The secret meeting of wives is attended by the Spartan girl Lampito, characterized in the text in a stereotypical way. Unlike in Athens, Lacedemonian girls practiced physical exercises in the open air (one of the typical forms was the buttock-kicking dance mentioned by the heroine), so they were strong and tanned.

The passus is significant because of the comparison that appears in the issue of Lampito, who states that the Athenian girls examine her like a sacrificial animal.

Λυσιστράτη
ὦ φιλτάτη Λάκαινα χαῖρε Λαμπιτοῖ.
οἷον τὸ κάλλος γλυκυτάτη σου φαίνεται.
(80) ὡς δ᾽ εὐχροεῖς, ὡς δὲ σφριγᾷ τὸ σῶμά σου.
κἂν ταῦρον ἄγχοις.
Λαμπιτώ
μάλα γ᾽ οἰῶ ναὶ τὼ σιώ:
γυμνάδδομαι γὰρ καὶ ποτὶ πυγὰν ἅλλομαι.
Καλονίκη
ὡς δὴ καλὸν τὸ χρῆμα τιτθίων ἔχεις.
Λαμπιτώ
ᾇπερ ἱερεῖόν τοί μ᾽ ὑποψαλάσσετε.

Tr.: LYSISTRATA: Lampito, dear Spartan, welcome! How shines, my sweet, your beauty! How healthy and firm your body! You could strangle a bull! LAMPITO: How about the Dioscurs? I end up practicing and doing butt-kicking dances. CALONIKE: What amazing breasts you have! LA.: You're macing me like a sacrificial animal!

ὑποψαλάσσετε - 'you groping'; the verb ὑπο-ψαλάσσω is admittedly a hapax legomenon, but its structure and context of use here make it possible to understand what it refers to. The form without the prefix (ψαλάσσω) means to touch something, such as the strings of an instrument while playing. The prefix ὑπο may have soothing overtones or refer to the spatial category 'below'. Both meanings in this context make good sense: "you macerate me gently [tickle?]" or "you macerate me from below". This second aspect of meaning may have been interestingly reflected in the performative layer of the work. Aristophanes certainly made full use of the comic effect of the ambiguous play, in which a man (actor) dressed as a woman gropes another man, wearing hyperbolic attributes of femininity. Of course, this layer of the work remains completely inaccessible to us.

Modern commentators on the passus (Sommerstein 1990: ad loc. , Henderson 1987: ad loc. ) explain the comparison by pointing to passus that refer to sacrificing an animal when it is fat enough to provide good meat for the feast (Ar. Eq. 1135– -1140; Philem. Fr. 155). The scholiasta (ad loc. ) interpreted the place in a similar way: τὰ γὰρ ἱερεῖα μέλλοντες θύειν ψηλαφῶσιν, εἰ λιπαρά ἐστι ("for the animals that were to be sacrificed were groped to see if they were fat"). Regardless of these practical and perhaps even hedonistic motives, the necessity of subjecting an animal to inspection was dictated by purely religious factors (for more on this see Feyel 2006; ad Ar. Ach. 784).

As part of Lysistrata's comical plan, the younger women are to influence their husbands by striking in their bedrooms. The older ones, who cannot play such a role, were given the task of controlling the strategic position on the Acropolis. The passus does not contain any absolutely clear information about the blood sacrifice, however there is a valuable suggestion in it. Namely, something obvious for Athenians must have been the presence of elderly women on the Acropolis in the early morning hours (when the The action of the work), related to cultic activity.

The word θύειν used in the text may mean making a blood sacrifice or another form of worship. It is not clear whether the passus refers to any particular cultic activities performed by old women on the Acropolis. It is possible that we are dealing here with a stereotype (probably justified by the Athenian reality), according to which old women are a social group particularly prone to devotion. In this case, the passage could refer to spontaneous, self-initiated sacrifices made by old women.

Λυσιστράτη
Ταῖς πρεσβυτάταις γὰρ προστέτακται τοῦτο δρᾶν,
ἕως ἂν ἡμεῖς ταῦτα συντιθώμεθα,
θύειν δοκούσαις καταλαβεῖν τὴν ἀκρόπολιν.

Tr.: LYSISTRATA: It fell to the older women to go and occupy the Acropolis while we are dating here, under the guise of making offerings.

The passus contains a comical oath scene. Unlike the paragmatic ritual of the thysia type, the sacrifice, which was usually crowned with a joyful feast, the oath ceremony was rather gloomy, as there were still present terrible sanctions for failure to keep the obligations. The slaughtered animal was not eaten. The scene in Aristophanes contains contrasting elements; seriousness gives way here to clownishness.

The women, instead of slaughtering the animal, open the jug and instead of blood the wine flows, alluding to the comedic stereotype that Athenian women were fond of the drink, which they drank unmixed with water in secret from their husbands.

Λυσιστράτη
τί δῆτα ταῦτ᾽ οὐχ ὡς τάχιστ᾽ ὦ Λαμπιτοῖ
ξυνωμόσαμεν, ὅπως ἂν ἀρρήκτως ἔχῃ;
Λαμπιτώ
πάρφαινε μὰν τὸν ὅρκον, ὡς ὀμιόμεθα.
Λυσιστράτη
καλῶς λέγεις. ποῦ 'σθ᾽ ἡ Σκύθαινα; ποῖ βλέπεις;
(185) θὲς ἐς τὸ πρόσθεν ὑπτίαν τὴν ἀσπίδα,
καί μοι δότω τὰ τόμιά τις.
Καλονίκη
Λυσιστράτη
τίν᾽ ὅρκον ὁρκώσεις ποθ᾽ ἡμᾶς;
Λυσιστράτη
ὅντινα;
εἰς ἀσπίδ᾽, ὥσπερ φάσ᾽ ἐν Αἰσχύλῳ ποτέ,
μηλοσφαγούσας.
Καλονίκη
μὴ σύ γ᾽ ὦ Λυσιστράτη
(190) εἰς ἀσπίδ᾽ ὀμόσῃς μηδὲν εἰρήνης πέρι.
Λυσιστράτη
τίς ἂν οὖν γένοιτ᾽ ἂν ὅρκος;
Καλονίκη
εἰ λευκόν ποθεν
ἵππον λαβοῦσαι τόμιον ἐντεμοίμεθα.
Λυσιστράτη
ποῖ λευκὸν ἵππον;
Καλονίκη
ἀλλὰ πῶς ὀμούμεθα
ἡμεῖς;
Λυσιστράτη
ἐγώ σοι νὴ Δί᾽, ἢν βούλῃ, φράσω.
(195) θεῖσαι μέλαιναν κύλικα μεγάλην ὑπτίαν,
μηλοσφαγοῦσαι Θάσιον οἴνου σταμνίον
ὀμόσωμεν ἐς τὴν κύλικα μὴ 'πιχεῖν ὕδωρ.
Λαμπιτώ
φεῦ δᾶ τὸν ὅρκον ἄφατον ὡς ἐπαινίω.
Λυσιστράτη
φερέτω κύλικά τις ἔνδοθεν καὶ σταμνίον.
Μυρρίνη
ὦ φίλταται γυναῖκες, `ὁ´ κεραμεὼν ὅσος.
Καλονίκη
ταύτην μὲν ἄν τις εὐθὺς ἡσθείη λαβών.
Λυσιστράτη
καταθεῖσα ταύτην προσλαβοῦ μοι τοῦ κάπρου.
δέσποινα Πειθοῖ καὶ κύλιξ φιλοτησία,
τὰ σφάγια δέξαι ταῖς γυναιξὶν εὐμενής.
Καλονίκη
εὔχρων γε θαἶμα κἀποπυτίζει καλῶς.
Λαμπιτώ
καὶ μὰν ποτόδδει γ᾽ ἁδὺ ναὶ τὸν Κάστορα.
Μυρρίνη
ἐᾶτε πρώτην μ᾽ ὦ γυναῖκες ὀμνύναι.
Καλονίκη
μὰ τὴν Ἀφροδίτην οὔκ, ἐάν γε μὴ λάχῃς.
Λυσιστράτη
λάζυσθε πᾶσαι τῆς κύλικος ὦ Λαμπιτοῖ:
(210) λεγέτω δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μί᾽ ἅπερ ἂν κἀγὼ λέγω:
ὑμεῖς δ᾽ ἐπομεῖσθε ταὐτὰ κἀμπεδώσετε.
οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεὶς οὔτε μοιχὸς οὔτ᾽ ἀνήρ—
Καλονίκη
οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεὶς οὔτε μοιχὸς οὔτ᾽ ἀνήρ—
[...]
Λυσιστράτη
ταῦτ᾽ ἐμπεδοῦσα μὲν πίοιμ᾽ ἐντευθενί:
Καλονίκη
ταῦτ᾽ ἐμπεδοῦσα μὲν πίοιμ᾽ ἐντευθενί:
Λυσιστράτη
εἰ δὲ παραβαίην, ὕδατος ἐμπλῇθ᾽ ἡ κύλιξ.
Καλονίκη
εἰ δὲ παραβαίην, ὕδατος ἐμπλῇθ᾽ ἡ κύλιξ.
Λυσιστράτη
συνεπόμνυθ᾽ ὑμεῖς ταῦτα πᾶσαι;
Πᾶσαι
νὴ Δία.
Λυσιστράτη
φέρ᾽ ἐγὼ καθαγίσω τήνδε.
Καλονίκη
τὸ μέρος γ᾽ ὦ φίλη,
ὅπως ἂν ὦμεν εὐθὺς ἀλλήλων φίλαι.

Tr.: LYSISTRATA: Why then, Lampito, do we not take an oath at once to make the arrangement indissoluble? LAMPITO: So present her words so we can swear. LY..: Right. Where's Scythian? What are you looking at? [185] Give this tarpart concave side up. Let someone pass the sliced offering. CALONIKE: Lysistrato, what oath you want, would we bond? LY.:Which one? Such as Aeschylus is said to have once fated, slaughtering a sheep over a shield. KA.:Just [190] not over the shield, since this is about peace. LY.: Then what should we swear to? KA.:Why don't we get a white cat from somewhere, cut it into pieces and swear over it? LY..: Where did the white horse come from? KA.:Then how do we swear? LY.: If you will, I will tell you, by Zeus. [195] Take a large black spell and set it to butcher a jug of wine from Thasos, and swear never to pour water into that spell. LA.: Verily, I commend this extraordinary kind of oath. LY.: Then let someone bring a spell and a pitcher. MYRRINE: [200] Dear women, such a big jug! KA.: Just take this spell in your hands to experience pleasure. LY..: Put her down and hold the boar. O Peitho, ruler, and you, sorceress of friendship, accept this offering, O benevolent woman. KA.: [205] Beautiful is the color of this blood, and it gushes forth magnificently. LA.: And, by Kastor, it smells delightful. WE..: Let me be the first to swear. KA: On Aphrodite, no way, unless you pull a fate. LY.: Lampito, catch all the spell. [210] Let one in the name of all repeat after me, and let the others approve it with an oath. "No lover or husband.... KA.: "No lover or husband... [...] LY..: [233] ...if I keep this, may I drink from it.... KA.: ...if I keep this, let me drink from it... LY..: [235] ...and if I do not keep the faith, let the cup be filled with water. KA..: and if I do not keep the faith, let the cup be filled with water. LY..: You all swear. WOMAN: By Zeus! LY.: I will now perform an act of sacrifice. KA.:Just a little, my dear, so we could be friends right away.

The oath-related sacrifice is a category of concern from a typological point of view. It seems that in the "emic" view, it was something entirely different from thysia, as evidenced by Perhaps the very vocabulary used in the passage.

The noun τὰ σφάγια appears here as a synonym, denoting bloody sacrifices, which are not eaten. The action performed by the heroine, or one of the actions, is in turn denoted by the verb καθαγίζω, 'to ritually destroy'. This suggests that we are dealing with a ritual whose primary goal is not to win over friendly forces, but to drive away hostile ones (Parker 2011: 141 - the opposition between conjunctive and disjunctive sacrifices is a variant of the more established in scholarship division into olimpic and chthonic sacrifices, cf. Scullion 1994). In spite of these lexical indications, the passus in question contains quite a few data suggesting that the distinction between types of rituals was not strict enough.

The structure of the ritual, visible under the layer of comic distortion, is analogous to that in thysia: the heroines bring in the "animal" and a prayer follows (203-204). It is worth noting that it contains a request to the goddess to accept the sacrifice (τὰ σφάγια δέξαι). The addressee herself is described as ταῖς γυναιξὶν εὐμενής ('benevolent to women'), which is a typical rhetorical device in prayer, involving the identification of a deity with an epithet containing a projection of his desired relationship with the worshipper. The place suggests that the sacrifice (τὰ σφάγια) may be treated as the equivalent of a gift, something the giving of which, on the one hand, and the receiving of which, on the other, opens up a type of benevolent relationship. What is characteristic of sphagia-type rites, the accent falls on "blood." In the case of thysia, it would flow into the sphageion bowl, a small part of it would be used to anoint the altar, and the rest would be used for offal (Ekroth 2005). In the ritual under discussion, the blood was collected into a vessel (the choice of which clearly had symbolic significance) to be used in some way. The comic distortion and vagueness of the text without dideliquaries make it difficult to say what actually happened on stage at that place and what kind of behaviour it corresponded to in the ritual reality. However, it seems characteristic that the end of the ritual is connected here with the pleasure of feasting together, similarly to Thysia, where the slaughter was crowned with tasting the roasted entrails. The feast associations are perhaps not so much the result of a comic distortion as a sign of the times.

Indeed, it is clear from Pausanias (5.24.10-11) that while there was a custom among Homeric heroes to discard the entire carcass of animals (cf. Il. 19.266-8) over which they swore, his contemporaries (2nd century AD) did not always, if ever, observe this injunction. As Parker (2011: 157-158; 1996: 105; Stengel 1920: 137-138) notes, change (if one can indeed speak of change, treating Homera as a source authoritatively reflecting social reality) may have occurred very early on. It is known that already in the classical period the flesh of an animal over which an oath was taken during Apaturia was eaten (for an extensive source base see: Parker 1996: 105). More on oaths: Sommerstein, Bayliss (2013) and Sommerstein, Torrance (2014).

184: ἡ Σκύθαινα - "Scythian"; in Athens the troops of order were recruited from among the Scythians, who wore a characteristic foreign dress. Their image in the comedy indicates the existence of negative stereo-types about them. The presence of a female counterpart of Scythia in the scene paradoxically indicates that the scene is a parody of a typical Athenian ritual performed in public, assisted by a guardian of order.

186/192: τὰ τόμια - sliced sacrifice / τόμιον ἐντεμοίμεθα - "we will cut into pieces"; the practice of a person taking an oath by standing on or touching something described as τόμια is well attested (e.g. D. 23.68; Arist. Ath. 55.5; Antipho 5.12; Aesch. 1.114; Lycurg. 1.20). The context, the etymology of the phrase, as well as the formula τόμιον ἐντεμοίμεθα (cf. Aesch. 2.87: τἐμνοντα τὰ τόμια) leave no doubt that what is meant is parts of an animal cut off, excised or chopped (the Homeric formula, e.g. in Il. in Il. 2.124 ὅρκια πιστὰ ταμόντες - "having cut = having made an inviolable covenant"). The details unfortunately remain a matter of conjecture. Stengel (1910: 80-85), Stengel (1920: 137), cf. Bur-kert (2011: 378), Burkert (1985: 251), Burkert (1983: 36) has expressed a bold conjecture that it may be about nuclei (cut off), but as Faraone (1993: 68) notes, there are no strong indications to support this, that it was not viscera (cut and sliced σπλάγχνα) or cut meat (cf. Ekroth 2014: 164-165; Casabona 1966: 220-225). It is also possible that the type of objects which were used as τόμια varied and depended on factors which are elusive for us (apart from chronology and geography, the content of oaths, their public or private character, etc.).

>185-90: the verses contain an explicative reference to a place in Aeschylus' Seven against Thebes (42-48; words of the scout): ἄνδρες γὰρ ἑπτά, θούριοι λοχαγέται, / ταυροσφαγοῦντες ἐς μελάνδετον σάκος / καὶ θιγγάνοντες χερσὶ ταυρείου φόνου, / Ἄρη τ', ᾿Ενυώ, καὶ φιλαίματον Φόβον / ὡρκωμότησαν ἢ πόλει κατασκαφὰς / θέντες λαπάξειν ἄστυ Καδμείων βίαι, / ἢ γῆν θανόντες τήνδε φυράσειν φόνωι ("For, behold, seven men, bold commanders,/ slaughtered a bull, collecting the blood into a shield with black edges/ and with their hands they touched the bull's blood,/ on Ares, Enyo and Grosha, greedy for blood/ they took an oath that either they would bring destruction to the city/ and destroy it by force, / or dying, they would mix their own blood with this land" - transl. K. Bielawski). Obviously, this suggestive image should be approached with equal caution as the Aristophanic grotesque. For these words refer to the behavior of hyperbolic violators from the mythical past. It is worth noting, however, that the existence of such a ritual practice is largely confirmed by Xenophon (An. 2.2.9), who describes how three animals (a bull, a boar and a ram) were slaughtered, their blood was collected in a shield, after which the Greeks and their allies dipped their swords and spears in it and swore an alliance. It seems significant that Aeschylus emphasises the symbolic connection between shed animal blood and human blood. It is present in the nickname of the personification Phobos - the noun, treated as the name of a deity, defines "panic-stricken fear". In the framework of the war technique of Aeschylus' times, this very phenomenon led to breaking formation, disorderly flight and the slaughter of warriors. The blood mentioned here is also that of the seven chiefs who swear to die if they do not capture the city. Thus, the poet clearly treats the act of violence against the animal as a representation of what is the object of the bohater's promise: to perform an act of violence. It should not in such a contextIt is surprising that Lysistrata's idea to repeat the gesture known from Aeschylus is met with violent rejection. Aristophanes' women are concerned with peace, so the entire ritual, rather than blood as a material representation of the object of the oath, will invoke wine, a liquid that gives pleasure to the stereotypical Athenian woman and which was probably quite commonly associated with peace (cf. Ar. Pax: sparsim; E. Ba 417-433; Il. 6.264-268)

189: μηλοσφαγούσας -'butchering a sheep'; in Aeschylus (Th. 186) the word ταυροσφαγοῦντες appears, 'butchering a bull', as one should infer from the structure of the compositum and from the fact that in the following verse bull's blood is mentioned. It should be noted, however, that in Aristophanes' time, although the structure of these two compounds was still obvious, they clearly lost their original meaning ("to slaughter a sheep/ bull") in favour of a more general one: "to slaughter any animal". (cf. schol. ad loc. ). It is hard to resist the impression that the poet wanted to make a joke here, replacing the word associated with a more prestigious victim with one that refers to a more common one. Such an interpretation, however, seems overly subtle, as it would require the audience to memorize Aeschylus' text very precisely. From a syntactic point of view, it is interesting to note the behaviour of the verb μηλο-/ ταυρο-σφαγέω, which in the places discussed occurs with the circumstance εἰς ἀσπίδα / ἐς σάκος, 'to tarif' (where two different nouns name two types of shields). The point, of course, is that the blood from the butchered animal, which is the prosessential object of interest during the ritual, is to flow into such an improvised vessel.

191-2: λευκὸν ἵππον -"a white horse"; the place unclear. Scholiasta sees here either an obscene joke or an allusion to the customs of the Amazons, who, he writes, sacrificed white horses (λευκοὺς ἵππους ἔθυον). The first of these hypotheses, as usual with Aristophanes' text, seems attractive. Since we do not know what happened on the stage, it cannot be ruled out that the wit contained here was not only piquant but also perfectly readable, thanks to the gesture accompanying the words.

On the other hand, the fact that Scholiast gives an alternative variant of the explanation indicates that he himself did not have sufficient data concerning the performative layer to state anything certain about the content of the passus. The second interpretation he gives seems all the more unconvincing because nothing is known from other sources about the sacrifices allegedly made by the Amazons. Herodotus (7.113) mentions the ritual killing of white horses by Persian magi, and Lukian (Scyth. 3) mentions sacrificing them on the grave of a Scythian herosa. These two passages connect themselves with the customs of the Amazons at best indirectly. They also do not contain anything that would be obviously associated with the place in question in Aristophanes. Since the passus was obviously intended to evoke laughter, one can suspect that the allusion contained in it was well readable, and therefore referred to something well known to the audience. Presumably, therefore, the scholiast's speculative explanations only distance us from grasping the essence of the joke, which could have been about something very topical at the time the play was performed. It is with a similar distance that we should consider the proposal of Fletcher (2012: 228), who pointed to the oath taken by Helen's suitors as a parallel. In this ritual, according to Pausanias (3.20.9), a tom of a horse (we do not know what breed) was used, but it is difficult to say whether this tradition was known to Aristophanes' audience.

196: μηλοσφαγοῦσαι Θάσιον οἴνου σταμνίον -'to butcher a jug of wine from Thasos'. Lysistrata (here and consistently further on) uses the technical language of blood sacrifice, applying it to actions that are not sacrifices (μηλοσφαγέω - cf. 189). They are also not libations sensu stricto (as Henderson 1987: ad loc.), because wine is not poured on the ground here, but into a vessel. Wine from Thasos was famous for its quality, so clearly, as usual in comedy, the hedonistic dimension of the parodied ritual comes to the fore. The sacrifice of a vessel of wine also in: Ar. Th. 686-762.

202: προσλαβοῦ μοι τοῦ κάπρου - 'hold the boar'. Henderson (1987: ad loc. ), in his commentary on the passus, points out that laying hands on the animal before butchering it had important symbolic significance. I suppose that this is just a misunderstanding, because the scholar refers to the passus (cit. ad 185-190) from Aeschylus (Th. 42), which speaks of immersing hands in blood already after the slaughter, and to the place in Stengel (1920: 136), where it is about cutting off strands of hair from the victims (in Iliad 3.273-274) and handing them over to the leaders of the Achaeans and Trojans. This last gesture (cf. Eustathius: ad loc.) clearly had a meaning analogous to giving the oath-takers entrails or pieces of the slaughtered animal and probably had nothing to do with putting hands on it before killing it. For this reason, it can be assumed that the expression given by Lysistrata in the discussed passages imitates the behaviour connected with the sacrificial routine of a purely pragmatic character and is devoid of deep symbolism. Because the heroines were so preoccupied with the chalice, the leader had to call them to order, ordering them to help hold the animal, while she herself (apparently) intended to strike a blow. Why the text refers to a boar (κάπρος) remains a matter of debate. Although commentators (Henderson 1987: ad loc.; Sommerstein 1990 ad loc.) suggest that it may be influenced by an analogous scene in the Iliad (19.249-268), in which Agamemnon slaughters such an animal, it is difficult to say why this place should be more significant than, for example, a passus from book III of the Iliad (271-323), in which the hero slaughters two sheep. Since the available data do not indicate that the pigs are particularly connected with the context of the story, perhaps we should suppose some kind of wordplay here. Scholiast (ad loc. ) notes that the word for boar is used here by Aristophanes in the sense of 'genitalia', which seems to be an attractive suggestion, unfortunately not confirmed by the lexical material. Of course, instead of a boar, the heroines "butcher" a jug of wine.

203-204: a very short prayer containing an invocation to two goddesses (one of whom is purely a comic personification), a request to accept an offering (in the singular, but I think both goddesses). The epithet reveals that the aim of the ritual is to win over immortals (this time, however, it probably refers only to the second goddess mentioned).

205: εὔχρων γε θαἶμα κἀποπυτίζει καλῶς -"beautiful is the colour of this blood and it gushes forth magnificently". Another in a series of jokes based on double-meaning: wine/blood. Scholia (ad loc.) contain an explanation that the bohater here imitates a soothsayer or priest (θυοσκόος). This leads us to suppose that the stream of blood was subjected to a reading in order to obtain signs. Even if there was no sophisticated system of semiosis of the petechiae, it would actually be strange if the basic category of binary opposition did not function: "right/wrong". The place in Peace (1054-1055) points to the appropriateness in such a context of the adverb καλῶς.

207: ἐᾶτε πρώτην μ', ὦ γυναῖκες, ὀμνύναι - "let me be the first to swear"; the heroine obviously cannot wait her turn at the cup. Under the layer of a joke one can discern a ritualistic practice: the oath requires physical contact with the slaughtered animal, its pieces or blood.

235-236: εἰ δὲ παραβαίην, ὕδατος ἐμπλῆιθ' ἡ κύλιξ - "and if I do not keep the faith, let the cup be filled with water". Texts of oaths usually contain an explicitely expressed sanction. Characteristically, the Greek material indicates that it was most often connected with the object on which the oath was taken. Faraone (1993), with all the distance he retains from Frazer's concept, probably rightly defines such behaviour as a kind of sympathetic magic, in which - conditionally, because in the situation of breaking the word - the swearer brings upon himself the fate that meets something else - a slaughtered and cut animal, spilled blood or wine, melted wax (e.g. : Il. 3.292-301; Paroemioraphi Graeci 126 (Gaisford); SEG IX 4; cf. Fletcher 2012: 214, 230). The description of the oath from Aeschylus' Seven against Thebes (42-48), quoted above (ad 185-9), fits perfectly into this schema.

238: ἐγὼ καθαγίσω τήνδε - "I will perform an act of sacrifice"; the verb καθαγίζω denotes the act of offering something by complete destruction, usually by fire (cf. Ar. Av. 566). In the place under discussion, however, it is clearly a matter of 'destroying' wine in a way that is pleasant for the person who destroys it, that is, drinking it. Clearly, then, what was in the centre of interest of those who used the term was not the use of fire, but the fact of annihilating an object, or, as Svenbro (2005) probably rightly points out, removing it from the human sphere and in an altered form (e.g. smoke) transferring it to supernatural beings. Considering the function of the object on which one has sworn, with whose fate one has identified the fate of the crossswearer (cf. ad 235,6), at this point a brutal treatment of wine would be expected. This is perfectly underscored by the comical nature of the passus, in which Lysistrata clearly intends to drink greedily the entire contents of the great spell.

Lysistrata expresses criticism of men from various Greek poleis involved in the Peloponnesian War. The passus is interesting because of the Panhellenic ideology it brings to the fore, whose invaluable reference point is the "stranger, the barbarian". Because of the mention of an army of potential external enemies, we can guess that if it was in any way specified which foreigners were meant, the source of the fear that led the Greeks to solidarity had to be above all Persia. In addition to external - real or imagined - threat, common sanctuaries were a unifying factor at the ideological level. In the quoted passages attention is focused on the gesture of washing hands. It is difficult to say whether this is merely a rhetorical figure.

Either way, it was clearly a very important moment in the ritual process.

Λυσιστράτη
λαβοῦσα δ᾽ ὑμᾶς λοιδορῆσαι βούλομαι
κοινῇ δικαίως, οἳ μιᾶς ἐκ χέρνιβος
(1130) βωμοὺς περιρραίνοντες ὥσπερ ξυγγενεῖς
Ὀλυμπίασιν, ἐν Πύλαις, Πυθοῖ （πόσους
εἴποιμ᾽ ἂν ἄλλους, εἴ με μηκύνειν δέοι;）
ἐχθρῶν παρόντων βαρβάρων στρατεύματι
Ἕλληνας ἄνδρας καὶ πόλεις ἀπόλλυτε.

Since I have gathered you here, I wish to express a just criticism of all those who from one vessel [1130] spray water on the altars, like the brothers - in Olympia, Pylaia, Pytho.... how many more could I enumerate, if I were to speak longer? Though the barbarian army is so near, you destroy Greek cities and men.

1129: μιᾶς ἐκ χέρνιβος - 'from one vessel'; the noun χέρνιψ originally meant water for washing hands - before the sacrifice, as well as other activities such as a meal. In the place in question, Aristophanes uses the prepositional phrase ἐκ χέρνιβος ("from the chernips"), which may indicate that at the time it was also already being used in a metonymic sense: "a vessel for washing water" (cf. Ar. Av. 850 with commentary). A scene in the Peace of Aristophanes (960-961) contains a valuable mention of passing such a bowl from hand to hand during the preliminary rites preceding the sacrifice. It is possible that Lysistrata alludes to such a collective washing, emphasizing the unity of the group of participants in the ritual. Interestingly, however, in vase paintings chernips is almost always placed in the hands of a younger person, who hands it to the main sacrificer, an older man of clearly higher status (van Straten 1995: fig. 30-36). The place in question refers to a slightly different way of using chernips: βωμοὺς περιρραίνοντες: "spraying the altars". The verb περιρραίνω used here, whose derivational base alone: ῥαίνω expresses the semantics of 'to spray', intensifies this meaning with the prefix περι-, 'from everywhere'. Evidently, therefore, what is meant is a preliminary ritual consisting in a symbolic cleansing of the altar, probably performed while the altar is being walked around (counterclockwise ἐπιδεξιά), with the help of a billet or twig immersed in the chernips. More extensively on this subject: ad Ar. Pax 956-61; Av. 850, 958.

A sign of observance or violation of ritual norms: Th. 4.97.3; S. O.T. 240; Lys. 6.52; D. 20.158 (quoting after Henderson 1987: ad loc.; in the case of the first mentioned place I am not sure that the author really meant chernips as a figure; the other passages do not raise my objections).

1131-1132:Lysistrata rhetorically asserts that she could name more Panhellenic sanctuaries than the three she lists. Indeed, it is difficult to forget Isthmia, Nemea, Delos, Eleusis, Dodon or even Athens, which by organizing the Panathenaic Games, claimed the role of the centre of the Panhellenic cult. All the more so in the context of the speaker's own declaration, her choice should seem puzzling. While Olympia and Delfy, probably the most famous sanctuaries of antiquity, seem obviously worthy of mention, the mention of Pylaia seems unusual. This place, better known as Thermopylai is a strategically located isthmus, providing an easily defensible passage from midnight to central Greece. At least from the archaic period in its vicinity there was a sanctuary of Demeter in Anthelia, the original seat of a pan-Hellenic organisation called the Pylaean Amphiction, later (as it controlled also Delphi) - the Delphic Amphiction. This religious institution played an important political role. Perhaps it was inspired by this institution that the first place of resistance against Xerxes by the Greeks was near its seat during the famous battle of Thermopylae (cf. Stählin 1934). Given the context, this is probably what Aristophanes refers to when he calls on the Athenians to reconcile with the Spartans and join forces against their common enemies. Referring to the ideology shaped during the Persian wars is a typical feature of his political programme.