Harvard Divinity School

Trapezomata: A Neglected Aspect of Greek Sacrifice

Author(s): David Gill
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 117-137
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509212
Accessed: 05/12/2009 12:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org
HARVARDTHEOLOGICALREVIEW 67 (1974), II7-137.

TRAPEZOMATA: A NEGLECTED ASPECT

OF GREEK SACRIFICE
DAVID GILL, S.J.
BOSTON
COLLEGE
CHESTNUT HILL, MASSACHUSETTS02167

Introduction. Bloodless offerings of the most various kinds of

food are a common and well-known feature of Greek sacrifice at
all periods. The Greeks themselves thought of them as gifts for
the gods (Plato, Euthyphr. I4c).1 The gift was delivered by
simply putting it in a place, usually a shrine, where the god was
present to receive it. This form of consecration has been given
the appropriatetechnical name of "deposition," to distinguish it
from other methods of consecrating food-offeringsto the gods-
such as burning them or simply throwing them away.
Deposition of food also played a role in the most common
type of bloody sacrifice, the thysia. Here, in contrast with the
above, the god and his worshippers both partook of the food
offered. An animal was slaughtered; the god's portion- or
part of it-was burned on the altar, and his worshippers ate
1Throughout the paper I have, for convenience and ease of reference, printed
shorter references in parentheses in the text as here. The abbreviations of ancient
authors and works and of modern journals and epigraphical collections are the
standard ones. Other works are abbreviated as follows: GFR = M. P. NILSSON,
Greek Folk Religion (New York, 1940); GGR, 2 = Nilsson's, Geschichte der
griechischen Religion2, Vol. I (Munich, I955). PWK, "Opfer," refers to L. ZIEHEN'S
article in PAULY-WISSOWA, 17 (I939). LSAM and LSCG are respectively F. So-
KOLOWSKI'S,Lois Sacrees de L'Asie Mineure (Paris, I955) and Lois Sacrees des
Cites Grecques (Paris, I962). PZ is I. VON PROTT and L. ZIEHEN, Leges Graecorum
Sacrae e titulis collectae (Leipzig, 1896-1906). MISCHKOWSKI = H. MISCHKOWSKI,
Die heiligen Tische im Gotterkultus der Griechen und Romer (Kinigsberg, 1917).
MEULI, Opferbrauche = K. MEULI, Griechische Opferbrauche, in Phyllobolia fiir
Peter von der Muhll (Basel, I946). STENGEL, Opferbrauche = P. STENGEL, Opfer-
brduche der Griechen (Leipzig, I910).
There is no general treatment of trapezomata, or of tables of offering. The fol-
lowing articles in journals and encyclopaedias treat one or another aspect of the
subject: W. DEONNA,BCH [I934], I-90 (summary in AJA [I936], 356-60); S.
Dow and D. GILL,The Greek Cult Table, AJA [1964], IO3-I4; G. KRUSE,Men-
sa, PWK, 15 (I931), 937-48; PH-E. LEGRAND, Sacrificium, DarSag IV (I9IO),
973; A. DE RIDDER,Mensa, DarSag III (1904), 1720-2I.
2 Most of what this section contains is not
new, but I do not know that it has
previously been put together in one place. Its relevance to the matter at hand
will, I hope, become clear in the further course of the exposition.
118 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
the rest - the rest, that is, except for certain further portions
which were also assigned to the god and "deposed" (not burnt)
for him, usually on a special table. It is with these latter offer-
ings that I am concerned in this paper. The Greeks called them
- among other names - trapezomata; I shall do the same.
But first I return, by way of introduction, to the bloodless
food-offerings.

Bloodless Food Offerings.2 This form of sacrifice seems to have

had a variety of origins and types. The custom of leaving offer-
ings of food for the gods in their sanctuaries and in other places
where they were thought of as being present in a special way
is apparently very old. It is known in many religions, and its
venerable age among the Greeks is perhaps best illustrated by
the custom of placing small bits of food on top of the piles of
stones (hermai) that dotted the countryside and in which a
deity, later called Hermes after the stone piles, was thought to
be embodied (GFR, 8 and fig. 4). An offering of this type may
go back to a time before a personified deity was definitely and
clearly associated with the hermai and was originally perhaps no
more than a good-luck gesture inspired by the feeling that the
place itself was somehow holy.
These small, private offerings, whatever their original intention,
were also made to other deities. They consisted mostly of cakes,
fruit, bread, libations, and such things as people would themselves
normally have had to eat (PWK, "Opfer," 582-88; OCD2, "Sacri-
fice"). In early times the offerings were no doubt simply set
on the ground (Paus. 9. I9. 5) or on a stone. Later, when the
gods had temples and statues and when men more commonly ate
from tables themselves, it became the normal and natural prac-
tice to have tables to receive food offerings.3 Such, it seems, was
3In Iliad 6. 302-03 Theano places a robe "on the knees of Athena." The
robe is an offering; and the meaning seems to be that it was placed on the knees
of a seated statue of the goddess. Birds 5I8ff. indicates that food offerings
(acrXdcyXva at a thysia) were placed in the hands of statues. Cf. also Eccl. 777ff.
LSCG, 76-78 and I29, all from Chios, in a context of food offerings, mention ra
es Xcipas and ra es yoivvara. The expressions have been variously interpreted.
PUTTTKAMMER thought they referred to food offerings placed on statues. SOKO-
LOWSKIsays they are sums of money. For details cf. the latter's commentary on
LSCG, 77.
 DAVID GILL, S.J. 119
already the case in the Minoan-Mycenean religion, where offer-
ing tables and stands are well attested.4
The tables, which in historical times stood in most sanctuaries,
usually before the statue of the god, had other functions too, as
we shall see; but their most common, everyday use no doubt
remained the same: receiving the small, unburnt offerings of
private individuals or groups of individuals who came to visit
the shrine. The scene in the sanctuary of Asklepios, described
by Aristophanesin Plutus 672-81, illustrates the practice. There
were several altars in the shrine for burning fowl and one table
with cakes and figs on it. The scholiast takes the table and its use
for granted: EeiYtyap TparTEracLv TO1s epoL, iv als TOeaorTLrT
eTirepot/.eva. Servius on Aeneid 8. 279 is equally clear when he
explains why libations were made on a table and not on the altar:
"sed apud antiquos inter vasorum supellectilem etiam mensam
cum aris mos erat consacrari quo die templum consacrabatur."
The building accounts of the Hephaisteion at Athens (IG, I2,
371; 42I/0-416/5 B.C.) provide for a cult table along with the
statues. In lines 15-17 there is an entry paying a certain amount
(not preserved) to rpdaTreav Trot7^oravr; the very next entry pays
[] To [day]aXiarE Kat o(rreavrL ev Tr&vEO&.An
,LCuto-0E&craya'yovr
inscription from Delos mentions together two statues and two
tables in the Heraion (Inscr. de Delos, I4I7, Side A, Column II,
21-22; 156/5 B.C.). The Greeks who set up a statue of the god
Tanos in Egypt in ca. 360 B.C. added a table before it (CIG,
4702). And two inscriptions (IG, II2, 4963; 400-350 B.C., and
IG, II2, 1534 B, line 163; 247/6 B.C.) mention the setting of
cult tables in the shrine of Asklepies in Athens.
Preserved stone examples, some found in situ in temples and
shrines,give an idea of the prominentplace such tables could have.
Perhaps one of the best examples is the table found in the cella
of the small temple of Apollo Zoster in Attika (Arch. Delt.
[I927-28], 27-28; fig. 35). A solid stone block with sculptured
legs and lion's paws and inscribed with an honorary decree of
the cult association, it stands in the middle of the cella directly
before the statue-bases. On the Athenian Akropolis the base
4Cf. M. P. NILSSON,Minoan-Mycenean Religion2 (Lund, 1950), 122-44; and
the first chapter of C. G. YAVIs,Greek Altars (St. Louis, 1949).
120 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
of a large cult table is preserved in front of the statue-base of
Athena Hygeia (IG, 12, 395). Pausanias (8.31. 3-4) describes
in some detail the reliefs on the elaborately sculptured table
that stood before a statue of Herakles in the shrine of Demeter
and Kore at Megalopolis. And a first-century A.D. inscription
from Smyrna describes another very elaborate table, this one
before a statue of Helios Apollo Cisauloddonos: "and before the
table a marble dish for the use of the sacrificers" (SIG3, 996).
A big fifth-century table-top from Aigina (SEG, XI, 4; Philo-
logus [1967], 296-300), which is over two meters long and has
no fewer than eight shallow sections carved on its top surface,
seems to have been designed to receive offerings of various types
all at once, perhaps a type of panspermia.
Libations were also poured directly on the tables, as the de-
sign of some of them clearly shows. Most striking is a large
table-top from Epidauros (IG, IV', I, I 6); in the middle
flanked by two shallow rectangular sections, is a deep, round
basin like a perirranterion. A table from Troizen (IG, IV, 773)
seems to have had vases permanently attached to its top.
Another context in which unburnt bloodless offerings of food
were made to the gods was the household cult. Besides sharing
their daily meals with the gods and closing them with a libation
to the Agathos Daimon (GFR, 73), Greek families also made
gifts of cakes and other items of food on tables and small house-
altars, especially to Zeus underhis many householdaspects (GFR,
63ff.).
It was apparently from these offerings that the well-known
public meals for the Dioskouroi, the sons of Zeus and themselves
household gods, originated. At these meals couches were spread
and food set out on tables for the twin gods. Vase-paintingsand
reliefs show them descending on their horses to receive such
meals. Several instances of the practice are attested in the writ-
ten record (GFR, 69; GGR, I2, 409). The two texts in which
the table itself is expressly mentioned illustrate the origins in
house cult. Pausanias' story of Phormion at Sparta (3. i6. 2-3),
who was punished for his limited hospitality to the Dioskouroi,
is doubtless aimed at explainingthe custom of setting a table with
 DAVID GILL, S.J. 121
silphium before their statues in a private home. A fragment of
Khionides (ca. 486 B.C.) shows that the practice had at an early
date become a public ceremony at Athens. As quoted by
Athenaeus (4. 3 7e), he says that the Athenians used to set out
meals on tables in the Prytaneion for the Dioskouroi. They
offered "cheese, a barley cake, ripe olives and leeks" to remind
them of their earlier (and simpler) way of life. (Cf. GGR, I2,
plate 29, 5, a Dioskouroi relief from Tarentum.)
Meals for deities without worshipper participation were also
characteristic of the cult of the heroes, in which they are prob-
ably an extension or continuation of the meals that were held at
the graves of the dead (GGR, I2, I87). Even in later times a
certain type of grave monument was called trapeza (Cic., De
Leg. 2. 26. 66; Plut., Mor. 838 c-d; 842e). The only essential
difference between the two, it seems, was that the heroes, having
attained a measure of divine status, would usually have had a
shrine or chapel with a regularized cult and a table for their
meals. These meals may have originated in the Mycenean Age
together with the cult of heroes; and they no doubt were deeply
rooted in the religion of the common man. An indication of this
is the number of representations of the well-known type of a
hero reclining on a kline before a table piled with food; a heroine
is usually shown sitting at the foot of the kline (GGR, I2, I35).
A list of public fasti from Athens, dating from the early 5th
century B.C. (IG, I2, 840 A= PZ, I, I), includes, along with
the animal sacrifices to various gods, the mention of trapezai
for two unnamed heroes (or heroines). In the fasti of the Mara-
thonian Tetrapolis (IG, II2, 1358 B = PZ, I, 26) unnamed he-
roes and heroines also received trapezai in addition to animal
sacrifices. It is not clear whether trapezai are some sort of spe-
cial offering which the heroes got and the gods did not, or
whether they refer simply to trapezomata, i.e., the heroes' extra
shares of the thysia. In either case, at any rate, the rubric tra-
peza is to be understood not as the table itself, but as the food,
probably a portion fixed by tradition or left to the discretion of
the worshippers, which was offered on the table. See Pollux 6.
83-84; rpacrecag 8E'cKaXovv Kat rTa orTLaL a CETr'
avTrwv TLOte/LEva. The
122 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Heroon of Kalydon and the table found there provide a good il-
lustration of a hero's shrine from a later date (s. II p.).5
Meals of this type were not, however, restricted to the cult of
heroes. Reliefs of the same type as the hero-meals show gods
reclining at tables and goddesses sitting at the foot of the kline.
Among others, a relief in Copenhagen shows Zeus Philios and
his mother Philia; and the Lysimachides relief from Eleusis
shows Plouton and Persephone reclining at such meals (GGR,
I2, 135 and plates 28, 2; 39, 3). Both identifications are epi-
graphically assured. In the Eleusineion at Athens in the late
fourth century B.C. (IG, II2, 1933 and 1934), the hierophants
regularly appointed officials to care for the spreading of couches
and setting of tables for Plouton. The practice is also attested
for the first century A.D. (IG, II2, I935). In addition, the tables
set at the Haloa in Athens with "all the foods of land and sea
except those forbidden in the mysteries" (Schol. Lucian, Dial.
Meretr. 7. 4), may have been a meal of this type, in origin at
least.
Whether these meals for the gods are a borrowing from the
cult of the dead, as the similarity in the representations may
seem to indicate, is not certain (infra). It is possible, but since
meals for deities are known from other contexts too, viz., house-
cult, private offerings in shrines and in the Minoan-Mycenean
religion, the question remains open. In any case, no distinction
between gods and heroes seems to have been made in the his-
torical period.
In the modernliterature on Greek sacrifice, meals for the gods
and heroes have frequently been called by the general term
theoxenia (or theodaisia, its synonym). The Greeks themselves
seem to have been more sparing in the use of these terms, re-
stricting them primarily to special public feasts on days when
the gods were thought of as being present in the city in a special
way (Schol. to title of Pind., 01. 3). This was clearly the case in
the theoxenia of Apollo at Delphi, the best known of these feasts.
Polemon (ca. 190 B.C.) mentions the cult table used at Delphi
5E. DYGGVE,Das Heroon von Kalydon (Kopenhagen, I934), 67-68 and fig.
104.
 DAVID GILL, S.J. 123
in his description of the strange custom of bringing an onion for
Leto at the theoxenia (Athen. 9. 372 a-b).
Not every meal for a god, then, seems to have been called a
theoxenia. F. Pfister (PWK s.v.) handles only specifically named
theoxenia, and besides Delphi he cites only five instances. In
his article on theodaisia (PWK s.v.) he has only five entries
in all. For this reason I have avoided the term theoxenia, which
seems to have had a more restricted application, in discussing
the meals for gods. (For full discussion see F. Deneken, De
Theoxeniis [Berlin, I88i].)

Trapezomataat the Thysia. The thysia, in contrast to the of-

ferings which we have been discussing, was a sacrifice at which
both men and gods, as it were, received something to eat.
Whether we should consider it a common meal of gods and men
or a meal among men preceded by a gift of food to the gods is
not fully clear. For the moment we can leave the question un-
answered and come back to it briefly later. It is also not my in-
tention here to go into the vexed question of the origin of the
thysia and the reasons for the burning of specific parts.
In the most common form of thysia, as known from Homer
and throughout antiquity, the god's portion, the mrpta wrapped
in fat and other selected pieces of meat, was burned on the altar,
while the worshippersconsumed the rest of the sacrificial animal
in a sacral meal. The portions of the worshippers, therefore,
were choicer and much greater than those of the deity, and this
discrepancy seems early to have given rise to speculation. The
story of Zeus and Prometheus at Mekone (Hesiod, Theog. 535ff.
and infra) attacks the problem in its own way. The story tells
of how Prometheus tried to deceive Zeus for the benefit of mor-
tals. A sacrifice was offered, and when it came time to choose
portions, Zeus naturally had first choice. Prometheus wrapped
the bones of the animal in the shining fat to make them more at-
tractive, and Zeus, though he saw through the whole scheme,
chose them. From that day mortals got the better portions of
sacrifices. Later the Comic Poets (cf. Menander, Dysk. 447-53)
and the Church Fathers used the small portions of the gods as
material in their criticisms of ancient religion (PWK, "Opfer",
614-I5).
124 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
On the other hand, as L. Ziehen points out (ibid., 615), the
god's share in the Classical Period was in reality not so meagre.
Besides the .typta and the fat he also got the pieces of flesh
mentioned above, and more. Further, the blood was-some-
times at least- thought of as going to him. More important,
however, were the considerable portions of meat from the sacri-
ficial animal-variously called rparctEre Lcara, OEotfOLpLa, lEpa
Iwotpa or simply ra7 rrapartO8ELEva or rtOElteeva-which were as-
signed to the god - usually on his trapeza - at the thysia.6
This last is an aspect of the problem which has received very
little attention in discussions, both ancient and modern. Al-
though cult tables are occasionally mentioned in ancient litera-
ture, there is little specific information on the trapezomata. Pau-
sanias (9.40. 11-12) mentions that at the daily thysia for the
deified sceptre of Zeus at Chaeronea in Boeotia a trapeza was
set with Travroarctv' KpE?vVKat TTELL/LToaTv. Plutarch (Frag. 95:
Sandbach) seems to be referring to the trapezomata, and at the
same time trying to explain their origin, when he says that, by
offering the gods a portion of what we are about to eat
(a7rappacrOa), we sanctify the whole meal. This, he adds, is
the meaning of placing portions of the sacrifice on a table (Kat
yap at rTw lepov Tpa7pTreI(6o-EL TOVTO elXOV aTrapCad/eLvot yap airr
avrc)v Salvvvro). The emperor Julian (Orat. 5. 176 d) is prob-
ably speaking of them too when he refers to the types of animal
sacrifices (Ov/luara = Ovo-at) which are suitable for placing on
tables and sharing with the gods ('v povtov KOLOVElV aetovv KaL
TparE,ovv OEolt). And the reference in Aristophanes, Birds 518-
19, to filching the ro-rXdyXvawhich are given to Zeus at a thysia
is to be explained in the same way. The a-7rXdyXvawere his un-
burnt portion of the animal.
6 itself actually occurs only once with this meaning (LSAM, 13.15).
pa7refWyara
OeotLotpia occurs in SIG, 1026.20 and in HESYCHIUS(s.v.) in the forms OevuMopia /
Oevyuopltdw,on which see the following note. iEpa tgLopa appears in LSAM, 24 A.
33; 40.5; 44.6; 48.17; 52B.6; 63.7 (restored). The verb rpa-reo6w is found in IG,
V, I, 1390.86 (= PZ, II, 58); IG, XII, 2, 72 (= PZ, II, 118); JULIAN,Orat. 5.
I76d. ra 7rap-aTirtOe'va(iepac) or its equivalent is the most common designation.
In other cases, e.g., IG, II2, 1356 (= PZ, II, 24), portions are recognizable as
trapezomata from the fact that they are distinguished from the priest's portions
and placed on the (god's) trapeza.
 DAVID GILL, S.J. 125
tv oTav OVO)V TtL EITELT aVTOLT Es T7Vv

XcELp, s09 voYLO eEO

Tv,
ra ar&Xa'yXva 8TOV, AtoL, avToiLTrpoTEpOL
Ta (TrrXdaXva
Xa,3cOrtv.
The sacred laws and the cult inscriptions give a much fuller
picture. Their evidence makes it clear that these supplementary
portions were a common feature of animal sacrifices- and that
they could be quite generous. Besides -rrrXayXva, we hear of
thighs, ribs, and jaws (IG, II2, 1356 = PZ, II, 24) a KarapXr
(IG, II2, 1359 = PZ, II, 25); a tongue and three other (unspe-
cified) pieces of meat (IG, XII, 7, 237 = PZ, II, 98); a "feast"
(OGIS, I, 383. 147); a leg and skins (LSAM, I3); three (unspe-
cified) pieces of meat and -crrXdyXva(LSAM, 24 A). In addition,
there are several places which mention, without specifying the
portions, TprE'prre4/laTa, 8Erva, TrapaTLOE,eeva, and the like.
It is far from certain that every thysia included offerings of
trapezomata; but the practice seems to have been sufficiently
common. The portions which could be offered on the trapeza
were apparently not as rigidly determined as those that were
burned on the altar. They differed from cult to cult and consisted
for the most part of cuts such as the worshippers themselves
would have gotten.
There are some special cases which require separate mention.
In the cult of Zeus Panamaros at Stratonikeia in the 3rd cen-
tury B.C. (LSAM, 67 A) several oxen were sacrified at once
(/ov0vo-tav) and one of them (iEpELov TEXELov) was placed on a
table, after being killed and cut up, no doubt. The same was
apparently the case with the goat that was offered, together with
other sacrifices, on Apollo's table at Delphi (LSCG, 41, 22-24;
rmT| [[r7v TpaTr] eav ay a K[aXXt] cre-ovoTa). In a law from
Erythrai (LSAM, 24 A. I3-25; 380-360 B.C.), regulating sacri-
fices to Apollo and Asklepios, when one of the two gods gets a
sacrifice of a fully-grown victim (ipeov reXEov) or a young vic-
tim (yaXa0rvo6v), the other gets the trapezomata, whatever they
were; and when cakes (Ov-ra) were offered, each of the gods
received some on his table.
Quite frequently, as noted above, the exact portions that are
to be given to the deities are not specified in the laws. For ex-
126 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
ample, the Eleusinian fasti of the 3rd century B.C. (IG, II2,
I363. 12-13 = PZ, II, 6) prescribe the sacrifice of a goat to
Apollo and add simply: Tppdare4av KoOr-ro-aI rT&L OeCL lepeCTrvva
Ept -------. Likewise LSCG, 20. I4-I5 from Athens pre-
scribes a sacrifice TcL 8E ['p]coL iepelov rTXELov KaCLTparTelav
without further specifications.
7rapaTLOEvaL In these cases the
trapezomatawere either an amount set by custom or tradition
and hence no need to specify - or the amount was left to the dis-
cretion of the sacrificersor the priest. IG, II2, 776, an honorary
decree from Athens (s. III a.), may be referring to the former
situation when it speaks of [r7- re KOO-itLrjO-ECO)
rT7 rp]arrEqr1 Kara
ra [T7rrpLa] (cf. LSCG, 41. 25-26). The latter is perhaps illus-
trated in the law of the cult associationof Herakles and Diomedon
on Kos (SIG3, iio6, Column C, lines 95-IOI; ca. 300 B.C.
PZ, II, I44). When a member of the association was to be mar-
ried, a feast was held at which Herakles was the guest of honor.
The law states: "Let there be a couch spread at the images of
Herakles in the shrine until the wedding has been performed.
Whatever seems good should be taken from the sacrificialanimals
to the table of the god" (aciatpelv 8Edaro7r v lep [eiov &rov a v
80K] 't KaX&S EXELV ETL 77jV TpaVOTEIav
[ 7v O
7ov^ OEO] ).
The inscriptions that speak of a thysia accompanied by a
r(TpCO3c'L T7rS KXt7vsg and/or a T1
KOcrt crlS/eTtlKOcXrtrL-? g
TpaTre7)
may also be referringto trapezomataand the accompanyingcere-
monial. Usually the cult official who performed the thysia also
took care of the table of the god: in IG, II2, 676, the epimeletai;
in IG, II2, 775, the priest. In IG, II2, 1245 the duties of the
archon of the Mesogeioi included not only the sacrifice and the
adornment of the table, but also the organization of the proces-
sion, the buying of the animal and the distributionof the meat to
the members of the cult association after the sacrifice. In the
publiccult of Athenaat Athensspecial priestesses,the rparre,o4opog
and the KOO-c(l/, seem to have been appointed especially to care
for the ceremonial of presenting the trapezomata. Harpokration,
s.v. quotes Lykourgos' speech on the priestess
Tpatre1otopo%,
(Frag. 48), where the orator uses the term rpaTre0ofopog which
is the name of a priestess at Athens: o't 8' avirrT Te KaL 71 KOO-(rO)
crvvSCedrovt r7 Tr7
rTrdavTa 'AOq7viaLepeia. Becker, Anec. Gr., I, I,
 DAVID GILL, S.J. 127
adds concerning the rpaITreoio6po9 that she is the lepeLa T7V
rpadreav 7rapacL8elcra r- AOrjva. Hesychius, s.v. Tparrecov, says
that there was a priestess at Athens by that name. Undoubtedly
she had a similar function.
This appointing of special priestesses for the purposes seems to
indicate that the presentationof the trapezomatawas accompanied
by a certain amount of ceremony-at least at the big public
feasts. The sacred law from Kos mentioned above (SIG3, IIo6)
gives us some picture of how the ceremony must have looked in
a private cult celebration. Herakles was guest of honor, as it
were, at the sacrifice and accompanying banquet. The law pro-
vides that couches were to be spread at his statue during the cere-
mony, and that the trapezomatawere to be brought to his table.
We should probably imagine that the table was already there
before the statue, a permanent fixture like the one in the temple
of Apollo Zoster (supra) or that of Athena Hygeia on the Akro-
polis in Athens (supra). For the thysia and banquet the couches
would be added and the table perhaps adorned with special
cloths. The victim would be slaughtered, cut up, and cooked
outside in the open air; then those portions that were assigned
to the god would be brought in and placed on his table. LSCG,
6i, 74ff. (Aigiale; fin. s. II a.) depicts a similar situation, ex-
cept that there the victim is slaughtered at the statue: Kao TOV
KpLOV Tr Kpeda [6Xo]/LEX aOTroecravresvrapartterowav Tr
adydaXarLKat r7jv napadOeorv. No doubt the other tables before
statues in shrines were used in the same way. In general, as
argued above, they would have served to receive the unburnt
food offerings of individual visitors to the shrine; when there
was a special occasion -a feast with a thysia -they would be
dressed up for the trapezomataceremony.

Priests' Shares/Gods' Shares. Characteristic of the many of

the sacred laws is the distinction that they make between the
unburnt portions of the sacrifices that fell to the deity and the
portions which the priest received as his prerogative (Iepecorovva,
yEpa). IG, II2, 1356 (= PZ, II, 24), for example, has several
times the rubrics LepeiaLlepewcrvva,with the list of the portions
for the priestess, and irTr 8e r7' rpadrerav, with the god's por-
128 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
tions. See also IG, II2, 1359 (= PZ, II, 25); I363 (= PZ, II,
6), IG, V, i, I390 (PZ, II, 58); IG, XII, 7, 237 (PZ, II, 98);
LSAM, 24 A; LSAM, 36; etc. In many cases, however, the
priest in fact received not only the shares assigned to him but
also the god's portion as well. Some laws state this explicitly; in
others it can probably be inferred.
This state of affairs raises the question of why separate por-
tions should have ben assigned in the first place, if the priest was
to get everything in the end. Here is not the place for a full
treatment of the distribution of sacrifices. I intend merely to
illustrate the practice from the abundant evidence and indicate
some possible conclusions, which will be for the most part the
same as those already reached by others. The standard full
treatment of these matters is the dissertation of F. Puttkammer,
Quo Modo Graeci Victimarum Carnes Distribuerunt (K6nigs-
berg, 1912). See also P. Stengel, Opferbriuche, pp. I69-71, and
Mischkowski, pp. 34-38.
The earliest and clearest case is a law from Erythrai dated
380-360 B.C. (LSAM, 24 A). It contains rules for various types
of sacrifices to Apollo and Asklepios, and in each case it care-
fully stipulates which portions are to be placed on the table for
them and what amounts of money the priest was to receive. Then
follows (lines 23-25) a rubric which apparently refers to all the
sacrifices, and awards the trapezomata from all of them to the
priest: o'o-a 8e ErTL[r7v] I rpadTEavTraparEO7L
rt avra ELvat yEIpa
rctLlpEt (cf. Sokolowski's note ad loc.).
In the law for the mysteries at Andania (IG, V, I, 1390. 84-
89 = PZ, II, 58) of ca. 90 B.C. Mnasistratos the priest receives
oo-a Ka ot OVOVTE ....
.
TpaLrrECtrTL, which apparently amounts
to the same thing as the above. He also receives other preroga-
tives, including the skins of the animals sacrificed. In LSAM, 13
from Pergamon (before 133 B.C.) the priest of Asklepios is to
receive as yEpa the right leg and the skins of all the animals sacri-
ficed in the shrine; in addition he gets KaL raXXa rpaTrer4,ara
,rapacrtOeJLva [rot O]e[otg]. And in a law from Amorgos (IG,
XII, 7, 237; s. I a. = PZ, II, 98) the priestess seems to have
shared the [TraparcOtLEeva]Tr) OeCjLErr rv Trpaore,av with others
whose names have been lost; one may conjecture, however, that
 DAVID GILL, S.J. 129
they too were cult officials of some description. Finally, a law
from Thebes of Mycale (LSAM, 40. 4-6; s. III a.) simply in-
cludes the god's share in the list of the priest's prerogatives,seem-
ingly taking this arrangement completely for granted. The
priest is to serve for life Xa/jdvwv yXva-crav crKoXiov,
vevyp6[v,
lE] p'Yv ,Lolpav, KWX7V Kal Ta KOLcLa rTv OvoPEvowv. LSAM, 44.
3-8 (Miletus, ca. 400) is equally cavalier in its disposition of the
lep77pl ILOLpr7v.
The picture from these laws and others like them, therefore,
is clearly that at least from the early 4th century B.C. the prac-
tice in some, if not all, cults was for the priest to take not only his
stated share, but also the portions that were nominally assigned
to the gods as well. There are other laws where the situation is
not quite so clear, but we are probably justified in interpreting
them in the light of the above evidence, as L. Ziehen does for
the law from Attika cited above (IG, II2, I356, init. s. IV a. =
PZ, II, 24). It contains regulations for sacrifices to various
deities; in each case the portions placed on the table are Kc(OXqr,
TrXEvpov la'xio, rqJLLKpaLpav XopUs. Besides citing other laws where
the priest gets trapezomata for himself, Ziehen quotes Athen. 9.
368 c to show that just these things could be a priest's share:
s&orat Ja
LcdXLi' lEpEccTvva KOX?),ro) 7rXEvpov, 7lqJIKpatp'aptcrTEpa.
Further, he cites an inscription from Stratonicea (BCH 1904.
22, 7ff.), where a priest is praised because a7re'rw8KeVaTro-r)rvx7
TOc OE) 8 [e]riva
advEVEXXOeva Ka ra EKTWjVOvo-LWvyELv6oEvaycpa,
i.e., he disposed of his own shares and those of the god.
In IG, 112, 1366 (= PZ, II, 49) the god's portions are left on
the altar; they include -besides the leg, the hide, the head,
feet, and breast of the animal- olive oil, a lamp, wood, and a li-
bation. Likewise in LSAM, 79 the initiate who offers a sacrifice
is to receive wood, oil, and wine on the table. The lamp and the
wood are provided for the priest for the carrying out of the sacri-
fice and can never really have been intended for consecration to
the god except perhaps in a temporary way, i.e., for use in the
present sacrifice. The same idea may also have applied to the
meat that was placed on his table.
IG, II2, 1363 from Eleusis (init. s. III a. = PZ, II, 6) has in
lines I2-13 the rubic rpadreLav KocroultjaL iTL OecoLIepecoVvva lepeL.
130 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
The next line is missing. It may have specified the lEpEwo-vva
or
a sum of money equivalent to them, but it is equally possible that
they were synonymous with the trapezomata. In LSAM, 36,
from Priene ca. 200 B.C., the priest is apparently awarded only
part of the food on the god's table, and in LSAM, 34 (Magnesia,
s. II a.) he appears to get only one-third of it. On the analogy
of the above instances, however, we might at least suspect that
he ended up with all of it.
A slightly different case is LSCG, 20 (Athens, med. s. V. a.).
It decrees that the hestiator of the orgeones is to sacrifice, set a
table (rpadrrEav rapartO8vat) for the god, and distribute a certain
share of meat to each of the members of the cult association.
The distribution is carefully regulated, but there is no mention
of a share for the hestiator himself, though presumably he re-
ceived one. It could be that he received an ordinary member's
share, or, equally possible, he was already provided for from
the portions that he had set out on the table, nominally for the
god.
At Delphi (Athen. 9. 372 a-b = Polemon, Frag. 35) and Sou-
nion (IG, II2, 1366 = PZ, II, 49) ordinary worshippers were
allowed to take part of the trapezomata as a reward for special
piety. At Delphi, says Polemon (fl. ca. I90 B.C.), "it was de-
creed for the sacrifice of the Theoxenia . . . that whoever
brought the biggest onion for Leto should receive a portion from
the table"; and Xanthos decreed for the votaries of Men Tyran-
nos at Sounion (s. I post) that "if anyone fills the table for Men
Tyrannos, let him have half."
For the Classical Period, therefore, there is more than suffi-
cient evidence to indicate that the priest usually got for him-
self, in addition to his specified prerogatives, the unburnt por-
tions (trapezomata) offered "to the god" at the thysia. Some of
the sacred laws say so explicitly; others may be interpreted as
implying it. In none of the cases discussed above can it be
shown conclusively that the priest or his associates did not get
these portions. On the other hand, as the names Oeo,otpia and
lEpa uotpa indicate, it is all but certain that the portions were
originally intended for the gods in some real sense. Otherwise
the distinction between god's and priest's shares is meaningless.
 DAVID GILL, S.J. 131
Further, the table is "the table of the god"/"the holy table," and
the portions placed on it are often specifically said to belong to
him, both of which point to the same conclusion.
If by the 4th - or even the 5th - century B.C. these portions
were regularly going to the priests, the laws still maintained
the legal fiction of assigning separate prerogatives for priests
and gods. Some laws seem to have maintained it completely-
by simply stating separately the portions of both and not say-
ing who got the god's share; others, somewhat illogically, but not
untypically of religious conservatism, went on assigning separate
shares on the one hand and then explicitly awarding them all to
the priest on the other.7 The fact that in the 4th century this
was explicit in the laws points to the conclusion that it had al-
ready been going on for some time, as it would no doubt have
taken a while for such a practice to become official. Also, it is
an indication that the practice of trapezomata itself was older
still, and may have had its origins as early as the Archaic Age.
This negative argument is confirmed by some positive evidence
which we shall discuss presently.
Whenever it was that the priest became the regular and official
recipient of the trapezomata, the change must have involved a
changed view of the sacrifice and the god's/priest's part in it. It
may be, as Mischkowskiand others have suggested, that the priest
came to be thought of as the representative of the deity, and
that the deity received the food through him in some fashion.
This is far from certain, and the practice of retaining separate
shares for the priest - even though only nominally - argues
positively against such a conclusion. It seems more likely that,
as people realized that the gods had no real need for the meat,
the mere placing of the offering on the sacred table came to be
considered sufficient to consecrate it or transfer it to him in a
symbolic way. It would then be the gesture of offering it that
7 HESYCHIUS'entries under Oevuopia and OevuopLtaeirow may reflect the chang-
ing practice. The former he defines variously: chrapxrj. Ovarla. 6 Xaau,SLcvovairt
ol
LepeLsKpeas, e,reta.v O6rTraz.Oeoi opoipa.The latter, he says, is equivalent to Oew
pyepasdvapepeprw. Thus he states, on the one hand, that the Oevttopiawas the por-
tion of the priest, while implying, on the other, that it was for the god. If this
latter is not merely a deduction from the etymology of the word, as it well might
be, then HESYCHrUS may have been excerpting from two or more sources, some
reflecting the earlier, some the later practice.
132 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

counted, and after the ceremony was finished, the food could
be taken by an authorized person; it was "for the god" in the
same sense that the wood and the lamp in the laws discussed
above were for him, i.e., it was for the ceremony, and as soon
as the ceremony was over, he made no more claim to it.
A related question is that of the unburnt offerings of cakes,
fruits, etc. that must have been made daily in most shrines by
individuals apart from the thysia. It seems clear enough from
Aristophanes (Plutus 676-81) that at least in some cases they
fell to the lot of the priest. See also Plutus 594-97, where poor
people are said to take the 8errva offered to Hekate by the rich.
That the priest's action in the Plutus was legitimate is shown
by the law from Erythrai of about the same period (LSAM, 24 A;
380-360 B.C.), where it is expressly stated that if the priest
offers cakes on a table, these are to become his yEpa. If the
priests were regularly collecting trapezomata, there seems no
reason to believe that they left these other offeringsto the temple
mice. Pausanias (9. 19. 5) tells of one case where the fruit of-
fered in the shrine of Demeter at Mykallessos lay before the
statue of the goddess for a whole year. Still, the instance is an
unusual one, and needn't reflect general practice. Conclusive
evidence one way or the other is still lacking.
A possible hint to the mentality that allowed the priests to
take food that had been consecrated to the gods is contained in
a decree from Iasos concerning the priesthood of Zeus Megistos
(LSAM, 59; s. IV a.). The decree states that the priest may take
for his own any of the votive offeringsin the shrine that have be-
come useless; the others -those that are still good-are to
remain the property of the god and stay in the shrine: rTov8e
avaO[l7] frcoiv
a oo-a H a]Sv,
epyrrC
Irov xp
axr]Ta [],
;EpEaO
Ia 8e a'XXa avaOiq.ara rov 0Eov E'ro-Co.The same idea may have
applied to offerings of food; once they had served their purpose
in the ceremony, the god was no longer interested in them.
The idea that the gods actually needed the food offered in
sacrifices may have persisted among certain elements of the popu-
lation. At any rate, the Church Fathers find it worth their while
to attack this conception, though it is possible that here as else-
where they are tilting at windmills. Cf. Justin Martyr, Apol. I.
 DAVID GILL, S.J. 133

Io. I: 'AXX' ov 8&'crOat Tr) v&XLK'r

Trapa caOpcorrov 7rpocr4copa
ioAp, . V
rov OeoV, avrov a aeq ' p
TrapeLXrf)allev Trrapexovra Travra opCovrEs.

The Origin of Trapezomata. The presence of the trapezomata

at the thysia raises the questions of why they are there and whence
they came. That is to say, why should there have been at the
thysia two distinct methods of transferring the god's share of
the sacrifice to him: burning of certain parts on the altar and de-
position of others on his table? The two methods of consecra-
tion are decidedly different and seem to imply different notions
of sacrifice. For this reason it is difficultto believe that both were
originally at home in the thysia. L. Ziehen and K. Meuli have
both raised the question; and both have offered tentative
solutions, while admitting that they have left the problem still
basically unsolved.
Ziehen (PWK, s.v. "Opfer,"6i6) asks why there is no mention
of trapezomata in Homer, and how it is that the two methods of
consecration, burning and deposition, existed together in the
thysia. He suggests that the latter may have been the older and
more original method which in course of time was pushed into
the backgroundby the burning of parts, so that finally the trapez-
omata lost all significance and the priest became the main re-
cipient of the contents of the cult table. Meuli (Opferbrduchc,
2I8-I9) sees the cult table as possibly a borrowing from the cult
of the dead: "Dass das Heroenopferwirklich auf das olympische
Ritual eingewirkt hat, dafiir zeugt vielleicht der bei Homer noch
unbekannte, nun aber haufiger erscheinende Opfertisch (rpaTre~a),
auf den man die Portionen (rpaTrrEo4lara) hinlegte; denn der
Opfertisch wird doch wohl, wie KXLV)7und Opovos,urspriinglich in
den Heroenkult geh6ren." Meuli is in general interested in show-
ing that the whole notion of table fellowship came from the com-
mon meals with the dead and heroes, a notion which M. P. Nils-
son (GGR, I2, 145, n. 2) rejects out of hand. I shall return to
these theories below.
We have seen above that even strictly on the evidence of the
sacred laws the practice of offering trapezomata at the thysia
seems to go back at least to the 5th century and most likely
even earlier. Other evidence pushes the practice back still further.
 134 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Ziehen and Meuli both start from the assumption that trapezo-
mata are wholly unknown in Homer. This, however, is not the
case. True, the term is nowhere to be found in Homer, but the
practice does seem to be there in one place: the sacrifice at the
house of Eumaios in Odyssey 14, 418-38. The entire scene is
played inside the house of the swineherd. A five-year old boar is
brought for the feast; Eumaios brings it to the hearth (eo-Xapa),
cuts off some of its hair, and throws the hair into the fire, praying
at the same time for the return of his master, Odysseus. He then
slaughters the pig with the help of his guests and burns some of
the meat wrapped in fat on the hearth for the gods. The rest of
the meat they cook on spits and place on the table: 8 a/3XXov
s'ev EXELoo-'LvaoXXEa (line 432). Next Eumaios divides the
cooked meat into seven portions - his wisdom is praised for this
- one portion for the Nymphs and Hermes (accompanied by a
prayer) and the other six for himself and his guests:
Kat ra /1V eTrrrXa rravra &e,Lotparo 8at4tov.
vvL
Tr7v Ev iav Y rcrt
KaL 'Eptu, Matca8og vLe,
OKKEVETrev1CLievo%, raT o aaXXac VELLevC KKad-To.

(434-36)
The slaughter of the boar and the accompanying ceremonies
and prayers clearly constitute a sacrifice (thysia), though some
of the usual elements are not present. The setting aside of a por-
tion of one-seventh for the Nymphs and Hermes is in principle
no different from the practice of assigning trapezomata in the
Classical Period, except that here there is no special trapeza for
them. Eumaios simply puts the meat aside on the house table
at which he and his guests were eating. Even in later times there
was not always a special table for the trapezomata; in some
cases they were simply offered (unburnt) on the altar.
In the rest of Homer there is no mention of the trapezomata,
8 XEo6s here and in Iliad 9. 215 is rendered "kitchen-table, dresser" by LSJ. In
the Iliad passage Patroklos cooks the sacrificial meat and places it elv eXedaiv,
which is distinguished from the Tpadre~a on which he puts the bread (no rpdcirera
is mentioned in Od. I4). In ARISTOPHANES, Knights 152, the Sausage Seller enters
carrying an eXeov,on which he stands, in line I69, to get a better view. Accord-
ing to POLLUX(6.90) the primary meaning of the word was "a cook's chopping
block." In HOMER the word seems to refer to some sort of board(s) or block(s)
or table(s) reserved specially for carving meat.
 DAVID GILL, S.J. 135
not even in the description of the sacrifice and meal in Achilles'
tent (Iliad 9, 205ff.), which in other respects parallels the
Eumaios episode. At the normal Homeric thysia the gods ap-
parently received only the parts that were burned on the altar -
or perhaps more frequently on the ground. This, I would sug-
gest, corresponds to the original state of affairs. Against Ziehen's
suggestion that deposition of the god's shares on tables was the
original practice at the thysia I would say rather that it was
introduced later into the ritual. If trapezomata were original, it
is difficult to see the point of the story of Prometheus' deception
of Zeus at Mekone (supra). The story is no doubt old, and it must
have arisen at a time when the gods got only what was burned on
the altar. Also, the etymology of the term thysia - from Ovo =
"offer by burning"; cognate with Latin fumus = "smoke" - indi-
cates that the burning of parts was the primary element in this
form of sacrifice.
The presence of the trapezomata in the Odyssey puts the time
of their introduction back at least into the Archaic Period. Here
the positive evidence runs out.9 It is interesting to note, how-
ever, that one of the oldest known Greek temples, that of Apollo
at Dresos in Crete (8th century B.C.), seems at least to have
had the apparatus for trapezomata, whether or not they were
actually offered there. In the cella of the temple there was, be-
sides a wall-bench and a hearth-altar, a cult table which would
have served the purpose (cf. BCH [1936], 2I9-56). Also in-
teresting in this respect is the throne room at Pylos, where a
small round offering table was discovered near the hearth. If
we assume with some scholars that the hearth of the Mycenean
palace was used for the burning of the god's portions of the
thysia as was the case in the house of Eumaios - then we

9It is altogether possible, though not demonstrable, that trapezomata are in

fact older than Homer. The Iliad and the Odyssey are aristocratic poems; and,
for the most part, they reflect the preferences and beliefs of the kings and nobles
whose stories they tell. The sacrifice of Eumaios-a poor swineherd-to the
Nymphs and Hermes--local, popular deities is an almost unique instance in
the poems of the religion of the little man. The practice of offering trapezomata
which we find there may have been quite common in the popular religion long
before Homer. In any case, the fact that there are no trapezomata in the other
Homeric sacrifices does not necessarily prove that they were just beginning to be
offered at the time of the composition of the Odyssey.
136 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
have at Pylos a situation similar to that at Dresos and in clas-
sical temples, viz., an altar for burning and a table for trapezo-
mata. The Pylos table is Minoan in shape and design, but this
is no reason for believing that it was not used in a purely Greek
religious service. The temple at Dresos has Minoan features, but
it was clearly used for Greek worship.
If we ask the further question of why extra portions for the
deity were introduced into the thysia, we find a possible hint
once again in the story of Prometheus at Mekone. The origin of
the story is that someone was disturbedby the disproportionately
small share that the gods received. The original rationale, what-
ever it was, for the selection of these particularportions had long
since been forgotten. What better way to correct the apparentun-
fairness than by setting an extra place at table for the gods? The
parts that were to be burned on the altar were no doubt deter-
mined by tradition, and for that reason could not be tampered
with or added to - they seem, in fact, to have remainedbasically
the same throughoutthe history of Greek religion. But there was
another- and perhaps even older - method of giving food to
a deity, viz., by simple deposition, by leaving it for him in some
convenient and fitting place. For this type of food offering there
were apparentlyno hard and fast rules as to content and amount.
Further, it was an obvious and simple way to share a meal with
someone, i.e., by making room for him at table. Thus, the trapez-
omata were added to supplement the seemingly meagre burnt
portions that the gods received at the sacral banquet. No doubt
the two methods of consecration, burning and deposition, ex-
isted side-by-side in Greece before they were combined at the
thysia, and they continued to exist side-by-side, e.g., in bloodless
offeringsto the gods on the one hand and holocausts on the other.
As for Meuli's suggestion that the trapezomata may have
originated in the cult of the dead, presumably as an extention
to the Olympians of the meals placed on the graves of dead
heroes, it seems that the possibility cannot be wholly excluded.
That is to say, when it was decided to add to the god's portions
at the sacral meal, the practice of meals for the heroes may have
served as the model. On the other hand, there were other models
at hand as well: the house-cult and the practice of leaving of-
 DAVID GILL, S.J. 137
ferings of food for the gods in their shrines. Plutarch (Frag. 95:
Sandbach) seems to associate the trapezomata with house-cult.
The Eumaios episode does the same. This seems the simpler ex-
planation and the one that does most justice to the few scraps of
evidence that we do have. One further indication in the same
direction is provided by the rather widely held theory that the
thysia itself had its origin in the worship of Hestia, a household
goddess.
At the outset of this part of the discussion I mentioned the
problemof whether the Greeks thought of the thysia as a common
meal of gods and men or simply a meal among men preceded and
sanctified by a gift of food to the gods. Was there conscious fel-
lowship with the god to whom the sacrifice was offered or mere-
ly a human - albeit divinely blest - table-fellowship of the men
among themselves? There may have been a bit of both, though at
different times. The earlier evidence - the Eumaios story, Pro-
metheus' deception of Zeus, and the fact that an extra place was
apparently made at table for the god (the trapezomata)-
seems to indicate that the god was thought of as himself being
present at the meal in some way. Later, when the trapezomata
were openly assigned to the priest and when Plutarch speaks of
sanctifying a meal by giving the gods something before start-
ing to eat ourselves, ideas seem to have changed. The god is
more in the background, more a spectator at than a partaker in
the sacral banquet.