The Springtime of the People: The Athenian Ephebeia and Citizen Training from Lykourgos to Augustus 9789004433366, 9004433368

Citation preview

The Springtime of the People The Athenian Ephebeia and Citizen Training from Lykourgos to Augustus

By

Thomas R. Henderson

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: A stele (Agora I 7484) carrying a fragment of a decree (IG II/III3 1, 1166) honoring Athenian ephebes of 214/13 bce, their officers, and trainers. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Henderson, Thomas R., author. Title: The springtime of the people : the Athenian Ephebeia and citizen  training from Lykourgos to Augustus / by Thomas R. Henderson. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2020. | Series: Brillʼs studies in  Greek and Roman epigraphy, 1876-2557 ; vol. 15 | Includes  bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020020141 (print) | LCCN 2020020142 (ebook) |  ISBN 9789004433359 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004433366 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Ephebia. | Education, Greek. | Military education—  Greece—History. | Athens (Greece)—Intellectual life. | Inscriptions,  Greek. | Greece—Civilization—To 146 B.C. Classification: LCC DF95 .H46 2020 (print) | LCC DF95 (ebook) |  DDC 305.235/109385—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020020141 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020020142

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1876-2557 isbn 978-90-04-43335-9 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-43336-6 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

τοῖς διδασκάλοις

∵

Contents Acknowledgements xi Preface xii List of Abbreviations xvii List of Epigraphical Conventions xx

part 1 Preliminaries 1

What Was an Ephebe? 3 1 ἥβη and ἡβάω in Homer 6 2 ἥβη and ἡβάω in Athenian Tragedy 9 3 ἥβη and ἡβάω in Athenian Social Life 12 4 ἡβάω and ἐφηβάω 17 5 ἔφηβος Prior to the Age of Lykourgos: the Kyropaideia of Xenophon 19 6 ἔφηβος Prior to the Age of Lykourgos: the Oath of the Ephebes 22 7 ἔφηβος Prior to the Age of Lykourgos: the Military Service of Aiskhines 25 8 ἔφηβος in the Age of Lykourgos 30 9 New Citizens and New Soldiers 33 10 Conclusion 35

2

The Origin of the Athenian Ephebeia 36 1 Epikrates and the Law of the Ephebes 37 2 The Political Character of Athens in the Fifth and Early Fourth Centuries BCE 39 3 The Silence of the Literary Sources 42 4 The Silence of the Epigraphical Sources 48 5 Conclusion 55

3

The Purpose of the Athenian Ephebeia 56 1 The Purpose of the Ephebeia: Hoplite Training? 56 2 The Purpose of the Ephebeia: “Problems on the Border?” 57 3 Citizen Training: εὐταξία, πειθαρχία, and σωφροσύνη 62 4 Citizen Training: Xenophon, Isokrates, Plato 67 5 Citizen Training: The Age of Lykourgos 74 6 Conclusion 77

viii

Contents

part 2 The Lykourgan Ephebeia 4

Organization 81 1 The Organization of the Ephebeia: Officials and Magistrates 81 2 The Organization of the Ephebeia: the Ephebic Tribe 97 3 The Khlamys as a Symbol of Membership in the Ephebeia 104 4 Conclusion 109

5

Paideia 110 1 Ephebic Military Service 110 2 Ephebic Trainers and Training 127 3 Conclusion 138

6

Religion 140 1 Tour of Sanctuaries 140 2 The Oath Ceremony 144 3 Oath of the Ephebes 147 4 Panathenaia 152 5 Amphiaraia 155 6 Nemesia 157 7 Torch-Races 158 8 The Eutaxia Competition 163 9 Conclusion 168

part 3 The Hellenistic Ephebeia 7

The Late Fourth Century BCE 171 1 The Lamian War and the Ephebeia 171 2 The Oligarchy of Demades and Phokion (321/0–319/8 BCE) 174 3 Democracy’s Brief Return (319/8–318/7 BCE) 177 4 The Tyranny of Demetrios of Phaleron (317–307 BCE) 179 5 Between Freedom and Dependency (307–287 BCE) 185 6 The Tyranny of Lakhares and Regime of Demetrios Poliorketes 193 7 Conclusion 196

Contents

ix

8

Organization, Training and Service (268/7‒31 BCE) 197 1 Participation and Manpower 198 2 Financing the Ephebeia 201 3 Who Joined the Ephebeia? 205 4 Organization of the Hellenistic Ephebeia 208 5 Military Service 211 6 Trainers and Training 217 7 Honors and Awards 221 8 Conclusion 225

9

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life (229‒31 BCE) 227 1 Ephebes and Religion in the Age of Eurykleides and Mikion 229 2 Initiation, Bull-Lifting and the Ephebeia 235 3 Festivals, Cultural Memory and the Ephebeia 245 4 Territory, Cult and the Ephebeia 251 5 Conclusion 256

10

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome (128/7‒31 BCE) 257 1 Ephebes and Athens’ Philosophers 258 2 Athenian Ephebes and Foreign Youth 267 3 Ephebes and the Apantesis 273 4 The Mithridatic War and the Athenian Ephebeia 278 5 The Final Years of the Hellenistic Ephebeia 281 6 Conclusion 289 Epilogue 291 Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions 298 Lykourgan Age 298 Hellenistic Era 303 A Under Foreign Rule (323–307 BCE) 303 B Between Freedom and Dependency (307–287 BCE) 304 C Independent City (287–262 BCE) 305 D Renewed Subjugation (262–229 BCE) 305 E Freedom and Neutrality (229–200 BCE) 308 F Alliance with Rome (200–167 BCE) 310 G Battle of Pydna to War with Sulla (167–88 BCE) 312 H From Sulla to Anthony (87–31 BCE) 319 A Selection of Ephebic Documents 324

x

Contents

Appendices 1 2 3 4

Participation Totals for Hellenistic Ephebeia by Year 359 Catalogue of Ephebes: 267/6‒230/29 BCE 361 Demographic Data of Ephebes: 267/6‒230/29 BCE 375 Participation of Foreign Ephebes (2nd Century BCE) 378 Bibliography 379 Index of Sources 404 1 Literary Sources 404 2 Epigraphical Sources 419 3 Papyrological Sources 430 General Index 431 1 Important Greek Words and Expressions 431 2 Names of Festivals: Processions, Rites, Sacrifices, Contests 432 3 Names of Gods and Heroes 433 4 Names of Historical Figures 434 5 Important Regions, Locations, Places 436 6 Important Subjects 437

Acknowledgements This project could not have been brought to successful completion without the help of a number of scholars, colleagues, friends and family. A gold crown and public praise belong first and foremost to James Sickinger, who read many versions of the chapters that appear here and made numerous helpful suggestions. I also thank Molly Richardson, agatha daimon at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, who gave up several of her afternoons to introduce the study of Greek epigraphy to me at the Blegen Library. Stephen Tracy and Jack Davis, past Directors of the ASCSA, facilitated my stays in Athens while I carried out research on the ephebeia. John Camp, Jan Jordan and the staff of the Agora excavation allowed me to study the epigraphical material under their care. Jacqueline Riley, the Director of the John Miller Burnam Classics Library at the University of Cincinnati, kindly granted me access to the stacks for several summers and made me feel at home while I stayed in Cincinnati. Study of the ephebeia was made possible by the Lucy Shoe Merritt Fellowship and Eugene Vanderpool Fellowship from the ASCSA; by the M. Lynette Thompson Dissertation Fellowship from the Florida State University Dept. of Classics; and by the Florida State University Dissertation Research Grant. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the faculty and staff of the Classics Department at Florida State University. Francis Cairns, although not a member of my thesis committee nor directly involved in my research, has always been a helpful and wise mentor. As a graduate student, I “minored in Cairns,” and his approach to ancient texts and enthusiasm for his students made me a better scholar and teacher. Members of my family have been my biggest cheerleaders and deserve special thanks for the encouragement they gave me during this process. I owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude to my wife Jennifer, who learned more about the ephebeia than she ever thought possible (or desirable!). She has been an unending source of patience, support and love.

Preface The ephebeia was a system of military training for eighteen- and nineteenyear-old newly enrolled male citizens called ephebes. While some important aspects of the ephebeia changed over more than three centuries of its history discussed in this book, the nature of training remained remarkably constant. In general it consisted of instruction in weapons handling, archery, throwing the javelin, and releasing the catapult. Consequently, the nature of its instructors also remained consistent. These were the hoplomakhos (weapons trainer), toxotes (archery instructor), akontistes (javelin trainer), and katapaltaphetes (catapult instructor). Complementing instruction in the arts of war was gymnastics training provided by the paidotribes. Training took place in the Athenian gymnasia (the Academy, Lykeion, and later the Ptolemaion and Diogeneion). During the course of their training and service, the young men who participated in the institution guarded the Athenian fortresses at Peiraieus and along the border in the Athenian khora. It provided military training at first for a large number of newly enrolled Athenian citizens, but later for a much smaller group of the city’s “civic elites,” i.e., wealthier, politically and militarily active citizens who had the money, saw a value in such training, and pursued a course of life in providing political and military leadership to their city. Scholars from the early modern period to today have taken a keen interest in the Athenian ephebeia.1 Before the mid-nineteenth century, however, much of their discussion was based on a pitifully small number of ephebic inscriptions from the Roman period and a handful of meager references in the ancient lexicographers. Two important discoveries sparked renewed and serious study of the Athenian ephebeia. The first was the recovery of a cache of ephebic inscriptions in 1860 by the Greek Archaeological Society. The Society discovered more material from the Roman era near the Church of Hagios Demetrios Katephori, perhaps in the vicinity of the ancient Diogeneion, and some inscriptions of the later Hellenistic Period from the Post-Herulian Wall near the Athenian Agora. Dittenberger in his university dissertation and Dumont in a detailed, two-volume treatment of all of the available epigraphical material provided the first full examinations of these inscriptions in which they classified and attempted to arrange the texts chronologically, and narrated and discussed

1  Significant studies of Greek citizen-training systems outside Athens include Collignon 1877; Poland 1909; Hin 2007; Chankowski 2010.

Preface

xiii

the nature of the institution as it was understood at that time.2 Other studies based on the work of these men soon followed.3 Another important moment in the study of the Athenian ephebeia was the publication in 1891 of [Aristotle’s] Athenaion Politeia (hence Ath. Pol.) from an Egyptian papyrus in the British Museum.4 This monumental work greatly expanded our knowledge of Athenian history and the history of the city’s politics and political institutions down to 322 BCE. The second half of this treatise (chapters forty-two to the end) explores the arrangement of the Athenian constitution (ἡ κατάστασις τῆς πολιτείας) in the author’s day. For those interested in the early history of the ephebeia, this work is invaluable. For, before delving into questions regarding the Athenian constitution, the bulk of chapter 42 (Ath. Pol. 42.2 to the end) addresses the two-year system of military training and service in which newly minted citizens participated. Scholarship since the publication of the Ath. Pol. has largely been consumed with one important question: When did the Athenians create the ephebeia? The communis opinio prior to the publication of the Ath. Pol. was that some form of the ephebeia described above existed in the fifth and/or early fourth century BCE. In his exploration of this treatise, however, Wilamowitz argued that the institution was established in 335/4 BCE, in the aftermath of the Battle of Khaironeia (338 BCE).5 In the twentieth century, two scholars contributed book-length studies of the Athenian ephebeia. The first was Chrysis Pélékidis who published in 1962 the first history of the ephebeia down to 31 BCE.6 Pélékidis brought together for the first time the principal literary sources and the epigraphical data as catalogued, dated, and discussed in Inscriptiones Graecae II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, 2nd edition (hence IG II/III2) and attempted to offer a synthesized account of the ephebeia. Also, Pélékidis attempted to provide in his work a diachronic history of the ephebeia by delineating stages in its historical development as defined by corresponding inscriptions from each period. Further, his history included a discussion of the Hellenistic ephebeia, a phase of the institution that had not received much attention since the publications of Dittenberger and Dumont. Pélékidis was able to draw upon a handful of new texts, recently discovered as a result of the excavations of the Athenian Agora under the auspices of the American School of Classical 2  Dittenberger 1862; Dumont 1875–6. Both men also provide good summaries of scholarship on the Athenian ephebeia prior to the 1860 discoveries at Athens. 3  E.g., Grasberger 1881; Girard 1891, id. and 1892, 621–36. 4  British Museum Papyrus CXXXI. Kenyon 1891; Rhodes 1993. 5  Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1893, 191–3. 6  Pélékidis 1962.

xiv

Preface

Studies at Athens, which supplement those already published in IG II/III2. Finally, he attempted to couch his description of the ephebeia within the long political history of Hellenistic Athens, which was not very well understood when he wrote. Pélékidis’ work made an important and original contribution to the study of the institution and some of his observations and conclusions remain valid to this day. One major thesis that Pélékidis advanced in his history of the Athenian ephebeia was the renewal of the traditional belief that, contrary to Wilamowitz and others, some sort of ephebeia existed prior to the Age of Lykourgos. This belief—mistaken, I hope to show—was shared with Oscar Reinmuth, our second important contributor. In his 1952 article on the origins of the ephebeia and especially in his 1971 monograph on the ephebic documents of the fourth century BCE, Reinmuth vigorously argued that the Athenians had established a system of military training for newly enrolled citizens in the late fifth or early fourth centuries BCE, which in his view was directly connected with a young Athenian’s responsibility to provide service in the Athenian military.7 Generations of subsequent scholars followed Pélékidis and Reinmuth in their belief that a fifth and/or early fourth century ephebeia existed at Athens.8 With the discovery of new epigraphical texts, a new account of the Athenian ephebeia is long overdue. The publication of Christian Habicht’s seminal work on the history of Athens in the Hellenistic Period and important contributions by Graham Oliver and others have facilitated this task. Over the past 20 years, the history of the ephebeia has been the subject of renewed scholarly attention. For instance, Henri de Marcellus’ dissertation History of the Attic Ephebeia (1994) explores the institution down to 200 BCE. John Friend’s excellent contribution to the subject, The Athenian Ephebeia in the Fourth Century BCE (2019), concentrates on the formative first 12 years of the institution. Study of the later Athenian ephebeia was enriched by Éric Perrin-Saminadayar’s 2007 monumental investigation into Athenian cultural life from the late third to the early first centuries BCE. Nigel Kennell’s many essays on the ephebates of Hellenistic and Roman Greece have moved the subject of citizen training systems forward and helped lay the groundwork of future studies. Chankowski’s 7  Reinmuth 1952, 34–50; id. 1971, 1–4, 123–5. Besides his work on the early ephebeia, Reinmuth published on narrower aspects of other periods in the institution’s history, such as the presence of foreigners in the Hellenistic and Roman ephebeia, which will be addressed in later chapters. 8  Mitchel 1964, 337–51; Roscam 1969, 187–215; Gauthier 1976, 190–5; Ridley 1979, 534; Ober 1985, 90–5; and id. 2001, 203–4; Vidal-Naquet 1986a; id. 1986b, 126–44; Winkler 1990, 20–62; Burckhardt 1996, 32; Slater 1996, 27–52; Mitchell-Boyask 1999, 42–66; Christ 2001, 398–422; Schnapp 1997,133–5; and Griffith 2001, 55–6.

Preface

xv

recent volume, a study of the ephebates of the Greek islands and Asia Minor during the Hellenistic Age, is a stimulating addition to works connected with the Athenian ephebeia and offers many thoughtful interpretations regarding the nature of the ephebe and origin of the institution at Athens. The nature of the issues and the sheer volume of texts connected with ephebates both inside and outside Athens invite further study of these fascinating systems of citizen training. What follows is the first comprehensive description of the institution since Pélékidis’ 1962 monograph. I begin my examination of the program of training and service in the Lykourgan Period and carry it down to 31 BCE, the end of the Hellenistic Period at Athens. I have three broad goals in mind. First, I aim to provide a more complete diachronic history of the institution. One significant limitation of Pélékidis’ study was the relatively small number of inscriptions available to him in his day. As a result he tended to telescope important developments and mischaracterize stages of the institution’s history. Since then, dozens of new epigraphical discoveries have been made. No work on the ephebeia has collected and discussed all of these inscriptions together. Although a few of these texts were known to Pélékidis, some have been subsequently reedited and/or re-dated by epigraphists. Others, however, represent new finds and have only recently been published. By incorporating them into our history, we are better able to detect changes in the institution, especially in the Hellenistic period. Second, I aim to establish a firm starting place for any history of this institution. As noted above, the communis opinio maintains that the origin of the ephebeia is to be found in a pre-Lykourgan period of Athenian history. By considering the contemporary epigraphical and literary sources I argue (along with Wilamowitz, de Marcellus, and Friend) that the ephebeia began in the Age of Lykourgos. I demonstrate that there are no ephebic inscriptions prior to the Lykourgan Age and that all of the available literary sources indicate that no system of military training existed. Instead, the evidence strongly suggests that the choice to pursue such training was freely decided by individual citizens. Only during the Lykourgan period did citizens train directly upon citizen enrollment through a state directed and financed system of military instruction and service. Third, I aim to show that the Hellenistic phase of the ephebeia was not an institution in decline, as Marrou, Pélékidis and other scholars have maintained, but remained a vital and vibrant part of Athenian cultural life. Through a close examination of the ephebic texts of the third and second centuries, some only recently discovered and published, I highlight the fact that military training and service was still the centerpiece of citizen training for young

xvi

Preface

men attending this institution and that only late in its history, i.e., occasionally during the last few decades of the second century and regularly in the first century BCE, did the institution introduce non-military training, such as literary study, to the curriculum. This book begins with three chapters that address issues related to the nature of the ephebe (Chapter 1), origin of the ephebeia (Chapter 2), and purpose of the institution (Chapter 3). Three chapters comprise a detailed investigation into the organization (Chapter 4), military service and training (Chapter 5), and limited religious activity (Chapter 6) of the ephebes in the Lykourgan Age. The last four chapters explore the ephebeia of the Hellenistic Period. Chapter 7 traces the development of the institution in the late fourth century. Chapter 8 explores the reorganization of the ephebeia as it appears from the early third century forward. Chapter 9 examines the expanded role of participating ephebes in the religious life of Athens. Chapter 10 details innovations to the ephebeia, such as expanding the curriculum to include subjects of a non-military nature and the participation of foreign ephebes in the institution. The Epilogue summarizes the findings of this study, provides a brief outline of the history of the Roman Imperial phase of the ephebeia, and highlights some issues of interest for future investigation. “Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions” and “A Selection of Ephebic Documents” appear at the end of this volume. The Catalogue provides a chronological list of all the texts connected with the Athenian ephebes (rosters, dedications, honorary decrees) from 334 BCE to 31 BCE. The present collection of inscriptions from the Lykourgan Age to the end of the Hellenistic Period consists of nearly 130 texts. I have assigned to each an ID number (e.g., T1.1) to simplify citation within the body of the book. One may easily cross check the ID number with the Catalogue to discover inventory number(s), find spot(s), the date of each text, editions, and secondary literature. For the sample texts provided in the Selection that follows the Catalogue, I present inscriptions and other documents which illuminate the organization of the ephebeia, the service and training of the ephebes, and the variety of epigraphical sources.

Abbreviations Agora III Agora XV Agora XVI Agora XVIII APF Asklepieion BMC Lydia CIRB FGrHist FHG I.Arykanda I.Beroia I.Delos I.Eleusis

I.Kalchedon I.Miletos I.Oropos I.Priene I.Rhamnous I.Sestos I.Thess. I IG I3

Agora III: Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia. Wycherley, R.E. (ed.) Princeton 1957. Agora XV: Inscriptions: The Athenian Councillors. Meritt B.D. and Traill, J.S. (eds.) Princeton 1974. Agora XVI: Inscriptions: The Decrees. Woodhead, A.G. (ed.) Princeton 1997. Agora XVIII: Inscriptions: The Dedicatory Monuments. Geagan, D.J. (ed.) Princeton 2011. Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B.C. Davies, J.K. Oxford 1971. The Athenian Asklepieion. Aleshire, S.B. (ed.) Amsterdam 1989. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum, Lydia. Head, B.V. (ed.) London 1901. Corpus inscriptionum regni Bosporani. Struve, V. (ed.) Moscow 1965. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Jacoby, F. (ed.) Berlin 1923– 1930; Leiden, 1940–1958. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Müller, K. (ed.) Paris 1841–1873. Die Inschriften von Arykanda. Shin, S. (ed.) Bonn 1994. Ἐπιγραφὲς Κάτω Μακεδονίας. Α΄Ἐπιγραφὲς Βεροίας. Gounaropoulou, L. and Hatzopoulos, M. (eds.) Athens 1998. Inscriptions de Délos (7 vols.). Paris 1926–1972. Eleusis. The Inscriptions on Stone. Documents of the Sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme. Clinton, K. (eds.) Athens 2005. Die Inschriften von Kalchedon. Merkelbach, R., Dörner, F.K., and Şahin, S. (eds). Bonn 1980. Inschriften von Milet. Rehm, A. Herrmann, P. et al. (eds.) Berlin 1997–98. Oι επιγραφές του Ωρωπού. Petrakos, V. (ed.) Athens 1980. Die Inschriften von Priene. Hiller von Gaertringen, F. (ed.) Berlin 1906. Ὁ ∆ῆµος τοῦ Ῥαµνοῦντος, vol. I–II. Athens. Petrakos, V. (ed.) Athens 1999. Die Inschriften von Sestos und der thrakischen Chersones. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 19. Krauss, J. (ed.). Bonn 1980. Inscriptions de Thessalie I: Les cités de la vallée de l’Énipeus. Études épigraphiques, 3. Decourt, Jean-Claude (ed.) Athens 1995. Inscriptiones Graecae I Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores. Editio tertia. D.M. Lewis, Jeffery, L.H., Erxleben, E., Hallof, K. (eds.) Berlin 1981–1994.

xviii

Abbreviations

IG II2

Inscriptiones Graecae II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Editio secunda. Kirchner, J. (ed.) Berlin 1913–1940. Inscriptiones Graecae II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Editio tertia. Berlin 2012-. Pars 1, Leges et decreta. Fasc. 2, Leges et decreta annorum 352/1–322/1. Lambert, S. (ed.) Berlin 2012. (Nos. 292–386); Fasc. 4, Leges et decreta annorum 300/299–230/229. Osborne, M.J. et S.J. Byrne (eds.) Berlin 2015. (Nos. 844–1134); Fasc. 5, Leges et decreta annorum 229/8–168/7. Bardani, V. et Tracy, S.V. (eds.) Berlin 2012. (Nos. 1135–1461). Inscriptiones Graecae. Vol. II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Editio tertia. Pars 4. J. Curbera & A. Makres (eds.) Berlin 2014. Inscriptiones Graecae XII, 5. Inscriptiones Cycladum, 2 vols. Hiller von Gaertringen, F. (ed.) Berlin 1903–1909. Inscriptiones Graecae, XII, 6. Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum. Hallof, K. and Matthaiou, A. (eds.) Berlin 2000, 2003. Inscriptiones Graecae XII, 7. Inscriptiones Amorgi et insularum vicinarum. Delamarre, J. (ed.) Berlin 1908. Inscriptiones Graecae XII, 9. Inscriptiones Euboeae insulae. Ziebarth, E. (ed.). Berlin 1915. Inscriptiones Graecae, XIV. Inscriptiones Siciliae et Italiae, additis Galliae, Hispaniae, Britanniae, Germaniae inscriptionibus. Kaibel, G. (ed.) Berlin 1890. Inscrizione Storiche Ellenistiche. Testo traduzione e commento. Biblioteco di studi superiori 53. Moretti L. and Caneli De Rossi, F. (eds.). Florence 1967. Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. Bildlexicon der antiken Mythologie. Zurich 1981–1999. Liddell, H.G. and Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., revised and augmented by Jones, H.S. et al. Revised Supplement. Glare, P.G.W. (ed.) Oxford 1996. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua I–IX. London 1928–1988. Meiggs R. and Lewis, D.M. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford 1988. Orientis Graeci Insriptiones Selectae. Dittenberger, W. (ed.) Hildesheim 1960. Poetae Comici Graeci. Kassel, R. and Austin, C. Berlin-New York 1983–2001. Poetae Melici Graeci. Page, D. (ed.) Oxford 1962.

IG II/III3 1

IG II/III3 4

IG XII 5 IG XII 6 IG XII 7 IG XII 9 IG XIV

ISE

LIMC LSJ

MAMA M&L OGIS K-A PMG

Abbreviations R&O Reinmuth Schwenk SEG SIG3 TAM V, 2 Vérilhac Verträge

xix

Rhodes, P. and Osborne, M. (eds.) Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404–323 BC. Oxford 2007. Ephebic Inscriptions in the Fourth Century B.C. Inscription. Reinmuth, O.W. Leiden 1971. Athens in the Age of Alexander: The Dated Laws & Decrees of “the Lykourgan era” 338–322 B.C. Schwenk, C. (ed.) Chicago 1985. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Various editions. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd ed. Dittenberger, W. (ed.) Leipzig 1915–24. Tituli Asiae Minoris V. Tituli Lydiae, linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti. Herrmann, P. (ed.). 2 vols. Vienna 1981 and 1989. ΠΑΙ∆ΕΣ ΑΩΡΟΙ. Vérilhac, A.-M. Athens 1978–1982. Die Verträge zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischen Zeit. Chaniotis, A. Stuttgart 1996.

Epigraphical Conventions [καὶ] {καὶ} ⟨καὶ⟩ (καὶ) κα̣ὶ ⟦καὶ⟧ καὶ ΚΑI [— — —], [….] v vacat ///

Restoration by editors of inscribed letters now lost Letters suppressed by editor Additions or substitutions by editor Resolutions by editor of abbreviations by letterer Doubtful reading Rasurae Parts read earlier, now missing Reading clear, interpretation unknown Lost or illegible letters One space left blank by letterer Line or rest of line left uninscribed Attrition

part 1 Preliminaries

∵

chapter 1

What Was an Ephebe? As with many other issues related to the Athenian ephebeia, there are deep divisions among scholars over the nature and meaning of the term ἔφηβος. While recognizing differences in particulars, two general positions can be discerned. The first regards ἔφηβος as fundamentally an age term. As a compound of ἐπί and ἥβη, it appears to be one of a small group of words that mark a young man’s relationship with ἥβη, broadly defined as youth. Among these is the adjective πρωθήβης, a compound of πρῶτος and ἥβη, used in Homer to describe boys (παῖδας) who man the walls of Troy along with the grey-haired old men. As the prefix πρῶτος suggests, they are at the outset of ἥβη and thus are not old enough to join the men of fighting age who take to the field.1 The words ἀκρήβης and ἄκρηβος refer to one who is at the point of entering ἥβη, and so may be synonymous with πρωθήβης.2 Similarly, the word ἔνηβος may also refer to those just beginning ἥβη.3 On the other hand, the terms ἄνηβος and πρόσηβος refer to those who have not yet attained ἥβη.4 At the far end of the age spectrum, the word ἔξηβος appears to refer to one who has passed out of, and thus no longer possesses, ἥβη.5 An ἔφηβος is one who is “at” (ἐπί) ἥβη. What, then, according to these scholars is ἥβη? For them, ἥβη is understood as “adolescence” or “puberty,” and thus ἔφηβος as “one who has arrived at adolescence or puberty.” From here, there are differences of opinion concerning when ἥβη begins and when it ends. The Archaic legal formula ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβῆσαι—understood by these scholars as “to be two years older than puberty”—suggests to some that ἥβη lasted for a period of two years, after which time the Athenians regarded their young men as of sufficient age to be enrolled in their respective demes and to undergo military training. For others, ἥβη extended to the age of twenty, when these Athenian 1  Hom. Il. 8.518: παῖδας πρωθήβας πολιοκροτάφους τε γέροντας. At Od. 1.429, Homer describes the young slave girl Eurykleia with a feminine form of this adjective. On Skheria, κοῦροι πρωθήβαι, “youth at the outset of ἥβη,” stood around Demodokos as he played the lyre (Od. 8.262–3). At 4.56–7, Bakkhylides describes the young hero Theseus as “παῖδα δ’ ἔµµεν πρώθηβον.” 2  Anth. Pal. 6.71, 12.124; Theokr. 8.93. 3  Ʃ Theokr. 8.3, who states that this period of life begins at 15. 4  ἄνηβος: Lys. 14.25; Plat. Leg. 833c. Hesykh. s.v. ἄνηβος states that this word refers to a twelve year old. A third century BCE victors list from Rhodes [BCH 99 (1975) 97 Face B Col. I lines 31, 37, 45, 51; Face C Col. I lines 9, 15, 23] groups ἄνηβοι under the broader category of παῖδες. πρόσηβος: Xen. Kyr. 1.4.4; D.H. 2.71.4. 5  Aiskhyl. Sept. 11. Hesykh. (s.v. ἔξηβος) states that this period of life began at 35 years of age.

4

chapter 1

youths, called ἔφηβοι, completed their two years of military training and service, took their place in the hoplite ranks and became fully integrated members of the Athenian citizen body.6 This last belief has played an important role in the interpretation of the word ἔφηβος as a period of transition and the institution of the ephebeia as consisting of initiation or rites of passage, i.e., some sort of maturation rituals that many of these scholars contend have roots in the fifth century or even earlier.7 The second position takes a strictly institutional view of the term ἔφηβος. According to these scholars, ἔφηβος has only a technical meaning. It refers to a young man who is a member of an ephebate and undertakes his ephebic service, i.e., the ephebe described by [Aristotle] in Ath. Pol. 42.2–5 and documented in the ephebic inscriptions of the Lykourgan Age. This definition would also include Aiskhines and his age mates who for two years patrolled the Athenian khora a generation or so before the Lykourgan Age, the earliest period for which we have definitive evidence for the institution. For Aiskhines twice refers to himself and his age mates as συνέφηβοι, “fellow ephebes,” which implies that he and these other young men were referred to individually as ἔφηβος. These passages are among the first historical references to the term and, for these scholars, strongly imply the existence of the ephebeia in the early fourth century, despite the absence of evidence for the institution itself. Additionally, its sudden appearance in the early fourth century coupled with the fact that there is no evidence for a system of military training in the fifth century suggests that the term ἔφηβος never had an earlier non-institutional meaning. As Kennell writes, “ἔφηβος was an Athenian word, coined at some point early in the fourth century to specify a youth who was enrolled in the newly founded training system.”8 As with the earlier school of thought, ἔφηβος 6  For ἥβη as puberty or adolescence, see Garland 1990, 166; Golden 2015, 21; and Friend 2019, 11. The source of confusion begins with the lexicographers. Didymos (Harp. s.v. ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβῆσαι; Ʃ Aiskhin. 3.122) regarded entry into ἥβη at 14 years of age and ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβῆσαι as 16. Bekker’s Anecdota Graeca s.v. ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβῆσαι marks entry into ἥβη at 16 and hence ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβῆσαι at 18. Scholars have struggled to provide an adequate interpretation. Pélékidis 1962, 51–60 believes that in the age of Solon ἥβη lasted from 16 to 20 years of age, but was later reduced to 18–20 years of age. McCulloch and Cameron 1980, 7–8 envision ἥβη as a four year period, beginning at 16 and ending at 20, at the end of which a youth passed out of ἥβη. Following Labarbe 1953, 358–94, Golden 2015, 28–9 argues that the expression found in Didymos refers to the situation in pre-Kleisthenic Athens wherein one entered the citizenship when enrolled into a phratry. Thus, in his view, the expression in Bekker refers to the age range of puberty after the Kleisthenic reforms. 7  Reinmuth 1952, 39–40; Pélékidis 1962, 79; Vidal-Naquet 1981, 151–75; Winkler 1990, 20–62; Strauss 1993, 96. 8  Kennell 2013, 19. Cf. Chankowski 1997, 339; id. 2010, 135–9.

What Was an Ephebe ?

5

was a category marking the transition from subadult to citizen. As an institutional term, Kennell maintains, an ἔφηβος should be regarded as a cadet undertaking athletic, military and ethical training in the city’s gymnasium.9 Thus, the issue of defining ἔφηβος is bound up with the very identity of the ephebe and the origin of the ephebeia. My own view incorporates, yet differs significantly from, these two positions. Without question, the term “ἔφηβος” is regularly linked in our sources to a system of military training and service, especially in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Yet, just as with the names of other organized age groups (e.g., paides and neoi) within the institution, the term had a life independent of the gymnasium from its earliest appearances, as will be illustrated below. Moreover, there is nothing in the word itself that necessitates or even indicates the concept of military training and service. As with πρωθήβης and the rest, the word implies that a youth stands in a particular relationship to ἥβη. Yet, ἥβη does not mean puberty or adolescence. As this chapter will demonstrate, constructions using ἥβη and ἡβάω (and its synonym ἐφηβάω) refer to either a) having entered into, or b) being in a state of biological and social maturity. Thus, an ἔφηβος was, as Chantraine states, “one who has arrived at manhood.”10 In order to clarify what an ἔφηβος was, this chapter begins with an exploration of the terms ἥβη and ἡβάω. This is necessary because scholars who argue for its interpretation as an age term rely unduly on scholiasts and lexicographers. These late secondary sources offer confused and conflicting accounts, which have in turn muddied our understanding of these important words. Instead, I construct an interpretation of both terms through a close examination of the primary sources. I begin with Homer, since no other Greek author uses these terms as frequently as he does. The stable set of characters and lengthy narrative in Homer allow us to discern with some precision what the referents of these terms were. As we shall see, the various formulations of ἥβη and ἡβάω refer either to entering into or being in a state of biological and social maturity. The picture that emerges from his epics also provides a foundation from which to examine the later usages of these words. Next, I turn to Athenian authors, who essentially used ἥβη and ἡβάω as Homer did, although they extended and refined the meanings of these words to suit their own social world. Comparing the results of this analysis with the far fewer instances of the Athenian term ἐφηβάω demonstrates that this term was synonymous with a certain narrow usage of ἡβάω, namely as a way of recognizing and acknowledging the entry of a young man into the age of biological 9  10 

Kennell 2015, 173, 174. Chantraine 1968, s.v. ἥβη.

6

chapter 1

and social maturity. The related term ἔφηβος refers to a young man having just arrived at that point. Although it is an Athenian coinage, it is impossible to tell when the term ἔφηβος was minted. From its earliest attestation in Xenophon and others, it appears as an age term and within the context of the polis carried the notion of “new citizen.” The coincidence of the meaning “one who has reached social maturity” and “one who is undergoing military training” occurred only in the Lykourgan Age, when the Athenians created the ephebeia, in which many, but by no means all, newly enrolled citizens participated. 1

ἥβη and ἡβάω in Homer

What is ἥβη? Although the term has as its basic meaning “youth,” its etymological origin is “power,” which provides one of the most distinctive and wellattested characteristics of this period in life, namely, physical strength.11 In the epics of Homer, the numerous trials of strength provide a context for this facet of ἥβη, for warfare and athletics were the proving ground of youth. As an example, in his confrontation with Aineias, Idomeneus complains that he is ill-matched with the Trojan, for while Aineias is in the flower of ἥβη, when superiority in trials of strength (κράτος) is greatest, he himself is older, and so has less of this quality by comparison.12 In the games on Skheria, the Phaiakian Laodamas observes that Odysseus’ strength (σθένος) is great and that he does not lack ἥβη. A few lines later, Odysseus declares that he is no stranger to competitions and places trust in his ἥβη.13 On the shores of Asia Minor, during the funeral games of Patroklos, the distance covered by the horses of Antilokhos is described in a simile as the range of a discus thrown from the shoulder that a strong man (αἰζήϊος ἀνὴρ) hurls when making trial of his ἥβη.14 The link between ἥβη and strength is even demonstrated negatively at several points in the Iliad by the old hero Nestor, who wishes that he were still in a state of ἥβη (expressed with ἡβάω in the present optative) and had his unimpaired physical strength (βίη).15 These utterances are followed by Nestor’s recollections of episodes as a young man (νέος) in which he displayed his military and athletic prowess. 11  12  13  14  15 

This definition is consistent with the etymological reconstruction of a pre-form IE *iëgweh2 based on Lithuanian and Latvian words for “power.” See Beekes 2010, 508. For earlier discussions of these terms in Homer’s epics, see Scheid-Tissinier 1993. Il. 13.484–5. Cf. Il. 12.381–3. Od. 8.136–7, 8.180–1. Il. 23.431–2: ὅν τ’ αἰζηὸς ἀφῆκεν ἀνὴρ πειρώµενος ἥβης…. Il. 7.133, 7.157, 11.670, 23.629. Cf. Od. 14.668, 503.

What Was an Ephebe ?

7

In addition to physical strength, ἥβη is marked by another outward characteristic, namely the well-known “charm” of youth. Homer attests that youth is very lovely (πολυήρατος) or most charming (χαριεστάτη) when the down is first upon the lip.16 He further elaborates on the appearance of one in ἥβη when Odysseus is revealed to Telemakhos. With a touch of her golden wand, Athena increased Odysseus’ δέµας (stature) and ἥβη. Once again, his skin becomes bronze, his cheeks fill out, and the beard on his chin darkens.17 The physical appearance of one who has attained ἥβη is matched by the corresponding expectation of a more mature rational faculty. This is implied in Penelope’s expectation that Telemakhos protect guest strangers from maltreatment by the suitors. Penelope chastises her son for no longer having righteous thoughts and mind, despite the fact that he has reached the boundary of ἥβη. She complains that Telemakhos displayed firm thoughts and mind as a child before he came of age.18 Elsewhere, Penelope calls him “senseless and flimsyminded” (νήπιος ἠδὲ χαλίφρων). Telemakhos himself attributes his failure to provide guest friendship to being νήπιος (Od. 18.227–9). As Edmunds has demonstrated, the adjective νήπιος indicates a lack of perception or a mental deficiency and is regularly juxtaposed with verbs of knowing and perceiving. Since ignorance is the natural state of children, νήπιος is the chief characteristic of boys and girls in the epic. Adults in the epics are regarded as νήπιοι when they demonstrate, inter alia, a lack of foresight or of understanding the situation at hand, or the inability to perceive the plans of the gods or to heed the sensible advice of a leader.19 Thus, Penelope voices her assumption that with age comes the capacity for wisdom and upbraids her son for failing to perceive and react appropriately to social norms such as offering guest friendship. After receiving encouragement from Athena at the beginning of the poem, Telemakhos increasingly discards his νήπιος ways (Od. 2.310–16). For instance, Homer describes Telemakhos as πεπνυµένος (one who is in full possession of their rational faculty). In the epics, the term is an epithet reserved for men who demonstrate wisdom through sensible discourse.20 Homer also regards Telemakhos as “prudent” 16  17  18  19  20 

Il. 24.347–8, Od. 10.278–9 (Hermes); Od. 11.319–20 (Giants); Od. 15.366 (Ktimene and Eumaios). The last of these examples demonstrates that not only can this expression apply to mortals, but to a young woman and male of non-noble status. Od. 16.174–6: ἂψ δὲ µελαγχροιὴς γένετο, γναθµοὶ δ’ ἐτάνυσθεν, κυάνεαι δ’ ἐγένοντο ἐθειράδες ἀµφὶ γένειον. Od. 18.215–25, 19.530. Edmunds 1990. Od. 1.230. For older men who are described as πεπνυµένος, see Nestor (e.g., Od. 3.20), Menelaos (e.g., Od. 4.190), Odysseus (e.g., Il. 8.388) and Laertes (Od. 24.375).

8

chapter 1

or “of sound mind” (σώφρων) for his unwillingness to engage in rash speech before Menelaos.21 The terms ἥβη and ἡβάω can also mark changes in one’s social status, referring to a time in a youth’s life when he is recognized as an adult and assumes adult responsibilities. Two such expectations come into focus in Homer’s narration of the genealogy of Iphidamas, a Trojan ally who falls first to the spear of Agamemnon. Iphidamas, a Thracian and the son of Antenor, was brought up from his earliest years in the halls of Kisseus, his grandfather. Kisseus offers Iphidamas his own daughter in marriage to keep the youth safe at home. Upon hearing a rumor of the Greek expedition to Troy, however, Iphidamas abandons the bridal chamber before consummating his marriage, in order to fight alongside the Trojans. Iphidamas undertakes these two adult responsibilities (both, apparently, on the same day) only after he reached the “measure of glorious ἥβη” (ἐπεί ῥ’ ἥβης ἐρικυδέος ἵκετο µέτρον), i.e., attained adulthood.22 Homer uses a similar expression “ἐπεί ῥ’ ἥβην πολυήρατον ἱκόµεθ’ ἄµφω” as a social marker to indicate the time at which Ktimene and Eumaios the young swineherd reached ἥβη. As with Iphidamas, this period meant marriage and (for Ktimene and other Greek women) bearing and rearing children. For Eumaios, however, it also meant being sent away to labor in the fields. Thus, this passage introduces an economic aspect of reaching ἥβη, i.e., a corresponding change in Eumaios’ relationship to the household of Laertes through the young man’s incorporation into the labor force that sustained it.23 In addition to marriage and supporting the οἰκός, achieving ἥβη was linked with another domestic aspect of entering manhood. Homer uses the familiar ἥβης µέτρον ἱκάνει (to reach the boundary of manhood) to signal to his audience that Telemakhos has come of age, which is marked not only by the appearance of his beard, but his responsibility in managing the οἰκός. Telemakhos has control over his estate because, as the poet tells us, “he is a man” (ἤδη γὰρ ἀνὴρ).24 Finally, entry into ἥβη was a precondition for taking control of an inheritance. This is illustrated in Odysseus’ hunting adventure on Parnassos, which occurred when the young hero came of age and received κτήµατα from the estate of his maternal grandfather Autolykos. As with the expressions ἥβης ἵκετο µέτρον and ἥβην

21  22  23  24 

The terms σώφρων (Il. 21.462; Od. 4.158) and σωφροσύνη (Od. 23.13, 30) in Homer refer to the self-restraint of a young man in deference to a father figure of higher status. See A. Rademaker 2004, 43–6. Il. 11.221–228, 238–44. Cf. Od. 4.668, 10.5–7, 11.317. Od. 15.366. See Falkner 1989, 46. Od. 18.175–6, 269–70 (beard); 19.160, 532–3 (control of οἰκός).

What Was an Ephebe ?

9

ἱκόµεθα, Homer uses the verb ἡβάω in the aorist to indicate Odysseus’ entrance into manhood.25 It seems, then, that ἥβη is a time of life marked in part by the height of physical strength and the expectation of a more mature capacity for thinking. These biological aspects coincide and even overlap with a change in social status, namely, undertaking military service, entering marriage, and maintaining a household. It is noteworthy that Homer does not specify the age at which one attains ἥβη. From a verbal standpoint, entry into ἥβη is expressed either by ἡβάω in the aorist or by such formulae as ἥβης ἵκετο µέτρον and ἥβην ἱκόµεθα, in which the noun ἥβη is paired with ἱκνέοµαι in the aorist tense. These aorists are ingressive in aspect, “when x began ἥβη.” The use of the aorist stands in contradistinction with the present tense of ἡβάω, which always refers to one in the state of ἥβη. Conceptually, the entry into ἥβη is expressed by the physical marks of maturity, such as the first down on the lip. Further, although he talks about the µέτρον (boundary) of ἥβη and uses ἄνθος (bloom) to mark its peak in a man’s life, Homer never defines the length of ἥβη in terms of a number of years. Nor does he indicate the point at which ἥβη ends. Thus, the span of ἥβη can include the youthful Odysseus participating in a boar hunt on the slopes of Parnassos, as well as the much older Odysseus competing in the games on Skheria. It cannot, however, include Nestor, who has lost his ἥβη and is an old man. 2

ἥβη and ἡβάω in Athenian Tragedy

Classical authors continued to use “ἥβη” and “ἡβάω” as a means of marking a young man’s coming of age and the corresponding assumption of adult responsibilities. Unsurprisingly, the tragic poets, whose subject is legend and whose language is Homeric, regularly link both terms with the state of biological and social maturity. Examples are numerous, but two passages draw out several familiar themes. The first passage is from Euripides’ Herakles. In the play, Herakles’ wife Megara, his children and his father Amphitryon are threatened with execution by Lykos, king of Thebes. The khoros of old men, sympathetic to the plight of Herakles’ family, says: εἰ δ᾽ ἐγὼ σθένος ἥβων δόρυ τ᾽ ἔπαλλον ἐν αἰχµᾷ, Καδµείων τε σύνηβοι, τέκεσιν ἂν προπαρέσταν ἀλκᾷ: νῦν δ᾽ ἀπολείποµαι τᾶς εὐδαίµονος ἥβας. (Eur. Herakl. 436–441) 25 

Od. 19.410. Cf. Od. 1.41; Il. 5.550–2.

10

chapter 1

If I were young (ἥβων) with respect to strength and were brandishing a spear in the battle line, along with my fellow youths (σύνηβοι) of Thebes, I would champion your children in their defense: but now I am deprived of my blessed youth (ἥβη). The first theme is the association of ἥβη with bodily strength (σθένος), which in Homer, as has already been noted, appears to be the deepest meaning of the term. In effect, the khoros of old men speaks as Nestor does, lamenting the loss of their blessed youth and the power to perform heroic deeds. The link between ἥβη and bodily strength is made in other passages of this play. They essentially reformulate the lament of the khoros of old men except that the author chooses instead to use synonyms of ἥβη. The most vivid of them is the one in which Amphitryon acknowledges that his frail old age with diminished bodily strength (ῥώµη, σθένος) hinders him from defending his daughter-in-law and grandchildren. If he were young (νέος) and still strong in body (σώµατος κρατῶν), Amphitryon says that he would seize his spear and bloody the locks of Lykos, so that his spear would hurl the king beyond the bounds of Atlas.26 As with Homer, the dramatists characterize ἥβη with certain outward attributes. For instance, Euripides has his Silenos link the physical strength of ἥβη with a stature (δέµας) capable of undertaking many labors (Kykl. 2). As with Homer’s heroes, ἥβη was a period of life marked by trials of strength for the legendary heroes of Attic tragedy. For instance, Herakles was an adult (ἡβῶντα) when undertaking his famous labors (Eur. Herakl. 1270). Euripides’ Theban khoros mentions another familiar theme, namely that achieving ἥβη brought about opportunities for young warriors to perform military deeds. This point is elaborated in many other plays. For instance, in the Wasps, Aristophanes has his khoros of old Athenians recollect their service as guards in their youth (ἥβη) at Byzantion.27 At what point are young men eligible for such service according to the dramatists? As with Homer’s Iphidamas, they were able to serve when they left boyhood and entered ἥβη. Euripides makes this clear when he has Athena say that the Epigonoi, the sons of the Seven against Thebes, will sack Thebes when they come of age (ἡβήσαντες), thus avenging the slaughter of their slain fathers.28 Aiskhylos’ Persae is replete with reference to Persian youth (ἥβη) who have fallen in battle against 26  27  28 

Euripid. Herakl. 228–232. Cf. Herakleid. 680–701, 796, 846–866. Aristoph. Vesp. 235–7: πάρεσθ’ ὃ δὴ λοιπόν γ’ ἔτ’ ἐστίν, ἀππαπαῖ παπαιάξ, ἥβης ἐκείνης, ἡνίκ’ ἐν Βυζαντίῳ ξυνῆµεν φρουροῦντ’ ἐγώ τε καὶ σύ·. Euripid. Suppl. 1214–5: πορθήσεθ’ ἡβήσαντες Ἰσµηνοῦ πόλιν πατέρων θανόντων ἐκδικάζοντες φόνον…. Cf. Euripid. Herakl. 172.

What Was an Ephebe ?

11

the Greeks.29 The link with youth and war may be the reason that warriors are collectively referred to as ἥβη. It may also reflect the etymological origin of ἥβη as power and may best be understood as a “force” of men.30 A passage of Euripides’ Trojan Women illustrates other themes associated with ἥβη already familiar to us from our examination of Homer. In her lamentation over the murder of her young child Astyanax at the hands of the Greek host, Hecuba cries: ὦ φίλταθ᾽, ὥς σοι θάνατος ἦλθε δυστυχής. εἰ µὲν γὰρ ἔθανες πρὸ πόλεως, ἥβης τυχὼν γάµων τε καὶ τῆς ἰσοθέου τυραννίδος, µακάριος ἦσθ᾽ ἄν, εἴ τι τῶνδε µακάριον: Oh dearest one, how an unfortunate death came to you. If you had died for the sake of your city, having attained ἥβη, marriage and godlike rule, you would have been blessed, if any of these things are blessings (1167–1170). The first theme is the link between achieving ἥβη and marriage. For Homer’s Iphidamas, obtaining ἥβη meant that one was eligible for marriage. For female characters especially, entry into ἥβη marks a defining moment in their lives, a “season of marriages” as Euripides describes Eido/Theonoe’s onset of ἥβη (Hel. 12).31 It was at the point of entry into this time of life that suitors began to court Electra (El. 20). Again, the change in social roles and expectations of young men and women coincides with biological maturation. For instance, youthful women (ἥβαι) bear children (Eur. Ion 477). While the onset of ἥβη in young men is marked by physical power and stature, the outward mark of a young woman in ἥβη is her sexual allure, the power to catch the eye of a man, just as Iole in ἥβη caught that of Herakles. For as Deianeira remarks, Iole’s ἥβη was steadily advancing, in contrast with her own, which was diminishing and could no longer keep the attention of her husband Herakles.32 Euripides’ Hecuba also implies that having attained ἥβη was linked with the capacity to govern. This association, however, is not regularly made in Athenian drama. It appears in one other place, a passage of Sophokles’ Oidipous the King, in which Oidipous requests his mother/wife Iokasta to describe Laios’ appearance and the stage of manhood (ἥβη) he had achieved. Oidipous unexpectedly 29  30  31  32 

Aiskhyl. Pers. 512, 544, 681, 733, 923. Cf. id. Suppl. 663. Aiskhyl. Ag. 109–10. Cf. Aristoph. Ran. 1285. Euripid. Hel. 12: ἐπεὶ δ’ ἐς ἥβην ἦλθεν ὡραίαν γάµων [sc. Εἰδώ],… Cf. Euripid. Alk. 289, 316, 471; El., 20–21; Aiskhyl. Suppl. 80. Euripid. Trakh. 547–9. Cf. Aristoph. Lys. 592–3, 595–7.

12

chapter 1

learns that around the time of his murder the former king’s beard was growing gray, the mark of a diminished ἥβη (741). Laios had ruled as king of Thebes for many years prior to his death. Thus, the fact assumed in Oidipous’ question to Iokasta is that a man in ἥβη can be fit to rule. Why did Athenian playwrights not regularly link ἥβη with the capacity to govern? One reason may be that younger men are sometimes depicted as prone to irrationality and passion, characteristics that are inimical to dispassionate judgment, which is necessary for good governance. As an example, in his grief over the loss of his wife Alkestis, Euripides’ Admetos uses the danger of young women’s sexual allure as an excuse to refuse Herakles’ request to care for a young woman (later revealed as his wife Alkestis returned from the underworld). Admetos declares that she should not expect to remain unmolested (ἀκραιφνής) while moving among the young men of his household, since it is not easy to restrain “one in their vigor” (Alk. 1052–4: τὸν ἡβῶνθ᾽). Ensuring the integrity of a young woman who did not belong to one’s household, but had been entrusted to one’s care, was a function of an adult male’s self-mastery over his desires (σωφροσύνη). Hermes assigns Peleus as the ward of Helen because the god believed that he was the “most self-controlled” among men (Hel. 47). The farmer in Elektra did not sexually violate her because he too exercised self-mastery (El. 45–53). As with Admetos, however, these examples are of more mature men. Thus, his excuse for refusing Herakles’ request plays on the stereotype of a sexually impulsive and potentially violent character of younger men. Euripides’ Theseus echoes this sentiment and perhaps voiced the opinion of many in his audience. For as he rebukes Hippolytos for his supposed assault on Phaidra, he asserts that young men are no more steadfast than women when Aphrodite has confused their minds in ἥβη.33 3

ἥβη and ἡβάω in Athenian Social Life

What, then, about the sanctuaries, law courts, and market place of Athenian society, a world whose politics, culture and institutions differ greatly from those of Homer? Historians and orators appear to have deviated little from the poet in their usage of “ἡβάω” and “ἥβη.” For instance, Plato’s Sokrates enjoins 33 

Euripid. Hipp. 967–9. Of course, Theseus’ declaration misses the mark. For it is Hippolytos’ youthful misidentification of σωφροσύνη that leads him to commit impiety against Aphrodite (6, 89, 105). Early in the play, the servant of Hippolytos apologizes to Aphrodite for Hippolytos’ indisputable sin of denying the goddess her due, declaring that ἥβη can make youth speak rashly (µάταια) (118–19).

What Was an Ephebe ?

13

his fellow Athenians to pester his sons when they came of age (ἐπειδὰν ἡβήσωσι), just as he pestered theirs, if they should prioritize the pursuit of wealth over the love of virtue (ἀρετή: Symp. 42e2). The pestering that Sokrates has in mind is his characteristic deep interrogation of the very definition of virtue, a process of inquiry that implies a sufficiently developed rational faculty. Thus, the use of ἡβάω in the aorist signals the arrival of biological manhood and with it the expectation for abstract reasoning. In addition to acquiring an inward adult mental capacity, ἥβη was marked by the onset of outward maturity. For instance, Plato has his Sokrates quote with approval a passage of Homer in order to describe his beloved Alkibiades in a state of very charming youth (χαριεστάτην ἥβην), one clear sign of which is the appearance of one’s first beard. Plato’s youthful (νεανίας) Alkibiades is without a doubt a man (ἀνὴρ), as opposed to a boy, for members of this dialogue refer to him as such, demonstrating that for the Athenians ἥβη coincided conceptually with biological maturity (Protag. 309a–b). Further, ἥβη appeared in formulae that expressed a boy’s arrival to manhood. For instance, Xenophon recalls a story by Prodikos in which Herakles faced a moral dilemma when he was coming to manhood (Mem. 2.1.21: ἐπεὶ ἐκ παίδων εἰς ἥβην ὡρµᾶτο), a time when young men become their own masters (αὐτοκράτορες γιγνόµενοι). Consider also reports of the Athenian war orphans, sons (παῖδας) of those Athenians who died fighting on behalf of the state. In return for their sacrifice, the state brought up the children of the fallen at public expense until they reached ἥβη (δηµοσίᾳ ἡ πόλις µέχρι ἥβης θρέψει). As a passage from Plato’s Menexenus indicates, the expression µέχρι ἥβης (as far as/until ἥβη) coincided with entering manhood (249a: ἐπειδὰν εἰς ἀνδρὸς τέλος ἴωσιν), which strengthens the interpretation of ἥβη as adulthood, not adolescence. At this point, as adults, they no longer received state support, but instead were given a panoply at public expense and honored with a public proclamation in the Theater of Dionysos before a throng of citizens and foreigners celebrating the City Dionysia.34 Besides its obvious utilitarian value, the public gift of a panoply symbolized the entry of these war orphans into the adult world of Athenian citizenship and their subsequent undertaking of one of its principal responsibility, i.e., military service, since this activity was one of the few duties that a citizen owed to the state. Just as in Homer, ἡβάω in the present tense was used to describe those in adulthood. For instance, Thucydides reports that the Athenians put to death adult Mytilenians, Skionians and Melians (expressed in the present tense of 34 

Thuc. 2.46.1; Lys. fr. 6.1–2 (Gernet & Bizos); Aiskhin. 3.154. Cf. Plat. Menex. 248d–249b, cf. 328b; Isokr. 8.82; Kratinos F183 PCG; D.L. 1.55.

14

chapter 1

the finite verb or the present participle of ἡβάω).35 The referents of these terms must be understood as the adult members of these states, since Thucydides distinguishes them from the boys and women, whom the Athenians sold into slavery. Later historians who narrate the same events as Thucydides employ the adverb ἡβηδὸν, “from youth upward,” in conjunction with the names of the various citizen bodies mentioned in Thucydides, a usage that has its early origins in Ionic writers, such as Herakleitos and Herodotos.36 That this usage refers to all the male adults and not just those who had just come of age is reinforced by a passage of Polybios, who states that in their war with the Romans the Boioi armed “the recent adults from the youth” (τοὺς ἄρτι τῶν νέων ἡβῶντας), since all the adult Boioi had been killed the year before (2.20.4). Similarly, in a proclamation directing all citizens of Delphi (and their slaves) to assemble in the sanctuary, the age of the men specified was those who had been in a state of maturity “past two years” (ἐπὶ δίετες ἡβῶσι).37 Use of the present tense of ἡβάω to indicate a body of adult males continued to appear in Athenian inscriptions and in authors outside Athens.38 As with Homer, none of the Classical authors specified the entry, length, or end of ἥβη in terms of number of years. Its passing is marked simply by the appearance of outward features of old age, such as a decline in physical strength.39 35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

Thuc. 3.36.2 (Mitylene): οὐ τοὺς παρόντας µόνον ἀποκτεῖναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἅπαντας Μυτιληναίους ὅσοι ἡβῶσι, παῖδας δὲ καὶ γυναῖκας ἀνδραποδίσαι; 5.32.1 (Skione): µὲν Ἀθηναῖοι ἐκπολιορκήσαντες ἀπέκτειναν τοὺς ἡβῶντας, παῖδας δὲ καὶ γυναῖκας ἠνδραπόδισαν; 5.16.4 (Melos): οἱ δὲ ἀπέκτειναν Μηλίων ὅσους ἡβῶντας ἔλαβον, παῖδας δὲ καὶ γυναῖκας ἠνδραπόδισαν. Cf. Aiskhin. 2.142; [Dem.] 59.103. Mitylene: Ʃ Equites 834a line 6; Ailian. Var. Hist. 2.9.5; Strabo 13.2.3; D.H. Thuc. 17.12; D.S. 12.55.8. Skione: D.S. 12.72.8, 76.3. Melos: Plut. Alk. 16.6; D.S. 12.80.5. Cf. Herodot. 1.172, 6.21; Herakl. fr. 122, where the adverb is contrasted with those who are called ἀνήβοι, i.e., those who have not arrived at ἥβη. Cf. Phot. s.v. ἡβηδὸν, who equates this term with ἡβῶντας. Aiskhin. 3.122: ἤδη δὲ πόρρω τῆς ἡµέρας ὄν, προελθὼν ὁ κῆρυξ ἀνεῖπε, ∆ελφῶν ὅσοι ἐπὶ δίετες ἡβῶσι, καὶ δούλους καὶ ἐλευθέρους, ἥκειν αὔριον ἅµα τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἔχοντας ἄµας καὶ δικέλλας πρὸς τὸ Θυτεῖον ἐκεῖ καλούµενον. See below for a more detailed discussion of this important expression. IG I3 40 (446/5 BCE) lines 32–3 records that all the Khalkideans who had reached ἥβη were required, under penalty of losing their citizen rights, to swear an oath of loyalty (ὀµόσαι δὲ Χαλκιδέον τὸς hεβο̑ντας hάπαντας), as a consequence of attempting revolt from the Delian League in the same year. M&L no. 23 (300–265 BCE): The Themistokles Decree also uses the present participle of ἡβάω to describe adult foreigners living in Athens who were ordered to man the ships along with the rest of the Athenian citizens (τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους Ἀθη[ναίους ἅπαντας καὶ τοὺς ξέ]νο̣υς τοὺς ἡβῶντας εἰσβαίνειν … κτλ.). Cf. Paus. 3.10.4; App. Samn. 6.3.5, Iber. 47.2, Lyb. 539.8, Illyr. 47.8. Xen. Oik. 1.22. Cf. Plat. Stat. 270e. Aiskhyl. Ag. 584 implies a decreased ἥβη does not impact the capacity to learn.

What Was an Ephebe ?

15

As in the epics, attaining ἥβη in Classical Athens carried with it a changing relationship with one’s οἰκός. These new relationships, however, were shaped within the political and institutional structures of the Athenian polis, the purpose of which was to maintain and enhance the citizen body. As Sinclair notes, the supply of citizens who could share in the life of the polis, and not least in its defense, depended on the survival and welfare of the citizen family.40 Thus, the Athenians passed a number of laws regulating the private conduct of their citizens in order to protect the οἰκός.41 These laws further limit and refine our understanding of ἥβη and ἡβάω in the Classical period at Athens. For instance, a boy who had come of age (expressed in the aorist participle of ἡβάω) owed financial and other support for his father when the latter was no longer able to take care of himself, except in cases in which the father had prostituted the son. It also obligated a citizen, once he came of age, to carry out traditional funerary rites for his father, even if the father had hired him out as a prostitute when he was a boy.42 Omission of such rites was considered unholy and a violation of a key element of personal piety (εὐσέβεια).43 It was also regarded as the maltreatment of parents (κάκωσις τῶν γονέων) and, if he were found guilty, led to his loss of certain political rights, such as entering the Agora.44 The speaker of Isaios 1 demonstrates that attaining ἥβη also included the right of a youth to the use and disposal of an inheritance.45 The speaker of [Dem.] 46 twice uses some form of ἡβάω in the aorist tense to signal this change in legal status, first, when summarizing a law that grants sons, when they came of age (ἡβήσαντας), legal authority over their mother and required them to provide her with an alimony. The second instance occurs when the same speaker summarizes another law granting legal authority to a father’s will vis-à-vis the distribution of an inheritance, if his sons should die before they come of age (ἐὰν ἀποθάνωσιν οἱ παῖδες πρὶν ἡβῆσαι).46 Despite the 40  41  42 

43  44  45  46 

Sinclair 1988, 50; Hansen 1991, 100–1. MacDowell 1978, 84–108. Isaios 1.10: καὶ ποιεῖν αὑτῷ τὰ νοµιζόµενα τοῦτον, ἕως ἡµεῖς ἡβήσαιµεν, ᾧ ζῶν διάφορος ἦν; Aiskhin. 1.13: καὶ µὴ ἐπάναγκες εἶναι τῷ παιδὶ ἡβήσαντι τρέφειν τὸν πατέρα µηδὲ οἴκησιν παρέχειν, ὃς ἂν ἐκµισθωθῇ ἑταιρεῖν. Plat. Resp. 528c8: ἐὰν δὲ ἀγανακτῇ τε καὶ λέγῃ ὁ δῆµος ὅτι οὔτε δίκαιον τρέφεσθαι ὑπὸ πατρὸς ὑὸν ἡβῶντα, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ὑπὸ ὑέος πατέρα,… κτλ. Mikalson 1991, 170. Aiskhin. 1.28–32; Andok. 1.74; Dem. 24.103–7; Xen. Mem. 2.2.13. Isaios 1.10: ἡγεῖτο γὰρ δεινὸν εἶναι τὸν ἔχθιστον τῶν οἰκείων ἐπίτροπον καὶ κύριον τῶν αὑτοῦ καταλιπεῖν, καὶ ποιεῖν αὑτῷ τὰ νοµιζόµενα τοῦτον, ἕως ἡµεῖς ἡβήσαιµεν, ᾧ ζῶν διάφορος ἦν. [Dem.] 46.20: Οὐκοῦν ὁ µὲν νόµος κελεύει τοὺς παῖδας ἡβήσαντας κυρίους τῆς µητρὸς εἶναι, τὸν δὲ σῖτον µετρεῖν τῇ µητρί. [Dem.] 46.24: Σκέψασθε δὴ καὶ τονδὶ τὸν νόµον, ὃς κελεύει τὴν διαθήκην, ἣν ἂν παίδων ὄντων γνησίων ὁ πατὴρ διαθῆται ἐὰν ἀποθάνωσιν οἱ παῖδες πρὶν ἡβῆσαι, κυρίαν εἶναι.

16

chapter 1

gulf in political, social, and legal worlds, the usage of ἡβάω by Athenian orators does not differ fundamentally from Homer’s use of the term to describe Odysseus’ coming of age and acquisition of property from the estate of his grandfather Autolykos. Curiously, though, unlike the two summaries provided by the speaker of [Dem.] 46, the actual legal formulation for achieving adulthood at Athens does differ significantly from the more familiar forms explored earlier. For the texts of the two laws referred to above use the technical expressions ἡβήσῃ ἐπὶ δίετες and ἐπὶ δίετες ἡβᾶν respectively, “two years past the point of entering ἥβη.”47 Paired with the adverbial prepositional phrase ἐπὶ δίετες, the meaning of ἡβάω in the formulation of the law marks a change in legal status, at least in regard to gaining control over an inheritance and other domestic affairs. The use of ἡβάω in the formulation of both of these laws implies that the age of attaining legal adulthood did not coincide with attaining ἥβη in other contexts. In their summaries of the laws, however, the speakers of Isaios 1 and [Dem.] 46 do, in fact, use ἡβάω in this very sense. How does one resolve these differing usages of ἡβάω found in the summaries of these laws and in the formulation of the laws themselves? Clearly both are referring to different aspects of ἥβη. In the former case, I suggest that the Athenians were using ἡβάω in the same way as Homer, as a means of expressing the notion of change in social status. In the context of the Athenian polis, entering ἥβη in this sense marked one’s entering the age of legal maturity. In the latter case, however, ἡβάω must refer to the onset of biological maturity. As noted above, this usage also appears in Homer. In the epics, however, the biological aspects of ἥβη appear to have coincided with the legal. At Athens, it appears that the one occurred two years after the other (ἡβήσῃ ἐπὶ δίετες). This interpretation finds support in a passage of Dionysios of Halikarnassos, who states that Solon established the rule that Athenian boys were under the legal supervision of their fathers till the third year from ἥβη, i.e., two years past attaining ἥβη.48 Once he has come to the age of legal maturity, says Isaios, an

47 

48 

[Dem.] 46.20: “Καὶ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐπικλήρου τις γένηται καὶ ἅµα ἡβήσῃ ἐπὶ δίετες, κρατεῖν τῶν χρηµάτων, τὸν δὲ σῖτον µετρεῖν τῇ µητρί.” [Dem.] 46.24: “Ὅ τι ἂν γνησίων ὄντων υἱέων ὁ πατὴρ διαθῆται ἐὰν ἀποθάνωσιν οἱ υἱεῖς πρὶν ἐπὶ δίετες ἡβᾶν, τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς διαθήκην κυρίαν εἶναι.” Cf. Isaios 8.31, 10.12. D.H. 2.26.2: οἱ µὲν γὰρ τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς καταστησάµενοι πολιτείας βραχύν τινα κοµιδῇ χρόνον ἔταξαν ἄρχεσθαι τοὺς παῖδας ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων, οἱ µὲν ἕως τρίτον ἐκπληρώσωσιν ἀφ’ ἥβης ἔτος, οἱ δὲ ὅσον ἂν χρόνον ἠίθεοι µένωσιν, οἱ δὲ µέχρι τῆς εἰς τὰ ἀρχεῖα τὰ δηµόσια ἐγγραφῆς, ὡς ἐκ τῆς Σόλωνος καὶ Πιττακοῦ καὶ Χαρώνδου νοµοθεσίας ἔµαθον.

What Was an Ephebe ?

17

Athenian youth gains control over his domestic affairs, which included the legal authority (κύριος) over an inheritance (χρήµατα) and an heiress (ἐπίκληρος).49 4

ἡβάω and ἐφηβάω

The term ἐφηβάω seems to have developed out of and along side of ἡβάω, appearing for the first time in the fifth century BCE. There are unfortunately far fewer instances of the verb ἐφηβάω than ἡβάω in literature and none in the extant inscriptions. It is impossible to tell, therefore, whether or not ἐφηβάω had the same semantic range and depth as ἡβάω. Nevertheless, the verbs ἡβάω and ἐφηβάω appear to share a number of semantic similarities. For instance, as with ἡβάω, the verb ἐφηβάω can refer to a period in which one has passed out of boyhood and entered biological maturity (ἥβη). In his Seven Against Thebes (467 BCE), Aiskhylos has Eteokles say of his brother Polyneikes, ἀλλ’ οὔτε νιν φυγόντα µητρόθεν σκότον οὔτ’ ἐν τροφαῖσιν οὔτ’ ἐφηβήσαντά πω οὔτ’ ἐν γενείου ξυλλογῆι τριχώµατος ∆ίκη προσεῖδε καὶ κατηξιώσατο (Septem, 664–7). not even when he fled the darkness of his mother’s womb, nor his nurse’s embrace, nor when he came of age, nor in the gathering of hair on his cheek did Justice look upon him and consider him worthy. In the biological sense, then, the meaning of the verbs ἡβάω and ἐφηβάω were synonymous. Similarly, ἐφηβάω can be used to refer to a change in a youth’s social status. Specifically, it has a civic sense, marking a period in life at which a young man undertakes adult responsibilities as a citizen of his polis. This is precisely how Herodotos uses the verb (although with Ionic spelling) in describing the aftermath of an Argive war with Sparta in which the adult Argive population had been decimated. According to the historian, Ἄργος δὲ ἀνδρῶν ἐχηρώθη οὕτω ὥστε οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτῶν ἔσχον πάντα τὰ πρήγµατα ἄρχοντές τε καὶ διέποντες, ἐς ὃ ἐπήβησαν οἱ τῶν ἀπολοµένων παῖδες (6.83). 49 

Isaios 10.12: κατὰ τὸν νόµον ὃς οὐκ ἐᾷ τῶν τῆς ἐπικλήρου κύριον εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἢ τοὺς παῖδας ἐπὶ δίετες ἡβήσαντας κρατεῖν τῶν χρηµάτων. Isaios fr. 25 (Thalheim): Ἡγούµεθα γὰρ ἐκείνῃ µὲν τὸν ἐγγυτάτω γένους δεῖν συνοικεῖν, τὰ δὲ χρήµατα τέως µὲν τῆς ἐπικλήρου εἶναι, ἐπειδὰν δὲ παῖδες ἐπὶ δίετες ἡβήσωσιν, ἐκείνους αὐτῶν κρατεῖν.

18

chapter 1

Argos was so deprived of men that their slaves took hold of all affairs, both ruling and governing, until the children of the dead men came of age. Once they came of age, the sons of the slain Argives recovered control over the affairs of Argos (τὰ πρήγµατα) and then drove their slaves out of the city. Thus, ἐφηβάω can be understood as the act of entering the age of majority and thereby gaining (or, in this case, winning back) the rights and privileges of citizenship. As with ἡβάω, ἐφηβάω includes the assumption of military service. Consider the following lines from Euripides’ Suppliants, in which Athena announces the following prophesy to the Epigonoi, the sons of the Seven against Thebes whose fathers died before the gates of the city in an unsuccessful assault: παισὶ δ’ Ἀργείων λέγω· πορθήσεθ’ ἡβήσαντες Ἰσµηνοῦ πόλιν πατέρων θανόντων ἐκδικάζοντες φόνον (Suppl. 1213–15). To the sons of the Argives I say you shall sack the town of Ismenos when you come of age, taking vengeance on the slaughter of dead fathers. In a fragment from the Oineus, Euripides has Diomedes, one of the Epigonoi, declare in effect the fulfillment of Athena’s prophecy after he and his companions successfully sacked Thebes. ἐγὼ δὲ πατρὸς αἷµ’ ἐτιµωρησάµην σὺν τοῖς ἐφηβήσασι τῶν ὀλωλότων (Oineus F 559 Nauck). I avenged the blood of my father together with the sons of those killed when they came of age. The speakers are different and each is talking about the destruction of Thebes from a different point in mythological time, but both Athena and Diomedes refer to the Epigonoi undertaking military action against Thebes when the Epigonoi came of age. Euripides uses the aorist of both ἡβάω and ἐφηβάω in the same way in the same context. The synonymous use of both of these verbs may also be observed in two passages of Xenophon’s Kyropaideia, composed after 362 BCE.50 In a speech before his war council on the question of whether or not to continue the campaign against the Assyrians, Kyros makes the point 50 

On this date see Gera 1993, 23–5.

What Was an Ephebe ?

19

that if his allied forces choose to disband now and not press their military advantage, other Assyrians will come of age (ἐφηβήσουσι) and take the place of the soldiers whom they have just killed in battle.51 Later, in his final speech before his friends and family, Kyros reflects on the pleasures customary among youth (τὰ ἐν νεανίσκοις) that he enjoyed when he came of age (ἐπεί ἥβησα).52 5

ἔφηβος Prior to the Age of Lykourgos: the Kyropaideia of Xenophon

The Kyropaideia marks the final appearance of ἐφηβάω and the first use of the word ἔφηβος in extant Greek literature, a term attested later in only three speeches of the 340s BCE, but regularly in the literary and especially the epigraphical evidence of the Lykourgan Age and beyond. The Kyropaideia is a fictional biography of Kyros, Persia’s first king.53 Woven into the narrative is an equally fictitious description of Persian education (paideia), which Xenophon regards as superior to that of most states, i.e., the system of Greek education described by Plato. Xenophon’s purpose is to criticize the faults of Greek education and prescribe remedies by exhibiting the ancient virtues of a distant and foreign state, just as he criticized elsewhere the faults of Athenian society and education through their comparison with the Spartan system. Most states, Xenophon observes, allow parents to educate their children as they wish and adults to live as they please. This approach, he believes, produces citizens who are ill-equipped to respect the rights of others and obey the law. Instead, Persian law by anticipation and from the beginning ensures that its citizens are of such a character as not to pursue base or shameful acts (1.2.2–3). Thus, Xenophon gives his answer to the problem raised at the beginning of Plato’s Meno (70a) whether excellence is acquired through teaching, habituation, or nature. For Xenophon, Persian law produced excellence in its citizens via early instruction in justice, self-mastery and other virtues through habit-forming practices, which lie at the heart of the systematic and comprehensive nature of Persian education. Persian education includes young men whom he calls ephebes. These ephebes comprise one of four fictitious Persian age groups (ἡλικίαι): boys (παῖδες), ephebes (ἔφηβοι), mature men (τέλειοι ἄνδρες), and older men (γεραίτεροι) (1.2.4) The names of these age groups were not Persian, but Greek, and were familiar to Xenophon’s Athenian audience. 51  52  53 

Xen. Kyr. 6.1.12: ἀντὶ δὲ τῶν ἀποθανόντων ἕτεροι ἐφηβήσουσιν καὶ ἐπιγενήσονται. Xen. Kyr. 8.7.6: ἐγὼ γὰρ παῖς τε ὢν τὰ ἐν παισὶ νοµιζόµενα καλὰ δοκῶ κεκαρπῶσθαι, ἐπεί τε ἥβησα, τὰ ἐν νεανίσκοις, τέλειός τε ἀνὴρ γενόµενος τὰ ἐν ἀνδράσι: In general, see Tuplin 1996, 65–162; and Nadon 2001, 29–42.

20

chapter 1

Each age group was defined by specific educational activities and goals and all were organized under an equally fictitious system of government-sponsored and -controlled lifelong paideia (1.2.8–12). Persian boys began their instruction at seven years of age, when they left their homes and took up residence in the Free Forum, the epicenter of Persian education. Within the Free Forum stood the King’s palace and other public buildings. Unlike the one at Athens, this market was free of merchants, so as not to disrupt the orderly behavior (εὐκοσµία) of the educated (1.2.3). The focus of educating boys consisted primarily in the development of moral character. Persian boys spent much of their time learning justice (δικαιοσύνη), which they acquired by bringing to court those in their number who committed theft, assault, slander, ingratitude and shamelessness. The older men who served as their magistrates adjudicated each case (1.2.6–7). In addition to learning about justice through the practice of justice, these trials policed abhorrent behavior of the Persian boys. Other moral qualities, such as self-mastery (σωφροσύνη), obedience to their magistrates (πειθαρχία), and self-control (ἐγκράτεια) over food and drink, the Persian boys learned by observing such behavior in their magistrates. Their educational program also included learning archery (τοξεύειν) and throwing the javelin (ἀκοντίζειν), military skills they would later put to use when at sixteen or seventeen these youths become ephebes (1.2.8). After they passed out of the rank of boys (ἐκ παίδων ἐξέλθωσι), the Persian ephebes no longer received formal education, but kept watch at night in light armor around the palace and public buildings. By day, they performed whatever duty the King required (serving as guards, arresting criminals, or running down robbers). Additionally, on certain days of the month, half of their number accompanied the King on publicly-funded hunts, which served to train the ephebes for war, a service that they were expected to perform as mature men. The other half served as guards or participated in tribal contests in the military skills that they had learned as boys. Their fellow citizens honored the victors of these games, as well as their officers and the public instructors who trained them as boys. Xenophon’s ephebes served in this capacity for ten years, graduating to mature men, the next age class, at twenty-six or -seven (1.2.9–12). As mature men, these Persians were responsible for campaigning in war, holding public magistracies, and for some serving as officers for the ephebes (1.2.13). By their early 50s, these Persians passed from the status of mature men to that of older men, at which time they no longer served in military campaigns abroad, but became judges and provided moral instruction for the boys (1.2.14). Xenophon adds that this system of education was open to all Persians who were able to maintain their children without working. Thus, the system of paideia that Xenophon describes had the goal of preparing and maintaining

What Was an Ephebe ?

21

the Persian elite. Further, while attending the Free Forum was not a prerequisite for holding office and attaining other honors, Persian education had to be undertaken from the beginning stage, at boyhood. Successful completion of one stage of education was the prerequisite for entering the next (1.2.15). Xenophon’s discussion of the ephebes comprises his longest treatment of Persian education. How did Xenophon envision the status of the ephebe? Since they were placed between the stages of boys and mature men, it seems that Xenophon regarded his ephebes as younger men and thus citizens, as against the boys who were pre-citizens. This is implied by the fact that the Persian ephebes had certain rights, privileges and responsibilities that men in a political community possessed, such as the right to marry, the privilege of joining the King on his monthly hunts, and the responsibility of providing military defense of the Persian state. In contrast with the mature men, however, ephebes did not campaign abroad, nor did they hold magistracies or serve as public officials for other age groups. Xenophon also singles out the ephebes as the age group that required the greatest attention. To this end, he states that they should serve as guards, since this activity develops self-mastery (σωφροσύνη) (1.2.9). Clearly, self-mastery was a solution to a serious problem associated with young men of this age—a problem Xenophon felt his readership would readily recognize. What was it? I suggest that Xenophon is addressing the general character of young men routinely acknowledged and much discussed elsewhere by other authors. For example, in his Rhetoric, Aristotle writes about the character of men at various ages in life (2.12–14). These ages are youth (νεότης), mature men (ἀκµὴ), and old age (γῆρας). Since Aristotle is discussing citizens (i.e., not boys), these three age groups roughly correspond with Xenophon’s three adult age groups. Aristotle observes that young men (οἱ νέοι, roughly equivalent to Xenophon’s ἔφηβοι) are characterized by courage, high-mindedness and a fondness for friends and companions (2.12.9–13). Yet, young men are motivated chiefly by uncontrolled desire (ἐπιθυµία). They are passionate (θυµικοί), quick to anger (ὀξύθυµοι), carried away by impulse (ὀργή) and have little control over their passion (θύµος). They are ambitious for honors (φιλότιµοι) and especially victory (φιλόνικοι), more so than for money. As a result, young men cannot endure a slight and become indignant when they feel that they have been wronged (2.12.3–8). They have a hot-blooded (διάθερµοι) nature and do everything to excess, because they believe they know everything (2.12.14). The preponderance of θυµ- based words stresses the passionate nature of youth. The θυµός was the seat of passion, in particular anger (hence θυµόω, “make angry”), as against the φρήν, the midriff or heart, which was understood as the seat of the mind or thought. Self-mastery (σωφροσύνη) is the abstract of

22

chapter 1

σώφρων, a combination of σῶς (sound, safe, healthy) and φρήν, which refers to one who has control over one’s passions. For the Persian boys, self-mastery is introduced through observing the σώφρων behavior of the older men who serve as their magistrates. For the Persian ephebes, guard service reinforced σώφρων behavior, which they developed by offering themselves to their commanders to be used as needed for the sake of the common good (1.2.9). A ready analogy for this process of learning may be found in Xenophon’s argument for hunting as the best training for war. As Xenophon observes, hunting accustoms (ἐθίζει) men to rise early and endure the elements, train for long journeys and running, throw the javelin and fire arrows, strike down wild beasts in close quarters, and whet their courage when an animal stands and fights (1.2.10). Thus, for Xenophon, obedience to one’s commanders accustoms the ephebe to self-mastery, a moral quality of the good Persian citizen. Interestingly, whereas Xenophon does not appear to regard self-mastery as an innate trait, he does seem to acknowledge that passion was an inherent condition of this age group that could not be eradicated. In addition to mollifying passion through the development of self-mastery, Xenophon attempts to channel the natural ambition of the Persian ephebes into competitive, honor-winning activities, such as javelin and archery contests, that hone their military skills and serve the broader interests of the state (1.2.12). 6

ἔφηβος Prior to the Age of Lykourgos: the Oath of the Ephebes

The Persian ephebes were literary creatures of Xenophon’s educational theory who dwelled in the fictional world of his Persian politeia. What about the historical ephebes at Athens? As noted above, ἔφηβος is a term that is attested only occasionally prior to the Age of Lykourgos. Exactly two of these references are connected with the famous Oath of the Ephebes, which new Athenian citizens swore in the Sanctuary of Aglauros on the eastern slopes of the Athenian Akropolis upon enrollment into their respective demes.54 By binding their newest citizens through an oath, the Athenians were perfectly in accord with Greek practice. For, as Xenophon observes in his Memorabilia, citizens from all over the Greek world swore oaths promising allegiance to their polis and obedience to its decisions (Mem. 4.4.16). A copy of the oath of the Athenian ephebes was discovered at Akharnai. It has been 54 

Sanctuary of Aglauros: Herodot. 8.53.1; Philokhor. FGrHist 328 F 105; Poly. Strat. 1.21.2; Paus. 1.18.2–3. Dontas 1983, 57–8. See also Robertson 1998, 283–8, 298–9; Harris-Cline 1999, 312–13; Papadoupolis 2003, 283–4.

What Was an Ephebe ?

23

dated from the second quarter to the third quarter of the fourth century BCE.55 Its declaration statement (lines 6–16) assures four basic outcomes: defense of the fatherland from external threats, reasonable obedience to the magistrates and laws of the state, refusal to join in undermining the polis and its institutions, and maintenance of ancestral religion. One might characterize the oath as a “Soldier’s Oath,” if one assumes that ἔφηβος means “member of an ephebeia.” This characterization, however, is incorrect. Only the first outcome has military significance, ensuring that the oath taker will defend the fatherland. Further, no provision obligates new citizens to undergo military training. Taken together, these provisions articulate the basic military, civic, and religious expectations of the political community for each of its members. In other words, it is a citizenship oath administered to the community’s newest members when they come of age. Thus, the term ἔφηβος has the sense of “new citizen.” How old was the oath and at what point were young Athenians called ephebes swearing it? In a speech delivered in 330 BCE, Lykourgos says that all Athenian citizens (πάντες οἱ πολῖται) take the citizen oath when they are registered in the record of current demesmen (ληξιαρχικὸν γραµµατεῖον) and become ephebes.56 This passage is valuable for several reasons. First, as shall be noted below, this passage buttresses the Ath. Pol. vis-à-vis the concurrence of enrollment and becoming an ephebe. It also demonstrates that all Athenian citizens became ephebes who were successfully enrolled as citizens and swore the oath, and not just some segment of the citizenry, which complements and supports the Ath. Pol., as will also be discussed below. Further, it demonstrates that the ritual of ephebes swearing the oath upon enrollment existed prior to the Age of Lykourgos. For this speech was made against Leokrates, an Athenian citizen who had fled Athens directly following her defeat at Khaironeia in 338 BCE. Lykourgos charges Leokrates with violating the terms of the oath by refusing to stand and defend his fatherland and electing to flee his country

55 

56 

Editions: Robert 1938, 296–307; Daux 1965; Siewert 1972, 5–7; id. 1977; Tod 1985, no. 204; R&O no. 88 (with bibliography and discussion). Ancient references to the oath: Dem. 19.303, Lyk. Leokr. 76, Stob. 4.1.48, and Poll. 8.105–6. For discussions about aspects of the oath, see Burckhardt 1996, 30 n. 12 and 57–63 with n. 148 (with bibliography); Cole 1996, 227–48; Bayliss 2013, 13–22; and Kellogg 2013, 263–76. Second quarter of the 4th century BCE: van Wees 2006, 152, and Krentz 2007, 142. Third quarter of the 4th century BCE: R&O, 447– 448. See the “Selection of Ephebic Documents” for the text and translation of the Oath of the Ephebes. Lyk. Leokr. 76: ὑµῖν γὰρ ἔστιν ὅρκος, ὃν ὀµνύουσι πάντες οἱ πολῖται, ἐπειδὰν εἰς τὸ ληξιαρχικὸν γραµµατεῖον ἐγγραφῶσιν καὶ ἔφηβοι γένωνται.

24

chapter 1

when it was rumored that Philip would invade Attike. Thus, Leokrates must have taken the oath at some point before 338 BCE. This is confirmed by the second and last piece of literary evidence for ephebes swearing the oath, which appears in a passage of Demosthenes’ On the False Embassy. In it, the orator states that his political rival Aiskhines publically read verbatim (ἀναγιγνώσκων) the decrees of Miltiades and Themistokles and the Oath of the Ephebes sworn in the sanctuary of Aglauros when he was an enemy of Philip II, sometime in 347 BCE.57 No other contemporary evidence (or earlier) exists for the oath, let alone evidence for new citizens called ephebes swearing it. Lykourgos, however, states that the oath was among the ancient laws of Athens (1.75), which indicates a much earlier date of origin. Given its archaic terminology, style and concepts, Siewert cautiously suggests that the ephebic oath may have had an archaic origin and that the fifth-century authors knew it and consciously alluded to it in their works.58 Plutarch, writing in the second century CE, represents Alkibiades as having taken (and corrupted for imperialist purposes) the ephebic oath sometime in the late fifth century BCE.59 The historicity of the event described in this passage is doubtful. Still, even if we assume that the oath existed in the fifth century and new citizens called ephebes took it, this alone is not sufficient to prove the existence of a fifth-century institution of military training and service. For according to [Plato], Alkibiades entered politics before he was twenty years of age. If an ephebeia had existed in his day, Alkibiades would have been unable to pursue such a career.60 It is also possible, as Robertson has argued, that the Oath of the Ephebes did not exist in the fifth century, and that fourth-century authors consciously constructed it using the style and concepts of archaic writers.61

57  58 

59 

60  61 

Dem. 19.303–4: καὶ τὸ Μιλτιάδου καὶ ⟨τὸ⟩ Θεµιστοκλέους ψήφισµ’ ἀναγιγνώσκων καὶ τὸν ἐν τῷ τῆς Ἀγλαύρου τῶν ἐφήβων ὅρκον. Siewert 1977, 102–111. Cf. Roussel 1921, 459. Reinmuth 1971, 136–7, and Conze believe that scenes from a black figure amphora (500–450 BCE) (St. Petersberg State Hermitage Museum 1466 = Beazley Archive # 9305) and a red figure oinochoe (475–425 BCE) (Conze 1868, 264–8, pls. H = Beazley Archive #214405) depict new Athenians swearing the oath. Plut. Alk. 15.4. Siewert 1977, 108 n. 32, suggests that Plutarch’s source for this passage was the excursus on the Athenian demagogues in the Philippika of Theopompos (late fourth– early third century BCE). Although his work shows no awareness of the ephebic oath, Theopompos did know the oath of Plataia (FGrHist 115 F 153) which was connected with it, since both appear together on the stone from Akharnai and in Lyk. 1.76–81. [Plat.] Alk. I 106e, 110b, 123d. See Bryant 1907, 81–2; and Forbes 1929, 116. Robertson 1976, 3–25, argues that in the 360’s the Athenians created both the ephebeia and the oath.

What Was an Ephebe ?

7

25

ἔφηβος Prior to the Age of Lykourgos: the Military Service of Aiskhines

Two autobiographical passages from the orator Aiskhines regarding his own coming of age and subsequent military service as a peripolos (patrolman) of the Athenian khora provide the second and last historical instances of the term ἔφηβος prior to the Age of Lykourgos. The earliest of these appears in his speech Against Timarkhos delivered in 346/5 BCE: Τυγχάνει µὲν γὰρ ἡλικιώτης ὢν ἐµὸς καὶ συνέφηβος, καὶ ἔστιν ἡµῖν τουτὶ πέµπτον καὶ τετταρακοστὸν ἔτος· For [Mislogas] happens to be my age mate and fellow ephebe (συνέφηβος), and we are now in our forty-fifth year (1.49). The second reference to the term ἔφηβος appears in his speech On the Embassy, delivered in 343 BCE, in which Aiskhines defends his military record from certain charges of Demosthenes. To Demosthenes’ sarcastic reference to him as a “fine soldier,” (19.113), Aiskhines retorts: ἐκ παίδων µὲν γὰρ ἀπαλλαγεὶς περίπολος τῆς χώρας ταύτης ἐγενόµην δύ’ ἔτη, καὶ τούτων ὑµῖν τοὺς συνεφήβους καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἡµῶν µάρτυρας παρέξοµαι· For after leaving the rank of the boys I became patrolman of this land for two years, and I shall bring forth as witnesses for you my fellow ephebes (συνεφήβους) and our commanders (2.167). In both passages, the orator uses a form of the term συνέφηβος, implying that both he and each of his age mates (ἡλικιώτης) were referred to individually as ἔφηβος. If Aiskhines undertook his service as patrolman at eighteen, the age at which Athenians became citizens, the date of his Against Timarkhos suggests that he served in the years 373/2 to 371/0 or 372/1 to 370/69 BCE.62 Were Athenians referring to newly minted citizens by this term in the early fourth century BCE? This is certainly possible, since as discussed above, the Athenian Xenophon uses ἔφηβος (along with other familiar Greek age terms) to describe new Persian citizens undertaking a fictional educational program in a work published after 362 BCE. 62 

Lewis 1958, 108, emends the text of Aiskhin. 1.49 so that the date of Aiskhines’ service was 382–1. See also Harris 1988, 211–14, and Fisher 2001, 10–12.

26

chapter 1

The appearance of συνέφηβος has led scholars to assume that a state-run and -financed system of military training existed in Aiskhines’ youth.63 They support this assumption in part by reading the description of the Lykourgan ephebeia found in Ath. Pol. 42.2–5 into Aiskhines’ brief statement about his service as patrolman. In addition, they associate Aiskhines’ συνέφηβος with Xenophon’s fictional account of Persian education. Both of these approaches are methodologically suspect. In fact, the evidence suggests that Aiskhines and his fellow ephebes were conscripted to serve as patrolmen in a time of military turmoil along the Attic-Boiotia border. The term συνέφηβος as it appears in these two passages in no way implies the existence of a peacetime system of athletic, military and ethical training at this early date. According to [Aristotle], new citizens were responsible for one of the most basic civic duties of all, providing military service (στρατεῖα) in defense of the state (Ath. Pol. 55.4), a recurrent theme in this study.64 Unlike that of Homeric heroes, the expectation of providing military service was shaped within the legal and institutional structures of the Athenian polis.65 As early as 388–366 BCE, the Athenians introduced a system of conscription through “eponymous heroes” (τοῖς ἐπωνύµοις) based on membership to an age class (ἡλικία), which replaced the older system of military call-up “from the catalogue” (ἐκ καταλόγου). To this end, the Athenians assigned eponymous heroes to each of the forty-two Athenian age classes. These age classes ranged from 18 to 59, the years for which Athenians were liable for military service (Ath. Pol. 53.4). Citizens subject to this system of call-up were regarded as οἱ ἐν ἡλικίᾳ, i.e., “those of military age.” Whenever Athenians were called up for service by age class, public notice was given at the Monument of the Eponymous Heroes, listing the arkhon and age-class eponymous hero of those who must provide military service (Ath. Pol. 53.7).66 When Athenians were enrolled into the citizenship, the names of those new citizens who were eligible for military service were inscribed on bronze stelai. Above them appeared the names of the arkhon in whose term of service they were registered and the eponymous hero of the age class of the previous year’s arbitrators. These arbitrators were in their sixtieth year and no longer eligible for campaigning. They relinquished the eponymous hero of their age 63  64  65  66 

E.g., Lofberg 1925, 333; Winkler 1990, 31; Chankowski 2010, 114–17; Kennell 2006, ix; id. 2013, 16–17; id. 2015, 174. Busolt and Swoboda 1926, 1185; Sinclair 1988, 54–61; and Hansen 1991, 99–100. On conscription, see Christ 2001, 398–422. For exemptions, id. 2006, 53–8. See Agora III nos. 229–240, for references to military call up made at the Monument of the Eponymoi. Call up by age-class was also used for naval expeditions (Dem. 3.4–5 and Aiskhin. 2.133).

What Was an Ephebe ?

27

class and bequeathed it to the incoming class of ephebes.67 The Athenians erected these stelai before the Bouleuterion near the Monument of the tribal Eponymous Heroes in the Agora.68 In earlier times (πρότερον), the names of eligible ephebes were inscribed (ἐνεγράφοντο) onto whitened tablets (λελευκωµένα γραµµατεῖα) (Ath.Pol 53.4). The imperfect tense of ἐνεγράφοντο and the presence of πρότερον µὲν…νῦν δ’ suggested to Pélékidis and Rhodes that this practice occurred (and ceased) before the Age of Lykourgos.69 Were Athenian citizens during the time of Aiskhines’ earliest military service liable for military call up by age class (ἡλικία)? At 2.168, Aiskhines states that he and his age mates did in fact serve on a number of campaigns, including his earliest, an expedition to escort provisions to Phleious in 366 BCE. This demonstrates that by at least 366 BCE, Athenians were conscripting citizens by age class to serve on military expeditions. In his study of Athenian conscription in the fourth century, Christ establishes 366 BCE as the terminus ante quem for the creation of a system of conscription through age class based on this passage. He assigns 388 BCE as his terminus post quem, since it was the last year attested in the extant sources for conscribing citizens for military service “from the catalogue.” Aiskhines’ reference to himself and his fellow ephebes as age mates (ἡλικιώτης) seems to suggest that the practice of conscription through eponymous heroes based on age class (ἡλικία) can be pushed back to the late 370s BCE. Were new citizens such as Aiskhines the ephebe liable for campaigning or were they assigned some other category of military service? The Suda 67 

68  69 

Habicht 1961 [1962], 143–6, argues that the hero Mounikhos in T1.7 was just one of these eponymoi. Palagia and Lewis 1989, 337–44, suggest that NM 313, a herm dedication for ephebes victorious in the torch-race (see T1.6), may be a depiction of Mounikhos. See Chapter 6 for further bibliography and discussion. Vidal-Naquet 1986, 100 n. 11, and Davidson 2006, 40, suggest that Panops may have been another such hero. On the Monument of the Eponymoi in the Lykourgan Age, see Chapter 3 for some further discussion and bibliography. For the bases in which the bronze stelai were placed, see Stroud 1979, 49–57. Pélékidis 1962, 73–4; Rhodes 1993, 591–4. The names of new citizens that appear on the list were those eligible for military call-up, which indicates the bronze stelai were centralized military lists, not a list of all new citizens (contra Liddel 2007, 185). The use of bronze as a medium has been associated with the creation/reformation of the ephebeia. There is no evidence for a Lykourgan date of this change of medium. Further, the decision to inscribe the names of these new recruits in bronze likely had to do with the desire to create a more permanent inventory of names, especially since this was a public document posted outdoors before the Council Chamber and was expected to last for over four decades. See Sickinger 1999, 41. The references to “the ephebes inscribed in the arkhonship of x” that appear in contemporary inscriptions allude to their enrollment on to this list, not their enrollment on to a deme list. See Reinmuth 1971, 77; and Hansen 1986, 15, 71.

28

chapter 1

(s.v. Τερθρεία) reports that when the polis went to war, the ephebes did campaign—not with the rest of the army, but were quartered separately in an area free from the dangers of battle.70 There is, however, no historical evidence to support such a practice among the Athenians. Later authors indicate that eighteen and nineteen year olds did not campaign. For example, a scholiast on Aiskhines (1.18) says that “[the Athenians] went to war after reaching the age of twenty.”71 Fragments 42 and 50 of the third century BCE Cynic Teles imply a similar situation. In his discussion of how pain manifests itself in all periods of man’s life, Teles describes the forms of suffering peculiar to each age group. He contrasts the role of the ephebe with that of the man who has set aside his ephebic mantle and is liable for campaigning (στρατεύεται) along with other civic responsibilities.72 Thus, by the third century BCE, there was a distinction between the military responsibilities of the young men of ephebic age and the rest of the citizen body. Did such a distinction exist among the Athenians in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE? Thucydides discusses how in the early 450s BCE the Athenians raised an army of the youngest (νεώτατοι) and the oldest citizens who marched into the Megarid and defeated a seasoned force of Korinthians (1.105.4–6). In this circumstance, their use of these two age groups was irregular, since the main Athenian hoplite army was stationed in Aigina or serving in far off Egypt (1.105.3).73 Similarly, during the Peloponnesian War, the youngest (νεώτατοι) and the oldest citizens guarded the Peiraieus and the city walls, while the main force campaigned abroad (2.13.6–7). The exceptional nature of calling up the youngest Athenians for military service in a time of war is illustrated again when the Athenians decreed that a full levy (πανδηµεί) should be sent out to assist the Spartans during the Theban invasion of 369 BCE. As Hansen notes, the fact that “even the young” (καὶ τοὺς νέους) were called up indicates the first two age classes of eligible citizens were included in the levy.74 Although not eligible for call-up but in extraordinary circumstances, a passage of Aristophanes’ Birds (performed in 414 BCE) suggests that new citizens could volunteer to serve abroad. At 1360–69, the older bird Pisthetairos treats the younger bird Patraloios as though he were an Athenian war orphan coming of age by outfitting him with a panoply. He then encourages the youth to be a guard (φρούρει), 70  71  72  73  74 

οἱ δέ, ὅτι ἔθος ἦν τοὺς ἐφήβους µετὰ τὸ γενέσθαι περιπόλους τῆς χώρας στρατεύεσθαι µέν, εἰ συµβαίη πόλεµος, µὴ µέντοι µετὰ τῶν ἄλλων, ἄλλ’ ἰδίᾳ ἐν µέρεσι τοῖς ἀκινδύνοις τῆς µάχης. Σ Aiskhin. 1.18: καὶ δύο ἔτη εἰς τοὺς ἐφήβους ἐτέλουν καὶ ἐφύλαττον περὶ τὴν πόλιν τὰ φρούρια ἀπὸ εἴκοσι δὲ ἐτῶν ἐπολέµουν. For a discussion of this passage with bibliography, see Chapter 4. Lys. 2.50: οἱ γεραίτεροι καὶ οἱ τῆς ἡλικίας ἐντὸς γεγονότες; cf. D.S. 13.72.5. Xen. Hell. 6.5.49; D.S. 15.63.2. Hansen 1986, 40–1; de Marcellus 1994, 40.

What Was an Ephebe ?

29

join the army (στρατεύου), support himself by earning a wage (µισθοφορῶν), and serve in Thrace.75 Thus, Aiskhines’ service as a patrolman (which is a type of guard, as will be discussed next chapter) is in line with earlier Athenian practice with regard to the military service of new citizens. Does the call-up of Aiskhines and his fellow ephebes reflect peacetime military training and service? Aiskhines never mentions training, but only two years of service. What was the historical context of this service? 373 BCE and the years following were turbulent, as the Thebans had invaded and destroyed Plataiai, an ally and buffer state of the Athenians, and had attacked the nearby city of Thespiai, another state friendly with Athens.76 In 371 BCE, Thebes had defeated a Spartan army at Leuktra and created instability in the Greek balance of power. Within a year, the Boiotians and their Peloponnesian allies had overrun much of Lakonia, creating fear and consternation at Athens. As noted above, by the following year, Athens had joined the Spartans in an alliance against the Thebans. Xenophon relates that in 370/69 BCE, Athens had called up her entire force and marched to Korinth under the command of Iphikrates. These events coincide with Aiskhines’ service guarding the Athenian khora.77 It is noteworthy that while Aiskhines and his age group of ephebes were called up to patrol the countryside, no other extant coming-of-age narrative either before or after Aiskhines’ attests to this prior to the Age of Lykourgos. As already mentioned, while Alkibiades may have taken a citizen oath in the late fifth century BCE, the evidence shows that he never served along the borders as a patrolman, nor had he undergone military training. The same is true of Timarkhos who came of age around the same time as Aiskhines.78 According to the orator, once he became a citizen, Timarkhos did not serve as a patrolman, but took up residence in Peiraieus where he studied to become a doctor (1.40). Perhaps Aiskhines deliberately omitted mentioning such service. Yet, prior to the Age of Lykourgos, this aspect of Timarkhos’ coming-of-age narrative was not exceptional, but was the rule, as the following section will demonstrate.

75  76  77  78 

Westlake 1954, 90–4; de Marcellus 1994, 39. D.S. 15.46.4–6; Paus. 9.1.8. Isokr. 14. De Marcellus 1994, 39. Plutarch reports that Epameinandas’ expedition into the Peloponnese was accompanied by 30,000 light-armed and unarmed men expecting to gain plunder (Ages. 31.1; cf. D.S. 14.79.2). LGPN 36. PA 13636. Timarkhos served on the boule in 361/0 BCE (1.109), which implies that he was born by 391/0 BCE and came of age by 373/2 BCE, even though Aiskhines elsewhere states that Timarkhos is younger than he is (1.49). See Fisher 2001, 10–12.

30

chapter 1

Thus, the term ἔφηβος in Aiskhines seems consistent with that of a new citizen who was subject to service along the Athenian border during periods of military crisis and instability. 8

ἔφηβος in the Age of Lykourgos

Just as ἐφηβάω marks the entrance into the age of maturity, the term ἔφηβος recognizes one who has entered this time of life, specifically legal maturity. This is illustrated by Ath. Pol. 42.1–2, which describes how eighteen year old Athenians underwent registration (ἐγγραφή) and subsequently became new citizens, whom the Ath. Pol. refers to as ἔφηβοι.79 The goal of a successful enrollment was the inclusion of one’s name in the official registry of citizens. In lieu of any centralized list at Athens, each deme kept a record of its current demesmen.80 This record was called the lexiarkhikon grammateion (ληξιαρχικὸν γραµµατεῖον) and every year the demarkhos, the local magistrate in charge of each deme, was responsible for updating it when new members were registered.81 While scholars disagree as to when it was established, there is no doubt that by the late fourth century there was a standardized system for the admission of new members into their corresponding demes.82

79 

80  81 

82 

Ath. Pol. 43.1: τὴν τῶν πολιτῶν ἐγγραφὴν. For discussion of registration, see Rhodes 1972, 171–4; id. 1993, 497–502; Whitehead 1985, 97–104; Robertson 2000, 149–74. As Bryant 1907, 76 with n. 4, points out, a candidate’s registration occurred at the beginning of the Athenian official calendar after his eighteenth birthday. Cf. Rhodes 1993, 497–8; Golden 1979, 30–32; contra Sealey 1957, 195–7. See “Selection of Ephebic Documents” for text and translation of Ath.Pol. 42. On the existence of a centralized hoplite list, or katalogos, Hansen 1981, 24–9; and Christ 2001, 391–422. [Aristotle] does not mention the ληξιαρχικὸν γραµµατεῖον by name. Instead, see Isokr. 8.88, Isaios 7.27, Dem. 44.35, 57.61, Aiskhin. 1.18, 103, and Lyk. 1.76. Ʃ (vetera) Aiskhin. 1.18 indicates that it was a deme ledger with the names of those who could undertake an inheritance (ἄρχειν τῆς λήξεως). Citizens were placed on this list when they came of legal age (cf. Isaios 3.2). Scholars debate the origin of such a system of rules and regulations: For instance, Diller 1932, 193–205, maintains that a universal, uniform, and compulsory process of registration was introduced by the decree of Demophilos in 346/5 BCE. Patterson 1981, 13–14, 25–8, however, argues that until Perikles’ Citizenship Law of 451/0 BCE, rules determining the eligibility of membership did not exist on a national level, but instead were determined ad hoc by individual demes. Whitehead 1985, 98, suggests that either Kleisthenes’ legislation for the new deme system of 510 BCE included standard rules for all the demes or they came about soon thereafter.

What Was an Ephebe ?

31

Ath. Pol. 42.1–2 provides an overview of what a successful registration entailed. Essentially, enrollment consisted of two phases. The first was diapsephisis (διαψήφισις) in which the candidates’ (potential) fellow demesmen scrutinized their age, status as free men, and Athenian parentage in order to determine their enrollment in the lexiarkhikon grammateion. The second process was the dokimasia (δοκιµασία), in which the central government at Athens, as represented by the boule, examined the rolls to determine whether or not unqualified candidates were included.83 Once the boule reviewed those registered by the demes, these youths, or at least those who had successfully passed the dokimasia, were regarded as ephebes.84 The Ath. Pol. designates these young men as ephebes after completing their examination and before they underwent the two-year system of military training and service. Thus, having been enrolled into their respective deme registers, the ephebes were new citizens and possessed many of the basic rights, privileges and expectations of Athenian citizenship.85 For instance, reaching the age of civic maturity also meant reaching the age of legal maturity. An important fragment of Hypereides demonstrates that enrollment coincided precisely with ἡβήσῃ ἐπὶ δίετες, the point in time in which an Athenian came of legal age. Thus, an ephebe was kyrios over his inheritance, could own property, and manage his estate.86 The legal formulation ἡβήσῃ ἐπὶ δίετες yields an interesting fact in light of Ath. Pol. 42.1–2. As noted above, in the technical sense 83 

84 

85 

86 

Aristoph. Vesp. 578 (422 BCE) and Lys. 21.1 (403/2 BCE) push the process of δοκιµασία by the boule to the late fifth century BCE. Viewing these passages from Ath. Pol. 42.1–2 in the later fourth century, Ostwald 1986, 50–1, calls these newly enrolled fifth century Athenians “ephebes,” but there is no evidence that the term existed during this period. Rhodes 1993, 495. There was also the ἔφεσις, the appeals process for those candidates who did not pass the διαψήφισις (Aiskhin. 1.77, Dem. 57.26), i.e., were disfranchised (αποψήφισις, cf. Dem. 57.2). Ath. Pol. 42.1 states that the ἔφεσις occurred at Athens at a jury court. The author also adds later (59.4) that the thesmothetai were responsible for overseeing these cases. Whereas the δοκιµασία determined whether or not unqualified candidates were enrolled, the ἔφεσις determined whether or not qualified candidates were unjustifiably excluded from the rolls by malicious demesmen. A contemporary deme decree attests to the citizen status of the ephebes. In the dossier of documents that comprise T1.2 (333/2 BCE) is a decree of Athmonon (lines 52–63), which honors the sophronistes Adeistos son of Antimakhos of Athmonon for his care of the ephebes of the tribe Kekropis. The proposer of the decree specifically refers to the ephebes from Athmonon in his care as “demesmen” (line 61), i.e., members of his deme and thus citizens. See the “Selection of Ephebic Documents” for text and translation of this inscription. Hyp. fr. 192 (Jensen): ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐνεγράφην ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ νόµοϲ ἀπέδωκε τὴν κοµιδὴν τῶν καταλειφθέντων τῇ µητρί, ὃϲ κελεύει κυρίουϲ εἶναι τῆϲ ἐπικλήρου καὶ τῆϲ οὐϲίαϲ ἁπάϲηϲ τοὺϲ παῖδαϲ, ἐπειδὰν ἐπιδιετὲϲ ἡβήϲωϲιν. Cf. Isaios 7.27; Aiskhin. 1.18, 1.103; and Din. 57a fr. 1. See Lacey 1968, 125–9.

32

chapter 1

of the law, the point at which one entered ἥβη (i.e., in a biological sense) differed from the point of reaching social maturity by two years. Since attaining legal maturity coincided with achieving civic maturity, Athenians regarded the achievement of biological ἥβη as occurring by sixteen years of age, two years prior to enrollment, which occurred at eighteen. In addition to achieving legal maturity, eighteen- and nineteen-year-olds initiated prosecutions and provided liturgies, including outfitting a trireme, just as the speaker of Lys. 21, who came of age in 411/410 BCE, attests (1–2; cf. 10.31). Similarly, Demosthenes declares that he financed a khoros, outfitted a trireme and paid eisphora immediately upon leaving the ranks of the boys and becoming a citizen (18:257: ἐξελθόντι δ᾽ ἐκ παίδων), unlike his opponent Aiskhines who became a clerk upon enrollment (18.261: ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ εἰς τοὺς δηµότας ἐνεγράφης). Xenophon and others state that young men in their late teens spoke in the assembly.87 Citizens were legally allowed to enter into marriage, which for men was normally delayed until 30 years of age, although Demosthenes recalls the marriage of Mantitheos, an eighteen year old Athenian (40.4). Registration in the lexiarkhikon grammateion meant that during food crises these new citizens, along with the rest of the citizen body, benefited from free or subsidized grain distribution.88 It also established the expectation that citizens of all ages conform to acceptable types of personal conduct. For instance, when Timarkhos had passed out of boyhood (ἐπειδὴ ἀπηλλάγη ἐκ παίδων) and became a young man (µειράκιον), he settled down in Peiraieus to study medicine. According to Aiskhines, however, this was a pretense, for Timarkhos was freely prostituting himself, a behavior for which he was later disfranchised.89 In fact, new Athenian citizens enrolled in the lexiarkhikon grammateion prior to the Age of Lykourgos appear to have possessed most of their rights, except to serve as jurors, members of the boule, or magistrates—responsibilities they acquired at thirty.90 This conforms to statements by Lysias, Demosthenes and other orators who, although they do not use the term ἔφηβος, nevertheless indicate that by passing their dokimasia they came of age and undertook their responsibilities as adult citizens.91 In the Lykourgan Age, by contrast, while the ephebes continued to exercise these same rights, the practical application for those participating in the ephebeia was delayed for two years until these new citizens completed their training and service and ceased being ephebes. 87  88  89  90  91 

Xen. Mem. 3.6.1; cf. [Plat.] Alk. I 123d; Lys. 16.20. Dem. 44.35, 34.37–9; Philokhor. fr. 19 (=Ʃ Aristoph. Vesp. 718). Aiskhin. 1.18–20, 40, 72, 87. For Timarkhos’ disfranchisement, see Dem. 18.261. Ath. Pol. 63.3; Xen. Mem. 1.2.35; Dem. 24.151. See Sinclair 1988, 49–76; Hansen 1991, 94–101. Aristoph. Vesp. 578; Isokr. 12.28; Dem. 27.5; 30.6, 30.15, 44.41, 57.62; Lys. 10.31; 32.9.

What Was an Ephebe ?

33

[Aristotle] states that while they served as guards during their two years after enrollment, they were exempt from taxation and could neither take anyone to court nor be taken to court, so that there would be no pretext for being absent. Still, there were exceptions in the case of an estate, an heiress, and an inherited priesthood (Ath. Pol. 42.5). In other words, while the public lives of many Lykourgan ephebes may have been, to some degree, restricted in practice due to their full-time training and military service, they were nonetheless regarded as citizens, not as subadults transitioning to citizens. 9

New Citizens and New Soldiers

Thus, the term ἔφηβος did not refer to a “pre-citizen” or youth whose status as citizen was in transition, but to a young man who had arrived at the age of civic and legal maturity. According to Lykourgos, all newly-enrolled citizens became ephebes. Did all ephebes, however, undergo military training and service upon enrollment into the citizenry (dokimasia)? Ath. Pol. 42.2 seems to concur with Lykourgos’ statement. For it says without qualification that, after the ephebes were enrolled, their fathers elected officials to supervise their training. Yet, a comparison of rosters of the ephebes with contemporary bouleutic quotas suggests that it was possible to exercise the right to participate as an official in the democracy without having served in the ephebeia. For instance, two ephebes from Xypete served in 334/3 BCE and five in 333/2 BCE, but the deme had a bouleutic quota of seven. Aixone had eight seats to fill each year in the boule, but sent seven ephebes to serve in 334/3 and 333/2 BCE. The demes Halimous and Paionidai furnished three bouleutai each year, but no ephebes appear in 324/3 BCE. As Hansen notes, around one fifth of the ephebes enrolled in a given year would have died by the time their age class had reached thirty years of age, the legal minimum required to serve as a bouleutes.92 Demographic analyses confirm the belief that not every new citizen in the Lykourgan Age participated in the ephebeia.93 Scholars have estimated citizen totals for fourth-century Athens as either approximately 21,000 or 31,000.94 Furthermore, nineteen year old males are believed to have made up 92  93  94 

Hansen 1985, 49 with his appendix III. Hansen 2006, 19–60 for an overview of the bibliography and an argument for the higher total. For the sources and discussion, see Hansen 1985, 26–36.

34

chapter 1

3 to 3.3% of the citizen population, based on the assumption that the population structures of Greco-Roman society were similar to that of pre-industrial Europe.95 Therefore, in a population of 21,000 adult Athenian males, 630 to 693 of this total would have been nineteen years of age. In one of 31,000, 930 to 1023 would have been nineteen years of age. Based on information provided by tribal rosters listing the names of participating ephebes, scholars have further estimated that in the 330s there were approximately 500 nineteen year olds enrolled in each year class of the ephebeia, and around 600 nineteen year olds were enrolled by the following decade. If the smaller of the two population totals is assumed, this would mean that approximately 130 to 193 young men (or 21 to 28%) of an annual age class of nineteen year old citizens did not participate in the ephebeia in the 330s; and 30 to 93 (or 1 to 13%) did not participate in the 320s. If the larger of the two population totals is assumed, this would imply that 430 to 523 young men (or 46 to 51%) did not participate in the ephebeia in the 330s; and 330 to 423 young men (or 35 to 41%) did not participate in the 320s. While there is no consensus regarding which of these population totals is correct, the fact remains that, whichever one is assumed, 100% of all new citizens did not undergo military service and training upon enrollment. What explains this discrepancy? Hansen points out that the number of ephebes that appears in the handful of preserved rosters is an army figure, and so does not represent the total number of 19 year old citizens of a given year. Hansen observes that in the Athenian army 20–25% of conscripts in a given age class were rejected for reasons of poor health and estimates that at least 10% or more of the total number of 19 year old Athenians were rejected from training and service, if they were poor or not able-bodied (ἀδύνατοι).96 If the population total were closer to 30,000, as Hansen has argued, exemptions due to poverty and poor health cannot explain the large number of citizens who did not participate. One explanation may be that only members of the top three Solonian property classes participated in the institution, because the Athenian land force was drawn from their number. Since members of these classes are estimated to make up about a third of Athenian society, many thetes (the poorest of the Athenians) necessarily participated, based on the demographic discussion above. Unfortunately, the present state of evidence does not allow us to determine whether or not all new Athenians or some were liable for participation in the ephebeia and, if not, what the qualifications were. What is clear, however, is 95  96 

Ruschenbusch 1979, 173 n. 3: 3%; Rhodes 1980, 191 n. 4: 3%; Hansen 2006, 34: 3.3%. Hansen 1985, 18–21; id. 2006, 36–8.

What Was an Ephebe ?

35

that acquiring citizenship and serving as a guard at Peiraieus and patrolman in the Attic khora were not inextricably linked. In other words, participation in military training and service upon enrollment was by no means the sine qua non of Athenian citizenship. Did Lykourgos misrepresent the extent of citizen participation in the ephebeia when he said that all the citizens of Athens (πάντες οἱ πολῖται) swore the oath and became ephebes? Only if one misidentifies the term ἔφηβος as being a member of an ephebeia. 10

Conclusion

As this chapter has demonstrated, the term ἔφηβος was an age term and developed alongside the related words ἥβη, ἡβάω and ἐφηβάω. The examination of Homer’s usage of ἥβη, and ἡβάω indicates that both referred to a youth who had entered the age of biological and social maturity or was in that state. The Athenians generally used these terms in the same way (and added ἐφηβάω, a synonym of ἡβάω), but Athenian law recognized the attainment of social maturity in a young man as occurring two years after achieving biological maturity, which he acquired at 18 years of age (marked by his entry into the citizenship) and 16 years of age respectively. With its first appearance in the record, the term ἔφηβος was regarded as an age term, for Xenophon explicitly refers to it as such (ἡλικία) and it appears alongside other age terms (e.g., παῖδες, etc.). As with them, ἔφηβος had a life outside the gymnasium, which is demonstrated by its use to refer to new citizens who swore a citizen oath upon enrollment. As will be demonstrated in Chapter 6, swearing the oath upon enrollment and entry into the ephebeia were distinct activities separated by a period of two months. Nor is there evidence of an institution of training when Aiskhines refers to himself and his age mates (ἡλικιῶται) as fellow ephebes. Such service is absent in the extant coming-of-age narratives of contemporary able-bodied and well-to-do young men. Thus, ἔφηβος denoted “one who has arrived at manhood.” In the social context of the polis, this meant becoming a citizen and undertaking the rights and duties of citizenship.

chapter 2

The Origin of the Athenian Ephebeia From its earliest appearance in Athens, the term ἔφηβος referred to a new citizen. The provisions of the citizen oath that these young men swore required certain military, civic and religious behavior of them. With respect to the first, the youngest Athenians guarded the Athens-Peiraieus defensive complex in times of war and, on occasion, campaigned with the oldest citizens or served as patrollers to deal with an immediate military crisis when the regular forces were absent. By the Age of Lykourgos, the extant evidence suggests that many of these new citizens participated in a peacetime system of military training and service. The question this chapter seeks to answer is: When did the Athenians brigade these young men together full time under a kosmetes and tribal sophronistai? The lexicographical survey in the previous chapter casts doubt on the notion of such a system existing prior to the Age of Lykourgos, although it far from settles the debate over the origin of the institution. With regard to modern studies on the ephebeia, there is likely no issue more contentious than the question regarding the date of its creation. No primary source discusses its foundation, a fact which has largely fueled this debate. During the last century, scholars advanced the notion that some sort of military training program for 18 and 19 year old citizens existed at Athens prior to the Lykourgan Age. Lofberg, Pélékidis, Reinmuth, Gauthier, Vidal-Naquet, Winkler, Chankowski, and Kennell are perhaps the best known proponents of this thesis.1 Others have followed their lead.2 They themselves stand at the end of a centuries-long tradition in Classical scholarship that has assumed a pre-Lykourgan origin of the ephebeia.3 Wilamowitz was the first to challenge this assumption in Aristoteles und Athen, his 1893 study of the papyrus of [Aristotle’s] Ath. Pol. published just two years earlier. Wilamowitz argued the following theses: 1) the ephebeia as described by [Aristotle] is uncharacteristic of fifth-century Athens; 2) the details of the institution do not appear in literature published prior to [Aristotle’s] Ath. Pol.; and, 3) the date of the 1  Lofberg 1925, 330–35; Pélékidis 1962, 71–9; Reinmuth 1952, 34–50; Gauthier 1976, 190–5; Vidal-Naquet 1986a; id. 1986b, 126–44; Winkler 1990, 20–62; Chankowski 2010, 140–2; Kennell 2013, 16–19. 2  Mitchel 1964, 337–51; Roscam 1969, 187–215; Ridley 1979, 534; Ober 1985, 90–5; id. 2001, 203–4; Burckhardt 1996, 32; Sekunda 1990, 149–58; Christ 2001, 398–422; Schnapp 1997, 133–5; Griffith 2001, 55–6. 3  Dittenberger 1862; Dumont 1875–6; Grasberger 1881.

Origin of the Athenian Ephebeia

37

extant inscriptions are contemporary with [Aristotle’s] account of the ephebeia. Thus, Wilamowitz concluded, there was no ephebeia prior to the Age of Lykourgos and fixed the date for its introduction at 335/4 BCE as a result of the legislation of a certain Epikrates.4 Subsequent scholarship on the origin of the ephebeia has been largely a reaction to his arguments.5 By examining each of Wilamowitz’s premises and the case made against them by Lofberg and others, this chapter argues that Epikrates’ Law of the Ephebes most likely created the ephebeia c. 336 BCE. 1

Epikrates and the Law of the Ephebes

In general scholars credit the creation of the Lykourgan ephebeia to one Epikrates, who proposed a law concerning the ephebes. A brief notice of this Epikrates and his law appears in a fragment of Lykourgos’ On the Financial Administration preserved in Harpokration. According to this fragment, Lykourgos claims that a bronze statue of Epikrates (PA 4862) was erected for his introduction of the “Law of the Ephebes.”6 Little is known regarding the identity of Epikrates, except that he was worth 600 talents and was thereby a member of the Athenian elite.7 Although Pélékidis and Reinmuth were skeptical, most scholars believe that this “Law of the Ephebes” regulated the institution that appears in [Aristotle] and in contemporary inscriptions and took its inspiration from reform-minded members of Lykourgos and his circle.8 Only fragments of this speech survive, which have been collected and discussed by Conomis.9 The speech appears to have been delivered at one of Lykourgos’ euthynai, an official review of a magistrate’s tenure in office. The euthynai of Lykourgos occurred directly after the completion of each of his four-year terms 4  Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1893, 191–4. 5  Bryant 1907, 73–122; Brenot 1920; Beloch 1927, 341–74; Dittenberger on SIG3 957; and Kirchner on IG II2 1156. 6  Lyk. fr. 25 Saupe (Conomis 5.3) = Harp. s.v. Ἐπικράτης: ἕτερος δ’ ἐστὶν Ἐπικράτης οὗ µνηµονεύει Λυκοῦργος ἐν τῷ περὶ διοικήσεως, λέγων ὡς χαλκοῦς ἐστάθη διὰ τὸν νόµον τὸν περὶ τῶν ἐφήβων, ὅν φασι κεκτῆσθαι ταλάντων ἑξακοσίων οὐσίαν. 7  Faraguna 1992, 275, n. 96, and Humphreys 2004, 82, n. 13, suggest that this Epikrates was a wealthy shop owner from the mining district of Nape. Davies APF, 182–3 (no. 4909 D, E, G with stemma) believes that he was a member of a wealthy, politically active family from the deme Pallene and linked him to the same Epikrates whom Lysandros unsuccessfully indicted between 330 and 326 BCE for illegal mine work. 8  Pélékidis 1962, 13; Reinmuth 1971, 124. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1893, 194; Burckhardt 1996, 31; Habicht 1997, 16; Humphreys 2004, 82–3. 9  Conomis 1961, 98–107; id. 1970, 98–100.

38

chapter 2

of service as Athens’ chief financial officer. Conomis believes that this fragment should be assigned to the euthyna that followed Lykourgos’ first term of service, which ended in 333/2 BCE and therefore began in 336/5 BCE. This sets the date of his speech to early 332/1 BCE.10 Thus, the Athenians honored Epikrates for his Law of the Ephebes sometime between 336/5 and 333/2 BCE. How distant in time was the proposal to award Epikrates for his Law of the Ephebes from the actual passage of the law? Honoring Epikrates with a bronze statue is a significant detail that has been overlooked in the discussion over the dating of his Law. For together with meals at public expense in the Prytaneion (sitesis) and front row seating in the Theater of Dionysos (proedria), it represented a megiste time, or highest honor.11 In the fourth century, these awards were normally granted to a recipient during his lifetime for an important benefaction made to the state.12 The example of Demades, who was awarded a bronze statue and sitesis no later than 334 BCE for his successful diplomatic mission to Macedonia in 335 BCE, indicates that Athenians decreed megistai timai very soon after such benefactions were made.13 This dates the passage of Epikrates’ Law of the Ephebes to around 336/5 BCE (or the year prior), but no later than 335/4 BCE, the year before the earliest known age class of young men was enrolled in the ephebeia.14 The practice of offering megistai timai underwent a significant change in the Lykourgan Age. Prior to this period, sitesis, proedria and statues were rarely awarded. When the Athenians did so, they offered these honors to victorious generals, not to citizens for successful political activities or diplomatic missions.15 Thus, the megistai timai awarded to Demades represented a break 10  11  12  13 

14  15 

Conomis 1961, 99. On 336/–333/2 BCE as the date of Lykourgos’ first term as financial officer, see Bosworth 1988, 205 n. 21; Habicht 1997, 8; Lewis 1997, 221–229; and Humphreys 2004, 78. Gygax 2016, 92–9, provides a summary and discussion of the literary evidence for megistai timai from the fourth century. One exception is Lykourgos, who was awarded megistai timai posthumously 307/6 BCE. See below. On the honors proposed for Demades, see Din. 1.43. Conomis 1962, 127, assigns the date of Lyk. fr. 9.2 to 334 BCE, no more than a year after the decree of Kephisodotos who made the motion to honor Demades with megistai timai for his service to Athens. On Demades’ embassy to Alexander, see D.S. 17.15.2–5; Plut. Phok. 17.2–5; Plut. Dem. 23.2–5 with Bosworth 1988, 196. Knoepfler 2001, 367–89, argues that in addition to appeasing Alexander the Great, the Athenians also honored Demades for his help in reacquiring Oropos in the same year. 337–335: Marrou 1956, 151. 338/7: Rawlings 2000, 237. 337/6: Atkinson 1981, 43. 336/5: Habicht 1997, 16. 335/4: Rhodes 1981, 494; Knoepfler 2001, 382. Dem. 20.120–4; Aiskhin. 2.80. The sources indicate that the generals in question were Konon, Iphikrates, Khabrias, and Timotheos. See Gygax 2016, 192–9, 227–8 for discussion.

Origin of the Athenian Ephebeia

39

with the traditional practice of offering these honors. The vehement opposition by Lykourgos and Polyeuktos to the proposal of honoring Demades for his successful mission to Alexander strongly suggests this.16 Yet, later in this same period Demosthenes proposed sitesis and a statue for Diphilos for his service as syntrierarkhos (Din. 1.43) and Lykourgos honored Neoptolemos with a statue for gilding the altar of Apollo ([Plut.] 843f–844a), indicating that by the time these awards were proposed, megistai timai for non-military benefactions had become standard practice. The contemporary addition of stone hewn front row seating in the Theater of Dionysos for privileged Athenians coincides precisely with this change in policy.17 In fact, through the use of public honors Lykourgos appears to have been successful in encouraging wealthy Athenians like Epikrates to make significant private contributions for public purposes.18 Thus, the bronze statue offered to Epikrates for his Law of the Ephebes fits nicely into this new practice of honoring Athenians and provides further support that the statue must have been proposed near the beginning of Lykourgos’ first term as financial officer. This further supports a date for the passage of his legislation of c. 336/5 BCE, making the ephebes who appear in T1.2–T1.4 among one of the earliest age classes to participate in the institution. Thus, it seems very likely that Epikrates’ Law of the Ephebes was enacted a year or two after the Battle of Khaironeia and regulated the institution that appears in the Ath. Pol. and in the extant ephebic inscriptions of this period. Did this law, however, represent the creation of an entirely new institution or the reformation of a previously existing system of military training and service for 18 and 19 year old Athenians? 2

The Political Character of Athens in the Fifth and Early Fourth Centuries BCE

According to Wilamowitz, the ephebeia as described by the Ath. Pol. is uncharacteristic of the democratic ethos of fifth-century Athens.19 The freedom to speak and act as one wishes that Perikles extols in his Funeral Oration is at 16 

17  18  19 

In this fragment, Lykourgos compares the relatively small achievement and extravagant honors proposed for Demades with the massive achievements and modest honors of Pericles. Lykourgos and Polyeuktos opposed Kephisodotos’ proposal on legal grounds (παρανόµων ἐγράψαντο). Conomis 1961, 126. [Plut.] 841d, 852c; IG II2 457; Paus. 1.29.16. Maass 1972; Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 134–74. Habicht 1997, 22–4. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1893, 191, 193–4; Brenot 1920, 7–8; de Marcellus 1994, 27. Cf. Pélékidis 1962, 9; and Reinmuth 1971, 131–2.

40

chapter 2

odds with what Wilamowitz regarded as the compulsory nature of the ephebeia. This is best illustrated by Perikles’ comparison of military preparations of the Athenians with that of the Spartans. While the Spartans began military training of their citizens in the agoge as soon as they became young men, Perikles observes that Athenian neoi (an age class that included youth of ephebic age) did not undertake such a system of training, but lived as they pleased and relied instead on their native spirit (2.39.2, 4). In her work on Athenian funeral orations, Loraux rejects Wilamowitz’s first premise, since she regarded his interpretation of this passage as too literal. For such a presentation of Athens was one of many topoi deployed by Athenian statesmen who gave funeral orations.20 Does this passage of Perikles refer to a historical reality at Athens? Lofberg thought Perikles’ words masked the existence of a pre-Lykourgan ephebeia, citing the neoteroi of Thuc. 2.13.7 and the peripoloi of Thuc. 4.67.2 as support. He regarded these young men as ephebes, i.e., members of a system of military training for eighteen and nineteen year old Athenians. For as with the ephebes of the Lykourgan Age, these younger citizens patrolled the countryside and were stationed in the fortresses. Of course, Thucydides nowhere refers to them as ephebes. Lofberg believed, however, that by not calling them ephebes Thucydides had simply failed to use technical terminology.21 Even if one were to assume that the neoteroi and peripoloi were new citizens, these passages do not betray any evidence of a state–funded and –controlled system of military training for the young men of Athens. In fact, where the sources do address the issue of military training, a different picture comes into view. For instance, in Plato’s Lakhes (179e), the statesman Nikias asks Sokrates whether his son should receive private instruction in hoplomakhia, the art of fencing with hoplite weapons. If an ephebeia had existed during this time, such a question would not have been asked. Instead, Nikias’ son would have been stationed at Peiraieus or in one of the Attic border fortresses taking instruction from an hoplomakhos. As discussed in the previous chapter, Alkibiades entered politics before he was twenty years of age (Xen. Mem. 1.2.40). Although Plutarch represents him as having taken the ephebic oath, Alkibiades could not have pursued such a career, if there were an ephebeia at this time.22 Elsewhere, Antiphon (fr. 67 Blass =Athen. 12.525b) reports that when he came 20  21  22 

Loraux 1986, 150–3. Lofberg 1925, 332; and Pélékidis 1962, 41–4. This suggestion was originally made by Dumont 1875, 4. Cf. Bryant 1907, 86 n. 2; Brenot 1920, 9; and Forbes 1929, 120–1 do not identify neoteroi with the ephebes. Bryant 1907, 81–2; Forbes 1929, 116.

Origin of the Athenian Ephebeia

41

of age Alkibiades sailed to Abydos with his property to enjoy himself there. Such a pleasure cruise could not have been undertaken, if a compulsory system of military training had existed at Athens.23 The freedom to live as one pleases that Wilamowitz recognized as a trait of the fifth century is also visible in the literature of the first half of the fourth century BCE. This is implied in Plato’s Lakhes, in which Lysimakhos declares that he will give constant care in the upbringing of his son, not like most fathers in the Athens of his day who allow their sons to act as they wish when they come of age (179a–b). As noted in the previous chapter, Xenophon compared the freedom to raise one’s children as one wished and to live as one pleased that existed in most states with the state-run system of paideia in Persia. Xenophon clearly regarded Athens as one of those states. This is confirmed by Plato, who echoes the same complaint when comparing the relative freedom in upbringing of young Athenian aristocrats with the rigid education of his counterparts in Persia and Sparta (Alk. 122a–c). Along with Plato and Xenophon, Isokrates also contrasted the liberal educational practices of his contemporaries with a far off system of state-run paideia, except he located his educational ideal neither in Lakonia nor in the Middle East, but in a fictitious period of early Athenian history. During this time, Athenians were not carefully governed during their boyhood only to be allowed to live as they pleased when they came of age (εἰς ἄνδρας δοκιµασθεῖεν). In his Golden Age of Athenian paideia, they were subject to even greater supervision when they entered manhood. These fictitious Athenians placed such an emphasis on self-mastery (σωφροσύνη) that they charged the Council of the Areopagos, a body of former arkhons who themselves had exemplified selfmastery (σωφροσύνη) and virtue (ἀρετή), with the care of the orderly behavior (εὐκοσµία) of their younger men (7.37), which included new citizens. In those days, the Council schooled Athenian citizens in the civic virtue of good order (εὐταξία) when they came of age (7.39). By contrast, Isokrates complains that the younger citizens of his day, in particular those of ephebic age, pass their time in gambling dens or with flute girls (7.48) or generally indulge in pleasures and waste themselves in drinking bouts, parties, soft living, and in childish follies (15.286–90). In other words, the youth of Isokrates’ day lacked self-mastery (σωφροσύνη), the very quality that the ephebeia instilled in its members. Thus, the freedom to live as one pleases which characterized the Athenians of the fifth century and the first half or so of the fourth (and led in some cases to the lax moral character and behavior of some of the community’s younger members) strongly suggests that the institution described in [Aristotle’s] 23 

Bryant 1907, 82 n. 4.

42

chapter 2

Ath. Pol. and documented in contemporary inscriptions did not exist prior to the Age of Lykourgos. 3

The Silence of the Literary Sources

The freedom to educate one’s children as one sees fit is a direct corollary of the freedom to live as one pleases. Consequently, Athenian education, especially the decision to pursue military training, continued to be regarded as a private affair for much of the fourth century BCE. Although evidence for a pre-Lykourgan ephebeia does not appear in the literary evidence of the fifth and first half of the fourth centuries, passages of Xenophon, Isokrates, and Aiskhines on athletic training and military instruction and service during this period strongly support the belief that an ephebeia did not exist prior to the Lykourgan Era. Xenophon Memorabilia (c. 355/4 BCE) offers clear proof that formal military training did not exist at Athens.24 The Memorabilia are dialogues between the fictional Sokrates and younger Athenians regarding moral, political, and military issues of Xenophon’s day. Although they are represented as recollections of Sokrates’ sayings, Xenophon used this genre to articulate proposals on issues that interested him, such as the amateurism of Athens’ military. For example, addressing the need for athletic training, Sokrates upbraids Epigenes, who is around the age of an ephebe, for not being physically fit and stresses the military benefits of exercise and the potential hazards for those who fail to do so. Through his Sokrates Xenophon states: οὔτοι χρή, ὅτι οὐκ ἀσκεῖ δηµοσίᾳ ἡ πόλις τὰ πρὸς τὸν πόλεµον, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἰδίᾳ ἀµελεῖν, ἀλλὰ µηδὲν ἧττον ἐπιµελεῖσθαι. Since the state does not publicly furnish military training, it is certainly not necessary to neglect it privately. Instead, it is necessary to give it attention just as much (3.12.5). Therefore, just as in the fifth century, military training in the early and midfourth century BCE remained an individual’s responsibility, which he financed at his own expense. The result of this was that many citizens at Athens chose not to pursue such training. Through the character of Sokrates, Xenophon 24 

Delebecque 1957, 477–95.

Origin of the Athenian Ephebeia

43

exhorts his fellow citizens to take efforts to train for war, a preparation that they were neglecting up to this point. In the same work, Sokrates and the younger Perikles discuss restoring Athens’ former military virtue (ἀρετή), which was in decline due to Athenian neglect. Perikles asks ἢ σωµασκήσουσιν οὕτως, οἳ οὐ µόνον αὐτοὶ εὐεξίας ἀµελοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἐπιµελοµένων καταγελῶσι; or when will they [the Athenians] exercise their bodies—they who not only neglect exercise, but also mock those who take care to do so (3.5.15–16). This passage implies that no formal system of exercise existed for the ephebes or any age group of Athenians by the late 350s, as there was for the ephebes in the Lykourgan Era. Again, Xenophon offers a solution to the poor state of military preparedness that existed in his day, one that necessitated restoring certain qualities (εὐταξία, πειθαρχία, σωφροσύνη) in members of the Athenian hoplite and cavalry forces (3.5.21). Regarding how best to do this, Sokrates asks Ἀθηναίους δ’ οὐκ ἂν οἴει, ἔφη, µέχρι τῆς ἐλαφρᾶς ἡλικίας ὡπλισµένους κουφοτέροις ὅπλοις καὶ τὰ προκείµενα τῆς χώρας ὄρη κατέχοντας βλαβεροὺς µὲν τοῖς πολεµίοις εἶναι, µεγάλην δὲ προβολὴν τοῖς πολίταις τῆς χώρας κατεσκευάσθαι; καὶ ὁ Περικλῆς, Πάντ’ οἶµαι, ἔφη, ὦ Σώκρατες, καὶ ταῦτα χρήσιµα εἶναι. (3.5.27–8) “And do you not think that active young Athenians, equipped with lighter arms and occupying the mountains that lie before our country, would be more harmful to our enemies and provide a great bulwark to the citizens of the countryside?” and Perikles said “I think, Sokrates, that all these things are benefits, too.” Although this passage describes activities similar to those of Athenian ephebes in the Age of Lykourgos, patrolling the countryside by younger citizens is offered here as a solution for restoring discipline (εὐταξία), obedience (πειθαρχία), and self-control (σωφροσύνη) in Athens’ land forces. This solution implies that young men who served in the hoplite and cavalry forces lacked these qualities and that regular patrols along the borders of the countryside by younger

44

chapter 2

citizens did not exist at Athens during this time.25 Xenophon’s proposal of young Athenians patrolling the mountains of northern Attike bears a striking resemblance to his Persian ephebes guarding the countryside. Another similarity is the use of military service as a means of habituating young men to selfcontrol and related virtues. Whereas his proposal in the Memorabilia would ensure the defense of Attike against a Boiotian invasion by improving Athens’ land forces, the service presented in the Kyropaideia is one element of a larger system of life-long paideia, which prepares citizens for military service and ensure the σώφρων character of the Persian citizenry. Despite this testimony, advocates of an early ephebeia quote a passage from Xenophon’s Poroi (355/4 BCE) as support for their thesis. Winkler regarded this passage more than any other as the best evidence for a pre-Lykourgan ephebeia.26 The question that the Poroi addresses is how the Athenians could best increase state revenues so as to provide all of its citizens a public maintenance (4.33). According to Xenophon, the benefits of such a scheme are that the Athenians would become more obedient, better disciplined, and more efficient in war. οἵ τε γὰρ ταχθέντες γυµνάζεσθαι πολὺ ἂν ἐπιµελέστερον τοῦτο πράττοιεν ἐν τοῖς γυµνασίοις τὴν τροφὴν ἀπολαµβάνοντες [πλείω] ἢ ἐν ταῖς λαµπάσι γυµνασιαρχούµενοι· οἵ τε φρουρεῖν ἐν τοῖς φρουρίοις οἵ τε πελτάζειν καὶ περιπολεῖν τὴν χώραν πάντα ταῦτα µᾶλλον ἂν πράττοιεν, ἐφ’ ἑκάστοις τῶν ἔργων τῆς τροφῆς ἀποδιδοµένης. those assigned to exercise in the gymnasium would do this far more attentively if they are receiving a maintenance than when under the gymnasiarkhoi in the torch-races; and those assigned to serve in the fortresses, and those assigned to serve as peltastai and to patrol the countryside would do all these things better if a maintenance was given for each of these tasks (4.52). Lofberg and Gauthier correctly understood the antecedent of the participle οἵ ταχθέντες as Athenian citizens and not mercenaries.27 Both conclude, however, that Xenophon specifically had in mind the ephebes based on a similarity of language in this passage and Ath. Pol. 42. This is a mistake, for as Forbes pointed out, similarity in language does not prove that ephebes were meant 25  26  27 

Brenot 1920, 24; Forbes 1929, 121; de Marcellus 1994, 32. Winkler 1990, 30. By contrast, Bryant 1907, 86, questions Xenophon’s authorship. Lofberg 1925, 331; Gauthier 1976, 190–5.

Origin of the Athenian Ephebeia

45

as the antecedent of the participle.28 In fact, by advocating this interpretation, Lofberg and Gauthier seem to drop the context of the entire work. For Xenophon states that the purpose of the Poroi is to relieve the poverty of the Athenian citizens by maintaining them through their own domestic resources (1.1). Given that, up to the point of this passage, Xenophon has been emphasizing how his financial plan will create large revenues for all Athenians (2.7, 3.6, 4.40), and that the trophe is meant for all Athenians (4.13, 4.33), it seems more appropriate to read “the Athenians” as the unstated subject of these participles. Gauthier’s conclusion also fails to take into consideration the passages from Xenophon’s Memorabilia cited above. These passages clearly imply that there was no state-funded system of military training for ephebes or for any other Athenian citizens. By offering his financial solutions, Xenophon was attempting to solve a problem of Athenian military preparedness—a message that fits well into some of the themes in his Memorabilia vis-à-vis the wretched state of military preparedness among the citizens of Athens cited above.29 As Xenophon observes, the creation of a trophe would allow her citizens, most likely its younger members, to be free of work so that they could train in the gymnasia, serve in the fortresses, and patrol the countryside. Isokrates also suggests that citizens (new or otherwise) were not subject to regular military training in his day. In his Areopagitikos (355/4 BCE), he states that the Athenians had so neglected the necessities of war that they refused to attend military reviews unless they were paid (7.82). Even assuming some rhetorical exaggerations on his part, the Athenians’ poor performance at the Battle of Khaironeia (338 BCE) provides confirmation for Isokrates’ allegation. For whereas the Macedonian army was trained in war (ἠσκηκότας) and in physical exercise (γεγυµνασµένους), Polyainos states that the Athenians were undisciplined (ὀξεῖς, or “reckless”) and lacked military training (ἀγυµνάστους).30 Many of these were neoi, young men whose age (in this case) ranged from 20 to 30 years of age.31 In the end, 1000 Athenians had lost their lives and 28  29  30  31 

Forbes 1929, 121. Cf. Friend 2019, 25. Polyain. Strat. 4.2.2, 4.2.7. Other sources for the Battle of Khaironeia are: D.S. 16.85.5–86.6; Plut. Alex. 9.3; Dem. 19.2; Just. 9.3; Paus. 9.40.10. For a reconstruction of the battle, see Hammond 1938, 186–218; cf. id. 1973, 534–57; and Kendrick Pritchett 1958, 307–311. D.S. 16.85.2. According to Diodoros, all of the Athenian neoi came eagerly for the battle at Khaironeia (τῶν δὲ νέων ἁπάντων προθύµως εἰς τὸν ἀγῶνα καταντώντων….). The word neoi is an age term that refers broadly to young men as old as 30 years of age (Xen. Mem. 1.2.35) and to boys as young as 14 (Polyb. 15.18.8). Since Athenians were not liable for campaigning until they were 20, the age of the Athenian neoi at Khaironeia ranged from 20 to 30 years of age. See Forbes 1933; Sacco 1979; Chankowski 2010, 253–65; Kennell 2012.

46

chapter 2

another 2000 had been captured—these being nearly half of the men who fought that day.32 Perhaps the best ancient evidence for the historical state of Athenian education prior to the Age of Lykourgos appears in Aiskhines’ speech Against Timarkhos. Delivered in 346/5 BCE, the Athenian orator advanced a number of arguments to prove Timarkhos’ unsuitability for public life based on his shameful past. Central to his case is the notion of self-mastery (σωφροσύνη), especially as it relates to Timarkhos’ sexual behavior. Aiskhines cites a number of laws concerning the orderly behavior (εὐκοσµία) of Athenian boys (παῖδες) and youth (µειράκια). These citations demonstrated to his Athenian jurors the care that the Athenian lawgivers of old took to imbue Athenian boys and youths with sound habits of self-mastery and in protecting the boys from sexual abuse from their teachers and those who frequented the gymnasia. Along the way, Aiskhines surveyed the education of boys, in particular their instruction in music. When he addresses the education of young men, Wilamowitz observed, the orator never mentions the ephebeia.33 In fact, his speech seems to suggest that young men were in no way subject to formal education or training. Given the institution’s emphasis on self-mastery (σωφροσύνη) and similar virtues (εὐταξία, πειθαρχία), it is highly unlikely that Aiskhines would have overlooked the ephebeia, if it had existed. Later in his speech, Aiskhines states that when Timarkhos had passed out of boyhood (ἐπειδὴ ἀπηλλάγη ἐκ παίδων) and became a young man (µειράκιον), he settled down in Peiraieus to study medicine. Aiskhines never attacked Timarkhos for failing to undergo military training and to provide service as a guard at Peiraieus or patroller of the Athenian countryside. And why should he have done so? For as with the other young men prior to the Age of Lykourgos, Timarkhos was at liberty to live as he pleased and to pursue the life that he wished. Finally, scholars have cited two autobiographical passages from the orator Aiskhines regarding his own coming of age and military service to support their claims of an early ephebeia. These passages have already been discussed at some length in Chapter 1. Advocates of an early ephebeia associate Aiskhines’ references to his fellow ephebes in 1.49 and 2.167 with the term ephebe as it appears in the Ath. Pol. and the ephebic inscriptions of the Lykourgan Age, i.e., a member of a state-supported and -controlled system of military training called the ephebeia. His two-year service as peripolos, a service the Lykourgan ephebes also performed for a single year, appears to strengthen this claim. As noted earlier, these passages unquestionably register the fact that in the early 32  33 

D.S. 16.86.5; Paus. 7.10.5; Dem. 18.264; [Demad.] 9–10. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1893, 192. Cf. de Marcellus 1994, 32.

Origin of the Athenian Ephebeia

47

fourth century new Athenian citizens called ephebes patrolled the khora in times of military instability. Nevertheless, the perceived similarity in language in these passages of Aiskhines and the brief account of the ephebeia in Ath. Pol. 42 has led some scholars to conclude that Aiskhines underwent some sort of military training and service in the late 370s BCE.34 A closer examination suggests otherwise. There are discrepancies between the ephebeia as described by [Aristotle] and Aiskhines’ service as patrolman. For instance, Aiskhines attests to serving as peripolos for two years after which he served in foreign campaigns. The ephebes of the Ath. Pol., however, served as peripoloi during their second year in the ephebeia. Nor does Aiskhines mention a system of training in the first or second year. Further, in his list of witnesses Aiskhines never refers to a kosmetes or sophronistes, the ephebic officials who ran the institution. As discussed above, other contemporary sources do not mention them either. Reinmuth believed that the commanders (arkhontes) whom Aiskhines calls upon to witness his service were these officials.35 This is incorrect, for the arkhontes were the peripolarkhoi, or commanders of the peripoloi, who are attested in inscriptions in the fifth and fourth century.36 Nor was Aiskhines’ service continuous as it was with the ephebes in the Age of Lykourgos. This is implied by a passage from Demosthenes 18.261, in which the orator discusses Aiskhines’ early career. Once Aiskhines had been enrolled into his deme, Demosthenes states that Aiskhines held a clerkship for minor officials. While the tone of this passage is clearly sarcastic, there is no reason to believe Aiskhines did not hold such a position, a point that proponents of an early ephebeia concede and Aiskhines himself did not deny.37 In fact, in the absence of any state-funded trophe, as advocated for this purpose by Xenophon (Poroi 4.52), it would have proved difficult for most Athenians to serve continuously through these two years in this capacity, a fault that Xenophon’s scheme was designed to correct. Nor did new Athenian citizens outside Aiskhines’ age group serve in this manner prior to the Age of Lykourgos. For, as observed already, other comingof-age narratives from the fifth and early fourth centuries BCE never mention training at Peiraieus and service in the khora for Athens’ newest citizens. This 34  35  36 

37 

Lofberg 1925, 333–4; Pélékidis 1962, 40–42. Reinmuth 1971, 123. IG I3 1186 (c. 441 BCE) line 76; IG II/III3 1, 292 (352/1 BCE) lines 20–21, IG II2 1193 (end of fourth century BCE) line 2, 1260 (307–4 BCE) line 9, 2968 (c. 350 BCE), 2973 (end of fourth century BCE); I.Rhamnous nos. 92 (340/39 BCE), 93 (338/7 BCE), 94–6 (337–4 BCE). Ʃ Thuc. 8.92.2 defines the peripolarkhos as ὁ τῶν περιπόλων ἄρχων. Reinmuth 1952, 36–7.

48

chapter 2

explains why Aiskhines felt it was necessary to call on Mislogas, his age mate and fellow ephebe, to witness his military service. Further, Aiskhines stressed that his service was unusual. As discussed in the previous chapter, this is likely due to the fact that he and his age mates were called up to serve as patrolmen on account of the military instability along the border created by the rise of Thebes during this period. It should not be used to establish a norm for all Athenians during this period. These two passages make it clear that by the late 370s BCE (if not before) new Athenian citizens called ephebes served as peripoloi along the borders of the Attic countryside during times of military instability. They served by age class as all citizens did by this stage in the development of Athenian military service. But was there a system of training for these young men? These passages provide no evidence for such a program. In fact, they suggest the very opposite, which is consistent with other coming-of-age narratives. 4

The Silence of the Epigraphical Sources

Neither the Ath. Pol. nor the inscriptions provide evidence one way or the other for the creation or refoundation of the ephebeia during this period. In Wilamowitz’s day, the earliest ephebic inscription was T1.2, which Foucart edited and dated to 333/2 BCE.38 Since no inscription earlier than this date was known, and there was no evidence for an ephebeia in preceding periods of Athenian history, Wilamowitz believed that the ephebeia must have been created in the wake of Khaironeia.39 The task for any scholar unconvinced of a Lykourgan origin for the institution was to find ephebic inscriptions preceding 338 BCE. The first epigraphical challenge to Wilamowitz’ thesis occurred in 1962. Pélékidis introduced IG II2 2370, 2382, 2384, and 2388, four fragmentary rosters ranging in date from 370 to 350 BCE, which Gomme believed may have been ephebic.40 Meritt and Traill, however, have demonstrated that these are in fact prytany decrees.41 Pélékidis also cites a fragmentary roster published by Pritchett as further proof for an early ephebeia.42 This inscription, however, was subsequently shown to be bouleutic (SEG 23.63). Further, Pélékidis 38  39  40  41  42 

Foucart 1889, 253–69. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1893, 191. Pélékidis 1962, 12. Cf. Gomme 1967, 69–70. Agora XV nos. 15, 18, 56, 74. Kendrick Pritchett 1947, 184–5, no. 91.

Origin of the Athenian Ephebeia

49

attempted to update two dateless ephebic inscriptions from the Lykourgan period. The first (pp. 147–49 no. 7 in Pélékidis’ catalogue, T1.19 in mine) is an ephebic dedication first published by Pritchett who suggested a date of c. 330 BCE based on prosopographical considerations. Some of the ephebes listed in the text, Pritchett observed, had an active political life toward the end of the fourth century.43 Similarly, the second (pp. 149–51 no. 9 in Pélékidis’ catalogue, T1.13 in mine), an honorary decree for the ephebes of Pandionis, was published by Pouilloux who dated this to c. 331 BCE also on prosopographical grounds.44 Since Pélékidis was unconvinced of Wilamowitz’ thesis regarding the date for the origin of the ephebeia, he brought the upper limit of the dates for these two inscriptions to 345 and 349 BCE respectively. Scholars have not followed Pélékidis’ new dates, including Reinmuth who favored Pritchett’s and Pouilloux’s dates over those of Pélékidis.45 Finally, Sokolowski’s reediting of IG I3 82 (421/0 BCE) further undermined Pélékidis’ epigraphical support for a fifth-century ephebeia.46 The second epigraphical challenge to Wilamowitz’s thesis came in 1967, when Mitsos published what he regarded as two fragments of the same stele which had been discovered in a trench for a new sewer line on Davakis Street in Kallithea, a district of modern Athens. Mitsos’ reconstructions of the texts found on these fragments appear below.47 EM 13354 1 [— — — — — — — —]Π̣ Η [․․]ΟΠΑΤ̣ [․․․․] [— — — — — αὐτῶι καὶ ἐκγό?]νοις ἀτέλεια[ν] [διὰ τρία ἔτη τῶν ἐγκυκλίων] ληιτουργιῶν [․] [— — — — — — — — ἐ]πιµελητε͂ι µηθὲ5 [ν(?)— — — — — — — — —] µηδεµίαν µήτε [— — — — — — — — ] υναι πα[ρ]ὰ τὸ δό[γµα τῆς φυλῆς ἀποτινέτω(?) χ]ιλίας δραχµὰς ἱ[ερὰς τῶι Ἀκάµαντι· τὸ δὲ ψή]φισµα τόδ[ε] ἀνα[γ][ράψαι τοὺς ἐπιµελητὰς το]ὺς ἐπὶ Νικοφήµο 10 [ἄρχοντος καὶ στῆσαι ἐν τῶ]ι ἱερῶι τοῦ Ἀκάµ[αντος· προσγράψαι δὲ καὶ(?) Ἀ]ρ̣ιστοκράτην Θο43  44  45  46  47 

Kendrick Pritchett 1949, 273–8 and pl. 27. Pouilloux 1954, 107 no. 2. Reinmuth 1971, nos. 10 and 12. Pélékidis 1962, 252 n. 4; Sokolowski 1969, no. 13. For bibliography on EM 13354 and 13354a, see T1.1. I follow Chankowski in labeling the larger fragments with the two decrees as EM 13354 and the smaller fragment as EM 13354a. This is reversed in Reinmuth and Mitchel.

50

15

20

25

chapter 2

[ρίκιον καὶ ․․․7․․․ Θο]ρ̣[ίκ]ιον. vacat vacat 0.029  [ἐπὶ Νικοφήµο] ἄρχοντος. vacat 0.014 [— — — — — — — — — — —]ο Εἰρεσίδης εἶπε[ν· ἐπειδὴ ὁ κοσµητὴς τῶν ἐφ]ήβων Αὐτόλυκος κ[αλῶς καὶ φιλοτίµως ἐπεµε]λήθη τῶν νεανίσκ[ων, δεδόχθαι τῆι Ἀκαµαντίδ]ι φυλῆι ἐπαινέσ[αι Αὐτόλυκον ․․․․9․․․․ Θο]ρίκιον φιλοτιµ[ίας ἕνεκα καὶ ἐπιµελείας τῆ]ς περὶ τοὺς ἐφή[βους καὶ στεφανῶσαι θαλλοῦ σ]τεφάνωι ἐπε[ι][δὰν τὰς εὐθύνας δῶι ὧν ἐπεµελή]θη, ἀρετῆς κ[α][ὶ ἀνδραγαθίας ἕνεκα· τὸ δὲ ψήφισ]µα τόδε ἀνα[γράψαι τὸν γραµµατέα τῆς φυλῆς ἐ]στήλην ἐν [τῶι ἱερῶι τοῦ Ἀκάµαντος, ἐφ’ ἧς γέγρα]πται τὸ [ψήφισµα περὶ τὸς ἐφήβους ἐπὶ Μόλωνο(?)]ς ἄρχο[ντος — — — — — — — — — — — —]

EM 13354a 1 ἐπὶ Νικοφήµ[ο ἄρχοντος] Mitsos assigned EM 13354a as the upper fragment, which contained the dating formula “ἐπὶ Νικοφήµ[ο ἄρχοντος]” across the top and, just below, the left side of a crown. Mitsos published EM 13354 as the lower half of the stele, which contains two decrees. The first of these (lines 1–12) is a tribal decree of nonephebic purpose, with a stoichedon line of 34. The epimeletai of the year in which Nikophemos was arkhon (361/0 BCE) set up this decree in the sanctuary of the tribal hero Akamas. Tracy has associated the hands of the man who inscribed this text with the “Cutter of IG II2 105,” whose work is attested from 368 to 339 BCE.48 The dating formula “ἐπὶ Νικοφήµ[ο ἄρχοντος]” (lines 9–10) is clearly visible and dates the publication of this decree to 361/0 BCE. A second tribal decree (lines 13–26) (T1.1 in my catalogue) was tacked directly below the first. The two were separated by a vacat of 0.029 m. and the body of the decree (lines 14–26) had a stoichedon line of 35. The formulaic phraseology of the surviving right half of the decree allows certain restorations of the missing left side. The appearance of the word ephebe and the likely restoration of the term kosmetes (κοσµητὴς τῶν ἐφ]ήβων), the chief official of the ephebeia in the Lykourgan Age, strongly suggest that this is a decree of the tribe 48 

Tracy 1995, 71.

Origin of the Athenian Ephebeia

51

Akamantis honoring the kosmetes Autolykos with an olive crown for his care of the ephebes. An official or officials other than the epimeletai were responsible for setting up the decree. The complete dating formula of this fragment has not survived. Only the expression “[…………] ἄρχοντος” remains (line 13). Based on his assumption that EM 13354 and EM 13354a belonged to the same stele, Mitsos restored line 13 as [ἐπὶ Νικοφήµο] ἄρχοντος.49 In his work on fourth century ephebic inscriptions, Reinmuth used Mitsos’ publication of EM 13354 and EM 13354a as the much-sought-after evidence for a pre-Lykourgan ephebeia at Athens—in this case by at least twenty three years.50 Others were skeptical of Mitsos’ claim. Woodhead expressed doubt about the dating (SEG 23.78).51 Discrepancies in line length between the texts of the two decrees and responsible officials, the improbability of repeating the dating formula in a second large heading on the same stele, the fact that Mitsos’ restoration of the name of the arkhon at line 13 was one or two letters short, and the difference in masons’ hands suggested to Lewis that these two decrees were inscribed at different dates. The second decree of EM 13354 (lines 13–26) was inscribed in the “casual lettering” of the Lykourgan Period, and so, concluded Lewis, it could not have been inscribed in 361/0 BCE. Furthermore, no extant texts datable before 334/3 BCE have been discovered, and this year and the one following (333/2 BCE) produced eight texts.52 Mitchel’s examination of EM 13354 and 13354a cast further doubt on the dating of the second decree advocated by Mitsos and Reinmuth. Mitchel observed that the two fragments tapered at differing rates (2% vs. 16%), the surfaces had been worked differently, and that the widths of the two stones were not identical (0.496 m vs. 0.498 m.). These considerations were enough to show that EM 13354 and 13354a did not belong together and should be considered fragments of separate stelai. As to the decrees of EM 13354, Mitchel agreed with Lewis that the lettering of the second text (lines 13–26) was from the Lykourgan Era. He noted that the name of the arkhon in the dating formula of this decree (line 13) needed eleven spaces, not nine as Mitsos and Reinmuth believed. He believed two candidates from this period were possible—Ktesikles (334/3 BCE) and Nikokrates (333/2 BCE). Since another Athenian was the kosmetes of 49  50  51 

52 

Mitsos 1965 [1967], 131–6. Reinmuth 1971, 1–4, 123–5. SEG 23.78 (1968): Ita Mitsos, sed nobis incertum manet an decreta ambo anno eidem sint attribuenda, et in vs. 13 fortasse archon alius (cum nomine paullo longiore) requirendus est. Quod si ita sit, decretum alterum in ex. s. IVa collocare debemus et de interpretatione institutionis ephebicae difficulties nonnullas evitemus; sed in ea re melius iudicabunt peritiores. Lewis 1973, 254–6.

52

chapter 2

333/2 BCE (“κοσµη[τής.….…] Αἰνησιστράτου Ἀχ̣[αρνεὺς” T1.11 lines 12–13), this left only Ktesikles. This conclusion down dated the inscribing of EM 13354 lines 13–26 from 361/0 BCE to 334/3 BCE (or 333/2 BCE, if this honorary decree was passed after the completion of the Autolykos’ euthyna a month or so after completing his official duties) and associated it with three other texts honoring the ephebes enrolled in the archonship of Ktesikles (T1.2–4).53 Mitchel’s arguments did not always shape the subsequent discussion regarding the date for the foundation of the ephebeia.54 Gauthier, McCulloch and Cameron, and Vidal-Naquet followed Reinmuth and Mitsos in their conclusion regarding the date of this decree.55 All appear to have been unaware of Mitchel’s reanalysis of the second decree of EM 13354. Winkler, while knowing Mitchel’s objections, cited Gauthier’s interpretation of Poroi 4.52 (discussed above) as “the text which comes nearest to being decisive on the issue of a preLykourgan ephebic training….”56 Yet, Gauthier’s interpretation rested, in large part, on Mitsos and Reinmuth’s incorrect dating of EM 13354 lines 13–26. By down dating this decree, Mitchel effectively removed a major pillar in the edifice of modern scholarship regarding an early date for the Athenian ephebeia. In his recent re-examination of these two fragments, Chankowski challenges Mitchel’s conclusion regarding the date of the second decree of EM 13354.57 Chankowski is an advocate of a pre-Lykourgan ephebeia. As noted last chapter, he has argued that the term ephebe is an institutional term and so its appearance in the handful of literary texts prior to the Lykourgan Age proves the existence of the institution. He makes no use of this argument in his essay, however. Instead, to introduce the notion that an ephebeia existed prior to the Age of Lykourgos, Chankowski cites Gauthier’s interpretation of Xenophon’s Poroi 4.51–2, which, as discussed above, rested largely on Mitsos and Reinmuth’s incorrect dating of EM 13354 lines 13–26.58 Chankowski’s essay is a detailed exploration of these two fragments and there is much value to be gained from it. The conclusions of his material analysis agree with Mitchel’s findings regarding the relationship between 13354 and 13354a, the dimensions of the stones, and their different rates of tapering. Chankowski also offers new readings of the decrees themselves in order to 53  54  55  56  57  58 

Mitchel 1975, 233–43. Dow 1976, 81–4 independently arrived at this same date. Cf. Tracy 1995, 71. Those who followed Mitchel’s conclusions regarding the date of this inscription: Gauthier 1985, 149 n. 1; Faraguna 1992, 275 n. 9; Burkhardt 1996, 29 n. 9; Knoepfler 2001, 381. Gauthier 1976, 195; McCulloch and Cameron 1980, 13; Vidal-Naquet 1986, 97, 122, n. 1. Winkler 1990, 20 n. 11, 30 with n. 28. Chankowski 2014, 15–78. id. 2014, 19. Cf. Gauthier 1976, 193; and Reinmuth 1971, 1–4.

Origin of the Athenian Ephebeia

53

address mistakes in the original publication by Mitsos. One of these new readings may better clarify the relationship between the two decrees, especially the instructions for inscribing the second decree of EM 13354 beneath the first decree (lines 24–6), published in the arkhonship of Nikophemos (361/0 BCE) or, as Chankowski suggests, of Molon (362/1 BCE). Chankowski’s basis for assigning an earlier date to the second decree of EM 13354, however, is tenuous.59 Chankowski begins by noting that Mitchel’s focus on the Lykourgan Age for candidates to fit the lacuna of line 13 obliges him to discount possible candidates preceding c. 336 BCE. Chankowski identifies four arkhons who served in office subsequent to Nikophemos and prior to Ktesikles (334/3 BCE) as possible candidates. Each had a name in the genitive singular which, when combined with the preposition ἐπὶ, would provide the 14 letters necessary to fill in the lacuna in line 13 of the second decree of EM 13354. Of course, Mitchel was aware of the fact that arkhons prior to the Lykourgan Period had names that met the necessary criteria. What anchored Mitchel’s opinion that the name of an arkhon with this number of letters should be sought from the Lykourgan Age was the fact that the style of lettering of the second decree was not only distinct from that of the first decree but was characteristic of this period. In order to nullify Mitchel and Lewis’ crucial observation on the distinctive style of lettering of the second decree, it is necessary to demonstrate that lettering of this sort may be found in earlier decrees. Chankowski notes that the fragmentary patronymic of line 14 of the second decree ends in an omicron (line 14: […21…]ο Εἰρεσίδης εἶπε-) and cites the study by Threatte who carefully documented the increasing case over time of ΟΥ as a grapheme of the long ο-vowel.60 According to Threatte, the use of ΟΥ for the long ο-vowel is less common between 403/2 and 350/49 BCE, although both forms often appear in the same text. The long ο-vowel may be seen in the dating formula “ἐπὶ Νικοφήµο [ἄρχοντος” in lines 9–10 of the first decree of 13354 and “ἐπὶ Νικοφήµ[ο ἄρχοντος” in 13354a. Yet, in the first decree of EM 13354, ΟΥ appears for the long ο-vowel in the expression “τοὺς ἐπιµελητὰς το]ὺς ἐπὶ Νικοφήµο| [ἄρχοντος” (line 9). As Chankowski points out, the second decree also vacillates between these two forms. For whereas an omicron ends the patronymic in line 14, “περὶ τοὺς ἐφή|βους” appears just a few lines later (lines 19–20). From these considerations, Chankowski infers that the second decree of EM 13354 was more likely (“plus probable”) passed under the arkhon 59  60 

Chankowski 2014, 54–6 for this argument, which at pg. 55 he admits is tenuous (“certes ténu”). Threatte 1980, 238–58.

54

chapter 2

Kephisodotos (358/7), Agathokles (357/6) or Apollodoros (350/49) than under Lysimakhides (339/8) or Ktesikles (334/3). This conclusion, however, does not take into account a number of factors. For instance, Chankowski’s observation of the greater frequency in the use of ΟΥ for the long ο-vowel over the fourth century does not address Lewis and Mitchel’s point regarding the “casual lettering” of the second decree of 13354 and its association with the Lykourgan Period. Further, while it is true that the use of ΟΥ for the long ο-vowel is less frequent in texts after 350/49 BCE, Threatte’s study demonstrates that long ο-vowels continued to appear in the second half of the fourth century. His study collects nearly two dozen examples, many of which appear in texts from the Lykourgan Period, including T1.2, a decree honoring the ephebes enrolled in the arkhonship of Ktesikles (334/3 BCE). Just as with both decrees on EM 13354, the inscribed texts on this stone vacillate between the long ο-vowel and its grapheme ΟΥ in the two forms of Ktesikles’ name (line 27: ἐπ[ὶ Κτη]σ[ι]κλέους ἄρχοντος; line 53: ἐπὶ Κτησικλέος ἄρχοντος). This same phenomenon is found in T1.11, a decree honoring the ephebes enrolled in 333/2 BCE. The long ο-vowel is used in the accusative plurals πειθοµένος (col. I line 8) and τὸς (col. I line 33), and the genitive singulars Καλλιφάνος ̣ (col. I line 25), Τιµοθέο (col. II line 10), and Ἀριστο]|τέλος (col. II line 12). Thus, the higher frequency of ΟΥ for the long ο-vowel in texts produced after the 350s BCE is not a sufficient reason to abandon Lewis and Mitchel’s observations regarding the Lykourgan character of the lettering of the second decree of EM 13354. Chankowski is right, however, in criticizing Mitchel for focusing on candidates from only the first few years of the Lykourgan Period. For there are other arkhons from this period whose name in the genitive singular combined with the preposition ἐπὶ provides the 14 letters necessary to fill in the lacuna in line 13 of the second decree of EM 13354. These are Aristophanes (331/30 BCE), Aristophon (330/29 BCE), Antikles (325/4), and Kephisodoros (323/2 BCE).61 The ephebeia was in full swing during this period and the names of the kosmetai for these years are at present unknown. Given these considerations and the Lykourgan character of the lettering style, it is just as possible that the second decree of EM 13354 is dated to one of these years as it is to the year in which Ktesikles was arkhon. For the reasons discussed above, it is less likely that this decree belongs to the first half of the fourth century BCE. 61 

Aristophanes: T1.18 line 5: ἐπὶ Ἀριστοφάνου or alternately SEG 25.177 line 1: ἐπ’ Ἀ[ριστοφάνο] υς; Aristophon: IG II/III3 1, 367 lines 32, 68: ἐπ’ Ἀριστοφῶντος; Antikles: IG II/III3 1, 368 line 1: [ἐπὶ Ἀντι]κλείους ἄρχοντος; Kephisodoros: IG II/III3 1, 375 line 1: ἐπὶ Κηφισοδώρου ἄρχον[τος.

Origin of the Athenian Ephebeia

5

55

Conclusion

Thus, Wilamowitz’ thesis seems to be the more likely explanation regarding the foundation date of the Athenian ephebeia. It is supported by a number of observations. First, a chief characteristic of the fifth and much of the fourth century was Athens’ recognition of a citizen’s freedom to live as he saw fit and, it’s corollary, the right to bring one’s children up as one wishes. This principle lies at the core of democratic ideology and would have been an obstacle to the creation of a system of military training and service upon enrollment for many new citizens. Second, the literary sources of the fifth and fourth centuries are silent with regard to the ephebeia. It is important to note, however, that, although a “lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack,” authors of the fifth and fourth century (Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, Isokrates, Aiskhines) contrasted contemporary liberal educational practices with those of far-off systems of state-run paideia. This clearly implies that the system of education at Athens was not under the direction of the state. In particular, these authors contrasted the relative moral degeneracy of Athenian youth with the self-control, good discipline, etc. of the participants in these other systems of education. As will be discussed more thoroughly next chapter, imbuing these qualities was a primary goal of the ephebeia. Moreover, passages of these same authors on contemporary athletic and military education demonstrate that in many cases young Athenians were choosing not to participate in such training during the fifth and much of the fourth centuries BCE. Nor did the state impose such training on the young or financed it. Even the so-called “ephebate” of Aiskhines offers no evidence of any sort for training, trainers, or system of training, but only for irregular military service as a patroller for himself and his age-mates during a period of crisis in which all able-bodied Athenians were called up. Third, at present no ephebic inscriptions have come to light that pre-date Epikrates’ Law of the Ephebes. In sum, while it is possible that literary and/or epigraphical evidence may come to light to ground a belief in a pre-Lykourgan ephebeia, at this stage of knowledge, the Athenians appear to have begun brigading new citizens together full time under a kosmetes and tribal sophronistai c. 336 BCE with the passage of Epikrates’ Law of the Ephebes.

chapter 3

The Purpose of the Athenian Ephebeia In the Age of Lykourgos, many new Athenians called ephebes participated in a peacetime system of military training and service. Enacted c. 336 BCE, Epikrates’ Law of the Ephebes created and regulated the ephebeia, an institution attested in [Aristotle’s] Ath. Pol. and the ephebic inscriptions of this period. The creation of this peacetime system of military training and service represented a radical departure from Athenian tradition and practice. For the state undertook the responsibility of providing this training through the creation of publically-funded officials, staff, and trainers and of a daily maintenance (trophe) for ephebes, which made it easier for greater numbers of these young men to participate. The question this chapter seeks to answer is: Why did the Athenians pass a law that singled out 18 and 19 year olds for military training and service during a time of peace? This is a question that has not been satisfactorily answered in the literature, but is crucial in determining the purpose of the ephebeia. In the past, scholars have answered this question by overly relying on the military character of the institution without giving due attention to the participants’ age or status as new citizens. As I hope to show, Athenians of the Lykourgan Age created the ephebeia as a system of paideia for new citizens, which they acquired through military training and service. While the evidence for training beyond military instruction is thin for the Lykourgan Age, nonetheless, the virtues that appear in decrees honoring the ephebes indicate the Athenian priority in creating the ephebeia. Moreover, political and educational theorists of the previous generation singled out young citizens of this age as requiring special attention in citizenship training. Such a system of training fits into the overall project of civic renewal that characterized the Lykourgan Age. 1

The Purpose of the Ephebeia: Hoplite Training?

The Athenian defeat at Khaironeia in 338 BCE has been regarded as the impetus for the creation (or revival) of the Athenian ephebeia, which historians believe was established to create a more professional army with which the Athenians could successfully confront Macedonia.1 As discussed last chapter, 1  Brenot 1920, 47–8; Forbes 1929, 125; Mitchel 1965, 197; 1970, 37; Sekunda 1992, 345; de Marcellus 1994, 141, 156; Burckhardt 1996, 45–6; R&O, 452, 453–4.

Purpose of the Athenian Ephebeia

57

Philip’s smaller army of well-trained and battle-experienced soldiers handily defeated a much larger Athenian phalanx of relatively untrained and illdisciplined citizen-soldiers. By providing military training to their newest citizens, the argument goes, the Athenians addressed the flagging state of their hoplite forces. There are several problems with this argument. For example, dating Epikrates’ Law of the Ephebes to c. 336 BCE suggests that the Athenians waited around two years to pass legislation that was meant to address this crucial issue. Perceiving this problem, Reinmuth argued that the ephebeia must have been regarded as a threat by Philip and Alexander and suggested that the Athenians waited till 334/3 BCE, i.e., after Alexander was away on campaign in Persia, to put the Law of the Ephebes into effect.2 In his work on the Lykourgan ephebeia, Friend reminds us that in the years immediately following Khaironeia, the Athenians were already actively engaged in building up their military forces and infrastructure, which undermines the notion that they feared Philip and Alexander and therefore delayed establishing the institution. Moreover, Friend correctly points out that training around 3% of the citizen population that did not normally fight outside the border (in non-hoplite forms of instruction) would require nearly a generation of time to pass before the entirety of Athens’ hoplite forces was filled with former ephebes. Such a system would have been ineffective in immediately addressing the poor state of Athens’ army, if this were the goal of Epikrates’ legislation.3 2

The Purpose of the Ephebeia: “Problems on the Border?”

In Friend’s view, the Athenians created a system of military training and service for their youngest citizens as a means of raising and maintaining a standing army to ensure greater security for the Athenian countryside. Friend assumes with earlier scholars that the ephebeia served some immediate military need, but in light of their non-hoplite form of training and their service in the countryside as patrollers, Friend defined that need as non-hoplite in nature and linked it with the type of potential threats associated with the countryside for which the patrols were designed to meet, i.e., cross border raiding and other piratical activity. According to Friend, Alexander’s sack of Thebes in 335 BCE necessitated the creation of an army stationed in the countryside, for the Boiotian communities who shared borders with Athens increased raiding activities into Attike. The presence of such a permanent force reduced the 2  Reinmuth 1967 (1971), 49. 3  Friend 2019, 37–41. Cf. Knoepfler 2001, 382; Bertosa 2003, 370–2.

58

chapter 3

possibility of raiders escaping detection and decreased their ability to plunder the Athenian countryside.4 This scenario is, I think, unlikely. For example, Friend’s description of the Boiotians’ assault on Attike in the form of increased border raids during the Lykourgan Age is undefined and hypothetical. In fact, in a period that is particularly rich in literary and epigraphical sources, there is no evidence that the Boiotians began plundering Attike in the aftermath of Alexander’s destruction of Thebes or even that the threats of such raids had increased.5 The observations that Boiotian states such as Thespiai, Plataiai, and Orkhomenos were well disposed toward Philip and Alexander,6 benefited economically and politically from the destruction of Thebes (a long-time enemy),7 and sided with the Macedonians against the Athenians in the Lamian War8 lend little support. It is also highly unlikely that Boiotian communities engaged in border raids during this period. For instance, their repatriation to extremely fertile districts of Boiotia and subsequent acquisition of the vast and equally fertile Thebaid in 335 BCE made Boiotian communities such as Thespiai, Plataiai and 4  Friend 2019, 48–53. 5  It is worth noting the historically close relationship between these communities as long-time allies of Athens and that the exiles from Plataiai and (perhaps) Thespiai were living among the Athenians for decades until they were returned to their ancestral homes (e.g., Xen. Hell. 6.3.1; Paus. 9.1.8; Arr. Anab. 1.9.5). This strongly suggests that, unlike the long-lasting hostility between communities who hold land near a shared frontier (cf. Pl. Resp. 373d–e; Leg. 843a; 955b–c), these communities very likely harbored cordial, if not friendly feelings, towards the Athenians until their own interests were directly threatened when the Athenians declared war against the Macedonians in 323 BCE (Paus. 1.25.4 and D.S. 18.11.3–5). 6  The evidence for Macedonian repatriation of Boiotian communities is muddled and incomplete. For instance, Pausanias states that Philip II restored Plataiai and Orkhomenos after the battle of Khaironeia in 338 BCE (4.27.10, 9.1.8). These communities, along with the Thespians, are attested at the sack of Thebes (Arr. Anab. 1.9.10), which suggests their existence, and Ps.-Kallisthenes places Alexander at Plataiai soon afterwards (Alexander Romance b.1–5). Plutarch narrates Alexander’s intention to rebuild Plataiai after the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BCE (Plut. Alex. 34.1). Statues of Philip (Dio Khrys. Or. 37.42) and Alexander (Pliny Nat. Hist. 34.66) suggest that both men patronized the city and, in particular, that Philip may have restored the Thespians after Khaironeia. 7  For the destruction of Thebes by Alexander and certain Boiotian communities, see Arr. Anab. 1.9 passim, D.S. 17.11–14, Just. 11.3–4, and Plut. Alex. 11. D.S. 17.13.5 identifies these communities as the Thespians, Plataians and Orkhomenians and “other Greeks hostile to the Thebans;” Just. 11.3.8 names Phokians, Plataians, Thespians, and Orkhomenians; Plut. Alex. 11.5 and Arr. Anab. 1.8.8, Phokians and Plataians only. For the division of the Thebaid among these communities, see Hyp. 6.17, Arr. Anab. 1.9.9, D.S. 18.11.3, Just. 11.4.7. 8  On the alliance of the Boiotian communities with Antipater at the outbreak of the Lamian War, see Paus. 1.25.4 and D.S. 18.11.3–5. They joined the Macedonians, because they knew that if the Athenians were successful the Thebans would be repatriated and their lands would be removed from these communities and restored to them.

Purpose of the Athenian Ephebeia

59

Orkhomenos very wealthy.9 Further, as members of the League of Korinth, their raiding activities would have constituted a clear breech of the Common Peace. This peace was established by Philip through the League of Korinth soon after the Greek defeat at Khaironeia in 338 BCE and was later reaffirmed by Alexander upon his accession to the throne in 336 BCE.10 Members of the League agreed to remain at peace with each other, to maintain the constitutions in force at the time the peace was established, and to campaign against those who violated the peace when called upon by the council and its hegemon.11 Member states, which included Athens as well as the Boiotian communities, were bound by oaths to keep the peace perpetually among themselves. No member might engage in hostilities against another by land and sea, which presumably included border raids.12 In other words, if the Boiotians had carried out border raids in Attike, it would have been these communities, not the Athenians, who would have been drawn into escalating conflict with their neighbors and left themselves open to retaliation by members of the League of Korinth. It also seems unlikely that smaller states such as Thespiai, Plataiai, and Orkhomenos would have risked conducting raiding parties into Attike, especially during a period in which Athens was increasing the size of its own military forces and improving its military infrastructure. In fact, far from fearing escalation and potential retaliation by members of the Korinthian League, the Athenians were at times willing to confront the hegemon of the League himself when they perceived that their interests and safety were at risk. For instance, when Macedonia increased tensions with the Athenians by temporarily detaining their grain fleet near 9 

10  11  12 

These Boiotian communities were enjoying large incomes from the Thebaid (D.S. 18.11.3– 4). While the city of Thebes proper was razed to the ground, there is no literary or archaeological evidence to suggest that farmsteads in the Thebaid met the same fate. It is very likely that the Boiotian communities acquired not only the land formerly owned by the Thebans, but their farmsteads, equipment, and livestock as well (D.S. 18.11.4: κατακληρουχήσαντες τὰς…κτήσεις). [Dem.] 17.6. Bosworth 1988, 187. For epigraphic and literary evidence for the League of Korinth, see Schmidt 1969, no. 403; and R&O no. 76 (338/7 BCE) lines 5–20. For discussion of the League of Korinth, see Ryder 1965, 150–62; Hammond and Griffith 1979, 623–46. The speaker of [Dem.] 17 does not mention any border raids into Attike carried out by Boiotian communities under the auspices, or tacit approval, of the Macedonians. If raiding had occurred, this is a strange omission, for the speech documents alleged Macedonian interference in Greek affairs in contravention of the League’s charter and was delivered before the Athenian assembly just a few years after the creation of the ephebeia. Much of its focus is on the communities in the Peloponnese; yet, when the speaker turns to the affairs of Attike, he regards a single Macedonian trireme sailing into Peiraieus as “the most arrogant and contemptuous action” committed by Alexander (17.26).

60

chapter 3

Tenedos, the Athenians sent 100 triremes to recover their ships with the threat of open conflict ([Dem.] 17.20). Why, then, would the Athenians have worried about meeting Thespiai, Plataiai, or Orkhomenos with overwhelming military force, if these communities were conducting raids into Attike? In such circumstances, the Athenians would have felt justified in confronting these communities, since the Boiotians would have been in contravention of the terms of the Common Peace and in clear violation of their oaths to uphold them.13 Therefore, there is no reason to believe that tensions were escalating between the Athenians and these communities along the Attic-Boiotian border. This conclusion conforms with the general state of peace and prosperity that the Athenians enjoyed during the Lykourgan Age.14 This is not to say that all raiding activity ceased or the threat of raids diminished from earlier times, but it did not amount to the level of unrelenting hostility. Thus, the Athenian decision to station a permanent guard of new citizens along the Attic border was not influenced by the threat of increased hostilities with their neighbors, Friend’s raison d’être of the ephebeia. Rather, the Athenians would have continued to use previously existing systems and strategies for confronting various levels of threats to the countryside. These would have included the deployment of Athenian cavalry and patrolmen in intercepting and destroying bands of raiders (4.46–7), as Xenophon describes in his Poroi written in 355 BCE. Regular patrols of the countryside, however, were only effective in confronting small numbers of raiders. In the case of escalating tensions along the Attic-Boiotian border, the Athenians would have stationed citizens at fortresses to confront specific threats, as they did when they sent hoplites to Panakton in 343/2 BCE, a fortress located near the Attic-Boiotian border. The Athenians dispatched this force in order to secure Drymos, an agricultural community between Attike and Boiotia, since the Boiotians were attempting to assert their own interests in the area in the aftermath of the Peace of Philokrates and the end of the Third Sacred War in 346 BCE.15 Similarly, if large communities were carrying out organized raids of Attike, the Athenians would have dispatched the regular army to meet them, such as the soldiers stationed at Rhamnous under Phokion’s command who intercepted a force of Macedonians invading the nearby country districts during the Lamian War (Plut. Phok. 25.1–2); or the Athenians under Olympiodoros who marched out from the fortress at Eleusis 13 

14  15 

A detachment of Athenians led by Leosthenes did confront (and quickly defeat) these communities as they amassed near Plataiai in the early days of the Lamian War (D.S. 18.11.5). This battle illustrates the stark asymmetry in military power between the Athenian land force and that of these smaller combined Boiotian communities. Habicht 1997, 6–7. Dem. 19.326, 54.3–5. Munn 2010, 189–200.

Purpose of the Athenian Ephebeia

61

and defeated the Macedonians raiding the Thriasian plain during the revolt of 286 BCE (Paus. 1.26.3). Policing the countryside under these dangerous circumstances was useless and even hazardous to the young patrollers who would have found safety within the walls of the countryside fortresses.16 In such situations, regular patrols could, at best, personally communicate the approach of an invading force through “day runners” or alert their fellow citizens by a system of visual signals.17 Finally, it seems unlikely that the Athenians would station along the “unrelentingly hostile” Attic-Boiotian border citizens who were their youngest and least experienced and knowledgeable with regard to war. According to Friend, the Athenians selected their newest citizens to serve as patrollers, since they played some role in guarding in the past and they had far fewer civic obligations than the rest of the citizen body, leaving them free to carry out these duties. Yet, prior to the creation of the ephebeia, the civic obligations of new citizens were exactly the same as the older youth, except that new citizens were exempt from military service but in moments of the utmost emergency. These moments were defined as a need for manpower, as discussed in previous chapters. Under normal circumstances, the Athenians levied citizens in accordance with the system of call-up by age class and stationed those Athenians eligible for military service at fortresses to confront specific threats as they arose, just as the Athenians did when they sent hoplites to Panakton in 343/2 BCE. There was no such need for additional manpower during the Lykourgan Age, since the Athenians were at peace during this period. Thus, there was no reason to call up new citizens to serve in the fortresses. Furthermore, in addition to stationing citizens eligible for military call up to serve in the fortresses, the Athenians would have deployed mercenaries to the countryside fortresses. By the fourth century, the Athenians had fully embraced using mercenaries in day-to-day guarding as well as in campaigns, despite concerns over loyalty (Aristot. Eth. Nic. 1116b; Ain. Takt. 12.2–13.4). Their use of mercenaries as patrollers appears for the first time during the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. 8.92.2) and by the mid fourth century BCE, the military organization of the Athenians included officials for the large-scale hiring and maintenance of mercenaries and review of their service (Aiskh. 1.113, Aristot. Pol. 1322b10). A specialized general for the command over foreign troops is attested for the first time in the sources a year or so after the Lamian War (IG II2 379 lines 11–13). This general and the mercenaries serving under him were connected 16  17 

The risks and hazards of regular patrol are discussed in Chapter 5. “Day-Runners” hemerodromoi or hemerodromes: Herodot. 6.105, 9.12; Liv. 31.24; Nep. Milt. 4.3. On the use of visual communication by guards and patrollers, see Chapter 5.

62

chapter 3

with the border fortresses and, from their earliest appearance in the sources, mercenaries serving in the garrisons performed duties similar to those of the ephebes.18 There is even evidence that mercenaries or citizen-soldiers (or both) continued to patrol the countryside and serve in the fortresses during the Lykourgan Period.19 Thus, professionalizing the hoplite forces in the aftermath of Khaironeia or confronting “problems on the border” following the destruction of Thebes do not account for why the Athenians singled out ephebes for non-hoplite military training and guard service. The shortcomings of theories that overly rely on the military character of the institution invite us to seek answers elsewhere regarding the purpose of the ephebeia. 3

Citizen Training: εὐταξία, πειθαρχία, and σωφροσύνη

Students of the Athenian ephebeia have long recognized that the institution served a purpose in addition to or beyond the military training of new Athenian citizens. For instance, Girard, Pélékidis and Marrou regarded the ephebes as soldiers beyond all else, but also emphasized the moral and religious training new citizens received in the Hellenistic Period. Mitchel believed that during their two years of service ephebes were schooled in patriotism. Similarly, Faraguna and Ober thought that the ephebes received military training coupled with instruction in moral education, although Ober concluded that there was little evidence for such instruction beyond training in selfmastery (σωφροσύνη). Conflating the evidence of wide-scale participation by ephebes in Athenian cult during the Hellenistic Period with the duties of their Lykourgan predecessors, Humphreys imagines that the extra-military instruction that these ephebes underwent was largely training in ritual. De Marcellus went further than the rest, declaring that the military training these youth received was a medium for instruction in “Socratic” virtue.20 The virtues that appear in decrees honoring the ephebes suggest the main concern in creating the ephebeia. If the institution had served some immediate military need, the qualities that appear in these documents honoring the 18 

19  20 

Griffith 1935, 80–88. Munn 1993, 173–80, discusses the high cost of garrisoning Athenian fortresses with mercenaries in the early to mid 370s BCE. These garrisons were used for the purpose of guarding the countryside, which included meeting raiders from Aigina (Xen. Hell. 5.1.29, 6.2.1) and Sparta (Xen. Hell. 5.4.9–21). I.Rhamnous nos. 92–96. IG II2 2973 (Eleusis). Girard 1891, 273; Pélékidis 1962, 257; Marrou 1964, 166; Mitchel 1970, 37; Faraguna 1992, 278; Ober 2001, 203 (cf. Friend 2019); Humphreys 2004, 120; de Marcellus 1994, 86.

Purpose of the Athenian Ephebeia

63

ephebes would have been strictly military in nature. In fact, these virtues have a broadly civic dimension, too, and demonstrate that the institution played a significant role in inculcating important civic virtues in Athens’ newest citizens. Consider the term “discipline” or “good order” (εὐταξία), one of the most frequently occurring virtues to appear in decrees honoring ephebes. This virtue had firm associations with military service and was regarded as the chief virtue of the soldier.21 This is illustrated by Xenophon, who states that whereas good order (εὐταξία) appears to save many men, disorder (ἀταξία) destroys them (Anab. 3.1.38). This virtue was widely regarded as a key ingredient to military success. For, as Xenophon observes, a small band of men can route a larger enemy through their discipline (εὐταξία) and their courage (θράσος) (Kyn. 12.5), two virtues that a young man can acquire through hunting. Good order is linked with hoplite service, especially the harmonization of various divisions of soldiers in marching or carrying out maneuvers en masse while retaining their designated place in the phalanx in accordance with the commands of their superiors. Disorder (ἀταξία) occurs when, failing to follow orders, the line becomes chaotic and soldiers become potentially harmful to themselves and to the men who stand near them.22 Consequently, good order was highly valued by military commanders in their junior officers and soldiers, who acquired it by habituation through regular training or by fear of one’s superior.23 In the wake of Khaironeia, the Athenians would have prioritized the restoration of this virtue, since according to Polyainos it was their impulsiveness and lack of training that contributed to their defeat at the hands of a smaller, better trained force. In the end, the Athenians were compelled to take flight (D.S. 16.86.4), many deserting the man beside them and abandoning their arms (Plut. Dem. 20.2) in violation of their citizen oath. Lambert has associated the occurrence of discipline (εὐταξία) found in ephebic documents of the Lykourgan Period with the Eutaxia (Εὐταξία), a hoplite contest of good order. This contest will be discussed in Chapter 6, but suffice it to say his suggestion implies that the εὐταξία the ephebes displayed was related to hoplite training. As noted above, however, their training was non-hoplite in nature. More importantly, the term that appears in these decrees has nothing to do with hoplite training at all, for it acknowledges and honors the well-ordered behavior of the ephebes who served as guards and patrollers of a fortified deme. 21  22  23 

εὐταξία: T1.2 lines 31, 40, 58; εὐτάκτοι: T1.2 line 38–9, T1.11 line 7–8; εὐτακτοῦσιν: T1.2 lines 27, 53. It should be distinguished from the term syntaxia and related words, the good organization of hoplite armies (Aristot., Pol. 4.10.10 1297b 19–20). Thuc. 6.72.4, 7.77.5; Xen. Kyr. 8.5.14. Thuc. 6.72.4; Xen. Hell. 5.3.17, Poroi 4.52, Kyr. 3.3.57.

64

chapter 3

Although this aspect of the term has received little scholarly attention, the non-hoplite use of εὐταξία is quite abundant in the sources. For instance, the first appearance of the term describes the coordinated activities of Athenian triremes during the Battle of Salamis (Aiskhyl. Pers. 399). Elsewhere, it relates to the behavior of sailors who stand obediently alongside their ships as they await orders (Thuc. 2.89.9). Xenophon urges the cavalry commander to nurture this quality in his subordinate officers, so that cavalry units could retain proper formation and carry out maneuvers under his directions (Hipparkh. 2.7). The term also describes non-military activities. For instance, by closely heeding the direction of their khoregos, members of tragic khoroi displayed their εὐταξία as they competed in dramatic competitions (Mem. 5.3.18). It even describes various activities carried out in uniformity by members of the Persian court under the direction of the Great King.24 In fact, the well-ordered or disciplined behavior of new citizens in non-military social settings was the substance of εὐταξία and related words in later Athenian decrees honoring ephebes.25 Good order is also connected with obedience (πειθαρχία), another virtue attested early and often in the corpus of ephebic documents.26 Although the abstract noun does not appear until the Hellenistic texts, verbals of the term πειθαρχία occur in three Lykourgan decrees honoring the ephebes, two of which are paired with notions of good order and describe the conduct of the ephebes serving in the fortress at Eleusis. The link between these two virtues is illustrated by Xenophon who states that the phalanx becomes well-disciplined (εὔτακτος) through obedience (διὰ τὸ πείθεσθαι) (Ages. 6.4) and the lack of εὐταξία among soldiers is apparent when they fail to follow orders (Kyr. 8.5.14). As these examples demonstrate, there is a great degree of conceptual overlap with both terms and in certain instances their meanings become nearly synonymous. For instance, in a passage of his Kyropaideia, Xenophon refers to a group of Khalkidian soldiers who obeyed Kyros’ orders (πειθόµενοι) as welldisciplined (εὔτακτοι) (7.2.7–8). Elsewhere, a Persian soldier who heeded the 24  25 

26 

Xen. Anab. 1.5.8; Kyr. 8.1.33, 8.5.2. For instance, εὐταξία describes the conduct of ephebes while taking instruction from Athens’ philosophers (T8.27 lines 34–5); their reception (ἀπάντησις) of Roman dignitaries (T8.22 lines 18–19); and their behavior over a four day stretch of time at the Peiraia (T8.12 line 25–6). Further, the adverb εὐτάκτως describes their behavior as honor guards during meetings of the ekklesia (T8.14 line 21); their journey (ἐπιδηµία) to Salamis (T8.14 line 31), the Attic borders and fortresses (T8.22 line 15), and Delphi (T8.12 line 86); and their performance of a sacrifice at the Proerosia, during which they raised a bull at the altar for sacrifice (T8.27 line 29). Lykourgan corpus: T1.2 lines 29 and 56, T1.11 line 8, and T1.16 line 6 [restored]. This virtue is also expressed by the formula: π[ο]ιοῦσ[ιν] πάντα ὅ[σα αὐτ]οῖς οἱ νόµοι προστάττουσιν (e.g., T1.2 lines 27–8).

Purpose of the Athenian Ephebeia

65

direction of his superior officer is said to have “complied in good order” (εὐτάκτως ὑπήκουσεν), i.e., “he obeyed” (2.2.3). The Athenians also regarded the terms εὐταξία and πειθαρχία as important social values. For along with self-mastery (σωφροσύνη) and a sense of shame (αἰσχύνη), Demosthenes declares that εὐταξία was a noble and holy quality that ordered the city (25.24). A similar overlap in meaning discussed above appears here as well. For Aristotle defines εὐταξία in the state as the πειθαρχία of its citizens to the magistrates; and ἀταξία (chaos) within the community as the ἀπειθαρχία (disobedience) of its members to the laws and officials of the polis (Div. 54.15–16). The meaning of these two virtues as they appear in the ephebic documents of this period fits comfortably here. For in the honorary decrees of the Lykourgan Era and Hellenistic Period, the ephebes were always praised for their obedience to their chief magistrates and to the laws of the city, as well as to their generals. The usage of these two qualities as terms of approbation in decrees honoring these young men formalized a provision in the Oath of the Ephebes that citizens should be obedient to whoever reasonably exercises power and to the laws currently in effect and to others reasonably put into force in the future (11–14). Self-mastery (σωφροσύνη), the ability to govern impulses and emotions, appears together with εὐταξία and πειθαρχία in the corpus of ephebic texts.27 Although this term had a much wider application, σωφροσύνη meant shy, quiet, and modest behavior that young men were expected to display toward their fellow citizens and included respectful conduct toward their social superiors.28 In this regard, the term “orderliness” (κοσµιότης) is worth mentioning here. For it appears alongside εὐταξία and πειθαρχία as one of the earliest civic virtues in the decrees honoring ephebes.29 As a synonym of σωφροσύνη, the term refers to an individual’s orderly behavior, for Plato links κοσµιότης with quiet and restraint, with actions that are slow and gentle.30 Like κοσµιότης, σωφροσύνη is concerned with order, but instead of outward manifestations of this quality, σωφροσύνη also embraces an inner order, a control over one’s passions through the cultivation of good habits and reflection. This inner order manifests itself 27 

28  29  30 

σώφρων: T3.3; σωφροσύνη: T1.10 (332/1 BCE) line 8 [restored]; T1.11 (332/1 BCE) lines 3, Col. I 30–31, and Col. III 16–17 [restored]; and T3.1. Outside the corpus of ephebic inscriptions, σωφροσύνη has few associations with military conduct (e.g., Aiskhin. 2.151, Hyp. 6.8; Xen. Mem. 3.5.21, 27–8), although Xenophon has his fictional Persian ephebes undergo ten years of service as guards to develop their σωφροσύνη. Dem. 25.24, 8; 61.17, 20–21; Aiskhin. 2.180; Dem. 19.285; 54.1; Plat. Kharm. esp. 158c. Roisman 2005, 177. See North 1966; Whitehead 1993, 37–75, esp. 37–42, 70–2; and Rademaker 2004. Lykourgan corpus only: κοσµιότης: T1.2 lines 31, 39, and 58; ἐκόσµουν: T1.3 line 5. Plat. Stat. 307a–b. Rademaker 2004, 235–7.

66

chapter 3

in one’s decency in private affairs, such as control in sexual matters and moderation in personal expenses.31 So important was the connection between notions of orderliness and the ephebeia that the Athenians derived the titles of the chief magistracies for the institution (kosmetes, sophronistes) from the names of these two civic virtues. Ideas regarding the good democratic citizen were closely linked with σωφροσύνη in many fourth century authors.32 For instance, the σώφρων citizen is characterized by his quietness (ἡσυχία)—he is unassuming and amiable.33 Justice (δικαιοσύνη) is also paired with σωφροσύνη, which in court speeches is contrasted with lawlessness (παρανοµία), injustice (ἀδικία), violence (ὕβρις), and impiety (ἀσέβεια).34 Many of the specific characteristics of σωφροσύνη that appear here are implied in qualities with which the ephebes were praised in the Lykourgan and Hellenistic Periods. For instance, the contrast with lawlessness suggests that obedience to the law could be regarded as a characteristic of σωφροσύνη. In the Hellenistic texts, σωφροσύνη is no longer used to describe the behavior of the good ephebe. Piety (εὐσέβεια), however, is one of the principal virtues of the ephebes in the Hellenistic Period, although the term does not appear in ephebic texts until the end of the third century BCE. These young men were also praised for demonstrating social order or harmony (ἁρµονία) with respect to each other and friendship (φιλία) throughout the year (e.g., T7.13 lines 12–15, T8.14 line 32). They are also cited for their well-ordered (εὐτάκτως) and blameless behavior while visiting the countryside sanctuaries and fortresses. This most likely means that they did not distress any of the inhabitants of the khora (T8.22 lines 15–6). Some fourth century authors characterized Athens’ traditional government as a σώφρων state. For instance, the general amnesty that followed the expulsion of the 30 Tyrants was regarded as the highest proof of the Demos’ σωφροσύνη, which contributed to the order (ἁρµονία) of the state.35 The system of government that best embodied this virtue, some believed, was the Golden Age of Athenian democracy in the fifth century (and earlier) (Isokr. 7.4, 14). Consequently, the Athenians who dwelled in the Athens of long ago were thought to have had a superior civic morality, since that form of government imbued its members with the characteristics of the σώφρων citizen. Earlier statesmen such as Perikles, Solon and even Theseus were regarded as models 31  32  33  34  35 

Isokr. 3.36–44; Lys. 3, Aiskhin. 1. Rademaker 2004, 236–43. Aiskhin. 3.168–176; Dem. 24.75, 45.78. Rademaker 2004, 247–9. Isaios 1.1, Lys. 19.54. Rademaker 2004, 245–7. Lawlessness: [Andok.] 4.40; injustice: Lys. 1.38; violence: Lys. 24.15, 17; Antiph. 4.4.1; impiety: Lys. 6.5.4, 14.41. Rademaker 2004, 243–5. Andok. 1.109, 140; Isokr. 7.62–73, 18.46; Aiskhin. 2.176.

Purpose of the Athenian Ephebeia

67

of σωφροσύνη.36 As will be discussed below, superior moral qualities among these Athenians made possible the many great accomplishments of that era, such as their defeat of the Persians and hegemony over the Greeks. By contrast, these authors regard the Athens of their day as in a state of degeneracy marked by military failures and declining international influence. The cause of decline rests in the low public character of the citizenry, such as the lack of reverence to older men from younger men, obedience to magistrates, civic harmony, and physical training. 4

Citizen Training: Xenophon, Isokrates, Plato

In the works of some political and educational thinkers of the early and midfourth century, young citizens were singled out as requiring special attention in citizenship training. What relationship, if any, exists between these theories and the ephebeia of the Lykourgan Period? Scholars who advocate a pre-Lykourgan ephebeia believe that Epikrates’ Law of the Ephebes (passed c. 336 BCE) reformed an earlier system of training, which was in some way revealed in the writings of Xenophon and others.37 Consequently, the theories of these thinkers were reflections of contemporary Athenian society with some or no influence on the system of paideia. Having demonstrated that such a system of training did not exist in Athens until the passage of Epikrates’ Law, it is clear that their educational theories (and likely works of others that are now lost) played a transformative role in the institutional history of the city, laying the intellectual groundwork for reform-minded politicians of the Lykourgan Age. In particular, one may discern the influence of Xenophon, Isokrates and Plato on the ephebeia in the use of hard work (πόνος), moral exemplars and the pursuit of honor in habituating young men to virtue. Xenophon’s Kyropaideia should be regarded as one of these influential works. As discussed at length in Chapter 1, the system of paideia found in his fictional biography of Persia’s first king inculcated through military service self-mastery and related virtues in new citizens whom he called ephebes. This reflects his belief that military training reinforces personal discipline and lays the groundwork for a broader set of virtues (Oik. 11.11–18). Elsewhere, Xenophon proposed that young men should pursue private physical training (Mem. 3.12.5), since the Athenians did not have a public system of training in place. As a corrective 36  37 

Superior morality: Isokr. 12.138, 140, 151; Theseus: Isokr. 9.31, 38; Perikles: Isokr. 15.111, 16.28; Solon: Aiskhin. 1.25, 3.26. Lofberg 1925, 332 with n. 4; Pélékidis 1962, 23; Munn 1993, 107 n. 25.

68

chapter 3

to Athens’ military amateurism, Xenophon also encouraged the politically ambitious among the Athenian youth to acquaint themselves with the defense of the homeland, including learning the topography of the countryside (Mem. 3.6.14). As mentioned above, he suggested establishing patrols of light-armed young men along the mountains between Athens and Boiotia as a means of restoring the self-mastery, discipline, and obedience of the Athenian hoplite forces and cavalry (Mem. 3.5.21, 27–8). Isokrates’ Areopagitikos, a contemporary work on the intersection of the polis and paideia, also diagnosed the deterioration of Athenian society in terms of flagging public morals and offered a system of the education for young men as the chief remedy. His speech on the Areopagos is usually dated to the period following the loss of the Social War in 355 BCE, soon after the collapse of the Second Athenian Naval League and destruction of Athenian naval supremacy. His analysis of Athenian degeneracy began with its most immediate and largescale symptom, namely their many failures on the international scene, such as the loss of their poleis in Thrace to Philip (7.9; cf. Dem. 4.4) and the secession of Kos, Khios, Rhodes and Byzantion, the most powerful states of her naval confederacy, after the war (7.7, 7.10; cf. D.S. 16.22). Other indicators of Athenian degeneracy were the growing hatred that the Greek states felt for them and the renewed hostility between Athens and the Persian King. Isokrates contrasted Athens’ current failures with Athenian successes in the Persian Wars and subsequent leadership over the Greeks, which, for him, provided proof of the value of her ancient constitution (politeia). Isokrates asserts that the politeia is the very soul of a political community, which determines its character and success (7.12–14). Consequently, he blames Athens’ present failures on the current state of its politeia and argues for the restoration of the ancient constitution of Solon and Kleisthenes, the politeia that made their victories in the Persian War and subsequent hegemony over the Greeks possible. His solution would restore Athens to her former glory, only if the Athenians were to choose to adopt it. To return to this lost Golden Age of Athens, Isokrates believes that the Athenians must restore the ancient privileges and rights of the Areopagos Council, a body of former arkhons which prior to the reforms of Ephialtes exercised considerable authority over the politeia of the Athenians. In those days, the Council schooled the Athenians to virtue through their ability to impose discipline (εὐταξία) over the state. Through its supervision, the Council saved the poor from their poverty by providing them work with the assistance of wealthy citizens, delivered public men from temptation by imposing punishments and letting no wrongdoer escape detection, and rescued older men from despondency by securing public honors and devotion from the younger men (7.55). The Council achieved

Purpose of the Athenian Ephebeia

69

these goals not through laws, but through the habituation of the citizenry to good conduct (7.41–2). While they exercised close supervision over all of the citizens, Isokrates declares that their ancestors were especially concerned over the orderly behavior (εὐκοσµία) of the younger men, an age designation that included new citizens (7.37), since this age presented the state with a unique set of problems and opportunities. In his assessment of the younger citizens, Isokrates was in full agreement with Xenophon’s characterization of youth in the Kyropaideia. For he, too, believed that this age class above all others was in the most disordered state and full of a great number of passions (πλείστων γέµοντας ἐπιθυµιῶν). Their spirits were in the greatest need of being tamed by devotion to noble pursuits and by work which has enjoyment (7.43). His description and low estimation of the lax and unmonitored behavior of the Athenian youth of his day (discussed in Chapter 2) illustrates the failure of the policy that allowed men to live as they please. The moral impoverishment of contemporary youth was symptomatic of Athens’ degeneracy and offered further proof for the failure of its current politeia. As with Xenophon, Isokrates believed that the state played a role in mollifying the passion of youth. His solution, however, was not military training and service. In order to cultivate self-mastery and other related virtues in the young, Isokrates states that the Areopagos Council should assign vocations to each young man in accordance with his means (44). Poorer youth were designated occupations in agriculture or trade. To wealthier young men, members of the Council encouraged a devotion to horsemanship, athletics, hunting and philosophy—traditional pursuits of the Athenian elite. Thereby, states Isokrates, the former abstain from evildoing, while the latter achieve excellence (45). Supervision of their orderly behavior (εὐκοσµία) did not end here, for Areopagites continued to monitor these young men in their day-to-day lives, hauling in the disorderly (τοὺς ἀκοσµοῦντας) before the Council, which admonished, threatened, or even punished them. Such close attention to the young ensured that their good natures were not corrupted and helped to eradicate the impulse to commit evil (46). Finally, there are the social and educational theories of Plato, specifically his view of paideia elucidated in his Laws, a late work published sometime in the 350s BCE. As with Isokrates and Xenophon, Plato regarded the democracy of his day as a corrupt regime that had produced citizens who refused to obey their rulers, submit to parents, follow the law, and observe traditional religion (Leg. 700c–701b). He, too, admired the ancient politeia of Solon, since the chief character of this constitution was reverence to authority (αἰδώς), which produced citizens who wished to live as “slaves to the law” (699b–700a). Plato,

70

chapter 3

however, was not interested in restoring Athenian society along the lines of a golden age of democracy and likely regarded such a proposal as anathema given his famously poor assessment of this form of government (Resp. 555b– 562a). Instead, he presents a utopian society in which the legislator establishes a compulsory system of education for all citizens that begins from birth and ends at death. The purpose of this far-reaching system of paideia is the formation of a citizen body whose members will choose to live as “a slave to the laws.” Military training plays a prominent role in the education of the political community. According to Plato, war is man’s natural state and so men must train for it even in times of peace (829a–b; cf. 803d, and 814d). All citizens, therefore, must exercise daily in the city’s gymnasia (804c) where athletic activity must be subordinate to the needs of military training (803d–e, 814d, 832e). Thus, a sort of stand-up wrestling and dances-in-arms should be taught (796b–d), as well as archery, light-armed skirmishing, and fighting in heavy armor (813e). Festivals for the gods must include agonistic contests that mimic warfare, which serve as a venue for displaying this training. These competitions and the public praise and awards that they potentially bring to the victors encourage the participants to train hard. The contests in Plato’s fictitious state consist of events in running and speed (832e), including armed races of varying lengths (833a–b); contests-in-arms, either one-on-one, two-on-two, or group events numbering up to ten on each side (833e); and archery, throwing the javelin, slinging and horse racing (834a–b). One day a month, all citizens must make a mock campaign in which divisions of men and women march into the khora where they seize districts and make ambushes (829b, 830d). Plato also advocated a system of patrolling and policing the countryside by agronomoi, young men of twenty-five to thirty years of age (referred to as νέοι and ἡβῶντες). Sixty men are selected every two years from his fictitious twelve tribes. For the first month of the year, each group of sixty patrols the district of their own tribe. When the month ends, they shift to a neighboring district and serve there, and so on for an entire year (760c–d). These young men live together in barracks and take common meals (762c). Their service is designed to ensure that they become thoroughly familiar with the topography of each district and provide a defense against the city’s neighbors (760d–e, 763a–b). The agronomoi are provided opportunities to practice certain virtue-based services, such as presiding over court cases (δικαιοσύνη, 761d–762b) and building gymnasia for older men (αἰδώς, 761c). Their daily habits encourage self-control (ἐγκράτεια, 762e) by consuming rations of coarse and uncooked meals and develop self-sufficiency by leaving behind their servants during their two years of service. Although these qualities share considerable overlap with self-mastery, the virtue that is conceptually nearest to any of those that appear in decrees

Purpose of the Athenian Ephebeia

71

honoring the ephebes is δουλεία, “slavery,” a metaphor Plato uses to describe the ruler/ruled relationship. Elsewhere, Plato uses the term to express the connection in the soul between reason (the ruling element) and the desires (the slavish element) and regards σωφροσύνη as the harmonious subjugation of the lower parts of the soul to the rational. By analogy, the σωφροσύνη of the state is the harmonious subjugation of the governed element to the governing, which consists of citizens obeying the laws and young men doing service to older men and those who have lived honorably (762e). Thus, Xenophon, Isokrates and Plato believed that young men could internalize virtues such as self-mastery through hard work, although in the case of Isokrates they did not necessarily agree as to which form hard work should take. All three authors, however, were in agreement with regard to use of moral exemplars as a suitable pedagogical tool for instilling virtues in the young. This strategy is summarized by Plato who states that “[the] most effective way of training the young…. is not through admonition, but by plainly practicing throughout one’s own life the admonitions which one gives to others.” (Leg. 729c). As noted in Chapter 1, Xenophon has his Persian boys learn justice, obedience and other virtues by observing the just and obedient conduct of their teachers (Kry. 1.2.6, 8). Elsewhere, Xenophon regarded the Athens of the fifth century as the embodiment of self-mastery, discipline, and obedience and advocated informing the younger citizens of the character of their ancestors as a way of schooling them to excellence (Mem. 3.5.7–12). According to Isokrates, Areopagites demonstrated their virtue by daily example (7.40). As we shall see in the following chapters, the ephebeia institutionalized this form of instruction. For the Athenians made ample use of moral exemplars to ensure that ephebes became more amenable to discipline, obedience and self-mastery— whether these exemplars took the form of contemporary ephebic magistrates or historical and legendary ancestors. Finally, these authors advocated the use of honors and shame as a means of further socializing younger citizens to virtue. The foundation of this pedagogical strategy is based on the psychological observation that “everyone does everything he does for the pleasure of gain or honor (Isokr. 15.217).” Plato placed the very survival and prosperity of the state as resting upon the proper distribution of honors and marks of shame (Leg. 697). Xenophon believed that the Athenians excelled all others in the love of honor and suggested proper distribution of honors among them as a way of encouraging his countrymen to improve discipline and obedience in subordinates (Mem. 3.3.13, 14). Elsewhere, he recommended offering prizes in various civic contests as a means of encouraging the adoption by the citizenry of certain behavior and moral qualities (Hiero 9.5–6). As we saw in Chapter 1, Xenophon’s Persians channeled the

72

chapter 3

natural ambition of their ephebes into competitive, honor-winning activities, such as javelin and archery contests, that hone their military skills and serve the broader interests of the state (Kyr. 1.2.12). As will be discussed in the following chapters, Athenians encouraged participation in competitive, honorwinning activities, undertaking leadership roles within the organization, and displays of suitable forms of behavior, such as discipline and obedience to their magistrates, officials, and the laws through the use of victory monuments, crowns of gold, and honorary decrees. Even as late as the first centuries BCE, participating ephebes were honored for the love of hard work (φιλοπονία) they displayed throughout their period of training. What impact did the educational theories of these men have on contemporary Athenians? The number of parallels between Xenophon’s ideas and proposals and the historical ephebeia is striking and strongly suggests that his ideas influenced the following generation. It is generally agreed that Xenophon was residing in Athens when the Kyropaideia and Memorabilia were published.38 In addition to the active role he played in the contemporary intellectual and literary scene of his day, Xenophon was in dialogue with Athenian politicians, a fact exemplified by the Poroi, his politico-economic pamphlet in which the author attempts to convince his fellow Athenians to exploit the natural resources of Attike as a means of creating new revenue sources (poroi). In this way the Athenian people would be relieved of their poverty, and not through the unjust treatment of their allies (1.1), which had contributed to the collapse of the Second Naval League. In addition to renewed peace and prosperity, the Athenians would be more obedient (εὐπειθεστέραν), better disciplined (εὐτακτοτέραν), and more successful in war (εὐπολεµωτέραν). For, by receiving a trophe, or maintenance from increased public funds, the citizens training in the gymnasium, and those guarding the forts, serving as peltastai, and patrolling the khora would take greater pains in their duties (4.51–2). Whereas this passage can no longer be regarded as the best evidence for a pre-Lykourgan ephebeia, it may indicate the impact of Xenophon’s writings on later Athenian lawmakers. Although Xenophon’s later career at Athens is largely unknown, the impact of Isokrates is much more measureable. Living till the age of 98, he wrote prolifically on politeia and paideia and is said to have ended his life upon hearing the news of Athens’ defeat at Khaironeia.39 Isokrates is also said to have had 38  39 

Jaeger 1944, 158–9; Anderson 1974, 192, 198; Tuplin 1993, 31–2. D.H. Isokr. 1; [Plut.] 837e–f; Philostrat. Vit. Soph. 1.505–6; [Luc.] Macrobii 23. Cf. Isokr. L 3, an apparently authentic letter written sometime after the Battle of Khaironeia, which urges Philip to unite the Greeks and campaign against Persia.

Purpose of the Athenian Ephebeia

73

over one hundred students, nearly all drawn from the ranks of the Athenian elite. Many of them became men of considerable influence and consequence in his own lifetime and in the following generation, including military and political leaders (Timotheos the son of Konon, Nikokles) prominent writers (Theopompos, Ephoros, Androtion), tragedians (Asklepiades, Theodektes), lawgivers (Leodamas, Lakritos), and orators (Hypereides, Isaios, Lykourgos, and perhaps Demosthenes) ([Plut.] 937d). Wilamowitz famously connected the origin of the institution with the philosophy of Plato.40 This is likely an overstatement, for the agronomoi do not undergo military training. Further, the most important lesson that service as an agronomos provided was knowledge of the lie of the land (763a–b). Nor is it clear that the virtue-related activities these men performed were designed to habituate them to discipline vel sim. at that very time of life when passions are governing them. It is unlikely though, for as noted above, the agronomoi are much older than the Lykourgan ephebes. According to Plato, they were assigned guard duty when they turned 25 years of age, just about the time when Xenophon’s ephebes were returning from the countryside to enter the ranks of mature men. This is an important detail, for Plato stations these older youth in the khora once they have entered the prime of manhood (ἀκµὴ), a period of life that began around 25 years of age and lasted until around 55 years of age and was characterized by a maturity in mind and body for men (Resp. 461a). Since Wilamowitz’s day, scholars have suggested that the link connecting Plato’s Laws and the Athenian ephebeia may have been Lykourgos himself.41 There is evidence, some of it contemporary, that Lykourgos was a student of Plato and so may have imbibed Plato’s theory of paideia in his youth.42 How long Lykourgos attended and what lessons he gleaned are unknown, although Renehan claims to have detected echoes of Plato’s thought and style in his Against Leosthenes.43 Nevertheless, there is no evidence that Lykourgos or any other statesmen of his day had read the Laws.44 Nor does Lykourgos appear to have been a partisan of a particular school of thought. Rather, he cultivated good relations with members from all the schools at Athens ([Plut.] 842d–e). Further, Lykourgos greatly admired Spartan military training for its young 40  41  42  43  44 

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1893, 194: “Platons Gesetze haben die Ephebie erzeugt.” Cf. Bryant 1907, 85; Forbes 1929, 104–5, 114. Reinmuth 1971, 130; id. 1967 (1971), 47–51; 130; North 1979, 109; Murray 1991, 89. Suda s.v. Φιλίσκος; [Plut]. Mor. 836c, 841b; D.H. Ep. ad. Amm. 120; Olympiod. in Plat. Grg. 515c (Norvin 197.4–5 and 198.1–4); Khamaileon (fr. 45 Wehrli) = D.L. 3.46. Renehan 1970, 223–7. Jaeger 1944, 213: “[t]he Laws had few readers and still fewer commentators even in late antiquity.”

74

chapter 3

citizens (1.106), which may have been his inspiration for a system of military training for new citizens. Finally, it is not entirely clear what role, if any, Lykourgos played in establishing the ephebeia. The decree of Stratokles honoring him posthumously does not include establishing the ephebeia among his many achievements (for this decree, see Chapter Seven). In fact, Lykourgos himself attributes the creation of the Law of the Ephebes to Epikrates. Whatever were the specific links, these authors are important for drawing serious attention to the education of new citizens and for inducing the minds of the following generation to develop ideas and policies about such a system of paideia. 5

Citizen Training: The Age of Lykourgos

Upon their enrollment, new Athenians swore not to hand over the fatherland lessened, but greater and better. Yet, the Battle of Khaironeia and its aftermath represented one of the lowest points in the history of the city. When the dust settled after Khaironeia, 1000 Athenians lay dead and another 2000 were captured—these being nearly half of those who fought that day. As part of the peace agreement with Philip II, the Athenians lost their overseas possessions and naval confederacy. Further, they were compelled to join the League of Korinth, thus depriving themselves of independent action in foreign affairs. Instead of crippling them, however, their defeat at Khaironeia and the subsequent Macedonian settlement spurred the Athenians to undertake an ambitious program of civic, military and religious renewal, which occurred during a fourteen year period of relative calm and prosperity ushered in by the Common Peace. The overarching aim of this program was the fundamental restoration of the Athenian People. The most important political leaders of this period were Demosthenes, Demades, Hypereides, and, of course, Lykourgos, whose policies and financial acumen so defined this age that historians call the twelve years of his management the Lykourgan Age. Lykourgos, son of Lykophron of the deme Boutadai, was a conservative, deeply religious man who was a member of the ancient Eteoboutidai family from which the priestess of Athena Polias was selected. He himself served as the chief priest of Poseidon-Erekhtheos whose cult was centered around the Erekhtheion located on the Akropolis, the hub of Athenian state religion.45 Lykourgos was also a staunch democrat whose 45 

For a history of the Eteoboutidai, see Davies APF no. 9251; and Parker 1996, 290–3. On the graves of Lykourgos’ family discovered in the Kerameikos, see Matthaiou 1987, 31–44.

Purpose of the Athenian Ephebeia

75

ancestors shared similar convictions ([Plut.] 841a–b). As Athens’ chief financial officer, he greatly increased annual state incomes to 1200 talents, spending about one third on improving Athens’ defenses, another third on new religious and secular buildings, and another third on Athens’ financial reserves.46 How Lykourgos accomplished this is not entirely clear, but the increase in revenue provided the basis for the program of renewal, in particular, the new building project carried out during this period, the first of its kind since the fifth century Golden Age. Lykourgos’ model appears to have been the program of restoration authored by the fifth century statesman Perikles, although Lykourgos’ attention was not focused on the Akropolis, but on nearly every other corner of the city.47 The specific steps that Lykourgos and his political coalition took vis-à-vis the renewal of Athenian military and religion will be discussed in the following chapters. I would like to focus briefly on the program of civic revitalization. For instance, soon after Khaironeia the Athenians improved their public spaces. They completed Pnyx III, the hill upon which the Athenian ekklesia met and conducted its business. The site was expanded and two (ultimately unfinished) stoas were added.48 In this same period, the Athenians rededicated the Monument of the Eponymous Heroes near the Metroön and Bouleuterion in the Agora in which resided the seat of the Athenian government. The monument consisted of a long pedestal upon which stood bronze statues representing the heroes of the ten Athenian tribes. Official announcements were published at this monument, including notification of military conscription.49 Further, in order to facilitate a deeper connection to Athens’ traditional form of government among the citizens, the Athenians erected a cult statue to Demokratia, the personification of the Athenian political order, dedicated in 333/2 BCE.50 This statue complemented annual sacrifices to the goddess since the restoration of democracy in 403 BCE and continued (or was founded) under Lykourgos.51 46  47  48  49  50  51 

Andreades 1933, vol. iv, 372–80. On Lykourgos’ retrospective on the age of Perikles, in particular his conquests, see Conomis fr. 9; Mitchel 1973, 3–52; and Hurwit 1999, 254–6. Kourouniotes and Thompson 1932, 90–217; Rotroff and Camp 1996, 263–94. Aristoph. Pax 1183–4; Paus. 1.5. Camp 1992, 97–100; Shear 1970, 145–222. SEG 32.238. For arguments on the identification of this statue with a late-fourth century torso (S 2370) found in the excavations of the Agora, see Palagia 1982, 99–113. Later Palagia followed Shear in assigning the torso to Agathe Tyche. See id. 1994, 113–22. IG II2 1496 lines 131–32, 140–41. See Raubitschek 1962, 238–43, who cites other evidence for the existence of the cult of Demokratia during this period. He argues that the date for the foundation for this cult was 403 BCE in connection with the restoration of the democracy at Athens. Mitchel 1973, 44–5, argues for a Lykourgan foundation.

76

chapter 3

The revitalization of Athens’ public spaces was matched by a restoration of what the Athenians regarded as the old public spirit and values that brought their city to a Golden Age. After Khaironeia, the danger the Athenians faced was not just the phalanxes of Philip and his son, but also the loss of that spirit, which the outcome of that battle had laid bare. Lykourgos and other leading Athenians sought to rekindle the fires of patriotism, in part, by schooling their fellow citizens to excellence. This was achieved through the use of moral exemplars, in particular the public memorialization of great Athenians of the past. For instance, Lykourgos proposed a law to erect in the Theater of Dionysos bronze honorific statues of Aiskhylos, Sophokles, and Euripides, the city’s great tragedians. As Zanker has demonstrated, while their authority derived from their dramatic accomplishments, the portraits of these playwrights represented them as the embodiment and paradigms of the model Athenian citizen ([Plut.] 841f; Paus. 1.21–22.).52 The image of Sokrates was very likely rehabilitated in a similar manner during this period. For a bronze statue of the philosopher as model citizen was commissioned by the assembly and erected in the Pompeion, a building with links to the ephebeia (D.L. 2.43).53 The restoration of the old public spirit was also achieved through the use of public honors, which encouraged wealthy Athenians to privately finance building projects, festivals and other public endeavors.54 As noted above, these citizens acquired crowns and even megistai timai depending on the extent of the benefaction. Among the city’s many benefactors was Demosthenes who donated considerable sums of his own wealth to restore the fortification walls of the city and serve as ambassador ([Plut.] 850f–851c). In addition to the bronze statue awarded to Epikrates for his Law of the Ephebes, Lykourgos proposed honors for Neoptolemos of Melite for gilding the altar of Apollo in accordance with an oracle ([Plut.] 843f). A certain Deinias of Erkhia, at Lykourgos’ request, donated land to ensure the completion of the Panathenaic Stadium ([Plut.] 841d).55 Lykourgos himself renovated the Theater of Dionysos 52  53 

54  55 

Portraits: Richter 1962, 121ff. with figs. 577 603 (Aiskhylos); 128ff. with figs. 680 88 (Sophokles); and 133ff. with figs. 717 61 (Euripides). Zanker 1995, 43–57. Portraits: Richter 1962, 112ff., figs. 483 ff. Zanker 1995, 57–62. Links with the ephebeia: IG II2 2990 (97/6 BCE), a dedication of an archaistic herm discovered in the remains of the Pompeion, records the victory of an ephebe of Delos in a torch-race. Names scribbled on the south east wall of the peristyle court (IG II2 4256-mid-2nd century BCE) are believed to belong to ephebes. For others within his orb that received honors, see Faraguna 1992, 381–99 and Mikalson 1998, 31–36. [Plut.] 841d, 852c; Photios Bibliotheka, 497a.12–15; Paus. 1.19.6; Harp. s.v. Ἀρδηττός; Hesykh., s.v. Ἀρδήττους; IG II2 457.

Purpose of the Athenian Ephebeia

77

by adding new stone seating and expanding the orchestra.56 He also commissioned new construction of the gymnasium and palaistra at the Lykeion.57 The creation of the ephebeia fits into this spirit of civic renewal. This sentiment is captured by a metaphor of Demades, a contemporary of Lykourgos, who called the ephebes the “Springtime of the People” (ἔαρ δὲ τοῦ δήµου τοὺς ἐφήβους). Herodotos explains that the word springtime (ἔαρ) refers to the noblest part of something (7.162: δοκιµώτατον). Demades’ metaphor deliberately cites a similar expression made famous by the fifth century Athenian statesman Perikles. During a funeral oration, Perikles stated that the removal of the young men from the city was just like a year being robbed of its springtime (ἔαρ).58 Thucydides does not report this metaphor in his rendering of Perikles’ famous funeral oration (2.35), and so it most likely appeared in a different eulogy that Perikles gave, such as the one delivered over the Athenian youth who died in the Samian War in 439 BCE (Plut. Perikl., 8.6, 28.3). The context of Demades’ statement is unknown, but it is clear that he reshaped Perikles’ original metaphor to underscore the important role that ephebes played in the renewal and reinvigoration of the life of the body politic as a whole. In the Lykourgan Age, the restoration of the People was to be achieved through the moral education of Athens’ newest citizens. 6

Conclusion

Why did the Athenians brigade these young men together full time under a kosmetes and tribal sophronistai? As this chapter has hopefully demonstrated, meeting some immediate military need is not sufficient to explain the creation of this institution. Instead, the appearance of certain virtues in decrees honoring the ephebes demonstrates the purpose of Epikrates’ legislation. While they certainly had a military dimension, good order (εὐταξία) and obedience (πειθαρχία) had a non-hoplite and even a non-military aspect as well, which is illustrated in contemporary literature and in decrees honoring the ephebes for their well-ordered behavior and obedience to the laws and magistrates. Virtues such as self-mastery (σωφροσύνη) and orderliness (κοσµιότης), however, are strictly civic in character. The good democratic citizen was linked with 56  57  58 

[Plut.] 841d, 852c; IG II2 457; Paus. 1.29.16. Maass 1972; Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 134–74. Ritchie 1989, 250–60. Aristot. Rhet. 1.7.34 (= 1365a): οἷον Περικλῆς τὸν ἐπιτάφιον λέγων, τὴν νεότητα ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἀνῃρῆσθαι ὥσπερ τὸ ἔαρ ἐκ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ εἰ ἐξαιρεθείη. 3.10.7 (= 1411a): ὥσπερ Περικλῆς ἔφη τὴν νεότητα τὴν ἀπολοµένην ἐν τῷ πολέµῳ οὕτως ἠφανίσθαι ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ὥσπερ εἴ τις τὸ ἔαρ ἐκ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐξέλοι.

78

chapter 3

self-mastery, Athens’ traditional government was regarded as its embodiment, and Theseus and other early statesmen were thought to be models of σωφροσύνη and κοσµιότης. The sophronistai and kosmetai, the chief officials of the ephebeia charged with the training and care of new Athenians, derived their titles from these very virtues. All of this suggests that the ephebeia existed as a means of instilling these civic and military virtues in Athens’ newest citizens. For Athenian ephebes, guard service imbued or reinforced these virtues, which they developed by offering themselves to their magistrates and military commanders to be used as needed for the sake of the common good. Military training and service were regarded as a means of restoring these virtues in their land force and habituating the citizenry to good conduct, especially among the youngest members of the community who were believed to be above all others in a disordered and passionate state. In establishing the ephebeia, therefore, it seems that the Athenians were addressing the general character of young men routinely acknowledged and much discussed by other political and educational theorists of the day. Many of these thinkers argued that the stability and success of a community lie in large part in the moral education of its younger members. This was achieved through habit-forming activities that instilled in these young men virtues suitable for proper conduct in public life. Thus, they believed, the ephebeia helped to move the public character of contemporary Athenians toward the superior civic morality of their ancestors, which they regarded as the foundation for such achievements as their defeat of the Persians and subsequent hegemony over the Greeks. By imbuing new Athenians with the moral character of their ancestors, the ephebeia was one of several means of addressing Athenian military failure and loss of international prestige and influence. In sum, through military training and service, this system of paideia fostered the development of civic virtues such as self-mastery, orderliness, discipline and obedience in Athens’ newest members and thereby renewed and enhanced the Athenian People in general. The positive impact of such a system of training ephebes went far beyond the material improvements in the public spaces where citizenship was practiced and experienced. It lay at the heart of the Lykourgan program of civic restoration.

part 2 The Lykourgan Ephebeia

∵

chapter 4

Organization In order to imbue new citizens with the superior moral character of their ancestors, the Athenians introduced a comprehensive system of military training and service. Such an organization required the creation of a body of officials and trainers dedicated to the full-time care and instruction of the ephebes. What were the outlines of this organization? What were its activities and how was each of these integrated and harmonized with the rest? Which officials were assigned to these activities and what horizontal and vertical relationships existed among them? Where did authority ultimately reside? What mechanisms were in place to ensure that each member of the ephebeia performed his role? This chapter is divided into two parts. It begins with an examination of the sophronistai and kosmetes—the chief officials who cared for the ephebes for their entire two years of service. The role of the strategoi, or generals, is also explored, since the institution was a part of the larger military system at Athens and these officials are attested as playing some part in the supervision of the ephebes. The second part of the chapter explores the role that ephebes themselves played in the organization of the ephebeia. Having been brigaded into ephebic tribes, some ephebes assumed responsibility over their fellows as ephebic taxiarkhoi and lokhagoi. Wealthier members acted as gymnasiarkhoi in sponsoring torch-races. This chapter utilizes the very limited available evidence. This includes first and foremost the Ath. Pol., which provides us the titles and most basic functions of the magistrates charged with caring for the ephebes and a cursory overview of the training program. Ephebic honorary decrees and other inscriptions supplement [Aristotle’s] account and also bring to light two facts overlooked by him—the organization of the ephebic tribe and the existence of ephebic magistrates serving in the ephebeia. 1

The Organization of the Ephebeia: Officials and Magistrates

Once the boule completed its review and corrected the enrollment list, Ath. Pol. 42.2 states that those who were registered became ephebes. The fathers (and, in some cases, the guardians) of these young men met by tribe in order to undertake the responsibility of selecting a sophronistes, the ephebic officials

82

chapter 4

charged with overseeing the discipline of the ephebes in their care.1 The office of sophronistes first appears in 334/3 BCE among the earliest evidence for the ephebeia and is the most cited official in all the ephebic inscriptions of the Lykourgan Period.2 A sophronistes was “one who made someone σώφρων,” or sound in mind, and each was charged with instilling σωφροσύνη, self-mastery or moderation, into the ephebes under his supervision.3 This fact is implied in the term “sophronistes” (σωφρονιστής) itself, which is derived from the verb σωφρονίζειν, “to make chaste” or “to teach self-mastery.”4 Once they gathered together and swore an oath, the fathers of the newly minted ephebes nominated three candidates from their respective tribes whom they regarded as the best (βέλτιστοι) and most suitable (ἐπιτηδειότατοι) to take care of their sons. But best and most suitable in what way? I suggest that each candidate was selected based in large part on his ability to instill σώφρων, σωφροσύνη, or other related virtues (κοσµιότης, εὐταξία, πειθαρχία) in the young men in his care. The abbreviated nature of the text does not allow one to determine whether or not this process of nomination began immediately after enrollment or at some later period, nor are we able to determine the length of deliberation and selection. As Chapter 6 will show, however, these deliberations had been completed and the ephebic year was underway by no later than the beginning of Boedromion (III). Who was selected? Nominees appear to have been drawn from among the phyletai at large. In one case (T1.5, T1.11), the sophronistes Philotheos of Sounion was the father of Philokles, an ephebe in his charge who served as the taxiarkhos of the ephebic tribe Leontis. This demonstrates that some fathers were selected as candidates for sophronistai during their sons’ ephebeia. It in no way proves, however, that only fathers were selected and served, for the sophronistai in T1.9 and T1.21 were not related in any obvious way to any of the ephebes in their care.5 There was one formal restriction on nominees for sophronistes. In addition to being best and most suitable in caring for the ephebes, Ath. Pol. 42.2 states 1  For the sophronistes, see Forbes 1929, 128–131; Pélékidis 1962, 106–8; Reinmuth 1971, 127–33. 2  Texts attesting office of sophronistes: T1.2 (333/2 BCE) lines 28–29, 41, 47, 59, and 63; T1.3 (333/2 BCE) lines, 6, and 9; T1.4 (333/2 BCE) line 4; T1.7 (333/2–332/331 BCE) line 3; T1.10 (332/1 BCE) line 8; T1.11 (332/1) lines 1, Col. I lines 4–5, 15, Col. II lines 13–15; T1.17 (330/29 BCE) line 2; T1.18 (330/29 BCE) line 2; T1.19 (330 BCE?) Col. I, right side, lines 1–3; T1.21 (329/8 BCE) Col. I, left side, lines 2–6. 3  Redemaker 2005, 290. 4  The term σωφρονιστής appears in the non-institutional sense in Thuc. 3.65, 6.87, 8.48; Plat. Resp. 471a; Dem.19.285; D.H. 2.24. 5  Contra Sekunda 1992, 337, who mistakenly believes that only fathers of ephebes served as sophronistai.

Organization

83

that each sophronistes was required to be over forty years of age.6 [Aristotle] does not explain the reason for the imposition of an age requirement on those seeking to hold the office of sophronistes. A clue presents itself at Ath. Pol. 56.3, which relates a similar rule for the khoregoi of boys’ khoroi. According to Aiskhines, the purpose for this rule was to ensure that the khoregos had reached “the most temperate time of life” (σωφρονεστάτῃ ἡλικίᾳ) when he came into contact with the Athenian boys under his care.7 This provision formed part of a law regarding the education of boys, the goal of which was to protect them from sexual assault by older men, and appears in a list of prescriptions presented by Aiskhines to show how the σωφροσύνη of all age classes was a top priority for the lawgiver.8 Thus, by analogy, the age requirement for holding the office of sophronistes reflected Athenian concerns regarding the possible physical corruption of youth of ephebic age by their supervisors.9 Once selected, all thirty candidates were brought before the Athenian people in the ekklesia who thereupon elected the next ten tribal sophronistai. This suggests that at least part of the process of selection took place at Athens.10 6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

On age requirements in general, see Sinclair 1988, 31–2; and Hansen 1991, 88–90. Similar age qualifications for supervisors of the young are visible in the evidence outside Athens, e.g., the citizens of Teos required their paidonomos, or supervisor for the education of boys, to be over forty. See SIG3 578 (2nd century BCE) lines 1–3. Aiskhin. 1.11: ἐν τῇ σωφρονεστάτῃ αὑτοῦ ἡλικίᾳ ὤν; cf. Plat. Leg. 6.764e–765a, where the eisagogeus, or “introducer” of solo performers, was to be no less than forty years of age. In his ideal state, Plato believed that the head of all education should be no younger than fifty (765d). As will be discussed in the following chapter, no limits were decreed for athletic trainers. See Rhodes 1993, 625–6. Aiskhin. 1.10. For commentary, see Fisher 2001, 130–4. Despite Aiskhines’ attempt to link it to the sixth-century lawgiver Solon, it is clear that this provision was a fourth-century innovation. See Lewis 1955, 24; and Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 75 n. 4. Alkibiades served as boys’ khoregos, although he was under forty years of age (Dem. 21.147, [Plat.] Alk. 16.5, [And.] 4.20–1). Also, in 406/5 BCE there was a boys’ khoregos who undertook this leitourgeia directly after his dokimasia (Lys. 21.1–5). Avoiding the physical corruption of boys was a concern shared by other states, too. For instance, the Gymnasiarchal Law of Beroia contains a provision stating that the neoi, or young men, were not to enter among the boys nor talk with them. The ephebes were included under this designation and were directed to train with the neoi away from the boys when they were anointed and exercising. See I.Beroia 1 (167–148 BCE) Side B lines 13–15. Cf. Aiskhin. 1.10 states that the Athenians were concerned with keeping the boys separate from the men and youth, the latter being a designation which would have included the ephebes. Ath. Pol. 44.4; Hansen 1991, 159. The election of ephebic officials did not occur at the same point in the year as members of Athens’ military establishment. For the election of the latter occurred after the sixth prytany of the year (sometime in spring), whereas selection of the sophronistai occurred near the beginning of the new year, soon after the enrollment of the new citizens into the deme list.

84

chapter 4

Although we do not know how members of the Athenian ekklesia decided among potential sophronistai, an inscription documenting the funding of a school in Hellenistic Miletos may shed light some light on the procedure at Athens. The text relates that candidates for school teachers and physical trainers at Miletos appeared one by one before the Milesian ekklesia where their qualifications were summarized and the case for their desirability (or lack thereof) was made before the Milesians casted their votes.11 Perhaps a similar process occurred in the Athenian ekklesia before its members voted for the sophronistai. Literary, epigraphical and art historical evidence helps to illustrate the nature and duties of the sophronistes. The main literary evidence for the selection and responsibilities of the sophronistes in the Lykourgan period is Ath. Pol. 42.2–3, which provides our best evidence for the duties of the sophronistai. It is characteristically brief and concerned with the most basic activities of the office. This passage states that they escorted the ephebes on their tour of sanctuaries and on their journey to Peiraieus. The Athenian people provided each of the sophronistai a daily allotment of four obols per young man as a trophe, or public maintenance, for purchasing provisions or rations for the ephebes of his tribe, and allotted one drakhma a day for each sophronistes. [Aristotle] provides no more details, but adds that “he takes care (ἐπιµελεῖται) of everything else.” What were these things? The ephebic inscriptions provide additional information regarding the activities and responsibilities of the sophronistai. The epigraphical evidence for this official regularly attests to his care or supervision (ἐπιµέλεια).12 For instance, they accompanied the ephebes to the Attic countryside and border fortresses during the second year of their service. This is illustrated by the fact that many of the fortified demes (Eleusis, Rhamnous) honored the ephebes of individual tribes for their good conduct in carrying out their guard duties, as well as their obedience to their sophronistes. The sophronistes was honored alongside the ephebes for his supervision and participated in the crowning ceremony at the end of their term of service. This official also joined the ephebes in making dedications for victories in torch-races at Rhamnous (T1.6) and Athens (T1.7). 11 

12 

In SIG3 577 (200/199 BCE) lines 25–51, an inscription from Miletos that records the foundation of a school for boys, those who wished to serve as teachers for the city’s children were instructed to publish their names in the Stoa of Antiochos. The secretary of the council brought the candidates forward one by one. The candidates swore an oath that they, nor anyone they knew, canvassed on their behalf. The people of Miletos then elected four paidotribai (for this trainer at Athens, see below) and four school teachers. On the epimeleia of the sophronistes: T1.2 (333/2 BCE) lines 33, 60–1; T1.3 (333/2 BCE) line 9; T1.9 (332/1) line 3; and T1.11 (332/1 BCE) Col. III lines 12–13. Cf. Ath. Pol. 42.2, 3.

Organization

85

Thus, the literary and epigraphical evidence demonstrates the close relationship that a sophronistes maintained with his young charges. These men cared for the daily needs of the ephebes, corrected their infractions, and ensured that they properly carried out their duties and behaved modestly. The epigraphical evidence is clear that the ephebes owed their sophronistes obedience (πειθαρχία), for this is one of the chief virtues for which they are praised.13 This raises the question: were ephebes beaten for disobedience? A passage of the pseudo-Platonic Axiokhos (366d–367a) has been regarded as evidence demonstrating that sophronistai in the fourth century inflicted corporal punishment on wayward young men in his care. ἐπειδὰν δὲ εἰς τοὺς ἐφήβους ἐγγραφῇ, κοσµητὴς καὶ φόβος χειρῶν, ἔπειτα Λύκειον καὶ Ἀκαδήµεια καὶ γυµνασιαρχία καὶ ῥάβδοι καὶ κακῶν ἀµετρίαι· καὶ πᾶς ὁ τοῦ µειρακίσκου πόνος ἐστὶν ὑπὸ σωφρονιστὰς καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τοὺς νέους αἵρεσιν τῆς ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου βουλῆς. Whenever he is enrolled among the ephebes, there are the kosmetes and worse fear, then there are the Lykeion and the Academy and the gymnasium magistracy and the rods (γυµνασιαρχία καὶ ῥάβδοι) and miseries without measure (κακῶν ἀµετρίαι); and all the toil of the lad is subject to the sophronistai and to the commission of the Areopagos Council regarding the neoi. This passage is the first part of Prodicus’ epideixis, as retold by the character Socrates, which lists the miseries affecting the life of a man at various stages of existence. The appearance in this passage of the rods (rhabdoi) and the sophronistai has been taken to mean that this official, given his oversight of the ephebes, had the right to inflict corporal punishment. The Hellenistic context of the dialogue and textual analyses of this passage do not support this conclusion. While the literary setting of the Axiokhos is the final years of the Peloponnesian War, the dialogue seems to have been written at some point in the Hellenistic Period. Taylor cogently observed that it was composed sometime after the regime of Demetrios of Phaleron (307 BCE), for its author attempts to refute the arguments for not fearing death—i.e., a central tenet of Epikouros—that the character Axiokhos regards as “superficial twaddle,” but 13 

πειθαρχία: verbals of this abstract quality appear in T1.2 (333/2 BCE) lines 29 and 56; T1.11 (332/1 BCE) line 8, and T1.16 (332/1–331/0 BCE?) line 6 [restored]. The abstract noun appears regularly in ephebic honorary decrees of the Hellenistic Period.

86

chapter 4

were in vogue with the empty-headed young men of his day. Therefore, the terminus post quem for the composition of this dialogue must be 307/6 BCE, for Epikouros settled in Athens and established his school soon after Demetrios of Phaleron was exiled from the city.14 Thrasyllos, Tiberius’ astrologer and court intellectual, grouped the Axiokhos among the spurious dialogues of Plato’s canon at some point before his death in 36 CE (D.L. 3.57), which provides a terminus ante quem for its composition. Linguistic evidence, anachronisms, and borrowings from Hellenistic philosophers date the composition of the Axiokhos to the second or first centuries BCE.15 Dating the context for what appears in the passage of Axiokhos has also been problematic. Ferguson argued that it should be regarded as good evidence for the state of the ephebeia in the fourth century BCE, based on similarities of language and subject matter between 366d–367a and a diatribe of the philosopher Teles (fl. 235 BCE) preserved among the epitomies of the fifth-century writer Stobaios (4.34.72). As with the Axiokhos, it lists life’s many stages and the sorrows associated with each. The relevant passage appears below. ἔφηβος γέγονεν· ἔµπαλιν τὸν κοσµητὴν φοβεῖται, τὸν παιδοτρίβην, τὸν ὁπλοµάχον, τὸν γυµνασίαρχον. ὑπὸ πάντων τούτων µαστιγοῦται, παρατηρεῖται, τραχηλίζεται. (Hense fr. 50) He becomes an ephebe. Again, he fears the kosmetes, the paidotribes, the hoplomakhos, the gymnasiarkhos. By them all he is beaten, carefully monitored, and treated roughly. This diatribe may have been directly borrowed from the Cynic philosopher Krates (365–285 BCE), whom Teles cites in the first line of the fragment.16 In light of their parallels, Ferguson supposed that Krates was ultimately the source of both what appears in the fragment of Teles and the passage from the Axiokhos cited above. Moreover, he believed the mention in the Axiokhos of the registration among the ephebes, the Lykeion and Academy, and the sophronistai (which Ferguson assumed were indicative of a fourth-century context) must have appeared in Krates’ original diatribe and dated its composition to sometime prior to 301 BCE. The mention of the Commission of 14  15  16 

Taylor 1960, 550–2. Souilhé 1930, 135–6. Cf. Hershbell 1981, 12–21; and O’Keefe 2006, 389–90. Fuentes-Gonzales 1985, 450–467. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1881, 295 n. 6 introduced the notion that Krates was the ultimate source of both diatribes. Weber 1887, 212 n. 1, followed by Hense 1909, XXXVII, proposed that Krates was the source of Teles’ only. Diels 1901, 213, supposed that Krates was the source of neither.

Organization

87

the Areopagos Council for overseeing the training of the youth, Ferguson believed, more definitively dated it to a period of time when Krates was living in Athens under the regime of Demetrios of Phalaron (317–307 BCE), whose modifications to Athens’ constitution gave significantly more authority to the Areopagos Council.17 An examination of these points, however, demonstrates that the Axiokhos reflects an ephebeia contemporary with its composition long after the fourth century BCE. First, there is the issue of the enrollment of the ephebes (ἐγγράφεσθαι εἰς τοὺς ἐφήβους). This clause does not refer to the enrollment of new citizens onto a deme list (lexiarkhikon grammateion), as discussed in Chapter 1, which [Aristotle] described as “enrollment among the demesmen” (Ath.Pol. 42.1: ἐγγράφεσθαι εἰς τοὺς δηµότας) or the dokimasia. Enrollment among the demesmen marked a young man’s entrance into the citizenship, upon which he was designated an ephebe, or new citizen. Enrollment among the ephebes, however, is connected with their “entrance” ceremony (ἐισιτήρια or ἐισιτητήρια) that participating ephebes performed along with their kosmetes and other officials inside the Prytaneion at the beginning of their year of training and service. Whereas the registration of new citizens occurred at the beginning of the Athenian calendar year, the registration of participating ephebes occurred at the beginning of the ephebic program two months later (for evidence and discussion, see the section on the Oath Ritual in Chapter 6). Evidence for enrollment among the ephebes appears in inscriptions around the middle of the third century (T5.2) and then regularly in the second and first centuries BCE (e.g., T7.13 line 86, T8.14 lines 6, 58). While the “entrance” ceremony may have existed in the fourth century BCE, the balance of evidence suggests a later date for such a procedure and, in any case, is not indicative of an exclusive fourth-century BCE context for this passage. Second, there is currently no evidence that ephebes trained at the Academy or Lykeion in the Lykourgan phase of the ephebeia or in the institution reconstituted in 307 BCE by the restored democracy. At present, the only reference to ephebes taking their training in the Academy is T8.35 (134–88 BCE) line 4. The earliest document demonstrating a link between the ephebes and the Lykeion is T7.7 (184/3 BCE) line 23. This text along with a handful of others from the second century reports that the ephebes dedicated monuments in the Lykeion, which indicates that these young men were training there during their year of service. The appearance of these gymnasia in later decrees honoring the ephebes makes sense, for the ephebeia of the Hellenistic Period had become more asty-centered, as will be discussed in Chapter 8. As will be discussed in 17 

Ferguson 1911, 111 n. 1.

88

chapter 4

the following chapter, Lykourgan ephebes most likely took their training where they were stationed full-time—at Peiraieus or in gymnasia located within fortified demes, such as those at Rhamnous and Eleusis. Third, Commissions of the Areopagos Council are a feature of the late Hellenistic Age at Athens, not of Athens under Demetrios of Phaleron, and should not be used as a source for the state of the ephebeia under his regime. Bruno Keil brought together evidence that certain functions of the Council were carried out in the second and first centuries BCE by a panel or commission (αἵρεσις).18 For example, Areopagite commissions were formed for the apprehension of a conspirator, the removal of a sacred olive tree, addressing the buildings on the Pnyx, and controlling the coinage. Keil believed he discovered evidence for a commission for overseeing the youth (τὴν ἐπὶ τοὺς νέους αἵρεσιν) in Plutarch’s Life of Cicero (24.5). In this passage, Cicero convinced the Areopagite Council to pass a decree requesting the philosopher Kratippos to remain in Athens and give lectures to the youth (νέοι). The appearance of the Herald of the Areopagos in inscriptions honoring the ephebes of the first century BCE (T9.2 and T9.17) likely reflects the interest of the Council in the institution, although, as Geagan correctly notes, the inclusion of the Council in these texts does not necessarily mean that its members were playing a role in defining the education of ephebes.19 The appearance of the sophronistai in the Axiokhos, however, cannot be an anachronistic interpolation. For this official was not a part of the organizational structure of the Athenian ephebeia after 300 BCE, but was reintroduced early in the second century CE. Nonetheless, one need not suppose that the appearance of the sophronistai in 366d–367a was derived from the diatribe of Krates. Teles’ diatribe does not refer to sophronistai, although it is possible that his omission reflected the state of the institution of his day.20 It is also possible that, since he was including only those officials the ephebe feared, Teles deliberately omitted mentioning the sophronistai, because they did not inflict corporal punishment. The writer of the Axiokhos may have derived information about the sophronistai from other sources available to him and inserted a reference to provide local color to the dialogue. Among these sources was public information, including honorary decrees of the fourth century that still stood in tribal sanctuaries. Since the writer of the Axiokhos appears intimately familiar with the doctrine of the various philosophical schools, he may have

18  19  20 

Keil 1920, 25–6, 72–6. Geagan 1967, 50–1 with note 62. Habicht 1992.

Organization

89

picked up a reference to the sophronistai from some other work, perhaps even the Aristotelian Ath.Pol. itself. On balance, then, the historical context of 366d–367a is the late Hellenistic Period in Athens. Still, even if the mention of the sophronistai had appeared in Krates’ original diatribe, the association of this official and the rods for administering corporal punishment on wayward ephebes is tenuous at best. These officials appear alongside the commission of the Areopagos Council in overseeing the exercise or training of the ephebes. The rods used to inflict punishment on wayward youth exercising in the gymnasium, however, appear in the previous line following mentions of Athens’ famous gymnasia and of the gymnasiarkhia, a magistracy for the supervision of the gymnasium. This important line has proven ambiguous. For instance, Serranus and Aronadio joined the gymnasiarkhia and the rods through hendiadys and interpreted them as a symbol of the gymnasiarkhos’ authority, in the same way that the fasces were the symbol of the consuls’ power.21 This understanding of the line implies that what loomed over the life of a young man was essentially the performance of an unwanted liturgy, i.e., the responsibility for overseeing the gymnasium. Whereas the diatribe in the Axiokhos does not mention other liturgies, the passage of Teles lists the agonothesia and khoregeia alongside other civic expectations that mature men performed. Moreover, there is historical evidence that ephebes performed the gymnasiarkhia (see below) and, much later, other liturgies (T9.17 lines 60–74). On the other hand, Cousin suggested that the appearance of gymnasiarkhia and the rods in this line referred to corporal punishment inflicted upon ephebes by gymnasiarkhoi.22 In light of the passage of Teles, Couvreur emended the text of the Axiokhos from γυµνασιαρχία to γυµνασίαρχοι, which Souilhé included in his edition of the text for the Budé collection, thus strengthening Cousin’s suggestion.23 Beghini has recently argued that γυµνασιαρχία καὶ ῥάβδοι is a copyist’s error and has proposed a reading of γυµνασιαρχικαὶ ῥάβδοι in its place, citing a passage of Plutarch’s Life of Anthony as a parallel (33.4: µετὰ

21  22 

23 

Serranus ap. Stephanus 1578, III 367: “Lyceum, Academia, Gymnici imperii auctoritas, officiorum apparitio, denique malorum omnium infinitas;” Aronadio 2008, 367: “poi il Liceo e l’Accademia e la sorveglianza del ginnasio e i bastoni del comando e mali a dismisura”. Cousin 1840, 132–133: “Quand il est inscrit au nombre des adolescents, à l’age où la contraine est plus insupportable encore, viennent le lycée, l’académie, les maitres de gymnastique, avec leur cortège de verges et de peines de toutes sortes;” followed by Hershbell 1981, 35; and Cooper / Hutchinson 1997, 1737. Couvreur 1896, 79 n. 1. Souilhé 1930, 141.

90

chapter 4

τῶν γυµνασιαρχικῶν ῥάβδων).24 The relationship between rods and the gymnasium’s chief magistrate is well-known. For instance, the Gymnasiarchal Law of Boreia allows a duly-appointed gymnasiarkhos to “whip with a rod he who disobeys him” (lines 8–9: τὸν δὲ µὴ πειθαρχοῦντ̣α, τὸν µὲν ὑπὸ τὴν ῥάβδον µαστιγούτω ὁ γυµνασίαρχος) as well as flog unfree boys and their trainers who show indiscipline (line 22: ἀτακτοῦντας). By contrast, evidence for such an association between the sophronistai and the rods does not currently exist. A fragmentary relief sculpture from the Roman Imperial period has been introduced for support.25 It appears upon a highly fragmentary end-of-service dedication made to Herakles and depicts three male figures in himation wielding whips (λύγοι).26 Despite the poor condition of the text, its arrangement into three columns can be determined. In the first column, the names of six sophronistai in various states of preservation can be made out. The names of an unknown number of assistant sophronistai appear directly below followed by those of the gymnasiarkhoi. A roster of names of participating ephebes appears in the two remaining columns and is organized by tribal headings. The three figures in relief have been interpreted as sophronistai and the whips they wield are believed to be for disobedient ephebes under their purview, although no evidence has yet to be introduced to support this interpretation. The expression “sophronistai” that appears below the figures is not a label describing them, but a heading above a list of the names of men who served as this official. It is possible that, given the agonistic nature of the institution during this period, the relief represents mastigophoroi, whip-wielding officials who were responsible for crowd control at games and disciplining rule-breakers. They may also be the gymnasiarkhoi. Even if the figures are of sophronistai, the relief represents a much later, and broken, development in the office of the sophronistai. In fact, the suggestion that ephebes received corporal punishment is out of step with what is known about fourth-century approaches to military discipline. How to cultivate good order in the ranks (εὐταξία) was a persistent and vexing problem confronting most Greek armies.27 Xenophon has his Sokrates say that Athenian hoplites and members of the cavalry were the most insubordinate and, more generally, that Athenians paid no attention to discipline 24  25  26  27 

Beghini 2017, 271–3. I am indebted to Beghini’s concise review of the literature concerning interpretations of this passage of the Axiokhos. Pélékidis 1962, 108; Rhodes 1993, 504. See also de Marcellus 1994, 12; Friend 2019, 71–3. IG II2 2122; SEG 35.130 (cf. SEG 26.176). For a photograph of the relief, see Graindor 1924, pl. lxiii. 79. This problem is discussed at length in Lendon 2005, 72–6.

Organization

91

(εὐταξία), self-mastery (σωφροσύνη) and obedience (πειθαρχία).28 Further, stubborn and often recalcitrant citizen-soldiers resisted the imposition of good order by their military commanders.29 At stake was the efficacy and very survival of the phalanx.30 Sparta provided military thinkers a model by which to remedy this problem, since εὐταξία and πειθαρχία characterized the Spartan army, helped define its success, and was fostered and enforced through a system of rewards and punishments.31 Unlike his Spartan counterpart, an Athenian general had little recourse to physically punish citizens under his command, since he was elected by them and was under their disciplinary authority once the army returned to Athens.32 Instead of compelling his fellow citizens through force, Xenophon and others suggested that military leaders find methods to motivate internally the men in their charge, including the use of competitions among hoplites and horsemen, as a means of encouraging discipline (εὐταξία) and other military values.33 Xenophon first recommends a Eutaxia contest (Εὐταξία) in the pages of his fictional Hiero (9.5–6). He clearly intended it to be military in nature and carried out by all citizens in whatever civic divisions their polis employed. A generation after this publication, Athenians in the Lykourgan Period did in fact sponsor a Eutaxia competition, a military contest of “good order.”34 As will be discussed in Chapter 6, this contest may have been established as a means of addressing the poor discipline of Athens’ soldiers, especially its younger members. In addition to habituation through honor-winning contests, another method to school young men to virtue was the use of moral exemplars. As noted in earlier chapters the Areopagos Council and the elders in Xenophon’s system of Persian paideia served as ethical role models for young men. This pedagogical approach likely accounts for why the sophronistes was honored for his σωφροσύνη and σώφρων conduct in the decrees honoring the ephebes. At the end of his term, each sophronistes gave his euthynai to his fellow tribesmen, which occurred in Hekatombaion and Metageitnion, the first two 28  29  30  31  32  33 

34 

Xen. Mem. 3.5.19; 3.5.21. Cf. Thuc. 7.14.2. Xen. Lak. 8.2; Xen. Anab. 1.5.11–12, 2.3.11; 2.6.9–15; Xen. Hell. 6.2.19; Thuc. 8.84.2; D.S. 14.7.6–7. Aristot., Pol. 1297b19–20; Xen. Anab. 3.1.38; 3.2.29–31; 5.8.13. On the relationship between εὐταξία and πειθαρχία, see Xen. Kyr. 7.2.7–8; Ages. 6.4.4. On Spartan πειθαρχία, see Xen. Lak. 2.14, 8.2; Hell. 7.1.8; Plut. Ages. 1.2; Thuc. 5.66; Herodot. 7.228. Hamel 1998, 59–64, esp. 62. Xen. Kyr. 1.6.20–5; 2.1.22–4; Eq. mag. 6.1–5; Mem. 3.3.9–10, 3.5.21–3; Oik. 21.4–8. Xenophon had witnessed the spectacular results of just such competitions carried out in the gymnasium of Ephesos while serving with King Agesilaus in Asia Minor. See Xen. Hell. 3.4.16, 4.2.5–7; Ages. 1.25–7. For bibliography and discussion of the date of this work, see Aalders 1953, 208–215.

92

chapter 4

months of the year following the completion of their term of service.35 As with other officials, the sophronistes was responsible for rendering an account of how public money in his care was spent on the ephebes. Within thirty days of the expiration of the sophronistes’ office, his accounts were investigated by a board of ten logistai, or auditors, and ten synegoroi, who served as their assistants. After a preliminary review, the logistai summoned the sophronistes to court where anyone could make accusations about his financial management of the ephebeia. Charges included embezzlement (κλοπή), taking bribes (δῶρα), and perhaps unintentional financial mismanagement (ἀδικία). If a sophronistes was charged, he stood before a jury, which decided his fate. If found guilty, he was fined tenfold, except in the case of mismanagement, which involved a simple fine. If no charges were made, the sophronistes completed the first part of his euthynai.36 As with other officials, the overall conduct of the sophronistes was subject to scrutiny and possible legal action. While he was at court anyone could submit a charge of general misconduct to the euthynos of the sophronistes’ tribe. If the euthynos regarded the charge as legitimate, he forwarded it to the Forty for private suits, or to the thesmothetes for public suit. These officials were responsible for bringing the case to court. If he was found guilty, the jury punished the sophronistes based on the penalty recommended by the accuser and the sophronistes himself. If no charges were made, the sophronistes completed the second and last part of his euthynai.37 As was the case with all other officials, a successful euthynai was a necessary condition for the sophronistes to receive public honors. The sophronistai remained ten in number until the creation of the tribes Antigonis and Demetris in 308/7 BCE, which increased the number of sophronistai from ten to twelve. T3.1 (306/5 BCE) illustrates this change. This inscription consists of a roster of the names of ephebes and their sophronistai by tribe. Twelve sophronistai appear in the body of the text reflecting this new tribal arrangement. This change was short lived. For T3.3, a tribal decree from 303/2 BCE, marks the last time sophronistai appear in the epigraphical sources until the Roman Period. The reason for the elimination of this office must be connected with changes in the institution, specifically the elimination of the state supplied financial support and the reduction of time in training and service to a single year. The result of these changes was a fall in the number of those enrolled. As the numbers of ephebes declined from hundreds to dozens, 35  36  37 

T1.2 line 43, T1.11 line 18. Aiskhin. 3.17–22. See Hansen 1991, 222–4. Ath. Pol. 54.2; Aiskhin. 3.23; and Dem. 18.117. Rhodes 1993, 598–9. Ath. Pol. 48.4–5. Rhodes 1993, 561.

Organization

93

the Athenians felt that there was no need for tribal sophronistai, and their responsibilities fell on the shoulders of annually selected kosmetai during the Hellenistic Period.38 In addition to selecting a sophronistes for each of the ten tribes, the Athenian people also elected a kosmetes, who served as the chief official of the ephebeia at Athens.39 This function is implied by his title—“one who brings order.”40 Ath. Pol. 42.2, our chief source regarding the kosmetes of the Lykourgan ephebeia, provides little information regarding this official, except that he was selected from the Athenians at large. Given his position of high authority and regular contact with young men, we may reasonably assume that requirements for holding the position of kosmetes were similar to those of the sophronistai (best and most suitable, over 40 years of age). As with the sophronistai, the process of reviewing and selecting the kosmetes (in whatever form it was carried out) took place at Athens. Epigraphical sources offer little help in further elucidating the nature and function of this official, for, unlike the sophronistai, little of substance regarding the kosmetes and his role in the ephebeia is mentioned in these texts.41 Where they are cited in various decrees, the names of the kosmetai tend to stand farther away from those of the ephebes and of their sophronistai, appearing sometimes alongside the names of the generals of the countryside and of Peiraieus, which may suggest that their relationship with the ephebes was less immediate and direct. T1.1 (333/2 for the class enrolled in 334/3 BCE), our earliest ephebic decree, demonstrates that this official existed at the creation of the institution. The presence of the euthynai statement in the same document (T1.1 line 21) implies that each kosmetes gave an account at the end of his service, just as the sophronistai. Perhaps he distributed funds (e.g., the trophe) to the sophronistai. This same text praises the kosmetes for his supervision of the young men in 38  39  40 

41 

Reinmuth 1971, 106–115. For the kosmetes, see Forbes 1929, 131–5; Pélékidis 1962, 104–6; Reinmuth 1971, 135–6. Herodianos declares that kosmetai ensured the εὐταξία (good order) of the ephebes. Cf. Hdn. s.v. κοσµηταί: οἱ τῶν ἐφήβων εὐταξίας προνοοῦντες. His statement is reminiscent of later honorary degrees, e.g., T8.22 (106/5 BCE) line 35 reports: προενοήθη δὲ καὶ [τῆς τ] ῶν ἐφήβων εὐταξίας [sc. ὁ κοσµητής]. Cf. T8.12 (127/6 BCE) lines 83–4; T8.16 (118/7 BCE) line 55; and T8.19 (116/5 BCE) lines 57–8. Similarly, T8.4 (159/8 BCE) line 20 reports: προέ] στη δὲ καὶ τῆς εὐταξί[ας τῶν ἐφήβων [sc. ὁ κοσµητής]. Cf. T8.2 (161/0 BCE) line 5 and T8.12 (127/6 BCE) lines 83–4. It is likely that Herodian has in mind this incarnation of the office of κοσµητής. Unlike the sophronistes, the kosmetes appears in a handful of inscriptions for this period. These are: T1.1 (334/3 BCE), T1.4 (333/2 BCE) line 8, T1.5 (333/2), T1.10 (332/1 BCE) line 11, T1.11 (332/1 BCE) col. II lines 12–13, T1.18 (330/29 BCE) line 2, and T1.21 (329/8 BCE) right side lines 6–9.

94

chapter 4

his care (ἐπεµε]λήθη τῶν νεανίσκ[ων) (T1.1 lines 16–17). What his supervision entailed at this stage of the institution is unknown. Most likely, as the head official, the kosmetes represented each year class of ephebes before the boule and ekklesia and was the intermediary for the magistrates with whom the ephebes had regular intercourse, such as the strategoi. He likely supervised the sophronistai and the ephebic instructors, ensuring that the institution as a whole functioned in a uniform and orderly fashion, as his title implies. Unlike the sophronistes, an office that disappears by the end of the fourth century BCE, the kosmetes remained the chief official over the ephebes and assumed direct control over every aspect of their training and care. As will be discussed more fully in Chapter 8, decrees of later periods honoring kosmetai illustrate the high level of involvement and intimate role this official played in his supervision of the ephebes. Many of these activities were traditional features of the ephebeia. But, as the sphere of duties increased and the forms of education expanded for the ephebes in the Hellenistic period, so did the responsibilities of the kosmetes. So great were these that by the second century CE, the kosmetes was assisted by an antikosmetes and hupokosmetai.42 Although they were clearly subordinate to the kosmetes, the epigraphical evidence does not allow us to perceive the nature and function of these officials. Thus, despite the various permutations of the ephebeia over its long history, the office of kosmetes was one of the permanent features of its organization. Just as it had been present at the beginning of the ephebeia, this office disappeared along with the rest of the institution after the Herulians sacked Athens in 267/8 CE.43 What were the lengths of service for sophronistai and kosmetes? During the Hellenistic Period, when the ephebeia was reduced to a single year of service, the epigraphic evidence clearly states that a kosmetes served for one year. Is this true of the ephebeia of the Lykourgan Period, when the term of service for the ephebes was two years? Unfortunately, [Aristotle] provides little help. Pélékidis, however, offered three useful hypotheses with which to test against the available evidence: 1) that the length of service for both kosmetes and sophronistai was two years, during which each remained with those ephebes enrolled in the first year of his oversight; 2) that the kosmetes and sophronistes were elected annually and had oversight over two consecutive age classes of ephebes; and 3) that the kosmetes and sophronistai were officials elected for a

42  43 

For the antikosmetes and the hupokosmetai, see Kennell 2006. For a series of honorific herms of kosmetai survive from the Roman Era at Athens, see Graindor 1915, 241–401; Lattanzi 1968; and Hoff 1994, 8f.

Organization

95

single year of service with oversight over the ephebes in the first year, followed by the strategos, or general, who had oversight over them in the second. Based on the military character of the ephebeia, Pélékidis and Gomme thought the last solution the most likely.44 As discussed above, however, the deme of Eleusis honored separately the sophronistai of the tribes Hippothontis and Kekropis (T1.3 and T1.9 respectively) for their care of the ephebes during their second year of service, which eliminates this hypothesis. Reinmuth advocated the second hypothesis on the basis of an analogy with other magistrates at Athens who served one-year terms and so believed that those who staffed the ephebeia changed every year.45 This seems unlikely since [Aristotle] specifically states that ten sophronistai were selected at the inauguration of each ephebic class by the fathers for the care of their own sons.46 Also, the two year duration of a single ephebic class weakens Reinmuth’s analogy. Further, this arrangement would have one kosmetes and ten sophronistai splitting their time between two separate groups of around five hundred or more ephebes each, one in Peiraieus and the other patrolling the borders of Attike and posted in various fortified demes. The simplest and most likely solution is Pélékidis’ first hypothesis: that service for these officials lasted for two years.47 As Rhodes observed, the epigraphical evidence supports the first hypothesis, for only one sophronistes and kosmetes are honored at the end of the year, not two.48 As we round out our discussion of the officials and magistrates of the ephebeia, we come at last to the Athenian strategoi, or generals. As a system of military training, the ephebeia was necessarily connected with the military establishment at Athens. This included the Athenian strategoi, who were the top civic officials in the Athenian military hierarchy.49 The strategoi were a board of ten annually elected magistrates. By the fourth-century BCE, five of these generals were assigned to special spheres of responsibilities: one was in charge of all foreign campaigns (ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁπλίτας), one was in charge of defending Attike (ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν), another was in charge of appointing trierarkhoi, or naval commanders (ἐπὶ τὰς συµµορίας), and two guarded the shipyards and harbors of Peiraieus (ἐπὶ τὸν Πειραιέα).50 [Aristotle] fails to mention in his survey of the 44  45  46  47  48  49  50 

Pélékidis 1962, 104; Gomme 1967, 67–8. Reinmuth 1971, 81. Clinton 1988, 28–9. Burckhardt 1996, 68–9. Rhodes 1993, 504. On the strategoi and the ephebes, see Forbes 1929, 142–4; Pélékidis 1962, 109; Reinmuth 1971, 78–80. Ath.Pol 61.1. On the strategoi of Athens in the Classical Period, see Hamel 1998. Hamel, however, does not explore the relationship between the Athenian strategoi and ephebes.

96

chapter 4

ephebeia any role that the strategoi played in the institution. Yet, epigraphical and other literary evidence from the Lykourgan Period attests the strategoi’s supervision (ἐπιµέλεια) over the ephebes.51 During their first year of service at Peiraieus the ephebes were overseen by the two generals in charge of the harbor in carrying out their duties in guarding both the fortresses of Mounikhia and Akte.52 Ferguson believed that the Athenians increased the number of generals of Peiraieus from one to two in order to manage better the hundreds of ephebes sent there annually and divided between the two fortresses.53 This may have played some role in the decision, but by itself seems unlikely, since there was no corresponding increase in the number of generals in command of the khora during this period. The assignment of two generals at Peiraieus most likely was the result of the Athenians increasing the size of their navy and expanding their harbors and number of ship sheds. Each general may have had supervision over five tribes of ephebes. He may have relayed his orders to the entire corps through the ephebic taxiarkhoi (see below). Still, the details of the strategoi’s relationship with the ephebes, including the nature of the command structure, remain elusive. As we saw above, though, it was close enough for the Athenians to vote away Philokles’ supervision (ἐπιµέλεια) of the ephebes when as strategos of Mounikhia he was believed to have accepted bribes from Harpalos.54 During their second year, when they patrolled the Athenian countryside and passed their time in border fortresses, the general of the countryside took up supervising the ephebes.55 There is no reason to believe that the essential relationship between this general and the ephebes was any different from that of the two at Peiraieus, although in both cases the details of this relationship are largely unknown, at least for the ephebeia of the Lykourgan period. 51  52 

53  54 

55 

On the ἐπιµέλεια of the generals, see: Din. 3.15; T1.9 (332/1 BCE) line 3. General of Peiraieus: T1.4 (333/2) lines 4–5, T1.8 (333/2–332/1 BCE) lines 1–4, T1.9 (332/1 BCE) line 4, T1.10 (332/1 BCE) line 10, T1.11 (332/1) col. II lines 9–11, T1.21 (329/8 BCE) right side lines col. I lines 2–5; General of Akte: T1.21 (329/8 BCE) right side lines col. II lines 2–6; General of Mounikhia: Din. 3.1; generals of both Mounikhia and Akte: Ath. Pol. 42.2 and 61.1. Only one general over Peiraieus is attested in our earliest ephebic inscriptions. By 329/8 BCE, two are registered in the text of T1.21. This indicates that at the creation of the ephebeia the need for two generals was not immediately felt as necessary and the second general was added sometime later. Ath. Pol. 61.1; Ferguson 1911, 9 n. 2. Din. 3.1, 15. Cf. Hyp. 5.6. This Philokles should not be identified with Philokles son of Phormion of Eroiadai, kosmetes of the ephebes whose name appears on an inscription discovered in Oropos (T1.21). See Reinmuth 1971, 73–6; Worthington 1989, 80–2. Tracy 1995, 25–6, has suggested re-dating this text to 329/8 BCE. General of the khora: T1.4 (333/2 BCE) lines 5–6, T1.8 (333/2–332/1) lines 4–7, T1.9 (332/1 BCE) line 5, T1.10 (332/1 BCE) line 9, T1.11 (332/1) col. II lines 11–12, T1.21(329/8 BCE) left side lines col. I lines 2–6; Unspecified General: T1.19 (330?) right side lines 6–7.

Organization

2

97

The Organization of the Ephebeia: the Ephebic Tribe

So far we have examined the institution of the ephebeia from the perspective of its top officials. As a military organization, it was necessarily under the purview of Athens’ senior military magistrates, the strategoi, who played some role in directing and supervising the ephebes as they performed their military training and service at Peiraieus and in the fortified demes. But supervising the ephebes was a very small part of a general’s overall duties and he most likely had little or nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of the institution. This responsibility fell in part on the kosmetes, the chief official of the ephebeia who was responsible for all aspects of the ephebeia and ensured the uniformity of instruction among the various tribal units of ephebes. These tribal units were in turn supervised by ten sophronistai, whose care ranged from the daily lives of the ephebes to ensuring that the young men in their charge behaved moderately. But what about the ephebes themselves? What role, if any, did they perform in the ephebeia during their two years of service? The evidence suggests that the internal organization of each tribal contingent of ephebes was modeled to a certain degree on the tribal structure of the Athenian military. It also indicates that some of these young men held positions of leadership among their peers. Service in the ephebeia also provided a venue for its wealthier members to perform certain “liturgies” for the benefit of their fellow ephebes. True to form, [Aristotle’s] brief narrative provides little information about the internal organization of ephebeia. Two references, however, clearly demonstrate the essentially tribal nature of the institution. As we saw above, Ath. Pol. 42.2 states that the fathers of the newly-minted ephebes came together by tribe and nominated the best and most suitable men among their phyletai as their sophronistes. This was a tribal official in charge of young men from a given phyle. Second, Ath. Pol. 42.3 states that the ephebes messed by tribe. The epigraphical sources for this period allow us to glean even more details on the tribal organization of the ephebeia. For instance, the decrees honoring these young men for their service as patrollers at the fortified demes cite tribal units of ephebes, which demonstrates that such service was carried out by phyle.56 From a civic and administrative perspective each grouping of ephebes took its name from the tribe in which the ephebes were members (“the ephebes of Hippothontis,” and the like). If the second year of service was carried out by

56 

T1.2 (333/2 BCE) lines 26–27, 33–34, 36–37, 46–47, 50; T1.3 (333/2 BCE) lines 1, 4; T1.7 (333/2 BCE or 332/1 BCE) line 1; T1.10 (332/1 BCE) line 6; T1.11 (332/1 BCE) lines 2, 5–6, 10–11; and T1.17 (330/29 BCE) line 1.

98

chapter 4

tribe, it stands to reason, then, that their service in Peiraieus during their first year was most likely conducted in the same way.57 Thus, the evidence indicates that ephebes of a given enrollment class were grouped together according to tribal membership, carried out their responsibilities by tribe, and were under the direct supervision of a tribal official. The fact that the Athenians chose to organize their ephebeia along tribal lines comes as no surprise. For the tribal system provided the basic structure of Athenian government and it was through membership in a tribe that citizens participated in and experienced democracy. Even more, the Athenians organized their military by tribe. Each tribal unit was called a taxis, or regiment, which was further subdivided into lokhoi, or regimental files. These lokhoi were composed of citizens of a tribe who fought side by side. Each lokhos was under the direct supervision of a file commander, or lokhagos.58 According to [Aristotle], each lokhagos was selected by a tribal taxiarkhos, the regiment commander who (through his lokhagoi) commanded all the lokhoi of his taxis and answered directly to the strategos of the hoplite forces (Ath. Pol. 61.3). As a system of military training and service, did the Athenians reproduce the hierarchy of the regular army in the organization of the ephebeia? And, if so, what role, if any, did the ephebes play in the hierarchy of this institution? Both the lokhagoi and the taxiarkhos appear as officials in the ephebic inscriptions of this period. The tribal lokhagoi are attested in six documents.59 Since Leonardos, it has been largely recognized that the lokhagoi of these inscriptions were ephebes who as members of a given tribe served their regiment in an official capacity. Still, Meritt regarded them as officers in the regular Athenian army.60 Similarly, Sekunda has suggested that “the ephebic lokhagoi [were] young soldiers who have already passed through the ephebate and [were] ‘squadded’ with the new ephebes to ‘show them the ropes’ during basic training.”61 That the lokhagoi in these inscriptions were ephebes is clearly demonstrated by T1.9, a dedication made by the ephebes of the tribe Kekropis. 57  58  59 

60  61 

As the discussion of T1.5 and T1.11, two ephebic inscriptions produced and published consecutively for the same tribe of ephebes, appears to demonstrate this proposition, but confirmation awaits the publication of T1.5. Ath. Pol. 61.3: cf. Aristoph., Akh. 575, Plut., Mor. 186f. See Rhodes 1993, 685 on the evidence for the lokhagoi in Athens. T1.9 (332/1 BCE) lines 7–11; T1.10 (332/1 BCE) lines 14–18; T1.11 (332/1 BCE) Col. I lines 22–8, Col. II lines 16–22; T1.13 (332/1–331/0 BCE) lines 3–6; T1.21 (329/8 BCE) lines 1–5; and T1.22 (332/1–322/1 BCE) lines 5–15. This ephebic official is restored in T1.16 (322/1–331/330 BCE) line 6. On the ephebic lokhagos, see Leonardos 1918, 73–100, esp. 83; and Roussel 1941, 209–32, esp. 223. Meritt 1940, 59–66, esp. 65. Sekunda 1992, 312, 329.

Organization

99

Seven lokhagoi are listed in the prescript, and their names also appear in the ephebic roster appended below. Sekunda believes that the appearance of the names of the lokhagoi in the roster of ephebes was strictly for administrative purposes. This, however, merely adds a second unverified hypothesis to support the first. The simplest explanation is that these lokhagoi were ephebes since their names appear in corresponding ephebic rosters. The number of lokhagoi ranged from five to twelve per tribe. The reason for these variations in number is not clear. In his brief discussion of the regular army, [Aristotle] does not state how many lokhagoi were employed in a tribal regiment (Ath. Pol. 61.3). Nor did the number of ephebes of a given tribal year class determine the number of lokhagoi. For T1.9 registers seven lokhagoi and fifty two ephebes; T1.10, five lokhagoi, forty four estimated ephebes; T1.11, five lokhagoi and circa forty four ephebes; T1.13, five lokhagoi, fifty five estimated ephebes; T1.21, eleven lokhagoi and sixty four ephebes; and T1.22, ten lokhagoi and an unknown number of ephebes. As Reinmuth observes, “[the] number of lokhagoi in extant ephebic rosters stands in no uniform proportion to the number of epheboi and no conclusion as to the probable number of epheboi can be drawn from their comparative number.”62 As to the taxiarkhos, three published inscriptions attest to the existence of this official.63 Two of these documents prove that the taxiarkhos mentioned in the text was also an ephebe. In the dedication of the tribe Leontis, the name of the taxiarkhos, Φιλοκλέης Φιλοθέου Σουνιεὺς, (who was the son of the sophronistes) appears in the body of the decree and in the ephebic roster appended at the bottom of the inscription (T1.11 col. I 20–22, col. II lines 15–16). Similarly, in a dedication of the ephebes of Kekropis, the taxiarkhos Σύνβουλος Εὐβούλου of the deme Phyle appears in the prescript of the decree and in the roster of ephebes listed below (T1.9 lines 6–7, 41–2). On the basis of these two inscriptions, [— — — — —]κου Θορίκιος was also an ephebic taxiarkhos of the tribe Akamantis sometime between 332/1–322/1 BCE (T1.22 lines 3–4). If the organization of the ephebic tribe was designed to mimic the tribal organization of the regular army, as Merrit suggested, then the ephebic lokhagoi were subordinate to the ephebic taxiarkhos.64 The evidence suggests that 62 

63  64 

Reinmuth 1971, 23. Aineias implies that the number of men in his lokhoi varied as well: a higher number is suggested in 15.3, a lower number in 26.1. The size of lokhoi varies in Xenophon, too. For instance, there are 24 men in Kyr. 6.3.21, 50 in Anab. 1.2.25, and 100 in Anab. 3.4.21. T1.9 (332/1 BCE) lines 6–7; T1.11 (332/1 BCE) Col. I lines 20–22, Col. II lines 15–16; and T1.22 (332/1–322/1 BCE) lines 3–4. For this ephebic official, see Mitchel 1960, 347–57. Meritt 1945, 234, first suggested that the ephebic tribe imitated the military organization of the regular Athenian tribe.

100

chapter 4

this was the case, for the lokhagoi follow the taxiarkhos both in the prescript of the decrees and in the roster, which implies a relatively inferior position. The tribal taxiarkhos and lokhagoi appear together as a unit and always behind the sophronistes; and they receive crowns worth half the value as his, which indicates their relatively inferior position to him. Assuming that the military organization of the regular Athenian tribe provided the basis for ephebic tribal organization, it follows then that the strategoi may have selected by vote the ephebic taxiarkhos for each of the ten tribes.65 Each taxiarkhos would have been under the direct command of the strategoi of Peiraieus and of the countryside and would have relayed the orders of their strategoi to the regiment of ephebes serving under them. As with their counterparts in the Athenian army, these ephebic taxiarkhoi would have been responsible for preserving the internal organization of the ephebic tribe and discipline among its members. This analogy would also mean that the ephebic taxiarkhos may have selected the ephebes to serve as lokhagoi, who in turn relayed the orders of the taxiarkhos to the rest of the ephebes under their command. Since the ephebes began their second year of service with their apodeixis, a display of their training before the Athenian ekklesia, selection must have occurred in the first year of service, most likely at the beginning of their training.66 The appearance of these subordinate officers occurred very early on in the history of the Athenian ephebeia. The first attestation occurs in T1.9, T1.10, and T1.11. All three were inscribed in the year 332/1 BCE for the ephebes who were enrolled in 333/2 BCE. This suggests that this form of organization began with the inauguration of the institution. The ephebic taxiarkhoi and lokhagoi came to an end with the demise of the Lygourgan ephebeia in 322 BCE. Although there is no evidence as of yet, it is quite possible that these ephebic officers were revived soon after 307 BCE, when the Athenians recovered their independence, restored democracy, and reestablished a Lykourgan-style system of military training and service for their new citizens. As with the sophronistes, the Athenians did not retain the position of ephebic taxiarkhos and lokhagos when they reorganized the institution in the early Hellenistic period. Where there is a taxiarkhos, there is an organization of men under his command called a taxis. The word taxis is normally associated with the organization of hoplites (e.g., Lys. 16.16), not those performing guard duty. In his manual 65  66 

Contra Pélékidis 1962, 109, who believes that selection for these officers occurred in the second year and was made by the sophronistes. As noted above, T1.5 and T1.11, two ephebic inscriptions produced and published consecutively for the same tribe of ephebes, seem to prove that a fully functioning ephebic tribe existed in the first year of service, but final confirmation awaits the publication of T1.5. For the apodeixis, see Chapter 5.

Organization

101

on how to survive a siege, however, Aineias the Tactician states that regiments of guards called taxeis were also organized under a taxiarkhos and lokhagoi (22.29, 27.12). Although the term appears nowhere in the epigraphical evidence, Aristotle recommends using “a regiment (taxis) of ephebes or guards” in carrying out certain undesirable duties in a polis (Pol. 1323a: τις ἐφήβων ἢ φρουρῶν ἔστι τάξις). Based on an earlier reference to Philip II’s assassination (Pol. 1311b1), he must have composed this work sometime after 336 BCE when he was living and teaching in Athens. Therefore, Aristotle would have been familiar with the institution of his day, which suggests that Athenians designated tribal units of ephebes by this word. This is confirmed elsewhere by the author of the Ath. Pol., who states that the ephebes came before the Athenian People and made a demonstration of the things “concerning their taxeis” (42.4: ἀποδειξάµενοι τῷ δήµῳ τὰ ͅͅ περὶ τὰς τάξεις). Pélékidis, Rhodes and others have interpreted this term as their “skill in maneuvering in hoplite formations.”67 This interpretation is based on the belief that the purpose of ephebic training was to create new hoplites. This is not accurate, for, as mentioned in the previous chapter, their training was non-hoplite in nature. It is likely, then, that the ephebes came before the assembly to make a display regarding “the matters concerning their regiments.” What these matters were and where the display took place will be explored more fully in the following chapter. The parallels between the ephebeia and the larger military institution at Athens extend beyond just organization and duties. For together with their sophronistes, ephebes from the same phyle made dedications to tribal or other heroes, honored their own members, the officials and trainers of their own tribe, and performed sacrifices for the health and safety of the People.68 None of the texts in question are decrees, but it is clear from the language that ephebes were making decisions in assembly as a tribal body. Such behavior is not out of step with the rest of the Athenian army. Hansen and Christensen collect the numerous (non-ephebic) examples found in inscriptions and literature for the political behavior of regiments of soldiers. For instance, the Attic garrison decrees demonstrate that the soldiers stationed in fortresses such as Panakton, Eleusis and Phyle came together in assembly and awarded honors for their officials. In Xenophon’s Anabasis, Kyros’ Greek mercenaries frequently gather in assembly to determine collective action. Even in the aristocratic world of 67  68 

Pélékidis 1962, 114–15, Rhodes 1981, 508; Rawlings 2000, 238; Dillery 2002, 462; Friend 2019, 84. Dedications to tribal and other heroes: T1.11 (332/1 BCE) (tribal hero), T1.7 (333/2–332/1 BCE) (age-class hero), and T1.20 (328/7 BCE) (Amphiaraos). Honors to their own member: T1.4 (333/2), T1.9 (332/1 BCE). Sacrifice for health and safety of the Demos: T1.17 (330/29 BCE).

102

chapter 4

Homer’s Iliad, the assembled Akhaians play a limited decision-making role on the proposals that Agamemnon and the other Greeks leaders brought before them for their consideration.69 Finally, the evidence clearly shows that ephebes participated in civic religion as members of a tribe. As will be discussed in Chapter 6, one of the primary ways this occurred was through torch-races in which tribal teams of ephebes competed against one another.70 What follows is a brief discussion of the organization of these tribal competitions and the role that wealthy ephebes played in financing them. For it appears that ephebes were encouraged to serve as ephebic tribal gymnasiarkhoi. The evidence for the ephebic gymnasiarkhoi comes from T1.6, a victory dedication inscribed in 332/1 BCE. The text carries a dedication by the sophronistes and the gymnasiarkhoi of the Erechtheis tribe of ephebes who were victorious in a torch-race at an unspecified festival held at Rhamnous, (perhaps at the Nemesia, an athletic festival in honor of the goddess Nemesis).71 [ὁ σωφ]ρονιστὴς Περικ[— — — — — — — — — Ἀναγυρ]άσιος [καὶ οἱ τῆς Ἐρε]χθεῖδος ἐφήβων γ[υµ]νασίαρχοι ἀνέθεσαν [οἱ ἐπὶ] Νικοκράτους ἄρχοντος λαµπάδι νικήσαντες [— —]ανδρος Τιµ[— —] Εὐωνυµεύς, Χαρικλῆς Ἀλεξιµένου Περγασῆθεν The sophronistes Perik[— — — — — — — — — of the deme Anagy]ros and the gymnasiarkhoi of the ephebic tribe of Erekhtheus make a dedication who were victorious in the torch-race in the arkhonship of Nikokrates [— —]andros son of Tim[— —] of Evonymon, Kharikles son Aleximenos of Pergase The text is followed by a roster of ephebes who were the lampadephoroi, or those who carried the torch during the race. The gymnasiarkhoi are described at line 2 as the gymnasiarkhoi of the Erekhtheis [tribe] of the ephebes. This implies that the gymnasiarkhoi [— —] ανδρος Τιµ[— —] Εὐωνυµεύς and Χαρικλῆς Ἀλεξιµένου Περγασῆθεν, the names listed in line four, were ephebes themselves. This suggestion is strengthened by T1.12, another ephebic decree from 332/1 BCE. The text is a roster of ephebes from Lower Pergase, Upper Pergase, and Upper Lamptrai, demes that in part 69  70  71 

Christensen and Hansen 1983, 21–4. T1.6 (333/2 or 332/1 BCE) and T1.7 (333/2 BCE or 332/1 BCE). On torch-races, see Chapter 6. See Pouilloux 1954, 111; Habicht [1961]1962, 144, n. 3; Palagia and Lewis 1989, 333–44; Parker 1996, 254 n. 126; and id. 2005, 72, 476. On the Nemesia, see Stafford 2000, 94–6.

Organization

103

formed the Athenian tribe Erekhtheis. As Palagia and Lewis observed, at line nine under Lower Pergase, the text includes Χαρικλῆς Ἀλεξ[ιµένου], one of the gymnasiarkhoi in T1.6 line 4. Twelve other ephebes listed in T1.12 also appear as lampadephoroi in T1.6.72 Of course, the Χαρικλῆς of the one inscription may have been a homonymous kinsman of the other. This objection loses its strength, however, in light of the large number of correspondences in other names between these two inscriptions. Reinmuth observes that the two ephebic gymnasiarkhoi in T1.6 were not listed with their fellow ephebes in the roster appended to the dedication. He notes that there are two erasures and suggests that the names of the gymnasiarkhoi in line four may have originally been listed in these spaces, but then subsequently removed.73 In his recent reediting of this inscription, however, Petrakos does in fact read Χαιρέφιλος Περγ in line 7 instead of the erasure.74 The fact that their names fail to appear in the list of lampadephoroi does not undermine the conclusion that these two gymnasiarkhoi were ephebes. The lampadephoroi were the ephebes who carried the torch during the torch-race. The gymnasiarkhoi, on the other hand, were not participants in the race, since they were its organizers and financiers. Also, in such honorary decrees, the names of successful gymnasiarkhoi are not listed in the roster of lampadephoroi, but are kept separate.75 Thus, the ephebes served as tribal liturgists for activities linked with the ephebeia. It is difficult to say what precisely this liturgy entailed. Given the state-funded trophe, the ephebic gymnasiarkhoi did not need to supply room and board or food, although they may have provided a banquet, as the khoregos did for victorious khoroi.76 At the very least, the ephebic gymnasiarkhos most likely organized the training of his team in the local gymnasia, supplied the equipment and oil for the ephebes to anoint themselves, and financed prizes for the victorious lampadephoroi and the victory dedication. As discussed in the previous chapter, Lykourgos and others were encouraging their fellow citizens through a system of expanded public honors to spend their own funds to share the financial burden and improve the conditions of the state. Some of these improvements affected Athenian religion, especially its festival life. 72  73  74  75 

76 

Palagia and Lewis 1989, 333–7. Reinmuth 1971, 53. I.Rhamnous, 84–5. E.g., IG II2 1250. On this inscription, see Sekunda 1990, 149–82, and Whitehead 1991, 42–4. While Whitehead registers a number of objections to Sekunda’s interpretation of this stone, he assumes with Sekunda, and I think rightly so, that this inscription is an honorary decree for the gymnasiarkhos of Aiantis listed in the second column to the right of the lampadepheroi. Pickard-Cambridge 2003, 89.

104

chapter 4

Although the practice of young citizen benefactors spending their private resources for the public good was not entirely new, the creation of the ephebeia offered a new setting for wealthy young citizens to offer private benefaction, perhaps as a means of reinvigorating the public spirit of the old democracy that Isokrates idealized (e.g., 7.24), which seemed to be a goal of the Lykourgan Age. The institution also formalized participation by new citizens in the religious life of the state, thereby contributing to the reorganization of the rites and the elaboration and adornment of state festivals that characterized this period. 3

The Khlamys as a Symbol of Membership in the Ephebeia

Before concluding this chapter, it seems appropriate to discuss the meaning of the ephebic khlamys, the quintessential symbol of a young man’s membership in the organization described above. [Aristotle] mentions that ephebes wore the khlamys during the two years they served as guards at Peiraieus and in the countryside (Ath. Pol. 42.5). The khlamys was a short cloak worn around the neck or draped over the shoulder and fastened by a fibula.77 It was essentially a traveling garment (Aristoph. Lys. 987) worn by soldiers (Plut. Phil. 11.2), horsemen (Xen. Anab. 7.4.4), generals (Plut. Perikl. 35), kings (Plut. Demetr. 42), and hunters of all ages.78 Its close association with members of the military provides a clear link between the khlamys and the new citizens undergoing military training and service who wore it. It is unclear whether or not the state issued the khlamys and petasos, a broad-brimmed traveler’s hat later associated with ephebes, but this scenario is likely.79 If so, these garments would have been distributed (by the sophronistes?) at the beginning of their first year of service, unlike the spear and shield, which was distributed at the beginning of the second year of training and service, directly following their display of training by tribal taxeis (Ath. Pol. 42.4). In addition to serving a practical function, the khlamys distinguished the ephebes as a body from the rest of the Athenians and contributed to their shared sense of identity. As Gauthier observes, by the third century BCE expressions of donning and doffing the khlamys referred respectively to the commencement and

77  78  79 

Isidore Orig. 19.24.2; Ovid Met. 14.393, 394; Suet. Tib. 6. Barringer 2001. The petasos is a type of broad-brimmed hat. Cf. Anth. Pal. 6.282, 12.78, 12.161. See also Shuppe 1937.

Organization

105

termination of a young man’s training and service in the ephebeia.80 This is illustrated by a passage from the philosopher Teles that describes the young man who is anxious “to lay aside the khlamys” (τὸ χλαµύδιον ἀποθέσθαι), i.e., cease being an ephebe.81 The playwright Philemon, a contemporary of Teles, indicates the end of one’s ephebate by laying down the khlamys and petasos.82 Expressions such as this may also be found in funerary epigrams mourning the death of young men. For instance, Hekataios son of Hekataios of Kalkhedon is said to have died “while not having yet set aside his ephebic khlamys” (οὔπω ἐφειβήην θηκάµενος χλαµύδα).83 Elsewhere, Leonteus son of Eurydikos of Aigiale was 18 years of age when he departed for Hades “hardly from the khlamys” (ἄρτι ἐκ χλαµύδος), i.e., having barely completed his ephebeia.84 Similar language exists that symbolizes the beginning of the year of service, too. In a fragment of the Leading Dancer, the Athenian dramatist Antidotos reports that young men “underwent enrollment and took up the khlamys” (ἐγγραφῆναι καὶ λαβεῖν τὸ χλαµύδιον), i.e., joined the ephebeia upon enrollment.85 T6.10, a decree of 203/2 BCE honoring the ephebes who served in the previous year, provides additional information, demonstrating that by the late third century ephebes are attested as removing their khlamydes during their “exit” ceremony (ἐξιτήρια or ἐξιτητήρια) they performed once they completed their year of training and service. ἀκολούθως δὲ ταῖς ἐγγρα[φαῖς ἐν ἀκροπόλει εὐδόξως τ]ὰ ἐξιτητήρια παρασκευάζονται ποιεῖν ἵνα [τὰ ὅπλα αὐτῶν παρέχωσιν µετὰ] πάσης εὐκοσµίας καθάπερ καὶ τὰς χλαµύδας…. and in a manner conforming to registration they [i.e., the ephebes] prepare to make their exit ceremony in order to [deposit their weapons on the Akropolis with all] good order as well as their khlamydes….

80  81  82  83  84  85 

Gauthier 1985, 154–7; id. 1986, 15–16. Teles (third century BCE) 42: “…τὸ χλαµύδιον ἀποθέσθαι.” The term ἀποτίθηµι may be a play on words, for in addition “to set aside,” it can also mean “to avoid.” Philemon fr. 32 K-A: ἐγὼ γὰρ ὡς τὴν χλαµύδα κατεθέµην ποτὲ καὶ πέτασον…. I.Kalchedon, no. 32 (Hellenistic). See also Gauthier 1986, 15–16. Peek 1955, no. 48 (first century BCE). Antidotos fr. 2 K-A (=Athen. 5.240b) (second half of the fourth to the beginning of the third century BCE).

106

chapter 4

References to this “exit” ceremony do not appear in the extant evidence of the Lykourgan Period and are only occasionally attested in the epigraphic sources of the Hellenistic Age. During this ceremony, the ephebes ended their year of training and service on the Akropolis by making sacrifices to Athena Polias, Kourotrophos and Pandrosos and taking the omens (T9.2 lines 5–7). The appearance of the expression “in a manner conforming to enrollment” (ἀκολούθως δὲ ταῖς ἐγγραφαῖς) refers to events connected with their “entrance” ceremony (ἐισιτήρια or ἐισιτητήρια) that the ephebes performed along with their kosmetes and other officials inside the Prytaneion at the beginning of their year of training and service (e.g., T7.13 line 86, T8.14 lines 6, 58). As noted above, the earliest evidence for the “entrance” ceremony is found in documents from the Hellenistic Period. In light of the fragment of Antidotos, the comparison between these two ceremonies in the lines above indicates that Athenian ephebes officially took up the khlamys upon their enrollment during this entrance ceremony at the beginning of their training. Thus, by the third century BCE the khlamys was regarded as the “uniform” of the Athenian ephebe and marked the young man clad in this garment as a member of the institution.86 According to earlier scholars, however, the significance of the khlamys lay in its perceived role in symbolizing the transition of young Athenian males from boyhood to manhood. A decree from the Roman Period honoring Herodes Attikos states that the black khlamydes of the ephebes memorialized the fact that Theseus failed to change the black sails of his ship to white on his return journey from Krete.87 These scholars regard the figure of Theseus as an ephebe himself, the archetype of the historical ephebes of the fourth century BCE, and the avatar of this period of transition that young Athenians undergo.88 Classical vase paintings, they believe, confirm this connection, for they depict scenes of the young Theseus wearing a khlamys and petasos as he undertakes his many exploits during his travels around the Saronic Gulf or in Krete on his journey to manhood. 86  87 

88 

Although originating in Athens, the khlamys was universally adopted as the symbol of the ephebeia outside Athens as the institution proliferated throughout the Greek world. See Chankowski 2010, 300–305. Roussel 1941 on IG II2 3606 (176 CE) lines 18–22. Cf. Philostrat. Vit. Soph. 2.550, who reports that the black khlamys was a sign of mourning for Kopreos whom the Athenians killed as he tried to drag the sons of Herakles away from the altar. IG II2 2090 (165/6 CE) lines 5–11 declares that the ephebes wear white khlamydes during the day in which a procession was made to Eleusis. Jeanmaire 1939, 307–10; Vidal-Naquet 1986, 112; Sourvinou-Inwood 1987, 135; Edmunds 1990, 397; Strauss 1993, 105–6; Walker 1995, 94–6; Barringer 2001, 52. According Jeanmaire 1939, 245, the myth of Theseus was “the story of the Athenian ephebe system.” Cf. Calame 1990, 190, 432–5.

Organization

107

Although the figure of Theseus is demoted in his Black Hunter model, Vidal-Naquet believed that the ephebes wore black khlamydes to commemorate the trick of the youthful Melanthos (“The Black One”) in defeating the Theban king Xanthos (“The Fair One”). The story of Melanthos’ trick (apate), Vidal-Naquet maintained, was an aetiological myth for the Apatouria, a festival that marked a youth’s entry into his father’s phratry. Melanthos played his trick along the Attic-Boiotian border, the traditional haunt of the historical ephebes. This region, Vidal-Naquet believed, represented a liminal space, a wild, desolate area empty of social order. By combining this myth with Spartan and Kretan rites of passage together with certain passages in Plato and Xenophon on hunting, Vidal-Naquet put forth a paradigm of ephebic behavior based on initiatory hunting. As against hoplites, i.e., adult male Athenians who hunted large game in groups with spears during the day, the ephebe was a transitional figure who hunted small game alone at night using snares and traps. These fifth century ephebes, whom Vidal-Naquet called “Black Hunters,” regarded Melanthos as a prototype of their behavior and the black khlamydes worn by ephebes of the fourth century recalled the color black in the myth.89 The association of the ephebeia with rites of passage will be taken up more fully in Chapter 9, but a few observations regarding this topic vis-à-vis the khlamys will suffice here. The most pertinent point is that ephebes were already citizens before undergoing their period of training and service, as discussed in Chapter 1. Thus, the association of the ephebeia with rites of passage and the characterization of the ephebe as a figure in transition from boyhood to manhood are unfounded. In fact, when an ephebe donned the khlamys, he wore it as the youngest member of adult Athenian males. As Chapter 2 illustrated, the ephebeia was a Lykourgan creation and the term ephebe made its first appearance in the extant literary sources of the fourth century. This chapter established that its organization was based on tribal taxeis within the familiar structures of the Athenian military. As the following chapter will demonstrate, when these young men wore the khlamys, they never hunted alone in liminal areas bereft of social order, but trained and served as guards and patrollers with hundreds of other ephebes in or near heavily populated demes. Moreover, as noted above, other adults performing different functions also wore the khlamys. Maxwell-Stuart’s study of this garment reveals that references to the black 89 

Vidal-Naquet 1986, 106–28. See Lambert 1993, 144–52 who reasonably disassociates the Melanthos myth from the Apatouria and the ephebeia and provides a critique of Vidal-Naquet’s Black Hunter thesis from his research into Athenian phratries. Although she agrees with Vidal-Naquet’s assumption that a fifth century ephebate existed in Athens, Berringer 2001, 46–69, rejects his opposition between hoplite and ephebe and the notions that hunting was initiatory and served as military training.

108

chapter 4

cloak discussed by Roussel and Vidal-Naquet appear only once in the extant evidence, i.e., IG II2 3606, discussed above.90 Nor does Aristotle’s brief mention of the khlamys indicate whether it was black or some other color. Thus, although the ephebes were wearing black khlamydes at some point in the Roman Period, there is no reason to believe this was the case for nearly 400 years of the institution’s history prior to the publication of this decree.91 As to mythological archetypes, there is no direct evidence linking Melanthos and the ephebes, but there is an explicit connection between the ephebes and Theseus. This connection appears in later documents and is of a much different character than Jeanmaire and others thought. Leaving aside the aetiology for black khlamydes discussed by Roussel, the only other extant document for this association appears in a protreptic speech delivered to the ephebes during the Theseia of 184/5 CE by P. Aelius Isokhrysos, the gymnasiarkhos, agonothetes and leader of the ephebes. The subject of this speech was Theseus’ strength or courage (ἀλκή). Isokhrysos reminded the ephebes of the deeds of Theseus, perhaps comparing him with Hadrian (line 31: the οἰκιστὴς τῶν Ἀθηνῶν), and urged them to follow the hero’s example. This text provides not only a better understanding of the role of orations in the celebration of the Theseia in the Roman Period, but the part played by myth in the moral instruction of ephebes.92 Based on the limited evidence available, therefore, it seems that the figure of Theseus was not a symbol for a period of transition from boyhood to manhood, but served as a moral exemplar for new citizens. As noted in the previous chapter, Athenians regarded Theseus as a model of self-mastery (σωφροσύνη), a virtue that the Athenians wished to habituate in their young men. Thus, if the Athenians consciously decided to dress up their new citizens in the garment of the city’s youthful founder, this decision was made as a means of furthering the overall goals of socializing the ephebes and developing their moral character, which lay at the heart of the ephebeia. 90  91 

92 

Maxwell-Stuart, 1970; Roussel 1941; Vidal-Naquet 1968. Cf. Artemidoros 1.54, who reports ephebic khlamydes as white, black and crimson. Further, a grey khlamys appears as a dedication at the Athenian Asklepeion. See Aleshire 1989, 127 III (before 341–329 BCE) line 18 (= IG II2 1533). As Berringer 2001, 52, points out, “one cannot tell the intended color of the chlamydes on Attic vases so the analogy to the black chlamydes of the fourth century ephebes cannot be proved.” Chaniotis 1988, T17 (IG II2 2291 A). See Follet and Peppas Delmousou, 2000, 11–17, who joined IG II2 2291 A and IG II2 1125, a fragment formerly regarded as an imperial constitution. Other encomia of this nature are Chaniotis 1988, T10 (IG II2 2788, a second century oration addressing the propompeia at the Eleutheria), T18 (IG II2 2291B, a roughly contemporary speech praising Athens), and Petrakos 1997, no. 301 (c. 335–322 BCE). The texts in Chaniotis are all connected with the ephebeia; that in Petrakos is unclear.

Organization

4

109

Conclusion

The creation of the ephebeia in the Age of Lykourgos represented a significant break with earlier Athenian practices, specifically, leaving the responsibility for military training in the hands of private citizens. Athenians founded a twoyear institution designed to accustom these young men to discipline (εὐταξία), orderly behavior (σωφροσύνη, κοσµιότης), and in obeying the commands of magistrates and officials and following the laws (πειθαρχία). Chief among the officials responsible for the care of the ephebes were the tribal sophronistai and the kosmetes. Since this institution overlapped with that of Athens’ military organization, the ephebes necessarily fell under the supervision of certain specialized strategoi. This new institution also created opportunities for new citizens to assume military leadership in the taxeis, the tribal regiments of ephebes. Some of these young men served as ephebic officials such as the ephebic taxiarkhoi and lokhagoi within the organization of the ephebic tribe. Many of these positions were likely occupied by young members of the Athenian elite, such as Habron, the son of Lykourgos, who later assumed positions of leadership among the Athenians in their later adult years.93 The ephebeia also served as a venue for wealthier ephebes to demonstrate their philotimia, such as funding torch-races at athletic contests during the celebration of important state or local festivals. The tribal nature of their organization had certain intangible benefits that went beyond military considerations and helped develop a sense of tribal identity among their newest members. By sharing the same quarters whether they were at Peiraieus or in the countryside fortresses, each ephebe of a tribal taxis witnessed that he was being treated equitably, which thereby removed any pretext of discrimination that may lead him to shirk his duties. Two years of sharing the same barracks acquainted each member with the rest (Xen. Kyr. 2.1.25) and training and serving together made them more reasonable or gentler toward one another (2.1.29). In this way, tribal taxeis of ephebes developed feelings of respect toward one another (αἰσχύνη), creating strong horizontal bonds of camaraderie and friendship across their age class, not just vertical connections with the other, older members of their tribe. This new sense of shared identity was further strengthened by wearing the khlamys, which marked their membership in the institution and created cohesion among the ephebes, and by sharing a common mess (Ath. Pol. 42.3), which encouraged the ephebes not to abandon one another in carrying out their duties (Xen. Kyr. 2.1.28). 93 

Habron: T1.19 col. I line 8. He later served as treasurer of the stratiotic fund in 306/5 BCE (IG II2 1492 lines 123–4).

chapter 5

Paideia Thus far, our exploration into the Lykourgan ephebeia has been concerned with the organization of this newly established institution—its principal officials who provided supervision over age classes of ephebes and the role the ephebes themselves played within its hierarchy. This chapter addresses the military training and service of the ephebes. What outcomes did the Athenians of the Lykourgan Age expect from their newest citizens and youngest warriors? Many scholars believe that the purpose of ephebic training was to prepare a new generation of hoplites, and so the training that the ephebes underwent was hoplite in nature. The gifting of an aspis (round shield) and doru (spear) (Ath. Pol. 42.4), the two main pieces of hoplite equipment, have reinforced this impression. In fact, however, ephebic training consisted of non-hoplite forms of military instruction. Although training in weapons handling formed an important part of their education, the instruction that they received was designed for the specific military services that the ephebes provided, namely, guarding Peiraieus and patrolling the Athenian countryside. This chapter explores the service of the ephebes from a number of angles. First it attempts to more fully establish the setting of their service as guards at Peiraieus and as patrollers at the countryside fortresses and to determine with greater detail what their service consisted of beyond what the Ath.Pol. briefly outlines. In order to better understand how the ephebes carried out their military duties, it surveys relevant archaeological, epigraphical, and literary evidence, especially the field manual of Aineias the Tactician on how to survive a siege, which has much to say on guarding and related topics. This chapter also discusses the benefits, risks and hazards of assigning such a responsibility to the youngest members of a political community. Further, it seeks to better determine what their service was ultimately designed to achieve militarily and how it fit into Athens’ overall defensive policy. Finally, from the framework of their service, this chapter reviews the nature of their instruction, the role and responsibilities of their instructors, and the setting of their training. 1

Ephebic Military Service

At the beginning of their first year of service, the ephebes traveled to Peiraieus, where some guarded Mounikhia and others Akte (Ath. Pol. 42.4: εἶτ᾽ εἰς Πειραιέα πορεύονται, καὶ φρουροῦσιν οἱ µὲν τὴν Μουνιχίαν, οἱ δὲ τὴν Ἀκτήν). The Peiraieus

Paideia

111

was Athens’ main port town, located on a peninsula in the Saronic Gulf about eight kilometers southwest of Athens on the western coast of Attike. The peninsula extends nearly four kilometers in length and is composed of two land masses joined by an isthmus. At its northeast end stands Mounikhia, a large hill rising to a height of nearly 60 meters, which overlooks Mounikhia Port to the south. On the southwest side of the Peiraieus stands Akte, a large limestone plateau which reaches a height of nearly 86 meters. Peiraieus consists of three harbors: 1) the Megas Limen (ancient Kantharos), which lies on the western side of the peninsula; 2) Zea Port, which lies on the southern end; and 3) Mounikhia Port, the smallest of the three, which is located on the southeastern side. A substantial fortress existed at Mounikhia. A large fortification wall extended nearly all around the peninsula. Towers of six meters in length flanked the wall every 50–60 meters.1 The Athenians assigned two generals over Peiraieus, one to oversee Mounikhia and the other Akte. They supervised the watch (φυλακῆς ἐπιµελοῦνται) and took care of those who inhabited Peiraieus, both the citizens and the large foreign population living there.2 Six honorary decrees demonstrate that the ephebes were under the generals’s supervision already in the 330s and 320s.3 Pélékidis believed that the ephebes were divided into two groups consisting of five tribal regiments each and deployed to Mounikhia and Akte.4 These would have served under one of the two generals. This arrangement implies that up to 250 to 300 young Athenians garrisoned these two fortresses at a time. It may have been the case that two or more tribal regiments of ephebes served garrison duty simultaneously (one or more at each fortress). As will be discussed below, it is also possible that a subset of lokhoi from all ten tribes was active at a given time guarding specific areas, such as sections of the wall assigned by tribe, while the rest received military instruction from trainers assigned to them by the Athenian people. Why did the Athenians believe that Peiraieus required a large contingent of guards? Unfortunately, the Ath. Pol. is silent and the lack of epigraphical and archaeological data from Peiraieus for this period hampers investigation. The field manual of Aineias the Tactician mentions that poleis employed guards both in defending their ports and preparing harbors against potential 1  Garland 1987, 7–9, 147, 160. 2  Ath. Pol. 61.1: δύο δ᾽ ἐπὶ τὸν Πειραιέα, τὸν µὲν εἰς τὴν Μουνιχίαν, τὸν δ᾽ εἰς τὴν Ἀκτήν, οἳ τῆς φυλακῆς ἐπιµελοῦνται καὶ τῶν ἐν Πειραιεῖ. 3  General of Peiraieus: T1.4 (333/2) lines 4–5, T1.8 (333/2–332/1 BCE) lines 1–4, T1.9 (332/1 BCE) line 4, T1.10 (332/1 BCE) line 10, T1.11 (332/1) col. II lines 9–11, T1.21 (329/8 BCE) right side lines col. I lines 2–5; General of Akte: T1.21 (329/8 BCE) right side lines col. II lines 2–6; General of Mounikhia: Din. 3.1; generals of both Mounikhia and Akte: Ath. Pol. 61.1. 4  Pélékidis 1962, 114.

112

chapter 5

invasion (11.3), both of which were subjects of his lost work, Preparations (8.1). In general, a large port such as Peiraieus served a vital role in the economy of any city-state. Peiraieus was an emporium, facilitating the export of Athenian goods to the rest of the Greek world and the import of commodities delivered from abroad, especially grain from the Athenian kleurkhies, the Bosporos, and regions in the Adriatic. Akte overlooked Kantharos harbor and the trading and naval facilities located there. Both forts oversaw the large population of foreigners who lived in Peiraieus, drawn to her shores by the opportunities of international trade. Since the tyranny of the Peisistratids, Athenians understood the strategic significance of Peiraieus, which was an infrequent target of hostile forces in the late fifth and fourth centuries BCE.5 Control of Peiraieus by a foreign power could deny Athenians access to their port, their navy and naval facilities, prevent the free movement of goods in and out of the harbors, and thereby compel Athenian obedience and loyalty, as the citizens of early Hellenistic Athens learned only too well. During the revolt of 286 BCE, Macedonians stationed in Peiraieus resorted to raiding the countryside to starve the rebellious Athenians into submission (SEG 28.60 lines 23–27). In a period of Macedonian domination, Athenians regarded the recovery of Mounikhia from the Macedonian garrison stationed there as synonymous with achieving freedom and autonomy. Peiraieus was more than a major commercial center tethering Athens to the rest of the Aegean world. It also played a major role in the defense of Attike. For, in addition to the fortifications at Mounikhia and Akte, the port was surrounded by massive defensive walls built originally by Themistokles and later repaired and expanded by Konon with the financial support of the Persian king.6 After their defeat at Khaironeia, the Athenians strengthened and repaired the walls of Peiraieus.7 The fortifications of Peiraieus were linked to the circuit walls of Athens through the Long Walls and together formed the Athens-Peiraieus defensive complex. The Long Walls were critical, for they protected the main road stretching from Peiraieus to a gate in the city wall between Pynx Hill and Mouseion Hill through which Athens was accessed. During times of siege, this road alone linked the harbor directly with the administrative center in Athens and facilitated the secure transportation of goods shipped to Attike into the city. Along with the fortified demes in the khora, Peiraieus and Athens provided 5  E.g. Thuc. 2.93–4; Xen. Hell. 5.1.22; Polyain. Strat. 6.2.2; D.S. 20.45ff. 6  Themistokles: Thuc. 1.93. Konon: Xen. Hell. 4.8.9–10; D.S. 14.85.1–3; Nep. Con. 4; IG II2 1662–1664. 7  A distinction should be made between the work on the walls directly following Khaironeia, in which the Athenians hastily dug trenches and erected palisades (Lyk. 1.44 and Aiskhin. 3.236) and the more systematic work on the walls, including those at Peiraieus, the following year, as attested by Aiskhin. 3.14, 23, 27–28, 31 and IG II2 244.

Paideia

113

refuge for those living there and for citizens and others dwelling nearby, should Attike suffer invasion (Dem. 18.37–8). Given its location at the head of the Long Walls, the fortress at Mounikhia controlled access from Peiraieus to Athens. It also provided a base of operations for peripoloi who patrolled the hinterland (Thuc. 8.92.5). Mounikhia commanded the seaward approach to the harbors and the traffic from Sounion and the Cyclades. In addition to its proximity to the city, Peiraieus oversaw the nearby island of Salamis, an important strategic territory for the Athenians. Peiraieus was also the seat of the Athenian fleet and naval installations. After Khaironeia, the Athenians strengthened their navy, which necessitated expanding the harbor facilities located there. According to the decree of Stratokles, Lykourgos made 400 triremes seaworthy—some he outfitted, others he built.8 Epigraphical evidence reports that the Athenian navy consisted of 349 triremes in 353/2 BCE. By 325/4 BCE, they had increased this number to 417. Athens expanded its fleet not only by including more triremes, but by adding 50 larger quadriremes and seven quinqueremes.9 The Athenians were compelled to undertake construction of them, in part, to address the threat of pirates to the city’s grain supply.10 Athenians were also alert to the possibility of Macedonian interference with the grain route and had to dispatch one hundred triremes under Menestheus after the Macedonians seized Athens’ grain fleet returning from the Black Sea at Tenedos in 332/1 BCE ([Dem.] 17.19–20). To keep the fleet in a state of readiness, Lykourgos expanded the number of shipsheds at Peiraieus to provide dry storage and covered shelter for Athenian warships. He also completed the arsenal of Philon in Peiraieus, a naval storage facility that measured 138 meters and was intended to store rigging, sails, rope and other equipment for Athenian warships.11 The architect Philon, from whom the complex received its name, had begun the arsenal in 347/6 BCE under Euboulos, but Khaironeia interrupted its construction. Lykourgos brought it to completion probably in 330/29 BCE.12 8  9  10 

11  12 

[Plut]. Mor. 841c–d, 852c; Hyp. fr. 118 (Sauppe); and Paus. 1.29.16. Ashton 1979, 237–42. Morrison 1987, 88–97. Jordan 1972, 158–9; Casson 1971, 97–9; and Morrison and Williams 1968, 235–6, 290–1. Evidence for brigandage during this period takes the form of maritime piracy: Athenian generals are honored for protecting grain ships against pirates (IG II2 1623 lines 276–280; [Plut]. Mor. 844a; IG II/IIi3 1, 336 and 339; IG II2 1628 lines 37–42). Athenians established a colony on the Adriatic to protect trade and grain transportation from Etruscan pirates (IG II2 1629 lines 217ff.; IG II/IIi3 1, 370). Aiskhin. 3.25; Din. 1.96; IG II2 1627 (330/29 BCE) lines 398–405. Philokhor. FGrHist 328 F 135; IG II2 505 (347/6 BCE); IG II2 1627 (330/29 BCE) lines 288, 292. For other sources on the arsenal, see Plut. Sulla 14.7; Vitr. 7.12; Pliny Nat. Hist. 7.38.1; Appian Mithrid. 41; IG II2 1668.

114

chapter 5

During their first year of service, the ephebes guarded these two regions of Peiraieus. Assigning guard duty to young men was not uncommon in ancient Greece. For example, Aineias’ manual encouraged military leaders to select the strongest of the young men as sentries, since they would be ready for sallies, patrols, relieving the hard-pressed, and similar activities, should their polis be under siege (1.8). In the Wasps, Aristophanes has his khoros of old Athenians recollect their military service as guards at Byzantion when they were young men (ἥβη) (235–7). Similarly, in the Birds, the young Patraloias receives arms, as though he were an orphan bird, and is encouraged to campaign with the army (στρατεύου) and serve as a guard (φρούρει) (1367). At the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, the oldest (πρεσβυτάτων) and the youngest (νεωτάτων) citizens guarded the walls and the fortresses along with hoplite metics, while the main Athenian army prepared to campaign elsewhere (Thuc. 2.13.6–7).13 The oldest citizens were not called upon to campaign because their great age had made them weak. Thucydides implies that young men were linked with performing guard duty because they were the least useful (ἀχρειότατοι) in war, by which he most likely meant that as the youngest warriors they were not only the weakest, but unlike the oldest citizens, they were also the least experienced and knowledgeable in war (Thuc. 1.93).14 Theoretical treatises also associate guarding as a military activity suitable for youth. For instance, Plato assigns the task of guarding his ideal state to young men between the ages of 25 and 30 (Leg. 760a–e).15 Xenophon’s fictional ephebes passed the night guarding his utopian Persian polis (Kyr. 1.2.4, 9). In his discussion on the sorts of officials required for the proper organization of any city-state, Aristotle notes the unpopularity of those magistrates responsible for executing sentences and guarding prisoners and the corresponding difficulty that existed in finding suitable candidates to serve in this capacity (Pol. 1321b–1322a). One solution he offers is using young men (τῶν νέων) to 13 

14 

15 

Thucydides uses these same age categories earlier in his history (1.105.3–4), in which the oldest and youngest campaigned against the Korinthians during the first Peloponnesian War (458 BCE). Their use here was irregular, but necessary, since the main Athenian hoplite force was serving in far away Egypt (1.105.3). Thucydides writes that Themistokles wished the walls of Peiraieus to be so thick and tall that a small contingent of men most unsuitable (ἀχρειοτάτων) for war could guard them, leaving the rest to serve in the fleet (1.93.6; cf. 2.6.4). The ἀχρειότατοι were the oldest and the youngest Athenians who would later serve as guards along the walls, including a force at Peiraieus that only guarded half of the walls there (2.23.7). Xen. Hipparkh. 7.6–7 says that cowardly soldiers should be assigned guard duty (ὁ γὰρ φόβος δεινὸς δοκεῖ συµφύλαξ εἶναι). Old men are useless because they lack strength. See Euripid. Herakl. 680–701. Plato describes this youthful guard as τὸν ἡβῶντα (763b) and among the νέοι (760c, 762d), demonstrating clearly that the former term applies to those of military age.

Paideia

115

fulfill the latter service, wherever there is a regiment of ephebes or guards.16 Note that the φρουροί (guards) in this passage are assumed by the author to be νέοι (young men). This passage further assumes that ephebes also performed guard duty, something Aristotle most likely observed while living and teaching in Athens. What did guard duty entail? Unfortunately, no work survives describing the regular service of φρουροί. Some evidence appears in the field manual of Aineias, who recommends certain dispositions for guards to better defend a city-state when it is under assault by foreign invaders. Aineias does not refer to the guards as φρουροί, but generally as φύλακες, “the watch/guards.” In one case, the guard is called a ῥύµη or “force” of men under the command of the ῥυµάρχης (3.4). He indicates elsewhere that regiments of guards were organized by lokhoi under the command of lokhagoi and taxiarkhoi (1.5, 22.29, 27.12), just as Athenian ephebes in the Lykourgan Period were organized. By whatever name they were called, the watch was assigned specific sections of the walls based on tribal membership (3.1–2). It is likely therefore that tribal regiments of ephebes guarding Peiraieus were stationed along specific sections of the defensive walls and towers at Mounikhia and Akte, with numerically larger tribes guarding longer stretches of wall.17 Their common mess (συσσίτιον) may have been organized near these guard posts (Aristot. Pol. 1331a20). Aineias recommends that large contingents of guards serve at night, so that as many as possible can keep active watch (22.5a), and that the length of watches not be kept too long, so that guards will not fall asleep (22.6). The use of water clocks ensured that watches fell equally and fairly on all (22.24–25). Guards should walk from station to station, moving at the same time and patrolling only short distances (22.9–10), or facing one another so as to see in all directions (22.11). Aineias writes that guards should also be located at public places in the city, such as the theater, agora, or other open areas where potential conspirators or revolutionaries might gather (1.9, 2.1–2, 2.7–8, 3.5, 22.15). Thus, the ephebes may have also been stationed in the theater of Dionysos on the western slope 16  17 

Pol. 1322a25: διὸ δεῖ µὴ µίαν ἀποτεταγµένην ἀρχὴν εἶναι πρὸς αὐτούς, µηδὲ συνεχῶς τὴν αὐτήν, ἀλλὰ τῶν τε νέων, ὅπου τις ἐφήβων ἢ φρουρῶν ἔστι τάξις,… Aineias indicates that Argos (11.8) and Pontic Herakleia (11.10a) carried out guard duty by tribes. In his treatise on civic defense, Philon of Byzantion states that towns should be divided into civic divisions and each should be assign a stretch of the city wall to defend. See Garlan 1973, 20–2. This system is attested in Hellenistic Smyrna (SEG 5.627–8) and Stratonikeia in Karia (SEG 44.917). For further discussion, see Ma 2000, 339–43. Such a system is not directly attested at Athens, but tribes were responsible for the maintenance of specific sections of wall (Aiskhin. 3.14, 23, 27–8, 31). Given the tribal nature of the ephebeia, it is likely that guard duty was carried out along the lines that Aineias and Philon recommend.

116

chapter 5

of Mounikhia Hill and the emporium at Kantharos harbor, as well as important military buildings and structures, such as the arsenal of Philon located between both Mounikhia and Akte, the towers erected upon fortified quays flanking narrow harbor entrances, and the shipsheds in Kantharos, Zea and Mounikhia harbors. As guards of Athens’ port, the ephebes policed the movement of people and commodities in and out of Peiraieus and controlled access to the upper city. The remains of gate complexes in the circuit wall provide some indication as to how this was accomplished. For instance, between the north-east end of the great harbor and Mounikhia stood the primary gate flanked by two large towers in which the road to Athens wound upward toward the city. The gate itself was at such a distance from the ancient port that those approaching Peiraieus were for a long time in plain sight of ephebes and others standing guard (Ain. Takt. 28.1). In times of military crisis, these gates would have remained closed and only briefly opened after the region had been thoroughly reconnoitered, perhaps by patrollers stationed at Mounikhia (Thuc. 8.92.5). As large quantities of goods passed by wagon through the gates, ephebes would have inspected the load (Ain. Takt. 28.4) for the secret importation of weapons (29.1–12). There was at this gate a small side door through which foot traffic passed oneby-one or in small numbers. By using such narrow passages, a deserter or a spy would not escape notice of the watch (28.2). 160 meters east of this gate stood a double gate, by which two gate complexes formed a square, closed-in court. If an enemy had forced their way through the initial gate, they would have been stopped by the second, and then cut down by the missiles fired from above by the ephebes and other defenders. In whatever way the watch was arranged at Peiraieus, the ephebes would have learned how to communicate visually among themselves and other members of the Athenian military. For instance, they would have been trained in using prearranged signals to determine friend from foe (Ain. Takt. 4.5, 7.4) and to mark the arrival of an approaching enemy using lanterns (22.21–22). The ephebes would have used dogs tethered outside the walls to detect the approach of enemies, especially at night (22.14).18 They would have most likely learned how to communicate visually with the patrollers stationed in smaller forts or lookout towers in the sightlines of Mounikhia (7.2). These forts would have included the rubble towers at Vari-Anagyrous and Atene to the south, which served as part of the signaling system between Sounion and Peiraieus and communicated the arrival of an enemy fleet, or the naval station 18 

I.Rhamnous no.3 lines 14–15; no. 161 line 9, Vegetius 4.26, and Plut. Arat. 24.1. See also Ain. Takt. 22.20, 23.2, 24.18, 38.2–3.

Paideia

117

at Boudoron on Salamis, which was in visual communication with Peiraieus (Thuc. 2.93–4; D.S. 12.49.2–5). Since they were responsible for the success of the watch, the generals of Peiraieus would have set in place safety measures to determine whether or not an ephebe had abandoned his post (22.27–9) or had fallen asleep while on duty (26.13–14). Little more can be said of their first year of service. In what way did the ephebes serve in their second year? After they completed a display of their military training (apodeixis) before the Athenian ekklesia and received a shield (aspis) and spear (doru), the ephebes patrolled the countryside and passed their time in the border fortresses (Ath. Pol. 42.4: περιπολοῦσι τὴν χώραν καὶ διατρίβουσιν ἐν τοῖς φυλακτηρίοις). Since the countryside was the economic backbone of every Greek community and an important source of revenue, food, and resources, guarding the countryside was a perennial concern of its citizens.19 This is illustrated by the fact that once a month at every principal meeting of the ekklesia the Athenians met to discuss the grain supply and the defense of the countryside (Ath. Pol. 43.4). To this end, cities militarized their territories through a system of fortresses, which were built near distant settlements in or near fertile plains.20 The Athenians built strongholds near the northern border, which were accessed via roads leading from the city. Through the strategic placement of its fortresses and the regular patrols of peripoloi Athenian citizens extended their control over the countryside, ensuring the internal security of the communities living there, the exploitation of agriculture and other resources, and commerce among demes and with neighboring states along the network of roads stretching into and out of Attike. [Aristotle], however, does not name the fortresses in which the ephebes were stationed nor does he elucidate the relationship between these strongholds and the activities of the peripoloi. Where were these fortresses? How did the Athenians use them to carry out their defense of the land? What role did the patrols by ephebes play in this defensive policy? Epigraphical evidence from the Lykourgan Period attests that tribal regiments of ephebes were stationed at four garrisons: Eleusis, Panakton, Phyle, and Rhamnous. Eleusis is situated in the Thriasian Plain on the southern shore of the Bay of Salamis near the territory of Megara.21 T1.3, T1.9, and T1.13 firmly place the ephebes at Eleusis in their second year of service. Best known 19  20  21 

Chaniotis 2008, 105. Ma 2000, 341. By contrast, farm towers were used by small, rural households to withstand low level, peace-time brigandage. See Pritchett 1991, 352–8. On the fortress at Eleusis, see Travlos 1949, 138–47; Mylonas 1961, 106–11, 124–5, 130–6; Ober 1985, 178–9; Munn 1992, 7 with n. 8 for further bibliography.

118

chapter 5

for the Greater Mysteries which were celebrated in the Telesterion within its walls, Eleusis was a fortified deme and served as a major Athenian garrison. It watched over the Thriasian plain, the northern coast of the island of Salamis, and the head of the Bay of Salamis. The circuit walls of Eleusis were first erected during the sixth century and rebuilt and expanded in the fifth and fourth centuries, facts which testify to the importance of the site. Expeditionary forces en route to Boiotia or the Peloponnese regularly mustered at Eleusis and in the Hellenistic period this fortress became the headquarters for the general of the countryside.22 Eleusis offers vital clues as to the role of countryside strongholds in the defense of the khora. For instance, Eleusis along with the other fortresses was a place of refuge for members of local communities whenever Attike was under assault by an invading army (Dem. 18.38). Eleusis was a base of operations to attack enemy forces raiding the nearby countryside (Paus. 1.26.3). Soldiers stationed at Eleusis protected the farmers who grew and harvested crops in the plain. They also policed the route to and from Megara, one of the busiest of the six major roads leading into and out of Attike. In addition to moving troops and supplies in times of war, the road facilitated trade among a dozen or so demes, including the busy market at Eleusis.23 The road had religious significance, too, for it was the route used by participants in the Mysteries and connected two major sanctuaries of Apollo and Aphrodite with Athens. T1.15, T1.23, and T1.24 demonstrate that ephebes were stationed at Panakton, a fortress located almost due north of Eleusis on the Attic-Boiotian border between the Parnes and Kithairon ranges. Panakton overlooks the Skourta plain to the north and east, the Mazi plain to the west, and portions of the Thriasian plain to the south. An Athenian guard could also see the Kerata, Mazi, Velatouri, Plakoto, Tsoukrati and Limiko towers, as well as the principal land route about three kilometers away from the fortress.24 The pottery assemblage and masonry styles suggest that the Athenians first built the fortress at Panakton a decade or so before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. During the war, the Boiotians captured and partially destroyed the fortress 22  23  24 

Thuc. 4.68.5, Xen. Hell. 7.5.15, Dem. 18.177, 184. Munn 1992, 7; Fachard and Pirisino 2015, 145. I.Eleusis 196 (235/4 BCE) lines 66ff. honors the general Aristophanes for protecting the grain harvest and defense of the countryside during the Demetrian War. Ober 1985, 178–9. For Panakton, see Vanderpool 1979, 231–6; Ober 1985, 152–4, 224–5; Munn 1992, 7. For a collection of the literary and epigraphical evidence, see Munn and Munn 1989, 100–9. On the debate over the identification of Panakton, see Ober 1985, 224–5. The identity of the fortress, however, has been firmly settled by the discovery at the site of T1.15, a fourth century ephebic honorary decree that contains the name Panakton in the text.

Paideia

119

(Thuc. 5.3.5, 39.3). The Athenians rebuilt Panakton in the fourth century, a fact which testifies to the continued importance of a stronghold in this region. Recently, Mark Munn, the excavator at Panakton, has argued that the fortress assured Athenian possession of Drymos, i.e., the cultivatable land around the Skourta plain, and blocked the Boiotians in accessing the seasonable grazing grounds that members of both communities had shared in earlier times (Thuc. 5.42.1). Thus, Panakton was closely linked with the cultivation of disputed local agricultural lands. The fortress served as a base for those who patrolled the farmland and the area around the fortress. In the fourth century BCE, it became the headquarters for a general (perhaps the general of the countryside), who administered the operations at Drymos and oversaw the agricultural facilities and farmsteads located nearby (Dem.19.326, 54.3–5).25 To the southeast of Panakton in the southern foothills of Parnes stands the fortress of Phyle. T1.13 places the ephebes here during the Lykourgan period. In the late fifth century, Phyle was the stronghold from which Thrasyboulos and his men ultimately expelled The Thirty who ruled Athens after the Peloponnesian War.26 The literary sources prove that the place seized by Thrasyboulos was already fortified. The remains visible today, however, were not the stronghold occupied by the democrats, for the extant masonry and pottery styles suggest a date of construction sometime in the fourth century.27 The fortress is nestled in the dense, wooded folds of Mount Parnes, and so the view from Phyle is obstructed on nearly all sides except due south, which takes in the entire Athenian plain, including the city of Athens, the Akropolis, and the northern approaches to the city. The fortress stands near the major road leading to Thebes from Athens. Soldiers stationed in the garrison patrolled the route and protected those transporting pine wood culled from the vast forests of Parnes. This vital resource produced timber and conifer pitch, material used in certain domestic products and in the construction of ancient warships.28 Finally, there is Rhamnous, a heavily fortified coastal deme located in northeastern Attike. Nine inscriptions (T1.5, T1.6, T1.13, T1.14, T1.17, T1.18, T1.21, T1.26, and T1.27) place the ephebes here in the Lykourgan Period. The garrison originally consisted of a fortified akropolis, but the Athenians later added a large circuit wall. Within the circuit stood numerous buildings and complexes, including a large gymnasium. Masonry styles establish a fifth century date for the 25  26  27  28 

See Munn 2010, 189–200, for evidence, bibliography, and discussion. Xen. Hell. 2.4; D.S. 14.32ff.; Nep. Thr. 2. Nearly a century earlier, members of Peisistratos’ party revolted from the tyrant and took refuge at Phyle ([Plut.] 189b). Ober 1985, 146 with n. 43. Fashard and Pirisino 2015, 145; Morrison 2000, 179–181.

120

chapter 5

first phase of building, a fourth century date for the second phase. Epigraphical data suggests that citizen-soldiers and foreign mercenaries manned this fortress down to the late Hellenistic Period.29 The inland view from Rhamnous is restricted by the fact that the citadel is located downhill from the site of the sanctuary of Nemesis. Since the fortress stands perched on a high rock and commands an excellent view of the coast, especially the Euripos straits to the northeast, Ober believes that the primary purpose of the garrison was “route control,” i.e., to monitor and protect the shipping lanes around northeast Attike and guard the land route from Oropos in the north to the plain of Marathon in the south. Munn’s cogent discussion regarding the purpose of Panakton should caution against over prioritizing such an explanation. In fact, the large body of inscriptions discovered at Rhamnous indicates the crucial role the garrison played in defending local agricultural land. For example, Athenian generals were praised for protecting farmers from raiders and pirates during the harvest and securing crops up to 30 stades away from the fortress.30 As with Panakton, the importance of Rhamnous depended on local conditions and was linked with the exploitation of nearby agricultural lands. One important feature that distinguished Rhamnous from the other border forts guarded by the ephebes is its harbor complex (now silted over), which became a critical means of receiving and moving commodities, especially grain.31 So vital was this region to Athenian economic and military interests that early in the Hellenistic period Rhamnous became the base for the general of the coastal countryside. By the Lykourgan Period, Athenians placed one general in control over the khora, who guarded it (φυλάττει) and was in charge of military operations, if war should occur there.32 Seven decrees demonstrate that the ephebes were under the supervision of this general in their second year.33 [Aristotle] does not discuss how the ephebes were distributed throughout the fortresses, but 29  30  31  32 

33 

I.Rhamnous no. 31, 36–9. See Munn 1992, 10 with n. 20 and Ober 1985, 135–7, esp. 136 n. 22 for bibliography. The fortresses at Thorikos and Sounion would have guarded this same shipping route farther south (Thuc. 8.4.1). I.Rhamnous no. 3; cf. Thuc. 2.32. Oliver 2007, 63–5. Ath. Pol. 61.1: ἕνα δ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν, ὃς φυλάττει, κἂν πόλεµος ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ γίγνηται, πολεµεῖ οὗτος. Ath. Pol. 43.4 states that at the ten ἐκκλησίαι κύριαι “the grain supply (σῖτος) and the defense of the countryside (ἡ φυλακὴ τῆς χώρας)” were mandatory topics for discussion. It is all but certain that the generals guarding Peiraieus and the countryside attended and participated in these meetings. General of the khora: T1.4 (333/2 BCE) lines 5–6, T1.8 (333/2–332/1) lines 4–7, T1.9 (332/1 BCE) line 5, T1.10 (332/1 BCE) line 9, T1.11 (332/1) col. II lines 11–12, T1.21 (329/8 BCE) left side lines col. I lines 2–6; Unspecified General: T1.19 (330?) right side lines 6–7.

Paideia

121

the epigraphical evidence indicates that wherever they served the ephebes did so in tribal regiments with their sophronistes under their own taxiarkhos and lokhagoi. Inscriptions also indicate that ephebes were not stationed in one fortress for the entire year, but moved from stronghold to stronghold, for single tribal regiments of ephebes of a given year were honored by the demotai of two or more fortified demes.34 The paucity of evidence and the fact that the number of fortified demes honoring regiments of ephebes varied for each year class confound any attempt to establish a pattern of regular rotation, such as the one followed by the young guards in Plato’s ideal city.35 It is possible that no prearranged pattern of orderly rotation existed. These fortresses and the others not mentioned in ephebic decrees (Oinoi, Aphidna, Thorikos, and Sounion) along with smaller fortifications, camps, and signal towers provided a network of defense for Attike. At the risk of oversimplifying the issue, one may cautiously ask: Was there an Athenian defensive policy in the use of fortifications? If so, what was it? What role, if any, did the ephebes play in the execution of this policy? In contrast with the previous century, it is clear that Athenians in the fourth century invested in building up their border fortresses, as our survey above suggests. For Ober, this indicates a change in thinking in the fourth century regarding the issue of defense. He argues for a theory of preclusive defense in which Athenians used their border forts as strong points, delaying enemy invaders until a larger force arrived to engage them.36 Munn, on the other hand, observed that during wartime the fortresses served as places of refuge. Moreover, whereas armies only occasionally entered the territories of foreign states, the frequency of smaller raiding parties increased in times of war. The function of garrisons at the frontier forts, then, was to sound the alarm and perhaps to engage and repel such raiders.37 Daly’s in-depth study of the garrison decrees of the Attic border forts concurs with Munn’s thesis: “Athenians seem to have relied on a two-tiered defensive strategy based on protection provided by the forts themselves to things (and

34  35 

36  37 

T1.9 (332/1 BCE) lines 74–5 (Eleusis and Rhamnous); T1.13 (332/1–331/0 BCE) lines 9–10 (Rhamnous, Eleusis, Phyle). Plat. Leg. 760a–763c. Although they shared the overall goal of ensuring the safety of those who lived in the khora with their fictional counterparts, there is no evidence that the historical ephebes were involved at any level of building up the infrastructure of the fortified demes, serving as judges and enforcing the agricultural laws (761a–c) and civil engineers (842e–846c). Ober 1985, 191–207. For a critique of Ober’s thesis, see Harding 1988 and 1990; and Daly 2014. Munn 1992, 18–25, 27.

122

chapter 5

people) brought within, and the simultaneous ability of the soldiers to march out from these points in order to patrol and police adjacent areas.”38 It is within the latter tier that we find the ephebes performing the second of their military duties, fortress-based patrols of the countryside (Ath.Pol. 42.4: περιπολοῦσι τὴν χώραν καὶ διατρίβουσιν ἐν τοῖς φυλακτηρίοις). The verb περιπολέω suggests that their service during their second year was similar, if not identical, to that of the peripoloi (περίπολοι: the agent-noun of the verb). What exactly were peripoloi? Consider the following definition: περίπολοι: τῶν φυλάκων οἱ µὲν ἱδρυµένοι καλοῦνται, οἱ δὲ περίπολοι, ἱδρυµένοι µὲν οἱ ἀεὶ περικαθεζόµενοι καὶ πολιορκοῦντες, περίπολοι δὲ οἱ περιερχόµενοι καὶ περιπολοῦντες τὰ φρούρια ἐν τῷ φυλάττειν.39 Peripoloi: Of the guards some are called the “fixed ones,” others are called peripoloi. The “fixed ones” are those who always surround and besiege. But the peripoloi go around and patrol the fortresses in their guarding. Basically, then, peripoloi were mobile guards (φύλακες) stationed at fortresses (phrouria, phylakteria, or even peripolia) located in the countryside of a city.40 Our earliest evidence for these patrols comes from late fifth century Athens. A fragmentary inscription from 415/4 BCE indicates that peripoloi were stationed in Athens during the Sicilian expedition.41 The text of the decree does not specify their duties, but a fragment of the fifth century comedian Eupolis demonstrates the early link of peripoloi to the fortresses.42 Elsewhere, Thucydides mentions that peripoloi were stationed at Mounikhia. Yet, for the fifth century at least, some peripoloi were not always bound to fortresses, but participated in foreign expeditions (Thuc. 4.67). These patrols were carried out under the supervision of a peripolarkhos, an official elected for the guarding of the countryside. Although the names of the generals who supervised the ephebes during their two years of service appear in the surviving ephebic end-of-service inscriptions of the Lykourgan Age, these same texts never record the names 38  39  40  41  42 

Daly 2001, 351. Ʃ Thuc. 4.67.2. Cf. Ʃ Ail. Arist. Pan. 152.16, which distinguishes the φύλακες from the περίπολοι. Both serve as guards, but the former is stationary while the latter moves around from place to place. On the peripoloi at Athens, see Pélékidis 1962, 35–47; Reinmuth 1971, 126, 134; and Couvenhes 2012, 296–301. For the patrollers outside Athens, see, e.g., Cabanes 1991, 197– 221; Chankowski 2010, 359–366. IG I3 93 (c. 415 BCE) lines 42. Eupolis fr. 340 K-A: καὶ τοὺς περιπόλους ἀπιέν’ εἰς τὰ φρούρια. Cf. Aristoph. Akh. 1073–77.

Paideia

123

of the peripolarkhoi who presumably would have overseen their patrols. The names of these officials do in fact turn up in contemporary honorary decrees passed by soldiers (στρατιῶται), not by ephebes.43 Since ephebes are never referred to as soldiers, these two facts suggest that ephebes did not serve under peripolarkhoi, but may have organized and carried out their patrols differently than those by members of the regular army. With regard to defending the countryside, Chapter 3 differentiated between measures taken to address exceptional circumstances—such as largescale raiding and warfare, when the Athenians mobilized the regular army and mercenaries—from regular patrols, which confronted small numbers of raiders, bandits, or perhaps pirates, and otherwise alerted the authorities through visual communication and day-runners. Literary and epigraphic evidence sheds some light on the nature of regular patrols. For instance, a passage from Xenophon’s Poroi illustrates the role peripoloi played in the defense of the khora. The author imagines a hypothetical situation in which Attike was under invasion by a small band of enemies from Megara or Thebes. As these invaders moved passed Athens toward the mining district of Laurion in southeastern Attike, Xenophon says that Athenian peripoloi and cavalry would intercept and destroy them (4.46–7).44 Scouting the frontier, defending farmers as they harvested their crops, and manning the fortresses during an invasion, just as the Athenian kryptoi under Epikhares did in order to protect the countryside of Rhamnous, should be included as well.45 Although the stakes were considerably lower, the level of violence associated with brigandry could include the forcible theft and seizure of property, the devastation of farms, murder, and the abduction of men and animals.46 As with guard duty, patrolling the countryside was a form of military service intimately linked with young men. We have already noted that the fictional youth in Plato (Leg. 760a–763b) and Xenophon’s (Kyr. 1.2.9–12) utopian works patrolled the countryside. Although he does not indicate the age of the peripoloi in the passage discussed above, in his more prescriptive works, Xenophon suggests that the younger age classes of Athenians (µέχρι τῆς ἐλαφρᾶς ἡλικίας), lightly armed (ὡπλισµένους κουφοτέροις ὅπλοις) and occupying the mountains 43  44 

45  46 

I.Rhamn. nos. 92–96. IG II2 2973 (Eleusis). In his Birds (performed in 414 BCE) lines 1172–80, Aristophanes implies that the role of the peripoloi was to identify, intercept and confront brigands upon entry into the countryside. They were a mobile force of guards, unlike those stationed at the gates (lines 1172–4). Cf. n. 39 above. On the kryptoi and other soldiers stationed at Rhamnous in the Hellenistic Period, see Chapter 8. Étienne and Knoepfler 1976, 163–6, 244–5; Bielman 1994, 174–7 no. 49.

124

chapter 5

bordering Attike and Boiotia, would be harmful to their enemies and would furnish a great bulwark for the citizens of the land (Mem. 3.5.25–7). Aineias advises his readers to use strong young men in conducting patrols (3.1). There are historical examples, too. At Krannon, for instance, neaniskoi were hired as peripoloi to police the countryside, collect tithes, and oversee the harvesting of grain (Polyain. Strat. 2.34). Orthagoras, the tyrant of Sikyon, became a patroller after he passed the age of boyhood.47 Most famously, Aiskhines declares that he served for two years as a “peripolos of this land,” with his fellow ephebes after he had been enrolled as a citizen (Aiskhin. 2.167) in 373 or 372 BCE. Young men in other Greek communities performed a similar military role. For instance, orophylakes (mountain-guards) patrolled the mountains of Apollonia in Karia under the supervision of the neaniskarkhes, the leader of the neaniskoi, which demonstrates that these patrollers were of ephebic age and older.48 In Krete, the young men of Dreros guarded border fortresses upon coming of civic age and swearing their citizen oath.49 Although cities accrued many benefits from the patrols of the countryside carried out by their younger members, there were nevertheless hazards in entrusting young men with the protection of the khora, especially the death, bodily harm, or capture of these young men while carrying out their duties. Only a handful of surviving texts mention the death of an ephebe; and where they exist the circumstances of their deaths are not always known.50 In one case, an inscribed epigram discovered in Arkesine on Amorgos mourns the loss of Diotimos, a 16 year old ephebe who was struck down accidently by a javelin as he trained in the stadium.51 No surviving texts mention the deaths of young men serving as patrollers or performing other duties, but there is some evidence of their capture or abduction. For instance, a decree passed by the citizens of Delphi honors Lykos son of Mortylos for saving certain young men of Delphi.52 According to the decree, these young men were abducted by bandits and cached away. The precise age of these neaniskoi are not specified in the text of the decree, so it cannot be determined whether they were ephebes 47  48  49  50  51  52 

FGrHist 105 F2 line 22–5 (= POxy. XI 1365): ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὴν τῶν παίδων παρήλλαξεν ἡλικίαν, γενόµενος τῶν περιπόλων τῶν φρουρούντων τὴν χώραν,…. Robert 1954, 42, 281–3 no. 162. The neaniskarkhes also appears as the supervisor of the neaniskoi in the gymnasium (cf. SEG 29.1201). Chaniotis Verträge, 198–201 no. 7. e.g., Vérilhac 1978–1982, no. 62 (1st Century BCE) and Merkelbach 1980, no. 32 (Hellenistic). Vérilhac 1978–1982, no. 95 (2nd–1st Century BCE). Accidental deaths by javelins in the gymnasium: Antiph. Second Tetralogy; Plut. Perikl., 36; Paus. 5.3.7; CLE no. 1198. On the age of admission to the ephebeia outside of Athens, see Chankowski 2010, 240–3. FD III.1.457 (c. 100 BCE). See Bielman 1994, 177–180 no. 50, for bibliography and discussion.

Paideia

125

or youth in their twenties. The circumstances of their abduction are unknown as well, but it very likely occurred on Parnassos, where young patrollers were charged with confronting bandits and raiders and ensuring the security of this mountainous area.53 Young men have left evidence of their patrols in the form of a dedication on Parnassos within the Cave of Pan and the Nymphs high above the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi.54 A similar situation appears in a decree passed c. 197 BCE by the kome of Mycenae, a community within the Akhaian League. The text records the honors for the Gortynian Protimos son of Timarkhos, who freed Mycenaean ephebes from Nabis of Sparta.55 The context of this decree seems to have been the conflict between the Akhaians and Nabis in which the Spartan tyrant was pursuing domination over the Argolid in 197 and 195 BCE. While the age of the young abductees is known, the circumstances of their abduction do not appear in the text. Were they originally serving in Nabis’ army? Bielman thought this was highly unlikely, since as Charneux observed ephebes were very rarely enrolled as combatants in Greek or Macedonian armies. In light of the decree enacted by the citizens of Delphi discussed above, it is possible that these young men were captured as they were carrying out their patrols (Chaniotis) either by Nabis’ soldiers (Charneux) or by bandits and later freed by Nabis (Rostovtzeff).56 Other risks of entrusting young men with the protection of the countryside included the potential for age-based stasis, which ran “like a thread through the history of the polis.”57 For instance, by using the very neaniskoi who were serving as patrollers to ambush and kill over 1000 citizens as they celebrated the Itonia festival, Deinias violently overthrew the government of Krannon and established a tyranny (Polyain. Strat. 2.34.1). In Magna Graecia, neaniskoi from the gymnasia seized control of Thurii from the older citizens and imposed an oligarchy (Aristot. Pol. 1307b; Plat. Leg. 636b). Cities in Krete, such as Dreros, made their young patrollers swear never to desert the cause of their city, ally themselves with the Lyttians, or betray their fortresses to the enemy. This was a consequence of the events of the Lyttian War, in which disputes arose between the citizens of Gortyn regarding the Lyttian cause: the older men took the side of Knossos, the younger that of Lyttos. In the end, the older Gortynians seized the akropolis, expelled or put to death the younger, and handed the city over to Knossos. In turn, the exiled youth seized control of the harbor of Phaistos 53  54  55  56  57 

Robert 1937, 108–110; Empereur 1984, 345–6. Editio Princeps: Lolling 1878, 554. See Robert 1937, 108, and Rousset 2002, 160–164, no. 26. IG IV 497; SIG3 594. See Bielman 1994, 159–162 no. 44, for bibliography and discussion. Chaniotis 2008, 137; Charneux 1988, 587; Rostovtzeff 1941, 608. Kennell 2012, 220–222.

126

chapter 5

and the port of Gortyn and carried out the war from these bases of operation (Polyb. 4.54.4–8). Athens was not immune to the potential dangers of civil strife at the hands of young men or to the conflicts between age groups mentioned above. For instance, during the coup d’état of 411 BCE, Thucydides reports that great numbers of younger Athenians accompanied members of the oligarchy whenever violence was required, such as compelling the removal of councilors from the council chamber (8.69.4). Bands of younger citizens assassinated Androkles, the principal leader of the People, along with others (8.65.2). Later in the same year, a young member of the peripoloi murdered the Athenian ambassador Phrynikhos after he had returned to Athens from his embassy to Sparta (8.92.6). Similarly, Xenophon states that in 404 BCE members of The Thirty used neaniskoi to violently suppress opposition at a meeting of the Athenian Council that resulted in the murder of Theramenes (Hell. 2.3.23–56). In the Defense of his Policy, Lykourgos declares that, when the Athenian youth in their enthusiasm (iuventus concitata) were thoughtlessly attempting to take up arms and trying to provoke the peaceful Thessalians, he compelled the Council to suppress the violence of the young men (adulescentium violentiam) with its authority. Through threats, Lykourgos forbade the treasurers to give a subsidy for soldiers’ pay. Although the arsenal on the Akropolis had been opened, he stood firm and prohibited weapons from being removed (Rutil. Lup. 1.7). There is, however, little evidence that such events were perpetrated at the hands of Athenian ephebes. A decree from the late second century praises the ephebes for not distressing any of the inhabitants of the khora (T8.22 lines 15–6), which suggests that property damage or even acts of bodily harm at the hands of unruly young men may have been issues in previous years. With respect to paideia, their service as guards and patrollers provided the ephebes invaluable experience in the defense of the homeland. This included knowing the locations of fortresses and the number of guards necessary to man the garrisons, as well as how to post sentries, arrange patrols, use passwords, communicate through signaling systems, and prepare for sieges. Xenophon believed that successful statesmen should have knowledge of these matters (Xen. Mem. 3.6.10–11). He also believed that effective military leaders should be familiar with the topography of the countryside (Xen. Mem. 3.5.25– 7). This is not mentioned in contemporary ephebic decrees, but marching into the countryside under arms to acquire an intimate familiarity (ἔµπειροι) with the roads and frontiers of the khora appears in some of the Hellenistic texts (T7.13 line 14, T8.14 line 25) and was doubtless one of the central aims of their military service during the Lykourgan Period. As with Plato’s fictional agronomoi, two years of service guarding the fortresses and patrolling the countryside

127

Paideia

amounted to “a form of learning second to none” (Leg. 763b: οὐδενὸς ἔλαττον µάθηµα), assuring that the ephebes gained knowledge and experience of the various districts of the khora at different seasons (760c–d). 2

Ephebic Trainers and Training

Aineias states that the strongest among the young men should be assigned the task of watches and walls (1.8). Elsewhere he states that those serving as scouts must have military experience, so as not to misinterpret the movements of enemies and relay false information (6.1–2). The youngest Athenians would have been disqualified on both counts, since they were the least physically fit and the least knowledgeable of all the citizens in military matters. The Athenians’ solution to these problems was to create an institution of military training for their newest citizens. The Athenian people elected trainers for each age class of ephebes—two paidotribai, or athletic instructors, and an unspecified number of didaskaloi, or military trainers (Ath. Pol. 42.3). In later sources, both sets of instructors are sometimes grouped together under the title “didaskaloi” or, in a few cases, “paideutai.”58 [Aristotle] states that these didaskaloi taught the ephebes the art of fencing (ὁπλοµαχεῖν), archery (τοξεύειν), throwing the javelin (ἀκοντίζειν), and releasing the catapult (καταπάλτην ἀφιέναι). In the ephebic honorary decrees of the Hellenistic Period, four didaskaloi are regularly cited—the hoplomakhos, toxotes, akontistes, and katapaltaphetes—one for each area of instruction mentioned by [Aristotle]. Based on Hellenistic inscriptions, some earlier scholars have assumed that there were four didaskaloi for the Lykourgan ephebeia.59 The epigraphical evidence from this period does not support this view.60 58 

59  60 

Ath. Pol. 42.3; didaskaloi: e.g., T8.14; paideutai: T9.17. It is clear from the epigraphic evidence that these two terms refer to the same thing. On Greek military training in general, see Anderson 1970, 84–110; Pritchett 1975, 208–231; Ridley 1979, 530–548; Wees 2004, 89–95. Forbes 1929, 136; and Pélékides 1962, 108. For instance, T1.9, a dedication by the ephebes of Kekropis inscribed in 332/1 BCE, lists two didaskoloi and two paidotribai. T1.11 also mentions only two didaskaloi. T1.5, an unpublished ephebic inscription of 333/2 BCE (?), lists the names of two didaskaloi that follow those of the strategos, kosmetes, and sophronistai, taxiarkhos and lokhagoi. On the base of the inscription, the names of seven more didaskaloi are listed under the ephebic roster. T1.21 mentions only one didaskalos. None of these inscriptions indicate what these didaskaloi taught. Only T1.19 mentions one akontistes, or javelin instructor. Thus, for the Lykourgan era at least, we cannot determine a precise number of didaskaloi nor can we with confidence assign them areas of instruction.

128

chapter 5

Ath. Pol. 42.3 is our only evidence from the Lykourgan Age for instruction in lance and shield (ὁπλοµαχεῖν). While [Aristotle] does not mention the hoplomakhos, later Hellenistic decrees regularly list this trainer among the ephebic didaskaloi and it is certain that an hoplomakhos provided the ephebes instruction in the Lykourgan Age. The hoplomakhos instructed the ephebes in hoplomakhia, or fencing with spear and shield. What purpose did learning hoplomakhia serve? Weapons-handling would have proven invaluable after each age class of young Athenians graduated from the ephebeia and became eligible for campaigning abroad. As we have already observed, however, campaigning with the rest of Athens’ hoplite forces was not the central concern of the ephebeia. The most immediate benefit of this skill would have been to aid the ephebes in patrolling the countryside, guarding palisades, meeting robbers, and repelling foreign raiders.61 Did the ephebes learn taktika, the art of hoplite maneuvering in mass formation? There is no evidence that they did so.62 Further, the tactics of mass infantry was ill-suited to the type of military activity that Athenian ephebes were expected to perform during their two years of service. The three other forms of military instruction—archery (τοξεύειν), throwing the javelin (ἀκοντίζειν), and releasing the catapult (καταπάλτην ἀφιέναι)—are essentially training in projectile weaponry. All three were used in campaigning abroad and in defending fortifications at home. Comparatively speaking, archery was not as highly valued among the Athenians and other Greeks as fighting in the hoplite ranks. Still, Greeks knew all too well the significant role archers played in turning engagements. In the fourth century BCE, the Athenians continued to employ large contingents of archers in their wars.63 Demosthenes himself recognized that Macedonian archers and other nonhoplite soldiers contributed greatly to the victories of Philip II over the Greeks (9.49). Archery had become so highly regarded that the theoretical works of both Plato and Xenophon recommended early instruction in the discipline.64 61 

62 

63  64 

Rawlings 2000, 243; Munn 1992, 48. Such training had immediate application to even those citizens who would not serve as hoplites or in the countryside fortresses. For example, sailors also functioned as light-armed soldiers in the land force when not rowing. See van Wees 2002, 60 with n. 20. This belief is founded in the misunderstanding of Ath.Pol. 42.4: ἀποδειξάµενοι τῷ δήµῳ τὰ περὶ τὰς τάξεις. As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, taxeis here does not mean “maneuvering in hoplite formation” vel sim. (pace Rhodes), but refers to tribal regiments of ephebes (cf. Aristot. Pol. 1323a: τις ἐφήβων ἢ φρουρῶν ἔστι τάξις), which a taxiarkhos commanded. This misunderstanding of the term taxeis is rooted in the mistaken belief that the purpose of the ephebeia at Athens was to train future hoplite soldiers. Salamis: Plut. Them. 14; Aiskhyl. Pers. 461–2; Plataia: Herodot. 9.21–22, 60. Plat. Leg. 834a; Xen. Kyr. 1.2.

Paideia

129

Ephebic training in archery reflected this new attitude. Instruction in archery appeared at the beginning of the institution, as [Aristotle] indicated, and continued throughout most of the Hellenistic period. It disappears from our sources around 100 BCE, or a decade or so later, perhaps in the aftermath of Athens’ involvement against the Romans in the First Mithridatic War (89–86 BCE).65 As with the bow, the javelin was used with great success in defending the Athenian garrisons. Besides the mention in [Aristotle], two inscriptions provide some more details about this military skill among the ephebes. First, T1.19, a dedication of the ephebes of Oineis from about 330/29 BCE, lists the akontistes Kephisippos in a roster of ephebes and their officers. T1.27, an inscription from Oropos dated to around 335–322 BCE, records that an ephebe from Athens made a dedication to Amphiaraos in the sanctuary of the healing god for his victory in a javelin-throwing contest, presumably as part of the Amphiaraia. Akontistai continued to provide training to the Athenian ephebes throughout most of the Hellenistic period. As with the toxotes, however, this trainer ceased being registered in ephebic inscriptions after 94/3 BCE (T8.31). Did ephebes use the javelin for garrison defense alone? Their training in casting the javelin has led some scholars to believe that ephebes fought as peltastai, or light-armed skirmishers, as they patrolled the mountainous border of Attike.66 The peltastes was equipped with the pelte, or crescent-shape light shield, and javelins or thrusting spears. The peltastai would rush out to cast their javelins (and sometimes even stones) at their adversaries and then retreat to safety. This form of fighting was found among the Thracians and the Greeks living on the islands. Under the command of Iphikrates and Khabrias, peltastai were the scourge of the Peloponnese in the early fourth century BCE and, like the Athenian archers at Sphakteria, defeated a regiment of Spartan hoplites near Lekhaion in the Korinthia. Soon after, they bested another contingent of Spartan and allied hoplites near Abydos in the Khersonesos. The Greeks recognized that the light arms and ability of peltastai to function in open order made them suitable for border defense. During the conflict between Sparta and Thebes in 378 BCE, Khabrias guarded the border between

65 

66 

T8.27 (100/99 BCE); T8.31 (94/3 BCE), however, is a highly fragmented decree, but does mention the ephebic instructors much like earlier decrees, e.g., T8.27. Only the hoplomakhos and akontistes are visible on the stone, but there is a large enough gap in the text to have included the names of the individuals who served as toxotes and the katapaltaphetes and their titles. Ober 1985, 94, 95, 99, 213. Cf. Faraguna 1992, 277; Burckhardt 1996, 46; Rawlings 2000, 237– 241. On this issue, see Lendon 2005, 94–97.

130

chapter 5

Attike and Boiotia using peltastai.67 Ober believes that these peltastai were in fact ephebes, stationed along the border due to some “peltast reform.” Should we imagine the ephebes patrolling the mountain passes in northern Attike confronting foreign raiders with light arms and wicker, scallopshaped shields? This is highly unlikely, for the peltastes and peripolos were distinct categories of warriors. Whereas peripoloi of the fourth century BCE conducted fortress-based patrols of the khora, peltastai supplemented the regular Athenian army. [Aristotle] states that upon graduation the ephebes were awarded aspis and doru, not javelin and pelte. Inscriptions from this period state that the peripolarkhos, the man in charge of a unit of peripoloi, commanded stratiotai (soldiers), not peltastai. Moreover, the peltastai in the Athenian army were normally foreign mercenaries. They were selected because these foreigners learned the military skills of the peltastai very early on (D.S. 15.85.4). Given this fact, it would seem that a year or two of training in the skills of the peltastes would not be sufficient to bring ephebes up to this rigorous level of military performance. Finally, there was the katapaltaphetes, the heavy artillery, or catapult, instructor. The fourth century BCE saw a number of advances in military technology, including the invention of the catapult. Contrary to popular notions, it was originally designed to shoot large arrows, whereas the ballista threw stones (much later, the former term was applied to all heavy artillery devises and the latter fell out of use). In the early fourth century BCE, the engineers of Dionysios of Syracuse invented the gastrophetes, which was nothing more than a large bow mounted on a stock and consisting of a case and slider. By the time of Philip II, engineers had developed a range of catapults which exploited the principles of torsion to hurl large bolts or rocks great distances.68 The earliest reference to catapults at Athens is the appearance in the 360s BCE of two boxes of catapult bolts in an inventory of the armory on the Akropolis.69 As with the bow and the javelin, a good deal of skill was required to handle a catapult. Aristotle relates how one was accidently fired when its operator was only trying to aim it (NE 1111a6). Literary and epigraphical evidence does not indicate the type of catapult with which the Athenian ephebes of the Lykourgan era were trained. By the latter half of the fourth century, a number of variations existed. In the late second century BCE, however, the Athenians praised their kosmetes Dionysios for restoring one of the old catapults—a stone thrower—and reinstituting 67  68  69 

Best 1969, 3–16; Trundle 2010, 147–157. D.S. 14.42.1, 43.2; Marsden 1969, 1, 5, 13, 60. See now Campbell 2011, 677–700. IG II2 1422 (363/2 BCE) line 8. On the date of this inscription, see Cole 1981, 216–19.

Paideia

131

instruction in its use (T8.14). The ephebes had been receiving instruction in heavy artillery before the publication of this inscription and the fact that the decree marks this machine out as a stone thrower suggests Athens possessed others that fired bolts. This is confirmed by an inscription discovered at Panakton dated to 343/2 BCE. The text is an arsenal inventory for the fortress listing weapons and other military gear located in the storehouse. In addition to numerous arrows and javelins, the inventory mentions catapult triggers and 76 featherless catapult bolts.70 This suggests that the type of catapult used by the ephebes once their training was instituted in the 330s may have been closer to the gastrophetes described here. None of our evidence securely establishes the location where the ephebes practiced firing the catapult. Perhaps catapults were set up in the large open space of the gymnasia where young citizens also practiced archery and throwing the javelin (Plat. Leg. 804c). Interestingly, names of the katapaltaphetes are not recorded in the surviving lists of ephebic trainers. These lists appear in texts honoring ephebes for their second year of service in the countryside fortresses. This implies that ephebes were not taking instruction in releasing the catapult at this time and that such training may have occurred in the previous year at Peiraieus. The fact that the frames for torsion catapults were stored at Peiraieus and that the gravestone of Herakleidas of Mysia, who served as katapaltaphetes during some point in the second half of the fourth century BCE, was found at Peiraieus strongly suggest that the great harbor town of Athens was the location for such training, perhaps even at the fortress of Mounikhia.71 [Aristotle] is the only Lykourgan source to relate that the ephebes received instruction in the use of the catapult, which places this form of training at the beginning of the institution. Just as the toxotes and akontistes, the katapaltaphetes remained a member of the staff of the ephebeia throughout most of the Hellenistic period, but dropped out of ephebic inscriptions around 100/99 BCE (T8.27), although it very likely continued down to at least 94/3 BCE (T8.31) and perhaps was removed after the First Mithridatic War. [Aristotle] also reports that the Athenian people elected two paidotribai to serve in the ephebeia. The paidotribai were athletic instructors.72 Prior to the creation of the ephebeia, paidotribai were the trainers of boys in palaistrai, or wrestling schools. They were distinguished from the gymnastai, who were the athletic trainers in the gymnasia. By the fourth century, paidotribai 70  71  72 

Munn 1996, 52ff. IG II2 1467 (338–26 BCE) col. II lines 48–56; 1627 (330/29 BCE) col. II lines 328–41; 9979 (= SIG3 1249) (post mid-fourth century BCE). Hesykh. s.v. παιδοτρίβαι.

132

chapter 5

became more preliminary trainers, gymnastai coaches or athletic experts.73 The ancient sources never spell out the exact duties of the paidotribai. Plato states that, like doctors, they were charged with bringing order and system to the body.74 Isokrates says that the paidotribai instructed their students in the forms which have been devised for bodily contests.75 This suggests, and scattered evidence confirms, that their instruction ranged from javelin throwing and running to wrestling and boxing.76 How did such training improve or at least complement a young man’s preparation for fighting with spear and shield, patrolling the countryside, and guarding the border fortresses? Modern critics disagree as to the extent to which athletic training prepared future soldiers in antiquity.77 With respect to military service, a certain level of physical fitness appears to have been valued, but professional athletics as a means to this end was discouraged. What specific goals athletic training was designed to meet is never mentioned in the sources. Certainly, as hoplites wearing nearly fifty pounds of equipment while fighting in the line for hours under the hot sun, citizen-soldiers required immense bodily strength, which could only be achieved through athletic training. Yet, the military service that ephebes provided, although very different in most respects, was just as rigorous and demanding. For, as patrollers of the rugged mountain passes in Attike during their second year of service, these young men also required tremendous physical endurance in order to successfully carry out their military duties. Were military and athletic trainers subject to age qualifications? It appears that adults of any age were eligible to serve as ephebic trainers, provided of course that they had the requisite knowledge and experience. This is suggested by the fact that there were no age qualifications for the paidotribai serving at the boys’ palaistra in Athens (Aiskhin. 1.10). The case of Heortios (II) of Akharnai appears to confirm the absence of an age qualification for holding the position of ephebic paidotribai or other instructors. Heortios served as paidotribes sometime in the 240’s BCE (T5.7 col. I lines 1–4). This would put Heortios in his twenties when elected or appointed paidotribes, for he served 73  74 

75  76  77 

Kyle 1987, 141–3. Plat. Grg. 504a; this passage implies that the office of paidotribes can and did exist separately from the ephebeia. The earliest literary evidence for the office is Aristoph. Eq. 1238 and Nub. 973 in the late fifth/early fourth centuries BCE, when the institution did not exist. Isokr. 15.183; cf. Plat. Grg. 452b. Plat. Grg. 460d (boxing), Antiph. 3.3.6 (javelin throwing); [Plat.] Alk. 107e (wrestling). Mann 1998, 7–21; id. 2001; Golden 1998, 23–8; Pritchett 1975, 213–21; Pleket 1976, 49–89; id. 1998, 315–24; Poliakoff 1987, 93–103.

Paideia

133

as an ephebe, and was thus 18 years old, in 248/7 BCE (T5.5 col. II line 38). The situation appears to be similar outside Athens. For instance, the founding charter for a school at Miletos makes no mention of age qualifications for the paidotribai and other instructors (SIG3 577). Also, a funerary epitaph from Sinope, a Greek settlement on the Black Sea, suggests that the paidotribes honored therein was a young man when he died.78 How long did these trainers serve? As with the kosmetes and sophronistai, [Aristotle] does not spell out the length of service of the paidotribai and other instructors in the ephebeia of the Lykourgan Age. Ath. Pol. 42.3 does state that the people elected these trainers for them (αὐτοῖς), the antecedent of which seems to be a single ephebic year class. If this is so, then the length of service for these trainers was two years, at least in the Lykourgan Period, just as with the sophronistai and perhaps the kosmetes. Since these instructors were specialists, it is quite possible that some or all of them were elected to train subsequent year classes. In the Hellenistic ephebeia, there are several trainers who held teaching positions for decades. For instance, generations of men from one family in Akharnai served as paidotribes, as will be discussed in Chapter 8. This practice continued in the later Hellenistic period. In the Roman period, the position of paidotribes was held for life.79 Nor was Athenian citizenship a necessary qualification. One of the two didaskaloi mentioned in T1.9 was from the deme Pallene, and thus a native Athenian, while the other was a Syrakousian. Of the two instructors listed in T1.11, one belonged to the deme Pallene, while the second was from Methone. Of the seven didaskaloi listed in T1.5, four were foreigners while the remaining three were native Athenians. In the Hellenistic Age, Athenians continued to occasionally hire foreigners as military trainers. For instance, Nikon son of Alexis of Beirut served as paidotribes in 128/7 BCE (T8.11 line 11; T8.12 line 137) and Sostados son of Soletos of Soli served as hoplomakhos in the same year (T8.11 line 11–12; T8.12 line 137). Why did the Athenians look outside their borders for instructors? The selection of Kretans as instructors of archery at Athens (T4.2, T5.7) suggests that one reason was relative talent. For Krete was famous for producing first-rate archers. Consequently, Kretan bowmen were in heavy demand in Greek armies from the fifth century through the Hellenistic Period.80 78  79  80 

CIRB 129 (= Anth. Graec. 254). E.g., IG II2 2111/12. Thuc. 6.43.2; Xen. Anab. 1.2.9 et passim. See Griffith 1935, 13ff. IG I3 138 (c. 446 BCE), foreign toxotes are listed (along with their Athenian counterparts) in a decree imposing a levy on members of the Athenian army (lines 3–4).

134

chapter 5

The tendency at Athens to sometimes hire foreign military trainers illustrates a general practice during the Classical and Hellenistic periods in which itinerate military trainers sold instruction in their arts to needy city-states. For instance, a mid-third century (c. 240?) BCE proxeny decree from Thespiai records the appointment of Sostratos son of Batrakhos an Athenian-born instructor of archery, javelin-throwing, and maneuvering in formation. This appointment was made in accordance with a law of the Boiotian Federation directing member states to provide specialized military instruction to their boys and young men. This law was most likely passed after the defeat of the Boiotian Federation in 245 BCE at the hands of the Aitolians, a loss which made them better appreciate the need for military training. The result of such training was to produce highly adaptable fighters on the battlefield. Thus, as with the Kretan archery instructors at Athens, talented Athenian citizens highly experienced in the arts of war also sold their skills on the open market.81 How much pay did each trainer receive? It was noted above that the sophronistai received a drakhma a day as payment. The Ath. Pol., however, does not discuss how much the paidotribai and didaskaloi received. In a Hellenistic inscription recording the foundation of a school at Miletos, the paidotribai each received 30 drakhmai a month, which averages out to be about one drakhma a day.82 In a Hellenistic inscription recording the foundation of a school at Teos, the relative value (measured in drakhmai) of each area of instruction can be easily discerned. For instance, each of the two paidotribai received 500 drakhmai a year and a provision existed that should an intercalary month be added, the paidotribai would receive a supplement.83 The hoplomakhos, however, received 300 drakhmai a year, and the instructor of archery and javelin throwing 250 drakhmai a year. The decree directs the hoplomakhos to provide instruction for at least two months out of the year. No directions were given to the other instructor. In Thespiai, however, the citizens took bold steps to retain in perpetuity the services of Sostratos the Athenian. In addition to awarding him proxenia, which conferred the right to acquire land and houses, isoteleia, asphaleia, and asylia in war and peace (along with other rights of proxenoi), the Thespians paid Sostratos four mnai (i.e., 400 drakhmai) a year. How often did the didaskaloi instruct the Athenian ephebes? Again, the Ath. Pol. is silent. [Aristotle], however, does provide clues as to how often ephebes trained and served. He says that the Athenians allotted each ephebe four obols as a daily stipend. [Aristotle] also states that the ephebes were exempt from 81  82  83 

Roesch 1982, 307–354; SEG 32.496; I.Thesp. 29; Mackil 2013, no. 27. SIG3 577 (200/199 BCE). SIG3 578 (second century BCE).

Paideia

135

taxation and could neither sue nor be sued, and therefore had no pretext for being away from their training and service. The only exceptions were cases concerning estates, marriage of an heiress, or an inherited priesthood (42.5). Together with the public maintenance, these restrictions suggest that the Athenians took steps to ensure that their young men could dedicate themselves full-time to their military service and training.84 Thus, the ephebes served full-time and, with the availability of a full-time staff of athletic and military instructors, they most likely trained regularly, too. Where did this occur? Scholarly opinion is divided.85 Sundwall proposed that the ephebes trained at Peiraieus during their first year of service. As discussed above, the fact that the ephebes took instruction in firing the catapult at Peiraieus lends support to this suggestion. Unfortunately, no literary, epigraphic or archaeological evidence from the Lykourgan Age exists for a gymnasium at the Peiraieus. Evidence for such a structure may appear in a decree honoring ephebes published thirty years or so after the foundation of the ephebeia. For in the instructions regarding its publication, T3.1 (305/4 BCE) line 30 records that the mason was to inscribe the text on a stele of stone καὶ στῆσ[……14……] ω̣ ι τῶν ἐφήβων, which Sundwall restores as καὶ στῆσ[αι ἐν τῶι γυµνασί]ω̣ ι τῶν ἐφήβων. Assigning a permanent location at Peiraieus dedicated to full-time instruction for ephebes makes a good deal of sense, for it would have reduced the time to travel to and from the city in order to avail themselves of the gymnasia located there. In addition, as discussed below, other fortified demes in which the ephebes were quartered during their second year of service had gymnasia. It seems that Peiraieus would have had similar facilities, for it was a much larger and wealthier deme and it maintained the ephebes for an entire year.

84 

85 

There was no uniformity regarding attendance in the gymnasia throughout Greece and rates of attendance and training depended on the circumstances, in particular the financial resources, of the city in question. I.Beroia no. 1 states that the ephebes and the young men under 22 years of age practiced archery and throwing the javelin every day. SIG3 578 indicates that the Teans directed their hoplomakhos to provide heavy arms training for at least two months. IG XII 5 647 reports that the young men of Koresia were directed to practice javelin throwing, archery, and using the catapult three times a month. If a young man failed to show up, yet was capable of doing so, the gymnasiarkhos was empowered to punish him with a fine of up to a drakhma. I.Sestos no.1 states that by supplying oil and equipment Menas established monthly contests in archery, javelin throwing, and footraces, and awarding prizes and offering sacrificial meat to those who participated. These monthly contests suggest that Menas had set out a regular program of instruction. Scholars who favor Sundwall’s view: Pélékidis 1962, 114, n. 2; 260, n. 1; Reinmuth 1971, 115; Ober 1985, 90. Those who favor the Lykeion: Mitchel 1973, 38; Faraguna 1992, 279–80; Humphreys 2004, 89, n. 32.

136

chapter 5

The belief that the Lykourgan ephebes took instruction in the city gymnasia also lacks contemporary evidence. Later evidence indicates that ephebes in the Hellenistic Period utilized both the Lykeion and the Academy, although this occurred long after the institution had become city-based.86 Still, that the Lykeion and the Academy may have served as venues for the Lykourgan ephebes is an attractive suggestion. The Lykeion would have been a suitable venue for military training given its own military associations, especially as the seat of the Polemarkhos, the place for mustering Athens’ military before campaign, and the setting for hoplite reviews.87 Cavalry displays occurred at the Lykeion and parades of horsemen ended there in a gallop. Besides the Hippodrome, the Academy was also a venue for military review of the Athenian cavalry.88 Further, the creation of the Lykourgan ephebeia was contemporary with Lykourgos’ building activities at the Lykeion.89 Lykourgos erected a gymnasium building, planted trees, and constructed a new palaistra.90 It even appears that the Lykeion held pride of place for Lykourgos, for he erected a stele recording all of his official acts to serve as an example for those who trained there.91 Mitchel and others have associated Lykourgos’ building activity at the Lykeion with the ephebeia, suggesting that the purpose of the restorations of this gymnasium was to serve better the ephebes in their training.92 Whether or not it was the venue of ephebic training during their first year of service, the Lykeion was likely the location for the ephebic apodeixis, which occurred at the beginning of their second year of service.93 [Aristotle] writes that once the ekklesia gathers in the theater (ἐκκλησίας ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ γενοµένης), the ephebes make a display to the Athenian demos (ἀποδειξάµενοι τῷ δήµῳ) concerning their taxeis, or tribal regiments (τὰ περὶ τὰς τάξεις). This display, called an apodeixis (ἀπόδειξις) in later texts, provided official oversight by offering proof to the appropriate organ of Athenian government (the ekklesia under

86  87 

88  89  90  91  92  93 

The single reference to ephebes taking their training in the Academy is T8.35 (134–88 BCE) line 4. T7.7 (184/3 BCE) line 23 reports that the ephebes dedicated a monument in the Lykeion. This suggests that they were already training there. Aristoph. Pax 355–6; Σ Aristoph. Pax 356; Σ Xen. Anab. 1.2.10; Hesykh. s.v. Λύκειον. On reviews and drilling, see Cawkwell 1972, 262 n. 4; Pritchett 1975, 208, n. 3; Ridley 1979, 517. The Polemarkhos, who was stationed at the Lykeion, was perhaps the official in charge of carrying out the ἀπόδειξις of hoplite forces (see Suda s.v. Λύκειον). Xen. Eq. mag. 3.1.6–7. Spence 1993, 43, 77–8. [Plut.] 841d. On the excavations of the Lykourgan palaistra, see Ritchie 1989, 250–60. Paus. 1.29.16; [Plut]. Mor. 841c–d; 843f, 852c; IG II2 457b, lines 7–8. [Plut.] Mor. 843f. Mitchel 1970, 38–9. Mitchel 1970, 38; Faraguna 1992, 279–80; Humphreys 2004, 89, n. 32. Ath. Pol. 42.3–4. See Rhodes 1993, 507.

Paideia

137

Lykourgos, the boule in later times) that the ephebes had been appropriately trained. It has been assumed that the theater mentioned by [Aristotle] is the Theater of Dionysos located on the slopes of the Athenian Akropolis. If the taxeis mentioned in the text refer to hoplite drills and maneuvering in formation, as Rhodes and others believe, the Theater of Dionysos makes a poor candidate, for there simply is not enough space in this theater for a tribal unit of 50 ephebes or more, let alone an entire year class, to perform them. If the taxeis mentioned by Aristotle refer to a display of their training in fencing with shield and spear, archery, throwing the javelin, and firing the catapult, this venue is simply out of the question. Humphreys and Dillery have suggested that the closed-in section of the Panathenaic Stadium was the site for the ephebic apodeixis, based on an honorary decree proposed by Lykourgos himself for Eudemos of Plataiai for his construction of the Panathenaic stadium and theater (τὴν ποίησιν τοῦ σταδ[ι]ου καὶ τοῦ θεάτρου τοῦ Παναθη[ναϊ]κοῦ).94 The stadium, of course, refers to the area in which the athletic contests of the Panathenaia occurred. The “theater,” they believe, refers to the semi-circular seating at the far end of the stadium. This is imprecise. For while we associate the theater with the semi-circular seating around an orchestra, the term theatron can refer generally to any place where something can be viewed. In this particular case, theatron would necessarily include not only the closed-in section at the far end of the stadium, but the seating along the entire stadium from which the spectators could observe the games. Leaving this aside, the Panathenaic Stadium is a better candidate as a venue for the apodeixis, since it would have supplied plenty of open space for the apodeixis to take place, in whatever way one chooses to conceive it. Further, the stadium is attested as the site for the apodeixis in two later ephebic honorary decrees of the second century BCE.95 This suggestion, however, is not without problems. For instance, the evidence for the Panathenaic Stadium as the venue for the apodeixis appears in two later decrees honoring the ephebes, which suggests that this may not have been the normal venue for the display. Further, the texts of the decrees never call the venue the “theater,” but always the “Panathenaic Stadium.” Moreover, outside these two texts, there is no evidence for any military displays ever occurring here. As noted above, military displays and reviews, at least in the Classical Period, occurred in Athenian gymnasia, in particular, the Lykeion. Did these 94  95 

IG II2 351 lines 17–18 (= Schwenk 1985, no. 48 lines 17–18). See Humphreys 2004, 227 n. 32, and Dillery 2002, 462–70. T7.13 (176/5 BCE) line 101: ἐν τῶι Παναθηναιικῶι. T8.22 (106/5 BCE) line 21–2: ἐν τῷ Πα[ναθηναιικῶ]ι.

138

chapter 5

gymnasia have a theater from which to view military displays? Xenophon (Eq. Mag. 3.7) reports that the Lykeion did in fact have a “theater” before which the Athenian cavalry made their reviews (ἐπίδειξις). Nothing else is known about this theater, including whether or not it was an actual structure or just a natural incline from which to view cavalry displays. Whatever the case may have been, the area in which the cavalry reviews were performed must have been spacious enough for units of horsemen to carry out the maneuvers described by Xenophon.96 Given that hoplite training and reviews were also held in the Lykeion, it seems likely that the apodeixis of the ephebes was held here, too. While the ephebes of the Lykourgan Period might have availed themselves of the gymnasia in Athens, the Lykeion and Academy were not the site of their training during their second year of service. For the distance of the fortified demes from Athens and her gymnasia makes travel for this purpose impractical, especially given the fact that ephebes served full-time. In fact, given the distance involved, the ephebes most likely trained where they served. Eleusis and Rhamnous, two of the fortified demes at which the ephebes were stationed, had gymnasia and the other fortresses may have had similar facilities.97 T1.18 may provide evidence for ephebic activities in these local gymnasia. In this text, three successive classes of ephebes honor Theophanes, a Rhamnousian, with a crown for some unspecified service. The context of this gift and dedication is unclear, but two points are certain. All three classes of ephebes had passed their time at the garrison of Rhamnous and the benefaction and subsequent crowning was connected with their activities at the gymnasium at Rhamnous, as the dedication to Hermes makes clear.98 3

Conclusion

The adult expectation of offering military service to the state was placed squarely on the shoulders of young Athenians immediately upon their enrollment as citizens. The citizenship oath that the ephebes swore makes this clear. For in addition to being obedient to the magistrates and laws of the state and honoring ancestral religion, an ephebe swore not to bring shame upon his sacred weapons, nor abandon the man fighting beside him, but to defend sacred 96  97 

98 

For this “theater” in the Lykeion, see Wycherely 1963, 14–15. Eleusis: IG II2 1299 (post 236/5 BCE) line 54; 1303 (post 220/19 BCE) lines 5–6. Rhamnous: Petrakos 1999. Brauron had both a gymnasium and palaistra. IG II2 1227 (131/0 BCE) proves that at least by the late Hellenistic period, there was a gymnasium on Salamis. SEG 32.147 (post 350 BCE) indicates that the deme of Kephissia had a palaistra. Pouilloux 1954, 106, suggests that Theophanes provided oil for torch-races.

Paideia

139

and profane things and not to hand over the fatherland lessened, but greater and better. Roughly half of the oath is concerned with the military expectations of Athenians. This and the fact that this section appears first in the oath stress the importance of military service as one of the main duties that an Athenian owed to the state. The oath says nothing about military training, which had been the private responsibility of Athenian citizens prior to the Age of Lykourgos, as was discussed in Chapters 1 and 2. With the creation of the ephebeia, the Athenians undertook the fathers’ prerogative in order to ensure that the citizen met his obligation to the state as spelled out in the citizen oath. The training the ephebeia provided was conceived in terms of fortress-based defense of the homeland, an activity which was intimately associated with younger men. In times of war the youngest Athenians could be called up to help secure the safety of the homeland. The ephebeia established a peacetime system of military training and service for the newest Athenians, who were the least physically fit, knowledgeable, and experienced in the very skills that were required to defend their state. During their two years of training and service, ephebes were taught many things. For instance, they gained experience with Athens’ military organization and hierarchy, learned how to police the movement of people and goods through a fortified port, and effectively carry out watches. They familiarized themselves with the system of fortresses, methods of communication, and most importantly the topography of the countryside. They were also taught martial skills suitable for successfully carrying out their duties, such as weapons handling, archery, throwing the javelin, and releasing the catapult. More broadly, however, through two years of training and service, the ephebes were habituated to virtues, such as discipline, obedience, and self-mastery. In this way, Athenians addressed what was perennially regarded as the problem with out-of-control young men and thereby improved the overall quality of their citizenship.

chapter 6

Religion In addition to military service, Athenians ensured that the familiarity of new citizens with traditional religion formed a significant part of their overall civic training. The great national revival that characterized Athens soon after Khaironeia included the restructuring of their major sanctuaries, which placed their cults on a firmer financial foundation and improved the kosmos (adornment) of the city’s temples and festivals.1 The participation of ephebes in Athenian religious life should be seen in light of the overall project of rehabilitating Athenian state cult. As new citizens, ephebes came face-to-face for the first time with traditional religious beliefs and practices unmediated by their parents or guardians. As members of the ephebeia, their contributions to state cult ensured that its members fulfilled their civic obligation to honor traditional religion, a provision of their citizen oath. For wealthier citizens the ephebeia was a venue for providing private financial support to further refurbish festivals with torch-races and other adornments (Chapter 4). As a close examination of the religious activities of the Athenian ephebes will demonstrate, their participation in traditional religion also reinforced democratic beliefs and values and deeply imbued the ephebes with a sense of patriotism. The role of religion in the ephebeia is briefly indicated by [Aristotle], who mentions that the ephebes toured the sanctuaries. These sanctuaries and their divine occupants were traditionally and intimately connected with the Athenian state. In his description, however, the author gives no indication of the scale of religious involvement by these young men during their two years of service in the ephebeia. For this information, we must turn to all-too-brief references in contemporary speeches, fragments of Atthidographers and historians, later scholiasts and lexicographers, and most importantly contemporary inscriptions. 1

Tour of Sanctuaries

Ath. Pol. 42.3 says that once the fathers and the Athenian demos had selected the sophronistai and the kosmetes, these officials led the newly-minted ephebes on a tour of the sanctuaries (τὰ ἱερὰ περιῆλθον). Rhodes says that the purpose 1  Mikalson 1998, 6–7.

Religion

141

of the tour was “to instill in the ephebes a sense of devotion to the cults of Athens” and this is surely correct.2 This passage of [Aristotle] is characteristically brief and does not indicate which sanctuaries were included or how long the tour lasted. Mikalson and Kellogg believe that the tour included important sanctuaries in the countryside, whereas Pélékidis and Parker restrict it to only those within the city of Athens.3 In fact, there is simply not enough information to determine the number of sanctuaries and their locations.4 One’s notion regarding which sanctuaries were visited will determine how long one conceives the length of the tour. Along with [Aristotle’s] frustratingly brief narrative, there is no evidence from other sources regarding the tour to supplement this passage. T8.14 and other lengthy honorary decrees from the Hellenistic Age that record the names of dozens of festivals in which the ephebes participated should be excluded. For the tour of sanctuaries that [Aristotle] describes was clearly a relatively brief, one-time affair, unlike all of the festivals that appear in the Hellenistic inscriptions. These festivals occurred at various points throughout the ephebic year in accordance with the Athenian religious calendar and were characterized by the ephebes joining in procession, making sacrifices, and participating in contests. Touring the circuit of sanctuaries may have been the kernel of this later activity, but extensive participation by ephebes in state festivals celebrated throughout the year is clearly not what [Aristotle] had in mind. The sanctuaries and divinities worshipped therein would have been significant for promoting Athenian democratic ideology and the civic acculturation and integration of the ephebes. Thus, the tour most likely included those sanctuaries dotting the slopes of the Akropolis. These were counted among the oldest and most venerated in Athens and all of them were deeply rooted in the city’s religious and political history. Visitors accessed these sanctuaries from the peripatos, a pathway running the circuit of the Akropolis along which these sanctuaries were aligned.5 Later evidence connects the ephebes to some of these sanctuaries. For instance, from the late third century BCE on, ephebes honored the Semnai Theai, goddesses formerly known as Erinyes who were thought to reside in a cave beneath the Areopagos Hill located just to the northwest of the entrance to the Akropolis.6 The Semnai were destructive 2  Rhodes 1993, 505. 3  Mikalson 1998, 42; Kellogg 2013, 271–2; Pélékidis 1962, 111; Parker 1996, 255. 4  Faraguna 1992, 278, and Humphreys 2004, 89, are rightfully agnostic on this point. 5  IG II2 2639. This inscription records that the peripatos was 3018 ft. See further Travlos 1971, 229, figs. 293, 294; see Dontas 1983, 48, 50. 6  Aiskhyl., Eum., 1041; Paus. 1.28.6. Evidence for the Semnai: Aiskhyl. Eum. 788ff, esp. 1121–47; IG II2 112, 114; Σ (Polemon) Sophokles OC 489; Kall. fr. 681; Soph. Aj. 837, OC 90, 458; Aristoph.

142

chapter 6

goddesses, who had the power to ravage the land through inclement weather, plague, and civil war (Aiskhyl. Eum. 857–863). Yet, they could also provide universal blessings for the Athenians by ensuring agricultural productivity and the reproduction of citizens (903–915, 959), provided that they received annual sacrifices from the Athenians. Thus, the ephebes made a procession for the Semnai and an offering.7 Philo, writing sometime between the first centuries BCE and CE, states that the noblest of the ephebes prepared sacrificial cakes for the goddesses at this festival.8 By the “noblest (δοκιµώτατοι) of the ephebes,” Philo was referring to the much smaller number of new citizens drawn from the Athenian elites who alone filled the ranks of the ephebeia in the Hellenistic Period. The example of the Semnai is a later attestation and participation in this cult occurred on its festival day, not during the tour of sanctuaries itself. Pélékidis suggested that the ephebes may have visited the sanctuaries of their respective Eponymous Heroes, although he offered no evidence.9 These sanctuaries were separate from the Monument of the Eponymous Heroes and, as Jones has shown, were (in most cases) located around the Akropolis, the Agora, and elsewhere in the city.10 They would have been suitable for the ephebes to visit for several reasons. For instance, the ephebes were brigaded by tribes, which reflected the basic organizational structure of the Athenian democracy. Their rights and privileges depended on membership to a tribe and during times of war Athenians fought in tribal contingents. Thus, visiting the tribal sanctuaries reinforced democratic beliefs and values. Further, the tribal Eponymoi were patriotic heroes. They and their children embodied bravery in the face of danger and in many cases sacrificed themselves for the sake of the Athenian state, as Demosthenes relates in his Funeral Oration for those who   Eq. 1312, Thesm. 224, Thuc. 1.26.11, Eur. IT 963, Or. 1649–50; Dem. 23.66; Din. 1.87; Aristid. Or. 1.48, 37.17. 7   T6.10 (c. 205 BCE) lines 9–10: a procession for the Semnai; T7.15 (171/0 BCE) lines 17–18: fragmentary degree with Semnai Theai in the dative case; and T8.12 (127/6 BCE) line 26: a liturgy for the goddesses. Philo Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 140–141: τὴν ἐπὶ ταῖς Σεµναῖς Θεαῖς ποµπὴν ὅταν στέλλωσι, 8  δοῦλον µηδένα προσπαραλαµβάνειν τὸ παράπαν, ἀλλὰ δι’ ἐλευθέρων ἕκαστα τῶν νενοµισµένων ἀνδρῶν τε καὶ γυναικῶν ἐπιτελεῖν, καὶ οὐχ οἵων ἂν τύχῃ, ἀλλὰ βίον ἐζηλωκότων ἀνεπίληπτον· ἐπεὶ καὶ τὰ πρὸς τὴν ἑορτὴν πέµµατα τῶν ἐφήβων οἱ δοκιµώτατοι σιτοπονοῦσι, πρὸς εὐδοξίας καὶ τιµῆς; Pélékidis 1962, 111. 9  10  For the location of the sanctuaries of the tribal Eponymous Heroes, see Jones 1999, 156–61. Most of these appear to have been situated in Athens, except Hippothoon, an Eleusinian hero whose sanctuary was located at Eleusis. See I.Eleusis no. 63 (ante mid-fourth c. BCE) lines 7–8, IG II2 1163 (c. 288/7) line 26, and Paus. 1.38.4.

Religion

143

fell at Khaironeia (60.27–31). Besides birth, education and habituation to noble activities, familiarity with the acts of the Eponymoi and their children provided incentive for their Athenian descendents to be valiant men (60.27). One of these tribal heroes was Erekhtheus, who sacrificed his daughter Aglauros and his other children to liberate Athens. Moreover, the sanctuaries of the Eponymoi were the administrative centers of each tribe. They recorded the collective decision-making of its members and were the site of many ephebic dedications. These dedications contained decrees enacted by the tribe or the People of Athens praising earlier year classes of ephebes (T1.11) and their magistrates (T1.1, T1.11) for their outstanding behavior during their two years of service. The purpose of these decrees was in part to acknowledge the obedience (πειθαρχία), discipline (εὐταξία) and self-mastery (σωφροσύνη) of the ephebes and their ephebic officers (taxiarkhos, lokhagoi), along with the service (ἁρετή) of their magistrates (kosmetes, sophronistai) to the tribe. The opportunity of earning public praise and awards of gold crowns from the tribe and Athenian People also served to encourage future ephebes and magistrates to act in a similar manner. Besides instilling in the ephebes a sense of devotion to traditional cult, visiting certain sanctuaries connected these young men with Athens’ glorious past, created a shared identity, and cultivated certain civic and military virtues. For instance, the ephebes may have visited the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios in the Agora, built (one tradition states) to celebrate the Athenian victory over the Persians.11 Within the Stoa stood a statue of Demos and another of Demokratia, personifications of the Athenian People and their traditional constitution. A painting depicting the battle of Mantineia (363/2 BCE) hung on one of the interior walls along with shields dedicated to Zeus.12 Before the Stoa stood statues of Konon and the Cypriot king Euagoras for their victories over the Spartan navy at Knidos in 394 BCE along with Konon’s son Timotheos for his victory over the Spartan navy two decades later.13 The occasion of Timotheos’ victory over the Spartans was also marked by the dedication of an altar to Eirene (Peace), around which were later erected honorific statues of

11  12  13 

On the Stoa, see Agora III, 25–31 (nos. 24–46) and Camp 1998, 105–7. Although a civic building, the Stoa was dedicated to Zeus Eleutherios and had a shrine (τέµενος) connected with his important cult. Demos, Demokratia and the painting by Euphranor: Paus. 1.3.3–4; Shields: Paus. 1.26.2, 10.21.5–6. Statues of Konon, Timotheos and Euagoras: Isokr. 9.57; Dem. 20.70; Paus. 1.3.2–3; Nep. Tim. 2.3.

144

chapter 6

the orator Demosthenes and Lykourgos.14 Visiting such sanctuaries as these served the purpose of civic instruction, for reminding the Athenians of the great achievements of their (legendary and historical) ancestors encouraged their descendants to recover their ancient virtue (lost after Khaironeia) and made them more amenable to obedience (πειθαρχία), discipline (εὐταξία) and self-mastery (σωφροσύνη) (Xen. Mem. 3.5.8–12, passim). 2

The Oath Ceremony

Was the Aglaurion one of the stops along the tour of sanctuaries? This was the sanctuary of Aglauros, daughter of legendary King Erekhtheus, where the ephebes swore their famous ephebic oath. Although the location of Aglauros’ sanctuary is now settled, there is still no agreement regarding when the oath ceremony occurred. For instance, Reinmuth suggested that the ceremony occurred “perhaps [as] the first step in the ‘circuit of temples’ which in [Aristotle’s] account was the first order of business for the whole body of ephebes under the guidance of their supervisors.”15 Pélékidis also linked the oath ceremony with the tour of sanctuaries, which occurred at the beginning of their first year of service.16 Pélékidis established his claim on the testimony of Lykourgos himself, who states that all citizens swore the oath at their enrollment into the lexiarkhikon grammateion and became ephebes.17 He also cites the Late Roman scholiast Ulpian on Dem. 19.303 (537a) who says that citizens swore their oath when they were transitioning from boys to ephebes while wearing armor.18 Other scholars have rejected Lykourgos’ testimony, believing that his statement refers to a pre-Lykourgan practice, and have argued that the oath was taken at the end of the first year (Forbes) or beginning of their second year of service (Burckhardt).19 This conclusion rests on two very late sources. The first is Pollux of Naukratis, a second century CE author who lived and taught at Athens. In his Onomastikon, he says that in the second year the ephebes were 14  15  16  17  18  19 

Altar of Eirene: Isokr. 15.109–110; Nep. Tim. 2.2; statue of Demosthenes and Lykourgos: Paus. 1.8.2. Reinmuth 1952, 42. Cf. Rhodes 1981, 506; Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 448; Humphreys 2004, 114. Pélékidis 1962, 111, 217–19. Lyk. 1.76: ὑµῖν γὰρ ἔστιν ὅρκος, ὃν ὀµνύουσι πάντες οἱ πολῖται, ἐπειδὰν εἰς τὸ ληξιαρχικὸν γραµµατεῖον ἐγγραφῶσιν καὶ ἔφηβοι γένωνται; cf. Ath. Pol. 42.2. Σ (vetera) Dem. 19.537a: ἐν δὲ τῷ τεµένει αὐτῆς οἱ ἐξιόντες εἰς τοὺς ἐφήβους ἐκ παίδων µετὰ πανοπλιῶν ὤµνυον ὑπερµαχεῖν ἄχρι θανάτου τῆς θρεψαµένης. Forbes 1929, 147–8; at the end of the second year of service: Burckhardt 1996, 58.

Religion

145

enrolled into the lexiarkhikon grammateion and swore their oath in the sanctuary of Aglauros.20 These scholars also cite the same Late Roman scholiast Ulpian on Dem. 19.303 (537a), but dismiss the first part of this scholion as a misunderstanding of Lykourgos. His reference to wearing armor, (µετὰ πανοπλιῶν), they believe, accords with Ath. Pol. 42.3, which states that the ephebes received spear and shield at the beginning of their second year of service directly after their apodeixis before the ekklesia. The argument for a second year ceremony rests on a shaky foundation. For in addition to contradicting Lykourgos, a source contemporary with the ephebeia, on the time at which the ephebes were enrolled on the lexiarkhikon grammateion, Pollux also contradicts Ath. Pol. 42.2, another contemporary source, regarding this same issue. Although he does not mention the oath, the author of the Ath. Pol. clearly places the completion of citizen enrollment (and hence registration into the lexiarkhikon grammateion) at the beginning of their first year, directly before the outset of the ephebeia. Perhaps since he was writing so long after the fact, Pollux confused the lexiarkhikon grammateion with the ekklesiastikos pinax, a deme list of those competent to speak in the assembly, for which the ephebes would have been enrolled once they completed their two-year service, joined the rest of their fellow citizens in speaking at assemblies, and taken up other civic duties and responsibilities.21 Moreover, Ulpian provides two other separate accounts of the oath ceremony, with each contradicting the others in some important respect. For instance, at 537b, he states that the ephebes took the oath before going off to war.22 This scenario implies that the oath did not mark one’s entry into the citizen body, but occurred at any point in the life of an eighteen or nineteen year old before campaigning. Also, at 535, he reports that the ephebes swore the oath in the sanctuary of Athena, not in that of Aglauros.23 It is also unclear as to which phase of the ephebeia these scholia refer, if they do so at all, for Ulpian provides no citation upon which they are based. 535 and 537a appear near separate quotations of Philokhoros, a younger contemporary of Lykourgos, who most likely had been a member of the ephebeia in his youth. As an Atthidographer, Philokhoros was also an authority on local Athenian 20  21  22  23 

Pollux Onom. 8.105: εἰκοστῷ δὲ ἐνεγράφοντο τῷ ληξιαρχικῷ γραµµατείῳ, καὶ ὤµνυον ἐν Ἀγραύλου. Cf. Suda s.v. ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβῆσαι; Harp., s.v. ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβῆσαι; Σ Aiskhin. 1.7. Rhodes 1993, 494; Cf. Whitehead 1985, 104. Σ (vetera) Dem. 19.537b: καὶ ἐκεῖσε ὤµνυον οἱ ἔφηβοι µέλλοντες ἐξιέναι εἰς πόλεµον. 535: καὶ ἔδει µέλλοντας τοὺς ἐφήβους λαµβάνειν τὰ ὅπλα ἐν [αὐ]τῷ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς ἱερῷ ἀναλαµβάνειν καὶ ὀµνύειν, ἦ µὴν συναγωνίζεσθαι προθύµως ὑπὲρ ἄλλων. Ulpian’s error may be due to the fact that he had just cited Philokhoros, FGrHist 328 F 105, who says that Aglauros was a priestess of Athena (ἱέρεια δὲ γέγονεν ἡ Ἄγραυλος Ἀθηνᾶς, ὥς φησι Φιλόχορος).

146

chapter 6

history, religion and institutions. If these uncited passages are based on his writings, then the oath ceremony described in them may refer to Lykourgan practices, to practices that occurred at some point prior to this period, or perhaps even to those of an unhistorical legendary period. Given the mythological context of these passages—Aglauros’ suicide, the creation of her sanctuary, and the venue for the ephebic oath—the last of these seems the most likely explanation. In other words, these passages may be in some way connected with an unhistorical aition for the oath ceremony. Since these later passages are historically unreliable, it is best to utilize the testimony of Lykourgos and the Ath. Pol., which are contemporary with the Lykourgan ephebeia and mutually support one another. While the Ath. Pol. does not mention the lexiarkhikon grammateion, it is clearly describing the process of citizen enrollment, which ended with the names of new Athenians written in this official citizen registry. The Ath. Pol. indicates that this process was complete some time prior to the beginning of the ephebeia. This proves that new citizens swore the oath before undertaking their training and service, since Lykourgos states that registration of new citizens into the lexiarkhikon grammateion coincides with taking the oath and becoming an ephebe. Completion of the process of citizen enrollment before the boule places the ephebes at Athens, not in their respective demes, at the time of their registration, and so obviates the need to postulate the existence of two oath ceremonies, one in the demes of newly enrolled citizens sworn upon enrollment and another in the sanctuary of Aglauros at Athens when the ephebes conclude their two years of training and service.24 Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the ephebes visited the sanctuary of Aglauros and swore their famous oath at the beginning of their first year of service. Reinmuth and Pélékidis, however, are wrong to ascribe the tour of sanctuaries as the venue for the oath ceremony. For the passages of Lykourgos and the Ath. Pol. clearly show that these were two separate occasions. Lykourgos says that citizens “[swear the oath] when they are enrolled onto the lexiarkhikon grammateion and become ephebes.” Thus, the oath ceremony clearly coincided with enrollment into the citizenry. According to the Ath. Pol., the tour of sanctuaries (42.3) occurred after the completion of registration and the selection and election of the tribal sophronistai and kosmetes (42.2). That these young men were already considered ephebes (and so had already sworn the oath) prior to the selection of the ephebic magistrates and the subsequent tour of sanctuaries is implied in the passage: “[a]nd after the ephebes have been approved….” (ἐπὰν δὲ δοκιµασθῶσιν οἱ ἔφηβοι) (Ath. 24 

For the suggestion that ephebes participated in two oath ceremonies, see Bayliss 2013, 15.

Religion

147

Pol. 42.2), which precedes the narrative of both events. The verb undoubtedly refers to the process of dokimasia, the scrutiny of the boule, i.e., the second and final stage of enrollment into the citizenship described in Ath. Pol. 42.1–2. The aorist tense of the verb indicates completed action. Further, the Ath. Pol. implies that a certain amount of time transpired between the oath ceremony and the tour, for the vetting and selection of the sophronistai by the fathers and then the election of these and the kosmetes later by the ekklesia presumably were not settled in an afternoon. But how much time elapsed? Unfortunately there is no direct statement in our sources that provides the precise dates of the oath ceremony and the tour of sanctuaries, but there is good evidence that these two events did not coincide chronologically and that a significant amount of time separated the two. For instance, Dem. 30.15 states that the orator was scrutinized (δοκιµασθεὶς) directly after the marriage of Aphobos to Onetor’s sister.25 According to Demosthenes, the marriage of Aphobos occurred in Skirophorion (XII). The fact that he was scrutinized immediately (εὐθέως) after this marriage implies that his enrollment took place either in this month or in Hekatombion (I), the month following and the first in the Athenian official calendar.26 An inscription recording the foundation of a school at Miletos indicates that the Milesians took nearly a month to register, vet and select their trainers.27 Based on his examination of ephebic honorary decrees of the Hellenistic Period, Pélékidis argues that the ephebeia began by Boedromion (III), since 1) the ephebes participated in the procession of Artemis Agrotera celebrated on the sixth of this month; and 2) these honorary decrees were passed in the same month, implying that the ephebes undertook their training in the month of Boedromion the previous year.28 Thus, a maximum period of nearly two months may have elapsed between enrollment and the oath ceremony and the tour of sanctuaries. 3

Oath of the Ephebes

Thus, the evidence suggests that the ephebes took the citizenship oath in the Aglaurion immediately upon enrollment. Swearing this oath represents the first religious act that these young men performed as adults, one that was distinct from the tour of sanctuaries which occurred up to two months later. What 25  26  27  28 

Dem. 30.15: ἐγὼ δ’εὐθέως µετὰ τοὺς γάµους δοκιµασθεὶς ἐνεκάλουν καὶ λόγον ἀπῄτουν. Whitehead 1986, 97–104. See now Chankowski 2014, 57–63. SIG3 577 (200/199 BCE) lines 25–51. For translation, see Austin 1981, 207–210 no. 119. Pélékidis 1962, 110–111, 175, 219–20.

148

chapter 6

does the oath say about the religion of the ephebes? A fragment of Sophokles declares that swearing an oath makes a man guard against two things: criticism from his friends and committing a transgression against the gods (fr. 472 [R]). The superhuman witnesses of the Oath of the Ephebes solemnized the occasion and, more importantly, were believed to guarantee punishment for those who violated its provisions. Nor were they chosen at random, but symbolized the expectations of a new citizen. Merkelbach and Bayliss have analyzed the divine witnesses to the Athenian citizenship oath to understand better the “religion of the ephebes.”29 I agree with much of their analysis and would like to develop their views further. The first divinity to appear in the sequence of witnesses is Aglauros. Her position in the sequence indicates that she is by far the most important. As with Herakles, who appears later in this list, Aglauros was a divinity connected with youth. Unlike Herakles, she did not represent bodily strength or destroy the enemies of civilization. Aglauros (“shiny” or “the dewy one”) was the daughter of the legendary King Erekhtheus. Her worship on the Akropolis was primarily civic. For when Eumolpos attacked Athens, Erekhtheus asked the oracle at Delphi what he should do. When Apollo instructed him to sacrifice one of his daughters before the battle began, Aglauros volunteered and threw herself from the citadel and so saved the city in its time of need. Thus, Aglauros was a patriotic heroine and served as a role model for young men who might one day be asked to risk death and perhaps even die in fulfillment of their oath. Aglauros’ sacrifice in defense of her country embodied the lengths citizens were expected to go in order to ensure the safety of their community.30 Along with Pandrosos and Herse, Aglauros was later identified as one of the daughters of Kekrops. In one tradition, her sisters joined Aglauros in sacrificing themselves.31 Pandrosos was worshipped alongside Kourotrophos and Aglauros in her sanctuary.32 Aglauros is followed by Hestia. According to one Homeric Hymn, Hestia was the center of every household, divine or mortal (29.1–5). She represented the hearth and more generally the home (oikos). By the Hellenistic period, if not before, the registration of ephebes (ἐγγράφεσθαι εἰς τοὺς ἐφήβους) took place at the “entrance” ceremony (ἐισιτήρια or ἐισιτητήρια) at the “common hearth (hestia)” within the Prytaneion where Hestia and the other gods received traditional sacrifices (T9.17 lines 7–8) The Prytaneion was located in the center 29  30  31  32 

Merkelbach 1972, 277–83; Bayliss 2013, 16–22. Σ Dem. 19.303 = Philokhor. FGrHist 328 F 105; see Kearns 1985, 25–7, 57–63; and Kron 1995, 61–83. Euripid. Erekhtheus fr. 370.68–74; Demad. On the Twelve Years 37; Dem. 60.27. IG II2 5152 (imperial).

Religion

149

of the older, “Kekropian” Agora on the eastern side of the Akropolis—the hub of Athenian government and political life. Just as the hearth was considered the center of a private home, the Hestia of the state represented the heart of Athens.33 Thus, the “entrance” ceremony was analogous with the incorporation of new members into a private household. It represented the integration of the ephebes into the broader community of Athenian citizens and symbolized its renewal. Next follow Enyo, Enyalios, Ares and Athena Areia, and Zeus. The common feature of these divinities is their connection with war. Enyo was a goddess of war, companion to Ares, and the Greek equivalent to the Latin Bellona.34 Enyalios was both an epithet of Ares and a separate god of war.35 Ares and Athena Areia were both gods of war, as their names suggest, and worshipped in the district of Akharnai where the inscription bearing the Oath of the Ephebes was found, as the text of the dedication demonstrates. The presence of Zeus defies easy interpretation. No epithet is given and he appears at the end of warlike witnesses or at the beginning of the agricultural witnesses. Victorious armies dedicated captured arms to Zeus Tropaios (“Zeus of the Rout”) at the place where the battle was turned and, as we shall see in Chapter 9, the ephebes sailed out to Salamis and sacrificed to this Zeus at the site where the Persians were routed in the Battle of Salamis. Yet, some demes sacrificed to Zeus during the Proerosia, or the pre-plowing festival and Zeus Polieus was the preeminent god in the Dipolieia, a festival in which a plowing ox was sacrificed.36 It may be the case that Zeus was placed in a position between the warlike and agricultural witnesses as a transitional figure with a foot in each camp of witnesses precisely because his nature was ambiguous. Zeus also was regularly invoked in oaths, and so as the god who safeguards oaths he punished the perjurer. During their registration at the common hearth in the Hellenistic period, the ephebes were accompanied by a number of officials including the priest of Demos and the Kharites. Demos was the personification of the Athenian people. The Kharites, or Graces, were Thallo (“Blossoming”), Auxo (“Growth,”), and Hegemone (“Leader”), the very divinities that appear in the list of witnesses. They represented fertility—both human and agrarian—and so were linked to the very survival of the city. In the Lykourgan Era, they were worshipped at the base of the Akropolis, the civic and religious center of Athens.37 They 33  34  35  36  37 

Miller 1978, 13–17. Schmalz 2006, 33–81. Il. 5.333, 592; Plut. Sulla 9. The Seven swear by Enyo and Ares to raze Thebes (Aiskhyl. Septem 42–8). Il. 17.211; Aristoph. Pax 457; Ath. Pol. 58.1 (the Polemarkhos sacrifices to Enyalios). IG II2 1183 (post 340 BCE) lines 32–3; SEG 33.147 (380–75 BCE) lines 13. Parker 2005, 187–91. Aristoph. Pax 456–7; Paus. 9.35.1–3. On the cult of Demos and Kharites, see Chapter 9.

150

chapter 6

guaranteed successful agriculture production as represented by the personifications of wheat, barley, olives, vines and figs in the last two lines of witnesses. The appearance of the Kharites among the divine witnesses to the Oath of the Ephebes is highly suitable, especially given that, as the “Springtime of the People,” the ephebes themselves were regarded as the very symbols of civic renewal and revitalization. Last among the divine witnesses is Herakles. There is no evidence of Athenians worshipping Herakles as a war god per se.38 Rather, the Athenians connected Herakles with agricultural productivity as evidenced in a depiction of him carrying a cornucopia, the symbol of wealth creation (NM 7232).39 This likely explains his placement among the other agricultural witnesses. As with Aglauros, Herakles was closely associated with young men, as symbolized through his marriage to Hebe, the divine personification of youth. Along with Hermes, Herakles was regarded as a patron of gymnasia where ephebes and neoi exercised and trained.40 The hero’s connection with youth is further illustrated in a relief now located in the National Museum depicting an older man presenting a youth to Herakles (NM 2723). The youth is intermediate in height relative to the older man situated on his left (probably a representation of the young man’s father) and the much larger figure of Herakles on his right. The young man is naked except for a mantle thrown over his left shoulder and arm. His right arm reaches toward the hero who also extends his right arm toward the youth. Lawton has suggested that this relief is a visual illustration of the oinisteria, a wine offering made by young Athenians to Herakles.41 Unfortunately, no contemporary source survives that explains the nature of this libation or its ritual context, only the summaries that appear in Athenaios and in the glosses of lexicographers who lived many centuries later. Citing a passage of the first century CE grammarian Pamphilos, Athenaios declares that ephebes “who were about to cut their hair” (οἱ µέλλοντες ἀποκείρεσθαι τὸν σκόλλυν ἔφηβοι) poured a measure of wine to Herakles and then offered it to their companions 38 

39  40  41 

The Athenians did believe that Herakles aided them in the Battle of Marathon, illustrated by a painting housed in the Stoa Poikile depicting Herakles fighting the Persians (Paus. 1.15.3). The association of Herakles and the Battle of Marathon, however, arose from the fact that the Battle began at the sanctuary of Herakles at Marathon and ended at the sanctuary of Herakles at Kynosarges. For other instances, see Boardman in LIMC vol. 1, s.v. Herakles nos. 3488–97. E.g., Apameia: MAMA VI. 173; Arykanda: I.Arykanda 162, Chalkis: IG XII 9 952; Eretria: IG XII.9 234: Suppl. 554. There is no evidence for the Herakleia celebrated by young users of gymnasia at Athens. Lawton, 2007, 59. On the oinesteria, see Lambert 1993, 163–4.

Religion

151

to drink.42 Writing in the fifth century CE, Hesykhios reports that “those who were about to undergo ephebic training” (οἱ µέλλοντες ἐφηβεύειν) made the oinesteria before cutting their hair.43 Photios (ninth century CE) links ritual haircutting and the libation of wine offered to Herakles by the ephebes (ὑπο τῶν ἐφηβῶν) with the fifth century BCE play Demes by the comedian Eupolis.44 Scholars have associated the ritual haircutting presented in these three glosses with another entry of Hesykhios which mentions the dedications of hair from the heads of children made to Artemis on Koureotis (s.v. Κουρεῶτις), a day during the Apatouria in which Athenian boys were presented to their fathers’ phratry. Associating these glosses with the Apatouria would therefore link the term ephebe with a fifth century BCE phratry registration ceremony. The paucity of evidence for phratry registration in the fifth century and the contradictory nature of the later commentators make it impossible to reconstruct a coherent picture of this process. For instance, Pollux 3.52, the only source that explicitly relates the oinesteria with admission to a phratry, states that it occurred during a stage when candidates were still infants (meion). The survey of ἡβάω, ἐφηβάω and ἔφηβος in Chapter 1 casts doubt on the reliability of these late glosses in reproducing accurately the terminology used by Eupolis. If one assumes that an ἐφηβ- related term appeared in his Demes in connection with phratry registration, either ἔφηβος had little to do with citizen enrollment or achieving citizenship in the fifth century BCE had much more to do with one’s membership in a phratry. It is also possible that these authors were using familiar ἐφηβ- related terms of their own day as a way of describing distant phenomenon less well-known to them. Hesykhios’ use of the term ἐφηβεύειν is an example of this, for the term does not appear in primary sources until the third century BCE (T4.2 line 7). The verb “ἐφηβεύω” evolved out of ἔφηβος and denotes the act of undergoing ephebic training, which did not exist until the Age of Lykourgos.45 It should be distinguished from ἐφηβάω, the only documented ἐφηβ- related word that was in currency in Eupolis’ lifetime. This verb appears as a participle in fifth and early fourth century authors and means

42  43  44  45 

Athen. 11.494f: οἱ µέλλοντες ἀποκείρεσθαι τὸν σκόλλυν ἔφηβοι, φησὶ Πάµφιλος, εἰσφέρουσι τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ µέγα ποτήριον πληρώσαντες οἴνου, ὃ καλοῦσιν οἰνιστηρίαν, καὶ σπείσαντες τοῖς συνελθοῦσι διδόασι πιεῖν. Hesykh. s.v. οἰνιστήρια• Ἀθήνησιν οἱ µέλλοντες ἐφηβεύειν, πρὶν ἀποκείρασθαι τὸν µαλλόν, εἰσέφερον Ἡρακλεῖ µέτρον οἴνου, καὶ σπείσαντες τοῖς συνελθοῦσιν ἐπεδίδουν πίνειν. ἡ δὲ σπονδὴ ἐκαλεῖτο οἰνιστήρια. Phot. s.v. οἰνιστήρια• σπονδὴ τῳ Ἑραλκεῖ ἐπιτελουµένη ὑπο τῶν ἐφηβῶν πρὶν ἀποκείρασθαι. ᾿Εύπολις ∆ήµοις. Cf. Strab. 14.1.8, Paus. 7.27.5. For ἐφηβεύειν vel sim. see Chapter 8.

152

chapter 6

“coming of age” in its broadest sense.46 It is possible that later scholars (or a common source) glossed the participle of ἐφηβάω in Eupolis with the more familiar ἔφηβος. Whatever the case may be, the oinesteria appears related to coming of age and possibly achieving citizenship, which the title of Eupolis’ play (Demes) implies. The presence of Herakles among the divine witnesses may have been connected with an earlier process of citizenship and may even reflect the antiquity of the oath. 4

Panathenaia

The ephebes participated in the procession of the Panathenaia. This is attested in a fragment of a forensic speech composed by Dinarkhos sometime between 330 and 324 BCE. This range of time is derived from a speech written between 330 and 324 BCE by Hypereides who mentions the trial in the present tense.47 In the fragment of Dinarkhos, the orator accuses the metic Agasikles of successfully bribing the Halimousians in order to register him illegally as a citizen.48 The orator states that instead of skaphephoroi, or tray-bearers (the traditional service of metics in this festival), his sons ascend the Akropolis as ephebes.49 The Panathenaia is not specifically mentioned in the fragment, but a reference to skaphepheroi ascending the Akropolis and another to the festival itself earlier in the speech strongly indicate that this festival was what Dinarkhos had in mind (Din. 16 fr. 3). It is not known whether the celebration of the Panathenaia alluded to in the text was an annual Lesser Panathenaia or the penteteric Greater Panathenaia. Dinarkhos mentions the contest euandreia, a military review in arms, which [Aristotle] reports was among the games celebrated at the festival between 335 and 330 BCE.50 Participation of the ephebes in the Panathenaia seems natural, for the festival celebrated “Athenian-ness,” and so included all members of the polis. It also was a festival with strong military associations. For instance, the aition of the 46  47  48  49 

50 

Herodot. 6.83, Aiskhyl. Sept. 664–7, Euripid. Oineus F 559 Nauck. Hyp. 3.3; for the date of the trial, see Ober 1989, 345; Whitehead 2000, 155–7, 179–80. Harp. s.v. Ἀγασικλῆς; Whitehead 2000, 155–7, 179–80. Din. 16 fr. 5. Citing Menander, a former member of the Lykourgan ephebeia, Photios (s.v. Σκάφας) states that metoikoi, or resident foreigners, were accustomed to serve as skaphephoroi. They wore purple khitons and carried trays (skaphai) of silver or bronze which were full of honeycombs and flat cakes. Menander (fr. 147 PCG). Din. 16 fr. 3; Ath. Pol. 60.3. For the euandria as military displays of good discipline, see Mommsen 1898, 292; as a “beauty contest,” see Crowther 1985, 285–291; as a choral contest, see Boegehold 1996, 97–103.

Religion

153

festival was Athena’s victory over the giant Aster (or Asterios, or Enkelados) during the Gigantomachy.51 The pyrrhikhe, race in armor, euandreia, boat races and mock cavalry battles were also military in nature. Further, members of Athens’ military institutions and other citizens processed under arms.52 This passage of Dinarkhos convinced Pélékidis that members of the ephebeia had always participated in the Panathenaia.53 Presumably, as new citizens, ephebes prior to the Age of Lykourgos very likely processed and participated in the games with the rest of the citizen body and this may have been the degree to which ephebes in the Age of Lykourgos participated as well.54 Did the creation of the institution in c. 336 BCE change the character of their participation in the Panathenaia? Scholars have asserted that Athenian ephebes performed the pyrrhikhe, a form of dancing in arms.55 Scholia on Aristophanes’ Clouds report that the pyrrhikhe was performed in honor of Athena and was carried out at the Panathenaia.56 The evidence indicates that groups or khoroi of pyrrhikhistai danced nude while wearing helmets and carrying shields and spears.57 Little evidence exists indicating the steps in the dance and scholars have made attempts to identify some of the movements.58 According to Plato, whose own version of this war dance was likely adopted from the Athenian, the pyrrhikhe “represents modes of eluding all kinds of blows and shots by swervings and

51  52  53  54 

55 

56 

57  58 

Aristot. Peplos fr. 6; Ail. Ar. 1.362 with Σ Ail. Ar. 1.362; Σ Aristoph. Eq. 566a, Suda s.v. Πέπλος. Thuc. 6.56.2; Dem. 4.26; 21.17; Ath. Pol. 18.4. Pélékidis 1962, 254. Heliodor. Aithiop. 11.10 claims to provide a first-hand account of the procession at the Greater Panathenaia when he “happened to be an ephebe.” The dramatic date for this is the Peloponnesian War, although he wrote this work in the third or fourth centuries CE. Thus, this passage should not be regarded as evidence for a fifth-century ephebeia. For a definition of pyrrhikhistai and pyrrhikhe, see Lexica Segueriana s.v. Πυῤῥιχισταί. For evidence for dances in arms outside Athens, see Herodot. 6.129.3 and Athen. 181e (Attic and Laconian war dances distinguished); Xen. Anab. 6.1.5–11 (various armed dances); Polyb. 4.20.4–21 (Hellenistic Arkadia). Ʃ (vetera) on Aristoph. Nub. 988a; Ʃ (recentiora) on Aristoph. Nub. 988f and 989h; and Ʃ (Tzetzes) on Aristoph., Nub. 988b. On the pyrrhikhe at the Greater and Lesser Panathenaia, see Lys. 21.1, 4. Ceccarelli 1998, 83–7, argues that the pyrrhikhistai mentioned in SEG 34.103 line 3, a decree from the deme Halai of c. 335–315 BCE honoring Philoxenos, should be linked to the celebration of the Tauropolia for Artemis at Halai Araphenides. On the date of this inscription, see Tracy 1995, 120–121, 124, and 128. For images of the pyrrhikhe attested in Athenian vase painting, see Poursat 1968, 566–83, nos. 7–26; and Ceccarelli 1998, 234–7, nos. 1–26, 58–68. Two reliefs, AM 432 and 1338, show khoroi of pyrrhikhistai. AM 1338 is a complete relief and depicts eight dancers. Borthwick 1969, 386–390; id. 1993, 74–105. For criticism, see Naerebout 1996, 366–367.

154

chapter 6

duckings and side leaps upward or crouching.”59 Borthwick and Lonsdale believe that the pyrrhikhe was the exclusive concern of members of the ephebeia, although how this was so is unclear.60 For, just as with other team events at the Panathenaia, pyrrhikhistai were organized by tribe, divided into age classes (boys, beardless youths, and men) and were financed by tribal khoregoi.61 In fact, there is also some evidence that women performed the pyrrhikhe.62 Lonsdale has also suggested that the pyrrhikhe was a qualification rite for Athenian ephebes. Yet, [Aristotle] and the epigraphical texts offer no support for his suggestion. In fact, this claim contradicts the available evidence regarding the age and sex of participants mentioned above. Nevertheless, Lonsdale introduces certain associations as evidence to strengthen his case. These include the fact that ephebes were led by lokhagoi. According to Lonsdale, a lokhagos has the same relationship with a unit of ephebes as the khoregos has with khoroi. Lonsdale also believes that the ephebes moved along the Attic border in a circular motion, which he regards as the basic movement of the khoros. Such associations are unpersuasive. Ridley and Borthwick argue that dancing the pyrrhikhe constituted military training at Athens.63 More specifically, Winkler believes that ephebes performed the pyrrhikhe for this purpose, although he offers no supporting evidence from [Aristotle] and the epigraphical texts.64 Some ancient authors did associate war dances and combat. For instance, Sokrates, Galen and even Homer made a direct link between training and fighting in war with dance.65 As Wheeler points out, however, the remarks of Sokrates and Galen refer only to the use of dancing to improve agility. While it is also likely that Homer, the staple of Athenian education, did influence private military training, there is no evidence that the pyrrhikhe included mock combat between individuals or members of a khoros. In fact, these dance figures were a far cry from practical training in hoplomakhia and, as Anderson states, they were unable to be 59 

60  61  62  63  64  65 

Plat. Leg. 815a. Cf. Euripid., Andr. 1129–36. Plato also states that his pyrrhikhistai made offensive maneuvers with spear and bow, although the latter of which is not attested at Athens. Poursat 1968, 566 n. 2, believes that Plato describes an ideal warrior’s dance. Wheeler 1982, 231–2, plausibly suggests a link to Athenian practice. Borthwick 1970, 319; Lonsdale 1993, 162–8. Tribal age-classes: IG II2 2311 (400–350 BCE) lines 72–4; Aristoph. Nub. 987–9; and Isaios 5.36. No. 81908 (H 3010), a red-figure pyxis of c. 420 BCE at the Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples, shows a young woman dancing the pyrrhikhe for Artemis. It is not clear whether the dance was performed as part of a contest or, if so, to which festival, if any, it belonged. Borthwick 1969, 320; and Ridley 1979, 545–47. Winkler 1990, 41–4. Sokrates: Athen. 14.628e–f (cf. 14.629c); Galen: De sanitate tuenda, 2.11–12; Homer: Il. 7.238–41; 16.617.

Religion

155

reproduced in actual combat.66 Thus, while the pyrrhikhe may have increased agility, balance, physical fitness, and the ability to handle a shield, the likelihood that the pyrrhikhe served as military training for ephebes and other age classes is slight.67 At present, the evidence suggests that ephebes of the Lykourgan Age processed along with the rest of the citizens, participated in games (under the age grouping “beardless youth”), which included running in the torch-race, as will be discussed below. There is some indication of “special” involvement by ephebes in the Panathenaia during the Hellenistic Age. For instance, T8.19 lines 27–8 reports that the ephebes in the arkhonship of Menoites presented aristeia, or excellence awards, and escorted offerings to Athena during the Lesser Panathenaia in 117/6 BCE. T8.14 lines 14–5, a possible second instance, states that the ephebes of 123/2 BCE made sacrifices for Athena Nike on the Akropolis. It is not clear, however, that these sacrifices were made in connection with the Panathenaia or the Niketeria.68 It is likely that their level of participation in the Panathenaia continued to consist of processing with their fellow citizens and participating in games as “beardless youths,” and thus warranted no special acknowledgement in the decrees. The ephebes of the Roman Period likely participated in the Panathenaia to the same degree.69 5

Amphiaraia

Four inscriptions demonstrate that the ephebes visited the sanctuary of the healer-hero Amphiaraos in the territory of Oropos in the Lykourgan Age. Their presence here appears to have coincided with the general religious interest of the Athenians (including Lykourgos) in this newly acquired site.70 Given the burst of activity at the healer-hero’s sanctuary, it comes as no surprise that the 66  67 

68  69  70 

Wheeler 1982, 230–231; Anderson 1998, 30. Plut. 747b reports that paidotribai taught the pyrrhikhe: Ἐκ τούτου πυραµοῦντες ἐπήγοντο τοῖς παισὶ νικητήριον ὀρχήσεως· ἀπεδείχθη δὲ κριτὴς µετὰ Μενίσκου τοῦ παιδοτρίβου Λαµπρίας ὁ ἀδελφός· ὠρχήσατο γὰρ πιθανῶς τὴν πυρρίχην καὶ χειρονοµῶν ἐν ταῖς παλαίστραις ἐδόκει διαφέρειν τῶν παίδων. This training, however, occurred in the palaistra and was designed for boys. Parker 2005, 476. The depiction of Panathenaic prize amphorai in the pediments of ephebic inscriptions demonstrates that these young men were participating in the games of this festival. See Shear 2012, 159–72. Tracy 1995, 92–3; Mikalson 1998, 28–9. For the sanctuary, festival and inscriptions of the Amphiaraia, see Petrakos 1968 and 1997; Schachter 1981, 19–26. For the date of 335/4 BCE vis-à-vis the Athenian reacquisition of Oropos, see Knoepfler 2001.

156

chapter 6

ephebes are attested here, too. For instance, T1.20 is a dedication made by the ephebes and their sophronistes of an unknown tribe to Amphiaraos. The brief and fragmentary nature of the inscription makes it impossible to reconstruct the context of the dedication. The ephebes appear to have been crowned by the boule and demos (of the Athenians?) for some unspecified service or accomplishment. The fragmentary text of T1.25 has the expression οἱ ἐφηβ[……….], but nothing further can be gleaned from this. The text of T1.27 appears on a fragmentary monument base and reports a dedication to Amphiaraos by an Athenian who was victorious over the ephebes in a javelin throw. T1.21, the longest and most complete of the texts, records the honors offered to the officers and personnel of the ephebeia by the ephebes and the ephebic lokhagoi of the tribe of Leontis. This dedication was made somewhere within the Amphiaraion perhaps in connection with the festival of the Amphiaraia celebrated the year before (329/8 BCE).71 The ephebes ceased visiting the Amphiareion when Oropos and its territory were removed from Athenian control by Antipatros directly following their defeat at the hands of the Macedonians in the Lamian War. There are only two references that they visited the sanctuary during the Hellenistic period. T7.13 lines 17–18, a decree honoring the Athenian ephebes from 176/5 BCE, briefly mentions that the ephebes “came to the Amphiaraion and made a sacrifice.” T8.14 lines 26–27 and 69–70, an honorary decree from 123/2 BCE, states that the ephebes “went to the Amphiaraion and explained the proprietary right of the sanctuary brought about in ancient times for our fathers, and making a sacrifice they went away on the same day to their own land.” What is remarkable about the latter is that it occurred in a period of Athenian history when the Amphiaraion was no longer under Athenian control, but a free territory. Chaniotis has suggested that their day trip to Oropos to declare Athenian proprietary rights represents the survival of a primitive rite of passage.72 There is no evidence for such a rite. There is no evidence for such a rite that ephebes performed at Athens in the past. Further, this is the only instance of this “rite” being performed. Yet, rites of passage or maturation rituals are necessarily regular events, since newer generations are perpetually replacing the older. As discussed in Chapter 1, ephebes were already citizens, since they were enrolled in their deme registry before they underwent military training and service. 71  72 

Tracy 1995, 93; Reinmuth 1971, 70–2. Chaniotis 2005, 52, echoes Vidal-Naquet 1986, 106–28, in interpreting the Melanthos-Xanthos story as an aition for the ephebeia, connecting it with the celebration of the Apatouria. Cf. Griffith 2001, 56. See Lambert 1993, 144–52, who dismantles much of Vidal-Naquet’s “Black Hunter” thesis.

Religion

157

Instead, their day trip to the Amphiaraion had more to do with Athenian claims to the sanctuary, i.e., of extending boundaries, not crossing them, as the text of the inscription makes clear. As we shall see in Chapter 9, this reflects the Athenian concern in the Hellenistic Age for regaining and retaining control of traditional Athenian territory. 6

Nemesia

In T1.6 the gymnasiarkhoi of the ephebic tribe Erekhtheis (both of whom were ephebes) and their sophronistes honor the forty-eight ephebes who were victorious in a torch-race.73 This inscription was discovered at Rhamnous and most likely commemorates a contest related to the Nemesia, an annual athletic festival that honored the goddess Nemesis at Rhamnous first attested here.74 If so, this text is the first attestation of the festival, although Nemesis’ cult and temple located just up the hill from the fortress are older than this inscription.75 Very little is known of the origins of Nemesis’ cult at Rhamnous. As Mikalson says, “[h]er association with the victory over the hubristic Persians at Marathon … makes her a particularly appropriate goddess at the important coastal fort of Rhamnous….”76 Her festival would have been important not only to a military commander and his troops, as is attested in later inscriptions, but to the ephebes as well, whose duty it was to garrison the fortress of Rhamnous during some portion of their second year. Supplicating Nemesis honored the goddess for thwarting the Persian invaders and helped to ensure her aid in case of future incursions by foreign armies. The text of T1.6 (333/2 BCE) appears on a round sculptural base excavated by V. Stais below the east retaining wall along the road leading to the fortress at Rhamnous. Discovered with it were four herms of young men in short khiton and khlamys (NM 313, 314, 315, 316) and two sculptured heads of young men (NM 317 and 318) that were also fragments from other herms. These sculptural 73 

74  75  76 

For additional evidence for a torch-race celebrated at the Nemesia, see Rham. 531 (ex Athens NM 2332); and British Museum GR 1953.5.–30.1+Rham. 530, two reliefs depicting teams (of ephebes?) after a torch-race. For discussion of this evidence, see Palagia and Lewis 1998, 337–44; and Palagia 2000, 403–8. Reinmuth 1971, 52. This festival was celebrated on the 19 Hekatombaion, if a mid-third century BCE inscription from Rhamnous regarding the gymnastic games of the Greater Nemesia is any guide. I.Rhamnous no. 7 lines 8–9. Parker 1996, 254 n. 126. On her cult and temple, see Miles 1989, 131–249. Parker 1996, 254 n. 126. Parker 1996, 246, suggests that Lykourgos added the gymnastic contest. Mikalson 1998, 142.

158

chapter 6

remains may have formed part of other ephebic dedications for victories in torch-races. Stais connected the base which contains the text of T1.6 with one of these herms now located at the National Museum in Athens (NM 313). This is a hip herm of a young man whose torso ends in a tapering shaft. The youth has short, curly hair encircled by a fillet. The figure wears a short khiton and a khlamys attached to his right shoulder. While the right arm is missing the left rests on the figure’s hip. Palagia and Lewis have identified NM 313 as Hermes, an ephebe, or Mounikhos, the eponymous hero of the victorious age class of 333/2 BCE. This last suggestion requires some explanation. In T1.7 the ephebes of the tribe Aiantis who were victorious in an unspecified torch-race made a dedication to the hero Mounikhos. This inscription was discovered in the Kerameikos and little of it has been preserved. Habicht, the original publisher of the text, noted that Mounikhos was not normally associated with the Kerameikos, but Peiraieus. As will be discussed below, the ephebes travelled through the Kerameikos during their torch-races, and so he identified Mounikhos as a hero of the particular age-class of the victorious ephebes enrolled in the year in which Nikokrates was arkhon (333/2 BCE).77 Since the age-class of ephebes in T1.7 is the same as T1.6, Mounikhos is a possible candidate for identification of NM 313. 7

Torch-Races

T1.6 and T1.7 are the only evidence for ephebic participation in the torchrace in the Lykourgan Age.78 As we saw above, T1.6 most likely records the victory of the ephebes of the tribe Erekhtheis in the Nemesia. T1.7 was found in the Kerameikos near the Dipylon Gate and commemorates the victory of the ephebic tribe Aiantis over other tribal teams of ephebes in a torch-race of an unknown festival. This section will discuss the difficulties in identifying the festival to which this event took place and explore the religious, military and civic roles that the torch-race played in the training of ephebes beyond athletics. The discovery of T1.7 in the Kerameikos provides an important clue as to the identity of the festivals to which this torch-race may belong. Aristophanes and Pausanias indicate that an unspecified torch-race passed through the 77  78 

Ath. Pol. 53.4; see also Habicht 1961 [1962], 143 no. 2. T3.5 (4th/early 3rd BCE) may also be from this period. In general, see Sekunda 1990, 149–58.

Religion

159

Kerameikos. Pausanias adds that the race began at the altar of Prometheus in the Academy and contestants ran to the city.79 Late Byzantine sources say that the torch-races of the Panathenaia, Prometheia and Hephaistia took place in the Kerameikos.80 The scholiast on Plato’s Phaidros reports that the ephebes used to run torch-races at the Panathenaia from the altar of Eros in the Academy and that the fire in the sanctuary of Athena used to be lit by the torch of the victor.81 Both scholia on Dem. 57.141 state that the first ephebe to grasp the altar of the goddess (Athena) was declared the winner. Taken together, the evidence suggests that the route of the torch-race began in the Academy passed through the Kerameikos, and terminated at the altar of Athena, most likely the one on the Akropolis. The emphasis on Athena suggests that the torchrace mentioned here was linked with the Panathenaia, but this route may have been identical for all three festivals, or perhaps terminated at the altars of the appropriate gods located elsewhere in the city.82 Thus, T1.7 appears to have been a monument dedicated along the traditional route that torch-racers traveled. It commemorated a victory of this tribe of ephebes and was a permanent reminder for all viewers, including future teams of ephebes. The current state of evidence makes it is difficult to determine the festival to which the torch-race of T1.7 belonged. One tradition represented by Polemon the Stoic periegetes (fl. c. 190 BCE) says that torch-races appeared in three Athenian festivals: the Panathenaia, Prometheia, and the Hephaistia.83 IG I3 82, which addresses the regulations for the Hephaistia in 421/0 BCE, 79 

80  81  82  83 

Aristoph. Ran. 131 (probably the Panathenaia, cf. 1087–1098); Paus. 1.30.2. In the Hellenistic period, the Epitaphia, a sort of Memorial Day festival, appears to have provided a venue for a race in the Kerameikos. T7.13 lines 15–17 states that, just like at Marathon, it was customary during this festival for the ephebes to crown a polyandreion (mass burial) located “[before] the city,” i.e., in the Outer Kerameikos. Afterwards, they ran a race in arms, an epitaphios agon, from this polyandreion (cf. T8.14 lines 22–3). In one year the ephebes ran this race against the ephebes of the previous year and won (T8.22 lines 9–10). In all three cases, the sources indicate that the contest was a dromos, or foot-race, not the torch-race. IG II2 2990 (95/4 BCE), a dedication of an archaistic herm discovered in the remains of the Pompeion, records the victory at an unspecified festival of an ephebe of Delos in a torch-race. Σ (vetera) Aristoph. Ran. 131, 1087; Σ (Tzetzes) Aristoph. Ran. 135a, 1087; Etymologicum Magnum s.v. Κεραµεικός; cf. Σ (vetera) Aristoph. Ran. 1093. Σ Plat. Phaidr. 231e (= Hermeias 37.19–24). The Eleusinion was the terminus for certain race courses in the Agora. E.g., IG II2 2317 (162/1 BCE) line 48. See Tracy and Habicht 1991, 198. Polemon FHG III 117 fr. 6; cf. Harp. (s.v. Λαµπάς): Τρεῖς ἄγουσιν Ἀθηναῖοι ἑορτὰς λαµπάδας, Παναθηναίοις καὶ Ἡφαιστείοις καὶ Προµηθείοις, ὡς Πολέµων φησὶν ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς Προπυλαίοις πινάκων. Cf. Suda s.v. Λαµπάδος; Photios, s.v. Λαµπάδος; Σ (vetera) Aristoph. Ran. 131, 1087; Σ (Tzetzes) Aristoph. Ran. 135a, 1087.

160

chapter 6

mentions these three and so confirms this tradition. Two scholia on Dem. 57.141, however, say these festivals were the Prometheia, the Hephaistia, and the festival of Pan.84 The last of these is confirmed by Herodotos, who states that the Athenians celebrated the festival of Pan with a torch-race (6.105). Unfortunately, it is these two late Byzantine sources that explicitly link the ephebes to participation in the torch-races of the great festivals celebrated by the Athenians. The picture is further complicated by Photios, who mentions torch-races only in the Prometheia and festival of Pan; and by a scholiast on Plato’s Phaidros, who reports that the ephebes used to run torch-races at the Panathenaia.85 One productive way of resolving this issue is to follow Sekunda’s suggestion that the torch-race for Pan was celebrated in the Panathenaia. Even so, this brings us no closer to identifying which of the three great festivals, if any, the ephebes ran the torch-race. As noted above there is no direct evidence that the ephebes of the Lykourgan and Hellenistic Periods participated in the Panathenaia beyond processing. Nor did the Athenians use “ephebe” as an agonistic age division in the extant victors lists, unlike the Hellenistic Theseia. Rather, participants in athletic events were arranged in three general age groups: “boys,” “beardless youth,” and “men.”86 Participants of the torchrace appear to have competed by tribe without an age designation.87 The dedications at Oropos by a victorious ephebe in the javelin throw (T1.27) and at Rhamnous by a team of victorious ephebes in the torch-race (T1.6) suggest that contests at these festivals may have included the category “ephebe.” The earliest direct evidence for “ephebes” as an age category in victors lists, however, appears in the Theseia, a festival for Athens’ synoikistes that was reorganized in the mid-second century BCE. Unlike the Panathenaia, the names of victorious ephebes appear under the headings of several contests, including the torchrace (T8.3, T8.5, T8.6). Besides the Theseia, other festivals in which ephebes of the Hellenistic Period ran the torch-race were the Epitaphia (e.g., T7.13) and 84 

85 

86  87 

Σ (Lex.Pat.142, 15–19) Dem. 57.141: καὶ οὗτοι ἤγοντο Λαµπαδοδροµίαν τὴν ἑορτὴν τῷ τε Προµηθεῖ καὶ τῷ Ἡφαίστῳ καὶ τῷ Πανὶ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον. Οἱ ἔφηβοι, ἀλειψάµενοι παρὰ τοῦ γυµνασιάρχου, κατὰ διαδοχὴν τρέχοντες ἥπτοντο τὸν βωµόν· καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἅψας ἐνίκα, καὶ ἡ τούτου φυλή. Σ (Lex. Seg. 228, 11–14) Dem. 57.141. Σ Plat. Phaidr. 231e (= Hermeias 37.19–24): Ὅτι δὲ παρ’ ἱστορίαν ἐκ τῶνδε µαθεῖν ἔστι· καὶ γὰρ παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις ἐφεῖτο ἐρᾶν καὶ τοῦ Ἔρωτος βωµοὶ καὶ ἀγάλµατα ἦσαν καὶ Ἀντέρωτος, ὡς καὶ ἐπιγράµµατά τε ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγαλµάτων ἐγέγραπτο ἐπαινοῦντα τὸ ἐρᾶν καὶ ὁ δρόµος γε ὁ µακρὸς τοῖς Παναθηναίοις ἀπὸ τοῦ βωµοῦ τοῦ Ἔρωτος ἐγίνετο· ἐντεῦθεν γὰρ ἅψαντες οἱ ἔφηβοι τὰς λαµπάδας ἔθεον καὶ τοῦ νικήσαντος τῇ λαµπάδι ἡ πυρὰ τῶν τῆς θεοῦ ἱερῶν ἐφήπτετο. IG II2 2313 (194/3 BCE) lines 18–52; 2314 (182/1 BCE) lines 1–35, 58–67; 2315 (post 180 BCE) lines 11–44; and 2316 (c. 166/5 BCE) lines 1–16. See also Tracy and Habicht 1991. IG II2 2311 (400–350 BCE) lines 76–7. See also Davies 1967, 36 n. 42.

Religion

161

(for a brief time) the Sulleia (T9.1). The only extant evidence linking ephebes with the torch-races in any of the great festivals celebrated by the Athenians is IG II2 3006, a dedication to Apollo by the ephebe Dionysios son of Menophilos for his victory in the Hephaistia celebrated in the first century CE. Participation in the torch-races served religious, military, and civic purposes. As to its religious function, the torch-race adorned many festivals. Deubner suggested that the Prometheia was the first great festival to adopt this contest. This statement appears to be without foundation, especially as the historian Istros states that the Athenians first established the torch-race for Hephaistos.88 They may have done so given the role Hephaistos played for mankind as the god of the forge. Hephaistos, therefore, represented a specific and important application of fire and the Athenians provided him a torch-race in commemoration of its benefits to mankind.89 Perhaps the Athenians extended the torch-race to Prometheus given the god’s connection with fire and, as with Hephaistos, a race with torches was a suitable commemoration of his gift to mankind.90 Later, the torch-race was included in the tribal contests of the Panathenaia and eventually was extended to many other festivals.91 As to the later proliferation of this contest to festivals honoring divinities with little or no relation to light or fire, the simple answer may be popularity. By the time the ephebes became responsible for running the torch-race, the early connections between fire, forge and the god were probably lost. By participating in the torch-race, the ephebes assumed their place in a venerable tradition of honoring the city’s gods and heroes through corporate religious action. 88 

89 

90  91 

Deubner 1959, 211. Istros FGrHist 334 F 2 = Suda s.v. Λαµπάδος; Photios, s.v. Λαµπάδος: Ἴστρος δέ φησι λαµπάδα νοµίσαι ποιεῖν πρῶτον Ἀθηναίους Ἡφαίστῳ θύοντας. Herodot. 8.98.2 links the torch-race with the Hephaistia. Mattingly 1997, 352–7, esp. 353–4, argues that IG I3 82 lines 33–4, 35 establishes the Hephaistia in 424/3 BCE modeled on the Panathenaia. This assumes that τε̑ι πε][ν]τετερίδι actually refers to the Panathenaia. Even if this were the case, this text may represent a remodeling of an already existing festival. Harp. s.v. Λαµπάς: Ἴστρος δ’ ἐν αʹ τῶν Ἀτθίδων, εἰπὼν ὡς ἐν τῇ τῶν Ἀπατουρίων ἑορτῇ Ἀθηναίων οἱ καλλίστας στολὰς ἐνδεδυκότες, λαβόντες ἡµµένας λαµπάδας ἀπὸ τῆς ἑστίας, ὑµνοῦσι τὸν Ἥφαιστον θύονµένας λαµπάδας ἀπὸ τῆς ἑστίας, ὑµνοῦσι τὸν Ἥφαιστον θύοντες, ὑπόµνηµα τοῦ κατανοήσαντα τὴν χρείαν τοῦ πυρὸς διδάξαι τοὺς ἄλλους. The garments mentioned here are not suitable for a torch-race, but a procession with a hymn, which is surely what Istros is describing. Hes. Op. 42–89; Epikharmos, frs. 114–22 (Kaibel); Aiskhyl. Prom. Desm. 99–103; Prom. Perk. frs. 205–7 N, 278 L-J = 453–7, 342–50 M; Plat. Prot. 320d–323a. These include: Aianteia: e.g., T8.22 lines 53–4; Anthesteria: IG II2 3013 (165/6); Epitaphia: e.g., T8.22 lines 9–10; and the Theseia: T74 lines 6–7. The torch-race was a prominent contest during the Hermaia in the gymnasium as well: see I.Beroia 1 Face B lines 45–87 (Gymnasiarchal Law of Beroia) for rules regarding the Hermaia at a gymnasium in Macedonia.

162

chapter 6

Competing in torch-races reinforced the military training of the ephebes. As discussed in Chapter 5, the purpose of athletics in military training was the physical conditioning of each ephebe for service both as peripolos who patrolled the countryside and manned the garrisons and later as hoplite. Athleticism developed endurance, strength, and teamwork—qualities fostered by participation in the torch-race. Competitions at major festivals provided the ephebes with a highly visible setting for showcasing their training, and the honors they won encouraged other young men to train hard during their ephebeia. The torch-race had a civic nature, too. Miller has attempted to disqualify the torch-race and other civic contests held at polis festivals as undemocratic.92 Instead, he locates the source and embodiment of democracy in the Pan-Hellenic games celebrated at Nemea, Olympia, Delphi and the Isthmia where individual contestants competed equally under completely objective rules of “distance, speed and strength.” Unlike the Pan-Hellenic games, Miller maintains, certain civic contests such as the torch-race were team events. Ephebes and other contestants participated by tribe and thus the victors were celebrated not as individuals but as members of tribes. Unlike the crown games at Olympia and elsewhere, prizes were awarded to groups and not individuals. Leaving aside the fact that regimes of all stripes competed at the Pan-Hellenic Games, the torch-race was, generally speaking, an appropriate civic contest for democratic states. The outstanding feature of the Athenian torch-race is that with the exception of one, the Bendidea (Plat. Resp. 1.328a), it was generally carried out on foot, and so any healthy citizen was capable of participating in the event and was not necessarily disqualified simply on the basis of wealth. Also, the participants in the torch-race were equal before one another in terms of distance, speed and strength, and the panel of dikastai who judged the contest could not impose arbitrary standards on the contestants. Rather, victory was determined entirely by who arrived first at a given point with his torch still lit. Further, the fact that tribal teams ran the torch races reflects the fundamental structure of Athenian democracy, which was itself based on tribes. Training and competing by tribe fostered and strengthened tribal relations among its members, including ephebes, regardless of class, and served as a means of reinforcing the democratic ethos. Another important civic aspect of the torch-race was its venue. As noted above, torch-races passed through the Kerameikos. This area was located outside the city walls and was the site of the Demosion Sema, the public cemetery at Athens where Athenians interred their statesmen, foreign benefactors, and 92 

Miller 2000, 277–97.

Religion

163

war dead by tribe.93 Their graves were located along the Academy Road that began at the Dipylon Gate and terminated at the Academy. The road linked the Academy with the Agora, the civic center of the Athenians, and spread east at a width of about 40 meters at one point. Within this space were situated individual tombs, casualty lists and polyandreia, or mass graves.94 As they ran though the Demosion Sema, teams of ephebes passed these public burials lining the Academy Road and the many epigrams inscribed in stone commemorating the noble Athenians who lost their youth (ἥβην) on behalf of their native land.95 During public funerals Athenians gathered in the Demosion Sema to mourn the dead and listen to Athenian statesmen deliver eulogies emphasizing Athenian democratic ideals and values that transcended the moment of death of individual citizens.96 Thus, the Demosion Sema marked the location where Athenians celebrated the endurance and continuity of the Athenian polis.97 Running torch-races through the Kerameikos at major state festivals added other civic and religious links to the cultural web that was the site of the Demosion Sema and helped to contribute to the elevation and celebration of polis values by its newest citizens. 8

The Eutaxia Competition

As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, the Eutaxia contest appeared early in the Lykourgan Age. A number of questions concerning the competition exist at present. What did the Eutaxia entail? Who participated in it? To which festival was the Eutaxia attached? There is agreement among some scholars that the Eutaxia was a hoplite competition in which the ephebes participated, although no evidence exists linking the ephebes to this particular contest.98 While other candidates have been proposed, Lambert has suggested that the venue for the competition was the apodeixis of the ephebes, which occurred at the beginning of their second year of service, as discussed in Chapter 5.99 As 93  94  95  96  97  98  99 

Thuc. 2.34.1–5; Aristoph. Av. 395–399 with Ʃ (vetera) 394–5; Suda s.vv. Κεραµεικός, Κεραµεικοί; Cic. Fin. 5.1–5; Philostr. Vit. Soph. 2. 604; Paus. 1.29.2–16, Matthaiou 1987, 31–44. Clairmont 1983; Pritchett 1985, 139–241; Arrington 2010, 499–539. e.g., FGE 878–881 (“Simonides” XLVI) and 888–891 (“Simonides” XLIX). Loraux 1986, 26–8. Arrington 2010, 528. Palagia 1975, 182; de Marcellus 1994, 152; Lambert 2001, 57–8, and id. 2002, 122–3; Humphreys 2004, 115 with n. 7; Friend 2019, 120. The Amphiaraia: Davies 1967, 39; Palagia 1975, 182; and Jüthner 1909, 1491. See Walbank 1982, 178, and Lambert 2001, 56, for critique of this view. On the apodeixis of the ephebes, see Chapter 5.

164

chapter 6

we shall see, the proposed link between the ephebes and the Eutaxia competition is supported through questionable linguistic associations. There are two pieces of evidence for the Eutaxia contest from this period. The first is IG II/III3 1, 550 (EM 7166), a fragmentary inscription of pentelic marble discovered west of the Parthenon in 1839.100 It originally carried a text with an adjoining roster of names, of which only the left side survives. Of the fragmentary text only four lines can be partially discerned. At the fifth begins a roster consisting of two columns—on the left are pairs of liturgists organized by tribal affiliation; on the right is a list of the monetary contributions these liturgists made (in most cases 50 drakhmai each). That the liturgy is connected with the Eutaxia is demonstrated by the presence of the expression eutaxia at line 6 on the left column, which serves as the heading for those listed in the roster. On the basis of its similarities with SEG 25.177 (331/0 BCE), Lewis argued that the text of the inscription formulated a founding law that directed the liturgists of the Eutaxia to dedicate phialai on the Akropolis and dated this inscription to a few years before 331/0 BCE.101 Prosopographical data from this inscription—namely Xenokles of Sphettos, a compatriot of Lykourgos, and his brother Androkles of Sphettos—provide further confirmation of a Lykourgan date.102 The second piece of evidence for the Eutaxia is NM 2958, a fragmentary record relief of pentelic marble.103 The remains consist, in part, of a wellcarved female figure wearing a khiton and himation. In her left hand, she carries a tablet; her right is raised and points to the left. She is similar in form and workmanship to other female figures of the second half of the fourth century BCE. Inscribed clearly in the architrave above her head is the name Eutaxia. As Palagia notes, there are no other extant representations of the goddess Eutaxia and the fact that the sculptor inscribed the figure’s name may indicate that she was a newly invented personification. It is also possible that a label was felt 100  Pittakis 1842, no. 959; Rangabé 1855, no. 1241; IG II 172 (Kōhler); IG II2 417 (Kirchner); and Lambert 2001, 52–9. 101  Lewis 1968, 374–80; supported and strengthened by Lambert 2001, 57. As dedications, phialai had a dual purpose. This practice appears to be a Lykourgan innovation and served as one of the many ways he and his circle strengthened public devotion and public finance. For a similar practice see now Meyer 2010. 102  Lambert 2001, 57–8. 103  Palagia 1975, 180–82; Lawton 1995, no. 150 (ph.). Palagia regards IG II2 417 (IG II/III3 1, 550) and NM 2958 as probably two pieces of a single monument; Lawton, however, is agnostic on this point. Lewis, “Dedications,” 376 with n. 25, and Lambert 2002, 123 with n. 3, doubt any physical association with them. Given the thematic difference between the two— one honoring the winners of the Eutaxia, the other recording the liturgists and dedicators of phialai—the position of Lewis and Lambert appears stronger.

Religion

165

to be necessary given the commonality of this figural type in contemporary Greek sculpture.104 Next to her at the same scale stood a hero-like figure wearing a himation and leaning on a staff under his right arm. Based on parallels, Palagia and Lawton have suggested that this figure is Demos, the personification of the Athenian people. To his right and smaller in scale stood a hoplite figure wearing a short khlamys and resting his right hand on the rim of his shield. Near him and behind the figure of Demos is a tripod perched on a column, which symbolized the contest and represented the prize. Palagia is right to interpret this scene as depicting the personification of eutaxia pointing to the victorious hoplite. The interpretation of the Eutaxia contest as a hoplite competition among tribes is a hypothesis suggested by a certain definition of the word eutaxia. As was discussed in Chapter 3, one usage of eutaxia was linked with hoplite service, especially the harmonization of various divisions of soldiers in marching or carrying out maneuvers en masse while retaining their designated place in the phalanx in accordance with the commands of their superiors. Conversely, disorder (ἀταξία) occurs when, failing to follow orders, the line becomes chaotic and soldiers become potentially harmful to themselves and to the men who stand near them.105 Other meanings of the term, however, also exist that have little to do with hoplite service. What strengthens this particular usage of eutaxia is the figure of the hoplite in NM 2958. This also provides support for Palagia and Lawton’s suggestion that the Eutaxia competition was some sort of hoplite contest carried out in tribal units, perhaps even a form of closeorder drill, as de Marcellus envisions, and not in hoplomakhia, i.e., fencing with shield and spear.106 This interpretation also strengthens Lawton suggestion that the single figure of the hoplite represents the winning tribal team and that the tablet in the hand of the goddess Eutaxia contains the names of the victorious members of the team. Neither piece of evidence for the Eutaxia competition mentions ephebes. The association of ephebes and the contest is made in part through the term eutaxia. Palagia was the first to juxtapose the virtue that appears in the decrees honoring ephebes with the Eutaxia contest, although she never linked the two 104  Palagia provides many examples of this type for the second half of the fourth century BCE, but does not offer this as an explanation for the presence of the label. 105  Thuc. 6.72.4, 7.77.5; Xen. Kyr. 8.5.14. 106  Little is known regarding the subject of the Eutaxia outside Athens and the contests seem to have had more to do with good behavior in the gymnasium than maneuvering in hoplite formation. E.g., Face B line 55 of the Gymnasiarchal Law of Beroia describes the victor of the Eutaxia as: ὃς ἂν αὐτῶι (sc. γυµνασιάρχῳ) δοκῆι εὐτακτότατος εἶναι. Crowther 1991, 303, understands this as the most disciplined and best behaved.

166

chapter 6

nor argued that the Eutaxia competition was an ephebic contest.107 Lambert was the first to forge the connection between this virtue and the contest that carries its name. Lambert attempts to buttress his suggestion by regarding the phrase (τὰ περὶ τὰς τάξεις) as the ephebes’ “skill in military maneuvering,” following Rhodes interpretation of this expression. Thus, Lambert identified the Eutaxia contest with the apodeixis that the ephebes performed in the theater at the beginning of their second year of service. There are a few problems with this hypothesis. As noted in Chapter 3, the presence of εὐταξία-related terms in ephebic honorary decrees never refers to “good order” in the hoplite phalanx, but to their orderly behavior while serving as guards in fortified demes. Nor did ephebes have a monopoly on the term εὐταξία or any of the other civic and military virtues discussed in previous chapters. For instance, the εὐταξία, πειθαρχία, σωφροσύνη, κοσµιότης, and εὐκοσµία of the neoi, young men under the age of thirty who were members of a city’s gymnasia, were the perennial concern of gymnasiarkhoi in the Hellenistic period.108 Unlike the ephebes, the military responsibility of these young men was to fill the ranks of the phalanx as hoplites. Finally, as noted in Chapters 4 and 5, the expression (τὰ περὶ τὰς τάξεις) most likely refers to the review of tribal regiments (τάξεις) of ephebes under the command of their taxiarkhoi, not their skill in military maneuvering. What, then, was the venue for the Eutaxia competition and who participated in the contest at Athens? If the competition at Athens served as a prototype for later iterations of the Eutaxia in other Greek states, the Eutaxia contest was closely linked with the Hermaia, the festival of Hermes, celebrated in gymnasia and palaistrai throughout Greece.109 Epigraphical evidence for the Hermaia outside Athens provides the best information for the festival and illustrates its military nature. For instance, at Sestos the Hermaia included javelin and archery contests as well as long races.110 The gymnasium at Samos included contests in firing bolt-shooting and stone-throwing (λιθοβόλος) catapults, fighting with shield and spear (ὁπλοµαχία), and combat with Celtic shield and broadsword (θυρεαµαχία).111 Victors of these contests were awarded shields and other 107  Palagia and Lewis 1989, 339 n. 23, interpret the hoplite figure of NM 2958 as an ephebe, although they offer no evidence for this statement. Cf. de Marcellus 1994, 152. 108  Forbes 1933, 25. 109  Aiskhin. 1.10. Cf. Prokl. Plat. Alk. 1.195.4; Ʃ (Arethas) Plat. Lys. 206d; Aiskhin. Ʃ (vetera) 1.10: Ἑρµαίων: ἑορτὴ τοῦ Ἑρµοῦ ὡς ἐφόρου ὄντος τῶν ἀγώνων. On the Hermaia at Athens, see Habicht 1961 [1962], 140; Mikalson 1998, 195; Parker 2005, 251. On the Hermaia outside Athens, see Gauthier and Hatzopoulos 1993, 95–6. 110  I.Sestos 1 lines 37–40; IG XII 6, 1.183 (Samos). 111  IG XII 6, 1.183 (Samos). A Celtic shield was large and oval in shape.

Religion

167

military equipment. The names of the victors were inscribed on the shields, which were later dedicated in the gymnasium. The Eutaxia was a part of the agonistic repertoire of the Hermaia. Also, members of all age groups participated in the Eutaxia, not just ephebes. For instance, the neoi are attested as victors in the Eutaxia at Beroia, Delos, Samos and Sestos.112 As to the Hermaia at Athens, the earliest epigraphical evidence appears in the late fifth century BCE. The calendar of Nikomakhos mentions an offering made to Hermes in the Lykeion, one of Athens’ preeminent gymnasia, which surely implies the existence of Hermaia.113 The earliest literary reference to the Hermaia is Plato’s Lysis, in which the festival provides the backdrop of the dialogue. The dialogue was written in the early fourth century BCE, but dramatizes events that occurred in the late fifth.114 Elsewhere, Aiskhines (1.12) mentions a law of Solon and Drakon regulating cult in the gymnasia and palaistrai at Athens, which he calls the Hermaia. During the festival, young men and boys made sacrifices to Hermes. The sources do not indicate whether the Hermaia at Athens were celebrated with athletic or military contests. The Eutaxia contest at Athens may have come into existence in connection with Lykourgos’ building activities at the Lykeion. It is possible that with its reorganization and expansion, Athenians felt the need to create or include the Eutaxia at the festival of Hermes. The Lykeion would have been a suitable venue for such a contest given its own military associations. Since this contest targeted members of the younger age classes whose duty was to defend sacred and profane things and not abandon the man beside them, the Eutaxia may have been established at Athens as a means of encouraging and maintaining through competition the good discipline of all of Athens’ younger citizens, especially since a force consisting of many from this age group had been so thoroughly beaten at Khaironeia by Philip II (D.S. 16.85.2). The lack of discipline among the younger citizens was legendary, so much so that when he was asked the appropriate occasion for Athens to wage war against Macedon, the Athenian general Phokion stated: “whenever I see young men (τοὺς νέους) willing to hold their place in the ranks.”115 112  Beroia: I.Beroia 1; Delos: I.Delos 1958; Samos: IG XII 6 179 Sestos: I.Sestos 1. 113  The ritual involved offering a ram worth eleven or twelve drakhmai to the god and most likely occurred on the fourth of the month. Since this inscription was a republication of an earlier sacrificial calendar, the foundation of the ritual may date to the early fifth or perhaps even the sixth century BCE. On the historical dimensions of this code and its date, see Clinton 1982, 27–37. 114  Plat. Lys. 206c–207a. Cf. Ʃ Pl. Lys. 206d. 115  Plut. Phok. 23.2: ὡς δ’ ἐπαναστὰς ὁ Ὑπερείδης ἠρώτησε, “πότ’ οὖν, ὦ Φωκίων, συµβουλεύσεις πολεµεῖν Ἀθηναίοις;” “ὅταν,” εἶπε, “τοὺς µὲν νέους ἴδω τὴν τάξιν βουλοµένους φυλάττειν,…”

168

chapter 6

Instead of a contest among tribal units of ephebes, the Eutaxia competition appears to have been the Lykourgan answer to how to cultivate good order in the hoplite ranks, a persistent and vexing problem that plagued the armies of many Greek states, as discussed in Chapter 5. Since corporal punishment was not a means of discipline available to Athenian military commanders, the prospect of winning honors through public competitions in good discipline helped instill this military virtue in the members of Athens’ hoplite forces. Thus, the Eutaxia competition was part of the larger Lykourgan program of military renewal, including the rebuilding of the city’s navy, fortification walls and countryside garrisons, as discussed in previous chapters. 9

Conclusion

In sum, the evidence from the Lykourgan Period suggests that the religious life of the Athenian ephebes was limited in scope and restricted to only a handful of official cults of the Athenian state and to some important local cults. Of course, further discoveries will likely alter this picture. Their participation seems to have consisted of swearing the citizen oath upon enrollment, touring sanctuaries, and throwing the javelin or running torch-races at festivals. The infrequent participation in state religion during the Lykourgan Age contrasts sharply with the religious life of ephebes in the Hellenistic Period. As will be discussed in Chapter 9, the evidence from lengthy decrees honoring the ephebes for their service suggests a very rich and regular involvement in Athenian state religion. This will occur about a century later, after the institution has undergone significant changes in organization, as will be discussed over the next few chapters. While military service will remain paramount, the focus of citizen training will shift to include greater participation in state religion, reflecting the needs and concerns of Athenians of this later period.

part 3 The Hellenistic Ephebeia

∵

chapter 7

The Late Fourth Century BCE The system of military training and service described in the Ath. Pol. and documented in the over thirty extant inscriptions of the Lykourgan Period is not only one of the better attested phases of the institution, but has set a high standard by which scholars have evaluated its later iterations. The Lykourgan ephebeia was also very short-lived, lasting a little over a decade. The following chapters explore the Hellenistic ephebeia at Athens, an institution that persisted nearly three hundred years and in which generations of young members from Athenian elite families participated. Pélékidis attempted a similar history, but was limited in part by the paucity of inscriptions from the late fourth to the early second centuries BCE. Understandably, this led to a focus on the later second and first centuries, for which the epigraphic evidence is richer, and a tendency to project later developments back on to the earlier, less well attested periods. Since the publication of his history, new epigraphical evidence has been unearthed, shedding much needed light on periods of history that were previously veiled in darkness. In addition to new evidence, recent publications by Habicht and others have clarified much of the history of Hellenistic Athens and have provided a framework with which to contextualize any new history of the Athenian ephebeia of this period. As will be discussed in the following chapters, the ephebeia that appears in the later evidence is significantly different than the Lykourgan. Before turning attention to it, however, this chapter addresses the fate of the Lykourgan ephebeia and considers the pressing question regarding the origin of its Hellenistic successor. Scholars disagree about the date and circumstances of its creation. Fueling the debate is the dearth of evidence for the late fourth and early third century BCE in general and the ephebeia specifically. The political and social turmoil of this age offers fertile soil for speculation and scholars have assigned the beginning of this phase of the institution to a period as early the oligarchy of Demetrios of Phaleron or to one as late as the oligarchy of Demetrios Poliorketes. This chapter will review the state of the question over the origin of this stage of the institution and demonstrate that the issue is far from settled. 1

The Lamian War and the Ephebeia

With Alexander’s sudden death on 10 June 323 BCE, the Athenians made immediate preparations for war to liberate Greece from Macedonian oppression

172

chapter 7

and sought allies among those Greeks harmed by the policies of the king.1 As the ekklesia mobilized Athens’ army and navy, Leosthenes, a private Athenian citizen, assembled 8,000 mercenaries at Tainaron (D.S. 17.111.2–3). He was later elected hoplite general for 323/2 BCE and eventually the commanderin-chief of all the allied forces.2 The Athenians entered alliances with Lokris, Phokis, the Aetolian League and many states in the Peloponnese, including Sikyon. This was no Khaironeia. For under Leosthenes’ leadership, they defeated a Boiotian army, occupied Thermopylai, and joined forces with the Aitolians. More importantly, they scored a stunning victory over Antipatros’s Macedonian phalanx and compelled the old general to take refuge in Lamia, a small town in Thessaly that later gave its name to this war. These successes, however, were undermined by the untimely death of Leosthenes, who was killed in a minor skirmish, and by the withdrawal of the Aitolians forces due to the protracted length of the siege. By the spring of 322 BCE, Macedonian reinforcements arrived from Asia Minor to relieve Antipatros. At Amorgos, the larger Macedonian fleet crushed the Athenian warships and a short time later the battle-experienced Macedonian soldiers overwhelmed and soundly defeated the smaller allied army of citizen-soldiers and their mercenaries under the Athenian Antiphilos at Krannon. What role, if any, did the ephebes play in the Lamian War? Diodoros states that the Athenians passed a decree in which citizens up to the age of forty should be called up for service. Of these, seven tribes should be ready to campaign beyond the frontiers, the other three should guard Attike and its borders (18.10.2, 18.11.3). Given the fact that eighteen and nineteen year old Athenians did not normally campaign abroad, it is most likely, then, that citizens of ephebic age stayed home. What role, if any, did the ephebes play in the war in Attike? According to Diodoros, citizens from three tribes guarded Attike by manning the fortresses in the khora. As the weakest, least experienced and least knowledgeable of the soldiery, it is unlikely that the ephebes would have played a role in actual pitched battle, unless the entirety of Athens’ hoplite forces was on campaign. As in earlier periods of Athenian history, they may have continued to serve as guards. 1  Histories of this war include Ferguson 1911, 15–19; Williams 1995, 33–51; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 107–17; Trittle 1988; Tracy 1995, 23–9; Habicht 1997, 36–42. On the role of Samos in Athens’ decision to enter the war, see id. 1996, 397–405. 2  D.S. 17.3.3; Hyp. 6.3. Leosthenes son of Leosthenes of Kephale was actively engaged in the military life of Athens. According to IG II2 1631 (324/3 BCE) lines 500 and (323/2 BCE) lines 601–2, 606, he helped outfit Athenian naval vessels. Before that, he served as strategos of the khora in (most likely) 329/8 BCE (T1.20 left side lines 2–6) during which he watched over the ephebes. For this inscription, see Tracy 1995, 23–6.

The Late Fourth Century BCE

173

One ephebe who certainly stayed home was Menander.3 According to the ancient tradition, the poet was born in the arkhonship of Sosigenes in 342/1 BCE, thus placing his participation in the ephebeia in 323/2–322/1 BCE.4 According to an anonymous Alexandrian source, Menander produced his first play “when he was an ephebe” (ἔφηβος ὢν) in the arkhonship of Philokles in 322/1 BCE, Menander’s second year of service.5 The only way to reconcile the evidence is to assume that Menander received an exemption from military training and service. On the face of it, such an exemption seems unlikely, since Ath. Pol. 42.5 states that ephebes served full-time and received exemptions in cases of inherited property, a priesthood, or the marriage of an heiress. MacDowell, however, has argued that members of khoroi received a temporary release from military service while involved in choral productions.6 The evidence for this exemption (Dem. 21.15, 39.16–17) speaks only of members of the khoroi, not of the poets whose works were being produced and performed. Still, it does not exclude this possibility and such an exemption certainly would have extended to them in those cases in which the poet was also a participant in his own khoros. What was the context for Menander’s exemption? As de Marcellus argues, the Lamian War had been underway for a year and the men who would have normally written and produced plays for the City Dionysia were either campaigning in Thessaly or serving in the countryside fortresses. In order to meet the needs of the Dionysia, Menander was released from service and allotted a khoros, “as an ephebe” (ἔφηβος ὢν). Why did Menander receive this exemption when it was available to older Athenian playwrights serving in Thessaly and the Athenian khora? Menander likely had already written a play, perhaps, as Bethe suggested, the one that serves as the source for Terence’s Heauton Timorumenos.7 Furthermore, since ephebes normally served in the countryside fortresses in their second year, Menander would have been stationed here in 322/1 BCE, the year in which his first play was performed. Yet, as de Marcellus explains, the three tribal regiments of citizen-soldiers who were manning these fortresses and patrolling the countryside would have obviated the need of stationing ephebes in the khora.

3  de Marcellus 1996, 69–76. 4  Strab. 14.1.18; D.L. 10.14; IG XIV 1184. 5  Menander test. 3 K-A. 6  MacDowell 1982 [1985], 70–72. 7  Bethe 1902, 278–282. Iversen 2011, 186–91, has argued that the identity of the play was, in fact, the Thaïs, which was composed and produced sometime prior to its performance at the City Dionysia in Elaphebolion 321 BCE, six months after the Athenians surrendered to the Macedonians.

174 2

chapter 7

The Oligarchy of Demades and Phokion (321/0–319/8 BCE)

In August 322 BCE, Antipatros entered negotiations with an Athenian delegation led by the orator Demades and the general Phokion, who had urged the Athenians not to violate the Common Peace and enter the Lamian War, and demanded nothing short of unconditional surrender (Plut. Cam. 19.5). Antipatros further insisted that all the democratic leaders who urged war against Macedon be rounded up and brought to him for execution.8 The Athenians agreed to accept a Macedonian garrison at Peiraieus (Phok. 28.1). They also lost Oropos and their colony on Samos.9 While the Athenians could hardly have imagined it, the long-term impact of their military defeat in the Lamian War was, with the exception of a few short-lived spurts of partial independence, a near century of Macedonian intervention in and domination of Athenian affairs. Antipatros imposed certain constitutional changes on the Athenian people—packaged as a return to the ancestral Athenian constitution (patrios politeia)—that in effect created an oligarchic regime under Demades and Phokion, Antipatros’ representatives and friends (Phok. 31.3). The former held sway over the ekklesia, while the latter controlled the army as strategos, a position he had held nearly every year since he was eligible for it. Under these new leaders, steps were taken to undermine the traditional democracy. For instance, Antipatros imposed a property qualification of 2000 drakhmai that reduced the citizen body by about four-sevenths on the grounds that they were disturbers of the peace and warmongers (D.S. 18.18.4). He stripped away the right to vote and to hold office from those who failed to meet it. For the disfranchised, Antipatros established a city in Thrace to which a large number of these Athenians migrated (Phok. 28).10 According to Plutarch, Phokion ensured that the men who met his approval held the magistracies, while those who did not were excluded from political life (29.4). This implies that Phokion had influence over the candidate pool, tampered with the electoral process, or abandoned sortition outright. The office of anagrapheus was instituted, which diminished the power of the tribal secretaries. This official appeared before the name of the eponymous archon of the year and was held by members of the

8 

9  10 

Hypereides, Aristonikos, and Himeraios, Athens’ leading democrats, took refuge in the sanctuary of Aiakos on Aegina. Arkhias, Antipatros’s agent, had these men dragged from the hero’s sanctuary and sent to Kleonai for execution. Demosthenes took asylum in the sanctuary of Poseidon on Kalauria in which he committed suicide. Plut. Demetr. 28.1– 30.5, Plut. Phok. 29.1, [Plut.] 846e–f, 849a–c. D.S. 18.18.9; D.L. 10.1. D.S. 18.18.6 places the number at 12,000 disfranchised Athenians.

The Late Fourth Century BCE

175

oligarchy.11 The ekklesia continued to function as before, but the subject of its decrees were grants of citizenship, enktesis, and proxenia. The exception to this pattern is a decree proposed by Demades in which some of the authority of the astynomoi was transferred to the agoranomoi (IG II2 380). The imposition of property qualifications on the citizenry had the effect of shrinking the pool of candidates who would have normally participated in the day-to-day function of the government (councilors, magistrates, judges). This, in turn, necessitated the simplification and centralization of the bureaucracy, as Demades’ decree illustrates.12 Furthermore, the Macedonians installed a garrison at Mounikhia in Peiraieus—the very fortress in which the ephebes trained and guarded during their first year—and in so doing controlled Athens’ harbor (Phok. 28). The installation of the garrison occurred on 20 Boedromion, 322 BCE—during the celebration of the Eleusinian Mysteries—and was placed under the command of Manyllos, a personal friend of Phokion. For the rest of the fourth century BCE and throughout most of the third, this garrison, and to some extent the others in the Attic khora, became a tool of Macedonian subordination.13 Antipatros forced the Athenians to accept his garrison at Peiraieus so that they would not violently revolt against him (18.18.3–5). By suppressing independent military initiatives of the Athenians, the garrison accomplished in military terms what the creation of the oligarchy accomplished in political terms. The garrison also exploited Athens’ economic resources and even affected the city’s religious life. For instance, during the years of occupation it appears that the Athenians lost access to the sanctuary of Artemis Mounikhia located on the slopes of Mounikhia hill. The rites of Artemis Mounikhia were significant to the Athenians of the fifth and fourth centuries BCE. There is, however, no evidence of her worship for most of the third century BCE.14 After they recovered their independence through the reacquisition of the fortress at Mounikhia in 229 BCE, the Athenians reinvigorated her cult, linking Artemis to the Battle of Salamis and the recovery of democracy under Thrasyboulos. As will be seen in Chapter 9, the ephebes played an important role in the renewal of her cult. Did Antipatros or his commissars in Athens end the ephebeia? There are no extant ephebic inscriptions from this period. This may be entirely due to the accidents of preservation. Ferguson, Pélékidis and Habicht believe that, if 11  12  13  14 

Dow 1963, 38–55, esp. 51–4. Williams 1985. Oliver 2003, 40–51. Williams 1985, 121–2. Apollodor. FGrHist 244 F 44. Mikalson 1998, 52; On Artemis Mounikhia, see Viscardi 2010, 31–60; Palaiokrassa 1989, 1–40; Garland 1987, 113–14; Parke 1977, 137–39.

176

chapter 7

there had been an ephebeia at Athens during this time, its membership would have been reduced in the same proportion as the citizen body, by about foursevenths.15 This, of course, assumes that the institution that existed during this period was mandatory for all citizens with full citizen rights. This scenario, as discussed in Chapter 1, was most likely not the case. On the other hand, Mitchel concluded that the ephebeia had been brought to an end based on his analysis of IG II2 1187 (= I.Eleusis no. 99) of 319/8 BCE in which the deme of Eleusis honored Derkylos of Hagnous, the strategos of the khora for this year, for instituting what Mitchel called “ephebe-style training  … for the boys at Eleusis.”16 He arrives at this conclusion based on lines 4–5 of text (καὶ ὅπως ἂν οἱ παῖδες παιδεύωνται οἱ ἐν τῶι δήµωι), which state that Derkylos made certain provisions so that the boys in this deme may be educated. How is this evidence for “ephebe-style training?” Mitchel explains that with the abolition of the ephebeia the fathers of teenage sons lacked the resources for private instruction and training, which fifteen years of a centralized ephebeia had more than likely dried up. One serious flaw in this interpretation is that the inscription clearly states that Derkylos was honored for providing education to boys (παῖδες), not ephebes. Further, nothing in this inscription indicates the nature of the education. Mitchel attempted to insulate his argument from this criticism by further hypothesizing that the fathers thought it unsafe to erect an ephebic inscription of the normal type and for safety sake referred to their sons as boys in the text. This conclusion is speculative and requires a good deal of reading between the epigraphical lines.17 Mitchel was certainly right in his general observation: As an institution intimately linked with the previous democratic regime, the ephebeia would have necessarily been suppressed by the new oligarchy on the grounds that it was anti-Macedonian. This democratic institution provided two years of training for Athens’ newest citizens. At five to six hundred ephebes for each year class, there would have been a standing force of a thousand or more ephebes in any given year—all loyal to the democracy. Assuming that this number would have been halved due to the newly instituted property qualification, there would have been a force of around five to six hundred ephebes in any given year, many of whom still loyal to the democracy. As Mitchel notes, the ephebeia was also expensive to maintain. The trophe, one of the democratic aspects of the ephebeia that allowed a large number of new citizens to participate in the 15  16  17 

Ferguson 1911, 22; Pélékidis 1962, 158; Habicht 1997, 45. Mitchel 1964, 348. Whitehead 1983, 64, and Tracy 1995, 19, follow Mitchel in his interpretation of this inscription. Couvenhes 1998, 49–69.

The Late Fourth Century BCE

177

institution, had cost the Athenians around forty talents each year. It would most likely have been eliminated as a cost saving measure under the oligarchy. The elimination of the trophe would have made it impossible for many young men to participate in the ephebeia, which would have effectively brought the institution to an end or significantly altered it.18 The fact that the Macedonians were stationed in the areas formerly reserved for ephebic training and service, i.e., the fortress of Mounikhia and those on the northern border, may be another reason to believe that traditional training would have been curtailed or brought to an end. Further, the fact that the ekklesia and boule remained active during this period producing many honorary decrees strongly suggests that the ephebeia did not exist under the oligarchy of Antipatros.19 Although the Macedonians seized control over Peirairus in September 322 BCE, De Marcellus is probably correct in dating the end of the Lykourgan ephebeia to the end of 321 BCE, when changes to the constitution were first imposed.20 3

Democracy’s Brief Return (319/8–318/7 BCE)

Soon, however, Demades’ and Phokion’s hold over Athens weakened. Demades and his son Demeas were arrested and executed for treason against Antipatros in the summer of 319 BCE.21 In the same year, Antipatros appointed Polyperkhon regent over Philip Arrhidaios, Alexander’s half-brother, and Alexander IV, the dead king’s infant son.22 In bestowing the regency on Polyperkhon, Antipatros passed over his own son Kassander, who immediately raised an army with which to remove Polyperkhon. In response, Polyperkhon issued his “Exile Decree.” This essentially rolled back Antipatros’ post-war settlement among the Greeks in a bid to win them to his side against Kassander, who favored the settlement.23 Perceiving weakness in the Macedonian royal house and seeing an opportunity to liberate Peiraieus from the Macedonian garrison, the Athenians directed Phokion to take action against Nikanor, the new garrison commander, but the old general refused. In March of 318 BCE, the People came together in the ekklesia and removed the magistrates who were serving under the oligarchy, replacing them with staunch democrats 18  19  20  21  22  23 

Mitchel 1964, 347. Oliver 2003, 42–3 provides a useful table for the decrees from this period. de Marcellus 1996, 74. D.S. 18.48; Plut. Phok. 30, Dem. 31; Arr. FGrHist 156 F 9.14. D.S. 18.48.4–5; Plut. Phok. 31. D.S. 18.64.3–5, 18.66.2.

178

chapter 7

and condemning the oligarchs to death, exile or confiscation of property. The People charged Phokion and the rest with enslaving the fatherland and overthrowing the constitution and laws.24 In May 318, Phokion and other leaders of the oligarchy were compelled to drink hemlock after a mass trial in the Theater of Dionysos.25 Those who fled the city, such as Demetrios of Phaleron, were condemned in absentia.26 With the ouster of the Antipatrid oligarchy, the Athenians restored their democratic constitution. In an honorary decree published in 318/17 BCE, they declared that the Demos had returned and recovered the laws and democracy (IG II2 448 lines 62–4: νῦν δὲ ἐπειδὴ ὅ τε δῆµος [κατελ]ήλυθε καὶ τοὺς νόµους καὶ τὴν δηµοκρατίαν ἀ[πείλη]φε,…). Hagnonides of Pergasai, the author of this decree and one of the prosecutors of Phokion, was joined by Demophilos of Akharnai, Polyeuktos of Sphettos and (perhaps) Moirakles of Eleusis and others in assuming the mantle of leadership over a free and democratic Athens.27 The office of anagrapheus was ended and tribal cycles were restored.28 Other traditional features of Athenian democracy returned, such as the removal of the property qualification and reestablishment of the lot. The law courts were also revived, as illustrated by the prosecution by Hagnonides of the Peripatetic philosopher Theophrastos on charges of impiety.29 Demophilos had brought similar charges against Aristotle, Theophrastos’ teacher, just a few years earlier and on the same grounds. Members of Aristotle’s school at the Lykeion were known for their pro-Macedonian sympathies and thus were regarded as antidemocratic. Hagnonides attempted to use to his advantage the highly charged anti-Macedonian sentiments among the Athenians to remove his political enemy. Theophrastos, however, had fought for democracy in his home town of Eresos and was popular among the Athenians.30 In the end, the philosopher 24  25  26  27 

28  29  30 

D.S. 18.66.5 (cf. 18.18). D.S. 18.67.3; Nep. Phoc. 4.1; Plut. Phok. 34–7. D.S. 18.64.2–3, 67.3; Plut. Phok. 33.3, 34.1, 35; Athen. 12.542e. For Demophilos, see Plut. Phok. 38.1, D.L. 5.5, Athen. 153696b. For Polyeuktos, see IG II2 350 (331/0 or 318/7 BCE), and Schweigert 1939, 30–4, no. 8. For Moirakles, see I.Eleusis no. 95 (321/0? BCE). For Hagnonides, see IG II2 448, an honorary decree of 318/7 BCE for the Sikyonian Euphron who had expelled the Macedonian garrison at Sikyon at the outbreak of the Lamian war and convinced his fellow citizens to join Athens against Macedonia. The Athenians had originally awarded Euphron these honors at some point during the Lamian War. After the war, Antipatros killed Euphron and the Athenian oligarchy rescinded his honors and destroyed the stele. Hagnonides’ new decree reconfirmed the original honors awarded to Euphron and extended them to his sons. Oliver and Dow 1935, 35–7, no. 5; Schweigert, ibid. D.L. 5.37. Ferguson 1911, 35–6. Mikalson 1998, 49. Plut. 1097b, 1126f; Athen. 3.90e, 8.333a, 10.438c.

The Late Fourth Century BCE

179

was acquitted and Hagnonides barely scraped together the fifth of the vote necessary to avoid incurring a penalty. Was the Law of the Ephebes (Lyk. fr. 9 Conomis: ὁ νόµος ὁ περὶ τῶν ἐφήβων) among those laws that the newly reestablished democracy recovered? As with the previous period, there are no extant decrees honoring the ephebes from these two years. Still, some scholars have assumed that the ephebeia was reinstituted.31 The honorary decree for Euphron (IG II2 448 lines 62–4) implies that, with the return of the People, all the laws linked with the democracy were reestablished. The renewed vigor for democracy that Athenians displayed in this period would also suggest a refoundation of this institution, especially given its connection with the democracy of the Lykourgan Age. Two factors should be taken into consideration. First, despite the fact that they enjoyed a brief return to freedom and independence, the Athenians were unable to dislodge the Macedonian garrison at Mounikhia under the command of Nikanor, a supporter of Kassander. Nikanor captured the naval facilities and Peiraieus itself, eventually handing over the port to the King when he returned to Athens in 317 BCE.32 Second, while the Athenians appear to have retained their fortresses in the khora (although, see D.S. 18.65.4), by 318/17 BCE, the countryside was the theater of renewed hostilities between Athens and the forces of Kassander. Thus, if a system of training and service had existed in these years, the ephebes would have been prohibited from accessing the very places where they had traditionally trained and served. These two considerations suggest that the Athenians either did not reconstitute their ephebeia or modified it in such a way as to accommodate the new military reality. 4

The Tyranny of Demetrios of Phaleron (317–307 BCE)

When Polyperkhon lost his fleet to Antigonos the One-Eyed, Athenian hopes of resisting Kassander’s invading forces of Macedonians were dashed (D.S. 18.68– 72). In 317 BCE, the Athenians opened negotiations with Kassander and inevitably agreed to his terms—to serve as his ally in his war against Polyperkhon. To ensure their cooperation in this, Kassander retained the Macedonian garrison at Mounikhia (under the command of Nikanor), reimposed a property qualification for citizenship and established an epimeletes, or manager, of Athens who served as Kassander’s own representative at Athens (D.S. 18.74.2–3).

31  32 

Williams 1985, 164. D.S. 18.64–65; Plut. Phok. 31–33.

180

chapter 7

Hagnonides and other democratic leaders were hunted down and put to death (Plut. Phok. 38.1). Kassander chose Demetrios of Phaleron, an Athenian citizen who had headed the Athenian negotiation and, like the Aristotelian circle at Athens of which Demetrios was a member, was a loyal supporter of both Kassander and his father Antipatros (D.S. 18.74.3).33 The two extant decrees from this period indicate that the traditional machinery of democratic government remained in place. Other contemporary evidence, however, tells a different story. During his decade-long tenure as epimeletes, Demetrios served as the tyrant of Athens.34 He enforced Kassander’s new property qualifications of 1000 drakhmai that effectively disfranchised about half the former citizen population (D.S. 18.74.3).35 He was appointed as nomothetes, making laws for the Athenians.36 Whereas the oligarchy of Phokion and Demades used the anagrapheus to monitor the ekklesia and boule, Demetrios instituted a board of seven nomophylakes, or guardians of the law, who supervised other magistrates to ensure their compliance with the laws.37 He may have also restored or strengthened the power of the Areopagos Council.38 Through the use of gynaikonomoi, Demetrios famously restricted the forms in which rich elites displayed their wealth by curtailing excessive expenditures and displays in weddings, funerals and banquets.39 He also eliminated liturgies, thus freeing the wealthy classes from what they regarded as an unwelcome financial burden.40 Thus, while maintaining some machinery of traditional government, Demetrios clearly restricted aspects of the democracy to promote aristocratic interests. Was there an ephebeia at Athens under Demetrios? Ferguson, O’ Sullivan, Wallace, Kirchner, Pélékidis, and Tracy have suggested that the 33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40 

On the career of Demetrios of Phaleron, see O’Sullivan 2009; Fortenbaugh and E. Shütrumpf 2000; Tracy 1995, 36–50; Williams 1985, 169–211; MacKendrick 1969, 31–4. Paus.1.25.6; Plut. Dem. 10.2; Cic. Fin. 5.19.54. See O’Sullivan 2009, 241–77; Habicht 1997, 53–66; Ferguson 1911, 38–62. O’Sullivan 2009, 108–115. Marmor Parium, B lines 15–16; Plut. Arist. 27.3; Georgius Syncellus, Chronological Abstract, 521; Cic. Re Publ. 2.1.2; and IG II2 1201 line 11. For the restoration of νοµοθέτης in line 11, see Dow and Travis 1943, 144–65, and Williams 1985, 198–9 n. 518. Philokhor. FGrHist 328 F64. Williams 1985, 176–82; and O’Sullivan 2009, 72–85. Ferguson 1911, 46; Williams 1985, 194–6; and Wallace 1989, 204–6. O’Sullivan 2009, 147–59, argues that Demetrios did not enhance the powers of the Areopagites but may have attempted to restrict it. Philokhor. FGrHist 328 F65 = Athen. 5.245a; Cic., Leg. 2.64–6; Duris of Samos FGrHist 76 F 10, although the evidence for this practice has been difficult to find in the Kerameikos. See O’Sullivan 2009, 47–65. O’Sullivan 2009, 168–88; Mikalson 1998, 54–7; Ferguson 1911, 55–8.

The Late Fourth Century BCE

181

ephebeia did exist in some form during this period. Ferguson imagines the continuation of a Lykourgan ephebeia combined with Demetrios’ property qualifications.41 Given his interest in the orderliness of men and women, O’Sullivan suggests that Demetrios may have had a similar interest in the eukosmia of youth, citing a passage of Aristotle’s Politics (1322b37) which links paidonomia with nomophylakia and gynaikonomia as features of a well-regulated, aristocratic state.42 Scholars attribute to Demetrios certain changes in the military, religious and civic program that characterize the later Hellenistic phase of the institution.43 The paucity of evidence, however, hampers investigation into the ephebeia under his regime.44 The only source that mentions ephebes during this period of Macedonian occupation is T2.1, an entry on the Victors List of the Great Dionysia. At lines 46–7, the text records that of the comedies performed at the festival a certain Ameinias took third place for his play Apoleipouse, The Woman Who Ran Away. Ameinias was allotted (ἐνεµήθη) his khoros “when he was an ephebe” (ἔ]φηβος ὢν). Little is known of Ameinias’ life and career (PAA 123115). In addition to taking third place here, he was victorious in the Lenaia (IG II2 2325 fr. m. col. III 167) and staged and/or acted in a comedy on Delos in 280 BCE (IG XI.2 107). No fragments of the Apoleipouse survive and nothing is known about the play.45 Millis and Olson, the latest editors of this text, regard the expression ἔ]φηβος ὢν as “an unusual intrusion into an otherwise dry catalogue of 41  42 

43  44 

45 

Ferguson 1911, 48. O’Sullivan 2009, 86–7. Aristot. Pol. 1300a5, 1323a7 regarded all three as features of aristocratic regimes and therefore out of step with democracy. It is difficult to reconstruct what Aristotle meant by παιδονοµία, since his full discussion on the topic has not survived. What does survive appears at 1235b, a discussion on the physical constitution of parents that are the most beneficial to their offspring; and at 1236a–b, a brief outline of the physical and spiritual education of children (supervised by παιδονόµοι). Another problem with O’Sullivan’s suggestion is that the term παιδονοµία refers to the education of παῖδες, i.e., children, and so would naturally exclude young men of ephebic age, who as new citizens had entered the age of majority and were adults. O’Sullivan overlooked Aristotle’s recommendation that young men or even a regiment of ephebes be used as guards (1322a25, discussed in Chapter 5). If Aristotle’s works played a role in his governance, Demetrios may have been open to maintaining an ephebeia on the basis of this passage. Wallace 1989 205; Habicht 1992, 47–9; id. 1997, 187; and Tracy 2007, 208. Only two inscriptions, IG II2 450 and 453, can be confidently assigned to this period. See Tracy 1995, 36–51. For a list of those inscriptions that have been or may be assigned to this period, see Tracy ibid., 36 n. 2. Tracy further argues that the reason so few inscribed stones survive was not an anti-democratic act of Demetrios, but an economic measure: the tyrant curtailed the funds for inscribing stone stelai. In Tracy’s view, such a measure was in line with his elimination of funds for liturgies and private grave monuments. Millis and Olson 2012, 74.

182

chapter 7

names and titles.” The statement that Ameinias produced a play when he was an ephebe may be part of a topos about “precocious poets.” For instance, the Suda states that Eupolis was 17 when he produced his first play. As discussed above, an Alexandrian source states that Menander made his debut “when he was an ephebe” (ἔφηβος ὢν). As Storey observes, this topos is based in the long standing tradition that Aristophanes was less than 18 at the time of his first production.46 By noting that Ameinias was an ephebe, the Athenians elevated his accomplishment and placed the young man in venerable company. Does the expression ἔφηβος ὢν refer to Ameinias as a member of the ephebeia or simply as a new citizen? Tracy maintains that its appearance here is evidence for the existence of an ephebeia in the age of Demetrios of Phaleron.47 Millis and Olsen agree with Tracy, adding that the appearance of this expression on the Victors List implies that poets were not regularly allotted a khoros until they completed their ephebeia. Since there is no direct evidence for age limits on who received a khoros, the expression is better interpreted as a topos.48 It is also possible that Ameinias received an exemption, just as Menander had before him. Of course, this interpretation rests on the unstated assumption that ἔφηβος necessarily implies the existence of an institution of military training and service for newly enrolled citizens. The review of this term in Chapter 1, however, demonstrates that ἔφηβος did not always have this meaning. Prior to the creation of the ephebeia in the Lykourgan Age, this term referred to a new citizen. Demographic evidence from the Lykourgan Age suggests that not all new citizens participated in the institution. Yet, Lykourgos states that all Athenian citizens (πάντες οἱ πολῖται) take the citizen oath when they are registered into the deme registry and become ephebes.49 As will be discussed in the following chapter, only a handful of ephebes underwent annual military training and service during the Hellenistic Period at Athens. Was Ameinias undergoing military training and service when he produced his play? Since the term is ambiguous, additional literary and epigraphical evidence is required to answer affirmatively. No literary source has survived to support an ephebeia during this period. Wallace associated a passage of the pseudo-Platonic Axiokhos with the alleged reforms of the ephebeia by Demetrios, in particular the role of the Areopagos Council in overseeing the 46  47  48  49 

Storey 2004, 56. Tracy 2007, 208. There is, however, no direct evidence for such an age-limit. See Pickard-Cambridge 2003, 84. Lyk. Leokr. 76: ὑµῖν γὰρ ἔστιν ὅρκος, ὃν ὀµνύουσι πάντες οἱ πολῖται, ἐπειδὰν εἰς τὸ ληξιαρχικὸν γραµµατεῖον ἐγγραφῶσιν καὶ ἔφηβοι γένωνται.

The Late Fourth Century BCE

183

ephebeia (366d–367a).50 As noted in Chapter 4, however, this dialogue has been variously dated and likely belongs to the late Hellenistic or even Roman Period. The picture of the ephebeia presented in this passage very likely reflects a later state of affairs, not the Athens under Demetrios.51 There is very little in the way of epigraphical evidence for an ephebeia during this period.52 T2.2, a fragmentary roster dated to this period, is a problematic text. Meritt originally dated it to “paullo ante med. Saec. III a,” for the organization of this roster is directly comparable to the roster of T5.4, an ephebic honorary decree inscribed in 250/49 BCE. The rosters of T2.2 and T5.4 consist of names with patronymics and demotics arranged under tribal headings without separate deme headings. As Meritt observes all ephebic rosters produced after T5.4 were organized in this fashion.53 Contrast this with ephebic honorary decrees of the Lykourgan Age, in which individual tribes erected inscriptions with rosters and arranged the names of the ephebes under deme headings (e.g., T1.2). Or with the period directly after the expulsion of Demetrios of Phaleron, in which decrees record the names of ephebes with patronymics under shared demotic and tribal headings (T3.1). This form of organizing ephebic roster appears again in T4.2 (266/5 BCE), which suggests that the Athenians continued to arrange rosters in this way during the intervening years, although no examples survive.54 Thus, based on the organization of names, Meritt concluded that T2.2 was an ephebic roster of a mid-third century date. In a later article, Meritt noted that the presence of the deme Kudathenaion under the tribe Pandionis (line 12) made this date highly improbable, for from 307/6 to 200/199 BCE, this deme was affiliated with the tribe Antigonis. His prosopographical analysis of the 50  51  52 

53  54 

Wallace 1989, 205. Nor can the brief reference to ephebes training in the gymnasia that appears in Theophrastos’ Characters (5.7: τῶν δὲ γυµνασίων ἐν τούτοις διατρίβειν, οὗ ἂν οἱ ἔφηβοι γυµνάζωνται) be firmly dated to this period. See Diggles 2004, 27–37. Kirchner and Pélékidis, believed that T1.4, an ephebic dedication, should be dated to 315/4 BCE. See Kircher’s note on IG II2 2970; Pélékidis 1962, 157. Mitchel 1964, 349–50, however, reexamined the inscription and determined that Ktesikles was in fact the arkhon based on a closer reading of the remaining letters, as well as the presence of the strategos Kimon son of Timotheos at lines 5–6 who appears in ephebic dedications of 333/2 BCE. Tracy 1995, 36 n. 2, 40 n. 24, suggests that IG II2 585, a mangled decree recording the honors of an unknown paidotribes (?) that Kirchner dated from 336/5 to 319/8 BCE, may be dated to 314/3 BCE. If this is so, this may offer further epigraphical evidence for the existence of the ephebeia from this period. T5.5 (249/8 BCE), T5.6 (245/4 BCE), T5.8 (235/4 BCE), and T5.9 (c. 235 BCE). Subsequent discoveries of ephebic inscriptions (e.g., T5.2, 257/6 BCE) supplement and reinforce Meritt’s original observations. Meritt 1964, 209.

184

chapter 7

names that appear in the roster of T2.2 also points to a late fourth century date. Yet, it was orthographic considerations, specifically the fourth century spelling of “Μυρρινόσιο[ς]” (line 14), instead of the third century (and beyond) “Μυρρινούσιος,” that firmly establishes a date for T2.2 to sometime before 307/6 BCE.55 This date, however, raises fundamental problems in classifying this text as a roster of ephebes, for Meritt made this identification based on its similarity in roster organization with mid-third century examples. Since T2.2 should now be assigned a late fourth century date, a period during which ephebic rosters were not formatted in this manner, the basis for this identification no longer exists. Thus, two options are possible. Either assume that this document is an ephebic roster and explain it by what Reinmuth called an “anachronistic intrusion” into a well-defined development of ephebic honorary decrees; or, follow David Lewis in rejecting this inscription from the corpus of ephebic documents altogether.56 The better course of action regarding T2.2 is to remain agnostic about its status until more information becomes available. Given the current state of evidence, there is no clear answer as to whether or not an ephebeia existed under the regime of Demetrios of Phaleron. If one did exist, the property qualification on citizenship most likely played little role in excluding members, since it was primarily young men of the non-thetic classes who were participating anyway. If Demetrios’ cost-saving measures extended to public financing of the ephebeia, the daily trophe allotted to each ephebe would have been curtailed or eliminated altogether, which would have had a significant impact on the ability of each young man to participate and thus on the overall size of each year class. There is, in fact, some evidence that the trophe may have been reduced or ended.57 A smaller ephebeia comprised of wealthier members loyal to the aristocracy would have been acceptable to Kassander. The Macedonians’ control over Mounikhia and thus Peiraieus, would have effected where the ephebes trained and served. As noted in an earlier section, the ephebeia at Athens was most likely abolished under the Antipatrid regime of Phokian and Demades after the Lamian War. The lack of evidence suggests that the institution may not have been resuscitated in the brief democratic interlude of 319–17 BCE, although the return 55  56  57 

Meritt 1964, 336. For a discussion of the fourth century development of ΟΥ as a grapheme for the long ο-vowel, see Chapter 2, pp. 53–4. Lewis 1973, 256. Says Lewis: “I have no idea what it is.” Duris of Samos FGrHist 76 F 10 (= Athen. 12.542c–d), complained that despite taking hold of a 1200 talent annual income, Demetrios spent little on the military and public administration, but squandered it on his innate lack of self-control. Duris was a political enemy of Demetrios of Phaleron and strongly anti-Macedonian. On these biases in Duris’ work, see Kebric 1977, 25–8.

The Late Fourth Century BCE

185

of the People and the restoration of the democracy and its laws (IG II2 448 lines 62–4) leave open the possibility that the Law of the Ephebes should be included. Thus, instead of reviving the institution, it is possible that Demetrios inherited it from the democracy and allowed it to survive, albeit under certain modifications. What impact would a modified ephebeia have on subsequent permutations of the institution? Habicht and Tracy have argued that the ephebeia under Demetrios inaugurated certain changes that later became the hallmark of the Hellenistic institution, namely, the reduction of two years of service to one year, and the transition from compulsory to voluntary service.58 This scenario is unlikely and such modifications should be associated with the oligarchy of Demetrios Poliorketes or, even more likely, the recovery of democracy in 287/6 BCE. For any changes that occurred under Demetrios of Phaleron would have been swept away along with the rest of his aristocratic innovations to the constitution when in 307 BCE the Athenians were liberated, restored their democracy on Lykourgan grounds and instituted a Lykourganstyle ephebeia. 5

Between Freedom and Dependency (307–287 BCE)

In June 307 BCE, the soldiers of Demetrios Poliorketes, the son of Antigonos the One-Eyed and an enemy of Kassander, successfully stormed the Peiraieus. By August, they and the Athenians completely liberated Athens from Kassander’s men and dismantled the Macedonian fortress at Mounikhia in the Peiraieus.59 Operations against Kassander did not end here, for he continued to make war on Athens (Four Years War, 307–4 BCE), until in 304 BCE Demetrios Poliorketes chased Kassander out of the countryside and returned Phyle and Panakton to the grateful Athenians. In doing so, Athens regained control of her northern borders and the routes in and out of Attike from the north and access to the plains south of the Parnes.60 There is no evidence that Eleusis, Sounion and Rhamnous were captured and garrisoned by Kassander during the Four Years War. If they had been seized, however, decrees passed by the Athenians in 304 BCE indicate that they were free of foreign troops at this time.61 58  59  60  61 

Habicht 1992, 47–9; id. 1997, 187; and Tracy 2007, 208. D.S. 20.45.1–7; Plut. Demetr. 8.4–10. Plut. Demetr. 23.1–2. Kassander’s war with Athens in 306/5: IG II2 470, 467 +Add. p. 671 lines 23 ff., 469 (306/5?), 470; in 305/4: IG II2 500 lines 10 ff.; Athens praises her taxiarkhoi of 305/4 BCE for their defense of the city walls: IG II2 492. Eleusis: IG II2 553 lines 1–6 (304/3 BCE); Sounion: IG II2 1260 (304/3 BCE?); Rhamnous: Ergon 1993 [1994]: 7 (304/3, 303/2 BCE).

186

chapter 7

Demetrios of Phaleron’s government was dissolved and the tyrant’s ten-year rule was brought to an end. Now an exile, Demetrios of Phaleron was given safe passage to leave the city.62 He eventually settled in the court of Ptolemy II, where he served as Alexandria’s first librarian and later, with the help of fellow Athenian Timotheos, developed the mythology, ritual, and liturgical hymns for Sarapis that served as a locus for the national cult of the Ptolemies.63 At Athens, her citizens looked back to the form of government that they had enjoyed in the Age of Lykourgos, a Golden Age of Athens within living memory of most of the political actors of this period. Part of this restoration included reviving its ephebeia on Lykourgan grounds. In an assembly held in July of 307 BCE, the Athenians restored their traditional democracy. This included eliminating many of the innovations introduced by Demetrios of Phaleron that the Athenians regarded as in conflict with it, such as the imposition of Kassander’s census class and the guardians of the law, and a board of nomothetai was appointed to restore the laws.64 In true democratic fashion, the laws of the polis were published so that “all the citizens could see them and none should be ignorant of the laws” (IG II2 487 lines 7–10). Although they retained the sumptuary laws and abolition of liturgies (such as the khoregeia) introduced by Demetrios of Phaleron, the Athenians replaced them with the agonothesia, in which the People acted as liturgists (ὁ δῆµος ἐχορήγει), first attested in 307/6 BCE (IG II2 3077).65 Demetrios Poliorketes and his father Antigonos the One-Eyed also received extraordinary honors for liberating the city. The Athenians revered them as savior gods, instituted cults and festivals in their names, and added two new phylai, Antigonis and Demetrias, to their tribal system, which remained intact until 201/0 BCE.66 Antigonos and Demetrios were now the guarantors of Athenian democracy. In addition to grain for their starving population, Antigonos aided the Athenians in resurrecting their fleet. He provided enough timber for them to build one hundred triremes (D.S. 20.46.4). Thirty Athenian quadriremes participated in Antigonos’ naval victory over Ptolemy at Kypriot Salamis in 306 BCE (D.S. 20.50.3). 62  63  64  65 

66 

Plut. Demetr. 8; D.S. 20.45.3ff. Dow 1937, 183–232; Dunand 1973, 45–66, and vol. II 4–17, 144–53; Plut. Mor. 362a; Tac. Hist. 4.83; D.L. 5.76. Mikalson 1998, 229–31, 275–77. Osborne 1985, 284; Rhodes with Lewis 1997, 43. Xenokles of Sphettos, a wealthy benefactor and friend of Lykourgos has been identified as the first Athenian to have served as agonothetes, although Lambert 2000–3, 99–105, identifies the agonothetes as Xenokles’ brother Androkles on the grounds of letter-spacing. For the agonothesia as a creation of the democracy of 307 BCE, see Bayliss 2011, 105. Plut. Demetr. 10. Mikalson 1998, 81.

The Late Fourth Century BCE

187

In anticipation of Kassander’s attempt to retake the city and her harbor, the Athenians took steps to rebuild and restore the walls that formed the Athens-Peiraieus defensive complex and the Long Walls that joined the harbor to the city. For instance, IG II2 740, published between the late fourth and early third century BCE, honors wealthy citizens for their donations to the repair of defensive towers. Demokhares, nephew of Demosthenes, seems to have played a significant role in preparing Athens for war, including repairing the walls. For he himself was singled out in an honorary decree for his contribution to the war effort in “the building of walls and providing armor, missiles, and machines of war” (Plut. 851d). Demokhares was also the orator who moved the motion authoring the decree and syngraphai concerning the rebuilding and reinforcing of the old fortification system. The epigraphical evidence suggests that considerable effort was applied to updating the walls and other defensive measure to withstand the latest in siege technology employed by Kassander. Older portions of the walls were destroyed and replaced with an all-stone construction. The Athenians added palisades, closed parapets with shuttered windows, a roofed wall walk, and the installation of catapults and other forms of artillery.67 The ephebes carried out their guard duties in and along these restored fortifications. Over one hundred decrees of the ekklesia are extant for the first six years of Athenian liberation, sixteen of these were published in the first year of the new regime.68 As Tracy notes, “[Athenian] politicians clearly considered decrees published on stone not only as visible signs of democratic action, but also as a clear way of differentiating themselves from the previous regime.”69 The decrees provide a glimpse into Athenian leadership of this period. Chief among them was Stratokles of Diomeia, who alone proposed 28 of these decrees.70 One was the posthumous honors awarded to Lykourgos in 307/6 BCE, nearly twenty years after his death. While only a fragmentary inscription records these honors, a complete copy of the text survives in the literary tradition.71 67  68  69  70 

71 

IG II2 463 (307/6 BCE) lines 37–48, 74–5, 105; IG II2 505 (302/1 BCE) lines 31–7. See Conwell 2008, 162–5. On the remains of this phase of construction, see Theocharaki 2011, 121–4. Habicht 1997, 67–72. Fifteen are listed in Tracy 1995, 40 n. 21; Agora XVI no. 107A should be added to this collection. See Tracy 2000, 227–33. Tracy 2000, 229. See Tracy 2000, 229 n. 28 for bibliography. The family of Stratokles appears to have been pro-democratic, as was he after 307/6 BCE. See Davies APF, 494–495. He also was one of the staunchest supporters of Demetrios Poliorketes, and as the King’s career went, so too went that of Stratokles. IG II2 457; [Plut.] 852a–e. Cf. Paus. 1.29.16, who summarizes this decree. See Osborne, 1981, 172–4, for his view regarding IG II2 513 as a fragmentary copy of this decree. For the text of both versions, see Conomis 1970, 13–17; and Oikonomides 1986, 51–54.

188

chapter 7

The Athenians praised Lykourgos for his outstanding financial administration of the city, military preparations, public building, and honesty in public office. The text reminds the reader of how the Athenians refused to turn over Lykourgos to Alexander, despite the king’s order to do so. In gratitude, the Athenians awarded Lykourgos a bronze statue that they erected in the Agora and public dining in the Prytaneion for all of his eldest descendants.72 Further, all of his decrees were to be enforced. Copies of them were to be inscribed on stone stelai and erected on the Akropolis near his dedications. In this way, as Habicht observes, the Athenians elevated Lykourgos as the very symbol of Athenian democracy.73 Thus, the restoration of 307/6 BCE was understood as hearkening back to the Age of Lykourgos. It is no surprise, therefore, that, given the restoration of Athenian democracy on the lines of Lykourgos and the rebuilding of the city’s defenses, the Athenians chose to restore their ephebeia, one of the chief characteristics of the Lykourgan Age. To what extent, if any, was this manifestation of the ephebeia a Lykourgan restoration? To answer this, we must turn to the four extant texts of this period. These are T3.1 (305/4 BCE), T3.2 (c. 305/4 BCE), T3.3 (302/1 BCE), and T3.4 (end of the fourth century BCE).74 A close examination of these texts will demonstrate that the ephebeia of this period was consciously modeled on its Lykourgan predecessor. The organization and system of training of the newly restored ephebeia were essentially the same as the Lykourgan. The inclusion of four hundred or more ephebes suggests popular support for the institution. Finally, while the ephebeia most likely began as a two-year institution, the political and military realities of Macedonian occupation of Athenian fortresses by the end of the century may have compelled the Athenians to eliminate the second year of service.

72 

73  74 

[Plut.] 843c, e states that the bronze statue was erected in the Kerameikos (i.e., Agora). These should be distinguished from those of Lykourgos and his sons in the Erekhtheion. IG II2 3776 (end of fourth century BCE), inscribed on a fragmentary marble base, contains the text [Λυκοῦργος Λυκ]όφρονος Βο[υτάδης] and belonged to the bronze statue. According to Paus. 1.8.2, this monument was located near a statue of Amphiaraos and another of Eirene holding Ploutos. Placement near the former was designed to recall Lykourgos’ work in the Amphiaraion, the latter linked him and his policies with peace and prosperity of his age. Habicht 1997, 66. Tracy 2000, 229 n. 28, regards lines 16–17 of IG II2 457, ὑπὲρ τοῦ τὴν πόλιν] ἐλευθέραν εἶναι καὶ αὐτ[όνοµον πάσηι µηχανῆι ἀγωνι]ζόµενος, as part of the rhetoric of this period. It is best to exclude T3.5, which has been dated to the third century generally, since there is no internal evidence that this inscription relates to the period of 307–286 BCE specifically.

The Late Fourth Century BCE

189

T3.1 is a lengthy, yet fragmentary, ephebic honorary decree. The ephebes are praised for their obedience to the laws, to the kosmetes and strategoi with regard to their guarding, and to their teachers in connection with their instruction. Reinmuth rightly points out that this inscription must date sometime after 307/6 BCE, for there are twelve sophronistai mentioned in the text, each representing one of the twelve tribes—an arrangement introduced in 307/6 BCE. Reinmuth points out that it must also predate 302/1 BCE, when the tamias of the deme appears for the last time. The name Euxenippos (arkhon 305/4 BCE) and Koroibos (arkhon 306/5 BCE) fit neatly into the restored lacunae at lines 1 and 10 respectively, and thus secure the date of this text. This inscription breaks with the earlier epigraphical tradition for praising ephebes. The Athenian boule and ekklesia did not single out one tribe of ephebes for praise. Instead, all of the ephebes and their personnel are honored together. Another unusual feature about this inscription is that it was erected somewhere in Peiraieus, perhaps in the gymnasium. Despite the fact that the ephebes spent their first year serving here, this is the earliest ephebic inscription, and one of a meager handful, to be found at Athens’ port. At this stage of development in ephebic documents, the roster is unusual in that the names of ephebes and their patronymics are arranged under demotic and tribal affiliations. Previously, ephebes of individual tribes were named under their corresponding demotics, since they were only honored by tribe. This is the first roster to include all ephebes of a single year class in one text, which will become the epigraphical practice going forward with minor modifications. Due to its fragmentary nature, there is no consensus as to the number of young men who appeared in the roster. Beloch concluded that there were around 400 ephebes;75 Ferguson, 500–600;76 Sundwall, 350–400;77 and Gomme, around 400.78 In the last examination of this stone, Reinmuth determined that the roster held the names of around 372 ephebes.79 Excluding Ferguson’s, these estimates suggest a drop in number of ephebes undergoing military service and training. Since the total number of young men serving in the ephebeia was not equal to the total number of new Athenian citizens in a given year, reduction in total number of ephebes cannot be attributed strictly to demographic causes.

75  76  77  78  79 

Beloch 1905, 352. Ferguson 1971, 164, 165. Sundwall 1907, 24–7. Gomme 1967, 70. Reinmuth 1971, 102–6.

190

chapter 7

Reinmuth argued that T3.1 provides sufficient proof for a one-year program. He believed that “present participle” ἐνγρ[αφέντας at line 10 (cf. T3.3 line 7) marked this chronological relationship. T3.1 registers a period of one year between the enrollment of the ephebes and honors awarded to them by the Athenians.80 If this were a two-year program, the ephebes must have been enrolled in 307/6 BCE when Anaxikrates was arkhon, a name that cannot be restored at line 10. There is no evidence that ephebes in a two-year program received public honors after their first year of service and training in the Peiraieus. Reinmuth’s conclusion, however, is not inescapable. For example, ἐνγρ[αφέντας is not a present participle, but an aorist. In fact, it is the very form of the participle that appears in the ephebic texts of the Lykourgan Age, when the institution was unquestionably a two-year program (e.g., T1.2 line 53). While the sequence of arkhons here is certainly unavoidable, the lack of parallels with earlier periods does not necessarily rule out that the ephebes regularly or occasionally received honors after their first year of service in Peiraieus. As noted in Chapter 4, T1.5 and T1.11 may provide the evidence for a single class of ephebes receiving an honorary decree in both their first and second year of service, although neither was dedicated in Peiraieus. After the institution was (re)established or modified after 307 BCE, T3.2 might have, in part, legislated the awarding of such honors (see below). Was the institution a two-year program? The internal evidence does not exclude this possibility, but unlike the Lykourgan Period no garrison decrees survive demonstrating that the ephebes spent a second year guarding and patrolling the khora, just as their Lykourgan counterparts did. If they served a second year after the revival of the Lykourgan-style ephebeia in 307/6 BCE, it seems unlikely that the ephebes continued to do so during and after the Four Years War when Kassander captured the fortresses of Phyle and Panakton and the passes that they controlled. The military reality of Macedonian occupation of these fortresses would have made a second year of service pointless. Once these fortresses were returned to the Athenians in 304 BCE, the ephebes may have begun again serving out a second year in the countryside. The second text from this period is T3.2, a fragmentary inscription which Koehler dates to around 305/4 BCE. Pélékidis and Reinmuth believe that this inscription records a law (νόµον line 3) governing the ephebes.81 The mention of sophronistai at lines 1 and 13 and the imperatives at lines 10 and 12 support this proposition. What kind of law was it? Unfortunately, the text is 80  81 

Reinmuth 1971, 115. Pélékidis 1962, 164, Reinmuth 1971, 118.

The Late Fourth Century BCE

191

fragmentary and little of use can be derived from it. The text mentions care of [the ephebes?] (line 9), the awarding of crowns (line 10) by the demos (line 12), and the names of the sophronistai (line 13). Pélékidis believes that “ἐπειδὰν] δὲ ὁ ἐνιαυτός ἐξ[ήκηι” at line 6 most likely refers to a reduction in the service of the ephebeia to a single year, but this does not necessarily follow from the evidence. The expression means “when the year transpires,” and may simply refer to the completion of the ephebes’ first year of service in the Peiraieus. Lines 12–15 seem to refer to the crowning of ephebic officials (sophronistai, strategoi and kosmetes). Pélékidis says that the letters of this inscription are similar to those of T3.1, noting that this may date the law to the late fourth, or perhaps the early third century BCE, when the ephebeia was clearly reformed. This is an attractive suggestion, since it links a law of the ephebes with a period in which the institution clearly underwent reorganization (including the reduction of service to one year), as illustrated by T4.2 (discussed below). One problem, however, is that the ephebes of that period did not train in Peiraieus, but at Athens, due to the Macedonian garrison at Mounikhia. This suggests a date for the establishment of the law prior to 295 BCE, the year when Demetrios Poloiorketes regarrisoned Mounikhia. Thus the association of T3.2 with the reestablishment of the ephebeia in 307/6 BCE fits better. Little more can be said given the fragmentary nature of this text. And this most likely will remain the case, since this stone currently cannot be found at the Peiraieus Museum. Despite the increase from ten to twelve sophronistai, the official in this period appears to be no different from his counterpart in the Lykourgan Age, as illustrated in T3.3, an honorary decree for Philonides son Kallikrates of the deme Konthyle. Philonides served as the sophronistes of the ephebes of the tribe Pandionis who were enrolled (lines 6–7: ἐφήβων τῶν ἐγγραφέντων) in the archonship of Leostrates (303/2 BCE). The date of the inscription is 302/1 BCE, based on the assumption that the ephebeia of this period was a year in duration. The fathers honored Philonides for caring for the ephebes in a noble (καλ⟦λ⟧ ῶς), modest (σωφρόνως) and well-ordered (εὐτάκτως) manner. As discussed in earlier chapters, these are the virtues that ephebic officials should possess and imbue in their young charges. The connection between the fathers and the tribal sophronistai is briefly mentioned at Ath. Pol. 42.2 when they selected candidates for sophronistes soon after their sons’ enrollment. This relationship is attested at lines 11–14 of this text, when, at the completion of their sons’ ephebeia, the fathers declared to their fellow tribal members Philonides’ exemplary service. As in the Lykourgan Age, the Demos of the late fourth century BCE played a role in the final selection of sophronistes, which is demonstrated in lines 5–6 (ὑπὸ τοῦ δήµου χειροτονηθεὶς). This honorary decree must have been proposed and passed after Philonides’ euthynai, in which a board of examiners

192

chapter 7

(euthynoi) scrutinized his financial management and overall conduct as sophronistes. The successful completion of the euthynai was a precondition for receiving public honors. Although the extant text of this fragmentary inscription does not mention the euthynai, the relatively large number of ephebes participating in this phase of the institution strongly suggests that the Athenians still provided a public trophe to the ephebes for their full-time service. The honorary decree for Philonides is the last extant piece of evidence for the sophronistes. This office disappears from the record and reflects a significant change in the organization of the institution. The reason for its disappearance in later periods appears simple—the number of young men who participated in the ephebeia dropped off considerably. Thus, a single officer in charge of a tribal contingent of so few young men was unnecessary and costly. Instead, the kosmetes became the preeminent ephebic officer for the rest of the Hellenistic as well as the early Roman period. With the removal of the sophronistai, the kosmetes absorbed their responsibilities and had a much closer and more direct relationship with these young men, as later ephebic decrees abundantly demonstrate. As noted in Chapter 4, the office of sophronistes does not reappear again until the Roman period. Did the ephebeia of this period hearken back to the Lykourgan institution? According to the organization of the roster of T3.1, they were organized by tribe. The officers remain the same: there are both a kosmetes (line 6) and tribal sophronistai (line 29). The sophronistai were still selected at the tribal level by the fathers of the ephebes (T3.3). As T3.1 demonstrates, the ephebeia added two more sophronistai to reflect the creation of two additional tribes (Antigonis and Demetrias), bringing the total number of officers to twelve per year. Each of them cared for their ephebes during their year of service at Peiraieus. T3.1 also attests to ephebic trainers (lines 7, 26, 29), but does not specify them. Presumably, these were the hoplomakhos, akontistes, toxotes, katapaltaphetes and paidotribai—the ephebic trainers of the Lykourgan ephebeia and the later Hellenistic Period as well. Further, as with the young Athenians of a generation before, these ephebes appear to have been under the care of the strategos [at Peiraieus] (T3.2 line 14). Thus, the parallels between the Lykourgan ephebeia and the one established after 307 BCE strongly suggest the latter institution was a conscious reproduction of the former. Why did the Athenians choose such a restoration? In part, fervent Athenian nationalism and especially the conscious hearkening back to the Lykourgan democracy of the recent past as attested in our sources for this period created a political and cultural environment suitable for the reestablishment of the traditional ephebeia. Yet, while nationalism played an important role, sentimentalism for things Lykourgan was not the overriding factor.

The Late Fourth Century BCE

193

For soon after her liberation Demetrios Poliorketes left Athens and sailed to Asia Minor, leaving the Athenians to defend themselves and their homeland. As with the rebuilding of her navy and repairing of her walls, the restoration of the ephebeia played an important role in Athens’ defensive measures. The Athenians avoided innovation in the restoration of their ephebeia and looked back to an institution that was in living memory of most of them, an institution that characterized and helped define Athenian democracy in the Age of Lykourgos. 6

The Tyranny of Lakhares and Regime of Demetrios Poliorketes

Soon after their liberation from the regime of Demetrios of Phaleron, Athens’ relationship with Demetrios Poliorketes soured due to the king’s licentious behavior during his stays in the city, which included taking up personal residence in the Parthenon and his irregular initiation into the Mysteries at Eleusis.82 The Athenians took the opportunity of his defeat at Ipsos in 301 and subsequent political and military weakness to sever ties with the king and to declare their intention to remain a neutral power internationally. In the years immediately following Ipsos, however, Athens was beset with civil strife and later by a coup in which Lakhares, a prominent demagogue and general at Athens, seized control of the city and Peiraieus with a band of mercenaries and the aid and encouragement of Kassander.83 Inscriptions and other evidence suggest that the public life of the city continued.84 By the spring of 297 BCE, however, Lakhares lost control of the Peiraieus to the Athenians who opposed his rule. Finally, in the spring of 295 BCE, his regime was brought to an end at the hands of Demetrios Poliorketes, whose military aid the citizens in Peiraieus requested. When the Besieger himself found that the walls proved too strong and the city too difficult to take though siege, he starved the Athenians into submission by refusing grain ships to arrive in Attike (Plut. Demetr. 33.3–34.1). Once he removed Lakhares, Demetrios established an oligarchy at Athens. In his speech before the Athenians assembled in the Theater of Dionysos, Demetrios appointed the magistrates who were most suitable to the People (Plut. Demetr. 34.4: καὶ κατέστησεν ἀρχὰς αἳ µάλιστα τῷ δήµῳ προσφιλεῖς ἦσαν). 82  83  84 

Philokhor. FGrHist 328 FF 69–70; Plut. Demetr. 26.1–5; D.S. 20.110.1. Paus. 1.25.7. For the career of Lakhares, see Paus. 1.29.16; Polyain. 3.7.1–3, 4.7.5, 6.7.2; Plut. 379d, 1090e; Athen. 9.405f; P.Oxy. xvii 2082 = FGrHist F 257a. Ferguson 1929, 1–20; Shear 1978, 52–53; Osborne 1981–82, 144–52; Habicht 1997, 81–7. E.g., IG II2 1264 (300/229 BCE) (honors for the treasurers of Athena); 1685 (300/229 BCE) (construction of Doric colonnade for temple of Asklepios).

194

chapter 7

This suggests that arkhons were no longer elected by lot, a democratic procedure that did not return until the liberation of the city in 287/6 BCE (Plut. Demetr. 46.1). The elimination of sortition is illustrated in the epigraphical evidence by the fact that Olympiodoros was eponymous arkhon in both 294/3 and 293/2 BCE. Habicht believes that Olympiodoros ruled as Demetrios’ representative at Athens, while the King took control of Macedonia.85 The extant decrees from this period demonstrate that the cyclical rotation of the secretaries was eliminated as well and the secretary was replaced by the anagrapheus, the familiar instrument of oligarchic government.86 Demetrios also recalled the oligarchic leaders and their followers from exile.87 As with earlier oligarchies, Demetrios controlled Peiraieus by garrisoning Mounikhia with his own mercenaries. He added a new garrison on Mouseion Hill at the southern edge of the city that overlooked the Athenian civic center. Demetrios’s governor controlled Athens with a force of foreign troops stationed there (Plut. Demetr. 34.4–5; Paus. 1.25.8).88 The King also took possession of the fortresses at Eleusis and Rhamnous (33.3). After 302 BCE, no texts of ephebic decrees or dedications appear in the record, except for perhaps T3.4, a fragmentary motivation clause that provides a reference to the obedience of a year class of ephebes to their sophronistes. Did the ephebeia cease to exist or is the current state of the epigraphical evidence such that no trace of the institution has left its mark? Scholars have generally taken the latter position. For instance, Ferguson believed that the ephebeia continued to exist during this period of stasis under Lakhares and even assigned certain changes to the institution to this period.89 This suggestion cannot be dismissed out of hand for, as with the regime of Demetrios of Phaleron discussed above, the lack of evidence for the democracy and its institutions does not necessarily mean neither existed. In fact, there is some evidence from after 301 BCE that traditional democratic institutions, such as the ekklesia and the annual secretary cycle, continued to function normally.90 Nevertheless, the political, economic and social chaos that characterized the history of Athens under Lakhares strongly suggests that the ephebeia 85  86  87  88  89  90 

Habicht 1997, 90. Shear 1978, 53. Philokhor. FGrHist 328 F 167; D.H. Dinarcho 2–3; [Plut.] 850d. On the fortress on Mouseion Hill, see Thompson and Scranton 1943, 269–383; Theocharaki 2011, 125–6. Ferguson 1929, 18. Ekklesia: P.Oxy. xvii 2082 = FGrHist 257a; cycle of Council secretaries: Habicht 1997, 83–4. Also, strategoi were elected annually by popular vote: IG II2 682 lines 21–4; and the Athenian cavalry honored the treasurers of Athena: IG II2 1264. Habicht ibid.

The Late Fourth Century BCE

195

was either drastically curtailed or brought to an end. For instance, the rule of Lakhares was based on military might and his mercenaries garrisoned the border forts and Peiraieus, thus cutting off access to the very places that the ephebes trained and served. Sometime later, Mounikhia fell to the opposing faction and Peiraieus eventually seceded from Athens, becoming the base of operation for his enemies. Further, Habicht suggests that during this period the Athenians were reduced to financial difficulties, since they were unable to outfit a new mast and yardarm for the display of Athena’s peplos during the Panathenaia of 298/7 BCE (The mast and yardarm had been damaged in a windstorm during the celebration of 302/1 BCE).91 Moreover, the Athenians suffered widespread famine brought about by Demetrios Poliorketes’ siege of their city in 295 BCE. One modius of wheat was sold at 300 drakhmai (Plut. Demetr. 33.3) and the philosopher Epikouros was forced to ration beans to members of his school (Plut. Mor. 1097c). Under these trying circumstances, the Athenians would have found it difficult to dedicate the time, resources and manpower to financing and operating an institution of peacetime military training and service. Pélékidis and (at one time) Habicht believed that the ephebeia continued to exist under the regime of Demetrios Poliorketes, linking the subsequent changes in the institution attested in 267/6 BCE to the period of oligarchic rule.92 How else does one account for the new organization, smaller numbers of ephebes, shorter length of service, and even the change in venue for training and service? This suggestion is plausible, for there may have been an ephebeia under the regime of Demetrios of Phaleron. The cost-saving measures associated with oligarchic regimes imply a reduction or elimination of the trophe, which would in turn explain the smaller number of ephebes and abbreviated period of service. The garrisons of Demetrios Poliorketes continued to control Mounikhia in Peiraieius and the fortresses in the Athenian countryside, cutting off access to the traditional locations for training and service. This would explain the later city-based service of the early Hellenistic ephebeia. In essence, then, Pélékidis regarded the Hellenistic ephebeia as an oligarchic creation. Until evidence for the institution of this period is discovered, this suggestion remains speculative at best. In fact, evidence for the ephebeia does not reappear again until 267/6 BCE (T4.2) at the outbreak of the Khremonidean War, over thirty years from the last inscription. By this point, 91  92 

Plut. Demetr. 12.3 and Philippides (of Kephale) fr. 12.4–6 (PCG) cited by Plut. Demetr. 12.7. IG II2 657 lines 14–16 report that this same Philippides convinced King Lysimakhos to replace the damaged equipment. Pélékidis 1962, 170–2; Habicht 1979, 32–33.

196

chapter 7

nearly two decades after the regime of Demetrios Poliorketes was toppled, democracy had been restored, and the Athenian military institutions had undergone significant modifications. Additionally, whatever impact the oligarchy of Demetrios might have had on the shape of the ephebeia, the Athenians would have presumably reconstituted it, if the new democratic leaders believed its current nature incompatible with democracy. In other words, the Hellenistic successor to the Lykourgan ephebeia that appears in the record for the first time in the early 260s BCE reflected the civic, religious, and military needs of the revived Athenian democracy. 7

Conclusion

The state of the evidence provides a rough and impressionistic picture of the fate of the ephebeia after the Athenian defeat in the Lamian War. Whereas it likely came to an end soon after the war, it may have been briefly resuscitated with the return of the Demos in 318 BCE. The first indication of a revived ephebeia appears in the Age of Demetrios of Phaleron, although it is uncertain whether the expression “ephebe” was describing Ameinias as a new citizen or as a member of the ephebeia. Clear evidence for the institution appears in 307 BCE, when the Athenians renewed the ephebeia along “Lykourgan” lines after the expulsion of Demetrios of Phaleron and the (brief) recovery of freedom and autonomy. It is not certain that this was a one or two year institution, but frequent occupation of the countryside fortresses and the instability of the khora during this period made peacetime training there impossible, which may have led to its reduction to a single year. No evidence has come to light for the institution from 302 BCE to 267 BCE. The economic difficulties and social and political instability associated with the tyranny of Lakhares and the subsequent oligarchy established by Demetrios the Besieger may have put an end to the ephebeia. The near four decade gap in evidence makes it impossible to trace the evolution of the institution, if it was still functioning, let alone assign developments that may have occurred in certain periods to the form of the institution that appears in the third century.

chapter 8

Organization, Training and Service (268/7‒31 BCE) The subject of this and the following two chapters is the Hellenistic phase of the Athenian ephebeia. Information regarding this stage in the evolution of the institution is derived almost entirely from inscriptions, which number over 90 documents (T4.1–T9.25). Most of the epigraphical evidence consists of decrees honoring year classes of ephebes. In the Lykourgan Age, the ephebes were honored by the boule, tribes, or individual demes. In the Hellenistic, by contrast, the boule and ekklesia honored these young men. Generally speaking, individual inscriptions carried a single decree that praised the ephebes, their kosmetes and trainers. Beneath the texts of the single decree are the names of those receiving honors. The names of the honorees and the honorands appear in inscribed crowns, e.g., the boule and the ephebes, the demos and the name of the kosmetes, and the demos and the ephebes. Beneath these citations appeared a roster with the names of the ephebes, their patronymics and demotics arranged in two or three columns under corresponding tribal headings. With few exceptions, each decree consisted of an invocation to the gods, a dating formula citing that year’s arkhon, the name of the mover of the decree, the motivation clause that justified awarding public honors, an enactment formula, a formal motion citing the decision of the enacting body, and instructions for the publication of the text. Over time, two changes occurred. First, motivation clauses became longer and more extensive, providing more details regarding the activities of a given year class. Second, by the early second century BCE, the assembly also honored the kosmetes in a separate decree, which was appended just below that of the ephebes. The documents of this period shed light on the nature of instruction and service. As with the young Athenians of the Lykourgan Age, ephebes of the Hellenistic Period were honored for their military training and service. By the final quarter of the third century, however, ephebes appear to have begun participating in Athenian state religion on a much grander scale. Moreover, by the end of the following century, they appear to have played a role in the intellectual life of Athens. Documents of this period also demonstrate that the numbers of each age class participating in the ephebeia were much smaller for this phase of the institution, suggesting only young men of elite families were joining. These changes have prompted scholars such as Reinmuth and Pélékidis to regard the ephebeia as an institution in decline, one whose initial military aim had been utterly lost by the late second century and replaced with ceremony

198

chapter 8

and higher education.1 Perhaps its most prominent critic was Marrou, whose work on Greek education helped to shape contemporary attitudes toward the Hellenistic ephebeia. As Marrou writes, the Hellenistic ephebeia at Athens was “aristocratic rather than civic, sportive rather than military.” It became a “snob school” whose purpose was “to teach elite Athenians, the gilded youth of Athens, how to enjoy their leisure.”2 This characterization of the Hellenistic ephebeia will be scrutinized over the next three chapters. This chapter will explore the nature of military training and service and argue that in this respect it represents a continuity from its Lykourgan predecessor. Young Athenians, now largely derived from elite families, protected the asty, guarded Peiraieus, visited the countryside fortresses, and performed their traditional apodeixis at the end of their period of service. Athenian ephebes continued to be trained in the military arts and received honors for their discipline and obedience to their chief magistrate and the annually elected generals. Thus, the ephebeia of the Hellenistic Period remained essentially a military training institution. 1

Participation and Manpower

Decrees honoring Athenian ephebes of the Hellenistic Period demonstrate that new citizens participated for only one year of training and service. This is illustrated by T4.2, the first relatively complete decree for the ephebes of the third century BCE. The dating formula of this inscription (line 1) states that the text was passed in the arkhonship of Nikias Otryneis (266/5 BCE), whereas the motivation clause (lines 7–8) indicates that the ephebes receiving honors participated in the ephebeia during the arkhonship of Menekles (267/6 BCE). A one year program is attested for all subsequent ephebates. Although this change may have occurred by the end of the fourth century or the beginning of the third, this text is the first clear evidence for a one-year ephebeia at Athens. 1  Reinmuth 1948, 220; 1952, 48. Pélékidis 1962, 172, 197, 266–7. Cf. Chaniotis 2005, 49. In his publication of T6.5 (213/2 BCE), Reinmuth 1974, 255–6, refined his opinion somewhat: “the primary military character of the ephebia is clearly shown in the inscription here published as it is also in the inscription of 266/5 [T4.2].” 2  Marrou 1964, 156. See also Habicht 1997, 110–11, and Perrin-Saminadayer 2007, who echo Marrou in their assessment of the ephebeia. Cf. Pleket 1969, 281–298, and id. 1981, 155–78; and Kleijwegt 1991. See Hin 2007, 141–66, for a refreshing and sobering reassessment of this theory as it has been applied by scholars to characterize ephebates outside Athens in Hellenistic and Roman times. Unfortunately, without offering any supporting evidence, Hin asserts that the view of Marrou et al. best applies to the Athenian ephebeia.

Organization, Training and Service ( 268 / 7‒31 BCE )

199

During economically trying times, a one year ephebeia made it possible for as many citizens who had the means and interest to participate. What were the levels of participation during this period? Consider the three tables in Appendix 1 for this chapter. With the exception of one inscription (T4.2), Table 1 contains roster totals for the ephebeia during a period Macedonian subjugation. Table 2 provides roster totals during a time of Athenian independence from Macedonia down to the Battle of Pydna and the end of the Macedonian kingdom. Table 3 contains totals for the institution when Athens enjoyed a prolonged period of peace under Roman hegemony until the outbreak of the First Mithridatic War. These totals are significant, for they underscore one of the main characteristics of the Hellenistic ephebeia, namely, the relatively small number of young Athenians who participated in the institution. In the third and the first quarter or so of the second centuries BCE, the totals are quite meager. By the middle of the second century BCE, however, participation totals of Athenian ephebes increase significantly, doubling (and, in a few cases, tripling) the third century participation totals. Despite the rise of participation in the institution during the second half of the second century, the evidence from all the available ephebic rosters demonstrates that there were far lower overall participation totals throughout the Hellenistic Period than in the Lykourgan (c. 500 or more annually enrolled) and in the post-Lykourgan fourth century totals (c. 372 annually enrolled). The very language of the decrees honoring the ephebes of Hellenistic Athens indicates that the new citizens participating in the institution did not represent the entirety of that age grade. This is implied by such statements as “οἱ ἔφηβοι οἱ ἐφηβεύσαντες ἐπὶ x ἄρχοντος” (“the ephebes who underwent training in the arkhonship of x”) or, omitting the antecedent, “οἱ ἐφηβεύσαντες ἐπὶ x ἄρχοντος” (“those who underwent training in the arkhonship of x”). The verb ἐφηβεύω appears in the epigraphical record for the first time in the early third century BCE.3 It always means “to undergo ephebic training.” It must be carefully distinguished from the earlier ἐφηβάω, “to come of biological and/or legal age.” The verb ἐφηβεύω refers to a specific type of training associated with a certain age group. The term was most likely coined when a large portion of Athenian ephebes were expected to undergo training when they came of age. Its use as a participle in a relative clause in Hellenistic texts describes only those ephebes who underwent such training, distinguishing them from the 3  Petrakos (T1.25) restores οἱ ἐφηβ[εύσαντες— — —] in this highly fragmented inscription, which he dates to the Lykourgan Period. It could also be restored as οἱ ἔφηβ[οι οἱ τῆς…], followed by the name of the ephebes’ tribe in the genitive case, a restoration made more plausible given contemporary attestations of this formula.

200

chapter 8

many others (most likely a significant portion of young men of this age grade) who simply did not do so. What accounts for this significant drop in the levels of participation? Low participation totals, particularly in the third century BCE, cannot be ascribed to political circumstances and Macedonian policy toward the city, as Pélékidis and Habicht suggested.4 For T4.2 held the names of about 32 ephebes who served in a period of freedom and democracy, while T5.5 and T5.8, inscribed when Athens was under the control of Macedonia, contain roughly the same numbers. Similar participation levels are also evident in surviving rosters published after 229 BCE, when Athens was independent of Macedonia. Nor does it seem likely that participation was legally restricted to elites given the fact that Athens remained a democracy during these periods. There is no evidence of property qualifications for holding offices and the evidence suggests that citizens continued to participate in the normal functions of government. The dramatic drop in participation also cannot be ascribed to a decrease in Athenian population.5 For 600 Athenians continued to be recruited annually to fill bouleutic quotas. Where it can be assessed, the number of councilors per deme far exceeded the number of enrolled ephebes from the same deme. This suggests something other than population was responsible for the considerably low turnout of young citizens in the ephebeia. This significant drop in the levels of participation has been attributed, in large part, to the voluntary nature of the institution beginning at some point early in the third century BCE.6 One need only look to the north of Athens for proof, where member states of the Boiotian League were enrolling much larger numbers of new citizens into their ephebates. For instance, while a meager 20–25 ephebes per age-class served at Athens in the 240s BCE, Thespiai was enrolling 86–92 ephebes a year. Megara, a very small community within this League, enrolled 28 ephebes around the same time, which likely represented most of the young Megarians of this age group. The large gap in participation levels between these communities and Athens is directly linked to the Boiotian League’s reorganization of its military structures after they had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Aitolians. In order to produce a standing military force composed of better trained soldiers, the league imposed by law a system of military training, including the creation of ephebates, for the 4  Pélékidis 1962, 167, and Habicht 1997, 158. 5  For discussions of population decline at Athens after the Lamian War, see Oliver 2007, 76–105 and O’Sullivan 2009, 108–116. The reduction of manpower in the ephebeia coincides with a decrease in the size of participants in the other services. For discussion in the decrease in cavalry numbers, see Bugh 1988, 184; Spence 1993, 97–102; and Oliver 2007, 88–9. 6  Pélékidis 1962, 163; Reinmuth 1971, 115; Gauthier 1985, 161.

Organization, Training and Service ( 268 / 7‒31 BCE )

201

younger citizens of their member states, as well as the hiring of military trainers, such as the appointment of Sostratos son of Batrakhos, an Athenian-born instructor of archery, javelin-throwing, and maneuvering in formation (as discussed in Chapter 5). This law very likely mandated the participation of all able-bodied young citizens in this training system, which accounts for such a large number of young men recorded in end-of-service inscriptions.7 By contrast, the low numbers of new Athenians participating in the ephebate around the same time indicates that Epikrates’ Law of the Ephebes either had been repealed or modified so as to make participation in the institution voluntary. 2

Financing the Ephebeia

The availability of public funds must have played a crucial role in the low turnout during the third and much of the second century BCE. The lack of state financing is strongly suggested by the absence of the euthynai formula in the decrees honoring the ephebes and their magistrates of this period. In fact, one text stresses that no public money was allocated to them (T6.5 lines 19–20). As discussed in an earlier chapter, euthynai were regular examinations of a magistrate’s term in office during the Classical Period. These annual assessments of public officials continued in other contexts at Athens during the Hellenistic Period. Their logoi, or accounts, were deposited in the Metroön and rendered before the logistai and examinations were conducted in a dikasterion, or courthouse.8 In the Lykourgan Period, Athenians gave four obols a day to support a single ephebe. This amounts to roughly 1440 obols, or 240 drakhmai, per year for each ephebe, a substantial sum of money. Multiplying this total by 1,000 to 1,100 ephebes per year yields an annual cost of running an ephebeia of at least 40 talents. If 240 drakhmai represents the amount of money required to maintain one ephebe for an entire year, attendees of the Hellenistic ephebeia must have come, by and large, from wealthier citizen families. Participation in the institution, then, was restricted to those who not only valued the training, but, more importantly, could afford to finance privately their son’s attendance in the ephebeia.

7  McAuley 2018, 217–36. 8  Euthynai: IG II2 488 (307/6 BCE) lines 4–5, 657 (287/6 BCE) lines 47–8, IG II/III3 1, 884 (281/0–279/8 BCE) line 35, 1 995 (252/1 or 251/0 BCE) line 20–1, 1 991 (255/4 BCE) lines 21–2. Accounts deposited in the Metroön and euthynai in the dikasterion: IG II/III3 1, 1164 (214/3 BCE) lines 28–30, T8.3 (161/0 BCE) lines 20–2, and T8.6 (155/4 BCE) lines 17–8.

202

chapter 8

This last point provides insight into the composition of the Hellenistic ephebeia. As discussed previously, in the Lykourgan institution, ephebes from all four Athenian property classes participated in training and service. While there apparently were no legal limits on who could or could not join, it is clear that in the absence of public maintenance the ephebeia of the Hellenistic period was composed of those citizens who could afford to participate and saw a value in doing so. Thus, many of those who joined the ephebeia were most likely members of the “hoplite census class,” i.e., the top three property tiers. In this sense, then, we should regard members of the ephebeia as “elites.” Nonetheless, these elites served within the overall context of a democratic system, for the birth of the Hellenistic ephebeia coincided with the recovery of democracy and reemergence of Athenian nationalism after 287 BCE and continued to remain essentially the same after 229 down to 88 BCE and beyond. Does this mean that poorer Athenians did not join? It is highly unlikely that they did, but this possibility is not entirely out of the question. Ambitious and industrious young men may have worked to provide for their own support, as members of other educational institutions at Athens had done. For instance, while the philosophical schools catered to the well-born, these institutions placed no restrictions on who could join and all three had poorer members. The famous Stoic Kleanthes, a former boxer of Assos, was a poor man and while he lived in Athens was compelled to work for a living. Diogenes Laertius states that during the day he attended the lectures of Zenon and developed his arguments and at night he earned money by watering gardens (D.L. 7.168–9). Menedemos of Eretria and Asklepiades of Phleious, young students of Plato’s Academy, were once summoned before the Areopagos Council to determine how they were able to attend school with the philosophers while having no money. They produced a miller who testified that every night they earned two drakhmai by going to his mill and grinding wheat (Athen. 4.168a–b). It is also possible that the state encouraged wealthier citizens to defray the expenses of its poorer members. In the Gymnasiarch Law of Beroia, for example, three paides and three neoi were selected from the wealthy members of the gymnasium to organize and finance torch-races during the Hermaia.9 A more likely scenario, however, would have been voluntary contributions, or euergetism, from wealthy benefactors (euergetai), which may have funded some or all of a poorer youth’s training. Outside Attike rich patrons deferred the cost of education, including physical and military training, for young citizens. Their financial gifts took many forms. In some cases, benefactors 9  I.Beroea 1. lines 72–77. See Worrle 1988, 10. I. 65–8, 220–226, for a similar arrangement at Oinoanda.

Organization, Training and Service ( 268 / 7‒31 BCE )

203

established foundations for the education of the young. At Teos, for instance, a Polythros son Onesimos made an annual gift of 34,000 drakhmai to finance the hiring of three school masters for the children (including girls) and a lyre player, two paidotribai, toxotai, hoplomakhos and akontistai for the boys and the ephebes (SIG3 578). At Pharsalos in the third century BCE a certain Leonides of Halikarnassos dedicated a stoa and gave for life (dia biou) oil to the young men who trained in the gymnasium. He also provided two mnai for gymnastic games and torch-races. In return for his benefaction, the city established a contest called the Leonideia on the third of the month of Dipsios (I.Thess. I 52). Other benefactors chose to defray the cost of training for a single year. In Apollonis, for example, the ephebe Damonikos was elected gymnasiarkhos and (through his father’s resources) provided the oil necessary for training to his fellow ephebes.10 Some gifts were far less sweeping and directed to individual youths. The Zenon archive from Egypt, for instance, contains letters from young men requesting financial support from wealthy benefactors to offset their educational expenses.11 At Athens, however, benefactions for poorer members were the exception, not the rule. For participation in the institution required financial and other forms of euergetism from its members.12 Benefactions are attested in the earliest period of the Hellenistic institution. For example, T4.1 registers honors for the ephebes serving in 267/6 BCE and their kosmetes for some benefaction linked with the cult of Asklepios. In these earlier instances, the precise services appear infrequently and are not specified in the texts. By the second century, benefactions become more frequent and explicit. For instance, in 177/6 BCE, 123/2 BCE and in 117/6 BCE, the ephebes repaired older, stone-throwing catapults at their own expense and renewed training in them (T7.13 lines 86–7; T8.14 line 34–6; and T8.19 lines 27–8). In 117/6 BCE, they made dedications to an armory (T8.19 lines 32–3). Some gifts supported their participation in state religion, such as a gift of a bull to Dionysos (T8.33 line 14). Other gifts were made to enrich the growing intellectual side of the institution. In 117/6 BCE, 96/5 BCE and sometime after 94/3 BCE, they dedicated one hundred books to the library of the Ptolemaion (T8.19 lines 7–8, T8.31 lines 25–6; and T8.33 10  11  12 

TAM V, 2 1203 col. II lines 16–20. Other inscriptions (e.g., TAM V, 2 1204–6, 1208) refer to young men who joined the ephebeia at Apollonis, but did not have to pay. Clarysse and Vandorpe 1995, 57–62. Pélékidis 1962, 175–7. Perrin-Saminadayar 2007, 256–9, argues that during this period there was a “financial disengagement of the city” with regard to funding the ephebeia and that much of the cost of running the institution was covered by its members. He does not mention the return of state funding as indicated by the reappearance of the euthynai clause in later second century texts.

204

chapter 8

line 36–7), a gymnasium that the ephebes frequented. All three of the dedications were made in accordance with a decree of Theodorides of Peiraieus. In one remarkable case at the end of the first century BCE, the ephebe Sosis of Oe provided several forms of assistance to his fellow ephebes, including dedicating the very stele upon which the text of the decree appears, and received special recognition for his euergetism (T9.17 lines 60–74). Gifts of phialai are frequently attested in numerous decrees. The ephebes and their kosmetai dedicated them annually at the City Dionysia, the Dionysia in Peiraieus, and festivals honoring Demeter and Kore, as well as offerings to the Mother of the Gods.13 The value of these phialai varied, but was frequently regulated by decrees (e.g., T8.27 line 40, T8.31 line 24, T8.33 line 35). For instance, in the last few decades of the second century, the ephebes supplied either seventy or one hundred drakhmai for phialai for the Mother of the Gods. From at least 101/0 BCE on, however, the amount of money spent on phialai for the Mother of the Gods was regulated to 70 drakhmai of “crown-bearing” (i.e., officially minted) gold by a decree of Dioskourides son of Dioskourides of the deme Phegaia.14 Their kosmetai also provided private funding to support and nurture members of the institution. These men helped the ephebes finance the repairs of older, stone-throwing catapults. They sometimes funded the sacrifices of the ephebes, such as during the eisiteteria, or entrance ceremony, at their enrollment in the Prytaneion (T8.19 lines 10–11; T8.22 lines 34–5; T8.27 lines 72–4). Their contributions were sometimes more substantive. For instance, when the peribolos wall of the Diogeneion collapsed, the kosmetes Eudoxos of the deme Akherdoos repaired it at his own expense (T8.22 line 41). He also joined his ephebes in offering a phiale worth one hundred drakhmai at the City Dionysia and another at the Dionysia in Peiraieus (T8.22 lines 70–2, 80–1). In the case of Timon son Timarkhides, a kosmetes could even shoulder nearly the entire burden of financing the ephebeia, as will be discussed below. The restoration of public funding to support the ephebeia in the later second century BCE is confirmed by the reappearance of the euthynai clause, as attested in the following inscriptions: T8.4 lines 25–6 (restored); T8.14 line 88; 13 

14 

City Dionysia: T8.22 lines 11–12. Dionysia of Peiraieus: T8.22 lines 12–13. Demeter and Kore: T8.14 lines 80–1, T8.19 lines 30–1, T8.22 lines 8–9; T8.27 lines 29–30; T8.31 lines 17–18; T8.33 line 27. Mother of the Gods: T8.12 lines 27–8; T8.14 lines 79–80; T8.19 line 31; T8.22 line 13; T8.27 line 40; T8.31 line 24; T8.33 line 35. 70 drakhmai: T8.14 lines 79–80; T8.27 line 40, T8.31 line 24, and T8.33 line 35; 100 drakhmai: T8.12 lines 27–8, 125–7; T8.22 line 13. Unspecified: T8.19 line 31, 61. This Dioskourides had been an ephebe, for he is attested as making a pilgrimage with his fellows to Delphi as one of dozen Pythaïstai in 138/7 BCE (T8.9 Col. II line 22).

Organization, Training and Service ( 268 / 7‒31 BCE )

205

T8.16 lines 60–1; T8.19 line 69; T8.22 lines 41–2. It coincided with a rise in the number of ephebes participating in the institution. How much public funding was available annually is unknown. Based on the honorary decree of Timon, it likely included money for a yearly supply of oil for ephebes to anoint in the gymnasium, which represented a significant financial contribution. The source of this funding must be connected with Athens’ increasing prosperity during this period. The economic good times that the Athenians enjoyed were due in large measure to their control over the port of Delos, which they reacquired from the Romans for their support in Rome’s war against Perseus of Macedon. Under the Athenians, the island reached its peak of prosperity in the final third of the second century BCE, contemporary with this phase of the ephebeia.15 Many Athenians had commercial interests in Delos and benefited greatly from the growing economy there. In addition, the city of Athens itself was a popular stopover for merchants and others traveling between Italy and Asia Minor and benefited greatly from the commerce that transpired in Peiraieus.16 It is noteworthy that despite the reestablishment of public funding for training ephebes, members of the institution continued to provide benefactions in support of its military, religious and cultural program. 3

Who Joined the Ephebeia?

As discussed in Chapter 1, demographic considerations have led scholars to believe that the Lykourgan ephebeia consisted of newly enrolled Athenians of all property classes, including even some members of the so-called “thetic” class. Can the same be said of the Hellenistic? The much smaller number of annual participants and the apparent lack of public funding for much of the history of this phase of the institution strongly suggest that the young men of the Hellenistic ephebeia at Athens were members of wealthy families. Recently, this conclusion has been affirmed by Éric Perrin-Saminadayar. His meticulous collection of names and careful prosopographical analysis of over 900 Athenian ephebes from two distinct periods of the institution (229–168 BCE and 167–88 BCE) have demonstrated that many of these ephebes sprung from elite families that had played a considerable role over generations in the political, military, religious and/or cultural affairs of the city. In a significant number of cases, the evidence of their later careers tends to indicate that young men

15  16 

Strabo 10.5.4. See Day 1942, 50–119; and Rauh 1993. Day ibid., 76–82.

206

chapter 8

who passed through the ephebeia of the middle and late Hellenistic Period made contributions to the public life of Athens. Can the same be said of the young men who participated in the ephebeia at Athens during the early Hellenistic Period, specifically those who underwent training during the early and middle third century BCE? This is a difficult question to answer given the poor state of the evidence. Although it is certainly true that Athenian prosopography is rich due to the large population, abundant sources, and perennial interest on the part of classical scholars, nevertheless epigraphical documents are relatively meager for this period, the dates of these documents are not always secure, and the texts that do survive are often in a such a poor state of preservation that they impede investigation. In the case of the ephebeia, only 17 documents (T4.1–T5.9) survive for the period between 267/6 to 230/229 BCE. Five of these texts are honorary decrees with rosters; three are the remains of honorary decrees alone; and two consist only of rosters, which exist in varying degrees of fragmentation. The total number of ephebes listed in these documents range from 23 to 31. From the surviving rosters, a catalogue of 114 participating ephebes can be assembled (see Appendix B). In many cases, the names, patronymics and/or demotics are lost, and so identification of these young men is nearly impossible. The names of 64 ephebes, however, or more than half of the names that appear in the catalogue, are complete. Of these, 45 ephebes, or 70% of those fully listed in the catalogue, are members of families attested elsewhere in the epigraphical evidence. In all, 28 ephebes have been identified as members of elite families and are attested elsewhere in Athenian public life. The status of these families as elite is demonstrated through their outward marks of wealth, primarily through documented membership in Athenian propertied families, military and/or religious liturgies, benefactions, service in the Athenian cavalry, and/or dedications of its members (see Appendix Three). The appearance of brothers as ephebes in the same year class (E42/E43, E62/E63, E69/E70, E79/E96) or in a subsequent year class (E66/E97) also indicates that the families in question possessed considerable wealth, which can be in some cases confirmed elsewhere in the evidence. It is unknown whether or not all the brothers who served in the same year were twins, for mandatory participation in the ephebeia upon enrollment had ceased by the early third century BCE, which may have allowed brothers who were close in age to participate in the institution at the same time.17 17 

Reinmuth 1948 and Kleijwegt 1991 believe underage Athenians participated in the ephebeia based on the fact that one ephebe appears in a roster without a demotic: Κτησικλῆς Κτησικλέους vacat (T8.22 col. V line 106). It is possible that the engraver did not know the

Organization, Training and Service ( 268 / 7‒31 BCE )

207

Over a number of generations, members of many of these elite families were involved in the political, religious, and/or cultural life of the city. One of the most frequent attestation of participation in the political life of the state is the fact that some members of these families appear in lists of prytaneis (E12, E15, E24, E26, E94), i.e., executive members of the boule who convened meetings of the ekklesia and boule, defined and controlled the agenda, and met with foreign officials. Another form of participation by members of these families that appears frequently in the evidence is as proposers of decrees or legislation (E9, E19, E101). These men directed the affairs of state. Other members of elite families appear as treasurers (E38, E44, E49, E67, E81). Others still served as ambassadors or proxenoi (E9, E55, E68, E81, E101). In the area of religious administration and participation, family members of participating ephebes are attested as agonothetai (E45), priests (E52), hieropoioi (E69, E70) kleidoukhoi (E6) or took part in official state pilgrimages (E31, E101). Some appear to have been permanent members of the staff of the ephebeia, such as Hermodoros of Akharnai and his descendants (E46). The young men whose names appear in ephebic rosters also played a role in the political, religious and cultural life of Athens. As with the members of their family, they, too, demonstrated outward signs of wealth. For instance, some of these ephebes are known through their benefactions, such as making contributions of up to 200 drakhmai at epidoseis (E19, E68, E69, E70). Others were horsemen (E19, E68), which represented a considerable expenditure each month. As to the political administration of the city, no names appear in the list of prytaneis in later inscriptions and only one as the proposer of an honorary decree (E70). A former ephebe (E31) was elected as the Arkhon Basileus in the arkhonship of Menekrates. Another served as tamias for which he received special honors (E44). Another still led an embassy to Rome in 189 BCE (E81). Former ephebes assumed leadership over military affairs as well. For example, Philotheos (E25) was strategos over the foreign troops and later the coastal strategos. Theotimos of Rhamnous (E70) served twice as the coastal strategos. As has been discussed elsewhere, Heortios of Akharnai (E46) later served for life as paidotribes of the ephebeia. Although the true rate is unknown, it is clear that members of elite families are overrepresented in the names that appear in ephebic rosters that young man’s deme affiliation or simply overlooked it as he transitioned to the expression “xenoi”, the heading of the next category in the roster directly below his name. For the entire Hellenistic Period outside Athens, there is only evidence for two ephebes under 18 years of age. See Vérilhac 1978–1982, nos. 62 (1st century BCE) and 95 (2nd–1st centuries BCE). The fact that they are called ephebes indicates that these political communities regarded entry into the age of majority differently than Athens.

208

chapter 8

survive from the period between 267/6 to 230/229 BCE. Without a doubt, as more epigraphical texts from this period are discovered, more names from these families will come to light. The results reviewed above help to further ground assumptions regarding the elite nature of the ephebeia made by earlier historians and are consistent with the conclusions of Perrin-Saminadayar for later periods of the institution, although the more abundant sources from later periods allow a greater appreciation of the extent and depth of participation by former ephebes in Athenian affairs. These findings also suggest that the trend of greater elite participation began by the early third century BCE. For the overrepresentation of members from elite families is attested in the earliest extant roster published in 266/5 BCE for the ephebes who served the previous year during the outbreak of the Khremonidean War when Athens was an independent and democratic polis. Thus, the high proportion of elite participation in the ephebeia cannot be ascribed to Macedonian interference in the Athenian body politic. 4

Organization of the Hellenistic Ephebeia

How was the ephebeia organized during the Hellenistic Age? Despite Ferguson’s belief to the contrary, the institution no longer included the office of sophronistes.18 Clearly, Athenians no longer felt that this official was necessary given the overall reduction in the numbers of participating ephebes. Instead, the kosmetes became far more prominent as evidenced in the inscriptions of this period. This is illustrated by the fact that throughout all of the honorary decrees published in the Hellenistic Period, the ephebes were honored for their obedience to this official. By contrast, in earlier fourth century texts, ephebes of a given tribe were normally honored for their obedience to their tribal sophronistes, whereas the kosmetes was never mentioned in this regard. Along with tribal sophronistai, it is doubtful that the ephebic taxiarkhoi and lokhagoi survived the third century revisions of the institution and for the same reasons mentioned above. Thus, despite the fact that the names of participating ephebes appear by tribe in rosters, the internal organization of the ephebeia was no longer significantly structured on the basis of tribal membership. In this way, then, the institution appears to be a microcosm of the overall Athenian military organization discussed above. Epigraphical practices reflected the central role that the kosmetes played in the day-to-day activities of the ephebes. Inscribed stelai in the third 18 

Ferguson, 1911, 128. Cf. Pélékidis 1962, 169.

Organization, Training and Service ( 268 / 7‒31 BCE )

209

century BCE contained a single decree honoring ephebes, their kosmetes and other personnel. By the beginning of the second century BCE, however, the Athenians began acknowledging the service of the kosmetes in a separate honorary decree. The addition of these texts marks an important epigraphical innovation and illustrates the kosmetes’ close supervision of the ephebes in their training and service. This second decree regularly appears on the same stele, but just below the first decree honoring the ephebes for their service. Normally, the names of the honorees and honorands appear in crowns after each of the texts and help to visually delineate both decrees. The earliest evidence for this addition is T7.4 a decree honoring the ephebes who served in the arkhonship of Sositeles (197/6 BCE). Other early stelai that carry decrees honoring ephebes published after this date—e.g., T7.13 (176/5 BCE) and T7.15 (171/0 BCE)—are also inscribed with separate decrees honoring their kosmetes. The texts of these decrees repeat those honoring the ephebes, but emphasize the role of the kosmetes in the ephebeia, and so provide a somewhat different (but complementary) perspective on the honorary decrees passed for the ephebes. For instance, in T7.13 lines 71–2, the text repeats from the ephebic honorary decree the fact that the ephebes ran races and torch-races (lines 10–11). It adds, however, that the kosmetes “took care of these races,” i.e., served as epimeletes, which suggests that he provided the oil and any equipment. These second honorary decrees sometimes included benefactions made by the kosmetes, such as an unspecified service at the Lesser Mysteries at Agrai or funding the repairs for a dilapidated catapult (T7.13 lines 75–6, 86–7), which may have been a reason for introducing a separate decree. The pairing of inscriptions remains standard epigraphical practice for the rest of the second century and the entire first century BCE. Besides compliance to their kosmetes, inscriptions honoring the ephebes regularly attest their obedience to the strategoi, which confirms that Athenian generals continued to play some role in the ephebeia. In the early Hellenistic Period, the Athenians reorganized their military hierarchy to reflect a new military reality, which in turn had an impact on the nature and disposition of the various generalships. Since for much of the third century the Macedonians controlled Peiraieus and its fortresses, the Athenians eliminated the two specialized commands over Mounikhia and Akte. The generalship over the countryside, however, was expanded with the creation of two regionalized strategoi. One was the general for the countryside stationed at Eleusis (ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν την ἐπ’ Ἐλευσῖνος).19 The other was the general for the coastal countryside stationed 19 

I.Eleusis nos. 186, 187, 194, 196, 207, and 211.

210

chapter 8

at Rhamnous (ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν τὴν παραλίαν).20 The creation of these two generalships was the Athenian response to the fact that during the early Hellenistic Period the countryside was subject to greater threats of plunder, war and instability. Other generals were assigned to more specialized commands as well. For instance, the general over the foreign troops (ἐπὶ τοὺς ξένους) attested in the late fourth and early third centuries BCE reappears in the record in the 230s.21 Soon after the recovery of Peiraieus in 229 BCE, three generals were appointed to oversee the harbor and its facilities (ἐπὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ). Another general held command over the newly reacquired island of Salamis.22 Further, generals over the navy (ἐπὶ τὸ ναυτικὸν) and cavalry (ἐπὶ τὸ ἱππικὸν) are attested in a Pythaïs inscription of 128/7 BCE (T8.11 lines 4, 5). For the most part, decrees honoring the ephebes mention only their obedience to the strategoi, a word nearly always in the plural and regularly without any reference to a specialized command. Surveys of the ephebe’s military and religious activities during these periods will show that, perhaps with the exception of the naval, mercenary and cavalry strategoi, any of these generals could fill the bill based on the particular context. So, when the ephebes renewed their guarding of Peiraieus, they were likely under the command of the general or generals over the harbor, just as they were in the fourth century (T6.10 lines 16–17; T7.4 lines 11–12). Similarly, as they made sacrifices and participated in torch-races for the hero Aias on Salamis, the ephebes were accompanied by the general overseeing the island who had established these games (T7.13 line 96; T8.16 line 77). Whenever the kosmetes led the ephebes out to the countryside to familiarize his young charges with the borders and fortresses of Attike, they were accompanied by generals. They may have been either one or both of the regionalized strategoi over the countryside (T7.4 lines 16–17). The most important strategos for the ephebeia of the Hellenistic Period in Athens was the hoplite general (ἐπὶ τὰ ὅπλα), or the general over foreign campaigns. Despite the fact that the Athenians appear to have campaigned far less frequently in this period, the hoplite general was the chief military official to whom the other generals and all other military personnel were subordinate. In addition to the overall military affairs of Athens, this official was responsible 20  21 

22 

E.g., I.Rhamnous nos. 3, 10, 18, 20, 23, 32, 50, 129, 136, 145. IG II/III3 1, 985 line 25 honors Phaidros who served as general over the foreign soldiers on three occasion in the early third century BCE. P.Oxy. xvii 2082 mentions the tyrant Leokhares in this capacity. I.Rhamnous no. 20, published in the arkhonship of Mneseides (233/2–231/0), honors Philotheos who had earlier served as the general over the foreign soldiers in the arkhonship of Lysanias (234/3 BCE) before being elected general over the coastal countryside. Papadopoulos 2004, 227 lines 9–12. Oliver 2007, 172.

Organization, Training and Service ( 268 / 7‒31 BCE )

211

for important civic matters, such as the grain supply, and by the early third century BCE his purview included Athens and the immediate environs.23 In the Lykourgan period and later fourth century BCE, when the training and service of new citizens were principally based in Peiraieus and the countryside fortresses, there is no epigraphic or literary evidence that the hoplite general played a role in the ephebeia. In the early third century BCE, however, when the generalship assumed the military responsibility over the asty, the hoplite general, naturally enough, undertook a supervisory role in the training and service of the ephebes, whose service had became more asty-based. For instance, the hoplite general joined the ephebes, their fathers and the exegetai and other sacred personnel at the eisiteteria, or the entrance ritual carried out in the Prytaneion at the beginning of their year (T8.11 lines 3–4). Since they performed guard duty within the city, ephebes were subject to his direct supervision while serving at the fortress on Mouseion Hill (T4.2 lines 11–12) and elsewhere. The hoplite general even joined the ephebes and other generals during their tour of the khora (T7.13 lines 99–100). The hoplite general is the only strategos that is specified as such and only the names of individual hoplite generals appear in decrees (T7.13 lines 99–100; T8.11 lines 3–4), although this is infrequent. This indicates the importance of the hoplite general in the overall hierarchy of Athenian military organization and command, as well as to the institution of the Hellenistic ephebeia. 5

Military Service

In the Lykourgan Period, Athenian ephebes served as guards over the harbor of Peiraieus in their first year of service and patrollers of the countryside in their second. With the loss of Peiraieus to the Macedonians, the instability of the countryside, and the reorganization of the Athenian military, the ephebeia was reformulated to meet the times. As noted above, their service became strictly city-based, at least for much of the third century BCE. When Peiraieus was returned to the Athenians in 229 BCE, the ephebes renewed guarding Athens’ main port. At around this same time, the ephebes returned to the khora, visiting the fortresses so as to gain experience with the countryside that they would one day be called up to defend. Upon successfully storming Mouseion Hill during the uprising of 287 BCE, the Athenians immediately retasked the fortress to suit their own military 23 

Oliver 2007, 163–4; for this generalship in the late Hellenistic and Roman Periods, see Geagan 1967, 18–31.

212

chapter 8

purpose. This included stationing ephebes there for garrison duty. At what point the Athenians decided to do so is unclear, but ephebes were placed on the hill by 268/7 BCE according to T4.2, published in 267/6 and honoring the young men of the previous year. During their year of service, the Athenians and their allies had entered the Khremonidean War against Antigonos Gonatas, the son of Demetrios Poliorketes and King of Macedonia. The text of the decree states that as the war was oppressing the city, the ephebes spent their entire year serving as guards in the fortress on Mouseion Hill. At some point after the war was brought to a close, the Athenians stationed the ephebes on Mouseion Hill to serve as guards. This is illustrated by T5.5. a decree dated to the arkhonship of Polyeuktos (250/49 BCE), who held office during the time in which Athens was in a forced alliance with Macedonia.24 This text is the only extant document from this period describing in some detail the activities of ephebes during Antigonid influence over Athens. It is likely that the ephebes ceased guarding Mouseion after the war, but renewed it sometime after 255 BCE, when Antigonos gave the Athenians their freedom and restored control over their forts to them.25 Liberation was not complete, however, for as with his father Demetrios Poliorketes, Antigonos retained control over Peiraieus through a garrison at Mounikhia. None of the documents from this period of Antigonid influence indicates that the ephebes renewed guarding of Peiraieus. With the recovery of Peiraieus and independence from Macedonia in 229 BCE, the Athenians added guarding meetings of the ekklesia to the military responsibilities of the ephebes. T6.5 (213/2 BCE) lines 20–1 registers the first mention of this activity in the corpus of ephebic texts. It reappears in T7.10 (c. 185/4 BCE) line 6, another inscription of this period, and again in T7.13 (176/5 BCE) line 12. Its absence in other contemporary texts suggests that standing guard over the assembly may not have been a regular activity in the late third and early second century institution, although it appears to have become so by the latter half of the second century BCE (T8.14 lines 20–1, 76–7; T8.16 lines 20–1; T8.22 line 22; T8.27 lines 35–6; T8.31 lines 21–2; and T8.33 lines 31–2). Thus, the ephebes were stationed four times during each prytany either in the city or Peiraieus and watched over each assembly as the rhetores debated proposals before the rest of the citizen audience who later voted on this and other items on the agenda. Although ceremonial, guarding the ekklesia was also educational. For, as Plato states, observing the decisions of the ekklesia had a 24  25 

See Tracy 2003, 21 n. 20; and id. 2007, 208. Eusebius Chronica vol. II, ed. Schone 1866, 120. Paus. (3.6.6) specifically mentions the installation of a Macedonian garrison on Mouseion Hill after the war and its eventual removal once Antigonos made peace with the Athenians.

Organization, Training and Service ( 268 / 7‒31 BCE )

213

greater influence on the behavior of young men than their formal education as children (Resp. 492a–d). Given Athens’ renewed independence and the recovery of much of her traditional territory, guarding the ekklesia was a patriotic act connected with other, similar expressions, such as the sacrifice on the island of Salamis to Demokratia, the personification of the traditional Athenian form of government also attested in contemporary ephebic inscriptions. Defense of the asty remained the center piece of ephebic service down through the first century BCE. When Diogenes, the military commander of the Macedonian garrison at Mounikhia, returned control of the fortresses, the harbor and the island of Salamis in 229 BCE, the Athenians widened the scope of military service for their ephebes. For soon after recovering the fortress in Peiraieus, the ephebes were honored for their care in “guarding the poleis” (T6.10 lines 16–17: ἐπεµελήθησαν…τῆς φυλακῆς τῶν πόλεων), another form of service that characterized the ephebeia into the first century BCE.26 Gauthier has demonstrated that the Athenian inscriptions from this period frequently refer to the urban center of Athens and the harbor town of Peiraieus as “the poleis.”27 Assigning ephebes the responsibility of guarding the harbor and its facilities along with the asty corresponds to contemporary efforts of Athenians to refortify both. Work on the walls of the Athens-Peiraieus defensive complex is illustrated by a decree, published soon after 229/8 BCE, which honors Eurykleides along with his brother Mikion for their contribution in repairing the walls of Athens and Peiraieus.28 The extent of the restorations is unclear and the nature of the repairs at present does not correspond to any of the remains uncovered by archaeological investigations. Whatever these repairs were, they proved very effective, for during his attack on Athens and Attike in 200 BCE, Philip V was unable to successfully breech the defensive walls of either the city or its harbor. Instead, the King plundered the country districts, tearing down and burning the temples consecrated in the demes (Livy 31.26.9–10, 31.30.10).

26 

27  28 

T7.15 lines 12–14; This convention may have developed out of the fragmentation in the way Athenians conceived their political topography, a result of the separation of Athens’ harbor from the rest of Attike during the third century thanks to the Macedonian garrison stationed there until 229 BCE. Referring to both Athens and Peiraieus as “poleis” is a common feature of inscriptions from this period, e.g., IG II2 950 (165/4 BCE) lines 9–10; T7.15 lines 12–13 [restored] (cf. T8.19 lines 19–20). Habicht 1982, 128. IG II/III3 1, 1160 lines 15–6: καὶ τὰ τείχη τοῦ] ἄστεως καὶ τοῦ Πειραιέως ἐπεσκεύα̣σε µετὰ Μικίωνος τοῦ] ἀδελφοῦ,… On the lack of physical remains for this period, see Theocharaki 2011, 126.

214

chapter 8

While providing guard service at Peiraieus, the ephebes undertook a different form of training, one unattested in the evidence thus far. According to T6.10 (c. 205 BCE), they made a display of their care/attention/practice in sailing (line 20: τεῖ µελέτει τεῖ κατὰ τὸν πλο[ῦν]). References to such an activity appear in later texts, albeit infrequently.29 The ephebes are praised for taking down and hauling up undecked and other types of ships under the direction of the strategoi, who must be identified as the generals overseeing Peiraieus and Salamis. T7.13 lines 19–26, 77–82 indicate that the ephebes took ships (ploia) from Peiraieus and sailed to the trophy of Themistokles, where they made a sacrifice to Zeus Tropaios while wearing crowns. Later, they sailed to Salamis to participate in the Aianteia, a festival honoring the local hero Aias. Finally, they returned to Peiraieus where they hauled in the ships and returned the equipment to the treasurer of the “triereis construction fund” (ὁ ταµίας τῶν τριηροποιϊκῶν) just as they received them.30 The Athenians encouraged their ephebes to practice sailing soon after Peiraieus and Salamis were reacquired from the Macedonians in 230/29 BCE. By the end of the second century BCE, the ephebes made contests of ships in biremes at the Aianteia, Mounikhia, Sotereia, and festival of the Great Gods. These contests provided venues for displaying their naval skills, all of which occurred in the harbor of Peiraieus. In addition to whatever practical advantage such training provided, conducting naval exercises in the Bay of Salamis at and around such places of memory as the Trophy of Themistokles linked the ephebes to Athens’ glorious past, as will be discussed in the following chapter. Thus, with the recovery of Peiraieus, the training and service that the ephebes of the Hellenistic Age performed during their year appear similar to that which the Lykourgan ephebes carried out in their first year. Did those same ephebes return to the countryside to guard the border forts and patrol the khora as their predecessors had done in their second year? Although references to young men serving in the forts exist (e.g., I.Eleusis no. 207 line 11), there is no evidence of ephebes in the garrisons during the early or mid third century. The appearance of specialized soldiers whose military function mirrors that of the ephebes of the Lykourgan Period led some scholars to speculate that the ephebes of the Hellenistic Age may have resumed patrolling the countryside,

29  30 

T7.13 lines 19–26, T8.16 line 60, T8.22 lines 19–20, T8.27 lines 37–8, and T8.33 line 33. This annually elected official first appears in the epigraphical record in IG II2 1617 (post 358/7 BCE) lines 120–1 and was in charge of administering public money that builders of triremes used (cf. Ath. Pol. 46.1). For additional evidence and discussion, see Gabrielsen 1994, 151–2.

Organization, Training and Service ( 268 / 7‒31 BCE )

215

but under different titles.31 For instance, evidence for the peripolarkhos, the commander of military patrols, resurfaces at the end of third century and continues to appear down through the second.32 As discussed in Chapter 5, peripoloi were linked to the defense of the countryside. The peripolarkhos appears in the garrison decrees of the later fourth century BCE, but the men under his command whose names are listed are not referred to as ephebes or even peripoloi, but by the general term for soldiers (στρατιῶται).33 This suggests that they were not a special class of soldier defined by a specific function, but were comprised of the soldiers stationed in the garrisons undertaking one of many forms of service. One group of specialized soldiers were the kryptoi (“the hidden” or “concealed ones”), so named for the nature of their particular service. They first appear in the epigraphical record during the Khremonidean War operating under Epikhares, the general over the coastal countryside headquartered at Rhamnous. Epikhares set up the kryptoi at lookout posts (ἐπὶ τὰς σκοπάς), providing safety for farmers during the harvest.34 An unpublished decree passed in the arkhonship of Diomedon (248/7 BCE) honoring the strategos Arkhandros states that these soldiers were placed in the most important guard posts within the territory close to the enemy.35 This suggests that the service of the kryptoi went beyond surveillance and may have included active defense.36 The third and final inscription is a decree honoring the general Philotheos by the kryptoi stationed at Rhamnous. The roster of soldiers included in the body of the text makes it clear that kryptoi were comprised primarily of Athenian citizens, although a few were foreign soldiers. Copies of this decree were erected in the garrison at Rhamnous and at Sounion, two fortresses under the general’s

31 

32  33  34  35  36 

Kent 1941, 348–9. Citing T4.2 (267/6 BCE), Pélékidis 1962, 170, believed that the ephebes were stationed in the garrisons during the first third of the third century BCE. This decree refers to only one fortress, the garrison at Mouseion, not the countryside fortresses, which his generalized plural (“les garnisons”) suggests. Ath.Mitt. 67 (1942) 22 no. 25 lines 3–4, in which Demetrios of Phaleron, a descendent of the late fourth century tyrant, is listed as peripolarkhos. Leslie Shear 1938, 216; Kroll and Mitchel 1980, 87. I. Rhamnous nos. 93 (338/7 BCE), 94 (337–334 BCE), 95 (337–334 BCE), 96 (337–4 BCE); I.Eleusis nos. 80 (340–335 BCE?), 81 (c. 338/7 BCE). I.Rhamnous no. 3 (268/7 BCE) lines 9–11, with Knoepfler 1993. Petrakos 1997, 614 n. 22. Xen. Hipparkh. 4.10–13 mentions hidden watch-posts and guards (τὰς κρυπτὰς σκοπάς τε καὶ φυλακάς) used for ambushing the enemy. It is possible that the kryptoi in the third century used similar tactics.

216

chapter 8

authority. The locations of these two inscriptions may demonstrate the broad area in which units of kryptoi operated.37 The last group of specialized soldiers attested in many inscriptions at the countryside garrisons in Rhamnous and Eleusis were the hypaithroi.38 The adjective hypaithros means “under the open air” and was used to refer to open country or fields. The term can also designate an army in the field, a military encampment, or soldiers stationed outside the city in the countryside. It is the last meaning that should be understood here. These soldiers were differentiated from those stationed in the fortresses in that they were pitched in temporary camps, a distinction regularly made in the epigraphical texts. A reference to tents (σκηνὰς) in a decree moved by a unit of hypaithroi for the general Aiskhrion of Phyle confirms this association.39 Athenian citizens comprised this specialized unit, although as with the kryptoi foreign members are attested, too. Beyond supplementing the soldiers in the countryside garrisons they do not appear to have a specialized military function. Theirs was the bow and javelin, the typical equipment of soldiers in the fortress. It is possible that the hypaithroi were pitched outside the garrisons in order to patrol the countryside, much like the peripoloi and ephebes of the fourth century BCE, while the soldiers stationed in the fortresses stood watch.40 Did the ephebes return to the countryside garrisons and, if so, when did this occur? Based on the handful of extant third century inscriptions, the ephebeia was carried out almost entirely in Athens and later in Peiraieus, as discussed above. Evidence for ephebes traveling outside Athens and Peiraieus appears for the first time in the record in an honorary decree for the ephebes of 214/3 BCE. This is based on the latest reading of the fragmentary T6.5 lines 19–20 by Bardani and Tracy, replacing Tracy’s original reading of these lines, which did not mention the countryside. References to their travels into the countryside do not appear again until T7.4, a decree honoring the ephebes who served in 196/5 BCE. In it, the young men are not praised for patrolling the countryside and manning the fortresses, but for traveling to the khora along with their kosmetes in order to provide assistance in putting out fires (lines 17: ἐπὶ τὰς βοηθείας τοῦ πυρός). The historical context for this document is the final year of the Second Macedonian War (197/6 BCE), to which this document alludes (line 13). The ephebes are also praised for undertaking the cleanup of 37  38  39  40 

I.Rhamnous no. 20 (233/2–231/0 BCE). I.Rhamnous nos. 55 (240–235 BCE), 26 (229 BCE), 46 (214/13 BCE), 49 (207/6 BCE). I.Eleusis nos. 198 (c. 228 to c. 203 BCE), 200 (225/4 BCE), and 211 (c. 209 BCE). I.Rhamnous no. 26 (229 BCE) lines 9–10. Ʃ Thuc. 4.67. See Couvenhes 2011, 303–4.

Organization, Training and Service ( 268 / 7‒31 BCE )

217

the Lykeion (lines 15–16) and escorting members of the boule down [to the asty (?)] (lines 18–19), both of which were activities likely made as responses to Macedonian raids into Attike during the war. T7.13, a decree honoring the ephebes of 177/6 BCE, also states that the ephebes marched out into the khora, and practiced in armor and became familiar with the boundaries of the land. It is only in the last third of the same century that the ephebes traveled to the countryside and borders of Attike and spent time in the fortresses (T8.14 lines 24–6, T8.16 line 20, T8.22 lines 15–6, T8.27 lines 22–3, 85–6, T8.31 lines 14– 15). The Athenians praised them for following in an industrious manner and passing their time blamelessly and in good order (T7.13 lines 12–15). In one decree, the proposer adds that the ephebes did not distress any of the inhabitants of the khora (T8.22 lines 15–6), which suggests that property damage or even acts of bodily harm at the hands of unruly young men may have been issues in previous years. It is striking that the ephebes returned to the countryside not through the dictates of a law or decree but through the decision of their kosmetes (T7.13 lines 12–13, 19). This suggests that at this stage of development visiting the countryside was not a regular activity for year classes of ephebes, but was undertaken at the initiative of whoever was its chief official. This may explain why a few of the extant texts published after T7.13 do not mention visiting the khora. Later in the century, the Athenians passed a law prescribing the ephebes and their kosmetes to travel to the fortresses and borders of Attike (e.g., T8.27 lines 22–3, 85–8), which indicates that such visits were now standardized and not left to the discretion of individual kosmetai. The adverb πλεονάκις, which is used in the texts to describe these visits, implies that they occurred “at several times” or “frequently.”41 Thus, as the evidence stands, the ephebes were not members of the specialized military forces discussed above. Instead, they undertook service in the khora and fortresses when relative peace and stability returned to the countryside. 6

Trainers and Training

In the Hellenistic decrees honoring ephebes and their officials, four military didaskaloi are consistently cited—the hoplomakhos, toxotes, akontistes, and katapaltaphetes (abbreviated later to aphetes). An athletic didaskalos, the paidotribes, is also regularly mentioned. Each of these didaskaloi represented each 41 

Cf. Aristot. Pol. 1299a9; IG II/III3 1, 985 line 25, I.Eleusis no. 211 line 5. Contra Marrou 1964,156.

218

chapter 8

area of instruction mentioned by [Aristotle]. Despite reducing the number of teachers to one per area of training, there appears to have been a continuity of instruction from the Lykourgan Age to the later Hellenistic Period. Moreover, based on the type of instructors and the corresponding nature of instruction, it is clear that the training that the ephebeia provided remained military at its core. This form of instruction was at the heart of the ephebeia at nearly every stage of the Hellenistic Period, including under Antigonid influence. Instruction in hoplomakhia remained an integral part of the Athenian ephebeia. The evidence demonstrates that, with the exception of one inscription, this trainer was present at its origin in the Lykourgan era to its demise in 267 CE.42 As with the other instructors, there appears to have been only one hoplomakhos, except in 128/7 BCE when Artemidoros son of Neon from Tarsus, a hupooplomakhos, or assistant hoplomakhos, is attested. This position appears only one time during this period—in an inscription from Delphi recording a Pythaïs, the sacred embassy to Apollo, made by Athenian ephebes and members of their staff (T8.11 line 14). The assistant hoplomakhos appears here and nowhere else in the normal ephebic decrees, including honorary decree for the same class of ephebes (T8.12). This suggests either that the assistant hoplomakhos was not a permanent trainer or that it was a regular position, but was never considered significant enough to be included in the normal annual honors bequeathed by the Athenians. Training in projectile weaponry continued in the Hellenistic Period as well. Instruction in archery and throwing the javelin are attested as early as 267/6 BCE and continued well into the first century BCE. Although training in firing the catapult appears in the same year, katapaltaphetai are not mentioned in the remains of subsequent decrees from the 260s and 250s. This may be due to the poor state of the individual inscriptions of this period. A relatively complete decree of 245/4 BCE honoring the ephebes of the previous year, however, does not include instruction in releasing the catapult (T5.6). The fragmentary remains of another decree published later in this same decade does mention the katapaltaphetes in the roster of instructors. Given that Aratos of Sikyon had invaded Attike, attacked Salamis, and attempted an assault on Peiraieus during this period, renewing this form of training may have been regarded as necessary. Evidence for this form of instruction cannot be detected in the highly 42 

T4.2 (267/6 BCE) does not mention the hoplomakhos in its enumeration of instructors. This was not due to oversight, but suggests that the ephebeia at this time was designed strictly for garrison defense. The hoplomakhos is restored in T4.3, another inscription from this period, but there is no evidence that this is warranted. IG II2 2245 (266/7 or 262/3 BCE), one of the last ephebic inscriptions to mention this trainer.

Organization, Training and Service ( 268 / 7‒31 BCE )

219

fragmentary record until 213/2 BCE (T6.5 lines 33–4), although given their expanded service after 229 BCE, instruction in firing the catapult may have been in place years before the publication of T6.5, and it appears consistently in honorary decrees of the second century BCE. Contrary to the belief of Marrou, Reinmuth, and Perrin-Saminadayar, the Athenian commitment to this form of training during this century is evident in the consistent presence of this trainer and in their encouragement of the ephebes in restoring older, stone-throwing catapults (lithoboloi).43 The implication of these texts is that the ephebes had long abandoned stone-throwing models in favor of contemporary bolt-firing machines.44 Instruction in firing the catapult dropped out of ephebic inscriptions after 100/99 BCE (T8.27), although it very likely continued down to at least 94/3 BCE (T8.31) and perhaps was removed after the Mithridatic War. Ath. Pol. 42.3 states that during the Lykourgan Period the fathers (and guardians) of the ephebes elected trainers for them, suggesting that once these young men passed out of the ephebate their trainers retired with them or were reelected to train subsequent age classes. In the Hellenistic Period, however, didaskaloi held their positions of instruction for many years, in some cases for life. For example, during the late third and early second century BCE, Persaios son of Symmakhos held the position of hoplomakhos for multiple years (T7.6, T7.7, T7.9, T7.14 and T7.13); so too did Nikhomakhos son of Nikhomakhos as akontistes (T7.6, T7.7, T7.14, T7.13, and T7.15); Sosos son of Proxenos as toxotes (T7.6, T7.9, T7.14, and T7.13); and Pedieas son of Neandros as aphetes (T7.6, T7.9, T7.14, T7.13, and T8.12). Neandros, the father of Perieas, also served as aphetes on several occasions a generation before (T6.5, T7.10, and T7.4). This suggests that didaskaloi were no longer selected in the earlier manner, but formed the more or less permanent instructional staff for the institution, at least for much of the third and second century. By the second half of the second century, individual instructors no longer held these positions sequentially. The kosmetes appears to have appointed them around this time, too (T8.22 line 21: τῶν κατασταθέντων ὑφ ἑαυτοῦ [sc. κοσµητοῦ] διδασκάλων), and may have done so for the third century BCE. As to athletic training, Athenians continued to employ a paidotribes (now one). There is no evidence that the Athenians prioritized this instructor over the others, as Marrou alleges, or that physical training was the antithesis of military training, as Marrou’s assertion seems to imply. Rather, the former complemented the latter by ensuring that the ephebes were physically capable 43  44 

T7.13 lines 75–6, 86–7; T8.14 line 34–6; and T8.19 lines 27–8. Marrou 1964, 154; Reinmuth 1948, 258. Launey 1949–1950, 832.

220

chapter 8

of carrying out their military duties. During the third and early second century BCE, three generations of one family from Akharnai served exclusively as athletic instructor. Hermodoros son of Heortios appears as paidotribes of the ephebes as early as 268/7 BCE (T4.2 col. I lines 66–70). His tenure continued through the 250s (T5.2 line 32–3) and into the 240s (T5.5 lines 15–16, col. III lines 1–5, and T5.6 line 16), demonstrating a continuity of personnel from a period of freedom and independence with the succeeding period of domination by a foreign power. Heortios of Akharnai, the son of Hermodoros, appears as paidotribes for the first time in a roster of trainers (T5.7 col. I lines 1–4) inscribed sometime after T5.6, a decree which the Athenians passed in 245/4 BCE for the ephebes of the previous year. Heortios himself had been a member of this very year class of ephebes (T5.6 col. II line 38). His career as paidotribes began sometime after 246/5 BCE and spanned into the final years of the third century or perhaps even into the first few years of the second.45 Heortios was eighteen years old when he joined the ephebeia in 246/5 BCE, and so he was fifty nine in 205/4 BCE, the last year known to us in which he served as the athletic instructor (T6.10 line 40). Hermodoros of Akharnai, the son of Heortios, appears as paidotribes for the first time in the extant record in 196/5 BCE (T7.4 lines 34–5, 109–12) and was still serving in this capacity as late as 176/5 BCE (T7.13 lines 52–3). After this date, no member of this family appears in our extant sources as paidotribes of the ephebes. Since military service during the Hellenistic Period was asty-based, military and athletic training took place in and around the urban center of Athens. Many of the earlier texts do not mention where training occurred, but by the end of the third century, ephebes were praised for training in the gymnasia of the city (T6.5 lines 8–9; T6.10 lines 13–4). The Lykeion is mentioned in the first half of the second century as a location in which the ephebes erected dedications, so it is fair to conclude that during this period these young men took most of their training here. Later in the same century and afterwards, the Diogeneion, a gymnasium named after the Macedonian garrison commander who returned Mounikhia, Peiraieus and the harbors to the Athenians, became central to the institution. Every day during the year, the ephebes were expected to attend the gymnasia where they ran races (T8.12 lines 12–3, T8.14 lines 10–11, T8.19 lines 11–12, T8.27 lines 12–13, 33–4, T8.31 lines 9–10, 20–1, T8.33 lines 7–8, 30–1) and performed each month all the contests that the gymnasiarkhoi established for them (T8.19 lines 29–30). The gymnastic festivals in which they participated provided a venue for their athletic training. 45 

T6.5 line 33; T6.7; T6.10 line 15 (restored); T6.10 line 39–40.

Organization, Training and Service ( 268 / 7‒31 BCE )

221

The ephebes continued to make their apodeixis, a display of their training. As discussed earlier, the apodeixis in the Lykourgan Age was a display made “concerning their taxeis,” which likely consisted of making a display of their training by tribal regiments (taxeis). Aristotle wrote in an age when an annual age class of ephebes numbered around 500 to 600 strong. Groups of ephebes were organized into tribal lokhoi which were under the command of tribal lokhagoi and taxiarkhoi. There is no evidence that these offices or this form of organization survived into the third century, given the small number of young men enrolled in the ephebeia during this period. The texts mention only that they displayed their training (µελέτη) “in arms.” Another distinction between the apodeixis of the ephebeia in the Hellenistic Age and that in the Lykourgan is that the ephebes performed it before the boule (T6.5 line 23, T6.10 line 21), not the ekklesia, as [Aristotle] reports (Ath. Pol. 42.4). The regular setting for the display may have continued to be the theater in the Lykeion. For the ephebes erected dedications there. A few texts mention that the ephebes gave it during the Epitaphia, (T7.4 lines 19–20, T7.13 lines 28–9, 100–101, T8.14 lines 22–3, T8.16 lines 16–7, T8.19 lines 28–9, T8.27 lines 19–20, T8.31 lines 12–13, and T8.33 lines 18–9) and the Theseia, an old civic festival newly revived after 168/7 BCE (T8.12 lines 16–18, T8.14 lines 22–3; T8.16 lines 16–7; T8.19 lines 28–9; T8.27 lines 19–20, T8.31 lines 12–13, and T8.33 lines 18–9) before the boule. These appear separate from the apodeixis at the end of the year, which took place in the Lykeion or, later, in the Panathenaic Stadium at the exiteteria during the engraphai (T7.13 lines 100–101, T8.22 lines 21–22), i.e., before a contingent of young men who were about to join the ephebeia of the following year. 7

Honors and Awards

Another significant change in the institution is that the honors that ephebes were awarded became much more prominent. This is apparent in a number of ways. For example, the ephebes were now receiving honors strictly from the ekklesia, not from the boule and tribes with which they were affiliated, as their Lykourgan predecessors had (e.g., T1.3 and T1.9, but see T1.13). In return for their good order (εὐταξία) and obedience (πειθαρχία), the ephebes were awarded a golden crown (lines 20–3). Their kosmetes and trainers were also praised for their service and awarded a crown of young olive shoots for their εὐταξία and the care they continuously demonstrated to the ephebes (lines 25– 31). The texts of these decrees were inscribed on stone stelai and then erected in the Athenian Agora. As the chief civic space of the city, the Agora was the most appropriate site for the placement of these monumental inscriptions.

222

chapter 8

Meetings and civic institutions were located there, monumentalized through public buildings, portrait statues of public figures, and inscriptions recording the decrees of the People. Along with the Akropolis, the Agora communicated a visible autobiography of the city to citizens and foreigners alike, a civic narrative to which the decrees honoring Athens newest citizens contributed. In addition, by the end of the third century BCE, the strategoi announced the crowns awarded to the ephebes at the City Dionysia and the gymnastic games of the Panathenaia, and the Eleusinia (T6.10 lines 34–5). By the beginning of the second century BCE, the gymnastic games of the Ptolemaia were included (T7.6 lines 12–20, T7.7 lines 6–11, T7.9 lines 4–9, T7.13 lines 37–40). Such an honor was reserved for those who made valuable contributions to the community. Early on, the choice of venue was determined by which festival closely followed the awarding of honors. For instance, in 270/69 BCE, the Athenians announced the honors for Kallias of Sphettos only at the upcoming City Dionysia (his honors were passed soon after the Greater Panathenaia of the same year) whereas the honors for Phaidros, Kallias’ brother, were announced at the up-coming City Dionysia and the gymnastic games of the Greater Panathenaia of the following year.46 This procedure changed in the Age of Eurykleides and Mikion. All four festivals attracted a large number of spectators and participants in the games, including a good many foreigners. Thus, announcing honors at these venues increased the awareness of the honorand’s benefaction and corresponding award to an international level. In this way, the Athenians hoped to attract others to participate in the institution and to encourage them to act as benefactors of the state. On occasion, ephebes were awarded proedria (T4.2 lines 20–3, T6.10 lines 37–8, T7.7 line 18, T7.9 line 9 and T7.13 line 42). Proedria, or front row seating, at all the games that the city sponsored was sometimes offered to state benefactors, whether they were citizens or foreigners, normally in conjunction with receiving other honors (e.g., sitesis).47 By the end of the century, the games in question included the Panathenaia, Eleusinia, Ptolemaia, and the new performances at the City Dionysia. Individuals were awarded proedria, such as Aristonikos of Karystos in 314/3 BCE, the first man in our evidence to have received it.48 Several boards, including taxiarkhoi, earned grants of proedria, too.49 Front row seating at the games brought prominence and distinction to 46  47  48  49 

IG II/iii3 1, 911 lines 89–94 (Kallias); 1 985 lines 71–86 (Phaidros). Osborne 1981, 174–7. IG II2 385 line 17. IG II2 500 line 31–6 (taxiarkhoi); SEG 21.357 line 5–6 (hipparkhoi and phylarkhoi); IG II2 792 line 2–9 and Agora XVI no. 188 lines 41–4 (sitonai).

Organization, Training and Service ( 268 / 7‒31 BCE )

223

the honorand(s), especially as his/their honors were announced publicly at the games before fellow citizens and foreigners alike. The city architect assigned a place for the honorand(s) by engraving his/ their name in a designated seat.50 Members of the boule were placed in some region of the Theater of Dionysos and/or Panathenaic Stadium called the bouleutikon, where they sat and watched performances. Similarly, members of the ephebeia were assigned to a place called the ephebikon.51 Not all year classes of ephebes received proedria, which suggests that earning this honor was based on exceptional service, e.g., guarding the Mouseion at the height of the Khremonidean War. In general, proedria was granted for the lifetime of individual recipients who then passed the privilege on to their eldest son, and so on. It is unlikely that proedria was granted for the life of each ephebe, for offering such an award to a generation of ephebes would have quickly exhausted available space. It is also no surprise that the Athenians ceased awarding proedria by the latter half of the second century BCE, given the larger number of young participants during this phase of the ephebeia. Finally, the boule and demos awarded the ephebes a “prize of contest” (ἆθλον) for their perseverance (κακοπαθία) and allowed them to dedicate this in the Lykeion with an inscription bearing the names, patronymics, and demotics of the ephebes, their kosmetes, and trainers. Beyond this, no evidence exists regarding what this votive looked like.52 In three of our texts (T7.7 lines 20–24, T7.9 lines 11–15, T7.14 lines 3–6), this votive was regarded as a monument (µνηµεῖον) of the ephebes’ good order (εὐταξία) and industry (φιλοπονία). One dedication actually carries an inscription announcing the good order and industry of a year class of ephebes (T7.13 lines 44–50). Crowther has drawn attention to what may be regarded as moral or social training that took place in the gymnasium.53 He records dozens of examples of contests in good habit of body (εὐεξία), discipline (εὐταξία) and industry (φιλοπονία). These contests 50  51  52 

53 

E.g., IG II2 500 line 33–4, 512 line 7–8, 792 line 8–9. Hesykh. s.v. βουλευτικόν. This award may be attested in the previous period, for the ephebes are allowed to set up a dedication in T6.10 (205 c. BCE) lines 38–9, a likely restoration made by Trail. Habicht 2001, 117–118, makes a compelling case to regard the term “pinax” in fragmented T6.5 (213/2 BCE) line 32, not as the patronymic of the kosmetes as suggested by Tracy 1979, 174, but permission for a “setting up” (ἀνάθεσις) of a pinax, an inscribed tablet probably testifying to their valor. These texts are reconstructions of highly fragmented lines and terms such as kakopathia, eutaxia, and philoponia are neither mentioned in the inscriptions nor restored by their editors. These may be separate from the prize discussed above, for T7.7 line 19 speaks of an ἀνάθεσις of two bronze statues and later in lines 21–22 a dedication for the prize of kakopathia. Crowther 1991, 301–4.

224

chapter 8

were held during the Hermaia and individuals were recognized and rewarded. The εὐταξία and φιλοπονία here, by contrast, were recognized by the boule. Such a prize strongly suggests that the Athenian ephebes of the Hellenistic Period did not spend their year “enjoying their leisure,” as Marrou mistakenly believed, but worked diligently year round and were honored for it. At Athens, the prize of industry (φιλοπονία) was awarded to the ephebes as a body by the demos and boule on recommendation of the kosmetes who closely monitored the ephebes of a given year and made his account (apologismos) before the boule soon after the young men completed their training and service (T8.22 lines 115–16: ἐποιήσατο δὲ…τὸν ἀπολογισµὸν ἐν τῆι βουλῆι ὑπὲρ τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐν τῶι ἐνιαυτῶι γεγονότων πάντων τοῖς ἐφήβο[ις]). For more than a century, the term apologismos has puzzled scholars.54 It appears infrequently in all extant Attic epigraphy and, besides some form of “account,” it is difficult to determine what it means legally. The discovery and publication of T7.13, however, has shed considerable light on the term apologismos. For at lines 44–45, the text states that the kosmetes gave an account (ἀπολελόγισται) before the boule of how the ephebes were obedient to him and accomplished many useful things for the safety and protection of the People. As a result of his account, the ephebes were granted permission to erect in the Lykeion an inscribed dedication as a reward for their endurance during their year of training and service. This term ἀπολελόγισται can be restored in two contemporary ephebic documents (T7.7 line 20, T7.9 line 11). In both cases, the accounts of the kosmetai expressed a necessary condition for receiving permission to set up a dedication recording and memorializing their year of service.55

54 

55 

Ferguson 1904, 5; id. 1932, 147, believed that the term signified a change in the methods that Athenians used to hold their magistrates accountable, which he took as an expression of an “oligarch revolution” just before 100 BCE. Cf. Pélékidis 1962, 198–9. Badian 1976, 105–6, however, demonstrated that no such revolution occurred. Tracy 1975, 44, argued that the mason deliberately omitted the euthynai clause, opting instead to use the expression apologismos to stand in its place in the compressed text. Yet, the fact that it took place before members of the boule and not before auditors in the dikasterion, as euthynai traditionally did, suggests that the term did refer to some other procedure. In fact, IG II2 1227 (131/0 BCE), a decree honoring a gymnasiarkhos, makes a clear distinction between apologismos and euthynai (lines 18–20). For further discussion on this procedure, see now Fröhlich 2004, 453–63. Although the term apologismos (vel sim.) is not used, the requirement for a kosmetes to come before the Council and Assembly at the end of his tenure and address the conduct of the ephebes in his care throughout the year as a means of securing honors for them is attested as early as the 260s BCE (T4.2 lines 15–18).

Organization, Training and Service ( 268 / 7‒31 BCE )

8

225

Conclusion

In sum, the picture of the Hellenistic ephebeia at Athens is of a quasi-public system of citizen training that underwent a significant change from its Lykourgan predecessor. By 267/6 BCE (T4.2), the ephebeia was permanently reduced to a one-year program and was no longer a requirement for new citizens. Newly enrolled young men did continue to join the ephebeia, but at a vastly reduced number. One important factor that contributed to the decline in their numbers was the elimination of the trophe, or public maintenance, that members of the Lykourgan ephebeia enjoyed. The absence of the euthynai formula in the earlier texts strongly suggests that the kosmetes, the annually elected public official charged with the training and care of the ephebes, did not receive public money for the support of his young charges. Consequently, ephebes of the Hellenistic Period came by and large from families that could afford to lose for a year the labor or income of one or more of their sons. The Hellenistic ephebeia remained military in nature. It is true that, unlike their Lykourgan predecessors, the ephebes for much of the third century BCE did not always have access to their fortresses due to Macedonian garrisons stationed there. When the Athenians did regain their fortresses, however, the ephebes served as guards at Mouseion in Athens and passed their year at Peiraieus and in the border forts. More importantly, throughout this entire period they continued to train in the military arts, just as the ephebes of the Lykourgan Age did: They learned how to fence with hoplite equipment, use the bow, throw the javelin, and release the catapult. They also continued to exercise in the gymnasia of the city. Finally, they were praised for their discipline and obedience, two important civic and military virtues. All of this suggests that the focus of the ephebeia continued to be on the military training of its young members, even after the Athenians increased their participation in Athens’ festival life in the Age of Eurykleides and Mikion. Further, in contrast with the last quarter of the second century BCE, there is no evidence in the third century and most of the second that the ephebeia provided intellectual education for its young members, as will be discussed at length in Chapter 10. As the prosopographical analysis above has shown, many of the participating ephebes, but by no means all, belonged to families of means who were to some extent engaged in the public life of the state. In a sense, then, participation in the ephebeia became a form of elite display, of publicizing one’s membership in an elite family. Rosters advertizing the names of ephebes appeared on honorary decrees erected in conspicuous locations in the Agora or on monuments dedicated in the Lykeion memorializing their year of service. As will be discussed next chapter, the ephebes themselves played prominent

226

chapter 8

roles in state religion before their fellow citizens. For instance, they appeared in processions as a defined body of citizens that performed specific tasks, such as conducting the Sacred Things to Athens and the cult image of Iakkhos to Eleusis during the Greater Mysteries. They carried out certain forms of sacrifices as a group, such as bull-lifting at certain festivals. Further, as a body ephebes performed athletic contests at numerous festivals throughout the year. This interpretation, however, overlooks other important considerations. Just as it was under the Classical democracy, the prerequisite for entering public life—whether it was to hold political office, command armies, or the like—was still wealth. As with their ancestors, wealthy Athenians continued to be called upon to assume burdensome liturgical obligations. Elites provided leadership essential for the survival of Athens. The ubiquity of war and instability of the countryside made the defense of the city and its khora the central concern of these men. The military hierarchy that existed at Athens required leaders knowledgeable in the military arts, which had become a technical discipline by the fourth century BCE. Members of the elite were required to demonstrate skills in defending the city and in leading men, citizen-soldiers and mercenaries alike, in battle (Ain. Tact. 1.1–9). The ephebeia met this need by providing the basis of specialized military training for young members of the Athenian elite. Given its composition, the institution represented a first step for those with political or military ambitions. Contrast this with the ephebes of the Lykourgan Era, who trained, competed, took meals, and were quartered by tribe. The purpose of this arrangement was to create strong bonds among their members and inculcate a sense of tribal identity necessary for effective military service, which was carried out by tribe. By training, competing, and serving with one another, however, the ephebeia of the Hellenistic period created a bond and sense of identity among Athens’ future leaders.

chapter 9

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life (229‒31 BCE) The most significant addition to the texts of extant decrees honoring ephebes published after 229 BCE are the numerous citations for their participation in Athenian state religion.1 By 200 BCE, ephebes were praised for participating in the Eleusinian Mysteries, Procession of the Semnai Theai, Epitaphia, Hephaistia, and Aianteia. In addition to these, by the end of the following century the Athenians honored them for the roles that they played in the Dionysia, Peiraia, Panathenaia, Diogeneia, Eleusinia, Theseia, Galaxia, the festival of Artemis Mounikhia, Diisoteria, Procession of the Theoi Megaloi, Conveyance of Pallas Athena, and the sacred pilgrimage to Delphi. The elaborate motivation clauses used to register the decision for awarding these young men honors at the end of their year of training and service catalogue their many and varied contributions to the festival life of the city. They sometimes formed part of a procession, perhaps even escorting the image or sacred paraphernalia of the gods, and made offerings such as phialai. On other occasions, they competed for the god by running a torch-race, footrace, race in arms, or carried out a contest of ships in the Bay of Salamis. The official recognition of their contributions to so many festivals and other religious activities raises a number of questions. For instance, when did the ephebes begin to participate to such an extent? With few exceptions, scholars assume, with little supporting evidence, that ephebes played some kind of role in many of these festivals as early as the Lykourgan Period (and, for advocates of a fifth century ephebeia, even earlier than this).2 For example, Pouilloux and Reinmuth believe that the honors the deme of Eleusis awarded to the ephebes in the Lykourgan Period were not only for their service in guarding the fortress, but also for their participation in the Eleusinian Mysteries.3 Similarly, Humphreys supposes that the ephebes stationed at Eleusis “took part from the 1  Pélékidis 1962, 211–56; and Launey 1987, 890–7 provide the earliest and most complete discussion of these festivals, albeit much of their discussion is derived from the lengthy texts of surviving decrees of the later second century BCE. 2  The contemporary exception is Mikalson 1998, who writes “the Athenians were, after 229 [BCE], clearly indoctrinating the ephebes in a complex system of national and religious traditions” (292), thereby recognizing that this period marked a significant change in the institution with regard to participation. I explicitly acknowledge and follow his diachronic approach to the historical study of Athenian religion (4). 3  Pouilloux 1954, 110 n. 1; Reinmuth 1971, 9–10.

228

chapter 9

beginning in the procession which escorted the holy objects of the Mysteries on their way to Athens and back again, as they certainly did in later centuries.”4 Pélékidis even imagined that a reference to ancestral customs (κ]ατὰ τὰ ἀρχαῖα νόµιµα: IG II2 1078 lines 10–11) in a decree of c. 220 CE regulating the conduct of the ephebes in the procession of the Eleusinian Mysteries linked the content of these regulations to practices of the ephebes in the Lykourgan Age (and earlier).5 With regard to the Dionysia, Pickard-Cambridge assumed that the same level of participation by ephebes of the Hellenistic Age in Dionysos’ festival occurred in the Classical Period.6 Similarly, Winkler speculates that as early as the sixth century ephebes were receiving proedria, or front-row seating, in the Theater of Dionysos for their contributions to this festival attested during the Hellenistic Period.7 In addition to the question of origin, in what ways (if any) did participating in state religion reshape the overall character of the ephebeia? Generally, specialists in Greek religion make ample use of ephebic documents as a means of better understanding the nature of individual festivals. This is understandable and indeed even necessary, for in the near absence of literary sources for this period, the Hellenistic decrees honoring ephebes contain an array of valuable information regarding the religious activities conducted in (and out of) the city. In some cases the very existence of a festival would be entirely unknown, if not for its appearance in these texts. The impact that their participation had on the institution, however, is generally not pursued beyond the point of postulating that the ephebeia had become more ceremonial and thereby lost its military purpose.8 Yet, despite the fact that during this period the total number of ephebes had drastically decreased and the number of years of training was reduced to one, the ephebeia still continued to serve as a system of military training and service for new Athenian citizens of elite families, as the last chapter has demonstrated. This chapter examines when the ephebes began to make large-scale contributions to Athenian state religion. Unlike earlier scholarship, it argues that significant participation in the festival life of Athens by ephebes first occurred in the late third century BCE, most likely as part of the new religious policies established by the brothers Eurykleides and Mikion and their circle. Scholars have recognized the militaristic and especially nationalistic character of many 4  Humphreys 2004, 90–1. 5  Pélékidis 1962, 220 with n. 6. 6  Pickard-Cambridge 2003, 59–61. 7  Winkler 1990, 38. Cf. Poll. 4.122; Hesykh. s.v. βουλευτικόν; and Σ Ar. Av. 794. 8  Tracy 1979, 177–8; de Marcellus 1994, 194; Humphreys 2004, 89.

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life ( 229‒31 BCE )

229

of these festivals and have acknowledged that the purpose of their participation was to engender a sense of patriotism in the ephebes. Yet, deeper explorations into the role that these festivals played in the institution generally do not exist. The singular exception is the attempt by generations of scholars to characterize the institution as a rite of passage, a view that contradicts what is known about the status of the ephebe. An examination of the Oskhophoria and bull-lifting will demonstrate that this characterization finds no support in the evidence. This chapter will also introduce new lines of interpretation more consonant with the nature of the institution. Instead, it will be argued that their participation in commemorative festivals acclimated the ephebes to polis beliefs and values, ensured cultural continuity, and maintained group identity from one generation to the next. Further, their participation in the festivals and ritual activities that articulated Athenian territorial claims linked the next generation of political and military leaders—young men whose role was to defend the territorial integrity of Attike—to the Athenian collective ownership of the land. 1

Ephebes and Religion in the Age of Eurykleides and Mikion

As observed in earlier chapters, ephebes of the Lykourgan Age and Early Hellenistic Period contributed to Athenian state religion. The literary and epigraphical sources, however, suggest that participation was neither frequent nor central to the institution. Does the sudden appearance of religious service attested after 229 BCE acknowledge a contemporary change in the ephebeia or do the texts of these inscriptions make explicit activities performed by ephebes that up to this point had not been recorded? Of course, new discoveries may eventually lead to reconsideration and revision, but the evidence as it currently stands seems to support the former position. Coinciding with the sudden appearance of participation in state religion in these texts is the introduction of a new virtue in the vocabulary for praising ephebes—piety towards the gods (εὐσέβεια). Broadly speaking, piety is any sense of religious obligation felt toward another, be they mortal or immortal. With regard to the former, Greeks could feel piety towards individuals (e.g., xenia, asylia), members of their family (e.g., the various duties towards parents and other family members, including ancestors), and to their fellow citizens.9 In the case of mortals, success or failure in honoring an obligation could be regarded as pious or impious when divine witnesses were introduced as a means 9  Mikalson 1991, 165–202.

230

chapter 9

of ensuring an outcome or if an area of conduct was believed to be under their purview or in some way affected them. Thus, when they swore their citizenship oath to enlarge the fatherland, obey the officials and the law, and not to abandon one’s fellow citizen on the battlefield, the ephebes invoked the gods to certify to their fellow citizens their commitment to upholding the conditions of the oath. Violators of its terms committed perjury, a “sin against the gods” (Sophokles fr. 472 [R]), and were in turn punished by effecting a curse. Thus, to the new citizen piety was an important and familiar concept, but up till now its impact vis-à-vis the ephebeia seems to have been felt no further than ensuring that ephebes maintained the terms of their oath. Piety as it appears in the decrees of this later period, however, link the ephebes with specific, positive acts towards the gods. In the context of public inscriptions, piety is more narrowly understood as a religious service to a god or gods. As a civic virtue, εὐσέβεια was reserved for praising those who performed such a service on behalf of the state.10 Prior to the late third century, ephebes were never praised in this way. Instead, as discussed in earlier chapters, the Athenians continued to describe the behavior of ephebes using value terms such as discipline (εὐταξία), obedience (πειθαρχία), and self-mastery (σωφροσύνη). By acknowledging their piety in texts subsequent to 229 BCE, Athenians appear to have been promoting a new role for members of the ephebeia, or at the very least, were significantly expanding an older one. Going forward, piety (εὐσέβεια) appears in the texts of honorary decrees as a civic virtue that acknowledged their contributions to Athenian religious life and served as a basis for awarding honors, along with other traditional moral qualities. The appearance in the epigraphical texts of ephebes participating in numerous festivals also corresponds precisely with a period of significant religious innovation—changes in Athenian religious life that had a direct impact on the ephebeia. For example, soon after the liberation of Athens from Macedonia in 229 BCE, the Athenians under the leadership of the brothers Eurykleides and Mikion established a new sanctuary and cult of Demos and the Kharites located on the north slope of kolonos Agoraios.11 The purpose of the sanctuary was to provide a site in which the Athenians could erect statues of foreigners whose benefactions had contributed to the well-being of the People 10 

11 

Whitehead 1993, 70. The term is first attested at the deme level in the 350s BCE in a decree of the Eleusinians honoring a resident Theban who financed two khoroi in the celebration of the local Dionysia at Eleusis (IG II2 1186 lines 16–7). It appears at the polis level in the 330s BCE in a decree honoring four Athenians for sacrifices they performed on behalf of the state (IG II/iii3 1, 416 lines 20–1). Habicht 1997, 180–2; Mikalson 1998, 173–178.

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life ( 229‒31 BCE )

231

of Athens, especially to those who had made contributions to their recent liberation.12 It was located behind the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios, an association that visually and conceptually linked foreign benefaction with Athenian freedom.13 Foreigners visiting the city would have seen the sanctuary as they walked along the street leading toward the Agora from the Dipylon Gate. The divinities connected with the sanctuary embodied the very idea of the People of Athens honoring the city’s benefactors. Demos was the personification of the Athenian People, which had been recently freed. Individually, the Kharites were personifications of peace and of human and agricultural prosperity and collectively represented expressions of gratitude and reciprocity, as their name implies. The divinities of this cult had existed separately in earlier times (Aristot. Eth. Nic. 1132b–1133a), but the reconfiguration of these elements marked a significant religious novelty at Athens.14 Another innovation was the elevation of Ptolemy III Euergetes to the status of eponymous hero of Ptolemaïs, a newly added tribe and the thirteenth division of demes. Since the death of Alexander, Athenians had warm relations with kings of Egypt who had championed Athenian freedom and independence from Macedonia, but it was Euergetes’ donation of money to secure the release of Attike from the garrisons of Philip V and their hope to ensure future military and economic aid from Egypt that led the Athenians to regard the king as a liberator and guarantor of their freedom.15 As with the Macedonian saviors of 307/6 BCE, grateful Athenians established the cult of the Ptolemies in 224/3 BCE.16 A statue of Ptolemy was added to the monument of the eponymoi in the Agora and the Athenians created Berenikidai, a constitutional deme, in honor of Queen Berenike, Ptolemy’s wife and consort.17 The notion of the Ptolemies as liberators was concretized by the construction of the Ptolemaion, the gymnasium of Ptolemy. It stood in the heart of Athens next to the Theseion, the sanctuary of Athenian synoikistes and the founder of her democracy.18 His gymnasium was likely built either during this period or the early second century BCE.19 The Athenians also created the Ptolemaia, a penteteric festival 12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 

Rocchi 1980, 19–28; Oliver 1960, 106–17; and Ferguson 1911, 203–212. Habicht 1982, 92–3; id. 1997, 1810–1; Mikalson 1998, 172–5. Mikalson 1998, 173–178; Fisher 2010, 82–3. Habicht 1997, 174, 178. Habicht 1982, 105–112, on the date of the foundation of this tribe. Traill 1975, 29–30. Paus. 1.17.2; Plut. Thes. 36.2. Miller 1995, 201–45, esp. 227 n. 19–20, locates the Ptolemaion east of the Tower of the Winds and connects it with the location of the Diogeneion. Mikalson 1998, 179 believes that this gymnasium was erected in conjunction with or soon after the establishment of the tribe Ptolemais in 224/3 BCE. Thompson 1950, 322, places the foundation of the Diogeneion in the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopater (181–145 BCE).

232

chapter 9

of such a scale that it attracted a large number of participants and spectators. Along with the Dionysia, Panathenaia, and Eleusinia, names of benefactors were announced at the Ptolemaia (e.g., T8.27 lines 49, 100–1). Ptolemy was not the only benefactor honored by the Athenians for the liberation of their city. Diogenes, the former garrison commander who returned Mounikhia to the Athenians, was officially named euergetes and received special privileges from the Athenian state for his actions, including proedria in a special marble chair at the Theater of Dionysos for himself and his descendants.20 He had been made an Athenian citizen prior to 229 BCE and had married into the gens Eteobutadai, which had produced such statesmen as Lykourgos.21 In addition to these, a festival, the Diogeneia, was held in thanksgiving for his role in liberating the city from Macedon.22 Further, the Athenians built the Diogeneion, a gymnasium or palaistra, in his honor.23 Based on the recovery in 1861 of a large number of inscriptions related to the ephebes and portrait herms of kosmetai, scholars believe this building stood just outside the Post-Herulian Wall at its north-east corner where they were discovered built into its lower course.24 Habicht believes that the cult, festival, and building of Diogenes were established soon after the liberation of Athens.25 The Athenians linked their ephebes with these innovations, although the evidence of the connections appears for the first time in documents of the following century. For instance, the priest of Demos and Kharites was present at the enrollment of participating ephebes at the common hearth in the Prytaneion. He joined the ephebes, their fathers, their kosmetes, and the exegetai in making sacrifices during their registration.26 The first attestation of this practice is T7.13 (177/6 BCE) lines 5–7 and it does not reappear again until T8.12 (128/7 BCE) lines 6–8, after which references to this official appear in all subsequent decrees honoring ephebes. Based on similarities with these texts, 20  21  22  23  24  25  26 

IG II2 5080. Oikonomides 1982, 118–20; Habicht 1982, 83–4; id. 1997, 179–80; Osborne 1982, 187–8; Gauthier 1985, 64–5; Le Bohec 1993, 165–72. IG II2 3474. Mikalson 1998, 170. T8.31 (96/5 BCE) line 14, T9.2 (79/8 BCE) lines 55–57, T9.17 (37/6 or 36/5 BCE) lines 48–49. Plut. 736d; T8.22 (106/5 BCE) line 41. Roman era inscriptions mentioning the Diogeneion: IG II2 2018, 2067, 2094, 2097, 2113, 2130, 2147, 3741; Follet 1976, 221 a, 225, 236, 392 no. 6. Graindor 1915, 241–401; Dow 1960, 408; Pélékidis 1962, 264–6; Lattanzi 1968, 21–3; Travlos 1971, 281, 579; Frantz 1979, 201–3; Miller 1996, 201–45. For another view, see Delorme 1960, 144–46. Habicht 1982, 83–84. As discussed in Chapters 4 and 6, the registration of participating ephebes (ἐγγραφή εἰς τοὺς ἐφήβους) mentioned in connection with the entrance ceremony in the Prytaneion must be carefully distinguished from the registration of new citizens into the deme list (ἐγγραφή εἰς τοὺς δηµότας).

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life ( 229‒31 BCE )

233

it is possible that this priest was present at these sacrifices by the end of the third century (T6.10 lines 6–8). Whatever the case may be, the inclusion of the priest of Demos and Kharites at the registration ceremony of the ephebes in the Prytaneion is a sensible association. For the Kharites numbered among the divinities invoked in the Oath of the Ephebes, which connected new citizens to the ideals of democracy, civic harmony and peace, and agricultural prosperity (See Chapter 6: Oath of the Ephebes). By linking the ephebes to this new cult honoring the city’s benefactors, Athenians accustomed their youngest members to recognize and cherish the divine and mortal powers that contributed to the success of their community.27 As will be discussed next chapter, the festive image of prosperity that the Kharites embody was manifested in the expressions of gratitude, goodwill, and merriment that the ephebes displayed along with the Athenian People as they welcomed their benefactors at the Dipylon Gate during the apanteseis. Coinciding with the first appearance of the priest of Demos and Kharites in an ephebic document is the first attestation of ephebes honoring the benefactors of Athens (T7.13 lines 7–8). Although they are not identified in earlier texts, presumably the ephebes included Ptolemy and Diogenes in these religious observances. In the case of Diogenes, texts of the late second/early first centuries name him specifically. For instance, in 101/0 BCE ephebes sacrificed two bulls at his festival (T8.27 lines 23–4) and other year classes made similar sacrifices in the temenos (of the Diogeneion?) in subsequent years.28 The Diogeneion appears to have become an important building for members of the ephebeia, for in 107/6 BCE the ephebes rebuilt its peribolos after it had collapsed (T8.22 line 41). It was also a venue for posting decrees laying out the nature of their contributions to Athenian festival life. For instance, around 220 CE, the Athenians passed new rules regarding the participation of ephebes 27 

28 

This is confirmed by a decree of 204/3 BCE from Teos (Ma 1999, 308–317, no. 18), which states that upon their completion of training, the Teian ephebes along with their gymnasiarkhos (the Teian equivalent of a kosmetes) made sacrifices to their gods and benefactors, including the Kharites, in the bouleuterion before their entry into the agora and thus civic life. They did this so that no Teian would begin undertaking public affairs before they gave thanks (kharitas) to the city’s benefactors, such as king Antiokhos III, and to accustom their progeny to value everything less than the return of gratitude (kharitos) (lines 38–44). T8.31 (100/99 BCE) line 14, T9.2 (79/8 BCE) lines 56–7, T9.17 (37/6 or 36/5 BCE) lines 48–49. Mikalson 1998, 172, believes that every aspect of his cult was “centered in and, as far as we know, was limited to the corps of ephebes.” Dedications for victories in torch-races at the Diogeneia by politai, stratiotai and foreigners at the fortress at Rhamnous (I.Rhamnous nos. 148 and 151)—which are contemporary with these ephebic texts—prove that this was not the case.

234

chapter 9

in the Greater Mysteries. A copy of the text was published on a stone stele and erected in the Diogeneion.29 Although no earlier regulations have survived, it is likely that the custom of posting copies of decrees prescribing their participation either in the Diogeneion or in other “headquarters” of the ephebes began in the Hellenistic Period.30 As to honoring Ptolemy, ephebes may have been among the neaniskoi who celebrated the Ptolemaia at Eleusis.31 Moreover, as with the Diogeneion, the Ptolemaion became one of the gymnasia in which ephebes passed their year. By the second century BCE, they were receiving philosophical and literary instruction here. Their frequent dedications of one hundred books for the library in the Ptolemaion underscore the special relationship the ephebes had with this building and its founder and namesake.32 In conclusion, the Age of Eurykleides and Mikion was defined by significant religious innovations. Clearly, this spirit of reform did not fail to influence the ephebeia. In fact, the dramatic increase of ephebic participation in the cults and festivals of the Athenians itself should be regarded as another expression of this trend, one not fully identified and appreciated by previous scholars. Nor is it a characteristic that should be overstated. The long and elaborate motivation clauses in which their participation is recorded paint a picture of active religious life for each age class of ephebes and emphasize the role religion played in the education of new citizens. Yet, when one adds up the total number of days in a year that were occupied with religious duties—circa 30 by the late second century, the heyday of this level of participation—this new responsibility fell far short of seriously overshadowing other aspects of the institution, such as their military training and service. In fact, running races and other athletic events encouraged physical training, just as it had in the past. Moreover, their roles in the various festivals brought the ephebes into further contact with state officials. For instance, they assisted the Polemarkhos in carrying out his religious duties in the festival of Artemis Agrotera, joined the prytaneis as they offered sacrifices to the Mother of the Gods at the Galaxia, accompanied the epimeletes of Peiraieus during the festival of the Megaloi Theoi, and gave 29  30 

31  32 

IG II2 1078 lines 41–2. Two other copies were erected in the Eleusinion at Athens and in the temple standing before the Bouleuterion at Eleusis. In addition to copies of decrees, it is possible that the gymnasia in which the ephebes trained had calendars, just as the gymnasium at Kos did (SIG3 1028, dated to 159–146 BCE). Under the name of each festival the calendar prescribed the duties that members of the gymnasium were expected to perform. Although fragmentary, it may have recorded up to 120 festivals total. I.Eleusis no. 207 line 11. As with neoi, neaniskoi is a term that refers to any young man up to the age of 30 and can and did include ephebes (e.g., T1.1 lines 16–17, T1.11 lines 6–7). See Sacco 1979. T8.19 lines 7–8; T8.31 lines 25–6; T8.33 lines 36–7; T9.11 lines 23–5; T9.15 line 48; T9.17 line 50; T9.26 line 30.

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life ( 229‒31 BCE )

235

assistance to members of prominent religious associations who managed the procession and sacrifice of the Semnai Theai, or were responsible for conveying the sacred image of Pallas Athena to Phaleron (and back) in order that it be ritually cleansed in the harbor.33 In other words, religious participation reinforced their military and civic training and further prepared them for their roles as future leaders. 2

Initiation, Bull-Lifting and the Ephebeia

Ever since Jeanmaire’s 1939 publication on youth culture in classical Greece, it has been an old and highly respected notion that the ephebeia of the Classical and Hellenistic Periods evolved from an ancient rite of passage. Pélékidis reaffirmed this position in his study, which was later exemplified by Vidal-Naquet’s Black Hunter thesis.34 According to them, the ephebeia should be characterized as a period of transition, represented by a ritual process in which an adolescent was stripped of his previous identity, leaving him ready to be reintegrated into adult society. This was accomplished by grouping 18 year olds together and separating them from the rest of adult Athenian society—first at Peiraieus where they received military and athletic training, and then along the Attic border where they served as guards in the fortresses and patrolled the countryside. In their view, the Athenian frontier represents a liminal space, a wild, desolate area empty of social order. After an unspecified period of time, these youth returned “from the margins,” so to speak, by joining the ranks of citizens and reintegrating into Athenian society. The association of the ephebeia with rites of passage, liminality, and transformation remains a very productive form of interpretation. It is especially

33 

34 

Artemis Agrotera: T8.14 (122/1 BCE) lines 8–9, T8.16 (118/7 BCE) line 7, T8.19 (116/5 BCE) line 21, T8.22 (106/5 BCE) line 7, T8.27 (101/0 BCE) line 8, T8.31 (96/5 BCE) line 13, and T8.33 (116/5–94/3 BCE) line 6; Ath.Pol. 58.1. Galaxia: T8.22 (106/5 BCE) lines 27–8, T8.14 (122/1 BCE) lines 23–4, 79, T8.19 (116/5 BCE) lines 30–1, 61, T8.22 (106/5 BCE) line 13, T8.27 (101/0 BCE) line 40, T8.31 (96/5 BCE) line 24, T8.33 (116/5–94/3 BCE) line 35; Theophr. Char. 21.11. Megaloi Theoi: IG II2 3268 lines 7–9, Agora XVI no. 324 and no. 325; T8.14 (122/1 BCE) line 29, T8.16 (118/7 BCE) line 18, T8.19 (116/5 BCE) line 21. Semnai Theai: Hesykh. s.v. Ἡσυχίδαι, T6.10 (c. 205 BCE) lines 9–10, T7.15 (171/0 BCE) line 17, T8.12 (127/6 BCE) line 26; Philo Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 140–141; conveyance of Pallas Athena: T7.13 (176/5 BCE) line 76, T8.14 (122/1 BCE) lines 11–12, 75–6, T8.16 (118/7 BCE) lines 9–10, T8.19 (116/5 BCE) line 9, and T8.22 (106/5 BCE) lines 9–11. Jeanmaire 1939, 244–5; Pélékidis 1962, 79; Vidal-Naquet 1986, 106–128. See Brelich 1969; Bremmer 1978, 5–38; Winkler 1990, 20–62; Polanskaya 2003, 85–106. For a brief overview of the Black Hunter paradigm, see Chapter 4.

236

chapter 9

venerated in the field of Greek dramatic studies, where followers of Angus Bowie have argued that the plays of Aristophanes and others are best seen in the light of ephebic rites of passage.35 A.H. Sommerstein has offered sound criticism of this approach.36 Among other things, he observes that there is no evidence for the ephebeia prior to the Age of Lykourgos—a sobering fact for a theory that assumes its existence, in some form or the other, during the fifth century and earlier. This observation has been more fully developed in Chapter 2. By denying the existence of the ephebeia in the fifth century the link between an historical institution with an hypothetical rite of passage from which it allegedly sprung is severed. Moreover, as Chapter 1 demonstrates, the notion that the ephebe was a transitional figure, i.e., one who was in the act of becoming a citizen, is mistaken. For prior to the creation of the ephebeia, 18 year old Athenians who successfully completed enrollment were regarded as citizens and possessed citizens rights. By the Lykourgan Period, these new citizens underwent training and service directly after their enrollment. Thus, the ephebeia did not represent a period of transition from boyhood to manhood, a belief which lies at the heart of the theory of the institution as a vestige of an ancient rite of passage. Thus, the theory of ephebeia as a rite of passage collapses with the removal of these two conceptual pillars. Moreover, as noted above, the religious behavior of ephebes was linked with festivals of a militaristic and nationalistic character, not with rituals of an initiatory nature. Still, ephebes are sometimes associated with the Oskhophoria, a festival of Athena and Dionysos celebrated in Pyanopsion (October/November), which scholars generally regard as initiatory in character.37 For instance, the return of Theseus and the Twice Seven from Krete, the festival’s commemorative myth, may be viewed through the lens of the tripartite initiatory paradigm of separation-marginality-reintegration.38 In addition, this myth provides an aition for the transvestism of the Oskhophoria, for the procession of the festival was led by two young men who carried grape boughs (ὠσχοί) and dressed as maidens, just as two of Theseus’ companions did

35  36  37  38 

Bowie 1993; Slater 1996, 27–52; Mitchell-Boyask 1999, 42–66. Bowie was not the first to associate the young men in tragedy with ephebes, but developed suggestions of Vidal-Naquet 1971, 623–38; id. 1986, 135–6. Sommerstein 1996, 192–203. Cf. Goldhill 1990, 97–129. On the Oskhophoria in general, see Ferguson 1938; Deubner 1932, 142–7; Parke 1977, 77–80; Parker 2005, 211–17. As initiatory: Jeanmaire 1939, 344–358; Vidal-Naquet 1986, 114–7. As non-initiatory: Calame 1990, 128–9, 143–8, 324–7 (status reversal ceremony). On theories of rites of passage, see: van Gennep 1960; Turner 1967, 93–111; Versnel 1994, 48–74.

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life ( 229‒31 BCE )

237

upon their return.39 Ritual cross-dressing, some scholars believe, is associated with rites of passage, for by stripping away his female garments a youth dramatized his transition from boyhood to manhood and contrasted his “sportive nakedness” with the “girlish clothing of the boys.”40 Finally, for these authors, the deployment of ephebes at the Oskhophoria seems to further strengthen this festival’s candidacy as a rite of passage, since ephebes (they believe) had a transitory status, i.e., were not citizens, but “future citizens,” vel sim., as discussed above and in earlier chapters.41 The association of ephebes with this festival is tenuous. Sources for the Oskhophoria generally appear in citations from late commentators, scholia, or entries in Byzantine lexica. They present a confusing account and contradict one another on crucial points of fact. For instance, Demon, the earliest literary source for the festival (third century BCE), does not mention a footrace or ephebes, but a procession carried out by young men dressed as women who carry grape boughs (ὠσχοί), whence the name of these youth as oskhophoroi and the title of the festival.42 Both Aristodemos (second century BCE) and Proklos (fifth century CE) do mention a race carried out by ephebes.43 The scholiast on Nikander’s Alexipharmika, however, states that boys with parents still living (παῖδες ἀµφιθαλεῖς) ran the race. Heliodoros (p. 450, 21) also mentions the footrace at the Oskhophoria, but states that unmarried youths (ἠϊθέοι) competed in it. Aristodemos and the scholiast on Nikander further complicate matters by asserting that the footracers carried grape boughs during the competition, which indicates that they confused the footrace with events in the 39  40 

41  42  43 

Demon (3rd century BCE) FGrHist 327 F6 (= Plut. Thes. 23.2–4); Proklos Khrestomathia (= Photios Bibliotheca, Cod. 239 [p. 322a; V 165–6 Henry]); Bekker Anecdota Graeca, s.v. Ὠσχοί. Burkert 1985, 261. In general, see Turner 1967, 95–8. For transvestism in the Oskhophoria, see: Vidal-Naquet 1986, 114–6; Bremmer 1992, 195–6; Leitao 1995, 133, 148–9; Miller 1999, 242, 243. There is no evidence that the two oskhophoroi stripped, as did those youth celebrating the Ekdysia on Krete. The oskhophoroi are designated by several age terms: νεανίκσοι (Demon FGrHist 327 F6), νέοι (P. Oxy. xxvi 2451 B fr. 17 line 25), παῖδες εὐγενεῖς (“well-born sons”) (Hesykh. and Bekker s.v. Ὀσχοφορία), and generally νεανίαι (“youth”) (Proklos Khrestomathia, Bekker Anekt. 318). They were certainly not ephebes (contra Csapo 1997, 263) nor boys (contra Miller 1999, 243; Leitao 1995, 148). As discussed earlier, the age-range of the terms νεανίκσοι and νέοι indicates that these two youth were anywhere between 18 and 30, who were therefore adults, a fact Hesykhios confirms by describing the “well-born sons” as ἡβῶντες (“of legal age;” see Chapter 1 for a discussion of this term). Thus, there is no change in status, which undermines the interpretation of this festival as a rite of passage. E.g., Vidal-Naquet 1986, 106–28; Csapo 1997, 263; and Parker 2005, 210. Demon (3rd century BCE) FGrHist 327 F6 = Plut. Thes. 23.2–4. Aristodemos FGrHist 11.383 F9 (= Athen. 11.495f); Proklos Khrestomathia (= Photios, Bibliotheca, Cod. 239 [p. 322A; V 165–6 Henry]).

238

chapter 9

procession.44 Aristodemos also links the footrace with another festival entirely. No decree honoring the ephebes mentions the Oskhophoria, including the lengthy decrees of the later Hellenistic Period contemporary with Aristodemos. In order to determine whether or not ephebes participated in religious practices of an initiatory character, it may be more beneficial to explore bull-lifting, a form of collective ritual action in which a group of young men placed a bull on their shoulders and ritually killed and offered it to a god or gods. There are a few excellent reasons for turning attention to this spectacular form of ritual sacrifice. While receiving some interest in the recent literature, bull-lifting is a relatively unknown phenomenon outside specialized religious studies. Further, scholars have regarded bull-lifting as having an exclusive association with ephebes. This is due to the fact that much of the evidence for bull-lifting is found in ephebic documents. Moreover, in his handbook of Greek religion, Burkert famously characterized bull-lifting by ephebes as a maturation or initiation ritual.45 Finally, of all the “initiatory” rituals ascribed to the ephebes, bull-lifting is the only one to appear in a primary source connected with the institution. This section clarifies what bull-lifting was and the role the ephebes played in carrying out this form of sacrifice. A full collection and chronological discussion of the meager sources indicate that bull-lifting was performed by adult citizens of various ages and that only much later, by the end of the third century BCE, were ephebes singled out for raising bulls before altars as part of their overall civic training. For ephebes, bull-lifting was not so much a display of youthful vigor, but a ritual action that demonstrated their newly acquired status as adult men. Stengel was the first scholar to collect and discuss the sparse literary and epigraphical references for bull lifting.46 Among his evidence was a passage of Euripides’ Helen, in which Menalaos urges his attendants to bring a sacrificial bull aboard his ship by placing it on their shoulders, an act which he declares is a common Greek custom for young men.47 Also, in his Electra, Euripides depicts a scene in which Aigisthos cuts the throat of a young cow, after his slaves 44  45 

46  47 

Deubner 1959, 145; Parker 2005, 214. Burkert 1985, 263, believes that the ephebeia bears the mark of initiation motifs, including raising bulls, which he regards as tests of youthful strength. Strauss 1993, 120, associates bull-lifting by ephebes to initiation rites through the myth of Theseus “throwing the bulls” at the Delphinion (Paus. 1.19.1). Stengel 1910, 115; Rumpf 1928, 164; Ziehen 1931, 227–34; Pélékidis 1962, 228; Graf 1979, 14–5; Barbieri and Durand 1985, 1–16; Durand 1987, 227–41, esp. 238; Berard 1989, 59 fig. 83; van Straten 1995, 109–113, and figs. 115, 116 [V141, V145]; and Kritzas 1996/1997, 33–42. Euripid. Hel. 1560–3 (c. 412 BCE): Ὦ πέρσαντες Ἰλίου πόλιν, οὐχ εἷ’ ἀναρπάσαντες Ἑλλήνων νόµωι νεανίαις ὤµοισι ταύρειον δέµας ἐς πρῶιραν ἐµβαλεῖτε.

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life ( 229‒31 BCE )

239

have placed it on their shoulders.48 In the Characters, Theophrastos parodies the figure of the “Late-Learner” for pursuing activities connected with youth. Besides his failed trials at memorizing poetry, learning military maneuvers, and running torch-races, the Late-Learner attempts to lift a bull at a festival of Herakles, so that he can bend its neck back for slaughter.49 In addition to assembling the literary evidence, Stengel attempted an archaeological experiment of sorts to determine whether or not bull-lifting was even possible. When he asked a group of Berlin butchers about the feasibility of men carrying an adult, living bull on their shoulders to kill it, they dismissed Stengel’s suggestion. As a result, Stengel concluded that these lines referred to lifting the bull’s neck up, after it had been knocked down, in order to cut it. In his 1931 study on bull-lifting, Ziehen challenged Stengel’s conclusion with two new pieces of evidence—first, a third century CE coin from Akharaka/Nysa depicting what appears to be six figures carrying a bull on their shoulders.50 He also produced a passage from Strabo on a festival at Akharaka/Nysa, which seemed to provide an interpretative context for what appears on the coin.51 According to Strabo, neoi and ephebes, naked and anointed with oil, lift a bull and carry it to the entrance of the Kharonion, the cave of the underworld god Kharon perched just above the sanctuary of Plouto and Kore. They release the bull to wander into the cave where, overcome by mephitic vapors, it collapses and dies. Thus, the butchers appeared to have misjudged. Nevertheless, their opinion continued to hold sway in some quarters for much of the twentieth century.52 Durand’s 1985 publication and discussion of an Attic black-figure amphora of circa 550 BCE offered striking confirmation of Stengel’s initial suspicion.53 The value of this vase is that it not only provides our earliest evidence for bulllifting, but graphically details the ritual mentioned in our literary sources. The amphora depicts seven bearded men carrying a bull on their shoulders. Two more men steady the bull: On the far left stands a man securing the bull’s tail; 48  49  50  51  52  53 

Euripid. El. 812–13 (c. 420 BCE): κἄσφαξ’ ἐπ’ ὤµων µόσχον ὡς ἦραν χεροῖν δµῶες,… Theophr. Char. 27.4–5 (c. 319 BCE): καὶ εἰς ἡρῷα συµβάλλεσθαι τοῖς µειρακίοις λαµπάδα τρέχειν. ἀµέλει δὲ κἄν που κληθῇ εἰς Ἡράκλειον, ῥίψας τὸ ἱµάτιον τὸν βοῦν αἴρεσθαι, ἵνα τραχηλίσῃ. Akharaka/Nysa in Karia (reign of Maximus, 326–328 CE). BMC Lydia, 181 no. 56. Strabo 14.1.43–4 (late first century BCE–early first century CE): τότε δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν µεσηµβρίαν ὑπολαβόντες ταῦρον οἱ ἐκ τοῦ γυµνασίου νέοι καὶ ἔφηβοι γυµνοὶ λίπ’ ἀληλιµµένοι µετὰ σπουδῆς ἀνακοµίζουσιν εἰς τὸ ἄντρον· ἀφεθεὶς δὲ µικρὸν προελθὼν πίπτει καὶ ἔκπνους γίνεται. For instance, Denniston 1954, 813, agreed with Stengel’s published position on bull-lifting (corrected by van Staten 1995, 109–10); but, Kannicht 1969, 408, rightly followed Ziehen’s interpretation. Black figure amphora (c. 550 BCE). Viterbo, Museo Archaeologico Nazionale della Rocca Albornoz (van Straten 1995, no. 115). Barbieri and Durand 1985, 5–16.

240

chapter 9

on the far right another man holds a rope tied to the victim’s head. To the right of the men shouldering the bull is a figure of a bearded man wearing a short khiton who is plunging a knife into the bull’s throat. To his right stands a young man who holds a sphageion under the animal’s throat, while lifting its head with his other hand. Durand added two other vase paintings to the small arsenal of visual evidence.54 The first is a lost vase from the Hamilton collection, which depicts three youths seizing a bull.55 One young man places his shoulders beneath those of the bull in an attempt to lift it, while another secures its tail and grabs hold of a hind leg. The third youth stands before the bull, grabbing its other hind leg. Van Straten observes that the context for lifting this bull appears athletic, not religious. Durand links the image of the young man shouldering the bull to a figure of Herakles in a similar pose wrestling a bull on a later, red figure vase.56 The other piece of visual evidence, a red figure kylix of circa 500 BCE, depicts some young men grappling with a bull.57 Rumpf believed that the image was of ephebes forcing a sacrificial bull to its knees. This interpretation may have been influenced by Stengel’s pronouncement about the feasibility of bulllifting. As van Straten observes, however, these young men are not driving the bull down, but are attempting to lift the bull on to their shoulders. As on the Viterbo amphora, one of them secures the bull’s tail, while another wears a short khiton and whets the sacrificial knife. Thus, the scene depicted here directly precedes that of the Viterbo amphora. Decoration on the rest of the kylix provides the context for raising this bull. On the reverse appears the image of whip-wielding youths driving horses and another of a man carrying a salpinx, or trumpet. On the interior tondo is a depiction of Hephaistos sitting in a winged chair. Taken together, the images on the kylix appear to represent activities carried out in connection with the Hephaistia, the festival of Hephaistos. This is corroborated by IG I3 82, the only extant inscription from the Classical 54  55  56 

57 

Durand 1987, 227–41, esp. 236–8. For a sketch of the image in question, see Durand 1987, 237 no. 17. Red figure kylix-krater (c. 420 BCE) in the collection of H. Metzger. See Boardman et al., Herakles, LIMC V no. 2352. The figures of the young man and of Herakles are in a similar posture. Whether we are meant to see a relationship between the two beyond this is doubtful. While Athenian ephebes may have had a limited associations with the figure of Herakles, there is no evidence that he was viewed as an “éphèbe paradigmatique,” especially the one depicted on this vase, since this Herakles is bearded and is thus an older man. Red figure kylix (c. 500 BCE). Florence, Museo Archeologico di Firenze, no. 81600 (Durand 1987, no. 17; van Straten 1995, no. 116).

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life ( 229‒31 BCE )

241

period in Athens to mention bull-lifting.58 This text is dated to 421/20 BCE and addresses the state business regarding the Hephaistia. At lines 28–30 the text records that the heiropoioi, the state religious officials in charge of the ceremonies, assigned 200 Athenians to carry out the lifting. These citizens brought forward an unspecified number of bulls to the altar “from the sound of the trumpet” where they raised them. Were any of these bull-lifters ephebes? The evidence is ambiguous at best. The visual media depict both bearded men and beardless youths lifting bulls. Durand labels the images of the beardless youths on both the Hamilton vase and the kylix from Florence as ephebes, but this identification is far from secure.59 The mutilated text of IG I3 82 provides no evidence for the age of those two hundred Athenians who lifted bulls during the Hephaistia, except that they were “from the Athenians,” i.e., adult male citizens. In the Helen, Euripides uses the term νεανίαι, or young men, which in his day could be used of ephebes, or of youths in their twenties. In his Elektra, the age of the slaves who lifted the young bull is not given, while Aigisthos himself appears to have been an older man. As to Theophrastos’ “Late-Learner,” military drills, torch-races and bull-lifting, staples of the later Hellenistic ephebeia at Athens, suggested to van Straten, that the age class Theophrastos had in mind was ephebic. None of these activities, however, was exclusively ephebic and were pursuits shared with neoi, young men generally older than ephebes whose age ranged from a minimum of nineteen or twenty to thirty years of age.60 These young citizens also frequented the gymnasia and trained in athletics and military drills.61 Furthermore, Theophrastos does not call the young men with whom the Late Learner participates “ἔφηβοι,” but “µειράκια.” As Bryant has shown, for the fifth 58  59 

60  61 

IG I3 82 (421/20 BCE) lines 28–30: τὸς δ[ὲ β]οῦ[ς hέκαστον ἀπὸ σάλ]πινγος [προσαγαγε̑ν πρὸς τ]ὸν βοµόν· hοίτιν[ε]ς δὲ ἀρο̑νται ἐ̣[πάνδρος αὐτός, hοι] ḥ ιεροπ̣ οιο[ὶ hαιρέσθον] διακοσίος ἐχς Ἀθε[ν]α̣ίον. Durand 1987, 236 and 237 (regarding nos. 17 and 18 respectively). In fact, in his study, Durand identifies all images of young men with bulls as ephebes. There are no characteristics present in the images of these youth that justify such a narrow conclusion. Where age is mentioned, the literary evidence under review states that “young men,” e.g., νεανίαι, µειράκια, did the lifting. Thus, the current state of the evidence provides only that young men of varying ages are depicted as lifting bulls in these images. Xen. Mem. 1.2.35 indicates that men as old as thirty could be regarded as neoi. See Forbes, 1933. Regrettably, there is little evidence for the activities of neoi at Athens. Outside Athens, however, such evidence as the Gymnasiarchal Law of Beroia and the honorary decree for Menas of Sestos indicates that ephebes and neoi trained alongside one another in athletics and military drills. Also, as we saw at Nysa/Akharaka (Strabo 14.1.44), ephebes and neoi raised bulls together and carried them to the Kharonion.

242

chapter 9

and first half of the fourth centuries BCE, µειράκιον was synonymous with νεανίας and so referred to youth of ephebic age as well as those in their twenties.62 By the early third century, however this may no longer have been the case. For a fragment of Menander, an author contemporary with Theophrastos, indicates that the term µειράκιον referred to those over 20 years of age.63 Thus, the evidence proves only that older and younger men raised bulls at Attic festivals. So, when precisely did members of the ephebeia undertake this responsibility? Lengthy honorary decrees from the Hellenistic Period provide the first and surest evidence for their participation in bull-lifting at Athenian festivals.64 Stengel and others knew many of these texts, which range in date from the latter part of the second and early part of the first centuries BCE. In these decrees, the ephebes were praised for raising bulls at the Eleusinian Mysteries and at the Proerosia, a pre-plowing festival also celebrated at Eleusis later in the Athenian calendar year. The publication over the last forty years of ephebic decrees discovered in the Athenian Agora, many of them from the late third and early second centuries BCE, have shed more light on the relationship between the ritual of bull-lifting and the Athenian ephebes. In part, this new evidence demonstrates that, from at least 204/03 BCE, members of the institution had carried out bull-lifting at the Eleusinian festivals mentioned above, thus pushing back their documented involvement in this ritual by more than 80 years. A recently published decree honoring the ephebes of the early second century also states that they “both performed the processions proper to themselves in both cities (i.e., Athens and Peiraieus) and lifted bulls through their own agency, and also ran the torch-races in a beautiful and orderly manner and competed in all the contests suitable to themselves.”65 Decrees from later in the century mention bulls raised at “other” (ἄλλοι) sacrifices, although the names of the festivals are not specified.66 The ephebes did make offerings of bulls at the Dionysia, the Peiraia (i.e., the Dionysia celebrated 62  63  64 

65  66 

Bryant 1907, 75. Cf. Sacco 1979; Kennell 2013, 12. Men. frag. 724 Kock (324–292 BCE): παῖς γέγον’, ἔφηβος, µειράκιον, ἀνήρ, γέρων (cf. Cat. 63.63 on ephebus and adulescens). T6.10 (204/3 BCE) lines 10–11; T7.10 (c. 185/4 BCE) lines 2–3, 14–15; T7.4 (196/5 BCE) lines 8–9; T7.13 (176/5 BCE) lines 9–10, 89–91; T8.12 (127/6 BCE) lines 11–12; T8.14 (122/1 BCE) lines 8–9, lines 78–9; T8.16 (118/7 BCE) lines 8–9; T8.19 (116/5 BCE) line 14; T8.22 (106/5 BCE) line 8; T8.27 (101/0 BCE) lines 10–11, 28; T8.31 (96/5 BCE) lines 7–8, 16–17; T8.33 (116/5–94/3 BCE) line 7. T7.4 (196/5 BCE) lines 8–11: ἐλειτούργησαν δὲ τάς τε ποµπὰς τὰς καθηκούσας ἑαυ[το]ῖς ἐν ἀµφοτέραις ταῖς πόλεσιν καὶ τοὺς βοῦς ἤραντο δ̣ι ̣’ ἑαυτῶν, ἔδραµο[ν] [δὲ] καὶ τὰς λαµπάδας καλῶς καὶ εὐσχηµόνως καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀγῶνας [τοὺς κ]αθήκοντας ἑαυτοῖς πάντας. T8.14 (122/1) lines 9–10, T8.16 (118/7 BCE) line 11–12, T8.27 (101/0 BCE) lines 12–14, and T8.31 (96/5 BCE) line 8–10.

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life ( 229‒31 BCE )

243

at Peiraieus), the Diogeneia (celebrated in the Diogeneion, a gymnasium frequented by the ephebes), and the Diisotereia (to Zeus Soter and Athena Nike), although the epigraphical evidence does not mention bull-lifting as the form of offering.67 Finally, these documents give no indication that members of the ephebeia were involved in raising bulls before 204/3 BCE. Were they the only age group to have lifted bulls at festivals? As the evidence stands, they are the only age group attested for the Hellenistic Period at Athens. The lack of evidence for other age groups participating in this form of sacrifice, however, does not mean that groups of older men did not do so. As we have seen, older men did in fact raise bulls at festivals in earlier periods of Athenian history. While evidence is regrettably absent at Athens, this is not the case for communities outside Athens. At Nysa in Karia, as discussed above, Strabo records that ephebes and neoi lifted bulls before the cave of Kharon, god of the underworld, in the sanctuary of Plouto.68 Pausanias mentions men (ἄνδρες) lifting bulls in the Sanctuary of Dionysos in Arkadian Kynaitha.69 Furthermore, an epigram of Aristokles mentions a bull that ten men (ἀνέρες) could not lift.70 The pre-Hellenistic evidence for bull-lifting at Athens and the evidence for it outside the city encourage us to reconsider the notion of bull-lifting as an exclusive ephebic activity at Athens in the Hellenistic period. Closer inspection of the relevant lines on bull-lifting yields the adverb ἐπάνδρως, “in a manly fashion.” The term comes from ἔπανδρος, the adjective “manly,” the source of the verb ἐπανδρόω “make manly.” The term ἐπάνδρως is rare. It appears only once in the literary sources (an unhelpful passage of Sextus Empiricus) and a grand total of four times in all of Attic epigraphy. Three of these are used to describe the performance of ephebes in athletic contests, specifically in the torch-race. 67 

68  69  70 

Offerings of bulls at the Dionysia: T8.12 (127/6 BCE) 15–16, T8.14 (122/1) lines 12–13; at the Dionysia and Peiraia: T8.19 (116/5 BCE) lines 19–20, T8.31 (96/5 BCE) line 10–12, and T8.33 (94/3 BCE) lines 56–7; at the Eleusinia, Dionysia and Peiraia: T8.27 (101/0 BCE) lines 15–18; to Athena Nike on the Akropolis: T8.14 (122/1) lines 14–15; to Diogenes: T8.27 (101/0 BCE) lines 23–4; to Zeus Soter: T8.33 (116/5–94/3 BCE) line 23. Strabo 14.1.43–4 (late first century BCE–early first century CE): τότε δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν µεσηµβρίαν ὑπολαβόντες ταῦρον οἱ ἐκ τοῦ γυµνασίου νέοι καὶ ἔφηβοι γυµνοὶ λίπ’ ἀληλιµµένοι µετὰ σπουδῆς ἀνακοµίζουσιν εἰς τὸ ἄντρον· ἀφεθεὶς δὲ µικρὸν προελθὼν πίπτει καὶ ἔκπνους γίνεται. Paus. 8.19.2 (mid-second century): τὰ δὲ µάλιστα ἥκοντα ἐς µνήµην ∆ιονύσου ἐστὶν ἐνταῦθα ἱερόν, καὶ ἑορτὴν ὥρᾳ ἄγουσι χειµῶνος, ἐν ᾗ λίπα ἀληλιµµένοι ἄνδρες ἐξ ἀγέλης βοῶν ταῦρον, ὃν ἄν σφισιν ἐπὶ νοῦν αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς ποιήσῃ, ἀράµενοι κοµίζουσι πρὸς τὸ ἱερόν. Aristokles (ap. Ail. Nat. Anim. 11.4 = FGrHist 436 F2) lines 3–6: “τὸν ἐξ ἀγέλης γὰρ ἀφειδῆ ταῦρον, ὃν οὐχ αἴρουσ’ ἀνέρες οὐδὲ δέκα, τοῦτον γραῦς στείχουσα µόνα µόνον οὔατος ἕλκει τόνδ’ ἐπὶ βωµόν,….” For this reading, see Henrichs 1998, 63 n. 108; however, Page 1981, 104, and Lloyd-Jones and Parsons 1983, vol. 2, 206.4, read αἱροῦσ’. On this ritual, see Paus. 2.35.5–6.

244

chapter 9

Only once is it used to describe the performance of ephebes in lifting bulls.71 In all four instances the term appears in decrees honoring the conduct of kosmetai, the official in charge of an age class of ephebes, never in decrees honoring the conduct of ephebes. In the case of decrees honoring ephebes, the language of the inscriptions frequently uses the expression “δι᾽ ἑαυτῶν,” “through their own agency.”72 Since ephebes were praised for lifting bulls “δι᾽ ἑαυτῶν,” “through their own agency,” praising the kosmetai for making the lifting of bulls “ἐπάνδρως,” “in a manly fashion,” cannot refer to the participation of these officials in the lifting. I suggest that the expression “the kosmetes made the lifting of bulls ἐπάνδρως” refers to his supervision of the lifting. In other words, a kosmetes ensured that the age class of ephebes under his supervision lifted bulls “in manly fashion,” which meant that the ephebes lifted them “δι᾽ ἑαυτῶν,” “through their own efforts,” without the aid of older men. But the term “ἐπάνδρως” implies something more. I suggest that for ephebes lifting bulls in a manly fashion meant not just lifting them through their own collective agency, but further that lifting bulls through their own agency was how groups of men lifted bulls. In other words, for ephebes to lift bulls ἐπάνδρως suggests that older men were still lifting bulls at festivals alongside ephebes. If not, the comparison that the term invites for us to draw would be meaningless. The torch-race provides a useful parallel. In other honorary decrees, kosmetai are regularly praised for ensuring that the ephebes in their care ran torch-races. Occasionally these officials were honored for ensuring that this event was carried out ἐπάνδρως. Since the torch-race was organized along civic age grades, kosmetai were excluded from participating in the event with their charges. Running a torch-race ἐπάνδρως “in the manner of men” implies that ephebes were conducting themselves in a manner consonant with men who ran the torch-race. Unlike the evidence for bull-lifting, victors lists from Athens show that citizens from other age groups participated in their own torch-races, such as neaniskoi, and andres, i.e., men of various ages, whose adult conduct the ephebes sought to emulate. In this light, then, the ephebeia was not an institution of transition in which youths were segregated and later reintegrated into society. Instead, it was a system of training for newly enrolled Athenian citizens. When ephebes officially 71 

72 

ἐπάνδρως: T9.2 (79/8 BCE) line 22, T9.17 (37/6 or 36/5 BCE) lines 25 and 27 (athletics); T8.14 (122/1 BCE) line 78. The adverb is used in connection with honors for the kosmetes Dionysios, but the line suggests that, through his supervision, Dionysios made their liftings of bulls “manly.” δι᾽ ἑαυτῶν: T7.4 (196/5 BCE) lines 14–15, T7.13 (176/5 BCE) lines 9–10, T8.12 (127/6 BCE), T8.19 (116/5 BCE) lines 19–20.

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life ( 229‒31 BCE )

245

undertook the responsibility of participating in Athenian religion, it was as the youngest members of the Athenian adult population. The rituals they performed brought them face-to-face for the first time with official state cults. When they lifted bulls at specified festivals, they did so alongside other, albeit older, men. Therefore, bull-lifting was not so much a display of youthful vigor, but a ritual action that demonstrated their newly acquired status as adult men. 3

Festivals, Cultural Memory and the Ephebeia

One aspect of polis religion and the ephebeia that has not received much attention is the role of state festivals in the creation or reinforcement of certain cultural memories. The Greeks regularly regarded festivals as commemorative, either of a legendary distant past or of a more recent historical one. The places in which they were celebrated, the things offered and the actions carried out during the festivals were also regarded as commemorative. The result of participating in these festivals was the creation of a sense of shared identity among the ephebes and continuity with the past and more broadly to acclimate participants to the beliefs and values of the polis. According to Cornelius Holtorf, “cultural memory consists of collective understandings, or constructions, of the distant past, as they are held by people in a given social and historical context.”73 While the community shares this type of memory, its members did not experience the original events first-hand, but received collective recollections from preceding generations through a process of socialization. As Jan Assmann observes, cultural memory is often obscured, does not always reflect actual events and may have been reduced to a few key words or symbols.74 Nevertheless, cultural memories can be effective forms of communication. For instance, Plato reports that Perikles and other orators charged with delivering funeral speeches enumerated past Athenian achievements, which deeply moved their audiences (Menex. 235). One important medium for preserving and transferring cultural memories is the celebration of festivals. Greeks sometimes referred to festivals as ὑποµνήµατα, or memorials, and believed that they recalled and even mimicked the important events they commemorated.75 All the festivals in the ephebic honorary decrees share one important characteristic: they commemorated 73  74  75 

Holtorf 1996, 119–152. Assmann 1992. E.g., Harp. s.v. λαµπάς; Plut. Cam. 33.7; contests as ὑπόµνηµα: IG II/III3 1, 877 line 43 and 1, 1160; see Parker 1989, 154–5, for additional citations.

246

chapter 9

former Athenian preeminence and national achievements. For instance, the Proerosia, a pre-plowing festival held at Eleusis on Pyanepsion 5, recalled Demeter’s delivery of Athens and the rest of Greece from the grip of a worldwide plague or famine. As Dow and Healy observed, the mythological background of the festival is one component of a larger nexus of beliefs regarding the Athenian claim to supremacy of civilization in agriculture, a claim which elevated what was essentially and originally an ancient and local agricultural festival to almost Panhellenic status.76 The Theseia, the festival which honored Athens’ founder, celebrated on Pyanepsion 8, honored Theseus’ achievements and by extension Athenian military supremacy and imperial ambitions. This festival was revitalized and expanded after 167 BCE when Athens reacquired a number of her overseas possessions, including Skyros, the former resting place of the hero’s bones.77 Besides memorializing the mythical or legendary past, festivals commemorated historical events important for Athenian civic identity. The Epitaphia, a Memorial Day festival in which the ephebes regularly participated, honored the Athenian war dead and was celebrated in the Demosion Sema, the state cemetery located in the outer Kerameikos ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 58.1). The Battle of Marathon supplied abundant opportunities for communal commemoration: the ephebes made a procession to the temple of Artemis Agrotera and assisted the Athenian Polemarkhos in fulfilling the vow of the Marathon fighters to honor Artemis every year with 500 bulls or she-goats (Xen. Anab. 3.2.12; [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 58.1). Ephebes also made sacrifices and held funeral games at the polyandreion, or mass burial of the war dead in the plain of Marathon. Festivals were celebrated at locations important to the foundation of the cult.78 These sites functioned as “time-marks” or “places of memory,” which consisted of monuments in a landscape and provided visible links from the present to the distant past.79 They were a symbolic element of the memorial heritage of the community. As Pierre Nora has observed, places of memory are “where [cultural] memory crystallizes and secretes itself and helps [members of a community] recall the past.”80 For the Athenian ephebes, these “places of memory” included: 1. The polyandreion, or mass burial, at Marathon: The ephebes traveled to Marathon and paid heroic honors at the tumulus of the Marathon fighters 76  77  78  79  80 

Dow and Healey 1969, 14–20. For the Theseia, see below. Assmann 1992, 56–9; Connerton 1989. Time-marks: Chapman 1997, 31–45; Places of Memory: Nora 1984–1992. Nora 1989, 7.

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life ( 229‒31 BCE )

2.

3.

81  82  83  84 

247

who died defeating the Persians on behalf of freedom. The Athenians cremated and then buried the remains of 192 of their fellows with a mound. The form of burial helps to give shape to the memory. Stais, one of the excavators of the tumulus, notes that this burial practice is unique for its day and shares similarities with earlier burials at Vouvra and the Kerameikos.81 Whitley has argued that the type of burial at Marathon was deliberately meant to recall Homer’s descriptions of heroic burials in the Iliad in which heroes were cremated and covered with a tumulus.82 The memory of the battle and of those who fell was further fixed by the use of casualty lists, ten stone stelai with the names of the dead arranged by tribe, which were erected before the tumulus perhaps near the offering trench where the ephebes made their sacrifices. Pausanias saw these stelai when he visited Marathon. The polyandreion in the Kerameikos. According to T7.13 lines 16–17, the ephebes were honored for holding a contest at the polyandreion before the city in the Outer Kerameikos. The contest was called an “epitaphios agon,” or funeral game, and was most likely a part of the Epitaphia. Ephebes ran races and made military displays in arms to honor those who died on behalf of the state (T7.13 lines 16–7). The Kerameikos had many polyandreia and its connection with the Epitaphia suggests one of the burials in the Demosion Sema for the Athenians who died in war. Matthaiou has suggested that this polyandreion was a cenotaph for the Marathon fighters.83 As at Marathon, these burials sometimes contained stelai bearing the names of the dead (Paus. 1.32.3).84 Pausanias, who describes the Kerameikos in great detail, called the entire site a µνῆµα, or memorial. The trophy on the island of Salamis: Many decrees honoring the ephebes describe how they sailed to Salamis and placed wreaths on the trophy for Zeus Tropaios, “of the Rout,” in honor of the god’s decision to turn the outcome of the Battle of Salamis in the direction of the Greeks. Dedicated For Stais’s excavations, see 1890, 65–71, and 123–32; id. 1891, 34–67, and 97; and esp. id. 1893, 46–63, esp. 53 for similarities. For his excavations at Vouvra, see Stais 1890, 318–29; id. 1890, 105–12. Whitley 1994, 213–230; Funeral of Patroklos: Hom. II. 23.249–57; of Hektor: Hom. II. 24.790–803; of Ilos: Hom. II. 10.415, 11.166, 11.371–72, 24.349. See also Hadzisteliou- Price 1973, 129–44. Matthaiou 2003, 197. For the Marathon stele—a casualty list of the tribe of Erekhtheis—recently discovered at the former estate of Herodes Attikos in Loukou (ancient Aue), see now Steinhauser 2004–2009.

248

chapter 9

by Themistokles, the trophy stood near the tip of the Kynosoura, a large peninsula on the eastern side of the island south of the Bay of Ambelaki which runs from Salamis toward Attike.85 Stuart and Revett, Leake, and other early travelers report that they were able to see the remains of the trophy from Athens.86 Gell describes the monument as a large column with a circular base, which implies that it was similar in form to the Marathon trophy, perhaps deliberately so.87 Vanderpool and Wallace visited the site in 1967 and discovered cuttings 1.8 m. square and a wellweathered worked block.88 The text of IG II2 1035 suggests that the trophy stood near the polyandreion of those who fell in the battle.89 Besides the sites in which festivals were celebrated, the items given to gods and heroes also had a commemorative nature. For instance, the peplos presented to Athena at the Panathenaia contained scenes from the Gigantomachy. One class of these items was the aristeion, or “excellence award.” The commemorative nature of aristeia is clearly attested by Demosthenes who calls the bronze statue of Athena on the Akropolis an aristeion, i.e., a memorial, of the war against the barbarians.90 Our best evidence for aristeia comes from the world of men, specifically the nearly two dozen aristeia awarded to poleis or individuals who most distinguished themselves in the Persian wars recorded by Herodotos. Yet, inscriptions attest that gods were also regular recipients of aristeia. For instance, inventories of the Panathenaia include gold crowns offered to the goddess as aristeia by victors in the many contests held in her honor. Further, SEG 31.67.2–6 (372/1 BC) records a decree instructing the Parians, colonists of Athens, to bring to the city as an aristeion a cow and a panoply for the Panathenaia in accordance with tradition. The memory which the festival evoked determined the nature of the aristeia offered. The Panathenaia celebrated Athena’s defeat of the giant Aster, who, unlike the goddess, was depicted fully armed in scenes from the Gigantomachy. Thus, it follows that Athena would receive a panoply as an aristeion, which commemorated her victory. In the Hellenistic Period, Athenian ephebes were in many cases charged with delivering and presenting aristeia to the gods. An honorary decree from 116/5 BCE records that the ephebes “brought up” the aristeia during the festival 85  86  87  88  89  90 

Paus. 1.36.1; Plut. Them. 3.3–4; the trophy is mentioned in Timotheus, Pers. 210 (Page, PMG no. 791). Stuart and Revett 2008, ix, L, 4; Leake 1841, 171. Gell 1827, 303. Wallace 1969, 299–300. IG II2 1035 lines 33–4: ἀκρωτήριο]ν ἐφ’ οὗ κεῖται τὸ [Θεµισ]τ[οκ]λέους τ[ρόπαιον κατὰ Π]ε[ρ] σῶν καὶ πολυάνδρειον τῶν [ἐν τῆι µάχηι τελευτησάντων. Dem. 19.272; cf. 22.72, 24.180.

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life ( 229‒31 BCE )

249

at Eleusis and the Panathenaia and praises them for “delivering the victim as nobly as possible” (T8.19 lines 27–8). The aristeia for the festival at Eleusis included phialai for Demeter and Kore and raising bulls, as the text makes plain in an earlier section, and bulls may have been included among the aristeia offered to Athena at the Panathenaia. A lengthy ephebic honorary decree from 106/5 BCE illustrates the role of aristeia in forming civic memories. This inscription records that the ephebes made a procession to the temple of Artemis Agrotera, located outside the city walls in the district of Agrai along the Ilissos River, and “brought up” the aristeia on her festival day celebrated every year on Boedromion 6 (T8.22 line 7). According to local myth, the temple marked the site where Artemis first engaged in hunting after she left Delos (Paus. 1.19.6). Her cult assumed national importance in 490 BCE when the Marathon fighters swore an oath to the goddess on her festival day that they would sacrifice a she-goat to her for every Persian they killed. Since the Athenians had not anticipated killing 6400 Persians, they later resolved to fulfill their vow by offering 500 she-goats or bulls annually to Artemis, and so avoided decimating Attike’s she-goat population. Thus, the aristeia here must be the victims promised to the goddess. By presenting her aristeia, the ephebes played the role of the Marathon fighters in helping to fulfill their vow to Artemis. As this last example suggests, memories were not made passively, but involved active participation within places of memory—i.e., performing ritual actions that evoked the memories of events which established and justified the festival in question. The Greeks called these actions µίµηµα, or imitation.91 For instance, Plutarch relates that having destroyed the Minotaur, Theseus put in at Delos, sacrificed to Apollo, and danced the Crane around the god’s horned altar, a ritual performance which the Delians still carried out in Plutarch’s day (Thes. 21). The dance consisted of rhythmic involutions and evolutions in imitation of the circling passages in the Labyrinth. Similarly, Plato relates that the pyrrhikhe, the dance performed by young Athenians at the Panathenaia, was in imitation of the victory dance Athena made after she defeated the giant Aster (Leg. 796b–c). Other contests were thought to be ritual imitation, such as the apobatic race, which Euripides says was in imitation of a contest established by Erekhthonios.92 As Parker has observed, the concept of µίµηµα was important 91 

92 

Entire festivals were thought of µίµηµα: Harp. s.v. ∆αῦλις: ἑορτὴ ἐν Ἄργει, µίµηµα τῆς Προίτου πρὸς Ἀκρίσιον µάχης. Although not using the term µίµηµα, Paus. 1.43.2 describes how Megarian women perform ritual behavior that mimicked part of the legend that describes Demeter’s quest for her daughter. [Cat.] 13; Nauck 1889, 660 fr. 925. According to the Attidographer Istros, Athenians donned very fine robes at the Apatouria, took torches from the hearth and sang a hymn

250

chapter 9

to Greeks in explaining the origins of festivals.93 The observations above, however, suggest that imitation is more than an aition. Rather, ritual imitation is commemoration in action. The ephebes performed contests and other acts of ritual imitation. The most conspicuous of them was the contest of ships performed at the Mounikhia (T8.14 lines 29–30, T8.22 line 16, T8.27 lines 20–1, and T8.33 lines 19–20), a festival commemorating the role that Artemis played in aiding the Greeks in the Battle of Salamis (T8.12 line 131; T8.14 line 30, 71–2; T8.16 lines 22–3, T8.22 line 16). Plutarch states that on Mounikhion 16 Artemis shone with full moon on the Greeks as they were conquering the Persians around Salamis. Thus, this naval contest, and subsequent procession and sacrifice, commemorated one of the most important and defining moments of Athenian history—the Battle of Salamis.94 If by this time Artemis Mounikhia had been conflated with Artemis Phosphoros (as Mikalson has suggested), then this festival has additional civic value.95 For Artemis Phosphoros shone on Thrasyboulos and the democratic faction as they made their way from Phyle in the late fifth century. Contests of ships are attested at the Trophy of Themistokles, the author of the Athenian victory over the Persians, and therefore commemorated the same sea battle. Ephebic inscriptions from the Roman period sometimes depict a relief of the Naumakhia, a later manifestation of this contest.96 Its Hellenistic predecessor had over 140 ephebes participating in large biremes, suggesting a contest much larger in scale than the Roman. The texts also call the ships sacred, indicating the religious dimensions of the contest. It was held in the bay before the city near the Kynosoura in sight of the trophy where the Persian navy was routed and near the polyandreion where the casualties were buried. It is not clear whether the contest of ships consisted of a race or a mock sea battle, but at the very least the ephebes displayed their naval skills and maneuvering. The contest was designed to evoke the memory of the Battle of Salamis and thereby the ephebes reenacted Athens’ traditional claims to naval prowess. In conclusion, the commemorative and mimetic nature of Athenian festivals helped ingrain or strengthen important cultural memories in the city’s youngest members. Cultural memories facilitated an historical consciousness and created a shared past. By encouraging the ephebes to participate actively in

93  94  95  96 

to Hephaistos. This hymn was called a ὑπόµνηµα, which recalled the benefits of fire, Hephaistos’ gift, for mankind (FGrHist 334 F 2 = Harp. s.v. Λαµπάς). Parker 1989, 155. Plut. 349f–350a; Parke 1977, 139. Mikalson 1998, 195. Naumakhia: IG II2 1996, 2024, 2087, 2106, 2119, 2124, 2130, 2208, 2245, and Follet 1976, 341, 342, 414 no. 9. See Shear 2012, 165–7.

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life ( 229‒31 BCE )

251

locations of memory, offer commemorative gifts, and perform ritual imitations of past events, the ephebeia ensured cultural continuity, preserved collective knowledge from one generation to the next, and helped later generations in reconstructing their group identities. 4

Territory, Cult and the Ephebeia

Another unexplored connection between Athenian religious life and the ephebeia is the role that ephebes played in certain state cults in reaffirming Athenian claims to territory. The intersection of myth, cult and staking claims to land has been fruitfully explored by scores of scholars. Much of the debate has centered around ritual deposits of the Geometric and subsequent periods placed in Mycenaean tholos (beehive) and chamber tombs. By venerating the power residing inside the tomb, families and political communities believed that they were establishing a link with the past at a particular place.97 An historical analogy for this behavior is Solon’s propitiation of the heroes Kykhreus and Periphemos during the Athenian war with Megara over the island of Salamis. With the assistance of the Delphic oracle, Solon located the tombs of these founding heroes buried on Salamis where he appeased them with sacrifices. Afterwards, he and a contingent of Athenians captured the island from the Megarians living there. Plutarch reports that the Athenians instituted ceremonies which through ritual imitation commemorated the conquest of Salamis on the spot where they were victorious over the Megarians and had acquired the island.98 Many regard the appearance of these cults as marking significant transformations in Greek society in the early Archaic Period. The intersection of these categories in later periods, however, has received less attention. Yet, the loss and subsequent recovery of Peiraieus, Salamis, and her overseas holdings had a significant impact not only on Athenian society and economy, but on Athenian religion, too. Sanctuaries no longer under Athenian control were abandoned and festivals lost their national character or were no longer celebrated. Conversely, after recovering their lost territories (thanks to Athens’ 97  98 

Coldstream 1976, 8–17; Snodgrass 1980, 37–40; de Polignac 1984, 127–51; Whitley 1994, 213– 30; Antonaccio 1995. Plut. Sol. 9. For Kykhreus as the eponymous hero of old Salamis, see Strabo 9.9 and IG II2 1035 (end of first century BCE) line 32. Paus. 1.36.1 states that the shrine of Kykhreus stood near the trophy erected by Themistokles. This implies that it was located on the kynosoura (the “dog-tail,” a westward-bearing peninsula) near the polyandreion. See Wallace 1969, 293–303, for the remains of these monuments.

252

chapter 9

close alliance with the Romans during their wars in the Greek east), Athenians breathed new life into these cults of gods and heroes, which contributed to the overall national revival of Athenian public life.99 It is no surprise that among the many religious innovations of this period was the introduction or intensification of religious behavior by ephebes that conveyed ownership of the land. Whether or not ephebes of the Lykourgan Age behaved in this manner, the basis of such conduct was already implied in the Oath of the Ephebes, in which the new citizen swore to protect his fatherland and hand it over to subsequent generations better than he found it. Among the divine witnesses to the Oath were the boundaries of the fatherland. The ephebes of the Hellenistic Age visited these boundaries under arms during their travels throughout Attike. While they were becoming familiar with the countryside and its roads, they sacrificed to land-holding gods and took omens on behalf of the People of Athens.100 Their participation in certain state festivals also articulated the reacquisition of territory. One of the earliest festivals of this sort to reappear in the record is the Theseia, which honored Athens’ founder of the democracy and synoikistes. Scholars have long recognized the importance of Theseus’ cult in articulating proprietary rights to territory, for the Athenian general Kimon used as a pretext to conquer Skyros the fact that Theseus had ancestral property on the island and had been buried there.101 Little is known of the Theseia of the Classical Period, but treasury accounts from 332/1 and 331/0 BCE indicate that the large-scale sacrifices made to Theseus at his festival dwarfed those of the Lesser Panathenaia of the same years.102 Pélékidis suggested that the Athenians refounded or expanded the Theseia in the wake of reacquiring Skyros, an old Athenian colonial possession, after the Third Macedonian War (171–168 BCE).103 In addition to the standard athletic contests (pankration, wrestling, boxing, and an assortment of footraces) and equestrian events (straight, double length, and torch-race), the Theseia featured games with military themes. For instance, it included military reviews (euandria, euhoplia), 99  Habicht 1997, 194–219; Mikalson 1998, 168–208. 100  T8.12 (127/6 BCE) line 24: [ἔ]θυσαν δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ὁρ[ίων] καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς τοῖς κατέχουσ[ιν] τὴν Ἀττικήν· T8.14 (122/1 BCE) lines 24–6: ἐξῆλθο[ν δὲ] καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τῆς Ἀττικῆς ὅρ[ι]α ἐν ὅπλοις καὶ τῆς τε χώρας καὶ τῶν ὁδῶν ἔµπειροι ἐγένοντο, εἴς [τε….παρεγένον]το καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ τὰ κατὰ τὴν χώραν ἐν οἷς διετέλουν θύοντες καὶ καλλιεροῦντες ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήµου· 101  Plut. Thes. 36.1–2; Kim. 8.3–6. Snodgrass 1980, 38; de Polignac 1984, 140. 102  Aristoph. Plut. 627–8; IG II2 1496 lines 134–5, 143 (the earlier sum is not preserved). 103  Pélékidis 1962, 230; Bugh 1990, 25 (Skyros and Imbros). Epigraphical discoveries since his dissertation have continued to confirm Pélékidis’ belief. For lengthy honorary decrees published prior to 167 BCE fail to mention the Theseia in the list of festivals in which the ephebes participated. Based on a close examination of victors lists, Kennell 1999, 249–62, persuasively argued that the festival was either annual or trieteric.

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life ( 229‒31 BCE )

253

contests for trumpeters (salpinktai) and heralds (kerykes), a footrace in arms, two forms of shield and spear event (hoplomakhia), the javelin throw (akontismos), a race on warhorses (diaulos), the javelin throw from horseback (akontismos), and a hoplite and two-horse chariot race (zeugei ekbibazon). Given the institutions military nature, it is no surprise that year classes of ephebes competed in the torch-race, in combat with hoplite lance and small shield, in combat with Galatian shield, and in the javelin throw. Other texts state that they made their apodeixis in arms.104 Their participation in the Theseia honored the founder of the democracy, commemorated former military accomplishments, and celebrated the reacquisition of lost territory. Claims to territory were also made in this manner for land that had not been recovered. A decree of 122/1 BCE honors the ephebes of the previous year for traveling to the sanctuary of Amphiaraos in the district of Oropos. At the Amphiaraion, they explained the proprietary rights of the sanctuary which had been occupied by their ancestors in ancient times. After they made a sacrifice to the hero, they returned on the same day into their own territory (T8.14 lines 26–27 and 69–70). This seemingly innocuous event takes on a bold and even hostile character when one recalls that the sanctuary was no longer under Athenian control. Although Athens had gained ownership over the Amphiaraion in the aftermath of Khaironeia, Antipater removed the sanctuary from Athenian care after the Lamian War. Presumably, the Athenians had hoped to reacquire what they regarded as their territory through the good graces of the Romans for their loyalty during the Macedonian Wars and even sent ephebes to the sanctuary in the 177/6 BCE to offer sacrifices to the hero (T7.13 lines 18–19). In this instance, fidelity to their ally and piety toward the hero were unrequited. Finally, the Athenians invaded Oropos, expelling its inhabitants and temporarily placing the sanctuary under their control. In the end, they were chased out by the Akhaian League and forced by the Roman Senate to pay a large fine. A generation later, Athenian ephebes marched into this territory under arms and through speeches demonstrated to the pilgrims assembled in the sanctuary that Athenians were the rightful owners of the Amphiaraion. The most striking example of the intersection of state religion, claims to territory, and the ephebeia is the Aianteia, a festival held on the island of Salamis 104  Honorary decrees for agonothetai of the Theseia which mention the participation of ephebes: T8.3 (161/0 BCE) line 64, T8.5 (157/6 BCE) line 49, and T8.6 (153/2 or 151/0 BCE) line 63. Honorary decrees for ephebes that mention their participation in this festival: T8.14 (122/1 BCE) lines 23, 77; T8.16 (118/7 BCE) lines 16–17; T8.19 (116/5 BCE) line 13; T8.27 (101/0 BCE) lines 19–20; T8.31 (96/5 BCE) lines 12–13, T8.33 (post 104/3 BCE) line 9.

254

chapter 9

that honored the legendary hero Aias, son of Telamon, who in historical times had been elevated to the status of an eponymous hero of the Athenian democracy.105 The Aianteia is first attested in T6.5 (213/2 BCE) lines 17–19, published soon after the recovery of Peiraieus and Salamis, and in many other decrees honoring subsequent year classes of ephebes in the following century.106 In the Archaic Period, Aias was one of several Salaminian heroes invoked by both Athens and Megara to demonstrate proprietary rights over the island. For he was a land-holding hero with a legendary genealogy that stretched back through his father Telemon to Kykhreus, the first king and original owner of Salamis and the eponymous hero of the island.107 Against the Megarians’ ancient claim to Salamis, the Athenians introduced an interpolated passage from the Iliad to demonstrate an early association of the hero with the Athenians and further asserted that the sons of Aias, Eurysakes and Philaios, gave them the island in exchange for Athenian citizenship.108 Thus, whatever later historical associations were added to the Athenian worship of Aias, the religious cultivation of this hero expressed at its core an Athenian claim to territory. Presumably some form of celebration or ritual for Aias existed prior to 215/4 BCE, for when he introduced the ten tribes, Kleisthenes selected previously existing heroes as candidates for the eponymoi (Herodot. 5.66.2). The desire to reinforce the link between the island and Athens fueled the Athenian decision to revere its heroic king and owner as one of the eponymous heroes of the newly established democracy. What Aias’ cult looked like prior to 510 BCE is anyone’s guess, but the Athenians presumably modified it when they elevated him to the eponymous of the tribe Aiantis and again after the Battle of Salamis in 479 BCE when Aias and other divinities from the island and Peiraieus were believed to have aided the Athenians against the Persians. Part of that celebration may have involved dedicating a couch adorned with a panoply next to offering trays.109 From the end of the fourth century BCE till the end of the third, 105  Hesykh. s.v. Αἰάντεια. 106  T7.13 (176/5 BCE) lines 20–5, T8.12 (127/6 BCE) lines 21–3, 129–42, T8.14 (122/1 BCE) lines 30–2, 72–4, T8.16 (118/7 BCE) lines 22–4, 75–88, T8.22 (106/5 BCE) lines 22–6, 53–63, T8.31 (96/5 BCE) lines 14–16. 107  Pind. Nem. 4.48; similarly, Σ Nem. 4.77: ὅ γε µὴν Αἴας κατέχει τὴν πατρῴαν Σαλαµῖνα. Diod. 4.74; Pherekydes FGrHist 3 F 60 (= Apollod. 3.12.7). 108  Plut. Sol. 10.1–2. Paus. 1.35.3 mentions both figures, although he makes Philaios the son, not brother, of Eurysakes. The Eurysakeion was the “headquarters” of the tribe Aiantis located in Melite, a district in Athens near the Hephaisteion. Cf. Harp. (s.v. Εὐρυσάκειον) and Philokhor. FGrHist F 3b, 328, F 26 line 4. 109  Σ Pind. Nem. et Isthm. 2.19: ἐπεὶ καὶ µιλτιάδης καὶ κίµων καὶ ἀλκιβιάδης καὶ θουκυδίδης ὁ συγγραφεὺς εἰς αἴαντα τὸ γένος ἀνῆγον, ἴσως ὅτι διὰ τιµῆς ἦγον οἱ ἀθηναῖοι τὸν αἴαντα, ὡς µὴ µόνον φυλὴν αἰαντίδα ἀποδεῖξαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ κλίνην αὐτῷ µετὰ πανοπλίας κοσµεῖν.

Ephebeia and Athenian Religious Life ( 229‒31 BCE )

255

Macedonian occupation of Salamis cut off Athenian access to the island and its cults. The appearance of the Aianteia in epigraphical documents published after they recovered their independence from Macedonia suggests that the reacquisition of the island in 229 BCE inspired the Athenians to significantly expand his cult, marking yet another important religious innovation of this period. This was carried out as a way of celebrating the reunification of the island with Athens and reestablishing the religious presence of Athenians at an important sanctuary that had likely lost its national character. Nearly all the evidence for this festival comes from ephebic honorary decrees, which gives the impression that participation by year classes of ephebes was central to the celebration of the Aianteia. In worshipping Aias on Salamis, the ephebes were not engaged in a rite of passage, in which by passing a boundary from asty to extramural sanctuary they abandoned the familiar structures of the urban center for a “liminal” space where these structures were absent. Rather, their presence at and participation in the festival emphasized the fact that Salamis belonged within the boundaries of the city and its structures, including its traditional religious and institutional practices. Each year, the ephebes sailed out to Salamis in two biremes (T8.16 lines 75–6) and joined in the procession for Aias and Demokratia (T6.5 line 18). Along with the arkhon, strategos and epimeletai (T8.16 line 77), official representatives of the city, they made a sacrifice to the hero Asklepios (T8.22 line 55, T7.13 line 23), and to Hermes (T7.13 line 23). They participated in contests, including the torch-race for an eponymous hero (T6.5 line 19). For their participation in the festival, the demos of the Salaminians honored the ephebes and other members of the institution, which were announced at the local Dionysia. The text of the decree was inscribed on a stone stele which was dedicated in the Aianteion (T8.16 line 87), i.e., the temenos of Aias (T8.12 line 140–1), around the statue of Demokratia (T8.22 line 62) located in or near the agora of the ancient city of Salamis.110

110  Paus. 1.35.3: ἔστι δὲ ἀγορᾶς τε ἔτι ἐρείπια καὶ ναὸς Αἴαντος, ἄγαλµα δὲ ἐξ ἐβένου ξύλου. διαµένουσι δὲ καὶ ἐς τόδε τῷ Αἴαντι παρὰ Ἀθηναίοις τιµαὶ αὐτῷ τε καὶ Εὐρυσάκει, καὶ γὰρ Εὐρυσάκους βωµός ἐστιν ἐν Ἀθήναις. Cf. IG II2 1035 (first century BCE) line 32 (= SEG 26.121): ὅπου κεῖτα] ι ἡ ἀρχαία πόλις πόλις [ἡ προ]σον[οµ]ασθεῖσ[α] Κυ[χρεία, τέµεν]ος Αἴαντος ὃ καθιέρωσε. See Taylor 1997, 110–116 for a discussion of the location of the Classical city on Salamis.

256 5

chapter 9

Conclusion

With the recovery of Athens’ independence from Macedonia, the Athenians renewed their public life through a large-scale program of religious innovations and, as part of this program, ephebes were assigned important roles at many of these festivals. Thus, in a very real way the ephebeia became more ceremonial, as critics of the Hellenistic institution have observed. To conclude that the ephebeia lost its primary purpose as a result, however, does not necessarily follow. Despite the impression given by the length of citations, the various religious responsibilities, at their height, totaled all together no more than about a month, which they completed alongside their military training and service. Participation in festivals continued to create opportunities for ephebes to channel their natural competitiveness into honor-winning activities and in this way encouraged these young men in their training. They undertook their religious responsibilities along with their fellow citizens, including leaders within the political community, which prepared them for their role as future leaders. The nature of these festivals reinforced certain civic beliefs and values entirely suitable for members of the ephebeia and strengthened their link to the land, which they had vowed to protect.

chapter 10

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome (128/7‒31 BCE) The ephebeia of the late second century represented the greatest flowering of the institution in the Hellenistic Period. As noted in Chapter 8, enrollment figures doubled and even tripled those of the previous century, growth that is directly attributable to the reacquisition of Delos from the Romans and the subsequent long-term peace in the decades that followed the Battle of Pydna. As Perrin-Saminadayar’s study has shown, many of the young men who were participating in the ephebate of this period came from families that had made no earlier appearance in the historical record, indicating that the ephebes who took training and served during this phase of the institution came from new wealth. Additionally, two new types of decrees were added to the corpus of ephebic texts. One was the so-called “acceptance decree,” which makes its first appearance in the late second century and becomes standard in the first, as will be discussed below. The ephebes also received honorary decrees from the demos of the Salaminians for their participation in the Aianteia. Entirely new texts were produced as well. These were dedications made by mellephebes, “future ephebes,” i.e., boys who were on the cusp of reaching the age of majority (T8.8, T8.17, T8.32, and T8.34), and rosters of names of those ephebes (and others) who served as Pythaïstai, or members of the sacred pilgrimage to Delphi (T8.9, T8.11, T8.23, and T8.30). This chapter addresses two further institutional changes to the ephebeia of late Hellenistic Athens, both of which appear at around the same time. The first is the addition of philosophical instruction to ephebic paideia. Ferguson, Marrou and others argue that, unlike its Lykourgan predecessor, the ephebeia in Hellenistic Athens devalued military training and service while emphasizing intellectual pursuits. Based on a handful of later literary references, they assumed that philosophical training was a prominent feature of the entire history of the Hellenistic ephebeia. Further, the ethical doctrines of Hellenistic philosophers, undermined civic beliefs and values. Thus, they conclude, the philosophers and their teachings contributed to the decline of the Hellenistic ephebeia. In fact, instruction from Athens’ resident philosophers was a late addition to ephebic paideia. The evidence suggests that their lessons were most likely literary. Moreover, Athens’ philosophers were not marginal figures, but men of international prestige who actively engaged in the public life of the city.

258

chapter 10

The second change is the participation of foreign youth in the Athenian ephebeia. In particular, the policy behind the decision to include foreigners will be explored. The most prominent explanation is that by successfully completing the ephebeia these young men received grants of Athenian citizenship. This notion was formulated many year ago by Reinmuth, who declared that “[m]embership in the ephebia came to carry with it, automatically, the right of citizenship, both of the young men of Attica who were under 18 as well as for non-Attic youth.”1 In his work on grants of citizenship in Athens, Osborne resuscitated Reinmuth’s view, stating that “[i]t is virtually certain that [naturalization in Athens] was now [c. 140 BCE] being affected by aitesis and ephebic service, though the details are obscure.”2 As Perrin-Saminadayar’s study has shown, the evidence does not support this theory. This chapter will further strengthen this conclusion. Although the lack of data hampers investigation, the decision to open their gymnasia to these foreign youth occurred contemporaneously in other states and may have been a measure employed by the Athenians to attract and retain wealthy foreigners and benefactors. The leitmotif of these two sections, however, is the impact of Rome and the Romans on the Hellenistic ephebeia. This impact was significant. For instance, Roman citizens, who were now also naturalized Athenians, participated in the ephebeia alongside visiting young Romans and other foreigners whose families resided in Attike. More importantly, meddling by the Roman Senate in the internal affairs of Athens affected the Athenians’ ability to maintain the ephebeia, while the siege and sack of Peiraieus and Athens in 88 BCE permanently damaged many sites and monuments important to the institution and had long-term consequences on participation by its members in traditional state religion. Finally, the Athenians accommodated the greater presence of Roman dignitaries in their city with official “welcoming” ceremonies formerly reserved for Hellenistic kings and later established festivals honoring Roman potentates—in all of which the ephebes played prominent roles. 1

Ephebes and Athens’ Philosophers

Epigraphical evidence demonstrates that Athenian ephebes participated in the intellectual life of Athens. Nine ephebic honorary decrees dating from the 1  Reinmuth 1948, 211–31, esp. 211; followed by Pélékidis 1962, 195. 2  Osborne 1983, 167. Followed by Habicht 1997, 344, 345–6; and id. 2000, 119–27, in which the author concluded that the Athenians had by the final third of the second century BCE abandoned Perikles’ citizenship law.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

259

end of the second century to the end of the first century BCE attest to this instruction.3 Many of the texts follow this brief formula (T8.27 lines 32–5):

35

35

γινόµενοι δὲ καὶ ζηλωταὶ τῶν καλλίστων ἐκ τῆς πρώτης ἡλικίας ἠλείφοντό τε ἐνδ[ελε]χῶς ἐν τοῖς γυµνασίοις ἀγόµενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ κοσµητοῦ καὶ ἐσχόλασαν δι’ ὅλου τοῦ ἐν[ιαυτοῦ] τοῖς φιλοσόφοις µετὰ πάσης εὐταξίας· And becoming admirers of the noblest things from their first age class they both continuously anointed [themselves] in the gymnasia, having been led by their kosmetes, and devoted [themselves] through the whole year to the philosophers with all good order;

In general, the texts do not provide the names of the philosophers. In one, however, the name Zenodotos appears (T8.14 lines 19–21).

20

20

προσεκαρτ[έ]ρησαν δὲ καὶ Ζηνοδότωι σχολ[άζ]οντε[ς ἔν τε] τῶι Πτολεµαίωι καὶ ἐν Λυκείωι, ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις [φιλο]σόφοις ἅπασι[ν] τοῖς τε ἐν Λυκείωι καὶ ἐν Ἀκαδηµ[ίαι δι’ ὅλου τοῦ ἐ]νιαυτοῦ· And they also adhered faithfully to Zenodotos taking their education in the Ptolemaion and in the Lykeion, and also in the same fashion [they adhered faithfully] to all the rest of the philosophers both in the Lykeion and in the Academy through the entire year;

3  T8.14 (122/1 BCE) lines 19–20, 62–3; T8.27 lines (c. 100 BCE) 32–5, T8.31 (96/5 BCE) line 21, and (perhaps) T8.33 line 31 (post 93 BCE), T9.2 (79/8 BCE) line 48; T9.15 (40/39 or 39/8 BCE) line 19 (philosophoi, rhetores and grammatikoi); T9.17 (37/6 or 36/5 BCE) lines 20 and 42–3 (philosophoi, rhetores and grammatikoi); T9.26 (c. 20/19 BCE) line 27 (philosophoi and grammatikoi).

260

chapter 10

This Zenodotos was a Stoic and a student of Diogenes of Babylon. Diogenes had taught at Athens and was a member of the famous Philosophers’ Embassy to Rome in 155 BCE. Zenodotos himself was famous in his own right, although no works of his survive, except the famous epigram that he composed for Zenon of Kition, the founder of Stoicism.4 Despite the late appearance of the philosophers in ephebic inscriptions, early scholars believed that such instruction was a hallmark of the Hellenistic ephebeia at Athens and have tried to date this practice as far back as the beginning of the third century BCE.5 In his history of the Athenian ephebeia, Pélékidis arrived at this conclusion in part as a result of approaching a relatively small amount of epigraphical data from a wide chronological spectrum in a synchronic way. Given the sparse amount of evidence available during his day this is understandable. Many new ephebic inscriptions discovered in the Athenian Agora and elsewhere over the past 60 years allow us to approach the ephebeia in a diachronic manner. The majority of these come from the third and early second centuries BCE, the very period in question. As a result, new patterns emerge from the evidence. These patterns unequivocally show that during these years military training was the center piece of the ephebeia, as argued in previous chapters. Year classes of ephebes were routinely honored for their military training and service. Instruction always included weapons handling, archery, javelin throwing, and releasing the catapult. The instructors honored in these decrees were always those teaching these disciplines. There is no mention of philosophical training for the ephebes until the late second century BCE. Despite the lack of direct evidence, however, prominent scholars, drawing on Pélékidis’ work, continue to believe that the paideia of the early Hellenistic ephebeia included training in literature and philosophy.6 Did decrees honoring ephebes and other epigraphical texts from earlier periods simply fail to mention such instruction? William Ferguson believed so and marshaled a handful of literary sources suggesting that Athenian philosophers had some sort of early educational associations with ephebes.7 Proof for this belief includes 4  D.L. 7.30; Anth. Pal. 7.117. 5  Pélékidis 1962, 266–7; Marrou 1964, 155. Lynch 1972, 158, connects a reference to the Lykeion in T7.7 (184/3 BCE) line 23 with reference to later philosophical instruction for the ephebes in this gymnasium and draws a similar conclusion. Cf. T7.9 (c. 185/4 BCE) lines 13–4 and T7.13 (176/5 BCE) lines 47–9 for similar citations. These references, however, are linked to dedications made by ephebes as monuments to their physical training that they received. The Lykeion, these texts make abundantly clear, is the venue in which these monuments were dedicated. 6  Chaniotis 2005, 49. 7  Ferguson 1911, 128 and 129 with n. 4.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

261

the Decree of Zenon, in which, among his many other benefactions for the Athenian people, the philosopher was honored for exhorting the neoi to virtue (ἀρετή) and self-mastery (σωφροσύνη). One copy of the decree was erected in the Academy and another in the Lykeion (D.L. 6.10–12)—both the haunts of ephebes. What impressed Ferguson was the appearance of the term neoi, or young men, and its association with virtues such as self-mastery (σωφροσύνη). As discussed in Chapter 3, these civic virtues had a close association with ephebes in epigraphical texts. Yet, the term neoi does not specifically refer to youth of ephebic age. In fact, neoi is a broad age term, referring to young men as old as 30 years of age (Xen. Mem. 1.2.35) and to boys as young as 14 (Polyb. 15.18.8). Thus, ephebes could be regarded as neoi (cf. Arist. 1233a) and by the first century BCE they were described as the “first age grade of the neoi” (e.g., T9.2 lines 67–8, T9.17 line 59). Yet, literary and epigraphic evidence also records ephebes and neoi as distinct categories both in the context of military training and service and in religious participation.8 The neoi also frequented the gymnasia alongside ephebes for the purpose of athletic and military training. As Forbes observed, Greek poleis took care to cultivate the self-mastery of their neoi, too.9 Moreover, neither the Academy nor the Lykeion hosted Stoic philosophers in Zenon’s day. Zenon himself famously taught at the Stoa Poikile located on the northern side of the Athenian Agora in the heart of the city (D.L. 7.5). Sometime before the middle of the third century BCE, Ariston gave philosophical lectures on the unity of virtues at the Kynosarges (D.L. 7.161). But the first Stoic documented in either gymnasia was Khrysippos who taught in the Lykeion sometime in the late third century BCE (D.L. 7.184). This implies that however Zenon may have encouraged the young men of Athens to pursue virtue and self-mastery, it was not through lectures or other forms of official instruction at these gymnasia. Ferguson also enlisted three other brief passages to prove that ephebes received instruction from Zenon and other early Stoics. The first passage states how Kleanthes of Assos, the successor of Zenon, led the ephebes to a public spectacle (D.L. 7.169). Although this singular reference does demonstrate that philosophers at Athens had contact with ephebes, it is difficult to draw any workable conclusions regarding the nature of this association, since the text of Diogenes provides no historical context for this passage. Diogenes used this line to illustrate to his readers Kleanthes’ modesty (σωφροσύνη). Leading them to a public spectacle does not necessarily mean Kleanthes was providing 8  E.g., I.Sestos 1 lines 36–7, 41, 79; I.Miletos, 368 line 17; I.Priene 112 line 92. See Sacco 1979, 39–49. 9  Forbes 1933. See also Sacco 1979; Chankowski 2010, 253–65; Kennell 2012.

262

chapter 10

philosophical or literary training to the ephebes. It is quite possible that the association was informal and unofficial. The same could be said of a passage from Pausanias, which reports that a statue of Khrysippos stood somewhere in the Ptolemaion (1.17.2), a gymnasium which ephebes in later periods used and maintained. The presence of this statue in the gymnasium has been used as a terminus post quem for the erection of the Ptolemaion in the late third century BCE and as evidence for a change in venue for philosophical instruction by members of this school from the Stoa Poikile. At present, there is no fixed date for the foundation of the Ptolemaion and scholars favor a late third century date or one closer to the middle of the second century.10 In fact, this statue could have been moved from the outer Kerameikos to the Ptolemaion or another copy erected there at any time prior to Pausanias’ journey to Athens in the early second century of our era.11 Moreover, extant evidence mentions only that Khrysippos gave philosophical instruction at the Odeion and the Lykeion (D.L. 7.184, 185), not at the Ptolemaion. Finally, Ferguson introduced the figure of Sphairos of Borysthenes, a student of Zenon’s who appears to have played some role in developing the Hellenistic ephebeia at Sparta. Sphairos had received an invitation from King Kleomenes III to revitalize Sparta’s traditional system of training. Years before, as a young man, the King had heard the philosopher lecture on this topic when Sphairos had made a trip to Sparta (Plut., Kleom. 2.2). Later on, after his coup, Kleomenes enfranchised the best of the perioikoi and trained the citizen body in the weaponry and tactics of the Macedonian foot soldier. He then turned his attention to the training of ephebes and neoi and the agoge, the details of which Sphairos helped him to arrange. As Kennell has observed, Sphairos took advantage of King Kleomenes’ invitation “to make a vital cultural institution in a historically significant Greek city conform to certain [Stoic] doctrine.”12 Kleomenes’ refoundation of traditional Spartan education, however, did not include philosophical training for Spartan ephebes, but the 10 

11  12 

Cf. Plut. Thes. 36.2. Ferguson 1911, 239; Miller 1995, 202–7; and Habicht 1997a, 183 believe that the Ptolemaion was erected in conjunction with or soon after the establishment of the tribe Ptolemais in 224/3 BCE. Thompson 1950, 322–3, and id. 1964, 119–29, places the foundation of the gymnasium in the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopater (181–145 BCE). A boundary stone for an unknown gymnasium, dated by lettering style to the third century BCE, was discovered near the Odeion of Herodes and may have belonged to the Ptolemaion. Of course, this stone may come from any of the gymnasia of the city. See Levensohn and Levensohn 1947, 65 no. 2. Wycherley 1972, no. 458, does not think it likely that Diogenes Laertius and Pausanias reported the same statue, but two separate works altogether. Kennell 1995, 101.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

263

resumption of a proper system of physical training and of the common mess, as Plutarch explicitly states (Plut., Kleom. 11.2). In the end, these examples fail to provide a source outside the decrees to support the notion of philosophical instruction for Athenian ephebes in the third century BCE. Given the state of evidence, one must conclude that Athenian ephebes undertook training from the city’s philosophers at the end of the second century BCE. But, what did such instruction look like? Naturally enough, scholars have assumed that the ephebes took lessons in philosophy from Athens’ philosophers. The depth of instruction, however, has been described in various and contradictory ways. Marcus Tod envisioned a “comprehensive programme of philosophical lectures,” while Henri Marrou believed that such training was superficial at best.13 In my view, the ephebes did not take philosophical instruction from the Athenian philosophers, but, under them, continued their training in literature, building upon the lessons they received as paides. This is supported by the following observations. First, one decree honoring the chief magistrate of the ephebes states that he was mindful of the benefits in the study of literature (τ[ῆς ἐν τοῖς] γράµµασιν [αὐ]τῶν ὠ[φελίας) and placed the ephebes in the hands of Zenodotos the philosopher (T8.14 lines 64). Decrees of this period that honor ephebes mention not only the philosophers, but also teachers of grammar and rhetoric.14 Further, the ephebes dedicated bundles of one hundred books to the library of the Ptolemaion (T8.19 lines 7–8; T8.31 lines 25–6; T8.33 lines 36–7; T9.15 line 48; T9.17 line 50; T9.26 line 30), among which were copies of Homer and Euripides (T9.11 line 23–5). These books may have been new acquisitions or replacements of worn out copies. A mutilated inventory of the books from this library during this same period includes over two dozen titles by Euripides, a dozen by Sophokles, another dozen by Menander, and three by Diphilos. Under prose, the catalogue contains only one title by Demosthenes and another by an obscure essayist.15 For ancient philosophers, aesthetics was a vital ingredient of a philosophical system. Aristotle himself was a first-rate critic. He was also a poet, just as Zenodotos was. Stoics were particularly interested in the philosophy of literature and made great advances in its study. Included in Zenon’s corpus of writing are On Styles, Homeric Problems, and On the Reading of Poetry (D.L. 7.4). Cicero states that Zenon also wrote a work on Hesiod’s Theogony, although its title 13  14  15 

Tod 1957, 137; Marrou 1964. On the length of time, discipline and commitment required for serious, full-time study of philosophy (which was substantial), see Lynch 1972, 175–6. For references, see note 3 above. IG II2 2363 (end of second century–beginning of first century BCE). On the growth of libraries in the Hellenistic period, see Casson, 2001, 48–60, esp. 58–9 (Ptolemaion at Athens).

264

chapter 10

is lost (Cic. Nat. Deor. 1.36). Khrysippos wrote Against the Critics and included copious references to literature in all of his prose works (D.L. 7.180). For the Stoics, the value of literature was its didactic utility, which they accomplished through the allegorical interpretation of poetry.16 As Glenn Most writes, “[the] duty and achievement of allegorical interpretation was always to corroborate the Logos [the rational account of the philosopher] by demonstrating that the Mythos [the fantastic tale of the poet],…, had in fact always already been entirely contained within it.”17 This approach is best summarized by Strabo who says that the ancient authors hid their understanding of the truth in riddles and always added mythical accounts to their understanding (Strabo 10.3.23). If the Zenodotos mentioned in the ephebic honorary decree was in fact the same Zenodotos who was the pupil of Diogenes we should expect that his instruction in literature for the Athenian ephebes followed the lines of physical allegory, a popular form of exegesis in which this school excelled. According to older scholarship on the subject, the association of ephebes and philosophers was regarded as an odd or even contradictory pairing. For instance, William Tarn maintained that the ethical doctrines of the Hellenistic philosophers deemphasized the view of man as a natural member of the polis and championed one that regarded him as an individual member of the universal oikoumene. These teachings would have undermined or even subverted the explicit role of the ephebeia in inculcating polis beliefs and values and fostering a sense of civic awareness and attachment to the city and its territory.18 Even the public portraits of philosophers have been interpreted as a challenge to democratic ideology. In recent years, Paul Zanker has contrasted the portraits of mantle-clad philosophers of the fourth century, whom he regarded as embodiments of democratic beliefs and values, with the portraits of Khrysippos, which he says emphasizes the philosopher’s physical frailty. It was certainly not a representation of the ideal democratic citizen.19 In my opinion, these traditional views regarding the philosophers are mistaken. Philosophers in Hellenistic Athens were not liminal figures standing on the periphery of the polis offering philosophical criticism of traditional polis society. Gone were the days of Sokrates, who goaded the Athenians with deep questions about virtue and paid for it with his life. In fact, as Andrew Erskine observes, Zenon, Khrysippos, and other Stoics advocated certain forms of acceptable participation in the affairs of state and appear to have supported the democratic regime 16  17  18  19 

Whitman 1987, 31–47; Most 1989, 2014–65; Most 1999, 32–8; Long 1992, 41–66; Boys-Stones 2003, 186–216; Gutzwiller 2007, 354–7. Most 1999, 33. Tarn 1952, 79. Zanker 1995, 97.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

265

at Athens.20 Thus, at least in the case of this school of thought, philosophical instruction did not subvert the goals of the ephebeia. Moreover, philosophers in Hellenistic Athens were fully integrated members of Athenian public life and culture. Their intellectual activities at Athens contributed greatly to the Athenian sense of civic identity, especially as the “School of Hellas,” despite the fact that few Athenians actually served as heads of the great schools or were students and members. One event that greatly illustrates the Athenian sense of attachment to her philosophers is the public outcry in 307 BCE when the philosophers abandoned the city in response to an attempt by a small band of democratic nationalists to control their schools through legislation. The nationalists were acting in retribution against Theophrastos, the head of Aristotle’s school, for his friendship with the tyrant Demetrios of Phaleron and his general support of Macedon. So great was their outrage over this blatant attempt to suppress free speech that the Athenians immediately found the legislation unconstitutional and fined its purveyors. The philosophers returned to Athens never to be harassed in any way again.21 Philosophers played important roles in Athens’ public life. The Athenians honored Zenon not only for his care of the neoi, but for his restoration of a bath complex. The Aristotelian Lykon provided funds to ensure the safety of the polis and defense of the countryside. A student of Euandros suspended instruction in philosophy to take up arms against the Macedonian troops invading Attike. The Epikourian Zenodoros of Lamptreus did the same. Panaitios, the famous Rhodian Stoic, served as a priest in the Athenian Ptolemaia, which brought considerable financial obligation.22 Given their high international stature, it is no wonder that the Athenians asked their philosophers to serve as ambassadors to the great Hellenistic powers. The most famous instance of such a delegation was the Athenian embassy sent to Rome in 155 BCE to negotiate a reduction of a fine imposed by the Senate for Athens’ plundering of Oropos, which was at this time no longer an Athenian possession. The embassy was composed of the heads of the three great schools—Karneades of the Academy, Kritolaos of the Peripatos, and Diogenes of the Stoa. The displays of logic and oratory so deeply impressed the Romans that the Athenians won the reduction of the fine and the Roman youth who had gathered far and wide to see the philosophers in action were set on fire by a passion for philosophy.23 20  21  22  23 

Erskine 1990, 64–74. See D.L. 5.37–39, 79; Athen. 13.610f; Pollux, Onom. 9.42. Ferguson 1911, 104–7; Lynch 1972, 98–9, 103–4, 117–8; Habicht 1997, 73–4. D.L. 7.12 (Zenon); IG II/III3 1 1011 col. I line 29 (Lykon); IG II2 2332 line 26 (Zenodoros); and IG II2 1938 line 25 (Painetios). Habicht 1997, 264–9.

266

chapter 10

In return, Athens rewarded her philosophers in a manner that had been reserved for traditional state benefactors. Prytanis received a dinner in the Prytaneion, a gold crown, and public proclamation for his successful diplomatic embassy to Macedonia.24 Both Zenon and Khrysippos received the rare privilege of being buried in the Demosion Sema—the state cemetery at Athens that served as the final resting place for those Athenians who fell in battle (Paus. 1.29.15). On some occasions, philosophers were offered Athenian citizenship for their service to the state.25 On others, they were awarded an honorary statue erected in the state cemetery, gymnasia or Agora alongside those of Athenian statesmen, soldiers and benefactors.26 The presence of honorary statues for Zenon and Khrysippos dedicated in the Demosion Sema near equestrian statues and the graves of such luminaries as Harmodios and Aristogeiton, Miltiades and Kimon, Nikias, and Lykourgos, concretizes the extent to which philosophers had been woven into the very fabric of Athenian public culture. In conclusion, the belief that ephebes received instruction from philosophers as far back as the early third century is without foundation. The current state of evidence indicates that such instruction was a late addition to ephebic paideia and consisted of literary analysis taught by prominent and public-minded men distinguished for the advances made in this field of study. There is no doubt that over the centuries the ephebeia will have lost some of its military character and become an institution for the pursuit of liberal arts. But, this is not the case in the late second and early first centuries BCE. The lengthy decrees honoring the ephebes indicate that these young men continued to undergo the same type of training as their predecessors had undergone. In fact, the addition of literary pursuits coincided with even more frequent visits to the countryside fortresses, as discussed in Chapter 8. At this stage, it is not clear why the Athenians decided to add instruction from the philosophers to ephebic paideia and the lack of evidence hampers further investigation into this question. Whatever the case may be, it seems that the decision to include literary instruction was at the discretion of individual kosmetai and was not legislated through decree by the Athenians. If one pulls back the lens and looks more broadly at the practices of the ephebates of other poleis, one discovers that the decision to include literary instruction in cities such as Samos and Haliartos was at the discretion of local

24  25  26 

Merrit 1935, 525–9; Moretti ISE, no. 28. Plut. 1034a (SVF 1, T 26); I.Eleusis no. 221. IG II2 3781; Cic. Fin. 5.2.4.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

267

gymnasiarkhoi.27 A gymnasiarkhos at Priene provided the ephebes instruction in athletics and military training as well as in literature (φιλολογία) at his own initiative. The text of the decree declares that whereas the meaning of the former was to make the body firm, the purpose of the latter was to lead the mind toward virtue (ἀρετή) and human experience (πάθος ἀνθρώπινον).28 In a particularly lengthy decree honoring the gymnasiarkhos Menas for reinvigorating military and athletic training at Sestos, the text of the inscription states that “[Menas] dealt in a friendly way with all those who gave lectures [i.e., itinerate educators], wishing in this too to secure for his native city glory through men of education.”29 Clearly, the Sestians regarded these lectures as significant nor in conflict with traditional instruction, for Menas made them available to the ephebes and neoi alongside military training after Sestos had been worn out after years of pillaging by Thracians and the wars of Aristonikos, which had engulfed the city. The Athenians likely regarded such instruction in a similar way. The evidence from outside Attike implies a broader trend of some sort, one which originated and developed much earlier in these states. In fact, it shows that literary instruction in the ephebeia came relatively late to Athens, attesting to the more conservative nature of ephebic paideia at Athens and a continuity that the Hellenistic institution shared with its Lykourgan predecessor. 2

Athenian Ephebes and Foreign Youth

Another innovation in the later phase of the institution was the admission of foreign young men to the Athenian ephebeia.30 This policy marks a break with the past, for the ephebeia had up to this point been the preserve of new Athenian citizens. Evidence of foreigners joining the Athenian ephebeia appears for the first time in the sources with T8.14, published in 122/1 BCE for the ephebes of the previous year and regularly henceforth.31 T8.14 registers 27 

28  29  30  31 

Samos: IG XII 6 128 (c. 200 BCE); Haliartos: SEG 44.409b (before 171 BCE). In both cases, the texts of these decrees do not indicate which subjects these philosophers taught the ephebes and neoi. The fact that both philosophers were itinerate suggests that instruction was not regular and thus intellectual training was not standard practice for these ephebates. I.Priene no. 112 (after 84 BCE) lines 73–5. OGIS no. 339 lines 73–4: Austin (no. 215) translation. Reinmuth 1929; id. 1948, 211–31; Pélékidis 1962, 186–96; Marrou 1964, 153–4; Follet 1988, 19–32; Oliver 2000, 86, 90; Perrin-Saminadayar 2007, 449–477. T8.16 (118/7 BCE), T8.19 (116/5 BCE), T8.22 (106/5 BCE), and T8.27 (101/0 BCE). The rosters of earlier decrees from this period—T8.2 (161/0 BCE), and T8.4 (159/8 BCE)—are

268

chapter 10

fourteen foreign young men out of a cohort of 100 ephebes. A similar sum can be found in the other extant rosters of this period, even when the total number of Athenian ephebes rises significantly. The singular exception is T8.27, which registers 37 foreign youth out of 139 participants total (see Appendix 4). The names of these foreign youths appear in the rosters along with the names of the Athenian ephebes who participated in a given year class. In the late second century BCE, their names are listed last in the rosters and comprise a separate group under the heading “xenoi,” or foreigners. Participation by foreign youth in other areas of Athenian education is also attested in contemporary dedications made by mellephebes.32 As with the rosters appended to decrees honoring ephebes, these dedications by future ephebes indicate that the participation of foreign boys was slight. For instance, the earliest, T8.17 (118/7 BCE), lists four foreign mellephebes out of 19 participants; T8.32 (95/4 BCE) lists two foreign mellephebes out of ten; and T8.34 (90s BCE) lists one out of eight. The dating formula normally appears as the first line of text: “the mellephebes in the arkhonship of x.” Next follows the boys’ names with patronymics and demotics. In the case of the foreign-born mellephebe, no demotic is included, but the boy’s ethnic, since his parents were not citizens, and so his father and the mellephebe by extension have no deme affiliation. Unlike the rosters listing the names of participating ephebes, which segregate the names of foreigners from those of the Athenians, foreign mellephebes are included with Athenians in these rosters. This is due to the nature of these documents, which appear to be private dedications made by older boys to their teacher of literature. Of the 105 names that appear in the rosters of foreign youths and boys, 100 include the names of their home cities. Of these, forty-two states are represented in the epigraphical evidence. The poleis from which the largest number of foreign ephebes was derived were Miletos (14), Rome (14), Antiokhia (12), Laodikeia (8), and Herakleia (5). All five poleis were large trading centers in the Aegean and Mediterranean. Perrin-Saminadayar’s valuable exploration into the names of foreign participants in the ephebeia begins with the sobering observation that of the 105 xenoi that appear in our texts, the majority (around 88) are mere names to us and make no other appearance in the epigraphical and literary evidence inside or outside Attike.33 Among his many conclusions, Perrin-Saminadayar’s analysis has illustrated the links of some of these

32  33 

not preserved. The roster of T8.12 (127/6 BCE) is largely preserved and does not register foreigners; but see Perrin-Saminadayar 2007, 253 n. 2. T8.17 (118/7 BCE?), T8.32 (95/4 BCE) and T8.34 (95/4 BCE). Perrin-Saminadayar 2007, 449–460. For earlier treatments, see Reinmuth 1929; id. 1948, 211–31; Pope 1976; Follet 1988, 19–32.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

269

young men to wealthy foreign families with connections to Delos. In the case of Ἀµµώνιος Ζωπύρου Μιλήσιος (102/1 BCE), some of the families of these foreign young men appear to have been long-term residents in Athens. The participation of foreign youth in the ephebeia has raised a number of questions—chief among them concerns the purpose that this new policy served. One view regarding why foreign youths, in particular the Romans, joined the ephebeia was that it provided them an avenue for studying philosophy at Athens.34 The epigraphical evidence, however, does not necessarily support this hypothesis. For whereas T8.14 and T8.27 do in fact register foreign youth during two years in which the ephebes took instruction from philosophers, T8.16, T8.19, and T8.22, texts that also register the participation of foreign youth in the ephebeia, make no mention of ephebes joining the resident philosophers in the city’s gymnasia during these years. The rosters of T8.31 and T8.33, two other texts that also record the ephebes taking lessons from philosophers, do not survive, and so the nationality of those who joined during these years cannot be determined, although it is likely that foreigners were among the ranks of participants. The few examples in the literary record that provide context for foreign youth in the philosophical schools demonstrate that none were members of the Athenian ephebeia. For instance, sometime before 129 BCE, Q. Caecilius Metellus, later a general in the war against Jugurtha and opponent of an illegal clause in Saturninus’ grain law of c. 100 BCE, attended lectures of Karneades of the Academy as a young man (adulescens) for many days (multos dies) (Cic., Or. 3.68.1). On his way to Cilicia as proconsul, M. Antonius stopped in Athens due to bad weather and passed his time talking with philosophers and orators about ethics and rhetoric (Cic., Or. 1.82). At the end of his tenure as quaestor, L. Licinius Crassus, who later became a famous orator, stopped in Athens, attended lectures at the gymnasia, and read Plato’s Gorgias with Kharmades (Cic., Or. 1.85). As Lloyd Daly noted, their time studying at Athens was purely incidental to journeys of public service.35 In other words, the Romans who visited Athens during the late second century BCE were mature young men beginning their military and political careers, not rounding out their education as foreign ephebes at the feet of Greek philosophers, as Marrou has suggested. Over the last decade a good deal of labor has been dedicated to the question of citizenship and the mechanisms and processes of naturalization at Athens.36 One area of agreement that exists among scholars is the recognition 34  35  36 

Marrou 1964, 332. Daly 1950, 42, 43. Byrne 2003, 1–20; Perrin-Saminadayar 2007; Oliver 2007, 273–92.

270

chapter 10

that completing the ephebeia did not confer citizenship upon Athenians in the Hellenistic Period, since far fewer Athenian citizens joined the ephebeia by the beginning of the third century (if not earlier). Acknowledging that passing out of the ephebeia was inconsequential to acquiring citizenship is, in my opinion, an important observation that moves the discussion of naturalization in Hellenistic Athens in the right direction. It certainly helps to explain why these young men were still regarded as foreigners upon completion of their year of service. For their names continued to appear in rosters along with their ethnics under the heading “xenoi” after the successful completion of their year of service, the passage of the decree honoring the participants, and the creation and erection of the stelai upon which the text and roster are engraved. Further, Perrin-Saminadayar’s prosopographical analysis of the names of foreign youth in these rosters demonstrates that, unlike some of their Athenian contemporaries, none of the names of these foreign ephebes or their descendants appear to have participated in the political life of Athens as Athenian citizens.37 In fact, the descendants of some of these foreign ephebes continued to appear with their ethnic long after the ephebeia of their ancestor was completed.38 Therefore, the appearance of foreign youth in the ephebeia cannot be used as evidence for naturalization at Athens. One element in the presentation of this issue by the new communis opinio is to contrast this aspect of the Hellenistic ephebeia with the Lykourgan by declaring that participation in the latter was a necessary condition for attaining citizenship rights and privileges at Athens. As Chapter 1 has demonstrated, however, new citizens in the Lykourgan Age were enrolled in their respective deme register (ληξιαρχικὸν γραµµατεῖον) during enrollment and then underwent training as new citizens. Based on Hansen’s analyses, it appears that while many ephebes participated in the two-year system of training and service, a sizeable minority of new citizens, for whatever reason, simply did not join. Failure to participate did not affect their access to membership in the boule, nor is there evidence that citizens who did not participate were barred from the ekklesia or from holding office.39 In other words, completing the ephebeia was never the sine qua non for holding citizenship at any stage of the institution’s history. 37  38 

39 

Perrin-Saminadayar 2007, 470–2. For instance, a Ζωπύρος Μιλήσιος, a foreign participant in the ephebeia in 39/8 BCE (T9.16 col. I line 118), was likely a descendant of Ἀµµώνιος Ζωπύρου Μιλήσιος, who served as ephebe in 102/1 BCE. The father of the latter ephebe may have been Ζωπύρος Μιλήσιος, who was the priest of Isis sometime around the beginning of the first century BCE (IG II2 4702 line 7). All of these men may have been descendants of a Ζωπύρος Μιλήσιος, who appears in a catalogue of metics of 300/299 BCE (IG II2 1956 line 175). For discussion, see Chapter 1.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

271

If not for the purpose of education or naturalization, why then did the Athenians allow foreign youths to join their ephebeia? The situation at Athens may be comparable to the ephebate on Delos. The island had been under Athenian control soon after 167/6 BCE and it too appears to have adopted a similar practice vis-à-vis the admittance of foreign youth into the ranks of its ephebeia, although it may have begun on Delos a few years before Athens. With their takeover of the island, its ephebeia was surely composed of native Athenians at first.40 Soon afterwards, however, the gymnasium and the ephebeia began admitting foreigners and foreign ephebes into their ranks. This was due to the fact that Delos was a cosmopolitan center, attracting foreign traders and businessmen from all over the Aegean and Mediterranean world who took up long-term residence on the island. One fragmentary list of 144/3 BCE contains the names of young men from Rome, Megalopolis and Byzantion. Although another from 133/2 BCE records only the names of six Athenians, a more complete roster from 119/8 BCE has the names of six Athenians and thirty-four foreigners from Sidon, Beirut, Tyre, Antiokhia, Laodikeia, Krete, Naxos, Rome and elsewhere. No doubt, as Roussel observes, the nationality of these ephebes represents a cross section of the demographics of the island itself.41 The decision to include the sons of foreigners in Athens’ ephebeia may have been influenced by Athenian experiences on Delos. Of course, Athens and especially the Peiraieus had always been cosmopolitan and some of the foreign ephebes who participated in this phase of the institution were descendants of families who had lived in Athens long before the city welcomed the sons of foreigners into the ranks of the ephebeia. A century of Macedonian occupation of Peiraieus must have resulted in an exodus of foreign businessmen from Attike.42 Perhaps the Athenians changed their policy as a means of attracting and retaining wealthy foreigners who wanted their sons to attend the ephebeia, as Perrin-Saminadayar’s study has suggested.43 It is also possible that the Athenians granted admission to their ephebeia as an award to individual foreigners or entire communities, if the Athenian “decree” preserved in the Hippocratic corpus reflects historical practices of late Hellenistic Athens.44 40  41  42  43  44 

Habicht 1997, 262. I.Delos 2593 (144/3 BCE), 2594 (133/2 BCE), and 2598 (119/8 BCE). Roussel 1931, 438–49. According to Mikalson 1998, 140, foreign cults with few exceptions diminished and disappeared under the Macedonian occupation of Peiraieus. Rotzovtzeff 1942, vol. III 1505 no. 12; Pélékidis 1962, 186–7; and Perrin-Saminadayar 2007, 189; 251, 462–3. This letter (Pseudep. 25 = IX 401 Littré) presents an alleged “decree” of the Athenians honoring Hippokrates with megistai timai for his help with a plague and refusal to serve

272

chapter 10

Whatever the reason may have been, given the expansive role of metics, or foreign residents, in Athens’ civic life in the fifth and fourth centuries, in particular their liability for military service, admission to clubs, and participation in state festivals, the enrollment of foreign youths into the ranks of the ephebeia was not such a stretch.45 Nor was it out of step with contemporary practices of far less cosmopolitan poleis than Delos and Athens that had already opened the doors of their gymnasia to foreign residents.46 What impact did this new policy have on the character of the ephebeia of this period? Following Marrou, Perrin-Saminadayar concludes that the admission of foreigners to the ephebeia marked the end of any military and athletic purpose for the ephebeia.47 As Chapter 8 has demonstrated, however, there is no visible change in the content of instruction or duties performed, despite the addition of literary instruction. Young members of elite families continued to take military and athletic training and participate in state religion, just as their predecessors had done for generations before. As noted above, the picture that the inscriptions provide is one of little change in the paideia of ephebes over the centuries. Although it may have lost its national exclusivity by admitting foreigners to its ranks, the ephebeia did not lose its national character. Far from being devalued, the increase in the number of citizen participants and the desire of foreigners to take part in the institution during this period seem to suggest that the ephebeia was highly esteemed by Athenians and foreigners alike.

45  46 

47 

the Persian king. The Athenians also granted the privilege of joining the ephebeia to the sons of Koans (25.21: καὶ ἐξεῖναι πᾶσι Κώων παισὶν ἐφηβεύειν ἐν Ἀθήναις καθάπερ παισὶν Ἀθηναίων, ἐπειδή περ ἡ πατρὶς αὐτῶν ἄνδρα τοιοῦτον ἐγέννησεν·). Dumont 1876, 97, regarded the “decree” as authentic. As Pélékidis 1962, 187, noted, the term ἐφηβεύειν appears for the first time in the third century (and regularly afterwards), thus indicating that the “decree” is apocryphal. Indeed, the scale of awards and the elaborate language in describing the services of Hippokrates is typical of the Hellenistic Period. Recently, Smith 1990, 5, has suggested that the “decree” was composed after the pseudepigraphic letters in the Hippocratic corpus, which told of Hippokrates and Artexerxes and were written between the mid second century and mid first century BCE. This suggestion is strengthened by the fact that the admission of foreigners to the ephebeia is not attested until the late second century, which provides a terminus post quem for the “decree.” Whitehead 1977, 80–6. E.g., I.Sestos no. 1 (133–120 BCE) lines 73–4, which cite Menas “for his beneficence even to the foreigners who have admission to the gymnasium (τοὺς µετέχοντας τοῦ ἀλείµµατος)” at Sestos (translation: Austin 1981, no. 215). For further examples of states admitting foreigners to their gymnasia, see IG XII 7 390A (2nd century BCE) lines 12–13 (Amorgos) and IG XII 9 234 (= SIG3 714) (c. 100 BCE) lines 27–8 (Eretria). Perrin-Saminadayar 2007, 259–61.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

3

273

Ephebes and the Apantesis

As noted above, Roman dignitaries visited Athens much more frequently during this period, whether the city itself was their destination or a stopover along the way. According to ephebic texts from the latter half of the second century BCE, when Romans such as Q. Caecilius Metellus, M. Antonius, and L. Licinius Crassus and others arrived, ephebes and their kosmetes met and escorted them to the city.48 The verb ἀπαντᾶν or the expression ποιεῖν plus ἀπαντήσεις used in these texts indicate that this was the apantesis, a “welcoming” ceremony. The texts offer no clues as to where and how the apantesis took place or whether or not this event was part of a much larger ceremony. Nor does the evidence provide information as to the nature and purpose of the apantesis. Consequently, Pélékidis made barely a mention of this “welcoming” ceremony. Through close examination of epigraphical texts and literary sources, Robert, Chankowski, Perrin-Saminadayar, Pont, and Strootman have helped to illuminate this piece of Hellenistic court ritual in the main.49 This section explores the role ephebes played in the apantesis of Roman officials who visited Athens. The “welcoming” ceremony attested in decrees honoring the ephebes at Athens can be found in Greek and non-Greek cities alike. In Greece, the apantesis evolved as a ritualized response to Hellenistic monarchs during which citizens received the king as though he were divine.50 When a king paid an official visit (παρουσία) to a city during the Hellenistic Period, the leaders of that city along with its citizen body met him and his retinue (θεραπεία) on the final stage of his trip and escorted him along a major route within the walls of the city (ἀπάντησις) wherein he was offered official reception (δεξίωσις) and entertainment (ἀποδοχή/ἐκδοχή). The circumstances of these entrance ceremonies varied. For instance, the Athenians decided to offer apantesis to Attalos II due to his victory over Philip V near the island of Khios in 201 BCE (as well as a means of expressing the desire to form an alliance with the King and the 48  49  50 

T8.14 lines 21, 75–6; T8.16 line 13; T8.19 line 18; T8.22 lines 18–9; T8.27 lines 14–5; T8.31 line 10; T8.33 line 12. Robert 1987, 460–77, 522–535; Chankowski 2005, 185–206; id. 2010, 414–23; PerrinSaminadayar 2004–05 [2006], 351–375; Pont 2008, 185–211; Strootman 2014, 233–240. E.g., Demokhar. FGrHist 75 F 2; Plut. Dion 18.3–19.1; Strootman, 235. Italian towns also had entrance ceremonies (adventus), which were influenced by the Greek apantesis. Latin has a fixed vocabulary to describe these ceremonies and throughout most of the Republican period at least Romans did not elevate the recipient to divine status. On the Roman adventus, see Lehnen 1997. In a letter to Atticus, Cicero discards the familiar Latin vocabulary in favor of the Greek term apantesis to describe the excessive nature of the reception that Caesar received from certain Italian towns as he progressed through Italy in 49 BCE, including their treatment of him as though he were a god (ad Att. 8.16.2; cf. 16.11.6).

274

chapter 10

Romans), just as the citizens of Seleukeia and Antiokhia met Ptolemy III when he approached this city after his victories in Kilikia during Laodikian War in 246 BCE.51 Further, the Athenians officially received Demetrios Poliorketes as he returned to the city from Leukas and Kerkyra in order to express kindness to their benefactor. In this case, the purpose of the ceremony was to maintain good relations with an important ally. This is the likely reason the Athenians decided to extend such an honor to the Romans in the second century BCE, for the Senate had returned to the city many of its former overseas territories in 167 for supporting the Roman cause in the war against Perseus. The ephebic decrees refer to Romans who were officially escorted into the city as “friends and allies” or “allies and benefactors.” The decision to honor a king or Roman with apantesis and the activities that took place were not spontaneous or open to chance, but were highly orchestrated events. For example, Polybios reports that the Athenian decision to receive Attalos was regulated through a decree (16.25.1). This was likely standard practice, for according to Plutarch the Athenians proposed that whenever he should visit the city Demetrios Poliorketes would receive hospitable honors (ξενισµοί) similar to those given to Dionysos and Demeter (Demetr. 12.1). Unfortunately, the decrees regulating these apanteseis no longer survive, but the narratives of Polybios and Demokhares, the political enemy of Demetrios, summarize much of their content. A text from Pergamon (OGIS no. 332) offers a rare glimpse of just such a decree. The occasion of the royal reception was the return of Attalos III after his victories in war. The first part of the text enjoins the Pergamenes to honor Attalos with a golden equestrian statue erected atop a pillar in the Sanctuary of Asklepios and the King and with the organization of an annual procession of the prytany. The rest of the text legislates the official reception. What is striking about the document is the attention to details of the celebration. Even the very wording of the prayers to be offered to Attalos was specified in the text of the decree. The place where the citizenry met the king was located somewhere along the main artery to the city, although this is not always specified in documents. For instance, Attalos II was escorted from Peiraieus and was led up the main road by the arkhontes, where he met the rest of citizens along with their wives and children outside the Dipylon Gate. Upon entering the city, priests and priestesses were lined up on either side of the Gate’s interior (Polyb. 16.25.2, 4, 6, 7). Texts generally enumerate just these categories (priests, priestesses, magistrates, and citizens with their wives and children) as participants in the apantesis.52 Sometimes, members of the military services were mentioned as 51  52 

Polyb. 16.25.1–26.1 (Attalos); Gourob Papyrus = FGrHist II B no. 60 (Ptolemy III). E.g., Polyb. 16.25.2; Gourob Papyrus = FGrHist II B no. 60.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

275

separate civic divisions. For example, Polybios says that members of the cavalry joined in the apantesis of Attalos II (16.25.4). The Garoub Papyrus states that at Antiokhia in Syria “youth from the gymnasium” joined the people assembled to meet Ptolemy III. What is meant by this expression can easily be determined by two passages from Plutarch describing the progress of Cato the Younger through the Greek East. As he approached Antiokhia in Syria, Plutarch states that Cato was met by men assembled outside the city’s main gate. The ephebes were lined up on one side of the road that passed through the main gate of the city, while the boys were stationed on the other. The decree from Pergamon also specifies that the gymnasiarkhos along with the ephebes and neoi, and paidonomos with the boys also formed their own civic division during the reception of Attalos III (OGIS no. 332 lines 35–6). As a sacred event, both king and citizens wore clothing suitable to the religious occasion (OGIS 332). For instance, Dion entered Syracuse wearing armor while members of his retinue were crowned with wreaths (Plut. Dion 18.3–19.1). Athenion, an Athenian philosopher who served as the city’s ambassador to Mithridates, was conveyed on a couch of purple cloth with silver feet. He later donned a bright, festive cloak and wore a ring engraved with a portrait of the King (FGrHist 87 F 36). Priests wore prescribed dress and donned white garments (Jos. AJ 11.236–8). Additionally, they were crowned with wreaths (Gourob Papyrus). The ephebes that Cato the Younger saw before Antiokhia in Syria wore khlamydes, the traditional military attire associated with this age group (Plut. Pomp. 40.1–3, Cato 13.1–2; cf. Ath. Pol. 42.5). The event was also a joyous occasion filled with expressions of benevolence. For instance, Polybios states that the Athenians showed tremendous kindness (φιλανθρωπία) to the Romans and especially to Attalos (16.25.6). At Seleukeia, citizens extended goodwill and friendliness to Ptolemy III and later on the citizens of Antiokhia shook the hands of the king and his attendants, clapped, and shouted acclamations (Gourob Papyrus). Antiokhos Epiphanes (172 BCE) entered Jerusalem at night under torchlight with shouts of acclamation (2 Macc. 4.21–22). According to a decree published in 79/8 BCE, Athenian ephebes were praised for showing every kindness (πάσα προθυµία) to visiting Roman commanders (T9.2 lines 53–4). Later in the same century, Athenians met M. Antonius with their wives and children and hailed him as Dionysos (Seneca Rhetor, Suasoriae 1.6). Consequently, the apantesis was a noisy event. On one occasion, the procession had become so loud that Dion was forced to silence the revelers with the blasts of the trumpet, so that his speech might be heard by the people assembled (Plut. Dion 18.3–19.1). To further enhance the religious experience of the participants, Athenians made use of professional khoroi and ithyphallic dancers. Upon his arrival, these performers stood in the streets and sang with dances and chanted that

276

chapter 10

Demetrios Poliorketes alone was a real god, while the others sleep or are absent or do not exist, and that he is born from Poseidon and Aphrodite and of exceptional beauty and sociable in his benevolence towards all. They made supplications and prayers, begging him (FGrHist 75 F 2). The presence of the Dionysiac Artists at the apantesis of Aristion suggests that such choral dances and song were a part of other contemporary entrance ceremonies, although as partisans for King Mithridates little can be inferred with confidence as to a regular practice from this instance. A fragment of Lucilius may provide further evidence for the Dionysiac Artists participating in the apanteseis at Athens. The praetor Q. Mucius Scaevola, at this time the Roman governor of Asia Minor and later a renowned expert in Roman civil law, stopped off in Athens on his way home and was received by the Athenians. Among the crowd that had gathered was T. Albucius, a young Roman from a prominent family who was living at Athens and was infamous for “going native,” speaking only Greek. Lucilius relates that Scaevola made fun of Albucius not only by greeting him in Greek (χαῖρε, Tite!), but also by directing the assembled Athenians (including the ephebes) to address him in this way as well. Among the crowd that shouted this greeting were members of a khoros.53 The city was decked out to reflect and enhance the festive mood of the event. Along the processional route, the road was typically adorned with wreaths (AJ 11.236–8) and aromatic branches and flowers were strewn so as to enhance the divine presence of the king (Curtius 5.1.19–23, Arr. Anab. 3.16). Sacrificial animals accompanied the procession (Gourob Papyrus). Prior to the arrival of Attalos III at Pergamon, priests and priestesses opened the temples, made sacrifices, and offered a prayer (OGIS no. 332). Syracusans also set out tables and sacrificial meat and mixing bowls, pelted Dion with flowers as he processed through the town toward the altars, and addressed him with vows and prayers as if he were a god (Plut. Dion 18.3–19.1). Similarly, Athenians burnt incense, crowned the altars, and poured libations (FGrHist 75 F 2). As they processed along the route from the Dipylon Gate to the Agora, citizens performed sacrifices, poured libations, and made proclamations. As noted in the previous chapter, the road leading from the Kerameikos to the Agora passed by the sanctuary of Demos and the Kharites. The placement of this sanctuary along this route was no doubt intentional, for it symbolized the People of Athens offering thanks to their benefactors. Later, as Rome increased its presence in the Greek East and began to monopolize the role of benefactor, the Priest of 53 

Lucilius II. 88–94 (Cic. Fin. 1.3.9) with commentary by Marx 1905, 41–44; Krenkel 1970, 64, 138–9; and Cichorius 1908, 237–51. On Albucius, see Cicero Tusc. Disp. 5.108. Habicht 1997, 293–4.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

277

Demos and Kharites also served as the Priest of Roma, the personification of the Roman People. Processions ended when Kings or others were led to altars where they performed sacrifices to local gods. For instance, Hellenistic kings entered the Temple at Jerusalem and made a sacrifice to Yahweh at the instruction of the priests (Macc. 1.20–5). Similarly, at Athens, temples were thrown open and Attalos was invited to make the sacrifices upon his entrance into the city, which the Athenians had prepared at the altars (Polyb. 16.25.7). Aristion, Mithridates’ representative at Athens, also made sacrifices at the common altar before delivering a speech before the assembled Athenians regarding the Kings’ offer of alliance (FGrHist 87 F 36). Although there is no evidence that Romans performed sacrifices at the common altars at Athens, they gave speeches upon the bema built by them that stood before the Stoa of Attalos in the Agora.54 In summary, year classes of ephebes joined their fellow citizens in officially meeting and receiving Romans. In addition to the epigraphical texts, the evidence from Polybios, Lucilius, Poseidonios, and Plutarch demonstrates that these men were Roman dignitaries, likely governors or generals or members of their staff. The ephebes greeted these official visitors either at Peiraieus or near the Dipylon Gate along with the rest of the citizen body. The ephebes were likely segregated as a distinct body of the Athenian People, as members of the gymnasia, and were accompanied by their kosmetes and other officials of this institution. Along with their fellow citizens, the ephebes wore clothing for the occasion, specifically their khlamydes, which marked their membership in the ephebeia. They accompanied these Roman officials along the route that passed the sanctuary of Demos and the Kharites, perhaps joined their visitors at the temples for sacrifice, and attended speeches of the Roman officials at the bema in the Agora. As recipients of apantesis, the question arises as to whether or not visiting Roman officials received divine honors from the ephebes and their fellow citizens at Athens. Ferguson certainly thought so and introduced evidence from decrees honoring the ephebes as support.55 For the texts of these decrees state that the ephebes made sacrifices to the gods and euergetai (T8.14 lines 15–6, 68–9; T8.16 lines 26, 59; T8.19 lines 36–7; and T8.22 lines 14–5, 39–40) and in one document (T8.14 line 21) visiting Romans are referred to as euergetai. Ferguson linked these data with the foundation of the cult of Roma, the personification of the People of Rome, which he believed occurred soon after 54  55 

On the bema at Athens, see Camp 1990, 127–130. Other examples of speeches by kings given before a gathering of citizens, see Plut. Dion 18.3–19.1; Polyb. 4.14.6–7, 6.25.8. Ferguson 1911, 366–7. Cf. Mellor 1975, 102.

278

chapter 10

167/6 BCE.56 New research on this issue has cast doubt on Ferguson’s conclusion. Habicht has pointed out that there is no evidence that Romans received such honors from the Athenians in the same period, even though individual Romans such T. Flamininus, L. Mummius, and Manius Aquillius had received something like them in the second century BCE from other Greek states. In fact, Athenians were slow to pass such honors for Roman officials.57 This may suggest that the euergetai to whom the Athenian ephebes sacrificed were not necessarily the Romans, but included Diogenes (T8.22 line 14–15) and perhaps Ptolemy III. In his reassessment of religious innovation at Athens during the Hellenistic period, Mikalson has demonstrated that the cult of Roma likely did not exist at Athens during this period.58 In fact, it appears that the Athenians did not establish such honors until they created the Sulleia, the festival honoring the Roman general and future dictator for “liberating” Athens during the Mithridatic War, after which they were regularly bestowed upon Roman potentates. 4

The Mithridatic War and the Athenian Ephebeia

The Athenian alliance with King Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontos in his war against the Romans had a significant impact on the city of Athens and the Athenian ephebeia.59 The reasons why the Athenians decided to abandon the Romans, who had come to their aid in 200 BCE and whom the Athenians loyally supported for over a century, are not entirely clear. In his speech upon the bema in the Agora delivered before the assembled Athenians who had officially received him upon his return from the court of Mithridates, the Peripatetic Athenion enumerated a list of Athenian grievances against Rome that justified breaking with their long-time ally—namely that their sanctuaries had been shut, the gymnasia abandoned, the theater silenced, the law courts and Pnyx defunct, the Eleusinian Mysteries suspended, and the philosophical schools closed (FGrHist 87 F 36). In his speech before his fellow citizens, Athenion implies that the Roman Senate was the source of these ills, creating a state of anarchy as it decided what constitution the Athenians should enjoy. Nearly every one of the grievances mentioned by Athenion touches upon some 56  57  58  59 

Only one decree refers to them in this way. In all other instances (T8.14 lines 75; T8.16 line 13; and T8.22 line 18), they are referred to simply as “the Romans.” Habicht 1997b, 12. Mikalson 1998, 274–5. The primary sources for the war at Athens include: Poseidonios FGrHist 87 F 36 (= Athen. Deipn. 5.211e–215b); Plut. Sulla 13.1–4, 14.3–7; Paus. 3.23.3–6; and App. Mithr. 38–9, 41. See also Badian 1976, 105–28; Tracy 1982, 164–82; Bugh 1992, 108–23; Habicht 1997, 297–314.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

279

facet of the ephebeia and strongly suggests that at the time of his embassy to Mithridates in 89 BCE, the ephebeia had been severely restricted or was no longer functioning. Contrast this with the decrees honoring the ephebes from just a few years earlier, in which relations between Athens and Rome appear normal. For T8.31 (96/5 BCE) line 10 and T8.33 (ante 94/3 BCE) line 12 refer to the Romans as friends and allies. In fact, the text of T8.31 strongly implies that Athenian cultural life was in full swing, for the ephebes participated in the city’s religious life as they always had, including in the Mysteries (lines 6–8, 17–18) and the City Dionysia and Peiraia (lines 10–12). This year class of ephebes exercised in the gymnasia (lines 8–9), attended lectures of the philosophers (lines 19–21), and provided an honor guard at the meetings of the ekklesia both in the city and in Peiraieus (lines 21–2). Tracy states that between the years 103/2 to 98/7 BCE the Athenian government was functioning as well as it always had.60 The Pythaïs of 90/89 BCE, however, had been cancelled and Medeios of Peiraieus, who had previously served as eponymous arkhon in 101/0 BCE, was again the chief magistrate of the city from 91/0 to 89/8 BCE. The latter is clear proof that the constitution had been suspended and suggests that Athens faced some sort of crisis by the late 90s and early 80s BCE.61 Whether or not the ephebeia was reinstituted upon the election of Athenion to Hoplite General is unknown. The economic and political instability of his tyranny followed by a reign of terror of almost unprecedented violence may have made the possibility of maintaining the institution unlikely, as did the protracted siege of Sulla’s Roman legions and the subsequent famine of the following year. It was Sulla’s sack of Athens, however, that not only caused longterm damage to the city, its port, and the countryside, but permanently altered many of the sites and monuments that had in the past been so significant to the institution. At Athens, for instance, the Romans destroyed the groves of the Academy and Lykeion, the gymnasia where the ephebes trained, in order to secure material for the creation of siege equipment. The Romans also leveled the Pompeion, a sacred gate through which ephebes ran torch-races, made dedications, and joined their fellow citizens in making processions. As they attempted to enter the city, the Romans severely damaged the Dipylon Gates and nearby cemetery in the Kerameikos, where the ephebes had participated in apanteseis for foreign visitors.62 Sulla’s legions did great damage to buildings 60  61  62 

Tracy 1982, 171. Habicht 1997a, 301–2. Hoepfner 1976, 122, 129, and 139. Discovered in the remains was a small herm with an archaistic head. According to IG II2 2990, the remains of the text located on the front of the column, the herm was dedicated by the gymnasiarkhos and lampadarkhos of the ephebes from Delos to Hermes, Herakles and Apollo. The herm was dedicated in the arkhonship

280

chapter 10

and monuments along the west and southern sides of the Agora, including the wall of the monument to the Eponymous Heroes, where the names of newly enrolled ephebes had been posted on bronze tablets in the Lykourgan Age. According to Pausanias, Roman troops also destroyed the shields hanging in the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios, which had memorialized Athens’ earlier struggles for independence and was perhaps one of the many sites the ephebes had visited during their tour of sanctuaries in the latter half of the fourth century BCE.63 As the headquarters of Mithridates’ war efforts in Greece, Peiraieus also suffered severe damage at the hands of Sulla’s legions. The Peiraieus had been the site where ephebes in the Lykourgan Age took their first year of training and served as guards at Mounikhia and Akte. In more recent times, year classes of ephebes continued to patrol the port as well as serve as honor guards at meetings of the ekklesia and participate in the festival life of Attike’s other polis. Sulla’s forces set fire to the docks and burned down the famous arsenal of Philon, completed centuries earlier by Lykourgos. At Eleusis, where Sulla had set up his base of operations in 87/6 BCE, a shrine to the two goddesses containing an altar dedicated by the Dionysiac Artists was damaged. Habicht believes that the Romans may have perpetrated this act of vandalism because the Artists were supporters of Mithridates and stylized him as Dionysos himself. More important than the devastation wrought by Sulla on the buildings and monuments of Athens was the damage done to Athenian public life. The years following the war saw significant changes in the politics, religion and culture of the city. As Habicht observes, the constitution imposed by Rome on the city after 86 BCE suggests that Athens had become oligarchic. For eponymous arkhons were no longer determined by lot, but were elected; the annual secretary cycle for the boule appears to have been suspended; no decrees from the ekklesia appear in our record until the 40’s BCE; in this same stretch of time only a few boule decrees are attested in the record, and these have no political import.64 As to private and public religion, Sulla’s legions robbed out and damaged a great many of Athens’ sanctuaries. Many of these sanctuaries remained in ruin or damaged for decades, such as the Erekhtheion, which did not receive much needed repairs until the Age of Augustus.65 Worse than the

63  64  65 

of Herakleites after Argeios (97/6 BCE). The paidotribai were Staseas son of Philokles and Philokles his son, both citizens of Athens (from the deme Kolone) residing on Delos. Hoff 1997, 41. Thompson 1937, 221; Shear 1970, 201. See Agora XIV no. 23; Paus. 10.21.5–6. Habicht 1997a, 315–28. Lewis 1975, 384. SEG 26.121 records a post-Sullan rebuilding program in which around 80 sanctuaries were repaired and cleansed. Culley 1975, 207–23, and id. 1977, 282–98. For date, see Cully 1975, 221 (10/9 to 3/2 BCE) and 1981, 365–7 (41–61 CE).

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

281

actual damage, Mikalson contends that “the devastation caused by Sulla in 86 truly brought the end … to centuries of continuity in much of Athenian religion.” It took decades for Athens’ political and religious life to recover from the destruction of Sulla’s Roman legions. And when it did so, there were important differences from the Classical and Hellenistic Periods.66 5

The Final Years of the Hellenistic Ephebeia

In the aftermath of the Sulla’s siege, the Athenians managed to maintain control over Delos and retain many of their traditional cults and institutions. This is illustrated by the reappearance of the ephebeia soon after the departure of Sulla and his Roman legions. Twenty six inscriptions illustrate the life of the institution in the first century BCE subsequent to the sack of the city (T9.1– T9.26).67 The bulk of these texts (fourteen) are dedications by ephebes who were victorious in torch-races. The rest are dossiers of decrees (five), honors for personnel (four), rosters (two), and, the most fascinating addition to the corpus, the fragmentary remains of a sacred law dedicated by the three fellow ephebes to Pan and the Nymphs at the Cave of Pan in Marathon. Much of the information about the institution is derived from the decrees of this period which honor the ephebes, their kosmetes and trainers. In terms of content, these texts generally conform with the decrees of the previous century, although there are some notable changes. The boule continued to provide official oversight of the institution and, once the apodeixis was completed, honors were proposed for the ephebes and their kosmetes. Two dossiers of decrees were formulated as probouleumatic by the assembly (T9.11 and T9.15), although the first decree of T9.15 is a decree of the council alone. Two others, however, were issued independently by the council without any participation by the assembly (T9.2, T9.17).68 In the first dossier, published in 79/8 BCE, all three decrees were passed by the boule on the proposal of the hoplite general (T9.2 lines 2–4); whereas in the subsequent dossiers of documents, different orators proposed

66  67 

68 

Mikalson 1998, 315. The dossier of decrees that comprises T9.26 has been down-dated from 46/5 to c. 20/19 BCE by Kallet-Marx and Stroud 1997, 178–81, and so falls outside the chronological range of this study by a decade. It is included here for obvious reasons. These five dossiers form the last of the extant inscribed decrees to honor Athenian ephebes and their officials. Geagan 1967, 72–3, notes that the loss of that part of the decree in which the assembly acted may be found in contemporary prytany decrees.

282

chapter 10

decrees.69 In the instructions for publication, T9.11, T9.15 and T9.26 indicate that the board of generals and the treasurer of the stratiotic fund took care of the announcement of the crown. In T9.2 and T9.17, however, the hoplite general and the Herald of the Areopagos (two officials frequently paired in the inscriptions of Roman Athens) took care of this responsibility.70 In general, three separate decrees appear on the stelai recording the honors given to the members of the ephebeia. The first document in the sequence takes the form of the “first decree” or “acceptance decree” found in texts honoring members of the prytany (T9.2 lines 4–14, T9.15 lines 1–10, T9.17 lines 2–16).71 In it, the boule declares its motivation to praise the ephebes and their kosmetes based on his report that together with his young charges he made traditional sacrifices to Hestia and the other gods during the entrance ceremony in the Prytaneion (T9.17 lines 7–8) and to Athena Polias, Kourotrophos and Pandrosos during the exit ceremony (ἐξιτήρια or ἐξιτητήρια) on the Athenian Akropolis (T9.2 lines 5–7). The kosmetes announces the good things that happened vis-à-vis the sacrifices and reading the omens he and the ephebes performed on behalf of the boule, demos, wives, children, friends and allies. The boule resolves to accept them for the health and safety of the community and then awards the kosmetes and the ephebes crowns of olive for their piety towards the gods (εὐσέβεια) and the hard work (φιλοπονία) and zeal (σπουδή) they demonstrated throughout their year of training and service.72 69 

70 

71  72 

The fact that the hoplite general proposed all three decrees is unique in the corpus of extant ephebic inscriptions and illustrates the continued close relationship that existed between the ephebes and this magistrate, an association attested as far back as the early second century BCE, as discussed in Chapter 8. His presence in this inscription and in others of the first and second centuries of our era (e.g., IG II2 1990) and in contemporary literary sources (e.g., Plut. 736d) demonstrates the continuation of this close relationship between the general and the ephebeia in the Roman Period. For the treasurer of the stratiotic funds of this period, see Geagan 1967, 79, 114–16. Scholars have debated the meaning of this shift between these magistrates in funding the honors awarded to the ephebes. For a summary of the debate, see Habicht 1997, 315–21. As Habicht observes (p. 319), “whether changes were actually made to the constitution, or whether the shifts merely represent minor administrative variations is far from certain, and no Roman intervention has been conclusively proven.” The first decree and much of the second honoring the kosmetes in T9.11 are lost. On prytany decrees, see Dow 1937 and Agora XV. The appearance of sacrifices on behalf of boule and demos and other third parties is not new phenomenon in decrees honoring the ephebes. E.g., T8.14 lines 25–6, 66–7 (sacrifices made at the sanctuaries in the khora); T8.16 lines 58–9 (sacrifices to the gods and euergetai); T8.22 line 39 (sacrifices to the gods and euergetai); T8.33 lines 15, 17 (sacrifices to the gods in the sanctuaries). References to these sacrifices occurring at the entrance or exit ceremonies and the fact that receiving honors were conditioned by these sacrifices are new.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

283

Next in the sequence follow two texts—a decree honoring the kosmetes (T9.2 lines 15–45, T9.15 fr. a-c lines 1–14, T9.17 lines 16–40) and another honoring the ephebes (T9.2 lines 46–69, T9.11 lines 9–35, T9.15 fr. c lines 1–14, fr. d lines 1–19, T9.17 lines 40–60), thus reversing nearly two centuries of traditional organization and narrative. The narrative of the decrees honoring the kosmetes is told from the perspective of the ephebes, who came before the council or assembly with their fathers and provided a report of the character, activities and contributions of the kosmetes. In addition to performing his expected duties and responsibilities in ensuring the ephebes were properly trained, the kosmetes displayed certain civic virtues, such as zeal and patriotism, and encouraged his young charges in their lessons (T9.2 lines 16–17, T9.17 lines 18–19). The close relationship between the chief magistrate of the ephebeia and the young men in his care (discussed in Chapters 4 and 8) is illustrated by the fatherly goodwill the kosmetes showed each of the ephebes during their year of service (πατρικὴ εὔνοια: T9.2 lines 34–5, T9.17 lines 32–3). Similarly, the texts of decrees honoring the ephebes are narrated from the perspective of the kosmetes, who came before the council or assembly and reported the activities and contributions of the ephebes under his care. In addition to performing their expected duties and responsibilities, the ephebes displayed their own (now familiar) civic virtues, such as obedience to the kosmetes and the generals, good order and hard work in their lessons, and zeal and patriotism in their general conduct throughout their year of training and service (T9.2 lines 46–9, T9.11 lines 9–11, T9.15 fr. c lines 6–8, T9.17 lines 40–3). It is the report of each that provides the basis for receiving permission to set up dedications. In the case of the kosmetes, the ephebes wished to erect a painted statue of their chief magistrate in armor in public areas, such as in the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis (T9.2 line 36–7) and the Agora (T9.2 lines 37–9, T9.11 lines 4–5, T9.17 lines 34–5). In the case of the ephebes, the report of the kosmetes ensured that these young men were honored with gold crowns, granted permission to make dedications, and received public proclamations of their honors at the major festivals (T9.2 lines 61–3, T9.11 lines 27–8, T9.15 lines fr. d lines 4–8, T9.17 lines 51–2). Although these texts do not use the term, the report of the kosmetes to the boule in these late Hellenistic decrees appears similar to the apologismos attested in the second century.73 Below the texts of the three decrees are the names of the official bodies awarding honors and of those receiving them. As in the past, the names of the honorees and the honorands appear in inscribed crowns, e.g., the boule and the ephebes, the ephebes and the name of the kosmetes, etc. For the purposes 73 

T7.7 line 20, T7.9 line 11; T7.13 lines 44–5; T8.22 lines 115–16. For discussion of the apologismos, see Chapter 8.

284

chapter 10

of space, the name of the enacting body was left out and only the name of the honorand appears, as when personal names and patronymics were long (T9.17 column I lines 75–9). Beneath these citations is a roster of the names of the ephebes with patronymics and deme affiliation organized under a tribal heading. Both new citizens from elite families and wealthy foreigners continued to participate in the ephebeia. Enrollment totals reached around 125 by the second half of the century (T9.11), similar to those of the late second century BCE. Participation by foreign youth in the institution, however, began to increase significantly. In a decree of 37/6 or 36/5 BCE honoring the young men who participated in the previous year, foreigners amounted to 66 out of the 119 participants, or 55% of all ephebes (T9.17). By contrast, in 102/1 BCE, foreign youth amounted to 40 out of 142 participants, or 28% of all ephebes (T8.27). The names of foreign ephebes in these new texts are listed in the rosters differently than in the previous century. Whereas their names appeared separately under the heading “xenoi” prior to the Mithridatic War, in the rosters of the later first century BCE, the names of foreign participants were included among the names of citizens under the caption of a particular tribe. It is clear that these young men were still foreign, for they have no deme affiliation, and thus no citizenship, and their ethnic appears along with their name, indicating their polis of origin. Complicating our understanding of these rosters is the appearance of the names of young men with no particular deme affiliation. As with the others, these youth appear with their patronymic under the name of a tribe, but are said to be simply “Athenian.” Two explanations seem possible. Either these youth were underage participants—in effect boys with Athenian parentage on both side, but who had not yet been enrolled into a deme—or, as Reinmuth suggested, they were newly naturalized citizens, a status which they had achieved by grant prior to joining the ephebeia, but had not yet been registered into a deme.74 In terms of financing the ephebeia, the more complete texts of this period indicate that public funds were no longer supporting participating members. This is attested in part by the fact that euthynai clauses no longer appear in the texts, which implies that successfully undergoing scrutiny at the end of service was no longer a requirement for a kosmetes to receive honors. Thus, the ephebeia reverted back to the practices of the third and early second century ephebates. As noted in Chapter 8, the return to privately financing the ephebeia appears to have occurred in 100/99 BCE when Timon was kosmetes and both he and his young charges funded their training and service. As with Timon, 74 

Reinmuth 1948, 222.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

285

the kosmetai of the first century appear to have covered the equipment and living expenses of each ephebe as well as funded many of the sacrifices (T9.2 lines 24–9, 31–3). Texts from this period make it clear that kosmetai encouraged some ephebes to undertake the financial burden of the gymnasiarkhia fairly among themselves (T9.2 lines 30–1, T9.17 lines 28–30). Now, the most prominent ephebes served as gymnasiarkhoi who shouldered much of the financial burdens of the year connected with training in the gymnasia and received honors from their peers for shouldering such a costly expense. The role of individual ephebes in defraying the cost of the institution is best illustrated by the ephebe Sosis, son of Sosis of the deme Oe. In the dossier of texts that appears on the stele of T9.17 appears a fourth decree honoring Sosis for his benefactions to his fellow ephebes. According to the text, his kosmetes and fellow ephebes came before the boule and made a report regarding Sosis’ warm disposition toward his fellow ephebes and his desire to cover the cost of the institution during his year of service. Among his many benefactions, Sosis served as gymnasiarkhos and funded the stele upon which the decree honoring him and his age mates was inscribed, in addition to serving as phylarkhos and providing a khoregia. The boule decided to honor Sosis and gave permission to his kosmetes and fellow ephebes to dedicate a statue of him with an inscribed base (T9.17 lines 1, 60–74). The texts of the second and third decrees indicate that some of their traditional training remained the same, including intellectual training (T9.2 lines 17–19, 48; T9.11 lines 10–11; T9.15 fr. c lines 6–8, fr. a-b lines 18–20, T9.17 lines 19–20). Such training had appeared on and off in decrees published in the decades prior to the Mithridatic War. References to the philosophers indicate that the philosophical schools were still functioning. As the texts make clear, however, the ephebes continued to train in athletics (T9.2 lines 19–20, 49–50, T9.11 line 13, T9.17 lines 20–1, 43–44). The numerous dedications to Hermes and other gods for victories in torch-races illustrate the importance of athletics to the institution. Year classes of ephebes also guarded the city walls of Athens and Peiraieus and, just as in previous centuries, were praised for their obedience to the generals (T9.2 lines 22–25, 51–52). They also traveled to the Attic khora whenever possible and were acknowledged for making their journey in harmony (µεθ’ ὁµονοίας) (T9.11 lines 14–15, T9.15 fr. c line 11, T9.17 line 47). Such an expression likely indicates that they did not distress the inhabitants through unruly behavior (cf. T8.22 lines 15–6). The ephebes performed their traditional apodeixis at the contests of the euergetai and at the sacred competitions (T9.2 lines 19–20, T9.15 lines 21–2). In the first dossier of decrees from this period, the titles of their trainers do not appear and their names were not included in the citations. Titles and names

286

chapter 10

of trainers appear in the rest of the decrees of this period. Only the paidotribes and hoplomakhos, however, are listed (T9.11 lines 23–25, T9.15 fr. d lines 10–12, T9.17 lines 55–58), suggesting that javelin throwing, archery, and releasing the catapult were dropped from the curriculum. Contemporary with these changes, the ephebes began training in horsemanship (T9.15 fr. a-b line 21, fr. c line 9, T9.17 line 21). Despite the impression given by Marrou and others, however, this represents the first appearance of this form of military training for the ephebes in the extant evidence. Training ephebes in horsemanship is rarely attested in the evidence outside Athens. One exception is a newly published Ephebarchical Law of Amphipolis (24/23 BCE), which indicates that ephebes were bound to undergo two years of training in archery, throwing the javelin, slinging, stone throwing, horse riding and throwing a javelin from horseback.75 Why instruction in horsemanship was added at this point in the history of the Athenian institution is unclear. Pleket argued that ephebes practiced horseback riding for its own sake and to improve their hunting skills.76 As noted in Chapter 8, however, some ephebes from earlier periods of Athenian history had in their later careers served as horsemen. Cavalry service had traditionally been a critical means of defending Attike in the past and, despite the presence of Roman legions along the frontiers of the empire, intra-territorial defense continued to be the responsibility of a polis. Adding horsemanship to the curriculum would have augmented their later service in the cavalry. It may have also served as a form of elite display. The texts honor the ephebes for closely observing their piety (εὐσέβεια) towards the gods (T9.2 line 53, T9.17 line 46). This was expressed, just as in the past, through joining together in processions, making sacrifices and performing certain religious liturgies (T9.2 lines 54–5, T9.17 line 47). What is striking about these first century decrees is the relatively few festivals mentioned in the body of the texts. The major festivals remain, for the Proerosia, Eleusinian Mysteries, Peiraia, and Dionysia are mentioned in most of the documents (T9.2 line 56, T9.15 fr. c line 12, T9.17 line 47). The ephebes continued to make sacrifices to Diogenes in the sanctuary of the Diogeneion during his festival (T9.2 line 57, T9.17 line 48). A dedication to Hermes (T9.4) and a decree from later in the century demonstrate that they were participating in the Theseia (T9.17 line 22) and perhaps the Epitaphia. A decree dated to the Age of Augustus indicates that ephebes were once again participating in the procession of Artemis Agrotera (T9.26 lines 5–6), although none appear in the texts of the last few decades of the Hellenistic Period. Many of the festivals 75  76 

For text and commentary, see Lazaridi 2015, 1–48. Pleket 1969, 283–98; id. 1981, 170. For a critique of this thesis, see Hin 2007, 158–61.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

287

enumerated or discussed at length in earlier chapters, such as the Aianteia, simply disappear from the epigraphic record. There are a few notable additions to the calendar of festivals in which the ephebes participated. For instance, they were honored for running torch-races in the festival of the euergetai, as noted earlier. Who these euergetai were is unclear, but one may have been Sulla himself. For in gratitude for liberating their city from the tyranny of Aristion, the Athenians dedicated a statue of Sulla and instituted a festival in his honor, the Sulleia. Both honors were likely passed by vote soon after 86 BCE. As a liberator and tyrant slayer, the statue of Sulla may have been dedicated near the statue group of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, Athens’ original tyrant slayers, just as the statue group of Antigonos and Demetrios had been centuries before and the statue group of Cassius and Brutus would be a few decades later.77 The Sulleia is known through a decree honoring the ephebes of 79/8 BCE (T9.2 line 58), which states that they performed sacrifices at the festival and took the omens. A second inscription, a dedication to Hermes by a victorious ephebe (T9.1), indicates that the torch-race was a part of the athletic repertoire.78 The chronology of the Sulleia is unclear. It is likely that the festival soon dropped out of the Athenian sacred calendar after the death of the dictator, although Kallet-Marx has argued that they may have continued to the end of the 70s BCE, since C. Scribonius Curio, a partisan of Sulla’s, was proconsul of Macedonia between 75–72 BCE. Raubitschek argued that the festival was not new in the Athenian liturgical calendar and bears striking similarities with the Theseia, a celebration in which ephebes ran torch-races. In his view, both festivals were carried out together, although as noted above the Theseia do not reappear till later in the century. Santangelo believes there is a parallel between the Sulleia at Athens and the ludi victoriae Sullanae celebrated at Rome in which Sulla portrayed himself as a savior and new founder.79 Following Raubitschek, Santangelo connects the Theseia/Sulleia with the religious innovations at Rome under Sulla, but does not discuss the implications as they pertain to Athens. The consolidation of Roman power in the Greek East continued to have a significant impact on the intersection of Athenian religion and the ephebeia. For on the 17th of Anthesterion the ephebes who served in the arkhonship of Menandros (39/8 BCE) and their kosmetes Olympiodoros of Hagnous 77  78  79 

Cassius Dio 47.20.4; SEG 17.75. Habicht 1997, 357–8. Honorary statue: SEG 24.214. For the Sulleia, see Raubitschek 1951, 49–57; Habicht 1997, 316. On ludi victoriae Sullanae, see Raubitschek 1951, 49 with n. 1, and Santangelo 2007, 215–19.

288

chapter 10

celebrated the Antonieia Panathenaïka of the New Dionysos. According to the text of the decree, they joined in procession, competed in games, and made sacrifices (T9.17 lines 22–6). The festival honored M. Antonius, a member of the triumvirate who, during his eleven years as governor over the Greek East, had spent considerable time in Athens, even serving as gymnasiarkhos and participating in the life of the city’s gymnasia. In order to impose Republican rule on a world long accustomed to monarchy, Antonius adopted the court ceremony and trappings of earlier Hellenistic monarchs, including his self-stylization as the “New Dionysos,” following the example of the earlier Ptolemies, Seleukids, and Demetrios Poliorketes. Around this same time, the Athenians were offering honors to him as a New Dionysos and the figure of Dionysos began to appear on Athenian coins.80 As with the Sulleia, the Antonieia disappeared soon after the defeat of Antonius and Kleopatra at Actium in 31 BCE. On a much humbler scale comes a recent and tantalizing addition to the texts of this period. This is T9.3, a dedication to Pan and the Nymphs by three fellow ephebes discovered in the Cave of Pan at Marathon. This cave is located on the northern slope of the akropolis of ancient Oinoi.81 According to Lupu, one of the editors of this inscription, the fragmentary text consists of a sacred law regulating the conduct of those visiting the cave by prohibiting them from wearing colored or dyed garments. This law belongs to a group of sacred laws found elsewhere in Greece which controlled entry in sanctuaries by listing certain requirements that ensured purification of the worshippers. Lupu believes that it is unlikely that the ephebes had the authority to establish a new law and that the dedication consisted in setting up a stele inscribed with a law already in effect. The purpose of the law was likely to provide guidance to those visiting the cave (including subsequent classes of ephebes) in the worship of Pan and the Nymphs at the site of the cave. Since these three fellow ephebes are reporting “the things which the god [i.e., Pan] prohibits” (T9.3 lines 6–7: ἃ ἀπαγορεύει ὁ θεός), Parker believes that this expression is another way of saying that “it is customary,” and so the law that appears on this dedication lacked legal force.82 Caves were the regular abode of Pan and the Nymphs in Attike, yet this is the only one that links the ephebes to these divinities. Pan’s relationship to the Battle of Marathon best explains the association between this Cave of Pan and the Nymphs and the ephebes. For, as discussed in Chapter 9, ephebes 80 

81  82 

Sokrates of Rhodes FGrHist 192 F 2; Sen. Suas. 1.6.7. Kroll 1993, 84–5, 102–3. Following a series of military successes in the East, Antonius entered Ephesos with bacchanal procession as the victorious Dionysos riding in a carriage decked out in Dionysiac dress (Vell. Pat. 2.82). T9.3 (61/0 BCE). On the cave, see Wickens 1986, 223–33. For text and discussion of the law, see Lupu 2001, 119–24; id. 2007, 171–6. Parker 2004.

Philosophers, Foreigners and Rome ( 128 / 7‒31 BCE )

289

made trips to Marathon to honor the war dead at the polyandreion. As noted in Chapter 6, the Athenians “nationalized” the worship of Pan soon after the Battle of Marathon through the introduction of the god in a cave under the Akropolis at Athens along with animal sacrifice and a torch-race. Photios and two other late Byzantine scholiasts report that ephebes ran the torch-race for Pan in Athens. His cult in the cave at Marathon represented a local form of worship, although it is unclear to what extent either cult was influenced by the other. The discovery of a dedicatory base for an ephebic victory in the torchrace in Marathon (T1.28) suggests that the form of worship in the city may have had some relationship with the worship of Pan at Marathon.83 Given its proximity to the battle field and war monuments, this cave of Pan was regarded as religiously significant to more than just the citizens of Oinoi, as the presence of the ephebes at this cave attests. It is quite possible that year classes of ephebes visited the cave as they progressed through the Attic countryside sacrificing to the landholding gods who occupied the khora and visited the polyandreion of those who died for the sake of freedom in defense of the land. By visiting the Cave of Pan at Marathon the ephebes commemorated Athens’ glorious past, articulated their identity as Athenians and the public beliefs and values that membership in this community entailed, and affirmed their claim to the land that they, like so many generations of young men had before them, swore to protect. 6

Conclusion

The Hellenistic ephebeia was characterized by several innovations, the most expansive of which was the degree of participation in Athenian religious life discussed last chapter. This chapter addressed two other innovations to the ephebeia of this period. In the case of instruction from philosophers, this chapter argued that it consisted of literary analysis by publicly-minded men distinguished for their advancement in the field. This instruction appeared

83 

Following the suggestion of its discoverer (SEG 32.206), epigraphic corpora date this dedicatory base to the Lykourgan Age. This is unlikely, since the dating formula reads Σ̣ [---] ωνος παιδοτριβοῦν̣[τος], i.e., “when S[---]on was paidotribes.” As discussed in Chapter 5, paidotribai were assigned to age-classes of ephebes in the Lykourgan Age. Consequently, dedications by ephebes in the torch-race used the arkhonship of their enrollment to date a text (T1.7). The formula in which the paidotribes’ name and title is placed in a genitive absolute construction appears regularly in dedications from the second century BCE through the Roman period (e.g., T7.5, T8.20, T9.1), which suggests a much later date for T1.28.

290

chapter 10

relatively late at Athens compared to the practices of other Greek ephebates and was always at the discretion of individual kosmetai. Although intellectual instruction was one of the defining characteristics of the ephebeia in Roman Period, this was not the case for the institution in the Hellenistic. Building on the work of Perrin-Saminadayar, this chapter also addressed the presence of foreigners in the ephebeia at Athens. By recognizing the fact that ephebes were already citizens when they joined the ephebeia, it is argued that the institution never conferred citizenship at any point in its history and so was not a vehicle for doing so in the Hellenistic, contrary to the claims of Reinmuth and Osbourne. Nor did the participation of foreigners in the institution indicate a diminution of its military training, national character, or value to both Athenians and foreigners. Opening the gymnasium to these young men to participate may have been a strategy of attracting and retaining wealthy foreigners to Attike, as Perrin-Saminadayar’s study suggests, or may have been an honor awarded to individual foreigners or communities. Finally, this chapter explored the impact of Rome on the ephebeia. The earliest direct attestations of the Romans in the epigraphical texts are the apanteseis, the welcoming ceremonies the ephebes carried out for visiting Roman officials along with their kosmetes and other Athenian civic and military organizations. By the end of the second century BCE, a handful of Roman citizens and Romans who were naturalized Athenians participated in the ephebeia. By the beginning of the first century BCE, the Roman Senate appears to have meddled in many Athenian institutions, which may have impacted the ability of the Athenians to provide military and other forms of training to the ephebes, and led to Athens joining Mithridates in his war with the Romans. The fall and sack of Athens by Sulla and his Roman legions brought about the slaughter of many Athenians and extensive damage to the city’s civic, military and religious spaces, many of which had an intimate connection with the ephebeia. In the aftermath of the Mithraditic war, the organization of the ephebeia began to take the shape of the system of training that characterized the subsequent Roman phase of the institution. This includes its forms of military instruction for ephebes, which were either altered or cut back. While they continued to participate in some of the traditional religious activities, the ephebes played a prominent role in new festivals honoring Roman potentates.

Epilogue The Hellenistic period came to an end with the arrival of the Roman Empire. The Athenian ephebeia, however, did not cease to exist, but survived and even flourished. At Athens, the nearly 300 years of the institution’s history under the Romans is documented in over 300 inscriptions that appear on large stone stelai and on inscribed dedicatory herms honoring the kosmetai of numerous year classes.1 As with the Hellenistic institution, the ephebeia under the Empire earned the occasional mention in the literary sources, particularly in passages of Philostratos’ Life of Herodes Attikos.2 New evidence appears in the form of relief sculpture that adorns the stelai. Together with the busts of kosmetai, these figural representations present idealized images of members of the institution and their activities. As was the case in Pélékidis’ day, the Roman phase of the institution continues to receive very little scholarly attention today, despite the abundance of evidence, which amounts to more than twice the amount of material of the Lykourgan and Hellenistic ephebeia combined. The inscriptions from this period were collected and studied systematically by Graindor and received further attention by Follet.3 Much of their research was prosopographical and chronological, although Graindor examined ephebic festivals and the civic festivals in which they participated. He also brought together the honorary portraits of kosmetai for separate study.4 Since the publication of Pélékidis’ history, the situation has changed very little, at least for the ephebeia at Athens. Part of the explanation for the lack of scholarly interest in the subject is the unfortunate notion that this phase represents a decline in the institution.5 Still, it has received some attention. In an unpublished dissertation, Wilson assembled a catalogue of ephebic documents from the period in order to clarify the dates of each inscription and produce more secure readings of the texts.6 Newby dedicated a chapter to the Athenian ephebate under the Romans, exploring 1  IG II2 1962–2221. 2  Herodes Attikos appears to have had a close relationship with the institution of this day. For instance, in one passage (Vit. Soph. 2.550), Philostratos narrates how Herodes changed the color of the ephebe’s khlamys from the traditional black to white (cf. IG II2 2090). After his death, Athenian ephebes escorted his body from his home in Marathon to the Panathenaic Stadium where it was buried (Vit. Soph. 2.565–6). 3  Graindor 1922; Follet 1976. 4  Graindor 1915; Lazzarini 1985. 5  Dumont 1876, 35–6; Delorme 1960; Marrou 1964. Cf. Kennell 2009. 6  Wilson 1992.

292

Epilogue

how the Naumakhia, a mock sea battle in which the ephebes participated at various festivals, provided an ideological link between ephebic training and Athens’ former military prowess.7 Newby’s brief survey strongly suggests that the ephebeia of this period offers fertile ground for further investigation. One of the key features of the Athenian ephebeia under the Romans is the private nature of the institution. For example, inscriptions documenting their year were no longer funded at public expense, but privately financed by the gymnasiarkhos or other wealthy members of the institution. This is a practice that is attested by the mid-first century BCE with the service of Sosis of Oe, as noted last chapter, and can be found in ephebates outside Athens.8 The inscriptions that appear on the dedicatory herms also indicate that the ephebes themselves were paying for the cost of the bust and received permission from the Areopagos Council and sometimes the boule to erect them. The inscriptions also carry the names of ephebic officials such as the ephebic agonothetai, who carried the cost of participating in athletic contests at various festivals, or the ephebic gymnasiarkhoi, who served for a month in order to supply oil for anointing.9 As discussed in the last chapter, this, too, was a trend that began by the mid-first century BCE. It became the rule in subsequent years. While scholars generally have relatively low regard for the Athenian ephebate under the Romans, this was not a sentiment shared by the participants themselves. One measure of the success of this phase of the institution is the fact that each year it attracted large numbers of young men to its ranks, enrolling at one point around 300 ephebes a year, a staggering total that far exceeds even the highest number of young men who participated during the late second century BCE. As in earlier periods, the names of the young men who took part in the program were listed by tribe. Foreigners continued to participate in the institution along with young men whose names were inscribed under the headings πρωτέγγραφοι or ἐπέγγραφοι. As Pélékidis noted, the meanings of these terms are far from clear and represent categories that require further investigation.10 In addition to the names of the many participants, the stelai contain the names of officials and their titles. As noted in Chapter 4, the sophronistai reappear in the evidence, now six in number, and are joined by an equal number of huposophronistai. Images of these officials appear in sculptural reliefs. Besides the sophronistai, the kosmetes is regularly attested along with 7  8  9  10 

Newby 2005, 168–201. Kennell 2009, 326. IG II2 1996, 2004, 2017. Pélékidis 1962, 279–80; Kennell 2009, 327. Pélékidis 1962, 186–96.

Epilogue

293

an assistant kosmetes. He is also visually depicted atop some of the inscribed stelai in scenes in which the ephebes are honoring him. The kosmetes is represented standing in the center and wearing a himation.11 The busts of the kosmetai on dedicatory herms depict these officials as proper and respectable older men. Their hairline is sometimes receding and beards vary in length, if they have them at all. Their brows sometimes appear furrowed, indicating intense thought and reflection.12 According to Zanker, these characteristics evoked a style associated with the portrait busts of philosophers and intellectuals.13 Although the young men who participated in the institution continued to take literary instruction, athletics appears to be a central concern of ephebic training of this period. Among the instructors who were held over from the Hellenistic Age was the paidotribes, whose now familiar duties appear similar to those of paidotribai of earlier periods. As with many of the other officials of this age, this position was eventually held for life, ensuring a continuity of instruction from one age class to the next (IG II2 2070 line 10). Whereas the portrayals of kosmetai represent an intellectual paideia, figural representations of ephebes who flank him in relief depict the vigor of youth and athleticism. They are nude, except for the khlamys, and are posed near images of palm leaves and prize vases. Inscriptions that appear on the large stelai provide useful information regarding the festivals in which the ephebes participated and are an excellent source for the religious life of the Athenians under the Roman Empire. While these young men continued to participate in some traditional cults (e.g., Eleusinian Mysteries, Artemis Agrotera), new festivals in honor of Roman emperors were added (Germanikeia, Hadrianeia, Antinoia). Unlike the inscriptions of the later Hellenistic Period, however, very little can be gleaned from these documents regarding their activities. Victors lists indicate that ephebes continued to compete in sporting events such as long-distance races, three forms of stade footrace, a double stade footrace, three forms of wrestling and pankration, a race in arms, and torch-races. In addition to these, ephebes competed in heraldry, encomium, poetry, and oratory.14 Did the Athenian ephebeia under the Romans lose its military character? This is a question that demands further attention beyond this survey. Part of that answer must take account of the following observations. For example, three of the four areas of military instruction that were the hallmark of the 11  12  13  14 

e.g., NM nos. 1465, 1468, 1484. e.g., NM nos. 387, 388, 390. Zanker 1995, 220–8. e.g., IG II2 2094 col. A lines 44–55, 2119 lines 18–23. See Graindor 1922; Follet 1976.

294

Epilogue

Lykourgan and Hellenistic ephebeia did not comprise the educational program of the Roman. Nor is it known whether the ephebes stood guard at Peiraieus and visited the countryside garrisons. As documented in victors lists and depicted in relief sculpture, the ephebes of this period participated in the Naumakhia, a mock sea battle, that has its origins in the contests of ships discussed in Chapter 9.15 While they commemorated Athens’ naval victory at Salamis, these games served ideological purposes, too. To use the language of Chapter 9, they created of a sense of shared identity among the ephebes and continuity with the past and acclimated the participants to the beliefs and values of the polis. Nevertheless, the ephebes of this period were organized in groups called sustremmata, a military term that is the equivalent to the English “brigades.”16 The hoplomakhos continued to train young citizens in the art of fencing with hoplite weaponry. Further, a kestrophylax was added, who trained the ephebes in the use of the kestrosphendone, a slinging weapon used to fire a bolt with a six inch iron tip. Evidence for training in this style of fighting continued up to the invasion of the Heruli in 266/7 CE.17 When did the Athenian ephebeia come to an end? This is a particularly complex and vexing question, since no source addresses it and inferences must be made from meager evidence. A terminus ante quem for the close of the ephebeia at Athens is suggested by certain passages of Proklos and Hermeias, two philosophers who lived and wrote in Athens in the fifth century.18 These passages have been overlooked by those who previously attempted to determine a date for the end of the institution. Both men describe torch-races and footraces carried out by the ephebes in various festivals in the imperfect tense. This tense demonstrates that these races were activities that the ephebes used to (but no longer) carry out. Further, Proklos’ confusion regarding the role of the ephebes in the Oskhophoria (see Chapter 9) indicates that he was discussing traditions about which he was ill-informed and were no longer in living

15  16  17  18 

IG II2 2119. e.g., NM nos. 1465, 1468, 1484. IG II2 2047, 2113. IG II2 2021; Oliver 1933, 508. Proklos Khrestomathia (= Photios Bibliotheca, Cod. 239 [p. 322a; V 165–6 Henry]); Hermias 37.19–24 (= Σ Plat. Phaidr. 231e): Proklos (fl.c. 410–485) arrived in Athens in 430 or 432, studied philosophy under the Neoplatonist Syrianos, and later became head of the school. Gregory of Nazianzus and Suidas regard this Neoplatonist Proklos as the Proklos of the Khrestomathies, although not all modern scholars agree. Hermeias (fl. circa 410–450) studied philosophy at Athens under Syrianos, before bringing his teachings to Alexandria.

Epilogue

295

memory.19 These considerations strongly suggest that the ephebeia did not exist by around the middle of the fifth century. According to Frantz, the ephebeia may have ceased to exist as early as the invasion of the Heruli in 267.20 For after the raid the epigraphical evidence for the institution disappears, which suggests that it was never revived.21 Thus, the ephebeia may have been among the casualties of the sack of the city, which included the destruction of numerous public and private buildings in the lower town.22 The Athenians salvaged material from damaged buildings to erect the Post-Herulian Wall. This new inner circuit wall was built on a modest scale and enclosed part of the city that lies north of the Akropolis.23 Among the abundance of art and architectural material repurposed for its construction were inscriptions honoring ephebes and their officials, catalogues of ephebes, and portrait herms honoring kosmetai. As discussed in the Introduction, it has been reasonably assumed that this ephebic material came from the Diogeneion, the headquarters of the ephebeia in the Roman Period. Based on the exceptionally heavy concentration of this material in one small location, scholars have long believed that the Diogeneion stood just outside the Post-Herulian Wall near its north-east corner, although no direct evidence of this gymnasium has come to light.24 The appearance of this ephebic material in the Post-Herulian Wall indicates that the Diogeneion may have been damaged in the invasion as well. Despite the lack of epigraphical evidence, a number of factors suggests that the Athenians may have continued the institution and that the ephebeia may have been less affected by the destruction than we have supposed. For instance, there is evidence that some old Athenian institutions continued after 19 

20 

21  22 

23  24 

Proklos, Commentary on Plato’s Timaios, 19a–b, 126e–127a. His assignment of the Lesser Panathenaia to 20 Thargalion, the day after the Bendideia (19 Thargalion), when in fact it was celebrated on 28 Hekatombaion, is another example of his confusion regarding various festivals, which “further emphasizes that [Proklos] was discussing traditions which no longer existed at Athens.” See Shear 2001, 657–8. Frantz 1979, 203. The man honored for leading the Athenian effort to recover their city was P. Herennius Dexippos, who may himself have been an ephebe in the earlier third century and his training may have played a role in developing the military skill necessary for repelling these marauding barbarians. His two sons had been members of the Athenian ephebeia in the 250s. See Millar 1969, 12–29; Newby 2005, 201. IG II2 2245 and Oliver 1933, 507–9. The destruction was centered around the ancient Agora, but also included the areas of the Dipylon Gate, the Library of Hadrian, the Stoa of Eumenes, and numerous private homes. It is not clear at present whether the Heruli were responsible for the destruction of the Parthenon or Alaric, who sacked Athens in the late fourth century. See Camp 2001, 223. Agora XXIV, 125–141; Theocharaki 2011, 133–4. Graindor 1915, 241–401; Pélékidis 1962, 264–6; Lattanzi 1968, 21–3; Travlos 281, 579. For skepticism on this point, see Delorme 1960, 144–46.

296

Epilogue

the Herulian sack. The Council of the Areopagos lasted until the end of the fourth century, and the arkhonship until at least 485.25 As one of the leading university towns in the Empire, the philosophical schools at Athens continued to flourish and attract scholars and students from all over the Mediterranean world. With regard to traditional religion, some of the ancient cults of the Athenians seem to have recovered as well. For instance, there is evidence that by the early fourth century the Eleusinian Mysteries were alive in Late Roman Athens, perhaps with a temple.26 The Panathenaia also appears to have been revived, which included the procession and perhaps the athletic contests.27 If the Herulian invasion did not end the ephebeia in the later third century, two late fourth century events likely may have done so. The first of these was a series of laws by Theodosius I in 391 and 392, which banned all pagan sacrifices, both public and private, and forbade all access to pagan shrines and temples. Violations of these laws were punishable by death.28 The effect of these laws may be seen at Olympia, where the great games held there were apparently celebrated for the last time in 393.29 At Athens, the Eleusinian Mysteries were also brought to a close around this time.30 The Panathenaia appears to have suffered a similar fate.31 These laws would clearly have had a devastating impact on the ephebeia, which was largely concerned with participation in state cults and athleticism during the Roman period. The second event is the Visigothic invasion of Greece around 396. Eunapios represents this incident as one of large-scale looting, murder, and attacks on traditional religion. He also reports that the Visigoths were accompanied by militant monks (7.3–5). Armed with clubs called “Israels” and chanting cries of “Praise be to God,” these religious vigilantes initiated acts of violence against pagans and the symbols of paganism during the late fourth and early 25  26  27 

28  29 

30  31 

Agora XXIV, 12; Marinus Vita Procli, 36. Agora XXXI, 93. The procession is reported by Himerios (fl. 310–340) Oration 47.12–13, which coincides with rebuilding along the Panathenaic Way. For this renewed building, see Agora XXIV, 26–8. The existence of the games are suggested by Eusebius, who refers to them in the present tense. Eusebius Hieronymi Chronicon s.v. Olympiad 53.3 (Helm, p. 102b); Eusebius Chronicorum s.v. Olympiad 53. (Schoene, p. 94). The two editions belong to before 303 and 325–6 (see OED3 s.v. Eusebius). Codex Theodosianus 16.10.10. Williams and Friell 1994, 119–25; King 1960, 77–86. SEG 48.553, a tablet listing Olympic victors down to Zopyros of Athens in the 291st Olympiad of 385. Cedrenus HC 327A records that the Olympic Games came to an end in 393/4. Σ Luc. Rhetorum Praeceptor 41.9 sets the closure of the sanctuary and games occurred sometime during the reign of Theodosius II. Agora XXXI, 93. Shear 2001, 656–60.

Epilogue

297

fifth centuries.32 At Athens, the destruction included many of the buildings in the classical Agora. The Visigoths and militant monks under Alaric’s command may have also been responsible for the damage to buildings on the south slopes of the Akropolis, such as the Odeion of Herodes Attikos, the Asklepieon, and the Theater of Dionysos.33 Thus, if Theodosius’ laws did not close the doors of the institution, the assault on Athens by the Visigoths under Alaric likely brought the ephebeia to an end.

32  33 

Brown 1989, 103–4. Camp 1998, 198–99; Hurwitt 1999, 285–6.

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions The following Catalogue provides a list of all the texts connected with the Athenian ephebes (rosters, dedications, honorary decrees) from 334 BCE to 31 BCE. The present collection of inscriptions from the Lykourgan Age to the end of the Hellenistic Period consists of nearly 130 texts. I have assigned to each an ID number (e.g., T1.1), as well as a title that briefly describes the content of the text and its inventory number(s). The find spot and date of each text are noted; likewise, all available editions known to me are cited. If significant discussions of a text appear in secondary literature, I include references to these under the heading “Bibliography.” Lykourgan Age T1.1

Honors for a Kosmetes (EM 13354) Date: 332/1 BCE (Enrollment Year: 334/3) Find Spot: Athens Editions: Mitsos 1965 [1967], 131–6 (SEG 23.78); Reinmuth 1971, no. 1; Chankowski 2014, 29–31. Bibliography: Mitchel 1975, 233–43; Mitsos 1975 [1976], 39–40; Mitchel 1975, 233–43; Dow 1976, 81–4; Chankowski 2014; Friend 2019, 187–8 (T1).

T1.2

Honors for the Ephebes of Kekropis and their Sophronistes (EM 7743) Date: 332/1 BCE (Enrollment Year: 334/3) Find Spot: Athenian Akropolis Editions: Foucart 1888, 253; IG II, 5 563b; IG II/III2 1156; Reinmuth 1971, no. 2; SIG3 no. 957; R&O no. 89; Lambert 2012, no. 28. Bibliography: Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1893, 193, 194; Gomme 1933, 67; Pélékidis 1962, 121; Hansen 1988, 3; Sekunda 1992, 331–2; Friend 2019, 189–193 (T2).

T1.3

Honors for the Ephebes of Hippothontis (Eleusis Inv. No. 84) Date: 332/1 BCE (Enrollment Year: 334/3) Find Spot: Eleusis Editions: Philios 1890, 91 no. 5; IG II 5, 574d; IG II/III2 1189; Reinmuth 1971, no. 3; Mitchel 1984, 115–8 (SEG 34.106); I.Eleusis no. 84; Friend 2019, 193–6 (T3).

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

299

T1.4

Dedication of the Ephebes of Antiokhis (EM 2802a) Date: 332/1 BCE (Enrollment Year: 334/3) Find Spot: Unknown Editions: Kirchner 1927, 197–8 no. 1 (with photo plate XXII 1); IG II/III2 2970; Mitchel 1964, 337–51 (SEG 22.148); Reinmuth 1971, no. 4 (with photo table V); Lawton 1995 101 n. 4 (with photo table 21); Knoepfler 2001, 381–2; IG II/III3 4, 329; Friend 2019, 197–8 (T4).

T1.5

The Ephebes of Leontis (Rhamnous 1385, Unpublished) Date: 332/1 BCE (?) (Enrollment Year: 333/2) Find Spot: Rhamnous Bibliography: Petrakos 2004, 167–76 (SEG 46.237); Friend 2019, 206–7 (T8).

T1.6

Monument of Ephebes of Erekhtheis Commemorating Victory in Torch-Race (NM 313) Date: 333/2 or 332/1 BCE (Enrollment Year: 333/2) Find Spot: Rhamnous Editions: Stais 1891, 56–60 (with photo table 7); IG II 5, 233b; IG II/III2 3105; Pouilloux 1954, 111 no. 2 bis (plate XLV 1, 2), Reinmuth 1971, no. 13; I.Rhamnous, no. 98; IG II/III3 4, 336; Friend 2019, 214–7 (T10).

T1.7

Dedication to Mounikhos for Victory in the Torch-Race (Kerameikos Inv. No. I 64) Date: 332/1 or 331/0 BCE (Enrollment Year: 333/2) Find Spot: Kerameikos Editions: Habicht 1961[1962], 143 no. 2 (with photo plate 75 no. 1) (SEG 21.680); Reinmuth 1971, no. 6; IG II/III3 4, 335; Friend 2019, 220–1 (T12). Bibliography: Rhodes 1993, 593.

T1.8

Dedication of the Ephebes of Akamantis (?) (Kerameikos Inv. No. I 60) Date: 332/1 or 331/0 BCE (Enrollment Year: 334/3 or 333/2) Find Spot: Kerameikos Editions: Habicht 1961 [1962], 147 no. 3 (with photo plate 75 no. 2) (SEG 21.681); Reinmuth 1971, no. 7 (with photo table VII); IG II/III3 4, 330; Friend 2019, 199–200 (T5).

300

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

T1.9

Dedication of the Ephebes of Kekropis (Eleusis Inv. No. 1103) Date: 331/0 BCE (Enrollment Year: 333/2) Find Spot: Eleusis Editions: Clinton 1988 [1991], 19–30 (with photos A figures 1.2) (SEG 41.107); I.Eleusis no. 86 (with photo A table 40); IG II/III3 4, 337; Friend 2019, 200–203 (T6). Bibliography: Reinmuth 1971, no. 5; Hansen 1985, 47–50 (SEG 37.233); Sekunda 1992, 333–4; Clinton 2008, 96–102.

T1.10

Dedication of Ephebes and Sophronistes of Pandionis with Roster (EM 3590) Date: 331/0 BCE (Enrollment Year: 333/2) Find Spot: Unknown Editions: Kirchner 1927, 198–199 no. 2 (with photo plate XXIII no. 2); IG II/III2 2976; Merritt 1945, 234–9; Reinmuth 1971, no. 8 (with photo table VIII); IG II/III3 4, 334; Friend 2019, 204–6 (T7). Bibliography: Mitchel 1961, 351 (SEG 21.682); Hansen 1985, 47–50 (SEG 37.233).

T1.11

Dedication of the Ephebes and Sophronistes of Leontis to the Hero (Agora I 3068) Date: 331/0 BCE (Enrollment Year: 333/2) Find Spot: Athenian Agora, near Stoa of Attalos Editions: Meritt 1940, 59–66 no. 8; Reinmuth 1955, 226 no. Ia; 1971, no. 9 (SEG 21.513); Clinton 1988, 30 no. 13; Friend 2019, 208–13 (T9).

T1.12

Roster of Ephebes of Erekhtheis (EM 4112) Date: 331/0 BCE (Enrollment Year: 333/2) Find Spot: Unknown Editions: IG II/III2 2401; Palagia and Lewis 1989, 334–6 (SEG 39.184); Friend 2019, 217–9 (T11).

T1.13

Honors for the Ephebes, the Ephebic Officers, and Staff of Pandionis (EM 4211) Date: 330/329 or 329/8 BCE (Enrollment Year: 332/1 or 331/0) Find Spot: Rhamnous

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

Editions:

301

Peek 1942 [1951], 21–2 no. 24 (with photo table 11 no. 2); Pouilloux 1954, 107 no. 2 (with photo table XLIV); Reinmuth 1971, no. 10 (with photo table XI); I.Rhamnous, no. 102; IG II/III3 4, 342; Friend 2019, 221–4 (T14).

T1.14

The Ephebes of Oineis (Rhamnous Inv. No. 1143) (Unpublished) Date: 330/329 (Enrollment Year: 332/1) Find Spot: Rhamnous Bibliography: Petrakos 1993[1994], 7 (SEG 43.61); id. 1993 [1996], 30 (SEG 44.177); Friend 2019, 221 (T13).

T1.15

The Ephebes of Hippothontis (Panakton Inv. No. 1991–350) Date: 327/6 or 321/0 BCE (Enrollment Year: 329/8 or 323/2) Find Spot: Panakton Bibliography: Unpublished. See SEG 38.67; Friend 2019, 245 (T20).

T1.16

The Ephebes of Kekropis (Agora I 431, 929, 990, 2301, 2259, 6954, 7479) Date: 330/29 BCE or later (Enrollment Year: 332/1 or later) Find Spot: Near the Library of Pantainos, Athenian Agora, Editions: Meritt 1934, 61 no. 50 (Ag. I 431 = Agora XV no. 73); Agora XV no. 73b (Ag. I 929); Meritt 1964, 201–9 no. 53 (with photograph) (Ag. I 6954); Traill 1978, 278–80 no 7 (Ag. I 7479). Traill 1986, 3–5 (SEG 36.155); Friend 2019, 234–9 (T17).

T1.17

The Ephebes of Aigeis (fr. a: EM 4218, fr. b: Rhamnous Inv. No. 525 N) Date: 330/29 BCE (Enrollment Year: 331/0) Find Spot: Rhamnous Editions: fr. a: IG II/III2 1181; Schwenk 1985, no. 46; IG II/III3 4, 339a. ab: Petrakos 1983, 336 (SEG 34.151); I.Rhamnous no. 99; Stanton 1996, 344–5; Friend 2019, 232–3 (T16).

T1.18

Dedication to Hermes by a Rhamnousian (EM 12698) Date: 329/8 BCE or later Find Spot: Rhamnous Editions: Stais 1891 [1893], 15; IG II 5, 1571b; IG II/III2 4594a; Pouilloux 1954, 106 no. 1; Reinmuth 1971, no. 11; I.Rhamnous, no. 100; IG II/III3 4, 338; Friend 2019, 246–7 (T21).

302

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

T1.19

The Ephebes of Oineis (Agora I 5250) Date: c. 328/7 BCE (Enrollment Year: c. 330/29) Find Spot: Athenian Agora, within Late Roman Fortification Editions: Pritchett 1949, 273–8 (with plate 27); Reinmuth 1971, no. 12; Friend 2019, 241–4 (T19). Bibliography: Shear 1939, 217–18 (with figure 14); Pélékidis 1962, 147 no. 7.

T1.20

Dedication to Amphiaraos (Oropos Inv. No. A 395) Date: 329/8, 328/7, or 326/5 BCE (Enrollment Year: 331/0, 330/29, or 328/7) Find Spot: Amphiareion, Oropos Editions: Petrakos 1968, 28; I.Oropos, no. 352 (with photo table 41); IG II/III3 4, 344; Friend 2019, 240 (T18).

T1.21

Honors of the Strategoi and Ephebic Staff by Ephebes (Oropos Inv. No. 344) Date: 330/29–324/3 BCE (Enrollment Year: 332/1–326/5) Find Spot: Amphiareion, Oropos Editions: Leonardos 1918, 73–100 nos. 95–7; Pélékidis 1962, 127– 47 no. 6; Reinmuth 1971, no. 15; I.Oropos no. 353; Friend 2019, 225–31 (T15). Bibliography: Tracy 1995, 25–6.

T1.22

The Ephebes of Akamantis (EM 13200) Date: 331/0–323/2 BCE (Enrollment Year: 333/2–325/4) Find Spot: Rhamnous Editions: McLeod 1959, 121–6 (with photo table 25) (SEG 17.65); Reinmuth 1971, no. 14 (with photo table XVI); I.Rhamnous, no. 103 (with photograph); IG II/III3 4, 341; Friend 2019, 247–8 (T22). Bibliography: Mitchel 1960, 355–7 (SEG 21.514)

T1.23

The Ephebes of Leontis (Inv. No. Panakton 1988–1) Date: Lykourgan Find Spot: Panakton Bibliography: Unpublished. See SEG 38.67; Friend 2019, 249 (T23).

T1.24

Ephebes of Leontis (Inv. No. Panakton 1992–400) Date: Lykourgan

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

Find Spot: Bibliography:

303

Panakton Unpublished. See Friend 2019, 249 (T24).

T1.25

Ephebes of an Unknown Tribe (Oropos Inv. No. 563) Date: Lykourgan Find Spot: Amphiareion, Oropos Editions: I.Oropos, no. 354 (SEG 31.435); IG II/III3 4, 345; Friend 2019, 252 (T27).

T1.26

Ephebes of an Unknown Tribe (Rhamnous Inv. No. 930) Date: Lykourgan Find Spot: Tower C (South Gate), Rhamnous Editions: I.Rhamnous, no. 104; IG II/III3 4, 347; Friend 2019, 252 (T28).

T1.27

Ephebes of an Unknown Tribe (Oropos Inv. No. A 310) Date: Lykourgan Find Spot: Amphiareion, Oropos Editions: Leonardos 1892, 54–6 no. 90; IG VII 444; I.Oropos, no. 348; IG II/III3 4, 346; Friend 2019, 251 (T26).

T1.28

Dedication for Victory in Torch-Race (Marathon BE 33) Date: Lykourgan (?) Find Spot: Marathon Editions: Mastrokostas 1970, 19 (with photo table V) (SEG 32.206); Michaud 1970, 919; IG II/III3 4, 348; Friend 2019, 250 (T25).

T1.29

Dedication for Victory in Torch-Race (Mus. Brit. Inv. No. 1864.2–20.11) Date: post 334 BCE Find Spot: “ex Attica” Editions: CIG I 257; IG II 221; IG II/III2 2974; IG II/III3 4, 331. Bibliography: Palagia 2000, 403–8 (with photograph) (SEG 50.192). Hellenistic Era

A

Under Foreign Rule (323–307 BCE)

T2.1

Victors List Recording the Third Place of an Ephebe in the Dionysia (EM 8229)

304

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

Date: Find Spot: Editions: Bibliography:

312/1 BCE Athenian Agora IG II 974c; IG II/III2 2323a (lines 46–7). Tracy 1995, 40 with n. 24.

T2.2

A Roster of Ephebes by Tribe? (Agora I 6509) Date: paullo ante 307/6 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora, East of the Odeion Editions: Meritt 1964, 209–10, 336 (no. 54 with plate 32) (SEG 21.617); Reinmuth 1971, no. 16.

B

Between Freedom and Dependency (307–287 BCE)

T3.1

Honors for the Ephebes of the Twelve Tribes (EM 7274, 7267, 7265, 7276, 7273, 7275, 7271, 7269+7270, 7268, 7266) 305/4 BCE Date: Find Spot: Peiraieus Editions: Koehler 1879, 324; IG II 5, 251b; IG II/III2 478; Reinmuth 1971, no. 17.

T3.2

Regulations Concerning Ephebes (?) (lost) Date: c. 305/4 BCE Find Spot: Mounikhia Hill, Peiraieus Editions: IG II 5, 251c; IG II/III2 556; Reinmuth 1971, no. 18. Bibliography: Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1893, 194.

T3.3

Honors for the Sophronistes of Pandionis of 303/2 BCE (EM 7712) Date: 302/1 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Akropolis Editions: Mylonas 1888, 148; IG II 5, 565 b; IG II/III2 1159; Reinmuth 1971, no. 19.

T3.4

Honors for Ephebes of an Unknown Tribe (Agora I 5012) Date: End of the Fourth Century BCE Find Spot: West of the Panathenaic Way and Eleusinion, Athenian Agora Editions: Reinmuth 1961, 8 (no. 1 with plate 2) (SEG 19.116); 1971, no. 20.

T3.5

Dedication for Victory in Torch-Race (Agora I 5243)

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

Date: Find Spot: Editions:

305

Fourth/Early Third Century BCE Athenian Agora Agora XVIII, 72 C125 (with plate 10); IG II/III3 4, 352.

T3.6

Funerary Monument from Peiraieus Date: Third Century BCE Find Spot: Peiraieus Editions: Dragatses 1888, 49; IG II 5, 2721c; IG II/III2 13120.

C

Independent City (287–262 BCE)

T4.1

Honors for the Ephebes and their Kosmetes (EM 8994) Date: 266/5 BCE Find Spot: Sanctuary of Asklepios? Editions: Koehler 1879, 335; IG II 1350; IG II/III2 3210. Bibliography: Aleshire 1989, 79.

T4.2

Honors for the Ephebes (fr. a-o: EM 7555; fr. p: Agora I 3370; fr. q: Ag. I 6801) Date: 266/5 BCE Find Spot: Near the Church of Hypapante, Athenian Agora Editions: fr. a-o: IG II 316; IG II/III2 665. fr. p: Reinmuth 1961, 9 no. 3 (with plate 2) (SEG 19.89). fr. p: Tracy 1988b, 306–7 (plate 85b) (SEG 38.78). fr. a-p: IG II/III3 1, 917. Bibliography: Tracy 1990b, 266.

T4.3

Fragment of a Decree (Agora I 3605) Date: 265/4–246/5 BCE Find Spot: Stoa of Zeus, Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1954, 234–5 no. 3 (with plate 49); Tracy 1988b, 305; Bardani 2000[2003]), 64–70.

T4.4

Fragment of a Roster (BA 457) Date: Late 260s BCE (260/59 BCE?) Find Spot: Library of Hadrian Editions: Bardani and Tracy 2007, 75–80 (with photos fig. 1–2) (SEG 57.152); IG II/III3 1, 981.

D

Renewed Subjugation (262–229 BCE)

T5.1

Fragment of a Roster (Agora I 1028)

306

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

Date: Find Spot: Editions: Bibliography:

c. 260–235 BCE In a Byzantine well near the Tholos, Athenian Agora Meritt 1967, 64 no. 8 (with photo table 21) (SEG 24.190); IG II/III3 1, 1047. Tracy 1990, 251, 268.

T5.2

Honors for the Ephebes (fr. a: EM 7451, fr. b: 7084, fr. c: 7399, fr. d: Agora I 2054) Date: 257/6 BCE Find Spot: Akropolis (fr. a), unknown (fr. b, fr. c); Athenian Agora (fr. d) Editions: fr. a: Pittakes 1939, no. 322; IG II 371. fr. a-c: IG II/III2 700 with Add. p. 669. fr. a-d: Meritt 1938, 110–114 no. 20 (with photo fr. d); 1964, 8–9 (SEG 21.375); 1969, 112– 113 (SEG 25.100); Woodhead ap. Tracy 1979, 176 (SEG 29.104); id. 1988, 309 (SEG 38.81); IG II/III3 1, 986.

T5.3

Honors for the Ephebes (fr. a: BA 1153, fr. b: Agora I 3605) Date: 255/4–251/0 BCE Find Spot: Library of Hadrian (fr. a), Athenian Agora (fr. b) Editions: fr. b: Meritt 1954, 234 no. 3 (with plate 49) (SEG 14.61). fr. ab: Bardani 2000–2003, 64–70 no. II (with photo of fr. a) (SEG 51.91). IG II/III3 1, 1031.

T5.4

Honors for the Ephebes (Agora I 4323) Date: 250/49 BCE Find Spot: Northern Slope of Areopagos Hill, Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1938, 121–3 no. 24 (with photograph); IG II/III3 1, 1003.

T5.5

Honors for the Ephebes (fr. a-f: EM 7423, fr. h: 12801, fr. g: Agora I 7160) 249/8 BCE Date: Find Spot: Athenian Agora (fr.: a-f), unknown (fr. h) Editions: fr. a-f: IG II 324; IG II2 681. fr. g: Tracy 1989, 270–1; 1990, 543–7 (with photo table 89) (SEG 40.93). fr. a-h: IG II/ III3 1, 1008. Bibliography: Tracy 1988b, 314; 2003b, 166; 2007, 208–9.

T5.6

Honors for the Ephebes (fr. l: EM 6124, fr. a-c, e-h: EM 7542, fr. no: 12800+2463, fr. i: Agora I 3319, fr. f, j: 4162, fr. k: 1367)

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

Date: Find Spot: Editions:

307

245/4 BCE Athenian Agora fr. a-h: IG II 338; IG II/III2 766. fr. i: Meritt 1938, 114–5 no. 21 (with photo). fr. k: id. 1947, 158–9 no. 53 (with photo 28); fr. a-k: id. 1948, 4–7 (with photo table 5) (SEG 21.392). fr. l: IG II 5, 341b; IG II/III2 750. fr. m: Reinmuth 1961, 9–10 no. 4 (with photo table 2) (SEG 19.87). fr. no: Tracy 1988b, 317–9 (SEG 38.100). IG II/ III3 1, 1016.

T5.7

Citations for Ephebic Trainers and Secretary (Agora 200 I 61) Date: post 245/4 BCE (c. 235 BCE) Find Spot: Near the Metroön, Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1933, 158–60 no. 6; id. 1942, 299–302 (no. 60); IG II/III3 1, 1062. Bibliography: Tracy 1988b, 318.

T5.8

Honors for the Ephebes with Roster (fr a: EM 7408, fr. bc: 7410, fr. de: 7409) Date: 235/4 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: fr. a-d: Pittakes 1854, nos. 2457, 2473, 2481, 2482; fr. e: id. 1854, no. 2483; id 1856 no. 3115; fr. a-e: IG II 330; IG II/ III2 787 with Add. 667 (Wilhelm); Dow 1979, 335–6; IG II/III3 1, 1027.

T5.9

Fragment of Roster (Agora I 4495) Date: c. 235 BCE Find Spot: Near the north slope of Areopagos Hill, Athenian Agora Editions: Pritchett 1947, 185–7 no. 92 (with photo table XXXVIII); Bayliss 2002, 85–88 (SEG 52.146); IG II/III3 1, 1063 and IG II/III3 4, 354. Bibliography: Tracy 2003b, 143–4 (SEG 53.139).

T5.10

Fragment of Roster (EM 6195) Date: 260–235 BCE Find Spot: Unknown Editions: IG II/III2 2433; IG II/III3 1, 1048

308

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

E

Freedom and Neutrality (229–200 BCE)

T6.1

Fragments of a Roster (fr. a: Ag. I 4992, fr. b: Ag. I 5175, fr. c: Ag. I 4171) Date: 218/7 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: fr. a–c: Meritt 1946, 190–3 no. 37; IG II/III3 1, 1158. Bibliography: Tracy 1976, 286; 1978, 250; 1990b, 48, 54; Tracy and Habicht 1991, 208.

T6.2

Fragment of an Honorary Decree (EM 7453) Date: 215/4 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Akropolis Editions: Pittakes 1859, no. 3479; IG II 372; IG II/III2 794 (SEG 38.166); Dow 1937a, 108–9; IG II/III3 1, 1161. Bibliography: Pélékidis 1950, 112–17.

T6.3

Fragment of an Honorary Decree (Agora I 5601) c. 215 BCE Date: Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1961, 218 no. 14 with photo table 41) (SEG 21.411); IG II/III3 1, 1193. Bibliography: Tracy 1990b, 48, 54.

T6.4

Honors for the Ephebes (Agora I 3658) Date: c. 215 BCE Find Spot: Near the Stoa of Zeus, Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1954, 235–6 no. 5 (with photo plate 49) (SEG 14.62); IG II/III3 1, 1195. Bibliography: Tracy 1976, 286; 1990b, 48, 54.

T6.5

Honors for the Ephebes (fr. a: Agora I 7484, fr. b: Agora I 1331) 213/2 BCE Date: Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: fr. b: Meritt 1947, 168–9 no. 65 (with photo table 32) (SEG 32.123); fr. a: Tracy 1979b, 174–8 no. 1 (with table 59) (SEG 29.116); fr. a-b: IG II/III3 1, 1166. Bibliography: Clinton 1980, 281 n. 49 (SEG 30.76); J. and L. Robert 1981, 217; Gauthier 1985, 149–63 (SEG 35.95); Osborne 2003, 85–9; Tracy 1990b, 63, 67, 263

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

309

T6.6

Fragment of an Ephebic Honorary Decree (Agora I 5722) Date: 212/1 BCE Find Spot: Hephaisteion, Athenian Agora Editions: Pritchett and Meritt 1940, 110–111 (with photo) (SEG 57.105); IG II/III3 1, 1167. Bibliography: Meritt 1976, 149–50 (SEG 24.104); Tracy and Edmunds 1978, 257–8; Tracy 1990b, 74–5.

T6.7

Citation for Heortios of Akharnai (Agora I 2944) Date: c. 210/09 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1960, 53–4 no. 72 (with photo plate 14) (SEG 19.85); IG II/III3 1, 1194. Bibliography: Tracy 1976, 286; 1990b, 48, 54.

T6.8

Fragment of a Roster (Agora I 5923) c. 210/09 BCE Date: Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Walbank 1985, 321–3 no. 7 (with photo table 88) (SEG 35.86); Agora XVI no. 170; IG II/III3 1, 1221.

T6.9

Roster of Ephebes (fr. a: Agora I 6982; fr. b: Agora I 2499) Date: 208/7 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: fr. a: Meritt 1965, 90–2 no. 3 (with photo table 5) (SEG 22.101); fr. b: Reinmuth 1961, 11 no. 7 (with photo table 3) (SEG 19.77); fr. ab: Tracy and Edmunds 1978, 259–60 (SEG 27.200); IG II/III3 1, 1169. Bibliography: Tracy 1990b, 75.

T6.10

Fragment of Ephebic Honorary Decree (Agora I 1013a) c. 205 BCE Date: Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Reinmuth 1961, 18–20 (no. 11); IG II/III3 1, 1237. Bibliography: Tracy 1982a, 157–69; 1990b.

T6.11

Honors for the Ephebes (fr. a: Agora I 7181, fr. b: Kerameikos Museum I 131) Date: 203/2 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora

310

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

Editions:

Bibliography:

fr. b: IG II/III2 Add. 944 b (p. 669). fr. a: Reinmuth 1961, 246–259 (with photo table 50); Traill 1976, 296–303 (SEG 26.98). fr. ab: Tracy, 1982a, 157–61 (with photo b table 20) (SEG 32.125); IG II/III3 1,1176. Gauthier 1985, 149–63 (SEG 35.96); Habicht 2001b, 13–14; Tracy 1979, 176–7.

F

Alliance with Rome (200–167 BCE)

T7.1

Fragment of a Decree Honoring the Ephebes (Agora I 3675) Date: c. 190 BCE Find Spot: Near the Odeion, Athenian Agora Editions: Reinmuth 1961, 10–11 no. 6 (with photo table 3) (SEG 19.86); IG II/III3 1, 1342.

T7.2

Fragment of Decree Honoring the Ephebes (Agora I 7286) 192/1 or 178/7 BCE Date: Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Tracy 1976, 285–7 no. 2 (with photo table 67) (SEG 26.103); IG II/III3 1, 1264. Bibliography: Tracy 1990b, 103.

T7.3

Dedication to Hermes (Agora I 176) Date: Early Second Century BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1934, 68 (no. 63, with photograph); IG II2 2980a; Agora XVIII, 72 (C126); IG II/III3 4, 358. Bibliography: Tracy 1990b, 249.

T7.4

Honors for the Ephebes and Kosmetes (Agora I 7581) Date: 196/5 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: IG II/III3 1, 1256.

T7.5

Dedication to Hermes (EM 10665) Date: 196/5 BCE Find Spot: Peiraieus Editions: Pittakes 1853 nos. 1969; IG II 1224; IG II/III2 2981 Face A; IG II/III3 4, 357 Face A Bibliography: Tracy 1992, 303–314.

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

311

T7.6

Honors for the Ephebes (fr. a: Agora I 1015b, fr. b: Ag. I 1015c, fr. c: Ag I 1015a, fr. d: Ag. I 1017, fr. e: Ag. I 979) Date: 185/4 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: fr. a-e: Meritt 1946, 193–7 no. 38 (with photos); IG II/ III3 1, 1285.

T7.7

Fragment of a Decree Honoring the Ephebes (EM 7407a) Date: 184/3 BCE Find Spot: fr. a: Kerameikos; fr. b: unknown Editions: fr. a: Koumanoudes 1873, 486–8; IG II 341. fr. ab: IG II/ III2 900; IG II/III3 1, 1290. Bibliography: Meritt 1946, 196–7.

T7.8

Fragments of a Roster (fr. a: EM 7406, fr. b: Agora I 2861) c. 185/4 BCE Date: Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: fr. a: IG II 340; IG II/III2 901. fr. b: Meritt, Woodhead, and Stamires 1957, 219 no. 75 (with photo plate 54) (SEG 17.51). fr. ab: Tracy 1995, 84–6 (SEG 40.105); IG II/III3 1, 1363. Bibliography: Tracy 1976, 286.

T7.9

Fragment of a Decree Honoring the Ephebes (Agora I 7138) Date: c. 185 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Tracy 1982b, 58–60 no. 2 (with photo table 24) (SEG 32.129); IG II/III3 1, 1362. Bibliography: Tracy 1990b, 84.

T7.10

Fragment of a Decree Honoring the Ephebes (Agora I 1003) c. 185 BCE Date: Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1967, 63 no. 7 (with photo table 21) (SEG 24.131); IG II/III3 1, 1361. Bibliography: Tracy 1976, 286; 1990b, 94.

T7.11

Fragment of a Roster (Agora I 1034) Date: c. 185 BCE

312

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

Find Spot: Editions:

Athenian Agora Reinmuth 1961, 8–9 no. 2 (with photo) (SEG 19.71); IG II/III3 1, 1364

T7.12

Fragment of Decree Honoring the Ephebes (Agora I 1449) Date: c. 180 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Walbank 2008, 81–2 no. 86 (with photo); IG II/III3 1, 1376.

T7.13

Honors for the Ephebes and Kosmetes (fr. a: Agora I 4250, fr. b: Agora I 7529) Date: 176/5 and 175/4 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: fr. a: Pritchett and Meritt 1940, 119–20 (with photo); Agora XVI no. 280. fr. ab: IG II/III3 1, 1313. Bibliography: Tracy 1990a, 461; 1990b, 102.

T7.14

Fragment of a Decree Honoring the Ephebes (Agora I 6512) Date: c. 176/5–173/2 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Reinmuth 1961, 12–13 no. 8 (with photo table 3) (SEG 19.96); IG II/III3 1, 1322. Bibliography: Tracy 1976, 286; 1982b, 60; 1990b, 128–130.

T7.15

Honors for the Ephebes (Agora I 166) Date: 171/0 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1934, 14–18 no. 17 (with photo); id. 1946, 198–201 no. 40; IG II/III3 1, 1332. Bibliography: Tracy 1976, 287; 1990b, 74.

G

Battle of Pydna to War with Sulla (167–88 BCE)

T8.1

Ephebes as Benefactors (Agora I 983, Face A) Date: 164/3 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1967, 88–91 no. 19 (with plate 27). Bibliography: Tracy 1990b, 102, 108, 206, 233.

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

313

T8.2

Honors for a Kosmetes (Agora I 175, 6035, 6545) Date: 161/0 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Oliver 1933, 503–5 no. 16 (Agora I 175); Meritt 1948, 13–14 no. 4 (Agora I 6035); Traill 1982, 201–2 no. 3 (with plate 57) (Agora I 6545). Tracy 1990b, 128–30, 264, 267 (with plate 20).

T8.3

Ephebic Victors in the Theseia (EM 7526, 7560, 10547) Date: 161/0 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Akropolis Editions: IG II 444; IG II/III2 956. Bibliography: Bugh 1990, 20–37; Kennell 1999, 249–62.

T8.4

Honors for the Ephebes, their Instructors, and Kosmetes (EM 2678) 159/8 BCE Date: Find Spot: Athenian Akropolis Editions: Nachmanson 1908, 204; IG II/III2 1027; SEG 17.32. Bibliography: Pélékidis 1957, 478–82; Meritt 1977, 183.

T8.5

Ephebic Victors in the Theseia (EM 7751) Date: 157/6 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Akropolis Editions: IG II 445; IG II/III2 957. Bibliography: Bugh 1990, 20–37; Kennell 1999, 249–62.

T8.6

Ephebic Victors in the Theseia (EM 10332) Date: 153/2 or 151/0 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Akropolis Editions: IG II 446; IG II/III2 958. Bibliography: Bugh 1990, 20–37; Kennell 1999, 249–62.

T8.7

Dedication to Hermes (Agora I 6413) c. 150 BCE Date: Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1961, 251 no. 50 (with plate 44) (SEG 21.460); IG II/III3 4, 359. Bibliography: Tracy 1990b, 254.

314

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

T8.8

Dedication to the Muses by the Mellephebes (Agora I 1921) Date: 150–100 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1941, 62 no. 27 (with photograph); Agora XVIII, 72 (C127); IG II/III3 4, 114. Bibliography: Tracy 1990, 251.

T8.9

Roster of Ephebes as Pythaïstai Date: 138/7 BCE Find Spot: Delphi Editions: FD III 2.23. Bibliography: Tracy 1975b, 187–8.

T8.10

Dedication to Hermes (Agora I 5412) Date: c. 130 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Reinmuth 1961, 21 no. 13 (with plate 51) (SEG 19.193); Agora XVIII, 73 (C128); IG II/III3 4, 361. Bibliography: Tracy 1995b, 253.

T8.11

Roster of Ephebes as Pythaïstai Date: 128/7 BCE Find Spot: Delphi Editions: FD III 2.24. Bibliography: Tracy 1975b, 191–2.

T8.12

Honors for the Ephebes and Kosmetes (EM 564, 5238, 5296, 7605+Agora I 286, 958, 989, 992, 6471) Date: 127/6 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: IG II/III2 991, 1007, 1032, 1039 v, 1960, 2453. Dow 1935, 71–81 no. 37 (Ag. I 992 and 958). Meritt 1946, 211 no. 23 (Ag. I 3457). Dow 1947, 169–70 no. 66 (Ag. I 989). Meritt 1963, 22 no. 22 (with plate 6) (Ag. I 6471); id. 1965, 92–5 no. 4; Reinmuth 1955, 220–239 (with plate 78) (Ag. I 286).

T8.13

Dedication to Hermes (stone lost) Date: 127/6 or 126/5 BCE

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

Find Spot: Editions:

315

Peiraieus Dragatses 1891, 114; IG II 5, 1225b; IG II/III2 2982; IG II/ III3 4, 362.

T8.14

Honors for the Ephebes and Kosmetes with Roster (EM 10339; Agora I. 5953 [= EM 13369]+6310) Date: 122/1 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: IG II/III2 1006+1031+2485. Meritt 1948, 23–5 no. 11 (Ag. I 5953); Mitsos 1950–1951, 45 no. 25 (IG II/ III2 1006+2485); Reinmuth 1972, 185–91 (IG II/III2 1006+1031+2485); Tracy 1988a, 250–52 (Ag. I 6310). Bibliography: Meritt 1961, 224–5 no. 22 (with plate 38); Follet 1988, 19–32.

T8.15

Honors for the Ephebes (Agora I 6127, 560) Date: 119/8 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1961, 224 no. 21 (with plate 40) (Ag. I 6127); 1967, 65–6 no. 11 (with plate 20) (Ag. I 560). Bibliography: Tracy 1988a, 249–50.

T8.16

Honors for the Ephebes and Kosmetes with Roster (Agora I 6319, 6695) Date: 118/7 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: IG II 469; IG II/III2 1008. Meritt 1964, 213–15 no. 58 (with plate 35) (Ag. I 6319 and 6695). Bibliography: Pélékidis 1950, 119–20; Meritt 1952, 367 no. 53; Dow 1953, 359; Meritt, Woodhead, and Stamires 1957, 47 no. 58a; Follet 1988, 22.

T8.17

Dedication of Ephebes or Mellephebes with Roster (PA 886, now lost) Date: 118/7 BCE? Find Spot: Roman Forum Editions: Bardani 1989, 17–21 (SEG 39.187); 1990–1991, 295–7 (SEG 41.109); IG II/III3 4, 367.

T8.18

Honors for the Ephebes Date: 117/6 BCE Find Spot: Near Akharnian Gate Editions: IG II 486; IG II/III2 1010.

316 T8.19

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

Honors for the Ephebes and Kosmetes with Roster (Agora I 582, 5952) Date: 116/5 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: IG II/III2 1009+2456+2457. Meritt 1947, 170–2 no. 67 (Ag. I 5952); Mitsos 1950–1951, 41–2 no. 19 (IG II/III2 1009+2456+2457). Bibliography: Meritt 1946, 213–14 no. 42; Follet 1988, 22–5.

T8.20 Dedication to Hermes (EM 10597) Date: 111/0 BCE Find Spot: Near the ancient theater, Peiraieus Editions: Pittakes 1839, no. 295; IG II 1226; IG II/III2 2983; IG II/ III3 4, 363. T8.21

Dedication to Hermes (EM 10665) 108/7 BCE Date: Find Spot: Peiraieus Editions: Pittakes 1853 no. 1970; IG II 1225. IG II/III2 2981, Face B; SEG 21.683; IG II/III3 4, 357 Face B.

T8.22

Honors for Ephebes and Kosmetes with Roster Date: 106/5 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: IG II 470; IG II/III2 1011. Peppa-Delmouzou 1978, 6 no. 3 (IG II/III2 1011 + IG II/III2 7460). Bibliography: Follet 1988, 23.

T8.23

Roster of Ephebes as Pythaïstai Date: 106/5 BCE Find Spot: Delphi Editions: FD III 2.25. Bibliography: Tracy 1975b, 207–9.

T8.24 Dedication to Hermes (Peiraius Inv. No. 1245) Date: 106/5 BCE Find Spot: Peiraieus Editions: Dragatses 1888, 18; IG II 5, 1226d; IG II/III2 2984; IG II/ III3 4, 364. T8.25 Dedication to Hermes (EM 8122) Date: 105/4 BCE?

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

Find Spot: Editions: Bibliography:

317

Athenian Agora Kabbadias 1898, 9–10 no. 4; IG II/III2 2988; IG II/III3 4, 371. Raubitschek 1951, 53–4.

T8.26 Dedication to Hermes (Peiraieus Inv. No. 2181) Date: 104/3 BCE Find Spot: Peiraieus Editions: Dragatses 1888, 18; IG II 5, 1226; IG II/III2 2985, Face A; IG II/III3 4, 360. T8.27

Honors for the Ephebes and Kosmetes (EM 10336) Date: 101/0 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: IG II 467; IG II/III2 1028 (EM 10336) + 2181. Tracy 1975a, 32–48 no. 6 (EM 10336); id. 1999, 143–4 (IG II/ III2 1028 + 2181). Bibliography: Follet 1988, 19–32.

T8.28 Roster of Ephebes (Agora I 721) Date: c. 100 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1946, 197–8 no. 39 (with photo). Bibliography: Tracy 1990b, 251. T8.29 Dedication to Hermes with Roster (Peiraieus Inv. No. 2181) Date: End of Second Century BCE? Find Spot: Peiraieus Editions: Dragatses 1888, 18; IG II 5, 1226; IG II/III2 2985, Face B; IG II/III3 4, 360. T8.30 Roster of Ephebes as Pythaïstai 98/7 BCE Date: Find Spot: Delphi Editions: FD III 2.26. Bibliography: Tracy 1975a, 56–8. T8.31

Honors for the Ephebes Date: 96/5 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: IG II 468; IG II/III2 1029.

318

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

T8.32 Dedication of 1602) Date: Find Spot: Editions: Bibliography:

Mellephebes to Muses with Roster (Peiraieus Inv. No. 95/4 BCE Peiraieus Foucart 1883, 75–6; IG II/III2 2986; IG II/III3 4, 373. Follet 1988, 26 (SEG 38.278); Tracy and Edmunds 1978, 263; Tracy 1990b, 248.

T8.33 Honors for the Ephebes Date: 116/5–94/3 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Akropolis Editions: IG II 466; IG II/III2 1030; Tracy 1990b, 197–8. T8.34 Dedication of 191) Date: Find Spot: Editions: Bibliography:

Mellephebes to Muses with Roster (Agora Inv. I 1703 I 90’s BCE Athenian Agora, near Areopagos Hill Meritt 1934, 69 no. 64 (with photo); IG II/III2 2991a; Agora XVIII, 74 (C130); IG II/III3 4, 370. Tracy 1990b, 260.

T8.35 Honors for the Ephebes (Agora I 5131) Date: 130–88 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Reinmuth 1961, 15–17 no. 9 (with plate 3); Tracy 1990b, 253. T8.36 Ephebes at the Asklepieion Date: End of Second Century BCE? Find Spot: Athenian Akropolis Editions: IG II/III2 1019; Aleshire 1989, 354, IX T8.37

Dedication (to Hermes ?) (Agora I 6253) Date: End of Second Century BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1961, 268–9 no. 96 (with plate 51) (SEG 21.684); Agora XVIII, 73 (C129); IG II/III3 4, 365. Bibliography: Tracy 1990b, 254.

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

319

T8.38 Dedication to Muses by Mellephebes/Ephebes Honor a Treasurer (stone lost) Date: 94/3 BCE? Find Spot: Peiraieus Editions: Dragatses 1880, 491; Foucart 1883, 76–7; IG II/III2 2991; IG II/III3 4, 374. Bibliography: Follet 1988, 26 (SEG 38.278). T8.39 Dedication to Hermes by Ephebes of Delos (Kerameikos Inv. No. 93) Date: 97/6 BCE Find Spot: Kerameikos Editions: Brueckner 1931, 20–21 (with photo plate 9); IG II/III2 2990; IG II/III3 4, 372. H

From Sulla to Anthony (87–31 BCE)

T9.1

Dedication to Hermes (Agora I 4117) c. 80 BCE Date: Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Raubitschek 1951, 49–57 (with photo fig. 1) (SEG 37.135); Agora XVIII, 74–5 (C131); IG II/III3 4, 375.

T9.2

Honors for the Ephebes and Kosmetes (EM 10341, 4193, 4208, 5259, 7638, 7368, 7639, 7640, 7641, 7643, 8032) Date: 79/8 BCE Find Spot: Church of Panagia Pyrgiotissa Editions: IG II 481; IG II/III2 1039 with SEG 22.110 and 38.117. Bibliography: Mitsos 1964, 36–49; Follet 1988, 24–5.

T9.3

Sacred Law from the Cave of Pan at Marathon (Marathon Inv. No. L 231) Date: 61/0 BCE Find Spot: Cave of Pan, Marathon Editions: Petrakos 1987, 305–6 no. 30 (SEG 36.267); id. 1993, 67–70 (with photograph) (SEG 41.174); Lupu 2001, 119–24 (SEG 51.188); id. 2005, 171–5 (SEG 55.308); IG II/III3 4, 376.

T9.4

Dedication to Hermes (EM 8407) Date: 60/59 BCE Find Spot: Athens

320

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

Editions:

Koumanoudes 1860, 10 no. 14; IG III 104; IG II/III2 2992; Raubitschek 1951, 54; IG II/III3 4, 377.

T9.5

Dedication to Hermes (Agora I 5738) Date: 59/8 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1961, 270 (no. 100 with plate 52) (SEG 21.685); Makres 2010, 186–8; (with photo fig. 4) (SEG 60.219); Agora XVIII, 75 (C132); IG II/III3 4, 378. Bibliography: Schmalz 2009, 77 no. 98; Follet 2005, 12.

T9.6

Dedication (to Hermes?) (BA 1439) Date: 59/8 BCE? Find Spot: Library of Hadrian Editions: Makres 2010, 179–86 (with photographs 1–3) (SEG 60.217); IG II/III3 4, 379.

T9.7

Honors for a Paidotribes and Gymnasiarkhos (EM 8431) Date: mid-first century BCE Find Spot: Athens Editions: IG III Add. 735 a b; IG II2 3730. Bibliography: Stamires 1957, 251.

T9.8

Dedication to Hermes (EM 8406) Date: 55/4 BCE Find Spot: Roman Forum Editions: Boeckh CIG I 255 with Add. p. 909; Pittakes 1853 no. 1384; IG III 105; IG II/III2 2993; IG II/III3 4, 380. Bibliography: Dow 1933, 583 no. IV (with photo fig. 2); Notopoulos 1949, 47.

T9.9

Honors for a Paidotribes (Agora I 328) Date: c. 50 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Meritt 1934, 39 no. 27 (with photograph).

T9.10

Dedication to Apollo (3rd Ephoreia Inv. no. M 4135) Date: c. 50 BCE Find Spot: Conjunction of Amalias and Vassilissis Sophias Avenues

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

Editions: Bibliography:

321

Kritzas 2004, 271–89 (with photograph) (SEG 54.304); IG II/III3 4, 399. Kritzas 2000, 187 no. 174 (SEG 50.196); Schmalz 2009, 73–4 no. 92 (who dates this text to 20 BCE or soon after).

T9.11

Honors for the Ephebes and Kosmetes (EM 7668, 7669) Date: 43/2 or 42/1 BCE Find Spot: Church of Hagios Demetrios Katephori Editions: IG II 480; IG II/III2 1041; SEG 17.33; 21.492; 57.10.

T9.12

Roster of Ephebes Date: c. 45–40 BCE Find Spot: Athens Editions: IG II/III2 1961; Lazzarini 1985, 38–9 (SEG 34.153). Bibliography: Follet 1988, 25; Schmalz 2009, 44–45 no. 47.

T9.13

Honors for a Paidotribes and Gymnasiarkhos (EM 3744) Date: c. 45–40 BCE Find Spot: Athens Editions: IG II/III2 1965, 3730. Bibliography: Mitsos 1970, 123; Follet 2005, 12; Schmalz 2009, 45–6 no. 48, 77 no. 98.

T9.14

Dedication of Ephebes to Hermes (Agora I 6577) Date: 44/3 BCE or 29/8 BCE Find Spot: Athenian Agora Editions: Benjamin 1963, 63 no. 9A (with plate 23) (SEG 21.686); Makres 2010, 189–94 (SEG 60.218); Agora XVIII, 76–7 (C136) for later date. IG II/III3 4, 386 for earlier date. Bibliography: Schmaltz 2009, 279.

T9.15

Honors for the Ephebes and Kosmetes (fr. a: EM 7606, fr. b: BM 1864,0220.21) Date: 40/39 or 39/8 BCE Find Spot: Akropolis (fr. a); Church of Hagios Demetrios Katephori (fr. b) Editions: IG II 478; IG II/III2 1042.

322

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

T9.16

Roster of Ephebes (EM 3132) Date: c. 40 BCE Find Spot: Athens Editions: IG II 1050; IG II/III2 2463. Bibliography: Dow 1983, 98; Follet 1988, 27; Schmalz 2009, 46 no. 49.

T9.17

Honors for the Ephebes and Kosmetes (EM 10342, 4197) Date: 37/6 or 36/5 BCE Find Spot: Church of Hagios Demetrios Katephori Editions: IG II 482; IG II/III2 1043 + add. p. 671 with SEG 38.119 Bibliography: Follet 1988, 25–6

T9.18

Dedication to Hermes (EM 2676) Date: 37/6 BCE? Find Spot: Athens Wilhelm 1909, 86 no. 70 (with photo fig. 44); IG II/III2 Editions: 2995; IG II/III3 4, 388. Bibliography: P.A. Pantos 1973, 186–7 no. 6; Follet 2005, 13; Schmalz 2009, 77–8 no. 99, 270–1 (SEG 59.192)

T9.19

Dedication to Hermes (Ashmolean Museum Inv. No. C.2.55 and G.1223) Date: 37/6 BCE Find Spot: Athens Editions: Spon and Wheler 1678, 196; Chandler 1763, no. LV; CIG I 265; IG III 1077 with Add. p. 53; IG II/III2 1967; Thomas 2006, 71–6 (with photographs) (SEG 56.214); Reinmuth 1962, 375–6 with photo (SEG 21.619); IG II/ III3 4, 389

T9.20 Dedication to Hermes (3rd Ephoreia Inv. no. M 743) Date: 36/5 BCE Find Spot: Athens (North of the Agora) Editions: Pantos 1973, 176–180 no. 2 (SEG 38.176); IG II/III3 4, 390. Bibliography: Schmalz 2009, 78–79 no. 100 (who dates this text to the Claudian period). T9.21

Dedication to Hermes (stone lost) Date: 35/4 BCE Find Spot: Church of Hagios Demetrios Katephori Editions: Follet 2005, 1–14 (SEG 55.262); IG II/III3 4, 391.

Catalogue of Ephebic Inscriptions

T9.22

323

Dedication to Hermes (EM 3583) Date: between 35/4 and 11/10 BCE Find Spot: unknown Editions: IG II/III2 1966; IG II/III3 4, 392. Bibliography: Raubitschek 1951, 53 n. 16; Follet 2005, 1–14 (SEG 55.264).

T9.23 Dedication to Hermes (EM 2840) Date: First Century BCE Find Spot: unknown Editions: IG II/III2 2989; IG II/III3 4, 384. Bibliography: Raubitschek 1951, 53–4; Pantos 1973, 187; Daly 2009, 410 no. 22; Schmalz 2009, 97 (who dates this text to the Claudian period). T9.24 Honors for a Treasurer Date: First Century BCE Find Spot: Peiraieus Editions: IG II/III2 3016. T9.25 Dedication to Hermes (PA 41) Date: First Century BCE (35/4–17/16 BCE) Find Spot: Library of Hadrian Editions: IG II/III3 4, 394. T9.26 Honors for the Ephebes and Kosmetes (EM 7608, 7609, 7610, 5246) Date: c. 20/19 BCE Find Spot: Church of Panagia Pyrgiotissa Editions: IG II/III2 1040 (IG II 479) + 1025; Reinmuth 1965, 255– 272 (with plates 59–60) (SEG 22.111). Bibliography Kallet-Marx and Stroud 1997, 178–81 (for later date).

A Selection of Ephebic Documents I present here a selection of inscriptions and other documents which illustrate the organization and training of the ephebeia. As with the Catalogue above, these documents are arranged in chronological order. The principles that guide my selection are the following. I have chosen texts that 1) are important in themselves, 2) represent the range of texts available, and 3) are recently published. For instance, the Oath of the Ephebes and Chapter 42 of [Aristotle’s] Athenaion Politeia (the only non-epigraphical document in the selection of texts) are truly the sine qua non of any study of the Athenian ephebeia and are very frequently referenced and discussed in my work. Although I have excluded rosters in the selection, I have chosen those texts that are most illustrative of dedications and decrees. In the case of dedications, I have selected what I regard as good representatives of, say, a dedication to Hermes by victorious ephebes (T7.5), or to the Muses by future ephebes (T8.34). Within this category of document, I have also selected recent finds of particular interest, such as the discovery of a fascinating dedication by three ephebes containing a fragment of a sacred law at the Cave of Pan at Marathon (T9.3). In the case of decrees, my decision to include certain texts has been informed in part by Reinmuth’s typology of ephebic inscriptions.1 Reinmuth long ago observed that decrees honoring ephebes, their trainers and other personnel generally fall into four broad categories. Type Ia is comprised of texts in which the Athenian boule, the tribe to which the ephebes belonged, and/or the deme where a tribal unit of ephebes was stationed propose and pass decrees honoring the ephebes of a given tribe and their sophronistes (the tribal official responsible for each age-class of ephebes). T1.2 is a dossier of decrees that represents documents of this type. Type II consists of decrees in which the Athenian boule and ekklesia propose and pass honors for all of the ephebes in a given year who have completed their training and service (e.g., T4.2, T6.5). Trainers and personnel such as the kosmetes (the chief official of the ephebeia) are also cited in the same decree. These are characteristic of decrees passed during the third century and may have their origin in the late fourth century (T3.1), although this proposition is far from certain. Type III retains the decree of Type II, but an additional decree honoring the kosmetes appears 1  Reinmuth 1955, 226–8. Reinmuth’s Type V represents inscriptions from the Imperial Period and are therefore outside the purview of this study. Technically, these documents are not decrees, but publically acknowledge on stone the trainers, benefactors, and participating ephebes. A brief discussion of this type appears in the Epilogue of this volume.

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

325

on the same stone directly below the decree honoring the ephebes and their personnel (e.g., T7.13). Inscriptions containing both the decree honoring the ephebes and the one honoring their kosmetes appear for the first time near the beginning of the second century BCE (T7.4) and continue till the end of the first. Type IV is an “acceptance decree,” which was added to the dossier of decrees of Type III. It contains the words “concerning the things the kosmetes of the ephebes announced” (ὑπὲρ ὥν ἀπαγγέλει ὁ κοσµετὴς τῶν ἐφήβων) and reports the acceptance by the boule of the testimony regarding the sacrifices the kosmetes and the ephebes in his charge made on behalf of the Athenians. Examples of this type appear first in a dossier of decrees published on a single stone at the end of the second century BCE (T8.22) and then in other collections of ephebic documents of the first century BCE (T9.2, T9.11, T9.17). As with dedications, I have privileged newer finds to illustrate each of these types, where appropriate. Unless specified, the translations that appear in the Selection of Ephebic Documents are my own. Where I have used others, I have made few changes, except in the spelling of Greek names and terms and in the transliteration of specialized vocabulary (e.g., toxotes, instead of “archery instructor”). The purpose of making these minor changes is to ensure that these translations better cohere with the conventions used in this book.2

2  In addition to the published corpora of inscriptions that appear in the Catalogue, I encourage curious readers to visit Athenian Inscriptions Online (AIO), Stephen Lambert’s website. Most of the texts discussed in this book are readily available there along with English translations by Lambert himself or members of his team.

326

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

The Oath of the Ephebes Edition: R&O No. 88 (Translation: Rhodes and Osborne) θεοί ἱερεύς Ἄρεως καὶ Ἄθηνᾶς Ἄρείας ∆ίων ∆ίωνος Ἀχαρ νεύς ἀνέθηκεν 5

10

15

20

ὅρκος ἐφήβων πάτριος, ὃν ὀµνύναι δεῖ τοὺς ἐφήβους·vvv οὐκ αἰσχυνῶ τὰ ἱερὰ ὅπλα, οὐδὲ λείψω τὸν παραστάτην ὅπου ἂν στειχήσω· ἀµυνῶ δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ ἱερῶν καὶ ὁσίων, καὶ ὀ⟨ὐ⟩κ ἐλάττω παραδώσω τὴν πατρίδα, πλείω δὲ καὶ ἀρείω κατά τε ἐµαυτὸν καὶ µετὰ ἁπάντων, καὶ εὐηκοήσω τῶν ἀεὶ κραινόντων ἐµφρόνως καὶ τῶν θεσµῶν τῶν ἱδρυµένων καὶ οὓς ἂν τὸ λοιπὸν ἱδρύσωνται ἐµφρόνως· ἐὰν δέ τις ἀναιρεῖ, οὐκ ἐπιτρέψω κατά τε ἐµαυτὸν καὶ µετὰ πάντων, καὶ τιµήσω ἱερὰ τὰ πάτρια. ἵστορες ⟦ο⟧ θεοί Ἄγλαυρος, Ἑστία, Ἐνυώ, Ἐνυάλιος, Ἄρης καὶ Ἀθηνᾶ Ἀρεία, Ζεύς, Θαλλώ, Αὐξώ, Ἡγεµόνη, Ἡρακλῆς, ὅροι τῆς πατρίδος, πυροί, κριθαί, ἄµπελοι, ἐλᾶαι, συκαῖ.

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

Gods. The priest of Ares and Athena Areia Dion son of Dion of Akharnai has dedicated this. 5

16

The ancestral oath of the ephebes, which the ephebes must swear. I shall not bring shame upon the sacred weapons nor shall I desert the man beside me, wherever I stand in the line. I shall fight in defense of things sacred and profane and I shall not hand the fatherland on lessened, but greater and better both as far as I am able and with all. And I shall be obedient to whoever exercise power reasonably on any occasion and to the laws currently in force and any reasonably put into force in future. If anyone destroys these I shall not give them allegiance both as far as is in my own power and in union with all, and I shall honor the ancestral religion. Witnesses: the Gods Aglauros, Hestia, Enyo, Enyalios, Ares and Athena Areia, Zeus, Thallo, Auxo, Hegemone Herakles and the boundaries of my fatherland, wheat barley, vines, olives, figs.

327

328

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

Chapter 42 of the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (1) Ἔχει δ’ ἡ νῦν κατάστασις τῆς πολιτείας τόνδε τὸν τρόπον. µετέχουσιν µὲν τῆς πολιτείας οἱ ἐξ ἀµφοτέρων γεγονότες ἀστῶν, ἐγγράφονται δ’ εἰς τοὺς δηµότας ὀκτωκαίδεκα ἔτη γεγονότες.ὅταν δ’ ἐγγράφωνται, διαψηφίζονται περὶ αὐτῶν ὀµόσαντες οἱ δηµόται, πρῶτον µὲν εἰ δοκοῦσι γεγονέναι τὴν ἡλικίαν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ νόµου, κἂν µὴ δόξωσι, ἀπέρχονται πάλιν εἰς παῖδας, δεύτερον δ’ εἰ ἐλεύθερός ἐστι καὶ γέγονε κατὰ τοὺς νόµους. ἔπειτ’ ἂν µὲν ἀποψηφίσωνται µὴ εἶναι ἐλεύθερον, ὁ µὲν ἐφίησιν εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον, οἱ δὲ δηµόται κατηγόρους αἱροῦνται πέντε [ἄν]δρας ἐξ αὑτῶν, κἂν µὲν µὴ δόξῃ δικαίως ἐγγράφεσθαι, πωλεῖ τοῦτον ἡ πόλις· ἐὰν δὲ νικήσῃ, τοῖς [δ]ηµόταις ἐπάναγκες ἐγγράφειν. (2) µετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δ[οκ]ιµάζει τοὺς ἐγγραφέντας ἡ βουλή, κἄν τις δόξ[ῃ] νεώτερος ὀκτωκαίδεκ’ ἐτῶν εἶναι, ζηµιοῖ τ[ο]ὺς δηµότας τοὺς ἐγγράψαντας. ἐπὰν δὲ δοκιµασθῶσιν οἱ ἔφηβοι, συλλεγέντες οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν [κ]ατὰ φυλάς, ὀµόσαντες αἱροῦνται τρεῖς ἐκ τῶν φυλετῶν τῶν ὑπὲρ τετταράκοντα ἔτη γεγονότων, οὓς ἂν ἡγῶνται βελτίστους εἶναι καὶ ἐπιτηδειοτάτους ἐπιµελεῖσθαι τῶν ἐφήβων, ἐκ δὲ τούτων ὁ δῆµος ἕνα τῆς φυλῆς ἑκάστης χειροτονεῖ σωφρονιστήν, καὶ κοσµητὴν ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων Ἀθηναίων ἐπὶ πάντας.(3) συλλαβόντες δ’ οὗτοι τοὺς ἐφήβους, πρῶτον µὲν τὰ ἱερὰ περιῆλθον, εἶτ’ εἰς Πειραιέα πορεύονται, καὶ φρουροῦσιν οἱ µὲν τὴν Μουνιχίαν, οἱ δὲ τὴν Ἀκτήν. χειροτ[ο]νεῖ δὲ καὶ παιδοτρίβας αὐτοῖς δύο καὶ διδασκάλους, οἵτινες ὁπλοµαχεῖν καὶ τοξεύειν καὶ ἀκοντίζειν καὶ καταπάλτην ἀφιέναι διδάσκουσιν. δίδωσι δὲ καὶ εἰς τροφ[ὴν] τοῖς µὲν σωφρονισταῖς δραχµὴν αʹ ἑκάστῳ, τοῖς δ’ ἐφήβοις τέτταρας ὀβολοὺς ἑκάστῳ· τὰ δὲ τῶν φυλετῶν τῶν αὑτοῦ λαµβάνων ὁ σωφρονιστὴς ἕκαστος ἀγοράζει τὰ ἐπιτήδεια πᾶσιν εἰς τὸ κοινόν (συσσιτοῦσι γὰρ κατὰ φυλάς), καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιµελεῖται πάντων. (4) καὶ τὸν µὲν πρῶτον ἐνιαυτὸν οὕτως διάγουσι· τὸν δ’ ὕστερον ἐκκλησίας ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ γενοµένης, ἀποδειξάµενοι τῷ δήµῳ τὰ περὶ τὰς τάξεις, καὶ λαβόντες ἀσπίδα καὶ δόρυ παρὰ τῆς πόλεως, περιπολοῦσι τὴν χώραν καὶ διατρίβουσιν ἐν τοῖς φυλακτηρίοις. (5) φρουροῦσι δὲ τὰ δύο ἔτη χλαµύδας ἔχοντες, καὶ ἀτελεῖς εἰσι πάντων· καὶ δίκην οὔτε διδόασιν οὔτε λαµβάνουσιν, ἵνα µὴ πρό[φ]ασις ᾖ τ[ο]ῦ ἀπιέναι, πλὴν περὶ κλήρου καὶ ἐπικλή[ρου], κἄν τ[ι]νι κατὰ τὸ γένος ἱερωσύνη γένηται. διε[ξ]ελθόντων δὲ τῶν δυεῖν ἐτῶν, ἤδη µετὰ τῶν ἄλλων εἰσίν.

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

329

And the present state of the constitution has the following form. Those born of citizen parentage on both sides have a share in the constitution, and they are registered among the demesmen when they are eighteen. When they are enrolled the demesmen take an oath and vote about them, first whether they appear to have reached the lawful age, and unless they appear so, they go back again to the boys, and secondly whether the candidate was born a freeman and in accordance with the laws; after this, if they vote that he is not free, he appeals to the jury-court, and the demesmen elect five men from among themselves as prosecutors, and if he does not appear to be registered legally, the state sells him, but if he wins, the demesmen must register him. [2] After this the Council reviews those registered, and if anyone appears younger than eighteen years of age, it fines the demesmen who registered him. And after the ephebes have been approved, their fathers gather together by tribes and, having taken an oath, elect three members of the tribe who are more than forty years of age, whom they think to be the best and most suitable to supervise the ephebes, and from them the People elects by show of hands one from each tribe as sophronistes, and elects from the other Athenians a kosmetes to be over them all. [3] These officials gather the ephebes in a body, and first take a circuit of the temples then go to Peiraieus, and some of them garrison Mounikhia, others Akte. And the people also elects two paidotribai and didaskoloi for them, who teach them to fight with weapons, and to use the bow, to throw the javelin and to fire the catapult. And it also gives the sophronistai one drakhma per ephebe for maintenance, and to the ephebes four obols each; and each sophronistes takes the pay of those of his own tribe and buys provisions for all in common (for they mess together by tribes), and takes care of everything else. [4] And the ephebes spend their first year in this manner; and in the following year, when the Assembly is held in the theater, the ephebes give a display to the People concerning their taxeis and receive a shield and spear from the state, they patrol the countryside and pass their time in the guard-posts. [5] They garrison for two years wearing the khlamys; and they are exempt from all taxes; and they can neither be sued nor initiate a law suit, in order that they may have no pretext for being absent, except concerning an estate, an heiress, and if anyone may have inherited a priesthood. When the two years are up, they are now with the rest.

330

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

T1.2 Honors for the Ephebes of Kekropis 333/2 BCE Edition: R&O No. 89 (Translation: Rhodes and Osborne)

30

35

40

45

50

Καλλικράτης Αἰξωνεὺς εἶπεν· ἐπειδὴ οἱ ἔφηβοι οἱ τῆς Κεκρ[οπί]δος οἱ ἐπ[ὶ Κτη]σ[ι]κλέους ἄρχοντος εὐτακτοῦσιν καὶ π[ο]ιοῦσ[ιν] πάντα ὅ[σα αὐτ]οῖς οἱ νόµοι προστάττουσιν καὶ τ[ῶι σωφρ]ονι[στ]εῖ πειθ[αρχο]ῦσιν τῶι χειροτονηθέντι ὑπὸ τοῦ δ[ήµου, ἐπ]αιν[έσ]αι αὐτ[οὺς κα]ὶ στεφανῶσαι χρυσῶι στεφάνωι ἀπ[ὸ 𐅅 δραχ]µῶν κοσµι[ότητ]ος ἕνεκα καὶ εὐταξίας· ἐπαινέσαι δὲ καὶ τὸν σω[φρο]νιστὴν, Ἄδειστον Ἀντιµάχου Ἀθµονέα καὶ στεφανῶσαι χρυ[σῶι] στεφάνωι ἀπὸ 𐅅. δραχµῶν, ὅτι καλῶς καὶ φιλοτίµως ἐπεµελή[θη] τῶν ἐφήβων τῆς Κεκροπίδος φυλῆς. ἀναγράψαι δὲ τόδε τὸ ψή[φι]σµα ἐν στήληι λιθίνι καὶ στῆσαι ἐν τῶι τοῦ Κέκροπος ἱερ[ῶι]. Ἡγέµαχος Χαιρήµονος Περιθοίδης εἶπεν· ἐπειδὴ οἱ ἔφηβο[ι οἱ] τῆς Κεκροπίδος ταχθέντες Ἐλευσῖνι καλῶς καὶ φιλοτίµω[ς ἐπ]ιµελοῦνται ὧν αὐτοῖς ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆµος προστάττει κα[ὶ εὐτ]άκτους αὐτοὺς παρέχουσιν, ἐπαινέσαι αὐτοὺς κοσµιότη[τος] ἕνεκα καὶ εὐταξίας καὶ στεφανῶσαι θαλλοῦ στεφάνωι ἕ[καστον] αὐτῶν· ἐπαινέσαι δὲ καὶ τὸν σωφρονιστὴν αὐτῶν Ἄδειστ[ον Ἀντι]µάχου Ἀθµονέα καὶ στεφανῶσαι θαλλοῦ στεφάνωι ἐπε[ιδὰν τὰ]ς εὐθύνας δῶι· ἐπιγράψαι δὲ τόδε τὸ ψήφισµα ἐπὶ τὸ ἀ[νάθηµα] ὃ ἀνατιθέασιν οἱ ἔφηβοι τῆς Κεκροπίδος· vacat Πρωτίας εἶπεν· ἐψηφίσθαι τοῖς δηµόταις, ἐπειδὴ καλ[ῶς καὶ φι]λοτίµως ἐπιµελοῦνται τῆς φυλακῆς Ἐλευσῖνος ο[ἱ] τῆ[ς Κεκροπί][δ]ο[ς ἔφηβ]οι καὶ ὁ σωφρονιστὴς αὐτῶν· Ἄδειστος [Ἀν]τι[µ]ά[χου Ἀθµο][νεύς, ἐπαι]νέσα[ι] αὐτοὺς καὶ στεφανῶσαι ἕκαστον αὐτῶ[ν θαλλοῦ] [στεφάνωι]. ἀναγ[ρ]άψαι δὲ τόδε τὸ ψήφισµα εἰς τὸ ἀνάθηµα, [ὃ ἀνα][τι]θέασιν οἱ ἔφηβοι οἱ τῆς Κεκροπίδος οἱ ἐπὶ Κτησικλέ[ους] [ἄ]ρχοντος. vacat

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

331

26

Kallikrates of Aixone proposed: since the ephebes of Kekropis in the arkhonship of Ktesikles show good discipline and do all that the laws ordain that they should and obey the sophronistes elected by the people, praise them and crown them with a gold crown from 500 drakhmai for their good order and discipline. And praise the sophronistes Adeistos son of Antimakhos of Athmonon and crown him with a gold crown of 500 drakhmai because he has looked after the ephebes of the Kekropis tribe well and with love of honor. And inscribe this decree on a stone stele and set it up in the sanctuary of Kekropis.

36

Hegemakhos son of Khairemon of Perithoidai proposed: since the ephebes of Kekropis established at Eleusis look after all that the council and the people commands them well and with a love of honor and show themselves well disciplined, praise their good order and good discipline and crown each of them with crown of olive and praise their sophronistes Adeistos son of Antimakhos of Athmonon and crown him with a crown of olive when he gives his scrutiny, and inscribe this decree additionally on the dedication which the ephebes of Kekropis dedicate. Protias proposed: be it decreed by the demesmen, since the ephebes of Kekropis and their sophronistes Adeistos son of Antimakhos of Athmonon look after the guarding of Eleusis well and with love of honor, praise them and crown each of them with a crown of olive, and inscribe this inscription on the dedication which the ephebes of Kekropis in the arkhonship of Ktesikles dedicate.

45

332

55

60

65

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

Εὐφρόνιος εἶπεν· ἐψηφίσθαι τοῖς δηµόταις, ἐπειδὴ οἱ [ἔφηβοι] οἱ ἐπὶ Κτησικλέος ἄρχοντος ἐνγραφέντες εὐτακτοῦσιν [καὶ] ποιοῦσιν πάντα ὅσα οἱ νόµοι αὐτοῖς προστάττουσιν, καὶ ὁ [σω]φρονιστὴς ὁ ὑπὸ τοῦ δήµου χειροτονηθεὶς ἀποφαίνει αὐτο[υς] πειθάρχοντας καὶ τἄλλα πάντα ποιοῦντας φιλοτίµως, ἐπ[αι]νέσαι αὐτοὺς καὶ στεφανῶσαι χρυσῶι στεφάνωι ἀπὸ . δρα[χµ] ῶν κοσµιότητος εἵνεκα καὶ εὐταξίας· ἐπαινέσαι δὲ καὶ τὸ[ν] σωφρονιστὴν αὐτῶν Ἄδειστον Ἀντιµάχου Ἀθµονέα, καὶ στεφανῶσ[αι χρυσῶι στεφάνωι ἀπὸ] 𐅅 δραχµῶν, ὅτι καλῶς καὶ φιλοτίµως ἐπε µελήθη τῶν τε δηµοτῶν [καὶ τῶν] ἄλλων ἁπάντων τῶν τῆς Κεκροπίδος φυλῆς· ἐπιγράψαι δὲ τόδε τὸ ψήφισµα ἐπὶ τὸ ἀνάθηµα ὃ ἀνατιθέασιν οἱ ἔφηβοι τῆς Κεκροπίδος καὶ ὁ σωφρονιστής. vacat vacat ἡ φυλή  ἡ βουλή  Ἐλευσινιοι  Ἀθµονῆς

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

333

52

Euphronios proposed: be it decreed by the demesmen, since the ephebes inscribed in the arkhonship of Ktesikles show good discipline and do all that the laws ordain that they should, and the sophronistes elected by the people shows that they are obedient and do everything else with love of honor, praise them and crown them with a gold crown of 500 drakhmai for their good order and discipline; and praise their sophronistes, Adeistos son of Antimakhos of Athmonon, and crown him with a gold crown from 500 drakhmai, because he looked after the demesmen and all the others of the Kekropis tribe well and with love of honor; and inscribe the decree on the dedication which the ephebes of Kekropis and their sophronistes dedicate.

64

The Tribe  The Council  The Eleusinians  The Athmoneis

334

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

T4.2 Honorary Decree for the Ephebes 266/5 BCE Edition: IG II/III3 1, 917 (Translation: Sean Byrne, AIO) 1

5

10

15

20

25

30

[ἐπ]ὶ Νικίου ἄρχοντος [Ὀτρυνέ]ως, ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀκαµαντίδος τρίτ– [ης] πρυτανείας, ἧι Ἰσο[κράτη]ς ̣ Ἰσοκράτου ἈλωπεκῆθενXIIἐγρα– [µµ]άτευεν· Βοηδροµιῶ[νος ἕκ]τει µετ᾿ εἰκάδας· ἕκτει καὶ εἰκ– [οσ]τεῖ τῆς πρυτανεία[ς· ἐκκλ]ησία· τῶν προέδρων ἐπεψήφιζε– [ν Λ]εωκράτης Λεωστρά[του Οἰ]ν[α]ῖος καὶ συµπρόεδροι·v ἔδοξ– [εν] τεῖ βουλεῖ καὶ τῶι [δήµωι]· v v […σ]τρατος Μυννίσκου Περ– [γα]σῆθεν εἶπεν· ἐπειδ[ὴ οἱ ἔ]φηβ[οι οἱ ἐ]φηβεύσαντες ἐπὶ Μεν– [εκ]λέους ἄρχοντος πο[λέµο]υ κα[τέ]χ̣οντος τὴν π̣ ό̣λιν διέµει– [να]ν̣ πάντες εὐτακτο[ῦντες] καὶ [πε]ιθόµενοι τοῖς τε νόµο[ις] [κα]ὶ τῶι κοσµητε[ῖ] κ̣ αὶ [διετέ]λε[σ]α̣ν τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν τάς τε [φ]υ̣λ̣– [ακ]ὰ̣ς λειτου[ρ]γοῦντες κ[αὶ τ]ὰ ἄ[λλ]α τὰ παρανγελλόµενα ὑπὸ [τοῦ] σ̣ τρατηγοῦ εἰς τὴν το̣ῦ Μου[σ]είου φυλακήν, καθάπερ ἐτά– [χθησαν] ὑ̣πὸ τοῦ δήµου· ὅπως ἂν [ο]ὖν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι οἱ δ– [ιαµείν]α[ν]τες τε[τ]ίµηνται κατ[ὰ] τ̣ὴν ἀξίαν, τιµηθῶσι καὶ οὗ– [τοι], v ἀγαθῆι τύχηι, δεδόχθαι [τῆι] βουλῆι· vτοὺς προέδρους [οἳ ἂ]ν̣ προεδρ[ε]ύωσιν εἰς τὴν [ἐπιο]ῦσαν ἐκκλησίαν προσαγα– [γεῖν] τὸν κο[σ]µητὴν µετὰ τὰ ἱε[ρὰ κ]αὶ χρηµατίσαι περὶ τούτ– [ων, γ]ν̣ώ̣[µην] δὲ ξυµβάλλεσθαι[τῆς β]ουλῆς εἰς τὸν δῆµον, ὅτι δ– [οκεῖ τῆι β]ουλῆι ἐπαινέσα[ι τοὺ]ς ἐφήβους τοὺς ἐφηβεύσα– [ντας ἐπὶ Με]νεκλέους ἄρχον[τος κα]ὶ στεφανῶσαι αὐτοὺς χρ– [υσῶι] στ[εφάνωι] κατὰ τὸν νόµ[ον εὐτ]αξίας ἕνεκεν καὶ φιλοτ– [ιµί]ας, ἣν [ἔχοντε]ς διατελο[ῦσιν π]ρὸς τὸν δῆµον· v εἶναι δ᾿ αὐ– [το]ῖς καὶ πρ̣[οεδρία]ν ἐν τοῖς [ἀγῶσι]ν, οἷς ἡ πόλις τίθησιν· vv [ἐπ]αινέσαι [δὲ καὶ τ]ὸν κοσ[µητὴν αὐ]τῶν v Ἀµεινίαν Ἀντιφάν– [ου] Κηφισιέα, [vἐπαιν]έσαι [δὲ καὶ τὸ]ν παιδοτρίβην Ἑρµόδωρ– [ον] Ἑορτίου Ἀ[χαρνέα v καὶ τὸν ἀκον]τιστὴν Φιλόθεον Στρατ– [ίο]υ Λαµπτρέα [v καὶ τὸν καταπ]αλ[τα]φέτην Μνησίθεον Μνησι– [θέ]ου Κόπρειον [v καὶ τὸν γρ]αµµατ[έ]α Ἑρµογένην v καὶ τὸν το– [ξό]την Σῶνδρον Κ̣ [ρῆτα v καὶ] στεφα[ν]ῶσαι αὐτοὺς θαλλοῦ στε– [φά]νωι εὐταξίας ἕ̣[νεκα καὶ] ἐπιµελείας, ἣν ἔχοντες διατελ– [οῦ]σιν περὶ τοὺς ἐφή[βους· v] ἀναγράψαι δὲ τόδε τ[ὸ] ψήφισµα τ– [ὸν] γραµµατέα τὸν κα[τὰ πρ]υτανείαν [ἐ]ν στήληι [λιθί]νη̣ [ι καὶ] [σ]τῆσαι ἐν ἀγορᾶι· τὸ δὲ [γεν]όµενον [ἀνά]λω[µ]α̣ εἰς τὴν σ̣ τήλην [µε]ρίσαι τοὺς ἐπὶ τεῖ δι[οική]σει.

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

5

10

15

20

25

30

335

In the arkhonship of Nikias of Otryne, in the third prytany of Akamantis, for which Isokrates son of Isokrates of Alopeke was secretary. On the twenty-fifth of Boedromion, the twenty-sixth of the prytany. Assembly. Of the presiding officers Leokrates son of Leostratos of Oinoe was putting to the vote and his fellow officers. The Council and People decided. [---]stratos son of Mynniskos of Pergase proposed: since all the ephebes who served in the arkhonship of Menekles when war was gripping the city maintained good order and obedience to the laws and to their kosmetes and continued for the year to fulfil their guard duties and the other orders issued by the general in the guarding of the Mouseion, where they were stationed by the People; in order, therefore, that, since others who have been steadfast have been honored as they have deserved, these be honored too, for good fortune, the Council shall decide: that the presiding officials who preside in the coming Assembly shall introduce the kosmetes after the sacred business and deliberate about these things, and submit the opinion of the Council to the People, that it seems good to the Council to praise the ephebes who served in the arkhonship of Menekles and to crown them with a gold crown according to the law for the good order and love of honor which they continue to have for the People; and they shall have front row seats at the competitions which the city puts on; and to praise their kosmetes Ameinias son of Antiphanes of Kephisia; and to praise the paidotribes Hermodoros son of Heortios of Akharnai and the akontistes Philotheos son of Stratios of Lamptrai, and the katapaltaphetes Mnesitheos son of Mnesitheos of Kopros and the secretary Hermogenes and the toxotes Sondros of Krete, and to crown them with a foliage crown for their good order and the care which they continue to have for the ephebes; and the prytany secretary shall inscribe this decree on a stone stele and erect it in the Agora; and the board of administrators shall allocate the expenditure accrued for the stele.

336

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

T6.5 Decree Honoring Ephebes and Their Staff 213/2 BCE Edition: IG II/III3 1, 1166 (Translation: Stephen Lambert, AIO)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

ἐ̣π̣ὶ Εὐφιλήτου ἄρχοντος, ἐπὶ τῆς Ἐρεχθεῖδος τετάρτης v [πρ]υ̣τανείας, ἧι Ἀρίστων Θεοδώρου ῬαµνούσιοςXIIἐγραµµά– [τευεν· Βοηδροµι]ῶνος ἕνει καὶ νέαι· τρίτει καὶ δεκάτε[ι τ]ῆς [πρυτανείας· ἐ]κκλησία κυρία ἐν τῶι θεάτρωι· τῶµ προέvvv– [δρων ἐπεψήφιζεν] Χα̣ριτέλ̣ ης Παµφίλου Ἀφιδναῖος καὶ v [συµπρόεδροι]· ἔδοξεν τεῖ βουλεῖ καὶ τῶι δήµωι· Φανόµv– [αχος –c.4– Φυλ]ά̣σιος εἶπεν· ἐπειδὴ οἱ ἔφηβοι οἱ ἐπὶ ∆ιοκλέv– [ους ἄρχοντος] διετέλεσαν εὐτακτοῦντες εἰς τ⟨ὰ⟩ γ[υµνάv]– [σια, κατεσκεύα]σαν δ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς εὐπειθεῖς τῶι τε κοσµ[ητεῖ καὶ] [τοῖς καθεστῶ]σιν αὐτοῖς διδασκάλοις, ἔν τε τεῖ τ[ελετεῖ] [τῶµ Μυστηρ]ί̣ων ἐλειτούργησαν καλῶς καὶ εὐσεβῶ[ς καθάπερ] [παρήγγειλαν α]ὐτοῖς ὅ τε βασιλεὺς καὶ οἱ τῶµ Μυστη̣ ρ̣[ίων ἐπι]– [µεληταί, ἔπε]µ̣ ⟨ψ⟩αν δὲ καὶ τὰς ποµπὰς καὶ τὰς λ[αµπάδας] [ἔδραµον ἐ]ν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀγῶσιν εὐσχηµόνω̣ [ς καὶ εὐτά]– [κτως, ἔθ]υσαν δὲ κα̣ὶ τὰς θυσίας τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ̣ [ἐκαλλιέρησαν] [ἀκολούθως] τοῖς ̣ νόµοις καὶ τοῖς ψηφίσµ[ασι – – – –c.12– – – –] [– – –c.8– – – κ]α̣ὶ καθηκούσης ἐν Σαλαµ[ῖνι θυσίας τοῖς Αἰαντεί]– [οις τεῖ τε] ∆ηµοκρατίαι τὴµ ποµπὴν̣ [ἐπόµπευσαν καὶ τὴν] [λαµπάδ]α ἔδραµον τῶι ἐπωνύµωι τῆς [νήσου, ἐξῆλθον δὲ καὶ] [εἰς τὴν] χ̣ώραν καθάπερ αὐτοῖς οἱ νόµ[οι προσέταττον –c.3–] […. . α]γγελθείη παρακοιτοῦντε[ς – – – – –c.13– – – – – ταῖς] ̣ [ἐκκλησ]ίαις ἐφεδρεύοντες, οὗ ἐτάττ̣[ετο αὐτοῖς, τὴν δ’ ἀπόδει]– [ξιν τὴν] ἔν τε τεῖ βουλεῖ καὶ τὴν ἐ[ν τοῖς ὅπλοις ἐποιήσαντο]· [ἵνα δὲ φ]αίνηται ὁ δῆµος τιµῶν τ[οὺς εὐχρήστους ἑαυτοὺς καὶ] [ἴσους πα]ρασκευάζοντας, ἀγαθε[ῖ τύχει, δεδόχθαι τεῖ βουλεῖ· τοὺς λα]– [χόντα]ς προέδρους εἰς τὴν ἐ[πιοῦσαν ἐκκλησίαν χρηµατίσαι] [περὶ το]ύτων, γνώµην δὲ ξ[υµβάλλεσθαι τῆς βουλῆς εἰς τὸν δῆ]– [µον, ὅ]τι δοκεῖ τεῖ βουλε̣[ῖ ἐπαινέσαι τοὺς ἐφήβους τοὺς ἐπὶ ∆ιο]– [κλέο]υς ἄρχοντος καὶ [στεφανῶσαι αὐτο]ὺς χ[ρυσῶι στεφάνωι] [εὐσεβ]είας ἕνεκα τῆς [πρὸς τοὺς θεο]ὺ̣ς ̣ κ̣ α̣ὶ̣ εὐτ[αξίας καὶ φιλοτι]– [µί]ας τῆς εἰς τὴν βο̣[υλὴν καὶ τὸν] δῆµον, δεδόσ[θαι δὲ αὐτοῖς] καὶ πίνακος ἀνά[θεσιν ἐν ὧι] ἂν τόπωι αἱρῶ[νται, ἐπαινέσαι] δὲ καὶ τὸν παι[δοτρίβην Ἑόρτιον Ἑ]ρµ̣ [ο]δώρου Ἀχ[αρνέα καὶ τὸν κα]– ταπαλταφέ̣[την – – – – – – c.20– – – – – ]ΥΑ̣ [– –c.8– – καὶ τὸν] ὁπλοµ̣ [άχον – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –]

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

337

In the arkhonship of Euphiletos, in the fourth prytany of Erekhtheis, for which Ariston son of Theodoros of Rhamnous was secretary. On the old and new day of Boedromion, the thirteenth of the prytany. Principal Assembly in the theater. Of the presiding officers Khariteles son of Pamphilos of Aphidna was putting to the vote, and his fellow officers. The Council and the People decided. Phanomakhos son of [----] of Phyle proposed: since the ephebes of the arkhonship of Diokles have continued to be well-disciplined in the gymnasia, and have demonstrated obedience to their kosmetes and to those appointed as their trainers, and in the Mysteries did good and pious service, as they were instructed by the king and the managers of the Mysteries, and participated in the processions, and ran the torch-races in the other competitions in an orderly and disciplined manner, and made the sacrifices to the gods and obtained favorable omens in accordance with the laws and decrees … … and at the time of the sacrifice on Salamis [at the festival of Ajax] they both participated in the procession for Democracy and ran the torch-race for the eponymous of the island, and they went out into the countryside as the laws required of them … … reported that they kept watch … and watched over meetings of the Assembly, as they were instructed, and carried out the demonstration of their training, both the one in the Council and the one at arms; so that the People may be seen to honor those who show themselves to be of [good service] and competent, for good fortune, the Council shall decide, that the presiding committee allotted for the forthcoming Assembly shall place this matter on the agenda, and submit the opinion of the Council to the People, that it seems good to the Council to praise the ephebes of the arkhonship of Diokles, and crown them with a gold crown for their piety towards the gods and their discipline and love of honor towards the Council and the People; and they shall be granted permission to set up a painting in whatever place they may choose; and also to praise their paidotribes, Heortios son of Hermodoros of Akharnai, and their katapaltaphetes … and their hoplomakhos …

338

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

T7.5 Dedication by Ephebes to Hermes 196/5 BCE Edition: IG II/III3 4, 357 Face A

5

[οἱ ἐφηβεύσαν]τες ἐπὶ Τυχάνδρου ἄρχοντος Ἑρµεῖ· Κίµων Κίµωνος Ἀφιδναῖος Ξενοκράτης Ἀρτεµιδώρου Ἐλευσίνιος Ἀθηνίων Βιόττου Περιθοίδης Ξένων Ξενοκλέους Κρωπίδης Νικοκράτης Ζωίλου Φλυεύς Φανόστρατος Νικοµάχου Τρικορύσιος Εὐκράτης Εὐκράτου Εὐωνυµεύς παιδοτριβοῦντος ∆ωροθέου Ὑβάδου

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

5

339

The ephebes who underwent training in the arkhonship of Tykhandros to Hermes Kimon son of Kimon of Aphidna Zenokrates son of Artemidoros of Eleusis Athenion son of Biottos of Perithodai Zenon son of Zenon of Kropidai Nikokrates son of Zoilos of Phlya Phanostratos son of Nikomakhos of Trikorynthos Eukrates son of Eukrates of Euonymon when Dorotheos son of Hybados was the paidotribes

340

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

T7.13 Separate Decrees Honoring Ephebes and Kosmetes 176/5 BCE Edition: IG II/III3 1, 1313 (Stephen Lambert, et al. AIO)

5

10

15

ἐπὶ Ἱππάκου ἄρχοντος, ἐπ[ὶ] τῆς Κεκροπίδος τετάρτης πρυτανείας, ἧι Πολέµαρχ[ος] Π̣ [.]– [. .]κράτου Ἰφιστιάδης ἐγ̣ραµµάτευεν· Πυανοψιῶνος ἑνδεκάτει, κατὰ θεὸν δὲ [τ]ρ[ί]– [τει] ἐξι̣ όντος· µιᾶι κα̣ὶ̣ [εἰ]κοστεῖ τῆς πρυτανείας· ἐκκλησία κυρία ἐν τῶι θεάτρω[ι]· vv [τῶ]ν προέδρων ἐπε[ψήφι]ζεν Ἀµύντας Ἀµύντου ἐκ Κηδῶν καὶ συµπρόεδροι· ἔδοξεν [τεῖ βουλεῖ] καὶ τῶι [δήµ]ω̣ ι ̣· Ξενότιµος Χαρισάνδρου ∆αιδαλίδης εἶπεν· ἐπειδὴ οἱ ἔφη– [βοι συντε]λ̣ έ̣[σαντες] τάς τε ἐνγραφὰς ἔθυσαν ἐπὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἑστίας ἐν τῶι πρυτανε̣ί̣– [ωι µετὰ το]ῦ [κοσµ]ητοῦ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ δήµου προαίρεσιν, συνετέλεσαν δὲ καὶ τὰ[ς] [ἄλλας θυσίας] τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ τοῖς εὐεργέταις ἀκολούθως τοῖς νόµοις καὶ τοῖς τ[ο]ῦ̣ [δήµου ψηφίσ]µασιν, ἐποιήσαντο δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν βοῶν ἄρσιν δι᾽ ἑαυτῶν τοῖς τε Μυστη– [ρίοις τεῖ τε Π]ροηροσίαι καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις θυσίαις, ἐπόµπευσαν δὲ καὶ τὰς π[ο] µπάς, [ἔδραµον δὲ] καὶ τὰς λαµπάδας καὶ τοὺς δρόµους τοὺς ἐν τοῖς γυµνασίοις καὶ v [τοῖς Ἐπιτα]φίοις εὐσχηµόνως, ἐφήδρευσαν δὲ καὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, τοῦ δ[ὲ] κοσv– [µητοῦ βου]ληθέντος αὐτοὺς ἀγαγεῖν εἰς τὴν χώραν, ὅπως ἅµα µὲν ἐν τοῖς [ὅ] πλοις [ἀσκηθῶσ]ιν, ἅµα δὲ καὶ τῶν ὁρίων ἔµπειροι γίνωνται, φιλοπόνως ἠκολούθη[σ] α̣ν καὶ̣ [ἀνεστρ]άφησαν εὐτάκτως καὶ ἀνεγκλήτως, παραγενόµενοι δὲ καὶ εἰς Μα[ραθῶ]να [τό τε] πολυανδρεῖον ἐστεφάνωσαν καὶ ἐπιτάφιον ἀγῶνα ἐποίησαν, καθάπερ ἐ̣[πὶ vv] [τοῦ] πρὸς τῶι ἄστει πολυανδρείου γίνεσθαι νόµιµόν ἐστιν, καλὸν εἶναι κρίνον[τες ἀξί]– [ως τ]ιµᾶν τοὺς ἠγωνισµένους ἐνδοξότατα περὶ τῆς ἐλευθερίας, ἦλθον δὲ καὶ ε̣[ἰς Ἀµ]–

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

341

First Decree: In the arkhonship of Hippakos, in the fourth prytany, of Kekropis, for which Polemarkhos son of P[oly]krates of Iphistiadai was secretary. On the eleventh of Pyanopsion, the twenty-eighth by divine reckoning, the twenty-first of the prytany. Principal Assembly in the theater. Of the presiding officers Amyntas son of Amyntas of Kedoi was putting to the vote, and his fellow-officials. (line 5) The Council and the People decided. Xenotimos son of Kharisandros of Daidalidai proposed: since the ephebes completed the entrance sacrifices at the public hearth in the Prytaneion with their kosmetes in accordance with the policy of the People, and completed the other sacrifices for the gods and benefactors in accordance with the laws and the decrees of the People, and they accomplished the lifting of the bulls by themselves at the Mysteries (line 10) and at the Proerosia and at the other sacrifices, and processed in the processions, and ran the torch-races and the races in the gymnasia and at the Epitaphia in a seemly manner, and watched over meetings of the Assembly, and when their kosmetes wished to lead them into the countryside to be both trained in arms and at the same time to become familiar with the borders, they followed with a love of toil (line 15) and returned in a disciplined and irreproachable manner, and having also been to Marathon, they crowned the mass grave and performed the funeral competition, just as customarily takes place at the mass grave by the city, deeming that it is good to honor in a worthy manner those who contended in a most glorious way for freedom, and they also went to Amphiaraos and offered sacrifice,

342

20

25

30

35

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

[φι]έραον καὶ ἔθυσαν, βουληθέντος δὲ τοῦ κοσµητοῦ µηδὲ τοῦ πλεῖν αὐτοὺς [ἀ] πείρο̣[υς v] [γε]νέσθαι καὶ λαβόντες πλοῖα παρὰ τῆς πόλεως ἐµβάντες προθύµως ἐµε[λ] έτησ[αν v] [κ]α̣ὶ ἔπλευσαν πρὸς τὸ τρόπαιον καὶ στεφανώσαντες ἔθυσαν, ἔπλευσαν δὲ καὶ εἰς Σ[α]– [λ]α̣µῖνα τοῖς Αἰαντείοις καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις ἐπόµπευσαν καὶ ἔθυσαν τῶι τε Αἴαντ̣[ι] [κ]αὶ τῶι Ἀσκληπιῶι καὶ τῶι Ἑρµεῖ, ἔδραµον δὲ καὶ τὴν λαµπάδα καὶ χωρὶς ἐν ὅπλοις καὶ ἐ– ποιήσαντο καὶ τοῖς ἐκεῖ κατοικοῦσι τῶν πολιτῶν ἀπόδειξιν τῶν µαθηµάτων ἐφ᾽ οἷς καὶ ἐ– πῃνέθησαν, ἀπέδωκαν δὲ καὶ τὰ πλοῖα νεωλκύσαντες τῶι ταµίαι τῶν τριηροποιικῶν καὶ τὰ σκεύη ὅσα καὶ παρέλαβον, ἔθυσαν δὲ καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς ἔν τε τεῖ χώραι ἐφ᾽ οὓς ἂν ἐπιβάλοιεν τόπους ἱερὰ ἔχοντας καὶ ἐν τοῖς φρουρίοις, κατεσκεύασαν δὲ καὶ καταπάλτην ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀκολούθως τοῖς ἐψηφισµένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ δήµου, πεπειθαρχηκότες δὲ ἐν τοῖς µαθή̣– µασιν πεποίηνται τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τοῖς τε Ἐπιταφίοις καὶ τεῖ βουλεῖ πράττοντες ἕ– καστα κατὰ τοὺς νόµους ἕνεκα τοῦ καλῶς ἀκούειν καὶ τοὺς πόνους καὶ τὰς κακοπα– θίας ὑποµείναντες ἀόκνως, καθήκει δὲ τιµᾶν τοὺς ἀξίους καὶ προκαλεῖσθαι τοὺς νεω̣ – τέρους ἐπὶ τὴν ὁµοίαν αἵρεσιν, ὅπως ἐφάµιλλον εἶ τοῖς ἀεὶ ἐφηβεύουσιν εὐτακτεῖν καὶ πείθεσθαι τοῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ δήµου καθισταµένοις ἐπὶ τὴν ἑαυτῶν εὐκοσµίαν· ἵνα δὲ κα[ὶ] ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆµος φαίνωνται τιµῶντες τοὺς ἀξίους, ἀγαθεῖ τύχει, δεδόχθαι τεῖ βου– λεῖ· τοὺς λαχόντας προέδρους εἰς τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν ἐκκλησίαν χρηµατίσαι περὶ τούv– των, γνώµην δὲ ξυµβάλλεσθαι τῆς βουλῆς εἰς τὸν δῆµον ὅτι δοκεῖ τεῖ βουλεῖ vvv ἐπαινέσαι τοὺς ἐφήβους τοὺς ἐπὶ Χαιρίππου ἄρχοντος καὶ στεφανῶσαι χρυσῶι στεφάνωι εὐ– σεβείας ἕνεκεν τῆς πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ εὐταξίας καὶ φιλοτιµίας τῆς πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὸν δῆµον καὶ ἀνειπεῖν τὸν στέφανον τοῦτον ∆ιονυσίων τε τῶν ἐν ἄστει κ[α] ινοῖς τραγωιvv–

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

343

and because their kosmetes did not want them to be inexperienced in sailing, (line 20) they practised enthusiastically, having received ships from the city and having embarked, and they sailed to the trophy, crowned it and offered sacrifice, and also sailed to Salamis for the Aianteia and marched in the procession in arms and offered sacrifice to Aias and Asklepios and Hermes, and ran the torch-race and separately in arms, and made a demonstration of what they had learnt for those of the citizens who live there, for which they also (line 25) received praise, and they returned the ships, having hauled them on land, to the treasurer of the trireme-building fund and all the equipment that they had received, and offered sacrifice to the gods in the countryside, in whatever places they visited which had sanctuaries, and in the garrisons, and fitted out a catapult from their own resources in accordance with the decrees of the People, and having been obedient in their training, they have made the demonstration both at the Epitaphia and to the Council, doing (line 30) everything in accordance with the laws for the sake of their good reputation, and having endured toil and hardship unshrinkingly; and it is proper to honor those who are worthy and to challenge the young men to (adopt) a like-minded attitude, in order that there should always be an incentive for those who are ephebes to be disciplined and obedient to those appointed by the People to be in charge of their orderliness; and so that the Council and the People can be seen to be honoring those who are worthy, for good fortune, the Council shall decide, (line 35) that the presiding committee allotted for the forthcoming Assembly shall place these matters on the agenda, and submit the opinion of the Council to the People, that it seems good to the Council to praise the ephebes of the arkhonship of Khairippos and crown them with a gold crown for their piety towards the gods and their discipline and love of honor towards the Council and the People, and to announce this crown at the new tragedies of the City Dionysia

344 40

45

50

55

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

δ̣οῖς καὶ Ἐλευσινίων καὶ Παναθηναίων καὶ Πτολεµαίων τοῖς γυµνικοῖς ἀγῶσιν· τῆς δὲ ποιή– σεως τῶν στεφάνων καὶ τῶν ἀναγορεύσεων ἐπιµεληθῆναι τοὺς στρατηγοὺ[ς] καὶ τὸν τα– µίαν τῶν στρατιωτικῶν· ὑπάρχειν δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ προεδρίαν ἐµ πᾶσι τοῖς ἀγῶσιν̣ οἷς ἡ πόv– λις τίθησιν· τὸν δὲ ἀρχιτέκτονα τὸν ἀεὶ χειροτονούµενον κατανέµειν αὐτοῖς τὸν τό– πον· δεδόσθαι δὲ καὶ πίνακος ἀνάθεσιν οὗ ἂν προαιρῶνται, καθάπερ ἀξιοῦσιν· ἐπεὶ δ̣ὲ̣ καὶ ὁ [κ]οσµητὴς ἀπολελόγισται πειθαρχοῦντας ἑαυτῶι πολλὰ καὶ χρήσιµα ἐπιτετελέ [σ]θ̣αι v [τῶ]ι δήµωι πρὸς ἀσφάλειαν καὶ φυλακὴν καὶ ἀξιοῖ̣ τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὸν δῆµον δοθῆναι α[ὐ]τ̣[οῖ]ς [ἆθ]λόν τι τῆς κακοπαθίας εἰς ἀνάθηµα, δεδόσθαι αὐτοῖς καθάπερ ἀξιοῖ ὁ κοσµητὴς ὃ ἂµ vv [φαί]νηται τῶι δήµωι τιµῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ τούτου τὴν ἀνάθεσιν ὑπάρχειν ἐν Λυκείωι ἐπιγρα– [φὴν] ἔχον « ἆθλον εὐταξίας καὶ φιλοπονίας » καὶ ἐπιγράψαι αὐτῶν τὰ ὀνόµατα πατρόθεν v [καὶ] τοῦ δήµου καὶ τοῦ κοσµητοῦ καὶ τῶν διδασκάλων· ἐπαινέσαι δὲ καὶ τὸν κοσµητὴν vv [αὐτ]ῶν Αἰαντίδην Αἰαντίδου Παιανιέα εὐνοίας ἕνεκεν καὶ φιλοτιµίας, ἣν ἔχων διατε– [λεῖ] πρός τε τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὸν δῆµον· ἐπαινέσαι δὲ καὶ τὸν παιδοτρίβην Ἑρµόδωρον Ἑορτίου [Ἀχ]αρνέα καὶ τὸν ὁπλοµάχον Περσαῖον Συµµάχου Κικυννέα καὶ τὸν ἀκοντιστὴν Νικόv– [µα]χον Νικοµάχου Ἀφιδναῖον καὶ τὸν τοξότην Σῶσον Προξένου Σφήττιον καὶ τὸν κα– [τ]απελταφέτην Πεδιέα Νεάνδρου ἐκ Κεραµέων καὶ τὸν γραµµατέα Ὀλυµπιόδωρον Κρω– [µ]άχου Παλληνέα καὶ στεφανῶσαι ἕκαστον αὐτῶν θαλλοῦ στεφάνωι· ἀναγράψαι δὲ τόδε [τὸ] ψήφισµα τὸν γραµµατέα τὸν κατὰ πρυτανείαν ἐν στήλει λιθίνει καὶ τὰ ὀνόµατα τῶν [ἐ]φ̣ήβων κατὰ φυλὰς καὶ στῆσαι αὐτὴν ἐν ἀγορᾶι· τὸ δὲ γενόµενον ἀνάλωµα εἴς τε τὴν ποί– [η]σιν τῆς στήλης καὶ τὴν ἀναγραφὴν καὶ τὴν ἀνάθεσιν µερίσαι τὸν ταµίαν τῶν στρατιωτικῶν.

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

345

(line 40) and at the gymnastic competitions of the Eleusinia and Panathenaia and Ptolemaia; and the generals and the treasurer of the military fund shall take care of the making of the crowns and the announcements; and they shall have front seats in all the competitions that the city puts on; and the elected director of works shall always allocate them their place; and they shall have permission to set up a painting wherever they may choose, just as they think right; and since (line 45) their kosmetes has given an account of how, obeying him, they accomplished many useful things for the safety and protection of the People, and since he requests of the Council and the People that they be granted a dedication as a reward for their endurance, they shall have it, just as their kosmetes requests, whatever shall seem good to the People, for their honor, and its erection shall take place in the Lykeion, bearing the inscription, “award for discipline and love of toil”, and to inscribe their names with their father’s names (line 50) and deme and of their kosmetes and their trainers; and to praise also their kosmetes, Aiantides son of Aiantides of Paiania, for the good will and love of honor, which he continually shows towards the Council and the People; and to praise also their paidotribes, Hermodoros son of Heortios of Akharnai, and their hoplomakhos, Persaios son of Symmakhos of Kikynna, and their akontistes Nikomakhos son of Nikomakhos of Aphidna, and their toxotes, Sosos son of Proxenos of Sphettos, and their (line 55) katapaltaphetes, Pedieos son of Neandros of Kerameis, and their secretary, Olympiodoros son of Kromakhos of Pallene, and to crown each of them with a foliage crown; and the prytany secretary shall inscribe this decree on a stone stele and the names of the ephebes according to their tribes, and stand it in the Agora; and the treasurer of the military fund shall give the expenditure accrued for the making of the stele and for the inscribing and erection of it.

346

85

90

95

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

NON-STOICH. ἐπὶ Σωνίκου ἄρχοντος, ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀτταλίδος πρώτης πρυτανείας, εἷ Λεύκιος Βιοτέλου Περι– [θ]οίδης ἐγραµµάτευεν· Ἑκατοµβαιῶνος ἑνδεκάτει· ἑνδεκάτει τῆς πρυτανείας· ἐκκλησία κυρία ἐν τῶι θεάτρωι· τῶν προέδρων ἐπεψήφιζεν Ἀριστοµ̣ ένης Ἀριστοµένου Αἰξωνεὺς καὶ συµπρόεδροι· ἔδοξεν τεῖ βουλεῖ καὶ τῶι δήµωι· v Χαρµόστρατος ∆ιοφάνου Πρασιεὺς εἶπεν· ἐπει– δὴ Αἰαντίδης χειροτονηθεὶς κοσµητὴς εἰς τὸν ἐπὶ Χαιρίππου ἄρχοντος ἐνιαυτὸν τεῖ τε Ἑσ– τίαι ἔθυσεν ἐν τῶι πρυτανείωι ταῖς Ἐγγραφαῖς µετὰ τῶν ἐφήβων καὶ τῶν πατέρων αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς θυσίας τὰς καθηκούσας ἐν τῶι ἐνιαυτῶι συνετέλεσεν, ἐπεµελήθη δὲ καὶ τῶν δρό– µων τῶν ἐν τοῖς γυµνασίοις γινοµένων καὶ τῶν λαµπάδων, ὅπως εὐσχηµόνως συντελεσθῶσιν καὶ τάς τε ποµπὰς ⟦– – – –c.13– – – –⟧ πάσας καὶ τὰς εἰς τὸ θέατρον εἰσόδους µετ᾽ εὐκοσµί[ας] ἐποιήσατο καὶ ἐφρόντισεν ὅπως τοῖς µεγάλοις Μυστηρίοις τὴν τῶν βοῶν ἄρσιν οἱ ἔφηβοι [ποι]– [ή]σωνται δι᾽ ἑαυτῶν, ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ τοῖς πρὸς Ἄγραν Μυστηρίοις ἐπεµελήθη τῆς ΕΝΤΗΠΥΛΟ̣ [. .] [. .] εὐσχηµοσύνης, καθηκούσης δὲ καὶ τῆς τριετηρίδος τεῖ Παλλάδι παρέπεµψεν εὐ[τάvv]– κτως καὶ ὅπως τοῖς ∆ιονυσίοις τὸν θεὸν εἰσαγάγωσιν εἰς τὸ θέατρον δαιδοφοροῦντες [ἐπε]– µελήθη καὶ ἵνα τὴν ἀνάπειραν καὶ τὴν µελέτην ποιήσωνται λαβόντες πλοῖον τοῦ δήµ[ου] καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τρόπαιον πλεύσας µετ᾽ αὐτῶν συνέθυσεν καὶ εἰς Σαλαµ[ῖ]να καταπλεύ[σας] τήν τε λαµπάδα καὶ τὸν δρόµον καὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα, ὃν ἔθηκεν ὁ στρατηγός, καὶ Σαλαµινίοις σ̣ [υν]– ε̣τέλεσεν τῶν ἐφήβων µετὰ πάσης εὐκοσµίας, καὶ διὰ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ ἔφηβοι ̣ [ἐστε]– φ̣ανώθησαν ὑπὸ Σαλαµινίων κατὰ ψήφισµα χρυσῶι στεφάνωι, ἐξήγαγεν δὲ τοὺς ἐφ[ήβους] [κ]αὶ εἰς τὴν χώραν καθ᾽ ἓν ἐπὶ τὰ ὅρια πάσης τῆς Ἀττικῆς µετὰ τοῦ στρατηγοῦ το[ῦ ἐπὶ τὰ]

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

347

Second Decree: In the arkhonship of Sonikos, in the first prytany, of Attalis, for which Leukios son of Bioteles of Perithoidai was secretary. On the eleventh of Hekatombaion, the eleventh of the prytany. Principal assembly in the theater. Of the presiding committee Aristomenes son of Aristomenes of Aixone was putting to the vote, and his fellow presiding committee members. The Council and the People decided. Kharmostratos son of Diophanes of Prasiai proposed: since (line 85) Aiantides, elected kosmetes in the year of the arkhonship of Khairippos, offered sacrifice to Hestia in the city hall at the registration ceremony with the ephebes and their fathers and completed the other proper sacrifices in the year, and took care as well of the races in the gymnasia and the torch-races, that they were completed in an orderly manner, and made both all the processions [[both all the processions]] and the entrances into the theater with orderliness, (line 90) and took care that at the great Mysteries the ephebes performed the lifting of the bulls by themselves, and similarly at the Mysteries at Agrai took care of their orderliness in the [----], and at the traditional biennial festival for Pallas, he conducted the escort in a disciplined manner, and he took care that at the Dionysia they led the god into the theater while carrying torches, and having received a ship from the People in order that they might carry out exercises and practice, (line 95) and having sailed to the trophy, he sacrificed with them, and having sailed to land in Salamis he performed with the ephebes the torch-race, the race, and the competition organised by the general, also for the Salaminians, with all good order, and for that he and the ephebes were crowned with a gold crown by the Salaminians in accordance with a decree; and he led the ephebes out into the countryside to every border of all Attica together with the Hoplite General,

348 100

105

110

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

[ὅ]πλα Κιχησίου καὶ τοῦ ὁπλοµάχου Περσαίου, ἐποιήσατο δὲ καὶ τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τῶν ἐφήβω[ν τοῖς] Ἐ̣ πιταφίοις καὶ πάλιν ἐν τῶι Παναθηναιικῶι κατὰ τὸν νόµον ταῖς ἐγγραφαῖς καὶ τὰς ἐ[κκλη]– [σ]ίας πάσας ἐφηδρεύσοντας ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις ἤγαγεν αὐτοὺς ἐπιµελῶς, ἀνέθηκεν δὲ [µε]– [τ᾽] αὐτῶν καὶ τὸν καταπάλτην κατὰ τὸ ψήφισµα τοῦ δήµου κατασκευασάµενος· ὅπως δὲ v [οὖ]ν ἐφάµιλλον εἶ πᾶσιν τὸ φιλοτιµεῖσθαι ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς ὑπακούειν βουλοµένοις, ἀγαθεῖ v [τ]ύχει, δεδόχθαι τεῖ βουλεῖ· τοὺς λαχόντας προέδρους εἰς τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν ἐκκλη σίαν χρηµατί– [σ]αι περὶ τούτων, γνώµην δὲ ξυµβάλλεσθαι τῆς βουλῆς εἰς τὸν δῆµον, ὅτι δοκεῖ τεῖ βουλεῖ ἐπαινέσαι Αἰαντίδην Αἰαντίδου Παιανιέα καὶ στεφανῶσαι χρυσῶι στεφάνωι κατὰ τὸν νόµον ἀρετῆς [ἕ]νεκεν καὶ καλοκἀγαθίας τῆς περὶ τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὸν δῆµον τὸν Ἀθηναίων καὶ ἀνειπεῖν τὸν στέφανον ∆ιο– [ν]υσίων τῶν ἐν ἄστει καινοῖς τραγωιδοῖς· δεδόσθαι δὲ αὐτῶι καὶ προεδρίαν µετὰ τῶν ἐφήβων ἐµ πᾶσι τοῖς ἀγῶσι [ο]ἷς ἡ πόλις τίθησιν. vv

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

349

(line 100) Kikhesios, and the hoplomakhos, Persaios, and he performed the demonstration of the ephebes at the Epitaphia and again in the Panathenaic (stadium) in accordance with the law at the registration, and with care he led them in arms to watch over all meetings of the Assembly, and also set up the catapult with them, having prepared it in accordance with the decree of the People; and in order that their honor-loving behaviour shall be an incentive for all who are willing to obey their officers, for good (line 105) fortune, the Council shall decide: that the presiding committee allotted for the forthcoming Assembly shall place these matters on the agenda, and submit the opinion of the Council to the People, that it seems good to the Council to praise Aiantides son of Aiantides of Paiania and to crown him with a gold crown in accordance with the law for his excellence and noble disposition as regards the Athenian Council and People, and to announce the crown at the City Dionysia in the new tragedies; and he shall also be given front seats together with the ephebes at all the competitions (line 110) that the city puts on.

350

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

T8.34 Dedication of Mellephebes to Muses with Roster 94/3 BCE Edition: IG II/III3 4, 370

10

µελλέφηβοι οἱ ἐπὶ Καλλίου ἄρχοντος Μούσαις· Φιλέταιρος Φιλεταίρου vac. Σωσίβιος Ἀρτεµιδώρου Μιλήσιος Λεωνίδης Θεοφράστου Κηφισιεύς Ἀµµώνιος ∆ιονυσίου Ἀµφιτροπῆθεν Σωτάρετος Εὐβουλίδου Μαραθώνιος Ἀθηνόδωρος Ἀθηνοδώρου Ἀγκυλ[ῆ]θεν Ἀσκληπιάδης Ἡρακλείδου Προβαλ[ίσι]ος Ἀνδροκλῆς Ἀνδροκλέους ∆εκελ[εε]ύς.

11

οἱ µελλέφηβοι τὸν διδάσκαλον

οἱ συνέφηβοι

Col. I: ∆ιονυΣιον Λαµπτρέα

Col II. τὸν ταµίαν Φιλέται-ρον

1

5

351

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

10

The mellephebes in the arkhonship of Kallias to the Muses Philetairos son of Philetairos Sosibios son of Artemidoros of Miletos Leonides son of Theophrastos of Kephisia Ammonios son of Dionysios of Amphitrope Sotaretos son of Euboulides of Marathon Athenodoros son of Athenodoros of Ankyle Asklepiades son of Herakleides of Probalinthos Androkles son of Androkles of Dekeleia

11

The mellephebes honor their teacher

the fellow ephebes

Dionysion of Lamptrai

the treasurer Philetairos

1

5

352

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

T9.2 Decree Honoring a Kosmetes and Ephebes with Fragmentary Roster 79/8 BCE Edition: IG II/III2 1039 with SEG 22.110 and 38.117 (Selection Excerpted from a Lengthy Text to Illustrate Reinmuth Type IV)

5

10

θε[οί]. [ἐπὶ ․․․7․․․]ου ἄρχοντος, στρατηγοῦντος ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁπλίτας Μνασ[έου τοῦ] Μνασ[έου Βερ]ενικίδου· βουλῆς ψηφίσµατα· Βοηδροµι[ῶ]νος ἕκτῃ ἱστα[µένου· ἐ]ν τῶι Θησε[ίωι ἐκ] σταδ[ίου]· Μνασέας Μνασέου Βερεν[ικίδης] εἶπεν· ὑπὲρ ὧν [ἀπαγγέλλει] ὁ κοσµητὴ[ς τῶν ἐφήβ]ων Ἡδύλος Στράτωνος [Λαµπτρ]εύς, ὑπὲρ τῆς θυ[σίας ἧς ἔ] θυσεν µετὰ [τῶν ἐφήβων ἐ]ν ἀκροπ[όλει, ἐξι]τητ[ήρια τ]ῆι τε Ἀθηνᾶι τῆι Π[ολιάδι καὶ τοῖς] ἄλλοις θεοῖς [οἷς πάτριον ἦν, ὑπ]έ̣ρ̣ τ[ε τῆς βο]υλῆς κα[ὶ τοῦ] δήµου καὶ [παίδων καὶ γυναικῶν καὶ τῶν] φίλω[ν καὶ συµµάχω]ν, καὶ γεγον[έναι ἐ]ν πᾶσ[ι]ν [τ]ὰ [ἱερὰ καλὰ καὶ σωτήρια], ἀγαθῆι τύχηι [δεδόχθαι τῆι βο]υλῆι τὰ µὲν ἱερὰ [τὰ γεγονό]τα ἐν τ[οῖς ἱεροῖς ⟨δέχεσθαι⟩ ἐφ’ ὑ]γιείαι καὶ σωτηρίαι τῆ[ς βουλῆ]ς καὶ π[αί]δων καὶ γυναι[κῶν καὶ τ]ῶν φίλων κα[ὶ συµµάχων· ἐπαινέ]σαι δὲ τὸν κοσµητὴν [Ἡδύλ]ον Σ[τρ]ά[τ]ωνος Λα[µπ]τρέα κα[ὶ τοὺ]ς ἐφή[βους, καὶ στεφανῶσα]ι ἕκ[αστ]ον αὐτῶν θαλλοῦ σ[τε]φάνωι ἐπὶ τῆι εὐσεβείαι τῆι π[ρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ] ἐπὶ [τ]ῆι παρ’ ὅλο[ν τὸν ἐνι]αυτὸ[ν] [σπουδῆι καὶ φι]λοπονίαι περὶ πάντα, [ἵνα τούτων συντελο]υµένων φαίν[ηται ἡ βουλὴ] τιµ[ῶσα] [το]ὺς [ἀγαθοὺς] τῆς ἐ[πιβαλλούσης αὐτοῖς τιµῆς].

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

5

10

353

Gods. [In …] arkhonship, when Mnaseas son of Mnaseas of Berenikidai was the Hoplite General; Decrees of the Council; in the seventh day of Boedromion; in the Theseion from the stadium; Mnesias son of Mnesias of Berenikidai proposed; concerning the things the kosmetes of the ephebes Hedylos son of Straton of Lamptrai announced, concerning the sacrifices he made with the ephebes on the Akropolis during the exit ceremony to Athena Polias and the rest of the gods for whom it is customary, on behalf of Council and the People and the children and wives and friends and allies, that in all respects the sacrifices were noble and safe, for good fortune it seems best for the Council to accept the omens which occurred in the sacrifices for the health and safety of the Council, and children and wives and friends and allies; and to praise the kosmetes Hedylos son of Straton of Lamptrai and the ephebes, and to crown each of them with a foliage crown for their piety towards to the gods and their zeal through the whole year and their love of honor concerning all things, so that, when sacrifices are carried out, the Council appears to honor good men with an honor suitable to them.

354

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

T9.3 Sacred Law from the Cave of Pan at Marathon 61/0 BCE Edition: Lupu 2005, 171–5 (with Editor’s Translation)

5

10

ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ· ἐπὶ Θεοφήµου ἄρχοντος· vvv Πυθαγόρας καὶ Σωσικράτης καὶ Λύσανδρος οἱ συνέφηβοι Πανὶ καὶ Νύµφαις ἀνέθηκαν. ⟨Α⟩ ἀπαγορεύει ὁ θεός· µὴ [ε]ἰσφέρειν χρωµάτιν[ον] [µ]η̣ δὲ βαπτὸν µηδὲ Λ․․ [—5–6—]ΕΙΣΠ[—6–7—]

A Selection of Ephebic Documents

5

For good fortune; in the arkhonship of Theophemos fellow ephebes Pythagoras Sosikrates and Lysandros dedicated (this stele) to Pan and the Nymphs. The god forbids (anyone) to carry in either colored (garments) or dyed (garments) …

355

Appendices

∵

appendix 1

Participation Totals for Hellenistic Ephebeia by Year table 1

Number of ephebes by year (267–229 BCE)

Text #

Date of text (arkhon-year)

Date of ephebeia

Total number of ephebes

T4.2 T4.4 (frag.) T5.2 (frag.) T5.5 T5.6 T5.8 T5.9 (frag.)

266/5 BCE (Nikias Otryneos) late 260’s BCE ([--]sinos) 257/6 BCE (Themokhares) 249/8 BCE (Hieron) 245/4 BCE (Kudenor) 235/4 BCE (Ekphantes) c. 235/4 BCE (?)

267/6 BCE (Menekles) Late 260’s BCE 258/7 BCE (Antiphon) 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos) 246/5 BCE (Philoneos) 236/5 BCE (Kimon) c. 235/4 BCE (?)

32 7+ 20+ 29 23 31 12+

table 2

Number of ephebes by year (229–167 BCE)

Text #

Date of text (arkhon-year)

Date of ephebeia

Total number of ephebes

T6.1 (frag.) T6.4 (frag.) T6.9 (frag.) T6.10 (frag.) T7.4 T7.6 T7.8 (frag.) T7.13

218/7 BCE (Menekrates) c. 215 BCE 208/7 BCE (Sostratos) 203/2 BCE (Apollodoros) 196/5 BCE (Tykhandros) 185/4 BCE (Eupolemos) c. 185/4 BCE 176/5 BCE

219/18 BCE (Thasyphon?) c. 215 BCE 209/8 BCE (Aiskhron) 204/3 BCE (Diodotos) 197/6 BCE (Sositeles) 186/5 BCE (Zopyros) c. 185/4 BCE 177/6 BCE

8+ (20) 6+ (30) 24+ (55) 23+ (29) 22 8+ (35–50) 14+ (c. 35) 47

360 table 3

Text #

appendix 1 Number of ephebes by year (167–88 BCE)

Date of text

Date of ephebeia # Athenian # Foreign Total # ephebes ephebes of ephebes

T8.2 line 8

161/0 BCE (Aristolas) T8.4 line 23 159/8 BCE (Aristaikhmos) T8.12 line 89 127/6 BCE (Theodorides) T8.14 (roster) 122/1 BCE (Nikodemos) T8.16 line 55 118/7 BCE (Lenaios) T8.19 (roster) 116/5 BCE (Serapion) T8.22 line 37 106/5 BCE (Agothokles) T8.27 (roster) 101/0 BCE (Medeios)

162/1 BCE (Poseidonios) 160/59 BCE (unknown) 128/7 BCE (Dionysios) 123/2 BCE (Demetrios) 119/8 BCE (Hipparkhos) 117/6 BCE (Menoitos) 107/6 BCE (Aristarkhos) 102/1 BCE (Ekhekratos)

table 4

Number of ephebes as Pythaϊstai

Text #

Date

# Ephebes

T8.9 T8.11 T8.23 T8.30

138/7 BCE 128/7 BCE 106/5 BCE 98/7 BCE

58 69 97 66

70 + 112

No Roster

70 +

No Roster 112

107

0

107

86

14

100

124

17

141

167

12

179

129

11

140

102

40

142

appendix 2

Catalogue of Ephebes: 267/6‒230/29 BCE The following is a prosopographical analysis of the ephebes who appear in our earliest Hellenistic rosters of the third century BCE down to 230/229 BCE. The names are listed alphabetically. Each entry consists of the ephebe’s name, patronymic and demotic (where preserved). I provide the entry of both ephebe and his father in the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (LGPN), Prosopographica Attica (PA), and, if applicable, Athenian Propertied Families (APF). Where suitable, I draw on the prosopographical analyses of ephebes by Éric Perrin-Saminadayar in his Éducation, Culture et Société à Athènes (ECSA). Independent City (287–262 BCE) E1. [Ἀισχ]ητάδης Προξένου Μελιτεῖς. LGPN 5, 28; PA 324, 12276 (APF) Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. This young man was most likely a grandson of Aiskhetades son of Proxenos who appears with his brother Onetor and several other members of his family and deme as a trierarkhoi in 338/7 BCE. Thus, this ephebe was from a wealthy and powerful family from Melite (see APF 11473 for stemma and discussion). E2. Ἀµεινίας ∆ηλιάδου Φαληρεῖς. LGPN 35,1; PA 686, 3255 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. E3. [Ἀ]ριστόδηµος Κλεόλεως Θυµαιτάδαι. LGPN 63, 2; PA 1813, 8573 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. E4. Ἀρισ[τοκρά]της Ἀντιµά[χ]ου [Μυρρ]ινούσιος. LGPN 72, 51; PA 1921, 1130 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. E5. [Ἀρ]χῖνος Ἀρχίπ[που - - - - - - - -]. (Λεωντίδος) Ephebe in late 260s. E6. [Β]ούθηρος Φιλωνίδου Μαραθώνιος. LGPN 3, 50; PA 2904, 14905 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. Boutheros son of Dionysios, perhaps a relative of his, appears on a dedication from the mid-fourth century BCE. An Aristeas son of Philonides of Marathon was the keyholder (κλειδοῦχος) of a temple on Delos (I.Delos 2210 lines 8–10)

362

appendix 2

E7. ∆ιοφάνης Κλεαινέτου Ἀλωπεκῆθεν. LGPN 14, 8; PA 4406, 8458 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. Diophanes son of Euteles, an ancestor of this ephebe, appears in c. 321 BCE (SEG 42.201 and Agora XV no. 55 line 43). E8. [— — η]ς Εὐθίου ἐκ Κοίλης. PA---, 5487 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. E9. Εὐθύνοµος Ἀντιµάχου Μαραθώνιος. LGPN 14, 8; PA 4406, 8458 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. This young man is part of a politically active family. Antimakhos son of Euthynomos was an amphyktionis to Delos between 377–373 BCE (IG II2 1635 = I.Delos 98 A 10, 62). Another Antimakhos son of Euthynomos moved a motion as chairman of the proedroi to pass a decree for an unknown honorand in 302/1 BCE (IG II2 501 line 10) and another decree honoring a man who had been of use to Athenians while in the service of Kings Antigonos and Demetrios sometime between 307–2 BCE (IG II2 562 + Hesperia 9 [1940] 342 line 5). E10. Εὐκλε[ίδης — — —]ου Σφή[ττιοι]. LGPN 59; PA 5694 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. E11. [Θ]ε̣όδωρος Θεοδώ[ρου - - - - -](Λεωντίδος) Ephebe in late 260s. E12. Θεόφιλος Θεοξένου Κυδαθηναιεῖς. LGPN 126, 26; PA 7147, 6994 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. A relative, Theophilos son of Ariston, served as prytanis in the 360s BCE (Agora XV no. 15 line 7. A Theophilos of Kydathenaion appears as a bouleutes of the tribe Pandion in 336/5 BCE (Agora XV no. 42 line 156). E13. [Κ]αλλίας Πυθοδώ[ρου - - - - - - -](Λεωντίδος) Ephebe in late 260s. E14. [— — — Κ]αλλικρά[του] (Αἰγηΐδος) Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. E15. Κηφίσιος Κηφισοδήµου Παλληνεῖς. LGPN 13, 3; PA 8296, 8308 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. Brother of Τιµοκράτης Κηφισοδήµου Παλληνεῖς (E22). This Kephisios was most likely the grandson of Kephisios son of Kephisodemos of Pallene who served as a prytanis of Antiokhis in 334/3 BCE (Agora XV no. 44 line 43) and dedicated a phiale to Athena sometime between 332 and 320 BCE (SEG 18.36 A 110).

Catalogue of Ephebes: 267 / 6‒230 / 29 BCE

363

E16. Κλεοµέδων Κλεαρέτου Ῥαµνούσιος. LGPN 13, 2; PA/APF 8589 8469 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. He was probably the grandson of Kleomedon of Rhamnous who was syntrierarkhos in 322 BCE on Iaso Lysikratous and on Kratousa Smikrionos (IG II2 1632 lines 157, 162). E17. Λυσανίας Λυσανδ[ρίδου] Πήληκες. LGPN 40, 6; PA 9319 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. He served as a prytanis of Leontis (Agora XV 88 line 34; cf. Meritt 1963, no. 9). His son Lysandrides made a dedication to Asklepios sometime in the second half of the third century BCE (IG II2 4443 line 5). E18. Λυ[σ]ικράτης Φορµίωνος Εἰτεαῖος. LGPN 17, 14; PA 9454, 14953 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. E19. Νικήρατος Νικηράτου Φλυεῖς. LGPN 37, 36; PA 10745, 10745 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. This ephebe later served as a cavalryman (Brun 1970, 403–9) and appears again in a list of epidontes in 248/7 BCE (Agora XVI no. 231, col. I line 78). He may have been related to a Nikeratos son of Euboulos of Phlya who appears as a bouleutes of Kekropis in the 280’s BCE. A relative, — — —]ς Νικηρά̣του Φλυε[ύς, moved a motion to praise a priest of Asklepios in the arkhonship of Alexis (173/2 BCE) (IG II/iii3 1, 1330). E20. Ξενοφῶν Θεµιστοκ[λέους] Σουνιεῖς. LGPN 13, 42; PA 11316, 6662 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. E21. [Στ]έ[φ]ανος Καλλ[- - - - - - - - - -] (Ἀκαµαντίδος) Ephebe in late 260s. E22. Τεισ[αµ]ενὸς [— — —] Παιανιεὺς. LGPN 21; PA 13449 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. E23. Τηλέσκοπος Ἀριστοκρίτου Ῥαµνούσιος. LGPN 2; PA 13567 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. A Teleskopos son of Aristokritos, the grandfather of this ephebe, received public honors for his service to the tribe Aiantis as thesmothetes in 327/6 BCE (Agora XVI no. 86). He also made a dedication on behalf of himself and his children at Rhamnous (Petrakos 1999, no. 110) E24. Τιµοκράτης Κηφισοδήµου Παλληνεῖς. LGPN 82, 3; PA 13780, 8308 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. Brother of Κηφίσιος Κηφισοδήµου Παλληνεῖς (E13). This Timokrates was most likely the grandson of Kephisios (LGPN 12; PA 8295) son of Kephisodemos of Pallene who served as a prytanis of Antiokhis in 334/3 BCE

364

appendix 2

(Agora XV no. 44 line 43) and dedicated a phiale to Athena sometime between 332 and 320 BCE (SEG 18.36 A line 110). E25. [Φι]λ̣ όθεος Φιλίων[ος Φρεάρριος?] LGPN II no. 20 Ephebe in late 260s BCE. Bardani suggests that this ephebe became general ἐπὶ τοὺς ξένους in the arkhonship of Lysanias (234/3 BCE). Two years later, he was elected general ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν τὴν παραλίαν in the arkhonship of Mneseides (232/1 BCE) (Petrakos 1999, nos. 20 and 21). E26. Φιλοκράτης [— — —] Κεφαλῆθ[εν]. LGPN 86; PA 14611 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. A Philokrates of Kephale is attested as prytanis in 327/6 BCE. E27. Χα[ιρ]έστρατος Χαι [— —] Ἀνγελῆθε[ν]. LGPN 20; PA 15154 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. E28. [Χά]ρης Πολλίου Ἀζηνιεῖς. LGPN 23, 3; PA 15293, 11897 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. E29. Χαρίας Ἀρχεβιάδου Ἀλωπεκῆθεν. LGPN 25, 3; PA 15336, 2303 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. E30. Χα[ρ]ῖνος Θρασωνίδου Αἰθαλίδης. LGPN 19, 5; PA 15444, 7397 Ephebe in 267/6 BCE. A Khairondes son of Thrasonides appears on the bouleutic list of 305/4 BCE (Agora XV no. 61 line 75). One member of his family, Kharinos son of Khairondes, appears on a gravestone in the late fourth century BCE (IG II2 5399). Thrasonides, the father of this ephebe, appears on the columnar gravestone of his wife dated sometime in the third century BCE (Agora XVII no. 49). Renewed Subjugation (262–229 BCE) E31. Αἰ[ν]ησίδηµος Ἀγαθοκλέους Συπαλήτ(τιος) LGPN, PA 305, 72 Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). He became Arkhon Basileus in the arkhonship of Menekrates. Φίλων Αἰνησιδήµου, an ephebe of the year 107/6 and perhaps a relative, appears on a list of Pythaïstai (T94 col. I line 22). E32. Ἀ̣ λκέ̣της [∆]ιο̣νυσίου Κη[φισιεύς] LGPN 5, 384; PA --, -Ephebe in c. 235 BCE (unknown arkhon).

Catalogue of Ephebes: 267 / 6‒230 / 29 BCE

365

E33. Ἀνδροκλῆς Νεοκλέου Λα[µπτρ]εύς LGPN 41, 384; PA 868, -Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos) An Androkles son of Neokleides of Lamptrai, a relative and contemporary of this ephebe, made a dedication with the trierarkhoi in the arkhonship of Ankylos (201–198 BCE?) (Meritt 1942, no. 57). E34. Ἀν[δ]ροσθένης Καλλίου Ξυπετ[αι]ών LGPN 13, 208; PA 909, 7877 Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos) An ancestor of this ephebe appears in an inscription from the latter half of the fourth century BCE (IG II2 1927 line 14). E35. Ἀντίδωρος Ε[ὐ]µήλου Ε[ὐωνυµεύς] LGPN 11, 29; PA --, -Ephebe in c. 235 BCE (unknown arkhon). His father Ἔµηλος Ἐµπεδίωνος Ευωνυµεύς served as secretary in the arkhonship of Lysanias (234/3 BCE) (IG II2 788 lines 2–3). His brother Ἐµπεδίων Ἔµηλου Ευωνυµεύς proposed a motion in the arkhonship of Thrasyphon (221/220 BCE) (Agora XV no. 115 line 3). E36. [Ἀπ]ο̣λλοφάνης Ἀπολ[λοφάνους Κήττιος] LGPN 35, 36; PA 1471, -Ephebe in c. 235 BCE (unknown arkhon). This ephebe served as a bouletes of the tribe Leontis where he won special honors as its grammateus in the arkhonship of Arkhelaos (222/1 or 212/1 BCE) (Agora XV 129 line 32, 50, 94). E37. [Ἀ]ριστείδης Καλλιφάνου Κόπ[ρειος] LGPN 60, 8; PA --, -Ephebe in 258/7 BCE (Antiphon). [— —]οφῶν Ἀριστείδου, perhaps a relative, appears on an inscription from the mid-fourth century BCE (IG II2 6535). A Pamphilos son of Aristeides from the same deme appears on a roster of Athenians, probably for a military action, discovered at Karystos from 323–320 BCE (IG XII 9 1242). E38. Ἀριστοκράτης Ἀντιφάνου Λα[µπτρεύς] LGPN 65, 55; PA 1918, 1239 Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos). He was perhaps a member of the boule (Raubitschek, Hesperia, Index I–X, 22 and 54). Aristokrates (APF 1916), an ancestor of this young man, was named in a diadikasia perhaps concerned with membership of the Thousand (IG II2 1928 line 31) and was syntrierarkhos on Agreuousa Akhenikou between 356/5 and 346/5 (IG II2 1622 lines 627 and 634). His son Melesias was one of the four lessees of the Theater at Peiraieus (IG II2 1176 lines 29, 39). Antiphanes of Lamptrai, the treasurer of Philippos the merchant with Timotheos’ fleet in 373 BCE ([Dem.] 49.14ff.) was an ancestor as well. E39. [— —]ς Ἀριστοµένου Κ[— —] (Αἰγηίδος) Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon).

366

appendix 2

E40. Αὐτόδικος Ἀρχεστράτου ἐξ Ο[ἴου] LGPN 3, 61; PA --, -Ephebe in 258/7 BCE (Antiphon). His ancestor was a lessee in 325/4 BCE (IG II2 2705). His great-great grandfather was a diaitetes in 325/4 BCE (IG II2 1926 line128). E41. ∆ηµαίνετος Φορµ[ί]ωνος ἐκ Κολω(νοῦ) LGPN 20, 17; PA 3274, 14849 Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). E42. [∆ιοκλ]ῆς ∆ρ[ο]µ̣ έου Ἐρχι[εύς] LGPN 92, 3; PA/APF 4024, 4559 Ephebe in c. 235 (unknown arkhon). He was a member of a wealthy and politically active family of Erkhia. See APF 126 for complete stemma and discussion. His father and perhaps an uncle appear as epidontes of 248/7 BCE. Brother of E45. E43. ∆ιοφάνης ∆ιοκλέους [Πρ̣ασιεύς] LGPN 33, 165; PA --, -Ephebe in c. 235 BCE (unknown arkhon). He was a member of the boule in the arkhonship of Menekrates (220/219 BCE) and served as tamias for which he received special honors (Agora XV no. 130 line 48). E44. [∆ρα]κοντίδης ∆ράκοντος Παιανιεύ(ς) LGPN 11, 6; PA 4552, -Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). ∆ρακοντίδης ∆ράκοντος Παιανιεύς, a descendant (perhaps a grandson) served as agonothetes c. 175/4 BCE (IG II2 3088). E45. [∆ροµέας ∆ρο]µέου Ἐρχ[ιεύς] See entry E42. Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon). He was a member of a wealthy and politically active family of Erkhia. See APF 126 for complete stemma and discussion. His father and perhaps an uncle appear as epidontes of 248/7 BCE. An Athenian by this name from the same deme appears in a later list of epidontes of 183/2 BCE (IG II2 2332 col. II line 175). Older brother of E42. E46. [Ἑόρ]τιος [Ἑρ]µοδώρου Ἀχαρνεύς LGPN 5, 384; PA --, -Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). For discussion of his career, see Chapters 5 and 8. E47. Ἔνδιος Μεν[— — — — — — — —] (Οἰνεῖδος) Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos). E48. [Ἐ]τέαρχο[ς] Στα[— — — — — — —] (Λεωντίδος) Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos).

Catalogue of Ephebes: 267 / 6‒230 / 29 BCE

367

E49. [․․5․․]άδης Εὐαγγέ[λλου Σουνιεὺς] Ephebe in c. 235 BCE (unknown arkhon). His father may have been the tamias for an association of thiasotai in the final quarter of the third century BCE (Agora XVI no. 231). A Euaggelos of this deme was the father of two ephebes, Dionisippos and Thallippos (T21 col. II lines 29, 32), although Reinmuth does not regard the two as brothers. E50. [Εὔα]λκος Φωκίνου [— — —] (∆ηµητριάδος) Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). E51. [— — —]ς Εὐβούλου Λευκον(οιεὺς) Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon). E52. Ε[ὔ]θιππος Φιλίππου Ἰων[ίδης] LGPN --, 79; PA --, 14397 Ephebe in c. 235 BCE (unknown arkhon). His father was Philippos the priest of Asklepios (c. 254/3 BCE) (IG II2 1534 B = Asklepieion Inv. no. 5 line 138) and bouleutes in the arkhonship of Philinos (259/8 BCE) (Agora XV no. 89 line 80). E53. Εὐθυκράτης Εὐθυµάχου [Ἁλαιεύς] LGPN --, 13/14 (?); PA --, 5632 Ephebe in c. 235 BCE (unknown arkhon). His father Euthymakhos was probably a bouleutes in the arkhonship of Euboulos (265/4 BCE?) (Agora XV no. 85 line 40). E54. Εὐθύκριτος Θεαινέτου Ἀχερδ[ούσιος] LGPN 6, 1; PA --, 6617 Ephebe in 258/7 BCE (Antiphon). He had a great-great grandson who was an ephebe in 123 BCE (T8.16 col. IV line 111). A descendent appears in the second century BCE (IG II2 5859). A grandson perhaps appears as a member of the council in 178/7 BCE (Agora XV no. 194 line 63). E55. Εὐκλῆς Εὐκλέους Ἁλαιεύς LGPN 51, 50; PA --, -Ephebe in 258/7 BCE (Antiphon). He or (more likely) his father Eukles was proxenos of Delphi in 242 BCE (FD III 2.77). Eukles, his son, appears in a dedication of the late third or early second century BCE (IG II2 3469 + Hesperia 11 [1942] 197). Amynomakhos, grandson of this ephebe, made a dedication at Eleusis (IG II2 3469) and another at Athens (SEG 21.809) in the middle of the second century BCE. E56. [Ε]ὐκλῆς Θεοκ[λ]έου ἐκ [Κολωνοῦ] LGPN 58, 35; PA 5725, 6938 Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos)

368

appendix 2

E57. Εὔνικος Α[․․․c.9․․․ Σ]φήττιος Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). E58. Εὐριπίδης [․․c.8․․․ Χολ]αργεύς Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). E59. Εὐφιλίδης Φιλίνου ἐκ Κοίλη[ς] LGPN 1, 16; PA 6128, 14325 Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos) A Philinos of Koile, perhaps a relative, is attested in IG II2 2332 (183/2 BCE) line 335 as the father of an epidontes of Athens. E60. Ε[ὐχά]ρης Εὐδήµου Ἀφιδ[ναῖος] LGPN 3, 19; PA 6129, 5395 Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos) The name Eudemos son of Euphanos of Aphidna appears on a grave marker dated to the middle of the fourth century BCE (IG II2 5768). E61. [— — — — — —] Ζω[π]ύρου Γα[ργήττιος] Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos). E62. [— —]ίδης Ἡλιοδώρου Παιαν(ιεύς) Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon). Brother of E63. E63. [— —]νίδης Ἡλιοδώρου Παιανι(εύς) Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon). Brother of E62. E64. [— — —]ος Ἡφαιστίωνος [— — — —] (Ἀντιοχίδος) Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos). E65. Ἡφαιστοδ[— — — — — — — —] (Οἰνεῖδος) Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos). E66. Θαρρύνων Λεωσθένου Ἱπποτο[µά]δη(ς) LGPN 2, 4; PA 6591, 9143 Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos) He was related to E97. E67. Θεαγένης Ἡγήµονος Ἀθµονεύ[ς] LGPN --, 11 Ephebe in 258/7 BCE (Antiphon). He perhaps had an ancestor active in the mid-fourth century (IG II2 2385 line 32). His great-grandfather (PA/APF 6294) made a dedication to Asklepios in 340/39 BCE (IG II2 1533 line 11) and was tamias paralou in 326/5 BCE (IG II2 1628 line 79).

Catalogue of Ephebes: 267 / 6‒230 / 29 BCE

369

E68.

Θεαίτητος Κηφισοφῶντος Ἐπικ[η]φίσ[ι](ος) LGPN 8&9, 29; PA 6630, 8412 Ephebe in 258/7 BCE (Antiphon). One of the epidontes of 248/7 BCE. Cavalryman (Brun 1970, 185–9). C. 230 BCE, he became a proxenos of Oropos for benefactions made to its citizens (Petrakos 1997, no. 54).

E69. Θε[οµέ]νης Θεοδώρ̣ου Ῥαµ[νούσιος] LGPN 84, --; PA 6729, -Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos). I restore Θε[οµέ]νης for Θε[ογέ]νης, which appears in the original publication of the text. A Theomenes of Rhamnous acts as one of the epidontes (post 229 BCE) along with Theotimos of Rhamnous, E70 who serves as ephebe along with Theomenes. See Petrakos 1999, no. 167 line 38. This correction still recognizes that both were sons of Theodoros and therefore brothers. For stemma, see ECSA, p. 425 (corrections: Θε[οµέ]νης must replace Θε[ογέ]νης; Θεόδωρος is not attested in this inscription as an ephebe). The family appears to have been wealthy and politically active. Theodoros the father of both these young men is mentioned on a cavalry tablet from around 250/49 BCE (MDAI(A) 85 1970, pg. 205 no. 13 and pg. 215 nos. 196 and 197). The Rhamousian who served as the kosmetes of this class of ephebes may have been a relative, perhaps even Theodoros himself, the father of this ephebe, but the condition of the stone allows only speculation. The latest edition of this stone restores a different Rhamnousian. This ephebe was the ancestor of the ephebe Θεόδωρ[ος] Θεοµένου Ῥαµνούσιος (T8.22 col. IV line 100), who served in the ephebeia in 107/6 BCE, as well as of his son Θούκριτος Θεοδώρου Ῥαµνούσιος, a prytanis of 50/49 BCE (Agora XV no. 273 line 36). He was also a relative of Θεόδωρος Ῥαµνούσιος, a hieropoios of the Ptolemaia in Athens in 148/7 BCE (IG II2 1938 line 33). E70. Θε[ότιµ]ος Θεοδώρου Ῥα[µνούσιος] LGPN 228, --; PA 6897, -Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos) He served twice as coastal strategos (Petrakos 1999, nos. 43, 49). He was also the orator who moved the motion to honor Diokles and his fellow epidontes in the late third/early second century BCE (Petrakos, ibid., no. 167 line 1, 37). Theotimos was the brother of E69 E71. [— —]κράτης Θεοφίλου Ἕρµει(ος) Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon). E72. Ἴσαρχος Ξε[νοκλ]έους ἐκ Κεραµέ(ων) LGPN 4, 52; PA 7687, 11224 Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). A Zenokles of Kerameis served as bouleutes in 223/2 BCE (Agora XV no. 128 line 101). Another, likely the son of this ephebe,

370

appendix 2

appears as one of the five commissioners in a decree regarding the repair and restoration of a sanctuary of 161/0 BCE (Agora XVI no. 296 line 24). E73. [..5..]ράτης Ἰφικράτου[ς Ῥαµνούσιος] Ephebe in 258/7 BCE (Antiphon). This youth is likely a descendant of Iphikrates son of Timotheos from Rhamnous, who was the famous general of the Korinthian War in the early fourth century. If the general Iphikrates was a member of the brother was a member of the genos Praxiergidai, then this ephebe may have been a member as well (MacKendrick 1969, p. 7). E74. Καλλίας Κόνωνος Φ[υλάσιος] LGPN --, 384; PA --, -Ephebe in c. 235 BCE (unknown arkhon). A Kallias son of Agathokles of Phyle appears on a grave stone from first century BCE/CE (Agora XVII no. 354). E75. Κ̣ ά̣λ̣λ̣ιππος ∆ωροθέου [— — —] (Πανδιονίδος) Ephebe in c. 235 BCE (unknown arkhon) E76. Κλε[ϊππ]ίδης Κλεοχάρ[ους — — —] (Αἰαντίδος) Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos). E77. [—c.8—] Κρατίππου Φ[ρ]εάρριος Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). E78. [— —β]ουλος Κτησικλέους Αἰξ(ωνεύς) Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon). E79. Λεπτίνης Κηφι[σ — — — — — — — —] (Λεωντίδος) Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos). Brother of Promakhos (E96). E80. Λεωδάµας Ἀριστοµάχο[υ Μυρρινούσιος] LGPN 5, 384; PA --, -Ephebe in c. 235 BCE (unknown arkhon). He appears as a member of the boule of Pandionis in the arkhonship of Menekrates (220/19 BCE) (Agora XV no. 130 line 90). The name Ἀριστοµάχος Μυρρινούσιος appears on a cavalry token from the 250s BCE and is most like the father of this ephebe. E81. [Λέων Κ]ιχησίου Αἰξωνεύς LGPN 22, 2; PA 9107/9108, 8445 Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon). This Leon was a member of a wealthy and politically active family. He was a supporter of the Roman cause in the war against Antiokhos III. He tried Apollodoros, the chief supporter of the king,

Catalogue of Ephebes: 267 / 6‒230 / 29 BCE

371

and achieved his condemnation and exile in 192 BCE (Polyb. 21.31.6–16; Liv. 35.50.3). In 189 BCE, he led an Athenian embassy to Rome (Liv. 38.10.4–6). He was father of Kallipos tamias of the boule in 178/7 BCE (Agora XV no. 194 line 39). He was the father Kikhesias, one of the knights who moved a motion to praise their hipparkhos in 187/6 BCE (SEG 21.435). E82. Μενεκράτη[ς — — — — — — —] (Οἰνεῖδος) Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos). E83. Μενεσθεὺ[ς ․․c.8․․․ Κικ]υ̣ννεύ(ς) Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). E84. [— — —]ης Μένωνος Πιθεύς Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon). E85. Μνησίµαχος Ἀριστοκλέου Κοθω[κ]ίδ(ης) LGPN 19, 15; PA 10340, 1869 Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos) A relative appears on a fourth century dedication from the Akropolis (IG II2 6478). E86. Ναυσικρά[της — — — — — —] (Κεκροπίδος) Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos). E87. [— —]κος Νικοβούλου Κρωπ[ί]δ(ης) Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon). E88. [— — δ]ωρος Νικοδώρου Φρεάρι(ος) Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon). E89. Νο[υ]φράδης Καλλιάδου Ἀθµονεύς LGPN 1, 28; PA 11143, 7783 Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). E90. [— — δ]ηµος Ὀνήτορος Λουσ(ιεύς) Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon). E91. Παράµυθος ∆ηµοχάρο[υς — — —] (Ἀντιγονίδος) Ephebe in 249/5 BCE. E92. Πειθικλῆς Μενάνδρου Περιθοίδης LGPN 1, 107; PA --, -Ephebe in 258/7 BCE (Antiphon).

372

appendix 2

E93. Πολύδωρος Ῥόδωνος Θυµαιτ[ά]δης LGPN 3, 15; PA 11919, 12542 Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). E94. Πολύευκτος Ἀντιφ[ῶν]τος Φηγαιεύ(ς) LGPN 42, 55; PA 11953, 1307 Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). A Polyeuktos son of Polyeuktos with his fellow prytaneis of Aegeis made a dedication c. 343/2 BCE (Agora XV no. 36 line 19). The ephebe’s father and uncle appear as fellow prytaneis of Aegeis in 256/5 BCE (Agora XV no. 85 lines 55, 54). E95. Πολυκλῆς Λυσικλέους ἐκ Κ[ο]ί[λης] LGPN 22, 27; PA 11994, 9434 Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). E96. Πρόµαχο[ς] Κηφ[ισ — — — — — —] ([Λεωντίδος) Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos). Brother of Leptinos. E97. Πρόµαχος Λεωσθένου Ἱπποτ[οµά]δης LGPN 7, 4; PA 9143 Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). He was related to E66. E98. [Π]υθόδηµος Πυθ[ο]δώρου ἐκ Κ[ηδῶ]ν LGPN 2, 63; PA/APF 12385, 12424 Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). He was a member of a wealthy and politically prominent family. His father appears in a list of prytaneis from earlier in 256/5 BCE (Agora XV no. 86, col. III, line 69). See APF for stemma and discussion. E99. Σµικρίας Ἀριστοδήµου Ἁλαιε[ύ]ς LGPN 9, --; PA 33, -Ephebe in 258/7 BCE (Antiphon). E100. [Σµικυθ]ίων Φαλάνθου Ἀθµονεύς LGPN --,7 ; PA --, 13992 Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon). A Smikythion son of Phalanthos, perhaps the grandfather or great-grandfather of this ephebe, was praised along with his fellow merarkhoi by the demesmen of Athmonon for their benefactions in 324/3 BCE (IG II2 1203). E101. Σπ̣ εύ̣ σιππος Ἀλεξίωνος Ἀζην[ιεύς] LGPN 4, 4; PA --, 562 Ephebe in 258/7 BCE (Antiphon). He was the son of Ἀ]λεξίων Ἀµφιχάρους Ἀζ[ηνιεὺς (T39 line 9), the orator who moved the motion to honor the ephebes. Both appear on a list of state-contributors in 183/2 BCE (IG II2 2332 lines 15, 11). The latter, along with other prominent Athenians and Nikostratos of Larissa, reorganized the Amphictionic Council in 185/4 BCE (SIG3 613A). He appears as an arbitrator in a peace treaty between Miletos and Magnesia on

Catalogue of Ephebes: 267 / 6‒230 / 29 BCE

373

the Maiander in the late 180’s BCE (I.Miletos 60 lines 6–7). He also appears as a member of a three man commission that negotiated with Akhaian envoys sent to Athens in 178/7 BCE, perhaps in regard to the edict of the Roman Senate to readmit Spartan and Messenian exiles into the Akhaian League (SEG 17.57). A relative appears as an ephebe in a roster of the later second century BCE (T8.14 col. IV line 121). E102. Σωκράτης Θεµιστίου Φαληρεύς LGPN 111, 8; PA 13124, 6648 Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). E103. [— — στρ]ατος Σωστράτου Κεφαλ(ῆθεν) Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon). E104. Σωτάδ[η]ς Φιλοκήδ[ου — — — — —] (Ἱπποθωντίδος) Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos). E105. Τεισίας Φωκιάδου Ἐλευσίνιο[ς] LGPN 11, 2; PA 13477, 15065 Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). He appears on a dedication from the third century BCE (IG II2 6051). A Teisias of Eleusis, a descendant (perhaps a son), appears as one of the epidontes in 183/2 BCE (IG II2 2332 line 58). E106. Τιµοκ[ρ]άτης Τιµοκρά[τους — — —] (Ἀντιγονίδος) Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). E107. [․․․7․․․ Φ]αλά[νθ]ου Ἀγρυλῆθεν Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). E108. [— — —]ανδρος Φαλάνθου Γαρ[γήττιος] Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos). E109. Φιλῖνος Σα[— — — — — — — —] (Ἀκαµαντίδος) Ephebe in 250/49 BCE (Polyeuktos). E110. Φιλωνίδη[ς — — — — — —] (Λεωντίδος) Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). E111. Φιλόστρατος ∆ιοφάντου Ἐλευ[σίνιος] LGPN 39, -- ; PA 26, -Ephebe in 258/7 BCE (Antiphon). A Philostratos son of Diophantos of Eleusis appears on a dedication from the middle of the fourth century BCE (IG II2

374

appendix 2

6053). A Diophantos of Eleusis appears on a dedication of the second or first century BCE (IG II2 4934). E112. [Φιλ]όστρατος Φιλοδήµου Ἁλαιεύς LGPN 44, 26; PA 14724, 14485 Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). Members of this family appear again on dedications from the imperial period (IG II2 5522, 5522A). E113. Χαιριγένης Κτησικλ[— — — —] (Ἀντιγονίδος) Ephebe in 246/5 BCE (Philoneos). E114. Χαρίας Φοι? [— — — — —] (Αἰαντίδος) Ephebe in 236/5 BCE (Kimon).

appendix 3

Demographic Data of Ephebes: 267/6‒230/29 BCE table 1

Cases where the demotic is lost

Instance

Number in catalogue

(1)

(2)

%

Name Alone Patronymic Alone Name and Patronymic

E21, E47, E48, E65, E79, E82, E86, E96, E109, E113, E114 E14, E39, E64 E5, E11, E13, E75, E76, E91, E104, E106

11

2

18%

3 8

0 0

0.00 0.00

22

2

1%

(1)

(2)

7

0

0.00

16

1

1%

64

45

70%

87

46

53%

table 2

Cases where the demotic is known

Instance

Number in catalogue

Name Alone Patronymic Alone

E10, E22, E26, E27, E57, E58, E83 E8, E49, E51, E61–63, E71, E77, E78, E84, E87, E88, E90, E103, E107, E108 E1–4, E6, E7, E9, E12, E15–E20, E23–25, E28–E38, E40–E46, E52–E56, E59, E60, E66–E70, E72–E74, E80, E81, E85, E89, E92–E95, E97–E102, E105

Name and Patronymic

%

376 table 3

appendix 3 Outward signs of wealth

Ephebe

LITURGIES Milit.

E1 E15 E16 E17 E19 E23 E24 E31 E38 E40 E42 E43 E45 E54 E59 E67 E68 E69 E70 E80 E81 E85 E94 E98 E100 E101 E105 E111

Relig.

Embas. Gymn. Monet.

Land- Benefactor Horseman Misc. owner

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X

X

Demographic Data of Ephebes: 267 / 6‒230 / 29 BCE table 4

Activities in which families of ephebes are known

POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION i) arkhon ii) proposer iii) thesmothetes

E31 E9, E19, E101 E23

MILITARY ADMINISTRATION i) strategos ii) staff of ephebeia

E25, E70 E46, E62, E63

RELIGIOUS ADMINISTRATION i) agonothetes ii) priest iii) keyholder iv) hieropoios

E44 E52 E6 E69, E70

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION i) treasurer

E38, E43, E49, E67, E81

DIPLOMATIC ADMINISTRATION i) ambassador/proxenos ii) theoria

E9, E55, E68, E81, E101 E31, E101

377

appendix 4

Participation of Foreign Ephebes (2nd Century BCE) Polis

Text # Polis (# Ephebes)

Text # Polis (# Ephebes)

Text # Polis (# Ephebes)

Text # (# Ephebes)

Adanos

T8.32 (1)

Karystos

T8.14 (1)

Opous

T8.22 (1)

Taras

T8.27 (1)

Adramuttion T8.22 (1)

Kerkinis

T8.16 (1)

Oroandos T8.22 (1)

Tarsos

T8.22 (1)

T8.27 (1)

Paros

T8.16 (1)

Temnos

T8.14 (1)

Pergamon T8.14 (1)

Tenedos

T8.27 (1)

Antiokheia

T8.16 (3) T8.19 (1) T8.22 (4) T8.27 (4) T8.32 (1)

Kition

Apameia

T8.22 (1)

Klazomenai T8.27 (1)

Arados

T8.27 (1)

Kyrene

T8.27 (1)

Rome

T8.14 (4) T8.16 (1) T8.19 (2) T8.22 (5) T8.27 (2)

Termessos T8.27 (1)

Askelon

T8.27 (1)

Laodikeia

T8.16 (3) T8.17 (1) T8.19 (1) T8.22 (1) T8.27 (2)

Salamis

T8.14 (2)

Thebes

T8.14 (1)

Berytos

T8.16 (1) T8.17 (1) T8.22 (2)

Mallos

T8.19 (1)

Seleukeia T8.14 (1)

Thespis

T8.16 (1)

Eretria

T8.14 (1)

Maron

T8.27 (2)

Sikyon

T8.16 (1) T8.19 (1)

Tripolis

T8.27 (2)

Herakleia

T8.16 (1) T8.19 (1) T8.22 (2) T8.27 (1)

Miletos

T8.14 (1) T8.19 (3) T8.22 (2) T8.27 (7) T8.34 (1)

Sinope

T8.27 (1)

Zmyrna

T8.22 (1)

Ioulis

T8.27 (1)

Neapolis

T8.22 (1) T8.27 (1)

Soli

T8.16 (1) T8.27 (1)

Karthaia

T8.22 (1)

Odessos

T8.14 (1)

Tanagra

T8.27 (1)

Bibliography Aalders, G.J.D. 1953. “Date and Intention of Xenophon’s ‘Hiero’.” Mnemosyne 6, 208–215. Aleshire, S. 1989. The Athenian Asklepieion. Amsterdam. Ameling, W. 2007. “Wohltäter im hellenistischen Gymnasion.” In D. Kohl and P. Scholz, eds., Das hellenistischen Gymnasion, 129–62. Berlin. Anderson, J.K. 1970. Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon. Berkeley. Anderson, J.K. 1974. Xenophon. London. Anderson, J.K. 1998. “Hoplite Weapons and Offensive Arms.” In V.D. Hanson, ed., Hoplite: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, 15–37. London. Andreades, A.M. 1933. History of Greek Public Finance, Book IV. Cambridge, Mass. Antonaccio, C. 1995. An Archaeology of Ancestors. Lanham, MD. Aravantinos, V., A. Konecny and R.T. Marchese. 2003. “Plataiai in Boiotia: A Preliminary Report of the 1996–2001 Campaign.” Hesperia 72, 281–320. Aronadio, F. 2008. Dialoghi spuri di Platone. Torino. Arrington, N.T. 2010. “Topographical Semantics: The Location of the Athenian Public Cemetery and Its Significance for the Nascent Democracy.” Hesperia 79, 499–539. Ashton, N.G. 1979. “How Many Pentereis?” GRBS 20, 237–42. Assmann, J. 1992. Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. Munich. Austin, M.M. 1981. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest. Cambridge. Badian, E. 1976. “Rome, Athens, and Mithridates.” AJAH 1, 105–28. Baker, P. 1995. “Participation civique à la défense des cites.” CÉA 29, 109–116. Barbieri, G. and J.L. Durand. 1985. “Con il bue a spalla.” Bolletino d’arte 29, 1–16. Bardani, V. 2000[2003]. Horos 14–16, 64–70. Bardani, V. and S. Tracy. 2007. “A New List of Athenian Ephebes and a New Archon of Athens.” ZPE 163, 75–80. Barringer, J.M. 2001. The Hunt in Ancient Greece. Baltimore. Bayliss, A. 2002. “New Names on an Athenian Ephebic Inscription.” ZPE 140, 85–88. Bayliss, A. 2011. After Demosthenes. London. Bayliss, A. 2013. “Oaths and Citizenship.” In A.H. Sommerstein and A.J. Bayliss, Oath and State in Ancient Greece, 13–22. Berlin/Boston. Beekes, R. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden. Beghini, A. 2017. “Two Textual Notes on the Axiochus ([Plat.] Ax. 364b5 And 367a1).” RhM 160, 262–275. Beloch, K.J. 1905. “Grieschisch Aufgebote.” Klio 5, 341–74. Beloch, K.J. 1927. Griechische Geschichte2 IV.2. Berlin and Leipzig.

380

Bibliography

Benjamin, A.S. 1963. “The Altars of Hadrian in Athens and Hadrian’s Panhellenic Program.” Hesperia 32, 57–86. Berard, C. et al., eds. 1989. A City of Images: Iconography and Society in Ancient Greece. Princeton. Bethe, E. 1902. “Die Zeit des Heauton Timorumenos und des Kolax Menanders.” Hermes 37, 278–282. Bielman, A. 1994. Retour à la liberté. Libération et sauvetage des prisonniers en Grèce ancienne. Paris. Boegehold, A.L. 1996. “Group and Single Competitions at the Panathenaia.” In J. Neils, ed., Worshipping Athena: Panathenaia and Parthenon, 97–103. Madison, Wis. Bonner, S.F. 1977. Education in Ancient Rome. London. Borthwick, E.K. 1969. “Two Notes on Athena as Protectress.” Hermes 97, 385–391. Borthwick, E.K. 1970. “P. Oxy. 2738: Athena and the Pyrrhic Dance.” Hermes 98, 318–331. Bosworth, A.B. 1980. A Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, vol. I. Oxford. Bosworth, A.B. 1988. Conquest and Empire. Cambridge. Bowie, A.M. 1993. Aristophanes. Cambridge. Boys-Stones, G. 2003. “The Stoics’ Two Types of Allegory.” In G. Boys-Stones, ed., Metaphor, Allegory and the Classical Tradition, 186–216. Oxford. Brelich, A. 1969. Paides e parthenoi. Rome. Bremmer, J. 1992. “Dionysos Travesti.” In A. Moreau, ed. L’Initiation, 1.189–196. Montpelier. Brenot, A. 1920. Recherches sur l’éphébie attique et en particulier sur la date de l’institution. Paris. Brown, P. 1989. The World of Late Antiquity. New York and London. Bruneau, P. 1970. Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et à l’époque impérial. Paris. Bryant, A. 1907. “Boyhood and Youth in the Days of Aristophanes.” HSCP 18, 73–122. Bugh, G.R. 1988. The Horsemen of Athens. Princeton. Bugh, G.R. 1990. “The Theseia in Late Hellenistic Athens.” ZPE 83, 20–37. Bugh, G.R. 1992. “Athenion and Aristion of Athens.” Phoenix 46, 108–23. Burckhardt, L.A. 1996. Bürger und Soldaten: Aspekte der politischen und militärischen Rolle athenischer Bürger im Kriegswesen des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Stuttgart. Burke, E.M. 1984. “Lycurgan Finances.” GRBS 26, 251–64. Busolt, G. and H. Swaboda. 1920–26. Griechische Staatskunde, vol. II. Munich. Byrne, S.G. “Early Roman Athenians.” In D. Jordan and J. Traill, eds., Lettered Attica, 1–20. Toronto. Byrne, S.G. 2010. “The Athenian Damnatio Memoriae of the Antigonids in 200 B.C.” In A. Tamis, C.J. Mackie, and S.G. Byrne, eds., Philathenaios: Studies in Honour of Michael J. Osborne, 157–77. Athens. Cabanes, P. 1991. “Reserches épigraphiques en Albanie: péripolarques et peripoloi en Grèce du Nord-Ouest et en Illyrie à la période hellénistique.” CRAI, 197–221.

Bibliography

381

Calame, C. 1990. Thesée et l’imaginaire athénien: légende et culte en Grèce antique. Lausanne. Camp, J. McK. 1998. The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens. London. Campbell, D. 2011. “Ancient Catapults: Some Hypotheses Reexamined.” Hesperia 80, 677–700. Cartledge, P. and A. Spawforth. 1989. Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities. London. Casson, L. 1971. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton. Casson, L. 2001. Libraries in the Ancient World. New Haven. Cawkwell, G.L. 1972. “Epaminondas and Thebes.” CQ 22, 254–78. Ceccarelli, P. 1998. La pirrica nell’antichità greco-romana: Studi sulla danza armata. Rome. Chaniotis, A. 1988. Historie und Historiker in den griechischen Inschriften. Stuttgart. Chaniotis, A. 1996. Die Verträge zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischen Zeit. Stuttgart. Chaniotis, A. 2005. War in the Hellenistic World. Oxford. Chaniotis, A. 2008. “Policing the Hellenistic Countryside: Realities and Ideologies.” In C. Brélaz and P. Ducrey, eds., Sécurité collective et ordre public dans les sociétés anciennes, 103–153. Geneva. Chankowski, A. 1993. “Date et circonstances de l’institution de l’ephebie a Eretrie.” Diologues d’Histoire Ancienne 19, 17–44. Chankowski, A. 1997. Review of Burckhardt 1996 in Topoi 7, 339. Chankowski, A. 2004. “L’entraînement militaire des éphébes dans les cités grecques d’Asie Mineure à l’époque hellénistique: nécessité pratique ou tradition atrophée?” In J.-C. Couvenhes and H.L. Fernous, eds., Les cités grecques et la guerre en Asie Mineure à L’époque hellénistique, 55–76. Tours. Chankowski, A. 2005. “Processions et ceremonies d’accueil: Une image de la cité de la basse époque hellénistique,” in P. Frohlich et C. Muller, eds., Citoyenneté et Participation à la basse époque hellénistique, 185–206. Geneva. Chankowski, A. 2010. L’éphébie Hellénistique: étude d’une institution civique dans les cités grecques des îles de la Mer Egee et de l’Asie Mineure (IV e–Ier siècles avant J.-C.). Paris. Chankowski, A. 2014. “L’éphébie athénienne antérieure à la réforme d’Epikratès: à propos de Reinmuth, Eph.Inscr. 1 et de la chronologie des premières inscriptions éphébiques.” BCH 138: 15–78. Chapman, P. 1997. “Places as Timemarks—the social construction of prehistoric landscapes in Eastern Hungary.” In G. Nash, ed., Semiotics of Landscape: Archaeology of Mind, 31–45. Oxford. Christ, M.R. 2001. “Conscription of Hoplites in Classical Athens.” CQ 51, 391–422.

382

Bibliography

Christ, M.R. 2006. The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Christensen, J. and M. Hansen. 1983. “What is Syllogos at Thucydides 2.22.1?” C&M 34, 17–31. Cichorius, C. 1908. Untersuchungen zu Lucilius. Berlin. Clarysse, W. and K. Vandorpe. 1995. Zenon, un homme d’affairs grec a l’ombre des pyramides. Louvain. Clinton, H.F. 1834. Fasti Hellenici, Vol. II. Oxford. Clinton, K. 1974. The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries. Philadelphia. Clinton, K. 1979. “IG I2 5: The Eleusinia and the Eleusinians.” AJP 100, 1–12. Clinton, K. 1980. “A Law in the City Eleusinion Concerning the Mysteries.” Hesperia 49, 258–88. Clinton, K. 1982. “The Nature of the Fifth-Century Revision of the Athenian Law Code.” Hesperia Suppl. 19, 27–37. Clinton, K. 1988. “Sacrifice at the Eleusinian Mysteries.” In R. Hägg, N. Marinatos, and G.C. Nordquist, eds., Early Greek Cult Practice, 69–80. Stockholm. Clinton, K. 1988 [1991]. “The Ephebes of Kekropis of 333/2 at Eleusis.” AE 127, 19–30. Clinton, K. 1992. Myth and Cult: The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries. Stockholm. Coldstream, N. 1976. “Hero-Cults in the Age of Homer.” JHS 96, 8–17. Cole, S.G. 1996. “Oath Ritual and the Male Community at Athens.” In J. Ober and C. Hedrick, eds., Demokratia: A Conversation on Democracies, Ancient and Modern, 227–48. Princeton. Collignon, M. 1877. Quid de collegiis epheborum apud Graecos excepta Attica, ex titulis epigraphicis commentari liceat. Paris. Connerton, P. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge. Conomis, N.C. 1961. “Notes on the Fragments of Lycurgus.” Klio 39, 98–107. Conomis, N.C. 1970. Lycurgus Oratio in Leocratem. Leipzig. Conwell, D.H. 2008. Connecting a City to the Sea: The History of the Athenian Long Walls. Leiden. Conze, A. 1868. “Giuramento da Efebo, Rappresento in Pitture Vascolari.” Ann. Inst. Corr. Arch. 40, 264–8. Cooper, J.M. and D.S. Hutchinson. 1997. Plato: Complete Works. Cambridge. Cousin, V. 1840. Oeuvres de Platon:Tome XIII. Paris. Couvenhes, J.-C. 1998. “Le stratège Derkylos, fils d’Autoklès d’Hagnous et l’éducation des paides à Éleusis.” CCG 9, 49–69. Couvenhes, J.-C. 2012. “Péripoloi, Kryptoi et Hypaithroi en la cité Athénienne.” In J.-C. Couvenhes, S. Crouzet, and S. Péré-Nogues, eds. Pratiques et identités culturelles des armées hellénistiques du monde méditerranéen, 295–306. Bordeaux. Couvreur, P. 1896. Rev. of Immisch 1896. Revue critique d’histoire et de littérature 41: 76–79. Crosby, M. and J. Young. 1941. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 10, 14–30.

Bibliography

383

Crowther, N.B. 1985. “Male Beauty Contests in Greece: Euandria and Euexia.” ClAnt 54, 285–291. Crowther, N.B. 1991. “Euexia, Eutaxia, Philoponia: Three Contests of the Greek Gymnasium.” ZPE 85, 301–4. Csapo, E. 1997. “Riding the Phallus for Dionysos: Iconography, Ritual and Gender-Role De/Construction.” CAC 51, 253–95. Culley, G.R. 1975. “The Restoration of Sanctuaries in Attica: IG II2 1035.” Hesperia 44, 207–23. Culley, G.R. 1977. “The Restoration of Sanctuaries in Attica, II.” Hesperia 46, 282–98. Daly, K. 2001. “Citizens, Soldiers, and Citizen-Soldiers in Attic Garrisons in the Fourth to the Second Centuries BCE.” (Diss. Harvard University). Daly, K. 2009. “A New Athenian Ephebic List: Agora I 7545.” Hesperia 78, 405–419. Daly, K. 2014. “On When and Where To Find Athenian Forts.” In K. Daly and L.A. Riccardi, eds., Cities Called Athens: Studies Honoring John McK. Camp II. Lewisburg: 23–60. Daly, L.W. 1950. “Roman Study Abroad.” AJP 71, 40–58. Daux, G. 1965. “Deux stèles d’Acharnes.” In D. Zakynthenos et al., eds. Χαρισήριον εἰς Αναστάσιον Κ. Ορλάνδον 1, 78–90. Athens. Davies, J.K. 1967. “Demosthenes on Liturgies: A Note.” JHS 87, 35–7. Day, J. 1942. An Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination. New York. Delavaud-Roux, M.-H. 1993. Les danses armées en Grèce antique. Aix-en-Provence. Delebecque, E. 1957. Essai sur la vie de Xenophon. Paris. Delorme, J. 1960. Gymnasion. Paris. de Marcellus, H. 1994. “The Origins and the Nature of the Attica Ephebeia to 200 B.C.” (Diss. Oxford University). de Marcellus, H. 1996. “IG XIV 1184 and the Ephebic Service of Menander.” ZPE 110, 69–76. de Polignac, F. 1984. La naissance de la cité grecque. Paris. Denniston, J.D. 1954. Electra. Oxford. Deubner, L. 1959. Attische Feste. Berlin. Diels, H. 1901. Poetarum Philophorum fragmenta. Berlin. Diggles, J. 2004. Theophrastus: Characters. Cambridge. Diller, A. 1932. “The Decree of Demophilus, 346–345 B.C.” TAPA 63, 193–205. Dillery, J. 2002. “Ephebes in the Stadium (not in the Theater): Ath. Pol. 42.4 and IG II2 351.” CQ 52, 462–70. Dinsmoor, W.B. 1931. The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge, Mass. Dittenberger, W. 1862. De ephebis Atticis. Göttingen in libraria Dieterichiana. Dmitriev, S. 1996. “Notes on Inscriptions from Asia Minor.” EA 26, 105–10. Donlan, W. and J. Thompson. 1976. “The Charge at Marathon: Herodotus 6.112.” CJ 71, 339–43. Dontas, G. 1983. “True Aglaurion.” Hesperia 52, 48–63.

384

Bibliography

Dorandi, T. 1989. “Epigraphica Philosophica.” Prometheus 15, 37–38. Dow, S. 1933. “A List of Archontes, IG II2 1706.” Hesperia 2, 418–446. Dow, S. 1937a. “Athenian Decrees of 216–212 BC.” HSPh. 48, 105–26. Dow, S. 1937b. Prytaneis: A Study of the Inscriptions Honoring the Athenian Councilors. Princeton. Dow, S. 1937c. “The Egyptian Cults in Athens.” HTR 30, 183–232. Dow, S. 1960. “The Athenian Ephēboi; Other Staffs, and the Staff of the Diogeneion.” TAPA 91, 381–409. Dow, S. 1963. “The Athenian Anagrapheus.” HSCP 67, 38–55. Dow, S. 1976. “Companionable Associates in the Athenian Government.” In L. Bonafante and H. von Heintze, eds., Essays in Archaeology and the Humanities: In Memoriam Otto J. Brendel, 69–84. Mainz. Dow, S. 1979. “Thrasyphon Hierokleidou Xypetaion.” GRBS 20, 335–6. Dow, S. 1983. “Catalogi generis incerti IG II2 2364–2489: A check list.” AncW 8, 95–106. Dow, S. and R. Healey. 1965. A Sacred Calendar of Eleusis. Cambridge, Mass. Dow, S. and J. Oliver. 1935. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 4, 5–90. Dow, S. and A. Travis. 1943. “Demetrius of Phalerum and his Lawgiving.” Hesperia 12, 144–65. Downey, C. 1997. “The Chalkotheke on the Athenian Acropolis: Form and Function Reconsidered.” AJA 101, 372–3. Dudley, D.R. 1937. History of Cynicism. London. Dumont, A. 1875–6. Essai sur l’Éphébie Attique. Paris. Dunand, F. 1973. Le culte d’Isis dans le bassin oriental de la Méditerranée, vol. I. Leiden. Durand, J.L. 1987. “Le Boeuf a la ficelle.” In C. Berard et al., Images et societe en Grece ancienne, 227–41. Lausanne. Edmonds, J.M. 1959. Fragments of Attic Comedy Vol. II. Leiden. Edmonds, J.M. 1961. The Fragments of Attic Comedy Vol. IIIb. Leiden. Edmunds, S. 1990. Homeric Nepios. London. Engels, J. 1992. “Zur Stellung Lykurgs und zur Aussagekraft seines Militär- und Bauprogramms für die Demokratie vor 322 v.Chr.” Ancient Society 23, 8–12. Erskine, A. 1990. The Hellenistic Stoa. Ithaca. Etienne, R. and D. Knoepfler. 1976. Hyettos de Béotie et la chronologie des archontes fedéraux entre 250 et 171 avant J.C. Paris. Fachard, S. and D. Pirisino. 2015. “Routes out of Attica.” In M.M. Miles, ed. Autopsy in Athens: Recent Archaeological Research on Athens and Attica, 139–53. Oxford and Philadelphia. Falkner, T.M. 1989. “Slouching towards Boeotia: Age and Age-Grading in the Hesiodic Myth of the Five Races.” CA 8: 42–60. Faraguna, M. 1992. Atene Nell’età di Alessandro. Rome.

Bibliography

385

Farenga, V. 2006. Citizens and Self in Ancient Greece: Individual Performing Justice and the Law. Cambridge. Farnell, L.R. 1896. Cults of the Greek States, vol. I. Oxford. Farnell, L.R. 1906. Cults of the Greeks States, vol. III. Oxford. Ferguson, W.S. 1906. The Priests of Asklepios. Berkeley. Ferguson, W.S. 1908. “Researches in Athenian and Delian Documents II.” Klio 8, 338–355. Ferguson, W.S. 1909. “Researches in Athenian and Delian Documents III.” Klio 9, 317–319. Ferguson, W.S. 1911. Hellenistic Athens. London. Ferguson, W.S. 1929. “Lachares and Demetrius Poliorcetes.” CP 24, 1–20. Fisher, N. 2001. Aeschines: Against Timarchos. Oxford. Follet, S. 1976. Athènes au IIe et au IIIe siècle: Études chronologiques et prosographiques. Paris. Follet, S. 1988. “Éphèbes étrangers à Athènes: Romains, Milésiens, Chypriotes, etc.” CCEC 9, 19–32. Follet, S. 2005. “Deux inscriptions attiques inédites copiées par l’abbé Michel Fourmont (Parisinus Suppl. gr. 854).” RÉG 118, 1–14. Follet, S. and D. Peppas Delmousou. 2000. “La légende de Thésée sous l’empereur Commode d’après le discours d’un éphèbe athénien, IG II2 2291 A+1125 complétés.” In Françoise Prévôt, ed., Romanité et cité chrétienne, permanences et mutations, intégration et exclusion du Ier au VIe siècle. Mélanges en l’honneur d’Yvette Duval, 11–17. Paris. Forbes, C.A. 1929. Greek Physical Education. New York. Forbes, C.A. 1933. Neoi. Lancaster, PA. Forrest, W.G. 1966. “Some Inscriptions of Chios.” ABSA 61, 197–206. Forsen, B. and G. Stanton, eds. 1996. The Pynx in the History of Athens. Helsinki. Fortenbaugh, W. and E. Shütrumpf, eds. 2000. Demetrius of Phalerum: Texts, Translation, and Discussion. New Brunswick. Fossey, J.M. 1994. “Boiotian Decrees of Proxeny.” In id. ed., Boeotia Antiqua IV, 52–3. Amsterdam. Foucart, P. 1889. “Décrets en l’honneur des éphèbes de l’anée.” BCH 13, 253–69. Frantz, A. 1979. “A Public Building of Late Antiquity in Athens (IG II2 5205).” Hesperia 48, 194–203. Friend, J. 2009. The Athenian Ephebeia in the Lykourgan Period, 334/3–322/1 B.C. (Diss. University of Texas, Austin). Fröhlich, P. 2004. Les Cités grecques et le contrôle des magistrats (IV e–Ier siècle avant J.-C.). Geneva and Paris. Fuentes-Gonzáles, P.P. 1998. Les Diatribes de Télès. Paris.

386

Bibliography

Gabrielsen, V. 1994. Financing the Athenian Fleet. Baltimore. Gardiner, E.N. 1910. Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals. London. Garlan, Y. 1973. “Cités, armées et stratégie à l’époque hellénistique d’après l’œuvre de Philon de Byzance.” Historia 22, 16–33. Garland, R. 1987. The Piraeus. London. Garland, R. 1990. The Greek Way of Life: From Conception to Old Age. London. Gauthier, P. 1976. Un Commentaire historique des Poroi de Xénophon. Geneva. Gauthier, P. 1984. “Le Programme de Xénophon dans les Poroi.” RPh 58, 181–99. Gauthier, P. 1985. “Les chlamydes et l’entretien des éphèbes athéniens: remarques sur le décret de 204/3.” Chiron 15, 149–63. Gauthier, P. 1985. Les cites grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs. Athens. Gauthier, P. 1995. “Notes sur le rôle du gymnase dans les cités hellénistiques.” In M. Wörrle and P. Zanker, eds., Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus, 3–7. Munich. Gauthier, P. and M. Hatzopoulos. 1993. La loi gymnasiarchique de Beroia. Athens. Geagan, D. 1967. The Athenian Constitution after Sulla. Princeton. Gell, W. 1827. Itinerary of Greece. London. Gera, D. 1993. Xenophon’s Cyropaedia: Style, Genre, and Literary Technique. Oxford. Girard, P. 1891. L’éducation athénienne aux V e et IVe siècles avant J.-C. Paris. Girard, P. 1892. “Ephebi.” In Daremburg-Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquitès grecques et romaines III, 621–36. Paris. Golden, M. 1979. “Demosthenes and the Age of Majority at Athens.” Phoenix 33, 25–38. Golden, M. 1990. Children and Childhood in Classical Athens. Baltimore. Golden, M. 1998. Sport and Society in Ancient Greece. Cambridge. Goldhill, S. 1990. “The Great Dionysia and Civic Ideology.” In J. Winkler and F. Zeitlin, eds., Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in Its Social Context, 97–129. Princeton. Gomme, A.W. 1967. The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. Chicago. Gomme, A.W. 1956. Historical Commentary on Thucydides, vol. III. Oxford. Gomme, A.W. 1959. “The Population of Athens Again.” JHS 79, 61–8. Gomme, A.W., A. Andrewes, and K. Dover. 1981. Historical Commentary on Thucydides, vol. V. Oxford. Graf, F. 1979. “Apollon Delphinios.” Museum Helveticum 36, 14–5. Graindor, P. 1915. “Les cosmètes du Musée d’Athènes.” BCH 39, 241–401. Graindor, P. 1922. “Étude sur l’éphébie attique sous l’Empire.” Musée Belge 26, 165–228. Graindor, P. 1924. Album d’inscriptions attique d’époque impériale. Gand. Graindor, P. 1931. Athènes de Tibère à Trajan. Cairo. Grasberger, L. 1881. Erziehung und Unterricht lm klassischen Alterthum, vol. III. Würzburg. Gray, V. 1998. The Framing of Socrates. Stuttgart.

Bibliography

387

Grenfell, B.P. and A.S. Hunt. 1915. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Vol XI. Oxford. Griffith, G.T. 1935. Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World. Cambridge. Griffith, M. 2001. “‘Public’ and ‘Private’ in Early Greek Institutions of Education.” In Yun Lee Too, ed., Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, 23–84. Leiden. Gunther, W. 1992. “Athenisches Bürgerrecht fur Theoren aus Milet.” Epigraphica Anatolia 19, 135–43. Gygax, M.D. 2016. Benefactions and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City. Cambridge. Habicht, C. 1961[1962]. “Neue Inschriften aus dem Kerameikos.” MDAI(A) 76, 127–48. Habicht, C. 1979. Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3.Jahrhundert v. Chr. Munich. Habicht, C. 1988. Hellenistic Athens and Her Philosophers. Princeton. Habicht, C. 1991. “Milesische Theoren in Athen.” Chiron 21, 325–9. Habicht, C. 1992a. “Athens and the Ptolemies.” CLAnt. 11, 68–90. Habicht, C. 1992b “Der Kyniker Teles und die Reform der athenischen Éphébie.” ZPE 98, 47–9. Habicht, C. 1994. Athen in hellenistischer Zeit. Munich. Habicht, C. 1996a. “Athens, Samos and Alexander the Great.” PAPS 140, 397–405. Habicht, C. 1996b. “Divine Honours for Antigonas Gonatas in Athens,” Scripta Classica Istraelica 15, 131–4. Habicht, C. 1997. Athens from Alexander to Anthony. Cambridge. Habicht, C. 2001a “Foreign names in Athenian Nomenclature.” In S. Hornblower and E. Matthews, eds., Greek Personal Names: Their Value as Evidence, 119–127. Oxford. Habicht, C. 2001b. “Pinax: An Athenian Ghost Name.” ZPE 137, 117–118. Habicht, C. 2003. “Athens after the Chremonidean War: Some Second Thoughts.” In S. Tracy and O. Palagia, eds., The Macedonians in Athens: 322–229 B.C., 52–5. Oxford. Habicht, C. and S. Tracy. 1991. “New and Old Panathenaic Lists.” Hesperia 60, 187–236. Hadzisteliou-Price, S. 1973. “Hero Cult and Homer.” Historia 22, 129–44. Hamel, D. 1998. Athenian Generals: Military Authority in the Classical Period. Leiden. Hammond, N.G.L. 1938. “The Two Battles of Chaeronea (338 B.C. and 86 B.C.).” Klio 31, 186–218. Hammond, N.G.L. 1973. Studies in Greek History. Oxford. Hammond, N.G.L. and G.T. Griffith. 1979. A History of Macedonia. Vol. II: 550–336 B.C. Oxford. Hammond, N.G.L. and F.W. Walbank. 1988. History of Macedonia. Vol. III: 336–167 B.C. Oxford. Hansen, M.H. 1981. “The Number of Athenian Hoplites in 431 B.C.” SO 56, 24–9. Hansen, M.H. 1985. Demography and Democracy: The Number of Athenian Citizens in the Fourth Century B.C. Herning. Hansen, M.H. 1988. Three Studies in Athenian Demography. Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske Meddeleser 56. Copenhagen.

388

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H. 1991. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. Cambridge. Hansen, M.H. 2006. Studies in Population of Aigina, Athens and Eretria. Copenhagen. Hanson, V.D. 1989. The Western Way of War. Berkeley. Harding, P. 1988. “Athenian Defensive Strategy in the Fourth Century.” Phoenix 42, 61–71. Harding, P. 1990. “Athenian Defensive Strategy Again.” Phoenix 44, 377–380. Harris-Cline, D. 1999. “Archaic Athens and the Topography of the Kylon Affair.” ABSA 94, 312–13. Harrison, E.B. 1965. Agora XI: Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture. Princeton. Hatzopoulos, M.B. 2007. “La formation militaire dans les gymnases hellénistiques.” In D. Kohl and P. Scholz, eds., Das hellenistische Gymnasion, 91–6. Berlin. Hedrick, C.W. 1988. “The Temple and Cult of Apollo Patroos in Athens.” AJA 92, 185–210. Henrichs, A. 1998. “Dromena and Legomena. Zum rituellen Selbstverständnis der Griechen.” In Fritz Graf, ed., Ansichten griechischer Rituale. Geburtstags-Symposium für Walter Burkert, 33–71. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Henry, A.S. 1969. “Further Notes on the Language of Prose Inscriptions of Hellenistic Athens.” CQ 19, 289–305. Henry, A.S. 1984. “Athenian Financial Officials after 303 BC.” Chiron 14, 49–92. Hereward, D. 1956. “Notes on an Inscription from ‘Hesperia’.” AJA 60, 172–4. Hershbell, J.P. 1981. Pseudo-Platonic Axiochus. Chico, Calif. Higgins, W.E. 1977. Xenophon the Athenian. Albany. Hin, S. 2007. “Class and Society in the Cities of the Greek East: Education during the Ephebeia.” Ancient Society 37, 141–66. Hirschfeld, G. 1873. Bullettino dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica. Rome. Hoepfner, W. 1976. Das Pompeion und seine Nachfolgerbauten. Berlin. Hoff, R. von den. 1994. Philosophenportäts des Früh- und Hochhellenismus. Munich. Holtorf, C. 1996. “Towards a Chronology of Megaliths: Understanding Monumental Time and Cultural Memory.” Journal of European Archaeology 4, 119–152. Hopper, R.J. 1953. “Attic Silver Mines in the Fourth Century BC.” ABSA 48, 200–254. Hornblower, S. 1991. A Commentary on Thucydides, vol. II. Oxford. Humphreys, S. 1985. “Lycurgus of Butidae: An Athenian Aristocrat.” In J.W. Eadie and J. Ober, eds., The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in Honor of C.G. Starr, 199–252. Lanham, MD. Humphreys, S. 2004. The Strangeness of Gods: Historical Perspectives on the Interpretation of Athenian Religion. Oxford. Hurwit, J.M. 1999. The Athenian Acropolis. Cambridge. Iversen, P.A. 2011. “Menander’s Thaïs: Hac Primum Iuvenum Lascivos Lusit Amores.” CQ 61.1, 186–191. Jaeger, W. 1944. Paideia: Ideals of Greek Culture, vol. III. Oxford: Oxford University, 1944. Jeanmaire, H. 1939. Couroi et Courètes (Essai sur l’Éducation Spartiate et sur les rites d’adolescence dans l’antiquité hellénique. Lille.

Bibliography

389

Jones, N.F. 1999. The Associations of Classical Athens: The Response to Democracy. Oxford. Jordan, B. 1972. The Athenian Navy in the Classical Period. Berkeley. Jüthner, J. 1909. “Eutaxia.” RE 6, 1491. Kah, D. 2007. “Militärische Ausbildung im hellenistische Gymnasion.” In D. Kohl and P. Scholz, eds., Das hellenistische Gymnasion, 47–90. Berlin. Kannicht, R. 1969. Euripides: Helena, herausgegeben und erklärt. I Einleitung und Text; II Kommentar. Heidelberg. Kapetanopoulos, E. 1974. “Apolexis ex Oiou.” Athenaeum 52.3–4, 343–347. Kearns, E. 1989. Heroes of Attica. London. Kebric, R.B. 1977. In the Shadow of Macedon: Duris of Samos. Wiesbaden. Kellogg, D.L. 2013. “The Place of Publication of the Ephebic Oath and the ‘Oath of Plataia.’” Hesperia 82, 263–276. Kennell, N. 1995. The Gymnasium of Virtue. Chapel Hill. Kennell, N. 1999. “Age Categories and Chronology in the Hellenistic Theseia.” Phoenix 53, 249–62. Kennell, N. 2000. “The Status of the Ephebarch.” Tyche 15, 103–8. Kennell, N. 2006. Ephebeia: A Register of Greek Cities with Citizen-Training Systems in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Hildesheim. Kennell, N. 2009. “The Greek Ephebate in the Roman Period.” International Journal of the History of Sport 26.323–42. Kennell, N. 2012. “Who were the Neoi?” In P. Martzavou and N. Papazarkadas, eds., Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-Classical Polis, 217–232. Oxford. Kennell, N. 2013. “Age-Class Societies in Ancient Greece?” Ancient Society 43, 1–73. Kennell, N. 2015. “The Ephebeia in the Hellenistic Period.” In W.M. Bloomer, ed., A Companion to Ancient Education. Hoboken, N.J. Kent, J. 1941. “A Garrison Inscription from Rhamnous.” Hesperia 10, 342–50. Kenyon, F.G. 1891. Athenaion Politeia: Aristotle on the Constitution of Athens. London. Kiel, B. 1920. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Areopags. Leipzig. King, N.Q. 1960. The Emperor Theodosius and the Establishment of Christianity. Philadelphia. Kleijwegt, M. 1991. Ancient Youth: The Ambiguity of Youth and the Absence of Adolescence in Greco-Roman Society. Amsterdam. Knoepfler, D. 1979. “Contributions à l’épigraphie de Chalkis.” BCH 103, 165–88. Knoepfler, D. 1993. “Adolf Wilhelm et la pentétèris des Amphiaraia d’Oropos. Réexamen de A.P. LIV 7 à la lumière du catalogue IG VII 414 + SEG I 126.” In M. Piérart, ed., Aristote et Athènes, 295–6. Paris. Knoepfler, D. 2001. Décrets érétriens de proxénie et de citoyenneté. Lausanne. Kourouniotes, K. and H.A. Thompson. 1932. “The Pnyx in Athens.” Hesperia 1, 90–217. Krenkel, W. 1970. Lucilius’ Satiren, vol. I. Leiden.

390

Bibliography

Krentz, P. 2007. “The Oath of Marathon, not Plataia?” Hesperia 76, 731–42. Kritzas, C. 1996/1997. Πρακτικὰ τοῦ Eʹ ∆ιεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακῶν Σπουδῶν, Ἄργος-Ναύπλιον, 6–10 Σεπτεµβρίου 1995, B’. 33–42. Athens. Kron, U. 1995. “Patriotic Heroes.” In R. Hagg, ed., Ancient Greek Hero Cult. Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, 21–23 April 1995, 61–83. Stockholm. Kyle, D.G. 1987. Athletics in Ancient Athens. Leiden. La Follette, L. 1986. “The Chalkotheke on the Athenian Acropolis.” Hesperia 55, 75–87. Lambert, S. 1993. Phratries of Attica. Ann Arbor. Lambert, S. 2001. “Ten Notes on Attic Inscriptions.” ZPE 135, 52–9. Lambert, S. 2002a. “Afterwards.” ZPE 141, 122–3. Lambert, S. 2002b. “The Sacrificial Calendar of Athens.” ABSA 97, 353–99. Lambert, S. 2000–3. “The First Athenian Agonothetai.” Horos 14–16, 99–105. Lambert, S. 2012. Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 352/1–322/1 BC: Epigraphical Essays. Leiden. Lattanzi, E. 1968. I ritratti des cosmeti nel Museo nazionale Atene. Rome. Launey, M. 1949–1950. Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques, 2 vols. Paris. Lawton, C. 1995. Attic Document Reliefs. Oxford. Lawton, C. 2007. “Children in Classical Attic Votive Reliefs.” In A. Cohen and J. Rutter, eds., Constructions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy. Hesperia Suppl. 41, 41–60. Lazaridi, K.D. 2015. “Ἐφηβαρχικὸς νόµος ἀπὸ τὴν Ἀµφίπολη.” Arch.Eph. 1–48. Lazzarini, M.L. 1985. “Una Collezione Epigrafica di Pesaro.” Riv.Fil. 113, 38–9. Leake, W. 1841. Topography of Athens, Vol II: The Demi of Attica. London. Le Bohec, S. 1993. Antigone Doson. Nancy. Lehnen, J. 1997. Adventus Principis. Untersuchungen zu Sinngehalt und Zeremoniell der Kaiserankunft in den Städten des Imperium Romanum. Frankfurt. Leitao, D. 1995. “Perils of Leukippos: Transvestism and Male Gender Ideology in the Ekdusia at Phaistos.” CA 14, 130–63. Lendon, J. 2005. Soldiers & Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity. New Haven. Leonardos, B. 1918. “Ἀµφιαρείου ἐπιγραφαί.” AE 52, 73–100. Levensohn, M. and L. Levensohn. 1947. “Inscriptions from the South Slope of the Acropolis.” Hesperia 16, 63–74. Lewis, D.M. 1955. “Notes on Attic Inscriptions (II): XXIII. Who was Lysistrata?” ABSA 50, 1–36. Lewis, D.M. 1958. “When was Aeschines Born?” CR 8, 108. Lewis, D.M. 1968. “Dedications of Phialai at Athens.” Hesperia 37, 374–80. Lewis, D.M. 1973. “Attic Ephebic Inscriptions.” CR 23, 254–6. Lewis, D.M. 1975. “Greek Inscriptions from the Athenian Agora.” Hesperia 44, 379–95.

Bibliography

391

Lewis, D.M. 1997. “On the Financial Offices of Eubulus and Lycurgus.” In P.J. Rhodes, ed., Selected Papers in Greek and Near Eastern History, 212–29. Cambridge. Lofberg, J.O. 1922. Review of Brenot 1920 in CP 17, 156–7. Lofberg, J.O. 1925. “The Date of the Athenian Ephebeia.” CP 20, 330–35. Long, A.A. 1992. “Stoic Readings of Homer.” In R. Lamberton and J.J. Keaney, eds., Homer’s Ancient Readers: The Hermeneutics of Greek Epic’s Earliest Readers, 41–66. Princeton. Lonsdale, S.H. 1993. Dance and Ritual Play in Greek Religion. Baltimore. Loraux, N. 1986. The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City. Cambridge. Lupu, E. 2001. “The Sacred Law from the Cave of Pan at Marathon (SEG XXXVI 267).” ZPE 137, 119–24. Lupu, E. 2009. Greek Sacred Law. Leiden. Lynch, J.P. 1972. Aristotle’s School. Berkeley. Ma, J. 2000. “Fighting Poleis of the Hellenistic World.” In H. van der Wees, ed., War and Violence in Ancient Greece, 337–376. London. Maass, M. 1972. Die Prohedrie des Dionysostheaters in Athen. Munich. MacDowell, D. 1982 [1985]. “Athenian Laws about Choruses.” In F. Nieto, ed., SYMPOSION, 70–72. Valencia. MacKendrick, P. 1969. The Athenian Aristocracy, 399 to 31 B.C. Cambridge, Mass. Maier, F.G. 1959. Griechische Mauerbauinschriften, Vol. I. Heidelberg. Mann, C. 1998. “Krieg, Sport und Adelskultur Zur Entstehung des griechischen Gymnasions.” Klio 80, 7–21. Mann, C. 2001. Athlet und Polis in Archaischen und frühklassischen Griechenland. Göttingen. Marrou, H.I. 1964. A History of Education in Antiquity. New York. Marsden, E. 1969. Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Developments. Oxford. Marx, F. 1905. C. Lucilii Carminum Reliquae, vol. II. Leipzig. Mastrokostas, E. 1970. “Προΐστορικὴ ἀκρόπολις ἐν Μαραθῶνι.” AAA 3, 14–21. Mathieu, G. 1937. “Remarques sur l’éphébie attique.” In G. Mathieu, ed., Milanges Desrousseux, 311–18. Paris. Matthaiou, A.P. 1987. “Ἠριον Λυκούργου Λυκόφρονος Βουτάδου.” Horos 5, 31–44. Matthaiou, A.P. 2003. “᾿Αθηναίοισι τεταγµένοισι ἐν τεµένει ῾Ηρακλέου.” In P. Derow and R. Parker, eds. Herodotus and his World, 190–202. Oxford. Maxwell-Stuart, J. 1970. “Remarks on the Black Cloaks of the Ephebes.” PCPS 16, 113–6. McLeod, W.E. 1959. “An Ephebic Dedication from Rhamnous.” Hesperia 28, 121–6. McCredie, 1966. Fortified Military Camps of Attica. Hesperia Suppl. XI. Princeton. McCulloch, H.Y. and H.D. Cameron. 1980. “Septem 12–13 and the Athenian Ephebia.” Illinois Classical Studies V, 1–14.

392

Bibliography

Mellor, R. 1975. ΘΕΑ ΡΩΜΗ: The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World. Göttingen. Meritt, B. 1933. “The Inscriptions.” Hesperia 2, 149–69. Meritt, B. 1934. “The Inscriptions.” Hesperia 3, 1–114. Meritt, B. 1935. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 4, 525–585. Meritt, B. 1938. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 7, 77–160. Meritt, B. 1940. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 9, 53–96. Meritt, B. 1941. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 10, 38–64. Meritt, B. 1945. “Three Attic Inscriptions.” AJP 66, 234–42. Meritt, B. 1946. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 15, 169–253. Meritt, B. 1947. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 16, 147–83. Meritt, B. 1948. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 17, 1–53. Meritt, B. 1952. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 21, 340–80. Meritt, B. 1954. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 23, 233–83. Meritt, B. 1960. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 29, 1–77. Meritt, B. 1961. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 30, 205–292. Meritt, B. 1963. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 32, 1–56. Meritt, B. 1964. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 33, 168–227. Meritt, B. 1965. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 34, 89–99. Meritt, B. 1967. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 36, 57–100. Meritt, B. 1977. “Athenian Archons 347/6–48/7 B.C.” Historia 26, 161–91. Meritt, B., M. Larson Lethen, and G.A. Stamires. 1957. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 26, 24–97. Meritt, B., A.G. Woodhead, and G.A. Stamires. 1957. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 26, 198–270. Merkelbach, R. 1972. “Aglauros (Die Religion der Epheben).” ZPE 9, 277–83. Meyer, E.A. 2010. Metics and the Athenian Phialai-Inscriptions. Stuttgart. Michaud, J.P. 1970. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1968 et 1969.” BCH 94, 883–1164. Mikalson, J. 1975. The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year. Princeton. Mikalson, J. 1977. “Religion in the Attic Demes.” AJP 98, 424–35. Mikalson, J. 1991. Honor Thy Gods: Popular Religion in Greek Tragedy. Chapel Hill. Mikalson, J. 1998. Religion in Hellenistic Athens. 1998. Miles, M.M. 1989. “A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous.” Hesperia 58, 131–249. Millar, F. 1969. “P. Herennius Dexippus: The Greek World and the Third Century Invasion.” JRS 59, 12–29. Miller, M. 1999. “Reexamining Transvestism in Archaic and Classical Athens: The Zewadski Stamnos.” AJA 103, 223–253. Miller, S. 1978. The Prytaneion: Its Function and Architectural Form. Berkeley.

Bibliography

393

Miller, S. 1995. “Architecture as Evidence for the Identity of the Early Polis.” M.H. Hansen, ed., Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State, 201–45. Copenhagen. Miller, S. “Naked Democracy.” In P. Flensted-Jensen, T.H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein, eds., Polis and Politics, 277–97. Copenhagen. Millis, B.W. and S.W. Olson, eds. 2012. Inscriptional Records for the Dramatic Festivals in Athens: IG II2 2318–2325. Leiden. Mitchel, F. 1960. “The Cadet Colonels of the Ephebic Corps.” TAPA 92, 347–57. Mitchel, F. 1964. “Derkylos of Hagnous and the Date of IG II2 1187.” Hesperia 33, 337–51. Mitchel, F. 1965. “Athens in the Age of Alexander.” Greece and Rome 12, 189–204. Mitchel, F. 1973. Lykourgan Athens: 338–322. Norman, OK. Mitchel, F. 1975. “The So-Called Earliest Ephebic Inscription.” ZPE 19, 233–43. Mitchel, F. 1984. “An Ephebic Dedication of 334/3 Reconsidered.” AW 9, 115–8. Mitchell-Boyask, R. 1999. “Euripides’ Hippolytus and the Trials of Manhood (The Ephebeia?).” In M.W. Padilla, ed., Rites of Passage in Ancient Greece: Religion, Literature, Society, 42–66. Lewisburg, PA. Mitsos, M. 1965 [1967]. “Ἐκ τοῦ Ἐπιγραφικοῦ Μουσείου (VII).” AE 104, 131–6. Mitsos, M. 1970. “Ἄπὸ τοὺς καταλογοὺς Ἀθηναίων ᾿Εφήβων κλπ. (II).” AE, 114–24. Mommsen, A. 1898. Feste der Stadt Athen im Altertum. Leipzig. Moreno, A. 2007. Feeding the Democracy: The Athenian Grain Supplies in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. Oxford. Morgan, J.D. 1996. “The Calendar and the Chronology of Athens.” AJA 100, 395. Morgan, J.D. 1998. “Polyeuktos, the Sotereia, and the Chronology of Athens and Delphi in the Mid-Third Century B.C.” AJA 102, 389. Morrison, J.S. 1978. “Athenian Sea-Power in 323/2 BC: Dream and Reality.” JHS 107, 88–97. Morrison, J.S. and R.T. Williams. 1968. Greek Oared Ships. London. Most, G.W. 1989. “Cornutus and Stoic Allegoresis: A Preliminary Report.” ANRW II.36.3, 2014–65. Most, G.W. 1999. “From Logos to Mythos.” In R. Buxton, ed., From Myth to Reason?, 32–8. Oxford. Munn, M.H. 1992. The Defense of Attica: The Dema Wall and the Boiotian War of 378–375 B.C. Berkeley. Munn, M.H. 1996. “The First Excavations at Panakton on the Attic-Boiotian Frontier.” In J.M. Fossey, ed., Boiotia Antiqua VI, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Boiotian Antiquities, 47–58. Amsterdam. Munn, M.H. and M.L.Z. Munn. “Studies on the Attic-Boiotian Frontier: The Stanford Skourta Plain Project, 1985.” In J.M. Fossey, ed., Boeotia Antiqua I, 73–127. Amsterdam. Murray, O. 1991. “War and the Symposium.” In W.J. Slater, ed., Dining in a Classical Context, 83–103. Ann Arbor. Mylonas, G. 1961. Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Princeton.

394

Bibliography

Nadon, C. 2001. Xenophon’s Prince: Republic and Empire in the Cyropaedia. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Naerebout, F.G. 1996. Review of Lonsdale in Mnemosyne 49, 366–369. Newby, Z. 2005. Greek Athletics in the Roman World. Oxford. Nilsson, M.P. 1974. Geschichte der griechischen Religion, vol. II. Munich. Nora, P. 1989. “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire [1984].” Representations 26, 7–25. Nora, P. 1984–1992. Les Lieux de mémoire. Paris. North, H. 1966. Sophrosyne: Self-Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Literature. Ithaca. North, H. 1979. From Myth to Icon: Reflections of Greek Ethical Doctrine in Literature and Art. Ithaca. Ober, J. 1985. Fortress Attica. Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier 404–322 B.C. Leiden. Ober, J. 2001. “The Debate over Civic Education in Classical Athens.” In Yun Lee Too, ed., Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, 175–207. Leiden. Oetjen, R. 2000. “War Demetrios von Phaleron, der Jüngere, Kommissar des Königs Antigonos II. Gonatas in Athen?” ZPE 131, 111–117. Oikonomides, A.N. 1982. “The Cult of Diogenes ‘Euergetes’ in Ancient Athens.” ZPE 45, 118–20. Oikonomides, A.N. 1986. “The Epigraphical Tradition of the Decree of Stratokles Honoring ‘Post Mortem’ the Orator Lykourgos.” AW 14, 51–54. O’Keefe, T. 2006. “Socrates’ Therapeutic Use of Inconsistency in the Axiochus.” Phronesis 51, 388–407. Oliver, G. 2000. The Epigraphy of Death. Liverpool. Oliver, G. 2003. “Oligarchy at Athens after the Lamian War: Epigraphical Evidence for the Boule and Ekklesia.” In O. Palagia and S.V. Tracy, eds., The Macedonians in Athens, 40–51. Oxford. Oliver, G. 2007. War, Food, and Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens. Oxford. Oliver, J.H. 1933. “Selected Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 2, 480–513. Oliver, J.H. 1942. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 11, 29–103. Oliver, J.H. 1960. Demokratia, the Gods, and the Free World. Baltimore. Oliver, J.H. and S. Dow. 1935. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 4, 5–90. O’Neil, E.N. 1977. Teles (The Cynic Teacher). Missoula. Osborne, M. 1981. “Some Attic Inscriptions.” ZPE 42, 172–4. Osborne, M. 1981–3. Naturalization in Athens, Vol. I–IV. Brussels. Osborne, M. 2003. “Shadowland: Athens under Antigonos Gonatas and his Successor.” In O Palagia and S.V. Tracy, eds., The Macedonians in Athens, 322–299 B.C., 67–75. Oxford. Osborne, M. 2008. “The Date of the Athenian Archon Thrasyphon.” ZPE 164, 85–9. Ostwald, M. 1955. “The Athenian Law Against Tyranny and Subversion.” TAPA 86, 103–28.

Bibliography

395

O’Sullivan, L. 2009. The Regime of Demetrius of Phalerum in Athens, 317–307 BCE. Leiden. Palaiokrassa, L. 1989. “Neue Befunde aus dem Heiligtum der Artemis Munichia.” AM 104, 1–40. Palagia, O. 1975. “A Draped Female Torso in the Ashmolean Museum.” JHS 95, 180–82. Palagia, O. 1982. “A Colossal Statue of a Personification from the Agora of Athens.” Hesperia 52, 99–113. Palagia, O. 1994. “No Demokratia.” In W.D.E. Coulson, O. Palagia, T.L. Shear Jr., H.A. Shapiro, and F.J. Frost, eds., The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy, 113–22. Oxford. Palagia, O. 2000. “A Gymnasiarch’s Dedication and the Panathenaic Torch-Race.” In N. Icard-Gianolio ed., Ἀγαθὸς ∆αίµων: mythes et cultes: études d’iconographie en l’honneur de Lilly Kahil, 403–8. Athens. Palagia, O. and D. Lewis. 1989. “The Ephebes of Erechtheis, 333/2 B.C. and their Dedication.” ABSA 84, 337–44. Pantos, P.A. 1973. “Ἐπιγραφαὶ παρὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν τῶν Ἀθηνῶν.” ArchEphem. 175–88. Papadoupolis, J. 2003. Ceramicus Redivivus: The Early Iron Age Potters’ Field in the Area of the Classical Athenian Agora. Hesperia Suppl. 31. Princeton. Parke, H.W. 1933. Greek Mercenary Soldiers. Oxford. Parke, H.W. 1977. Festivals of the Athenians. London. Parker, R. 1987. “Festivals of the Attic Demes.” In T. Linders and G.C. Nordquist, eds., Gifts to the Gods, 137–47. Uppsala. Parker, R. 1989. “Dionysus at Agrai.” LCM 14, 154–5. Parker, R. 1996. Athenian Religion: A History. Oxford. Parker, R. 2005. Polytheism and Society at Athens. Oxford. Patterson, C. 1981. Pericles’ Citizenship Law of 451–50 B.C. New York. Pélékidis, C. 1950. “Notes d’epigraphie attique.” REG 63, 107–120. Pélékidis, C. 1962. Histoire de l’éphébie attique: des origines à 31 avant Jésus-Christ. Paris. Perrin-Saminadayar, É. 2004–05 [2006]. “L’accueil officiel des souverains et des princes à Athènes à l’époque hellénistique.” BCH 128–129, 351–375. Perrin-Saminadayar, É. 2007. Éducation, Culture et Société à Athènes. Paris. Petrakos, B. 1968. Ο Ωρωπός και το ιερόν του Αµφιαρείου. Athens. Petrakos, B. 1983. “Ἡ ἐπιγραφικὴ τοῦ Ωρωποῦ καὶ τοῦ Ραµνοῦντα.” In Πρακτικὰ τοῦ Η΄ ∆ιεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Ἑλληνικῆς καὶ Λατινικῆς Ἐπιγραφικῆς, 326–38. Athens. Petrakos, B. 1993[1996]. “Ἀνασκαφὴ Ῥαµνοῦντος.” PAAH 148, 1–35. Petrakos, B. 1997. Οἱ Επιγραφές του Ωρωπού. Athens. Petrakos, B. 2004. “Οἱ ἔφηβοι τῆς Λεοντίδος τοῦ 333/2 π.Χ.” PAA 79, 167–76. Pfeifer, R. 1968. A History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford. Pickard-Cambridge, A.W. 1946. The Theater of Dionysus in Athens. Oxford.

396

Bibliography

Pickard-Cambridge, A.W. 1962. Dithyramb Tragedy and Comedy. Oxford. Pickard-Cambridge, A.W. 2003. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens2. Oxford. Pirenne-Delforge, V. 1996. “Les Charites à Athènes et à Cos.” Kernos 9, 195–214. Pleket, H.W. 1969. “Collegium iuvenum Nemesiorum: A Note on Ancient Youth Organizations.” Mnemosyne 22, 283–298. Pleket, H.W. 1976. “Games, Prizes, Athletes, and Ideology.” Stadion 1, 49–89. Pleket, H.W. 1981. “Stadstaat en onderwijs in de Griekse wereld.” Lampas 14, 155–78. Pleket, H.W. 1998. “Sport and Ideology in the Graeco-Roman World.” Klio 80, 315–24. Poland, F. 1909. Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens. Leipzig. Poliakoff, M. 1987. Combat Sports in the Ancient World. New Haven. Pope, H. 1976. Foreigners in Attic Inscriptions. Chicago. Pope, H. 1976. Non-Athenians in Attic Inscriptions. Chicago. Pouilloux, J. 1954. La Forteresse de Rhamnonte: Étude de topographie et d’histoire. Paris. Poursat, J.-C. 1968. “Les Representations de danse armée dans la ceramique attique.” BCH 92, 550–615. Pritchett, W.K. 1947. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 16, 184–92. Pritchett, W.K. 1949. “The Epheboi of Oeneis.” In Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear, Hesperia Suppl. 8, 273–8. Princeton. Pritchett, W.K. 1958. “Observations on the Battle of Chaironeia.” AJA 62, 307–311. Pritchett, W.K. 1971–1985. Greek State at War, vol. I–V. Berkeley. Pritchett, W.K. 1999. “Postscript: Athenian Calendars.” ZPE 128, 85–6. Pritchett, W.K. and B.D. Meritt. 1940. Chronology of Hellenistic Athens. Cambridge, Mass. Rademaker, A. 2004. Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self-Restraint. Leiden. Rangabé, A.R. 1855. Antiquités Helléniques, vol. II. Athens. Raubitschek, A.E. 1949. “Phaidros and His Roman Pupils.” Hesperia 18, 96–103. Raubitschek, A.E. 1951. “Sylleia.” In P.R. Coleman-Norton, ed., Studies in Roman Social and Economic History in Honour of A.C. Johnson, 49–57. Princeton. Raubitschek, A.E. 1962. “Demokratia.” Hesperia 31, 238–43. Rauh, N.K. 1993. The Sacred Bonds of Commerce. Amsterdam. Reinmuth, O.W. 1929. The Foreigners in the Athenian Ephebia. Lincoln, NB. Reinmuth, O.W. 1948. “The Ephebate and Citizenship in Attica.” TAPA 79, 211–31. Reinmuth, O.W. 1952. “Genesis of the Athenian Ephebia.” TAPA 83, 34–50. Reinmuth, O.W. 1955. “The Ephebic Inscription, Athenian Agora I 286.” Hesperia 24, 220–239. Reinmuth, O.W. 1961. “Ephebic Texts from Athens.” Hesperia 30, 8–22. Reinmuth, O.W. 1965. “An Ephebic Text of ca. 43/2 B.C.: IG II2 1040 and 1025.” Hesperia 34, 255–272. Reinmuth, O.W. 1967 (1971). “The Spirit of Athens after Chaeronea.” In Acta of the Vth International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge 1967, 47–51. Oxford.

Bibliography

397

Reinmuth, O.W. 1971. Ephebic Inscriptions in the Fourth Century B.C. Inscriptions. Leiden. Reinmuth, O.W. 1972. “IG II2 1006 and 1301.” Hesperia 42, 185–91. Reinmuth, O.W. 1974. “A New Ephebic Inscription from the Athenian Agora.” Hesperia 43, 255–6. Renehan, R.F. 1970. “The Platonism of Lycurgus.” GRBS 11, 223–7. Rhodes, P.J. 1972. Athenian Boule. Oxford. Rhodes, P.J. 1980. “Ephebi, Bouleutae and the Population of Athens.” ZPE 38, 191–201. Rhodes, P.J. 1993. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, 2nd. Oxford. Richter, G.M.A. 1962. Greek Portraits, vol. I. Brussels. Ridley, R.T. 1979. “The Hoplite as Citizen: Athenian Military Institutions in Their Social Context.” L’Antiquite classique 48, 508–548. Rigsby, K. 1978. “An Ephebic Inscription from Egypt.” GRBS 19, 239–49. Ritchie, C.E. 1989. “The Lykeion, the Garden of Theophrastus and the Garden of the Muses: A Topographical Re-evaluation.” In ΦΙΛΙΑ ΕΠΗ ΕΙΣ ΓEΩΡΓΟΝ Ε. ΜΥΛΩΝΑΝ, 250–60. Athens. Robert, L. 1938. Étude épigraphiques et philologiques. Paris. Robert, L. 1966. “Inscriptions d’Aphrodisias.” AC 35, 377–432. Robertson, B.G. 2000. “The Scrutiny of New Citizens at Athens.” In V. Hunter and J. Edmondson, eds., Law and Social Status in Classical Athens, 149–74. Oxford. Robertson, N. 1976. “False Documents at Athens: Fifth-Century History and FourthCentury Publicists.” Historical Reflections 3, 3–25. Robertson, N. 1998. “The City Center of Archaic Athens.” Hesperia 67, 283–302. Rocchi, M. 1980. “Contributi allo culto delle Charites (II).” Studii clasice 19, 19–28. Roebuck, C. 1948. “The Settlements of Philip II with the Greek States in 338 B.C.” CP 43, 79–82. Roscam, P. 1969. “Remarque sue L’Éphébie Attique.” Platon 21, 187–215. Rotroff, S.I. and J. McK. Camp. 1996. “The Date of the Third Period of the Pnyx.” Hesperia 65, 263–94. Rotzovtzeff, M. 1942. Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, vol. III. Oxford. Roussel, P. 1916. Délos colonie Athénienne. Paris. Roussel, P. 1921. Review of Brenot 1920 in Études Grecques 35, 459. Roussel, P. 1931. “La Population de Délos à la fin du IIe siècle avant J.-C.” BCH 55, 438–49. Roussel, P. 1941a. “Les Chlamydes noir des éphèbes athéniens.” REA 43, 163–5. Roussel, P. 1941b. “Sur quelques inscriptions attiques.” Rev.Arch. 18, 209–32. Rumpf, A. 1928. Die Religion der Griechen. Leipzig. Ruschenbusch, M.H.E. 1979. “Die soziale Herkunft der Epheben um 330.” ZPE 35, 173–6. Ruschenbusch, M.H.E. 1981. “Epheben, Buleuten und die Burgerzahl von Athen um 330. V.Chr.” ZPE 41, 103–5.

398

Bibliography

Ryder, T.T.B. 1965. Koine Eirene: General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece. London. Sacco, G. 1979. “Sui νεανίσκοι dell età ellenistica.” RFIC 107, 39–49. Santangelo, F. 2007. Sulla, the Elites and the Empire. Leiden. Schachter, A. 1981. Cults of Boiotia I: Archeloos to Hera. London. Scheid-Tissinier, É. 1993. “Télémache et les prétendants. Les néoi d’Ithaque.” AC 62, 1–22. Schmalz, J. 2009. Augustan and Julio Claudian Athens: A New Epigraphy and Prosopography. Leiden. Schmidt, H. ed., 1969. Die Staatvertrage der Antiken Welte, vol. III. Munich. Schnapp, A. 1997. Le chasseur et la cité. Paris. Scholz, P. 2007. “Elementarunterricht und intellektuelle Bilding in hellenistischen Gymnasion.” In D. Kohl and P. Scholz, eds., Das hellenistische Gymnasion, 103–28. Berlin. Schuler, C. 2007. “Die Gymnasiarchie in hellenistischer Zeit.” In D. Kohl and P. Scholz, eds., Das hellenistische Gymnasion, 163–192. Berlin. Schweigert, E. 1939. “Greek Inscriptions.” Hesperia 8, 30–4. Schwenk, C. 1985. Athens in the Age of Alexander. Chicago. Sealey, R. 1957. “On Coming of Age in Athens.” CR 71, 195–7. Sealey, R. 1958. “On Penalizing Areopagites.” AJP 79, 71–3. Sekunda, N. 1990. “IG II2 1250: A Decree Concerning the Lampadephoroi of the Tribe Aiantis.” ZPE 83, 149–58. Sekunda, N. 1992. “Athenian Demography and Military Strength, 338–322 BC.” ABSA 87, 311–55. Shear, J. 2001. Polis and Panathenaia: The History and Development of Athena’s Festival. (Diss. University of Pennsylvania). Shear, J. 2012. “Hadrian, the Panathenaia, and the Athenian Calendar.” ZPE 180, 159–72. Shear, T.L. 1939. “The Campaign of 1938.” Hesperia 8, 217–18. Shear Jr., T.L. 1971. “The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1970.” Hesperia 40, 241–79. Shear Jr., T.L. 1972. “The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1971.” Hesperia 41, 121–79. Shear Jr., T.L. 1978. Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 BC. Hesperia Suppl. 17. Princeton. Shear Jr., T.L. 1970. “The Monument of the Eponymous Heroes in the Athenian Agora.” Hesperia 39, 145–222. Shear Jr., T.L. 1981. “Athens: From City-State to Provincial Town.” Hesperia 50, 365–7. Sickinger, J. 1999. Public Records and Archives in Classical Athens. Chapel Hill. Siewert, P. 1977. “The Ephebic Oath in Fifth-Century Athens.” JHS 97, 102–111. Simon, E. 1983. Festivals of Attika. Madison, Wis. Sinclair, R.K. 1988. Democracy and Participation in Athens. Cambridge.

Bibliography

399

Slater, N. 1996. “Bringing up Father: Paideia and Ephebeia in the Wasps.” In A. Sommerstein and C. Atherton, eds., Education in Greek Fiction, 27–52. Bari. Smith, W.S. 1990. Hippocrates: Pseudepigraphic Writings. Leiden. Snodgrass, A. 1980. Archaic Greece: the Age of Experiment. London. Sokolowski, F. 1969. Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Paris. Sommerstein, A. 1996. “Response to Slater.” In A. Sommerstein and C. Atherton, eds., Education in Greek Fiction, 192–203. Bari. Souilhé, J. 1930. Platon: Oeuvres Complètes. Tome XIII-3e Partie. Paris. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1987. “A Series of Erotic Pursuits: Images and Meanings.” JHS 107: 135. Spence, I.G. 1993. The Cavalry of Classical Greece: A Social and Military History. Oxford. Stafford, E. 2000. Worshipping Virtues: Personification and the Divine in Ancient Greece. London. Stanton, G. 1996. “Some Inscriptions in Attic Demes.” ABSA 91, 341–64. Steinhauser, G. 2004–2009. “Στήλη πεσόντων τῆς Ἐρεχθηίδος.” Horos 17–21, 679–92. Stengel, P. 1910. Opferbräuche der Griechen. Leipzig and Berlin. Stephanus, H. 1578. ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ ΑΠΑΝΤΑ ΤΑ ΣΩΖΟΜΕΝΑ. Platonis opera quae extant omnia ex nova Ioannis Serrani interpretatione, [. . .] Henr. Stephani de quorundam locorum interpretatione iudicium, et multorum contextus Graeci emendatio, III. Paris. Stichel, R.H.W. 1990. “Zur hellenistischen Nekropole im Kerameikos von Athen: Demetrios von Phaleron.” In Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses fur Klassische Archaologie, 546–47. Mainz am Rhein. Storey, I. 2004. Eupolis: Poet of Old Comedy. Oxford. Strauss, B.S. 1993. Fathers and Sons in Athens: Ideology and Society in the Era of the Peloponnesian War. London. Strootman, R. 2014. Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empires. Edinburgh. Stroud, R. 1970. “Theozotides and the Athenian Orphans.” Hesperia 40, 280–301. Stroud, R. 1979. The Axones and Kyrbeis of Drakon and Solon. Berkeley. Stroud, R. 1998. The Athenian Grain-Tax Law of 374/3 B.C. Princeton. Stuart, J. and N. Revett. 2008. Antiquities of Athens. New York. Sundwall, J. 1906. Epigraphische Beitrage zur sozial-politischen Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter des Demosthenes. Leipzig. Sundwall, J. 1907. De institutis rei publicae Atheniensium post Aristotelis aetatem commutatis. Helsingfors. Tarn, W.W. 1971. Hellenistic Civilization. New York. Tatum, J. 1989. Xenophon’s Imperial Fiction: On the Education of Cyrus. Princeton. Taylor, A.E. 1960. Plato: The Man and His Work. London.

400

Bibliography

Theocharaki, A.M. 2011. “The Ancient Circuit Wall of Athens: Its Changing Course and Phases of Construction.” Hesperia 80, 71–156. Thompson, H.A. 1937. “Buildings on the West Side of the Agora.” Hesperia 6, 77–115. Thompson, H.A. 1950. “Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1949.” Hesperia 19, 322–3. Thompson, H.A. 1981. “Athens Faces Adversity.” Hesperia 50, 352–54. Thompson, H.A. and R. Scranton. 1943. “Stoas and City Walls on the Pynx.” Hesperia 12, 269–383. Threatte, L. 1980. The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions. Vol. I: Phonology. Berlin and New York. Tod, M.N. 1918–19. “The Macedonian Era.” ABSA 23, 206–217. Tod, M.N. 1919–1921. “The Macedonian Era, II.” ABSA 24, 54–67. Tod, M.N. 1951. “An Ephebic Inscription from Memphis.” JEA 37, 86–99. Tod, M.N. 1953. “The Macedonian Era Reconsidered.” In G.E. Mylonas and D. Raymond, eds., Studies Presented to D.M. Robinson, vol. II, 382–97. St. Louis. Tod, M.N. 1957. “Sidelights on Greek Philosophers.” JHS 77, 132–41. Tod, M.N. 1985. Greek Historical Inscriptions. Chicago. Tracy, S.V. 1971. “A Series of Epigraphical Joins.” AJA 75, 189–90. Tracy, S.V. 1975a. Lettering of an Athenian Mason. Hesperia Suppl. 15. Princeton. Tracy, S.V. 1975b. “Notes on the Pythaïs Inscriptions (FD nos. 3–56).” BCH 99, 185–218. Tracy, S.V. 1976. “Greek Inscriptions from the Athenian Agora.” Hesperia 45, 283–88. Tracy, S.V. 1979a. “Athens in 100 B.C.” HSCP 83, 213–35. Tracy, S.V. 1979b. “Greek Inscriptions from the Athenian Agora.” Hesperia 48, 174–9. Tracy, S.V. 1982a. “Agora I 7181 + IG II2 944b.” In Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History and Topography. Presented to Eugene Vanderpool. Hesperia Suppl. 19, 157–61. Princeton. Tracy, S.V. 1982b. “Greek Inscriptions from the Athenian Agora Third to First Centuries BC.” Hesperia 51, 57–64. Tracy, S.V. 1982c. I.G. II2 2336: Contributors of First Fruits for the Pythais. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 139. Meisenheim am Glan. Tracy, S.V. 1988a. “Ephebic Inscriptions from Athens: Addenda and Corrigenda.” Hesperia 57, 249–52. Tracy, S.V. 1988b. “Two Athenian Letter Cutters of the Third Century: 286/5–235/4 B.C.” Hesperia 57, 303–22. Tracy, S.V. 1989–1991. “The Archon Pleistainos.” Horos 7, 41–3. Tracy, S.V. 1990a. “A Fragmentary Inscription from the Athenian Agora Praising Ephebes.” Hesperia 59, 543–7. Tracy, S.V. 1990b. Attic Letter-Cutters of 229 to 86 B.C. Berkeley. Tracy, S.V. 1992. “Inscriptiones Deliacae IG xi 713 and IG 1056.” MDAI(A) 107, 303–314. Tracy, S.V. 1995. Athenian Democracy in Transition: Attic Letter Cutters of 340 to 290 B.C. Berkeley. Tracy, S.V. 1999. “IG II2 2181 + 1028.” ZPE 124, 143–4.

Bibliography

401

Tracy, S.V. 2000. “Athenian Politicians and Inscriptions of the Years 307 to 302.” Hesperia 69, 227–33. Tracy, S.V. 2003a. “Antigonos Gonatas, King of Athens.” In S. Tracy and O. Palagia, eds., The Macedonians in Athens: 322–229 B.C., 56–60. Oxford. Tracy, S.V. 2003b. Athens and Macedon: Attic Letter Cutters of 300 to 229 B.C. Berkeley. Tracy, S.V. 2007. “Reflections on the Athenian Ephebeia in the Hellenistic Age.” In D. Kohl and P. Scholz, eds., Das hellenistische Gymnasion, 207–10. Berlin. Tracy, S.V. and S. Edmunds. 1978. “Five Letter-Cutters of Hellenistic Athens (230–130 B.C.).” Hesperia 47, 244–68. Traill, J. 1975. Political Organization of Attica. Hesperia Suppl. 14. Princeton. Traill, J. 1976. “A Revision of Hesperia XLIII, ‘A New Ephebic Inscription from the Athenian Agora’.” Hesperia 45, 296–303. Traill, J. 1978. “Greek Inscriptions from the Athenian Agora.” Hesperia 47, 269–331. Traill, J. 1982. “Prytany and Ephebic Inscriptions from the Athenian Agora.” Hesperia 51, 197–235. Traill, J. 1986. Demos and Trittys. Epigraphical and Topographical Studies in the Organization of Attica. Toronto. Travlos, J. 1949. “The Topography of Eleusis.” Hesperia 18, 138–47. Travlos, J. 1971. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens. London. Travlos, J. 1988. Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Attika. Tübingen. Trittle, L.A. 1988. Phocion the Good. London. Tuplin, C. 1993. The Failings of Empire. Stuttgart. Tuplin, C. 1996. “Xenophon’s Cyropaidia: Education and Fiction.” In A. Sommerstein and C. Atherton, eds., Education in Greek Fiction, 65–162. Bari. van Straten, F.T. 1995. Hiera Kala: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece. Leiden. van Wees, H. 2006. “‘The Oath of the Sworn Bands’: The Acharnae Stela, the Oath of Plataea and Archaic Spartan Warfare.” In A. Luther, M. Meier, and L. Thommen, eds., Das Frühe Sparta, 125–164. Stuttgart. Vanderpool, E. 1979. “Roads and Forts in Northwestern Attica.” California Studies in Classical Antiquity 11, 231–6. Vanderpool, E., J. McCredie, and A. Steinberg. 1964. “Koroni: The Date of the Camp and the Pottery.” Hesperia 33, 69–75. Vidal-Naquet, P. 1971. “Le Philoctète de Sophocle et l’éphébie.” Annales 26, 623–38. Vidal-Naquet, P. 1986a. Black Hunter: Forms of Thought and Forms of Society in the Greek World. Baltimore. Vidal-Naquet, P. 1986b. “The Black Hunter Revisited.” PCPhS 42, 126–44. Viscardi, G.P. 2010. “Artemide Munichia: aspetti e funzioni mitico-rituali della dea del Pireo.” DHA 36, 31–60.

402

Bibliography

Walbank, M. 1982. “Regulations for an Athenian Festival.” In Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History and Topography. Presented to Eugene Vanderpool. Hesperia Suppl. 19, 173– 231. Princeton. Walbank, M. 2008. Fragmentary Decrees from the Athenian Agora. Princeton. Walbank, F.W. 1979. A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. III. Oxford. Walker, H.J. 1995. Theseus and Athens. Oxford. Wallace, P. 1969. “Psyttaleia and the Trophies of the Battle of Salamis.” AJA 73, 293–303. Wallace, R. 1989. The Areopagus Council to 307 BC. Baltimore. Weber, E. 1887. “De Dione Chysostomo Cynicorum sectatore.” Leipziger Studien 10, 77–268. Wehrli, F. 1949. Demetrios von Phaleron. Basle. Westlake, H.D. 1954. “Overseas Service for the Father-Beater (Birds 1360–71).” CR 68, 90–4. Wheeler, E. 1982. “Hoplomachia and Greek Dances in Arms.” GRBS 23, 223–33. Wheeler, E. 1983. “The Hoplomachoi and Vegetius’ Spartan Drillmasters.” Chiron 13, 1–20. Whitehead, D. 1983. “Competitive Outlay and Community Profit: φιλοτιµία in Democratic Athens.” C&M 34, 55–74. Whitehead, D. 1977. Ideology of the Athenian Metic. Cambridge. Whitehead, D. 1988. Demes of Attica. Princeton. Whitehead, D. 1990. Aineas the Tactician. How to Survive under Siege. Oxford. Whitehead, D. 1991. “The Lampadepheroi of the Aiantis Again.” ZPE 87, 42–4. Whitehead, D. 1993. “Cardinal Virtues: The Language of Public Approbation in Democratic Athens.” C&M 44, 37–75. Whitehead, D. 2000. Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford. Whitley, J. 1994. “Monuments that Stood before Marathon: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Archaic Attica.” AJA 98, 213–230. Whitman, J. 1987. Allegory: The Dynamics of an Ancient and Medieval Technique. Cambridge. Wickens, J. 1986. Archaeology and History of Cave Use in Attica, Greece from Prehistoric through Late Roman Times (Diss. Indiana University). Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1881. Antigonos von Karystos. Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. 1893. Aristoteles und Athen, vol. I–II. Berlin. Will, E. 1979. Histoire politique du monde hellenistique, 2nd ed. Nancy. Will, W. 1982. “Zur Datierung der Rede Ps.-Demosthenes XVII.” RhM 125, 202–213. Williams, J.M. 1985. Athens without Democracy (Diss. Harvard University). Williams, S. and G. Friell. 1994. Theodosius: The Empire at Bay. London. Wilson, P. 1992. “A Corpus of Ephebic Inscriptions from Roman Athens 31 BC–AD 267.” (Diss. Monash University).

Bibliography

403

Winkler, J. 1990. “The Ephebe’s Song: Tragoidia and Polis.” In J. Winkler and F. Zeitlin, eds., Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in Its Social Context, 20–62. Princeton. Wörrle, M. 1988. Stadt und Feste im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. Munich. Worthington, I. 1989. “Thoughts on the Identity of Deinarchus’ Philocles (III Against Philocles).” ZPE 79, 80–3. Zanker, P. 1995. The Mask of Socrates. Berkeley. Ziehen, L. 1931. “Zum Opferritus.” Hermes 66, 227–34.

Index of Sources 1

Literary Sources

Ailianos Var. Hist. 2.9.5 Nat. Anim. 11.4

14 n.36 243 n.70

Ailios Aristides 1.362 1.362 Ʃ

153 n.51 153 n.51

Aineias Taktikos 1.1–9 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.1–2 2.7–8 3.1 3.1–2 3.4 3.5 4.5 6.1–2 7.2 7.4 8.1 11.3 11.8 11.10a 12.2–13.4 22.5a 22.6 22.9–10 22.11 22.14 22.15 22.20 22.21–22 22.24–25 22.27–9 22.29 23.2 24.18

226 115 114, 127 115 115 115 124 115 115 115 116 127 116 116 112 112 115 n.17 115 n.17 61 115 115 115 115 116 115 116 n.18 116 115 117 101, 115 116 n.18 116 n.18

26.13–14 27.12 28.1 28.2 29.1–12 38.2–3 Aiskhines 1.7 Ʃ 1.10 1.10 Ʃ (vetera) 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.18 1.18 Ʃ 1.18–20 1.25 1.28–32 1.40 1.49 1.72 1.77 1.87 1.103 1.109 2.80 2.133 2.142 2.151 2.167 2.168 2.176 2.180 3.14 3.17–22 3.23 3.25 3.26 3.27–28 3.31 3.122 3.122 Ʃ 3.154

117 101, 115 116 116 116 116 n.18 145 n.20 83 n.8 166 n.109 83 nn.7 and 9 167 15 n.42 28, 30 n.30, 31 n.86 28 n.71 32 n.89 67 n.36 15 n.44 32 n.89 25, 25 n.62, 29 n.78, 46 32 n.89 31 n.84 32 n.89 30 n.81, 31 n.86 29 n.78 38 n.15 26 n.66 14 n.35 65 n.27 25, 46, 124 27 66 n.32 65 n.28 115 n.17 92 n.35 92 n.36, 115 n.17 113 n.11 67 n.36 115 n.17 115 n.17 14 n.37 4 n.6 13 n.34

405

Index of Sources 3.168–176 3.236 Aiskhylos Ag. 109–110 584 Eum. 857–63 903–15 959 1041 1121–47 Pers. 399 461–2 512 544 681 733 923 Prom. Desm. 99–103 Prom. Perk. frs. 205–7 N frs. 278 L-J Sept. 11 42–8 664–7 Suppl. 80 663 Andokides 1.74 1.109 1.140 4.40

66 n.32 112 n.7

7.117 12.78 12.124 12.161

260 n.4 104 n.79 3 n.2 104 n.79

11 n.30 14 n.39

Antidotos fr. 2 K-A

105 n.85

142 142 142 141 n.6 141 n.6

Antiphon Tetra. 3.3.6 4.4.1 fr. 67 (Blass)

132 n.76 66 n.34 40

64 128 n.63 11 n.29 11 n.29 11 n.29 11 n.29 11 n.29

Apollodoros FGrHist 244 F44 3.12.7

175 n.13 254 n.107

161 n.90 161 n.90 161 n.90 3 n.5 149 n.34 152 n.46 11 n.31 11 n.29 15 n.44 66 n.35 66 n.35 66 n.35

Anecdota Graeca (ed. I. Bekker) s.v. ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβῆσαι 4 n.6 237 n.40 s.v. Ὀσχοφορία 237 n.39 s.v. Ὠσχοί Anthologia Palatina 6.71 6.282

3 n.2 104 n.79

Appian Iber. 47.2 Illyr. 47.8 Lyb. 539.8 Mithrid. 41 Samn. 6.3.5

14 n.38 14 n.38 14 n.38 113 n.12 14 n.38

Aristides Or. 1.48 37.17

142 n.6 142 n.6

Aristodemos FGrHist 383 F9

237 n.43

Aristokles FGrHist 436 F2

243 n.70

Aristophanes Akh. 575 1073–77 Aves 394–5 Ʃ (vetera) 395–9

98 n.58 122 n.42 163 n.93 163 n.93

406 Aristoph., Aves (cont) 794 Ʃ 1360–69 1367 Eq. 566a Ʃ (II) 1238 1312 Lys. 592–3 595–7 987 Nub. 973 987–9 988a Ʃ (vetera) 988b Ʃ (Tzetzes) 988f Ʃ (recentiora) 989h Ʃ (recentiora) Pax 355–6 356 Ʃ 456–7 457 1183–4 Plut. 627–8 Ran. 131 131 Ʃ (vetera) 135a Ʃ (Tzetzes) 1087 Ʃ (Tzetzes) 1087 Ʃ (vetera) 1093 Ʃ (vetera) 1285 Thesm. 224 Vesp. 235–7 578 718 Ʃ Aristotle Ath. Pol. 18.4 42.1–2 42.2–3 42.2–5

Index of Sources 228 n.7 28 114

42.3–4 42.1 42.2

153 n.51 132 n.74 142 n.6

42.3

11 n.32 11 n.32 104

42.4

132 n.74 153 n.56 153 n.56 153 n.56 153 n.56 136 n.87 136 n.87 149 n.37 149 n.35 75 n.49 252 n.102 159 nn.79 and 80 159 nn.80 and 83 159 nn.80 and 83 159 nn.80 and 83 159 nn.80 and 83 159 n.80 11 n.30 142 n.6 10 n.27, 114 31 n.83, 32 n.91 32 n.88

153 n.52 30, 31, 31 n.83, 147 84 4, 26

42.5 43.1 43.4 44.4 46.1 48.4–5 53.4 53.7 54.2 55.4 56.3 58.1 60.3 61.1 61.3 63.3 Div. 54.15–16 Eth. Nic. 1116b 1132b–1133a Peplos fr. 6 Pol. 1235b 1236a–b 1297b19–20 1299a9 1300a5 1307b 1311b1 1321b–1322a 1322a25

136 n.93 31 n.84, 87 xiii, 33, 81–2, 84 n.12, 93, 96 n.52, 97, 144 n.17, 145–7, 191 84 n.12, 96–7, 109, 127, 127 n.58, 128, 133, 140, 145, 146, 219 101, 104, 110, 117, 122, 128 n.62, 221 33, 135, 173, 275 30 n.79 117, 120 n.32 83 n.10 214 n.30 92 n.37 26, 27, 158 n.77 26 92 n.36 26 83 149 n.35, 235 n.33, 246 152 n.50 95 n.50, 96 nn.52– 3, 111 nn.2–3, 120 n.32 98, 98 n.58, 99 32 n.90 65 61 231 153 181 n.42 181 n.42 91 n.30 217 n.41 181 n.42 125 101 114 115 n.16, 181 n.42

407

Index of Sources 1322b10 1322b37 1323a 1323a7 1331a20 Rhet. 1.7.34 2.12–14 2.12.3–8 2.12.9–13 2.12.3–8

61 181 101 181 n.42 115 77 n.58 21 21 21 21

Arrianos Anab. 1.8.8 1.9 1.9.5 1.9.9 1.9.10 FGrHist 156 F9.14

58 n.7 58 n.6 58 n.5 58 n.7 58 n.6 177 n.21

Athenaios 3.90e 4.168a–b 4.181e 5.211e–215b 5.240b 5.245a 8.333a 9.405f 10.438c 11.494f 11.495f 12.525b 12.542c–d 12.542e 13.610f 14.628e–f 14.629c 15.696b

178 n.30 202 153 n.55 278 n.59 105 n.85 180 n.39 178 n.30 193 n.93 178 n.30 151 n.42 237 n.43 40 184 n.57 178 n.26 265 n.21 154 n.65 154 n.65 178 n.27

Artemidoros 1.54

108 n.91

Bakkhylides 4.56–7

3 n.1

Cassius Dio 47.20.4

287 n.77

Cedrenus HC 327A Cicero Att. 8.16.2 16.11.6 Fin. 1.3.9 5.1–5 5.19.54 5.2.4 Leg. 2.64–6 Or. 3.68.1 1.82 1.85 Re Publ. 2.1.2 Nat. Deor. 1.36 Tusc. Disp. 5.108

296 n.29

273 n.50 273 n.50 276 n.53 163 n.93 180 n.34 266 n.26 180 n.39 269 269 269 180 n.36 264 276 n.53

Curtius 5.1.19–23

276

Demades 9–10 37

46 n.32 148 n.31

Demokhares FGrHist 75 F2

273 n.50, 276

Demon FGrHist 327 F6

237 n.39

Demosthenes 3.4–5 9.49 4.26 17.6 17.26 18.38 18.37–8 18.117 18.177

26 n.66 128 153 n.52 59 n.10 59 n.12 118 113 92 n.36 118 n.22

408 Demosthenes (cont) 18.261 18.264 19.2 19.113 19.272 19.285 19.303 19.303 Ʃ 19.303–4 19.326 19.537a Ʃ 19.537b Ʃ 20.70 20.120–4 21.15 21.17 21.147 22.72 23.66 24.75 24.103–7 24.151 24.180 25.24 27.5 30.6 30.15 34.37–9 39.16–17 40.4 44.35 44.41 45.78 46.20 46.24 49.14ff. see E38 54.1 54.3–5 57.2 57.26 57.61 57.62 57.141 Σ 59.103 60.27 60.27–31 61.17 61.20–21

Index of Sources 32 46 n.32 45 n.30 25 248 n.90 65 n.28, 82 n.4 23 n.55 148 n.30 24 n.57 60 n.15, 119 144 n.18 145 n.22 143 n.13 38 n.15 173 153 n.52 83 n.8 248 n.50 142 n.6 66 n.32 15 n.44 32 n.90 248 n.90 65 n.28 32 n.91 32 n.91 32 n.91 32 n.88 173 32 30 n.81 32 n.91 66 n.32 15 n.46 15 n.46, 16 n.47 365 65 n.28 60 n.15, 119 31 n.84 31 n.84 30 n.81 32 n.91 159, 160, 160 n.84 14 n.35 143, 148 n. 31 143 65 n.28 65 n.28

Dinarkhos 1.43 1.96 3.1 3.15 16 fr. 3 16 fr. 5 57a fr. 1 Dio Khrysostom Or. 37.42

38 n.13, 39 113 n.11 96 nn. 51, 52, 57, 111 n.3 96 n.54 152, 152 n.50 152 n.49 31 n.86

58 n.6

Dionysios of Halikarnassos Ant. Rom. 2.24 82 n.4 2.26.2 16 n.48 2.71.4 3 n.4 Dinarch. 2–3 194 n.87 Ep. ad. Amm. 120 73 n.42 Isokr. 1 72 n.39 Thuc. 17.12 14 n.36 Diodoros Sikeliotes 12.49.2–5 12.55.8 12.72.8 12.76.3 13.72.5 14.7.6–7 14.32ff 14.42.1 14.43.2 14.79.2 14.85.1–3 15.46.4–6 15.63.2 15.85.4 16.22 16.85.2 16.85.5–86.6 16.86.4 16.86.5 17.3.3

117 14 n.36 14 n.36 14 n.36 28 n.73 91 n.29 119 n.26 130 n.68 130 n.68 29 n.77 112 n.6 29 n.76 28 n.74 130 68 45 n.31, 167 45 n.30 63 46 n.32 172 n.2

409

Index of Sources 17.11–14 17.13.5 17.15.2–5 17.111.2–3 18.10.2 18.11.3 18.11.3–4 18.11.3–5 18.11.4 18.11.5 18.18 18.18.3–5 18.18.4 18.18.6 18.18.9 18.48 18.48.4–5 18.64–65 18.64.2–3 18.64.3–5 18.65.4 18.66.2 18.66.5 18.67.3 18.68–72 18.74.2–3 18.74.3 20.45ff. 20.45.1–7 20.45.3ff. 20.46.4 20.50.3 20.110.1 Diogenes Laërtios 1.55 2.43 3.46 3.57 5.5 5.37 5.37–39 5.76 5.79 6.10–12 7.4 7.5 7.12 7.30

58 n.7 58 n.7 38 n.13 172 172 172 58 n.7, 59 n.9 58 nn. 5 and 8 59 n.9 60 n.13 178 n.24 175 174 174 n.10 174 n.9 177 n.21 177 n.22 179 n.32 178 n.26 177 n.23 179 177 n.23 178 n.25 178 n.25 179 179 180 112 n.5 185 n.59 186 n.62 186 186 193 n.82 13 n.34 76 73 n.42 86 178 n.27 178 n.27 265 n.21 186 n.63 265 n.21 261 263 261 265 n.22 260 n.4

7.161 7.168–9 7.169 7.180 7.184 10.1 10.14

261 202 261 264 261–2 174 n.9 173 n.4

Duris of Samos FGrHist 76 F10

180 n.39, 184 n.57

Epikharmos frs. 114–22 (Kaibel)

161 n.90

Etymologicum Magnum 159 n.88 s.v. Κεραµεικός Eupolis fr. 340 K-A Euripides Alk. 289 316 471 1052–4 Andr. 1129–36 El. 20 20–21 45–53 812–13 Erekhth. fr. 370.68–74 fr. 925 (Nauck) Hel. 12 47 1560–3 Herakl. 172 228–32 436–441 680–701 1270 Herakleid. 680–701 796 846–866

122 n.42

11 n.31 11 n.31 11 n.31 12 154 n.59 11 11 n.31 12 239 n.48 148 n.31 249 n.92 11, 11 n.31 12 238 n.47 10 n.28 10 n.26 9 114 n.14 10 10 n.26 10 n.26 10 n.26

410 Hipp. 6 89 105 967–9 Ion 477 IT 963 Kykl. 2 Oin. F 559 (Nauck) Or. 1649–50 Suppl. 1213–15 1214–15 Trakh. 547–9 Tro. 1167–1170

Index of Sources 12 n.33 12 n.33 12 n.33 12 n.33 11 142 n.6 10 18, 152 n.46 142 n.6 18 10 n.28 11 n.32 11

Eusebius Chronicorum (Schoene) 120 296 n.27 296 n.27 s.v. Olympiad 53 Hieronymi Chronicon (Helm, p. 102b) 296 n.27 s.v. Olympiad 53.3 Galen San. Tuen. 2.11–12 Harpokration s.v. Ἀγασικλῆς s.v. Ἀρδηττός s.v. ∆αῦλις s.v. ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβῆσαι s.v. Ἐπικράτης s.v. Εὐρυσάκειον s.v. Λαµπάς

154 n.65 152 n.48 76 n.55 249 n.91 4 n.6, 145 n.20 37 n.6 254 n.108 159 n.83, 161 n.89, 245 n.75, 250 n.92

Heliodoros Aithiop. 11.10

153 n.54

Herakleitos fr. 122

14 n.36

Herodianos s.v. κοσµηταί

93 n.40

Herodotos 1.172 5.66.2 6.21 6.83 6.105 6.129.3 7.162 7.228 8.53.1 8.98.2 9.12 9.21–22 9.60

14 n.36 254 14 n.36 17 61 n.17, 160 153 n.55 77 91 n.31 22 n.54 161 n.88 61 n.17 128 n.63 128 n.63

Hesiod Op. 42–89

161 n.90

Hesykhios s.v. Αἰάντεια s.v. ἄνηβος s.v. Ἀρδήττους s.v. βουλευτικόν s.v. ἔξηβος s.v. Ἡσυχίδαι s.v. Κουρεῶτις s.v. Λύκειον s.v. οἰνιστήρια s.v. παιδοτρίβαι

254 n.105 3 n.4 76 n.55 223 n.51, 228 n.7 3 n.5 235 n.33 151 136 n.87 151 n.43 131 n.72

Himeros Or. 47.12–13

296 n.27

Hippokrates Pseudep. 25.21

271–2 n.44

Homer Iliad 5.333 5.550–2 5.592 7.133 7.157 7.238–41

149 n.34 9 n.25 149 n.34 6 n.15 6 n.15 154 n.65

411

Index of Sources 8.388 8.518 10.415 11.166 11.221–228 11.238–44 11.371–72 11.670 12.381–3 13.484–5 16.617 17.211 21.462 23.249–57 23.431–2 23.629 24.347–8 24.349 24.790–803 Odyssey 1.41 1.230 1.429 2.310–16 3.20 4.158 4.190 4.668 8.136–7 8.180–1 10.5–7 10.278–9 11.317 11.319–20 14.503 14.668 15.366 16.174–6 18.175–6 18.215–25 18.227–9 18.269–70 19.160 19.410 19.530 19.532–3 23.13 23.30 24.375

7 n.20 3 n.1 247 n.82 247 n.82 8 n.22 8 n.22 247 n.82 6 n.15 6 n.12 6 n.12 154 n.65 149 n.35 8 n.21 247 n.82 6 n.14 6 n.15 7 n.16 247 n.82 247 n.82 9 n.25 7 n.20 3 n.1 7 7 n.20 8 n.21 7 n.20 6 n.15 6 n.13 6 n.13 8 n.22 7 n.16 8 n.22 7 n.16 6 n.15 6 n.15 7 n.16 7 n.17 8 n.24 7 n.18 7 8 n.24 8 n.24 9 n.25 7 n.18 8 n.24 8 n.21 8 n.21 7 n.20

Homeric Hymn to Hestia 29.1–5 48 Hypereides 3.3 5.6 6.3 6.8 6.17 fr. 118 (Sauppe) fr. 192 (Jensen)

152 n.47 96 n.54 172 n.2 65 n.27 58 n.7 113 n.8 31 n.86

Isaios 1.1 1.10 3.2 5.36 7.27 8.31 10.12 fr. 25 (Thalheim)

15, 16, 66 n.33 15 nn.42 and 45 30 n.81 154 n.61 30 n.81, 31 n.86 16 n.47 16 n.47, 17 n.49 17 n.49

Isidore Orig. 19.24.2

104 n.77

Isokrates 3.36–44 7.4 7.7 7.9 7.10 7.12–14 7.14 7.24 7.37 7.39 7.40 7.41–2 7.43 7.44 7.45 7.46 7.48 7.55 7.62–73 7.82 8.82 8.88

66 n.31 66 68 68 68 68 66 104 69, 71 41 71 69 69 69 69 69 41 68 66 n.35 45 13 n.34 30 n.81

412

Index of Sources

Isokrates (cont) 9.31 9.38 9.57 12.28 12.138 12.140 12.151 14 15.109–110 15.111 15.183 15.217 15.286–90 16.28 18.46 L3

67 n.36 67 n.36 143 n.13 32 n.91 67 n.36 67 n.36 67 n.36 29 n.76 144 n.14 67 n.36 132 n.75 71 41 67 n.36 67 n.35 72 n.39

Istros FGrHist 334 F2

161 n.88

Josephos AJ 11.236–8

275

Justin 9.3 11.3.8 11.4.7 11.3–4

45 n.30 58 n.7 58 n.7 58 n.7

Khamaileon fr. 45 (Wehrli)

73 n.42

Ps.-Kallisthenes Alex. Rom. b.1–5

58 n.6

Kratinos F183 PCG

13 n.34

Lexica Segueriana s.v. Πυῤῥιχισταί

153 n.55

Livy 31.24 31.26.9–10 31.30.10

61 n.16 213 213

35.50.3 see E81 38.10.4–6 see E81 Lucian Macrobii 23

72 n.39

Lucilius II.88–94

276 n.53

Lykourgos 1.44 1.75 1.76 1.76–81 fr. 5.3 (Conomis) fr. 9 (Conomis) fr. 9.2 (Conomis)

112 n.7 24 30 n.81 24 n.59 37 n.6 75 n.9 38 n.13

Lysias 1.38 2.50 3 6.5.4 10.31 14.25 14.41 16.16 16.20 19.54 21.1 21.1–2 21.1–5 24.15 24.17 32.9 fr. 6.1–2 (Gernet & Bizos)

66 n.34 28 n.73 66 n.31 66 n.34 32, 32 n.91 3 n.4 66 n.34 100 32 n.87 66 n.33 31 n.83, 153 n.56 32 83 n.8 66 n.34 66 n.34 32 n.91 13 n.34

Maccabees ii 1.20–5 4.21–22

277 275

Marinus Vita Procli 36

296 n.25

Menander fr. 147 PCG fr. 724 (Kock)

152 n.49 242 n.63

413

Index of Sources Nepos Con. 4 Milt. 4.3 Phoc. 4.1 Thr. 2 Tim. 2.2 2.3 Ovid Met. 14.393–4 Pausanias 1.3.2–3 1.3.3–4 1.5 1.8.2 1.15.3 1.17.2 1.18.2–3 1.19.1 1.19.6 1.21–22 1.25.4 1.25.6 1.25.7 1.25.8 1.26.2 1.26.3 1.28.6 1.29.2–16 1.29.15 1.29.16 1.30.2 1.32.3 1.35.3 1.36.1 1.38.4 1.43.2 2.35.5–6

112 n.6 61 n.17 178 n.25 119 n.26 144 n.14 143 n.13

104 n.77 143 n.13 143 n.12 75 n.49 144 n.14 188 n.72 231 n.18 22 n.54 238 n.45 76 n.55, 249 76 58 n.5 180 n.34 193 n.83 194 143 n.12 61, 118 141 n.6 163 n.93 266 39 n.17, 77 n.56, 113 n.8, 136 n.90, 187 n.71, 193 n.83 159 n.79 247 254 n.108, 255 n.110 248 n.85, 251 n.98 142 n.10 249 n.91 234 n.70

3.10.4 3.23.3–6 4.27.10 5.3.7 7.10.5 7.27.5 9.1.8 9.35.1–3 9.40.10 10.21.5–6

14 n.38 278 n.59 58 n.6 124 n.51 46 n.32 151 n.45 29 n.76, 58 nn.5–6 149 n.37 45 n.30 143 n.12

Pherekydes FGrHist 3 F60

254 n.107

Philemon fr. 32 K-A

105 n.82

Philo Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 140–141 142 n.8, 235 n.33 Philokhoros FGrHist 328 F26 FGrHist 328 F64 FGrHist 328 F65 FGrHist 328 FF69–70 FGrHist 328 F105 FGrHist 328 F135 FGrHist 328 F167 Philostratos Vit. Soph. 1.505–6 2.550 2.565–6 2.604 Photios Bibl. 239 p. 332a 268 p. 497a Lex. s.v. ἡβηδὸν s.v. Λαµπάδος s.v. οἰνιστήρια s.v. Σκάφας

254 n.108 180 n.37 180 n.39 193 n.82 145 n.23, 148 n.30, 22 n.54 113 n.12 194 n.87

72 n.39 106 n.87 291 n.2 163 n.93

237 nn. 39 and 43, 294 n.18 76 n.55 14 n.36 159 n.83, 161 n.88 151 n.44 152 n.49

414 Pindar Nem. 4.48 4.77 Ʃ Nem. et Isthm. Ʃ 2.19 Plato Alk. 106e 107e 110b 122a–c 123d Ax. 366d–367a Grg. 460d 452b 504a 515c Kharm. 158c Lakhes 179a–b 179e Leg. 697 699b 700a 700c–701b 729c 760a–763b 760a–763c 760a–e 760c 760c–d 760d–e 761a–c 761c 761d–762b 762c 762d 762e 763a–b 763b 764e–765a 765d

Index of Sources

254 n.107 254 n.107 254 n.109

24 n.60 132 n.76 24 n.60 41 24 n.60, 32 n.87 85–89, 183 132 n.76 132 n.76 132 n.74 73 n.42 65 n.28 41 40 71 69 69 69 71 123 121 n.35 114 114 n.15 70, 127 70 121 n.35 70 70 70 114 n.15 70 70 127 83 n.7 83 n.7

796b–c 796b–d 803d 803d–e 804c 813e 814d 815a 829a–b 829b 830d 832e 833a–b 833c 833e 834a 834a–b 842e–846c 843a 955b–c Lys. 206c–207a 206d Ʃ (Arethas) Menex. 235 248d–249b 249a 328b Meno 70a Phaidr. 231e Ʃ Prot. 309a–b 320d–323a Resp. 373d–e 461a 471a 492a–d 528c8 555b–562a Stat. 270e 307a–b Symp. 42e2

249 70 70 70 70, 131 70 70 154 n.59 70 70 70 70 70 3 n.4 70 128 n.64 70 121 n.35 58 n.5 58 n.5 167 n.114 167 n.114 13 13 n.34 13 13 19 159 n.81, 160 n.85, 249 n.18 13 161 n.90 58 n.5 73 82 n.4 213 15 n.42 70 14 n.39 65 n.30 13

415

Index of Sources Pliny Nat. Hist. 7.38.1 34.66 Plutarch, Moralia 186f 189b 349f–350a 362a 379d 736d 747b 836c 837e–f 841a–b 841b 841c–d 841d 841f 842d–e 843c 843e 843f 843f–844a 844a 846e–f 849a–c 850d 850f–851c 851d 852a–e 852c 937d 1034a 1090e 1097b 1097c 1126f Plutarch, Parallel Lives Ages. 1.2 31.1

113 n.12 58 n.6 98 n.58 119 n.26 250 n.94 186 n.63 193 n.83 232 n.23 282 n.69 73 n.42 72 n.39 75 73 n.42 113 n.8, 136 n.90 39 n.17, 76, 76 n.55, 77 n.56, 136 n.89 76 73 188 n.72 188 n.72 76, 136 nn.90–1 39 113 n.10 174 n.8 174 n.8 194 n.87 76 187 187 n.71 39 n.17, 76 n.55, 77 n.56, 113 n.8, 136 n.90 73 266 n.25 193 n.83 178 n.30 195 178 n.30

91 n.31 29 n.77

Alex. 9.3 11 11.5 34.1 Alk. 15.4 16.6 Ant. 33.4 Arat. 24.1 Arist. 27.3 Cam. 19.5 33.7 Cato 13.1–2 Cic. 24.5 Demetr. 8 8.4–10 12.1 12.3 12.7 23.1–2 26.1–5 28.1–30.5 33.3 33.3–34.1 34.4 34.4–5 42 46.1 Dem. 10.2 19.2 20.2 23.2–5 31 Dion 18.3–19 18.3–19.1 Kim. 8.3–6

45 n.30 58 n.7 58 n.7 58 n.7 24 n.59 14 n.36 89–90 116 n.18 180 n.36 174 245 n.75 275 88 186 n.62 185 n.59 274 195 n.91 195 n.91 185 n.60 193 n.82 174 n.8 194–5 193 193 194 104 194 180 n.34 45 n.30 63 38 n.13 177 n.21 276, 277, 277 n.54 273 n.50, 275 252 n.101

416 Kleom. 2.2 11.2 Perikl. 8.6 28.3 35 Phil. 11.2 Phok. 17.2–5 23.2 25.1–2 28 28.1 29.1 29.4 30 31 31.3 31–3 33.3 34.1 34–7 35 38.1 Pomp. 40.1–3 Sol. 9 10.1–2 Sulla 9 13.1–4 14.3–7 14.7 Them. 3.3–4 14 Thes. 21 23.2–4 36.1–2 36.2 Polemon FHG iii 117 fr. 6

Index of Sources 262 263 77 77 104 104 38 n.13 167 n.115 60 174–5 174 174 n.8 174 177 n.21 177 n.22 174 179 n.32 178 n.26 178 n.26 178 n.25 178 n.26 178 n.27, 180 275 251 n.98 254 n.108 149 n.34 278 n.59 278 n.59 113 n.12 248 n.85 128 n.63 249 237 nn.39 and 42 252 n.101 231 n.18, 262 n.10 159 n.83

Pollux Onom. 3.52 4.122 8.105 8.105–6 9.42

151 228 n.7 145 n.20 23 n.55 265 n.21

Polyainos Stat. 2.34 2.34.1 3.7.1–3 4.2.2 4.2.7 4.7.5 6.2.2 6.7.2

124 125 193 n.83 45 n.30 45 n.30 193 n.83 112 n.5 193 n.83

Polybios 2.20.4 4.14.6–7 4.20.4–21 4.54.4–8 15.18.8 16.25.1–26.1 16.25.1 16.25.2 16.25.4 16.25.6 16.25.7 21.31.6–16

14 277 n.54 153 n.55 126 45 n.31, 261 274 n.51 274 274, 274 n.52 274–5 274–5 274, 277 see E81

Poseidonios FGrHist 87 F36

275, 277, 278, 278 n.59

Proklos Plat. Alk. 1.195.4 Plat. Tim. 19A–B 126E–127A

295 n.19 295 n.19

Rutilius Lupus 1.7

126

109

417

Index of Sources Seneca Rhetor Suasoriae 1.6 Sokrates of Rhodes FGrHist 192 F2 Sophokles Aj. 837 OC 90 458 489 Ʃ (Polemon) Oid. 741 fr. 472 [R]

Tacitus Hist. 4.83

186 n.63

288 n.80

Teles fr. 42 (Hense) fr. 50 (Hense)

28 28, 86

141 n.6

Theokritos 8.93 8.3 Ʃ

3 n.2 3 n.3

Theophrastos Char. 5.7 21.11 27.4–5

183 n.51 235 n.33 239 n.49

Theopompos FGrHist 115 F153

24 n.59

Thucydides 1.26.11 1.93 1.93.6 1.105.3 1.105.3–4 1.105.4–6 2.6.4 2.13.6–7 2.13.7 2.23.7 2.32 2.35 2.46.1 2.89.9 2.93–4 3.36.2 3.65 4.67 4.67.2 4.67.2 Ʃ 4.68.5 5.3.5 5.16.4 5.32.1 5.42.1 5.66 6.43.2

142 n.6 112 n.6, 114 114 n.14 28, 114 n.13 114 n.13 28 114 n.14 28, 114 40 114 n.14 120 n.30 77 13 n.34 64 112 n.5, 117 14 n.35 82 n.4 122 40 122 n.39, 216 n.40 118 n.22 119 14 n.35 14 n.35 119 91 n.31 133 n.80

275

141 n.6 141 n.6 141 n.6 12 148

Stobaios Anth. 4.34.72

86

Strabo 9.9 10.3.23 10.5.4 13.2.3 14.1.8 14.1.43–4 14.1.44

251 n.98 264 205 n.15 14 n.36 151 n.45 239 n.51, 243 n.68 241 n.61

Suda s.v. ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβῆσαι s.v. Κεραµεικοί s.v. Κεραµεικός s.v. Λαµπάδος s.v. Λύκειον s.v. Πέπλος s.v. Τερθρεία s.v. Φιλίσκος

145 n.20 163 n.93 163 n.93 159 n.83, 161 n.88 136 n.87 153 n.51 27–8 73 n.42

Suetonius Tib. 6

104 n.77

Syncellus Chron. Abst. 521

180 n.36

418 Thucydides (cont) 6.56.2 6.72.4 6.87 7.14.2 7.77.5 8.4.1 8.48 8.65.2 8.69.4 8.84.2 8.92.2 8.92.2 Ʃ 8.92.5 8.92.6 Timotheos Pers. 210 (Page, PMG no. 791) Vegetius 4.26

Index of Sources 153 n.52 63 nn.22 and 23, 165 n.105 82 n.4 91 n.28 63 n.22, 165 n.105 120 n.29 82 n.4 126 126 82 n.4 61 47 n.36 113, 116 126

248 n.85

116 n.18

Velleius Paterculus 2.82

288 n.80

Vitruvius 7.12

113 n.12

Xenophon Ages. 1.25–7 6.4 6.4.4 Anab. 1.2.9 1.2.10 Ʃ 1.2.25 1.5.8 1.5.11–12 2.3.11 2.6.9–15 3.1.38 3.2.12 3.2.29–31 3.4.21 5.8.13

91 n.33 64 91 n.31 133 n.80 136 n.87 99 n.62 64 n.24 91 n.29 91 n.29 91 n.29 63, 91 n.30 246 91 n.30 99 n.62 91 n.30

6.1.5–11 6.2.19 7.4.4 Eq. Mag. 3.1.6–7 3.7 6.1–5 Hell. 2.3.23–56 2.4 3.4.16 4.2.5–7 4.8.9–10 5.1.22 5.1.29 5.3.17 5.4.9–21 6.2.1 6.3.1 6.5.49 7.1.8 7.5.15 Hiero 9.5–6 Hipparkh. 2.7 4.10–13 7.6–7 Kyn. 12.5 Kyr. 1.2 1.2.2–3 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.6 1.2.6–7 1.2.8 1.2.8–12 1.2.9 1.2.9–12 1.2.10 1.2.12 1.2.13 1.2.14 1.2.15 1.4.4 1.6.20–5 2.1.22–4

153 n.55 91 n.29 104 136 n.88 138 91 n.33 126 119 n.26 91 n.33 91 n.33 112 n.5 112 n.5 62 n.18 63 n.23 62 n.18 62 n.18 58 n.5 28 n.74 91 n.31 118 n.22 71, 91 64 215 n.36 114 n.14 63 128 n.64 19 20 114 71 20 20, 71 20 21, 22, 114 20, 123 22 72 20 20 21 3 n.4 91 n.33 91 n.33

419

Index of Sources 2.1.25 2.1.28 2.1.29 2.2.3 3.3.57 6.1.12 6.3.21 7.2.7–8 8.1.33 8.5.2 8.5.14 8.7.6 Lak. 2.14 8.2 Mem. 1.2.35 1.2.40 2.1.21 2.2.13 3.3.9–10 3.3.13 3.3.14 3.5.7–12 3.5.8–12 3.5.15–16 3.5.19 3.5.21 3.5.21–3 3.5.25–7 3.5.27–8 3.6.1 3.6.10–11 3.6.14 3.12.5 4.4.16 5.3.18 Oik. 1.22 11.11–18 21.4–8 Por. 1.1 2.7 3.6 4.13 4.33 4.40

109 109 109 65 63 n.23, 64 14 n.51 99 n.62 91 n.31 64 n.24 64 n.24 63 n.22, 64, 165 n.105 19 n.52 91 n.31 91 n.29 32 n.90, 45 n.31, 261 40 13 15 n.44 91 n.33 71 71 71 144 43 91 n.28 91 n.28 91 n.33 124 43 32 n.87 126 68 67 22 64 14 n.39 67 91 n.33 45, 72 45 45 45 45 45

4.46–7 4.51–2 4.52 2

60, 123 52, 72 44, 47, 52, 63 n.23 Epigraphical Sources

Agora xv 7 15 18 36 42 44 55 56 61 73 73b 74 85 86 88 89 115 128 129 130 156 194 273

see E12 see E12 48 n.41 see E94 see E12 see E15, E24 see E7 48 n.41 see E30 see T1.16 see T1.16 48 n.41 see E53, E94 see E98 see E17 see E52 see E35 see E72 see E36 see E43, E80 see E12 see E54, E81 see E69

Agora xvi 86 170 188 231 280 296

see E23 see T6.8 222 n.49 see E19, E49 see T7.13 see E72

Agora xvii 49 354

see E30 see E74

Agora xviii C125 C126 C127 C128

see T3.5 see T7.3 see T8.8 see T8.10

420

Index of Sources

Agora xviii (cont) C129 C130 C131 C132 C136

see T8.37 see T8.34 see T9.1 see T9.5 see T9.14

Asklepieion 5

see E52

Bielman 44 49 50

125 n.55 123 n.46 124 n.52

Chaniotis Verträge 7 Historie T10 T17 T18

124 n.49 108 n.92 108 n.92 108 n.92

CIRB 129

133 n.78

Ergon 1993 [1994], p. 7

185 n.61

fd

III 2.23 III 2.24 III 2.25 III 2.26 III 2.77

Friend 2019 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12

T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24 T25 T26 T27 T28

see T1.14 see T1.13 see T1.21 see T1.17 see T1.16 see T1.20 see T1.19 see T1.15 see T1.18 see T1.22 see T1.23 see T1.24 see T1.28 see T1.27 see T1.25 see T1.26

Hesperia 9 (1940) 342 11 (1942) 197

see E9 see E55

I.Arykanda 162

150 n.40

I.Beroia 1

83 n.9, 135 n.84, 161 n.91, 167 n.112, 202 n.9

see T8.9 see T8.11 see T8.23 see T8.30 see E55

I.Delos 98A 1958 2210 2593 2594 2598

see E9 167 n.112 see E6 271 n.41 271 n.41 271 n.41

see T1.1 see T1.2 see T1.3 see T1.4 see T1.8 see T1.9 see T1.10 see T1.5 see T1.11 see T1.6 see T1.12 see T1.7

I.Eleusis 63 80 81 84 86 95 99 186 187 194 196

142 n.10 215 n.33 215 n.33 see T1.3 see T1.9 178 n.27 176 209 n.19 209 n.19 209 n.19 118 n.23, 209 n.19

421

Index of Sources 198 200 207 211 221 IG i3 40 82 93 138 1186 IG ii/iii2 112 114 350 351 379 380 385 417 448 450 453 457 457b 463 467 +Add. p. 671 469 470 478 487 488 492 500 501 505 512 513 553 556

216 n.38 216 n.38 209 n.19, 214, 234 n.31 209 n.19, 216 n.38, 217 n.41 266 n.25 14 n.38 49, 159, 161 n.88, 240–1, 241 n.58 122 n.41 133 n.80 47 n.36 141 n.6 141 n.6 178 n.27 137 n.94 61 175 222 n.48 see IG II/III3 1, 550 178, 178 n.27, 179, 185 181 n.44 181 n.44 39 n.17, 76 n.55, 77 n.56, 187 n.71, 188 n.73 136 n.90 187 n.67 185 n.60 185 n.60 185 n.60 see T3.1 186 201 n.8 185 n.60 185 n.60, 222 n.49, 223 n.50 see E9 113 n.12, 187 n.67 223 n.50 187 n.71 185 n.61 see T1.2

562 585 657 665 681 682 700 740 750 766 787 788 792 794 900 901 944b 950 956 957 958 991 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1019 1025 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1035 1163 1938 1039 1039v 1040 1041 1042 1043 1078 1125 1156

see E9 183 n.52 195 n.91, 201 n.8 see T4.2 see T5.5 194 n.90 see T5.2 187 see T5.6 see T5.6 see T5.8 see E35 222 n.49, 223 n.50 see T6.2 see T7.7 see T7.8 see T6.10 213 n.27 see T8.3 see T8.5 see T8.6 see T8.12 see T8.14 see T8.12 see T8.16 see T8.19 see T8.18 see T8.22 see T8.36 see T9.26 see T8.4 see T8.27 see T8.31 see T8.33 see T8.14 see T8.12 248, 248 n.89, 251 n.98, 255 n.110 142 n.10 see E69 see T9.2 see T8.12 see T9.26 see T9.11 see T9.15 see T9.17 228, 234 n.29 108 n.92 see T1.2

422 IG ii/iii2 (cont) 1159 1176 1181 1183 1186 1187 1189 1193 1201 1203 1227 1250 1260 1264 1299 1303 1422 1467 1492 1496 1533 1534 B 1617 1623 1627 1628 1629 1631 1632 1635 1638 1662 1663 1664 1668 1926 1927 1928 1938 1956 1960 1961 1965 1966 1967 1990 1996

Index of Sources see T3.3 see E38 see T1.17 149 n.36 47 n.36, 230 n.10 176 see T1.3 47 n.36 180 n.36 see E100 224 n.54, 138 n.97 103 n.75 47 n.36, 185 n.61 193 n.84, 194 n.90 138 n.97 138 n.97 130 n.69 131 n.71 109 n.93 75 n.51, 252 n.102 see E67 see E52 214 n.30 113 n.10 113 nn.11 and 12 see E67 113 n.10 172 n.2 see E16 see E9 see E38 112 n.6 112 n.6 112 n.6 113 n.12 see E40 see E34 see E38 see E69 270 n.38 see T8.12 see T9.12 see T9.13 see T9.22 see T9.19 282 n.69 250 n96, 292 n.9

2004 2017 2018 2021 2024 2047 2067 2070 2087 2090 2094 2097 2106 2111/12 2113 2119 2122 2124 2130 2147 2181 2208 2245 2291 A 2291 B 2311 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2323a 2325 2332 2363 2370 2382 2384 2385 2388 2401 2433 2453

292 n.9 292 n.9 232 n.23 294 n.17 250 n.96 294 n.16 232 n.23 293 250 n.96 106 n.87, 291 n.2 232 n.23, 293 n.14 232 n.23 250 n.96 133 n.79 232 n.23, 294 n.16 250 n.96, 293 n.14, 294 n.15 90 n.26 250 n.96 232 n.23, 250 n.96 232 n.23 see T8.27 250 n.96 218 n.42, 250 n.96, 295 n.21 see Chaniotis Historie, T17 see Chaniotis Historie, T18 154 n.61, 160 n.87 160 n.86 160 n.86 160 n.86 160 n.86 159 n.82 see T2.1 181 see E45, E59, E101, E105 263 n.15 48 48 48 see E67 48 see T1.12 see T5.10 see T8.12

423

Index of Sources 2456 2457 2463 2485 2639 2705 2788 2968 2970 2973 2974 2976 2980a 2981 Face A 2981 Face B 2982 2983 2984 2985 Face A 2985 Face B 2986 2988 2989 2990 2991 2991a 2992 2993 2995 3006 3013 3016 3077 3088 3105 3210 3268 3469 3474 3606 3730 3741 3776 3781 4256 4443

see T8.19 see T8.19 see T9.16 see T8.14 141 n.5 see E40 see Chaniotis Historie, T10 47 n.36 see T1.4 47 n.63, 62 n.19, 123 n.43 see T1.29 see T1.10 see T7.3 see T7.5 see T8.21 see T8.13 see T8.20 see T8.24 see T8.26 see T8.29 see T8.32 see T8.25 see T9.23 see T8.39 see T8.38 see T8.34 see T9.4 see T9.8 see T9.18 161 161 n.91 see T9.24 186 see E44 see T1.6 see T4.1 235 n.33 see E55 232 n.71 106 n.87 see T9.7 232 n.23 188 n.72 266 n.26 76 n.53 see E17

4594a 4702 4934 5080 5152 5399 5522 5522A 5768 5859 6051 6053 6478 6535 7460 9979 13120 IG II/III3 1 292 336 339 367 368 370 375 416 550 877 884 911 914 981 985 986 991 995 1003 1008 1010 1011 1016 1027 1031 1047 1048 1062

see T1.18 270 n.38 see E111 232 n.20 148 n.32 see E30 see E112 see E112 see E60 see E54 see E105 see E111 see E85 see E37 see T8.22 131 n.71 see T3.6 47 n.36 113 n.10 113 n.10 54 n.61 54 n.61 113 n.10 54 n.61 230 n.10 164 245 n.75 201 n.8 222 n.46 see T4.2 see T4.4 210 n.21, 217 n.41, 222 n.46 see T5.2 201 n.8 201 n.8 see T5.4 see T5.5 T8.18 265 n.22 see T5.6 see T5.8 see T5.3 see T5.1 see T5.10 see T5.7

424

Index of Sources

IG II/III3 1 (cont) 1063 1158 1160 1161 1164 1166 1167 1169 1176 1193 1194 1195 1221 1237 1256 1264 1285 1290 1313 1322 1332 1342 1361 1362 1363 1364 1376

see T5.9 see T6.1 213 n.28, 245 n.75 see T6.2 201 n.8 see T6.5 see T6.6 see T6.9 see T6.11 see T6.3 see T6.7 see T6.4 see T6.8 see T6.10 see T7.4 see T7.2 see T7.6 see T7.7 see T7.13 see T7.14 see T7.15 see T7.1 see T7.10 see T7.9 see T7.8 see T7.11 see T7.12

IG II/III3 4 114 329 330 331 334 335 336 337 338 339a 341 342 344 345 346 347 348 352 354

see T8.2 see T1.4 see T1.8 see T1.29 see T1.10 see T1.7 see T1.6 see T1.9 see T1.18 see T1.17 see T1.22 see T1.13 see T1.20 see T1.25 see T1.27 see T1.26 see T1.28 see T3.5 see T5.9

357 Face A 357 Face B 358 359 360 Face A 360 Face B 361 362 363 364 365 367 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 384 386 388 389 390 391 392 394 399

see T7.5 see T8.21 see T7.3 see T8.7 see T8.26 see T8.29 see T8.10 see T8.13 see T8.20 see T8.24 see T8.37 see T8.17 see T8.34 see T8.25 see T8.39 see T8.32 see T8.38 see T9.1 see T9.3 see T9.4 see T9.5 see T9.6 see T9.8 see T9.23 see T9.14 see T9.18 see T9.19 see T9.20 see T9.21 see T9.22 see T9.25 see T9.10

IG XII 5 647

135 n.84

IG XII 6 128 179 183

267 n.27 167 n.112 166 nn.10 and 11

IG XII 7 390 A

272 n.46

IG XII 9 234 952 1242

272 n.46 150 n.40 see E37

425

Index of Sources IG XIV 1184

173 n.4

I.Miletos 60 368

see E101 261 n.8

I.Oropos 54 301 348 352 353 354

see E68 108 n.92 see T1.27 see T1.20 see T1.21 see T1.25

I.Priene 112

261 n.8, 267 n.28

I.Rhamnous 3 7 10 18 20 21 23 26 31 32 43 46 49 50 55 84 85 92 93 94 95 96 98 99 100

116 n.18, 120 n.30, 210 n.20, 215 n.34 157 n.74 210 n.20 210 n.20 see E25 see E25 210 n.20 216 nn. 38 and 39 120 n.29 210 n.20 see E70 216 n.38 see E70 210 n.20 216 n.38 103 n.74 103 n.74 47 n.36, 123 n.43 47 n.36, 123 n.43, 215 n.33 47 n.36, 123 n.43, 215 n.33 47 n.36, 123 n.43, 215 n.33 47 n.36, 123 n.43, 215 n.33 see T1.6 see T1.17 see T1.18

102 103 104 110 129 136 145 148 151 161 167 I.Kalchedon 32

see T1.13 see T1.22 see T1.26 see E23 210 n.20 210 n.20 210 n.20 233 n.28 233 n.28 116 n.18 see E69, E70 105 n.83, 166 n.110, 167 n.112, 261 n.8, 272 n.46

I.Sestos 1

135 n.84

I.Thesp. 29

134 n.81

I.Thess. I 52

203

MAMA VI 173

150 n.40

MDAI(A) 67 1942 (1951) 24 85 1970 13 196 197

see E69 see E69 see E69

OGIS 332 339

274–6 267 n.29

Panakton Inv. 1988–1 1991–350 1992–400

see T1.23 see T1.15 see T1.24

Pélékidis 1 2

see T1.2 see T1.3

see T1.13

426

Index of Sources

Pélékidis (cont) 3 4 5 6 7 9

see T1.18 see T1.10 see T1.11 see T1.21 see T1.19 see T1.13

R&O 76 88 89

59 n.11 23 n.55 see T1.2

Reinmuth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

see T1.1 see T1.2 see T1.3 see T1.4 see T1.9 see T1.7 see T1.8 see T1.10 see T1.11 see T1.13 see T1.18 see T1.19 see T1.6 see T1.22 see T1.21 see T2.2 see T3.1 see T3.2 see T3.3 see T3.4

Schmalz 2009 47 48 49 92 97 98 99 100

see T9.12 see T9.13 see T9.16 see T9.10 see T9.23 see T9.5 see T9.18 see T9.20

Schwenk 1985 46 48

see T1.17 137 n.94

SEG 5.627–8 14.61 14.62 17.33 17.51 17.57 17.65 17.75 17.82 18.36 A 110 19.71 19.77 19.85 19.86 19.87 19.89 19.96 19.116 19.193 21.357 21.375 21.396 21.411 21.435 21.492 21.460 21.513 21.514 21.617 21.619 21.680 21.681 21.682 21.683 21.684 21.685 21.686 21.809 22.10 22.101 22.111 22.148 23.63 23.78 24.104 24.131 24.190

115 n.94 see T5.3 see T6.4 see T9.11 see T7.8 see E101 see T1.22 287 n.77 see T8.4 see E15, E24 see T7.11 see T6.9 see T6.7 see T7.1 see T5.6 see T4.2 see T7.14 see T3.4 see T8.10 222 n.49 see T5.2 see T5.6 see T6.3 see E81 see T9.11 see T8.7 see T1.11 see T1.22 see T2.2 see T9.19 see T1.7 see T1.8 see T1.10 see T8.21 see T8.37 see T9.5 see T9.14 see E55 see T9.2 see T6.9 see T9.26 see T1.4 48 51, 51 n.51, and see T1.1 see T6.6 see T7.10 see T5.1

427

Index of Sources 24.214 25.100 25.177 26.98 26.103 26.121 26.176 27.200 28.60 29.104 29.116 29.1201 30.76 31.67 31.435 32.123 32.125 32.129 32.147 32.206 32.238 32.496 33.147 34.103 34.106 34.151 34.153 35.86 35.95 35.96 35.130 36.115 36.267 37.135 37.233 38.67 38.78 38.81 38.100 38.119 38.117 38.166 38.176 38.278 39.184 39.187 40.93 40.105

287 n.78 see T5.2 54 n.61, 164 see T6.11 see T7.2 255 n.110, 280 n.65 90 n.26 see T6.9 112 see T5.2 see T6.5 124 n.48 see T6.5 248 see T1.25 see T6.5 see T6.11 see T7.9 138 n.97 289 n.83, and see T1.28 75 n.50 134 n.81 138 n.97 153 n.56 see T1.3 see T1.17 see T9.12 see T6.8 see T6.5 see T6.11 90 n.26 see T1.16 see T9.3 see T9.1 see T1.9, T1.10 see T1.15, T1.23 see T4.2 see T5.2 see T5.6 see T9.17 see T9.2 see T6.2 see T9.20 see T8.32, T8.38 see T1.12 see T8.17 see T5.5 see T7.8

41.107 41.109 41.174 42.201 43.61 44.177 44.409b 44.917 46.237 48.553 50.196 52.146 51.91 51.188 53.139 54.304 55.262 55.264 55.308 56.214 57.10 57.105 57.152 59.192 60.217 60.218 60.219 SIG3 577 578 594 613A 714 957 1028 1249 T

1.1 1.2

see T1.9 see T8.17 see T9.3 see E7 see T1.14 see T1.14 267 n.27 115 n.17 see T1.5 296 n.29 see T1.29, T9.10 see T5.9 see T5.2 see T9.3 see T5.9 see T9.10 see T9.21 see T9.22 see T9.3 see T9.19 see T9.11 see T6.6 see T4.4 see T9.18 see T9.6 see T9.14 see T9.5 84 n.11, 133, 134 n.82, 147 n.27 83 n.6, 134 n.83, 135 n.84 125 n.55 see E101 272 n.46 see T1.2 234 n.30 131 n.71 49, 49 n.47, 50, 93, 93 n.41, 94, 143, 234 n.31 31 n.85, 39, 48, 52, 54, 63 n.21, 64 n.26, 65 n.29, 82 n.2, 84 n.11, 85, 92, 183, 190

428 T (cont) 1.3 1.4

1.5 1.6 1.7

1.8 1.9

1.10

1.11

1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16

Index of Sources 39, 65 n.29, 82 n.2, 84 n.12, 95, 97 n.56, 117, 221 39, 82 n.2, 93 n.41, 96 nn.52 and 55, 101 n.68, 111 n.3, 120 n.33, 183 n.52 82, 93 n.41, 98 n.57, 100 n.66, 119, 127 n.60, 133, 190 27 n.67, 84, 102, 102 n.70, 103, 119, 157–8, 160 27 n.67, 82 n.2, 84, 97 n.56, 101 n.68, 102 n.70, 158–9, 289 n.83 96 nn.52 and 54, 111 n.3, 120 n.33 82, 84 n.12, 95, 96 nn. 51, 52 and 55, 98, 98 n.59, 99, 99 n.63, 100, 101 n.68, 111 n.3, 117, 120 n.33, 121 n.34, 127 n.60, 133, 221 65 n.27, 82 n.2, 93 n.41, 96 n.52 and 55, 97 n.56, 98 n.59, 99, 100, 111 n.3, 120 n.33 52, 54, 63 n.21, 64 n.26, 65 n.27, 82, 82 n.2, 84 n.12, 85 n.13, 92 n.35, 93 n.41, 96 nn. 52 and 55, 97 n.56, 98 nn. 57 and 59, 99, 99 n.63, 100, 100 n.66, 101 n.68, 111 n.3, 120 n.33, 127 n.60, 133, 143, 190, 234 n.31 102–3 49, 98 n.59, 99, 117, 119, 121 n.34, 221 119 118, 118 n.24 64 n.26, 85 n.13, 98 n.59

1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21

1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.28 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2

4.3 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.5 6.7

82 n.2, 97 n.56, 101 n.68, 119 54 n.61, 82 n.2, 93 n.41, 119, 138 49, 82 n.2, 96 n.55, 109 n.93, 120 n.33, 127 n.60, 129 101 n.68, 156, 172 n.2 82, 82 n.2, 93 n.41, 96 nn.52, 54–5, 98 n.59, 111 n.3, 119, 120 n.33, 127 n.60, 156 98 n.59, 99, 99 n.63 118 118 156, 199 n.3 119 119, 129, 156, 160 289, 289 n.83 181 183–4 65 n.27, 92, 135, 183, 188–192, 324 188, 190–2 65 n.27, 92, 188, 190–2 188, 194 158 n.78, 188 n.74 197, 203, 206 133, 151, 183, 191, 195, 198, 198 n.1, 199–200, 211–2, 215 n.31, 218 n.42, 220, 222, 224 n.55, 225, 324 218 n.42 87, 183 n.53, 220 183 132, 183 n.53, 200, 212, 220 183 n.53, 218, 220 132–3, 220 183 n.53, 200 183 n.53, 206 198 n.1, 201, 212, 216, 219–221, 223 n.52, 254–5, 324 220 n.45

429

Index of Sources 6.10

7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.9 7.10 7.13

7.14 7.15 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.8 8.9 8.11 8.12

105, 142 n.7, 210, 213–4, 220, 220 n.45, 221–2, 223 n.52, 233, 235 n.33, 242 n.64 209–10, 216, 219–21, 242 nn.64–5, 244 n.72, 325 289 n.83, 324 219, 222 87, 136 n.86, 219, 222–4, 223 n.52, 260 n.5, 283 n.73 219, 222–4, 260 n.5, 283 n.73 212, 219, 242 n.64 66, 87, 106, 126, 136 n.93, 137 n.95, 156, 159 n.79, 160, 203, 209–12, 214, 214 n.29, 217, 219, 219 n.43, 220–4, 232, 233, 235 n.33, 242 n.64, 244 n.72, 247, 253, 254 n.106, 255, 260 n.5, 283 n.73, 325 219, 223 142 n.7, 209, 213 nn.26–7, 219, 235 n.33 93 n.40, 267 n.31 201 n.8, 253 n.104 93 n.40, 204, 267 n.31 160, 253 n.104 160, 201 n.8, 253 n.104 257 204 n.14, 257 133, 210–11, 218, 257 64 n.25, 93 n.40, 133, 142 n.7, 204 nn.13–14, 218–21, 232, 235 n.33, 242 n.64, 243 n.67, 244 n.72, 250, 252 n.100, 254 n.106, 255, 268 n.31

8.14

8.16

8.17 8.19

8.20 8.22

8.23 8.27

64 n.25, 66, 87, 106, 126, 127 n.58, 131, 141, 155–6, 159 n.79, 203–4, 204 n.13–14, 212, 217, 219 n.43, 220–1, 235 n.33, 242 nn.64 and 66, 243 n.67, 244 n.71, 250, 252 n.100, 253, 253 n.104, 254 n.106, 259, 259 n.3, 263, 267, 269, 273 n.48, 277, 278 n.56, 282 n.72 93 n.40, 205, 210, 212, 214 n.29, 217, 221, 235 n.33, 242 nn.64 and 66, 250, 253 n.104, 254 n.106, 255, 267 n.31, 269, 273 n.48, 277, 278 n.56 282 n.72 257, 268, 268 n.72 93 n.40, 155, 203–4, 204 nn.13–14, 205, 213 n.27, 219 n.43, 220–1, 235 n.33, 242 n.64, 243 n.67, 244 n.72, 249, 253 n.104, 263, 267 n.31, 269, 273 n.48, 277 289 n.83 64 n.25, 66, 93 n.40, 126, 137 n.95, 159 n.79, 161 n.91, 204, 204 nn.13–14, 205, 206 n.17, 212, 214 n.29, 217, 219, 221, 224, 232 n.23, 233, 235 n.33, 242 n.64, 249–50, 254 n.106, 255, 267 n.31, 269, 273 n.48, 277–8, 278 n.56, 282 n.72, 283 n.73, 285 257 64 n.25, 129 n.65, 131, 204, 204

430 T (cont)

8.30 8.31

8.32 8.33

8.34 8.35 9.2

9.3 9.4

Index of Sources nn.13–14, 212, 214 n.29, 217, 219–21, 232–3, 235 n.33, 242 nn.64 and 66, 243 n.67, 250, 253 n.104, 259, 259 n.3, 267 n.31, 268–9, 273 n.48, 284 257 129, 129 n.65, 131, 203–4, 204 nn.13–14, 212, 217, 219, 220–1, 232 n.22, 233 n.28, 234 n.32, 235 n.33, 242 nn.64 and 66, 243 n.67, 253 n.104, 254 n.106, 259 n.3, 263, 269, 273 n.48, 279 257, 268, 268 n.32 203–4, 204 nn.13– 14, 212, 214 n.29, 220–1, 235 n.33, 242 n.64, 243 n.67, 250, 253 n.104, 259 n.3, 269, 273 n.48, 279, 282 n.72 257, 268, 268 n.32, 324 87, 136 n.86 88, 106, 232 n.22, 233 n.28, 244 n.71, 259 n.3, 261, 275, 281–3, 285–7 288, 288 n.81, 324 286

9.11

234 n.32, 263, 281, 282 n.71, 283–6, 325 285 259 n.3, 281–3, 285–6 270 n.38 88–9, 127 n.58, 148, 204, 232 n.22, 233 n.28, 234 n.32, 244 n.71, 259 n.3, 261, 281–8, 325 197, 281 259 n.3, 281 n.67, 286

9.13 9.15 9.16 9.17

9.25 9.26 TAM V, 2 1203 1204 1205 1206 1208

203 n.10 203 n.10 203 n.10 203 n.10 203 n.10

Vérilhac 62 95

124 n.50, 207 n.17 124 n.51

3

Papyrological Sources

P.Oxy XI 1365 XVII 2082 XXVI 2451 B fr. 17

124 n.47 193 n.83, 194 n.90 237 n.40

General Index 1

Important Greek Words and Expressions

αἵρεσις -εις 85, 88 ἀκοντίζειν, ἀκοντίστης 20, 127–8 ἀκρήβης 3 ἄκρηβος 3 ἄνηβος 3, 14 n.36 ἀνὴρ ἄνδρες 6, 8, 13 n.14, 19 n.52, 242 n.63 ἀπαντᾶν, ἀπαντήσεις 64 n.25, 273 ἀπειθαρχία 65 ἀπόδειξις, ἀποδεικνύναι 101, 128 n.62, 136 n.87, 254 n.109 ἀπολογισµός 224 ἀρετή 13, 41, 43, 50, 143, 261, 267 ἀταξία 63, 65, 165 γέρων –ντες 242 n.63 γυµνασιαρχία 85–6, 90 γυµνασίαρχος –οι 89, 90, 160 n.84, 165 n.106 δοκιµασία 31, 31 nn. 83–4, 41, 146–7, 147 n.25 ἐγγραφή εἰς τοὺς δηµότας 16 n.48, 23 n.56, 30, 30 n.79, 87, 114 n.17, 182 n.49, 232 n.26 ἐγγραφή εἰς τοὺς ἔφηβους 85, 105, 106, 148, 191, 232 n.26 εἰς ἄνδρας δοκιµάζειν 41 εἰς ἀνδρὸς τέλος ἴωσιν 13 ἐισιτήρια ἐισιτητήρια 87, 106, 148 ἐκ παίδων ἀπαλλαξείεν, ἐξέρχεσθαι, ὁρµάν 13, 15 n.46, 20, 25, 32, 46, 124 n.47, 144 n.18 ἐπάνδρως 243, 244, 244 n.7 ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβῆσαι 3, 4 n.6, 14, 14 n.37, 15, 15 nn. 42, 45–6, 16, 16 n.47, 17 n.49, 31, 145 n.20 εὐεξία 43, 223 εὔθυναι 50 εὐκοσµία 20, 41, 46, 69, 105, 166, 324, 346 εὐσέβεια 15, 66, 229, 230, 282, 286, 372 εὐταξία 41, 43, 46, 63, 63 n.21, 64, 64 n.25, 65, 68, 77, 82, 90, 91, 91 n.31, 93 n.40, 143, 144, 166, 221, 223, 224, 230, 259, 330, 332, 334, 342, 344 ἐξιτήρια ἐξιτητήρια 105, 282

ἔξηβος 3, 3n.5 ἐφηβάω 5, 17–19, 19 n.51, 30, 35, 151–2, 199 ἐφηβεύω 151, 151 nn. 43–45, 199, 272 n.44, 34, 338, 342 ἔφηβος –οι 3–6, 19–28, 30–6, 50, 77, 85–7, 144 nn.17–18, 145 nn.22–23, 146–152, 160 nn. 84–5, 172–3, 182–3, 199, 224, 232 n.26, 239 n.51, 241–3, 326, 328, 330, 332, 334, 336, 342, 346, 350, 354 ἡβάω 3–19, 35, 70, 114 n.15, 237 n.40 ἥβη 3–19, 32, 35, 114 ἡβηδὸν 14, 14 n.36 ἡλικία 9, 26–8, 35, 43, 83, 83 n.7, 123, 124 n.47, 259, 328 ἡλικιώτης 25, 27 θυρεαµαχία 166 κακοπαθία 223 καταπάλτην ἀφιέναι 127–8, 328 κοσµιότης 65, 65 n.29, 77–8, 82, 109, 166 κοσµητής 50, 85–6, 93 n.40, 219, 259, 328, 334, 342, 344, 346 ληξιαρχικὸν γραµµατεῖον 23, 23 n.56, 30 n.81, 144 n.17, 145 n.20, 182 n.49, 270 λιθοβόλος 166 µειράκιον –α 32, 46, 85, 239 n.49, 241, 241 n.59, 242, 242 n.63 µίµηµα 249 νεανίσκος –οι 19, 19 n.52, 50, 94 νέος –οι 6, 10, 21, 28, 70, 85, 88, 114 n.15, 115, 167, 167 n.115, 237 n.40, 239 n.51, 243 n.68 νεότης 21, 77 n.58 ὁπλοµαχεῖν ὁπλοµαχία 86, 127–8, 166, 328, 344, 348 παῖς παῖδες 3, 3 nn. 1, 4, 13, 14 n.35, 15, 15 nn. 42, 46, 16 n. 48, 17, 17 n.49, 18–20, 25, 31,46, 124, 144 n.18, 155 n.67, 176, 181

432

General Index

n.42, 237, 237 n.40, 242 n.63, 272 n.44, 328, 352 πειθαρχία 20, 43, 46, 62, 64–5, 77, 82, 85, 85 n.13, 90–1, 91 n.31, 109, 143–4, 166, 221, 332, 342, 344 περιπολεῖν, περίπολος –οι 25, 28 n.70, 44, 47 n.36, 117, 122, 122 n.42, 124 n.47, 328 πρόσηβος 3, 3 n.4 πρωθήβης 3, 3 n.4, 5 συνέφηβος –οι 4, 25–6, 350, 354 σωφρονιστής 82, 82 n.4, 85, 328, 330, 332 σωφροσύνη 8 n.21, 12, 12 n.33, 20–1, 41, 43, 46, 62, 65–7, 71, 77, 82–3, 91, 109, 143–4, 166, 230, 261 σώφρων 8, 8 n.21, 22, 44, 65 n.27, 66, 82, 91 τὰ περὶ τὰς τάξεις 101, 128 n.62, 136, 166, 328 τάξις –εις 101, 115 n.16, 128 n.62 τοξεύειν 20, 127–8, 328 ὑπόµνηµα 161 n.89, 245 n.75, 250 n.92 χλαµύς 105 φιλοπονία 72, 223–4, 282, 340, 344 2

Names of Festivals: Processions, Rites, Sacrifices, Contests

Aianteia 161 n.91, 214, 227, 253–5, 257, 287, 343 Amphiaraia 129, 155–7 Antinoia 293 Antonieia Panathenaïka 288 Apatouria 107, 107 n.89, 151, 156 n.72, 249 n.92 aristeion 155, 248–9 Artemis Agrotera, procession and sacrifice 147, 234, 235 n.33, 246, 249, 286, 293 Bendidea 162 bull-lifting 238–45 Diisoteria 227 Diogeneia 227, 232, 233n.28, 243

Dionysia, City 13, 173, 173 n.7, 181, 204, 222, 227–8, 230 n.10, 232, 242, 243 n.67, 279, 286 Dionysia, Peiraieus 204 Dionysia, Salamis 255 Dionysiac Artists 276, 280 Dipolieia 149 Eleusinia 222, 227, 232, 243 n.67, 345 Eleutheria 108 n.92 Epitaphia 159 n.79, 160, 161 n.91, 221, 227, 246–7, 286, 341, 343, 349 euergetai, sacrifices 232, 277–8, 282 n.72, 285, 287 Eutaxia 63, 91, 163–8 Galaxia 227, 234, 235 n.33 Germanikeia 293 Hadrianeia 293 Hephaistia 159–61, 227, 240–1 Herakleia 150 n.40, 268 Hermaia 161 n.91, 166, 166–7, 202, 224 Lenaia 181 ludi victoriae Sullanae 287 Mounikhia 214, 227, 250 Mysteries, Greater 118, 175, 193, 226–8, 234, 242, 278–9, 286, 293, 296 Mysteries, Lesser 209 Naumakhia 250, 292, 294 Nemesia 157–8, 102, 102 n.71 Niketeria 155 oinesteria 150–2 Oskhophoria 229, 236–8, 294 Pallas, conveyance to Phaleron 235 Panathenaia, Greater 137, 152–5, 159–61, 195, 222, 227, 232, 248–9, 252, 296, 345 Panathenaia, Lesser 152 Peiraia See Dionysia, Peiraieus phiale 164, 164 n.101 and 103, 204, 227, 249 processions 106, 141–2, 147, 152–3, 161 n.89, 226–8, 235–8, 242, 246, 249–50, 255, 274–9, 286, 288, 296

433

General Index Proerosia 64 n.25, 149, 242, 246, 289, 341 Prometheia 159–61 Ptolemaia 222, 231–4, 265, 345, 369 pyrrhikhe/pyrrhikhistai 153–5, 249 Pythaïs/Pythaïstai 210, 218, 257

Demos 26, 101 n.68, 143, 143 n.12, 149, 149 n.37, 165, 178, 191, 196, 230, 231–3, 276, 277, 281 Dionysos 203, 228, 243, 274, 275, 280, 288, 288 n.80

Salamis, unknown festival 251 Semnai Theai (Erinyes), procession and sacrifice 141–2, 227, 235 Sotereia 214 Sulleia 161, 278, 287–8

Eirene 143, 144 n.14, 188 n.72 Enyalios 149, 149 n.35 Enyo 149, 149 n.34 Erekhtheus 143, 144, 148 Eumolpos 148 Eurysakes 254, 254 n.108

Theoi Megaloi, procession 227, 234, 235 n.33 Theseia 108, 160–1, 221, 227, 246, 246 n.77, 252, 252 n.103, 253, 253 n.104, 286–7 torch-race 27 n.67, 44, 76 n.53, 81, 84, 102–4, 109, 138 n.98, 140, 155, 157, 158–63, 168, 202–3, 209–10, 227, 233 n.28, 239, 241–44, 252–5, 279, 281, 285, 287, 289, 293–4 tray-bearer 152 Tour of Sanctuaries 140–4 unknown festival for Kykhreus (?) 251 3

Names of Gods and Heroes

Aglauros 22, 22 n.54, 24, 143–8, 150 Aias 210, 214, 254–5 Amphiaraos 101 n.68, 129, 155, 156, 188 n.72, 253 Apollo 39, 76, 118, 125, 148, 161, 218, 249, 279 n.62 Ares 149, 149 n.34 Artemis 147, 151, 153 n.56, 154 n.62, 175, 227, 234 Asklepios 193 n.84, 203, 255, 274 Aster 153, 248–9 Athena 7, 10, 18, 74, 106, 145, 145 n.23, 149, 153, 155, 159, 193 n.84, 194 n.90, 227, 235, 235 n.33, 236, 243, 243 n.67, 248 Demeter 204, 204 n.13, 246, 249, 249 n.91, 274, 283 Demokratia 75, 75 n.51, 143, 143 n.12, 213, 255

Herakles 9–13, 90, 106 n.87, 148, 150–2, 239, 240, 240 n.56, 279 n.62 Hermes 7 n.16, 12, 138, 150, 158, 166–7, 255, 279 n.62, 285–7 Hestia 148–9, 282 Iakkhos 226 Kekrops 148 Kharites (Thallo, Auxo, Hegemone) 149, 150, 230–3, 276, 277 Kore 204, 204 n.13, 239, 249, 283 Kourotrophos 106, 148, 282 Kykhreus 251, 251 n.98, 254 Melanthos 106–8, 156 n.72 Mounikhos 27 n.67, 158 Nemesis 102, 120, 157 Nymphs 125, 281, 288 Odysseus 6–9, 16 Pan 125, 160, 281, 288–9 Pandrosos 106, 148, 282 Panops 27 n.67 Periphemos 251 Philaios 254, 254 n.108 Roma 277–8 Telemon 254 Theseus 3 n.1, 12, 12 n.33, 66, 67 n.36, 78, 106, 106 n.88, 107, 108, 236, 238, 246, 249, 252

434

General Index

Zeus Eleutherios 143, 143 n.11, 231, 280 Zeus Tropaios 149, 214, 247 4

Names of Historical Figures

P. Aelius Isokhrysos 108 Aiskhines 4, 24–30, 32, 35, 42, 46–8, 55, 83, 83 n.8, 124, 167 Aiskhrion of Phyle 216 Aiskhylos 76 T. Albucius 276, 276 n.53 Alexander III 38 n.13, 39, 57–9, 171, 188, 231 Alexander IV 177 Alkibiades 13, 24, 29, 40–1, 83 n.8 Ameinias (playwright) 181–2, 196 Androkles of Sphettos 164, 186 n.65 Antigonos Gonatas 212, 212 n.25 Antigonos I Monophthalmos 179, 185–6 Antiokhos III Megas 233 n.27 Antiokhos IV Epiphanes 275 Antipatros (Macedonian general) 156, 172, 174–5, 177, 178 n.27, 180 Antiphilos (Athenian general) 172 M. Antonius (Triumvir) 275, 288, 288 n.80 M. Antonius (proconsul of Cilicia) 269, 273 M.’ Aquillius (Roman commander) 278 Aristogeiton 266, 287 Ariston (philosopher) 261 Asklepiades of Phleious (philosopher) 202 Asklepiades (tragedian) 73 Athenion (tyrant) 275, 278–9 Attalos II 273–7 Attalos III 274–6 Q. Caecilius Metellus 269, 273 Cato the Younger 275 L. Cornelius Sulla 280–1, 287, 290 Damonikos of Apollonis 203 Deinias of Erkhia 76 Deinias of Krannon 125 Demades 38–9, 74, 77, 174–7 Demetrios of Phaleron (peripolarkhos) 215 n.32 Demetrios of Phaleron (tyrant) 85–8, 171, 178–86, 193–6, 265 Demetrios I Poliorketes 171, 185–6, 187 n.70, 193–6, 212, 274, 276, 288

Demokhares of Leukonoe 187, 274 Demophilos of Akharnai 178, 178 n.27 Demosthenes 24–5, 32, 39, 47, 65, 73–4, 76, 128, 142, 144, 144 n.14, 147, 174 n.8, 187, 248, 263 Derkylos of Hagnous 176 Diogenes (Macedonian commander) 213, 232–3, 243 n.67, 278, 286 Diogenes (philosopher) 260–1, 264–5 Dion of Syracuse 275–6 Dionysios of Syracuse 130 Dioskourides of Phegaia (orator) 204, 204 n.14 Diotimos of Arkesine (ephebe) 124 Diphilos (tragedian) 39, 263 Drakon 167 Epikhares (general) 123, 215 Epikouros (philosopher) 85–6, 195 Epikrates (legislator) 37–9, 55–7, 67, 74, 76–7 Euagoras (King of Salamis) 143, 143 n.13 Euboulos (statesman) 113 Euphron of Sikyon 178 n.27, 179 Euripides 76 Eurykleides of Kephisia 213, 222, 225, 228, 230, 234 T. Flamininus (Roman general) 278 Habron (son of Lykourgos) 109, 109 n.93 Hagnonides of Pergasai 178–80 Harmodios 266, 287 Harpalos (Alexander III’s treasurer) 96 Heortios (II) of Akharnai 132, 207, 220 Herakleidas of Mysia (katapaltaphetes) 131 Hermodoros of Akharnai 207, 220 Herodes Attikos 106, 247 n.84, 262 n.10, 291 n.2, 297 Hippokrates 271–2 Hypereides 73–4, 152 Iphikrates 29, 38 n.15, 129 Isokrates 41–2, 45, 55, 67–9, 71–3, 104, 132 Kallias of Sphettos 222 Karneades of Kyrene (philosopher) 265, 269 Kassander 177, 179–80, 184–5, 187, 190, 193 Khabrias (Athenian general) 38 n.15, 129

General Index Kharmades (philosopher) 269 Khrysippos of Soli (philosopher) 261–2, 264, 266 Kimon (Athenian general) 183 n.52, 252, 266 Kleanthes of Assos (philosopher) 202, 261 Kleisthenes 30 n.82, 68, 254 Kleomenes III 262–3 Kleopatra VII 288 Konon 38 n.15, 73, 112, 112 n.6, 143, 143 n.13 Kratippos (philosopher) 88 Kritolaos of Phaselis (philosopher) 265 Lakhares (tyrant) 193–6 Leokrates 23–4 Leonides of Halikarnassos 203 Leosthenes (general) 60 n.13, 172, 172 n.2 L. Licinius Crassus (quaestor/orator) 269, 273 Lykon of Alexandria (philosopher) 265, 265 n.22 Lykos son of Mortylos 124 Lykourgos (statesman) 126, 136–7, 139, 144–6, 151, 153, 155, 157, 164, 167, 182, 186–8, 193, 232, 266, 280 Manyllos (Macedonian commander) 175 Medeios of Peiraieus 279 Menander (playwright) 152 n.49, 173, 173 n.5, 182, 242, 263 Menas of Sestos (gymnasiarkhos) 135 n.84, 241 n.61, 267, 272 n.46 Menedemos of Eretria (philosopher) 202 Menestheus (admiral) 113 Mikion of Kephisia 213, 222, 225, 228, 230, 234 Mithridates VI Eupator 275–80, 290 Moirakles of Eleusis 178, 178 n.27 Q. Mucius Scaevola (governor of Asia) 276 L. Mummius (Roman consul) 278 Nabis (tyrant of Sparta) 125 Neoptolemos of Melite 39, 76 Nikanor (Macedonian commander) 177, 179 Nikias (general) 40, 198, 266 Olympiodoros 60, 194, 287 Orthagoras (tyrant of Sikyon) 124

435 Panaitios of Rhodes (philosopher) 265 Perikles 30 n.82, 39–40, 43, 66, 67 n.36, 75, 75 n.47, 77, 245, 258 n.2 Phaidros of Sphettos 210 n.21, 222 Philip II 24, 57–9, 68, 72 n.39, 74, 76, 101, 128, 130, 167 Philip III Arrhidaios 177 Philip V 213, 273 Philon (architect) 113, 116, 280 Philonides of Konthyle (sophronistes) 191–2 Phokion (general) 60, 167, 174–8, 180 Phrynikhos 126 Polyeuktos of Sphettos 39, 39 n.16, 178, 178 n.27 Polyperkhon 177, 179 Prytanis (philosopher) 266 Ptolemy I Soter 186 Ptolemy II Philadelphos 186 Ptolemy III Euergetes 231–4, 262 n.10, 274, 274 n.51, 275, 278 Ptolemy IV Philopater 231 n.19 C. Scribonius Curio 287 Solon 4 n.6, 16, 66–9, 83 n.8, 167, 251 Sosis of Oe (ephebe) 204, 285, 292 Sostratos son of Batrakhos 134, 201 Sphairos of Borysthenes (philosopher)  262 Stratokles of Diomeia 74, 113, 187, 187 n.70 Themistokles 14 n.38, 24, 112, 112 n.6, 114 n.14, 214, 248, 250, 251 n.98 Theodorides of Peiraieus 204 Theodosius I 296–7 Theophanes of Rhamnous 138, 138 n.98 Theophrastos 178, 183 n.51, 239, 241–2, 265 Theramenes 126 Thrasyboulos 119, 126, 175, 250 Thrasyllos 86 Tiberius (Roman emperor) 86 Timarkhos 29, 29 n.78, 32, 32 n.89, 46 Timotheos (general) 38 n.15, 73, 143, 143 n.13, 183 n.52 M. Tullius Cicero 88, 262, 273 n.50, 276 n.53 Xenokles of Sphettos 164, 186 n.65 Xenophon 6, 13–4, 18–22, 25–6, 29, 32, 35, 41–7, 52, 55, 60, 63–8, 71–3, 90–1, 99, 101, 107, 114, 123, 126, 128, 138

436

General Index

Zenodoros (philosopher) 265, 265 n.22 Zenodotos (philosopher) 259–60, 263–4 Zenon (philosopher) 202–3, 260–6 5

Important Regions, Locations, Places

Abydos (Khersonesos) 41, 129 Academy xiii, 85–7, 136, 138, 159, 163, 202, 259, 261, 265, 269, 279 Academy Road 163 Actium 288 Agora xi–xiii, 15, 27, 75, 142–3, 163, 188, 221–2, 225, 231, 242, 260–1, 266, 276–8, 280, 283, 297 Agrai 249 Aigina 28, 62 n.18 Aitolia/Aitolian League 134, 172, 200 Akharaka/Nysa (Karia) 239, 239 n.50, 241 n.61, 243 Akharnai 22, 24 n.59, 132, 133, 149, 178, 207, 220 Akropolis 22, 74–5, 105–6, 119, 125–6, 130, 137, 141–2, 148–9, 152, 155, 159, 164, 188, 222, 248, 282, 289, 295, 297 Akte 96, 96 n.52, 110–112, 115–6, 209, 280, 329 Antiokhia 268, 274, 275 Apameia 150 n.40 Apollonia (Karia) 124 Apollonis 203, 203 n.10 Areopagos Hill 141 Argos/Argolid 18, 115 n.17, 125 Arkasine/Amorgos 124, 172, 272 n.46 Beirut 271 Beroia 83 n.9, 167 Boiotia/Boiotian League 58, 60, 68, 118, 124, 130, 200; see also Orkhomenos, Plateia, and Thespiai Boudoron (Salamis) 116–7 Brauron 138 n.97 Byzantion 10, 68, 114 Delos 167, 181, 205, 249, 257, 269, 271–2, 279–81 Delphi 14, 64 n.25, 124–5, 148, 162, 204 n.14, 218, 227, 257

Demosion Sema 162–3, 246–7, 266 Dipylon Gate 158, 163, 231, 233, 274, 276–7, 279 Dreros 124 Drymos 60, 119 Egypt 28, 114 n.13, 203, 231 Eleusis 60, 64, 84, 88, 95, 101, 106 n.87, 117–8, 138, 142 n.10, 176, 178, 185, 194, 209, 216, 226–7, 230 n.10, 234, 242, 246, 249, 280, 283 Ephesos 91 n.33, 288 n.80 Eresos 178 Eretria 150 n.40, 202, 272 n.46 Gortyn 125–6 Halai (deme) 153 n.56 Haliartos 126, 267 n.27 Herakleia (Pontic) 115 n.17 Ilissos River 249 Jerusalem 275, 277 Kalauria 174 n.8 Kerameikos 74 n.45, 158–9, 162–3, 180 n.39, 188 n.72, 246–7, 262, 276, 279 Khios 68, 273 Knidos 143 Knossos 125 Korinth/League of Korinth 29, 59, 74, 129 Krete 106, 124–5, 133, 236, 237 n.40, 271; see also Dreros, Knossos, Lyttos Kynaitha (Arkadia) 243 Lamia 172 Laodikeia 268, 271 Laurion 123 Lokris 172 Lyttos 125 Macedonia 38, 56, 59, 167, 174, 194, 199–200, 212, 230–2, 255–6, 265–6 Marathon 120, 157, 159 n.79, 246–8, 281, 288–9, 291 n.2 Megalopolis 271 Megara 9, 117–8, 123, 200, 251, 254 Miletos 84, 84 n.11, 133–4, 147, 268

437

General Index Mounikhia 96, 110–16, 122, 131, 175, 177, 179, 184–5, 191, 194–5, 209, 212–4, 220, 227, 232, 250, 280 Mycenae 125 Naxos 271 Orkhomenos (Boiotia) 58–60 Oropos 38 n.13, 96 n.54, 120, 129, 155–6, 160, 174, 253, 265 Panakton 60–1, 101, 117–20, 131, 185, 190 Parnassos 8–9, 125 Peiraieus; see also Akte and Mounikhia Pergamon 274–6 Pharsalos 203 Phokis 172 Phyle 99, 101, 117, 119, 121 n.34, 185, 190, 250 Plataiai 29, 58–60, 137 Priene 267 Pynx Hill 112 Rhamnous 60, 84, 88, 102, 117, 119–23, 138, 157, 160, 185, 194, 210, 215–6, 233 n.28 Rhodes 68 Rome 205, 207, 258, 260, 265, 268, 271, 276–80, 287, 290 Salamis 113, 117–8, 128 n.63, 138 n.97, 149, 210, 213–4, 218, 227, 250–4 Samos 166–7, 172 n.1, 174, 266–7 Seleukeia 274–5 Sidon 271 Sinope 133 Smyrna 115 n.17 Sounion 113, 116, 120 n.29, 121, 185, 215 Sparta 17, 41, 62 n.18, 91, 126, 129, 262 Stratonikeia (Karia) 115 n.17 Tenedos 60, 113 Teos 83 n.6, 134, 203, 233 n.27 Thebes (Greece) 29, 48, 57–9, 62, 119, 123, 129 Thespiai 29, 58–9, 62, 119 Thessaly 126, 173 Thrace 29, 68, 129, 174, 267 Thurii (Magna Graecia) 125 Tyre 271

6

Important Subjects

apodeixis 100, 117, 136–8, 145, 163, 165–6, 198, 221, 253, 281, 285 Aglaurion 144, 147 agonothesia/agonothetes 89, 186, 207, 253 n.104 agonothetes (ephebic) 108, 292 akontistes xii, 127, 129, 131, 192, 203, 217, 219 Amphiareion 156 apantesis 233, 273–8, 279, 290 Areopagos Council 68–9, 85, 87–9, 91, 180, 182, 202 aristeia as memorials 248–9 Assembly (see also ekklesia) 32, 59 n.12, 76, 101, 145, 186, 197, 212, 224 n.55, 281, 329 boule (see also Council) 31–3, 81, 94, 137, 146–7, 156, 177, 180, 189, 197, 200, 207, 217, 221, 223–4, 233, 270, 280–5, 292, 324–5 Bouleuterion 27, 75 bouleutikon 223 Dipylon Gate 158, 163, 231, 233, 274, 276–7 eisiteria/eisiteteria 202, 211 ekklesia (see also Assembly) 64 n.25, 75, 83–4, 94, 100, 117, 136, 145, 147, 172, 174–5, 177, 180, 187, 189, 194, 197, 207, 212, 221, 270, 279–80, 324 ephebeia, participation Lykourgan 33–5 Hellenistic 198–201 eponymous heroes 26–7, 75, 142–3, 158, 231, 255, 280 Erekhtheion 74, 188 n.72, 280 Eurysakeion 254 n.108 euthynai 37–8, 52, 91–3, 191–2, 201, 203 n.12, 204, 224 n.54, 225, 284 exiteria/exiteteria 105, 106, 221, 282 gymnasia Academy xii, 85–7, 136, 138, 159, 163, 202, 259, 261, 265, 269, 279 at Eleusis 88, 138 at Peiraieus (?) 88, 135 at Rhamnous 88, 138, 119–20

438

General Index

gymnasia (cont) Diogeneion xii, 204, 220, 231–4, 243, 286, 295 Kynosarges 150, 261 Lykeion xii, 77, 85–7, 135–8, 167, 178 217, 220–5, 259–62, 279, 345 Ptolemaion xii, 203, 231, 234, 259, 262–3 gymnasiarkhia/gymnasiarkhos 44, 86, 89–90, 108, 135, n.84, 166, 203, 220, 224 n.54, 233 n.27, 266–7, 275, 279 n.62, 285, 288 n.292 gymnasiarkhos (ephebic) 81, 102–4, 157, 285

lexiarkhikon grammateion 30–3, 87, 144–5, 146 liturgy 32, 89, 97, 103 142 n.7, 164, 180, 181 n.44, 186, 206, 226, 286 lokhagos 81, 98–101, 109, 115, 121, 127 n.60, 143, 154, 156, 208, 221 lokhos 98–9, 111, 115, 221

hemerodromoi/hemerodromes 61 n.17 Hephaisteion 254 n.108 Herald of the Areopagos 88, 282 Heruli, invasion of 94, 294–6 honors and awards apologismos 224, 283 ephebikon 223 prize of contest 223 proedria 38, 222–3, 228, 232 hoplomakhos xii, 40, 86, 127–9, 133–5, 192, 203, 217–9, 286, 294 hypaithroi 216 hupooplomakhos 218 huposophronistes 292

neaniskarkhes 124 neaniskos 124–6, 234, 244 neoi 5, 40, 45, 83 n.9, 85, 150, 166–7, 202, 234 n.31, 239, 241, 243, 261–2, 265, 267, 275 neoteroi 40

initiation/rites of passage 4, 106–8, 235–45 (katapalt)aphetes xii, 127, 129–31, 192, 217–9 kestrophylax 294 kestrosphendone 292 Khaironeia, Battle of xiii, 23, 39, 45, 45 n.31, 48, 56–9, 62–3, 72–6, 112–3, 140, 143–4, 167, 172, 253 khoregia/khoregos 64, 83, 89, 103, 154, 186 Khremonidian War 195, 208, 212, 215, 223 kosmetes 36, 47, 50–1, 54–5, 66, 77–8, 81, 85–7, 93–7, 106, 109, 127 n.60, 130, 133, 140, 143, 146–7, 189, 191–2, 197, 203–4, 208–10, 216–7, 219, 221, 223–5, 232–3, 244, 259, 266, 273, 277, 281–7, 290–1, 293 Krannon, Battle of 124 kryptoi 123, 215–6 Lamian War 15, 60–1, 156, 171–3, 174, 178 n.27, 184, 196, 200 n.5, 253

mellephebe 268 Metroön 75, 201 military conscription 26–30, 75 Mithridatic War 129, 131, 199, 278–81, 284, 285

oath 22–4, 29, 35–6, 40, 65, 138–9, 147–52, 168, 230, 233, 252, 326–7 oath ceremony 144–7 Odeion 262, 297 orophylakes 124 paides 5, 19–20, 202, 263 paidonomos 83 n.6, 275 paidotribes xii, 84 n.11, 86, 127 n.60, 131–4, 155 n.67, 183 n.52, 192, 203, 207, 217, 219, 220, 280 n.62, 286, 289, 293 Panathenaic Stadium 76, 124, 137, 221, 223, 285, 291 n.2 peripolarkhos 47, 122–3, 130, 215 peripolia 122 peripoloi 25, 40, 46–8, 113, 117, 122–6, 130 phrouria 122 phylakteria 122 polyandreion at Marathon 163, 246, 289 polyandreion in the Kerameikos 159 n.79, 247, 289 polyandreion on Salamis 248, 250, 251 n.98 Polemarkhos 136, 149, 234, 246 Post-Herulian Wall xii, 232, 295–6 Prytaneion 38, 87, 106, 148, 188, 204, 211, 232–3, 266, 282 registration, citizen 30–33, 87, 145, 146, 232 n.26

General Index registration, ephebe 86, 87, 105, 148, 149, 232–3 Salamis, Battle of 64, 149, 175, 250, 254–5, 294 Salamis, trophy 247 sophronistes 13 n.85, 36, 47, 55, 66, 77–8, 81–95, 97, 99–104, 109, 121, 127 n.60, 133–4, 140, 143, 146–7, 156–7, 189–94, 208, 292–3 Stoa Poikile 150 n.38, 261, 262 Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios 143, 231, 280 strategos (general) 81, 94, 95–100, 109, 127 n.60, 172 n.2, 174, 176, 183 n.52, 189, 191–4, 207, 209–11, 214–5, 222, 255 sustremma/ta 294 taxiarkhos 81–2, 96, 98–101, 109, 115, 121, 127 n.60, 128 n.62 143, 166, 185 n.60, 208, 221–2 taxis 98, 100–1, 109 Theater of Dionysos 13, 39, 76, 79, 115, 136 n.93, 137, 178, 193, 223, 228, 232, 297 Theseion 231 thetes 34 Third Sacred War 60 toxotes xii, 127, 129, 131, 133 n.80, 192, 203, 217, 219

439 treasurer of the trireme construction fund  214, 282 trophy on Salamis 214, 248, 250, 251 n.98 virtues eusebeia (“piety”) 15, 66, 229, 230, 282, 286, 372. See also εὐσέβεια eutaxia (“discipline,” “good order”) 41, 43–4, 46, 55, 63–8, 71–3, 77–8, 82, 90–3, 100, 105, 109, 128, 139, 143–4, 152 n.50, 165 n.106, 167–8, 198, 217, 221, 223, 225–6, 230, 259, 283. See also εὐταξία kakopathia (“perseverance”) 223. See also κακοπαθία kosmiotes (“orderliness”) 65, 65 n.29, 77–8, 82, 109, 166. See also κοσµιότης peitharkhia (“obedience”) 20–3, 43, 46, 64–8, 71–2, 77–8, 84–5, 91, 112, 139, 143–4, 189, 194, 198, 208–10, 221, 225, 230, 283, 285. See also πειθαρχία philoponia (“hard work”) 67, 71–2, 223–4, 282–3. See also φιλοπονία sophrosyne (“self-mastery,” “self-control,” “moderation,” “modesty”) 12, 19–22, 41, 43, 46, 55, 65–71, 77–8, 82, 91, 108, 139, 143–4, 184, 230, 261. See also σωφροσύνη