Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Le donateur, l’offrande et la déesse

 | 
Clarisse Prêtre

From Woman to Woman: Female Voices and Emotions in Dedications to Goddesses

Angelos Chaniotis

Résumé

This paper studies the formulations used in two closed groups of inscriptions from sanctuaries of goddesses : dedications of slaves by men and women in the sanctuary of Meter Theon at Leukopetra (Macedonia, Imperial period) ; and dedications and prayers for justice from the sanctuary of Demeter at Knidos (Hellenistic period). In Leukopetra, the deviations from the usual formulae show the conception of Meter Theon as an angry goddess ; they display affection ; they express submission to the power of the goddess ; and they are a means of expressing emotionality. In Knidos, one may observe the use of a personal, idiosyncratic language by women in order to distinguish themselves from other dedicants. In the ‘prayers for justice’, the convergence of formulations originates in the interaction among angry and frustrated women. These texts manifest the display of emotions as a strategy of persuasion during communication with the divinity. The worshippers demonstratively exaggerate their own weakness ; they stress the fact that they have been obedient to the command of a goddess ; they admit that they owe everything to her ; they express their faith in her power.

Cet article analyse les formules utilisées dans deux ensembles d’inscriptions assez proches provenant de sanctuaires de déesses. Il s’agit, d’une part, des dédicaces d’esclaves par des hommes et des femmes au sanctuaire de la Mère des dieux à Leukopetra (Macédoine, période impériale) et, de l’autre, des dédicaces et des prières de justice provenant du sanctuaire de Déméter à Cnide (période hellénistique). A Leukopetra, les infléchissements dans les formules habituellement usitées là montrent la Mère des dieux comme une déesse en colère ; ces modifications expriment l’affection, la soumission au pouvoir de la déesse et sont autant de moyens de traduire l’émotion. A Cnide, on peut observer l’emploi d’un langage personnel et particulier par les femmes qui se distinguent ainsi des autres dédicants. Dans les « prières de justice », la convergence des formules puise son origine dans l’interaction entre des femmes frustrées et en colère. Ces textes présentent l’expression des émotions en tant que stratégie de persuasion au cours de la communication avec la divinité. Les fidèles exagèrent leur faiblesse de manière démonstrative. Ils soulignent le fait qu’ils ont obéi à l’injonction d’une déesse. Ils admettent qu’ils lui doivent tout et expriment leur foi en son pouvoir.

Texte intégral

1. Is there a typical female ritual behaviour ?

  • 1 Diog. Laert., Vit. phil. VI, 37-38. Quoted by E.J. Edelstein and L. Edelstein, Asclepius : A Collec (...)

1One of the many anecdotes narrated about the Cynic philosopher Diogenes concerns the behaviour of a woman in a sanctuary :1

One day he saw a woman kneeling before the gods in a disgraceful manner (σχημονέστερον τος θεος προσπίπτουσαν), and wishing to free her of superstition... he came forward and said, “Are you not afraid, woman, that a god may be standing behind you - for all things are full of his presence - and you may behave in a shameless manner towards him ?.”

  • 2 See the examples collected by van Straten, ibid.
  • 3 van Straten, o.c., p. 175, who also refers to Polyb. XXXII, 15 (on Prusias) : γονυπετν ϰα γυναιϰι (...)

2Kneeling in front of a god (προσπίπτειν or προσϰυνεν) is not an exclusively female manner of worship. There is enough evidence that men invoked divine assistance in this way, particularly in desperate situations.2 Diogenes’ joke could have easily been addressed against a man — or against a boy with an attractive bottom, for that matter — and yet it is made at the expense of a woman. And among the 26 representations of kneeling worshippers collected by F.T. van Straten there are only two men in this posture.3 This ritual practice was primarily perceived as a female expression of religiosity.

  • 4 Theocritus, Idyll II, 66-74 (transl. A.S.F. Gow, modified). Discussion of these verses in connectio (...)

3Now, another story. In Theocritus’ Second Idyll, Simaitha recalls how she had first met her unfaithful lover, Daphnis, during a festival and describes her preparation for the procession :4

Eubulus’ daughter, our Anaxo, went as basket-bearer to the grove of Artemis, and in honour of the goddess many wild beasts were brought to the procession that day about her, and among them a lioness.... And Theumaridas’ Thracian nurse, now dead and gone, that dwelt at my door, had begged and besought me to come and see the procession. And I, unhappy wretch, went with her, wearing a fair long linen dress, and Clearista’ s fine wrap over it.

  • 5 LSCG Suppl. 33 A 3-7. Also men are known to have used make-up, e.g. Demetrios of Phaleron : Douris, (...)
  • 6 LSCG 65 line 16 : α δ γυναῖϰες μ διαφαν.
  • 7 LSCG Suppl. 32 lines 1-2 : [εἰϰὰν γυ]ν ғέσετοι ζτεραον λοπος, [ερὸ]ν έναι τι Δάματρι τι Θεσμο (...)
  • 8 LSAM 6.

4To wear nice garments during a festival in not a matter of female vanity ; and yet Theocritus chose to mention a woman’ s efforts to improve her appearance with borrowed clothes. Interestingly, prohibitions against luxurious garments, see-through clothes, make-up, and jewels during rituals exclusively concern women. A cult regulation in Patrai (third century BCE) forbids the female participants in a festival of Demeter from wearing gold jewels with a weight of more than one obolos, colourful or purple garments, and make-up ;5 see-through clothes were not allowed in the mysteries of Andania (first century CE),6 and a regulation in Arkadia (fifth century BCE) stipulates : “If a woman wears a garment decorated with embroideries, it shall become sacred property of Demeter Thesmophoros.”7 As a sacred regulation from Kios puts it : “Leave the gold jewels at home ; for they are a sign of silly vanity ; they make some people enemies, they cause the gossip of others.”8

  • 9 Theocr., IdyllXV, 84-86 : ατός δ ς θαητς π ργυρέω ϰατάϰειται | ϰλισμ, πρᾶτον ουλον π ϰρο (...)

5The behaviour of women in sanctuaries and during rituals was not only a cause of concern for the authors of sacred regulations but also attracted the interest of two Hellenistic poets who were very sensitive in the observation and description of human behaviour : Theocritus and Herodas. Theocritus, this time in his 15th Idyll, describes how two women attend the festival of Adonis in the palace in Alexandria. The most striking feature of their behaviour is that Praxinoa and Gorgo cannot stop talking. When Praxinoa admires the representation of the young god, she exclaims : “And look at him ; how marvellous he is, lying in his silver chair with the first down spreading from the temples.” A spontaneous acclamation follows, inspired by the overwhelming effect of divine presence : “Thrice-loved Adonis, loved even in death.”9 A man, at last, protests : “Wretched women, do stop that ceaseless chattering — like turtle-doves.” This only provokes a more verbose response by Praxinoa, until finally Gorgo tells her to be silent, because a singer is about to start her performance.

  • 10 Z. Newby, “Reading the Allegory of the Archelaos Relief”, in Z. Newby, R. Leader-Newby (eds.), Art (...)
  • 11 A. Chaniotis, “Acclamations as a Form of Religious Communication”, in H. Cancik, J. Rupke (eds.), D (...)
  • 12 Acta Pauli et Theclae 38 : α δ γυναῖϰες πσαι ἔϰραξαν φων μεγάλ.
  • 13 Polyb., X, 4, 4-7 : γυναιϰεον πάθος (in connection with Scipio’ s mother).

6Similarly, in his Fourth Mimiamb (σϰληπιι νατιθεσαι ϰαι θυσιάζουσαι) Herodas describes how two women enter a temple of Asklepios bringing their dedications. The first section of the poem (18 lines) consists of Kynno’s oral performance in front of the statues of the gods, with words of address (lines 113 : χαίροις, χαίροιεν, χαίροι, χαιρόντων) and laudatory epithets (lines 1-18 : αναξ Παίηον, πάτερ Παίηον, ναξ). We can imagine Kynno raising her hand while approaching the god’s statue and uttering these words, exactly as the female figures in the ‘Archelaos relief in the British Museum do (second century BCE ?).10 After the women have admired the temple’s statuary (lines 19-78), the temple warden approaches and engages himself in a dialogue with them (lines 79-95). He uses twice the ritual cry ἰὴ ἰὴ Παίηον (line 82 : ἰὴ ἰὴ Παίηον, εενς εης ; line 85 : ἰὴ ἰὴ Παίηον·δε τατ εη), to which Kynno responds repeating the warden’ s last word (εη) and adding an acclamatory epithet (line 86 : εη γάρ, μέγιστε). Sanctuaries of Asklepios were not only visited by women ; and yet Herodas chose women as the protagonists of his mime. Acclamations are not an exclusive female ritual behaviour,11 and yet they are highlighted by both Herodas and Theocritus ; and in Acta Pauli et Theclae, we only find women performing acclamations.12 Another cliché of womanly behaviour in connection with religion is belief in dreams, characterized by Polybius as a “womanly emotion”.13

  • 14 E. Lupu, Greek Sacred Lam. A Collection of New Documents, Leiden, 2005, p. 323-325 no. 22 (SEG 41, (...)
  • 15 LSAM 61 lines 3-4 : [ταν δ] α λαμπάδες φέρωνται, μ θεν [λλήλας].
  • 16 E. Stavrianopoulou, “Die « gefahrvolle » Bestattung von Gambreion ”, in C. Ambos et al. (eds.), Die (...)

7Is there such a thing as typical female behaviour in a sanctuary or during a ritual ? These sources certainly do not answer this question. What they do show, however, is what men sometimes perceived as typical female behaviour : vanity as regards their appearance, chatting about, exaggerated gestures, loud and long oral performances. We may add also stronger emotionality and disorderly behaviour. Sacred regulations are preoccupied with drunk and quarrelsome men.14 In the case of women, their authors have other worries. In a sacred regulation from Mylasa concerning a nocturnal celebration for Demeter the participants are urged : “When the torches are carried the women should not push one another ;”15 and the funerary regulation from Gambreion16 almost exclusively addresses the excessive mourning of women.

8When treating gender specific ritual behaviour it is not an easy task to avoid the lurking Skylla of clichés and the Charybdis of epigonic psychoanalysis. But if historians of religion are to approach dedications not as ‘things’, but as the result of human behaviour, then they cannot afford not to treat the emotional aspects of ancient dedicatory practices. Emotions are no less social and cultural constructs than gender roles. The question I will address in this paper is if and how we can overcome the difficulties inherent in the historicization and contextualisation of genders and emotions. I cannot discuss general trends and phenomena — such as dedications to goddesses by their priestesses, dedications to goddesses in the contexts of rites of passage, or vows of women for the well-being of relatives. Instead, I shall treat two instructive case studies : the evidence from the sanctuaries of Meter Theon at Leukopetra near Beroia in Macedonia and Demeter at Knidos.

2. Female voices in the sanctuary of the Mother of the Gods at Leukopetra

2.1. Standard formulae of gratitude and propitiation

  • 17 Complete edition with excellent commentaries in P. Petsas, M.B. Hatzopoulos, L. Gounaropoulou, P. P (...)
  • 18 See my comments in EBGR 2000, 155 ; SEG 50, 597. M. Yuni, “Maîtres et esclaves en Macédoine helléni (...)

9Almost 200 dedications have been found in the sanctuary of the Mother of Gods at Leukopetra near Beroia.17 They all date to the Roman Imperial period (mid-second to mid-third century CE). These dedications are sometimes misleadingly referred to as sacred manumissions. I do not regard them as manumissions but as dedications of slaves, in a few exceptional cases dedications of free persons.18 Men and women are equally represented among the dedicants, and this is why I have selected this sanctuary. Here, we can compare male and female behaviour based on a substantial corpus of evidence from a closed chronological and geographical context. In most cases the dedicants use the same stereotypical formulae of dedication, giving their name and the name of the slave, stating the legal conditions of the donation and the obligations of the donated slave, referring to the delivery of the relevant documents, and giving the date. There is not much to learn for the subject of this paper from these formulaic texts. Things become interesting only when the author of a text deviates from these dispassionate, standard formulae and provides information about the specific and personal context of the dedication. These more personal texts are less than a tenth of the total.

  • 19 Cf. I.Leukopetra75 : ϰατ ντολς... το νδρός μου (a woman).
  • 20 E.g., divine appearances to dreams of women : IG II2 4038 (Meter Theon) and 4731 (Thea Kolainis) ; (...)

10In some cases no difference can be observed between men and women, e.g., as regards dedications made upon command of the goddess (ϰατ πιταγήν), presumably after a dream. In two cases the formula ϰατ πιταγήν is used by women (I.Leukopetra 34 and 151), in another two cases by men (I.Leukopetra 101 and 154), in one case the gender is not known (I.Leukopetra 164). In another dedication a man does not use the formula ϰατ πιταγήν, but explains : “As you ordered me to buy slaves” (I.Leukopetra 78 : ϰαθ[ς] ϰέλευσας άγοράσε με σω[μ]άτια).19 This even distribution between men and women corresponds to what we may infer from other sanctuaries. Goddesses did not appear only in the dreams of women to request a dedication, they also appeared in the dreams of men, and male gods were not selective in their appearances either.20

  • 21 A corpus : G. Petzl, Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens, Bonn, 1994 (Epigraphica Anatolica, 20). (...)

11Another small group of dedications, which deviate from the standard formulae, consists of two dedications made by individuals propitiating the goddess, believing that their sufferings were the result of her anger. The gender is again irrelevant. In one case a couple made a dedication, after “having suffered many and terrible sufferings at the hands of Meter Theon Autochthon” (I.Leukopetra 65 : πολλ διν ϰὰ πάσχοντες π Μητρὸς Θεν Ατόχθονος). In the second case the victim of the goddess’ harassment is a man (I.Leukopetra 35 : χλούμενος π τς θε[ο]). Such propitiatory dedications accompanied by short narratives concerning divine punishment are common in Phrygia and Lydia ; like the angry divinities they propitiated, the dedicants were both men and women.21

2.2. Deviations from the stereotype : entreating an angry goddess

  • 22 IG X.2.2, 233 : νωχλημέν[η π] Ἀρτέμιδος φεσίας [τς] ν Κολοβαίσ].
  • 23 I.Leukopetra 53 : χαρισόμην ϰοράσιον νόματι Συνφέρουσαν... τ ϰὲ πολω<λ>ον τ ατ τ ναζητήσ (...)
  • 24 Chaniotis, “Under the Watchful Eyes” (n. 21) ; “Ritual Performances” (n. 21), p. 127-130.
  • 25 SEG 28, 1568 (= SEG 40, 1049) : νατίθημι Μητρί θεν χρυσ π<λεσ<α> πάντα στε ναζητσ<α>ι ατν(...)

12But if at Leukopetra the gender of the dedicants is irrelevant, the gender of the divinity may not be. Admittedly, any god and many a hero can get angry and make mortals suffer, but in Macedonia propitiatory dedications explicitly referring to the divinity’s anger and punishment are only found in sanctuaries of goddesses. In a contemporary text from Pelagonia an anonymous woman dedicated a female slave and her descendants to Artemis Kynagos, “After having been harassed by Artemis Ephesia, the one in Kolobaise.”22 Could it then be that angry and persistent pursuit was associated with the female gender ? Another dedication indirectly supports this assumption. A man dedicated a lost slave requesting the goddess to look for it for herself.23 This particular type of dedication, i.e. the cession of lost or stolen property to a god or a goddess making the deity a victim of the theft and forcing it to punish the culprit, is widely attested, from Asia Minor to Britain.24 The closest parallel is a ‘prayer for justice’ probably from Maionia, written on a bronze tablet :25

I dedicate to you, Mother of the Gods, all the golden objects which I have lost ; in order that she (the goddess) will investigate (the matter) and reveal everything, and in order that those who possess them will be punished in a manner worthy of her power, so that she (the goddess) will not look ridiculous.

  • 26 H. Malay, Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Manisa Museum, Vienna, 1994 (TAM, Ergän-zungsband 19) (...)

13The victim was probably a woman, who not only had suffered the loss of gold objects, but also the loss of face. So, she appealed to a Mother Goddess. In order to motivate her to act, she transferred the loss of face onto the goddess, thus urging her to reveal her power. Like in the diabole attested in magical papyri, the goddess was motivated to act through the provocation of anger. I am not arguing that only the emotions of goddesses were manipulated in this manner. In a dedication from Kollyda (176 CE) a woman who had been cheated during a transaction reports :26

I have bought [—], but having been treated disdainfully, I have ‘ceded’ (ξεχώρησα) them to Mes Axiottenos, so that he can do with them as he pleases.

14In this case the ‘consecrated’ item was given to a god, and the victim was satisfied with the pleasure of revenge. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that at Leukopetra a man selected this particular deity to request revenge. I will return to angry goddesses later.

2.3. Deviations from the stereotype : displaying affection

  • 27 I.Leukopetra 86 : μολογ χαρίζεσθαι Μητρὶ Θεν Ατόχθονι δολον <ν>όματι Λυϰολέοντα, ς τν ϰη, (...)

15The most interesting and revealing deviation from the standard formula concerns the personal relationship between the dedicant and the slave who is being dedicated. We usually find the information that the dedicant had acquired the slave already as an infant — sometimes that the slave was promised to the goddess already as an infant. Let us first listen to male voices explaining this fact :27

Popillius Leonidas, I agree to the donation to Meter Theon Autochthon of a slave by the name of Lykoleon, approximately 28 years old, of Macedonian origin, whom I bought immediately after his birth from M. Neikandros.

  • 28 I.Leukopetra 128 : Ζώσιμος Λυϰολέοντος χαρίσατο Μητρὶ Θε<ν> ϰοράσιον νόματι Κοπρίαν, τν ι, (...)

16The dedication of Aurelius Pesidonios is very similar. He names his two slaves, Posidonia (twelve years old) and Epaphroditos (unknown age), with the addition, “I bought them immediately after their birth” (I.Leukopetra 103 : γόρασα ξ αματος). These are ‘matter-of-fact’ statements, no more. The third male text uses an interesting formulation :28

Zosimos, son of Lykoleon, donated to the Mother of the Gods a girl by the name of Kopria (‘the one collected from the dung’), ten years old, whom he took immediately after her birth and brought up.

  • 29 LSJ s.v.

17In addition to the quite telling name Kopria, which in connection with the verb λαβν suggests that Zosimos had collected the newborn girl from the street where she had been exposed, also the use of the rare verb ναποι (not νατρέφω or τρέφω) is striking. This verb is used, e.g., for the preparation of a medicine, but it is to the best of my knowledge unparalleled in connection with the raising of a child.29

  • 30 I.Leukopetra 39 : Μαρία ερόδουλος Μητρός Θεν ϰαί λυχνάπτρια νατίθημι τ θε παιδίον νόματι Θεοδ (...)

18Let us now compare the dispassionate tone of these three documents written by men with the far more numerous texts originating from women. The latter are more emotional, more loquacious, more personal :30

I, Maria, a sacred slave of the Mother of the Gods and lighter of the lamps, dedicate to the goddess a girl, by the name of Theodote, whom I bought immediately after her birth and raised, approximately three years old.

  • 31 ILeukopetraH : χαρισόμην Μητρὶ Θεν Ατόχθονι παιδάρειν νόματι Παράμονον, ς έτν ϰε..., ν θρε(...)
  • 32 I.Leukopetra 45 : χαρίζετε Μητρὶ Θεν Ατόχθονι παιδάριον ν<ό>ματι Σύμφορον, π παιδίου ϰατωνομ (...)

19Like Zosimos, Maria had given the infant a telling name, but of a quite different nature : Theodote (‘the one given by the goddess’, which now becomes ‘the one given to the goddess’). She states that she has raised the slave using the verb νατρέφω. A similar formulation, which evokes a personal relationship between dedicant and child, is found in the dedication of Aurelia Iulia Patecia.31 A third text is more informative :32

“Iulia... donates to Meter Theon Autochthon a child by the name of Syn-phoros, whom she had vowed to dedicate while he was still a child ; for another four (children) did not stay with her.”

  • 33 See the comments of Petsas et al., o.c. (n. 17), p. 113.
  • 34 I.Leukopetra 90 : λία λεξάνδρα χαρισάμην Μητρὶ Θεν Ατόχθονι παιδίσϰας δύο νόμασιν Παρησίαν ϰα (...)

20It is not clear how we are to understand the verb παραμένειν. The other four young slaves had either escaped or left, or they had been sold or given away, or perhaps they had died.33 But the fact that Ioulia had vowed to dedicate this one after it had grown up, suggests, I think, that Ioulia had experienced the death of the other four child slaves. The promise to later dedicate an infant or a child born in the household was also made by two other women. The first woman had vowed the dedication of the son of her slave Euphrosyne (I.Leukopetra 52 : ν ϰ[αί] π βρέφου ϰατωνόμασα τ θε). The second text is longer and more interesting :34

“I, Olia Alexandra, donated to the Mother of the Gods Autochthon two girls, by the name of Paresia and Antigona, whom I had vowed to dedicate to the goddess while they were still infants, and who have been born for me from my slave Paramone, and whom I gave over with my own hands.”

21One can hardly deny the devotion to the goddess expressed through the vow made immediately after the girls’ birth ; but one also notices the sentimentality expressed by the pronoun μοι (μοι γεννήθ<η>σαν) and the emotional attachment both to the goddess and to the girls expressed by the addition παρέδωϰα τας ίδίαις χιρσίν.

  • 35 I.Leukopetra 94 : χαρ[ίζομαι Μητρὶ Θεν Λ]τόχθονι παιδίσϰας νόμα<τι> πίϰτησιν, ς τν ϰ᾽, τέ[ρ(...)

22The formulation of another woman is not emotional and recalls the dispassionate male texts. That no affection is displayed may be connected with the fact that the dedicated slaves are relatively old (20 and 25 years respectively) :35

I donate to Meter Theon Autochthon two slaves, one by the name of Epiktesis, approximately 20 years old, and another one by the name of Alexandra, approximately 25 years old, which I brought immediately after their birth.

2.4. Deviations from the stereotype : displaying faith

  • 36 See the corpus of T. Ritti, C. Simsek, H. Yildiz, “Dediche e ϰαταγραφαί dal santuario frigio di Apo (...)

23A fourth group of personalised formulations refer to services rendered by the goddess. In one case the dedicant was a man making a dedication for the wellbeing of his daughter (I.Leukopetra 153 : πέρ θυγατρός). Two dedications originate in women, who chose to address their vows to this goddess and not to any of the gods worshipped in Beroia. One of them made her dedication thanking the goddess for assistance offered to her husband (I.Leukopetra 69 : πί εχαριστηρίωις ος παρέσχου τ νδρί μου), the other dedicated her son, “whom she promised, when he was sick” (I.Leukopetra 47 : ν πέσχετο ντα ν νόσ). Vows were often made for the healing of a beloved person ; but the promise to dedicate this person to the goddess is an unusually strong form of devotion — and of course an expression of despair. Dedications of family members are also attested in Phrygia, in the sanctuary of Apollo Lairbenos and Meter, but the Phrygian text provide no clarification of the context other than that the dedication had taken place upon divine command.36

  • 37 For Demeter see e.g., D.L. Page, Select papyri III, London, 1950, p. 234 : “dearest Demeter, I dedi (...)
  • 38 SEG 43, 435 (206 CE) :... Κοΐντα Πορίου Κυρραία χαρισάμην Λύϰον ϰ<α>ὶ Ζώσιμον θε Συρί Παρθέν Γυρ(...)

24To entrust the fate of a person to the hands of a god is not exclusively female behaviour. It is encountered in the cult of Asklepios — one immediately thinks of Aelius Aristides — and in the cult of Demeter.37 But, interestingly, women often did this in dedications to female divinities, not in dedications to Asklepios. Not far from Beroia, at Giannitsa, a woman from Kyrrhos made a dedication to the Thea Syria Parthenos :38

Quinta, daughter of Porios, from Kyrrhos, donated Lyko and Zosimos to the Virgin Syrian Goddess at Gurbiata ; for it is thanks to her and her miracles that I am alive. They are slaves born in the household.

2.5. Men’s voices in the sanctuary of a goddess

25I come to the last group of individualised formulations : those referring to the personal delivery of the slave or of the ownership documents. We have already seen the formulation used by a woman (I.Leukopetra 90) : ς {ΑΣ} παρέδωϰα τας δίαις χιρσίν. In another three cases we find the formula, “I have deposited the deed of sale (or another document) into the arms of the goddess” (I.Leukopetra 3 : τν νν ϰατεθέμην ες τς ν[ϰάλας τς θεο] ; 63 : τς σφαλείας πεθέμ[η]ν ες τς νϰάλας τς θεο ; 93 : ντινα νν τ ατ μέρᾳ θηϰα ες τς νϰάλας τς θεο). Such a formulation, evoking the picture of a worshipper solemnly approaching the statue of a mother goddess and putting in her arms a document, thus entrusting her with the protection of a person, reflects stronger piety and emotionality than the standard formula τν νν δωϰα/πεθέμην. In the light of the texts discussed so far, one might expect to find this formulation in dedications of women. But this is not the case. In all three cases we are dealing with men. Did men adopt a more emotional form of speaking under the influence of the emotional context in the sanctuary of a Mother goddess ?

26In Leukopetra, deviations from standard formulae are found in dedications of both men and women. In the case of women, such deviations tend to take the form of expressions of a strong emotionality.

3. Female voices in the sanctuary of Demeter in Knidos

3.1. Standard formulae and deviations

  • 39 The most recent edition is that by W. Blümel in I.Knidos.

27The situation in the sanctuary of Demeter in Knidos is very different from that in Leukopetra. The number of dedications is smaller, consisting of only fifteen dedicatory inscriptions (late fourth-second century BCE) and thirteen prayers for revenge.39 The latter texts date from a relatively short period of time (late second and early first century BC), i.e. from an almost closed historical context. Only one of the texts was written by a man (I.Knidos 141). We may assume that this sanctuary was primarily visited by women, and this may be of some significance for the interpretation of the texts as a reflection of the interaction among women in this particular sacred space, that was dominated by female rituals.

  • 40 SEG L 1222 : μεγ ἄριστε, φιλήϰοε, ϰοίρανε ϰόσμου.
  • 41 Πανύψιστος : T. Drew-Bear, C.M. Thomas, M. Yildizturan, Phrygian Votive Steles, Ankara, 1999, p. 23 (...)
  • 42 IG II2 4793 : Βλαυθία λεξάνδρου πὲρ αυτς Ελειθυί σωζούστ πισωζούστ εχήν.

28Exactly as in Leukopetra, in the texts from the Knidian sanctuary we observe a strong expression of piety, which may take the form of deviations from standard vocabulary. I suspect that, generally, such deviations from standard formulae aimed at emphasising the worshipper’s personal devotion. The use of a personal, idiosyncratic language in his communication with a deity permits him to distinguish himself from other dedicants. E.g., the dedicant of an altar in Ioulioupolis (late second/early third century CE), Kattios Tergos, designated the anonymous god, who had protected him, as, “The one who listens to prayers” ; but instead of using the very common epithet πήϰοος, he chose the rare variant φιλήϰοος.40 Analogous variations in standard epithets are not unusual. E.g., πανύψιστος is a reinforced variant of the standard ψιστος ; προηγέτης and προϰαθηγέτης are variants of the more common ρχηγέτης, ϰαθηγεμών, and προϰαθηγεμών.41 Such deviations are attested for both men and women. Without claiming that I have systematically collected the relevant material, I have the impression that when deviations from stereotypical formulae appear in the dedications of women, they tend to appear in dedications made to goddesses. For instance, in Athens a woman, who made a dedication to Eileithyia “in fulfilment of a vow” (εχήν), referred to the goddess’ rescuing power using the unique formulation σωζούσ πισωζούσ — and not, e.g., σωτείρᾳ.42

  • 43 See the summary of research by W. Blümel in I.Knidos adloc., p. 81.

29In Knidos, most of the dedications merely name the dedicant and the goddess (sometimes together with Kore) ; in one case the dedication is designated as εχάν (I.Knidos 135). There are, however, two interesting deviations. In one case Plathainis, a woman who made three dedications (I.Knidos 136-138), designated one of them as χαριστεα ϰαί ϰτίματρα (I.Knidos 138). Χαριστεα is quite common, but ϰτίματρα is unique and this is why its exact meaning is unknown. Several interpretations have been suggested : a sin offering, a penalty, a thanksgiving dedication for liberation, a sign of veneration.43 Here, we can only notice the deviation from the rule, without being able to offer a satisfactory explanation for έϰτίματρα. This deviation reflects the worshipper’s personal and unique relationship to the goddess.

  • 44 I.Knidos 131 ; SGO I 01/01/06 ; SEG LIII 1225 : Κούραι ϰαί Δάματρι οἶϰον ϰαί γαλμ νέθηϰεν | Χρυσ (...)

30The second text is both unique and puzzling :44

Chrysina, mother of Chrysogone and wife of Hippokrates, dedicated to Kore and Demeter a shrine and a statue, after she had seen a sacred dream. For Hermes told her that she (Chrysogone) is an attendant of the revered goddess ( ?).

  • 45 TAM V.2, 1108 (undated) :... []θ παρέστ[ην μ]ητέρι σεμν νυϰτ μελαιονοτάτη ρμηνε[ύ]ουσα τάδ ο(...)

31According to Rigsby, Hermes appeared in Chrysina’s dream and consoled her by informing her about her daughter’s fate in the underworld. Rigsby’s interpretation is not certain, but it can indirectly be supported by the presence of similar consolatory motifs in other epitaphs. The funerary epigram for a girl, who had been struck by lightning in Thyateira, reports that the girl had appeared in her mother’s dream and urged her to stop the lament ; it was Zeus himself who had taken her immortal soul and brought it to the starry sky.45 We also notice that although Chrysina dedicated only a statue of Kore, who is named first in the epigram, yet she added Demeter in her dedicatory epigram. It is plausible to assume that Chrysina addressed the goddess, who had also experienced the loss of a daughter. Demeter had known herself Chrysinas’ grief and could understand. What joins worshipper and goddess is shared emotional experience.

3.2. Interaction among angry women and linguistic convergence

32More instructive for our discussion are the Knidian prayers for revenge. The use of standard expressions shows that the women who wrote these texts were not composing them in isolation, but in some form of interaction either with the priestess or within the group of the female worshippers. The following expressions are repeatedly used :

  • ναβα παρὰ Δάματρα πεπρημένος (μετ τν ατο δίων πάντων) ξαγορεύων/ξομολογούμενος (“he/she shall come up to the sanctuary of Demeter, burning, together with all his family, and declare/confess”) ;

  • μο σια ϰα λεύθερα (“let everything be holy and free for me”) ;

  • μ γένοιτο εειλάτου τυχεν (“let the goddess(es) not be merciful to him/her”).

33The first two expressions are absolutely unique and can be regarded as reflection of the particular cultic profile of this sanctuary.

  • 46 I.Knidos 148 Β lines 4-5 : δίϰημαι γάρ ; 154 line 6 : τατα διϰ[—] ; line 20 : διϰομαι [—]. Cf. (...)
  • 47 I.Knidos 147 : πό τατό στέγος εσελθεν ϰαί πί τν ατν τρ<ά>πεζαν ; 148 : συμπιεν ϰα συμφαγε(...)

34But in addition to these standard expressions, which are used in almost all texts, there is also a striking convergence in the phraseology between some texts. The authors of two texts (I.Knidos 148 and 154) stress the fact that they have been the victims of injustice.46 Five texts (I.Knidos 147, 148, 150, 154, and 155) use the same or similar words to refer to the image of sharing the same home and table in concord.47 All these are indications of interaction among the female worshippers in the sanctuary. The women talked to each other about their concerns. What one woman wrote on her tablet influenced the text of another woman.

35Which concerns troubled these women ? They were accused or accused others of using potions (pharmaka : I.Knidos 147, 150, 154) ; they had lost property (I.Knidos 148, 150, 152, 154, 157, 158) ; concord in their household or in their marital relationships was threatened (I.Knidos 150, 151, 153, 154, 156) ; they were (or thought they were) victims of wrong accusations (I.Knidos 147, 150), cheating (I.Knidos 150), and violence (I.Knidos 159) ; they had property claims (I.Knidos 149). In most cases we are dealing with conflicts that could not be resolved in court, because of the lack of evidence. And even if accusations had been brought to court, it was a man who had brought them forth, not a woman. Perhaps this explains the strong emotionality revealed in the prayers of revenge. These texts were written by angry and frustrated women, interacting with each other, and asking Demeter and Kore to make an opponent come to the sanctuary, together with his family, “burning” and confessing his unjust conduct, tortured with great tortures, expecting no mercy. The Knidian texts allow us to hear their voices, which often display strong emotions. I give a few examples :

(I curse) the one who accused me of making pharmaka against my husband…. Let me live under one roof with him (my husband) or have any other dealings wit him.... I dedicate the person who ruins my household (I.Knidos 150).
(I curse) those who attacked me and whipped me and bound me and those who called them (I.Knidos 159).
I have been the victim of injustice, mistress Demeter (J.Knidos 148).
(I curse) those who took a deposit from Diokles and do not return it,... for they deprive others of their property ;... and if they say something against me … (I.Knidos 149).
(May they be cursed) whoever takes away Anakon, the husband of Prosodion from her children ;... whoever receives the messengers of Anakon (urging him) to cheat on Prosodion ; whoever receives Anakon (making him) cheat on Prosodion
(I.Knidos 151).
Injustice is done against me ;... they are bringing sorrow (I.Knidos 154).

  • 48 Polyb., XV, 29, 8-14 : δ Ονάνθη περιϰαϰοσα παρῆν ες τ Θεσμοφορεον, νεγμένου το νε διά τ (...)

36These are not silent prayers, but texts that have been recited aloud. A wonderful description of emotional interaction among women precisely in a sanctuary of Demeter, the Thesmophorion in Alexandria, a cult place attended exclusively by women, is given by Polybius. During the tumult after the death of Ptolemy IV, Oinanthe, the mother of Agathokles, the deceased king’s chief advisor, and of Agathokleia, the deceased king’s mistress, fled to the Thesmophorion (203 BCE) :48

Oinanthe came to the Thesmophorion in great distress the temple was open because of annual sacrifice. And at first she entreated the goddesses, falling on her knees and applying magical means (cursing ? : μαγγανεύουσα), and then she seated herself by the altar and held her peace. Most of the women, pleased to watch her frustration and distress, remained silent. The relatives of Polykrates, however, along with some other noble women, not being yet aware of the critical situation, came up to her and consoled her. But she cried out with loud voice, “Do not come close to me, you beasts ! I know you too well ! For you bear us ill-will and pray to the goddesses that the worst may befall us. But I am sure that if the gods so will, you will taste the flesh of your own children.” After saying this she ordered the female club-bearers to drive them away and to strike those who refused to obey. Upon this pretext all the women withdrew, raising up their hands to the gods and cursing her to have the fate that she threatened to bring on others.

37In these few lines we observe exactly the behaviour and emotional conditions that the Knidian texts only let us suspect : jealousy and hatred, ‘Schadenfreude’ and suspicion, prayers and curses, loud voices and theatrical gestures. It is reasonable to assume that the most striking feature of the Knidian prayers for vengeance, i.e. a display of emotions unparalleled in this form from other sanctuaries, was the result of the interaction among women in this sanctuary.

4. Display of emotions as a persuasion strategy

38With these texts in mind, I shall now precede to some final observations. First, these dedications do not concern emotions but the display of emotions. The display of emotions took place during communication with the divinity : in a prayer, in a vow, in an appeal for assistance in a conflict or in a desperate situation, in a ritual of reconciliation with an angry goddess. Communication between powerless mortals and powerful gods is always asymmetrical. The display of emotions in such an asymmetrical relationship is a strategy of persuasion. The worshippers demonstratively exaggerate their own weakness and the power of the goddess ; they stress the fact that they have been obedient to the command of a goddess ; they admit that they owe everything to her ; they express their faith in her power. It is only natural that when the dedicants in Leukopetra refer to the dedication of a person in fulfilment of a vow, in expectation of protection and in expression of gratitude, they mention that this individual is dear to them : a slave, whom they have known since his birth and whom they will miss. Similarly, it is only natural that the female worshippers in the sanctuary of Demeter in Knidos, whether coming to thank or to curse, displayed their emotions — and they did not do this in isolation, but in interaction with other women.

  • 49 The relevant texts are : I.Leukopetra 20, 70, 76, 86, 91-95, 108, 116-118. Hatzopoulos, “The Manumi (...)

39Secondly, the dedications took place in ritual contexts, i.e. during situations which are always emotionally intensive. In Leukopetra, we observe that many dedications (13 cases) were made on the same day of the year : 18 Daisios. This must be the day of the festival of the Mother of the Gods, presumably one of the few days in the year in which this extra-urban sanctuary was open and accessible.49 Similarly, the signs of interaction among worshippers in the Knidian prayers for vengeance suggest that the tablets were deposited in the sanctuary during a festival, in which women gathered and talked to each other about their experiences, fears, hopes, frustrations, and anger. Polybius (supra) explicitly states that Oinanthe fled to the sanctuary of Demeter in Alexandria on the day of an annual sacrifice. How such a gathering can influence emotions is known from the gatherings of worshippers in the Asklepieia. Many personal voices were heard : loud voices (see note 47 : μεγάλη τη φωνή), angry voices, and sad voices. Only a few of these voices have been captured by the inscriptions and have come to us.

  • 50 IG XII 7, p. 1 (for the Greek text, see n. 37).

40Thirdly, when men were also present in sanctuaries of female divinities, as in Leukopetra, standing under the influence of an unusually tense emotional context, they expressed sentiments which otherwise they would not have displayed, e.g. total submission to the power of a goddess (see note 37). The best example is a prayer for vengeance from Arkesine, in which a man invokes Demeter not only adopting in a very theatrical manner female body language (falling on his knees) but also surrendering himself to the authority of the goddess as her “slave”.50

  • 51 I have studied aspects of this phenomenon (the dynamics of rituals in the Greek world) in the artic (...)

41The study of such personal voices and deviations from standard formulae shows that religious practices are dynamic processes both because of the interaction among worshippers and because of the imagined interaction between gods and mortals.51 The concept of the divine was continually constructed and reshaped through the interplay between what the tradition dictated, what worshippers experienced and felt individually, and what they communicated to others.

Notes

1 Diog. Laert., Vit. phil. VI, 37-38. Quoted by E.J. Edelstein and L. Edelstein, Asclepius : A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, Baltimore, 1945, vol. I, p. 321 no. 580 ; F.T. van Straten, “Did the Greeks Kneel Before their Gods ?”, BABesch 49 (1974), p. 162.

2 See the examples collected by van Straten, ibid.

3 van Straten, o.c., p. 175, who also refers to Polyb. XXXII, 15 (on Prusias) : γονυπετν ϰα γυναιϰιζόμενος.

4 Theocritus, Idyll II, 66-74 (transl. A.S.F. Gow, modified). Discussion of these verses in connection with emotional experiences during festivals : A. Chaniotis, “Rituals between Norms and Emotions : Rituals as Shared Experience and Memory”, in E. Stavrianopoulou (ed.), Rituals and Communication in the Graeco-Roman World, Liège, 2006 (Kernos, Suppl. 16), p. 227.

5 LSCG Suppl. 33 A 3-7. Also men are known to have used make-up, e.g. Demetrios of Phaleron : Douris, FrGrHist 76 F 10.

6 LSCG 65 line 16 : α δ γυναῖϰες μ διαφαν.

7 LSCG Suppl. 32 lines 1-2 : [εἰϰὰν γυ]ν ғέσετοι ζτεραον λοπος, [ερὸ]ν έναι τι Δάματρι τι Θεσμοφόρωι. Cf. LSAM 14 line 10 (Pergamon, Asklepios’ cult) ; LSCG 65 lines 15-26 ; LSCG 94. Cf. Chaniotis, l.c. (n. 4), p. 236f. ; N. Deshours, Les mystères d’Andania. Étude d’épigraphie et d’histoire religieuses, Bordeaux, 2006, p. 102-106.

8 LSAM 6.

9 Theocr., IdyllXV, 84-86 : ατός δ ς θαητς π ργυρέω ϰατάϰειται | ϰλισμ, πρᾶτον ουλον π ϰροτάφων ϰαταβάλλων, | τριφίλητος δωνις, ϰἠν χέροντι φιληθείς.

10 Z. Newby, “Reading the Allegory of the Archelaos Relief”, in Z. Newby, R. Leader-Newby (eds.), Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient World, Cambridge, 2006, p. 155-178.

11 A. Chaniotis, “Acclamations as a Form of Religious Communication”, in H. Cancik, J. Rupke (eds.), Die Religion des Imperium Romanum. Koine und Konfrontationen, Tubingen, 2009, p. 199-218.

12 Acta Pauli et Theclae 38 : α δ γυναῖϰες πσαι ἔϰραξαν φων μεγάλ.

13 Polyb., X, 4, 4-7 : γυναιϰεον πάθος (in connection with Scipio’ s mother).

14 E. Lupu, Greek Sacred Lam. A Collection of New Documents, Leiden, 2005, p. 323-325 no. 22 (SEG 41, 739) ; cf. LSCG 83 and 94 ; Lupu, o.c., p. 249-268 no. 14 lines (I.Beroia 1).

15 LSAM 61 lines 3-4 : [ταν δ] α λαμπάδες φέρωνται, μ θεν [λλήλας].

16 E. Stavrianopoulou, “Die « gefahrvolle » Bestattung von Gambreion ”, in C. Ambos et al. (eds.), Die Welt der Rituale von der Antike bis heute, Darmstadt, 2005, p. 24-37.

17 Complete edition with excellent commentaries in P. Petsas, M.B. Hatzopoulos, L. Gounaropoulou, P. Paschidis, Inscriptions du sanctuaire de la Mère des Dieux Autochthone de Leukopetra (Macécoine), Athens, 2000 (henceforth abbreviated as ILeukopetrd). More texts were found in 2003, see SEG 43, 612. For a discussion of various aspects of these texts see also M. Mirkovic, “Katagraphe and the Consecration of Children”, in Mélanges d’histoire et d’épigraphie offerts à Fanoula Papazoglou par ses élèves à l’occasion de son quatre-vingtième anniversaire, Belgrade, 1997, p. 1-33 ; M. RlCL, “Donations of Slaves and Freeborn Children to Deities in Roman Macedonia and Phrygia : A Reconsideration”, Tyche 16 (2001), p. 127-160 ; M.B. Hatzopoulos, “The Manumissions from Leukopetra, and the Topography of the Middle Haliakmon Valley”, in P. Derow, R. Parker (eds.), Herodotus and His World. Essays from a Conference in Memory of George Forrest, Oxford, 2003, p. 203-218 ; EBGR 2000 [2003], 155 ; SEG 50, 597 (A. Chaniotis) ; M. Hatzopoulos, “La société provinciale de Macédoine sous l’Empire à la lumière des inscriptions du sanctuaire de Leukopetra”, in S. Follet (ed.), L’hellénisme d’époque romaine. Nouveaux documents, nouvelles approches (Ier s. a.C. — IIIe s.p. C.). Actes du colloque international à la mémoire de Louis Robert, Paris, 7-8 juillet 2000, Paris, 2004, p. 45-53 ; Bull. épigr. 2005, 325 (M. Hatzopoulos).

18 See my comments in EBGR 2000, 155 ; SEG 50, 597. M. Yuni, “Maîtres et esclaves en Macédoine hellénistique et romaine”, in V.I. Anastasiadis, P.N. Doukelis (eds), Esclavage antique et discriminations socio-culturelles, Frankfurt, 2005, p. 181-195, has shown that these texts share many common features with manumissions. But the facts that in many cases the slaves were vowed to the goddess, when they were born or purchased, that they were dedicated to stop divine justice, and that also free individuals were donated, in addition to the vocabulary of dedication used in these texts, shows that the act of donation was primarily perceived as dedication, not as manumission.

19 Cf. I.Leukopetra75 : ϰατ ντολς... το νδρός μου (a woman).

20 E.g., divine appearances to dreams of women : IG II2 4038 (Meter Theon) and 4731 (Thea Kolainis) ; I.Délos 2114 (Isis) ; IGBulg V 5220 (Zeus Keraunios) ; I.Knidos 131 (Hermes). Goddesses in dreams of men : IG II2 4778 (Demeter Chloe and Kore) ; Syll.3 763 (Meter Kotyane) ; I.Priene 196 (the Thesmophoroi). These examples were provided for me by Gil Renberg, who is discussing this phenomenon in his forthcoming books ‘And the goddess told me in a dream ?’ : A Catalog of Greek and Latin Inscriptions Recording Divine Communications and ‘Commanded by the Gods’ : Dreams and Divination in the Greco-Roman Epigraphical Record.

21 A corpus : G. Petzl, Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens, Bonn, 1994 (Epigraphica Anatolica, 20). Most recent discussions (with the earlier bibliograhy) : A. Chaniotis, “Under the Watchful Eyes of the Gods : Aspects of Divine Justice in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor’, in S. Colvin (ed.), The Greco-Roman East. Politics, Culture, Society, Cambridge, 2004 (Yale Classical Studies, 31), p. 1-43 and id., ”Ritual Performances of Divine Justice : The Epigraphy of Confession, Atonement, and Exaltation in Roman Asia Minor’, in H.M. Cotton et al. (eds.), From Hellenism to Islam : Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East, Cambridge, 2009, p. 115-153 ; N. Belayche, “Les stèles dites de confession : une religiosité originale dans l’Anatolie impériale ?”, in L. de Blois, P. Funke, J. Hahn (eds.), ‘The Impact of Imperial Rome on Religions, Ritual, and Religious Life in the Roman Empire, Leiden, 2006, p. 66-81.

22 IG X.2.2, 233 : νωχλημέν[η π] Ἀρτέμιδος φεσίας [τς] ν Κολοβαίσ].

23 I.Leukopetra 53 : χαρισόμην ϰοράσιον νόματι Συνφέρουσαν... τ ϰὲ πολω<λ>ον τ ατ τ ναζητήσεις.

24 Chaniotis, “Under the Watchful Eyes” (n. 21) ; “Ritual Performances” (n. 21), p. 127-130.

25 SEG 28, 1568 (= SEG 40, 1049) : νατίθημι Μητρί θεν χρυσ π<λεσ<α> πάντα στε ναζητσ<α>ι ατν ϰαι ς μέσον νεϰϰεν πάντα ϰαι τος χοντες ϰολάσεσθαι ξίως τς ατς δυνάμε<ω>ς ϰαι μήτε ατ[ν] ϰαταγέλαστον σεσθ[αι]. Commentaries : H.S. Versnel, “Beyond Cursing : The Appeal to Justice in Judicial Prayers”, in C.A. Faraone, D. Obbink (eds.), Magika Hera : Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, New York/Oxford, 1991, p. 74 ; M. Ricl, “Meonsi πιττάϰιον u Zenevi ?”, in P.H. Ilievski, V. Mitevski (eds.), Greek-Roman Antiquity in Yugoslavia and on the Balkans. Proceedings of the Vth Yugoslav Congress on Classical Studies held in Skopje on 26-29 Sept. 1989, Skopje, 1991, p. 201-206 ; H.S. Versnel, “Κολάσαι τος μς τοιούτους δέως βλέποντες. ‘Punish Those Who Rejoice in our Miser/ : On Curse Texts and Schadenfreude”, in D.R. Jordan, H. Montgomery, and E. Thomassen (eds.), The World of Ancient Magic. Papers from the First International Samson Eitrem Seminar at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 4-8 May 1997, Bergen, 1999, p. 145-146 ; id., “Writing Mortals and Reading Gods. Appeal to the Gods as a Strategy in Social Control”, in D. Cohen (ed.), Demokratie, Recht und soziale Kontrolle im klassischen Athen, Munich, 2002, p. 55-56 ; Chaniotis, “Under the Watchful Eyes” (n. 21), p. 14-15 ; id., “Von Ehre, Schande und kleinen Verbrechen unter Nachbarn : Konfiktbewàltigung und Gotterjustiz in Gemeinden des antiken Anatolien”, in F.R. Pfetsch (ed.), Konflikt, Heidelberg, 2004 (Heidelberger Jahrbiicher, 48), p. 247.

26 H. Malay, Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Manisa Museum, Vienna, 1994 (TAM, Ergän-zungsband 19), p. 70 no 171 ; Versnel, “Writing Mortals” (n. 25), p. 53-54 note 59.

27 I.Leukopetra 86 : μολογ χαρίζεσθαι Μητρὶ Θεν Ατόχθονι δολον <ν>όματι Λυϰολέοντα, ς τν ϰη, γένι Μαϰεδόνα, ν γόρασα <>ξ αματος παρὰ Μ. Νειϰάνδρου.

28 I.Leukopetra 128 : Ζώσιμος Λυϰολέοντος χαρίσατο Μητρὶ Θε<ν> ϰοράσιον νόματι Κοπρίαν, τν ι, λαβν ξ ματος νεποιησάμην.

29 LSJ s.v.

30 I.Leukopetra 39 : Μαρία ερόδουλος Μητρός Θεν ϰαί λυχνάπτρια νατίθημι τ θε παιδίον νόματι Θεοδότην, δ γόρασα ξ αἵματ[ος] ϰα ν[έθ]ρεψα.

31 ILeukopetraH : χαρισόμην Μητρὶ Θεν Ατόχθονι παιδάρειν νόματι Παράμονον, ς έτν ϰε..., ν θρεψα ξ ματος.

32 I.Leukopetra 45 : χαρίζετε Μητρὶ Θεν Ατόχθονι παιδάριον ν<ό>ματι Σύμφορον, π παιδίου ϰατωνομάϰι δι τ μ παραμενε ατ λλα τέσσαρα.

33 See the comments of Petsas et al., o.c. (n. 17), p. 113.

34 I.Leukopetra 90 : λία λεξάνδρα χαρισάμην Μητρὶ Θεν Ατόχθονι παιδίσϰας δύο νόμασιν Παρησίαν ϰαί ντιγόναν, ς ϰαί π βρεφν ϰατωνόμασα τ θε, ατινές μοι γεννήθ<η>σαν ϰ παιδίσϰης μου Παρμόνις, ς {ΑΣ} παρέδωϰα τας δίαις χιρσίν.

35 I.Leukopetra 94 : χαρ[ίζομαι Μητρὶ Θεν Λ]τόχθονι παιδίσϰας νόμα<τι> πίϰτησιν, ς τν ϰ᾽, τέ[ραν νόματι λε]ξάνδραν, ς τν ϰε, τινα γόρασα ξ ματος.

36 See the corpus of T. Ritti, C. Simsek, H. Yildiz, “Dediche e ϰαταγραφαί dal santuario frigio di Apollo Lairbenos”, EA 32 (2000), p. 1-88 : cf. Mirkovic, o.c. (n. 15) and Ricl, o.c. (n. 15).

37 For Demeter see e.g., D.L. Page, Select papyri III, London, 1950, p. 234 : “dearest Demeter, I dedicate myself, and I request that you save me ([] φιλτάτη Δήμητερ, νατίθημί σοι μαυτόν, ξι τε σώιζειν) ; IG XII 7, p. 1 : “lady Demeter, queen, as a suppliant I fall to your knees, I, your slave” (Κυρία Δημήτηρ, βασίλισσα, ιϰέτης σου προσπίπτω δ δολος σου) ; most recent edition in E. Eldinow, Oracles, Curses, and Risk among the Ancient Greeks, Oxford, 2007, p. 419f. (with wrong attribution to Sicily). The dedicant of a temple and statues of Demeter and Kore (SEG 33, 1100 ; Kimista in Paphlagonia, 195 CE) characterizes himself as ϰέτης.

38 SEG 43, 435 (206 CE) :... Κοΐντα Πορίου Κυρραία χαρισάμην Λύϰον ϰ<α>ὶ Ζώσιμον θε Συρί Παρθέν Γυρβιατίσσηπει<δ>ὴ δι ατν ζ ϰαί τςρετς ατς· ἰσίν δ οἰϰογεν.

39 The most recent edition is that by W. Blümel in I.Knidos.

40 SEG L 1222 : μεγ ἄριστε, φιλήϰοε, ϰοίρανε ϰόσμου.

41 Πανύψιστος : T. Drew-Bear, C.M. Thomas, M. Yildizturan, Phrygian Votive Steles, Ankara, 1999, p. 236 no 364. Προηγέτης : TAM II, 188. Προϰαθηγέτης : IG V 2, 93 ; TAM II, 189.Ἀρχηγέτης : LSAM 33. Καθηγεμών : LSAM 15. Προϰαθηγεμών : I.Ephesos 26 ; LSAM 28.

42 IG II2 4793 : Βλαυθία λεξάνδρου πὲρ αυτς Ελειθυί σωζούστ πισωζούστ εχήν.

43 See the summary of research by W. Blümel in I.Knidos adloc., p. 81.

44 I.Knidos 131 ; SGO I 01/01/06 ; SEG LIII 1225 : Κούραι ϰαί Δάματρι οἶϰον ϰαί γαλμ νέθηϰεν | Χρυσογόνη[ς] μήτηρ, πποϰράτους δ λοχος, | Χρυσίνα, ννυχίαν ψιν δοσα εράν· | ρμς γάρ νιν φησε θεας ΤΑΘΝΗΙ προπολεύειν. For the problematic θεας ΤΑΘΝΗΙ, K. Rigsby “Chrysogone’s Mother”, MH 60 (2003), p. 60-64, has suggested the emendation θει σ<εμ>νι, which I have included in the translation. B. Dignas, “Benefitting Benefactors : Greek Priests and Euergetism”, AC 75 (2006), p. 71-84, esp. 76-77, reads φησε θεας Τάθνηι προπολεύειν (“Hermes told her to serve as priestess to the goddess in Tathne”), which has the obvious advantage that it does not require an emendation. However, Dignas does not explain first, why Chrysina identified herself as the mother of Chrysogone and, secondly, why it was Hermes that appeared to her dream.

45 TAM V.2, 1108 (undated) :... []θ παρέστ[ην μ]ητέρι σεμν νυϰτ μελαιονοτάτη ρμηνε[ύ]ουσα τάδ οτως « μτε[ρ] Μελιτίνη, θρῆνον λίπε, παε γόοιο, ψυχς μνησ[α]μένη, ν μοι Ζες τερπιϰ[έρ]αυνος τεύξας θάνατον ϰαί γήραον ματα [π]άντα ρπάξας ϰόμι[σσ] ες οὐρανν στερό]εν]τα ». The same strategy of consolation is also found in an epigram in Egypt (E. Bernand, Inscriptions métriques de l’Egypte gréco-romaine, Paris, 1969, p. 350-357 no 87) : οὐϰέτι σοι μέλλω θύειν, θύγα[τερ, μετ] ϰλ[α]υθμο, | ξ ο δ γνων ς θες ξεγένου.

46 I.Knidos 148 Β lines 4-5 : δίϰημαι γάρ ; 154 line 6 : τατα διϰ[—] ; line 20 : διϰομαι [—]. Cf. IG XII 7, p. 1 (curse in Amorgos) : Κυρία Δημήτηρ, λιτανεύω σε παθν διϰα.

47 I.Knidos 147 : πό τατό στέγος εσελθεν ϰαί πί τν ατν τρ<ά>πεζαν ; 148 : συμπιεν ϰα συμφαγεν ϰαί π[ τ α]τ στέγος [λθ]εν ; 150 : μοστεγησάστ] ; 154 : συνεσθίοντι ϰαί π τ ατ[ στέγος] ; 155 : [συμ]πιεν ϰα [—]ΟΜ ϰαί πί τ [α]τό στέγος λθν.

48 Polyb., XV, 29, 8-14 : δ Ονάνθη περιϰαϰοσα παρῆν ες τ Θεσμοφορεον, νεγμένου το νε διά τινα θυσίαν πέτειον. ϰαί τ μν πρῶτον λιπάρει γονυπετοσα ϰα μαγγανεύουσα πρὁς τς θεάς, μετ δ τατα ϰαθίσασα πρὁς τν βωμν εχε τν συχίαν. α μν πολλα τν γυναιϰῶν, δέως ορῶσαι τν δυσθυμίαν ϰα περιϰάϰησιν ατς πεσιώπων· α δ το Πολυϰράτους συγγενες ϰαί τινες τεραι τν νδόξων, δήλου τς περιστάσεως ατας ϰμν παρχούσης, προσελθοσαι παρεμυθοντο τν Ονάνθην. δ ναβοήσασα μεγάλ τ φων « Μή μοι πρόσιτέ » φησι « θηρία· ϰαλς γὰρ μς γινώσϰω, διότι ϰα φρονεθ ημν ναντία ϰα τας θεας εχεσθε τ δυσχερέστατα ϰαθ μν. ο μν λλ τι πέποιθα τν θεν βουλομένων γεύσειν υμς τν δίων τέϰνων ». ϰα τατ εποσα τας αβδούχοις νείργειν προσέταξε ϰαί παίειν τς μ πειθαρχούσας. α δ πιλαβόμεναι τς προφάσεως ταύτης πηλλάττοντο πσαι, τος θεος νίσχουσαι τς χεῖρας ϰα ϰαταρώμεναι λαβεν ατήν ϰείνην πεῖραν τούτων, ϰατ τν πέλας πανετείνετο πράξειν. For ‘Schadenfreude’ (δέως ρῶσαι τν δυσθυμίαν ϰα περιϰάϰησιν ατς) cf. a curse addressed to Demeter from Amorgos (IG XII 7, p. 1) : ϰολάσαι τος μς τοιούτους δέως βλέποντας. On this subject see Versnel, “On Curse Texts and Schadenfreude” (n. 25), p. 125-162.

49 The relevant texts are : I.Leukopetra 20, 70, 76, 86, 91-95, 108, 116-118. Hatzopoulos, “The Manumissions from Leukopetra” (n. 17), associates this date of the festival with the seasonal movement of transhumant shepherds.

50 IG XII 7, p. 1 (for the Greek text, see n. 37).

51 I have studied aspects of this phenomenon (the dynamics of rituals in the Greek world) in the articles mentioned in notes 4, 11, and 21, as well as in the following studies : “Ritual Dynamics : The Boiotian Festival of the Daidala”, in H.F.J. Horstmanshoff et al. (eds.), Kykeon. Studies in Honour of H.S. Versnel, Leiden, 2002, p. 23-48 ; “Old Wine in a New Skin : Tradition and Innovation in the Cult Foundation of Alexander of Abonouteichos”, in E. Dabrowa (ed.), Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient World (Electrum 6), Krakow 2002, p. 67-85 ; “Der Kaiserkult im Osten des Romischen Reiches im Kontext der zeitgenossischen Ritualpraxis”, in H. Cancik, K Hitzl (eds.), Die Praxis der Herrscherverehrung in Rom und seinen Provinzen, Akten der Tagung in Blaubeuren vom 4. bis zum 6. April 2002, Tubingen, 2003, p. 3-28 ; “Negotiating Religion in the Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire”, Kernos 16 (2003), p. 179-184 ; “Das Bankett des Damas und der Hymnos des Sosandros : Offentlicher Diskurs uber Rituale in den griechischen Stadten der Kaiserzeit”, in D. Harth, G. Schenk (eds.), Ritualdynamik. Kulturubergreifende Studien zyr Theorie und Geschichte rituellen Handelns, Heidelberg, 2004, p. 291-304 ; “Ritual Dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean : Case Studies in Ancient Greece and Asia Minoi”, in W.V. Harris (ed.), Rethinking the Mediterranean, Oxford, 2005, p. 141-166 ; “Griechische Rituale der Statusanderung und ihre Dynamik”, in M. Steinicke, S. Weinfurter (eds.), Investitur- und Kronungsrituale, Cologne/Weimar, 2005, p. 1-19 ; “Isotheoi timai : la divinité mortelle d’Antiochos III à Téos”, Kernos 20 (2007), p. 153-171 ; “Theatre Rituals”, in P. Wilson (ed.), The Greek Theatre and Festivals. Documentary Studies, Oxford, 2007, p. 48-66 ; “Die Entwicklung der griechischen Asylie : Ritualdynamik und die Grenzen des Rechtsvergleichs”, in L. Burckhardt et al. (eds.), Gesetzgebung in antiken Gesellschaften. Israel, Griechenland, Rom, Berlin, 2007, p. 233-246 ; “Konkurrenz von Kultgemeinden im Fest”, in J. Rüpke (ed.), Festrituale : Diffusion und Wandel im romischen Reich, Tubingen, 2008, p. 67-87 ; “The Dynamics of Ritual Norms in Greek Cult”, in P. BrulÉ (ed.), La norme en matiière religieuse en Grèce ancienne, Liège, 2009 (Kernos, suppl. 21), p. 91-105 ; “Ritual Performances of Divine Justice : The Epigraphy of Confession, Atonement, and Exaltation in Roman Asia Minor”, in H.M. Cotton et al. (eds.), From Hellenism to Islam : Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East, Cambridge, 2009, p. 115-153 ; “The Dynamics of Rituals in the Roman Empire”, in O. Hekstra, C. Witschel (eds.), The Impact of the Roman Empire on the Dynamics of Rituals, Leiden (forthcoming). “Dynamic of Emotions and Dynamic of Rituals. Do Emotions Change Ritual Norms ?”, in C. Brosius, U. Hüsken (eds.), Ritual Matters, London (forthcoming).
Some relevant aspects are also discussed in my book
Le visage humain des rituels : expérimenter, mettre en scène et négocier les rituels dans la Grèce hellénistique et l’Orient romain, Paris (forthcoming).

© Presses universitaires de Liège, 2009

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540