Religious Authority in Archaic and Classical Athens

Religious Authority in Archaic and Classical Athens Author(s): R. S. J. Garland Source: The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 79 (1984), pp. 75-123 Published by: British School at Athens Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30103051 . Accessed: 12/01/2011 11:19 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsa. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Annual of the British School at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY IN ARCHAIC CLASSICAL ATHENS

AND

PREFACE*

IT is exactly one hundred years since Martha published LesSacerdoces one of the earliest atheniens, studies in Greek history to incorporate epigraphical data. Since then a number of monographs on individual cults and priesthoodshave appeared, but there has been little attempt to arrive at a general synthesis. Most attention has been paid to Asklepios and to the Eleusinian cult of Demeter and Kore, the fullest examination being Clinton's The SacredOfficialsof theEleusinian Mysteries(1974), to which my own study is greatly indebted. However, this article is not about priests as such, nor even priestly authority, but about what I have chosen to designate religious authority. It is an investigation about who has the right in the Athenian state to act authoritatively both in the name of, and in mattersof, religion. Manifestly that right was not confined to the priesthood, which, as even a superficial examination reveals, was signally and markedly unauthoritative. Religious authority in archaic and classical Athens was not in fact the preserveof any single social or political class, caste, or milieu. Its essence was complex and it had many sources and outlets.Just as Vernant, therefore,has emphasized the necessityof studying the Greekpantheon as a system rather than as a number of individual deities in isolation, so in the case of religious authority, we need to think in terms of a relationship between a variety of associations which demonstrate a close interdependence. These associations (for want of a better word) are the following: the priests, the demos, the magistrates,oracular authority proceeding primarilyfrom and exegetai,and finally the religious Apollo, the religious experts such as chresmologoi/manteis assistants with chiefly administrative duties, the epimeletai,epistatai,and so forth. Whether religious authority as such was a stressed feature in the state is less the problem with which I am concerned than how to establish a formulation for the interrelationship between these associations. It is, however, worth emphasizing at the outset that Greek religion was not intrinsicallyamenable to the growth of religious authority, possessingfew weapons of repression or persecution. There was little dogma, no catechism, no sacrament, no confessional, no ecclesiastical hierarchy, and no sacred court of law. Eusebeiawas essentially the observance of traditional usage and thereby ultimately reducible, as Euthyphro indicates in Plato's dialogue of that name, to a barter arrangement between divinity and suppliant. The study includes a selective catalogue of Athenian priests and other religious officials (pp. 83 ff.). PRIESTS

The competence of the Greek priest extended no further than the enclosure wall of his sanctuary. He had no religious authority either elsewherein Athens or in relation to any sacred * The idea of investigating the concept of 'Religious Authority' was suggested to me by the section entitled 'Politics and Religion' in Sally Humphreys, Anthropology and the Greeks (1978), pp. 254-7. The most important work on the paper was carried out during a visit to the British School in the summer of 1982, and I should like to record here my thanksin particularto Dr. Roger Just, Hilary Arafeh, Helen Hatcher, and Rosemary

Robertson for their advice and encouragement.The conclusions were written after a most fruitful discussion with Professor Arnaldo Momigliano. I am especially grateful to Professor Richard Tomlinson for his helpful suggestions, in particular regarding gentile priesthoods and the origin of the Salaminioi. For the views expressedthroughout, however, the responsibility is mine alone.

76

R. S. J. GARLAND

ritual other than that which had to do with the particular god or goddess whom he individually served. His duties within his sanctuarywere liturgical and administrative.Liturgically it was his task to ensure that correct cultic procedure was at all times rigidly adhered to, particularly in regard to sacrifices,judged by Martha, 55, to be 'la principale attribution du sacerdoce'. To quote the stranger in Plato, Plt. 290 C, priests 'understand how to offer our gifts to the gods in sacrifices in a manner pleasing to them, and they know, too, the right forms of prayer for petitioning the gods to bestow blessings on their worshippers'. Sacrifices were either regular (TrdrpLot Ovrlau)or irregular (Ovala' KaTa kt'Utar7a).An example of the latter was the propitiatory sacrifice performed by the priestess of Athene (Nike?) before repair work could begin on the goddess'sdamaged statue.' Thus commonly public approbation was accorded to a priest for having 'well and zealously' carried out the official sacrifices.2Originally he performed the whole ceremony himself.3By the classicalperiod, however, he merely dedicated the forelock, delivered a formal incantation, and arranged the victim's parts on the altar in a ritualistic manner, leaving the sacrificeitself to be performedby an assistant.4A priest'sright to inaugurate sacrifices was frequently guaranteed by law.5 In addition, rites of purification required the presence of the priest."A further duty was to offer prayers on behalf of the city's safety and to utter imprecations against its enemies, though never except under instruction.7 In the administrativesphere he served as temple overseerwith responsibilityfor the care and upkeep of the sanctuary, a role not unlike that of the dean of a modern cathedral. An inscription requiring the hippeis,hoplites, and archersto pay tax proportionateto their property holdings to the cult of Apollo stipulates that the money so collected should be utilized by the priest and the treasurer exclusively for this end.8 The priest also had the task of ensuring that visitors to his sanctuary were orderly and well-behaved, being empowered to pass by-laws and exact light fines on miscreants.9Recurrent problems with which he had to deal included trespassinglivestock and the cutting down of sacred trees.10As in the case of all other parts of Greece, no birth or death was permitted to take place in the sanctuary."1Security arrangementswere no doubt tightest on the Acropolisitself, their maintenance being the direct responsibilityof the priesthoodsconcerned.12 Until c. 450 the priestwas in charge of all the temple treasures.He had to keep an inventory of all the offeringsof suppliants, report any loss or damage which occurred, and, in the event of overcrowding, authorize the removal of individual items. At the end of his period of tenure, he had to provide his successorwith a full account of all the treasuresand gifts within his charge.'3 The priest acted not only as protectorbut also as guardian of the god's property. Hence in 352, on the occasion of a dispute involving the cultivation of land regarded as sacred to the Eleusinian the right to goddesses, the Megarians and Athenians ceded to the hierophant and dadouchos determine its boundaries.14If the god or goddess possesseda cult statue, its care was in the hands of the priest. The most venerable of all, the old wooden statue of Athene Polias, was annually taken down to the Peiraieusunder the supervisionof its priestessto be purified in salt water and afterwardsprovided with fresh raiment.15Though it does not appear to have been part of their official duties, priests acted as a repository for the mythological lore connected with their 1 LSG35. 16-20 dated 350-320. e.g. IG ii2 163 honouring a priest of Asklepios. 3 Hornm. II.iii. 271 ff. and xix. 252. 4 Ar. Birds862 f.; Aeschin. 3. 18; Herond. iv. 79 f. 5 e.g. LSG36 (Peiraieus,4th c.) with Sokolowski'srefs.ad loc. 6 LSG 36. 5. 7 For priests ordered to pray, cf. SIG3581 = Inscr.Cr. 3, pp. 31-6, no. 3a; SIG3 1003 = LSA 37. For priests ordered to curse, see below, p. 77. 8 See Schlaifer 235 f. 2

9 Hdt. v. 72; vi. 81. 10 Paus.ii. 28. 7. 11 SeeBarrettad 1437-9. 12 A fragmentary inscriptiondated c. 450 refersto archers to theAcropolisin orderto prevent stationedon theapproaches runawayslavesfromgainingasylumin thesanctuaryor thieves fromlootingit (IGi244). Laterin thecenturyThucydides(ii. 17. I) reportsthatthe citadelcouldbe securelyclosed. 14 IGii2 204. 13 SeeWalton(1894)p. 46. 15 See Deubner, pp. 17-22;

Eur. IT I99.

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

77

sanctuaries.Pausaniasoften availed himselfof their knowledge in the courseof his travelsand for furtherinformation regarding the sites he visited urged his readersto do the same (e.g. i. 22. 3). The sphere of religious activity of the Greek priest was on the whole less interesting than the constraints and limitations to which his office was subject. These are discussed in detail below (pp. 78 f.), but it may be noted here that the demos exercisedfull legal control over the activity of the priesthood, punishing severely any irregularitiesin the conduct of ancestral rites. In view of the essentially formal nature of the office it is not therefore surprising to discover that a priesthood neither debarred a man from holding political office, nor, conversely, assistedhim in the furtherance of a career. There are several examples to illustrate this: Kallias, a dadouchos, fought at the battle of Marathon and took part in the embassy of 449/8 to Artaxerxes which resultedin the alleged Peace of that year; his son Hipponikos, also possibly a dadouchos, served as for the a of was a active as from strategos year 426/5; Demon, priest Asklepios, 335 to politician and a of Poseidon was director of in the Athens' finances Erechtheus, 323; Lykourgos, priest So far as we in none of these instances did the fact of a increase or know, 330s. being priest enhance the political prestige of the persons concerned. Conversely, only exceptionally did a member of the priesthood quapriest involve himself (or herself) in Athenian politics. A rare instance of interference was in 480 when the priestess of Athene Polias announced that the sacred snake of Athene had already departed from the Acropolis, thereby lending support to Themistokles' proposal to evacuate the city in the face of the Persian advance (Hdt. viii. 41). An obvious reason why the Greek priest posed no threat to the legal or political authority of the Athenian demos was that he lacked the power to introduce any changes into the religious ritual over which he presided.An exception to this rule is Euthydemos, a priest of Asklepios,who in a decree dated to the early fourth century is twice credited with the activity of exegesisor expounding on sacred matters.6"Exegesisbeing the preserve and raisond'Itreof exegetai, it is possible, however, that Euthydemos was both priest and exegetes,and only in this latter capacity (i.e. not as priest) occupied himself with improving the ritual of the cult of Asklepios.17A rare challenge to the state's authority came in 415 from a priestess named Theano, who probably served the cult of Demeter and Kore and who refusedto curse Alkibiades for his alleged parody of the Mysterieswhen ordered to do so by the demos.18s Aside from Theano's independent spirit, the incident only serves to underline the powerlessnessand overall lack of initiative of even the high-ranking Eleusinian priesthood. Though directly affronted by the blasphemous practices allegedly carried out in the house of Pylition, none of them initiated a suit of asebeiaor uttered a spontaneous imprecation. Instead they cursed only with the expressauthority and at the direct prompting of the state. As Clinton, SOEM 16, remarked, had they acted independently, the uttering of such a curse 'might have been, like a papal interdict, a sourceof considerablepolitical power'.19A further minor challenge to the state came seven years later when the hierophant Theodoros, on the basis of a legal quibble, refused to rescind his curse against Alkibiades at the insistenceof the demos, which now favouredhis return.20In the context of the presentdiscussion, it is, however, interesting to note that opposition to Alkibiades' return on the part of the Eleusinian priesthood did nothing to delay it.21

In the archaic period all priesthoodswere gentile; that is to say, they were reservedfor mem-

bers of specific gene. Potentially the most powerful priestly genos was that of the Eteoboutadai, from whose ranks were elected not only the top-ranking priestess of Athene Polias but also the almost equally venerable priest of Poseidon Erechtheus. Even here, however, the opportunity for 16

IG ii2 47. 26, 29 (found in the Peiraieus). Feaver, p. 15I. 18 Plu. Alk. 22.

1" See

19 Other instances of priests being ordered to curse are Livy xxxi. 44. 6 and Pol. xvi. 31. 7. 20 Plu.Alk.33. 21 Thuc. viii. 53. 2.

R. S. J. GARLAND

78

consolidated religious authority within a priestly caste or class was not exploited, in that the two priesthoodswere reservedin distinct branches of the genos--brancheswhich, so far as we know, never intermarried.22Whether this fact reflects a deliberately separatist policy on the part of the Eteoboutadai themselves and/or the Athenian state, or whether it is the accidental product of endemic rivalry between two rival branches of the genoscannot be determined. As already noted, there is not the least evidence for the existence of an ecclesiastical hierarchy, though a priorithe prestige attaching to individual priesthoodsis likely to have varied in proportion to the importance of the cults which they served. When Kleisthenes carried out his reformsat the end of the sixth century, it is a significantfact that he did not interferewith the gentile priesthoods.As Aristotle states, 'he allowed the gene,the phratries and the priesthoods to operate in accordance with ancestral lore (Ka-dT '.23 7d 7rT'rpta) We may detect a religious as well as a political motive behind this policy, the religious motive being the natural Greek conservatismin matters relating to the gods.24The political motive had more far-reaching consequences, for, as Feaver, p. 135, pointed out, Kleisthenes' 'hands-off' policy towards the gentile priesthoods had the effect of depriving them in the long term of any continuing political power. As he puts it, 'We can be sure that any subsequent involvement of the priesthoods in political matters was effectively checked by the insulation of the ancient priesthoods from the working units of the Athenian constitution. From now on, any influence possessed by a priesthood would depend on the relative popularity of the cult, not on its constitutional prestige.' As Feaver further argues, the rash of sacerdotal litigation in the fourth century is perhaps evidence of the decline in status of gentile priesthoods in this period.25 THE

DEMOS

The impotence of the priesthood contrasts sharply with the power of the demos, whose religious authority accumulated steadily as time passed. This authority was threefoldin nature. Firstly, it was the demos alone which had the power to initiate. It sanctioned the inclusion of a new foreign deity among the official state cults, laid down regulations regarding the appointment of each new priest or priestess,and authorized the building of new temples or the renovation of old. The demos had the authority to instigate or revive novel or defunct cultic procedure, as it did in c. 422 when it laid down regulations for a sacrifice of first-fruitsto the Eleusinian goddesses.26With regard to the same decree, it is interesting to note that while the form of the sacrifice required the sanction of religious experts appointed from the genosof the The Eumolpidai, its overall charge was put in the hands of state appointees known as hieropoioi. demos empowered officialsto delimit temple precinctsand to take responsibilityfor their proper maintenance. A rider to this decree proposed by the chresmologos/mantis Lampon instructed the basileus'to mark out the sanctuariesin the Pelargikon, prevent the erection of unauthorized altars there, and stop the removal of stones or earth therefrom'.27At least in regard to the major sanctuaries the demos was scrupulously attentive to detail. A decree dated to 485/4 which was found on the Acropolis prohibits the setting-up of pots, the lighting of fires, the slaughtering of 22 See Davies, p. 349, who refers to 'the curious lack of rapport between the two Eteoboutad lines of descent', no doubt accentuated, as he points out, in 508 when they become geographically separate as a result of the reforms of Kleisthenes. 23 AP 21. 6. For refs. to Kaia 7ra rTTpLa in bothliterature and inscriptions see Ostwald 28 n. 22. The phrase occurs very frequently in a religious context.

24 As Martha, pp. I7 f., puts it, 'II y a entre le dieu et son y4vos une alliance indissoluble, qui nous fait penser A l'alliance de J6hovah et d'Abraham. Quand la volont6 d'un dieu s'est clairement manifest6e,iront-ils donc la contrarier?' 25 Cf. Din. ii. 12 (T); Lykourg. frr. 4, 5, 6 (Bud6). 26 IG i2 76 = GHIi2 73. 27 IG i2 76. 54-9. For Lampon see below, p. 82.

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

79

animals, or 'the chucking around of dung anywhere in the Hekatompedon', laying down precise fines for each offence.28 Secondly, the demos exercised overriding authority in all matters which had to do with the financing of state cults. It fixed the emoluments to which the individual priests and priestesses were entitled, and, at least in the case of the priestessofAthene Nike, authorized the payment of a salary or honorarium.29The demos raised subsidies on behalf of certain state cults by direct taxation. The full quota of cults which were funded in this way is not known, but information exists regarding at least five (Schlaifer, p. 241). It was the demos and not the Eleusinian priesthood which established the tariff of charges to be paid to individual religious officials by each initiate at both the Greaterand LesserMysteries. Most importantly, the state had effective control over the use of wealth invested in public cults, which, though theoretically belonging to the individual deity concerned, in practice became regarded as state property in times of national crisis.Thus Periklesincluded among the resourcesaccruing to Athens on the eve of the outbreak of the PeloponnesianWar not only the temple treasuresbut also the gold placed on the cult statue of Athene Promachos.30A marked increase in state interference in the finances of public cults is detectable in the second half of the fifth century. From then on responsibility for checking both the revenue and the expenditure of public cults passed increasingly into the hands of religious officials known variously as epimeletai,epistatai,and hieropoioi,who were answerable directly to the Athenian demos. In particular, the decision to retain the treasure of the Eleusinian goddesses on the Acropolis for safe-keepingfrom c. 460 onwards representsa dramatic and far-reachingmove towards greater control of cult finance.31Finally, both gentile and democratic priestswere subject to a financial audit at the expiry of their term of office. In the event of any malpractice on the part of the holder of a gentile priesthood, the state held not only the individual but also the whole genosaccountable.32 The third sphere in which the state exercised religious authority had to do with the prosecutionof crimesof a religious nature. There were four categoriesof offences:misconduct in connection with certain religious festivals, theft of temple property, asebeia,and atheism. At least by 347/6, when Demosthenes wrote his speech AgainstMeidiasthere existed a procedure known as rrpopoA'('placing forward', sc. in the ekklesia) for offences committed at the Great Dionysia, the Dionysia at Peiraieus, the Lenaia, the Thargelia, the Eleusinian Mysteries, and possibly other festivals as well.33The prosecutor and the defendant both made a speech in the ekklesia, which subsequently voted for and against. The 7TpopfloAitself, however, did not constitute a formal trial. It was only a preliminaryhearing. If on the strengthof the unofficialverdict the prosecutor decided to institute proceedings, these had to be conducted in the court of the Much more serious than misconduct at festivals was the theft of temple property, thesmothetai.34 which in extreme cases (known as "EpoavAla) carried the death penalty, confiscationof property, and prohibition of burial within the bordersof Attica.35Asebeiawas an offence of a more general nature. Whether there existed any precise legal definition ofasebeiain Attic law is uncertain, but broadly speaking it seems to have covered any offence against religious custom (Humphreys I88). It is significant and revealing that the charge ofasebeiacould be brought against the clergy as well as the laity. The hierophant Archias was condemned and executed for illegally 28

IGi2 4. Theprohibitionin lines14f. is obscure ( I S ESholrvE

LSJ9 render 'bake in an oven'. [tEaOaL]). 29 IGi2 24. 30

Thuc. ii. 13-

3-5-

31 SEG x. 6, Face C, 15-21. 32 33

Aeschin. iii. I8. Dem. xxi. 8 II, 147, 175-

See further Macdowell, LCA,pp. 194-7Xen. Hell. i. 7. 22; Mem. i. 2. 62; Isok. xx. 6. It is possible that lepoavMaconstituted part of the charge which was brought against the sculptor Pheidias in 438/7, though the precisedetails of his alleged offence are not sufficiently understood (Plu. Per. 3'; PhilochorosFGrH 328 F 12 D.S. xii. 39. 1-2). 34

36

80

R. S. J. GARLAND

performinga sacrifice at the festival of Haloa.36Finally, the decree of Diopeithes, passed some time in the 430s, laid down that those who denied the existence of the gods or who gave the lessonsin astronomywere subject to prosecution.How long Diopeithes' decree remained in force is not known, but it is likely that it had lapsed by 403 at the latest when Nikomachos completed reinscribingthe law code, since the charge of atheism which was brought against Socratesin 399 took the technical form of a graphefor asebeia.37 MAGISTRATES

It is likely that the authority of the annually elected magistrates, who supervised the major festivals and sacrifices,was of an essentially executive rather than religious nature. The single exception was the archonbasileus,the chief cult officer in the state, who was in origin a religious official, being heir of the religious position of the king, and to whose person, almost certainly, some sanctity attached. ORACLES

Plato in his description of the ideal state puts all legislation in matters of religion under the general supervisionof Apollo. He writes: 'For Apollo of Delphi there remain the chief, the first, and the fairestof enactments. ... The founding of temples, sacrificesand other forms of worship belonging to gods, daimones and heroes; also the burial of the dead and any [OEparrcEaL]

observanceswhich are necessary to keep those over there [i.e. the dead] propitious. For we do not ourselvesknow about these matters, and so, if we have any sense, when founding our city, we shall entrust them to no-one nor make use of any exegetes other than him who is the god of our fathers. For he is the interpreter of the religion of our fathers [7r6Tptoso ',,yr'r~]

who explains

things to all men from his seat at the navel of the earth.'38Such a claim would not have shocked Plato's readers. The authority of the state to dictate on what day, under the auspices of which magistrate, and in accordance with what set of regulations a new sacrifice was to be performed or a new cult to be introduced was invariably based on instructions received from an oracle.39 Hierokles demands of In Aristophanes, Peace, Io88, for instance, the chresmologos/mantis those burn a what oracle did is sacrifice: who thigh-pieces to the you 'By Trygaios, performing state archives and could the were or oracular preservedamong gods?'MaV'ear pronouncements breached.40 Even the had been be produced at a trial as evidence that the rrTrpLos vC4os Eleusinian Mysteries were not exempt from oracular control, as is revealed in the case of the sacrifice to the goddessesmade from the collection of first-fruits,which had to be carried out 'in and the oracle at Delphi'.41In c. 430, when Delphi was inaccessible accordance with rd r6rTpta because of hostilities during the Peloponnesian War, the oracle of Zeus at Dodona was almost certainly consulted regarding the inauguration of a public cult to the goddess Bendis (see s.v.). Exceptionally an oracle could nominate a priest as happened in the case of Demon, priest of Asklepios in c. 350.

Firm evidence for the influence of Delphi at Athens first dates from around the time of Kleisthenes, when the Pythia was entrusted with the task of selecting the ten eponymous heroes

of the new tribes from a list of one hundred Attic archegetai.42It is possible, however, that relations between Athens and Delphi go back much further. Nilsson, PT-R 366, detected 36 Ps.-Dem. lix. 116. 37 Pl. Apol.24 B; D.L. ii. 40. 38 Rep.iv. 427 b, cf. Lawsvi. 759 c. 39 As Martha, p. 6o, definitively states: 'La cite ne prenait

jamais aucune initiative religieuse avant d'avoir sollicite la decision d'un oracle.' 40 Cf. Dem. xxi. 52 f. and xliii. 66. 42 Arist.AP 2 6. 41 IGi2 76.4 f. = GHIi2 73.

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

81

Apollo's influence behind the setting up of the Attic calendar, a system which may derive from the first half of the seventh century, since not one of the twelve months is named after a festival held in honour of the patron goddess Athene. Apollo was consulted in times of national crisis,in particular in matters involving pollution. Thus, for instance, when the city needed purification after the slaughter of Kylon's associates,Athens consulted Delphi. Significantly, however, there are indications that the man who performedthe purification, Epimenides of Crete, was not an official emissaryof Delphi, but a nominee of the Athenian state (Parkeand Wormell, i, p. I). Athens is reported to have suffered a further outbreak of plague after the killing of a priest of Cybele, which again was only averted by following advice receivedfrom Delphi. Apollo's overall responsibility where pollution is concerned is conclusively demonstrated by the fact that the exegetes(s.v.) who gave advice about purificationwas directly appointed by Delphi, pythochrestos a short list of candidates submitted by the demos. There is, however, no reason to from probably assume that chresmologoi/manteis were Delphic nominees. Oracular authority, though extensive, was not unlimited. The ultimate safeguard against excessive interference in the affairs of other states lay in the fact that an oracle could not be profferedunlessfirstrequested.At least such seems to have been the case until the very end of the period under study. The verb avroLar(cow,which, as Parke (1962), p. 145, notes, means 'to speak

a prophecy without (or before) being questioned' and hence 'to prophesy spontaneously' first occurs in regard to a prophetic ill-omen uttered shortly prior to Philip II's death in 336.43No other instance of a spontaneous prophecy securely predates the Hellenistic period. Apollo was, moreover, careful to avoid posing as a threat to the legal authority of the state. His attitude is iv. 3. 16: 'You know that epitomized in a remarkascribedto Sokratesin Xenophon, Memorabilia the god of Delphi, whenever anyone asks him, "How can I show my gratitude to the gods?", replies, "In accordance with state law."' As already noted, Delphi was not the only oracle consulted by the Athenians. When it became virtually impossible to reach Delphi from Athens during the Peloponnesian War, the oracles of Zeus at Ammon and at Dodona were consulted instead. It is likely that in the fourth century Delphi's influence was considerably reduced. The destruction of the temple by a landslide in 373 brought about a serious decline, if not total suspension,in oracular business.44The Third Sacred War (356-46) was equally disruptive, the only recorded instance of a consultation by the Athenians dating to 352/I, when they inquired whether the sacred land at Eleusis should be left untilled.45 To conclude, oracular authority was limited by the following factors: firstly there were a number of independent sources of oracular authority, including not only shrines but also seers (discussedbelow); secondly, an oracle was only supplied upon request;and thirdly, the practical details about how to implement its recommendationswere left entirely under state control. MANTEIS CHRESMOLOGOI/

are frequently described in terms which suggest that they enjoyed Chresmologoi/manteis considerableprestige. It is possible that they firstrose to prominence in the Athenian state under the rule of the Peisistratidai,who utilized chresmoi to legitimize their tyranny.46The Peisistratidai not only possessed a collection of chresmoithemselves, but also patronized Onomakritos, who collected the oracles ascribed to Mousaios.47 Late sources state that Peisistratos himself was 43 D.S. xvi. 92. There are no oracles known to have come from Delphi in the period between 372 and 362. See Parke and Wormell (i, p. 220). 44

45 IG i2 204 = SIG3204 = Parke and Wormell, no. 262. 46

47

Hdt.v. 93Hdt.v. 90. 2 and vii. 6. 3.

R. S. J. GARLAND

82

nicknamed Bakis because he was himself a chresmologos.48 Regarding their fifth-century role, Oliver, p. 16, writes: 'The chresmologi were under continual attack from the poets of the Old Comedy because until late in the ninth decade of the 5th century the political influence of the chresmologi was regarded with apprehension.' However, it must be pointed out that their political influence was not so great that it could not be overruled by Themistoklesin 480, when he proposed a different interpretation of the ambiguous responseobtained from Delphi on the eve of the Persian invasion of Attika.49In fact during the fifty years following the Persian Wars we hear very little of chresmologoi/manteis, although Anaxagoras' ridicule of Lampon's interpretation of the significance of a one-horned ram cannot be taken as evidence of a general contempt for their skills.50 At the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War in 431 they appear in large numbers and are evidently in great demand.51 Aristophanes frequently mocks their importuning and greed. and mantiscame Oliver believes that in the latter half of the fifth century the terms chresmologos to signify 'a kind of fraud'. While this was doubtless true in the case of an enlightened few, it cannot have been a common perception or else there would have been no point in both Nikias and Alkibiades' resorting to seers in order to substantiate their rival claims regarding the advisability of sending an expedition to Sicily in 415.52Stilbiades, who possessed considerable influence over Nikias, is referred to as 'renowned and famous'.53Diopeithes, author of the notorious decree about atheism, is facetiously but none the less tellingly described by could, as Diopeithes' decree proves, move Aristophanes as 'great'.54 Chresmologoi/manteis proposals concerning matters about which they professedto be experts, and clearly when they did so their expert opinion was valued. The possibility of their possessing political influence cannot be discounted. Especiallyinstructiveis the careerof Lampon, who played a major part in the foundation of Thourioi in 443, moved a rider to the decree regulating the offering of firstfruits at Eleusis, prophesied the political extinction of Thucydides, son of Melesias, and was one of the signatoriesto the Peace of Nikias in 421. For his services to the state, he was accorded the are portrayed privilege of free maintenance in the prytaneion.55The fact that chresmologoi/manteis as meddlesomein Aristophanessuggests that they did not invariably wait to be consulted before proffering expert advice. This circumstance alone would have accorded them considerable power. Finally, Oliver's assertion, p. 30, that the outburst of anger in Athens after the disastrous failure of the Sicilian expedition marked the demise of the seer is also tendentious.56Plato describesthem as having 'both social standing and a keen sense of their own importance'- and Plato has no reason to be complimentary.57 EXEGETAI

Little is known about how the exegetaior sacred expounders operated nor about how much authority they possessed.From the wording of the reply given by a board of exegetaito their client Schol. Ar. PeaceIo7I; Sud.s.v. B6Ktg. Hdt. vii. 142-3. 50 Plu. Per. 6.

48

49

51 Thuc.ii. 21.3. 53 Plu. Nik. 23. 5; Schol.Ar. Peace 1031I. 54 Ar. Birds988; Plu. Per. 32. I. 55 Phot. s.v. eovptLotdv·-I ; IG i2 76.

52

Plu. Nik. 13.

47-6 Plu. Per. 6. 2; Thuc. v. 19. 2; Schol. Ar. Peace1084 f. 56 Thuc. viii. I, cf. Plu. Nik. 13. 57 Plt. 290 E. A seer called Diopeithes, possibly the author of

the decree on atheism, was active in Sparta in 40I and is described as 'full of ancient oracles with a reputation for knowledge and skill in divine matters' (Plu. Ages.3. 3). Clearly not all seers were discredited. Certainly, too, they were still around in the Antonine period. Lucian (Alex.23) informsus that Alexander of Abonoteichos organized his own the bev3~0davrt5 oracular centre, from which he derived an annual income of seventy to eighty thousand drachmas. On it he supported the servicesof a vast secretariat,including collectors of information, writers of oracles, custodians, scribes, sealers, and expounders.

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

83

regarding a matter of pollution, however, it seems that they existed merely as an advisory body to clarify religious responsibilitybut without any powers of enforcement.58It is also revealing that their client does not appear to have been placed under any statutory compulsion to enlist their servicesin the firstplace. In the case of the Eleusinian Mysteries,however, it seems that the expert religious opinion offered by the exegetaiof the Eumolpidai had the force, defactoif not de jure, of immutable law.59 EPIMELETAI, EPISTATAI,AND HIEROPOIOI

During the second half of the fifth century the state instituted a number of boards of religious assistants called epimeletai,epistatai,and hieropoioi, whose duties were to take control of various administrativefunctionswhich previouslyhad been left entirely in the hands of the priests.Their functions included: the purchase of animals for sacrifice and the subsequent disposal of their hides; the maintenance of law and order within the sanctuary precinct and the disciplining of offenders; the organization of festivals in collaboration with the priests and magistrates; the general supervision of the sanctuary; and most importantly, the handling of cult finances, including the checking of revenue and expenditure. Their establishmentprovides clear evidence of a growing tendency on the part of the state to remove from the priesthood ultimate responsibilityfor the financing of the cults over which they exercised charge. Such officials are widely attested elsewhere in the Greek world. CATALOGUE

OF ATHENIAN

Section A Priests Section B Magistrates

RELIGIOUS

OFFICIALS

Section C Religious experts Section D Religious assistants

A. PRIESTS Origins.The cults listed in this section are essentially of three kinds:

SECTION

(I) hereditary cults reservedin individual genewhich were taken under the patronage of the state at the time of its foundation (e.g. Athene Polias, Poseidon Erechtheus); (2) local Attic cults orginally based in particulardistrictswhich became absorbedby the state in the course of its expansion (e.g. Artemis Brauronia, Demeter and Kore, Dionysos Eleuthereus); (3) foreign cults adopted at various times, often for political motives (e.g. Bendis, Cybele, Zeus Ammon). In addition to the metropolitan cults which served the whole state, there also existed cults correspondingto the various divisions of the citizen body, namely the tribes, the phratriai, and the demes. These are discussed at pp. Io8-I I. Typesof priesthoods.In classical Athens there were two types of priesthoods, gentile and democratic. Gentile priesthoods, designated 7r6'rptatlpwaEpovac (P1. Laws vi. 759 a), were reserved

for membersof particulargene. Thus, for instance, the priestessof Athena Polias and the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus were always chosen from the genos of the Eteoboutadai, whereas the of the Eleusinian Mysteries came from the Kerykes and the hierophant from the dadouchos Eumolpidai. This system, which may be very ancient, has left no record of its origins. Possiblyit derives from a period when a priest was such by virtue of his position as head of the family. I 58

Ps.-Dem. xlvii. 70.

59

Ps.-Lys. vi. Io.

84

R. S. J. GARLAND

would tentatively suggest a development along the following lines: when the family expanded into a genos,its head retained his priestly duties, and when the state absorbed the genos,its cults became official. Gentile priesthoods were for life. According to Harpokration (s.v. yevvY7aa), whose source is Aristotle, fr. 385 Rose, they were generally assigned by sortition. What was true in the fourth century may not, of course, have been the case in the earlier period, though I have found little to support Humphrey's claim, p. 254, regarding the existence of 'complex norms of appointment which tended to work in favour of hereditary succession'. The only evidence known to me which contradicts Aristotle's assertion relates: (i) to the dadouchia,apparently hereditary in one particular branch of the Kerykes; and (2) to the priesthood of Poseidon Erechtheus, whose holder Habron, son of the fourth-centurystatesman Lykourgos, stood down after election so that his brother Lykophron could take office instead. There is no firm evidence to indicate when democratic priesthoods,that is to say, priesthoods which were available to any member of the citizen body, were first introduced. Feaver, p. 136, who were believes that the earliest appointments of this kind were the priests of the eponymoi, elected for the first time c. 508/7 to representthe ten new Kleisthenic tribes. As Schlaifer, 251-7, were gentile appointhas demonstrated, however, it is clear that some at least of the eponymoi ments. Feaver, p. 139 would also lay it down 'with all probability' as a general principal that all gentile priesthoods were pre-Kleisthenic in origin and all post-Kleisthenic priesthoods democratic. This, I believe, is stretching the evidence too far. The earliestinformation regarding the normsof appointment for a democratic priesthoodis contained in a decree dated to the early 440osabout the priestessof Athene Nike, who is to be elected 'from all Athenian women'. It is at least possible to interpret this decree as indicating that prior to this date eligibility was in some way restricted (below, p. 90). The evidence regarding the establishmentof new cults in the fifth and fourth centuriesis anything but uncontroversial.Regarding the priesthood of Asklepios,for instance, introduced in 420, Feaver, p. 138, is of the opinion that there can be 'little doubt' that it was democratic from the start. However, our earliest incontrovertible evidence for the method of appointment, namely by sortition rotating in tribal cycles, does not pre-date the early third century. There are equal uncertainties in the case of the Thracian goddess Bendis, whose cult was established by public decree c. 430 (see s.v.) Feaver's hypothesis, though attractive, must thereforeawait further proof. Democratic priesthoods, designated dpXatL were appointed by lot. Whether KA-qpwtrat, allotment combined with screening in order to debar unsuitable candidates is not known. For the importance of lot, see P1.Lawsiii. 690 c. According to Isokrates (ii. 6), 'People believe that the office of priest, like that of Qualifications. basileus, is one which any man can fill, whereas it is the most important human activity and requires the greatest wisdom.' As this passage suggests, eligibility to a Greek priesthood was based on the possession of purely external qualifications rather than on those of a moral or intellectual kind, although it is perhaps not altogether surprising to discover that male prostitutes were debarred from holding priestly office (Aeschin. i. 13. 8 f.). Other categories of persons likewise disqualified would probably have included sons who had neglected their parents' graves, army deserters,debtors to the public or sacred treasury, and magistrates who had failed to render their annual accounts (Lys. vi. 24; Xen. Mem. ii. 2. I3). Whether priests

and priestesseswere required to take an oath on assuming their office is not verifiable, but as Martha, 4', pointed out, it is difficult to believe that they were not placed under the same obligations as other state officials. Aristotle, Pol. vii. 8. 6, would have excluded agricultural labourersand artisansfrom holding priesthoods,but in practice they were available to members of all classes.

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

85

Foreigners and metics were naturally ineligible for priestly office. The exact definition of citizen status in respectof an Athenian priesthoodis nowhere given, but it is worth noting that in Halikarnassos in Caria the priestess of Artemis Pergaia was required to be able to trace her citizen descent on both sides of the family back over three generations (SIG3 1015- 5-7)According to a decree quoted in a speech by Pseudo-Demosthenes (lix. io6), the grant of honoraryAthenian citizenship which was given to the Plataians who survived the destructionof their city in 428 (Thuc. iii. 68) contained a clause which specificallydebarred them from holding either an archonship or a priesthood. Whether all grants of honorary citizenship were similarly curtailed is not known, but it is possible that the Plataians were excluded merely on the grounds of the large numbers involved. Very probably an Athenian priest was required to be free of all physical disability or deformity, a condition described by Nilsson (GGR3V. 2. 2, p. 78) as 'der allgemeine Grundsatz' for the holding of a priesthood. Plato in the Laws (vi. 759 c) laid it down that a priest should be sound in body (6A*O'KArpoS) and evidence from outside Attica indicates that good looks were not a only strong recommendation, but even in some cases an essential requirement (Paus. vii. 24. 4 and ix. 10. 4). This emphasis on purely formal qualifications was at heart rational. To quote Martha, p. 26, again, the possession of a physical blemish was in the eyes of the Greeks 'une marque qu'on &taiten butte a la vengeance d'une divinit' - and the state would be well advised not to entrust its safety to such a man. It is not known for certain whether an Athenian had to be over thirty years of age before holding a priesthood, as he had to be before he could exercise his full citizen rights (Schol. Ar. Clouds5Io), but the evidence on the whole seems to point to the contrary. It is true that Plato in the Laws (vi. 759d) went to the extreme of making sixty the minimum age requirementand that Aristotle in the Politics(vii. 8. 6) argued that priestsshould be appointed from those who were too old to serve the state in a more active capacity, but information from outside Attica reveals that there was no general rule. Certain cults required extreme youth, as did those of Poseidon at Kalaureia (Paus. ii. 33. 3), Artemis Triklaria in Achaia (vii. i9. i), and Athene Alea at Tegea (viii. 47. 3), others required ripe old age, as did Sosipolisat Olympia (vi. 20. 2). Our only evidence regarding the age of an Athenian incumbent relates to a fifth-centurypriestessofAthene Polias called Lysimache, who held the officefor sixtyfour years and who is thereforelikely to have been very young when first appointed. Finally, it does not seem that a priest was required to be in possessionof any type of special knowledge or to have undergone any form of training prior to his installation. Emoluments. Occasionally a priest (or priestess)was provided with a fixed income, as in the case of the priestessof Athene Nike, but the majoritywould seem to have been unsalaried. It therefore seems to have been taken for granted that a priest would follow a secular career (above, p. 77), a contrast to the state of affairswhich prevailed in Greek Asia Minor (Nilsson, GGRii2, pp. 79 f.). Some were provided with substantial perquisites (ydpa), but it is unfortunately not always possible to determine whether these were intended for the priest's personal use or had to be handed over to the divinity whom he served. Sokolowski,LSG 7. 21-2, has plausibly suggested that &iord`Erpa, a word which frequently occurs in sacral inscriptions,designates expenses paid to a priest on behalf of the ceremonies he was required to perform; on the other hand, _lepuavva, seems to indicate an emolument. There is no evidence from Athens for the practice, known to have been commonplace in Hellenistic Asia Minor, of selling a priesthood to the highest bidder (Martha, p. 29; Nilsson, GGR ii2, p. 81). Honours.As noted in the catalogue, proedriai (seats of honour) in the Theatre of Dionysos in Athens were accorded to certain priesthoods, though it must be emphasized that most of the extant inscriptions date from the time of Hadrian (IG ii2 5o22- I164).Proedriaas an honour was,

86

R. S. J. GARLAND

however, very ancient. Blocks with fragmentary inscriptions on their risers dating to the fifth century BC have been convincingly interpreted as bases for wooden proedriai(Dilke, p. 165). Residence. Some priestswere either permitted or requiredto live within the temple precincts, as and the priestess of Demeter and Kore, but it is unlikely that there was any did the dadouchos rule. general Many sanctuaries would simply have been too cramped to be able to provide accommodation for resident clergy. Priestswere not normally employed full-time. Indeed there was nothing to prevent them from serving two different cults. The onerousnessof their duties will have depended on the popularity and importance of the cult which they served. To some extent their work was seasonal, heaviest in the month when a festival or sacrificeover which they presidedwas taking place. The highestranking priesthood was unquestionably that of Athene Polias. Below this, however, there seems to have existed not the faintest tracesof an ecclesiasticalhierarchy. The testimonia quoted in this section are intended, therefore, merely to serve as an indicator-in general terms-of the comparative prestige and popularity of the cults themselves. AGLAUROS

(OR AGRAULOS),

PANDROSOS,

AND GE KOUROTROPHOS,

PRIESTESS

OF

Discussion. Feaver, p. 129; Ferguson (1938) pp. I ff.; Guarducci, pp. 223 ff.; Martha, no. 2; Nilsson (1938), pp. 385-93, (1951) p. 36; Price, pp. o01-32; Raubitschek, pp. 434 f-

The cave and shrine of Aglauros are situated beneath the Long Rocks on the north Sanctuaries. face of the Acropolis. The Pandroseion, perhaps being sacred to the memory of the sister who obeyed the instructions of Athene (see below), is located on the Acropolis, to the west of the Erechtheion and enclosing the Kekropeion. It contained a temple and the sacred olive-tree (Paus. i. 22. 3; Hopper, pp. 25 with fig. 3; Travlos, fig. 281). The sanctuary ofGe Kourotrophos was situated on the south side of the Acropolis between the Asklepieion and the entrance to the Acropolis (Paus. i. 22. 3; IG i2 859; Judeich, p. 285 n. 4). Appointment.A decree dated 363/2 (Ferguson, no. I.I2f.). states that the priestess is to be elected by lot from either branch of the genos of the Salaminioi, i.e. both from those in Heptaphylai and those in Sounion. As Ferguson, p. 53, points out, it is more likely that the decree was designed to prevent monopolization of the cult by one particular branch of the genos than to introduce allotment for the first time. See further s.v. Athene Skiras. Did one or more priestess serve the three cults? Ferguson, p. 2 I, believes that the appointment was pluralist, i.e. that there was only one priestess and that she served two separate cults: (I) that of Aglauros and Pandrosos, and (2) that of Kourotrophos. Nilsson (1951), p. 36 on the other hand, argues that lines 45f. (Hav3pdao KatAy)tAapoLEpalaLpT'ov,Kovporpo~o Kat KaAaGOoOd'poL aprov) 'prove that they were distinguished'. However, the mention ofa kalathephorosdedicated to Kourotrophos does not prove the existence of a separate priesthood as well. That the priesthood was pluralist is suggested by IG ii2 5152 where there is a reference to a seat in the theatre of This presumably means: '(for the priestess of) Dionysos reserved for KovpoTrpoov 4 4AyAavpov. shrine of from the one the Aglauros'. Kourotrophos, Origins. Aglauros and Pandrosos were both daughters of Kekrops, the first king of Athens. Aglauros threw herself off the Acropolis after she had looked into the basket where the infant Erichthonios was concealed, although expressly forbidden by Athene to do so. Pandrosos (probably) was her virtuous sister who heeded the ban. Kourotrophos is defined by Price, p. 2, as 'a manifestation of the mother- or nursing-principle, or both'. In a number of cult-places the epithet Kourotrophos is often found alone, but as Ge Kourotrophos she seems to have been a nurse of children.

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

87

In view of the prominent situation of the sanctuary and the extreme antiquity of the myths and cults attaching to Aglauros and Pandrosos, we may safely infer that the priesthood is extremely ancient. As to the antiquity of the Salaminian genos,we have no evidence at all. A commonly held opinion is that its gennetaiwere Salaminian nobles who fled to Athens sometime in the sixth century when their island was conquered by Megara and who were granted Athenian citizenship in compensation, together with the right to form an artificialgenos.If this was the case, then its duality may, as Ferguson, pp. 43-6, suggests,reflect a mergerbetween two separate groups of families, one of which had taken refuge in the urban deme of Melite and the other at Porthmos near Sounion. But there remains the question why such a comparatively recent corporation should have been entrusted with the care of such a venerable cult. Various theories have been put forward to explain this puzzling inconsistency: that the original genos controlling the cult had become extinct (Nilsson, 1938); or that the Salaminian genos,when newly constituted, incorporatedwithin its ranksthe Athenian genoswhich ancestrallycontrolled the ancient cult (Feaver). A neater and more cogent explanation, proposed to me by Professor Tomlinson, is that the genoswas in fact extremely ancient, and reflects a dark-age, rather than sixth-century, migration to Athens. For further discussion, see Guarducci, pp. 223 ff., and Hignett, note D. Emoluments. None is specificallymentioned, although the priestessdid receive a portion (PEpts) of the (private?) sacrifices in the shrines in which she presided, as did all the other priests and priestessesof the Salaminian genos(Fergusson,no. I. 39-41'). In addition she received a loaf of bread at the Oschophoria (line 45). Feaver, p. 130, suggests that the reason why the perquisitesof this priestesswere not mentioned in the decree is because they 'were not in dispute and so were passed over in the decision of the arbitrators'. I do not find this view wholly convincing. Honour.As noted above, the priestess enjoyed a proedria(IG ii2 5152). APOLLO

PYTHIOS

Discussion.Colin,passim;Daux, pp. 37-69; Deubner, pp. 179-98; Nilsson (195i), p. 39; Parke,

FA, pp. I46-9; Rhodes, CAAP, p. 628.

Sanctuary.The site of the Pythion is much debated. Pausanias (i. 19. I) locates it near the sanctuary of Zeus Olympios. On the evidence of inscribedbases, Travlos, p. Ioo and figs. 130-7, would situate this temple to the south of the Olympieion. Hill, p. Ioo, believes there to have been another Pythion on the north side of the Acropolis, identifying it with the Paved Court from which the processionto Delphi set out. A Pythion is included among a list of temples referredto by Thucydides (ii. 15. 4) situated on the south side of the Acropolis. Both Photius and the Suda (s.v. 7JOtov)state that Peisistratosfounded a hieronof Pythian Apollo. Hesychios (s.v. Iv HvO7t' XEaat)goes further and describes it as a temple. An inscription (IG i2 761) records that Peisistratos,son of Hippias, dedicated the altar in the year of his archonship, i.e. 522/1 (cf. Thuc. vi. 54. 6 and ii. 15. 4). The temple was never finished because objections were raised to its presence.There were in fact a number of sanctuariessacredto Apollo Pythios throughout Attica (cf. Philochoros in Schol. S. OC 1047; Paus. i. 3 I. 2). As Colin, pp. 5, 62, notes, the Marathonian Tetrapolis was especially attached to Apollo. Origins. On the evidence of Philochoros (loc. cit.) and others, the cult of Apollo Pythios is believed to have first grown up on the north-east coast of Attica, specifically in the deme of Prasiai under the auspices of the Erysichthonidai. It probably arrived in Greece via Delos in or around the eighth century, although firm evidence ofAthens' interest in the god only dates from the sixth century. For the lateness of Apollo's arrival in Greece generally, see PW and Roscher

88

R. S. J. GARLAND

s.v. Apollon, and Colin, pp. 2-5. Its comparative newness is indicated by the fact that it was the archon and not the basileuswho supervised the Thargelia (see below). Indicative of the god's increasing importance in Athens towards the end of the sixth century is the fact that Delphi was asked to choose the eponymoi of the ten new Kleisthenic tribes from a short-list of one hundred AP As Colin, p. 7, comments, 'Voila donc le dieu de Delphes mle intimement a (Arist. 21.6). la de l'organisation deimocratieathenienne.' Apollo Pythios was closely assimilated to Apollo in name whose heliasts took their oath and to whom a shrine was erected in the Patroos, household of every true-bornAthenian citizen (Dem. xviii. 14'I;Harp, s.v. Apollo Patroos;Poll. viii. 122; Arist. AP 55-3). Pythian Apollo receives prominent mention in tragedy (not always complimentary, cf. Eur. Elekt.,Ion,and IT) and is accorded a pre-eminent place in Plato's ideal state (Rep.iv. 427 B-C; above, p. 8o). His worship was accorded mythological justification by making him the father of Ion, eponymous founder of the Ionian race, and hence the ancestor of all Athenians. Festival. The festival of Thargelia, celebrated on 7 Thargelion, was dedicated to Apollo (Parke, FA, pp. 146-9). In addition, a theoria was dispatched from Athens to Delphi (see Colin, pp. 13 f., for refs.). ARTEMIS

BRAURONIA

Discussion.Jordan, pp. 33 f.; Martha, no. 49; Parke, FA, 139 f. Sanctuaries. The original site of the worship of Artemis Brauroniawas at Brauron on the east coast of Attika, where terracottafigurinesand pottery have been found dating as far back as the EH period. Until the sixth century the cult centred on a cave where Iphigeneia, the legendary first priestessof Artemis, was buried. A Doric temple of which only the foundations survive was erected to the north-west of the cave in the late sixth or early fifth century. Only preliminary archaeological reports of the excavation of the sanctuary have so far appeared (see Tomlinson, pp. I o f.). In the late sixth century the cult acquired a temenos on the Acropolis to the south of the Propylaia, in the area between the Chalkotheke and a preserved section of the Mycenaean circuit wall (Travlos, p.

124

with figs. 71, 168-9; Stevens (1936), pp. 459-70 with figs. 13-22).

It is to be emphasized that the temenos was not a shrine and that no traces of any shrine have been found within the precinct. It is aptly described by Parke, FA p. 139 as a 'branch establishment', though Pausanias dubbed it a hieron (i. 23. 7). It contained a statue by Praxiteles.The shape of the temenos was altered in the latter part of the fifth century in order to accommodate Mnesikles' plan for the Propylaia, but its overall area is unlikely to have been reduced (Stevens (1936), p. 470).

Appointment. Nothing is known about the priestess of Artemis other than the fact that she existed. It is possible that there was more than one. A fragmentary inventory of the goddess's treasury (IG i2 387. 36) refers cryptically to 'priestesses',but we cannot be certain whether priestessesof differentcults or priestessesof Artemis are meant. As noted byJordan, p. 34 n. 59, it seems that by the end of the fourth century, Artemis Brauroniahad a priest as well as a priestess (IG ii2 1524. 45; 1526. 27).

Origins.The introduction of the cult of ArtemisBrauroniaprobably occurred at the time of the Synoikismos in the seventh century, though its prominence perhaps dates from the time of Peisistratos, who himself came from Brauron. According to tradition it was Orestes who brought the old wooden statue of Artemis from the Crimea and placed it in the sanctuary of the goddess at Brauron. The worship of Artemis was closely associated with that of Iphigeneia ('Strong in Birth') and Platnauer's suggestion, p. ix, that the latter's name was originally 'little more than an epithet of Artemis' is an attractive one.

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

89

The importance of the cult is indicated by the fact that room was made for it on the Acropolis, probably at the instigation of Peisistratos. Festival.The Brauronia or festival in honour of Artemis took place annually in the month of Munichion. Once every four years it was celebrated with special pomp, like the Panathenaia. Its main featurewas a processionwhich made its way from the temenos on the Acropolis to Brauron, symbolizing the integration of both the cult and the district into the Athenian state. It was at this festival that Athenian girls aged between five and ten 'acted as the she-bear' (apKTEUVEw) dressed Sud. s.v. apKros; Hsch. s.v. in saffron robes (Ar. Lys. 641 ff. with Schol.; Harp. s.v. &pKrTE(aaL; Whether they should be regarded as priestesses as they are sometimes dubbed by pKrdEla). scholarsis doubtful. ASKLEPIOS,

PRIESTS

OF

Discussion. Edelstein, passim; Feaver, pp. 150 f.; Ferguson (1907), passim; Martha, no. 59; Parke, FA 64 f., 135; Schlaifer, pp. 241-4; Walton (1894), passim; Walton (1935), PP. 170 ff.

An Asklepieion was set up on the south slope of the Acropolis under the cliff wall, Sanctuaries. the adjoining precinct of Dionysos Eleuthereus, which lay to the east (Paus. i. 21. 4; Travlos, p. 127 and figs. 171-5). There was another in the Peiraieus (Schol. Ar. Ploutos 621; Walton

(1894), PP- 36f.). The two sanctuaries were founded in the same year (Kutsch, p. 36). For speculation about the conditions which determine the siting of Asklepieia, see Plu. Mor. 286 D. Two priests were elected annually, one in charge of the city and the other of the Appointment. Peiraic cult. The method of appointment in the third century was by sortition rotating in tribal cycles, i.e. allotments drawn each year from a single tribe, following the officialorderof tribes (cf. IG ii2 1163. 3 f., dated 288/7). At what date sortitionwas first introduced is not known, though it is probable that it was in use at least from the mid-fourth century. Schlaifer, pp. 242 f., believes that it might have been employed from the cult's inception in 420/19, but if so the appointments of all the three known priests of Asklepios who held office in the classical period were highly irregular (see below). Origins.The worship of the healing god Asklepios was introduced to Athens from Epidauros on 18 Boedromion in the year 420/19 or 419/18 under the auspices of the family of Telemachos of Acharnai (IG ii2 4960. 8; 496 1; 4355; PA 13561). Prior to this date healing was chiefly confined to

local hero shrines, for which see Kerenyi, pp. 71-4. On arrival the cult was temporarilyhoused in the City Eleusinion, an indication that the new god had the approval of the authorities in charge of the Eleusinian Mysteries. His sacred image was kept in the home of the tragedian Sophokles. For discussionof Sophokles'role, see Walton (1935), PP- 170ff. A year after the cult's arrival a dispute over some land broke out between the Kerykes and Asklepios, which was decided in favour of the latter. Travlos, p. 127, believes that the dispute was about the decision to build an Ionic stoa within the Pelargikon,control of which was administeredby the Kerykes.As Schlaifer,p. 240 n. 2, rightly observes,'The winning of the suit against so influential a family and even more significant, the mere granting by the state of permissionto build on so well situated a site, indicate that the state was seriouslyinterested in the cult from the beginning.' The temple was still in use in the fifth century AD(Marin. Prokl.29). Epigraphical evidence testifies to the cult's importance in the fourth century (Feaver, p. 15o n. 99). Festivals. There were two annual festivals in honour of Asklepios, the Epidauria and the Asklepieia, with a six-month interval in between (Paus. ii. 26. 8; IG ii2 974). Parke, FA p. 65 comments: 'The whole arrangement suggests the conscious planning of a careful priesthood working in harmony with the authorities of Athens.' The procession in honour of Asklepios was put in charge of the archon (Arist. AP 56. 4).

R. S. J. GARLAND

90

Honour.The priests of Asklepios had proedriai (IG ii2 5045, 5068).

Dress.Priestsof Asklepiosdressedin white and bound their hair in a white fillet (Edelstein, ii, p. 192 and T. 85o. 676).

Assistant.For the functions of the priest'sassistant,who was known as the zakoros,see Walton (1894), PP- 53 f. The appointment being annual, his importance is indicated by the fact that his name, as well as that of the priest, was sometimes used to date inscriptionsrelating to the cult of Asklepios. Knownpriests.As Kirchner suggests,it is probable that a priest of Asklepiosnamed Theangelos who is mentioned in IG ii2 4963 was the son of the Telemachos who instituted the cult. There is mention of a priest called Euthydemos in two inscriptions found in the Peiraiens dated on the basis of letter-forms to the beginning of the fourth century (IG ii2 47. 26-30; 4962). Uniquely Euthydemos is described as 'expounding' (7yEyda0aL), a verb not elsewhere used in a religious sense other than of the activity of exegetai (below, p. 114). Feaver, p. 151, suggests that

Euthydemos may have been an exegetes before being chosen by the demos 'for the express purpose of improving the ritual of the new cult'. Finally, an inscription (IGii2 4969) dated c. 350 recordsthat Demon, son of Demomeles of Paiania, in obedience to an oracle, donated his house and garden to the god Asklepios, receiving the priesthood in return by public decree (for discussionof the restoration,see Schlaifer,p. 242). In addition to being a priest of Asklepios,Demon was also active as a politician from 335 to 323 (PA 3736). No other grant of priesthood by decree is known to us.

ATHENE

NIKE,

PRIESTESS

OF

Discussion.Feaver, p. 137; Lewis, pp. I-I2; Martha, no. 16; Meiggs and Lewis, GHIi2 44 and 7i; Merritt and Wade-Gery, pp. I Io f.; Papademetriou, pp. 146-53; Schlaifer, pp. 257-60; Wade-Gery, p. 209; Mattingly (1982), pp. 381-5. The cult of Athene Nike was establishedon the Mycenaean bastion to the south-east Sanctuary. of the Propylaia. A poros naiskoswith altar was built apparently between 490 and 480. A decree (IG i2 24) which provided for the appointment of a life-priestessof Athene Nike also authorized the building of a new temple and altar for the goddess. Since its discovery in 1897 the inscription, on the evidence of a three-barredsigma, has been dated to the early 440s. The temple itself, however, is known not to have been built until after 430. One possible explanation of the (apparent) delay is that there was 'a conflict of interest involving the south-west wing of the Propylaia and the precinct of Athene Nike . . . finally

resolved ... by a very considerablealteration in the original plan of the Propylaia' (Merritt and Wade-Gery, p. 0o9). Another suggestion is that the decree always intended that the building of the temple should be deferred.As Meiggs and Lewis (GHIi2,p. I I I) note, the injunction to build a temple is only made after the injunction to appoint a priestessand to provide a door for Nike's hieron.Most recently Mattingly (1982) has drawn attention to the fact that there is no precedent for the defermentof an Attic decree for over twenty years while on display. On the evidence of its 'formal similarity' to the decree for Chalkis (IG i2 39), which he would assign to the 420s, Mattingly has suggested lowering the date of G i2 24 to c. 430, i.e. directly before work began on the construction of the temple. The hypothesis is certainly an attractive one, but not in my view wholly convincing. The famous Nike balustrade was added in 410I (see Travlos, pp. 148 f. with figs. 7 I and 200-6). Appointment.According to IG i2 24, the priestess ofAthene Nike was to be elected by lot 'from all Athenian women'. If, as seems probable, the decree did not create the priesthood (see below), we are forced to the conclusion that before its passage eligibility was in some way restricted. The

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

91

officewas for life. The epitaph of the priestessMyrrhine (see below) indicates that she was elected by lot (SEGxii. 8o). Origins.Schlaifer, commenting on the fact that IG i2 24 does not contain 'details necessaryfor the Assemblyor the magistratesto proceed to the choice of the priestess',concludes, 'Clearly this decree cannot have created the priesthood: it merely reorganized one which already existed.' Our earliest information regarding the existence of a cult of Athene Nike is provided by an inscription dated to 566, though we cannot of course assume that there also existed an independent priesthood at this date. See further discussion of the 'first' priestess Myrrhine below. Emolument. From c. 450 the priestess received a salary of 50 dr. per annum, together with the legs and hides from public sacrifices (IG i2 24). IG i2 25, which is a fragmentary decree

recorded on the reverseof IG i2 24, repeats that the priestessis to receive 50 dr. annually, which were to be paid to her through the KWAaKPE'raL. Possibly the restatementwas due to the fact that 'her salary had not yet been paid or had been paid irregulary, or by different officials' (GHI i2, p. 204). Merritt and Wade-Gery, p. I I I, however, plausibly suggest that the surviving part of the inscription merely acknowledgesan obligation and that 'the real businessof the decree only began where the stone now breaks off'. Knownpriestess.An epitaph found near Zographou dated to around the turn of the fourth century commemorates Myrrhine, priestessof Athene Nike (Papademetriou, pp. 146-53; SEG xii. 80). Meiggs and Lewis (GHI i2 44) take rp(O'rEas indicating that Myrrhine was the first

priestessofAthene Nike, but asJordan, p. 33 n. 54 points out, in its context the word seemsrather to refer to the fact that she was 'the first priestesswho served the new temple of Athene Nike'. Papademetriou's suggestion that the Myrrhine of Aristophanes' Lysistrateis modelled on the Myrrhine who was priestess of Athene Nike has won general acceptance (Lewis, pp. 1-7). If correct it suggests a date for her death subsequent to 411, when the play was produced. Clairmont (1979), pp. 103 ff., has suggested that the stone lekythos in the National Museum dated c. 420-410 formed part of the priestess's monument. ATHENE

POLIAS

AND

(?)ATHENE

PARTHENOS,

PRIESTESS

OF

Discussion. Feaver, pp. 132; Herington, passim;Jordan, pp. 29-32; Lewis, pp. 1-12; Martha, no. 18; Parke, FA pp. 141-3-

Sanctuaries. The existence of a temple of Geometric date situated on the Acropolis dedicated jointly to Athene and Erechtheusis to be inferredfrom Hom. II. ii. 546-51 and Od.vii. 80 f. It is possible that it was twice replaced, firstlyat the turn of the sixth century and again in the time of Peisistratos, before being destroyed by the Persians in 480/79. Its successor, the so-called Erechtheion, known officially as the 'Old Temple' or the 'Temple in which the old image is' (IG i2

372), was begun in 42I and completed in 406. It was erected a little to the north (see Travlos,

pp. 213 f. with figs 278-85). It is not known for certain which section of the Erechtheion was sacred to Athene Polias. Travlos, p. 213, on the basis that 'the monumental north porch would more naturally be the entrance to the temple of Athena Polias', is of the opinion that the goddess occupied the western chamber. The joint worship ofAthene and Poseidon is attested not only for other parts ofAttika but also for other parts ofGreece, cf. Paus. i. 30. 4 (Kolonos); i. 37. 2 (deme of Lakiadas); ii. 30. 6 (Troezen); and iii. I. 9 (Sparta). 1

It is likely that the priestessof Athene Polias served not only in the Erechtheion but also in the

Parthenon, some 50 m to the south (see below). At what date there first existed a temple on this site is not known. The existing Parthenon, on which work continued from 447 to 432, replaced a temple begun c. 490 and still under construction when the Persians captured and sacked the

R. S. J. GARLAND

92

Acropolis in 480/79. It is possible that this 'pre-Parthenon' replaced the Hekatompedon or 'Hundred-footer'known to have been constructed c. 565. The case for the existence of a sixthcentury temple on the site of the present Parthenon is, however, destined to remain unproven (Tomlinson, 81).

A further uncertainty has to do with the date when there first existed two temples on the Acropolis sacred to Athene. Preisshofen,p. 83, is of the opinion that there was only one temple until 480. So, too, Beyer's recent stylistic comparison between the fragments of pedimental sculpture found on the Acropolis and in Proto-Attic vase-painting leads him to the conclusion that they can be assigned 'not necessarily to two contemporary great temples on the Acropolis, but to the different phases of one and the same building' (p. 74). This assertion is unlikely to remain the last word on the subject for very long. Like the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus, the priestess of Athene Polias was Appointment. from the Eteoboutadai for life. Since there is no mention of an independent priesthood appointed for Athene Parthenos, it is tempting to assume that she served both cults and was a pluralist. Herington, however, proposes a more subtle hypothesis, based on the theory that there was no distinction in the fifth century between the goddesses who were worshipped in the north and south temples, though originally these had been sacred to two quite different deities. He writes, p. 45: 'The State recognised only one supreme Athena on the Acropolis at the time of the building of the Periclean Parthenon and thereafter. She was called Athena Polias or simply Athena, the Athena: and there was no such cult-title as Athena Parthenos.' The Parthenon was thus in his view erected primarily in order to house Pheidias' great chryselephantine statue of the goddess. There was perhaps a tendency, as Jordan, p. 31, suggests, to appoint women Qualification. who were married or widowed (see refs. ad loc.). Prohibitions. Strabo (ix. I. i i) states that the priestess was rigorously debarred from eating

freshcheese or any cheese made in Attika; for some obscure reason she was only permitted to eat imported cheese. According to Athenaios (ix. 375 c) she was not allowed to sacrificeewe lambs, an odd prohibition, as Jordan, p. 29, points out, in view of the fact thatfasti relating to Athene Polias sometimes list offerings of sheep (e.g. IG i2 842).

Origins.The priesthood is perhaps the oldest connected with the city of Athens and when Athens was a monarchy was perhaps filled by one of the king's daughters. The ending -ds probably meant 'she who dwelt on the polis', i.e. on the normally denotes place, and so rroAL6s Acropolis (Herington, p. 11).

Status.Since Athene Polias was the most important deity in the Athenian state, it is very probable that her priestessoutranked all other priestsand priestesses.That this is very likely to have been the case is further indicated by the fact that the arrival of riTlEpdfrom Eleusis on 14 Boedromion during the celebration of the Greater Mysteries had to be reported to the priestess by the avvrT's (below, p. I04). Her prominence is further indicated by two anecdotes related by Herodotos. In 50o8,when the Spartan king Kleomenes was about to enter Athene's temple, the priestessrose from her throne and ordered him to retire, declaring that it was unlawful for a Dorian to enter (v. 72). Again in 480, shortly before the battle of Salamis took place, she demonstrated her support for Themistokles' decision to evacuate Athens in the wake of the Persian advance by reporting that the sacred snake of Athene had already departed from the Acropolis (viii. 41 ). Festivals. The priestess was in total charge of the Arrhephoria, a festival of uncertain date in the Athenian calendar. On the day it took place, she gave the arrhephoroi (see below) certain objects whose identity was unknown both to herself and to them. She also supervised the

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

93

Kallynteria and Plynteria, festivals held at the end of Thargelion, during which the goddess's temple was spring-cleanedand her sacrosanctwooden statue, describedby Pausanias (i. 26. 6) as 'the holiest thing of all', washed in the sea (Deubner, pp. 17-2 I; Parke, FA, pp. 152-4). Together with the priests of Poseidon Erechtheus and Helios, she assisted at the Skirophoria held on 12 Skirophorion (Harp. s.v. aKlpov;Parke, FA, p. 158).

Specialduties.The priestessperformed a duty at a nuptial ceremony known as the Protelaia, during which the parents of the bride-to-be took their daughter up to the Acropolis and there performed certain sacrifices. After the wedding she appeared before the newly wedded girl wearing an aegis in the guise of the goddess (Sud, s.v. T7poTEAEaand alyts; Deubner, p. 16;

of Euripidesstates that the priestessmust perform Jordan, p. 32). A fragment from the Erechtheus the preliminary rites in the case of any burnt offerings made upon Athene's altar (fr. 65. 95-7 Austin). Emoluments. So far as we know the priestessof Athene Polias was unsalaried. How much she received in the way of emolumentsis a matter for speculation, though it is likely that she was paid in kind from the sacrificesat which she officiated. The only evidence regarding her income is provided by the Oikonomikaattributed to Aristotle (ii. 2. 4, 1347 A), in which it is stated that the tyrant Hippias legislated that she should receive one quart of barley, one of wheat, and one obol on the occasion of every birth or death. However, we do not know whether this money was intended to remain in her keeping or whether it had to be transferredto the treasury,nor indeed whether the tax outlived the overthrow of the tyranny. As evidence that the priestess in fact received very little from the exerciseof her duties, it is noteworthy that no member of this branch of the Eteoboutadai can be credited with 'even moderate wealth' (Davies, p. 169). This is all the more remarkablein view of the extreme wealth of the goddess herself, who, in the years 433 to 426, lent to the Athenian state a total of 4,001 talents (GHI i2 72. 98- ).

It is also curious, as

Feaver, p. 140, notes, that despite the antiquity and seniority of this priesthood, the incumbent was not apparently included among the list of those given free maintenance in the Prytaneion (below, p. Io02and n. 67).

Honours.As a signal honour Lysimache, who occupied the priesthood in the fifth century, was permitted to erect a statue of herselfon the Acropolis. This is the only known instance of a public honour granted to a gentile priesthood. Inscriptions and dedications from the Hellenistic and Roman periods honouring the priestessare common (McClees, pp. 9, 36). On the Parthenon frieze a tall, dignified woman who is shown assistinga young Representation. girl carrying a four-leggedstool on her head is probably to be identified as the priestessof Athene Polias (Parke, FA, pl. 12). Assistants.It is likely that the priestess of Athene Polias was assisted by two other women of priestly rank known as Kosmo and Trapezophoros (or Trapezo) in a ceremony which involved the setting up of a table (see Harp. s.v. rpavErreo'pos;Jordan, p. 30). In addition

she was assistedby four girls of noble birth known as the arrhephoroi or 'bearersof unmentionable were between seven and eleven and were elected annually by a show objects'. They aged years of hands after nomination by the basileus (Hsch. s.v. dppcdo'pot and Epyaaritvat;Harp. and Sud. s.v. appl6)opEov;Schol. Ar. Lys. 642). They lived on the Acropolis in the neighbourhood of the Erechtheion and were quite possibly under the guardianship of the priestess. The arrhephoroiapparently took their name from the objects which they carried on their heads to the shrine of Aphrodite in the Gardens from which they returned similarly laden (Travlos, fig. 229; Paus. i. 27. 3). Two of them, called ergastinai,wove the peplos for the statue of Athene Polias. The arrhephoroiwore white robes. If they put on gold objects these became consecrated (&epd).They received a special kind of bread called &viararos Deubner, pp. I2, 30 f., believes

R. S. J. GARLAND

94

on the east end of the Parthenon frieze are arrhephoroi that the diphroi-bearers (see ibid., pl. i:I; Parke, FA, pl. 12). In the second half of the fifth century Lysimache, daughter of Drakontides, of Knownpriestesses. the deme of Bate, served as priestessfor sixty-fouryears, erected her statue on the Akropolis, and reared four children (Paus. i. 27. 4; Plin. HNxxxiv. 19; Davies, no. 4549). The base of the statue,

which was carved by Demetrios, survives (IG ii2 3453). Lewis, p. 6, believes that Lysimache was in office when Aristophanes'Lysistratewas performedin 411 and that its heroine, who 'is meant to representthe oldest and best elements in Athenian life', may well have been directly modelled on her. It is not certain whether the remarkascribedto a priestessnamed Lysimache by Plutarch (Mor. 534 c) belongs to this Lysimache, or to a descendant, Lysimache (II), who lived at the turn of the century. The next known priestesswas Phanostrate,who was in office in 341/o (IG ii2 1456. 31-2, 36-7). Davies, p. I71, suggests that Lykourgos' speech On thePriesthood(post 341 /o?)

is about a genealogical dispute involving succession to the priesthood of Athene Polias. ATHENE

SKIRAS

AND

SKIROS,

PRIESTESS

OF

Discussion. Ferguson (1938), pp. 18 f.; Nilsson (1938), pp. 385; Parke, FA, pp. 156-62.

Sanctuary.The centre of the Athenian cult of Athene Skiras was at Phaleron (Paus. i. i. 4; i. 36. 4; IG ii2 1232; Plu. Thes. I7.6; Hsch. s.v. 'QaXo~opLov). Regarding the doubtful possibility of the existence of a second sanctuary at Skiron on the Sacred Way, see Ferguson, pp. I8f. An inscribed decree (Ferguson, no. I. 12 f.) dated to 363/2 states that the Appointment. is to be elected by lot from either branch of the genosof the Salaminioi, i.e. both priestess from those in Heptaphylai and those in Sounion. See further s.v. Aglauros. Other Attic cults entrusted to the same genoswere those of Eurysakesand the hero at Hale, and of Herakles at Porthmos. Origins.Strabo (ix. i. 9) informs us that Athene was designated Skiras because this was the ancient name for Salamis, where the cult originated. There was a sanctuary of Athene Skirason the island (Hdt. viii. 94; Plu. Solon9). The cult was subsequently transported to Phaleron, probably at the time of the final conquest of Salamis by Athens, i.e. by 510-508/7 at the latest (see above, p. 87). Pausanias (i. 36. 4) alleges that the shrine of Athene Skiraswas founded by a Salaminian mantiscalled Skiros. and herald, she presided over the OschoFestival.Assisted by the oschophoroi, deipnophoroi, laden with bunches of grapes (CdaXol3 branches named after phoria, a festival in Pyanepsion which were carried in procession (Ferguson, no. I. 47-50). For the festival itself, which was connected with the legend of Theseus, see Parke, FA, pp. 78 f. Deubner's contention, pp. 142-50, that the Oschophoria was consecrated to Dionysos is conclusively disproved by Ferguson'sinscription. In addition, the priestesssacrificed to the hero Skiros (Ferguson, no. I. 10,

41 ff., 93).

None is specificallymentioned, although the priestessdid receive a portion (PEpts) Emoluments. of the (private?) sacrifices in the shrines in which she presided, as did all other priests and priestessesof the Salaminian genos(Ferguson, no. I. 39-41). In addition, she received a loaf of bread at the Oschophoria (ibid., line 44). For a possible explanation of the absence of reference to any specific emoluments pertaining to this cult, see s.v. Aglauros. BENDIS,

PRIESTESS

OF

Discussion. Feaver, p. 138; Ferguson (I949), PP. 130-63; Martha, no. 65; Nilsson (195I), pp. 45-8; Parke, FA, pp. 149-52; PWcirka,pp. 122-30; Roussel, pp. 177-82.

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY IN ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL ATHENS

95

The Bendideion, or sanctuary of Bendis, was situated on the hill of Munichia near Sanctuary. the temple of Artemis. Its exact spot has not yet been determined (Xen. Hell. ii. 4. I I; Hsch. s.v. Bendis). A very mutilated inscription (IGii2 1283 = SEGx. 64) recordsthe inauguration of Appointment. an officialcult ofBendis. Lines 12 f. of Fragment B seem to lay down alternative proposalsfor the selection of the priestess. Various restorations have been proposed, based on the supposed context of the isolated phrase ['s A40fEva]lovdITavrov(line 13.) Roussel, p. 182 suggested that the phrase was deciding between the election of a priest or priestess.Ferguson, p. 147, believed that the matter under considerationwas whether the priestessof Bendis should be required to be the wife of a priest or whether she could be the wife of any Athenian citizen. Origins.The first two letters of the name Bendis occur in the treasury accounts of the Other Gods for the year 429/8 (IG i2 3Io. 208). It is very probable that the cult of the Thracian goddess

was introduced to Athens in 430 or 429 with the sanction of the oracle of Zeus at Dodona (see above, p. 13). Ferguson, p. 157, believes that the cult was instituted from a desire to avert the plague, but, as Nilsson pointed out, Bendiswas not a healing goddess. Nilsson stronglysuspectsa political backgroundto the goddess'sreception, inasmuch as Athens at the time believed Thrace to be of great strategic importance, as is demonstrated by her alliance with the Thracian king Sitalkes in 431 (Thuc. ii. 29).

Festival.The Bendideia, or festival in honour of Bendis, was celebrated in the Peiraieuson 19

Thargelion (P1. Rep. i. 327 A with Schol., 328 A, 354 A). As Mommsen, p. 490, suggested, Plato's in Rep. i. 327 A probably refers to special ceremonies such as a torchlight ar7Evvv 7TporovayOVTES

race on horseback which were first introduced c. 411/10, the probable dramatic date of the dialogue, rather than to the whole festival, which was probably inaugurated when the cult was first established. Emoluments. The referencesto emoluments in Fragment B of the decree mentioned above are on the whole too mutilated to be restored with confidence, although there is an unmistakable reference to pelts in line 12.

Laterhistory.The cult seems to have enjoyed great popularity in the 330s, judging by the proceeds made from the sale of hides of animals sacrificedat the Bendideia (IG ii2 1496 Aa, line 117 = SIG3 1029. 22) Nilsson, pp. 47 f., connects the cult's popularity at this date with Athenian sympathy for the Thracians in their struggle to throw off Macedonian domination. Hence, when Athens, after Amorgos in 322, lost all political importance, the cult lost its significance for the state and shortly afterwardsdied out. CYBELE,

PRIESTESS

OF

Discussion. Haldane, pp. I9 f.; Nilsson, GGR i3, pp. 725-7; Picard (1938), pp. 97-10i; Thompson, pp. I 15-40, 172-217; Vermaseren, pp. 32-5-

Sanctuaries.Thompson located the Metroon, or temple to the Mother of the Gods, on the south-west side of the Agora, near to the Tholos or Bouleuterion. Beneath the northernmost room of the Metroon was found a little archaic temple dated to the beginning of the fifth century which is believed to have housed the cult (Travlos, fig. 454). This temple, of which few traces survive, was destroyed by the Persians in 480/79 and never rebuilt. Instead the cult was apparently transferred to the Old Bouleuterion. It was this building which in all probability housed the celebrated statue of the goddess, attributed by some ancient commentators to Pheidias (Paus. i. 3. 5; Arr. Peripl. M. Eux. 9), but by Pliny (HN xxxvi. 4. I7) to his pupil Agorakritos. When a new Bouleuterion was built at the end of the fifth century, the Old Bouleuterion, which in addition to serving as a temple also housed the state archives, came to be

R. S. J. GARLAND

96

called the Metroon. For a possible connection between Cybele and legal order, see Vermaseren, p. 33. A new Metroon was built in the Hellenistic period with four rooms, one of which served as a temple. In addition to the Metroon in the Agora, there were many other sanctuariesof Cybele throughout Attika, including one on the south bank of the IlissosRiver in Agrai (Travlos, p. I I2 with figs. 154, 379) and another in the Peiraieusat Moschaton (Papachristodoulou,pp. 140-6). A sculptural representationof the goddess from the sanctuary at Moschaton is dated on stylistic grounds to the late fifth or early fourth century (ibid., pl. I). Origins.The cult of Cybele, Mother of the Gods, reached Athens from Asia Minor. At what date she received official recognition is disputed. A story known only from late sources tells of how Athens was visited by a Metragyrtes or begging priest of the Great Mother of Phrygia, who, according to varied accounts, was either driven out of the country or else stoned and cast When a plague broke out, the Athenians consulted the Pythia who into a deep pit (pfapaOpov). instructed them to appease the goddess'swrath. This they did by erecting a temple in her honour known as the Metroon, thus instituting her official worship at Athens (Jul. Or.v. 159; Sud.s.vv. and fl3pa0pov; Schol. Ploutos 431; Schol. Aeschin. iii. 187; Phot. s.v. Metroon). vq7rpayVprrq to According Picard, the plague that is mentioned in the version of Photios occurred in 430. As noted above, however, archaeological evidence provided by the remains of the Metroon itself suggestsa date in the late sixth or early fifth century for the inception of the cult. For discussionof the introduction of the cult, see Nilsson and Vermaseren, p. 34. For the relation of the Mother of the Gods to Demeter, see Haldane. DEMETER

AND

KORE,

PRIESTS

AND

PRIESTESSES

OF

Discussion.Clinton, SOEM; id. (1980), pp. 258-80; Foucart; Mylonas; Richardson, pp. 5-30; Walton (1952), pp. 105-14; Nilsson (1951), p. 37. Origins.The cult of Demeter and Kore (also known as the Two Goddesses) had its centre at Eleusis, a coastal deme 132Imiles east of Athens. Prior to her amalgamation within the Athenian state in the late seventh or early sixth century, Eleusis was a prosperous, independent community with a port in the bay of Salamis and provided with rich agricultural land known as the Rarian Field, where corn was said to have been first sown. When Eleusis lost her independence, control over the Mysteries passed into Athenian hands (see below). The unique deference paid by the state to the cult is noted by Nilsson, p. 37, in the following: (1) overall control of the cult was put in the hands of the basileuswho traditionally supervised the most venerable cults; (2) the procession to the cult centre from the capital was preceded by another in the reverse direction; (3) a branch house was establishedin Athens known as the Eleusinion 'in the city' or 'beneath the polis'; (4) though the celebration of the Mysteries at Eleusis was left intact, an additional festival, known as the Lesser Mysteries, was celebrated in the month of Anthesterion. Hymnto Demeter.The date of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter remains problematical. The absence of referenceto Athens is regarded by most scholarsas evidence that it was written prior to the political integration of Eleusis into the Athenian state or at least 'before the reorganisationof the mysteriesunder Athenian influence' (Allen, Halliday, and Sikes, p. 113). To Walton, p. I 14, however, the exclusively Eleusinian nature of the hymn and the absence of mention ofa Keryx (see below) argues 'a polemical appeal to tradition'. Walton sees the poem as a piece of religious propaganda aimed at combating an Athenian take-over of the cult after

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL ATHENS

97

Eleusishad been absorbedinto Attika. Richardson, pp. 10 f., who is of the opinion that the hymn antequemof the mid sixth century. predates Athenian interest in the cult, assigns it a terminus Sanctuaries. At Eleusis the firstshrine on the site of the future Telesterion (Hall of Initiation) is dated to LH II, although thereis nothing to associateit with the worshipofDemeter. It underwent successive enlargements, first in the Geometric period and again c. 700, when the Archaic Telesterion and terrace were constructed, though continuity of worship down from the Bronze Age to the Geometric period is by no means certain. During Peisistratos'reign the sanctuarywas doubled in area and fortified with a strong wall. Notwithstanding its defences, it was sacked in 479 by the Persians (Hdt. ix. 65). Reconstruction work began under Kimon and was completed by Perikles. The sanctuary was again expanded in the period 370-360, when the so-called Lykourganwall was built around the south side of the sanctuary (Mylonas, pp. 135-7). The City Eleusinion was situated on the north side of the Acropolis to the east side of the Panathenaic Way. The earliest temple on this site has not survived but its precinct wall, which has, is dated to the mid sixth century. A later temple was erected on the same site, perhapsas late as 490 (Paus. i. 14. 1-14; Travlos, pp. 198 f. with figs. 26o, 263-5). In addition to the cult centre at Eleusis and

the branch establishment in Athens, Eleusinia are known to have existed in the Marathonian Tetrapolis, in Brauron, and in Paiania. andEumolpidai. The most important Eleusinian priesthoodswere retained either in the Kerykes the of genos Eumolpidai (hierophant, phaidyntes,exegetaiof the Eumolpidai) or in that of the The majority of scholars are of the opinion that the Eumolpidai, who Kerykes (dadouchos). claimed descent from Eumolpos, a Thracian king who fought for the Eleusinians against the Athenians in the time of Erechtheus, were associated with the cult prior to the incorporation of Eleusis within the Athenian state and that the Kerykeswere a genosof non-Eleusinian origin. It is possible that the Kerykeswere created in the late seventh or early sixth century in order firstly to emphasize Athenian involvement in the newly adopted cult, and secondly to secure it more firmly within the political and religious frameworkof the state. This view finds limited support from the fact that the Kerykes are not mentioned at all in the HymntoDemeter,although it has to be admitted as well that Eumolpos himself received only a passing reference (475 f.). Citing Pausanias (i. 38. 3), who reports a tradition whereby Keryx was the son of Eumolpos, Picard (1931), PP. 5-7, put forward the alternative hypothesis that the Kerykes were an Eleusinian genoswho sided with Athens at the time of her struggle to gain control of Eleusis.The origin of the genosremains a matter for controversy. It is not known what manner of appointment was used to fill the priesthoods.The Appointment. statement attributed to Aristotle (AP Fr. 5 Opermann) that gentile priesthoods 'like those belonging to the Eumolpidai, Kerykes and Eteoboutadai' were sortitive must be treated with some caution. In view of the fact that the satisfactory celebration of the Mysteries must have required a high standard of professionalexpertise, it is a fair assumption that many, if not all, appointments were made from a previously screened panel of candidates (cf. Philostr. VSii. 20 p. 103 T, regarding the relative merits of various hierophants). As an indication of the special nature of the Eleusinian priesthood, it may be noted that its senior members, namely the were distinguishedfrom most other Athenian priestsby the elaborate hierophant and dadouchos, vestments which they wore while officiating (see s.vv). Athenian influenceand control. Pausanias' account of the struggle between Erechtheus and Eumolpos ends with the words, 'The Eleusinians were to have independent control of the Mysteries, but in all other matters were to be subject to the Athenians' (i. 38. 3). If these words reflect the terms of a real pact, it was not kept. At what date the Athenian state first began to interfere in the organization and running of the cult is not known. Andokides states that a 'law of

98

R. S. J. GARLAND

Solon' decreed that on the day after the Mysteriesthe boule should meet in the City Eleusinion to hear any instance of malpractice (i. I 16), but there is no knowing whether the law cited was really so ancient. Our earliest secure evidence of attempts by the Athenian state to regulate the worship of Demeter and Kore dates from the end of the sixth century or beginning of the fifth, when the demos passed two decrees, one regulating the emoluments of the Eleusinian priesthoods, the other laying down rules for certain sacrifices (SEG xxi. 3-4; xii. 2-3 = LSS I-2; Jeffery, pp. 86-1 I). It is clear that the state regarded the Eleusinian priesthood, like any other priesthood, as ultimately accountable to the demos. Thus it is highly probable that the hierophant underwent a financial audit (Aeschin. iii. 18). A decree dated c. 460 imposed a fine of 1,ooo dr. on representatives of either genos if they attempted to initiate en bloc (IG i2 6). In the

third quarter of the fifth century a board of epistataiat Eleusis was appointed by the boule in order to 'take charge of the Two Goddesses'property' (SEGx. 24). Athens' concern to maintain control over the cult is demonstratedby her complaint in 432 that the Megarians were cultivating sacred land belonging to the goddesses (Thuc. i. 139. 2) and by her completion in c. 430 of the sanctuary rewalling (SEGx. 60). Some time between 422 and 414 the demos passed a decree to the Two Goddessesfrom both the Athenians regulating the offerings of first-fruits(dvrapXal[ and their allies (GHI i2 73). It is revealing that although the decree seeks the sanction of the Eumolpidai as a matter of course (lines 36 f.), it gives overall control of the collection to the state's own appointees, the hieropoioi(lines 9-21, 34-44; see below, p. i18). The decree also demonstrates how Athens in this period attempted to exploit the prestige of the Mysteries in order to promote her claim to be the cultural and spiritual leader of the Greek world by urging all Greekstates tojoin in making a contribution of first-fruitsto the goddesses.How successfulshe was in this aim is hard to establish. Isokrates (Panegyr.31) claimed in 380 that 'most states' complied with the request, although as Walton o106n. 5) points out, the only surviving records of darapXalreceived, namely those for the year 329/8 (IG ii2 1672. 263 ff.), do not support this

statement. The full extent of state control over the Mysteries in the first half of the fourth century is revealed by a fragmentary inscription found near the City Eleusinion which has been recently published by Clinton, (I980).60 The decree covers all aspects of the cult, including the

announcement of the Mysteries, the selection of spondophoroi, the nature of the sacred truce, the duties of epimeletai,exegetai, to the and regulations concerning right initiate, appointment the maintenance of and the and hearth-initiates, epistatai, discipline, punishment of offenders. Very probably, as Clinton (1980), p. 275, suggests, the decree reflects 'a need for legal remedies

to cope with difficultiescreated by very large numbers of initiates'. The increase in popularity and importance of the Mysteriesin this period may be seen as providing the background to the remodelling and expansion of the sanctuary which took place at this time (see above). Wealthof thecult.The wealth of the cult in the classical period is illustrated by the treasury account (IG i2 313) for the year 408/7 which itemizes its income as follows: Greater Mysteries,

4299 dr. and 4 obols; Lesser Mysteries, 46 dr.; lease of land, 500 dr. On the basis of Clinton's calculation, SOEM, p. 13 n. 13, of 12 obols per initiate at the Greater Mysteries, this indicates a total of 2,150 initiates for the year in question. Emoluments. The Eleusinian priesthoods were among the most lucrative of all Athenian priesthoods. A treasury account issued by the epistatai in 329/8 refers to the fact that they all received a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the harvest from the Rarian field (IG ii2 I1672. 255-62). As well as their personal emoluments (listed individually below), they also received 60so Unfortunately the decree cannot be accurately dated. Clinton (1980), pp. 272 f., tentatively places it within the period 353/2-348/7.

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY IN ARCHAIC AND CLASSICALATHENS

99

proceedsfroma portionof the sacrificesmadeat the Mysteries(IGii2 1231-.9-13; 1078.35 f.). Accordingto the traditionalrestorationof the so-calledPrytaneionDecreedatedto the 430sor 420S,all the EleusinianpriesthoodweregrantedUaTqaLS(freemaintenance)in the Prytaneion (IG i277-5). Ostwald,p. 25, however,hassuggestedan alternativerestoration,limitingaLT7ULS exclusivelyto the hierophant(below,pp. 102 f.). Laterhistory. The cult of Demeterand Persephonepersistedforoverone thousandyearsuntil the end of the fourthcenturyAD,when, in accordancewith the edictof Theodosios,all pagan ritesweresuppressed. DADOUCHOS

('TORCH-HOLDER')

Discussion.Clinton, SOEM, pp. 47-68; Foucart, pp. 46-55; Kourouniotes (1937), Pp. 223-53; MacDowell (1962), pp. iof.; Martha, no. 71. 2; Mylonas, p. 232; Parke, FA, pp. 57, 68, 96, etc. At least by the fifth century and possiblyearlier, the dadouchos was elected fromthe Appointment. i. iii. Schol. Aeschin. Eleus. Aristid. There has been much Or. 18; Kerykes (Andok. 127; 4 Keil). discussion as to whether the dadouchia was hereditary in one particular branch of the Kerykes, namely the descendants ofPhainippos (PA 7833). This view was firstproposed by Dittenberger, pp. io and 22, who maintained that the office was passed down from father to son who were alternately called Kallias and Hipponikos, certainly for three and perhaps four generations in the fifth and fourth centuries. However, there is some doubt as to whether Hipponikos (II), the son of Kallias (II)--who was dadouchos in the first half of the fifth century-was himself dadouchos are Davies (see below; Davies 7826. I p. 254). In supportof the hereditarynature of the dadouchia and MacDowell, pp. io f. Against it are Foucart (p. 46) and Clinton (pp. 47 f.). No other gentile priesthood is known to have been hereditary. Whatever the truth, it is certain that the dadouchia was retained among the descendantsof Phainippos towards the end of the fourth century, when a dadouchos named Pythodoros was in office. duties. The dadouchos was the chief male priest after the hierophant. Jointly with the Special he issued the from the Stoa Poikile through the hierokeryx, hierophant inviting all rpo'pppqatS Greeks to attend the Mysteries. As his name suggests, he probably provided lighting effects in the Telesterion at the time of initiation. He was entitled to use the 'Zeus' fleece' to purify those tainted with blood (Hsch. and Sud. s.v. A0ds W`K4tov; Foucart, pp. 51 f.; Nilsson, GGR i3, The Scholiast to Aristophanes' Frogs (479-82) reports that the dadouchosofficiated pp. 0-13).

during the theatrical contests at the Lenaia. Emoluments. is not included among the list of priestsreceiving a wage Interestingly the dadouchos

for performing initiation as recorded in the treasury account for the year 408/7 (IG i2 313).

However, Davies, p. 260, observes that the income received by successivemembersof the family who held the priesthood was 'not to be neglected' (SEG xii. 2 = LSS 9 no. I Face A (510-480); SEG x. 6 = LSS 13 no. 3 Face C (c. 460) for regulations concerning their income). Honour.The dadouchosenjoyed a proedria (IG ii2 5028).

Dress.The dadouchos wore colourfulvestments, probably purple, a strophion or headband, and a or knot at the nape of his myrtle crown. His hair, which was worn long, was tied into a krobylos neck (Ath. i. 2 I E; Ael. fr. Io). So striking was his appearance at the battle of Marathon that he was mistaken by one of the Persians for a king (Plu. Arist. 5. 6). Residence. A financial account of the sanctuary expenses for the year 329/8 records the expenditure on wood for the doors of the dadouchos'residence (IG ii2 1672. 305). Representation.A red-figure stamnos dated c. 450 which was found in an Eleusinian grave depicts a procession led by a bearded man in colourful dress carrying a torch in each hand. He

R. S. J. GARLAND

I00

is probably to be identified with the dadouchos (Kourouniotes, fig. 4; ARFVP,p. 1052; Parke, FA, pl. 28). Knownpriests.Kallias (II), son of Hipponikos (I), of the deme ofAlopeke, was dadouchos from at least 490 to 446/5 or later. He fought nobly at the battle of Marathon dressed in his priestly vestments (Plu. Arist.5. 6-7; Schol. Ar. Clouds64). He was prominent in public life, taking part in the embassy to Artaxerxes (449/8) which allegedly produced the Peace of Kallias, negotiating the Thirty Years' Peace with Sparta in 446/5, and acting as proxenos for Sparta (D.S. xii. 7). 'the man with buried treasure'by Because of his great wealth, he was nicknamed "aKKlTAoUrog, the comic writers (Plu. Arist. 5. 6; Sud. s.v. AaKKO'7rAovros;FGrH 104 F 13). For discussion see Clinton, p. 47, Davies, pp. 258-61, MacDowell, p. io, and PA 7825. As noted above, it is not known for certain whether his son, Hipponikos (II), succeeded to the dadouchia.Hipponikos served as strategos in 426 (Thuc. iii. 91. 4; Ath. v. 218 B) Kallias (III), son of Hipponikos (II),

was dadouchos from before 400 to at least 371. Like his grandfather, he was prominent in 391/o during the Corinthian War, and acting as envoy to Sparta politically, serving as strategos on three occasions (Xen. Hell. vi. 3. 2-6; Arist. Rhet. 1405a 20). Being both extremely

wealthy and extremely profligate, he was displayed as the prey of flatterersat his dinner-parties by Eupolis in The Flatterers (Andok. i. I112, 124-7; Ath. v. 218 B; Lys. xix. 48; Schol. Ar.

Birds283). For discussionsee Clinton, pp. 49 f., Davies, pp. 262 f., MacDowell, pp. io f., and PA named Pythodoros protested to no avail in 302 when Demetrios Poliorketes 7826. A dadouchos requested that he be admitted to the bTrroT'la(final stage of initiation) without first undergoing

preliminaryinitiation (Plu. Demetr.26; PA 12394). As Plutarch expresslynotes, Pythodoros was alone in daring to oppose Demetrios. DEMETER,

PRIESTESS

OF

Discussion.Clinton, SOEM, pp. 68-76; Feaver, p. 125; Foucart, pp. 67-71; Maas, p. 72; Martha, no. 71. 7; Mylonas, p. 231; Pritchett, pp. 97-Io10.

Elected from the genosof the Philleidai and held office for life (Phot. s.v.). Appointment. An Requirement. inscription of unknown date from Olympia on Kos states that the priestessof

from the following: hero-meals, graves, death, and Demeter must keep herself pure (dyvev'EaOaL)

childbirth (Grant, p. 26). Afortiori,it is likely that the chief priestessof the Eleusinian Mysteries was similarly restricted. Origins.Clinton, p. 76, is of the opinion that the priestess of Demeter was the earliest priesthood to be attached to the Eleusinian sanctuary. Specialduties.The priestessof Demeter was the most important religious official at Eleusis after the hierophant, with whom on one occasion she successfullydisputed the privilege of conducting certain sacrifices (Ps.-Dem. lix. 116). She acted the part of Demeter in the celebration of the Mysteries.An inscriptionof 42 I refersto 'the priestesses'as carrying the IEpEin the processionof the Mysteries,though we cannot be certain whether this should include the priestessof Demeter. She alone had the right to performthe sacrificeat the Haloa, an agricultural festival held on 26 Poseideon, successfullydefending her prerogative when usurped by the hierophant Archias, as noted above (Parke, FA, pp. 98-Ioo). The priestess was required to assist the hierophant in making a sacrifice to the Goddesses after the settlement of the dispute regarding the cultivation of sacred land by Megara in 352 (IG ii2 204-. 58 f.). Emoluments.According to a law passed c. 460, the priestess was to receive one obol from each initiate at both the Lesser and the Greater Mysteries (IG i2 6, revised by Clinton, Io f.). Of the total accruing all but I600 dr. was to be given 'to the Goddess'. The remaining 16oo dr.

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

ioi

were evidently intended either to be a salary or to cover her expenses or both.61The law code of Nikomachos, which dates to the end of the fifth century, states that the priestessof Demeter is to receive 500 dr. as apometra(above, p. 85) for her sacrificial duties (LSS Io; Healey, pp. 256-9; Clinton, p. 70).

Honour.Eponymous at Eleusis (i.e. events and inscriptionswere dated from the year in which she succeeded to office). Residence.The financial audit of the sanctuary expenses for the year 329/8 several times mentions a 'house for the priestess' (IG ii2 1672. 17, 74, 126 f., and 305).

Knownpriestesses. The name of Lysistrateis preservedon a base commissionedby a woman who styled herself 'propolosof the sacred rites of Demeter and Kore'. The words which follow, viz. &yaApta-ro&8 E ar7gaEv U-ErbVWoAvnaTrpadr7(2 f.), have been variously interpreted. Pritchett,

p. 98, took them to mean 'has erected this offering of two crowns'. Maas, on the analogy of Kosmo and Trapeza, which appear to be titles of the priestesseswho assisted the priestess of Athene Polias (see s.v.), suggested that Stephano was the title of an Attic Demeter priestess. There is, however, no other evidence for the existence of such a priestess.The inscriptionis dated to the mid fifth century (Pritchett, pp. 97-loI, no. 18; SEG x. 321; Clinton, 69; Maas, 72). Theano, daughter of Menon, of the deme of Agraule, the priestess who refused to curse Alkibiades and his friends after their condemnation for allegedly parodying the Mysteries, is likely to have been priestessof Demeter and Kore (Plu. Alk. 22). HIEROPHANT

('REVEALER

OF SACRED

OBJECTS')

Discussion.Clinton, SOEM, pp. 10-47; Foucart, pp. 24-42; Martha, no. 71. I; Mylonas, pp. 229-3 I.

Elected for life from the genosof the Eumolpidai (Aristeid. Or. 22. 4 Keil). Appointment. Prohibition.Had to remain chaste at least for the duration of the actual celebration of the Mysteries (Arr. Epikt.iii. 21. I6; Jul. Or.v. 173 D). Pausanias (ii. 14. i) has been wrongly adduced to infer that the hierophant was Qualification. not permitted to marry. The contraryis indicated by Hypereides (fr. I98Jensen). Clinton, p. 44, believes that age was 'an important requisiste'for appointment to the hierophantia. he Specialduties.The hierophant was the chief priest in the cult. Jointly with the dadouchos,

issued the rrpd'pplqULs from the Stoa Poikile through the hierokeryx,inviting all Greeks to attend the

Mysteries and warning all murderersand non-Greeks to keep away (Isok. Panegyr.157; Schol.

Ar. Frogs 369). He revealed the lEpdand spoke the

AEydoEva

at the most solemn moment in the

initiation ceremony (Hsch. s.v. lEpo~dvrr-qg), and hence can be consideredas 'possessingthe right to final and complete initiation' (Mylonas, p. 230). Only the hierophant was permitted to enter the Anaktoron (Ael. VH fr. Io). He was the interpreter of the unwritten laws governing the staging of the Mysteries (Ps.-Lys. vi. 9-1o). From 422, or more probably from 414 onwards, he issued an invitation jointly with the dadouchos to 'all the Greeks' to offer &drapXal'(first-fruits)of the harvest to the Goddesses in accordance with rd arrrpLa and the Delphic oracle (IG i2 76. = = SEG Io x. GHI The had i' 24-6 73). hierophant religious duties in connection with other festivals as well as the Mysteries, notably the Kalamaia (Deubner, pp. 67 f.) and the Proeresia (Parke, FA, pp. 74 f.). His duties were adminstrative as well as religious. Thus when the dispute between the Athenians and Megarians regarding the cultivation of land sacred to the Goddesses

6e In view of the fact that the priestessof Athene Nike (s.v.) received an annual salary of only 50 dr., however, it is

improbablethatthepriestessof Demetershouldhavereceiveda wage 32 timesgreater.

102

R. S. J. GARLAND

reached a climax in 350/49, both parties agreed to allow the hierophant and dadouchosto determine the boundaries (IG ii2 204; Diehls and Schubart, col. 14- 40-6).

The special reverenceattaching to the office of the hierophantia is indicated by the Hieronymy. fact that the earliestinstance ofhieronymy (the replacementof the personalname of the priest by the title of the priesthood) is found in the case of a hierophantic inscriptiondated to the end of the fourth century (see below). Status.The financial audit of the sanctuary expenses for the year 329/8 makes reference to a (IG ii2 1672. 145), which Clinton, p. 20, identifies with the lEpooaVT-LKOS Opo'vosOf the Roman period (cf. Travlos (1950-I), pp. 1-16). No other Eleusinian priest or priestess is known OaKEov

to have possesseda throne. Plutarch (Numa9. 4) and Dio Chrysostom (xxxi. 121) indicate that the hierophant was the most important Athenian priesthood in the Roman period, but it seems unlikely that this was also the case in the classical period. A fragmentarylaw set up in the City Eleusinion dated c. 460 refersto a priest who Emoluments. the preceded priestessof Demeter receiving at least half an obol per day from each initiate at the Mysteries (IG i2 6 Face C, lines 7 f., revised by Clinton, of.). As Clinton conjectures, it is probable that the receiver was the hierophant, though the proceeds (or at least the major part) were doubtless handed over to the treasury. A restoration by Ostwald, p. 25, of a fragmentary inscription passed either in the 430s or 420s listing those who were granted aU-qTaLS (free maintenance) in the Prytaneion lists the hierophant among the idE-lrOL(IG i2 77. 5). Ostwald,

p. 32, conjecturesthat the hierophant was the first Eleusinian priest to be awarded the privilege of atr&Tnst 'later extended to the other Eleusinian priests, too, perhaps not until the second century of our era'. The restorationis disputed by Clinton, pp. 13 f. It is problematic in view of the fact that the list does not include other prominent priesthoods, such as Athene Polias, even more highly revered. Honour.The hierophant enjoyed a proedria (IG ii2 5053). Dress. The hierophant wore a mantle, probably of purple, a oarpdocovor headband surmounted by a wreath of myrtle, and carried a staff (Arr. Epikt. iii. 21. 16; Plu. Aristid. 5. 6-7; FGrH334 F29). See Mylonas, p. 232, Rizzo, pp. 156 f., and Clinton, pp. 32-5.

There is no evidence as to whether the hierophant lived within the sanctuary walls Residence. of Eleusis. A relief from Hagnous dated to the early Antonine period (c. 138-50 AD) Representation. provides the only definite example of a representationof a hierophant (Vanderpool, p. 268 with pl. 73 and fig. 17; Clinton, pp. 33-5 with fig. 3). Knownhierophants. The earliest known hierophant was Zakoros, who lived around the turn of the fifth century (Ps.-Lys.vi. 54 with Clinton, i o). Theodoros, who was involved in the cursingof Alkibiadesafterhis condemnation on the charge of profaning the Mysteries,was in officefrom at least 415 until 408 (Plu. Alk. 33; PA 6827). Archias, who was hierophant at the time of Pelopidas' raid on Thebes in 379, discovered the plot and sent advance warning to the oligarchs, which went unheeded (Plu. Pel. Io). He was later convicted of impiety for having illegally offered a sacrifice at Eleusis during the Haloa on behalf of a hetaira called Sinope (Ps.-Dem. lix. Ii6). Lakrateides was hierophant 'from shortly before 353 to at least 350/49' (Clinton, p. I7): he was thus in office at the time of the dispute concerning the cultivation of sacred land (see above p. oo). Hierokleides, son of Teisamenos, a Paianian, in office around the mid fourth century, was honoured by the deme ofEleusis with dtELa (release from taxation) and a gold crown worth 500 dr. for his piety and zeal (IG ii2 188, restored by Clinton, p. I8 with fig. I). Eurymedon, in office in 323, brought a charge of impiety against Aristotle for having composed a hymn in honour of Hermias of Atarnaeus (D.L. Arist. 5; Athen. xv. 696A-697B; PA 5972; Clinton, 2 I;

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY IN ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL ATHENS

PMG 842). According to Diogenes Laertius (ii. I),

og3

Eurykleides,hierophant during the reign of

Demetrios of Phaleron (317-307), tried to bring a charge against the philosopher Theodoros for

An inscriptiondated to around the end of the fourth century (IGii2 joking about the hierophantia. a to 1934), referring hierophant who was 'son of Nauphrades, of the deme of Perithoidai' is the first definite example of hieronymy. Clinton, p. 22, conjectures that the hierophant's personal name was Mnesiarchos. THE

ALTAR-PRIEST

Discussion.Clinton, SOEM, pp. 82-6; Foucart, pp. 57 f.; Martha, no. 71. 4; Mylonas, p. 233Evidence from the late first century Be indicates that in the Roman period the Appointment. altar-priestwas elected from the family of the Kerykesfor life (Clinton, p. 77). There is no reason to doubt that this was always the case. Specialduties.The precise function of the altar-priest is not known, although, as his name suggests, it is likely that he played a leading role in the sacrificesmade at the Mysteries. Emolument. According to Clinton's restoration, pp. io f. of the decree dated c. 460 regulating the emoluments of the Eleusinian priesthood, the altar priest received one obol from every initiate (IG i2 6 Face C, lines 47-50). Both Sokolowski, LSS, p. 3, and Meritt (1945), P. 77, restore however. to EfLtoflEAov,

KERYX

(LATER

KNOWN

AS HIEROKERYX

OR 'SACRED

HERALD')

Discussion.Clinton, SOEM, pp. 76-82; Foucart, pp. 55-7; Martha, no. 71. 3; Mylonas, P. 233-

Evidence from the late first century Be indicates that in the Roman period the Appointment.

keryxwas elected from the Kerykes (Clinton, p. 77). There is no reason to doubt that this was always the case.

It seems inevitable that a good speaking voice was at least a desirable, if not a Qualification. attribute for the keryx.The keryxKleokritos (see below) is described by Xenophon as necessary 4v paA'We6bwvoso (Hell. ii. 4. 20). for the Mysteries on behalf of the hierophant and Specialduties.The keryxmade the prorrhesis and that for the Proerosia on behalf of the hierophant alone. In view of the fact that his dadouchos, sole function, so far as we are able tojudge, seems to have been to act as masterof ceremonies,we cannot be certain whether in fact the keryxenjoyed the status of a priest during the archaic or

classical period.

Emolument.Clinton's restoration, pp. Io f., of the decree passed in 460 regulating the emoluments of the Eleusinian priesthood includes the keryxamong those who are to receive

payment from each initiate (IG i2 6, Face C, lines 47-50). Ziehen, LSS, p. 3, and Meritt (1945),

for keryx. p. 77, however, substitutephaidyntes Honour.The Roman-styled hierokeryx enjoyed a proedria(IG ii2 5043)Knownpriest. Kleokritos, described by Xenophon (Hell. ii. 4. 20) as 6 rdo' VtvarU'VKqpv4,made a speech in 403 addressed to the followers of the Thirty after the battle in the Peiraieus. PANA

GEIS

Discussion. Clinton, SOEM, p. 98; Foucart, pp. 66 f. The alleged existence of a specific group of priestesses known aspanageis or 'all holy' at Eleusis is debated. As Clinton, p. 98 n. 37, suggests, it is possible that the title was merely descriptive of all priestesses who practised chastity for the duration of the festival (see above, p. Io i). Such a view

R. S. J. GARLAND

104

is consistent with references to segregated dwellings for the panageis(Hsch. s.v.; Jul. v. 173 c; CIA iv, p. 203. 81). PHA

Discussion.Clinton, SOEM, p. 95; Foucart, pp. 59 f. The phaidyntes appears to be mentioned in a fragmentaryboustrophedoninscriptionfound in the Agora which is dated to the close of the sixth century (LSS I; SEGxii. 2-3; Jeffery, pp. 86-I I ). His title suggeststhat he was charged with the care of statues. It is possible that he was mentioned among the Eleusinian officialswho were to receive payment at the Mysteriesfrom each initiate (IG i2 6 Face C, lines 47-50; LSS 3; Meritt (1945), P- 77; see above, p. 103). He is not referred to again until the second century AD. It is not clear whether the phaidyntesenjoyed the status of priest. DIONYSOS

ELEUTHEREUS

'v (O

~T7EL), PRIEST

OF

Discussion.Deubner, pp. 138-42; Martha, no. 77; Nilsson (1951), pp. 26f.; Parke, FA, pp. 125-35; Pickard-Cambridge, pp. 57-60.

Sanctuary.The shrine of Dionysos Eleuthereus, known as the Lenaion, was situated on the south slope of the Acropolis (Ps.-Dem. lix. 76; Paus. i. 20. 3). As Pausanias noted, it contained two temples: the older one, dated by Travlos, p. 537, to 'the second half of the sixth century Be during the rule of Peisistratosor, more likely, of his successors',housed the wooden statue of the god; the more recent one, dated to the mid fourth century or somewhat later, contained the chryselephantinestatue by Alkamenes (Travlos, figs. 678f.; Hill, pp. 107 f.). It is not known whether the priesthood was gentile or democratic. Appointment. cult of Dionysos Eleuthereus was transferredto Athens from Eleutherai, a small The Origins. town on the border between Attika and Boeotia, probably in the mid sixth century under the auspicesof Peisistratos.A tradition related by Pausaniasrecordedthat the person responsiblefor the transferwas an otherwiseunknown Pegasosof Eleutheraiwho had the support of the Delphic Oracle (i. 2. 5; cf. i. 20. 3). ElsewherePausaniasstates that the town left the Boeotian alliance and came over to the Athenian side voluntarily (i. 38. 8). As in the case of the Thracian goddess Bendis, therefore, the introduction of the cult of Dionysos Eleuthereus is likely to have been occasioned by political expediency, and we may plausibly regard his reception at Athens as a way of consolidating the newly-forged links with his home town. The carrying of the god's old wooden statue from the temple in the city to a small shrine in the Academy on the road to Eleutherai, from which it was transported back to its temple in time for the Dionysia, was therefore 'a re-enactment of the original advent of Dionysus from Eleutherai' (PickardCambridge, p. 60; cf. IG ii2 ioo6.

12

f., dated

122/1).

According to tradition, the Athenians did not receive the god with proper honour and were punished with a disease which affected the male genitalia. On making inquiry to the Delphic oracle they were told to manufacture phalloi and carry them in processionin the god's honour (Sch. Ar. Ach. 243). In view of the fact that it gave birth to tragedy, the arrival of the cult of Dionysos in Athens is aptly described by Nilsson, p. 26, as 'momentous'. Festival. It is noteworthy that the Dionysia came under the supervision of the archoneponymos and not the basileus, an indication that the cult was not especially ancient. Special duties. It is possible that the priest of Dionysos took the part of Dionysos in the reenacting of the sacred marriage between the god and the basilinnaat the Anthesteria (Ps.-Dem. lix. 73), although, as Deubner, pp. Io8f., pointed out, the role would be more naturally filled by the basileushimself.

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

105

Honour.The priest of Dionysos had a proedriain the centre of the front row of the theatre of Dionysos (IG ii2 5022; Ar. Frogs 297 and Schol. ad loc.). EURYSAKES

AND THE HERO

AT HALE,

PRIEST

OF

Discussion. Ferguson (1938), pp. 15 ff.; Nilsson (1951), pp. 30 f.

The Eurysakeionwas situated in the deme of Melite on Kolonos Agoraios (Harp. Sanctuary. Plu. Solono; Harp. s.v. Kolonetas). It consistedof a temenoswith an altar (see Paus. s.v. MEALr'; i. 35. 3). It was 'well established' by 508/7 (Ferguson, p. 18). An inscription found near the Eurysakeion (Ferguson, no. I. 12 f.) dated 363/2 Appointment. states that the priest is to be elected from either branch of the genosof the Salaminioi, i.e. both from those from Heptaphylai and thosefrom Sounion. See furthers.v. Aglauros. The priestwas a pluralist, i.e. he served two separate cults (Ferguson, no. I. 52 ff.). Origins.Eurysakeswas the name of one of the sons of Aias. According to Plutarch (SolonIo), 'Philaios and Eurysakes,having received Athenian citizenship, gave the island of Salamis to the Athenians and settled in Attika, Philaios in Brauron, Eurysakes in Melite.' According to Pausanias (i. 35. 2), it was Philaios alone who gave the island to the Athenians. He makes Philaios the son of Eurysakesand grandson of Aias. Sophokles (Aias530 ff.), on the other hand, seems to suggest that Eurysakes was the only son of Aias. It is very probable that the establishment of a cult of Eurysakesin the heart of Athens was a highly political as well as a religious act, and intimately connected with the strugglein the sixth century for the possessionof Salamis. As Nilsson, pp. 30f., bluntly puts it, 'The Athenians wished to transferthe Salaminian hero to Athens to win him for themselves and through his favour to get hold of the island.' Possibly as Ferguson, p. 16, suggested, the transfer occasioned the baptism of an old nameless hero cult at Melite with the name of Eurysakes, but it is equally likely that the cult was newly created for the purpose. For the origins of the Salaminian genos,see s.v. Aglauros. Other Attic cults entrusted to the Salaminioi include Athene Skiras and Herakles at Porthmos. Emoluments. The priestess received an hierosynaof 6 dr.; an allowance for pelanos(sacrificial for both cults of 7 dr.; in lieu of legs and skins sacrificedin the Eurysakeion, 13 dr.; the leg cake) and skin of victims sacrificedto the hero at Hale (Ferguson,no. I. 34-9). Like all priestlyofficials of the Salaminian genos,he received a portion (pLpis')of the (private?)sacrificesin the shrinesin which he officiated. HERAKLES

AT PORTHMOS

(SOUNION),62

Discussion. Ferguson (1938), p.

22;

PRIEST

OF

Nilsson (1951), p. 34.

An inscription dated to around the mid third century (Ferguson, no. 2. 8) refersto Sanctuary. a temenos of Herakles containing altars. The sacred area was thus apparently shared with an unknown deity or deities. An inscribeddecree dated 363/2 (Ferguson, no. I. 12 f.) states that the priest is to Appointment. be appointed by lot from either branch of the genosof the Salaminioi, i.e. both from those from Heptaphylai and those from Sounion. See further s.v. Athene Skiras. Origins.The Salaminioi probably took over control of the cult as soon as they were constituted into an Attic genos some time in the sixth century. For the origins of the genos see s.v. Aglauros. The decision to entrust the genos with the cult was doubtless politically inspired, being an 62 For the site of Porthmos,see H. Thompson's note at the end of Ferguson's article, pp. 75 f. He states that it 'may be placed with reasonable assurance at the head of the little Bay of

Sounion to the northwest of the Temple of Poseidon and the Phrourion'.

io6

R. S. J. GARLAND

indication of the value set upon its allegiance and a way of integrating its members more fully within the Athenian state. Other Attic cults entrusted to the Salaminioi include Athene Skiras, and Eurysakesand the hero at Hale. Emoluments. The priest received an lEpwoauva of 30 dr.; an allowance for rTEAavod (sacrificial of sacrificial skin the and victims, cake) of3 dr.; leg of pelted animals, of singed animals the leg, of an ox nine pieces of flesh and the skin (Ferguson, no. I. 28-33). He also received a loaf at the Oschophoria (44 f.). Like all priestly officials of the Salaminian genos,he received a portion (pEpts) of the (private?) sacrifices in the shrines in which he officiated (39-41). POSEIDON

ERECHTHEUS,

PRIEST

OF

Discussion. Farnell, i, pp. 270-2; Martha, no. 152.

Altar.The altar of Poseidon stood in the Erechtheion and was shared with Erechtheus, the legendary king of Athens (Paus. i. 26. 5). Travlos, p. 213, argues that this altar would have been most plausibly situated in the temple's eastern cella, though this is contrary to the generally accepted view (see his restoredplan, fig. 281). In the same section of the Erechtheion as the altar of Poseidon were individual altars to Hephaistos and to the hero Boutes. Like the priestess of Athene Polias, the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus was Appointment. appointed from the genos of the Eteoboutadai (Apollod. Bib. iii. 15. i). Pseudo-Plutarch (Mor. 843 f.) states that Habron, the son of the statesman Lykourgos, aXcv E70

yeOvov

lV-qv LoEpowaiJvv,

withdrew in favour of his younger brother Lykophron. This is the only known instance of an elected priest declining to hold office. For what reason he did so is not stated. It has been suggested on the strength of this statement that the priesthood of Poseidon Erechtheus was hereditary in the family of Lykourgos (see Dittenberger, p. 22 n. 2; Ferguson, 1938, pp. 50, 52; Toepffer, p. 127).

Origins.The cult of Poseidon in Attika, though venerable, is unlikely to have been as ancient as that of Athene, believed by Farnell, p. 270 n. a, to have been established 'very long before Poseidon came'. Erechtheus was perhaps an agricultural deity or hero of Attika. Since he came to be identified with Erichthonios, the child of Athene, his association with Poseidon perhaps reflects an attempt to establish close ties of consanguinity between Poseidon and Athene. Specialduty.The priest assisted at the Skirophoriaheld on 12 Skirophoriontogether with the Parke, FA, p. I58). priestessof Athene Polias and the priest of Helios (Harp. s.v. wKcpov; ii2 a Emolument. Enjoyed proedria(IG 5058). Honour.Pseudo-Plutarch (Mor. 843 E) states that there was a stele in the Erechtheion listing the members of the genoswho held the priesthood.

ZEUS AMMON,

PRIEST

OF

Discussion. Daux, pp. 48 f.; Dow (1937), pp. I84ff.; Holmes, pp. 121-30; Parke, OZ, pp. 217-19; Martha, no. 25; Woodward, pp. 5-13.

The site of the sanctuary of Zeus Ammon has not been established, but it is likely Sanctuary. that it was situated somewhere in the Peiraieus. The temple was erected in the fourth century,

probably before 363 (for discussion of the date, see Woodward, pp. 6 f.). Origins and growth. The earliest consultation of Zeus Ammon by an Athenian was in c. 450, when Kimon made a secret inquiry of the god (Plu. Kim. 18. 7). The oracle was again consulted before the sailing of the Sicilian Expedition in 415 and responded by declaring that the Athenians would capture all the Syracusans (Plu. Nik. 13. I). This unhelpful reply did not, however, cost the god Athenian patronage and his cult obtained official recognition in the early

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY IN ARCHAIC AND CLASSICALATHENS

Io7

partof the fourthcentury,accordingto Dow, p. 184n. I, before37 /o. As Holmes,p. 130,has suggested,it is possiblethatthecultspreadto Athensvia Sparta,whereZeusAmmonis knownto haveenjoyedconsiderableprestige(seeParke,OZ,pp. 219f.). Someevidenceof theimportance of thegod at Athensin thelatterpartof thefourthcenturyis providedby thefactthatthesacred triremeknownas the Salaminiawasat somepointreplacedby anotherknownas theAmmonias (Arist.AP6I. 7). The cultofAmmonis theonlycultof Egyptianoriginwhichwasestablishedin Athensduringthe periodunderconsideration.It is probablethat the introductionof a cult of Ammonis a reflectionof the interruptionin oracularbusinessat Delphifrom373 onwards(see above,p. 81). Festival.Hesychios(s.v. Ammon) states that there was an Athenianfestivalin honourof Ammon.He providesno furtherdetails. Known priest.A decreedatedc. 330 (IGii2410o)honoursPytheasof Alopeke,priestof Ammon, for completingthe constructionof a new fountainbesidethe sanctuary. ZEUS

OLYMPIOS,

PRIEST

OF

The sanctuary of Zeus Olympios was situated to the south of the Acropolis. There Sanctuary. were two temples beforeHellenistic times:the earlierof limestone, the later one of poros, perhaps dated to c. 515 and begun by Peisistratosthe Younger, on which work was discontinued when the tyranny fell (Welter, pp. 61-7 I; Travlos, p. 402). Origins.Thucydides (ii. 15) states that the shrine of Zeus Olympios was of great antiquity. According to Pausanias (i. 18. 8) the first temple was constructed by Deukalion. Honour. The priest of Zeus Olympios enjoyed a proedria(IG ii2 5025). ZEUS POLIEUS,

PRIEST

OF

Discussion. Deubner, pp. i58-74; Farnell, i, p. 58; Parke, FA, pp. 162-7; Stevens (1940),

pp. 79-88. According to Pausanias (i. 24. 4), a statue of Zeus Polieus lay to the north-east of Sanctuary. the Parthenon on the highest point of the Acropolis. Stevens, p. 82, has identified remains of a peribolos discovered near the north-east corner of the Parthenon 'exactly where the Acropolis rock reaches its highest level' as the sanctuary in question. He further identifies the area to the east of the peribolos, which contains 'small rectangular rock cuttings, and also certain shallow rock-cut trenches for the foundation of some structure' (p. 84 with figs. 62, 64), as remains of a fenced building with four stalls suitable for housing the sacred oxen which were sacrificedat the Bouphonia (see below). Origins.The cult of Zeus Polieus is likely to have been one of the most ancient Athenian cults. According to the legend told by Pausanias, the flovur6Tros ('ox-slayer') first killed an ox on the

altar of the god when Erechtheuswas king of Athens (i. 28. Io). The high antiquity of the cult is further borne out by the prominent location of the shrine. Festival.It was at the Dipolieia, or festival in honour of Zeus Polieus held on 14 Skirophorion, that the priest performed the Bouphonia or 'ox-slaying', for which he received the title of flovTOrdoS(Paus. i. 28. Io). A detailed description of the ceremony is provided by Porphry, who

quotes Theophrastos (Abst. ii. 28-31 T.). Honour.The priest of Zeus Polieus enjoyed a proedria(IG ii2 5024). Representation.Harrison and Verrall, p. 428, interpreted an illustration on a black-figure hydria in Berlin (ibid., fig. 37; Stevens, fig. 63) which shows an ox standing within a Doric temple before a blazing altar as 'the sacred ox in his Boukoleion'.

R. S. J. GARLAND

Io8 ZEUS SOTER, PRIEST OF

Discussion.Deubner, pp. I74-6; Farnell, i, pp. 60 f.; Martha, no. 109; Mikalson, pp. I8o; Parke, FA, pp. I67-9; Rhodes, CAAP628. A temple of Zeus Soter stood in the Peiraieus. Only an altar and a statue appear to Sanctuary. have been erected to the god in the city (Plu. Dem. 27. 6; ADelt 1892, PP. 57-9)Originsandgrowth.The fact that the cult was placed under the management of the eponymous archon and not the basileusindicates that the cult was a comparatively recent foundation (Arist. AP 56). Since the temple stood in the Peiraieus, it is probable that the inauguration of the worship of Zeus Soter did not antedate the establishment in 492 of the Peiraieus as a port. Possibly, as Parke, FA, pp. 167 f., suggests, the title 'Soter' ('Saviour') was accorded to Zeus after the recovery of the Peiraieus at the end of the Persian wars. Though little mentioned in the fifth century, the cult of Zeus Soter became important in the fourth century. His priest in Aristophanes, Ploutos,I 174 ff., which was produced in 388, objects that ever since Ploutos regained his sight, his services have not been required. The consequence is that he is starving 'even though I am the priest of Zeus Soter'. Aristophanes'joke is clearly intended to be at the expense of one of the most popular priesthoodsof the day. As examples of the kinds of people who would in the past have made sacrificesto Zeus Soter, the priest instances a merchant who had reached home safely or a defendant who had been acquitted in a lawsuit. The god was closely associated in worship with Athene Soteira. Festival.The Diisoteria, or festival in honour of Zeus as Saviour, was held towards the end of the month of Skirophorionin the Peiraios. Fourth-centuryaccounts show that a large number of bulls were sacrificedat the festival (e.g. IG ii2 1496 Aa, lines 88 f.). It is frequently mentioned in Hellenistic inscriptions.The sum laid aside for the sacrificein 323 is reported as either 50 talents (Plu. Dem. 27. 6) or 30 talents (Ps.-Plu. Mor. 846 D). Neither figure can be regarded as wholly realistic, however, since Demosthenes, who was put in charge of the sacrifice for that year, was expected to pay the bulk of an outstanding fine from the money allocated. The sacrifice performed in Athens on the last day of Skirophorionto mark the end of the old year and beginning of the new was also in honour of Zeus Soter and Athene Soteira. Lysias (xxvi. 6) describesthe rite as ra iTrpa lEpd,,though this need not imply high antiquity. The purpose of the sacrifice, as its name daT-L-rjpLa implies, was to place the state under the protection of the god during the forthcomingyear (IGii2 689, 690). It was presidedover by the archon. We do not know whether the Diisoteria was held in Athens or in the Peiraieus, but there are no a priori grounds for assuming that a festival of this magnitude and importance would be more appropriate to the upper city, as Deubner (p. 175) seems to suggest. The importance of this cult is indicated by the fact that in Lykourgos'speech AgainstLeokrates, s 17, the only gods whom the accused is said to have specifically betrayed when he fled from Athens after the defeat at Chaironeia in 338 are Zeus Soter and Athene Soteira. DEMES,

PRIESTS

OF

Discussion.Feaver, pp. 153 f.; Kourouniotes (1927-8), pp. 9-53Pseudo-Demosthenes (lvii. 46) states that the priest of Herakles in the deme of Appointment. Halimous was elected by lot 'having been nominated from among the noblest-born'. As Feaver comments, 'It is likely . . . that demotic priesthoods, being pre-Cleisthenean in origin, were controlled by some ancestral family group or other.' At least some demes possessed several

priesthoods.A fragmentarydecree discoverednear the ancient deme ofHalai Aixonides dated to the early fourth century which lays down lEpwatJvaL (above, p. 85) for some seven priesthoods is

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

109

either demotic or tribal (IG ii2 1356; LGS ii 24). The tenure of demotic priesthoods is not known.

Epigraphical evidence would seem to indicate that the state exercised some supervision, if not control, over these priesthoods (IG ii2 1362; Kourouniotes, no. 3: both discussedbelow). At the end of his period of office a deme-priest's accounts were audited by his fellow demesmen (Kourouniotes, no. 4. 14).

Specialduties.The duties of the priestsof the deme of Myrrhinousincluded supervisingthe loan agency run by the deme for its own members (IGii2 11 83. 28 if.,post 340). In an inscriptionset up by the demos, the priest of Apollo Erithaseos of an unknown deme makes a proclamation prohibiting the cutting of wood in his sanctuary, 'on behalf of himself, the demesmen, and the Athenian demos' (IG ii2 1362. I ff.; LGS ii 34).

Honour.A decree of the deme of Halai grants honours to the priest of Apollo Zoster by the boule and demos for his piety, upkeep of the sanctuary, care of the cult statue, and performance of sacrificesKardrd 7rT7rpa(Kourouniotes, no. 4. I f.). A sanctuary of Apollo Zoster in the deme of Halai has been excavated at Vouliagmeni in southernAttika. It is dated to c. 500. A colonnade of six by four columns was added in the second quarter of the fourth century (see Boersma, nos. x and p. 39). EPONYMOI

OF THE TEN KLEISTHENIC

TRIBES,

PRIESTS

OF

Discussion.Dow, Pryt. 15 f.; Martha, no. 86; Pritchett, p. 12I; Schlaifer, pp. 251-7. There was no uniformity in the methods of appointment for the ten priesthoods. Appointment. In the case of the priesthoods of the eponymoi of Akamas, Hippothoon, and Kekrops, the priests did not always belong to the tribe whose eponymos they served (see below). In all probability, as there existed Schlaifer,pp. 254 f., suggests, already gentile cults attached to some of these heroes before Kleisthenes carried out his reformsin 508/7. The gentile priesthoods are likely to have been a lifelong appointment, the non-gentile ones annual. were so called because they gave their names to the ten Attic tribes Origins.The eponymoi instituted by Kleisthenes at the time of his democratic reforms.At what date the ten priesthoods were created, however, is not known. Dow, p. 16 n. I, was of the opinion that they were not established until the latter half of the third century Be, but a priest of the eponymos of the tribe of Pandion is attested for both 386/5 (IG ii2 1140) and again for c. 340 (IG ii2 2828). For a suggested

reconstruction of their history, see Schlaifer. Perhaps the most striking feature of these priesthoods is that they were regulated and funded not centrally but by the tribe whose eponymous hero they served. Five of the priesthoods are examined here, with particular regard to the different methods of appointment to which each was subject. As intimated above, almost all the evidence postdates the second half of the third century BC. Aegeus The Aigeion is referredto by Pausanias (i. 22. 5; cf. Harp. s.v. ALydov),who gives no Sanctuary. details as to its location. The site remains unknown. The priest of Aegeus was appointed from the tribe of Aegeis (Schlaifer, pp. 237 Appointment. n. I, 255).

Erechtheus Sanctuary.Ajoint shrine ofErechtheus and Athene probably existed on the Acropolis from very early times (Hom. Od. vii. 80 f.; II. ii. 546-51). Erechtheus presumably shared with the goddess

R. S. J. GARLAND

IIO

the Old Temple of Athene Polias. It is not known for certain whether the altar he shared with Poseidon in the so-called Erechtheion63(built 42 I-406) was situated in the eastern or western halfofthe building, although Travlos (213 f. and fig. 281) has suggested that it should be located in the eastern half (see further s.v. Poseidon). Originsandgrowth.Erechtheuswas a legendary king of Athens. As noted, his worship is likely to to the tribe of have been very ancient and certainly predated by centurieshis election as eponymos Erechtheis. His cult was combined with that of Poseidon, their joint priest being originally appointed from the Eteoboutadai. A decree (IG ii2 I146; LGS ii 27) dated to before the middle of the fourth century, however, seems to suggest the creation of a non-gentile priesthood which is to be filled by lot (lines 3-4). The same decree makes referenceto an ErrlETros Ovala (line I I), and 'it traditional ceremonies rite into the of this novel the introduction a over have been dispute may which led to the break with the genos'. (Schlaifer, p. 256). Hippothoon The Hippothonteion was situated in Eleusis (Paus. i. 38. 4). It is the only sanctuary Sanctuary. which was not in Athens, an indication perhaps of the lingering autonomy of of an eponymos Eleusis. of Hippothontis did not belong to the At least by 178/7 the priest of the eponymos Appointment. tribe of Hippothontis but to that of Aegeis (Dow, Pryt. nos. 60oand 64, with pp. 15 f.). It is possible, as Dow, p. 16, suggests, that this occurred in a period when there was a dearth of candidates for the priesthood. For a large part of the second quarterof the second century Be the priesthood seems to have been retained in a single family (see Pritchett, p. I24). Origins.Hippothoon was the son of Poseidon and Alope (Hyg. Fab. 187). The antiquity of this cult is not known. Kekrops The Kekropeion was situated within the temenos of Pandrosos, to the west of the Sanctuary. Erechtheion (see Travlos, fig. 281). It was thought to contain the tomb of Kekrops. An inscription from the late first century Be indicates that the priest of Kekrops Appointment. was appointed from the genosof the Amynandridai (IG ii2 2338. 8; Toepffer, pp. 22, 161 ). There

is no reason to doubt that this was always the case. This means that the priest of Kekrops was sometimes, but not always, a member of the tribe of Kekropis.64 Origins.Kekrops was an early king of Attika. It is a safe inference that his cult predates by to the tribe of Kekropis. centuries his election as eponymos Pandion Five inscriptionsinform us that Pandion had a heroon on the Acropolis (IGii2 138, Sanctuary. 140,

II44, I48,

and I152). Remains of ancient walls in the south-east angle of the Pelasgian

circuit some 35 m south-east of the precinct of Zeus Polieus, which were previously assigned to the workshop of Pheidias, have been tentatively identified by Stevens as the sanctuary of Pandion: (194o), fig. 66; (1946), pp. 22-5 with fig. 22. Appointment.The fact that the shrine of Pandion was situated on the Acropolis is, as Schlaifer, p. 256, notes, 'a sure indication of a pre-Cleisthenic gentile cult'. On the evidence of the three known priests of the tribe of Pandionis (who span the period from 386 to I55), there is some 63 The name 'Erechtheion' occurs in ancient sources only twice (Paus. i. 26. 5; Ps.-Plu. 843 E). In official documents (e.g. IG i' 372) the building is describedas 'the temple in the polis (i.e.

on the the Acropolis) inside which is the ancient statue'. 64 IG ii2 2338, which is fragmentary, list gennetai belonging to at least nine different tribes.

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY IN ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL ATHENS

III

likelihood that by 386 at least the cult was non-gentile (IG ii2 I I40 and 2828; Dow, Pryt.no. 84; see further Schlaifer, loc. cit.). Origins.Pandion was a legendary king of Athens. Although the earliestsurvivingreferenceto a priest of Pandion is dated 386/5 (IG ii2 I140), it is probable that his cult predates by centuries his

election as eponymous to the tribe of Pandionis. Namedpriests.A tribal decree dated 386/5 awarded a gold crown to a priest of Pandion called

Demon (IG ii2 I1140).A dedicatory inscription dated to the mid-fourth century bears the name of Antisthenes (IG ii2 2828). PRIESTS

PHRATRIES,

OF

Discussion.Most of our information regarding phratry priests comes from the so-called 'Demotionid Decrees' (IGii2 1237 = SIG392 I), which are resolutionsof the phratry of Dekeleia, the first being passed in 396. They are discussedin detail by Wade-Gery, pp. I16-34.For a full bibliography, see ibid., p. I 8 n. 2. For the Apatouria, see Parke, FA, pp. 88-90 and Deubner, pp. 232-4-

Sanctuaries. The temple of Zeus Phratriosand Athene Phratria forms an architectural unit in combination with the much larger temple of Apollo Patroos on the western side of the agora between the stoa of Zeus Eleutheriosand the Metroon (Paus. i. 3. 4). It was built sometime after the middle of the fourth century (Travlos, p. 96 with figs. 125-9). In addition to the temple in the agora, there was also an altar of Zeus Phratriosand Athene Phratriasituated at the intersection between Odhoi Vissis and Verea, alongside an ancient road which led to the Acharnian Gate on the north-east side of the city (Travlos, p. 573 with figs. 719-2I). Very probably each phratry had its own sanctuary as well. We may safely assume that each phratry had at least one priest. Their period of Appointment. tenure and method of election are unknown. As in the case of priestsof the eponymoi, it is possible that there was no general rule. Specialduties.The phratrypriest was in charge of the Apatouria, a three-dayfestival held in the month of Pyanepsion for the purpose of enrolling new membersinto the phratriai (Sch. Ar. Ach. I46). He was required to carry out two kinds of sacrifices at the Apatouria: a lesser sacrifice known as the tiELovfor infants being registered in the phratry for the first time, and a greater sacrifice known as the Ko`pELov for those arriving at puberty. In the event of plague or war, he

had to announce an alternative rendezvous within the city of Athens five days prior to the commencement of the festival. It was the duty of the phratry priest, along with the phratriarch, to expunge from the record the name of any person illegally registeredas a phrater and to collect all fines thereby incurred. Emoluments. The Demotionid decrees state that from the pLEovthe priest is to receive a thigh, a rib, and an ear, plus a fee of half a drachma; and from the KOELOva thigh, a rib, and an ear, a cake weighing one choinix, a half-chous of wine, plus a fee of one drachma. It may be noted here that there is no evidence of any priesthoods attaching to trittyes, an indication of their artificiality. SECTION

ARCHON

B.

MAGISTRATES

BASILEUS

The basileus directed 'almost all the ancestral sacrifices' (Arist. AP 57. I; cf. P1. Plt. 290 E). In particular, he supervised the Mysteries and the festival of the Lenaia with the assistance of the epimeletai (AP 57. i; cf. Ps.-Lys. vi. 4; And. i. I). He heard cases of asebeia (above p. 79),

R. S. J. GARLAND

I12

arbitrated in disputes over gentile priesthoods and disagreementsregarding priestly privileges, and issued the proclamation banning excommunicates from participating in the customary sacrifices.He selected the four arrhephoroi (above, p. 93). Parke, FA, p. 17, believes that he was for the state calendar. The office was opened to the zeugitai, the third responsible maintaining class of Athenian citizens, in 457. Feaver, p. I43, notes that it is in the officeof the basileusthat the practice of including the personal name of the religious official on documents pertaining to the cult over which he presides first develops in the fourth century (see IG i2 776, passed when a certain Phyromachos was basileus). BASILINNA

(OR

BASILISSA)

Qualifications. According to an ancient law inscribed on a stone stele erected beside the altar of Dionysos in Limnai, the basilinnawas required to be a virgin when she married the archonbasileus (Ps.-Dem. lix. 75). In view of the solemnity of her duties, it was essential that she be of pure Athenian blood. Specialduties.Assisted by the hierokeryx, she administered the oath to the gerarai(see below), who performed ritual duties under her direction. She offered secret sacrifices (' apprq'ralEpd)on

the city's behalf and was given as bride to Dionysos in a ceremony performedat the Anthesteria (Ps.-Dem. lix. 73-8; Parke, FA, pp. I 10o-12, I 18 f.). Representation.Deubner, pp. 99-III

with pl. Io, interprets a red-figure skyphos showing a

demure young girl with head covered walking in front of a crowned satyr who holds a parasol over her as the basilinnaprocessing to her lEpd 6ydaoLs (or sacred marriage). For a list of other possible representationsof the marriage, see Rhodes (CAAP I04). Assistants.The basilinnawas assisted by the fourteeen yEpapal. According to PseudoDemosthenes (lix. 78), which is possibly a late addition, they were required to take the following oath before assuming their duties: 'I am holy and pure from all things which are not pure and from intercourse with a man, and I shall be yEpapdat the Theoinia and at the Iobaccheia in accordance with 'rarT-rptaand at the appropriatetimes.' This is the only known example of such an oath. For further discussion, see Parke, FA, pp. I I I f. Knownbasilinna.Allegedly the daughter of a non-Athenian prostitute called Neaira illegally contracted a marriage to a basileuscalled Theogenes (Ps.-Dem. lix. 72 f.). ARCHON

EPONYMOS

Aristotle,AP 3. 3, states that the archon did not administerany of the ancient rites (-arirrpta), festivals. This is borne out as did the basileusand polemarch, but only the more recent (ElrtOETa) was that he responsiblefor the Great Dionysia by AP 56, in which we are specifically informed to Delos (revived in (probably introduced in the time of Peisistratos);the quadriennial Ecwplt' 426/5); the processionin honour of Asklepios (not introduced until 420); and that for Zeus Soter (possiblynot instituted until after the Persian Wars). The only festival of which the archon took charge which maynot have been a recent addition to the calendar was the Thargelia in honour of Apollo Pythios. POLEMARCH

Aristotle, AP 58. I, states that the polemarch sacrificed to Artemis Agrotera (the Huntress) and to Enyalios (possibly another name for Ares, or else a separate war-god). He supervised the funeral games in honour of the war-dead, in particular the commemorative festival held on 6 Boedromion in honour of those who died at Marathon, and performed ivayl(aLara to the tyrannicides Harmodios and Aristogeiton. As Rhodes, CAAP, p. 652, notes, 'with the possible

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL ATHENS

II3

exception of Enyalius, it appears that all the religious observances assigned by AP to the polemarch were introduced at the end of the sixth century or later'. Hence AP 57. I ('the basileus directs practically all the ancestral sacrifices') has more credibility than AP 3. 3 ('the archon does not direct any of the ancestral rites, as do the basileusand polemarch'). SECTION

C. RELIGIOUS

EXPERTS

CHRESMOLOGOI/MANTEIS Discussion. Oliver, passim; Nilsson (1950), pp. 420-5; Ziehen, cols. 1345-55.

Ancient sources, especially comedy and the scholia, make no clear distinction Terminology. and manteis.A confusion of terms is particularly striking in the case of between chresmologoi who is variously referredto as chresmologos (Sch. Ar. PeaceIo84 and Birds988); as mantis Lampon, (Plu. Per. 6; Ath. Deipn. 344 E; Sch. Ar. Clouds 332; Sud. s.v. &ovpLopv-reLf); and even as

and mantis(Sch. Ar. Birds 521). Etymologically, chresmologos signifies 'one who chresmologos in other words, one who had access to the prophecies of collects, profers, or recites chresmoi'; others, most notably those of mythical seers such as Bakis, Mousaios, and the Sibyl, which he presumably invoked as and when the situation demanded (cf. Hdt. viii. 20, 77, 96; ix. 43). Mantis, on the other hand, means an interpreter of signs sent by the gods. Since no clear distinction in usage emerges from the surviving evidence, however, no attempt will be made to arrange the testimonia under separate headings.65 In Homer the seerhad a roving commission,being attached only on a temporary Qualifications. and informal basis to a particular oikosor household (cf. Od.xvii. 382, where the mantisis listed among the typical specialistsin Homeric society). On the whole, divination seems to have been a personal gift, not handed down from one generation to the next. Uniquely, Theoklymenos, the seer who prophesied the suitors'destruction, traced his descent from the legendary Melampous down through a succession of manteis(Od. xv. 222-55). In archaic and classical Greece, as Humphreys, p. 254, suggests, the post was probably available to anyone who could gain a following. Isokrates, xix. 6, tells us, for instance, of a certain Thrasyllos who went into professionalpractice after being bequeathed books on the mantic art by a guest-friend of his. Likewise, Lysimachos, the grandson of Aristeides, earned his living from a tablet containing interpretations of dreams (Plu. Arist. 27. 3). I see no reason for supposing that some manteis were appointed by Delphi, as Ostwald, p. 44, tentatively suggested, and still less for inferring that they required eupatrid descent (Oliver, pp. 16, 28). It is, however, a singular fact, as noted by Nilsson, p. 421, that many of them came fromAkarnania, such as Amphilytos, the chresmologos who had dealings with Peisistratos (Hdt. i. 62. 4). As in Homer, so in historical times, the seer moved about from place to place: when banished from Athens by Hipparchos, the chresmologos Onomakritospedalled his chresmoi at Susa (Hdt. vii. 6). Humphreys, p. 255, states:'Their claims to influence rest on learning and mastery of the technical aspects of ritual rather than on inspiration.' This would clearly be true of Thrasyllos and Lysimachos mentioned above. Oedipus' description of Teiresias (S. O0T.300 f.), however, implies the possession of a higher, almost revelatory kind of wisdom. Significant, too, is the interesting comment by Herodotos (i. 63. i) on Amphilytos, that he delivered his chresmos 'being inspired' (iv~owv). Whether some chresmologoi/manteis were constitutionally elected to serve the state cannot be known. On the basis of the surviving evidence I am inclined to share Oliver's view, p. 9, that they 65 Pausanias (i. 34- 4), who states 'except for those whom they say Apollo inspired of old, none of the manteiswas a but they were good at interpreting dreams and the chresmologos,

flight of birds and the entrails of victims', provides the best evidence for the existence of a genuine distinction, but it cannot be put to any test.

114

R. S. J. GARLAND

were 'called upon for advice or for a special assignment, but when the assignmentwas over, their connection with the state was constitutionally no closer than that of other citizens ...', though their status might have been different in time of war (see s.v. Honours).It is possible, too, that a would be appointed by the state for the duration of a military campaign chresmologos/mantis (P1. Lach. 198 E).

Duties.Chresmologoi/manteis proferredtheir servicesto private individuals on request, and to the demos by order. The charge of meddlesomenesswhich is levelled against them in Old Comedy suggeststhat they sometimesproferredtheir servicesunbidden. Certainly it would appear as well that they were entitled to question, or at least given to questioning, the source and validity of innovative cult practices (Ar. PeaceIo88; Birds959 ff.). Plutarch tells us (Nik. 4. 2) that Nikias kept a mantisin his house 'supposedlyfor state business, but in fact mostly for his private affairs, especially the silver mines'. The decree of Antikles (IG i2 39. 65-7 = GHI i 42), passed in 446/5 after the revolt of Euboia, called upon 'three men, whomever the boule should choose from its own number with Hierokles, to offer the sacrificesfor Euboia prescribedin the chresmoi as soon as possible'.66The task of the seer, as outlined here, seems to have been twofold: firstly, to provide and secondly, to supervisesacred ceremoniesin accordance with them. The techneof the chresmoi; was extensive, ranging from haruspicy to augury, from celestial phenomena to chresmologos/mantis sneezes (cf. Xen. Anab.i. 7. I8, etc.). Honours.In Aristophanes'Peace,i o84, Trygaios warns Hierokles, the chresmologos from Oreus on Euboia, that once peace is made he will no longer dine in the prytaneion, on which the Scholiast (ad loc.) comments: 'because chresmologoi were entertained at public expense in the in this way.' It seems, therefore, that was honoured as is clear from who prytaneion, Lampon, both Hierokles and Lampon enjoyed the privilege of maintenance in the prytaneion because they were manteis.Whether manteiswere permanently entertained at public expense or whether the privilege was only granted to them temporarily,viz. for the duration of the war, is, however, unclear. Ostwald, pp. 42-6, tentatively restoresmanteisto the lacuna in line 9 of the so-called Prytaneion Decree, thus including them among those groups to whom a grant of public maintenance (aLrTost))was made in the 430s or 420s (IG i2 77).

EXEGE TAI

Discussion.Bloch, pp. 407-18; Clinton, SOEM, pp. 89-93; Jacoby, pp. 8-51; Oliver, pp. 2452; Ostwald, pp. 35-46; Rohde, ch. 5 n. 139; Wyse, p. 619.

Origins.The origins of the institution of exegesisare a cause of continuing controversy among scholars.Jacoby, p. 22, maintained that exegetai(sacred expounders) were first appointed in the time of Solon or even earlier, went into decline in the fifth century, but subsequently enjoyed an artificial revival as a result of 'the generally archaizing tendency of the Roman time'. The central weaknessofJacoby's theory is that we lack any solid evidence of exegetaifor the first two hundred years of their alleged existence, the earliest certain reference to an exegetesbeing in Plato, Euthyphro, 4 c, whose dramatic date is 399. This may, of course, be accidental, or it may simply be a function of 'the fundamental difference between the writings of the fifth and those of the fourth century' as Bloch (40o) has suggested, since most of the evidence for exegetaicomes from the orators.67 For the present, however, it remains less tendentious to accept Oliver's view, 66 There is every likelihood that this was the same Hierokles of Oreus who is ridiculed in Aristophanes'Peace(see below). s7 This is not the place for a discussion of lines 9 f. of the socalled Prytaneion Decree (IG ii2 77) which Sch6ll restoredso as to include pythochrestoi exegetaiamong the aeisitoi (i.e. those

granted free maintenance in the prytaneion). The case for their inclusion is fully examined by Ostwald, who firmly concludes, p. 46, that the decree 'cannot be used to prove the existence of in the fifth century'. In addition to Plato, ',6qy7raL 7rvOoXpaTroL Euthyphro,there are the following fourth-century references to

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

II5

subsequentlydefended by Clinton, pp. g9 f., that although the practice ofexpounalng on sacred matterscertainly existed in the fifth century, exegetaias such did not exist much before 400, being firstofficiallyconstituted in connection with the revisionof Solon's laws by Nikomachos towards the end of the fifth century. The difficulty in establishing an exact point of origin for the institution is hopelessly complicated by the fact that exegetesis a word of very broad application, meaning 'leader, adviser, prescriber,etc.' (see Nilsson (1950), pp. 422 f.). Hence, when Eupolis called Lampon an exegetes(fr. 297 Kock) in TheGoldenRace,which was performedin 424, it is by no means safe to assume that he was the holder of a regular Athenian office. Duties.The duties of the exegetaiare defined byJacoby as follows: 'interpreterswho in dubious cases . . . on the strength of their comprehensive knowledge of ancient ritual, utter an

authoritative opinion as to how an act of cult is to be performedwith ritual correctness.'Their sphere of expert opinion probably included such matters as the correct procedure for making sacrificesand, perhaps chiefly, the rules of purification to be adopted in cases of homicide. They expounded at the request of private individuals; whether they also expounded by order of the demos is disputed, the fourth-century evidence for their existence consisting wholly of private inquiries. The fullest text for examining the board's modusoperandiis provided by a speech of Pseudo-Demosthenes (xlvii. 70), in which the plaintiff claims that when an old nurse of his died at the hands of the defendant, he consulted the exegetai'in order to learn what ought to be done'. They informed him that, after making all the necessary arrangementsboth for her funeral and for the prosecution of her killer, he should purify himself and his house. Their advice was also sought by a man who wished to establish his rights as legitimate heir (Is. viii. 38 f.). On their recommendation he made offeringsto the dead on the ninth day after the funeral of his adoptive father in order to nullify the sacrilege committed by his opponents, who had conducted the burial service 'illegally'. For further discussionsee above, pp. 82 f. It may be noted that there is no referenceto exegetaieither in the historians or in Aristotle'sAP. EXEGETAI

OF THE

EUMOLPIDAI

Discussion.Clinton, SOEM, pp. 89-93; Foucart, pp. 79-83; Oliver, pp. 18-23, 37, 46. The Eumolpid exegetaiwere either two or three in number (see Oliver, 37 f.; Appointment. Clinton, pp. 89 f.). Their manner of appointment is not known, although given the requirements of the office, it is a reasonable inference that they were elected. Origins.Officials styled exegetaiof the Eumolpidai first make an appearance in an inscription dated to the second quarter of the fourth century (Clinton (I98o), lines 38 f. with commentary ad loc.). This does not mean that Eumolpid exegesisdid not take place long before that date, but merely that there did not exist any board bearing the official title of exegetai(see above). Indeed there is solid evidence to the effect that the Eumolpidai did in fact provide exegesisin the fifth century. The expression 'in accordance with the exegesisperformed by the Eumolpidai' occurs both in an inscription (IG i2 76) dated between 422 and 416 and in a private speech ascribed to Lysias (vi. Io) which is dated to the turn of the fourth century. Prior to the fourth century, however, any matter requiring exegesiswas probably settled by pronouncement from one or more of the genosof the Eumolpidai. Such a view is not inconsistent with the evidence of Andokides (i. 116), where Kephalos denounces Kallias KqpiKowvJ3v, oX &anov(Kv) oL qryEaOaL since, as Oliver, p. 19, pointed out, the objection is about the appropriation by a Keryx of the Eumolpid right of exegesis,and not about the impersonation of an official exegetes. exegetai:Pl. Laws 958 D; Ps.-Dem. xlvii. 7o; Is. viii. 39; Thphr. Char. xvi. 6. It is also possible (but 'wenig wahrscheinlich'

according to Jacoby) that J 'E7y7pTLKS5was the title of a lost work by Antikleides (FGrH 40oF 22).

R. S. J. GARLAND

116

Duties. The exegetaiof the Eumolpidai offered expert advice on the patria and nomoiof the Eleusinian Mysteries, which were reckoned to be of such standing that 'no one has yet had the authority to abolish them or contradict them' (Ps.-Lys. vi. io). In addition, they took part in processions, for which they had their own cart (IG ii2 1672. 41, dated 329/8). PYTHOCHRESTOS

EXEGETES

Discussion.Jacoby, pp. 28-33; Oliver, pp. 35-46. As the title indicates, the pythochrestos Appointment. exegeteswas selected by Pythian Apollo operating through the Delphic Oracle, probably from a list of nominees first selected by the demos (cf. P1. Laws vi. 759 C-E). It is not known whether there was one or more than one in Athens during the classical period, though Oliver's view, pp. 36 f., that the pythochrestos lexicographerTimaios and the Suda(s.v. Ey'-q~r) do not prove that there was more than one is methodologically sound. Duties.Jacoby, p. 33, who believed in a plurality ofpythochrestoi, described them as 'theexegetai to whom the State applied in all those cases in which she, or her officials, were in need of expert advice'. Both Timaios and the Suda state that they were in charge of purification. On the evidence of Plato's Laws we may surmise that he (or they) offered expert opinion on the purification of polluted water supplies (viii. 845 E), purification after murder or suicide (ix. 865 c, 873 D), and the purification of houses in which a murdererhad set foot (xi. 916 c). Honours.The pythochrestos exegetesenjoyed a proedria(IG ii2 5023). As noted above (n. 67), are included among those Sch6ll's restoration of the Prytaneion Decree, by which pythochrestoi the of maintenance in the has not won general acceptance. given prytaneion, privilege SECTION

D.

RELIGIOUs

ASSISTANTS

EPIMELETAI

Originally this office was a liturgy, those elected to it being required to bear the expense of processions out of their own pockets. At some time in the latter half of the fourth century it became a democratic appointment, the expenses of those elected being henceforth borne by the state (Thphr. Char.xxvi. 2; Dem. xxi. 15). Of the several different boards of which there is mention, the best documented are the epimeletai of the Mysteries. EPIMELETAI

OF THE

MYSTERIES

Discussion. Clinton (198o), pp. 258-80; Foucart, pp. 76-9; Mylonas, pp. 229, 245, 249;

Rhodes, CAAP,pp. 636 f. Appointment. According to a law found in the City Eleusinion published recently by Clinton of the Mysteries, two elected 'from all the Athenians from there were four epimeletai (lines 30 f.), men over thirty years of age', and one of each genosfrom the Kerykes and Eumolpidai. They with Clinton's comment ad loc.). would appear to have been elected on merit (cf. rpoaaLpiuOat, Either in the late fourth or early third century, their number, judging from inscriptions, was reduced to two (cf. IG ii2 66I, 807, 847). Origins.Epimeletaiof the Mysteriesare mentioned in Demosthenes'speech AgainstMeidias,xxi. I71, which Erbse, pp. 135-54, argues was delivered in 347. They are again attested in an inscription relating to the financial accounts of the temple of Athene dated to 334/3-331/o. (IG ii2 1496. 75). Their initial establishment and authorization may have been provided by the law found in the City Eleusinian, tentatively dated by Clinton, pp. 272 f., to between 353/2 and 348/7. As Clinton, p. 281, suggests, it is reasonable to assume that their appointment was necessitated by the growing popularity of the Eleusinian cult in the fourth century (see above p. 98).

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

II7

Duties.The City Eleusinian law states that 'it is the duty of epimeletaito assist the basileusin of the festival of the two Goddesses and to organize (LOLKEcdv) the taking charge (rTOmpEAEOaaLa)

Mysteriesaccording to ancestral practice with him and the Eumolpidai and Kerykes' (Clinton, lines 29f.; cf. Arist. AP 57. I). In addition, they had to maintain law and order by imposing fines on the disorderly, or, in the case of more serious offenders, bringing them to the heliaiato stand trial (lines 31-3). Inscriptions from the third century state that they also performed sacrifices both at the Greater and Lesser Mysteries, prepared the chariots for the transportation of the and supervisedthe hiera,conducted the mystaito the sea for purification (Hsch. s.v. JAaSEtp1araL), reception of Iacchos at Eleusis (IG ii2 66I, 683, 807, 847 = SIG3 540). Aristotle (AP 57. i) assigns

to them the furthertask of assistingthe basileusat the Lenaia, but it is possible that the referenceis to a different board of epimeletai. Honours.Epimeletaiare sometimes praised for making private donations. One particularly generous benefactor was Xenokles of Sphettos, epimeletes probably in 321/o (Davies, no. 11234; PA I I234), who donated a stone bridge (IG ii2 1191. I5-23). EPISTATAI

AT ELEUSIS

Discussion. Meritt and Wade-Gery, pp. Ipp. 8-24; Vallois, pp. 195-200.

14; Mattingly (1961), pp. 171-3; Picard (1933),

Origins.A board of epistataiat Eleusis was created by an amendment to a decree passed by the boule in the second half of the fifth century (SEGx. 24). Its date is variously put at 449/8 or 448/7 (Meritt and Wade-Gery, Picard, and Valois) and 432/I (Mattingly). The epistataiat Eleusis replaced the hieropoioi,who had been in charge of the treasury of the two Goddesses

since c. 460.

Duties.The purpose of the board was 'to take charge of the Two Goddesses' property in the same way as those in charge of the work on the Acropolis had charge of the temple and statue' (SEG x. 24.- 1-13). According to Meritt's restoration of the text, the epistataiwere to receive from the logistaian audited account of the financesof the Eleusinian Goddesses,which they then transferredto Athenian tamiaifor safe keeping. As Picard, p. io, has emphasized, SEG x. 24 provides important evidence of Athens' increasing control over the administrativeand financial affairsof the Eleusinian sanctuary (see above, p. 98). Another decree (IGi2 313) states that they were required to undergo a financial audit at the end of their term of office. HIER OPOIOI

Hieropoioiexisted in large numbersin Athens, usually constituted into boards of ten, although Aristotle,AP 54. 6-7, for some reasonmentions only two. Their chief function seems to have been to assist the priests in festival administration. In some cases at least, members of the boards appear to have been bouleutai(cf. IG ii2 1749). Hieropoeic duties were also performed by those who were not, in the strict sense, elected hieropoioi. A dedication dated to 324/3 by a board of bouleutai who themselves of the demos' honours two of their members for thirty style 'syllogeis duties on behalf of Athene and Zeus Olympios (IGii2 1257). In addition, discharginghieropoeic Demosthenes as bouleutesin 347/6 claimed to have performed hieropoeic duties (Dem. xxi. I14 f.). See further Rhodes (AB 127 f.). HIEROPOIOI

AT

ELEU

SI S

Appointment.A decree dated 341 /o (IG ii2 1749. 80-4) indicates that at this time hieropoioiat Eleusis were appointed by the boule. It is not known whether this was also true for the fifth century.

R. S. J. GARLAND

II8

Origins.Hieropoioiat Eleusis are attested from the first half of the fifth century. Although their duties appear to have been increasingly taken over by the epistataiat Eleusis, Clinton (1980), p. 281, is incorrect to state that after 408/7 we have no evidence for their existence (see above). Duties.They are describedas making sacrifices(e.g. IG i2 5. 2) and exacting dues from initiates (SEGx. 6. 89-92). A law dated to between 422 and 416/15 states that they were to receive firstfruits (d&rapx'),keep an official record of the offering made by each city and deme, negotiate with the architect in selecting a site for the granariesin which the first-fruitswere to be housed, sell the left-over offeringsafter the sacrifice, and make a dedicationjointly with the boule (IG i2 76 = GHIi2 73 = LGS 2. 4 = SEG x. Io). The leporroto 'EAEvavd'OEv mentioned in this decree are the same as the in mentioned a decree dated to before 422/I who evidently IEporroTLO 'EAEvaogv

hand over the proceeds from the adrapxqto the epistataiat Eleusis (IG i2 31 i. 4 ff.). There is no mention of them, however, in the treasury account of the sanctuary for the year 408/7 (IG i2 313). HIEROPOIOI

IN

CHARGE

OF

EXPIATORY

SACRIFICES

in charge of expiatory Aristotle,AP 54. 6, states:'The demos elects by lot ten so-called hieropoioi sacrifices(7TL'KOepa7raa) rd if offer sacrifices and it is necessaryto seek who prescribedby oracles, watch for in omens them the manteis.' This of hieropoioi is not association with board good they attested elsewhere. See further Rhodes, CAAP,pp. 605 f. HIEROPOIOI

ELECTED

ANNUALLY

elected annually Aristotle, AP 54- 7, states that the demos elected by lot ten so-called hieropoioi (Kar' EvLavrdv). They were in charge of all four-year festivals with the exception of the Greater Panathenaia. That is to say, they had charge of the Delian theoria, the Brauronia,the Herakleia, and the Eleusinia. They were also responsible for the Lesser Panathenaia, held annually. We know most about their administration of the Lesser Panathenaia. A decree, IG ii2 334 = SIG3 271, dated c. 335 states that the hieropoioiare to perform two sacrifices, one to Athene Hygieia

and the other at the Old Temple 'as previously'. In addition they are required to buy cattle in consultation with the 'cattle buyers' for the sacrifice made on the altar of Athene Polias (estimated by Parke, FA, p. 48, as being at least one hundred cows) and for the sacrifice of a single cow on the altar of Athene Nike. The same decree enjoined upon these hieropoioi supervisionof the all-night service held in honour of the goddess and empowered them with the right to inflict punishment on anyone who was disorderly. HIEROPOIOI

FOR

THE

HEPHAISTEIA

A decree of 421/o regulating the Hephaisteia arranged at the same time for the establishment of two boards of ten hieropoioito assist in the festival (IG i2 84. 19-25; cf. Rhodes, AB 128). One

board was to be appointed by lot from the dikastai,the other by lot from the boule. Their duties included distributing the meat and organizing the procession.They were empowered to impose fines of up to 50 dr. on the disorderly, or, in more serious cases, to prosecute. CONCLUSIONS

The ultimate source of religious authority in archaic and classical Athens lay outside the purview of the Athenian state. It was the god himself, normally Apollo but less frequently Zeus, who had the sole entitlement to sanction any change or innovation in cultic procedure and to whom personal inquiry had to be made at his oracular shrine by state-appointed delegates. No matter was too trivial to be brought to the attention of the patrios exegetes, the divine

RELIGIOUS

AUTHORITY

IN ARCHAIC

AND CLASSICAL

ATHENS

119

interpreterof ancestralreligion, whether it was the decision to establisha new cult, the method of appointment of its priest or priestess,the emoluments and duties which the priesthood entailed, the festivals and sacrificesheld in a particular deity's honour, or the intended changes in the layout of a sanctuary as, for instance, occasioned by the erection of a new temple. Historians properly allude to the autarky and autonomy of the city-state as a politico-economic unit; here, by contrast, however, we see the most powerful city-state of all freely ceding to Delphi, to Dodona, and even to Ammon in Egypt, the unqualified right of authoritative pronouncementin the day to day running of its domestic affairs.This handing over of religiousauthority to external agents reveals an extraordinary confidence in the expertise and impartiality of those whose business it was to interpret the divine will, since the welfare and security of the state in part depended upon the correct discharging of its religious duties. The authority of the oracular shrine, though uncontested, was not, however, paramount, since the right of authoritative pronouncement did not constitute a right of initiative, still less a right of interference. In the vast majority of cases, one suspects, this seeking of approval from the god was little more than a formality. The oracle could sanction but it could not propose. The evidence for an unsolicited prophecy emanating from an oracular shrine before the Hellenistic period is so slight as to be practically negligible. Likewise, the god could not nominate a candidate for a particular priesthood, except, presumably, at the invitation of the Athenian for the new state, as in the analogous situation when Delphi was invited to choose the ten eponymoi Kleisthenic tribes from a short list of one hundred names prepared by the state. Thus there was never anything resemblinga Delphic sect at Athens, whose membersowed their appointment to Delphi and who might accordingly have been tempted to act in a partisan manner that was prejudicial to the national interest. Despite the insularity of individual Athenian priesthoods,there was nothing factional in their modusoperandi.Existing as they did to serve the state and not the individuals of which it was composed, they lacked the means of advancement which they might otherwise have acquired, had they been able to attach and ally themselvesto a particularinterest group or party. The fact that the name of no especially revered or especially troublesome priest has been preserved demonstrates, firstly that there was no division between secular and spiritual authority in the Athenian state, and secondly that priests quapriests were neither prominent as a group nor memorable as individuals. It has been argued that there was an increase in their importance in the fourth century, in view of the fact that more names are preservedin temple recordsfrom that date onwards, but this fact must be balanced beside an increasein routine documentation which the period also witnessed. Only in the case of the hierophant does there exist a reasonablysecure argument for an amplification of priestly prestigein the fourth century (above, p. 10o2),and this amplification is just as likely to have come about as the consequence of the ever-increasing importance of Eleusis in general, as of its priesthood in particular. Since it was not the role of the priest to promote the interestsof the cult which he served but only to preserveit in good working order, priestswere spared the obligation of having to recruit or proselytizeon their deity's behalf. Greekreligion was as far from being a missionaryreligion as any religion could be. Its worldly concerns meant that the clergy existed essentially as an executive branch of the state, officiating between the divine and human spheres in an almost proxenial capacity. No qualifications seem to have been necessary for the office of priest, other than those ot a purely external nature, though the conferment of office upon those entering democratic priesthoods was probably subject to their undergoing a satisfactory dokimasia.The Athenians were not quite so cynical as the Greeks of Asia Minor, who sometimes auctioned priesthoods to

120

R. S. J. GARLAND

the highest bidder. As there was no cursushonorumin the Athenian state the occupancy of a priesthood could not advance the career of an aspiring politician, as did the post of pontifex maximus,for instance, for the aspiringJulius Caesar. We do not know whether priests were consulted about changes in religious procedure concerning the cults over which they presided, though the evidence rather points to the fact that it was the exegetaialone from whom expert opinion was sought. Like any Athenian citizen, a priest, though not of course a priestess, was entitled to speak upon any subject under debate, whether of a religious or non-religious nature. But whether the clergy as a corporation spoke with greater frequencyor to greater effect than any other group of individuals seems doubtful to say the least. There is no evidence for a priestlylobby or a priestlypoint of view upon any subject of debate whatever. It is significant that we do not know whether as a group they gave their backing to the decree of Diopeithes, or again whether as a group they were outraged by the mutilation of the hermaior the profanation of the Mysteries. In my view it is unlikely, when such issues were raised, that they recognized any corporate identity at all. The one potential weapon of repressionwhich the clergy did possess-the ability to cursecould only be implemented at the instruction of the state. Obviously the decision to curse might have come at the instigation of a priest speaking in assembly, but there was no way by which a priest could circumvent constitutional procedure and curse spontaneously. Expert religious opinion was not confined even by national boundaries. The services of a successfulchresmologos/mantis were valued at Susa no less than at Athens. To conclude, religious authority in archaic and classical Athens was the monopoly neither of the citizen body as a whole nor of any particular group of individuals within it. It was a discrete prerogative shared out among a number of corporations comprising amateurs as well as experts, clergy as well as laity. No one corporation could act wholly on its own initiative without reference to or consultation with at least one other corporation. The priesthood interpreted by command of performed, the exegetaiexpounded and the chresmologoi/manteis the demos, the demos sought the sanction and approval of the god, and the god was debarred from undertaking any initiative except at the expressinvitation of the demos. Perhaps the most significant development affecting this harmonious balance of power during the period under study was the tendency on the part of the demos to arrogate responsibility in the matter of ecclesiasticalfinance, a tendency that becomes increasingly apparent from the mid fifth century onwards.

R. S. J. GARLAND

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Halliday, and Sikes ARFV Barrett Beyer Bloch Boersma Clairmont Clinton, SOEM Clinton (1980)

T. W. Allen, W. R. Halliday, and E. E. Sikes, TheHomericHymns(Oxford 1936). J. D. Beazley, AtticRed-FigureVasePainters(3 vols., 2nd edn., Oxford 1963). W. S. Barrett, Euripides'Hippolytos(Oxford I964). I. Beyer, 'Die Datierung de groBen Reliefgiebel des alten Athenatempels der Akropolis. Mit einem Beitrag von Felix Preisshofen',AA 1977, 44-84. H. Bloch, 'The Exegetes of Athens and the Prytaneion Decree', AJPh 74 (I953), 407-18. J. S. Boersma, AthenianBuildingPolicyfrom561/o to405/4 BC(Groningen 1970). C. W. Clairmont, 'The lekythos of Myrrhine' in Studiesin ClassicalArtandArchaeology (P. H. von Blankhenhagen Festschrift,New York 1979), pp. 103-10. K. Clinton, 'The Sacred Officialsof the Eleusinian Mysteries', TAPhS(N.s.) 64 part 3 (1974)K. Clinton, 'A Law in the City Eleusinion concerning the Mysteries', Hesperia49 (1980), 258-80.

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY IN ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL ATHENS Colin Daux Davies Deubner Diehls and Schubart Dilke Dittenberger Dow, Pryt. Dow (1937) Edelstein Elderkin Erbse Farnell Feaver Ferguson (1907) Ferguson (1932) Ferguson (1938) Ferguson (1949) Foucart GHI i GHI i2 Grant Guarducci Haldane Harrison and Verrall Healey Herington Hignett Hill Holmes, Hopper Humphreys Inscr.Cr. Jacoby Jeffery Jordan Judeich Kerenyi Kourouniotes (1927-8) Kourouniotes (1937) Kutsch

121

G. Colin, Le Culted'ApollonPythien&Athenes(Paris 1905). G. Daux, 'Athenes et Delphes', pp. 37-69 in AthenianStudiesPresented to W. S. Ferguson ( = HSCP Suppl. I (1940) ). Families60o-300 BC(Oxford 197). J. K. Davies, AthenianPropertied L. Deubner, AttischeFeste(2nd edn. revised by B. Doer. Olms: Hildesheim 1966). H. Diehls and W. Schubart, Didymi de DemostheneCommenta(Teubner: Leipzig I904). O. A. W. Dilke, 'The Greek Theatre Cavea', BSA 43 (1948), 125-92. W. Dittenberger, 'Die eleusinischen Keryken', Hermes20 (1885), I-40. S. Dow, 'Prytaneis:a Study of the Inscriptionshonouring the Athenian Councillors', HesperiaSuppl. I (I937). S. Dow, 'The Egyptian Cults in Athens', HThR 30 (1937), 183-232. E. J. and L. Edelstein, Asclepius:A Collection andInterpretation of theTestimonies (2 vols., Baltimore 1945)G. W. Elderkin, 'The Cults of the Erechtheion', Hesperia10 (194x), 113-24H. Erbse, 'Midiana', Hermes84 (1956), 135-54. L. R. Farnell, TheCultsof theGreekStates(5 vols., Oxford 1896-19o9). D. D. Feaver, 'The Priesthoodsof Athens', I23-58. YCS15 (1957), W. S. Ferguson, PriestsofAsklepios(2nd edn., Berkeley 1907). W. S. Ferguson, The Treasurers of Athena(Cambridge, Mass. i932). W. S. Ferguson. 'The Salaminioi of Heptaphylai and Sounion', Hesperia7 (1938), 1-74W. S. Ferguson, 'Orgeonika', HesperiaSuppl. 8 (1949), 130-63. P. Foucart, Les GrandsMysthresd'Eleusis(Paris i900). M. N. Tod, A Selectionof GreekHistoricalInscriptions to theEnd of theFifth Century BC (Oxford 1946). R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selectionof GreekHistoricalInscriptions to theEndof theFifth Bc (Oxford 1969). Century F. C. Grant, HellenisticReligions:theAgeof Syncretism (Indianapolis 1953). M. Guarducci, 'L'originee le vicende del yevosattico dei Salaminii', RFIC 76 (1948), 223-43. J. Haldane, 'Pindar and Pan: frs. 95-Ioo Snell', Phoenix22 (1968), I9-3I. J. Harrison and M. de G. Verrall, MythologyandMonuments of AncientAthens(London I89o). R. F. Healey, 'Eleusinian Sacrificesin the Athenian Law Code', HSCPh66 (1962), 256-9C. J. Herington, AthenaParthenosandAthenaPolias: a Studyin theReligionof Periclean Athens(Manchester 1955). C. Hignett, A Historyof theAthenianConstitution (Oxford 1952). I. T. Hill, TheAncientCityof Athens(London 1953). A. M. Holmes, 'The Cult of Zeus Ammon' (Unpublished M.A. thesis presented in the University of Melbourne, 1979). R. J. Hopper, TheAcropolis(London 1971). S. C. Humphreys, Anthropology andtheGreeks(London 1978). M. Guarducci, Inscriptiones Creticae(Rome i935). F. Jacoby, Atthis:theLocalChronicles of AncientAthens(Oxford 1949). L. H. Jeffery, 'The Boustrophedon Sacral Inscriptions from the Agora', Hesperia17 (1948), 86-111. B. Jordan, 'Servants of the Gods: a Study in the Religion, History and Literature of Heft 55 (G6ttingen 1979). Fifth-century Athens', Hypomnemata W.Judeich, Topographie vonAthen(Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaftiii. 2. 2: 2nd edn. Munich 1931). C. Kerenyi, Asklepios:Archetypal Imageof thePhysician'sExistence(London 1960). K. Kourouniotes, T lEpVo 70 7TrrdOAAwvoS ro70 Zoar~pos~,ADelt 11 (1927-8), 9-52. N. Kourouniotes, E)EvaUUrLaK) ,a8ovxya,AE I937, 223-53. F. Kutsch, AttischeHeilgItterundHeilheroen(Giessen 1913).

R. S. J. GARLAND

122

Legrand Lewis LGS LSA LSG LSS Maas McClees MacDowell, LCA MacDowell (1962) Martha Mattingly, (1961) Mattingly (1982)

Ph.-E. Legrand, 'Sacerdos', pp. 934-42 in vol. 4 of Daremberg and Saglio, Dictionnaire desantiquitisgrecqueset romains(Paris 1877). D. M. Lewis, 'Notes on Attic Inscriptions', BSA 50 (1955), 1-12. sacrae(Leipzig 1896). J. de Prott and L. Ziehen, LegesGraecorum F. Sokolowski, Loissacriesdel'Asie mineure(Paris 1955). F. Sokolowski, Loissacriesdescitisgrecques(Paris 1969). F. Sokolowski,Loissacriesdescitisgrecques. Supplement (Paris 1962). P. Maas, -reavd, title of a priestess',Hesperia15 (1946), 72. H. McClees, A Studyin Womenin AtticInscriptions (New York 1920). D. M. MacDowell, TheLawin ClassicalAthens(Thames and Hudson: London 1978). D. M. MacDowell, Andokides:OntheMysteries(Oxford 1962). athiniens(Paris 1882). J. Martha, LesSacerdoces H. B. Mattingly, 'The Athenian Coinage Decree', HistoriaIo (1961), 148-88. H. B. Mattingly, 'The Athena Nike Temple reconsidered', AJA 86. 3 (July 1982), 381-5-

Meritt (1940) Meritt (I945) Meritt (1946) Meritt and Wade-Gery Mikalson Mommsen Mylonas Nilsson, GGR Nilsson, PT-R Nilsson (1938) Nilsson (1950) Nilsson (1951) Oehler Oliver Ostwald PA Papachristodoulou Papademetriou Parke, FA Parke, OZ Parke (1962) Parke and Wormell Pecirka Picard (I93I) Picard (1933) Picard (1938) Pickard-Cambridge Platnauer Plommer Preisshofen Price

B. D. Meritt, 'Greek Inscriptions', Hesperia9 (1940), 53-96. B. D. Meritt, 'Attic Inscriptions of the Fifth Century', Hesperia14 (1945), 61-81. B. D. Meritt, 'Greek Inscriptions',Hesperia15 (1946), 249-53B. D. Meritt and H. T. Wade-Gery, 'The Dating of Documents to the Mid-Fifth Century-II' JHS 83 (1963), Ioo-17. of theAthenianYear(Princeton 1975). J. D. Mikalson, TheSacredandCivilCalendar A. Mommsen, FestederStadtAthenimAltertum(Leipzig 1898). G. E. Mylonas, EleusisandtheEleusinianMysteries(Princeton 1961). M. P. Nilsson Geschichte dergriechischen Religion(Handbuch der Altertumswissenshaft: Munich I961-7). M. P. Nilsson, PrimitiveTime-Reckoning (Lund 1920). M. P. Nilsson, 'The New Inscription of the Salaminioi', AJPh 59 (1938), 385-93. M. P. Nilsson, Review ofJ. H. Oliver, TheAthenianExpounders of theSacredandAncestral Law, AJPh 71 (1950), 420-5. M. P. Nilsson, Cults,Myths,OraclesandPolitics(Lund 1951). J. Oehler, 'Hieropoioi' RE 8 (i913), cols. 1583-8. of theSacredandAncestralLaw (Baltimore 1950). J. H. Oliver, TheAthenianExpounders M. Ostwald, 'The Prytaneion Decree Re-Examined', AJPh 72 (1951), 24-46. Attica(Berlin 1901-5). J. Kirchner, Prosopographia J. Papachristodoulou, 'Archaeological News from Moschaton' AAA 4 (197I), pp. 140-6. J. Papademetriou, 'Attika I', AE 1948-9, 146-53. H. W. Parke, Festivalsof theAthenians(Thames and Hudson: London 1977). H. W. Parke, The Oraclesof Zeus (Oxford 1967). in connexion with Prophecy', JHS 82 (1962), H. W. Parke, 'A Note on av'-rop~aorlw 145 f. H. W. Parke and D. E. W. Wormell, TheDelphicOracle(2 vols., Oxford 1956). (Acta Universitatis for theGrantof Enktesisin AtticInscriptions J. Pecirka, TheFormula Carolinae Philosophica et Historica Monographia XV: (Prague 1966). C. Picard, 'Les luttes primitives d'Athenes et d'Eleusis' Rev.Hist. 166 (1931), 1-76. C. Picard, 'L'architecte Coroibos et le tel6steriond'Eleusis', CRAI1933, 8-21. C. Picard, 'La complexe Metr6on-Bouleutirion-Prytanikon, a l'Agora d'Athenes', RA 12 (1938), 97-10I. A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, TheDramaticFestivalsof Athens(2nd edn. rev. byJ. P. A. Gould and D. M. Lewis, Clarendon Press:Oxford 1968). M. Platnauer, Euripides:Iphigeniain Taurisedited with introduction and commentary (Oxford I938). H. Plommer, 'The Archaic Acropolis:some Problems',JHS 80 (1960), I27-59. F. Preisshofen,See s.v. Beyer. T. H. Price, Kourotrophos: CultsandRepresentations of theGreekNursingDeities (Leiden 1978).

RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY IN ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL ATHENS Pritchett Raubitschek Rhodes, AB Rhodes, CAAP Richardson Rizzo Rohde Rose Roussel Schlaifer Sokolowski Stauropoulos Stevens (1936) Stevens (1940) Stevens (1946) Thompson Toepffer Tomlinson Travlos Travlos (1950Vallois Vanderpool Vermaseren Wade-Gery Walton (1894) Walton (1935) Walton (1952) Welter Wilamowitz Woodhouse Woodward Wyse Ziehen

123

W. K. Pritchett, 'Greek Inscriptions',Hesperia9 (1940), 97-140. A. E. Raubitschek, 'The Priestessof Pandrosos',AJA 49 (1945), 434 f. P. J. Rhodes, TheAthenianBoule(Clarendon Press:Oxford 1972). P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the AristotelianAthenaionPoliteia. (Clarendon Press: Oxford 1981). N.J. Richardson, TheHomericHymnto Demeter(Oxford 1974). G. Rizzo, 'I1costume e il tipo artistico dello hierophante', RM 25 (1910), 156-67. E. Rohde, Psyche:the Cult of SoulsandBelief in Immortality amongthe Greeks(Trans. W. Hillis. 8th edn., London 1925)H. J. Rose, 'Priests', OCD, 876 f. P. Roussel, 'A propos d'un decret attique relatif a la deesse Bendis', REA 45 (1943), 177-82. R. Schlaifer, 'Notes on Athenian Public Cults', HSCP 51 (1940), 241-60. F. Sokolowski, 'Fees and Taxes in the Greek Cults', HThR 47 I57-64(1954), P. D. Stauropoulos, 'AvaaKaqai ApXalas PAE 1963 (1966), 17. AKa8,paldas', G. P. Stevens, 'The Periclean Entrance Court of the Acropolis of Athens', Hesperia5 (1936), 443-520. G. P. Stevens, 'Precinct of Zeus Polieus', HesperiaSupplement 3 (1940), 79-88. G. P. Stevens, 'The Northwest Corner of the Parthenon', Hesperia15 (1946), 1-26. H. A. Thompson, 'Metroon-Bouleuterion Complex', Hesperia6 (1937), 115-40. J. Toepffer, AttischeGenealogie (Berlin 1889). R. A. Tomlinson, GreekSanctuaries (London 1976). J. Travlos, A PictorialDictionaryof Athens(Thames and Hudson: London 1971). T7~ 'EAvaivos, AE 1950-I, I-16. J. Travlos, To'4AvKTopov R. Vallois, 'La riforme administrativedes sanctuaires REA 35 (1933), d1eusiniens', 195-200. E. Vanderpool, 'News Letter from Greece', AJA 64 (1960), 268. M. J. Vermaseren, Cybeleand Attis: the Myth and the Cult (Thames and Hudson: London 1977). H. T. Wade-Gery, Essaysin GreekHistory(Oxford 1958). A. Walton, TheCultofAsklepios(Cornell Studies in ClassicalPhilology No. 3: Cornell University Press 1894). F. R. Walton, 'A problem in the Ichneutai of Sophocles', HSCP 46 (1935), 170 f. F. Walton, 'Athens, Eleusis and the Homeric Hymn to Demeter', HThR 45 (1952), 105-14. Welter, G. 'Das Olympieion in Athen', AM 47 (I922), 6I-7I. U. von Wilamowitz, Aristoteles undAthen(2 vols., Berlin I893). W. J. Woodhouse, 'Priest, Priesthood (Greek)', in J. Hastings (ed.), Encyclopaedia of ReligionandEthics(Ioth edn., Edinburgh I918), 302-7. A. M. Woodward, 'Athens and the Oracle of Ammon', BSA 57 (1962), 5-13. W. Wyse, TheSpeeches of Isaeus(Hildesheim 1967). L. Ziehen, 'Hiereis' in RE 8 (1913), cols. 1411-24.