Servants of the Gods: A Study in the Religion, History and Literature of Fifth-century Athens 9783666251504, 3525251505, 9783525251508

Citation preview

HYPOMNEMATA 55

HYPOMNEMATA U N T E R S U C H U N G E N ZUR ANTIKE U N D ZU I H R E M N A C H L E B E N

Herausgegeben von Albrecht Dihle / Hartmut Erbse / Christian Habicht Hugh Lloyd-Jones / Günther Patzig / Bruno Snell

Heft 55

VANDENHOECK

& RUPRECHT IN

GÖTTINGEN

BORIMIR

JORDAN

Servants of the Gods A Study in the Religion, History and Literature of Fifth-century Athens

V A N D E N H O E C K & RUPRECHT IN G Ö T T I N G E N

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme

der Deutschen

Bibliothek

Jordan, Borimir: Servants of the gods: a study in the religion, history and literature of fifth-century Athens / Borimir Jordan. — Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1979. (Hypomnemata; Η. 55) ISBN 3-525-25150-5

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen 1979 — Printed in Germany. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es nicht gestattet, das Buch oder Teile daraus auf foto- oder akustomechanischem Wege zu vervielfältigen. Herstellung: Hubert & Co., Göttingen

The result was that the critics, without the smallest anti-religious or anti-Christian bias but on the contrary wishing to base their own Christian beliefs only on the solid rock of critically ascertained historical fact, set to work to rewrite the New Testament narratives leaving out the miraculous events. At first they did not realize how far this committed them to scepticism about Christian origins, but very soon the problem arose: If the miracles are omitted together with everything else that is tarred with the same brush, what is left? According to the critical theory, the early Christans only put the miracles in because they were unscientific, imaginative, credulous people; but that fact vitiates not only their testimony to the miracles but all their other testimony as well. Why then should we believe that Jesus ever lived at all? Surely, argued the more extreme critics, all the New Testament can really tell us is that the people who wrote it lived and were the kind of people they show themselves to be in their writings: a sect of J e w s with strange beliefs, whom a combination of circumstances raised by degrees to the religious mastery of the Roman world. A radical historical scepticism resulted not f r o m the use of critical methods but from a combination of those methods with uncriticized and unnoticed positivistic assumptions. R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History,

p. 136.

5

I DEDICATE THIS WORK TO MY PARENTS BORIS AND MIRA JORDAN

Contents Bibliography and Abbreviations

9

Introduction

15

I.

The Acropolis of Athens and the Hekatompedon Decrees . . .

19

1. 2. 3. 4.

19 23 28 36

II.

Introduction Precinct Governors Gods, Cults, and Priestesses on the Acropolis A Commentary on the Hekatompedon Decrees

Tamiai, Naukraroi, Prytaneis

56

1. Tamiai and Naukraroi

56

2. The Chairmanship of the Treasurers of Athena

62

III. The Treasurers and the Siege of the Acropolis

64

IV. The Priestesses and the Decree of Themistokles from

V.

Troizen

77

The Fate of Athens' Treasury in 480 B.C

81

VI. Miracles in the Antigone of Sophocles Appendix. Fires Sacred and Profane on the Athenian Acropolis

103

85

Addenda

117

Indexes: 1. Important Greek Words 2. Subjects' 3. Ancient Passages Cited

119 120 122

7

Bibliography and Abbreviations Adams I = S. M. Adams, " T h e Antigone of Sophocles," Phoenix 9 (1955) 47—62. Adams II = S. M. Adams, Sophocles the Playwright (Toronto 1957). Α TL III = Β. D. Meritt, Η. Τ. W a d e - G e r y , Μ. F. McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists Vol. Ill (Princeton, New Jersey 1950). Austin NF = C. Austin, Nova Fragmenta Euripidea (Berlin 1968). Austin, Style = R. P. Austin, The Stoichedon Style in Greek Inscriptions (Oxford, London 1938). Barrett = W. S. Barrett, Euripides Hippolytos (Oxford 1966). Bengtson = H. Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte2 (Munich 1960). Beäevliev = V. BeSevliev, Die protobulgarischen Inschriften (Berlin 1963). Blümner = Η. Blümner, Die römischen Privataltertümer3 (Munich 1911). Bowra = C. Μ. Bowra, Pindar (Oxford 1964). Briscoe = J . Briscoe, " T h e First Decade," Livy, Edited by T. A. Dorey (London, Toronto 1971) 1 - 2 0 . Bultmann = R. Bultmann, Glauben und Verstehen Vol. II (Tübingen 1952). Burkert = W. Burkert, Homo Necans (Berlin, New York 1972). Bury = J . B. Bury, "Aristides at Salamis," Classical Review 10 (1896) 4 1 4 - 4 1 8 . Busolt GrSt = G. Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde3 I (Munich 1920). BS GrSt = G. Busolt and H. Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde3 II (Munich 1926). Calder = W. M. Calder, "Sophokles' Political Tragedy, Antigone," Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 9 (1968) 3 8 9 - 4 0 7 . Churchill = W. S. Churchill, Great Contemporaries (London, Glasgow 1937). Clinton = K. Clinton, The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Philadelphia 1974). Crahay = R. Crahay, La Litterature Oraculaire chez Herodote (Paris 1956). Culley = G. R. Culley, " T h e Restoration of Sanctuaries in Attica: IG I I 2 1035," Hesperia 44 (1975) 2 0 7 - 2 2 3 . Daube = D. Daube, " T h e Culture of D e u t e r o n o m y , " Orita 3 (1969) 2 7 - 5 2 . Davies = W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1974). Deubner = L. Deubner, Attische Feste (Hildesheim 1962 Reprint). Diehl—Beutler = Ε. Diehl and R. Beutler, Anthologia Lyrica Graeca (Leipzig 1954). Diels—Kranz = Η. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Berlin 1 9 5 9 - 1 9 6 0 ) 3 Vols. Dinsmoor = W. B. Dinsmoor, " T h e Hekatompedon on the Athenian Akropolis," American Journal of Archaeology 51 (1947) 109—151. Dittenberger = W. Dittenberger, "Zur Hekatompedon-Inschrift," Hermts 26 (1891) 472-473. Dodds = E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Boston 1957). Dörpfeld = W. Dörpfeld, "Der alte Athena-Tempel auf der Akropolis," Athenische Mitteilungen 15 (1890) 4 2 0 - 4 3 9 . Dover = K. J . Dover, "Dekatos Autos," Journal of Hellenic Studies 80 (1960) 61 — 77.

9

Duncan = U. Κ. Duncan, "Notes on Lettering by Some Attic Masons in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C.," Annual of the British School at Athens 56 (1961) 179-188. Eitrem = S. Eitrem, " V e n u s Calva and Venus Cloacina," Classical Review 37 (1923) 14-16. Egermann = F. Egermann, "Herodot-Sophokles. Hohe Arete," in Herodot edited by W. Μ arg (Munich 1962) 2 4 9 - 2 5 5 . Ehrenberg = V. Ehrenberg, Sophokles und Perikles (Munich 1956). Elderkin = G. Elderkin, "Studies in Early Athenian Cult," Classical Studies Capps (Princeton 1936) 1 0 6 - 1 2 3 . Feaver = D. D. Feaver, "Historical Development of the Priesthoods of Athens," Yale Classical Studies 15 (1957) 1 2 3 - 1 5 8 . Ferguson, Τ A = W. S. Ferguson, The Treasurers of Athena (Cambridge, Massachusetts 1932). Ferguson, "Salaminioi" = W. S. Ferguson, " T h e Salaminioi of Heptaphylai and Sounion," Hesperia 7 (1938) 1 - 7 4 . Fontenrose = J . E. Fontenrose, Python (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1959). FGrH = F. J a c o b y , Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker (Berlin, Leiden 1923—). Frisk = Η. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch3· (Heidelberg 1973). Fritz—Kapp = K. von Fritz and E. Kapp, Aristotle's Constitution of Athens and Related Texts (New York 1950). Gilbert = G. Gilbert, Handbuch der griechischen Staatsalterthümer Vol. I (Leipzig 1881).

Gildersleeve = B. L. Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek (New York, Cincinnati, Chicago 1911). Gomme, Historia = A. W. Gomme, "Thucydides 11.13.3," Historia 2 (1953) 1 - 2 1 . van Groningen = B. A. van Groningen, La composition litteraire archaique grecque2 (Amsterdam 1960). H a m m o n d = N.G. L. Hammond, Studies in Greek History (Oxford 1973). Harrison = J . Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (Cambridge 1922). Hignett = C. Hignett, A History of the Athenian Constitution to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford 1962). Hignett, Invasion = C. Hignett, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece (Oxford 1963). Hill = I. T. Hill, The Ancient City of Athens (London 1953). Hof mann = J . Β. Hofmann, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Griechischen (Munich 1966). How and Wells, CH = W. W. How and J . Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus I, II (Oxford 1928). IC = Inscriptiones Creticae IG = Inscriptiones Graecae Immerwahr = Η. R. Immerwahr, Form and Thought in Herodotus (Cleveland 1966). J a m e s o n = Μ. H. Jameson, "A Decree of Themistokles f r o m Troizen," Hesperia 29 (1960) 1 9 8 - 2 2 3 . J e b b = R. C. J e b b , Sophocles (Part III The Antigone) (Oxford 1900). J e f f e r y = L. H. J e f f e r y , The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford 1961). J e n s = W. Jens, "Antigone-Interpretationen," Satura. Früchte aus der antiken Welt (Baden-Baden 1952) 4 3 - 5 8 . Johansen = H. F. Johansen, "Sophocles 1 9 3 9 - 1 9 5 9 , " Lustrum 7 (1962) 9 4 - 2 8 8 .

10

J o r d a n , "Naukraroi" = Β. J o r d a n , "Herodotos 5. 71.2 and the Naukraroi of A t h e n s , " California Studies in Classical Antiquity 3 (1970) 1 5 3 - 1 7 5 . J o r d a n , Ath.Navy = B. J o r d a n , The Athenian Navy in the Classical Period. A Study of Athenian Naval Administration and Military Organization in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. (Berkeley, Los Angeles, L o n d o n 1975). Judeich = W. Judeich, Topographie von Athen2 (Munich 1931). Kern = Ο. Kern, Inscriptiones Graecae (Bonn 1913). Kirk and Raven = G. S. Kirk and J . E. Raven, The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge 1969). Kirkwood = G. M. Kirkwood, Α Study of Sophoclean Drama (Ithaca 1958). Kirsten—Kraiker = E. Kirsten and W. Kraiker, Griechenlandkunde4 (Heidelberg 1962). Knight = W. F. J . Knight, " T h e Defence of the Acropolis and the Panic before Salamis," Journal of Hellenic Studies 51 (1931) 1 7 4 - 1 7 8 . Kitto = H. D. F. Kitto, Form and Meaning in Drama (London 1964). Körte = Α. Körte, "Der alte Tempel und das Hekatompedon auf der Akropolis zu A t h e n , " Rheinisches Museum 53 (1898) 2 3 9 - 2 6 9 . Labarbe = J . Labarbe, "L'apparition de la notion de tyrannie dans la Grece archaique," L'Antiquite Classique 40 (1971) 4 7 1 - 5 0 4 . Legrand = P.-E. Legrand, "Sacerdos," Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romaines 934—942. Lesky = A. Lesky, Greek Tragedy (New York 1965). van Leeuwen = J . van Leeuwen, Aristophanes Pax2 (Leiden 1906). Lilja = S. Lilja, The Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 49 (1972) (Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Helsinki). Linders I = T. Linders, Studies in the Treasure Records of Artemis Brauronia Found in Athens, Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen XIX (Stockholm 1972). Linders II = T. Linders, The Treasurer of the Other Gods in Athens and their Functions (Meisenheim am Glan, 1975). L S J 9 = Liddell—Scott—Jones—McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edition. MacKay = L. A. MacKay, "Antigone, Coriolanus and Hegel," Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 93 (1962) 166—174. Mäddoli = G. Mäddoli, "Responsabilitä e sanzione nei decreta de Hecatompedo," Museum Helveticum 24 (1967) 1 - 1 1 . Masson = O. Masson, Les fragments du poete Hipponax (Paris 1962). McCall = M. McCall, "Divine and H u m a n Action in Sophocles: The T w o Burials of the Antigone," Yale Classical Studies 22 (1972) 1 0 3 - 1 1 7 . Meyer = E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums II (Stuttgart 1953 Reprint). ML = R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford 1969). Mommsen = A. Mommsen, Heortologie (Amsterdam 1968 Reprint). Müller = G. Müller, Sophokles Antigone (Heidelberg 1967). Munro = J . A. R. Munro, "Xerxes' Invasion of Greece," Cambridge Ancient History IV (1939) 2 6 8 - 3 1 6 . Nilsson, Feste = Μ. P. Nilsson, Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung (Stuttgart 1957 Reprint). Nilsson, CMOP = Μ. P. Nilsson, Cults, Myths, Oracles and Politics in Ancient Greece (Lund 1951) Nilsson, Opuscula = Μ. P. Nilsson, Opuscula Selecta vol. I (Lund 1951). Nilsson, GGrR = Μ. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der Griechischen Religion I 2 (Munich 1955).

11

Nock = A. D. Nock, "Religious Attitudes of the Ancient Greeks," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 85 (1942) 4 7 2 - ^ 8 2 . Ogilvie = R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy Books 1—5 (Oxford 1965). Oxford Bible = The Oxford Annotated Bible, edited by H. G. May and Β. M. Metzger (Oxford 1962). PA = J . Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica (Berlin 1966 Reprint). Pemberton = E. G. Pemberton, " T h e Gods of the East Frieze of the Parthenon," American Journal of Archaeology 80 (1976) 113—124. Pierart = M. Pierart, "Les EUTHYNOI atheniens," L'Antiquite Classique 40 (1971) 526-573. Platnauer = M. Platnauer, Aristophanes' Peace (Oxford 1964). Podlecki = A. J . Podlecki, "Creon and Herodotus," Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 97 (1966) 359—371. Pohlenz = Μ. Pohlenz, Herodot2 (Stuttgart 1961). Pollitt = J . J . Pollitt, Art and Experience in Classical Greece (Cambridge 1972). Pritchett = W. K. Pritchett, Ancient Greek Military Practices Part I (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1971). PZ, LGS = I. von Prott and L. Ziehen, Leges Graecorum Sacrae e Titulis Collectae I, II (Leipzig 1 8 9 6 - 1 9 0 6 ) . Raubitschek = A. E. Raubitschek, " T h e Priestess of Pandrosos," American Journal of Archaeology 49 (1945) 4 3 4 - 4 3 5 . Renehan, Studies = R. Renehan, Studies in Greek Texts (Göttingen 1976). Renehan, Lexic. Notes = R. Renehan, Greek Lexicographical Notes (Göttingen 1975). Renehan, " H e r a " = R. Renehan, "Hera as Earth-Goddess: A New Piece of Evidence," Rheinisches Museum 117 (1974) 1 9 3 - 2 0 1 . Robert I = L. Robert, "Sur des inscriptions de Chios," Opera Minora Selecta I (Amsterdam 1969) 4 7 3 - 5 2 9 . Robert II = L. Robert, "Recherches epigraphiques," Opera Minora Selecta II (Amsterdam 1969) 7 9 2 - 8 7 7 . Robertson = D. S. Robertson, Cambridge Philological Society Proceedings 169 (1938) 10 (without title). Rogers = B.B. Rogers, Aristophanes II (London, New York 1924). Roussel = P. Roussel, " L e miracle de Zeus Panamaros," Bulletin de correspondance hellenique 55 (1931) 7 0 - 1 1 6 . Ruiperez = M. S. Ruiperez, " L e dialecte Mycenien," Acta Mycenaea (Salamanca 1972) 1 3 6 - 1 6 9 . Ruschenbusch = Ε. Ruschenbusch, Solonos Nomoi (Wiesbaden 1966). Sandys = J . E. Sandys, Aristotle's Constitution of Athens (London 1912). Schlaifer = R. Schlaifer, "Notes o n Athenian Public Cults," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 51 (1940) 2 3 3 - 2 6 0 . Schwyzer = E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik 12 (Munich 1953). Sealey = R. Sealey, "Again the Siege of the Akropolis 480 B.C.," California Studies in Classical Antiquity 5 (1972) 1 8 3 - 1 9 4 . SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. SIG3 = W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum3 (Leipzig 1915—1924). Simon = E. Simon, Die Götter der Griechen (Munich 1969). Sinclair = Τ. A. Sinclair, Hesiod Works and Days (London 1932). Smith = D. R. Smith, " T h e Hieropoioi on Kos," Numen 20 (1973) 3 8 - 4 7 . Sokolowski LSA = F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrees de l'Asie Mineure (Paris 1955).

12

Sokolowski LSS = F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrees des cites grecques, Supplement (Paris 1962). Sokolowski LSCG = F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrees de cites grecques (Paris 1969). Solmsen = F. Solmsen, "Naukraros, Nauklaros, Naukleros," Rheinisches Museum 53 (1898) 1 5 1 - 1 5 8 . Sparkes = B. A. Sparkes, " T h e Greek Kitchen," Journal of Hellenic Studies 82 (1962) 1 2 1 - 1 3 7 . Sparkes and Talcott = Β. Sparkes and L. Talcott, The Athenian Agora Vol. XII Part I, Black and Plain Pottery (Princeton 1970). Stengel = P. Stengel, Griechische Kultusaltertümer (Munich 1920). Stroud I = R. S. Stroud, Drakon's Law on Homicide (Berkeley, Los Angeles, New York 1968). Stroud II = R. S. Stroud, " A Fragment of an Inscribed Bronze Stele f r o m Athens" Hesperia 32 (1963) 1 3 8 - 1 4 3 . Thompson = W. E. Thompson, "Notes on the Treasurers of Athena," Hesperia 39 (1970) 5 4 - 6 3 . Tod = Μ. N. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions II (Oxford 1948). Vanderpool = E. Vanderpool, " T h e Date of the Pre-Persian City-Wall of Athens," Phoros, Tribute to B. D. Meritt (Locust Valley, New York 1974) 1 5 6 - 1 6 0 . Wächter = Τ. Wächter, Reinheitsvorschriften im griechischen Kult (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten IX 1 (Gießen 1910). Waters = Κ. H. Waters, Herodotos on Tyrants and Despots, Historia Einzelschriften 15 (Wiesbaden 1971). Wernicke = K. Wernicke, „Die Polizeiwache auf der Burg von A t h e n , " Hermes 26 (1891) 5 1 - 7 5 . West, IEG = M. L. West, Iambi et Elegi Graeci vol. I (Oxford 1971). Whitman = C. H. Whitman, Sophocles, Α Study of Heroic Humanism (Cambridge, Massachusetts 1951). Wilamowitz = U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Euripides Herakles'1 (Berlin 1895). Wyse = W. Wyse, The Speeches of Isaeus (Cambridge 1904). Young = D. C. Young, Pindar Isthmian 7, Myth and Exempla (Leiden 1971).

13

Introduction In the following pages I have attempted to shed some light upon certain religious attitudes and beliefs which were common to most of pagan antiquity throughout its long history, but which flourished with special vigor in Greece in the fifth century and earlier, when rationalism and relativism had not yet begun to erode the fabric of ancient pagan religion. The Peloponnesian War weakened the spiritual, as well as the material foundations of the ancient Greek world, and the ever growing authority of the philosophical schools ensured that this decline would continue. After the third century before Christ, Delphi, which had once held a commanding place in the political and social life of ancient Greece, ceased to receive requests for divine help and guidance from the rulers of powerful states and captains of large armies. For by that time the oracular pronouncements and prophetic signs, and the prodigies and miracles which fill the pages of Herodotos' incomparable History, belonged to a vanishing, if not vanished, world. To be sure, the belief that the divinity guided the destiny of states and of armies, and that it miraculously interceded on their behalf, lived on both in Greece and, most especially, in the still young and struggling Roman Republic. But this belief lacked the intensity and passionate conviction of the preceding ages that the gods stood ready to counsel and to warn, to help and to admonish mankind, if mankind would only take the trouble to hear and understand their gods. This delicate and often difficult relationship betwen gods and men forms the general theme of my essay. At its center is the Athenian Acropolis, and the resident gods' sanctuaries situated on it. The main characters of the study are the men and women who served the gods' holy precincts: temple administrators and naukraroi, treasurers and priestesses, and other women holding more humble priestly offices. Of these the most prominent are the treasurers on the Acropolis, well known to students of Athenian inscriptions and finances from their voluminous records on marble which have survived to our own day. But the treasurers were much more than the mere bank clerks and accountants that they appear to be in the inscriptions. They were above all religious officials who served the gods and their sanctuaries as much as they served the mundane requirements of finance. The religious nature 15

of their office and duties is revealed, as nowhere else, in the so-called Hekatompedon Inscription (IG I 2 3—4). The sacral and legal matter in this decree has been generally neglected; yet the document firmly places the treasurers of Athena in that category of "religious civil servants" who did duty in sanctuaries all over Ancient Greece as administrators and overseers of sacred land and buildings. In order to clarify the treasurers' membership in this ancient Greek religious civil service, I have prefaced my discussion of the decree itself with a sketch of some similar functions performed by such sacral administrators in other parts of Greece; I have also added a rapid survey of the evidence for priestesses and other hieratic women present on the Acropolis. Since the Hekatompedon decree singles out the treasurers and the priestly women for special attention, I hope that these two brief studies will help to place the inscription in its proper context, and thus pave the way to a better understanding of it. The Hekatompedon decree also provides a link, hitherto unnoticed, between the archaic naukraroi and the treasurers of the fifth and later centuries. In the second chapter of the present work I demonstrate the virtual identity in all but name of these two boards. I argue that the historical continuity of the office and particularly of its chairmanship, from the seventh to the fifth centuries, establishes this identity beyond doubt. The treasurers are again the chief actors in Chapter III, whose subject is a remarkable episode from an earth-shaking year of European history — the defense of the Athenian Acropolis in 480 B.C. The treasurers' heroic resistance against the Persian host is but one event in the tremendous historical drama that Herodotos unfolds in his account of Xerxes' invasion of Greece. In that drama the gods are ever present, intervening in human affairs with prodigies, prophecies, and miracles to such a degree as to permit the observation that there are two struggles in progress here: one against the Persian foe and the other for the proper understanding of the gods' true will and purpose. I have dwelled at some length upon this second theme of Herodotos' History, for it exemplifies attitudes and habits of thought with respect to religion and the supernatural which caused and even required the human being to seek the harmonious cooperation of his gods, and so the reconciliation of divine and human action in nearly all human undertakings. The rationalisticpositivistic historians of the last century and this have paid small attention to this side of ancient pagan life and religion. Taking their cue from Polybius' dictum that "whenever it is possible to find out the causes of what is happening one should not have recourse to the gods," 16

modern historians, and even modern theologians, have preferred to leave "the finger of g o d " 1 out of history. In this they are certainly right. No one today would argue that, as M. C. D'Arcy puts it, 2 the first duty of a historian is to "tidy up the mundane events and the human drama." But by no means does it follow that one should not try to understand the effects which religious beliefs have had upon that human drama. A deus ex machina interfering at will in the course of history is one thing. The belief, when held by humanity at large, that such an interference is possible is quite a different matter. All this seems so self-evident as to hardly need repeating. Yet even a casual look at the standard histories will be sufficient to make the point. The events on the Athenian Acropolis in the year 4 8 0 B.C. have a direct bearing on two important problems of Athenian history and epigraphy. I address these problems in Chapters IV and V. In Chapter VI I attempt to show that the religious issue central to Herodotos' history of the Persian Wars — the relationship between gods and men — was one of the great issues of the day in fifth-century Athens, agitating the minds of the dramatists as well, and most notably that of Sophokles. Sophokles' Antigone has as its central theme the same problem with which the statesmen of Greece wrestled when they faced the Persians' attack: the perception of the gods' true will and the reconciliation of divine and human action in times of great danger and national crisis. Thus the chapter on the Antigone of Sophokles deals with the poetical re-statement of the very problem present in the pages of Herodotos. Throughout the monograph I have used various translations which I have occasionally altered and adapted to suit my particular purposes. For Herodotos I have used A. de Selincourt's translation, for the Antigone those of J e b b and Elizabeth Wyckoff. The long Plutarch excerpt in the Appendix is in Dryden's translation. The passages from Pausanias are in Frazer's rendition; the translations of Latin authors, and of all other Greek writers, come, except when noted otherwise, from the Loeb Classical Library. The three indexes are intended to make the use of the book easy and convenient. I wish to acknowledge the help that I have received at various stages of composition. Professors S. Dow and J . E. Fontenrose very kindly offered helpful comments and suggestions. Professor C. Habicht read the typescript in his capacity as an editor of Hypomnemata and saved me from several errors. I have profited greatly from discussions, in per1 M. C. D'Arcy, The Sense of History: 2 Ibid. 2 J o r d a n (Hyp. 5 5 )

Secular and Sacred ( 1 9 5 9 ) 164.

17

son and per litteras, with Professors W. K. Pritchett and R. Renehan. The sections on the Hekatompedon Decree in particular — a difficult and unyielding inscription — owe much to the generous help and advice of these two scholars. Professor W. West made available to me some readings of IG I 2 4 from a squeeze at Chapel Hill, and verified the entire text in the Epigraphical Museum at Athens. To these scholars I owe a debt of gratitude.

18

CHAPTER 1

The Acropolis of Athens and the Hekatompedon Decrees 1.

Introduction

The forty-odd fragments comprising the so-called Hekatompedon Inscriptions (IG I 2 3 and 4) originally formed two of the oldest Athenian decrees that have come down to us. The two inscriptions, and in particular the much better preserved second decree, IG I 2 4, are among the finest examples of the engraver's art. The beauty of the letters, their careful spacing, and the lavish interpuncts in the text have few rivals among Athenian inscriptions. Remarkable as the second stele is for is aesthetic qualities, it is more remarkable still for its content. Hitherto the decree has been of interest chiefly to archaeologists and topographers trying to unravel the tangled spatial and temporal relationships between the various sixth-century temples of Athena on the Acropolis. The actual provisions of this important document however have received little attention. In spite of its poorly preserved text, the second decree deserves much closer study, for it contains matters of considerable moment to students of Athenian history and institutions.1 In this chapter I shall first discuss the Hekatompedon decree in its relation to the administration of ancient Greek sanctuaries. Next, I shall deal with some features of religious life and the conduct of affairs on the Acropolis of Athens. Finally, I offer a detailed commentary on both inscriptions, followed by a revised text of IG I 2 4. The most recent text of the second Hekatompedon decree to appear in print was the text of F. Sokolowski which he published in Lois sacrees des cites grecques (1969), accompanied by an apparatus criticus, and brief remarks on some passages. Sokolowski's version of this problematical inscription is not always free of difficulties, as I shall show in the commentary. Since, however, Sokolowski's is the latest text available to scholars I reproduce it at the outset for the convenience of the reader, along with a selective critical apparatus and a translation. 1 Dinsmoor, 110; 124. Cf. Hill, 138. References to earlier work on the inscription will be found in these two publications, and in Sokolowski LSCG 4—6, and SEG 16.1 and SEG 21.2. More recent are discussions of special problems by Mäddoli and Pierart. The lettering of the inscription is discussed by Duncan.

19

5

10

15

20

[Τά χαλ/cία τά έ]μ πόλει : Λόσοις χρδνται · π[λ]ει> höaa [έν τοϊς σεσεμ]ασμένοις • οϊκέμ[ασι : έ]άμ nap' έκάστ[οισι · μένει ! κα]τά τέν πόλιν • Ύρά[φσα]σθαι · τός ταμί[ας \\'Μταν θύο]σι · τά Λιερα • hoi ε[νδο]ν · hie[p]opyövr[ες : μέ πaphior]avai : χύτραν · μεδ[έ προς θύρ\αν μεδέ [προς τον τοϊχον ·] μεδέ το πϋρ : άν[άπτεν ·] ea[v δ]έ ης : τ[ούτον η Spät εί]δός : έχσέναι θ[οα]ν · μεχ[ρι τρί\δν ό[βελδν : τοϊοι τ]αμίασι :·: τός ιβ[ρορ\^δντα[ς ·] μ [όπτάν] με[ταχσι) τδ v]eo · και τδ πρό[ς εο μεγάλ]ο β[ο]μδ · [και νο]τόθεν · τ[δ ι>]εό : εντός τδ Κ[εκροπίο · και άν]ά πάν τό heκατόμπ[εδ]ον · μεδ' 0νθο[ν] eyß[akev : εάν] δε τις : τούτον τι δρά[ι είδος · έ]χσ[£]ναι θοάν [μέ]χρι τρών · όββλδν • τοϊσι ταμ[ίαοι :•: τάς] Αιερεα[ς] τάς έμ πόλει : και τάς ζακόρος [με ποιέν ο'ί]κεμα ταμιείον · έμ πόλε ι : μεδέ Ηιπνε[ύεσθαι · έάν δε τις τ]ούτον τι δρα ι · εύθύνε[σθαι heKarov] · δραχμέ[σι και] τός ταμίας · έάν έδσ[ι, εύθύνεσθαι ·] Εκατόν δραχμε[σι :··] τά οίκέματα [τα έν τοι Ιΐ€κατ]ομπέδοι : ävovyev · [τός] ταμίας · με Ö[λει$Όν τρις τ]δ μενό[ς θ]εασθαι · τά[ς Ηέν]ας · έμε[ρ]ας [τάς προ τές νο]μενία[ς και τ]έι [δεκάτει κα]ι τέι εί-

[κάδι : Ηυπέρ hέμ]ισυ : π[α]ρόντα[ς · hός δ' 'αν λεί]πει : δυνατός ον· άποτίνε]ν δύο δραχμ[ά εκαστον · έσπρ]άττε[ν δε τό π]ρύ[τανιν · έά]ν δε μέ, κα[τά ^ε^ραμμένα] εύθ[ύνεο]θαι · φα[ί]νεν δέ τό π[ το]25 [ίς] ταμίασ ι · τά έν τδ ι λί[θοι ] ταϋτ εδοχσεν · τδι δέ[μοι έπ\ί Φ[ιλοκράτος Άρχοντος · τά έν τοϊν \ίθοι[ν τούτ]οιν. Selective critical apparatus: Line 2: έ]αμ Wilhelm, Η. v. Gaertringen. Lines 2—3: έκάστ[οισιν, τά δέ κα]τά Η. v. Gaertringen. Line 5: μέ έάν Ηιστ]άναι Kirchhoff and Η. v. Gaertringen; μεδέ έπιϋνμΐ]άν (?) Η. v. Gaertringen. Lines 8—9: μ[β άρτα]με[ρ Wolters, Η. ν. Gaertringen; μ[έ όρεν Koerte; με[λα νέ]με[ν Bannier. Line 14: [με hexev] Dittenberger. Line 23: a]f δέ μέ Η. v. Gaertringen; κα[τά τά προερεμένα Η. v. Gaertringen. Lines 24—25: τό π[ρύτανιρ τά (ώικέματα τοις] Koerte, Η. v. Gaertringen. Line 25: έν τδι λι[ι?οι -γεΎραμμένα Koerte, Η. v. Gaertringen.

20

The bronze vessels on the Acropolis — all the vessels that they use, except all those in the sealed houses. If the vessels remain with each one (of the users?) upon the Acropolis, the treasurers are to make a record of them, (lines 1—4) When the sacrificers sacrifice inside, they are not to lean a pot either against a door or a wall. Nor are they to light the fire. And if anyone does any of these things knowingly, the treasurers may punish him with a fine not to exceed three obols. (lines 4—8) The sacrificers are not to roast between the temple and the great altar to the east, and to the south of the temple within the Kekropion, and throughout the entire Hekatompedon. Nor are they to throw dung out. And if anyone does any of these things knowingly, the treasurers may punish him with a fine not to exceed three obols. (lines 8—13) The priestesses and the zakoroi are not to make a storeroom on the Acropolis, nor are they to bake bread. If any (of them) does any of these things, she is to be fined one hundred drachmai, and the treasurers are to be fined one hundred drachmai if they permit it. (lines 13-17) The treasurers are to open the houses in the Hekatompedon no less than three times a month for viewing: on the first days before the new moon, and on the tenth and twentieth days of the month. (At the openings) more than half of the treasurers are to be present. But whoever is absent, though able (to attend) -- each of them is to pay two drachmai. And the prytanis is to collect the fine; if he does not, he is to be held accountable. And the prytanis is to reveal to the treasurers (the contents) of these two stones, (lines 17—25) The people decreed the regulations on these two stones in the archonship of Philokrates. (lines 2 6 - 2 7 )

21

A cursory inspection of the text reveals that the inscription is a law regulating personal conduct and the management of cults on the Acropolis. The decree's provisions affect the treasurers on the Acropolis, certain personages offering sacrifices there, and the priestesses serving in the sanctuary and their assistants. It is readily apparent, too, that the principal actors in the decree are the treasurers and the treasurers' president. The Athenian assembly directs its orders to the treasurers: they must enforce compliance with these orders, and it is they who must proceed against violators or be held accountable themselves. The handsome lettering, the nature of the rules, and the fine Parian marble 2 bearing the decree suggest that the stele was meant for prominent display (see below the commentary on line 26). Such display of rules and regulations for sacred precincts was by no means peculiar to the Athenian Acropolis. The practice was customary in many parts of ancient Greece; inscriptions from other sanctuaries contain numerous examples of clauses requiring the engraving, erection, and display of regulatory decrees. One such decree may suffice as an illustration. The decree comes from Tymnos and was engraved and erected in the first century of our era. I quote the pertinent passage: "In order that the written ordinance be always plain to see, and in order that no one commit an error towards the gods; and in order that the dedications remain unharmed and inviolate as long as possible, the sacred magistrate in office must write up this decree (and display it) on the opposite wall in the s t o a . " 3 The text from Tymnos mentions a "sacred official," the hierothytas. This priestly magistrate was clearly the counterpart of the treasurers' president in our inscription. Like his Athenian colleague, the Tymnian official has certain administrative obligations with respect to the sanctuary — in this case the inscribing of rules and regulations in a prominent and clearly visible place for all to see. A perusal of some other similar texts readily establishes that the Athenian and Tymnian officials were not the only instances of such a magistracy. The inscriptions in fact show that the great, and many of the lesser, sanctuaries of ancient Greece were governed by special officials such as these two, who bore responsibility for the sacred precincts in their care. Their titles varied. At some sanctuaries their titles were hieromnemones and hierotamiai. Elsewhere they were called simply tamiai, as at Culley, 2 1 0 , n. 13. W. K. Pritchett assures me by letter that the marble bearing the decree is Parian. 3 Sokolowski LSS No. I l l , lines 1 8 - 2 2 . Cf. Sokolowski LSCG No. 73, lines 1 6 20; No. 136. 2

22

Athens, and hieropoioi. At Delphi, the manager of Apollo's precinct bore the title of prophetes.4 But whatever their title, the duties and functions of these sacral officials often coincided to a considerable degree; and both the officials and the tasks that they performed appear in the sacred laws throughout the centuries with remarkable consistency. Since the Hekatompedon inscription is a regulatory decree, it will be expedient to study it in the context of similar documents from other parts of Greece. Therefore I propose to give, in what follows, a brief summary of the activities of these officials, whom we might conveniently term in English "precinct governors." This summary may serve as a backdrop against which the provisions of the Hekatompedon inscription will stand out more clearly.

2. Precinct

Governors

In the Politics (6.8. 1322b) Aristotle says: "But another kind of superintendence is concerned with divine worship; in this class are priests and superintendents of matters connected with the sanctuaries, the preservation of existing buildings, and the rebuilding of structures that are falling into disrepair, and other duties relating to the gods. Occasionally this superintendence forms a single office in some places, as for example in small city-states; but in other city-states it is divided among a number of officials, such as the sacrificial officers (hieropoioi), temple guardians (naophylakes), and treasurers of sacred funds, who are not members of the priesthood." With this general statement Aristotle summarizes the officials who administered ancient Greek sanctuaries and conducted the various ceremonies of ancient religious life (sacrifices, processions, banquets, etc.) in his own day. As far as it goes, Aristotle's brief analysis is accurate. The inscriptions, virtually our only source of information on the subject, bear him out on most points. In some places, one or several priests did have a part in the administration of a sanctuary. Small sacred precincts, and sanctuaries situated in smaller, less affluent states, often had only a single administrator, as for example the neokoros in the sanctuary Hieromnemones: Sokolowski LSCG No. 67 (Tegea, 4th cent. BC). Hierotamiai: Sokolowski LSCG No. 136. Hieropoioi on Delos: IG XI 2, 1 3 5 - 2 8 9 . Delphi: Hdt. 7.111.2 and How and Wells CH II 168; Hdt. 8.36.2. For further titles and details see Stengel 4 8 - 5 3 .

4

23

of Hera at Arkesine on the island of Amorgos. 5 Elsewhere, however, we find precincts governed by boards of several members. Sometimes a full board along with a single official, and more rarely, two full boards could be in charge of a sanctuary.6 As a general rule the larger, more important, and more visited a sanctuary was, the more officials, or boards of officials, administered it. 7 Aristotle is also right in saying that the superintendents were not members of the priesthood. The commissioners of sacrifices, usually different from the precinct governors and called hieropoioi just as Aristotle says, performed duties most akin to those of priests; yet even they were not priests, but members of committees whom the state and its citizens appointed or elected to office, normally for a year.8 Aristotle's brief passage hardly gives an inkling of the great number and bewildering variety of titles that precinct governors had, and much less of the variegated and complicated duties that they had to perform. In addition to the titles that I enumerated earlier, the inscriptions mention neokoroi, theoroi, agoranomoi, basileis, and many others. Stengel's chapter on "Kultusbeamte" is the only attempt at a systematic and comprehensive treatment known to me of the subject of ancient Greek temple administration. Being a chapter in a handbook, Stengel's account is of necessity condensed and brief. Although it provides a considerable amount of detail, it leaves out a great deal more, and is in some respects misleading. Stengel followed Aristotle's scheme of priests, commissioners of sacrifices, and treasurers, and thus failed to notice that Aristotle's classification is not as rigid as it appears. The title of an official, or of a college of officials, is not always indicative of what these men actually did. A board of hieropoioi, for instance, could conduct business quite different from sacrifices and all that went with them; and this was in fact so with the hieropoioi on Delos. 9 Similarly, an official bearing the title hierorthytas was sometimes an administrator. Stengel was apparently aware of the true state of affairs, for he remarks of both hieropoioi and hierothytai that in some places they might have 5 Priest: Sokolowski LSA No. 5, lines 2 4 - 2 6 (Chalcedon, 1st cent. BC or A D ) . Cf. further Stengel 4 6 - 4 7 ; Robert I 486ff. Neokoros: Sokolowski LSCG No. 101, line 5 (3rd cent. BC). 6 Sokolowski LSCG

No. I l l , lines 4 - 1 0 (Paros, 5th cent. BC): a college of theoroi

plus one neokoros. LSCG No. 136 (Ialysos, 300 B.C.): hierotamiai and mastroi. LSCG No. 116 (Chios, 4th cent. BC): college of basileis. For more examples see Stengel 48-54. ? Cf. Busolt, GrSt 497. « Cf. Stengel 4 8 - 5 3 . 9 See the records of the Delian hieropoioi in IG XI. 2. 1 3 5 - 2 8 9 .

24

had obligations of a wider and more important nature than the performance of certain regularly scheduled sacrifices. 10 He was, however, considerably further off the mark with his conclusion that in general it was the priests who acted as the superintendents-in-chief of sanctuaries, and that all other officials served as their assistants in the complicated business of temple administration. Exactly the opposite was true. More frequently by far than not, the executive and judicial authority was in the hands of the precinct governors; while the priests quite often stood under the direct control of the precinct governors. 11 Yet another misapprehension, held not only by Stengel but by virtually all others, is that Aristotle's treasurers of sacred funds were purely financial officials. Scholars have always held this view especially of the treasurers on the Athenian Acropolis, the best known and most studied of all. 12 It is of course true that the treasurers of Athena were the keepers of funds sacred and profane. However, like their colleagues in many other sanctuaries of ancient Greece, the treasurers of Athena Polias were far more than mere bankers. The Hekatompedon decrees alone make this quite clear, and evidence from places outside of Athens and of Attica confirms this conclusion in every instance. In the beginning of the present century, Wächter published a treatise in which he listed a great many taboos pertaining to temples and to sanctuaries. His catalogue contains numerous requirements for personal cleanliness and moral purity which kept temples and precincts free of taint and pollution. The taboos that Wächter collected and studied include the interdiction of persons temporarily contaminated by the processes of birth, death, disease, and sexual relations; other taboos concern the prohibition of animals, plants, and some kinds of food-stuffs from holy places, as well as regulations against certain metals, offal, and the entrance of women (and occasionally men) and foreigners into sanctuaries. Wächter did not dwell at any length upon the question as to whose business it was to enforce compliance with the regulations in the sacred laws; but it is clear from the continually growing corpus of leges sacrae that such enforcement was nearly always the duty of the precinct governors. That the task belonged to the governors is strongly implied in the 10 E.g. Sokolowski LSS No. I l l (Tymnos, 1st cent. BC): the hierothytas has police powers, sets up the regulatory decree, and must maintain the ritual purity of the sanctuary. Cf. Stengel 50: "An einigen Orten waren ihnen aber auch wichtigere Geschäfte anvertraut." 11 For example on the Athenian Acropolis and at Delphi. As a general rule, whenever the inscriptions do not assign specific powers and responsibilities to the priests, we must assume that they stood under the supervision of the governors. 12 See, for example, Ferguson, TA, passim and the literature collected by Linders II 1—3 and in her notes to these pages.

25

text of the Tymnian inscription which I quoted above. Other texts assign this duty and authority to the governors in the most explicit and general terms. For example an inscription pertaining to the sanctuary of Alektrona in Ialysos requires the precinct governors, here styled hierotamiai, to maintain the ritual purity of both sanctuary and temenos at all times. 13 While precinct governors thus always stood under the injunction to maintain holy places in their charge inviolate and pure, this was far from being the limit of their responsibilities, particularly in the larger, more frequented sanctuaries. The sacred laws reveal an astonishing variety of tasks that the governors performed, ranging from the supervision of the most elementary daily housekeeping to the elaborate preparations that were necessary for the great international festivals. The throngs that gathered at Delphi, Olympia, Delos, and elsewhere for worship, celebrations, and competitions required close supervision. 14 The governing bodies of such precincts often had to repair buildings and other installations before the crowds arrived. A decree that the hieroomnemones of the Delphic Amphictyony voted in the year 380/379 B.C. gives us some idea of the complex problems with which precinct governors had to deal, sometimes in great detail. The regular administrator of Apollo's temple and precinct at Delphi was the prophetes. l s However, the Pythian Games — an international festival of the first order attended by large numbers of people from all parts of Greece — was organized and managed by a special commission of the Pylaean-Delphic Amphictyony. 1 6 The planning, preparation, and supervision of such a festival must have been a monumental task. The commission had to inspect the lands around Delphi, and to decorate all holy places for the festival. It also repaired the race-course, and the temples of Apollo Pythios and Athena Pronaia, as well as a "fountain in the plain." Even the repairing of the bridges on the roads leading to Delphi was a part of its duties. 1 7 13 Sokolowski LSCG No. 136 (Ialysos, ca. 300 BC) lines 3 - 6 . See also LSCG No. 115 (Thasos, 4th cent. B.C.); here the official is assisted by a priest. Cf. further the inscription from Tymnos quoted above, and Sokolowski LSS No. 53 (Delos) lines 3ff. 14 See, for example, Sokolowski LSS No. 2 4 (Epidauros, 2nd cent. AD), and Sokolowski's remark: "sanctuaries were places where people gathered to sacrifice and to hold banquets; and so there was a constant fear that the installations might be sullied or damaged." »5 Cf. Hdt. 8.36.2 and How and Wells CH II 168. 16 On the function of the Pylaean-Delphic Amphictyony see BS GrSt 1294. " IG II 2 1126 = Sokolowski LSCG No. 78 (Delphi, 380/379 BC), lines 1 5 - 2 1 and 35-43.

26

Elsewhere too, a sanctuary's property required constant attention and care. Dedications and other valuables had to be protected against damage, fire, and theft. 1 8 There were records to be kept of the multifarious holy vessels, and other utensils necessary for ritual and sacrifice. The use of such equipment in a proper manner and in the proper place was also in the governors' care. In some places private persons could not use the sacred equipment at all, in others it was strictly forbidden to take it out of the sanctuary. Conversely, worshippers were not allowed to bring their own implements into a sanctuary for use in religious ceremonies, or to import any other impure object. 1 9 The preservation of good order and propriety among pilgrims visiting a precinct was another matter that came under the governors' purview. In the Hellenistic Age, when sanctuaries came to be equipped with such amenities, hotels and restaurant buildings too required the governors' supervision and protection. 2 0 For sanitary reasons, and, apparently, to prevent the abuse of a shrine's hospitality by pilgrims and casual travellers, overnight lodging was forbidden at some places. One very interesting inscription from Ialysos contains an ordinance which prohibits the following list of animals from entering the sanctuary: horses, donkeys, mules, small mules, or any other pack animal. The purpose of this legislation was of course to prevent the pilgrims from turning the sanctuary into a stable by bringing in the animals on which they had ridden to the holy place. 21 Such were some of the matters which formed the business of the precinct governors. 22 In order to exercise their authority with effect and 1 8 Dedications: Sokolowski LSA No. 74 (Loryma, 3rd cent. BC), lines 4—5; No. 59 (Iasos, 4th cent. BC), lines 8 - 9 . Theft: Sokolowski, LSA No. 68 (Stratonikeia) with Sokolowski's commentary and further references; No. 17 (Smyrna, 1st cent. BC), lines 3 - 5 ; No. 74 (Loryma, 3rd cent. BC), lines 1 - 3 . Fire: Sokolowski LSCG No. 67 (Tegea, 4th cent. BC) lines 2 1 - 2 3 ; No. 100 (Arkesine on Amorgos, 5th cent. BC), lines 1 - 6 . >9 Sokolowski LSS No. 24 (Epidauros, 2nd cent. AD), lines 3 - 4 ; No. 27 (Argos, 6th cent. BC); No. 117 (Cyrene, 2nd-lst cent. BC); Sokolowski LSA No. 17 (Smyrna, 1st cent. BC), lines 2 - 3 ; Sokolowski LSCG No. 136 (Ialysos, ca. 300 BC), lines 10-15. 2 0 Sokolowski LSA No. 81 (Antioch on the Pyramos, 160 BC), lines 1 7 - 1 8 ; on the preservation of good order during religious ceremonies and gatherings (panegyreis) in general see Sokolowski's commentary, LSA p. 153, with a mass of further references. For restaurants and dormitories see Sokolowski, LSS No. 51 (Delos, 3rd—2nd cent. BC) with additional references to ancient sources and modern literature. 2 1 Overnight lodging: Sokolowski LSCG No. 101 (Arkesine, 3rd cent. BC). Animals: Sokolowski LSCG No. 136 (ca. 300 BC), lines 19ff. 2 2 The business of the governors was not completely uniform in every shrine and precinct; this was natural, since not all precincts were equipped in the same way.

27

to enforce the rules, most if not all precinct governors held powers of arrest and jurisdiction over priestly officials and visitors alike. In general, they could evict or arrest unauthorized persons; occasionally they had authority to confiscate personal property (chiefly pasture animals) that had been brought illegally into a precinct and its adjoining property. 23 A great many sacred laws also give the governors the authority of judging offenders on the spot and of imposing such fines as the decrees might prescribe. 24 Informants could bring accusations of illegal conduct before the governors, for which they were rewarded with a portion of the fine; 2 5 if the governors failed to act upon an accusation, they became liable to a heavy fine themselves. 26 This brief and general survey must suffice to put the office of the Athenian treasurers in perspective. I next turn to a brief study of the activities and customs that were practiced on the Acropolis at Athens, for it was these proceedings, or at any rate some of them, that the Hekatompedon decree was meant to regulate. 3. Gods, Cults, and Priestesses

on the

Acropolis

The Athenian Acropolis, the chief sanctuary of ancient Attica, from far back was a district of religious administration. 27 Precautions for its For example, some had large adjoining tracts of pasture land, others did not. Thus, we find that at Tegea the governors imposed and collected a pasture tax (Sokolowski LSCG No. 67 — this interpretation is not certain, however; see Sokolowski's commentary). In some matters the passage of time also brought changes. In the early f i f t h century the treasurers opened the sacred houses on the Acropolis, as IG I 2 4 shows. In Hellenistic-Roman times it would appear that priests and priestesses opened sanctuaries and sacred buildings, now and then along with other officials. See the references in Sokolowski LSA p. 21, and Robert's discussion I 488. 23 Thus the prytaneis of the naukraroi evicted the Kylonians f r o m the Acropolis, Hdt. 5.71 (see below); and the priestess of Athena invited King Kleomenes of Sparta to leave the inner sanctum of Athena's temple, Hdt. 5.72.3. The decrees grant the power of arrest to anyone who apprehends an offender in the act, with the almost formulaic clause: "if someone is caught, he who catches him must arrest him and denounce h i m . " See Sokolowski, LSS No. 53, lines 10—13 with further references; LSS No. 24. Naturally governors bore a special responsibility to detain offenders. Confiscation of property: Sokolowski LSCG No. 67 (Tegea, 4 t h cent. BC), lines 1—5; No. 91 (Tamynai on Euboea, 4th cent. BC), lines 9—12, with more references in Sokolowski's commentary. 24 Sokolowski LSS No. 24 (Epidauros, 2nd cent. AD); No 105 (Kamiros, Roman period); No. I l l (Tymnos, 1st cent. BC), lines lOff; Sokolowski LSCG No. 78 (Delphi, 3 8 0 - 3 7 9 BC), lines 24ff; Stengel 49. 25 Sokolowski LSS No. 24, lines 7 - 1 2 ; No. 53 (Delos, 3rd cent. BC), lines 1 5 - 2 0 . 26 Sokolowski LSCG No. 67 (Tegea, 4th cent. BC), lines 3 - 5 ; LSS No. 24. 27 Vanderpool 159; Ferguson TA 127.

28

safety appear to have been taken early. A fragmentary inscription from the middle of the fifth century mentions an armed guard of archers stationed on the approaches to prevent runaway slaves from obtaining asylum in the sanctuary, and thieves from looting its dedications and other valuables. 28 A little later we hear from Thucydides that the citadel (and the Eleusinion as well) could be securely closed. 29 By the time of Aristotle, a detachment of fifty policemen performed regular guard duties on the Acropolis. 3 0 Armed protection of sanctuaries is not unknown elsewhere: the precinct at Epidauros was also regularly patrolled by guards. 31 As in most other sanctuaries of the Greek world, certain taboos and prohibitions were in force on the Acropolis of Athens. No birth and no death was permitted to take place there. 3 2 It was unlawful for foreigners to enter the adyton of Athena's temple; the priestess of Athena had at least a moral authority to eject intruders from it. 33 Of animals, dogs were not allowed to enter the citadel; goats too were prohibited, as was the sacrifice of goats. 34 According to later sources other taboos affected certain sacrificial rites and some priestesses. Zeus Hypatos, whose altar stood in front of the Erechtheum, could not receive the sacrifice of living beings, or libations of wine, the only sacrifice possible to him apparently being that of cakes. 35 According to a passage in Athenaios, the priestess of Athena could not sacrifice sheep; she was also enjoined from eating either mutton or cheese made from sheeps' milk. 36 This somewhat surprising prohibition is at variance with the evidence of the inscriptions. The fasti relating to the cults of Athena Polias occasionally list offerings of sheep. 37 One might be tempted, therefore, to doubt IG I 2 4 4 and Wernicke 5 1 - 7 5 . Thuc. 2.17.1. Arist. AP 24.3 and Sandys' note. Sokolowski LSCG No. 60 (Epidauros, 5th cent. BC), line 16. Wächter 3 1 - 3 2 ; 58. Hdt. 5.72.3. 34 Dogs: Wächter 93 with references. Goats: Wächter 87 with references. 35 Paus. 1.26.5. Wächter 77. 36 Athen. 9.375 C. Wächter 89. 37 In IG I 2 842 Athena receives a sheep at the Plynteria, a festival belonging to her. This sacrifice was most probably not offered by the state, but by a tribe, brotherhood, or other association (Deubner 20, Sokolowski LSCG p. 4), such as the deme of Erchia, which also offers up a sheep to Athena Polias on "the Acropolis in Athens" (Sokolowski LSCG No. 18 Delta, lines 15 — 17). Sheep are also present among the sacrificial animals on the Parthenon frieze (still regarded by most as a representation of the Panathenaic procession). We may perhaps suppose that the chief priestess of the state's cult did not officiate at the sacrifices in IG I 2 842 and in the Erchia calendar, thus avoiding the sacrifice of sheep. Although in » » 3° 31 » 33

29

the accuracy of Athenaios' testimony. We must, however, be cautious. Although it is late, Athenaios' evidence is nonetheless detailed and specific. The resolution of the contradiction may lie in the office of Athena's chief priestess. The priestess of Athena Polias always belonged to the Eteoboutadai, 38 and her membership in this noble clan may have prevented her, in keeping with ancient custom and tradition, from officiating at sacrifices other than those of cows and oxen. If this was in fact so, we must assume that Athena's chief priestess had at least one, and perhaps several assistants who were permitted to offer up sheep. The hypothesis of an assistant to the priestess was tentatively suggested several years ago by Feaver, 39 and there is some evidence in support of it. An honorary inscription from the middle of the third century praises the priestess of Athena Polias for the splendid and munificent banquet which she had prepared according to ancestral custom. As far as we can tell from the inscription, the preparation of this banquet was a part of the priestess' regular duties and took place on the Acropolis. 40 Harpokration, quoting from Lykourgos' speech On the Priestess and from the antiquarian Istros, says that the priestess of Athena Polias had two assistants, called Trapezophoros and Kosmo, who helped the priestess in all her tasks. According to Lykourgos and Istros, both assistants held priestly rank. 41 Trapezophoros and Kosmo, who apparently did not belong to the clan of the Eteoboutadai, may have conducted sacrifices disallowed to the premier priestess; but unfortunately we know nothing more about their precise duties. The occasion and other details of the banquet remain equally obscure. A less likely explanation of the sacrifice of sheep would be to suppose that whenever clans, townships, and brotherhoods came to sacrifice on the Acropolis they took along their own priestess to officiate. The remainder of the information that we have about the office of Athena's chief priestess is slender. Since priests in principle lived in the precincts of their gods, we may suppose that she had her residence on

general priests and priestesses presided over sacrifices in shrines and at altars in their charge (Busolt GrSt 497), this was not an invariable routine: on some occasions, the Panathenaia for example, the hieropoioi conducted the sacrifices (IG II 2 334, lines 8ff). 38 Feaver 132. Mommsen 447, η. 1. Burkert 168. 39 Feaver 142 suggests the presence of other priestesses, and seems to be thinking about assistants, but is not explicit. «ο IG II 2 776, lines lOff. 41 Harp. s.v. Trapezophoros = Lycurg. FT. 47 (Conomis). Istros Fr. 9 FGrH 334.

30

the Acropolis, along with her two assistants.42 Celibacy was not a requirement for the priestess; and in fact the Athenians appear to have filled the office with women who were older and married or widowed. 43 The priestess served for life, as we see from the example of Lysimache, who held the office for sixty-four years.44 It is virtually certain that the priestess of Athena Polias received a salary: we know that the priestess of Athena Nike was paid money; and it would be very surprising if the priestess of Athena Polias received no emolument in cash as well. We know very little about her priestly duties. According to a fragment from an Euripidean play, the priestess of Athena initiated all sacrifices requiring the kindling of a fire on Athena's altar 45 She also sacrificed on behalf of the Athenian people the propitiatory sacrifice, which was a customary offering before the commencement of repair or construction work on the Acropolis. 46 The arrival of the Eleusinian procession at the City Eleusinion, which was near the Acropolis, was announced to the priestess by an Eleusinian sacred official called the phaidyntes.47 The premier priestess on the Acropolis also conducted the entire ceremony of the Arrhephoria, whose ritual she knew by reason of her membership in the clan of the Eteoboutadai. 48 Cf. Stengel 40, and Judeich 283. For the house of Athena's priestess on the Acropolis see Kirsten—Kraiker 71.

42

I G I I 2 776, lines 26—27, where her husband is praised. Plut. Numa 9.11; Feaver 157. Burkert 168. Nos. 31—35 of the east frieze of the Parthenon might be valuable evidence f o r priestly persons on the Acropolis, if the interpretation of the figures were not so difficult. The portion of the frieze is illustrated in Deubner, PI. 1. fig. 1, and Pemberton PI. 19, fig. 8. Nos. 31 and 32 show t w o female figures carrying "diphroi' s on their heads ( f o r a discussion of these see Deubner 12, and 3 0 - 3 1 ; Pemberton 123). Facing them is a taller female figure ( N o . 33). No. 34 represents a figure generally believed to be male (cf. Pollitt 84) and the priest of Athena. He is receiving a folded cloth f r o m a shorter figure ( N o . 35). Deubner argues that the "diphroi-bearers" are the Arrhephoroi: he may well be right. The woman facing the Arrheporoi can only be the priestess of Athena, and the cloth being handed over must be the peplos of Athena. The person identified as a man ( N o . 34) because of his dress cannot be the priest of Athena, as Deubner 30 and others think, f o r there is no evidence whatsoever f o r a priest of Athena on the Acropolis, and little elsewhere. Already in Homer Athena has a priestess (//. 6.300); and this seems to have remained the custom in later centuries. A n exception was the male priest of Athena Alea in Tegea; but it is highly significant that this priesthood could be filled only b y boys who had not yet reafched the age of puberty, Paus. 8.47.3; cf. the boy priest of Athena Kranaia, Paus. 10.34.4. For the f e w examples of adult male priests see Legrand 938 and n.

43

PA 9470. "5 Eur. FT. 65 NF Austin, lines 9 0 - 9 7 . Burkert 167. 4 6 Sokolowski LSCG No. 35 with commentary. W Sokolowski LSCG No. 8, lines 1 6 - 2 2 . Deubner 72. Clinton 95. 4 8 Mommsen 447 η. 1. 44

31

At the festival of the Arrhephoria, the priestess, as Pausanias relates, handed to the two young maidens called Arrhephoroi, "the things that they carried on their heads, without knowing what it was that she gave t h e m . " 4 9 Another ceremony in which the priestess had a part was the procession moving from the Acropolis to Skiron, which the priestess regularly accompanied. 5 0 Finally, the priestess of Athena played a role in a nuptial ceremony known as the Proteleia, at which the bride-to-be and her parents ascended the Acropolis and there sacrificed either to Athena, or perhaps to Artemis Brauronia. After the wedding the priestess appeared to the new matron wearing the sacred Aegis, and, acting as the representative of the goddess, blessed the marriage. 51 A few more words are perhaps in order about the curious lack in our sources of any information concerning the salary of Athena's chief priestess. We in fact seldom hear even about emoluments in kind which the priestess undoubtedly received from the sacrifices over which she presided. In the "Code of Nikomachos" there is a reference to a payment for the priestess; however, this reward is designated by the term apometra which, according to Sokolowski, was not a perquisite of the priestess, but money allocated to her for the purchase of supplies for sacrifices. 52 There is, as far as I can discover, only one explicit statement about the priestess' income from her office. In the Oeconomicus attributed to Aristotle, we hear of an order from the tyrant Hippias to the effect that on each occasion of a birth or death, the priestess of Athena must receive a day's ration of wheat and barley, and one obol in cash. 53 In contrast to the priestess of Athena Polias and her assistant or assistants, we are somewhat better informed, thanks to some inscriptions, about the priesthood of Athena Nike. The evidence leaves no doubt at all that this office was different from that of the priestess of Athena Polias, for the priestess of Athena Nike was appointed for life, by lot, from all Athenian women, and her salary was set at fifty drachmas per annum. In addition she received the legs and hides of animals offered up at public sacrifices. We have a decree in which the Athenian assembly set forth these arrangements, probably around the middle of the fifth century; however, it does not make clear whether with this resolution the Athenians were establishing a completely new priesthood or merely reorganizing and reforming an older office. Modern opinion is divided » Paus. 1.27.3. 50 Harp. s.v. Skiron. Burkert 162. 51 Suda s.v. Proteleia. Deubner 16. 52 Sokolowski LSCG No. 17 and the commentary on p. 35. 53 Arist. Oec. 2.2.4; 1347 A. Deubner 16.

32

on this matter. Those who deny that the priesthood is new are probably right, for Athena Nike certainly had a cult on the Acropolis long before 450 B.C.; moreover, the phrasing of the decree's first clause gives the unmistakable impression that its chief purpose was to transform a restricted priesthood into a priesthood open to all women. 5 4 This priestess too may have had her residence on the Acropolis, although, as with the priestess of Athenia Polias, conclusive proof is lacking. A third priestess who regularly officiated on the Acropolis was the priestess of Pandrosos. Her presence and activities on the citadel are beyond dispute, being secured epigraphically. Pandrosos belonged to the ancient triad of the "Dew Sisters;" the other two were Aglauros and Herse. All three were the daughters of Kekrops, had a cult on the Acropolis, and received a banquet there. 5 5 The priestess of Pandrosos belonged to the genos of the Salaminioi. The Salaminian inscriptions which Ferguson published tell us that this priestess received a portion of the offerings from the sacrifices at which she officiated, and a loaf of bread at the Oschophoria. Her places of business, the Pandroseion and Aglaureion, lay within the peripatos which defined the Acropolis; whether she also lived there is not known but probable. 5 6 Another deity who had a cult on the Acropolis was Artemis Brauronia. As is well known, the cult of this goddess was transplanted from Brauron on the east coast of Attica. The remnants of her sanctuary, notices in the literary sources, and the inventories on stone from the Brauronion establish the presence of the cult on the Acropolis beyond doubt. 5 7 54 IG I 2 24 = ML 44. Athena Nike certainly had a cult on the Acropolis long before the passage of the decree IG I 2 24: see Simon 194, Judeich 2 1 8 - 2 2 1 , Hill 145 with the mid-sixth-century inscription on Athena Nike's altar, Schlaifer 257 — 260. Meiggs and Lewis' discussion (p. 109) creates problems where there is none. They assume, following some others, (1) that the priesthood is new, and (2) that the Myrrhine of SEG XII 80 who, as Lewis himself says, must have died after 411 BC, was the first priestess of Athena Nike. These assumptions force Meiggs and Lewis to assume further that Myrrhine had a tenure as priestess of forty-five years; they point to two other priestesses with even longer terms in office, and so establish some sort of natural law that priestesses enjoyed extremely long lives. However SEG XII 80 commemorates not the "first priestess of Athena Nike," but the first priestess who served the (new) temple (neos) where the goddess had her "seat and dwelling place" (lines 3—5; 12—13) — i.e. the temple built in the 420's. 55

Ferguson, "Salaminioi" 4, line 45 and p. 20. Raubitschek 434—435. Feaver 129. For the banquet see Deubner 14. 56 Ferguson, "Salaminioi" 20—21. Ferguson's idea that the priestess of Pandrosos was also the priestess of Kourotrophos is accepted by Raubitschek, but rejected by Nilsson, CMOP 35, n. 35. 57 Paus. 1.23.9. Judeich 2 4 4 - 2 4 5 . Arist. Ath.Pol. 54.7 and Sandys' note. For the inscriptions see Linders' new study. 3 J o r d a n (Hyp. 55)

33

Artemis Brauronia of course had a priestess, but the evidence for her is meagre and in some instances ambiguous. A fifth-century inventory mentions "the priestesses;" the inscription, however, is badly mutilated, and we cannot tell whether priestesses of several cults, including that of Brauronian Artemis, are meant, or whether in the fifth century several priestesses served Artemis' cult. s8 The fourth-century inventories of the goddess' property on the other hand contain several references to "the priestess," and we may regard this phrase as a reference to the priestess (or perhaps to the chief priestess) of Artemis Brauronia. 59 Two passages in speeches of Demosthenes and Deinarchos also mention the priestess of Artemis Brauronia; it is possible, perhaps likely, that the orators mean the priestess on the Acropolis, rather than that at Brauron. 60 We thus have at least four priestesses whose presence on the Acropolis is firmly established. It is highly probable, however, that there were several more priestesses who served cults on the Acropolis. I have already adduced testimony for the presence of the chief priestess' two helpers Trapezophoros and Kosmo. The separate cult of Athena Nike, having its own priestess, establishes a strong presumption that Athena Hygieia and Athena Ergane, both of whom were honored with cults and worship on the citadel, also had their own priestesses. The same thing may be said of Athena Parthenos, although it is strange, as Feaver observes,61 58 IG Ρ 387, line 36. 59 IG I I 2 1524, line 45; IG I I 2 1526, line 27. The inventories show that Artemis had a priest, as well as a priestess, at any rate in the fourth century. «· Hypothesis to Dem. 25. Din. Agst. Arist. 12. 61 Feaver 132. There is likewise no literary or epigraphical testimony for a cult and priestess of Athena Promachos. However, as Erika Simon points out (192—193) the statue of Athena Promachos stood, larger than life, in the open air on the Acropolis; and there is an Attic black-figure band cup from the middle of the sixth century showing the goddess along with her priestess welcoming a sacrificial procession across a burning altar (Fig. 176 in Miss Simon's book). Musicians, sacrificial animals (cow, pig, and sheep) and warriors on foot and on horseback form the procession. The painting is sufficient evidence for Athena Promachos' cult, which Peisistratos especially promoted (Simon loc. cit.), and which fits the spirit of archaic martial poetry and verse epitaphs, where the phrase "en promachois" occurs with especial frequency; see the "thematic concordance" in Young (foldout), and p. 23. We may therefore confidently believe that Athena Promachos had her own priestess, who appears on the band cup. Some scholars think that the priestess of Athena Polias took care of all the cults of Athena on the Acropolis. This seems unlikely. It is more probable that each separate cult had its own priestess. Judeich 243 concludes that the cult of Athena Hygieia goes back at least to the late sixth or early fifth centuries, as a Sonderkult. Athena Ergane too received separate worship at least from 500 B.C. on and very likely earlier, although Judeich (241, and n. 3) doubts the presence of a Sonderkult earlier than 500. Thus, in the archaic period one

34

that we never hear about the priestess of the goddess to whom the Parthenon was sacred. Y e t she must have had a priestess, for it is hardly possible to believe that she was served by a priest, or by the priestess of Athena Polias, who was usually a married woman. This list is by no means complete. Our evidence suggests that several more hieratic women were constantly present on the Acropolis. In his chapters on the Acropolis Pausanias tells us about the Arrhephoroi and the rite that they performed. He says that the Arrhephoroi, who were young girls, almost children, lived not far from the temple of Athena Polias. The two (or four?) maidens even had a ball court on the Acropolis. 6 2 It is possible that the young women called Errhephoroi (unless they be the same as the Arrhephoroi) also had a residence on the citadel, for they served the cults of Athena Polias and of Pandrosos. 6 3 On the day of the wash-festival, the Plynteria, the ancient image of Athena was escorted from the Acropolis to the sea at Phaleron, where two young girls washed the wooden image. There is no evidence that these plyntrides or loutrides lived on the Acropolis, although two passages in Photios and Hesychios hint that this may have been so. 6 4 The Acropolis and its environs were the home of many other deities, many of them minor, whose cults were almost certainly tended by priests or priestesses; but for most of them we either have no evidence or very late evidence. All deities resident on the Acropolis received regular sacrifices of animals and other offerings from the state and from corporations such as the clans (gene) and phratries. A complete account of the festival calendar that was observed on the Acropolis of Athens lies outside the scope of priestess would have had to serve at least five different and elaborate cults (of Proinachos, Polias, Nike, Ergane, a n d Hygieia), c o n d u c t e d in separate precincts on the Acropolis. J u d e i c h loc. cit. and Hill ( 1 8 6 ) speak of a priest of Hygieia. She m a y have had a priest, b u t if there is evidence for him I d o not know it, a n d they d o not cite it. Hygieia p r o b a b l y had a priestess since " a s a general rule m e n served gods, and w o m e n g o d d e s s e s " (Stengel 36). For the sanctuary of Athena Hygieia and the c o n f u s i o n of the names Athena — Athena Hygieia see J u d e i c h 2 4 2 — 2 4 4 ; Hill 1 8 6 ; Lycurg. Fr. 4 9 (Conomis). For Athena Ergane and her temple see Paus. 1 . 2 4 . 3 ; J u d e i c h 241 with notes. For the Erganistai see IG I I 2 1 0 3 4 ; 1 0 3 6 ; 1 9 4 2 , 1 9 4 3 a - b . Paus. 1.27.3. Burkert 169. Ball court on the Acropolis: Deubner 15. Deubner 14. The Errhephoroi m a y of course be the same as the Arrhephoroi; the question, as Nilsson says, is difficult to decide. Deubner 9 f f thinks that they are different; Nilsson GgrR 4 4 1 is inclined to believe that they are the same. 6 4 Phot., Lex. s.v. loutrides. Hes. Lex. s.v. loutrides. Deubner 18. T h e peplos of Athena also received a washing at the Plynteria; the official in charge was called kataniptes (Deubner 19). He m a y b e the male figure represented on N o . 34 of the east frieze f r o m the Parthenon. 62 63

35

this essay, but even the briefest enumeration of the important celebrations — Panathenaia, Dipolieia and Bouphonia, Synoikia, and Plynteria 65 — at once makes clear the necessity for the sort of regulations contained in the Hekatompedon decree, to which I now turn.

4. A Commentary General Remarks

on

on the Hekatompedon

Decrees

Style

The text on the first slab (IG I 2 3) being too mutilated to yield any useful results, the stylistic discussion will concern itself with the decree on the second slab (IG I 2 4) only. I shall however discuss in the commentary single words and phrases still present in IG I 2 3. The style of the decree is terse, elliptical, and lacking in all rhetorical embellishment. There is no effort to avoid repetition of particles, and of whole phrases. The decree's characteristic features are those common to archaic didactic poetry, and early Attic prose (e.g. Hesiod's Days, and the prose of the Old Oligarch). Some words and phrases in the decree are known from archaic documents and from other dialects, b u t did not remain in use in normal classical Attic Greek. It is a fair assumption that these expressions formed a part of colloquial Attic speech in the archaic period, and then fell into disuse (see the commentary below). Throughout the text, parataxis is preferred to hypotaxis. Και' and 5e are used with great frequency to hold together a long string of autonomous clauses — a device characteristic of archaic composition (see Van Groningen, 4 I f f ) . The sole subordinating conjunction present in the text is έάν, which always appears as a .part of a stereotyped formula (see the commentary below). The generally asymmetrical, disjointed style occasionally gives an impression of awkwardness, and even clum65

Priesthoods are attested for some of the many other deities who inhabited the Acropolis and its environs. There were the cults of the Tritopatores, Kekrops, Erechtheus, and Erichthonios, of Hekate and the Charites, Zeus Polieus, Poseidon, Pandion, Blutes, Kourotrophos, etc. Most of these divinities had priests (e.g. Poseidon, Erechtheus, Pandion, Zeus Polieus). For their cults and other details see the chapters dealing with the Acropolis in Judeich and Hill, and the relevant chapters in Nilsson GgrR and CMOP. Cf. Elderkin 1 0 6 - 1 2 3 . The Kanephoroi and Diphrophoroi, prominent in the Panathenaic procession, should be reckoned among the priestly women associated with the Acropolis, although they did not, apparently, stay on the citadel for any length of time.

36

siness. A good example occurs in lines 9—11 where the decree's composer has attempted to define the boundaries of an irregular space on the Acropolis with considerable precision. The result is a rather long clause of loose construction which is weakly held together by a series of connectives, prepositions, and adverbial expressions: "between the temple, and the great altar to the east, and to the north of the temple within the Kekropion and throughout the entire Hekatompedon." Contrast with this the clearer and smoother spatial descriptions in the Erechtheion accounts, IG I 2 372—374 passim. The unformed and unpolished mode of writing would appear to argue for an early date of composition, probably earlier than the fifth century. Close parallels for the style and diction of the Hekatompedon decree are afforded by Draco's law on homicide (IG I 2 115 = ML 86). The commission which revised and republished this law at the end of the fifth century may well have tampered with its original archaic language in some passages. Religious scruples, however, very likely kept the commissioners from attempting wholesale recasting of this ancient text; and the decree, as we have it, clearly bears the marks of archaic diction in the law itself. Moreover, there is a clear and pronounced stylistic difference between the preamble of IG I 2 115 and the actual legislation, whose archaic flavor is unmistakeable. Further evidence for the archaic date of composition of the Hekatompedon decree can be adduced from the laws of Solon, and particularly from the fragments that Lysias quotes and expounds to the fifth-century jurors in the speech against Theomnestus (Lysias 10.16—19). The correspondences between the codes of the two early lawgivers and the Hekatompedon decree are striking. Both contain hapax legomena and rare words and usages which are obviously old and had already fallen out of general use in Athens by the latter part of the fifth century (cf. e.g. 7τοδοκάκ,κη, άπίXXclu, in Lys. 10.16—19 and tepovpjelv, doäv, Ιπνεύεσϋαt in IG I 2 4). The stylistic peculiarity of attaching a conditional clause to the main sentence in a loose and clumsy manner is common to the Draconian law and to the Hekatompedon decree (cf. IG I 2 115, lines 11, 13, 14, 26 with IG I 2 4, lines 6, 11, 15, 16). Another archaic feature is the use of the infinitive as an imperative. This usage apparently was so pervasive as to replace imperative forms altogether: neither the Solonian fragments quoted by Lysias nor the Hekatompedon decree contains a single imperative (cf. IG I 2 4, passim; Lys. 10. 16, 17, 18; Schwyzer II, 3 8 0 383). It is true that the infinitive continues to be used as an imperative in later inscriptions. But the usage decreases markedly, and is restricted to sacred laws composed in dialects other than Attic (e.g. LSCG No. 69, an inscription from Oropos in the Euboean dialect dating to the fourth 37

century B.C.). Such archaisms are perhaps to be explained by the religious conservatism of localities less progressive than Athens. The undeveloped and unsophisticated style of the archaic period is especially evident in lines 17—19 of the Hekatompedon decree. In this passage the verb avoiyeiv, doing service as an imperative, governs a second infinitive, deäodai, which has a final force; the purpose infinitive is tacked onto the preceding clause almost as an afterthought. The result is a very loosely constructed, rambling sentence revealing, as elsewhere in the decree, the composer's tendency to put first what he deemed most important without regard to logical consistency and considerations of style. Here the words "the houses in the Hekatompedon" were uppermost in his mind; accordingly they come first, followed by the infinitive and subject accusative, with the purpose infinitive at the end. The inconcinnity of the whole may be illustrated by an attempt to render it into English: "the houses in the Hekatompedon the treasurers are to open them no less than three times a month to look at them." Finally we might note a certain lack of precision and strict logic in the legislation of the decree. The formulations έάν δε τις τίνα, eav δε τις τούτων vel sim. are standard phrases especially common in archaic legal texts. In such texts the indefinite pronoun η ς invariably refers to any and all persons. That is to say, the statute introduced by the formula is of general application (see, e.g. Draco's law, and the instances listed in Ruschenbusch's index s.v. έάν). In the Hekatompedon Decree this formula is slightly misused, for it applies only to the persons specifically named, and to no one else; for example, the priestesses and the zakoroi, in lines 13—15. In strict and precise logic one would expect here the formulation " i f any of them (i.e. the priestesses)violates the law" (cf. IG I 2 39, lines 33ff: "whoever does not swear, he is to lose his rights; his property is to be confiscated . . . " ) . We have instead "if anyone does any of these things . . . . "

Commentary IG I 2 3, lines 18 and 29: ev τ έ [ ι äyopäi]; I2)

ev äjopäι

Hiller von Gaertringen (in IG ventured a cautious guess that the reference here is to an agora, i.e. a place, on the Acropolis, different from the so-called archaic agora at the western foot of the Acropolis. There is, however, no other reference to an agora on the Acropolis; its existence is highly doubtful (cf. Judeich 68). A reference to the archaic agora is equally doubtful (cf. Hiller von Gaertringen Loc. cit.). It may well be that the gathering itself, and not the place is meant here. The 38

earliest (Homeric) meaning of agora was assembly (LSJ 9 s.v.); and agora was also the earliest term for the Athenian assembly (Hignett 79, Busolt GrSt 334, 4 4 2 - 4 4 3 with nn., 451; BS, GrSt 990 with references, 1499 and nn.). In the laws of Draco and Solon agora almost certainly means "gathering," "assembly." In his commentary on the Draconian legislation Demosthenes makes this quite clear (Dem. 23.37—41 and IG I 2 115, line 27). If agora means "assembly," rather than "place of assembly" here, this meaning is an indication of an early date of composition, probably not too far removed from the time of Draco's and Solon's legislation. The later term for the Athenian assembly, ekklesia, is first attested for the period ca. 505—480 by IG I 2 114, lines 54—55, which is a copy of a decree from about that date. IG I 2 3, lines 31 and 35: [βλεύ^ρ]ος e δό[λος]; e]Xeu[i?epo The contrast ελεύθερος and δούλος represents archaic usage. In the fifth century and later the designation of a free Athenian citizen was Athenaios. For the antithesis ελεύθερος — δούλος in legal texts from the archaic period see Ruschenbusch, Frs. 20, 74a, 74e; IG I 2 115, lines 36— 37. Except for the instances here noted ελεύθερος is wholly absent from the inscriptions in the first volume of IG. It is used again in IG II 2 1362, a sacred law of the late fourth century from the Attic countryside, which is a copy of a much older original (cf. Hiller von Gaertringen's commentary in SIG3 984, and LSJ 9 (Suppl.) s.v. ΰωάξω). See also the Gortyn Law Code, IC IV 72, Col I, line Iff. IG I 2 4, line 1: [ra χαλκία τα β]μ πόλε ι The restoration χαλκία can be regarded as certain. Since vessels of various shapes and materials were the most common and most numerous implements used in ritual and sacrifice (cf. χύτρα in line 5), the choice for the missing word is narrowed down to two neuter nouns, äyyeia and χαλκία, both of which fit the spaces in the lacuna. There is independent evidence to show that χαλκία is far more probable than άγyeia. The treasurers on the Acropolis were most particularly charged with the supervision and safekeeping of holy vessels made of bronze: IG I 2 393 is a dedication from the sixth century with which the treasurers commemorated what appears to have been a collection and inventory of bronze vessels scattered over the Acropolis. The cataloguing of vessels evidently was one of the treasurers' oldest duties. Cf. also IG I 2 666; IG II 2 120; IG II 2 1425. Bronze vessels appear to have been among the most ancient and venerable of all sacred equipment, requiring special protection and care from officials holding the highest rank, such as the treasurers. Comparable to the bronze implements in the 39

Hekatompedon decree and in IG I 2 393 were the "bronze tablets on which were inscribed of old the laws concerning sacred rites and ancestral customs" (Poll. Lex. 8.128). According to Pollux the bronze tablets were kept on the Acropolis; they may well have been used as guides in the rites and sacrifices performed with the bronze vessels. Such a tablet from Athens has now been published (Stroud II 138ff). The ancient link between the treasurers and the sacred bronzes on the Acropolis was still present in the fourth century. In that century the treasurers still had custody of the chalkia (see below on line 14), and performed tasks "in accordance with instructions inscribed on a bronze stele" (IG II 2 1443, lines 1 0 - 1 1 ; cf. IG II 2 1498, lines 1 9 - 2 0 ; Ferguson, TA 57, 124). It seems plausible to assume a connection between the chalkia of these early inscriptions and the festival in honor of Athena known as the Chalkeia; see below on line 14. For the care of holy vessels in general cf. Sokolowski, LSS Nos. 24, 27, 117. IG I 2 4, lines 1 and 3: τα χαλκία ταμίας For and σαν and

... πλέν hoaa ... Ύράφαασϋαι

τός

the language here compare the traditio of the treasurers of Athena the Other Gods, IG II 2 1468, lines 1—5: Tabe οί ταμίαι ... παρέδο... πλην öaa avayeypanrai.; and PI. Legg. 873 e2: πλην των όσα . . . 873 e7: πλην οσα.

IG I 2 4, lines 2 and 3: έ]άμ παρ' έκάστοις The original text from οίκέμ[ασι to κα]τά τέν πάλιν cannot be recovered with certainty. The main structure of lines 1—3 is clear: ηράφσαοϋαι τός ταμίας is the main verb, infinitive for imperative as often in legal language, and governs τα χαλκία of line 1. Whether κατά τέν πάλιν in line 3 goes with γράιρσασΰαι or, as seems more probable, with what preceded is not certain. ]αμ in line 2 ist the real problem; the favored restoration έ]άμ seems excluded because the infinitive can be given no apparent construction here. And what to do with παρ' έκάστ-? IG I 2 4, Lines 4 and 5: hoi ΗιερορΎοντβς Sokolowski LSCG p. 6, following Wilhelm, believes that ίερουρΎούντες is a general term applied to both sacrifices and banquets. Körte (248), following Ziehen, held that the "sacrificers" were ordinary citizens from the lower town and Attica, in contrast to the precinct officials (the tamiai) and the various priestly women. However, the compound iepovpΎΟϋντες suggests a different interpretation. Compounds of this type invariably designate priestly persons or sacred officials who more often than not constituted hieratic boards and colleges. Examples of such 40

sacral magistrates, whose office was widespread in the Greek world, are plentiful: hierotamiai, hieropoioi, hieromnemones, hieroskopoi, hierophylakes, hierophantai, hierokerykes, hierapoloi, hieronomoi, etc. In the classical and later periods of Greece persons bearing titles such as these functioned either as duly appointed comissioners in charge of sacred rites (as the Eleusinian hieropoioi at Athens), or as governors of sacred precincts (see pp. 23—28 above). Both groups, that is to say, presided over different aspects of organized religious life, and their sphere of activity was clearly expressed in their titles. We may therefore assume, in accordance with the similarities in function and nomenclature, that the hierourgountes in our decree were in some sense the predecessors of the classical colleges of hieratic officials. It seems a reasonable supposition that these "sacrificers" consisted of Eupatrids and Phylobasileis of the archaic period, about whom we hear that "they lived in the city itself, were of kingly descent, and had under their care and supervision the sacred rites" (Poll. Lex. 8.111 and Anecd. Bekk. I. 257). These dignitaries performed rites on behalf of gennetai, orgeones, and phratores (cf. Hammond 105ff). However, they were essentially private citizens, rather than the official representatives of the entire state. Their informal, semi-official status becomes apparent from the participial formulation of their title iepovpjovvreq in contrast to the classical ιερουργοί, ίεροποιαί, etc. The different verbs for penalizing employed in the decree provide further evidence: the standard technical legal term evdvveadat. is used of the officials on the Acropolis (i.e. the treasurers and the priestly women); the verb applied to the sacrificers is the non-technical and (in Attic) rare ύοαν. Ίβρουργεω clearly was an archaic technical term which fell into disuse in classical Attic Greek; it does not reappear in Greek prose until the imperial period, when it was once again used as an archaism by writers such as Plutarch, Philo, Herodian et al. (cf. LSJ 9 s.v.). It is, however, significant that both Herodotos (5.83.3) and Plato, (Legg. 774e) use the noun ιερουργία in the technical sense of "rites." Moreover ιερουργός appears as the title of a sacred magistrate in some Cretan inscriptions (Sokolowski LSCG No. 144, Lebena, 2nd cent. BC and IC vol. I, XVII, Nos. 2—4). The Cretan official ranks above the sacrificers in the Athenian decree, for he is the governor of the precinct (cf. Guarducci, IC Vol. I, 152—155), and thus corresponds to the treasurers; but the Cretan and Athenian inscriptions have an important point of contact inasmuch as both deal with the disposition and safekeeping of a sanctuary's holy vessels. If the sacrificers in our decree are in fact analogous to the later sacred boards of the Athenian state, their presence in the decree points to an 41

early date for its composition; certainly before the reforms of Kleisthenes when the popularly elected hieropoioi apparently came into being. A board of hieropoioi (for the Eleusinian cult) is first attested soon after the Kleisthenian reorganization of the Athenian state (IG I 2 5; cf. also the post-Kleisthenian text SEG 24.1, where a hieromnemon occurs). The thesis that the sacrificers are special personages, limited in number, rather than random citizens, introduces a certain balance in the administration of the precinct, for the treasurers are clearly the superiors of the entire body of religious functionaries (sacrificers, priestesses and zakoroi) — a circumstance which reveals the remarkably wide powers of the treasurers. IG I 2 4, lines 5—6: [με παρΙιιοτ]άναι [προς τον τοϊχον]

χύτραν μβδ[β προς ϋύρ]αν

μεδέ

These restorations are so doubtful as to deserve perhaps no place even in an apparatus criticus. The supplements in the last two lacunae should certainly be discarded. If anything, one would expect infinitives rather than prepositional phrases in these spaces, in keeping with the phraseology elsewhere in the decree (lines 6, I I , 16, etc.). That infinitives stood here originally was also seen by Hiller von Gaertringen, as his restorations show. It seems quite impossible however to recover the original injunction here, and the spaces are best left blank. We are likewise too insufficiently informed about the uses made of chytrai in cult and ritual to restore the first lacuna in the line with any certitude. Chytrai were earthen pots (though they could be bronze too; SEG 13.12) serving manifold religious and secular purposes. At consecrations and dedications of altars "it was customary to offer pots of cooked vegetables to the deity in question" (Platnauer on Ar. Pax 924; cf. Ar. Fr. 245). Colonists brought along chytrai from the mother city either for this same purpose or perhaps to carry fire from home to the new foundation. A passage in Xenophon shows that these vessels were well suited for the transport of fire (Ar. Αν. 42ff with schol.; Xen. Hell. 4, 5.4). Finally, chytrai were used in certain purification rites and for the exposure of unwanted children (Wächter 51—52; Harrison 36—37, Mommsen 23— 24, 364—367). Neither the context of the Hekatompedon decree nor the spaces available in the lacuna fit any of these possibilities. It is not impossible however that the original text may have contained an injunction against removing chytrai from the sacred precint. Such injuctions are common in leges sacrae (cf. LSCG 116; LSS 27; LSS 117; for a record kept specifically of chytrai see IC vol. I, XVII, No 2). We may therefore restore [με έ'χσο ίστ]άναι χύτραν: those sacrificing within (the precinct) are " n o t to place a chytra outside of it." The contrast 42

in this supplement (suggested by R. Renehan), is clearly implied by the ένδον of the preceding line; for general parallels cf. schol. ad Luc. D. Meretr. 7.4: UapandeaoL δβ τάς τραπέξας oi άρχοντες και ένδον καταλιπόντες ταίς 7νναιξίν αύτοι χωρίζονται έ ξ ω διαμείναντες, and perhaps Theogn. 1001 — 1002 (of a banquet): Χέρνφα ... ϋύραζε ψέροι, στεφανώματα δ' εϊοω . . . Specifically, cf. Sokolowski, LSS 117, line 8: μηδέ εξ[ω σκεύη φέρε ιν. IG I 2 4, Line 6: μεδέ το πϋρ

άν[άπτεν

Here the decree forbids the sacrificers to "light the fire," and prescribes a fine of up to three obols for a willful infraction. The treasurers are to impose the fine. The definite article before fire requires explanation. Sokolowski (LSCG p. 6) suggested, in my opinion correctly, that the fire was the sacred fire used in sacrifices, and that the injunction had the practical purpose of guarding against the danger from conflagration. Rules for fire protection are common in the sacred laws (e.g. LSCG No. 67, lines 2 1 - 2 3 ; Nos. 100; 112; LSS Nos. 43; 105; l l l ; N i l s s o n GgrR 829). Thucydides provides a graphic example of the danger from fire in the episode about Chrysis, the priestess in the temple of Hera at Argos (4.133). But there may have been a religious reason as well. The sacrificial fire was presumably lit from the eternal flame burning in Athena's lamp within her temple (Paus. 1.26.7; Strabo 9.1.16; Plut. Numa 9.11; Euph. Fr. 9 Powell). There is some evidence that the commencement of any sacrifice requiring a fire was the sole privilege of the priests and priestesses. A fragment from Euripides' Erechtheus contains the etiological myth of the institution of Athena Polias' priesthood: there the goddess assigns the task of performing the initial fire sacrifice to Praxithea, the first priestess of Athena's cult (Eur. Fr. 65, NF Austin; cf. Burkert 167). Demosthenes says that the Athenians punished a hierophant called Archias by cursing him because at the Haloa he had offered a burned sacrifice of an animal on the eschara at Eleusis; the victim, moreover, had been brought by the courtesan Sinope. Archias was guilty on two counts: it was illegal to sacrifice on that day, and it was not his, but the priestess' business to offer the sacrifice (Dem. 59.116; Harrison 147). Some sacred laws forbid the performance of sacrifices without a priest's or priestesses' attendance: LSCG No. 36, lines 1—7, No. 55, lines 7 - 8 ; No. 119, lines 1 0 - 1 2 . IG I 2 4, lines 7 and 12: ϋοαν This verb constitutes clear evidence of archaic language in the decree. In Attic the noun and verb for "fine" and "to fine" are respectively 43

ζημία and ζημώω. In the classical period these two words, having this sense, are confined to Attic writers and Herodotos almost exclusively. Ζημία originally had a different meaning, "damages;" this meaning is suggested by the phrase ξημίαν έβ^άξβσϋαί, "an old technical term for the delict of a slave, answering to noxam (noxiam) facere in Roman law" (Wyse on Is. 6.20). In fact, the noun and the verb still have this meaning in two passages of Herodotos (7.10 and 3.53.3). In non-AtticGreek of the Classical period άωά and ΰωάζω (ΰωάω, ί ω ε ω , ΰωαίω) correspond to ζημία and ζημιόω. The distribution of these words on inscriptions (Elis, Delphi, Crete, Locris, Argos, Thasos, Miletus), as well as the occurrence of ϋωή in Homer and Archilochos suggest that these were early Panhellenic words which had been replaced by ζημία and ζημιόω in Attica already in the fifth century. The occurrence, even in Attic, of άΰφος (side by side with άζήμιος) further points to the original terminology. Clearly ϋοαν in the inscription is anomalous for Attic Greek of the classical period. It must be a survival of an older usage, and suggests that the decree was originally composed in the archaic period. It should be noted that the two Attic inscriptions containing # ω ά and άωάζω are both copies of originals dating to the archaic period (IG I 2 114 with the remarks by Hiller von Gaertringen in IG I 2 and Hignett 154; and IG II 2 1362, line 14; and the comment in LSJ 9 (Suppl.) s.v. ΰωάζω). IG I 2 4, line 8: μ [ότττάν] For the lacuna of five spaces at the end of this line scholars have proposed various verbs. Körte restored a prohibition against urination in the space described in the following lines. Wolters, whom Hiller von Gaertringen followed in IG I 2 , proposed μ[β άρτα]μέ[ι>, " n o t to cut in pieces". Sokolowski restores " n o t to roast meat," μ' [όπτάν]. For other proposed supplements see Hiller's and Sokolowski's critical appartus in IG I 2 and LSCG p. 5. None of these restorations is satisfactory, since each is either illogical or without parallel. Why forbid urination in one place, and not in others just as much in need of protection — the propylon, for example? Sokolowski felt the difficulty and quite rightly rejected all previous restorations in favor of a new reading. Although his proposal, for which he cites a somewhat remote parallel (LSA No. 50, line 34), comes close to the truth, it too is impossible, for it suffers from a grave difficulty of orthography: the elision of eta before omicron, resulting in the crasis μ' όπτάν, is extraordinary and would be here unique. I therefore propose the restoration, μ[β Kaev\, " n o t to burn fires," for these letter spaces. This verb occurs quite frequently in the sacred laws, sometimes in precisely the same sort of injunction (cf. LSCG No. 100, 44

line 2; No. 112, line 5; for further parallels cf. LSCG p. 6). In at least one text (LSS No. 105) the verb is used absolutely, as it would be here. IG I 2 4, line 11: μεδ' Övüo[v]

eyß[ä\ev

The content of this injunction is certain. It warns the sacrificers not to discard animal dung in the spaces bounded by the various buildings. The largest fine that the treasurers may impose upon willful violators of the rule is three obols. (For similar injunctions see LSS No. 24, lines 8—9; LSCG p. 6). "Οι>&ος, originally non-Greek (-vd-) and found in epic (Horn. II 23.775), represents yet another archaism. It is extremely rare in later Greek. Aeschylus uses it (Fr. 275 N 2 = 478a Mette); it also occurs in a fifth-century inscription of two lines, a jingle enjoining personal hygiene (IG I 2 789). Although here the word refers to the dung of animals, it is likely that in the archaic period it was a common word of colloquial speech for κόπρος, which replaced ονΰος in the classical period. IG I 2 4, line 14: [με ποιεν οι]κεμα

ταμιεϊον

A new set of regulations begins after the triple interpunct in line 13. They govern the priestesses, the zakoroi (young women who presumably served as their assistants), the treasurers, and the treasurers' president (prytanis). The supplements ποιεν (Kirchhoff, Sokolowski) and Ηέχεν (Dittenberger, Hiller von Gaertringen) are unsatisfactory. In context itoieiv can only mean " t o make" a house, in the sense " t o build it," while εχειν ought to mean " t o have" a house, in the sense " t o own it." Both notions are manifestly impossible in this context for the reason that, although Athena's chief priestess may have lived on the Acropolis (and probably did), neither she nor anyone else was ever permitted to own or build houses there. A number of alternate restorations are possible. R. Renehan suggests, inter alia, μή mveiv, μη o'iyetv, μή οίκεϊν οίκημα ταμιεϊον. Supplying μη Kweiv we may translate "the priestesses and the zakoroi are not to disturb the treasurers' house." K i m r often has this meaning in religious and legal passages (Hdt. 6.134; Soph. Ant. 1 0 6 0 - 1 0 6 1 ; OT 354; OC 1526 Thuc. 4.98; PI. Legg 684 d - e ; cf. Jebb on Soph. Ant. loc.cit.; Wilamowitz and Sinclair on Hes. Erg. 750). There is, however, no exact parallel for the verb so used of a house (but cf. Isocr. 4.156). Οlyeu>, " t o o p e n " (by breaking the seals), in contrast to ävoiyeiv, " t o throw the houses wide open for inspection" (lines 18 and 19) is certainly a possibility, although the use of the simplex verb is not entirely free of difficulty. The figura etymologica in μη oineiv οίκημα ταμιεϊον would be appropriate 45

in an archaic legal text and in early prose generally. The very first decree of the Corpus of Attic inscriptions most probably contained this figure of speech. Wilhelm's restoration of IG I 2 1, line 1: τους έν Σαλαμϊνι οίκοϋντας οίκεϊυ eäv Σαλαμΐνι should be allowed to stand, for it is preferable to τούς κληρούχονς (ML 14 et al.) on stylistic grounds alone. Moreover, Wilhelm's restoration does not prejudge the historical question of klerouchs on Salamis, for whom there is no acceptable evidence whatsoever. For other examples of figura etymologica in early prose cf. IG I 2 6A, line 30: πράξαι έ'κπραξιν; IG I 2 6 C, lines 1 0 9 - 1 1 0 : μύβιν μύστας; Hip. Nat. Horn. 3.1: την Ύένεσιν yeveadai; Diog. Apoll. Fr. 2 DK: φυτόν έκ της γης φϋναι. There are examples from early Latin prose as well: Tab. XII III. 1 iure iudicatis . . . iusti; IX.3: iudicem iure datum; XII 2a—b: si servus furtum faxsit, noxiamve noxit; for further examples see Jeffery, PL. 15, 4A; Schwyzer I 73—75; Leumann-Hoffmann-Szantyr II 790ff. No matter which of these restorations one may prefer, it is clear that the prohibition is directed against some kind of illegal use, or abuse, of an oikema tamieion. It is also clear that an oikema tamieion was a very special structure, for violations of the rule carry the extraordinarily high fine of one hundred (restored) drachmai. What precisely are we to understand by the phrase oikema tamieion? Two points should be cleared up before we proceed to answer this question. First, tamieion may either be an adjective (hitherto unattested) analogous to formations such as βασίλ€ΐος-α-ον and αρχειος-α-ον (cf. LSJ 9 s.w.), or it may, more probably, be a noun. If it is a noun, we have here an example of the tendency, which Greek shares with other IndoEuropean languages, to collocate genus and species (see Wilamowitz on Eur. HF line 466: "Es ist eine Eigentümlichkeit altgriechischer Rede den Gattungsbegriff adjektivisch neben das Individuum oder die Species zu stellen . . . " Dodds on Eur. Bacch. 1024—1026 lists some examples with animals. To these can be added Horn. II. 7.59; Od. 16.216—217; Ale. Fr. 345 L - P ; Cratinus Fr. 225; LXX Is. 27.1. The usage is not restricted to living beings, see Horn. II. 11.105; Od. 5 . 3 9 1 - 3 9 2 . Cf. BeSevliev 42). Secondly, the absence of the definite article before oikema tamieion, (i.e. an oikema tamieion), and the mention elsewhere in the decree of houses in the plural indicate that the reference in line 14 must be to more than one such house. That is to say, there were several oikemata tamieia which the sacerdotal women must not open or otherwise misuse. We may now address the meaning of the phrase oikema tamieion. It was Dörpfeld's view that the structure mentioned here was identical 46

with the opisthodomos of Athena's temple — the chamber where the Athenians kept the state's treasure and other precious metals (Dörpfeld 423). There is, however, no evidence that the opisthodomos (as a technical architectural term) of Athena's temple was ever called an oikema, as Dittenberger too noted. Furthermore oikema usually designates an autonomous building (cf. Dinsmoor 125 and his references). These facts, it might be added, prove that the Hekatompedon was an enclosure, as Judeich always thought, and not a building. As to the meaning of tamieion, Dittenberger was of the opinion that it designates a storeroom, not for precious metal, but for provisions. He saw a connection between this storeroom, or pantry, and the verb hipneuesthai in the following line, and explained the entire rule as an injunction directed at the women not to store food supplies in the house nor to cook them on a stove (Dittenberger 473: "Die Frauen, die auf der Burg gottesdienstliche Functionen ausüben, sollen sich dort keine Vorrathskammer und keinen Kochherd anlegen, sie sollen Lebensmittel dort weder aufbewahren, noch zum Genuss zubereiten . . " ) . A prohibition against having a household with a kitchen in the holy spaces of the Acropolis might well explain the high fine prescribed against infractions of the rule, especially since hipneuesthai in line 15 does, apparently, refer to fires in braziers (see Appendix). It is probably best, however, to take oikema tamieion as meaning "treasurers' house" or "treasury," on the principle that entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate. This identification was defended by Dinsmoor (125—126) who cited the pertinent evidence for the use of the word oikema, and assumed that the several houses "would presumably have been erected as treasuries (thesauroi), as at Olympia and Delphi, as well as at Delos, where they were significantly called oikoi." The houses which the treasurers kept sealed (cf. line 2) obviously served as repositories for the sacred vessels and other implements made of bronze and used in the cult of Athena (see the commentary on line 1 above). There were strong connections between Athena's cult and bronze. More than any other deity Athena represents a development of the bronzeage palace goddess. The memory of her Mycenean origin was preserved at Sparta, where she was worshipped as Athena Chalkioikos in a bronzeplated temple (Paus. 3.17.2; 10.5.11). At Athens she was the derivative of the bronze-age palace goddess par excellence (Simon 179—180). The festival known, significantly, as the Chalkeia was extremely old, and was celebrated, in earliest times, by the entire population of Attica in honor of Athena alone. Hephaistos' role in this festival was a later accretion, as several lexicographers explicitly state: Suda s.v. Chalkeia II Etym. Magn. 805.43; cf. Deubner AF 3 5 - 3 6 . 47

The inscriptions confirm the testimony of the lexica, for they show that in the third century B.C., the Athenians still celebrated the Chalkeia in honor of Athena as leader of the state (τήL Άϋηναι ret ΆρχηyenÖL της πόλεως): IG II 2 674, lines 1 6 - 1 7 ; cf. IG II 2 930 and 990 and Athena's byname Poliouchos in the brazen temple at Sparta, Paus. 3.17.2. It is surely also significant that the work of Athena's peplos began at the Chalkeia (Deubner 31). The evidence that is perhaps most pertinent for the meaning and interpretation of the phrase oikema tamieion is the presence in the fourth century of a building on the Acropolis called the Chalkotheke, and an inventory of its contents inscribed in the same century. In this inscription (IG 2 II 120) the Chalkotheke is called an oikema (line 13); this is the only other reference to an oikema on the Acropolis. The inventory in lines 32—62 contains a large variety of objects, including numerous vessels, most of which are bronze. Like IG I 2 4, the decree requires the opening of the oikema (i.e. the Chalkotheke) in the presence of the highest Athenian officials (generals, hipparchs, phylarchs and taxiarchs) and of the treasurers. After the opening the public slave takes the inventory and records it, and copies of the list are then prepared by the Council's secretary and the archivists. The results of the inspection and of the inventory are to be engraved on a stele which is to stand in front of the Chalkotheke (lines 17—19). The ceremony with which the Chalkotheke was opened, and the extreme care, accuracy, and other safety measures employed in the inventory of bronze equipment whose intrinsic value, compared to gold and silver, was small, can have only one explanation: the bronzes were most sacred and extremely old. Several are in fact described as in need of repair (lines 42ff.). The same religious scruples, I suggest, underly the regulation in line 14 of the Hekatompedon decree, which in this respect is very similar to the fourth-century text. The priestesses and their assistants are not to open, inhabit, or in any way tamper with the (sealed) houses, because they were repositories for the most sacred and most ancient objects used in the cult of Athena. The heavy fine was there to protect the chalkia. In sum, the houses named in the decree were the predecessors of the fourth-century Chalkotheke. IG I 2 4 line 15:

hntve[üeodai

For the restoration see the Appendix. We have here another rare and probably archaic word which fell into disuse; it recurs only in Hesychius. Its possible meanings are discussed in the Appendix (q.v.). The word probably was a specialized religious term: the cult title Hera Ipnuntis 48

is attested (Steph. Byz. s.v. ΊίΓνοϋντις). Whatever the infraction envisioned by the decree may be, it was serious, for it is punishable by the remarkably high fine of one hundred drachmai. The gravity of the offense against the rule is also apparent from the provision that any treasurer conniving at such behavior must himself become liable to the same large fine (cf. Appendix). IG I 2 4 lines 19 and 20: τά[ς hev]aq έμε[ρ]ας [τάς προ τες νο] μενία[ς The regulation requires the board of treasurers to be present in more than half-strength at the tri-monthly openings of the houses. In spite of large gaps in the text of this provision, its general trend is reasonably clear: failure to appear at the openings carries a fine of two drachmai which the president of the board must collect or face charges himself (lines 21—24). The tripartite division of the month is yet another archaic feature of the text. It is found already in Hesiod's Works and Days; cf. Jacoby on Philochoros Frs. 1 8 9 - 1 9 0 (.FrGrH I Text 555): "decadic days appear most likely at first sight, for the division of the month into decades is early." The supplement accepted by all editors τά[ς hev]aq έμέρας is implausible. W. K. Pritchett reminds me that ενος modifying ήμερα in the plural is without parallel. R. Renehan suggests (strictly exempli gratia) τά[ς αι)τ]άς βμερας. For αύτός used in this sense see SIG3 1027, line 9. Furthermore, νουμηνία in line 20 ought to parallel the datives δεκάτει and είκάδι. An alternate restoration, again suggested exempli gratia by R. Renehan, might be: αϊεΐ έν re ι νο]μενία[ι και κτλ. These supplements reflect what may well have been the main intent of the legislation in this passage, namely a regular periodic inspection of the houses: "the treasurers are to open and inspect the houses on the same days, always: on the first of the month, on the tenth of the month, and on the twentieth of the month." IG I 2 , 4 line 21: Λος δ' αν λεί]πει The current restoration ignores the standard formula εάν δε τις used throughout the decree. It is also questionable on linguistic grounds. The use of the simplex without a direct object cannot be paralleled; moreover, one would expect the middle, rather than the active voice in an absolute construction. Cf. the use of the compound with a direct object in the comparable text Arist. Ath. Pol. 4.3: ei δε τις . . . έκλείποι την σύνοδον. R. Renehan suggests the retention of the usual formula and the restoration [ech> δε τις ά]πει. For άπειμι used in this sense see Arist. Ath. Pol. 30.6: έάν μη εύρισκόμενος αφεσιρ ... άπη; cf. also the 4 J o r d a n (Hyp. 55)

49

negative formulation in the similar context of IG XII 5.647, lines 25ff.: ος δ' αμ μή παρήι των νεωτέρων δυνατός ών . . . κτλ. IG I 2 4, lines 2 1 - 2 2 : δυν[ατός

ον

On the meaning and significance of δυνατός and είδώς (line 7) for the development of Athenian legal thought see Mäddoli. We may stress more emphatically than Mäddoli does that dynatos means only "physically able, fit." Cf. Lysias' speech on behalf of the cripple (άδύνατος), Lys. 24; and the epigraphical evidence cited by Mäddoli on p. 6. IG I 2 4, line 23. Sokolowski's restoration eav does not fit the stoichedon count, and must be abandoned in favor of the Corpus version ax>. IG I 2 4, lines 23 and 24: τό π]ρύ[τανιν

and το 7τ[ρύτανιν

These restorations can be regarded as certain. In line 23 only the letters ρυ of the word for president, πρύτανις, are still present; in line 24 only the initial pi. In line 23 the stoichedon count requires the omission of the final mu of the definite article, which is also omitted from the definite article in line 24. On such omissions see Körte 239—269; Meisterhans 3 113, 10; IG I 2 1, lines 1, 2, 3, 4. Prott and Ziehen, LGS II 16 voice some doubt about the restoration on the ground that, although the omission does occur in the oldest public documents of Athens, it would be hazardous to import it into our text. Most recently Pierart (543) repeated these doubts, preferring to leave the lacunae blank. Such caution is entirely appropriate in dealing with an early and poorly preserved inscription. Nevertheless it would appear that the restorations are inescapable. The clauses in lines 23 and 24 require a subject, that subject must stand in the first clause and before the conditional clause, the letters ρυ must necessarily be a part of the subject, and there is no other Greek noun containing these two letters that could fit the meaning required by the context. For additional evidence supporting the restorations see Chapter II below. Lines 2 4 - 2 5 . The crucial word in this clause is φαίνειν in line 24. It is doubtful that the verb is here used with its technical legal meaning " t o denounce," "inform against;" one would expect the treasurers to be reporting infractions to their superior, the prytanis, rather than the other way around. Apparently the decree requires the prytanis to "set forth, exp o u n d " the infractions for the benefit of the treasurers (cf. Hdt. 1.116.5; 50

1.118.1). It should be noted that the president is charged with expounding the second decree only (IG I 2 4 ). Since the postscript mentions two slabs, we should perhaps restore τα ev TÖL λίϋοι [έκατέροι . . . ] in the lacuna at the end of line 25. Line 26. The name of the archon, Philokrates, if it is correctly restored, provides a certain date for the engraving of the decree: Philokrates was archon in 485/484 B.C. The letter forms, which are considerably more advanced than those of IG I 2 1 (from the late sixth century), also point to a date of incision sometime in the first quarter of the fifth century. The stoichedon style fully supports this chronology. "When we turn from the Salaminian decree to the Hekatompedon inscription we realize at once that there has been a great technical advance. Here is a long text containing nearly thirty lines on one stele, and both the spacing of the lines vertically and the placing of the letters horizontally are done with almost perfect regularity" (Austin, Style 29). Whatever archaeological evidence there is agrees with the strictly epigraphical criteria. It is fairly certain that sometime between 510 and 485 BC construction began on a temple, wholly in marble, to replace the first large stone temple of Athena, the so-called Hekatompedon. The earlier temple was built of both poros and marble; a good many poros and marble metopes are preserved, entire or in part. The marble plates were reused as revetments of the forecourt of the Old Propylon, which itself was probably built about the same time as the new marble temple (cf. Hill 140; Vanderpool 157—159; Culley 210). The combined epigraphical and archaeological evidence thus supports the accepted date of 485/484 B.C. for the engraving of the decree. On the other hand the text itself contains internal evidence suggesting that the document is a copy of an earlier, considerably older original. We may consider the following points, listed here in an ascending order of value. 1. The Council of Five Hundred (as well as the secretary) is missing from the postscript of IG I 2 4, lines 26—27; the omission points to a pre-Kleisthenic date of composition. We should not, perhaps, press this argument too much, since it obviously took time to develop the standard formula used in later prescripts and postscripts. 2. The treasurers' jurisdiction specifically over the chalkia has an exact parallel in the sixth-century inscription IG I 2 393; see the commentary on line IG I 2 4, line 1 supra. 51

3. Stronger evidence for an early date of composition comes from the references to archaic institutions and the use of archaic nomenclature. The ancient term agora for the Athenian assembly, and the division of the populace at large into free and slave persons are unexampled in fifth-century inscriptions, but are present in Draco's and Solon's law codes (cf. the commentary on IG I 2 3, lines 18, 29, 31, 35 supra). The sacrificers (hierourgountes) and the prytanis also belong to this category. The presence of the former reflects the customs and practices of the sixth and earlier centuries when, apparently, patricians acting in a semi-official capacity performed sacrificial rituals on behalf of various personal associations. In contrast, the officially appointed commissioners (hieropoioi, hieromnemones) of the classical era acted in the name of the whole state. As to prytanis, that term is especially typical of the archaic age at Athens, its earliest appearance being in the late seventh century (see Chapter II infra). 4. The archaic style of the decree, and the presence in it of archaic, originally Panhellenic words, which disappeared from classical Attic Greek, constitutes powerful evidence, virtually amounting to proof, for an early date of composition. Its vocabulary and phrasing show that the decree falls into that category of documents and other writings which, by the late fifth century, had become so obsolete as to require not only interpretation b u t actual translation into the terminology of that time. As Lysias (10.16—20) puts it: "But if he is not a numskull, I suppose he has realized that things are the same now as they were of old, but that in some cases we do not use the same terms now as we did formerly" (cf. also Dem. 23.37ff; Xen. Symp. 8.30). General

Conclusions

The main results emerging from this study of the decree may be summed up as follows. The document appears to be a copy of an older original composed in the sixth century B.C. It represents an archaic religious code from the period before Kleisthenes. The copying and republication of decrees was by no means an extraordinary procedure at Athens. Two good examples of that practice are IG I 2 114, and IG II 2 1362. For other examples, and recent work on the subject of copying and republication see ML pp. 264—266. We may suppose that because of the religious conservatism of the ancients, the reproduction of leges sacrae was especially common. A small trace revealing the copyist may in fact be discernible in our inscription. In line 23 the stonecutter who copied the original incised the later äu (cf. IG I 2 16, line 6) instead of έάν which is the usual form elsewhere in the inscription. 52

The archaeological history of the Acropolis tallies with the assumption of a copy: the decree was re-engraved on one of the marble metopes from the old temple of Athena. This temple was dismantled and replaced with a structure built wholly in marble in the period 510—485 B.C. The process of reconstruction taking place on the Acropolis during that time provided an occasion to re-engrave the sixth-century decree on slabs of marble belonging, appropriately enough, to the sixth-century temple of Athena. If the Hekatompedon inscription is in fact a copy, we have in it the oldest Attic decree, and therefore the oldest piece of connected, continuous Attic prose. In spite of the epigraphical date 485/4 B.C., it might be advisable to place this inscription first in a new edition of IG. The decree's sixth century date of composition raises a question: were the regulations and the administrative organization of the Acropolis as they appear on the stone still in effect in 485 B.C.? There are several reasons for answering this question in the affirmative. The fact of republication does not, itself, constitute proof that the decree remained in force in the early fifth century. It does, however, establish a strong presumption that this was the case. It should be borne in mind that the engraving of texts on stone was not inexpensive. A lavish reproduction of a text on two valuable slabs of Parian marble surely was costly; and we may therefore suppose that there were important practical reasons for the republication, i.e. that it was still in effect. The decree moreover was obviously meant for prominent display: it stood at the very entrance of the Acropolis. This fact too indicates that its provisions were still valid in 485 B.C. There are, in addition, strong historical grounds for believing the code valid in the fifth century. The continuity of the treasurers as keepers of records throughout the classical period is undeniable. Their accountability specifically for the bronze cult objects continued into the fourth century, as IG II 2 120 demonstrates. The treasurers retained their capacity as religious officers of the state throughout the classical period and beyond. T. Linders has recently shown that neither the sacred property of the temples nor the treasurers themselves were secularized in that era (Linders II 9,17). Lastly, there is independent evidence indicating that the treasurers of Athena in the classical period had a chairman at their helm (see Chapter II below, and Gilbert I 234). That chairman obviously corresponded to the prytanis of the treasurers in IG I 2 3 and 4, and we may regard this correspondence as virtually conclusive proof that the legislation of the Hekatompedon decree was enforced and enforceable in 485 B.C. 53

We may sum up. The treasurers who appear in the present document acted as the general overseers of the Athenian Acropolis. They had custody and kept records of all liturgical bronzes, and possessed the sole right to open and inspect the oikemata on the citadel. There is a passage in Isocrates which graphically illustrates the breadth and continuity of the treasurers' custodial functions and powers not merely in the archaic period, but throughout the classical era. In the Trapeziticus (17. 33—34) Isocrates relates that a certain Pythodoros, called the "shopkeeper," had illegally opened the voting urns (hydriai, perhaps even of bronze; cf. Dem. 47.52) containing the names of persons who had been nominated as possible judges in the dramatic contests at the festival of Dionysos. At the risk of execution Pythodoros had then removed the ballots bearing the judges' names; he had done so despite strict measures to prevent such thefts. Isocrates describes these measures as follows. The prytaneis of the Council had sealed the urns shut. In their turn the choregoi had next affixed their own seeds to the vessels. Thus sealed and stamped the urns had been placed on the Acropolis where they remained closely guarded by the treasurers. To illustrate the correspondences (extending even to actual words) between this passage and IG I 2 4 I quote Isocrates' passage in Greek (17.33—34): Πυι?όδωροι> yap τον σκηνίτην καλούμενον . . . τις ούκ olbev υμών πέρυσιν άνοίζαντα τάς υδρίας και τούς κριτας έξελόντα, τούς ύπό τής βουλής είσβληιΜέντας; καίτοι όστις μικρών 'ένεκα και περί τοϋ σώματος κινδυνεύων ταύτας ύπανοίγειν έτόλμησεν, αϊ σεσημασμέναι μεν ήσαν ύπό τών πρυτάνεων, κατεσφραΎΐσμέναι δ' ύπό τών χορηγών, έφυλάττοντο δ' υπό τών ταμιών, εκεί ντο δ'έν άκροπόλε ι ... The treasurers were further endowed with the general competence of enforcing discipline and order among sacrificing laymen and priestly persons alike, whom they compelled to obey the laws passed by the demos. In order to carry out their mandate, the treasurers were invested with judicial authority, including the levying of fines up to one hundred drachmai. The limits of this authority become clear when we recall to mind that the highest penalty which the Council of Five Hundred could impose in the later classical period did not exceed five hundred drachmai (Arist. Ath. Pol. 45.1; Dem. 47.43). But the most important function of the treasurers by far was to protect the Acropolis against physical harm, including the danger from fire, and pollution and defilement by human beings and animals. These duties and qualifications place the treasurers of the inscription in the category of precinct governors discussed earlier in this chapter. 54

With respect to their organization, the treasurers formed a board, almost certainly consisting of ten men who belonged to the uppermost Athenian census class. All these qualifications may safely be inferred from the qualifications of the treasurers of Athena only a little later in the century. Finally, the board had at its head a president or chairman whose official title in 485/4 B.C. was still prytanis. I now present a revised text of IG I 2 4, incorporating some of the restorations proposed in the detailed discussion supra. (Supplements without attribution in the apparatus criticus are those already printed in IG I 2 4.) [Τα

χαλκία

πόλβι ·

τά έ]μ

[έν τοις Ο€θ€μ]ασμένοις [

· κα]τά

[ας ::· horav 5 [ες i με εχσο [

τέν

βύο]αι

Μοοις

! π[λ]ει>

χρδνται

· οίκέμ[ασι

:. ]αμ -παρ

πάλιν · γρά[φσα]σβαι · Αιερά • hoi ε[νδο]ν ! ': χύτραν · μεδ[έ

ταμί-

τός

· τά

ιστ]άναι

hoaa

έκάοτht£[p]opyövT]αν

μεδέ

] μεδέ τό πϋρ : άν[άπτεν :] έά[ν δ]έ τις : τ[ούτον τι δρα ι εί]δός :' έχσεναι θ[οά]ν · μέχ[ρι τρι\δν ό[βελόί' · τοΐσι τ]αμίασι ::· τός ΐε[ρορ]70ι>τα[ς :] μ[έ κάεν] με[ταχού τδ ν]εό :και τδ πρό[ς εο μεγάλ]ο /3[ο]μό · [και νο]10 τόθεν · τ[δ ν]εό · εντός τδ Κ[εκροπίο · και άι^ά πάν τό heκατόμπ[εδ]ον

είδος ·

ν τι δρά[ι ν · τοϊσι

Ι μ β δ ' ονθο[ν]

ταμ[ΐασι

[μέ

άς ξακόρος

15 εδέ

hiπνε[ύεσθαι

νε[σθαι

[τά έν τδ ι

· δ ρ α χ μ έ [ σ ι και] ·] Ιιεκατόν

Αεκατ]ομπεδοι ·

τ ε ι νο]μενία[ι

τός ταμίας

δ ρ α χ μ ε [ σ ι : · · ] τά ävoiyev

και τ]ει

[κάδι · hvnip hέμ]ισυ [ατάς ον · άποτίνε]ν

•

[τάς]

[δεκάτει

· ττ[α\ρόντα[ς δύο δραχμ[ά

δε τις ·

δε τό π[ρύταϊΊΐ> το]τδ ι λί[0οι έκατέροι ] δέ[μοι έπ]ί Φ[ιλοκράτος

ταμίασι εδοχσεν

· τά έν · τδ ι

ος Ι τά έν τοϊν λίθοι[ν 4. θύο]σι Sokolowski 5. χαύ Wilhelm 14. [κινεν? Renehan 21. έάν 8έ τις Gaertringen, fort, recte.

·

με

ο-

κ α ] ΐ τ έ ι εϊ· έάν

· ά]ν δε μέ,

ταϋτ'

έδ-

ο'ικέματα

ταμίας

[ν δε τ ό π]ρύ[τανν • φα[ί]νεν

· έάν

Ι τά[ς αύτ]άς · έμε[ρ]ας

[ύνεσ]θαι

25 [ϊς]

τούτο-

θοάν [με]χρι τρων : όβελδ:':': τας] Λιερέα[ς] τάς έμ πάλει : και τοι]κεμα ταμυεϊον · έμ πάλει : μ· έάν δε τις τ] ούτον τι δράι · εύθύ-

[λει£οι> τρις τ]δ μενό[ς θ]εάσθαι 20 [

· e ä f ] δε τις ·

έ]χσ[β]ναι

heKarov]

σ [ ι , εύθύνεσθαι

eyß[aKev

κα[τά

ώ]πέι : δυί>-

έσπρ\άττε] εΰθ-

άρχοντ-

τούτ]οα>.

έ'χσο ϊστ]άναι Renehan 8. μ[έ κάεν] Jordan 9. με]τακακόν? ο'ικεν? otyev?] ex. gr. Renehan 19. τά[ς αύτ]άς ά]πεί Renehan 23. κα[τά τά προερεμένα Hiller von 25. έκατέροι] Jordan

55

CHAPTER II

Tamiai, Naukraroi, Prytaneis

1. Tamiai and Naukraroi The term prytanis immediately calls to mind the prytaneis of the naukraroi, whom Herodotos mentions in a passage relating the conspiracy of Kylon at the end of the seventh century. Herodotos says: "Kylon gathered a company of coevals and attempted to seize the Acropolis. But when he could not take it, he sat down as a suppliant by the statue of the goddess. The presidents (prytaneis) of the naukraroi . . . removed Kylon and his men, holding them liable to any penalty except d e a t h . " 6 6 I propose to defend the thesis that by this attack upon the sanctity and inviolability of the Acropolis, Kylon and his comrades became guilty of sacrilege and of pollution. The point need not, in fact, be labored; it is self-evident and self-understood: unlawful, armed intrusion upon the property of the god was to the Greeks sacrilegious conduct amounting to the worst kind of blasphemy. The sacred laws and the literature as well abound in ordinances forbidding the mere entrance into a sanctuary, while bearing arms, to say nothing of an armed assault upon it. 6 7 In our sources it is only the Alkmaionids who receive the blame for the desecration and sacrilege committed in the course of the Kylonian coup d'etat, and modern scholars have generally accepted this notion. 6 8 But there is a powerful hint in the phrase "Kyloneion agos" that Kylon and his clique were equally guilty of desecration. Why "Kylonian" curse, "Kylonian" pollution? It is important to remember that, according to Thucydides, Kylon himself, along with his brother, escaped alive. 69 One would think, therefore, that "Megakleion agos" would be a much more

«« Hdt. 5.71.2. «7 Plut. Arist. 21. Plut. Quaest. Rom. 40, 274 B - C . Plut. Praec. Reipubl. Gerend. 26, 819 E. Sokolowski LSCG No. 124, line 13; LSS No.59, lines 1 7 - 1 8 ; LSS No. 91; LSA No. 68 with further references. Cf. also Plb. 4.62; 5 . 8 - 9 ; 5 . 1 1 - 1 2 . 68 Complete collections of the ancient testimonia for the Kylonian conspiracy and modern scholarship on the incident may be found in Jordan, "Naukraroi" 153—175, and Stroud I 66, 70. ] IG I 2 4, line 23: π]ρύ[τανα> line 24: TO π[ρύτανιί>] Cf. Körte 267—268; „als Subjekt zu έσπρ[άττε])^ . . . ergibt sich aus dem in der folgenden Zeile erhaltenen ρυ: πρύτανιν. Von einem πρύταρις ist aber auch auf der Platte I fr. a Z. 4 die Rede, denn ΤaviP kann nicht zu einem anderen Worte ergänzt werden (so auch Lolling und Kirchhoff)." 77 Pollux, Onom. 8.99. Cf Körte, loc. cit. 78 Arist. Ath. Pol. 7.3; 47.2.

60

" A n d Miltiades, the h e r o o f M a r a t h o n , t h e y sentenced t o b e flung i n t o the p i t , and had it n o t b e e n f o r the prytanis, in he w o u l d have g o n e . " Plato's usage is due neither t o accident n o r t o carelessness. H e c o u l d easily have e m p l o y e d the technical t e r m epistates, c o m m o n and standard in the f o u r t h century. His c h o i c e o f prytanis in retailing an episode f r o m the y e a r 4 8 9 B.C. must t h e r e f o r e be regarded as deliberate; it o b v i o u s l y reflects the t e r m i n o l o g y o f that era. Similarly H e r o d o t o s uses p r y t a n e i a t o designate the supreme c o m m a n d which each o f the ten A t h e n i a n generals at M a r a t h o n was e n t i t l e d t o h o l d f o r a d a y . 7 9 F o r reasons that I w i l l m e n t i o n soon, in the course o f the f i f t h c e n t u r y the A t h e n i a n s abolished prytanis as a title f o r the chairman o f most boards. But the sources leave n o d o u b t that it was still in use at the t i m e o f the Persian Wars. T h e e v i d e n c e assembled here speaks f o r itself. I t demonstrates the direct c o n n e c t i o n , f u n d a m e n t a l similarity, and even the c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n the b o a r d o f naukraroi and the b o a r d o f treasurers o f the H e k a t o m p e d o n inscription: b o t h w e r e the p r e c i n c t g o v e r n o r s o f the A c r o p o l i s . It f o l l o w s that the naukraroi w e r e also the treasurers o f the archaic state, at any rate b e f o r e the t i m e o f S o l o n . T h i s f a c t ought t o c o n v i n c e those PI. Grg. 516 d—e (for the identification of the prytanis with the epistates see Woolsey's and Dodds' commentaries ad loc.). Hdt. 6.110. Arist. Ath. Pol. 7.3 and 8.1 imply that the treasurers of Athena's temple functioned under their later title of tamiai as early as the time of Solon (when one might expect to find the term naukraroi still in use). According to the first of these passages there was already at that time a board of poletai at Athens. But the account is awkward and unclear, while the sortition mentioned in Ch. 8.1 may be anachronistic; therefore the presence of tamiai (as a title) and of poletai in the very early sixth century seems doubtful (cf. Hignett 325, von Fritz and Kapp 155), particularly since the naukraroi were firmly embedded in the Solonian constitution (Arist. Ath. Pol. 8.3). Tamiai (five, six, eight, or more?) appear in an inscription on a bronze plaque (IG I 2 393) which Jeffery 72, in agreement with Hiller von Gärtringen, dates to ca. 550(?) B.C. on the strength of early forms of upsilon and the use of qoppa. If this date is approximately right the evidence of the plaque would support the statement in the Ath. Pol. about the presence of tamiai and poletai in Solonian times. But we must be cautious; as Miss Jeffery observes, the inscription is written consistently from left to right, which may point to a somewhat later date. Moreover, apart from the qoppa, some letters (α, ο, Κ, T, v) look very much like those of IG I 2 1 and IG I 2 3 and 4 (though the € is different). We have too few inscribed bronze tablets from Athens to be dogmatic about their dates. The content of IG I 2 393 too is similar to that of the Hekatompedon inscription; in line 2 συλλέγε»' must refer to the same housekeeping activities that the tamiai perform in IG I 2 3 and 4. Even if the statements in Ath. Pol. 7.3 and 8.1 and the date 550 B.C. for the plaque are correct, it merely means that the change in nomenclature from naukraroi to tamiai and the gradual division of labor among miscellaneous financial boards began with Solon, which does not invalidate the present argument. 79

61

who can be convinced that Herodotos never meant to say that the prytaneis of the naukraroi ruled Athens in the time of Kylon. 8 0

2. The Chairmanship

of the Treasurers of

Athena

IG I 2 3 and 4 show that in the year 485/484 B.C. the treasurers of Athena formed a board headed by a prytanis. This evidence may help decide the question whether or not during the classical period the treasurers of Athena had a chairman with superior authority over his colleagues. In 1960, K. J . Dover published an important article in which he sought to refute the traditional view that Athenian boards, including that of the treasurers of Athena, had chairmen with superior powers over their colleagues. 81 It is certainly true that prytanis disappears as a title for the chairman from the records of the treasurers of Athena in the fifth and fourth centuries. It is also true that the Athenians put no other term in its place to distinguish a chairman from his colleagues. They evidently decided to abolish this nomenclature, probably because of the oligarchical and tyrannical overtones which the title prytanis evoked when it was held by a single magistrate. 82 Instead, the chairman of the board came to be listed by name, according to the formula ό belva και oi συνάρχοντβς. The ambiguity inherent in such a system of notation has no doubt led Dover and some other scholars to reject the idea of a chairmanship altogether. But the evidence does not uphold Dover's view. The practice of mentioning one man by name shows that while its title was dropped, the office of chairman continued very much in use. I quote from an article by W. E. Thompson, who has recently challenged Dover's view: "the case for the proposition that the treasurers of Athena had a duly constituted chairman rests on the fact that with a few exceptions the same man always appears as eponym in all the financial records of a given year. Dover, on the other hand, fastens on these exceptions, three in number, as proof that the eponym was not officially chosen for that h o n o r . " 8 3 The explanations which Thompson so Cf. Jordan, "Naukraroi" 1 5 3 - 1 7 5 . 81 Dover 6 1 - 7 7 . 82 Arist. Pol. 5.4, 1305 A; Diod. Sic. 7.9.5; Paus. 2.4.4. Labarbe 4 7 1 - 5 0 4 . According to Aristotle, Pol. 6.5, 1322 Β prytanis, like basileus, could be a title of religious as well as of secular officials; both naukraroi and tamiai had some secular, in addition to their religious, duties. 83 Thompson 58—61.

62

provides for these three exceptions are in my opinion completely convincing; and his whole argument acquires new strength from the evidence of the Hekatompedon inscription. There the use of the term prytanis alone suffices as a demonstration that one member of the board acted as its duly constituted chairman. Moreover, certain passages of the text clearly show the superior position of that chairman over his colleagues. In lines twenty to twenty-one of IG I 2 3, and in lines twenty-four to twenty-five of IG I 2 4, the prytanis is required to take some action with respect to the treasurers. Because of the poor condition of the text, it is impossible to determine just what the prytanis must do. But in lines twenty-two to twenty-three of IG I 2 4, there is enough text to show the authority of the prytanis over his fellows: if they break the rules, he must collect fines from them. The regulation clearly implies that the prytanis had the power to determine whether or not a treasurer had broken a rule and to act upon his finding. In other words, he had investigative and punitive powers which his colleagues manifestly did not share. Here, then, is. clear and positive proof for a chairman with official, legal supremacy over his colleagues in the second decade of the fifth century. In the light of this evidence, it is difficult to believe that the boards of later years did not have chairmen with such authority as well. There is nothing in the sources to indicate that a change occurred later; nor is there any reason for postulating such a change. Besides, the treasurers of Athena were not the only financial board with a chairman. I have already cited evidence for the chairmanship of the poletai. Yet another board with a chairman at its head were the epistatai of Artemis Brauronia. In a recent study of that board Tullia Linders says: "the change of eponymous epistatai within the same year . . . may seem to support the view recently expressed that the eponym did not occupy an official position among the members of the board, like that of chairman, but was named because he was uppermost in the mind of the writer of the inventory. Nevertheless it is clear that, in the boards administering temple treasures like the tamiai of Athena and the epistatai of Artemis Brauronia, a single official is named in the accounts and inventories of a given year in the majority of cases and may therefore be regarded as the head of the b o a r d . " 8 4

Μ Linders I 55.

63

CHAPTER III

The Treasurers and the Siege of the Acropolis

Herodotos 8.51.2 says: και αιρέουοι ερημον τό άστυ και τινας ολίγους εύρίσκουσι των 'Αθηναίων έν τ φ ΐ ρ ώ έόντας, ταμίας re τοϋ ιροϋ και πένητας άνΰρώπους, οϊ φραζάμενοι την άκρόπολιν ϋύρησί τε και ξύλοισι ήμύνοντο τούς έπώντας, άμα μεν ύπ' άσϋενείης βίου ούκ εκχωρήααντες ές Σαλαμίνα, προς δέ και αύτοί δοκέοντες έζευρηκέναι τό μαντήιον τό ή Πιι#ίη αφ ι 'έχρησε, τό κρησφύγετον κατά τό μαντήιον και ού τάς νέας. The Persians took the lower town which was deserted, but in the temple they found a few Athenians, the treasurers of the temple, and some needy men, who had fortified the Acropolis with door-posts and timbers, and were defending themselves against the attackers. These men had not retreated to Salamis partly because of their poverty, and also because they believed that they themselves had discovered the meaning of the Pythia's oracular pronouncement that "the wooden walls would not be taken," and that this, not the ships, was the refuge signified by the prophecy. This account is not without difficulties. Is Herodotos saying that the treasurers of Athena were poor men belonging to the lower classes of Athenian citizens? Why did the treasurers remain on the Acropolis when practically the entire population abandoned the city? What sort of defense did the Athenians on the Acropolis put up against the Persians, and what was the purpose of that defense? The problem which the first of these questions raises may be resolved fairly easily, for it is more apparent than real. The treasurers of Athena, as we know from Aristotle, 8 5 always belonged to the highest Athenian census class, the pentakosiomedimnoi. Aristotle may or may not be right in asserting that already in· the time of Solon the treasurers of Athena's temple on the Acropolis bore the title of tamiai rather than of naukraroi, but it is certain that, no matter what their title, the treasurers were members of the uppermost census class in the sixth century; 85 Arist. Ath. Pol. 8.1.

64

and there are good reasons for supposing that the naukraroi belonged to the nobility as well. 86 In the sentence of Herodotos, και τα>ας όλίγους βύρίσκουσι των 'Αθηναίων έν τ φ ιρφ έόντας, ταμίας τε τοϋ ίροϋ και πένητας άνϋρώπους, the words ταμίας re και πένητας άνδρώπους in apposition to τα>ας όλίγους cannot be a single qualification of the entire Athenian contingent who remained on the Acropolis: τβ . . . και does not identify the two terms connected, as in "the Persians found a few men who were both treasurers and poor men." The words in apposition are an amplification adding more detail and explaining that the Athenians on the Acropolis belonged to two different categories: some of the Athenians whom the Persians found in the citadel were treasurers of the temple, and the rest were poor men. Since te and kai always join two discrete things or concepts, this interpretation is entirely natural.87 Unless we choose to believe, therefore, that Herodotos was totally ignorant about the most elementary features of the Athenian constitution, or that he is deliberately misrepresenting facts, we must interpret him as saying that the Athenians who remained on the Acropolis were of two kinds: (a) the treasurers who were rich men and perhaps aristocrats, and (b) the others who were too poor to buy their way to safety. Furthermore, since in the main clause Herodotos distinguishes between wealthy treasurers and poor people, his entire relative clause " w h o barricaded (οι φραξάμενοι)" to "this was the refuge, and not the ships (και ού τάς ν έ α ς ) " can qualify only the second category, the poor. The qualification must refer to the poor alone, because poverty (άσ&βνβίη βίου) is one of the two motives assigned to the subject of the relative clause, and secondly, because both motives, poverty and the special meaning of the response, are solidly tied together by the particles men and de. It follows that it was only the poor Athenians, and they alone, who believed (wrongly) that they had discovered the true meaning of the Pythia's response, "the wooden wall shall not be taken." This analysis of the Herodotean passage casts doubt on R. Sealey's recent assertion that "all the treasurers adopted one and the same interpretation of the oracular response, an interpretation which the Athenian state as a whole rejected." 8 8 Herodotos says nothing of the kind about the treasurers; and, in fact, their decision not to depart along with most other Athenians, but instead to remain and fight the Persians, All that we know about them as officials of the aristocratic state points in this direction; cf. Jordan A th. Navy 177—181. »7 E.g. Hdt. 8.1.1; 8.1.2; 8.4.2; 8.9. 8« Sealey 184. 86

5 Jordan ( H y p . 55)

65

has an entirely different explanation. The religious office which they held as protectors of the Acropolis and its shrines imposed upon the treasurers the binding duty to stay at their posts and to oppose the enemy's seizure and profanation of the sacred ground in their charge, no matter how large the invaders' force or how small their own hope of success might be. The treasurers' sacred obligation to protect the Acropolis from its enemies, amply demonstrated as it is by the Hekatompedon inscription and by the history of the naukraroi, explains their behavior in 480 well enough. But what of the poor men? The motives for the treasurers' resistance were piety and devotion to duty; and this fact makes it extremely likely that similar reasons prompted the poor citizens to join the treasurers on the Acropolis. Their poverty prevented them from escaping to Salamis, but it did not compel them to stay and fight. On the other hand, they believed (wrongly, as it turned out) that they were obeying the gods' bidding when they chose to defend the citadel against the vastly superior army of Persians. Ever since the time of Bury, historians have regarded the siege of the Acropolis and its defense as a purely military problem, or rather, puzzle, requiring military solutions. But they have been unable to give convincing answers to a series of questions which Herodotos' account of the operation raises: what was the tactical or strategic purpose of the defense? What success could the Athenians have expected from a "fortuitous gathering of treasurers and poor men, without any hint of organization or strategic p u r p o s e ? " 8 9 Why the panic of the Greeks at Salamis (Hdt 8.56) when news of the citadel's fall reached them? Bury's answer to these nagging questions was to invent a detachment of hoplites whom the Athenians stationed on the Acropolis. Thus reinforced the garrison held out for a considerable length of time; but evidently not as long as the Greeks at Salamis had expected, for they became greatly alarmed when the Acropolis fell. Bury's thesis has now found a vigorous defender in R. Sealey who also argues that hoplites were present on the Acropolis, that Herodotos' phrase for the duration of the siege, chronon epi sychnon, signifies an interval of three to seven weeks, and that Herodotos omits the hoplites from his account, because his informants, seeing that the operation was a failure, forgot all about » Ibid. 90 Bury 4 1 4 - 4 1 8 ; Sealey 1 8 7 - 1 9 2 . The difficulty of providing a sensible explanation of the defence in purely military terms is illustrated by Hignett's suggestion that the Greek alarm at Salamis was "mythical" (Hignett, Invasion 203). Sealey dismisses this suggestion abruptly, as it only deserves to be. At the eleventh hour, when

66

But surely these are arguments born of desperation. Herodotos says nothing whatever about a garrison of hoplites, and there is no trace of them in any other writer — they are imaginary. Nor can the historian's phrase chronon epi sychnon serve as support for the hoplite theory, for Herodotos uses the words of intervals varying greatly in length. 91 In fact we may believe that the siege was brief, for in 480 B.C. the Acropolis was no longer a military stronghold with fortification walls. It had ceased to be a fort long before that year and had become a full-fledged sanctuary. 9 2 As a military enterprise the defense of the Acropolis defies rational explanation, and we are left where we were. I propose, therefore, to discuss the possibility which Herodotos himself and the facts of the Hekatompedon inscription suggest, namely that the reasons for the defense of the Acropolis were religious and patriotic, not tactical or strategic. I support my case with two facts. First, it was intolerable, even unthinkable, that an enemy should devastate the oldest dwellings of the gods, the holiest part of an ancient city, and the symbol of its power and vitality. Secondly, such a prospect was so terrible that men believed that in extremis the gods themselves "protected their own." A look at other accounts of shrines and holy places facing the threat of imminent destruction bears this out. 1. In Book VIII Herodotos relates that in 480 B.C. the Persians also threatened Delphi. On the march through central Greece a detachment left their main army and moved against Delphi to plunder the sanctuary there. When the Delphians heard of the Persians' approach they asked Apollo how to protect the sacred treasure in the precinct. The god told . them not to worry: he himself would protect his own property. Thereupon the Delphians brought their women and children to safety, and themselves fled to the fastness of Parnassos. Only the priest of the temple (the prophetes) and sixty men remained in the town. When the Persians arrived miracles began to happen. Suddenly Akeratos the priest saw some weapons lying on the ground in front of the shrine. They were the sacred weapons which no human hand could touch, and they had m y ms. was already in press, I became aware of W. F. J. Knight's paper o n the defence of the Acropolis w h o argues, as I do, that the reasons for the defence were religious. Knight's paper appears to have had little effect on subsequent research. I am happy to cite it in support of m y discussion. »1 Cf. Hdt. 1.190.2; 5 . 9 4 . 2 ; 6 . 8 3 . 2 ; 7 . 1 3 4 . 2 ; 9 . 6 7 ; 9 . 1 0 2 . 3 ; 9 . 1 1 9 . 2 . In the last three passages Herodotos uses the word of battles which lasted one day. 92

Vanderpool 156—160. For the unusual word kresphygeton in Herodotos' narrative see Poll. Lex. 1.10: "around precincts . . . there is a circular enclosure. One might call it an asylum, and a kresphygeton, and a place of refuge, and a holy precinct within which there is safety for suppliants" (not cited in LSJ 9 ).

67

been brought out mysteriously from their place within. Even stranger things happened when the Persians reached the precinct of Athena Pronaia. Thunderbolts fell upon them from the sky, and two large boulders, torn from Parnassos, came rumbling and crashing down on the troops, killing many of them. At the same time a great cry was heard from within the temple. Before long these supernatural events drove the Persians to flight; at the same time two gigantic hoplites, Phylakos and Autonoos, came to the aid of the Delphians who now attacked the retreating enemy. In this way the sanctuary of Apollo was miraculously saved. 93 2. Two centuries later Delphi and its sanctuary once again faced the threat of destruction, this time from the Gauls. The story is in Pausanias: "soon to confound the barbarians the god sent signs and wonders, the plainest that were ever seen. For all the ground occupied by the army of the Gauls quaked violently most of the day, and thunder rolled and lightning flashed continually, the claps of thunder stunning the Celts and hindering them from hearing the words of command, while the bolts from heaven set fire not only to the men upon whom they fell, but to all who were near them, men and arms alike. Then, too, appeared to them the phantoms of the heroes Hyperochos, Laodokos, Pyrrhos; some add to these a fourth, to wit, Phylakos, a local hero of Delphi." Pausanias also mentions falling rocks and crags which came hurtling down f r o m Parnassos. These supernatural events put the invaders to flight, and preserved the sanctuary of Apollo. 9 4 3. There is a similar example from Roman history in Livy's familiar account of the defense of the Capitoline hill against the Gauls. When the Gauls occupied Rome they found the city deserted except for some excurule magistrates who had remained in their houses. But Roman troops held the Capitol and the citadel and defended them against overwhelming odds: " f o r having no hopes that they could protect the city with so small a force as remained to them, they resolved that the men of military age and the able-bodied senators should retire into the citadel and the Capitol, with their wives and children; and having laid in arms and provisions, should from that stronghold defend the gods, the men, and the name of Rome; that the flamen and the priestesses of Vesta should remove the sacred objects pertaining to the state far from the bloodshed and the flames, nor should their cult be abandoned till none should be left to cherish it. If the citadel'and the Capitol, where dwelt the gods; if the senate, the source of public wisdom; if the young men capable of bearing arms survived the impending destruction of the city, they 93 94

68

Hdt. 8 . 3 6 - 3 9 . Pausanias 1 0 . 2 3 . 1 - 3 .

could easily bear to lose the crowd of old men left behind them, who were bound to die in any case." Again a miraculous event saved the defenders in the nick of time: "on a starlit night the Gauls first sent forward an unarmed man to try the way; then handing up, their weapons when there was a steep place, and supporting themselves by their fellows or affording support in their turn, they pulled one another up, as the ground required, and reached the summit, in such silence that not only the sentries but even the dogs — creatures easily troubled by noises in the night — were not aroused. But they could not elude the vigilance of the geese, which, being sacred to Juno, had, notwithstanding the dearth of provisions, not been killed. This was the salvation of them all; for the geese with their gabbling and clapping of their wings woke Marcus Manlius "9S In these passages Livy makes plain the purpose of the Romans' resistance from the citadel and Capitol, "where dwelt the gods:" "to defend the gods, the men, and the name of Rome." His words reveal in full measure the religious sentiment which impelled the Romans to endure the Gallic siege. The same sentiment, without a doubt, induced the senatorials and the Pontifex Maximus to face the invaders in their houses and to devote themselves to death. The Roman house was itself a small shrine; "what is more sacred," says Cicero, "what more inviolably hedged about by every kind of sanctity, than the home of every individual citizen? Within its circle are his altars, his hearths, his household gods, his religion, his observances, his ritual; it is a sanctuary so holy in the eyes of all that it were sacrilege to tear out an owner therefrom." 9 6 4. The belief which these accounts depict was not peculiar to Greeks and Romans; ancient Hebrew tradition offers further examples. In Second Kings God interceded to save Jerusalem from the Assyrians: "therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the king of Assyria, he shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shield, nor cast a bank against it. For I will defend this city, to save it, for my own sake, and for my servant David's sake. And it came to pass 95 Livy 5.39; 5.41; 5.47. 96 Cicero, De domo sua 41.109. Cf. Briscoe 16, whose quotation from Camillus' speech (Livy 5.54.7) is pertinent to my purpose (Briscoe's translation): "here is the Capitol, where a human head was once found, and it was predicted that there should be the head of the world and the fount of empire; here, when the Capitol was being freed from religious encumbrances, Iuventas and Terminus refused to be moved, to the great joy of your ancestors; here are the fires of Vesta, here are the shields that fell from heaven, here if you remain, are all the gods, looking on you with favour." See also Livy 1.55; Dion. Halic. Antig. Rom. 3.69; Augustine Civ. Dei 4.23; Servius ad Verg. A en. 9.448.

69

that night that the angel of the Lord went out and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sanacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and dwelt at Niniveh." 9 7 5. One more example from Jewish history may serve to round out the evidence. In 70 A.D., according to Josephus, the Jews fought and defended to the bitter end the Temple and citadel against the Roman legions under Titus. Concerning this temple a Biblical scholar has recently written that "just as Jerusalem became the quintessence of the Land, so also the Temple became the quintessence of Jerusalem." 9 8 The same thing can be said without fear of exaggeration of Delphi and the Capitolium in Rome, and with even greater justification of the Acropolis in Athens which was still simply the polis to the Athenian of the early fifth century. The similarities which link these accounts together are obvious. In each story we hear about a citadel or sanctuary in imminent danger from an invading enemy. The local population expects the tutelar deity of the place to "protect his own;" the god usually promises to help, and keeps his promise. He produces miracles with which he drives off or defeats the enemy and saves the place. Herodotos' story of the Acropolis diverges greatly from this pattern in its ending, to which I shall presently return. But first it may prove instructive to point out a number of similar details which the accounts of the Persians' attacks upon Delphi and Athens have in common. Delphi (1) When the Persians approached the Delphians consulted Apollo (8.36). (2) The Delphians particularly asked what to do about the sacred treasure (8.36). (3) The Delphians brought their women and children, and their movable property to safety (8.36).

(4) The prophet and sixty men remained in Delphi (8.36).

97 II Kings 19.32ff. 98 Josephus, Jewish War 6.4. Davics 152.

70

Athens When the Persians approached the Athenians consulted Apollo (7.140/141). There is no mention of the treasure on the Acropolis, but it was certainly removed (see below). The Athenians brought their children and oiketai (i.e. slaves) to safety (8.41). Plutarch adds the wives and, citing Kleidemos as his authority, mentions movable property {Them. 10). The treasurers and an unknown number of poor people remained on the Acropolis (8.51).

According to How and Wells the Delphic prophet was the president and manager of the temple; therefore he corresponds to the treasurers at Athens, who were the precinct governors of the Acropolis." It is not my intention to prove, or even to suggest, with this list of correspondences that Herodotos is repeating themes or making patterns. 1 0 0 No historian worthy of the name indulges in such pastimes, and Herodotos, as I believe, was a very good historian. If the actions of the Delphians and of the Athenians are similar, they are so because, as people living in the same region at the same time and sharing the same traditions, Delphians and Athenians met a common danger in the same way. Moreover, the accounts which I have quoted supra at some length demonstrate the historical reality of a religious attitude which was widespread and generally shared by peoples of antiquity. We should not, therefore, dismiss them, with Ogilvie, How and Wells, and others, as "temple legends told by Delphic priests," or as "derived from popular or family mythology and supplemented by rhetoric and imagination," and "inspired partly by literary models." 1 0 1 As a good historian, Herodotos has faithfully recorded this attitude, which he himself also shared, as he tells us in the course of his narrative about the battle at Plataia: "once their resistance was broken by the Lakedaimonians, the Persian troops fled in disorder and took refuge behind the wooden barricade which they had erected in Theban territory. It is a wonder to me how it should have happened that, though the battle was fought close to the holy precinct of Demeter, not a single Persian soldier was found dead upon the sacred soil, or ever appears to have set foot upon it, while round about the temple, on unconsecrated ground, the greatest number were killed. My own view is — if one may have views at all about these 99 How and Wells, CH II 168. 100 ι must agree with the views of Waters 1—2 that Herodotos is neither a preacher of morality nor a dramatist manque, but an objective historian; and that "it is a misguided procedure to imagine Herodotos imposing a pattern of events on history . . . " 101 So How and Wells on Hdt. 8.39 (CH II 246). They believe that the story in Pausanias is a "repetition with minor variations" of Herodotos' account. The observation may or may not be accurate but in any case it does not explain much. The same may be said of Ogilvie's remarks on Livy 5.39—43.5 in his Commentary 720. Ogilvie thinks that Livy is simply reproducing the account of the Acropolis' capture in Herodotos: "in particular the resemblance between the massacre of the senators and the liquidation of those Athenians who had taken refuge on the Acropolis and between the abortive attempt on the Capitol and the successful ascent of the Acropolis is to be noted." Crahay 334—335 considers the story of the Persian assault upon Delphi a legend invented by the Delphic priests as a piece of propaganda for the purpose of showing that Delphi too was entitled to its share of glory from the victory over the Persians. 71

mysteries — that the Goddess herself would not let them in, because they had burnt her sanctuary at Eleusis." 1 0 2 In view of such beliefs it is small wonder that the Greeks at Salamis panicked when they learned that the Acropolis had fallen. In 4 8 0 B.C. the Greek world, including Delphi, knew that Attica and Athens were doomed. 1 0 3 It had become quite clear to everybody at that time that Xerxes would occupy Attica, and that Athens would fall into his hands. No god, and least of all Apollo, could promise the Athenians salvation and deliverance, for such a promise, had the gods made it, would inevitably be false. But a false promise would have meant the destruction of divine authority, and the loss of all faith in the gods' efficacy. It would have dissolved the frail and impalpable bonds which united man to his gods. In a word, the result would have been the ruin of traditional religion. And so the gods' oracular responses and prophetic signs in the narrative of Herodotos are predictions o f disaster and defeat. Herodotos' whole account leading up to the conquest of all Attica and ending with the final catastrophe on the Acropolis resembles, so to speak, a vast drama in which oracular pronouncements and miraculous events mark off the different acts. The drama begins with Apollo's devastating answer to the Athenian envoys, holding out unmitigated disaster and no hope whatever of deliverance: 1 0 4 Why sit you, doomed men? Fly to the world's end, leaving Home and the heights your city circles like a wheel. The head shall not remain in its place, nor the body, Nor the feet beneath, nor the hands, nor the parts between; But all is ruined, for fire and the headlong God of War Speeding in a Syrian chariot shall bring you low. Many a tower shall he destroy, not yours alone, And give to pitiless fire many shrines of the gods, Which even now stand sweating, with fear quivering, While over the roof-tops black blood runs streaming In prophecy of woe that needs must come. But rise, Haste from the sanctuary and bow your hearts to grief.

Nothing better illustrates what such a disaster meant for ancient man than the envoys' conduct upon hearing the fatal truth. That conduct reflects man's fear and terror at such a calamity, his staunch refused to accept it as inevitable, and his" unwillingness to believe that the gods could abandon their own shrines and their own devoted servants. De102 Hdt. 9.65. »03 Cf. Nilsson, CMOP 1 2 6 - 1 2 7 and Meyer 370. 10« Hdt. 7.140.

72

vastated by the response, the envoys vowed to remain in the temple at Delphi until Apollo gave them a more favorable answer, or until they themselves starved to death. 105 Their chief anxiety was for the preservation of the Acropolis, and with their ultimatum they hoped to extract from Apollo a promise to spare the ancient seat of Athens' gods. The mention in the first response of citadels (pyrgomata) and temples of the gods, and the alternate interpretation of the wooden wall as the old fence on the Acropolis, which some Athenians immediately adopted, shows that the ambassadors' main concern was for the Acropolis. 106 But the entreaties, as well as the threats, of the Athenian ambassadors were to no avail. Apollo refused to retract his prophecy that Attica would be taken, and he declined to exempt the Acropolis from the ravages and the destruction that was to come to the whole land and to its city: 1 0 7 Pallas Athena cannot appease great Zeus of Olympos; Words of entreaty are vain and cunning counsels of wisdom. Yet shall I tell you this other word of strength adamantine: All shall be taken and lost that the sacred border of Kekrops Holds in keeping today, and the dales of divine Kithairon.

With these words Apollo refused Athena's pleas. In time Athena herself confirmed, by means of a prodigy, that the doom of Athens and of its citadel was inevitable. The great snake that lived in the temple arid guarded the Acropolis failed to consume the honey cake which it was accustomed to receive every month — a sure and clear indication that the goddess herself had abandoned her own sanctuary. 108 Nothing could stop the vast Persian columns advancing upon Athens. The gods had no choice but to withdraw. In the end the prophecy had to be fulfilled that "all Athenian territory upon the continent of Greece must be overrun by the Persians." 1 0 9 Nevertheless, Apollo could not crush the spirit of the Athenians completely. A complete and categorical rejection of the Athenians' plea for help would also be ruinous to traditional religion: a god who refuses all help is no better than a god who gives false hope. It was, after all, the gods' own shrines that stood in mortal peril. In the defence of the gods' property men had every reason to expect the gods' assistance; and the disappointment of this expectation would have damaged beyond »05 Hdt. 7 . 1 4 1 . 1 - 2 . ι» 107 ίο» ι«»

Hdt. Hdt. Hdt. Hdt.

7 . 1 4 0 . 3 (lines 1 1 - 1 2 ) ; 7.142. 7 . 1 4 1 . 3 - 4 (lines 1 - 5 ) . 8.41. 8.53.

73

repair the reputation of the deity. When, therefore, the envoys from Athens refused to accept his first response, Apollo had no choice but to yield to their demand for a milder answer. In his second pronouncement the god remained as intransigent about the fate of Athenian territory as he had been in the first. But this time he also held out a measure of hope for success and a possibility of salvation and survival: Zeus the all-seeing grants to Athene's prayer That the wooden walls only shall not fall, but help you and your children. But await not the host of horse and foot coming from Asia, Nor be still, but turn your back and withdraw from the foe.

With these verses Apollo and Delphi found a way out of the terrible dilemma which the Persian invasion had created for the custodians of received religion — a dilemma which placed in unprecedented danger the very foundations of that religion. It is sometimes said that in giving unfavorable or ambiguous responses to Athens, Delphi was medizing. 110 But surely this view is wide of the mark. What could Delphi possibly hope to gain by siding with the Persians? If Delphi was in fact medizing, why did the Persians attempt to take it and to plunder its sanctuary? The truth is that Delphi's overriding aim was the preservation of traditional religion, for nothing less was at stake when the Athenian ambassadors put their questions to the god. Though cautious, hedging, and falling far short of his firm and explicit promises on other occasions, Apollo's famous ambiguity about the wooden wall at least left open the possibility that all was not lost. It allowed for a remote, uncertain chance of victory. But the god left the interpretation of his response and the final decision to the Athenians: man must discover the right choice and the will of the gods. In the debate at Athens immediately after the envoys brought back in writing the answer of the god, Herodotos has preserved a lively record of how pagan man of antiquity went about interpreting the will of his gods. There is no need to relate here the details of this debate; suffice it to say that the people rejected the interpretation of the professional expounders and accepted that of Themistokles who brilliantly refuted the 110 Those who maintain or lean towards the view that Delphi was medizing include How and Wells, CH II 246 on Hdt. 8.39, with references to similar opinions of Curtius, Wecklein and Meyer; Bowra 110. Munro 283 thinks that Delphi ("the bank of Greece") was anxious to protect its treasure; cf. Pohlenz 97 and Bengtson 164. The opposite view is defended by Immerwahr (236) who hits the nail on the head: "in Herodotus' view not only did the oracle not medize, but it collaborated with other local gods in the war and helped to win the victory The idea that Delphi medized during the Persian War is un-Herodotean and in fact modern." Cf. also Crahay 329.

74

prophets of doom by pointing out that Apollo had said "divine Salamis" and not "hateful Salamis." 1 1 1 In arriving at their decision Themistokles and the people of Athens were guided by a maxim which Herodotos has put in the mouth of the statesman during the second conference of the Greek commanders on the island of Salamis: "when men take reasonable counsel, the outcome is usually favorable, but when they counsel unreasonably, the god usually does not support human planning." 1 1 2 This maxim, it is fair to say, is at the heart of ancient religion, for it expresses a fundamental and universally valid principle which governed the relations of gods and men and permitted man to discover the will of his gods. The poor on the Acropolis evidently counselled unreasonably, for they did not discover the gods' will. Herodotos at any rate does not tell us what arguments or reasons they may have had when they rejected the interpretation that the majority adopted. It may be that in their poverty they made a virtue out of necessity, and decided to sacrifice themselves for their gods and for their country — a noble decision not unworthy of any man. The treasurers, on the other hand, certainly knew that they were doomed, but they obeyed their duty and died defending the gods and the holy ground committed to their trust — tragic heroes who "chose the beautiful over the useful." Athena recognized the self-sacrifice of treasurers and poor alike with her miracle of the olive tree: "now it happened that this olive tree was destroyed by fire together with the rest of the sanctuary; nevertheless on the very next day, when the Athenians who were ordered by the king to offer the sacrifices went up to that sacred place, they saw that a new shoot eighteen inches long had sprung from the stump. They told the king of this." 1 1 3 Such miracles are much more than "belief in magic," "pure religious legends," or "religious stories from local Athenian tradition." Nor is it i " Hdt. 7 . 1 4 2 - 1 4 4 . Hdt. 8.60 y. For a similar maxim see Eur. IT 1 2 0 - 1 2 2 , and Renehan's (Studies 64—65) defense of the Greek of the MSS. See further Renehan's references to other instances of such practical wisdom (Studies 64), Fraenkel on Aesch. Agamemnon vol. II pp. 373—374, and A. D. Nock's excellent exposition of the Greek view that in the interpretation of oracular pronouncements man's ideal guide is his common sense (Nock 4 7 2 - 4 8 2 ) . 113 Hdt. 8.55. The choice of the treasurers is not unlike the choices that Elektra and Antigone make in Sophocles' plays. All of them pursue and persist in a course of action which appears foolish to the rest of the world, because it is not useful (Egermann 250). We have here an example of how Herodotos and Sophocles complement and explain each other, as Egermann (252) most perceptively points out. For imitations, etc. of Herodotos in Sophocles see the "General Index" to Pearson's Fragments of Sophocles, p. 314.

75

very helpful to speak of Herodotos' "dramatic use of local stories about popular divinities" which "do not conflict with Herodotos' religious beliefs." 114 Such an observation implies that the historian went out of his way to collect "religious stories" in order to invest his narrative with dramatic color, that he was completely skeptical about them, and that he held beliefs quite different from those of his contemporaries. But the fact that he chose to record so many oracular pronouncements and prodigies in his history shows that he took them very seriously. To him, and to the world in which he lived, divine miracles are the signs and clues with which the gods reveal their will and purpose to mankind, and thereby bring human action into harmony with the gods' will and design. The gods do not predict events or decree human action; their miracles are hints at the right action which men must interpret reasonably to win divine approval. "The lord whose oracle is in Delphi," says Herakleitos, "neither speaks (i.e. he employs the Pythia to reflect his meaning) nor conceals — he shows (the way)." 1 1 5 Four and a half centuries later the pagan world of antiquity still held to the belief that the human being must determine what the gods expect of him — a belief which Cicero expressed in a speech from the year 57 B.C.: I have always understood, gentlemen of the pontifical college, that in the contraction of religious obligations the main task is to interpret what is the apparent will of the immortal gods; and a right fulfillment of d u t y to the gods is impossible without a disinterested conviction as to their designs and purposes, combined with a belief that they grant no petitions which are unjust or unseemly. 116

114

Immerwahr 276, on the olive tree episode: "all this is pure religious legend;" 274, on the sacred snake: "religious stories, mostly f r o m local Athenian tradition, abound throughout the Salamis narrative. Herodotos uses these as he had used similar religious tales for Marathon and for Artemisium . . . " 299: " t h e dramatic use of local stories about particular divinities does not conflict with Herodotus' religious beliefs." But Herodotos did not put these stories into his history for " d r a m a t i c " purposes; and it makes small sense to speak of a conflict between the stories and the historian's personal religious beliefs. There is no conflict; Herodotos is simply recording the beliefs that he and the world around him held. Crahay 299 thinks that the stories about the snake and the olive tree are evidence for belief in magic, u s Diels—Kranz, 22 Herakleitos B93. 116 Cicero, De domo sua 41.107: Equidem sic accepi, pontifices, in religionibus suscipiendis caput esse interpretari quae voluntas deorum immortalium esse videatur: nec est ulla erga deos pietas nisi sit honesta de numine eorum ac mente opinio, ut expeti nihil ab iis quod sit iniustum atque inhonestum arbitrere.

76

CHAPTER IV

The Priestesses and the Decree of Themistokles from Troizen

The Hekatompedon inscription of 485/484 B.C. and Herodotos' account of the siege of the Athenian Acropolis in 480 B.C. have some bearing upon a passage in a decree which has become the most controversial of all Athenian inscriptions. I mean the so-called decree of Themistokles from Troizen. In lines eleven and twelve of the Troizen decree the people of Athens command the treasurers and the priestesses to remain on the Acropolis and there to guard the property of the gods (ta ton theon). All other Athenians, and the foreigners residing in Athens are to embark in the ships; the city is to be abandoned. 1 1 7 In line eleven the first half of the text is almost wholly illegible. But it is quite certain that the word for the treasurers, tous tamias, stood there originally, for there are no other officials, sacred or profane, known to us on the Acropolis whose title could fit into the letter spaces of the lacuna. Therefore the restoration of the treasurers in the editio princeps is beyond dispute. 1 1 8 The word for priestesses, on the other hand, is fully preserved on the stone; only the initial tau of the definite article is missing. As to the lacuna in the first part of line 12, whether or not one accepts the editor's restoration exactly as it is, there can be no doubt that in this line the decree enjoins the treasurers and the priestesses to remain on the Acropolis and to protect the gods' possessions. According to Herodotos' account, however, during the siege of 480 B.C. the only persons who were present on the citadel were the treasurers and some poor men. 1 1 9 Herodotos does not mention any priestesses at all. On this point, therefore, as on so many others, the decree from Troizen and the historian of the Persian Wars are at variance with each other. The matter of the priestesses may appear to be a small point; but the issues which it raises are large and important. They are nothing less than the authenticity of the decree and the accuracy of the historian. Lines 12ff. "8 Jameson 1 9 8 - 2 2 3 . »» Hdt. 8.51.2.

77

I want to stress at once that the argument from silence does not apply in this instance. We cannot suppose that we are dealing with a simple omission here, and that Herodotos' silence does not necessarily mean that the priestesses were not among the defenders on the citadel. We cannot do so for two reasons: the independent evidence of the Hekatompedon inscription and Herodotos' method of reporting in Chapter 51. Let us take IG I 2 3/4 first. The facts of this decree are as follows. The treasurers and their president have complete authority and jurisdiction over the priestesses and, for that matter, over all other persons who may be performing religious rites on the Acropolis. Next, it is evident from the decree that the treasurers, and they alone, are responsible for the ritual cleanliness of the sacred precinct, for the safekeeping of holy vessels, and in general for the protection and administration of the grounds and buildings on the Acropolis. 1 2 0 The upshot of all this is that if there were any officials responsible for the safety of the Acropolis, and who therefore had the duty to defend it against invaders, these officials were the treasurers, and not the priestesses. It was simply proper procedure to leave the treasurers at their posts, and to evacuate all others. This is not all. We learn from our inscription of the presence on the Acropolis of yet another, possibly quite large, group of women besides the priestesses: the zakoroi. 1 2 1 The zakoroi were presumably evacuated in 480; the Troizen decree at any rate does not say that they remained, nor does Herodotos. But it surely is incredible that the Athenians should have asked some of the women, i.e. the priestesses, to remain, while they removed the zakoroi. The administrative organization on the Acropolis as the Hekatompedon decree reveals it only five years before the Persian occupation can lead to only one reasonable, and therefore necessary, inference: the priestesses were not present during the siege. We may now take up Herodotos' account, which is in perfect agreement with the facts of IG I 2 3/4, for the historian omits the priestesses from it entirely. The method of reporting that Herodotos employs here is that of elimination; he informs us in detail that (1) the city was deserted, (2) there were a few Athenians in the temple, and (3) these 120

See the detailed discussion on pp. 38—62 above. In a large sanctuary like the Acropolis the number of such women was very likely quite large; for there was apparently a hierarchy among them. As far as I know there is no evidence for slaves as servants in the sanctuary, as there is for Eleusis. See note 209 infra. 121

78

Athenians were the treasurers of the temple and a number of poor people. To put it positively, we are told exactly who was left: The treasurers and the poor men, and no others. 1 2 2 A possible argument that Herodotos may be including the priestesses among the treasurers or the poor people hardly requires refutation: women did not serve as treasurers; while the priestesses, who usually belonged to the upper classes of society and received a regular salary, were certainly not poor. We thus have before us the testimony of a historian well enough informed to know who was on the Acropolis in the siege of 4 8 0 , whose account implicitly but clearly excludes the priestesses from those present. We also have, on the other hand, the evidence of an almost contemporary official document which explains why only the treasurers, but not the priestesses, could be expected to remain behind. The sum of the evidence provides sufficient proof for the priestesses' absence from the Acropolis during the Persian siege of 4 8 0 , and it demonstrates that their inclusion in the clause of the Troizen decree is a fabrication. 1 2 3 It may here be convenient to say a few words about the methods and mentality of the author or authors of the Troizen decree. There is nothing in Herodotos about an official command to the treasurers from the Athenian assembly not to abandon the Acropolis. Herodotos, in fact, does not bother to give any motives, private or official, that the treasurers may have had for their decision to remain. But it is interesting that he does explain why the poor decided to defend the Acropolis. There is a reason for this difference in his reporting. The treasurers' conduct required no explanation. T o Herodotos and to his contemporaries their conduct was self-evident and self-understood. Both the historian and his audience still shared tne powerful religious spirit and the patri1 2 2 In the episode of Kleomenes and the priestess, Hdt. 5 . 7 2 , the circumstances are completely different; that incident is not a parallel for the events of 4 8 0 . 1 2 3 Herodotos 8.36 provides yet another argument, this from analogy, that the priestesses left the Acropolis. The measures that the Delphians took before the Persian attack upon their city suggest that it was the usual practice to take away the women, including the priestesses, from places in imminent danger from an enemy. Thus the Delphians sent away their women and children and stored their movable property in the Corycian cave. The men went up to Parnassos. " A l l Delphians abandoned the town except sixty men and the prophetes," as Herodotos says. Here the formulation is explicit and unambiguous: the women serving the sanctuary, and above all the Pythia, were removed. Another striking similarity to the Athenian Acropolis is that the Delphic prophet was the president and manager o f the temple (How and Wells II 168) — that is, he was the exact counterpart of the Athenian treasurers.

79

otic fervor which impelled the gallant defenders of 480 B.C. to fight to the death; and both took it for granted, even as the treasurers themselves did, that the "sanctuaries of the paternal gods" 1 2 4 must not fall to the invaders without a fight, no matter how desperate and hopeless that fight might be. The treasurers who held the ancient office as guardians of Athena's sacred precinct in 480 B.C. needed no command to do their duty. They knew where that duty lay, and they knew how to do it. These matters, however, were not self-evident to the literal-minded author of the Troizen decree. Suffering from a strong case of horror vacui, he filled out with meticulous care what he considered to be gaps in Herodotos' account. Thus the defense of the Acropolis, which was really a spontaneous and valiant last stand born of profound duty and devotion to the gods, became in the decree a part in an official plan for grand strategy; a plan which arranged by legislative fiat for the heroic self-sacrifice of the treasurers weeks, and perhaps even months, before the Persian occupation. For good measure the decree's composer then corrected Herodotos' "error" of omitting the priestesses who thus duly appear in the text of the inscription. Nothing, in my opinion, reveals more plainly the unhistorical character of the Troizen inscription than this facile attempt to improve upon Herodotos. Aesch. Persae 404.

80

CHAPTER V

The Fate of Athens' Treasury in 480 B.C.

The authors of the Athenian Tribute Lists reconstruct the history of the Athenian reserve fund on the Acropolis in the following manner. Whatever treasure the Athenians may have accumulated before 480 B.C. was lost during the Persian occupation of that year: in 479 B.C. the coffers on the Acropolis stood empty. Between 480 B.C. and 450 B.C. the total accumulation in the reserve fund amounted to no more than 750 talents. 125 From 449 B.C. to 431 B.C. the sum total of money in the treasury remained at a fairly constant figure of 6000 talents. 126 In the year 449 B.C. the totid figure in the fund was 5750 talents, approximately the same as the amount available in 431 B.C., which was 5700 talents. 127 This reconstruction flatly contradicts the evidence of a Thucydidean passage which by now has become celebrated. In 2.13.3 Thucydides tells us that at some time, which may safely be put around the year 450 B.C., there had been a maximum of 9700 talents in coined silver on the Acropolis. The authors of the Athenian Tribute Lists do not believe that anything even approaching so high a figure was ever accumulated. The reason that they give for their disbelief is that the figure of 9700 talents is in disagreement with their interpretation of the inscriptional evidence. Although they freely admit the possibility that they may have misinterpreted that evidence, they nonetheless reject the text of 2.13.3 containing the sum of 9700 talents as un-Thucydidean, and propose to replace it with a passage from an Aristophanic scholion which fits their reconstruction better. 128 It is clear that the entire reconstruction in the Athenian Tribute Lists rests on the fundamental assumption that in 479 B.C. there was no money at all on the Athenian Acropolis. In effect the authors of the Athenian Tribute Lists begin their reckoning with the figure zero: "any accumulation that may have existed earlier than 480 was undoubtedly wiped out when the Persians sacked Athens." This assertion depends " s ATL III 337. ATL III 120. 127 ATL III 338. 128 ATL III 1 1 8 - 1 3 2 ; cf. especially 120. 6 J o r d a n (Hyp. 55)

81

upon their interpretation of the account in Herodot'os of the siege of the Acropolis, which they present in a footnote: "the treasure evidently was not taken to Salamis, for Herodotus relates that the treasurers remained on the Acropolis where they were slain by the Persians." 129 The interpretation in the Athenian Tribute Lists contains a false inference which is fatal to the entire reconstruction. The weak point in the authors' argument is this: hey believe that the treasurers remained on the Acropolis for no reason other than the treasure. If it could be shown that the treasure did in fact constitute the principal motive, or indeed any motive at all, for their action, the argument in the Tribute Lists might have some force. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that in remaining at their posts the treasurers were guided by entirely different considerations, having little if anything to do with the treasure, the reconstruction of the Athenian Tribute Lists must of necessity collapse. I have adduced, in earlier chapters of this essay, evidence demonstrating beyond any rational doubt the real reasons for the treasurers' defense of the Acropolis. This evidence shows that: 1. The defense was of the entire Acropolis, and not of any single object on it. Its motive was religious, having nothing to do with tactics, or strategy, or finances, and it was in conformance with the beliefs and practices of antiquity. 2. The treasurers' responsibility extended over the entire Acropolis, and was not limited to any part or any single object on it. They defended the Acropolis itself and the buildings that stood upon it; that is to say, they defended that which was fixed and immovable, and not that which could easily be brought to safety. Had there been no custom of filling sacred precincts with valuable dedications, and had the temples stood completely empty, the treasurers would still have remained to fight for the sanctuary. 3. In the archaic age the officials called tamiai were the custodians of the sacred precint; their function as keepers specifically of the state's exchequer was a later and accidental accretion. The treasurers' bond therefore was to the place, and not to the public treasury. It is impossible, for these reasons, to make the inference that since the treasurers remained at their posts the treasure therefore was also left behind on the citadel. There is, on the other hand, some evidence that >» ATL III 337, and note 50 on pp. 3 3 7 - 3 3 8 . Cf. Pritchett 101: "The major hypothesis, so to speak, on which their theory is based, is found in one footnote " and 102: "the decision about this important matter rests on our interpretation of Herodotos 8.51 . . . "

82

the Athenians did in fact remove precious objects, including the treasure, from the Acropolis. Pritchett has recently drawn attention to the fact that the Gorgoneion was taken away. 130 The removal of one object certainly is an indication that other valuables too were brought to safetyThere is yet another consideration. To judge from similar incidents in other parts of ancient Greece, the first care of a populace threatened with invasion was always for the safety of the treasures stored in the land's chief sacred precinct. When, for example, the Persians marched upon Delphi in 480 B.C., the Delphians, before doing anything else, inquired of Apollo whether they should safeguard the treasures in the precinct by burying them, or whether they should get them out of the country. Its mountainous location at the end of a deep and narrow valley makes Delphi inaccessible enough even under ordinary circumstances. When defended, this natural bulwark became virtually impregnable. Apollo could guarantee the safety of his wealth without running too great a risk, and so he bade the Delphians not to move the treasures in the sanctuary. The outcome of the Persian attempt upon Delphi proved him right. The Delphians drove back the Persian division moving against them. 131 But the conditions facing the Athenians were quite different. Athens and Attica lay open to the main body of the large Persian army, 130

Pritchett 103. The evidence is in Plutarch, Them. 10.4, who is following Kleidemos (FGrH 323 Kleidemos 21). I might add that Gomme too shared the opinion that the Athenians saved their treasure f r o m the Persians. In 1953 he wrote: "I do not believe that, because the treasurers of Athena insisted on remaining behind to guard her sanctuary in 480, the treasure was left with them — at least not that part which consisted of coin and bullion and small objects; and after the administration of Peisistratos and Hippias, the accumulation may have been large" (Gomme, Historia 19). Cf. Pritchett 1 0 3 - 1 0 4 . 131 Hdt. 8.38. The incident at Delphi shows that it is quite unrealistic to believe that the Athenians would simply leave their treasure for the Persians to take. The Delphians' inquiry: shall we bury the treasure in the land or remove it f r o m the country? assumes that the treasure is to be protected — it does not occur to them at all to leave it unprotected. That is why the god's response is so striking. It goes against all their presuppositions; one may take for granted that these presuppositions represent normal Greek beliefs and attitudes. Cf. Hdt. 1.164.3: " t h e Phocaeans in the meantime launched their pentekonters, putting aboard their women and children and their movable property, including the statues and other sacred objects (anathemata) f r o m their temples — everything, in fact, except what was bronze, marble or a picture — and sailed f o r Chios." It was probably such dedications and offerings, too unwieldy to be moved in hasty flight, that the Persians plundered

on the Athenian Acropolis; whatever they did not take they broke up, thus creating that part of the fill to the south of the Parthenon which we know as the Perserschutt, "composed largely of the fragments of buildings, statues, e t c . " (Hill 150; cf. Payne and Young's Archaic Sculpture from the Acropolis).

83

and the Athenians had n o h o p e at all of repulsing the invasion. It is incredible that the Athenians, w h o faced the certain prospect of a Persian occupation and transported so much other property to Salamis, should have failed t o bring to safety the treasury of the state. 1 3 2 132

Lines 11—12 of the Troizen decree as they are now restored read: "the treasurers and the priestesses are to remain on the Acropolis and to guard what is the gods'" (ta ton theon). It might be argued that the vague formulation ta ton theon could be a reference to the money, if the decree's provisions really go back to 480 B.C. But the presence of the priestesses shows that the entire sentence is a fabrication; see Chapter IV above and Pritchett's remarks on the decree's value as evidence in this matter. I have nothing to add to Pritchett's arguments except to say that there is another possible (and perhaps more likely) restoration for line 12 which does away with the vague and abstract ta ton theon: 11 ev τήι άκροπόλβ12 [ι φυ\άττβα> τα οικήματα τώ]ν δβών. For oikema meaning temple see Hdt. 2.175.2; 8.144.2.

84

CHAPTER VI

Miracles in the Antigone of Sophokles

"To interpret intelligently the will of the gods" (Chapter III above). This maxim forms one of the grand themes in that greatest of all political dramas, the Antigone of Sophokles. The play most certainly is the tragedy of both Antigone and Kreon, two people united by the bonds of kinship, yet driven into enmity by fate. But it is the king who bears the heavier burden, for he has power and the responsibility for the welfare of an entire people. Judged by any standard Kreon is, and wants to be, an excellent ruler. He is no tyrant, nor even an autocrat. 133 He desires to govern 133

I use the term tyrant in its modern sense, and mean by it a ruler who has come to power by illegitimate means, whose power rests on main force and on fear and terror; someone who rules b y dictate and without consultation, and is answerable to none. Furthermore, he is a ruler who does not base his rule on any laws at all, not even on laws that he himself has promulgated, b u t decides and acts on his own personal whim of the moment, and therefore can be gratuitously cruel and unjust. I distinguish, in other words, between the autocrat and tyrant, and the absolute monarch. Only a few of these features fit Kreon. His rule is legitimate, he recognizes the rule of law and solicits and takes advice; and he obviously does not rely on armed force to maintain his position, for if he did, the complots that he suspects against himself would worry him not at all. Kreon is, in short, the sort of absolute, though legitimate, monarch that we o f t e n find in heroic legend. I assume that modern critics, when they use the term tyrant, have in mind something similar to the definition above. If this be so, then the opinion of MacKay, although he somewhat overstates the case, comes closest to the truth: "Kreon is no vulgar tyrant, but a democratic leader, genuinely anxious to do what the people want and what is good f o r t h e m " (169). I consider those holding exactly the opposite view to be thoroughly mistaken, as f o r example Whitman, who cites Bowra, Pohlenz and Weinstock in support: " t h e character of Kreon has been admirably summed up as that of a typical t y r a n t . " Whitman's own reasons f o r this view are Kreon's "quickness to wrath, rejection of criticism, suspicion of corruption, resentment of women, and demand for utter servitude" (90). But what is a typical tyrant? Surely only a vague generalization. Nor is it historically accurate, as Whitman (loc. cit.) says, that all these traits find their parallels in the familiar habits of the great Greek tyrants. Quickness to wrath is not a quality exclusively peculiar to tyrants. It seems to me, furthermore, that true tyrants, being often corrupt themselves, do not rebuke corruption as Kreon does, but p r o m o t e it because they find it useful

85

with the help and with the advice of the Theban elders, whom he encourages to speak up: "I would not be silent," he tells them, "if disaster were threatening the state." 134 With an openness and candor in maintaining their power. As to women, not only tyrants, but any ancient Greek would have been resentful of a woman meddling in the highest affairs of state. More moderate are the positions of Ehrenberg and of Podlecki. Ehrenberg holds that Kreon is not simply "a typical tyrant" or the "representative of the state;" both views, according to him, contain a partial truth (67). Podlecki at least has the saving grace of thinking that "the poet has captured his character in the act of becoming a tyrant," which seems to imply that he is no tyrant at the beginning of the play; but I think that he is quite wrong when he labels the king "a weak man, used to taking second place in Thebes" whose "new power rests uneasily upon him" and who must "cover up his insecurity with well-sounding, if somewhat muddled, political platitudes" (Podlecki 359, 362). Weak men capable of nothing more than platitudes make poor protagonists and are not to be found in great tragedies like the Antigone. Furthermore the ancient Greeks, and least of all Sophocles, did not deal in such terms as "insecurity." Exactly the opposite is true: Kreon's (and of course Antigone's too) strength of character and purpose cause the tragic conflict in this play. 134 I consider that lines 164—190 are an appeal from Kreon to the Theban elders to help him in the government of the country with their counsel and advice. Kreon has convoked the elders with a general proclamation, and they are wondering about the public business on which Kreon obviously wants their opinion (lines 159—162). When the elders appear before him Kreon begins by saying that he has sent especially for them, and for no others, because of their loyalty to Laios, Oidipous, and Oidipous' children, for after his death they had remained with Eteokles and Polyneikes "with constant sentiments." Now that the sons of Oidipous are dead, he, Kreon, is the rightful king — he proves to the elders that his own rule is legitimate (lines 170—174). The following passage (lines 175—184) is an indirect and tactful invitation to the elders to cooperate with him; it implies a request for candid advice. These lines clearly refer both to him and to the elders, and set forth the new relationship between them. Kreon is as yet untried as a ruler, which he openly admits, as others have noted too, with a paraphrase of Bias' well known aphorism "power reveals the man" (the saying is variously attributed to Bias and to Solon; see Podlecki 361 n. 7, and Calder 399 n. 45). Kreon says: "But it is impossible to know the soul, the sentiment, and the intellect of any man before he has been tested in executive and legislative office." On the other hand, Kreon has not as yet had occasion to test the abilities and the sentiments of the council of elders; their new relationship is as yet untried, but the king presumably will require their advice, particularly in legislation (nomoisin). That lines 175—177 apply both to Kreon and the chorus is apparent also from the repetition of the word phronema in line 176, which Kreon had earlier (line 169) used of the loyalty of the elders towards his predecessors. Kreon's next four lines (178 — 181) also refer, I believe, to both Kreon and the chorus, and again appeal for help and advice: "since we have had no occasion as yet to work together, therefore (gar) now we who are at the helm should not keep silent from fear, but should seize the best counsels." The use of the generalizing hostis shows that the words do not apply to Kreon alone, but to the elders as well. This is also true of the verb euthyno in line 178. The word is usually

86

that are remarkable he lays before them the principles by which he means to govern, admitting frankly that the touchstone of those principles and of his own worth as a man and ruler will be the manner in which he discharges the duties of his office. 1 3 5 Kreon is a patriot in the best sense of the word. That man is worthless, he declares, who puts friends above country or who has enemies of the state as his friends. 136 He understands the importance of the state as the custodian of civilized life: "I know that the state is our preserver," he tells the chorus. 137 And so he is most anxious for the welfare of his land, and has the best intentions for it: "with these principles I shall make the country flourish." 138 As his military victory has just shown, Kreon is also energetic and decisive. Above all, he has the courage of his convictions. Courageously and without hesitation he announces to the elders his decision to bury Eteokles, and to deny burial to Polyneikes. 139 He makes this decision even though he knows full well that such a denial will be repugnant to many of his subjects, 140 that his reign is new, and his position on the and correctly translated as " t o direct." However, it does not apply to Kreon alone, as all commentators think. J ebb noticed the difficulty that arises if the word refers to Kreon only; he speaks (ad loc.) of " t h e compression of the t h o u g h t " which "slightly obscures the connection." Podlecki puts it bluntly: "Kreon seems for the moment to have forgotten that he now 'directs' the s t a t e " (361). But Kreon has done nothing of the sort. Euthyno is a " l o a d e d " word. It is the technical term for the activity of the Athenian euthynoi, inspectors who, particularly in the f i f t h century, examined the conduct of all Athenian officials holding public office. See Pierart 526—573. With this word Kreon is virtually encouraging the chorus to examine his conduct as a ruler. The double reference of these lines to b o t h Kreon and the chorus of elders is finally demonstrated b y lines 184ff: "I would not be silent, if I saw disaster ahead . . . . " That is to say, " d o as I would do, were I in your place, and speak u p . " Ehrenberg too thinks that Kreon seeks good advice in this passage (67): "In den Grundsätzen, die König Kreon in seiner ersten Rede sowie in weiteren Aussprüchen verkündet, zeigt er, daß er die Prinzipien des Herrschers ernst nimmt: er will sich guten Ratschlägen nicht verschließen, Staat und Vaterland gehen ihm über alles . . . . " 13S Lines 175—177. See the preceding note. »3« Lines 1 8 2 - 1 8 3 and lines 1 8 9 - 1 9 0 . 137

Line 189. I do not see why Kreon must be anticipating Perikles with this thought, as Podlecki 363 and Ehrenberg 147 assert. Even if this were true, how does it increase our understanding of the play? One should not try to look for historical persons behind the figures of literature. »8 Line 191. »39 Lines 1 9 4 - 2 0 4 . 140 The attitude of the elders is ambiguous. Kreon presumably is aware of Antigone's opposition; and he indicates in lines 182—183 and 189—190 that he has enemies.

87

throne not yet entirely secure. 141 And so he is apprehensive and suspicious. He suspects that there are secret plotters in the land who are using bribery to undermine the foundations of his government. It does not really matter much whether the king's suspicions are justified or not. The dramatist has introduced the theme of bribery into his play to point up the quality of Kreon's statemanship: as any statesman worthy of the name the king knows that, next to civil war, the greatest peril for a state is the cancer of corruption. 142 But it is not base and selfish motives that lead Kreon to doubt the loyalty of his subjects and to accuse them of venality. His sole concern is for the safety and preservation of a land of which fate has just made him the keeper and custodian. 143 Kreon's good intentions for Thebes are matched by his strong will and his iron resolution. They are qualities which border on the stubborn and on the obstinate. But without them no man ever ruled a state. To the defense of his principles and prejudices Kreon summons every resource of conduct, oratory and dialectic. Holding to his own convictions, steering always by the same stars, he diverges from his course only so far as is inevitable under the thrust of adverse winds. His is a passion long, slow, unyielding. Neither the opinion of his people nor their growing opposition can overcome his central will or rupture his sense of duty.

1« Lines 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 , 2 9 3 - 3 0 3 , 3 1 0 - 3 1 2 . Cf MacKay 170: "Kreon has been in power less than twenty-four hours, and already a formidable, though anonymous, opposition movement has sprung up, literally overnight." 1« Lines 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 , 2 9 3 - 3 0 3 , 3 1 0 - 3 1 2 , 3 2 4 - 3 2 6 , 1 0 3 7 - 1 0 3 9 , 1 0 4 5 - 1 0 4 7 , 1055, 1061. MacKay 170 remarks that the theme of bribery is unnecessary, and that Sophocles makes no attempt to tie it into the action of the play. But the bribery motif certainly is part and parcel of the dramatic action. To begin with it reveals Kreon as a ruler who is aware of the danger of corruption for a political order. The king cannot understand that the gods have had a hand in the burial of Polyneikes. He must therefore believe that a human being — one of his subjects — has disobeyed his edict by covering the dead man with dust. The transgressor can have acted f r o m two motives only: piety or the hope for material gain. But the king firmly believes that piety requires that the dead Polyneikes receive no burial. He therefore does not even consider the motive of piety. There remains only the motive of gain. Logically and consistently with his belief Kreon seizes u p o n bribery to explain the violation of his edict. Given his convictions, Kreon cannot come to another conclusion. In each and every passage, therefore, Kreon's insistence upon bribery signifies that he has not recognized the true will of the gods. Here is the reason why, as J e n s 298 puts it, the word for gain, kerdos, "runs through the play like a red clew," and why Kreon alleges that the " d o e r " of the first burial, the guard, and Teiresias have taken bribes. 143

Cf. MacKay 169: "Kreon . . . . is a politician for whom salus populi is suprema lex."

88

Kreon, in short, has all the qualities requisite for those who guide permanent societies. 144 But Kreon has yet another quality. It is his profound piety. His reverence for the gods is vast, his devotion to them endless. At every turn he calls upon his gods, most of all on Zeus. He has unbounded faith in their presence and in their power. Kreon is religious to the very depth of his being — he is perhaps the most pious ruler in the annals of literature. 145 There are some critics who regard Kreon as a blasphemous and godless tyrant. 1 4 6 But this is a simplifying and superficial view. It is true that Kreon says some things in the course of the tragedy which constitute, if not outright blasphemy, at any rate something very close to it. Thus, in lines 486—489 the king declares that even if Antigone is his sister's child, and nearer to him in blood than any who worship Zeus at the altar of his house, still she and her sister shall not avoid a most terrible fate. There is no denying that this violent threat, amounting to an oath in the name of Zeus, borders upon sacrilege and blasphemy. One could say that with this pronouncement Kreon is on his way to becoming a religious fanatic of a rather repugnant type. 1 4 7 But worse is yet to come. The word xynaimos which Kreon uses of Ismene in this speech recurs in a later passage as an epithet of Zeus (lines 658—659). Let Antigone appeal to Zeus Xynaimos as much as she will, says Kreon there; I shall kill her nonetheless. Here the blasphemy is, if anything, even stronger than in the former passage. 1 4 8 Perhaps the most outrageous misuse of Zeus' name occurs in lines 1040— 1044. There Kreon utters some words which are not entirely without 1 4 4 Most of this paragraph is a slightly abridged characterization of Arthur J a m e s Balfour from the pen of Winston Churchill (Churchill 193). I have quoted it here in this fashion in order to illustrate the supreme ability of the great playwright to capture human character und human conduct for all times. I do not mean to suggest with this quotation that Kreon is a "pure t y p e " (MacKay 171), but only that similar circumstances will sometimes mold the character of human beings in a similar way. 1 « Lines 162ff; 184; 199; 282; 288; 304; 487; 6 5 8 - 6 5 9 ; 758; 777; 1 0 4 1 - 1 0 4 4 . M6 Whitman 9 0 - 9 1 ; Müller 1 2 - 1 3 , and passim; Podlecki 3 5 9 - 3 6 4 ; Ehrenberg 68: "Dieser Staatsabsolutismus kulminiert in der Blasphemie Kreons, daß nicht einmal die Möglichkeit einer Entweihung des Himmels ihn davon abhalten wird, das zu tun, was er für richtig hält." Bultmann 315 thinks that Kreon considers the divine nature of kingship as self-evident and self-understood, and therefore takes it for granted; while at the same time Kreon "gerade wenn er sein Amt als göttliches verficht, die Ehre der Götter mit Füßen tritt." 1 4 7 Cf. Müller 103 who calls this pronouncement "eine lästerliche Ubertreibung." 1 4 8 Müller 164: "die Gotteslästerung in dessen Wendung bleibt bei solcher Interpretation erhalten, sie ist genau dieselbe wie 4 8 6 f f . "

89

difficulty: "You shall not hide that man in a tomb, not even if the eagles of Zeus should want to carry off his corpse as food to the throne of Zeus. I would not give him up for burial in fear of even that pollution. For I well know that no human being can defile the gods." Kreon's assertion that no man can defile the gods is in open defiance of the Greeks' ordinary religious sensibility. Moreover there is something cruel and gruesome in the image of the eagles' feeding on carrion in the presence of Zeus; at the very least this image is an insult to the god to whom Kreon is otherwise so much devoted. 1 4 9 These, it is true, are sacrilegious utterances, and they do suggest that there is something wrong with Kreon's piety. But it is most important to observe that Kreon says these lines towards the middle and the end of the play, and not at its beginning. Clearly there has been development, or rather regress, here; Kreon's piety has undergone a change for the worse. It is paradoxical but nevertheless true that his faith — his unshakable conviction that the gods are with him — has almost perverted Kreon's piety. For Kreon comes to take the deity for granted. Certain of his righteousness towards the gods, and confident that they reciprocate the good will and the service that he has given them, Kreon, as Sophokles portrays him, slowly moves towards that fatal predicament, excess. It is the predicament of the strong but self-willed and stubborn human being who is convinced that right is on his side, and therefore defends his position against all comers with ever growing powers of resistance. With a sure touch the tragic poet has put his finger on a human failing not entirely unknown in ordinary life. Gradually but inexorably, Kreon is forced to the perception that more and more of his subjects are opposing his edict against the dead Polyneikes. Yet, the 149

In a discussion of line 1232 in Euripides' Hercules Furens, "being a mere mortal man, you cannot pollute what is the gods" (ta ton theon), Wilamowitz 459—460 pointed out that the sentiment expressed in this line runs counter to an older, more orthodox attitude embedded in popular tradition. According to this older tradition human impurity and pollution could indeed taint the gods and the divine elements of nature when they came in touch with them. Wilamowitz cites Hipp. Morb. Sacr. 4.53—60 as a good example of the older view, and remarks that Sophocles, who accepts and follows it, deliberately puts lines 1043—1044 of the Antigone in Kreon's mouth in order to show that the king is blaspheming. All this is quite correct (cf. Soph. OT 1424—1431 for another example of Sophokles' belief). However, the modern Euripidean attitude was considerably older than the date of the Hercules Furens (performed ca. 417 BC). The controversy whether or not men can pollute the gods was in full swing at the end of the sixth century, when Herakleitos maintained, in opposition to Hesiod and Pythagoras, that the gods were present at the privy, or the kitchen stove, i.e., that they could not be tainted by any human pollution at all. See the discussion of ipnos infra; cf. Ehrenberg 68.

90

more this opposition grows, the less Kreon can comprehend the reasons for it. Again and again he summons the gods as witnesses to his righteousness. But to no avail. Incomprehending, alone, and disbelieved in his protestations about the will of the gods, Kreon finally is driven to take their names in vain and, in fact, to abuse them. But all this happens later in the play. At the beginning Kreon's religious sense is whole and unimpaired. From the outset his piety informs his conduct as king. F o r him the gods alone are the keepers of his country's fate. His first words upon the stage are: "My friends, the very gods who shook the state with mighty surge have set it straight a g a i n . " l s 0 The gods, Kreon believes, reside in the cities of mankind, and the laws of the gods are the laws of men. The church is the state. Kreon is certain that he must refuse burial to Polyneikes, and he is sure that the gods are on his side. And why not? With the gods' help he has just won a great victory and with it a bloody war. F r o m the gods' shrines he has just driven back a man, who, as he says, came to burn the gods' pillared temples, to plunder their dedications and their land, and to break apart their laws. Polyneikes, like the Persians, had attacked the gods. Kreon, like the Athenians on the Acropolis, had defended them. Such is the character of Kreon, and such is his achievement. To this king, possessed of such certainties, holding such convictions and beliefs, 1 5 0 Lines 162—163 as translated by Elizabeth Wyckoff. All critics pass lightly over such clear evidence for Kreon's deep religiosity, and instead stress over and over again one or two passages where Kreon's piety appears to be disintegrating. They cite most of all lines 1 0 4 3 — 1 0 4 4 , " I know that no mortal being can pollute the gods." But it must be remembered that even this sentiment was not completely impious and blasphemous, and that it represented an alternate theological point of view which was not entirely disreputable, and went back to the late sixth century. See the preceding note.

Because o f their inability to see Kreon's fundamental piety the critics have failed to comprehend the central theme of the Antigone, a theme that is essentially religious, since in the play the fate of the royal house, and thus o f the state, is determined by the king's relationship with the gods. The play is the tragedy o f a pious man who wants to be a good ruler, but who cannot understand his own gods and their will and purpose, and so brings his family, his kingship, and himself to grief and ruin. The wrongheaded interpretations are legion, and are present in the pages of otherwise most perceptive and sensible scholars. Thus, for example, Ehrenberg 6 8 : " . . . (Kreons) 'politische' Position ist hauptsächlich dadurch gekennzeichnet, daß er in einer Welt lebt, die nicht nur der Welt Antigones fremd und feindlich gegenübersteht, sondern auch die religiöse Grundlage des Staats außer acht läßt. Religiöse Pflichten stehen für ihn erst an zweiter Stelle . . . . " For a similar but somewhat milder view see Bultmann 24.

91

the gods must signify that he is wrong. T w i c e in the course o f t h e play the gods bring t o pass miracles with which they hint t o K r e o n t h a t he must relent and bury Polyneikes. T w i c e the king fails to grasp the meaning o f the signs from heaven. 1 5 1 When finally the blind Teiresias, t o rid the state o f sacrilege and o f pollution, enlightens K r e o n , and the king agrees t o bury his enemy, it is far t o o late. T h e terrible calamity against which the gods had warned him breaks u p o n t h e king of Thebes, overwhelms his family, and with t h e m K r e o n himself. The signs o f the gods are plain for K r e o n to see if he only cared and tried t o see them. The same guard r e p o r t s b o t h warnings t o K r e o n , and he reports t h e m in great and graphic detail. The first r e p o r t that the guard gives t o K r e o n is c r o w d e d with allusions and suggestions, hints and even straightforward declarations, that a miracle — in fact several miracles — has happened. S o m e o n e had very recently buried the b o d y . Unseen by all, this u n k n o w n being had covered the dead Polyneikes with dust, then he had p e r f o r m e d t h e p r o p e r and necessary rites, and had walked a w a y . 1 5 2 T h e ground was hard and dry, showing n o stroke of m a t t o c k o r o f p i c k a x e ; and n o earth had been t h r o w n up. T h e r e 151 The miraculous signs from the gods are the so-called first and second burials of Polyneikes. The search for an explanation of these two "problems" has "caused an enormous amount of printer's ink to be spilled. I shall not try the reader's patience with a review of the solutions, ranging from the naive to the supercilious, that have been excogitated to account for these two events in the play. It is, however, indicative of the quality of scholarship being done in this field that the author of the bibliographical essay on Sophokles, Johansen (186), could say of these two episodes, which are the heart and soul of the Antigone, "with quite an incredible enthusiasm several scholars still discuss the uninteresting question of the double burial."

On the double burial critical opinion is divided into two main camps, although there is of course the inevitable middle ground as well. Much the larger group of writers holds that Antigone performed both the first and second burials without any aid, human or divine. A much smaller group, writing in English and represented by Adams and most recently by McCall, argues that the gods, or a god, have performed the first burial only. I believe that the interpretation of these two critics is correct, although it does not go far enough, and suffers from an even greater weakness: although both argue for divine intervention, neither provides any cogent explanation for that intervention. Both fail to understand that with their miracles the gods want to help Kreon, who is their pious and devoted servant. A third candidate, Ismene, has also been proposed as the performer of the first burial, but no one has taken this suggestion seriously. No one has yet argued that Kreon or Haimon or the guard or the chorus buried Polyneikes. For bibliographies of scholarly work on the problem of the two burials, see Johansen 186, Calder 3 9 4 - 3 9 8 , McCall 1 0 3 - 1 0 6 . 152 Lines 2 4 5 - 2 4 7 .

92

were no tracks of wheels. The doer had left no footprints or any other trace of his presence and of his work. 1 5 3 All this had happened during the night. 1 5 4 Early the next morning the first watchman of the day, arriving to relieve the sentries of the night, pointed out these remarkable facts to them. When the nightwatchmen saw what had happened, wonder and amazement seized them, for they beheld a body that had become invisible without being underground, but merely covered with a fine, light dust. More wonderful still, there were no signs at all of any beasts of prey or dogs to whose voracity the dead Polyneikes had been cast away before the walls of Thebes. 1 5 5 Surprised and frightened the guards accused and reviled each other, until they nearly came to blows. Each one of them denied knowledge and complicity in the deed. They offered to submit to an ordeal by fire. They were prepared to swear by the gods that they were not privy to the planning and the doing. At length they saw no other choice but to report the event to their commander-in-chief. All were terrified at the prospect of facing Kreon. So they chose lots, and sent one of their number to the king. 156 From the very first the guard maintains to Kreon that he and his fellows are ignorant and innocent of the deed. 1 5 7 From his obviously truthful and honest testimony the chorus draw the only reasonable conclusion: the burial of Polyneikes has been the work of the gods. 158 At once Kreon retorts upon the chorus with intemperate and abusive language. But the vehemence of his rebuke almost seems to betray a dark foreboding in Kreon's mind that the chorus may after all be right. 159 After his harangue to the chorus, Kreon turns his threats and abuse upon the unfortunate soldier. In response the guard makes a timid at»53 Lines 2 4 9 - 2 5 2 . ls4 I consider that McCall 108—110 has demonstrated once and for all that the prologue takes place at daybreak, that Polyneikes was first buried during the night, and that the first "daywatchman" made the discovery, and told the night watch about it. 15S Lines 253—258. The extraordinary, inexplicable, in short, miraculous here is so self-evident as to require no further comment. Cf. Adams 1 5 1 . Note too the "divine" words thauma and agos. The argument that the presence of the word agos (256) is inconsistent with divine agency has been met by McCall 111. Another signpost to the gods' hand is the strong antithesis tymberes men ou, lepte de which conveys two empirical observations that are contradictory: the body is not entombed but covered only with light dust, yet it is completely invisible. »56 Lines 2 5 9 - 2 7 7 . 157 Lines 2 3 8 - 2 4 0 ; 249, 2 6 2 - 2 6 3 , 2 6 5 - 2 6 6 , 321. iss Lines 2 7 8 - 2 7 9 . 1S9 Lines 2 8 0 - 2 8 4 .

93

tempt to discover what the king has in mind to do with him. Is Kreon going to punish him because he suspects him to be an accomplice in a plot to bury the dead man? Or is the king merely irritated with him because he happened to bring bad news? These are the questions that the guard expects to have answered when he says to Kreon "did I offend your ears or your spirit?" The words mean nothing more than "are you merely irritated by my report, and will you therefore let me off easily, since I had nothing to do with the burial? Or are you so angry with me, because you suspect me of complicity in the crime, as to punish m e ? " When the distracted Kreon replies harshly "what business of yours is it where I h u r t ? " the guard's next line leaves no doubt that he is looking for an escape: "the doer offends your mind, but I (being only the reporter of the deed) offend your ears." 1 6 0 The soldier is simply trying to avoid the terrible blow which he expects from Kreon at any moment. It is fear and the wish to save himself that cause him to say these two lines to Kreon. 1 6 1 In his anxiety the soldier speaks akwardly and clumsily; but he certainly is not trying to be irreverent or light-hearted with his chief. Yet this is precisely what most critics maintain. A scene in which a relatively unimportant character speaks sixty-two lines, apparently to no significant dramatic purpose, requires an explanation. The critics therefore have spared no effort to remedy this dramaturgical " d e f e c t " in Sophokles' play. Most of them are content to write this honest soldier off as a comical figure who is also none too bright. Thus Müller speaks of the guard's joke, which, though delivered by a "banal messenger," hides some very deep meaning. Kitto too thinks it natural to "call this man a comic, or at least a subcomic character." Lesky finds the guard "delightful," and also a "sly, garrulous old man of low birth and mean intelligence." Other writers, Kirkwood for example, assert that the guard acts as a foil to reveal the character of Kreon. 1 6 2 The critics, I submit, have gravely misunderstood the meaning and purpose of the entire scene. There really is nothing comical in all the words that the man says. It is not a sign of "mean intelligence" to try to save

i«> Lines 3 1 5 - 3 1 9 . 161 That the guard is trying to save himself has been noticed, e.g. by Jens 46. 162 Müller 63. Kitto 1 5 2 - 1 5 3 . Lesky 104. Kirkwood 123. I cannot understand why Lesky thinks that the guard must be an old man. Cf. lines 215—217: Kreon: Chorus: Kreon: In line 281

94

Be guardians of my decree. Give the task to younger men. There are already guards to watch the corpse. the appellation geron is addressed to the chorus, not to the guard.

oneself, even with slyness. The guard is not old, but young, for no sensible commander would station an old man to keep watch, particularly at night. There is no evidence whatsoever that the guard acts as "foil" to the character of Kreon. Would any dramatist worthy of the name assign sixty-two lines to a secondary character in order (a) to portray a comic figure or to provide a foil, and (b) to let him explain that he and his fellow soldiers are innocent and ignorant of the causes and circumstances of an event? Would Sophokles in particular choose to do this? Nor is the guard garrulous. To suppose that he is spouting off words and phrases merely to fill the time as befits an old man is fantastic and incredible. Sophokles makes him speak the way he does in order to impart to his tale, strange and terrifying itself, an even larger degree of wonder and awe. The guard's speech reveals perplexity and doubt, fear and terror. He is utterly puzzled and bewildered by a series of events which he has witnessed with his own eyes, but which pass his comprehension. He has no rational explanation for these events except his own knowledge that he had no part in them. He and his colleagues had conscientiously kept watch all through the night, yet, in spite of their vigilance, the body had been buried. The accident of the lot is forcing him to confront his general and to explain to him an occurrence which is inexplicable. He therefore awaits a charge of dereliction of duty, and fears punishment for it. It is small wonder that he hesitates and wavers. He stops to think things over, and is tempted to go back. His judgment counsels against proceeding, but then it occurs to him that punishment awaits him in any case, and he goes on, resigned to his fate. 1 6 3 Surely the dramatist had something entirely different in mind when he wrote this speech than to portray slyness or garrulity or humor. I submit that his purpose here was to create and then to heighten a mood of unreality, of awe, and of fear before the unknown and the supernatural. Sophokles, in short, is making the guard say, without putting it in so many words, that the gods have spoken — they have buried Polyneikes. Exactly the same dramatic purpose is apparent in the passage where the guard reports to Kreon in great and vivid detail the behavior of his fellow watchmen. The critics who defend the characterization thesis are universally silent on the function of these lines. But one might well put the question to them: did Sophokles intend to make the other guards into foil for the character of Kreon as well? Or are they too supposed to be humorous, garrulous, and sly? Surely such suppositions would be patent absurdities. The truth can only be that the tragedian is summon1« See lines 2 2 5 - 2 3 0 , 231, 234, 2 3 8 - 2 3 9 , 243.

95

ing these guards as additional witnesses for the intervention of the gods. Like their colleague, the other guards are utterly uncomprehending, and equally puzzled and bewildered. Sophokles takes great pains to tell us that the whole detachment of guards shares the ignorance of their colleague: they disclaim knowledge of the deed; they offer to submit to an ordeal by fire, and to take oaths by the gods. Their ignorance and frustration become evident in yet another way. Unable to account for the burial, the guards at first suspect that one of them may be responsible for the deed. In their unsuccessful attempt to fix the blame on one of their numbers they abuse each other, nearly coming to blows. With fine psychological insight the poet brings out a common and unpleasant human failing which comes to the surface precisely under circumstances such as these, when blame and responsibility cannot be assigned to anyone. It is the desire to find a scapegoat, and so evade punishment. In this they are not successful; they recognize that "every man was the culprit, and no one was convicted, but all disclaimed the knowledge of the deed." It now becomes clear to them that the matter must be reported to the king, their commander-in-chief; a course of action that is not uncommon, especially in military life: let the commander wrestle with the really great difficulties. The guards stand in mortal fear of what Kreon will do to them for having failed to carry out his orders. Once again the dramatist brings up the theme of fear. From fear the guards cast lots to determine who will bear the brunt of Kreon's wrath; and it is in fear and trepidation that the man who drew the lot betakes himself to Kreon. 1 6 4 The entire guard-scene, then, has the purpose of informing Kreon that something most unusual has happened. All the evidence is there, and it is all meant for Kreon. But the king, upset and preoccupied as he is with the staggering blow to his authority, does not stop to consider the meaning of the startling facts which his soldier lays before him. At length the chorus, his faithful allies and counsellors, seeing that their master will not or cannot comprehend the significance of the guard's report, hint at the truth with cautious words: the burial may have been the work of the gods. 165 But the king rejects the chorus' explanaI « Lines 2 5 9 - 2 7 6 . 165 Lines 278—279: ϋναξ, έμοί τοι, μή τι και ΰζήλατονIrovpyou τόδ' ή ζύννοια βουXeuet πάλαι. McCall 112 aptly says of these lines: "every word in the first verse is trifling until the last, which is strong, and is made even more so by its position both metrical and rhetorical." Calder's argument against divine agency in the first burial (Calder 395): "no audience would expect a god and everything depends on but a single word, theelaton, spoken in rapid dialogue," is so naive as to require no refutation.

96

tion of the night's events, even as he had earlier refused to dwell upon the events themselves. 166 Nor is this all. There is yet another circumstance that escapes Kreon's notice. It is the fact that the strange burial of Polyneikes had happened during the night, and was revealed to the watchmen at daybreak on the following morning. The belief that supernatural and miraculous events happen at night, and are revealed on the following morning was so widespread in antiquity that Sophokles could take his audience's knowledge of it for granted. One need only call to mind the practice of incubation to get an idea of the electrifying effect upon the audience when the guard narrated the discovery, at daybreak, of the buried corpse. 167 It was, furthermore, not only in the sphere of healing and incubation that miracles occurred at night. Sophokles' audience was well aware of the miracle of Athena's olive tree on the Acropolis, just forty years before. The charred stump sprouted its shoot overnight, and the Athenians who went up to the citadel at the behest of Xerxes observed the new shoot on the very next day, as Herodotos informs us. The belief that miracles happen during the night was ancient in Greece. In the Homeric Hymn the goddess Demeter attempted the wonder of milking Demophoon immortal at night — an example of a nocturnal miracle from the foundation myth of the Eleusinian mysteries with which the Athenians once again surely were quite familiar. Outside of Greece but still within the region of the eastern Mediterranean there is the miraculous interference of the Lord in Egypt: "and the Lord brought an east wind upon the land all that day, and all that night, and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts." Again, God destroyed the army of 166 Lines 282—283: λέγεις yap οϋκ ανεκτά δαίμονας Xijcov / πρόνοιαν ϊσχεα> τούδε τοϋ νεκρού ττέρι. Cf. McCall 113, and Adams II 48. It is most revealing of Kreon's piety that in rejecting the chorus' suggestion "the gods may have brought this about" Kreon refuses to repeat the word theos which is present in the chorus' term theelaton. Instead Kreon uses the word daimon. Daimon in this sense is another of the many intentional Homeric usages found often in tragedy. From Homer downwards daimon ranks lower than theos (Nilsson GGrR 216—217); and both in Homer and in tragedy it may signify the worst kind of divinely appointed fate, death (Renehan, Lexic. Notes 59). In Homer, if a god's "intervention is harmful, he is usually called daimon, not theos" (Dodds 23). Kreon is shocked at the chorus' suggestion that the gods may have buried the body; he cannot conceive that they would do such a thing for a man who has sinned against them, and so he immediately demotes the alleged supernatural agents to daimones. 167 See Dodds 112—116; especially 114: "in the morning those who had been favored with the god's nocturnal visitation told their experiences." Cf. Renehan, "Hera" 200, who stresses that chthonic deities, who were most commonly associated with oracles, were approached at night.

7 J o r d a n ( H y p . 55)

97

the Assyrians before Jerusalem during the night: "and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses . . . " It is possible too — in fact it is quite likely — that the episode of Juno's sacred geese in Livy takes place at night precisely in order to point up the intercession of the gods on behalf of Rome. 168 Against this background of beliefs current for centuries in antiquity, the purpose of Sophokles stands out clearly. Sophokles places the opening scene of his play early in the morning in order to make it plain to all, his audience, and above all to Kreon, that the gods have miraculously intervened in the fate of Thebes and her ruler. But Kreon fails to recognize even a hint as obvious as this. The gods, therefore, make one more attempt to set the king of Thebes on the right and truly pious course of action. They perform a second miracle, once again hinting at the decent act, once again giving Kreon a chance to discover the real will of the gods, and to act accordingly. The gods tip their hand again in the scene beginning with line 384. The same guard who had earlier reported the miraculous concealment of the body by an unseen hand reappears before the king. Once again he is bringing a report to Kreon that Polyneikes has been buried for the second time. But this time the guard is not afraid. There had been no casting of lots. The guard comes before Kreon gladly and freely, for now he can redeem himself: he is bringing in the culprit, caught in the act, and along with her a precise account of her deed. At his back he has his fellow-guards as witnesses to the event. The guards had swept the corpse clean of dust. This time they took no chances. Sitting down to windward to avoid its smell they took all care >68 The olive tree: Hdt. 8.55. Demophon: h.Cer. 2 3 9 - 2 4 0 . The locusts: Exodus 10.13. The Assyrian army: II Kings 19.32ff. The geese on the Capitol: Livy 5.47. Cf. also Exodus 9.5—6: "And the Lord appointed a set time, saying tomorrow the Lord shall do this thing in the land. And the Lord did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died . . . " and Exodus 12.29: "And it came to pass that at midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt " Another example comes from Magna Graecia. In 2 0 4 B.C. the ambassadors of Locri declared before the Roman senate that Persephone in a miraculous nocturnal uttering had promised them the safety of her temple's treasury: "maiores quondam nostri gravi Crotonensium bello, quia extra urbem templum est, transferre in urbem earn pecuniam voluerunt. Noctu audita est ex delubro vox, abstinerent manus: deam sua templa defensuram. (Livy 29.18.16). Cf. the story from Argos, which Roussel 105 mentions: at some unknown time Apollo had driven out Pleistarchos, Cassander's brother, from Argos during the night; ever since a perennial sacrifice was celebrated "from the time when Apollo drove Pleistarchos out at night."

98

to let no one come near the body. It was daytime. Nevertheless they kept each other alert and watchful with threats. The guards watched the corpse of Polyneikes until midday. But at high noon a whirlwind suddenly arose and raised a duststorm from the ground. It was a trouble sent from heaven. The duststorm engulfed the plain, killing its vegetation, and filled the wide bright sky. Protected and invisible within the cloud of dust, Antigone approached the corpse, covered it with dry earth, and poured libations upon it. 169 In this scene of the "second burial" occurs the second miracle with which the gods hint to Kreon that he must relent and bury Polyneikes. Not only are the events that the guard relates miraculous, but the passage bristles with words whose assonances and allusions reveal the presence and the purpose of the gods: 415 χρόνον τάδ' ήν τοσούτον, εστ εν αίϋέρι μέσω κατέστη λαμπρός ηλίου κύκλος και καϋμ εάαλπε- και τότ έξαίφνης χΰονός τυφώς άείρας σκηπτόν, ούράνων αχός, πίμπλησι πεδίον, πασαν αίκίξων φόβην 420 ύλης πεδιάδος, εν δ' έμεστώ&η μέ^ας αίΰήρ· μύσαντες δ' ειχομεν ϋείαν νόσον και τοϋδ' άπαλλαγέντος έν χρόνω μακρώ, ή παις όραται Jebb noticed the Homeric echo in these lines — Zeus deciding against the Greeks at high noon in the Iliad.170 But there are also Hesiodic echoes here: Aither (lines 415 and 421), chthon, a synonym for Gaia, (line 417), and ouranion achos (line 418) which calls to mind Uranos. These are names of great and ancient deities, evoking the Theogony of Hesiod, and no one in the audience could have failed to associate them with the story of the world's creation in Hesiod (Theogony 124— 127). But it is above all the words chthonos typhos, having the emphatic positions at the end and at the beginning of their verses (lines 417—418), Lines 3 8 8 - 4 4 0 . Jebb 84 on Antigone lines 416ff. cites Iliad 8.66ff. See also Hor. Carm. 1.34, lines 5ff. (the exact opposite of Lucr. De Rer. Nat. 6.99, 6 . 2 4 7 - 2 4 8 ) . McCall, who makes a very strong case for the gods' intercession in the first burial, is reluctant to argue divine participation in the second, even though the evidence of the lines and his own better judgment incline him to do so: "This paper in no way argues divine participation in the second burial. But in light of the mystery of the first burial, the guard's language describing the dust storm, ouranion achos (418) and theian noson (421) surely suggests the continuing force of the gods in the play" (115, n. 38). It is interesting, and perhaps significant, that skeptos is used elsewhere in a political sense of dust storms which (metaphorically) come upon the state, as for instance in Eur. Andr. 1 0 4 5 - 1 0 4 6 , and Dem. 18.194. 17 °

99

w h i c h m o s t clearly reveal the tragic p o e t ' s purpose in this passage. T h e hurricane that raised the dust storm also signifies T y p h o n the offspring of Earth w h o m Zeus d e f e a t e d in the Theogony, and so preserved the order o f the world and his o w n rule over it. 1 7 1 Zeus is present in these lines. He sends the whirlwind and the c l o u d of dust t o help A n t i g o n e and t o warn Kreon. T h e enveloping and protective c l o u d is the clearest p r o o f for the presence o f the gods, for it is the standard s y m b o l for their helping hand. There are n u m e r o u s examples of an enveloping c l o u d w h i c h the gods send t o help and p r o t e c t those w h o m t h e y favor; and t h e y c o m e f r o m nearly all ages and all parts of the ancient w o r l d . 1 7 2 I cite o n e such e x a m p l e , the closest in time t o the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the Antigone; it is the c l o u d of dust that Demaratos and Dikaios observed 1 o n the plain of Thria; the story is in H e r o d o t o s . A f t e r the evacuation of Attica, says H e r o d o t o s , w h e n the Persian troops were devastating the countryside, Dikaios and Demaratos were in the 171

Hesiod, Theogony 820—885. In his note on these lines J e b b remarked that "the incident of the storm was a dramatic necessity, to account for Antigone reaching the corpse unobserved. A powerful picture is compressed into seven lines" (Jebb 84). But surely in the strict economy of an ancient play "a powerful picture of seven lines" is much more than a mere mechanical stage device. Certainly Sophokles' Athenian audience was thoroughly familiar with Zeus' combat with Typhon, one of the two "most momentous of all dragon combats for the ancient Greeks — those which two great gods, Zeus and Apollo, fought with Typhon and Python at peril of their sovereignty and their very lives" (Fontenrose 2). Sophokles' choice of typhos for the hurricane is most appropriate in every way, for from Typhoeus came "boisterous winds, which blow damply . . . " (Theogony 869); and "Zeus and Typhon are equally the senders of storms. In general destructive and violent storms, hurricanes, and the like were attributed to the enemy, the beneficent rains and winds to the champion. Yet Zeus sent bad storms, when he wished, as well as good" (Fontenrose 472). 172 There is, for instance, the cloud of fog and mist that Zeus Panamaros placed between the aggressors and the god's defenders which caused some of the attackers to wound and kill each other, Roussel 70—80. Roussel has collected a number of other similar examples, chiefly from warfare, in his article. Other random examples are Homer, II. 3.380—381, where Aphrodite rescues Paris from the duel with Menelaos by wrapping him in a cloud; a few lines further Aphrodite leads Helen unseen through the crowd of women (II. 3.419—420). In the Argonautica of Apollonios Rhodios 3.210—213 Hera makes possible the heroes' progress by means of a cloud; cf. A. R. Argon. 4.648. In the Old Testament, especially in Exodus, "cloud and fire have become traditional ways of expressing god's presence and guidance" (Oxford Bible 84). See Exodus 13.21: "And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light;" and Exodus 19.9: "And the Lord said to Moses: Lo, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you forever." The biblical examples are many: Exodus 33.9—11; 34.5; 40.34—38; / Kings 1 0 - 1 1 . 100

plain of Thria, where they noticed a cloud of dust large enough to have been raised by thirty thousand marching men. Voices issued from this cloud of dust, and the cry of Iakkhos was heard from it. The cloud of dust rose high into the air and drifted away towards Salamis, where the Greek fleet had assembled. Now Herodotos explains the significance of the miraculous cloud, with words which he puts into the mouth of Dikaios: if the cloud descends upon the Peloponnese, there will be danger for the King and for his land army; but if it moves towards the ships at Salamis, Xerxes may well lose his fleet. While Demaratos was replying to Dikaios "the cloud of dust rose high into the air and drifted away towards Salamis, where the Greek fleet was stationed. By this the two men knew that the naval power of Xerxes was destined to be destroyed. Such was Dikaios' story, and he used to appeal to Demaratos and others to witness the truth of i t . " 1 7 3 This passage should suffice as proof for the miraculous intervention of the gods in the second burial as well. On this occasion the work of the deity is even more palpable than in the first burial. Nor is this the only difference between the two supernatural events. With the first miraculous burial, which they carried out alone and at night, the gods attempted to make Kreon see the error of his ways. In the second burial they repeat this attempt, but now they also signify that Antigone has divine approval for her act, and that they, the gods, have taken her under their protection. Thus the gods are present in the play almost from its very beginning; and their presence and intervention in the fortunes of the two chief characters grow as the action of the play develops. Some critics have censured Sophokles for introducing the gods rather late in the play, with the entrance of Teiresias. Thus, for example, Whitman: "The falling action of the tragedy is not without its puzzle, for with the entrance of Teiresias, presumably, a whole new set of agents appear. These are of course the gods, whose presences are felt in the person of the seer At face value, this seems a little melodramatic, an eleventhhour arrival of rescue." Furthermore, the gods, in Whitman's opinion, are "either malign or hopelessly incompetent" for " b y the time they move, the holocaust of self-destruction has already taken place." 1 7 4 The criticism of a more recent writer, Müller, would be equally damaging if it were not utterly without foundation. Remarking on the "concealed deity" of whom Sophokles speaks, Müller observes that "therefore it remains an insoluble riddle why this god does not come to the aid of his servant Antigone." 1 7 5 »73 Hdt. 8.65. Whitman 94. " s Müller 18. 101

These criticisms, however, are unnecessary, for the gods do, in fact, help their servant Antigone. For that matter, they help Kreon too, and more than once, for he too is their servant, misguided in his service though he is. But the gods can only help by hinting. They cannot do more than that, because if they did, they would have to come down among men and cease to be gods. It is up to man, and especially to the statesman, to take note of the gods' hints, and to interpret them intelligently. But again Kreon pays no heed. Unlike Themistokles, Kreon is a statesman who refuses to take reasonable counsel. And so this play about what constitutes true piety and therefore true statecraft moves to its tragic ending.

102

APPENDIX

Fires Sacred and Profane on the Athenian Acropolis For two reasons the clause in lines 13 to 15 of the Hekatompedon decree " t h e priestesses and the zakoroi must not hipneuesthai," presents exceptional difficulties. The first reason is epigraphical. Only the initial five letters of hipneuesthai are still visible, or partly visible, on the inscription; the aspirate in particular is barely legible, and editors rightly dot it. The restoration therefore cannot be guaranteed, and is a matter of probability. It does, however, fit the spaces in the lacuna; while on the other hand no sense can be gotten from any other restoration. The second difficulty is semantic. Hipneuesthai, if it is the right reading, is a hapax legomenon, occurring only here in a continuous Greek text, and once again in a definition of Hesychios. Its meaning, crucial for the understanding of the whole clause, is uncertain and even obscure. Liddell-Scott-Jones (9th edition) say that it means " t o bake bread in the oven." Dittenberger translated it with " t o prepare meals." 1 7 6 Both translations are partially correct, but do not tell the whole story. Neither explains the fine of one hundred drachmas ordered for the rule's violation. Since there are no other known usages of the verb, we must fall back on the meaning of the more common noun ipnos, of which hipneuesthai is the denominative. The available evidence points to three possible meanings of ipnos, and therefore of hipneuesthai. None of them can be regarded as completely certain, nor can the interpretations depending on them. In what follows I offer all three possibilities for what they are worth, in descending order of their value.

1 7 6 L S J 9 s.v. ipneuo. Dittenberger 473: "Die Frauen, die auf der Burg gottesdienstliche Funktionen ausüben, sollen sich dort keinen Kochherd anlegen, sie sollen Lebensmittel dort weder aufbewahren noch zum Genuß zubereiten." [hipjneuesthai may also be the correct restoration in Sokolowski LSCG No. 57, line 4. But no certainty is possible and the text is too fragmentary to help with the meaning. Dittenberger's interpretation shows why we must restore the middle of the verb in the inscription.

103

I I begin with three definitions of H e s y c h i o s , 1 7 7 which are f u n d a m e n t a l for our understanding of the verb: 1. T o roast: to parch (phrygein) in an ipnos or s o m e sort of vessel. 2. T h e barley was being roasted: it was being parched (ephrygeto) — it was in an ipnos (ipneueto) 3. Roasting: f r o m the verb to roast, which is to parch (phrygein) in an ipnos. The definitions show that the parching was d o n e in an ipnos with dry sticks or faggots (phrygana). Hesychios' information tallies with a passage in Athenaios w h o also speaks of parching in an i p n o s . 1 7 8 N e x t , we learn f r o m Hesychios that the ipnos in question was a vessel or something resembling a vessel. As a matter o f fact, this vessel was a brazier, or what we n o w a d a y s call a hibachi, or barbecue; and there is literary, epigraphical and archaeological evidence establishing this identity bey o n d d o u b t . T h e passages from literature and the inscriptions are somewhat inconclusive. I take them up first. Pollux speaks a b o u t ipnoi in several places of his Lexicon. One of his definitions, coming right after a chapter on parching, explains that " i p n o i and covered earthen vessels (kribanoi) are a part of a kitchen's e q u i p m e n t . " 1 7 9 Pollux mentions ipnoi again in a catalogue containing terms for kindling w o o d , w o o d for small fires, and c h a r c o a l . 1 8 0 T w o m o r e chapters, one on cooking utensils, and one dealing with breadmaking and bread-selling also mention ipnoi. In the first, Pollux lists "kettles, bronzes, clay p o t s , stoves and ipnoi, in which they place burning c h a r c o a l . " In the second chapter a baker is said to have as his utensils a kettle, an ipnos, a baking dish, and a kneading trough. 1 8 1 Of the three inscriptions in which the noun is mentioned, the m o s t important for our purposes is a K o a n inscription f r o m the second century B.C. There an ipnos is mentioned in a list of bloodless offerings of the c u s t o m a r y kind: ipnos, barley, honey, wine, etc. T h e ipnos is new, and along with it the deity receives a weight measure o f faggots (phrygana) and of larger f i r e w o o d . 1 8 2 A n Eleusinian account f r o m 3 2 9 / 8 177 178

Hesych. Lex. s.w. έκοδομεύετο, κοδομεύειν, κοδομή. Ath. 2.54 Α: τά ev τοις ίπΐΌΪς φρι/γόμενα.

ι » Poll. Lex. 10.110. ι«» Poll. Lex. 10.111. « ι Poll. Lex. 6 . 8 8 - 8 9 ; 7 . 2 1 - 2 2 . 182 SIQ3 i n 1027, lines 10—15. In the commentary on this text Prott is quoted as pronouncing the ipnos of the passage as "non furnus sed lucerna cuius satis

104

B.C. and an inscription from Delos also mention single ipnoi. In the Eleusinian document two larger pieces of wood and a quantity of what appear to be faggots are provided for the ipnos in the City Eleusinion, at a cost of 13 drachmas. The ipnos in the Delian inscription has firewood costing three drachmas and two obols assigned to it. 1 8 3 The presence of faggots shows that the ipnoi in these documents are braziers; in addition, the inscriptions furnish evidence that the braziers were a part of a sanctuary's equipment. Definite proof that an ipnos was a brazier is forthcoming from archaeological finds. Representations of several types of braziers have been discovered in the Athenian Agora; they have now been studied and illustrated by Talcott and Sparkes. 1 8 4 Made of clay, the braziers have several shapes and sizes. One type consists of a furnace in the shape of an oblate squashed cylinder, closed at one end and set on a low stand having the form of a wide straight-edge. Another type of brazier is more advanced and complicated. It consists of a shallow basin resting on four legs, which received the faggots or charcoal. The baking oven itself, a large, box-like structure with rounded comers at the top and open at one end, was fitted over the basin. The box-like cover was separated from the basin by a floor where the baking or cooking was done; the floor was equipped with slits at front and back to maintain a constant draught under it. Sparkes illustrates two such braziers. One, a terracotta figurine in Berlin, is among the finest specimens of the early fifth century and thus roughly contemporary with the Hekatompedon inscription. It resembles closely a drawing on a Boeotian black-figured lekythos from the middle of the sixth century in the Barbieri collection. Both representations show the cook or baker sitting before the brazier; in the Berlin figurine this person is certainly a woman. Sparkes correctly but tentatively identified both artifacts as ipnoi. 185 He need not have hesitated. A passage from the archaic poet Semonides provides striking proof of the identity. In the lines on the "horse woman" Semonides says that she

notus in rebus sacris usus." Certainly ipnos is not a regular stove or oven here; but neither is it a lamp: lamps do not require firewood. The ipnos here is a brazier. See n. 206 for references to words for lamps. im IG I I 2 1672, lines 1 9 0 - 1 9 5 ( 3 2 9 - 3 2 8 BC): IG XI. 2. 204, line 40. Sparkes 1 2 7 - 1 2 9 ; 131, 133; and plates VII-VIII. Sparkes and Talcott 2 3 2 - 2 3 4 with their illustrations. 1 8 5 Sparkes 127, with fig. 1 (London 564); 128, fig. 2 (diagrams of Agora nosi Ρ 14165 and Ρ 2116). The terracotta figurine in Berlin is illustrated in Sparkes, pi. VIII no. 4, the Boeotian lekythos ibid. pi. VII no. 2. Cf. also Sparkes and Talcott 232—233 with references to the illustrations.

105

"would neither throw the garbage out of the house nor would she sit in front of the ipnos since she would avoid soot . . ," 1 8 6 Semonides' lady certainly is not "in the kitchen" (πρός ίπνόν), where LSJ 9 place her; pros does not mean " i n " but " a t ; " and one does not sit "at the kitchen." She is sitting at the brazier, exactly as the representations show. I might mention here a third type of brazier of which we have specimens, because it illustrates other meanings and usages which the noun ipnos apparently had. As Sparkes' illustrations show, 187 these braziers were smaller, in the shape of round, two-handled pots, with a rather large square opening in one side for the insertion of charcoal, and small round holes over the remaining surface. The holes provided the necessary draught to keep the charcoal burning; but it is obvious that they were also a source of heat and light, as was the large square door of the brazier. This is why the one definition that the scholiasts on Aristophanes consistently give for ipnos is lamp or lantern, a meaning which ipnos might possibly have once or twice in Aristophanes. 1 8 8 On top of such round braziers could be placed lidded bowls and chafing dishes to heat water and cook food. Some lines in Aristophanes' Wasps, along with the scholion on them, may indicate that water for the bath-tub was heated in this fashion. 1 8 9 In the Hellenistic and Roman periods the heater and water container were combined into a single unit. The resulting apparatus, often much more refined and complicated than the earlier arrangement of brazier and superimposed dish or pot, came to be known by the name of ipnolebes. This calefactor, resembling, it would appear, a samovar, stood upon the dinner table and provided hot water to mix with one's wine. The Romans called the contrivance a miliarium or caldarium. 1 9 0 186 Sem. 7. 60—62. Later authors occasionally mention what was barbecued on these braziers: sacrificial cakes (Phanias, Anth. Pal. 6.299); a whole crocodile (Ath. 7.319 Ε quoting the eipic poet Archestratos); a whole sheep (Lucian, Lexiphanes

6). 187

Sparkes pi. VI nos. 4,5, and 6. »88 Schol. on Ar. Plut. 815; Vesp. 836; Pax 841. We must note however that the scholiasts say phanos, which is not exactly the same as lampas, lychnos vel sim. Cf. LSJ 9 s.v. phanos, and n. 206 below. 189 Ar. Vesp. 138—142 and the scholiasts' notes; they mention a tub (pyelos) and a bath. See Sparkes and Talcott 216 with references to their illustrations for a discussion of such tubs. Cf. also Ar. Fr. 6 (Hall and Geldart). 190 There are several references to this apparatus. Lucian, Lexiphanes 8: "the calefactor, however, slopped over on our heads and delivered us a consignment of coals."

106

To sum up. The implements called ipnoi were basically braziers of varying sizes and shapes. The larger types used faggots as fuel, the smaller charcoal. As the brazier served the purpose of cooking and baking, its name, ipnos, by extension came to mean kitchen. Since it was a source of light, as well as of heat, the scholiasts sometimes defined it, not wholly accurately, as a lamp, torch or lantern. 1 9 1 The inscriptions show that braziers were a part of a sanctuary's equipment where they were used in the worship of the resident deity. In view of this evidence we must interpret lines 13—15 in our inscription as an injunction against the use of braziers on the Acropolis of Athens. This interpretation, however, creates problems. To begin with, it is strange that the use of braziers should be prohibited in one sanctuary, while it was clearly allowed and even required in another, the City Eleusinion, for example. Next, the injunction against braziers affects only the priestesses and their helpers, and applies to the entire Acropolis, not merely to a section of it. The restrictions to which sacrificers are subject show that in certain spaces they could burn sacrificial fires. Equally surprising is the enormous disparity in the fines that the inscription prescribes for making a fire. While worshippers from the lower town are liable to a fine of up to three obols, and no more, the sacerdotal women must pay one hundred drachmas or two hundred times as much for committing exactly the same offense. The facts of the decree thus make it unlikely that fire prevention was the sole reason for the "brazier clause," as it may well have been in the case of the worshippers. Furthermore, charcoal burning under controlled conditions in braziers does not present the same incendiary dangers as do open fires on altars and beside temples. I therefore offer as one possible explanation of the two wildly disproportionate fines the suggestion that the real reason for the brazier clause in the inscription was religious. The reason, to put it briefly, was the sanctity of fire, especially of fire burning in a god's holy precinct. The evidence for this fact of ancient religious life is abundant; I shall confine myself only to its high points. It is well known that sacred, eternal fires burned in many sanctuaries of pagan antiquity. There was Athena's Ath. 3.98 C: "the sophists of Ulpian's circle, friends, are gentlemen of some such kind as to give the name oven-cauldron to the implement which the Romans call a miliarium and which is a contrivance for making hot water." Cf. Poll. Lex. 10.66 and 6.89; Blümner 4 0 1 - 4 0 2 . 191 Kitchen, kitchen stove, oven, eschara et sim: Lycurg. Fr. 75 (Conomis); scholiasts on Ar. Αν. 436, Plut. 815, Vesp. 139, 836; Suda s.v. ipnos. Torch, lantern etc.: see n. 188 supra; Suda s.v. ipnia.

107

lamp in the goddess' temple on the Acropolis whose fire was renewed each midsummer when new oil became available. An eternal flame also burned in Apollo's sanctuary at Delphi. Not only fire, but its ashes too were considered sacred and divine, particularly the ashes of the familial hearths. 192 Being sacred, the flame could suffer defilement and pollution. Thus the Greeks believed that the Persians' presence in Greece had polluted their fires, and so they brought new fire from Delphi with which to light their hearths anew. 193 Hesiod admonishes his fellow men not to approach the hearth in an unclean condition, precisely because the hearth and its ashes were sacred. The sacred fire, moreover, was held to have the power of preventing and purging all manner of pollution and other evils. 194 I need not labor the matter any further; the following two excerpts, one from Plutarch's Numa, the other from Second Maccabees, may suffice to demonstrate the universality, in the ancient world, of this attitude to fire. Plutarch, Numa 9 . 9 - 1 5 : He (i.e. Numa) was also guardian of the vestal virgins, the institution of w h o m , and of their perpetual fire, was attributed to Numa, who, perhaps, fancied the charge of pure and uncorrupted flames would be fitly intrusted to chaste and unpolluted persons, or that fire, which consumes, but produces nothing, bears an analogy to the virgin estate. In Greece, wherever a perpetual holy fire is kept, as at Delphi and Athens, the charge of it is committed, not to virgins, b u t to women, who, though unmarried, are past the prime age of marriage. And in case b y any accident it should happen that this fire became extinct, as the holy lamp was at Athens under the tyranny of Aristion, and at Delphi, when that temple was burnt b y the Medes, as also in the time of the Mithridatic and R o m a n civil war, when not only the fire was extinguished, but the altar demolished, then, afterwards, in kindling this fire again, it was esteemed an impiety to light it f r o m c o m m o n sparks or flame, or f r o m anything b u t the pure and unpolluted rays of the sun, which they usually effect b y concave mirrors, of a figure formed by the revolution of an isosceles rectangular triangle, all the lines f r o m the circumference of which meeting

i»2 Athena's lamp: see above p. 43. Eternal fire at Delphi: Paus. 10.24.4 with the references and discussion of Frazer; SIG3 II 826 C, line 14; Burkert 139. Eternal fire at Olympia: Paus. 5.15.9. Sacred/eternal fire in general: IG I 2 4, line 6; Sokolowski LSCG No. 154 B, line 13; Sokolowski, LSS No. 65, line 7; IG XI. 2. 199 A, line 42; Plato, Critias 120 A; Plut. Numa 9 . 9 - 1 5 ; Ovid, Fasti 6 . 4 4 0 - 4 4 1 : flagrabant sancti sceleratis ignibus ignes etc.; Ovid, Trist. 5.5.12; Epist. ex Pont. 4.9.53; Burkert 309ff. with references. Sanctity of hearth and ashes: Hes. Erg. 753ff.; Hesych., Lex. s.v. ouk eisphora; Nilsson, GgrR 78—79; 86—88. 1« Pollution of fire: Plut. Quaest. Graec. 297 A; Nilsson GgrR 97; Opuscula I 411; Harrison 117; Wächter 47. New fire: Plut. Arist. 20; Nilsson, GgrR 97; Burkert 214. 194 Apotropaic and purgatory force of fire: Servius ad Virg. Aen. 6.741; Wächter 12; 2 6 - 2 7 ; Burkert 306.

108

in a centre, by holding it in the light of the sun they can collect and concentrate all its rays at this one point of convergence; where the air will now become rarefied, and any light, dry, combustible matter will kindle as soon as applied, under the effect of the iays, which here acquired the substance and active force of fire. Some are of the opinion that these vestals had no other business than the preservation of this fire; but others conceive that they were keepers of other divine secrets concealed from all but themselves, of which we have told all that may lawfully be asked or told, in the life of Camillus. 2 Maccabees

1:19-36:

For when our ancestors were being deported to Persia the devout priests of the time took some of the fire from the altar and hid it secretly in the hollow of a dry well, where they concealed it in such a way that the place was unknown to anyone. When some years had elapsed, in God's good time, Nehemiah, commissioned by the king of Persia, sent the descendants of the priests who had hidden the fire to recover it; but they notified us that they had found not fire but a thick liquid. Nehemiah ordered them to draw some out and bring it back. When the materials for the sacrifice had been set out, Nehemiah ordered the priests to pour the liquid over the wood and what lay on it. When this had been done, and when in due course the sun, which had previously been clouded over, shone out, a great fire flared up, to the astonishment of all When the matter became known and the king of the Persians heard that in the place where the exiled priests had hidden the fire a liquid had appeared, with which Nehemiah and his people had purified the materials of the sacrifice, the king, after verifying the facts, had the place enclosed and pronounced sacred. The king exchanged many valuable presents with those who enjoyed his favour. Nehemiah and his people termed this stuff 'nephtar,' which means 'purification,' but it is generally called 'naphta.' T h e e v i d e n c e that I a s s e m b l e d in C h a p t e r I s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e p r i e s t e s s e s a n d o t h e r hieratic w o m e n h a d their r e s i d e n c e o n t h e A c r o p o l i s . A s D i t t e n b e r g e r t o o o b s e r v e d , it w a s natural f o r t h e s e w o m e n t o k e e p b r a z i e r s b u r n i n g with w h i c h t o p r e p a r e their d a i l y m e a l s a n d t o k e e p t h e m s e l v e s w a r m . 1 9 5 T h e a l t e r n a t i v e w o u l d have b e e n t o leave t h e Acropolis and descend into the lower town. A c o m m u n i t y , however, which w e n t t o s u c h lengths as t h e p a s s a g e s a b o v e reveal t o m a i n t a i n t h e p u r i t y a n d inviolability o f its h o l y f l a m e s c o u l d n o t very well tolerate the h a b i t u a l p r e s e n c e , in a s a n c t u a r y , o f fires serving t h e m e a n a n d l o w l y p u r p o s e s o f daily c o o k i n g a n d h e a t i n g . It is o b v i o u s t h a t t h e cons t a n t p r e p a r a t i o n o f f o o d in o v e n s a n d b r a z i e r s w a s u n c l e a n b o t h in the literal a n d in t h e religious s e n s e , a n d that it u n a v o i d a b l y b r o u g h t a b o u t a c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f t h e p u r e a n d s a c r o s a n c t fire t h a t b u r n e d solely f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e g o d s a n d the s a c r i f i c e s o f f e r e d in their h o n o r . It is m o r e o v e r a f a c t , as I p r o p o s e t o s h o w in t h e n e x t s e c t i o n , that h o u s e h o l d b r a z i e r s in p a r t i c u l a r w e r e c o n s i d e r e d o b j e c t s w h e r e o f f a l 195 Dittenberger 473. 109

and dirt could collect easily — so much so that as a noun ipnos came to have some rather unsavory connotations. It thus becomes most likely that the Athenians voted the prohibition against braziers and the heavy penalty against their use for religious reasons. Their purpose was to prevent the commingling, so to speak, of two kinds of flame: the sacred and the profane, the pure and the impure — to prevent, in short, the intolerable desecration of Athena's sacred flame.

II I demonstrated in the preceding section that an ipnos was essentially a portable cooking stove or brazier, that it therefore also came to mean kitchen, and that because of the light that it emitted it was sometimes loosely used as a synonym for lantern. It appears however that the word had yet another meaning. According to a gloss in the Suda, ipnos was also the refuse and dirt that accumulate around the cooking stove in a kitchen. The same gloss reports further that Kallimachos used the neuter plural ipnia of the dung of animals. The scholiast on Aristophanes' Wasps repeats these definitions almost word for word, and quotes the Kallimachean lines. 196 In the inscriptions from Delos the term ίττνών occurs quite a few times with an unknown meaning. It is regularly listed among groups of various structures, small service buildings, and equipment such as ladders. Among the structures are women's apartments, men's dormitories, mills, sheep folds, cattle pens, and sheds. The structure designated by ipnon was free-standing. It is often said to be athyros, i.e. it was present in two types: with and without doors, or more likely, windows. One ipnon was "in the garden." We should probably identify these buildings either as large braziers or even as separate kitchens and bakeries, or perhaps as kilns which often stood in sanctuaries. We might also suppose, accepting the Kallimachean meaning of ipnia, that the buildings on Delos were receptacles for all sorts of refuse, including that of animals. It must, however, be admitted that the absence of windows makes some of these identifications difficult. 1 9 7 196 Suda s.v. ΐπνυα· τα άποκαύάρματα τοϋ ίπνού, τοϋ λεγομένου φούρνου, ή τα προς την κάμινον έπιτήδεια καύσιμα. Xeyei δε τήι> κόπρον των ζώων Καλλίμαχος · συν δ' αμυδις φορυτόν re και ϊττνια λύματ äeipew. Cf. the schol. on Ar. Vesp. 836. IG XI. 2. 287A, lines 1 4 4 - 1 4 8 ; 1 5 1 - 1 5 6 ; 1 5 6 - 1 6 0 ; 1 6 0 - 1 6 3 ; 1 6 4 - 1 6 7 ; 1 6 9 -

172. Inscriptions de Delos 356 B, line 43; 366 B, lines 8 - 1 5 .

110

More helpful is a Cretan inscription from the first half of the fifth century. It appears to have been a part of a lex sacra. The preserved text seems to contain a law against polluting good water. It ends with an injunction of which only the phrase μέτ€ ίπνιόνα μέτβ κοπρώνα is preserved. The juxtaposition of the two words suggests that an ipnion could be a place for dirt and refuse which required countermeasures, especially in sanctuaries. 198 The Cretan inscription thus bears out the lexicographer and the scholiast, and we must take their definitions seriously. The need to do so becomes still more evident when we find a similar meaning of ipnos in the Lexica of Pollux and Hesychios. Both report that Aristophanes called the privy (kopron) ipnos. Hesychios even cites the name of Aristophanes' play, the Kokkalos.199 Stoves and kitchens are places where dirt collects easily and quickly. We evidently have here a semantic development whereby the word for stove and kitchen came to be applied to a vessel serving other unclean purposes. The privy, furthermore, was usually kept in the kitchen. In a brief note published in 1938, D. S. Robertson noted this fact and sketched the development as follows: 2 0 0 In the story of Heraclitus told by Aristotle in De Part. Animal. 645 a 15—23, depoμενον προς τ φ ίπνώ, if taken literally, is singularly flat as an illustration of the necessity of overcoming instinctive disgust in the search of beauty and truth. Pollux, V 19, and Hesychius s.v. b o t h state that Aristophanes used ΐπνός in the sense of κοπρών (Hesychius specifies the Cocalus). This probably means that some such expression as ές τον ίπνόν ερχεσΰαι replaced the intentionally shameless ές τον κοπρώνα 198 Inscriptiones Crettcae IV 73, lines 9—10. M. Guarducci's note is as follows: "vox ipnion, hie primum occurrens, purgamenta e f u r n o collects indicare videtur; quae cum ipnia a Graecis appellata sint . . . . ipnion purgamenta ista cumulata significare videtur." The law's intention apparently was to keep a b o d y of water free of pollution; f o r some fairly close parallels see Sokolowski LSS No. 4; LSA No. 57; IG I 2 789. i " Poll. Onom. 5.91: τον δε κοπρώνα και ίπνόν 'Αριστοφάνης καλεί. Hesych. Lex. s.v. ίπνός· Αριστοφάνης δέ έν Κ ω κ ά λ ω και τον κοπρώνα όντως elirev. 200 Robertson 10. Cf. Hesych. Lex. s.v. ϊπνια- τά καθάρματα τοϋ ίπνοϋ; and s.v. ιπνααία· -γαστήρ παρά Ταραντίνοις. It may be of some interest to point out here that the semantic development sketched by Robertson has a parallel in English. Webster's Third Unabridged Dictionary has the following entry: "jordan, a chamberpot, probably f r o m the river J o r d a n , perhaps f r o m medieval pilgrims' bringing water f r o m the J o r d a n back to England." Already in Elizabethan times this meaning of the word was firmly established in the language; Shakespeare (Henry IV, Pt. I, Act II, Scene I) uses it: "Why, they will allow us ne'er a jordan, and then we leak in your chimney, and your chamber-lye breeds fleas like a loach."

Robertson's interpretation of the Heraclitean anecdote cannot be pressed, for Aristotle says that the great man was "warming himself." The ipnos in the passage therefore may very well be a brazier. But Robertson does point u p the double meaning of the noun; we may have a conscious ambiguity, here.

Ill

χεσάαί of Thesm. 485. Such accommodation was often in fact near or in the kitchen (see Smith's and Daremberg and Saglio's dictionaries and Mau's Pompeii, Engl, transl. p. 267), and ϋφόμενον προς τ ω ίπνφ is a natural euphemism. The variant Ιπνόν in Peace 536 perhaps illustrates the same use: see also Callimachus fr. 216 Schneider. This interpretation gives far more point to the story: Heraclitus' reported assertion: elvai yap και iwavda άεούς may be a hit at the superstitions of two detested predecessors, Hesiod and Pythagoras (compare also the glosses etc. equating culina with latrina collected in Thes. L. L. and by Hagen in Gradus ad criticen 1897, p. 101, reference due to Mr. Η. T. Deas).

The theological point that Herakleitos makes with his use of the earthy word ipnos and to which Robertson draws attention may have left an echo in Aristophanes' Peace. In lines 819ff., Trygaios has just returned to earth fr