[23\4: "Half-gods," ~hêmi/theoi~. The name does not, as is sometimes declared, imply that the Heroes were spirits who thus constituted a class of intermediate beings between gods and men. The Heroes were not called ~hêmi/theoi~; the name was really applied to the kings and champions of the legendary age, more especially those who fought at Troy or Thebes (Hes., _Op._, 160; Hom. ~M~ 23; _h. Hom._, 31, 19; 32, 19. Callin., _fr._ i, 19, and often later). It applies to them, however, as living men not as glorified spirits (thus Pla., _Ap._ 41 A; cf. D.H. 7, 32, 13, ~hêmithe/ôn _genome/nôn_~ [on earth] ~hai psuchai/~).--The ~hêmi/theoi~ are a species of men not of spirits or daimones; they are those ~hoi\ pro/tero/n pot' epe/lonto, theô=n d' ex ana/ktôn ege/nonth' hui=es hêmi/theoi~ (Simon., _fr._ 36; cf. Pla., _Crat._ 398 D), the sons of gods and mortal women and then their companions as well (a potiori so named). Even the idea that the great men of the past, thus called ~hêmi/theoi~, were naturally made "Heroes" after their death as a consequence of their half-divine nature which might give them special privileges even then--this idea has no very ancient authority. Cicero, _ND._ iii, 45, seems to be the first to suggest such a view. That the Greeks of the best period ever regarded semi-divine origin as a qualification for becoming a Hero is refuted by the simple fact that for the great majority of the "Heroes" descent from a god was not claimed. Of course, poetry was always ready to give a Hero a divine father in order to enhance his value, cf. Paus. 6, 11, 2; but this was never a condition of being made a Hero (rather of being raised from Hero to god).] [24\4: ~ma/kar me\n andrô=n me/ta, hê/rôs d' e/peita laosebê/s~, Pi., _P._ v, 94 f.] [25\4: ~ti/na theo/n, ti/n' hê/rôa, ti/na d' a/ndra?~ Pi., _O._ ii init. ~ou/te theou\s ou/te hê/rôas ou/te anthrô/pous aischunthei=sa~, Antiph. i, 27. With "daimones" added: Gods, daimones, heroes, men: Pl., _Rp._ 392 A; 427 B; _Lg._ iv, 717 AB. In later times the distinction between ~theoi/, dai/mones, hê/rôes~, corresponded to a real and popular opinion, see e.g. _GDI_. {142} 1582 (Dodona, cf. also 1566, 1585 b.--There can be no question of identifying Heroes with the daimones (as Nägelsb., _N. Th._ 104, does). When philosophers call the _dead_ "daimones" that is from quite a different point of view. It is a speculative idea peculiar to Plutarch himself that, in view of the transition from men to Heroes and from these to daimones, the Heroes themselves might be regarded as a sort of lower daimon (_DO._ 10, 415 A; _Rom._ 28). A Schol. on Eur., _Hec._ 165, quite justifiably makes a parallel between gods and daimones on the one hand and Heroes and men on the other: the gods are ~hupsêlo/tero/n ti ta/gma tô=n daimo/nôn~ and this is the relation of ~hoi hê/rôes pro\s tou\s loipou\s anthrô/pous, hupsêlo/teroi/ tines dokou=ntes kai\ hupere/chontes~.]