untitled

(coco) #1

of pairs of gods. The western tradition’s reception of the Olympian gods has inevit-
ably been formed by the great poetical works bequeathed to us from antiquity, such
as, Homer apart, Ovid’sMetamorphoses. Such works have promoted a simple con-
ception of each of the gods in which they are strongly associated with a primary
function (‘‘the god of... ’’) and with a limited range of mythical tales. But when we
look at use of the gods on the ground, as it were, complex and diverse histories and
profiles emerge for them, at both local and panhellenic level alike, as can be seen from
case studies of Apollo and Artemis.
Jennifer Larson(Chapter 3) explains that the concept of ‘‘nature deities,’’ which
we might casually use, is an unsatisfactory one. But the notion of minor deities
resident in and intimately associated with local landscapes was one of huge signifi-
cance for the people of ancient Greece, its peasantry in particular. It is rewarding to
learn that, at least in some cases, the inherent aesthetic beauty of some places, remote
spots, or partly wild gardens, has to be considered a factor in their recognition and
cultivation as sacred. Such pleasant places were regarded as the abodes of nymphs.
Caves of nymphs with their associated gardens were seldom sponsored by cities. More
typically, they would be maintained either by individuals ‘‘seized’’ by the nymphs,
‘‘nympholepts,’’ or by families visiting from the immediate environs. Those who
worked in the countryside, such as shepherds, would often have a particularly close
affinity with the local nymphs. Commonly associated with nymphs was cheerful, noisy
Pan, protector of goats and shepherds. He was a temple-based deity in his native
Arcadia, but as his cult spread beyond in the fifth century he was put to live with the
nymphs in their caves. Similarly, local populations could be devoted to their adjacent
rivers, those vital engines of fertility, establish waterside shrines for them, and project
them into myth as founding kings of their communities. Those deities based in the
natural world but equally accessible to all in the wider Greek world, the Earth, the
Sun, the Sea, and the winds, were accordingly more widely worshiped.
Emma Stafford (Chapter 4) offers a review of the developing trends in the
personification of abstract entities as humanoid deities. The epic poetry of the archaic
period provided a ‘‘basic mythological pedigree’’ for a number of personified figures
later destined to achieve full cult status. It is often hard to judge how seriously any
given personification should be taken in the ca. seventh-century poetry of Hesiod or
Homer. Hesiod gives us a great many ‘‘genealogical’’ personifications (and in this he
may well exhibit the influence of the religions of the Near East), but did these
personifications enjoy any currency in Greek religious life beyond the poem itself?
The Homeric poems often like to exploit the ambiguity between abstraction and
personification: just how substantial, how anthropomorphic, is Fear when it (or he)
stalks the battlefield? We can be more confident about Sleep, who receives significant
attention and elaboration in both poets. In later periods Sleep and Terror alike
became the recipients of actual cults. From ca. 600 BC the figure of Youth, wife of
Heracles, becomes prominent in art and is associated with the cults of other deities.
The sanctuary of Nemesis and Themis (‘‘Righteous Anger’’ and ‘‘Divine Law’’) at
Rhamnous, which seems to have originated in the early sixth century, is of particular
interest because here we already have a major sanctuary focally dedicated to personi-
fied deities. In the classical period personifications (not all of them divine) were
frequently given life, character, and substance on the Attic stage, and a broad range
of personifications is to be found on Attic pots of the same period. The fifth century


Introduction 3
Free download pdf