No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 November 2013
In his account of the events leading up to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides tells us that in 435 b.c. the Epidamnians decided to transfer their allegiance from Corcyra to Corinth in accordance with the Delphic oracle, whereupon the Corinthians agreed to support Epidamnus against their own colony Corcyra. One of the reasons given is that the Corinthians hated the Corcyraeans for their contempt for their mother city, as ‘in their common festivals they would not allow them the customary privileges of founders, at their sacrifice they did not give priority to Corinthians [as other colonies did]’ (οὔτε γὰρ ἐν πανηγύρεσι ταῖς κοιναῖς διδόντες γέρα τὰ νομιζόμενα οὔτε Κορινθίῳ ἀνδρὶ προκαταρχόμενοι τῶν ἱερῶν ὥσπερ αἱ ἄλλαι ἀποικίαι). Precisely what the dispute was and what the word προκατάρχεσθαι means have not been convincingly explained by commentators.
I am indebted to Professor R. Parker for reading previous versions of this article. I thank also CQ's anonymous reader for helpful comments.
1 Thuc. 1.24–5.
2 Thuc. 1.25.4. The translation is that of Hornblower, S., A Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford, 1991–2008), 1.69–70Google Scholar.
3 Σ Thuc. 1.25.4.
4 Bloomfield, S.T., The History of Thucydides (London, 1829)Google Scholar, 60 n. 5.
5 e.g. Marchant, ‘E.C., Thucydides. Book I (London, 1905)Google Scholar, 174: ‘festivals common to Corinth and Corcyra’; Classen, J. and Steup, J., Thukydides (Berlin, 1966 [1919])Google Scholar, 1.90–1: ‘κοιναὶ πανηγύρεις genannt, weil sie zugleich Feste für die Kolonien waren’.
6 Krüger, K.W., Θουκυδίδου Ξυγγραϕή (Berlin, 1860 [1846])Google Scholar, 1.36.
7 Graham, A.J., Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (Manchester, 1964)Google Scholar, 161. Salmon, J.B., Wealthy Corinth. A History of the City to 338 b.c. (Oxford, 1984)Google Scholar, 387 n. 1, also accommodates both possibilities but does not express a preference for either one. Malkin, I., Religion and Colonisation in Ancient Greece (Leiden, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar does not discuss this issue.
8 Graham (n. 7), 161–4.
9 Brea: ML 49; Milesian colonies: Milet I.3, no. 141, Didyma nos. 427.6–7, 432.6–9, 433.7–8, 444.2–3, 452.3–4, 453.5–6, 463.17–18, 464.10–11, 468.8–9, 471.8–9, 475.17–18; (alleged) Lindian colonies: e.g. Lindos II, no. 2 C.11–14, 56–9, 75–9; Perinthians: IG XII.6 577; Epidauros: IG IV2.1 47.
10 Paros: SEG XXXI 67. Gomme, A.W., Andrewes, A. and Dover, K.J., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford, 1945–81)Google Scholar, 1.160; Hornblower (n. 2), 1.69–70. See also Classen and Steup (n. 5), 1.90, who, following Diod. Sic. 12.30 (διὰ τὸ μόνους τῶν ἀποίκων μὴ πέμπειν τὰ κατειθισμένα ἱερεῖα τῇ μητροπόλει), thought that γέρα were sacrificial animals sent by colonies to the mother city's festivals. Cf. Σ Thuc. 1.25.4, which explained the γέρα as the right of προεδρία [in the festivals of the colonies] (γέρα: τὰς τιμὰς καὶ προεδρίας); accepted by Raoul-Rochette, D., Histoire critique de l'établissement des colonies grecques (Paris, 1815)Google Scholar, 43 and Bloomfield (n. 4), 60 n. 5.
11 Athens presented herself as the mother city of the Ionians and indeed all members of her empire. See Graham (n. 7), 63; Smarczyk, B., Untersuchungen zur Religionspolitik und politischen Propaganda Athens im Delisch-Attischen Seebund (Munich, 1990)Google Scholar, 328ff.; Parker, R., Athenian Religion, A History (Oxford, 1996), 142–3Google Scholar.
12 e.g. Miletus and Olbia: Milet I.3 no. 136.2–6 (see below).
13 See also Smith, C.F. (tr.), History of the Peloponnesian War. Books I and II (Cambridge, MA; London, 1919), 44–5Google Scholar n. 1, who proposed that the κοιναὶ πανηγύρεις were ‘the four great games, here doubtless referring especially to the Isthmian games held at Corinth’. But we should probably not single out the Isthmian games among the four Panhellenic festivals. Nor should we suppose that Corinth exploited the Isthmian games under her control as a means of reinforcing her ties with her colonies. Note also Corinth's interest in the Nemean games and festival in the fifth century: see Lewis, D.M., ‘The origins of the First Peloponnesian War’, in Shrimpton, G.S. and McCargar, D.J. (edd.), Classical Contributions: Studies in Honour of M.F. McGregor (Locust Valley, NY, 1981)Google Scholar, 74; Adshead, K., Politics of the Archaic Peloponnese (Aldershot, 1986), 75–85Google Scholar.
14 Thuc. 5.50.4. On the historical background, see Roy, J., ‘Thucydides 5.49.1–50.4: the quarrel between Elis and Sparta in 420 b.c., and Elis' exploitation of Olympia’, Klio 80 (1998), 360–8Google Scholar.
15 Sokolowski, F., ‘Fees and taxes in Greek Cults’, HThR 47 (1954), 153–64Google Scholar, at 168.
16 LSJ s.v. προκατάρχω. III.
17 Graham (n. 7), 160–1.
18 Salmon (n. 7), 282–3.
19 Krüger (n. 6), 1.36: ‘einem Korinthier die Erstlinge des Opfers zutheilend, damit er sie nämlich auf dem Altare den Göttern verbrenne’.
20 e.g. Hdt. 2.45 (αὐτοῦ κατάρχεσθαι), Ar. Av. 959 (μὴ κατάρξῃ τοῦ τράγου), Eur. Phoen. 573 (κατάρχεσθαι θυμάτων).
21 Eur. Alc. 74–6.
22 Hom. Od. 3.444–6, Eur. IT 40, 56, 1154, IG XII.4 278.32–3 (= LSCG 151.A.31–2, RO 62.A.31–2). The word κατάρχεσθαι occurs three times in Eur. IT in connection with Iphigenia's priestly duty, which involved the sprinkling of water (lines 53–4, 622) and possibly the scattering of barley grains. The two acts were customarily performed together at Greek sacrifices: e.g. Hom. Od. 3.444–6, Ar. Pax 948–62, Ar. Av. 850, Eur. IA 1568–9.
23 Jim, S.F., ‘The vocabulary of ἀπάρχεσθαι, ἀπαρχή and related terms in Archaic and Classical Greece’, Kernos 24 (2011)Google Scholar, 39–58. Cf. Stengel, P., ‘κατάρχεσθαι und ἐνάρχεσθαι’, Hermes 43 (1908), 456–67Google Scholar, at 457–8, reprinted in Stengel, P., Opferbräuche der Griechen (Berlin, 1910), 40–9Google Scholar, at 40–2, who argued that κατάρχεσθαι was restricted to lustration and the scattering of barley grains.
24 On κατάρχεσθαι as the main duty of the officiating priest or priestess, see Eur. IT 40, 56, 1154, SEG LIV 214.32–3, LSS 19.31–2 = RO 37.31–2, SEG XLI 1003.II.13. Given the connection between κατάρχεσθαι and priestly functions, might this be why Σ Thuc. 1.25.4 explained that ‘it was customary to bring the chief priest from the metropolis’ (ἔθος γὰρ ἦν ἀρχιερέας ἐκ τῆς μητροπόλεως λαμβάνειν)? However, the scholiast's claim is not supported by evidence.
25 Σ Thuc. 1.25.4.
26 Croiset, A., Θουκυδίδου Ξυγγραϕή (Paris, 1886)Google Scholar, 181.
27 Hom. Il. 3.273–4, with commentary in Leaf, W., The Iliad (London, 1900–2)Google Scholar, 1.139, Kirk, G.S. et al. , The Iliad: A Commentary (Cambridge, 1985–93), 1.303–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 e.g. Hom. Od. 3.443–65, 14.414–24, Eur. El. 810–12.
29 Dittenberger, W., ‘Universitatis Fridericianae rector Eduardus Hiller cum senatu S. D. civibus suis’, Index Lectionum. Index Scholarum (1889/90)Google Scholar, iii–xiii. Dittenberger provided a useful summary of scholarship on Thuc. 1.25.4 before 1889.
30 Stengel (n. 23 [1908]), 461–2 (= [1910], 44–5).
31 Classen, J., Thukydides (Berlin, 1897), 1.75–6Google Scholar: ‘für einen Korinther die Opfer beginnend’; Classen and Steup (n. 5), 1.90–1: ‘für einen Korinther die erste Opferweihe vollziehend’. Marchant (n. 5), 174: ‘these [preliminary] ceremonies had to be performed by a citizen of the place. The Corcyraeans would not perform them for Corinthians, and thus prevented the latter from sacrificing in Corcyra’; Hornblower (n. 2), 1.70, quoting W. Burkert, Homo Necans (Berkeley and London, 1983), 37: ‘they did not perform the rites of “beginning” for a man of Corinth’.
32 Graham (n. 7), 161. Note that Graham is not consistent in his view: he goes on to say that while both locations (Corinth or Corcyra) are possible, a sacrifice in the mother city is more probable (see above).
33 See Milet I.3 no. 136.2–6 = Tod 195.
34 e.g. LSAM 46.6–8 = Syll.3 1037.6–9 (third century, cult of Apollo in Miletus), Syll.3 548.10ff. (late third century, Delphi). Both texts are cited in Dittenberger (n. 29), xii. The treatment of foreigners in the sanctuary of another city has been studied in detail by Gauthier, P., Symbola. les étrangers et la justice dans les cités grecques (Nancy, 1972)Google Scholar, esp. 41–61, Krauter, S., Bürgerrecht und Kultteilnahme (Berlin, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35 This possibility had been envisaged by Poppo, E.F., Thucydidis de Bello Peloponnesiaco libri octo (Leipzig, 1821–40)Google Scholar, I.2 21: ‘iisque vel victimarum partem seligere vel per sacerdotem ex iis repetitum sacra auspicari (προκαταρχόμενοι τῶν ἱερῶν)’. Göller, F.J., Thucydidis de bello Peloponnesiaco libri octo (Leipzig, 1826)Google Scholar, 1.101, reported that Haack (which I have not consulted) understood Κορινθίῳ ἀνδρὶ as διὰ Κορινθίου ἀνδρος, similar to the interpretation suggested here. Cooper, G.L. and Krüger, K.W., Attic Greek Prose Syntax (Ann Arbor, 1998–)Google Scholar, I.321–2, understand Κορινθίῳ ἀνδρὶ in Thuc. 1.15.4 as an ‘instrumental dative’, citing this passage as one of the exceptional cases where persons are conceived as instruments.
36 See n. 24 above; see also Parker, R., On Greek Religion (Ithaca, NY and London, 2011), 161–2Google Scholar. On honoured guests being given the privilege to sacrifice (but not κατάρχεσθαι specifically), see Robert, L., Hellenica 11–12 (1960), 126–31Google Scholar, Parker (this note), 55 n. 46.