If the question be raised, ‘why did the Greeks image the dead hero
as a snake?’ no very certain or satisfactory answer can be offered.
Aelian[854] in his treatise on ‘The Nature of Animals’ says that the
backbone of a dead man when the marrow has decayed turns into a snake.
The chance, sudden apparition of a snake near a dead body may have
started the notion. Plutarch[855] tells how, when the body of Cleomenes
was impaled, the people, seeing a great snake wind itself about his
head, knew that he was ‘more than mortal’ (κρείττονος). Of course, by
the time of Cleomenes, the snake was well established as the vehicle of
a hero, but some such coincidence may very early have given rise to this
association of ideas. Plutarch adds that ‘the men of old time associated
the snake most of all beasts with heroes.’ They did this because, he
says, philosophers had observed that ‘when part of the moisture of the
marrow is evaporated and it becomes of a thicker consistency it produces
serpents.’
The snake was not the only vehicle. As has already been noted (p. 305),
the spirit of the dead could take shape as a human-headed bird or even
perhaps, if a bird happened to perch on a tomb, as a mere natural
hoopoe or swallow. Between the bird-souls and the snake-souls there is
this difference. So far as we know, the human-headed bird was purely a
creature of mythology, whereas the bearded human snake was the object of
a cult. Also the bird-soul, though sometimes male, tends, on the whole,
to be a woman; the snake, even when not bearded, is usually the vehicle
of a male ghost; as such he is the incarnation rather of the hero than
the heroine. So close is the connection that it gave rise to the popular
expression ‘Speckled hero,’ which arose, Photius[856] explains, because
snakes which are speckled are called heroes. Of these snake-heroes and
their cultus Homer knows absolutely nothing, but the belief in them is
essentially primitive and recrudesces with other popular superstitions.
THE CULTUS-TITLES.
The great snake, later worshipped as Zeus Meilichios, was, we have
already seen (p. 21), not Zeus himself, but an underworld being addressed
by the title Meilichios, gracious, kindly, easy to be intreated. It
will now be evident that his snake form marks him as the vehicle or
incarnation of a ghost, a local hero. He was only one of a large class of
local divinities who were invoked not by proper names but by adjectival
epithets, descriptive of their nature, epithets which gradually
crystallized into cultus-titles. That these titles were really adjectival
is shown sometimes by the actual word, e.g. _Meilichios_, which retains
its adjectival sense, sometimes by the fact that it is taken on as a
distinguishing epithet by an Olympian, e.g. Zeus-Amphiaraos. These
cultus-titles mark an important stage in the making of a god and must be
examined somewhat more in detail.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account