Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2007.04.

52

Francesca Delneri, I culti misterici stranieri nei frammenti

della comedia attica antica. Bologna: Ptron Editore, 2006.
Pp. 450. ISBN 88-555-2897-1. 37.00.

Reviewed by Kostas Vlassopoulos, University of Nottingham

(Konstantinos.vlassopoulos@nottingham.ac.uk)
Word count: 3133 words

The subject of this book is the foreign mystery cults in the fragments of
Attic comedy. While many scholars have written in general about the
establishment of foreign cults in classical Athens and Athenian reactions
to them, there has been no detailed study of the sources that inform us
about them. This is a real problem, in particular when a lot of the
evidence comes from fragmentary comedies, whose content and point is
often very difficult to establish. The problem is exacerbated when
scholars use the meagre evidence in a piecemeal and misleading way.
Thus, a re-examination of the primary sources should be particularly
welcome. The author has selected to study the cults of Sabazius, Bendis
and Cotys as represented in five fragmentary comedies: Cratinus'
Boukoloi (43-67) and Aristophanes' Horai (71-124) for Sabazius,
Cratinus' Thraittai (147-206) and Aristophanes' Lemniai (209-48) for
Bendis, and Eupolis' Baptai (267-333) for Cotys. The main body of the
text consists of a detailed commentary of all the fragments attributed to
these five comedies, which will prove important for any future discussion
of these plays and the issue of foreign cults. Let me present a summary of
the contents, before moving to discussion and a few criticisms.

After a brief introduction about comedy and foreign mystery cults (5-13),
the book is divided in three chapters, each one devoted to one of the three
cults. Every chapter is divided into three parts: in the beginning the author
sets a number of literary, epigraphical, and iconographic testimonia for
each cult respectively; it should be noted that all Greek and Latin
testimonia and fragments are also translated into Italian. Although not
exhaustive, this is a very useful collection of the evidence, which much
facilitates the discussion that follows. After the testimonia there follows a
brief discussion of each divinity and the evidence for its cult. Finally,
there comes the commentary on the respective fragmentary comedies,
preceded by an introduction and the proposed dating of the play. The
commentary is very detailed and particularly useful in providing parallels
for expressions in other comic and tragic plays. The book contains a
substantial bibliography (371-429) and detailed indexes of Greek terms,
passages cited, and subjects discussed (433-47).

Sabazius is a deity who raises a number of interesting problems (31-40).

Evidence for his cult in the classical period comes solely from literary
sources; during the Hellenistic and Roman times his cult expanded
significantly and the characteristic votive hands made their appearance.
There is disagreement among the sources whether he is of Phrygian or
Thracian origins. Finally, although the god is usually identified with
Zeus, the ecstatic cult attributed to him seems difficult to square with
such an identification.

The first play to be analysed in connection with the cult of Sabazius is

that of Cratinus' Boukoloi. The author interprets the play as an attack on
the foreign cults in Athens and dates it in the 430's; the chorus of
Boukoloi is interpreted as a group of followers of Dionysus (45). The only
fragment of this play which relates directly to foreign cults is fr. 19,
which describes a person who "fighting with the sky dies together with
his threats". Delneri connects this passage to Herodotus' description of a
group of Thracians who "when there is thunder and lightning, shoot
arrows skyward as a threat to the god, believing in no other god but their
own",1 and interprets the fragment as referring to an impious follower of
Sabazius. This is interesting, though the deity in Herodotus is Zalmoxis
and not Sabazius, and it is debatable whether Sabazius was a Phrygian or
Thracian deity.

The other play that deals with Sabazius is Aristophanes' Horai , which is
probably the most interesting of the five plays as regards foreign cults.
The one certain thing about the play is that it involved the expulsion of
the novel gods from the city, though it is not certain whether the city is
Athens, or a hypothetical city of gods. The old gods seem to be the Horai,
who guaranteed the change of seasons and the fertility of land. As Delneri
notes (75), the change of seasons has also important ethical, social and
political implications in Greek thought: it exercises the body and makes
people used to labour, while the immutability of the climate produces
effeminacy. Delneri does not take a position on the dating of the work
between the higher (422 BC) and lower (411 BC) dates proposed. Fr. 578
mentions a Phrygian aultr, according to Delneri's interpretation, a
devotee of Sabazius (although it can also be the case that it is the god that
is presented as an aultr). Delneri comments (83-4) on the strong
connection between the flute and ecstatic cults and the derogatory images
of the aultr; it would have been particularly useful to take into account
here the recent work of Peter Wilson and others, which stresses the
ambivalent status of the aultr in classical Athens.2 Fr. 581 records an
exchange in which the promise of abundance throughout the whole year
is turned down with the scornful comment that this would turn Athens
into Egypt. The identity of the characters in this fragment is difficult to
establish. Most commentators accept that it is an exchange between a
supporter or one of the traditional gods and the xenikoi theoi respectively.
Due to the reference to Egypt many have thought that the xenikos theos
must have been Egyptian. Delneri rightly comments (102) that this is by
no means necessary, since Egypt could be simply used as a topos
denoting luxury and debauchery; she is in favour of taking Sabazius as
the xenikos theos in the passage. What is rather difficult is to understand
is why it should be Sabazius that should promise such an abundance of
goods and fertility; the parallels of similar promises by the Clouds and the
Birds in other Aristophanic comedies that Delneri adduces (105) can be
connected to the change of seasons easily, but the connection with
Sabazius is more difficult to establish. It seems to me that she has
overestimated the importance of Sabazius in this play; after all, Sabazius
was only one of the foreign gods that were expelled in the play.

The cult of Bendis is one of the most interesting and enigmatic foreign
cults to be found in Athens. For, in contrast to all other foreign cults, the
cult of Bendis was early on adopted by the Athenian state and the
sacrifice of the Bendideia was the third largest public sacrifice in the
fourth century. The reasons for the public adoption of the cult of Bendis
are unknown, with some scholars accepting political, others religious and
others social motives; Delneri is non-committal (142-3). Bendis was seen
as the Thracian equivalent of Artemis and this identification was
paralleled in the visual representation of Bendis and also in the location
of the Bendideion close to the sanctuary of Artemis Munichia in Piraeus.
Delneri accepts the theory that the cult of Bendis was spread by the
migratory movements of Thracians, Phrygians and Bithynians and sees
the Great Goddess of Lemnos as another version of Bendis (136). It is
rather difficult though to understand why the author has included the cult
of Bendis among the foreign mystery cults; there seems to be little
evidence, if any, that this was a mystery cult. It is also quite interesting to
note that the cult of Bendis is also attested in southern Italy, where
Thracian connections are not that important.

Cratinus' Thraittai is the first of the fragmentary comedies connected to

the cult of Bendis. The author envisages two choruses in the play, a
female one made up of Thracian women and a male one of Pigboeotians
(suoboitoi) (147-8). According to her interpretation, the second chorus is
made up of flute players from Boeotia, the country of the flute. The
connection between the two choruses seems difficult to envisage. As
regards the dating of the play, the author is favourable to a date in the late
430's, instead of the usual 443/2 (149). Fr. 85 is particularly interesting:
Cratinus describes the goddess as dilonchos, the one with double spears.
This is variously explained by the lexicographers as a reference a) to the
actual fact that the goddess is represented as carrying two spears b) to her
dominion over both heaven and earth and c) as having double light, both
solar and lunar, since Bendis is identified in this case with Selene. The
various interpretations of the goddess are stimulating, but what is even
more interesting is the comment of the lexicographers that the Athenians
celebrated the Bendideia carrying two spears. Thus, the point is based on
a very realistic description of the cult, which seems to clash with the
pastiche of diverse features attributed to other cults, like e.g. in the case of
Cotys. Is this an example of the differential treatment of a partially
domesticated cult? In fr. 87 Cratinus describes the divinely possessed
person as kubbos, which should refer to the devotees of the goddess
Kybele. Delneri argues that the term actually refers to the possessed
devotees of Bendis and the term is used here in the more general sense of
being possessed (197-8). This seems to be the only evidence of the
ecstatic nature of the cult of Bendis, but it seems to me rather forced that
the term must refer to the devotees of Bendis.

The second tragedy dealing with the cult of Bendis is the Lemnian
Women of Aristophanes. The main subject of the play is the relationship
between the Lemnian Women and the visiting Argonauts, but Delneri
argues that the cult of Bendis plays an equally important role, giving the
poet the chance to deride the superstition of the Athenians and their
participation in the promiscuous nocturnal rites of Bendis (209-11). But
the connection between the Lemnian megal theos mentioned in the play
and Bendis is very fragile and ultimately depends on accepting a theory
of a Thracian Great Goddess (237-8).

Cotys, also often called Cotyto, is presented as a Thracian deity.

Etymologically, the goddess is connected to warfare; indeed the name
Cotys was very common among the kings of the Thracian Odrysians,
which would militate in favour of such an interpretation. It is thus
interesting, if not strange, that the cult of Cotys is described as being
ecstatic in character and involving effeminate persons. On the other hand,
the cult of Cotys seems early on to have been common in many other
Greek cities apart from Athens. The written sources give the impression
that it was particularly popular among the Dorian Greeks: one scholion
claims that she was honoured by the Corinthians, while another talks
about a Sicilian festival of Cotyttia. This festival is now epigraphically
attested in the lex sacra of Selinus, which dates to about the middle of the
fifth century; in contrast to Athens, in Selinus it was accepted and
supported by the polis. It is thus interesting to note that the cults of
Bendis and Cotys, both Thracian deities, early on found their way to the
West. But it is also interesting that the Corinthian / Sicilian version of
Cotys' festival seems to be a fertility cult, in which participants would
carry branches with cakes and fruits. How is one to deal with these
different versions of the same cult? One interpretation is that Eupolis'
description is not one of an actual cult and that he simply constructed a
fantastic cult made up of a pastiche of elements from ecstatic cults, in
order to lampoon the Corinthians, who were enemies of Athens, and to
attack Alcibiades (259-63).

The evidence for the cult of Cotys in Athens rests solely on Eupolis'
Baptai. As regards the title of the play, the author accepts the
interpretation that it refers to effeminate men who appear in dyed clothes
(269-72). Alcibiades is strongly connected to this play, and ancient
tradition had it that he took vengeance on Eupolis for his comic attack by
drowning him in the sea during the Sicilian expedition (272-4). Many
scholars have seen a direct connection between the profanation of the
Mysteries and the references to Alcibiades and a group of initiates in a
foreign ecstatic group in this comedy. The author accepts a rather serious
reading of the play, in which Alcibiades plays a major role; according to
her, the play was presented in the aftermath of 415 and Alcibiades'
desertion of Athens and warned the Athenians through the representation
of Alcibiades' introduction of a Corinthian cult (274-8). Ian Storey has
recently presented an extensive commentary on this play;3 noting that
comic critiques of Alcibiades tend to focus on his extraordinary
behaviour, instead of criticising his political stance, he has argued that
there is no necessary reason to suppose that Alcibiades played a major
part in the play, rather than appearing in a memorable episode. He has
also disputed to what extent the play would have a comic effect after
Alcibiades' desertion, and thus he has favoured a dating of the play before
415. Although Delneri cites Storey's work in other places, unfortunately
she has not taken into account his arguments in this respect and does not
provide answers to these important reservations. Finally, if the
lexicographer was right in noting that the presence of Cotys in this play
was due to a hostile attitude towards the Corinthians, in whose city the
cult of Cotys was traditional, it is interesting to note the parallel presence
of the Pigboeotians in Cratinus' Thracians. What is the relationship
between portraying 'foreign' cults and portraying 'foreign' Greeks?

This is undoubtedly a very stimulating commentary which raises a large

number of questions. I hope it is not unfair to say that the author has done
no favour to her own work by minimising the introduction and by lacking
any conclusions. It is difficult to establish what exactly she believes that
her work has contributed to the study of foreign mystery cults in Athens
or to the study of fragmentary comedies. Most of the text is devoted to
discussion of particular fragments, with the result that the wider
methodological problems and issues get lost. The author does well to note
a number of distorting effects that comedy would apply to the
representation of foreign cults (12-3). Comedians focus on the orgiastic
nature of these cults, the participation of women, and the opportunities for
promiscuity and adultery that such cults gave rise to. But apart from
mentioning these factors in barely two pages, there is no wider discussion
of their effects. How does comedy differ in this respect from tragedy? Is
there any significant difference between Aeschylus' representation of the
rites of Cotys and that of Eupolis? If not, why is it the case, and what are
the implications for the relationship between comedy and tragedy? Or
how does comic discourse differ from the discourse presented in lawcourt
speeches? Is Demosthenes' depiction of the ecstatic rites in which
Aeschines and his mother were involved a pastiche of various cults and
practices with the sole aim of denigrating his opponent? If so, does it
differ from Eupolis' alleged pastiche of the cult of Cotys and if so, how
and why?

To what extent is comic representation based or conditioned by the

experiences and the knowledge of the audience about the phenomenon at
hand? In Eupolis' fr. 79 a character swears by the almond tree, which is
the tree sacred to Attis. How many of the Athenian audience would
understand this as a reference to Attis and how many would simply
understand it as a reference to foreign people who swear in an unfamiliar
way (288-9)? Was it important for the poet that the audience would make
the distinction? How would an Athenian know? Maybe because he had
heard free or slave Phrygians swearing in this unfamiliar way?4 Many of
these 'foreign cults' involved elements from the lowest strata of society:
slaves, foreigners, women. But at the same time many slaves, foreigners
and women participated in religious groups and cults in common with
citizens. What were the results of this double process on 'foreign' and
'domestic' cults and the ways they were seen?

Finally, there is one significant problem with the book's conception which
I would like to point out. This is the very definition of 'foreign mystery
cults'. Robert Parker has argued that instead of talking about foreign cults,
it is better to distinguish between those traditionally honoured in
Athenian public cult and all others.5 Dionysos is the best-known example
of a Greek deity that can be portrayed as coming from abroad and whose
ecstatic cult is dominated by women and effeminates, in precisely the
same way as the foreign cults under discussion. Thus, the definition of
foreign cults is not as clear-cut as it could seem on first sight. This
becomes even more complicated when what is described as a foreign cult
can also have a domesticated Greek version, which seems quite different,
as we saw in the case of Cotys, who is described as both Thracian and
Dorian / Corinthian / Sicilian. It would thus have been particularly helpful
if the author had also included among the foreign cults under study the
cult of the Mother of the Gods. For here is a very good example of a cult
that can be described as both foreign and domestic at the same time.
Some scholars are willing to see the cult of the Mother as a very old
Greek cult,6 while others argue in favour of its introduction from Anatolia
and its subsequent transformation.7 One way or another, the cult of the
Mother had official recognition by the Athenian state, while at the same
time there existed, side by side, another version of the cult, which was far
more exotic. It would have been particularly helpful to compare how the
cult of the Mother is represented in comedy in comparison with the other
'foreign' cults. Another way one could have studied the ways in which a
cult can be represented as foreign would be to study those cults with
features totally different to anything found among Greek cults: the comic
discussions of Egyptian zoomorphic cults would provide a very
interesting parallel in this respect.

In conclusion: the author has provided an extensive and careful

commentary on five fragmentary Athenian comedies. She has also
provided a very useful collection of testimonia on the cults of Sabazius,
Bendis and Cotys in the ancient world and a general discussion of these
cults, which are only sparsely attested during the classical period. This
book will be a good and necessary start for anybody who is interested in
these plays or in foreign cults in classical Athens. It has rather avoided
the wider questions and problems; but those interested in pursuing them
will find this book a good first step.

Notes:

1. Herodotus, 4.94.
2. P. Wilson, 'The aulos in Athens' in S. Goldhill and R. Osborne, eds.,
Performance, Culture and Athenian Democracy, Cambridge, 1999, 58-
95.
3. I. Storey, Eupolis. Poet of Old Comedy, Oxford, 94-111.
4. See e.g. the Phrygian of IG I3 1361.
5. R. Parker, Athenian Religion: A History, Oxford, 1996, 158-9.
6. N. Robertson, 'The ancient Mother of the Gods: A missing chapter in
the history of Greek religion' in E. N. Lane, ed., Cybele, Attis and Related
Cults: Essays in Memory of M. J. Vermaseren, Leiden, 1996, 239-304.
7. L. Roller, In Search of God the Mother: The Cult of Anatolian Cybele,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1999.

Read Index for Change Greek BMCR

Archives
Latest 2007 Display Home

HTML generated at 22:24:07, Tuesday, 24 April 2007