The Attic Genos Bakchiadai and the City Dionysia

The Attic "Genos" Bakchiadai and the City DionysiaAuthor(s): S. D. LambertSource: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 47, H. 4 (4th Qtr., 1998), pp. 394-403Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436519 .

Accessed: 07/05/2013 16:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.112.203.62 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:49:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436519?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE ATTIC GENOS BAKCHIADAI AND THE CITY DIONYSIA'

Sara Aleshire - in memoriam

A common, perhaps universal, feature of Athenian state cults and festivals of, roughly, pre-5th century origin, was the role played in them by the Attic gene.2 We do not know what the original character and extent of that role was, but in the classical and hellenistic periods from which nearly all our evidence derives, it is apparent mainly, though not exclusively, in the supply by the gene of priests and other cult personnel. Thus, for example, the Eteoboutadai supplied the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus and the priestess of Athena Polias on the Acropolis and, in the hellenistic period at least, conducted these priests and the priest of Helios under a parasol in the procession to Skiron at the festival Skira.3

This paper was a by-product of a Fellowship at the Center for Hellenic Studies, Washing- ton D.C., in 1995/6. I thank Sara Aleshire, Robert Parker, Ronald Stroud and colleagues at the Center, especially Carla Antonaccio, Kathryn Morgan and Leonid Zhmud, for helping me to improve an earlier draft. Remaining deficiencies are my responsibility alone. All dates are B.C. unless otherwise stated. The following abbreviations are used: Aleshire: Sara B. Aleshire, "The Demos and the Priests: the Selection of Sacred Officials at Athens from Cleisthenes to Augustus", in R. Osborne and S. Hornblower eds., Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts presented to David Lewis (Oxford 1994), 325-37. Clinton: K. Clinton, The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Am. Phil. Soc., Philadelphia 1974). Connor: W. R. Connor, "City Dionysia and Athenian Democracy", in Connor et al., Aspects of Athenian Democracy (Univ. of Copenhagen Press 1990), 7-32. von Freeden: J. von Freeden, "IT oU'oKpaKdr Kcai AnoXX68opo; Eaxwpov Aupi6al (IG ii2 2949)", ZPE 61 (1985), 215-18. Parker: R. Parker, Athenian Religion: a History (Oxford 1996). Pickard-Cambridge2: A. Pickard-Cambridge, revised by J. Gould and D. M. Lewis, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (2nd ed. Oxford 1968). Sourvinou-Inwood: C. Sourvinou-Inwood, "Something to do with Athens: Tragedy and Ritual", as Aleshire, 269-90. Tracy: S. V. Tracy, Attic Letter Cutters of 229 to 86 B.C. (Berkeley-Los Angeles 1990). Travlos: J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (London 1971).

2 A genos in the sense relevant here was a group whose membership, hereditary in the male line, was not exclusively aristocratic. It was typically a phratry subgroup and was based at one or more localities in Attica. Cf. S. D. Lambert, The Phratries of Attica (Ann Arbor 1993), chapter 2; Parker, chapter 5.

3 Priesthoods: Parker, Ap. 2A, s.v. 'ETeo5ovxt6dai; Aleshire, esp. 330ff., Procession: FGH 366 Lysimachides F3.

Historia, Band XLIU/4 (1998) C) Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart



The Attic Genos Bakchiadai and the City Dionysia 395

The genos Salaminioi supplied, among others, the priestess of Athena Skiras, and were involved in the organisation of the associated festal procession of the Oschophoria.4 The Philleidai, Kerykes, Eumolpidai and other Eleusinian gene supplied the cult personnel for, and played an important role in the operation of, the Eleusinian Mysteries.5 The City Dionysia, cradle of Western drama, is one of the best known of all Attic festivals. The extensive modern literature on it reveals nothing, however, about its association with any genos.6 My purpose is to draw attention to, and discuss some of the implications of, evidence that a genos Bakchiadai probably played a role in the City Dionysia similar to that attested for other gene in other festivals.7 The evidence is an inscription on a round altar, with Dionysiac motifs, which may still be found in the precinct of Dionysos Eleuthereus at the foot of the Acropolis behind the theatre of Dionys- os at Athens.8 It reads:

ltasopcxpav T;Kcai 'AiokXo6(opo; Xat1'pou Au6pi8at nonotook'loavtE; Kat apXovte; yeVO6XVOvtT0o) yevoui;

toi BacXtcaWv v v v av65qicav IG ii2 2949

Von Freeden, in a useful discussion of this inscription,9 has drawn attention to the implication for dating of the fact that the two brothers named in it were nicuiatata't d-itScY; (i.e. participated as children in the theoria to Delphi), Apollodoros in 138/7, Pistokrates in 128/7.10 He also pointed out that the character and location of the altar should imply that inoRnootoXizoavts; refers

4 W. S. Ferguson, "The Salaminioi of Heptaphylai and Sounion", Hesp. 7 (1938), 1-74 no. 1 (= SEG 21.527; an improved text now at ZPE 119 [1997], 85-88).

5 See Clinton. 6 The standard accounts remain, in German, L. Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin 1932), 138-

42; in English, Pickard-Cambridge2, 57-125. See also Connor; Sourvinou-Inwood (other recent bibliography at her n. 2). The standard literature on the Attic gene also makes no association: J. Topffer, Attische Genealogie (Berlin 1889), 206-7; F. Bourriot, Recherches sur la nature du genos (Lille 1976), 544; Parker, Ap. 2A, s.v. BaKXXThal.

7 There is no apparent connection with the well-known Corinthian genos of the same name (Hdt. 5.92 etc.) or the almost unknown Milesian one (Hesych. s.v. BacxXtaat).

8 Discussed most recently by Parker, Ap. 2A s.v. BaKXtUbat. Photographs at Travios, 552 (with plans of the theatre and precinct at 540-41) and von Freeden, Taf. VIlIc (showing inscription). For a new fragment of the altar (not affecting the text of the inscription) see M. Korres, AD 35 (1980) B [19881, 14 (= SEG 38.174).

9 See above n. 1. 10 1H-auta-i tawi&;: FD III (2) 11, 12 and 12, 10. Their deme, Auridai, was a small one

(bouleutic quota 1) of unknown location in the phyle Hippothontis (J. S. Traill, Demos and Trittys [Toronto 1986], 138). Satyros of Auridai, contributor of 10 dr. to an unknown fund in 183/2 (IG ii2 2332, 78) was probably a relation of the brothers, possibly their father. Tracy, 173-80, has now attributed the inscription on this altar to his "Cutter of IG ii2 937", whom he dates c. 135-123/2. See further n. 51.



396 S. D. LAMBERT

to the well-known procession which preceded the City Dionysia."I Neither he nor any one else, however, has recognised that, when considered against the background of the role attested in festivals and processions for other gene, the inscription should imply a similar role for the genos Bakchiadai in the City Dionysia.

It is natural to assume, with von Freeden, that xopixoatoXoilavre; refers to a single procession which the brothers conducted together.'2 More doubtful is his supposition that the verb refers to their participation in the procession as ephebes. Admittedly it seems to have been possible for brothers of slightly different ages to be ephebes together,'3 but there was also flexibility in the age at which children might be xvi5ata noi t6e;. 14 The fact that the brothers were wiufatwtalt niai6e; ten years apart suggests a significant disparity of age and creates a prima facie expectation that they would not have been on ephebic service together. That expectation seems confirmed by the fact that the role of the ephebes was to conduct, not the procession as a whole, but a bull to be sacrificed. In the inscriptions, roughly contemporary with our altar, which record that role, it is never described by the verb nogxoatoX&o.15 When used transitively, the verb can mean to conduct something in a procession; but without an object we naturally understand that it was the procession itself that was conducted.16 Moreover, while it is clear that at this period not all young adult citizens participated in the procession as ephebes, it seems doubtful whether such participation as one ephebe among many - in 123/2 there were around 7-10 ephebes from each of the 10 phylai - would warrant prominent mention in a dedication of this sort. The only other occuffence of the verb

11 On the procession see the bibliography, n. 6. 12 Cf. on I st cent. Delos the appointment of multiple (Athenian) pompostoloi by Athenian

priests, ID 5 2607-9 (30 are listed in 2607); but see also n. 20. 13 The normal age for ephebic service was 18, the maximum apparently 22 (von Freeden,

216). N. V. Sekunda, "Athenian Demography and Military Strength, 338-322 B.C.", BSA 87 (1992), 330-42 argues, albeit in relation to the Lykourgan period, that ephebic officers, lochagoi, were selected from ephebes who had graduated 1 or 2 years previously and that this explains nearly all cases of apparent brothers in the ephebic lists.

14 The range of ages was 7 to, probably, about 15; von Freeden, 216. 15 E.g. IG ii21006, 12-14 (honouring the ephebes of 123/2): eimyayov 6e lc]ai 'rv

Ati6vuov di6 riTS; koXd/pa; 6i; T06 b?apov pcxa (po?o; Kai ere[V]4av CoI; Atovirioi;

,raupov a>tov srow. fto?0 Ov cai ieftcav ?V [rIo,t iepCo 'rt 1n1ognt ' vpS /I Kai ea'Cy-

wavo)1nav &1i6 roi jigou. The wording in other similar inscriptions, ii2 1008, 1011, SEG 15.104 etc., does not differ significantly for our purposes.

16 Cf. LSP s.v. noxooaro)X~o and Suppl. s.v. xogxo'rc6Xo;. For the transitive use see e.g. Strabo 14.2.23, 666; ... ' iS; RogXo'roXEkairat ' iepd and Ps-Lucian Amores, 11, 5. By analogy with vaumoXio in the sense "go by ship" (LSJ9, sense II) one might posit an intransitive use of the verb to mean simply "go in procession", but there is no clear example of it (cf. n. 18).




iotioaToxow in relation to the Dionysia, again approximately contemporary with our altar, is in the inscription from the Acropolis honouring Telesias of Trozen, a wealthy foreigner who had revived the Athenian citizenship awarded to his ancestor in the late 4th century. There his service as pompostolos is listed among other services to Athenian religion, including tenure of a priesthood (unspecified) and of the post of epimeletes of Zeus Soter.17 Again, the context seems to imply more than mere participation in the procession as ephebe. I suggest that the office filled by our brothers and Telesias probably entailed an organising and/or leading ceremonial role.18 A basic sense of the root verb a'rXXw is to fit out or equip. From what we know of hellenistic office holding in general and Telesias in particular, it seems quite likely that the office also carried financial obligations. Given the similarity to the attested role of other gene in processions19 and the reference to the genos Bakchiadai in this inscription, I suggest that these men were probably pompostoloi in their capacity as gennetai; in other words, that they were appointed by the genos which had particular responsibilities for the City Dionysia to perform a leading public role in that festival.20

Let us turn to the second of the two actions commemorated by our brothers: apXovte; yev6p?voOt toi3 yvou; toi BaKXtaO&v. There were two sorts of archon in an Attic genos: the archon that was executive head of the genos and eponymous for the genos-year, mirroring the roles of the archon in the polis, the demarch in the deme and the phratriarch in the phratry; and the archon that might be appointed ad hoc to take responsibility for some particular task or event. In both cases there might be one or more. Thus, for example, the Salaminioi had two annual eponymous archons, one for each of the group's two branches, and in 363/2 made provision for a separate festal archon, appointed by lot from either branch in alternate years, to be responsible, along with the priestess of Athena Skiras and the herald, for selecting the oschophoroi and the deipnophoroi for the procession at the Oschophoria.21 The Epakreis, probably

17 In one of the crowns the Boule and the Demos honour him nognocrrokaiavlc Atovu- aiot;. M. J. Osborne, Naturalisation in Athens (Brussels 1981-3), vol. 1, D102, 39-42. For Telesias' wealth, suggested by his tenure of office as prytany treasurer, cf. Osborne's commentary, vol. 2, p. 191.

18 P. Roussel takes the pompostoloi of the Delian inscriptions (above, n. 12) to be Athenian cleruchs on Delos or Athenian citizens "en s6jour A Ddlos, participant A une fete dWlienne" (ad ID 5, 2607). Priestly appointment and the inscribed record, however, perhaps suggest more than mere participation. Again one suspects some sort of organising/leading role. It is also not clear that the appointment related only to one procession; note the differing/ multiple priests involved in making the appointments.

19 Cf. above nn. 3-4. 20 I take it to be uncertain whether the brothers held together an office normally reserved for

a single individual, as e.g. Telesias, or whether there were always two or more pompostoloi at the City Dionysia at this period.

21 Hesp. 7 (1938), 1-74, no.1, 47-50,69,73-74 with Ferguson's commentary; cf. Parker, p. 309.



398 S. D. LAMBERT

an old tripolis or tetrapolis in north-east Attica, apparently appointed an archon to organise their periodic festival, the Apollonia,22 and the basileus appointed (plural) archons to be responsible for the organisation of the festival of the cult association of Athena Pallenis.23

I take it that our brothers served as genos archons together. Was their archonship festal or eponymous? Prima facie dpXov-rc; ... roi ytvov; looks eponymous; for a festal archonship one might have expected dpXovEs ?; + name of festival.24 On the other hand, nognocrOokiaavTE; and the connection with the City Dionysia might suggest a festal archonship. I take it that dptavwe; TOVi 7yVoU; would more definitely have implied an eponymous one; the wording dpXOVT5; YEVO6JEvol -Oi yevoV) might have been chosen deliberately to avoid giving that impression,25 i.e. it might mean no more than "having become (or been26) office holders of the genos". The issue can not be settled, but in either case there would seem to be two possibilities: that the archonship was a consequence of the brothers' tenure of office as pompostoloi, more likely perhaps if the archonship was eponymous; or that the two offices were held together (or were two aspects of the same office?27), more likely perhaps if it was festal. In either case there was, I suggest, a closer connection between the two offices commemorated than has previously been recognised: both appointments made by the genos with responsibilities for the City Dionysia; both held by the same two members of the genos; and both connected with the procession at that festival, whether the second was held in conjunction with the first, or was awarded in recognition of it.

In the second century, therefore, the genos Bakchiadai probably supplied pompostoloi for the procession at the City Dionysia. What of other officiants at

22 See SEG 32.144, later 4th cent., with Parker, p. 330. 23 Athen. 6.235c with R. Schlaifer, "The Cult of Athena Pallenis", HSCP 54 (1943), 47-48,

who also mentions some other examples of this type of archon. 24 Thus at SEG 32.144, ?;AnokWcovta dp4avia. 25 Though another possible reason why dp4avte; was avoided is that the brothers were still

in office when they set up the altar. Cf. next note. 26 If yev6gevoI is simply standing in for the missing aorist participle of eipi. Cf. most

recently W. K. Pritchett, Thucydides' Pentekontaetia and Other Essays (Gieben, 1995), 6. However, in Attic inscriptions, in contexts of this sort the aorist participle of apXo. seems normally to have been used where, at the time of the main verb, the tenure of office was complete (e.g. IG ii2 488, 4 and 2822,2), dpXov yev6tevo; where, at the time of the main verb, the office had been embarked upon, but not completed (e.g. SEG 25.89, 11; for this in a literary context see e.g. Thuc. 1.104.1. IG ii2 3218 and 3479 are ambiguous in context, but should perhaps also be interpreted in this sense). In this case the possibility that the wording was chosen to avoid implying an eponymous archonship means that we can not be sure that the brothers were still in office when they set up the altar.

27 I.e. externally, in the polis, they might be pompostoloi, within the genos they were, as such, "holders of an office".




the festival? The City Dionysia was presided over by the priest of Dionysos Eleuthereus. During performances in the theatre he occupied the seat of honour in the middle of the front row28 and is twice referred to in plays of Aris- tophanes. At Frogs 297 Dionysos, frightened by the monster Empousa, appeals to his own priest to protect him: i?p?0, awpiokaav i", iv' Xi sot OugnoTIs, apparently an allusion to the party which the priest would host after the performance. A Messenger brings Dikaiopolis an invitation to the same party at Acharnians 1085ff.: Esit 6eltnvov taXu / Pd6te, Tilv icioMv Xapd)v ica,t tov xoa. /6 toi3 Alovivoou ydp a iepe?b; g.ttanegneTat.29 This priest will presum- ably have officiated at the two temples of the deity located in the same precinct as our altar.30 He is never mentioned in public (i.e. polis) decrees honouring officiants at the festival, which would seem to confirm that the priesthood was

28 On the surviving throne, which apparently dates no earlier than the Lykourgan rebuilding of the theatre, see M. MaaS, Die Prohedrie des Dionysostheaters in Athen (Munich 1972), esp. 60-76; the inscription on it,'Iepgeo Aiov1kTo-u'EX i*epeos, is of Roman date in the view of MaaB, 101-3 (phot. pl. III). On its 5th cent. predecessor see E. Pohlmann, "Die Proedrie des Dionysostheaters im 5 Jhdt. und das BUhnespiel der Klassik", Mus. Helv. 38 (1981), 129-46 esp. 140-41.

29 No holder of this priesthood is firmly attested before the Christian era. Meixigenes son of Mikon of Cholleidai was a priest of Dionysos honoured in a polis decree of c. 330 (IG ii2 410). The decree was found in the area of the theatre of Dionysos in Athens (and was apparently to be set up there, see lines 39-40 with M. N. Tod, "The Progress of Greek Epigraphy, 1948-49", JHS 72 [1952], 31), but, as Robert Parker suggests to me, he may rather have been priest of Dionysos in the Peiraeus, for he is praised along with priests of Zeus Soter, Poseidon Pelagios and Ammon, all three of whom are likely to have been priests in Peiraeus cults (I note that the last two have the demotic of Phaleron), and is associated not with the epimeletai characteristic of the City Dionysia, but hieropoioi. Note also that the same man, member of a well-known family of the liturgical class (APF 1904), was honoured by the Paraloi on an inscription probably set up originally in the Peiraeus, IG ii2 1254 (cf. 2966 and SEG 37.102). Nothing firm can be concluded from the apparent implication of Hesych. s.v. iepeu; AtovUaou, quoting Eupolis (F20K-A, cf. Kratinos F492K-A), that a Hipponikos was a priest of Dionysos. Two Attic tombstones and one vase showing men holding kantharoi have been interpreted as representing priests of Dionysos (IG i3 1257, ii2 12405a = 10679, Beazley, ARV2 558 no.142; see especially A.G. Mantis, Flpo3X#gata tS; EtKovoypawpia; tcov tEpEt)V Kai towv tep@Ov ,aTrv apXaia EXXTIvIKAr1 TXvyl = ATrigooteziata to' ApXatokXoytKo-. AeXtiou 42 11990], 92-6). However, we do not know whether, if so, they are priests of Dionysos Eleuthereus rather than another Dionysos cult. Among other gene the Euneidai also had a cult of Dionysos (Dionysos Melpomenos, theatre seat = IG ii2 5056; Parker, Ap. 2A, s.v. Ei6ve16at) and possibly the Theoinidai (Phot. s.v. Oeoivtov, cf. SEG 29.135) and the likely genos Semachidai may have done also (according to Steph. Byz. they supplied priestesses of Dionysos). There were also theatre seats for priests of Aulonian Dionysos and of Dionysos Melpomenos of the technitai (see MaaB, as in n. 28, 142).

30 The smaller temple apparently dates from the 6th cent. (but see Connor, 24-26) and the adjacent larger one, containing the chryselephantine statue of the god by Alkamenes, from the 4th cent. Paus. 1.20.3 with Travlos, 537ff.



400 S. D. LAMBERT

probably gentilician rather than public.31 Admittedly, more than one genos might supply personnel for the same festival. For the Eleusinian Mysteries, for example, the Philleidai supplied the priestess of Demeter,32 the Kerykes the dadouch, the Eumolpidai the hierophant, other gene other officiants. The situation with the Salaminioi, however, was perhaps more usual. They not only appointed a festal archon with a function in relation to the Oschophoria, they also supplied the priestess of the relevant cult, that of Athena Skiras. It is possible, therefore, that some unknown genos supplied the priest of Dionysos Eleuthereus; but not unlikely that it was the same genos as supplied the pompostoloi, i.e. the Bakchiadai.33

As in other festal processions there were other participants with specific duties in the procession of the City Dionysia: a female kanephoros, carrier of a golden basket,34 and probably others.35 The basket-carriers, it seems, were required to be "well-born", ei'ysve?;, a term that might imply appointment by and from a genos. The genos Salaminioi apparently included a basket-carrier, kalathephoros,36 and, as we have seen, were responsible for the appointment of oschophoroi and deipnophoroi for the Oschophoria.37 The Bakchiadai and/or their priest may well have had a similar role in providing and/or selecting "carriers" at the procession for the City Dionysia.38

31 E.g. IG ii2 668 and 896. Contrast IG ii2 410, above n. 29, and cf. the possibility that hellenistic inscriptions praising epimeletai of the Mysteries mentioned only those selected from the people as a whole, ignoring those supplied by the Eleusinian gene (see P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia [Oxford 1981, rev. 1992], 636-37).

32 IG ii2 2954 might, but need not, imply that other gene also supplied this priesthood. 33 Note also Hesych. s.v. PdKXo4 o iepE1i;Tto AtovUaou and the common identification of

the first/archetypal priest with the eponym of a genos. Cf. e.g. Embaros and the (Em)baridai, Boutes and the Eteoboutadai (Parker, Ap. 2, s.v.).

34 l Ar. Ach. 242. 35 6eFXtwap6pot, carriers of the loaves known as 6oeXiat, aaKopopot and metic aKaQpT1p6-

pot and i66ptatp6pot. See Pickard-Cambridge2, 61. 36 Hesp. 7 (1938) 1-74, no.1, 46, where she is allocated a loaf at Skiras. It is likely that she

was from a family that belonged to the genos. For another likely case of appointment of kanephoroi from an Attic genos see FD III 2, 30,1.

37 Cf. above n. 21. 38 The families of two kanephoroi at the City Dionysia are identifiable. The father of a

kanephoros, Kalliphon son of Kalliphon of Athmonon in 266/5 (archon Nikias) is praised by the polis along with the archon, his paredroi and the epimeletai of the festival at IG ii2

668, 31-33. And in the early 2nd cent. (archon Zopyros) Timothea, daughter of Zopyros son of Dikaios of Melite (possibly identical with the archon) filled the post. In the latter case the archon makes a declaration about r6v na'rpa tf; KcaraXeyr6a1; icavl1p6pou, "the father of the selected kanephoros", but who was responsible for the selection is not made explicit (IG ii2 896, 8-1 1; was it unspecified because it was not the responsibility of the polis? Cf. n. 31). Compare the Delian inscriptions referred to above, n. 12: 6

i?-pe-6q ... ?o-O KaTlXCev ivogoarAoXo ....




Is it legitimate to infer existence and functions for the Bakchiadai in the classical period from late 2nd century evidence? While not impossible, it is unlikely that the genos was merely a creation of the hellenistic period. Our evidence is admittedly sparse, but there is no sure case of such a creation. The general pattern is either one of genuine continuity, as e.g. with the Kerykes, Eumolpidai and Eteoboutadai,39 or of periodic revival or reorganisation. The Gephyraioi, for example, genos of the tyrannicides and not attested since their appearance on a security horos in the 4th (or, possibly, early 3rd) century,40 re- appear in the late 1st century in a context which suggests revival.41 The Amynandridai appear in the historical record for the first time at about the same time, again in a context which may suggest reorganisation; but a very plausible case can be made that the priesthood attested for them then, that of Kekrops, was also theirs at the time of Cleisthenes and before.42 The pattern, as so often with Greek religion, is one of conservatism, at least of form. If we find an Attic genos performing a role in an archaic cult in the hellenistic period, it is probably legitimate to infer, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it also did so in the classical. Much of the substance, of course, changed. Under the Romans, for example, it seems to have become normal for prominent individuals to belong to multiple gene, rather like Roman priestly colleges.43 If "conducting the procession" at the City Dionysia was indeed a privilege of the Bakchiadai, then Telesias of Trozen will have been a member; but Telesias, as we have seen, was a foreigner who renewed an old grant of citizenship made to a remote ancestor. The admission of such a person to a genos, or indeed to the other positions he held in Athenian religion, was a far cry from the situation in the classical period, where access of citizens of non-Athenian origin to priesthoods and other intima of citizenship was specifically prohibited.44 So too, while there might have been a general similarity between the role I am positing for the Bakchiadai in the 2nd century and that attested for the Salaminioi at the Oschophoria in the classical period, much will also have been different. The genos may have supplied priests and kanephoroi in the 5th century as in the 2nd and may have exercised other functions, perhaps through its archons, whether

39 The continuity in the Eleusinian priesthoods can be seen in the tables of priests in Clinton; for the Eteoboutad priestess-ship of Athena Polias, see Aleshire, esp. Ap., 336-37.

40 Hesp. Suppi. 7 (1943), 1 no. I (ed. Raubitschek; = M. I. Finley, Studies in Land and Credit [New Brunswick UP 1952], no. 147).

41 See B. D. Meritt, "Greek Inscriptions", Hesp. 9 (1940), 86-96, no. 17 (= SEG 30.85), 22- 23, where they apparently renew an old relationship with Delphi. Cf. J. H. Oliver, "From Gennetai to Curiales", Hesp. 49 (1980), 38-43.

42 See the list of members, IG ji2 2338 with Oliver, as in n. 41, 43-48. On the likelihood that their priesthood dated from the archaic period see Parker, Ap. 2A s.v. 'Aj?uvav8pi8a&.

43 For the classic cases of this see Meritt, as in n. 41. 44 Cf. M. Osborne's commentary on D102, above n. 17.



402 S. D. LAMBERT

festal or eponymous; but they would probably not, in the 5th century, have supplied officials known as pompostoloi. So far as I know, neither this noun, nor the cognate verb nognrcatoX6o occur before the hellenistic period. Whatev- er action they designated precisely in this context, it was probably hellenistic in character. I suggested above that it may have entailed a financial obligation of the sort that would be characteristic of hellenistic euergetism. It is not, I suspect, coincidental that its two occurrences in Attic epigraphy are in relation to the same festival and close to eachother in time. One wonders whether the function was devised in consequence of a fairly recent (and perhaps short- lived?) revival or reorganisation of genos and/or festival.45 The dedication of a new altar in the precinct of Dionysos would seem quite appropriate in such a context.

In the 4th century and down at least to the early 3rd overall responsibility, epimeleia, for the City Dionysia was in the hands of the archon of the polis, assisted by two paredroi and, for the procession, ten epimeletai.46 It seems to have been fairly common in the 4th century for the polis to appoint its own officials, in addition to the archons, to operate alongside those of the genos in the organisation of the great festivals. For the Eleusinian Mysteries, the People elected four epimeletai to oversee the festival alongside the basileus and the Eleusinian gene, two from the whole citizen population, one each from the Kerykes and Eumolpidai.47 Such epimeletai, however, could be interpreted by such as Theophrastos' oligarchic sympathiser48 as an undesirable feature of democracy. There seems to be no evidence for them at the City Dionysia after 186/5.49 One is tempted to speculate that our pompostoloi might have replaced the epimeletai, the result perhaps of a reassertion of an imagined patrios politeia in which responsibility for the procession rested more fully with appointees of the genos.50

45 It is probably not coincidental that the elaborate inscriptions recording the role of the ephebes in the festival also date to this period.

46 Ath. Pol. 56.4 with Pickard-Cambridge2, 58, 70, 92. 47 Ath. Pol. 57.1 with Rhodes, as in n. 31, ad loc.; K. Clinton, "A Law in the City Eleusinion

Concerning the Mysteries", Hesp. 49 (1980), 258-88. Cf. the role of hieropoioi alongside the genos Hesychidai in the cult of the Semnai (Parker, Ap. 2 s.v. 'Hrnxi8a1).

48 Theophr. Char. 26. Admittedly, Theophrastos' Character does not explicitly suggest giving more power to the genos. He seems more concerned that the power should be absolute and, preferably, in the hands of one man.

49 IG ii2 896, archon Zopyros. 50 The issues surrounding the origins and early history of the City Dionysia (on which see

the works cited in n. 6) and of the Attic gene are too obscure and complex for extended speculation to be worthwhile here on the likely role of our genos. Two possibilities (they are no more) come to mind: (a) that, if a model whereby pre-classical polis festivals normally came about by virtue of the incorporation of the religion of Attic gene into the religion of the polis is correct, in some respect the City Dionysia and/or early drama may




Finally, a footnote on the date of our altar. Von Freeden suggested 123/22- 121/20, calculating this as the only period during which brothers who were nuftiatotat dai6?E; in 138/7 and 128/7 could have completed a term of office as genos archons, assuming that their archonship immediately followed service together as ephebes. As we have seen, however, it is doubtful that the descrip- tion of the brothers as nogxoacok#aavte; refers to their ephebate. The younger brother was one of the ui5ataaia nad8E; in 128/7, at which time, as noted above, he is unlikely to have been more than 15 years old. We do not know whether there was a typical age for the tenure of genos archonships, eponymous or festal, but the brothers would obviously both have been adult, giving us a terminus post, therefore, of 125/4. The only firmly datable work attributable to the cutter of our inscription belongs to 131/0 (archon Epikles).51 A date for our inscription c. 120-100 would seem most comfortable.

London S. D. Lambert - Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington D.C.

have originated in the private religion of an Attic genos, i.e. the Bakchiadai; (b) that, if we accept the tradition that the cult of Dionysos Eleuthereus originated at Eleutherai on the Attic-Boeotian border (E Ar. Ach. 243), its incorporation into Athenian religion possibly linked to the political incorporation of Eleutherai into the Athenian polis (Paus. 1.38.8; again, neither is sure or even especially likely, cf. works cited above n. 6 and J. McK. Camp II, "Notes on the Towers and Borders of Classical Boiotia", AJA 95 [1991], 193- 202 esp. 199ff.) the Bakchiadai might in origin have been an Eleutheraian genos, given a role in Athenian polis religion like that of the Eleusinian gene following the incorporation of Eleusis into the Athenian polis.

51 Cf. n. 10. The firmly dated inscription is Agora 15.246. Tracy's date for this hand was c. 135-123/2. The later date of the range was set by our inscription and, if the argument of this paper has been correct, is no longer valid. The earlier date arises from assumptions, possible but not secure, that IG ii2 3477 honours a kanephoros in the Pythais of 138/7 (and not some other year) and was inscribed shortly thereafter (Tracy's pp. 179-80). Cf. J. S. Traill, ZPE 103 (1994), 1 1 1.



The Attic Genos Bakchiadai and the City Dionysia

Documents

Transcript of The Attic Genos Bakchiadai and the City Dionysia