Chatper 1. The Pharmakos in Archaic Greece

The Greek ritual scapegoat, referred to as the pharmakos, provides an essential foundation for the study of legendary lives of the archaic Greek poets. The lives of Aesop, Hipponax, and Tyrtaeus are especially close to pharmakos themes and characteristics. The Greek ritual scapegoat is a complex religio-historical phenomenon, and aspects of it have been vigorously debated by scholars. Nevertheless, that the pharmakos complex existed in some form is undoubted.

The pharmakos [1] was a human embodiment of evil who was expelled from the Greek city at moments of crisis and disaster. The name is probably, but problematically, connected with pharmakon, ‘medicine, drug, poison’. [2] Both poison and drug were originally magical; so a pharmakon is a magical dose (Greek dosis ‘gift, dose’, cf. the German Gift ‘poison’) causing destruction or healing. Pharmakos then would be ‘magic man, wizard’ first, though the borderline between magic and religion is not easy to define; the early pharmakos might have been ‘magic man’ or he might have been ‘sacred-man’. Then, presumably, he or she was ‘healer, poisoner’, then later, expiatory sacrifice for the city and rascal, off-scourings, and so on. [3] On the one hand, the pharmakos could be the medicine that heals the city (according to scholia on Aristophanes Knights 1136c, the pharmakos is used in order to obtain a therapeia—‘service, tending, medical treatment’—for the prevailing disaster [4] ); on the other, he could be the poison that had to be expelled from the system (he is often ugly or criminal). Thus these two interpretations are not exclusive. [5]

Sometimes the pharmakos crisis was real (such as a plague or famine), [6] as at Massilia (“for the Massilians, as often as they were suffering from the plague …”) [7] and Colophon (“either famine or plague or another harm”). [8] Sometimes it was a periodic calendrical moment of crisis, as in the Attic Thargelia, when the city had to be cleansed before the first fruits of the harvest could be stored up. [9]

Usually a criminal or a slave or an excessively ugly or deformed man [10] was chosen as pharmakos, a cast-off from society. Strabo wrote that the pharmakos was “one of those who were guilty,” (at Leucas). [11] According to Plutarch, at Chaeronea he was a slave; [12] at Colophon he was excessively ugly, “the most deformed of all” [13] and at Athens, “the most unpleasant and mistreated by nature, maimed and lame man, such sort … they sacrificed.” [14]

At Athens there was a pharmakos for males and one for females. “They would lead out two men to serve as a cleansing [katharsia] for the city in the Thargelia, one on behalf of the men, and one on behalf of the women.” [15] Sometimes he was chosen by public vote. [16] In the case of a pharmakos as criminal, this public council would take the form of a trial, which must lie behind his selection.

He was called pharmakos, katharma (‘that which is thrown away in cleansing: in plural, offscourings, refuse of a sacrifice … in plural, purification’, LSJ), perikatharma (an intensification of katharma from perikathairō, ‘cleanse on all sides, or completely’), peripsēma (from peripsaō, ‘wipe all round, wipe clean’,—so, ‘anything wiped off, offscouring’ [17] ); at Chaeronea, an expelled slave was called boulimos, ‘ravenous hunger’. [18] The whole expulsion process was called katharsis. For example, Callimachus tells us that “at Abdera a bought man (became) the purification [katharsion] of the city.” [19] Pharmakoi were sometimes fed by the state, often for a considerable length of time (at Massilia for a year); sometimes, as at Colophon, they were fed immediately before expulsion. Bremmer notes that being kept by the state was usually reserved only for very important people. [20]

On the day of his departure, the pharmakos was dressed in “holy garments,” vestibus sacris, and adorned with sprigs (at Massilia); [21] at Athens, the two pharmakoi wore black and white figs. [22] The holy garments show the “positive,” sacral side of the scapegoat, which is also suggested by another name for pharmakoi, sumbakkhoi, ‘fellow-possessed’. [23] This suggests that there was an ecstatic, perhaps Dionysiac, aspect of the pharmakos. Ogden writes that the name probably means that “scapegoats were held to be in some sort of divinely possessed, ecstatic and exceptionally powerful state at the point of their expulsion.” [24]

After a procession and circumambulation, an important part of the rite, [25] the pharmakoi were driven from the city, [26] often chased away by stoning, a ritual that provides community solidarity (all who stone participate in the punishment), even as it extrudes its chosen object. [27]

At Colophon, the scapegoat was reportedly beaten around the genitals by figsprays and squills (large onions). [28] Outside the city, according to some accounts, whose reliability has been thoroughly debated, he was killed—by stoning, burning, or by being thrown over a cliff into the ocean. [29] At the very least, the reports of the pharmakos’ death show society’s desire for it; expulsion itself is a kind of symbolic death. There is some evidence, at least, that the death of the pharmakos was seen, ideologically, as a sacrifice, as a number of sources refer to the victim as being “killed” or “sacrificed.” A scholiast writes, victima … inmolatur. “The victim … is sacrificed.” [30] Murray rightly observes that these are late scholia, and that the earliest sources do not speak of killing or sacrificing a pharmakos. Even if this is accepted, it is indisputable that there was a mimēma of a death in the pharmakos pattern; Murray admits that this may show that “a pharmakos-sacrifice was known to have existed at some time somewhere.” Vernant suggests that human sacrifice perhaps did take place, originally, but Bremmer is probably correct when he doubts the presence of actual human sacrifice connected with the pharmakos custom. In the legends connected with the pharmakos, however, execution was almost a requirement.

The pharmakos custom actually took place, though details of how it was practiced are not always certain. But these ritual occurrences were always tightly bound up with stories serving as aitia for them in Athenian tradition: Androgeus is a figure who has not been given the attention he deserves, as pharmakos theorists have tended to focus on the ritual itself. It is significant that he was an athlete who had been victorious in the Panathenaic games: “defeating all the contestants in the games.” [32] He is thus a type of youthful vigor and agonistic victory, rather than the deformed refuse one might expect as background for a pharmakos myth. In one variant of his death legend, he was killed by the men he had defeated. “He was waylaid and murdered by the jealous competitors.” [33] Androgeus subsequently received hero cult at Kerameikos and Phalerum. [34] These data show an identification of the athlete-heroes of Fontenrose’s important article on hero-cult, “The Athlete as Hero,” with Androgeus, and, presumably to the pharmakos. [35] When Androgeus was murdered, he was on his way to Thebes to take part in Laius’ funeral games. [36]

In an important variant, Aegeus, king of Athens, sends Androgeus out to face the bull of Marathon, but the hero is killed by the monster. [37] Thus he fits the champion or therapōn pattern, to a certain extent. Another important variant has him killed in battle. [38]

Most of the sources agree that Androgeus is killed unjustly while in a foreign land. Accordingly to Diodorus, he was “treacherously slain,” edolophonēsen; the Homeric scholiast uses the same verb. Plutarch has him killed by dolos, deceit. Apollodorus describes him being ambushed, enedreuthenta, which suggests the irregularity of his death. Servius has him killed as a result of a plot between the Athenians and Megarians, Atheniensibus et vicinis Megarensibus coniuratis occisus est.

After the Athenians were afflicted with famine, pestilence, and war as a result of the murder of Androgeus, they consulted an oracle to find a means of deliverance. The oracle required satisfaction for Minos; so came about the familiar delivery of youths and maidens to the Minotaur every nine years. [39] Plutarch writes, “Now as to this tribute, most writers agree that because Androgeus was thought to have been treacherously killed within the confines of Attica, not only did Minos harass the inhabitants of that country greatly in war, but divinity [to daimonion] also laid it waste, for a terrible barrenness and pestilence fell upon it, and its rivers dried up.” [40] This is a combination of all three disasters with which the pharmakos was associated. Here, though, instead of the plague before the expulsion of the pharmakos, the plague follows the expulsion/death of the pharmakos, whose athletic victory had created a “plague” of shame for the native Athenian athletes. The seven maids and youths are, as it were, compensatory scapegoats.

The story of Androgeus ends with the rebirth motif, in a list of famous healings in Propertius 2.1.61–62: “And the Epidaurian god [Asclepius] restored Androgeon to his father’s home with Cressian herbs.” [41] That this story is consistent with Cretan saga is shown by the resurrection of Androgeus’ brother Glaucus by Polyidus, or by Asclepius in some variants. [42]

Istros, quoted in Harpocration, offers a different aetiology for the Greek scapegoat, the story of a man named Pharmakos:

Thus mythical aition and rite, as always, relate in a subtle interchange. One need not enter the debate on myth/ritual priority here, but it is worth noting in passing that these passages have the rite repeating continually a primary myth.

There are a number of stories exhibiting a regular scapegoat pattern, involving mythical pharmakoi, which often have no overt connection to cult; but because of their close resemblance to the actual scapegoat customs, they deserve consideration, though they must be differentiated as forming an alternate, parallel pattern. [44] They often have kings or princes or princesses as scapegoats, thus providing a contrast to the polar opposite ritual pharmakoi (though Androgeus, explicitly linked to the pharmakos rite, is a prince). However, as Vernant’s work on the ambiguity of Oedipus has shown, both ends of the pole are closely identified with their opposites. [45] But the legends have a different emphasis.

The story of Codrus, king of Attica, illustrates what is only hinted at in the pharmakos rituals: the identification of the preexpulsion scapegoat with a king or hero. [46] Codrus, when the Dorians are besieging Attica, receives an oracle predicting that the Dorians will never take Attica if they kill him. (The oracle is a common motif in the mythical scapegoat tradition; the logical thing to do in the face of a disaster is to consult an oracle to find a cure for it.) [47] So Codrus dresses as a slave, goes out among the Dorians, and arranges for himself to get killed in a brawl. The Dorians, finding out what has happened, give up their Attic invasion. [48] In one variant, the king dies in battle, [49] which is reminiscent of the variant tradition of Androgeus killed in battle.

Here we have the disaster (invasion); the descent of the greatest man of the land down to the level of the common woodsman, the lowest element in society; his voluntary self-expulsion from his land; and his death, which saves his state from the disaster.

In these legendary patterns, the motif of the death of young maidens or youths, often royal, is common. [50] As Kearns notes, often these saviors of the city-state are marginal, coming from unexpected sources; sometimes they come from the center, the king, as in the case of Codrus. However, often there is a combination of the two social poles, as when princesses (women, thus marginal; of the royal family, thus central) are the saviors. [51] Death is often voluntary, an important theme, as in the case of Aglauros, daughter of Cecrops, the first king of Attica. According to one variant, when Athens is besieged, an oracle states that the only chance of victory is for someone to sacrifice himself or herself on behalf of the city. Aglauros therefore commits suicide by jumping off the Acropolis. She is rewarded with an Aglaureion after death, where male ephebes later took their oath of allegiance in connection with their military service. (She is the first of eleven “gods” called as witnesses in this oath.) Once again, we find the scapegoat theme aligned with the military ethos. [52] The daughters of Erechtheus, sometimes called the Hyacinthides, offer a similar configuration of oracle-engineered self-sacrifice in time of war, hero cult, and use of cult for military purposes. [53]

There are elements of such a story in the actual pharmakos complex; invasion is a typical disaster, like plague or famine; [54] the preexpulsion pharmakos was often treated as an important person, not as the lowest of the low—he was fed well, clothed in holy garments, and adorned with symbols of fertility. According to one report, sometimes the acceptance of the scapegoat role was voluntary. [55] All victims in Greek sacrifice were ideologically voluntary. Bremmer writes, “People pretended the victim went up to the altar of its own accord, and even asked for its consent. Whenever the animal did not shake its head in agreement, wine or milk was poured over its head. When, subsequently, the animal tried to shake this off its head, this was interpreted as a sign of consent! … sometimes it was pretended that the animal had committed a crime …” [56]

As has been noted, even if the pharmakos was not actually killed, the city kills him ideologically. It seems likely that, if the Greeks went to such lengths to make it appear as if ordinary animal sacrifices were voluntary, the pharmakos—who may have been viewed as a sacrifice—might have been always at least symbolically voluntary. Though, as Bremmer notes, these scapegoat myths do not exactly reflect pharmakos ritual, there is an undeniable connection between the myths and the ritual.

Finally, there are examples of the legendary scapegoat receiving hero cult after he or she dies. This is the case with Codrus, who had a shrine in Athens. [57] The legend of Polycrite has close ties to the Thargelia ritual and the pharmakos. She was stoned oddly at the hands of her countrymen by “girdles, wreaths, and shawls” after saving her city from destruction (by being a fatal gift to the enemy), then died outside the city gate. Burkert writes, “The pelting with wreathes and clothes, as used in the parades of Olympic victors and their like, is equivalent to the stoning of the pharmakos and has the same effect. Polycrite must die outside the city.” [58] Her tomb was honored by cult, and she was given sacrifices during the Thargelia festival. [59] The legendary scapegoat, the ritual pharmakos, and hero cult intersect here. [60]

Thus the following themes can be found in the pharmakos tradition (including both the actual custom and the aetiological myths of Pharmakos and Androgeus, as they are closely connected to the rite), listed following the methodology of Fontenrose. [61] This list will outline some important recurring ideas, starting with the background of the pharmakos situation (communal, ritual pollution), then defining the pharmakos himself, then outlining the process of his expulsion, ending with his cult. Miscellaneous related themes from legendary or athletic traditions will follow.

1. Ritual pollution. This may be the first in a series of imbalances that need to be righted in the course of ritual or event. This is often caused by a crime:

1a1.Criminal impiety, as in temple robbing.

1a1a.Theft of sacred things, hierosulia, as when Pharmakos steals the sacred vessels of Apollo.

1b1.Inhospitality—the crime is committed against a stranger, unjustly, as in the case of Androgeus.

1b2.Murder—the stranger is murdered.

1b3. Deceit—the stranger is murdered deceitfully (Androgeus is ambushed).

2. Communal disaster. This can be plague, famine, invasion, cyclic period of infertility, or any combination of the above.

2a1.Plague. Oedipus.

2a2.Famine. Oedipus.

2a3.War. Codrus. Aglauros.

3. Oracle. Often an oracle can be involved in interpreting and prescribing a remedy for the disaster. Thus, an oracle follows Androgeus’ death and the resulting plague/famine. Oracles are common in the legendary tradition.

4. The Worst. In ritual sources, the pharmakos is a beggar, slave, or criminal—the worst. (In legendary sources, a king may dress as a beggar to enact his role as scapegoat, as in the story of Codrus.)

4a1.Beggar.

4a2.Poor or scanty food.

5. The Best. In ritual sources, he is dressed in beautiful clothes (not like a beggar), and is well fed, as if he were aristocracy. He symbolizes health and abundance before expulsion. In legend, royal victims, such as Androgeus, Codrus, and Aglauros.

6. Peripety. The scapegoat can undergo a peripety from best to worst; the well-fed and clothed pharmakos suddenly finds himself a hated outcast. This theme is defined better in the legendary tradition because there is more emphasis on the best, as in the royal victim. King Codrus must dress in rags to be killed, becoming a beggar overnight.

7. Selection by public meeting. In the case of the criminal pharmakos, this public meeting could be in the nature of a trial.

8. Voluntary. However, the pharmakos is sometimes voluntary. This is attested in the ritual tradition, but is almost de rigueur in the legendary tradition.

9. Procession.

10. Expulsion. The pharmakos is always expelled from the city. (Often after procession.) This is perhaps the key theme.

11. Death. Often the pharmakos dies, if only symbolically, especially by

12. Sacrifice.

13. Hero cult. As in the case of Androgeus; furthermore, cult awarded to scapegoat heroes is found in the legendary tales, the stories of Codrus and Polycrite.

23. Hero is sacred, superhuman.

Though not every story or rite will have all of these themes, the presence of a number of these themes will show some identification with the pharmakos complex. Especially conclusive are the following: 2, communal disaster, 10, expulsion of hero, 4, “worstness” of hero (ambiguous) because of crime or ugliness, and 11a, stoning or 11b, ejection over a cliff. Through the balance of this study, the ejection of an ambiguously worst hero from a city or country (including historical exiles in the case of Sappho or Ovid), or a more final form of ejection, execution, will be considered the central motif of the complex.

It is true that some rituals or ritual types may share characteristics with this complex. The pharmakos comes under the broad classification of purification and sacrifice. Yet though the pharmakos will intersect with other rituals, it also has important idiosyncratic elements. For instance, sacrifice had a form of pelting with grain, but it was not an actual stoning. Stoning was not regularly used as a form of capital execution; it tended to be an extralegal action of enraged mobs. Thus its use on a selected day of the year, or as a premeditated means of averting a plague, differentiates the pharmakos idea. However, any stoning is a manifestation of communal desire for expulsion; the victim dies or leaves. The theme of expulsion is central; the pharmakos is only a striking example of this, on a ritual level, an important pattern in Greek culture.

In addition, some themes are especially characteristic of the legendary scapegoat. These are related to the ritual pharmakos, but are distinct in some ways. Cult and myth cannot be separated, for the aetiological pharmakos legends are included in the preceding list.

The hero-athletes studied by Fontenrose again are related, if distinct in some ways, and their stories add a few important themes. The fact that Androgeus, the aition for the Athenian pharmakos, was a hero athlete, and that many hero athletes were stoned, and that legendary pharmakoi received hero cult, make their consideration here useful. They will be an important comparand for the lives of the poets. Bohringer concludes that these legends were based on preexisting myth and cult and were used or revived when the heroes’ cities faced specific crises. She sees a link between these tormented, violent yet “best” and saving figures and the figure of the warrior in Greek myth—both have a duality between “external action and internal rejection, belonging and marginality, defense of and defiance of the community.” [68]

To take a prominent legendary pharmakos, we may look at Oedipus. Here the crime of the hero (1a), the murder (1a3, 20) of his father, creates ritual pollution (1). This causes a communal disaster (2, 2a), plague and famine. Oedipus the king (14) sends to the Delphic oracle (3). Though there is no trial per se in the myth, there is a legal investigation (cf. 7), headed up by Oedipus himself, that eventually convicts him of the crime. Oedipus expels himself voluntarily (10, 10a, 8) from Thebes (eventually). He is the king, the best (5), but he turns out to be a patricide, the worst (4), undergoes a peripety (6), and is expelled from the city. [72] In Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus (433–443) he wishes for stoning (11a); he is viewed as a sacrifice (12). He eventually receives hero cult (13), [73] and like Androgeus, becomes a revenant (23d). [74] This is a typical legendary pharmakos pattern, which is characterized by the bestness, the royalty, of the hero, his simultaneous worstness and encapsulation of worstness, the voluntary expulsion, and hero cult. [75]