place of the birth of Zeus: D.S. 5, 70, 2, 4; A.R. iii, 134. Both the holy caves are thus continually rivals; but it appears that the legend of the birth of Zeus was principally localized at the Diktaian cave, that of his intercourse with Minos chiefly at the Idaian; cf. now also M. Mayer, _Myth. Lex._ s. Kronos, ii, 1533 ff.]
[24\3: Max. Tyr. 16, 1 (cf. 38, 3; prob. from Max. only, Theod. Met. _Misc._ c. 90, p. 580 Mü.). Cf. _Rh. Mus._ 35, 161 f. Max. speaks of the cave of Diktaian Zeus, perhaps only inexactly and by oversight. It would be to Ida rather and its cave which rose above Knossos, the home of Epimenides, that the legend would make him go on pilgrimage. So, too, D.L. viii, 1, 3, of Pythagoras, ~en Krê/tê| su\n Epimeni/dê| katê=lthen eis to\ Idai=on a/ntron~. Pyth. in the Idaian cave, Porph., _VP._ 17.]
[25\3: Schol. Plat., _Leg._ i, introd. (p. 372 Herm.) and _Leg._ 625 B, see Lob., _Agl._ 1121. (~Dio\s Idai/ou mu/stês~, Eur., _Cret. fr._ 472, 10 N.) Recently the Idaian cave of Zeus has been rediscovered high up in the mountains, a day's journey from Knossos (Fabricius, _Ath. Mitth._, vol. x, 59 ff.). Remains of votive offerings of antiquity have been {109} found, but only before the entrance to the cave ~en tô=| stomi/ô| tou= a/ntrou~ (where Thphr. had already remarked the like, _HP._ 3, 3, 4); inside the cave, which, like a vaulted tomb, consisted of two chambers, only traces of the cult from Roman times were found. It seems from this that the sacrificial ritual of the previous period did not reach further than the entrance of the cave (as was the case also at the temple of Troph. at Lebadeia; while the interior of the cave as the seat of the god himself was only entered by Mystai and priests (the birth-chamber was not to be approached at all: Boios, ap. Ant. Lib. 19).]
[26\3: Porph., _VP._ 17, p. 25 N.: ~eis de\ to\ Idai=on kalou/menon a/ntron kataba\s e/ria e/chôn me/lana ta\s nomizome/nas tri\s enne/a~ (cf. Nauck on S., _OC._ 483) ~hême/ras ekei= die/tripsen kai\ kathê/gisen tô=| Dii/, to/n te stornu/menon autô=| kat' e/tos thro/non ethea/sato~. The historical truth of the story of Pyth.'s visit to the cave need not be discussed here, but we may assume the credibility of the details given of the cult of Zeus in the cave and the customary ceremonial of pilgrimage to it. (The story comes from relatively good sources, _Gr. Roman_, p. 254.)--The long time spent in the cave (i.e. in the wide and lofty outer chamber) has its companion picture in what Str. 649 says of ~Charô/nion~ at Acharaka, Plu., _Gen. Soc._ 21, 590 B., of the cave of Trophonios. It was necessary also to spend several days in the ~oi/kêma Dai/monos agathou= kai\ Tu/chês~ in preparation for the descent into the cave: Paus. 9, 39, 5. The (to Zeus) ~stornu/menos kat' e/tos thro/nos~ has nothing to do with the Korybantic ~thronismo/s~ (see Hiller, _Hermes_, 21, 365). What is meant is in any case a _lectisternium_: thus in Athens it was usual to ~kli/nên strô=sai tô=| Plou/tôni~, _CIA._ ii, 948-50; to Asklepios (_CIA._ ii, 453b 11): to Attis, _CIA._ ii, 622; (in Cos at the ~xenismo/s~ of Herakles, _Ins. Cos_ 36b, 22), etc. The ~thro/nos (strônu/ein _thro/nous_ du/o~ for a goddess _CIA._ ii, 624, 9, 10) appearing instead of a ~kli/nê~ is possibly in accordance with ancient ritual. Thus in the so-called feasts of the dead in ancient times the Hero is represented on a throne while later he reclines on the ~kli/nê~. Thus in Rome besides _lectisternia_ we sometimes have _sellisternia_ especially for female deities: _Comm. Lud. Saec._, l. 71; 101; 138 [Dessau, ii, 1, p. 282; _CIL._ vi, 32] and elsewhere.]
[27\3: Acc. to Ennius, _Euh._ 73 Vahl. (ap. Lactant. i, 11, and ap. Min. Fel. xxi, 1) Euhemeros spoke of the grave of Zeus. Call., _h. Jov._ 8-9, clearly attacks the fable of Zeus' grave in Crete. It seems to me very probable that Euh. had taken up the story as one that evidently suited his cheap pragmatical interpretation of myths and had introduced it into literature. It would be Euh. then whom Call., loc. cit., was attacking as he did elsewhere the ~ge/rôn alazô/n~ and his ~a/dika bibli/a~ (_fr._ 86).]
[28\3: The grave of Zeus in Crete is spoken of without exact specification of the place by Call., loc. cit., Cic., _ND._ iii, 53; D.S. 3, 61, 2; Mela ii, 112; Luc., _Tim._ 6, _J. Tr._ 45, _Sacr._ 10, _D. Conc._ 6; Min. xxi, 8; Firm., _Err. Prof. Rel._ vii, 6. Euhemeros ap. Min. xxi, 1, speaks of the _Dictæi Iovis sepulcrum_ obviously inexactly, for acc. to Lact. i, 11, he made the grave in oppido Cnosso far from Mt. Dicte. Even there he means not "in" but "near" Knossos, i.e. on Mt. Ida. For the fact that it was on Mt. Ida we have the testimony of Varro _de litoralibus_ ap. Solin. 11, p. 81, 12-15 Momms. Finally, the situation of the grave within the Idaian cave is clear from Porph., _VP._ 17, p. 25 N.]
[29\3: Hence the story of the grave of Zeus (when not denied outright as by Call.) was allegorized; Celsus hinted at ~tropika\s huponoi/as~: Or., _Cels._ iii, 43, p. 307 L.; cf. Philostr., _VS._ p. 76, 15 ff. K.] {110}
[30\3: Examples are frequent in the mythology of Oriental, and generally but not exclusively Semitic peoples. It is generally "Kronos" who is buried (cf. Mayer, _Myth. Lex._ ii, 1487 ff.); at other times Astarte, Adonis, the Phrygian Attis, "Herakles," and others. Cf. also the stories of the Heroes sleeping eternally in Sardinia (_Rh. Mus._ 35, 157 ff.; 37, 465 ff.); and of Kragos and the other ~a/grioi theoi/~ (or ~theoi\ agrei=s~? _JHS._ 10, 57, 55) who "were made immortal" on Mt. Kragos in Lykia (St. Byz. ~Kra/gos~): they, too, were thought of as sleeping, and not "dead", as Eust. on D.P. 847 expresses it.]
[31\3: Varro, _LL._ vii, 17, p. 124 Sp.^2, compares the shape of the Omphalos with a _thesaurus_, i.e. with one of the vaulted buildings which used to be called treasuries, but which have now been undoubtedly proved to be really vaulted graves. On a smaller scale (as vase paintings show) the ~omphalo/s~ had the shape generally given to the dwelling-places made for the spirits of the departed who dwelt below the earth, as well as that of the abodes of other earth-spirits; even the ~cha/sma gê=s~ over the cavern of Trophonios was of this shape, Paus. 9, 39, 10. Was this dome-shape especially connected with earth-spirits who had mantic powers? The Delphic "omphalos" was even used as a technical expression to describe this "tholos" shape; thus the ~omphaloi/~ (of ~phia/lai~) ~kai\ tô=n balanei/ôn hoi _tho/loi_ paro/moioi~, Ath. 501 D. E. (cf. Hesych. ~Balaneiompha/lous~, _AB._ 225, 6). It was called ~omphalo/s Gê=s~ because sacred to the earth-goddess. It was later interpreted "navel", i.e. middle point of the earth, by mistake, and then fabulous accounts made up to explain this.]
[32\3: Modern writers have adopted the view that Dionysos was buried under the Omphalos: e.g. Enmann, _Kypros u. Ursp. Aphrod._, S. Petersb., 1886, p. 47 ff. But closer examination shows that all that we have good authority for is that the ~omphalo/s~ was _Pythonis tumulus_ (Varro, _LL._ vii, 17, p. 124 Sp.), ~ta/phos tou= Pu/thônos~ (Hesych. s. ~Toxi/ou bouno/s~). _Dionysos_, on the other hand, was buried at Delphi, ~para\ to\n Apo/llôna to\n chrusou=n~ (Philochoros ap. Sync. 307, 4 ff. Di.; Eus. Arm. = Hier. _Chr._, pp. 44-5 Sch.; Malal., p. 45, 7 Di., from Africanus acc. to Gelzer, _Afric._ i, 132 f.), i.e. he was buried in the ~a/duton~ (cf. Paus. 10, 24, 5), or, what comes to the same thing, ~para\ to\ chrêstê/rion~ (Plu., _Is. et O._ 35, 365 A.), ~para\ to\n tri/poda~ (Call. ap. Tz. Lyc. 208; cf. _E.M._ ~Delphoi/~). The tripod stood in the Adyton (D.S. 16, 26; Str. 419; cf. Hdt. vii, 140). Whether the ~omphalo/s~ also stood in the Adyton (or whether as some think, in the _Cella_ of the Temple) cannot be made out for certain though it seems probable. No one, however, made the grave of Dionysos under the Omphalos except Tat., _Gr._ viii, p. 40 Ott. [p. 9, 16 ff. Schw.]: ~ho omphalo\s ta/phos esti\ Dionu/sou~, and the statement of this very careless pamphleteer cannot stand against the witness of Varro, etc. It is plain that Tatian confused the two "graves", as Hyg. 140 and Serv. (_A._ iii, 92; iii, 360; vi, 347) did, reversing the process and making the tripod into the grave of the Python. The real tradition knew, besides the grave of Dionysos near the tripod, the grave of Python in the Omphalos of his mother Gaia. This was never seriously denied; doubt might rather have been believed to linger over the question, who then was preserved in the tripod? Porph., _VP._ 18, p. 25, 6 ff. N., says that it was Apollo himself, or possibly _an_ Apollo the son of Silenos. This absurdity seems to go back to Euhemeros (cf. Minuc. xxi, 1; worthless is Fulgentius _Expos._, 2, p. 769 Stav. = p. 112, 3 ff. Helm), and may be merely a frivolous jest. (Too much respect is paid to this tradition by K. O. Müller, _Introd. to Scient. Myth._, p. 246.)] {111}
[33\3: That the snake killed by Apollo was the guardian of the old ~mantei=on chtho/nion~ we have on unimpeachable authority (testim. collected by Th. Schreiber, _Apollo Pythoktonos_, p. 3): esp. Eur., _IT._ 1245 ff. Call., _fr._ 364; ~poiêtai/~ acc. to Paus. 10, 6, 6, who say that ~(to\n Pu/thôna) epi\ tô=| mantei/ô| phu/laka hupo\ Gê=s teta/chthai ktl.~ That the struggle was for the oracle is shown briefly and plainly by [Apollod.] 1, 4, 1, 3: ~hôs de\ ho phrourô=n to\ mantei=on Pu/thôn o/phis ekô/luen auto\n (Apo/llôna) parelthei=n epi\ to\ cha/sma~ (the oracular cleft), ~tou=ton anelô/n to\ mantei=on paralamba/nei~. The snake form is proper to earth-spirits, and, as earth-spirits always have mantic power, to oracle-spirits. Trophonios appeared as a snake and so did Asklepios. There can be no doubt that the Delphian ~dra/kôn~ is the embodiment of the pre-Apolline oracle-daimon. Thus Hesych. says exactly ~Pu/thôn daimo/nion mantiko/n~ (elaborated in Hyg. 140). Cf. _Act._ 16^16.--Supporters of the doctrine of the Greek "religion of Nature" find even in the legend of Apollo's fight with the snake an allegorical version of a physical fact tending to become an ethical one. I cannot regard such an allegory as primitive.]
[34\3: An instructive parallel may be added. In [Clem.] _Hom._ 5, 22, p. 70, 32 Lag., there is mention of a _grave_ of Plouton ~en tê=| Acherousi/a| li/mnê|~. This may be explained as follows. At Hermione Hades under the name of Klymenos was honoured together with Demeter ~Chthoni/a~ and Kore. Pausanias knew well that Klymenos was a titular name (~epi/klêsis~) of Hades (2, 35, 9), but his rejection of the opinion that Klymenos was a man from Argos who had come to Hermione (as founder of the Chthonic cult) shows that this was the general view. Behind the temple of Chthonia lay ~chôri/a ha\ kalou=sin Hermionei=s to\ me\n Klume/nou, to\ de\ Plou/tônos, to\ tri/ton de\ autôn _li/mnên Acherousi/an_~. At this ~li/mnê Acherousi/a~ it is possible that a _grave_ of Hades, transformed into the Hero Klymenos, may have been shown. This Clemens referred to, but instead of Klymenos or Hades used inaccurately the name more familiar to later times, Plouton.]
[35\3: ~ka\d d' en Athê/nê|s' ei=sen, heô=| eni\ pi/oni nêô=|~. These words may be kept in mind in order to explain the mysterious narrative in Hesiod _Th._ 987 ff. of Phaethon whom Aphrodite ~ô=rt' anereipsame/nê kai/ min zathe/ois eni\ nê/ois nêopo/lon mu/chion poiê/sato, dai/mona di=on~. Aphr., in fact. "translated" Phaethon alive and made him immortal--within her own temple just as Athene had Erechtheus. Perhaps Phaethon was translated beneath the ground under the temple--the adj. ~mu/chion~ may mean this. ~theoi\ mu/chioi~ are those that rule over the ~mucho/s~ of a house, e.g. over the ~tha/lamos~ as the inmost chamber: thus ~Aphrodi/tê muchi/a~ (Ael., _HA._ x, 34). ~Lêtô\ muchi/a~ (Plu. ap. Eus., _PE._ iii, 1, 3, p. 84 c.). A goddess called simply ~Muchi/a~, ins. fr. Mytilene, _GDI._ 255. But ~mu/chioi~ could also mean dwellers in the depths of the earth (~muchô=| chthono\s euruodei/ês~, Hes., _Th._ 119; more commonly in the plural ~muchoi\ chthono/s~, see Markland on Eur., _Sup._ 545; cf. ~A/ïdos mucho/s~, _AP._ vii, 213, 6 (Archias); also ~mucho\s eusebe/ôn, athana/tôn~ under the earth, _Epigr. Gr._ 241 _a_, 18; 658 _a_; _Rh. Mus._ 34, 192). Thus (of the Erinyes) Orph. _H._ 69, 3, ~mu/chiai, hupo\ keu/thesin oiki/' e/chousai a/ntrô| en êero/enti~. Phot. 274, 18, ~mucho/pedon; gê=s ba/thos, Ha/idês.~]
[36\3: That the ~mi/n~ of line 550 refers to Erechtheus and not Athene is shown by the context: Schol. BL. states it expressly. Athene cannot have been intended to accept the offering of bulls and rams, for ~thê/lea tê=| Athêna=| thu/ousin~. And, in fact, cows, not bulls, were offered to Athene; cf. P. Stengel, _quaest. sacr._, p. 4-5, Berl. 1879.]
[37\3: See Wachsmuth, _Ber. sächs. Ges. Wiss._, p. 399 ff., 1887.] {112}
[38\3: Thus there was, at the temple of Palaimon on the Isthmus, an ~a/duton kalou/menon, ka/thodos de\ es auto\ hupo/geôs, e/ntha dê\ to\n Palai/mona _kekru/phthai_~ (i.e. not dead and buried) ~phasi/n~. Paus. 2, 2, 1.]
[39\3: ~cha/sma kru/ptei chthono/s~, Eur. _Ion_, 292.--Erechtheus ab Iove Neptuni rogatu fulmine est ictus, Hyg. 46. That is only another kind of translation.]
[40\3: We need not here speak of the relationship between Erechtheus and Poseidon, with whom he was eventually merged.]
[41\3: Clem. Al. _Protr._ iii, p. 39 P. (with Arnob. and the others who copy him); [Apollod.] 3, 14, 7, 1. Clemens (quoting Antiochos of Syracuse mentions a grave of Kekrops on the citadel. It is uncertain what is the relation between this and the ~Kekro/pion~ known from insc. _CIA._ i, 322, and ~to\ tou= Ke/kropos hiero/n~ on the citadel (Decree honouring the Epheboi of the tribe Kekropis in the year 333: _BCH._ '89, p. 257. l. 10).]
[42\3: ~Huakinthi/ois pro\ tê=s tou= Apo/llônos thusi/as es tou=ton Huaki/nthô| to\n bômo\n dia\ thu/ras chalkê=s enagi/zousin; en aristera=| de/ estin hê thu/ra tou= bômou=~. Paus. 3, 19, 3. We shall meet with similar examples in treating of the sacrifices made to Heroes. This naive sacrificial rite regularly presumes the physical presence of the god or "spirit" in the place underground into which the offerings are poured or thrown (as in the ~me/gara~ of Demeter and Kore, etc.).]
[43\3: The story of Hyakinthos is found in its familiar form in the poets of the Hellenistic period and their imitators, Nikander, Bion, Ovid, etc.: already Simmias and Euphorion had told it (see Welcker, _Kl. Sch._ i, 24 ff.; and G. Knaack, _Anal. Alexandrino-romana_, p. 60 ff.). It may even reach back to earlier times; the death of H. caused by Apollo's discus-throw is mentioned by Eur., _Hel._ 1472 ff., though he does not speak of the love of Apollo for H. As the story was generally given, and, indeed, as it had already been implicitly told by Nikias, it had no local colouring and no importance as local legend. It was not ever even an aetiological myth for it could only account in the most general way for the melancholy character of the Hyakinthos festival and not at all for the peculiar features of its ritual. It is an erotic myth leading up to a metamorphosis, like so many others of its kind, in substance, it is true, closely related the Linos myth, etc., with which it is generally compared--and in accordance with the fashionable theory interpreted as an allegory of the spring blossom fading beneath the heat of the sun. It is, in fact, a regular mythological theme (the death through the cast of the discus occurring for example in the stories of Akrisios, Kanobos, Krokos [see Haupt, _Opusc._ iii, 574 f. In Philo ap. Galen, xiii, 268, read v. 13 ~êïthe/oio~, v. 15 perhaps ~kei/nou dê\ stathmo/n~]). We cannot tell how far the flower Hyakinthos had anything to do with the Amyklaian Hyakinthos (cf. Hemsterhuis, _Lucian_ ii, p. 291 Bip.); perhaps nothing at all--there were no hyacinths used in the Hyakinthia. The similarity of the name may have suggested this addition to the metamorphosis story to the Hellenistic poets.]
[44\3: Certainly not as Apollo's ~erô/menos~ (as which Hauser, _Philol._ 52, 218, in spite of the beard, regards the Hyakinthos of the Amyklaian altar). Bearded ~paidika/~ are unthinkable as every reader of the Anth. Pal. knows. The most ancient form of the story, as implied in the sculpture at Amyklai, neither knows anything of the love of Apollo and Hyakinthos nor consequently of the latter's early death, etc.]
[45\3: The ~Huakinthi/des~ at Athens were regarded as the daughters (strangely migrated to Athens) of the "Lacedaemonian" Hyakinthos. i.e. the one buried in Amyklai. See St. Byz. ~Lousi/a~; Harp. {113} ~Huakinthi/des~; [Apollod.] 3, 15, 8, 5-6; Hyg. 238 (Phanodemos ap. Suid. ~Parthe/noi~ arbitrarily identifies the ~Huakinthi/des~ with the ~Hua/des~ or daughters of Erechtheus. So also [Dem.] 60, 27). This idea implies a form of the story in which Hyak. did not die while still a boy or a half-grown youth as in the metamorphosis version.--That the figure of Hyakinthos on the sculpture at Amyklai had a beard is expressly mentioned by Paus. 3, 19, 4, as conflicting with the fresh youthfulness of Hyakinthos as Nikias (second half fourth century) with reference to the love-story had represented him in his famous picture (~prôthê/bên Hua/kinthon~, Nic., _Th._ 905). Paus. § 5, expressly raises a doubt as to the truth of the traditional fable about H.'s death.]
[46\3: ~pro\ tê=s tou= Apo/llônos thusi/as~ Paus. 3, 19, 3. More than once it is stated that at a particular festival sacrifice to the Hero preceded that to the god (cf. Wassner, _de heroum ap. Gr. cultu_, p. 48 ff.). Probably the reason in all such cases is that the cult of the "Hero" (or god turned Hero is _older_ in that
## particular spot than the worship of the god whose cult had only been
adopted there at a later time. Thus in Plataea at the Daidalia sacrifice was made to Leto before Hera (~prothu/esthai~): Plu. ap. Eus., _PE._ iii, 84 C: there it is quite evident that the cult of Hera was adopted later. Perhaps even the form of the word ~Hua/kinthos~ implies that it was the name of an ancient deity worshipped already by the pre-Greek inhabitants of the Peloponnese. See Kretschmer, _Einl. in Gesch. gr. Spr._ 402-5.]
[47\3: ~Huaki/nthô| enagi/zousin~, Paus. 3, 19, 3.]
[48\3: The second day of the festival was sacred to Apollo and not to Hyakinthos: ~to\n theo\n a/|dousin~ Ath. 139 E. (It has been rightly said that this was when the ~paia/n~ mentioned by Xen., _HG._ 4, 5, 11, must have been sung.) It is impossible to deny, with Unger, _Philol._ 37, 30, the cheerful character of this second day of the festival as described by Polykrates ap. Ath. 139 E, F. It is true that Didymus (whose words Athenaeus is quoting) begins in a way (139 D) that might lead one to suppose that all three days of the ~tô=n Huakinthi/ôn thusi/a dia\ to\ pe/nthos to\ geno/menon (gino/menon?) peri\ to\n Hua/kinthon~ were passed in gloom without festivity, crowns, feasting, or Paean, etc. But he refutes himself afterwards in his description of the second day of the festival, at which not merely at the performances but at the sacrifice and the banquetings festivity reigns supreme. We can only suppose that his language at the beginning is inaccurate, and that he means what he says of the solemnity of the occasion "because of the mourning for Hyakinthos" to be taken as limited like the mourning itself to the first day of the feast.]
[49\3: Hesych. ~Polu/boia; theo/s tis hup' eni/ôn A/rtemis, hupo\ de\ a/llôn Ko/rê~. Cf. K. O. Müller, _Dorians_, i, 361 (~A/rtemis~ there probably as Hekate).]
[50\3: Another view of the combined worship of Apollo and Hyakinthos at Amyklai is taken by Enmann, _Kypros_, etc., 35. In this as elsewhere he relies on certain opinions adopted from H. D. Müller's mythological writings, which must be approved of in general before they can be found enlightening as applied to any particular case.]
[51\3: As happened in the case of Hyakinthos, too, in the scene represented on the Amyklaian altar, Paus. 3, 19, though nothing can be deduced from this as to his original nature.]
[52\3: The oracular activity of Asklepios plays a subordinate part in the usual accounts of him in comparison with his powers of healing. But originally they were closely united (as was usually the case with earth spirits). Apollodorus ~p. theô=n~ ap. Macrob. 1, 20, 4, puts it {114} distinctly: scribit quod Aesculapius divinationibus et auguriis praesit. Celsus calls Asklepios ~euergetou=nta kai\ ta\ me/llonta prole/gonta ho/lais po/lesin anakeime/nais heautô=|~, Or., _Cels._ iii, 3, pp. 255-6 L.]
[53\3: See Appendix I.]
[54\3: Cicero quoting the pragmatical "_theologi_" says, _ND._ iii, 57, Aesculapius (the second one fulmine percussus dicitur humatus esse Cynosuris (the district of Sparta? From a similar source come Clem. Al., _Protr._ ii, p. 26 P.; Lyd., _Mens._ iv, 90, p. 164 Wünsch); of the third Askl., Cic. § 57 says: cuius in Arcadia non longe a Lusio flumine sepulcrum et lucus ostenditur. Even the temple of Asklepios in Epidauros was regarded by many as the place of his grave if we are to believe the Clementine _Hom._ v, 21, _Rec._ x, 24 (sepulcrum demonstrator in Epidauro Aesculapii).]
[55\3: The chthonic character of Asklepios is shown specially by the fact that not only are snakes sacred and dedicated to him but that he himself was actually thought of as a snake (cf. Welcker, _Götterl._ ii, 734). ~o/phis, Gê=s pai=s~ (Hdt. i, 78); deities who dwell in the earth, and afterwards "Heroes" (in the later sense), appear in the form of snakes as ~chtho/nioi~. Since such earth-spirits generally have oracular powers the snake is an oracular animal; but that is a secondary development. The offer of a cock, too (as by Sokrates before his departure to the underworld), points to the chthonic character of Ask., for it was a sacrifice also made to Heroes. Thus the ~hêrô=|a~ at Athens were frequented by the priests of Asklepios (_CIA._ ii, 453 b); cf. Köhler, _Ath. Mitth._ vol. ii, 245 f. (Sacrificial pit, ~bo/thros~, for this chthonic worship in the Asklepieion at Athens? see Köhler, ib. 254.)]
[56\3: The connexion between Amphiaraos and Asklepios is shown also by the fact that Iaso, one of the allegorical figures attached to Asklepios, though generally the daughter of Askl. (e.g. _EM._ 434, 17 ~Iasô/~ with Sylb.; cf. Herond. iv, 6), was probably also regarded as the daughter of Amph.: Sch. Ar., _Plut._ 701. Hesych. s.v. (her portrait in the temple at Oropos, Paus. 1, 34, 3). So, too, ~A/lkandros~ the son of Trophonios (Charax. ap. Schol. Ar., _Nub._, 508, p. 500 Bk.) seems to be the same as ~A/lkôn~, the Asklepiad daimon whose priest Sophokles was. The portraits of Trophonios followed the type of the Asklepios statues: Paus. 9, 39, 3-4. Troph. son of Valens (= Ischys) and Koronis, and brother of Asklepios: Cic., _ND._ iii, 56, acc. to the _theologi_. With good reason, considering their intrinsic affinity, Trophonios, Amphiaraos, Amphilochos, and the Asklepiadai are mentioned side by side by Aristid. i, p. 78 D.]
[57\3: Sulla counted Amphiaraos a "god" and hence the territory belonging to his temple at Oropos was excepted from the lease for the collection of taxes granted to the Roman _publicani_. The Roman Senate allowed this to stand, ins. from Oropos ~Eph. Arch.~, 1884, p. 101 ff.; _Hermes_, 20, 268 ff.; the publicani had denied immortalis esse ullos qui aliquando homines fuissent, Cic., _ND._ iii, 49. Thus only the fact that he was _now_ a god was claimed by the other side--it was not denied that he had once been a mortal. Paus. again 8, 2, 4, mentions Amph. among the ~theoi/~ who ~egi/nonto ex anthrô/pôn~; so too Varro ap. Serv. _A._ viii, 275; cf. Apul., _D. Soc._ 15 fin.; also Philo, _Leg. ad Gaium_, § 78, ii, p. 557 M.]
{{115}}
##