Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious Officials from Homer to Heliodorus

  Dignas, Beate, and Kai Trampedach, eds. 2008. Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious Figures from Homer to Heliodorus. Hellenic Studies Series 30. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_DignasB_and_TrampedachK_eds.Practitioners_of_the_Divine.2008.


2. Priestly Personnel of the Ephesian Artemision: Anatolian, Persian, Greek, and Roman Aspects*

Jan Bremmer

The lack of a sharply defined function must have favored the incorporation of native institutions in areas like Ionia, where the Greeks were relatively late arrivals. One such example is undoubtedly the complex cult of Artemis at Ephesus. Hers was a particularly hospitable cult that in the course of time incorporated Anatolian, Persian, Cretan and Roman influences. The last full survey of all priestly functions within the cult of Artemis was presented in 1922, when Charles Picard published his still valuable study of Ephesus and Claros. [3] Since then we have seen only two more, if much less detailed, attempts at surveying the major priesthoods. [4] Recent decades have witnessed an increasing interest in the Anatolian background of Greek religion, [5] a growing knowledge of ancient Persian onomastics, [6] a steady stream of newly published Ephesian inscriptions and new insights on the relation between myth and ritual. [7] A new analysis, then, is not out of place—the more so, since not even the literary evidence has been fully exploited. I shall therefore discuss the characteristics of religious functions at the Artemision in light of their complex background; the paper focuses on those officials who are referred to as priests in our sources [8] , carried out tasks of priests, such as sacrificing, [9] or are called priests in modern discussions. In Ephesian terms this means that the study examines the Megabyxos, the male priests of the Roman period, the priestess, the essēnes and the Kouretes. Finally, I shall consider how my observations bear on the character of Greek priesthood in general.

1. The Megabyxos

2. Priestesses

3. Male Priests in the Roman Period

4. The Essēnes

After Alexander the Great we no longer hear of a connection between the essēnes and citizenship. Their function must have lost importance. Although particulars are lacking, they seem to have become the victim of the restructuring of the temple organisation that took place during the period of the Diadochoi (IEphesos 26). Our information starts to flow again with Pausanias, who notes the lifelong chastity of the priest and priestess of Artemis Hymnia in Orchomenus and observes, “I know of similar things that last a year and no more in the case of the histiatores of Artemis Ephesia, those called essēnes by the citizens” (8.1.13). Interestingly, the term histiatōr is found with this spelling only in a fragment of the Archaic lawgiver Charondas (apud Stobaeus 4.2.24). Yet the term was quite normal in the Greek world and even used by Apollonius of Tyana (Epistle 65 Penella) with regard to Ephesus. Apparently, the essēnes not only had to be chaste for a year but also had to host banquets. As in Greek religion the latter usually went concomitant with sacrifice, the notice may well be an indication of a sacrificing activity of the essēnes.

5. The Kouretes

6. Conclusion

The priesthood of Artemis had a complicated history. On the one hand Artemis’ traditional supervision of the coming of age of girls is reflected in the choruses of maidens and the role of the priestess. On the other hand, her cult also incorporated elements of the cult of a pre-existing Anatolian goddess, namely a eunuch priest and a group of young men. It is even feasible that the Ephesians combined native (priestess) and Anatolian (eunuch) elements in the Artemis priesthood from a relatively early stage onwards.

What can we now conclude from our discussion with regard to general characteristics of Greek priesthood? I would like to single out four aspects of Artemis’ cult that are typical for Greek priesthood but at the same time rather different from a concept of priesthood that stems from a monotheistic experience. First, it was evidently acceptable that a eunuch held one of the most important, if not the most important, functions in Artemis’ cult. Whereas the organisation of the Christian Church has guaranteed that, before and after the Reformation, the Catholic priesthood and the Protestant ministry have remained identifiable and fairly strictly defined offices, Greek priesthood was clearly characterised by a flexibility that could continuously adapt to new circumstances.

Secondly, this flexibility made the Greek priesthood much more liable to political manipulation than the Christian one. We do not know how and when the Megabyxos received his name but it must have to do with the Persian conquest of Ephesus. Whereas the Orthodox Church in Greece preserved Greek identity in the times of the Ottoman Empire and the Polish priests sustained a sense of nationalism in the face of communism, the most important religious functionaries of Ephesus apparently had no trouble in co-operating with the occupying powers, be they Persian, Macedonian or Roman. In this respect, the Greek priesthood was perhaps more different from the clergy familiar to us than we might always have thought.

Footnotes

[ back ] * I thank Beate Dignas, Jitse Dijkstra, and Stelios Panayotakis for information and comments.

[ back ] 1. See the still useful survey in Kretschmer 1930:81–89.

[ back ] 2. Term, of course, does not correspond to vocabulary here. The one person we might expect may be called hiereus/hiereia or by any other title. My discussion below gives many examples.

[ back ] 3. Picard 1922:162–197 (Megabyxos, essēnes, priestesses), 277–287 (Kouretes).

[ back ] 4. Talamo 1984:197–216 (no discussion of the priestesses); Burkert 1999:59–70 (no discussion of the Kouretes); on the Megabyxos, see also Burkert 2004:105–107.

[ back ] 5. Burkert 1992, 2003 and 2004; West 1997.

[ back ] 6. See especially the many studies of Rüdiger Schmitt; cf. the bibliography in Breidbach and Huyse 2000.

[ back ] 7. See Bremmer 1992:265–276 and 2005:21-43; Burkert 2002:1–22.

[ back ] 8. Again, this is not limited to hiereis but also refers to a Greek equivalent of this.

[ back ] 9. For this and other priestly prerogatives in the context of daily ritual activities, see Chaniotis in this volume.

[ back ] 10. See now Bremmer 2004a:9–10. For a discussion of the name and function of the Megabyxos, see Smith 1996: 323–335, which, however, is not very helpful.

[ back ] 11. Benveniste 1966:108–117; accepted by Miller 1968:846; Mayrhofer 1979:16; Schmitt 2002:63.

[ back ] 12. Contra Burkert 1999:63 and 2004:106.

[ back ] 13. See my detailed re-evaluation of the earlier stages of this cult in Bremmer 2004.

[ back ] 14. Pessinous: see Bremmer 2004; Olba: Strabo 14.5.10; see also Gotter in this volume.

[ back ] 15. Translation taken from Gulick (Loeb), adapted: the rest of the fragment is corrupt.

[ back ] 16. Cf. Callimachus Hymns 3.250; Knibbe et al. 1979:139–147; Strelan 1996:76–79 (“The wealth of Artemis”); several studies in Muss 2001; Dignas 2002:141–156, 172–177.

[ back ] 17. Cf. Apollonius of Tyana Epistle 2 Penella; Luc. Tim. 22.

[ back ] 18. Bremmer 2003:32.

[ back ] 19. Cf. Timaeus FGrH 566 F 150b; Caesar Civil War 3.33, 105; Dio Chrysostom 31.48, 54; FiEphesos I.261–262.

[ back ] 20. As we can infer from Plautus Bacchides 306ff., where the Megabyxos is called Megalobulus. Plautus’ dependence on Menander’s Dis Exapatōn is now firmly established by E. W. Handley on P.Oxy. 64.4407. See also Zwierlein 1992.

[ back ] 21. Menander, DE F 5 Sandbach, which calls him zakoros instead of neōkoros (see below). For the term, see J. Nollé on ISide 228.1.

[ back ] 22. As is noted by F. Hiller von Gaertringen, IPriene on no. 231.

[ back ] 23. Quintillian 5.12.21 mentions the Megabyxos as an example of effeminacy.

[ back ] 24. For other Anatolian aspects of Artemis, see most recently Morris 2001:135–151 and 2001a:423–434, esp. 428–434.

[ back ] 25. Pessinous: Bremmer 2004; Lagina: IStratonikeia 513, 544, 1101. Hierapolis: Strabo 13.4.14.

[ back ] 26. See Timotheus F 778 Page/Hordern = Alex. Aet. F4 Magnelli (with Hordern and Magnelli ad loc.); Antimachus F 99 Matthews; Callimachus Hymns 3.204, 240, 4.292 (with the scholia ad loc.); Burkert 1979:130.

[ back ] 27. This has been overlooked by LiDonnici 1999:201–214 and refutes her theses. Note also the reservations of Dignas 2002:190.

[ back ] 28. Syme 1979:526 (date); Eck DNP 12.1 1154 s.v. Vedius [II 4] P. V. Pollio.

[ back ] 29. See below.

[ back ] 30. For the Persian eunuchs, see Briant 1996:I.279–288; Llewellyn-Jones 2002:19–49.

[ back ] 31. For an interesting case, see Dignas 2002:139–140.

[ back ] 32. For the altar, see now Muss and Bammer 2001, to be read with the devastating review by Kuhn 2003:197–226.

[ back ] 33. See below.

[ back ] 34. See e.g. also SEG 40.303 (Corinth); IG XII v 186 (Paros); IAssos 14; IPrusias Hyp. 53 (high priestess and neōkoros); IPergamon 3.152; IMagnesia 100a; ILabraunda 2, no. 45, etc.

[ back ] 35. See below.

[ back ] 36. For the anecdotes, see also Gschwantler 1975:123. For Zeuxis, see Ameling 1987:76 (probably from Heraclea Pontica).

[ back ] 37. For stimulating reflections on the value of such anecdotes, see Saller 1980:69–83; Kortum 1997:1–29.

[ back ] 38. Picard 1922:182–190; Burkert 1999:73.

[ back ] 39. See below.

[ back ] 40. Cf. Malkin 1987:69–72; Scheer 2000:244–247.

[ back ] 41. Cf. Turcan 2000:657–669.

[ back ] 42. For the passages, see also Thomas 1995:82–117, who neglects their mention of the virgin priesthood.

[ back ] 43. Cf. Schwabl 1999:283–287. Similarly, Achilles Tatius 7.13; on the Ephesian background of Artemidorus, see Bowersock 2004:53-63, with prosopographical analysis on 54-56.

[ back ] 44. For the ordeal, see Bremmer 1999:21–29, who overlooked Versnel 1994:152–153.

[ back ] 45. For Heliodorus’ date, see Bremmer 1999:26–27. See also Baumbach in this volume.

[ back ] 46. For the date, see Bremmer 1998a:169–170

[ back ] 47. For the passage, see Panayotakis 2002:112–114.

[ back ] 48. Cyzicus: Michel, Receuil d’inscriptions greques 538. Didyma: SEG 35.1097. Magnesia: IMagnesia 100. Apollonia Salbace: L. and J. Robert 1954:281. Bargylia: SEG 44.868. Olymus: Robert 1935:159.

[ back ] 49. Cf. IEphesos 900-900a.

[ back ] 50. Calame 1977:137 (with full bibliography); Baudy 1998:143–167.

[ back ] 51. See Bremmer 1999c:189–190, from which I have taken over this paragraph, abbreviated and updated.

[ back ] 52. Cf. Graf 1985:237–238.

[ back ] 53. Merkelbach and Stauber 1998:169–170.

[ back ] 54. SEG 39.855. Cf. van Bremen 1996:90n31.

[ back ] 55. Cf. Graf 2000:267–269.

[ back ] 56. Dowden 1989:157–158; Calame 1977:22–23 (choruses of fifty members); Bremmer 1999c:188–189 (development from initiation).

[ back ] 57. Maehler wrongly ascribes the notice to Apollo’s sanctuary in Didyma.

[ back ] 58. For the dance and its relationship to the purrhichē of the Kouretes, see Ceccarelli 1998:135–136.

[ back ] 59. See Pliny Natural History 34.53; Dionysius Periegetes 827–829, and schol. ad loc.; Hyginus Fabulae 223, 225; Pausanias 4.31.8.

[ back ] 60. See Pausanias 7.2.7. Note also Coressus as Ephesian place name (Kreophylos FGrH 417 F 1; Anthologia Graeca 5.59.5); the Koressian gate (IEphesos 212, 425, 566); and the neighbourhood of the Koresseitai (IEphesos 9); Karwiese 1985:214-225; Knibbe 2002:207-219.

[ back ] 61. See also Tacitus Annals 3.61; Pausanias 4.31.8.

[ back ] 62. See Homer Odyssey xi 325 (Ariadne); Hesiod F 131 MW (Proitids); Pausanias 7.16.6–9 (Eurypylos); Pausanias 2.31.2 (Troizen). Graf 1985:242–243, who also compares Artemis’ killing of Actaeon (Hesiod F 217a MW; Stes. F 236 Davies), but in that case Dionysos does not play a role.

[ back ] 63. For this function, see now Rigsby 1996:385–393.

[ back ] 64. Calame 1977:96 also compares Ion TrGF 19 F 22 and Diogenes Athenaeus TrGF 45 F1, but in both cases the reference is clearly to maidens from Sardis.

[ back ] 65. For the dancing, see Calame 1977:93, who well compares Aristophanes F 29 (wrongly quoted as 30) and 147 (wrongly quoted as 148) KA.

[ back ] 66. Heberdey 1904:210–215, Beiblatt 44 (IEphesos 14); Calame 1977:94–96.

[ back ] 67. Calame 1977:95.

[ back ] 68. For Xenophon’s date, see Bremmer 1998a:170.

[ back ] 69. See Athenaeus 13.565ff. Cf. Calame 1977:43, 72. Note also Bremmer 1999b:316–318.

[ back ] 70. Calame 1977:48–73.

[ back ] 71. Cf. van Bremen 1996:86.

[ back ] 72. For a list, see Rogers 1991:75n73.

[ back ] 73. See the list in van Bremen 1996:316–332.

[ back ] 74. IEphesos 617, 892, 3233.

[ back ] 75. Cf. Dignas 2002:150–153, 188–193.

[ back ] 76. For the date and place of origin of the Acts of John, see Bremmer 1998a:162 (= Bremmer 2001:153–154, 167–168). For Achilles Tatius, see Bremmer 1998a:167–168; Bowie 2002:60–61.

[ back ] 77. Picard 1922:190–197; Talamo 1984:207–213; Burkert 1999:68; Dignas 2002:191.

[ back ] 78. Picard 1922:190: “un corps sacerdotal”; Talamo 1984:208: “esseni-sacerdoti; Burkert 1999:68: “Priesterkollegium.”

[ back ] 79. See IEphesos 1448, 1473.

[ back ] 80. Burkert 1999:68.

[ back ] 81. The refererence is to Iliad XV 184–199. Cf. Burkert 1992:88–93 for its dependence on the Accadian epic Atrahasis (but note the reservations of West 1997:110).

[ back ] 82. Pfeiffer wrongly writes essēn with a rough breathing in his edition. Cf. Masson 1962:49.

[ back ] 83. King: Hsch. e 6335 Latte. King bee: Et. Gud., Suda s.v. essēn

[ back ] 84. van Berchem 1980:29–30.

[ back ] 85. Karwiese 1995:152–164, 168–184, 197–207.

[ back ] 86. Furnée 1972:172n118 with a collection of other words ending in -ēn.

[ back ] 87. See below.

[ back ] 88. Slater (ad loc.) observes that no example of this usage exists, but that can hardly be an argument against the reliability of this gloss, as the same can be said about other glosses (F 11A, 14, 25, 30, 31, 103 etc.). He also approves the suggestion made by Nauck (1848:106) that the gloss is a corruption of the preceding one (F 99), but such a corruption is hard to imagine.

[ back ] 89. Translation taken from Jones (Loeb).

[ back ] 90. For other connections of Kouretes with sacrifice, see Istros FGrH 334 F 48; Pausanias 4.31.9.

[ back ] 91. For the Ephesian neopoioi, see Dignas 2002:192–193.

[ back ] 92. For the number, see Knibbe 1981:97.

[ back ] 93. Thus Graf 1999:258; Dignas 2002:200. For the social status of the new Kouretes, see also Rozenbeek 1993:103–105.

[ back ] 94. See P.Oxy. 24.2407. Cf. Legras 1993:113–127.

[ back ] 95. For text, translation and commentary, see now Furley and Bremer 2001:I.67–76; II.1–20. For a full enumeration of the Cretan worship of the Kouretes, see Sporn 2002:389.

[ back ] 96. Muss 2000:149–155.

[ back ] 97. See the excellent observations in Grossardt 2001:15, 238–239.

[ back ] 98. Sporn 2002:124.

[ back ] 99. For the initiatory background of the Kabeiroi, see Wachter 2001:326–327.

[ back ] 100. See especially Graf 1985:115–120.

[ back ] 101. See IChios 33. Cf. Graf 1985:55, 117.

[ back ] 102. Bremmer 1994:28. This is confirmed by Chaniotis; see Chaniotis in this volume.

[ back ] 103. For the importance of the early bishops, see e.g. Brown 1992; Drake 2000.