Chapter XI: Attic Legends and Genealogies

The most ancient name in Attic archæology, as far as our means of information reach, is that of Erechtheus, who is mentioned both in the Catalogue of the Iliad and in a brief allusion of the Odyssey. Born of the Earth, he is brought up by the goddess Athênê, adopted by her as her ward, and installed in her temple at Athens, where the Athenians offer to him annual sacrifices. The Athenians are styled in the Iliad, “the people of Erechtheus.”[452] This is the most ancient testimony concerning Erechtheus, exhibiting him as a divine or heroic, certainly a superhuman person, and identifying him with the primitive germination (if I may use a term, the Grecian equivalent of which would have pleased an Athenian ear) of Attic man. And he was recognized in this same character, even at the close of the fourth century before the Christian æra, by the Butadæ, one of the most ancient and important Gentes at Athens, who boasted of him as their original ancestor: the genealogy of the great Athenian orator Lykurgus, a member of this family, drawn up by his son Abrôn, and painted on a public tablet in the Erechtheion, contained as its first and highest name, Erechtheus, son of Hêphæstos and the Earth. In the Erechtheion, Erechtheus was worshipped conjointly with Athênê: he was identified with the god Poseidôn, and bore the denomination of Poseidôn Erechtheus: one of the family of the Butadæ, chosen among themselves by lot, enjoyed the privilege and performed the functions of his hereditary priest.[453] Herodotus also assigns the same earth-born origin to Erechtheus:[454] but Pindar, the old poem called the Danais, Euripidês and Apollodôrus—all name Erichthonius, son of Hêphæstos and the Earth, as the being who was thus adopted and made the temple-companion of Athênê, while Apollodôrus in another place identifies Erichthonius with Poseidôn.[455] The Homeric scholiast treated Erechtheus and Erichthonius as the same person under two names:[456] and since, in regard to such mythical persons, there exists no other test of identity of the subject except perfect similarity of the attributes, this seems the reasonable conclusion.

[452] Iliad, ii. 546. Odyss. vii. 81.—

Οἳ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Ἀθήνας εἶχον ...
Δῆμον Ἐρεχθῆος μεγαλήτορος, ὅν ποτ᾽ Ἀθήνη
Θρέψε, Διὸς θυγάτηρ, τέκε δὲ ζείδωρος Ἄρουρα,
Κὰδ δ᾽ ἐν Ἀθήνῃσ᾽ εἷσεν ἑῷ ἐνὶ πίονι νηῷ,
Ἐνθάδε μιν ταύροισι καὶ ἀρνειοῖς ἱλάονται
Κοῦροι Ἀθηναίων, περιτελλομένων ἐνιαυτῶν.

[453] See the Life of Lykurgus, in Plutarch’s (I call it by
that name, as it is always printed with his works) Lives of the
Ten Orators, tom. iv. p. 382-384, Wytt. Κατῆγον δὲ τὸ γένος ἀπὸ
τούτων καὶ Ἐρεχθέως τοῦ Γῆς καὶ Ἡφαίστου ... καὶ ἐστὶν αὐτὴ ἡ
καταγωγὴ τοῦ γένους τῶν ἱερασαμένων του Ποσειδῶνος, etc. Ὃς τὴν
ἱερωσύνην Ποσειδῶνος Ἐρεχθέως εἶχε (pp. 382, 383). Erechtheus
Πάρεδρος of Athênê—Aristidês, Panathenaic. p. 184, with the
Scholia of Frommel.

Butês, the eponymus of the Butadæ, is the first priest of
Poseidôn Erichthonius: Apollod. iii. 15, 1. So Kallias (Xenoph.
Sympos. viii. 40), ἱερεὺς θεῶν τῶν ἀπ᾽ Ἐρεχθέως.

[454] Herodot. viii. 55.

[455] Harpokration, v. Αὐτοχθών. Ὁ δὲ Πίνδαρος καὶ ὁ τὴν Δαναΐδα
πεποιηκὼς φασιν, Ἐριχθόνιον ἐξ Ἡφαίστου καὶ Γῆς φανῆναι.
Euripidês, Ion. 21. Apollod. iii. 14, 6; 15, 1. Compare Plato,
Timæus, c. 6.

[456] Schol. ad Iliad, ii. 546, where he cites also Kallimachus
for the story of Erichthonius. Etymologicon Magn. Ἐρεχθεύς.
Plato (Kritias, c. 4) employs vague and general language to
describe the agency of Hêphæstos and Athênê, which the old fable
in Apollodôrus (iii. 14, 6) details in coarser terms. See Ovid,
Metam. ii. 757.

We may presume, from the testimony of Homer, that the first and oldest conception of Athens and its sacred acropolis places it under the special protection, and represents it as the settlement and favorite abode of Athênê, jointly with Poseidôn; the latter being the inferior, though the chosen companion of the former, and therefore exchanging his divine appellation for the cognomen of Erechtheus. But the country called Attica, which, during the historical ages, forms one social and political aggregate with Athens, was originally distributed into many independent dêmes or cantons, and included, besides, various religious clans or hereditary sects (if the expression may be permitted); that is, a multitude of persons not necessarily living together in the same locality, but bound together by an hereditary communion of sacred rites, and claiming privileges, as well as performing obligations, founded upon the traditional authority of divine persons for whom they had a common veneration. Even down to the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, the demots of the various Attic dêmes, though long since embodied in the larger political union of Attica, and having no wish for separation, still retained the recollection of their original political autonomy. They lived in their own separate localities, resorted habitually to their own temples, and visited Athens only occasionally for private or political business, or for the great public festivals. Each of these aggregates, political as well as religious, had its own eponymous god or hero, with a genealogy more or less extended, and a train of mythical incidents more or less copious, attached to his name, according to the fancy of the local exegetes and poets. The eponymous heroes Marathôn, Dekelus, Kolônus, or Phlius, had each their own title to worship, and their own position as themes of legendary narrative, independent of Erechtheus, or Poseidôn, or Athênê, the patrons of the acropolis common to all of them.

But neither the archæology of Attica, nor that of its various component fractions, was much dwelt upon by the ancient epic poets of Greece. Theseus is noticed both in the Iliad and Odyssey as having carried off from Krête Ariadnê, the daughter of Minos—thus commencing that connection between the Krêtan and Athenian legends which we afterwards find so largely amplified—and the sons of Thêseus take part in the Trojan war.[457] The chief collectors and narrators of the Attic mythes were, the prose logographers, authors of the many compositions called Atthides, or works on Attic archæology. These writers—Hellanikus, the contemporary of Herodotus, is the earliest composer of an Atthis expressly named, though Pherekydês also touched upon the Attic fables—these writers, I say, interwove into one chronological series the legends which either greatly occupied their own fancy, or commanded the most general reverence among their countrymen. In this way the religious and political legends of Eleusis, a town originally independent of Athens, but incorporated with it before the historical age, were worked into one continuous sequence along with those of the Erechtheids. In this way, Kekrops, the eponymous hero of the portion of Attica called Kekropia, came to be placed in the mythical chronology at a higher point even than the primitive god or hero Erechtheus.

[457] Æthra, mother of Theseus, is also mentioned (Homer, Iliad,
iii. 144).

Ogygês is said to have reigned in Attica[458] 1020 years before the first Olympiad, or 1796 years B. C. In his time happened the deluge of Deukaliôn, which destroyed most of the inhabitants of the country: after a long interval, Kekrops, an indigenous person, half man and half serpent, is given to us by Apollodôrus as the first king of the country: he bestowed upon the land, which had before been called Actê, the name of Kekropia. In his day there ensued a dispute between Athênê and Poseidôn respecting the possession of the acropolis at Athens, which each of them coveted. First, Poseidôn struck the rock with his trident, and produced the well of salt water which existed in it, called the Erechthêis: next came Athênê, who planted the sacred olive-tree ever afterwards seen and venerated in the portion of Erechtheion called the cell of Pandrosus. The twelve gods decided the dispute; and Kekrops having testified before them that Athênê had rendered this inestimable service, they adjudged the spot to her in preference to Poseidôn. Both the ancient olive-tree and the well produced by Poseidôn were seen on the acropolis, in the temple consecrated jointly to Athênê and Erechtheus, throughout the historical ages. Poseidôn, as a mark of his wrath for the preference given to Athênê, inundated the Thriasian plain with water.[459]

[458] Hellanikus, Fragm. 62; Philochor. Fragm. 8, ap. Euseb.
Præp. Evang. x. 10. p. 489. Larcher (Chronologie d’Hérodote, ch.
ix. s. 1. p. 278) treats both the historical personality and the
date of Ogygês as perfectly well authenticated.

It is not probable that Philochorus should have given any
calculation of time having reference to Olympiads; and hardly
conceivable that Hellanikus should have done so. Justin Martyr
quotes Hellanikus and Philochorus as having mentioned Moses,—ὡς
σφόδρα ἀρχαίου καὶ παλαιοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἄρχοντος Μωϋσέως
μέμνηνται—which is still more incredible even than the assertion
of Eusebius about their having fixed the date of Ogygês by
Olympiads (see Philochor. Fragm. 9).

[459] Apollod. iii. 14, 1; Herodot. viii. 55; Ovid. Metam. vi.
72. The story current among the Athenians represented Kekrops as
the judge of this controversy (Xenoph. Memor. iii. 5, 10).

The impressions of the trident of Poseidôn were still shown
upon the rock in the time of Pausanias (Pausan. i. 26, 4). For
the sanctity of the ancient olive-tree, see the narrative of
Herodotus (_l. c._), relating what happened to it when Xerxes
occupied the acropolis. As this tale seems to have attached
itself specially to the local peculiarities of the Erechtheion,
the part which Poseidôn plays in it is somewhat mean: that god
appears to greater advantage in the neighborhood of the Ἱπποτὴς
Κολωνὸς, as described in the beautiful Chorus of Sophoklês (Œdip.
Colon. 690-712).

A curious rationalization of the monstrous form ascribed to
Kekrops διφυὴς in Plutarch (Sera Num. Vindict. p. 551).

During the reign of Kekrops, Attica was laid waste by Karian pirates on the coast, and by invasions of the Aônian inhabitants from Bœôtia. Kekrops distributed the inhabitants of Attica into twelve local sections—Kekropia, Tetrapolis, Epakria, Dekeleia, Eleusis, Aphidna, Thorikus, Braurôn, Kythêrus, Sphêttus, Kêphisius, Phalerus. Wishing to ascertain the number of inhabitants, he commanded each man to cast a single stone into a general heap: the number of stones was counted, and it was found that there were twenty thousand.[460]

[460] Philochor. ap. Strabo. ix. p. 397.

Kekrops married the daughter of Aktæus, who (according to Pausanias’s version) had been king of the country before him, and had called it by the name of Aktæa.[461] By her he had three daughters, Aglaurus, Ersê and Pandrosus, and a son, Erysichthôn. Kekrops is called by Pausanias contemporary of the Arcadian Lykaôn, and is favorably contrasted with that savage prince in respect of his piety and humanity.[462] Though he has been often designated in modern histories as an immigrant from Egypt into Attica, yet the far greater number of ancient authorities represent him as indigenous or earth-born.[463]

[461] The Parian chronological marble designates Aktæus as an
autochthonous person. Marmor Parium, Epoch. 3. Pausan. i. 2, 5.
Philochorus treated Aktæus as a fictitious name (Fragm. 8, _ut
sup._).

[462] Pausan. viii. 2. 2. The three daughters of Kekrops were
not unnoticed in the mythes (Ovid, Metam. ii. 739): the tale of
Kephalus, son of Hersê by Hermês, who was stolen away by the
goddess Eôs or Hêmera in consequence of his surpassing beauty,
was told in more than one of the Hesiodic poems (Pausan. i. 3, 1;
Hesiod. Theog. 986). See also Eurip. Ion. 269.

[463] Jul. Africanus also (ap. Euseb. x. 9. p. 486-488) calls
Kekrops γηγενὴς and αὐτοχθών.

Erysichthôn died without issue, and Kranaus succeeded him,—another autochthonous person and another eponymus,—for the name Kranai was an old denomination of the inhabitants of Attica.[464] Kranaus was dethroned by Amphiktyôn, by some called an autochthonous man; by others, a son of Deukaliôn: Amphiktyôn in his turn was expelled by Erichthonius, son of Hêphæstos and the Earth,—the same person apparently as Erechtheus, but inserted by Apollodôrus at this point of the series. Erichthonius, the pupil and favored companion of Athênê, placed in the acropolis the original Palladium or wooden statue of that goddess, said to have dropped from heaven: he was moreover the first to celebrate the festival of the Panathenæa. He married the nymph Pasithea, and had for his son and successor Pandiôn.[465] Erichthonius was the first person who taught the art of breaking in horses to the yoke, and who drove a chariot and four.[466]

[464] Herod. viii. 44. Κρανααὶ Ἀθῆναι, Pindar.

[465] Apollod. iii. 14. Pausan. i. 26, 7.

[466] Virgil, Georgic iii. 114.

In the time of Pandiôn, who succeeded to Erichthonius, Dionysus and Dêmêtêr both came into Attica: the latter was received by Keleos at Eleusis.[467] Pandiôn married the nymph Zeuxippê, and had twin sons, Erechtheus and Butês, and two daughters, Proknê and Philomêla. The two latter are the subjects of a memorable and well-known legend. Pandiôn having received aid in repelling the Thêbans from Têreus, king of Thrace, gave him his daughter Proknê in marriage, by whom he had a son, Itys. The beautiful Philomêla, going to visit her sister, inspired the barbarous Thracian with an irresistible passion: he violated her person, confined her in a distant pastoral hut, and pretended that she was dead, cutting out her tongue to prevent her from revealing the truth. After a long interval, Philomêla found means to acquaint her sister of the cruel deed which had been perpetrated; she wove into a garment words describing her melancholy condition, and despatched it by a trusty messenger. Proknê, overwhelmed with sorrow and anger, took advantage of the free egress enjoyed by women during the Bacchanalian festival to go and release her sister: the two sisters then revenged themselves upon Têreus by killing the boy Itys, and serving him up for his father to eat: after the meal had been finished, the horrid truth was revealed to him. Têreus snatched a hatchet to put Proknê to death: she fled, along with Philomêla, and all the three were changed into birds—Proknê became a swallow, Philomêla a nightingale, and Têreus an hoopoe.[468] This tale, so popular with the poets, and so illustrative of the general character of Grecian legend, is not less remarkable in another point of view—that the great historian Thucydidês seems to allude to it as an historical fact,[469] not however directly mentioning the final metamorphosis.

[467] The mythe of the visit of Dêmêtêr to Eleusis, on which
occasion she vouchsafed to teach her holy rites to the leading
Eleusinians, is more fully touched upon in a previous chapter
(see _ante_, p. 50).

[468] Apollod. iii. 14, 8; Æsch. Supplic. 61; Soph. Elektr. 107;
Ovid, Metamorph. vi. 425-670. Hyginus gives the fable with some
additional circumstances, fab. 45. Antoninus Liberalis (Narr.
11), or Bœus, from whom he copies, has composed a new narrative
by combining together the names of Pandareos and Aêdôn, as given
in the Odyssey, xix. 523, and the adventures of the old Attic
fable. The hoopoe still continued the habit of chasing the
nightingale; it was to the Athenians a present fact. See Schol.
Aristoph. Aves, 212.

[469] Thucyd. ii. 29. He makes express mention of the nightingale
in connection with the story, though not of the metamorphosis.
See below, chap. xvi. p. 544, note 2. So also does Pausanias
mention and reason upon it as a real incident: he founds upon it
several moral reflections (i. 5, 4; x. 4, 5): the author of the
Λόγος Ἐπιτάφιος, ascribed to Demosthenês, treats it in the same
manner, as a fact ennobling the tribe Pandionis, of which Pandiôn
was the eponymus. The same author, in touching upon Kekrops, the
eponymus of the Kekropis tribe, cannot believe literally the
story of his being half man and half serpent: he rationalizes it
by saying that Kekrops was so called because in wisdom he was
like a man, in strength like a serpent (Demosth. p. 1397, 1398,
Reiske). Hesiod glances at the fable (Opp. Di. 566), ὀρθογόη
Πανδιονὶς ὦρτο χελιδών; see also Ælian., V. H. xii. 20. The
subject was handled by Sophoklês in his lost Têreus.

After the death of Pandiôn, Erechtheus succeeded to the kingdom, and his brother, Butês, became priest of Poseidôn Erichthonius, a function which his descendants ever afterwards exercised, the Butadæ or Eteobutadæ. Erechtheus seems to appear in three characters in the fabulous history of Athens—as a god, Poseidôn Erechtheus[470]—as a hero, Erechtheus, son of the Earth—and now, as a king, son of Pandiôn: so much did the ideas of divine and human rule become confounded and blended together in the imagination of the Greeks in reviewing their early times.

[470] Poseidôn is sometimes spoken of under the name of
Erechtheus simply (Lycophrôn, 158). See Hesychius, v. Ἐρεχθεύς.

The daughters of Erechtheus were not less celebrated in Athenian legend than those of Pandiôn. Prokris, one of them, is among the heroines seen by Odysseus in Hadês: she became the wife of Kephalus, son of Deionês, and lived in the Attic dême of Thorikus. Kephalus tried her fidelity by pretending that he was going away for a long period; but shortly returned, disguising his person and bringing with him a splendid necklace. He presented himself to Prokris without being recognized, and succeeded in triumphing over her chastity. Having accomplished this object, he revealed to her his true character: she earnestly besought his forgiveness, and prevailed upon him to grant it. Nevertheless he became shortly afterwards the unintentional author of her death: for he was fond of hunting, and staid out a long time on his excursions, so that Prokris suspected him of visiting some rival. She determined to watch him by concealing herself in a thicket near the place of his midday repose; and when Kephalus implored the presence of Nephelê (a cloud) to protect him from the sun’s rays, she suddenly started from her hiding-place: Kephalus, thus disturbed, cast his hunting-spear unknowingly into the thicket and slew his wife. Erechtheus interred her with great magnificence, and Kephalus was tried for the act before the court of Areopagus, which condemned him to exile.[471]

[471] Pherekydês, Fragm. 77, Didot; ap. Schol. ad Odyss. xi. 320;
Hellanikus Fr. 82; ap. Schol. Eurip. Orest. 1648. Apollodôrus
(iii. 15, 1) gives the story differently.

Kreüsa, another daughter of Erechtheus, seduced by Apollo, becomes the mother of Iôn, whom she exposes immediately after his birth in the cave north of the acropolis, concealing the fact from every one. Apollo prevails upon Hermês to convey the new-born child to Delphi, where he is brought up as a servant of the temple, without knowing his parents. Kreüsa marries Xuthus, son of Æolus, but continuing childless, she goes with Xuthus to the Delphian oracle to inquire for a remedy. The god presents to them Iôn, and desires them to adopt him as their son: their son Achæus is afterwards born to them, and Iôn and Achæus become the eponyms of the Iônians and Achæans.[472]

[472] Upon this story of Iôn is founded the tragedy of Euripidês
which bears that name. I conceive many of the points of that
tragedy to be of the invention of Euripidês himself: but to
represent Iôn as son of Apollo, not of Xuthus, seems a genuine
Attic legend. Respecting this drama, see O. Müller, Hist. of
Dorians, ii. 2. 13-15. I doubt however the distinction which he
draws between the Ionians and the other population of Attica.

Oreithyia, the third daughter of Erechtheus, was stolen away by the god Boreas while amusing herself on the banks of the Ilissus, and carried to his residence in Thrace. The two sons of this marriage, Zêtês and Kalaïs, were born with wings: they took part in the Argonautic expedition, and engaged in the pursuit of the Harpies: they were slain at Tênos by Hêraklês. Kleopatra, the daughter of Boreas and Oreithyia, was married to Phineus, and had two sons, Plexippus and Pandiôn; but Phineus afterwards espoused a second wife, Idæa, the daughter of Dardanus, who, detesting the two sons of the former bed, accused them falsely of attempting her chastity, and persuaded Phineus in his wrath to put out the eyes of both. For this cruel proceeding he was punished by the Argonauts in the course of their voyage.[473]

[473] Apollodôr. iii. 15, 2; Plato, Phædr. c. 3; Sophok. Antig.
984; also the copious Scholion on Apollôn. Rhod. i. 212.

The tale of Phineus is told very differently in the Argonautic
expedition as given by Apollônius Rhodius, ii. 180. From
Sophoklês we learn that this was the Attic version.

The two winged sons of Boreas and their chase of the Harpies were
noticed in the Hesiodic Catalogue (see Schol. Apollôn. Rhod. ii.
296). But whether the Attic legend of Oreithyia was recognized in
the Hesiodic poems seems not certain.

Both Æschylus and Sophoklês composed dramas on the subject of
Oreithyia (Longin. de Sublimit. c. 3). “Orithyia Atheniensis,
filia Terrigenæ, et a Borea in Thraciam rapta.” (Servius ad Virg.
Æneid. xii. 83). Terrigenæ is the γηγενὴς Ἐρεχθεύς. Philochorus
(Fragm. 30) rationalized the story, and said that it alluded to
the effects of a violent wind.

On more than one occasion the Athenians derived, or at least believed themselves to have derived, important benefits from this marriage of Boreas with the daughter of their primæval hero: one inestimable service, rendered at a juncture highly critical for Grecian independence, deserves to be specified.[474] At the time of the invasion of Greece by Xerxês, the Grecian fleet was assembled at Chalcis and Artemision in Eubœa, awaiting the approach of the Persian force, so overwhelming in its numbers as well by sea as on land. The Persian fleet had reached the coast of Magnêsia and the south-eastern corner of Thessaly without any material damage, when the Athenians were instructed by an oracle “to invoke the aid of their son-in-law.” Understanding the advice to point to Boreas, they supplicated his aid and that of Oreithyia, most earnestly, as well by prayer as by sacrifice,[475] and the event corresponded to their wishes. A furious north-easterly wind immediately arose, and continued for three days to afflict the Persian fleet as it lay on an unprotected coast: the number of ships driven ashore, both vessels of war and of provision, was immense, and the injury done to the armament was never thoroughly repaired. Such was the powerful succor which the Athenians derived, at a time of their utmost need, from their son-in-law Boreas; and their gratitude was shown by consecrating to him a new temple on the banks of the Ilissus.

[474] Herodot. vii. 189. Οἱ δ᾽ ὦν Ἀθηναῖοί σφι λέγουσι βοηθήσαντα
τὸν Βορῆν πρότερον, καὶ τότε ἐκεῖνα κατεργάσασθαι· καὶ ἱρὸν
ἀπελθόντες Βορέω ἱδρύσαντο παρὰ ποταμὸν Ἴλισσον.

[475] Herodot. _l. c._ Ἀθηναῖοι τὸν Βορῆν ἐκ θεοπροπίου
ἐπεκαλέσαντο, ἐλθόντος σφι ἄλλου χρηστηρίου, τὸν γαμβρὸν
ἐπίκουρον καλέσασθαι. Βορῆς δὲ, κατὰ τὸν Ἑλλήνων λόγον ἔχει
γυναῖκα Ἀττικὴν, Ὠρειθυίην τὴν Ἐρεχθῆος. Κατὰ δὴ τὸ κῆδος τοῦτο,
οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, συμβαλλεόμενοί σφι τὸν Βορῆν γαμβρὸν εἶναι, etc.

The three remaining daughters of Erechtheus—he had six in all[476]—were in Athenian legend yet more venerated than their sisters, on account of having voluntarily devoted themselves to death for the safety of their country. Eumolpus of Eleusis was the son of Poseidôn and the eponymous hero of the sacred gens called the Eumolpids, in whom the principal functions, appertaining to the mysterious rites of Dêmêtêr at Eleusis, were vested by hereditary privilege: he made war upon Erechtheus and the Athenians, with the aid of a body of Thracian allies; indeed it appears that the legends of Athens, originally foreign and unfriendly to those of Eleusis, represented him as having been himself a Thracian born and an immigrant into Attica.[477] Respecting Eumolpus however and his parentage, the discrepancies much exceed even the measure of license usual in the legendary genealogies, and some critics, both ancient and modern, have sought to reconcile these contradictions by the usual stratagem of supposing two or three different persons of the same name. Even Pausanias, so familiar with this class of unsworn witnesses, complains of the want of native Eleusinian genealogists,[478] and of the extreme license of fiction in which other authors had indulged.

[476] Suidas and Photius, v. Πάρθενοι: Protogeneia and Pandôra
are given as the names of two of them. The sacrifice of Pandôra,
in the Iambi of Hippônax (Hippônact. Fragm. xxi. Welck. ap.
Athen. ix. p. 370), seems to allude to this daughter of
Erechtheus.

[477] Apollodôr. iii. 15, 3; Thucyd. ii. 15; Isokratês (Panegyr.
t. i. p. 206; Panathenaic. t. ii. p. 560, Auger), Lykurgus,
cont. Leocrat. p. 201, Reiske, Pausan. i. 38, 3; Euripid.
Erechth. Fragm. The Schol. ad. Soph. Œd. Col. 1048 gives valuable
citations from Ister, Akestodôrus and Androtiôn: we see that
the inquirers of antiquity found it difficult to explain how
the Eumolpids could have acquired their ascendant privileges in
the management of the Eleusinia, seeing that Eumolpus himself
was a foreigner.—Ζητεῖται, τί δήποτε οἱ Εὐμολπίδαι τῶν τελετῶν
ἐξάρχουσι, ξένοι ὄντες. Thucydidês does _not_ call Eumolpus
a Thracian: Strabo’s language is very large and vague (vii.
p. 321): Isokratês says that he assailed Athens in order to
vindicate the rights of his father Poseidôn to the sovereign
patronage of the city. Hyginus copies this (fab. 46).

[478] Pausan. i. 38. 3. Ἐλευσίνιοί τε ἀρχαῖοι, ἅτε οὐ προσόντων
σφισι γενεαλόγων, ἄλλα τε πλάσασθαι δεδώκασι καὶ μάλιστα ἐς τὰ
γένη τῶν ἡρώων. See Heyne ad Apollodôr. iii. 15, 4. “Eumolpi
nomen modo communicatum pluribus, modo plurium hominum res et
facta cumulata in unum. Is ad quem Hercules venisse dicitur,
serior ætate fuit: antiquior est is de quo hoc loco agitur ...
antecessisse tamen hunc debet alius, qui cum Triptolemo vixit,”
etc. See the learned and valuable comments of Lobeck in his
Aglaophamus, tom. i. p. 206-213: in regard to the discrepancies
of this narrative he observes, I think, with great justice (p.
211), “quo uno exemplo ex innumerabilibus delecto, arguitur
eorum temeritas, qui ex variis discordibusque poetarum et
mythographorum narratiunculis, antiquæ famæ formam et quasi
lineamenta recognosci posse sperant.”

In the Homeric Hymn to Dêmêtêr, the most ancient testimony before us,—composed, to all appearance, earlier than the complete incorporation of Eleusis with Athens,—Eumolpus appears (to repeat briefly what has been stated in a previous chapter) as one of the native chiefs or princes of Eleusis, along with Triptolemus, Dioklês, Polyxeinus and Dolichus: Keleos is the king, or principal among these chiefs, the son or lineal descendant of the eponymous Eleusis himself. To these chiefs, and to the three daughters of Keleos, the goddess Dêmêtêr comes in her sorrow for the loss of her daughter Persephonê: being hospitably entertained by Keleos she reveals her true character, commands that a temple shall be built to her at Eleusis, and prescribes to them the rites according to which they are to worship her.[479] Such seems to have been the ancient story of the Eleusinians respecting their own religious antiquities: Keleos, with Metaneira his wife, and the other chiefs here mentioned, were worshipped at Eleusis, and from thence transferred to Athens as local gods or heroes.[480] Eleusis became incorporated with Athens, apparently not very long before the time of Solôn; and the Eleusinian worship of Dêmêtêr was then received into the great religious solemnities of the Athenian state, to which it owes its remarkable subsequent extension and commanding influence. In the Atticized worship of the Eleusinian Dêmêtêr, the Eumolpids and the Kêrŷkes were the principal hereditary functionaries: Eumolpus, the eponym of this great family, came thus to play the principal part in the Athenian legendary version of the war between Athens and Eleusis. An oracle had pronounced that Athens could only be rescued from his attack by the death of the three daughters of Erechtheus; their generous patriotism consented to the sacrifice, and their father put them to death. He then went forth confidently to the battle, totally vanquished the enemy, and killed Eumolpus with his own hand.[481] Erechtheus was worshipped as a god, and his daughters as goddesses, at Athens.[482] Their names and their exalted devotion were cited along with those of the warriors of Marathôn, in the public assembly of Athens, by orators who sought to arouse the languid patriot, or to denounce the cowardly deserter; and the people listened both to one and the other with analogous feelings of grateful veneration, as well as with equally unsuspecting faith in the matter of fact.[483]

[479] Homer, Hymn, ad Cerer. 153-475.—

... Ἡ δὲ κίουσα θεμιστοπόλοις βασιλεῦσι
Δεῖξεν Τριπτολέμῳ τε, Διόκλεΐ τε πληξίππῳ,
Εὐμόλπου τε βίῃ, Κελέῳ θ᾽ ἡγήτορι λαῶν,
Δρησμοσύνην ἱερῶν.

Also v. 105.

Τὴν δὲ ἴδον Κελέοιο Ἐλευσινίδαο θύγατρες.

The hero Eleusis is mentioned in Pausanias, i. 38, 7: some said
that he was the son of Hermês, others that he was the son of
Ogygus. Compare Hygin. f. 147.

[480] Keleos and Metaneira were worshipped by the Athenians
with divine honors (Athenagoras, Legat. p. 53, ed. Oxon.):
perhaps he confounds divine and heroic honors, as the Christian
controversialists against Paganism were disposed to do.
Triptolemus had a temple at Eleusis (Pausan. i. 38, 6).

[481] Apollodôr. iii. 15, 4. Some said that Immaradus, son of
Eumolpus, had been killed by Erechtheus (Pausan. i. 5, 2);
others, that both Eumolpus and his son had experienced this fate
(Schol. ad Eurip. Phœniss. 854). But we learn from Pausanias
himself what the story in the interior of the Erechtheion
was,—that Erechtheus killed Eumolpus (i. 27, 3).

[482] Cicero, Nat. Deor. iii. 19; Philochor. ap. Schol. Œdip.
Col. 100. Three daughters of Erechtheus perished, and three
daughters were worshipped (Apollodôr. iii. 15, 4; Hesychius,
Ζεῦγος τριπάρθενον; Eurip. Erechtheus, Fragm. 3, Dindorf); but
both Euripidês and Apollodôrus said that Erechtheus was only
required to sacrifice, and only did sacrifice, _one_,—the other
two slew themselves voluntarily, from affection for their sister.
I cannot but think (in spite of the opinion of Welcker to the
contrary, Griechisch. Tragöd. ii. p. 722) that the genuine legend
represented Erechtheus as having sacrificed all three, as appears
in the Iôn of Euripidês (276):—

IÔN. Πατὴρ Ἐρεχθεὺς σὰς ἔθυσε συγγόνους;
CREÜSA. Ἔτλη πρὸ γαίας σφάγια παρθένους κτανεῖν.
IÔN. Σὺ δ᾽ ἐξεσώθης πῶς κασιγνήτων μόνη;
CREÜSA. Βρέφος νέογνον μητρὸς ἦν ἐν ἀγκάλαις.

Compare with this passage, Demosthen. Λόγος Ἐπιταφ. p. 1397,
Reisk. Just before, the death of the three daughters of Kekrops,
for infringing the commands of Athênê, had been mentioned.
Euripidês modified this in his Erechtheus, for he there
introduced the mother Praxithea consenting to the immolation
of one daughter, for the rescue of the country from a foreign
invader: to propose to a mother the immolation of three daughters
at once, would have been too revolting. In most instances we find
the strongly marked features, the distinct and glaring incidents
as well as the dark contrasts, belong to the Hesiodic or old
Post-Homeric legend; the changes made afterwards go to soften,
dilute, and to complicate, in proportion as the feelings of the
public become milder and more humane; sometimes however the later
poets add new horrors.

[483] See the striking evidence contained in the oration of
Lykurgus against Leocratês (p. 201-204. Reiske; Demosthen. Λόγ.
Ἐπιταφ. _l. c._; and Xenophon, Memor. iii. 5, 9): from the two
latter passages we see that the Athenian story represented the
invasion under Eumolpus as a combined assault from the western
continent.

Though Erechtheus gained the victory over Eumolpus, yet the story represents Poseidôn as having put an end to the life and reign of Erechtheus, who was (it seems) slain in the battle. He was succeeded by his son Kekrops II., and the latter again by his son Pandiôn II.,[484]—two names unmarked by any incidents, and which appear to be mere duplication of the former Kekrops and Pandiôn, placed there by the genealogizers for the purpose of filling up what seemed to them a chronological chasm. The Attic legends were associated chiefly with a few names of respected eponymous personages; and if the persons called the children of Pandiôn were too numerous to admit of their being conveniently ascribed to one father, there was no difficulty in supposing a second prince of the same name.

[484] Apollodôr. iii. 15, 5; Eurip. Iôn, 282; Erechth. Fragm. 20,
Dindorf.

Apollodôrus passes at once from Erechtheus to his son Kekrops II., then to Pandiôn II., next to the four sons of the latter, Ægeus, Pallas, Nisus and Lykus. But the tragedians here insert the story of Xuthus, Kreüsa and Iôn; the latter being the son of Kreüsa by Apollo, but given by the god to Xuthus, and adopted by the latter as his own. Iôn becomes the successor of Erechtheus, and his sons Teleon, Hoplês, Argadês and Aigikorês become the eponyms of the four ancient tribes of Athens, which subsisted until the revolution of Kleisthenês. Iôn himself is the eponym of the Iônic race both in Asia, in Europe, and in the Ægean islands: Dôrus and Achæus are the sons of Kreüsa by Xuthus, so that Iôn is distinguished from both of them by being of divine parentage.[485] According to the story given by Philochorus, Iôn rendered such essential service in rescuing the Athenians from the attack of the Thracians under Eumolpus, that he was afterwards made king of the country, and distributed all the inhabitants into four tribes or castes, corresponding to different modes of life,—soldiers, husbandmen, goatherds, and artisans.[486] And it seems that the legend explanatory of the origin of the festival Boëdromia, originally important enough to furnish a name to one of the Athenian months, was attached to the aid thus rendered by Iôn.[487]

[485] Eurip. Iôn. 1570-1595. The Kreüsa of Sophoklês, a lost
tragedy, seems to have related to the same subject.

Pausanias (vii. 1, 2) tells us that Xuthus was chosen to
arbitrate between the contending claims of the sons of Erechtheus.

[486] Philochor. ap. Harpocrat. v. Βοηδρόμια; Strabo, viii. p.
383.

[487] Philochor. ap. Harpocrat. v. Βοηδρόμια.

We pass from Iôn to persons of far greater mythical dignity and interest,—Ægeus and his son Thêseus.

Pandiôn had four sons, Ægeus, Nisus, Lykus, and Pallas, between whom he divided his dominions. Nisus received the territory of Megaris, which had been under the sway of Pandiôn, and there founded the seaport of Nisæa. Lykus was made king of the eastern coast, but a dispute afterwards ensued, and he quitted the country altogether, to establish himself on the southern coast of Asia Minor among the Termilæ, to whom he gave the name of Lykians.[488] Ægeus, as the eldest of the four, became king of Athens; but Pallas received a portion both of the south-western coast and the interior, and he as well as his children appear as frequent enemies both to Ægeus and to Thêseus. Pallas is the eponym of the dême Pallênê, and the stories respecting him and his sons seem to be connected with old and standing feuds among the different dêmes of Attica, originally independent communities. These feuds penetrated into the legend, and explain the story which we find that Ægeus and Thêseus were not genuine Erechtheids, the former being denominated a supposititious child to Pandiôn.[489]

[488] Sophokl. ap. Strab. ix. p. 392; Herodot. i. 173; Strabo,
xii. p. 573.

[489] Plutarch, Thêseus, c. 13. Αἰγεὺς θετὸς γενόμενος Πανδίονι,
καὶ μηδὲν τοῖς Ἐρεχθείδαις προσήκων. Apollodôr. iii. 15, 6.

Ægeus[490] has little importance in the mythical history except as the father of Thêseus: it may even be doubted whether his name is anything more than a mere cognomen of the god Poseidôn, who was (as we are told) the real father of this great Attic Hêraklês. As I pretend only to give a very brief outline of the general territory of Grecian legend, I cannot permit myself to recount in detail the chivalrous career of Thêseus, who is found both in the Kalydônian boar-hunt and in the Argonautic expedition—his personal and victorious encounters with the robbers Sinnis, Procrustês, Periphêtês, Scirôn and others—his valuable service in ridding his country of the Krommyonian sow and the Marathônian bull—his conquest of the Minotaur in Krête, and his escape from the dangers of the labyrinth by the aid of Ariadnê, whom he subsequently carries off and abandons—his many amorous adventures, and his expeditions both against the Amazons and into the under-world along with Peirithous.[491]

[490] Ægeus had by Mêdea (who took refuge at Athens after her
flight from Corinth) a son named Mêdus, who passed into Asia,
and was considered as the eponymus and progenitor of the Median
people. Datis, the general who commanded the invading Persian
army at the battle of Marathôn, sent a formal communication to
the Athenians announcing himself as the descendant of Mêdus, and
requiring to be admitted as king of Attica: such is the statement
of Diodôrus (Exc. Vatic. vii.-x. 48: see also Schol. Aristophan.
Pac. 289).

[491] Ovid, Metamorph. vii. 433.—

... “Te, maxime Theseu,
Mirata est Marathon Cretæi sanguine Tauri:
Quodque Suis securus arat Cromyona colonus,
Munus opusque tuum est. Tellus Epidauria per te
Clavigeram vidit Vulcani occumbere prolem:
Vidit et immanem Cephisias ora Procrustem.
Cercyonis letum vidit Cerealis Eleusin.
Occidit ille Sinis,” etc.

Respecting the amours of Thêseus, Ister especially seems to have
entered into great details; but some of them were noticed both
in the Hesiodic poems and by Kekrops, not to mention Pherekydês
(Athen. xiii. p. 557). Peirithous, the intimate friend and
companion of Thêseus, is the eponymous hero of the Attic dême or
gens Perithoidæ (Ephorus ap. Photium, v. Περιθοῖδαι).

Thucydidês delineates the character of Thêseus as a man who combined sagacity with political power, and who conferred upon his country the inestimable benefit of uniting all the separate and self-governing dêmes of Attica into one common political society.[492] From the well-earned reverence attached to the assertion of Thucydidês, it has been customary to reason upon this assertion as if it were historically authentic, and to treat the romantic attributes which we find in Plutarch and Diodôrus as if they were fiction superinduced upon this basis of fact. Such a view of the case is in my judgment erroneous. The athletic and amorous knight-errant is the old version of the character—the profound and long-sighted politician is a subsequent correction, introduced indeed by men of superior mind, but destitute of historical warranty, and arising out of their desire to find reasons of their own for concurring in the veneration which the general public paid more easily and heartily to their national hero. Thêseus, in the Iliad and Odyssey, fights with the Lapithæ against the Centaurs: Thêseus, in the Hesiodic poems, is misguided by his passion for the beautiful Æglê, daughter of Panopeus:[493] and the Thêseus described in Plutarch’s biography is in great part a continuation and expansion of these same or similar attributes, mingled with many local legends, explaining, like the Fasti of Ovid, or the lost Aitia of Kallimachus, the original genesis of prevalent religious and social customs.[494] Plutarch has doubtless greatly softened down and modified the adventures which he found in the Attic logographers as well as in the poetical epics called Thêsêis. For in his preface to the life of Thêseus, after having emphatically declared that he is about to transcend the boundary both of the known and the knowable, but that the temptation of comparing the founder of Athens with the founder of Rome is irresistible, he concludes with the following remarkable words: “I pray that this fabulous matter may be so far obedient to my endeavors as to receive, when purified by reason, the aspect of history: in those cases where it haughtily scorns plausibility and will admit no alliance with what is probable, I shall beg for indulgent hearers, willing to receive antique narrative in a mild spirit.”[495] We see here that Plutarch sat down, not to recount the old fables as he found them, but to purify them by reason and to impart to them the aspect of history. We have to thank him for having retained, after this purification, so much of what is romantic and marvellous; but we may be sure that the sources from which he borrowed were more romantic and marvellous still. It was the tendency of the enlightened men of Athens, from the days of Solôn downwards, to refine and politicize the character of Thêseus:[496] even Peisistratus expunged from one of the Hesiodic poems the line which described the violent passion of the hero for the fair Æglê:[497] and the tragic poets found it more congenial to the feelings of their audience to exhibit him as a dignified and liberal sovereign, rather than as an adventurous single-handed fighter. But the logographers and the Alexandrine poets remained more faithful to the old fables. The story of Hekalê, the hospitable old woman who received and blessed Thêseus when he went against the Marathônian bull, and whom he found dead when he came back to recount the news of his success, was treated by Kallimachus:[498] and Virgil must have had his mind full of the unrefined legends when he numbered this Attic Hêraklês among the unhappy sufferers condemned to endless penance in the under-world.[499]

[492] Thuc. ii. 15. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ Θησεὺς ἐβασίλευσε, γενόμενος μετὰ
τοῦ ξυνετοῦ καὶ δυνατὸς, τά τε ἄλλα διεκόσμησε τὴν χώραν, καὶ
κατάλυσας τῶν ἄλλων πόλεων τά τε βουλευτήρια καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς, ἐς
τὴν νῦν πόλιν ... ξυνῴκισε πάντας.

[493] Iliad, i. 265; Odyss. xi. 321. I do not notice the
suspected line, Odyss. xi. 630.

[494] Diodôrus also, from his disposition to assimilate Thêseus
to Hêraklês, has given us his chivalrous as well as his political
attributes (iv. 61).

[495] Plutarch, Thêseus, i. Εἴη μὲν οὖν ἡμῖν, ἐκκαθαιρόμενον
λόγῳ τὸ μυθῶδες ὑπακοῦσαι καὶ λαβεῖν ἱστορίας ὄψιν· ὅπου δ᾽ ἂν
αὐθαδῶς τοῦ πιθανοῦ περιφρονῇ, καὶ μὴ δέχηται ~τὴν πρὸς τὸ εἰκὸς
μίξιν~, εὐγνωμόνων ἀκροατῶν δεησόμεθα, καὶ πρᾴως τὴν ἀρχαιολογίαν
προσδεχομένων.

[496] See Isokratês, Panathenaic. (t. ii. p. 510-512, Auger);
Xenoph. Memor. iii. 5, 10. In the Helenæ Encomium, Isokratês
enlarges more upon the personal exploits of Thêseus in
conjunction with his great political merits (t. ii. p. 342-350,
Auger).

[497] Plutarch, Thêseus, 20.

[498] See the epigram of Krinagoras, Antholog. Pal. vol. ii. p.
144; ep. xv. ed. Brunck. and Kallimach. Frag. 40.

Ἀείδει δ᾽ (Kallimachus) Ἑκάλης τε φιλοξείνοιο καλιὴν,
Καὶ Θησεῖ Μαραθὼν οὓς ἐπέθηκε πόνους.

Some beautiful lines are preserved by Suidas, v. Ἐπαύλια,
περὶ Ἑκάλης θανούσης (probably spoken by Thêseus himself, see
Plutarch, Theseus, c. 14).

Ἴθι, πρηεῖα γυναικῶν,
Τὴν ὁδὸν, ἣν ἀνίαι θυμαλγέες οὐ περόωσιν·
Πόλλακι σεῖ᾽, ὦ μαῖα, φιλοξείνοιο καλιῆς
Μνησόμεθα· ξυνὸν γὰρ ἐπαύλιον ἔσκεν ἅπασι.

[499] Virgil, Æneid, vi. 617. “Sedet æternumque sedebit Infelix
Thêseus.”

Two however among the Thêseian fables cannot be dismissed without some special notice,—the war against the Amazons, and the expedition against Krête. The former strikingly illustrates the facility as well as the tenacity of Grecian legendary faith; the latter embraces the story of Dædalus and Minos, two of the most eminent among Grecian ante-historical personages.

The Amazons, daughters of Arês and Harmonia,[500] are both early creations and frequent reproductions of the ancient epic—which was indeed, we may generally remark, largely occupied both with the exploits and sufferings of women, or heroines, the wives and daughters of the Grecian heroes—and which recognized in Pallas Athênê the finished type of an irresistible female warrior. A nation of courageous, hardy and indefatigable women, dwelling apart from men, permitting only a short temporary intercourse for the purpose of renovating their numbers, and burning out their right breast with a view of enabling themselves to draw the bow freely,—this was at once a general type stimulating to the fancy of the poet and a theme eminently popular with his hearers. Nor was it at all repugnant to the faith of the latter—who had no recorded facts to guide them, and no other standard of credibility as to the past except such poetical narratives themselves—to conceive communities of Amazons as having actually existed in anterior time. Accordingly we find these warlike females constantly reappearing in the ancient poems, and universally accepted as past realities. In the Iliad, when Priam wishes to illustrate emphatically the most numerous host in which he ever found himself included, he tells us that it was assembled in Phyrgia, on the banks of the Sangarius, for the purpose of resisting the formidable Amazons. When Bellerophôn is to be employed on a deadly and perilous undertaking,[501] by those who indirectly wish to procure his death, he is despatched against the Amazons. In the Æthiopis of Arktinus, describing the post-Homeric war of Troy, Penthesileia, queen of the Amazons, appears as the most effective ally of the besieged city, and as the most formidable enemy of the Greeks, succumbing only to the invincible might of Achilles.[502] The Argonautic heroes find the Amazons on the river Thermôdon, in their expedition along the southern coast of the Euxine. To the same spot Hêraclês goes to attack them, in the performance of the ninth labor imposed upon him by Eurystheus, for the purpose of procuring the girdle of the Amazonian queen, Hippolytê;[503] and we are told that they had not yet recovered from the losses sustained in this severe aggression when Thêseus also assaulted and defeated them, carrying off their queen, Antiopê.[504] This injury they avenged by invading Attica,—an undertaking (as Plutarch justly observes) “neither trifling nor feminine,” especially if according to the statement of Hellanikus, they crossed the Cimmerian Bosporus on the winter ice, beginning their march from the Asiatic side of the Paulus Mæotis.[505] They overcame all the resistances and difficulties of this prodigious march, and penetrated even into Athens itself, where the final battle, hard-fought and at one time doubtful, by which Theseus crushed them, was fought—in the very heart of the city. Attic antiquaries confidently pointed out the exact position of the two contending armies: the left wing of the Amazons rested upon the spot occupied by the commemorative monument called the Amazoneion; the right wing touched the Pnyx, the place in which the public assemblies of the Athenian democracy were afterwards held. The details and fluctuations of the combat, as well as the final triumph and consequent truce, were recounted by these authors with as complete faith and as much circumstantiality as those of the battle of Platæa by Herodotus. The sepulchral edifice called the Amazoneion, the tomb or pillar of Antiopê near the western gate of the city—the spot called the Horkomosion near the temple of Thêseus—even the hill of Areiopagus itself, and the sacrifices which it was customary to offer to the Amazons at the periodical festival of the Thêseia—were all so many religious mementos of this victory;[506] which was moreover a favorite subject of art both with the sculptor and the painter, at Athens as well as in other parts of Greece.

[500] Pherekyd. Fragm. 25, Didot.

[501] Iliad, iii. 186; vi. 152.

[502] See Proclus’s Argument of the lost Æthiopis (Fragm. Epicor.
Græcor. ed. Düntzer, p. 16). We are reduced to the first book of
Quintus Smyrnæus for some idea of the valor of Penthesileia; it
is supposed to be copied more or less closely from the Æthiopis.
See Tychsen’s Dissertation prefixed to his edition of Quintus,
sections 5 and 12. Compare Dio. Chrysostom. Or. xi. p. 350,
Reiske. Philostratus (Heroica, c. 19, p. 751) gives a strange
transformation of this old epical narrative into a descent of
Amazons upon the island sacred to Achilles.

[503] Apollôn. Rhod. ii. 966, 1004; Apollod. ii. 5-9; Diodôr.
ii. 46; iv. 16. The Amazons were supposed to speak the Thracian
language (Schol. Apoll Rhod. ii. 953), though some authors
asserted them to be natives of Libyia, others of Æthiopia (_ib._
965).

Hellanikus (Frag. 33, ap. Schol. Pindar. Nem. iii. 65) said that
all the Argonauts had assisted Hêraklês in this expedition: the
fragment of the old epic poem (perhaps the Ἀμαζόνια) there quoted
mentions Telamôn specially.

[504] The many diversities in the story respecting Thêseus and
the Amazon Antiopê are well set forth in Bachet de Meziriac
(Commentaires sur Ovide, t. i. p. 317).

Welcker (Der Epische Cyclus, p. 313) supposes that the ancient
epic poem called by Suidas Ἀμαζόνια, related to the invasion of
Attica by the Amazons, and that this poem is the same, under
another title, as the Ἀτθὶς of Hegesinous cited by Pausanias: I
cannot say that he establishes this conjecture satisfactorily,
but the chapter is well worth consulting. The epic Thêsêis seems
to have given a version of the Amazonian contest in many respects
different from that which Plutarch has put together out of the
logographers (see Plut. Thês. 28): it contained a narrative of
many unconnected exploits belonging to Thêseus, and Aristotle
censures it on that account as ill-constructed (Poetic. c. 17).

The Ἀμαζονὶς or Ἀμαζονικὰ of Onasus can hardly have been (as
Heyne supposes, ad Apollod. ii. 5, 9) an epic poem: we may infer
from the rationalizing tendency of the citation from it (Schol.
ad Theocrit. xiii. 46, and Schol. Apollôn. Rhod. i. 1207) that it
was a work in prose. There was an Ἀμαζονὶς by Possis of Magnêsia
(Athenæus, vii. p. 296).

[505] Plutarch, Thêseus, 27. Pindar (Olymp. xiii. 84) represents
the Amazons as having come from the extreme north, when
Bellerophôn conquers them.

[506] Plutarch, Thêseus, 27-28; Pausan. i. 2, 4; Plato, Axiochus,
c. 2; Harpocratiôn, v. Ἀμαζονεῖον; Aristophan. Lysistrat. 678,
with the Scholia. Æschyl. (Eumenid. 685) says that the Amazons
assaulted the citadel from the Areiopagus:—

Πάγον τ᾽ Ἄρειον τόνδ᾽, Ἀμαζόνων ἕδραν
Σκηνάς τ᾽, ὅτ᾽ ἦλθον Θησέως κατὰ φθόνον
Στρατηλατοῦσαι, καὶ πόλιν νεόπτολιν
Τήνδ᾽ ὑψίπυργον ἀντεπύργωσάν ποτε.

No portion of the ante-historical epic appears to have been more deeply worked into the national mind of Greece than this invasion and defeat of the Amazons. It was not only a constant theme of the logographers, but was also familiarly appealed to by the popular orators along with Marathôn and Salamis, among those antique exploits of which their fellow-citizens might justly be proud. It formed a part of the retrospective faith of Herodotus, Lysias, Plato and Isokratês,[507] and the exact date of the event was settled by the chronologists.[508] Nor did the Athenians stand alone in such a belief. Throughout many other regions of Greece, both European and Asiatic, traditions and memorials of the Amazons were found. At Megara, at Trœzen, in Laconia near Cape Tænarus, at Chæroneia in Bœôtia, and in more than one part of Thessaly, sepulchres or monuments of the Amazons were preserved. The warlike women (it was said), on their way to Attica, had not traversed those countries, without leaving some evidences of their passage.[509]

[507] Herodot. ix. 27, Lysias (Epitaph, c. 3) represents the
Amazons as ἄρχουσαι πολλῶν ἔθνων: the whole race, according to
him, was nearly extinguished in their unsuccessful and calamitous
invasion of Attica. Isokratês (Panegyric. t. i. p. 206, Auger)
says the same; also Panathênaic. t. iii. p. 560, Auger; Demosth.
Epitaph, p. 1391. Reisk. Pausanias quotes Pindar’s notice of the
invasion, and with the fullest belief of its historical reality
(vii. 2, 4) Plato mentions the invasion of Attica by the Amazons
in the Menexenus (c. 9), but the passage in the treatise De Legg.
c. ii. p. 804,—ἀκούων γὰρ δὴ μύθους παλαιοὺς πέπεισμαι, etc.—is
even a stronger evidence of his own belief. And Xenophon in the
Anabasis, when he compares the quiver and the hatchet of his
barbarous enemies to “those which the Amazons carry,” evidently
believed himself to be speaking of real persons, though he could
have seen only the costumes and armature of those painted by
Mikôn and others (Anabas. iv. 4, 10; compare Æschyl. Supplic.
293, and Aristophan. Lysistr. 678; Lucian. Anachars, c. 34. v.
iii. p. 318).

How copiously the tale was enlarged upon by the authors of the
Atthides, we see in Plutarch, Thêseus, 27-28.

Hekatæus (ap. Steph. Byz. Ἀμαζονεῖον; also Fragm. 350, 351, 352,
Didot) and Xanthus (ap. Hesychium, v. Βουλεψίη) both treated
of the Amazons: the latter passage ought to be added to the
collection of the Fragments of Xanthus by Didot.

[508] Clemens Alexandr. Stromat, i. p. 336; Marmor Parium, Epoch.
21.

[509] Plutarch, Thês. 27-28. Steph. Byz. v. Ἀμαζονεῖον. Pausan.
ii. 32, 8; iii. 25, 2.

Amongst the Asiatic Greeks the supposed traces of the Amazons were yet more numerous. Their proper territory was asserted to be the town and plain of Themiskyra, near the Grecian colony of Amisus, on the river Thermôdôn, a region called, after their name by Roman historians and geographers.[510] But they were believed to have conquered and occupied in early times a much wider range of territory, extending even to the coast of Iônia and Æolis. Ephesus, Smyrna, Kymê, Myrina, Paphos and Sinopê were affirmed to have been founded and denominated by them.[511] Some authors placed them in Libya or Ethiopia; and when the Pontic Greeks on the north-western shore of the Euxine had become acquainted with the hardy and daring character of the Sarmatian maidens,—who were obliged to have slain each an enemy in battle as the condition of obtaining a husband, and who artificially prevented the growth of the right breast during childhood,—they could imagine no more satisfactory mode of accounting for such attributes than by deducing the Sarmatians from a colony of vagrant Amazons, expelled by the Grecian heroes from their territory on the Thermôdôn.[512] Pindar ascribed the first establishment of the memorable temple of Artemis at Ephesus to the Amazons. And Pausanias explains in part the preëminence which this temple enjoyed over every other in Greece by the widely diffused renown of its female founders,[513] respecting whom he observes (with perfect truth, if we admit the historical character of the old epic), that women possess an unparalleled force of resolution in resisting adverse events, since the Amazons, after having been first roughly handled by Hêraklês and then completely defeated by Thêseus, could yet find courage to play so conspicuous a part in the defence of Troy against the Grecian besiegers.[514]

[510] Pherekydês ap. Schol. Apollôn. Rh. ii. 373-992; Justin, ii.
4; Strabo, xii. p. 547, Θεμίσκυραν, τὸ τῶν Ἀμαζόνων οἰκητήριον;
Diodôr. ii. 45-46; Sallust ap. Serv. ad Virgil. Æneid. xi. 659;
Pompon. Mela, i. 19; Plin. H. N. vi. 4. The geography of Quintus
Curtius (vi. 4) and of Philostratus (Heroic c. 19) is on this
point indefinite, and even inconsistent.

[511] Ephor. Fragm. 87, Didot. Strabo, xi. p. 505; xiii p. 573;
xiii. p. 622. Pausan. iv. 31, 6; vii. 2. 4. Tacit. Ann. iii. 61.
Schol. Apollôn. Rhod. ii. 965.

The derivation of the name Sinopê from an Amazon was given by
Hekatæus (Fragm. 352). Themiskyra also had one of the Amazons for
its eponymus (Appian, Bell. Mithridat. 78).

Some of the most venerated religious legends at Sinopê were
attached to the expedition of Hêraklês against the Amazons:
Autolykus, the oracle-giving hero, worshipped with great
solemnity even at the time when the town was besieged by
Lucullus, was the companion of Hêraclês (Appian, _ib._ c. 83).
Even a small mountain village in the territory of Ephesus, called
Latoreia, derived its name from one of the Amazons (Athenæ. i. p.
31).

[512] Herodot. iv. 108-117, where he gives the long tale,
imagined by the Pontic Greeks, of the origin of the Sarmatian
nation. Compare Hippokratês, De Aëre, Locis et Aquis, c. 17;
Ephorus, Fragm. 103; Skymn. Chius, v. 102; Plato, Legg. vii. p.
804; Diodôr. ii. 34.

The testimony of Hippokrates certifies the practice of the
Sarmatian women to check the growth of the right breast: Τὸν
δέξιον δὲ μαζὸν οὐκ ἔχουσιν. Παιδίοισι γὰρ ἐοῦσιν ἔτι νηπίοισιν
αἱ μητέρες χαλκεῖον τετεχνήμενον ἐπ᾽ αὐτέῳ τούτῳ διάπυρον
ποιέουσαι, πρὸς τὸν μαζὸν τιθέασι τὸν δέξιον· καὶ ἐπικαίεται,
ὥστε τὴν αὔξησιν φθείρεσθαι, ἐς δὲ τὸν δέξιον ὦμον καὶ βραχίονα
πᾶσαν τὴν ἴσχυν καὶ τὸ πλῆθος ἐκδιδόναι.

Ktêsias also compares a warlike Sakian woman to the Amazons
(Fragm. Persic. ii. pp. 221, 449, Bähr).

[513] Pausan. iv. 31, 6; vii. 2, 4. Dionys. Periêgêt. 828.

[514] Pausan. i. 15, 2.

It is thus that in what is called early Grecian history, as the Greeks themselves looked back upon it, the Amazons were among the most prominent and undisputed personages. Nor will the circumstance appear wonderful if we reflect, that the belief in them was first established at a time when the Grecian mind was fed with nothing else but religious legend and epic poetry, and that the incidents of the supposed past, as received from these sources, were addressed to their faith and feelings, without being required to adapt themselves to any canons of credibility drawn from present experience. But the time came when the historians of Alexander the Great audaciously abused this ancient credence. Amongst other tales calculated to exalt the dignity of that monarch, they affirmed that after his conquest and subjugation of the Persian empire, he had been visited in Hyrcania by Thalestris, queen of the Amazons, who admiring his warlike prowess, was anxious to be enabled to return into her own country in a condition to produce offspring of a breed so invincible.[515] But the Greeks had now been accustomed for a century and a half to historical and philosophical criticism—and that uninquiring faith, which was readily accorded to the wonders of the past, could no longer be invoked for them when tendered as present reality. For the fable of the Amazons was here reproduced in its naked simplicity, without being rationalized or painted over with historical colors.

[515] Arrian, Exped. Alex. vii. 13; compare iv. 15; Quint. Curt.
vi. 4; Justin, xlii. 4. The note of Freinshemius on the above
passage of Quintus Curtius is full of valuable references on the
subject of the Amazons.

Some literary men indeed, among whom were Dêmêtrius of Skepsis, and the Mitylenæan Theophanês, the companion of Pompey in his expeditions, still continued their belief both in Amazons present and Amazons past; and when it becomes notorious that at least there were none such on the banks of the Thermôdôn, these authors supposed them to have migrated from their original locality, and to have settled in the unvisited regions north of Mount Caucasus.[516] Strabo, on the contrary, feeling that the grounds of disbelief applied with equal force to the ancient stories and to the modern, rejected both the one and the other. But he remarks at the same time, not without some surprise, that it was usual with most persons to adopt a middle course,—to retain the Amazons as historical phænomena of the remote past, but to disallow them as realities of the present, and to maintain that the breed had died out.[517] The accomplished intellect of Julius Cæsar did not scruple to acknowledge them as having once conquered and held in dominion a large portion of Asia;[518] and the compromise between early, traditional, and religious faith on the one hand, and established habits of critical research on the other, adopted by the historian Arrian, deserves to be transcribed in his own words, as illustrating strikingly the powerful sway of the old legends even over the most positive-minded Greeks:—“Neither Aristobulus nor Ptolemy (he observes), nor any other competent witness, has recounted this (visit of the Amazons and their queen to Alexander): nor does it seem to me that the race of the Amazons was preserved down to that time, nor have they been noticed either by any one before Alexander, or by Xenophôn, though he mentions both the Phasians and the Kolchians, and the other barbarous nations which the Greeks saw both before and after their arrival at Trapezus, in which marches they must have met with the Amazons, if the latter had been still in existence. Yet _it is incredible to me_ that this race of women, celebrated as they have been by authors so many and so commanding, _should never have existed at all_. The story tells of Hêraklês, that he set out from Greece and brought back with him the girdle of their queen Hippolytê; also of Thêseus and the Athenians, that they were the first who defeated in battle and repelled these women in their invasion of Europe; and the combat of the Athenians with the Amazons has been painted by Mikôn, not less than that between the Athenians and the Persians. Moreover Herodotus has spoken in many places of these women, and those Athenian orators who have pronounced panegyrics on the citizens slain in battle, have dwelt upon the victory over the Amazons as among the most memorable of Athenian exploits. If the satrap of Media sent any equestrian women at all to Alexander, I think that they must have come from some of the neighboring tribes, practised in riding and equipped in the costume generally called Amazonian.”[519]

[516] Strabo, xi. p. 503-504; Appian, Bell. Mithridat. c. 103;
Plutarch, Pompeius, c. 35. Plin. N. H. vi. 7. Plutarch still
retains the old description of Amazons from the mountains near
the Thermôdôn. Appian keeps clear of this geographical error,
probably copying more exactly the language of Theophanês, who
must have been well aware that when Lucullus besieged Themiskyra,
he did not find it defended by the Amazons (see Appian, Bell.
Mithridat. c. 78). Ptolemy (v. 9) places the Amazons in the
imperfectly known regions of Asiatic Sarmatia, north of the
Caspian and near the river Rha (Volga). “This fabulous community
of women (observes Forbiger, Handbuch der alten Geographie,
ii. 77, p. 457) was a phænomenon much too interesting for the
geographers easily to relinquish.”

[517] Strabo, xi. p. 505. Ἴδιον δέ τι συμβέβηκε τῷ λόγῳ τῷ περὶ
τῶν Ἀμαζόνων. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοι τὸ μυθῶδες καὶ τὸ ἱστορικὸν
διωρίσμενον ἔχουσι· τὰ γὰρ παλαιὰ καὶ ψευδῆ καὶ τερατώδη, μῦθοι
καλοῦνται· [_Note._ Strabo does not always speak of the μῦθοι in
this disrespectful tone; he is sometimes much displeased with
those who dispute the existence of an historical kernel in the
inside, especially with regard to Homer.] ἡ δ᾽ ἱστορία βούλεται
τἀληθὲς, ἄντε παλαιὸν, ἄντε νέον· καὶ τὸ τερατῶδες ἢ οὐκ ἔχει, ἢ
σπάνιον. Περὶ δὲ τῶν Ἀμαζόνων τὰ αὐτὰ λέγεται καὶ νῦν καὶ παλαὶ,
τερατώδη τ᾽ ὄντα, καὶ πίστεως πόῤῥω. Τίς γὰρ ἂν πιστεύσειεν,
ὡς γυναικῶν στράτος, ἢ πόλις, ἢ ἔθνος, συσταίη ἂν πότε χωρὶς
ἀνδρῶν; καὶ οὐ μόνον συσταίη, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐφόδους ποιήσαιτο ἐπὶ τὴν
ἀλλοτρίαν, καὶ κρατήσειεν οὐ τῶν ἐγγὺς μόνον, ὥστε καὶ μέχρι τῆς
νῦν Ἰωνίας προελθεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ διαπόντιον στείλαιτο στρατίαν
μέχρι τῆς Ἀττικῆς; Ἀλλὰ μὴν ταῦτά γε αὐτὰ καὶ νῦν λέγεται περὶ
αὐτῶν· ~ἐπιτείνει δὲ τὴν ἰδιότητα καὶ τὸ πιστεύεσθαι τὰ παλαιὰ
μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ νῦν~. There are however, other passages in which he
speaks of the Amazons as realities.

Justin (ii. 4) recognizes the great power and extensive conquests
of the Amazons in very early times, but says that they gradually
declined down to the reign of Alexander, in whose time there
were _just a few remaining_; the queen with these few visited
Alexander, but shortly afterwards the whole breed became extinct.
This hypothesis has the merit of convenience, perhaps of
ingenuity.

[518] Suetonius, Jul. Cæsar, c. 22. “In Syriâ quoque regnasse
Semiramin (Julius Cæsar said this), magnamque Asiæ partem
Amazonas tenuisse quondam.”

In the splendid triumph of the emperor Aurelian at Rome after the
defeat of Zenobia, a few Gothic women who had been taken in arms
were exhibited among the prisoners; the official placard carried
along with them announced them as _Amazons_ (Vopiscus Aurel. in
Histor. August. Scrip. p. 260, ed. Paris).

[519] Arrian, Expedit. Alexand. vii. 13.

There cannot be a more striking evidence of the indelible force with which these ancient legends were worked into the national faith and feelings of the Greeks, than these remarks of a judicious historian upon the fable of the Amazons. Probably if any plausible mode of rationalizing it, and of transforming it into a quasi-political event, had been offered to Arrian, he would have been better pleased to adopt such a middle term, and would have rested comfortably in the supposition that he believed the legend in its true meaning, while his less inquiring countrymen were imposed upon by the exaggerations of poets. But as the story was presented to him plain and unvarnished, either for acceptance or rejection, his feelings as a patriot and a religious man prevented him from applying to the past such tests of credibility as his untrammelled reason acknowledged to be paramount in regard to the present. When we see moreover how much his belief was strengthened, and all tendency to scepticism shut out by the familiarity of his eye and memory with sculptured or painted Amazons[520]—we may calculate the irresistible force of this sensible demonstration on the convictions of the unlettered public, at once more deeply retentive of passive impressions, and unaccustomed to the countervailing habit of rational investigation into evidence. Had the march of an army of warlike women, from the Thermôdôn or the Tanais into the heart of Attica, been recounted to Arrian as an incident belonging to the time of Alexander the Great, he would have rejected it no less emphatically than Strabô; but cast back as it was into an undefined past, it took rank among the hallowed traditions of divine or heroic antiquity,—gratifying to extol by rhetoric, but repulsive to scrutinize in argument.[521]

[520] Ktêsias described as real animals, existing in wild and
distant regions, the heterogeneous and fantastic combinations
which he saw sculptured in the East (see this stated and
illustrated in Bähr, Preface to the Fragm. of Ktêsias, pp. 58,
59).

[521] Heyne observes (Apollodôr. ii. 5, 9) with respect to the
fable of the Amazons, “In his historiarum fidem aut vestigia nemo
quæsiverit.” Admitting the wisdom of this counsel (and I think
it indisputable), why are we required to presume, in the absence
of all proof, an historical basis for each of those _other_
narratives, such as the Kalydônian boar-hunt, the Argonautic
expedition, or the siege of Troy, which go to make up, along
with the story of the Amazons, the aggregate matter of Grecian
legendary faith? If the tale of the Amazons could gain currency
without any such support, why not other portions of the ancient
epic?

An author of easy belief, Dr. F. Nagel, vindicates the historical
reality of the Amazons (Geschichte der Amazonen, Stutgart,
1838). I subjoin here a different explanation of the Amazonian
tale, proceeding from another author who rejects the historical
basis, and contained in a work of learning and value (Guhl,
_Ephesiaca_, Berlin, 1843. p. 132):—

“Id tantum monendum videtur, Amazonas nequaquam historice
accipiendas esse, sed e contrario totas ad mythologiam pertinere.
Earum enim fabulas quum ex frequentium hierodularum gregibus in
cultibus et sacris Asiaticis ortas esse ingeniose ostenderit
Tolken, jam _inter omnes mythologiæ peritos constat_, Amazonibus
nihil fere nisi peregrini cujusdam cultus notionem expressum
esse, ejusque cum Græcorum religione certamen frequentibus istis
pugnis designatum esse, quas cum Amazonibus tot Græcorum heroes
habuisse credebantur, Hercules, Bellerophon, Theseus, Achilles,
et vel ipse, quem Ephesi cultum fuisse supra ostendimus,
Dionysus. Quæ Amazonum notio primaria, quum paulatim Euemeristicâ
(ut ita dicam) ratione ita transformaretur, ut Amazones pro vero
feminarum populo haberentur, necesse quoque erat, ut omnibus
fere locis, ubi ejusmodi religionum certamina locum habuerunt,
Amazones habitasse, vel eo usque processisse, crederentur.
Quod cum nusquam manifestius fuerit, quam in Asiâ minore, et
potissimum in eâ parte quæ Græciam versus vergit, haud mirandum
est omnes fere ejus oræ urbes ab Amazonibus conditas putari.”

I do not know the evidence upon which this conjectural
interpretation rests, but the statement of it, though it boasts
so many supporters among mythological critics, carries no
appearance of probability to my mind. Priam fights against the
Amazons as well as the Grecian heroes.