II. BENDIS AND DELOPTES
63 The first honors with a gold crown ( [aro Tpta]Ko,w6v 8pa[xpv]) three men (two otherwise known, PA 1237 and 10601, the other with a defective name) who, as hieropoioi in the archonship
of Phrynichos, superintended ([E7rcE]XA?0Orav) the pompe and the kreanomia; the second (I.G., II2, 1256) honored two men, who served as epimeletai in the archonship of Kephisophon (cf. note 62) and the third (I.G., II2, 1324) honored Stephanos (cf. "The Attic Orgeones," p. 98, note 43), epimeletes in an unknown archonship, with an olive crown because of various services-attending to the repair of the temple, conducting the pompe (TrEt,c-- V ,rolr,nv), spending money from his own pocket, and performing his duty well and with grace and dignity. It might be inferred that the hieropoioi were three in number and the epimeletai two, but I.G., II2, 1324 gives us pause, and the correct inference may be that the honors were given only to those members of the boards who were thought to deserve them. However, the two bearded men of Nilsson, figs. 1 and 3 are probably the epimeletai, as Wilhelm, loc. cit., 1902, p. 131, suggests. The epimeletai of the orgeones of the Mother of the Gods, whose organization was doubtless modelled on that of the orgeones of Bendis, were two plus one (I.G., II2, 1327), the third being taken from their thiasotoi (" The Attic Orgeones," p. 140).
64 It may be that the lex sacra is to be dated a little before I.G., II2, 1324, in which the epi- meletes Stephanos [rfs Trov Epo]v CrtaKE[VS T7r]poor[TnrKC KaOM,rE]p 7rpooqK[O]V "V; but this does not
help us any, since I.G., II2, 1324 is dated only very approximately.
65 'Ayopav [8e] Katl v[XX]oyov roetv --- re[pr rwv KowV]WV. The date of the meetings, the second
of the month, shows that the lex is not an enactment of the Thracian orgeones since they met on the eighth day of the month (I.G., II2, 1283, 1284).
153
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:44:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
W. S. FERGUSON
each orgeon was liable. Besides these fees collected for the sacrifices, the association had income from a house which it let and from a spring the water of which it sold;
and by ordinance the revenues thence derived were to be used for repairs to the premises until these were completed unless the orgeones decided to spend them otherwise on the shrine (e to epo'v).
An ordinance (obviously new) shows that the orgeones had the right to increase their membership. It is introduced by the phrase " in order that the orgeones of the shrine might be as numerous as possible," 66 and it admitted " anyone who wished"
to " partnership in the shrine " on payment of x drachmas. New members were to be listed on the official register and subjected to a scrutiny (SoKua-cria) by the orgeones.
The association was no longer limited to members and their k'Kyovot-an important innovation.
The section of the lex dealing with sacrifices in the shrine invites a comparison with corresponding lines of Frg. B of our new text. It runs as follows (lines 2 ff.):
'Eav 8 Ov6Fs 6Ov 6ereavTv r v qveTv ^t EcS opyevcov oOT Tov iepov7 areXcZq avrov
[M]av 8E t8t,r0 ? 68 QfO7t TJLt Oac 8 ovau Tja l peat yaXaOqvov uev : I C: [K]a, TO, 8Ep1Lta Kal KO)XJV 8tave[K]7'j 8e{iav, Tro 8e cXEov: i: I aI U 8E cpa Kat [K]6 X^V Kara Tavra, 800o9 E : I C : Kal To 'spa 8 to6av aEpecITvva Tp)[v &e 'ra vae ]v
(rA
[E]tc)v r'qt?EpEal, TCoV
8
appEVvv Tc3 tepel - T.apaflua8E
t [0v] iv [L]78)E'va ev rCi Lcp63 [c ~']o6bE?iXe[t]v : P: 8paXaas.69 This section makes it clear that the orgeones were com- petent to declare on what terms and by what officials private individual sacrifices might be offered in the shrine. The matter of sacrifices offered by the state or by the orgeoness s an association is not mentioned and was probably not within the discretion of the organization. We may presume that such sacrifices wer re d by public law, since the Bendideion was a public shrine; and that public law gave to the orgeones
66 This envisaged the pompe doubtless.
67 Why are the orgeones thus defined ? The phrase /ETEv rov lpov must must mean something.
It is added again to the word " orgeones" in line 18, where, as in line 2/3, exactitude of expression was called for; but when we reach line 21 we encounter OpyCWves 7TOV EpoV and in line 24 as in line 11 " the orgeones " alone. If the inscription were intact at the top we should probably know the answer, as in the two analogous cases known to me, Ditt., Syll.3, 1106 50, and 1023. There are several possibilities: (1) that it excluded citizen orgeones who had forfeited their right to partici- pate in " the affairs " of the group (line 14); (2) that it comprehended the Thracian orgeones, in whose case the phrase was appropriate (I.G., II2, 1283, lines 18 f.); (3) that it affirmed the rights of the Athenian orgeones in the public shrine. Of these the last seems to me the most likely.
68 'I8iLT7nS means simply " outsider."
69 T1apaf/3o,ua means, beside, not on, the altar. For sacrifices " on " the altar the services of the priest or priestess were obligatory, and the sacrificers, when outsiders, had to pay the specified tolls and reward the officiants with the specified portions of the victims. The injunction is, however, general, and thus applied to orgeones as well as outsiders. Since orgeones could sacrifice without payment to the priest and priestess, the injunction must have been issued in the interest of ritualistic decorum. What may have been envisaged is evidenced by I.G., II2, 1177. Cf. " The Attic Orgeones,"
p. 96.
154
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
ORGEONIKA
control of their revenues, entrusted to them the upkeep of the premises, and stipulated what hiereosyna should be given to the officiants at public and orgeonic sacrifices.
In the lex sacra the principle applied was that the sex of the victims of private sacri- fices made by outsiders should determine whether the priestess or the priest 70 got the hiereosyna assessed on them. Allotment, as contemplated in Frg. B, line 17, is ruled out in their case. Since we do not possess the decree of the state by which the regime of the orgeones was set up, we do not know what disposition was made of the per- quisites of the animals sacrificed by the state or the orgeonic association; but in 334 the &eptzara of the hecatomb were public property.
In " The Attic Orgeones " (p. 104) I wrote, " The Bendideia was a national fete and the relation of the orgeones to it was like that of the genos of the Salaminioi to the Oschophoria (Hesperia, VII, 1938, pp. 33 ff.)." Just as the state handed over to the Salaminioi animals (line 20) for sacrifices to Athena Skiras, it handed over to the Athenian orgeones victims for sacrifices to Bendis. The Salaminioi divided the flesh among themselves. They also assigned the dermata as hiereosyna. In these two particulars the two bodies diverged: the dermata of the Bendideia (excepting those of the sacrifices of "outsiders ") went to the state; the orgeones can hardly have divided the flesh of the hecatomb to Bendis among themselves. The magnitude of the sacrifice was such that, as at the minor Panathenaia, a kreanomia of national dimensions (I.G., II2, 334) is alone thinkable.
As we have seen (above, pp. 152 f.), the hieropoioi whom we encounter in the records of the citizen orgeones 71 attended to the kreanomia, and they and the epimeletai attended to the pompe. Were they at one and the same time officials of the orgeones and the state? 72 The epimeletes of I.G., II2, 1324, Stephanos, was certainly an orgeon (line 19), and it is probably best to think of the epimeletai as exclusively orgeonic boards. It can well be, on the other hand, that the hieropoioi of I.G., II2, 1255 (337/6) and I.G., II2, 1361 (the lex sacra) represent the board which, as I take it, was created in 430/29, and that they are the hieropoioi who in 334/3 handed over to the state the 457 drachmas realized from the sale of the hides of the animals publicly sacrificed at the Bendideia (I.G., II2, 1496, lines 86 f., 117: ey BEVSoE'wov trapa aEpowrol[<v].
The lex sacra contains a financial section (lines 17 ff.): iovat 8E [roZ^ t] po-
1TOtWS El T7)v Ova-rav : Fh: SpaXaS ( EeKUTTOV K TW OpyECV(tV OVl /ZETECOrT [TO]V [LE] pov Trov 0apy',,tMLvo5 d Tpo Trp ) EKT, ET Ertlr OEKa, 73 o 6 vyyat'v"v av K, AOwvr7 [ Ki]
pi7 oa-vv/a)XXqra, 6<EcXE'Tcr0: FF: h ipa' Tjr 0 [6].
70 Strictly the tariff applied to the priestess alone, but it is obviously assumed that it applied to the priest also. It may be that the precedence of the priestess in the tariff betrays a reality of cultus.
71 They do not appear in the records of the Thracian orgeones.
72 Cf. " The Attic Orgeones," p. 98, note 43.
73 The date shows that rv Ovaiav was that of the Bendideia, which came three days later than the terminus ante quem set for the payment of the two drachmas. 7rt oe[4t] is, accordingly, Bendis.
74 Nilsson (p. 173) thinks that Thracians are envisaged here; but this is excluded, seeing that 155
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:44:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
W. S. FERGUSON
The sacrifice was the great sacrifice which formed the essential part of the Bendideia. What the annual fee of two drachmas represented was either coverage for a special sacrifice of the orgeones 75 on that occasion, or a contribution of the orgeones toward the expense which the state incurred in making the hecatomb. Since it would take the two-drachma payments of about 35 orgeones to purchase a single ,Boi3v, the orgeones would have had to be about 3500 strong to foot the entire cost of the hecatomb with their fees. Was there a tax (telos) of, say, two drachmas per person levied as eirapxr/ on so large an aggregate (the orgeones being simply a self- taxing part of it); or did the state draw on its general revenues to defray its portion of the expenses? We are, I believe, entitled to ask these questions, but there is no evidence on which we can draw to answer them.
In concluding this analysis of the new fragments and the lex sacra I should like to say what seems to me probable, namely, that at some time between 429 B.C. and the epoch of Lycurgus the state transferred the major part of the responsibility for the Bendideia-its sacrifice, pompe,76 pannychis, and torch-race 77-to the two asso- ciations of orgeones to be handled co6peratively by them, reserving perhaps its con- trol of the kreanomia and a measure of control over the business and the business meetings of the Athenian branch by keeping in its own hands the appointment of the hieropoioi.78 The priest and priestess of the Athenian association must, I think, have remained public officials, selected Ef 'AO-vaitcov aTravrwv; but in the conduct of other than public sacrifices they came under the authority of the orgeones.
the lex was issued by the Athenian orgeones (above, p. 153, note 65). Athenians had business reasons for being absent from Attica or public duties which took them abroad.
75 It is clear from I.G., II2, 1283, lines 20 ff. that the Thracian orgeones sacrificed in the shrine on the 19th of Thargelion as a distinct group, since it is unthinkable that they could prescribe the
" prayers " for anyone but themselves.
76 If I have interpreted correctly the decision of the Athenian orgeones to increase to the utmost their number (above, note 66), these orgeones formed the Athenian contingent in the pompe. It is, I think, the implication of I.G., II2, 1283 that the Thracians in the asty needed to be orgeones in which preceded and accompanied the creation of the two associations of orgeones.
77 The Bendis-relief in the British Museum published by P. Hartwig, Bendis, Taf. II and recently by Nilsson (p. 175, fig. 3) is evidence for the existence deep into the fourth century of the torch race. Nilsson writes (p. 173) : Etwas alter [than 329/8] ist wohl das von Hartwig veroffent- lichte Relief in British Museum; vor Bendis stehen acht nackte Jiinglinge von zwei bartigen Man- nern gefiihrt, deren vorderster eine Pechfackel in der Hand halt. Das Bild bezieht sich auf den von Platon erwahnten Fackellauf.
78 It is notable that under the lex sacra the convocation of the monthly business meetings of the Athenian orgeones devolved upon the epimeletai and the hieropoioi. The hieropoioi among the orgeones, if they were public officials, would be like the demarch in the Piraeus (cf. "The Attic Orgeones," p. 96, note 9). In no other association of orgeones are hieropoioi found. The absence of hieropoioi among the orgeones of the Mother of the Gods (" The Attic Orgeones," p. 109) is especially noteworthy in this connection.
156
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
ORGEONIKA
When did this transfer take place? In other words when were the orgeones of Bendis, both associations, the Athenian and the Thracian, organized? Public action was necessarily involved and this not simply because the Thracians were permitted to call themselves orgeones.79 This was an anomaly so long as the law (of Solon?) was in force which compelled the phratries to admit to membership both orgeones and gennetai, i. e., to qualify them alike for enrollment with themselves in the registers of citizens. The Thracian orgeones did not become Athenian citizens: they were and long remained the central organization of the Thracian ethnos in Attica (I.G., II2, 1283; cf. " The Attic Orgeones," p. 100). They owed the name orgeones to a privi-
legium.80 This is another question which we cannot answer.
BENDIS AND THE PLAGUE
I have reserved to the en the eiscussion ofnd idiscussion of the circumstances the public cult of Bendis was established' by decree in Athens. The year was 430/29. The Athenians may have voted during the prytany of Aigeis or Oineis, but this does not help us to determine more precisely the tenth of the conciliar year in which Pasiphon was secretary, since, while we know sequence of most of the phylae in holding the the prytany in 432/1 (Meritt, Ath. Fin. Doc., p. 79), we have no information about their order in 430/29. According to Meritt (op. cit., p. 176) and Dinsmoor (The Athenian Archon List, p. 211) the civil year ran from July 24 to July 11. The conciliar year ran from June28 to June27 (Dinsmoor and above, p. 147) .81 The Bendis-decrees must have been passed some time before the 19th of Thargelion 429 in order to give time for the preparations which were necessary before the Bendideia could be celebrated, and also to allow the theopropoi (Frg. B-C, line 14) to travel to Dodona to consult the orae oracle again and to return to Athens. As we have seen, the 19th of Thargelion fell 314 days after the beginning of the civil year, i. e., on June 3, 429 (Dinsmoor).
Apparently the ninth prytany was yet in the future when the decree was passed; that is to say, the decree was passed before April 17, 429, at the latest. It was accordingly enacted between June 28, 430, and April 17, 429.
According to Thucydides the plague broke out in the summer of 430, while the
791 I have discussed this anomaly in " The Attic Orgeones," pp. 96 ff., 110 f., 127, 139 f.).
80 I have suggested a possible connection between this privilegium and the mention of the law (of Solon?) in the IVth book of Philochoros' Atthis (" The Attic Orgeones," p. 68, note 8); but this has much less chance of being right now that the possible time of the transfer is extended some sixty years after the period dealt with by Philochoros in Book IV. Book V did not begin later than 394; cf. Busolt, Griech. Gesch., II2, p. 10.
81 To this year belong I.G., I2, 218 = Meritt, Wade-Gery, McGregor, Athenian Tribute Lists, I, no. 25; also I.G., I2, 57, lines 3-72 = Ath. Trib. Lists, I, D 3-the first of four decrees concerning Methone. This decree was passed during the prytany of Erechtheis, which is not numbered. We have no financial accounts for 430/29. These are, of course, our main source of information on the order of the phylae in holding the prytany.
157
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:44:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
W. S. FERGUSON
Peloponnesians were still in Attica. They began their second invasion, he says (II, 47, 2) Tov 8&e OE'pov,s evf1s apXo,Levov [" at the very beginning of summer "] 82
Kal ovrwv avr&v [he continues, II, 47, 3] ov TroXXas mr rp ,Epas ev rjE 'ATTlK, J X voCros rpcrov 77pTaro yeve'o-Oat rotg 'AOrivatot [" And before they had been many days in Attica the plague began for the first time to show itself among the Athenians "] . . .
Kal TO 7rprTov [II, 48, 2] ev Tr l IItEpaceZ {iaro rcv avbOp7rwov, &rTE Kal VLT EX'0r avCrv c, otl IEXo7rovvro'to& bap/paKa qapEara Erj/3/3X7KoiEv e rva Kp-qvat yTap ovir(o) 7Oav avroOF. crrTEpov 8E Ka e Tr7v av)o iroXtlv aiKEro rKaL eOvcaKOv iroXXK [" pu.aAov ,8r) It attacked first the inhabitants of the Peiraeus, so that the people there even said that the Peloponnesians had put poison in their cisterns; for there were as yet no public fountains there. But afterwards it reached the upper city also, and from that time the mortality became much greater"]. Later (II, 57) Thucydides says: "During this entire period, while the Peloponnesians were in Attica and the fleet of the Athenians was on the expedition, the plague was making havoc among the Athenians, both in their fleet and in the city. The statement was therefore made (crre Kat E'XEXOq7)
that the Peloponnesians left Attica in haste (" Gegen Mitte Juli'," Busolt) because they were afraid of the disease, since they not only heard from deserters that it was in the city, but also could see them burning their dead. In this invasion, however, they remained in Attica longer than at any other time, and also ravaged the entire country; indeed they were in Attica almost forty days."
We may thus fix the date of the establishment of the Bendideia in the first prytany of 430/29 if we relate its inauguration to the mood created by the plague, since this prytany covered the 37 days following June 28 (Dinsmoor) whereas the plague began shortly after ca. June 1 (Busolt); or we can fix it later, but not by more than 7 prytanies and preferably less,83 and still connect the inauguration of the new fete with plague-psychology.
Plague-psychology is illuminated by two famous passages in Thucydides' history of the war: II, 47, 4 and II, 54. They are usually cited as examples of the historian's intellectual superiority and religious rationalism, and such indeed they are; but they
82 I have used here and in the case of the following extracts the translation of Thucydides given by Charles Foster Smith in the Loeb Classics. According to Busolt, Griech. Gesch., III, 2, 940, "the very beginning of summer " came in " Anfang Juni 430." Since the Peloponnesians retired " almost 40 days later," the date of their leaving, on Busolt's chronology, was about the middle of July. The conciliar year 430/29 began on June 28 (Dinsmoor), when on Busolt's dating the plague was already raging.
83 I am inclined to date it about the second or third prytany (Aug.-Sept.-Oct. 430), not out of deference to Thucydides' statement (below, p. 159), that "at last they desisted from" appeals to the gods by supplications, oracles and the like, but because of the time which must have elapsed between the decree and the ninth prytany. The sale and collecting of the s1rapxal must have been a lengthy process. They were probably due in the ninth prytany which ended eleven days before the Bendideia. Incidentally we may note that at the time of the decree it was known that the 19th of Thargelion would be the 11th of the tenth prytany. In other words the order of the prytanies with their lengths of 36 or 37 days and the order of the full and hollow months was fixed in advance.
158
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
ORGEONIKA
are equally significant for the hold which religious scruples had on the minds of his contemporaries in Athens. I shall therefore quote them in extenso in translation
(II, 54): " And in their distress they [the Athenians] recalled, as was natural, the following verse which their older men said had long ago been uttered:
'A Dorian war shall come and pestilence with it.'
A dispute arose, however, among the people, some contending that the word used in
A dispute arose, however, among the people, some contending that the word used in