¹ Carapanos, C., Dodone et ses Ruines (Paris 1878Google Scholar; one vol. of text and one of plates). The plaque, vol. 1, p. 39, no.l, is reproduced in vol. 2, pl. xxii, and discussed by E. Egger in vol. 1, pp. 196-9 (= BCH 1 (1877) 254-8, the first publication), now in the Salle Carapanos in the National Museum in Athens (E.M. 803). The main discussions of the plaque are those by Davreux, Juliette (La légende de la prophétesse Cassandre d'après les textes et les monuments (Bibl. Univ. Liège 94, 1942)Google Scholar, without photograph) and by the late Dakares, S. in his Γενεαλογικοί Μῦθοι τῶν Μολοσσῶν (Βιβλ. τῆς ἐν Άθήναις Άρχαιολ. Έτ. 33, Athens 1964), see pp. 102ff. and pl. 4Google Scholar; the same author's Δωδώνη (Ioannina 1972Google Scholar, etc.) is an excellent guide to the site, with photographs of bronze objects, but not of our plaque. The text itself is now republished as IG IX. 1² 4.1750 (and pl. xlii; see below, n.9). See also Fox, R. Lane, The Search for Alexander (London 1980), opp. p. 102Google Scholar(cf. p. 100). In his discussion of the phallus, A. Greifenhagen gave only a small detail of the text: see below, n.19 and p. 32. The pedimental type of monument is paralleled by the (far more finished and sophisticated) bronze plaques containing proxeny decrees from Kerkyra: Fraser, P.M. and Rönne, T., Boeotian and West Greek Tombstones (Lund 1957) pl. 29 with p. 180Google Scholar. For a sober study of the whole range of Dodonaean problems, see Parke, H.W., The Oracles of Zeus (Oxford 1967) 1–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who refers to our plaque (at 127 n.30), but does not discuss it.

² For παρ΄’ ἐμοῦ, see below, p. 38 with n.56.

³ The fourth-century date is accepted on Carapanos (n.1) 39, but ibid. 196 (= BCH 1 (1877) 255), Egger said only that the letters seemed to indicate a date earlier than the destruction of the temple by the Aitolians. Dakares, Γενεαλογικοί Μῦθοι (n.1) 112 n. 1, was anxious to assign the Trojan παραδόσεις to the reign of Pyrrhos, whom he associates with the history of the island (see below, p. 31 and nn.51, 53). Davreux (n.1) 85ff. accepts a later date.

⁴ For the complex history of this period of the Molossian koinon (c. 330-272), see the clear account by Cross, G.N., Epirus (Cambridge 1932) 20ff.Google Scholar; also Franke, P., Alt-Epirus und das Königtum der Molosser (Kallmunz 1955)Google Scholar, esp. ch.2, and id.Die antiken Münzen des Epirus (2 vols, Wiesbaden 1961) 2.249ff; Hammond, N.G.L., Epirus (Oxford 1967) 525ff.Google Scholar, and, for the later period, Cabanes, P., L'Epire de la mort de Pyrrhos à la conquête romaine (272-167) (Paris 1976)Google Scholar, with epigraphical appendix, containing the Dodonaean texts relevant to the fourth century; Giovannini, A., Untersuchungen über die Natur und die Anfänge der bundesstaatlichen Sympolitie in Griechenland (Hypomnemata 33, Göttingen 1971) 67-70, 94–9Google Scholar; and, most recently, Funke, S., Aiakidenmylhos und Epeirotisches Königtum (Stuttgart 2000; diss. Köln, 1995)Google Scholar, which suffers (like Davreux, Dakares, Mazzoldi (below)) from the absence of a general index: see especially 102ff., 127ff. Papazoglou, F. rightly pointed out (‘Inscription hellénistique de Lyncestide’, ZAnt 20 (1970) 118ff.)Google Scholar that our plaque cannot (pace Franke and Hammond) determine the date of the establishment of the organization of the Σύμμαχοι τῶν Μολοττῶν since Agathon is referring to the remote past as well as to the present, and is not employing strict chronological terminology. For a full account of the literary tradition of Ajax's assault on the xoanon of Athena and the rape of Kassandra, see Mazzoldi's, S. useful work, Cassandra, La Vergine e l'Indovina (Filologia e Critica 88, Pisa and Rome 2001) 31–61Google Scholar. The details of the evolution of the associated themes of the assault of Ajax on the xoanon of Athena and the rape of Kassandra are not relevant here, since by the time of Agathon the notion of the rape was firmly established, whatever ambiguities of representation and interpretation between the theft of the xoanon and the rape may have existed earlier. Cf. also n.13 for the iconographical evidence.

⁵ Il. 16.233-5:

Ζεῦ, ἄνα, Δωδωναῖε, Πελασγικέ, τηλόθι ναίων, Δωδώνης μεδέων δυσχειμέρου· ἀμφἱ δὲ Σελλοὶ σοὶ ναίουσ΄ ὑποφῆται ἀνιπτόποδες χαμαιεῦναι Cf. Strabo 221.

⁶ Paus. 2.16.6 (of the tombs of Teledamos and Pelops at Mycenae): τούτους γὰρ τεκεῖν διδύμους Κασσάνδραν φασί [i.e. local tradition], νηπίους σὲ ἔτι ὄντας ἐπικατέσφαξε τοῖς γονεῦσιν Αἵγισθος. This was, of course, not accepted by the inhabitants of Amyklai and other sites in which Kassandra was recognized as a cult-figure: see below, n.23.

⁷ ‘Eine metrische Inschrift von Dodona’, Rh.Mus. 33 (1878) 610–13Google Scholar. On 611 he commented, regarding a list of hereditary proxenoi as suggested by Egger, ‘Mögen die Alten auch unglaubliches in der Fiction von Ahnen und Stammhaltern geleistet haben, in einer rein politischen Sache waren doch ihrer Phantasie bestimmte Grenzen gesetzt.’

⁸ Ag. 1203ff, esp. 1207-8:

Χό. ᾖ καὶ τέκνων εἰς ἕργον ἥλθετον νόμωι;

κά. ξυναινέσασα Λοξίαν ἐψευσάμην.

Lyc. Alex. 348: ὲγὼ δὲ τλήμων ἡ γάμους ἀρνουμένη… 352-3: ἡ τὸν Θοραῖον Πτῶιον ‘Ώρίτην θεὸν

λίπτοντ’ ἀλέκτρων ἐκβαλοῦσα δεμνίων, κτλ.

⁹ See Head, B.V., Historia Numorum (2nd edn, London 1911) 429–30Google Scholar (Christ (n.7) 612 is evidently referring to the coins, although he does not expressly say so). See also Plut. Dion. 23: τῶι δ΄ Άπόλλωνι θυσίαν μεγαλοπρεπῆ παρασκευάσας ὁ Δίων ἐπόμπευσε μετὰ τῶν στρατιωτῶν κεκοσμημένων ταῖς πανοπλίαις πρὸς τὸ ίερόν: there follows a brief account of the extravagant entertainment provided by Dion for the Zakynthians. For the coin with the legend ΑΙΩΝ alleged to have been struck by Dion at Zakynthos, see the decisive criticism by Kraay, C.M., Greek Coinage and History (London 1969) 3–5Google Scholar. The meagre epigraphical harvest from Zakynthos has barely increased in the last century from the ten inscriptions (two on lead bullets) given by Dittenberger (1897) in IG IX.l, pp. 135-6 to eighteen (of which only three are not in the earlier edition) in the new edition (2001), IG IX.l² 4.1730-47; our plaque is no. 1750, with bibliography, but without comment.

¹⁰ Records of hereditary priesthoods are essentially a feature of the second and third centuries AD, a very different environment from that of our plaque. However, they show the developed form of the practice, and are worth noting in the present context. Egger, ap. Carapanos (n.1) 1.198 (= BCH, p.257), already pointed to the various Lakonian priesthoods of Imperial date, in IG V. 1.537, where the honorand, Πόπλ. Μέμμιος Δεξίμαχος Πρατολάου, is described as ἱερεὺς μβ' ἁπὸ Διοσκούρων; his date is c. mid second century AD (see the complicated family-stemma ranging over two and a half centuries, given at IG, loc.cit.); ibid. 328, where the honorand may be [--ἱερέα--ἀ]πὸ Ποσειδῶνος; ibid. 530, where Μ. Αὑρ. Παγκρατίδας Έλλανικοῦ is honoured by ὁ πανάριστος M. Αὐρ. 'Αριστοκράτης τοῦ Δαμαινέτου, ἱερεὺς κατὰ γένος, μη' ἀπὸ Ήρακλέους, μδ' ἀπὸ Διοσκούρων; ibid. 469, etc., T. Κλ. Ἀριστοκράτης ὁ ἱερεὺς καὶ ἀπόγονος Ποσεδῶνς. The vast family-tree of Licinnia Flavilla of Cibyra at Oenoanda (see the detailed description of this notable monument in Anat. Stud. 46 (1996) 111–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar, a reference I owe to Thomas Corsten) of about the time of Caracalla, is slightly different. The list begins with the Spartan κτίστης, Kleandros, who had allegedly been sent to Oenoanda by Amyklas, and then jumps straight to the first century AD. It is presumably a genuine, partly fabricated, family document. In the fourth century AD Synesius, proud, as always, of his Spartan descent, says (Ep. 41.239 Garzya (Budé edn, Paris 2000) = Epist. Gr. p. 667 Hercher): ἀναμνησθῆτε γὰρ ὑμεῖς τίς πρώην πρὸς ἐμὲ τὸν μηδὲν ἄλλο, ἐκείνων γενόμενον, ὦν ἀπ' Εὐρυσθένους τοῦ καταγαόντος Δωριέας εἰς Σπάρτην μέχρι τοὐμοῦ πατρὸς αί διαδοχαὶ ταῖς δημοσίαις ἐνεκοάφθησαν κύρβεσιν. Cf. below, n.34.

¹¹ Griechische Verskunst (Berlin 1921) 373–4Google Scholar: surprisingly, Wilamowitz (en passant) was satisfied, or half-satisfied, with the explanation that Agathon was descended from Teledamos, one of Kassandra's twin offspring by Agamemnon (see above, n.6), though admitting that Aigisthos had murdered both (νηπίους ὄντας, Paus.).

¹² Davreux (n.1), esp. 85ff; the volume was apparently completed by 1933.

¹³ As noted above (n.4), the traditions regarding the circumstances of the rape of Kassandra in literature and art are not relevant here. The archaeological evidence is clearly analysed and illustrated by Davreux, in Part II of her work, and by Mazzoldi (n.4) 40-5, with the list of plates at end (321 n.1, 323-4), arranged as listed in LIMC s.v. Kassandra (vol. 7, Addenda).

¹⁴ Alex. 1141-72.

¹⁵ IG IX. 1² 3.706 (= Schwyzer, E., Dialectorum graecarum exempla epigraphica potiora (Leipzig 1923, repr. Hildesheim 1960) 366Google Scholar), for which see Wilhelm's, A. classic article, ‘Die lokrische Mädcheninschrift’, JÖAI 14 (1911) 163–256Google Scholar (= Abhandlungen und Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (Leipzig 1984) 1.373–466Google Scholar). I need not go further into this remarkable, perhaps unique, fusion of history and legend, but may refer to Momigliano's excellent discussion, ‘The Locrian maidens and the date of Lycophron's Alexander’, CQ 39 (1945) 49–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar (= Secondo contributo alia storia degli studi classici (Rome 1960) 446–53Google Scholar); see also the criticisms by Jacoby, in his commentary on Timaeus F146. On the Lokrian Maidens, see also H.W. Parke (n.1) 111-12; Hughes, D.D., Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece (London 1991) 166–84Google Scholar (summarized in SEG 42.481*), and Mazzoldi (n.4) 52-60, who discusses the various hypotheses regarding the still baffling historical background and the ritual nature of the entire episode. For the identification of Vitrinitza with Oianthea, see Lérat, L., Les Locriens de l'Ouest (Paris 1952) 1.110-14 and 2.205–20Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Davreux (n.1) 87: ‘Une troisième hypothèse reste à envisager: l'ancêtre d'Agathon serait le fils issu d'Ajax et de Cassandre. Cela expliquerait pourquoi Agathon ne donne que le nom de l'aieule …’ with n.2: ‘La figure phallique qui orne l'inscription suggère aussi cette interpretation.’ However, I do not believe that this is the correct explanation of the phallus: see below, p. 39.

¹⁷ The existence of the γένος τῶν Αἰαντείων at Narukeia can hardly be cited in support of such an issue, since that represents a wider genealogical relationship than could be expressed by a single line of descent (even if it existed); cf. Wilhelm (n.15) 172 (= Abhandlungen 1.382): see, however, Lérat (n.15) 2.10 n.11.

¹⁸ So also Dakares, Γενεαλογικοί Μῦθοι (n.1) 105-6.

¹⁹ ‘«Hermae Pentelici cum capitibus aeneis»’ AA (1964) 628-38 (to which John Boardman originally drew my attention); cf. already the very detailed analysis by H. Herter, RE s.v. Phallos, esp. col. 1736, where he lists our plaque without comment under the ‘apotropaic’; the vast range of interfusing and ambiguous concepts inherent in representations of the organ over the centuries notwithstanding, this seems to me to misunderstand the essence of our piece, which symbolizes continuity.

²⁰ Col. 636.

²¹ See n.1 above. For the role of Kassandra and the interpretation of the plaque, see 102ff. and the further references below.

²² FGrHist 703. The meeting of Aeneas and Helenos is transmitted by Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.51.1: ἐκ δὲ 'Αμβρακίας 'Αγχίσης μὲν τὰς ναῦς ἔχων παρὰ γῆν κομιζόμενος εἰς Βουθρωτὸν λιμένα τῆς 'Επείρου κατὰγεται. Αἰνείας δὲ καὶ οἱ ἀκμαιότατοι σὺν αὐτῶι τοῦ στρατοῦ διανύσαντες ἡμερῶν δυεῖν ὁδὸν εἰς τοῦ στρατοῦ διανύσαντες ἡμερῶν δυεῖν ὁδὸν εἰς λαμβάνουσιν αὐτόθι Τρῶας τοὺν 'Ελένωι. The text continues as quoted below in n.57.

²³ For the varied evidence relating to the cult of Kassandra and Agamemnon in localities in the Peloponnese (especially Amyklai), see Dakares, Γενεαλογικοί Μῦθοι (n.1) 106-8, particularly 107 n.2; LIMC 7.1 956-7.

²⁴ Hdt. 2.55.1: ταῦτα μέν νυν ἐν Θήβηισι ἱρέων ἤκουον, τάδε δὲ Δωδωναίων φασὶ αἱ προμάντιες· δύο πελειάδας μελαίνας ἐκ Θηβέων τῶν Αἰγυπτιέων ἀναπταυένας τὴν μὲν αὐτέων ἐς Λιβύην σφέας ἀπικέσθαι, κτλ. The bronze coins are Franke (Münzen, n.4) pl.15, V 41 and 64. The complex literary evidence regarding the oak and the doves of Dodona from Herodotus onwards is investigated by Parke (n.1) 55ff. Unpublished oracular responses shed further light on this tradition.

²⁵ Proclus' summary of the Cypria (Bernabé, PEG 38-43 = Davies, EGF 30-4) contains the brief statement regarding the preliminaries of the Trojan War: ἔπειτα δὲ 'Αφροδίτης ὑποθεμένης ναυπηγεῖται, καὶ Ἕλενος περὶ τῶν μελλόντων αὐτῶι προθεσπίζει. καὶ ἡ 'Αφροδίτη Αἰνείαν συπλεῖν αὐτῶι κελεύει. καὶ Κασσάνδρα περὶ τῶν μελλόντων προδηλοῖ, the earliest reference to her gift of prophecy. For the relevant lines of the Andromache, see especially 11. 293-300. Dakares, Γεναλογικοί Μῦθοι (n.1) 68ff. (cf. further 111) argues at length, as others have done (see Funke (n.4) 68ff.), that the Andromache, with its numerous innovations of myth, was produced on behalf of, and at the court of, the Molossian Royal House. This is probably correct, but the question does not directly concern Agathon, whose link with Kassandra does not depend on the drama in any way. For the calculation by generations, see Dakares (n.1) 109-14.

²⁶ For Molossian examples, see IApoll. 308 (Cabanes (n.4) 540 no.4 = SGDI 1334) 8ff.: ἒδω/<μ>καν ἰσοπολειτε/ίαν Μολοσσῶν τ/ὀ κοινὸν Σιμὶαι Ἀ/πολλωνιάται κα/τοικοῦντι ἐν θε/πτίνωι, αὐτῶι κα/[ὶ] γενεᾶι καὶ γέν/[ει ἐκ] γενεᾶς; ibid. (Cabanes) no.5, 5ff.: [-- ἔδ]οξε τ[ᾶ]ι έκλησίαι τῶν / [Μολοσσῶν] Κτήσων εὐεργέτας έ/[στὶ, διὸ(?)] πολειτείαν Κτήσ/[ωνι δόμειν καὶ] γενεᾶι; ibid. 63 (SEG 26.705) (manumission): a family of manumittors, Φλευχὼ έλευθέραν ἀφίεν[τι] καὶ αὐ/τὰν καὶ γἑνος, κτλ.; SEG 43.332, an oracular enquiry asking περὶ γενεᾶς, κτλ.; i.e. ‘the prospect of offspring’. Cf. the three brief statements of proxeny-award at Lousoi, of the mid fifth century BC: IG V.2 387 (= Guarducci, M., Epigrafia greca (Rome 1967-1978) 1.122Google Scholar no.3): I: πρόξενοι Λυσιαιατᾶν. Μάδρος Βλάσας Ἀλκαίνετος, αὐτοὶ καὶ γενεά; II: προξένō Λυσιατᾶν. Ἀνδρόβιος αὐτō καὶ γενεά; III: Πρόξενος Λουσιατᾶν Βρυχōνίδας καὶ γενεά. For γενεά of preceding generations in direct descent, see e.g. Syll ³) 1015 (= Sokolowski, , LSAM 73 (3rd c. BC)), 4–7Google Scholar: ὀ πριἀμε[νο]ς [τὴ]ν ἱερητείαν τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος τῆς Περγαίας πα/[ρέξ]εται ἱέρειαν ἀστὴν ἐξ ἀστῶν ἀμφοτέρων ἐπὶ [τρε]ῖς γενεὰς γεγνημένην κ[αὶ] πρὸς πατρὸς καὶ πρὸς μητρός.

²⁷ It was in this sense that Egger understood γενεὰ/Ζακύνθιοι in our inscription: see above, p.28. J. and L. Robert, BE (1965) no. 228, stated that the only sense that γενεά has ‘dans tout le grec’ is ‘descendance’; that would only be true if ‘descendance’ is extended to include ‘race’ (= γένος), as in the examples quoted above, which is a forced extension of the term.

²⁸ See LSI ⁹ s.v. γενεά, and the familiar passage in Hdt. 2.142.1: 'Ες μὲ τόσονδε τοῦ λόγου Αὶύπτιοί τε καὶ οἱ ἱερέες ἔλεγον, ἀποδειδεικνὑντες ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου βασιλέος ἐοῦ 'Εφαίσίστου τὸν ἱρέα τοῦτον τὸν τελευ ταῖον βασιλεύσαντα μίαν τε καὶ τεσσεράκοντα καὶ τριηκοσίας ἀνθρώπων γεὰς γενομένας καὶ ὲν ταύτηισι ἀρχιερέας καὶ βασιλέας ἑκατέρους τοσού τους γενομένους. καίτοι τριηκόσιαι ἀνδρῶν γενεαὶ δυνέαται μυρία ἔτεα· γενεαὶ γὰρ τρεῖς ἀνδρῶν ἑκαταὸν ἔτεά ἐστι. ‘Ten generations’ is used as a vague reference to the future in Od. 14.325: καί νύ κεν ἐς δεκάτην γενεὴν ἔτερόν γ' ἕτι βόσκοι.

²⁹ Plut. Mor. 415C-F = Hes. fr. 304 MW: ἐννέα ται ζώει γενεὰς λακέρυζα κορώνη / ἀνδρῶν ἡβώντνων· ἕλαφος δέ τε τετρακόρωνος·/ τρεῖς δ' ἐλάφους ὁ κόρακας· δέκα δ' ἡμεῖς τοὺς φοίνικας / νὑμφαι ἑυπλόκαμοι, κοῦραι Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο. A propos of this passage (ibid. E), the speaker quotes the definition of γενεά as a period of thirty years given by Heraclitus (22 A19 DK): ἀλλ' οἱ μὲν ἡβώντων ἀναγιγνώσκοντες ἕτη τριάκοντα ποισι τὴν καθ' 'Εράκλειτον ἐν ὧι χρόνωι γεννῶντα παρέχει τὸν ἐξ αὑτοῦ γεγεννημένον ὁ γεννήσας.

³⁰ Thuc. 1.118.2: ἐν ἕτεσι πενήκοντα μάλιστα μεταξὺ τῆς τε ἀναχωρήσεως καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦδε τοῦ πολέμου; Xen. Hell. 1.1.37: ἐν τρισὶ μησί, cf. LSJ ⁹ s.v. ἐν, IV.2.

³¹ See schol. Eur. Androm. 24: κάγὼ δόμοις]· ίδίως ἕνα φησι παῖδα γενέσθαι τῶι νεοπτολέμωι, ἄλλων τρεῖς λεγόντων Πύρρον Μολοσσὸν Αίακίδην καί Τρωάδα; Plut. Pyrr. 1.5-7 establishes Τρωιάς, as a recurrent name in the Molossian Royal House: Θαρυποῦ δ΄ Άλκέτας υίὸς ἦν, Άλκέτα δ΄ ΄Αρύβας, Άρύβα δέ καί Τρωιάδος Αίακίδης. (6) οὗτς ἕγημε τὴν Μένωνος τοῦ Θεσσαλοῦ θυγατέρα Φθίαν... (7) έκ δέ Φθίας τῶι Αίακίδηι γίνονται θυγατέρες Δηϊδάμεια καί Τρωιάς, υίός δέ Πύρρος; cf. Dakares, Γενεαλογικοί Μῦθοι (n.1) 22. Also LGPNIIIA s.v. Τρωιάς, (l)-(4), all of 4th-3rd c. BC, from Aitolia and Epiros, including the two ((3) and (4)) of the Molossian Royal House. Τρωάς occurs also as a personal name at a late date (3rd c. AD) at Paros, IG XII.5 176.V, a dedication of ephebic hair by Τρωάς Κουαρτίωνος μετά τοῦ πατρός [sc. αύτοῦ = πάππου] Άσκληπιάδου τοῦ Πυθείδου ύπὲρ τοῦ υίοῦ μου, Δαμαρίωνος τοῦ καί Ήλιοδώρου, κτλ (i.e. five generations recorded).

³² For many examples of the use of έκ = άπό with ethnics, see Syll. ³ Index, p. 312, s.v.

³³ The Chiot inscription, Schwyzer (n. 15) DGE 690 = SGDI5656 (with the order of names incorrectly given at one point), was discussed by Wade-Gery, H.T., The Poet of the Iliad (Cambridge 1952) 8ff.Google Scholar, and by Masson, O., ‘Notes d'onomastique Chypriote’, Κυπριακαί Σπουδαί 28 (1964) 5ffGoogle Scholar. For the passage of Ion (FGrHist 392 Fl) which names ‘King Hector’, see Wade-Gery 88-9, who also gives a list of other local pedigrees which extend continuously from heroic to Classical times. I have always regretted that Wade-Gery did not find a place for Agathon in his remarkable book. On fiction versus reality in family genealogies, see Thomas, R., Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens (Cambridge 1989) ch.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁴ The inscription (SGDI 4859), probably of the Roman period, is quoted in Fraser, P.M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford 1972) 2.1096Google Scholar n.504, as testimony to the conservatism of Cyrenaean society; it was republished by Masson, O., BCH 98 (1974) 263ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. (= OGS 1 (1990) 21 Iff.)- The Cyrenaean epigram of 2nd c. AD, SEG 9.189, in which the Founder, Battos-Aristoteles, is described as having dedicated a temple to Apollo, which is now rebuilt (έκ πολέμοιο χαμαιριφῆ) by another Aristoteles, exemplifies the continuation of the royal name at a very late date in a family which presumably claimed descent from the Founder; cf. the remark of Synesius, above, n.10.

³⁵ For this remarkable inscription, which lists the years of tenure of the priesthood of each incumbent from Poseidon, Syll. ³ 1020 (with a very full analysis of the whole list by Hiller), see also Wilhelm (n.15) 64ff. (= Abhandlungen 296ff.) for the method of entry of the names. It was already mentioned in the present context by Egger (n.1) 198 (= BCH 257). Potentially a similar proxeny might be assumed for the priestess Aristarche, one of the original Phocaean colonists to Massalia, Strabo 179 (§4): Άριστάρχηι δὲ τῶν έντίμων σφόδρα γυναικῶν παραστῆναι κατ΄ ὄναρ τὴν θεόν [sc. the Ephesian Artemis] καί κελεῦσαι συναπαίρειν τοῖς Φωκαιεῦσιν άφίδρυμα τῶν ίερῶν λαβούσηι· γενομένου δὲ τούτου καί τῆς ἀποικίας λαβούσης τέλος, τό τε ίερὸν ίδρύσασθαι καὶ τὴν Άριστάρχην τιμῆσαι διαφερόντως ίερείαν ἀποδείξαντας, ἔν ταῖς ἀποίκοις πόλεσι πανταχοῦ τιμᾶν έν τοῖς πρώτοις ταύτην τὴν θεὸν καί τοῦ ξοάνου τὴν διάθεσιν τὴν αύτὴν καί τἆλλα νόμιμα φυλάττειν τά αύτά, ἅπερ ἐν τῆι μητροπόλει νενόμισται.

³⁶ See above n.26 for the epigraphical evidence from Arkadia and Dodona. For Pindar's self-proclaimed proxeny, see Nem. 7.64, ἐὼν δ΄ ἐγγὺς Άχαιὸς ού μέμψομαι μ΄ ἀνήρ / Ίονίας ὑπέρ ἁλὸρ ἁλός οίκέων· προξενίαι πέποιθ΄·, of which the scholiast (on 95b, 3.129 Drachmann) says τὸ δὲ προξενίαι ἀμφίβολον ποτερόν πρόξενον γὰρ ὄντα μὴ ἄν ποτε κατά νεοπτόλεμονείπεῖν· καὶ ὅτι πρόξενος αύτοῖς έπ΄ ούδενί μεμφθήσομαι. As Hornblower points out to me, the significance of the claim has been much debated: see Carey, C., A Commentary on Five Odes of Pindar (New York 1981) 163Google Scholar, ad loc.; Lloyd-Jones, H., Greek Epic, Lyric and Tragedy (Oxford 1990) 149Google Scholar (= JHS 93 (1973) 135Google Scholar).

³⁷ ML 4 = CEG 143 (cf. SEG 44.441): Ϧυιοῦ Τλασίαϝο Μενεκράτεος τόδε σᾶμα · / Οίανθέος γενεάν· τόδεδ΄ αύτỡι δᾶμος ἐποίει ·/ ἕς γὰρ πρόξενϝος δάμου φίλος, κτλ. Οίανθέος γενεάν may, of course, simply = γένος. For the use of πρόξενος ‘guarantor’, see e.g. IG IX. 1² 3.717 (= Schwyzer (n.15) DGE 363 A.8-9): τὸν πρόξενον · αί ψευδέα προξενέοι· διπλειṓι θṑιέστō (E. Lokris); ML 10, the gods and a city as guarantors of the treaty between the Sybarites and the Serdaioi, line 5: πρόξενοι ὀ Ζε/ύς κ΄ Όπόλον κ΄ ὀλλοι θ/εοί καί πόλις Ποσειδα/νία.

³⁸ Thuc. 2.66: οί δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι καί οί ξύμμαχοι τοῦ αύτοῦ θέρους, [430 BC] έστράτευσαν ναυσὶν έκατὸν είς Ζάκυνθον τὴν νῆσον, ῆ κεῖται ἀντιπέρας ΄Ήλιδος· είσί δὲ Άχαιῶν τῶν ἐκ Πελοποννήσου ἄποικοι καὶ Άθηναίοις ξυνεμάχουν. In the list of Suitors of Penelope in Od. 16.250ff., only the Zakynthians are called ΄Αχαιοί· ἐκ δὲ Ζακύνθου ἔασιν ἐείκοσι κοῦροι ΄Αχαιῶν.

³⁹ Ant. Rom. 1.50.3: δεξαμένων δ΄ αύτοὺς [Aeneas and his party] καί τῶ Ζακυνθίων πρὸς φιλίαν διὰ τò συγγενές (Δαρδάνωι γὰρ τῶι Διὸς καί Ήλέκτρας καί Ήλέκτρας τῆς ΄Ατλαντίδος δύο γενέσθαι ἐκ Βατείας παῖδας, Ζάκυνθον τε καί Έριχθόνιν, ὧν ὁ μὲν Αίνείου πρόγονος ἦν, Ζάκυνθος δὲ τῆς νήσου κτίστης); cf. Paus. 8.24.3: ἔστι δὲ καί Ζακυνθίων τῆι ἀκροπόλει ψωφὶς ὄνομα, ὅτι ναυσὶν ές τὴν νῆσον ἐπεραιώθη πρῶτος καὶ ἐγένετο οίκιστὴς ἀνὴρ ψωφίδιος, Ζάκυνθος ό Δαρδάνου.

⁴⁰ For the genealogy, see Frazer on Apollod. Bibl. 3.12.1-2 (Loeb 2.35-6).

⁴¹ Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.50.3 (in continuation of the passage quoted in n.39 above; for convenience I quote to the end of the chapter): ταύτης τε τῆς συγγενείας ἀναμνήσει τῶν ἐπιχωρίων διατρίβοντες αὐτόθι καί ἅμα ἀπλοίαι κατειργόμενοι θύουσιν Άφροδίτηι πρὸς τῶι κατασκευασθέντι ίερῶι θυσίαν, ἣν είς τόδε χρόνου συντελοῦσι κοινῆι Ζακύνθιοι, καί ἀγῶνα ποιοῦσι ἐφήβοις τῶν τε ἄλλων ἀγωνισμάτων καί δρόμου· τò δὲ νικητήριον ό πρῶτος ἐλθὼν είς τὸν νεὼν λαμβάνει· λέγεται δὲ Αἰνείου καί ΄Αφροδίτης ύ δρόμος, καί ξόανα τούτων ἕστηκεν ἀμφοτέρων.

⁴² Aen. 3.270:

Iam medio adparet fluctu nemorosa Zacynthos

277: Ergo insperata tandem tellure periti

lustramurque Iovi votisque incendimus aras,

Actiaque Iliacis celebramus litora ludis.

For the Aktia established by Augustus at Nikopolis, see Latte, K., Römische Religionsgeschichte (Munich 1960) 303Google Scholar and n.2. For the earlier history of the shrine and cult, see the inscription of Anaktorion, IG IX. 1² 2.583: Dany, O., Akarnanien im Hellenismus (Munich 1999)Google Scholar Index, s.v.

⁴³ Schwartz, E., RE 4.961 ( = Griechische Geschichtsschreiber (Leipzig 1957) 359)Google Scholar, minimizes Varro's direct influence on Dionysius, but accepts his general use of the material collected by Varro. Perret, J., La légende de Rome (Paris 1942)Google Scholar, discredits Varro to suit his thesis, but Momigliano in his review, JRS 35 (1945) 99–104Google Scholar (= Terzo contributo alia storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico (Rome 1966) 677–87)Google Scholar showed that to be wholly untenable.

⁴⁴ Rust. 2, praef. 6, Varro says he will describe res pecuaria (ranching) ex sermonibus nostris conlatis cum iis qui pecuarias habuerunt in Epiro magnas, turn cum piratico bello inter Delum et Siciliam Graeciae classibus praeessem; Serv. ad Aen. 3.349: parvam Troiam simulataque magnis Pergama]: Varro Epiri se fuisse dicit et omnia loca eisdem dici nominibus quae poeta commemorat se vidisse; unde apparet haec non esse fabulata. idem etiam Varro Troiam Epiri ab Aenea sive a comitibus eius †byopator† nuncupatam docet.

⁴⁵ For the fragments of the De familiis Troianis, see Peter, HHR ² 9ff; H. Dahlmann, RE Suppl. 6.1241-2 s.v. Terentius Varro.

⁴⁶ Il. 24.248: ὁ δ΄ (Πρίαμος) υίάσιν οὖσιν όμόκλα, / νεικείων Έλενόν τε Πάριν τ΄ Άγάθωνά τε δῖον, κτλ. That only Agathon is δῖος is perhaps no more than a rhapsodic convenience.

⁴⁷ The lists of islands which provided suitors for the hand of Penelope are always the same, in the same phraseology (Od. 1.246; 2.51b; 16.123, 250; 19.131), but only 16.247-53 give the full total, squires included.

⁴⁸ For the story of his wanderings as recorded in the tradition of ps.-Apollodorus, see Epit. (Vat.) 5.23, of the distribution of the Troades: λαμβάνει δὲ ΄Αγαμέμνων μὲν κατ΄ ἐξαίρετον Κασάνδραν, νεοπτόλεμος δὲ ΄Ανδρομάχην, ΄Οδυσσεὺς δὲ ΄Εκάβην. ώς δὲ ἔνιοι λέγουσιν, ΄Έλενος αύτὴν λαί διακομισθεὶς εἰς Χερρόνησον σὺν αὐτῆι κύνα γενομένην θάπτει, ἔνθα νῦν λέγεται κυνòς Σῆμα; 6.12-13: νεοπτόλεμος δὲ μείνας ἐν Τενέδωι δύο ὑποθήκαις τῆς Θέτιδος είς Μολοσσοὺς πεζῆι ἀπήιει μετὰ Έλένου, καὶ παρὰ τὴν ὁδòν ἀποθανόντα Φοίνικα θάπτει, καί νικήσας μάχηι Μολοσσούς βασιλεύει, καὶ ἐξ Άνδρομάχης γεννᾶι Μολοσσόν. ΄Έλενος δὲ κτίσας ἐν τῆι Μολοσσίαι πόλιν κατοικεῖ, καὶ δίδωσιν αὐτῶι νεοπτόλεμος εἰς γυναῖκα τὴν μητέρα Δηιδάμειαν. That the city was called Δωδώνη, that is, was meant to be regarded as the same site as the sanctuary, is not stated in this passage, but the quotation in Strabo 328 (cf. Philoch. FGrHist 328 F225; schol. Soph. Trach. 1171, quoting from Hesiod's ΄Ηοῖαι (fr. 240.5: ἔνθα δὲ Δωδώνη τις ἐπ΄ ἐσχατιῆι πεπόλισται)), suggests that that may have been the tradition in the Archaic period.

⁴⁹ See Virg. Aen. 3.294-7:

Hic [at Buthrotus] incredibilis rerum fama occupat auris,

Priamiden Helenum Graias regnare per urbes

coniugio Aeacidae Pyrrhi sceptrisque potitum

et patrio Andromachen iterum cessisse marito.

⁵⁰ For Aeneas' meeting with Helenos at Dodona, see Dion. Hal. 1.51.1, quoted above (n.22). In the Aeneid (374ff.) Helenos foretells to Aeneas the adventures of the Trojans in the West.

⁵¹ Cf. Dakares, Γενεαλογικοί Μῦθοι (n.1) 125; Cabanes (n.4) 39ff. analyses at length the intricacies of the genealogy of the Aeacid royal house after 272. The role of Helenos is minimal. The fullest statement of the twin birth of Kassandra and Helenos, linked to the strange events at the sanctuary of the Thymbraean Apollo, is in Antikleides, FGrHist 140 F17 (schol. AD Gen.II, Hom. Il. 7.44): μυθεύεται τῶν ἐξ Ἑκάβης γεγονότων παίδων τὸν Ἕλενον καὶ τὴν Κασάνδραν διδύμους γεγενῆσθαι · τῶν δὲ γενεθλίων αὐτοῖς συντελουμένων ἐν τῶι τοῦ Θυμβραίου Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερῶι λέγεται τὸν Ἕλενον καὶ τὴν Κασάνδραν ἐν τῶι ναῶι παίζοντας κατακοιμηθῆναι, ὑπὸ δὲ μέθης ἐκείνων ἐκλαθομένων περὶ τῶν παίδων οἴκαδε χωρισθῆναι · τῆι δὲ ὑστεραίαι ἐλθόντας εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν θεάσασθαι τοὺς παῖδας ταῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων γλτταις τοὺς πόρους τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καθαιρομένους. ἑς οὖν διὰ τὸ παράδοξον αἱ γυναῖκες ἀνέκραγον, συνέβη ἀπαλλαγῆναι τοὺς ὄφεις καὶ καταδῦναι ἐν ταῖς παρακειμέναις δάφναις, τοὺς δὲ παῖδας ἀμφοτέρους τῆς μαντικῆς οὕτω μεταλαβεῖν. It is not clear that the tradition in ps.-Apollod. 3.6-7 (151) accepts that they were twins: in it, Hekabe's daughters and sons are listed separately, and although Kassandra is said to have had the gift of prophecy bestowed on her by Apollo, Helenos is simply listed without further description (as are all the sons except Troilos, said to be the son of Apollo).

⁵² See Theopomp. FGrHist 115 F355: ἡ δὲ Ὀλυπιὰς ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ εἰς Πύρρον τὸν Ἀχιλλέως καὶ Ἕλενον τόν Πριάμου τὸ γένος τὸ ἀνέκαθεν ἀνέφερεν, ὥς φησι Θεόπομπος καὶ Πύρανδρος. Curiously, no direct offspring of Helenos is named, but it is perhaps implicit in the claim to descent from him. But γένος, is too vague a term to attach a precise relationship to it; cf. above, n.17.

⁵³ IG IX.I² 583 (= Sokolowski, LSS45) line 38: τὸ δὲ Ἑλένειον κα[ὶ] / [τὰ συγ(προς)κύρ] οντα [supplevi] ἐν τῶι ἄλσει κατεσκευασμένα τᾶς πό<λ>ιος τῶν. In his publication of this inscription in Hermes 85 (1957) 85–122Google Scholar, Habicht said of the Ἑλένειον that it was ‘kaum ein Heiligtum der Helena’ (101), and that it was more probably, like the Leonideion at Olympia, ‘ein Haus für Ehrengäste oder für die Beamten des Bundes’. Dakares, Γενεαλογικοί Μῦθοι (n.1) 125, compared it with the Πύρρειον of Polyb. 21.27.2, recounting the siege of Ambrakia in 189 BC, τρία μὲν ἔργα κατὰ τὸ Πύρρειον, and regarded it as reflecting Pyrrhos' interest in Helenos. That naturally does not exclude my interpretation, and it should be said that there is no agreement as to what the Πύρρειον was (?fort; ?location): see Walbank, ad loc. There was also an ἡρῶιον Αἰνείου in Ambrakia (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.50.4: ἐν δὲ Ἀμβρακίαι ἱερόν τε τῆς αὐτῆς θεοῦ [sc. Ἀφροδίτης] καὶ ἡρῶιον Αἰνείου πλησίον τοῦ μικροῦ θεάτρου, ἐν ὧι καὶ ξόανον μικρὸν ἀρχαïκὸν Αἰνείου λεγόμνον, καὶ αὐτὸ θυσίαις ἐγέραιρον αἱ καλούμεναι παρ' αὐτοῖς ἀμφίπολι). If my general reconstruction of the legend of Helenos in the West is correct, it seems plausible to regard it as a subsidiary shrine of Helenos, perhaps as a seer, within the precinct of Apollo, the god of prophecy. Merkelbach, , ZPE 1 (1967) 78Google Scholar, regarded the lacuna as probably to be filled by the name of another shrine: ‘Den Namen des zweiten Heiligtums können wir nicht mit Sicherheit bestimmen: man könnte z.B. denken an ‘Ελένειον κα[ὶ τὸ Καστόρει]ον’. For my more formulaic supplement, see the instances of these phrases in connection with shrines in JEA 38 (1952) 68–9Google Scholar, with Eranos 49 (1951) 102Google Scholar (also Wilhelm, , Griechische Inschriften rechtlichen Inhalts (Athens 1951) 61Google Scholar (= Akademieschriften zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (Leipzig 1974) 3.455Google Scholar), whence Sokolowski, ad loc). A nominal parallel to the Ἑλένειον is provided by the Ὀδύσσειον on Ithaca, IMagn. 36 (= Syll.² 558, now re-read and republished as IG IX. 1² 4.1729), lines 2 (a meeting-place) and 16 (the games called Ὀδύσσεια).

⁵⁴ It is most common in central and western Greece: see LGPN IIIA-B. All the many personal names compounded in Ἐχε- naturally have the same significance of ‘holding’, be it physical, historical/social or psychological.

⁵⁵ See Allan, W., The Andromache and Euripidean Tragedy (Oxford 2000) 37.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See e.g. Carapanos (n.1) 1.41ff. nos.4 (tripod): Διὶ δῶρον άνέθηκε πόλις / Λεχωϊων 9 (plaque): … αῖος Διὶ νάωι δῶρον; 13 (vase): Βημαῖος Φύλλεος Διὶ νάωι δῶρον; all of the Classical period (see ibid. vol. 2, pls. xxiii-xxiv); SEG 14.475 (4th c. BC): Αἴσχρων Δὶ ναίωι δῶρον ἐΣτράτου άνέθηκεν (where the verb is by exceptionused). I refer to my article (‘A bronze from Dodona’, JHS 74 (1954) 56-8) for the historical background of this dedication, and for an analysis of the formula ἐΣτράτου, which also occurs in FD III. 1 106, a proxeny decree for … Άκαρνᾶνι ἐΣτρ[άτου] of the mid 3rd c. BC, i.e. of the period when Stratos was an Akarnanian τἐλος. (It is noteworthy that both the Dodonaean bronze and the Delphic inscription have the assimilated single sigma for κ/σ sound, κ/σκ/σκ/σκ/σ.) δῶρον is rarely found else-where in the place of e.g. εύχήν or a verb, but note IG II² 4602 (late 4th c. BC), which combines the word with verb ἀνέθηκε: νικαγόρα / Φιλιστίδου / γυνὴ Παιανιέως / Διί δῶρον / κατὰ μαντείαν / ἀνέθηκε. The word was obviously metrically useful, as in the present case and in IG IX.2 417 (B. Helly, Gonnoi (Amsterdam 1973) 2.184) (4th c. BC): Κυθερία ὀνέθεικε / Τἀρτάμιδι τᾶ ἐν Σ/κιᾶ / δῶρόν τε [κ]ά[π]ω[ν] / καί τροφεῖα τῶν τέκνων (iambic trimeter from line 3). (The comment in (1959) no.3 (à propos of OGIS 253) that the supplement [δῶρο]ν is impossible because ‘ce n'est pas le formulaire de cette époque’ is not quite appropriate; the objection to it there (a prose dedication) is that it is rare in itself and more appropriate in a metrical one. In any case, Bunge, J.G., ‘Die Feiern Antiochos' IV. Epiphanes in Daphne im Herbst 166 v. Chr.’, Chiron 6(1976) 53–71Google Scholar, showed that the inscription must be understood differently, supplying [βωμό]ν.) The recent study by M. Steinhart and E. Wirbelauer of the use of the gift-formula (παρά, with or without δῶρον), ‘Par Peisistratou. Epigraphische Zeugnisse zur Geschichte des Schenkens’, Chiron 30 (2000) 255–89Google Scholar, is primarily concerned with gifts between individuals (with a list of them as recorded on strigils and vases at pp. 277ff.), and sacral dedications described by the word δῶρον (including the material from Dodona as given above) are not included except for the dedication to Apollo on the Attic vase of c. 525 BC, IG V.I 1521 (no.3 in the list): --ειτονίδας άνέθηκε τὅι Άπόλȱνι πὰρ Δωριέος δῶρον, which again combines the dedicatory verb with the notion of giving. The dedicatory epigram by Leonidas in which he records the dedication of a rusthe tic shrine of the Nymphs and Pan, Gow-Page, HE 1966-71 (cf. comm. ad loc.) provides a very typical example of the word in a similar context: ϊλαοι τά ψαιστά τό τε σκύφος ἔμπλεον οϊνης / δέξασθ΄, Αίακίδεω δῶρα νεοπτολέμου.

⁵⁷ Ant. Rom. 1.51.1 (in continuation of the passage quoted in n.22): ἀνελόμενοι δὲ χρησμοὺς περὶ τῆς ἀποικίας καὶ τὸν θεὸν ἀναθήμασι δωρησάμενοι Τρωικοῖς ἄλλοις τε καὶ κρατῆρσι χαλκοῖς, ὧν τινες ἔτι περίεισιν ἐπιγραφαῖς πάνυ ἀρχαίαις δηλοῦντες τοὺς ἀναθέντας, ἐπὶ τὸ ναυτικὸν ἀφικνοῦνται τεττάρων μάλιστα ἡμερῶν διελθόντες ὁδόν. For bronze objects excavated at the sanctuary, see the drawings in Carapanos (n.1) vol. 2 passim, and the selection in Dakares, Δωδώνη (n.1) passim. There is a useful (but now inevitably incomplete) chronological list of dedicated objects in Parke (n.1) 274ff, who also has ibid. a bibliography of the bronzes. The perplexing tradition regarding the Boiotian ‘sacrilege’ at the sanctuary, and their subsequent annual tribute of a Boiotian tripod, the τριποδοφορία from Boiotia to Dodona, recorded by Ephorus (FGrHist 70 F119; cf. Parke 71 ff.) and in a slightly variant version, linked to the Boeotian τριποδηφορικὸν μέλος, by Procl. Chrest. ap. Phot. Bibl. 239, p. 321 (quoted by Jacoby, comm. ad loc.), was probably attached to an early dedication.

⁵⁸ Compare Burke's remark in Reflections on the Revolution in France: ‘people will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors’.

⁵⁹ See Heroph. ap. Gal. Us.Part. p. 323 Helmreich = Heroph. T 61 and 109 von Staden: καλεῖ γὰρ Ήρόφιλος οὕτω (τὸν δίδυμον) τὸν ὄρχιν (here, the ovaries), cf. Fraser (n.34) 1.354-5. Inevitably, the term became one of several synonyms for the testicles (for others, see Plat. Com., fr. 188 KA, with Herter (n.19), RE col. 1693), and is used later, as slang, by Argentarius, Gow-Page, GP 1332, a pun in a particular context on the Constellation of the Δίδυμοι and the ὄρχεις: ἦ γὰρ ὁ ταύτης / οὐρανὸς ἐντὸς ἔχει καὶ Κύνα καὶ Διδύμους; also by Philodemus, ibid. 3319, referring to an unnamed ‘acquaintance (ὁδεῖνα)’ who gave an ugly girl 5T for an uncomfortable ride, while he (Philodemus) had achieved a better result for 5Δp. He says that either he (ὁδεῖνα) must be mad, or τοὸς κείνου πελέκει δεῖ διδύμους ἀφελεῖν. In the Septuagint, Deut. 25.11, the word is used in a context that shows it was also normal usage in Alexandria: ἐὰν δὲ μάχωνται ἄνθρωποι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, ἄνθρωπος μετὰ τοὺ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ προσέλθηι ἡ γυνὴ ἑνὸς αὐτῶν ἐξελέσθαι τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς ἐκ χειρὸς τοῦ τύπτοντος αὐτόν, καὶ ἐκτείνασα τὴν χεῖρα ἐπιλάβηται τῶν διδύμων αὐτοῦ, ἀποκόψεις τὴν χεῖρα αὐτῆς οὐ φείσεται ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆι.

⁶⁰ See Diog.Laert. 4.42 for the phrase. Mazzoldi (n.4) 258-60 regards Lykophron's Alexandra as in essence a γρῖφος, or αἴνιγμα, with some justification. It is one of the main elements contributing to the style of the poem. The earlier Lykophron (as I regard him, i.e. not the poet) certainly had some taste for post-prandial literary games, as the fragments of the Menedemos show (TGrF 1.276, conveniently quoted by A.W. Mair in the original (1921) Loeb Callimachos and Lycophron, 478-9; fr. 3 well exemplifies the style: τράγημα γὰρ / ὁ σωφρονκστὴς πᾶσιν ἐν μέσωι λόγος.

⁶¹ This light-hearted attitude towards the Olympians (notably Zeus) comes out clearly in the Hellenistic epigrammatists: see e.g. Call. Epigr. 6 Gow-Page (Zeus in love with Ganymede), 24 (a pinax dedicated to Asklepios by a patient to prove that he has paid Asklepios' bill for treatment), 55 (Ζεῦ φίλε); Asclep. 11 (Zeus as a fellow-victim of love); idem 14 (the exclusus amator seeks the sympathy of Zeus: ἄχρι τίνος, Ζεῦ; / Ζεῦ φίλε, σιγήσω καὐτὸς ἐρᾶν ἔμαθες). The attitude was, of course, not new.

⁶² Agatharchid. FGrHist 86 F14 (Athen. 528a): ἄχρι τίνος,Ζεῦ; / Ζεῦ φίλε, σιγήσω καὐτὸς ἐρᾶν ἔμαθες. Abundant woodland and a rich fruit-bearing soil fostered this wealth: Strabo 458: (ἡ Ζάκυνθος) ὑλώδης μέν, εὔκαρπος δέ; Virgil's nemorosa Zacynthos (Aen. 3.270). Its wine, however, was not recommended: Ath. 33b: χαριέσταος δ᾿ οἶνος ὁ Κερκυραῖος.χαριέσταος δ᾿ οἶνος ὁ Κερκυραῖος.

⁶³ For Klearchos' γρῖφοι, see frr. 84-95 Wehrli. They mostly come as quite lengthy extracts in Athenaeus, and it is amusing that one of the passages quoted from Klearchos (fr. 92) refers to (another) unconventional Zakynthian: Κλέαρχος δ᾿ ἐν τῶι Περὶ Γρίφων τὰ Ἀρχλόχου, φησίν, Σιμωνίδς ὁ Ζακύνθιος ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις ἐπὶ δίφρου καθήμενος ἐρραψώιδει. A rhapsode would normally recite standing, as we know from many illustrations, but it is difficult to determine the meaning of ἐπὶ δίρου, which embraces many shades of meaning from a simple stool to a chariot. Archilochus is mentioned as a subject for a rhapsode by Socrates in Plato's Ion 531: Πότερον περὶ Ὁμήρου μόνον δεινὸς εἶ ἥ καὶ περὶ Ἡσιόδου καὶ Ἀρχιλόχου; Ion: Οὐδαμῶς ἀλλὰ περὶ Ὁμήρου μόνο ἱκανὸν γάρ μοι δοκδῖ εἶναι. A rhapsode with the rare name of Τερψικλῆς made a dedication at Dodona, Carapanos (n.1) 1.40 no.3, pl. xxiii, no.2 (= Cabanes, Nikephoros 1 (1988) 53 and pl. 8): Τερψικλῆῆς τῶι ναίωι ραψωιδὸς ἀνέθηκε. Another dedication by a rhapsode, probably from Dodona: Robert, L., Collection Froehner (Paris 1936) 39Google Scholar (= Cabanes, loc.cit.): Κλέαρχος Διομέδοντς ραψωιδὸς μ᾿ ἀνέθ(η)κε. Both are of the fifth century.

⁶⁴ Scheer, E., Lycophronis Alexandra (2nd edn, Berlin 1908) 1.viGoogle Scholar: Ἐνταῦθα κεῖται δυσφάτων αἰνιγμάτων / κείμενον τοῖς θέλουσιν ἀντλεῖν εὐτόνως.