Scanned text contains errors.
and the apotheosis of <j>rjfj,i) from the point of view of kledonism, we must be a little careful. It is clear from the Aristides passage and the implications of Pausanias that the deified /eX-qSwe? might be consulted after the same kind of kleromantic fashion as the Hermes of Pharai. But it must not be forgotten that there is another element which has entered to confuse the issue, and it is in reality the 0eov opty. In the article to which we have already referred, M. Holleaux makes the distinction of these elements admirably clear.1 K\t)Sa>v and 4>rjfj,r) can really mean two different things, whose connection is at the same time so close that they are consistently confused. From the sovereignty of the gods over omens comes the idea of the deov o/w/"?. which is not only the fatality of a chance utterance heard under circumstances which permit the hearer to turn it to account, but also the direct utterance of the god.2 It may be, as in the case of
1 Holleaux, of. cit. p. 196. The Scholiast on Sophokles, Elektra 1 1 10, is puzzled by the confusion of these two elements and awkwardly remarks, #<r<ra, <V0i)> Kal KXtiSwr iSyyeXoi twi> Beuv Kal (irl tov airrov ^ Kai tiri ttjs 0eias KXijSovos Kal eirl ttjs avftpiairivTis
2 The story of Kleomenes I. and the priestess of Athena shows how easy the confusion is in practice. The 0^/117 or K\qdwv, which Kleomenes refuses to accept, is at once an 6fuf><?i in the sense that it is the utterance of the official representative of the goddess, while it is