Chapter I: Greek Religious Concepts

Footnote 5:

It is nowhere directly stated that the power of a god did not extend
beyond a definite locality. But the numerous local epithets applied to
the various gods indicate it. We need mention only such typical
references to the θεοὶ ἐγχώριοι as Aesch. Septem. 14,
Soph. Trach. 183, and Thuc. ii. 74.

Footnote 6:

Cf. Dionysus in the “Frogs” of Aristophanes, Heracles and Poseidon in
the “Birds.” The other comic poets, even Epicharmus, the oldest, dealt
with even greater freedom with the gods. Even the scanty fragments of
Cratinus and Amphis indicate that fact. In Sicily, an entire dramatic
genre, that of the Φλύακες, contained practically nothing
but situations in which the divine personages of the myths were the
subjects of the coarsest fun.

Footnote 7:

Such heroic friendships as that of Achilles and Patroclus were
perverted early in the imagination of Greeks. Cf. Aeschylus, in Athen.
xiii. 601 A, and Aeschines, i. 142. So also the story of Apollo and
Admetus became a love story for Alexandria; Callimachus H. ii. 49.

Footnote 8:

The subject has been discussed in full by de Visser, _De Graecorum
deis non referentibus speciem humanam_ (Leyden, 1900;) 2d ed. in
German, 1903. So at Phigaleia, in Arcadia, Demeter had the form of a
horse; the Brauronian Artemis was a bear; Apollo Lykeios was sometimes
adored in the form of a wolf.

Footnote 9:

Aegean and Mycenean are both used to designate the civilization that
preceded that of historical Greece. Aegean, however, has, to a large
extent, superseded the older term. For the specifically Cretan form of
it, Minoan is generally employed.

Footnote 10:

In spite of the apparently well-defined personalities of the Homeric
gods and a poetic tradition of many centuries, the sculptors of later
times found it necessary to indicate the subject of their labors,
either by some well-known attribute, such as the caduceus, or a sacred
animal, or a symplegma representing a scene of a known legend. Without
these accessories, archeologists often find themselves at a loss when
they are required to name the god intended. Cf. Koepp, Archäologie ii.
88 seq.

Footnote 11:

It is not suggested that prayer could not exist without sacrifice. But
where sacrifice did take place, the act of worship did not lie in the
sacrifice alone, or in the propitiatory allocution that accompanied
it, but in the two together.

Footnote 12:

Cf. Apollo Soter, Soph. O. T. 149, Dionysus Soter, Lycophr. 206, Zeus
Soter, Aristoph. Plut. 1186, etc.

Footnote 13:

Max Müller, Lectures on the Science of Language, _passim_. The term is
rarely used by recent investigators.

Footnote 14:

For the sacrificial act when addressed to gods, the word was
θύειν; addressed to heroes, ἐναγίζειν.
Herod, ii. 44. The color of the sacrificial animal for heroes was
usually black, and no part of the flesh was eaten. Cf. Sch. Hom. Il.
i. 459.

Footnote 15:

For heroes whose position in the state was as high as that of gods, we
have only to refer to the eponyms of the Cleisthenic tribes at Athens,
Theseus, Cecrops, Erechtheus, etc.

Footnote 16:

Local deities, such as Pelops at Olympia (Sch. Pind. Ol. i. 149),
Archemorus at Nemea (Arg. Pind. Nem. i), Tlepolemus at Rhodes (Sch.
Pind. Ol. vii. 146).

Footnote 17:

Cf. Suidas. s. v. Ἀναγυράσιος, Alciphro, iii. 58.

Footnote 18:

The doctrine of Socrates cited by Xenophon, Memor. iv. 7, represents
popular Greek feeling on the subject of theological speculation.

Footnote 19:

Xenophanes of Colophon (sixth cent. B.C.E.) cited in Sex. Emp. adv.
Math. ix. 193. The lines are frequently quoted, and are to be found in
any history of philosophy.

Footnote 20:

A monotheistic or pantheistic tendency showed itself in the attempt on
the part of poets like Aeschylus and Pindar to absorb the divine world
into the personality of Zeno. Cf. Aesch. Heliades, 71:

Ζεύς ἐστιν αὶθήρ, Ζεὺς δὲ γῆ Ζεὺς δ’ οὐρανός,
Ζεύς τοι τὰ πάντα χ ὥτι τῶνδ’ ὑπέρτερον.

Footnote 21:

The solar myth theory was especially advocated by Max Müller in his
various books and articles. Most of the older writers on mythology,
_e.g._ in the earlier articles of Roscher’s Lexikon, accept it as an
established dogma. There can be no reasonable doubt that the celestial
phenomena of sun, moon, and stars exercised a powerful influence on
popular imagination.

Footnote 22:

Dionysus came into Greece probably from Thrace and Macedon about the
tenth century B.C.E. By the sixth century there was no Greek city in
which he was not worshiped. As far as any center of his worship
existed, it may be placed in Boeotia. Cf. Farnell, Cults of the Greek
States, chs. iv. and v.

Footnote 23:

We find Aphrodite firmly established among Greek gods from the
earliest times. It may be that the Semitic or Oriental connections
which have been found for her (cf. Roscher, s. v. Aphrodite, Roscher’s
Lex. i. 390-406) are due to the readiness with which she was
associated with Oriental female deities. That fact, however, is itself
significant.

Footnote 24:

The merchants of Citium formally introduced into Athens the worship of
their local Aphrodite; Dittenberger, Syll. no. 551. Sarapis, Isis, and
Sabazios also early found their way into Athens.

Footnote 25:

The statement that ἀσέβεια was a negative offense, that
its gravamen consisted not in introducing new divinities, but in
neglecting the established ones, is made by Wilamowitz (Antigonus von
Karyst, p. 277). It is, however, only qualifiedly true. The Greeks
found purely negative conceptions difficult. Impiety, or
ἀσέβεια, was not the mere neglect, but such a concrete
act as would tend to cause the neglect of the established gods. The
indictment against Socrates charged the introduction of καινὰ
δαιμόνια, but only because that introduction threatened the
established form. The merchants of Citium (cf. previous note) might
introduce their foreign deity with safety. No such danger was deemed
to lie.

Footnote 26:

The stories of Lycurgus (Il. vi. 130) and of Pentheus (Euripides,
Bacchae) are a constant reminder of the difficulties encountered by
Dionysus in his march through Greece. Then, as has always been the
case in religious opposition, the opponents of the new forms advanced
social reasons for their hostility (Eurip. Bacchae, 220-225).

Footnote 27:

The Egyptian origin of the Eleusinian mysteries is maintained
especially by Foucart, Les grands mystères d’Eleusis.

Footnote 28:

The Homeric Hymn to Demeter dates from the close of the seventh
century B.C.E., perhaps earlier. In it we find the Eleusinian
mysteries fully developed, and their appeal is Panhellenic.

Footnote 29:

Homer certainly knows of no general worship of the dead. But the
accessibility of the dead by means of certain rites is attested not
only by the Νέκυια (Od. x. 517-520), but by the slaughter
of the Trojan captives at the funeral of Patroclus (Il. xxiii. 174).
The poet’s own attitude to the latter is not so important as his
evidence of the custom’s existence.

Footnote 30:

In later times any dead man was ἥρος, and his tomb a
ἡρῷον; C. I. G. 1723, 1781-1783.

Footnote 31:

The kinship of gods and men was an Orphic dogma, quickly and widely
accepted. Pindar formulated it in the words ἕν ἀνδρῶν, ἕν θεῶν
γένος; Nem. vi. i. Cf. Plato, Timaeus, 41 C.

Footnote 32:

Od. iv. 561.

Footnote 33:

Hesychius, s. v. Ἁρμοδίου μέλος.