108 Phdr. 246 CD. πλάττομεν . . . θεὸν, ἀθάνατόν τι ζῷον, ἔχον μὲν ψυχήν, ἔχον δὲ σῶμα, τὸν ἀεὶ δὲ χρόνον ταῦτα ξυμπεφυκότα. In acc. with the will of the δημιουργός body and soul in the gods remain joined together (though in itself τὸ δεθὲν πᾶν λυτόν. It is to this that Klearch. alludes ap. Ath. 15, 670 B, ὅτι λυτὸν [λύεται the MSS.] μὲν πᾶν τὸ δεδεμένον): hence they are ἀθάνατοι, Tim. 41 AB.
109 Hasisatra, Enoch: see above, chap. ii, n. 18. Moses, too, was translated acc. to later legend, and Elijah (cf. after the battle of Panormos Hamilcar disappears and for that reason is worshipped with sacrifice: Hdt. vii, 166–7). In Egypt too: D.S. 1, 25, 7, speaks of the ἐξ ἀνθρώπων μετάστασις, i.e. translation, of Osiris (for the expression cf. Κάστωρ καὶ Πολυδεύκης ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἠφανίσθησαν, Isoc., Archid. (6), 18, etc., frequently).
110 Stories of the disappearance (non comparuit, nusquam apparuit = ἠφανίσθη) of Aeneas and Turnus, King Latinus, Romulus and others: Preller, Röm. Myth.2, pp. 84–5; 683, 2; 704. Anchises: Procop., Goth. iv, 22 fin.
111 So too Caesar in deorum numerum relatus est non ore modo decernentium sed et persuasione volgi, Suet., Jul. 88.
112 D.C. 79, 18.—It is natural to suppose that some prophecy of the return of the great Macedonian was current and encouraged the attempt to turn the prophecy into a reality and predisposed people to believe in it. This at least is what happened in the case of Nero 569 and the false Fredericks of the middle ages. This seems to have been at the back of the superstitious cult of Alexander particularly flourishing just at that time (cf. the story told of the family of the Macriani by Treb. Poll. xxx Tyr. 14, 4–6). Caracalla (Aur. Vict., Epit. 21; cf. Hdn. 4, 8; D.C. 77, 7–8) and Alexander Severus actually regarded themselves as Avatars of Alexander reborn and incarnated in themselves (the latter was first called Alexander at his elevation to the principate, certainly ominis causa, and was supposed to have been born, on the anniversary of Alexander’s death, in A.’s temple: Lamprid., Al. Sev. 5, 1; 13, 1, 3, 4. He paid special honour to Alex., and as we are expressly told by Lamp. 64, 3, se magnum Alexandrum videri volebat).
113 The Christian anticipation of the return of Nero (as Antichrist) is well known: he was supposed to have disappeared and not to have died. They based their expectation, however, on a widespread belief of the populace which the various Ψευδονέρωνες who actually appeared turned to their advantage (Suet., Ner. 57; Tac., H. i, 2; ii, 8: Luc., Indoct. 20).
114 This was the idea lying behind the deification of Antinous commanded by the Emperor; as may be seen from the connexion in which Celsus speaks of the matter (ap. Orig., Cels. 3, 36, p. 296 Lomm.): he mentions the disappearance of Ant. in the same context as the translation of Kleomedes, Amphiaraos, Amphilochos, etc. (c. 33–4).—The language in which the deification of Ant. is spoken of on the obelisk at Rome gives no precise idea of what happened: see Erman, Mit. arch. Inst. röm. Abt. 1896, p. 113 ff.—In this case, then, we have a translation effected by a river-god: cf. the water-nymphs mentioned above, n. 105. In the same way Aeneas disappeared into the river Numicius: Serv., Aen. xii, 794; Sch. Veron., Aen. i, 259; D.H. i, 64, 4; Arnob. i, 36; Ov., M. xiv, 598 ff.; Liv. i, 2, 6. cf. the fable of Alex. the Great’s translation into a river: n. 107. Euthymos in the same way vanished into the river Kaikinos (supposed to be his real father: Paus. 6, 6, 4); see above, chap. iv, n. 116.
115 Philostr., V. Ap. viii, 29–30 (not indeed from Damis as Ph. himself definitely asserts; but certainly from sincere accounts derived from the various adherents of Apoll.—none of the facts in the biography are Phil.’s own invention). Apoll. either died in Ephesos or disappeared (ἀφανισθῆναι) in the temple of Athene at Lindos or disappeared in the temple of Diktynna in Crete and ascended to heaven αὐτῷ σώματι (as Eus. adv. Hierocl. 44, 408, 5 Ks. rightly understands it). This was the legend generally preferred. His ἀφανισμός was confirmed by the fact that no grave or cenotaph of Apoll. was to be found: Philostr. viii, 31 fin. The imitation of the legends about the disappearance of Empedokles is obvious.
116 τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίου ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἠδη ὄντος, θαυμαζομένου δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ μεταβολῇ καὶ μηδ’ ἀντιλέξαι θαρροῦντος μηδένος ὡς οὐκ ἀ θάνατος εἰη, Philostr. viii, 31. Then follows a miracle vouchsafed to an unbelieving Thomas to whom Apoll. himself appears.
117 Pre-existence of the soul, return of the souls of the good to their home with God, punishment of the wicked, complete ἀθανασία of all souls as such—all this belongs to the wisdom of Solomon. The Essene doctrine of the soul as described by Jos., BJ. 2, 8, 11, is also thoroughly Greek; it belongs to the Stoico-Platonic teaching (i.e. the Neopythagorean variety); see Schwally, Leben n. Todt n. Vorst. alt. Israël, p. 151 ff., 179 ff. [1892]. The carmen Phocylideum is the work of some Jewish author who obscurely mixes up 570 Platonic ideas with those of Greek theologians (cf. 104 where Bgk., PLG. ii, p. 95, rightly defends the MSS. θεοί against Bernays), and of the Stoics (108)—adding also ideas derived from the Jewish doctrine of the resurrection (115 at least is completely Greek: ψυχὴ δ’ ἀθάνατος καὶ ἀγήρως ζῇ διὰ παντός). In Philo’s doctrine of the soul everything comes from Platonic or Stoic sources.
118 e.g. in Sikyon as it appears: Paus. 2, 7, 2.
119 Perhaps in Epigr. Gr. ed. Kaibel (which will be referred to in this section as Ep.), 35a, p. 517; but this belongs to the fourth century B.C. A late example (in prose), IG. Sic. et It. 1702.
120 γαῖαν ἔχοις ἐλαφράν, Ep. 195, 4; cf. 103, 9; 538, 7; 551, 4; 559, 3; IG. Sic. et It. 229; Rhodian inscr., IGM. Aeg. i, 151, 3–4 (first-second century A.D.); ἀλλὰ σύ, δαῖμον, τῇ φθιμένῃ κούφην γαῖαν ὕπερθεν ἔχοις.—Eur. already has something similar: Alc. 463: see above, chap. xii, n. 121.
121 The confusion of ideas is evident, e.g. in Ep. 700, κοῦφον ἔχοις γαίης βάρος εὐσεβίης ἐνὶ χώρῳ, cf. 222b, 11–12.—The real meaning of such wishes is indicated by Luc., Luct. 18; the dead son says to his mourning father, δέδιας μή σοι ἀποπνιγῶ κατακλεισθεὶς ἐν τῷ μνήματι.
122 Φερσεφόνης θάλαμος, θάλαμοι, Ep. 35, 4; 50, 2; 201, 4; 231, 2; Anth. Pal. vii, 507–8 “Simonides”. φθιμένοις ἀέναος θάλαμος, Ep. 143, 2. δόμος Νυκτός, AP. vii, 232. (We need not hesitate to use the grave-epigrams in the Anthology side by side with the actual sepulchral inss. The former are sometimes the models of the latter, sometimes modelled upon actual epitaphic inscriptions, but always closely related to the more literary epitaphs.)
123 Λήθης παυσίπονον πόμα, Ep. 244, 10. ἢν καταβῇς ἐς πῶμα Λήθης, 261, 20. (Νύξ, λήθης δῶρα φέρουσ’ ἐπ’ ἐμοί, 312.) Μοῖραι καὶ Λήθη με κατήγαγον εἰς Ἀίδαο, 521. (Cf. AP. vii, Λήθης δόμοι, 25, 6; Λήθης λιμήν, 498; Λήθης πέλαγος, 711, 716.) Λάθας ἤλυθον εἰς λιμέας, Mysian inscr. BCH. xvii (1894), p. 532, n. 34.
124 οἱ πλείους = the dead (like the Latin plures: Plaut., Trin. 291, Petron. 42): ἐς πλεόνων in Hades, Ep. 373, 4; AP. vii, 731, 6; xi, 42. Already in Ar., Eccl. 1073: γραῦς ἀναστηκυῖα παρὰ τῶν πλειόνων. Call., Epigr. 5 (cf. Boisson. on Eunap., p. 309). Ancient oracle ap. Polyb. 8, 30, 7: μετὰ τῶν πλεόνων = τῶν μετηλλαχότων (Tarentum). Even in the present day: ’στοὺς πολλοὺς, Schmidt, Volksl. d. Neugr. i, 235.
125 Ep. 266, μὴ μύρου, φίλ’ ἄνερ, με· καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖ γὰρ ὁδεύσας εὑρήσεις τὴν σὴν σύγγαμον Εὐτυχίην. Cf. 558, 5 ff.; 397, 5. Phrygian inscr., Papers American School, iii, 305 (n. 427): a father addressing his dead son καὶ πολὺ τερσανέω τότε δάκρυον ἥνικα σεῖο ψυχὴν ἀθρήσω γῆν ὑποδυσάμενος.
126 εἰ δέ τις ἐν φθιμένοις κρίσις, ὡς λόγος ἀμφὶ θανόντων, Ep. 215, 5. A mother boasts of the piety of her son to Rhadamanthys: 514, 5 (cf. 559, 3 f.). So too, in AP. vii there is little mention of a judgment (596 Agathias).
127 The division of the dead into two classes is implied where the pious departed is said to be about to dwell ἐν μακάρεσσιν, etc. But the distinct separation of the dead into two or three classes [see above, chap. xii, n. 62] is rare in the sepulchral inscr.: Ep. 650, 9 ff., is an exception (but there one company is ἐπιχθονίη, the other in the aither—a Stoic idea).—A peculiar arrangement, implying the three classes, is given in [Socr.] Epist. 27, 1 (they are in the τόπος εὐς. and ἀσεβῶν in Hades, and in the aither): τοῦ εἶτε κατὰ γῆν ἐν εὐσεβῶν χώρῳ ὄντος 571 εἴτε κατ’ ἄστρα (ὅπερ καὶ μάλα πείθομαι) Σωκράτους.—The same again in AP. vii, 370 (Diodor.) ἐν Διὸς (i.e. in Heaven) ἢ μακάρων.
128 There is perhaps no reference in the grave-inss. to the punishment of the ἀσεβεῖς, and scarcely any in AP. vii (but cf. 377, 7 f. Erykios).
129 ψυχὴ δ’ ἐς τὸ δίκαιον ἔβη, Ep. 502, 13; i.e. to the place to which it justly belongs.
130 ναίεις μακάρων νήσους θαλίῃ ἐνὶ πολλῇ, Ep. 649, 2; 366, 6; 648, 9. νῆσον ἔχεις μακάρων, 473, 2; 107, 2; AP. vii, 690, 4. μακάρων πεδίον, Ep. 516, 1–2. Ἠλύσιον πεδίον 414, 8; 150, 6. πεδία Ἠλύσια, 338, 2; 649, 3. χῶρος ἠλύσιος 618a, 8. μετ’ εὐσεβέων ἐσμὲν ἐν Ἠλυσίῳ, 554, 4.—ναίω δ’ ἡρώων ἱερὸν δόμον, οὐκ Ἀχέροντες· τοῖον γὰρ βιότου τέρμα σοφοῖσιν ἔνι, Ep. 228, 7–8. ἡρώων χῶρον ἔχοις φθίμενος, 539, 4. Λητογενές, σὺ δὲ παῖδας ἐν ἡρώεσσι φυλάσσοις, εὐσεβέων ἀεὶ χῶρον ἐπερχόμενος, 228b, 7 (p. 520). ᾤχετ’ ἐς ἡμιθέους, 699 (σοὶ μὲν ἕδρη θείοισι παρ’ ἀνδράσι, AP. vii, 659, 3).
131 Description of the charms of the μακάρων νῆσοι and the Elysian fields where οὐδὲ ποθεινὸς ἀνθρώπων ἔτι βίοτος, Ep. 649. More elaborate in the poem of Marcellus on Regilla the wife of Herodes Att.: Ep. 1046 (she is μεθ’ ἡρῴνησιν ἐν μακάρων νήσοισιν, ἵνα Κρόνος ἐμβασιλεύει, 8–9; Zeus had dispatched her thither with soft breezes, ἐς ὠκεανόν, 21 ff. Now she is οὐ θνητή, ἀτὰρ οὐδὲ θέαινα but a Heroine, 42 ff. In the χορὸς προτεράων ἡμιθεάων she serves as an ὀπάων νύμφη of Persephone, 51 ff.).
132 Clearly e.g. the place where Rhadamanthys holds sway in Hades, Ep. 452, 18–19.
133 The χῶρος εὐσεβέων clearly indicates Hades: Ἀίδεω νυχίοιο μέλας ὑπεδέξατο κόλπος, εὐσεβέων θ’ ὁσίην εὔνασεν ἐς κλισίην, Ep. 27, 3–4; cf. inscr. from Rhodes, IGM. Aeg. i, 141, of an old schoolmaster—εὐσεβῶν χῶρος [σφ’ ἔχει]· Πλούτων γὰρ αὐτὸν καὶ Κορη κατῴκισαν, Ἑρμῆς τε καὶ δᾳδοῦχος Ἑκάτη, προσφ[ιλῆ] ἅπασιν εἶναι, μυστικῶν τ’ ἐπιστάτην ἔταξαν αὐτὸν πίστεως πάσης χάριν.—Not infrequently Elysion and the place of the εὐσεβέες are identified: e.g. Ep. 338, εὐσεβέες δὲ ψυχὴν (sc. ἔχουσἰ) καὶ πεδίων τέρμονες Ἠλυσίων. τοῦτο σαοφροσύνης ἔλαχον γέρας, ἀμβροσίην δὲ (the immortality of her soul) σώματος ὑβριστὴς οὐκ ἐπάτησε χρόνος. ἀλλὰ νέη νύμφῃσι (thus the stone: Ath. Mitt. iv, 17) μετ’ εὐσεβέεσσι καθῆται.—If there is a judgment in Hades οἰκήσεις εἰς δόμον εὐσεβέων, Ep. 215, 5–6. Kore conducts the dead χῶρον ἐπ’ εὐσεβέων, 218, 15–16. κἄστιν ἐν εὐσεβέων ἣν διὰ σωφροσύνην, 569, 12. εὐσεβέων χῶρος, 296. εὐς. δόμος, 222, 7–8. εὐσεβέων ναίοις ἱερὸν δόμον, IPE. ii, 298, 11. ψυχὴ δ’ εὐσεβέων οἴχεται εἰς θάλαμον, Ep. 90 (CIA. ii, 3004). εὐς. εἰς ἱεροὺς θαλάμους, 222b, 12. εὐς. ἐν σκιεροῖς θαλάμοις, 253, 6. ἐσθλὰ δὲ ναίω δώματα Φερσεφόνας χώρῳ ἐν εὐσεβέων, 189, 5–6. μετ’ εὐσεβέεσσι κεῖσθαι, ἀντ’ ἀρετῆς, 259. θῆκ’ Ἀίδης ἐς μυχὸν εὐσεβέων, 241a, 18. εὐσεβίης δ’ εἵνεκεν εὐσεβέων χῶρον ἔβη φθίμενος, Ath. Mitt. xi, 427 (Kolophon). Late Roman inscr., IG. Sic. et It. 1660: a wife says of her dead husband περὶ οὗ δέομαι τοὺς καταχθονίους θεούς, τὴν ψυχὴν εἰς τοὺς εὐσεβεῖς κατατάξαι.
134 The χῶρος μακάρων in the sky: ψυχὴ δ’ ἀθανάτων βουλαῖς ἐπιδήμιός ἐστιν ἄστροις καὶ ἱερὸν χῶρον ἔχει μακάρων, Ep. 324, 3–4. καὶ ναίεις μακάρων νήσους . . . αὐγαῖς ἐν καθαραῖσιν, Ὀλυμπου πλησίον ὄντως, 649, 2, 8. The ἠλύσιον πεδίον outside the φθιμένων δόμοι, 414, 8, 6. Sometimes both the heavenly abode of the blessed and the Islands of the Blest occur together: [Luc.] Dem. Enc. 50. 572 Demosth. is after his death either in the μακάρων νήσοις with the Heroes, or else in the οὐρανός as an attendant daimon on Ζεὺς Ἐλευθέριος.
135 ψυχὴ πρὸς Ὄλυμπον ἀνήλλατο, Ep. 646a, 3. ψυχὴ δ’ ἐν Ὀλύμπῳ, 159, 261, 11. ἦλθεν δ’ εἰς Ἀιδαο δέμας, ψυχὴ δ’ ἐς Ὄλυμπον, AP. vii, 362, 3. (Ἀίδης here = the grave as often; so too in Ep. 288, 4–5, ψυχὴ . . . ἐς αἰθέρα . . . ὀστέα εἰς Ἀίδην ἄτροπος εἶλε νόμος.) μετὰ πότμον ὁρῶ φάος Οὐλύμποιο, AP. vii, 678, 5.—ψυχὴν δ’ ἐκ μελέων οὐρανὸς εὐρὺς ἔχει, Ep. 104b, 4. ἦτορ δ’ οὐρανῷ μετάρσιον, 462, 6. ψυχὴ μοι ναίει δώματ’ ἐπουράνια, 261, 10 (and frequently in this poem in various forms). ἐς οὐρανίας ἀταρποὺς ψυχὴ παπταίνει σῶμ’ ἀποδυσαμένη, AP. vii, 337, 7; cf. also 363, 3; 587, 2; 672, 1 and ix, 207–8. αἰθὴρ μὲν ψυχὰς ὑπεδέξατο, Ep. 21 (fifth century B.C., see above, chap. xii, n. 149). Εὐρυμάχου ψυχὴν καὶ ὑπερφιάλους διανοίας αἰθὴρ ὑγρὸς ἔχει, 41 (fourth century B.C. but the αἰθήρ is not “moist”—αἰθὴρ λαμπρὸς ἔχει is the more primitive version of the phrase given in the corresponding epigr. of the Πέπλος. The ἀήρ would be ὑγρός: την ψυχὴν ἀπέδωκεν ἐς ἀέρα, Ep. 642, 7). ψυχὴν μὲν ἐς αἰθέρα καὶ Διὸς αὐλάς, 288, 4. ψυχὴ δ’ αἰθέριον κατέχει πόλον, 225, 3. ψυχὴ δ’ αἰθέριον κατέχει πόλον, 325, 5.—ψυχὴ δ’ ἀθανάτων βουλαῖς ἐπιδήμιός ἐστιν ἄστροις, Ep. 324, 3. From Thyatira, BCH. 1887, p. 461: θάψεν δ’ ἀδελφὸς Ἀρχέλαος σῶμ’ ἐμόν, ψυχὰ δέ μευ πρὸς ἄστρα καὶ θεοὺς ΕΣI (read ἔβη). One company of the souls τείρεσσι σὺν αἰθερίοισι χορεύει· ἧς στρατιῆς εἷς εἰμι, Ep. 650, 11–12 (Diogenes) νῦν δε θανὼν ἀστέρας οἶκον ἔχει, AP. vii, 64, 4.
136 ψυχὴ δ’ ἐκ ῥεθέων πταμένη μετὰ δαίμονας ἄλλους ἤλυθε σή, ναίες δ’ ἐν μακάρων δαπέδῳ, Ep. 243, 5–6. καί με θεῶν μακάρων κατέχει δόμος ἆσσον ἰόντα, οὐρανίοις τε δόμοισι βλέπω φάος Ἠριγενείης, 312, 6.—τὴν σύνετον ψυχὴν μακάρων εἰς ἀέρα δοῦσα, πρόσθεν μὲν θνητή, νῦν δὲ θεῶ μέτοχος, 654, 4–5.—ἀλλὰ νῦν εἰς τοὺς θεούς IG. Sic. et It. 1420. ὡς δὲ φύσις μὲν ἔλυσεν ἀπὸ χθονός, ἀθάνατοι μὲν αὐτὸν ἔχουσι θεοὶ σῶμα δὲ σηκὸς ὅδε, AP. vii, 570; 61, 2; 573, 3–4.
138 See above, p. 500 f. πνεῦμα, Ep. 250, 6; 613, 6; πνεῦμα λαβὼν δάνος οὐρανόθεν τελέσας χρόνον ἀνταπέδωκα (cf. πνεῦμα γάρ ἐστι θεοῦ χρῆσις θνητοῖσι, Carm. Phoc. 106). 156, 2: πνοιὴν αἰθὴρ ἔλαβεν πάλιν, ὅσπερ ἔδωκεν (third century B.C.; see Köhler on CIA. ii, 4135).—This conception having become popular frequently occurs in the theological poetry of later times: e.g. χρησμός ap. Stob., Ecl. 1, 49, 46, i, p. 414 W.: τὸ μὲν (τὸ σῶμα) λυθέν ἐστι κόνις, ψυχὴ δὲ πρὸς αἴθρην σκίδναται, ὁππόθεν ἦλθε, μετήορος εἰς αἰθέρ’ ἁπλοῦν (read αἰθέρ’ ἐς ἁγνόν). Oracle of Apoll. Tyan. ap. Philostr., VA. viii, 31: ἀθάνατος ψυχὴ . . . μετὰ σῶμα μαρανθὲν . . . ῥηιδίως προθοροῦσα κεράννυται ἠέρι κούφῳ.
139 ψυχὴν δ’ ἀθάνατον κοινὸς ἔχει θάνατος, Ep. 35, 6 (CIA. ii, 3620, fourth century B.C.). IG. Sic. et It. 940, 3–4: ἀθανάτη ψυχὴ μὲν ἐς αἰθέρι καὶ Διὸς αὐγαῖς πωτᾶται. ib. 942: . . . ἐνθάδε κεῖμαι, οὐχὶ θανών· θνήσκειν μὴ λέγε τοὺς ἀγαθούς (from Call., Epigr. 11, τᾷδε Σάων . . . ἱερὸν ὕπνον κοιμᾶται. θνάσκειν μὴ λέγε τοὺς ἀγαθούς).—οὐκ ἔθανες, Πρώτη, μετέβης δ’ ἐς ἀμείνονα χῶρον Ep. 649.
140 This retains its full and original meaning (as in Call., Epigr. 11); cf. Ep. 559, 7, λέγε Ποπιλίην εὕδειν ἄνερ· οὐ θεμιτὸν θνήσκειν τοὺς ἀγαθούς, ἀλλ’ ὕπνον ἡδὺν ἔχειν. More often as a mere conventional phrase: 433; 101, 4; 202, 1; 204, 7; σ’ ἐκοίμισεν ὕπνος ὁ λήθης, 223, 3; 502, 2; AP. vii, 29, 1; 30, 2, 260.
141 Ep. 651: θνητὸν σῶμα . . . τὸ δ’ ἀθάνατον ἐς μακάρων ἀνόρουσε 573 κέαρ· ψυχὴ γὰρ ἀείζως ἣ τὸ ζῆν παρέχει καὶ θεόφιν κατέβη . . . σῶμα χιτὼν ψυχῆς (cf. Emp. 414 M. = fr. 126 D., σαρκῶν περιστέλλουσα χιτῶνι sc. τὴν ψυχήν)· τὸν δὲ θεὸν σέβε μου (the god in me, my ψυχή). 261, 6, τὴν ψυχὴν δ’ ἀθανάτην ἔλαχον· ἐν γαίῃ μὲν σῶμα τὸ συγγενές οὐράνιος δὲ ἤλυθεν ἡ ψυχὴ δῶμα κατ’ οὐ φθίμενον κτλ.; cf. 320, 6 ff.—594 (late epitaph of a doctor with philosophic leanings; found in Rome), 7 ff.: οὐδ’ ἄρα θνητὸς ἔην, ὑπ’ ἀνάγκης ὑψιμέδοντος τύμβῳ εἰναλέῳ πεπεδημένος ἤνυσεν οἶμον. ἐκ ῥεθέων δ’ ἄμα στειχων σεμνὸν ἔβη Διὸς οἶκον. No sense can be made of the passage if τύμβῳ is understood as the real grave and this has led to altering or straining the sense of εἰναλέῳ (εἰναλίῳ Franz, σιγαλέῳ Jacobs). But the poet means: the dead man was (in his real nature, his soul) immortal, only the will of the gods had caused him (his soul) to be bound to the body and to complete his course of life in the body, after the end of which he will rise immediately (and return) to the realm of the gods. Read therefore τύμβῳ εἰν ἀλαῷ πεπεδημένος, fettered in the “dark grave” of the body: σῶμα = σῆμα. (Exactly as in Verg., A. vi, 734, the animae: clausae tenebris et carcere caeco.)—603: he who lies buried here θνητοῖς ψυχὴν πείσας ἐπὶ σώμασιν ἐλθεῖν τὴν αὑτοῦ, μέλεος, οὐκ ἀνέπεισε μένειν. That is: he has persuaded his (previously living and bodiless) soul to enter into the realm of mortal bodies (to occupy a body), but could not persuade it to remain there long—in this earthly life.
142 Once at the most: εἰ πάλιν ἔστι γενέσθαι . . . εἰ δ’ οὐκ ἔστιν πάλιν ἐλθεῖν—Ep. 304 (cf. above, chap. xii, n. 138).
143 The epitaphs quoted in n. 141 have a theological meaning but do not allude to any specifically Platonic opinion or doctrines. There is no need to see Platonic influence (as Lehrs would: Pop. Aufs.2, p. 339 f.) in the numerous epitaphs that speak of the ascent of the soul into the aither, the stars, etc. (notes 135, 136). It is true that Alexis 158 K. inquires whether the view that the body decays after death—τὸ δ’ ἀθάνατον ἐξῆρε πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα—is not Platonic doctrine (ταῦτ’ οὐ σχολὴ Πλάτωνος). But he has no real knowledge of Platonic teaching and calls Platonic that idea of the ascent of the souls of the dead into the upper regions which had long been popular in Athens—even before Plato’s time. In fact Plato’s doctrine has only the most distant resemblance to the popular one, and the latter originated and persisted without being influenced at all by Plato or his school.
144 Ep. 650, 12. I belong to the company of the blessed which τείρεσσι σὺν αἰθερίοισι χορεύει, λαχὼν θεὸν ἡγεμονῆα. These last words must refer to a special relation of a pious kind to some god. We may note the conclusion of the Caesares of Julian (336 C): Hermes addresses the Emperor: follow the ἐντολαί of πατὴρ Μίθρας in life, καὶ ἡνίκα ἂν ἐνθένδε ἀπιέναι δέῃ, μετὰ τῆς ἀγαθῆς ἐλπίδος ἡγεμόνα θεὸν εὐμενῆ καθιστὰς σεαυτῷ. Cf. also the promise made in an Egyptian magic papyrus ed, Parthey, Abh. Berl. Ak. 1865, p. 125, l. 178 ff.: the ghost thus conjured up will after your death σοῦ τὸ πνεῦμα βαστάξας εἰς ἀέρα ἄξει σὺν αὑτῷ, εἰς γὰρ ᾄδην οὐ χωρήσει ἀέριον πνεῦμα συσταθὲν (i.e. commended) κραταιῷ παρέδρῳ. Cf. Pl., Phd. 107 D ff.: the souls of the dead are conducted each by the δαίμων ὅσπερ ζῶντα εἰλήχει to the judgment place: thence they go εἰς ᾇδου μετὰ ἡγεμόνος ἐκείνου οὗ δὴ προστέτακται τοὺς ἐνθένδε ἐκεῖσε πορεῦσαι. Afterwards yet another, ἄλλος ἡγεμών as it appears, leads them back again. A blessed abode hereafter is found by ἡ καθαρῶς τε καὶ μετρίως τὸν βίον διεξελθοῦσα καὶ ξυνεμπόρων καὶ ἡγεμόνων θεῶν τυχοῦσα, 108 C. The same idea occurs on the monument of Vibia (in the Catacombs of Praetextatus in Rome): Mercurius nuntius 574 conducts her (and Alcestis) before Dispater and Aeracura to be tried: after that a special bonus angelus leads her to the banquet of the blessed (CIL. vi, 142). There is nothing Christian in this, any more than in the whole monument or its inscriptions. (The “angel” as an intermediate being between gods and men had long been taken from Jewish religion by heathen belief and philosophy: they were sometimes identified with the Platonic δαίμονες: see R. Heinze, Xenokrat. 112 f. These intermediate natures, the ἄγγελοι, have nothing to do with the old Greek conception of certain gods as “Messengers” or of the Hero Εὐάγγελος, etc. [cf. Usener, Götternamen, 268 ff.].) With the fanciful picture of Vibia we may compare (besides the Platonic passages mentioned above) what Luc., Philops. 25, has to say of the νεανίας πάγκαλος who leads the souls into the underworld (οἱ ἀγαγόντες αὐτόν less precisely in the parallel narrative of Plutarch, de An. fr. 1, ap. Eus., PE. 11, 36, p. 563 D).