In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick


Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Zeus Be Nice NowJames Davidson

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum 
Getty, 3014 pp., $1,215, March 2007, 978 0 89236 787 0Show More
Polytheism and Society at Athens 
by Robert Parker.
Oxford, 544 pp., £27.50, March 2007, 978 0 19 921611 6
Show More
Show More

In Sparta they sacrificed puppies for Ares. In Colophon the goddess Hecate got a little black dog, while it was inferred that Helios, the sun god, would rather the animals killed in his honour were white. Once a year on Mykonos, a sheep and ten lambs were offered to the river Achelous: the sheep and two of the lambs were sacrificed at the altar, the other eight lambs in the river. In Paestum, Hera, goddess of marriage, was offered uxorious geese. Visitors to the shrine of Persuasion (Peitho) on the island of Thasos in the northern Aegean were advised that it was forbidden to offer the goddess a goat or a pig. But pigs were the preferred offerings to Demeter and her daughter Persephone; all around the classical Mediterranean, archaeologists have come to realise that a layer of pork chops means they have stumbled on a sanctuary of the goddesses of agriculture. Unusually careful sifting of the earth in Demeter’s sanctuary in Corinth, however, revealed that her worshippers were also fond of fish, although it is not probable that they sacrificed them to the goddess before eating them – hard to tell with fishbones. A tuna was certainly sacrificed to Poseidon in the Attic parish of Halai. And someone or other was so proud of the big fish he offered to Zeus Pankrates – discovered in 1952 and now buried under the statue of Harry Truman in Athens – that he commissioned a stone frieze to mark the occasion. Well, it could be a fish or it could be a large Cornish pasty – the sculptor was not a master of his art.

In Rome on 15 October, they sacrificed one of the horses of a winning chariot team and then cut off its head and garlanded it with loaves: the October Horse. The horse’s blood was kept, and then mixed with the ashes of an unborn calf removed by the most senior of the Vestal Virgins from its mother’s womb when the cow was sacrificed to the goddess Earth on 15 April. A week after that, the mixture of horse blood and burned cow foetus was sprinkled on bonfires lit in honour of the god(dess) Pales. Sheep and shepherds were encouraged to jump through the fires to purify themselves. The Spartans meanwhile sacrificed a horse ‘to the winds’ at the top of Mount Taygetus, the winds carrying the ashes to all four corners of their territory. And the people of Rhodes sent an entire four-horse chariot team into the sea in honour of the chariot-driving Sun, their patron divinity.

Sacrifice generally took place not in temples but out of doors. Altars could be huge staired monuments in the shape of a squared U, like the gigantic Altar of Zeus from Pergamum which takes up one (enormous) room in Berlin’s Pergamonmuseum. More often they were minimal affairs, a small block of stone with a garland sculpted on it. Theoretically, each cult for each metaphysical entity had its own separate altar. So it was notable that Heracles shared his altar with his beloved Iolaus, called his symbomos or ‘altar-sharer’. It would seem that the curious lingam-like mounds known as ‘navel’ or ‘boss’ (omphalos) characteristic of the cult of Apollo could also be used as altars. They were generally dressed with a net of what look like knotted sheets.

Most of these altars were not slaughter tables so much as markers of slaughter sites, although it seems to have been a requirement that some of the blood from the dying animal was used to redden the stone, hence ‘blood-sacrifice’. They were also fireplaces for holy barbecues. Mostly inedible pieces of the animal – head, thigh bones, spinal column and tail – were burned for the gods; tastier pieces were roasted on prongs, like marshmallows on a beach, for human consumption; the valuable animal skins were often reserved for priests and/or sold; many exceptions tested these rules.

Not all material offerings to the gods involved animals. Among the commonest were libations of wine, poured from a phiale, a bowl of oriental lotus-petal design with a dent in the bottom so you could keep a discreet grip as you tipped it; wreaths woven of certain plants and flowers, worn on some significant occasion; and cakes. Among the most pathetic offerings were clothes of formerly pregnant women, as thanks for relief from labour pains from those who survived, as a grim memorial for those who didn’t. Some sanctuaries published regular inventories of their collections of women’s clothing, with comments on colour, cut and current condition; sometimes we seem to watch a particular garment get gradually more ragged over time.

If you visited Rome in March, you couldn’t fail to notice the 12 Salian priests wearing scarlet and decorated tunics and banging figure-of-eight shields in honour of Mars. Singing a song that no one understood the meaning of, they paraded through the city on several days, stopping at certain places to perform some fancy footwork. Said to be nimble, complex and graceful, the dance included a move called the tripudium, three stamps of the foot so heavy that Catullus worried that if they performed the dance at Colonia they might demolish its bridge. The same triple stamping was included in the rites of the Arval Brethren revived by Augustus, and always thereafter including the reigning monarch among the performers. Perhaps wisely, this dance of grandees took place behind closed doors, in the temple of the goddess Dia. They danced with book in hand while singing the Arval Hymn, in which the brothers called on Mars three times three times, climaxing with five shouts of Triumpe, a unique word that sounds more transparent than it probably was.

Sparta was famous for one dance festival in particular, the Gymnopaidiai (‘bareskin plays’) in honour of Apollo. Ancient commentators couldn’t agree about what these were. Some thought they were nude dances performed in the marketplace to commemorate a great victory or a great defeat. Others said it was a ritual ‘in which the ephebes ran around the altar at Amyclae’ – the great shrine of Apollo and tomb of Hyacinthus – ‘whipping each other on the back’. There was more whipping in the Spartan sanctuary of Orthia (‘Upright’) in a bizarre version of It’s a Knockout, in which ephebes aged under 20 tried to steal cheeses from an altar guarded by young men aged 20 or over. A priestess stood by, holding a little wooden image of the goddess, who was identified with savage Artemis. If the whipping was too restrained and not enough blood was spattering her altar, Artemis would grow impossibly heavy until the floggings improved. In Roman times a theatre was built so that tourists could watch the event. Among those who came was Plutarch; he claims to have seen boys flogged to death. This particular Artemis was so bloodthirsty because she came from the region of Odessa (the ‘Taurians’), where she had grown accustomed to human sacrifice. But her priestess Iphigeneia had stolen the image and brought it to Sparta – or Brauron or Halai or Rhodes. For there was much dispute about who owned the true effigy; the cruelty of the Spartan rite could be seen as a legitimation strategy. All that the people of Halai could offer in support of their claim was that their Artemis was called Tauropolos (‘Bull-hatted’) which sounded a bit like ‘Taurian’; at some point they added a mock human sacrifice to buttress their claim.

Never easy to make sense of, the religion of the Greeks and Romans has just become infinitely more difficult, thanks to the publication of five volumes (plus index) of the Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, which aims ‘to present scholars with a comprehensive account of all substantial aspects of Greek, Roman and Etruscan religion’, and thereby to overwhelm any attempt at general theory by providing masses of exceptions to the rule. It is the follow-up project of the team that brought us the Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, an 18-volume catalogue – each volume in itself capable of provoking a lawsuit if it slipped your grip, as well it might, and fell onto the head of a bottom-shelf browser – of all known images of figures from ancient Greek, Roman and Etruscan mythology/religion. Conceived by the late Lilly Kahil in 1969, who drove the project to fruition, it was published at the end of the last century. It allows one to survey something close to all the Greek images of the goddess Aphrodite, for instance, or of Sisyphus or Odysseus’ mother, Anticlea, or to compare and contrast images of the Greek goddess Dawn with her more important Etruscan counterpart, Thesan. It was a bold undertaking and is now universally recognised as one that succeeded magnificently, if expensively and exclusively; only now are moves being made to make it available on the web and to the less than quadrilingual.

The (near) comprehensiveness of the project produced surprises. Not everyone had known that there were quite so many images of a huge, winged lady Dawn raping ephebes, but here they were, page after page of them, or that Sisyphus had been mysteriously involved with Odysseus’ mother, that the first bird to abduct Ganymede was not an eagle but a swan, or that beloved Iolaus was also popular in Etruria, under the name of Vile. By the same measure, some of the myths we had come to see as central and important – the ‘invention’ of sacrifice, the theft of fire, Pandora’s box – seem barely to have figured in the ancient imaginaire (so far as images were concerned). As for the heroes of the Trojan War, the myths mentioned in Homer’s Iliad now seemed measurably less important than the ones he missed out: the judgment of Paris, the rape of Achilles’ mother, Thetis, at Cape Cuttlefish in Thessaly, Achilles’ murderous advances towards Hector’s little brother Troilus, his battle with Memnon ‘the Ethiopian’ over the body of his beloved Antilochus, and some mysterious mythical game of counters he had with Ajax.

What was missing, however, from the Lexicon Iconographicum was some brief cultography: a list of known cults of ‘mythological’ figures, cults of what nature, to the figure in which aspect, when and where. It was this gap that I hoped the ‘comprehensive’ Thesaurus would fill. Unfortunately, the team seems to have been rather more ambitious than that. Flushed with success, they decided to spread a globalising net over the whole massive topic and then to slice its victim up into lots of thematic pieces to be distributed to scholars around the world, 153 of them from 17 countries. The result includes some superb paragraphs, columns and pages by a pantheon of the world’s most learned and intelligent students of ancient religions. Very occasionally, a sub-sub-section even comes close to something like a full catalogue of current evidence for a sub-sub-topic. Organisationally, however, it is a mess, a lesson in how an ambitious international grand projet, supported with oodles of money, eons of scholar-hours and lashings of good will, and concealing within the innumerable nooks of its labyrinthine structure plenty of astute commentary and the occasional mind-blowing map, can nevertheless be a huge disappointment.

But how do you set about dividing such a topic without seeming to mimic Borges’s Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge? First they made one big slice, separating ‘static elements’, such as cult personnel, cult instruments, altars, temples and pictures of temples – vols IV and V – from the level of the ‘dynamic elements’, of activities, which are ‘covered’ in the first three volumes. After that, they sliced up those two named but unnumbered slices into numbered but untitled sub-sections, 1 to 6 for dynamic, 1 to 2 for static. Did no one suggest that a continuous numbering, 1 to 8, might have been a better idea?

The elaborate and emphatic, if unsystematic, structure of the Thesaurus is, of course, continually overwhelmed by the Borgesian resistance of the materials that need to be fitted into it. The sub-chapters on sacrifice include a lot on banquets, altars, music, instruments, prayers, processions and personnel, which are also treated elsewhere, although the man who actually did the sacrificing in Greece, the mageiros, seems to have slipped through the net. I could not find poor little Trojan Troilus, decapitated at an altar-omphalos of Apollo, a sacrilege which led to Achilles’ death, in the Greek list of human sacrifices in myth, although it is perhaps the most central and ubiquitous such myth in Greek art. Instead, he is briefly mentioned at the end of a section on Etruscan human sacrifice. There was no mention at all of sacred prostitutes (hierodouloi) in the ‘Static’ section on cult personnel, but I did find a couple of paragraphs on them in ‘Dynamic 3b: Consecration, Foundation Rites’, alongside holy water and death by lightning.

I had hoped that the index would provide some kind of tug to pull this Titanic to shore, but it turned out to be a list of cities and museums where the objects pictured can be found. Not much hope should be placed in a further index to be published only after a newly announced third level, ‘Synthesis’, has been added to ‘Dynamic’ and ‘Static’, organised according to occasion and daily life. The problem is that the contributors never seem to have reached agreement on some basic questions of what the Thesaurus was supposed to achieve. John Boardman’s introduction claims it is a ‘comprehensive guide’ but he admits that while some of the collections of evidence are nearly complete, ‘in many cases they are highly selective’. There seems to have been not nearly enough cracking of the whip.

What is needed is a much less ambitious volume that simply lists dated testimonies for currently known cults of Ares, certain, probable and possible, or timings, where known, of festivals of Artemis, or days of the month when sacrifice was made to Apollo, or which cities had cults of the White Goddess, Leucothea. Maybe a pattern or two might emerge that we had previously missed. What we have instead in the Thesaurus as it stands is something more like three interleaved companions-cum-sourcebooks of Greek, Etruscan and Roman religion of widely varying levels of partiality in four intransigently interwoven languages and occasional splashings of Latin and Greek.

One could, of course, read the messiness of the Thesaurus as simply a reflection of the inherent messiness of ancient religions despite the best efforts of the best scholars to discover some kind of order. Robert Parker in Polytheism and Society at Athens, his synthetic study of gods and cults in one small but document-rich area, compares the ever-increasing pantheon to an overflowing clothes-drawer, ‘which no one felt obliged to tidy’. Nevertheless, he wants to avoid offering ‘that meaningless parade of many cults which Durkheim feared’.

Parker was snatched, shockingly, from the ranks of Oxford’s tutors in literature to become its Wykeham Professor of Ancient History; his elevation represents something of a belated acknowledgment by the university of the validity of the study of religion as a historical topic. Although, like many others, I was first attracted to the ancient Greeks by way of a primary school project on their gods, I managed to get through twenty years of formal study of them without being taught anything, unless parenthetically, about their beliefs and cult practices. I am pretty sure I got my degree without even a basic understanding of what a sacrifice entailed. Only at the very tail-end of my training, in the early 1990s, did I stumble on a graduate seminar on the subject of religion that Parker had organised with the late, unforgettable Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood. What was immediately apparent then is no less apparent now: Parker’s extraordinary scrupulousness when handling sources and reluctance to leap to conclusions.

The study of Greek religion that flourished so unexpectedly after the Second World War was long dominated by the Paris school of Vernant, Vidal-Naquet and Detienne, and then by Walter Burkert of Zürich, a school in his own right. In each case, immense learning was combined with an intent to see patterns and make sense of them. In the former case the method used was structuralism: relationships of difference and similarity, opposition and identicality, in symbolic objects, myths and activities, with nature and its products – plants, animals, colours, genders and human gestures – viewed as acculturated signs in a language-like synchronic (if centuries-enduring) network. This process was used to find links between, say, Thetis, the cuttlefish, the control of horses and the ‘cunning intelligence’ Athena inherited from her Zeus-eaten mother. It soon became apparent that Burkert took nature’s givenness more seriously, sometimes pushing the evidence rather forcibly in the direction of universalising and sociobiological interpretations; he was not above viewing some rituals – such as homosexual ones – as inheritances from ‘ape prehistory’.

It would be wrong to see Parker as merely a pedant siever of these rivers of Continental discourse, looking for the true gold amid the fools’ sort; he is perfectly capable of writing witty, sharp and thoughtful articles on big, difficult topics such as ‘grace’ (charis), and in his first book managed to find a sure-footed way through the marshlands of miasma. In this book, typically, he manages to include a clear, clever couple of pages on the theory of ritual, flirting with the suggestion that the question ‘how does ritualisation work?’ will replace ‘what do rituals do?’ But he then shruggingly continues with his theme, ‘some of the things that ritual can do’. This may seem like an overly deft, even flippant, deflection of the possibilities of a committed theoretical approach, but to anyone who witnessed his double-act with Sourvinou-Inwood, not a scholar anyone would have accused of methodological flippancy or lack of theoretical commitment, it looks, rather, like one side of a dialogue with a missing discussante, thanked ‘above all’ in the acknowledgments, as well as a desire simply to get on with things. Parker does not seem, thankfully, to have spent too much time thinking about how the subject should be taxonomised, so that chapters generally represent groupings of things rather than ‘sub-divisions of a unitary field’: ‘Things done at festivals’, ‘Women’s festivals’, ‘Parthenoi [Maidens] in ritual’.

On the other hand, carefulness of fact is his characteristic Oxfordian contribution. Before he ventured to try to survey and understand Athenian religion, he first wrote a history of it in 1996, just to be sure that any comparisons he might be tempted to make were between cults that actually coexisted, and many readers will turn to Polytheism and Society for what’s not there as much as for what is, rather as one might revisit the Sistine Chapel after a cleaning. In books about Greek religion, the certain, the probable and the not impossible are often to be found side by side without any marks of discrimination. What is in Parker is, generally speaking, that which is better substantiated.

Ludwig Deubner, for instance, in Attische Feste (1932), included a festival called the Maimakteria in honour of ‘Stormy’ Zeus Maimaktes, because Athens had a Novemberish month called Maimakterion and months were almost always named after festivals, though not necessarily in accordance with the festival’s given name. H.W. Parke, in his popular 1977 handbook of Athenian festivals, followed Deubner’s example, although he noted that this particular festival was not mentioned ‘in popular literature’; in fact, it wasn’t mentioned anywhere at all. Parker has expunged the festival of Stormy Zeus from the record. As it happens, a couple of decades after Deubner, the stormy festival of Maimakteria did indeed turn up, but on the island of Ionian Thasos in the north Aegean. Few would contest that there was at some point an Ionian festival of such a name. Will Parker then be kicking himself if an inscription turns up in Athens, finally confirming Deubner’s presupposition? Probably not. It’s just that his text tends to weight the known knowns to the considerable disadvantage of the may-well-have-beens, and it may emerge that Maimakteria was simply another name for, or a part of, another Novemberish festival held in honour of Zeus, addressed more hopefully as ‘Zeus Be Nice Now’ – Meilichios.

Many, doubtless, will conclude that Parker has overcleaned his canvas, confusing what can’t be proved with what didn’t exist, and/or that he could have done a little more making sense of things had he not been quite so careful. For instance, in a meticulous but necessarily finicky attempt to reconstruct the drunken Dionysian Anthesteria, he concludes that there is evidence for gatherings at the temple of Dionysus-in-the-Marshes on the first and third day of the festival, when there was also, at some point, a competition of big-knobbed comic actors, but not on the second day, which was the only day of the year on which this particular temple was open (and all others closed). One myth that is usually connected to the Anthesteria would seem to offer confirmation of just such a pantomime of now-you-see-me-now-you-don’t frustration, big knobs and all: Dionysus appears as a handsome boy, sends the local yokels mad with an urge for sex, then vanishes, leaving them with intractable erections, eventually transmuted into phallic images to be dedicated to the god. But Parker doesn’t even refer to this myth in his discussion of the festival, and when he does eventually mention it, in a chapter on myth and ritual, insists it has no particular relevance.

Sometimes he seems a little too keen to demolish assumptions, arguing that there is ‘rather little’ truth in ‘the popular modern claim’ that the most important polis festival, the Panathenaea, was seen as a celebration of Athena’s birth from Zeus’ head. But one possible meaning of Athena’s epithet Tritogeneia is ‘third-born’, and the festival was held on the day of the month Athenians, down-counting, called ‘third (of the waning)’, and her birth, after all, was the scene sculpted on the front of the Parthenon, which is decorated, most unusually, with scenes of the Panathenaic procession. Who, processing, would not have made the connection? Alternative theories, to which Parker gives more emphasis, since they seem to be attested earlier, associate the festival with the invention of the chariot by Erichthonius, the first Athenian, earth-born from sperm shot off by Hephaestus and wiped from Athena’s thigh, and with Athena’s killing of an earth-born giant called Star or Starry.

In his scrupulousness, however, Parker neglects to mention that the evidence for Erichthonius as first charioteer comes from a late catalogue of asterisms – he is the constellation Auriga (‘Charioteer’) – and that Athena’s shield, the aegis, sometimes shown decorated with an image of the night sky (we learn from a footnote), is Auriga’s bright shoulder (Capella). Such star myths are usually, for no good reason, considered alien to Greek religion, late superficial additions to the corpus of authentic myth. Given that the Panathenaea was preceded by an all-night festival, the various myths about its origins may have appeared less of a mishmash than Parker would have us believe. We may still be some way from joining the dots up, but we could at least have been told that most of the dots to be joined up had a presence in astrography.

Parker also denies that this was a New Year festival. But he seems to be going too far in making unsense of things here, even forgetting his normal carefulness with sources. An important feature of the Panathenaea, for instance, was a nude streak by ephebes. Lighting their torches at the altar of Eros in the Academy, they raced past the tombs of the great and the good and all those who had died for their country, down through the Dipylon Gate, where vulgar people would gather to slap the laggards and the out-of-puff. From here the ephebes raced through the agora and up the great ramp of the Acropolis to light the altar, probably, of the city goddess, Athena Polias, a little, very old-looking idol, a palladium, that had once fallen from the sky.

Such nude coming-of-age coming-out streaks are known from elsewhere in Greece, and one would assume that these literally ‘blooming’ ephebes are new citizens, who would recently have been paraded in front of their fellow parishioners and the state council to prove that they were ‘not less than 18’. This is more than mere assumption: each batch of new ephebes was known thereafter by the name of the chief magistrate installed in the New Year of the year when they came of age, and Demosthenes states straightforwardly that he passed his citizen-scrutiny ‘immediately after’ a marriage that occurred in the last month of the year. But Parker, keen to desynchronise turning points, puts the coming-of-age, the ‘ephebic New Year’, months after the end of the political New Year and the Panathenaea. By the time these blooming ephebes got to run naked from the altar of Eros they would have been a distinctly faded bunch, and the magistrate from whom their class took its name would no longer have been in office.

Elsewhere, Parker can seem a little too keen to make sense. He accepts, for instance, that the women-only festival of Demeter called Thesmophoria is closely linked to the myth that told how the goddess’s daughter Persephone was snatched by Hades, the god of the Underworld, how Demeter mourned and how her daughter was eventually restored for two-thirds of the year. The myth also told of how a swineherd lost his pigs in the chasm that Hades opened up in the ground, and during the festival, Parker concludes (following Burkert), pigs were deposited in underground pits or ‘chambers’, and the rotted remains of the previous deposit were retrieved to fertilise the crops.

This was another three-day festival, a ritual configuration of Persephone’s tripartite year, and Parker agrees that its middle day, a day of fasting, remembers Demeter’s loss. The problem is that the first day of the festival was called anodos, or ‘Coming Up’, a term that almost always, in this context, refers to Persephone’s return from the Underworld, but ‘she should surely not return on the first day, before a fast.’ ‘Coming up’, therefore, according to Parker, has nothing to do with the myth of the rape and return of Persephone and refers simply to the celebrants going up to the sanctuary of Demeter, ‘set notionally, and often actually, on a high place’. Parker is being far too sensible here; more likely, the festival structurally reversed the order of events in the myth: the fertile rotted pigs must also have been retrieved from ‘the Underworld’ before the new ones went, like Persephone, into the chasm. Which may seem illogical or perverse, but that would not be uncommon either.

That there are things to argue with in a book which is so rich and full should not be surprising. Parker’s carefulness is not mere tentativeness or the dodging of difficult questions. Having thoroughly reviewed the evidence, he is quite prepared to stick his neck out and draw conclusions that many will not expect but which he has decided are necessary. It remains one of the best books I have read on ancient religion and one of the most useful. Which is not necessarily the same thing, as the Thesaurus proves.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.