Byblos et la fête des Adonies by Brigitte SoyezReview by: Robert A. Oden, Jr.Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 100, No. 3 (Jul. - Oct., 1980), pp. 372-374Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/601834 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 18:55

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 support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:55:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

372 Journal of the American Oriental Society 100.3 (1980)

Ur lament as a balag written for the use of the Isin kings at the restoration of Ur, Cohen sees that same lament as related to the balag but not identical with it. To Cohen's arguments we may add a linguistic point. The balag- laments are exclusively in emesal. At least one neo- Sumerian city-lament, "Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur" is written in a mixture of emesal and the main dialect emegir (See Kramer, AS 12[1940], 1-2; Kutscher, Oh Angry Sea, 3). Ultimately the question of native literary classification of the city-lament and its relationship to the balag-genre will have to be settled by as yet unpublished texts with subscripts, catalogs of incipits, ritual descriptions, letters or the like.

Cohen attempts to account for the inclusion of the balag in the fixed liturgy for certain days of the month by suggesting that its recitation was designed to pacify divine anger over unknowingly committed offenses. In itself this is not improbable though the texts do not appear to mention human offenses either known or unknown. It may be simpler to recall that important prayers have a way of moving from their original Sitz im Leben to one entirely different. The Psalms of the Old Testament and their employment in Jewish ritual furnish ample proof of this process.

Cohen's demonstration (p. 31) that the balag-instrument was a drum is not entirely convincing. The ritual text A06479 111:7-9 (Racc. 16:25-8) does not actually say that the lilissu drum was employed in the recitation of lugale dimmer ankia.

On the association of the emesal dialect with females, see the remarks of M. Diakonoff in AS 20 (1975), 113-16. The kahu-priest who composed the balag in emesal was often a eunuch who could be expected to use feminine pronuncia- tion. See Diakonoff, ibid., and the discussion by J. Renger in ZA 59 (1969), 187-94. Certainly, feminine pronuncia- tion would be in keeping with the widespread association of lamentation with women as is noted by T. H. Gaster (Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament [N.Y., 1969], 815).

Though cuneiformists will turn quickly to Borger's Handbuch for references to earlier treatments of the balag selections translated by Cohen, these should have been provided by the author. In the interests of completeness the glossary should have included kirugu, kiur and gabaatuk.

In sum Balag-Compositions is a highly-useful publica- tion which fulfills the aims of the SANE series.

S. DAVID SPERLING Huc-JIR, NEW YORK

Byblos et la fete des Adonies. By BRIGITTE SoYEz. (Etudes preliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'Empire romain, tome soixantieme). Pp. x + 94, 15 plates. Leiden: E. J. BRILL. 1977. Gld. 76.

Under the direction of M. J. Vermaseren the Etudes prdliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'Empire romain have already grown, in the years since the first volume appeared in 1961, to a full sixty volumes. Libraries doubtless have as much difficulty providing room on their shelves, as they do space in their budgets, for all these expensive Brill volumes; nor can subject cataloguing the various volumes be easy-Hellenistic religion? Semitic philology? Egyptology? The problem of making anything like the standard distinctions between academic disciplines in this particular field is ours as well, for the frightful array of religious and cultural currents in the Hellenistic and Roman eras serves virtually to define syncretism. And for Thdat reason one is profoundly grateful for Vermaseren's labor both in assembling the scholars responsible for these sixty volumes and in seeing to the prompt publication of each volume.

The contribution of Soyez is to the understanding of the rites of Adonis at Byblos. Though Adonis' troubles with the wild boar were severe, so too have been the difficulties encountered by students of the cult in his honor. Many of these opaque issues are successfully cleared up by Soyez. After a survey of the "cultic geography" of both Byblos proper and the valley of the Nahr Ibrahim from Khirbet Afqa to the Mediterranean Sea, the volume is divided into three sections. The first is devoted, appropriately, to Adonis and his consort, the Lady of Byblos (bqt gbl). Much the most important testimony here is that of (pseudo-) Lucian, whose De Dea Syria speaks directly and at length of the rites of Adonis at Byblos (paras. 6-9). Soyez prints the Greek text of these paragraphs (pp. 12-13), without indicating the edition of the De Dea Syria upon which she relies (from the few significant variants in this section it appears to be that of Harmon [Loeb], rather than that of the more complete edition of Jacobitz [Teubnerj); and offers a translation (pp. 13-15). Omitted here is the final sentence of De Dea Syria, para. 9 ("These, then, are the ancient and great sanctuaries in Syria"); this omission deserves, minimally, some comment, since Soyez subsequently distinguishes the religion of the coastal cities, including Byblos, from that of inland Syria, which distinction (pseudo-)Lucian clearly does not make. The translation is generally accurate. "Ils l'escortent en procession a l'air libre" seems, initially, quite free and curious for es t6v ftpa rrntnoucat (De Dea Syria, para. 6); but Soyez returns to this on pp. 38-39, where she demonstrates that there were two, distinct parts to the Adonis cult, one carried out in the open air and another performed within a temple's confines.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:55:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books 373

(Pseudo-)Lucian's arguable mention of "sacred prostitu- tion" ("They also shave their heads, as do the Egyptians when Apis dies. The women who refuse to shave pay this penalty: for a single day they stand offering their beauty for sale." [De Dea Syria, para. 6]) has occasioned much speculation; but Soyez accents what others, including the present reviewer, have failed to, that the author of the De Dea Syria explicitly describes this act as a punishment reserved for the recalcitrant (p. 41). An additional wise corrective is her argument that the third-century A.D. Roman coin of Macrinus (P1. III, 1), on which many have found a representation of a baetyl, in fact portrays a pyramid of Adonis-Osiris (pp. 42-43).

The book's second major section discusses the date of the annual celebration of the rites of Adonis. Here, in opposition to the standard dating of these rites of mourning and celebration to the spring, Soyez argues that the rites are rather to be placed in the month of July. This conclusion is reached utilizing an impressive and unusual, for a volume in this field, array of climatological charts. The conclusion is important, for it means there is a synchronism between the time of the rites of Adonis and the rise of the star Sirius, and therefore a rapport between these rites and those of Osiris in Egypt. Moreover, the conclusion establishes a link between the flooding of the Nile in July and the rites of Adonis. This link Soyez cements by an ingenious but convincing emendation of the text of Sozomen, in his note on the falling torch which initiates the rites at Afqa, from KCLa' k7TiKX1jaiV

tva to Kat' STriKXUviv tva, "a sort of flood" (pp. 64-65). Soyez observes as well that the Nile's current flows up the Mediterranean coast to Byblos, though this has been noted before (A. M. Harmon, Lucian [Loeb], Vol. IV, p. 345, n. 4). All of this means that the rites of Adonis are directly imitative of those of Osiris. This conclusion is hardly novel; but much of the evidence Soyez utilizes in reaching the conclusion is both novel and convincing.

The third and final section of the volume is entitled "La Dame de Byblos et Ba'al-Zeus." The Lady of Byblos proves to be an amalgam of the traits of Isis, Venus lugens, Tyche, and others. This is hardly surprising. More significant is the argument here that Ba Cal-Zeus has generally disappeared from the cult of Byblos, which is dedicated alone to Adonis and to the Lady of Byblos. The significance of this argument is as follows: if the Byblos cult was devoted to Adonis and his consort, and to these two as chief deities alone, then here, at least, one cannot claim to find the reputedly widespread concept of a "triad" of deities. I have argued elsewhere against the presence in Phoenician thought of this supposed triad concept (Studies in Lucian's De Syria Dea, pp. 122-126), and am happy to discover here further evidence against this imaginary notion. That some Phoenician cities worshipped chiefly three deities is not to be disputed; much more questionable

is the suggestion that the triad concept dominates a segment of Near Eastern religion.

Byblos et la fete des Adonies is one of the most carefully argued and well documented volumes in the EPRO series. Much of the documentation is based, as must be any work in this area, on the long labors of M. Dunand and especially of H. Seyrig, whose Antiquites syriennes, initially published in Syria over a period of fifty years, provide a matchless introduction both to the religions of the Hellenistic Near East and to the progress made in our understanding of those religions during the past half century. The only striking omission from the notes here is any reference to M. Pope's El in the Ugaritic Texts (SVT, vol. 2; Brill, 1955), which provides an excellent discussion of the site of Afqa and of the rites performed there (pp. 75-81). Note too H. Brunner, "Osiris in Byblos," Revue d'Egyptologie 27 (1975) 34ff., an article perhaps not available to Soyez at the date of her manuscript's completion. Typographical errors are few: p. 31, n. 74, read 1,2 for oo,o; p. 34, read 89 for 33; p. 35, n. 92, readp. 11,n. 18forp. 1, n. 20.

In line with the current fashion for discovering polarities of thought, "unity and diversity," in the ancient world, Soyez finds in the study of the religions of the Hellenistic Orient a "paradoxe de l'unite et de la multiplicit&" (p. 1). The current fashion may be quite right; and Soyez surely is. In particular, Soyez clearly and correctly makes a distinction throughout between the religions of the coastal cities, such as Byblos, and the religions of the inland cities. Byblos' long and intimate connection with Egypt makes this sort of distinction all but inevitable. She might have noted that Philo Byblius' Phoenician History, which may contain ancient tradition but which is still a thoroughly typical Hellenistic document (see my "Philo of Byblos and Hellenistic Historiography," forthcoming in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly), bears witness to the same diversity between various local traditions. It is precisely this diversity which makes Philo Byblius' account so jumbled and so difficult to use; and it is the same diversity which renders the articulation of comprehensive statements about Syrian religion in the Hellenistic era an impossible task. Although Soyez says little about the reputed Phoenician origin of Adonis (see p. 10), this is a topic which needs thorough re-working. I see no evidence which compels one to identify Adonis with any ancient Phoenician god, still less to identify him with Ba'al Hadad, as is often done. The name Adonis must be related to Semitic )dn; however, unlike the noun b (l, )dn is not used regularly as a part of an epithet of an identifiable Canaanite or Phoenician deity. We must, I think, admit our ignorance with respect to any Semitic lineage for Adonis. Much that Soyez writes would support the conclusion that Adonis is a creation of the Hellenistic era, whose origins are to be found almost entirely in Egypt.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:55:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

374 Journal of the American Oriental Society 100.3 (1980)

Finally, Soyez might have read further in De Dea Syria, and thus have utilized its witness with more care. For example, it is problematic for her that (pseudo-)Lucian labels a Byblian temple a "large Shrine" (etya ip6v) because a candidate for this temple is too small to merit this adjective (p. 27). However, (pseudo-)Lucian exaggerates throughout the De Dea Syria; for example, in para. 28 he writes that the pillars in front of the Hierapolis temple are roughly 1800 feet tall. This is typical of the author's ironic stance throughout. The De Dea Syria can provide valuable evidence for the worship of Hierapolis in particular and of a few additional Phoenician and Syrian sites in the second century AD.; but the work must be used with great care and with a keen awareness of its author's intentions.

ROBERT A. ODEN, JR.

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE

Sparta and Persia. By DAVID M. LEWIS. Pp. x + 168. [Cincinnati Classical Studies, Vol. I]. Leiden: E. J. BRILL. 1977. 32. -Gld.

Despite all that we know and the amount written on fifth- century Greece, our knowledge of the interaction between the Persian empire and the Greek city-states during and immediately after the Peloponnesian War is quite limited. Thucydides, for all his greatness, tantalizes more than he satisfies, omitting any reference to treaties such as that of Kallias (ca. 449) and Epilykos (in the 420's), leaving us only an incomplete record of the years 413-411 in his book VIII, and falling totally silent thereafter. Nor do Ktesias and Xenophon inspire confidence. In this short but rich book, David M. Lewis attempts to fill some of these gaps, examining the motives and actions of Sparta and Persia, especially in the years 413-386 B.C.

The first two chapters present an overview of the two states, focusing on the institutions and influences which especially shaped their foreign policy. Lewis skillfully exploits the rich treasure of the Persepolis Fortification Tablets published by Hallock in 1969, over 2000 texts dealing with administrative transfers of food commodities in the years 509-494 B.C., to look inside the Persian bureaucracy. We find that the salary of a Persian official was paid in kind, on a scale going far beyond what he himself could consume (while a normal laborer received a ration of 1 qa of flour, about a quart, per day, Parnaka, a high official of Persis, received 180 qa!). This practice undoubtedly was known to Plato, who in the Gorgias (490a 1 ff.) ridicules the idea that the ruler should have more food than the subject. Extensive records were kept detailing

ration-assignments for a variety of purposes, including travel on official business. In particular, the tablets reveal that responsible officials relied on large staffs of scribes and aides: Parnaka, the principal official on these tablets, had in these years some 26 scribes on his staff, not to mention the six of his subordinate Zi??awi?. Even this early, and as far east as Persepolis, one of Parnaka's aides was an Ionian, Yauna. The whole helps us imagine the nature of the staff of a satrap or of the king, and the role that Greeks may have had on them, especially in the Western satrapies.

There is no such new evidence on Sparta, but Lewis' second chapter reviews critically the work of De Ste. Croix, Andrewes, and Brunt, constructing an eclectic picture of Spartan institutions: the kingship was a generally weak position, little more than a hereditary generalship; the ephorate was important especially because, as an annual office, its policy could veer sharply; the assembly was on certain occasions a force of considerable influence, as with its threat to punish Agis in 418, or the decision to abandon Tissaphernes in 411.

The following chapters expertly guide the reader through the various stages of Persian-Spartan relations, concentrat- ing on those problems left unclear by Thucydides. Sparta's claim to be liberator of the Greek cities is accepted as an authentic statement of Spartan feeling, and a major cause of the confusion in Sparta's dealings with Persia. But Persia also has its problems: Lewis examines the conflicting evidence on the accession of Dareius II, and concludes, on the basis of a Babylon tablet (BM 33342) and Ktesias, that the death of Artaxerxes I was followed by a major convulsion, with two intermediate kings, Xerxes and Sogdianos, claiming the throne before Dareius could assert himself (pp. 70-76). This struggle, and the revolts which follow, are the Persian setting for the Athenian-Persian agreement, the Peace of Epilykos, mentioned by Andocides.

The Persian kings are seen as particularly sensitive to internal opposition. The Athenian support of the revolt of Pissouthnes, satrap of Sardis, and his son Smorges, only passingly mentioned by Thucydides, is a major factor in Dareius' decision to support Sparta, and Sparta's rash decision to back Cyrus the-Younger in 401 evoked the enmity of Artaxerxes II, which continued long after the King's advisers recommended that he accept the terms finally established in the Peace of Antalkidas in 386. Apparently Artaxerxes only abandoned the Athenians when they supported the revolt of Evagoras of Salamis.

Lewis makes a good case that it was only in the negotiations preceding the peace of Antalkidas that the Spartans ever abandoned their support of the Greek cities of Asia Minor. He notes in particular that the third treaty with Tissaphernes in 411 (Thucs. 8.57), which seemed in some ways a betrayal of the cities, was rendered inoperative soon after by the decision of the Spartan assembly (pp. 1 1 1-13).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:55:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions