Apendix 2 Cyrene Cathartic Law

8/13/2019 Apendix 2 Cyrene Cathartic Law

1/10

Appendix 2: The cyrene cathartic LawThe law is ^SG ix 72 (.f . xx 7l7), SS I 15, Solmsen/Fraenkela 39,Buck I15. trt was discovered in lg22 in the R.oman baths ar Cyrene,where it had been incorporated as a seat for bathers in they' igiarium,a.rrd. published with an extensive cornrnentary by S" Ferri, o


2/10

334 h[iasma'I'he code itself is sonnewhat disorganized, and not cornprehensive;thus in E 25 there is an alluriot, to .uth-pollution, as to something

f amiliar, but its operations are nowhe re regulated. The rules cotltains are doubtless very various in date; but no part of it reads likea ','erbatin'r tratrscript of'a truly archaic code of'rules.* (frlote foritrstatrce the I'irtual absence of wholly incon'rprehensible words.) Itperhaps manifbsts the same kind of retouched archaism as M1L 5, theFouttders' Oath. The possibility that a rnore orderly code has beenahrbreviated and unintllligently reorganized is o..urionally raised inwhat fbllows. 'fhere are inconsistencies both of phrasing (cf . below onqoei/roeirac) and dialect (Ercaooa/brcoioa, B 5, 7, cf. Wilarnowitz).4-7 'lf' disease [nt J o. death should corne againsr rhecountry or the citv, sacrifice in front of'the gates [in lronr oil the shrineof'aversion (?) to Apollo the r\v'errer a red he-goar.''l'lte interpretation of' the genitir,'e c dnorgonau in 6 is very un-certain. Ferri, followed by Luzzatto, took r dnoqfielav as 'ttre evilto be averted', whence supplements like rca\agtv,'a purificationfiom the evil'. .notgnanE as an adjective bears this ses. in post-classical prose, as does &nrgolroE in tragedy (ct LS_f), but the sub-stantival use seems implausible. Most scholars have followed Voglianoirr taking r d.norpnatov as a physical object outside the gut.r, astatue, unworked stone, or altar dedicated to the god (ro. e.g.\\'ilamowi tz. Glaube, i, I 73 n. I ), and in supplementing aprepositio,'in front of'the apotropaion'. This is more attractive, even thoughparallels for the no.un dnotgnarov are lackingRed victims are not of ten specified in sacred laws, and do nclt seemtt ltave had any fixed significance (cf. P. Stengel, Opferbrache der(jriechen. l,eipzig, 1910, 187-90, idem, Kultusaltertmer, l5l f.). Lattesuggested, comparing Roman fbstir.'als, that in this case the red goarwas a ll*mbolic embodiment of'the evil to be averted, the fiery plague;cf. p. 275, and the black bull burnt'foro Boubrostis in Smyrrru, Plut.(/uaest. Symp.694a-b. It certairrly seems that,.in a red goat, a ratherdisreputable anirnal is deliberately chosen, like the dogs sacrificed toHet'ate; goats are shameless, ancl red hair too is a rnark ol'shameless-rress arrd evil senerally (8. \\'underlich, Die Bedeutung der roten Farbe imKultus der Griechen und Riimer, RGVV 2O.l , Giessen, 1925, 66-72).In

- I owe this point to Bryan Hainsworth. On the other hand, IGIs 104. if a verbatimtrattscript of'f)raco's code, attests considerable lucidity' fbr a late 7th-ceirtury law; on rrsst'le see Gagarin, Drakon, (:h. tl.

Appendix 2 33sSS I 16 A 3, also from Cyrene, LSCG lB A 33, C 33, ibid',20 A 26,Apollo Apotropaios again receives a goat, but in Dem .21.53 an ox"The sacrific to ,tpollo 'in front of the gates' obviously relates to thegod's function as one who stands outside city gates (Fropylaios) oro,rr. doors (Aguieus) and averts evil from them, and more ge_nerally,stands in tni' of threatened humans (Prostaterios); cf. Preller/Robert, i, 276 n. l, RE2.64,Farnell, iv, l48-52" For statues ofApollooutside the walls, firing his arrows to avert plague, see O: Weinreich,cited p.276 n 9i; Weiireich's evidence is late, but cf. already Soph.OT ZZ-0. For a 'Hecate before the gates' see ,S/G3 57 (LSA 50) 26,29 f.; also Aesch. SePt. 164.8-10 'Wood growing in a sacred area. If you pay the god the price,you can use thJwood ibr sacred, prof;ane and unclean purposes.'Sacred purposes: statues, sacrificial fires. LJnclean purposes: ,f .burning of'Lnclean objects, especially corpses, perhaps too use inchthonlc sacrifices. Further possibilities are suggested by thePythagorean rule, Iambl . VP 15+, against using cedar, laurel, myrtle,or cypress for cleansing the body' or the teeth, since they should bekept for honouring the gods.b" the protecti,o" of ,u.red wood see p. 165 above. The entirelycommercil approach is unusual, but without knowing the characterof the 'wood fiowitrg in a sacred area' it is rash to draw codclusionsabout Cyrerr.un liberalism (Luzzatto). Unless 'the g"d_ is_ therelevant god in each case, it looks as if this rule nelates specifically tothe sanctu ary of APollo.11- 15 'Cloming from a wom an a man, if he has slept with her bynight, can sacrifice [wherever? whenever?J-he wishes. If he has slept*6 her by duy, he can, after _washing t I go wherever hewishes, excePt to ltwo lines missing\See pp. 7+ ft. on such rules. Here intercourse by night requires nop"rih.ation. It should be emphasized that the sacrifice here mentionedis rrot intended to eflace the pollution of intercourse, as Ferri,Luzzattooand Sokolowski assume. This is not attested as a function of sacrifice;the case envisaged is that o[ a man who wants to sacrifice but hasrecently had intrcours. Restoration of the limiting clause 'except to


3/10

336.' is quite uncertain. AMaas thoughr of shrinesunparalleled.

h{iasmospecific sanctuary was probably namecl.in general, bur such sverity ould bt.

16-20 'The woman in childbed.shall pollure the house. [sopJsheshall not pollute [the person who is outside the house(?)J, unless hecomes in' Aty person who is inside shall be pollured fro, three days,but shall not pollute anyone else, not wherever this person goes.,In l6 I diverge from Fraenkel's te.xt, readin gAeyc (norninative); fo,the forrn see Buck, $ I I 1.5. Tle clue to the 'r."tio.r's arriculation, zsVogliano sa\A" is th d' in 17 , which is unmisrakable in the photo-graph' The previous section 'b.oo*., lucid if we accepr oliverio,s$go(pov, as in the translarion above" (F'or -- afier i6- cf. E. Risch,Il'ortbildung der homerischen Spraclwz,, B..iin, lg7q, Z2S, lgg.) But theword is ttqt lltested, and ti,e 6 read by Oliverio nor visible on rhep"ho.lograph. Otherwise the sto,i. *usr have said something like ,sheshaltr not pollute a roof, unless she comes under it., But it seemspreferable to make the mobile parry, liable ro come under a roof,someone other than the mother.2l-5 'There is hosiain respect of the Akamantia lor everybody, bothPure and profane. Except ]to* the man Bartus the leader and theTlitopateres ancl from onymastos the l)elphian, from anywhere else,where a man died, there isn't hosia fo, orr. who is pure; in respect of'shrines thene is hosia fbr everybody., 'v s r*'L' IA I'exed section; any translation is tendentious. The difterent possi-bilities are be.st expressed b{, respectively, Latte and Vogliano/Maas.Two main difficuities are ih. ouding in 21 , and the articulation of22-3' In 21, KAI'IANTIQN is certainland u i.u..ding rrace is visiblewhich probably belo'gs to an A. trvilam*it, intenpreted a(l ) rca'tavruY' supposing accidental omission of"the r; Latte '. rca pavraw;Maas- Atcapavriw\ lrorn 'Arcapa.vrov,shrine of the Akamantes: a neatparallel in construction to 25).Wilamowirz translated: .If there is ltosiaofseers, there is it for everybody . Sirnilarly Latte: ,Whate verhosidof seers there is, there is foi erreoyb"av;, ih-;;;t"t being that consua-tion of'oracles was only permitied at certain times. (Latte suggesteclthat tavruu might ttu"d -or tavrt:uv,oracular shrines, but Vogliano

Appendix 2 337rointed out that p,awqo@v wauld be expected.) Bur the postulated,,,rission of the verb in both conditional (on relative) and rnain clause,..*r impossibly abbneviated, and the expression 'hosia of seers' isrr'convrnclng. tri see,'s are rejected here, the interpretati'n of thelirllowi"g lins with reference to tornb-oracles (de Sanctis and others)r.ollapr.I. The Akamantes, introduced by Maas's interpretation' areknow as recipients of offerings in a sacred calendar fiorn Marathon,,LSCG 20 B 32j there as here th.y appear close to the Tritopateres, butrs Latte poinis out the order of offerings in the N,{arathon text is b,vcalendarj and so the juxraposition need not be signifrcant. Ol their,ature nothirrg certai is kown; as 'the untiring otres' they rnight bewinds (cf . LSjs .t'. &rctaE, rc"tarcE), but in the Cyrene law, if-theyare correctly"introdtrcd into it, there is perhaps a contrast with theurlusual ,rse of rctvu) :'die' in24,whrich would make them'undyingones, (.f. \\'ilamowitz, Glaube, ,309, n. 2). One of- the Anrenorids,who received cult at cyrene, was called Akamas, and son'le haveiderrtified Akamanres and Antenorids (J" D.fradas, REG 65 (1952),299, G. Capovilla, Aegtptus 42 ( 1962), 85); bt , as vogliano noted, it ishard to see why Antenbr's second son should have given his narne tothe gens.f'wo substantial difhculties in Maas's reading were indicatedby i,,utt.. ( I ) The plural; did the Cyrenaeans really have a series cf'srirre s of iftu ,qkarnantes? A possible solution would be to suppose arnason's error fbr 'Arcap&vr@v; or perhaps 'Arcatavtov was a genericword in Cyrene meaning so*ething like-'hero shrine'. (2) Somecontrast between the Akimantia and the iep . ol- 25 will have to befound, or the former provision could have been left to be covered bvthe latter. Vogliano tggests that the Akamantia are rygEa as opposedta ieE.' but that in tui leaves the contrast betweerl thern and lines22-3, which also seem to treatrlEEa, obscure"'f'he anticulation o-2'2-4 depends on the reading at the end of'23. tt'a c-onjunctio can be introcluced there, they become a subordinateclaus qualif ving '21 ,'there ts hosia fbr all . . . except that, fiom Battos. or anvw"rJelse, where a rnan died, there is not hosia fbr a pureman.' \\,ilhout a conjunction, 22-4becomes an independent selltettce,with n),dy modifyi"s d.naUUfu, &s in the tratrslation ofXbred at the startof this section. For iaar the end of 23 there is no space; fl might seemp.ssible, but accordi*g to Vogliano and ()liverio, the onlv letterfo*putible with the trces is (a rnistukgt] adscript of'a comtnonkind: see e.g., &t Cyrene, six instanc-es in SEG ix 4). If'this is correct,the translation otlered above becomes itrescapable. On ally I'iew, h'relation betwee n d.n' v\gttna Br@ and dnaAT presents a f urtherdifficulty. It is generally agreed that'fiom the man Battos'tncatls,from the (tomof') th mn Battos'. \\'e know fiom Pindar of'histtrnrb ip te rnarke t-place at Oyrene (P\th. 5.93)" F,xcavation has


4/10

revealed two round tombs in the agora, the larger of which containedtwo distinct altars; Wilam owitz3ciordingly assigned the larger rombto a .joint cult of 'Battos and the Tritofiuterer', the smaller to themysterious .'D9lph1c 9ny*asros'_ (Kyreie, Berlin, l g2B, g n. l; cf.oliverio, Fis. 12' F. Chamoux, Q)rit ,oi, la monarchie des Battiades,Paris, 1953, 132,285-7, with Plate 7.l,and furtherreferences in p. M.Fraser, Ptoltmaic Alexand.ria., oxford, ii, l0g7 n" 50g). But the conjunc-tion of tombs and 'uny othe place where a man died' is illogical, asmell do not die in their ,^"Tbt- (unless heroic tombs are envisaged asbein.q sited at the plage of death). ,q reference to acrual places ofdeath(though accepted by Latte) ,..*, ott ofplace in this context. We areperhaps dealing with a lrachylogy lor 'frm any other place, where isburied a man who has died'. ' \on the 'fritopateres sokolowski gives bibliography.'T'here is hosia of' the shrines for"euerybody' is normally taken tomealr (cf ' IVilamowitz): 'It is hosion, religiously inoffensive, lor every-PqA.y.lo upproach the shrines', everyone has lree access to them. It isinitially tempting to interpret 22-+as indicating places where it is norhosion fbr a pure person togo. The lines would.*luae,the pure, fromtombs, and thus from heio cult, with the exception of those tombssituated in the agora itself, which must have been generally recognizedas an exception to the not3ll principle that toms pollure; cf."p. 42,and otl the similar restrictions irnposed on Coan priests againstapproaching graves, or a house of darh, p. 52. The difficulty is thatthese lines, in contrast to 2l and 25, speuL rro, of ,hosiof, but ,hasiafrom': 'From a. place where a rnan did there is not hosiafor a purenran'' Nlost editors have simply slossed over this drr (Vogliano eventranslates 'al luogo dove uno' morto non data facolt diaccostarsi'), and if it is taken seriously oa becomes va"gue: there isnot hosia fbr a pure person (coming) frm u ,o-b:r" ar i"hat? (onlythose who read tairatv in 2l can provide an urrr*.i-.e, Latte andBuck).A - possible solution would be to interpret boa not in terrns offieedom of access, but of freedom of'cons.r-ption of sacrificial offer-ings ' AKoPo'vra and eg' would be changed ho* places ro offerings:'Everyone may share in oflbrings made to the Akamantes. . . there istrot the right of- eating f rorn th tomb of'Battus for a pure maneve ryone may share in offerings made to the gods"' This would find aparallel in the further Coan t"it.i.tion fo. priists on rae, figwva oev( l-'\CG I 54 A 22, 156 A 8); and on the put)ling phra se oq rcge.ov inH-vmn Hom- fuIerc. r30 selH.Jeanmairl, REG sg (1g45),66_89, withBenve niste, ii, 198- 202. But irr. lack of'ny explicit relerence ro eari'gls surprrslng"f-he refbrence to a class of 'the pure' is unique (u, is the earlier

Appendix 2 339division of pure-prolane-unctean). The pure rnust be priests. ?ttdothers who r., for whatever reason, subject to temporary hagneiai.zG-Jl 'If he sacrifices upon the altar a victim which it is notcustomary to sacrifice, let hlm remove the remaining fat (?) fiom thealtar and wash it ofl and remove the other filth from the shrine andtake away the ashes (?) from the altar and the fine to a pure spot, andthen let tri* wash himself, purify the shrine, sacrifice a full grownanimal as penalty, and then iet hirn sacrifice as is customary.'On bneach of religious rules as a pollution see p. l$ .I{o.te that in thiscase the illicit sac*rifrce pollutes the sacrificer as well as the shrine .32 ,A man is bound as far as his brothers' children.'This stands in isolation, separated by paragrapi from what precedesand what follows. (The rst paragraphos is unmistakable on thephotograph, and ref utes attempts to make 32 run on frorn 31.) l*tultl-Ei, the"oly supplement that fits the space. The grolP of relativesextendirg to t sons of brothers is a familiar one (cf. Latte), but thereason for its introduction here is very obscure. A law in Dem. 43-58(.f. Harrison, i, l28 n. 2) apparently specifies that all the heirs, and,rot just the direct descendants, of a rnan who dies owing money to agod'should be atimoi until they pay the deb1, T.hat:uggTts a plausiblekind of context for our regulation, especially in view of what follows;but the vagueness and bievity of the Cyrenaean law make it seernalmost like a fragment of a fuller code'33-72 'If a grown man is subject to a tithe, having purified himselfwith blood, h; shall purify the shrine; after being totq in the n'rarket-place for the most that he is worth, he shall first sacrifice as a penaltybefore'the tithe a fully grown victim, not frorn the tithe, and then heshall sacrifice the tithe u"a carry it away to a pure spot; otherwise, thesame measures will be necessary. Everyone who sacrifices shall bringa vessel. If a [boVJ is pollured unwillingly, ir's sufficient for him topurify hirnselfu" p.nulty isn't necessary. If he is polluted willingly,ir" shull purify the shrine and sacrifice first as a penalty a fully grownvictim.(+g) If property is subjecr to a tithe, he (the owner) shall assess the

338 Miasma


5/10

r"alue of'the P. ne1ty', purify the shrine and rhe properry separarely,and then sacrificu fittJ as a penal ty afully grown viciim, not from thetithe, and then sacrifice th tithe'and.y it away to apure spor.Otherwise, the sante measures will be necessary. Frorn the property,as long as.it is s.ubject to a tithe, no one shall make funerary ofleringsrlor shall,he.bring libations until he pays the tithe ro the god" If'ebrirlgs libations or makes flunerary'offerings, after cleansing thetemple of'.\pollo he shall first sacrifice as a penaky, according to hisoflbncf , v firlly srown victim.(53) If'3 m.an subject to a tithe dies, after rhey bury the ma' he (theheir?) shall place *utever he likes on the torn.b o' ih* rrr day, butnothing subsequent to that, until he pays the tithe ro the god, and heshall not sac'rifice norgo to the tomb.'Tey shall assess him (the deadman) fbr the most tharhe was worth, being a parrner ro the god. Afterpuri,fyitg the ternpl. .of Apollo and h. piop.rry separately, he (theheir) having first sacrific. u, a penalty a ruiry gro*' victim n't fromthe tithe, in fiont of the altar, shall sacrifice rhe tithe in front of thealtar and carry it away to a pure spot. otherwise, the sarne measureswill be necessary.(63) If'a Tut, subject to a tithedies and ofthe children who are leftsome live and some di:, having assessed the [dead .rriiJ..n?J fbr themost that they are worth h" (th he.ir) shall puiity rhe remple oiapolloand the,property separately, sacrifice firsi the p*nalt.v of" the srownman befbre the altar, and then sacrifice the tithe before the altar. r\sfor the livine descendant,- having purified himself'he shall purifi theshrine separately; ut I being rota in the market place, he shallsacrifice the penalty of the g.o*n rnan, a fully grown apimal, and thenhe shall sacrifice the tithe and carry it away io upure spot. Otherwise,tlre same rneasures will be necessary. , 'I{ates 0n the translation; 'The sarne measures will be required, isexpressed by cither ttov a.rCov roe? ar 6r7oe?rar. For the latter, otherrenderings have sometirnes been offered, hrt fbr impensonal efuar,with a,qenitive see PI fuIen.79c,f)em. lg. 145, LSJ r.rr. et,III. In 40and 1l t't is probably middle * pu*uiv'e, 'incurs pollution,, in v,iew of'the absence 9f ul object and the pparently passive use of'the relatedfutu re Paos in B 3 (lontrast active pmveiin A l6), but an active senseilnttttaps not inconceivablet 'pollutes (the shrine)'. f'he regularion,'Everyone who sacrifices shall tlring (take away?) a vessel, (39), seemsrnisplaced here. T.he force of''carrylorg away to the pure, in 3g, 46,62,7 | is obscure' It can scarcely *.u '(threby) nesrore (things) topuritY', as -Vogliano suggests. .I'he sacrifice 'before the altar, hassometimes been thought t be especially appropriate to, the case of atithed man who has i", _bu t iqoBap'oEou, no inrrinsic uneraryapplication (fbr the word cf. F-,un.-Ion376rrd at Ciyrene SEGix 345),

Appendix 2 31t:rnd the failure to specify this fbrm of'o{fering in earlier sections islrerhaps mere care lessness (Wilamowi tz) .

Varior-rs fbrms of' tithing were fanriliar in Greece, several of'then'rcspecially associated with ,\pollo, who was ercarqqQog (RE s.\'.Apollo,17)" Apart from the purely secular use of'thc tithe as a fbrrn of'tax or rent, there was the common practice of'.dedicating to a god atenth of'first-firuits, plunder, or the product of an)' enterprise; aitio-logical stories told of humans sent to Delphi as tithes by' their corl-querors or even, in time of'plague or fbmine, bv their own people, and; penal tithing, of- disputed character, was threatened against the*.dirers in +iS (.f. How/Wells on Hdt" 7 .137 . 2, Farke/\\'ormell i,5l-5, H. \\'. Farke, 'Consecration to Apollo', Hermathena 72 (1948),u2- I l4; also Diod. I1.65.5). F-pigraphic eviderlce fbr the payrnent of'rithes to Apollo is quite exceptionally' abundant at Cl)'relre: see SEG ix6tl, 78, 80, 84, t]7 f . ,,9+,100,302- 17, and (partl,v reproducing materialfiom SG) nn. 35-+'2, +9, 133-+2, l5l f., '2+8-52 of'the SupplementoEpigrafico Crenaico (Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene, n.s. '2'3-+(ig6 I-2), 219-375). Bel'ond the lact that these are pa)'ments brindil'iduals, the characte r o[ the tithe is irnpossible to determine, butapparently, in contrast to our text, it is not rnerely sacrificed, but inpu.t at least goes to pay fbr the inscription, 'X dedicates his tithe toApollo.' For rithes paid fiom spoils at Cly'rene see S.EG ix 76 {.,, Suppl.Epg.Cir. 132a. trt does not seern that the institution o{"our inscription".r.sponds exactly with any of the familiar ftrrrns. It is fbr us bafHinglyobscuie, because the law assumes knowledg. of' the institution'sgeneral intent, and confines itselfi to procedural fbrmalities andlpecial cases (although even in these respects, fbr all its verbositv, it isannoyingly unexplicit and incomplete). 'fhe fiorm of' tithe that isassumed is individual, and rtot, as in the case of'the N'ledizing cities,collective; on the other hand, the refbrence to 'penalties' seems toshow that we are not dealing with the ordinany' indir,'idual tithevoluntarily oflbred, brt with an obligation that is imposed as apunishment. If'the tithe is itself a punishment, the requirernent of'apenal sacrifice in addition to it is perhaps surprisin.g; but the possi-bitity of' being subject to a tithe without being subject to a penalsacrifice is not env'isaged,, which is hard to explain on the view that,u'oluntary thank-oflbrings are in questioll" It is perhaps conceivablethat the opening provision of 30 is a brach)'logy fbr'lf'a grown man isunder a tithe (and incurs pollution while under it) ' (cf . 40-2); but if'the stone really omits such vital specifications, it is bt'r'otrd inter-pretation.

340 lliasma


6/10

3+2 Miasma\o direct indication is ar,'ailable abour the ofnences through whichsuch tithing was incurred. The recurrent references to purification,both of'the ofrender and of the shrine,..riss.st that rhey were pollu-tions of' some trature; sacrilegious pollutions, which could includealrnost any breach of religious"rules, are rhe mosr likely kind (.f. pp.141 ff' above).The rules r the youth who'incurs poiltion,perhapssupport tit View (but see below for Nfaas's uie*). It is somerimessuggested (e.g: by \\'ilamowitz) rhar the tithed man'requires purifica-tion because. the position of- sacred debtor (rcowE i, ot 0e6, 5g)is, through the contagiousnessbf' the sacred, intrinsically polluting.But on this view one might rather .*p.c, the purification after thetithe has been sacrificed;*and it oflbrs ,ro .onvincing explanation forthe purifi cation of' the-shrine ( \\'ilamowi tz suggesrs, implausibly, thatthe mere presence of the sacred debtor pottute"s it). It is ,rot very likely,though perhaps conceivable, that th.r. purifications are not theresponse to 3 specific pollution, but mere pi.pu.ations fbr the solemnact of sacrificing the tithe (f.o 'sacrificitrg oi[' a tithe cf. Xen . Ages.l.34,idem.,Hell.3.3. 1,4.3.21). oThe section on the youth ,40-2, perhaps, as was noted, provides aclue' In 40, the choice of read]ng is betw.u,r lvttBo;il; ,prl;;,s certain; cf " schol. Theocr. 8"3: you are vqBoE till ls, vqpoE hence-forth).d,qloggives a contrast wiitr fBatd.E,nrwith vqpoEwe are leftto wonder about the. consequences of the pollution of an dryfoE.Accordilg to Maas, the section has_ nothing ro do with tithing, butrefbrs, with its contrast between involuntary'and volunt arypollution,to wet dreams and masturbation. (H. ,., this reference, and theseverity of the penalty, 3: un argurnent in favour of ivrBog.) It hasP:tlTt b:.tl .misplaced here because of a desire, observable from32-82, to divide the inscription into ten-line secrions. The poinr aboutthe ten-line sections is coirect ("f.Vogliano 289), and, in a contextthat treats of-'tenths', s.laltling; is this conscious number-symbolism,and if it it, what parallels ar'available ar this religious level? Thesexual interpretation of t,r is linguistically plausibl; (.i p 76 n. 9),but i"t: i-plications here are too exrraordinary to be u...p,ed withoutmodification. Can we really imagine a Gr.k sacred l* imposingt|:h penalties indeed any pealties on young men for suchoflbtrc'es in ordinary circumitarrces? If' the sexual irrt.rpretation iscorrect, we would have to assume some specific and restricted appli-cat on (temple servants, boys preparirg fbr a specific ritual, or thelike) . of this, however, the t"t orr.r, ,,Jhint.,, Vogliano thinks these..boys are trcaroi like the ttpara. The dif:fbrence in their situation f ies t"ly in the concession rnade.firr involun-tary pollutiott. ,\lthough it is not stated, we undersrand that the youthVoluntarily polluted must also sacrifice a tithe (nore the prefix in

Appendix 2 3+3ngo|uoel, 12). In favour of this it may be said that 33 seems toenvisage the possibility of \ercaro who are not full grown" But it isperhaps -or plausible that the dvq\oE has committed an ofnencewhich would have rendered him ercatg but ficr his age (.f. V.Arangio-Ruiz, Persone efamiglia nel diritto dei papiri, Milan, 1930, l2 n.2); as it is, he gets offmore lightly" This would confirm that'tithing'isa consequence of pollution; but the character of the pollution wouldrernain unclear.The assessment of a tithed man's value by 'selling him in thernarket' is an extraordinary and unparalleled procedure. The com-mentators without exception assume the sale to have been a fictionalone; and if it is not, to whom do the remaining nine-tenths of the tithedman's value fall? But it is hard to see how interested participation andfair bidding at a fictional sale could be ensured. (I t has been suggestedthat P. Oxy. 716. l8 ffprovides a parallel for the assessment of'a man'svalue by moc-k-sale, but there seems no difficulty about seeing the salethere as genuine.)The restrictions of 48-53 cause surprise by their position. Lattecited Aeschin. 3 .21 , a law ficrbiddirg ofFcials who were ne?uvo todedicate goods, and Gaius, DiS.4+.6.3,'rern de qua controversia estprohibemur in sacrum dedicare'. Our text, however, is more limited,referring only, it seems, to mortuary ofnerings. Ferri and Wilamowitztook this as an extreme case, 'not even for a pious duty, much less fonanything else'. But the rule, which names a penalty, is oddly specific ifso. It is tempting to suppose that it belongs somewhere in the follow-irg section, otr the obligations of the deaddekatos'heir. trfit is correctlyplaced, the point is perhaps to protect Apollo's goods from evenindirect contact with funerary pollution.Other serious difficulties, less relevant to this book's theme, canonly be mentioned here without firll discussion. In 33 ff. we hear of aman who is tithed, in 13 ft. of property that is tithed; the procedure inthe two cases is distinct. In 5B-9, however, the heirofa malr tithed inhis person is required to purify the inherited property, presumably inpr.puration foi sacrificing a tenth of it to the god. T'hus here thepersonal tithe seems to extend to the property too. Probably, ttrere-lore, the true distinction is not, as 33-48 initially irnply, between atithe on person and one on property, but between a tithe on personplus property and on property alone (Vogliano; Luzzatto, however,believes that the tithe always covens both person and property.)The possibility 'f a man who is dekatos dies' is envisaged twice (53,63). In the second case he is imagined as having produced severalchildren, some still living and some now dead. What of the first?Vogliano, alone among scholars who have explicitly considered theproblem, argued that the dekatos left a single child as heir. Commoner


7/10

344 Miasmahas been the v'iew that 53 fl. treat the case of the dekatas who dieswithout direct heirs. Its proponents (de Sanctis, Lwzzatto, Koschaker,Abh. Siichs" Ak. 42 (1934), 53-5, and particularly V. Arangio-R.uiz,loc. cit") poinf out that in 60-3, in contrast to69-72,there is no talkof'the heir assessing his own value and sacrificing a tithe of it, orundengoing personal purification. The diflererlce, th.y argue, irnpliesa qualitative distinction: the keres externus rnusr pay the ead man'stithe, but only direct descendants become poiluted in their ownperson. Thus the two sections treat eNtreme cases (no direct heirs/r,'arious direct heirs, living and dead), on the basis of which properresponses to intermediate situations can be worked out, if'they are notobr,'ious anyway. The argunrent is ingenious; but it is impossible to becertain that the omission ofa provision in a particular part of this lawproves it to har,'e been inapplicable there.Amid all this uncertainty, the positive inflormation that ernerges isd.isappointinely slight. The most conspicuor-is fbature is, perhapl, therigorous protection of the god's rights. The condition of being dekatosis,, unless eflbced, hereditary, and seems to extend to all th tithedman's oflbpring, since the surrviving son is required to pay tithes alsofbr his dead siblings. \\'ith the tithe, pollution too is inherited; rhe sonrequires purification from his father's taint. Here we have one sub-stantial gain; this is virtually the only instance that can be quoted of'an inherited pollution that has recognized legal eff,ects (.f.pp. 204f[.,and p, l85 on the 'Gottesurteil von Mantinea').73-82 (Fragrnentary beyond restoration)\\'ilamowitz remarked that the only certain fact about the content ofthese lines is that it had nothing to do with either whar preceded orwhat followed; but even that negative conclusion is perhaps toopositive.

B2-8 but she herself shall not be under the same roof as herhusband nor shall she incur pollution until she comes to Arremis. Arywoman who, without doing this, voluntarily incurs pollution, alterPYffyitg the ternple of Artemis shall sacrifice in addition as penalty a{-ull grown animal, and then shall go to the sleeping chamb-er. gui lfshe incurs pollutior involuntarily, she shall purify the shrine.'

Appendix 2 3459-14 'A bride must go down to the bride-room to ^\rtemis, when-e'er she wishes at th; Arternisia, but the sooner the better. t\nywoman who does not go down [shall _sacrifice in addition, 0r(Calhoun) shall nor ,u.r".1 to Arternis [what is customary- at thei;;;rr,;t"j; n6r having gone o*n, [she shall purify the shrine] andsacrifice in additior, [."[rll grown animal as penalt,v.]f he detailed logic of'9- l4 is quite uncertain. T'he repetition d rca pircarvyqt, t rcarcArAeu7us looks almost like a procluct of- coll-fiation in drafii"g. Calhoun suggested his o ?uoe?, it't CP '29 ( 1934)'345f.IS*23'[A pregnanr woman] shall go down to the bride-roorn toArternis . : sfntt give ro the bear (a priestess) the fcet and head andskin. If she does nt go down befbre giving birth she shall go downwith a full grown anirial. She who goes down shall observe purity onthe sevent at d eighth and ninth, and she who has not gone dowrrshall observe purit on those days. But if she incurs pollution, sheshall purily hlrself, purify the shrine and sacrifice in addition aspenal ty a full grown animal.'Ferri and Wilamowitz could make little of'this section. De Sanctis anclMaas independently suggested that we are dealing with successiv;estages in a woman's career, and the ritual obligations attelldant onthe;: l-B pre-marital, g-14 the new bnide, l5-23 the expectant or'new mothei. The interpretation is almost certairtly correct; indeed,obscure thoulgh it is, this section illtstrates as eflbt'tiv'ely as any textthe way in wich it is through ritual perlbrmances that social changeis articulated and expressed. T'he perfbrmances are here required notmerely by custom but by an actual religious law. Befbre nlarriage thegirls "r"ut go to the 'sieeping-room'

for the npovstqlog nvoE (cl.allim. fi. fs.Zwith pfeiflr),fter ir to a Nvnrpheion itt the precinctof Artemis (or its probable identity see Ir. Chamoux, op. cit., 315-19;its positio.n gives special relevance to the verb'so dowtl').\'ariouspassages rlltrating such obligations have treen c-ollected by' com-mentators (see too tr-,. Deubner, 'Flochzeit und Opfbrkorb', JDAI(1g25), 2ld-%): Suda s.v. .gmoE lt Bgaupuvotgi 1|)ryqoawo oienroiot t4 nEregav uvowleo\at &vEi nag?vov e Pr .prcreitoercrg fie,Q; Plut. Amai. Ir{arr. 772b, Suda s.r'. ngorAu', pre-marriagescrifice to nyrnphs; schol. Theocr. 2.66, appeasenlellt of"r\rtemis bvthose about to marry, or pregnant ficr the first time; Apostolius 10.96,


8/10

346 MiasmaSuda s.v. Auo(uvoE Yuve, maidens befbre first intercourse dedicategirdlcs to Arremis.,.'l-h. penalties and purifications in this section strongly recall thoseof'the tithed man. It becomes tempting to turn back to-the dekatosand.y to interpret his condition in similar terms, as an obligationitrcurred b,v youn.q men at a particular stage in life rather than theconsequeltce ol'an oflbrlce. 'I'he temptation ii strengthened by the facttha t \crcare@ could be used in Altic as an "qurulenr to dgrcrea(Didymus ap. Harpocration s.v. ercatee w)i the world of theClyrenaeall girls reclls that of the Attic 'bears of Artemis', and weeven find i1 (:yrenea bearpriestess (B 16, cf. SEGix l3 .1z,Cramoux,op. cit",3l9) . But it pro\res impossible to carry this interpretationt 19ySh. The dekatos can be f ut y age (hu might die, leavingchildren); and, in contrast to the girls of l^.. b, ,ro fm of'behaviourseems to be available to him by which he will avoid the need fbr penalsacrifice.Several details in the section are elusive. lVhat, for instance, is thepollution of 3-8, that may be incurred either voluntarily or involun-tarily? N{enstruation is inv'oluntary only; intercourse may be either,but one would.-glp_._.t ti brcoi,oa to mean 'accidentally' rathen than'against her will'. If'the pollution is indeed sexual, it is remarkablethat the act perfbrmed iri private should make necess ary a purifica-tiorr of'the temple of'Arte-lr. In 21 , ttdl probably does refer ro sexualpollutictt, itt view of'thc contrast with &yieuoee in i 9, and this supporrsthe sexual interpretation earlier . (&yveco is not confined to sexualpuritv, but without further specification this is the most naturalrefbrence.) Unfbrtunately the point of'this hagneia'on the seventh,e ighth and ninth' is uncertain. Sorn. commentators fbel thar it shouldprecede the'goi]lg dowrt'of 15, 18, and l9; accordingly,Maas, by hissupplement in 15, located the 'going down' on thelenth. Bur 20 fimply rather strongly that the oc.^ion fbr going down (whetherperfbrmed or not) preceded the hagneia. Are th senrh, eighth, a'dnittt\ q.lhup_u. the days leading up to the renrh-day ..r.-ony afterbirth? (cf . p. 5l ).

24-7 'If a woman throws out (i.t. rniscarries), ifit is distinguishable(i.t. if'the fbetus has recognizable form), they are polluted as from onewho has died, but if it isn distinguishable, ihe huse itself is pollutedas from a woman in childbed.'Qn the pollution of-miscarriage see p. 50 n.67. There is doubt aboutthe sense of''the house itself-'here: cf . p. 50, and G. M. Caihoun, Cp29( I 931) , 3451., whose read ing ar in 26I adopt.

Appendix 2 3+728 'Of Suppliants'(a new heading in large letters)The supplranrs are helpfully discussed bVJ. Servais, tsCH 84 (1960)'r t2-17 .29-39 'suppliant from abroad (or, Visitant sent by spells). If u('r,rppliant') Ir senr to (or, against) the house, if (the householder)knowi, from whom he came to him, he shall narne him by proclama-tion for three days. If (the sende r of the suppliant) has died in the landor perished anywhere else, if (the householder) knows his name, hesfratl rnake proclamation by name, but if he doesn't know his name (inthe form) "o man (anthropoJ), whether you are a man or a wornan".Having made male and fernale figurines either of wood or of earth heshall .t.rtuin them and offer thern a portion of'everything. When youhave done what is customary (the change to second person appears random),take the figurines and the portions to an unworked wood and depositthem there"'lVe have here a tniangular relationship between a'suppliant', theman to whose house the 'suppliant' was sent, and the sender of the'suppliant'. Little beyond this was clear when the text was firstp,rUtithed, but subsequently the second half at least has been con-vincingly interpreted. Radermacher (Ar


9/10

348 MiasmaSeveral diflbrent situations are envisagecl in the law - the senclermay be known or unknowo, dead or alive - but the necessary ritual isttqt spelt out in each case" It is unclean whether the symbolic enter-tainnlent is always required, or only in the case specifically describedwhere the sender is dead and unknown. Ihe ruuidifficulty, however,concerns the nature of'the 'suppliant' and his sender. The commoassumption is that he is a foreignen seeking incorporation in thccommunity of'Cvrelle, and that the regulation refleits a tirne whenthis could "4y be achieved by adrnission, as a supplianr, in a privarehousehold. f'he ceremony described is the forml transfer of'potestasove r the suppliant f,rorn the foreign sender to the Cyrenaean r..ipi..,t.fo this interpretation there are serious objections. Rituals of'rhi; kindre lating to potestas are unattested in Gre"i.; it is very hard to see whyth-e necipient should be ignorant of the narne and sex of'the sendei,wherl the suppliant himself'could readily enlighten hirn, or why these nder should remain so dangerous that his expulsion to an unworkedwood was required. A fernale sender of suppliants is also surpnising. Adifrerent approach was oflbred by H. j.- st"k.y, 'The iyr"r,u*.upHikesioi', AP 32 (1937), 32-43. He poited our rhar the nt- com-Po"nds, of- which there are three in our passage, are typical of thelang-uage of rnagical attack. For narcEr. p.lZZ n. 79; ?ar nay@yltT. lSJ s.v. nayaryrl, 4b; far nnpnu (LyrJ 0.20, xen. Ctr. a.7. r"e,Pl. Cri. 16c, De m . 24"1 21, LSJ s.v. nrnpnot,2, and,for later evidenceFr. Pfister , Wochenschrift f. klassische Ph,itotogie 2g ( l g l2), 7 5Z-B; fornqLuoa see Hymn Hom. Cer. 227 f., Merc. l; and for tire 'house' astarget of magical attack see Theophr. Char. 16"7, Orph. Hymng7.7 f.,9t u higher level Aesch. Ag. I l88-90, and probably usophron mime(see p.223 aboye). Each of the nr- compounds used in thi inscriprionffi&y-, certainly, bear a non-magical sense, but the collocatin iss triking, and the further n in ni ,v oircav stronsly suggests that theaction is an aggressive one . Indeed, it is not clear that r trt -uggressivesense af'nwWw exists, except fbr that of 'send in addition' loifri.n iuperhaps the fbrce of "$/G3 93 .7,273.24, cited by Servais). fhe ircorcgnarcrE, therefore, is not a human suppliant but a demon ,"rriagainst the house, as Hecate sometinres- was, by an enemy. Thesug.gestion has not been taken seriously, chiefly, no doubt, because itsauthor rashly tried to transform the second and third suppliants, whoare palpably hurnan, into further spirits. But the ru-. idea hadoccurred to N{aas (Epidaurische H2mnen, Halle , 1933, 139, cf . Hesperia13 (1944), 37 n. 4 - Kl. schr. 202 n. 4), and is very likely ,L becorrect.* It explains the characteristic language, the need fbr pro-

* ()n first neading the inscription, FIugh Lloyd-Jones independently thought of'thesarne interpretation. I arn gratef ul to hirn for persuding n-re tirat it is right.

Appendix 2 349ritiation and expulslor, and the possibility. of a dead or unknownst..der. The householder may suspect a particular enemy olworkirlgrrragic against hirn; or he m"; intei the fbir of'an attack fiom a series of'rnisfort,rrr.r, but ,rtt know whom to ascribe it to specifically. victims,f- rnurder, at least, could send out dernons fiom the grave againsttheir killers (Xen . c]r. g.7 .lB, ntntna), and the possibility doubt-less exte nded to other cases; pherecrates, fr. 17 + 6 AayttE pe BaoxavetregvrrcrbE, may play with such ideas'\laas saw u'difh.ulty in the application of' the term ircotog to aspirit; but this could be uphemism, and ery'mologically u suppliatrt isanyway rnerely u,comer' ir,rr the connection of the suppliant and thestranger see p. tsr above). A prostropaios m1y be an innocent hurnan,or he ma),b. an avenging d.*or, (p, l0B n. t3 above). stnangerperhaps would be rhe iiteimi"gling f h,r*an and demonic suppli-ants in the same law, but everl this is not inconceivable; in each case,an alien intrusion into the familiar world must be countered with dueritual procedures. (The demonic inrerpretation could be rnaintained,but th; suppliant restored to humanity, by translaring ircotoE narcr;as ,bewitced suppliant'; but this extension in the application ofnsrcrE is unattested. )4A-49 ,second suppliulr, initiated or not initiated, having takenhis sear ar rhe public'shrine. If an injylction is made, le t him beinitiated at whalever price is enjoined. If an injunction is not made,let him sacrifice fruits of the eaith and a libation annually-for eve.r'But if he omits it (/, c.f Buck), rwice as much next year. If a childforgers and ornits ii, u an injunction is made ro him, he shall payto the god whatever is told him when he consults the oracle, andsacrifice, if he knows (where it is) on the ancestral tomb, and if not,consult the oracle.'The ,injunctions, are presumably oracular, in 'iew of' the juxta-position in 46 f .Another regulation that is almost wholly obscure. Doubt centres oltthe rneani.,g Jt' rcAw, reAorcCI. \ telesphoria hada' important place i'the culr of'J.r'enul gois at Cynene (ci. Servais, oP. cit:, 137 n' l;addsEG ix 6ir, 6g n., uir supptementa Epigrafica cirenaico, l+4-6, 252). Itseems ,ror-ully to be a pro..rsion; bri the word could also be usedwith refbrence to initiation, clallirn " cer" 129. ,\s in the case of'thetitSes, it is hard not to suspect a conrlection between the cathartic lawand the irstiturion ,eveuied by the other epigraPhic evider-rce; butonce agai' it is impossible to ad,u'ance beyond suspicion. tf' the


10/10

350 Miasmarefbrence here is to initiation, it is of-a kind otherwise unknown, sinceit may- entail permanent, and even hereditary, sacral obligations(perhaps it does so in all cases; or Latte may'be right that, ,if aniqirnction is rnade', the initiate fulfilled his obligatiorrl by u once andfbr all payme nt). fhe connection between suppl]cation and initiationis also unfbrniliar" It has been thought rhat'initiation'here confersadmission ttn merely to a sacral buialso a social grouping, and thatthe suppliant is a refugee see-king reception in Cyr.Ir. 1iutt.. Bur theuncertaintics are too many lbr specultion to be profiiuble. The mosrusef ul discussion is that b,"- Serv,ais, op. cit.50-55 ',flifd ::ppliant, a killer. He shall presenr rhe supplianr roll.: t lcities(?i and three tribes. When h. ur,nounces that (thekiller) has arrived as a suppliant, he (someone else?) shall sear him onthe threshold on a white fleece, [washJ and anoinr him; and (they?)shall go ou, ilto.the public road, and ll rhull keep silent while rhey(the killer uttq his sponsor?) are outside, obeying ih. ur,r,o,rrr."....(frog*entar\: there is a reference .to 'sacrifices').''l'he "tupp-ti.a.nt appears to have a sponsor, who 'presents him as aluppliartt'_(grce_reot, a new word, but cf. zeg d.girctatp, Aesc h. Supp.I ) .to the t 1 n'av rcai rEtguAav. These bodies are otherwise'tnktlown (brt fbr the Zeus lriphylios of Euhemerus see ^R.O l0 A3+7); the mention of'a threshold in 52 suggesrs that the preciserefbrence here is to a buildirg, or buildings, ii *hich they -t. 'Ihesignificant point is that the triphylia rnurt r some sense represent thewhole state; the purification of'the murderer is thus a marter opublicconcertl. On the further ritual details the commenrary otLatie wasdefirlitive. He troted the si.qnificance ol'the threshold (tne murderermay not yet en-ts.)r the flee.. (.I p: 73),and rhe'announcer'(cf. Eur.IT I 208- 10, l22t), rcnorbv 6'th ioutrg ro' lge w tt.otarog,artd the heralds who prececied Roman flamens to srop artisans lrornworkit,g.l , ..ir pr_efence). 'silence ' in this conrexr normally belongsto the killer himself (p. 37 l), but it can scarcely be applied to himItere, and the extension is verv natural. In 52-3 I read vllurather'1t1" Aeyrcfutovllev (Olivetig); a rule abour dress is quite ourof place arthis-point, and the ru'erb is ill-fbrmed (Masson, op. .it.T'his suppli^trl is problbly a refugee from abrad, ,ir,.u he requirespresentation to the triphylia.He is designated aroguoS,bur the exacrfbrce of this is uncertain (for discussion of the elo-.opounds usedgfitling cf. Fnaenkel on Aesch. Ag. tOgt, F. Zucker, sit;a. Leip

Documents

Apendix 2 Cyrene Cathartic Law