Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:59:10.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Euhemerus and the Historians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2011

Truesdell S. Brown
Truesdell S. Brown
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Euhemerus is one of the most elusive and disconcerting writers in the Hellenistic period. He survives chiefly in the pages of Diodorus Siculus, who almost certainly had not taken the measure of his author. Our other chief source of information comes from the translation made by the poet Ennius, which in turn is known only through the works of later writers, who cited him for purposes of their own. Other authors have paid Euhemerus the compliment of imitating him, and something of their work has survived, also in fragments. Philo of Byblus wrote in the same spirit, and recent excavations at Ras Shamra have shown that his Phoenician History must be taken much more seriously than has been the fashion. Under these circumstances it may be worth while to re-examine the Euhemeristic tradition in an attempt to define its characteristics and its influence on the writing of history.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , October 1946 , pp. 259 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1946

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Eissfeldt, Otto, Ras Schamra und Sanchunjaton, in the Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums, No. 4, Halle, 1939, pp. 1–157Google Scholar, esp. p. 29.

2 The text followed is that of Jacoby, Felix, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, vol. 1, Berlin, 1922, pp. 300–313Google Scholar. The fragments are chiefly from Diodorus Siculus and from the fragments of the Sacra Historia, Ennius' translation of Euhemerus' Ἱερὰ ἀναγραϕή.

3 Ibid., T 1 from Diod. Sic. (VI, 1) in Eusebius' Praep. Evang. II, 2, p. 59 D.

4 Ibid., combining F 2 from Diod. Sic. (VI, 1) in Euseb. Praep. Evang. II, 2 with F 3 from Diod. Sic. V, 41, 4; 42, 4.

5 Ibid., F 3 from Diod. Sic. V, 41, 5–8; 42, 1.

6 Ibid., V, 42, 5–6.

7 Ibid., V, 42, 7—44, 5.

8 Ibid., V, 44, 6.

9 Ibid, V, 45, 3–5; 46, 3.

10 Ibid., F 2 from Diod. Sic. (VI, 1) in Euseb. Praep. Evang. II, 2 p. 60 E.

11 Ibid., F 3 from Diod. Sic. V, 46, 5–8. It may be that Euhemerus mentioned two stelae, one in the shrine on Triphylian Olympus, the other in the valley temple, one written in Panchaean and the other in Egyptian characters.

12 That Hermes should have written in Egyptian would have seemed appropriate to the Hellenistic Greeks, who identified Hermes with the Egyptian scribe god, Thoth.

13 Carl Langer argues plausibly to show that Euhemerus did not describe the οὐράνιοι θεοί as independent of and antecedent to the θεοὶ εὐεργέται, but rather that this distinction is the work of Diodorus. See “Euhemeros und die Theorie der ϕύσει und θέσει θεοί,” in ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ, vol. 2, Leipzig, 1926, pp. 53–59Google Scholar. Whether Langer is correct or not it is evident that Euhemerus' real interest was in the θεοὶ εὐεργέται W. W. Tarn believes that Euhemerus, “did nevertheless have real gods in his Utopia. …” See his “Alexander and the Unity of Mankind,” in the Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 19, London, 1933, p. 24Google ScholarPubMed following the pagination of the reprint.

14 Jacoby, F. Gr. H., vol. 1, F 2, 9, from Diod. Sic. (VI, 1) in Euseb. Praep. Evang. II, 2, p. 60 D.

15 Ibid., For the Titans, see F 16 from Lactantius' Div. inst. I, 14, 10–12; for the abolition of cannibalism, see F 22 from Div. inst. I, 13, 2; for Zeus the lawgiver and civilizer, see F 20, ibid., I, 11, 35; for his ordering his own worship, see F 23, ibid., I, 22, 21–27; for his death in Crete, see F 24, ibid., I, 11, 46.

16 For Aphrodite (Venus), see F 25, ibid., I, 17, 10; for Cadmus and Harmonia, see F 1 from Athenaeus XIV, 658 EF.

17 Odyssey I, 22ff.

18 Hesiod, Works and Days, 90ff.

19 Herodotus, Hist. IV, 32ff.

20 In the Critias.

21 See Jacoby, F. Gr. H., vol. 2 B, pp. 551–552, Theopompus F 75c from Aelian's Var. Hist. III, 18. The fragment is from a digression in the eighth book of the Philippica so extensive as to be cited separately as the θαυμάσια. In addition to the Machimoi and the Eusebeis, whose conduct is contrasted in this fragment, he must have described an idealized people whom he calls the Meropes.

22 For ϕιλανθρωηία and similar Greek ideals of the period, see Rostovtzeff, M., The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Oxford, 1941, vol. 3, p. 1358Google Scholar, n. 4; for the profession of these ideals by Hellenistic rulers, ibid., n. 5. For deification of Greek heroes, see W. S. Ferguson in the Camb. Anc. Hist., vol. 7, p. 13, and in the bibliography to chapter 1; see also Meyer, Eduard, Kleine Schriften, 2nd ed., vol. 1, Halle, 1924, p. 287Google Scholar.

Charlesworth, M. P. (“Some observations on ruler-cult, especially in Rome,” The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 28, 1, 1935, pp. 5–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar) cites a number of very useful passages, including one from the Odyssey where Odysseus promises divine honors to Nausicaä. if she enables him to reach Ithaca (Od. VIII, 464ff.; Charlesworth p. 8). This is particularly interesting because of its early date, and also because of the promise of divine honors to a living person. Charlesworth also points out the essential similarity between the honors paid to gods and to heroes (pp. 9–10). Perhaps the distinction is comparable to that between “beatus” and “saint.”

23 See M. P. Charlesworth, op. cit., p. 14.

24 For Io see Herodotus, Hist. I, 1ff; for the Trojan war, ibid., II, 118ff.

25 Xenophanes rebukes Homer and Hesiod for ascribing human weaknesses to the gods. See Hermann Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 5th ed., Berlin, 1934, fragments of Xenophanes, esp. F 11, p. 132 from Sextus, adv. math. IX, 193. Plato's good humored censorship of Homer is known to every reader of the Republic. Cf. Meyer, Eduard, Geschichte des Altertums, vol. 3, 2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1937, p. 206fGoogle Scholar.

26 I.e. the Greek gods were not creators but merely rulers. Aristophanes' attack on Socrates in the Clouds is not directed against atheism but rather against innovation. The quotation is from M. P. Charlesworth, op. cit. p. 6.

27 von Pöhlmann, Robert, Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des Sozialismus in der antiken Welt, 2 vols., 2nd ed., Munich, 1912, vol. 2, pp. 372–387Google Scholar. See pp. 380–382.

28 See F. Jacoby, “Euemeros,” No. 3 in Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, vol. 6, coll. 962–963.

29 Trüdinger, Karl, Studien zur Geschichte der griechisch-römischen Ethnographie, Basel, 1918, p. 64Google Scholar.

30 Ibid., p. 59ff. See also Kurt von Fritz, “The Historian Theopompus,” The American Historical Review, vol. 44, No. 4, 1941, pp. 765–787, esp. pp. 778, 783.

31 For Megasthenes' fragments, see Müller, Karl, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, vol. 2, Paris, 1878, pp. 402–439Google Scholar. See esp. F 20, 21 and 22. See also the account of Semiramis' invasion of India given by Diodorus Siculus, who was undoubtedly following Megasthenes — esp. II, 16–19.

32 See Kaerst, Julius, Geschichte des Hellenistischen Zeitalters, 1st ed., vol. 2, 1, Leipzig and Berlin, 1909, p. 223Google Scholar.

33 See Jacoby, “Euemeros,” No. 3, Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, vol. 6, coll. 958, 969. For an argument against Jacoby's dating of Euhemerus in ca. 280 as too late, see W. W. Tarn, “Alex, and the Unity of Man.,” Appendix.

34 See Wendland, Paul, Die Hellenistisch-Römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum, 2nd ed., Tübingen, 1912, pp. 120ffGoogle Scholar. Jacoby (“Euemeros,” No. 3, Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, vol. 6, col. 970) points out that Euhemerus himself, appears to have introduced the idea of self-deification. The imperfect state of our knowledge about Leon and Hecataeus makes it impossible for us to be sure. In any event this was a detail obviously borrowed from the career of Alexander.

35 See Jacoby, op. cit., coll. 958, 961; F Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1891, vol. 1, p. 319, n. 46. See also Kaerst. Gesch. d. Hell. Zeit., vol. 2, 1, p. 226.

36 Wilcken, U., “Zur Entstehung des hellenistischen Königskultes,” Sitzb. Preuss. Akad., vol. 30, 1938, pp. 298–321Google Scholar, esp. p. 304.

37 See Christ-Schmid, , Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur, 6th ed., part 2, 1st half, Munich, 1920, p. 232Google Scholar, n. 4.

38 See Helmut Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, 2 vols., Munich, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 46–49. See also Bretzl, Hugo, Botanische Forschungen des Alexanderzuges, Leipzig, 1903, pp. 198–199Google Scholar. Here we may surely recognize the abiding influence of Aristotle on Alexander.

39 Craterus: a third century Macedonian, perhaps a member of the royal family, who wrote ψηϕισμάτων Συναγωγή. See Jacoby and Schoch, “Krateros,” No. 1, Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, vol. 11, coll. 1617ff; Christ-Schmid, op. cit., p. 229f.

Polemon: a late third century polymath and periegete from Ilium. Wrote on many subjects including the antiquities of Athens, Eleusis, Sicyon and Delphi. His nickname, στηλοκόπος, shows an interest in inscriptions. See Christ-Schmid, op. cit., p. 243f; Karl Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, vol. 3, Paris, no date, pp. 108ff.

Diodorus: another third century writer, of unknown origin, who wrote on Athenian antiquities. See E. Schwartz, “Diodoros,” No. 37, Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, vol. 5, coll. 662ff.

Heliodorus: an Athenian periegete of unknown date who certainly wrote Περὶ Ἀκροπόλεως. The extent and exact nature of his writings are sharply disputed. See esp. Keil, B., “Der Perieget Heliodoros von Athen,” Hermes, 1895, pp. 199–240Google Scholar; Christ-Schmid, op. cit., p. 229, n. 3; F. Jacoby, “Heliodoros,” No. 11, Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, vol. 8, coll. 15–18.

40 E.g. letters form a vital part of the plot in many Greek romances. See Haight, Elizabeth H., Essays on the Greek Romances, New York, 1943, esp. pp. 27Google Scholar, 59, 68, 85, 102.

41 For Onesicritus, see Jacoby, F. Gr. H., vol. 2 B, F 17a, 34; for Aristobulus, ibid., F 51a. On interpreters cf. Herod. Hist. IV, 24.

42 See E. Schwartz, “Dionysios,” No. 109, Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, vol. 5, coll. 929–930; Jacoby, F. Gr. H., vol. 1, p. 510.

43 See Jacoby, F. Gr. H., vol. 1, pp. 229–257.

44 Ibid., pp. 509–510.

45 Ibid., p. 240, Dionys. F 8 from Diod. Sic. III, 67, 5.

46 Ibid., p. 510, lines 14ff. However, the work of Xanthus the Lydian, another source cited by Scytobrachion, was once regarded as fictitious but is now thought to be both genuine and reputable. See Eduard Meyer, Gesch. d. Alt., vol. 3, 2nd ed., 1937, p. 129f.; Jacoby, F. Gr. H., vol. 1, p. 510, lines 28ff.

47 A rather distressing example is his derivation of the name, “Zeus,” from the fact that Zeus helped people to “live” well (i.e. Ζῆνα from καλῶς ζῆν). See Jacoby, F. Gr. H., vol. 1, pp. 239–240, F 7 from Diod. Sic. III, 61, 6.

48 For Hespera, ibid., p. 232 from Diod. Sic. III, 53, 4–6; for Nysa, ibid., p. 240, F 8 from Diod. Sic. III, 68, 5.

49 Schwartz, “Dionysios,” No. 109, Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, vol. 5, col. 931.

50 It is characteristic of Scytobrachion that he is not content with settling one mythical people on his island, but that he also makes room for the equally famous Ichthyophagi. See Jacoby, F. Gr. H., vol. 1, p. 232, Dionys. F 7 from Diod. Sic. III, 53, 6.

51 Ibid., p. 241, F 8 from Diod. Sic. III, 68, 6.

52 Cf. Herodotus' account of the way the Egyptians behaved in an opposite manner from other people, Hist. II, 35–36.

53 See Jacoby, F. Gr. H., vol. 1, p. 234, Dionys. F 7 from Diod. Sic. III, 55, 6.

54 Ibid., p. 243, F 8 from Diod. Sic. III, 71, 4.

55 Ibid., from Diod. Sic. III, 71, 3.

56 Ibid., p. 244 from Diod. Sic. III, 73, 1. The rehandling of the Dionysus stories is an excellent example of the impact of Alexander's career on literature. It has been convincingly shown that the close connection between Alexander and Dionysus was invented after Alexander's death under Ptolemaic auspices, and that Dionysus' exploits as a conqueror came as a result of his association with Alexander. See Nock, A. D., “Notes on ruler-cult I–IV,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. 48, 1928, esp. pp. 21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Jacoby, F. Gr. H., vol. 1, p. 243 from Diod. Sic. III, 71, 5.

58 E.g. Dionysus was worshipped by captives for his clemency (ibid.); and Titaea was deified after death because she had been the cause of, “many good things for the people” (ibid., p. 236, F 7 from Diod. Sic. III, 57, 2). Her portrait may derive from accounts of Phila or Cratesipolis.

59 Ibid., p. 236 from Diod. Sic. III, 60, 2.

60 Ibid., p. 238 from Diod. Sic. III, 61, 3.

61 See ibid., vol. 2 B, p. 728, line 37–p. 729, line 1, Onesic. F 17a from Strabo XV, 1, 64, where Mandanis briefly sums up the duties of a king.

62 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 244, Dionys. F 8 from Diod. Sic. III, 72, 4.

63 Ibid., p. 243 from Diod. Sic. III, 71, 5.

64 Wilcken, , “Zur Ensteh. d. König.,” Sitzb. Preuss. Akad., 1938, p. 305Google Scholar.

65 See Jacoby, F. Gr. H., vol. 1, pp. 236–237, Dionys. F 7 from Diod. Sic. III, 57, 3–6. The Egyptian brother-sister marriage of Isis and Osiris was a happy coincidence, but it is to be doubted whether the cult of the θεοὶ ἀδελϕοί was ever viewed from the standpoint of the Egyptian. See Rostovtzeff, Soc. and Econ. Hist, of Hell. World, vol. 1, p. 268.

66 The resemblance between the family life of the Great Mother and what we learn about that of the Ptolemies may be kept in mind.

67 See Müller, F. H. G., vol. 3, p. 560.

68 Ibid., Porphyry says he wrote the Phoenician History in eight books, while Eusebius mentions nine.

69 Ibid., p. 563, Philo F 1, 2 from Euseb. Praep. Evang. I, 9, 31 A.

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid., p. 564, F 1, 5.

72 Ibid.

73 Ibid., F 1, 6.

74 Eusebius emphasizes the trustworthiness attributed to Sanchuniathon, ibid., F 1, 1.

75 For this view, see ibid., p. 561, where Müller alludes to Philo's alleged use of Sanchuniathon and says that no one now denies that this is a falsehood, etc. It is well to remember also that Xanthus the Lydian, Scytobrachion's alleged source, is now regarded as genuine. See above n. 46. For a general warning against accepting the charge of “forgery” against later ancient writers, see Meyer, Eduard, Gesch. d. Alt., vol. 3, 2nd ed., 1937, p. 209, n. 1Google Scholar.

76 See Otto Eissfeldt, Ras Schamra und Sanchunjaton, Halle 1939, esp. pp. 22, 25, 26, 78–79. See also Vivian, and Jacobs, Isaac R., “The Myth of Mot and ʻAlʼeyan Baʻal,” Harv. Theol. Rev., vol. 38, 2, 1945, pp. 77–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 See ibid., pp. 28, 69, 85 and esp. p. 86.

78 See ibid., pp. 10–12; 30.

79 See ibid., esp. p. 30 but also pp. 26–27.

80 The necessity of placating vengeful gods is responsible for human sacrifice according to Philo. See Müller, F. H. G., vol. 3, p. 570, F 4 from Euseb. Praep. Evang. IV, 16, 156 D.

81 See above n. 13.

82 See Müller, F. H. G., vol. 3, pp. 565–566, F 2 from Euseb. Praep. Evang. I, 10, where he gives his account of the creation. Eissfeldt believes that in the interests of his Euhemeristic thesis he deliberately leaves out Phoenician gods he must have found in Sanchuniathon. See Ras Schamra u. Sanch., p. 137.