Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T16:59:59.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cleisthenes of Sicyon, ΛευτḢρ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Daniel Ogden
Daniel Ogden
Affiliation:
University College, Swansea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is the purpose of this paper to argue for a new interpretation of the Delphic response to Cleisthenes of Sicyon at Herodotus 5.67: the oracle's reference is to pharmakeia, the Greek ‘scapegoat’ ritual.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , December 1993 , pp. 353 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the Argive claim to Sicyon, cf. Homer, , Il. 2.59–80Google Scholar; Strabo C372; Paus. 2.6.4; Jeffery, L. H., Archaic Greece (London, 1976), 134–5Google Scholar; Griffin, A., Sicyon (Oxford, 1982), 38Google Scholar.

2 Particularly at Sparta: Hdt. 1.67–8, Paus. 3.3.6 (Orest[h]es); Paus. 7.1.3 (Teisamenos); Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἀνθνα (Anthes). Cf. also the Athenian use of Theseus: Plut. Thes. 36, Cim. 8.

3 Crahay, R., La littérature oraculaire chez Hérodote (Paris, 1956), 247–9Google Scholar and Parke, H. W. and Wormell, D. E. W., The Delphic Oracle (Oxford, 1956) ii 12 believe the oracle genuineGoogle Scholar. Griffin, op. cit. (n. 1) 54–5Google Scholar thinks the insulting response fits best early in Cleisthenes' reign, before he took control of the oracle through the Contra, Sacred War., Fontenrose, J., The Delphic Oracle (California, 1978), at Q74Google Scholar.

4 Cf. Chantraine, P., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots (4 vols, Paris, 1968–1977)Google Scholar and Frisk, H., Griechisches etymologisches Woerterbuch (3 vols, Heidelberg, 1960–1972)Google Scholar s.v. λεω; LSJ s.v. λευστρ. For the agent suffix, see Benveniste, E., Noms d'agent et noms d'action en indo-européen (Paris, 1940) 35, 40Google Scholar.

5 Cf. LSJ s.v.

6 Thus LSJ s.v.; How, W. W. and Wells, J.A commentary on Herodotus (2 vols., Oxford, 1912) ad loc.Google Scholar; Crahay, op. cit. (n. 3) 247Google Scholar; Snodgrass, A., rchaic Greece: the age of experiment (London, 1980), 98Google Scholar; Griffin, op. cit. (n. 1) 50Google Scholar; Pritchett, W. K., The Greek state at war V (California, 1991), 53Google Scholar. However Hopper, R. J., The Early Greeks (London, 1976), 212 oddly glosses the term ‘robber’Google Scholar. Forrest, W. G. G., ‘The First Sacred War’ BCH 80 (1956), 33–52 at 36CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Berve, H., Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen (2 vols., Munich, 1967), 533Google Scholar and Bicknell, P. J. ‘Herodotus 5.68 and the Racial Policy of Kleisthenes of Sicyon’ GRBS 23 (1982), 193–201Google Scholar at 193 do not commit themselves.

7 Pritchett, op. cit. (n. 6) 1–67Google Scholar.

8 Op. cit. (n. 6) 53–4.

9 Op. cit. (n. 6) 6; Burnett, A. P., Three Archaic Poets: Archilochus, Alcaeus, Sappho (London, 1983) 40Google Scholar.

10 Thus Homer, Il. 11.385 (of Paris); cf. Aeschylus, , Persians 147Google Scholar; Sophocles, , Ajax 1120Google Scholar; Euripides, , Heracles 160–2Google Scholar, with Bond, G., Euripides Heracles (Oxford 1981), at line 161Google Scholar.

11 C448.

12 Cf. Pritchett, op. cit. (n. 6) 23Google Scholar, with references to discussion, to which add Forrest, W. G. G., ‘Colonisation and the rise of Delphi’, Historia 6 (1957), 160–75 at 163Google Scholar.

13 References collected by Pritchett, op. cit. (n. 6) 3–6Google Scholar.

14 Illustrated, Dawkins, R. M., The sanctuary of Artemis Orthia (JHS suppl. n. 5, London, 1929), plates 15–16, cf. p. 92Google Scholar.

15 Pace Greenhalgh, P. A. L., Early Greek Warfare (London, 1973), 180 n. 30Google Scholar, who misinterprets the figure in front of the stone-thrower (‘slinger’) as a hoplite (and argues that the stone-thrower is thus shown in the second rank behind the hoplite) and therefore takes the image as evidence for the diminished status of the stone-thrower; but the remains of the bow are clear. Only his short sword connects him with a hoplite, yet our stone-thrower has a sword of the very same model.

16 Andrewes, A., The Greek Tyrants (London, 1956)Google Scholar is the classic statement of the hypothesis.

17 For the ritual of pharmakeia, and its many and varied representations and developments in mythical and historical narrative, see primarily: Bremmer, J., ‘Scapegoat rituals in ancient Greece’, HSCP 87 (1983), 299–320Google Scholar; Burkert, W., Greek Religion (Oxford, 1985) 82–4Google Scholar (revised version of Griechische Religion [Stuttgart, 1977])Google Scholar, and Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (California, 1979) 59–77, 168–76Google Scholar; Vernant, J. P., ‘Ambiguity and reversal: on the enigmatic structure of the Oedipus Rex’, in Vernant, J. P. and Vidal-Naquet, P., Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece (New York, 1988), 128–35Google Scholar (originally published in French, in Echanges et communications, mélanges offerts à Claude Lé'vi-Strauss [Paris, 1970], ii 1253–79)Google Scholar; Versnel, H. S., ‘Polycrates and his ring’, Studi storico-religiosi 1 (1977) 17–46 at 37–43Google Scholar; Wiechers, A., Aesop in Delphi (Meisenheim am Glan, 1961), 31–42Google Scholar.

18 Bremmer, Thus op. cit. (n. 17) 315Google Scholar; Burkert, , Greek Religion (n. 17), 82–3Google Scholar.

19 Callimachus F90 Pf., with diegesis; Ovid Ibis 467f., with schol.; Burkert, , Greek Religion (n. 17), 83Google Scholar.

20 Lactantius ad Statius Thebaid 10.793: saxis.

21 Philostratus Vit.Ap. 4.10.

22 Istros FG H 334 F50.

23 Does the reference to the sea shore imply that Hipponax has in mind a fate similar to that of the Leucadian scapegoat, who was thrown into the sea (Strabo C452)?

24 The fragment is from Choerob. in Hephaest. p. 195.22 Consbruch, and the commentator glosses λεεῖν here with λιθο;λεῖν.

25 Cf. Bremmer, op. cit. (n. 17) 308–12Google Scholar.

26 Plut. Mor. 693f.

27 Thus Hdt. 3.40–1 πβαλε and ῥπτεῖ of Polycrates' ring (cf. Versnel op. cit. [n. 17]); for animate scapegoats the preferred verbs are ξγω (Harp., Suda s.v. ΦαρμακἉς), ξελανω (Call. F90 Pf., with diegesis; Plut. Mor. 693f) and ῥπτω (Strabo C452; Ammonios n. 494 Nickau); βλλω (Hipponax F 6 West).

28 The word's etymology is transparent: -privative+verbal adjective built on root of δῖδρσκω. Cf. LSJ s.v.; Macan, R. M., Herodotus. The 4th, 5th and 6th books I (London, 1895), 208Google Scholar; Crahay, op. cit. (n. 3) 248Google Scholar; Chantraine op. cit. (n. 4) s.v. διδρσκω.

29 Schol. Aristoph. Knights 1136c.

30 Schol. Aesch. Sept. 680.

31 733; cf. Suda s.vv. κθαρμα and øαρμακς.

32 Tzetzes Chil. 5.731, cited at Hipponax F5 West.

33 Callimachus F90 Pf., with diegesis; Ovid Ibis 467f., with schol.

34 Plut. Mor. 693f.

35 Strabo C452; Ampelius 8.

36 Philostratus Vit.Ap. 4.10.

37 Diod. 2.55.

38 Cf. Suda s.v. Θαρμακς, ξγον … κατελεσθη.

39 Hesychius s.v. ληβλε: λῖθοβλε, ἄξῖε λῖθασθναῖ. Cf. also λῖθλευστοῖ. (Diod. 3.47).

40 Cf. Paus. 10.31.1; Burnett, op. cit. (n. 9) 199Google Scholar.

41 Pherecydes FGH 3 F154; Hellanicus FGH 323a F23; Lycurgus Leocr. 84f.

42 Lactantius ad Statius Theb. 10.793: anno tot publicis sumptibus alebatur purioribus cibis. Cf. schol. Aristoph. Knights 1136 on Athens; Call. F9 0 Pf. with diegesis an d Ovid Ibis 467f. with schol. on Abdera.

43 Girard, R., Violence and the sacred (Baltimore, 1977) 12Google Scholar (trans, of La violence et le sacré [Paris, 1972])Google Scholar; Bremmer, op. cit. (n. 17) 303–5 (to whom the quotation belongs)Google Scholar; Burkert, , Structure … (n. 17), 62f.Google Scholar, Greek Religion (n. 17), 84; Vernant, op. cit. (n. 17) 131–6Google Scholar. Other sorts of marginal too are cast out in myth, such as youths in transition (Burkert, Greek Religion and esp. Bremmer locc. citt.).

44 This is the original direct text conjectured by Parke and Wormell op. cit. (n. 3) n. 24. Macan op. cit. (n. 28) ad loc. suggests: ἦν μν Ἄδρηστος βασῖλεὺς, λευστρ δ σ γ' ἔσσῖ. Clearly Homer, Il. 2.572, κα Σῖκυν', ὅθ' ἄρ' Ἄδρηστος πρτ' μβασλευεν, was recalled.

45 The jingle is rightly noticed by Macan op. cit. (n. 28) and How and Wells op. cit. (n. 6) ad loc.

46 So Griffin, op. cit. (n. 1) 49, 54Google Scholar; Berve, op. cit. (n. 6) 532Google Scholar; Oost, S. I., ‘Two notes on the Orthagorids of Sicyon’, CP 69 (1974), 118–20Google Scholar.

47 For Thersites as a scapegoat who unites the giving and receiving of abuse, see Nagy, G., The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the hero in archaic Greek poetry (Baltimore, 1979) 259–64, 279–82Google Scholar; Thalmann, W. G., ‘Thersites: comedy, scapegoats and heroic ideology in the Iliad’, TAPA 118 (1988), 1–28 at 17–22Google Scholar, comparing the socially integrative laughter that the lame Hephaestus draws upon himself in Homer, Il. 1.599f. (cf. schol. Il. 2.212–16 at Erbse, H., Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem [7 vols., Berlin, 1969–1988] I pp. 227f.)Google Scholar.

48 Homer, Il. 18.411 etc.

49 Homer, Il. 1.590–4 etc.

50 Homer, Il. 1.599–600.

51 Homer, Od. 8.326–7.

52 The following information is collated by Plaoutine, N., ‘La representation de Thersite par le peintre des hydries dites de Caere et les sources litteraires qui ont inspire cet artiste’, REG 55 (1942), 161–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 163–5.

53 FGH 3 F123.

54 Strabo C452, π τς σκοπς ῥῖπτεῖ;σθαῖ Ampelius 8.

55 Expelled to become deformed: Homer, Il. 1.590–4, 15.18–25, 19.130–1; expelled because deformed: Homeric Hymn to Apollo 314–18.

58 The evidence is collated by Plaoutine op. cit. (n. 52).

57 CVA Louvre 9 III Fa plate 1 (609) nos 1 and 2 and plate 2 (610) nos 1–7; cf. Plaoutine op. cit. (n. 52) 161–5.

58 Aesop 364, 496 Perry.

59 Cf. Aesop 14, 73, 81, 203, 218, 463, 569, 643 Perry.

60 Aesop 463 Perry; one type of ape was actually called στυρος (Aelian NA 16.21). Note the word πῖθηκῖσμς, ‘monkey games’ at Aristoph, . Knights 887Google Scholar; cf. Gual, C.Garcia, ‘Sobre πῖθηκζω: hacer al mono’, Emerita (1972), 454–5Google Scholar.

61 Cf. Aesop 73, 203, 463, 464, 569, 643 Perry; cf. Cairns, F., ‘Cleon and Pericles: a suggestion’, JHS 102 (1982), 203–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Seeberg, A., ‘Astrabica’ SO 61 (1966), 48–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 57 n. 1 well argues that the archaic Greeks tended to view the ape as a human/demonic grotesque.

63 Ptolemy Claudius 5.2; Hdt. 7.216; Suda s.v. κρκωπες Harpocration s.v. κρκωψ Eustath. 1430.35, 1669.60, 1864.32; Ovid Met. 14.88–100.

64 Pap. Soc. Ital. 1094, reprinted R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus (2 vols, Oxford, 1949–53), I p. 165, οἱ δ λῖθλευστον ποῖσα [øασῖν; P.Oxy 1800 fr. 2 col.ii 11.49–51: πολλο λθοῖς αὐτν βλλοντες κατἉ κρημνοȗ ἔωσαν.

65 Vita W 134, 140, 142, G 134, 140.

66 Vitae G and W I Perry; Nagy op. cit. (n. 47) 260, 279–88; Wiechers op. cit. (n. 17) 31–42.

67 Vitae G and W 125–6; P.Oxy. 1800 fr. 2 col.ii 1.48, πσκωψεν; Nagy op. cit. (n. 47) 282–3, 288. The death of Aesop brings us close to the career of Cleisthenes, for according to the Vitae it was Aesop's reproach and subsequent death that was the cause of the First Sacred War, a war which in fact Cleisthenes orchestrated to gain control of the Delphic oracle. Griffin op. cit. (n. 1) 53; Forrest op. cit. (n. 6).

The more historical Sotades, ‘kinaidologos’, like Thersites an exponent of sexual obloquy and scourge of kings in particular (most notably he abused Ptolemy Philadelphus' mistress Bilistiche, and his incestuous marriage to his sister Arsinoe II), similarly met a scapegoat's fate when dumped in the sea in a leaden vessel by Ptolemy's admiral Patroclus: εἰς πολυβν κεραμδα μβαλὼν κα ναγαγὼν εἰς τ πλαγος κατεπντωσε (Athen. 620f-621a; cf. Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria [Oxford 1972], I 117–18, II 210 nn. 204–6)Google Scholar. This recalls the fate of the Leucadian scapegoat (Strabo C452), and also demonstrates the similarity between pharmakeia and ekthesis (see below for ekthesis by sea).

Archilochus' sexual mockery has also been seen as verbal pharmakeia (Burnett op. cit. [n. 9] 87 on F154 West; Nagy op. cit. [n. 47] 243–52); it is therefore appropriate that he portrays himself as the son of a slave-woman Enipo, ‘Abuse’ (F295 West).

68 For discussion of this pot, and possible interpretations of these figures (early comic figures? protosatyrs?), see Morris, S. P., The black and white style (New Haven, 1984), 59–62Google Scholar.

69 Op. cit. (n. 62).

70 1.64; Thuc. 3.104.

71 Thuc. 1.8, 3.104, with Hornblower, N. S. R., A commentary on Thucydides (2 vols, Oxford, 1991–) ad loc,Google Scholar; Diod. 12.58.6.

72 Griffin, op. cit. (n. 1) 17Google Scholar.

73 E.g. Danae and Perseus (Pherecydes FGH 3 F10); Auge and Telephus (Apollod. Bibl. 2.1.4, 3.9.1; Mediol, P.. 1, apud Handley, E. W. and Rea, J., The Telephus of Euripides [BICS Supplement n. 5, London, 1957], 18, lines 5–6)Google Scholar; Semele and Dionysus (Paus. 3.24.3); cf. Glotz, G., Études sur L'antiquite grecque (Paris, 1906) 69–97Google Scholar; Delcourt, M., Stérilités mystérieuses et naissances maléfiques dans L'antiquité classique (Liège and Paris, 1938) passim, esp. 37–43Google Scholar; Bremmer, J. and Horsfall, N., Roman Myth and Mythography (London, 1987), 26–30Google Scholar; Sissa, G., Greek Virginity (Cambridge, MA, and London, 1990) 119–21Google Scholar (trans, of Le corps virginal [Paris, 1987])Google Scholar; Brulé, P., La fille d'Athènes (Paris, 1987), esp. 132–5Google Scholar.

74 Paus. 5.17.5–19.10. Despite what Pausanias says, the kypsele in which Herodotus has Cypselus concealed was not a larnax, but a ceramic beehive: Roux, G., ‘Kypselé: où avait-on caché le petit Kypselos?’ REA 65 (1963), 279–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Vernant op. cit. (n. 17) 470 n. 30, adverting Plutarch's use of a technical term for exposure, ποτεθντα (on which cf. Roussel, P., ‘L'exposition des enfants à Sparte’, REA [1943], 5–17)Google Scholar to describe Cypselus' concealment at Mor. 163f.

76 Robertson, N., ‘The Riddle of the Arrhephoria at Athens’, HSCP 87 (1983), 241–78Google Scholar explains that the myth in which the daughters of Cecrops were entrusted with a basket containing the earthborn infant Erichthonius and two guardian snakes (Apollod. 3.14.6; Callimachus Hecale F70 Hollis, etc.) was an aition for the Arrhephoria; cf. Brulé op. cit. (n. 73) 124–39. The secrecy of the contents of the kistai gave rise to a folk etymology of the name Arrhephoria: πεῖδǴ τ ἄρρητα ν κσταῖς ἔøερον τῖ θεῖ αἱ παρθνοῖ (Schol. Aristoph. Lys. 642); cf. Robertson op. cit. 248. For the similarity between the larnax and the kiste in the context of exposure, see Brulé op. cit. (n. 73) 124–30.

77 For ekthesis as a subcategory of pharmakeia, see Glotz, G., L'ordalie dans le Grèce primitive: étude de droit et de mythologie (Paris, 1904)Google Scholar; Delcourt, M., Oedipe ou la légende du conquerant (Paris and Liège, 1944), 29–35, op. cit. (n. 73) 50–66Google Scholar; Vernant op. cit. (n. 17) 127–8, 433 n. 87; Brulé, op. cit. (n. 73) 124–39, esp. 132Google Scholar.

78 Pherecydes FGH 3 F154; Hellanicus FGH 323a F23; Lycurg. Leocr. 84f.; cf. Burkert Structure … (n. 17) 62, 170n13.

79 φονεσας … ξεληλαμνος (35); κθηρα (41); Δα καθρσιον (44); φονεὺ … το καθραντος (45). How and Wells op. cit. (n. 6) at 1.35 note that both the Phrygian and the Argive Adrastus are victims of ‘inevitable fate’ (cf. Aesch. PV 936 for the goddess ‘Adrasteia’).

80 5.68. It is disputed whether Herodotus is right about the ridicule. For my immediate point it is enough that Herodotus should think an act of ridicule was the sort of thing Cleisthenes would have done. The renaming is considered insulting by Griffin, op. cit. (n. 1) 51Google Scholar, but insult is denied by Bicknell, op. cit. (n. 6) 198Google Scholar (animals represent shield blazons); Macan, op. cit. (n. 28) 210Google Scholar and Jeffery, op. cit. (n. 1) 164–5Google Scholar (animals have local or religious significance); E.Will, Doriens et Ioniens (Paris, 1956), 42Google Scholar is undecided.

81 Harpocrat. s.v. φαρμακς = Istros FGH 334 F50; cf. also Suda s.v.; Deubner, L., Attische Feste (Berlin, 1932), 179–88Google Scholar; Wiechers, op. cit. (n. 17) 33, 35Google Scholar.

82 Pap. Gol. 122; Wiechers, op. cit. (n. 17) 36Google Scholar.