No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The word θυμέλη has attracted much attention from scholars owing to its importance in connexion with the Greek theatre. Discussion, however, has not led to any agreement as to the meaning of the word. Drs. Doerpfeld and Reisch held that it meant an altar or its foundation: Dr. Doerpfeld now expresses the opinion that it was a pavement round the altar which served to connect the altar with the temple of the god to whom it belonged, and was at the same time convenient for the slaughtering of the victims. This platform was called at Olympia the πρόθυσις. On the other hand, Prof. C. Robert believes the real meaning of the word to be ‘foundation,’ and that it might be used in this sense of any structure, whether house, altar, or temple. Mr. A. B. Cook holds that the word might be applied to either form of the Dionysiac altar, whether it was a βωμός or merely a τράπεζα for the reception of offerings. This view is followed by Haigh.
2 Doerpfeld, and Reisch, , Das Griechsche Theater, pp. 278Google Scholar ff.; cf. Hermes, xxxvii, p. 250.
3 Thymele und Skene (Hermes, xxxvii, pp. 249 ff.) with extant examples of this ‘Fussboden.’ Müller, K. O. held that this platform was included in the meaning of the word Θυμέλη (Eum. Diss. p. 249)Google Scholar.
4 Zur Theaterfrage (Hermes, xxxii, pp. 421 ff.). Whenever tho views of Doerpfeld and Robert are in question in the following pages, the reference (which I have not thought it necessary to repeat on each occasion) is to these two articles in Hermes.
5 Classical Review, ix. pp. 370 ff.
6 Attic Theatre,3 p. 80.
7 Quoted by Dindorf, and Keene, at Eur. El. 713Google Scholar.
8 Ad Aesch. Suppl. 675 (p. 133).
9 Ad Eur. Ion 46.
10 Ib. 228.
11 Et. Magn., Suid., Hesych., Zonaras, , s.v., Bekk. An, p. 42Google Scholar, 32., Schol. Greg. Nazianz. 355 b., Porph., de Abstin. ii. 59Google Scholar.
12 ii. 449. Eustathius p. 722, 25, cited by Robert, seems entirely irrelevant.
13 Hermes, xxxii, p 441.
14 ad Aesch. Suppl. 675.
15 Meyer, , Gr. Etym. (1901)Google Scholar; Prellwitz, , Etym. Wörterb. ed. 2 (1905)Google Scholar; Boisacq, , Diet. Étym. Gr (1910)Google Scholar.
16 Schol. A. V. and Town, ad I 219., Plutarch, , Comm. Hes. 26Google Scholar., Porph., de Abstin. ii. 59Google Scholar, Eustath. p. 1767. 13 , Suid. and Hesych. s.v. θῦσαι., Phot. Lex s.v. θύϵιν Ammonius p. 132., Zonaras, , s.v., θυηλαί. Bekk. An. pp. 42Google Scholar, 14 and 44, 14. See Lehrs, , De Aristarch. 3 pp. 82 ff.Google Scholar, Stengel, , Opferbrätuhe der Griechen, pp. 4 ff.Google Scholar, Fritze, , Die Rauchopfer bei den Griechen pp. 2Google Scholar. f. According to Bekk. An. p. 42, 19, this meaning was found also in the Old Comedy (cf. Kock, , C.A.F. iii. p. 404Google Scholar, fr. adesp. 34).
17 v. 179 b.; the word is of course also used of bloodless offerings in later times.
18 1219.
19 ι 231. cf. Suidas s.v. ἔθυσας I 219 and ι 231 are both cited by Athenaeus l.c.
20 446.
21 ο 222, 260.
22 Z 270.
23 I 499 f. cf. Hesiod, . W. D. 336Google Scholar ff., Aesch., fr. 161Google Scholar W.
24 It is not clear that Homer would call the ἀπαρχαί which precede a sacrifice θύη for he only uses the word of a separate ritual or the rite before a meal. The ἀπαρχαί before a sacrifice include the forelock of the victim (e.g. ξ 422).
25 Lehrs (l.c.) and Ebeling (Lex. Hom. s.v. θύω) suggest that the ritual of θύη is not necessarily of burnt offering at all, basing their view on ο 258 and 260. The special kindling of a fire in the cave of the Cyclops seems, however, to make this improbable. The libations are not necessarily identical with the θύη in the passage to which they refer, and that libations and θύη are in fact not identical is proved by I 499 f. quoted above, (cf. ξ 446 f.) Against Lehrs's view see Stengel, op. cit. p. 631, Fritze, op. cit. pp. 3 f.
26 Stengel, however (op. cit. p. 8), thinks it may sometimes include meat-offerings. The evidence, though not conclusive, seems to me to be against this view.
27 Fr. 214 K. Hesychius also records θυμέλαι θυμέλαι τὰ ἄλφιτα τὰ ἐπιθυόμενα
28 Cf. Walde, , Lat. Etym. Wörterb. p. 252Google Scholar.
29 ο 222 f.
30 A. 447 f. The transition between hearth and altar as place of sacrifice may perhaps still be traced. The great altar at Olympia, for example, was made of ashes upon a sort of round or elliptical platform—it was, in fact, a sort of glorified hearth. (Pausan, v. 13. 8. Plut., Mor. 433 bGoogle Scholar.) Pausaoias adds: καθάπερ γε καὶ ἐ Περγάμῳ τέφρας γὰρ δή ἐστι καὶ τῇ ῾´ Ηρᾳ τῇ Σαμίᾳ βωμὸς οὑδέν τι ἐπιφανέστερος ἤ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τῇ ᾿ Αττικῇ ἄς αὐτοσχεδίας ᾿ Αθηναῖο καλοῦσιν ἐσχάρας
31 The precise difference between ἐστία or ἐσχάρα and βωμός in appearance is explained by Eustathius (p. 1575, 40: cf. Steph. Byz. p. 126 (Dind., ), Bekk. An. p. 256Google Scholar, 32, and lexicographers s.v. ἐσχάρα), the difference in ritual usage between ἐσχάρα and βωμός by Porphyry, (Ant. Nymph. 6Google Scholar, cf. Schol. Eur., phoen. 274Google Scholar, Pollux i. 8, Ammonius s.v. βωμός). The accounts require, however, some modification: see for the whole subject Reisch in Paulywissowa, i. 1663 ff., vi. 614 ff.
32 I. 28 ff. The precise spot at which the scene is laid cannot be determined. A comparison of 1. 31 (quoted above) with Paus. i. 38. 6 suggests that Euripides may be thinking of the so-called Rarian plain, but this place cannot be located with any precision.
33 1. 290.
34 1. 93 μητέρα γεραιἀν βωμίαν ἐφημένην can hardly be regarded as significant.
35 Porph., Ant. Nymph. 6Google Scholar:, ὠς γὰρ τοῖς μὲν ᾿ Ολυμρίοις θεοῖς ναούς τε καὶ ἔδη καὶ βωμοὺς ίδρύσαντο χθονίοις δὲ καὶ ἤρωσιν ἐσχάρας ὐποχθονίοις δὲ βόθρους καὶ μέγαρα On a supposed ἐσχἀρα from a grave see Arch. f. Religionsw. vol. viii. pp. 191 ff.
36 Harpocrat., s.v. ἀφ′ ἑστίας μυϵῖσθαι Bekk. An. p. 204, 19Google Scholar, Porph., de Abstin. iv. 5Google Scholar, and inscriptions. The explanation, given by Dr.Farnell, (Cults of the Greek States, vol. iii. p. 164Google Scholar) and others, that he was so called from the hearth in the Athenian Prytaneum, seems to me unconvincing.
37 [Dem.] p. 1385. Hesychius's gloss. ᾿ Ελευ σίνια ἀγὼν θυμελικὸς ἀγόμενος Δήμητρι παρὰ Λάκωσι is perhaps a mere coincidence.
38 I will note only the passages in Euripides where it occurs in conjunction with the adjective πατρῷος Alc. 738, Med. 681, Hec. 22. The interpretation of θυμέλη as ‘hearth’ in Rhes. 234 is obvious and a gloss on the line actually gives επὶ τὴν ἐστίαν
39 Troad. 1111; cf. Andr. 593.
40 Aesch., Sept. 1009Google Scholar, fr. 162 W., Soph., O.C. 756Google Scholar, Ant. 839, Trach. 288, 753, Eur., Phoen. 604Google Scholar, Heraeleid. 877, fr. 318 N2.
41 1276 f.
42 Mentioned e.g. in Eur. Troad. 16 f.
43 Eur., Alc. 162Google Scholar ff.
44 Plutarch, , Comm. Hes. 73Google Scholarβωμὸς γὰρ καὶ αὔτη ἠ ἐστὶα τῶν θεῶν καὶ καθημερινῶν θυσιῶν καὶ σπονδῶν ὐποδοχὴ Eustath. p. 1575, 39, Aristid. i. p. 491 (Dind.) cf. Plato, Legg. xii. p. 955Google Scholar E.
45 I.T. 845.
46 For the connexion of the Cyclopes and Mycenae cf. Eur., Orest. 965Google Scholar, H.F. 944 with scholia on the former: Pans. vii. 25.6, Nonnus xli. 268 f., Hesych. s.v. Κυκλώπων ἔδος A possible parallel to this use of Κυκλωπὶς ἐστία Κυκλώπων θυμέλαι for Mycenae is the name of the town Μοψουεσία
47 A comparison of these passages furnishes some further grounds for thinking that Μοψουεσία in the plural may be used of a single object. It must, however, be said that the reading of I. T. 845 given above is due to Hermann. The MSS. have ὦ Κυκλωπίδες ἐστίαί ὦ πατρίς except that L has ἰώ with the ι erased. Hermann's restoration of an iambic trimeter is accepted by Wecklein, Murray, Schneider, and other editors, but a few, such as Paley and Nauck, prefer to adhere to the MSS. and to regard the phrase as a dochmius.
48 Ambo 188 (Friedlaender).
49 The evidence will be found in Roscher's, Lexikon, col. 2633Google Scholar ff.
50 Flor. xliv. 40 (ii. p. 221 Gaisford).
51 Aeschin., p. 228, Harpocrat., and Suidas s.v. βουαία.Google Scholar
52 Suidas s.v. Δέξιος.
53 C.L.G. 2349 b. κ[λη]θῆναι δὲ αὐτοὺς κα[ἰ ἐπὶ] ξενισμὸν α[ἰς ] τὸ [πρυταν] εῖον ἐπὶ τὴν βουλαἰαν ἔστίαν Cf. Appian, Mithrid. 23Google Scholar.
54 Pollux i. 74, x. 20.
55 Artemidorus, Oneirocr. ii. 37Google Scholar.
56 e.g. Hom., η 160Google Scholar, Aesch., Ag. 1587Google Scholar, Thuc. i. 136. and for the κοινὴ ἐστία so used see Plut., Mor. 254Google Scholar b and the implication in the passage quoted immediately below. Cf. also Appian, Mithrid. 23Google Scholar.
57 l. 370 ff.
58 Dr.Frazer, detects in the hearth of the Prytaneum, the hearth of the king's house. See his article in Journ. Phil. xiv. pp. 145 ffGoogle Scholar.
59 l. 721.
60 Hermann suggests φλεόντων which Headlam accepts. For a ‘crowded hearth’ cf. perhaps Aristoph, . fr. 359 K.Google Scholar; but it is not clear that φλεόντων could bear this meaning.
61 Aesch., S.C.T. 631Google Scholar.
62 Soph., O. T. 1268Google Scholar, Eur., Phoen. 62Google Scholar.
63 Ar., Plut. 9Google Scholar. Similarly φλεόντων of drinking vessels; Aesch., fr. 185Google Scholar W., Eur., Ion 1181Google Scholar.
64 I except the gilded βωμοί cariied in Ptolemy Philadelphua's absurd procession, where everything was gold, silver, or gilt (Athen, v. 202 b). These are no evidence for ordinary practice. Herodotus (i. 183) mentions a gold altar at Babylon.
65 Xen., Cyr. viii. 3. 12Google Scholar, Eustath. p. 1575, 42.
66 Also ἐσχάριον Pollux x. 65 and 101, Eustath. p. 1523, 30.
67 Plut., Crass. 16Google Scholar.
68 Cf. Plut., Popl. 17Google Scholar.
69 Cf. Pollux x. 65.
70 B.C.H. xiv. p. 411
71 C.I.G. ii. 2859.
72 Cf. on general grounds Bion i. 88 (ἐκπετάννυμι) and perhaps Pindar, fr. 162Google Scholar(πίτνημι) A possible alternative is to suppose that ἐπίτναιτο means ‘were opened’—like the ουμιατήριον on the British Museum vase E 226.
It is a matter of indifference whether we regard the θυμέλαι and the πῦρ ἐπιβώμιον as belonging to the same or to different rites. According to Antiphanes (fr. 164 K) incense was an invariable adjunct at sacrifices of hecatombs (cf. the r.-f. vase in the British Museum E 269), and the burning of incense by itself was also common (e.g. Eur., Ion. 89Google Scholar f.)
74 Whether there was also a third chamber containing the oracular tripod need not be discussed here as it is irrelevant to my purpose. The existence of an adytum has been denied, so far as I am aware, only by Mr.Oppé, (J.H.S. xxiv. pp. 214Google Scholar ff.) and his arguments appear to me quite inconclusive.
75 x. 24. 4. The temple seen by Pausanias is, it is true, not that known to Euripides (see Dr.Frazer's, note: Pausanias vol. v. pp. 328Google Scholar ff.). I accept, however, Pausanias's statements as evidence for the main features of the earlier temple, since they harmonise on the whole with the earlier evidence, and it is not very likely that the general plan of so celebrated a temple was much modified after the sixth century.
76 See Frazer, , Pausanias, vol. v. pp. 316Google Scholar f.
77 ii. 135.
78 x. 14. 7.
79 11. 1255 ff.
80 Ion 220: of. Andr. 1093.
81 11. 226 ff. It seems to have been part of the duties of a νεωκόρος to see that ritual egulations of this kind were observed (cf. Dittenb., Syll. 2565Google Scholar).
82 Ion. 419 ff.
χρηστήριον πέπτωκε τοῖς ἐπήλυσι κοινὸν πρὸ ναοῦ βούλομαι δ᾿ ἐν ἠμέρᾳ τῇδ᾿ αἰσία γάρ θεοῦ λαβεῖν μαντεύματα
83 The πέλανος is mentioned again in 1. 706 and perhaps alluded to in 1. 402.
84 Eur., Andr. 1085Google Scholar ff.
85 Ib. 1111 ff. ἔρχεται δ᾿ ἀνακτόρων κρηπ ἰδος ἐντός ὠς πάρος χρηστηρἶων εὐξαιτο Φοίβῳ τυγχάνει δ᾿ ἐν ἐμπύροις τῷ δὲ ξιφήρης κ.τ.λ
86 At this preliminary rite omens were drawn from the behaviour of the victims when sprinkled with water as to whether the day was favourable for consultation (Plut., Mor. 437Google Scholar a and 438 a). Hence the presence of μάντεις Plutarch speaks of those performing this rite as προθυὄμενοι and we know from a Delphian in scription that the πρὁξενοι were specially concerned with τὸν προθύσοντα (Dittenb., Syll. 2484Google Scholar, Collitz, , G.D.I. 2645Google Scholar).
87 ll. 233 f.
88 Robert's statement that μυχὸς δόμων is a synonym of θυμέλη can only be true if πέλανος is a synonym of μῆλα—a corollary from which he would probably shrink.
89 Aesch., Eum. 40Google Scholar and 282.
90 H.H. xxiv. 1 f.
91 ἐστία Aesch., Choeph. 1036Google Scholar, Eum. 282, Soph., O.T. 965Google Scholar, O.C. 413, Eur., Andr. 1067Google Scholar, Ion 462. ἐσχάρα Eur., Andr. 1240Google Scholar, Suppl. 1200, Phoen. 284; cf. also Aelian, V.H. vi. 9Google Scholar, Diodorus, xvi. 56. 7. Euripides, in the Andromache, speaks of Neoptolemus as killed at a βωμός or βωμοῦ δεξίμηλος ἐσχάρα (11. 1123, 1138, 1156), which might be the hearth or an altar by the hearth. Pausanias also in another place speaks of Neoptolemus being killed on an altar (iv. 17. 4). The hearth appears to have contained an undying fire (Frazer, , Pausanias, vol. v. 351Google Scholar), so that sacrifices may well have been performed on an altar close by rather than on the hearth itself. Or the thing may have been a hearth with βάθρα (cf. Soph., Aj. 860Google Scholar, Eur., H.F. 715Google Scholar) resembling an altar, or a real altar replacing and retaining the name of an earlier hearth. The coins of Mopsviestia suggest that a ‘hearth’ was sometimes a brazier on low feet (B. M. C Cilicia, Pl XVIII. 2, 5, 7. cf. Anth. Pal. vi. 101, 4 f. and the hearth on the Polyxena amphora: J.H.S. xviii. Pl XV), and I seem to detect a similar object on late Delphian coins (B.C.H. xx. PL XXVII. 2 and 9). This, however, is not the view of Svoronos, who publishes the coins; and in any case the actual nature of the hearth is of no great importance for our present purpose.
92 1. 114 f. The preposition is rather odd, but cf., e.g., Soph., Aj. 754Google Scholar. Robert again, on the ground that Ion, still addressing his broom, says six lines below, ᾆ σαίρω δάπεδον θεοῦ assumes that δάπεδον like μυχὸς δόμων is a synonym of θυμέλη But to be swept with the same broom does not constitute identity.
93 1. 156.
94 1. 161 f.
95 1. 172.
96 Justin, xxiv. 8. 4 per culminis aperta fastigia.
97 1. 1197 f. cf. Diodorus, xvi. 27. 2.
98 1. 157.
99 1. 46.
100 1. 34.
101 1. 38.
102 1. 42.
103 l. 45. cf. 1. 1366: ἐς τούσδε ναοὺς ἐξέθηκε παρθένος
104 1. 48.
105 The Ion of Euripides, p. xxxvi.
106 The mention of the hearth here is the more appropriate in view of the importance of the hearth in the recognition ceremonies ἀμφιδρόμια after the birth of a child to a human father.
107 Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, xiv. p. 397.
108 Phoen. 274.
109 Andr. 1138; cf. Soph. fr. 35 N2, and see Pauly-Wissowa, i. col. 1667.
110 ii. 27. 3.
111 On this building see Cavvadias, , Fouilles d'Ėpidaurc, pp. 13Google Scholar ff., Τὸ ῾ Ιερὸν τοῦ ᾿ Ασκληπιοῦ ἐν Επιδαύρῳ pp. 48 ff., Frazer, , Paus. vol. iii. p. 245Google Scholar. No satisfactory explanation has yet been given of the curious labyrinthine foundation-walls of the building, nor have I any to offer.
112 Cavvadias, , Fouilles, p. 93Google Scholar, No. 242.
113 Robert maintains, however, that the whole building is not called θυμέλη but that this word refers only to its foundations, and that the Thymelopoei formed a separate commission, whose activities were confined to the foundations. This hypothesis, however, is both improbable in itself and inconsistent with the evidence supplied by the inscription. Moreover we have seen in previous instances that the interpretation of θυμέλη as ‘foundation’ and the supposed connexion with θεμέλιον can not be maintained.
114 On the altar, see Cavvadias, , Fouilles, p. 10Google Scholar, ᾿´ Ιερον p. 47.
115 ad Aen. ix. 408.
116 Fasti, vi. 282, 296.
117 Journal of Philology, xiv. pp. 148 ff.
118 Θύλος οἶκος περιφεφὴς ἐν ᾦ οἰ πρυτάνεισ εἰστιῶντο πρυτανεῖον δέ τι ἰδίως ὠνόμασται ἔπει πυρῶν ἦν ταμιεῖον
119 Frazer, l.c.
120 i. 5. 1. Cf. Arist, . Pol. p. 1322Google Scholar b 28.
121 Hymn. Hom. xxix. 4 ff. Cf. also the proverbial phrase ἀφ᾿ ἐστίας ἄρχεσθαι on which see Roscher, coll. 2614 ff.
122 The reason why this deputy-prytaneum at Athens was round in shape cannot be settled with certainty, but there is a good deal to be said for Dr. Frazer's view that it was so merely because the prytaneum itself was round. Cf. Suidas, πρυτανεῖον θεσμοθέτιον θόλοσ
123 viii. 9. 5.
124 B.C.H. xiv. p. 261. Objections have been raised to the identifieation on the ground that Pausanias says the hearth was ‘not far from the theatre.’ As the round building in question is only 110 yards from the theatre, I cannot see that this would be any ground for rejecting the identification, even were Pausanias a very precise topographer (see however the notes of Frazer and Hitzig and Bluemner, at Paus. viii. 9. 5).
125 Bekk. An. p. 256, 32. Cf. Cornutus, Epidr. 28Google Scholar.
126 Paus. ii. 26. 2. cf. however Strabo viii. p. 374.
127 Mr.Hill, G. F. kindly calls my attention to an article by Svoronos dealing with the building at Epidaurus (Die Polykletische ‘Tholos’ in EpidauTos: Journ. Internat. d'Arehéol. Numismat. vol. iv. pp. 1Google Scholar ff.). Svoronos regards the mysterious labyrinthine substructure of the θόλοσ as a tomb—probably of Asclepius himself: he wishes also to recognise the θόλοσ on certain Epidaurian coins of the second century A.D., which show apparently a round building containing a female statue (identified by Svoronos as Hygiaea). Svoronos can hardly be said to establish these hypotheses, and I will merely observe that neither of them is incompatible with the view expressed above. The presence of a statue is not out of place if the building was the public hearth (cf. paus. i. v. 1, i. xviii. 3; Pindar, , Nem xi. 4Google Scholar), and, according to Pansanias, the at Mantinea was a tomb. For a historical instance of bur al at a hearth see Plut., Phoc. 37Google Scholar (a reference I owe to the kindness of Miss Harrison).
128 So also Haigh, , Attic Theatre 3, p. 142Google Scholar, n. 2.
129 Ορχήστρα = ‘stage’ in Suid. s.v. σκηνή Schol. Ar. Eg. 505, Isidor. Or. xviii. 44. Σκηνή also has a variety of meanings.
130 Pollux, vi. 90, x. 101, Schol. Ar. Equ. 152.
131 Cf Müller, , Griech. Bühnenalt. p. 133Google Scholar2.
132 ii. 3. 16. Cf. the spurious epigram of Alcibiades on Eup lis quoted by Tzetzes, (Proem. Aristoph. p. 114Google Scholar K.) and others.
133 s. v. Γλυκερῷ Σιδωνίῳ
134 Galba, 14. Cf. Suidas, , θυμέλη· ἡ αὐλητική. Strabo x. p. 468Google Scholar.
135 Hesych. s.vv. θυμέλαι and θυμέλη Schol. Lucian, de Salt. 76Google Scholar (ed. Lehm. v. p. 327); Cramer, , Anecd. ii. p. 449Google Scholar., Phot. Lex. s.v. θυμέλον
136 It is maintained by some (e.g. Robert, Bethe, and Smyth) that in Pratinas fr. i, the word already has the meaning ‘orchestra.’ Pratinas is protesting against the growing licence allowed to the flute accompaniment of choral songs and says:
τίς ὔβρις ἔμολεν ἐπὶ Διονυσιάδα πολυπάταγα θυμέλαν
The impression that θυμέλη here means ‘orchestra’ arises from connecting πολ υπάταγα with πατάσσειν (so L. and S., ‘much-trodden.’) It really belongs to παταγεῖν as is shown by the following verse:
ἐμὸς ἐμὸς ὀ Βρόμιος ἐμε δεῖ κελαδεῖν ἐμὲ δεῖ παταγεῖν
137 Farnell, , Cults vol. v. pp. 225Google Scholar f., Mommsen, A., Feste d. Stadt Athen., pp. 436Google Scholar ff. Haigh, , Attic Theatre 3, pp. 8Google Scholar ff.
138 I. G. ii. 470.
139 I.G. ii. 471.
140 ii. 3. 16.
141 In the time of Pratinas it may well have been an actual hearth.
142 Further traces of this hearth of Dionysus may perhaps be looked for in the words περίστια and περιστίαρχοι—the preliminary rite of purification and the officials who performed it in the thatre and the assembly Ar., Eccl. 128Google Scholar and schol., Pollux viii. 104, Suidas s.v. καθάρσιον Photius Lex. s.v. περιστίαρχοσ). The name may however be derived from the hearth in the Prytaneum or council chamber.
As to the hearth as a scene of diamatic and choral performances, Mr. A. B. Cook kindly calls my attention to a representation of nymphs dancing round a hearth, on the coins of Apollonia, (B.M.C. Thessaly pl. XII. 13 and 14)Google Scholar: one is reminded also of the health-like basis on which musicians stand on vases (e.q. on the amphora by Andocides and the crater by Euphronius in the Louvre. Furtwaengler-Reichhold, Taff. 93 and 111).
The occurrence of ‘hearths’ in Olympian cults is not confined to Dionysus; Apollo, as we have seen, had a hearth at Delphi, Hermes had one at Pharae (Paus. vii. 22. 2), Poseidon at Agrae, (Bekk. An. p. 327, 1)Google Scholar, Zeus at Harma (Strabo ix. 404), and perhaps at Dodona, (see Cl. Rev. xvii. p. 183Google Scholar, and, on the whole subject, Pauly-Wissowa vi. col. 614). Their significance need not be discussed here. An explanation of the hearth of Dionysus has already been put forward by Prof.Ridgeway, (C.R. 1912, p. 1381Google Scholar) and Miss Harrison tells me that she will deal with the subject in a forthcoming paper.