Embracing the Immigrant: The Participation of Metics in Athenian Polis Religion (5th-4th Century BC) 3515106421, 9783515106429

Citation preview

Sara M. Wijma

Embracing the Immigrant The participation of metics in Athenian polis religion (5th–4th century BC)

Franz Steiner Verlag

Franz Steiner Verlag

Bildnachweis: Metic hydriaphoroi on the Parthenon Frieze in Athens (N16-19), Acropolis Museum, Athens (photo by author) Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar. Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar. © Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2014 Druck: AZ Druck und Datentechnik, Kempten Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. Printed in Germany. ISBN 978-3-515-10642-9 (Print) ISBN 978-3-515-10851-6 (E-Book)

Franz Steiner Verlag

CONTENTS Preface..................................................................................................................... 9 Introduction: defining polis membership .............................................................. 13 The first steps of Athenian μετοικία .................................................................... 37 Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century .................................................. 65 Μετοικία in the demes of Attica? ........................................................................ 95 Embracing Bendis ............................................................................................... 126 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 156 Appendices.......................................................................................................... 165 Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... 167 Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 169 Index of sοurces .................................................................................................. 172 General Index ...................................................................................................... 174

Franz Steiner Verlag

PREFACE What does it mean to belong to a community? How is membership conceptualised and how is it construed in actuality? In what way are the position of outsiders negotiated and the cohesion of a community secured? These questions touch upon some complex and important issues that are often focus of public debate. Surprisingly, they are rarely tackled explicitly by those working on Athenian society – often it is implicitly assumed that political participation was the dominant aspect defining insiders (citizens) from outsiders (non-citizens). This book, however, derives from the notion that the Athenian polis should not be understood as a city-state run by legally privileged and politically active men, but should rather be approached as a social community consisting of the people who on account of their Athenian descent were expected to participate in all aspects of polis life, in that way collectively securing the well-being of the group. From fragments of Pericles’ famous citizenship law of 451/0 we know that from that year onwards only those born of two citizen parents would count as citizens. Unfortunately, no clear definition of what this Athenian citizenship entailed survives from classical Athens. Still, in many ancient sources we find the statement that membership of the Athenian polis consisted of active participation in the public life of the Athenian community, of sharing in the polis (μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως), often further specified as sharing in the religious obligations of the polis (μετέχειν τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ τῶν ὁσίων). In these sources the Athenian polis is, in short, presented as a participatory community, membership of which consisted of active participation in the polis, perhaps most importantly in polis religion. From that view it becomes interesting, not to say necessary, to reconsider the position of a particularly prominent and important group in the Athenian polis, namely free foreign residents, who in the course of the fifth century were gradually included in the public life of the polis as ‘metics’, most notably in Athenian polis religion, and who on that account should, at least to a degree, be considered members of the polis. Exploring this notion of the Athenian polis as a religious and participatory community – which to some extent has already been proposed for archaic Attica by several, mostly French structuralist scholars – the main thesis of this book, which deals with the position of immigrants in classical Athens, is twofold. First it proposes that by including a group in their official rites the Athenians were incorporating that group into their polis community and displaying and reaffirming that incorporation and therewith the sustained cohesion of the entire group on a regular basis. Although the unifying features of a shared religious system are commonly embraced, the ramifications are only rarely fully appreciated by those dealing with the Athenian polis. I argue that by including free foreign residents as metics in several polis rites these metics were accepted as members of the Athenian polis community

Franz Steiner Verlag

10

Preface

– although they could, of course, never become full members, which was ultimately based on descent, except by a grant of citizenship. Secondly, it is argued that by stipulating differences in participation, in this case in the context of polis religion, the Athenian demos could differentiate social groupings from and in connection to each other. By stipulating, for instance, differences in the portions of sacrificial meat allotted or dress codes, what groups were included in or excluded from certain festival events, the order of participants in a procession, et cetera, a variety of polis memberships could be defined and displayed in public, each with its specific qualifications and specific roles to play in the polis. Ritual differentiation was thus instrumental in the carving out, displaying and (re)affirming of the constituent parts of the polis and the (re)creation of identities and hierarchies. Combining these two strands, this book deals in detail with how the differentiated participation of immigrants in several aspects of Athenian polis religion resulted in 1) the gradual incorporation of this group into the Athenian polis community and 2) the on-going articulation of a separate metic status in relation to the other members of the polis. In this way, I hope to arrive at a better understanding both of the Athenian polis as a religious and participatory community and of the ways in which the demos conceptualised a status for the immigrants in their midst. I feel very fortunate to have been given the opportunity to work in the context of the project on ‘Citizenship in classical Athens’ at Utrecht University, with project leader Josine Blok and funded by The Dutch Research Council (NWO), and of which this book is one of its many offsprings. Two persons have been particularly important in that context for their support, comments, and discussions: Josine Blok and Stephen Lambert. In Utrecht I furthermore felt greatly supported by my direct colleagues, Floris van den Eijnde and Lina van ’t Wout, and later Saskia Peels, who were all working on the same project. Combining the perspectives of an archaeologist, philologists, ancient historians and an epigraphist, we came to sharpen our views on the social role of religion in ancient Attica in a unique way. In addition, I want to thank my current colleagues at the University of Groningen (The Netherlands), and in particular Onno van Nijf and Babette Hellemans, who both in their own way have always greatly supported me in continuing my research on μετοικία, and on the dynamics of the ancient Athenian community in general. For this book, the critical observations of Nick Fisher and Historia’s anonymous readers of my manuscript were also highly beneficial. Finally, for always supporting me on my academic path in any way possible, I want to thank Anke Muilenburg, Tiemen Rozeboom, and my exemplum in academia ever since I was little, Leen Spruit. Wrapping up this preface, I want to remind the reader that any remaining errors, whether typos or wanderings in the woods, are my own. Referring to Greek names and terms I follow the common Latin transliterations and use those versions as can be found in the ninth edition of Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon. Only with less familiar persons, found, for instance, in the many inscriptions discussed in this book, I use a more literal transcription of their Greek names. All

Franz Steiner Verlag

Preface

11

translations of literary texts derive from the Loeb series, except where it is stated otherwise. The translations of the epigraphical material are my own, except where it is stated otherwise. Sara Wijma

Franz Steiner Verlag

INTRODUCTION: DEFINING POLIS MEMBERSHIP Si l’on veut donner la définition exacte du citoyen, il faut dire que c’est l’homme qui a la religion de la cité Fustel de Coulanges, La cité antique (1864)1

DEFINING THE POLIS AND ITS MEMBERS: A NEW PARADIGM Since the nineteenth century the classical Athenian polis has most often been equated with its democratic constitution and the adult male Athenians who, based on their Athenian descent, had the right to spend their days on the Pnyx, in the courts or on the battlefield. As a consequence of this institutional and predominantly political perspective, modern scholars usually exclude all those who were not male, not adult, or not Athenian from the polis community. Women, slaves, children, and immigrants – in most modern accounts of the polis they are silenced, kept indoors, or never let in. At best, these outsiders had to some degree facilitated the rise of Athenian democracy and supremacy by reducing the citizens’ workload and by representing the ever so useful ‘others’ against which the image of a male elite club could be articulated.2 In short, the world of the polis was the world of the polites, the male Athenian citizen, who received his citizen status at birth and several concomitant rights at the age of eighteen and whose main and defining concerns were with running and protecting the polis. Influenced by the modern, liberal interpretation of citizenship as a privileged juridical status protecting the individual against a malignant state – and perhaps also by the derivation of our word ‘politics’ from the Greek word πόλις – this political view of the polis and its members is eagerly supported by referring to Aristotle’s Πολιτικά (literally ‘Things concerning the polis’) 1275a-1278b, where the philosopher tries to give a definition of the full members of the Greek poleis, the πολῖται – a daunting task, as ‘people do not all agree that the same person is a citizen’ (1275a). Typically, Aristotle first establishes several criteria that, in his eyes, 1 2

N. D. Fustel de Coulanges, La cité antique; étude sur le culte, le droit, les institutions de la Grèce et de Rome (Paris 1864) 246. E.g. P. Cartledge, The Greeks; a portrait of self and others (Oxford 1993); B. Cohen (ed.), Not the classical ideal; Athens and the construction of the Other in Greek art (Leiden 2000); E. E. Cohen, The Athenian nation (Princeton 2000) 5–6, with n.8. Cf. R. W. Wallace, ‘Integrating Athens, 463–431 BC’ in: G. Herman (ed.), Stability and crisis in the Athenian democracy (Historia Einzelschriften 220) (Stuttgart 2011) 31–44, esp. 32–4.

Franz Steiner Verlag

14

Introduction: Defining polis membership

can not be used to define a πολίτης, like place of domicile or sharing a common system of justice. As ambiguity concerning the division of political offices was the main cause of contention among those living in the polis, resulting in stasis in many cases, Aristotle states that (ideally) ‘a citizen pure and simple is defined by nothing else so much as by his participation in judicial functions and in political office’ (πολίτης δ᾽ ἁπλῶς οὐδενὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁρίζεται μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ μετέχειν κρίσεως καὶ ἀρχῆς- 1275a). It is not difficult to see how this definition leads to the political interpretations of polis and citizenship that are commonly found in our textbooks and reference works.3 In the past decades, however, several scholars have expressed a growing discomfort with the understanding of the polis as a political community and with the modern tendency to uncritically apply Aristotle’s theoretical model to the classical (Athenian) polis.4 In an important article promoting ‘a new paradigm of Athenian citizenship’ Philip Brook Manville convincingly questioned whether Athenian citizenship was really such a clearly defined juridical status representing individual rights that were aimed to protect the individual against an impersonal “state”, and whether we are correct in understanding the polis and Athenian citizenship primarily through institutional and political contexts.5 The polis and its members were usually not as neatly defined as Aristotle presents it to be – even Aristotle implicitly admits to this. As Edward Cohen has argued a bit too fervently: the lines between the different inhabitants of the Athenian “nation” were not as sharply drawn according to a fixed set of (juridical) criteria as we believe or want them to be.6 In fact, it seems to have been this characteristic fuzziness of the Greek polis communities, ultimately defying a comprehensive definition, which Aristotle was trying to tackle. Do we, moreover, not all by now accept that there was no independent legal entity in classical Athens similar to our modern concept of ‘state’ against which the individual citizen should be protected by the conferral of certain unalienable rights? Are we not too much arguing from our own liberal (or Marxist) ideas of state and citizenship, finding a reassuringly familiar definition in Aristotle’s philosophical 3

4 5 6

E.g. K. W. Welwei and P. J. Rhodes, ‘Polis’ in: H. Cancik and H.Schneider (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly; antiquity volumes (Leiden 2011) Brill Online. (26 May 2011); ‘citizenship, Greek’ in: J. Roberts (ed.), Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World (Oxford 2007). Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html? subview =Main&entry=t180. e476 (26 May 2011). Cf. J. H. Blok, ‘Becoming citizens; some notes on the semantics of “citizen” in archaic and classical Athens’, Klio 87 (2005) 31–5, on the ‘use and abuse of Aristotle’. P. B. Manville, ‘Toward a new paradigm of Athenian citizenship’ in: A. L. Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro (eds.), Athenian identity and civic ideology (Baltimore and London 1994) 21–33. Cohen, Athenian nation (2000) passim. Cf. Manville (1994) 22–3; W. R. Connor, ‘The problem of Athenian civic identity’ in: A. L. Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro (eds.), Athenian identity and civic ideology (Baltimore and London 1994) 38–41. One of the main flaws of Cohen’s thesis is that, although he convincingly emphasises the heterogeneity of Attic society, he fails to offer an alternative model based on which social distinctions in Attica were in fact commonly conceptualised, cf. R. Osborne, ‘Review of The Athenian nation by Edward E. Cohen’, CP(h) 97 (2002) 93–8. See K. Vlassopoulos, ‘Free spaces; identity, experience and democracy in classical Athens’, CQ n.s. 57 (2007) 33–52, for such an alternative model.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Defining the polis and its members: a new paradigm

15

work? In fact, the concept of rights was completely alien to the Greek poleis. Instead, Aristotle and many before him refer to ‘sharing in’ and ‘participating in’ (μετέχειν) or ‘being in a position to’ (ἐξεῖναι) when describing the status of citizenship, a status which one did not possess but embodied.7 Furthermore, the polis was not an entity separate from its citizens. It was above all a social organisation consisting of the politai, who, based on their Athenian descent and acceptance by the community, formed a collective of free Athenians, who equally shared in the corporate entity that was the polis according to the expectations of the group.8 A corporate identity, moreover, that should be studied with an eye for the intertwinement of the political not only with the military and the juridical but also with the economical, the social and the religious. In fact, the application of such a separation of spheres to pre-modern societies in general is now seen as wholly anachronistic and to study the polis only from a political perspective therefore leads to an anachronistic and at best partial understanding. According to Manville, we should accordingly rid ourselves of our modern obsession with legal definitions and politics and return to the broader context of politics in the Greek sense of the word as ‘the world of the polis’.9 Significantly, the difference between the ‘old’ abstract, political paradigm and the more organic or integrated one proposed by Manville and others is mirrored in the discrepancy between Aristotle’s definition of citizenship and the realities of the (Athenian) polis. No one would argue that similar to metics and children, as Aristotle states, ‘the old men who have been discharged [i.e. of military service] must be pronounced to be citizens in a sense, yet not quite absolutely’ (Pol. 1275a). Athenian old men were generally not perceived or described as an inferior category of semi-citizens. It would even be quite inappropriate not to include these often highly respected members among the politai.10 What is more, there is plenty of evidence indicating that Athenian women were considered politai, even though they were commonly excluded from participating in krisis and arche.11 True, old men no longer fought on the battlefield and women did not deliberate in the ekklesia, but, as Martin Ostwald argues, the polis had different expectations of each member and these old men and women were citizens in their own ways.12 These discrepancies can be explained when we consider that Aristotle was interested in a functional definition of Greek citizenship that he could use for a political interpre7

8 9 10 11

12

M. Ostwald, ‘Shares and rights; “citizenship” Greek style and American style’ in: J. Ober and C. Hedrick (eds.), Dēmokratia; a conversation on democracies ancient and modern (Princeton 1996) 49–61, esp. n. 37; D. M. Carter, ‘Citizen attribute, negative right; a conceptual difference between ancient and modern ideas of freedom of speech’ in: I. Sluiter and R. Rosen (eds.), Free speech in classical antiquity (Leiden 2004) 197–220; Blok (2005). Ostwald (1996). Manville (1994) 26–7. On the participation of old men in Athenian polis religion see infra 58–9. J. H. Blok, ‘Recht und Ritus der Polis; zu Bürgerstatus und Geschlechterverhältnissen im klassischen Athen’, Historische Zeitschrift 278 (2004) 1–24; C. Patterson, ‘Hai Attikai; the other Athenians’ in: M. Skinner (ed.), Rescuing Creusa; new methodological approaches to women in antiquity (Helios 13/2)(Austin 1986) 49–68. Ostwald (1996) 56–7.

Franz Steiner Verlag

16

Introduction: Defining polis membership

tation of his ideal polis. The gap between his theoretical interpretation and the notions of his contemporaries in fact returns in Aristotle’s twofold use of the term ‘polis’, as Josh Ober observed. For Aristotle seems to have used ‘polis’ not only to denote a community of political animals13 but also to describe the social community living on its territory, which included many people who Aristotle did not strictly consider to be citizens.14 This signals a tension between Aristotle’s theoretical ideas and the realities of his time. SHARING IN THE POLIS But what, then, were the realities of Aristotle’s time, or rather of the Athenian polis in the classical period, for which we have by far most evidence? Many court cases involving someone’s claims to citizenship demonstrate that the Athenians considered their polis to be a participatory community in which membership 1) was based on (the public acceptance of) Athenian descent – originally from one Athenian parent and after Pericles’ citizenship laws of 451/0 from two – and 2) consisted of sharing not only in krisis and arche but in the polis at large (μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως). For instance, Demosthenes could remind the Athenian jurors that they were the ones who had granted Athenian citizenship to a certain Charidemos ‘and by that gift bestowed him a share in our hiera, our hosia, our laws, and everything else in which we ourselves participate’ (καὶ ἱερῶν καὶ ὁσίων καὶ νομίμων καὶ πάντων ὅσων περ αὐτοῖς μέτεστιν ἡμῖν – 23.65). Similarly, in his Speech against Neaera, Apollodorus expresses his indignation about Stephanus, whose wife, the hetaera Neaera, and daughter Phano had both been participating in several ancestral Athenian rites that were open only to Athenian politai, with the following words: καίτοι πῶς οὐκ οἴεσθε δεινὸν εἶναι, εἰ τοὺς μὲν φύσει πολίτας καὶ γνησίως μετέχοντας τῆς πόλεως ἀπεστέρηκε τῆς παρρησίας Στέφανος οὑτοσί, τοὺς δὲ μηδὲν προσήκοντας βιάζεται Ἀθηναίους εἶναι παρὰ πάντας τοὺς νόμους; Do you not consider it a monstrous thing, that this Stephanus has taken the right of free speech from those who are legitimate citizens by birth, who share in the polis, and in defiance of all the laws forces upon you as Athenians those who have no such right? ([Dem.] 59.28)

To contrast the monstrosity in the act that Neaera and Phano had shared in some of the most sacred rites of the Athenians despite their non-citizen status, Apollodorus “quotes” an Athenian decree by which a group of Plataean refugees had been 13

14

‘Man is a political animal’ is a phrase seen as quintessentially Aristotelean but it is in fact a mistranslation of ὁ ἄνθρωπος φύσει πολιτικὸν ζῷον (Arist. Pol. 1253a), literally ‘man is by nature a creature of the polis’. J. Ober, ‘The polis as a society; Aristotle, John Rawls, and the Athenian social contract’ in: idem (ed.), The Athenian revolution; essays on ancient Greek democracy and political theory (Princeton 1996) 107–22. Cf. Blok (2005) 31–5, who terms Aristotle’s more inclusive polis the ‘socio-polis’. Also see the more general and still largely politically oriented discussion on the various meanings of the word ‘polis’ in M. H. Hansen (ed.), The return of the polis; the use and meanings of the word polis in archaic and classical sources (Historia Einzelschriften 198) (Stuttgart 2007).

Franz Steiner Verlag

Sharing in the polis

17

granted citizenship in 427 after their city had been sacked by the Spartans and Thebans.15 According to the orator this grant included the statement that Πλαταιέας εἶναι Ἀθηναίους ἀπὸ τῆσδε τῆς ἡμέρας, ἐπιτίμους καθάπερ οἱ ἄλλοι Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ μετεῖναι αὐτοῖς ὧνπερ Ἀθηναίοις μέτεστι πάντων, καὶ ἱερῶν καὶ ὁσίων “the Plataeans shall be Athenians from this day onwards, and shall have the same honours/ shares as the other Athenians, and shall share in everything in which the Athenians share, both in the hiera and the hosia”. ([Dem.] 59.104)16

At least in the fourth century, then, Athenian citizenship could be described in terms of sharing (μετέχοντας; μετεῖναι; μέτεστι) in the common activities and goods of the polis. What is of great significance here, as Josine Blok has probably pointed out most clearly17, is the fact that this active participation in the polis is often specified as μετέχειν τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ τῶν ὁσίων, as sharing in the hiera and the hosia of the Athenians.18 The plural noun ἱερὰ can be translated as ‘the things belonging (or being offered) to the gods’, which meant both the things in their possession, like shrines and treasures, and the things humans customarily owed the gods that were consecrated in a gift-giving process, most importantly in the form of (animal) sacrifice. But other offerings like votive statues and more ephemeral gifts like processions, athletic competitions and choruses were also considered ἱερὰ.19 The plural noun ὅσια is less straightforward, though, as W. R. Connor has convincingly argued, in general the term seems to always possess positive connotations and roughly means ‘the things concerning a good order between gods and humans and among humans that is pleasing to the gods’.20 Ὃσια consequently encompasses both laws concerning human behaviour towards other humans and so-called “sacred” laws, governing human behaviour towards the gods.21

For this grant and its controversial authenticity see most importantly: M. J. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens II: Commentaries on the decrees granting citizenship (Brussels 1982) 28, no. D1; K. Kapparis, ‘The Athenian decree for the naturalisation of the Plataeans’, GRBS 36 (1995) 359–81; M. Canevaro, ‘The decree awarding citizenship to the Plataeans ([Dem.] 59.104)’, GRBS 50 (2010) 337–369. 16 The translation is my own. 17 J.H Blok, ‘Oude en nieuwe burgers’, Lampas 36 (2003) 5–26 (with English summary); idem, (2004); idem (2005) 7–40, idem, Citizenship, cult and community in classical Athens (Cambridge) forthc. Cf. N. Evans, ‘Feasts, citizens, and cultic democracy in classical Athens’, Ancient Society 34 (2004) 1–25; W. R. Connor, ‘“Sacred” and “secular”; Ἱερὰ καὶ ὅσια and the classical Athenian concept of the State’, Ancient Society 19 (1988) 161–88. 18 E.g. Lys. 6.48, 30.15; Dem. 24.201, 26.2, 57.47, 51; Aeschin. 1.160. 19 That choruses were considered gifts to the gods and thus hieros can be inferred from two oracular responses cited by Demosthenes in his Speech against Meidias (21.52–53). Demosthenes also takes the opportunity to stress the impiety (ἀσέβειαν) of Meidias’ act of tampering with his chorus (21.51). 20 Connor (1988) passim. For a summary of the debate and bibliography: J. H. Blok, ‘Deme accounts and the meaning of hosios money in fifth-century Athens’, Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 62–4. 21 On “sacred laws”: R. Parker, ‘What are sacred laws?’ in: E. M. Harris and L. Rubinstein (eds.), The law and the courts in ancient Athens (London 2004) 57–70; E. Lupu, Greek sacred law; a collection of new documents (Leiden 2005) 3–112. 15

Franz Steiner Verlag

18

Introduction: Defining polis membership

Following Blok, it can thus be stated that being an Athenian citizen meant that one was to share in the rites of the Athenian polis in a proper and often prescribed, ancestral way in order to secure divine support for the community. By that same token, being an outsider to the Athenian community or becoming one because of unacceptable behaviour resulted in the exclusion from the rites of the Athenians. Foreigners (xenoi) were automatically excluded – although they could be present as spectators.22 In Apollodorus it is claimed that Athenian women will be angry at the jury if they acquit the foreign Neaera, ‘having it deemed right that this woman should share in like manner with themselves in the public ceremonials and religious rites’ ([Dem.] 59.11). In Demosthenes’ Speech against Euboulides, delivered shortly after the general revision of deme registers in 346/5, Euxitheus claims to be on the side of the defendant, the demarch Euboulides, for having rid the deme registers of foreigners who had passed as citizens (though he naturally does not agree with being struck of the records himself): ἐγὼ γὰρ οἴομαι δεῖν ὑμᾶς τοῖς μὲν ἐξελεγχομένοις ξένοις οὖσιν χαλεπαίνειν, εἰ μήτε πείσαντες μήτε δεηθέντες ὑμῶν λάθρᾳ καὶ βίᾳ τῶν ὑμετέρων ἱερῶν καὶ κοινῶν μετεῖχον, τοῖς δ ἠτυχηκόσι καὶ δεικνύουσι πολίτας ὄντας αὑτοὺς βοηθεῖν καὶ σῴζειν I am of the opinion you should be angry with proven xenoi if they, without consent or without asking for it, have shared in our hiera and koina, with slyness and force and bring help and deliverance to those who have met with misfortune and can prove that they are citizens. (57.3)

But not only xenoi were excluded from sharing in the hiera of the Athenian polis. In perfect opposition to grants of Athenian citizenship including the clause that new citizens would share in the hiera and hosia of the Athenians, Athenian citizens who had betrayed their citizen status because of inappropriate behaviour (atimoi) were excluded from the common rites. So, in the Speech against Neaera it is stated that adulterers were excluded from the hiera of the Athenians ([Dem.] 59.86). In On the Mysteries, Andocides refers to the law of Isotimides that aimed ‘to exclude from the hiera all who had committed an act of impiety’ (1.71).23 It should come as no sur22

23

E.g. [Dem.] 59.73–76; 85. On this topic see P. A. Butz, ‘Prohibitionary inscriptions, Ξένοι, and the influence of the early Greek polis’ in: R. Hägg (ed.), The role of religion in the early Greek polis (Stockholm 1996) 75–95; P. Funke, ‘Fremde und nicht-Bürger in den griechischen Heiligtümern der antiken Mittelmeerwelt; ein historische Einführung’ in: A. Naso (ed.), Stranieri e non cittadini nei santuari Greci (Firenze 2006) 1–12. Similar rules applied in Panhellenic sanctuaries concerning the exclusion of unruly persons and barbaroi: C. Sourvinou-Inwood, ‘What is polis religion?’ in: O. Murray and S. Price (eds.), The Greek city from Homer to Alexander (Oxford 1990), reprinted in R. Buxton (ed.), Oxford readings in Greek religion (Oxford 2000) 13–8; H. Bowden, Classical Athens and the Delphic oracle; divination and democracy (Cambridge 2005) 21. For an extensive and nuanced discussion of the source material relating to the exclusivity of Greek religion in Hellenistic times: S. Krauter, Bürgerrecht und Kultteilnahme; politische und kultische Rechte und Pflichten un griechischen Poleis, Rom un antikem Judentum (Berlin and New York 2004) esp. 53–108. In this speech, Andocides refers to another instance of unacceptable behaviour leading to the exclusion from one of the most important religious sites of Attica: ‘Should Cephisius here […] fail to gain one-fifth of the votes and so be subject to atimia, he is forbidden to enter the temple of the Two Goddesses [i.e. in Eleusis] under pain of death’ (1.33). Cf. Lycurg. 1.5. On atimia as a claim for a public discussion of someone’s social status: P. E. van ’t Wout, ‘Harbouring

Franz Steiner Verlag

Polis and religion

19

prise that the act causing most harm to the stability of a community, murder, was answered with absolute exclusion from the community, including its hiera and its hosia.24 Collective participation in polis religion thus functioned both as a defining platform for the citizens of the polis and as a dividing line between insiders and outsiders. POLIS AND RELIGION Of course these insights are not entirely new. The important connection between ‘politics’ and ‘religion’ in ancient Athens is even widely acknowledged nowadays. It is often emphasised that there seems to have been no political action or institution without a religious component: all decrees and treaties were addressed to ‘The Gods’; every meeting of the assembly was consecrated by the sacrifice of a piglet; every assembly meeting was split in two to discuss hiera and hosia matters; before every battle the liver of a sacrificed animal was inspected; one of the most important tasks of the ephebes was ‘to protect the rights of gods and men’ and ‘honour the cults of my fathers’ (Lycurg. 1.77), et cetera.25 However, these instances are usually mentioned to illustrate the general pervasiveness of religion in pre-modern societies – often to highlight a contrast with our secularised nation states26 – without considering the nature and the consequences of this structural overlap for our understanding of both ancient politics and polis religion. Important contributions in that area were made by several French structuralist scholars, who have argued that the participation of politai in communal activities, so-called ‘structures de participation’, like sacrifices, banquets, athletic competitions, hunting, or symposia, were important occasions for the construction of both cohesion and hierarchy among citizens and the expression of a shared civic identity.27 Following the sociological approach of Emile Durkheim, they claim that these marked, ritualised events should be understood as recurring opportunities for citi-

24

25

26 27

discontent; the pragmatics of atimia discourse in the legal sphere of classical Athens’, PhD thesis Utrecht University (2013). Antiphon 6.4: ‘the law banishes [the murderer] from his city, its temples, its games, and its sacrifices, the greatest and most ancient things that are to men’. Similar: Antiphon 5.62: ‘if discovered [the murderer] would have deprived […] himself of [his share] in the hiera, the hosia and in all great and many things that are to men’. Also see the exclusion of Orestes in Eur. Iph. in T. 947–960; Phanodemus in Ath. Deip. 437 c-d = FGrH 325F111. The pollution of Heracles constitutes a similar case. See for a recent example: N. Evans, Civic rites; democracy and religion in ancient Athens (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 2010) with the rather harsh BMCR-review by Julia Shear (http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010–11–04.html). On the need for cultural estrangement: L. Bruit Zaidman and P. Schmitt Pantel, Religion in the ancient Greek city (transl. P Cartledge) (Cambridge 1992) 3–7. E.g. P. Schmitt-Pantel, La cité au banquet; histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques (Rome 1992); M. Detienne and J.-P. Vernant (eds.), The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks (transl. P. Wissing) (Chicago 1989); P. Vidal-Naquet, The Black Hunter; forms of thought and forms of society in the Greek world (transl. A. Szegedy-Maszak) (Baltimore 1986); Ph. Gauthier, ‘La citoyenneté en Grèce et à Rome; participation et intégration’, Ktema 6 (1981) 167–79.

Franz Steiner Verlag

20

Introduction: Defining polis membership

zens to (re)create, strengthen and display group cohesion, while (re)defining the parameters of a particular group’s identity in terms of who was excluded or included.28 Yet, these scholars still privilege politics over religion and equate citizenship first and foremost with political participation that could in addition be expressed and checked in secondary, parapolitical contexts like a gymnasium, a sacrifice or a banquet. It could accordingly be stated that ‘participation in the collective rites of Athena was one of the ways in which a member of the political community expressed his political privilege’29 However, from ancient sources a slightly though essentially different image emerges in which Athenian citizenship did not mainly consist of participation in krisis and arche but also in Athenian polis religion, not as an addition to political deliberation or as a privilege for the politically active but as a fully accepted and equally valid context in which citizenship was not only expressed and articulated but essentially put into action and legitimated. Of course, our evidence presents us with a strong political and military bias when the business of the polis and its members is concerned, but we have to understand that these documents are mainly constructed by a small elite of men with a refined taste for self-fashioning, whose specific role in the polis distinguishing them from others consisted precisely of political deliberation and military combat. Underscoring the political and military nature of their particular role in the polis highlighted their unique contribution to the well-being of the polis. In the end, however, participation in religion was just as important to a person’s polis membership as participation in the ekklesia, the army or the law courts and it is this gap in our understanding of Athenian polis society and the position of metics therein this book is aiming to bridge. RELIGION AND POLIS At the other end of the bridge we find scholars working on ancient Greek religion(s)30, who have long acknowledged the social and formative aspects of ancient rites and cults. Among them it is widely accepted that ‘common cult was the established mode for expressing communality in the Greek world, for giving social groups cohesion and identity’.31 Herodotus’ claim that a sense of communality between the inhabitants of the Greek world was based on ‘the kinship of all Greeks in blood and speech, and the shrines of gods and the sacrifices that we have in common, and the likeness of our way of life’ (8.144.2) is probably the most famous 28

29 30 31

For Durkheim’s approach to this kind of ritualistic events, see most importantly his The elementary forms of religious life, first published in 1912. In addition it is sometimes argued that in a society without a long tradition of written records or a central registration of citizens, recurring events that were only open to citizens were important for accepting or rejecting people as citizens, cf. Evans (2004) 13. S. Cole, ‘Civic cult and civic identity’ in: M. H. Hansen (ed.), Sources for the ancient Greek city-state. Symposium August, 24–27 1994. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre vol. 2 (Copenhagen 1995) 308. For the plural see S. Price, Religions of the ancient Greeks (Cambridge 1999) ix. Sourvinou-Inwood (2000) 18.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Religion and polis

21

ancient expression of this notion. Panhellenic festivals and sites formed the main contexts in which (wealthy) male inhabitants from all over the Greek world came together and it is not surprising, then, that the notion of a ‘Greek’ identity was expressed in terms of this collective worship and perhaps even originated there.32 The most basic framework, however, through which ancient Greek religion was experienced, mediated and organised was the polis. It was above all the polis community and its members who were defined by a shared responsibility for a specific set of rites and cults.33 This intertwinement of polis community and polis religion is already evident from the fact that common cults and sanctuaries played important roles in the rise of polis communities and (subsequent) synoicisms throughout Greece from the eighth century onwards. In this period, shared cults brought together widely dispersed living people within an overarching worshipping community, while the locations of many important sanctuaries expressed a new sense of territorialism.34 Although it is often claimed that after 508 the dominant principles of organisation among the Athenians were politically defined, in the classical period the cohesion and identity of the polis community were still largely based on a shared religious responsibility. ‘The Athenians’ were first and foremost those people who collectively shared in the ancestral rites of the Athenian polis. So, during a battle between oligarchs and democrats in Piraeus in 404, the herald of the Mysteries in Eleusis, at least according to Xenophon, emphasised the rites they shared in an attempt for reconciliation. Ἄνδρες πολῖται, τί ἡμᾶς ἐξελαύνετε; τί ἀποκτεῖναι βούλεσθε; ἡμεῖς γὰρ ὑμᾶς κακὸν μὲν οὐδὲν πώποτε ἐποιήσαμεν, μετεσχήκαμεν δὲ ὑμῖν καὶ ἱερῶν τῶν σεμνοτάτων καὶ Cf. I. Malkin, ‘Networks and the emergence of Greek identity’, MHR 18.2 (2003) 56–74; idem, A small Greek world; networks in the ancient Mediterranean (Oxford 2011). 33 Sourvinou-Inwood (2000); Bruit Zaidman and Schmitt Pantel, Religion (1992). See Walter Burkert, ‘Greek poleis and civic cults; some further thoughts’ in: M. H. Hansen and K. A. Raaflaub (eds.), Studies in the ancient Greek polis (Historia Einzelschriften 95) (Stuttgart 1995) 201–10, esp. 201–5, for some sobering comments on the view that ancient religion was a product of the polis, pointing to Mycenaean traditions, the rites of families, independent panhellenic sanctuaries and the calendar system, which is older than the polis. Still, at least in the classical period, all these aspects came together and were interconnected in the framework of the polis. 34 On this topic see most importantly the work of F. de Polignac, Cults, territory and the origin of the Greek city-state (transl. J. Lloyd)(Chicago 1995); idem, ‘Repenser la “cité”? Rituels et société en Grèce archaïque’ in: M. H. Hansen and K. A. Raaflaub (eds.), Studies in the ancient Greek polis (Historia Einzelschriften 95) (Stuttgart 1995) 7–19; R. Osborne, ‘Archaeology, the Salaminioi, and the politics of sacred space in archaic Attica’ in: S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne (eds.), Placing the gods; sanctuaries and sacred space in ancient Greece (Oxford 1994) 143– 60; C. A. Morgan, ‘Ritual and society in Early Iron Age Corinthia’ in: R. Hägg (ed.) Ancient Greek cult practice from the epigraphical evidence (Stockholm 1994) 73–90; idem, ‘The evolution of a sacral “landscape”; Isthmia, Perachora and the early Corinthian state’ in: S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne (eds.), Placing the gods; sanctuaries and sacred space in ancient Greece (Oxford 1996) 105–42. Cf. F. van den Eijnde, ‘Cult and society in early Athens; archaeological and anthropological approaches to state formation and group participation in Attica’, PhD thesis Utrecht University (2010). 32

Franz Steiner Verlag

22

Introduction: Defining polis membership θυσιῶν καὶ ἑορτῶν τῶν καλλίστων, καὶ συγχορευταὶ καὶ συμφοιτηταὶ γεγενήμεθα καὶ συστρατιῶται, καὶ πολλὰ μεθ ὑμῶν κεκινδυνεύκαμεν καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς ἀμφοτέρων ἡμῶν σωτηρίας τε καὶ ἐλευθερίας “Fellow citizens, why do you drive us out of the city? Why do you wish to kill us? For we never did you any harm, but we have shared with you in the most solemn rites and sacrifices and the most beautiful festivals, we have been companions in choruses and in school and the army, and we have braved many dangers with you, both by land and by sea, in defence of the common safety and freedom of us both.”35 (Hell. 2.4.20)

It was thus, in this ultimate moment of stasis, that next to civic activities like service in the army and the navy, shared cultic activities could be stressed as one of the cohesive forces in the Athenian polis, binding even democratic and oligarchic Athenians. As said, the important social aspects of ancient Greek religion have long been acknowledged, yet mainly by scholars working on religion and not so much by those working on polis and citizenship, which is probably due to an almost religious adherence to secularisation among scholars in general. Emile Durkheim’s work has been crucial in understanding religion as ‘something essentially social’. In his functional framework, rituals were seen as essential for sustaining and reaffirming the core defining ideas and sentiments of a group at regularly recurring intervals.36 However, despite wide acclaim, it was not until the 1980s that ancient historians began to fully acknowledge the social aspects of ancient Greek ritual. This ‘social turn’ among scholars working on Greek religion found expression in several ways. First, there are the wide-ranging publications of especially Walter Burkert and Jan Bremmer, that, in line with the much earlier and for its time exceptional work of Jane Harrison on the social origins of Greek religion, have been pivotal to our understanding of the sociological and (pre)historical origins of specific rites, like animal sacrifice or scapegoat rituals.37 These scholars, however, mainly focus on the apparently primitive and sometimes even biological origins of certain rites and seem less interested in their social significance and functioning in the contemporary contexts from which we know about them. In that field it is above all Robert Parker who has become one of the most important advocates of the embeddedness of religion in ancient society. In his contribution to the Oxford history of the classical world of 1986 he already stated that ‘social and religious history are virtually inseparable’, giving numerous examples, including the rites of passage accompanying the many transitions in an Athenian’s life and the rites marking important events in the agricultural year.38 In his subse35 36 37

38

The translation comes from P. E. van ’t Wout. Supra n.28. J. Harrison, Themis; a study of the social origins of Greek religion (London 1912). W. Burkert, Homo Necans; Interpretationen altgriechischer Opferriten und Mythen (Berlin 1972) and his phenomenal Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche (Stuttgart 1977). J. N. Bremmer, ‘Scapegoat rituals in ancient Greece’, HSCP 87 (1983) 299–320, reprinted in R. Buxton (ed.), Oxford readings in Greek religion (Oxford 2000) 271–93. Also see Bremmer’s excellent concise introduction Greek religion (Oxford 1994). R. Parker, ‘Greek religion’ in: J. Boardman, J. Griffin and O. Murray (eds.), The Oxford history of the classical world (Oxford and New York 1986) 265–7.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Religion and polis

23

quent work he is still defending and illuminating these connections between religion and society at large with a focus on the social groups participating in (Athenian) polis religion.39 Finally, we have the structuralist scholars of the so-called ParisSchool, who we already met earlier and who describe the symbolic system of Greek religion, as reflected most importantly in ancient myth, as intertwined with and mirrored in other important structural systems in ancient Greek society.40 The in their eyes standard exclusion of women from sacrifice could, for instance, be explained with reference to their female physiognomy and their subsequent exclusion from other important areas of polis life, most importantly politics.41 However, despite their important emphasis on the intertwinement of basically everything, their sketch of the Greek polis as a black-and-white society of bipolar oppositions has been disqualified as overstated. Robin Osborne, for instance, has convincingly argued that concerning Greek religion matters were not as clear cut as the cultural historians of the Paris School imply. He maintains that women were not excluded (or included) as a rule; instead each case of inclusion or exclusion of certain social groupings should be seen against the nature of these specific rites.42 A more general critique concerning Durkheim’s followers is that they all seem to subscribe to a rather static understanding of ritual and religion as pivotal in maintaining cohesion and in communicating identity. Structuralism has often been criticised for its a-historical treatment of ancient society, studied, nota bene, by the close reading of myths penned down centuries later. And despite his claims of writing a history, Parker’s Athenian History boils down to a chronologically ordered description of rites, cults and their respective worshipping groups and not a diachronic treatment of the dynamic symbiosis between society and Athenian polis religion. This static understanding of ancient (polis) religion is now partly countered as influential anthropological and sociological insights slowly trickle through in the field of ancient history. Most important has been the work of anthropologist Clifford Geertz, who already in 1973 outlined religion as an essentially cultural system and culture as ‘an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which people communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and

39 40 41 42

Idem, Athenian religion; a history (Oxford 1996); idem, Polytheism and society at Athens (Oxford 2005), idem, On Greek religion (Ithaca (NY) 2011). For a concise description of this approach see Paul Cartledge’s introduction to his English translation of Bruit Zaidman and Schmitt Pantel, Religion (1992) 20–3. M. Detienne, ‘The violence of wellborn ladies; women in the Thesmophoria’ in: M. Detienne and J.-P. Vernant (eds.), The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks (Chicago 1989) 129–47. R. Osborne, ‘Women and sacrifice in classical Greece’ CQ n.s. 43 (1993) 392–405, reprinted in R. Buxton (ed.), Oxford readings in Greek religion (Oxford 2000) 294–313. On ancient sacrifice also see the contributions of Stella Georgoudi, e.g. her ‘Sacrifices dans le monde grec; de la cité aux particuliers. Quelques remarques’, Ktema 23 (1998) 325–34, on the many inscriptions that show that private sacrifices were practised along with collective sacrifices during major public festivals.

Franz Steiner Verlag

24

Introduction: Defining polis membership

attitudes toward life’.43 In his phenomenal Rituals and power; the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor of 1984, Simon Price acknowledges his indebtedness to Geertz, when he approaches royal ritual not as mere flattery but as a cognitive system conceptualising the world and the new presence of the emperor in it.44 Also the work of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who has demonstrated how power relations and social differences are constantly being (re)constructed and influenced by those social agents who have a ‘strong sense of the game’, has slowly found its way into the work of scholars of ancient Greece. Important applications are found in the work of W. R. Connor. In his article on ‘civic ceremonial and political manipulation’ he skilfully demonstrates how civic rites were an important medium to discuss (new) arrangements of human relationships in which all participants took part. Following the more nuanced views of sociology on power and communal discourse, Connor argues that civic rites should not be interpreted as manipulations by political leaders who used civic rituals to oppress their subjects and propagate their totalitarian views.45 Elsewhere he similarly stated that ‘civic identity could not be taken for granted; it had to be constructed and reconstructed in each generation by shared myths, by participation in cults, festivals, and ceremonies’.46 In what follows I will adhere to this social approach to Greek religion, as first proposed by Durkheim, applied to the study of antiquity by the Paris School, defended especially by Robert Parker and Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, and recently influenced by anthropological and sociological interpretations of religion. In this approach rites and their organisation by the Athenian demos in the overarching system we call polis religion are studied with an eye for the social significance they had in contemporary Athenian polis society in terms of uniting people, defining core, insiders and outsiders in terms of (partial) in- and exclusion, and differentiating different kinds of ‘players’ in the polis by means of differentiation in ritual terms on a recurring basis. In that sense the hiera of the Athenians are not studied as merely a series of honours addressed to their gods but as a cognitive system whose structure constantly (re)defined the position of both gods and humans in an ever changing polis society. A system, moreover, that was explicitly acknowledged by the Athenians as being crucial for their sense of belonging to the polis. VARIETY IN POLIS MEMBERSHIP – DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS Being an Athenian citizen consisted of sharing in the polis. This sharing was not an individual privilege one could enjoy on a whim but an important attribute of citi43 44 45 46

C. Geertz, The interpretation of cultures (New York 1973) 89. S. Price, Rituals and power; the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984) 7–11. W. R. Connor, ‘Tribes, festivals, and processions; civic ceremonial and political manipulation in archaic Greece’, JHS 107 (1987) 40–50. Idem (1994) 41. Similarly, Sourvinou-Inwood (2000) 22, stated that ‘ritual reinforces group solidarity, and this process is of fundamental importance in establishing and perpetuating civic and cultural, as well as religious identities’ (my italics).

Franz Steiner Verlag

Variety in polis membership – different expectations

25

zenship, aimed at collectively securing the well-being of the polis.47 Everybody who was accepted as a new member was expected to participate in a particular way and thus pay a particular contribution. This contribution was not determined by the individual but by the group, who would classify its members, usually according to descent and wealth, and express its expectations accordingly. On the Solonian property classes Ostwald writes: ‘belonging to a given class did not describe a “right” (“what your country can do for you”) but the expectation the community had of a member (“what you can do for your country”)’.48 In other words, while membership of the Athenian polis consisted of sharing in the polis, particularly in the hiera and hosia, each group, or “class”, shared in its own way according to the expectations of the overarching group, i.e. the collective of politai. What if we combine this view with the social approach to Greek religion as set out in the previous section? It can then be argued that differentiated participation not only demarcated the different components of the community, but also articulated the role that group was expected to play in society in relation to particular rites, deities, and other groups. It was, for instance, at the Thesmophoria that married Athenian women came together to worship Demeter and her daughter Kore with what seem to have been fertility rites, including a procession, rites of mourning, the offering to Demeter and Kore of animal flesh mixed with seeds, fasting, sexual abstinence and eventually a sacrificial feast.49 The Thesmophoria and other polis festivals exclusively attended by Athenian women, like the Skira or the Haloa, constituted the main contexts in which adult Athenian wives came together as a group, fulfilling their polis membership in connection with several fertility rites.50 The City Dionysia, in a similar way, constituted a context in which Athenian men came together as a coherent and constituent part of the polis, tending to a good relationship with Dionysus Eleuthereus, while sharing in rites that focussed on civic, competitive and military virtues.51 At other polis festivals – and their number was impressive as in the fourth century ca. 170 days per year hosted polis rites of some sort52 – other groups were likewise demarcated, articulated and presented as con-

47 48

49 50 51

52

Supra n.7. Ostwald (1996) 57. Similarly, Connor (1987) 47–9, has proposed that the Solonian tele possibly derived from public displays of first-fruits offerings during which members of the polis conspicuously demonstrated their wealth to god and man alike, with the public being able to check statuses and readjust their expectations Every investigation into an Athenian festival should still start with L. Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin 1932, reprinted in 1966). On the Thesmophoria see: 50–60. More recently: Parker, Polytheism (2005) 270–83, with bibliography. Cf. J. H., Blok, ‘Virtual voices; toward a choreography of women’s speech in classical Athens’ in: A. Lardinois and L. McClure (eds.), Making silence speak; women’s voices in Greek literature and society (Princeton and Oxford 2001) 112–5. S. Goldhill, ‘The Great Dionysia and civic ideology’, JHS 107 (1987) 58–76 and idem, ‘Civic ideology and the problem of difference; the politics of Aeschylean tragedy, once again’, JHS 120 (2000) 34–56. Also see my section below on the participation of metics in the City Dionysia, 75–85. J. D. Mikalson, The sacred and civil calendar of the Athenian year (Princeton 1975).

Franz Steiner Verlag

26

Introduction: Defining polis membership

stituent parts of the polis community in relation both to specific ritual obligations and to the other participants. As Athenian society changed, the rites of the polis and the regulations governing these rites changed on instigation of the Athenians, who could thus structure, articulate and comment on their changing community. As Sourvinou-Inwood stated, ‘this was not a matter of ‘state’ ‘manipulating’ religion; the unit which was both the religious body carrying religious authority and the social body, acting through its political institutions, deployed cult in order to articulate itself’.53 Significantly, as the polis came to encompass large groups of foreign immigrants who soon became indispensable to the polis, the Athenians conceptualised a separate membership for them too, eventually known as metic status, which granted these immigrants a position in Athens as a special group of xenoi. In what follows it is argued that the conceptualisation of this metic status not only took shape by means of various legal and fiscal measures and political exclusion but also through the inclusion of free foreigners as a coherent group of metics in some of the cults and festivals of the Athenians. Although these ‘outsiders’ would never become full ‘insiders’ (i.e. citizens) as the Athenians were by descent, their sharing in the hiera of the polis nevertheless signalled their polis membership, while the particular ways in which they participated as a coherent group gave expression to their specific membership and to what was expected of them by the community. But before we continue, let us be clear about what is meant by the term ‘status’. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary offers four definitions: 1) relative social or professional standing, 2) high rank or social standing, 3) the position of affairs at a particular time, and 4) official classification. Here we will stay close to the fourth definition and use the term to refer to the conventional classifications in which the Athenians commonly divided their community on polis level. These classifications were demarcated along lines of gender, age/marital state, descent, ethnic background, and the freedom one did or did not enjoy, resulting accordingly in categories like free male polis inhabitants, female citizens, ephebes, parthenoi, metics, foreigners or slaves, to name but a few. These classifications did not divide Attic society into a fixed number of absolute and mutually exclusive categories; the term ‘metic status’ is rather part of one set of classifications in which the Athenians divided their society on polis level and defined expectations accordingly. It is important to realise that the classification ‘metic’ presented only one, albeit a fairly dominant, perspective of Athenian society – someone who was a metic could also be seen as ‘a Theban living in Eleusis’ (IG II² 1186.2–3) or as a foreigner (xenos) in the Athenian army (Thucydides 4.90.1 vs. 4.94.1). Significant in this context is the fact that the free foreigners living in Athens almost never referred to themselves as metics.54 For instance, on the numerous grave-monuments for foreigners in the Kerameikos, among them most certainly 53 54

Sourvinou-Inwood (2000) 18–22, on p. 18. Cf. Connor (1987). A rare exception is found in Lysias 12.20, where the orator refers to the unjust treatment he and his brother had received, though, as Lysias implies, they as metics had acted far superior than some citizens had, cf. G. W. Bakewell, ‘Lysias 12 and Lysias 31; metics and Athenian citizenship in the aftermath of the Thirty’, GRBS 40 (1999) 5–22.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics in classical Athens

27

many metics, we only find ethnics, referring to the deceased’s (citizen) status in his or her native homeland, and not a sign of his or her (metic) position in Athens.55 The classification ‘metic’ therefore represents an essentially Athenian perspective and not a lived identity that was shared and sought after by immigrants wanting to integrate into Athenian society. This can probably be explained by the fact that behind the façade of unity created by a single status stood an immensely varied community of immigrants and freed slaves. Although this plurality would seem to defy a single, comprehensive definition, on polis level the Athenian demos nevertheless conceptualised these foreigners as constituting a coherent group of polis inhabitants who were to contribute to the well-being of the polis in their own “metic” way.56 METICS IN CLASSICAL ATHENS By the classical period foreigners had long been visiting Athens as traders, diplomats, mercenaries, and travellers.57 From the sixth century onwards, however, the Athenians also witnessed the arrival of many foreigners who came to Attica not only for a short visit but who instead decided to stay and find a living there.58 It is likely that most of these immigrants initially came from communities nearby, while later, as its influence and wealth grew after the Persian Wars and the acquisition of an empire, the Athenian polis became attractive to more people and to people from places further away; from the mid fifth century onwards we hear of immigrants from “Greek” regions like Sicily, Italy and Cyprus but also from more “exotic” places like Egypt, Thrace, Lydia, Phrygia, Syria and Pontus.59 Further adding to this IG I³ 1340–1381 and IG II² 7882–10530 with the addenda in W. Peek, Attische Grabschriften (Berlin 1954–1957) and M. J. Osborne and S. G. Byrne, The foreign residents of Athens; an annex to the “Lexicon of Greek personal names: Attica” (= FRA) (Leuven 1996). On this trend see D. Whitehead, The ideology of the Athenian metic (Cambridge 1977) 33–4; P. M. Fraser, ‘Citizens, demesmen and metics in Athens and elsewhere’ in: M. H. Hansen (ed.), Sources for the ancient Greek city-state (Copenhagen 1995) 64–90, esp. 65–8. 56 See especially Cohen, Athenian nation (2000) 49–78, on the lack of social makers in daily life, though he is overstating his argument when he claims that metics could be included among the astoi, on which also see Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 60–1. 57 Cf. M.-F. Baslez, L’étranger dans la Grèce antique (Paris 1984); D. Whitehead, ‘Immigrant communities in the classical polis; some principles for a synoptic treatment’, AC 53 (1984) 47–59; Cartledge, Greeks (1993) 90–117, on foreigners in ancient Greece. For a comprehensive collection of all known foreigners who spent some time in ancient Athens: Osborne and Byrne, FRA (1996). 58 The main literary evidence for foreign immigrants in Attica before the classical period includes [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 13.5, 21, with P. J. Rhodes, A commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (2nd ed.) (Oxford 1993) ad loc.; Arist. Pol. 1275b32–37, with Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 140–5; Plut. Sol. 24.4. Cf. P. B. Manville, The origins of citizenship in ancient Athens (Princeton 1990) 173–209. 59 E.g. [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 2.7; Xen. Ways 2.3, on the presence of these foreigners in the Athenian army. Cf. R. Garland, The Piraeus from the fifth to the first century BC (2nd ed.) (London 2001) 62–7, who discusses the background of metics living in Piraeus from the Piraean funerary inscriptions carrying an ethnikon. Also see my section on the presence of Thracian metics in classical Athens in chapter 4, 149–55.

55

Franz Steiner Verlag

28

Introduction: Defining polis membership

range of backgrounds were manumitted slaves, many of them from the Levant, who after their release probably had to register as metoikoi.60 The size of Athens’ metic population is notoriously hard to establish. Mainly based on Thucydides’ remarks on the size of the Athenian army before the invasion of Megaris in 431 (2.31.2) – i.e. 3,000 metic hoplites next to 10,000 Athenian ones – it has been argued that we should probably envisage one metic to every four Athenian (male) citizens around this time.61 Some scholars even give absolute numbers of ca. 28,000–30,000 immigrants, male and female, present in Attica around 431.62 These numbers were probably smaller in the fourth century, after the hardships of the Peloponnesian War and the continuing struggles with Sparta and Thebes over Greek supremacy. Even so, Isocrates’ statement (8.21) that in 355 Athens was ‘bereft of traders, foreigners, and metics’ is surely exaggerated; a late fourth-century census of the Attic population reports 10,000 metics next to 21,000 Athenians, and there is a chance these only included metics liable for military service.63 Although 60

Cf. P. Spahn, ‘Fremde und Metöken in der athenischen Demokratie’ in: A. Demandt (ed.), Mit Fremde leben; ein Kulturgeschichte von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (1995) 37–56, esp. 50–2; S. Isager and M. H. Hansen, Aspects of Athenian society in the fourth century; a historical introduction to and commentary on paragraphe-speeches and the speech against Dionysodoros in the corpus Demosthenicum (Odense 1975) 69. The process from former slave to metic seems to be illustrated in the so-called phialai exeleutherikai-lists of the 330s. The name of the manumitted slave is rendered with the oikon en-formula which gave a metic’s deme of residence, thus signalling the ex-slave’s new metic status. Cf. D. M. Lewis, ‘Attic manumissions’, Hesp. 28 (1959b) 208–38; idem, ‘Dedications of phialai at Athens’, Hesp. 37 (1968) 368–80, now largely overtaken by E. A. Meyer, Metics and the Athenian phialai-inscriptions; a study in Athenian epigraphy and law (Historia Einzelschriften 208) (Wiesbaden 2009), who presents an excellent re-edition of all 33 inscriptions. For the inclusion of freed slaves among metics also see Dem. 22.61; Harpocration and Suda s.v. μετοίκιον. Cf. Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 16–7. On manumitted slaves: R. Zelnick-Abramovitz, Not wholly free; the concept of manumission and the status of manumitted slaves in the ancient Greek world (Leiden 2005). It is sometimes argued that freedmen constituted, like nothoi, a distinct legal group, cf. C. Bearzot, ‘Né cittadini, né stranieri; apeleutheroi e nothoi in Atene serta antiqua et mediaevalia’ in: G. Angeli Bertinelli and A. Donati (eds.), Il cittadino, lo straniero, il barbaro, fra integrazione ed emarginazione nell’antichità (Rome 2005) 77–92; A. Dimopoulou-Piliouni, ‘Apeleutherai: metics or foreigners’, Dike: Rivista di storia del diretto greco ed ellenistico 11 (2008) 27–50. 61 H. van Wees, Greek warfare; myths and realities (London 2004) 241–3, calculates 1 metic to every 5.2 Athenians among the hoplite forces in the fifth century. Van Wees argues that Athenian hoplites probably constituted around 40% of the total citizen (male) population. If there were 5,300 metic hoplites (=3,000 of Thuc. 2.31.2 and another 2,300 among the 16,000 old, young and metic soldiers mentioned in Thuc. 2.13.6) and if this also comes down to 40% of total male metic population, it would indicate around 13,250 (male) metics in total. R. P. Duncan-Jones, ‘Metic numbers in Periclean Athens’, Chiron 10 (1980) 101–9, argued that metics constituted at least 43% of Athenian hoplite forces. M. H. Hansen, Three studies in Athenian demography (Copenhagen 1988) 11, proposed 1 metic to every 3 Athenians in the fourth century. J. H. Blok, ‘Fremde, Bürger und Baupolitik im klassischen Athen’, Historische Anthropologie 15 (2007) 311, n.7, concludes that an average ratio of 1:4 seems a safe estimate for the fifth century. 62 Garland, Piraeus2 (2001) 61, following M. I. Finley, Studies in land and credit in ancient Athens, 500–200 BC; the horos inscriptions (New Jersey 1951) 64. 63 Census: Athen. 272c, quoting Ktesikles = FGrH 245 F1. Cf. Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 97–8

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics in classical Athens

29

we are struggling with snippets of information, and any number or percentage must remain tenuous, it is still evident that throughout the classical period the Athenians were faced with the arrival and presence of many foreign immigrants. These immigrants became essential to Athenian society, especially at the height of its imperial power and resources, constituting a vital, almost inexhaustible pool of independent and often skilled labour and an important source of income for the Athenians because of the special metic tax they had to pay. As Xenophon aptly writes: Αὕτη γὰρ ἡ πρόσοδος τῶν καλλίστων ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ εἶναι, ἐπείπερ αὑτοὺς τρέφοντες καὶ πολλὰ ὠφελοῦντες τὰς πόλεις οὐ λαμβάνουσι μισθόν, ἀλλὰ μετοίκιον προσφέρουσιν. For in them we have one of the very best sources of income, in my opinion, for they are selfsupporting and, so far from receiving payment for the many services they render to poleis, they contribute by paying the metic tax (Ways 2.1)

Even the grouchy Old Oligarch acknowledges the importance of Athens’ metic population for the well-being of the democratic polis. When he discusses the shocking equality between Athenians and metics in the streets of Athens, he states that this is perhaps understandable if one considered that ‘the city needs metics in view of the many different trades and the fleet’ ([Xen.] Ath. Pol. 1.12). Indeed, we find metics in many different trades. To give a few examples: of the 110 names that can be made out with certainty on the Erechtheion accounts (IG I³ 474–478 + II²1654), recording the payments made between ca. 430 and 400 to the workmen completing this still puzzling sanctuary, a staggering 42 belong to metics.64 In similar Eleusinian building accounts of 329/8 (IG II² 1672) 54 of the 94 listed workmen can be identified as metics. We already saw that it is stated in Thucydides (2.31.2) that no less than 3,000 metic hoplites were present among the Athenian forces on their way to invade Megaris in 431. From these numbers and other remarks in Thucydides Hans van Wees inferred that perhaps around 20% of the Athenian hoplite forces consisted of metics in 431, while Richard Duncan-Jones even arrived at 43%, suggesting an even greater proportion rowed in the fleet.65 On the latter, Sam Potts argued, in his 2008 dissertation on the Athenian navy, that citizens did not have a dominant presence in the fleet but were much outnumbered by metics, slaves and

64

65

(all); Garland, Piraeus2 (2001) 67 (selection). Cf. R. H. Randall Jr., ‘The Erechtheum workmen’, AJA 57 (1953) 199–210; S.D. Lambert, ‘The Erechtheum workers of IG II²1654’, ZPE 132 (2000c) 157–60. Cf. C. Feyel, Les artisans dans les sanctuaires grecs aux époques classique et hellénistique à travers la documentation financière en Grèce (Athens 2006), who highlights the lack of homogeneity among these crews. On the Erechtheion: J. M. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis; history, mythology and archaeology from the Neolithic era to the present (Cambridge 1999) 200–9. K. Jeppesen, The theory of the alternative Erechtheion; premises, definition, and implications (Aarhus 1987), proposed to identify the House of the Arrephoroi on the North Slope as the Erechtheion. His theory is now generally rejected. Many foreign immigrants were also working as potters in Athens, on which see J. Boardman, Athenian red figure vases; the archaic period (London 1975) 9–10. Supra n.61. Van Wees, Greek warfare (2004) 241–3 and Duncan-Jones (1980) 101–9, both also using Thuc. 3.16.1, 4.90 and 2.13.6–7. Athenians and metics were also buried side by side in the demosion sema, jointly honoured with a public funeral (cf. Lys. 2.66).

Franz Steiner Verlag

30

Introduction: Defining polis membership

mercenaries, perhaps most clearly illustrated on the list of trireme crews of ca. 410–390 (IG I³ 1032) on which we find all four groups.66 Metics also contributed in a more ideological way to the well-being of the polis: during the oligarchic coup in 404, many metics seem to have joined the democratic forces in Piraeus led by Thrasyboulus. In Xenophon’s account of the struggle (Hell. 2.4.25) and in a decree that was probably proposed by Thrasyboulus granting awards to the supporters of democracy (IG II² 10+2401 = RO 4) we find many foreigners (xenoi), most likely metics next to some (for the occasion freed) slaves.67 The decree provides us with a unique insight into the background of a more or less random sample of metics; in the fragmentary inscription we come across tanners, barley groats-sellers, retailers, sail-makers, leather-workers, table-makers, shoesellers, vegetable-sellers, onion-sellers, traders, tilers, heralds, porters, nut-sellers, farm workers, bronze smiths, fishers, wool-sellers, fullers, incense-dealers, ass-herds, butchers, carpenters, muleteers, builders, gardeners, olive-sellers, fig-seller, hired labour and a sculptor.68 Next to these metics with relatively humble occupations, we hear of several wealthy and influential metics. Famous among these is the orator Lysias, whose family had come to Athens from Syracuse on the invitation of none other than Per66

67

68

S. Potts, ‘The Athenian navy; an investigation into the operations, politics and ideology of the Athenian fleet between 480 and 322 BC’, PhD thesis Cardiff University (2008), 91–3. Via email Sam Potts also referred to the Themistocles decree (M&L 23) which suggests that metics were already employed to row on the Athenian triremes in 480. I find it very difficult, however, to see the reference to [τοὺς ξένο]υς τοὺς οἰκοῦντας Ἀθήνησι (7) as genuine. This reading largely rests on restorations and, more importantly, the decree as a whole is almost certainly a fourth-century fabrication. See M.H. Jameson, ‘A decree of Themistokles from Troizen’, Hesp. 29 (1960) 198–223; idem, ‘A revised text of the decree of Themistokles from Troizen’, Hesp. 31 (1962) 310–15 on the decree itself; and C. Habicht, ‘Falsche Urkunden zur Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter der Perserkriege’, Hermes 89 (1961) 1–35; J.K. Davies, ‘Documents and ‘documents’ in fourth century historiography’ in: P. Carlier (ed.), Le IV e Siècle av. J-C; approches historiographiques (Paris 1996) 29–40. See, however, Van Wees, Greek warfare (2004) 208, 216, and esp. 248, who argues that although it is certainly a fourth-century fabrication, the decree reflects a very real decision and records accurately the procedures used to mobilise the Athenian fleet in 480. On metics in the navy also see Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 84–6. On Thrasyboulus’ decree see Osborne, Naturalization (1982) 26–43, no. D6. On slaves among those who returned from Piraeus: [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 40.2. Cf. D. F. Middleton, ‘Thrasyboulos’ Thracian support’, CQ n.s. 32 (1982) 298–303; P. Krentz, ‘Foreigners against the Thirty; IG II² 10 again’, Phoenix 34 (1980) 298–306, who thinks Thrasyboulus’ forces were overwhelmingly foreign; M. C. Taylor, ‘One hundred heroes of Phyle’, Hesp. 71 (2002) 377–97, who argues for the opposite. M. H. Jameson, ‘Agriculture and slavery in classical Athens’, CJ (1977–78) 134–6, compared the occupations listed in the Thrasyboulus decree with those, allegedly slave occupations, in the exeleutherikai phialai-lists and argued that the foreigners honoured by Thrasyboulus’ proposal were slaves and freedmen rather than (immigrant) metics. However, the freed people listed in the phialai exeleutherikai-lists appear to have been recorded with their new occupation and new (metic) status, on which see supra n.62. Cf. S. C. Todd, ‘Status and gender in Athenian public records’ in: G. Thür and J. Vélissaropoulos-Karakostas (eds.) Symposium 1995: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Cologne 1997) 120–4, who examined the gender, occupation and names of the 375 ex-slaves mentioned in these catalogues.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics in classical Athens

31

icles. His family owned a weapon factory which played an important role in the overthrow of the Thirty. The fourth-century orators Isaeus and Dinarchus were also Athenian metics: Isaeus was from Chalkis, Dinarchus from Corinth. Aristotle came from Chalcidice and spent a great deal of his life in Athens, that is, as a metic. And the famous fourth-century banker Pasion was a rich and active former slave and therefore also a metic (cf. Dem. 36.5). In addition, we have the names of many metics who were inscribed on official polis records – building accounts, naval catalogues, manumission lists, et cetera – with their deme of residence, as ‘living in deme X’, which signalled their metic status. We find, for instance, ‘Cephisodoros who lived in Piraeus’ (ἐμ Περα[ιεῖ οἰκοντος), whose possessions had been confiscated for participating in the mutilation of Herms in 415 (IG I³ 421.33) or the manumitted ‘Hestiaios who lived in Skambonidai’ (ἐν [Σ]καμβω οἰκ.) as a cobbler of shoes around 320 (IG II² 1557.80–81). At present, around 366 metics are known.69 There must, however, have been many more (probably many women) whose names and occupations have not made it into our records and who did not possess the wealth and fame of a Lysias but who contributed to Athenian society no less. The growing, vital and permanent presence of all these immigrants sooner or later required a basic recognition on the side of the Athenians, as these people were neither to be treated as mere foreigners (xenoi) and hence excluded from all aspects of Athenian society ‘for in them we have one of the very best sources of income’. Nor were they to be treated as complete insiders – especially in the first decades of the Athenian democracy, the Athenian demos seems to have fashioned itself as a true Herrendemokratie, an exclusive male club with rather discriminatory attitudes towards women, immigrants and slaves.70 In certain official contexts the Athenians accordingly came to conceptualise these foreign residents as forming a single coherent group; whether banker or onion-seller, whether immigrated by free will or freed after being brought to Athens as a prisoner of war, in the classical period they could all be designated as metoikoi. These widely varied social positions, and perhaps the fact that many of them worked in banausic occupations, probably explains the diverse and sometimes outright hostile opinions about metics found in ancient sources. Roman authors appear especially denigrating vis-à-vis metics, perhaps because of the unmarked inclusion of freedmen among them, whereas in Rome freedmen constituted a clearly identifiable class. But despite the diverse social back69

70

A list of individual metics was first published by A. Diller, Race mixture among the Greeks before Alexander (Urbana 1937) 161–79. Although the absolute number of known inscriptions has grown tremendously since 1937, because of the limited types of records in which we come across metics, D. Whitehead, The demes of Attica, 508/7 – ca. 250 BC; a political and social study (Princeton 1986) 83, could only give 36 new names in 1986. Since then only few individual metics have come up, for instance one who was living in Halai Aixonides and one in Anagyrous, on which see G. Steinhower, ‘Παρατητρήσεις στην οικιστική μορπή των αττικών δήμων’ in: W. D. E. Coulson et al. (eds.), The archaeology of Athens and Attica under the democracy (Oxford 1994) 189, n.51. Wallace (2011) 32–4. I therefore disagree with James Watson, ‘The origin of metic status at Athens’, CCJ 56 (2010) 259–78, who suggests metic status was only instituted with Pericles’ citizenship law in 451/0, while before immigrants were included in the deme registers.

Franz Steiner Verlag

32

Introduction: Defining polis membership

grounds of all the free foreigners living in Athens, the demos nevertheless wished to occasionally approach them as constituting a single, coherent group of special foreigners. An early sign of this development is perhaps found on a late sixth-century epigram for the Naxian Anaxilas (SEG 22.79) found in the Kerameikos. In this epigram we read that ‘of the Naxians the Athenians highly esteemed particularly the μετάοικον for his prudence and arete’ (Ναχσιόον τίεσκον Ἀθεναῖοι μετάοικον ἔχσοχα σοφροσύνες – 3–4).71 Significantly, Anaxilas is designated as a μετάοικον, a completely novel term at this time (and unique in retaining the alpha of μετὰ), possibly representing the first attested expression of an Athenian sensitivity toward a special type of foreigner, who could be distinguished from Athenian citizens, on the one hand, and from xenoi, on the other. In the following centuries this notion of a special group of resident xenoi was further developed and given shape by decisions of the Athenian demos – while at the time of Anaxilas’ epigram, the term μετάοικον is probably best translated as ‘immigrant’, as someone who had literally moved house (μετὰ οἰκεῖν), in the course of the fifth and fourth centuries metoikos usually referred to ‘someone who was a metic’.72 Some scholars claim that metic status (μετοικία) developed from a rough indication of a separate immigrant status in or as a consequence of Cleisthenes’ reforms, represented in Anaxilas’ epigram. According to David Whitehead, it was from this late sixth-century “blueprint” that the later μετοικία developed into its fully evolved, fourth-century form with political exclusion, liability to certain taxes and a separate juridical status as its main characteristics.73 However, strong, contemporary evidence for a Cleisthenic blueprint is lacking and a separate status for free foreign residents seems to have developed far more gradually than most are willing to admit.74 A heightened concern among the Athenians with the (formal) position of immigrants in their midst is usually first observed in the 460s: the plays of Aeschylus K. Baba, ‘On Kerameikos inv. I 388 (SEG xxii, 79); a note on the formation of the Athenian metic-status’, BSA 79 (1984) 1–5. 72 Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 6–7 and Ed. Levy, ‘Métèques et droit de résidence’ in: R. Lonis (ed.), L’étranger dans le monde grec (Nancy 1988) 47–52, on the early fifth-century meaning of ‘metoikos’ as ‘he/she who has changed residence’, although Levy shows that in some cases, e.g. Plato, Laws 8.848a and Ar. Birds 1345, meta-oikein terms could incur a sense of association or participation, as ‘living with’. 73 Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 140–54. 74 See [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 21.4, on the newly enrolled citizens (neopolitai) in 508, with Arist. Pol. 1275b, stating that ‘Cleisthenes after the expulsion of the tyrants […] enrolled in his phylai πολλοὺς γὰρ ἐφυλέτευσε ξένους καὶ δούλους μετοίκους’, suggesting the existence of a metic status in 508. Cf. G. W., Bakewell, ‘Μετοικία in the Supplices of Aeschylus’, CA 16 (1997) 220; Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 143–5; Watson (2010) 265–6. The occurrence of the term μετοίκους in Aristotle seems anachronistic and much depends on understanding the neopolitai in Ath. Pol. 21.4 as those disenfranchised under the tyrants or as straightforward foreigners now enrolled in the demes. There is a slight chance metics played a role in Themistocles’ naval reforms in the 480s, although the sources on which this is based are either late (Diodorus Siculus 11.43.3) or not entirely trustworthy (the so-called Themistocles Decree = M&L 23, with supra n.66). 71

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics in classical Athens

33

contain the first attested literary references to metics and cognate terms (e.g. Pers. 319, Seven 548, Suppl. 609, Eum. 1011 and 1018), and his Suppliant Women particularly, first performed ca. 463, provides support for an articulation of μετοικία at this time.75 It was also around this time that the Skambonidai stipulated that a share of a sacrifice to Leos was to go to τὸς μετοίκ[ος] (IG I³ 244.8), which will be discussed in detail further below. Another important step in this process was marked by Pericles’ Citizenship Law in 451/0, restricting Athenian citizenship to those Athenians born of two Athenian astoi, thus closing the ranks and practically excluding non-Athenians from marrying into Athenian society. In addition, a separate metic “demotikon”, giving a metic’s deme of residence, was introduced some time in the second half of the fifth century, probably in connection or soon after Pericles’ Law in 451/0.76 Another important marker became the special tax metics had to pay, the so-called μετοικίον; it seems that from the late fifth, early fourth century onwards a metic man had to pay 12 drachma and an independent metic woman 6 drachma per annum.77 Metics probably also had to register at the Polemarch’s, perhaps in connection with their military service.78 Finally, we hear that metics had access to a special court at the Polemarch’s, who heard cases involving metics79, although it is not entirely clear whether they had to present a prostates, who would present and defend a case involving metics, as is often assumed.80 All these laws and regulations added to the development of a special status for resident foreigners. However, it was not only through these fiscal, political and administrative demarcations that metics came to be organised and recognised as a clearly demarcated category in Athens. This book’s main aim is to demonstrate how the participation of metics in Athenian polis religion played a pivotal role in the Athenian development of a separate metic status, first by incorporating metics into the Athenian community by having them share in the rites of the Athenians, and 75 76

77

78 79 80

Bakewell (1997). On the metic demotikon, though overoptimistic an obviously outdated: U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, ‘Demotika der attischen Metoeken’, Hermes 22 (1887) 107–28, 211–59. A rough version of this oikon en-formula is first attested in IG I³ 421.33 = M&L no.79.33, dated to 414/3. Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 152–3, is very reluctant to date any deme registration of metics to before 414/3. In his review of Whitehead’s Ideology Nick Fisher, ‘How to be an alien’, CR n.s. 29 (1979) 266–8, suggested a date closer to Pericles’ Citizenship Law and his building programme for the first registration of metics in demes. Harpocration s.v.μετοικίον, citing Aristomenes, Euboulus, Isaeus and Menander. We often find a constructed link between the stereotype of the “good metic” and the paying the metoikion: Xen. Ways 2.1; Poll. 3.57; Ar. Byz. fr. 38, i.e. the earliest literary definition of ‘metic’. [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 58.2–3. Cf. Jameson (1960) 217 on M&L 23. 29–30 (Themistocles decree), with supra n. 66. [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 58.3, cf. Lys. 23.2. Our main source is Aristotle (Pol. 1275a). However, Aristotle is not talking about Athenian conditions specifically and there is not a single scrap of positive evidence for an Athenian prostates for a (male) metic. It seems therefore that metics living in Attica, at least the men, did not have to present an Athenian prostates. From Hypereides’ Speech against Aristagora it appears that female metics probably did have to present a prostates in court, but so did Athenian women. The only evidence on male metics presenting a prostates concerns metics living in Oropos (Lys. 31.9, 14) and Megara (Lycurg. 1.21).

Franz Steiner Verlag

34

Introduction: Defining polis membership

secondly by articulating their position in that community by having them participate in a specific way. Several scholars have written on the position of metics in classical Athens and the development of metic status. The late nineteenth century witnessed two comprehensive accounts with an overall positive evaluation of the position of metics in Athenian society. In 1887, after almost two centuries during which the Athenian metic was seen as a humiliated being, Wilamowitz-Moellendorff argued that the ‘Demotika der attischen Metoeken’ demonstrated that metics stood in a “Rechtsverhältnisse” to the demes and therefore to the ten Attic phylai, and therefore eventually to the polis. This made Wilamowitz famously describe metics as quasi-citizens and metic status as a privileged status of quasi-citizenship.81 Six years later Michel Clerc published his magnum opus in which he meticulously discussed the Athenian metoikia and evidence pertaining to metoikia in other poleis. One of his main conclusions was that the typical Athenian philoxenia was probably the most important factor for the good moral situation of Athenian metics.82 Both these accounts were largely overtaken in 1977 when David Whitehead published his Ideology of the Athenian metic, in which he tried ‘to remove the discussion from the area of morality altogether’ and focus instead on the often divergent Athenian opinions found in our ancient sources.83 This discourse eventually led to the institutionalisation of metic status through various demarcating measures issued by the Athenian demos. Whitehead attributed most weight to political and legal aspects and consequently defined metics as non-citizens, or even as anti-citizens, placed in opposition to the politically and legally privileged Athenians.84 Typically, Whitehead only devoted two pages to the participation of metics in Athenian polis religion, emphasising that any involvement in the rites of the polis was ‘bound to stop very far short of equality’.85

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1887) 213–5. Cf. Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 72–4, for a firm rebuttal of these ‘claims which stuck in the throats of his contemporaries’. 82 M. Clerc, Les métèques athéniens; étude sur la condition légale, la situation morale et le rôle social et économique des étrangers domiciliés à Athènes (Paris 1893). For a critique on Clerc’s Atheno-centric approach and his application of the “Athenian model” to metoikia elsewhere: Whitehead (1984) 47–59. Although Clerc attributed great significance to the context of Athenian polis religion for a better understanding of metic status, (on page 176: ‘C’est donc qu’ils avaient dans la cité leur place nettement déterminée, et rien ne les distingue plus nettement des étrangers que leur admission à la religion de la cité. […] C’est donc la religion qui, mieux que tout, nous révèle la véritable condition des métèques athéniens […].’), he nevertheless gave a mere description of the religious role of metics in Athens in isolation. 83 Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 1–5. 84 Ibidem, 69–70. 85 Ibidem, 86–8, on 88. 81

Franz Steiner Verlag

Parameters

35

PARAMETERS In 1977 Whitehead wrote that ‘to study the Athenian metic requires no justification. The mere numerical importance of the immigrant community in Athens during the classical period demands attention of itself, and the metoikia constitutes a major subject for the historian of the period’.86 Obviously, I agree and in addition I hope to have offered some convincing reasons why it is highly relevant to look at Athenian metics once again. Once we understand membership of the Athenian polis community as consisting of active participation in the polis, not the least in the hiera of the polis, it becomes urgent to re-examine the membership metics held on account of their participation in Athenian polis religion. I will do this by looking at the details of the participation of foreign residents qua metics in the rites of the Athenian polis and its subdivisions in the classical period. By examining this important case study en petit détail I furthermore hope to elucidate even bigger issues and explore in what way membership could be construed, the position of outsiders negotiated and the cohesion of a community secured. The periodization is informed by the period in which metic status originated and mattered, which happens to roughly coincide with what scholars commonly label ‘the classical period’, i.e. from Cleisthenes’ reforms in 508 until Alexander’s death in 323. The first we hear of a μετάοικον is in the late sixth-century epigram for the Naxian Anaxilas (SEG 22.79), while later metic-related terms by and large disappear from our records around the turn of the fourth century – although this was a period that has left us with few records generally.87 Second, I will focus on those polis hiera in which metics or subgroups of metics, notably Thracians, were to participate as a coherent and clearly identifiable group of polis inhabitants, often collectively referred to as metoikoi. Cases in which free foreign residents participated in Athenian religion but not as metics, for instance among the non-Athenian Greek athletes in the Panathenaic competitions, or on their own initiative, for instance by making an individual dedication or by founding a cult, will be left out.88 We are dealing with the Athenian conceptualisation of metic status and not with the actions of individual immigrants or with the status of xenoi in Athens in general. The chapter on the participation of metics in the demes is in that sense somewhat of an exception as the incorporation of immigrants into the religious activities of these communities sometimes resulted in the inclusion of both foreign and Athenian immigrants from other communities under the general heading of ‘other inhabitants’. I will look at the participation of metics in Athenian polis religion within three interpretative frameworks. The first will be the context of the festival or rite in 86 87 88

Ibidem, 1. Cf. Ibidem, 163–7. For individual metics making dedications: e.g. Archias living in the deme Piraeus who dedicated a gold elephantine paladion to Athena (IG II² 1400.59) and Dorkas, also living in Piraeus, who dedicated a golden ring to Artemis Brauronia (IG II² 1401.32). On Archedemos from Thera, who founded a cult for the Nymphs near Vari: W. R. Connor, ‘Seized by the Nymphs; nympholepsy and symbolic expression in classical Greece’, CA 7 (1988) 166–74.

Franz Steiner Verlag

36

Introduction: Defining polis membership

which metics participated as seen from a participatory perspective. This means we shall explore who else participated beside metics and what this tells us about the social focus of the rite in which metics were to share. The Hephaisteia, for instance, can be seen as a competitive festival of youthful, strong men, which after 421 included metics. To understand the main connotations of the participation of metics in certain hiera we will first have to account for this social focus of the rite. In addition, we will investigate the differences being articulated between participants, emphasising the different positions of these participants both in the festival and in Athenian society at large. While all participants in the Hephaisteia were strong youths, Athenian youths took the lion’s share of Hephaestus’ hiera. This is not to say that differentiation always led to hierarchical perspectives. In the Panathenaia, for instance, a group of metic girls and a group of Athenian girls both participated as about to contribute to society. Differences in participation, in turn, highlighted the fact that both groups would contribute in their own way. To understand the specific membership of the metic participants we thus have to account for the ways in which they were differentiated from the other participants. Finally, the participation of metics will be placed in its historical context. Although often we cannot exactly determine the date when metics first shared in the hiera of, say, Dionysus Eleuthereus, approximate estimations can nevertheless be made and these can often elucidate why the Athenian demos decided to incorporate metics in some of their hiera in a particular way at a particular time. In sum: we will focus on the incorporation and participation of metics in several polis hiera and investigate how this participation was informed 1) by the participatory community and the social focus of the rite, 2) by the way in which the metic and the other participants were to participate, and 3) by the historical circumstances leading to the inclusion of metics in certain hiera. This means we will focus on the socially defining implications of the participation of metics in polis rites, while the specific religious meaning of these rites will not always be relevant. The point of reference will always be how Athenian society was conceptualised and articulated in the context of polis religion. In what follows, then, we will first consider the participation of metics in the Panathenaia. Since this festival provides us with most information about the participation of metics in any polis festival by far, I will treat this instance more extensively than the succeeding ones. It will, in that way, also serve to clarify some of the basic tenets of my approach. Next, we will take a look at the incorporation of metics into several other polis festivals, including the Lenaia, the City Dionysia, and the Hephaisteia, each instance adding another layer to the Athenian conceptualisation of a separate metic status in the second half of the fifth century. In the third chapter we will examine how several demes dealt with the presence of foreign immigrants by regulating how they participated in their rites in a specific way. Finally, we will consider one particular group of metics, namely those from Thrace, who were especially important to the Athenians and whose incorporation and “special” membership appears to have been largely expressed and articulated through the gradual acceptance and meticulous organisation of the cult and festival of the Thracian goddess Bendis.

Franz Steiner Verlag

CHAPTER 1: THE FIRST STEPS OF ATHENIAN ΜΕΤΟΙΚΙΑ Metics in the Panathenaic procession In the 330s, a certain Agasicles was accused of having bribed the demesmen of Halimous to include him and his sons on their deme list. The prosecutors claimed Agasicles was not an Athenian at all, but a foreigner who lived in Piraeus as a metic.1 Only fragments of the speech against Agasicles, written by Dinarchus, survive. It seems that at one point the prosecutors tried to arouse the jurors’ anger by pointing out the inappropriate participation of Agasicles and his sons in the Panathenaia as Athenians: Agasicles himself had participated in the euandria, a kind of beauty contest restricted to Athenian men, while his sons Οἳ ἀντὶ σκαφηφόρων ἔφηβοι εἰς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ἀναβήσονται, οὐχ ὑμῖν ἔχοντες χάριν τῆς πολιτείας ἀλλὰ τῷ τούτου ἀργυρίῳ. will ascend the Acropolis as ephebes instead of skaphephoroi [i.e. metic basin carriers], not because they are grateful to you for their citizenship but because of this man’s [i.e. Agasicles’] money. (Din. fr.16.3 = Harp. s.v. Σκαφηφόροι)

According to the prosecution, Agasicles and his sons were metics, who were expected to act accordingly within certain public contexts, among them the Panathenaia. The Panathenaic procession is traditionally understood as projecting an idealised and extremely inclusive image of the Athenian community. Lisa Maurizio has argued that this inclusivity was a relic of archaic times, when religious acts constituted key occasions for a community to achieve cohesion and display a shared identity. According to her, this religious inclusivity stood in sharp contrast to the political exclusivity of the classical period, thus generating a discourse on the changed conceptualisation of citizenship.2 Though admittedly present, I think this discourse on citizenship and the more flexible notion of membership in the Panathenaic pompe were, however, not an unforeseen consequence of a clash between an archaic religious understanding of membership and a now politically defined community. Cleisthenes’ reforms obviously entailed a change in the layout of Athens’ participatory community, as political and legal deliberations became a defining mode of participation for a large(r) group of people. Still, as we have seen, sharing in the religious obligations of the polis also remained a pivotal aspect of belonging. It is 1 2

The case is also referred to in Hyperides, Defence of Euxenippus 3 and Harpocration s.v. Ἀγασικλῆς. L. Maurizio, ‘The Panathenaic procession; Athens participatory democracy on display?’ in: D. Boedeker and K. Raaflaub (eds.), Democracy, empire and the arts in fifth-century Athens (Cambridge [MA] and London 1998) 297–317.

Franz Steiner Verlag

38

Chapter 1: The first steps of Athenian μετοικία

therefore no surprise that after 508, when membership of a deme and a phyle became important aspects of an Athenian’s identity, this was also expressed by means of the differentiated participation of demotai and phyletai in polis religion.3 This religious participation was no empty, celebratory reflection of a new situation and this sharing in Athenian hiera was not simply an enjoyable perk. Polis religion remained an important context in which membership was put into action and given meaning in a dynamic way. With this view on Athenian polis religion and membership, it becomes important to look at the roles of the different groups in the Panathenaia to investigate what this can tell us about the conceptualisation of the Athenian community and its constituent groups on that occasion. To focus on metics is even more urgent as most scholars still describe this group as standing outside the Athenian community, while their participation in the Panathenaia de facto made them members of it. THE BEGINNING OF ΜΕΤΟΙΚΙΑ? An additional, though not less important reason for looking specifically at the participation of metics in the Panathenaia is that it seems to have constituted an early phase in the development of metic status: there are several vases that appear to depict typical metic duties in a religious context and most of these can be dated to the first decades of the fifth century. Of course ‘reading’ images on ancient vases is not as straightforward as was once and sometimes still is believed; they do not offer us snapshots of daily life that can help us reconstruct reality, once believed to be the historian’s raison d’être. Under the influence of the linguistic turn, French structuralists have emphasised that an image on a vase should be considered in the context of similar images to discover particular patterns of representation.4 In addition, one should consider the social and historical context of these images as the more private context of the symposium implies they have more to do with the world of symposiasts than with the city at large. In that sense, trends or (radical) changes in the imagery can be explained as a change in the issues the symposiasts were concerned

3

4

On the (absence of any profound) impact of Cleisthenes’ reforms on Athenian polis religion: E. Kearns, ‘Change and continuity in religious structures after Cleisthenes’ in: P. A. Cartledge and F. D. Harvey (eds.), Crux; essays in Greek history presented to G. E. M. de Ste Croix on his 75th birthday (Exeter 1985) 189–207; H. S. Versnel, ‘Religion and democracy’ in: W. Eder (ed.), Die athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.; Vollendung oder Verfall einer Verfassungsform? (Stuttgart 1995) 367–87; Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 102–21; M. H. Jameson, ‘Religion and Athenian democracy’ in: I. Morris and K. Raaflaub (eds.), Democracy 2500? Questions and challenges (AIA Colloquia and conference papers 2)(1997) 171–95, all emphasising continuity vs. S. M. Wijma, ‘De nieuwe burgers van Athene; De religieuze rol van de demotai in de Atheense polis na 508 v. Chr.’, TvG 126.2 (2013) 170–81, (with English summary), on the many changes from a participatory perspective after 508. E.g. F. Lissarague, The aesthetics of the Greek banquet; images of wine and ritual (transl. A. Szegedy-Maszak)(Princeton 2001) 133–53; C. Bérard et al. (eds.), A city of images; iconography and society in ancient Greece (transl. D. Lyons)(Princeton 1989).

Franz Steiner Verlag

The beginning of μετοικία?

39

with, as Robin Osborne suggests.5 In that line of thought it is very interesting to observe that we have a small corpus of vases from the first half of the fifth century (see Appendix I), starting around 480, with religious duties depicted that were typically and, it seems, exclusively performed by metics, most famously in the context of the Panathenaia.6 Several important conclusions can tentatively be drawn from this. First, it can be noted that most of the depictions of typical metic duties are dated to the first half of the fifth century, the oldest, the depiction of a skiadephoros shading a kanephoros at the Panathenaia (App. I, no. 7), dating to 480–470. From the first performance of Aeschylus’ Eumenides in 458, in which the metic Eumenides are escorted to their new residence underneath the Areopagus in a procession recalling the Panathenaic one, it is usually assumed that the initial organisation of metic participation in the Panathenaia should be dated to the 450s. From our iconographical evidence, however, it seems likely that this initial incorporation occurred even earlier, in the 470s, or perhaps even the 480s. Secondly, the participation of metics in the Panathenaia can be understood as a pivotal and, as we have now established, very early step in the Athenian conceptualisation of free foreign residents as a separate group. As we have seen, it is traditionally believed that metoikia developed from a rough indication of a separate immigrant status in Cleisthenes’ time. Recently, George Bakewell argued that Aeschylus’ Suppliant Women, performed ca. 463, provides support for a date for the institutionalisation of metoikia in the 460s.7 The evidence just presented suggests that the status and position of metics in Athenian society was already an issue among the Athenians looking at these vases even earlier in the century. We may therefore conclude that 1) metics were probably conceptualised and presented as a separate group in the 470s at the latest, and that 2) as far as we now can tell, the context in which this first happened was a religious one.

5 6

7

R. Osborne, ‘Whose images and superscription is this?’, Arion 1.2 (1991b) 255–75. There is a debate among scholars on whether citizen or more general status can be distinguished on vases. See, e.g. H.-G. Hollein, Bürgerbild und Bildwelt der attischen Demokratie auf den rotfigurigen Vasen des 6.-4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Franktfurt and New York 1988); M. Pipili, ‘Wearing another hat; workmen in town and country’ in: B. Cohen (ed.), Not the classical ideal; Athens and the construction of the other in Greek art (Leiden 2000) 154–79, who both focussed on clothing distinguising respectively citizens from non-citizens and people with different functions. Most recently, R. Osborne, The history written on the classical Greek body (Cambridge 2011) esp. 105–23, argued that there is usually no clear indicators of (citizen) status. However, the identification of metics on these specific vases is corroborated by the fact that we never come across Athenians performing these roles in our sources and it is uncertain whether they did so before metics performed them. The idea that from the fifth century onwards these duties were exclusively performed by metics is further strengthened by the fact that: 1) metics were referred to as skaphai or skaphephoroi in New Comedy; 2) skaphephoria is described as a typical metic liturgy in Bekker’s Anecdota (280, 1; 304, 7); 3) all lexicons, on which we unfortunately depend for most of our information on this topic, associate these functions exclusively with metics. Bakewell (1997).

Franz Steiner Verlag

40

Chapter 1: The first steps of Athenian μετοικία

PANATHENAIC PERSPECTIVES Every summer, around the 28th of Hekatombaion, the Athenians worshipped their city’s patron-goddess, Athena Polias, with the grandest of their festivals: the Panathenaia. From all over Attika people came to the city to worship Athena with a night-festival and a procession that led from the Dipylon Gate in the Kerameikos district up to the Acropolis, where many animals were sacrificed on the Great Altar. Every fourth year Athena was worshipped with extra pomp. These Greater Panathenaia were probably instituted in the 560s when athletic and equestrian contests seem to have become part of a special four-yearly festival program. Not long after, musical competitions were added to the Greater Panathenaia.8 Some of these agones were open to all Greek-speaking males, generating a Panhellenic appeal. On this “Greater” occasion the sacrifices to Athena were probably also of a larger scale, perhaps consisting of a hecatomb.9 Finally, there was the famous dedication of the peplos, the new, richly-woven robe for Athena that was escorted to the Acropolis and offered to the goddess’ wooden cult statue in the Erechtheion, although it is not clear whether the peplos was dedicated to Athena every year or only every four years.10 At all these events, different perspectives on the worshipping community were expressed by means of regulated divisions of the large and heterogeneous body of participants. The competitions of the Greater Panathenaia, for instance, were divided in agones that were open to all Greek-speaking men and agones restricted to Athenians.11 Most agones were further divided according to the respective ages of 8

Cf. Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 89–92; G. Anderson, The Athenian experiment; building an imagined political community in ancient Attica 508–490 BC (Ann Arbor 2003) 165–74. Also see H. Kotsidu, Die musischen Agone der Panathenäen in archaischer und klassischer Zeit (Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken Welt 8) (Munich 1991); H. A. Shapiro, ‘Mousikoi agones; music and poetry at the Panathenaia’ in: J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and polis; the Panathenaic festival in ancient Athens (Princeton 1992) 53–76. On the history of the Panathenaia see Julia Shear, ‘Polis and Panathenaia; the history and development of Athena’s festival’, PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania (2001). 9 The only datable evidence mentioning a hecatomb, IG I³ 375.6–7 (M&L 84.6–7), is dated to a Greater Panathenaic year (410/9). But see V. J. Rosivach, ‘IG II² 334 and the Panathenaic hekatomb’, PP 46 (1991) 430–42. 10 [Arist.], Ath. Pol. (60.1) mentions the dedication of a new peplos in one breath with the agones. However, in Hellenistic times the girls responsible for weaving the robe, the so-called erganistai, were honoured annually: IG II² 1036+1060 (108/7 BC); IG II² 1034+1943 (103/2 BC); IG II² 1942 (ca. 100 BC) with S. B. Aleshire and S. D. Lambert, ‘Making the peplos for Athena; a new edition of IG II² 1060+1036’, ZPE 142 (2003) 65–86. E. J. W. Barber, ‘The peplos of Athena’ in: J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and polis (1992) 103–17, follows John Mansfield, ‘The robe of Athena and the Panathenaic peplos’, PhD thesis, University of Berkeley (1985), in arguing there were two peploi: a small one for the cult statue of Athena and an additional, much larger, one used as a sail on a ship-cart escorting the peplos to the Acropolis. 11 In the classical period we hear of agones that were organised on a phyletic basis and thus restricted to Athenians (e.g. IG II² 2311.75–81). In Hellenistic sources more competitions, including several chariot races, are described as ἐκ τῶν πολιτῶν (IG II² 2315.9 (170BC), 2317.19 (150 or 146 BC), 2316.54 (158 BC); SEG 41.115 II.34 (166/5 BC), III.23 (162/1 BC). Cf. J. Shear, ‘Prizes from Athens; the list of Panathenaic prizes and the sacred oil’, ZPE 142 (2003)

Franz Steiner Verlag

Panathenaic perspectives

41

the contestants: adult men competed separate from boys, while a further division separated young boys from beardless youths.12 There seems to have been no obvious barrier for non-Athenian Greeks living in Athens to participate in the competitions open to all Greeks, but no attempt was made to mark a distinct status for them. Emphasis was instead placed on a Panhellenic, male, competitive community/identity, with special attention reserved for Athenian men who competed in agones with a somewhat martial flavour, like the armed (Pyrrhic) dance or the apobates-race, where Athenians in full armour mounted and dismounted a chariot in full speed. The “Greek” competitions, by contrast, were of a more “Olympic” nature, like wrestling and the pentathlon. Athenian men were moreover often competing in a phyletic arrangement, for instance in the torch-race and the euandria, thereby underscoring these Cleisthenic units as significant for their identity.13 The distribution of the meat of the official sacrifices to Athena reveals a different concern with Athena’s community. In our most important source, two large fragments of a law and a decree relating to the Smaller Panathenaia dated to the Lycurgan period (IG II² 334 = RO 81), only Athenians are referred to as the recipients of the sacrifices, which were thus explicitly presented as an Athenian affair.14 Metics are never mentioned separately and we can assume they did not share in the sacrifices.15 There is, however, a snippet of evidence which seems to suggest that metics did share in the Panathenaic sacrifices: Hesychius (s.v. σκαφηφόροι), referring to Dinarchus (fr. 16.3), informs us that metics ‘carried basins in the Panathenaia in order that, through sharing in the sacrifices, they would seem well-disposed’ 87–108; S. V. Tracy and C. Habicht, ‘New and old Panathenaic victor lists’, Hesp. 60 (1991) 187–236, esp. 217–33; S. V. Tracy, ‘The Panathenaic festival and games; an epigraphic enquiry’, Nikephoros 4 (1991) 133–53. 12 Most important evidence for these divisions is IG II² 2311, with Shear (2003). 13 Anderson, Experiment (2003) 165–74. 14 Demarcated are: several groups of officials (11–14); the Athenaioi walking in procession (14); the kanephoroi (14–15); Athenaioi in general (15–16); the Athenian demes (26). On the date see S. D. Lambert, ‘Athenian state laws and decrees 352/1–322/1: II. Religious regulations’, ZPE 154 (2005) 144–7, no. 7, who concludes that the date is most likely controlled by one’s view on the identification of the area called Nea. The exact background of these sacrifices remains unclear: was the new income from the νέα spent on traditional arrangements or on a new set of sacrifices now added to the festival programme as Rosivach (1991) suggested? The first set seems concerned with traditional sacrifice, ‘as previously’ (10) and ‘the usual’ (15) implies as much, while only the second set seems affected by the income from the νέα. This is corroborated by a fragmentary law found in the Agora (SEG 13.18) and dated to either 336/5 or 335/4, which has been linked with IG II² 334 by D. Lewis, ‘Law on the Lesser Panathenaia’, Hesp. 28 (1959a) 239–47. The law stipulates the use of the money of the income of the νέα, through both leases and taxes, to fund sacrifices of the Lesser Panathenaia. Cf. J. D. Sosin, ‘Two Attic endowments’, ZPE 138 (2002) 123–5. 15 Some doubt has (unintentionally?) been cast on this view by P. Brulé, ‘La cité en ses composantes; remarques sur les sacrifices et la procession des Panathénées’, Kernos 9 (1996) 37– 63, esp. 50–1, who argues that the distribution of shares to officials, kanephoroi and to the pompeusin Athenaiois should be interpreted as a distribution of gera. According to Brulé the recipients of these gera are to be identified with the groups in the front part of the procession/ Parthenon Frieze who carried ritual objects: ‘canéphores, skaphéphores, hydriaphores, thallophores […]’.

Franz Steiner Verlag

42

Chapter 1: The first steps of Athenian μετοικία

(ἵνα ὡς εὖνοι ἀριθμῶνται μετέ[ρ]χοντες τῶν θυσιῶν). This could mean that metics received sacrificial meat as a defined group but in absence of any corroborating evidence this still seems highly unlikely.16 Alternatively, Hesychius could have been using a broader concept of θυσία, including the escorting of animals to the altar, the actual killing and the subsequent distribution of meat, perhaps even embracing the whole festival.17 The metics walking in procession escorting the animals up to the Acropolis could therefore be considered as μετέχοντες τῶν θυσιῶν, even though they did not share in the socially highly significant distribution of sacrificial meat. THE PANATHENAIC PROCESSION Within the reciprocal system that informed the Greeks’ attitudes towards their gods, the offering of a gift, often in the form of animal sacrifice, was generally at the core of any religious act. The collective escorting of this gift to an altar could, in addition, be considered one of the most spectacular aspects of Greek religion. The Panathenaic pompe was in this sense probably the most famous instance: starting from the Dipylon Gate the procession crossed the Agora to continue its way down the Panathenaic way up to the Acropolis, sometimes escorting as many as a hundred cows and with thousands of people from all over Attika and beyond joining the pompe.18 This large and heterogeneous group of worshippers was divided into several groups.19 Heading the pompe was a group of perhaps one hundred kanephoroi: Athenian girls wearing white make-up and golden ornaments, who carried the sacrificial baskets that contained the knife and other sacrificial paraphernalia, such as barley and fillets.20 The kanephoroi were accompanied by metic skiadephoroi, who Parker, Polytheism (2005) 261, suggests metics were perhaps entitled to ‘ordinary, non-honorific shares’. What these ordinary, non-honorific shares consisted of is unclear. The arrangement in the Lycurgan decree that τὰ δὲ ἄλλα κρέα Ἀθηναίο|[ις μερίζειν] (15–16) even suggests an attempt to limit leftovers. For similar arrangements: IG II² 47.38–39. 17 A fine example of this can also be found in our Panathenaic law, where it is stated that the income of the νέα is to be used ‘in order that the θυσία to Athena may be as fine as possible’ (5–6), while the decree stipulates not only sacrifices but also a pannychis and the dispatch of the procession at sunrise (27–35). On this broader conceptualisation of θυσία: Osborne (2000) 306–8. 18 V. J. Rosivach, The system of public sacrifice in fourth-century Athens (Atlanta 1994) 71 n.11, suggests that ca. 40 cows could have been bought from the income of 41 minas mentioned in IG II² 334.16–17 (based on the highest reliable amount (i.e.100 drachma) for a single ox found in our sources (IG II² 2311.72–76)). He further suggests (156–7) that each cow probably yielded 100–120kg of meat. RO 81, 401 arrive at ca. 50 (based on the price of 70 drachma for an ox given in a decree of the Salaminioi (SEG 21.527.86 = RO 37)). 19 The following derives from Deubner, Attische Feste (1966) 22–35; L. Ziehen, ‘Panathenaia’, RE 36 (1949) 457–93; J. Neils, ‘Pride, pomp, and circumstance; the iconography of procession’ in: idem (ed.), Goddess and polis (1992) 177–97; idem (ed.), Worshipping Athena; Panathenaia and Parthenon (Wisconsin 1996); Maurizio (1998); Parker, Polytheism (2005) 253–69. 20 Lycurgus is said to have provided gold for a hundred kanephoroi: IG II² 457; [Plut.] Vit. X orat. 852B. Cf. Parker, Polytheism (2005) 224, who is sceptical about the use of these ornaments on

16

Franz Steiner Verlag

The Panathenaic procession

43

shaded these Athenian girls with their parasols. From Aristophanes’ mockery of the Panathenaic procession in his Ecclesiazusae (730–745) it seems probable these pairs were followed by metic girls who carried stools with them, the so-called diphrophoroi.21 At least on the Parthenon Frieze, these groups were followed by the animals to be sacrificed on the Great Altar. Next in line were metic skaphephoroi, who carried large basins filled with honeycombs and cakes, and metic hydriaphoroi, who carried water jars. They were followed by musicians and so-called thallophoroi, old men carrying olive branches.22 Also marching in this procession were Athenian hoplites, apobatai, and horsemen.23 After these clearly defined groups probably came the large group of Attic demesmen, presumably marching with their respective demes.24 In addition, ephebes were to march in the Panathenaic pompe as a closed group of youths under the supervision of a kosmetes, but we cannot be certain as to whether this participation predates the reorganisation of the ephebeia under Lycurgus.25 The procession of the Greater Panathenaia included several more groups. Most famous among these are the representatives of Athenian allies and

21 22

23

24

25

a single occasion. On kanephoria in general: F. van Straten, Hiera kala; images of animal sacrifice in archaic and classical Greece (Leiden 1995) 10–2, 31–42; M. P. J. Dillon, Girls and women in classical Greek religion (London 2002) 37–41; Parker, Polytheism (2005) 223–36; J. B. Connelly, Portrait of a priestess; women and ritual in ancient Greece (Princeton 2007) 33–9. This group will be discussed in more detail further down. Cf. S. I. Rotroff, ‘The Parthenon frieze and the sacrifice to Athena’, AJA 81 (1977) 379–82. Ar. Eccl. 738–745 refers respectively to a hydriaphoros, a kithara-player, a skaphe, a fair musician, olive branches and athletic prizes. Skaphephoroi, hydriaphoroi and thallophoroi will be discussed in detail later on. On musicians in cult: G. C. Nordquist, ‘Some notes on musicians in Greek cult’ in: R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek cult practice form the epigraphical evidence (Stockholm 1994) 81–93. They are also depicted on the Parthenon Frieze (S107–114, N20–2) on which see J. Neils, The Parthenon Frieze (Cambridge 2001) 142–6. Thucydides (6.56) famously states that the Panathenaia provided an excellent opportunity for the attack on the tyrants since it was ‘the sole day upon which the citizens who were part of the procession could meet together in arms without suspicion’. He also tells us that it was customary for marchers to participate only with shield and spear (6.58). [Arist.] Ath. Pol.18.2–4, however, corrects the story exactly on this point: ‘the current story that Hippias made the people in the procession fall out away from their arms and searched for those who retained their daggers is not true, for in those days they did not walk in the procession armed, this custom was instituted later by the democracy’. On hoplites see further the sixth-century cup (private collection Basel = LIMC s.v. Athena no. 574) and [Arist.] Ath. Pol.18.4. Apobatai: Men. fr. 384. Horsemen: LIMC s.v. Athena no. 574; Xen. Hipp. 3.1–2; Dem. 21.171 and 174. On the role of demotai in the Panathenaia: IG II² 334.26–27, where it is stated that demesmen received a share of the sacrifice to Athena. This implies that demesmen marched together which is corroborated by Dem. 44.37 and the deme calendars of Skambonidai (IG I³ 244 A19) and Thorikos (SEG 33.147, with Michael Jameson’s restoration of an addendum mentioning the sacrifice of an ewe in the context of the Panathenaia in ‘The spectacular and the obscure in Athenian religion’ in: S. Goldhill and R. Osborne (eds.), Performance culture and Athenian democracy (Cambridge 1999) 330 n.32). ΣAr. Clouds 37 implies a role for demarchs in mustering the pompe. The probable participation of ‘freed slaves and other barbarians’ can also be mentioned, who, according to Bekker’s Anecdota (242, 2), ‘each carry an oak branch through the agora’ during the Panathenaia. Cf. IG II² 1028 (100/99 BC); Dinarchus fr.16.3.

Franz Steiner Verlag

44

Chapter 1: The first steps of Athenian μετοικία

colonists, who were to bring a cow and panoply to the Panathenaia.26 Finally, it is highly likely that the competitors in the agones of the Greater Panathenaia were also included in the procession.27 The inclusion of all these different groups in the Panathenaic procession has most commonly been understood as reflecting and projecting an open and inclusive perspective on the Athenian community, allowing anyone with ties to Athens a share in the worship of Athena Polias. In that way, the synoicism of Attica, traditionally associated with Theseus, who was also seen as the mythological founder of the Panathenaia, was extended to include all people and territories in any way related to Athens.28 However, the way in which the Athenian community was presented in the Panathenaic procession was not as straightforward as has often been suggested. The procession rather represents a selective organisation and presentation of Athena’s worshippers, whose various memberships of Athena’s community were displayed in connection with specific ritual obligations. So, how was the membership of metics displayed and in connection with which specific obligations? METICS AT THE PANATHENAIA The testimonia Most of our information on metics walking in procession for Athena Polias derives from late lexicographic sources. The entries in these lexicons are often short and without context and therefore difficult to interpret. For example, Photius (s.v. σκάφας), writing in the ninth century AD, tells us that basins (σκάφας) were ‘carried by metics in the Panathenaic pompe, some bronze and some silver, filled with honeycombs and cakes; they [i.e. the metics] were dressed in crimson chitons’. He names Menander as his source. Under a later entry (s.v. σκαφηφόρειν), Photius IG I³ 34.41–3 (M&L 46); IG I³ 71.54–58 (= M&L 69), dated either to 448/7 (R. Meiggs, The Athenian empire (Oxford 1972) 293–305) or 426/5 (H. Mattingly, The Athenian empire restored; epigraphic and historical studies (Michigan 1996) 281–314). Apoikoi seem part of the Greater Panathenaia from an earlier date onwards: IG I³ 14.2–4 (M&L 40) (450s); IG I³ 46.11– 13 (M&L 49) (440s). Cf. Σ Ar. Clouds 386. Brulé (1996) 60–1, suggests that Hdt 5.82 perhaps already alluded to the existence of this practice in the sixth century. The representatives of allies were probably no longer part of the procession after the defeat of the Athenian Empire in 404/3, although an attempt to revive the fifth-century custom is perhaps reflected in a decree of 372 (SEG 31.67) in which the Parians are requested ‘to bring a cow and panoply to the Panathenaia and a cow and phallus to the Dionysia […] as being colonists of the demos of Athens’. Whether colonists continued to participate is unclear though not unlikely. 27 E.g. Tracy (1991) 149–51; B. Nagy, ‘Athenian officials on the Parthenon Frieze’, AJA 96 (1992) 55–69, has identified the nine non-processional figures on the east frieze on either side of the gods as nine of the ten athlothetai, with Pericles himself as athlothete on the central slab. E. Simon, Festivals of Attica; an archaeological commentary (Wisconsin 1983) 63–4, suggests that the men carrying hydriai on the Frieze (N16–19, S115–118) are victors in torch-races. I shall argue below they are better understood as metic hydriaphoroi. 28 On Theseus’ role in the synoicism of Attica see most famously Thuc. 2.15. On Theseus as the founder of the Panathenaia: Plut. Thes. 24.3; Paus. 7.2; Σ Plato, Parm. 127a. 26

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the Panathenaia

45

further explains that σκαφηφόρειν was ‘to carry plates full with offerings by metics at the pompai. This was the duty of the metics for the polis’. Although these two entries already provide us with a wealth of information, they also confront us with the difficulties of these sources. For instance, only when explaining σκάφας does Photius give his source. This is also the entry where he specifies the pompe as the Panathenaic one – under σκαφηφόρειν he speaks of pompai in general. Given the similarity of the two entries it is likely Photius is speaking of the Panathenaic pompe in both instances, but in other cases it is far from certain whether only the Panathenaia are referred to when lexicographers speak of ‘pompai’ in general or ‘the pompai paid for by the polis’ (αἱ δημοτέλεις πομπαὶ).29 In the case of σκαφηφόρειν, for instance, we know for a fact that metics fulfilled this role at other festivals as well.30 Even so, when processions are referred to in general, it is safe to assume they included the Panathenaic one, the pompe par excellence. Besides the lexicons, we also have snippets of fifth- and fourth-century information, though these are often even more difficult to grasp, like the vases mentioned earlier. Most famous is the Parthenon Frieze, which appears to depict three of the four metic duties described in our lexicographic sources. Although the exact nature of the procession on the frieze remains a subject of heated controversy, there now at least seems to be a general consensus that it reflects some general notion about the Panathenaic pompe in the second half of the fifth century.31 From a minimalistic point of view it can at least be stated that if there had not been a group of skaphephoroi in Athenian polis religion they could not have appeared on the frieze. In addition, we have generic descriptions of pompai in Aristophanes and Aeschylus in which scholars have seen allusions to the Panathenaia and more specifically to the participation of metics in this festival.32 Skaphephoroi So, at least in Menander’s time, it was the duty of metics to carry skaphai of silver and bronze filled with honeycombs and cakes in the Panathenaic pompe, while dressed in crimson cloaks. These cakes were probably to be placed on the altar as offerings.33 Harpocration (s.v. σκαφηφόροι) adds: 29 30

31 32

33

Most scholars nevertheless assume they do, e.g. Clerc, Métèques athéniens (1893) 159–60; Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 88; Parker, Polytheism (2005) 170 n.56. Skaphephoroi are also mentioned in the context of Dionysian festivals (Suda s.v. ἀσκος ἐν πάχνῃ; Bekker’s Anecd. 214, 3), where they participated next to wineskin-carrying astoi, for which see below, 78–80. Cf. C. Sourvinou-Inwood, ‘Something to do with Athens; tragedy and ritual’ in: R. Osborne and S. Goldhill (eds.), Ritual, finance, politics; Athenian democratic accounts presented to David Lewis (Oxford 1994) 270–1, n. 9. What the other processions could have been, if any besides the Dionysian ones, is unknown. For an overview of the different theories: Neils, Frieze (2001) 173–201. Comparing Aristophanes and the Frieze: Rotroff (1977) 379–82. Comparing Aeschylus and the lexicons: W. Headlam, ‘The last scene of the Eumenides’, JHS 26 (1906) 268–77; G. Thomson, The Oresteia of Aeschylus (Cambridge 1938) 314–21. On sacrificial cakes: E. Kearns, ‘Cakes in Greek sacrifice regulations’ in: R. Hägg (ed.), An-

Franz Steiner Verlag

46

Chapter 1: The first steps of Athenian μετοικία Δημήτριος γοῦν ἐν γ΄ Νομοθεσίας φησὶν ὅτι προσέταττεν ὁ νόμος τοῖς μετοίκοις ἐν ταῖς πομπαῖς αὐτοὺς μὲν σκάφας φέρειν, τὰς δὲ θυγατέρας αὐτῶν ὑδρεῖα καὶ σκιάδια. Διείλεκται περὶ τούτων καὶ Θεόφραστος ἐν ί Νόμων. Demetrius (i.e. of Phaleron), said in his Laws (3) that the law used to instruct metics to carry basins in the pompai and their daughters to carry hydriai and parasols. Theophrastus also spoke of these things in his Laws (9).

Interestingly, Bekker’s Anecdota (280.1; 304.7) explicitly describes the skaphephoria as a typical metic liturgy, as a μετοίκων λειτουργία. This probably meant wealthy metics were selected and expected to look after the silver and bronze basins and pay for the crimson cloaks they had to wear as skaphephoroi.34 These cloaks were especially expensive garments as crimson – or Phoenician or Tyrian crimson – was by far the most costly colour in antiquity.35 It is likely, though, that by the late fourth century the law ordering metics to perform this liturgy was no longer effective, for Demetrius, who revised and perhaps systemised Athenian law, is known to have abolished liturgies as he thought the liturgy-system drained the Athenian elite of its wealth.36 Whether or not abolished by Demetrius, it is beyond doubt that metics walked in the Panathenaic procession as skaphephoroi in the classical period. Our main source for this is Aeschylus’ Eumenides (1029–1032), first performed in 458. In the grand finale of the play, the Eumenides are presented as walking in procession with Athena, donned in crimson cloaks, and explicitly referred to as metics.37 Aristophanes also refers to a skaphephoros in his mock procession in Ecclesiazusae (742), probably performed in the 390s. Skaphephoroi are also depicted on the Parthenon Frieze: three skaphephoroi are restored on each long side (N13–15, S119–121), of which two are partly preserved (N 13, S120).38 They are depicted as young, unbearded men, clad in richly draped himations, carrying large basins on their shoulders. We come across similar images of skaphephoroi on several early to mid-fifthcentury vases (see App. I, nos. 1–4).

34

35

36

37 38

cient Greek cult practice from the epigraphical evidence (Stockholm 1994) 65–70. Other ancient examples are Ar. Wealth 659–661 (at the Asklepieion in Piraeus); Ar. Clouds 507–508 (to the hero Trophonios in Boeotia); Hdt. 8.41.2–3 (to a sacred snake on the Acropolis). On festival liturgies see e.g. J.K. Davies, ‘Demosthenes on liturgies; a note’, JHS 87 (1967); for liturgies in general see the introduction in idem, Athenian propertied families, 600–300 BC (Oxford 1971) xvii–xxxi. The high costs were mainly due to the extremely laborious method for producing purple dye from marine snails, famously described by Pliny the Elder (NH 9.60–65). Cf. M. Reinhold, History of purple as a status symbol in antiquity (Collection Latomus 16) (Brussels 1970), esp. 1–28; H. Stulz, Die Farbe Purpur in frühen Griechentum beobachtet in der Literatur und in der bildenden Kunst (Stuttgart 1990). For changes instituted by Demetrius: C. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Anthony (Cambridge [MA] 1997) 54–9. For his religious reforms: J.D. Mikalson, Religion in Hellenistic Athens (Berkeley, Los Angeles 1998) 53–62; Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 268, 271. Demetrius allegedly stated (FGrH 228F25) that many tripods, won after a successful choregia, were monuments only to the ruin of the families that had overspent their resources in commissioning them. On the metic Eumenides as skaphephoroi: Headlam (1906); Thomson, Oresteia (1938) 314–21. Neils, Frieze (2001) 150; I. Jenkins, The Parthenon Frieze (London 1994) 71.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the Panathenaia

47

In an inventory of the Parthenon (IG I³ 342.24) we further come across one hundred bronze skaphai recorded shortly after 404.39 These skaphai were permanently kept with other cult equipment in the Parthenon, to be taken out only for ritual use. Perhaps they are the skaphai carried by metics in the Panathenaic procession. That these inventories were taken at the time of the Panathenaia points to a connection with this festival, probably taking place shortly after, when ritual objects used in the festival had to be returned and accounted for.40 The fact that the basins in the inventory were made of bronze also corresponds with what we are told by Photius. What is more, except for a small σκάφιον χαλκοῦν (IG II² 1467.5–6 = 155, V228) dedicated in 304, this is the only group of skaphai to occur in the inventories, probably dedicated en bloc by the demos shortly after 404. According to Diane Harris, it was at this time, after the (plausible) melting down of treasure during the Peloponnesian War and the upheaval of the Thirty, that the Athenians felt a strong need to restore their cult equipment on the Acropolis41, among them a group of one hundred skaphai, perhaps to be carried by a group of one hundred metics on the occasion of the next Panathenaia. Hydriaphoroi Hydriaphoroi were metics who carried large water-jars up the Acropolis.42 The sex of these hydriaphoroi has been the subject of an on-going debate. In lexicons hydriaphoroi are consistently described as metic women or girls.43 However, those carrying hydriai on the Parthenon Frieze (N16–19 and restored on S115–118) are clearly men: we see four beardless youths in himations, three carry heavy hydriai on their shoulders, while the fourth is shown picking up his pitcher from the ground. Because hydriaphoroi are described as female in later sources, it has been suggested that the youths on the frieze should not be understood as hydriaphoroi, but as victorious athletes or as allies presenting tribute.44 Recently, however, Jenifer Neils presented some additional evidence in support of male hydriaphoroi. She refers, inter alia, to a fragmentary red-figure pelike attributed to the Pan Painter and 39 40 41

42

43

44

D. Harris, The treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion (Oxford 1995) 155, V229 (= IG I³ 342.24). Ibidem, 10. Ibidem, 28–9. Interestingly, this number matches the number of kanephoroi for whom Lycurgus provided gold ornaments, supra n.20, and who marched further up in the front of the procession. For the many uses of water in sacrifices see Van Straten, Hiera kala (1995) 31–42; S. Cole, ‘The uses of water in Greek sanctuaries’ in: R. Hägg, N. Marinatos and G.C. Nordquist (eds.), Early Greek cult practice (Stockholm 1988) 161–5. Demetrius (apud Harpocration s.v. σκαφηφόροι) is probably the source for all entries on hydriaphoroi; Pollux (3.5) informs us they were the wives of metics; Photius (s.v.ὑδριαφόροι) describes them as ‘the female metics’. Victorious athletes: Simon, Festivals (1983) 63–4, who refers to the hydriai awarded as prizes for the Panathenaic torch-race (IG II² 2311.77). Tribute: B. Wesenberg, ‘Panathenäische Peplosdedikation und Arrephorie; zur Thematik des Parthenonfriezes’, JdAI 110 (1995) 149–78. Tribute was, however, not presented at the Panathenaia but at the Dionysia.

Franz Steiner Verlag

48

Chapter 1: The first steps of Athenian μετοικία

dated to ca. 440 (App. I, no. 6). We see a kanephoros with a sacrificial basket on her head, while more to the right a youth picks up a large hydria.45 In addition, we have some near contemporary textual information in Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae, performed in 393, where we find a certain Chremes staging a mock Panthenaic procession with household utensils (730–745). The flour-sieve, which is brought out first, represents the kanephoros. After this comes the stool-carrier (ἡ διφροφόρος – 734) and perhaps the parasol-carrier (here addressed as ἡ κομμώτρια – 737). At this point, Chremes addresses one of his slaves and orders him to bring out the hydria by saying: ‘bring that hydria over here, hydriaphoros!’ (φέρε δεῦρο ταύτην τὴν ὑδρίαν, ὑδριαφόρε ἐνταῦθα – 738). Commenting on this line Alan Sommerstein suggested it is possibly significant that in our passage the jar-bearer is distinguished from the jar itself and presumably therefore is, for once, to be identified not with the (grammatically feminine) utensil but with the (male) slave who brings it out, even though it is of course the jar, not the slave, that is set down as part of the mock procession.46

Similarly, though overlooked by Sommerstein, the (grammatically feminine) skaphe is also conspicuously placed in line by a man (ὁ τὴν σκάφην λαβὼν προΐτω– 742). In the case of the skaphephoroi we are sure they were male and we can probably conclude that in the fifth and early fourth century hydriaphoroi were most likely male as well. It is certainly not impossible that regulations had changed by the time Demetrius wrote his Laws: his interest in religious reforms is well known and we know of at least one other instance where the required sex of ritual personnel changed over time.47 Skiadephoroi Skiadephoroi were metic girls who carried parasols in the Panathenaic procession. Demetrius (apud Harpocration s.v. σκαφηφόροι) is again our main source. He informs us that the daughters of metics had to carry parasols.48 Aristophanes further indicates that these parasols were carried for the comfort of the kanephoroi, who were accompanied and shaded by these girls during processions.49 In his Birds 45

46 47

48 49

Neils, Frieze (2001) 146–50. We also have a fragment of a red-figure vase attributed to the Dinos Painter, dated to around 420 (App. I, no. 5), which seems to copy the pose of the fourth figure on the Frieze. The date of the fragment points to the direct influence of the Frieze and renders the fragment unsuitable as independent evidence on the sex of the hydriaphoroi. A.H. Sommerstein, Ecclesiazusae (Warminster 1998) 205. While only boys are known to have performed the role of hearth-initiate at the Mysteries in the classical period, all but one of the hearth-initiates in the Hellenistic period are girls, Connelly, Portrait (2007) 33 n.37. On Demetrius’ religious reforms: supra n.36. Unfortunately the Parthenon inventories give no clue as regards to the number of Panathenaic hydriaphoroi. The records of 402/1 show the dedication of a group of twenty-seven new silver hydriai, each weighing around 1000 drachma, i.e. 4.3 kg (Harris, Treasures (1995) 161–2, V 260 (= IG II² 1372. 7–10). However, we also come across a mix of personal and official dedications, some of them not even dedicated to Athena (e.g. V254 (= IG II² 1412.20); V253 (= IG II² 1469.3–12)). Pollux (7.174), probably following Demetrius, is in agreement. Cf. Aelian VH 6.1.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the Panathenaia

49

(1494–1552), performed in 414, we come across a rather unheroic Prometheus, who goes up to Cloudcuckooland to inform Pisthetairos about the anger of the gods, who had not been receiving their customary sacrifices recently. As he discusses matters with Pisthetairos, Prometheus is restless; he is afraid Zeus will notice his betrayal from the Olympus and therefore asks Pisthetairos to take a parasol to shield him ‘so that the gods do not see me’ (1508). When Prometheus wants to leave, he asks Pisthetairos: ‘bring me the parasol, so that if Zeus should see me from up there, he would think I was escorting one of the kanephoroi’ (φέρε τὸ σκιάδειον, ἵνα με κἂν ὁ Ζεὺς ἴδῃ ἄνωθεν, ἀκολουθεῖν δοκῶ κανηφόρῳ – 1550–1551). In both instances the parasol may be understood as an incongruous, comical item, not to be used or carried by either Pisthetairos or Prometheus as the use of parasols seems to be the preserve of women in classical Athens.50 The mention of kanephoroi, in addition, points towards a ritual context, most likely that of the Panathenaic pompe, which was the only occasion we know skiadephoroi participated. Prometheus is therefore not only carrying a female attribute but also, by invoking the ritual context of the Panathenaia, a metic one. The unheroic and twitchy nature of the Titan is thus given further emphasis by presenting him in such a state of anxiety that he is willing to carry anything as a shield, even though this means he looks like a metic girl carrying a parasol for a kanephoros at the Panathenaia.51 So, metic girls carried parasols in the Panathenaic procession for the comfort of the Athenian girls acting as kanephoroi. This close association with the kanephoroi might furthermore suggest a number of one hundred metic girls carrying parasols, at least in Lycurgan times when this number perhaps is attested for the kanephoroi.52 Diphrophoroi In the same scene from the Birds in which Prometheus is associated with skiadephoria, we also come across a reference to a diphrophoros. When Prometheus asks for the parasol, Pisthetairos adds: ‘Wait, take this stool and act as diphrophoros too’ (καὶ τὸν δίφρον γε διφροφόρει τονδὶ λαβών – 1552). Hesychius (s.v. διφροφόροι) tells us that diphrophoroi were ‘females who followed the kanephoroi, carrying stools (diphroi) with them’. Because of the close association with the other three metic groups, scholars generally believe these diphrophoroi to have been metics. By saying he should act as a diphrophoros too the image of Prometheus as feminine and foreign is thus reinforced. In a scholium to another line in Birds (1294), it is moreover implied that an association between metics and diphrophoria was similarly exploited in Cratinus’ Maids of Delos (fr.30). There it was said that 50

51 52

M.C. Miller, ‘The parasol; an oriental status-symbol in late archaic and classical Athens’, JHS 112 (1992) 91–105; idem, Athens and Persia in the fifth century BC; a study in cultural receptivity (Cambridge 1997) 193–8. With the exception of the still puzzling depictions on the socalled Anacreon vases, all Athenian images show women using parasols themselves or being shaded by female servants. Cf. N. Dunbar, Aristophanes, Birds (Oxford 1995) 693–4, on Aristophanes’ general presentation of Prometheus and his commentary on lines 1508, 1150–1551 ad loc. Supra n.20.

Franz Steiner Verlag

50

Chapter 1: The first steps of Athenian μετοικία

‘Lycurgus shall follow them carrying a stool, clad in Egyptian dress’. This Lycurgus can probably be identified as the homonymous grandfather of the famous politician of the 330s, who was often ridiculed in Old Comedy as being feminine and an Egypt-lover or even an Egyptian himself.53 We can see how in both these passages the carrying of a diphros could simultaneously underscore a certain femininity and foreignness of both the unheroic, twitchy Prometheus and the soft, Egypt-lover Lycurgus. It is usually assumed that metic girls carried stools for the comfort of the kanephoroi. However, Hesychius only says that diphrophoroi followed (εἵποντο) the kanephoroi.54 Also, in Birds only the parasol is associated with escorting (ἀκολουθεῖν) a kanephoros, while the carrying of the diphros is mentioned without such a statement. In addition, perhaps the small number of diphroi recorded in the inventory of the Hekatompedon may be seen as precluding a large group of diphrophoroi escorting possibly as many as a hundred kanephoroi with stools.55 Although these data are much too cursory to draw any firm conclusion, they do seem to suggest a relatively small number of diphrophoroi. What, then, was the function of these diphroi in the Panathenaic procession? Several suggestions have been put forward. Complicating the matter are the two girls carrying stools on their heads in the much discussed central east scene of the Parthenon Frieze. The position of the stool-carrying girls 1) in this prominent part of the Frieze and 2) away from the kanephoroi, with whom the diphrophoroi are commonly associated, has led to numerous speculations.56 The most common view is expressed by Neils, who states these girls cannot be ‘simply diphrophoroi’ but ‘rather must be more important figures, who played a key role in the cult of Athena’. Her identification of these girls as arrephoroi is, however, unfounded as these young girls are nowhere attested as participating in the Panathenaia.57 The claim that diphrophoroi were “minor characters” seems moreover misinformed by a preconceived notion of low metic status and not by the ritual role performed. As the girls on the Frieze carry diphroi, there is no compelling reason not to identify them as diphrophoroi.58

53 54 55

56

57 58

Cf. R.R. Simms, ‘Isis in classical Athens’, CJ 84 (1988/9) 216–21. This order seems confirmed by the mock procession in Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae (734–735), where the diphrophoros comes after the flour-sieve acting as kanephoros. We come across one group of five round-footed diphroi first entered in 397/6, four complete stools entered in 434/3, and another four and one broken one added in 371/0 (Harris, Treasures (1995) V118 = IG II² 1394.13–14; IV 27 = IG I³ 343.14; V116–117 = IG II² 1424a. 297–298, 345). C. Waldstein, ‘Τραπεζώ and Κοσμώ in the Frieze of the Parthenon’, JHS 11 (1890) 143–5, identifies the two girls in the peplos-scene as Athena’s attendants Trapezo and Kosmo, though trapezophoros clearly refers to tables not stools. C. Kardara, ‘Glaukopis – Ho archaios Naos kai to Thema tes Zophorou tou Parthenos’, Arch. Eph. (1964) 115–58, identifies them as two daughters of Kekrops but her mythical reading of the Frieze is no longer accepted. Neils, Frieze (2001) 167–8. Similar: Simon, Festivals (1983) 67. This straightforward identification was already suggested by O. Walter, Ath. Mitt. 38 (1913) 145–7 and K. DeVries, ‘The diphrophoroi on the Parthenon Frieze’, AJA 98 (1994) 323.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Honour or humiliation?

51

What, then, was the function of the stools they carried? A. Furtwängler was the first to argue that the stools were used in a ritual called theoxenia, the entertainment of the gods, which was not uncommon in ancient Greek cult.59 Dorothy Thompson alternatively suggested that the stools were part of the Persian booty captured during the Persian Wars and then incorporated in the Panathenaic procession as symbols of royal power.60 Both theories are attractive but both have their weaknesses as well, and there appears to be no way to decide which theory deserves our preference – although the common idea that diphrophoroi were carrying stools for the comfort of the kanephoroi is now hopefully once and for all refuted.61 HONOUR OR HUMILIATION? These, then, were the hiera of Athena Polias metics shared in. Interpretations of these duties vary widely, though all appear to pivot around the theme of honour/ dishonour. Since the early nineteenth century the pendulum has swung several times from describing these metic duties as ‘geringe und ehrenrührige Dienste’62 to ‘un grand honneur’.63 The current dominant view is still Whitehead’s, who in 1977 wrote that ‘we should recognise both the concessions and their limits’, emphasising the subjective nature of our sources that prevents us from choosing between a “disgrace theory” and economically motivated concessions.64 In the latter case the (financial) contributions made by metics, either to Athenian society at large or to meet the specific costs of the Panathenaia, were compensated by a small share in the festival, while according to the popular “disgrace theory” metics were forced by the Athenians to participate in a specific way that powerfully underscored their inferior status. This debate about the Panathenaic metic duties is characterised by a rigid polarity, with scholars emphasising either the humiliating outlook and effect of the metic duties or the honour inherent to religious inclusion. Scholars who view metic duties as humiliating generally focus on the obligatory nature of these duties as if designed to coerce metics collectively into subordination. Their most important source is Aelian (VH 6.1), writing in the second century AD, who wishes to demonA. Furtwängler, Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik (Leipzig and Berlin 1893) 186–90. On theoxenia see most importantly M.H. Jameson, ‘Theoxenia’ in: R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek cult practice from the epigraphical evidence (Stockholm 1994) 35–57. 60 D.B. Thompson, ‘The Persian spoils in Athens’ in: S.S. Weinberg (ed.), The Aegean and the Near East; studies presented to Hetty Goldman (New York 1956) 281–91. In an inventory of the Parthenon we come across ‘five round-footed stools; one with silver feet’ (IG II² 1394.13– 14= Harris, Treasures (1995) V118), a description that might hint at their Persian origin. 61 Against Furtwängler it can be argued that on the Parthenon Frieze the gods are already seated, with the exception of Eros and Iris. 62 A. Böckh, Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener I (3rd ed.) (Berlin 1886) 624, first published in 1817. 63 Clerc, Métèques athéniens (1893) 159. 64 Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 88. 59

Franz Steiner Verlag

52

Chapter 1: The first steps of Athenian μετοικία

strate that the growing prosperity after the Persian Wars led to hubris among the Athenians. As an example he states: Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ ὕβρισαν καὶ ἐκείνην τὴν ὕβριν: εὐτυχίας γὰρ λαβόμενοι τὴν εὐπραγίαν σωφρόνως οὐκ ἤνεγκαν. τὰς γοῦν παρθένους τῶν μετοίκων σκιαδηφορεῖν ἐν ταῖς πομπαῖς ἠνάγκαζον ταῖς ἑαυτῶν κόραις, τὰς δὲ γυναῖκας ταῖς γυναιξί, τοὺς δὲ ἄνδρας σκαφηφορεῖν The Athenians committed another excess. For having had good fortune they did not use this prosperity sensibly. They forced the daughters of metics to carry parasols in the processions for their own girls, and their wives for their own wives, while the men had to carry trays.

Scholars also refer to an entry in Pollux’ lexicon, also from the second-century AD, to emphasise that metics were supposedly very reluctant to participate. When the grammarian tries to explain the term ἀδιάτακτοι – literally ‘out of rank’ but often translated with the more morally coloured ‘undisciplined’ – he refers to ‘[metics] who are not enrolled among the metics, who have not paid the metoikion or carried the skaphe’ (3.57).65 These scholars also find it significant that skaphephorein is sometimes described as a liturgy and Demetrius is often quoted as he referred to a law ordering metics to carry trays, hydriai and parasols. These scholars, in short, seem to envisage a deliberate policy that forced an unwilling and unruly metic population into dishonourable duties that would symbolise their subordinate position. Another sign of the supposedly degrading nature of skaphephoria is often seen in an Athenian proverb transmitted in several lexicons, containing snippets of Theophrastus’ On Laws and Menander’s Eunuch. According to Zenobius (5.95) the proverb that one was ‘as tight-lipped as a skaphe’ (συστομώτερον σκάφης) referred to the lack of speech (ἀπαρρησίαστον) of metics, ‘not being allowed even to open their lips’. The Suda (s.v. συστομώτερον σκάφης) records that Θεόφραστος γὰρ ἐν τῷ Περὶ νόμων εἰρῆσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ τοὺς μετοίκους Ἀθήνησιν ἐν ταῖς δημοτελέσι πομπαῖς σκάφας φέροντας πομπεύειν: καὶ ὀπότε δὲ ἐβούλοντο μέτοικον δηλῶσαι, ἢ σκάφην ἒλεγον ἢ σκαφηφόρον. διὰ δὲ τὸ ἀπαρρησίαστον εἶναι, συστομώτερον ποιήσειν ἀπειλεῖν σκάφης. Theophratus in his On Laws says that it is derived from the fact that metics in Athens carried bowls in public processions – whenever [the Athenians] wanted to point out a metic, they said “skaphe” or “skaphephoros” – and because of their lack of freedom of speech, they could threaten to make them as tight-lipped as a skaphe.

These references to metics as skaphai or skaphephoroi in New Comedy66 are usually understood as insulting to metics. Finally, the special dress code for the skaphephoroi and the items metics carried, i.e. “the humiliating trays” and the “oriental” parasols associated with Eastern luxury, are often described as demeaning, separating metics from the other (Athenian) participants as markedly inferior.67 65 66 67

E.g. P. Wilson, The Athenian institution of the khoregia: the chorus, the city and the stage (Cambridge 2000) 25–7 with n.77. Cf. Photius, Suda, and Hesychius s.v. συστομώτερον σκάφης. Parker, Polytheism (2005) 26, writes that metics were ‘included in a way which marked out not just their difference from citizens but also their hierarchical inferiority’ (i.e. by carrying humiliating trays). Maurizio (1998) 305: these items ‘implicitly link metic with slave’.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Honour or humiliation?

53

Then there are scholars who have argued that the Panathenaic metic duties should, on the contrary, be described in terms of inclusion and honour. They refer to Hesychius (s.v. σκαφηφόροι), who, as we saw earlier, writes that metics ‘carried trays at the Panathenaia, in order that they, through sharing in the offerings, were counted as well-disposed’. This benevolent disposition towards metics participating in the Panathenaia seems to echo the exodus of Aeschylus’ Eumenides. After the Furies have received their new, formal status as metics68, both Athena and the Good Spirits draw attention to the honours bestowed upon the new metics and the benefits and goodwill Athens will receive in return from them. Then, in the final lines of her speech (1028–1031), Athena orders her servants: φοινικοβάπτοις ἐνδυτοῖς ἐσθήμασι τιμᾶτε, καὶ τὸ φέγγος ὁρμάσθω πυρός, ὅπως ἂν εὔφρων ἥ δ ὁμιλία χθονὸς τὸ λοιπὸν εὐάνδροισι συμφοραῖς πρέπῃ honour with special robes dyed with purple and then let the flame of fire set forward, so that for the future these companions of ours in this land may be friendly towards it and give it the glorious blessing of manly excellence.69

Most scholars see several references to the Panathenaia in this passage,70 but perhaps this designation is too specific as the scene rather creates a (conflated) image of a generic pompe.71 Nevertheless, the scene indeed seems to present us with a positive evaluation of (divine) metic participation in polis festivals. The debate on metic participation in the Panathenaia as outlined above is characterised by a rigid polarity, which primarily derives from the highly personal and diverse views in our sources, which often come from a late, Roman, that is, strictly The Eumenides are now described as μετοίκοι (1011; 1018) in contrast to their previous state of ξυνοικία (833; 916). Cf. H.H. Bacon, ‘The Furies’ homecoming’, CP 96 (2001) 48–59. 69 The translation comes from the latest Loeb edition (2008), by Alan Sommerstein. 70 Headlam (1906) 268–77, and Thomson, Oresteia (1938) 314–21, associated the scene with the Panathenaia because of the mention of 1) the crimson cloaks for the metic Eumenides (1029); 2) euandria (1032); and 3) the procession with its flaming torches, paean and ὀλολύγματα (1033–1035), probably referring to a pannychis. This last similarity was already noted by August Mommsen, Heortologie: antiquarische Untersuchungen über die städtischen Feste der Athener (Leipzig 1864) 171, but see Parker’s doubts, Athenian religion (1996) 298–9. B.H. Weaver, ‘A further allusion in the Eumenides to the Panathenaia’, CQ n.s. 46 (1996) 559–61, sees “a further allusion” in the coinciding dates for homicide trials in classical Athens and the Panathenaia, one of the few festivals known to have been celebrated on these days. 71 Crimson cloaks for metics, flaming torches, paeans and ὀλολύγματα were part of other festivals as well and the explanation of εὐάνδροισι (1031) as a specific reference to the Panathenaic euandria is not watertight as can be seen reflected in several other translations: e.g. H.W. Smyth, Aeschylus II (Cambridge [MA], London 1981): ‘that the kindly disposition of this company may henceforth make its presence manifest in blessings that bring prosperity to men’; H. Lloyd-Jones, The Eumenides (Oxford 1970): ‘that this sojourn, kindly to this land, may in future time be made manifest in fortune that brings it noble men’; or Headlam (1906) 273: ‘that so the land may find this company’s good will henceforth marked in her manhood’s excellence and worth’. 68

Franz Steiner Verlag

54

Chapter 1: The first steps of Athenian μετοικία

hierarchical context.72 Presented with these divergent opinions, scholars, often with preconceived ideas about metic status, have tried to extract a normative program of either humiliation or honourable inclusion behind the organisation of the Panathenaic metic duties. They thereby appear to feel forced to choose between two opposing values, leading to oversimplified and isolated statements on the Athenians’ intentions concerning their metic population. For instance, discussing the legally enforced “subordination” of metics in the Panathenaia, scholars commonly ignore the fact that Athenians too were ordered by law to participate in polis rites in a particular manner. A similar fallacy can be observed with the interpretations of liturgies performed by wealthy metics, like the skaphephoria. Most commonly, these metic liturgies are negatively described, while liturgies performed by wealthy Athenians are generally judged positively. Peter Wilson, for instance, has clearly elucidated the importance of liturgies for communal self-definition but he nonetheless denies metics any share in this.73 True, in addition to the central, inherent motivation of philotimia, enthusiasm had to be commanded by law, but this applied to both metics and Athenian citizens. More importantly, similar sorts of honours and benefits were to be gained through the performance of liturgies; claims to the expected goodwill of the community after performing liturgies are expressed by citizens (e.g. Dem. 38.25) and metics (e.g. Lys. 12.20) alike.74 Certainly, wealthy Athenian citizens had many more liturgies to perform, including the expensive and high-profile liturgy of financing a trierarchy.75 Only few attempts have been made to reconcile the two traditions. Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 26–7, argues that the more positive evaluation of metic participation is probably to be understood as an “official” attempt to sooth a potentially explosive situation, while the more negative reports are “popular” reactions. Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 87–8, following Y. Katayama, ‘The social significance of liturgies from the viewpoint of the participation of metics’, JCS 18 (1970) 40–51, which I was unfortunately not able to consult, has suggested that the sources reflect a historical development in the evaluation of metic participation. What initially, at the time of Aeschylus, was understood as honourable eventually turned sour, if we take the jokes on metics in New Comedy as the first proof of such a switch in evaluation. 73 Wilson, Khoregia (2000), esp. 108–43. 74 Davies, Propertied families (1971) xviii n.4, provides a list of instances where ancient orators play on the expected goodwill of the audience after performing liturgies. Cf. J. Ober, Mass and elite in democratic Athens; rhetoric, ideology, and the power of the people (Princeton 1989) 231–3; P. Millet, ‘The rhetoric of reciprocity in classical Athens’ in: C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite and R. Seaford (eds.), Reciprocity in ancient Greece (Oxford 1998) 227–53. We may even wonder whether contributing to public services did not make these rich metics feel more committed to Athenian concerns rather than feeling subordinated and humiliated. On the correlation between the amount paid and the involvement of taxpayers in communities, see the comparative study of J.L van Zanden and M. Prak, ‘Toward an economic interpretation of citizenship; the Dutch republic between medieval communes and modern nation-states’, European Review of Economic History 10 (2006) 111–45. 75 There is some evidence that suggests metics also served as trierarch (e.g. IG II² 1609.27; IG II² 1623.204–205, 251–252, 268–275; IG II² 1631.435; IG II² 1491.26; IG II² 1492.106; IG II² 40.10; Dem. 45.85). See M. Clark, ‘The date of IG II² 1604’, BSA 85 (1990) 66; Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 85; V. Gabrielsen, Financing the Athenian fleet; public taxation and social relations (Baltimore 1994) 61; B. Jordan, ‘Metic trierarchs’, The Ancient History Bulletin 15 (2001) 131–4, for a discussion. 72

Franz Steiner Verlag

Honour or humiliation?

55

They therefore had many more opportunities to gain and claim charis and establish enduring links of continuous reciprocity with the Athenian community. There is, however, absolutely no good reason to describe skaphephoria as a duty specifically designed to humiliate. It was rather one of few opportunities for wealthy metics to participate in the highest echelons of Athenian society. To continue, special dress regulations, like the one requiring skaphephoroi to wear crimson cloaks, were a common phenomenon in ancient Greek religion applying to widely diverse groups of participants and not inherently humiliating.76 And in 1893 Michel Clerc already argued that since the carrying of sacrificial baskets was considered a great honour by the Greeks, the carrying of objects in general, including the carrying of trays, parasols and hydriai, cannot be considered degrading per se.77 There are, moreover, several known instances where the carrying of parasols appears to have been a highly venerable task.78 In addition, the explanation by Zenobius of the proverb ‘to be as tight-lipped as a skaphe’ appears to be highly programmatic. We should acknowledge the blatant rhetorical power of his “explanation” as it was probably highly effective in underlining the (politically) privileged male identity of the Roman citizenry he taught rhetoric.79 More still, Zenobius is explaining a proverb, while the expression seems to have only occurred in comedy and is therefore probably best understood in its proper, comical context. The discrepancy between the openness of the generally quite large and open skaphai, perhaps referring to the big mouths of metics in daily life, and tight-lippedness, perhaps referring to some sort of ritual silence to be observed at the Panathenaia, is perhaps a good starting point to explain this joke.80 All in all, it is clearly far too extreme to describe the duties of metics in the Panathenaia as a deliberate policy to humiliate and symbolically oppress metics. However, to state that the Athenians allowed metics to share in the hiera of the Panathenaia simply to grant them honour in recognition of their (financial) contributions to Athenian society is equally simplistic. It may therefore seem wise to concede with Parker that we will probably never reach a final answer to the question 76

77 78

79

80

The arrephoroi, for instance, four Athenian girls who served Athena for a year, were required to wear white garments and golden objects, which became hiera when put on (Bekker, Anecd. 202.3, 446.18; Harp. s.v. ἀρρηφορεῖν). Cf. Dillon, Girls (2002) 57–60; Connelly, Portrait (2007) 31–3. On dress-codes in sacred laws: H. Mills, ‘Greek clothing regulations; sacred and profane’, ZPE 55 (1984) 255–65; P. Culham, ‘Again, what meaning lies in colour!’, ZPE 64 (1986) 215–45. Clerc, Métèques athéniens (1893) 156–9. At the Skira, only members of the eminent genos of the Eteoboutadai were allowed to carry parasols to shade the priestess of Athena and the priests of Poseidon and Helios (Lysimachides apud Harpocration s.v. σκίρον) and on their way to Eleusis during the Mysteries, the kanephoroi probably carried parasols themselves (Σ Ar. Birds 1508). Note that Demosthenes could claim that the Athenian polis was as great as it was because they even ‘allow free speech to foreigners and slaves’ (9.3), thus presenting an inclusive and egalitarian perspective on Athenian society, cf. Dem. 58.68. (Ἀ)παρρησία was of course a popular topos in Attic literature, cf. Carter (2004). See the reference to μεγαλόστομος in Arist. Pol. 662a24. Personal communication with P.E. van ’t Wout. On ritual silence: Clerc, Métèques athéniens (1893) 158. Cf. Aesch. Eum. 1035 (‘keep auspicious silence’); Ar. Ach. 241.

Franz Steiner Verlag

56

Chapter 1: The first steps of Athenian μετοικία

‘whether it is more important that these non-citizen groups were let in, or that they were separated and subordinated’.81 I think, however, that we should not try to choose between these two extremes. Instead of trying to answer the question whether the Panathenaic metic duties were either honourable or humiliating, we should investigate the layout of these duties to see what both the inclusion of metics in this festival and their differentiation from and/or association with the other participants can tell us about the incorporation of metics as a group of its own in Athena’s community. WHAT THE FUTURE BEHOLDS – THE METIC PROMISE The young, the old, the metic An annual Panathenaic procession included a number of groups that were demarcated not only according to gender but also along very specific lines of age: from early on we come across groups of Athenian teenage girls participating as kanephoroi and old men participating as thallophoroi, while ephebes are attested to participate in the Panathenaic pompe from the second half of the fourth century onwards. Significantly, the four groups of metic youths and girls marching in the pompe seem to have been demarcated along similarly specific lines of age and gender and were associated with the other groups in several ways and I think their ritual duties can therefore be interpreted in analogy. In fact, all these groups seem to represent members of the Athenian community who were on critical, defining moments in their (biological) lives, anxious about what their futures might bring, while the community was anxious about what they would bring to the community. It could even be claimed that all these groups were metoikoi in some sense, as they were all moving from one stage of life to another and with that sometimes from one oikos to another. Kanephoroi Kanephoroi were Athenian girls who headed processions carrying large sacrificial baskets. They were picked from girls who had just reached the age of puberty and who were not yet married, so-called parthenoi.82 In addition, they were probably also required to be a member of one of the Attic gene, priestly families who took care of the polis cults of the Athenians before the institution of democracy.83 81 82

83

Parker, Polytheism (2005) 261. On the age of parthenoi¸ probably between the age of eleven and fifteen: C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Studies in girls’ transitions; aspects of the arkteia and age representation in Attic iconography (Athens 1988) 54–7, 94–7; P. Brulé, La fille d’Athènes; la religion des filles à Athènes à l’époque classique; mythes, cultes et société (Paris 1987) 300–23; Parker, Polytheism (2005) 224–5. It seems boys could also act as kanephoroi, e.g. Van Straten, Hiera kala (1995) V175, V193, but this seems to have rarely occurred. Kanephoroi are often described as aristocratic girls: Bekker, Anecd., 270, 32 refers to ‘wellborn astai’; Philochorus FGrH 328 F8 to ‘parthenoi of distinction’. This tradition seems to stem from Thucydides’ account of the exclusion of Harmodius’ sister from the kanephoria as

Franz Steiner Verlag

What the future beholds – the metic promise

57

Kanephoroi were present at many Athenian festivals.84 From a passage in Aristophanes’ Acharnians (253–258) we know that privately organised processions could also include a kanephoros. Although Aristophanes is sketching a private procession, the passage nicely illustrates several elements of the kanephoria. First there is the element of beauty and fairness.85 In Acharnians the beauty of the kanephoros is expressed through the gold ornaments worn by the girl (258) and the order to ‘act fairly, fair one’ (καλὴ καλῶς – 253).86 The marriageable status of these girls is also emphasised. Aristophanes suggests that to act as a kanephoros was a perfect opportunity to present a girl to her future husband (254–256). Significantly, kanephoroi regularly performed their duty at large polis festivals where men attended.87 This “publicity” stands in sharp contrast to most, if not all, other ritual duties performed by girls, which were commonly surrounded by secrecy and often witnessed by girls and women only.88 It appears to have been a key aspect of the kanephoria that it was performed in public in the presence of many potential husbands, which made Brulé famously describe the kanephoria as an ‘étalage de beauté’, a ‘balle des debutantes’.89 Similarly, the virginity and fertility of these girls is occasionally referred to, like in Menander’s Arbitrators, where the hetaera Habrotonon claims that after three days of sexual abstinence she is like a kanephoros (F172.262–264). Perhaps the chains of figs worn by the chorus in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata ‘when they were kanephoroi’ (646–647) can also be seen as symbolising their fertility.90

84

85 86

87

88 89 90

she was not worthy (μὴ ἀξίαν) (6.56.1). This need not, however, be because she lacked aristocratic roots, as is commonly assumed. Harmodius belonged to the “foreign” genos of the Gephyraioi who, as Herodotus (5.57) informs us, were excluded from ‘numerous privileges’. Perhaps kanephoria was one of these privileges, as suggested by S.D. Lambert, ‘Aristocracy and the Attic gene; a mythological perspective’ in: N. Fisher and H. van Wees (eds.), Aristocracy, elites and social mobility in ancient societies. Proceedings of the Aristocracy Panel at the Celtic Classics Conference (Cork, July 2008) forthc. On the Gephyraioi: Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 288–9. They are attested for the Brauronia, Diisoteria, Eleusinia, Epidauria, the festival for the Mother of the Gods, the Anthesteria, Pythaïs, City Dionysia, and, of course, the Panathenaia (Parker, Polytheism (2005) 224 n.28; Brulé, Fille (1987) 312 n.149). Most examples are discussed in detail by Brulé, Fille (1987) 289–302. This expression, which is also found in Ar. Eccl. 730, is described by Parker, Polytheism (2005) 225, as a ritual formula. The beauty of these girls is also a recurring topic on the many vases showing kanephoroi in beautiful garments and covered with golden jewellery, on which: L.J. Roccos, ‘The kanephoros and her festival mantle in Greek art’, AJA 99 (1995) 641–66; Connelly, Portrait (2007) 34–6; Parker, Polytheism (2005) 224–5. Cf. Ar. Lys. 1188–1194, where the chorus offers its dresses and gold ornaments to future kanephoroi. Stories about girls being seduced and raped when acting as kanephoroi seem to confirm the idea that these girls presented themselves to the public, cf. Maurizio (1997) n.101; Brulé, Fille (1987) 287–300. Parker, Polytheism (2005) 226, objects that too few girls acted as kanephoroi for the kanephoria to be a presentation of all marriageable girls but admits that the select group of kanephoroi must have stood as a symbol for all. Girls had many opportunities to fulfil religious duties, on which see importantly Dillon, Girls (2002) 37–72; Connelly, Portrait (2007) 27–56; Parker, Polytheism (2005) 218–52. Brulé, Fille (1987) 300–8, on 302. Parker, Polytheism (2005) 226, is perhaps too quick to refute this ‘earthly symbolism’ in the

Franz Steiner Verlag

58

Chapter 1: The first steps of Athenian μετοικία

Significantly, these defining aspects of kanephoria – beauty, publicity, marriageable status, fertility – appear to have been particularly prominent at the Panathenaia. For instance, the hundred kanephoroi Lycurgus allegedly provided gold ornaments for, far exceeds the number of kanephoroi at any other festival.91 Also, the ceremonial whiteness is only mentioned in connection with Panathenaic kanephoroi and was perhaps intended to bring out their beauty and (ritual) purity even more on this greatest of public occasions.92 The beauty and purity of these girls was perhaps even further enhanced by the shading of these girls by the skiadephoroi. Finally, the separate mention of the kanephoroi as recipients of honorary shares of meat in the decree regulating the meat distribution at the Little Panathenaia (IG II² 334.14–15) also points to special attention for these girls at this festival.93 Kanephoroi, in sum, represented girls in a transitional phase of their lives. Living between their parental oikoi and the oikoi of their future husbands, the air was thick with promises of marriages and children. Many festivals, and especially the Panathenaia, were probably thought excellent opportunities to present these girls to the public and celebrate the contributions they were about to bring to the well-being of the polis community. Thallophoroi The details of the participation of the so-called thallophoroi in the Panathenaia are rather obscure to us. Two short references in Aristophanes (Wasps 540–545) and Xenophon (Symp. 4.17) indicate they were old men.94 The term ‘thallophoroi’ further suggests they carried olive branches in processions. On many occasions branches were carried by all sorts of people, as many vases show.95 However, Xenophon indicates that at the Panathenaia only old men could act as thallophoroi and this requirement seems to have been a distinctive feature of the Panathenaia. In fact, this festival seems to have been the only religious occasion at which old men were present and presented as a clearly distinguishable group. In several, mostly military, contexts old men were perceived and articulated as a separate group. To give only one example: when the Corinthians – knowing the Athenian forces were away in Egypt and Aegina – marched into Megara in 459/8, the Athenians raised an emergency army of old and young men, which was sent to context of the Panathenaia. Supra n.20. The second highest attested number are the eleven kanephoroi at the Pythaïs in the second century BC (Parker, Polytheism (2005) 83, 224). 92 In Ar. Eccl. 730–732, with Hermippus fr. 25, Chremes is staging a mock procession modelled on the Panathenaic one, as skiadephoroi shading kanephoroi are only attested for the Panathenaia. Cf. Parker, Polytheism (2005) 225 n.35; Sommerstein, Ecclesiazusae (1998) 204. 93 For Panathenaic kanephoroi as the paradigm: Men. Epit. 440; Philoch. FGrH 328F8. 94 Thallophoroi might also be depicted on the Parthenon Frieze. Of the men on N28–43 and S89–106, four are depicted with clenched fists, suggesting they held something. Their hairdos, i.e. long braids encircling their heads, further indicate they are old men. Their number on the Frieze is surprisingly large, i.e. thirty-four. Cf. Neils, Frieze (2001) 142. 95 See for examples Van Straten, Hiera kala (1995) V6; V9; V21; V22; V52; V55; V67. 91

Franz Steiner Verlag

What the future beholds – the metic promise

59

the help of the Megarians.96 In his funeral oration, Lysias refers to this event and speaks of ‘the elderly and those below the age of service’ (2.50). The way in which Lysias specifies the youths suggests that the former are best understood as ‘those above the age of service’, as no longer thought fit and/or required to fight. But although these γεραίτεροι could be presented as having become marginal to the battlefield, they also had a new role to fulfil as advisors and political leaders. The specific contributions they were expected to bring are often highlighted in terms of good advice and experience. So, in his logos epitaphios Lysias praises the fact that the old men who had fought in Megara were quite capable since they were the ones who ‘had acquired valour by experience (οἱ μὲν ἐμπειρία τὴν ἀρετήν) […] had proven their own worth on many a field (οἱ μὲν αὐτοὶ πολλαχοῦ ἀγαθοὶ γεγενημένοι) […] and as seniors knew how to command (τῶν μὲν πρεσβυτέρων ἄρχειν ἐπισταμένων)’ (2.50–51). Thucydides’ Nicias uses similar qualifications in the famous Sicilian debate, where the old and the young are presented as opposite camps, when he says that the Athenians should remember ‘how rarely success is achieved by wishing [i.e. as the young were doing] and how often by forethought (προνοίᾳ)’ (6.13.1).97 So, the Athenians regularly conceptualised old men as a separate group, who were no longer military active but who had new important civic duties to perform as experienced, prudent leaders. These old men, represented by the thallophoroi in the Panathenaic procession, are therefore not to be discarded as marginal or insignificant. On the contrary, they had their own specific contributions to make to society. Ephebes In the course of the fourth century the participation of kanephoroi and thallophoroi was complemented by that of a group of ephebes. The status of an ephebos was comparable to that of a parthenos in that it reflected a transitional stage between childhood and adulthood.98 In the Lycurgan form of the ephebate, as instituted by a law of Epicrates in 335/499, ephebes were youths between the age of eighteen and twenty who had just registered in their demes. Before assuming full citizenship, they had to spend two continuous years in military training provided for by the polis.100 Before this reorganisation, youths were most likely already trained as Thuc. 1.105.4. This association between old age and experience and prudence ties in with the honoured Athenian tradition that the oldest man should always speak first on an embassy or in an assembly, to which Aeschines refers (2.22, 108) when he furiously responds to the attempts of the young Demosthenes to speak first when on audience at Philip of Macedon’s. Cf. Aeschin. 3.2. 98 Most importantly: C. Pelekidis, Histoire de l’éphébie attique des origines à 31 avant Jésus-Christ (Paris 1962); O.W. Reinmuth, The ephebic inscriptions of the fourth century BC (Leiden 1971). See, however, David Lewis’ critical review of Reinmuth in CR n.s. 23 (1973) 254–6. 99 Harpocration s.v. Ἐπικράτες = Lycurg. fr. 5.3. Ephebic inscriptions only appear after 334/3 (SEG 23.78), cf. Reinmuth, Inscriptions (1971). 100 Earlier sources (e.g. Aeschin. 2.167; Xen. Ways 4.51–52; Ar. Frogs 1087–1088) suggest that before this time the ephebeia was not a continuous service nor that the two years of service 96 97

Franz Steiner Verlag

60

Chapter 1: The first steps of Athenian μετοικία

ephebes, as is indicated by a reference in Aeschines (1.49), though probably not as strictly regulated as after the 330s.101 Even long before Aeschines’ time, youths who had just passed out of childhood were already treated as a separate group, especially in a military context, though what this “proto-ephebate” entailed is extremely uncertain.102 Nevertheless, the term ἔφηβοι and other terms denoting adolescent males on the verge of becoming adult Athenians were already in use in the (late) fifth century. Thucydides, for instance, mentions the special employment of νεώτατοι during the Peloponnesian War (1.105.4; 2.13.7) and Lysias, as already mentioned, could commemorate the valour of ‘those below the age of service’ (2.50–51). Outside a strictly military context, youths could also be perceived as constituting a separate category. So, in Aeschylus’ Seven Against Thebes, performed in 467, Eteocles underlines the ‘audacious acts’ of his brother Polyneicus by saying that Justice has never acknowledged him or considered him worthy ‘neither when he escaped the darkness of his mother’s womb, nor in childhood, nor at any point in his early manhood (ἐφηβήσαντά), nor when the beard first thickened on his cheek’ (664–666).103 These sources clearly demonstrate an Athenian sensitivity to a transitional phase between childhood and manhood in the fifth century, felt first and foremost within military contexts. It was to be expected that the (further) definition of this group would also find meaning through differentiated sharing in the hiera of the Athenian community, but, oddly enough, almost all evidence on the participation of ephebes in polis religion is relatively late, including the evidence for their participation in the Panathenaic procession. Dinarchus’ reproach of Agasicles’ sons who ‘will ascend the Acropolis as ephebes’ (16.3) shows that ephebes formed a demarcated group in the were strictly divided according to the tasks to be performed by the ephebes, i.e. as garrisons in Piraeus in the first year and patrolling the country in the second. Our most informative source on the Lycurgan ephebate is [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 42.2, with Rhodes, Commentary2 (1993) 494–5. 101 In his Speech against Timarchos, dated 348, Aeschines claims that Timarchos’ ‘much older’ boyfriend Misgolas ‘happens to be, indeed, of the same age as I am, and my συνέφηβος; we are now in our forty-fifth year’ (1.49). Although the ages of Timarchos and Misgolas seem to have been manipulated to place Timarchos in a bad light, most scholars still think that these remarks indicate that Aeschines (and Misgolas probably too) had been an ephebe in ca. 365. On these manipulations: N.R.E. Fisher, Aeschines, Against Timarchos (Oxford 2001) 10–2. Cf. Aeschines 2.167. 102 P. Siewert, ‘The ephebic oath in fifth-century Athens’, JHS 97 (1977) 102–11, wanted to associate a fifth-century ephebate with the famous ephebic oath. However, even though the famous ephebic oath on a stele from Acharnai (RO 88), dated to ca. 350–325, seems to contain several fifth-century features, Siewert’s attempt to show specific traces of it in Thucydides and Sophocles seems too tenuous. P. Vidal-Naquet, ‘The Black Hunter and the origin of the Athenian ephebia’ in: idem, The Black Hunter; forms of thought and forms of society in the Greek world (transl. A. Szegedy-Maszak)(Baltimore 1986) 106–28, tried to associate a proto-ephebeia with the Apatouria. However, his claims are mainly based on circumstantial and (very) late evidence. On the Apatouria festival: Parker, Polytheism (2005) 458–61; S.D. Lambert, The Phratries of Attica (2nd ed.) (Ann Arbor 1998) 143–89, esp. 148–51 for a rebuttal of Vidal-Naquet’s claims. 103 Cf. H.Y. McCulloch and H.D. Cameron, ‘Septem 12–13 and the Athenian ephebia’, ICS 5 (1980) 1–14, on another allusion to ephebes in Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes.

Franz Steiner Verlag

What the future beholds – the metic promise

61

context of the Panathenaic procession in the second half of the fourth century. What their role entailed can perhaps be derived from an ephebic inscription (Hesp. 16 (1947) no. 67), dated to 116/5 BC, which records that the ephebes are to dedicate the aristeion, an excellence award in the form of a crown, at the Panathenaia and the Eleusinia (27–28). Despite the late date of these references, it is nevertheless certain that male youths were already present(ed) as a separate group in the context of other Panathenaic events before this time.104 For instance, several Panathenaic agones were divided in three age classes: IG II² 2311 shows contests in which boys (paides), beardless youths (ageneioi) and adult men (andres) competed separately. This Panathenaic concern with youths was in fact quite exceptional: the Isthmian and Nemean Games knew three age classes as well, including one for beardless youths, but in those cases evidence is postclassical.105 Perhaps another indication that youths participated in the Panathenaia as a demarcated group before the late fourth century are the late fifth and early fourth-century references to a Panathenaic torch-race, an event usually associated with youths, and later with ephebes specifically.106 As torch-races were the prerogative of Athens’ “ephebic” youths107, the Panathenaic lampadephoria might have constituted a prime context in which male youths were presented as a coherent collective from at least the late fifth century onwards. In sum, it seems that, in the fourth century at the latest, yet another ‘group in transition’ was integrated into the Panathenaic ritual program, perhaps first in the agones and next in the pompe. They were presented in their promising glory, as about to enter Athenian military life and defend the polis to their best abilities. This was perhaps most vividly illustrated in conjunction with their participation in the torch-race, ‘that display of speed and dexterity and teamwork’.108

104 Reinmuth, Inscriptions (1971) 137 and O. Palagia, ‘The ephebes of Erechtheis 333/2 BC (with David Lewis)’, BSA 84 (1989) 338, n.17, have identified the equestrian figures clad in petasos and chlamydes on the Parthenon Frieze (W16–17, S50–55 restored) as ‘ephebes’. Their argument is highly conjectural, as Reinmuth himself already admits. 105 Cf. M. Golden, Children and childhood (Baltimore 1990) 67–71. 106 A Panathenaic torch-race is first attested in Aristophanes’ Frogs 1089–1098, performed in 405, and in inscriptions from the first half of the fourth century (IG II² 2311, 3019, 3022). Cf. N.V. Sekunda, ‘IG II² 1250: a decree concerning the lampadephoroi of the tribe Aiantis’, ZPE 83 (1990) 149–56, who also refers to Harpocration s.v. λαμπάς (quoting Polemon) and Xen. Ways 4.51–52. 107 Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 254; Sekunda (1990). An exceptional case is the torch-race of the Bendideia, where Thracians competed on horseback, for which see below 141–2. 108 Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 254.

Franz Steiner Verlag

62

Chapter 1: The first steps of Athenian μετοικία

With whom I march Significant for our present concern is that the four groups of metics that were incorporated into the Panathenaic pompe around 480–470 were demarcated and represented in ways very similar to the contingents of young and old Athenians, pointing to similar Athenian ideas about the positions of these respective “transitional” groups in society, that is, as about to contribute to the well-being of the community in their own right. A correspondence between the young metics and the Athenian “transitional” groups in the pompe is first suggested by the striking similarity in the way in which the metic representatives were split up. Significantly, while the other non-Athenian participants, i.e. the representatives of allies and colonists, most likely marched en bloc and consisted solely of men, the metics were divided along much more specific lines of age and gender. And while the representatives were present only at the Greater Panathenaia, metics participated every year, as is indicated by the (ritual) connection between the skaphephoroi and the kanephoroi, who are mentioned as the traditional recipients of meat from the annual sacrifices to Athena (IG II² 334.15). By regulating that metics participated more frequently and in a more differentiated manner, the Athenians chose to emphasise a different, closer relationship with their metic population than with their allies and colonists, which, of course, they had. Significantly, the way in which the participation of metics was given shape points to a deliberate association between metics, on the one hand, and kanephoroi, thallophoroi, and, eventually, ephebes, on the other. The proximity between these groups in the front of the pompe obviously already created an idea of unity. But there was more. These groups all consisted of participants who were of a particular age that heralded a new stage in their life: they were either young and about to get married or get involved in public life, or old and about to retire from the battlefield and become of value to the community as advisors. The male metics who participated in the pompe were also young, as shown on the Parthenon Frieze (N13–19; S115–121), where the skaphephoroi and the hydriaphoroi are not bearded, which signals their youthfulness in general. The already discussed fragment from Dinarchus further indicates that the metic skaphephoroi were not young in general but of a specific “ephebic” age, i.e. between puberty and adulthood.109 The groups were in fact so similar that Agasicles’ sons thought it feasible to switch groups. Also in ritual the groups of metics were associated with the other, Athenian groups. Together they were the ones who carried the ritual items of the Panathenaia, like the sacrificial baskets, hydriai, skaphai filled with offerings, and, at least in Hellenistic times, the excellence award for Athena. Then there was the direct linking of the skiadephoroi with the kanephoroi. The metic girls were probably of approximately the same age as the Athenian girls whom they shaded with their para109 In Bekker, Anecd. 280, 1, it is stated that the skaphai were carried ‘by the metics who are present (ἡκόντων)’. Schenkl amended ἡβώντων ‘who are mature’. In light of Dinarchus’ Speech against Agasicles, Schenkl’s amendation makes more sense, although ἡκόντων remains a possibility.

Franz Steiner Verlag

What the future beholds – the metic promise

63

sols. For this practical reason they had to march side by side, perhaps creating as much as a hundred pairs of Athenian and metic girls.110 Differentiation: the metic contributions The associations between the groups of Athenian girls, youths, and old men, on the one hand, and the metic girls and youths, on the other, parading next to each other, all at pivotal stages in their lives, all carrying gifts for Athena, must have invited some thoughts among participants and spectators on the other characteristics these groups might share. Why were they presented together? What was their joint role in the Panathenaia and at Athenian society at large? It is this connection between kanephoroi, thallophoroi, ephebes and the metic youths and girls walking in the Panathenaic procession which is, I think, pivotal for our understanding of the early conceptualisation of metic status. Through these associations the four groups of young metics were presented as being in a position in their lives that was comparable to that of the other groups, that is, they were expected to bring their own benefits to the polis. Metics were, however, also differentiated from the Athenian groups: they carried different ritual objects, had different functions, formed clearly separate contingents, and, in the case of the skaphephoroi, wore remarkably different clothes. It is possible that these articulations can be understood as instrumental in underlining the specific contributions these metics were expected to make to the Athenian community. It is a common misconception to associate differentiation with subordination or even humiliation. We already saw that the parasols carried by the skiadephoroi need not always signal subordination. Suggesting a more nuanced perspective, we could perhaps understand the differentiated participation of the skiadephoroi as signalling the specific contributions these girls were about or, in Athenian eyes, were expected to make, the parasols highlighting the supportive roles they would soon fulfil. Similarly, the crimson cloaks of the skaphephoroi made their separate status clearly visible but not necessarily in a negative sense. As said, crimson was the most expensive colour in antiquity and although it was often associated with royalty, in Athens it seems to have been functional in setting someone apart as exceptional in general, not as royal per se.111 It might even be suggested that the expensive colour of the cloaks was meant to evoke the benefits brought to the city by its metic population in terms of wealth.112 The fact that skaphephoria is described as a metic lit110 Interestingly, there is a chance that this number was matched by an equal number of skaphephoroi, as might be indicated by the accounts of the Treasurers of Athena (IG I³ 342.24) which, as we saw, includes a reference to one hundred bronze skaphai. In the front of the procession one would thus be confronted with three groups of equal size: one group of Athenian girls, accompanied by a group of metic girls, followed by yet another group of metic youths carrying large basins. 111 Reinhold (1970) 22–8. The priests in Eleusis wore crimson robes ([Lys.] 6.51). 112 P.G. Maxwell-Stuart, ‘Remarks on the black cloaks of the ephebes’, PCPS 16 (1970) 114, sug-

Franz Steiner Verlag

64

Chapter 1: The first steps of Athenian μετοικία

urgy by some lexicographers ties in with this idea that at the Panathenaia young metics were symbolically presenting the wealth they had in store to Athena. CONCLUSION Athenian polis religion, with the Panathenaia as one of its main ingredients, was perhaps the first context in which a widely diverse group of immigrant foreigners was brought together and organised and presented as a coherent collective; vase depictions of typical metic duties even support a date as early as 480–470 for the incorporation of these “metaoikoi” in Athenian ritual. In the preceding we have seen how metics were associated with kanephoroi, thallophoroi and ephebes and were probably similarly expected to soon make their own contributions to the community, while the specific contributions of metics are perhaps best understood in terms of the support and wealth the young metics marching in the procession were hopefully soon to bring. Of course, the idea that metics brought wealth to the city was not an uncommon topos in classical Athens.113 Xenophon later famously argued that the Athenians should make it more attractive for foreigners to settle in Attica as metics constitute the best source of income for the Athenians as they are self-supporting and pay taxes (Ways 2.1). Elsewhere, Xenophon explains the radical decision of the Thirty to each seize one of the metics, kill the men and confiscate their possessions, ‘in order to have money to pay the garrison’ (Hell. 2.3.21).114 Isocrates employs a similar theme when he argues that the Greeks should make peace to resist Philip of Macedon and, delivered from war, live in prosperity and security and ‘see our city enjoying twice the revenues which she now receives, and thronged with merchants and foreigners and metics, by whom she is now deserted’ (On the Peace 21). As it now seems, this notion that metics were expected to bring wealth to the city and offer support to the Athenians was one of the first labels attached to this newly conceptualised group, one, moreover, that stuck with them for centuries.

gested that purple/red was the usual colour in ancient Athens worn by those passing through an intermediate state, mentioning brides and ephebes specifically. 113 Cf. Bakewell (1999), esp. 10–3. 114 On the Thirty being motivated by greed see P. Krentz, The Thirty at Athens (New York and London 1982) 80–3, who suggests that the metic support for Thrasyboulus also might have played a role. Also see previous note.

Franz Steiner Verlag

CHAPTER 2: ΜΕΤΟΙΚΙΑ IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE FIFTH CENTURY Metics at other polis festivals After their incorporation into the Panathenaic pompe in the early fifth century, the free foreign residents of Attica became included as metics in several more Athenian hiera. Significantly, this inclusion coincides with several other demarcating measures, most importantly Pericles’ Citizenship Law of 451/0, the use of the oikon en-formula, probably introduced around the same time, and the institution of a special metic tax some time before the late fifth century. Concerning metic status scholars usually focus on these institutional demarcations. However, in order to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of the development of μετοικία in this tumultuous period we also need to examine the ways in which they were incorporated in Athenian polis religion. In this period, Athenian society underwent some significant changes, not least among them the arrival of unprecedented numbers of immigrants and slaves.1 As ritual was a pivotal means of conceptualising and structuring the world one lived in, we should expect to see these changes take their effect on Athenian ritual, and indeed they did. However, the differentiated participation of metics in polis festivals from ca. 450 onwards has not received the attention it deserves when dealing with metic status or even with Athenian society at large. Josine Blok has recently taken a first step to fill this lacuna when she stated that in a time when Athenians and metics were increasingly separated from each other through several political, juridical and fiscal measures, the inclusion of metics into more hiera was crucial for securing the cohesion of the Athenian community.2 Even more recently, Robert Wallace argued that although discriminatory attitudes, i.e. towards women, foreigners, and immigrants, were part and parcel of the exclusionist Athenian democracy, this was especially true for the first two decades, while after 463 public opinion seems to change towards more integration.3 Although not referred to, the increased participation of metics in Athenian polis religion fits his already impressive overview of instances of integration perfectly. There were good reasons to prevent too much of a gap between metics and Athenians. Metics were important to the Athenians and were considered indispen1 2 3

Supra 26–32. Blok (2007). Cf. Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 28, who interprets the inclusion of metics in the Lenaia as a compensation ‘at a time when their inferior status had recently been given sharper focus by Pericles’ citizenship laws’. Wallace (2011).

Franz Steiner Verlag

66

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

sable, not the least in the economic sphere. One way to maintain and strengthen the ties between metics and Athenians and safeguard the community’s precious cohesion was indeed to include metics in more polis festivals. But cohesion was not all that was established, for, in conjunction with the general tendency among the Athenians to distinguish status groups more precisely after the middle of the fifth century, the separate membership of metics was also displayed and negotiated on more occasions by means of differentiated participation. By regulating the participation of metics in these festivals, the Athenians could thus both integrate these resident foreigners as metics and express a separate status for them. Although we do not have as much information on the participation of metics in these festivals as we have for the Panathenaia, the evidence we do have clearly illustrates the attempts of the Athenians to come to terms with this large group of resident foreigners in the second half of the fifth century. We will see that at the Lenaia metics sat in the audience, sang in the choruses and acted as choregos, participating in this ancient festival (almost) undifferentiated from the Athenian participants. At the City Dionysia metic skaphephoroi walked in procession but in the theatre they were largely grouped among the xenoi and excluded from performing choregia. The complex interplay between integration and definition is perhaps most clearly illustrated in the case of the Hephaisteia, where metics shared in the sacrifices to Hephaestus and Athena but where their share was a limited one compared to that of the Athenians. By dealing with both movements of incorporation and differentiation at each festival I shall illustrate the ways in which the Athenians dealt with their foreign residents in the context of polis religion; on the one hand solidifying the ties between metics and the Athenian community, on the other hand highlighting a separate status for them. METICS AT THE LENAIA – A SHOWCASE OF UNITY The first festival we will look at is the Lenaia, a very ancient festival celebrated mid-winter in honour of Dionysus Lenaios, in which metics participated in several ways.4 Only few and often late sources mention the festival.5 The festival consisted 4

5

The sources are collected in A. Pickard-Cambridge, revised by J.P.A. Gould and D.M. Lewis, The dramatic festivals of Athens (2nd ed.)(Oxford 1991) 25–42; E. Csapo and W.J. Slater, The context of ancient drama (Ann Arbor 1995) 132–7. On the date: Mikalson, Calendar (1975) 109–10, who suggests a date between 12 and 21 Gamelion. The fact that the Archon Basileus, the alleged successor of the old kings of Attica, was in charge of the Lenaia ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 57.1) signals the festival’s antiquity. It is stated in [Arist.] Ath. Pol. (3.3) that together with the Polemarchus the Basileus was in charge of ‘the ancestral rites’ (τῶν πατρίων), while the more recently instituted Eponymous Archon administered ‘merely the duties added later on’. Based on the “chronology” of Eratosthenes of Alexandria, the first Eponymous Archon is sometimes dated to 683/2, cf. T.J. Cadoux, ‘The Athenian archons from Kreon to Hypsichides’, JHS 68 (1948) 70–123. Some have accordingly suggested that all rites in charge of the Basileus, including the Lenaia, should be dated to before this year, e.g. K. Clinton, ‘The sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis’ in: N. Marinatos and R. Hägg (eds.), Greek sanctuaries; new approaches (London 1993) 112. Rhodes, Commentary2 (1993) ad loc.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the Lenaia – a showcase of unity

67

of a pompe, sacrifices and agones. The procession appears to have been quite a disorderly affair. We do not know much about who participated and in what way, but if the name Lenaia and the epithet Lenaios indeed goes back to a Greek term for Maenads (λῆναι), we should perhaps include these female worshippers and other orgiastic groups in the pompe.6 This would correspond well with the fact that the procession is said to have included ‘revellers on wagons who mocked and abused everyone they met’ (Photius s.v. τά ἐκ τῶν ἁμαζῶν), a ritual known as aischrologia.7 After the arrival of the pompe, sacrifices were offered to Dionysus, probably at his sanctuary, the Lenaion, in the Agora.8 The so-called Lycurgan skin-sale records of the 330s (IG II² 1496) show that the sale of “Lenaian” skins amounted to 106 drachma in 332/1 (105–106), indicating that between 15 and 24 (bovine) animals had been sacrificed that year9 – though we should guard against drawing any firm conclusions on the basis of these figures for the period before 332/1 as they can be associated with a strong Lycurgan interest in Athens’ glorious past and in drama specifically.10 It was probably after these sacrifices that an Eleusinian official ‘summoned the god’, to which the audience would answer ‘Son of Semele, Iacchos, bringer of Wealth’.11

6 7

8

9

10

11

3.3 and 57.1, is more sceptical. That the Lenaia were celebrated in several Ionian poleis (Hesiod, Works 504 with scholia) can also be understood as a sign of the great antiquity of this festival. DFA² 29–30. The pompe is referred to in [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 57.1; Dem. 21.10. The expression ‘from the wagon’ was used by Demosthenes (18.122) to characterise Aeschines’ attack on him as abusive and “carnavalesque”. See also the slightly confused glosses in Σ Ar. Knights 546 and Suda s.v. ἐξ ἁμάζης. On aischrologia in the context of the (rural) Dionysia: S.G. Cole, ‘Procession and celebration at the Dionysia’ in: R. Scodel (ed.), Theater and society in the classical world (Ann Arbor 1993) 33–4, referring to H. Fluck, Skurrile Riten in griechischen Kulte (Endingen 1931). The Lenaion has not been located. Hesychius s.v. ἐπι Ληναίῳ ἀγῶν; Σ Dem.18.129; Photius s.v. Λήναιον, ἴκρια and ὀρχήστρα indicate a location in the Agora. Cf. F. Kolb, Agora und Theater, Volks- und Festversammlung (Berlin 1981) 20–58, who argues for a common association in antiquity between agora and theatre. More recently, Ch. Schnurr, ‘Zur Topographie der Theaterstätten und der Tripodenstrasse in Athen’, ZPE 105 (1995) 139–45, suggested that the Lenaion should be located in the Old Agora, east of the Acropolis. Cf. N.W. Slater, ‘The Lenaean theatre’, ZPE 66 (1986) 255–64, who tenuously identified the sanctuary of Dionysus in the Marshes near the Ilissos river as the Lenaion. W.S. Ferguson, ‘Orgeonika’, Hesp. Suppl. 8 (1949) 144–5, argued that a single hide was sold for 4.5 drachma, as he believed a hecatomb was sacrificed on the occasion of the Bendideia in 334/3 raising 457 drachma (IG II² 1496.86). M.H. Jameson, ‘Sacrifice and animal husbandry in classical Greece’ in: C.R. Witthaker (ed.), Pastoral economies in classical antiquity (PCPhS Suppl. 14) (Cambridge 1988) 107–12, suggested 6–7 drachma per hide instead based on a relation between the price of cattle and that of wheat throughout antiquity. Cf. B. Hintzen-Bohlen, Kulturpolitik des Eubolos und des Lykurgs; die Denkmäler und Bauprojecten in Athen zwischen 355 und 322 v. Chr. (Berlin 1997); Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 242–55; S.C. Humphreys, The strangeness of gods; historical perspectives on the interpretation of Athenian religion (Oxford 2004) 77–129; S.D. Lambert, ‘Polis and theatre in Lykourgan Athens; the honorific decrees’ in: A.P. Matthaiou and I. Polinskaya (eds.), Mikros Hieromnemon; meletes eis mnemen Michael H. Jameson (Athens 2008) 52–85. Ar. Frogs 479 with scholion. In addition to this role of the dadouchos and the involvement of

Franz Steiner Verlag

68

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

After this, the festival continued with competitions in both tragedy and comedy These agones seem to have already been part of the Lenaia in the sixth century, when they were probably held in the Lenaion. When, in ca. 500, the bleachers in the Agora collapsed, the Athenians probably moved their performances for Dionysus Lenaios to the theatre of Dionysus on the south slope of the Acropolis.12 These agones seem to have become more strictly regulated by the Athenian demos in the 440s-430s: it was probably in this period that polis authorities began recording the names of victorious poets and actors and perhaps awarding prizes for the first time.13 Each comic poet competed with one play and each tragic poet with two. Exactly how many poets could enter the Lenaian competitions is uncertain: in the classical period between three and five comic poets competed, while two or three poets could enter the tragic competition.14 These performances were financed through the institution of choregia, the financing of choruses by the wealthiest inhabitants of Attica.15 This means that between five and eight choregoi were needed to finance the Lenaian choruses. The earliest reference to such a Lenaian choregos is found in Aristophanes’ Acharnians (1150), performed in 425. It is likely, how-

12

13

14

15

Eleusinian epimeletai in the pompe ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 57.1), there are other Eleusinian connections: in 339 Eleusinian epistatai sacrificed on the occasion of the Lenaia (IG II² 1672.182) and in 333/2 the sale of the skins from the Lenaia was handled by the epimeletai of the Mysteries (IG II² 1496.74–75). Another point of overlap could be the ritual aischrologia, which is otherwise only attested for the Anthesteria (Photius s.v. τά ἐκ τῶν ἁμαζῶν) and the Eleusinia and the Mysteries (Suda s.v. τά ἐκ τῶν ἁμαζῶν σκὼμματα). These Eleusinian connections should, as Deubner, Attische Feste (1966) 125–6, suggested, probably be explained by a general congruence between the Mysteries and the orgiastic aspects of the Lenaia. Several lexicographic sources (Photius s.v. ἴκρια; Suda s.v. Πρατίνας) inform us that after the collapse of wooden bleachers in the Agora, commonly dated to around 500, the theatre of Dionysus was built and the dramatic agones previously held in the Agora – Hesychius (s.v. ἐπι Ληναίῳ ἀγῶν) even explicitly names the Lenaion as location – moved to the south slope of the Acropolis. On the collapse of the ikria in the Agora, dated to ca. 500: H.A. Thompson and R.E. Wycherley, The Agora of Athens; the history, shape, and uses of an ancient city center (The Athenian Agora 14) (Princeton 1972) 126–9. Cf. DFA² 116–25; Csapo and Slater, Context (1995) 133–4. The list of Lenaian victors in comedy goes back to a victory of Xenophilos (IG II² 2325.118), for which J. Rusten, ‘The four “new Lenaean victors” of 428–5 B.C. (and the date of the first Lenaean comedy reconsidered)’, ZPE 157 (2006) 22–6, suggests a date between 444–441, while W. Luppe, ‘Nochmals zum Einführungstermin der Komödien-Agone an den Lenäen’, ZPE 159 (2007) 25–7, argues for 443– 439. The list of tragic victors starts ca. 432, with the poet Chairestratos (IG II² 2325.248). In the Hellenistic Didaskaliai-lists it is recorded that two tragic poets competed annually in 420–418 (IG II² 2319.70–84), while three tragic victors are given for 364/3 (Hesp. 40 (1971) 302–7). Several hypotheses to Aristophanes’ Lenaian plays (Acharnians (425); Knights (424); Wasps (422); Frogs (405)), mention three comic poets at the Lenaia, while four are referred to in the Didaskaliai-lists concerning the fourth century (IG II² 2322.92–96) and even five concerning the early third (IG II² 2319.59–66). There is no way of telling whether the lower number attested in the late fifth century was due to a temporary war-time reduction, cf. Davies (1967) 34; W. Luppe, ‘Ein weiteres Zeugnis für fünf Konkurrenten and den Komödien-Agonen während des Peloponnesischen Krieges’, ZPE 129 (2000) 19–20. On choregia in general: Wilson, Khoregia (2000). The most detailed ancient accounts of choregia are found in Antiphon 6.11–13 and Dem. 21.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the Lenaia – a showcase of unity

69

ever, that already in the 440s-430s, in a period of increased polis regulation, the Athenians had made the wealthy inhabitants of Attica liable to finance Lenaian choruses.16 It is interesting to observe that it was at this ancient and quite intimate17 festival that the Athenians decided to include metics and have them share in the hiera of Dionysus Lenaios together with them. Metics at the Lenaia – spectators, chorus-members, choregoi In a famous passage in the Acharnians (497–508), performed at the Lenaia of 425, Dikaiopolis explains why Cleon, Aristophanes’ favourite victim, will have to admit that slandering the city is less harmful in front of a Lenaian audience than in front of the cosmopolitan crowd at the City Dionysia: μή μοι φθονήσητ ἄνδρες οἱ θεώμενοι, εἰ πτωχὸς ὢν ἔπειτ ἐν Ἀθηναίοις λέγειν μέλλω περὶ τῆς πόλεως, τρυγῳδίαν ποιῶν. 500 τὸ γὰρ δίκαιον οἶδε καὶ τρυγῳδία. ἐγὼ δὲ λέξω δεινὰ μὲν δίκαια δέ. οὐ γάρ με νῦν γε διαβαλεῖ Κλέων ὅτι ξένων παρόντων τὴν πόλιν κακῶς λέγω. αὐτοὶ γάρ ἐσμεν οὑπὶ Ληναίῳ τ ἀγών, 505 κοὔπω ξένοι πάρεισιν: οὔτε γὰρ φόροι ἥκουσιν οὔτ ἐκ τῶν πόλεων οἱ ξύμμαχοι: ἀλλ ἐσμὲν αὐτοὶ νῦν γε περιεπτισμένοι: τοὺς γὰρ μετοίκους ἄχυρα τῶν ἀστῶν λέγω. Be not indignant with me, members of the audience, if, though a beggar, I speak before the Athenians about the polis in comedy. For even comedy is acquainted with justice, and what I have to say will be shocking but just. This time Cleon will not allege that I am slandering the city in the presence of strangers; for we are by ourselves now, it is the Lenaian competition and there are no strangers yet; neither tribute nor troops have arrived from the allies. This time we are by ourselves, ready hulled, for I consider the metics the bran of the citizens.18

In this metaphor the metic population of Athens is likened to the part of grain that remained after a first hull. Metics are the bran (ἄχυρα), which, together with the groats, remained after the grain had been pounded in a mortar and the useless coverings, i.e. the xenoi, had been hulled out (περιεπτισμένοι). What was left was a mixture of groats (Athenians) and bran (metics). After this stage, the bran could 16

17

18

Choregia is first attested around this time, in relation to the Dionysia held in the deme Ikarion (IG I³ 254), for see which below 118–26, and it is not wholly unlikely that the Athenians decided to institute this mechanism to finance the ca. thirty annual dramatic and dithyrambic choruses at the City Dionysia, the Lenaia and the Thargelia at roughly the same time. For the number of Athenian liturgies: Davies (1967) 33–40. Aristophanes (Ach. 505–506) refers to the absence of visiting xenoi and allies in the theatre on the occasion of the Lenaia to contrast the festival’s intimate nature to that of the cosmopolitan City Dionysia. It was probably due to rough weather conditions that the Athenians were by themselves, with visiting xenoi, foreign traders, and troops coming to Athens only months later. The translation comes from A.H. Sommerstein, Acharnians (Warminster 1980) ad loc. with minor modifications.

Franz Steiner Verlag

70

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

either be sifted out or ground into flour together with the groats, which was commonly used to make Athenian bread.19 In other words: while xenoi were absent, metics were watching the Lenaian performances together with the Athenians. Metics could also participate in the Lenaia in a more active way: scholia to Aristophanes’ Wealth (953c+d) include the statement that οὐκ ἐξῆν ξένον χορεύειν ἐν τῷ ἀστικῳ χορῳ […] ἐν δὲ τῷ Ληναίῳ ἐξῆν· ἐπει καὶ μέτοικοι ἐχορήγουν. it was not allowed for a stranger to dance in the city choruses […] but in the Lenaian ones it was, since metics were choregoi [there].20

So, metics could sing and dance in a Lenaian chorus, while rich metics were liable to finance one. This was the only polis festival at which metics could act as choregos and it is interesting to note that of the seven known Lenaian choregoi five are securely identified as metics.21 Most famous among these are Lysias and his brother Polemarchus, who, as the metic orator claims (12.20), had deserved a better treatment at the hands of the Thirty after performing choregia for the city. In addition, two metics are recorded as choregoi in an inscription of 331/0 listing liturgists who had dedicated a phiale after performing their duty (Hesp. 37 (1968) no. 51): we find Timon, who, it is stated, was a metic living in Melite and who had been choregos of a tragic chorus, and another metic choregos, living in Lakiadai (46–50).22 Finally, on a Herm erected around 400 by the Basileus Onesippus on the steps of the Stoa Basileos and still visible today, a certain Sosikrates is recorded as the victorious choregos in comedy of the Lenaia of that year (SEG 32.239.3).23 He is mentioned with his occupation, suggesting he was of metic status. Clearly then, the possibility to act as choregos at the Lenaia was actively taken up and publicly promoted by the rich metics of Athens. From what time they could do so, is not known. Most likely, the Athenians decided that metics could and should finance Lenaian choruses in the 440s-430s, when the Lenaia became more formalised.24 Finally, there is a slight, though unlikely, chance metics participated in the Lenaian procession as skaphephoroi. The Suda (s.v. ἀσκος ἐν πάχνῃ) mentions skaphephoroi in connection with ‘the Dionysiac processions’.25 These ‘Dionysiac processions’ should at least have included the one of the City Dionysia, where sev19 20 21

22 23 24 25

Sommerstein, Acharnians (1980) 180; Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 39. Since the Lenaia are mentioned, the city choruses should be understood as the ones of the City Dionysia, for which a law is attested excluding xenoi from certain choruses, which will be discussed in the next section. Unclear is the status of: 1) Antimachos (PA 1106), who is mocked by the chorus in Aristophanes’ Acharnians (1150–1173) after sending them home on the occasion of the Lenaia without providing dinner for them, and 2) Stratonikos, who is listed only with his patronymic on the so-called Onesippus’ Herm (SEG 32.239.3) as choregos for a Lenaian tragedy in ca. 400. As metics were only allowed to perform the choregia at the Lenaia, we should understand these two men as Lenaian choregoi. On these lists: supra 28 n.60. On this Herm: T.L. Shear jr., ‘The Athenian Agora; excavations of 1970’, Hesp. 40 (1971) no. 4, 256–57; C.N. Edmonson, ‘Onesippos’ Herm’, Hesp. Suppl. 19 (1982) 48–50, 212. Csapo and Slater, Context (1995) 133. Cf. Bekker, Anecd. 214.3.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the Lenaia – a showcase of unity

71

eral demarcated groups marched for Dionysus Eleuthereus.26 It is more likely, however, that in the Lenaian pompe metics walked undifferentiated from the other marchers, just as they sat in the audience and competed in the dramatic agones in an undifferentiated manner. Being amongst ourselves If rituals can be understood as a cognitive system conceptualising and passing on important relationships in a community, what, then, was the conceptualisation of the relationship of the Athenian demos with their metic population on the occasion of the Lenaia? Of course, Dikaiopolis’ comments on the homogeneous composition of the Lenaian audience are clearly coloured by Dikaiopolis’, or rather Aristophanes’ wish to attack Cleon. The latter had formally accused Aristophanes in the boule of ‘slandering the city in front of strangers’ after Cleon had been attacked in the Babylonians in 426.27 In wishing to argue that he is not slandering the city in front of strangers this time, Dikaiopolis contrasts the audience of the City Dionysia with the Lenaian audience, where xenoi, as Dikaiopolis emphasises, were absent. His line of reasoning could, however, be undermined by the presence of metics in the audience, who could of course be thought of as xenoi. Dikaiopolis therefore repeatedly underscores the intimacy of the festival and the unity between Athenians and metics by stating twice that they are by themselves now (ἐσμὲν αὐτοὶ νῦν– 504; 507) since xenoi and allies are not (yet) present in Athens. Closing his case, he further explains that the metics in the audience are not to be thought of as xenoi at all. No, they are to be seen as partners of the Athenians as ‘metics are the bran of the astoi’ (μετοίκους ἄχυρα τῶν ἀστῶν– 508). From a minimalistic point of view one could argue that Dikaiopolis is purposely overstating his argument as he wants to highlight the intimate context of the festival while trying to work around the presence of metics in the audience. Also, all known passages in Aristophanes explicitly mentioning metics (Knights 347; Peace 297; Lys. 580) point to a generally benevolent attitude toward resident foreigners.28 One may therefore be inclined to ascribe the image of a united, undifferentiated audience to Aristophanes’ enmity with Cleon and his personal opinion of metics. However, Aristophanes’ statement on the homogeneous worshipping community at the Lenaia possibly reflects a more widely shared notion. This can be seen, for instance, in the manner in which the names of the victorious Lenaian choregoi and their poetic directors (didaskaloi) are recorded on Onesippus’ Herm (SEG 32.239). On this herm, clear status markers like demotika, ethnika, and the oikon en-formula are lacking. We come across a certain Sosikrates, the victorious comic choregos. He is mentioned with his occupation as a bronze merchant (χαλκοπώλης). As Athenians were quite reluctant to be associated with manual labour, Sosikrates should probably be identified as a metic. Yet, he is not explicitly referred to as such: 26 27 28

See the next section for the role of metics in the City Dionysia. On which see the ‘Introduction’ in Sommerstein, Acharnians (1980). Cf. Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 41.

Franz Steiner Verlag

72

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

although ethnics and the oikon en-formula were both increasingly used in the late fifth and fourth century as markers of metic status, we are neither informed where Sosikrates came from nor in which deme he lived. Besides Sosikrates, a certain Stratonikos is listed, who was the victorious choregos in tragedy of that year. Stratonikos’ social status is referred to in a similarly opaque manner: he is only named with his father’s name, Stratonos, which is not a clear sign of someone’s status as patronymics were used by both citizens and metics. Onesippus’ Herm is, however, a curious monument: erected by the Basileus in front of the Stoa Basileos, it can be understood as a monument issued by the polis, but since it commemorates only a single year and was (illegally) erected by the Basileus when he was still in office, it was probably the result of private initiative, celebrating the personal achievements of the Basileus in successfully organising the Lenaia.29 Personally erected and official polis choral monuments both had their own onomastic traditions, each with different uses of social markers. On official victor lists the use of demotics is extensive, while patronymics are largely absent. On individual monuments, on the other hand, patronymics dominate while demotics tentatively appear only from the last quarter of the fifth century onwards.30 It is notable, nonetheless, that on Onesippus’ Herm, the only known monument dedicated solely to commemorating Lenaian victories, the statuses of the choregoi are rendered in an exceptionally vague manner for both types of monuments. That metics and Athenians were not only commemorated indistinguishably from each other but also participated side by side in the dramatic agones is also illustrated on Onesippus’ Herm, where it is mentioned that the didaskalos of (the metic) Sosikrates was the famous (Athenian) poet Nikochares, who is referred to only with his personal name (SEG 32.239.5). Apparently, at the Lenaia the typical ideological conformity between choregos and chorus lay in the fact that the Lenaian agon was open to the category of ‘free men in Attica’, in contrast to the City Dionysia, where choregoi and choreutai all had to belong to the category of ‘Athenian citizens’.31 Interestingly, when Lenaian choregoi are mentioned among other liturgists, like choregoi of other festivals or trierarchs, clear markers were again used to elucidate the status of these rich metics. So, on lists dated to 331/0 recording the dedication of phialai by the liturgists of a single year (Hesp. 37 (1968) 374–80, no. 51) we find two choregoi who are referred to with the oikon en-formula (46–50), clearly marking them as metics. This concern with civic status is also apparent in the names of the Athenians listed, who are without exception recorded with both patronymics Cf. Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 30–1. At least in Aeschines’ time ‘the man who is subject to audit is not allowed to […] make a votive offering […]’ (Aeschin. 3.21). 30 The first epigraphically attested use of a demotikon on a private choral monument dates to the 430s-420s (IG I³ 959). Themistocles’ choregic inscription of 476 is “preserved” in Plutarch (Them. 5.4): ‘he won a victory with tragedies […] and set up a pinax commemorating his victory with the following inscription: “Themistocles the Phrearrhian was choregos; Phrynichus was didaskalos, Adeimantus was archon”’. It is unlikely that a wooden pinax would survive in Plutarch’s time and the occurrence of Themistocles’ demotic is probably the result of later contamination. Cf. Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 214–6. 31 On the “civic purity” of the city choruses: Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 80–1. 29

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the Lenaia – a showcase of unity

73

and demotics. In contrast to Onesippus’ Herm, the status of the Lenaian choregoi on the phialai-lists is unmistakable. This should not, however, be seen as undercutting the unity between metics and Athenians at the Lenaia. The nature and purpose of Onesippus’ Herm and the phialai-lists differ significantly. Concerning the lists, formal, public registers, it was necessary to duly register the names in the most detailed way possible to facilitate the identification of the wealthy individuals who had performed their liturgies as required.32 The phialai-lists nevertheless indicate that differences between Athenian and metic participants at the Lenaia could be made explicit. And even Aristophanes differs between metics/bran, and Athenians/ groats. It is of the greatest significance, however, that differences between the Lenaian participants were never expressed in terms of differentiated participation, and Aristophanes’ remarks about Athenians and metics being ‘amongst themselves’ seem indeed appropriate. By including metics in the hiera of Dionysus Lenaios in this undifferentiated manner, the Athenians were able to establish, give expression and thus maintain some kind of unity between all free (male) inhabitants of Attica in a time, especially after the introduction of Pericles’ Citizenship Law of 451/0, when this unity could have crumbled. The occasion of the Lenaia could, in addition, strengthen this unity even more, as the solidarity and abusiveness of the festival would have generated familiarity, for only when one is ‘amongst ourselves’ can orgiastic and abusive behaviour, for instance in the form of aischrologia, be contained and produce a firmer foundation for associations between those involved. This, it seems, was the foundation on which Dikaiopolis could stage his attack on the rigid stance of the Athenians against the Spartans in 425, for only when ‘amongst themselves’ can the polis be discussed without potentially dangerous repercussions. The Lenaian choregia: a defining mark of the “good” metic The significance of the apparently unmarked inclusion of metics in the Athenian worshipping community of Dionysus Lenaios is often downplayed by modern scholars, who minimise the importance of the Lenaia, especially compared to That Other Dramatic Festival, and label the opportunity to fulfil the choregia as a ‘small concession’ after Pericles’ Citizenship Law had drawn the lines between metics and astoi more sharply.33 It is true that the poet’s voice and choregos’ prestige would 32

33

Cf. C.M. Keesling, The votive statues of the Athenian Acropolis (Cambridge 2003) 22–6, who argues that according to the intentions of the dedicator of a votive statue, formal markers of social status were more or less expressed. Whereas the more private communication with a deity did not call for formal distinctions, it could be considered of utmost importance that the human public would know who had dedicated a colossal kore to Athena. Cf. Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 28–30: ‘the “honour” was clearly a carefully delimited one, given the evident second-ranking of the festival’ […] ‘a general inferior festival in terms of the prestige to be won by poet, performer and choregos’; Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 80–1: ‘it is important to emphasise the probable restriction of metic choregia to one small winter festival’

Franz Steiner Verlag

74

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

reach a more cosmopolitan and probably larger crowd at the City Dionysia, but a hierarchical arrangement of festivals and rites, with the City Dionysia superior to the Lenaia, is mainly based on a modern and misconceived correlation between the scale of a festival and its importance; all gods, in every capacity, had to receive due worship to safeguard the well-being of the polis and the Lenaia should therefore, at least in religious terms, not be understood as inferior to the City Dionysia.34 Still, we cannot ignore the fact that the City Dionysia went on longer than the Lenaia, had more events, including the public honouring of benefactors, among them many liturgists, and were open to and attracted many foreigners. Hence it is significant that metics could only perform choregia at the Lenaia, the more restricted of Athens’ dramatic festivals, while they could not show off and claim credit at the large shows of the City Dionysia where foreigners were present. This particular liturgy nevertheless became an important aspect of metic status, not as degrading or as a small concession but, tying in with the communal self-promotion and acceptance of wealthy Athenians, as a sign of a “good” (wealthy) metic. As we saw in the previous chapter, metics and Athenians could express similar sentiments and expectations after performing liturgies like the skaphephoria, which challenged the notion that the liturgy system exploited rich metics while it provided an accepted opportunity for rich Athenians for conspicuous spending.35 These metic liturgies obviously also included the Lenaian choregia and similar to Demosthenes (38.25), who deemed ‘it right that some gratitude (χάριν) should be accorded by you to all who perform liturgies’, Lysias (12.20), discussing the Thirty’s monstrous treatment of him and his brother, could claim that οὐ τούτων ἀξίους γε ὄντας τῇ πόλει, ἀλλὰ πάσας μὲν τὰς χορηγίας χορηγήσαντας, πολλὰς δ εἰσφορὰς εἰσενεγκόντας, κοσμίους δ ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς παρέχοντας καὶ πᾶν τὸ προσταττόμενον ποιοῦντας, ἐχθρὸν δ οὐδένα κεκτημένους, πολλοὺς δ Ἀθηναίων ἐκ τῶν πολεμίων λυσαμένους: τοιούτων ἠξίωσαν οὐχ ὁμοίως μετοικοῦντας ὥσπερ αὐτοὶ ἐπολιτεύοντο. This was not the treatment that we deserved at the city’s hands, when we had produced all choregias and contributed to many eisphorai when we showed ourselves men of orderly life, and performed every duty laid upon us; when we had made not a single enemy, but had ransomed many Athenians from the foe. Such was their reward to us for behaving as metics far otherwise than they did as citizens!

The other side of the coin, the burden of actually paying for the liturgy, was also shared by rich Athenians and metics alike. And similar to Athenian citizens, metics could also be excused from performing this duty, an exemption conceptualised as an honour for both. In an Athenian decree of ca. 378 honouring the king of Sidon (IG II² 141 = RO 21), it is stated that Cf. Cole (1995). A commentary on a comic text (P.Oxy. 2737.44–51) states that, after coming fourth at the City Dionysia with his Rhabdouchoi (Theatre-police), the comic Plato was ‘pushed back’ to the Lenaia. An official demotion rule has often been assumed, but R.M. Rosen, ‘Trouble in the early career of Plato Comicus; another look at P.Oxy. 2737.44–51’, ZPE 76 (1989) 223–28, has convincingly argued that the selection and rejection of poets is probably to be ascribed to the whims of the archon in charge. 35 Supra 95–7.

34

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the City Dionysia – Athenians and other Greeks

75

ὁπόσοι δ’ ἂν Σιδωνίων οἰκȏντες ἐς Σιδῶνι καὶ πολιτευόμενοι ἐπιδημῶσιν κατ’ ἐμπορίαν Ἀθήνησι, μὴ ἐξεῖναι αὐτὸς μετοίκιον πράττεσθαι μηδὲ χορηγὸν μηδένα καταστῆσαι μηδ’ εἰσφορὰν μηδεμίαν ἐπιγράφεν as many of the Sidonians, living in Sidon and enjoying civic rights, as are visiting Athens for the purpose of trade, it shall not be permitted to exact the metoikion from them or to appoint any of them as choregos [i.e. for a Lenaian chorus] or to register them for any eisphora (30–36).36

Both in Lysias and in the decree for Strato, the (Lenaian) choregia together with paying the metoikion and the registering for eisphorai are mentioned almost as a standard package of financial duties for which (rich) metics were liable. Just as Pollux could consider “out of rank” (ἀδιάτακτοι) those metics ‘who are not enrolled among the metics, who have not paid the metic tax or carried the skaphe’ (3.57), the financing of a Lenaian chorus had soon become a defining obligation for metics with apparently important ramifications for their status and acceptance as metics – and not as mere xenoi – by the Athenians. Those immigrants who did not conform to these expectations, unless granted by decree, were considered metics non grata, while those immigrants who had ‘behaved as metics’, as Lysias and his brother had done, could demand to be accepted as such. METICS AT THE CITY DIONYSIA – ATHENIANS AND OTHER GREEKS The City Dionysia, or Great Dionysia, were a festival in honour of Dionysus Eleuthereus celebrated in early spring, roughly three months after the Lenaia.37 Aetiologically the festival was explained as a consequence of the Athenians’ unwillingness to worship the new god after Dionysus had been brought over to Athens from Eleutherai, a small community located on the border between Attica and Boeotia and one of the acclaimed birth-places of Dionysus.38 The earliest archaeological remains of an Athenian sanctuary for Dionysus Eleuthereus are found on the south slope of the Acropolis and date to ca. 530 – perhaps to be associated with an

36

37 38

The translation comes from RO 21. See also Demosthenes’ attack (20.19–21) on Leptines’ proposal to cancel exemptions to perform liturgies, stating there are five to ten metics and possibly six citizens exempted from performing annual liturgies in 355. The sources are collected in DFA² 57–125; Sourvinou-Inwood (1994); Csapo and Slater, Context (1995) 103–21. On the date: Mikalson, Calendar (1975) 123–9; Lambert (2008) 53–4, n.2. Cf. Paus. 1.38.8, 1.2.5; Σ Ar. Ach. 243a, with Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 92–5.

Franz Steiner Verlag

76

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

Athenian attempt to incorporate Eleutherai in the late archaic period.39 As such it was a recent addition to the religious obligations of the Athenians.40 What this early cult of Dionysus Eleuthereus entailed, is unclear. It is uncertain whether the famous dramatic agones were already performed in this early stage.41 From ca. 510–494 we get a better idea of what happened. In that period dithyrambic and tragic agones in honour of Dionysus Eleuthereus are first attested, while contests in comedy were added only slightly later, around 486.42 On the days preceding these performances several preliminaries took place. On 8 Elaphebolion poets presented the plots of their plays and their choruses to the public during the proagon.43 On the next day, the cult statue of Dionysus Eleuthereus was brought from his sanctuary on the slope of the Acropolis to the Academy, located along the road to Eleutherai. Probably on the same day, it was escorted back again.44 Sanctuary: J.M. Camp, The archaeology of Athens (New Haven and London 2001) 121; J.-C. Moretti, ‘The theatre of the sanctuary of Dionysus Eleuthereus in late fifth-century Athens’, ICS 24–25 (1999–2000) 380–1; J. Travlos, Pictorial dictionary of ancient Athens (London 1971) 537–52. The traditional association of the City Dionysia with Pisistratus was refuted by Connor (1990) 14 n. 24; J.H. Blok, ‘Phye’s procession; culture, politics and Peisistratid rule’ in: H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), Peisistratos and the tyranny; a reappraisal of the evidence (Amsterdam 2000) 17–48. W.R. Connor, ‘City Dionysia and Athenian democracy’ in: Idem, et al. (eds.), Aspects of Athenian democracy (Copenhagen 1990) 7–32, has tried to associate the introduction of the City Dionysia with Athens’ newly instituted democracy and its victory over Chalkis and Boeotia in 506. However, J.M. Camp, ‘Notes on two towers and borders of classical Boeotia’, AJA 95 (1991) 193–202, convincingly argues that an (attempted) incorporation of Eleutherai must have occurred before this time as several border-towers indicate that for most of the classical period Eleutherai was Boeotian and not Attic. 40 This is also reflected in the fact that the archon in charge of the City Dionysia was the Eponymous Archon, who was generally in charge of the ‘duties added later’ [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 3.3; 56.2–4. Cf. supra n.5. 41 The first tragic performance, traditionally attributed to Thespis in 534, is commonly associated with the City Dionysia, but Connor (1990) 26–32, rightly doubts the restoration of [ἐν ἄ]στ[ει] on the Hellenistic Parian marble (43). Cf. M.L. West, ‘The early chronology of Attic tragedy’, CQ n.s. 39 (1989) 251–4; S. Scullion, ‘Tragic dates’, CQ n.s. 52 (2002) 81–4. The Lenaia are also a possible context for Thespis’ performance. Cf. S.D. Lambert, ‘The Attic genos Bakchiadai and the City Dionysia’, Historia 42 (1998) 394–403, who considers the possibility that the Bakchiadai played a role in this early cult. 42 The Parian marbles (46) assign the first contest of χοροὶ ἀνδρῶν to the archonship of Lysagoras, dated ca. 510–508. The first secure dates for dithyrambic and dramatic agones are preserved in a fragmentary fourth-century inscription (IG II² 2318), listing victorious phylai, poets and choregoi, going back, so it seems, to ca. 501/0. Another victor list (IG II² 2325) contains the name of Aeschylus (1) whose first victory was in 484. Before this entry, around ten lines are missing, suggesting a date around 494 for the first tragic performance at the City Dionysia. Cf. DFA² 101–25. See, however, Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 12–21, on the ideological force of having the beginning of such a list coincide with the beginning of democracy. Finally, based on the Suda s.v. Χιωνίδης, Chionides is commonly considered the first victor in comedy around 486, which seems to fit the victor list of comic victors at the Dionysia (IG II² 2325.39–41). 43 Aeschin. 3.67 with scholion. This proagon took place in the Periclean Odeion. Where and if the proagon took place before the Odeion was constructed, in 444, is not known. 44 This is commonly referred to as an eisagoge (e.g. Aeschin. 3.66), cf. Sourvinou-Inwood (1994). At least in Hellenistic times ephebes played an important role in this re-enactment of the initial introduction of the god (e.g. IG II² 1006.12–13).

39

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the City Dionysia – Athenians and other Greeks

77

In the early morning of 10 Elaphebolion, the festival officially began with a procession to the sanctuary of Dionysus.45 Many people participated: kanephoroi carrying baskets with first-fruits (grapes?), Athenian astoi, who carried wineskins on their shoulders (askophoroi), people carrying loaves of bread (obeliaphoroi), skaphephoroi, choregoi with their choruses, many Athenians without circumscribed roles, and even prisoners temporarily set free.46 In the fifth century, colonists and representatives of the Athenian allies were also to participate, each delegation bringing a phallus.47 When the procession arrived at the sanctuary of Dionysus, sacrifices were offered. The Lycurgan skin-sale records (IG II² 1496) record a staggering amount of over 808 drachma raised in 333 (80–81), indicating that somewhere between 115 and 180 animals were sacrificed, perhaps yielding as much as 10,000–20,000kg of meat!48 In the 330s an enormous crowd would thus enjoy the meat of the animals offered to Dionysus. Undoubtedly, sacrifices were offered before this period, though probably not of the size as in the 330s, a period of increased interest in all things to do with drama.49 Probably on the same day as the pompe and the sacrifices, an enormous crowd – the theatre of Lycurgus could contain 14,000 people – filled the theatre to watch the performances. Before the agones several ceremonies were performed as the Athenians took advantage of the presence of such a large crowd to announce awards and praise Athens’ power and democratic ideology.50 Perhaps a libation was offered by the ten strategoi, a ceremony unfortunately only referred to by Plutarch (Cim. 8). In the mid-fifth century, tribute money brought to Athens by her allies was divided into talents and displayed in the orchestra.51 Aeschines (3.154) refers to the custom of the parading in full armour of the now adult sons of those who had died in battle and who had been supported by the demos until they came of age. These ceremonials were no longer performed in the fourth century. Instead honours granted by the

45

46

47 48 49 50

51

[Arist.] Ath. Pol. 56.2–4. Demosthenes claims to have been assaulted by Meidias ‘early in the morning’ (21.74). The exact route of the pompe is unclear, but at least in Xenophon’s time the marchers crossed the Agora and stopped at the Altar of the Twelve Gods before continuing their way to the sanctuary of Dionysus, cf. Xen. Hipp. 3.2, with Sourvinou-Inwood (1994) 278–88. Kanephoroi: Σ Ar. Ach. 241. Askophoroi and skaphephoroi: Suda s.v. ἀσκὸς ἐν πάχνῃ; σκαφηφόροι. Obeliaphoroi: Poll. 6.75; Ath. 3.111b. Choregoi: Dem. 21.22; Ath. 12.534c. Prisoners: Dem. 22.68; Σ Plat. Leg. 637b. IG I³ 46.11–13 (= M&L 49), dated to the 440s. Cf. P. Krentz, ‘Athens’ allies and the phallophoria’, AHB 7 (1993) 12–6. Cf. SEG 31.67.4–5 with supra 44 n.26. For these calculations: supra n.9. In the next year “only” 306 drachma was raised (111–112). Supra n.10. The presence of skaphephoroi, askophoroi and obeliaphoroi further suggests that many bloodless offerings were also presented on this occasion. Goldhill (1987); idem (2000). P. Wilson, ‘Tragic honours and democracy; neglected evidence for the politics of the Athenian Dionysia’, CQ n.s. 59 (2009), 8–29, presents IG I³ 102 as evidence that the announcement of honours at the tragic agon already took place in the late fifth century, ca. 409, and came from an earlier tradition by which awards were proclaimed for tyrant-slayers in the theatre. Isocr. 8.82; IG I³ 34.18–20 (= M&L 46); Σ Ar. Ach. 504.

Franz Steiner Verlag

78

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

demos to benefactors of the polis were publicly announced in the theatre before the tragic agones.52 After these pre-play ceremonials several dramatic and dithyrambic agones took place spread out over the following three to four days. Probably from 508 onwards ten choruses of fifty Athenian boys and ten of fifty Athenian men competed in dithyrambic agones; from ca. 500 onwards three tragic poets competed each with a trilogy and a satyr play; from ca. 486 onwards five comic poets competed with one comedy each.53 The choruses in all these contests were financed by choregoi, twenty-eight in total.54 When the plays had been performed, ten previously allotted jury members, one from each phyle, announced the victorious choruses in each category.55 The victorious choregoi were then crowned in the theatre, while the victorious tragic choregos in addition received a tripod. Metics in the procession: skaphephoroi Festivals in honour of Dionysus were commonly perceived as very open affairs in which everybody could and should participate to pay the civilising wine god respect. As wine cured the pains of all, so explains Euripides’ Teiresias (Bac. 208– 209; 421–424), everybody, whether poor or rich, young or old, free or enslaved, was expected to honour Dionysus.56 This description seems to apply well to the pompe of the City Dionysia, where wine-skin carrying astoi, kanephoroi, obeliaphoroi, choregoi with their choruses, prisoners set free, representatives of the Athenian allies and colonists participated. Concerning the role of metics in this pompe the Suda (s.v. ἀσκος ἐν πάχνῃ) refers to a classical57 law stating: Aeschin. 3.41; Dem. 18.120. IG II² 2318; 2325, with supra ns.13–14. Σ Ar. Plut. 953c+d. Cf. Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 80–1. The tragic choregoi were appointed by the Eponymous Archon, the dithyrambic ones by the phylai, while [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 56.3 informs us that ‘formerly [the Eponymous Archon] also used to appoint five [choregoi] for the comedies, but now the phylai nominate these’. We do not know when the procedure for appointing comic choregoi changed, but it appears to be at least earlier than 348/7 (Dem. 39.7). Cf. Rhodes, Commentary² (1993) ad loc. and Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 266. 55 Isocr. 17.33–4; Lys. 4.3; Dem. 21.17, discussed by DFA² 95–7. Cf. E. Hartmann and C. Scheffer, ‘Preisrichter oder Publikum? Zur Urteilsfindung in den dramatischen Wettkämpfen des klassischen Athen’, Klio 88 (2006) 96–116, who seem painfully unaware of C.W. Marshal and S. van Willigenburg, ‘Judging Athenian dramatic competitions’, JHS 124 (2004) 90–107. 56 In Dem. 21.53 an oracle from Dodona is cited, which orders the people of Athens ‘to perform rites for Dionysus at public expense, and to mix bowls of wine, and to establish choruses, and to wear crowns, free men and slaves alike, and to take one day’s holiday’. Several other examples are given by P. Millett, ‘The rhetoric of reciptocity in ancient Athens’ in: R. Seaford, C. Gill and N. Postlethwaite (eds.), Reciprocity in ancient Greece (Oxford 1998) 246. n.49. 57 A classical origin of these regulations seems to be guaranteed by Harpocration (= Suda) s.v. σκαφηφόροι, where he says that both Demetrius and Theophrastus referred to laws that used to instruct metics to participate in pompai as skaphephoroi. Sourvinou-Inwood (1995) 270–1 n.9, argued on the basis of this entry that hydriaphoroi and skiadephoroi were probably also included in the Dionysia’s procession. However, Demetrius spoke of metics ‘ἐν ταῖς πομπαῖς’;

52 53 54

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the City Dionysia – Athenians and other Greeks

79

ἐν ταῖς Διονυσιακαῖς πομπαῖς, τὰ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀστῶν ἐπράττετο, τὰ δὲ τοῖς μετοίκοις ποιεῖν ὑπὸ τῶν νομοθετησάντων προσετέτακτο. οἱ μὲν οὖν μέτοικοι χιτῶνας ἐνεδύοντο χρῶμα ἔχοντας φοινικοῦν καὶ σκάφος ἔφερον: ὅθεν σκαφηφόροι προσηγορεύοντο. οἱ δὲ ἀστοὶ ἐσθῆτα εἶχον, ἣν ἐβούλοντο, καὶ ἀσκοὺς ἐπ› ὤμων ἔφερον: ὅθεν ἀσκοφόροι ἐκαλοῦντο. In the Dionysiac processions, some things were done by the astoi, but others had been assigned to the metics to do by the lawgivers; accordingly the metics wore crimson-coloured cloaks and carried basins, for which they were called skaphephoroi, while the astoi wore the clothes they wanted and carried wineskins on their shoulders, for which they were called askophoroi.

Comparable to the Panathenaic pompe, many people associated with Athens took part and the City Dionysia can therefore be similarly understood as ‘a locus for the articulation of the whole polis’.58 Within this articulation, metics were displayed as members of the Athenian community, but at the same time they were visibly differentiated from the other participants by their crimson cloaks and the basins they carried. Analogous to the conventional interpretations of the participation of metics in the Panathenaia, scholars often explain the fact that there was a law stating metics had to wear crimson cloaks and carry basins, while Athenian astoi carried wineskins and could wear whatever they wanted, as reflecting the subordination of metics to Athenian astoi.59 However, as emphasised earlier, religious activities were generally regulated by law and differentiation by means of clothing was not negative in itself.60 Perhaps the mention in the Suda of nomothetai reflects the fact that the participation of metics was relatively recently instituted and can be seen in the light that immigrants were probably not as intrinsically motivated to worship Dionysus Eleuthereus as the Athenians astoi were or at least not inclined to participate in the way the Athenian astoi thought fit. This was an Athenian gift to Dionysus and the immigrants living in Attica had to play by particular, though not necessarily denigrating rules. Still, they were invited to share in these hiera and thus to participate as members of the Athenian community giving due worship to an Athenian god, securing the well-being of the polis. It should be noted, however, that compared to the Panathenaia the role of metics in the Dionysia’s pompe was noticeably smaller: we only hear of one group of metic youths walking in procession for Dionysus, while metic girls and women were completely ignored. There is, moreover, no indication of any further involvement of metics as a demarcated group in the City Dionysia. During the events in the

58 59

60

only in the Suda-entry is the participation ‘ἐν ταῖς Διονυσιακαῖς πομπαῖς’ specified and there only skaphephoroi are mentioned. Sourvinou-Inwood (1994) 272. E.g. Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 27: ‘A clear asymmetry is at work here: while the obligations fell on the metic community for the symbolically charged moments of the festival procession, the Athenian citizen by contrast was invited to participate in the Dionysiac procession wearing what he liked […]. There is, of course, no question of legally-enforced participation here’ (my italics). In the context of the City Dionysia one only needs to call to mind the gold-embroidered robe of Demosthenes, the golden crowns he provided for his chorus (Dem. 21.16, 22), or the crimson cloak worn by Alcibiades (Athen. 12.534c).

Franz Steiner Verlag

80

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

theatre, metics were instead largely included among the much larger group of ‘xenoi’, a group to which the Athenian astoi were regularly contrasted.61 Resident foreigners in the audience: the other Greeks At the City Dionysia differences between participants were more often expressed and ritually articulated than at the Lenaia. It even seems that in addition to some general anticipated disorder common to all Dionysian festivals, the Athenians were especially sensitive for behaviour and circumstances that could lead to the blurring of social distinctions during the City Dionysia.62 These differences mainly focussed on Athenian participants, the astoi, on the one hand, and non-Athenian participants on the other, which ultimately led to the conceptual inclusion of Athens’ metics among the xenoi in the theatre. Despite the involvement of metics, girls, allies, and many others in the pompe, the main participatory focus of the City Dionysia, and especially in the theatre, lay first and foremost on Athenian astoi. This focus on the Athenian-born male members of the polis probably originated with the phyletic basis of the dithyrambic agones – and the selection of jurors, and, later on, the selection of comic choregoi: these were performances offered to Dionysus by the (future) members of the ten Attic phylai.63 As such the City Dionysia were one of few festivals that focussed on the (future) male citizens of Attica.64 In the course of the fifth and fourth centuries Cf. Cohen, Athenian Nation (2000) 50–63; Blok (2005) 15–7. See, for instance, Lys. 13.80–81; Dem. 19.287 and 21.20; 25.180; Isocr. 7.53–54; Aeschin. 1.43, with Fisher, Aeschines (2001) ad loc.; Ath. 12.534c, quoting Satyrus (FGrH 3.160). In general, the presence of large crowds required additional measures to guarantee that order was maintained. This seems especially the case at festivals in honour of Dionysus. For instance, IG II² 380, dated to 320/19, states that agoranomoi are in charge of maintaining order in the streets of Piraeus during the Piraean Dionysia. Dem. 21.10 refers to a law of Euegorus forbidding anybody to seize a debtor’s property on the occasion of the processions during the Piraean Dionysia, the Thargelia, the City Dionysia and the Lenaia. Garland, Piraeus² (2001) 125, interprets this law as preventing disruptive behaviour at these well-attended festivals. Cf. Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 159, who discusses the fact that in addition to the epimeletai the boule had also been given a role in maintaining order at the City Dionysia (IG II² 223). Wilson also sees the law which orders that the festival was to be reviewed at an assembly days after the festival (Dem. 21.8) as implying ‘a degree of anticipated social disorder’. 63 N.R.E. Fisher, ‘The bad boyfriend, the flatterer and the sykophant; related forms of the “Kakos” in democratic Athens’ in: I. Sluiter and R. Rosen (eds.), KAKOS; badness and anti value in classical antiquity (Leiden 2008) 208–12. Several scholars have emphasised a link between the dithyrambic agones and Athenian democracy, e.g. J.J. Winkler, ‘The ephebes’ song; tragôidia and polis’, Representations 11 (1985) 26–62, esp. 40–6, though he is stretching the evidence too far to connect the Dionysia exclusively with the Athenian ephebate. Cf. D. Pritchard, ‘Kleisthenes, participation, and the dithyrambic contests of late archaic and classical Athens’, Phoenix 58 (2004) 208–28, on who exactly participated in these agones. 64 Cf. Blok (2001) 112–5, with n.81, who emphasises that few Athenian festivals were for ‘men only’. An even smaller number of festivals focussed on male citizens specifically: besides the City Dionysia, the Apatouria come to mind. But women also participated in the latter, on which: P. Schmitt-Pantel, ‘Athéna Apatouria et la ceinture; les aspects féminins de Apatouries à

61 62

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the City Dionysia – Athenians and other Greeks

81

this focus was further elaborated with the pre-play ceremonials and scholars have often emphasised these democratic and civic elements of the City Dionysia, labelling it Athens’ civic festival per excellence.65 What, then, was the role of metics at this festival after the procession had arrived at Dionysus’ sanctuary? The City Dionysia took place at a time when foreign visitors, proxenoi and allies flooded the streets of Athens again.66 At least in Demosthenes’ time, foreigners could obtain tickets to see the performances and pay the same price Athenians did.67 Many foreign visitors in fact attended the festival68, perhaps even outnumbering the Athenians.69 Unfortunately, we do not know in what way this crowd was organised. We know that already in the fifth century, honorary seats were reserved in the front row for Athenian officials, priests and foreign guests.70 Two passages in Aristophanes (Birds 793–794; Peace 887–889) further indicate that the prytaneis and members of the boule had seats in the middle of the theatre. There is, however, scarcely any evidence for particular seating arrangements for the rest of the audience and it seems that, perhaps with the exception of the skaphephoroi, metics were by and large not visibly present as a separate group. A separate section for metics is even unlikely since the main division of the participatory community of the City Dionysia was between Athenians and non-Athenians, the latter including metics.71 Athènes’, Annales (ESC) 32 (1977 nov/dec) 1059–73; J. Gould, ‘Law, custom and myth; aspects of the social position of women in classical Athens’, JHS 100 (1980) 38–59; M Golden, ‘Donatus and Athenian phratries’, CQ n.s. 35 (1985) 9–13; O. Palagia, ‘Akropolis Museum 581; a family at the Apatouria?’, Hesp. 64 (1995) 493–505. Cf. Lambert, Phratries (1998) 178–88, on the position of women and girls in the phratries, who emphasises (178 n.193) that all depends on whether one sees the single known case of a woman being introduced into a phratry (Isaeus 3.73) as typical or exceptional. 65 Goldhill (1987); idem, (2000). See, however, P.J. Rhodes, ‘Nothing to do with democracy; Athenian drama and the polis’, JHS 123 (2003) 104–19, who emphasises that many of the Dionysia’s rituals, plays and regulations also appeared in other (non-democratic) poleis. The specific democratic articulation of these institutions is, however, difficult to deny. 66 It was around the time of the Dionysia that tribute owed by Athens’ allies had to be brought to the city (cf. IG I³ 34.22–31; Isocr. 8.82); Theophrastus’ Chatty Man, who is known for stating the obvious, indicates that the City Dionysia could be considered the opening of the sailing season (Char. 3). 67 Dem. 18.28, on the regular ‘two-obol seats’. 68 Foreigners visiting the festival: Thuc. 5.23.4; [Andoc.] 4.20; Aeschin. 3.41–43; Dem. 21.74; Isocr. 8.82. Cf. Ar. Ach. 504–508. On the audience: DFA² 262–78; Goldhill (1997). 69 J. Henderson, ‘Women and the Athenian dramatic festivals’, TAPA 121 (1991) 145. A.H. Sommerstein, ‘The theatre audience, the demos, and the Suppliants of Aeschylus’ in: C. Pelling (ed.), Greek tragedy and the historian (Oxford 1997) 67, suggests the cash-oriented metics were perhaps more inclined to buy theatre tickets than peasants. On ‘Noncitizens in the theater’ see now D.K. Roselli, Theater of the people; spectators and society in ancient Athens (Austin 2011) 118–57. 70 Inscribed seats: IG I³ 1389–1392. Cf. Moretti (2000) 382–9; M. Maaß, Die Prohedrie des Dionysostheaters in Athen (München 1972). Slaves: Pl. Gorg. 502b-d; Theophr. Char. 9.5. 71 A separate section for these xenoi is not securely attested. A fragment of the fourth-century comic poet Alexis (Gynaik. 41), in which women complain that they ‘have to sit in the very last wedge of seats to watch just like foreign women’, might suggest that foreign women, or even foreigners in general, sat in the back of the theatre. However, without context this passage cannot be used as evidence for such an arrangement. On the presence of women in the audience

Franz Steiner Verlag

82

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

But whatever the physical realities in the theatre, ancient sources demonstrate that the foreign spectators at the City Dionysia were in fact often perceived as a separate group, as ‘the other Hellenes’. Depending on context, specific segments of the Dionysia’s audience could be highlighted. From Attic comedy, for instance, it would seem that during the comic agones the entire audience was made up of men and especially of Athenian men: in Aristophanes the audience is regularly spoken to and when the spectators are addressed they are most often called Athenaioi or men (ἄνδρες).72 In tragedy the spectators are far less often acknowledged and never directly addressed, but even in those texts an emphasis lies on citizens (astoi; politai) and Athenians (Athenaioi).73 Notwithstanding the facts that Attic drama appealed, and still appeals, to a much wider audience than just ancient Athenians and that the plays themselves deal with more members of a community than only its male citizens – women and foreign outsiders in fact starred prominently on stage – it seems that poets mainly focussed on those spectators who were to be the judges of their plays. However, despite the understandable Athenian and principally male orientation of these texts, we know for a fact that the audience encompassed many more people – although hardly ever directly and never unambiguously addressed by the poets, many foreigners were present in the audience, and probably women too.74 There is, in short, a blatant discrepancy in these dramatic texts between the audience addressed by the poets and the audience in the theatre, between the more political notional audience of Athenian men and the more inclusive actual audience, including slaves, foreigners, metics, and (probably) women.75 In other contexts, however, it was quite possible to refer to a crowd that encompassed more people than just Athenian men. A more inclusive view of the Dionysia’s audience was, for instance, often considered in the Athenian courts, where the presence of (Greek) foreigners in the theatre was regularly acknowledged. Similar to Aristophanes’ sneer at Cleon (Ach. 497–508), this wider view can be explained by a need to emphasise the far-reaching consequences of the defendant’s behaviour see most importantly the polemic between Henderson (1991) (pro) and S. Goldhill, ‘Representing democracy; women at the Great Dionysia’ in: R. Osborne and S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, finance, politics; Athenian democratic accounts presented to David Lewis (Oxford 1994) 347– 69 and (less extreme) ‘The audience of Athenian tragedy’ in: P.E. Easterling (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Greek tragedy (Cambridge 1997) 54–68 (contra). 72 In the extant plays of Aristophanes Athenaioi are referred to around forty times. In at least six cases (Ach. 643, 497; Clouds 608; Peace 503; Lys. 1149; Frogs 808) the term seems to refer to the audience in the theatre. Ἄνδρες: Ach. 497; Peace 13, 244, 276; Birds 30, 685; Lys. 1044; Wealth 804. Cf. D.M. MacDowell, Aristophanes and Athens; an introduction to his plays (Oxford 1995) 7–16; Sommerstein, Acharnians (1997) 63–74. Although Athenaioi could include women, cf. Blok (2005) 22–8, the fact that the debate on the presence of women in the theatre will probably never be solved illustrates the (intentional?) ambiguity of these passages. 73 Cf. Blok (2005) 15–7, on the use of these terms by tragedians. 74 In the (Lenaian) play Acharnians (504–508) Dikaiopolis contrasts the audience, addressed as Athenaioi, with that of the City Dionysia where xenoi and allies were present; he is not, however, directly addressing the xenoi at the Dionysia. Two passages in Aristophanes might suggest he is addressing women: Lys. 1043–1053; Peace 962–967, cf. supra n.71. 75 Henderson (1991) 133–47. Cf. Blok (2001) 95–116.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the City Dionysia – Athenians and other Greeks

83

in the theatre as it had taken place in the presence of ‘the whole of Hellas’.76 In addition we come across a conceptualised division between Athenian and other Greek spectators. The author of the Speech against Alcibiades, for instance, refers to Alcibiades’ behaviour in the theatre ‘in your [i.e. Athenian] presence, in the presence of the other Greeks (τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων) who were looking on, and before all the archons in the polis’ ([Andoc.] 4.20). Similarly, Isocrates warns the Athenians for the dangers of overplaying their cards with ‘our allies […] and the other Greeks (τοῖς δ᾿ ἄλλοις Ἕλλησι)’, by displaying the tribute brought by the allies in the theatre and parading the sons of Athenian war-dead (8.82). Demosthenes specifies this division between Athenians and other Hellenes even further when he claims that Meidias insulted him ‘in front of many foreigners and citizens (ἐναντίον πολλῶν καὶ ξένων καὶ πολιτῶν)’ (21.74). All these sources demonstrate that in the context of an Athenian court it was not unusual to present the audience of the City Dionysia as consisting of Athenians and other Greeks or, as the passage in Demosthenes illustrates, of Athenian citizens (politai) and foreigners (xenoi). Significantly, metics are never mentioned separately and Demosthenes’ distinction between xenoi and politai suggests that resident foreigners were, contrary to the Lenaia, notionally included among ‘the other Greeks’, among the xenoi. The exclusion of xenoi from the choral competitions Similar to their notional inclusion among the foreign spectators in the theatre, the metics of Attica also appear to have been treated as “mere” xenoi in the context of the dramatic competitions, from which all xenoi were explicitly excluded. The first time we hear of a regulation excluding xenoi from the Dionysian choruses is in the early fourth century. Discussing Alcibiades’ disorderly behaviour as choregos at the City Dionysia, where he drove off his antichoregos with his fists, the author of the Speech against Alcibiades states that κελεύοντος δὲ τοῦ νόμου τῶν χορευτῶν ἐξάγειν ὃν ἄν τις βούληται ξένον ἀγωνιζόμενον, οὐκ ἐξὸν ἐπιχειρήσαντα κωλύειν the law allows anyone who wishes [the right] to lead out a xenos from among the members of a competing chorus and it is not allowed to resist such ejection ([Andoc.] 4.20)

That xenoi were also excluded from the City Dionysia’s choregia can be inferred from the abovementioned scholion to Aristophanes’ Wealth (953c+d), which states that ‘it was not allowed for a xenos to dance in the city choruses […] but in the Lenaian ones it was, since metics were choregoi [there]’.77 In the course of the fourth century the rules of exclusion were altered: in the early fourth century any volunteer (τις βούληται) could expel a xenos from a chorus, while by Demosthenes’ time only choregoi could do so.78 In Demosthenes (21.60) we further read that upon payment of the considerable sum of a thousand 76 77 78

Aeschin. 3.41–43. See above n.20, with Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 27. Dem. 21.56–57.

Franz Steiner Verlag

84

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

drachma a choregos could bring an alleged xenos, or rather the choregos who had hired him, before the Eponymous Archon. When the chorus-member turned out to be indeed a xenos, the accusing choregos would recover his money, while the accused choregos would probably have to pay a similar amount to the Archon.79 The regulation’s main aim seems to have been to guarantee that only (future) Athenian citizens would sing in the choruses and act as choregos, while it also prevented choregoi from hiring talented foreign superstars. This law is commonly interpreted as excluding foreigners from all events in the theatre and much has been made of this. Wilson, for instance, has stated that ‘the ideological force of such a demand for ‘civic purity’ at the city’s leading festival is clear.’80 Of course, the participation of Athenian male citizens was central to the City Dionysia, but it is of great importance to recognise that xenoi were only explicitly excluded from the choruses and the choregia, while in other events they were more than present.81 In the “pre-play ceremony” of announcing honours to those who had benefitted the Athenians, for instance, many of those honoured were foreigners.82 Foreigners – among them several metics83 – were also regularly honoured at the special assembly held after the Dionysia for providing services relating to Athenian drama.84 Many foreigners also took part in the dithyrambic and dramatic performances, though obviously not as choregoi or as members of a chorus. For instance, among the early dithyrambic poets presenting their work at the City Dionysia we find Simonides and Bacchylides from Keos and Pindar from Boeotia. Non-Athenian tragedians from the fifth century onwards include Pratinas of Phlius, Neophron of Sicyon, Ion of Chios and Theodektes of Phaselis.85 In comedy, too, foreign poets could present their work at the City Dionysia: father and son Anaxandrides (FRA6213) and Anaxandros (FRA6214) of Rhodos (or Kolophon) both presented comedies at the City Dionysia in the fourth century (Suda s.v. Ἀναξανδρίδης) and According to Demosthenes this elaboration of the rules had become necessary to minimize the possibilities for members of the elite for disruptive behaviour in public, demanding attention and humiliating opponents in that way. An ulterior motive might have been to avoid unfair competition by preventing choregoi expelling talented chorus-members from an opponent’s chorus by claiming they were xenoi. Cf. D.M. MacDowell, Demosthenes against Meidias (Bristol 1990) 278. 80 Cf. Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 80 81 Cf. Roselli, Theater (2011) 135–41. 82 Cf. Wilson (2009). 83 E.g. one Nikostratos was honoured in 318/17 (?) with a crown, isoteleia and enktesis since he ‘continues to be philotimos as regards the Dionysia and his responsibilities for (or at) it, and to serve enthusiastically a succession of choregoi […]’ (IG II² 551.3–7 = Lambert (2008) no. 10). The references to isoteleia and enktesis suggest Nikostratos was a metic. 84 Cf. Lambert (2008); idem, ‘Athenian state laws and decrees, 352/1–322/1: III Decrees honouring foreigners A. Citizenship, proxeny and euergesy’, ZPE 158 (2006) 115–58, nos. 39, 40, 42; idem, ‘Athenian state laws and decrees, 352/1–322/1: III Decrees honouring foreigners B. Other awards’, ZPE 159 (2007) 101–54, nos. 75, 78, 95, 96, 98, 101, 150, for full bibliographies. It is indeed not implausible that xenoi attended the special assembly that took place after the City Dionysia to discuss festival matters, cf. Lambert (2008) 59; Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 167 n.55, with Dem. 21.193. 85 Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 99 n.6. 79

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the City Dionysia – Athenians and other Greeks

85

in 332/1 the foreign comic poet Amphis of Andros was honoured by the Athenians with an ivy crown and proxeny (IG II² 347).86 Foreign musicians also regularly came to perform at the City Dionysia’s agones: IG II² 713, perhaps copying a fourth-century decree, honours the Theban Ariston, son of Echthatios, who was a flute-player at the Dionysia.87 We also find an auletes from Sicyon (IG II² 3068 – 344/3) and the Megarian flute-player Telephanes, chosen by Demosthenes (21.17) to join his dithyrambic chorus.88 It is even possible that xenoi were only excluded from the dithyrambic choruses as these were the only agones organised on a phyletic basis and hence tightly linked with the world of Athenian citizens. Corroborating this idea is the fact that the exclusion of xenoi is only mentioned in connection with the dithyrambic competition. The author of the Speech against Alcibiades tells the jury to ‘remember Taureas who competed against Alcibiades as choregos of a chorus of boys [i.e. in the dithyrambic agon]’ ([Andoc.] 4.20). Also, Plutarch (Phoc. 30.3) relates a story about the late fourth-century politician Demades, who broke all the rules when he entered the theatre with a chorus consisting of a hundred xenoi and with them a thousand drachma each to pay the fines. Although the account is exaggerated and the result of centuries of vilification of Demades’ character, the number of one hundred choreutes might imply that Demades had been the choregos for the dithyrambic choruses of both fifty boys and fifty men.89 Demosthenes, finally, was the choregos of a dithyrambic chorus for the phyle Pandionis when he was attacked by Meidias, who, as the orator emphasises, deserves punishment since even the removal of a xenos from a chorus is regulated to prevent violence against a choregos (21.56–60). Although the exclusion of xenoi from the choruses of the City Dionysia can thus be put in perspective, we should not ignore the fact that the explicit exclusion of xenoi from the choruses was still a powerful means to divide the participatory community at the City Dionysia between Athenian competitors, on the one hand, and other Greek participants, on the other. In the ritual context of the City Dionysia these xenoi were largely and sometimes clearly visibly relegated to the side-lines. The participation of metics was even restricted to the marching contingent of skaphephoroi in the pompe, while for the remainder they were, contrary to the Lenaia, included among the category of “mere” xenoi, thus mainly underscoring their foreign background on this grand public and international occasion. = Lambert (2008) no. 2. Cf. S.G. Byrne, ‘Some people in third-century Athenian decrees’ in: R.Catling et al. (eds.) Onamatologos; studies in Greek personal names presented to Elaine Matthews (Oxford 2010) 122–31. 88 Cf. DFA² 76–7 and 279. Thebans seem to have been especially prominent among the foreign auletai and didaskaloi of the City Dionysia, e.g. SEG 26.220, 27.12, 27.18; IG II² 3106, 3083, 3046, 713. Also see the Theban flute-player Ismenias in Plut. Mor. 632D. 89 On this passage: P. Brun, L’orateur Démade; essai d’histoire et d’historiographie (Bordeaux 2000) 151–3. As Lambert (2008) 58, points out, Demades was also the proposer of at least two decrees (his nos. 3 and 7) honouring foreigners for services they had rendered in relation to the theatre. Perhaps the honorary decree for the Theban Ariston (IG II² 713) was also proposed by Demades, on which see Byrne (2010). Cf. Humphreys, Strangeness (2004) 255, on another anecdote about Demades in connection with the theatre. 86 87

Franz Steiner Verlag

86

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

METICS AT THE HEPHAISTEIA – THE YOUNG AND ACTIVE IN ATHENS In 421/0 the Athenian boule and demos decided to include metics in their festival for Hephaestus and Athena Hephaistia. Our single most important evidence for this festival is the decree of 421/0 (IG I³ 82). The beginning of the inscription is very fragmentary. We can only make out references to a penteteris (6), the agora (11), the participation of demotai (12), and a curious reference to music in line 14 ([τ]ε̑ς μοσικε̣̑ς). It is stated that a group of twenty hieropoioi, two from each phyle, will provide metics with three animals (23–24) and are to guarantee proper conduct during the procession (24–28). Then, at the sound of a trumpet, cattle will be escorted to the altar of Hephaestus, where 200 men selected from all the Athenians will lift the animals onto the altar (28–30).90 Next, a torch-race at a penteteris, probably the one for Athena Polias, is referred to, which together with the torchrace for Hephaestus, at least so it seems, will be organised in the same manner as the one for Prometheus.91 The last part of the inscription refers to agones: we come across gymnasiarchs92 (35), an altar is to be seized (36), the winners of the agones are to be announced (38–39), and prizes are to be inscribed (40–41). The most debated question concerning this decree is whether it sets out to regulate a new festival or reorganise an already existing one.93 Although some elements appear to be organised afresh, some even explicitly modelled on already existing festivals, there is much evidence suggesting the festival was not a completely new innovation in 421/0.94 Generally, Hephaestus had not been lacking attention in Athens before this time: the construction of the temple for Hephaestus, still visible today, started in the 450s and a treasury of Hephaestus is referred to in the accounts 90

On this ritual bull-lifting: Van Straten, Hiera kala (1995) 109–13, referring to C. Kritzas, Πρακτικὰ τοῦ Ε΄ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακῶν Σπουδῶν, Ἄργος–Ναύπλιον, 6–10 Σεπτεμβρίου vol. 2 (Athens 1996/1997) 33–42; Parker, Polytheism (2005) 180–1. 91 Parker, Polytheism (2005) 471, notes that the penteteris in our decree cannot allude to the Hephaisteia as the latter is not included in the list of classical penteterides in [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 54.7, which seems to be complete. In Ath. Pol. 54.7 the Hephaisteia are labelled a penteteris but as instituted in 329. Several scholars, e.g. Rhodes, Commentary² (1993) ad loc.; M. Faraguna, Atene nell’età di Alessandro; problemi politici, economici, finanziari (Rome 1992) 345; Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 149 n.109; 246 n.100, have argued that the Amphiareia are a better candidate for a reorganisation in 329, with a special celebration every four years added. It was in the late 330s that Oropos had been given (back) to Athens, cf. D. Knoepfler, Érétria; fouilles et recherches XI; décrets érétriens de proxénie et de citoyenneté (Lausanne 2001) 370–80. Idem, ‘Adolf Wilhelm et la pentétèris des Amphiaraia d’Oropos’ in: M. Piérart (ed.), Aristote e Athènes (Paris 1993) 279–302, even argues that the first penteteric celebration of the Amphiareia took place in 329. 92 Gymnasiarchs at the Hephaistia: IG II² 3201 (346/5); Andoc. 1.132; SEG 25.177.29 (330s); IG II² 3006 (1st century AD). Cf. Parker, Polytheism (2005) 427; Sekunda (1990). 93 Rosivach, Public sacrifice (1994) Appendix B, has suggested the decree regulated a single celebration on a grand scale in association with the dedication of the new cult statues for Hephaestus and Athena Hephaistia, as recorded in IG I³ 472. However, work on the statues commenced in 421, only to be finished in 416/5. 94 Pre-421 Hephaisteia: Deubner, Attische Feste (1966) 212–3; Parker, Polytheism (2005) 471–2.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the Hephaisteia – the young and active in Athens

87

of the Other Gods of 429/8 (IG I³ 383 A57) and 426/5 (IG I³ 369.85).95 Hephaestus was also regularly depicted on Attic pottery from the sixth century onwards.96 There was in fact a very ancient festival called the Chalkeia in honour of Hephaestus and Athena, celebrated (allegedly) by craftsmen.97 Although outside Athens Hephaestus was surprisingly neglected, the limping god clearly received much worship from the Athenians from an early period onwards.98 More specifically, there is strong evidence indicating that certain elements of the Hephaisteia were already familiar (long) before 421. The torch-race for Hephaestus, for instance, seems to have been familiar to Herodotus, who died in 425.99 The torch-race is perhaps also depicted on a black-figure volute-krater by Polion, dated to the 420s, and now in Ferrara.100 On the krater’s neck we see youths with torches approaching an altar at which stands a bearded man (a priest? Hephaestus?). On the main body we see dithyrambic themes: Thamyris is playing his lyre before the Muses and Hephaestus returns to the Olympus. Together with some additional and unfortunately equally ambiguous evidence this could suggest that the Hephaisteia also hosted a dithyrambic agon, perhaps even before 421.101 The ritual of lifting bulls for Hephaestus was probably also familiar before 421. The ritual is depicted on two Attic vases, one of which specifically associated with Hephaes-

95

96 97 98 99

100 101

Hephaesteion: J.M. Camp, The Athenian Agora; excavations in the heart of classical Athens (2nd ed.) (London 1992) 82–7; R.E. Wycherley, The literary and epigraphical testimonia (The Athenian Agora 3)(Princeton 1973) 98–102. In the law ordering the allies of Athens to use one type of (Athenian) currency and weights (IG I³ 1453), Hephaestus is mentioned as the recipient of something (C17). The decree is conventionally dated to the 440s (e.g. M&L 45), but a date in the 420s was suggested by H.B. Mattingly, ‘The Athenian coinage decree’, Historia 10 (1961) 148–69; idem, ‘New light on the Athenian standards decree’, Klio 75 (1993) 98–102. Of the 150 Attic vases listed by A. Jacquemin, LIMC s.v. Hephaistos, 627–54, only eighteen postdate the 430s. Suda s.v. Χαλκεῖα referring to Hyperides and Phanodemus. Cf. Deubner, Attische Feste (1966) 35–6; Parker, Polytheism (2005) 464–5. Also see Aeschylus’ Eumenides (13–14), performed in 458, where the Pythia calls the Athenians ‘the high-way building sons of Hephaestus’. The historian compares the Persian messenger system with the ‘torch-race held by the Greeks in honour of Hephaestus’ (8.98.2), which probably refers to the Athenians as they seem to have been the only ones honouring Hephaestus with a torch-race at this time, cf. Deubner, Attische Feste (1966) 212–3. Cf. Aesch. Ag. 279–314. Deubner, Attische Feste (1966) 212–3, suggested that the use of the definite article in the decree when referring to the torch-race (32) also implies it was already in existence. In later times torch-races for Hephaestus are attested elsewhere, like in third-century Mothone, Messenia (B. Head, Historia Numorum² (Oxford 1911) 433) and on second-century Samos (G. Dunst, ‘Die Siegerliste der samische Heraia’, ZPE (1967) 225–39). Ferrara, Museo Nazionale di Spina, T 17 = Simon, Festivals (1983) pl. 15.2. There is the occurrence of τ]ε̑ς μοσικε̣̑ς in IG I³ 82.14, the mention of choregoi at the Hephaesteia in the Old Oligarch (Ath. Pol. 3.4) and the reference to the Hephaisteia in a fourth-century decree of the phyle Pandionis honouring victorious choregoi (IG II² 1138.11, with P. Amandry, ‘Trépièds d’Athènes’, BCH 101 (1977) 171–7). Cf. H. Fröning, Dithyrambos und Vasenmalerei in Athen (Würzburg 1971) 78–81; Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 35–6. Davies (1967) 35, argued that the reference to choregoi at the Hephaisteia should be understood as referring to phyletic competitions in general.

Franz Steiner Verlag

88

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

tus.102 Finally, there is a lex sacra of the deme Paiania (IG I³ 250) dated to ca. 450–430 that possibly includes a reference to the participation of demesmen in the Hephaisteia.103 The conclusion presents itself that the Hephaisteia were already in existence before 421 and included at least a torch-race, a bull-lifting ritual, probably a dithyrambic agon and perhaps some form of participation by demes. The torch-race, bull lifting and other agones point to an agonistic festival in which young and strong men in general, and in later times specifically ephebes predominantly took part.104 The participation of these strong and young men seems to have been mainly organised through Attica’s phyletic and deme system, thus articulating the Cleisthenic basis of the Athenian polis: dithyrambic contests were commonly organised on a phyletic basis, the lex sacra of Paiania possibly refers to participation by a deme, and at least by 346/5 the torch-race was run by phyletic teams of ephebes (IG II² 3201). Metic participation in the Hephaisteia In 421, the Athenians decided to reorganise their Hephaisteia. One of the things the Athenians deemed necessary to stipulate was that from then onwards metics would share in their sacrifices to Hephaestus and Athena Hephaistia. In IG I³ 82 we read: δȏναι δὲ [κ]αὶ τοῖς μετοίκοις τρε̑ς βοῦς, τούτον τ[ȏν τριȏν δὲ(?) hοι h]ιεροποιοὶ [νε]μόντον [α]ὐτοῖς ὀμὰ τὰ κρέα. And to give the metics three oxen from which three the hieropoioi are to give them the meat raw (23–24)

102 On a red-figure kylix in Florence (no. 81600), dated to ca. 500, we see five youths in an attempt to lift a bull, while on the inside Hephaestus is depicted in a wheeled chair. Van Straten, Hiera kala (1995) V145 (fig.116), 112, suggested that perhaps ‘the vase painter has intended the decoration of this kylix as a coherent whole, the pictures on the outside illustrating a festival in honour of Hephaestus’. Also see the black-figure amphora in Viterbo (Museo Nazionale Archeologico, Rocca Albornoz, Viterbo = Van Straten, Hiera kala (1995) V141 (fig.115)), dated to ca.550. Cf. Eur. Hel. 1560–1564, with Van Straten, Hiera kala (1995) 110. The lifting of bulls is also attested for the Proerosia and the Mysteries in several ephebic inscriptions of the second and first centuries (IG II² 1006.9–10, 78–79; 1008, 8–9; 1011.8) and at a Herakleion (Theophr. Char. 27.5). Also see supra n.90. 103 Lines 4–7 may contain an allusion to a role for the deme Paiania at the Skira and the Hephaisteia: τȏι δέμο|[ι.c.7–8..] ḥιέρειαν πα|[ρέχεν vv Σκ]ί̣ροισι καὶ Hεφ|[αιστίοισι ὀ] πτανά, first suggested by Peek in 1941. Michael Jameson in IG I³ suggested restoring hεφ[σανα καὶ ὀ]πτανα instead. 104 Although on the Viterbo amphora (supra n.102) the bull-lifters are bearded and in the Hephaisteia-decree they are chosen from the Athenians in general (30) and not from Athenian youths specifically, Van Straten, Hiera kala (1995) 112, emphasises we should still understand these as ritual activities typically associated with strong and active men. Hellenistic inscriptions in fact only mention ephebes lifting bulls and competing with torches. When Theophrastus portrays the Late Learner as doing things not fit for his age, he explicitly refers to competing in torch-races and lifting of bulls (Char. 27.5). Cf. supra 61.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the Hephaisteia – the young and active in Athens

89

Significantly, the Hephaisteia were the only polis festival where free resident foreigners were to share in sacrifices as a coherent group of metics.105 Usually, only Athenian citizens were allowed to participate in the sacrificial rites of the polis; sharing in sacrifices was in fact a defining aspect of their citizenship, as was argued in the introduction. The Hephaisteia thus represent an exceptional inclusion of non-Athenians in a religious activity that was so crucial for the identification of the core of the cultic community. We should not, however, solely focus on this inclusivity, for the participation of metics was also set apart from and limited compared to the Athenian participation. The differentiation between metic and Athenian participants at the Hephaisteia is already clear in the wording of the decree reorganising the festival, where several groups of participants are clearly demarcated and consistently referred to separately: 200 men selected from all Athenians are to participate in the bull-lifting ritual, metoikoi receive three animals, and in the fragmentary beginning we come across an isolated reference to τ]οῖς δεμότεσι (12). These labels an sich should not, of course, be understood as marking any specific group as inferior, but as referring to different entitlements. That being said, several aspects reveal that the entitlements of metics were, in fact, somewhat limited compared to those of the other groups. For instance, metics only shared in the sacrifices, while Athenians appear to participate in the other activities all by themselves: the dithyrambic agones and the torch-race were both organised on a phyletic basis, de facto excluding metics from these events, and the 200 participants in the bull lifting ritual were selected ἐχς Ἀθε[ν]αίον. This selection procedure was a fairly recent one, signalling a democratic development that complemented archaic power structures by marking all Athenian-born polis inhabitants as being entitled to fulfil public roles in the polis, creating, as it were a polis wide super genos.106 Although we do not know how many metics were to participate in the Hephaisteia and how all this was organised, the selection from all Athenians signals that in principle all Athenians were entitled to participate and in most rites they found themselves only in the company of other Athenians. Even in the context of the sacrifices it seems the role of metics was relatively small: metics received three oxen from the hieropoioi, while the reference to 200 Athenians, presumably divided among ten phyletic teams, indicates that certainly more than three and probably no less than ten animals were sacrificed by the Athenians on the occasion of the Hephaisteia.107 On the other hand, we should not exag105 In the deme Skambonidai metoikoi shared in a sacrifice (IG I³ 244.A4–10), to be considered in the next chapter, but this says more about the incorporation of metoikoi into a deme than into the polis at large. 106 Cf. J. H. Blok ‘Perikles’ citizenship law; a new perspective’ Historia 58 (2009) 141–70. Idem and S.D. Lambert, ‘The appointment of priests in Attic gene’, ZPE 169 (2009) 95–121. Also see 143–5 below where the possible selection of a priestess and a priest ‘from all Athenians’ is discussed. 107 Even Clerc, Métèques athéniens (1893) 152–4, otherwise very willing to push the evidence to its limits to highlight the inclusion of metics in polis religion, described the participation of metics in the Hephaisteia as a mere token representation in light of the number of animals sacrificed by Athenians. He suggested that the references in IG I³ 82 to an agora, demotai and

Franz Steiner Verlag

90

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

gerate the limitations reflected in the fact that metics “only” received three oxen: if Athenian oxen yielded 100–120kg of meat per animal108, this would mean that three oxen could provide 1200 metics each with a portion of 250g of meat – not exactly a mere token representation. However, there remains another sign of limitation in the way metics participated: the explicit specification that the meat of the animals offered by the metics was to be given to them raw ([νε]μόντον [α]ὐτοῖς ὀμὰ τὰ κρέα – 24). This is something not commented on by previous scholarship, even though most scholars acknowledge, in the words of Michael Jameson, that ‘how meat of sacrificial animals was distributed was important socially because it recognised membership in a defined community and status and privilege within it’.109 In polis and deme decrees it was often regulated how sacrificial meat was to be handled. After the customary distribution of honorary shares to the gods and the officiating priests, there were several ways to distribute the remaining meat. It could, for instance, be sold, thus sending the participants away from rites that usually only included a single victim.110 Alternatively, it could be stated to the opposite that the meat was not to be taken away (οὐ φορὰ) or, even more explicitly, that the participants had to dine right on the spot (δαινύσθων αὐτοῦ).111 Jameson convincingly argued that there is probably a cultic origin to this οὐ φορὰ -rule, as it prolonged the religious, performative momentum, hence encouraging further identification of the core members of the worshipping community.112 Banqueting in public can be understood as an elaboration of this rule, being equally significant for identifying the main players within the sacrificial community.113 It can be argued that the condition that the meat of the sacrifices to Hephaestus was given to the metics raw had the opposite effect of the οὐ φορὰ-rule, as it debarred a large group of people from any further involvement in the ritual programme of the festival, visibly excluding them from what now (again) became the Athenian core of the worshipping community. Whereas the Athenians perhaps consumed the sacrificial meat on the spot (or in the Agora near the Kerameikos114), strengthening their group identity and displaying their shared membership, the metic participants were sent away with their shares to consume the meat elsewhere.

108 109 110 111 112

113 114

several hundreds (---]πεντέ]κοντα καὶ hεκατὸν […]) (11–13) might refer to the distribution of hundreds of animals to the demotai in the Agora. Rosivach, Public sacrifice (1994) 157–8. Jameson (1999) 324. Ibidem, 328–30. Van Straten, Hiera kala (1995) 145 n. 93, lists decrees with these clauses. Jameson (1999) 326–31. Cf. Rosivach, Public sacrifice (1994) 19 n. 28. S. Dow, ‘The Greater Demarkhia of Erkhia’, BCH 89 (1965) 208–10, still firmly believing that the gene were aristocratic families exploiting “the commoners”, interpreted this οὐ φορὰ-requirement as a secular regulation which ensured that meat was equally shared amongst the participants and not unfairly pre-empted by a priest. Cf. Schmitt-Pantel, Cité au banquet (1992). Clerc, Métèques (1893) 152–4; Schmitt-Pantel, Cité au banquet (1992) 308–9, 332–3; Blok (2007) 318.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the Hephaisteia – the young and active in Athens

91

Perhaps many meat distributions of which the details are now lost to us concerned the distribution of raw meat, handed out as a matter of course. Still, the only other instance, next to the Hephaisteia decree, where it is explicitly stated and therefore carefully regulated that meat is to be distributed raw, seems to corroborate the exclusionary effects of this regulation.115 In a decree of 363/2 (SEG 21.527), recording the outcome of an arbitration in a dispute between the Salaminioi of Heptaphylai and the Salaminioi of Sounion, it is set out which hiera and hosia belong to which branch of the Salaminioi genos, and which to both.116 It is stated, for instance, that the ancestral priesthoods of the genos shall be common to both for all time (8–12), that the archon of the genos shall be designated by lot from each party in turn (47–48), and that the repairs on the shrines of the genos shall be paid by both branches jointly (54–56). Concerning the sacrifices customarily offered by the Salaminioi at several important polis festivals, like the Oschophoria, it is stated that: θύεν δὲ τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἥρωσι κατὰ τάδε· ὅσα μὲν ἡ πόλις παρέχει ἐκ τȏ δημοσίο ἢ παρὰ τῶν ὠ[σ]κοφόρων ἢ παρὰ τῶν δειπνοφόρων γίγνεται λαμβάνειν Σαλαμινίοις, ταῦτα μὲν κοινῆι ἀμφοτέρος θύοντας νέμεσθαι τὰ κρέα ὠμὰ τὰ ἡμίσεα ἑκατέρος· They shall sacrifice to the gods and heroes as follows: such victims as the polis provides from the treasury of the demos or as the Salaminioi happen to receive from the oschophoroi or the deipnophoroi: these both parties shall sacrifice in common and each shall receive half of the meat raw (19–24)117

It is thus stipulated that at the festivals at which the Salaminioi were traditionally present as officiating genos, the two clashing branches were still required to sacrifice on behalf of the polis together, but they were not required to prolong the ritual momentum beyond this point. Similar to the Hephaisteia decree, the explicit raw meat stipulation in the Salaminioi decree seems to prevent a potentially confusing situation in which the identity of the main worshippers, in both cases the Athenian demos, would no longer be clear. The raw meat stipulation therefore appears to have been instrumental in further defining the core of the worshipping community, a core to which metics would never belong.

115 The only other instance where it is stated that meat is to be distributed raw is found in IG I³ 244 (16–22). As it stipulates the sale of raw meat this instance can be ignored for our present concern as the specification is not “socially important”, with the religious momentum cut short for all at the time of the sale. 116 The decree was first published by W.S. Ferguson, ‘The Salaminioi of Heptaphylai and Sounion’, Hesp. 7 (1938) 1–5, no. 1. Recently discussed in RO 37. Cf. S.D. Lambert, ‘The Attic genos Salaminioi and the island of Salamis,’ ZPE 119 (1997) 85–106; Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 308–16; F. van den Eijnde, ‘Salaminian gods in Athens; the creation of a common past’, http://www.archaeologie-online.de/de/bibliothek/tagungsberichte/2007/introducing_new_ gods/salaminian_gods_in_athens (28–10–11). 117 The translation comes from Ferguson (1938), with slight modifications.

Franz Steiner Verlag

92

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

The reorganisation of the Hephaisteia and the metics of Athens The incorporation of metics into the ritual programme of the Hephaisteia is commonly regarded as an exception to a general rule of exclusion, and an understandable one for that matter, because of the obvious link between Hephaestus and the many metic craftsmen in fifth-century Athens.118 However, besides the fact that metics participated in several other polis festivals, this explanation generally passes over the particularities of the role of metics in the Hephaisteia and its relation to the Athenian conceptualisation of μετοικία. Also, the decree ordering the reorganisation of the Hephaisteia states that metics and Athenians in general are to share in the sacrifices, and not metic and Athenian craftsmen specifically, as most scholars seem to imply.119 True, the association with Hephaestus probably facilitated the incorporation of metics into the Hephaisteia, but what were the historical circumstances that informed the grand reorganisation of this festival including the organisation of the metic participation in 421, and why did the participation of metics take this particular form? The inclusion of metics in the Hephaisteia can probably be best understood as an acknowledgement of the increased and increasing role of metics in Athenian society. Although resident foreigners had long been present in Attica, the period of Athens’ rise to greatness witnessed the arrival of more foreigners than ever before, with perhaps as much as 28,000 metics living in Attica before 431. Perhaps the most important areas in which metics were most involved were the construction business that boomed under Pericles and the army and fleet – remember: of the 110 names that can be made out with certainty on the Erechtheion accounts a staggering 42 belonged to metics; Thucydides’ remarks that there were 3,000 metic hoplites next to 10,000 Athenian ones in 431 (2.31.2) have led scholars to estimate that no less than 20% and perhaps as much as 43% of the Athenian hoplite forces consisted of metics, while in the fleet citizens were much outnumbered by metics, slaves and mercenaries in the late fifth century.120 Metics had of course long been involved in the Athenian community. This had already been acknowledged by their inclusion in the Panathenaia around 480–470. With the growing involvement of thousands of metics in the reconstruction of the city and in the army and fleet after the middle of the fifth century, we see that the Athenians granted this influential group an even larger share in the hiera of the polis: metics were now included in the Lenaia, the City Dionysia, and it is in this context that we should also consider the inclusion of metics in the hiera of Hephaestus and Athena Hephaistia in 421. It was in this year, the same year in which the Peace of Nicias temporarily put a hold on the turmoil of the preceding years, that the Athenians decided to reconsider not only their relationship with their gods but also with the immigrant inhabitants of Attica.121 118 119 120 121

E.g. Parker, Polytheism (2005) 171; Clerc, Métèques athéniens (1893) 153–4. In contrast to the Chalkeia, where possibly only craftsmen participated, supra n.97. See above 29–30, ns.64 and 66. Cf. Thuc. 5.20. Other decisions relating to religious matters and probably deriving from the

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metics at the Hephaisteia – the young and active in Athens

93

The choice for the Hephaisteia to articulate the increased role of metics in Athens was particularly appropriate. Hephaestus was of course the god of crafts but the decision to grant metics a share in this particular festival becomes even more intelligible if we also take into consideration the nature of the Hephaisteia as an agonistic festival that, already before 421, was celebrated by and thus concerned with the young and strong men of Attica. These young and strong men, now including many metics, had increasingly proven their worth to society in the decades preceding 421, which made the Hephaisteia an obvious candidate for reorganisation and an appropriate context to articulate the increased position of metics within the Athenian community. That the metic participation at the Hephaisteia was limited compared to the participation of Athenians should, of course, not come as a surprise and can also be explained by the greater involvement of metics in the community. For the flipside of this growing involvement of metics in Athenian society was that it also resulted in a greater need to distinguish between them and the Athenians.122 We can detect a call for stricter demarcations in the Old Oligarch’s famous statement that in the streets of Athens metics and even slaves could hardly be distinguished from citizens (Ath. Pol. 1.10). Xenophon argues similarly, though with less indignation, when he suggests that metics should be relieved of several burdens, among them serving in the army together with the Athenians, which will have the additional benefit that citizens will no longer have ‘Lydians, Phrygians, Syrians, and barbarians of all sorts’ as their brothers in arms, but only their fellow citizens (Ways 2.3). This need or desire to be able to distinguish metics from Athenians more clearly was, moreover, not only felt by a couple of anti-democratic, elitist writers but seems to have been a general concern in Athenian public discourse. For the same period in which metics became more involved in Athenian affairs also witnessed several measures further demarcating metic status, like Pericles’ Citizenship Law of 451/0, excluding metic-Athenian children from Athenian citizenship, the introduction of the “metic” demotikon in the ‘oikon en’-formula probably around the same time, and the introduction of the metic tax in the late fifth century. Analogue to these legal, fiscal, and administrative measures, the demarcated participation of metics in the Hephaisteia, and the Lenaia and the City Dionysia, should similarly be understood as facilitating the differentiation between metics and Athenians that was desame anxiety to restore proper relationships with the gods are the introduction of the cult of Asclepius in 421 and the decision to repair a bridge over the Rheitoi-river over which the initiates crossed on their way to Eleusis (IG I³ 79, dated to 422/1). The introduction of Asclepius is recorded on the so-called Telemachus-monument (IG II² 4961+60), on which: L. Beschi, ‘Il monumento di Telemachos fondatore dell’ Asklepieion Ateniese’, ASAtene 29/30 (1967–1968) 381–436; idem, ‘Il rilievo di Telemachos ricompletato’, AAA 15 (1982) 31–43; K. Clinton, ‘The Epidauria and the arrival of Asclepius in Athens’ in: R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek cult practice from the epigraphical evidence (Stockholm 1994) 21–5. Cf. S. B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion; the people, their dedications, and the inventories (Amsterdam 1989); idem, Asklepios at Athens, epigraphic and prosopographic essays on the Athenian healing cults (Amsterdam 1991); Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 175–85; R. Garland, Introducing new gods; the politics of Athenian religion (London 1992) 116–35. 122 Cf. Cohen, Athenian nation (2000) passim; Vlassopoulos (2007).

Franz Steiner Verlag

94

Chapter 2: Μετοικία in the second half of the fifth century

sired in the second half of the fifth century after metics had become more involved in Athenian society.

Franz Steiner Verlag

CHAPTER 3: ΜΕΤΟΙΚΙΑ IN THE DEMES OF ATTICA? Dealing with immigrants in face-to-face communities Similar to the polis at large, the identity of a deme community, both as a community on its own and as part of the larger polis system, was largely defined in religious terms, as the hereditary members of a deme expressed their unity and collective identity primarily by taking care of the religious obligations of a particular locality.1 In the course of the classical period, most, if not all, demes were faced with the arrival of people who did not belong to their community by descent. One way in which demes seem to have dealt with the presence of these outsiders was to grant them a share in their hiera. In that way the hereditary members of a deme could, similar to the polis, both guarantee the continued cohesion of their community and express different memberships for both themselves and the newcomers. Although deme membership was, as I suggest, generally informed by a shared responsibility for a deme’s religious obligations, the ways in which the 139 attested demes articulated this membership typically varied greatly.2 Every deme had its own cultic observances and every deme seems to have responded to the presence of outsiders in its own way. For that reason it is impossible to look at The Integration of Metics in Attic Demes. Instead, this chapter focuses on some specific implementations of a common notion of membership concerning the position of resident foreigners in some demes. We have a couple of instances where metics were incorporated into a deme community by having them share in deme hiera: ca. 460 we hear of metoikoi sharing in a sacrifice to the hero Leos with the Skambonidai and in fourth-century Eleusis a Theban is being honoured for providing choruses for Demeter, Kore and Dionysus. In addition to these admittedly few instances we will adopt a wider perspective in this chapter, for in some Ikarian hiera foreign immigrants were included, though not as metics but as belonging to the broader category of ‘other residents’, probably encompassing both Athenians from other demes and foreign immigrants.

1 2

E.g. Sourvinou-Inwood (2000) 30–3. On uniformity vs. diversity concerning deme practices: Whitehead, Demes (1986) 56–63. Cf. C. Patterson, Pericles’ Citizenship Law of 451/0 BC (Ann Arbor 1976) 179–89, on Pericles’ Citizenship Law as a uniform policy replacing the varying marital practices and enrolment procedures in the demes. On diversity in the phratries: Lambert, Phratries² (1998) 143–89, with differences in the organisation of the Apatouria and the admission of new members.

Franz Steiner Verlag

96

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

DEME MEMBERSHIP: ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN DEME AFFAIRS Demes before and after Cleisthenes The Attic deme was not a completely new creation of Cleisthenes.3 Large demes like Rhamnous, Eleusis and Thorikos existed as coherent communities long before 508, though not as ‘demes’. Sometimes such a community was known as a ‘polis’.4 In other cases we find an archaic village, a kome, or a group of komai grouped together as a Cleisthenic deme, like Aphidnai and perhaps Erchia.5 Unfortunately, it is largely unclear what the position and function of these proto-demes was in the institutional structure of archaic Attica. Before the reforms of 508, they seem to have been local communities that were (often) concentrated around one or several habitation centres.6 The few scraps of evidence irrefutably related to these proto-demes suggest the main concern of the inhabitants of these communities was observing local religious traditions – though religious issues were, of course, exactly the kind of issues that tended to be inscribed on permanent record. For instance, around 550 the people of Sounion, referring to themselves as [Σ]ουνιε̑ς, made a dedication to Zeus (IG I³ 1024a).7 Also, the lexicographer Stephanus of Byzantion (s.v. τὸ τοπικὸν Ἀγνουντόθεν) informs us that on the axones of Solon there was mention of a sacrifice at Agnous (i.e. the later deme Hagnous) to the hero Leos (F83R).8 In Athenaeus (Deipn. 6.234–235) we furthermore find citations of 3 4 5

6

7

8

Cf. Whitehead, Demes (1986) 5–16. Thorikos was called a polis by Hekataeus (FGrH 1 F126); Eleusis was so described in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (114; 151). These “poleis” were sometimes split up, like the Tetrapolis, which encompassed the four later demes Marathon, Oinoe, Probalinthos and Trikorinthos. On komai in classical, Lycurgan times, when perhaps as many as seventy were still in existence: S. D. Lambert, Rationes Centesimarum; sales of public land in Lykourgan Athens (Amsterdam 1997) 220–1; 253–5; H. Lauter, Attische Landgemeinden (Marburg 1993) 136–8. That Erchia perhaps existed of three komai was suggested by S. D. Lambert, ‘Two notes on Attic leges sacrae’, ZPE 130 (2000b) 78–80. Conglomerates of komai also existed, even after 508, encompassing several of the later Cleisthenic demes, like the Tetrakomoi, which at least comprised the komai Xypete, Piraeus, Phaleron and Thymaitadai. Some of these larger associations, like the Tetrapolis and probably the Tetrakomai, were once thought to be components of the ancient Athenian Dodekapolis, recalling a time when Attica was composed of twelve more or less independent communities (Strabo 9.1.20 = Philochorus FGrH 328 F94 with Jacoby ad loc.). R. Osborne, Demos; the discovery of classical Attika (Cambridge 1985) 37–42; Whitehead, Demes (1986) 16–30. Recent surveys suggest a shift in Greek residential patterns in classical times from nucleated settlements to dispersed, isolated residences, cf. S. E. Alcock, Graecia Capta; the landscape of Roman Greece (Cambridge 1993) 33–49; Cohen, Athenian nation (2000) 121 n.96–98, for a bibliography. Cf. Lauter, Landgemeinden (1993), who concludes that archaic Attica was largely made up of dispersed residences, implying a dissassociation of Cleisthenic demes and archaic settlements. Cf. H. R. Goette, Ho axiologos demos Sounion; landeskundliche Studien in Südost Attika (Rahden 2000) 34–3, for an examination of the sculptural fragments of the two kouros thighs on which this (IG I³ 1024a on NM 3450) and another inscription (IG I³ 1024b on NM 3449) are inscribed. Cf. Whitehead, Demes (1986) 12.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Deme membership: active participation in deme affairs

97

what seem to be the fifth-century reworkings of archaic regulations concerning ritual diners (parasitoi) and their leaders (archontes) associated with the cult of Athena Pallenis.9 Perhaps in an attempt to bring this local cult under polis control, it was stated in a νόμος τοῦ βασιλέως that after the archons of the cult had been chosen by the Archon Basileus, they, in turn, had to choose the parasitoi ‘from the demes’ (Deip. 235c), probably referring to a league of neighbouring communities in charge of the cult of Athena Pallenis, among them Pallene, Pithos, Gargettos, and Acharnai.10 The religious nature of the pre-Cleisthenic demes is perhaps best borne out by the sacrificial calendars from Teithras, Eleusis, the Marathonian Tetrapolis, Erchia, and Thorikos, dating from the 430s to the late fourth century, but listing many archaic rites and sacrifices besides some recently established ones.11 In sum, it seems that, while the Attic gene seem to have taken care of the cults of the polis at large and the phratries acted as mediators between oikos and local or even polis level, proto-demes fulfilled a significant role in observing local rites and cults.12 What Cleisthenes did then, in 508, was to re-organise many of these local communities and invest them with a new, systemised role in the running of the official subdivisions of Attica and in the administration of the polis at large, even though several archaic communities and associations, like phratries, gene, and komai, did On this passage: R. Schlaifer, ‘The cult of Athena Pallenis (Athenaeus VI 234–235)’, HSCP 54 (1943) 35–67. 10 Ibidem, 44–7. Surprisingly among the 28 parasitoi listed in a mid fourth-century inscription (AM 67 (1951) 24–9, no. 26 with G. R. Stanton, ‘Some Attic inscriptions’, BSA 79 (1984) 292–8) we can restore at least twelve different demotics, which could point to an opening up of the cult to a wider clientele in classical times, as suggested by Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 330–1. Cf. M. Korres,‘Από τον Σταυρό στην Αγορά’, Horos 10–12 (1992–1998) 83–104; H. R. Goette, ‘Athena Pallenis und ihre Beziehungen zur Akropolis von Athen’ in: W. Hoepfner (ed.), Kult and Kultbauten auf der Akropolis. (Berlin 1997) 116–31, on the possibility that the relocated temple of Ares in the Agora used to be the shrine of Athena Pallenis. Interestingly, several local rites were taken care of by similar associations of proto-deme communities, something we rarely find in the classical period. Also see the Tetrakomia near Phaleron, a league of four komai centring on a common shrine of Heracles (Pollux 4.105; Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἐχελίδαι) and still celebrating a festival there in the fourth century (IG II² 3102; 3103). Cf. Lambert, Rationes Centesimarum (1997) 190–1 (on the Tetrakomoi) and 194–5 (on the Tetrapolis). Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 328–32, provides a handy checklist of these “local religious associations”. These leagues can perhaps be explained as both part of and response to the growing political and religious unification of Attica in archaic times. Also see the interesting exception of the joint honours paid to two financial administers and a priest of Heracles by the Kydantidai and the Ionidai in 331/0 (SEG 39.148). 11 Teithras: Hesp. 30 (1961) 293–6, no. 1 = LSGS 132; Eleusis: SEG 23.80; Tetrapolis: IG II² 1358 with SEG 50.168; Erchia: SEG 21.541; Thorikos: SEG 33.147. On the sacrificial calendars and on deme religion in general: S. Dow, ‘Six Athenian sacrificial calendars’, BCH 92 (1968) 170– 86; J. D. Mikalson, ‘Religion in the Attic demes’, AJP 98 (1977) 424–35; Whitehead, Demes (1986) 177–222; Rosivach, System (1994) 14–36; Humphreys, Strangeness (2004) 130–96; Parker, Polytheism (2005) 50–78. Recently doubts have been raised as to whether these calendars are really the calendars of demes or rather of pre-Cleisthenic communities that still co-existed with the Cleisthenic demes in the classical period, cf. Jameson (1997) 193; S. D. Lambert, ‘Parerga III; the Genesia, Basile and Epops again’, ZPE 139 (2002a) 81 n. 21, 12 Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 114–8. On phratries before Cleisthenes: Lambert, Phratries² (1998) 245–67. 9

Franz Steiner Verlag

98

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

not cease to exist but rather co-existed with or within the Cleisthenic demes.13 In addition, the demes remained essential components in Attica’s religious structure – while the demos increasingly took care of the hiera on polis level next to the gene, the demes remained the key associations in observing the local cults of Attica. The constitutional deme The Cleisthenic deme is commonly defined as a constitutional community made up by a descent group of politically active demotai, who belonged to a particular deme on account of their male ancestors being enrolled in that deme in 508. In most modern accounts the main roles of these demotai are described as attending assemblies and sitting on juries on both deme and polis level. However, more and more scholars recognise that this constitutional definition fails to encompass all defining aspects of a deme and its membership. Whitehead already spoke of two interlocking models of the deme: one consisting of its “true members”, i.e. the demotai, and one including demotai from other demes and even women, who ‘in the strictest sense […] were simply ignored by the deme system’ but who, as Whitehead emphasises, nonetheless performed important public duties in the context of deme religion.14 More recently, Nicholas Jones defended the hypothesis that there simultaneously existed two separate conceptualisations of ‘deme’ in Attica. He argues that in reaction to the rigid focus on a citizen minority within the ‘constitutional deme’, an alternative ‘territorial deme’ had come into existence that was defined by strict boundaries and encompassed all inhabitants living on its territory, including demesmen from other demes, women and metics.15 Jones’ ideas were largely rejected, mainly because of the weak evidence for strict deme boundaries and for the “victory” of a territorial deme over its constitutional counterpart in the fourth century.16 13 14 15 16

Cf. Kearns (1985); Lambert, Phratries2 (1998) 245–8; Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 112–7. Also see supra n.5 on komai in classical Athens. Whitehead, Demes (1986) 77–81, on 77. N. F. H. Jones, The associations of classical Athens; the response to democracy (1999) 51–81. Cf. Cohen, Athenian nation (2000) 113–29. See for instance the review by Mark Golden in JHS 120 (2000) 181. After W. Thompson, ‘The deme in Kleisthenes’ reforms’, SO 46 (1971) 72–9, had argued for a local community around a nucleated centre without strict boundaries, M. K. Langdon, ‘The territorial basis of the Attic demes’, SO 60 (1985) 5–15, followed by H. Lohmann, Atene; Forschungen zu Siedlungs- und Wirtschaftsstruktur des klassischen Attika, vol. 1 (Cologne 1993) 57–9, revived the notion of a territorial deme. The strongest evidence for a territorially defined deme is a horos-stone from Piraeus (IG II² 2623: ὅρος Π[ει]|ραέων [χώ]|[ρ]ας [.]|[----?]) and several so-called rupestral inscriptions found on living rock surfaces throughout Attica (listed by J. S. Traill, Demos and trittys; epigraphical and topographical studies in the organization of Attica (Toronto 1986) 116–22, with additional finds in Jones, Associations (1999) 60 n.45). These “boundary stones” are all dated to the late fourth century and are perhaps best understood as the result of a growing bureaucracy and rising boundary disputes between demes and not part of deme communities ab initio. S. D. Lambert, ‘A house of the Piraeans?’, ZPE 146 (2004a) 91–2, has furthermore refuted the common restorations of IG II² 2623, suggesting a house (oikias) of the Piraeans, for which there are plenty of good parallels, instead of territory (choras). Despite all this, Gerald

Franz Steiner Verlag

Deme membership: active participation in deme affairs

99

What remains, though, is the fact that defining a deme from a strictly constitutional perspective is not wholly satisfying as it represents only part of the picture. It is simply impossible to ignore the pre-Cleisthenic history and religious nature of demes. Of course, no one will deny that religion remained important in the demes. Discussing deme documents, Parker concludes that ‘the demesmen probably assembled much more often for religious purposes than for political.’17 Earlier, Jon Mikalson already claimed that demes ‘functioned […] as religious units as well as political units’ and Whitehead similarly stated that it is ‘idle to pretend that deme religion is anything but an amorphous and intractable topic to treat in its own right.’18 But when the latter discusses the position of women in demes he is quick to add that ‘the sphere of religion and cult operated under a different, older set of imperatives’, thus suggesting the role of women in deme religion was a relic of the religious inclusiveness of archaic times and no longer of any real importance.19 However, quite the opposite seems to have been the case as religion remained of great importance to a deme and continued to be an effective means to articulate membership. Therefore, when we want to grasp what a deme was, we have to account for the fact that a deme was not only a constitutional but a religious unit as well. δημοτευόμενος: active participation in deme affairs Ancient sources demonstrate that belonging to a deme did not merely depend on being officially enrolled in a deme on account of one’s Athenian descent but also consisted of participation in a deme community. Several lexicographers testify to the fact that active participation in common activities could be considered a defining feature of being a member of a deme, of being a δημότης or a δημότις.20 Hesychius even glosses ‘δημοτεύεσθαι’ as ‘to share in deme and polis according to tradition/law’ (τὸ μετέχειν δήμου καὶ πολιτείας κατὰ νόμον), thus powerfully

17 18 19 20

Lalonde, Horos Dios; an Athenian shrine and cult of Zeus (Leiden 2006a); idem, ‘IG I³ 1055 B and the boundary of Melite and Kollytos’, Hesp. 75 (2006b) 93–100, has made an interesting case for early deme boundaries, referring to 1) demarchic duties that concerned residency and landed property within a single deme; 2) the official oikon en-formula for metics and the Skambonidai decree with its reference to metoikoi (IG I³ 244.8–9); 3) the demarch’s collection of eisphora taxes and his recruitment of liturgists on deme level; and 4) to the law quoted in [Dem.] 43.57–58, which ordered the demarch to pick up and bury any corpse ‘in the deme’. Cf. S. C. Humphreys, ‘Family tombs and tomb cult in ancient Athens; tradition or traditionalism?’, JHS 100 (1980) 98, who dates this law to the time of the Great Plague. Parker, Polytheism (2005) 64. Mikalson (1977) 424; Whitehead, Demes (1986) 176. Whitehead, Demes (1986) 79. A similar line of reasoning is found in Maurizio (1998) 297–317. The Suda (s.v. δημοτευόμενος), referring to Demosthenes, describes δημοτευόμενος as μετὰ τῶν δημοτῶν (‘being/acting with the demotai’), while δημοτεύεσθαι is defined as τὸ τοῦδέ τινος δήμου κοινωνεῖν καὶ χρηματίζειν ἀπ αὐτοῦ (‘to share in [the activities of] such-and-such a deme and to take one’s name from it’). According to Harpocration (s.v.) δημοτεύεσθαι was likewise employed by Antiphon (fr. 65).

Franz Steiner Verlag

100

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

evoking the phrase that was often used in Athenian courts to describe what it meant to be an Athenian as sharing in the polis. Fortunately, we do not have to take these late lexicographers’ words for it, for the Attic orators abound with passages that corroborate the notion that deme membership consisted of active participation in deme affairs. For instance, in Demosthenes’ speech Against Euboulides, the accuser, Euxitheus, refers to a number of communal events at which his family’s status had been acknowledged by their fellow deme members (57.25–26) to demonstrate that both his father and his mother were, contrary to what the demarch Euboulides had argued in 346/5, fully accepted as members of Halimous. The same goes for the repeated acceptance of Euxitheus’ own deme membership on several occasions. Not only was he enrolled in the deme register (26), he had held offices and was also nominated to draw lots for the priesthood of Heracles, which meant that, if elected, it would have been his duty to offer sacrifice in and on behalf of the deme (46–47).21 According to Euxitheus this would not have occurred if he was not a member of Halimous, ‘for surely Euboulides would never have suffered the xenos or metic, as he now calls me, either to hold offices or to draw lots with himself as a nominee for the priesthood’ (48). Other speeches also attest to the importance of participation in communal activities for the assertion and acknowledgement of a person’s status as a deme member. These activities varied from military campaigns to political deliberation and collective legal help to a fellow member.22 Interesting in the current context is the fact that orators frequently refer to sharing in common sacrifices as an important quality of deme membership, as in the Speech against Euboulides. A similar notion is found in Isaeus’ speech On the estate of Astyphilos, where the accuser is contesting an adoption, arguing that it is simply impossible that Astyphilos adopted the son of Cleon, who was Astyphilos’ sworn enemy as it was rumoured that Cleon’s father had murdered Astyphilos’ father. According to the speaker, the enmity between Cleon and Astyphilos had reached such a pitch that, even though the two were members of the same deme, their fellow demesmen could think of no occasion when Cleon and Astyphilos had attended sacrifices together (9.21). In the same way the speaker argues that the fellow-demesmen of Astyphilos, ‘well knowing that Astyphilos never adopted Cleon’s son […] have never given him any share of the meat of sacrificed animals’ (9.33). The clear implication is that being fellow demesmen normally meant sharing in communal sacrifices, while not belonging to the deme or being at enmity with one’s fellow demotai likewise meant being excluded from the hiera of the demotai.23 21 22

23

Later on in the speech (57.63) we hear Euxitheus also held the office of demarch. Collective military activities by demesmen: Lys. 20.23, 31.15–16, 16.14; Is. 2.42. Political meetings: Lys. 20.2; Dem. 57.7. Legal help: Lys. 27.12; Is. 2.44–45; Dem. 43.35. A. C. Scafuro, ‘Witnessing and false witnessing; proving citizenship and kin identity in fourth-century Athens’ in: A. L. Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro (eds.), Athenian identity and civic ideology (Baltimore and London 1994) 156–98, emphasises the pivotal role of witnesses in Athenian courts, who could testify to a person’s participation in events that were only open to members of a particular status in cases where (deme) registers could have easily clarified someone’s identity and status. Cf. Whitehead, Demes (1986) 227–34. Also see Isaeus fr. 2.6 in which the speaker is at enmity with his fellow demesmen, which he

Franz Steiner Verlag

Deme membership: active participation in deme affairs

101

The position of women within a deme community was to an important degree also negotiated through publicly acknowledged participation in the hiera of a deme. In Isaeus’ speech On the estate of Ciron, for instance, the speaker argues that if his mother was not the legitimate daughter of Ciron, it would have been impossible for her to have been chosen by the other wives to administer the Thesmophoria and carry out the ceremonies (8.18–20). The contrary could also be argued: in his On the estate of Pyrrhos, Isaeus claims that the defendant’s sister was not legitimately married to the wealthy Pyrrhos, for then he would surely have organised the Thesmophoria on her behalf and entertained the wives of his fellow demesmen on that occasion. The fact that he had not done so, even though he possessed over three talents, is presented as proof that she could not possibly be the legitimate wife of Pyrrhos and her daughter could therefore not claim to have any right to the property of Pyrrhos (3.80). Belonging to a deme can, in sum, be understood in terms of participating in the affairs of the deme one belonged to by descent, among which sharing in the hiera of that deme. We should accordingly not envisage two distinct and disparate entities of a constitutional deme next to a territorial one, but rather see the deme as a locally based community, membership of which was based on descent and defined by active participation in its collective affairs, not the least in deme religion. The deme and its “foreign” residents Based on their descent the demotai and their families obviously held the first and, in fact, defining right to share in a deme’s hiera. The flexible conceptualisation of deme membership as consisting of participation in communal activities, in addition, allowed new residents, either as individuals or as a group, to be incorporated into the deme community by granting them a share in the deme’s hiera. It is not entirely clear what the situation was in 508: either all free men living in Attica were registered in a deme as demotai, or perhaps a separate status was already conceptualised for resident foreigners at this early date, as Whitehead has suggested but for which evidence is largely missing.24 Much pivots around the question whether the new citizens enfranchised by Cleisthenes only included those who were struck off the phratry lists in 510 or also encompassed the other free inhabitants living in Attica in 508, including free resident foreigners.25 Unfortunately, the evidence (Arist. Pol.1275b 32–37; [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 21.2–4) is relatively late and not straightforward. Either way, we can safely assume that many demes were soon faced with the presence of people who did not belong to the deme by descent as several Athenians

24 25

describes as ‘the most grievous thing possible […] since I am obliged to share in their sacrifices and attend their common meetings’. Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 143–7. Ibidem, 143-5, is perhaps too eager to reject the statement in Pol. 1275b 32–37 that those enfranchised in 508 included “metics” and manumitted slaves, while Watson (2010) seems to picture a too inclusive picture of the demes’ admission policies, freely admitting foreigners up till Pericles’ Citizenship Law in 451/0.

Franz Steiner Verlag

102

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

moved away from their home demes, usually from a rural deme into the city, and as the ever growing group of foreign immigrants who arrived in Attica had to settle in a deme of choice. In addition, it seems that increasingly more (wealthy) Athenians from rural demes owned multiple residencies, usually including one in the city. This mobility resulted in the mixing up of many deme populations, particularly those of (sub)urban demes, which now came to consist of hereditary members, foreign immigrants and many Athenians from other demes.26 The Athenians who had moved oikos from one deme to another sustained strong ties with their ancestral demes, as this was the essential level of mediation between the Athenians and their participation in central communal activities on polis level. But while their position in their ancestral demes was clearly delineated, it seems to have been entirely up to the receiving deme to define a position for these newcomers. In most demes there seems to have been no acknowledged status for these Athenian immigrants. In some though, like Piraeus (IG II² 1214.25–28), we find taxes for which only people who possessed landed property in a deme other than his own seem liable.27 In other cases the arrival of new residents seems to have triggered a stronger, more explicit focus on the original demotai, for instance by specifying that some deme rites were only open to the hereditary members or by making more use of demotics on graves within a deme.28 The situation was rather different concerning the presence and position of foreign immigrants in demes. We have a relatively good idea of the spread of these immigrants among the demes of Attica. Facilitated by the designation of individual metics as ‘living in deme X’ in official polis records, Whitehead noted that of the 366 metics of whom we know their place of residence, 302 lived in only eight demes, with 223 living in urban and suburban Athens, and 69 living in Piraeus. Interesting is the observation that the remaining 64 metics were scattered across more than thirty demes all over Attica and that an entirely metic-less deme was probably a rarity.29 But how did the demotai deal with these outsiders? It is very probably that foreign immigrants who arrived in Athens had no official position in the Athenian polis, other than xenoi that is, until they enrolled in a 26

27 28

29

Cf. A. Damsgaard-Madsen, ‘Attic funeral inscriptions; their use as historical sources and some preliminary results’ in: E. Christiansen, A. Damsgaard-Madsen and E. Hallager (eds.), Studies in ancient history and numismatics presented to Rudi Thomsen (Aarhus 1988) 55–68; R. Osborne, ‘The potential mobility of human populations’, OJA 10 (1991a) 231–52; Claire Taylor, ‘A new political world’ in: R. Osborne (ed.), Debating the Athenian cultural revolution; art, literature, and politics, 430–380 BC (Cambridge 2007) 84–7. Both Osborne and Taylor emphasise the many complicating aspects (changing ideology of display, deme specific contexts et cetera) in tracing migration through the occurrence of demotics on grave-monuments. Cf. Cohen, Athenian nation (2000) 49–78 and 104–29, who nicely sketches the heterogeneity of the Athenian and deme community. Whitehead, Demes (1986) 75–7 and 150–2. We find deme rites explicitly restricted to demotai in fourth-century Piraeus (IG II² 1214) on which see 122–3 below. Osborne (1991) 241, discussing the high occurrence of demotics on graves of Rhamnousians who were buried in their own deme, refers to the large number of non-Rhamnousians living in the deme. Whitehead, Demes (1986) 81–5.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metoikoi amongst the Skambonidai

103

deme of choice and registered at the polemarch’s office in Athens. The clearest indication for an association of metics with the Attic demes is, as Wilamowitz first observed, the designation of metics in official polis records as ‘living in deme X’.30 Next to this registration in a deme, metics had to pay the so-called metoikion tax, first attested in the late fifth, early fourth century, which they possibly had to pay at deme level.31 A deme’s role towards the foreigners living in their midst, in sum, seems to have been largely one of keeping track of Attica’s metic population and perhaps of facilitating the collection of the metoikion tax. In addition we find demes dealing with these foreigners in their own way, regulating their participation in the deme. In Eleusis, for instance, metics could be exempted for paying taxes over which the Eleusinians have authority (IG II² 1186.24–25). And also in the context of deme religion could metics be incorporated into the community. METOIKOI AMONGST THE SKAMBONIDAI Our single most important and unfortunately only evidence for the incorporation of non-Athenian immigrants into a deme community as a coherent, definable group of metics comes from the deme Skambonidai, a city deme located north of the classical Agora.32 The deme belonged to the phyle Leontis and each year the Skambonid demotai could send three representatives to sit on the boule, indicating that the deme was probably of a relatively average size. Due to the central location of the deme in the heart of the city, it was to be expected that the Skambonidai were faced with the arrival and presence of many immigrants from an early date onwards and indeed several individual metics are attested as living in Skambonidai in the classical period. Among the metics working on the Erechtheion, for instance, we find five metics recorded as ‘living in Skambonidai’.33 The close proximity to the Acropolis must have been a strong incentive for several of the people working on the Periclean building programme to settle in Skambonidai. But also in other contexts do we find metics who are listed as ‘living in Skambonidai’: they are found among the crews of triremes in the late fifth century (IG I³ 1032.434), among the men working 30

31 32

33

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1887). Despite its relatively late occurrence, i.e. in 414/3 (IG I³ 421), the oikon en-formula can probably be seen as the official recognition of an already long established link between metics and their demes of residence, cf. Lalonde (2006b) 95–6, referring to the Skambonidai decree of ca. 460; supra 33 n.76. Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 75–7, 152–3. The location of the deme is mainly based on the find-spot of IG I³ 244, found in a house near, probably north of, the Hephaesteion. Cf. Travlos, Dictionary (1971) fig. 218, no. 241; Traill, Demos (1986) 130. There was probably also a phratry located in or near Skambonidai, on which see Lambert, Phratries2 (1998) T22. On the location of demes in general: J. S. Traill, The political organization of Attica; a study of the demes, trittyes, and phylai, and their representation in the Athenian council (Hesp. Suppl. 14) (Princeton 1975) 37–54. Heumelides, a bronze worker (IG I³ 476.330–331), Kephisodoros, a stone worker (IG I³ 465.108–110; 476.97–98; 215–216), Kroisos, a servant (IG I³ 476.12–13; 22–23), Philios, a bronze worker (IG I³ 476.331–332), and Satyra, a woman who provided something now lost (IG II² 1654.40). On the Erechtheion accounts see above 29 n.64.

Franz Steiner Verlag

104

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

at Eleusis in the 320s (IG II² 1672.179, 241, 132, 238; 1673.11), and in a naval account of 323/2 (IG II² 1631.514). Finally, of the 215 manumitted slaves in the phialai exeleutherikai lists (ca. 330–322) of whom we can determine where they chose to live, at least fifteen decided to settle in Skambonidai.34 In fact, of the ca. 366 metics of whom we know where they lived no less than 28 (7.7%) lived in Skambonidai. Despite the fact that these numbers only represent a tiny section of the total metic population of classical Attica, it is beyond doubt that the Skambonidai were faced with a significant presence of foreign immigrants in their midst. A lex sacra from Skambonidai So how did the Skambonidai deal with the presence of this significant group of foreigners? IG I³ 244, roughly dated to around 460, is quite informative.35 This is probably the earliest attested decree issued by a Cleisthenic deme, perhaps issued in joint cooperation with a (homonymous) kome.36 It consists of three fragments, all three written in stoichedon, found in a house in the vicinity of the Hephaesteion. The first four lines probably read ‘(These are) the traditional regulations (thesmia) of the Skambonidai; the demarch and the hieropoios (are to)’ ([θέσ]μια ∶ Σκ̣[αμβονι] [δ]ȏν ⋮ τὸν δέ[μαρχον][κ]αὶ τὸς ⋮ hι[εροποι]ὸς ⋮).37 These thesmia are then listed. The first entry reads:

Besides four fragmentary references (IG II² 1553.29; IG II² 1557.7–8, 11–12; IG II² 1558.14– 15) we find Dionysios, a farmer (IG II² 1559.51–52), Hestiaios, a cobbler of shoes (IG II² 1557.80–81), two wet nurses (IG II² 1559.59–60; 63–64), Olympos (IG II² 1567.9–10), a weaver (IG II² 1572.4–5), the women Philainis (IG II² 1575.3–4) and Aristonoë (IG II² 1575.8– 9), the child Hediste (IG II² 1554.67), another cobbler of shoes (IG II² 1576.8–9), and a fishmonger (IG II² 1576.13–14). Among the manumitters we also find a man ‘living in Skambonidai’ (IG II² 1569.18–19). On these lists: supra 28 n.60. 35 Most recently discussed by Humphreys, Strangeness (2004) 145–6. I would like to thank Peter Thonemann for kindly providing me with his notes on this decree. The date given in IG I³ is “c.a. 460”, probably based on the combined occurrence of the tailed rho and the three-bar sigma, usually dated to before the 440s, the appearance of the chi (e.g. in line C 16) and the intermittent use of double and triple interpuncts in fragment C. But see Mattingly (1961); idem, Athenian Empire (1996) 281–314, against using the occurrence of the three-bar sigma as an accurate dating criterion. 36 Both a demarch (C2) and a komarch (A12–13) are mentioned as executive officials. A komarchos also appears in IG II² 1213.6, found “in vico Spata” and dated to the fourth century; IG II² 3103, commemorating a dramatic victory in Piraeus in 330/29; IG II² 3104 from Acharnai, dated either 340/39 or 313/12; IG I³ 247.9–10, dated 460–40. 37 Thonemann refers to a parallel for the first lines: IG I³ 243.30–33, an even more fragmentary decree, dated to 480–450, from the deme Melite, which seems concerned with specifying (ritual) obligations of the demarch and the hieromnemos. Cf. Humphreys Strangeness (2004) 145–6. On thesmia: M. Ostwald, Nomos and the beginnings of the Athenian democracy (Oxford 1969) 12–56, esp. 12–9. 34

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metoikoi amongst the Skambonidai

5

10

105

τȏι Λεȏ[ι δρᾶν τ][έ]λεον ⋮ λε̑χ[σιν …] [ὀ]βολȏν : hε[κάστοι] Σκαμβονι[δȏν καὶ] τὸς μετοίκ[ος λαχ]ε̑ν : ἐν ἀγορᾶ[ι τε̑ι Σ][κ]αμβονιδȏ[ν ….]

Although the Greek is slightly obscure, the essence is clear: the demarch and the hieropoios are to sacrifice a full-grown victim to Leos, of which they are to give each of the Skambonidai and the metics a share of a now lost amount of obols in the agora of the Skambonidai. The decree continues with more thesmia; first we come across the Synoikia celebrated on the Acropolis (16–19) and the Epizephyria celebrated ‘in the Pythion’ (19–22), an otherwise unattested festival, probably in honour of Apollo. As the Synoikia were celebrated on 16 Hekatombaion38, it is possible that what we have here is the beginning of a sacrificial calendar. The sacrifice to Leos would then take place at the beginning of the Attic year. Because of its poor condition, not much can be said with certainty about the next side, side A in IG I³. It seems to list yet more religious obligations, this time to be performed by the demarch and the komarchos, who are both designated as the recipients of perquisites (10–14). There appears to be a reference to the Panathenaia (19) and possibly to the Dipolieia or the Olympieia (18).39 The decree is closed, on fragment B, by the formula for an oath to be taken by a deme official swearing by ‘the three gods’ (14–15) and the promise to give money to a scrutiniser. The decree’s main concern seems to be with stipulating several sacrifices of the Skambonidai, some of which performed in the context of the deme, some in relation to a (homonymous) kome, one in relation to the (probably phyletic) hero Leos, and some at polis festivals. Interestingly, it is in this decree, one of the earliest deme decrees, concerned with the recording of hiera, that we find a group of demotai explicitly acknowledging the relatively recent arrival of immigrant residents, collectively referred to as τὸς μετοίκ[ος]. Perhaps the all-embracing view on the deme in relation to its associated organisational structures had triggered the need to clearly articulate the groups of people associated with the deme40, a mechanism comparable to the wide but also highly articulated inclusivity of the Panathenaia. 38

39

40

Mikalson, Calendar (1975) 29–30, referring to Plut. Thes. 24.4, who seems to have gotten the name of the festival, which he calls the Metoikia, wrong. There is, perhaps in addition to the participation of the kome of IG I³ 244, some evidence for the participation of (yet another) pre-Cleisthenic subdivision: in the calendar of Nicomachos we find a reference to a biennial sacrifice offered by the trittys Leukotainiai of the pre-Cleisthenic phyle Gleontis on 15 and 16 Hekatombaion (S. D. Lambert, ‘The sacrificial calendar of Athens’, BSA 97 (2002b) fr.3.31– 58). On the Synoikia: N. Robertson, Festivals and legends; the formation of Greek cities in the light of public ritual (Toronto 1992) 32–40, to be consulted with caution; Parker, Polytheism (2005) 480–1. Dipolieia on 14 Skirophorion: Mikalson, Calendar (1975) 171. Olympieia: Humphreys, Strangeness (2004) 146 n.41. A cavalry procession in honour of Zeus is attested for 19 Mounychion (Plut. Phoc. 37.1 with Mikalson, Calendar (1975) 145–6) which probably belonged to the Olympieia. Cf. Humphreys, Strangeness (2004) 146.

Franz Steiner Verlag

106

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

By having foreign immigrants share in one of the most defining aspects of the Skambonidai’s communal life, the demotai incorporated these metics into their midst and lay the ground for a new position for them within their community. It appears, moreover, that the share metics received from the sacrifice to Leos was equal to that of the Skambonidai; although both groups are separately designated in the Skambonid decree – perhaps the Skambonidai perceived as a group of individuals and the metoikoi as a collective (hε[κάστοι] Σκαμβονι[δȏν καὶ] τὸς μετοίκ[ος] – 6–8) – both received an equal share. A sacrifice to Leos Can we say anything else about the specific context in which the incorporation of resident foreigners as metoikoi into the community of the Skambonidai took place? In other words, who was Leos and what kind of connotations could a sacrifice to him invoke? Two different strands of aetiological myth and associated cultic honours are related to a hero named Leos.41 We already came across a sacrifice to a Leos in the rural deme Hagnous that was apparently recorded on the Solonian axones (F83 R). This cultic worship should probably be associated with the story, captured in Plutarch (Thes. 13) and going back to Philochorus (FGrH 328 F108), that a Hagnousian Leos, the herald of the Pallantidai, had informed Theseus about the coup the sons of Pallas were planning in an attempt to overthrow the new king. An even more heroic act is ascribed to the daughters of the Athenian Leos, who were sacrificed in order to save the city. Late sources give us the details: when Athens found itself faced by a famine, the Delphic oracle advised the Athenians to sacrifice a child, upon which Leos offered his three daughters.42 Imminent disaster was indeed diverted and Leos’ daughters received divine honours in a hero shrine known as the Leokoreion.43 In 508 the Delphic oracle, moreover, “decided” that one of the ten new Cleisthenic phylai should be named after their noble father, thus establishing a special relationship between this pan-Athenian hero and the people of the phyle Leontis.44 Now, which Leos was honoured by the Skambonidai with a full-grown animal? One possibility is that this was “just” a local sacrifice of the Skambonidai to the Athenian Leos, for it has been proposed that the Leokoreion can be identified with U. Kron, Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen; Geschichte, Mythos, Kult, und Darstellungen (Berlin 1976) 194–201. 42 Aelian (VH 12.28); Suda (s.v. Λεωκόριον); Photius (s.v. Λεωκόριον). 43 According to the fourth-century Atthidographer Phanodemos (FGrH 325 F4) this shrine was located ‘in the middle of the Kerameikos’, probably on the spot where the girls were believed to have died. At least in the late sixth century, it was a familiar landmark: both Thucydides (1.20.2; 6.57.1–3) and the Aristotelian Ath. Pol. (18.3) state it was the backdrop of the murder of Hipparchus when he was marshalling the Panathenaic procession nearby the Leokoreion. The testimonia concerning the Leokoreion are listed in Wycherley, Testimonia (1973) 108–13. 44 Kearns (1985) 196–7; idem, The heroes of Attica (London 1989) 82–92, emphasises the centralising aspects that seem to have been deliberately stressed in the selection and the positive connotations with the synoicism of Attica. 41

Franz Steiner Verlag

Metoikoi amongst the Skambonidai

107

a small enclosure located on the north-west corner of the Agora and as such perhaps part of the Skambonid deme.45 However, the Skambonid sacrifice was offered τȏι Λεȏ[ι], whereas the Leokoreion was first and foremost concerned with his daughters. The identification of the Leokoreion is, moreover, far from certain; the peak of cultic activity at the enclosure is rather short and late (i.e. the latter part of the fifth century), no archaic traces have been found, and, as Kron points out, the enclosure seems too small for such a well-known cult.46 It is instead more plausible that we are dealing with a sacrifice to the phyletic hero Leos by a deme belonging to his phyle.47 Sally Humphreys even finds ‘it [not] inconceivable that the Skambonidai should have introduced a sacrifice to the tribal hero Leos on the occasion of a new-year deme meeting [i.e. in early Hekatombaion] in which metics also took part.’48 If the Skambonid sacrifice to Leos was indeed offered to the phyletic Leos, as I believe it was, it is moreover very likely that it did not solely focus on civic but also on the military aspects of the phylai as these were the basic subdivisions of the polis through which not only the Athenian boule but also the Athenian army and fleet were mustered.49 It has even been claimed that the connection with the phyletic hero was probably most strongly felt when the mem45

46 47

48 49

This suggestion was first raised by Kearns, Heroes (1989) 195. That the small rectangular building was the Leokoreion was suggested by Thompson and Wycherly, Agora (1972) 123, even before the excavation report in T. L. Shear Jr., ‘The Athenian Agora; excavations of 1972’, Hesp. 42 (1973) 360–9. Most recently: S. Batino, ‘Il Leokorion; appunti per la storia di un angolo dell Agora’, ASAtene 79 (2001) 55–82. On the location of Skambonidai also see supra n.32. Kron, Phylenheroen (1976) 199–200. Deme sacrifices to a phyletic hero were quite rare. Besides the Skambonid sacrifice to Leos, we have a third-century altar, found in the deme Kerameis at the Dipylon Gate, that was dedicated to Zeus Herkeios, Hermes and Akamas, the eponymos of the phyle Akamantis, to which Kerameis belonged, for which see Kearns, Heroes (1989) 81 n.2 and 88. It has been argued that the Leokoreion functioned as the central shrine of the phyle Leontis, just as the Eurysakion probably served as the central shrine of the phyle Aiantis, cf. Kron, Phylenheroen (1976) 200–1; Kearns, Heroes (1989) 181; Jones, Associations (1999) 158. Other locations are suggested by the findspots of decrees that are related to the phyle, like the dedication by the epimeletai to Leos of 357/6 (IG II² 2818), found in present-day Daphni, or a fragmentary honorific ephebic decree, dated to 333/2, dedicated [τῶι ἥρ]ωι (Hesp. 9 (1940) 59–66, no. 8, col. I.1) that was to be set up ‘in the shrine’ (col. I.31–33) and that was found in the northeast corner of the Agora, cf. S. Rotroff, ‘An anonymous hero in the Athenian agora’, Hesp. 47 (1978) 206–7. Most phylai, with the exception of Hippothontis in Eleusis, seem to have had the shrine of their eponymous hero, which also functioned as their headquarters, in the city, on which see N. F. Jones, ‘The Athenian phylai as associations; disposition, function, and purpose’, Hesp. 64 (1995) 506–11. Humphreys, Strangeness (2004) 146, n.42. Athenian soldiers were also buried according to the phylai they belonged to, so vividly represented in the cypress coffins that were carried out to the Kerameikos during the public funeral of the war dead, each with the bones of the fallen members of a single phyle (Thuc. 2.34). That the phyletic heroes played a part in this context is also illustrated by the funeral oration often ascribed to Demosthenes in which each phyletic hero is presented as an exemplum for the fallen members of a single phyle ([Dem] 60.27–31). Also note the phyletic arrangement of the monuments of the Athenian war dead, on which: D. W. Bradeen, ‘Athenian casualty lists’, Hesp. 33 (1964) 6–62; idem,‘The Athenian casualty lists’, CQ n.s. 19 (1969) 149–51.

Franz Steiner Verlag

108

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

bers of a single phyle assembled for civic and military matters.50 The Athenian army and fleet were, moreover, important contexts in which metics and Athenian citizens co-operated. Although it remains remarkable that metics were included in a sacrifice with phyletic connotations, it is, I think, not wholly implausible that by doing so the Skambonidai could express and strengthen the close cooperation between themselves and “their” metics in the phyletic-military field. The answer of the Skambonidai In one of the earliest deme decrees we read that metoikoi were to share in a sacrifice to Leos. The occurrence of the term metoikoi both at this time and within a deme context is extraordinary. IG I³ 244 contains the first epigraphic attestation of the use of the plural ‘metoikoi’, probably referring to foreign immigrants and not to all non-Skambonidai in general.51 The occurrence of metoikoi in the Skambonidai decree might even be the first attestation of the collective noun ‘metoikoi’, that is, if we wish to date IG I³ 244 to before the first performance of Aeschylus’ Eumenides in 458, which otherwise contains the earliest reference to metoikoi in line 1011, where the Eumenides are called by that name. At the time of the Skambonidai decree, roughly the 460s, the term metoikoi and the concomitant notion of a separate status were still very novel. Before this period the only attested interference with a special metic status is the incorporation of four groups of metics into the procession of the Panathenaia some time in the 480s-470s. It appears that the growing presence of an immigrant population again led to a heightened awareness and discourse among the Athenians in the 460s: Aeschylus’ Suppliant Women, also dated to the 460s, can be understood as focussing attention on how to deal with the arrival, presence and integration of strangers in a polis community, while the Eumenides, dated to 458, contains explicit references to the incorporation of metics in society through their participation in a pompe for Athena.52 IG I³ 244 provides us with the answer of the Skambonidai on how to treat strangers: they decided to include the foreigners living in their deme as a coherent group of metics in a sacrifice to Leos, in that way perhaps strengthening the meticAthenian cooperation in phyletic-military contexts. This answer was very specific to this deme; nowhere else do we find metics being included in the hiera of a deme as a demarcated group of metoikoi. There are several possible reasons for this, most 50

Kearns, Heroes, 80–92, especially 86–7. For the dominating role of phylai in Athens’ military organisation: N. F. Jones, Public organization in ancient Greece; a documentary study (Philadelphia 1987) 53–7, with 56–7 for the naval arrangements. 51 The term ‘metoikos’ and cognate terms – first used in the funerary epigram for the Naxian Anaxilas (SEG 22.79) – were never used to designate native Athenians. In addition, as the Skambonid sacrifice to Leos was probably a sacrifice to the phyletic hero Leos, the sacrificial community on that occasion probably consisted of the Skambonidai and foreign immigrants, while Athenian immigrants from other demes could join in the sacrifices to the hero of the phyle their ancestral deme belonged to. 52 Cf. Bakewell (1997).

Franz Steiner Verlag

The other residents in Ikarion

109

of which have to do with Skambonidai being a city deme, for the location of the deme in the city generally entailed having a larger metic presence than a rural deme, while it probably also made the Skambonidai more likely to mimic the ways of the large polis festivals that were held in the city, among them the Panathenaia. THE OTHER RESIDENTS IN IKARION Skambonidai is the only deme we know of where foreign residents were integrated as a coherent group by giving them a share in their hiera. We do, however, have another instance where it seems resident foreigners were integrated in a deme by arranging they share in their hiera, though not as a distinct group but as belonging to ‘the other residents’, a category which probably also included Athenians from other demes. The Ikarian choregia for Dionysus: IG I³ 254 Ikarion was an inland deme of the phyle Aigeis. It was located on the north slope of Mt. Pentelikon near present Dionyso, in the northeast of Attica.53 The Ikarieis could send four to five representatives to sit on the boule, indicating it was an average to large deme. From Ikarion comes a decree (IG I³ 254), which can probably be dated to 440–43154, concerning the organisation of the choregia for the Ikarian Dionysia.55 After the fragmentary preamble, IG I³ 254 opens with stipulating who could, or rather should, be selected to perform the duty of choregos at the Ikarian Dionysia: [hελέσθα]ι τȏν δεμοτȏν καὶ τȏν Ἰκα[ριοῖ οἰκόντ][ον δύο] τȏν ἀχορεγέτον (3–4)

What remains of the inscription strongly suggests the Ikarieis decided that two choregoi were to be chosen from the demotai (τȏν δεμοτȏν) and (καὶ) from another group that was to be distinguished from these demotai56, restored by most On the location of Ikarion: Traill, Political organization (1975) 41, referring to the findspots of IG I³ 253, 254; IG II² 1178, 1179. What was probably the heart of the community was excavated by Carl Darling Buck in 1888–1889, for which see W. R. Biers and T. D. Boyd, ‘Ikarion in Attica; 1888–1981’, Hesp. 51 (1982) 1–18. 54 In IG I³ David Lewis suggested a date of ‘a. 440–415?’, though a more precise date between 440 and 431 is perhaps possible, for, as A. K. Makres, ‘The rediscovery of IG I³ 253–4’ in: A. P. Mattaiou (ed.), Attikai epigraphai Praktika symposiou eis mnemen A. Wilhelm (Athens 2004) 137–8, emphasises: ‘it is hard to imagine how the deme Ikarion would be decreeing on the choregia if the deme was empty or almost empty of its population.’ Even if the Attic countryside was not completely deserted after 431, that the rural Dionysia were largely neglected during the Peloponnesian War seems to be implied by Ar. Ach. 195–202. 55 On this decree: Makres (2004) 123–40; Humphreys, Strangeness (2004) 150–1; Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 79–80; Jones, Associations (1999) 71–3, 81; Whitehead, Demes (1986) 215– 7. In what follows I will follow Makres’ edition. 56 Humphreys, Strangeness (2004) 151 n.52, and similarly Jones, Associations (1999) 71, both 53

Franz Steiner Verlag

110

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

epigraphists as ‘those living in Ikarion (τȏν Ἰκα[ριοῖ οἰκόντ]|[ον)’.57 The decree continues with the specification that the appointed choregoi could approach the demarch to challenge their appointment by means of antidosis (5–11), a procedure attested for the first time in this decree.58 After this, the decree becomes increasingly more difficult to read: the choregoi are to register their tragoidoi59 (9) and the demarch is to swear an oath in connection with τȏ ἀγάλματος (10–15), probably Dionysus’ archaic cult statue.60 The remainder of the decree seems in the main concerned with the financial obligations of future choregoi.61 In addition, we come across protochoroi (15; 17), a group of fifteen men62 (22), Dionysus (24) and the Pythion (30).63 Those living in Ikarion Now, who were these men who were differentiated from the demotai of Ikarion? Most believe them to be Athenian citizens living in Ikarion but belonging to other demes by descent. Most importantly, as Whitehead has pointed out, the attested choregoi throughout Attica all appear to have been Athenians, with only one exception, the Theban Damasias (IG II² 1186), who had voluntarily undertaken his duty and as such was ‘no real exception to what seems to have been the general rule […]

57

58

59 60 61 62 63

suggest the seeming repetition of ‘demotai’ and ‘Ikarieis’ in a fourth-century honorary decree for the Ikarian demarch Nikon (IG II² 1178) might reflect a notional difference between the demesmen and all those living in Ikarion. See, however, Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 325 and Lambert, Phratries2 (1998) 367, who thinks ‘it may be simpler to suppose that we have here just one group, the deme, indulging in grandiose tautology’. For the occurrence ‘demotai’ next to more descriptive terms referring to the (hereditary) members of a deme see, e.g. the Plotheians (IG I³ 258.11) next to the demotai (33) and the Phrearrhioi (SEG 35.113.12) next to the demotai (restored in line 8). In these cases there seems to be a complete overlap between the (decreeing) bodies, suggesting they were indeed one and the same. In the case of IG I³ 254, however, this tautological indulgence seems unnecessarily confusing as the main concern of the decree appears to be to stipulate the rules of the choregia and identify those responsible as clearly as possible. C. D. Buck, ‘Discoveries in the Attic deme Ikaria, 1888. VII. Inscriptions from Ikaria. No. 8–17’, AJA 5 (1889) 308, first suggested Ἰκα[ριῶν εἶναι]. Wilamowitz in IG I² gave Ἰκα[ριοῖσιν οἰκόντον] but in the addenda gave the current restoration followed by Lewis in IG I³ and Makres (2004) 133. On antidosis: V. Gabrielsen, ‘The antidosis-procedure in classical Athens’, C&M 38 (1987) 7–38; M. Christ, ‘Liturgy avoidance and antidosis in classical Athens’, TAPA 120 (1990) 147– 69, esp. 160–8. Probably the members of the tragic choruses, for which: Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 79. Makres (2004) 135. On the archaic cult statue of Dionysus: I. B. Romano, ‘The archaic statue of Dionysos from Ikarion’, Hesp. 51 (1982) 389–409. Makres (2004) 136. Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 79, suggests these were the members of a single chorus. Ikarian Pythion: Biers and Boyd (1982) 15–8. The fourth-century Pythion was excavated in 1888–1889 by Buck and identified as such by the inscription on its threshold (IG II² 4976). Cf. IG II² 2817, recording a dedication of the Pythaist Peisikrates.

Franz Steiner Verlag

The other residents in Ikarion

111

that choregoi were demesmen.’64 This Whitehead sees confirmed in the fact that all known choregoi from Ikarion appear without demotics, which strongly suggests they were Ikarieis.65 There is, however, no convincing evidence that ‘those living in Ikarion’ could not have included metics living in Ikarion as well. True, if one looks at the commemorated choregoi only Athenians seem to have fulfilled the rural choregia. Yet, the arrangement of the Lenaian choregia demonstrates that at least the idea of non-Athenian choregoi was not wholly unacceptable to the Athenians. It is also sometimes argued that metics cannot have been included among those liable for the Ikarian choregia since the location of Ikarion must have rendered it unattractive for metics to settle in, but this must have been equally true for Athenian immigrants.66 Humphreys, by contrast, is surely correct that ‘even one or two significant purchases of land in the deme by outsiders would have been enough to motivate a decision to make them liable for service’ and the same must have applied to the arrival of a few wealthy metics.67 Whitehead’s emphasis on the fact that only Ikarian choregoi seem attested should, moreover, not tempt us to immediately exclude non-Ikarieis from the Ikarian choregia, for this is exactly what is stated in our decree: besides the Ikarian demotai others were also liable for service. One could think of several other reasons why we only seem to have choregic inscriptions and monuments of Ikarieis. Perhaps this is due to chance survival, perhaps Ikarian choregoi were more likely to commemorate their victories as it was their deme, or perhaps most choregoi were indeed Ikarieis. What it does not imply is that only Ikarieis could be choregoi. From a linguistic perspective there might even be a positive indication that metics were at least notionally included among those liable for the Ikarian choregia. For, while the lack of precision should warn us not to equate τȏν Ἰκα[ριοῖ οἰκόντ]|[ον] exclusively with Athenian citizens from other demes, who were later on often specified as ‘the Athenians/the politai living in X’68, the general τȏν οἰκόντον, with its emphasis on residency only, could perhaps be considered encompassing all those living in Ikarion, including both Athenians and metics. 64 65

66 67 68

Whitehead, Demes (1986) 216. Ca. 54 choregoi are attested from nine different demes, for which see appendix 2. On Damasias see the final section of this chapter. Ibid. 76–7, n. 41; 215–6. In fact, of the ten known choregoi from Ikarion no less than eight can indeed be identified as Ikarieis. Choregoi in Ikarion: IG II² 3094 (Archippos son of Archedektos (PA 2555)); IG II² 3095 (Ergasos son of Phanomachos (PA 5048), Phanomachos son of Ergasos (PA 14074), Diognetos son of Ergasos (PA 3861)); IG II² 3098 (Xanthides (PA 11154), Xanthippos (PA 11166), Hagnias (PA 131)); IG II² 3099 (Mnesilochos son of Mnesiphilos (PA 10326)); IG II² 1178 (Epikrates (PA 4893), Praxias (PA 12159)). Those underlined can be identified as Ikarieis, deduced from Whitehead, Demes (1986) 435–6 + LGPN II. Jones, Associations (1999) 71. Indeed not a single metic is attested as ‘living in Ikarion’. Humphreys, Strangeness (2004) 151. In Hellenistic decrees Athenians from other demes were distinguished in several ways, e.g. οἱ οἰκοῦντες Ελευσῖνι Αθηναίων (SEG 22.127.21, mid 3rd c., Eleusis), καὶ οἱ οἰκοῦντες τῶν πολιτῶν (SEG 38.127.5, ca. 220, Rhamnous), or καὶ Αθηναίων οἱ οἰκοῦντες (SEG 25.155.10–11, 236/5, Rhamnous), on which see R. Osborne, ‘The demos and its subdivisions in classical Athens’ in: O. Murray and S. Price (eds.), The Greek city form Homer to Alexander (Oxford 1990) 277–85; Jones, Associations (1999) 73–81.

Franz Steiner Verlag

112

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

Dionysus in Ikarion The worship of Dionysus and his heroic receiver Ikarios must have been of pivotal importance to the identity of the Ikarieis, for it was here that, through the benevolence of the deme’s eponym, Dionysus was received and worshipped on Attic soil for the first time.69 From this deme comes a colossal archaic (cult) statue, dated to the 520s, of a seated deity identified as Dionysus, which appears to have been housed indoors, i.e. in a shrine.70 In the fifth-century, we find an inventory of three funds labelled ‘Ikarios’, ‘Dionysus’ and ‘hosion’ (IG I³ 253) and the deme decree discussed above (IG I³ 254). In the fourth-century, the cult and festival for Dionysus still flourished: in an honorary decree for an Ikarian demarch (SEG 22.117), dated to ca. 330, it is stated that the stele carrying the inscription was to be set up ἐν τῶι Διονυσίωι (8), while another fourth-century inscription (IG II² 2851) records some kind of repairs in relation to the statue. Ikarion also organised its own Dionysia – the deme is even seen as the Urort of Attic drama.71 From an honorary decree (IG II² 1178), dated to before the middle of the fourth century, we learn that the demarch was in charge of this festival. We also have several choregic inscriptions commemorating tragic victories at the Ikarian Dionysia and even some of the monuments to which these inscriptions belonged.72 Most impressive is the mid fourth-century choregic monument, still in situ, of Hagnias, Xanthippos and Xanthides (IG II² 3098). They celebrated their victory at the Ikarian Dionysia with a semi-circular marble monument, over three metres in height and almost five metres long in its interior arch.73 A more spectacular monument to the prosperity of the Ikarieis and their Dionysia cannot be imagined. It was also in this century that Ikarion’s theatre received a row of marble thrones for honorary guests.74 The worship of Dionysus and his heroic host appears to have been one of the main focuses in the communal life of the Ikarieis. It was to be expected that sharing in these cultic activities would be the exclusive right of the Ikarieis, named after the 69 70 71

72

73 74

Apollodorus 3.14.7; Σ Ar. Ach. 243a; Σ Lucian 211.14–212.8. Romano (1982). Early cultic worship is also attested by a dedication to both Dionysus and Apollo (Pythios) (IG I³ 1015, with D. M. Robinson, ‘Three new inscriptions from the deme Ikaria’, Hesp. 17 (1948) 141–3, n. 2), dated to ca. 525. Athenaeus (2.40a-b). Although his mention that tragedy was invented in Ikarion ‘at the very time of the vintage’ should caution us as the rural Dionysia were commonly celebrated in the winter month Poseideon. On the Hellenistic, and highly dubious, Parian Marbles (39) we find that Ikarion was also associated with the first competitive performance of comedy some time between 581/0 and 561/0. A black-figure amphora in the British Museum (B153), painted by the Affecter (ca. 550–500), represents Ikarios welcoming Dionysus. Perhaps the wreath presented to Ikarios by Dionysus refers to a victory in agones in honour of the god. IG II² 3094, 3095, 3098, 3099; SEG 44.131. We have a 1.7m high pillar, which probably supported a sculptural dedication on top (IG II² 3095), a quadrangular tripod dedication (IG II² 3099), and a large fragment of relief representing four (satirical) masks (SEG 44.131, with Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 241–2). Biers and Boyd (1981) 9–11; Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 249–50. Biers and Boyd (1981) 12–4, with plates 4a and 5a-b.

Franz Steiner Verlag

The other residents in Ikarion

113

heroic receiver of Dionysus.75 It is therefore peculiar to find that non-Ikarieis could also share in these hiera. This becomes even more peculiar if we take into consideration a typical participatory community of the rural Dionysia. The rural Dionysia in Attica The rural Dionysia were celebrated in several medium-sized and large demes in the winter month Poseideon.76 Currently, around twenty demes are attested to have celebrated the Dionysia and Jones has convincingly argued that their relatively large size and their fairly even distribution across Attica suggest the festival was probably only celebrated in some of the larger demes, with demesmen from smaller and/or neighbouring demes visiting the Dionysia at their larger neighbours.77 With the exception of Piraeus, where polis officials were largely in charge, the organisation of these Dionysia seems to have been the responsibility of the organising deme and we have to constantly remind ourselves of this potential source of variation.78 The rural Dionysia nevertheless shared some general characteristics: the festival always included a pompe escorting a phallos (or phalloi) and dramatic agones, including at least tragedy, with associated ceremonials, like the announcement of honours or the public seating of honourable guests in the front row of the theatre (proedria).79 Two famous ancient accounts present us with a rather rustic image of a rural pompe for Dionysus.80 In Aristophanes’ Acharnians we read that as soon as Dikaiopolis has signed his personal peace with Sparta he rushes back to his home deme to celebrate his own rural Dionysia. After he calls for silence, Dikaiopolis and his family start arranging the procession: his daughter is to carry the basket, taking care that no one steals her golden ornaments in the crowd, his slave is to Cf. Kearns, Heroes (1989) 92–102. Most importantly: Whitehead, Demes (1986) 212–22; DFA², 42–55; Csapo and Slater, Context (1995) 121–32; N.F Jones, Rural Athens under the democracy (Philadelphia 2004) 124–58. On the date: Mikalson, Calendar (1975) 97. 77 Jones, Rural Athens (2004) 128–41, lists nineteen demes with their most important evidence. In addition, Brauron (Σ Ar. Peace 874) and Salamis ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 54.8; IG II² 3093, 1227.30–32, 1008.82, 1011.58) also held Dionysia. Athmonon, the findspot of a choregic inscription (SEG 51.193), can probably also be added to this list. 78 This variation is most clear in the different dates on which the festival was celebrated and from the fact that dithyrambic agones and sacrifices are only attested in Acharnai (IG II² 3092, SEG 43.25 B12–14), Eleusis (IG II² 1186; IG II² 949) and Piraeus (e.g. IG II² 1672.106, [Plut.] X Orat. 842a), while they appear to have been absent in others (e.g. Hagnous: IG II² 1183.36–7; Lamptrai: IG II² 1161.4–5; Phlya: Is. 8.15–16). On the Piraean Dionysia: Garland, Piraeus2 (2001) 124–5, 195–6 n.77. 79 Jones, Rural Athens (2004) 142–52, adds to this list of commonalities several ‘entr’ actes’, like the so-called askoliamos (referring either to a game of hopping on one leg or jumping onto a greased wine-skin) and a cock-fight, which is depicted under Poseideon on the frieze of the little Byzantine church for Hagios Eleutherios in Athens. Although these events are possible for some Dionysia, I am reluctant to see them as common to all. 80 Cf. DFA² 43, who suggest that a mid sixth-century black-figure cup in Florence (3897) depicting six men carrying a phallos portrays the pompe of the rural Dionysia.

75 76

Franz Steiner Verlag

114

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

walk behind her and hold the phallos upright, while Dikaiopolis himself will follow singing a phallic hymn with his wife watching it all from the roof (238–262). We come across a similarly cheerful image no less than seven centuries later in Plutarch’s Moralia, where he describes ‘the traditional Dionysia’ (ἡ πάτριος τῶν Διονυσίων ἑορτὴ) as a ‘homely and merry procession’ that included jugs of wine, vine branches, he-goats, baskets of dried figs, and, of course, a phallos (527D). Though both accounts are problematic, it seems reasonable to think the procession of the Dionysia was generally a cheerful, festive escorting of phalloi for Dionysus with a wide range of participants: besides Athenian men, there was probably a kanephoros, slaves carrying phalloi – or simply joining in the procession, as another passage in Plutarch (Mor. 1098B-C) might indicate – and perhaps Athenian wives. Wide attendance is also attested for the dramatic agones that commonly followed after the pompe. Most famous is Plato’s remark about people ‘who run around to every chorus at the Dionysia, missing none in the cities or in the villages’ (Rep. 475d). As Jones points out, Plutarch’s reference to the presence of slaves (οἱ θεράποντες) at rural Dionysia includes the statement that they go around (περιιόντες), suggesting that slaves were included in the audience and belonged to those people Plato referred to.81 In addition, many “foreign” performers, from outside the organising deme but also from outside Attica, actively participated as poets, flute-players, actors, and didaskaloi.82 However, even though outsiders were present and active in the Dionysia, some events and duties were commonly reserved for the demotai of the organising deme, particularly the choregia. At least from a practical perspective it was to be preferred that the chorus members and the choregoi belonged to the organising deme as they probably had to train throughout the year.83 But from a more ideological perspective this focus on the demotai is not surprising either as the rural Dionysia were above all a festival of the deme: it was supervised by the demarch and celebrated by the demotai. This powerful association between the local dramatic agones and the demotai of the organising deme is borne out by the elaborate choregic monuments set up by victorious choregoi in their demes.84 The attested choregic monuments commemorating “rural” victories rarely give demotics suggesting these men needed no further introduction and were probably well-known in the deme in which the monuments were set up.85 Although these monuments primarily inform us on the Jones, Rural Athens (2004) 153. Both Aristophanes, a demesman of Kydathenaion, and Sophocles, who belonged to Kolonos, were didaskaloi in Eleusis (IG I³ 970). In Aelian (VH 2.13) we read that Socrates went to the Dionysia in Piraeus to see plays by Euripides, a demesman of Phlya. Demosthenes (18.180) refers to the pitiful acting performance of Aeschines, who belonged to Kothokidai, at the Dionysia in Kollytos. Finally, in a fourth-century choregic inscription (IG II² 3106), commemorating a dithyrambic and comic victory at the Dionysia at Acharnai, we come across the Theban flute-player Chares (2–3). 83 Jones, Rural Athens (2004) 140; Whitehead, Demes (1986) 216. 84 Cf. Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 244–52. 85 Of the 28 choregoi attested on these monuments only three (Appendix II nos. 13–15) are recorded with their demotics. Interestingly, two of these concern choregoi from Rhamnous,

81 82

Franz Steiner Verlag

The other residents in Ikarion

115

commemorative practices related to the rural Dionysia and not necessarily on the practical rules governing the choregia in a deme, we may still conclude that the choregia at rural Dionysia was strongly associated with the demotai of the organising deme. This focus on the demotai was probably further strengthened by the public announcement of honours to people who had benefited the deme and the public allocation of privileged seats to guests honoured by the demesmen, both instrumental in directing the public’s gaze on the organising deme community in a similar manner as the pre-play ceremonials of the City Dionysia focussed the audience’s gaze on the community of male Athenian citizens. The participatory community of a typical rural Dionysia, in sum, presented a twofold focus. Above all, it was a festival of the deme community. But while the pre-play ceremonials of announcements and proedria and the choregia clearly emphasised and strengthened this focus on the demotai, the spectacle in the theatre, with its extra-deme allure, in addition attracted many others, including demotai from other demes, foreign immigrants, visiting xenoi, and perhaps even slaves. The motivation of the Ikarieis It is interesting to observe that even though the Ikarian Dionysia was closely linked with the deme, probably even more so because of the prominence of Dionysus’ cult there, the Ikarieis seem to have articulated an especially inclusive policy concerning their choregia. There are two possible reasons for this. Similar to other demes, the epigraphic habit of the Ikarieis in ca. 450–425 seems to have been mainly concerned with inscribing financial responsibility for their cultic life.86 This is also borne out by the other side of the stone that bears the decree on the Ikarian choregia. There we find an inscription (IG I³ 253), dated to 450–425, which records the inventory of three funds in charge of the demarch – one of ‘Ikarios’, one of ‘Dionysus’, and one labelled ‘hosion’.87 It is quite plausible, therefore, that in order to achieve financial security for their choregic agones the Ikarieis considered it wise to attract “foreign” capital. As a second reason we can point out that the inclusion of non-Ikarian residents in the choregia would not only secure “foreign” contribu-

86 87

where also a relatively high occurrence of demotics on graves is attested, on which: Osborne (1991) 241. Indeed, no less than eighteen of the twenty-five choregoi who are recorded without demotics on their monuments can be identified or associated with well-known demotai from the organising deme. I arrived at this by cross-checking the known choregoi with the list of known demesmen in Whitehead, Demes (1986) 408–54 + LGPN II + J. S. Traill’s, Persons of ancient Athens (Toronto 1994). On the six deme decrees honouring a total of twelve choregoi we find no demotics at all. By contrast, choregic monuments set up in the city and commemorating “city” victories regularly give demotics (next to patronymics) from the late fifth century onwards, probably in an attempt to clarify the identity of the liturgist and his deme to a wider public, on which see Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 214–6. This epigraphic trend was first noted by L. J. Samons II, Empire of the owl; Athenian imperial finances (Stuttgart 2000) 312–7. Cf. Humphreys, Strangeness (2004) 147–51. On which: Blok (2010) 63–91.

Franz Steiner Verlag

116

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

tions but also strengthen and maintain the stability of the deme community by integrating those who were living in Ikarion but who did not belong to it by descent. Significantly, Athenian and foreign immigrants seem to have been collectively designated as ‘those living in Ikarion’, perhaps as a result of the small number of (wealthy) immigrants who had settled in the deme. It seems, however, that the size of the immigrant population was not so small that they were to be ignored. They probably constituted a more or less permanent presence in the deme, which eventually made the demotai set out a mechanism for these newcomers to participate and share in the responsibility for their hiera – even though the choregic monuments from Ikarion might suggest they did not participate in the choregia with the same vigour as the Ikarieis did. It was perhaps the involvement of these outsiders in the deme’s hiera that, in turn, motivated the Ikarieis to be very specific in the organisation of their Dionysia, one might say Ikarion’s raison d’ être, leading to the detailed provisions that were set out in IG I³ 254 (and IG I³ 253). REWARDING INDIVIDUAL BENEFACTORS The Eleusinians honour the Theban Damasias IG II² 1186, dated to the middle of the fourth century, records the honours bestowed by the Eleusinians upon a certain Damasias, son of Dionysios, of Thebes, ‘who had settled in Eleusis’ (οἰ[κ]|[ήσ]ας Ἐλευσῖνι – 2–3). According to the decree, Damasias had behaved in a modest (σωφροσύνης) and dutiful manner (εὐσεβείας, attested here for the first time in Attica as a reason to be honoured) towards the two goddesses (16–17; 23–24) and had acted as a well-ordered (κόσμιός – 3), philanthropic (φιλανθρώπως – 4), and honour-loving (ἐφιλοτιμήθη, also one of the earliest occurrences – 8) man toward the deme, in this case as the trainer and provider of two choruses that were dedicated to Demeter, Kore, and Dionysus at the Eleusinian Dionysia (11–15). To honour him for this, the Eleusinians decided to reward him with a golden crown of a thousand drachma and have the demarch announce this award at the Eleusinian Dionysia (18–22). Damasias was furthermore granted proedria and ateleia from Eleusinian taxes (24–28). Finally, he was given a hundred drachma from the common fund for a sacrifice (34–35). The whole decision was immediately to be set in stone and set up in the Dionysion (30–34).88 What we have here is a wealthy non-Athenian participating in the Dionysia of Eleusis, in return being honoured, amongst others, with a gift of a hundred drachma to make a sacrifice, which could probably finance the purchase of a single cow.89 How are we to understand this instance of a non-Athenian sharing in the hiera of the Eleusinians and being honoured for it with the right to set up his own hiera in the context of the deme? First, Damasias’ role in the Dionysia. Since the choruses he dedicated are specified as consisting of boys and men (12–13), it is likely they 88 89

On this stone we also find the first few lines of an honorific decree for the Theban Phryniskos (36–38). See supra 35 n.18.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Rewarding individual benefactors

117

were to compete in dithyrambic competitions. The exact nature of Damasias’ services, however, remains (intentionally?) unclear throughout the decree: although Damasias is said to have trained the choruses and paid for them himself, he is never explicitly called a choregos. Instead he is said to have supported (ἐσπούδασε[ν] – 7) the Dionysia, and trained (παρασκευάσας – 11) and donated (ἐπέδωκεν – 13) the two choruses. Damasias’ services are therefore probably best understood as an exceptional addition to the Eleusinian Dionysia.90 But even if Damasias’ gift of two choruses was indeed an exception, it remains remarkable that the Eleusinians allowed a foreigner to engage with their hiera, allowing him to perform all aspects of a normal choregia, a duty usually reserved for the demotai of the organising deme, as we saw in the previous section. Perhaps a sense of discomfort about this is reflected in the opaque language used to refer not only to Damasias’ services but also to his status: in the decree his status is not referred to with the usual and formal oikon en-formula but rather with the general and more colloquial statement that he ‘has settled in Eleusis’ (οἰ[κ]|[ήσ]ας Ἐλευσῖνι – 2–3) in unique combination with his ethnikon (Θηβαῖος).91 Still, in a time when the Athenians became increasingly more dependent on wealthy individuals to carry the burden of their financial obligations, it may have been considered desirable to allow a wealthy metic, one, moreover, who had shown himself benevolent towards the Eleusinians before, to share in the hiera of the deme.92 It can be pointed out, in addition, that the decree might date to the period of close alliance between Athens and Thebes and Thebes’ membership of the Second Athenian League in the 370s. In that context the Eleusinians might have wished to symbolically tie a Theban to their community by having him share in their rites, parallel to what the Athenians did on polis level.93 Thebans were, moreover, much involved both in Eleusis itself, a deme close to Boeotia, and in the Dionysia in Athens.94 To find Thebans participating in the Eleusinian Dionysia is therefore not a complete surprise and perhaps even highly symbolic at this time. In return for his gift of two choruses Damasias received many honours – it is even stated that if Damasias can think of anything else the Eleusinian demarch will provide it (26–30). Of these the awarding of crowns, proedria, announcement in the theatre, and the instruction to inscribe and publish the decree were commonly awarded to benefactors, both on deme and on polis level and both to insiders and 90 91

92

93 94

Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 244. Cf. Whitehead, Demes (1986) 216. Cf. Clerc, Métèques athéniens (1893) 241 n.11, followed by Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 32. Besides Damasias, eight more metics are attested as ‘living in Eleusis’, all artisans who worked at the sanctuary in Eleusis: IG II² 1672.25–26; 67; 77; 119;121–122; 128–129 (dated 329/8) and IG II² 1673.38 (dated 327/6?). In addition, Phryniskos (IG II² 1186.36–38) and the Theban honoured in another Eleusinian deme decree of the mid fourth century (IG II² 1185) were probably also metics. For the role of wealthy metics as benefactors/liturgists in ancient Athens, see M. Adak, Metöken als Wohltäter Athens; untersuchungen zum sozialen Austausch zwischen ortsansässigen Fremden und der Bürgergemeinde in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit (ca. 500–150 v. Chr.)(Munich 2003), esp. 77–94. See e.g. SEG 31.67.4–5. cf. Krentz (1993). E.g. IG II² 1186.36–38; 1185. For Thebans at the City Dionysia see supra 84 n.88.

Franz Steiner Verlag

118

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

outsiders.95 These honours have all been studied to good effect and it is now commonly believed that lauding powerful men for their (liturgical) benefactions had the threefold effect of 1) encouraging the wealthy to use their resources to benefit the community and 2) of thus channelling potentially disruptive competitive behaviour for the common good, while 3) simultaneously announcing the overriding authority of the demos in awarding honours and thus in (e)valuating the behaviour of its wealthy components.96 Most interesting for our present concern are the ateleia and the grant of a hundred drachma from the common fund to make a sacrifice, as these seem specifically concerned with attempts not only to honour and thus draw special attention to but also integrate a powerful outsider into a relatively small community. In our decree it is stated that the ateleia granted to Damasias and his descendants concerns those taxes over which the Eleusinians have authority (25–26).97 Significantly, despite the many parallelisms between the (honorific) decrees of the polis and its subdivisions, polis decrees granting outsiders exemption from all taxes over which the polis held authority are extremely rare.98 Far more often the polis granted non-Athenians more specific fiscal honours, like ateleia from the metic tax, paying eisphora on similar terms as the Athenians, or isoteleia.99 The latter produced a subgroup of honoured metics, so-called isoteleis, who, unlike “regular” metics, proudly proclaimed their special status on their grave monuments.100 In contrast to these partial fiscal honours, the comprehensive ateleia from Eleusinian taxes granted to Damasias might therefore reflect the attempt of a smaller community to not only honour but also integrate a powerful outsider in their midst by removing differentiators, thereby going much further than what occurred on polis level.101 The grant of one hundred drachma could be interpreted along similar lines, for it gave Damasias the right to use money ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινȏ, i.e. money that was owned, collected and handled by the collective of Eleusinian demotai and that was most likely to be used for communal purposes only, like repairs on communal buildings and property, sacrifices, festivals, et cetera.102 Damasias was, however, not allowed 95 96

97

98

99 100 101 102

Cf. Lambert (2004b); idem (2006); idem (2007). A small selection would at least have to include A. S. Henry, Honours and privileges in Athenian decrees; the principal formulae of Athenian honorary decrees (Hildesheim et al. 1983); M. J. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens (3 vols.)(Brussels 1981–1983); J. Peçirka, The formula of the grant of enktesis in Attic inscriptions (Prague 1966); D. Whitehead, ‘Competitive outlay and community profit; philotimia in democratic Athens,’ C&M 34 (1983); C. Veligianni, ‘Belobigung und Bekränzung von Rat und Magistraten in Zusammenhang mit der Rechenschaftsablegung’, Hellenika 40 (1989) 239–56. Damasias, as a metic, could de facto not have been liable to a property tax. The taxes from which he was exempted were probably of a more general kind, to which all (non-Eleusian) inhabitants of the deme were liable. Osborne (1990). See the notable exception of the honours granted to the Bosporan rulers in 347/6 (Dem. 20.29–30, 34.36; RO 64). Cf. Lambert (2006) no. 53, with n.99, in which a grant is described as ἀτέλεια πάντων. E.g. Lambert (2006) nos. 5, 42, 43; idem (2007) nos. 61, 64, 84, 98, 101, 102, 110, 131. Cf. Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 33–4. Osborne (1991) 273 On the financial business of demes: Whitehead, Demes (1986) 149–75; Blok (2010).

Franz Steiner Verlag

Rewarding individual benefactors

119

to use this money any way he wanted: he had to spend it on a sacrifice, thus acknowledging Damasias even more as a member of the cultic koinon of Eleusinians. It is again interesting to compare this honour with the honours granted on polis level for, as far as we can tell, the polis never granted foreigners the honour to use communal money to make a sacrifice.103 Again the smaller Eleusinian community appears to trump the honours that were granted to outsiders on polis level, possibly reflecting the everyday, practical concerns of a smaller, possibly face-to-face deme community with maintaining and securing its cohesion. Demes honouring outsiders The honorific decree for Damasias is a typical honorific deme decree. There are many other examples. As a matter of fact, they represent the majority of deme decrees by far.104 What is more, of the ca. 116 persons honoured in these decrees no less than eighteen, ca. 15%, were people who did not belong to the deme that honoured them. Of these the decree for Damasias is the only one honouring a metic. All others honour Athenians who were members of other demes. These decrees are nonetheless very informative in the ways in which a deme community could deal with powerful outsiders, a group to which Damasias clearly belonged. Most of those honoured were relatively well-known Athenians who belonged to prominent families and who had performed duties like a liturgy or a military function in connection with the honouring deme. For instance, we come across the famous politician Demetrius of Phaleron, who was honoured by Aixone (IG II² 1201), Eleusis (IG II² 2971) and Sphettos (SEG 25.206), the hierophant Hierokleides of Paiania, who was honoured by the Eleusinians (IG II² 1188), or the mid fourth-century general Derkylos of Hagnous, who was also honoured by the Eleusinians (IG II² 1187).105 Next to their particular services they are generally praised for their 103 For Athenians honoured thus: Lambert (2004b) nos. 1 (50 dr.), 11 (30 dr.), and 17 (100 dr.). We find two similar cases in the context of the phyle Pandionis (Hesp. 32 (1963) 41, no. 42.4–7; IG II² 1152.7–9, on which see Jones (1995) 518, in both cases concerning a member of the decreeing phyle). 104 Whitehead, Demes (1986) 41, 238 n.70, estimates that around two thirds of all deme decrees were honorific in nature. 105 The other decrees include SEG 22.120 (mid 3rd) for Kallippos of Melite, honoured by the Rhamnousians for garrison duties; IG II² 1176 (324/3) for Arethousios of Pelekes and Melesias of Lamptrai, honoured by the Piraeans as lessees of the theatre; IG II² 1193 (late 4th) for Smikythion of Kephale, a peripolarchos who was honoured by the Eleusinians; SEG 15.112 (225) for Menandros of Eitea, honoured as trierarch by the Rhamnousians; IG II² 1204 (late 4th) for Philokedes of Acharnai, honoured by coastal Lamptrai for ‘being philotimos towards the sacrifices and the common things in the deme’; IG II² 1214 (ca. 280) for Kallidamas of Cholleidai, honoured by the Piraeans; IG II² 1156 (334/3) for Adeitos of Athmonon, sophronistes for the phyle Kekropis, honoured by the Eleusinians for his care taken of the garrison; IG II² 1191 (321/0) for Xenokles of Sphettos, honoured by the Eleusinians for religious services; MDAI (A) 67 (1942) 7–8, no.1 for Epikydes of Philokydos, honoured by Gargettos; IG II² 3467 for Endion of Aithalides, honoured by the Rhamnousians for his services as epimeletes; SEG 25.155 (236/5) for Dikaiarchos of Thria, honoured by the Rhamnousians for garrison duties; IG II²

Franz Steiner Verlag

120

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

philotimia toward the deme, for which they usually receive a gold or foliage crown.106 In addition, we regularly come across the statement that the award is to be announced at the deme’s Dionysia.107 Proedria is often awarded.108 A decree from Piraeus (IG II² 1176 – 324/3) gives a nice impression in whose company our benefactors would find themselves: in the honorary decree for four lessees of the theatre it is stated that ‘proedria is to be to the priests, and the demarch and the treasurers and the herald and to the others who are given proedria by the demotai’ (6–8). Finally, and this is already borne out by the simple fact that we have these decrees, all seem to include a formula for inscribing the deme’s decision on a stone stele, often ordered to be set up in a prominent location within the deme, like the deme’s agora or in one of the deme’s main sanctuaries.109 Next to these fairly regular honorific measures, we occasionally find honours, like in the decree for Damasias, that seem more concerned with incorporating these wealthy outsiders into the honouring deme community, namely ateleia from deme taxes and the right to share in the hiera of the deme.110 Interestingly, both awards

106

107 108 109

110

1299 (post 236/5) for Aristophanes of Leukonoion, honoured as general by the Eleusinians; IG II² 1181 (331/0) for Tharrhias of Erchia, honoured by the Sounians (?); IG II² 1192 (late 4th) for an unknown man from Phyle, honoured by Eleusis. Besides IG II² 1181, IG II² 1201, and MDAI (A) 67 (1942) 7–8, which are too fragmentary to say anything about the honours bestowed, only IG II² 3467 and IG II² 1204 mention no crowns. Cf. Lambert (2004) 88, on crowns awarded to Athenians, usually of gold; idem (2006) 16, on crowns, both foliage and gold, awarded to foreigners. Sometimes specified as ‘in the theatre’ (IG II² 1187.10–11), ‘before the (tragic) agon’ (IG II² 1299.76–77; IG II² 1193.15–16; SEG 22.120.6–7), or both (IG II² 1214.28–29). IG II² 1194.10–11 (Eleusis); IG II² 1214.19–21 (Piraeus); IG II² 1187.17–18 (Eleusis); IG II² 1193.21 (Eleusis); SEG 22.120.5–6 (Rhamnous). The deme’s agora: IG II² 1188.33 (Eleusis), IG II² 1176.19–20 (Piraeus); the Hestia in Piraeus: IG II² 1214.37–38; the Propylaia of Demeter and Kore in Eleusis: IG II² 1187.25–27; the sanctuary of Artemis Tauropolos at Halai Araphenides: AE (1925–26) 168.15–17; the sanctuary of Nemesis at Rhamnous: SEG 22.120.8–9. The decision where to set up the stone bearing the decree could also be postponed to a later moment (IG II² 1193.30–31). Although this inscribing of the decree is often treated as a mere formality, we should see this public recording of honours and the reasons of the demotai for doing this as a significant honour in itself. It made the decision and honours known to a much wider audience and prolonged the honorary momentum. Cf. Lambert (2006) 16, who refers to IG II² 220 (his no. 66), passed in 344/3, of which the sole purpose was to provide for the inscribing of the honours granted to Pellana the year before and the erecting of the stele on the Acropolis. Cf. S. D. Lambert, ‘What was the point of inscribed honorific decrees in classical Athens?’ in: idem (ed.), Sociable man; essays on ancient Greek social behaviour in honour of Nick Fisher (Swansea 2011) 193–214. See the ateleia granted by coastal Lamptrai to Philokedes of Acharnai in the late fourth century (IG II² 1204); the enktetikon tax in Piraeus from which Kallidamas from Cholleidai was exempted in the third century (IG II² 1214.26–28); the ateleia in IG II² 1187.16–17, for Derkylos of Hagnous; the mysterious ἀτέλειαν τοῦ πλοῦ in Rhamnous for Menandros of Eitea (SEG 15.122.26); and the largely restored reference to ateleia in IG II² 1188.28–30. Cf. Whitehead, Demes (1986) 76 n.38, 150–2, who suggests that deme taxation was probably widespread. Interestingly, he also proposed that the tele paid by the demotai themselves (e.g. IG II² 1214.25– 28), were perhaps ‘not so much taxes for general administrative purposes as subsidies for particular cult activities’ (cf. the Plotheian fifth-century decree IG I³ 258.28–29), thus ‘[reinforcing] their collective identity as demotai’.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Rewarding individual benefactors

121

commonly occur together.111 For our present concern we will only look at the specification that the benefactor is to share in deme hiera as it shows us, once again, how a community such as a deme could guard and articulate its cohesion through the differentiated sharing in its rites. Besides the honorary decree for Damasias, we have four decrees, dating from the fourth to the early third century, that grant non-demotai a share in the hiera of a deme. In its most simple form it could be stated that ‘person X was to receive a share of the hiera’, as can probably be observed in a fragmentary and stoichedon, mid fourth-century decree from Halai Araphenides (AE (1925–26) 168), in which the honorands are honoured with a foliage crown and proedria. In addition, it is stated that: 8

12

νέμειν δὲ [καὶ μερίδ]α αὐτῶν ἑκατ[έρωι τοὺς] ἱεροποιοὺς […8….] π[οι]οῦντας Ἀ[ρχίαν τὸν] δήμ[α]ρχον·

Although a lot rests on restoration, the general meaning of these lines seems to be that the hieropoioi (and the demarch Archias?) performing a rite (in the demarchy of Archias?) are to give to each of the honorands a share. More information is preserved in a decree from Eleusis (IG II² 1187), dated to 319/8, in which the general Derkylos of Hagnous is honoured for having facilitated the military training of Eleusis’ youth during the suspension of the ephebeia under Macedonian rule, showing arete and philotimia.112 For this the Eleusinians decided to praise Derkylos with a golden crown of five hundred drachma, the announcement of this crown in the theatre before the tragic agon, ateleia, proedria in the deme, ‘and the demarch in charge is always to give him a share of the hiera equal to that of the Eleusinians’ (νέμειν δὲ αὐτ|ῶι καὶ μερίδα ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν καθά|περ Ἐλευσινίοις τὸν δήμαρχον| τὸν ἀεὶ δημαρχοῦντα. – 20–23). It was thus decided that Derkylos, who apparently was a resident of Eleusis as he had paid taxes before, would for all time (ἀεὶ) receive a share from the hiera at the hands of the demarch. What is more, Derkylos is to receive a share equal to that of the Eleusinians. Further incorporation into the cultic community of the Eleusinians seems scarcely possible. A similar clause is included in a decree from coastal Lamptrai (IG II² 1204), dated to the late fourth century, in which we read that Philokedes of Acharnai is being honoured by the deme for being ‘philotimos towards the thusia and the common things in the deme in which he shares’ (φιλότιμός ἐστι|ν εἰ[ς] τὰς θυσίας καὶ| τὰ κοινὰ ὧν μέτεστι|ν αὐτῶι ἐν τῶι δήμωι – 4–7).113 Although this suggests 111 Only in the late and hybrid decree from ‘the Rhamnousians and the politai living in Rhamnous’ (SEG 15.112.1–2), dated to 225/4, honouring a trierarch with ateleia τοῦ πλοῦ (26), and in the mid fourth-century fragmentary decree of the Eleusinians (IG II² 1188) for the hierophant Hierokleides of Paiania only ateleia is specified. 112 For Derkylos’ career and this decree: F. W. Mitchel, ‘Derkylos of Hagnous and the date of IG II² 1187’, Hesp. 33 (1964) 337–51. Cf. Davies, Propertied families (1971) 97–8. 113 Philokedes is also attested as Areopagite (i.e. as ex-archon) in a city decree of 305/4 (IG II²

Franz Steiner Verlag

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

122

he was already participating in the deme community up to a high degree, it was nonetheless decided by the Lamptreis that Philokedes should be praised, ‘and to grant him ateleia and to give to him (a share of) meat in the hiera, whichever the demotai of Lamptrai sacrifice, equal to that of the Lamptreis’ (καὶ δοῦναι αὐτῶι| ἀτέλειαν καὶ νέμει|ν αὐτῶι κρέα ἐν τοῖς | ἱεροῖς οἷς ἂν θύωσ[ι]|ν οἱ δημόται Λαμπτρ|[ᾶσι καθ]άπερ Λαμπτρ|[εῦσι….] – 12–17). Our final decree (IG II² 1214) comes from Piraeus where, around 280, the Piraeans decided to honour Kallidamas of the deme Cholleidai for being a good man towards the demos of the Athenians and the demos of the Piraeans as he has shown himself of goodwill in critical moments (6), which should probably be understood against the background of the growing Athenian resistance in the 280s against the Macedonian occupation of Piraeus.114 For his brave and just behaviour Kallidamas was honoured with a foliage crown, proedria in the theatre at the Piraean Dionysia, isoteleia with the Piraeans and the demarch would no longer levy the so-called enktetikon tax. In addition, it was decided to include Callidamas in the hiera of the Piraeans. But contrary to the previous decrees, it was stipulated that 11

17

[…] ὅταν θύωσι Πειραιεῖς ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς ἱεροῖς νέμειν καὶ Καλλιδάμαντι μερίδα καθάπερ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις Πειραιεῦσιν καὶ συνεστιᾶσθαι Καλλιδάμαντα μετὰ Πειραιέων ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἱεροῖς πλὴν εἴ που αὐτοῖς Πειραιεῦσιν νόμιμόν ἐστιν εἰσιέναι, ἄλλωι δὲ μή·

whenever the Piraeans sacrifice in the communal hiera115, Kallidamas is to receive a share equal to that of the other Piraeans and Kallidamas is to dine together with the Piraeans in all the hiera except in those where the Piraeans themselves customarily enter and no one else

Apparently, there remained (or was now carved out?) a core of Piraean hiera that would always remain restricted to the Piraean demotai and from which Kallidamas was correspondingly excluded. It must be observed, however, that the Piraean decree does not seem to exclude Kallidamas from entire rites, as most scholars assume, but only from the final act involved in sacrifice: it is stated that Kallidamas is not to dine together with the Piraeans (συνεστιᾶσθαι […] μετὰ Πειραιέων) in some hiera, while it seems he will indeed receive a share from all communal sacrifices.116 Similar to the Hephaisteia decree, which stipulates that metics receive their shares of meat raw, it seems that in some instances the Piraeans wanted to participate in hestiasis solely in the company of their fellow demotai.117 It is likely that 1492.128). 114 For this date: P. Gauthier, ‘La réunification d’Athènes en 281 et les deux archontes Nicias’, REG 92 (1979) 394–6. Cf. Garland, Piraeus² (2001) 227 no. 6, who suggests a date around 261. 115 Parker (2006) 66, understands the hiera in the decree as shrines, as εἰσιέναι means ‘to enter, to go into’, though it could also be used in a more metaphorical sense, as ‘to enter on an office’ (examples given in LSJ (9th ed.)), or ‘to enter/have access to a rite or a group’ (e.g. IG II² 1283.30–31). 116 E.g. Whitehead, Demes (1986) 205; Parker, Polytheism (2005) 66. 117 See supra 88–90.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Rewarding individual benefactors

123

faced with the enormous presence of outsiders in their deme, the Piraean demotai felt a strong need to highlight their own particular, i.e. hereditary relationship with their deme by keeping some parts of their hiera to themselves. In the cosmopolitan port, social boundaries were often fuzzy and regularly crossed, perhaps on some occasions resulting in a need to draw the lines between ‘us’ and ‘them’ more clearly than in smaller rural demes that were faced with the presence of only few outsiders.118 Although Kallidamas was now acknowledged as a member of the deme up to a very high level, he did not become an equal of the demotai; there always remained some hiera inaccessible to even the most honoured non-demotai living in Piraeus. “Granting” deme membership? In an important article on The demos and its subdivisions in classical Athens’ of 1990 Robin Osborne emphasised the extensive parallelisms between the demos as a whole and its subdivisions, which, according to him, could account for the solidarity of the citizen body throughout two centuries of democracy. He observed this parallelism not only in the technical language and nomenclature used and the institutions of both demos and demes, but also in the type of motions inscribed: on both levels honorific decrees seem to have been dominant. According to Osborne, however, one pivotal difference between the honours of the demos as a whole and the demes was that though [demes] may honour members of other demes they can never give them membership of their own deme, in the way that the demos could grant citizenship. The closest parallel to the grant of citizenship is perhaps the local tax exemption which demes could grant. 119

Although Osborne here acknowledges the integrative implications of ateleia, he only refers to the privilege of sharing in a group’s hiera when he considers smaller and more strictly religious groups, like the worshippers of the hero Paralos who granted one Meixegenes a share in their sacrificial meal (IG II² 1254).120 However, the demos and the demes were cultic as much as they were political or fiscal communities. Granting outsiders, like the Theban Damasias, access to their rites meant the demotai were integrating these individuals in their community up to a very high degree. While the demos could grant the formal award of citizenship to influential foreigners who had assisted the Athenians in their struggles against oligarchs, foreign enemies, or famine, demes could award powerful outsiders the right to share in their hiera and thus acknowledge them as members of their community. In the end, the two grants overlapped significantly: although the local giants honoured by a deme could indeed never be made a demotes by deme decree, as only the polis held 118 This was already hinted at by Whitehead, Demes (1986) 151 n.10. A similar argument was developed by Osborne (1991) 241. On the fuzzy boundaries in Piraeus: Cohen, Athenian nation (2000) passim. It is perhaps no coincidence that the socially mixed gathering at the beginning of Plato’s Republic is set in Piraeus. 119 Osborne (1991) 273. 120 Ibidem.

Franz Steiner Verlag

124

Chapter 3: Μετοικία in the demes of Attica?

this right, both on polis and on deme level foreign honorands were granted the right to participate in one of the most defining activities of the honouring community as a way of acceptance.121 CONCLUSION Some scholars have tried to classify deme hiera according to who could participate in them between (1) hiera from which outsiders were always excluded, (2) hiera in which outsiders could be included by honorific decree, and (3) hiera in which outsiders were normally included.122 This chapter has hopefully shown that such a rigid view is highly problematic. For although the rural Dionysia, for instance, can generally be said to have had a very inclusive character, variation nevertheless reigned supreme both in the context of single celebrations, for instance between the focus on demotai as choregoi and the others as spectators, and from deme to deme as we saw in the case of the Ikarian choregia. Another example of the problems of these modern categories is the fact that the only instance in which we find a core of deme hiera from which outsiders were excluded comes from Piraeus, which can probably be explained by the particularly cosmopolitan nature of that deme. We should therefore treat every deme as a community in its own right. In that way we saw how around 460 the Skambonidai decreed that metoikoi should receive a share from a sacrifice to Leos equal to that of the Skambonidai. Interestingly enough, this deme was the only one, as far as we know, to have conceptualised a separate label for the foreign immigrants in their midst in a religious context. We have seen that other demes either grouped Athenian and foreign immigrants together as ‘the others living in the deme’ or focussed on individual immigrant benefactors. That the Skambonidai conceptualised their own metic status is probably best explained by the large group of metics living in the deme and by the location of the deme in the city, which made it easily influenced by the ways of the polis, like the incorporation of metics into the Panathenaic ritual in the early fifth century. From this we should not conclude, however, that demes were compliant followers of developments on polis level. Perhaps most significant in the current context is the fact that the plural designation of resident immigrants as metoikoi is possibly first attested in the Skambonidai decree regulating their participation in the deme’s rites. In that sense the smaller, face-to-face communities of the demes can perhaps be considered as testing grounds for notions that would eventually be taken over by the abstract level of the polis as much as demes took over innovations of the polis.123 121 See, for instance, the grant of citizenship to the Plataeans as quoted in [Dem.] 59.104 in which it is stated that the Plataeans shall share in the hiera of the Athenians, on which see supra 16–7 n. 15, or the Thracian prince Sadocus who, in Ar. Ach. 141–150, longs to eat sausages at the Apatouria. 122 E.g. Whitehead, Demes (1986) 205–6; Parker, Polytheism (2005) 66–7. 123 Although philotimia first appears in the middle of the fourth century in the context of deme decrees (IG II² 1186 from Eleusis; IG II² 1182 from Myrrhinous; AE (1925–1926) 168 from

Franz Steiner Verlag

Conclusion

125

Finally, we looked at demes honouring powerful benefactors with a share in their hiera and I suggested we should see this as one of the honours, i.e. next to ateleia, closest to a grant of citizenship on deme level. It can be noted that most deme communities should probably be understood as face-to-face societies in which people were more concerned with each other on an individual basis than the Athenian demos was on polis level.124 On polis level people were often placed in abstract categories, like politai, astoi, metics, xenoi, and slaves, encompassing widely diverse groups of people. The honorific decrees for outsiders like Damasias, by contrast, suggest that in the much smaller deme communities people were more inclined to negotiate and express the different backgrounds of the inhabitants living in their deme in a more detailed manner and on a more individual basis. Whereas on polis level a foreigner who decided to settle in Athens could be labelled either a xenos or a metic, the relative autonomy of demes resulted in a variety of labels and practices concerning the immigrants living in their community, not least concerning their participation in deme hiera.

Halai Araphenides; SEG 42.112 (RO 46) from Halai Aixonides), Whitehead, Demes (1986) 244 n.99, finds it ‘scarcely imaginable that this terminology originated in the demes’. Cf. Whitehead (1983). I see no good reason why this would not have been the case. Also see Blok (2010) 30–1, discussing the first occurrence of hosios money, i.e. in the Ikarian decree IG I³ 253, and on developments originating in the demes. 124 The key passages that emphasise the vastness of the Athenian polis are Thuc. 8.66.3, on how the demos did not know how many oligarchic conspirators there were in 411 because of the great size of the Attica, and Arist. Pol. 1326b19–22, who states that ‘for xenoi and metics it is easy to participate politically in an overpopulated polis; because of the excessive number of inhabitants it is not difficult to elude notice’. Cf. Cohen, Athenian nation (2000) 104–29, for a convincing rebuttal of the “modern myth” that the ancient Athenian polis was a face-to-face community.

Franz Steiner Verlag

CHAPTER 4: EMBRACING BENDIS The integration of Bendis’ Thracian worshippers into the Athenian community From the mid-sixth century onwards Athens witnessed the arrival of a considerable group of Thracians, who brought with them one of their most important deities: the huntress-goddess Bendis.1 Initially practiced by Thracian immigrants, the cult of Bendis became an important polis cult in the fifth and fourth century and continued to flourish at least until the third century, when a group of Thracian worshippers could still boast that they had been the only ethne who had been given the right to own property and build a shrine and hold a procession from the Hestia to Piraeus.2 The introduction of Bendis at Athens is often described as exceptional as it seems to have been one of only few “barbarian” gods officially accepted by the Athenians. And even compared to other accepted foreign cults, like those of Isis, Cybele and Boreas, Athenian interest in Bendis’ cult was exceptional. The Egyptians, for instance, were, like the Thracians, granted the right to own property to build a sanctuary for Isis. Isis, however, never received a spectacular polis festival like Bendis did.3 The position of Thracians within the cult is also remarkable. As Bendis was gradually incorporated into the Athenian pantheon, her Thracian worshippers continued to play an important role in the running of her cult, the control of her sanctuary, and in the organisation of her polis festival. Finally, the polis cult of Bendis was, as far as we can tell, the only one in which attention was paid to a specific ethnic group living in Attica, thus signalling the collective importance of Thracians within the Athenian community. Although these Thracians were not, by all likelihood, a lived community, by presenting them as a group in the context of an official polis cult the Athenians could get a grip on the Thracians living in Attica and articulate their position in their midst. It is evident, then, that a book on the articulation of the position of immigrants in Attica within the context of Athenian 1

2 3

Herodotus informs us that ‘of the gods, [the Thracians] only worship Ares, Dionysus, and Artemis’ (5.7). On Bendis in general: P. Hartwig, Bendis; eine archaeologische Untersuchung (Leipzig and Berlin 1897); R. R. Simms, ‘The cult of the Thracian goddess Bendis in Athens and Attica’, Ancient World 18 (1988) 59–76; Parker, Athenian Religion (1996) 170–5. Most recently: C. Planeaux, ‘The date of Bendis’ entry into Attica’, CJ 96 (2000/1) 165–92; C. O. Pache, ‘Barbarian bond; Thracian Bendis among the Athenians’ in: S.R. Asirvatham, C. O. Pache and J. Watrous (eds.), Between magic and religion; interdisciplinary studies in ancient Mediterranean religion and society (Lantham 2001) 3–11; E. Stavrianopoulou, ‘Gemeinsam feiern, getrennt verehren; zum Kult der thrakischen Göttin Bendis in Attika’ in: C. Ambos et al. (eds.), Die Welt der Rituale; von der Antike bis heute (Darmstadt 2005) 144–55. IG II² 1283.4–7. On Isis in Athens: Simms (1988/9).

Franz Steiner Verlag

From diplomacy to social integration

127

polis religion would be incomplete without looking at the gradual acceptance of the cult of Bendis and her Thracian worshippers. FROM DIPLOMACY TO SOCIAL INTEGRATION Faced with the extraordinary position of Bendis in Athens, scholars have formulated various explanations as to why her cult should have become such an important polis cult.4 Nilsson was the first to explain the official recognition of Bendis’ cult as politically motivated. He argued that the evidence for Bendis in Attica can be divided into three periods – the 430s, the Lycurgan period in the 330s, and around 260 – two of which were marked by intensified diplomatic contacts between Athens and Thrace. In this view, the Athenian decision to accept Bendis and celebrate her festival on a grand scale was motivated by the wish to ensure the support of the Odrysian kings against Sparta in the fifth and against Macedonia in the fourth century.5 Although diplomacy may certainly have heightened interest in the cult, Nilsson’s explanation nevertheless seems incomplete. The acceptance of Bendis occurred more gradually and even continued during periods of outright hostility between Athens and Thrace. Parker has therefore argued for a broader approach which also takes into consideration the status of Thrace among the Athenians as indispensable for economic and strategic reasons.6 Parker also briefly refers to the Thracians present in Attica, ‘a group about whose identity, interests, and aspirations we are baffling uninformed’, and especially to Thracian slaves and mercenaries, whose influence he is quick to marginalise as he finds it unlikely these groups were responsible for getting Bendis accepted.7 It is of crucial importance, however, to nonetheless take into detailed consideration the very real Thracian presence in Attica, not only of slaves and mercenaries, but also of the many free Thracians living there, to better understand the reasons behind and the implications of the acceptance of Bendis by the Athenians. For in ancient Athens cultic acts and changes reflected and constituted both religious and social acts and changes.

4

5

6

7

Ferguson (1949) 157–62, for instance, argued that the introduction of Bendis’ cult around 430 should be associated with the plague that ravaged Athens in this period. Bendis is, however, never described as a healing deity. Cf. Planeaux (2000/1) 179–81, who associates Bendis’ companion Deloptes with the plague. M. P. Nilsson, ‘Bendis in Athen’, From the collections of Ny Carlsberg Glypothek 3 (1942) 169–88 = Opuscula Selecta vol. 3 (Lund 1960) 55–80. This view was most recently defended by Garland, Introducing (1992) 111–4; S. von Reden, ‘The Piraeus; a world apart’, Greece & Rome 42 (1995) 31–2. Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 174–5. He furthermore emphasises the ideological link, or συγγένεια (Xen. Anab. 7.2.31), between Athens and Thrace, embodied in the mythological marriage of the Thracian Tereus and Prokne, the daughter of the Athenian king Pandion. Cf. Z. H. Archibald, ‘Thracian cult; from practice to belief’ in: G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient Greeks west and east (Leiden 1999) 456–61, who sees religious compatibility as a likely explanation for the cult’s acceptance. Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 174.

Franz Steiner Verlag

128

Chapter 4: Embracing Bendis

The first time we hear of Thracians in Athens is in the context of Pisistratus’ second return around 540.8 From that moment onwards Thracians constituted a considerable force among the mercenaries fighting for Athens.9 The presence of Thracian soldiers in the streets of Athens was even such a familiar sight that they appear several times in the comedies of Aristophanes10 and already in the sixth century, they made their appearance on Attic vases.11 Interestingly, we also find vases with depictions of Athenian men, usually horsemen, dressed in typical Thracian clothes, like high fur boots (embades), a patterned cloak (zeira), and a fur hat with long ears and a neck flap (alopekis).12 The earliest example of this “Thrakermode” is found on a black-figure belly amphora in Toronto (inv. no. 299) dated to ca. 530, i.e. only one decade after Pisistratus had brought with him a group of Thracians to protect him. Without a doubt the most famous examples are the eight horsemen on the Parthenon Frieze who are rendered with embades, zeirai and alopekoi (S2–S7, W8 and W15).13 It seems that from ca. 530 to the end of the fifth century, when we find our latest examples, it was not uncommon and perhaps even chic, as Jenifer Neils suggested, for Athenian hippeis to be depicted in costly Thracian dress.14 That members of the Athenian elite were interested in Thrace and its inhabitants is also clear from the many belongings they had in Thrace.15 These belongings were probably not sufficient ground to adopt a Thracian deity and escort her back to Athens, although it could of course result in a more tolerant disposition towards 8 9

10 11 12 13

14

15

Hdt. 1.64; [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 15.2. J. G. Best, Thracian peltasts and their influence on Greek warfare (Groningen 1969) 5–7, 120–33, lists Attic vases with Thracian soldiers. In Thucydides we read that in 415 Athens witnessed the arrival of 1,300 Thracian soldiers (7.29.4–5), probably so-called peltasts, named after their crescent shields (πέλται). They had been sent on the request of the Athenians to assist them on their expedition to Sicily, but as they arrived too late they were sent home during which they massacred the population of Mykalessos. On a naval catalogue of ca. 400 (IG I³ 1032) we find eight Thracians (115; 248; 283; 390; 391; 395; 406; 466) and on a similar, more complete list dated to ca. 300 (IG II² 1956) we find no less than forty-eight of them (1–46; 184–186), i.e. the largest group by far. Cf. V. J. Rosivach, ‘The Thracians of IG II² 1956’, Klio 82 (2000) 379–81. See also Thuc. 4.129.2, on the presence of 1,000 Thracian mercenaries among the Athenian forces going to Scione and Mende in 423. E.g. Ach. 133–171; Lys. 563–564. Best, Peltasts (1969) 144–5, lists around seventy examples from the 540s onwards. W. Raeck, Zum Barbarenbild in der Kunst Athens im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Bonn 1981) 67–100, lists ten certain and four probable examples of this “Thrakermode”. Neils, Frieze (2001) 135–6. Cf. M. Robertson and A. Frantz, The Parthenon Frieze (London 1975) 46, who suggest that the two bearded horsemen (W8, W15) are to be identified as the hipparchs whose responsibility it was ‘to make the processions during the festivals worth seeing’ (Xen. Hipp. 3.1). Neils, Frieze (2001) 136. It seems no other barbarian dress was adopted in Athens. Cf. M. F. Vos, Scythian archers in archaic Attic vase-painting (Groningen 1963), who argued that archers in Scythian dress were not Athenians as was sometimes assumed. On the practicality of Thracian dress: Raeck, Barbarenbild (1981) n.269; K. D. Morrow, Greek footwear and the dating of sculpture (Madison 1985) 66. Cf. Xen. Anab. 7.4.4. Pisistratus (Hdt. 2.64.1; [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 15.2), Miltiades the elder (Hdt. 6.34–37, 132–136), and Thucydides (Thuc. 4.105; Plut. Cim. 4) all had belongings in Thrace.

Franz Steiner Verlag

From diplomacy to social integration

129

foreign gods in general.16 What seems of greater importance is the presence of many Thracians in Athens and it is in this context that the marriages between prominent Athenian men and Thracian women should be considered. Perhaps the most famous example is the marriage between Miltiades, the celebrated general of Marathon, and Hegesipyle, the daughter of Oloros, king of the Thracian Sopaians. This meant that the leading politician of the 460s, Cimon, descended from Thracians on his mother’s side and he was by no means the only one.17 Analogue to the marriage of Tereus and Prokne, these marriages created a very real συγγένεια between Athens and Thrace. Thracians, or at least people with a Thracian association present in the name, are furthermore often mentioned on grave monuments.18 In fact, they constitute the largest group among the barbarians with grave monuments in Attica by far: we have twenty-five grave monuments for Thracians, while the second largest group, the Phoenicians, only counts eighteen.19 Many of these Thracians were slaves: we find typical slave names like Agathon and Kteson followed by the Thracian ethnikon (Θρᾶιξ) or a more common Greek name, like Eirene, followed by the Thracian ethnikon, with the comment that she was χρηστή, a quality attributed to slaves on many grave monuments.20 However, not all Thracians commemorated on these The same can be argued for the many Athenians who in the fifth and fourth centuries went on colonising and military expeditions to Thrace. Cf. B. H. Isaac, The Greek settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian conquest (Leiden 1986). 17 Miltiades: Hdt. 6.39–40; Plut. Cim. 4.1. The father of the historian Thucydides went by the Thracian name Oloros (Thuc. 4.104–105), while his maternal grandmother was probably a sister of Cimon. It is stated in Marcellinus (Vita Thuc. 19) that the historian himself married a rich Thracian wife. The politician Cleophon was mocked in comedy (e.g. Ar., Frogs 680–681) for being of Thracian descent on his mother’s side. We also hear that the Thracian king Sitalces married the sister of the Athenian proxenos Nymphodoros of Abdera in 437 (Hdt. 7.137; Thuc. 2.29.1), that the Thracian king Kotys married the daughter of the Athenian general Iphicrates (Anaxandr. fr. 42; Ath. 4.131), and that Seuthes promised his daughter to Xenophon (Anab. 7.2.37). Later sources further indicate that the Athenian general Timotheos was the son of a Thracian hetaera (Ath. 577b) and that Antisthenes, a philosopher from the circle of Socrates, was the son of a Thracian maid (Diog. Laert. 6.1). Plutarch (Them. 1.1) mentions that Themistocles had a Thracian mother. Cf. IG II² 10208, with B. Bäbler, Fleissige Thrakerinnen und wehrhafte Skythen; Nichtgriechen im klassischen Athen und ihre archäologische Hinterlassenschaft (Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998) no. 112, 273–4, and IG II² 12808 with Bäbler’s no. 118. 18 Osborne, LGPN lists several, mostly late sixth and early fifth-century, Thraittas and Thraixes as ‘Athenian?’. He argues that an ethnic as name does not necessarily indicate a specific ethnic background, though it does represent a link with a foreign country or city. See, for instance, the many Athenodoroi in Athens with a non-Athenian background or the famous names of the sons of Cimon and Themistocles. Cf. P. M. Fraser, ‘Ethnics as personal names’ in: S. Hornblower and E. Matthews (eds.), Greek personal names; their value as evidence (Oxford 2000) 149–57. On slaves and slave names, among them many derived from ethnics: S. Lauffer, Die Bergwerksklaven von Laureion (Mainz 1956); C. Fragiadakis, Die attischen Sklavennamen von der spätarchaischen Epoche bis in die römische Kaiserzeit; eine historische und soziologische Untersuchung (Mannheim 1986), though in the case of Thracians these works are now largely overtaken by Bäbler, Fleissige Thrakerinnen (1998) 183–98, nos. 101–127. 19 On the Phoenician grave monuments: Bäbler, Fleissige Thrakerinnen (1998) 115–55, nos. 51–68. 20 Agathon: IG II² 8896 (Bäbler’s no. 102 = FRA 2489); IG II² 8897 (Bäbler’s no. 103 = FRA 16

Franz Steiner Verlag

130

Chapter 4: Embracing Bendis

graves are unmistakably slaves. What to make of Philonikos who is mentioned with his father’s name on a carefully inscribed grave stele (IG II² 8927) found near Laureion?21 And what was the status of Thraitta who was commemorated with a relief on which we see a woman with a spindle (Bäbler no. 122)? To these examples can be added several more; of the twenty-five Thracian grave-monuments listed by Bäbler only eight securely belong to Thracian slaves.22 That being said, it nevertheless seems that many of the Thracians living in Attica were indeed slaves. Besides the grave monuments, we find them, for instance, on the Hermokopidai stelai: of the forty-three slaves listed no less than seventeen can be identified as Thracians.23 Thracian slaves were in fact so common in Athens that when Aristophanes wanted to introduce a typical slave girl she was usually called Thraitta.24 It should be noted, however, that in contrast to the several negative descriptions of the Thracian people, and by Herodotus (5.3–8) specifically, Thracian slaves were often explicitly and greatly appreciated.25 The grave monuments erected by their owners already attest to this. Thracians were generally known to be devoted house-slaves and excellent wet nurses: on several Attic vases we find Thracian slaves, rendered with their typical tattoos, intensely mourning the death of a master or mistress or fetching water at a fountain house.26 The example of the Thracian slave Sosias, who, as Xenophon (Ways 4.14) tells us, was employed by the Athenian Nicias as overseer of his 1,000 mining slaves, nicely illustrates how the proverbial Thracian untrustworthiness could well be ignored in Athenian daily life.27 There were, then, many Thracian slaves in Athens who often occupied relatively high positions within many households and within society at large. Parker nonetheless rightly emphasises we should not expect the Athenians ‘to have chosen to honour the goddess merely because their slaves did’.28 When we think about the

21 22 23

24 25

26 27

28

2488). Kteso(n): IG II² 8913 (Bäbler’s no. 105 = FRA 2552); Ag. 17 508 (Bäbler’s no. 106 = FRA 2551). Eirene: Ag. 17 506 (Bäbler’s no. 124 = FRA 2525). Cf. Bäbler’s no. 107 (FRA 2592). Ibid. nos. 102–106; 124–126. Miller, Athens and Persia (1997) 82–5, tabulates the ethnic distribution of the foreign slaves on these stelai. On the Attic stelai still: W. Kendrick-Pritchett, ‘The Attic stelai’, Hesp. 22 (1953) 225–99; idem, ‘The Attic stelai. Part II’, Hesp. 25 (1956) 178–281. E.g. Thesm. 279, 280, 284; Ach. 273; Wasps 828; Peace 1138. D. Tsiafakis, ‘The allure and repulsion of Thracians in the art of classical Athens’ in: B. Cohen (ed.), Not the classical ideal; Athens and the construction of the Other in Greek art (Leiden 2000) 364–89, discusses the two-sided Athenian evaluation of Thrace. K. Zimmermann, ‘Tätowierte Thrakerinnen auf griechischen Vasenbildern’, JDAI 95 (1980) 163–96, esp. 192–6; Tsiafakis (2000) 372–6. That Thracian slaves made good servants is also reflected in myth: Heracles’ nurse Geropso was a Thracian, as can be seen on a red figure skyphos (Schwerin, Kunstsammlungen Staatliches Museum, 708) by the Pistoxenos Painter, dated ca. 460, where she is depicted with tattoos. In an international context the proverbial “untrustworthiness” of Thracians almost led to a conflict in 430 when Sitalces waited in vain for the Athenian fleet to support him against Macedonia ‘for not believing that Sitalces would come [the Athenians] only sent gifts and envoys to him’ (Thuc. 2.101). Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 174.

Franz Steiner Verlag

From diplomacy to social integration

131

Thracians who brought Bendis to Athens; we should rather focus on Thracian metics, who probably constituted a large middle group between the many slaves, on the one hand, and the Thracian princesses, on the other. Unfortunately, Thracian metics are even more difficult to identify than Thracian slaves.29 However, despite the fact that only few Thracians can be identified as metics with certainty, we find many rather self-sufficient Thracians living in classical Athens who were to all likelihood metics30 – particularly since metic status was probably already obtained after only a month’s residence. For instance, we find Thraix who was commemorated on a grave monument of around 400 (IG II² 11689) and who was a cobbler of Persian shoes. In Eupolis (fr. 262) we find a Thracian woman selling fillets. Similarly, that a Thraitta was commemorated around 400 on a grave stele with reference to her occupation as a perfume-mixer (IG II² 11688) or that the potter Thraix inscribed his name on a vase around 540 (ABV 178) indicate their semi-autonomous and most likely metic status in Athens.31 In fact, the material on these Thracians serves perfectly to highlight the fact that, in general, many of the foreigners we meet in classical Athens are probably of metic status, although they are usually not designated as such. Several Thracian metics or people with a Thracian connection also took part in the public life of the polis: already in the late sixth century we find a Thraix, son of Kortynios, making a dedication to Athena (IG I³ 639).32 More than a century later, Bendidora, the pious daughter of Zenos, also made a dedication to Athena (IG II² 4866).33 In the political field, too, people with Thracian names were contributing to the well-being of the polis: in the decree that was proposed by Thrasyboulus in 401/0 (RO 4) we find a vegetable-seller with the Thracian name Gerys (iii.13) and a man with the telling name Bendiphanes (vii.1).34 Despite the fact that only few Thracians can be certainly identified as metics, it nevertheless seems that a signifi29 30 31

32

33

34

FRA only list the princess Hegesipyle and the naturalised Rheboulas of the Odrysian dynasty as certain metics and suggest that the Thraix who is mentioned in a fragmentary early fifth-century decree in connection with the tribe Leontis (IG II² 1035.12) is perhaps also one. Most of the following people are listed in LGPN under the categories of ‘likely Athenians’ and ‘free residents’. In an Eleusinian building-account of ca. 327 (IG II² 1672. 96–97) we come across a fragmentary reference to Θραι[κ---], who had been working on the doors of the sanctuary. Was he a metic or a slave? On the hidden face of a block from the north entablure of the pronaos of the Parthenon we find, painted in red: Ξανθίας Θρᾶξ (SEG 38.32). Even if Θρᾶξ is a personal name and not the ethnikon of Xantias, there is no way of telling whether he was a metic or a slave. Cf. supra n.18. From the fragments of the base and the fact that it was signed by the artist Gorgias, A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian akropolis; a catalogue of the inscriptions of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. (Cambridge (MA) 1949) no. 77, argued the dedication probably consisted of a bronze horse or a horse and rider. On the dedications on the Acropolis see now the excellent monograph by Keesling, Votive statues (2003). LGPN II lists Bendidora as ‘certainly Athenian’, probably due to the Greek name of her father. However, the only other attested Bendidora living in Athens (IG II² 9233 – 3rd c.) came from Lysimacheia, a Thracian region, and was therefore certainly Thracian. Cf. IG I³ 1018 and SEG 21.784, both attesting to Thracian interest in the gods of the Athenians. Osborne, Naturalization II (1982) 26–43, no. D6. Gerys is commonly identified with the Gerys

Franz Steiner Verlag

132

Chapter 4: Embracing Bendis

cant group of Thracian-oriented people were rather self-sufficient and took a keen interest in the religious and political life of the polis. If we add to this group the people listed in FRA under cities located within Thracian territory, we could easily add another sixty-one Thracians living in Attica in the classical period.35 Among them we find, again, many slaves and mercenaries but also, for instance, Anaxikrates, Anaxilaos, Ariston, Kydon and Lykourgos of Byzantion, who, after betraying their city to the Athenians, fled to Athens in 405 and were granted citizenship there.36 In the context of foreign diplomacy many prominent Thracians were in fact granted citizenship: of the 103 grants of citizenship attested until the battle of Charoneia in 338, 21 were to Thracians or to people from Thracian regions.37 We can conclude that in the classical period Athens witnessed a considerable Thracian influence and presence. Many of the Thracians in Attica were mercenaries and slaves, but we also encountered numerous Thracians who led quite autonomous lives and who were most likely of metic status. It furthermore seems likely the latter group only grew bigger: on an inscription dated to 330–320 listing manumitted slaves (IG II² 1557) we read that ‘Thraitta (who is now) a shopkeeper in Melite is manumitted by the metic Menedemos who lives in Melite, (who dedicated) a phiale that weighs one hundred (drachma)’ (51–52).38 It was, I propose, this (growing) Thracian influence and presence in Athens at every social level that can help to explain the acceptance of Bendis’ cult as an official polis cult as these Thracians were the ones who brought Bendis to Athens, who continued to play an important role in the organisation of her cult and festival and who through regulated and differentiated sharing in her hiera were accepted as members of the Athenian community in their own right. In addition it is important to realise that the Thracians thus accepted and integrated were not a natural, homogenous ethnic group. We do not hear of an organised who is mentioned on a fourth-century grave inscription (IG II² 7863). Cf. Middleton (1982), who suggested that Belpon (iii.14) and Egersis (vii.6) were probably also Thracians. 35 Included are persons from Abdera, Ainos, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Byzantion, Istros, Kardia, Lysimacheia, Mesembria, Perinthos, Selymbria, and Sestos. 36 FRA 1384 (Anaxikrates); 1396 (Kydon); 1390 (Ariston); 1397 (Lykourgos); 1385 (Anaxilaos). Cf. Osborne, Naturalization (1982) T11–T15. On these events: Xen. Hell. 1.3.18 and 2.1.1. 37 Osborne, Naturalization (1982) T4; T11–15; TD6; PT128–130; T36; T54–55; PT131–132; T58; PT133; T65–66. Although these grants can be considered as largely honorific in nature, we have indications that some Thracians actually came to Athens to enjoy their new status there. Osborne, Naturalization (1982) T4, suggests that the son of Sitalces, Sadokos, who in Aristophanes’ Acharnians is presented as longing for sausages at the Apatouria (141–150), actually spent time in Athens and was even introduced into a phratry. Rheboulas, the son of Seuthes, is mentioned in a decree dated to 331/0 (IG II² 349 + Add. p. 659). The odd beginning of the decree perhaps contains a reference to the demotikon of Angele suggesting he was enrolled in a deme, on which: FRA 2574; Osborne, Naturalization (1982) T66. Cf. Lambert (2007) no. 97 with n.45, who notes that ‘the absence of the secretary from the prescript may imply that the decree was erected at private initiative and expense’. For the relief accompanying this decree: C.L Lawton, Attic document reliefs; Art and politics in ancient Athens (Oxford 1995) no. 46. 38 On these lists: supra 28 n.60.

Franz Steiner Verlag

The first steps of integration: a temple for Thracian Artemis

133

Thracian community in Athens, like, for instance, the Plataeans who, as Lysias (23.6) informs his audience, gathered at the fresh-cheese market in Piraeus every last day of the month. Instead, to bring this widely diverse group of metics, mercenaries, royalties, and (manumitted) slaves under the unifying label of ‘Thracians’ was one way for the Athenians to organise their community and get at least a notional grip on the foreign presence in their midst. Interestingly, later on we also encounter Thracians connected with Bendis’ cult who use this label to communicate with the Athenians, for instance when they ask the Athenian demos for a plot of land on behalf of the Thracian ethnos (IG II² 1283.4–5).39 THE FIRST STEPS OF INTEGRATION: A TEMPLE FOR THRACIAN ARTEMIS The first we hear of Bendis in Athens is in a comedy of Cratinus with the telling name Θρᾴιττα, which was probably performed in the late 440s.40 Unfortunately, we only have fragments, making it impossible to decide what the main theme of the play was and who the Thracian women of the title were. Bendis’ appearance in the play is, however, secured by a reference in Hesychius (s.v. δίλογχον = fr.85), who informs us that ‘Cratinus called Bendis δίλογχον’, which most likely referred to the two spears she traditionally carried.41 Two other words used by Cratinus (κύβηβον and συρβηνεύς42) might further suggest that the worship of Bendis was still perceived as something strange and foreign, perhaps to be associated with the Thracian women of the play’s title, who probably made up the chorus. Around the same time as Cratinus’ play, we find Bendis on a red-figure phiale by the Phiale Painter, dated to 440–430.43 On the inside of the cup we see Bendis, who is running to the left and holding two spears. She is wearing a short chiton that is partly covered by a nebris, an animal skin that was often associated with Dionysiac worship, and typical Thracian clothing items like an alopekis and embades. The outside of the cup seems to correspond with Bendis’ nebris: on each side we see two satyrs dancing with a maenad. One might be tempted to see these 39 40

Cf. infra 162 n.12. This date can be inferred from a reference to the Odeion and an (probable) allusion to the unsuccessful attempt to ostracise Perikles in 443 (fr.73). A date of 443/2 has been suggested by J. M. Edmonds, The fragments of Attic comedy vol.1 (Leiden 1957) 45. I refer to the fragments as they are numbered in R. Kassel and C. Austin (eds.), Poetae Comici Graeci vol IV (Berlin and New York 1983) 157–66. 41 Cf. Photius s.v. δίλογχον. J. G. Best, ‘Bendis’, Hermeneus 35 (1963/4) 124, suggested δίλογχον could also refer to a two-pointed spear. Ἀρκύρος (i.e. the watcher of hunting-nets), discussed in Harpocration (s.v. ἀρκύρος = fr. 84), might also refer to Bendis’ competence as a hunting goddess. 42 Hesychius (s.v. συρβηνεύς = fr. 89) attests that Cratinus used the word συρβηνεύς, while we know from Photius (s.v. κύβηβον) that he also used κύβηβον, i.e ‘possessed by a god or goddess’ and συρβηνεύς as ‘tumultuous, from those who play the flute noisily or confusedly’, regularly used to refer to ‘a chorus which was disorderly and pig-like’. 43 Verona, Museo Civico 52 (= LIMC s.v. Bendis 1).

Franz Steiner Verlag

134

Chapter 4: Embracing Bendis

images as corresponding with Cratinus’ use of κύβηβον and συρβηνεύς, as representing Bendis’ worship as a tumultuous and exotic affair. However, John Oakley has argued that this phiale should be seen in relation to another cup of the Phiale Painter, with which it created a pair.44 On the inside of the other cup we see Artemis at an altar with a kanoun and an oinochoe, while on the outside two deeds of Theseus are depicted. Oakley concludes that ‘the pair of cups would form a well-balanced Athens-Thrace duet’, perhaps signalling the first steps of the “Athenianization” of the Thracian hunting goddess.45 This early association between Bendis and Artemis is also present on an Attic skyphos in Tübingen, dated to around 430–420.46 We come across an image of Bendis dressed in her familiar Thracian clothes. She is shown standing gracefully still, while behind her we see a hind. Approaching Bendis from the left is the goddess Themis, who is carrying a torch and a kanoun, ready to make a sacrifice. According to Folkert van Straten the message is clear: to sacrifice to Bendis was the ‘customary and natural’ (θέμις) thing to do.47 The image on the other side of the skyphos further explores this notion. There we see Artemis in a pose very similar to Bendis. She too holds two spears and is wearing a short chiton. Opposite Artemis we see Cephalus, who seems ready to make a libation. The link between Bendis and Artemis could not be more pronounced: if not for Bendis’ exotic dress, the female deities are exactly alike and both need their customary offerings. In fact, in the following centuries Bendis was consistently associated with her Greek companion in the wild.48 This association with Artemis was probably the first step that smoothed the way for Bendis’ transition from Thrace to Athens and by 425 it could already be considered themis to worship this Thracian Artemis. The first positive evidence for the official acceptance of Bendis by the Athenian demos dates to 429/8, when she is mentioned among the thirty-something deities listed in the inventory of the Treasurers of The Other Gods (IG I³ 383. 142–143).49 Verona, Museo Civico 51. J. H. Oakley, The Phiale Painter (Mainz am Rhein 1990) 34–5, nos. 147–148. Tübingen, Universität S/10 1347 (= LIMC s.v. Bendis 2). F. van Straten, ‘Assimilatie van vreemde goden; archeologisch bronnenmateriaal’, Lampas 9 (1976) 43–4. Cf. Price, Religions (1999) 77, fig. 4.3, who suggests that the skyphos depicts the official acceptance of Bendis, with the torch held by Artemis referring to the torch-race of the Bendideia. However, the date of the vase does not correspond with the date of the festival’s inauguration in 413/2, on which see 139–40. In general, I would refrain from such a precise reading of these depictions. 48 Herodotus, for instance, refers to Bendis as Royal Artemis (4.33; 5.7) and the public sanctuary of Bendis in Piraeus was located close to the one of Artemis Mounychia. Bendis is always figured in an “Artemis-like” manner but also always dressed in Thracian clothes, with a short chiton, a nebris and high boots. Only a Phrygian cap sometimes replaces her alopekis and a zeira later covers her shoulders, e.g. the Attic relief in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek in Copenhagen (no. 462), honouring the epimeletai Euphyes and Dexios (329/28); the Attic relief in the British Museum (no. 2155) honouring a winning team of the torch-race (350–300), which will be discussed later (= LIMC s.v. Bendis 3) and a late fourth-century statue from the Laureion district (= LIMC s.v. Bendis 7), cf. P. G. Themelis, ‘Βάθρο ἀναθήματος στὴν Βενδίδα’, Horos 7 (1989) 23–9. 49 For a thorough discussion of the Callias decree(s) (IG I³ 52), instigating a move in the late 430s

44 45 46 47

Franz Steiner Verlag

The first steps of integration: a temple for Thracian Artemis

135

The fragmentary entry in the accounts reads ΑΔΡΑ[---]ΚΑΙΒΕ[---]. Since no other deity’s name is known to begin with ΒΕ-, it seems certain this is a reference to a treasury of Bendis.50 The deity with whom she shared a treasury is usually identified as Adrasteia, of whom we only know that she lived on Mount Ida in Phrygia.51 It thus appears that by the late 430s, Bendis’ worship had partly left the world of privately organised worshipping groups, in the context of which most foreign deities were destined to be worshipped.52 The Athenian demos now considered Bendis one of the Other Gods, with whom it had at least a financial liaison. What the status of “Other God” exactly entailed is, however, difficult to establish. They clearly did not encompass all gods besides Athena Polias: important cults like that of Demeter in Eleusis and Nemesis in Rhamnous are absent in the accounts.53 Antiquity does not seem to have been a criterion either: next to venerable polis cults like those of Artemis Brauronia and Zeus Polieus we find more recent cults like the one of Hephaestus, and of course Bendis. We also find many cults that are only attested in these lists, like that of Athena Itonia or the Heros Epitegios. Still, Tullia Linders’ contention that these cults, or at least their treasuries, were considered the responsibility of the polis at large – and that they were so perhaps even prior to Callias’ decree – seems realistic.54 That these cults were considered to be polis cults

50

51

52

53 54

of τά χρήματα of the gods whom the Athenians owed money to the Acropolis: Samons, Empire (2000) 113–38. The two decrees on the stone are usually thought to be passed on the same day in 434/3. See, however, L. Kallet-Marx, ‘The Kallias decree, Thucydides and the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War’, CQ n.s. 39 (1989) 94–113, for disconnecting the two, dating the first to 430. Bendis is perhaps also referred to in the accounts of 423/2 (IG I³ 369), as Benjamin Meritt, Athenian financial documents of the fifth century (Ann Arbor 1932) 140, line 67–68, suggested. In line 68 he restored: [Ἀδρασ]τείας ΔΔΔΓΙ τ[όκος τούτο Ι] [Βενδ]ῖδος ΔΔΔΓΙ τόκος τού[το Ι], although he admits that [Θέμ]ιδος is an alternative reading. If Bendis is indeed correctly restored, this would mean that Adrasteia is probably correctly restored in the inventory of 429. This would make her an appropriate companion of Bendis, as Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 195, suggested. Another (overlooked) candidate is Adrastos, the Argive king who famously attacked Thebes with six other warriors (cf. Hdt. 5.67) and who was perhaps worshipped in the Attic city deme Lousia, on which see Lambert, Rationes Centesimarum (1997) F 47, 201–2. Cf. Kearns, Heroes (1989) 140–1, on Adrastos. Even after Bendis had become the object of a public polis cult, she continued to be worshipped in less public contexts: a statuette of Bendis was found near Laureion (LIMC s.v. Bendis 7, cf. Themelis (1989)) suggesting a separate cult location in the mining district and in the third century we hear of a thiasos of Bendis on Salamis (IG II² 1317; 1317b; SEG 2.10, with M. J. Osborne, Horos 17–21 (2004–2009) 657–72). It should be noted that the Eleusinian funds seem to have been held on the Acropolis and used by the demos since ca. 460 (IG I³ 6.32–38). T. Linders, The treasurers of the Other Gods in Athens and their functions (Meisenheim 1975) 12–6 with n.36, where she provides a handy list of the Other Gods. The topic of the Other Gods is so complex that it calls for a separate enquiry. Especially the cult of Apollo Zoster seems to challenge the notion that these treasuries all belonged to polis deities. In an honorary deme decree (RO 46) his priesthood and sanctuary seem to be the exclusive concern of the demesmen of Halai Aixionides, but another inscription (AD II (1927–8) 39 no.3) shows the demos and the boule praising a priest of Apollo Zoster, which signals the larger reach of this cult. Cf. Parker,

Franz Steiner Verlag

136

Chapter 4: Embracing Bendis

after 430 seems beyond doubt, as one of the main criteria to consider a cult a polis cult was control by the demos of a deity’s treasure.55 It has often been argued that Bendis’ presence in the accounts of The Other Gods presupposes a public sanctuary at this time.56 Yet, what the inventory indicates is that Bendis shared a treasury and therefore probably also a hieron, and perhaps even an entire cult with another deity. From a reference in Xenophon (Hell. 2.4.11) to a group of democrats gathering on ‘the road that leads to the temple of Artemis Mounychia and the Bendideion’ in 404/3, we do know, however, that she did receive a hieron on her own later on, located on Mounychia Hill in Piraeus. This location was probably inspired by the likely presence of many Thracian metics in Piraeus, as Robert Garland suggests. He also points to the presence of the important sanctuary of Artemis there. Artemis had long been dwelling on Mounychia Hill and to locate Bendis’ sanctuary in her proximity must have seemed an obvious choice.57 But how could a Thracian deity, in a sense a divine metic, receive a sanctuary of her own? Fortunately, we are exceptionally well informed on this point and it is here that we can finally see that not only Bendis but also her Thracian worshippers were accepted as members of the Athenian community as they were the ones who were granted the right to own real property to build a sanctuary for their goddess, which was a right and act intimately tied up with citizenship and polis identity.58 An indication of what happened is given in a late inscription, dated to 261/0 (IG II² 1283). The decree is concerned with establishing a good cooperation between a group of Thracian orgeones of Bendis in Piraeus and an apparently newly established group of orgeones in the city. In lines 4–9 we read: ἐπειδὴ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ Ἀθηναίων δεδωκότος τοῖς Θραιξὶ μόνοις τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν τὴν ἔγκτησιν καὶ τὴν ἵδρυσιν τοῦ ἱεροῦ κατὰ τὴν μ[α]ντείαν τὴν ἐγ Δωδώνης καὶ τὴν πονπὴν πένπειν ἀπὸ τῆς ἑστίας τῆς ἐκκ τοῦ πρυτανείου καὶ νῦν οἱ ἡι[ρη]μένοι ἐν τῶι ἄστει κατασκευάσασθαι ἱερὸν οἴονται δεῖν οἰκείως διακεῖ[σθ]αι πρὸς ἀλλήλους· After the demos of the Athenians had given to the Thracians alone of all the ethne the right to own property and to build a shrine in accordance with the oracular response from Dodona and to send the procession from the Hestia outside the Prytaneion, and now they in the city have decided to build a shrine, there has to be a good cooperation amongst each other

55 56 57

58

Polytheism (2005) 59 n.35, who refers to the story of how the young Euripides was a pyrophoros in the cult of Apollo Zoster, indicating non-local involvement in the cult. Cf. S. B. Aleshire, ‘Towards a definition of “state cult” for ancient Athens’ in: R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek cult practice from the epigraphical evidence (Stockholm 1994) 9–16. First suggested by Ferguson (1949) 132. See more recently: Simms (1988) 60. Garland, Piraeus2 (2001) 121. Cf. S. G. Cole, Landscape, gender and ritual space; the ancient Greek experience (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 2004) 178–97, on the most common locations of Artemis’ sanctuaries in Greece. That the sanctuary built by the Thracians was the Bendideion on Mounychia Hill and not a separate one, for example next to an “Athenian” Bendideion as W. S. Ferguson, ‘The Attic orgeones and the cult of heroes’, HThR 37 (1944) 103, proposed, or near Zanneion Hospital at Zea Port as Garland, Piraeus² (2001) 162, has suggested, can be deduced from the fact that there was only one group of orgeones, and not two, as I will argue later on.

Franz Steiner Verlag

The first steps of integration: a temple for Thracian Artemis

137

The Thracian orgeones refer to the privilege of enktesis, the right to own real property, in this case further specified as the right to own property for the single purpose of building a shrine.59 In 261/0 it was no longer true that the Thracians ‘alone of all the ethne’ had received this right: by 333/2 both the Egyptians and a group of Citian merchants had been granted enktesis to build a sanctuary for their native deities, Aphrodite Ourania and Isis respectively.60 Why it was nonetheless claimed that they were the only ethnos honoured in this way could be explained by a verbatim copying of the original decree in which the enktesis grant was mentioned, although, as Henry has suggested, a summary of the original grant is perhaps more likely.61 In any case, some time before 333/2 a group of Thracians was granted ‘the right to own property and to build a shrine in accordance with the oracular response from Dodona’, a right they were still proudly advertising in 261/0. Scholars have commonly taken the appearance of Bendis in the inventory of the Other Gods in 429 as a terminus ante quem for a public shrine of Bendis. It is also often assumed that the reference to Dodona points to the first period of the Peloponnesian War when Delphi had taken a pro-Spartan stance.62 Accordingly, the grant is dated between 431 and 429.63 However, as emphasised above, the inventory does not imply that Bendis had her own sanctuary in 429, she instead shared one with Adrast[…], while Dodona can alternatively be explained by a Thracian initiative to get a Thracian goddess a home in Athens: Dodona was an appropriate oracle to ask for divine favour for a Thracian cult, whereas Delphi was known to be rather conservative towards the acceptance of foreign gods in general.64 When we consider the Thracian grant against the background of other known grants of enktesis, however, it becomes clear that we should probably understand it as part of a larger The present concerns are introduced with καὶ νῦν in line 7. On enktesis see most importantly: Peçirka, Formula (1966), although he focuses on the epigraphical details of the inscriptions and hardly on the socio-economic aspects of enktesis, except in his Conclusions. Cf. Henry, Honours (1983) 204–40, esp. 204–5. 60 For the Citian request and grant, also mentioning the Egyptian case (42–45): IG II² 337, with Peçirka, Enktesis (1966) 59–61 and RO 91. 61 Verbatim repetition: Ferguson (1949) 134; Nilsson (1960) 65–6, who noted that μόνοις could also have applied to the whole set of privileges granted to the Thracians. I think μόνοις can only apply to the grant of enktesis since the phrase in which the enktesis is included is ended by the reference to the oracle from Dodona. Summary: Henry, Honours (1983) 204–5. In that case we could perhaps imagine a similar grant as the one the Citians received, i.e. enktesis choriou, suggesting these foreigners were not entirely free in choosing a location, as choriou usually refers to a specific, previously appointed plot of land, for which see Peçirka, Enktesis (1966) 60, n.2. However, the formula ‘enktesis choriou’ only occurs in the Citian decree, which is a singular decree in itself, probably erected on the private initiative of the Citians, for which see the commentary at RO 91. 62 On which see, for instance, Thuc. 1.118.3. 63 E.g. Simms (1988) 61–2. 64 Cf. A. Ruiz-Pérez, ‘Un oracle relatif à l’introduction du culte de Cybele à Athenes’, Kernos 7 (1994) 69–77, on the late fabrication of a Delphic advice concerning the acceptance of Cybele in Athens. In the Citian decree it is emphasised that the grant had been awarded on the request of the Citians (RO 91.33–8). We could similarly envisage a Thracian delegation making a request. On the Delphic oracle during the Peloponnesian War: Bowden, Delphic oracle (2005) 136–9.

59

Franz Steiner Verlag

138

Chapter 4: Embracing Bendis

Athenian scheme to woo the Odrysians from the late 430s until ca. 424. From the late fifth century onwards enktesis (either to own a plot of land with a house on it or to own property with the specific purpose of building a shrine) was regularly and mainly granted to foreigners who had provided extraordinary services to the Athenians or who could be expected to do so in the future. Significantly, in the list of persons granted enktesis, as provided by J. Peçirka, most are proxenoi.65 In other words, honorific grants of enktesis seem to have been instrumental in smoothing diplomatic relationships, which suggests that in this specific instance Nilsson was actually right: the grant of enktesis to the Thracians seems indeed to have been diplomatically motivated, suggesting a date between 429, when Bendis appeared to have still shared a sanctuary with an Athenian deity, and 424, when the warm ties between Athens and Thrace began to cool off under the new Odrysian king Seuthes.66 To grant the Thracians their request for enktesis was a truly revolutionary decision. It was probably the first time the Athenians decided to grant outsiders the right to own real property, a right that had always been an important attribute of those who were in charge of the community.67 Being in a position to acquire property was therefore a significant marker of Athenians vis-à-vis non-Athenians, and this right was now granted to the Thracians. We may take this line of thought even one step further as the rare occurrence of enktesis grants for the specific purpose of building a shrine could probably also be seen against the background of the importance of building sanctuaries for the cohesion, the definition and perhaps even the outright existence of the polis community.68 Not having the right to build a sanctuary for one’s deities meant being an outsider to the polis community, which the Thracians of course were. By granting them enktesis the Athenians did not grant them citizenship but they did open the door to their community. This door was moreover not opened many times: only the Citians and Egyptians are known to have received the same right.

65 66

67

68

Peçirka, Enktesis (1966) 152–9. Of the 59 attested grants, at least 33 were awarded to proxenoi. Is it conceivable that, similar to the honorary decree for the Acarnanians (RO 77.22–25), the now lost decree which granted Sadocus citizenship also included the clause to grant ‘the other Thracians the right to build a shrine for Bendis’? The next attested grant is dated to around 421 (IG I³ 81). The novelty of enktesis perhaps also explains the trip to Dodona. At the time of the Citian request there appears to be have been an elaborate procedure in place (RO 91). Cf. H. van Wees, ‘Mass and elite in Solon’s Athens; the property classes revisited’ in: J. H. Blok and A. P. M. H. Lardinois (eds.), Solon of Athens; new historical and philological approaches (Leiden 2006) 351–89, who argues convincingly against the notion that Solon’s property classes reflected military divisions. 25. Supra 20–1 n.34.

Franz Steiner Verlag

A public festival for a Thracian goddess: the Bendideia

139

A PUBLIC FESTIVAL FOR A THRACIAN GODDESS: THE BENDIDEIA In the same inscription that contains the reference to the grant of enktesis we also read that the Thracians were ‘to send the procession from the Hestia outside the Prytaneion […] in such a way that the orgeones seem to obey to the law of the polis that orders the Thracians to send the procession to Piraeus’ (IG II² 1283.6–7, 10– 12).69 It is set out that the orgeones in the city are to arrange the procession in the same way as those in Piraeus and on arrival they are to be welcomed in the Nymphaion and provided with sponges, basins, water, wreaths, and a lunch ‘just like [those in Piraeus] provide for themselves’ (13–20). Mentioned in the same breath as the grant of enktesis, there apparently was something to boast about. And indeed there was, for this is the only Athenian procession we know of to have started at the Prytaneion.70 After the prytaneis had moved to the Tholos around 470, the main functions of the Prytaneion were the housing of the eternal flame in the common hearth, embodied by the Hestia, and the entertainment of honoured Athenian citizens and foreign guests. Every foreign ambassador was in fact invited to dine there, as Demosthenes (19.234) indicates.71 By arranging that the procession for Bendis started at the Prytaneion, the Athenians could officially welcome the Thracians and their goddess like they would any other important foreign guest.72 As the main concern in 261 seems have been the integration of a new group of worshippers into an already existing ritual programme for Bendis, ‘the law of the polis that orders the Thracians to send the procession to Piraeus’ must have been older than the decree, probably dating to the late fifth century when the Bendideia were set in place. This polis festival was celebrated in early summer, on the 19th of Thargelion.73 Plato famously sketches the first celebration of this festival in the beginning of his Republic (327a) where Socrates tells the reader how

νόμωι πειθαρ|χοῦντες ὃς κελεύει τοὺς Θρᾶικας πέμπειν τὴμ μοπμὴν εἰ|[ς Π]ε[ι]ραιᾶ. Garland, Piraeus² (2001) 120–1, suggested that κελεύει could mean both ‘orders’ and ‘requests’. See, however, Jones, Associations (1999) 258, who emphasises that πειθαρχοῦντες can only mean ‘obeying’. 70 Cf. Sourvinou-Inwood (1994) 277–81, who suggested that the god-welcoming procession of the City Dionysia also started at the Prytaneion. 71 S. G. Miller, The Prytaneion; its function and architectural form (Berkeley, Los Angeles 1978) 4–24; M. J. Osborne, ‘Entertainment in the Prytaneion at Athens’, ZPE 41 (1981) 153–70; Henry, Honours (1983) 262–90. 72 Another motive for the Athenians to order a procession from the heart of the polis to Piraeus might have been that it was a perfect opportunity to ritually connect the ancient city with the newly developed centre on the coast, just like, for instance the venerable centrifugal processions of the Mysteries and the Brauronia connected the asty with Eleusis and Brauron. All attested archaic processions that went from Athens to the sea, like the ones during the Mysteries and the Plynteria, appear to have ended at Phaleron. In Hellenistic times ephebes processed for Artemis Mounychia (IG II² 1006.29; 1028.20–21; 1029.13–14). Unfortunately, we do not know where the pompe started from. Cf. Garland, Piraeus² (2001) 121. 73 Mikalson, Calendar (1975) 158. 69

Franz Steiner Verlag

140

Chapter 4: Embracing Bendis κατέβην χθὲς εἰς Πειραιᾶ μετὰ Γλαύκωνος τοῦ Ἀρίστωνος προσευξόμενός τε τῇ θεῷ καὶ ἅμα τὴν ἑορτὴν βουλόμενος θεάσασθαι τίνα τρόπον ποιήσουσιν ἅτε νῦν πρῶτον ἄγοντες. I went down to Piraeus yesterday with Glaukon, the son of Ariston, to pray to the goddess and also because I wanted to see how they would conduct the festival, since this was observed for the first time.74

As the dramatic date of the Republic is a true scholarly nightmare75, we are fortunate to have the remnants of a decree of the boule and the demos (IG I³ 136), found on Mounychia Hill, to get an idea of when and how the Bendideia were first celebrated.76 It is clear that it is concerned with an elaboration of the cult and not a completely new foundation: we come across a reference to τὸ ἄγαλμα (8) and τὲν στέλεν (9), both apparently already present.77 The attention paid to sacrifices (6; 25; 32), the distribution of meat (32–34), and a pannychis (27) further suggests that one of the main objectives of the decree was the inauguration of the Bendideia as described by Plato. On the basis of the secretary, probably to be identified as the general Pasiphon of Phrearrhioi, who died in 409/8 (PA11668), the reference to war (6) and the kolakretai (36), a board abolished in 411, and the likely restoration of Cleocritus as the Eponymous Archon, who is moreover mentioned after the secretary, which became customary in the final quarter of the fifth century, this inauguration can probably be dated to Cleocritus’ year of office, i.e. to 413/2.78 So what was decided? Plato mentions two processions. In his Republic Socrates comments that he καλὴ μὲν οὖν μοι καὶ ἡ τῶν ἐπιχωρίων πομπὴ ἔδοξεν εἶναι, οὐ μέντοι ἧττον ἐφαίνετο πρέπειν ἣν οἱ Θρᾷκες ἔπεμπον thought the procession of the citizens was very fine, but the one that was sent by the Thracians appeared not less conspicuous (327a).79 In an Athenian context ‘the goddess’ normally refers to Athena, but in this case it is Bendis, as becomes clear later on (Rep. 354a). 75 Cf. D. Nails, ‘The dramatic date of Plato’s Republic’, CJ 93 (1998) 383–96; K. Moors, ‘The argument against a dramatic date for Plato’s Republic’, Polis 7 (1987) 6–31, who even suggests that Plato deliberately created a timeless dialogue. 76 N. G. Pappadakis, ‘Ἱερός νόμος Βενδιδείων’, Arch. Eph. (1939) 808–23. That the decree deals with Bendis’ cult and festival is beyond doubt: Bendis is mentioned in line 13 and 35, while the date of her festival is referred to in line 28. Only one fragment is preserved (Piraeus Museum inv. no. 1595), which contains part of a relief on which we see a man’s leg, cf. M. Meyer, Die griechischen Urkundenreliefs (Berlin 1989) no. A12; Lawton, Attic document reliefs (1995) no. 70. Several scholars have described the decree as part of the treaty Athens concluded with the Odrysian king Sitalces in 431 (Thuc. 2.29), e.g. Peek, Ath. Mitt. 66 (1941) 207–17; Nilsson (1942) 183–8; Ferguson (1949) 130–63. There is, however, nothing in the fragments that supports this. Most accepted are the interpretations and positioning of the fragments by P. Roussel, ‘A propos d’un décret attique (relatif à la déesse Bendis)’, REA 45 (1943) 177–82 and J. Bingen, ‘Le décret SEG X 64 (La Pirée 413/2?)’, RBPhH 37 (1959) 31–44. 77 Also noted by Nilsson (1960) 78; Ferguson (1949) 132–3 (agalma); Roussel (1943) 179 (stele). 78 Cf. Bingen (1959) 31–7, who pointed out that the particular appearance of the etta and the non-stoichedon style suggest a date closer to 411 than to 431. 79 The polis decree of 413/2 (IG I³ 136) might contain a reference to a pompe. After the preamble, the decree starts with a mysterious reference to ΔΙΑΠΟΜΠΑΙΟΝ ἀπο τε̑ς πόλε[ος] (3–4). 74

Franz Steiner Verlag

A public festival for a Thracian goddess: the Bendideia

141

Significantly, although Athenians and Thracians now both shared in the official polis hiera of Bendis, they apparently did so separately. This in contrast to most other large polis festivals, where we commonly find groups differentiated from one another but still usually within a single procession. Again, we can clearly see the parameters of the acceptance of Bendis and her Thracian worshippers in Athens. Their foreignness was never forgotten: Bendis was associated with Artemis but she never lost her foreign clothes; Bendis and her worshippers were officially welcomed by the Athenians but this reception occurred at the Prytaneion, where foreign guests were commonly entertained; there was a conspicuous pompe to the Bendideion but the Thracians processed separately from ‘the people of the country’ (ἐπιχωρίων). After these two processions, Socrates wants to return to Athens when friends stop him and convince him to stay as there ‘is to be a torch-race this evening on horseback in honour of the goddess’ and ‘a pannychis which will be worth seeing’ (Rep. 328a). This torch-race was, as Socrates’ amazement highlights, a novelty, something not seen before.80 There were several torch-races in Athens, in which Athenian youths competed on behalf of their phylai, but these were all on foot and never on horseback.81 This peculiar aspect can probably be associated with the fame the Thracians held among the Greeks for their horsemanship, already present in Homer, thus highlighting the Thracian background of the goddess and her cult.82 In the fourth century this torch-race, probably a very costly affair in its hippic form, was still celebrated. On a relief of very fine workmanship (BM 2155), found in Piraeus and dated to the fourth century, we see Bendis honouring what seems to be the victorious team in the torch-race of the Bendideia. That the youths who competed in these torch-races probably (still?) included Thracians is furthermore nicely illustrated by a dedication base from ca. 300 on which is inscribed ‘to Bendis by Daos, who had won in the torch-race’ (SEG 39.210). It was found near Laureion, where it was probably erected by the victor with the Thracian name Daos, who possibly found a living in the mining-district.83

These lines have puzzled many. Roussel (1943) 180–1, suggested Zeus Pompaios. However, Pompaios, supposedly derived from Zeus’ festival the Pompaia, is not a known epithet of Zeus – although it is of Hermes – and Zeus should probably not be expected in a decree concerning the cult of Bendis. Is it a possibility that ΠΟΜΠΑΙΟΝ refers to a pompe? ἀπο τε̑ς πόλε[ος] probably refers to a movement away from the (Acro)polis (cf. Thuc. 2.15 on this fifth-century use of the term ‘polis’), where at the foot of the eastern slope the Prytaneion was located. 80 L. Beschi, ‘La prospettiva mitica della musica Greca’, MEFRA 103 (1991) 40–3, argues that a red-figure kylix in Ferrara (Mus. Arch. 2462) shows preparations for the torch-race of the Bendideia. However, the deity’s outfit does not correspond with other Attic depictions of Bendis and the date of the vase ca. 430, precludes a link with the Bendideia. 81 Torch-races: Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 254; idem, Polytheism (2005) 472; Sekunda (1990). Parker, Polytheism (2005) 463, accidentally refers to a ‘horse-race on torchback’. 82 E.g. Hom. Il. 13.4; 13.576; 23.808. See also the Athenian epigram for the proxenos Pythagoras (IG I³ 1154) who came from ‘horse breeding Selymbria’. 83 This base can perhaps be associated with a marble statuette of Bendis in the National Museum at Athens (No. 1862), cf. Themelis (1989).

Franz Steiner Verlag

142

Chapter 4: Embracing Bendis

That the Bendideia continued to be popular with the Athenians as well is reflected in the number of animals sacrificed by the polis on the occasion of Bendis’ festival: in the Lycurgan skin-sale records of 334/3 the Bendideia are accounted with 457 drachma (IG II² 1496.86), indicating that between 65 and perhaps as many as one hundred animals, as W. S. Ferguson suggested, had been supplied by the demos.84 That the festival included public sacrifices from the beginning is further indicated by the decree regulating Bendis’ cult in which we find several references to sacrifices, which were distributed and handled by the hieropoioi and the kolakretai (IG I³ 136.6, 25, 31–36). One final aspect of the Bendideia has to be mentioned: the pannychis. Unfortunately we know nothing about this pannychis beyond the comment in Plato (Rep. 328a) and an isolated reference in IG I³ 136 (27). In general, pannychides were climactic night celebrations at which choruses of maidens and sometimes women danced in honour of a goddess.85 From Plato it furthermore appears that the pannychis of the Bendideia was watched by men, making it a more open and therefore probably more charged occasion. We can conclude, then, that after the inauguration in 413/2, the Bendideia included two separate processions, a torch-race on horseback, sacrifices provided for by the demos through the hieropoioi and the kolakretai and perhaps performed by representatives of the phylai (IG I³ 136.5–6), and a pannychis. There could be no mistake: the Bendideia were organised as a polis-wide festival that was controlled by the Athenian demos. Both Athenian epichorioi and Thracians shared in these newly established hiera of Bendis, both belonging to the same Athenian worshipping community that looked after the obligations of the Athenian polis towards their gods, but both in their own way. Two of the events, the torch-race and the pannychis, were specifically associated with adolescent men and women. Usually Athenian girls and ephebic youths participated in these activities, but now they seem to have also been performed by Thracian girls and youths. Perhaps the future role of these Thracians as new members of the Athenian community was thus given attention, although their non-Athenian background was never forgotten: they organised their own procession and competed in a particularly Thracian version of the typically Athenian torch-race. POLIS AND CULT, MONEY AND PRIESTHOOD In the same decree in which the Bendideia are set in place (IG I³ 136) we read about some significant changes concerning Bendis’ finances and priesthood.86 We come 84

85 86

On these calculations see 67 n.9. In 334/3, only the Olympieia (671 Δ. – 82–83), the CityDionysia (808 Δ. – 80–81), and the sacrifice to Zeus Soter (1005 Δ. – 88–89) produced more income. W. K. Pritchett, ‘The Παννυχίς of the Panathenaia’, in: ΦΙΛΙΑ ΕΠΗ ΕΙΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΝ Ε. ΜΥΛΩΝΑΝ Bd. 2 (1987) 179–87; Parker, Polytheism (2005) 166, 182–3 and 257. How the polis cult was organised before 413/2 is a matter of speculation. Perhaps the Thracians managed Bendis’ polis cult on their own, although a co-operation with an already established

Franz Steiner Verlag

Polis and cult, money and priesthood

143

across references to the collection of ἐπαρχῶν (20–22), a term that, at least in the fifth-century87, seems to refer to some kind of tax to provide income for a relatively recent cult.88 Indeed, with no regular means of income it is very likely the demos instituted this collection of eparches to guarantee an income for the goddess to pay for expenses like sacrifices or repairs on her sanctuary, incidentally tightening its grip on Bendis’ cult. Later on, the income from these eparches was supplemented by income derived from sources controlled by the worshipping association that took care of the cult on a more daily basis: in a mid-fourth-century decree of the Thracian orgeones (IG II² 1361) we read that money was made from the rent of a house and the sale of water from which they paid for repairs on the Bendideion (8–11) and that each worshipper should pay a contribution of two drachma on the 16th of Thargelion (17–20), i.e. just three days before the Bendideia, presumably to cover some of the costs of that festival.89 After the mention of eparches follow arguably the most interesting but also most puzzling lines of the decree of 413/2 (IG I³ 136). Lines 29–31 read: [....c.13.....] εἴτε χρὲ γυναῖκα hιερεος [.............ca.30.............] [..c.8... Ἀθενα]ίον ἁπάντον πεμφσάντον̣ [..............ca.32..............] [....c.13.....] ὁς τάχιστα·

These lines bring to mind the decree regulating the appointment of a priestess for Athena Nike and the building of a new temple for her on the Acropolis (IG I³ 35), polis cult (nearby) cannot be ruled out. We might, for instance, imagine the priestess of Artemis Mounychia attending to the rites, or the cult personnel of Adrast[---] with whom Bendis shared a treasury, or perhaps the personnel of the Nymphs whose cult was located nearby and who, at least in later times, played a role during the Bendideia (IG II² 1283.13–20). 87 The term ἐπαρχή is rarely attested, though often associated with the term ἀπαρχή. In the fourth century the two terms could indeed be used interchangeably, e.g. IG II² 1672.288 (ἐπαρχή); 297 (ἀπαρχή). The only other fifth-century epigraphic attestation of eparches is found in the fragmentary amendment to an equally fragmentary decree of the demos and the boule (IG I³ 130.18), dated to ca. 432, which appears to deal with the use of eparches for repairs on a hieron of (Apollo) Delios. These eparches seem in some way associated with the onedrachma contribution, mentioned in the main decree, paid by each ship-owner who entered Phaleron to a god (τῷ θεῷ – 6) whose name is now lost. 88 This is perhaps comparable to the tax of one drachma for Asclepius (Hesp. 5 (1936) no. 10.142–143) and the τέλος of the πεντεδραχμίας for Theseus (134–135). Cf. Ferguson (1949) 142–4, who was heavily indebted to the important contribution made by R. Schlaifer, ‘Notes on Athenian public cults’, HSCP 51 (1940) 233–41. 89 In the case of Theseus, Schlaifer (1940) 238, tentatively suggested that the income from the tax was perhaps additional to the income that came from the lease of space inside the sanctuary of Theseus and from the rent of properties inside the Great Walls managed by the association in charge of the cult, perhaps to be identified with the Philaidai. In the case of Asclepius, the income from the telos was supplemented by income that was derived from properties owned by the cult, like the house and garden donated by Demon of Paiania in the mid-fourth century (IG II² 4969). Cf. Aleshire, Asklepieion (1989) 96–9, who suggested the tax for Asclepius cannot have been already instituted in 420 since state intervention is only attested for ca. 350. The highly charged location of the Asclepieion on the slopes of the Acropolis, comparable to the Eleusinion, the Brauronion and even the sanctuary of Dionysus Eleuthereus do, however, suggest the interest of the polis in tying Asclepius and his native Epidaurus to the heart of Athens.

Franz Steiner Verlag

144

Chapter 4: Embracing Bendis

which has been variously dated to ca. 450–445 and ca. 430–427.90 There we read that [τε̑ι] [Ἀθεναίαι τε̑ι Νί]κει hιέρεαν hὲ ἂγ [κλ][ερομένε λάχε]ι ἐχς Ἀθεναίον hαπα[σȏ][ν καθίστα]σθαι for Athena Nike a priestess, being chosen by lot from all Athenian women, is to be appointed (3–6)

Before the classical period, the priests and priestesses of polis cults were appointed by lot from specific gene.91 From the fifth century onwards we find besides these gentilician i.e. priesthoods what modern scholars have commonly labelled ‘democratic priesthoods’, priesthoods that were filled by sortition from all Athenians: from 450–445 or 430–427 onwards Athena Nike’s priestess was appointed from all Athenian women, perhaps from as early as 420 onwards Asclepius’ annual priest came from the Athenians of a particular phyle, and there is a possibility, as we will see, that Bendis’ priestess was also chosen from all Athenians.92 This revolutionary decision to open up priesthoods to all Athenians should probably be seen as the culmination of a larger development in which the Athenian demos gradually complemented or accessed the privileges traditionally belonging to the gene and other archaic institutions.93 Blok has even associated Pericles’ Citizenship Law of 451 (PCL) with the opening up of priesthoods to all Athenians. She argues that through PCL the endogamy traditionally required of gentilician priests was now required of all Athenians. In that way, the Athenians constituted one big genos from which the priests of new cults could be appointed.94 Was Bendis’ priesthood to be filled in this new, democratic manner? Was Bendis’ cult literally a cult of all Athenians? The Athenians were hesitant: the inscription concerning Bendis’ priestess states that an embassy has to be sent as quickly as 90

M&L 44 date the decree to (?)450–445, while Mattingly (1961) has defended a later date based on more gradual adoption of the three-bar sigma. 91 On the method of selection: Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 56–66; S. B. Aleshire, ‘The demos and the priests; the selection of sacred officials at Athens from Cleisthenes to Augustus’ in: R. Osborne and S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, finance, politics: Athenian democratic accounts presented to David Lewis (Oxford 1994) 325–37; Blok and Lambert (2009), with Lambert, forthc. 92 On Asclepius’ priesthood: D. D. Feaver, ‘Historical developments in the priesthoods of Athens’, YCS 15 (1957) 123–58 (arguing for an initial date in 420); Aleshire, Asklepieion (1989) 72–85 (from the 350s onwards). Other religious offices could be filled in a similar manner. For instance, two of the four epimeletai of the Mysteries were appointed by the demos ἐξ Ἀθηναίων ἁπάντων ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 57.1). 93 On this development: Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 122–9, who sees it as the control of the demos succeeding the control by previous organs of the polis, contra R. Garland, ‘Religious authority in archaic and classical Athens’, BSA 79 (1984) 78–9; idem, Introducing (1992) 99– 111, who characterises it as a take-over. 94 Blok (2009).

Franz Steiner Verlag

The orgeones of Bendis

145

possible (πεμφσάντον̣ […] ὁς τάχιστα – 30–31), to seek advice from an oracle.95 The question to be asked could be either: Whether it is necessary (εἴτε χρὲ) that a woman and a man who are to be priestess and priest (i.e. of Deloptes, a hero connected with Bendis’ cult96) should be appointed from the Thracians or from all Athenians (Ἀθενα]ίον ἁπάντον in this case denoting both male and female Athenians97), or Whether it is necessary (εἴτε χρὲ) that a woman who is to be priestess is to answer to a now tragically lost qualification or not. In this case it seems likely that the embassy to be sent to the oracle will be selected from all Athenians (Ἀθενα]ίον ἁπάντον in this case denoting only male Athenians).98

It can therefore not be said with certainty whether Bendis’ priesthood was as democratic as the one of Athena Nike or Asclepius. What the decree does indicate, however, is that the Athenians felt responsible for Bendis’ priesthood and struggled with the question of how it should be organised. From the decree which refers to the grant of enktesis and the procession from the Prytaneion (IG II² 1283) it is clear that some Thracians had quite a considerable say in the running of Bendis’ polis cult from the beginning, while in other decrees we come across Thracian orgeones managing her cult on a daily basis. It seems at least likely, then, that the Athenians felt they had to consider the possibility of a Thracian priestess. A careful consideration was asked for and divine advice was sought. Unfortunately we do not know what the oracle answered; in later decrees we come across a priestess for Bendis and a priest for Deloptes but their background remains unclear. THE ORGEONES OF BENDIS Unlike most other foreign deities worshipped by non-Athenians in Attica, Bendis’ cult was not taken care of by a group of so-called thiasotai.99 Instead, the Thracian 95 96

97

98

99

This is also indicated by the beginning of the question (εἴτε χρὲ), which was typical for consultations of an oracle. Cf. Bowden, Delphic oracle (2005) 122–33. IG II² 1361.4–7 (post 350); 1324.15 (late 4th, early 3rd c.); 1283.21 (c. 261); Ag.19, L16.3 (late 2nd, early 1st c.). See also the relief in Copenhagen (Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek no. 462) which belongs to the honorary decree of the orgeones for their epimeletai Euphyes and Dexios, dated to 329/8, on which we see Bendis and Deloptes. On an early third-century relief on Samos (cf. Th. Wiegand, AM 20 (1900) 172) we also find them together. This was already partly suggested by Bingen (1959) 33: εἴτε χρὲ γυναῖκα hιερεο[σύνεν τε̑ς θεȏ hιερᾶσθαι] Θραῖττα[ν εἴτε Ἀθενα]ίον ἁπάντον; F. Sokolowski, LSCG (1962) no. 6.15– 16: εἴτε χρὲ γυναῖκα hιερεȏ[σθαι τε̑ι Βενδῖδι διὰ γένος] Θραῖττα[ν ἒ ἄνδρα ἐχς Ἀθενα] ίον ἁπάντον; Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 172, writes ‘“should she be Athenian or Thracian” was perhaps the question’. All these scholars seem to ignore the fact that a priest has to be included in the question as Ἀθενα]ίον ἁπάντον cannot refer to women only, which would give Ἀθεναίον hαπασȏν, as in the Athena Nike decree (IG I³ 35.5–6). For a procedure of selecting an embassy to go to Delphi see IG II² 204 (RO 58), where ‘the people are to choose three men, one from the boule and two from all Athenians (δύο δὲ ἐξ Ἀθηναίω[ν ἁ]πάντων), to go to Delphi’ (42–44). On thiasoi: A. Andrewes, ‘Philochoros on phratries’, JHS 81 (1961) 1–15; J. S. Kloppenborg, ‘Collegia and thiasoi’ in: idem and S. G. Wilson (eds.), Voluntary associations in the Grae-

Franz Steiner Verlag

146

Chapter 4: Embracing Bendis

worshippers who managed her cult on a daily basis went by the highly privileged name of orgeones. The subject of orgeones is a rather complex one.100 We know orgeones already existed in archaic times,101 but as with many of the associations of ancient Athens, it is not entirely clear what their origin, function and status was within the polis.102 In the most general, sense orgeones can be described as people who privately worshipped a hero or deity with rites (orgia) in a privately established shrine, while, in most cases, also performing a role in Athenian polis religion at large. We have evidence for at least eighteen groups of orgeones.103 Looking for common characteristics, it appears orgeones were privately organised groups who met once a month or once a year for religious purposes in a privately established shrine, over which they seem to have had full control. This is indicated, for instance, by decrees that record the renting of a hieron owned by orgeones to individuals who paid for the use of the shrine and its land with the promise to keep it accessible to the orgeones on specific days of the years on which they came together to worship their hero or god.104 The orgeones also had their own personnel, varying from a single hestiator to a staff including treasurers and epimeletai, whom they honoured with elaborate inscriptions and crowns.105

100 101

102

103 104

105

co-Roman World (London 1996) 16–30; I. N. Arnaoutoglou, Thusias eneka kai sunousias; private religious associations in Hellenistic Athens (Athens 2003) 60–70. Still most important: Ferguson (1944); (1949). Also see Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 109– 11, 333–42. Cf. Mikalson, Religion (1998) 137–55, with a thorough discussion of the religious associations of Hellenistic Athens. According to a statement by Seleucos (Suda s.v. ὀργεῶνες) they were mentioned on the axones of Solon. It is uncertain whether the famous “Solonian law on associations” (Digest 47.22.4), which states that when certain associations, among them orgeones, ‘make arrangements among themselves these shall be binding unless forbidden by public law’, actually dates to ca. 594, on which see Jones, Associations (1999) 33–44; Arnaoutoglou, Thusias (2003) 44–57. The old view that they were the commoners of archaic Attica opposite a group of aristocratic gennetai was refuted by Andrewes (1961). See, however, Y. Ustinova, ‘Orgeones in phratries; a mechanism of social integration in Attica’ Kernos 9 (1996) 227–42, who suggests orgeones had immigrated to Athens in archaic times and could therefore not partake in the cults of the gene. The recent attempt by Jones, Associations (1999), to describe associations like orgeones as a reaction to the rigid egalitarianism of democracy was equally unsatisfying. And despite very fruitful contributions, for instance by Arnaoutoglou, Thusias (2003), who has thoroughly discussed the internal organisation and legal and socializing aspects of these, what he labels ‘private’, associations, the question remains: what was the role and position of orgeones in Attic society at large? I arrived at this number by combining the evidence collected in Ferguson (1944); Parker, Athenian religion (1996), 109–11, 333–42; Mikalson, Religion, 137–55; SEG s.v. orgeones. See Appendix III for an overview of attested orgeones with their most important evidence. E.g. IG II² 2501 (late 4th c.) records the lease of the hieron of the orgeones of Hypodektes for all time to Diopeithes and his descendants for 50 dr. a year on the promise that on the 14th of Boedromion they will open the shrine at daybreak, garland it and oil and unveil the cult statue so that the orgeones can receive the hiera. In IG II² 2499 (306/5) the orgeones of Egretes record the renting of their shrine to Diognetos for 200 dr. a year. E.g. IG II² 2947 (Bendis? – 3rd c.); IG II² 1316 (Mother – 272/1), IG II² 1325; (Dionysus – 185/4); IG II² 1337 (Hagne Aphrodite – 95/4).

Franz Steiner Verlag

The orgeones of Bendis

147

A law mentioned by Philochorus is especially interesting here as it is indicative of the privileged status of orgeones in Athenian society. In the Suda (s.v. ὀργεῶνες = Philochorus FGrH 328 F35a) we read: περὶ δὲ τῶν ὀργεώνων γέγραφε καὶ Φιλόχορος· τοὺς δὲ φρατόρας ἐπάναγκες δέχεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ὀργεῶνας καὶ τοὺς ὁμογάλακτας, ὅυς γεννήτας καλοῦμεν. On the orgeones Philochorus wrote: and/but the phratores were obliged to admit both orgeones and homogalaktes [i.e. those of the same milk], whom we call gennetai

The law suggests that associations of orgeones stood, similar to gene106, in a special relationship to the phratries of Attica, the archaic hereditary sub-divisions of the polis that controlled access to the citizen body by checking descent.107 It is thus suggested that being a member of a genos or a group of orgeones was considered sufficient proof of one’s qualification for acceptance by a phratry, leading to automatic access into a phratry.108 Indeed, all gennetai and most orgeones were Athenian citizens: the Attic gene had strict rules of endogamy, while groups of orgeones come across as closed, exclusive, familial clusters, whose membership seems to have been commonly based on Athenian descent.109 In addition, as we have just seen, being a member of a group of orgeones was in some way socially significant and publicly acknowledged. I suggest this public recognition of orgeones was based on the role they played in the religious structure of the polis in addition to their private rites, as has been already tentatively suggested by Robert Parker. To illustrate the public aspects of orgeones Parker refers to the orgeones of Hypodektes (Receiver), who seem to have played some role in receiving the sacred objects from Eleusis on the day before the Mysteries.110 He also argues that the public shrines of the healing heroes Amynos and Heros Iatros, both managed by orgeones, must have attracted a wider clientele than only the orgeones, as can be seen, for instance, in the many dedications found 106 On gene still: D. Roussel, Tribu et cité (Paris 1976); F. Bourriot, Recherches sur la nature du genos; étude d’histoire sociale athénienne- périodes archaique et classique (Lille 1976) with 663–76 on homogalaktes specifically; Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 284–327; S. D. Lambert, ‘The Attic genos’, CQ n.s. 49 (1999b) 487–9; idem, Phratries2 (1998) 59–64, on the relationship between genos and phratry. 107 Cf. Lambert, Phratries2 (1998), with 27–42 on the role of deme and phratry in relation to the access to the citizen body. 108 Isaeus 2.14 suggests two separate enrolments among orgeones and phrateres. U. von Wilamowitz-Moelendorff, Aristoteles und Athen vol. 2 (Berlin, 1893) 259–79, already emphasised that the orator used different terms to describe the presentation of the defendant to a phratry (εἰσάγε) and the enrolment among his adoptive father’s orgeones (ἐγγράφει), perhaps reflecting a difference between simple presentation and effective enrolment. Andrewes (1961) 9, further argued that the speaker was ‘not concerned to give a narrative of his admissions, only […] to make the most of each distinguishable group that can attest to his adoption’. Cf. Arnaoutoglou, Thusias (2003) 35–6. 109 Lambert, Phratries2 (1998) 46–9, Blok (2009) 162–4, with Blok and Lambert (2009) on the strict endogamy among gennetai. Arnaoutoglou, Thusias (2003) 96–101, on rules of membership among orgeones. Cf. infra n.128. 110 IG II² 2501.6–7. On Hypodektes also see Kearns, Heroes (1989) 74–5, who otherwise rejects any public aspect of orgeones.

Franz Steiner Verlag

148

Chapter 4: Embracing Bendis

in the sanctuary of Amynos on the west slope of the Acropolis.111 Parker even suggests the “dangerous” hero Egretes was looked after by a group of orgeones for the public good. In these cases Parker finds ‘a little support’ for a more public role of orgeones, which might have led to their acceptance by the phratries.112 His reserve, however, seems uncalled for, for to his list of orgeones with some public aspect we can add: the orgeones of Asclepius, that other famous healing deity, whose yet unlocated shrine in or near Prospalta was surely visited by more (sick) people besides the orgeones113; the orgeones of (Heracles) Pancrates, whose shrine on the banks of the Ilissos River seems to have also been used by a thiasos and a group of eranistai and at which were found no less than 53 dedications dating from the mid-fourth to the early third century114; the orgeones of the Mother of the Gods, who not only seem to have absorbed a foreign thiasos but also managed a shrine that was used by others to set up dedications115; the orgeones of Aphrodite, who in 138/7 performed a sacrifice ‘on behalf of the koinon of orgeones, their children, their wives and the Athenian demos’ (MDAI (A) 66 (1941) 228, no.4. 5–6); the orgeones of Zeus Epakrios on Mt Hymettos, who might have been an Erchia based group in charge of a cult site that was being shared by more than one group116; and, finally, the orgeones of Bendis, who, as we will soon see, performed similar public roles. From this list it appears that in addition to their private orgia most orgeones also performed a more public role, taking care of several cultic obligations on be111 Cf. A. Körte, ‘Bezirk eines Heilgottes’, MDAI (A) 18 (1893) 231–56; idem, ‘Das Heiligtum des Amynos’, MDAI (A) 21 (1896) 287–332. 112 Parker, Athenian religion (1996), 110–1. One could compare this public role of orgeones to some of the responsibilities of the gene. The Salaminioi, for instance, seem to have managed the shrine of Eurysakes on behalf of the phyle Aiantis: the genos set up decrees in the Eurysakeion (IG II² 1232) and provided a priest for his cult (Hesp. 7 (1938) 3, no. 1.11), while the phyle also used it to display its decrees (e.g. Hesp. 7 (1938) 94–5, no. 15), cf. Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 311. The Praxiergidai seem to have taken care of a shrine of Heracles in the Agora that was perhaps also used by a thiasos, if an altar that was found in the Agora indeed reads ‘hieron of Heracles of the Praxiergidai and of the following thiasotai who share (in it)’ (Ag. 1.1052), as S. D. Lambert, ‘Two Documents of Attic Gene’, Horos 14–16 (2000–2003) 79–82, proposes. Cf. S. D. Lambert, ‘IG II² 2345, Thiasoi of Herakles and the Salaminioi Again’, ZPE 125 (1999) 109 and 124. 113 IG II² 2355 (3rd c.?). Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 339, wonders whether there is a functional difference between the orgeones of Asclepius administering their own local shrine and the Asclepiastai merely using the public Asclepieion on the Acropolis. 114 See SEG 41.247 for a summary of the largely unpublished inscriptions of this shrine; E. Vikela, Die Weihreliefs aus dem Pankrates-Heiligtum am Ilissos; Religion-Geschichtliche Bedeutung und Typologie (Berlin 1994). 115 Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 192–3; M. J. Vermaseren, Corpus cultus Cybelae Attidisque (Leiden 1982) 68–97. Most important for the groups at the Metroon in Piraeus is IG II² 1316: a decree by orgeones but also referring to thiasotai. 116 Lambert (2000), 77–8. For the orgeones of Zeus Epakrios see the mid third-century inscription IG II² 1294, found in Plaka, recording their transactions. In the sacrificial calendar from Erchia (SEG 21.541) we find a reference to a sacrifice by the Erchians on 16 Thargelion to Zeus Epakrios on Hymettos (E 59–64), which was not located within the deme Erchia. Perhaps the shrine of Zeus Epakrios on Hymettos can be identified with the summit sanctuary published by M. K. Langdon, A sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos (Hesp. Suppl. 16)(1976).

Franz Steiner Verlag

The orgeones of Bendis

149

half of the polis or making their shrine accessible for outsiders. More specifically, orgeones seem to have functioned as an intermediary level for those outside the structures of the formal worshipping communities of the polis. It can be argued, then, that orgeones had proven their worth as members of the Athenian community beyond doubt by integrating, so to say, the loose ends – individuals, foreign thiasotai, eranistai, dangerous heroes, sick people – at the edges of society, which, in turn, led to the public recognition of these worshipping associations and perhaps, facilitated by their usually closed, hereditary membership, to the automatic acceptance of orgeones in a phratry. The Thracian orgeones of Bendis Significantly, the Thracian orgeones of Bendis were no different in this respect. We have an impressive corpus of inscriptions, in fact the largest relating to a single group of orgeones, which shows us their workings and activities with unusual clarity.117 In chronological order they are: IG II² 1361 (post mid 4th c., Piraeus): decree of the orgeones stipulating 1) the rules for sacrificing in the hieron by non-orgeones; 2) fines for sacrificing on the holy day (i.e. the Bendideia) and for proposing a change in the statute; 3) the rent of the hieron, house and water of which the money is to go to repairs on the hieron; 4) a meeting on the second of each month; 5) the bringing of wood by hieropoioi and epimeletai on the holy day; 6) a fee of two drachma to be paid by each orgeon three days before the Bendideia; and 7) a change in the criteria for membership to payment. IG II² 1255 (337/6, Piraeus): honorary decree of the orgeones of Bendis that was proposed by Olympiodorus for the hieropoioi [Antiphanes, son of Ant]isthenes of Cy[therrius] (PA1237), [Nausophilus,] son of Nausinicus [of Cephaletes] (PA10601) and [Aristome]nus, son of Mosch[…], who are honoured with a golden crown of 300 drachma and a stele to be inscribed by the secretary Thallus and to be set up in the Bendideion for their care taken for the procession, the meat distribution and all other business. IG II² 1256 (329/8, Piraeus): honorary inscription for the epimeletai Euphyes and Dexios, who are honoured by the orgeones with a golden crown of 100 drachma each. The inscription is topped with a relief (Copenhagen Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek 462) depicting the honorands with Bendis and Deloptes. In the corner we see Pan, Hermes and three nymphs.118 IG II² 1324 (late 4th, early 3rd c.119, Zanneion Hospital, Piraeus): honorary decree for the epimeletes Stephanus, who is honoured by the orgeones with a foliage crown and a stele in the hieron to be set up by the treasurer for taking care of the pompe and being pious toward Bendis and Deloptes and the other gods. 117 As it is attested they took care of the Thracian procession later on, there is a possibility that the orgeones were already in existence during the inauguration of the Bendideia in 413/2 when, as Plato recalls (Rep. 327a), Socrates witnessed two separate processions. 118 Cf. M. Molteson, Catalogue Greece in the classical period; Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek (Copenhagen 1995) 138–40. 119 S. Dow, ‘The Egyptian cults in Athens’, HThR 30 (1937) 197 n.54, pointed out that ‘the arrangement, which is non-stoichedon, with lines not divided according to syllables, would favor a date in the late fourth or early third, rather than in the second, century B.C.’

Franz Steiner Verlag

150

Chapter 4: Embracing Bendis IG II² 1283 (ca. 262, Zanneion Hospital, Piraeus): decree of the orgeones regulating a good cooperation between the orgeones in Piraeus and those in the city during the Bendideia.120 IG II² 1284 (ca. 240121, Piraeus): two honorary decrees for 1) Olympon, son of Olympiodorus and 2) Sosias, son of Hippocrates and Euclides, son of Antimachus, who are each honoured with a crown of oak leaves and a stele in the hieron. IG II² 2947 (late 3rd, early 2nd c., near the Academy, Athens): honorary decree by a group of orgeones for Asclapon, son of Asclapon of Maroneia.122 Agora 19, L16 (late 2nd, early 1st c., Athenian Agora): lease concerning the orgeones of Bendis and Deloptes from whom the Athenian demos was apparently leasing property.

In 1902 Wilhelm argued, and this is still commonly accepted, that initially there were two groups of orgeones looking after the cult of Bendis in Piraeus: one consisting solely of Athenian citizens and one solely of Thracians. The main basis for this assumption are the hieropoioi who are mentioned with their demotika in IG II² 1255 and the group of Thracian orgeones explicitly referred to in IG II² 1283. Wilhelm furthermore argued that the Thracian orgeones held regular meetings on the 8th of each month and awarded their honorands with crowns of oak leaves (IG II² 1283; 1284), while the Athenian orgeones met on the 2nd of each month and awarded crowns of olive leaves or golden ones (IG II² 1255; 1256; 1324; 1361).123 Some doubts, however, have been raised about the initial existence of two groups. Cynthia Schwenk, for instance, has emphasised that the demotika of the hieropoioi are not sufficient proof for the existence of a separate group of citizen orgeones, as these sacrificial officials need not necessarily belong to the orgeones but could equally well be three of the ten hieropoioi annually appointed by the demos to supervise sacrifices at several polis festivals.124 The fact that hieropoioi handled the sale of the skins of the animals provided by the polis on the occasion of the Bendideia in 334/3 (IG II² 1496.86–87) lends some support to this idea.125 120 Cf. Gauthier (1979). 121 S. V. Tracy, Athens and Macedon; Attic letter-cutters of 300–229 (Berkeley, Los Angeles 2003) 125, identified the cutter of IG II² 1284 with the one of SEG 2.9, which can be dated to 251/0. He subsequently dates our decree to ca. 240. 122 Ferguson (1949) 162–3, already pointed out that Maroneia is a Thracian city, making it likely Asclapon belonged to the Thracian orgeones of Bendis who were located in the city. 123 A. Wilhelm, ‘Inschrift aus dem Peiraieus’, JOAI 5 (1902) 132–4. 124 C. J. Schwenk, Athens in the age of Alexander; the dated laws and decrees of the ‘Lykourgan era’, 338–322 B.C. (Chicago 1985) 66–7. cf. [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 54.7. 125 It can furthermore be noted that hieropoioi always seem to work exclusively for the polis and its subdivisions and not for individual cult associations, cf. J. Oehler, s.v. Ἱεροποιοί, RE VIII (1913), cols. 1583–1588; Garland (1984) 117–8; Rosivach, System (1994) 108–14. On hieropoioi in demes: Whitehead, Demes (1986) 142–3. A strict rule cannot, however, be assumed for the whole ancient period, as many associations in the Hellenistic period seem to usurp the language and nomenclature of the polis in their more private contexts. The hieropoioi mentioned in IG II² 1361 (ἀγο[ρὰν δὲ κ]αὶ [ξ]ύ[λλ]ογον ποιεῖν τοὺς ἐπιμελητὰς καὶ τοὺς ἱεροποιοὺς ἐν τῶι ἱερ|[ῶι] πε[ρὶ τῶν κοιν]ῶν τῆι δευτέραι ἱσταμένου τοῦ μηνὸς ἑκάστου – 16–17) offer another challenge to this rule, although the orgeonic decree could also simply inform the public about the logistics of the Bendideia as no verbs of ordering or requesting are used.

Franz Steiner Verlag

The orgeones of Bendis

151

Parker has moreover suggested that the differences in crowns and dates can be explained chronologically with changes over time.126 There are, in addition, two arguments that seem to substantiate the notion that the cult of Bendis in Piraeus was looked after by only one group of orgeones. First, although the honorary decree for the epimeletai Euphyes and Dexios (IG II² 1256) is commonly ascribed to citizen orgeones on the account that the award consisted of a golden crown, the name of the first epimeletes, Euphyes, is certainly non-Attic and may be Thracian, while his companion, Dexios, may be a foreigner too, rendering the crown criterion for distinguishing two distinct groups of orgeones useless.127 Secondly, in IG II² 1284 (ca. 240), which according to Wilhelm was issued by Thracians, we come across Olympon, the son of Olympiodorus, who is honoured by the orgeones with a crown of oak leaves. This decree can, however, be associated with the decree honouring the three hieropoioi in 337/6 (IG II² 1255), commonly seen as a decree of citizen orgeones. The proposer of that decree was one Olympiodorus. Since groups of orgeones are generally believed to be rather small, usually consisting of between ten to twenty members from only few family groups128, and since membership of the orgeones of Bendis seems to have been hereditary up till the issuing of IG II² 1361, i.e. after the middle of the fourth century when membership became available upon payment (20–23), it seems reasonable to assume that this Olympiodorus was a relative of the abovementioned Olympon, which intimately connects two decrees that are commonly believed to belong to two distinct groups of orgeones. There is therefore no longer any evidence for two groups of orgeones taking care of Bendis’ cult in Piraeus. Instead, we should probably envisage a small, initially hereditary group taking care of her cult from early on, while a second group of orgeones came into existence around 262, possibly as a result of the separation between port and city due to the presence of a Macedonian fortress in Piraeus.129 Both these groups of orgeones consisted at least of Thracians. This is not only clear from the decree referring to the whole Thracian ethnos living in harmony as a result of a good cooperation between the two groups (IG II² 1283.22–23), but also by the foreign name of the epimeletes Euphyes, and from the fact that the Asclapon who was honoured by the orgeones in the city came from the Greek-Thracian city of Maroneia. This further suggests that although many of the names of the orgeones are indeed very Greek, we should not, as Ferguson did, think of the Thracian orgeones of Bendis (only) as Greek settlers who had returned home from Thrace; at 126 Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 171 n.65. 127 Euphyes has one hit, i.e. our Euphyes, on the online LGPN (http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/database/lgpn.php) (17–08–2012), while Dexios has fifty hits in total, of which thirteen in Attica. 128 We have a third-century dedication naming sixteen orgeones of Asclepius from Prospalta (IG II² 2355). The unpublished SEG 41.84 presents a catalogue of orgeones of (Herakles) Pankrates: seven are from Phlya, two from Probalinthos. The orgeones-like Dionysiastai of the second century (IG II²1325 – ca.185/4) are fifteen in number. Ferguson (1944) 80 n.27, furthermore suggested that the two triclinia cited as seating capacity for the orgeones of Egretes in IG II² 2499.29–30 (306/5) imply a group of twelve to thirty diners. 129 Gauthier (1979) 396–9.

Franz Steiner Verlag

152

Chapter 4: Embracing Bendis

least some seem to have been “true” Thracians.130 What the Hellenic names do signal is that these Thracians conformed to their Athenian surroundings to a very high degree. In fact, also in the way in which they took care of their native goddess Bendis, both as orgeones and on behalf of the polis at large, these Thracians were indistinguishable from Athenian orgeones. Thracian phratores? Like other orgeones, the orgeones of Bendis seem to have possessed an impressive degree of autonomy in the running of Bendis’ cult. They seem to have had full control over their own affairs. One of the most important indications for this is that the orgeones were apparently free to change the criteria for membership, for some time after the middle of the fourth century it was decreed, apparently by ‘all who are inscribed on the stele and their descendants’ (---ας ὁπόσοι ἐν τῆ[ι στήλ]|η[ι ἐ] γ[γεγρα]μμένοι εἰσὶν ἢ το[ὺς τ]ούτων ἐκγόνους vvv· – IG II² 1361.1–2), that anyone who wishes can now share in the hieron upon payment of a now lost number of drachma, ‘in order that the orgeones become as numerous as possible’ (20–21). The new orgeones were to be inscribed on a stele and subjected to a scrutiny (23). The orgeones of Bendis also had their own officials: we come across epimeletai, a treasurer (tamias) and a secretary (grammateus). The epimeletai were to make sure that anyone who owed money to the goddess due to a fine was inscribed on a stele, for instance for sacrificing on the day of the Bendideia or for proposing something contrary to the statute of the orgeones (IG II² 1361.13–15). They also took care of the Thracian procession during the festival and welcomed the marchers in the Nymphaion with sponges, water and wreaths and a lunch (IG II² 1283.16–20).131 The orgeones also appear to have had full control over the Bendideion in Piraeus: in the orgeonic decree dated shortly after 350 we read that the orgeones had rented the hieron of Bendis, a house and some source of water to an unidentified party (IG II² 1361.8–11). The lease of the late second, early first century (Agora 19, L16) indicates that the orgeones in the city were similarly in charge of their hieron, probably established there shortly before 262 (IG II² 1283.9–10).132 From this it might seem the orgeones ran the cult of Bendis completely on their own, but we already came across the cooperation with the hieropoioi, who were honoured by the orgeones for the honourable way in which they had taken care of the (Athenian) procession and the meat distribution in 337/6 (IG II² 1255, cf. IG II² 1496.86–87). The hieropoioi of the polis and the epimeletai of the orgeones also jointly provided the wood necessary for the sacrifices during the Bendideia (IG II² 1361.15–16).133 And on the sixteenth of Thargelion, i.e. three days before the Ben130 Ferguson (1949) 162–3. 131 Cf. IG II² 1324.4–5, where the epimeletes Stephanus is honoured for ‘sending the procession of the goddess in an honourable manner’. 132 Perhaps the findspots of the two inscriptions relating to these orgeones (Agora 19, L16; IG II² 2947) suggest a location northwest of the Agora. 133 Cf. supra n.125.

Franz Steiner Verlag

The orgeones of Bendis

153

dideia, each orgeon had to give 2 drachma to the hieropoioi to go to the sacrifice (IG II² 1361.17–19), probably as an addition to the animals provided by the demos (IG II² 1496.86–87). Also like other orgeones, the orgeones of Bendis managed their shrine not exclusively for themselves but also to some extent on behalf of the polis, in the sense that they guaranteed that non-orgeones could make use of it: [ἐ]ὰν δὲ ἰδιώτης τις θύηι τῆι θεῶι διδόναι τῆι ἱερέαι γαλαθηνοῦ μὲν ∶ΙC [κ]αὶ τὸ δέρμα καὶ κωλῆν διανε[κ]ῆ δεξιάν, τοῦ δὲ τελέου ⋮ΙΙΙ∶ καὶ δέρμα καὶ [κ]ωλῆν κατὰ ταὐτά, βοὸς δὲ ∶ΙC∶ καὶ τὸ δέρμα· διδόναι δὲ τὰ ἱερεώσυνα τῶ[ν μὲ]ν θηλ[ε]ιῶν τῆι ἱερέαι

When a private person sacrifices to the goddess, that person has to give to the priestess the following: of an infant animal: the skin and the complete right hind leg; of an adult animal: the skin and the hind leg in the same manner; of an ox: also the skin. Give to the priestess her perquisite from the female animals and to the priest from the male animals (IG II² 1361.4–7)134

As stated in Philochorus, orgeones had to be automatically accepted by the phratries. Were there, then, Thracian phratores? Most scholars fiercely object to this idea and subsequently claim that this law could not have been effective in the late fifth century. They argue that Philochorus’ statement is either a digression or actually belongs to book 3 of the Atthis, covering the Solonian era.135 However, there is nothing that even suggests this, quite the opposite: the law appears to belong to book 4 of Philochorus’ Atthis, which probably runs from Ephialtes’ reforms in 462 to the end of the Peloponnesian War in 403.136 That the law could even have been instituted in this period was convincingly argued by Stephen Lambert, who saw it as an amendment (δὲ) to Pericles’ Citizenship Law (PCL). As PCL dealt with Athenian descent as the main qualification for citizenship, it had to deal with the phratries, and therefore most likely with the orgeones and the gennetai, whom we call 134 Perhaps cooperation between the orgeones and polis officials can also be detected in this case, as the orgeones were responsible for the shares of the sacrifices offered in the Bendideion that went to the priestess (of Bendis) and the priest (of Deloptes) as part of their hierosyna. In the third-century decree recording the cooperation between port and city (IG II² 1283) we further read that ‘when the sacrifices take place the priest and the priestess, with the prayers that are spoken, will also pray for the orgeones in the city’ (20–22). The priests and the orgeones were thus intimately working together. However, since we do not know how Bendis’ priesthood was filled there is no way of telling how much the orgeones cooperated with the demos in this case. 135 F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (1923–1957) ad loc.; Ferguson (1944), echoed, for instance, by Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 333–8, who writes that ‘clearly the old rule that anyone admitted to a group of orgeones must also be automatically admitted to an associated phratry did not apply in this case [i.e. of the Thracian orgeones]’. 136 Suda and Harpocration s.v. γεννῆται (= F35b) tell us that it was in book 4 where Philochorus explained that gennetai used to be called homogalaktes. Recently, C. Theodoridis, ‘Ein unbeachtete Buchangabe zum Bruchstück des Philochoros über die attischen Orgeonen’, ZPE 138 (2002) 40–2, argued that this attribution to book 4 is tenuous. He refers to an Alexandrian manuscript (Marcianus gr. 433 fol. 56v) that states Philochorus also mentions orgeones in book 3, i.e. including the Solonian period. However, Phil. F35b is clearly connected with F35a in its detailed wording. Even so, whether dated to the Solonian period or to the second half of the fifth century, the law is never said to have been repudiated and the use of the term orgeones to denote the Thracian worshippers of Bendis still needs explaining.

Franz Steiner Verlag

154

Chapter 4: Embracing Bendis

homogalaktes, as well.137 The law on the automatic acceptance would thus date to 451/0 or shortly after, i.e. covering the period when we find Thracian orgeones. Another influential line of reasoning against applying Philochorus’ law to the Thracian orgeones of Bendis was developed by William Scott Ferguson, who, seeing that Thracians were called orgeones and as ‘aliens were debarred from being phratores’138, distinguished two classes of orgeones: class A consisting of archaic groups of citizens worshipping a hero in the city with only a host (hestiator) as personnel and a more recent class B of foreigners worshipping an imported minor deity in Piraeus with a larger staff, including epimeletai and treasurers.139 According to Ferguson the law obviously only applied to the orgeones of class A, who were clear-cut citizens and most scholars still follow this scheme. However, if we look at the evidence there is nothing that necessitates a distinction between two classes of orgeones, a distinction the Athenians never made.140 The Thracian orgeones of Bendis were in no way different from the Athenian orgeones we came across earlier and we do not have to see the decision to call the Thracian worshippers of Bendis orgeones as an exceptional departure from traditional usage of the term.141 The only change that had occurred was that from the late fifth, early fourth century onwards orgeones could be metics. The obvious conclusion therefore seems to be that these Thracian orgeones had to be accepted into the Attic phratries on account of their management of Bendis’ cult and shrine in Piraeus. However, it remains highly problematic to imagine the phratries accepting a group of foreigners in their midst. Phratry membership was the touchstone of proper Athenian descent and as such intimately connected with citizenship. The idea of the Thracian orgeones automatically qualifying for citizenship through their acceptance into a phratry becomes even more problematic when we consider that membership became available upon the payment of a fee and a scrutiny (IG II² 1361.20– 23). However, before this period, membership seems to have been restricted to a few families, whose names were inscribed on a stele (IG II² 1361.1–2), quite similar Lambert, Phratries2 (1998) 46–9. Cf. Andrewes (1961)13–4. Ferguson (1944) 68. Ibidem, 64–8. Cf. Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 109 n.29, who wonders ‘whether the wall of division between the two classes is firm’. It even appears that Bendis’ Thracian worshippers wholly constitute Ferguson’s class B as they seem to be the only certain case of foreigners being called orgeones. The other orgeones in class B are the orgeones of the Mother of the Gods (F’s no. 14), the Dionysiastai (F.’s no. 15), and the orgeones of the Syrian Hagne Aphrodite (F.’s no. 16). It seems that Mother was initially worshipped by foreigners who were organised in a thiasos that was later taken over by a group of citizen orgeones: IG II² 1316 is a decree by orgeones but also refers to thiasostai, cf. Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 192–3; Jones, Associations (1999) 262–4. The Dionysiastai seem to have consisted of a small club of relatively wealthy citizens resident in Piraeus. In the case of Hagne Aphrodite there is a chance of a foreign member: although from IG II² 1337 (97/6) it seems the orgeones of Syrian Aphrodite were citizens, the priestess Nikasis is a Corinthian. In a second-century decree of orgeones of Aphrodite we further come across Serapion from Herakleia (MDAI (A) 66 (1941) 228, no.4). 141 Simms (1988) 68–9, already suggested that the Thracians were granted this privileged name because they were ordered by polis law to send a procession from the Hestia and therefore performed a sort of “state function”.

137 138 139 140

Franz Steiner Verlag

The orgeones of Bendis

155

to the membership of several Athenian associations of orgeones.142 Moreover, on account of their management of Bendis’ hiera they had more than proven their worth as members of the Athenian community, whose main business it was to take care of the hiera and hosia of the Athenians. Can we, then, imagine the unimaginable?143 Considering the Thracian orgeones of Bendis, we can see that the incorporation of the Thracians into the Athenian community was extensive and twofold: the way in which the Athenians regulated the worshipping activities of the Thracians led to a thorough integration of this particular group in the community, while the religious behaviour of the Thracians seems to have conformed to its Athenian context up to such a degree that they were hardly distinguishable from the Athenians. With the typical (Athenian) orgeonic behaviour displayed by these Thracian orgeones we have reached the end this chapter on the gradual acceptance of Bendis and her Thracian worshippers in Athens. We have seen how in the middle of the fifth century Bendis was slowly accepted by the Athenians as Thracian Artemis and how she received a sanctuary on Mounychia Hill in the late 420s. After this, around 413/2, Bendis became the focus of an elaborate polis festival and in the decree regulating these Bendideia we also came across the demos interfering with Bendis’ income and with the manner in which her priesthood should be filled. From all this it became clear that although the Thracians were firmly incorporated into the Athenian community by having them share and take care of these recently added polis hiera, the Athenian demos was careful to differentiate the Thracian worshippers from the Athenian ones. The Thracians nevertheless held a special position within that community, probably most clearly illustrated in the fact that the Thracian managers of Bendis’ cult could carry the privileged title of ‘orgeones’. This far-reaching integration and special position was probably the result of the great presence and influence of Thracians in Athens and was not (exclusively) part of an Athenian policy to woo Thracian kings. This is not only borne out by the gradual acceptance of Bendis’ cult, even continuing when Athenian-Thracian ties were severed, like in 413/2 when the inauguration of the Bendideia took place, but also by the continuing popularity of the cult.

142 Supra n.109. 143 It is highly unlikely the Thracian orgeones of Bendis were also accepted by the demes. A similar situation seems to apply to the women who were acknowledged by the phratries of their husbands during the phratry-festival of the Apatouria at a rite called gamelia, but who were excluded from the deme registers, cf. supra 80 n.64.

Franz Steiner Verlag

CONCLUSION: ΜΕΤΕΧΕΙΝ ΤΗΣ ΠΟΛΕΩΣ ἀδιάτακτοι – ‘out of rank’ ‘[metics] who are not enrolled among the metics, who have not paid the metoikion, or carried the skaphe’ Pollux (3.57)

MΕΤΕΧΕΙΝ ΤΗΣ ΠΟΛΕΩΣ – BEYOND RELIGION I began this book by emphasising that the Athenian polis should first and foremost be understood as a participatory community in which membership constituted of actively participating in the polis (μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως), perhaps most importantly in the ritual obligations of the Athenian polis (μετέχειν τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ τῶν ὁσίων). In what followed, we looked at the incorporation of immigrants into the Athenian community in the fifth and fourth centuries BC by examining their participation as metics in several Athenian polis festivals. We have seen four large groups of metics participating in full splendour in the Panathenaic procession, presenting Athena and the Athenians their future gifts of wealth and support; we have seen them at the intimate setting of the Lenaia, where the ties between Athenians and foreign residents were strengthened after these had been put under stress by Pericles’ Citizenship Law of 451/0; we have seen them in the cosmopolitan setting of the City Dionysia, where the role of metics was, by contrast, rather restricted and where they were largely conceptualised as xenoi; and we have seen them at the Hephaisteia where metics were to share in the sacrifices together with the young and strong Athenians with whom metics had increasingly cooperated in defending and rebuilding the polis. All these instances led to the incorporation of foreign immigrants into the Athenian community and to the gradual carving out of their polis membership as metics. In addition, we have seen how foreign immigrants were similarly integrated into the smaller communities of Attic society by granting them a share in the ancestral hiera of these communities. And, finally, we have looked at how the special position of Thracians within Athens was given shape by the careful and gradual acceptance of the cult of Bendis as a polis cult. The main aim of this book has been to show how the development of a separate metic status for immigrant xenoi was greatly informed by the participation of these immigrants as metics in the often ignored but essential formative context of polis religion. Combining the French structuralist approach to communal activities like sacrifices, banquets and festivals as important structures de participation for the construction and expression of cohesion and hierarchy among the group and the social approach to ancient religion as a cognitive system whose structure constantly

Franz Steiner Verlag

Mετέχειν τῆς πόλεως – beyond religion

157

(re)defined the position of both gods and humans in an ever changing society, I have tried to demonstrate how the position of immigrants was conceptualised in the context of Athenian polis religion. It is in that way not aimed to replace any previous views on the development of Athenian metic status in the classical period – it is rather meant to complement them. I am not saying that Pericles’ Citizenship Law, the institution of a special metic tax, and the fact that they had to go to the Polemarch’s for their legal disputes did not matter for the way in which the status of metics was conceptualised by the Athenians. Rather, based on ancient notions of membership, I have argued that the differentiated participation of foreign immigrants as metics in several polis festivals also played a pivotal role in the conceptualisation of metic status. To understand the Athenian conceptualisation of μετοικία, we should of course also consider the differentiated participation of foreign immigrants as metics in other polis activities. How was metic status translated into fiscal or economic terms? How were immigrants expected to participate in the legal arenas of Athens? In short, how were foreign immigrants expected to participate in the polis (μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως) and what does this tell us about their status within Athenian society? With this book I hope to have made a first and important contribution to a better understanding of the development of μετοικία from a participatory perspective. And even though the participation of metics in activities that were not predominantly religious in nature needs more research, an “updated” sketch of the general development of μετοικία, as based on a combination of David Whitehead’s essential work and the findings as explored above, might be cautiously presented. Perhaps the earliest sign of a separate status for the foreign immigrants living in Athens comes from the late sixth-century epigram for the Naxian Anaxilas in which he is lauded for his services for the Athenian community and in which he is referred to as a μετάοικον (SEG 22.79). Whitehead connected this epigram with Cleisthenes’ reforms of 508/7 as he thought it very likely that the latter had not only resulted in a new self-awareness among Athenian citizens but also in a first neutral recognition of a special group of free inhabitants in Attica who were not Athenians by descent but who required some sort of recognition of their position within the Athenian polis.1 After this first “act of recognition”, we come across the incorporation of four groups of metics into the Panathenaic procession which can now probably be dated to the 480s-470s. During this procession, four groups of metic youths and girls marched up the Acropolis in the company of kanephoroi and thallophoroi, and at least in the fourth century also ephebes. These were all participants that, one way or the other, represented groups that were moving from one phase in life to another, either from youth to adulthood, or from adulthood to old age. In the context of the Panathenaic procession – carrying objects in honour of Athena and dressed in the finest-looking clothes – they were presented as about to contribute greatly to the well-being of the community. Each would contribute in their own way: kanephoroi 1

Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 145–7.

Franz Steiner Verlag

158

Conclusion: μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως

would soon get married and hopefully bear legitimate children, thallophoroi would put their wisdom and experience to good use in guiding the demos, and ephebes were in training to defend the polis with their lives. I argued that the participation of the four groups of metics can be understood in similar terms, as about to contribute, in their case in terms of wealth and support and, by doing so, become accepted as members of Athena’s community. Usually, this phase in the conceptualisation of μετοικία is relegated to the sidelines as a minor concession for the general exclusion of metics from Athenian public life. However, the incorporation of metics in the Panathenaia can instead be understood as a highly significant step as the Panathenaic pompe appears to have constituted the first arena in which metics were publicly presented as a coherent and clearly definable group. It was furthermore the first context in which metics were associated with the typical “metic” attributes of wealth and support, an idea found in several later authors. Finally, from this participation in the Panathenaia it seems likely there was a means to decide who was a metic and who was not and possibly even a rudimental way to keep track of Athens’ metic population, perhaps at the Polemarch’s, who treated dikai involving metics ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 58.3), or perhaps already in the demes, who seem to have kept registers of their metic population later on. In any case it seems likely that metics were by this time, or shortly after, also formally recognised under the laws of Athens. This legal recognition eventually included the regulation that metics should go to the Polemarch’s office for their legal disputes and possibly had to present a prostates in court (cf. Arist. Pol. 1275a), although, as Whitehead states, ‘to say what form it took at this early stage would need an equation with fewer unknowns’.2 All these early “metic” labels of the Panathenaia and (crude) recognition mechanisms were probably firmly in place when Pericles formulated his famous Citizenship Law in 451/0 in which it was stipulated that from then onwards an Athenian citizen could only be born of an Athenian astos and an Athenian aste. Although the reasons behind this legislation remain a matter of debate3, it is certain that it constituted an important watershed in the development of metic status, eventually, with its re-enactment in 403, explicitly forbidding Athenians to marry non-Athenians. By this law metics thus became de facto excluded from marrying into the Athenian citizenry. Significantly, the period after PCL witnessed the inclusion of metics in several important polis festivals. In a time when Athenians and metics were increasingly separated from each other through political, juridical and fiscal measures, the incorporation of metics into more polis festivals could secure the cohesion of the group at large. It was especially in the intimate context of the Lenaia that metics and Athenians were conceptualised as a homogenous worshipping community. On those winter days in Gamelion, in the theatre of Dionysus on the slope of the Acropolis, Athenians and metics were ‘by themselves’, as Aristophanes (Ach. 497–508) 2 3

Ibidem, 146. On PCL see most importantly: Patterson, Pericles’ (1976); A. Boegehold, ‘Perikles’ citizenship law of 451/0’ in: A. L. Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro (eds.), Athenian identity and civic ideology (Baltimore and London 1994) 57–66; Blok, (2009).

Franz Steiner Verlag

Mετέχειν τῆς πόλεως – beyond religion

159

claims, as associations between them were emphasised and strengthened, by being together and probably also by the abusive behaviour in the pompe, while differences were temporarily ignored. Cohesion was, however, not all that was established, for in conjunction with the tendency in the second half of the fifth century to distinguish status groups more precisely, and especially to distinguish Athenians from non-Athenians more precisely, the separate and specific membership of metics was also displayed and negotiated on more occasions by means of differentiated participation. A clear instance of this was seen in the cosmopolitan context of the City Dionysia, where metics participated in the pompe as a demarcated group associated with the Athenian polis, while in the theatre they seem to have been notionally included among the much larger and largely excluded group of xenoi. Perhaps the inclusion of metics in the reorganised version of the Hephaisteia can, similar to their role in the Lenaia, be seen as an attempt to maintain cohesion in Athenian society after PCL had closed the ranks of citizens. The Hephaisteia had always been an agonistic festival of the strong youths and men of Attica and to grant metics a share of the sacrifices to Hephaestus from 421 onwards can therefore be understood as acknowledging the increased involvement of young and strong metics in rebuilding and defending the city. Besides the “metic” attributes of wealth and support displayed and negotiated in the context of the Panathenaic pompe, metics were from 421 onwards therefore also presented and acknowledged as contributing to Athenian society as workmen and soldiers. But again, cohesion and integration was not all that was achieved. We have seen that metics did not share in the hiera of Hephaestus in the same way the Athenians did; they only sacrificed three cows of which they were to receive the meat raw, indicating metics consumed their shares away from the site. Significantly, it was in this same period that the “metic” demotikon is first attested (IG I³ 421.33 = 414/3, though the metic demotikon should probably be dated earlier4), which made it easier to distinguish between Athenians and metics living in the same deme, perhaps indicating some form of registration in the demes. From then onwards this separate “metic” demotikon quickly gained ground as can be seen, for instance, in the many occurrences in the Erechtheion accounts of the final decade of the fifth century (IG I³ 474–478 + II²1654). It furthermore seems that the metoikion was also instituted in this period.5 After this period and throughout the fourth century we hear nothing more about demarcating measures concerning metic status. Whitehead stated that ‘the metoikia, seemingly, was now fully developed – at least, no substantive metabolai are henceforward attested or need to be postulated’.6 Significantly, we also hear nothing 4 5 6

Cf. supra 24 n.76. On the carving out of metic status in this period: Whitehead, Ideology (1977) 151–4. Ibidem, 160. In many inscriptions from Hellenistic and Roman times we come across free polis inhabitant who did not belong to the politai and who are referred to in various ways, e.g. as μέτοικοι, πάροικοι, or κάτοικοι, cf. infra n.11. These indications, however, do not seem to concern the development of μετοικία in Athens and are to be understood in completely different contexts, often associated with the relationship between polis-benefactor-Hellenistic/Ro-

Franz Steiner Verlag

160

Conclusion: μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως

about the incorporation of metics into more polis hiera after their inclusion in the Hephaisteia in 421. Perhaps the Athenians did no longer feel a need to further carve out the membership of metics of their community as the participation of metics in polis affairs was now regulated in detail. However, because of the randomness of our evidence such a conclusion unfortunately has to remain speculative. MΕΤΕΧΕΙΝ ΤΗΣ ΠΟΛΕΩΣ – BEYOND THE POLIS In chapter three we saw how deme membership also consisted of active participation in the community and how religion again formed a central platform for expressing and articulating this membership. Similar to Herodotus’ claims concerning a shared Greek identity based on shared religion (8.144.2) and the desperate attempts of the Eleusinian herald to reunite Athenians by referring to the common ancestral rites they share in (Xen. Hell. 2.4.20), the members of a deme were up to an important degree those people who by descent had a share in the rites of that community. And similar to what happened on polis level, the subdivisions could also accommodate new residents in their deme by granting them a share in their hiera. We have seen, however, that the ways in which deme members articulated the membership of these newcomers differed significantly from one deme to the other, informed by the specific (historical) circumstances in the deme. So, the Skambonidai were probably faced with a significant presence of foreign residents in their community from an early phase onwards. Already around 460, in a period when the status of immigrants in the polis became a hot topic, the Skambonidai decided to include ‘metoikoi’ in their sacrifice to the hero Leos. However, the Skambonidai were the only ones who included immigrants as metoikoi. In Ikarion, the Ur Ort of Athenian drama and therefore probably attracting many foreigners to the Ikarian Dionysia, it was decided that not only wealthy Ikarians should be liable for choregia but, as seems likely, also ‘those living in Ikarion’, probably including not only other Athenians but also metics. This was a truly revolutionary decision as the choregia at rural Dionysia was usually reserved for the demesmen of the organising deme. Finally, we looked at the honours bestowed on the Theban Damasias by the Eleusinians after he had performed all duties normally performed by a choregos in the context of the Eleusinian Dionysia in the mid fourth century. One of the most remarkable honours he received was ‘one hundred drachma for a sacrifice from the common fund’ (IG II² 1186.34–35). This honour, it was argued, should be compared to grants by which Athenian demotai from other demes were given a share in the hiera of the honouring deme by which wealthy and therefore influential outsiders were acknowledged as part of the deme. It was argued, in sum, that, similar to the members of the polis at large, the members of these deme communities were defined by their participation in the pubman ruler, for who it all might be beneficial to include as many polis inhabitants as recipients/ loyal and grateful followers as possible.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Mετέχειν τῆς πόλεως – beyond the polis

161

lic life of that community (μετέχειν δήμου), including their participation in deme religion. But here as well we should not only focus on religion. In some demes special taxes were instituted, some of which paid by non-demotai living in the deme, others paid by demotai only. Similar to sharing in a sacrifice, the grant of ateleia from ‘those taxes over which the Eleusinians have authority’ (IG II² 1186.25–26) to Damasias can also be understood as an integrative measure. Different demes thus conceptualised different integrative and defining measures. These were not only construed in religious terms but in other (e.g. fiscal) terms as well. To fully understand the position of non-demotai in these communities we should focus on the differentiated participation of these people in the rites of the community and in other structures de participation, while it remains of the highest importance to never lose sight of the diversity among these semi-autonomous communities. To go one step in the other direction: it might also be feasible to widen our scope to other poleis, in which religion indisputably played a similarly prominent, formative and defining role. However, as so often, the scarcity of sources from other poleis seems to stand in the way of any thorough investigation beyond the boundaries of Attica.7 Still, it is important to acknowledge the socially formative and defining role of religion in these communities and sometimes precious and highly informative glimpses can be caught. Concerning resident foreigners in other poleis, for instance, we have a late fifth, early fourth-century decree from Iasos (SEG 36.981), in Asia Minor, in which it is stated that the priest of Zeus Megistos shall take his sacrificial cakes, one each from the baskets of the astoi and the metoikoi (3–5). In this polis and on Delos we also find metic choregoi.8 In an Eretrian decree dated to ca. 308 (IG XII 9.192 = LSGS 46), we read that in commemoration of Eretria’s liberation from Macedonian rule and the reintroduction of democracy (3–5) both the Eretrians and the livers-in (Ἐρετριεῖς πάντας καὶ τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας) are to wear an ivy crown in the Dionysiac procession (6–8).9 Very interesting, as Whitehead already observed, is the (convincing) supplement provided by Boeckh according to which the decree further prescribed that the citizens can finance these crowns with money from the demosion fund (8–10) implying that the “livers-in”, by contrast, were to pay their crowns themselves.10 Another example can be found in an early third-century inscription from Koresia (IG XII 5, 647) in which it is stipulated that metoikoi and freedmen are to join the Koresean citizens and their official guests in the Prytaneion for public feasts (δὲ τούς τε πολίτας καὶ οὓς ἡ πόλις κέκληκεν καὶ τοὺς μετοίκους καὶ τοὺς ἀπελευθέρους – 9–11).11

7 8 9 10 11

Important contributions mostly derive from archaeological data, e.g. de Polignac, Cults (1995); Morgan (1994); idem (1996). For references see Fraser (1995) 73. Cf. A.-F. Jaccottet, ‘Le lierre de la liberté’, ZPE 80 (1990) 150–6. Whitehead (1984) 58. Many other examples of a polis including its μέτοικοι, πάροικοι, or κάτοικοι in its cultic activities are given in Krauter, Bürgerrecht (2004) esp. 73–80, though these predominantly date from the Hellenistic period, when integration and status worked under a different set of parameters, cf. supra n.6.

Franz Steiner Verlag

162

Conclusion: μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως

Interestingly, similarly to the Thracians, subcategories of immigrants could also be conceptualised and presented as constituent parts in the context of polis religion of other poleis. For instance, the growing Italian presence in the Greek world seems to have motivated several Greek communities to conceptualise a subcategory of Italikoi or Romaioi, referring to socially and ethnically highly heterogeneous groups of people from Rome, the Italian peninsula and sometimes even to people with no physical tie to Rome. In several public decrees we find references to Italikoi or Romaioi, amongst others in connection with polis festivals. It seems these labels soon became a way of organisation for these immigrants, a way of integration and articulation for the receiving communities, and a way of communication for both.12 Apparently, foreign immigrants in other poleis could be brought together under a single category and included in the hiera of these communities in a similarly differentiated and telling way as metics or Thracians were in the hiera of the Athenian community. MΕΤΕΧΕΙΝ ΤΗΣ ΠΟΛΕΩΣ – BEYOND METICS Of course metics were not the only people whose polis or deme membership was constantly negotiated by differentiated participation in the hiera and hosia of the community in question. Most importantly, it was the collective of Athenian citizens whose polis membership was defined and expressed in cultic terms. In the introduction I already referred to the different memberships Athenian men and women held on account of their specific roles in Athenian polis religion. In the chapter on the incorporation of Bendis and her Thracian worshippers in the Athenian community we furthermore saw how the special membership of these Thracians was given shape by gradually giving shape to the cult of Bendis as a polis cult and to the role of Thracians therein. One of the main underlying arguments of this book, then, is that any group that mattered to a community – whether polis, deme or other community – could and was (almost) always negotiated and expressed in a religious context, while the group’s relationship with the community was expressed in differentiated participation in cult. To understand the position not only of metics but also of Athenian women, ephebes, girls, children in general, Citian merchants, immigrants from Herakleia, or even slaves, we should always investigate the ways in

12

E.g. IG XII 9, 234.24–33 (τήν τε θυσίαν τῶι Ἑρμεῖ συντελῶν |ἐκάλεσεν ἐκ προγράμματος τούς τε πολίτας καὶ | Ῥωμαίων τοὺς παρεπιδημοῦντας – Eretria, ca. 100 BC); IG XII 7, 515. 55ff (καὶ τὸ δεῖπνον ἀποδιδότωσαν [το]ῖς τε πολίταις πᾶσιν τοῖς παρα|[γε]νομένοις εἰς τὴν Αἰγιά[λη]ν [καὶ παροίκοις κα]ὶ ξένοις τοῖς παρα|[γε]νομένοις Ῥωμαίων αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν γυ[ναικῶν(?)] – Aigiale on Armorgos, late 2nd c. Cf. C. Hasenohr and C. Müller (eds.), Les italiens dans le monde grec; IIe siècle av. J.-C.-Ier siècle ap. J.-C.; circulation, activités, intégration (Actes de la table ronde, Ecole normale supérieure, Paris, 14–16 mai 1998) (Lille 1997); idem, ‘Italian associations at Delos; cults, social integration and politics’, in: A. Cazemier en S. Skaltsa (eds.), Associations in context; rethinking associations and religion in the post-classical polis (International symposium, Copenhagen Associations Project, 11th-13th October 2012) forthc.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Mετέχειν τῆς πόλεως – beyond metics

163

which these groups shared in the rites of the communities they lived in.13 The possibilities are many and only few have been investigated here. In the end I hope to have shown the ways in which membership of the Athenian community was shaped, articulated and demonstrated through differentiated participation in the religious activities of the polis and, more specifically, how this was done in the case of one vital group of polis inhabitants.

13

A good starting point for the study of ephebes in religion would be the numerous (Hellenistic) decrees honouring the services of ephebes, among them many in the religious field (e.g. IG II² 1006–1111), with Reinmuth, Inscriptions (1971). The role of girls in Athenian (or Greek) religion is not a spectacularly new subject (see of course the work of Sourvinou-Inwood, Dillon, Cole, et cetera) though a fresh emphasis on the socially defining aspects of these roles could be highly informative. On children in polis religion: Golden, Children (1990) 38–50, 65–72, 75–9; J. Neils, ‘Children and Greek religion’ in: J. Neils and J. H. Oakley (eds.), Coming of age in ancient Greece; images of childhood from the classical past (New Haven 2004) 139–62. In 333/2 Citian merchants received a grant of enktesis to build a shrine for Aphrodite (Ourania) (IG II² 337 = RO91). Although only snippets of information concerning Aphrodite Ourania and Citians in Athens have come down to us (see RO91), it might be interesting to see this grant, similar to the one the Thracians received, as a way to integrate an important group of people in the polis community. On metics from Herakleia: J. D. Mikalson, ‘The Heracleotai of Athens’ in: G. Schmeling and J. D. Mikalson (eds.), Qui miscuit utile dulci; Festschrift essays for Paul Lachlan MacKendrick (Wauconda 1998) 253–63, of which Jon Mikalson kindly provided me with an offprint. The “religious presence” of these metics is particularly striking. Although the participation of slaves in Athenian polis religion was unsurprisingly small (they probably accompanied their masters to the City Dionysia, carried phalloi during several rural Dionysia, and seem to participate in the Zeus festival the Kronia), in the rites of several “oikos-communities” they nevertheless performed highly significant roles.

Franz Steiner Verlag

APPENDIX I: VASES WITH TYPICAL METIC DUTIES 1. Oxford, Ashmolean 1911.617.1 On a red-figure kylix by the Pan Painter, dated to ca. 470, we have one of the earliest depictions of skaphephoroi. On the inside of the cup we see a male clad in a himation. He is moving to the left while holding a long shallow vessel, which can be identified as a skaphe, full of irregularly shaped objects.2 The skaphephoros looks back at a man carrying a writing-case. Although the context is probably not the Panathenaia, it is almost certainly religious for a sacrificial scene is shown on the outside of the cup. On one side stands a sacerdotal figure accompanied by two youths and a man who is pouring a libation onto the fire on an altar. On the other side there is another skaphephoros, who approaches a low platform on which stands a vessel full of objects similar to the ones carried in the skaphe. A bearded man, with one foot on the low platform, holds a stylus and a writing-tablet and is looking at the youth.3 2. New York, Metropolitan Museum no. 20.244.4 A red-figure Panathenaic amphora in New York, also dated to ca. 470, shows another skaphephoros. The body of the vase is decorated with a single figure on each side. On one side we see a youth carrying a skaphe on his shoulders and on the other a youth holding a branch with his hand in a gesture of greeting.5 3. Athens, Athenian Agora P 30059. On a red-figure fragment found in the debris of a public dining place in the Athenian Agora and dated to 460–450, we see a youth carrying a skaphe on his shoulder following another youth, who carries on his shoulder a large vessel (lebes, hydria, amphora?).6 4. Excavations at Kition, Inv. nr. 4761.7 On a fragment of a kalyx-krater we see a head of a youth carrying a tray, identified by Martin Robertson as a skaphe.8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

= ARV² 559.152. Cf. CVA, Oxford 1.6 pls. 2.9, 7.3–4; Van Straten, Hiera kala (1995) V195 (fig.145); J. D. Beazley, ‘The master of the Boston Pan-Krater’, JHS 32 (1912) 362 pl. 9. Perhaps these objects are to be understood as cakes and honeycombs, as Photius (s.v. σκάφας) tells us were the contents of the skaphai carried by metics in the Panathenaia. Van Straten, Hiera kala (1995) 139–40, points out that this scene seems concerned with the collection and recording of things, but what and on what occasion remains unclear. = ARV² 249.9. Cf. G. M. A. Richter, ‘Red-figured Athenian vases recently acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art’, AJA 27 (1923) 269–71, with figs. 6 and 7 A youth holding a sprig is a common figure in sacrificial scenes. See above 58 n.95. S. I. Rotroff and J. H. Oakley, Debris from a public dining place in the Athenian Agora (Hesp. Suppl 25)(1992) no.113, pl. 36. First published in V. Karageorghis, Excavations at Kition vol. 4 (Cyprus 1981) 54, no. 30, pl. 39. M. Robertson, ‘The South Metopes; Theseus and Daidalos’ in: E. Berger (ed.), Der Parthenon-Kongreß Basel (Mainz 1984) 206, pl. 15.2.

Franz Steiner Verlag

166

Appendix I: Vases with typical metic duties

Detecting an influence of the Parthenon Frieze, he dates the fragment to the late fifth century. Robertson suggests Polion as the painter. 5. Private collection Herbert Cahn Collection, Basel 23. On this red-figure pelike by the Dinos Painter, dated to ca. 440, we see a wreathed youth picking up a hydria from the ground. 6. Paris, Musée du Louvre Cp 10793.9 A red-figure fragment attributed to the Pan Painter, dated to ca. 475–450. On one side we see a kanephoros carrying a kane on her head followed by a youth picking up a hydria from the ground. The other side shows three herms. 7. Paestum, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.10 A red-figure lekythos, dated to 480–470, by the Brygos Painter, on which we see a girl shading another girl with a parasol. The sprig held by the smaller child has been identified as an olive branch and seems to indicate a rite in honour of Athena. That the vase depicts a kanephoros is corroborated by the fact that the smaller girl is wearing golden earrings and that gold is often associated with kanephoroi.11 This scene therefore almost certainly refers to the Panathenaia, the only occasion where we know kanephoroi were shaded by other girls, that is, by metic girls.12

9 10

11

12

= ARV² 555.92. Cf. Van Straten, Hiera kala (1995) 250, V308. = ARV² 384.212. A small terracotta statue of a girl carrying a stool on her head can probably be identified as a diphrophoros. It is dated to the first half of the fifth century and was found in a grave in the Kerameikos. Waldstein (1890) 144, tenuously suggested that the person buried there had probably served as diphrophoros. Supra 42 n.20. The fact that the girl with the parasol is much larger than the kanephoros does not preclude the identification of this figure as a skiadephoros and may be explained by the difficulties of rendering an image of a parasol on a vase of this shape. Ritual skiadephoria is also attested for the Skira but in that case members of the Eteoboutadai were to shade the priests of Athena, Helios and Poseidon, supra 55 n.78. When we see girls shading other girls we can probably identify them as metic girls shading kanephoroi at the Panathenaia.

Franz Steiner Verlag

APPENDIX II: THE RENDERING OF THE NAMES OF CHOREGOI IN DEMES1 1. Choregoi on choregic monuments IG II² 3094

choregos

2

IG II² 3095

Ikarion, early 4th Ikarion, mid 4th

3 choregoi n+p

3

IG II² 3098

Ikarion, mid 4th

3 choregoi n

4

IG II² 3099

Ikarion, mid 4th

choregos

5

SEG 44.131

6

Thorikos 9.85

1

Ikarion, ca. 300 Thorikos, 400–350

n+pI

n+p

---

---

choregos

n(+?)

7

IG I³ 970

Eleusis, 402/1

2 choregoi n+p

8

IG II² 3100

Eleusis, mid 4th

choregos

9 10

11

1

IG II² 3107 IG II² 3092

IG II² 3106

12

SEG 54.302

13

IG II² 3097

n+p

Eleusis, 4th

choregos

Acharnai, early 4th II

4 choregoi n+p

Acharnai, 4th

choregos

n+p

n+p

Acharnai, 4th III

3 choregoi n+p

Paiania, mid 4th

choregos

n+d+p

Archippos s. of Archedektos

Ergasos s. of Phanomachos Phanomachos s. of Ergasos Diognetos s. of Ergasos Hagnias; Xanthippos; Xanthides

Mnesilochos s. of Mnesiphilos

Py[---] Gnathis s. of Timokedes Anaxandrides s.of Timagoros Athenodoros s. of Go[---] Hieron of A[---]

Mnesistratos s. of Misgones Diopeithes s. of Diodoros Mnesimachos s. of Mnesistratos Theotimos s. of Diotimos [---] s. of Demostatos(?)

Kleophon s. of Kleomedontes Theodotos s. of Dorotheos Theopropos s. of Pheidyllos

Demosthenes s. of Demainetes of Paiania

A complicating factor in identifying deme choregoi is the phenomenon of choregic dedications erected in the deme but celebrating an “urban” victory or victories, on which see Whitehead, Demes (1986) 234–5 and Wilson, Khoregia (2000) 246–9, who both mention three candidates (SEG 23.102; IG II² 3101; IG II² 3091). Although the corpus of such commemorations remains small, we always have to remind ourselves of the possibility that a choregic monument found outside Athens can in fact commemorate an urban victory. In this appendix I have included those monuments and inscriptions as found in Wilson and the SEG of the past twenty years that have not (yet) given rise to debate.

Franz Steiner Verlag

168 14

Appendix II: The rendering of the names of choregoi in demes IG II² 3108

Rhamnous, 4th? IV choregos

n(+p)+d

15

IG II² 3109

Rhamnous, early 3rd V

choregos

n+p+d

16

SEG 40.181

---

---

17

IG II² 3096

Rhamnous, c. 250? VI

Aigilia, ante mid 4th

3 choregoi n+p

18

SEG 51.193

Athmonon, 4th

---

[---] of Rhamnous

Megakles s. of Megakleos of Rhamnous

Timosthenes s. of Meixonides Meixonides s. of Timosthenes Kleostratos s.of Timosthenes

---

I II

n=name; p=patronymic; d=demotic; e=ethnikon. See A. Makres, Horos 10–12 (1992–98) 63–70, for the publication of the text that was inscribed on the right side of the stone, including the reference to two choregoi (EM 10301). III D. Summa, ‘Una dedica coregica inedita’, ZPE 150 (2004) 147–8, has brought to light a choregic inscription from Acharnai that was recorded in Kirchner’s notebook but never published. In the 1940s, W. Peek offered a restoration, also unpublished, which I follow. For both texts see SEG 54.302. Also see S. Summa, ‘Una iscrizione coregica di Thorikos?’, ZPE 136 (2001) 71–6; idem, ‘Attori e coreghi in Attica: iscrizioni dal teatro di Thorikos’, ZPE 157 (2006) 77–86. IV Cf. B. C. Petrakos, Δῆμος του´ Ραμνοῦντος ΙΙ. Οἱ ἐπιγραφές (BAAH 181/182)(Athens 1999) no. 115. V Cf. Petrakos (1999) no. 120. VI Cf. Petrakos (1999) no. 141.

2. Deme decrees honouring choregoi

I

1

Thorikos 9.83

Thorikos, 4th

3 choregoi

n+p (+?)

2

IG II² 1198

Aixone, 326/5

2 choregoi

n+p

3

IG II² 1200

Aixone, 317/6

2 choregoi

n+p

4

SEG 36.186

Aixone, 313/2

2 choregoi

n+p

5

IG II² 1186

Eleusis, mid 4th

“choregos”

n+p+eI

6

IG II² 1178

Ikarion, ante mid 4th

2 choregoi

n

Ameipsias s. of Mnesi[---] Lido s. of Mnesi[---] [---]os s. of Dorokles

Demokrates s. of Euphiletos Hegsias s. of Lysistratos Leontios s. of Dion Glaukon s. of Kallikrates

Auteas s. of Autokleos Philoxenides s. of Philippos Damasias, s. of Dionysios of Thebes Epikrates; Praxias

It is debatable whether Damasias was a true choregos or simply performed all duties associated with choregia, on which see above 116–9.

Franz Steiner Verlag

APPENDIX ΙΙΙ: ATTESTED GROUPS OF ORGEONES IN ATTICA This list is in no way meant to be a comprehensive inventory of all known ancient documents and secondary literature relating to orgeones. It merely aims to list all attested groups of orgeones in Attica with their most important evidence and some suggested titles for further reading. 1. (2 groups of?) orgeones of the heroines and the hero Echelos (Ferguson’s no.1). These are the earliest attested orgeones; two ancient (ἀρχαῖον) psephismata, of which we find copies in an early third-century decree (SEG 21.530 = LSS 20), appear to date to the mid-fifth century. The ancient regulations include laws on sacrifices on the 17th and 18th of Hekatombaion and a kreanomia to ‘the orgeones who are present, and to their sons up to one half [i.e. of an orgeon’s share], and to the women of the orgeones, giving to the free ones the equivalent share and to their daughters up to one half and to one attendant up to one half’ (12–23). Cf. Jones, Associations (1998) 251–4, who also provides a translation of the text. Below the ancient decrees was inscribed a list of debtors that is now lost. 2. Orgeones of Bendis. They are perhaps first mentioned in Plato (Rep. 327a), who refers to a procession sent by the Thracians on the occasion of the inauguration of the Bendideia in 413/2. For the evidence pertaining to this group see the main text. 3. In the accounts of the poletai for 367/6 (Hesp. 10 (1941) 14–27, no.1= Agora 19, Poletai P5), we find among the creditors of a fugitive condemned for sacrilege: ‘Aeschines of Melite and the koinon of orgeones’ (30–31) (Ferguson’s no.5). Nothing else is known about these orgeones. 4. Orgeones of Heros Iatros (?). Πραγματεῖα Ἀκαδ. Ἀθηνῶν 13 (1948) no. 2 (333/2), suggested by Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 109 n.28. 5. Orgeones of Amynos, Asclepius and Dexion (Ferguson’s no. 7). They owned two shrines (one for Amynos and Asclepius and one for Dexion), had two separate annual meetings (IG II² 1259; 1252+999; 1253; SEG 26.135; 39.149; 47.194 – all dated to the late fourth century) and two separate hosts, most likely indicating two groups of orgeones. Several fourth-century dedications found in the hieron of Amynos and Asclepius on the west slope of the Acropolis are listed in Körte (1893; 1896). Cf. Jones, Associations (1998) 254–6. 6. Orgeones of the god Hypodektes (Ferguson’s no.3). IG II² 2501 is a late fourth-century lease in which the orgeones of Hypodektes stipulate the terms under which Diopeithes and his descendants can rent the shrine for all time upon annual payment of 50 drachma. One of the terms is that the shrine has to

Franz Steiner Verlag

170

7.

8.

9. 10.

11.

12.

13.

Appendix ΙΙΙ: Attested groups of orgeones in Attica

be open on the 14th of Boedromion, inter alia to receive the Sacred Things (6– 7). Orgeones of Egretes (Ferguson’s no. 2). IG II² 2499 (306/5) records that the orgeones rented out their hieron to a Diognetos, son of Arkesilos, of Melite, for ten years upon annual payment of 200 drachma. The decree was found at the foot of the Hill of the Nymphs in Athens. It also lists a banquet and sacrifice in Boedromion. Ferguson (1944) 80, n.27, suggested that the two triclinia cited as seating capacity for the orgeones of Egretes (29–30) imply a group of twelve to thirty diners. Cf. Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 109–10. Two fragmentary late fourth or early third-century texts on a cult table of orgeones en toi thiasoi (Ferguson’s no. 10), found near the Acharnian Gate and first published and thoroughly discussed by S. Dow and D. H. Gill, ‘The Greek cult table’, AJA 69 (1965) 104, no. 1. Fragmentary honorary decree for a [hestiator] of a koinon of orgeones (Hesp. 10 (1941) 56, no.2 = Agora 16, 130 – ca. 300) (Ferguson’s no. 4). Orgeones of Zeus (Epakrios) (Ferguson’s no. 11). Records of financial transactions of these orgeones were found in Plaka (IG II² 1294 – mid 3rd c.). Zeus Epakrios is also known from the Erchia calendar (SEG 21.541). A group that may be identified as these orgeones sold an eschatia in the great Lycurgan public land sale programme, on which see Lambert, Rationes (1997) F11A, 1–4, with 157–8 and 197; idem, (2000b) 77–8. Perhaps the shrine of Zeus Epakrios on Mt. Hymettos can be identified with the summit sanctuary of M. K. Langdon, A sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos (Hesp. Suppl. 16)(1976). Orgeones of Mother of the Gods (Ferguson’s no. 14). We have a late fourthcentury dedication by (the foreigners) Mika and Manes to Mother (IG II² 4609). After these we find decrees of a body referring to itself as thiasotai (IG II² 1273 (281/0 or 265/4); IG II² 1246 (mid 3rd?); IG II² 1316 (late 3rd)). The first mention of orgeones of Mother is found in a decree dated to ca. 272/1 (IG II² 1316). It seems that Mother was initially worshipped by foreigners who were organised in a thiasos that was later taken over by a group of citizen orgeones: IG II² 1316 is a decree by orgeones but also refers to thiasostai, on which see I. Arnaoutoglou, ‘The date of IG II² 1273’, ZPE 104 (1994) 103–6; Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 192-3; Jones, Associations (1999) 262-6. Later orgeonic decrees include IG II² 1327 (ca. 178/7) and 1328 (183/2). Cf. Vermaseren, Corpus cultus Cybelae (1982) 68–97, on the votives dedicated to Mother in Piraeus. Crown for Asklapon of Maroneia (IG II² 2947 – 3rd/2nd c.) found in the region of the Academy. Ferguson (1944) 162-2, no. 12, suggested the decree probably belonged to the orgeones of Bendis who were located in the city at least ca. 262 (cf. IG II² 1283.9–10). Also the late second, early first-century. lease concerning property owned by the orgeones of Bendis and Deloptes found in the Athenian Agora (Ag. 19, L16). Orgeones of (Heracles) Pankrates. SEG 41.247 is a summary of unpublished inscriptions relating to this cult. SEG 41.84 (early 3rd?) is particularly interesting as it discusses an unpublished list of orgeones, seven from Phlya, two from Probalinthos. Cf. Vikela Weihreliefs Pankrates-Heiligtum (1994), who lists 58

Franz Steiner Verlag

Appendix ΙΙΙ: Attested groups of orgeones in Attica

14. 15.

16.

17.

18.

171

votives, dating from the mid fourth to mid third century, relating to the sanctuary of Pankrates on the banks of the Ilissos river. Trial between 2 groups of orgeones of an unknown goddess (IG II² 1289 – early-mid 3rd) (Ferguson’s no. 6). Cf. J. D. Sosin, ‘Two Attic endowments’, ZPE 138 (2002) 125–8, for a full discussion of this decree. Orgeones of Asclepius (Ferguson’s no. 8). In a third-century catalogue (IG II² 2355 – poss. 3rd c.) we find sixteen orgeones of Asclepius who apparently existed separately from the so-called Asklepiastai and seem to be based around Prospalta. They tended a local shrine. Orgeones of Dionysus (Dionysiastai) (IG II² 1325, 1326, 4948 – 2nd/1st c.) (Ferguson’s no. 15). These seem to be very prosperous Athenians, perhaps deriving from one single family, cf. Mikalson, Hellenistic Athens (1998) 204–6. Orgeones of Aphrodite (AM 66 (1941) 228, no. 4 – 138/7). The only named member is the epimeletes from Herakleia who made a sacrifice on behalf of the Athenian demos as well as on behalf of the group of orgeones. Cf. Ferguson, (1949) 163; Parker, Athenian religion (1996) 347. Orgeones of Syrian, Hagne Aphrodite (IG II² 1337 – 97/6 found at Piraeus) (Ferguson’s no. 16). Although it is clear from IG II² 1337 that the orgeones of Syrian Aphrodite were citizens, the (expert?) priestess Nikasis is a Corinthian. In a second-century decree of orgeones of Aphrodite we further come across a Serapion from Herakleia (MDAI (A) 66 (1941) 228, no.4).

Franz Steiner Verlag

ABBREVIATIONS AAA AC AD AE AHB AJA AJP ANRW ASAtene AntK Arch.Eph BCH (A)BSA C(l)A(nt) CJ C&M CP(h) CQ CR CVA FGrH FRA

GRBS Hesp. Hesp. Suppl. HSCP HThR ICS IG JCS JdAI JHS JÖAI LGPN LIMC LSGS LSJ

Ἀρχαιολογικὰ ἀνάλεκτα ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν L’Antiquité Classique Archaiologikon Deltion L’Année Epigraphique Ancient History Bulletin American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Philology Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene a delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente Antike Kunst Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Annual of the British School at Athens Classical Antiquity Classical Journal Classica et Mediaevalia Classical Philology Classical Quarterly Classical Review Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum (online) Jacoby, F., Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin 1923–1958) Osborne, M.J and S. G. Byrne, The foreign residents of Athens: an annex to the “Lexicon of Greek personal names: Attica” (Leuven 1996). Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies Hesperia: Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens Hesperia: Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Supplement Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Harvard Theological Review Illinois Classical Studies Inscriptiones graecae Journal of Classical Studies Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Journal of Hellenic Studies Jahrhefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts Osborne, M. J and S. G. Byrne, A lexicon of Greek personal names. vol 2: Attica (Oxford 1994) Lexicon I conographicum Mythologiae Classicae (Zürich etc, 1981–2009). F. Sokolowski (ed.), Lois Sacrées des Cités Grecques (Paris 1969). Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed.) (Oxford 1940)

Franz Steiner Verlag

Abbreviations MDAI (A) MEFRA MHR M&L OJA PA PCPhS PCPhS Suppl. PP RA RBPhH RE

REA REG RHR RO SEG SO TAPA Thorikos

TvG YCS ZPE

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Athen.Abt.) Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’École Française de Rome Mediterranean Historical Review Meiggs, R. and D. M. Lewis, A selection of Greek historical inscriptions to the end of the fifth century B.C. (Oxford 1969) Oxford Journal of Archaeology Kirchner, J., Prosopographia Attica (2 vols.) (Berlin 1901–1903) Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. Supplement La Parola del Passato: rivista di studi antichi Revue Archéologique Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire Pauly, A., G. Wissowa and W.Kroll (eds.), Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumwissenschaft (Stuttgart and Munich1893–1980) Revue des études anciennes Revue des études grecques Revue d’histoire des religions Rhodes, P. J. and R. Osborne, Greek historical inscriptions, 404–323 BC (Oxford 2004) Supplementum epigraphicum graecum Symbolae Osloenses Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association Thorikos: rapport préliminaire sur la campagne de fouilles/ Comité des Fouilles Belges en Grèce = Thorikos: voorlopig verslag over de opgravingscampagne vol. 9 (Brussels 1977–1982) Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis Yale Classical Studies Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Franz Steiner Verlag

173

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adak, M., Metöken als Wohltäter Athens; Untersuchungen zum sozialen Austausch zwischen ortsansässigen Fremden und der Bürgergemeinde in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit (ca. 500–150 v. Chr.) (Munich 2003). Alcock, S. E., Graecia Capta; the landscape of Roman Greece (Cambridge 1993). Aleshire, S. B., The Athenian Asklepieion; the people, their dedications, and the inventories (Amsterdam 1989). Aleshire, S. B., Asklepios at Athens; epigraphic and prosopographic essays on the Athenian healing cults (Amsterdam 1991). Aleshire, S. B., ‘The demos and the priests; the selection of sacred officials at Athens from Cleisthenes to Augustus’ in: R. Osborne and S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, finance, politics; Athenian democratic accounts presented to David Lewis (Oxford 1994) 325–37. Aleshire, S. B., ‘Towards a definition of “state cult” for ancient Athens’ in: R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek cult practice from the epigraphical evidence (Stockholm 1994) 9–16. Aleshire, S. B. and S. D. Lambert, ‘Making the peplos for Athena; a new edition of IG II² 1060+1036’, ZPE 142 (2003) 65–86. Amandry, P., ‘Trépièds d’Athènes’, BCH 101 (1977) 163–202. Anderson, G., The Athenian experiment; building an imagined political community in ancient Attica 508–490 BC (Ann Arbor 2003). Andrewes, A., ‘Philochoros on phratries’, JHS 81 (1961) 1–15. Archibald, Z. H., ‘Thracian cult; from practice to belief’ in: G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient Greeks west and east (Leiden 1999) 456–61. Arnaoutoglou, I. N., ‘The date of IG II² 1273’, ZPE 104 (1994) 103–6. Arnaoutoglou, I. N., Thusias eneka kai sunousias; private religious associations in Hellenistic Athens (Athens 2003). Baba, K., ‘On Kerameikos inv. I 388 (SEG xxii, 79); a note on the formation of the Athenian metic-status’, BSA 79 (1984) 1–5. Bäbler, B., Fleissige Thrakerinnen und wehrhafte Skythen; Nichtgriechen im klassischen Athen und ihre archäologische Hinterlassenschaft (Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998). Bacon, H. H., ‘The Furies’ homecoming’, CP 96 (2001) 48–59. Bakewell, G., ‘Μετοικία in the Supplices of Aeschylus’, CA 16 (1997) 209–28. Bakewell, G., ‘Lysias 12 and Lysias 31; metics and Athenian citizenship in the aftermath of the Thirty’, GRBS 40 (1999) 5–22. Barber, E. J. W., ‘The peplos of Athena’ in: J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and polis; the Panathenaic festival in ancient Athens (Princeton 1992) 103–17. Baslez, M.-F., L’étranger dans la Grèce antique (Paris 1984). Batino, S., ‘Il Leokorion; appunti per la storia di un angolo dell Agora’, ASAtene 79 (2001) 55–82. Bearzot, C., ‘Né cittadini, né stranieri; apeleutheroi e nothoi in Atene serta antiqua et mediaevalia’ in: G. Angeli Bertinelli and A. Donati (eds.), Il cittadino, lo straniero, il barbaro, fra integrazione ed emarginazione nell’antichità (Rome 2005) 77–92. Beazley, J. D., ‘The master of the Boston Pan-Krater’, JHS 32 (1912) 354–69. Bérard, B. et al. (eds.), A city of images; iconography and society in ancient Greece (transl. D. Lyons) (Princeton 1989). Beschi, L., ‘Il monumento di Telemachos fondatore dell’ Asklepieion Ateniese’, ASAtene 29/30 (1967–1968) 381–436. Beschi, L., ‘Il rilievo di Telemachos ricompletato’, AAA 15 (1982) 31–43. Beschi, L., ‘La prospettiva mitica della musica Greca’, MEFRA 103 (1991) 35–50.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Bibliography

175

Best, J. G., ‘Bendis’, Hermeneus 35 (1963/4) 122-8. Best, J. G., Thracian peltasts and their influence on Greek warfare (Groningen 1969). Biers, W. R., and T. D. Boyd, ‘Ikarion in Attica: 1888–1981’, Hesp. 51 (1982) 1–18. Bingen, J., ‘Le décret SEG X 64 (La Pirée 413/2?)’, RBPhH 37 (1959) 31–44. Blok, J. H., ‘Phye’s procession; culture, politics and Peisistratid rule’ in: H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), Peisistratos and the tyranny; a reappraisal of the evidence (Amsterdam 2000) 17–48. Blok, J. H., ‘Virtual voices; toward a choreography of women’s speech in classical Athens’ in: A. Lardinois and L. McClure (eds.), Making silence speak; women’s voices in Greek literature and society (Princeton and Oxford 2001) 95–116. Blok, J. H., ‘Oude en nieuwe burgers’, Lampas 36 (2003) 5–26. Blok, J. H., ‘Recht und Ritus der Polis; zu Bürgerstatus und Geschlechterverhältnissen im klassischen Athen’, Historische Zeitschrift 278 (2004) 1–24. Blok, J. H., ‘Becoming citizens; some notes on the semantics of “citizen” in archaic and classical Athens’, Klio 87 (2005) 7–40. Blok, J. H., ‘Fremde, Bürger und Baupolitik im klassischen Athen’, Historische Anthropologie 15 (2007) 309–26. Blok, J. H., ‘Perikles’ citizenship law; a new perspective’, Historia 58 (2009) 141–70. Blok, J. H., and S. D. Lambert, ‘The appointment of priests in Attic gene’, ZPE 169 (2009) 95–121. Blok, J. H., ‘Deme accounts and the meaning of hosios money in fifth-century Athens’, Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 61–93. Blok, J. H., Citizenship, cult and community in classical Athens (Cambridge) forthc. Boardman, J., Athenian red figure vases; the archaic period (London 1975). Böckh, A., Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener I (3rd ed.) (Berlin 1886). Boegehold, A., ‘Perikles’ citizenship law of 451/0’ in: A. L. Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro (eds.), Athenian identity and civic ideology (Baltimore and London 1994) 57–66. Bourriot, F., Recherches sur la nature du genos; étude d’histoire sociale athénienne – périodes archaique et classique (Lille 1976). Bowden, H. Classical Athens and the Delphic oracle; divination and democracy (Cambridge 2005). Bradeen, D. W., ‘Athenian casualty lists’, Hesp. 33 (1964) 6–62. Bradeen, D. W., ‘New fragments of casualty lists’, Hesp. 37 (1968) 237–40. Bradeen, D. W., ‘The Athenian casualty lists’, CQ n.s. 19 (1969) 149–59. Bremmer, J. N., ‘Scapegoat rituals in ancient Greece’, HSCP 87 (1983) 299–320. Reprinted in R. Buxton (ed.), Oxford readings in Greek religion (Oxford 2000) 271–93. Bremmer, J. N., Greek religion (Oxford 1994). Bruit Zaidman, L., and P. Schmitt Pantel, Religion in the ancient Greek city (transl. P. Cartledge) (Cambridge 1992). Brulé, P., La fille d’Athènes; la religion des filles à Athènes à l’époque classique. Mythes, cultes et société (Paris 1987). Brulé, P., ‘La cité en ses composantes; remarques sur les sacrifices et la procession des Panathénées’, Kernos 9 (1996) 37–63. Brun, P., L’orateur Démade; essai d’histoire et d’historiographie (Bordeaux 2000). Buck, C. D., ‘Discoveries in the Attic deme Ikaria, 1888. VII. Inscriptions from Ikaria. No. 8–17’, AJA 5 (1889) 304–19. Burkert, W., Homo Necans; Interpretationen altgriechischer Opferriten und Mythen (Berlin 1972). Burkert, W., Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche (Stuttgart 1977). Burkert, W., ‘Greek poleis and civic cults; some further thoughts’ in: M. H. Hansen and K. A. Raaflaub (eds.), Studies in the ancient Greek polis (Historia Einzelschriften 95) (Stuttgart 1995) 201–10. Butz, P. A., ‘Prohibitionary inscriptions, Ξένοι, and the influence of the early Greek polis’ in: R. Hägg (ed.), The role of religion in the early Greek polis (Stockholm 1996) 75–95. Byrne, S. G., ‘Some people in third-century Athenian decrees’ in: R. Catling et al. (eds.) Onamatologos; studies in Greek personal names presented to Elaine Matthews (Oxford 2010) 122–31. Cadoux, T. J., ‘The Athenian archons from Kreon to Hypsichides’, JHS 68 (1948) 70–123.

Franz Steiner Verlag

176

Bibliography

Camp, J. M., ‘Notes on two towers and borders of classical Boiotia’, AJA 95 (1991) 193–202. Camp, J. M., The Athenian Agora; excavations in the heart of classical Athens (2nd ed.) (London 1992). Camp, J. M., The archaeology of Athens (New Haven and London 2001). Canevaro, M., ‘The decree awarding citizenship to the Plataeans ([Dem.] 59.104)’, GRBS 50 (2010) 337–69. Carter, D. M., ‘Citizen attribute, negative right; a conceptual difference between ancient and modern ideas of freedom of speech’ in: I. Sluiter and R. Rosen (eds.), Free speech in classical antiquity (Leiden 2004) 197–220. Cartledge, P., The Greeks; a portrait of self and others (Oxford 1993). Christ, M., ‘Liturgy avoidance and antidosis in classical Athens’, TAPA 120 (1990) 147–69. Clark, M., ‘The date of IG II² 1604’, BSA 85 (1990) 47–67. Clerc, M., Les métèques athéniens; étude sur la condition légale, la situation morale et le rôle social et économique des étrangers domiciliés à Athènes (Paris 1893). Clinton, K., ‘The sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis’ in: N. Marinatos and R. Hägg (eds.), Greek sanctuaries; new approaches (London 1993) 110–24. Clinton, K., ‘The Epidauria and the arrival of Asclepius in Athens’ in: R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek cult practice from the epigraphical evidence (Stockholm 1994) 17–34. Cohen, B. (ed.), Not the classical ideal; Athens and the construction of the Other in Greek art (Leiden 2000). Cohen, E. E., The Athenian nation (Princeton 2000). Cole, S. G., ‘The uses of water in Greek sanctuaries’ in: R. Hägg, N. Marinatos and G. C. Nordquist (eds.), Early Greek cult practice (Stockholm 1988) 161–5. Cole, S. G., ‘Procession and celebration at the Dionysia’ in: R. Scodel (ed.), Theater and society in the classical world (Ann Arbor 1993) 25–38. Cole, S. G., ‘Civic cult and civic identity’ in: M. H. Hansen (ed.), Sources for the ancient Greek citystate. Symposium August, 24–27 1994. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre vol. 2 (Copenhagen 1995) 292–325. Cole, S. G., Landscape, gender and ritual space; the ancient Greek experience (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 2004). Connelly, J. B., Portrait of a priestess; women and ritual in ancient Greece (Princeton 2007). Connor, W. R., ‘Tribes, festivals, and processions; civic ceremonial and political manipulation in archaic Greece’, JHS 107 (1987) 40–50. Connor, W. R., ‘Seized by the Nymphs; nympholepsy and symbolic expression in classical Greece’, CA 7 (1988) 166–74. Connor, W. R., ‘“Sacred” and “secular”; ἱερὰ καὶ ὅσια and the classical Athenian concept of the state’, Ancient Society 19 (1988) 161–88. Connor, W. R., ‘City Dionysia and Athenian democracy’ in: W. R. Connor et al. (eds.), Aspects of Athenian democracy (Copenhagen 1990) 7–32. Connor, W. R., ‘The problem of Athenian civic identity’ in: A. L. Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro (eds.), Athenian identity and civic ideology (Baltimore and London 1994) 38–41. Csapo, E., and W. J. Slater, The context of ancient drama (Ann Arbor 1995). Culham, P., ‘Again, what meaning lies in colour!’, ZPE 64 (1986) 235–45. Damsgaard-Madsen, A., ‘Attic funeral inscriptions; their use as historical sources and some preliminary results’ in: E. Christiansen, A. Damsgaard-Madsen and E. Hallager (eds.), Studies in ancient history and numismatics presented to Rudi Thomsen (Aarhus 1988) 55–68. Davies, J. K., ‘Demosthenes on liturgies; a note’, JHS 87 (1967) 33–40. Davies, J. K., Athenian propertied families, 600–300 BC (Oxford 1971). Davies, J. K., ‘Documents and “documents” in fourth century historiography’ in: P. Carlier (ed.), Le IVe Siècle av. J-C; approches historiographiques (Paris 1996) 29–40. Detienne, M., and J.-P. Vernant (eds.), The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks (transl. P. Wissing) (Chicago 1989). Detienne, M., ‘The violence of wellborn ladies; women in the Thesmophoria’ in: M. Detienne and

Franz Steiner Verlag

Bibliography

177

J.-P. Vernant (eds.), The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks (transl. P. Wissing) (Chicago 1989) 129–47. Deubner, L., Attische Feste (2nd ed.) (Berlin 1966). DeVries, K., ‘The diphrophoroi on the Parthenon Frieze’, AJA 98 (1994) 323. Diller, A., Race mixture among the Greeks before Alexander (Urbana 1937). Dillon, M. P. J., Girls and women in classical Greek religion (London 2002). Dimopoulou-Piliouni, A., ‘Apeleutherai; metics or foreigners’, Dike: Rivista di storia del diretto greco ed ellenistico 11 (2008) 27–50. Dow, S., ‘The Egyptian cults in Athens’, HThR 30 (1937) 183–232. Dow, S., ‘The Greater Demarkhia of Erkhia’, BCH 89 (1965) 208–10. Dow, S., ‘Six Athenian sacrificial calendars’, BCH 92 (1968) 170–86. Dow, S. and D. H. Gill, ‘The Greek cult table’, AJA 69 (1965) 103–14. Dunbar, N., Aristophanes, Birds (Oxford 1995). Duncan-Jones, R. P., ‘Metic numbers in Periclean Athens’, Chiron 10 (1980) 101–9. Dunst, G., ‘Die Siegerliste der samische Heraia’, ZPE (1967) 225–39. Edmonds, J. M., The fragments of Attic comedy vol.1 (Leiden 1957). Edmonson, C. N., ‘Onesippos’ Herm’, Hesp. Suppl. 19 (1982) 48–50, 212. Eijnde, F. van den, ‘Salaminian gods in Athens. The creation of a common past’, http://www.archaeologie-online.de/de/bibliothek/tagungsberichte/2007/introducing_new_gods/salaminian_ gods_in_athens (28–10–11). Eijnde, F. van den, ‘Cult and society in early Athens; archaeological and anthropological approaches to state formation and group participation in Attica’, PhD thesis, Utrecht University (2010). Evans, N., ‘Feasts, citizens, and cultic democracy in classical Athens’, Ancient Society 34 (2004) 1–25. Evans, N., Civic rites; democracy and religion in ancient Athens (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 2010). Faraguna, M., Atene nell’ età di Alessandro; problemi politici, economici, finanziari (Rome 1992). Feaver, D. D., ‘Historical developments in the priesthoods of Athens’, YCS 15 (1957) 123–58. Ferguson, W. S., ‘The Salaminioi of Heptaphylai and Sounion’, Hesp. 7 (1938) 1–74. Ferguson, W. S., ‘The Attic orgeones and the cult of heroes’, HThR 37 (1944) 62–140. Ferguson, W. S., ‘Orgeonika’, Hesp. Suppl. 8 (1949) 130–63, 453. Feyel, C., Les artisans dans les sanctuaires grecs aux époques classique et hellénistique à travers la documentation financière en Grèce (Athens 2006). Finley, M. I., Studies in land and credit in ancient Athens, 500–200 BC; the horos inscriptions (New Jersey 1951). Fisher, N. R. E., ‘How to be an alien’, CR n.s. 29 (1979) 266–8. Fisher, N. R. E., Aeschines, Against Timarchos (Oxford 2001). Fisher, N. R. E., ‘The bad boyfriend, the flatterer and the sycophant; related forms of the “Kakos” in democratic Athens’ in: I. Sluiter and R. Rosen (eds.), KAKOS; badness and anti value in classical antiquity (Leiden 2008) 185–231. Fragiadakis, C., Die attischen Sklavennamen von der spätarchaischen Epoche bis in die römische Kaiserzeit; eine historische und soziologische Untersuchung (Mannheim 1986). Fraser, P. M., ‘Citizens, demesmen and metics in Athens and elsewhere’ in: M. H. Hansen (ed.), Sources for the ancient Greek city-state (Copenhagen 1995) 64–90. Fraser, P. M., ‘Ethnics as personal names’ in: S. Hornblower and E. Matthews (eds.), Greek personal names; their value as evidence (Oxford 2000) 149–57. Fröning, H., Dithyrambos und Vasenmalerei in Athen (Würzburg 1971). Funke, F., ‘Fremde und nicht-Bürger in den griechischen Heiligtümern der antiken Mittelmeerwelt; ein historische Einführung’ in: A. Naso (ed.), Stranieri e non cittadini nei santuari Greci (Firenze 2006) 1–12. Furtwängler, A., Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik; künstgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Leipzig and Berlin 1893).

Franz Steiner Verlag

178

Bibliography

Fustel de Coulanges, N. D., La cité antique; étude sur le culte, le droit, les institutions de la Grèce et de Rome (Paris 1864). Gabrielsen, V., ‘The antidosis-procedure in classical Athens’, C&M 38 (1987) 7–38. Gabrielsen, V., Financing the Athenian fleet; public taxation and social relations (Baltimore 1994). Garland, R., ‘Religious authority in archaic and classical Athens’, BSA 79 (1984) 75–123. Garland, R., Introducing new gods; the politics of Athenian religion (London 1992). Garland, R., The Piraeus from the fifth to the first century BC (2nd ed.) (London 2001). Gauthier, Ph., ‘La réunification d’Athènes en 281 et les deux archontes Nicias’, REG 92 (1979) 348–99. Gauthier, Ph., ‘La citoyenneté en Grèce et à Rome; participation et intégration’, Ktema 6 (1981) 167–79. Geertz, C., The interpretation of cultures (New York 1973). Georgoudi, S., ‘Sacrifices dans le monde grec; de la cité aux particuliers. Quelques remarques’, Ktema 23 (1998) 325–34. Goette, H. R., ‘Athena Pallenis und ihre Beziehungen zur Akropolis von Athen’ in: W. Hoepfner (ed.), Kult and Kultbauten auf der Akropolis (Berlin 1997) 116–31. Goette, H. R., Ho axiologos demos Sounion; landeskundliche Studien in Südost Attika (Rahden 2000). Golden, M., ‘Donatus and Athenian phratries’, CQ n.s. 35 (1985) 9–13. Golden, M., Children and childhood (Baltimore 1990). Goldhill, S., ‘The Great Dionysia and civic ideology’, JHS 107 (1987) 58–76. Goldhill, S., ‘Representing democracy; women at the Great Dionysia’ in: R. Osborne and S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, finance, politics; Athenian democratic accounts presented to David Lewis (Oxford 1994) 347–70. Goldhill, S., ‘The audience of Athenian tragedy’ in: P. E. Easterling (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Greek tragedy (Cambridge 1997) 54–68. Goldhill, S., ‘Civic ideology and the problem of difference; the politics of Aeschylean tragedy, once again’, JHS 120 (2000) 34–56. Gould, J., ‘Law, custom and myth; aspects of the social position of women in classical Athens’, JHS 100 (1980) 38–59. Habicht, C., ‘Falsche Urkunden zur Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter der Perserkriege’, Hermes 89 (1961) 1–35. Habicht, C., Athens from Alexander to Anthony (Cambridge [MA] 1997). Hansen, M. H., Three studies in Athenian demography (Copenhagen 1988). Hansen, M. H. (ed.), The return of the polis; the use and meanings of the word polis in archaic and classical sources (Historia Einzelschriften 198) (Stuttgart 2007). Harris, D., The treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion (Oxford 1995). Harrison, J., Themis; a study of the social origins of Greek religion (London 1912). Hartmann, E., and C. Scheffer, ‘Preisrichter oder Publikum? Zur Urteilsfindung in den dramatischen Wettkämpfen des klassischen Athen’, Klio 88 (2006) 96–116. Hartwig, P., Bendis; eine archaeologische Untersuchung (Leipzig and Berlin 1897). Hasenohr, C. and C. Müller (eds.), Les italiens dans le monde grec, IIe siècle av. J.-C.-Ier siècle ap. J.-C.; circulation, activités, intégration. Actes de la table ronde, Ecole normale supérieure, Paris, 14–16 mai 1998 (Lille 1997). Hasenohr, C., ‘Italian associations at Delos; cults, social integration and politics’, in: A. Cazemier en S. Skaltsa (eds.), Associations in context: rethinking associations and religion in the post-classical polis (International symposium, Copenhagen Associations Project, 11th-13th October 2012) forthc. Head, B., Historia Numorum (2nd ed.) (Oxford 1911). Headlam, W., ‘The last scene of the Eumenides’, JHS 26 (1906) 268–77. Henderson, J., ‘Women and the Athenian dramatic festivals’, TAPA 121 (1991) 133–47. Henry, A. S., Honours and privileges in Athenian decrees; the principal formulae of Athenian honorary decrees (Hildesheim et al. 1983).

Franz Steiner Verlag

Bibliography

179

Hintzen-Bohlen, B., Kulturpolitik des Eubolos und des Lykurgs; die Denkmäler und Bauprojecten in Athen zwischen 355 und 322 v. Chr. (Berlin 1997). Hollein, H.-G., Bürgerbild und Bildwelt der attischen Demokratie auf den rotfigurigen Vasen des 6.-4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Franktfurt and New York 1988). Humphreys, S. C., ‘Family tombs and tomb cult in ancient Athens; tradition or traditionalism?’, JHS 100 (1980) 96–126. Humphreys, S. C., The strangeness of gods; historical perspectives on the interpretation of Athenian religion (Oxford 2004). Hurwit, J. W., The Athenian Acropolis; history, mythology and archaeology from the Neolithic era to the present (Cambridge 1999). Isaac, B. H., The Greek settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian conquest (Leiden 1986). Isager, S., and M. H. Hansen, Aspects of Athenian society in the fourth century; a historical introduction to and commentary on paragraphe-speeches and the speech against Dionysodoros in the corpus Demosthenicum (Odense 1975). Jaccottet, A.-F., ‘Le lierre de la liberté’, ZPE 80 (1990) 150–6. Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin 1923–1957). Jacquemin, A., LIMC s.v. Hephaistos. Jameson, M. H., ‘A decree of Themistokles from Troizen’, Hesp. 29 (1960) 198–223. Jameson, M. H.,‘A revised text of the decree of Themistokles from Troizen’, Hesp. 31 (1962) 310– 15. Jameson, M. H., ‘Agriculture and slavery in classical Athens’, CJ (1977–78) 134–6 Jameson, M. H., ‘Sacrifice and animal husbandry in classical Greece’ in: C. R. Witthaker (ed.), Pastoral economies in classical antiquity (PCPhS Suppl. 14) (Cambridge 1988) 87–119. Jameson, M. H., ‘Theoxenia’ in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek cult practice from the epigraphical evidence (Stockholm 1994) 35–57. Jameson, M. H., ‘Religion and Athenian democracy’ in: I. Morris and K. Raaflaub (eds.), Democracy 2500? Questions and challenges (AIA Colloquia and conference papers 2) (1997) 171–95. Jameson, M. H., ‘The spectacular and the obscure in Athenian religion’ in: S. Goldhill and R. Osborne (eds.), Performance culture and Athenian democracy (Cambridge 1999) 321-40. Jenkins, I., The Parthenon Frieze (London 1994). Jeppesen, K., The theory of the alternative Erechtheion; premises, definition, and implications (Aarhus 1987). Jones, N. F. H., Public organization in ancient Greece; a documentary study (Philadelphia 1987). Jones, N. F. H., ‘The Athenian phylai as associations; disposition, function, and purpose’, Hesp. 64 (1995) 503–42. Jones, N. F. H., The associations of classical Athens; the response to democracy (New York and Oxford 1999). Jones, N. F. H., Rural Athens under the democracy (Philadelphia 2004). Jordan, B., ‘Metic trierarchs’, AHB 15 (2001) 131-4. Kallet-Marx, L., ‘The Kallias decree, Thucydides and the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War’, CQ n.s. 39 (1989) 94–113. Kapparis, K., ‘The Athenian decree for the naturalisation of the Plataeans’, GRBS 36 (1995) 359–81. Karageorghis, V., Excavations at Kition vol. 4 (Cyprus 1981). Kardara, C., ‘Glaukopis – Ho archaios Naos kai to Thema tes Zophorou tou Parthenos’, Arch. Eph. (1964) 62–158. Kassel, R., and C. Austin (eds.), Poetae Comici Graeci vol IV (Berlin and New York 1983). Kearns, E., ‘Change and continuity in religious structures after Cleisthenes’ in: P. A. Cartledge and F. D. Harvey (eds.), Crux; essays in Greek history presented to G.E.M. de Ste Croix on his 75th birthday (Exeter 1985) 189–207. Kearns, E., The heroes of Attica (London 1989). Kearns, E., ‘Cakes in Greek sacrifice regulations’ in: R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek cult practice from the epigraphical evidence (Stockholm 1994) 65–70. Keesling, C. M., The votive statues of the Athenian Acropolis (Cambridge 2003).

Franz Steiner Verlag

180

Bibliography

Kendrick-Pritchett, W. K. ‘The Attic stelai. Part I’, Hesp. 22 (1953) 225–99. Kendrick-Pritchett, W. K., ‘The Attic stelai. Part II’, Hesp. 25 (1956) 178–281. Kloppenborg, J. S., ‘Collegia and thiasoi’ in: idem and S. G. Wilson (eds.), Voluntary associations in the Graeco-Roman World (London 1996) 16–30. Knoepfler, D., ‘Adolf Wilhelm et la pentétèris des Amphiaraia d’Oropos’ in: M. Piérart (ed.), Aristote e Athènes (Paris 1993) 279–302. Knoepfler, D., Érétria; fouilles et recherches XI: décrets érétriens de proxénie et de citoyenneté (Lausanne 2001). Kolb, F., Agora und Theater, Volks- und Festversammlung (Berlin 1981). Korres, M., ‘Από τον Σταυρό στην Αγορά’, Horos 10–12 (1992–1998) 83–104. Körte, A., ‘Bezirk eines Heilgottes’, MDAI (A) 18 (1893) 231–56. Körte, A., ‘Das Heiligtum des Amynos’, MDAI (A) 21 (1896) 287–332. Kotsidu, H., Die musischen Agone der Panathenäen in archaischer und klassischer Zeit (Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken Welt 8) (Munich 1991). Krauter, S., Bürgerrecht und Kultteilnahme; politische und kultische Rechte und Pflichten in griechischen Poleis, Rom und antikem Judentum (Berlin and New York 2004). Krentz, P., ‘Foreigners against the Thirty; IG II² 10 again’, Phoenix 34 (1980) 298–306. Krentz, P., The Thirty at Athens (New York and London 1982). Krentz, P., ‘Athens’ allies and the phallophoria’, AHB 7 (1993) 12–6. Kron, U., Die zehn attischen phylenheroen; Geschichte, Mythos, Kult, und Darstellungen (Berlin 1976). Lalonde, G., Horos Dios; an Athenian shrine and cult of Zeus (Leiden 2006). Lalonde, G., ‘IG I³ 1055 B and the boundary of Melite and Kollytos’, Hesp. 75 (2006) 83–119. Lambert, S. D., ‘The Attic genos Salaminioi and the island of Salamis,’ ZPE 119 (1997) 85–106. Lambert, S. D., Rationes Centesimarum; sales of public land in Lykourgan Athens (Amsterdam 1997). Lambert, S. D., The Phratries of Attica (2nd ed.) (Ann Arbor 1998). Lambert, S. D., ‘The Attic genos Bakchiadai and the City Dionysia’, Historia 42 (1998) 394–403. Lambert, S. D., ‘IG II² 2345, thiasoi of Herakles and the Salaminioi again’, ZPE 125 (1999a) 93– 130. Lambert, S. D., ‘The Attic genos’, CQ n.s. 49 (1999b) 487–9. Lambert, S. D., ‘The sacrificial calendar of the Marathonian Tetrapolis’, ZPE 130 (2000a) 43–70. Lambert, S. D., ‘Two notes on Attic leges sacrae’, ZPE 130 (2000b) 71–80. Lambert, S. D., ‘The Erechtheum workers of IG II²1654’, ZPE 132 (2000c) 157–60. Lambert, S. D., ‘Two documents of Attic gene’, Horos 14–16 (2000–2003) 77–82. Lambert, S. D., ‘Parerga III; the Genesia, Basile and Epops again’, ZPE 139 (2002a) 75–82. Lambert, S. D., ‘The sacrificial calendar of Athens’, BSA 97 (2002b) 353–99. Lambert, S. D.,‘A house of the Piraeans?’, ZPE 146 (2004a) 91–2. Lambert, S. D., ‘Athenian state laws and decrees, 352/1–322/1; I Decrees honouring Athenians’, ZPE 150 (2004b) 85–120. Lambert, S. D., ‘Athenian state laws and decrees 352/1–322/1; II. Religious regulations’, ZPE 154 (2005) 125–59. Lambert, S. D., ‘Athenian state laws and decrees, 352/1–322/1; III Decrees honouring foreigners A. Citizenship, proxeny and euergesy’, ZPE 158 (2006) 115–58. Lambert, S. D., ‘Athenian state laws and decrees, 352/1–322/1; III Decrees honouring foreigners B. Other awards’, ZPE 159 (2007) 101–54. Lambert, S. D., ‘Polis and theatre in Lykourgan Athens; the honorific decrees’ in: A. P. Matthaiou and I. Polinskaya (eds.), Mikros Hieromnemon; meletes eis mnemen Michael H. Jameson (Athens 2008) 52–85. Lambert, S. D., ‘What was the point of inscribed honorific decrees in classical Athens?’ in: idem (ed.), Sociable man; essays on ancient Greek social behaviour in honour of Nick Fisher (Swansea 2011) 193–214. Lambert, S. D., ‘Aristocracy and the Attic gene; a mythological perspective’ in: N. Fisher and H. Van

Franz Steiner Verlag

Bibliography

181

Wees (eds.), Aristocracy, elites and social mobility in ancient societies. Proceedings of the Aristocracy Panel at the Celtic Classics Conference (Cork, July 2008) forthc. Langdon, M. K., A sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos (Hesp. Suppl. 16)(1976). Langdon, M. K., ‘The territorial basis of the Attic demes’, SO 60 (1985) 5–15. Lauffer, S., Die Bergwerksklaven von Laureion (Mainz 1956). Lauter, H., Attische Landgemeinden (Marburg 1993). Levy, Ed., ‘Métèques et droit de résidence’ in: R. Lonis (ed.), L’étranger dans le monde grec (Nancy 1988) 47–52. Lawton, C. L., Attic document reliefs; art and politics in ancient Athens (Oxford 1995). Lewis, D. M., ‘Attic manumissions’, Hesp. 28 (1959a) 208–38. Lewis, D. M., ‘Law on the Lesser Panathenaia’, Hesp. 28 (1959b) 239–47. Lewis, D. M., ‘Dedications of phialai at Athens’, Hesp. 37 (1968) 368–80. Linders, T., The treasurers of the Other Gods in Athens and their functions (Meisenheim 1975). Lissarague, F., The aesthetics of the Greek banquet; images of wine and ritual (transl. A. Szegedy-Maszak) (Princeton 2001). Lloyd-Jones, H., The Eumenides (Oxford 1970). Lohmann, H., Atene; Forschungen zu Siedlungs- und Wirtschaftsstruktur des klassischen Attika, vol. 1 (Cologne 1993). Luppe, W., ‘Ein weiteres Zeugnis für fünf Konkurrenten and den Komödien-Agonen während des Peloponnesischen Krieges’, ZPE 129 (2000) 19–20. Luppe, W., ‘Nochmals zum Einführungstermin der Komödien-Agone an den Lenäen’, ZPE 159 (2007) 25–7. Lupu, E., Greek sacred law; a collection of new documents (Leiden 2005). Maaß, M., Die Prohedrie des Dionysostheaters in Athen (Munich 1972). MacDowell, D. M., Demosthenes against Meidias (Bristol 1990). MacDowell, D. M., Aristophanes and Athens; an introduction to his plays (Oxford 1995). Makres, A. K., ‘The rediscovery of IG I³ 253–4’ in: A. P. Mattaiou (ed.), Attikai epigraphai Praktika symposiou eis mnemen A. Wilhelm (Athens 2004) 123–40. Malkin, I., ‘Networks and the emergence of Greek identity’, MHR 18.2 (2003) 56–74. Malkin, I., A small Greek world; networks in the ancient Mediterranean (Oxford 2011). Mansfield, J., ‘The robe of Athena and the Panathenaic peplos’, PhD thesis, University of Berkeley (1985). Manville, P. B., The origins of citizenship in ancient Athens (Princeton 1990). Manville, P. B., ‘Toward a new paradigm of Athenian citizenship’ in: A. L. Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro (eds.), Athenian identity and civic ideology (Baltimore and London 1994) 21–33. Marshal, C. W., and S. van Willigenburg, ‘Judging Athenian dramatic competitions’, JHS 124 (2004) 90–107. Mattingly, H. B., ‘The Athenian coinage decree’, Historia 10 (1961) 148–69. Mattingly, H. B., ‘New light on the Athenian standards decree’, Klio 75 (1993) 98–102. Mattingly, H. B., The Athenian Empire restored; epigraphic and historical studies (Michigan 1996). Maurizio, L., ‘The Panathenaic procession; Athens participatory democracy on display?’ in: D. Boedeker and K. Raaflaub (eds.), Democracy, empire and the arts in fifth-century Athens (Cambridge [MA] and London 1998) 297–317. Maxwell-Stuart, P. G., ‘Remarks on the black cloaks of the ephebes’, PCPS 16 (1970) 113–6. McCulloch, H. Y., and H. D. Cameron, ‘Septem 12–13 and the Athenian ephebia’, ICS 5 (1980) 1–14. Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972). Meritt, B., Athenian financial documents of the fifth century (Ann Arbor 1932). Meyer, E. A., Metics and the Athenian phialai-inscriptions; a study in Athenian epigraphy and law (Historia Einzelschriften 208) (Wiesbaden 2009). Meyer, M., Die griechischen Urkundenreliefs (Berlin 1989). Middleton, D. F., ‘Thrasyboulos’ Thracian support’, CQ n.s. 32 (1982) 298–303. Mikalson, J. D., The sacred and civil calendar of the Athenian year (Princeton 1975).

Franz Steiner Verlag

182

Bibliography

Mikalson, J. D., ‘Religion in the Attic demes’, AJP 98 (1977) 424–35. Mikalson, J. D., Religion in Hellenistic Athens (Berkeley, Los Angeles 1998). Mikalson, J. D., ‘The Heracleotai of Athens’ in: G. Schmeling and J. D. Mikalson (eds.), Qui miscuit utile dulci. Festschrift essays for Paul Lachlan MacKendrick (Wauconda 1998) 253–63. Miller, M. C., ‘The parasol; an oriental status-symbol in late archaic and classical Athens’, JHS 112 (1992) 91–105. Miller, M. C., Athens and Persia in the fifth century BC; a study in cultural receptivity (Cambridge 1997). Miller, S. G., The Prytaneion; its function and architectural form (Berkeley, Los Angeles 1978). Millet, P., ‘The rhetoric of reciprocity in classical Athens’ in: C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite and R. Seaford (eds.), Reciprocity in ancient Greece (Oxford 1998) 227–53. Mills, H., ‘Greek clothing regulations; sacred and profane’, ZPE 55 (1984) 255–65. Mitchel, F. W., ‘Derkylos of Hagnous and the date of IG II² 1187’, Hesp. 33 (1964) 337–51. Molteson, M., Catalogue Greece in the classical period; Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek (Copenhagen 1995). Mommsen, A., Heortologie; antiquarische Untersuchungen über die städtischen Feste der Athener (Leipzig 1864). Moors, K., ‘The argument against a dramatic date for Plato’s Republic’, Polis 7 (1987) 6–31. Moretti, J.-C., ‘The theatre of the sanctuary of Dionysus Eleuthereus in late fifth-century Athens’, ICS 24–25 (1999–2000) 377–98. Morgan, C. A., ‘Ritual and society in Early Iron Age Corinthia’ in: R. Hägg (ed.) Ancient Greek cult practice from the epigraphical (Stockholm 1994) 73–90. Morgan, C. A., ‘The evolution of a sacral “landscape”; Isthmia, Perachora and the early Corinthian state’ in: S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne (eds.), Placing the gods, sanctuaries and sacred space in ancient Greece (Oxford 1996) 105–42. Morrow, K. D., Greek footwear and the dating of sculpture (Madison 1985). Nagy, B., ‘Athenian officials on the Parthenon Frieze’, AJA 96 (1992) 55–69. Nails, D., ‘The dramatic date of Plato’s Republic’, CJ 93 (1998) 383–96. Neils, J., ‘Pride, pomp, and circumstance; the iconography of procession’ in: idem (ed.), Goddess and polis; the Panathenaic festival in ancient Athens (Princeton 1992) 177–97. Neils, J., (ed.), Worshipping Athena; Panathenaia and Parthenon (Wisconsin 1996). Neils, J., The Parthenon Frieze (Cambridge 2001). Neils, J., ‘Children and Greek religion’ in: J. Neils and J. H. Oakley (eds.), Coming of age in ancient Greece; images of childhood from the classical past (New Haven 2004) 139–62. Nilsson, M. P., ‘Bendis in Athen’, From the collections of Ny Carlsberg Glypothek 3 (1942) 169–88 = Opuscula Selecta vol. 3 (Lund 1960) 55–80. Nordquist, G. C., ‘Some notes on musicians in Greek cult’ in: R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek cult practice form the epigraphical evidence (Stockholm 1994) 81–93. Oakley, J. H., The Phiale Painter (Mainz am Rhein 1990). Ober, J., Mass and elite in democratic Athens; rhetoric, ideology, and the power of the people (Princeton 1989). Ober, J., ‘The polis as a society; Aristotle, John Rawls, and the Athenian social contract’ in: idem (ed.), The Athenian revolution; essays on ancient Greek democracy and political theory (Princeton 1996) 107–22. Osborne, M. J., ‘Entertainment in the prytaneion at Athens’, ZPE 41 (1981) 153–70. Osborne, M. J., Naturalization in Athens 4 vols. (Brussels 1981–1983). Osborne, M. J and S. G. Byrne, A lexicon of Greek personal names; vol. 2: Attica (Oxford 1994). Osborne, M. J and S. G. Byrne, The foreign residents of Athens; an annex to the “Lexicon of Greek personal names: Attica” (Leuven 1996). Osborne, R., Demos; the discovery of classical Attika (Cambridge 1985). Osborne, R., ‘The demos and its subdivisions in classical Athens’ in: O. Murray and S. Price (eds.), The Greek city form Homer to Alexander (Oxford 1990) 265–93. Reprinted in Osborne, R., Athens and Athenian democracy (Cambridge 2010) 39–63.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Bibliography

183

Osborne, R., ‘The potential mobility of human populations’, OJA 10 (1991a) 231–52. Reprinted in Osborne, R., Athens and Athenian democracy (Cambridge 2010) 139–67. Osborne, R., ‘Whose images and superscription is this?’, Arion 1.2 (1991b) 255–75. Osborne, R., ‘Women and sacrifice in classical Greece’, CQ n.s. 43 (1993) 392–405. Reprinted in R. Buxton (ed.), Oxford readings in Greek religion (Oxford 2000) 270–94. Osborne, R., ‘Archaeology, the Salaminioi, and the politics of sacred space in archaic Attica’ in: S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne (eds.), Placing the gods; sanctuaries and sacred space in ancient Greece (Oxford 1994) 143–60. Osborne, R., The history written on the classical Greek body (Cambridge 2011). Ostwald, M., Nomos and the beginnings of the Athenian democracy (Oxford 1969). Ostwald, M., ‘Shares and rights; “citizenship” Greek style and American style’ in: J. Ober and C. Hedrick (eds.), Dēmokratia; a conversation on democracies ancient and modern (Princeton 1996) 49–61. Pache, C. O., ‘Barbarian bond; Thracian Bendis among the Athenians’ in: S. R. Asirvatham, C. O. Pache and J. Watrous (eds.), Between magic and religion; interdisciplinary studies in ancient Mediterranean religion and society (Lantham 2001) 3–11. Palagia, O., ‘The ephebes of Erechtheis 333/2 BC (with David Lewis)’, BSA 84 (1989) 333–44. Palagia, O., ‘Akropolis Museum 581; a family at the Apatouria?’, Hesp. 64 (1995) 493–505. Pappadakis, N. G., ‘Ἱερός νόμος Βενδιδείων’, Arch. Eph. (1939) 808–23. Parker, R., ‘Greek religion’ in: J. Boardman, J. Griffin and O. Murray (eds.), The Oxford history of the classical world (Oxford and New York 1986) 254–75. Parker, R., Athenian religion; a history (Oxford 1996). Parker, R., ‘What are sacred laws?’ in: E. M. Harris and L. Rubinstein (eds.), The law and the courts in ancient Athens (London 2004) 57–70. Parker, R., Polytheism and society at Athens (Oxford 2005). Parker, R., On Greek religion (Ithaca (NY) 2011). Patterson, C., Pericles’ citizenship law of 451/0 BC (Ann Arbor 1976). Patterson, C., ‘Hai Attikai; the other Athenians’ in: M. Skinner (ed.), Rescuing Creusa; new methodological approaches to women in antiquity (Helios 13/2)(Austin 1986) 49–68. Peçirka, J., The formula of the grant of enktesis in Attic inscriptions (Prague 1966). Peek, W., Attische Grabschriften (Berlin 1954–1957). Pelekidis, C., Histoire de l’éphébie attique des origines à 31 avant Jésus-Christ (Paris 1962). Petrakos, B. C., Ὁ Δῆμος του´ Ραμνοῦντος ΙΙ. Οἱ ἐπιγραφές (BAAH 181/182)(Athens 1999) Pickard-Cambridge, A., The dramatic festivals of Athens (2nd ed., revised by J. P. A. Gould and D. M. Lewis)(Oxford 1991). Pipili, M., ‘Wearing another hat; workmen in town and country’ in: B. Cohen (ed.), Not the classical ideal; Athens and the construction of the other in Greek art (Leiden 2000) 154–79. Planeaux, C., ‘The date of Bendis’ entry into Attica’, CJ 96 (2000/1) 165–92. Polignac, F. de, Cults, territory and the origin of the Greek city-state (transl. J. Lloyd) (Chicago 1995). Polignac, F. de, ‘Repenser la “cité”? Rituels et société en Grèce archaïque’ in: M. H. Hansen and K. A. Raaflaub (eds.), Studies in the ancient Greek polis (Historia Einzelschriften 95) (Stuttgart 1995) 7–19. Potts, S., ‘The Athenian navy; an investigation into the operations, politics and ideology of the Athenian fleet between 480 and 322 BC’, PhD thesis, Cardiff University (2008). Price, S., Rituals and power; the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984). Price, S., Religions of the ancient Greeks (Cambridge 1999). Pritchard, D., ‘Kleisthenes, participation, and the dithyrambic contests of late archaic and classical Athens’, Phoenix 58 (2004) 208–28. Pritchett, W. K., ‘The Παννυχίς of the Panathenaia’, in: ΦΙΛΙΑ ΕΠΗ ΕΙΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΝ Ε. ΜΥΛΩΝΑΝ Bd. 2 (1987) 179–88. Raeck, W., Zum Barbarenbild in der Kunst Athens im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Bonn 1981). Randall, R. H. Jr., ‘The Erechtheum workmen’, AJA 57 (1953) 199–210.

Franz Steiner Verlag

184

Bibliography

Raubitschek, A. E., Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis; a catalogue of the inscriptions of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. (Cambridge (MA) 1949). Reden, S. von, ‘The Piraeus; a world apart’, Greece & Rome 42 (1995) 24–37. Reinhold, M., History of purple as a status symbol in antiquity (Collection Latomus 16) (Brussels 1970). Reinmuth, O. W., The ephebic inscriptions of the fourth century BC (Leiden 1971). Rhodes, P. J., A commentary on the Aristotelian ‘Athenaion Politeia’ (2nd ed.) (Oxford 1993). Rhodes, P. J., ‘Nothing to do with democracy; Athenian drama and the polis’, JHS 123 (2003) 104– 19. Richter, G. M. A., ‘Red-figured Athenian vases recently acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art’, AJA 27 (1923) 265–85. Robertson, M., ‘The South Metopes; Theseus and Daidalos’ in: E. Berger (ed.), Der Parthenon-Kongreß Basel (Mainz 1984) 206–9. Robertson, M., and A. Frantz, The Parthenon Frieze (London 1975) Robertson, N., Festivals and legends; the formation of Greek cities in the light of public ritual (Toronto 1992). Robinson, D. M., ‘Three new inscriptions from the deme Ikaria’, Hesp. 17 (1948) 141–3. Roccos, L. J., ‘The kanephoros and her festival mantle in Greek art’, AJA 99 (1995) 641–66. Romano, I. B., ‘The archaic statue of Dionysos from Ikarion’, Hesp. 51 (1982) 389–409. Roselli, D. K., Theater of the people; spectators and society in ancient Athens (Austin 2011). Rosen, R. M., ‘Trouble in the early career of Plato Comicus; another look at P.Oxy. 2737.44–51’, ZPE 76 (1989) 223–8. Rosivach, V. J., ‘IG II² 334 and the Panathenaic hekatomb’, PP 46 (1991) 430–42. Rosivach, V. J., The system of public sacrifice in fourth-century Athens (Atlanta 1994). Rosivach, V. J., ‘The Thracians of IG II² 1956’, Klio 82 (2000) 379–81. Rotroff, S. I., ‘The Parthenon frieze and the sacrifice to Athena’, AJA 81 (1977) 379–82. Rotroff, S. I., ‘An anonymous hero in the Athenian agora’, Hesp. 47 (1978) 196–209. Rotroff, S. I., and J. H. Oakley, Debris from a public dining place in the Athenian Agora (Hesp. Suppl. 25) (1992). Roussel, P., ‘A propos d’un décret attique (relatif à la déesse Bendis)’, REA 45 (1943) 177–82. Roussel, D., Tribu et cité (Paris 1976). Ruiz-Pérez, A., ‘Un oracle relatif à l’introduction du culte de Cybele à Athenes’, Kernos 7 (1994) 169–77. Rusten, J., ‘The four “new Lenaean victors” of 428–5 B.C. (and the date of the first Lenaean comedy reconsidered)’, ZPE 157 (2006) 22–6. Samons II, L. J., Empire of the owl; Athenian imperial finances (Stuttgart 2000). Scafuro, A. C., ‘Witnessing and false witnessing; proving citizenship and kin identity in fourth-century Athens’ in: A. L. Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro (eds.), Athenian identity and civic ideology (Baltimore and London 1994) 156–98. Schlaifer, R., ‘Notes on Athenian public cults’, HSCP 51 (1940) 233–60. Schlaifer, R., ‘The cult of Athena Pallenis (Athenaeus VI 234–235)’, HSCP 54 (1943) 35–67. Schmitt-Pantel, P., ‘Athéna Apatouria et la ceinture; les aspects féminins de Apatouries à Athènes’, Annales (ESC) 32 (1977 nov/dec) 1059–73. Schmitt-Pantel, P., La cité au banquet; histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques (Rome 1992). Schnurr, Ch., ‘Zur Topographie der Theaterstätten und der Tripodenstrasse in Athen’, ZPE 105 (1995) 139–53. Schwenk, C. J., Athens in the age of Alexander; the dated laws and decrees of the ‘Lykourgan era’, 338–322 B.C. (Chicago 1985). Scullion, S., ‘Tragic dates’, CQ n.s. 52 (2002) 81–101. Sekunda, N. V., ‘IG II² 1250; a decree concerning the lampadephoroi of the tribe Aiantis’, ZPE 83 (1990) 149–82.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Bibliography

185

Shapiro, H. A., ‘Mousikoi agones; music and poetry at the Panathenaia’ in: J. Neils (ed.), Goddess and polis; the Panathenaic festival in ancient Athens (Princeton 1992) 53–76. Shear, J., ‘Polis and Panathenaia; the history and development of Athena’s festival’, PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania (2001). Shear, J., ‘Prizes from Athens; the list of Panathenaic prizes and the sacred oil’, ZPE 142 (2003) 87–108. Shear, T. L. Jr., ‘The Athenian Agora; excavations of 1970’, Hesp. 40 (1971) 241–79. Shear, T. L. Jr., ‘The Athenian Agora; excavations of 1972’, Hesp. 42 (1973) 359–407. Siewert, P., ‘The ephebic oath in fifth-century Athens’, JHS 97 (1977) 102–11. Simms, R. R., ‘The cult of the Thracian goddess Bendis in Athens and Attica’, Ancient World 18 (1988) 59–76. Simms, R. R., ‘Isis in classical Athens’, CJ 84 (1988/9) 216–21. Simon, E., Festivals of Attica; an archaeological commentary (Wisconsin 1983). Slater, N. W., ‘The Lenaean theatre’, ZPE 66 (1986) 255–64. Sommerstein, A. H., Acharnians (Warminster 1980). Sommerstein, A. H., ‘The theatre audience, the demos, and the Suppliants of Aeschylus’ in: C. Pelling (ed.), Greek tragedy and the historian (Oxford 1997) 63–79. Sommerstein, A. H., Ecclesiazusae (Warminster 1998). Sosin, J. D., ‘Two Attic endowments’, ZPE 138 (2002) 123–8. Sourvinou-Inwood, C., Studies in girls’ transitions; aspects of the arkteia and age representation in Attic iconography (Athens 1988). Sourvinou-Inwood, C.,‘What is polis religion?’ in: O. Murray and S. Price (eds.), The Greek city from Homer to Alexander (Oxford 1990) 295–322. Reprinted in R. Buxton (ed.), Oxford readings in Greek religion (Oxford 2000) 13–37. Sourvinou-Inwood, C., ‘Something to do with Athens; tragedy and ritual’ in: R. Osborne and S. Goldhill (eds.), Ritual, finance, politics; Athenian democratic accounts presented to David Lewis (Oxford 1994) 269–90. Spahn, P., ‘Fremde und Metöken in der athenischen Demokratie’ in: Demandt, A. (ed.), Mit Fremde leben; ein Kulturgeschichte von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (1995) 37–56. Stanton, G. R, ‘Some Attic inscriptions’, BSA 79 (1984) 292–8. Stavrianopoulou, E., ‘Gemeinsam feiern, getrennt verehren; zum Kult der thrakischen Göttin Bendis in Attika’ in: C. Ambos et al. (eds.), Die Welt der Rituale; von der Antike bis heute (Darmstadt 2005) 144–55. Straten, F. van, ‘Assimilatie van vreemde goden; archeologisch bronnenmateriaal’, Lampas 9 (1976) 42–50. Straten, F. van, Hiera kala; images of animal sacrifice in archaic and classical Greece (Leiden 1995). Steinhower, G., ‘Παρατητρήσεις στην οικιστική μορπή των αττικών δήμων’ in: W. D. E. Coulson et al. (eds.), The archaeology of Athens and Attica under the democracy (Oxford 1994) 175–89. Stulz, H., Die Farbe Purpur im frühen Griechentum beobachtet in der Literatur und in der bildenden Kunst (Stuttgart 1990). Summa, D., ‘Una iscrizione coregica di Thorikos?’, ZPE 136 (2001) 71–6. Summa, D., ‘Una dedica coregica inedita’, ZPE 150 (2004) 147–8. Summa, D., ‘Attori e coreghi in Attica; iscrizioni dal teatro di Thorikos’, ZPE 157 (2006) 77–86. Taylor, C., ‘A new political world’ in: R. Osborne (ed.), Debating the Athenian cultural revolution; art, literature, and politics, 430–380 BC (Cambridge 2007) 72–97. Taylor, M. C., ‘One hundred heroes of Phyle’, Hesp. 71 (2002) 377–97. Themelis, P. G., ‘Βάθρο ἀναθήματος στὴν Βενδίδα’, Horos 7 (1989) 23–9. Theodoridis, C., ‘Ein unbeachtete Buchangabe zum Bruchstück des Philochoros über die attischen Orgeonen’, ZPE 138 (2002) 40–2. Thompson, D. B., ‘The Persian spoils in Athens’ in: S. S. Weinberg (ed.), The Aegean and the Near East; studies presented to Hetty Goldman (New York 1956) 281–91.

Franz Steiner Verlag

186

Bibliography

Thompson, H. A., and R. E. Wycherley, The Agora of Athens; the history, shape, and uses of an ancient city center (The Athenian Agora 14) (Princeton 1972). Thompson, W., ‘The deme in Kleisthenes’ reforms’, SO 46 (1971) 72–9. Thomson, G., The Oresteia of Aeschylus (Cambridge 1938). Todd, S. C., ‘Status and gender in Athenian public records’ in: G. Thür and J. Vélissaropoulos-Karakostas (eds.), Symposium 1995; Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Cologne 1997) 113–24. Tracy, S. V., ‘The Panathenaic festival and games; an epigraphic enquiry’, Nikephoros 4 (1991) 133–53. Tracy, S. V., Athens and Macedon; Attic letter-cutters of 300–229 (Berkeley, Los Angeles 2003). Tracy, S. V., and C. Habicht, ‘New and old Panathenaic victor lists’, Hesp. 60 (1991) 187–236. Traill, J. S., The political organization of Attica; a study of the demes, trittyes, and phylai, and their representation in the Athenian council (Hesp. Suppl. 14) (Princeton 1975). Traill, J. S., Demos and trittys; epigraphical and topographical studies in the organization of Attica (Toronto 1986). Traill, J. S., Persons of ancient Athens (Toronto 1994). Travlos, J., Pictorial dictionary of ancient Athens (London 1971). Travlos, J., Bildlexicon zur Topographie des antiken Attika (Tübingen 1988). Tsiafakis, D., ‘The allure and repulsion of Thracians in the art of classical Athens’ in: B. Cohen (ed.), Not the classical ideal; Athens and the construction of the Other in Greek art (Leiden 2000) 364–89. Ustinova, Y., ‘Orgeones in phratries; a mechanism of social integration in Attica’ Kernos 9 (1996) 227–42. Veligianni, C., ‘Belobigung und Bekränzung von Rat und Magistraten in Zusammenhang mit der Rechenschaftsablegung’, Hellenika 40 (1989) 239–56. Vermaseren, M. J., Corpus cultus Cybelae Attidisque (Leiden 1982). Versnel, H. S., ‘Religion and democracy’ in: W. Eder (ed.), Die athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.; Vollendung oder Verfall einer Verfassungsform? (Stuttgart 1995) 367–87. Vidal-Naquet, P., The Black Hunter; forms of thought and forms of society in the Greek world (transl. A. Szegedy-Maszak) (Baltimore 1986). Vikela, E., Die Weihreliefs aus dem Pankrates-Heiligtum am Ilissos; religion-geschichtliche Bedeutung und Typologie (Berlin 1994). Vlassopoulos, K., ‘Free spaces; identity, experience and democracy in classical Athens’, CQ n.s. 57 (2007) 33–52. Vos, M. F., Scythian archers in archaic Attic vase-painting (Groningen 1963). Waldstein, C., ‘Τραπεζώ and Κοσμώ in the Frieze of the Parthenon’, JHS 11 (1890) 143–5. Wallace, R. W., ‘Integrating Athens, 463–431 BC’ in: G. Herman (ed.), Stability and crisis in the Athenian democracy (Historia Einzelschriften 220) (Stuttgart 2011) 31–44. Watson, J., ‘The origin of metic status at Athens’, CCJ 56 (2010) 259–78. Weaver, B. H., ‘A further allusion in the Eumenides to the Panathenaia’, CQ n.s. 46 (1996) 559–61. Wees, H. van, Greek warfare; myths and realities (London 2004). Wees, H. van, ‘Mass and elite in Solon’s Athens; the property classes revisited’ in: J. H. Blok and A. P. M. H. Lardinois (eds.), Solon of Athens; new historical and philological approaches (Leiden 2006) 351–89. Wesenberg, B., ‘Panathenäische Peplosdedikation und Arrephorie; zur Thematik des Parthenonfriezes’, JdAI 110 (1995) 149–78. West, M. L., ‘The early chronology of Attic tragedy’, CQ n.s. 39 (1989) 251–4. Wijma, S. M., ‘De nieuwe burgers van Athene; de religieuze rol van de demotai in de Atheense polis na 508 v. Chr.’, TvG 126.2 (2013) 170–81. Whitehead, D., The ideology of the Athenian metic (Cambridge 1977). Whitehead, D., ‘Competitive outlay and community profit; philotimia in democratic Athens,’ C&M 34 (1983) 55–74.

Franz Steiner Verlag

Bibliography

187

Whitehead, D., ‘Immigrant communities in the classical polis; some principles for a synoptic treatment’, AC 53 (1984) 47–59. Whitehead, D., The demes of Attica, 508/7 – ca. 250 BC; a political and social study (Princeton 1986). Whitehead, D., ‘The ideology of the Athenian metic; some pendants and a reappraisal’, PCPS 212 (1986) 145–58. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, ‘Demotika der attischen Metoeken’, Hermes 22 (1887) 107–28, 211–59. Wilamowitz-Moelendorff, U. von, Aristoteles und Athen vol. 2 (Berlin, 1893). Wilhelm, A., ‘Inschrift aus dem Peiraieus’, JOAI 5 (1902) 132–4. Wilson, P., The Athenian institution of the khoregia: the chorus, the city and the stage (Cambridge 2000). Wilson, P., ‘Tragic honours and democracy; neglected evidence for the politics of the Athenian Dionysia’, CQ n.s. 59 (2009) 8–29. Winkler, J. J., ‘The ephebes’ song; tragôidia and polis’, Representations 11 (1985) 26–62. Wout, P. E. van ’t, ‘Harbouring discontent; the pragmatics of atimia discourse in the legal sphere of classical Athens’, PhD thesis, Utrecht University (2013) Wycherley, R. E., The literary and epigraphical testimonia (Athenian Agora 3) (Princeton 1973). Zanden, J. L. van, and M. Prak, ‘Toward an economic interpretation of citizenship; the Dutch republic between medieval communes and modern nation-states’, European Review of Economic History 10 (2006) 111–45. Zelnick-Abramovitz, R., Not wholly free; the concept of manumission and the status of manumitted slaves in the ancient Greek world (Leiden 2005). Ziehen, L., ‘Panathenaia’, RE 18 (1949) 457–93. Zimmermann, K., ‘Tätowierte Thrakerinnen auf griechischen Vasenbildern’, JDAI 95 (1980) 163– 96.

Franz Steiner Verlag

INDEX OF SOURCES Literary sources

Aelian – Varia Historia 2.13; 6.1; 12.28 Aeschines – Against Timarchus 43; 49; 160 – On the Embassy 22; 108; 167 – Against Ctesiphon 2; 21; 41–43; 66; 67 (with scholion); 154 Aeschylus – Agamemnon 279–314 – Persians 319 – Seven against Thebes 548; 664–666 – Suppliant women 609 Eumenides 13–14; 833; 916, 1011; 1018; 1028–1035 Alexis – Gynaikokratia 41 Anaxandrides – fr. 42 Andocides – On the Mysteries 33; 71; 132 [Andocides] – Against Alcibiades 20 Antiphon – On the murder of Herodes 62 – On the choreutes 4; 11–13 – fr. 65 Apollodoros – Library 3.14.7 Aristophanes – Acharnians 133–171; 195–202; 238–262; 241; 253–258; 273; 497–508; 643; 1150; 1173; Σ241; Σ243a; Σ504 – Birds 30; 685 793–794; 1345; 1494–1552; Σ 1294; Σ 1508 – Clouds 507–508; 608; Σ 386 – Ecclesiazusae 730–745 – Frogs 479 (with scholion); 680–681; 808; 1087–1098 – Knights 347; Σ 546 – Lysistrata 563–564; 580; 646–647; 1043–1053; 1149; 1188–1194

Peace 13; 244; 276; 297 503; 887–889; 962–967; 1138; Σ874 – Thesmophoriazusae 279; 280; 284 – Wasps 540–545; 828 – Wealth 659–661; 804; Σ 953c+d Aristophanes of Byzantium – fr. 38 Aristotle – Politics 662a; 1253a; 1275a-1278b; 1326b19–22 [Aristotle] – Athenaion Politeia 3.3; 13.5; 15.2; 18.2–4; 21.2–4, 4; 40.2; 42.2; 54.7–8; 56.2–4; 57.1; 58.2–3; 58.3; 60.1 Athenaeus – The deipnosophists 40a-b;111b; 131; 234–235; 272c; 437c-d; 534c; 577b Bekker’s – Anecdota 202, 3; 214, 3; 242, 2; 270, 32; 280, 1; 304, 7; 446, 18 Cratinus – Maids of Delos fr.30 – Thracian women Demosthenes – Third Philippic 3 – On the crown 28; 120; 122; 180; Σ 129 – On the false embassy 234; 287 – Against Leptines 19–21; 29–30 – Against Midias 8; 10; 16–17; 20; 22; 53; 56–60; 74; 171; 174; 193 – Against Androtion 61; 68 – Against Aristocrates 65 – Against Timocrates 201 – Against Aristogiton I 180 – Against Aristogiton II 2 – Against Phormio 36 – For Phormio 5 – Against Nausimachus and Xenopeithes 25 – Against Euboulides 3; 7; 25–26; 46–48; 51; 63 – Against Theocrines 68 – Against Stephanus 85 –

Franz Steiner Verlag

Index of sources [Demosthenes] – Against Macartatus 35; 57–58 – Against Neaera 11; 28; 73–76; 85–86; 104 – Funeral Speech 27–31 Dinarchus – fr.16.3 Diodorus Siculus – Library 11.43.3 Diogenes Laertius – Lives of Eminent Philosophers 6.1 Eupolis – fr. 262 Euripides – Bacchai 208–209; 421–424 – Helena 1560–1564 – Iphigenea in Taurus 947–960 Harpocration – s.v. Ἀγασικλῆς – s.v. ἀρκύρος – s.v. ἀρρηφορεῖν – s.v. γεννῆται – s.v. δημοτεύεσθαι – s.v. Ἐπικράτες – s.v. λαμπάς – s.v. μετοίκιον – s.v. σκαφηφόροι – s.v. σκίρον Hekataeus – FGrH 1 F126 Herodotus – 1.64; 2.64; 4.33; 5.3–8; 5.7, 57, 67, 82; 6.34–37, 39–30, 132–136; 7.137; 8.41, 98,144 Hesiod – Works 504 with scholia Hesychius – s.v. δημοτεύεσθαι – s.v. διφροφόροι – s.v. δίλογχον – s.v. ἐπι Ληναίῳ ἀγῶν – s.v. σκαφηφόροι – s.v. συρβηνεύς – s.v. συστομώτερον σκάφης Homeric Hymns – Hymn to Demeter 114; 151 Homerus – Iliad 13.4; 13.576; 23.808 Hyperides – Defence of Euxenippus 3 Isaeus – On the estate of Menecles 14; 42; 44–45 – On the estate of Pyrrhos 73; 80

189

– On the estate of Ciron 15–16; 18–20 – On the estate of Astyphilus 21; 33 – fr. 2.6 Isocrates – Areopagiticus 53–54 – On the Peace 21; 82 – Trapezitoicus 33–4 Ktesikles – FGrH 245 F1 Lucian – Σ211.14–212.8 Lycurgus – Against Leocrates 5; 21; 77 – Fr. 5.3 Lysias – Funeral oration 50–51; 66 – On the wound by premeditation 3 – Against Eratosthenes 20 – Against Agoratus 80–81 – Before the council: in defence of Mantitheus 14 – For Polystratus 2; 23 – Against Pancleon 2 – Against Epicrates and his fellow envoys 12 – Against Nicomachus 15 – Against Philon 9; 14–16 [Lysias] – Against Andocides 48; 51 Marcellinus – Life of Thucydides 19 Menander – Arbitrators 262–264; 440 – fr. 384 Pausanias – Description of Greece 1.38; 1.2; 7.2 Phanodemos – FGrH 325 F4 – FGrH 325 F111 Philochorus – FGrH 328 F 8 – FGrH328 F35 – FGrH 328 F94 – FGrH 328 F108 Photius – s.v. δίλογχον – s.v. ἴκρια – s.v. κύβηβον – s.v. Λεωκόριον – s.v. Λήναιον – s.v. ὀρχήστρα – s.v. σκάφας – s.v. σκαφηφόρειν

Franz Steiner Verlag

190

Index of sources

– s.v. συρβηνεύς – s.v. συστομώτερον σκάφης – s.v. τά ἐκ τῶν ἁμαζῶν – s.v. ὑδριαφόροι Plato – Gorgias 502b-d – Laws 8.848a; Σ 637b – Σ Parmenides 127a – Republic 327a-331d; 354a; 475d Pliny the Elder – Natural History 9.60–65 Plutarch – Moralia 527D; 632D; 1098B-C – Cimon 4; 8 – Phocion 30.3; 37.1 – Solon 24.4 – Themistocles 1.1; 5.4 – Theseus 13; 24.3–4 [Plutarch] – Vitae X Oratorum 842a; 852B Pollux – Onomasticon 3.5; 3.57; 4.105; 6.75; 7.174 Satyrus – FGrH 3.160 Stephanus of Byzantion – s.v. Ἐχελίδαι – s.v. τὸ τοπικὸν Ἀγνουντόθεν Strabo – Geography 9.1.20 Suda – s.v. Ἀναξανδρίδης

– s.v. ἀσκος ἐν πάχνῃ – s.v. δημοτεύεσθαι – s.v. δημοτευόμενος – s.v. ἐξ ἁμάζης – s.v. Λεωκόριον – s.v. μετοίκιον – s.v. ὀργεῶνες – s.v. Χαλκεῖα – s.v. Χιωνίδης – s.v. Πρατίνας – s.v. συστομώτερον σκάφης – s.v. τά ἐκ τῶν ἁμαζῶν σκὼμματα Theophrastus – Characters 3; 9.5; 27.5 Thucydides – 1.20.2; 1.105.4; 1.118.3; 2.13.6–7; 2.15; 2.29.1; 2.31.2; 2.34; 2.101; 3.16.1; 4.104–105; 4.90.1; 4.94.1; 4.129.2; 5.20; 5.23.4; 6.13.1; 6.56–58; 7.29.4–5; 8.66.3, Xenophon – Anabasis 7.2.31; 7.2.37; 7.4.4 – Cyropaedia 1.2.4 – Hellenica 1.3.18; 2.1.11; 2.3.21; 2.4.20; 2.4.11; 2.4.25 – On the Art of Horsemanship 3.1–2 – Symposium 4.17 – Ways 2.1–3; 4.14; 4.51–52 [Xenophon] – Athenaion Politeia 1.10; 1.12; 2.7; 3.4 Zenobius – Proverbs 5.95

Franz Steiner Verlag

INSCRIPTIONS

IG I³ 6 14 (M&L 40) 34 (M&L 46) 35 (M&L 44) 46 (M&L 49) 52 71 (M&L 69) 79 81 82 130 136 243 244 247 250 253 254 258 342 343 369 375 (M&L 84) 383 421 (M&L 79) 465 472 474–478 639 959 970 1015 1024a+b 1032 1154 1340–1381 1389–1392 1453 (M&L 45) IG II² 10+2401(RO 4) 40 47 141 (RO 21)

204 (RO 58) 220 223 334 (RO 81) 337 (RO 91) 347 349 + Add. p. 659 380 457 551 713 949 1006 1008 1011 1018 1028 1029 1032 1034+1943 1035 1036+1060 1138 1152 1156 1161 1176 1178 1179 1181 1182 1183 1185 1186 1187 1188 1191 1192 1193 1194 1201 1204 1213 1214 1227

Franz Steiner Verlag

1232 1254 1255 1256 1283 1284 1294 1299 1316 1317 1317b 1324 1325 1337 1358 1361 1372 1394 1400 1401 1412 1424a 1467 1469 1491 1492 1496 1553 1554 1557 1558 1559 1567 1569 1572 1575 1576 1609 1623 1631 1654 1672 1673 1942 1956

Inscriptions

192 2311 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2322 2325 2355 2499 2501 2623 2817 2818 2851 2947 2971 3006 3019 3022 3046 3068 3083 3092 3093 3094 3095 3098 3099 3102 3103 3104 3106 3201 3467 4866 4961+60 4969 4976 7863 7882–10530

8896 8897 8913 8927 9233 10208 11688 11689 12808 XII 5.647 XII 7.515 XII 9.192 XII 9.234 SEG 2.9 2.10 13.18 15.112 21.527 (RO 37) 21.541 21.784 22.79 22.117 22.120 22.127 23.78 23.80 25.155 25.177 25.206 26.220 27.12 27.18 31.67 32.239 33.147 35.113 36.981 38.32

Franz Steiner Verlag

38.127 39.148 39.210 41.84 41.115 41.247 42.112 (RO 46) 43.25 44.131 50.168 51.193 Hesp. 5 (1936) 393– 413, no. 10 7 (1938) 3, no. 1 7 (1938) 94–5, no. 15 9 (1940) 59–66, no. 8 16 (1947) 170–2, no. 67 30 (1961) 293–6, no. 1 (LSGS 132) 32 (1963) 41, no. 42 37 (1968) 374– 80, no. 51 40 (1971) 302–07, no. 8 Misc. Agora 17 506, 508 Agora 19 L16.3 Agora 1 1052 AE (1925–26) 168 AD II (1927–8) 39 no.3 AM 67 (1951) 24–9, no. 26 MDAI (A) 66 (1941) 228, no.4 MDAI (A) 67 (1942) 7–8, no.1 Parian Marbles 39; 43; 46 P.Oxy. 2737.44–51 Πραγματεῖα Ἀκαδ. Ἀθηνῶν 13 (1948) no. 2

NEW(ER) EDITIONS/COLLECTIONS Bäbler, B., Fleissige Thrakerinnen und wehrhafte Skythen; Nichtgriechen im klassischen Athen und ihre archäologische Hinterlassenschaft (Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998). Lambert, S. D., ‘The sacrificial calendar of the Marathonian Tetrapolis’, ZPE 130 (2000a) 43–70. Lambert, S. D., ‘The sacrificial calendar of Athens’, BSA 97 (2002b) 353–99. Lambert, S. D., ‘Athenian state laws and decrees, 352/1–322/1: I Decrees honouring Athenians’, ZPE 150 (2004b) 85–120. Lambert, S. D., ‘Athenian state laws and decrees, 352/1–322/1: III Decrees honouring foreigners. A. Citizenship, proxeny and euergesy’, ZPE 158 (2006) 115–58. Lambert, S. D., ‘Athenian state laws and decrees, 352/1–322/1: III Decrees honouring foreigners. B. Other awards’, ZPE 159 (2007) 101–54. Lambert, S. D., ‘Polis and theatre in Lykourgan Athens; the honorific decrees’ in: A. P. Matthaiou and I. Polinskaya (eds.), Mikros Hieromnemon. Meletes eis mnemen Michael H. Jameson (Athens 2008) 53–85. Makres, A. K., ‘The rediscovery of IG I³ 253–4’ in: A. P. Mattaiou (ed.), Attika epigraphai. Praktika symposiou eis mnemen A. Wilhelm (Athens 2004) 123–40. Meiggs, R. and D. M. Lewis, A selection of Greek historical inscriptions to the end of the fifth century B.C. (Oxford 1969). Meyer, E. A., Metics and the Athenian phialai-inscriptions; a study in Athenian epigraphy and law (Historia Einzelschriften 208) (Wiesbaden 2009). Osborne, M. J., Naturalization in Athens 4 vols. (Brussels 1981–1983). Petrakos, B. C., Ὁ Δῆμος του´ Ραμνοῦντος ΙΙ. Οἱ ἐπιγραφές (BAAH 181/182)(Athens 1999). Rhodes, P. J. and R. Osborne, Greek historical inscriptions, 404–323 BC (Oxford 2004). Schwenk, C. J., Athens in the age of Alexander; the dated laws and decrees of the ‘Lykourgan era’, 338–322 B.C. (Chicago 1985).

Franz Steiner Verlag

GENERAL INDEX allies: 43, 44 n.26, 47, 62, 69, 71, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82 n.74, 83, 87 n.95 Aphrodite: 148, 154 n.140, 171 – Ourania: 137, 163 n.13 – Hagne: 146 n.105, 154 n.140, 171 Asclepius: 93 n.121, 143 ns.88-89, 144, 145, 148, 151 n.128, 169, 171 Archon Basileus: 66 n.5, 70, 72, 97 Archon Eponymous: 66 n.5, 76 n.40, 78 n.54, 84, 140 army: 13, 15, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27 n.59, 28, 33, 58–61, 62, 92–3, 100, 107–8, 119, 121, 129 n.16, 138 n.67 arrephoroi: 29 n.64, 50, 55 n.76 Artemis: 120 n.109 – Bendis as Thracian Artemis: 126 n.1, 133–8, 141, 155 – Brauronia: 35 n.88, 135 – Mounychia: 134 n.48, 136, 139 n.72, 143 n.86 – Tauropolos: 136 n.57 astoi: 27 n.56, 33, 45 n.30, 71, 73, 77–80, 82, 125, 158, 161 ateleia: 103, 116, 118, 120–3, 125, 161 Athena: 20, 35 n.88, 46, 48 n.47, 53, 55 n.76, n.78, 63 n.110, 73 n.32, 108, 131, 135, 140 n.74, 166 – Hephaistia: 66, 86, 87, 88, 92 – Nike: 143–4, 145 – Pallenis: 97 – Polias: 40–4, 50, 51, 62, 63, 64, 86, 135, 156, 157 Athenaioi: 41 n.14, 82 atimoi: 18 Bäbler, Balbina: 130 Bakewell, George: 39 banqueting: 19–20, 90, 156, 170 barbarians: 43, 93, 126, 128 n.14, 129 Bendideia: 139–42, 143, 149, 150, 152–3, 155, 169 – hecatomb: 67 n.9 – pannychis: 140, 141, 142 – procession: 139, 140–1, 142 – reception at Prytaneion: 139, 141 – sacrifices: 140, 142, 152–3

– torch-race: 61 n.107, 134 n.47, 141, 142 Bendideion: 136, 141, 143, 149, 152, 153 n.134 benefactors: 74, 78, 116–24, 125, 159 n.6 Blok, Josine: 10, 17–8, 65, 144 Bremmer, Jan: 22 Boreas: 126 Bourdieu, Pierre: 24 Brulé, Pierre: 57 Burkert, Walter: 22 Chalkeia: 87, 92 n.119 charis: 55, 74 children: 13, 15, 58, 93, 158, 162 Citians: 137, 138, 162 citizenship: 9–10, 13–27, 31 n.70, 37, 39 n.6, 59, 65, 72, 73, 74, 80 n.64, 82, 89, 93, 101, 123, 136, 144, 153, 154, 156–7, 158–9 – grants of: 10, 16–7, 101, 123, 124 n.121, 125, 132, 138 choregia: 46 n.36, 66, 68, 69 n.16, 70, 71–5, 76 n.42, 80, 83–5, 87 n.101, 95, 109–11, 112, 114–6, 117, 124, 160, 161, 167–8 City Dionysia: 25, 36, 44 n.26, 47 n.44, 57 n.84, 69, 74, 75–85, 92, 93, 115, 117, 142 n.84, 156, 159, 163 n.13 – assembly: 84 n.84, 80 n.62 – dramatic agones: 74 n.34, 76, 78 – dithyrambic agones: 69 n.16, 76, 78, 80, 83–5 – exclusion xenoi: 70 n.20, 72, 83–5, 156, 159 – foreigners: 69, 71, 74, 80–3, 84 – procession: 66, 70, 77, 78–80, 139 n.70, 159 class: 25, 31, 61, 138 n.67, 154 Cleisthenes: 41, 104 – enfranchised citizens: 101 – reforms: 32, 35, 37, 38 n.3, 88, 96–9, 106, 157 – metoikia: 32, 37, 39 Clerc, Michel: 34, 55 crimson cloaks: 44, 45, 46, 53 ns.70–71, 55, 63, 79 Cohen, Edward: 14 colonists: 44, 62, 77, 78, 129 n.16 concession, participation as: 51, 73, 74, 158 Connor, W.R.: 17, 24

Franz Steiner Verlag

General Index Coulanges, Fustel de: 13 Cybele: 126, 137 n.64 Deloptes: 127 n.4, 145, 149–50, 153 n.134, 170 deme: 28 n.60, 31, 33, 35 n.88, 41 n.14, 43, 69 n.16, 72, 88, 89 n.105, 90, 95–125, 135 n.51, n.54, 147 n.107, 148 n.116, 150 n.125, 155 n.143, 158, 159, 167–8 – boundaries: 98 – constitutional : 98–9, 101 – demarch: 18, 43 n.24, 99 n.16, 100, 104–5, 110, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122 – demesmen: 37, 38, 43, 86, 88, 89, 95–125, 135 n.54, 160, 161 – demotics: 33, 34, 71–3, 93, 97 n.10, 102, 111, 114–5 n.85, 132 n.37, 150, 159, 168 – honouring outsiders: 95, 115 n.85, 116–24, 125 – registers: 18, 31 n.70, 33 n.76, 37, 59, 100, 101, 102–3, 155 n.143, 158, 159 – membership: 32 n.74, 34, 35, 36, 38, 59, 95–125, 160–1, 162 – mobility: 101–2, 111, 114 – proto: 96–8 – taxes: 99 n.16, 102, 103, 116, 118, 120, 121–3, 161 – territorial: 98, 101 Demeter: 25, 95, 116, 120 n.109, 135 Demetrius (of Phaleron): 46, 47 n.43, 48, 52, 78 n.57, 119 democracy: 13, 30, 31, 43 n.23, 56, 65, 76 n.39, n.42, 80 n.63, 123, 146 n.102, 161 descent: 9–10, 13, 15, 16, 25, 26, 95, 99, 147, 153–4, 157 Dionysus : 78, 80 n.62, 95, 113, 114, 116, 126 n.1, 146 n.105, 171 – Eleuthereus: 25, 36, 71, 75–81, 143 n.89 – in Ikarion: 110, 112–3, 115 – Lenaios: 66–9, 73 – theatre of: 68, 158 diphrophoroi: 43, 48, 49–51, 166 n.10 dishonour, participation as: 51–2 Dodona: 78 n.56, 136–8 dress codes: 10, 44, 45, 50, 52, 55, 63–4, 128, 134, 157 Duncan-Jones, Richard: 29 Durkheim, Emile: 19, 22–4 Eastern luxury: 52 Egyptians: 27, 50, 126, 137, 138 Eleusis: 18 n.23, 21, 26, 29, 55, 57, 61, 67, 68 n.11, 93 n.121, 95, 96, 97, 104, 107 n.47,

195

111, 116–9, 120 ns.108–109, 121, 124 n.123, 131 n.31, 135, 139 n.72, 147, 160, 167, 168 – Dionysia: 113 n.78, 114 n.82, 116–7, 160 – taxes: 103, 116, 118, 161 enktesis: 84 n.83, 126, 136–9, 145, 163 n.13 eparches: 142–5 ephebeia: 43, 59 n.100, 60 n.102, 121 ephebes: 19, 26, 37, 43, 56, 59–61–4, 76 n.44, 80 n.63, 88, 139 n.72, 157–8, 162, 163 n.13 epichorioi: 140–2 epimeletai: 68 n.11, 80 n.62, 107 n.47, 119 n.105, 134 n.48, 144 n.92, 145 n.96, 146, 149, 150 n.125, 151, 152, 154, 171 Erchia: 96, 97, 120 n.105, 148, 170 Erechtheion accounts: 29, 92, 103, 159 ethnics: 27, 71–2, 117, 129 n.18, 131 n.31 ethnos: 126, 133, 136–7, 151 euandria: 37, 41, 53 ns.70–71 Eumenides: 39, 46, 53, 108 face-to-face community: 95, 119, 124–5 Ferguson, W.S.: 142, 151, 154 fleet: 29, 30 n.66, 92, 107–8, 130 n.27 Furtwängler, A.: 51 Geertz, Clifford: 23–4 genos/ gennetai: 55 n.78, 56–7 n.83, 89, 90 n.112, 91, 97–8, 144, 146 n.102, 147–8, 153 Harris, Diane: 47 Harrison, Jane: 22 Hellenes: 82–3 Henry, A.S.: 137 Hephaestus: 36, 66, 86–8, 90, 92–3, 135, 159 Hephaisteia: 36, 66, 86–94, 122, 156, 159–60 – bull lifting: 86–9 – dithyrambic agones: 86–9 – procession: 86 – sacrifices: 66, 88–91, 92, 122, 156 – torch-race: 86–9 Hermokopidai stelai: 130 Hestia: 120 n.109, 126, 136, 139, 154 n.141 hestiasis: 122 hieropoioi: 86, 88–9, 104–5, 121, 142, 149–53 honour, participation as: 51–6 humiliation, participation as: 51–6, 63 Humphreys, Sally: 107, 111 hydriaphoroi: 41 n.15, 43, 44 n.27, 47–8, 62, 78 n.57 Ikarion: 69, 95, 109–16, 124, 125 n.123, 160 – choregia: 69, 109–11, 112, 115–6, 124, 160, 167–8

Franz Steiner Verlag

196

General Index

– Dionysus in: 110, 112–3, 115 – Dionysia: 109–10, 112–3, 115–6, 160 Isis: 126, 137 isoteleia: 84 n.83, 118, 122 Jameson, Michael: 90 Jones, Nicholas: 98, 113, 114 kanephoroi: 39, 41 ns.14–15, 42, 47 n.41, 48–51, 55 n.78, 56–8, 62–4, 77–8, 114, 157, 166 kreanomia: 10, 41–2, 58, 62, 77, 88–91, 100, 122, 140, 149, 152, 159, 169 – δαινύσθων αὐτου: 90 – οὐ φορα: 90 – raw: 88–91, 122, 159 Kron, Uta: 107 Lambert, Stephen: 10, 153 Laureion: 130, 134 n.48 Lenaia: 36, 65 n.2, 66–75, 76 n.41, 80, 82 n.74, 83, 85, 92, 93, 111, 156, 158 – agones: 67–75 – aischrologia: 67, 68 n.11, 73 – pompe: 67, 68 n.11, 70–1, 80 n.62 – sacrifices: 67, 68 n.11 Lenaion: 67, 68 Leokoreion: 106–7 Leos: 33, 85, 96, 105–9, 124, 160 liturgy: 39 n.6, 46, 52, 54 n.74, 69 n.16, 70, 72–5, 99 n.16, 115 n.85, 117 n.92, 118, 119 Lycurgus: 16, 42 n.20, 47 n.41, 50, 58, 96 n.5 – ephebate: 43, 59, 60 n.100 – period: 41, 49, 67, 127 – reforms: 43, 170 – skin sale records: 67, 77, 142 – theatre: 77 Lysias: 30–1, 59, 60, 70, 74–5, 133 Manville, Philip Brooke: 14–5 Maurizio, Lisa: 37 meat distribution s.v. kreanomia mercenaries: 27, 28 n.61, 30, 92, 107, 127–8, 132–3, 159 metaoikon: 32, 35, 157 metic – “demotikon” (oikon en- formula): 28 n.60, 33, 34, 65, 71–2, 93, 99 n.16, 103 n.30, 117, 159 – hoplites: 28, 29, 92 – liturgy: 39 n.6, 46, 70, 72, 74, 117 n.92 – population: 28–9, 52, 54, 62, 63, 69, 71, 103, 104, 158

– registration: 18, 28, 31 n.70, 33, 75, 100 n.22, 101, 103, 158, 159 – tax (metoikion): 28 n.60, 29, 33, 52, 65, 75, 93, 103, 118, 156, 157, 159 – trierarchs: 54 n.75, 72, 121 n.111 Mikalson, Jon: 99 Mysteries: 21, 48 n.47, 55 n.78, 68 n.11, 88 n.102, 139 n.72, 144 n.92, 147 Neils, Jenifer: 47, 50, 128 Nilsson, M.P.: 127, 138 Oakley, John: 134 Ober, Josh: 16 old men: 15, 43, 56, 58–9, 63 Onesippus’ Herm: 70, 71–3 orgeones: 136, 139, 143, 145–55, 169–71 – of Amynos: 147–8, 169 – of Aphrodite: 146 n.105, 148, 154 n.140, 171 – of Asclepius: 148, 151 n.128, 169, 171 – of Bendis: 136, 143, 145–55, 169, 170 – of Egretes: 146 n.104, 148, 151 n.128, 170 – of (Heracles) Pankrates: 151 n.128, 170–1 – of Heros Iatros: 147, 169 – of Hypodektes: 146 n.104, 147, 169 – of Mother: 146 n.105, 148, 154 n.140, 170 – of Zeus Epakrios: 148, 170 Osborne, Robin: 23, 39, 123 Ostwald, Martin: 15, 25 Other Gods, inventory of: 87, 134–6, 137 Panathenaia: 35–6, 37–64, 65–6, 79, 92, 105, 108–9, 124, 156, 157, 158, 159, 165, 166 – age classes: 40–1, 56–63 – agones: 35, 40–1, 44, 61 – hecatomb: 40 – meat distribution: 41–2, 58, 62 – pompe: 37, 40, 64, 65, 79, 106 n.43, 108, 156–9, 166 – sacrifices: 40–3, 45 n.33, 47 n.42, 48–9, 55–6, 62 – torch-race: 41, 44 n.27, 47 n.44, 61 pannychis: 40, 42 n.17, 53 n.70, 140–2 parasol: 42–3, 46, 48–50, 52, 55, 63, 166 Paris School: 19, 23–4 Parker, Robert: 22, 23, 24, 55, 99, 127, 130, 147–8, 151 parthenoi: 26, 52, 56, 59 Parthenon: 47, 131 n.31 – frieze: 41 n.15, 43, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51 n.61, 58 n.94, 61 n.104, 62, 128, 166 – inventory: 47, 48 n.47, 51 n.60 patronymics: 70 n.21, 72, 115 n.85

Franz Steiner Verlag

General Index Peçirka, Jan: 138 Peloponnesian War: 28, 47, 60, 109 n.54, 137, 153 Pericles: 44 n.27 – building programme: 33 n.76, 76 n.43, 103 – Citizenship Law: 9, 16, 31 n.70, 33, 65, 93, 95 n.2, 101 n.25, 144, 153, 156–9 Persian Wars: 27, 51, 52 phialai exeleutherikai lists: 28 n.60, 30 n.68, 31, 72–3, 104, 132 Philochorus: 106, 147, 153–4 philotimia: 54, 84 n.83, 116, 119 n.105, 120, 121, 124 n.123. philoxenia: 34 phratries: 81 n.64, 97, 101, 103 n.32, 147 ns.106–107 – Apatouria: 95 n.2, 132 n.37 – membership: 95 n.2, 132 n.37, 147–9, 153–4, 155 n.143 – phratores: 147, 152–5 phyle/phyletai: 32 n.74, 34, 38, 40 n.11, 41, 78, 80, 85, 86, 87 n.101, 88, 89, 103, 105, 106–8, 109, 119 n.103, n.105, 141, 142, 144, 148 n.112 Piraeus: 21, 27 n.59, 30, 31, 35 n.88, 37, 46 n.33, 60 n.100, 80 n.62, 96 n.5, 98 n.16, 102, 104 n.36, 119 n.105, 120, 122–3, 124, 126, 133, 134 n.48, 136, 139–40, 141, 148 n.115, 149–51, 152, 154, 170, 171 – Dionysia: 80 n.62, 113, 114 n.82, 120, 122, 124 – enktetikon tax: 102, 120 n.110, 122 – exclusiveness: 122–3. Pisistratus: 76 n.39, 128 Plataeans: 16–7, 124 n.121, 133 Polemarch: 33, 66 n.5, 70, 103, 158 politai: 13, 15, 16, 19, 25, 32 n.74, 82, 83, 111, 121 n.111, 125, 159 n.6 Potts, Sam: 29 Price, Simon: 24 priesthood: 55 n.78, 56, 63 n.111, 81, 87, 89 n.106, 90, 91, 97 n.10, 100, 120, 135 n.54, 142–5, 148 n.112, 153, 154 n.140, 155, 161, 166 n.12, 171 proedria: 113, 115, 116, 117, 122 prostates: 33, 158. Prytaneion: 136, 139, 141, 145, 161 Rural Dionysia: 67 n.7, 109–10, 112–6, 124, 160, 163 n.13 sacrificial calendars: 43 n.24, 97, 105, 148 n.116, 170

197

Salaminioi: 42 n.18, 91, 148 n.112 Schwenk, Cynthia: 150 Skambonidai: 31, 33, 43 n.24, 89 n.105, 95, 99 n.16, 103–9, 124, 160 skaphephoroi: 37, 39 n.6, 41 n.15, 43, 45–7, 48, 52, 54–5, 62, 63–4, 66, 70, 74, 77, 78–80, 81, 85, 165 skiadephoroi: 39, 42–3, 48–9, 58, 62, 63, 78 n.57, 166 n.11 slaves: 13, 26, 29, 30, 48, 52 n.67, 55 n.79, 65, 78, 81 n.70, 82, 92, 93, 113–5, 125, 127, 129–33, 162, 163 n.13 – manumitted: 27, 28, 30, 31, 43 n.24, 101 n.25, 104, 132, 133, 161 Solonian – axones: 96, 106, 146 – era: 153 – property classes: 25, 67 Sommerstein, Alan: 48 Sourvinou-Inwood, Christiane: 24, 26 Straten, Folkert van: 134 structuralism: 9, 19, 23, 38, 156 structures de participation: 19, 156, 161 symposium: 19, 38 synoicism: 21, 44, 106 n.44 tax exemption s.v. ateleia thallophoroi: 41, 43, 56, 58–9, 62–4, 157–8 Themis: 134 Theseus: 44, 106, 134, 143 ns.88–89, 165 n.8 Thesmophoria: 25, 101 theoxenia: 51 thiasos: 135 n.52, 145, 148–9, 154 n.140, 170 Thirty, the: 31, 47, 64, 70, 74 Thompson, Dorothy: 51 Thracians (in Athens): 35, 61 n.107, 124 n.121, 126–45, 149–55, 156, 162, 163 n.13, 169 Thrakermode: 128 Thrasyboulus: 30, 64 n.114, 131 tribute: 47, 69, 77, 81 n.66, 83 thusia: 22, 42, 121, 162 n.12 Wallace, Robert: 65 Wees, Hans van: 29 Whitehead, David: 32, 34, 35, 51, 98–9, 101, 110, 111, 157, 158, 159, 161 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von: 34, 103 Wilhelm, A.: 150–1 Wilson, Peter: 54, 84 xenoi: 18, 26–7, 30, 31-2, 35, 66, 69-70, 71, 75, 80-5, 100, 102, 115, 125, 156, 159

Franz Steiner Verlag