Parker - On Greek Religion

Appendix 1

Socrates in Platos Republic To construct a parallel list of decisions that were made without consultation of an oracle is scarcely practicable, but cases will be mentioned in what follows. Much relevant material has surely escaped me; I present this appendix in order to pose the question.

Table 2. Public Oracular Consultations on Questions of Cult

Two inquiries relate to the terms of tenure of a priesthood: inquiry 3 in Against these two inquiries can be set the very numerous texts that in one way or another regulate priesthoods but make no mention of a consultation. Priestly perquisites, duties, and privileges must have been a matter for human decision, not divine; the quantity of evidence for unreferred decisions on such topics is overwhelming.

It is less clear how often the more fundamental questions about the kind of occupant required were so settled; many priesthoods are advertised for

There are two inquires about relocating a temple (10, 14), and a pair (together in 8) about relocating sacred objects in a new house to be built to receive them. The only relocation conducted without such sanction that I can confidently point to is that of the image of Artemis Leukophryene to her Parthenon in Magnesia on the Maeander; and here the magnificence of the new temple, and of the ceremony by which the goddess was brought to it, perhaps provided the necessary justification. There must also be doubt whether Seleukos II (?) sought oracular authorization before ordering the relocation of a precinct of Soteira on the island of Failaka; but kings had an unusually free hand.

One question each is asked about two familiar practices, the loaning of sacred money (17) and the agricultural exploitation of sacred land (5). The latter concerns the most special case that can be imagined, the ever-controversial sacred orgas on the borders of Attica and Megara; it would have been extraordinary if the Athenians had considered bringing part of that land into use without special authorization. But they make an analogous decision about the precinct of Codrus on their own responsibility. but we do not find the gods involved through oracles in this area of activity.

Greek cities often asked general questions about their future well-being, and the response would often take the form of advice to sacrifice to a particular god or gods; this will be the origin, or one of the origins, of the epithet pythochr stos, by order of Pythian Apollo, borne by some gods. But it is unclear how often proposals to institute new sacrifices or build a new altar were taken to Delphi for approval. A verdict on this point depends in part on the ambiguous allusions mentioned above to action undertaken in accord with an oracle. Inquiry 7 appears to be one example, It is not just, then, that day-to-day decisions about expenditure on particular cults were of necessity taken locally; thoroughgoing revisions of a sacred calendar could also be entrusted to human intelligence.

The introduction of new gods was, we know from the trial of Socrates, a sensitive area. But less oracular involvement is attested than might have been expected. It was in accord with the response from Dodona that the Athenians granted to the Thracians alone of all foreign peoples the right to acquire land and found a shrine (of Bendis), those Thracians announce (inquiry 4: the same response as that concerning the priestess of Bendis, 3? The point is not clear.). But an identical decision in favor of the Citian worshippers of Aphrodite was taken by the Athenian assembly in 333/2 on its own authority. Number 18 is an inquiry from Istria about Sarapis; but the question may have been how to honor him, not whether. The Egyptian cults spread widely without leaving any other traces of oracular consultation about them; the coming of Sarapis to Delos aroused controversy, but it was settled by litigation and (on the pious view) a miracle, not by reference to an oracle. Against the two questions posed to oracles about ruler cult (12, 13) can be set the many decisions to honor rulers taken directly by the cities.

It is difficult to identify a topic, except perhaps the relocation of a sanctuary, on which consultation is mandatory; topics on which it never occurs, on the other hand, such as sanctuary discipline or priestly emoluments, can readily be found. The conclusion seems to follow that, on the issues where consultation may or may not occur, it is not routine; the case is problematic or controversial in some way that debars a human decision on the basis of tradition and precedent. It is easy to see what is exceptional about certain cases not yet mentioned: abolishing an existing cult (1) would have been a very drastic action, as was permitting an intermural burial (16); the repulse of the

. 427 BC.

. For instances, see Fontenrose, Delphic Oracle, responses H 2 (the Praxiergidai (?) should put on the peplos and make sacrifices); 30 (the Athenians should spread a couch for Pluto and adorn a table); LSCG 178 (fees for drinking from the spring of Halykos); [Plut.] X Orat. 843F844A (gilding of altar of Apollo). For still vaguer cases, see IEleusis 28a ( IG 1.78; LSCG 5; ML 73: Eleusinian first-fruits decree); LSS 14.11, 16, 24 (Apollo should be honored as Patroos); IEleusis 138 A 10 ( Agora 16:56; LSS 12: Eleusinian sacred truce?); RO 97 ( LSS 115, purifications at Cyrene); LSA 42 (cult of Heracles), ibid. 67 B 11. The same difficulty applies to cults that are designated as pythochr stos: J. Robert and L. Robert in the best treatment ( Fouilles dAmyzone en Carie [Paris, 1983], 1:11013), suppose that a specific inquiry has often been made, but their 112 n. 122 illustrates the other possibility.