1 Cornford 1914, 93–102.
2 Sfyroeras 2004, 252.
3 Redfield 2012; Sfyroeras 2004; Scodel 1993; Henrichs 2012, 184, 193.
4 Cf. the cooking of meat in Peace and the scene of cooking on stage in Acharnians with sacrificial overtones, e.g. the word knisa, 1040–1046. A direct link between sacrifice and feast is expressed in Pherekrat. Cheiron fr. 162, 4–7:
ἡμῶν δ’ ἤν τινά τις καλέσῃ θύων ἐπὶ δεῖπνον,
ἀχθόμεθ’ ἢν ἔλθῃ καὶ ὑποβλέπομεν παρέοντα,
χὤττι τάχιστα θύραζ’ ἐξελθεῖν βουλόμεθ’ αὐτόν.
εἶτα γνούς πως τοῦθ’ ὑποδεῖται, κᾆτά τις εἶπεν
and 9–10: ὁ δ’ ἄχθεται αὐτὸς ὁ θύων
τῷ κατακωλύοντι καὶ εὐθὺς ἔλεξ’ ἐλεγεῖα·
‘But if one of us is holding a sacrifice and invites someone to dinner, we get upset when he arrives and scowl at his being there, and we hope he goes back outside as soon as possible. Somehow, he gets the message and is starting to put hide sandals back on, when one of the other guests says […] The man hosting the sacrifice gets upset at the person who is interfering and immediately rhymes off those elegiacs […].’ Also in Aristoph. Gerytades fr. 167 (= Hsch. α 8417): αὐτοὶ θύομεν· ἀντὶ τοῦ αὐτοὶ πίνομεν ἐνηλλαγμένως, παρόσον οἱ καλούμενοι εἰς ἑστίασιν λέγουσι ‘καὶ αὐτοὶ θύομεν.’ ἐπὶ γὰρ τῶν καλουμένων ὑπό τινων λέγεται, ‘we’re sacrificing by enallage meaning we are at the symposium, inasmuch as those invited to a feast say we’re sacrificing too for it is said of those invited by someone’, and in Epicharm. fr. 148 ἐκ θυσίας θοῖνα (‘from sacrifice, feast’). The association of comedy with sacrificial banquet in scholarship might be overstressed as a result of the ancient reception of comedy, since many comic fragments were preserved in Athenaios’ Learned Banqueters with special sections on sacrifice and cooking (Ath. 7.288c–293e, 9.376c–383f, 14.658e–662d).
5 Redfield 2012, 172.
6 To name only a few important recent publications: Hitch and Rutherford 2017; Stocking 2017; Ekroth and Wallensten 2013; Naiden 2013; Faraone and Naiden 2012; Pirenne-Delforge and Prescendi 2011; Knust and Várhelyi, 2011; Mehl and Brulé 2008; Georgoudi, Koch Piettre, and Schmidt 2005; Hägg and Alroth 2005; Ekroth 2002.
7 Parker 1998.
8 Naiden 2013 and Naiden 2015, 467–471.
9 Pirenne-Delforge 2010, 121–126; 2018, 55–56; see also Rutherford 2017, 3.
10 Pirenne-Delforge 2018.
11 Pirenne-Delforge and Prescendi 2011, Parker 2008, Ekroth 2002.
12 On this verb, see also above, p. 52–58.
13 Av. 903, Pax 1062, Ach. 249.
14 Cf. Plato Little Κid fr. 98, φέρε τοῦτ’ ἐμοί,
δεῖξον τὸ κανοῦν μοι δεῦρο· πῆι μάχαιρ’ ἔνι;
‘Bring this basket here to me, show it to me. Where is the knife inside?’
15 Van Straten 2005, 22. For vase paintings and reliefs see Van Straten 1995, 31–35, and Hermary 2004, 112–116. Demosthenes singles out the jar and the basket as the two sacred objects of the sacrificial procession that require moral purity from those who hold them (22, 78): ὑμεῖς δ’ εἰς τοῦτ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, προῆχθ’ εὐηθείας καὶ ῥᾳθυμίας ὥστ’ οὐδὲ τοιαῦτ’ ἔχοντες παραδείγματα ταῦτα μιμεῖσθε, ἀλλ’ Ἀνδροτίων ὑμῖν πομπείων ἐπισκευαστής, Ἀνδροτίων, ὦ γῆ καὶ θεοί. καὶ τοῦτ’ ἀσέβημ’ ἔλαττον τίνος ἡγεῖσθε· ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οἴομαι δεῖν τὸν εἰς ἱέρ’ εἰσιόντα.
16 Ekroth 2002, 343–346.
17 According to Brunck’s conjecture.
18 Van Straten 1995, 183–186. See also below, p. 172 on Plato, Phaon, fr. 188.
19 Van Straten 1995, 179–180.
20 See below, p. 173–180 on comic ‘theology’ of sacrifice.
21 Barley was sprinkled over the head of the sacrificial animal; see Van Straten 2005, 38–39. The grain features also in Kratin. fr. 23: ὁ βοῦς ἐκεῖνος χἠ μαγὶς καὶ τἄλφιτα (‘that ox and the sacrificial tray and the barley grains’).
22 Van Straten 1988, 51–68; 119–128.
23 Av. 1704–1705 and in Plut. 1110. See Kadletz 1981 and Carbon 2017.
24 For a recent discussion of the sacrificial cooking and its role in the ‘theology of sacrifice’, see Pirenne-Delforge 2018, esp. 55–56.
25 See e.g. Naiden 2013, 205–211.
26 On this overlap, see below, p. 174 on Wealth and Pirenne-Delforge, 2017, esp. 135 and 140.
27 Wilkins 2000, 369–379.
28 The practices described in Peace concerning viscera receive attention in Ameips. Konnos fr. 7: ἐντευθενὶ δίδοται μάλισθ’ ἱερώσυνα, | κωλῆ, τὸ πλευρόν, ἡμίκραιρ’ ἀριστερά, ‘and from this beast the priest’s portion is offered: haunch, ribs, left half of the head’; see Van Straten 1995, 154–155. The fragment implies that the character speaking reveals his knowledge and expertise on the subject; see Carey 2000, 420–422. It seems from other fragments that the themes of the play were oracles (fr. 10) and professional experts in various areas, including religion. Knowledge and professionalism are part of the requirements for a successful sacrificial performance.
29 The inversive representation of sacrificial space in comedies distorted by intruders has been discussed by Orfanos 2001, 55–56, with regard to the role of the altar in the scenes in Birds and Peace. On ritual space, see Chapter 3 above, p. 97–100, 107–109.
30 See the discussion of this ritual of installation in Pirenne-Delforge 2010, 126–129.
31 Hitch 2009, 141–143. Agamemnon carries out five of the seven enacted sacrifices in the Iliad 1.312–317, 2.402–432; 3.267–302; 7.313–323; 19.249–268. He asserts his supremacy by making a sacrifice as his first deed after Achilles’ withdrawal.
32 Agamemnon’s initiative is emphasised; most characters in the Iliad speak about sacrifice in terms of the relationship between themselves and their god: Hitch 2009, 108–109.
33 Foundation-linked sacrifice is not attested as a historical practice; see Dunbar 1995, 501–502.
34 This can be seen from the scene in 1097–1170.
35 Hitch 2009, 160–161.
36 This feature was later adopted by New Comedy, where the cook, mageiros, is hired by a character for a private celebration.
37 2000a, 44.
38 Sourvinou-Inwood 2000a, 45.
39 Van Straten 1995, 26; Hitch, Rutherford and Naiden 2017, 2–3.
40 Ullucci 2011, 60–61.
41 E.g. Platonic, Epicurean, and Stoic interpretation; see Ullucci 2011, 58–59, Rives 2011, 64–65.
42 Henrichs 2012.
43 As observed by Parker 1998, 121.
44 See e.g. Introduction in Pirenne-Delforge and Prescendi 2011, 7; and Ekroth 2011, 35: ‘Greek gods apparently did not crave meat or any food in this sense, and the hungry gods we encounter in some comedies, who almost drool at the thought of juicy back legs or freshly grilled splanchna, cannot be taken as indications of the gods being thought of as consuming the meat at trapezomata and theoxenia, nor from thysia sacrifices.’
45 Ekroth 2011, 16, writes about thysia sacrifices that they were markers of the gods’ immortality and distance from men: ‘The common denominator of these actions was that the gods were given what men cannot eat. The transferral of the offerings to the divine sphere was accomplished by burning them and turning them into smoke, or by pouring out or discarding them. These are modes of consumption incompatible with human ways of eating. […] The smoke rising from the altars emphasized the fact that gods were immortal, and that smoke was enough for them, contrary to men or animals who actually had to eat in order to survive.’ See also Pirenne-Delforge 2018, 54 and 81–82.
46 See Hitch 2009, 108–109. Il. 4.44–49: Zeus describes the altar as never lacking his appropriate share. Kirk 1990, 10–11, observes the ‘de-carnalisation’ of Homeric gods, in that they rarely consume food and the divine reception of sacrifice is distanced from the food of the gods, nektar.
47 On reciprocity, Parker 1998; Ullucci 2011, 62–63: ‘Within reciprocal exchange, the social consequences of the reciprocal relationship (that is, power hierarchies) are often consciously or unconsciously ignored (misrecognized) by both parties. This allows both parties to view the objects of exchange as free gifts, although each party understands the social realities involved.’
48 Ekroth 2011, 36: ‘As the gods were not thought of as actually eating the meat, what they received must have been the honour inherent in being the recipients of the prestigious meat offerings, and at theoxenia also being the guests of honour.’
49 Transl. Storey 2011. On this fragment, see Pirrotta 2009, 341–353. Cf. also Farnell 1920, who explains the mixed terminology of vegetal and animal offerings (‘pregnant’, ‘immaculate’, ‘with testicles still attached’) in the passage through Aphrodite’s drunkenness.
50 See the Moon’s speech reported by the khoros in Clouds 607–626, discussed above in Chapter 4, p. 145. Earlier in the parabasis, the khoros of Cloud-Goddesses address the spectators, blaming them for not making any sacrifices to Clouds, although they benefit the city more than any other deity (580).
51 Pherekrat. fr. 28 Deserters; transl. Storey 2011. See Van Straten 1995, 125.
52 Eubul. adesp. fr. 127.
53 Eubul. Semele or Dionysos fr. 94. The text is heavily corrupted.
54 Smoke, being meat in its immaterial form, communicated the portion of burning fat from the worshippers to the god, accompanied by prayers; see Redfield 2012, 174; Naiden 2013, 21, 111–113.
55 For a more detailed analysis of the wall in Birds in the context of Homer’s epic and Euripides’ tragedy, see Chepel 2019.
56 Bergler 1760: ad loc. Green 1879 ad loc. elaborates: the wall of Cloudcuckooland is 200 royal cubits high, i.e., twice as large as the wall of Babylon, as reported by Herodotos, and since Peisetairos is astonished by such a height, it means that Aristophanes is consciously mocking the historian and doubting the credibility of his story. See also Dunbar 1995 and Sommerstein 1987: ad loc. There is no mention of parallels with Herodotos in the ancient scholia.
57 Cf. Thuc. 1.93.5 about the walls of Piraeus, which could also be the object of Aristophanic parody in this passage. Bergler also cited the reference to Av. 552, where Cloudcuckooland is explicitly compared to Babylon because of its brick wall. This is a strong argument for the possible association of the wall in Birds with the wall of Babylon, even though the similarity could be independent of the text of Herodotos’ Histories. On the absence of any allusion to historiography and its practitioners in fifth-century comedy, see Henderson 2012,145–147.
58 ὅθεν πρὸς ἀνδρῶν ὑστέρων κεκλήσεται | δούρειος ἵππος, κρυπτὸν ἀμπισχὼν δόρυ. These two lines are deleted by most editors following Burges’s edition (1807); their authenticity is, however, defended by Parmentier 1923, 46–49, and Dunn 1993, 29 n. 23. For an overview of the discussion and further arguments for deletion, see Wilson 1968. I do not see that there are sufficient grounds for athetesis.
59 See Finglass 2013, 5, on Stesichoros’ poem Sack of Troy, which appears to have had the second title The Wooden Horse. The earliest visual representations date to the seventh century BCE; cf. Sparkes 1971, 55–56.
60 According to the Little Iliad, Bernabé 1987, 75, and Verg. Aen. 2.185–187; Garcia 2013, 338–339.
61 In the Athenian context, the most immediate allusion would be, perhaps, the colossal bronze statue on the Akropolis, built several years before Birds, around 420. The four Athenian heroes peeping out of the horse, according to the description of Pausanias 1.23.8, demonstrate the contribution of Athens to the great victory of the Achaians at Troy. See Ferrari 2000, 119–120; Hsch. δ 2274 Latte: δούριος ἵππος. Ἀθήνησιν ἐν ἀκροπόλει χαλκοῦς ἐστιν, καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐκκύπτουσι δʹ. This interpretation of δούριος in Birds is suggested by the scholia on the play: Schol. Ar. ad 1128c (Holwerda 1991).
62 Although the passage about the Achaian wall in the Iliad has been regarded as problematic by Page 1959, 315–324, West 1969 defended its authenticity, rightfully in my opinion. See also Scodel 1982, Porter 2011. On the dichotomy of the mortal-made temporary Achaian wall and the god-built monumental Trojan defences, see Taplin 1992, 94. On Poseidon’s connection with wall-building as his prerogative and on the episodes with the Achaian wall in the Iliad, see Maitland 1999, 1–13.
63 Transl. Lattimore 1951.
64 Kirk 1990, 88.
65 On the fear of humans that their sacrifices will remain unreciprocated by the gods and on the failed sacrifices in the Iliad, see Parker 1998, 114–117. See also Appendix A in Naiden 2013 and Hitch 2009, 129–140.
66 Sourvinou-Inwood 2003, 301.
67 Henrichs 2012.
68 Scodel 1993, 164.
69 Henrichs 2012, 193.
70 On the contrary, θύω is less frequent in tragedy; for example, in Eur. Phoen. it does not occur a single time, while σφάζω is used extensively. On the use of this verb, meaning ‘to assassinate’ in tragedy, see Casabona 1966, 160–165; also on the connotations of cutting up the victim’s throat to kill the victim and of shedding blood, Casabona 1966, 155–157. On the difference between σφάγια and θυσία, see Naiden 2013, 36,101–102.
71 In fact, in the fifth-century usage the verb has already moved from the language of ritual to the metaphorical sense of massacre, although it retains its meaning of sacred killing (Xen. Hell. 4.4.3, Hdt 1.119, Antiph. 2.2.8, Dem. 9.66, Aeschin. 1.191). In some contexts, the two verbs are opposed as two types of sacrifices, e.g., for chtonian and Olympian gods. Cf. Xen. Cyr. 8.3.24.
72 Cf. Soph. El. 280, Eur. fr. 628.
73 Casabona 1966, 165, 226.
74 Cf. Eur. Hel. 1584, Heracl. 400, Supp. 1201, El. 812.
75 The whole scene clearly imitates tragic models and the vocabulary is recognised as paratragic; see Olson 1998, 264.
76 Cf. cutting the neck as a sacrificial act in Eur. Or. 51, Alc. 429, Hec. 564, Phoen. 1457.
77 Transl. Collard, Cropp, and Lee 1995.
78 Eur. Hec. 41, IT 243, Tro. 628, Alc. 845.
79 Aesch. Ag. 1656, Eum. 187, Soph. El. 37, Eur. Andr. 266, 399, El. 123, Ion 616, Phoen. 1149, Bacch. 1135.
80 Probably borrowed from Euripides’ Pleisthenes fr. 628 μηλοσφαγεῖ τε δαιμόνων ἐπ’ἐσχάραις, Dunbar 1995, 623.
81 Cf. the choral song in fr. 273a, 1–6:
ἄγε νυν, ὦ ξεῖν’, ἐπὶ ποιοφύτων
ἵστω σηκῶν φοβερᾶς λίμνης,
ὑπό τ’ αὐχένιον λαιμὸν ἀμήσας
τοῦδε σφαγίου ποτὸν ἀψύχοις αἷμα μεθίει
δονάκων εἰς βένθος ἀμαυρόν
‘Come now, stranger, take your stand on the grass-grown borders of the fearsome lake, slit the windpipe in the neck of this sacrificial beast, and let the blood run for the dead to drink, down into the dim, reedy depths’ (Transl. Sommerstein 2008).
82 The killing is stressed outside paratragic context in comedy only once, for reasons of humour. In Av. 569, the verb σφαγιάζειν is used to make a joke of the mismatch of the sacrificial animal chosen (gnat) with the idea of solemn throat-cutting.
