<<

Kernos Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique

20 | 2007 Varia

CURRIE Bruno, Pindar and the Cult of Heroes

Gunnel Ekroth

Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/356 DOI: 10.4000/kernos.356 ISSN: 2034-7871

Publisher Centre international d'étude de la religion grecque antique

Printed version Date of publication: 1 January 2007 ISSN: 0776-3824

Electronic reference Gunnel Ekroth, “CURRIE Bruno, Pindar and the Cult of Heroes”, Kernos [Online], 20 | 2007, Online since 17 March 2011, connection on 26 February 2021. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/356 ; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/kernos.356

Kernos 420 RevuedesLivres deuxsanctuairesdel’ Ourania athéniennelocalisésrespectivementausudestetaunordouest delacité,auraientinscritdanslecalendrierathénienlesphasesdelaconstellationCapella (anciennementla«Chèvre»,les«Chevreaux»oule«Cocher»),dontlelienavec expliqueraitl’épiclèsecélestedeladéesse. Le lien entre les espaces publics d’Athènes et les traditions mythiques qui leur sont rattachées est également au centre de l’étude de J.M. Luce, qui analyse en particulier les cultesetlesmythesimpliquantl’Acropoleetlespremiersroisd’Athènes.L’A.litlatopo graphiedelacitéàl’aidedesonhistoirereligieuseetpolitique:l’Acropoleestlepassé,oùla villefondesonanciennetéenserattachantàuneroyautémythiqueplacéesouslesignede Poséidonetd’Athéna;l’ancienne,àl’estdel’acropole,estlavillebassedeThésée,le «hérosroi»dusynécisme,etyrésidenteneffetlesinstitutionspolitiquesdel’Attiquetout entière;enfin,danslanouvelleagoraduCéramique,laprésenceemblématiquedesTyran noctones célèbre l’espace du régime démocratique. P. Carlier consacre son étude à une analyseattentivedelalistedesroisd’Athènes:ilmontrebienqu’ils’agitd’uneconstruction historique assez ancienne, qui continue néanmoins de se modifier encore à l’époque des Atthidographes.Traditionsoralesettraditionsécritescoopèrentdanscettereconstruction dupasséquifondel’identitédelacommunauté:ainsi,àtraverslasuccessionderoisprimor diaux,puisd’unedynastiehéroïque,enfind’unenouvelledynastieentraînantlachutedela royauté,cettelisteracontebienl’histoiredesoriginesd’Athènesetdesesinstitutionspoliti ques. C’est au demeurant par une réflexion sur le rapport entre mythe et histoire que J.Scheid conclut le volume: en dressant le bilan de cette enquête comparatiste autour d’AthènesetdeRome,ilsignaleàjustetitrequel’historienengagédansunerecherchesur lesorigines,danslamesureoùilsetrouvesouventconfrontéàdesrécitsmythiques,nepeut éluderleproblèmeméthodologiqueposéparcetypedesources,carils’agitd’unedocumen tationquinécessited’êtrelueetétudiéedanssaspécificité. Mêmes’ilnerelèvequ’enpartieledéfid’unedémarche comparatiste, cet ouvrage se signalepardesapportsoriginauxquicontribuentàrenouvelerledébatsurlesoriginesdes deuxcités.Lesréflexionssurlaformationdesespacespublics,questionfondamentalepour comprendrelespremièresphasesd’AthènesetdeRome,constituentl’intérêtdecevolume, d’autant plus que les diverses contributions offrent à ce sujetun éventail de perspectives différentes. Il n’en reste pas moins que, dans certainesdescesétudes,desproblèmesde méthode se laissent cerner: la faible problématique religieuse, alors que la religion est souventappeléeàla barre,la négligencedelaspécificitédecesrécitstraditionnelsqu’on appelaitautrefois«mythes»et,surtout,l’utilisationdesourcesprétendumenthistoriquesqui pourraientbienserévéler,aud’uneanalyserigoureuse,toutaussi«mythiques»que les«mythes»… GabriellaPironti (CentreLouisGernet,EHESS–Paris)

CURRIE Bruno, PindarandtheCultofHeroes ,Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress, 2005.1vol.14 ×22cm, XIV +487p.( OxfordClassicalMonographs ).ISBN:019 9277249. Contrarytowhatonemightassumefromthetitle,thisisnotabookaboutcultin Pindar,butaninvestigationoftheextenttowhichthecommissionersofPindar’sepinicians were heroized. Pindar’s epinician and the cult of heroes are therefore pursued independentlyaswellasjointlythroughoutthestudy,inordertoexplorethelinkbetween theheroeshonouredinPindarandactualherocults.Amongtheparadigmsofourmodern viewofGreekherocultsisthenotionthattoreceiveaherocult,apersonhadtobedead. BrunoCurriechallengesthisideabyarguingthatfifthcenturycommunitiestreatedliving RevuedesLivres 421 persons in a manner containing religious elements and sometimes even extended these honours into a fullblown herocult. Furthermore, many ancient Greeks, especially the famousandaccomplished,tookanactiveinterestintheirfateafterdeath,takinginitiatives topromotetheirownposthumousherocultsalreadyintheirlifetime.Wethereforeshould questiontheviewthatintheClassicalperiod,allhonourspaidtoapersoninhislifetime werepurelysecularandthataherocultwasnecessarilyacultofadeadperson. ThebookoriginatedasadoctoralthesiswritteninOxfordbuthasbeensubstantially expanded. The theme of Pindar and herocults has not exactly been popular among scholars:thelastmonographonthetopicwaspublishedin1865(C.Ohlert, Deheroologia Pindarica ).The Introduction (Ch.1)presentstheaimsofthebookandtheauthor’sviewson heroization,therelationshipbetweenthelivingandtheheroesaswellasbetweenherocult andrulercult.Hereonewouldhavelikedtohavebeengivenadefinitionofwhat,according to C(urrie), constitutes a herocult, since this is not selfevident and there is no ancient, clearcutclassificationtofallbackon.Furthermore,asoneoftheaimsofthebookisto explorethepossibilitythatherocultcouldalsobeperformedtohistoricalpersons,itwould havebeenusefultoseehowC.perceivesherocult to be different from the cult of the ordinarydead,bothastoprincipleandinpractice.Suchconsiderationsareimportantfor theinterpretationofthewrittensources.Inthesamechapter,theauthoralsotakesastand onanumberofmethodologicalquestionsconcerningPindar,stressingtheimportanceof interpreting Pindar’s poems both in the light of the epinician corpus itself and evidence independentofPindar’stexts,sinceacomparisontotheancientculturalcontextisessential for a proper understanding of the . C. also discusseswhenand howtheodeswere performed(arguingforapublicaspectofalloccasionsforperformance),thedefinitionof anepinicianandthedifficultiestodatetheodes. PartI consistsoffiveshortchapters,whichtreatdifferentaspectsofheroesandhero cultsandPindar’streatmentofthese,particularlyincomparisonwith,sincethisis indispensable for the understanding of Pindar. Discussed here are the views of death (Ch.2),mortalityandimmortality(Ch.3),herocultasareligiousphenomenon(Ch.4),the usesoftheword heros (Ch.5)andtheconceptof kleos (Ch.6).Inall,Pindarisconsideredto represent a view of death, heroes and heroization, which is different from that found in Homer.Theoriginsofherocultarenotconsideredbutthereisaninterestingdiscussionof theusesoftheterm heros ,whichbringsoutitscomplexitiesanddemonstratesthatthecom monlyevokedcontrastbetween“heroesofcult”and“heroesofepic”isascholarlyproduct ratherthananaccuratereflectionoftheancientevidence.C.emphasizestheimportanceof a heros asarecipientofcultinallusesoftheterm,evenwhenitisappliedtotheliving. Part II addresses heroizations in the 5th century BC. As the heroization of historical personshasnotbeensystematicallystudiedpreviouslyhechoosestofocusonthreeaspects: thewardead,athletesandreligiousattitudestotheliving.Whetherthewardead(Ch.7)are tobeconsideredasheroesornothasbeendisputedbyscholars,sincethecontemporary sourcesdonotcallthem heroes .C.looksatthewidercontextofthetreatmentandnatureof thewardeadandconvincinglyarguesthattheymusthavebeenobjectforherocults.The heroization of athletes (Ch. 8) is less controversial and Pindar, in a fragment (fr. 133), explicitlystatesthat‘menswiftinstrength’wereamongthosetobecalled‘holyheroes’for therestoftime.Ithasoftenbeenassumedthattheseindividualswereheroizedforpolitical reasons but their athletic accomplishments must in fact have been central to them being giventhisstatus.Thelegendssurroundingtheathletesoftenshowtypicalheroiccharacteris tics,suchasdivinebirthandextraordinaryfeatsanddeaths.Thetreatmentofthevictorious athletesalsoborderedonheroization:processions,specialclothing,garlands,statuesaswell asvictoryodestakingoverfeaturesfromtheforthegods.Posthumousherocultof 422 RevuedesLivres athletes therefore naturally followed the treatment they were given while still alive. The institutionofaherocultwasadecision,whichhadtobetakenbythecommunityandnot all athletes happened to find themselves a political and social context, which would undertakesuchanaction,thoughmanymoreathleteswereprobablyrecipientsofherocults thanwhathasbeenrealizedpreviously. ThefinalchapterofPartIIconsidersthe theiosaner ,anancientdesignationforagodlike man,whowasregardedasmorethanhuman.Thesepersons,amongwhomtheathletesare to be included, could be presented with extravagant public ‘receptions’ and have prayers addressedtothem,bothactionsthatrecognizetheirdivinestatusandentitlementtocult.A number of persons receiving honours like a god or a hero are reviewed in detail, for example Lysandros,BrasidasandGelon,suggestingthat theconceptsof Hellenisticruler cultscanbetracedbacktothe5thcentury.C.heretriestoseparatetheconcept heros from thenotionofdeathanddeadnessinordertodemonstratethatheroichonours,aswellas culthonoursinawidersense,werenotincompatiblewiththerecipientbeingalive.Itistoo simpletoseeallhonourstoalivingpersonassecularandallreligioushonoursasposthu mousandinsteadC.wishestoblurthecategoriesbyarguingthattheevidenceshowsthata numberofpeople,especiallyathletes,aspiredtobecomeheroesandthatthehonoursthey wereshownintheirlifetimeanticipatesposthumousherocult.Thisisthecontextinwhich thevictoryodeshavetobefitted. Though the book states its concern with both religion and Greek poetry, it appears foremostasastudyofPindar.PartsIandIIserveasakindofpreliminary,whichconstantly looks forward to the essential part of the investigation, Part III , the analysis of five of Pindar’svictoryodes(Ch.1014).Fouroftheodeschosenaresuchinwhichthe laudandus , thepersoncelebrated,iscomparedtoamythicalheroreceivingcultortoadeadrelative whoapparentlywasheroized,whilethefifth, Pythian 3,approachesthesubjectofimmortal ityinadifferentmanner. In Isthmian 7(Ch.10),the laudandus isStrepsiades,avictorfromThebeswho is compared to his uncle and namesake, who was killed in battle. The language used to describeStrepsiadestheelderindicatesthathewastheobjectofacultinThebes,together with other war dead and recently departed persons. Strepsiades and his uncle are further presentedascontinuingalonglineofThebanheroes,inthesamemannerastheAthenian funeral orations compare mythic and modern exploits and deeds. C. conducts a detailed discussionofPindar’slanguage,useofverbalechoesandterminologyinordertoelucidate the religious sense and action behind the words. The conclusion is that Strepsiades is presentedinsuchawayandinsuchacontextthataherocultishintedat,eventhoughnot explicitlypronounced. Pythian 5,analyzedinCh.11,wascommissionedbyArkesilasIV,kingofKyrene,aftera chariot victory, and probably performed at the Karneia in the same city. The herocult focusedoninthisisthatofBattos,thefounderofKyrene,whodefinitelyreceiveda herocultafterhisdeath.TheBattiadkingsalsoseemtohavebeenrecipientsofcult,judging byhowtheyaredescribedbyPindar.VerbalechoesinthedescriptionsoftheBattiadkings andBattos,ontheonehand,andinthepassagesregardingtheirdescendantArkesilas,on theother,establishtheircloserelationship.SinceBattosisdescribedbyPindaras‘blessed’ andhavinganexceptionalstatusinhislifetime,aswellasreceivingaherocultafterdeath, we are to assume that this ode, which presents Arkesilas as blessed in life, also must be taken as an indication of him being posthumously heroized. The hints of herocult for Arkesilasin Pythian 5arefurthersuggestedtohavebeenpoliticallymotivated,justifyinghis righttorulebyemphasizinghisspecialstatus. RevuedesLivres 423

Chapter 12 discusses Hieron of Syracuse and Pythian 2, an ode celebrating a chariot victory,whichprobablytookplaceinThebes.Theheroicparallelevokedintheodeisthat betweenHieronandKinyras,aCypriothero,presumablyworshippedatPaphos.Thelink betweenthesetwoisestablishedbyahighlyintricateandpartlyalsospeculativechainof arguments using a number of different sources, some of which are very late (Johannes Lydos of the 6th century AD) or refer to cults both geographically and ritually removed fromGreekreligionoftheClassicalperiod(PhoenicianByblos).BothHieronandKinyras haveaspecialconnectiontocultsofAphrodite,whichdemonstratecertaintraits,suchas sacredprostitutionandramsacrifices,whichmayfallbackonrealsimilaritiesincultpractice atLokrisandPaphos,respectively. Hieron’srelationtoLokrisisfundamentalfortheunderstandingoftheode,hislinkto Kinyrasandhisheroicstatus.HieronintervenedtodefendLokrisfrombeingdestroyedby Rhegion, an action, which led to him being honoured at Lokris by girls’ choruses at the festival of Aphrodite. At the same festival, the Lokrian girls may have prostituted them selves as part of a vow made during the conflict with Rhegion. The question of sacred prostitution at Lokris has been hotly debated and C., after a detailed scrutiny of the evidence,writtenaswellasarchaeological,concludesthatsacredprostitutionprobablydid takeplaceatLokrisalthoughtheevidenceiscontroversial.Theprincipalreasonforclaiming heroicstatusforHieronis,however,tobelinkedtohisroleasasaviourofLokris.Though cults of saviours became formalized in the 4th3rd centuries, Pindar clearly employs the vocabulary of such cults in his account, an indication of religious attitudes to saviours existing already in the early Classical period. C. proposes a reorganization of Aphrodite’s cultatLokrisandtheestablishmentofanewfestival,the Soteria ,atwhichHieronasa soter wasintegratedwiththecultofthegoddess. The fourth ode to be analyzed, Nemean 7 (Ch. 13), concerns the young pentathlete Sogenes from , linked to Neoptolemos who was buried at . A cult of Neoptolemosatthissanctuaryhasbeendisputedbeforethe3rdcenturyBCbutC.argues for him being worshipped already in the Classical period. The handling of the complex archaeologicalevidenceforacultofNeoptolemosatDelphiisnotentirelyconvincingand C.hereseemstohaveregardedanyashfoundinasanctuaryastheremainsofsacrifices,no mattertheperiodorcontext. 1ThoughweknownothingofthereligiousfateofSogenesata laterperiod,thestoryofNeoptolemosbeingburiedandworshippedatDelphimaybetaken asanindicationofherocultalsobeingaprospectforSogenes. TheaccountofNeoptolemosin Nemean 7hasallsinceantiquitybeenlinkedto 6, inwhichPindargaveanallegedlyunflatteringaccountofNeoptolemos,whichisthoughtto haveangeredtheAeginetanswhocommissionedthepaean,andpromptedPindartoapolo gizebypresentingadifferentversionin Nemean 7.C.dissectstheargumentsinfavourofthe socalled‘Apologytheory’showinghowitislargelybasedonassumptionsabouttheode’s dateanditsreceptionbytheancientaudience,aswellasconjecturesaboutPindar’sown characterandperson,andisthereforetobedismissed.Instead,heproposesthatthelink between Nemean 7and Paean 6consistsofthembothtreatingDelphicmyth.Therelevance ofDelphiforAeginaissuggestedtobetheDelphicritualofTheoxenia,towhichadelega tionwassentfromAegina.C.conductsaninterestingdiscussionusingwrittenandarchaeo logicalevidencetosupporthissuggestionthat Nemean 7mayhavebeenperformedbefore theAeginetandelegationleftforDelphi,inconnectionwithsacrificesandfeastinginwhich

1For the identification of Neoptolemos’ cult place, see also S. FUNKE , Aiakidenmythos und epirotisches Königtum.DerWegeinerhellenistischenMonarchie ,Stuttgart,2000,p.8794. 424 RevuedesLivres

Sogenes’ father was involved, thus also strengthening the relevance of the connection betweenNeoptolemosandSogenes. Thefinalode(Ch.14)is Pythian 3,composedforHierononaccountofhisbadhealth ratherthanofanathleticvictory.Amongscholars,thisodehasbeenseenasmostclearly showinghowPindarrejectstheideaofaliteralimmortalityforHieronandinsteadforce fullyclaimsthattheonlypossibilityforimmortalityliesinsong.C.,however,arguesthatthe ode’sprincipalconcerniswithvariousthemesofliteralimmortality. He proposes that the main topic of Pythian 3 is fire and how fire can both kill and preserve,andevenrenderaheroicorimmortalstatus.Someofthemythologicalcharacters presented in the beginning of the ode, Asklepios, Koronis, and , became immortalafterhavingbeenkilledbyathunderboltorburntonafuneral pyre.Thatalso historicalfigurescouldbetransformedinthesamemannerisdemonstratedbythedetailed reviewofanumberofsuch personswhowereimmortalized, oratleastcommemorated, afterdeathbyfireorafterhavingbeencremated.Thesuggestionthatcremationwouldlead toaparticularstatusafterdeathisproblematic,however.Consideringthatcremationwasa widespreadburialmethodinantiquityitcanhardlyautomaticallybelinkedtoanyconceptof immortality.Thecrematedpersonswhoreceivedaparticularstatusafterdeathseemtohave been given that due to who they were before dying, rather than by this particular burial modehavingbeenchosen. Finally, Pythian 3 is placed within the wider context of the historical and personal situationofHieron,especiallyhisroleasahierophantatthemysteriesofandKore atSyracuse.Theeschatologicalpossibilitiesofferedbythemysteriesareexploredandhere Hieron’spersonalinvolvementinamysterycultislinkedtoPindar’sconnectionwiththe cult of the Mother in Thebes, which would explain why Pindar directs a prayer to this divinityinthemiddleoftheode. The last chapter, entitled Epilogue , constitutes a clear summary of the arguments pre sented and also addresses the question that easily springs to the reader’s mind: if, in the Classical period, heroization was more commonly practiced than what has been thought previously,andifheroichonourscouldevenbepresentedtopersonsstillliving,whoalso promotedtheinstallationofsuchcultsforthemselves,whyisPindarsodiscreteinreferring tothesepractices?C.statesthatinexplicitnessisahallmarkofthePindaricepinicianbut, mostofall,thatthesocialandaestheticcontextofthevictoryodesdemandedthepoetto besubtleandindirect.Theallusivemannerinwhichtheclaimsforherocultarepresented alsoallowedthelaudatortonavigatebetweenthosewhowouldbehostiletothecommis sioner’sexceptionalstatusandthosewhowouldwelcomeit. Thebookfinisheswithanextensivebibliography,whichisappreciated,sincethisisnot thecasewithallvolumesissuedbytheOxfordUniversityPress.Thereisoneindexofthe mainpassagesdiscussed,aswellasashortgeneralindex.Thetextisillustratedwithplansof Kyrene, Lokris, Delphi and Aegina. Almost all Greek is translated, which is welcome, consideringthedifficultiesinherentinPindar’slanguage.Onemisprint(thereareveryfew), whichmightcauseconfusionforthereadernotfamiliarwiththetopographyofDelphi,is p.297,n.4,wherethereferencetoFig.3,no.19shouldbetono.20,andFig.3,no.16to no.17(thesamemistakerepeatedonp.300,n.21). C.’s study is stimulating, wellargued and exemplarily wellorganized, with the ancient evidence laid out in a full manner, which makes the often complex discussions easy to follow.Thebookclearlyexposestheshakygroundonwhichrestmanydeductionsabout themeaningandintentsofPindarhimselfandhiscommissioners.Thecontinuouseffortto trytoconnecttherhetoricsoftheodestoanyevidenceforactualcultofthepersonshon oured is interesting though the argument sometimes becomes incredibly complex and RevuedesLivres 425 somewhatstrainedwhentryingtomatchthetwocategories.Theevidenceusedtoelucidate Pindarandthepersonswhomtheodeshonourisdrawnfromawidevarietyofsourcesasto dateandcharacter.InviewofsomeoftheseauthorsbeingsubstantiallylaterthanPindar,a consideration of the methodological implications of such a wide use would have been appropriate.Forexample,theconclusionthatNeoptolemoshadherocultinDelphialready intheClassicalperiodrestsonthedismissalof’statementofa3rdcenturyintro ductionofthecultasamisunderstanding.IfPausaniasgotitwronghere,canwereallytrust allhisotherinformationwithoutdiscussingit?Thesamegoesforsourceslikeor JohannesLydos, nottomentionthe,which figureprominently.Oneconceptfre quentlyreferredtoisthenotionof‘popularbelief’,whichisusedtoexplainwhatkindof religioussentimentwemayencounterinthesources.Itwouldhavebeeninterestingtohave this notion defined, considering the often selective and elitist nature of many ancient authors. Finally,ifwearetoassumethatheroizationofordinarypersons,afterdeathandsome timesevenin lifetime,wasa fairlycommoneventin Classical Greeksociety,we haveto considerthecontentsofthiscult.Whatkindofritualwasperformedfortheseheroes,the samekindasforthegodsandmythicorepicheroes,thatis thysiai withanimalsacrifice,or wasthecultmorelikethecultofthedead?Ifthereligiousattentionpaidtothemdidnot containanimalsacrifice,canwelabelita‘herocult’or‘heroichonours’?Thesearehighly complexissuesandC.hasmadeiteasyforhimselfbyavoidingthembysimplyspeakingof ‘herocult’,‘cult’or‘heroization’withoutreallyaddressingthetopicoftheritualcontentor thereligiousconsequencesofhisextensionofthepracticeofheroizationintheClassical period. Toconclude,anystudy,whichquestionstraditionalscholarlynotionsofwhatwenton in Greek religion, is refreshing. Herocults, and its different facets, have always been a difficultitemtodigestandunderstandformodernscholars,partlysincethereisnogood equivalentforcomparisonwithinourJudeoChristianculture(thesaintsbeingfundamen tally different from the Greek heroes). C.’s study has certainly opened up new ways of thinking about both the purpose and the institution of herocults, which will hopefully stimulateyetfurtherworkonGreekheroes. GunnelEkroth (UniversityofStockholm) PARKER Robert, Polytheism and Society at , Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005. 1vol. 14 × 22 cm, XXXII +544 p. ( Oxford Classical Monographs ). ISBN:0199274835. En1996,R.Parker(R.P.)publiait AthenianReligion.AHistory ,unouvragequitentaitle paridifficiled’inscrirelesmanifestationsdelaviereligieuseathéniennedansuneperspective chronologiquequienidentifielesévolutionsetleschangements.Lepariétaitréussi,maisil avaitunprix:lamiseàl’écartd’untraitementcirconstanciéd’élémentsessentielsdecettevie religieusedont ladimensionhistorique,ausenschronologique duterme,peinaitàrendre compte. On attendait donc la suite… Elle est arrivée sous la forme d’un fort ouvrage, absolument remarquable: la connaissance approfondie de la documentation, qu’elle soit littéraire, épigraphique, archéologique ou iconographique, et le traitement adéquatement critique d’une bibliographie vraiment internationale s’y soutiennent et interagissent pour fournir une synthèse qui fera date, tant pour les dossiers qui s’y déploient que pour les questionnementsprécisetlaméthodepragmatique 1quienstructurentl’analyse. 1JetransposeainsicequeR.P.appelle,àlapage222,«ameasureofeverydaycanninessandcaution»…