← Table of contents
Outline-history of Greek religion

Chapter V · THE PERIOD AFTER ALEXANDER

Reading edition

The establishment of the Macedonian Empire wrought momentous changes in the civic-political religion of Hellas; and some of these were in the direction of loss and decay, while others worked for the birth of new religious life. The political significance of Apollo of Delphi, of Zeus and Athena, the divine leaders of the Polis in its counsels and ambitions, was doomed to pass away. Athena, as the warder and counsellor, was of less avail for Athens than were the Samothracian sea-deities for the victorious Demetrios.

They show the development of the idea of a humanitarian religion in that they transcend, in most cases, the limits of the old tribal and civic religion and invite the stranger; so that the members, both men and women, associate voluntarily, no longer on the ground of birth or status, but drawn together by their personal devotion to a particular deity, to whom they stand in a far more intimate and individual relation than the ordinary citizen could stand to the divinities of his tribe and city. This sense of divine fellowship might sometimes have been enhanced by a sacrament which the members partook of together; we know that this was the bond of fellowship in the Samothracian mysteries, which were beginning to appeal widely to the early Hellenistic world. A common meal at least, a love-feast or ‘Agape,’ formed the chief bond of the ‘thiasotai,’ and this was sometimes a funeral-feast commemorative of the departed brother or sister. There was nothing to prevent the thiasos choosing as its patron-deity some one of the leading divinities of traditional polytheism, to which they must not be supposed, as Foucart supposed them, to stand in any natural antagonism; therefore, for instance, there were local reasons why Greek merchants whose central meeting-point was Rhodes should form θίασοι under the protection and in the name of Zeus Xenios, the God who protects the stranger, or of Athena Lindia, the ancient and powerful divinity of Lindos, or of Helios, the prehistoric Sun-God whose personality pervaded the whole island. So far, then, the religious importance of these societies consists in their quickening influence on personal religion, in the gratification that they afforded to the individuals craving for personal union with the Godhead, also in their organisation which aroused a keener sense of religious fellowship between the members, and which later served as a model to the nascent Christian community. But in the history of the Hellenic religion their significance is even greater on another ground, namely, that they bear a most striking testimony to that fusion of East and West which it was the object of Alexander, and the mission of his successors, to effect; for many of these religious brotherhoods, whose members and organisation were Hellenic, were consecrated to foreign deities, Sabazios, Adonis, Xousares, the Syrian Goddess; so that they played undesignedly the part of missionaries in the momentous movement sometimes called the Θεοκρασία, the blending of Eastern and Western religions and divine personalities, of which the significance will be considered a little later.

In attempting to grasp what is most elusive, the inner religious sentiment of any period, it is important to remember that the author of such expression was dear to at least the cultivated public of the Hellenistic age.

As for Epicureanism, it cannot be regarded normally as a religious force; if it touched the popular mind at all its influence must have been generally in the direction of atheism or indifferentism; the only signs that it did are occasional grave-inscriptions that breathe the Epicurean spirit of unperturbed quiescence in regard to the posthumous fate of the soul.

Non-Hellenic mysteries.—The phenomenon here indicated attests the stronger vitality at this period of personal or individual, as distinct from tribal or political religion; and this was quickened also by the growth of certain non-Hellenic mysteries in the Mediterranean area in the latter centuries of Paganism, notably by the Samothracian, those of Attis and the Great Mother, the Egyptian Isis, and finally in the last period of all of Mithras. In most of these the records allow us to discover many interesting ideas that reappear in early Christianity, such, for instance, as communion with the divinity through sacrament, the mystic death and rebirth of the Catechumen, the saving efficacy of baptism and purification. These rites could satisfy the craving of the mortal to attain to the conviction of immortality and to the ecstatic consciousness of complete or temporary self-absorption in God. But in the mysteries of Sabazios and Cybele and possibly in others this sense of divinity was conveyed to the ‘mystes’ by the simulation of a holy marriage or sex-communion with the God or Goddess; and for this reason the Pagan mysteries were generally attacked by the Christian Fathers as obscene; the charge was unjust on the whole, though the psychic effect of the special act of ritual just alluded to was probably detrimental to the moral imagination.

In these strange forms of faith and speculation the clearness and sanity of the pure Hellenic intellect appear clouded and troubled, the lineaments of the old types of the Hellenic thought and imagination almost effaced. And the learning and science of the Hellenistic age stood mainly aloof from the religious forces that moved the masses of the people.

Eschatology.—But another feature that we mark in these mystic worships and mystic societies of the Hellenistic world indicates a higher aspect of religion and marks an epoch in religious aspiration. Most of them, if not all, proclaimed the immortality of the soul, a happy resurrection, a divine life after death. The Hellene who had been initiated into the Osiris faith hoped to attain immortal happiness in and through Osiris, availing himself of Egyptian ideas and Egyptian spell-formulæ. The priest of certain mysteries, probably of Attis, comforts the congregation of the faithful, sorrowing over the death of their God, with words that aver the certainty of his resurrection and by implication the hope of their own—

θαρρεῖτε μύσται τοῦ θεοῦ σεσωσμένου

“Be of good cheer, ye of the mystery of the saved God, for after our troubles there shall be to us salvation.”

This apotheosis of the mortal, so rife in this later period, may be regarded as a moral and religious evil. Yet it must not be taken too hastily as a proof of the unreality of the prevailing polytheism. And, for better or worse, it was a momentous fact belonging to the higher history of European religion; for it familiarised the Græco-Roman world with the idea of the incarnation of the Man-God.

The above is only a panoramic sketch indicating the various elements of a singularly manifold religious system. It has been impossible to touch on all the special points of interest, such as divination and the minutiæ of ritual and of the festivals; for these the student must consult special treatises. The object of this monograph has been to present the main essential features in a chronologic survey and to assign to each its significance and relative importance. The history has been adumbrated of a religion that maintained itself for nearly two thousand years on the higher plane of polytheism; a religion which, while lacking the sublimity and moral fervour of some of the Oriental creeds, made certain unique contributions to the evolution of society and the higher intellectual life of man.

By the side of the higher growths many of the products of lower and savage culture were maintained which were mainly obliterated by Christianity. It is necessary to note and appreciate these lower facts; but there is a risk of overestimating their importance and vitality. Many of these are found in all higher religions, usually in a moribund state. It is its higher achievement that makes any particular religion of importance in the history of civilisation; and we are now aware that Greek religion can claim this importance. Nor can the lower elements as a whole be shown to be the germs of the higher within the Hellenic period proper. We cannot show the evolution of the personal anthropomorphic deities of Greece from magic ritual or totemism or theriomorphism without transcending the chronologic limits of the period within which it is allowable to speak of a Hellenic people at all. The emergence of personal Gods, from whatever region or by whatever influence they emerged, is an event of very primitive history. At least we know that of the two populations whose blending made Hellenism, the indigenous Mediterranean and the Northern or Central European invader, the former possessed a personal theism of dateless antiquity; while all the evidence points to the conviction that the Aryan tribes entered Greece with certain personal deities already evolved or acquired.

We find that anthropomorphism was the strongest bias of the Hellenic religious imagination; and with this we associate his passion for idolatry and hero-worship. It is interesting for the student of Hellenic Christianity to note the influence of these tendencies on the later history of the Greek Church; and generally it has been the result of much modern research to reveal the truth that the indebtedness of Christian dogma and ritual to the later Hellenic paganism was far greater than used to be supposed.

LITERATURE

Older works, such as Welcker’s Griechische Götterlehre (3 vols., 1857-1863), and Preller’s Griechische Mythologie (2 vols., 4th ed., by C. Robert, 1887), are only useful now for their collection of facts.

Recent literature: O. Gruppe, Griechische Culte und Mythen in ihren Beziehungen zu den orientalischen Religionen, 1887; Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte, 1906; L. R. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, 5 vols. (1896-1910); Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religiongeschichte (Greek section, 1906); Jane Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1903), Themis, a Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion (1912) (both works dealing mainly with special questions and the more primitive aspects of the religion).

Treatises on special cults and special questions: Roscher, Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie (1884, in progress); Paulz-Wissowa, Real Encyclopædie (1894, in progress); and Daremberg et Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquités (1873-1917); Showerman, The Great Mother of the Gods (Wisconsin, 1901); Frazer, Attis, Adonis, Osiris (2nd ed., 1910); A. Dieterich, Mutter Erde (1905); Eitrem, Hermes und die Toten (Christiania, 1909); Immerwahr, Kulte und Mythe Arkadiens (1891); S. Wide, Lakonische Kulte (1893); Usener, Götternamen (1896); cf. paper on his theory in Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor, “The Place of the Sondergötter in Greek Polytheism,” by L. R. Farnell (1907); De Visser, De Graecorum Diis non referentibus speciem humanam (Leyden, 1900); E. Fehrle, Die Kultische Keuscheit im Alterthum (Giessen, 1910); cf. L. R. Farnell, Evolution of Religion (1905), Lect. iii, “The Ritual of Purification”; Th. Wáchter, Reinheitsvorschriften im grieschischen Kult (Giessen, 1910); C. Ausfeld, De Graecorum precationibus quaestiones, in Fleckeisen’s Supplement (1903); cf. L. R. Farnell, op cit., Lect. iv, “The Evolution of Prayer”; S. Reinach, various articles on Greek cults and myths in Cultes, Mythes et Religions, 3 vols. (1904-1908).

For Eschatology, Mysteries, Thiasoi, Hero-worship: A. Lobeck, Aglaophamus, 2 vols. (1829); E. Rohde, Psyche (2nd ed., 1898); A. Dieterich, Nekyia (1893); also Eine Mithras-Liturgie (1903); Jong, Das Antike Mysterien-Wesen (Leiden, 1909); Goblet d’Alviella, Eleusinia (Paris, 1903); Foucart, “Les Grands Mystères d’Eleusis” (1900), in the Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, xxxvii; Pringsheim, Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleusinischen Kults (Munich, 1905); Foucart, Associations religieuses chez les Grecs (1873); L. Weniger, Ueber das Collegium der Thyiaden (1876); Article on “Héros,” by Deneken, in Roscher’s Lexikon; Pfister, Der Reliquien-kult im Alterthum (1910).

Greek ritual and festivals: A. Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen (1898); P. Stengel, “Die griechischen Sacral-alterthümer,” in Iwan von Müller’s Handbuch (vol. v, 1898); id. Opferbraüche der Griechen (1910); Fritze, Die Rauchopfer bei den Griechen (1894); L. R. Farnell, “Sacramental Communion in Greek Religion,” Hibbert Journal (1903); M. P. Nillson, Griechische Feste (1906), also Studia de Dionysiis Atticis (1900); Foucart, Le culte de Dionysos en Attique (1904); A. Thomsen, “Der Trug des Prometheus,” in Archiv für Religions-Wissenschaft (1909); Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings (1902); Bouché-Leclerq, Histoire de la divination (4 vols. 1879-1881); Deubner, De Incubatione (1900); E. Samter, Geburt Hochzeit und Tod (1911).

Greek religious thought and speculation: L. Campbell, Religion in Greek Literature (1898); Caird, Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers (2 vols., 1900-1902); J. Adam, The Religious Teachers of Greece (1908); Decharme, La critique des traditions religieuses chez les Grecs des origines au temps de Plutarque (1904).

Epigraphic material: Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (passim); special collections of inscriptions bearing on Greek religion: Dittenberger, Sylloge (vol. 2), “Res Sacrae”; J. von Prott and L. Ziehen, Leges Graecorum sacrae e titulis collectae (1896-1906, in progress).

Religious monuments: Overbeck, Griechische Kunst Mythologie (1871-1887, unfinished); L. R. Farnell, Cults; J. Harrison, op. cit.; Baumeister, Denkmäler des klassischen Alterthums (1885-1888); Roscher, op. cit.; Daremberg-Saglio, op. cit.; C. Bötticher, Über den Baumkultus der Hellenen und Römer (1856).

The Mayflower Press, Plymouth, England. William Brendon & Son

Notes in this chapter

Note 1 · As Karsten assumes in his Outlines of Greek Religion, p. 6.Note 2 · Vide E. Meyer, “Der erste auftreten der Aryer in der Geschichte,” Sitzungsb. d. König. preuss. Akad. Wissensch., 1908, p. 14.Note 3 · Vide my Hibbert Lectures, p. 93.Note 4 · Vide my Greece and Babylon, pp. 95-99.Note 5 · The name Hera is probably Aryan-Hellenic, but applied in Argolis to the pre-Hellenic Goddess.Note 6 · Od., 13, 174.Note 7 · At Gournia. Vide Hawes’ Crete the Forerunner of Greece, pp. 101-102.Note 8 · Il., 16, 234.Note 9 · Il., 16, 605.Note 10 · Il., 5, 77.Note 11 · He is aware, however, that a θεοῦ ὀμφή, an oracular mandate, might be delivered against the royal house. Od., 3, 215.Note 12 · Vide my Cults, 4, p. 190.Note 13 · Religion of the Semites, pp. 236-245.Note 14 · Vide Cults, 1, pp. 88-92.Note 15 · Vide my Greece and Babylon, p. 236; also my article on “Sacrificial Communion in Greek Religion” in Hibbert Journal, 1904: on “Sacrifice” (GNote 16 · Od., 10, 517-520, 528.Note 17 · Vide Evans’ “Mycenæan Tree and Pillar Cult,” Hell. Journ., 901, p. 191.Note 18 · Arch. Anzeig., 1909, p. 98.Note 19 · e.g. Il., 9, 500.Note 20 · 10, 38, 8.Note 21 · Cults, 4, pp. 180, 193.Note 22 · Il., 3, 243: but the poet of the Nekyia is well aware of the heroic or divine honours paid them, Od., 11, 300-304.Note 23 · Od., 11, 602.Note 24 · Il., 2, 548.Note 25 · Vide Greece and Babylon, pp. 206-207.Note 26 · Vide v. Prott, Leges Græcorum Sacræ, n. 4. Cf. Arch. für Religionsw., 1909, pp. 467, 482-485.Note 27 · Od., 17, 500.Note 28 · Paus., 1, 43, 7.Note 29 · Cults, 3, pp. 50-62.Note 30 · Op., 735.Note 31 · Vide my Greece and Babylon, pp. 192-194.Note 32 · Cults, 4, pp. 113-116.Note 33 · Vide Nillson, in Athen. Mitth., 1908, p. 279.Note 34 · Cults, 2, pp. 434-449.Note 35 · De Græcorum deis non referentibus speciem humanam, 1900.Note 36 · Bull. Corresp. Hellên., 1899, p. 635.Note 37 · Greece and Babylon, pp. 66-80. Vide Schrader’s article, “Aryan Religion,” Hastings’ Encyclopædia, vol. 2, p. 38.Note 38 · Götternamen, 1896.Note 39 · Paus., 2, 11, 2.Note 40 · Paus., 1, 1, 5.Note 41 · Paus., 9, 33, 3.Note 42 · Paus., 10, 37, 3.Note 43 · I have criticised this theory of evolution in Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor, 1907, “The place of the Sondergötter in GreekNote 44 · Bull. Corr. Hell., 1878, p. 515.Note 45 · Paus., 3, 22, 1.Note 46 · Id., 1, 22, 3; for other references vide Cults, 3, p. 312, R.9.Note 47 · Paus., 8, 29, 1.Note 48 · Paus., 8, 38, 3. ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Λυκαίου Διὸς προσευξάμενος ὲς τὸ ὕδωρ. Cf. Hesiod., Op., 737; for the general facts vide Cults, 5, pp. 420-424Note 49 · Vide Cults, 5, pp. 417-420.Note 50 · Vide Cults, 5, pp. 345-365.Note 51 · Agamede of Ephyra seems to have practised harmless magic, Il., 14, 740; and the poet may have regarded the Elean Ephyra as the special home Note 52 · Cults, 3, p. 85-93; Miss Harrison, Prolegomena, pp. 120-136.Note 53 · Cults, 4, p. 268, etc.Note 54 · Arrian, Anab., 3, 16, 8.Note 55 · Hesych., s.v.Note 56 · Strom., p. 755.Note 57 · 2, 12, 1.Note 58 · In the earliest versions of her legend, the magic of Medea is not black but benevolent.Note 59 · 9, 33, 4.Note 60 · Andrew Lang, The World of Homer, pp. 210, 216.Note 61 · Il., 23, 174.Note 62 · Vide Tsountas in Ephem. Archaiol., 1888, pp. 130-131, and Vollgraff, in Bull. Corr. Hell., 1904, p. 370.Note 63 · Vide Hibbert Lectures, “Higher Aspects of Greek Religion,” pp. 19, 20.Note 64 · Vide Cults, 1, p. 40-42.Note 65 · Ib., p. 42.Note 66 · Ib., 4, p. 272; Schol. Pind., Ol., 10, 19.Note 67 · 7, 19, 1-9.Note 68 · e.g. vide Cults, 3, 93.Note 69 · Cults, 3, p. 22.Note 70 · Vide Cults, vol. 5, pp. 85-118. Cf. generally chs. iv and v.Note 71 · 2, 53.Note 72 · Vide Cults, 2, pp. 442-449.Note 73 · Bergk, Pœtæ Lyrici Græci, vol. III, Fr. 1.Note 74 · Philochoros Frag., 21, Müller, F. H. G., vol. i.Note 75 · Athenæ., p. 626 B.Note 76 · Vide Arch. Anzeig, 1908, p. 122.Note 77 · Cults, 3, pp. 17-18.Note 78 · Ib., 3, pp. 33-34.Note 79 · Cults, 5, p. 443-447.Note 80 · Vide Furtwängler, in Münchener Sitzungsber., 1897, 1, p. 401; Nillson, in Athen. Mittheil., 1908, p. 284.Note 81 · The striking exception to this rule is the great cult of Helios at Rhodes. Vide supra, p. 29.Note 82 · Ael., Var. Hist., 12, 61.Note 83 · “They worship Sun and Moon, we worship real Gods such as Apollo and Hermes,” Pax, 410.Note 84 · Schol. Soph., Elec., 6.Note 85 · Vide my Greece and Babylon, pp. 77-80.Note 86 · Vide Cults, 4, pp. 163-166.Note 87 · Prott-Ziehen, Leg. Saer., n., 18.Note 88 · Plat., Euthyd., p. 302 C; Demosth., 18, § 141, 57, § 54, 67; Arist., Ath. Polit., 55.Note 89 · Diog. Laert., 8, 1, 13; Macrob., 3, 6, 2.Note 90 · Bull. Corr. Hell., 1893, p. 24.Note 91 · Paus., 8, 47, 4.Note 92 · The other view, still held by some, that Zeus-Agamemnon is the earlier fact, and Agamemnon the hero the later, does not bear criticism.Note 93 · Cults, v, pp. 219-221; J. Harrison, Prolegomena, ch. ii.Note 94 · Vide “Higher Aspects of Greek Religion,” Hibbert Lectures, pp. 73-91.Note 95 · Vide Cults, 1, pp. 64-69; for the religious evolution of the Greek laws concerning homicide, vide my Evolution of Religion, pp. 139-152. CulNote 96 · Epic. Græc. Frag., Kinkel, p. 33.Note 97 · Vide Cults, 4, p. 299.Note 98 · Vide Cults, IV, pp. 200-202.Note 99 · Vide Cults, IV, pp. 161-162, 200-202.Note 100 · A fuller account will be found in Cults, IV, pp. 179-218.Note 101 · Vide supra, pp. 34-35.Note 102 · Republ., pp. 364-365.Note 103 · For more detailed discussion, vide Cults, 3, pp. 126-198.Note 104 · Plut., Mor., p. 881 E; Porphyr., Vit. Pyth., 19, 20.Note 105 · Strom., V, p. 714.Note 106 · Vide Gilbert, “Speculation und Volksglaube in der Ionischen Philosophie,” in Arch. Relig. Wiss., 1910, p. 306.Note 107 · Frag., CXXVI, CXXVII, CXXX (Bywater).Note 108 · Vide Ridgeway’s Origin of Tragedy; his theory is criticised in Hermathena, 1912.Note 109 · Pan, the daimon-god of flocks, came in from Arcadia at the beginning of this century (vide Cults, V, p. 431); Asklepios, with his circle froNote 110 · Herod., 8, 77.Note 111 · Heydemann, Die Vasensammlungen des Museum Nazionale zu Neapel, 3253.Note 112 · Vide specially l. 805-808, 822-824.Note 113 · 9, 7, 4.Note 114 · Bergk, Frag., 140.Note 115 · Hibbert Lectures, 83-84.Note 116 · Plut., Vit. Arist., 20; Paus., 9, 2, 5.Note 117 · Vide Cults, III, pp. 156-157.Note 118 · Vide supra, pp. 36-37.Note 119 · Quintil., Inst. Orat., 12, 10, 9.Note 120 · Or., 53, p. 401.Note 121 · Vide Cults, 1, p. 231.Note 122 · Cults, Vol. III, Coin Pl. No. 2; Gardner’s Types of Greek Coins, Pl. 10, 25.Note 123 · Vide Cults, III, pp. 271-272, Coin Pl. No. 18.Note 124 · Modern Greek Folklore and Ancient Greek Religion.Note 125 · Livy, 45, 28.Note 126 · Thesmoph., 1136.Note 127 · Xenophanes’ protest in the sixth century is the most noticeable, Clem., Strom., 5, pp. 714-715 P. The Stoic theory of Zeno condemned the ereNote 128 · Antig., 521.Note 129 · Paus., 1, 40, 4.Note 130 · Ol., 8, 28.Note 131 · Sept. c. Theb., 662.Note 132 · Agam., 776.Note 133 · Oed. Col., 1268.Note 134 · Trag. Græc. Frag. (Nanck), 855.Note 135 · § 35.Note 136 · Pyth., 4, 517.Note 137 · Ol., 9, 60.Note 138 · Strom., p. 688.Note 139 · Herc. Fur., l. 847-858.Note 140 · Ib., 339-347.Note 141 · Vide my Hibbert Lectures, p. 114.Note 142 · l. 391.Note 143 · Iphig Taur., l. 391.Note 144 · Clem., Strom., p. 691 P.Note 145 · Vide Stobæ, Flor., Vol. IV (Meineke), p. 264.Note 146 · Vide Cults, Vol. IV, p. 210.Note 147 · 6, 86.Note 148 · Vide Ziegler, in Archiv. f. Religionswiss, 1911, p. 393-405.Note 149 · Plut., Vit. Pelop., C. 21, 22. Cf. Eur., Iph. Taur., l. 391.Note 150 · p. 315 B-C.Note 151 · Cf. Herod., 7, 197, who shows that the human sacrifice in this cult was rare and conditional.Note 152 · Iph. Taur., l. 1458.Note 153 · Vide Cults, 4, pp. 276-279.Note 154 · Porphyry, De Abstin., 2, 54.Note 155 · Ib., 2, 56.Note 156 · De ser. num. vind., 12, p. 557 C-D.Note 157 · Plut., Parallela, 35. Vide Cults, 1, 95.Note 158 · Vide my Greece and Babylon, p. 267.Note 159 · The exceptions are the cults of Aphrodite at Corinth and among the Lokri Epizephyrii. Vide Cults, 2, pp. 635-636.Note 160 · Cults, 2, p. 667.Note 161 · e.g., in the cult of Artemis κορδάκα in Elis, said to be of Lydian origin (Cults, Vol. II, p. 445).Note 162 · p. 527 D.Note 163 · Bywater, Frag., CXXVII.Note 164 · 7, 17, p. 1336 b.Note 165 · Cults, I, pp. 56, 88-92.Note 166 · 23, § 76.Note 167 · Serv. ad Verg., Æn., 3, 57.Note 168 · Vide my Greece and Babylon, pp. 76-81.Note 169 · Vide fifth-century inscription of Teos containing a law threatening with penalties those who used magic against the State or against individNote 170 · p. 932 E-933 E.Note 171 · Or., 30, § 18.Note 172 · Cults, 5, p. 264.Note 173 · Rep., 378 C., where he seems to glance at Epicharmos.Note 174 · Vide Cults, 4, pp. 211-214.Note 175 · Frags., 1032.Note 176 · κ. Ἀριστογειτ, § 11.Note 177 · Or., 1, p. 31.Note 178 · De Myster., § 125; cf. § 31.Note 179 · De Cor., § 324.Note 180 · Laws, 956 A-B.Note 181 · Ib., 985 D.Note 182 · e.g. ib., 984 D.Note 183 · p. 34-41.Note 184 · For particulars vide Hibbert Lectures, pp. 37, 46-48, 103, 117.Note 185 · Laws, p. 909 E.Note 186 · 738 C.Note 187 · Bull. Corr. Hell., XXVI, pp. 399-489.Note 188 · Vide Cults, 3, pp. 199-202.Note 189 · Ib., p. 199.Note 190 · Vide Foucart, Des Associations religieuses.Note 191 · A paper by Pierre Waltz in the Revue des Études Grecques, 1911—‘sur les sentences de Ménandre’—aims at discovering or imagining the dramaticNote 192 · Kock, Com. Att. Frag., 602.Note 193 · e.g., quotation by Clemens, Strom, p. 720 P. Cf. fragment of the Ἱέρεια, Kock, 245.Note 194 · Γνῶμαι Μονοστιχοι 589, Meineke, 4, p. 356.Note 195 · Fab. Incert., Kock, Frag., 550.Note 196 · Helene, 1300-1365.Note 197 · Vide A. B. Cooke, Zeus, pp. 232-234.Note 198 · De Consensu Evangelistarum, 1, 30 (xxii); cf. De Civ. Dei., IV, 9.Note 199 · Vide my Hibbert Lectures, pp. 104-106.Note 200 · Phainomen, 1, 2-5.Note 201 · Clem., Strom., p. 691.Note 202 · Vide Cults, 5, pp. 446, 745 R, 221.Note 203 · Oxyrhynch. Papyri., viii, p. 31.Note 204 · Vide Archiv, für Relig. Wiss., 1904, p. 395; my Evolution of Religion, p. 207.Note 205 · Personal Religion in Egypt, p. 40.Note 206 · Vide Reitzenstein, Poimandres.Note 207 · De Civ. Dei., 10, 9.Note 208 · Vide J. C. Lawson, Modern Greek Folklore and Ancient Greek Religion, 1910.Note 209 · Firm. Mat., De Err., 22; cf. Dieterich, Eine Mithras-Liturgie, p. 174.Note 210 · Consol. ad uxor., 10, p. 611 D.Note 211 · Vit. Lysandr., 18. Cf. Athenag, p. 51 (Lechair).Note 212 · p. 210 D, Apoth. Lacon; he advised them to begin with making themselves Gods if they felt equal to making him one.Note 213 · Or., 64 R, 338 (Dind, 2. p. 213).Note 214 · 7, 56.Note 215 · C.I.G. Ins. Mar. Æg., 1, 789.Note 216 · Vide my Evolution of Religion, p. 138.Note 217 · Vide my Hibbert Lectures, Lect. VI, “Personal Religion in Greece.”Note 218 · Certainly in the first centuries of the Hellenistic age there were few external signs of decay; we do not yet hear of ruined shrines or the Note 219 · Growing force of personal religion.—Yet the Hellene in the fourth century and in the early days of Macedonian ascendancy began to crave otheNote 220 · The religious brotherhoods.—The same aspiration was also satisfied by the private θίασοι, the guilds of brethren devoted to the special cultNote 221 · Menander.—The student who is tracking the course of the religious life and experience of Hellas through the Hellenistic period should endeavNote 222 · The Θεοκρασία.—The tolerant humanitarianism of Menander, of which we catch the echo in certain formulæ inscribed on the Delphic and other teNote 223 · The spirit of syncretism grows stronger and more pervading through the later Greek and Græco-Roman periods, and dominates the later Orphic aNote 224 · The importance of this movement for religious thought was of the highest. Varro’s view, recorded by Augustine.145.2 that the name of the deiNote 225 · Stoicism, Epicureanism, Cynicism.—This pantheistic speculation inspires some of the dogmas of Stoicism; and for most of the Stoic writers anNote 226 · The philosophic school that was most aggressively protestant against the popular creeds and cults appears to have been the Cynic, mordant anNote 227 · Asclepios-Cult and later mysteries.—The philosophic sectarians of this later age do not appear to have made a serious attempt to capture theNote 228 · Hermetic literature.—The strangest and most interesting manifestation that the ancient records have preserved for us of this fusion of HelleNote 229 · Such theosophy had a natural affinity with magic; and magic, always a power in an age of intellectual decay, begins to be most powerful in tNote 230 · Daimonism.—The mystic and theosophic literature of the Hellenistic and Græco-Roman period was markedly ‘daimonistic,’ being infected with thNote 231 · ἔσται γὰρ ἡμῖν ἐκ πόνων σωτηρία.151.1Note 232 · The mysteries of Mithras embodied much the same eschatologic ideas and hopes; but these came to the Græco-Roman world only in the latest perNote 233 · Hero-worship and apotheosis.—The idea that was common to many of these mystic brotherhoods, that the mortal might achieve divinity, is illusNote 234 · Signs of decay and of new life in later Paganism.—The Hellenistic period cannot be severed by any sharp dividing line from the Græco-Roman;
Explore with AITake your curiosity a little further.

Reading settings