Raquel Martín Hernández

5. Echoes of the Formula “Let the Profane Shut the Doors” (OF 1) in two passages by Euripides

The persistence of the formula has proved considerable, for we find instances of it dating from possibly the sixth century BC up to Byzantine times. Its meaning, however, has not remained unchanged. The formula came up in the realm of mystery religion with the aim of preventing the uninitiated from watching and hearing certain rituals. If we take the expression “shut the doors” in its literal sense, it could refer to some particular outdoor rites which only the initiated were allowed to watch, requiring all others to shut their house doors and continue to ignore the details of the ritual.2 Given that Orphism and Pythagoreanism are based on writings, there was a tendency to include the formula at the start of their sacred texts. In this case, the expression “shut the doors” takes on a metaphorical meaning, that is, it warns the uninitiated so that they stop reading any further, because, lacking the knowledge acquired by means of the initiation, they cannot understand the doctrines therein revealed. Even though the sacred text could circulate freely, its recipients would only be the faithful, the sole persons capable of understanding it. Besides, the formula doubles as a ‘seal’ (σφραγίς) which permits to identify OrphicPythagorean writings as such.

43. Note to OF 586: κρανιάρχης

In chapter V of A. Bernabé’s Orphicorum Fragmenta, in section de Orphei sectatoribus, we take interest in, under OF 586, one of several inscriptions that illustrate the flourishing of associations of mystic type and some Orphic heritage1 during the imperial period, especially in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Thrace and Moesia. As it has been observed2 as opposed to the Orpheotelestai of previous periods, which acted independently, this kind of associations are characterized more for their dependence from the State, their sedentary condition, meaning their bond with a sacred place, and especially for the wider range of posts, functions and internal hierarchies. The case we are going to discuss3 is a list of members of an association (σπεῖρα), created by the chief of the association, the σπειράρχης, at his own expense, ἱερωσύνης χάριν, with the purpose of “dar lostro al propio ufficio sacro” (Guarducci 1978: 189). Next to the names of some of the members are the posts that they hold in the association. Some of them have previously appeared in other texts, or are relatively easy to analyze, as the σπειράρχης, the ἀρχιμύστης, the ἀρχιβουκόλος the ναρθηκοφόρος, the κισταφόρος, the λυχνοάπτρια, etc.4 On the contrary, the interpretation of some is more open to discussion and problematic. This is particularly the case with the presence of three κουρής (ll. 21–23), one σειστημάρχης (l. 23) and one κρανιάρχης (l. 26).5