[81] The connection of allegory with the mysteries was recognized: Heraclitus Ponticus, c. 6, justifies his interpretation of Apollo as the sun, ἐk τῶν μυστικῶν λόγων οὓς αἱ ἀπόρρητοι τελετὰι θεολογοῦσι: ps-Demetrius Phalereus, _de interpret._ c. 99, 101, _ap._ Walz, _Rhett. Gr._ ix. p. 47, μεγαλεῖόν τί ἐστι καὶ ἡ ἀλληγορία ... πᾶν γὰρ τὸ ὑπονοούμενον φοβερώτατον καὶ ἄλλος εἰκάζει ἄλλο τι ... διὸ καὶ τὰ μυστήρια ἐν ἀλληγορίαις λέγεται πρὸς ἔκπληξιν καὶ φρίκην: so Macrobius, in _Somn. Scip._ 1. 2, after an account of the way in which the poets veiled truths in symbols, “sic ipsa mysteria figurarum cuniculis operiuntur ne vel hæc adeptis nuda rerum talium se natura præbeat.” That a physical explanation lay behind the scenery of the mysteries is stated elsewhere, e.g. by Theodoret, _Græc. Affect. Cur._ i. vol. iv. p. 721, without being connected with the allegorical explanation of the poets. [82] Pausan. 3. 25. 4-6. [83] Plat. _Phædr._ p. 229 _c_. [84] Plat. _Resp._ p. 378 _d_. [85] Diogenes Laertius, 2. 11, quotes Favorinus as saying that Anaxagoras was the first who showed that the poems of Homer had virtue and righteousness for their subject. If the later traditions (Georg. Syncellus, _Chronogr._ p. 149 _c_) could be trusted, the disciples of Anaxagoras were the authors of the explanations which Plato attributes to οἱ νῦν περὶ Ὅμηρον δεινοί, and which tried by a fanciful etymology to prove that Athené was voῦv τε καὶ διάνοιαν (Plat. _Cratyl._ 407 _b_). [86] Diog. Laert. 2. 11: Tatian, _Orat. ad Græcos_, c. 21, Μητρόδωρος δὲ ὁ Λαμψακηνὸς ἐν τῷ περὶ Ὁμήρου λίαν εὐήθως διείλεκται πάντα εἰς ἀλληγορίαν μετάγων. A later tradition used the name of Pherecydes: Isidore, sun of Basilides, in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ 6, p. 767. [87] On the general subject of allegorical interpretation, especially in regard to Homer, reference may be made to N. Schow in the edition of Heraclitus Ponticus mentioned below; L. H. Jacob, _Dissertatio philosophica de allegoria Homerica_, Halæ, 1785; C. A. Lobeck, _Aglaophamus_, pp. 155, 844, 987; Gräfenhan, _Geschichte der klassischen Philologie_, Bd. i. p. 211. It has been unnecessary for the present purpose to make the distinction which has sometimes (e.g. Lauer, _Litterarischer Nachlass_, ed. Wichmann, Bd. ii. p, 105) been drawn between allegory and symbol. [88] The most recent edition is Heracliti _Allegoriæ Homericæ_, ed. E. Mehler, Leyden, 1851: that of N. Schow, Göttingen, 1782, contains a Latin translation, a good essay on Homeric allegory, and a critical letter by Heyne. It seems probable that the treatise is really anonymous, and that the name Heraclitus was intended to be that of the philosopher of Ephesus: see Diels, _Doxoyraphi Græci_, p. 95 _n_. [89] The most recent, and best critical, edition is by C. Lang, ed. 1881, in Teubner’s series. More help is afforded to an ordinary student by that which was edited from the notes of de Villoison by Osann, Göttingen, 1844.