this respect. The priesthood of the others was probably a mere honourable sinecure, a sort of honorary canonry in the temple-chapter, procuring for them a certain consideration m the eyes of their fellow-citizens, but no more necessarily connected with the performance of religious duties than a "courtesy title" in England with the functions of the legislature.
Again, the different sacerdotal families in the various states of Greece at no time constituted a collective national priesthood. Greek religion was, in fact, not so much an organised system as an aggregate of separate systems in a loose permissive communion. Between tribes of the same stock there was, however, more approach to uniformity of religious belief and ritual; and in these, accordingly, the several priesthoods were drawn into some sort of informal intercourse and connection. And when, as often happened, a state desired to incorporate into its own religion some part of a neighbour's ritual, some members of the priesthood attached to this were usually invited over to introduce and maintain it in its new home. Such persons and their descendants thenceforward enjoyed a distinguished and often lucrative position in their adopted state. And thus in Grecian history we meet with frequent instances of a sacerdotal family widely dispersed among the different nations of a common stock, retaining wherever they went their original family name, meeting from time to time at the altar of their original "cultus," and cherishing by mutual intercourse the memory of their common descent.
Such a family were the Iamids, hereditary priests
