Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:54:01.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Persephone and Aphrodite at Locri: a model for personality definitions in Greek religion*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood
Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood
Affiliation:
Department of Ancient History and Classical Archaelogy, University of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Too often in the study of Greek divine personalities assumptions about deities' nature and development have been reflected in the methodology adopted and have thus introduced distortions, forcing the evidence into inflexible interpretative frameworks which may be logical without being correct. I believe we must aim at a ‘neutral’, bias-free approach which does not allow the operator's convictions to distort the evidence by casting it into a preconceived mould. I shall first set out the factors which, in my opinion, determine the definition and development of Greek divine personalities; these can be established by considering detectable historical developments in these personalities. I then propose an open-ended and flexible methodological framework which will take account of this model but will not depend on its validity.

The first determining factor is clearly the worshipping group and its specific realities and needs as they develop in the course of time. Deities are shaped by the societies that constitute the worshipping group and develop with them. A second factor to be taken into account is the pantheon to which they belong and the spheres of activity of its members. For a pantheon is an articulated religious system within which divine beings catering for the needs of the worshipping group are associated and differentiated; and this nexus of relationships contributes to the definition of each divine personality.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 98 , November 1978 , pp. 101 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. also Vernant, J.-P., Mythe et société en Grèce ancienne (Paris 1974) 110Google Scholar.

2 Contemporary scholars do allow significant variations in some divine personalities in some of the colonies, where they attribute them, usually unsupported by any evidence, to the notorious ‘indigenous influences’. Against the approach that assumes many take-overs of indigenous cults by Greek colonists in cases where there is no explicit evidence for such a phenomenon cf. Pugliese-Carratelli, G., Convegno Magna Grecia iv (1964) 19–28Google Scholar; Pembroke, S., Annales: Economies, Sociétés, Civilizations v (1970) 1255–8.Google Scholar

3 The (interrelated) spheres in which a divine personality manifests itself are the following. The sphere of divine name, with its subordinate sphere of epithet; that of Bildvorstellung, including the attributes; the sphere of myth; the sphere of cult, involving a deity as a recipient of worship; that of theology in the sense of sets of beliefs about the functions and areas of activity of the deity; and finally, the sphere of ‘ideology’, derivative from the previous one, primarily through the agency of literature, involving the deity as an embodiment of certain ideas and concepts.

4 On the Greek Dark Ages cf. Snodgrass, A. M., The Dark Age of Greece (Edinburgh 1971)Google Scholar; Desborough, V. R. d'A., The Greek Dark Ages (London 1972)Google Scholar.

5 Cf. Brelich, A., Atti e Memorie del Primo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia (Rome 1968) 922Google Scholar.

6 Cf. Brelich, op. cit.

7 Cf. S. Pembroke, op. cit., passim.

8 Publications of pinakes: Orsi, P., BdA iii (1909) 1–43Google Scholar; Quagliati, Q., Ausonia iii (1908) 136–234Google Scholar; Zancani Montuoro, P., Archivio storico per la Calabria e la Lucania v (1935) 195 ff.Google Scholar; id., RIA vii (1940) 205–24; id., RAAN xxix (1954) 79–86; id., Atti SocMGrec 1954 (hereafter Note) 71–106; id., ASCL xxiv (1955) 283–308; id., ArchClass xii (1960) 37–50; id., Marsyas. Essays in memory of K. Lehmann (New York 1964) 386–95; Prückner, H., Die lokrischen Tonreliefs (Mainz 1968)Google Scholar. Cf. also A. W. Oldfather, RE s.v. ‘Lokroi’; id., Philol. lxix (1910) 114–25; id., Philol. lxxi (1912) 321–31. I have briefly discussed the circumstances of the pinakes in JHS xciv (1974) 132–4.

9 Cf. Giannelli, G., Culti e miti della Magna Grecia 2 (1963) 187–204Google Scholar; Prückner, op. cit., 4–7; Montuoro, Zancani, RendAccLincei 1959, 227 n. 5Google Scholar.

10 Cf. Montuoro, Zancani, RendAccLincei 1959, 227Google Scholar.

11 Orsi, op. cit. (n. 8); id., NSc 1909, 321–2; NSc 1911 Suppl. 67–76; Zancani Montuoro, op. cit. (n. 9), 225–32; de Franciscis, A., Richerche sulla topografia e i monumenti di Locri Epizefiri (Naples 1971) 75–9Google Scholar.

12 I have discussed this problem briefly in JHS xciv (1974) 133.

13 op. cit., 63, 68.

14 Cf. Boardman, J., CR xxi (1971) 144–5Google Scholar; Zuntz, G., Gnomon xliii (1971) 492–4Google Scholar.

15 Cf. Boardman, op. cit.

16 Cf. JHS xciv (1974) 133.

17 BdA iii 28 figs. 36–7; Prückner 75 fig. 13; pl. 12.

18 Cf. Prückner 70 type 59.

19 h. Hom. Dem. 6 ff.

20 On Hades' Bildvorstellung cf. Arias, P. E. in EAA iii 1081—2Google Scholar; Γ. Ι. Δεσπίνη, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη τοῦ ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου (Athens 1971) 139–40.

21 BdA iii figs. 30–5; Ausonia iii figs. 18–23; Prückner 71 fig. 12 and pls. 13–21. 1–3; RAAN xxix 1954 pl. viii.

22 BICS xx (1973) 12–21.

23 op. cit. (n. 8).

24 I should note that in ASCL xxiv (1955) 299 n. 2 Zancani Montuoro, while talking about a different type of scene, makes a tentative remark which to some extent points in the same direction: ‘Può darsi peraltro, ma poco giova l'indovinare, che il quadretto fosse offerto da una sposa locrese, che le sue nozze intendeva assimilare a quelle della dea per invocarne la protezione.’ However, she is clearly thinking in terms of an ad hoc dedication rather than of an established cult function of the goddess.

25 Cf. Farnell, L. R., The Cults of the Greek States i (Oxford 1896) 188–92Google Scholar.

26 Since the objects held by the girl were appropriate to this ritual occasion which belonged to Persephone's sphere, it follows that they were connected with Persephone's cult.

27 BdA iii 10 fig. 8; Note pl. xxiii; Prückner 76 fig. 14 and pl. 22; cf. also Prückner 75–6.

28 BdA iii 8 fig. 5; 9 fig. 7; 11 figs. 9–10; 12 fig. 11; Note pls. xiii–xxii; Prückner pls. 23–30.4. Cf. Note 79–90; Prückner 77–81.

29 Cf. Note 83.

30 Cf. Note 83–4.

31 Zancani Montuoro (Note 86) interprets the scene illustrated in Prückner 47 fig. 7 as Ares paying homage to Persephone. However, the presence of a c. 12 year-old girl in the scene suggests that this is a representation of a very different kind (cf. infra). Her suggestion concerning a presence of Artemis (in the scene illustrated in BdA fig. 14) is also unlikely to be correct. For the ‘spotted’ peplos worn by the offering figure connects this scene with another series, that of the ‘offering girls’ (cf. infra).

32 op. cit. 79.

33 Cf. Note 89, Cf. also op. cit. 85 and Prückner 155 n. 592 with reference to the scene illustrated in BdA iii fig. 5.

34 Note 89.

35 As Zancani Montuoro has suggested (op. cit.).

36 Cf. Dunbabin, T. J., The Western Greeks (Oxford 1948) 168–9Google Scholar.

37 Cf. Vallet, G., Rhégion et Zancle (Paris 1958) 310–11Google Scholar.

38 Note 90.

39 op. cit. 80.

40 op. cit. 80–1. He suggested that the scenes show the presentation of deities newly arrived at Locri to the old established deities Persephone and Hades; Aphrodite is acting as their patron in this presentation because their cults were annexed to hers. I need hardly point out that this interpretation depends on a series of wholly unsupported assumptions. But it may be worth mentioning that there is no iconographie parallel for such a situation; while there are parallels for deities paying homage to a divine bridal couple, albeit shown in a different iconographie scheme, that of procession. On this last point cf. also Note 90.

41 Note 90.

42 op. cit. 80.

43 Cf. Giannelli, , Culti 187–210Google Scholar.

44 For the cult of Zeus at Locri cf. Giannelli, op. cit. and de Franciscis, A., Stato e società in Locri Epizefiri. L'archivio dell'Olympieion locrese (Naples 1972) 143–58Google Scholar.

45 Cf. Prückner 79.

46 On Persephone's association with the stalk of grain cf. Conticello, B., EAA iv 386–94Google Scholar.

47 Orsi, BdA iii 14; cf. also Lissi, E., Atti SocMGrecia 1961, 92 no. 91Google Scholar.

48 I have discussed this matter in CQ xxiv (1974) 189–90 where a bibliography can also be found.

49 Cf. Andronikou, M., Pelopomtisiaka i (1956) 253–314Google Scholarpassim and esp. 305.

50 Cf. the most interesting article by Hoffmann, in RA (1974) 195–220Google Scholar; cf. especially 204–6.

51 Cf. Hoffmann, op. cit. 213–14. For the cock as offering to the dead cf. Stengel, P., Opferbräuche der Griechen (Leipzig 1910) 142Google Scholar, 152, 192; Keller, O., Die antike Tierwelt ii (Leipzig 1920) 140Google Scholar.

52 Cf. Lissi, op. cit. 96 no. 111, pl. xli.

53 On the significance of the ball cf. G. Schneider-Herrmann, , BABesch xlvi (1971) 123–33Google Scholar. Cf. also O. Brendel, MDAl(R) li (1936) 80–9. Cf. also the Attic black-figure ball belonging to a hetaira which bears a funerary inscription published in BMusFineArts lxi (1963) 20–2 by Dr H. Hoffmann who kindly drew my attention to the object. Cf. also Neutsch, B., Apollo i (1961) 53–66Google Scholar.

54 Cf. Anth. Pal. vi 280.

55 Balls have been discovered in tombs; cf. n. 53 and Schneider-Herrmann op. cit. 131 n. 38. It is not impossible that balls made of perishable materials were also placed in tombs and have not survived.

56 Orsi, NSc 1911 suppl. 71; cf. also Lissi, op. cit. 96 no. 112, pl. xli.

57 Orsi, NSc 1890, 262. Prückner is mistaken in thinking that the same figurines hold both dove and pomegranate (Prückner, op. cit. 30).

58 Cf. Andronikou, op. cit. 305.

59 Cf. Studniczka, F., JdI xxvi (1911) 129, 141Google Scholar.

60 Cf. Conticello, B., EAA iv 390Google Scholar. Because of its fertility aspect it can also, in some places, be associated with other goddesses (cf. e.g. for Hera: Paus, ii 17.4).

61 Cf. h. Hom. Dem. 371–4, 411–13. It is interesting to note that this hymn was known at Locri and is reflected in one of the scenes on the pinakes (cf. Prückner 82–4 and 82 fig. 15; cf. also The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, ed. Richardson, N. J. (Oxford 1974) 168–9Google Scholar.

62 Orsi, BdA iii 15.

63 Note 80 n. 2.

64 ARV 2 459, 3; Pfuhl, E., Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen (Munich 1923) 111 fig. 437Google Scholar.

65 Cf. D'Arcy Thompson, W., A Glossary of Greek Birds (Oxford 1936) 329Google Scholar.

66 Paus, ix 39.2.

67 Cf. Andronikou 305. Andronikou, op. cit., passim has argued convincingly that the seated figures are Underworld deities and not heroised dead.

68 Cf Simon, E., Opfernde Götter (Berlin 1953) 7Google Scholar.

69 Cf. also Gernet, L., Anthropologie de la Grèce antique (Paris 1968) 43Google Scholar on the general connection between marriage rites and flowers and flower-picking.

70 Orsi, , BdA iii 15Google Scholar, 36.

71 For figurines: BdA iii 14; for the ‘maschera’: op. cit. 13.

72 Strabo vi 256.

73 i 1.37.

74 Note 102.

75 A flower is also associated with the couple of Underworld deities on the Laconian reliefs (cf. Andronikou, op. cit. 305).

76 Cf. BdA iii 31 fig. 42; Ausonia iii, fig. 72; Prückner 58 fig. 10 (and pp. 58–60); cf. also Note 98–9, where Zancani Montuoro reads the objects as fruit, pomegranates and quinces; and cf. Neutsch, B., MDAI(R) lx–lxi (1953/4) 62–74Google Scholar.

77 op. cit.

78 Cf. Zancani Montuoro op. cit.; for the pomegranate cf. also supra.

79 Orsi, BdA iii 37.

80 Cf. Richter, G. M. A. and Milne, M. J., Shapes and Names of Athenian Vases (New York 1935) 14Google Scholar, 15 and illustration on p. 17; Simon, E., Die Geburt der Aphrodite (Berlin 1959) 64CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 68 fig. 40. The kalathos also had an important place in some cults of Demeter (cf. Nilsson, M. P., Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung (Leipzig 1906) 350–2Google Scholar; cf. also Longo, A., EAA iv 295Google Scholar.

81 Cf. Hesych. s.v. Ἠροσάνθεια; Phot. s.v. Ἠροάνθια.

82 Cf. n. 69.

83 It is conceivable that the naked female figurines with pronounced erect breasts found in the sanctuary of Persephone (BdA iii 14) may also have connotations of fertility.

84 Prückner, who describes it (op. cit. 77, type 88), lumps it together with one of his two series of offering girls. His division of the cycle of the offering girls into two series, one of which he attributes to Aphrodite and the other to Persephone, is purely arbitrary. As will be apparent from the discussion, there is a fundamental unity in the series, and the symbols and cult objects firmly establish that the goddess involved is always Persephone.

85 Described in Prückner 77.

86 The poppy is associated with Demeter (cf. Steier in RE s.v. ‘Mohn’ 2445).

87 Cf. Prückner 65, type 51.

88 cf. Schelp, , Das Kanoun, der griechische Opferkorb (Würzburg 1975) 11Google Scholar; 25–6 and passim; cf. also Deubner, L., JdI xl (1925) 210–23Google Scholar.

89 op. cit. 77.

90 Described op. cit. 77.

91 Orsi, , BdA iii 39Google Scholar.

92 A deep phiale and wand are held by a priestess in a series of scenes showing processions involving girls which I will discuss below.

93 Note 94–5.

94 op. cit. 49.

95 Cf. also Prückner 49; he does not distinguish this from the previous type.

96 op. cit.

97 Cf. Buschor, E., Die Musen des Jenseits (Munich 1944)Google Scholarpassim.

98 In one (BdA iii 21 fig. 25; Prückner 43 fig. 5, Prückner's type 16, p. 42), the phialophoros precedes the girls, in the other (BdA 22 fig. 26; ArchClass xii, pl. ii; Prückner's type 17, p. 42), she follows. The peplos is held differently in each case.

99 BdA iii 16 fig. 17; ArchClass xii pls. i, iii; cf. Prückner 43–4.

100 BdA iii 17 fig. 18; ArchClass xii pls. iv 3; v 1–2.

101 Described in Note 93 and Prückner 45–6.

102 Prückner pl. 4.4.

103 Cf. Note 90–102; ArchClass xii 40–5; Cf. also id., ASCL xxiv (1955) 283–308.

104 Note 93.

105 On this group cf. Prückner 31–6.

106 Cf. Prückner op. cit.

107 op. cit. 32.

108 Whether we understand the symbols and objects as present in the sanctuary in the course of this cult activity (or in the location of the mythological event if the scenes show a myth), or added by the artist, in order to determine the cultic sphere, or enrich the scene, they must have belonged to the same cultic sphere as the ritual (or myth) depicted. For even if they were added with the simple purpose of enriching the scene their choice would have been determined by the nexus of associations between cultic sphere and cult objects and symbols in the artist's mind.

109 The taenia does appear elsewhere sporadically, but the discussion of these scenes is beyond my present scope. I believe that the taenia is not cultically fixed in one or the other sphere, for it seems to occur in both.

110 BdA iii 19 fig. 22; op. cit. 20 fig. 23.

111 Cf. Note 93; Prückner 45–6.

112 BdA iii 19 fig. 21.

113 Quagliati, (Ausonia iii 195–6Google Scholar) was reminded of Erichthonios and thought in terms of a myth parallel to his. Oldfather, (Philol. lxix [1910] 121–2Google Scholar) thought of Dionysos, but considered it also possible that the scenes show symbolically the birth of a child, considered as an offering of the gods as well as the product of the parents. Later (Philol. lxxi [1912] 325–6) he opted for lakchos, a view also favoured by Orsi, (BdA iii 30–1Google Scholar) and Pagen-stecher, (Eros und Psyche, SBHeidelberg 1911, 14Google Scholar. Putorti, , Italia antichissima n.s. xi (1937) 3—11Google Scholar, identified the child as Dionysos or lakchos, , Studniczka, , JdI xxvi (1911) 143Google Scholar, as Adonis, a view embraced by Ashmole, (Late Archaic and Early Classical Greek Sculpture in Sicily and South Italy, from PBA xx, separately printed, London 1936, 17Google Scholar) and Higgins, , Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum (London 1954–1959)Google Scholar i no. 1219. Prückner (op. cit. 32–4) argued against all these theories and suggested that the scenes show Aphrodite and Dionysos.

114 On the presentation of children to deities cf. Kontoleon, N. M., Aspects de la Grèce préclassique (Paris 1970) 1–21Google Scholar, passim; id., ArchEph 1974 13–25; Lambrinu-dakis, W., Μηροτραφης (Athens 1971) 218–28Google Scholar; id., AAA ix (1976) 108–19; Walter, O., Beschreibung der Reliefs im kleinen Akropolismuseum in Athen (Vienna 1923) 32Google Scholar; id., ArchEph 1937 i 103; id., ÖJh xxx (1937) 59 ff.; cf. also Guarducci, M., L'istituzione della fratria nella Grecia antica e nelle colonie greche d'Italia (Rome 1937–8) 37–8Google Scholar.

115 Cf. Kontolcon, Aspects pl. vi; ArchEph 1974 pl. 5y; cf. also Aspects 10. n. 1, 17.

116 Cf. Ashmole, JHS xlii (1922) 248, 252CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

117 Kontoleon, Aspects pl. i; ArchEph 1974 pl. i Kontoleon has argued very convincingly that this relicl represents a presentation of children in Aspects 1–21 and again, refuting the objections of Rühfel, (AntK xvii [1974] 42–9Google Scholar) in ArchEph 1974, 13–25. Lambrinudakis, (AAA ix [1976] 108–19Google Scholar) has completed Kontoleon's case.

118 Callipolitis-Feytmans, D., BCH xciv (1970) 45–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jucker, I., AntK vi (1963) 47–61Google Scholar; cf. also Lambrinudakis, Μηροτραφής 218–28Google Scholar, who argued conclusively in favour of interpreting the scenes as presentations of children to the kourotrophic deity.

119 Kontoleon, Aspects pl. iv; ArchEph 1974 pl. 6 and p. 20.

120 Walter, Beschreibung 32 no. 3030; ArchEph 1974 pl. 4.

121 ArchEph 1937 i 102 fig. 1 and 101–3.

122 Nilsson, M. P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion 3 (Munich 1967) 317Google Scholar; cf. also Becatti, G., EAA iii 419–20Google Scholar.

123 Cf. Apollod., Bibl. iii 14.4Google Scholar.

124 Cf. also Montuoro, Zancani, RendAccLincei 1959 227–8Google Scholar; Demeter appears on the type of pinax which reflects the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (illustrated in Prückner 82 fig. 15; cf. also supra n. 61).

125 On Hera at Foce del Sele cf. Zanotti-Bianco in Montuoro, P. Zancani and Zanotti-Bianco, U., Heraion alla Foce del Selei (Rome 1951) 14–18Google Scholar.

126 Cf. e.g. BdA iii 24 fig. 28; Prückner 53 fig. 9.

127 BdA iii 12 fig. 12; Prückner pl. 1.1.

128 On the flower cf. Prückner 16.

129 op. cit.

130 Ausonia iii 189 fig. 41; Prückner pl. 2.

131 Cf. discussion in Prückner 22–7.

132 Ausonia iii 191 fig. 42; cf. Prückner 67–8.

133 Ausonia iii 212 fig. 60; 213 fig. 61; Prückner 37 fig. 4; cf. Montuoro, Zancani, Marsyas 386–95Google Scholar (and figs. 4–7); cf. also Prückner 36–8.

134 RIA vii pl. 1; fig. 2; Prückner 17 fig. 1; pl. 1.2; cf. Montuoro, Zancani, RIA vii (1940) 205–24Google Scholar; Prückner 17–19.

135 Prückner type 2A, op. cit. 135 n. 107.

136 BdA iii 13 fig. 13.

137 On Eros cults cf. Farnell, L. R., The Cults of the Greek States v (Oxford 1909) 445–6, 476–7Google Scholar; Schneider-Herrmann, G., BABesch xlv (1970) 86–117Google Scholarpassim and esp. 87–8.

138 Cf. Schneider-Herrmann, op. cit., esp. 105.

139 On the iconography of Eros cf. Greifenhagen, A., Griechische Eroten (Berlin 1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Richter, G. M. A., ArchClass x (1958) 255–7Google Scholar; Speier, E. in EAA iii 426–33Google Scholar.

140 Cf. Farnell, , CoGS ii (1896) 652–3Google Scholar.

141 Cf. EAA i 116; RE s.v. ‘Taube’.

142 Cf. EAA i 116,119. The wild dove, φάσσα, was associated with Persephone (cf. Keller, O., Die antike Tierwelt ii 123Google Scholar).

143 Cf. bibliography in Prückner 134 n. 114; to this should be added Nilsson, , CGrR 3503Google Scholar, and especially a recently discovered sanctuary of Hermes and Aphrodite at Kato Syme Viannou in Crete, which is in the process of being excavated (cf. Lebessi, A., AAA vi (1973) 104–14Google Scholar; Ergon 1973, 118–23; Ergon 1974, 118–21; Ergon 1975, 171–5; Praktika 1972, 193–203; Praktika 1973, 188–98; Praktika 1974, 222–7); in this sanctuary Hermes appears to be closely connected with trees and animals, wild goats, billy-goats, hares.

144 On this last demiurgic aspect of Aphrodite cf. Aesch. fr. 44 N2; Sophokles fr. 855 N2; Eurip. fr. 898 N2.

145 Cf. Buschor, E., MDAI(A) lxxii (1957) 77Google Scholar; Nilsson, , GGrR 3503Google Scholar.

146 op. cit. 22.

147 Prückner (op. cit. 29) has misunderstood this significance. He talks as though the representation involved two animals copulating and misses the element of bestiality when he takes the relief to be a reference to Aphrodite's power, through love, in the animal as well as the human world.

148 I have discussed this votum in some detail in CQ xxiv (1974) 186–96.

149 Cf. previous note.

150 Prückner 47 fig. 7.

151 Note 86.

152 I should note that in other cities Aphrodite is sometimes associated with marriage, the family and the polis structures (cf. Farnell, op. cit. ii 655–7). Nilsson, (GGrR 3524Google Scholar), who denies this, has conflated evidence from different parts of the Greek world and treated it as though it came from one cultic unit.