Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Studies in Greek epigraphy and history in honor of Stefen V. Tracy

 | 
Gary Reger
, 
Francis X. Ryan
, 
Timothy Francis Winters

1. Athens and Attica

Chapter 10. Demetrios poliorketes, kallias of sphettos, and the panathenaia

Julia L. Shear

Note de l’auteur

It is my great pleasure to present to Steve Tracy an essay which encapsulates his main scholarly interests: epigraphy, the Panathenaia, and Hellenistic Athens. This study has developed out of a larger project on the history of the Panathenaia and it has benefited from the help and advice of various friends and scholars. I owe a special debt to R. S. Stroud for his continued interest, his sharp eye for detail, and his acute observations made in front of the inscription for Kallias of Sphettos. Further thanks are also due to: K. DeVries, A. Kuttner, J. McInerney, R. Osborne, R. Parker, R. Rosen, and T. L. Shear, Jr. For permission to study the material in their care, I would like to thank J. Jordan, the secretary of the Agora Excavations, Ch. Kritzas, the emeritus director of the Epigraphical Museum in Athens, his assistant, Ch. Karapa-Molizani, and the staffs of both of these collections. Any remaining mistakes are, of course, my own.

Texte intégral

  • 2 SEG, 28, 60.
  • 3 Plut., Demetr., 46,1-4; Paus. 1,26,1-2.
  • 4 [Plut.], Mor., 851E; Shear, Jr. 1978, 63-65; Woodhead 1997, 245. That the city was under the democr (...)
  • 5 IG, II2, 650.16-17.
  • 6 286: Shear, Jr. 1978, 60-73.287: e. g. Habicht 1979, 45-67; Osborne 1979, 181-194; Hammond and Walb (...)

1In 270/69 BC, Euchares, the son of Euarchos, of Konthyle moved a decree conferring the city’s highest honours on one of her illustrious, if expatriate, sons, Kallias, the son of Thymochares, of Sphettos. Duly passed by the demos and inscribed on a marble stele, the decree was set up next to Kallias’ honorary statue in the Agora2. Among his benefactions, pride of place was given to his role in the city’s revolt from Demetrios Poliorketes. Until the discovery of Kallias’ decree in 1971, this moment in Athenian history remained poorly understood because the events are mentioned only briefly by Plutarch and Pausanias3. Several further details could be gleaned from the epigraphical evidence. The request for highest honours for the Athenian statesman Demochares states that the demos recalled him from exile in the archonship of Diokles in 286/5; the city was certainly under democratic control in this year4. A decree for the Ptolemaic commander Zenon commends the honorand for joining the fighting ‘on behalf of the safety of the demos’, as well as other good deeds5. This phrase indicates that Athens must have been under democratic control when this decree was approved on 11 Hekatombaion in the first prytany of Diokles’ archonship. Kallias’ decree provided new and more detailed information about the Athenians’ revolt from Demetrios Poliorketes, but its publication also ignited a controversy over the date of the revolution. While the original editor favoured a date earlier in 286 BC, other scholars, particularly Christian Habicht and Michael Osborne, have argued for a date in 287 BC, the date currently accepted by the scholarly opinio communis6.

  • 7 SEG, 28, 60,55-66.
  • 8 E. g. Shear, Jr. 1978, 35-39; Habicht 1979, 77 note 6, 85; Osborne 1980, 299; Habicht 1992, 70 with (...)

2At the same time, Kallias’ decree also focused attention on the Great Panathenaia because the text co-ordinates the festival’s [first] celebration after the city was recovered with the inaugural Ptolemaia put on by Ptolemy II in honour of his deceased father7. Since the inscribed text is worn in just the section describing the Panathenaia, scholars have also argued over whether the Panathenaia in question was the first after the democracy regained power and whether the celebration of 286 actually did take place8. In such highly disputed cases, autopsy is essential: re-examination of the stele in Athens shows that we can read sufficient traces of letters to be certain that the Panathenaia mentioned was the first after the city had been recovered. Consequently, the festival of 286 was certainly not held and the Great Panathenaia of 282 was the first celebration after the city had been liberated. This rare phenomenon of cancelling, rather than curtailing, a major city festival raises two further questions: what were the consequences of not holding any city festival and what particular factors surrounded the cancellation of the Panathenaia of 286? As I shall argue, cancelling any festival was an extremely serious decision indeed because such celebrations created, maintained, and displayed relationships between the divine and the human community. Since the Panathenaia was also an important occasion for putting Athenian democracy, unity, and freedom on show, not celebrating the festival of 286 meant passing up the opportunity to display the city’s newly won freedom and her unity after revolution to an international audience. Such a momentous decision requires further explanation. Our evidence suggests that the on-going military situation surrounding the recovery of Athens from Demetrios is the most likely reason why this important festival was cancelled.

Kallias Of Sphettos And The Great Panathenaia

  • 9 In this endeavour, Ron Stroud’s help has been of utmost value and he has very kindly confirmed and (...)

3Like other honorary decrees, Kallias’ inscription lists all of his accomplishments and his benefactions on behalf of the city. His association with the Great Panathenaia appears in the section detailing his activities since the revolution. Since this part of the inscription includes the disputed text, autopsy is both crucial and revealing: the current location of the stone, clamped vertically to the west wall of the Stoa of Attalos, requires readers to shine light in different positions than if the stele were flat on a table9. Consequently, a number of additional letters may now be read in the worn section along the right edge of the stone to yield the following text:

55 κα ς βασιλες πρῶτον πόει τImage 1000000000000009000000124BCA4C2C.png Πτο[λ]εμαα τ[]-
ν θυσίαν καὶ τοὺς αγῶνας τῶι πατImage 100000000000000E00000012AF26B83B.png, ψηφι[σ]α[μ]ε[νου τ]Image 1000000000000010000000110CBA5AA0.png [δή]-
μου θεωρίαν πέμπειν καὶ ἀξιώσαντ̣ος πακ[οῦσαι Καλλί]-
αν ἀρχεθέωρον καὶ ἀγαγεν πρ τ[ο] δήμου [τν θεωρία]ν, []-
πακούσας ες ταῦτα φιλοτίμως Κ[αλ]λίας κα̣[ί τᾶς ψηφισ]-

60 μένας αύτῶι πò τοῦ δήμου εἰς τὴṿ ἀρχεθεω[ρίαν πεντήκον]-
τα μνᾶς ἀφεὶς καὶ πιδος τῶι δή[μ]ω[ι], ατò [ς τὴν] Image 100000000000000F000000111C4A29C6.png[ν θεωρία]-
ν ἀγαγὼν κ τῶν δίων καλῶς καὶ [ξίως] τοῦ δ̣[ή]μου, [τῆς δ] Image 10000000000000060000000C89EA5FD1.png-
υσίας πιμεληθεὶς πρ τῆς πόλεω[ς] καὶ τῶν ἄλλImage 100000000000000D0000000EDDEF817C.png[ν] Image 100000000000001400000012D8535D91.png[ντ]-
ων ὧν προσῆκεν μετ τῶν Image 100000000000000E0000000FBBED0CB8.pngωImage 10000000000000090000000F66D0016F.pngῶν· κ[αὶ τ]οῦ δήμ[ο]υ τότε
πImage 10000000000000090000000F66D0016F.png[]τ̣[ο]-

65 ν τ Παναθήναια τε Άρχηγέτι[δ]Image 10000000000000090000000F5AF714E4.png μέλλοντος Image 100000000000000A0000000F290C05EE.pngο[εν] [φ’] ο[ τ]-
ò ἄστυ κεκόμιστο, διαλεχθεὶς τῶι βασιλε Κ[α]λ̣[λί]α̣ς π]-
ρ τῶν πλων ν εἰς τòν πέπλον ἔδει παρασκευImage 100000000000001D0000001002D31D33.png [καὶ πι]-
δόντος τε πόλει τοῦ βασιλ{ι}έως [σ]πούδ̣ασεν ὅπ[ως ἄν ὡς]
βέλτιστα τε θεῶι γένηται καὶ ο θ[ε]ωροImage 100000000000000700000012085B0C47.png ο μεθ’ [ατοῦ χε]-

70 ιροτονηθέντες εθς ἀποκομίζως[ιν] Image 1000000000000006000000127F4EB9F3.png[ν]ταῦ [θα τ ὅ πλα].

  • 10 SEG, 28, 60,55-70. Bibliography: Shear, Jr. 1978, 1-8, 33-44; Habicht 1979, 45-67; Osborne 1979, 18 (...)

4and when the king (Ptolemy II Philadelphos) first held the Pto[l]emaia, t[h]e sacrifice and the games for his father, and when [t] he [de]mos (of the Athenians) vo[t]e[d] to send a theoria and thought it appropriate for [Kalli]as [to] agr[ee] to be archetheoros and to lead [the theori]a on behalf of t[h]e demos, K[al]lias [c]omplied zealously an[d], having declined the [fif]ty mnai [which had been] voted for him by the demos for the archetheo[ria] and having given them freely to the de[m]o[s], he himsel[f] led [the theori]a at his own expense well and [in a manner] w[orthy] of the d[e]mos [and, at the same time], with the other theoroi, he took care of [the] sacrifice on behalf of the cit[y] and al[l] the othe[r th]ings which were appropriate; a[nd] since [t] he dem[o]s then [for the] fir[st] t[im]e a[f]te[r t]he city had been recovered was about to cel[ebrate] the Panathenaia for (Athena) Archegeti[s], K[a]l[li]a[s], having conversed with the king [concerni]ng the ropes which it was necessary to provide for the peplos, [and] the king [havi]ng given (the ropes) freely to the city, e[n] deavoured so [that] they would be the best possible for the goddess and so that the th[e]oroi [e]lected with [him] would immediately condu[ct the ropes] h[e]r[e]10.

Epigraphical Commentary

Line 55: τImage 10000000000000070000000E0880739B.png: of the dotted alpha, the top of the left diagonal of a triangular letter and the top and middle of the right are visible; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: τImage 10000000000000070000000E0880739B.png

Line 56: πατImage 100000000000000B0000000E133EBDA3.png: the dotted rho is preserved by the bottom of a vertical stroke on the left side of the space; in the centre of the next letter space, the bottom of a vertical stroke survives; Shear, Jr., Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: πατ[ρὶ].

ψηφι[σ]α[μ]Image 10000000000000050000000E208F818E.png [νου: of the dotted epsilon, the top horizontal bar and the top of the vertical are present; Shear, Jr., Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: ψηφι[σ]α[μ]έ[νου. τ]Image 100000000000000D0000000E61421BFA.png: the upper half of the dotted omikron and a bit of the bottom are preserved; the dotted upsilon is visible as the bottom of a vertical stroke; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: τ]o.

5Line 57: άξιώσαντ̣ος: the dotted tau survives as the middle part of the vertical stroke; Shear, Jr.: αξιώσαṿτ̣ος; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: αξιώσαντος

6Line 58: Shear, Jr., Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: [τὴν θεωρίαν, ]-.

7Line 59: κα̣[ὶ: the bottom of the left diagonal of the dotted alpha is present; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: καὶ.

8Line 60: τὴṿ: the top of the left vertical and the top of the diagonal of the dotted nu are visible; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: τὴν.

Line 61: Shear, Jr.: δImage 10000000000000060000000E545FE742.jpgωι]; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: δηωι]. Image 100000000000000C0000000E55377210.jpg[v: the bottom of the right vertical of the dotted mu is present; on the left side of next space, the bottom of vertical stroke survives; Shear, Jr., Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: ατò[ς τν μν θεωρα].

Line 62: δ̣[ή]μου: of the dotted delta, the lower half of the left diagonal is preserved; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: δ[]μου. Image 10000000000000060000000C89EA5FD1.png-: the central dot of the theta is missing; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: δ] θ-.

Line 63: λλImage 100000000000000D0000000EDDEF817C.png[ν: the dotted omega is visible as the left and right curved sides of a round letter; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounasλλω[ν]. Image 100000000000001400000012D8535D91.png [ντ]-: of the dotted pi, the lower part of a left vertical stroke is present; in the next space, the bottom of the left diagonal of the dotted alpha is preserved; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: πά[ντ]-.

Line 64: Image 100000000000000E0000000FBBED0CB8.pngωImage 10000000000000090000000F66D0016F.pngν: the central dot of the theta is missing; in the next space, the right ends of the bottom and middle bars of a dotted epsilon survive; of the dotted rho, the bottom of a left vertical stroke is present; Shear, Jr.:Image 100000000000000E0000000FBBED0CB8.pngω[ρ]ν; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: θεω[ρ]ν. Shear, Jr.: Image 100000000000000A0000000EDF7E8D53.jpg[αὶ.Image 10000000000000120000000E948BC661.jpg []τ̣[ο]-: the dotted pi is preserved as a left vertical stroke; on the left side of the next letter space, a vertical stroke is visible; of the dotted tau, the bottom of a vertical stroke survives in the centre of the space; Shear, Jr.: [πρῶτο]-; Osborne 1980 and Dreyer: [τρίτο]-; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: [τρίτο]-?.

Line 65: ρχηγέτι[δ]ι: the dotted iota is visible as the bottom of a central vertical stroke; Shear, Jr., Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: ρχηγέτι[δι Image 100000000000000A0000000F290C05EE.pngο[εν: of the dotted pi, a left vertical stroke is preserved, as is the left end of a horizontal bar at the top of the stroke; Shear, Jr Image 10000000000000110000000DB8F38F22.jpgν; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: πο[εν. Shear, Jr.: ọ[.

9Line 66: [α]λ̣[λί]α̣[ς: the dotted lambda survives as the lower part of a left diagonal; both diagonals of the dotted alpha are complete except for their junction; Shear, Jr.: Κ[αλλία[ς; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: Κ[αλλίας.

Line 67: παρασκευImage 100000000000001D0000001002D31D33.png: of the first dotted alpha, the bottom of a left diagonal and the lower part of a right one are visible; the upper diagonal of the dotted sigma is preserved; in the next space, the right diagonal of a dotted alpha survives; the dotted iota is visible as the lower two thirds of a central vertical stroke; Shear, Jr.: παρασκευάImage 10000000000000140000000E2394DD99.jpg; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: παρασκευάσαι.

10Line 68: [σ]πούδ̣ασεν: the apex and the tops of both diagonals of the dotted delta are visible; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: [σ]πούδασεν.

Line 69: θ[ε]ωροImage 100000000000000700000012085B0C47.png: the dotted iota is preserved by the bottom of a central vertical stroke; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: θ[ε]ωροὶ. Shear, Jr.: μImage 100000000000000E0000000E14F0810B.jpgτο.

Line 70: Image 10000000000000050000000E208F818E.png[ν]τα[θα: the bottom bar of a dotted epsilon is present; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas: [ν]τα[θα.

  • 11 Dreyer 1996, 56; Dreyer 1999, 211; Osborne 1980, 299.

For the Panathenaia, lines 64-65 are critical because they indicate which (penteteric) festival was co-ordinated with the first Ptolemaia. As the new readings show, the number at the end of line 64 should be read as Image 10000000000000120000000E948BC661.jpg[]τ̣[ο]I ν. In the first letter space of the word, the extant vertical stroke of the first letter is located on the left side of the space, while the lower right corner is clearly uninscribed and no stroke was ever cut in this section; neither eta nor nu nor epsilon are possible restorations. The stroke is aligned with the lower end of the left diagonal of the alpha in the parallel (41st) space of line 63 and it ought to be located on the left side of the space. It is too close to the preceding epsilon to be either an iota or a tau, the horizontal bar of which would intersect with the top bar of the preceding epsilon. In the middle of the right side of the space, there is a faint trace which may be the bottom of the right stroke; it is, however, very difficult to see and a gamma can not certainly be excluded, hence the dotted pi of our text. We should also notice that this worn and dotted pi is very similar to the second pi in line 65 and the second pi in line 68. On these epigraphical grounds, we can eliminate the restoration [τρίτο]I ν which was proposed by Boris Dreyer and Osborne11.

  • 12 Thuc. 3,104,2.
  • 13 Diod. Sic., 11,33,3; Plut., Thes., 21,3; Per., 13,11.
  • 14 For his supplement τότε [τρίτο] Ι ν, Dreyer cites SEG, 39, 1244, col. I. 22; Dreyer 1996, 56 n. 72; (...)

The sense of the passage also suggests that the restoration [τρίτο]I ν is not satisfactory. Commentators on this document agree not only that an adverb is required at the end of line 64, but also that it must be a number. After the preserved word τότε, our new reading Image 100000000000000A0000000F290C05EE.pngρ[]τ̣[o] I ν makes both good and idiomatic sense. Thucydides’ description of the purification of Delos in 426 BC provides a close parallel for our passage: he states that the Athenians celebrated the penteteric Delia τότε πρτoν μετ την κάθαρσιν, “then for the first time after the purification”12. Similarly, in Kallias’ decree, the demos was about to celebrate the Panathenaia τότε Image 10000000000000120000000E948BC661.jpg[]τ[ο] I ν. ... ά[φ’] ο[ τ] I ò στυ κεκόμιστο, “then [for the] fir[st] t [im] e a [f] te[r t] he city had been recovered”. In the context of festivals, this phrase is also used by both Diodoros and Plutarch and it is generally not uncommon in Greek authors13. In contrast, no parallels, either in Greek literature or in Attic inscriptions, can be cited for Dreyer’s proposed τότε [τρίτο] Ι ν14. Together, these attested parallels for the phrase τότε πρτον and the new readings of the inscription indicate that the Great Panathenaia in question must have been the first one held after the city had been liberated from Demetrios Poliorketes; the occasion in question is the festival of 282/1 BC.

  • 15 IG, II2, 3079. Since two successes in the team event of the anthippasia and only one choral victory (...)
  • 16 Date of Nikias: Meritt 1977, 173; Shear, Jr. 1978, 38 n. 94 with earlier bibliography; Dreyer 1996, (...)
  • 17 IG, II2, 3079,5-6, 10-12, crowns 1, 3.
  • 18 Either on 29 Daisios 282 (i. e. 10 May 282), as argued by Nerwinski (1981, 33-47, 118-136), or in t (...)

11This celebration of the Panathenaia is independently attested by the choregic monument dedicated by the tribe Leontis and now preserved by the fragments of three inscribed epistyles from a small Ionic building15. The front side records the tribe’s success in the men’s contest, presumably the cyclic chorus, at the Great Dionysia in the archonship of Nikias in 282/1 BC16. The epistyles from the left and right sides of the structure preserve a series of crowns including, on the left side, two commemorating the victories of Leontis in the anthippasia at the Olympieia and the Great Panathenaia in this year17. The information preserved by Leontis’ monument also agrees with the history of the Ptolemaia, which was first celebrated in the winter or spring of 282 BC18. Collectively, our evidence shows that the Panathenaia of 286 cannot have been held and it must have been cancelled; consequently, the festival of 282 must have been the first Great Panathenaia after the city had been recovered from Demetrios Poliorketes.

Gods and Festivals

  • 19 Parker 1998, esp. 105.
  • 20 Hom., Il., 1.37-52; Parker 1998, 106-107 with further examples. For the exception to this rule, see (...)
  • 21 Hom., Il., 6,293-311; Parker 1998, 116-117 with n. 39.
  • 22 Rhodes & Osborne 2004, 41.6-12; cf. IG, II2, 114.6-12; Agora, XVI, 41.2-3.
  • 23 Parker 1998, 124-125.

12This clear evidence for the cancellation of the Great Panathenaia of 286 brings us back to the larger issue of the consequences of not holding a city festival. We can see the issues involved most clearly by asking what functions this type of celebration served. As Robert Parker has stressed, Greek religious practice is founded on the reciprocity between gods and humans19. The opening section of the Iliad shows this dynamic very clearly at work. There, the priest Chryses prays to Apollo and reminds the god of his gifts and sacrifices. In return, the god is asked to fulfil his prayer, namely to make the Greeks pay for his tears, as Apollo duly does by bringing a plague on the Greek army20. In book 6, this reciprocity is visible in reverse: Athena cannot accept the peplos dedicated by the Trojan women because she will not fulfil their prayer in which future sacrifices are promised21. Such reciprocal relationships are not limited to literature: in 362/1, the Athenians vowed a sacrifice and a procession to various named deities, if their alliance with Arkadia, Achaia, Elis, and Phleios should turn out to their advantage22. As these examples show, religious rituals create reciprocal relationships between gods and humans and they also impose future obligations. In these instances, the reciprocity and the power are unequal and there is a great gulf between the gods and the humans. The gift, whether dedication or sacrifice, bridges that gap and creates reciprocity and relations, however unbalanced, between gods and humans23. The bonds so created further establish links between humans and specific divinities, as the case of Chryses dramatically shows.

  • 24 Vernant 1981; Vernant 1989, 21-61, 73-75; Detienne 1989a, 7.
  • 25 Vernant 1981; Vernant 1989, 21-61, 73-75; Detienne 1989a, 7.
  • 26 Vernant 1981, 73-74; Vernant 1989, 37-38; Detienne 1989a, 8-9.
  • 27 Detienne 1989a, 3-4; Durand 1989, 104; Detienne 1989b, 131-132; Rudhardt 1992, 289-290, 296; Jameso (...)
  • 28 Parker 2005, 37, 42-45.

13In these examples, sacrifices both past and future, play an important role. Sacrifice, as Jean-Pierre Vernant has taught us, establishes the hierarchies visible in the two instances from the Iliad: humans are placed in the middle between the gods who receive the offerings and the animals that are given to the gods24. These relationships are made visible when the sacrificial meat is divided up because the gods are given the bones covered in fat, while the humans receive the edible meat25. Since only domestic animals are given to the gods, sacrifice also distinguishes between domestic animals which are useful to humans and wild animals which are hunted26. At the same time, through the distribution of the meat, sacrifices identify the members of the sacrificing community, no matter how large or small, and they distinguish between these participants and anyone else who might happen to be present as spectators27. Sharing the meat from that sacrifice with the other participants then creates unity within the community28.

  • 29 Rhodes & Osborne 2004, 73.
  • 30 Cf. Rudhardt 1992, 290, 296; Detienne 1989a, 14 and above n. 28.

14When sacrifice and dedication are transferred into the larger setting of the festival, they do not lose these dynamics; rather, these rituals endow the celebration with them so that the occasion establishes a reciprocal relationship between the sacrificial community and the divinity honoured, who is reminded both of past favours and of future obligations. These bonds link the humans and the divinity together. If contests are part of the festival, they are just as much an offering as the sacrifices and other dedications, an occasion for pleasing the divine. When the meat is divided among the human participants, the sacrificial community is identified and distinguished from spectators and visitors. Such distinctions may also be reflected in other aspects of the celebration, such as contests, but the festival may be designed so as to include all those present, as, for example, the Artemisia at Eretria does29. Furthermore, celebrations are occasions both for displaying the sacrificial community to itself and for displaying it beyond the limits of the community. The creation of unity can also be an important part of the proceedings30.

  • 31 Eur., Trojan Women, 26-27. Compare in reverse Hdt. 8,41,2-3: before the Battle of Salamis, when the (...)
  • 32 Eur., Hipp., 1-57.
  • 33 Soph., Ant., 998-1090.

15Consequently, when a festival is cancelled, these dynamics are interrupted. Most importantly, the bonds between the sacrificial community and the divinity are broken with all the potential problems which the disruption of such reciprocal relations entails. Deprived of honour and recognition, the divinity may retaliate. Disregarding future requests may not cause too much immediate damage to the community, but, as Euripides’ Trojan Women shows, when the gods abandon a community, the results may be very severe indeed. As Poseidon stresses in this play, when a city is abandoned, the gods do not wish to be worshipped31, consequently, the reciprocal relationship between the community and the gods is ruptured. More immediately damaging perhaps are other potential disasters wrought by the offended divinity: plague, famine, pestilence, and war, to name but a few possibilities. For example, Hippolytos’ failure to honour Aphrodite angers the goddess who, in turn, sets in motion the events leading to his death32. In Antigone, the refusal to bury the dead Polyneikes leads to the gods’ refusal to accept the sacrifices and, in turn, to the death of Kreon’s son Haimon33. In these cases among others in Attic drama, the angry divinities are not as easily placated as Apollo is in Iliad 1; restoring ruptured bonds between humans and gods might not be done quickly or easily. Cancelling a festival also disrupts the relationships between humans and animals and it prevents the sacrificial community from being identified. Lacking identity, the sacrificial community itself will also have to be recreated and its renewed identity displayed both internally and externally. If the festival plays an important role in creating unity within the sacrificial community, then its unity will also have to be recreated.

  • 34 Agora, XVI, 188,1-5. For further examples, albeit partially restored, see Pritchett 1976, 350; for (...)
  • 35 Thuc. 5,54,1-4; Gomme, Andrewes, Dover 1970, 75.
  • 36 Plut., Demetr., 12.4-5.
  • 37 Men. Imbrioi test. 1 (PCG) = P. Oxy., 1235,105-112; Habicht 1997, 83.
  • 38 Lysias 21,4.

16The potential consequences of cancelling a divinity’s celebration, then, were very great indeed and the decision must have been a momentous one. Under these circumstances, delaying the festival for a few days or celebrating it on a reduced scale were less dangerous choices. Adding extra days to the calendar was one solution; it certainly happened in Athens in Elaphebolion of 271/0 when the ninth day of the month was intercalated four times, in order, we must assume, to complete the preparations for the City Dionysia which was scheduled to begin on the tenth34. Delaying the proceedings for several days might be used for other reasons. For example, in 419, the Argives continuously intercalated the twenty-seventh of the month before Karneios so that they could attack Epidauros; when the Epidaurians appealed to the allies for help, some of the allies refused because they were (already) observing the sacred month35. Extreme bad weather might force the curtailment of events as it did in 301 at the City Dionysia in Athens when the procession was omitted because of the cold; the whole festival, however, was not cancelled36. In 300, Menander’s Imbrioi was scheduled to be produced at the Dionysia, but the play was cancelled because of the tyrant Lachares; what happened to the festival is not stated by our sources so that we do not know whether it was cancelled or not37. Political troubles, however, did not always have this effect on celebrations: in 403/2, for example, the Small Panathenaia was held as we know from the victory of the speaker of Lysias 21 who was choregos for beardless pyrrhichistai38.

  • 39 Thuc. 3,104,2-3.
  • 40 Thuc. 3,104,6.
  • 41 Xen., Hell., 1,4,20; Plut., Alk., 34,3-7.

17External circumstances might force the reduction of different elements of a festival. For example, in describing the foundation of the penteteric Delia in 426/5, Thucydides reports that, in ancient times, there had been a great celebration on Delos with athletic and musical contests and choruses sent by the participating cities39. In later times, however, the games and much of the rest were dropped from the programme, but the Athenians and the islanders continued to send choruses with the sacrifices40. The sacrifices, the most important part of the proceedings, continued to be made and the festival was, indeed, held, but not in the accustomed splendour of the earlier period. Similarly, during the early part of the Dekeleian War, the Athenians conveyed the procession for the Eleusinian Mysteries from Athens to Eleusis by ship rather than overland so that the Spartans could not attack it41. All the elements accompanying the great procession, consequently, had to be eliminated. It is worth noting that we only know about this particular curtailment because, upon Alkibiades’ return to Athens in 407, he decided to take the procession to Eleusis by land, as he did very successfully. What the Athenians did in the following years is unclear because our sources are completely silent about all aspects of the proceedings except in connection with the festival of 407.

  • 42 Diod. Sic. 15,49,1.
  • 43 Dem. 19,86,125; Parker 2005, 472-473.
  • 44 Thuc. 5,82,2-3.

18Even the locations and dates of celebrations could change, if these deviations allowed the proceedings to continue in some fashion. For example, Diodoros records that, at one point, the Panionia was shifted to a safer place because of war42. Similarly, when Philip II invaded Phokis in 346, the Athenians officially moved the Herakleia into the city so that the sacrifices could be made43. In both cases, moving the celebration to another location ensured that it would be held and the divinity would continue to be honoured. External events might interrupt a festival as they did the Spartan Gymnopaidiai in 417. When the democrats at Argos revolted against the local oligarchs, the Lakedaimonians initially refused to come to their aid because they were celebrating the Gymnopaidiai; eventually, they stopped the festival and set out. When they learned of the oligarchs’ defeat, however, they promptly returned home and continued holding the celebration44. Celebrating the festival and honouring the divinity were evidently considerably more important than helping the oligarchs at Argos.

  • 45 Habicht 2006, 156-166. Notice, however, that three of his examples are conditional: the sacrifices (...)
  • 46 Pol. 5,106,1-3.
  • 47 I. Rhamnous, 17,27-30. The City Dionysia may also have been affected by this war; see IG, II2, 1299 (...)
  • 48 IG, II2, 1299,56-57; Habicht 1997, 164-166; for the date of Lysias’ archonship, see Osborne 2003a, (...)

19Despite all of these precautions and strategies, sometimes war did force a particular celebration to be cancelled. The Great Panathenaia of 286 is one such case. A small number of Hellenistic examples have recently been collected by Habicht45. What is perhaps most striking from our perspective is the smallness of the sample. Our sources naturally focus on the unusual, the occasions contrary to what was expected. They most certainly do not record all the times when sacrifices and festivals were held as they should have been. Consequently, Habicht’s small number of examples does not allow us to assume that war regularly led to the cancellation of festivals and we should not postulate such circumstances without very good evidence. For our purposes, two of his examples are particularly instructive. In describing the immediate aftermath in 217 of the war between Philip V and the Aitolian League, Polybios reports that the Achaians immediately revived their ancestral sacrifices and the festivals and local observances for the gods, all of which had been disrupted by the war46. What is striking here is not that the rites of the gods had been disrupted, but that they had to be revived as soon as possible. A similar set of circumstances is attested at Rhamnous in an honorary decree of 235/4. Among the various benefactions listed, the honorand, Dikaiarchos, the son of Apollonios, of Thria, provided the sacrificial animals for the sacrifices at the Nemesia and for the king (i. e. Demetrios II); these sacrifices had been allowed to lapse because of the war between the Aitolian and Achaian Leagues and Demetrios II, who controlled Athens47. Begun in the archonship of Lysias in 238/7, this war was still underway in 235/4 and it was to last until 22948. As this inscription demonstrates, the sacrifices in at least one and perhaps two or three years were not made, but they must have been offered in 235/4, even though the war continued: Nemesis had priority over war and the omitted offerings had to be reinstated as quickly as possible.

  • 49 Cf. van Wees 2004, 119.
  • 50 Cf. the spondophoroi sent out by the city to announce the Eleusinia, Panathenaia, and Mysteries; Go (...)

20As our evidence indicates, cancelling festivals and sacrifices completely was an extremely serious matter and significant efforts seem to have been undertaken to avoid this situation. Nevertheless, in some cases, cancellation was impossible to prevent so that sacrifices and festivals had to be allowed to lapse. These examples, however, are rare, particularly when we consider the large number of celebrations, including all the Panhellenic festivals, which took place during the campaigning season49. When circumstances beyond the control of the sacrificial community did force a cancellation, the festivities had to be re-established as soon as possible lest the wrathful divinity retaliate. Consequently, the Athenians’ decision to cancel the Great Panathenaia of 286 must have been momentous. It cannot have been made lightly and it must have been approved by both the demos and the boule50. The situation, then, will have been so serious that the majority of Athenians thought that this course was the right one, even at the risk of offending Athena.

The Politics of the Panathenaia and the Festival of 286

  • 51 Shear 2007a, 137-140, 141-143; for the tribal team events see IG, II2, 2311,83-93 with the text as (...)
  • 52 See briefly Shear 2007a, 140; Shear 2001, 203-206 with 186-203 for the details of the gifts.
  • 53 Demes: Plotheia: IG, I3, 258,22-28; Skambonidai: IG, I3, 244, A, 15-21; tribes (probably): Dem. 21, (...)
  • 54 IG, I3, 46,15-16; 71,55-58; IG, II2, 456, b, 3-8; Rhodes and Osborne 2004, no. 29,2-6; I. Priene, 5 (...)
  • 55 IG, I3, 34,41-43; 71,55-58.
  • 56 IG, I3, 375,6-7; Hdt. 6,111,2; cf. IG, II2, 1496,98-101, 129 and Agora, XVI, 75,32-52, which pertai (...)

21The gravity of cancelling the goddess’ festival is further brought out by the politics of the Panathenaia. As I shall argue, the festival’s ideology, and particularly its focus on Athenian unity and liberation, made it the last occasion which should have been cancelled at the moment when the city regained her freedom. Unlike the Artemisia at Eretria, which encouraged the participation of all individuals present, taking part in the Panathenaia was not so simple because the same possibilities were not open to everyone. These dynamics are particularly clear in the games. After travelling to Athens, any boy, beardless youth, or man with time and the necessary talent could compete in the open athletic contests and the individual music events and anyone with the necessary money could sponsor an animal or team in the open hippic competitions. In contrast, only adult Athenian males could take part in the individual tribal hippic contests; similarly, for the tribal team events, one had to be an Athenian citizen, or, in the case of the pyrrhiche, the dance in arms, also a future citizen (beardless youth or boy)51. Consequently, taking part in the restricted competitions was a significant decision: to do so was to display one’s status as an Athenian citizen in front of an international audience. Similar restrictions also affected the dedications and sacrifices to Athena. Our evidence shows that only Athenians, their colonists, and the allies of the city could make a gift to Athena52. All known sacrificial victims were offered to the goddess by demes or other subdivisions of the Athenians53, by colonists54, by allies55, or by the city as a whole56. These restrictions constructed the sacrificial community as a group composed only of the Athenians, their colonists, and their allies. Everyone else had to watch these privileged groups and they were unable to share in the close reciprocal relationship between the sacrificial community and the goddess. At the same time, participating in this part of the festival created unity within the sacrificial community. These dynamics endowed the Panathenaia with its own particular politics: how one took part displayed one’s relationship to the city and to Athena in front of an international audience. They also kept the festival clearly focused on Athenians and Athens because visible and repeated participation was only possible for Athenians, their colonists, and their allies.

  • 57 Arist., Ath. Pol., 58.1, repeated by Poll., Onom., 8,91; Dem. 19,280; Cic., Mil., 80; Philostr., VA (...)
  • 58 For the role(s) of rituals in creating memory, see e. g. Connerton 1989, 41-71, 102-4; Cressy 1992; (...)

22The Panathenaia, however, was not simply about the glorification of Athens and her relationship to the goddess. The festival also included a cult for Harmodios and Aristogeiton, the Tyrannicides and liberators of Athens, rites which most probably took place on 28 Hekatombaion57. In this context, these rituals identified the moment when the Tyrannicides assassinated Hipparchos as the founding of Athenian democracy and the overthrow of the tyranny of the Peisistratidai; they also emphasised that the unified Athenians celebrated this moment together. Included in both the annual and the penteteric festivals, the cult regularly reinforced Athenian unity and created an occasion shared by all Athenians. At the same time, the act of taking part in the rituals created a memory not only of the rites themselves, but also of the events, and these memories were shared by all Athenians58. Furthermore, participation in cult, and so, too, the Panathenaia itself, identified one not just as an Athenian, but also as someone who modelled himself on Harmodios and Aristogeiton, someone who was committed to slaying tyrants and preserving the free and democratic city. Through the cult of the Tyrannicides, the Panathenaia was an occasion for the unified Athenians to celebrate their democracy and their freedom from tyranny.

  • 59 Paus. 1,26,2.
  • 60 Paus. 1,29,13.
  • 61 For their burial in the Demosion Sema, see Lysias 2,64; Loraux 1986, 35-36, 200; Shear 2007c, 106.
  • 62 SEG, 28, 60,79-83; Shear Jr. 1978, 47-55.
  • 63 [Plut.], Mor., 851F; Shear Jr. 1978, 47-51. On the date of Pytharatos’ archonship, see also Woodhea (...)
  • 64 IG, II2, 657,48-50; Shear Jr. 1978, 47-51. On the date of Euthios’ archonship, see also Woodhead 19 (...)
  • 65 Andok. 1,96-98. On this decree, see Shear 2007b. For its location in front of the Bouleuterion in t (...)

23These politics have important consequences for Athena’s festival and especially for the Great Panathenaia of 286. On the chronology espoused by Habicht and Osborne, it ought to have been the first penteteric festival celebrated after the city had been liberated from Demetrios Poliorketes one year earlier in 287. That the revolution was constructed as the return of freedom and democracy is evident in the ways in which the Athenians subsequently remembered these events. The shield of Leokritos, the son of Protarchos, who died fighting the Macedonians on the Mouseion Hill, was dedicated to Zeus Eleutherios and set up in his stoa in the Agora59. In this way, Leokritos was configured as a liberator of Athens like Harmodios and Aristogeiton, whose statues stood in the Agora not far from the stoa. He and the other dead from this battle were buried in the Demosion Sema among the Athenian war-dead60. This treatment is parallel to the treatment of the Athenians who fell expelling the Thirty from Athens in 403, men who liberated Athens from oligarchy61. That the revolution against Demetrios was, in part, about democracy and oligarchy at Athens is further brought out by Kallias’ honorary decree. It mentions the overthrow of the demos and stresses that he allowed his property to be confiscated under the oligarchy so as not to act in opposition to the laws or the democracy ‘of all the Athenians’62. Similarly, in 271/0, the request for honours for Demochares of Leukonoe stresses that he took no part in the oligarchy, held no office after the demos was overthrown, and never acted against the democracy either ‘by word or by deed’63. The honorary decree passed in 283/2 for Philippides of Kephale also states that Philippides never did anything in opposition to the democracy either ‘by word or by deed’64. The language of these three decrees is very strong indeed and it looks back to a particular document, the decree of Demophantos who specified in 410/9 how the Athenians were to behave if the democracy were overthrown in the future65. The accompanying oath, to be sworn by ‘all the Athenians’, begins ‘I shall kill both by word and by deed and by vote and by my own hand’ anyone who overthrows the democracy, holds office after it has been overthrown, sets himself up as tyrant, or helps to set up a tyrant. Such a man may be killed with impunity and anyone who dies in the process will receive the benefits of Harmodios and Aristogeiton. Still standing in front of the Bouleuterion in 330 B. C., this decree was invoked by the documents for Kallias, Demochares, and Philippides and the connection served to emphasise their credentials not only as democrats, but also as tyrant-slayers and liberators, a very potent and traditional image of the good citizen which was also promoted by the cult of the Tyrannicides at the Panathenaia.

  • 66 No matter how we wish to understand the relationships between the decrees of Kallias and Phaidros o (...)

24The festival of 286, consequently, should have been a perfect occasion for displaying the newly liberated and now democratic Athenians both to themselves and to the world. The festival’s politics of liberation and its focus on democracy would have fit perfectly with the ways in which the Athenians were remembering their revolution against Demetrios. The heroes of that fight were men constructed in the mould of the Tyrannicides themselves. At the same time, the very dynamics of the cult of Harmodios and Aristogeiton and of the sacrifices for Athena would have emphasised and encouraged unity among the Athenians, unity which had very probably been lacking during the preceding years66. This unity would have been reinforced by the treatment of Leokritos and the other dead as war-dead, men who fell fighting external enemies, rather than fellow citizens, as can happen in revolution. The glorification of these events as external war would also have worked with the Panathenaia’s division between Athenians, their colonists, and their allies and everyone else who did not share in this status. In 286, these dynamics would further have increased Athenian unity. At the same time, the festival would have been the perfect moment for displaying the reciprocal relationship between the city and the goddess, for thanking her for her past help (in defeating Demetrios), and for requesting her continuing aid against the new democracy’s enemies. In short, this particular Great Panathenaia should have been a glorious affair… but it never took place. Four years later, the festival of 282, the first held after the city had been recovered, was a different occasion with its own dynamics, not the politics of 286.

Consequences

25These politics, accordingly, should have made the Great Panathenaia of 286 the least likely festival to have been cancelled by the boule and the demos of the Athenians, who must have had an exceptionally good reason for doing so. Understanding why the Athenians made these decisions further suggests that the accepted chronology is in need of revision. According to the opinio communis, the city was recovered in 287, one year before the Great Panathenaia was due to be celebrated: there should have been plenty of time to organise the festival and to make all the necessary arrangements. If the finances were insufficient, then the Athenians could have appealed to Ptolemy I for aid, just as four years later they certainly asked his son for help with the celebration of 282. Extreme bad weather, unlikely in the summer month of Hekatombaion, would only have forced the curtailment, not the cancellation, of the proceedings, as the evidence for the Dionysia of 301 suggests. That other parallels show the reinstatement of sacrifices and festivals as soon as possible after war had forced their omission further suggests that the Athenians should have celebrated the Panathenaia in 286, even if the occasion was not as spectacular as they would have liked or as they were accustomed. That it was cancelled is certain and that decision requires explanation.

  • 67 SEG, 28, 60,27-28
  • 68 SEG, 28, 60,27-40.
  • 69 Gonnoi 109,24-43; Parker 2005, 88. Date: ca. 250: LPGN II, s. v. ëArceptçolemoj 2, Swsigçenhj 7; la (...)

26We know from Kallias’ inscription that, when Demetrios eventually arrived at Athens, he immediately besieged the city and his forces still must have been in place when the peace negotiations were underway67. Although Kallias was wounded during the siege, he was sufficiently recovered to be involved with the peace negotiations: the siege may well have gone on for some time68. If these events had taken place at the time of the Great Panathenaia of 286, we might imagine that the truce proclaimed by the spondophoroi, which is certainly attested in the middle or later part of the third century BC, would have been in effect69. These truces, however, were meant to cover ordinary military circumstances, not the close siege of a city, and, in any case, the Athenians could not have assumed that Demetrios would observe any such formalities. Either under imminent threat of a siege or after Demetrios’ arrival outside the city’s walls, the Athenians would have had very good reason to cancel the festival for Athena. Some of the necessary venues, such as the stadium and the hippodrome, were located outside of the walls where they would have been inaccessible. Visitors also would not have been able to enter the city and the necessary sacrificial animals may also have needed to be brought in from the country.

27Placing the revolution and Demetrios’ siege in the summer of 286 rather than in 287 would easily and fully explain why the Athenians decided to cancel the Great Panathenaia of 286. Eager to rebuild their reciprocal relationship with Athena and to re-establish unity in the city, the Athenians decided, perhaps immediately, to celebrate the festival of 282. Very likely, the Small Panathenaia of 285, 284, and 283 were unaffected by the cancellation of the festivities of 286, just as the Small Panathenaia of 403 was held despite the disruptions caused by the Thirty’s rule and the exile of the demos. Such an interpretation explains the evidence provided by Kallias’ decree and it fits together with the dynamics inherent in all sacrifices and festivals. It also respects the relative rarity of the complete cancellation of celebrations. Of course, in order to follow this proposal, we must abandon the accepted chronology for the Athenians’ revolution against Demetrios Poliorketes. In view of well-known scholars’ support for it, such a course might be deemed rash. The traditional view, however, creates a further problem, one which no one supporting it has addressed: the reasons behind cancelling the Great Panathenaia of 286, a decision not lightly undertaken lest the wrath of the goddess descend upon the city. Whatever date we choose to adopt for the revolution, we must explain the circumstances surrounding the Athenians’ decision and we cannot dismiss them as unimportant: the city’s future depended on the reciprocal relationship between the goddess and her people.

Notes

2 SEG, 28, 60.

3 Plut., Demetr., 46,1-4; Paus. 1,26,1-2.

4 [Plut.], Mor., 851E; Shear, Jr. 1978, 63-65; Woodhead 1997, 245. That the city was under the democracy in this year is confirmed by the reference to the plural board of administration in IG, II2, 663,36-38, which is dated to Diokles’ archonship by its copy, Agora, XVI, 172,1-3; Shear, Jr. 1978, 65.

5 IG, II2, 650.16-17.

6 286: Shear, Jr. 1978, 60-73.287: e. g. Habicht 1979, 45-67; Osborne 1979, 181-194; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 227-233; Green 1990, 128-129; Dreyer 1996; Habicht 1997, 95-97; Mikalson 1998, 104; Dreyer 1999, 200-223. Woodhead (1997, 245) opts not to choose.

7 SEG, 28, 60,55-66.

8 E. g. Shear, Jr. 1978, 35-39; Habicht 1979, 77 note 6, 85; Osborne 1980, 299; Habicht 1992, 70 with n. 10; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas 1995, 44; Dreyer 1996, 50-56; Parker 1996, 263; Mikalson 1998, 108-109 with n. 9, 134; Dreyer 1999, 204-211; Habicht 2006, 158-159.

9 In this endeavour, Ron Stroud’s help has been of utmost value and he has very kindly confirmed and discussed my readings in front of the stone.

10 SEG, 28, 60,55-70. Bibliography: Shear, Jr. 1978, 1-8, 33-44; Habicht 1979, 45-67; Osborne 1979, 181-194; Bagnall 1980, 244-247; Osborne 1980, 298-299; Heinen 1981, 189-194; Gauthier 1985, 77-89; BE 1987, no. 253 (P. Gauthier); Lanciers 1987, 52-86; Habicht 1992, 69-70; Ameling, Bringmann, and Schmidt-Dounas 1995, 40-45, no. 16; Dreyer 1996, 45-67; Parker 1996, 263 note 32; Agora, XVI, 255D; Mikalson 1998, 108-109, 134; Dreyer 1999, 203-223; Habicht 2006, 158-159.

11 Dreyer 1996, 56; Dreyer 1999, 211; Osborne 1980, 299.

12 Thuc. 3,104,2.

13 Diod. Sic., 11,33,3; Plut., Thes., 21,3; Per., 13,11.

14 For his supplement τότε [τρίτο] Ι ν, Dreyer cites SEG, 39, 1244, col. I. 22; Dreyer 1996, 56 n. 72; Dreyer 1999, 211 n. 66. This section of the honorary decree for Menippos of Kolophon concerns a series of embassies, of which the one in question is the third; this passage, consequently, does not provide a parallel for Dreyer’s restoration in the inscription for Kallias. Nor do generalships held for the second or fifth time, as Dreyer has more recently suggested; Dreyer 1999, 211 n. 66. See also the remarks of Habicht 2006, 158-159.

15 IG, II2, 3079. Since two successes in the team event of the anthippasia and only one choral victory are mentioned, the monument must have been set up by the tribe and not the agonothetes, Glaukon, the son of Eteokles, of Aithalidai which was, by this time, part of the tribe Antigonis and not Leontis; contra: Wilson 2000, 275-276; on the tribal affiliation of Aithalidai, see Traill 1975, 109.

16 Date of Nikias: Meritt 1977, 173; Shear, Jr. 1978, 38 n. 94 with earlier bibliography; Dreyer 1996, 55 n. 68; Woodhead 1997, 256-257.

17 IG, II2, 3079,5-6, 10-12, crowns 1, 3.

18 Either on 29 Daisios 282 (i. e. 10 May 282), as argued by Nerwinski (1981, 33-47, 118-136), or in the late winter of 282, as suggested by Hazzard (2000, 28-29).

19 Parker 1998, esp. 105.

20 Hom., Il., 1.37-52; Parker 1998, 106-107 with further examples. For the exception to this rule, see Parker 1998, 117 note 39.

21 Hom., Il., 6,293-311; Parker 1998, 116-117 with n. 39.

22 Rhodes & Osborne 2004, 41.6-12; cf. IG, II2, 114.6-12; Agora, XVI, 41.2-3.

23 Parker 1998, 124-125.

24 Vernant 1981; Vernant 1989, 21-61, 73-75; Detienne 1989a, 7.

25 Vernant 1981; Vernant 1989, 21-61, 73-75; Detienne 1989a, 7.

26 Vernant 1981, 73-74; Vernant 1989, 37-38; Detienne 1989a, 8-9.

27 Detienne 1989a, 3-4; Durand 1989, 104; Detienne 1989b, 131-132; Rudhardt 1992, 289-290, 296; Jameson 1998, 178; Osborne 2000, 311-312; cf. Bruit Zaidman & Schmitt Pantel 1992, 34, 36.

28 Parker 2005, 37, 42-45.

29 Rhodes & Osborne 2004, 73.

30 Cf. Rudhardt 1992, 290, 296; Detienne 1989a, 14 and above n. 28.

31 Eur., Trojan Women, 26-27. Compare in reverse Hdt. 8,41,2-3: before the Battle of Salamis, when the snake on the Akropolis does not eat the cake left for it, the Athenians believe that Athena has abandoned the city and so must they.

32 Eur., Hipp., 1-57.

33 Soph., Ant., 998-1090.

34 Agora, XVI, 188,1-5. For further examples, albeit partially restored, see Pritchett 1976, 350; for the problems of Elaphebolion, see also Woodhead 1997, 268; Meritt 1961, 161-166, 208.

35 Thuc. 5,54,1-4; Gomme, Andrewes, Dover 1970, 75.

36 Plut., Demetr., 12.4-5.

37 Men. Imbrioi test. 1 (PCG) = P. Oxy., 1235,105-112; Habicht 1997, 83.

38 Lysias 21,4.

39 Thuc. 3,104,2-3.

40 Thuc. 3,104,6.

41 Xen., Hell., 1,4,20; Plut., Alk., 34,3-7.

42 Diod. Sic. 15,49,1.

43 Dem. 19,86,125; Parker 2005, 472-473.

44 Thuc. 5,82,2-3.

45 Habicht 2006, 156-166. Notice, however, that three of his examples are conditional: the sacrifices or festival are to be held unless war should prevent it. These clauses allow for the possibility that war might in the future prevent the events from being held. They do not indicate that such circumstances would certainly happen.

46 Pol. 5,106,1-3.

47 I. Rhamnous, 17,27-30. The City Dionysia may also have been affected by this war; see IG, II2, 1299,31-32.

48 IG, II2, 1299,56-57; Habicht 1997, 164-166; for the date of Lysias’ archonship, see Osborne 2003a, 68-69, 73; Osborne 2003b, 99-100. Placing Lysias one year later in 237/6 ignores the demands of the Metonic cycle; for this date, see Steinhauer 1993, 47; Tracy 2003a, 168.

49 Cf. van Wees 2004, 119.

50 Cf. the spondophoroi sent out by the city to announce the Eleusinia, Panathenaia, and Mysteries; Gonnoi, 109,11-12, 35-38. As the phrase ‘sent out by the city’ indicates, they were authorised by the demos and the boule.

51 Shear 2007a, 137-140, 141-143; for the tribal team events see IG, II2, 2311,83-93 with the text as Shear 2003.

52 See briefly Shear 2007a, 140; Shear 2001, 203-206 with 186-203 for the details of the gifts.

53 Demes: Plotheia: IG, I3, 258,22-28; Skambonidai: IG, I3, 244, A, 15-21; tribes (probably): Dem. 21,156 with the Pat. schol. Dem. 20,21; gene: Salaminioi: Rhodes and Osborne 2004, no. 37.88-89; other groups: technitai of Dionysos: IG, II2, 1330,51-54.

54 IG, I3, 46,15-16; 71,55-58; IG, II2, 456, b, 3-8; Rhodes and Osborne 2004, no. 29,2-6; I. Priene, 5.2-6, 10-15; 45,8-12; schol. vet. Ar., Clouds, 386a; schol. rec. Ar., Clouds, 386b; schol. Tzetz., Ar., Clouds, 386.

55 IG, I3, 34,41-43; 71,55-58.

56 IG, I3, 375,6-7; Hdt. 6,111,2; cf. IG, II2, 1496,98-101, 129 and Agora, XVI, 75,32-52, which pertain to the annual Panathenaia.

57 Arist., Ath. Pol., 58.1, repeated by Poll., Onom., 8,91; Dem. 19,280; Cic., Mil., 80; Philostr., VA, 7.4; Shear 2001, 208-222.

58 For the role(s) of rituals in creating memory, see e. g. Connerton 1989, 41-71, 102-4; Cressy 1992; Young 1993, 263-281; Cressy 1994; Geary 1994, 77-92; Hedrick, Jr. 2000, 89-91, 101, 106-107, 126-130, 220-241, and cf. 113-126; Sherman 2001, 261-308; Elsner 2003, 222-225. For an annual sacrifice as a memorial in ancient Greece, see Agora, XVI, 114,19-24.

59 Paus. 1,26,2.

60 Paus. 1,29,13.

61 For their burial in the Demosion Sema, see Lysias 2,64; Loraux 1986, 35-36, 200; Shear 2007c, 106.

62 SEG, 28, 60,79-83; Shear Jr. 1978, 47-55.

63 [Plut.], Mor., 851F; Shear Jr. 1978, 47-51. On the date of Pytharatos’ archonship, see also Woodhead 1997, 268.

64 IG, II2, 657,48-50; Shear Jr. 1978, 47-51. On the date of Euthios’ archonship, see also Woodhead 1997, 256-257.

65 Andok. 1,96-98. On this decree, see Shear 2007b. For its location in front of the Bouleuterion in the Agora, see Andok. 1,95; Lykourg., Leok., 124, 126.

66 No matter how we wish to understand the relationships between the decrees of Kallias and Phaidros of Sphettos, SEG, 28, 60 and IG, II2, 682 respectively, and the brothers’ political stances, Phaidros’ decree suggests that there had been a lack of unity in Athens in the period leading up to the revolution.

67 SEG, 28, 60,27-28

68 SEG, 28, 60,27-40.

69 Gonnoi 109,24-43; Parker 2005, 88. Date: ca. 250: LPGN II, s. v. ëArceptçolemoj 2, Swsigçenhj 7; later part of the third century: Helly 1973, 126-127. These spondophoroi announced truces for the Eleusinia, the Panathenaia, and the Mysteries. Although the truce for the Mysteries is attested already about 460 BC, we do not know when the other two were first instituted; IG, I3, 6b, II, 8-47.

Auteur

Department of Classics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

© Ausonius Éditions, 2010

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540