The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Vol. 1 of 2Müller, Karl Otfried
History
The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Vol. 1 of 2
Müller, Karl Otfried
Dorians -- History; Greece -- Antiquities, Dorian; Greece -- History -- Dorian Invasions, approximately 1125-1025 B.C.
343 See above, ch. 3. § 3.
344 Called in the Doric dialect Προκλέας, Kühn ad Pausan. III. 1.
According to Polyænus I. 10. Procles and Temenus together conquered
Lacedæmon.
345 Herod. VI. 52. and it is followed by Xen. Agesil. 8. Plutarch.
Agesil. 19. [The same is preserved in a fragment of Alcæus (Mus.
Crit. I. p. 432) ὡς γὰρ δή ποτε φασίν Ἀριστόδαμον ἐν Σπάρτᾳ λόγον
οὐκ ἀπάλαμνον εἰπεῖν, as Niebuhr has remarked. History of Rome, vol.
I. note 94. ed. 2.]
346 The words of the oracle, which Herodotus paraphrases, probably were
μᾶλλον δὲ γεραίτερον ἔστι γεραίρειν.
347 V. 16. Also in Plato Leg. III. p. 683. Megillus the Spartan, to the
question καὶ βασιλεὺς μὲν—Λακεδαίμονος Προκλῆς καὶ Εὐρυσθένης;
answers, πῶς γὰρ οὐ, against his national tradition.
348 Pindar Pyth. I. 65. says that the Dorians, “coming down from Pindus,
immediately took Amyclæ.” Compare Boeckh Comment, p. 479. This is
equally fallacious with his other statement, that Pylos fell at the
invasion, see below, § 15. According to Ephorus ap. Strab. p. 364
D., Philonomus the Achæan, who had betrayed Lacedæmon to the
Dorians, received Amyclæ from them as a reward for his treachery,
and held the νόμος Ἀμυκλαῖος (to which his name seems to allude) as
a vassal. Compare Conon Narr. 36. Nicol. Damasc. p. 445. Vales.
349 Servius ad Æn. X. 564. and Lucilius, ibid, compare Heyne Excurs. II.
ad Æn. X. Sosibius ap. Zenob. Prov. I. 54.
350 Pausan. III. 2. 6. ib. 12. 7. ib. 19. 5. The temple was still
standing in his time. Compare _Orchomenos_, p. 313-321.
351 Pausan. VII. 6. 2. where Preugenes, their leader, is stated to have
been descended from Amyclas.
352 Polyb. V. 19. 2.
353 Ap. Schol. Eurip. Orest. 46. Simonides fragm. 177. ed. Gaisford.
354 Εὔπυργος Θεράπια, ap. Priscian. p. 1328. Fragm. 1. ed. Welcker.
355 Isthm. I. 31.
356 Ἐν γυάλοις Θεράπνας Pindar Nem. X. 55. The δόκανα were, according to
some, tombs of this description.
357 See Dissen’s Commentary to Pindar ubi sup. p. 471.—Concerning Helen
at Therapne, see Euripid. Hel. 211. and Tryphiod. 520. Schol.
Lycophr. 143. Isocrat. Encom. Hel. p. 218 D. ἔτι γὰρ καὶ νῦν ἐν
Θεράπναις (Μενελάῳ καὶ Ἑλένῃ) θυσίας ἁγίας καὶ πατρίους ἐπιτελοῦσιν
οὐχ ὡς ἤρωσιν ἀλλ᾽ ὡσ θεοῖς. Concerning the Menelaia, see
Athenagoras Leg. p. 14. A. Θεραπναῖος Ἀπόλλων Apollon. Rhod. II.
162. Therapne, according to some, was ἐν Σπάρτῃ, Schol. Apollon. et
Pind. ubi sup.; according to other authors, referred to by Steph.
Byz., it was Sparta itself. Both are in the wrong.
358 It was first discovered by Gropius.
359 Polyb. ubi sup. See ch. 4. § 3.
360 Od. B. 327. 359. A. 459. N. 412. 414. The passage in Od. A. 10. is
also to be explained in this manner.
361 Pausan. III. 2. 6.
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