Les Petits Mystères d’Agra : des mystères orphiques à l’époque de Pisistrate. La possibilité de reconnaître dans les Petites Mystères d’Agra des mystères orphiques dès le vie siècle peut s’appuyer sur des sources littéraires et iconographiques, et faire référence au contexte historique. Cette hypothèse correspond bien à la situation socio-culturelle de l’époque des Pisistratides où l’on voit se développer les cultes de Dionysos, Déméter/Gaia/Meter et Perséphone, ainsi que des textes comme ceux que la tradition attribue à Onomacrite.The Little Mysteries of (...) Agra: Orphic Mysteries at the time of Peisistratos. The possibility of recognising Orphic elements in the Little Mysteries of Agra as early as the 6th century may be supported by evidence from literary and iconographic sources as well as from the historical context. This hypothesis ties in with the socio-cultural situation of Peisistratid times in which we can see the development of the cult of Dionysus and those of Demeter/Gaia/Meter and Persephone, and the flourishing of written texts, such as those attributed to Onomacritos. (shrink)

Since 1900, several scholars have argued that the terms "Olympian" and "chthonian" are commonly misused or overused, and that in the realm of ritual in particular the difference between sacrifices with and those without participation in the offerings by the worshipers does not coincide with the difference between Olympian and chthonian divinities. Fritz Graf and Walter Burkert, applying a model from social anthropology, have lately maintained that participation and nonparticipation are "ritual symbols," that is, variables employed among others to articulate (...) phases within the ritual itself; they imply nothing about any recipient, and have to do only with "the inner logic of the ritual." The present paper undertakes a reassessment of the relationship between recipients of sacrifice and the various sacrificial modes from the point of view of the Olympian/chthonian distinction. It argues that Olympian and chthonian sacrificial modes are clearly distinguishable, and that the character of the divine recipient is a fundamental constitutive element of Greek ritual. The basic principles of the author's approach are worked out with reference to the test case of rituals attested at various places and dates for Zeus Polieus. It is suggested that there is a remarkable consistency of specific ritual motifs in all these cases; that very specific conceptual themes and areas of interest, centering on agriculture, are everywhere associated with this god; and that the rituals and the themes cohere with one another and constitute a specific application of the Olympian/chthonian distinction predicated on the special characteristics of this particular divinity, who has a foot in each realm. It is argued that the Olympian/chthonian distinction retains its basic significance if it is applied in a less mechanical way than it has traditionally been. It is a central organizing principle in Greek religion, but does not represent a sufficient basis for analyzing individual divinities or rituals: specific character traits and interests and the circumstances of particular rites are fundamental, and will affect its application in given cases. Nor are the two categories mutually exclusive: they constitute one essential system at work in shaping the phenomena of Greek religion, but there is a much larger area of intersection between the two sets than has generally been recognized. One specific element of Greek practice-sacrifices with participation, but where the participation is required to take place in the sanctuary-are studied in detail, and it is suggested that they belong to an area of ritual intersection between the Olympian and chthonian categories. Recipients of such sacrifices are wholly or partly chthonian in character ; the desire not to destroy meat has led in these cases to a variation on holocaust sacrifice in the direction of Olympian banqueting: participation, but in a tightly controlled ritual setting. A Hebrew parallel for this sort of ritual compromise is suggested. On the basis both of the study of this particular sacrificial mode and of the more fluid approach to the general distinction sketched earlier, a reconsideration of some canonical lists of rites regarded as exceptions to the Olympian/chthonian distinction is undertaken. Most of the exceptions can be satisfactorily reconciled with the distinction if it is conceived and applied in the manner suggested in the paper. (shrink)

This paper discusses the interpretation of an important historical document:IGXII, 5, 608, a victory list from Iulis on ancient Keos. Since its discovery in 1883 it has always been described as a chronologically ordered official victory list of Kean athletes who have won at each of the major games. The surviving portion contains one complete list prefixed by the words ‘these won at Nemea’, and preceded by fourteen other names, which must, following the usual order, belong to Isthmian victors. Since (...) the two lists together name two athletes for whom Bakchylides wrote victory songs, Argeios and Lachon, it has long been used as a means of dating the first pair of poems, as well as the victories mentioned on the inscription not celebrated by Bakchylides. More recently, it has been used to fix the death of that poet to just after 452, in spite of a clear reference to him in Eusebios'Chronicleunder the year 431. It is the contention of this paper that this unique victory list has been misclassified and misinterpreted. It is not a chronologically ordered official victory list; it is rather an honorific victory list in which the entries are arranged by decreasing order of importance. This interpretation, and its various repercussions, destroys many of the currently accepted views about the dating of Bakchylides. (shrink)

L’examen de l’ensemble des données relatives au culte de Zeus Polieus à Athènes, tant dans l’asty que dans les dèmes (fin du vie s. – début du iiie s. ap. J.-C.), permet de mettre en évidence trois dimensions de ce dieu : son ancrage fondamentalement acropolitain ; sa position élevée, dont il tire de possibles compétences en matière agricole ; son rôle politique. Toutefois, ce dernier aspect ne doit pas être surévalué : à Athènes, le Polieus n’est ni un dieu (...) tutélaire ni un protecteur actif de la cité. Il semble plutôt garantir l’unité de la communauté politique et surtout la position tutélaire d’Athéna (Polias) ; c’est du moins ce que laisse entendre une glose d’Hésychios qui propose un récit étiologique des Bouphonies sensiblement différent de celui, bien connu, transmis par le De Abstinentia de Porphyre. The study of the evidence regarding the cult of Zeus Polieus in Athens, in the asty as well as in the demes (end of 6th c. – beginning of 3rd c. CE), allows us to emphasize three main dimensions of the god. These are: his fundamental rooting on the Acropolis, the highness of his location — which explains his probable agricultural skills — and his political role. The Polieus’ political capacity shall not be overestimated, though: in Athens, he is neither a tutelary god nor an active protector of the polis. He rather seems to guarantee the unity of the political community and, above all, the tutelary position of Athena (Polias). At least, this is what an aetiological tale for the Bouphonia, found in a gloss from Hesychios, seems to show. Indeed, this version of the myth differs noticeably from the more famous one from Pophyry’s De Abstinentia. (shrink)

History of religion, in its beginnings, had to struggle to emancipate itself from classical mythology as well as from theology and philosophy; when ritual was finally found to be the basic fact in religious tradition, the result was a divorce between classicists, treating mythology as a literary device, on the one hand, and specialists in festivals and rituals and their obscure affiliations and origins on the other.